(July
26, 2003)
NEW YORK STYLE
So, it’s been just about a year since Shaun and I launched MovieNavigator.org.
It’s taken us that long to make it look like a real website, but I suppose
stranger things have happened. Shaun tried launching it two years ago, and I
posted an analysis of A.I. that nobody seems to have any record of.
Myself included. The site died of dry rot and neglect. Last year we decided to
try again.
All in all it’s been a good year. We’ve covered the 40th New York Film
Festival, interviewed Monica Bellucci and John Carpenter, and as webmaster and
our chief film critic, Shaun has had to sit through lots of movies. Lots of
movies he never even wrote about.
While we’re not stacked with
archives like some sites that have tons of advertisements paying their way,
I’m confident that we’ve put together a good collection of content.
Considering that we have no money and do this in our part time…
One thing that I’m proud of is our reliance on primarily original images to
accompany our features. Whereas most websites use publicity stills, I often take
original photographs or draw illustrations. I like to be innovative. I like to
be creative and push things a bit. I think it’s these little things that make
us stand out.
As we grow into our second year, I hope we can build on what we’ve already
done. I’m going to use this column to write weekly babbling editorials now.
We’re also going to start focusing more on individual filmmakers, and we’re
going to pursue more projects like our coverage of PT Anderson at BAM.
Hopefully this will be conducive to our goal: to create a website that’s
friendly to talent. Shaun and I aren’t reporters. We’re both filmmakers. We
don’t approach our subjects with the anticipation of “selling” a story. We
put down what they said. We’re better equipped to talk to them because we
understand what they’re about. At least that’s what I think.
STATUS QUO
Obviously, the status quo sucks. That makes us strive to do better. Then we get
to the next stage and realize that sucks, too.
I decided to pay for a movie ticket for the first time in a while on Friday.
After a year of critics screenings I was in the mood for ringing cell phones and
hoards of 12 year old girls sneaking in and out of the theater.
I chose Finding Nemo, since it’s been the best-reviewed film so far
this year. I missed the press screening, because the major studios only invite
me to their “all media” screenings – and I usually work nights.
I wound up walking out after 25 minutes. If this is the best film so far this
year, then we’re in worse shape than I thought. Under no circumstance should a
movie geared toward 5-10 year old children be considered the best film.
Twenty-five minutes of multicolored fish blatantly acting kiddie cutesy was more
than I could handle. The plotting was predictable and, technique aside, what I
saw was insipid. We’re about to get stuck in a CG animation glut that burns
itself out in the next year the way comic book movies are currently dying as
live action features.
After I left, I went and snuck into 28 Days Later to see the new ending.
I considered Seabiscuit, but wasn’t really in the mood for Gary Ross
sentimentality and glossy John Schwartzman cinematography. I do like Dreamworks,
though. I think they’re the one studio that understands classic storytelling
– for better or worse. They don’t try to push boundaries (with the exception
of Spielberg’s recent releases), they just tell good stories (with the
exception of The Tuxedo).
My theater going experience called to attention lots of developments – and I
think it would do most film critics a bit of good to occasionally attend real
theaters, as opposed to the screening rooms. Not only can they see how films
play the audience, they can see the developments in the experience.
This experience was a harbinger of things to come. From the digital
advertisements before Nemo, on feed from a Boeing satellite, to the new ending
attached to 28 Days Later, I got to see where things are going.
As Godfrey Cheshire wrote a few years back, the theater-going experience is
about to undergo a massive change. As theaters switch from celluloid to digital
they’ll be able to better control what they show. Some theaters are already
selling tickets to concerts and sporting events and broadcasting them on
screens. Studios will also have greater leeway to alter films after their
release. Filmmakers, too.
Like classic physics a century ago, a new order is about to obliterate the
relevance of classic movie-going. The lines between movies, TV, internet, art
and commerce, and CONTROL, are about to become seriously blurred.
THE PASSION
Okay. So, Mel Gibson has spent $25-million to film what he considers to be the
most accurate rendering of Jesus ever committed to celluloid. Good for him.
He’s being enterprising. I can also understand all of the swirling controversy
about it, too. What I don’t get, however, is the rationale for why it’s
being attacked.
The primary argument has been that it will portray Jews unfavorably – or even
as Jesus’ murderers. By choosing this means of attack the critics are missing
the very obvious reality of Gibson’s strategy.
What Mel Gibson is doing here, ladies and gentlemen, is fashioning himself a
$25-million mission. His argument isn’t: This is the most realistic
interpretation of Jesus ever – for entertainment’s sake! His argument is:
This is the most realistic interpretation of Jesus ever – AND THIS FACTUALLY
OCCURRED.
Gibson is already creating a base for the film by taking it to the
conservatives. Kathie Lee Gifford of all people has already endorsed the
picture.
I think he’s calling people’s bluff that they won’t go on TV and start a
debate about the movie’s factual merits. And I don’t mean how the Jews are
portrayed. I’m talking about somebody going on TV and proclaiming: “This
isn’t real! This story is a fairytale! Go pick up a copy of A Brief History of
Time!”
I still expect it to be a good movie. Mel Gibson is talented. I expect a very
good piece of cine. Like they do in Hollywood.
THE ‘80s
We’ve been on a 1980s DVD kick at the apartment lately, renting mad titles
from Netflix. So far, we’ve pretty much stuck with jingoistic action films
like Cobra, Commando, and Missing in Action 2: The Beginning.
Last night we watched Youngblood, with Rob Lowe at his mid-‘80s
pretty-boy pinnacle – when everybody thought he was gay until he got caught on
tape having sex with an underage girl.
Youngblood, the Top Gun of hockey, is typical formula ‘80s drama
– an R-rated film that would today be toned down to PG-13. But this was the
‘80s when the hero always got to punch the bad guy and the girl always showed
her tits.
In this case, we got Cynthia Gibb. I’ve always liked Cynthia Gibb. Besides
being cuter than Gizmo, she has spunk. She was a real star in Youngblood,
and should’ve been able to segue into better things. With a few exceptions
like Salvador, she’s worked primarily in TV. Maybe I’ll cast her in
one of my movies one day.
As for Commando, if Arnold Schwarzennegger ever runs for office, all his
opponent has to do is show some clips from this bloodbath. A shot of Arnold
chopping off people’s arms with a machete or decapitating them with saw blades
should do the trick.
I miss fighting and fucking in movies. Finding Nemo certainly could’ve
used a bit of that. Anyhow, that’s enough babbling for now. Next week I
think I’ll talk about the merging of ‘90s indie filmmaking and MTV
aesthetics. Until then...
-Copyright
2003 by Jamie
Stuart