Question for the Week of Oct 8-14: More, Please?

What actors and actresses would I like to see more of?

Honestly, I began this as a list of minority actors who should appear more. Then I looked at under-used actresses - but I realized that would start to seem kinda... pervy. It's Hollywood, after all, and it's not just the studio selection process, it's having top makeup artists on hand; 3 hours in a chair with a pro, & I'd look like Cary Grant.

My main point is that the media has combined with the film industry's natural habits so that only very few people receive attention. It's ridiculous and stupid, and I don't know what the media would've done without (e.g.) Nicole Kidman to plaster onto everything. I thought about it for a bit, and here's 40 people whose profile I want to see skyrocket, and soon...

I'll try to be fair in describing the situation and its problems: Hollywood greatly favors men over women, and non-minorities over minorities. White males get the most attention and range of offers and the most stories centered on them, every time. Some white males do make this list, but you now know how I got started on this, so:

Carla Gugino is not just a pretty face. She's done a lot of work in independent film, showing a care in picking her roles. She fills every part with intelligence, willpower, and a knowing sexiness that isn't cheap or a put-off. I loved her in Spy Kids, along with various roles here and there; I wish her part in Sin City were twice as long.

Cate Blanchett is uber-gifted, so watching her act is always something to look forward to. Anyone who's seen the Lord of the Rings films can tell you that she has freakishly beautiful eyes. She's also done a lot of indie work, takes a great range of roles, and seems to be incapable of failing or missing a beat. I love her cameo in Hot Fuzz.

MRQ IX: the "Friday the 13th" series

This is a special round of Movie Review Quickies. This time out, I tackle the entire original Friday the 13th series, Parts I-X. I know it's ambitious, but I give you my thoughts on the series as a whole, its progression, and the quality of each chapter.

I'd keep this in my back pocket for October, but that's cheap and a long time off. You should definitely read on if you're thinking of renting any of these, or if you want the opinion of an expert in this genre and time period.

I know, I know, even this effort is kind of scary! It clocks in at over 5900 words, so I doubt many people will (or should?) read this in one long run. I'll make it easier for you, ok? Anytime I'm overwhelming you with my sheer incredibleness, you can just count to 10 with me, ok? Give it a try : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Let's do this.

1 - Friday the 13th - Seven young people look to re-open a camp site in Crystal Lake, New York. The locals, of course, say the grounds are cursed. After all, a young boy drowned one summer just before two counselors were killed... But these stories are discounted and the kids get about their jobs, not knowing how much trouble they're in.

TV Thoughts: The Revolution Became The Institution

Imagine a restaurant with a great salad bar. Now imagine that 1 month later, it's only stocked with iceberg lettuce, carrots, croutons, bacon bits, and ranch dressing. That's not much of a salad bar is it?

Here's where I'm going with this:

I'm going to try to explain a big problem that I have with a lot of serialized shows. Be warned - I am trying to describe my aesthetics and why I think they're valid. Viewpoints are a pain to get across, so read at your own pace. I can't hint this is long; I tagged it. I have a label called "Long-ass Posts."

Many television shows are set, to their loss, on a few plots, motifs, what have you. It's true, when you watch "Pokemon," it won't cover the importance of intelligent participation in democracy. "Desperate Housewives" won't deal with ethnic cleansing.

But I don't need every show to be about everything that makes life real and complex. My problem is the way many long-running shows drown the viewers in repetition. I'm talking about more than clichéd plots.

Until recently, I did one TV review, for "Burn Notice." [DJ added his batch review of several new shows last Summer.] While it was an exercise, I was pretty excited at the time; what I wrote might've read like an advertisement. For my part, I was trying something new - a review combined with a recommendation, looking at a TV series, trying to address 2 seasons in one commentary....

Art and The Audience

Hello, everyone! I'm adding this special birthday weekend/Labor Day edition of the blog with a mostly-healed eye and a new job that's taking up lots of time. [Note: so I needed a whole extra week for editing and finding pictures] This means that longer posts, like today's, can take a bit more time to finish and edit. Please enjoy, and know that I will have more new reviews up shortly. But I must warn you first: this post is freakishly long; I try to back my points up a lot and ultimately had to spend a great amount of time thinking about this just to justify how much time I spent thinking about this.

I have an artistic concern today, one brought about by the publicity for the "Lost" tv finale: do the desires of an audience undermine the quality of long-form stories in tv and film series? Other ways of looking at this question are: do tv series and film franchises have to get worse over the years? Is it necessary that ideas run out of steam, or is it a matter of poor execution or complacency? Do some story-tellers just promise more than they can give?

Wanna learn anything about this unearthly object? Tough - it's just a stupid plot device.

There are many variations on the relationship between an artist and the public, but it's an important dynamic, and I like to consider these topics. I tried to move further away from "Lost," so I could think about the issues rather than one silly show... My thought gave birth to still more questions, like: do demands for fan-gratification - through resolution and/or clarification - mean that repetition is the real problem? Is it worse nowadays, since more of the audience participates? What does this say about the dialogue between artist and spectator?

In looking at this problem, it made the most sense to confine myself to film and television. Although I might use some examples from literature, turning to books at the moment would simply complicate the discussion too much. It would also digress from what this site is about. In the end, film and tv are easier to discuss because of their popularity, their ease of access.

Throughout, I keep going back to the factors that affect audience and artist, sometimes repeatedly turning to the same issues. Sometimes I go to them repeatedly. I really hope this doesn't get too boring for anyone who reads this. At least no one could ever claim I didn't "write enough" over a two-week gap...

The Modern Age: Your Best Fans, Your Worst Enemies
As methods of story-telling, film and television series have a potentially unhealthy relationship with the internet's ability to generate high volumes of critique and criticism. At times, it's beneficial - the attention of devotees might be the sole cause for a show renewal or green-lighting a film.

It's true that complaining viewers might help steer a series from impending disaster. In the past, this merely happened through reduced ratings and letter-writing. The new forum of the internet provides a huge array of commentators, however. The problem is the same as before - some fans don't have good or selfless or thoughtful taste... Some are stingy and don't like thinking too hard, some are boring and focus on things that few notice, while others are so intelligent that everything seems moronic to them.

In any era, most people who voice their opinions, making an actual effort to address a complaint about some piece of art, have no training in artistic principles, and a small minority write more from idleness than interest. If a particular piece of art doesn't have to be "perfect" - if it can make bad choices, artistic or otherwise, over time - then there's a danger in listening to all those voices. In fact, there's a danger in listening to almost all of them.

"Splice" - Abysmal

"Splice" is two sci-fi/horror stories in one, really. In part, it's a modern-day Frankenstein tale about scientists whose ambitions run wild. Yet it's also a story about two lovers/co-workers and the emotional mess caused by parenthood. "Splice" was written and directed by Vincenzo Natali, who made the exceptional "Cube" in 1997. My expectations were quite high, especially given the cast. Those hopes were cruelly disemboweled by senseless emotional beats and plot developments that only occurred because the writers wanted them to occur.

Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley are attractive and vivid genetic scientists. They're employed by NERD, a company that rides their work to the cusp of the next big bio-tech revolution. In between being quirky and listening to good music, they hit on a bio-engineering breakthrough. But why create a pig that produces human insulin? That's boring. How about a cat-sized fleshy slug that makes proteins that might cure everything! Sounds like a solid way to mass-produce an Alzheimer's cure, right?

Damn close to an "Alien" poster, huh?

Wrong. Remember that these scientists have only just attained their amazing goal of making two monstrosities and getting them to wink at each other ("Fred" and "Ginger"). For some reason (the plot, apparently), they have no interest in studying their creation fully, or even very much at all. The pair tell their boss they immediately want to start splicing (we have title!) human DNA into a third slug-thing. I only took a few science courses in college, but this sounds like an improbable (and dangerous) leap ahead.

How bad was "Splice?" I'll give, right now, five signs of how bad it was - all of these are firsts for me here... (1) Since they took time and effort to make a professionally-crafted motion picture, I'll take the time and effort to explain how they failed gloriously, but deeply. (2) I'm breaking my own trend and will spoil the hell out of the film after the next 14 paragraphs, but I'll post a warning before I start. (3) I will not edit overuse of words like "stupid" and "dumb" and "stupidity," unless I remove whole sentences or clauses. (4) I'll only bother to put the titles for "Splice," "The Bride of Frankenstein" and "Cube" in quotation marks. Just this once, correct punctuation - on something I must write well - isn't worth the extra effort.

Finally, (5) I'll first provide an synopsis of my in-theater thoughts, hoping that you read the rest of the review anyway. Here it is:

Behind the... Teeth: Alien Queen, "Aliens"

The larger-than-life female called The Alien Queen is so important to film. As a struggling working mom, she exposed the dangers faced by successful and ambitious women of the future. And yet few understand her. The public focuses on incredible fx and action scenes; she's the film version of Graendal's mother, at best. There's much more to this widely-recognized, but poorly-known, celebrity.

AQ looking fab at her 1st birthday party

Imposing, courteous, and strict, The Alien Queen ("AQ," or "Queenie" to pals) was known to those closest to her as a loyal friend and fiercely-protective mother. Always looking out for the colony, always comfortable with her unusual size, she had an easy rapport with her followers. Although most of them were her children, no one could claim that she didn't deserve her throne. It was hard to challenge, much less insult, someone who could pull you apart like cotton candy.

To outsiders, she might seem cold, even cruel. Humans believe she never smiled in her whole life. Speculators say that becoming a parent changed her. To unlock the truth about this figure, we need to look into her past.

Behind the Translucent Teeth

Always proud of her humble origins, AQ would boast that before becoming Queen, she was secreted onto a spaceship hull, just like all her siblings. Dormant for so long in her pod, she literally leapt at the chance for change. She yearned to be more than just a skittering spider-octopus thing with a tail. She wanted a shiny black carapace and a projecting set of inner jaws, and she was willing to kill for them. Considering the bleak environment she grew up in, this is hardly a surprise.

Dennis Hopper RIP

Hollywood suffers again with the loss of another skilled star, Dennis Hopper. It's only those closest to him who deserve sympathy; I'd feel slimy being too soggy over someone I never knew - over someone I "enjoyed" from a distance. But I always feel sad when a talented, hard-working, member of "Old Hollywood" finds out what comes after death.

I usually ignore celebrity deaths, especially for film stars. The kind of media attention they get often has an obscene and selfish tone. The amount of coverage given also feels disrespectful to both the deceased and a world with terror, AIDS, starvation. I felt bad for Heath Ledger and his family, but I was exceptionally annoyed by the near-instant memorial DVD sales and "important breaking news" circus that occurred that day. The way it continued to dominate the media - what with wars, ethnic violence, over-fishing - was disgusting. Then I saw "fans" basically stalking his NYC flat, leaving flowers as if Marilyn Monroe had just committed suicide.

Dennis Hopper's 1965 photo of Jefferson Airplane

In that context, why should I write about Dennis Hopper? Well, I care. I care because Hopper did his job remarkably well for a long long time; because I smiled most every time he got on the screen. I care because he could bring 10 minutes of sunshine to a really bad movie, and because he showed no signs of slowing down. Even at 70+, I looked forward to his bright future, as I did with the much younger River Phoenix and Phil Hartman.

Dennis Hopper looked pretty good for a 74 year old; even in his 50's, you could see he was aging well. This is especially impressive given the extent of his drug abuse. His hair got silver more than grey, his eyes were still vividly blue. Whether his hair was slicked back, whether he wore a goatee - there was always something very approachable and relatable about him. His talents and skills made it so easy to buy whatever he was selling in any role he played.

And he always seemed like so much fun. He's featured on a Gorillaz song, on the album "Demon Days." Dennis Hopper was also a wide-ranging artist with work in poetry, sculpture, and painting. His photography has been well-received since the '60s. Long after he'd grown up, the kid from Dodge City, Kansas was hard to pin down. A regular supporter of the Republican party, he said he went with Obama when the GOP added Sarah Palin to their ticket. He was, to paraphrase his own words, "Republican, then Democrat, then Republican, then Democrat again." It all just demands my respect, and he's got it.

Hopper's photo of Paul Newman, 1964

He worked in just about every type of filmed story-telling that I can list. Mr. Hopper could pop up in awfully-executed junk like "Super Mario Bros.," "Space Truckers," and "Firestarter 2: Rekindled." You could also find him in superior B-level movies like "Red Rock West," "Basquiat," and "EdTV." Odder choices abound, like the racist lead in the surprising "Paris Trout," his self-parodic role in '80s brain drain "My Science Project," and his rampaging con in the misfire known as "Boiling Point."

Then, of course, you look at all the classics that Dennis is attached to: "Rebel Without a Cause" (his first film), "Giant," "True Grit," "Cool Hand Luke," "Apocalypse Now," "Rumble Fish." It's already quite impressive before noting that he co-wrote and directed "Easy Rider."

Hi, I'm "Pookie," and I have a video-finding problem (pause).

Netflix's page for Caddyshack offers "More Like Caddyshack" : Bart Got a Room, Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, Saint Ralph, Golfballs!, The Breakfast Club, The Jerk, Hairspray, Harold and Maude, Fletch, Fletch Lives, and Caddyshack 2.* It's in reverse order, but since these are the only 11 matches listed, I don't even need to analyze; the list speaks for itself. The systems that categorize movies (and recognize connections among them) don't work well enough, especially for a big business like Netflix. But they're not alone.

It's not as if Amazon is any better. Looking through a CV is awkward, since entering an artist's name won't yield pages by name; you only ever get a list of the artist's works. If you want to see everything Jung wrote, you type "Carl Jung" or a title of his and then click on the "Carl Jung" link. Using normal searches, it's the fastest way to see Amazon's catalog for one artist. This is way more complicated than it should be.

And I'd be bothered less if I hadn't looked at Amazon's page for "The Rolling Stones" mp3s. 2,666 hits sounds excessive, even assuming there are 8+ versions of "Satisfaction." Then look at the list sorted "by artist." You'll see there's many entries with random bands singing "Papa Was a Rolling Stone" and "Rolling of the Stones."

It might be a bit much to expect their computers to automatically include or exclude cover songs and cameo work, but can't Amazon just show me a list of mp3s by one British rock band, 1962-20xx? Can't they do that when I look up "Exile on Main St." and click on the link that lists "The Rolling Stones" as the album artist? Even this method produces bad results! You can only get this right by typing the band into a search, then selecting "Amazon's The Rolling Stones Store" from the list that comes up.

But that's not all. Getting an exact match quickly is hit-or-miss, unless you use advanced searches. You can type in a complete and accurate title for something obscure and 5 other unrelated products may appear topmost on the list, presumably because they rank higher and contain 2+ search terms. It makes sense for online retailers to include ranking in searches, but a direct title result should always take precedence.

Thoughts on remakes, part 1 (an anti-anti-establishment argument)

I should address this, since my posted links often describe some absurd remake or reboot. Well, "Alice in Wonderland" had at least 9 film versions before Tim Burton got his hands on it. There are, actually, many times when a remake should be received with minimal cynicism and sarcasm. It's one thing to be annoyed by a petty attempt to wring some dollars out of the market. It's quite different to be annoyed every time a movie is "filmed again," though.


By the time I was in college, 9 "Friday the 13th" flicks and 7 "Freddy Kreuger" pictures were released in theaters. I saw 13 of those at least twice (blame my sophomore roommate), and 4 on a movie screen. I even found things to genuinely enjoy in some of the poorer entries. Does this mean I'm a jerk for deriding "Toy Story 4," "Analyze That," or "Clash of the Titans 2: This Time It's Personal?"

Certain public artworks have been been remade many times. I must point out that the bickering over a redone piece (like a song or movie) is often associated with a love for some long-gone "golden age" in which things were "better." If not, then the impulse is usually drawn to an older period in which, again, things are believed to be "better." Nostalgia, a sense of loyalty, or an unwillingness to accept change are frequently the culprits.

R3V13W3R$: On Movie Reviews

When it comes to saying which movies are good or worthwhile, there is lots of disagreement. Although the baseline is much better than with music - you might dis/like a song for far more reasons than a movie - because film reviews tend to be a little more consistently reliable. Still, this information age we're living in allows lots of people to voice their opinions to the world. The result is that you might find a reviewer who genuinely enjoyed Deuce Bigelow 2.

Look at that poster above. I actually really enjoy that movie (so bad it's good). But what's the dividing line? There may be some people out there who liked "Ecks versus Sever," but their numbers are few (thankfully). In fact, there are many different factors that can decide whether you like a movie or despise it. Let me run down a few...

Difficult to distinguish the reviewer's taste
I realize that I should really thank my mother and father for taking me to all those movies when I was growing up. My father, especially, must've sat through a lot of hellish cinematic experiences just because he had three children. And my parents really hate gross-out jokes, specifically ones relating to the body. Every time they see one, they obviously want to be somewhere else. Try two examples:

Big - Tom Hanks used to be a make-you-laugh-hard-comedian. Nowadays, his comedies tend to be much more sedate - comedies that make you smile, not collapse in giggles. Look at that trailer - it was a movie with heart and laughs. [Yes, I want to hit myself for those last words]. As you can see, he uses silly string in a way I never thought of before. I was smiling, as was much of the audience. My parents thought it was gross and nasty, though it's plainly two "kids" playing around. The scene isn't even long! I guess this didn't help...

Ingmar Bergman's "The Hour of the Wolf" (about damn time)

[8/12/14 Update: I used to use quotation marks around film titles, and it'll take a long while for me to correct them all. I just fixed the horrible spacing problems in this review and the now-dead video links, but that's all for now...]

Ingmar Bergman's "The Hour of the Wolf" is an uncontested classic. Writing a simple review is impossible. Since I have no desire to be repetitious (or a bore), I give you a brief review, then something like a stripped-down essay.

This movie is about a woman whose husband disappeared. She doesn't claim to know what's become of him. She only recounts the story of what happened to them. You have to be in the right frame of mind for this slow, talky-yet-quiet, and rather absurdist piece. These points aside, I was impressed as almost every minute of the flick is terribly eerie. It looks gorgeous, and has a lot to say (figuratively).

A frighteningly-young Max Von Sydow is the great painter Johan, an artist of some reknown. He takes his pregnant wife out to a small house on a remote island for some solitude and a chance to refresh themselves. He will paint, she will care for him, and they will love each other.

But their stay is not very relaxing. Before the story even begins, some of the locals have been a problem - Johan punched one of them. And his observations of them sound odd, as if Johan were insane or surrounded by unnatural creatures. The movie follows the couple as they grow acquainted with their neighbors, as the artist's personality collapses, and as the couple becomes fractured. As I said, you'll need patience and the right frame of mind to enjoy this, yet its creepiness is quite effective. It's also very human, but in a disturbing way.

Just watch that trailer - this is an absurdist freak-fest. To be honest, it's a bad trailer; between the voiceover's bad monotone and the painful tuneless sound playing throughout, I wouldn't watch this movie. Maybe this was the effect Bergman was going for...

A Legal Video Guide, aka Hulu versus Cable's Free On Demand versus Everything Else

Trying to keep from pirating tv shows and movies can seem daunting. Worst of all, it's time-consuming - most of us want what we want right now, don't we?

In fact, the many options out there these days make it all relatively simple and do-able. Living with an internet connection and the basic tier of cable service is actually pretty easy. I will go through at least 6 legal ways to "watch your stories" through digital providers, so this will be a segregated entry. My review of an Ingmar Bergman flick will have to wait til next week.

Hulu is a great way to watch tv. It's easy to use, and has a huge selection of shows and movies. It also has a great array of features, like continuous play and embed. You can even email a link that points to a clip whose timing you select yourself.

For movies, Hulu is much better when your computer connects to a larger screen. Their site will force you to watch 3-5 commercials per tv episode and more or less for certain films. Not as much fun, but it's still free, right?

Indiana Jones - my accidental essay on the series

Oh, Indiana Jones. "Raiders" is movie magic. I tested an idea & on the series, then wrote out my thoughts. It got out of hand, and led to this massive post. I don't blame you for skipping around, but you'll find my theory in the last 3 paragraphs.

In the Beginning, there was a handsome man with a bullwhip, and it was good.
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" is the perfect action film, the only Indy pic to receive near-unanimous praise on release. Charismatic actors play their parts perfectly, the action is exceptional. It also has some of the tightest dialogue and characterization I've ever seen. As such, it beats its own inspiration: old B movies and 30's/40's serials that kids saw at matinees. Imagine going to the theater 15 times to get one story!

I dimly remember seeing "Raiders" in 1981, in the theater with my family. We went back 6 more times, and loved every minute. We never stood a chance - beautiful scenery, vivid characters, brilliant plot. My favorites: the fight by the plane; the mirror on the ship; "It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage;" Ford's face at Karen Allen's derisive, "see ya around, Indiana Jones."