Cinema
The 50 Greatest Summer Blockbusters of All Time Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 at The Dissolve
I’ll admit that I haven’t actually read through the Dissolve’s Blockbuster series yet, but I did read a couple of the articles that it inspired, as contributors mused on why they voted the way they did and what exactly makes a blockbuster – is it box office take? Budget? Perception? NPR’s Chris Klimek discusses his choices and how he has trouble considering comedies to be blockbusters, then Matt Singer back at the Dissolve riffs off Chris’s piece, suggesting that the blockbuster is really a state of mind (sort of). I definitely think of blockbuster as more a KIND of film rather than a description of box-office take, which is where Singer basically ends up. On a slightly tangential note, this article from Grantland’s Alex Pappademas about self-loathing summer movies is a good read.
Blockbusters have become such an integral part of the way we talk about films that it’s hard to believe they haven’t always been with us. But while there have always been big movies—lavish productions designed to draw crowds and command repeat business—the blockbuster as we know it has a definite start date: June 20, 1975. That’s when Jaws first hit screens in the middle of what was once, in the words of The Financial Times, a “low season” when the “only steady summer dollars came, in the U.S., from drive-in theaters.” It’s summer, after all; why go to the movies when you could be outside? Jaws changed that. Star Wars cemented that change. And now, the summer-movie season is dominated by the biggest films Hollywood has to offer.
PG Should Not Equal Inferior by Rich at Wide Screen World
I was literally JUST saying this on Twitter last week. There have been a few articles recently about PG-13 and how it’s kind of taken over the marketplace, and they’re generally accompanied by a call for more films to go ahead and go for the R rating, with the undercurrent that R-rated films are for adults and adults should go to R-rated films. Rich points out exactly what I think, which is that it’s really PG that needs more love. PG was supposed to be for films that were appropriate for children, but really meant for adults. Why does a film meant for adults HAVE to have language, sex, and/or violence to be adult-centric? I mean, sure, if those things are important to the story or genre, I’m not averse to them, but the “R is for adults” mindset pushes for those things to be included merely to get that rating, which is so backwards to me.
I do think it’s unfortunate that market demands have prevented adult PG films from being economically viable. Sure, nudity and profanity may make a movie look more like real life, but in creative terms, it’s easy, and after using it time and again, it loses its impact. Not every movie needs it that badly. So if we must have ratings in American films, I say that instead of eliminating the PG-13, let’s strengthen the PG instead, by investing in adult films that don’t rely on sex and violence. It would open up an under-served audience that’s fed up with modern movies, and it would do away with the stigma associated with PG films, a stigma it didn’t earn and doesn’t deserve.
12 Films Where Roger Ebert Went Against the Grain by Sam Fragoso at Film School Rejects
I’ve complained a lot about the oppositional tenor that online discourse has taken on – if you’re not with the majority on whatever the film is, you’re lambasted within an inch of your online identity. That’s happened again this week with TWO films – the Roger Ebert documentary Life Itself and the Richard Linklater project Boyhood, both of which have near-universal acclaim but a couple of vocal detractors, quickly labeled as “contrarians”, which connotes a willful disagreement for the sake of disagreement. Sam Fragoso took the opportunity to point out several reviews where Ebert himself disagreed with the majority, both positive reviews of generally reviled films and negative ones of generally praised ones. I have trouble considering Ebert contrarian, though – he just strikes me as honest and unafraid to say what he thought, whether it was popular or not. Which is how we all should be, but perhaps in the world of Rotten Tomatoes and instant feedback, it’s impossible. As a sidenote on Ebert, here’s a lovely selection of emails that he wrote over the years to other critics, many of them just starting out, to whom a kind word from Ebert meant a lot.
As every contemporary critic is painfully aware, challenging the consensus can be dangerous in the insular-minded, troll infested Internet age we inhabit — where incendiary thoughts are immediately deemed “contrarian” or “patently dishonest.” Unfortunately, Life Itself is no exception to this dangerous trend that discourages dialogue and engenders uniformity in opinions. The irony of this situation is rich, though. As the chief film critic at The Chicago Sun-Times for nearly have of cinema’s existence (from 1967 to his death), Ebert was a purveyor of discourse and a proponent of dissentient writing himself. Throughout his illustrious career, Ebert was unafraid to champion a film his contemporaries eviscerated, and vice versa. With that in mind, below are twelve films in which Ebert eloquently went against the grain.
So How Do You Follow The Blue Angel? by Greg Ferrera at Movie Morlocks
Greg stole one of my ideas for a blog series, but he did it all in one post. The idea is that most directors have one or two really well-known films that everybody knows about and is the first one everyone usually watches when they start filling in their blind spots. Orson Welles, Citizen Kane. John Ford, The Searchers. Akira Kurosawa, The Seven Samurai. Etc. But what do you go to next? My series would give that essential, and then where to go from there. I still think it’s a good idea, and Greg has given me a head start on a few people. :)
The other day, my Netflix account provided me with a strange couple of recommendations based on something I had recently watched. This is something to which every user of Netflix has grown accustomed, that is, not only getting the recommendations but sometimes getting strange ones. The algorithm is usually fairly sound. If, for instance, I watch The Sound of Music, it might recommend Mary Poppins, My Fair Lady, Oklahoma, and West Side Story. All perfectly reasonable. [...] The other night, however, Netflix informed me that “based on [my] interest in The Blue Angel…” I might also be interested in Cool Hand Luke and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Um, okay. So, it’s not always perfect. But what I started thinking was, “What would I recommend to someone just venturing into the world of film fandom after they watch a director’s biggest movie?” Once you see Citizen Kane, The Maltese Falcon, 8 1/2, The Seven Samurai, Vertigo, The Rules of the Game, etc, what do you watch next? Put more simply, how do you follow The Blue Angel?
An Auteur is Not a Brand by Richard Brody at the New Yorker
A solid yet brief look at what auteur originally meant, though its meaning has been watered down significantly. And somehow Brody wrote this without mentioning Jean-Luc Godard. This is a game I play; since Brody wrote one of the premiere books about Godard, it’s pretty natural for him to mention Godard in almost every post, so I always scan every post to see if he made it through without a reference to Godard. :)
They called their idea the “politique des auteurs,” the “author policy,” but it’s neither a policy nor, as its American acolyte Andrew Sarris said, a theory. It’s an account of an experience. Whether Hawks made a Western or a screwball comedy, whether Hitchcock made a glossily romantic thriller or a gritty true-crime drama, whether Minnelli made a backstage musical or a melodrama involving a mental institution, the critics recognized something more important than patterns of images or habits of performance; they recognized a detailed, complex, and original worldview, along with the integrated style of images, acting, dialogue, and tone that embodied it.
A Night at the Movie Theatre in Cambodia by Jessica at The Velvet Cafe
Jessica has been on something of a hiatus for a while and I’m so glad she’s back! She spent some of that time vacationing in Cambodia, and here’s a fascinating rundown of what it’s like going to the movies there. It’s a little different than what I’m used to, that’s for sure! I have been in theatres with couches, but never with full-on beds!
The obvious advantage of bed seating is the comfort. It’s basically like watching the film slacking in your favourite couch. I’m fairly short so I could stretch out my legs fully. Perfect for my constitution. I can imagine it’s less than perfect for tall people, who need to wrap up their legs in order not to kick people in the row in front. Then there is the problem that too much comfort can be a problem when you watch movies. Watching a thriller or a comedy is fine from a horizontal position, but slower movies can be a bit of a challenge. And how intimate do you want to be with the one sitting beside you? There are no physical barriers between you and your neighbour. Fine if you’re a love couple on a date, but a little intimidating if you’re seated by a stranger.
How Brando Broke the Movies by Tom Shone in The Atlantic
Some great descriptions of Brando’s acting style(s) and how it broke with what went before – and also, which I appreciated, an acknowledgement that Brando is acting just as much as everyone else was, he was just doing it differently. I don’t actually find Brando or other Method actors any more naturalistic on the whole than non-Method actors; it’s just a different take with a different kind of power behind it.
Watch those early performances, and everyone else is projecting for the rafters, delivering their lines with a smile, like paperboys flinging the morning paper across the lawn. And then there is Brando, imperturbable as a whale, scratching an eyebrow or fondling a quarter, his voice both sleepy and alive, its inarticulacy anchoring him so unmistakably in the here and now of a living, breathing consciousness that he supplies the scene with a whole new gravitational center. It’s no contest: a machine-gun nest against the cavalry, a Chanel dress in a roomful of Edwardian bodices.
A Few More…
Playing Against Type: Deciphering the Actor’s Personality – Another one from Greg Ferrera, this one fits well with the Brando one above, with its focus on acting and being typecast by personality, not by actual role
The Magnificent Ambersons: A Usable Past – Bordwell looks at how meticulously the time period is evoked in The Magnificent Ambersons
Jane Wyman and All That Heaven Allows – Farran Smith Nehme looks at Jane Wyman’s subtle and wonderful performance in Sirk’s film, newly released on Criterion
Not Cinema
Hands On with Dragon Age: Inquisition – The Importance of Dying by Brian Crecente at Polygon
Everything I read about Dragon Age: Inquisition makes me more excited to play it. This really evokes a sense that death feels weighty in this world, which is a tough thing to do in a video game, since death is almost ubiquitous in them.
Suddenly the sky darkens, a massive shadow passes overhead, I look up and see an enormous creature, a high dragon, soaring past.
[...]
The creature spews flames at us, snaps at our shields and staffs, stuns our characters to a standstill with deafening roars and then, inevitably, dies, its corpse resting on some distant perch, the victim of a swarm of arrows and magic missiles.
The death isn’t noble, nor, it felt in this preview of an early build of the game, necessary.
It wasn’t tied to some important quest.
It felt like what it was: A hunt.
Are Multiplayer Games the Future of Education? by Melanie Plenda in The Atlantic
I’m intrigued by the gamification of classrooms – part of me is like “I learned the old fashioned way and loved it, I didn’t need all this newfangled gamification stuff to keep me engaged, why should these kids need it,” but then, I was an unusual student, and to be honest, I probably would’ve loved this, too. Hey, if it keeps kids interested and engaged and they learn the same stuff by the end, go for it. Related: Using Minecraft and the Kerbal Space Program as educational tools in summer camps.
The reason it works, Lee explains, is that games themselves actively engage players cognitively, emotionally, and socially to keep them motivated to play. In their paper Gamification in Education: What, How, Why Bother?, Lee and his coauthor, Jessica Hammer, point out that games offer a rich and complex environment that demands experimentation, problem-solving and quick thinking. The rules are set and known, the tasks are clear, the rewards are immediate, and the action intensifies as a player gains skill. Even failure is attractive in the game universe, since players know if they keep trying, they will eventually master the skill or beat the level.
If Pride and Prejudice Took Place Today Jane Would Have to Be 40 by Megan Garber at The Atlantic
This is a brief article, but could really use a lot more expansion. Because changing Jane’s age to 40 doesn’t really solve the problem posed by modernizing Pride and Prejudice. Sure, it fixes the “teetering on spinsterhood” plot point, but the entailment of the estate and the girls not being able to just go have careers are much, MUCH bigger obstacles to overcome. There are ways to modernize Austen, but you’ve got to go much more radical than just changing some ages. And if the point is to make her relatable, you’re probably better off just learning the social context of her novels.
Here’s the problem for someone trying to give Pride and Prejudice a contemporary twist—a problem Sittenfeld mentioned during a talk at the Aspen Ideas Festival, hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic: Jane and Lizzy Bennet are 22 and 20 years old, respectively. This means that, in the novel’s world, the two are pretty much teetering on the edge of spinsterhood.
The Teeny Tiny Bronte Books by Carolyn Kellogg at the LA Times
These.Are.Adorable. And pretty impressive – I can’t write that small.
1829-30, Charlotte Brontë was 13 and her brother Branwell Brontë 12. Creating fantasy worlds they called Angria and Glass Town, the siblings made teeny tiny books. Measuring less than 1 inch by 2 inches, the books were made from scraps of paper and constructed by hand. Despite their diminutive size, the books contained big adventures, written in ink in careful script. Twenty books, all by Charlotte and Branwell, remain. Similar books created by the other sisters, Anne and Emily, did not survive.
Image of the Week
Minimalist Paper Movie Posters, from the Spanish design studio Atipo.
Game of Thrones Illustrations by Nikolas Ilic.
Video of the Week
This is my husband Jonathan’s new show, and he’s been working hard on it for months (he’s writing and producing it, with a friend animating it). I’ve seen all that work throughout the process, but I think I can objectively say it turned out freaking awesome. And it’s only the first episode of five this season, and hopefully more! I don’t even know where this is going, and I can’t wait to see the rest!