Archive for the ‘Something to Think About’ Category

What could "The Expendables" teach us, besides why you don't want to pick a fight with any of them?

Back at the beginning of Summer we gave a preview of three films that were to come out that have something in common. What these films share is a focus on a tight-knit group of ex-military soldiers who work towards a shared goal of some kind. With The Losers it was about getting revenge, with The A-Team it was about living up to one’s duties as a patriot, and with The Expendables it was about serving the human condition. As you may have noticed, the motivations of the groups got progressively nobler, from serving selfish incentives to fulfilling an intangible obligation to heroic morals; namely the moral that the strong have to protect the weak. The three movies, and by extension the three groups in these movies, may share a similar basic premise, and may interact within their respective contexts in a similar way, but their differing motivations distinguish them from each other more so than we may have anticipated. Likewise, they also shared more in common than we previously thought. What exactly, though, can we learn from comparing them further? Read the rest of this entry »

Robin Wood famously articulated the American horror film, but one thing still needs to be added

While rereading Robin Wood’s essay An Introduction to the American Horror Film I noticed that it failed to talk about an important element in the discussion of what exactly describes an American horror film. The absence of this topic in his subsection titled “Basic Formula” surprises me now, as it is arguably just as simple a provision to the genre as the overarching blueprint stipulating that “normality is threatened by the Monster.” While Wood’s essay has long since been considered a seminal one for both him and academic thought about the horror genre, and this is very true, an amendment should nevertheless be made. That amendment is specific but not intricate, dealing with the main protagonist’s direct relationship with the antagonist. Read the rest of this entry »

With Robert Rodriguez’s Predators (a remake of 1987’s Predator) opening very soon (July 9th) we here at Movie-Thoughts thought it would be appropriate to bring up the topic of remakes and reboots. A looming remake besides Predators that has had the attention of the movie world is 2012’s reboot of the grossly successful Spider-Man franchise. Why is this?

Many fans on the blogosphere have expressed some downright odious sentiments about the idea of rebooting a movie franchise as successful as Spider-Man, especially so soon after the original trilogy was completed (Spider-Man 3 came out in the summer of 2007). In case you need to play catch-up on the topic, here is the full press release from Sony Pictures about the new Spidey project: Read the rest of this entry »

Is our judgment of a work of art based solely upon whether or not it delights us in some way?

De gustibus non disputandum (There can be no disputing over matters of taste). – Latin dictum

When it comes to art in general people have been trying for thousands of years (basically since the time of Aristotle) to make heads or tails of why people think the way they do. Are there certain innate likes and dislikes that are embedded in every person, and if so then how can we explain the occasional anomaly? If each person’s taste in art, whether it be concerning architecture, sculpture, paintings, or movies, is unique, how can any consensuses be made about anything? Could such consensuses, if they happen, be considered happenstance or indicative of that certain work’s true value? Should we base our likes and dislikes of works of art on whether or not we apply personal value to them? Are there consistencies and/or patterns that can be discovered in the ways each person applies value to various works of art? Read the rest of this entry »

Although video games are the second largest competitor with movies in the entertainment industry, behind only television, movie adaptations of video games haven't been received very well thus far. Why is that?

Disclaimer - We have painted video games with an overly large brush, and trust us that we have done so begrudgingly. However, because perception always takes time to catch up to reality when it comes to public opinion, and perhaps in this case critical and executive opinion as well, we felt it was necessary in order to make things more explicable.

It has been interesting to note how critics have commented on the source material for the recently released Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. As most of you know by now, if you didn’t know before the release, the film is based off of a video game of the same name. And like with most films that are adapted from video games critics have pointed out the various congruencies between the two productions, such as story structure and character construction. In the case of Prince of Persia, these two things along with the aesthetics of the movie’s action sequences have been said to resemble (some say closer than others) their corresponding elements in the source material, but the intriguing thing is that the comments written that illuminate these similarities usually paint them as being faults. Anymore if the reception of a movie can be compared to the manner that video games are received (though there are many inherent differences between the mediums) it is taken to be as a deficiency or imperfection. Why should it be considered an automatic negative that a movie resembles its source material if that source material is a video game? Before we get into any sort of discussion that might explain a possible discrimination against video games, let us first try to discover why it is that so many critics find the storytelling techniques of video games and movies to be so incompatible. Read the rest of this entry »

What is it about "Iron Man 2" that makes it not as good as the original?

Continuing our “What’s Wrong” series that tries to explain why critics and/or audiences haven’t been enamored with various movies that have come out this summer, we’ll take a look at Iron Man 2. Now, since the picture has made over $250 million domestically so far it’s hard to say that audiences have panned it, plus it received a respectable 74% rating on RottenTomatoes.com so it’s also hard to say critics (by and large) didn’t like it. So why are we bothering to discuss such a successful movie in this column? The reason we found it appropriate is not because everyone agrees the movie stinks, but because most critics and patrons we’ve talked to seem to agree that it isn’t as good as the first Iron Man flick. Read the rest of this entry »

What is it about this Robin Hood that has kept him from being as popular as previous incarnations?

Not much has been made so far about Ridley Scott’s newest film Robin Hood, starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett. The historical epic which attempts to tactfully incorporate elements of the centuries-old legend doesn’t seem to have won over the hearts of Americans like its creators were hoping, as after nearly two full weekends it has yet to top $70 million at the domestic box office (considering the production budget was a reported $200 million, such returns will be deemed relatively minimal by Universal). The film’s rating on RottenTomatoes.com is a pedestrian 45%, and on MetaCritic.com an unflattering grade of 53. Exactly what is it about the film that has audiences and critics keeping it at arm’s length? Read the rest of this entry »

Film criticism is approaching a crossroads that may not allow future critics to have the great influence that the likes of Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert had. That's two thumbs way down.

The 21^st century has not been very kind to the field of film journalism thus far. Critics in particular have had to endure the brunt of the damage that has been dealt by the increased popularity of social media outlets like MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and an innumerable array of blogs.

The CNN article by Todd Leopold that we recognized and commented on earlier this week which questioned whether film criticism was becoming passé is just the latest instance proving that concern for this issue is growing. The advent of the internet and its subsequent rush towards essentiality sparked fear in all fields of journalism that profited from the lure of exclusivity or privileged resources.

But while the entire journalism industry wont be killed off by the internet and its communicative capabilities, the future of the field of film journalism and criticism appears much less certain. Read the rest of this entry »

This year's version of The A-Team may be part of a new team trend for on-screen heroes

This upcoming summer movie season there are three movies that will be about a group of well trained special ops-type fighters who don’t “play by the rules,” starting with this weekend’s The Losers. This film, inspired by the comic book series of the same name, deals with a group of individual CIA black ops operatives who band together to find and kill whoever betrayed them and left them for dead. The other two films similar to this are The A-Team and The Expendables. The former is, if you don’t know already, based off of the TV series of the same name that first aired in 1983 about four ex-military men who were framed for a crime they didn’t commit and go about trying to clear their names, and the latter deals with a group of mercenaries hired to overthrow the vicious dictator of the small South American country of Vilena.

Well what’s so interesting about the fact that these films are releasing within a couple months of each other? Everyone one knows that Hollywood is a copycat town, right? The answer is both yes and no. Yes, studios like to hang their hats on proven formulas and trends, but that some trends appear at all is often reflective of the cultural mood of our country. Over the past few years there has been a heavy influx of films dealing with individual heroes, many of them being of the “super” variety. But aside from Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, and Iron Man, there were John McClain, Rambo, Indiana Jones, and James Bond. Obviously, none of these rogue stand-alone men did everything by themselves (Batman had Alfred, Iron Man had Pepper Pots, James Bond had MI6, etc.), but by and large they did all of the most difficult and dangerous things by themselves. Americans love heroes that are individualistic and autonomous. They’ve loved them like that for decades and will continue to love them for decades more. What seems so peculiar about The Losers, The A-Team, and The Expendables being released in one summer season, then, is that the team concept stands out so sharply from this crowd of actioners.

These three movies are hardly pioneering new ground, of course, as the X-Men trilogy made the point during the middle of the first super hero wave of the new century that working as a team for a common goal is the real and only way to make progress. However the three films in question seem to have their sights set a lot lower than achieving social understanding and ridding the world of prejudice. In the case of The Losers, for example, the goal is simply to get revenge on the group’s would-be assassinators. So, because the scope is miniscule and the benefits gained from the group’s success are specific to just them, the individualistic sense is still ever-present. And, the same might be said of The A-Team as well. Because the goal in The Expendables is to overthrow a dictatorship it can be argued that the benefits of the heroes victory would not be exclusive to just them but would also include the entire citizenship of Vilena. So, you could say the sense of individual empowerment would at least not be the same variety found in the other two films. However, it is interesting to point out that The Expendables are a group made up of mercenaries, who are a breed of people not known for their team mentalities.

What do you all make of this? Is the concept of working as a team against evil going to become the new wave in action movies, or is it just a phase? Do you expect to see these films come close to enjoying the type of success that Iron Man 2 will no doubt garner? Which type of hero do you emulate the most? Which do you enjoy watching the most? Voice your opinions and let it be known what you think a true hero really is.

We’ll revisit this topic once all three films have been released (which will be mid-August) and ask you these same questions again. Then we’ll compare your responses to try and come to some sort of conclusion. Till then, just enjoy the movies!

Gossip magazines like this Photoplay have been around since the dawn of the film industry, but why are they so popular?

For as long as I can remember I have been enormously bewildered as to why so many people find gossip publications like The Inquirer, People Magazine, Star Magazine, and US Weekly so appealing. Beyond having a lack of interest in fashion I fail to recognize the purpose behind holding celebrities’ figures and overall looks under a microscope; praising one on a given week and criticizing them the next. And aside from all of this I also fall short of understanding the undying interest in celebrities’ social and romantic lives. This is not all to say that I consider celebrities uninteresting, quite the contrary, however the sex life of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt is not anywhere near the top million interests I have in the film industry and the people who are part of it.

But why is this? Why do so many people follow the romantic storylines of celebrities’ lives? All judgments aside, because for many the interest is indeed a guilty and harmless pleasure, the answers could lie in the history of the film industry – particularly the history of the “star system.” What is the star system? It started out as a promotional ploy of Hollywood studios to draw audiences and gain their loyalty to them by creating a loyalty to a particular actor or actress. Back in the old days of the industry, actors and actresses were required to sign contracts with a studio that would make them exclusive to that studio (this was an integral part of the studio system). So, if a particular actress proved popular in one picture and wished to do many more, she would sign a contract that would pretty much assure (but not guarantee) her more work, and the studio would exploit her popularity by making her inclusion in a film part of the promotional material (posters and such) in an effort to draw audiences who enjoyed seeing that particular actress. And if she became really popular (like Greta Garbo, Katharine Hepburn, etc.) she would get all the work she wanted, and even some work she didn’t want (if a star refused to do a project their studio told them to do it could suspend the star’s contract, preventing them from working or being paid). How this all ties together is further explained by Richard Multby in his book Hollywood Cinema. He says, “The studio system was committed to the deliberate manufacture of stars as a mechanism for selling movie tickets, and as a result generated publicity about the stars’ off-screen lives designated to compliment and play upon their screen images” (the “manufacture of stars” pertains to the tendency of studios to make sure their stars maintain a specific, marketable  on-screen persona and personality, complete with mannerisms and quirks. A good example would be Cary Grant). So, during the early days of the industry (primarily 1930s and 1940s) studios actually spurred gossip about their stars in order to reap higher ticket sales.

This all explains a lot about how the market for star gossip became so big, but why did/do readers keep reading? Multby asserts that “the publicity surrounding the star system told its audiences that stars were just like them.” Continuing this idea, he goes on to quote film historian Margret Thorp, who says “The ranking box-office favorites must be good to look at certainly, but they are not required to be creatures of classic perfection. In many ways it is an advantage for a star not to be too beautiful. She stands then closer to the average and that is what the fans want, an ideal they can emulate, a creature not too bright and good, one whose heights they might actually scale themselves with a little energy and a little luck. The glamorous star today is natural [in comparison to yesteryear]. She does not pluck her eyebrows and paint on new ones … she does not try to be a fairy-tale princess but an average girl raised to the nth power. ‘Vivid’ is the adjective she works for hardest.”

Does knowing the personal and intimate details of celebrities' lives make them seem more normal?

So, if audiences like viewing their favorite stars as “normal” people like themselves, then can we assume that those audiences’ interest in stars’ romances and sex lives is due to the idea that knowing these personal aspects makes them seem closer to normal? According to Multby, magazines like Photoplay, Modern Screen, and Shadowland regularly ran articles like “Who is Your Husband’s Favorite Actress and What Are You Going to Do About It?” Attractions were readily admitted, and figuring one’s favorite actor or actress also dealt/deals largely with a star’s glamorous persona. So, paradoxically, we like to envy the glamour of the star status but find it equally important to consider any person with that status to be “normal.” It sounds strange, but makes sense. But this is all still in context of the star system as it was during the years of the studio system (when vertical integration and long-term star contracts existed). Once the ruling of the Paramount case came down in 1948, the studio system was finished and actors and actresses were no longer bound by contracts. They were finally able to pursue work wherever they could find it. This caused the star system to change, but not disappear. Studios still recognized that the stars of their films did the most to sell them, if for no other reason than because the people depicted on-screen were the most visible part of the entire industry. However this also meant studios had much less stock in how actors and actresses were perceived by the public, i.e. fan and gossip magazines. Just like today, if an actress became a “train wreck” she would have a harder time finding a gig. If a star was bad publicity, the studios simply wouldn’t hire them. But this didn’t mean studios no longer had to worry. A modern and infamous example is how Tom Cruise’s unpopularity, due to his professed allegiance to sociology and TV antics, led to reduced box-office numbers for 2006’s Mission: Impossible III. The studio suffered financially, but had no leverage in demanding compensation.

What does Tom Cruise’s instance mean regarding today’s star system? It indicates that the same criteria for a lovable star in old Hollywood is the same as it is today, and fan and gossip magazines still hold as much power as they ever did. It’s easy to envy the glamour of Cruise’s status as an A-list actor, but as was proved with Mission: Impossible III audiences at the time (and debatably now) didn’t consider him “normal,” and so many turned on him. So what is the function of magazines like The Inquirer, People, US Weekly, and Star? They function to indicate what those publications’ readers consider acceptable according to their criteria of what an enviable celebrity should be. They hardly speak for everyone, but because their readership is so big the opinions of them and their following demand to be taken into consideration by Hollywood studios so that they can make more informed business decisions about who to hire and promote. After all, the last thing any studio wants is another Tom Cruise-like incident.