This is it folks. The last week regional semifinals for IFC’s Ultimate Film Fanatic. Next week (thankfully) is the season finale – the finals, and they couldn’t come too soon. I noticed that they’re starting the process of auditions for a second season already, and I have one request of the producers: call me. Seriously. Not to be on the show. I’d do great in the debate segment, but I’d be a disaster a the “obsession war,” (although maybe this blog would now make a good item!), and when you get to real specific trivia stuff, I have a terrible memory for that shit. No, I want to help you guys cast this thing. I want to grill and train these potential contestants so that you don’t have anything like what you’ve had most of this season, this episode in particular. I want to make people do several timed practice debates, give them pointers, and if they don’t improve, make that a major criteria for not making the show. I want to ask everyone if one of their “obsession war” items would be any kind of list or record of movies watched, and if they say yes, automatically disqualify them.
The casting of this show was terrible, and none worse than this week. I don’t want to blame it on some blanket judgment of people in the “Mountain” region (Colorado, Montana, Idaho, etc.), but I found myself rooting against people rather than for them. Everyone annoyed the hell out of me, and the ultimate winner most of all. He got lucky because although he had slightly more personality than the guys he beat, he’s an idiot
Now it seems that more and more UFF contestants keep finding my blog. Between some private emails and more recent comments, it seems that most of the contestants got along (key word being “most”). Anyway, could one of you get IFC to visit? Or Mindless Entertainment? Or Chris Gore? Good. Thanks.
If you want to relive any of the first six episodes, I’ve made it easy for you:
Week 1: Northeast
Week 2: Southwest
Week 3: Midwest
Week 4: Southeast
Week 5: MidAtlantic
Week 6: West Coast
So you know, last week I mentioned how there’s an earlier line, right at the top of the show before the contestant intros that is as infuriating as the “I promised you some …”-Madlib host Chris Gore recites after the first round. It’s always a little joke about why they have to test the contestants “knowledge, attitude and obsession.” This week, the reason to put the contestants through this routine is because “mud wrestling is a bitch to clean-up.”
It’s amazing how uncomfortable the audience sounds with its tittering laughter. There’s one loud guffaw which simply has to be someone from the production staff and then a bunch of quiet little murmur giggles from an audience who was obviously told to laugh. Hopefully, these scripted joke lines will be gone in the next series. I actually have faith that Gore could do better ad-libbing on his own.
I never really thought about it until this week, but the producers obviously write the contestants’ introductory lines as well. They’re really awful, and they’re made worse by the fact that these contestants are normal people and not actors. In fact, I take that back. They’re not normal people; their film geeks and enthusiasts who are comfortable sitting in a dark room watching flickering light as opposed to standing on a bright stage talking to a camera. (And I say all that without judgment because I prefer those flickering lights myself.)
Anyway, before the first round of trivia started, I decided to quickly brainstorm possibilities for this week’s secret password based on the “mud wrestling” line. I swear, this is what I wrote down: “I promised you a sloppy mess … a dirty brawl … a rumble.” Keep that in mind for a sec.
Gore always mentions that they determine the first round pairings based on test scores; I’m wondering how? Do they try to put together people with comparable scores? Or do they put the highest scoring against the lowest. This week makes me think they definitely stick the strongest against each other, and that’s really unfortunate because all it does is give a lesser contestant a better chance at advancing. My theory is based on the fact that both Peter and Clay were stereotypical film geeks, and they each answered some pretty hard questions whereas the missed some relatively simple ones. Why should someone who can answer that the 1978 film ending with the appearance of the Black Rabbit of Death is Watership Down not make the next round when the other two contestants who moved forward only had to answer relatively simple first questions.
So Producers, here you go: Next season, screw this stupid sudden death format between three separate pairings. Pit all six contestants against each other. Make them buzz in and take the top three to the next round. None of this questions-get-progressively-more-difficult bullshit. Just make all the questions interesting. There’s nothing wrong with this show having more trivia and less schtick. Your “First Cut” should be edited out itself.
Anyway, “First Cut” is over. Remember my little brainstorm? I promised you a sloppy mess … a dirty brawl … a rumble.” Here’s Chris Gore’s as-usual-unfunny bit of dialogue: “I promised you a brawl, and I think we delivered.” You’ve got to be kidding me. I actually fucking guessed it. Do you know how pathetic that is? I mean, you must, right? Is it possible that sometime during the taping, one of the people on the set – and especially Gore – didn’t say, Boy did we fuck-up with this little fake-ass piece-of-shit cue card fodder. It’s not funny. It’s not clever. It’s not entertaining. It’s just really, really dumb. Get rid of it. Along with the virtually-word-for-word-always-the-same inane non-joke, “We’ve tested their knowledge, and some of these guys scare me.”
So “The Great Debate” pops up and they’re just awful This is where I learned to hate contestant Vince. In the first debate, Vince went against Jim. Apparently, Vince thinks that the Coen Bros. are overrated while Jim loves them. Because I just can’t believe the crap that comes out of Vince’s mouth, I’m going to quote most of it for you word for word. You see, Vince doesn’t think the Coens are bad, they’re “just not as great as everyone says. They’re in the league of old directors like Preston Sturges and Billy Wilder. People who wrote great screenplays but didn’t direct with much craftsmanship. They have technique, but they don’t really put a lot of heart and passion to their films. But I enjoy their movies nonetheless.”
OK, let’s stop here for a moment you moronic little puissant. Billy Wilder and Preston Sturges didn’t direct with craftsmanship? I don’t care how young you are (and he’s apparently college student age), you can’t say something like that and expect anyone who knows anything about film to actually give anything else you say any credence. To call either of these brilliant filmmakers simply good writers is to not understand films nor filmmaking. There’s no heart or passion in Sullivan’s Travels. The fucking movie is about a director searching to make a movie filled specifically with heart and passion and something real. It’s not just a great script; it’s a brilliantly made movie. There’s no heart and passion in Double Indemnity, one of maybe 5 films which define film noir, a grouping of films which is almost all craftsmanship? There’s no “heart and passion” in The Lost Weekend, still one of the greatest films about a person’s descent into alcoholism? Can you even comprehend half of what’s going on, especially visually and subtextually, in Sunset Blvd., a nearly perfect film, and universally considered one of the greatest movies of all time? That doesn’t come just from the script you jackass.
I didn’t care what Jim was about to say. I’m all for awarding a debate win to someone who makes a good argument even if I disagree with his/her opinion, but when you make an argument that is based in ignorance and bullshit, you lose. Jim managed to lower himself to my lowest expectation. He basically said that he doesn’t like the Coens’ more “macabre movies,” but he thinks that Raising Arizona, The Big Lebowski and O Brother, Where Art Thou? comprise a “masterpiece trilogy of comedy.” He stumbled over remembering the name of O Brother and ran out of time. His argument was lame, but it wasn’t utterly stupid like Vince’s.
The rebuttals were equally poor. Vince simply said, “They haven’t made a good film since Fargo, which to me further proves that Vince probably has some freakishly weird mainstream, only straight-narrative mentality because I’m sure he unintentionally was rebutting Jim since two of the movies Jim had just listed were made post-Fargo, and both of them are at least “good.” The Big Lebowski is, in fact, a great movie , and The Man Who Wasn’t There was pretty good too. And even if they hadn’t made a good film since Fargo, that still leaves five films made before Fargo, all of which are pretty damn good. Regardless, it wasn’t a real rebuttal. Of course, Jim managed to come back as poorly as he did in his initial argument, trying to say something about Vince doing his own rebuttal by bringing up Sturges. While Jim sort of had a point, Vince was (stupidly) using Sturges in a negative way, so if you bought his argument, Jim’s was bogus.
This was tough because they both were bad in their own ways. In my book, Jim had to win by default. And I’m not sure why the judges agreed with me because they definitely have proven they’re not smart enough to pick-up on how dumb Vince is. They all played as if Jim and Vince had bored them to death; they each had their heads down on the table, and Traci Lords said, “They bored me senseless,” but she seemed to think that “Jim sucked a little less.” Jim won all three votes and moved on.
So Vince had to go against Peter, and I thought Peter showed that he was just an awkward enough stereotypical film geek that he’d be able to stomp stupid-little Vince, especially when it was revealed that Vince was about to argue why he hates Stanley Kubrick’s Lolita while Peter claims to love it. Now I found it bizarre to be watching a debate on this issue because earlier the same day I watched this episode I had gotten into a discussion about the merits of Kubrick’s Lolita versus the recent version directed by hack Adrian Lyne. (I’m actually going to post something about this soon, but I’ll leave that discussion until then.) Suffice it to say, I think Kubrick’s movie is vastly underappreciated and incorrectly called a poor adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov’s brilliant novel.
Vince’s argument is once again simply incorrect. Seriously, the guy is a moron and doesn’t deserve to be on this show. He’s a horrible example of someone who thinks he knows a lot about movies but needs to be reeducated about everything. Once again, I’m going to print his entire argument:
“First of all, it’s too long. It’s almost three hours long. It’s boring. Adrian Lyne’s 1996 version with Jeremy Irons was much much better. I don’t like Kubrick’s talkie films. I like science fiction when he does futuristic type films, Clockwork Orange, 2001. The movie is just boring. he used Peter Sellers for the first 10 minutes in a cameo and then ….”
And then, he ran out of time. Where do I even start with this diarrhea of Vince’s mouth? Well, first of all, the movie is 2-1/2 hours long, not 3. (152 minutes, to be exact.) Lyne’s much crappier and, in fact, more boring version does happen to be shorter … by a whole 15 minutes. To me, it feels much longer because it’s all style and no substance, but apparently to Vince, that qualifies as “craftsmanship” and “heart and passion.”
Then, let me get this straight: he doesn’t like Kubrick’s “talky” movies? What the hell are those? Paths of Glory? The Shining? Full Metal Jacket? Yeah, those two war movies and horror film are really “talky.” Oh wait, does he mean the brilliant satire Dr. Strangelove? Maybe. But in Dr. Strangelove he used Peter Sellers constantly; in four different roles, in fact, and apparently one of Lolita’s big faults is not enough Sellers. So what gives?
And by the way, criticizing the film for Sellers being in just the first 10 minutes is nearly as stupid as his “talky” comment. Like his mistake on the run time, that’s simply not true. Sellers appears at various times throughout the first half of the movie. But more importantly, this complaint illustrates his utter inability to understand the role of Quilty (Sellers) in this film. Sellers’ presence is constantly felt in the movie, even when he’s not there, and the fact that he begins physically appearing less-and-less is actually one of the best elements of the way Kubrick tells this story. But again, that’s another conversation for another time.
This really should be a slam dunk for Peter. But when Peter’s time arrived, the only thing he showed was that he is utterly awkward and uncomfortable when it comes to public speaking. I don’t want to hear about nerves anymore. Cast people who can talk on camera. That’s the only quality not related to being a “fanatic” that should be taken into account. Peter simply said, “History has shown that Kubrick’s films get better with age. This is a wonderful film. It’s not long, it’s not boring, and Peter Sellers is great as Quilty, and you’ve got James Mason as the ultimate Humbert Humbert.” And he stops speaking. Now, he didn’t actually say anything there other than, “It’s good.” At least Vince tried to put forward an argument even if what he said was blatantly incorrect and dumb. Not only did Peter not say anything of substance, but he stopped talking with three seconds left. At this point, I was voting for dumbass Vince over jackass Peter.
Vince’s 10 second rebuttal was as follows: “First of all, Jeremy Irons, if you saw the 1996 version, you know his performance is much better than James Mason. James Mason is respected because he’s an old time actor, but in truth, Jeremy Irons is better in the 1996 Adrian Lyne version.”
I have to give Vince points on that, albeit very few, because at least he continued to try to make an argument and it was an actual rebuttal to what Peter had just said. And Irons is, in fact, quite good in Lyne’s version, although I think Lyne’s presentation of the Humbert character is fundamentally flawed. But for Vince to try to claim that Mason “is respected because he’s an old time actor” is naïve and absurd. Mason was a great actor, and he was a brilliant Humbert. More importantly, though, let’s say for the sake of argument that Lyne’s version was better than Kubrick’s (which it’s not). What does that have to do with disliking Kubrick’s? They are two separate movies, and although they come from the same source material, they are very different adaptations.
But Peter manages to vastly underwhelm everyone again by saying, “History is going to bear me out. It’s a great film to watch. It’s a great film simply to listen to.” What the hell is he talking about? History already supports you, Peter. It’s just some college kid who has no clue what he’s talking about who is disagreeing with you, and you can’t even rebut him. You deserve to lose, and I was rooting for you not just because I hate Vince but because you obviously know your trivia. But you can’t seem to intelligently discuss film, and that’s inexcusable.
The judges managed to agree with me. Jason Mewes asked, “Did all three of these guys pop valiums before they came here dude?” They gave it to Vince because Peter had nothing to say.
So now we’re stuck with an “Obsession War” between the bland but freaky Jim and the idiot Vince. Here again, I was rooting for Jim, and I think he got slightly shafted on the first match-up, although both items were relatively bland so it was a toss-up. Vince had this rare book about Alfred Hitchcock which had been written by French New Wavers Claude Chabrol and Eric Rohmer. Apparently, he bought it when he was 11 utilizing his piggy bank money for the first time. He claims it means a lot to him because “film criticism is what I want to do with my life.” Vince, you’ve got a long way to go then. I don’t think Chabrol and Rohmer would say that Wilder and Sturges were directors missing “heart and passion.” Meanwhile, Jim apparently used to buy some film horror magazines called “Famous Monsters of Filmland.” His mom threw out all the magazines when he was away in college, but apparently he bought this book which compiled a bunch of them and got the writer to sign it. The judges liked Vince’s piggy bank story, and gave the round to him.
When Jim pulled out his next item, I knew all was lost. What does he pull out? A list of movies. Seriously: no more lists proving that you watch movies and then notate that you do so. They simply shouldn’t allow it. The number of contestants who have used that as an item (it’s been at least three) proves that it’s not all that special. Now Jim’s list is actually better than most in that he doesn’t keep a diary like the others. Instead, back in 1982, he apparently went through the entire “Leonard Maltin Movie Guide” and listed all the 3-1/2 and 4 star movies he had never seen. For the last 20 years, he’s been crossing them off his list and giving his own ratings as he’s seen them. He claims to have seen about 90% of them and calls the other 10% his “holy grail and obsession to see.” But you know what? It’s still a list.
Vince pulls out a collection of movie ticket stubs. He tries to be poetic by calling them “mid-afternoon daydreams.” He says he collects stubs and has 300 to 400 since he started collecting in 1996 or 97. Uhm, does that mean he’s only seen 300 or 400 movies in theaters in the last 8 years? That kind of sucks. I mean, I average close to 300 movies a year, and granted, not all of them are in a theater and come with a stub, but I’d guess at least 100 do. He averages less than 50 films a year? That’s no fanatic. Even so, the stub collection may not be all that different from a list, but ultimately still isn’t a list.
So this pissed me off because Vince won again and therefore won the show, but I couldn’t fault it because Jim was just so ridiculously lame. Meanwhile, he is by far the most boring of all seven regional winners. His 30 second speech at the end had me wanting to break my TV. He’s also easily the weakest of the seven winners, and if he went anywhere in the finals, I’d be shocked.
Gore ended the show by asking us to come back next week when “we’ll be scouring another part of the country” to find the ultimate film fanatic. Obviously, they didn’t know ahead of time the order in which they would broadcast the episodes because they actually won’t be scouring the country next week since the seven winners will be back for the finals. Again, nice one producers. You blow me away.
So that’s it for the regionals. I’m curious how the show will be different next week, especially considering that they’re starting with seven contestants rather than six. I am sure of one thing, though: it will likely lack any imagination. Good work IFC.
I’m still waiting by the phone!
Out of Focus 