You Sunk My Childhood

I always thought the point of games and toys was for a child's imagination to be free to create an elaborate world. Now it's filmmakers turn to crush what we have held so dear in our minds for years and replace it with their own visions for blockbuster glory.
   
I'm not entirely sure where this particular trend started but for argument sake I'm going to say it is Michael Bay's fault by turning Transformers into a blockbuster. By the third installment he was being Michael Bay about it and throwing government conspiracies in just so he can add a fourth twist and more explosions. I'm not saying it wasn't epic- because it was- but it certainly ruined how transformers used to be played with, now kids have standards their imagination needs to live up to. 

Power Rangers tried to come to life in the '90s but never took off because they were lame attempts. But after Michael Bay took a crack at the toy box the potential was exposed. Hugh Jackman jumped on Real Steel which is essentially Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots in hyper-drive, and coming out later this year is Battleship..??? They claim it has nothing to do with the boardgame but then they should have seriously considered a different title. I've been on the inside when executives are discussing the title of a project and soI know that what kind of associations people will create with the name is one of the main factors. 

Well Michael Bay is at it again, only this time he is attacking Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and making them ALIENS(?!?). There has been plenty of outrage over the internet from people who don't want Michael Bay to ruin another childhood memory. I'm pretty sure he just defaults to aliens and explosions, like he's a kid who never grew up and is now forcing his opinions on everyone else's memories. 
  
I'm just afraid they're going start diving deeper into the toy chest and turn games like Twister into an elaborate murder plot based on which color you land on, or any of these proposed travesties:

Lorax for President

I was thinking the other day about a movie from my childhood called Once Upon a Forest. It is about a group of young critters who go on a mission to find a cure for their friend who became sick when humans disturbed their homes. It is told from the perspective of the animals and humans are built in an evil, mean, destructive light with "yellow dragons". 

This movie came out in 1993 and it was neither the first nor last of its kind to use animation to spread messages to children essentially about being nice to the planet and animals. But in recent years as humanity seems to develop this increased concern for "political correctness" and "equality among parties", movies like this one are being attacked for pushing a liberal agenda. 

I  completely agree that aside from dancing penguins Happy Feet touches on the issues of overfishing and Happy Feet 2 goes around human's presence in the melting ice poles. But regardless of the political wing you lean towards you can't try to say the ice poles aren't melting or that these aren't real issues to educate the younger generations about. Despite any issues people may have, the often politically-driven Academy still gave Happy Feet the Best Animated Feature Oscar. 
  
Wall-E didn't even try to hide its liberal message in the subcontext of the film, it was the main plot. Humans ruin the planet and now live on a space ship, deteriorating their bone mass as they get carried around with screens in front of their faces and no idea what's happening around them. It's a scary look at where the world is potentially going as we are enthralled by one glowing rectangle after another throughout our daily lives, pretty much forgetting there is an outside world to care about. Like Happy Feet, Wall-E still won Best Animated Feature. 

Only when something is liberal does it get attention like this. The Lorax is the most recent subject for criticism since it focuses on the pro-environment liberalism. I honestly don't see the harm in a little organe fluff telling the story of mysterious things called trees that were once all over. The shock tactic seems to be the only route left for the jaded world today, and seeding minds with information young just kick-starts their understanding. The occasional furry animal spinning a liberal message isn't going to alter an entire generation into hippies, they are still pounded with conservative influences on a daily basis but no one seems to think that is out of the ordinary. Except maybe this guy. 

A Grimm Tale

SPOTTED!  Snow White....in various different forms. 

I'm curious to know if the copyright on the Grimm Fairytales is expired and all their stories are considered public domain because all at once they are everywhere this season. 

I'm hoping here that everyone is aware Disney did not create Cinderella, Snow White, and Sleeping Beauty. And also has at least an idea that their stories are not as colorful as they have been portrayed. In fact they are a bit...wait for it... grim in nature.

But what I'm noticing is a sudden spark of interest in the characters of The Brothers Grimm in both film and television. 

Mirror Mirror vs. Snow White and the Huntsman 

Mirror Mirror appears to have a lighthearted, fun approach to the story. Comical characters, magic posions, and satirical humor drive a fitting cast. Julia Roberts as the queen is an age appropriate role for the Pretty Woman, although I'm curious to see if she can maintain the comedy while being the "evil queen". Most have probably never heard of Lilly Collins who is playing Snow White, and I think it's better that a fresh face play the lead. No huntsman in this story, just a daft prince played by Armie Hammer who seems to have sprung up from the woodwork with his strong, all-American charm.

Snow White and Huntsman takes the more serious, dark route of this fairytale spin. I will never agree with casting Kristen Stewart as Snow White, since I feel like the "fairest in the land" should at least have more than one facial expression and some confidence, but I'll consider this role to be a test of Stewart's acting abilities. I'm confident in Charlize Theron as an evil, beautiful queen since her range of abilities is phenomenal, and Chris Hemsworth certainly fits as the huntsman, coming from his role as Thor. 

Once Upon a Time vs. Grimm

There is really no comparison between these two, although both stem from the Brothers Grimm. Grimm takes the name of the Brothers and turns it into a family legacy to hunt the villainous supernatural creatures of fairytales, inherited a the detective as his aunt fights for her last breathes of life. This show doesn't focus on the classic story either, but incorporates it still into the episodes. For example, little girls wearing red hooded sweatshirts were going missing and the culprit was a werewolf. Every creature has a human form and only the Grimms can see what they truly are to stop them.  


Once Upon a Time takes all the famous fairytale characters, Grimm or not, throws them into present day while flashing back and forth to "once upon a time". It mixes their stories together, overlapping with twists, and coming from the creators of Lost there is a lot to keep track of like how Rumpelstiltskin is Belle's beast and Little Red Riding Hood is the wolf in her own story. Regardless of not keeping to the original plots, the way the show is built is still intriguing, with Snow White as the main character with the evil queen ruling the town as mayor. 

Not So Original Trend

With the release of The Hunger Games, I've been thinking about the book-movie trend. It's not a new idea but it seems to have taken off especially in the last few years. There are a few motivations I can think of to make a book into a movie.

A) The story is profound on some level and worthy of sharing.

B) The author of the book is well known for the specific genre.

C) The book is a bestseller, and a safe bet for turning a profit.

The most common, and most heavily weighted in the production decision is of course the one involving money. It's a simple fact that popular books come with a worthy fan-base, thus guaranteed audience. It even works in favor of the books because those who aren't already a fan get sucked into all the buzz and create the "book-to-movie-bounce". Pretty obvious, the sale of books increases substantially when it is announced as a movie project.

I'm both an avid reader and movie goer, and will admit that when I read Water for Elephants thought it would be a good movie. But, are there really a limited number original screenplays out there? Are all new screenwriters THAT awful that novelists are the more valued writers? What's going to happen to the "Best ORIGINAL Screenplay" category at the award shows if everything is based on books and other content? 

It is my understanding that media and art overlap and interconnect: filmmakers can draw inspiration for a story from a painting, artists look at the natural world and human behavior for subject, writers keep up with news events and find the subcontext for a story. This is my proposal- don't always resort to new content unless it deserves the attention (like The Help) and don't try to be so cut and dry because you will end up disappointing in some regard. That might sound crazy but there are plenty of books written in the past hundred years that can incorporate all 3 of the above motivations.

Examples of this with these upcoming book-movies productions:
 - The Hobbit
 - The Great Gatsby
 - The Alchemist 
 - The Life of Pi

Not exploiting some vampire saga for the teenyboppers of the world, and not casting a leading lady to rush through the plot development of a motivational story.

Acrobats and Ponies

The Academy Awards are primarily to honor the top talents in Hollywood, a time when the rich get dressed up to give each other golden statues. But in order earn ratings they must be able to entertain viewers throughout the multi-hour broadcast. It takes a collaboration of many wits to pull together a cohesive show. 

These are some of the greater moments of the show, regarding different level of entertainment:

1. Robert Downey Jr....that's all

Before presenting the documentary award he Tebowed. Then walked out on stage with personal steadi-cam and boom mic guys..aka camera and sound. For my film friend and I it was a good laugh seeing the camera come before the camera, and just Robert Downey Jr's constant character is a refreshing change from seriousness. 

2. Ryan Seacrest Gets Ashed by "The Dictator"
Leading up to Oscar night there was question and controversy if Sacha Baron Cohen was banned from walking the red carpet. Turns out he wasn't, but the debate of whether or not he would pull a stunt in his "Dictator" costume should have remained. Carrying an urn containing the "ashes" of former friend Kim John Il, The Dictator spilled the contents all over the E! TV personality. 



3. Cirque du Soleil Performance
Riding on the wind of announcing a movie based on the famous show, producers filled the Kodak Theater with the captivating acrobats. We know the show was done live when one of the acrobats fell out of his pose, although the rest of the group waited and the performance went on without a slight hiccup. Cirque du Soleil: Worlds Away is set to hit theaters ironically on the day the world is "going to end"- December 21, 2012. At least those in the audience of the premiere will get to indulge in one last visual feast. 

4. Will and Zach

The sound of marching band cymbals coming through the audience could only mean Will Ferrel and Zach Galifianakis were near. The goofy pair dressed in full, white band geek uniforms presented the award for best original song. The song was awarded to a comic himself when "Man or Muppet" won. They continued on stage with serious faces as their cymbals kept crashing on the ground, but some kind of stunt can always be expected from those two. 

5. Bieber Cameo
I have never and will never jump on the Bieber-Band-Wagon but I will admit that his cameo in Billy Crystal's opening video montage was clever and appropriate. He did nothing but sit there (pretty much all he ever needs to do to get attention) telling Crystal, he's "here to get you the 18-24 demographic." I can appreciate when celebrities poke fun at themselves. 

The Golden Touch

And the winners are....as predicted.

No surprise in The Artist winning nods of best picture, director and actor, but there were no disappointments either. It is the first silent film to win Best Picture since the first Academy Awards in 1929, when Wing's (1927) won, right before the discovery of "talkies" took over. The Artist and Hugo both took home 5 awards, while the other films nominated in categories with them hardly stood a chance against the critic favorites. The only slight, but pleasant, surprise was The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo taking the award for Best Editing.

As a show, I thoroughly enjoyed what seemed to be a "Golden Age" theme for the night. After James Franco and Anne Hathaway flopped as hosts last year, the Academy took a safer route with veteran comedian Billy Crystal. And although he is older than the age of the previous two combined, Crystal kept the show classy and didn't play on rude comments or stunts for laughs. 

The design and reels of old movie footage paid homage to the early years of Hollywood glamour, and ushers dressed as drive-in movie theater attendants brought candy and popcorn to members of the audience. At no point during the show was I disgusted by a presenter, winner, or attempt at a publicity stunt. The only time I cringed was when a clip from Twilight snuck into a montage of classic movie moments. 

My favorite part of the night was the reoccurring question: "where were you when you fell in love with movies?" Actors, directors, cinematographers of all ages shared what made them fall in love with the magic of movies and what influenced them to pursue a career in this art. It was actually very humbling to be reminded they were just wide eyed kids at one point as well.

Everything about the show held up to what I had previously mentioned about Hollywood recognizing the nostalgia for the "golden age of cinema". 

  

Hopefully the trend will keep up long enough for me to be a part of it.

Nostalgic Distractions

Over the past few years there has been a shift in the type of movies that are winning both Academy and audience attention. Rewind through just the last 3 years and the list of nominees has arched towards a radically different feel. Too much focus had been placed on developing a perspective on serious events, as if it was a competition to create documentary-like depictions of controversial issues, current events, or examples of what is wrong in society. 

It appears that Hollywood has realized they have exhausted audiences with intellectually or emotionally stimulating stories. The recent trend has been latching on to the age-old concept that movies serve audiences well as just entertainment, and an escape into another world for just a couple short hours. Majority of the nominees this year are charming stories rather than vesels for a political agenda.

Midnight in Paris is a nostalgia piece about a nostalgic writer. I am among a potential many that yearn for what I idealize as a more romantic era, but this film reminds us that in every era there are people who may have imagined an earlier time as their ideal way of living. The moral of the story being to find what is romantic and unique to the era you are living in so you don't miss life by daydreaming. 

Hugo takes place in turn-of-the-century Paris and is a nod to a George Melies, a great innovator at the starting gate of filmmaking. It is charming story interwoven with historical events during a time when creating movies and going to the cinema were considered magical.

The Artist is probably the most apparent example of creating a nostalgic film that serves as a distraction from the world. It is also the favorite for winning this year, which is evidence enough of the shifted mindset of audiences and the academy. A silent black and white film that again brings viewers back to the Golden Age of Cinema, and a time when movie stars were respected for their class and pure talent.

These select three are the most obvious of the nominees that present the audience with a nostalgic distraction, but the remaining contenders also portray  feel-good stories with lessons about life that aren't shoved down audience's throats.

 

For Your Consideration...

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

The surprise nominee and the underdog in the Academy Award Best Picture category, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close follows Oskar Schell, a young boy with a unique perspective on the world. He embarks on a mission to keep alive a connection to his father who died in the Towers on 9/11. Although the underlying catalyst of the story is the terror attack, the film is driven by a powerful determination to find meaning in life. 

The top-billed cast members to draw attention to this work are Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock, but the real star is newcomer Thomas Horn. This young boy's performance is absolutely superb. The mass amount of vocabulary-filled lines paired with physical involvement with his character's emotion can be a challenge for even the most seasoned performer. Rightfully he's earned a Critics Choice Award for Best Young Actor and two other awards for his breakthrough role. 

I was particularly drawn to this film since I was around the same age as Oskar Schell when the attacks occurred. I can still recall exactly where I was when it happened, the look of quiet panic in the adults' eyes, and the sight of the black sky over lower-Manhattan. I believe this film exploits an important perspective on "the worst day" since children have an extraordinary ability to absorb their surroundings, and process the information at a later time. 

Granted it may not be a film for everyone, as many films are not, but the message is a reminder of what is important in life. Sometimes you have to lose yourself in order to be found, and sometimes when you experience a tragedy it takes courage to willingly take part in the adventures that are ahead of you.

"If things were easy to find, they wouldn't be worth finding."

I Coulda' Been a Conentender!

It's almost that time again, when Hollywood's talent and beauty come together for the Academy Awards. The glamorous red carpet and historic ceremony act as a crown on top of what is referred to as "award season" in the entertainment world. It is often the pillar against which all great actors, actresses, and directors are measured, and just receiving a nomination is a great honor. 

What about all those snubbed from this potential glory? Understandably there are more films released in a year than can be nominated for Best Picture, and far more performances that warrant recognition. But how do those who earned attention at the year's other high profile award shows suddenly get passed over and replaced by talents never heard of? 

Top 3 shockers with this year's nominees list:

1. Leonardo DiCaprio- Best Actor? 
J. Edgar

In this film Leo portrays the former FBI director over the course of his lifetime. It is an accomplishment in itself to show the development of a person's character over the arch of their life. Understandably, the movie perhaps moves at a slower pace, but depicting a time when the FBI was just coming about and had no guidelines, it manages to be both epic and empty in the story. 

I'm mostly just amazed that of all the amazing roles this man has played he has NEVER won an Academy Award. His diverse abilities in emotional range and passion are reason enough why having his name attached to a project can be a sole motivator for audiences to check it out. I just hope he doesn't end up like the John Wayne of this generation, who was repeatedly nominated but did not win an Oscar until 9 years before he died. "Opportunist not a patriot."

2. Steven Spielberg- Best Director? 
War Horse

It feels like Spielberg is all of a sudden working of every new project coming out of Hollywood, after ducking away from the limelight for a while. But he is excluded from the Academy's shortlist of directors for what I feel like is a reminder of what a movie should be like. The creator of the "blockbuster" brought back his signature style with War Horse, with the right mix of drama, comedy, action, wonderfully moving story, suspense, and unconditional love. Granted, he did not receive nominations from for the Golden Globe or Director's Guild of America, but it is still interesting that this two-time winner for Best Director was snubbed when his film was nominated for Best Picture. "Be Brave!"

3. The Adventure's of Tintin - Best Animated?
Inslut to injury, Spielberg's animated contribution to this year's films was excluded from the race entirely. Just as War Horse is a reminder of how a movie should entertain us, Tintin was exactly what a cartoon adventure should be like. It didn't rely in real-life applicable story with emotional pulls and definitely didn't keep to physical logic during the key action sequences, but that is why it was so thoroughly enjoyable. It feels like you are watching a throwback to the golden age of cartoons when tropes were perfectly acceptable. Aside from all this splendor, Tintin won the Golden Globe for Best Animated Feature Film, and it's usually accurate to believed the Golden Globes closely mirror the outcome of the Academy Awards. "Great Snakes!"

I suppose in regards to DiCaprio and Spielberg, we'll just have to sit tight until they're next respectable works of cinema excellence.