The last question I answer here is the best question.
Last week, I solicited your questions for my new ask-the-critic feature. I answered a bunch of them below, some of them serious, some of them not. (I fielded some from the comments section, email and Twitter, and learned that the best place to find wiseacres is on Facebook.) This was fun, and I’ll be doing it again sometime soon, maybe once the summer-movie blockbusters start rolling out.
Why didn't Iron Man or Thor come to Captain American's aid? – ArtPrize1Fan, via the comments
I assume you're referencing "Captain America: The Winter Soldier." Don’t you think Captain America needs to solve his own problems? Also, it’s too expensive to pay Chris Hemsworth or Robert Downey Jr. to be in another movie.
When are “Nymphomaniac I” and “II” coming to Grand Rapids? – ArtPrize1Fan
It doesn’t look like it’ll be playing in G.R. on the big screen. The Urban Institute for Contemporary Arts pulled it from the schedule because of a potential issue between showing NC-17 content and their current application for a liquor license. Both are available on-demand, so check with your TV provider.
How about a best musical/comedy category for the Oscars? - @dustinblock, via Twitter
I have conflicting feelings on this. One, if a good movie is a good movie, then does it matter what genre it is? Some of the best movies defy easy categorization - what exactly is “American Hustle”? A comedy? A caper? A crime-drama? All of it, and none of it. I think that’s why Oscar doesn’t divvy up the best picture category.
Breaking up the category is something the Golden Globes does, and it’s always a somewhat goofy proposition. “Inside Llewyn Davis” was lumped under comedy/musical, and it’s sort of a musical, but not really, since the music occurs in natural contexts, and actors don’t sing their dialogue. The film seemed to have more dramatic elements than anything else, although it’s also a comedy at times. It’s a lot easier to just not categorize.
Besides, the Oscars expanded to 10 categories a few years back, so more films could be recognized, and theoretically, that includes comedies. The fundamental problem is, Oscar voters value dramatic work over comedic work. They’re kind of snobby that way.
My question is - pretend you were a critic for The Press in the '70s. Submit a review for “Apocalypse Now,” or the original “Star Wars.” – Tom Grace, via Facebook
This isn’t really a question, it’s a homework assignment.
Instead of spending a few hours writing a full review, can I ask readers if they’d be interested in reading my reviews of classic films? If so, I’ll consider doing some on occasion, when time permits. I'll consider Tom's request to be the first affirmative answer.
I will say that both “Star Wars” and “Apocalypse Now” shaped me as an appreciator of movies. The former was a major element of my childhood. The latter sparked my interest in intense, wild, brooding, existential films, including the works of Werner Herzog, Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, David Fincher, Danny Boyle, Darren Aronofsky and others. Also, “Drive.”
I wanna be a movie critic when I grow up. What should I eat for breakfast to help achieve this lofty goal? – Pappy O’Gravylake (a.k.a., my good buddy Jeremy Hirsch), via Facebook
One Werner Herzog film every morning is an essential part of a balanced breakfast.
I'm incredibly excited for “Godzilla” next month. Could you name five other giant monster movies to watch in preparation? – John Wolff, via Facebook
First off the top of my head is the original 1933 “King Kong,” which is essential. You’ve probably seen it already. If so, watch it again.
The original Japanese cut of 1954’s “Godzilla” – not the American version with Raymond Burr’s scenes added in post-production – is great. It’s a monster movie underscored with atomic-age dread.
Frankly, you can’t go wrong with any of the classic rubber-suit Godzilla pictures – I loved them as a kid, and now, they’re awesome campy fun. To pick one, I’d go with “Destroy All Monsters,” because it features Godzilla, Rodan, Mothra, King Ghidorah and Minilla, a.k.a. Minya Godzilla, the baby Godzilla who blows smoke rings and is beloved by children everywhere!
“Night of the Lepus” (1972) is about ranchers (one of them played by Janet Leigh) being attacked by giant mutant bunny wabbits. I have a great appreciation for crap Z-grade movies like this (especially after a beer or three), and “Lepus” is a hoot. Note how the rabbits are obviously cute little bunnies often filmed out of context to make them look really big.
Can I count “Ghostbusters” here? You know, with the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man stomping on New York? I think I can.
Although I may regret not including this among the five:
I don't think there's been enough footage of The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Is there a way to contact Sony and see if they can release five to 10 more trailers before the movie comes out next month? - John Wolff, via Facebook
It’s getting ridiculous, isn’t it? For the first “Amazing Spider-Man,” someone spliced together 25 minutes of pre-release footage from Sony’s marketing materials, which is nearly a quarter of the movie. I’m sure the sequel is in the same ballpark at this point. You should consider a trailer ban or media blackout to lessen the potential for spoilers. It makes for a much more rewarding experience when you finally sit down in the theater to watch a movie.
Is the movie "Son of God" the exact same thing as "The Bible" series that was on the history channel last year? – Elizabeth Ann Watkoski, via Facebook
Yes, for the most part. The “Bible” series was re-edited into a 138-minute movie with a few scenes removed, added or expanded. It did surprisingly well for rehashed material, grossing $58 million at the box office.
1. We think so essentially in terms of story, in our expectations of dramatic films and also in the ways we best understand the social world. What are some examples of films or types of films that trouble you because they violate your expectations of story structure?
--and/or--
2. “Tree of Life” -- If you know, please explain what the hell was up with that. How did that get released? I tried to watch whatever it was doing for the first 45 minutes, then to stay awake drove to the store, returned some movies to the movie place, hit the post office and drove home. As far as I could tell the same lovely-looking bunch of Nothing Really was still continuing to happen. It kept happening throughout. – Todd Mercer, via Facebook
I’m going to sort of lump these two questions together, because if anything upends traditional story structure, it’s “The Tree of Life.”
Honestly, I’m more disappointed with conventional story structures – the formulaic introduction and resolution of a conflict over the course of a two-hour movie can be dull and predictable. Too often, plot points are telegraphed or predictable. The new movie “Draft Day,” with Kevin Costner (my review for which is forthcoming) takes place during a single day, during which several of the protagonist’s problems are solved, some in a tidy, improbable manner. Yeah, right. That kind of thing is troubling – it’s artless and manipulative – and we see it too often. There are some good movies that adhere to this formula, and they’re rewarding on their own terms, but I prefer something more challenging.
One of the first movies to seriously upend my expectations was “Pulp Fiction.” Quentin Tarantino chopped up the narrative and jumped back and forth through time in a calculated attempt to subvert traditional story structure. Remember when Bruce Willis kills John Travolta in the bathroom? Several scenes later, the movie hops back in time to when the Travolta character is alive. It’s a godlike act on behalf of Tarantino, the writer, who resurrects him because he, and ostensibly we, don’t want him to die. He’s still alive in the final shot of the movie.
One of the reasons I love the films of Werner Herzog so much is his use of untraditional narrative. They follow his intuition rather than strict rules about storytelling you’ll learn in a screenwriting class. What’s the point of telling a story like everyone else? Herzog has made many films – documentary and feature – about many different things, but what connects them all is his unique point of view.
“Tree of Life” connected profoundly with some, and frustrated many others. Director Terrence Malick threw in a lengthy birth-of-the-universe/genesis-of-life sequence smack in the middle of a period drama, and befuddled some of the audience. Why? I assert he wanted put an evocative story of a father and his sons in a grand frame, so we will contemplate the passing of genetic material on a scale much larger than that of a somewhat familiar, suburban 1950s American family.
The “tree of life” is a common metaphor in science and philosophy, and Malick uses it to suggest the interconnectedness of all living things, theoretically prompting the viewer’s introspection instead of seeing Brad Pitt’s family as a story separated from our own experiences. (I recall Roger Ebert’s reaction to the film, which provoked profound nostalgia in him: “If I set out to make an autobiographical film, and if I had Malick's gift, it would look so much like this. His scenes portray a childhood in a town in the American midlands, where life flows in and out through open windows.”)
I found the interpersonal drama of “Tree of Life” quite gripping, while Malick’s indulgences were artful but pretentious. I prefer Malick’s first two films, “Badlands” and “Days of Heaven,” which are more concise in their distinctly Malickian poetry, and I recommend them highly. Also, discussion of “Tree of Life” begs comparison to the genesis-of-life sequence in Darren Aronofsky’s “Noah” – I liked the sequence in “Noah” more, because it’s more concise, direct and dramatically powerful.
You can read my reviews of "Tree of Life" here and "Noah" here.
What was your first "gig" as a movie critic? (which outlet I mean)
Which director first made you really get into movies?
What was your favorite movie in 2013? - Ryan Gimarc, via email
In order:
I reviewed a few movies for the Aquinas College newspaper, the Aquinas Times, while I was in school, but I barely count that. Otherwise, it was for The Grand Rapids Press, and I believe my first film review was for the forgettable Al Pacino/Colin Farrell thriller "The Recruit," in 2003. I had been a staff entertainment reporter for several years at that point, writing about music primarily, and began to branch into film reviews, which I enjoy the most.
Quentin Tarantino was the first to drive me to see movies based on the director alone, and seriously invigorated my interest in film as an art form. Otherwise, Steven Spielberg probably subconsciously sparked my interest with "E.T.," "Jaws," "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and the Indiana Jones movies, which I watched a lot as a kid.
My favorite movie of 2013 was "Gravity." You can read my top 10 here.
Which of the movies would be a good "D-Box" adventure? I was considering "Noah" but forgot to bring my Dramamine. - Todd Chance, my goofball co-worker, via the comments
Actually, I've never seen a D-Box movie. I should probably try it one of these days, but it seems like it would be distracting. I like to sit still. I'll leave this question for readers to field in the comments, if they so desire.
What do you think of a movie adaptation of "Others Of My Kind" by James Sallis? Seems he had another novel that you fancied the big screen adaptation of. – Dan Rabourn, via Facebook
This James Sallis, you mean? I’m game, as long as it has a good director. (Also, see my answer to the next question below.)
Drive? - @100WordsorLess, via Twitter
Yes. Drive.
John Serba is film critic and entertainment reporter for MLive and The Grand Rapids Press. Email him at jserba@mlive.com or follow him on Twitter or Facebook.