Category: the state of things

OK, so best (and worst) terrorism movies? If ‘Blown Away’ anchors one end of the spectrum, are there good movie treatments? Is it possible to make a good movie on this subject in the current period? I’d certainly put in a plug for ‘Battle of Algiers’ as the simply the best, and probably unrepeatable, because it is impossible to make an intelligent movie on the subject in America today.

But what do people think of ‘The Siege’ which came under sustained attack for its use of stereotypes, but which (I must admit) I found pretty compelling. Fine performances by Denzel Washington, Tony Shalhoub, Annette Bening and even (before his “slide from greatness”) Bruce Willis. And at least some sense of the sources/causes of terrorism and the dangers of Patriot Act-type reaction.

an interesting article from slate on how hollywood movies really make their money. turns out that the theater box office contributes less than 20% of the money made on movies. dvd is where it is at, and with dvd sales up it isn’t always the movies that did best at the box-office that sell the most dvds. but no, this doesn’t mean that smaller movies have a more democratic shot at a second life:

For merchandisers like Wal-Mart, DVDs are a means to lure consumers, who may buy other products, into the store. The box-office numbers are of little relevance (especially since it’s teenagers who create huge opening weekends, and they cannot afford to buy more profitable goods like plasma TVs). Instead of box-office results, merchandisers look for movies with stars such as Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, or Arnold Schwarzenegger, who have traction with their highly desired older customers.

i guess the fact that it took “after hours” so long to come to dvd means that scorcese’s audience doesn’t buy plasma tv’s either.

the magazine outlook is celebrating its 10 year anniversary with a series of articles on indian film, 1995-2005. the entire issue is here. one of the more interesting articles is this one which makes the case that while bollywood has swamped all other indian cinema in marketing terms, excellent regional and parallel cinema continues to thrive. after summing up the dominance of bollywood chatterjee writes:

Continue reading indian regional and “art” cinema

(continuing from here.)

Stewart’s an emotional wreck in much of Hitchcock’s stuff. While Cary Grant maintains a kind of icy hauteur through the thick/thin of those thrillers, Stewart bubbles with barely-repressed confusion and turmoil. So–my wrongheaded snipe about melodramatics is completely, thoroughly wrong.

(I read an interesting little tidbit about Stewart yesterday in Jonathan Lethem’s collection, _The Disappointment Artist_–which I can’t recommend highly enough as a model of smart, personal criticism about art. He was noting how a biographer of Stewart had wondered how the “gentle” actor of early pictures turned, after his service in WWII, into the dark troubled soul of later pictures. And Stewart’s war record was, in part, sealed–protected as confidential. The biographer wondered if Stewart had been part of the Dresden bombing raid….)

There’s a project in here somewhere: Action films as male hysteria.

watched lang’s “the big heat” last night and was struck by a couple of things:

(spoiler warnings apply for those who haven’t seen it)

1) michael’s right about the gloria grahame/annette bening thing

2) this is such a tautly shot/narrated film–the camera literally leads the viewer through it; lang’s use of slow zoom-ins and outs and pans works almost like a manual for the beginning filmmaker. i think mike mentioned earlier a connection between kubrick and lang–can see it in this film as well.

3) i am not as knowledgeable about noir’s generic narrative elements as some of you doubtless are but this film’s juxtaposition of corrupt public life with the possibility of an autonomous private life (which is then destroyed utterly by the public) seems to make it darker than most.

Continue reading noir (film, not drakkar)

Ok, so the only screen I’m watching is the computer screen and this post is decidedly off-topic, but this is something I think about and wrestle with a lot and am curious what those of you who would probably be considered products of an elite university education think about this article.

This post falls under the category of “the state of things.” I was thinking of posting a wise and lengthy denunciation of this trend in Hollywood of remaking horror films from the 70s (and importing more recent ones from Japan). But I’ve run dry of wisdom, and in order to make this post lengthy, I’ve decided to add a little twist to the plot. That is, rather than howl and fuss over a rash of (mostly subpar) remakes over the past several years (“Amityville Horror,” being the most recent), I wonder if it’d be more interesting for us to consider that Hollywood was in the business of recycling from the get-go. Even before there WAS a Hollywood, there was the remake. How many Frankensteins were there before Boris Karloff climbed into his elevator shoes? Okay one. But you get the point. Better: think of all the Hunchbacks, the Jekylls & Hydes and Phantoms of the Opera. In 1926, D.W. Griffith remade “The Sorrows of Satan”–just nine years after the original. There were three versions of “The Cat and the Canary” in fifteen years! But it’s not just horror films that get the rehash treatment. Edwin Porter’s smash hit “The Great Train Robbery” (1903) was remade the following year by some hack producer named Siegmund Leiben. “Stella Dallas,” directed by Henry King, was released in 1925. Twelve years later King Vidor gave us another one, this time with Babs Stanwyck and John Bowles (what a talent, that Bowles). Fast forward 50 years or so and yet another version, starring Bette Midler. Hitchcock remade one of his own films. It’s only a matter of time before another Star is Born. And who can forget Marty Feldman’s “The Last Remake of Beau Geste”? Strange that he was right. It WAS the last remake…

Continue reading Reduce, Reuse, Recycle