Cinecast Mailbag (7/20)
I'm forsaking the Mailbag today in order to do a little housekeeping, and to suggest a little extra reading...
Double Your Cinecast Pleasure: Due to repeated requests for MORE CINECAST, Sam and I have decided to start podcasting twice a week. Instead of one (1) 40-50 minute show, our plan is to do two (2) 30 minute shows. The podcasts will be available every Tuesday and Friday. The format will essentially be the same, but we'll only do Massacre Theatre in the Tuesday show and only do the Top 5 on Fridays, along with a preview of what's opening that weekend. We hope to start this new schedule next week. If anybody has any strong feelings about the change one way or another, please let us know.
No Cinecast is an Island: Sure, it's only 107 votes as of this moment, but the whopping response on the Cinecast Poll in favor of us discussing "The Island" has Sam and me truly baffled. We have to be honest here... we have no desire to see this movie. In fact, our ranking would go "Last Days," "Hustle & Flow," "Bad News Bears" and "The Island." We want to be responsive to our audience, but this might be asking too much. We'll have an update in the next few days.
War of the Slate Writers: For those handful of Cinecast listeners who thought we were looking too hard for the 9/11 references in "War of the Worlds," check out Slate when you have a chance. Political writer Timothy Noah not only caught all of the references...
The annihilation of people and buildings is signaled by white ash falling from the sky; photo snapshots of missing loved ones are posted on walls; at one point, the space aliens even crash a passenger jetliner into the house where Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning have taken refuge. Let's roll!...he was offended by them. "Because War of the Worlds has nothing to say about 9/11, its appropriation of 9/11 imagery can only be described as pornographic," Noah concludes. Sam and I had a similar take, at least in terms of Spielberg using 9/11 without really giving us anything compelling to consider, but it wasn't "pornographic" enough to get us worked up. Noah's article was posted yesterday. Today, film critic David Edelstein responded with a defense of Spielberg:
But this is still a great film, and one that fully earns the right to invoke 9/11. It by no means tells the whole story, but in its focus on the ways in which people respond to horrific tragedy, it has much to teach us.Some of the same problems Edelstein acknowledges, Sam and I simply weren't able to overlook. And whether or not the film does have anything meaningful to teach us, I'm willing to buy Edelstein's point that Spielberg probably does "earn the right to invoke 9/11" by focusing more on the way we respond to overwhelming tragedy. In any event, it's an interesting point-counterpoint if you have the time.
24 Comments:
Perhaps you've gotten such a strong response in favor of The Island because that many people are on the fence about it. Ewan McGregor has a rather poor track record (and yes, I've seen almost all of them), but it looks actiony enough that it might just be inoffensive blowing up of large things.
Obviously it's your show. Do what you want. You were making effective decisions before you started asking for direction, no?
The more general your audience, the more likely that the movies they'll see will be family oriented animated movies, romantic comedies, mindless explosions, and huge budget fantasy adventure. Art films. Not so much. Off beat films. Not so much. And probably even "non-white" films, not so much.
I hadn't heard of Last Days or Hustle & Flow until you mentioned them just now. That alone could be reason to choose to review them. But it also means that you probably won't get much feedback. And that's probably why The Island got as many votes as it did. People looked at a list and chose the movie they'd heard of. *shrug* What do you want the objective of your show to be?
Being a new listener to Cinecast I have to say that the show is truly insightful and offers not just a review of the film at hand but a critical insight; which to me seems like a breath of fresh air. Maybe I'm just not reading enough Film Comment nowadays.
Anyway, my point with The Island is that your listeners (both new and old) may just want to hear you tackle another example of summer tent pole extravagance and more so the eye candy, emotionally slippery surface direction of the biggest offenders of explosions and testosterone, Michael Bay.
So it may be less about the choice of the film and about what Adam and Sam have to say about it. I know I’m curious.
Granted the film looks like nothing more then a "summer blockbuster" (and I don't mean that as a negative) but from what I have read about the story itself, there could be some interesting ideas beneath the surface - providing we can see through the explosions.
I'll give you that, I am interested to hear what they'll say. Sometimes the most enjoyable movie reviews are those that trash a film bitingly and with lots of style. Schadenfreude I suppose.
I gave Lara Croft: Tomb Raider no stars when I was writing for my college newspaper -- the only film I ever gave no stars. And to this day it might be my favorite review because I really did tear the movie apart and I can pat myself on the back for some of my clever cracks. But in general, I don't get much satisfaction out of ripping into a movie. I'd much rather praise a film, and my hunch is that there is very little chance of that happening with The Island.
I think you are probably correct that The Island is getting the most votes simply because it has been the most heavily marketed. The way Sam and I look at it, we've got a Richard Linklater movie, a Gus Van Sant movie, the talk of Sundance (with Terence Howard, an actor I like a lot)... and a Michael Bay film. For us, The Island is a distant 4th.
By all means ask our opinions on the shows you should review, but don't be afraid to completely ignore them. It's your show and your judgements have got you this far.
Trust your feelings Luke.
(I have no interest in seeing The Island at the cinema, but might fancy it later on DVD with a few beers. However, if you reviewed it on the show I'd look forward to hearing it for the same reasons "lora" gives above.)
For the love of God, dedicate your show to the true art of film, not to the mass marketing of pop culture.
One of the main reasons that I like your podcasting is because you don't just review the huge blockbusters but you point listeners in other directions as well. Your choices give us a healthy dose of variety & with the other movies that are out this weekend I wouldn't be hurrying out to see The Island if I was you.
As well, people should feel free to make suggestions about the show & to discuss the content on the boards but for everyone to be trying to direct the content seems...misguided to say the least.
On an unrelated note, did anyone take on the Faye Dunaway Challenge?
On an unrelated note, did anyone take on the Faye Dunaway Challenge?
I saw only three of the four movies involved in the challenge. I must admit that her performance in Network seemed even more over the top than seemed appropriate, but other than that she didn't seem like that bad an actress.
I'm still having a hard time understanding the problem with 9/11 in War of the Worlds. Maybe I'm just being naive, but aren't all of the things people are complaining about things that would happen during an alien invasion? I can picture this movie being filmed the exact same way before 9/11.
I believe the idea of planes crashing is very common (Donnie Darko, Superman, Left Behind, Air Force One, etc) and visually stunning. The photo snapshots were used even more effectively in 28 Days Later, and its also a realistic sign of tragedy. Speilberg used ash covering faces in Schindler's list in '93. Maybe its not references to 9/11 that's the problem, maybe he is using images and ideas that are too heavy for what people want to see in a summer blockbuster.
Two more things: First, the book War of the Worlds was published in 1898. Also, Speilberg has apparently wanted to do an invasion movie since ‘96, but Independence Day took away his motivation. Therefore I don’t think that its fair to say that War of the Worlds is a planned allegory about 9/11. Instead, its a fun “what if?” movie that pointed out realistic possibilities in the event of an alien invasion; possibilities that are generic and have been used countless times in films before 9/11.
I don't think anyone -- Sam, me, Edelstein, Noah -- are complaining that the 9/11 referneces are there. Sure, you can argue there would be white ash and such with any disaster being portrayed. The problem for someone like Noah is that he sees Spielberg as exploiting 9/11... appropriating the imagery for no reason other than he can, or to prey on our own fears and memories from that day. I'm not saying I agree with him, just trying to explain where he is coming from.
I'm all for the idea of two 30 minute shows a week. That's how long my drive to work is, so it's pretty convenient for me.
First off-- Great news about the twice-weekly episodes. The more cinecast the better, in my opinion...
Second, as for THE ISLAND getting all the votes, again, I think it has to do with audience recognition... I haven't even heard of several of those movies, and I am a weekly Ebert reader/watcher. I think that we're also curious about these massive blockbusters... most of us have grown weary of the hype machine surrounding them, but still want to find out from a trusted source whether ot not it DOES manage to be somewhat worth watching. Review it, but don't feel bound by what people here say.
On a personal not, re: THE ISLAND, ever since I have seen the commercials I have been struck by how the plot sounds EXACTLY like the movie the character Jimmy Hughes (Mike O'Malley) pitched in an episode of the CBS sitcom YES, DEAR. (http://www.tv.com/spare-parts/episode/271038/recap.html)
Coincidence? God, I hope so... tell me that Michael Bay isn't getting his ideas from prime-time TV episodes... well, it wouldn't really SURPRISE me...
-Matt-
Cinecast twice a week? All I can say is...I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more Cinecast! Glad to hear we'll be getting a double dose every week!
Concerning the movie selections for this week....I think like a lot of other people we'd like to hear a review of The Island because we don't think we'd want to see it ourselves, but we're interested in what you guys would have to say about it.
However, I'm surprised at your interest in a couple of the other films. Yes, Last Days is a Gus Van Sant film, but it's a Kurt Cobain biography. How interesting is that really going to be? With last year's Elephant, doesn't that make at least two straight films where Van Sant is simply dramatizing events from the headlines?
Same deal with Bad News Bears. Yes, it's Richard Linklater. But it's also a remake of a family movie, and it's starring Billy Bob Thornton. Again, why is this interesting to review other than it being a "indie" director taking on a Hollywood studio film (likely, I would guess, for the money)? IMHO, it will be much more interesting to see how Linklater's A Scanner Darkly turns out, with the unique visual style he used from Waking Life and its basis in a Philip K. Dick story.
Hustle and Flow sounds promising, and I hope it's a good film. There's unfortunately a tendency for films dealing with this kind of subject matter (hip-hop, young black males, growing up in da ghetto) to basically say the same things that other similar films do without telling us anything interesting or presenting it in a unique way. Hope you guys check it out and tell us your thoughts.
Great thoughts... and great Christopher Walken reference.
I'm not a huge Nirvana fan, but I think Cobain's final days could be very interesting to see dramatized. It really didn't occur to me that Van Sant was just ripping from the headlines. But I loved Elephant, so if Last Days is similarly successful, I won't complain.
Bad News Bears really isn't a family movie. There's a decadence and screw you sensibility, plus blatant political incorrectness, that you simply don't get very often anymore -- certainly not in a family movie context. I think Linklater is a perfect choice for it and could make it pretty funny.
With Hustle & Flow, I'm really just curious to see what all the hype was about coming out of Sundance.
*laugh* Why was my name in quotes? :)
You can call me Magess if it makes you feel better, Stephen. ;)
Flickfilosopher.com has a review of The Island up for anyone interested. Suitably entertaining read.
Anonymous said...
For the love of God, dedicate your show to the true art of film, not to the mass marketing of pop culture.
------------------------------
I'd like to know what the "true art of film" is.
Anyway, an extra show a week would be great! Thanks Sam and Adam for the extra effort, work, and money you guys will be pouring into creating an extra show a week.
Maybe in the future we can get a show dedicated to the "true art of film" whatever that is.
Lora said...
*laugh* Why was my name in quotes? :)
------------------
Hmmm, I have no idea why I did that. It looks pretty stupid doesn't it! ; )
Adam said:
"Bad News Bears really isn't a family movie. There's a decadence and screw you sensibility, plus blatant political incorrectness, that you simply don't get very often anymore -- certainly not in a family movie context. I think Linklater is a perfect choice for it and could make it pretty funny."
So, in other words, it's a remake of Bad Santa only with a baseball team? After watching the previews (that are on every 30 seconds) that's the impression that I get - same character different situation.
I really wish the Island had been done by someone other than Bay. The story behind it seems like it could be a good one, but I'd really rather see it without the Bay fluff.
I think the problem is that there are no movies out this week that anyone is excited about. Looking at the list I really don't care which one is reviewed because I probably wont see any of them anyway. I just hope next week you guys can do the Aristocrats. :-)
Speaking of the show, when is it going to be up? What happened to mailbag of the day?
Which show do you mean? Typically new shows are posted on Sunday, with some on Monday. However, with our new two show schedule, look for new shows on Tuesday and Friday.
We apologize about the Mailbag. Sam and I are both out of town for the second straight weekend. It's been hard to keep up. With the new format, look for the Mailbag on Monday, Wednesday and Thursday. Thanks.
Sorry about the missing mailbag ... Adam and I are out of town this weekend and we're a little behind ...
The next show (with reviews of "Hustle & Flow" and, yes, "The Island") will be up on Tuesday morning. A review of Linklater's "Bad News Bears" will be posted on Friday with this week's Top 5 ... which is still yet to be determined.
And John Kelly! The Artistocrats. Yes. I've been looking forward to it ... a friend of mine saw an advance screening and thought it was hilarious. One of the big theater chains just recently decided not to screen it ... which means it's losing a big distribution channel ... I'm hoping it still makes it to Chicago.
Sam
Sam said:
"And John Kelly! The Artistocrats. Yes. I've been looking forward to it ... a friend of mine saw an advance screening and thought it was hilarious. One of the big theater chains just recently decided not to screen it ... which means it's losing a big distribution channel ... I'm hoping it still makes it to Chicago."
Yeah, AMC sucks. But honestly, I didn't expect any different since it wont be rated at all. Most national chains have rules against playing unrated movies - AMC just didn't have a rule on paper.
You can't tell me there aren't any independent theaters in all of Chicago, though. ;o)
About the relationship of War of the Worlds with 9/11 I'd like to post a comment from the east of the Atlantic. The Spanish press has mostly speculated that the movie was an allegory against Bush's invasion of Iraq; recall the sentence about invasions can never succeed? Recall also that Madrid had a huge terror attack, different from 9/11 but also devastating. No Spanish cinema comentator thought about 9/11 as remotely related to the movie. So which allegory is right?
There is always people analyzing movies (and novels) as allegories. The problem with allegories is that you see what you want to see.
Post a Comment
<< Home