ReelTalk: The cold, carbon freeze of franchise filmmaking

Tag Archive: Film

ReelTalk: The cold, carbon freeze of franchise filmmaking
April 7, 2011 11:07 pm Leave a Comment

It’s one of the most iconic goodbyes committed to film. As Han Solo is pulled away from Princess Leia’s embrace to be frozen in carbonite and face possible death, she declares her love for him. In his eternally cool and wry style, Solo responds, “I know” — a line that represented everything we knew about his character.

Rumor has it the original line called for Harrison Ford to say, “I love you, too.” Ford and director Irvin Kershner fought for Ford’s version, which was improvised when shooting the film. Audiences were left with an amazing Han Solo moment, and guys around the world learned the value of maintaining control and a little bit of mystery in their own relationships. Essentially, be a tease and you’ll drive her nuts.

This scene takes place in the tremendous climax sequence of “The Empire Strikes Back,” the rare sequel that surpasses the original. The characters in the darker second (or fifth) installment of the “Star Wars” saga develop apart from each other before all of the storylines and all of the drama converge at Cloud City. Here, in increasingly dramatic fashion, the film builds to perhaps the most famous “Say what!” moment in cinematic history. I don’t even have to go there.

With the Oscars over and done, a new year for movies can finally begin. Since last year saw the number of movie tickets sold and DVD sales in steady decline, the major studios are exploring different strategies to boost their revenues. As online movie streaming grows in popularity, the entire industry will keep experimenting and adjusting to the changes. One thing, however, has remained constant. After incurring the great costs of making 20 features a year, studios do not want to end up in the red. Their solution? Putting out sequels to blockbusters. The public already recognizes these films and their characters. But unlike “Empire,” they are often formulaic and uninspired. (Yes, you, “Transformers 2” and “Indy 4.”)

A studio’s annual financial standing and the jobs of its executives typically rest upon one or two franchise films. Although these big-budget movies have the potential to spawn more sequels, countless lines of merchandise, theme park rides and other means of boosting profit, finding an audience and box office success for them is not as easy as it might seem. Just look at the dozen comic book adaptations launched every year and the relative few — like “Batman” and “Iron Man” — that see the light of another day.

If there’s one company that knows all about managing its finances — and animation, too — it’s Walt Disney. Last year, the company had the top two films at the box office: “Toy Story 3” and “Alice and Wonderland.” What is the value of a franchise? According to the Wall Street Journal, both movies made just over $1 billion globally. If you count all the ancillary markets, which include DVD sales, distribution deals and retail, “Toy Story” blows “Alice” out the rabbit hole, generating $8.8 billion to a paltry $600 million. “To infinity and beyond,” indeed.

The numbers make a huge difference in a recovering economy and a changing movie business. They explain why, in 2011, we can expect fourth installments from “Mission: Impossible,” “Pirates of the Caribbean,” “Scream” and the “Twilight” saga, and fifth films in “The Fast and the Furious,” “X-Men,” and “Shrek” franchises. And who can forget “Deathly Hallows: Part 2” — numero ocho in a seven-book series? That eensy discrepancy explains everything.

This is what the industry has become. Where are the movies with the “Empire”-type plots and scripts that must struggle to compete against these special effects-laden behemoths? Amid the wizards and spin-offs, the pirates and superheroes, there have been but a few other films that have poked through.

Fox Searchlight, the indie arm of 20th Century Fox, released “Win Win,” starring Paul Giamatti ’89, to rave reviews. Next month, Searchlight will distribute director Terrence Mallick’s next film, “The Tree of Life.” Based on the trailer and poster, it will feature a smorgasbord of breathtaking imagery paired with a story of growth and disillusionment. The independent arms of other major studios, like Focus Features and Sony Classics, have comparable lineups. Despite an industry frozen in the carbonite grip of endless sequels, there is still hope within these oft-overlooked avenues for more flexible films to wake us up.
The environment and the arts meet, collide & promote social action
April 1, 2011 3:56 am Leave a Comment

It’s not that I’m anti-environment, just anti-environmental film. Or at least that’s what ran through my head on the way to the Whitney Humanities Center for the first night of the 2011 Environmental Film Festival at Yale.

This was supposed to be straightforward. A couple of graduate students at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies were (cutely) throwing a week-long viewing party. It astonished me that some tree huggers had the audacity to slap the title of “film festival” on what amounted to a glorified “family movie night,” or, at the most, an awkward teen date with your middle school crush.

Perhaps the underlying purpose of EFFY was never clear to me, so I decided to ask Director of Public Affairs Catherine Fontana GRD ’15 for an explanation.

“The purpose of EFFY is to present incisive, cutting-edge films that raise awareness of environmental and related social issues,” she said. “We aim to facilitate meaningful discourse and spark action and innovation throughout the Yale community and beyond.”

I was skeptical, but upon arriving at the Whitney auditorium, I found it packed, filled to the brim with an audience mixed with both young and old.

The first patron I spoke with, a local New Haven resident, gave me an answer I didn’t quite expect.

“I came to see good movies.”

“There’s Netflix for that,” I (rather wittily) thought to myself.

The lights began to dim shortly thereafter, and I scrambled for a seat. The introduction came, which I didn’t listen to, and then “Waste Land” began — ninety minutes later, I was floored.

“Waste Land,” the Oscar-nominated documentary, kicked off the festival. The film follows Vik Muniz as he works with Brazil’s “catadores” (garbage pickers) to create artwork out of garbage, showing through the landfills of Rio de Janeiro, how we can recycle ourselves physically and spiritually. But much more than uplift, the film began to tear down the walls I’d erected between the environment and art.

“Waste Land” definitely began to elucidate Fontana’s point. But EFFY’s lineup, which drew on three-hundred submissions, presented seven other features and nine shorts over the week — all focusing on a different social issue, from pollution to overpopulation to animal conservation. Perhaps “The City Dark,” chronicling light pollution and the “disappearance of darkness” in the New York City, is more up your alley than Brazilian garbage pickers. “Queen of the Sun” examines the global bee crisis; “Bag It” is obsessed with plastic. The story of the rise and fall of the radical Earth Liberation Front — America’s number one domestic terrorist group — in “If A Tree Falls” rounds off the thematic variety of the festival.

But just why is EFFY so popular?

I polled a few people making their way out of the auditorium. One Yale freshman said she was interested in majoring in environmental studies, so the festival gave her the opportunity to further explore the field. Another woman, a researcher, was interested in how the films related to a symposium she conducts. A third guest came on the recommendation of a cousin.

With each person I talked to, the more it began to really sink in: there is no solid motivation unifying the audience other than pure interest.

I returned the second night (the film: Tiffany Shlain’s “Connected”) to see if my theory would hold up. The auditorium was still packed, the audience was still varied and invested, and I still remained perplexed at the success of the event.

Of course, many attendees are connected to environmental studies in some shape or fashion. But this isn’t the point of EFFY. While the films are visually impressive, their mission is to stir us to confront the social and ecological problems present in our world.

“I hope that our audience is informed about [environmental] issues and inspired to make more sustainable choices in their lives,” she said. “If these movies don’t move you, I don’t know what will!”

A few nights in, and Fontana has found herself at least one convert — mission accomplished.
A gold man is hard to find
February 25, 2011 2:20 am Leave a Comment

This Sunday, the fate of 2010’s best cinema will be decided at the 83rd Annual Academy Awards. Who will hit it big, and who will go home disgraced? Master strategist and seer of seers Tim Kressman breaks down the major categories and gives some pointers to this year’s young hosts.

//Best Director

Who Will Win: David Fincher

Who Should Win: David Fincher

Dark Horse: Tom Hooper

One of the closest — The Director’s Guild went with Hooper. Picture and Director usually line up, but Fincher’s did the most impressive work of the year.

Nominees: Darren Aronofsky (“Black Swan”), David O. Russell (“The Fighter”), Tom Hooper (“The King’s Speech”), David Fincher (“The Social Network”), Joel and Ethan Coen (“True Grit”)

//Best Picture

Will Win: “The King’s Speech”

Should Win: “Black Swan”

Dark Horse: “The Social Network”

A two-film race — “The King’s Speech” has all the momentum with the most nominations at 12. It swept the top guild awards, fits the bill for the “traditional” winner and benefits from the preferential ballot system. The only film with a chance for an upset is “The Social Network,” but the Queen herself gave “The King’s Speech” the thumbs up. So will the Academy.

Nominees: “Black Swan”, “The Fighter”, “Inception”, “The Kids Are All Right”, “The King’s Speech”, “127 Hours”, “The Social Network”, “Toy Story 3”, “True Grit”, “Winter’s Bone”

//Best Actor

Who Will Win: Colin Firth

Who Should Win: Colin Firth

Dark Horse: None

King Colin. Thank you for playing.

Nominees: Javier Bardem (“Biutiful”), Jeff Bridges (“True Grit”), Jesse Eisenberg (“The Social Network”), Colin Firth (“The King’s Speech”), James Franco (“127 Hours”)

//Best Actress

Who Will Win: Natalie Portman

Who Should Win: Natalie Portman

Black Swan: Annette Bening

Portman’s been in the game for a long time, and this is a career-defining performance. But Bening’s overdue — she has been nominated three times before and is also a governor of the Academy with lots of support.

Nominees: Annette Bening (“The Kids Are All Right”), Nicole Kidman (“Rabbit Hole”), Jennifer Lawrence (“Winter’s Bone”), Natalie Portman (“Black Swan”), Michelle Williams (“Blue Valentine”)

//Best supporting actor

Who Will Win: Christian Bale

Who Should Win: John Hawkes

Dark Horse: Geoffrey Rush

It’s Bale v. Rush for the title. Bale has never won before, but also has a bad boy rep in the industry. Rush’s speech therapist perfectly complements Colin Firth’s king — if the Academy is persuaded by “The King’s Speech,” this will go to Rush.

Nominees: Christian Bale (“The Fighter”), John Hawkes (“Winter’s Bone”), Jeremy Renner (“The Town”), Mark Ruffalo (“The Kids Are All Right”), Geoffrey Rush (“The King’s Speech”)

//Best Supporting Actress

Who Will Win: Hailee Steinfeld

Who Should Win: Melissa Leo

Dark Horse: Helena Bonham Carter

I’m going to take a risk here and go with Steinfeld. Besides, the supporting races are typically the hardest to predict. How great would it be to see a 14-year-old win an Oscar? She was the lead in “True Grit” and held her own against Old Man Bridges. Leo could win, but she put out her own “For Your Consideration” ads — generally a no-no — and Adams presents a votesplitter situation. And don’t count out Carter, though this is not as likely since she does’t shine in “The King’s Speech.” Look out for this one!

Nominees: Amy Adams (“The Fighter”), Helena Bonham Carter (“The King’s Speech”), Melissa Leo (“The Fighter”), Hailee Steinfeld (“True Grit”), Jacki Weaver (“Animal Kingdom”)

//Best Adapted Screenplay

Will Win: “The Social Network”

Should Win: “The Social Network”

Dark Horse: None

Take it to the bank. “The Social Network” is a fantastic script from Aaron Sorkin and has swept the writer’s awards this year.

Nominees: “127 Hours”, “The Social Network”, “Toy Story 3”, “True Grit”, “Winter’s Bone”

//Best Original Screenplay

Who Will Win: “The King’s Speech”

Who Should Win: “The King’s Speech”

Dark Horse: “Inception”

“The King’s Speech” is the frontrunner. It’s based on notebooks written by Lionel Logue, and the writer David Seidler suffered from a stammer himself. “Inception” is no doubt a creative powerhouse — this could be Christopher Nolan’s consolation prize for being snubbed for Director — but this is “The King’s Speech”’s award to lose.

Nominees: “Another Year”, “The Fighter”, “Inception”, “The Kids Are All Right”, “The King’s Speech”
Noé fills the ‘Void’
2:07 am Leave a Comment

It’s been a while since the world of cinema has been shaken to its core. Every few years, critics everywhere will hail a filmmaker’s work as “groundbreaking,” or perhaps even “wildly original”⎯— but rarely is a filmmaker able to package the history of experimental cinema and re-gift it in such a way that it changes our perception of the cinematic experience itself. “Enter the Void,” by French filmmaker Gaspar Noé, just might be the most awe-inspiring film since Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey,” a journey so unimaginable its closest analogy is death.

The self-described “psychedelic melodrama” is set in Tokyo and follows the life of an American-born drug dealer named Oscar who’s shot and killed by Tokyo police after a drug deal gone awry. Beginning with Oscar’s death, Noé delves deep into a rough chronological telling of Oscar’s life from the perspective of his ghost, which revisits his death at a Tokyo night club and continues drifting over the shoulder of his sister Linda, played by the sensual Paz de la Huerta. Filled with overtly fetishized sexual deviance, vast hallucinogen-induced periods of astral drift, and nauseating gore, “Enter the Void” is not a breezy trip to the theatre; those looking for conventional tropes like “narrative” and “character development” should be wary. Rather, what Noé offers is an out-of-body experience. From the moment Noé invokes the nether space between life and death, the camera soars effortlessly above the neon-bathed Tokyo skyline, redering the audience mesmerized and detached from the physical world — in effect, the absurd yet visceral horrors constantly barraging the audience are rendered amoral and meaningless. “Enter the Void” is simply numbing.

If you have a keen eye for fringe cinema, you could have caught “Enter the Void” at the Criterion Theater here in New Haven. Released last September under a “long tail” distribution strategy by IFC, it floated around independent theaters before riding the hype machine to the big time. Its reign was short lived, but it remained in the limelight long enough to be completely ripped off by Kanye West in his video for “All of the Lights.” What does it mean when perhaps the most polarizing and disturbing film of the last decade is ripped off by Kanye?

Reviewing the nominees for this weekend’s Academy Awards, independent cinema looks to be quite healthy. “Winter’s Bone,” a film whose distribution rights were bought by Roadside Attractions for under $500,000 at last year’s Sundance Film Festival garnered a nomination for Best Picture. Its lead, Jennifer Lawrence, is nominated for Best Actress. In what is perhaps an emerging paradigm for independent cinema, a minimalist, well made film like “Winter’s Bone” with low production costs, low distribution costs and a limited marketing scheme is essentially guaranteed at least a minimal profit. Its four Oscar nominations are merely the icing on the cake.

One of the great cultural uncertainties today is the effect of the Internet and easily accessible production technology will have on the arts. Since the mid-nineties, the number of films produced has quintupled, the number of films distributed has doubled, and the number of companies competing for distribution rights has tripled. This seems like a progression toward greater inclusion, yet cries from the fringe continue. Although distribution has widened, it lags behind overall film production. Since only a portion of the films produced can possibly be distributed, this newly tightened bottleneck paints a picture of an independent film industry in crisis.

Independent films are also seeing an unprecedented wave of competition from the Internet — a limitless tap for easily accessible, but artistically questionable, entertainment. If the audience does its part to separate the wheat from the chaff, this should only raise the quality of films that make it to theaters; it’s simple survivor of the fittest. Of course, the weight of responsibility is not solely on the audience. It takes filmmakers like Noé — who created the equivalent of a cinematic “Big Bang” — to reawaken filmmakers and their increasingly apathetic audience.

Some potential “Bangs” in 2011: Crispin Glover’s “It Is Mine,” the third and final installment in his disturbingly psychosexual “It” series, and Alejandro Jadorowsky’s long-awaited sequel to the 1970 cult western classic “El Topo,” penned “Abel Cain.”
ReelTalk: The sure things
February 11, 2011 2:25 am Leave a Comment

At the end of every episode of “Inside the Actor’s Studio,” host James Lipton asks his guest the “Bernard Pivot questionnaire.” Lipton’s infamous questions on career choices, Academy Awards and inspiration suddenly become, “What turns you on?” and, “What is your favorite curse word?” It’s a highlight of the program: moving away from film-as-craft and putting the high-profile star at ease, which, in turn, incites only the best and sometimes the most inappropriate of responses.

Moments like this provide a unique glimpse into the personalities of each guest, and more specifically, how they approach acting. These interviews reveal that the great actors are not the celebrities who serve as daily tabloid fodder, but iconic figures who recognize their talent and enjoy the challenge of completely transforming into a character onscreen or onstage.

Some actors thoroughly prepare for each role, reciting their lines upwards of 250 times, while others rely more on improvisation and spontaneity, as Robert DeNiro and Jodie Foster ’85 did so well in “Taxi Driver.” What always remains true is that acting is a means of self-discovery. Actors do not have all the answers, just as we, the audience, have to discover for ourselves what separates a regular part in a movie from a truly masterful performance.

But what makes a great performance? When we think of the greatest roles in the history of cinema, certain names and films come to mind: Marlon Brando in “On the Waterfront,” Peter O’Toole in “Lawrence of Arabia,” Meryl Streep DRA ’74 in “Sophie’s Choice.” Why do they stand out? In some cases, it’s the preparation, physically morphing into character through weight loss or gain, deglamorizing and training months before filming. In others, it has more to do with presence. Despite the fact Anthony Hopkins is onscreen for only 16 minutes in “The Silence of the Lambs,” his chilling persona not only dominates the movie, but has you scared of moths and “fava beans and a nice Chianti” for the rest of your life (cue slurping noise).

As Feb. 27 draws closer by the day, the Academy will crown its favorites in acting. Although an Oscar win does not necessarily equal a great performance, it adds credibility to the work and gives the distinguished title of Oscar winner to the actor. Two of the odds-on favorites — Colin Firth in “The King’s Speech” and Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” — gave performances that not only represent high points in their careers, but also rank among the best in recent years.

What is so striking about Colin Firth in “The King’s Speech” is not how effortlessly he pulls off King George VI’s stammer or his relationships with his speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) and wife (Helena Bonham Carter). It’s how convincing he is as a royal figure, who transcends his status to become an everyday man trying to overcome a great obstacle.

Firth is a huge reason why “The King’s Speech” succeeds as a film. We sense his every fear, every emotion, from the first trip he makes to Geoffrey Rush’s door to the memorable F-bombs scene to the long walk to deliver his speech to a waiting nation. It is all there in Firth’s expressions, his charisma, his presence — and it is the mark of truly magnificent work.

Natalie Portman’s Nina Sayers in “Black Swan” could be seen as the subtler of the two performances, and the product of years of training. “Black Swan” makes it as easy to forget Portman’s track record (especially the “Star Wars” movies) as it was for her character to forget her mom’s presence in the bedroom — you know the scene. She nails the ballet, bringing emotion and physicality to Nina’s story. As she transforms from the innocent, unassuming white swan into the black swan, we see Portman bring about Nina’s descent into madness, becoming a victim to art and losing her grasp on the world around her. Her distress, frustration and ultimate satisfaction all coalescing in the final act mark the completion of her character arch and the great range in Portman’s performance.

Firth and Portman’s roles this year represented the cream of the crop, the best acting of the year, and they are sure to be honored as Best Actor and Best Actress at the Academy Awards. They carried their films and removed their sense of self to fully immerse in their characters. When answering the question, “What makes a great performance?” you need look no further than here.
Bollywood vs. the world
January 28, 2011 2:28 am Leave a Comment

This week, the Yale South Asian Film Society’s film festival has brought more than just a bit of Bollywood to New Haven.

The festival seeks to update the perception of Indian cinema and increase awareness of the different cultures of the region. The screenings range from political documentaries and art films to international blockbusters, all aimed to show the different facets of modern South Asian cinema.

Snigdha Sur ’12, a WEEKEND staff writer and the president of the Yale South Asian Film Society, said that this year the festival focused on screening a wide range of films, rather than zooming in on one specific genre.

“There is a reason we are called South Asian Film Festival rather than simply Indian or Bollywood (Film Festival),” she said.

The festival kicked off Monday with a talk in LC 102. Aseem Chhabra, a freelance writer and Bollywood film critic, talked about Bollywood cinema and its perception in the world.

“Most of the time when we talk about Bollywood, colorful costumes and musical numbers come to mind,” he said. He noted that the Indian cinema industry produces approximately 900 films each year, making it the largest film producer in the world. (Hollywood only produces around 300 films in a year.)

But not every film is shown in the Mumbai cinemas. In fact, Bollywood is only a subcategory of a huge industry that includes Tamil, Bengal and South Indian films.

“A lot of people are unhappy with the term Bollywood,” Chhabra said.

The term was coined in the late ’90s, but the history of Indian film stretches back even before the advent of talkies, or films with sound.

Bollywood films are characterized by vibrant costumes, vigorous dance sequences and an amalgamation of romance and melodrama. In 1931, India produced its first sound film made from American junk equipment. “Alam Ara” premiered in Mumbai to crowds that had to be kept in check by police. It became the transformative element in Indian cinema, later leading to the unique form of Bollywood.

From its inception, Mumbai-made films were dominated with musical numbers. “Alam Ara” featured seven songs; a year later, “Indrasabha” would feature 70. While Hollywood has slowly turned away from musical film since the 1960s, Bollywood has clung to the tradition for nearly a century. Even blockbusters, like “Lagaan” (2001), which made it to the Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film, feature as many as eight songs.

These musical numbers often result in a lack of spatial unity: “A film that was shot in India would have songs shot in Switzerland popping up out of nowhere,” Chhabra said.

But Chhabra said that Indian cinema is moving in a new direction. Filmmakers strive for more chronological unity and a greater sense of reality. It is this new type of Indian film that the festival will bring to campus this weekend. “Udaan” (2010), a low-budget film that is nominated at the Cannes Film Festival, will be screened on Saturday. The film marks the first time in eight years that an Indian production has been nominated.

Sur said that the film’s success stems from its “greater depth of character” and ability to “showcase the diversity of the culture in the region.”

“It is ultimately the experiences of life that one can relate to,” she said.“‘Udaan’ is very grounded in reality.”

By securing a nomination at Cannes, “Udaan” has managed a feat that has eluded Indian filmmakers since the nomination of “Lagaan”: it has inadvertently managed to appeal to a global pool beyond its target audience.

The other films being screened this weekend also fall into the this “accidental cross-over” category. “Rang De Basanti,” India’s official entry for the Academy Awards, is the most commercially succesful of the films, but the others have received critical acclaim. The film’s director, Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra — who also directed another festival selection, “Delhi-6” — will give a talk at the Whitney Humanities Center today at 9:30 p.m. “Tere Bin Laden” (Laden, For You), scheduled for screening this Sunday, is a satirical comedy targeting the United States’ policies in the war on terror and featuring young Pakistani actor Ali Zafar. A documentary about a controversial Pakistani politician, the late Benazir Bhutto, was screened on Tuesday.

Echoing the goal of the festival itself, Sur noted that these are the kind of films that appeal to a global audience. These are films for more than just a cult of South Asians.
ReelTalk: And now we have a race
12:10 am Leave a Comment

The Golden Globes came and went, as did the untelevised Producer’s Guild Awards and Tuesday morning’s Oscar nominations. For the first time this awards season, we have a race to the finish for the Best Picture Oscar of 2010.

“The Social Network” was the early favorite, sweeping all the major critics’ awards and taking the Globe for Best Picture (Drama) two weeks ago. I was watching the ceremony with the Yale Film Society, and was glad that our party distracted me from the monotony of “The Social Network”’s repeated victories. The thing is, it isn’t exciting when one film sweeps the board. There’s no suspense, no surprise, and for movie buffs, it makes watching these long awards shows, well, long.

Last Saturday night changed everything. The Producer’s Guild, a trade organization representing 4,000 or so film and television producers, held its annual awards ceremony. Not only was this the first test of how Oscar voters will vote on the big night on February 27, but it also produced a game-changing result: “The King’s Speech,” directed by Tom Hooper, triumphed. This was an underdog victory comparable to the Jets beating the Pats. “The Social Network” machine hit its first roadblock, and the momentum has since swung in favor of “The King’s Speech.” When Oscar nominations were announced Tuesday, the film had earned 12 nominations, well ahead of all its competitors.

What does this all mean? In the complex web of awards circuits leading up to the Oscars, nothing is ever for certain. Studios typically save their best films for a release later in the year, in the hope that they will remain in the public consciousness and win at the Academy Awards. Every once in a blue moon you have a film like “The Silence of the Lambs,” which was released in February and won Best Picture at the following year’s ceremony. But this NEVER happens. The race is always routine.

The critics’ awards are the first on the map. Every big city has a critics group that votes for their favorite movies and performances of the year. The New York, Los Angeles and Boston critics are the most established and put forth the early frontrunners. In recent years, with the growth of the Internet, pundits who track the leading candidates on blogs like The Envelope and Awards Daily have also played a huge role in boosting the profile of certain films and creating the hype necessary for carrying a movie and its performers through to Oscar glory.

In January, the awards most important in signaling leading Oscar candidates are given out. The largest film critics’ group, the Broadcast Film Critics Association, hosts the first televised ceremony of the season. The Globes follow in mid-January. Though this is perhaps the most recognized film awards show after the Oscars, there is no overlap in the voting bodies; the Globes are chosen by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, consisting of 93 journalists, as opposed to the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences. The two often disagree. Last year, the Foreign Press chose “Avatar” for Best Picture, while the Academy went with “The Hurt Locker.”

The guilds that represent thousands of producers, screen actors and directors distribute honors in January and February. Because many of these people are also members of the Academy, these distinctions are the best indicators of what will go down on Oscar night.

The Academy has been around the longest and is by far the most exclusive; membership comes by invitation only. The 6,000 members of the Academy (as compared to the 100,000 members in the Screen Actor’s Guild alone) nominate films or actors in categories relevant to their expertise, as well as their top 10 films of the year. Once these votes are tallied, the top vote getters are nominated officially, as they were on Tuesday. The Academy then holds the Oscars at the end of February or early March. This is the finish line.

Since the Oscars end a long slog of nominations, awards shows, campaigning and surprises, a lot can change in the span of three months. Being a frontrunner and Golden Globe winner in January does not guarantee an Oscar. Just ask Meryl Streep DRA ’76. This is what we see happening now in the Best Picture race.

At the Producer’s Guild Awards, the producers crowned “The King’s Speech.” It was also the first time this year we’ve seen the industry vote using the preferential ballot, which the Academy adopted last year when they expanded the Best Picture field to 10 nominees instead of five. This system most favors Tom Hooper’s film.

The movie that gets the most number one votes will not be assured the win unless it has greater than 50 percent of the vote. In this year’s field, that’s not likely to happen. What becomes most important are the second, third and fourth place votes that are redistributed from the films that have the fewest first-place votes. “The King’s Speech” is the safest bet to get these votes. It’s not as polarizing as some of the other contenders, and it has the perfect blend of Oscar bait. It’s a heartwarming historical drama centered on how King George VI overcame a stammer with the help of his speech therapist, and it includes dynamite performances in Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, and Helena Bonham Carter, great all-around filmmaking and Harvey Weinstein.

Although I do not think we should write off “The Social Network” just yet, “The King’s Speech” has certainly taken advantage of the change in momentum. This weekend, one pivotal question will be answered: Which cast will take the Screen Actor’s ensemble award? If “The King’s Speech” can prevail here, it’s golden.
Yale loves YouTube and other things we know
January 14, 2011 1:39 am Leave a Comment
Yale has had monumental YouTube successes. From Sam Tsui ’11 to our admissions videos, Yale productions have garnered millions of views. In November, a new Web series was launched; “Backwash,” written by Joshua Malina ’88, could be the next Yalie production to go viral.

The Web series claims to be a retelling of a “lost manuscript” of the (fake) novel “Backwash” by William Makepeace Thackeray (yes, the author of Vanity Fair). Each of the 13 episodes represents a new “chapter” in the book. The show documents the misadventures of three men: Jonesy (Michael Panes, “Confessions of a Shopaholic”), the co-dependent 10-year-old stuck in a 35-year-old man’s

body; Val (Joshua Malina ’88, “The West Wing”), Jonesy’s roommate and caretaker; and Fleming (Michael Ian Black, “Wet Hot American Summer”), the flamboyant ice cream man who rounds out the trio. The plot begins as Jonesy accidentially robs a bank and with each episode, the three sympathetic characters dig themselves deeper into trouble as they chaotically flee from the police.

The show boasts big-name guest stars such as “Mad Men’s” Jon Hamm, “Harold and Kumar’s” John Cho, “The West Wing’s” Allison Janney and Dule Hill, and various others. Each episode begins with a monologue and subsequent narration from each of these guest stars.

The show is certainly aimed at a college crowd — with crude humor, foul language and drug use, it has all the elements that make a college demographic laugh.

But “Backwash” lost me after a few episodes. The script relies too heavily on amplified clichés that fall flat with the execution — a mentally challenged Jonesy tripling his wealth on one spin of a roulette wheel and the portrayal of Val and Fleming’s accidental LSD trip are overdone, and not in the hip ironic way. Sarah Silverman’s guest appearance on the show is a perfect fit for the brand of humor that it displays: It is more often offensive and unfunny than it is effective social commentary. The pitfalls of the show lie not in the writing (which could actually be funny) but in the pathetic overacting of the stars — surprising, given their relative fame and experience.

[ydn-legacy-photo-inline id=”630″ ]

[ydn-legacy-photo-inline id=”629″ ]

[ydn-legacy-photo-inline id=”628″ ]

That said, “Backwash” has elements that are sure to make it the next fauxhemian craze. Averaging now at only a little over 1,000 views, the names are sure to bring in more fans, or at least viewers.

The show is both charmingly self-deprecating and shamelessly self-promoting. In her monologue, Sarah Silverman remarks that Michael Ian Black is nothing more than an “obnoxious VH1 talking head”; in episode “the number 9” the narrator comments on how cliched the plot “twists” were. Then again, at some point Jon Hamm calls “Backwash” the “best Web series ever.”

In addition to being penned by a Yalie, the music is composed by alum Brian H. Kim ’05. Besides the occasional singing cop, however, music was hardly noticeable on the show.

Despite its claim to be written by an author who died in 1863, scenes took place in Reno and jumped from Coney Island, N.Y., to Albuquerque, N.M. Cell phones and cars played a prominent role in the plot. I mean, it was clearly not the 19th century. While this was noticeably on purpose, one can still only describe the Web series as inconsistent, not “nouvelle bohème,” or even “weird.” Ultimately, “Backwash” jumped all over the place leaving me with a bad taste in my mouth.

You can watch “Backwash” on cracked.com or see the entire series in a row at youtube.com/show/backwash.
Nick’s cinema column about, like, life
October 29, 2010 1:58 am Leave a Comment

The difficulty with most popular cinema these days is that it doesn’t know exactly where to start critiquing the world. Take the clever blockbuster that everyone’s talking about: “The Social Network.” Sure, charting the rise and rise of Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg from his time as a Harvard undergrad is fascinating, but for a story that doesn’t really ‘tell it as it is’ (take, for example, all the allegations that the truth was, in fact, distorted), “Network” seems confused about what, if any, conclusions we should be drawing.

Starting with a song whose lyrics go “I want to have control, / I want a perfect body, / I want a perfect soul,” the advertisement promises us a more revealing look at why exactly everybody wants to share their life over the internet these days. A pat topic, you may think, but at least you can look forward to a new viewpoint informed by history. And though watching Zuckerberg and friends sleep with hot coeds, go to bangin’ parties and, well, drink, for a couple of hours is fun, the answer to the problem that we get (exclusivity?) falls a little flat. Don’t get me wrong; I liked it — I wanted to be an internet geek by the end of it, and I even thought Harvard seemed kinda cool (silly me), but when the shock wore off, and I lay in bed awake, trying to piece my thoughts together, I felt a little cheated.

Why do people want to be perfect these days? Why do they want control? These two very different demands expose more of a dialectic in postmodernity than the entire film put together. It’s almost as if the team putting together the advert — and the people behind the parody “Twitter” advert on YouTube.com’s “Rated Awesome” channel — were more astute than the entire team that worked on the feature; they knew that these are the questions that people want answered these days.

So why do we all “want to have control” these days? Guy Ben Ner’s “Stealing Beauty” (2008), on ubu.com, is shot on a low-quality video camera in Ikeas around Germany without permission; as it moves from showcase room to showcase room (presumably as the team is kicked out of each Ikea), the film chronicles an Israeli family teaching their children about the values of private property (the youngest child has just been caught stealing). But in a world where the private has been elided (the wife catches the husband “masturbating in the shower” in an all-too-public Ikea as people wander past), what good is private property? Thoughts that don’t conform are to be shared and ideologised, or swept under a rug, and we’re always trying to look into the next-door neighbour’s yard. Ben Ner shows us a world where the private is now the public, and anyone trying to escape it is described as a “terrorist” by the patriarch of the family.

But escaping the world is exactly what having control is about, at least on a personal level. Not having control is submitting oneself to the dominant ideology, and having control is affirming one’s worth as a person. YouTube’s “slow stackin” (2008) by “amneiotj” emphasises this perhaps even better — a video of a “Blood” gang member performing an extraordinary dance with his hands (stackin’ gang signs), the film is similar to many others on YouTube as the protagonist proceeds to stack signs quicker and better than anyone else I can find. But then, in a final moment of artistic ‘jouissance,’ he rips his glasses from his face and reveals his identity. There, in the moment of pure perfection, pure conformity to the rules of the gang, he shows his face and becomes an individual, putting his middle finger up to the camera and shouting “woo hoo.” He has, for a moment, escaped the pervasiveness of hegemony.

The second question, about wanting “to have a perfect body,” is answered best, I think, by Guy Debord’s “Critique de la Separation” (1961), available on ubu.com. In the film, we are given a “false coherence” and a “false identification” with a girl we know nothing about. Yet the sensory stimulation has made us conform to her image at least mentally, maybe even copy what she does, in the manner of ritual in a church. We are just copying what has been chosen as perfect on TV, and Debord hates this “separation” between what we do because we see it, and what we do because we are we.

This basic opposition is, I think, a key cause of people’s uneasiness with late capitalism, a system that tells us “be who you want to be” and “don’t resist; this is how to be perfect” again and again, day-in, day-out. And, though I didn’t come to “The Social Network” expecting real, concrete answers, I at least expected it to try some out.
“Bright college years” turn dark in new film
1:53 am Leave a Comment

A Yale professor will rise from the grave this Halloween, to re-live his “bright college years.”

After a year of filming and production, “Bright College Years,” a 35-minute horror film, came to life at its first premiere Thursday night in the Jonathan Edwards College Theater. The film will also be screened on Friday and Saturday as part of this week’s Halloween festivities.

Directed by Zach Groff ’13 and produced by Katherine Nelson ’13, “Bright College Years” tells the tale of a girl who is being stalked by a dead professor. In her search for help, she and her boyfriend try to find a professor of paranormal psychology to help them escape the menace.

“Part of my vision for the project was to have it make use of Yale’s mythology, to basically take advantage of the ‘Yale as Hogwarts’ notion,” Groff said.

Groff said the idea to produce a scary movie was inspired by “Drag Me to Hell,” a 2009 horror film directed by Sam Raimi. Groff, who has also been involved with theater, said he has been making a movie every year since tenth grade, although they have always been short films. After arriving at Yale, Groff decided to focus on film rather than theater, and began thinking of ideas for a longer piece.

“I thought it would be really fun to work on a movie with some of those ‘gotcha moments,’” he said. “I also saw it as an opportunity to tell a story the way I like to tell it: with black humor, a creepy atmosphere and disturbing the audience at times.”

Before Groff assembled his cast and crew, “Bright College Years” was little more than an idea. Groff did not begin to write the script until just before winter break last year, after he had determined whom he was going to be working with.

Charlie Polinger ’13, one of the cast members, said at the time many of the actors were also busy with other shows, and therefore filming had to be spread out. Nevertheless, some shots were filmed approximately 50 times, he added.

“Zach was particular about how he wants it,” Polinger said. “We had a lot of fun working on it.”

Most of the filming took place at Sterling Memorial Library as well the Haas Arts Library. Groff said he wanted the filming to take place in early spring while the trees were still barren and when it wasn’t too cold, but most of the indoor scenes were filmed during the winter.

“It’s definitely been a long project,” said Laura Tunbridge ’13, the assistant director. ”We all worked really hard.”

Tunbridge said the biggest challenge was the make up. Nelson added that most of the budget went towards make-up products. The make-up designer, Michael Sarnoski ’10, also worked on the Yale Zombie Project, another horror film which came out last semester.

Groff edited the film over the summer before handing it over to Andi Zhou ’13, who added the scores.

“Bright College Years” was awarded a Sudler Grant in order to fund production.
'Never let me go' never lets go of the system
October 15, 2010 3:14 am Leave a Comment

We are born into a system that we never resist, we do our job and then we die.

This may be a platitude, but in “Never Let Me Go”, the story of Tommy (Andrew Garfield), Kathy (Carey Mulligan) and Ruth (Keira Knightley), adapted from Kazuo Ishiguro’s 2005 novel, this logic takes on an altogether different significance.

You see, the children playing in the idyllic fields of Hailsham (a slightly sinister English boarding school) at the beginning of the movie are actually clones who’ll have their organs harvested in their early twenties. The film makes no bones about it and it’s pretty clear early on that this is going to happen. Death for them is called “completion”, and as they cycle through their short lives waiting to be shuttled off to a donor hospital (yes, they are called “donors”, as if the operation is voluntary), its shadow hangs over them. It haunts every glance, every glimmer of conversation and every interaction.

Even love, that all-powerful force that seems to sweep away the deathly machinery of bureaucracy in other narratives, is powerless to halt the inevitable. There is a rumour among the clone children that if they love one another enough, they can seek a deferral of their donations of up to four years or become a “carer” who looks after donors. But even these options can only postpone the eventual “completion”.

The love portrayed in the film is as helpless and fragile as the scene where the child Kathy holds onto a pillow, swaying slightly as she listens to a tape Tommy has bought her at the school “bumper” sale. The child is vulnerable in her cocoon as the camera circles ’round her and shows she is being watched by Ruth, who is planning to get Tommy for herself. Warm against the storm for a moment, we know she must drop the pillow and succumb soon.

Faced with such a dire situation, the characters of the movie never seem to resist. They become upset, emotional and depressed, but they still continue upon the path to their own impending oblivion. They seek a deferral, but they never try to run away. The characters do everything by the book, signing in and out of the “National Donor Programme’s” residences. And although they’re cushioned by the hollows and green lanes of the English countryside around them (beautifully captured by director Mark Romanek and rendered even more wonderful by Rachel Portman’s music), every moment of beauty is broken by the realisation that these characters are doomed.

Now, this blind acceptance of fate, especially such a horrible one, might seem unfamiliar to us, but then again, it’s closer to home than one might think. Even here at Yale, we are constantly integrating ourselves into a system that is horribly violent, preparing ourselves for years of suffering at an investment bank and getting depressed about the world, but never rocking the boat. After watching this film, the viewer (feeling perhaps slightly bereft of his/her vital organs!) is forced to make a comparison between the world of Tommy, Kathy and Ruth and his/her own. So why don’t you run away, why don’t you resist? Can’t you imagine anything beyond our own system?