With regards to the Academy Awards

A lot of people ask me how I feel about the Academy Awards. I used to tell people how much I hated the over-produced, phoney ceremony because of it's ability to dumb-down nominated films with pretentious monologues given by high-strung, ADD-ridden comics and the like. 

Let's be honest. I still feel this way.

That being said, I've always appreciated the mass-appeal the Oscars have on our movie-going society, and how it affects absolutely everyone I know in some way, shape or form. 

If there's one thing I find more interesting than the Oscars themselves, it's the buzz that fills the air around Oscar season. Like politics, sports and "Octo-mom," it seems most free-thinking individuals have an opinion concerning the entertainment value and viability of this particular awards show.  

There are some people who back the Oscars vehemently, arguing they help promote and ultimately support all the hard work individuals put into bringing a film from paper to screen. And then there are those who either "don't care" about the Oscars, or hate them outright. Many of the Oscar-haters I know argue the show little more than the visual representation of a pseudo-trashy gossip magazine: 20 minutes of newsworthy information peppered on top of hours of mindless celebrity interviews, commentary on clothing and conjecture on who's dating who. To be honest, they're not all that far from wrong.  

But here's the catch.

The secret is, we ALL love the Oscars, whether we'd like to admit it or not. 

No other awards show galvanizes opinion quite like the Oscars. I can't remember the last time I heard a heated discussion about, say, the Day-time Emmys. Furthermore, no other show gets the kind of coverage the Oscars do. 

I scanned the four major Canadian dailies yesterday. Not only did all four report on the winners, but they all posted extensive coverage on several "feel-good" winner stories (the win of the Japanese documentary "Departures" was especially poignant). Also included online were those prerequisite photo galleries that accompany every Oscars ceremony, including but not limited to the venerable "best and worst dressed" galleries. Many of the outlets also posted up-to-the-minute blog rolls and "live chats" to chronicle and comment on every second-by-second development, although I'm not entirely sure what they thought was going to happen. Perhaps a broken heel on the red carpet. "Heel Gate."

Follow these links and see how extensive each outlet's coverage was.

1. Globe and Mail (CTVGlobeMedia)
2. Toronto Star (TorStar)
3. Toronto Sun (Sun Media) 
4. National Post (CanWest)

How many international arts events are covered as extensively as the Oscars each year? How many of these events generate buzz six-months before showtime, and sporadically throughout the year (how many times to you hear someone say "that film's going to win an Oscar")?

My point in looking at this coverage is that it suggests something about the close-knit relationship our society has with film in general and the Hollywood star system in particular, as typified by the Oscars. 

We love the star system, whether we want to believe we do or not. We love to comment on who's dating who, who's wearing what, and who's going to win. Perhaps more importantly, we love to comment on why we hate the star system, the celebrity gossip and an awards show that is biased and full of pomp, despite the fact that most of us have no say in the voting process whatsoever. Talking about why one hates gossip isn't all that different from gossiping about why one hates gossip, is it? 

I like the Oscars. I'll watch if they're on, but I'm never terribly upset if I miss them. I watched the last half of this year's program and was, for the most part, impressed. I enjoyed their decision to have past winners come on stage and talk about those films/actors up for nomination. Even if the whole process was a touch contrived, it still shifted of the awards on creating a dialogue about a film/performance as an artistic work, and not as the backdrop to celebrity gossip, although it's not like the camera didn't cut between Jennifer Aniston and Brangelina every four minutes...lets be real here. It's not exactly the Nobel Prize ceremonies. 

But still, let's not forget, the Oscars aren't really about us anyway. I'm sure the nominees don't care in the slightest whether Jim the banker hated the awards ceremony. All they care about is winning the gold statue. They say they care about being nominated, but I'm sure they cry themselves to sleep at night...possibly with shampoo bottles like Kate Winslet used to do. Who knows.

The rest of the western world, though, cares. Even those who are blasé show a fleeting interest at who won the major categories still care in a way. 

Yes the Oscars can be weak, but complaining about them is even weaker. 

While reading the Toronto Sun's coverage, I found a comment left by "Bryan" that says

"Pretty bad when the National news is an hour late because of overpaid actors worshipping themselves. Who won? Who cares?" 

My answer: You do pal. 

(Photo courtesy of Reuters)

Film Review: The Rocker (2008)

I knew this would happen. 

I was at the local video store looking for something to rent on the weekend. It has been a while since I had perused the new releases section, and I was eager to see what bountiful booty had found its way to the shelves. As I generally hate being major chain video stores (especially the half-assed branches that exist in my home town), my goal was to pick a flick quickly, then leave with my soul intact.

It was a toss up between two flicks: the new X-Files release (X-Files: I Want to Believe) with Billy Connolly, and The Rocker, with Rainn Wilson. While I'm interested to see what sitting in production purgatory for 10 years did (or didn't) do for the X-Files film, I decided The Rocker was the way to go. After all, who wants to deal with heavy Alien/Conspiracy dialogue on the Sunday night of a long weekend?

Here's the other side of the coin though. Reading the back of The Rocker, I knew it had the potential to...well...rock. Hair-Metal, Rock cliches, Rainn Wilson? Guaranteed to illicit a few laughs, right? Yet with all the awesome-ness, there was that nagging possibility that The Rocker could take a nosedive 2/3's of the way through. I knew it going in, but It was a risk I was willing to take.

....And, well, I was right.  

As mentioned, The Rocker stars Rainn Wilson (The Office) as Robert 'Fish' Fishman, a 30-something desk jockey vehemently obsessed with the rock star life he once had as original drummer for the hair-metal mega-band Vesuvius.  

Fast-foward to 10 years (or so) later. Vesuvius is the biggest band in the world, and Fish is stuck floundering in an office. A series of events brings him in contact with his nephew Matt (Josh Gad), and his teenaged angst-ridden high-school band A.D.D. Fish eventually joins A.D.D., whose mismatched musical line-up produces hilarious results...for a while.

Watching this film, I hoped - no prayed - that it would take the high road and not stroll down the Skid Row of American comedies: the three-act rags-t0-riches-with-a-touch-of-love plotline. But after the first 30 minutes, it became quite apparent The Rocker was not only going down to Skid Row, but it was looking to score some smack and die the OD death of a rockstar on the curb. 

The film opens up with some absolutely hilarious moments. Vesuvius' opening performance with Rainn Wilson along side Will Arnett (Arrested Development, this hillarious clip), Fred Armisen (SNL, the "creepy Italian" in EuroTrip) and Bradley Cooper (Alias, He's Just Not That Into You...ugh) is so well executed, that it's oddly and accurately reminiscent of the flamboyant hair-metal performances that typified the '80s. 

Other comedic heavy weights, including Jeff Garlin, Jane Lynch, Human Giant's Aziz Ansari and SNL's Jason Sudeikis as the slimy, over-confident band manager (check this clip out) give this film a hard and fast comedic edge that fools the audience in believing the laughs can last right to the end.

Performances newcomers Josh Gad, and Emma Stone are particularly brilliant, and a pleasure to watch on-screen. Both actors display an astute sense of comedic timing and presence well beyond their years, and hold their own in obvious ad-lib matches with the much more seasoned professionals in the film. 

And then it happens...Enter Christina Applegate. 

I like Christina Applegate, but her abrupt appearance 2/3's into the film meant only one thing: Love Interest. Well, it meant two things: Love interest followed by me vomiting in my mouth.

Her appearance sets of a cataclysmic chain of events where characters start falling in love, learning about morals and coming to terms with their pasts...Wonderful. As a result, the last 1/3 of the film was a blur to me, because I stopped paying attention and started looking for blunt instruments to gouge my eyes out with.

I'm not opposed to love on film (I think The Notebook is wonderfully directed and beautifully acted). I am opposed to love subplots when they're injected in a formulaic manner into a film that doesn't need it. When Applegate is introduced, it's not hard for the audience to guess the sequence of events...

1. Girl introduced to guy, is annoyed by his childish ways (etc.)

2. Guy, in turn, thinks girl is a prude and says/does things to annoy her

3. Cosmic forces intervene to bring Guy/Girl closer together for some mutual goal

4. Guy/Girl realize they're not that different after all.

5. Guy/Girl eventually realize Cinderella-like love story

6. Life works out, everyone's happy and Guy/Girl buy a house and make Rice Krispie squares

I had hoped when renting this film that it was going to take the School of Rock approach to Rock-flicks, namely that Rock take primacy over all other subplots, thus squashing them out of the film. After watching School of Rock, I applauded director Richard Linklater for not resorting to the love-interest three-act American comedy model, when it would have been so easy to do so. Of course his comedy was light movie-going fare (it had a bunch of kids in it, after all), but it was intelligent because it picked the theme of rocking out and stuck with it.

The Rocker, by contrast, chose to start off thrashing right out of the gates, only to halt its momentum by poisoning itself with love at the end.

In a way though, The Rocker typifies the genre it portrays: Strong and full of energy at the beginning, flaccid and dead at the end.

Sometimes I hate being right.....

Pros:

• Great ensemble cast of well-established comedians give comedic bits a sharper edge
• Excellent performances from newcomers Josh Gad and Emma Stone
• Decision to cast teen heartthrob and John Mayer-like musician Teddy Geiger as the singer of A.D.D. gave the band some performance believability.

Cons:

•  Cliched love-interest subplot insertion ruined all momentum this film built up in the first 2/3's of the film.
• Christina Applegate's performance was unfortunately lack-lustre and vomit-inducing.
• Where are all the guest appearances by Skid Row, Cinderella, Poison and all other Hair Metal bands that made this period in music history so hilarious?

...On Bryan Singer

In my previous post, I wrote a bit about my favourite film The Usual Suspects. While I enjoy the film greatly, I was on the fence about it's director, Bryan Singer.

With a professional career spanning over 16 years, Singer has yet to make a film as critically acclaimed as The Usual Suspects. As a result, I always wondered why he never chose to make something similar. It made me wonder whether Bryan Singer was a cinematic visionary with the ability to provide credibility to big budget Hollywood projects, or whether he was a race-horse that started off fast out of the gate, but who broke his legs around turn three and needed to be "retired" (I don't think they shoot race horses anymore, do they?)? I gave this question quite a bit of thought a few weeks ago, and this is what I came up with.

First off, Singer has directed five Hollywood films, since directing The Usual Suspects in 1994: 1998's Apt Pupil; X-Men and its sequel X2 in 2000, and 2003 respectively; 2006's Superman Returns and the 2008 WWII thriller Valkyrie, starring Tom Cruise. He's been the Executive Producer on a number of television shows (House, Dirty Sexy Money etc.), but for the sake of argument, we'll focus on those who's visual elements he's had a direct hand in shaping. 

I love The Usual Suspects, but primarily for nostalgic reasons. Many reviewers - both mainstream as well as bloggers - have struggled with it's confusing story line. Rottentomatoes.com is peppered with reviewers who struggle with the film, and/or the so-called pretentious way in which it jerks viewers around. While TIME's Richard Corliss sung it's praises several times, Roger Ebert has noted that, surprise ending aside, The Usual Suspects ultimately solves nothing in a film that has nothing to solve (if that makes sense). However, most criticisms I've read of the film focus on it's up-and-down plot direction and tend not to dwell on its stylistic elements. 

As I mentioned in my earlier post, the film shows flashes of cinematographic brilliance, with intelligent shot progressions and a beautiful use of colour - all elements that can be attributed to a director's style. While I don't believe it's a flawless film, I think it stands on it's own as a major directorial debut. But this is exactly what bugged me about Singer.

I would argue that The Usual Suspects is popular because of it's twist-ending, which is why film purists are lukewarm to me calling it my favourite. This popularity calls into question whether the film would have been a directorial tour-de-force had the plot twist not been as major a factor as it was. This ending - what people associate the most with this film - is a cliched trick, but one that was executed flawlessly. It's also what galvanizes opinion either for, or against this film. I would also argue its success created an expectation within the public sphere to produce another film equalling its success. It also created that same expectation within myself. For a long time I wondered why this guy couldn't buckle down and make something as intelligent as his debut film.

But then something happened

I was at Blockbuster with a friend a few weeks ago, looking for something to rent. He suggested we rent Superman. I reluctantly agreed. I had seen the film once before and had liked it...but not LOVED it. 

We were driving back when I mentioned how much of a shame it was that Bryan Singer would never make another equal to The Usual Suspects. My friend said "I'm glad he hasn't tried. He'd be a one-trick pony if he had." 

That got me thinking...

Compare Singer to M. Night Shyamalan, whose 1999 blockbuster The Sixth Sense used a similar plot twist to conclude his film. Unlike Singer, Shyamalan chose to use these twists throughout his body of work. I like most of Shyamalan's films, but his unwavering desire to use the same technique time and time has grown a little tired. 

Like Singer, those who criticize Shyamalan often compare his work to his first, and most successful film. However, Shyamalan has chosen to stay roughly in the same thriller genre, which makes these comparisons credible, while Singer taken steps to distance himself from The Usual Suspects. Unlike Shyamalan, Singer's films exist despite the success of his first film, not because of it. He has never attempted to use similar plot techniques in his films, thus never pegging himself as a one-trick pony. I believe this is a good thing. 

Although he's made very few films, Singer's major releases following The Usual Suspects have been set in different genres. Consider X-Men. The film was a great success...and nothing like The Usual Suspects. It was the first of the modern comic adaptations and ushered in a slew of similar adaptations that have typified summer blockbusters of the past decade. In this way, X-Men is groundbreaking. 

Consider also Superman Returns. While I was initially so-so about this film, a second watching was much more fulfilling and yielded more by way of content than I ever would have suspected.

At the time of its released, superhero blockbusters had become the stable of the summer season. Big name players like Spiderman, The (Ang Lee) Hulk, and Daredevil had already had their kick at the can. The X-Men franchise had spawned two more sequels, one which surpassed the original in terms of complexity and one that sucked big time. Even smaller cult heroes like Hellboy and Constantine were allowed to shine on screen. 

When Superman was announced, many (including myself) thought it was going to centre around a major character reinvention, somewhat analogous to Christopher Nolan's adaptation of Batman Begins. But it didn't play out like that at all.

In an era where the pressure was on remaking and reinvention, Singer chose to continue the original story line last portrayed on screen in 1987's Superman IV: The Quest For Peace. While this film was terrible, Singer's decision to transfer many of the character nuances and histories over into his film was a brave decision, and one that deserves a certain amount of admiration. To continue an existing story line 19 years after it last ended shows a respect for film history and the mythology that surrounded the release of those original films. 

Singer's Superman ultimately under-performed at the box office, at least in the eyes of Warner Bros. Studio exec Alan Horn. But a rereading of this film proved to me that Singer possesses a creative edge that is not solely based on the desire to produce a body of work. 

As I mentioned in the opening to this post (way back when), I had initially struggled with Singer's inability to replicate the success he had achieved with The Usual Suspects. Watching Superman again made me realize that perhaps replication had never been Singer's goalas a filmmaker.

I suppose it would have been easy for him to create another film with a crazy plot-twist ending (Like Shyamalan), but he didn't. In 16 years of filmmaking, he's only directed five films, which suggests to me that he picks what he does carefully. That he has chosen different films existing in different genres and being made under different circumstances tells me that he is a director that is not as much concerned with replicating his freshman success as he is with making challenging films altogether.  

Like I said earlier, I don't think Singer will ever be as great a director as those we consider to be the best. That being said, he is a good director with a good understanding of what good films should look like. He's also better at traversing the boundary between Film and TV than most, making him a master at achieving success regardless of the medium. There is a lot that can be said for being able to exist in these two different worlds harmoniously. 

While I was on the fence about Bryan Singer, some careful thought, analysis and research made me realize he's not the lame race horse I once thought he was. 

No need to send him to the glue factory just yet. 

The Usual Suspects - My Favourite Film

I think it best to start this blog off with a little information about me. Before I start ranting and raving about this and that, perhaps it would be best for me to lay the foundation and let you know what I'm about cinematically, and what films tickle my fancy.

First off, I believe that one can be partially defined and profiled what what films they like the most. There is arguably no greater form of art that is as widely embraced yet as emotionally influential as filmmaking. Films have the ability to change minds and alter perceptions about the world in a way that few other mediums can. Because film exists in a narratively and aesthetically-constructed manner, it can affect how we feel on a very personal level. The greatest filmmakers understand how to control and manipulate these fronts, thus creating wonderful pieces of work that fill us with emotion (of some sort) and leave us thinking - sometimes for days, sometimes for years and sometimes forever!

Of course this is a generalization of sorts. I could spend days debating this point back and forth. but suffice to say, this basic understanding is what separates good films from, say Space Buddies.

My favourite film, without a doubt is The Usual Suspects. I'm serious...#1 of all time! Sometimes I tell people this and they give me funny looks - especially if they're passionate about film and film studies. Answers sometimes go like this...

"Seriously? It's because of the ending, right?"

"(insert requisite eyeroll) Oh, I get it. It's because Kevin Spacey's SOOOO wonderful in it, right?"

"Hey man, it's good. It's just not what I'd call '#1-worthy,' that's all"

Trust me, I've heard it all. I mean, after all, it's a mid-90s thriller with a crazy ending. It's so contrived, so Hollywood and so very OBVIOUS! But I love it, and here's why.

When I was 12, a couple of my pals and I rented it as part of a "rent-three-movies-cheap" deal at Jumbo video. We got through the first two (Johnny Mnemonic was one of them, I think), but we called it a night before hitting the third. The next night, with a deadline to return the tapes looming over my shoulder, I decided to watch the third one - The Usual Suspects - myself. From the moment I pushed play, I was mesmerized.

Dialogue was snappy; shots were full and colourful; cuts were quick and the music was riveting. Most importantly, the plot was so dynamic, it became hard to follow what was going on a times. It left no room for ADD look-at-distracting-shiny-things moments. I REALLY had to pay attention.

By the time I got to the end of the film, I was completely engrossed. I just couldn't stop watching. I was so fixated on everything going on in the film, that I was completely blind-sided by the ending.

For you unlucky souls who haven't seen this flick, I won't ruin your life by ruining this ending. It is, after all, one of those seminal cinematic plot twists - Up there with Rosebud in Citizen Kane. It is a powerhouse ending, and it left me speechless.

No, that's a lie

It left me screaming at the top of my lungs, no jokes! It was 11:30 when the movie ended. I was freaking out so loudly that my Mom rushed downstairs to make sure I was alright. After convincing her my freak out was cinematic in nature, and not from huffing glue or experimenting with drugs (I was 12, after all), I ran through all the highlights of the film to her.

She ended up watching the film the next day, and loving it. She even showed it to my Grandfather, who, despite all the swearing (old people and swearing is never a good combo) thought it to be one of the best films he had ever seen.

I re-watched this film over and over again. To this day, I have most of the dialogue memorized word-for-word. When I transferred into Film Studies at Carleton University, I used every opportunity to analyse and summarize elements of the film for assignments and presentations. And why not? The film is well-shot and directed, especially considering it was director Bryan Singer's first major role and he was working with an All-Star cast of top-calibre actors. His use of colour is wonderful and his camera movement, while very textbook, still contains moments of brilliance (The scene when Chazz Palminteri busts through the office door and says "Who's Keyser Soze" to Kevin Spacey comes to mind).

The Christopher McQuarrie-written script is fast-paced and heavily dialogue-driven. It incorporates all the staples that typify tough-guy gangster bravado - including references to past crimes, apathy towards killing while on a job, and tons of swearing (like Goodfellas). Of course it has its flaws, but all in all, it's a fantastic film. But these aren't the reasons why it's my favourite.

I love this film because it was the first one I ever watched critically. It was the first film I watched where I was conscious of the way in which it was shot and the techniques used. It was the first film where I noticed how important mise-en-scene (placement of objects/actors within a specific shot) was to creating a sense of visual completeness. It was the first film where I realized how important it is for a film to be edited properly to convey meaning. It was as though someone had turned a light on in my head. It was an exhilarating experience, and one that would completely change the way I watched film. They were no longer just "Movies," they were beautiful pieces of art.

Because of this film, I began researching older films considered "great" in their own right. I spent countless hours by myself watching old westerns, comedies, dramas and anything else I could get my hands on. Some of these films required A LOT of focus and mental energy (remember my ADD and love of shiny things), but I ultimately got way more out of them than what I had to put in. Immersing myself in films of all types gave me access to countless visual and mental wild rides, and allowed me access to the subjective imaginations of others. Quite literally, the development of a love of film quite literally changed my life.

Cinematically, The Usual Supects might not be as revered as anything made by Truffault, Bergman or Kirosawa - considered to be 'great' filmmakers. It is, however, a big deal to me. As I mentioned earlier, film has the ability to affect us on a deeply personal level. This film opened my eyes to the complexity of filmmaking separate from the simple enjoyment one gets from sitting on the couch and watching a movie. I became more aware because of it.