IFC UFF FINALS: FINALLY GETTING IT (MOSTLY) RIGHT

For the past seven weeks, I’ve been railing and ranting against the numerous flaws that make IFC’s Ultimate Film Fanatic the disappointment it has become. Surprisingly enough to me, I’ve managed to attract the attention of people involved with the show, particularly the contestants, several of whom have emailed me or commented on the previous posts on this blog. I was especially excited last week when host Chris Gore commented on my Midwest regional entry, obviously indicating that he had read some of my thoughts. Is anyone from IFC or producers Mindless Entertainment reading? Who knows. But obviously, they should be.

Gore wanted to note that, as I had suspected and mentioned, he had very little to do with the creative development of the show last season. In fact, he called himself "a hired hand." He also promises to try to annoy me less next season. FYI, that’s always a great idea, and I wish more people, especially within the many sectors of media, would strive to annoy me less. In fact, I encourage you to pray for the same thing. You see, I am often annoyed easily. Stupidity, or more specifically lack of common sense, tends to be the biggest culprit. In film and TV, it’s usually laziness – producing something that the majority will tolerate rather than going that extra mile and flexing the creative muscles in order to make it better. A perfect example, usually, of the latter is Comedy Central’s The Daily Show which is seemingly never afraid to take a joke one step beyond easy. I say "usually" and "seemingly" only because I’ve actually been a bit disappointed in John Stewart’s interviews ever since John Kerry’s appearance. Last night’s tete-a-tete with White House communications chief Dan Bartlett was an obvious attempt by Stewart to butter-up the Bush campaign in torder to get Bush to come on the show. The previous night with Ted Koppel was almost as boring when it should have been great.

But I digress, because this time, I actually come to praise UFF, not to belittle it. Last week’s finale was far and away the best episode of the entire series. The rounds were reorganized and reformatted, and while still not perfect, I found it all much more satisfying. The better contestants seemed to last the longest, and the weakest were among the first to go. The climax of the show was very satisfying both in the way it was produced as well as the ultimate winner. And for the first time ever, what should be the best part of the show – "The Great Debate" – actually was.

If you’ve been missing UFF and you just can’t believe what you’ve been reading here, IFC gives you another chance to see every episode during a Labor Day marathon. In fact, they’re going a bit overboard airing the entire series 6 times all day Monday. If you just want to revisit those early episodes through my eyes, here’s a list of my full season of critiques/recaps:

• Week 1: Northeast
• Week 2: Southwest
• Week 3: Midwest
• Week 4: Southeast
• Week 5: MidAtlantic
• Week 6: West Coast
• Week 7: Mountain

For more specifics on the finale, jump with the jump:

The whole thing started off well. They cut the lame pre-intro line of not being able to pit the contestants against each other in knife-fights or mud wrestling. Sure, after the first round the writers decided to distinguish this finale using three super-secret passwords when Gore states, "I promised you excitement, danger and intrigue, and I think we delivered." Snore! But at least he’s no longer "scared" of these guys.

In fact, the only element of this show left relatively unchanged for the finals was "The Great Debate." Although the first round was still called "The First Cut," and it still involved sudden death elimination, instead of individual trivia questions and one-on-one match-ups, all seven finalists competed together, and the "trivia" was being able to name movie titles that fit specific criteria. For example, the first subject was "Movies featuring Gene Hackman." The seven finalists were placed in some predetermined order and one-by-one, they each had to name a movie in which Hackman appeared. If a contestant gave an incorrect title, took too much time to answer or repeated a film previously named, he was eliminated.

At first, I thought this seemed kind of easy, but after seeing them actually go through the process and taking into account the natural nerves of being on camera and playing a game, I realized it really isn’t. Considering that two of the four losing finalists in this round simply duplicated a title previously used, I can see how such a mistake would be relatively simple to make. Additionally, as the rounds continued, the categories actually got broader, but seemed like it made it even more difficult for the contestants to focus on finding a valid answer. I don’t think this format is a permanent answer to fixing "The First Cut" round. I still would like to see some broader trivia, questions like the ones used this season but maybe with more of an indie, foreign and obscure film bent. But for the finals, I thought this was a great solution.

I knew this finale was on the right track when the least deserving of all the finalists got booted first. That’s right, the idiot not-exactly-savant Vince — who was the winner of the Mountain region on last week’s show and had the temerity to argue that Billy Wilder and Preston Sturges were lacking any qualities whatsoever as directors or that Adrian Lyne’s Lolita (or any of the director’s films) was better than Stanley Kubrick’s version — managed to freeze and not come up with another Hackman title. Now, there had already been 13 titles given, and I’m sure the pressure was on the poor dumb kid so I don’t want to jump on his case for this one thing, but there were some pretty glaringly well-known possibilities left. For example, Midwest winner Michael mentioned Superman II, but nobody had yet named the original Superman. The man has appeared in over 80 movies, and to simply freeze with no answer when films such as The Firm, Absolute Power, and Get Shorty — just to name a few of the unmentioned — are still out there is a bit lame. Regardless, I was rooting for Vince to get kicked off first, and I suppose my loyal viewing was rewarded.

The second category was "Movies featuring Tom Hanks," and sadly this round saw one of my favorites leave when West Coast winner Ryan – he of the import DVDs and all region DVD player – mentioned Apollo 13 just three answers after Jordan had used it. Again, it’s interesting to see the titles that didn’t come up – Catch Me If You Can, neither Toy Story, and Philadelphia, for example – while Volunteers, Nothing in Common, The Money Pit and The Man With One Red Shoe were mentioned. However, I think using those earlier, more obscure titles was actually a good strategy. As the round continues and people start thinking of what’s left, it might be easier for someone to get confused thinking the obvious titles have already been mentioned. That may be especially true when the total number of possibilities – Hanks has been in roughly half the number of movies as Hackman – dwindles. So Ryan screwed up, but at least he didn’t completely blank.

Midatlantic region winner Bill was the next to go when he too duplicated an answer in the "Steve Martin Scorsese" category. I was actually surprised that this guy who won thanks to his authentic Tangiers Casino chips used as props in Martin Scorsese’s Casino couldn’t come up with a film directed by Scorsese — or starring Steve Martin — not evenCasino. He lost by answering, of all titles, Housesitter, which had been named by Michael four answers earlier. It was only the ninth answer overall. In fact, the only Scorsese films that had been named so far were Mean Streets, Cape Fear and GoodFellas.

The final category was "Cameron, Cameron & Cameron." This time the contestants had to name a film directed by James Cameron, written by Cameron Crowe or starring Cameron Diaz. And the loser was? Northeast winner Jordan, the first perpetrator of the dreaded ‘film diary" obsession item. Now I didn’t have that much of a problem with Jordan winning overall in that group, although I did think that his final competitor Edwin got robbed when it came to his Phantom of the Paradise helmet. Still, I was a bit shocked that Jordan blanked as early as the fifteenth answer. Instead of coming up with anything, knowing he was done, he simple blurted, "Batman Returns Forever Part 6," in an attempt to be funny. Meanwhile, nobody had mentioned Jerry Maguire, Almost Famous or Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Nobody had mentioned The Abyss or Terminator 2. Nobody had mentioned The Mask or Shrek or Gangs of New York or Vanilla Sky (which would have covered two Camerons).

But again, I’m sure the pressure of the situation was much greater than we, the home audience, can imagine, so while I won’t begrudge Jordan for screwing up, I do have to say I was happy with the final three contestants going into the debates. Midwest regional winner Michael was the one who went on a Dawn of the Dead pilgrimage and who gave a coherent argument in favor of Harrison Ford as an actor; Southeast winner Reed won the obsession war with his Oscar winner action figures and his enormous collection of half-sheets, although I still think he got lucky in poorly debating the pretty easy argument that Steven Spielberg is a great director; and finally, there’s Mark, the Southwest winner who is definitely the most awkward and stereotypically "geeky" of the three, even in his slightly more advanced age. Now I was actually very much against Mark winning his regional because he did so with his stalkerish obsession over actress Cynthia Stevenson, beating a teacher who actually uses a "Wisdom of Yoda" poster to help instruct his high school students. And I would have preferred to see Reed or Bill get to this round because I think they won their regionals more justly. However, Mark is definitely a film fanatic and "geek," and he obviously knows a lot as depicted by his extreme ease and confidence with which he made it through this shows "The First Cut." I have no doubt that he has a somewhat encyclopedic knowledge of all the films he has seen, and he probably would have lasted longer in that first round than any of the other six people.

As I mentioned earlier, they finally got "The Great Debate" right. I would still prefer to see them add a little bit to the clock of each argument, but at least this time they had three contestants who could actually speak and do so intelligently. They also made each debate more complex because the contestants weren’t arguing a positive/negative issue like "Spielberg: Love him or hate him." Instead, they were given a subject and asked to state their cases. Personally, I was looking for their ability to actually debate, and specifically rebut, the other person’s case in favor of his own, and happily, that sometimes happened.

The first debate was between Michael and Reed and the subject was "The greatest movie of all time." By the way, that should be a different argument than "Favorite movie," but it usually isn’t for most people. Anyway, Michael went first, and because I don’t want to mischaracterize anybody’s argument, I’m just going to give everything to you, word-for-word.

Michael: It’s rare that a movie does anything right. It’s rare that it does two things right. It’s even rarer if it does three things right. Raiders of the Lost Ark does everything right. It’s epic without being overlong. It’s exciting without being tiresome. It’s romantic without being gooey. You’ve got people working at the top of their game. You’ve got Steven Spielberg doing his best thing at the best moment in his career. It’s the best movie.

Reed: Lawrence of Arabia is an epic of the kind of scope you’ll never see. It wasn’t created on a computer; it was created by somebody who dreamed it and making that dream happen by moving mountains. And it’s the story of a man and a dreamer who moved mountains, who moved armies and changed history. It’s inspiring to everybody who sees it.

Of course, they’re both wrong. Sunset Blvd. is the greatest movie of all time, but they’re debating each other, not me. And if I was basing it solely on what I think is the best movie, I’d have to go with Reed. Raiders of the Lost Ark is a great movie, and it’s definitely one of, if not the, best action-adventure movies ever, but I don’t really think it’s even in the top 20 of all films, whereas Lawrence of Arabia is. However, even though he wasted his first six seconds saying essentially nothing, Michael’s argument was more convincing, passionate and cohesive. He definitely had my vote at this point, even though they were virtually neck-and-neck in the best debate this show has seen. But then came the rebuttals:

Michael: Raiders of the Lost Ark was in 1981. No computer effects. Hard work, blood, sweat and tears from everyone on that movie. That’s it.

Reed: There was computer animation at the end with those ghosts. And Lawrence of Arabia is an amazing epic. The imagery, the sound, the story. It’s a dreamer. It’s an inspiring thing. It’s inspired me.

I have to admit that Reed won me over with the rebuttal. Michael didn’t even use all his time; there were four seconds, out of 10, left when he stopped speaking, and he simply should have had more to say. While I applaud him for directly commenting on part of Reed’s argument – the use of computer effects – I don’t really care whether they were or weren’t used because a movie is not less great if it uses special effects. Reed not only rebutted Michael’s rebuttal regarding the computer effects, but he then managed to make augment his initial argument.

Of course, I’ve previously mentioned that the three inexpensive, C-list "celebrity" judges – Traci Lords, Richard Roundtree and Jason Mewes – have no idea what they’re talking about and were absolutely the wrong choices to judge this show. All three judges gave the debate to Michael with Roundtree making the intelligent comment, "Both of them demonstrated great arguments from their point of view," while Mewes had to again prove he spends too much time with the happy herb by saying, "I heard ‘inspired’ a little too much from Reed, so I’m going to pick Michael." Jackass. I don’t think it’s criminal that Michael won this debate, but I do believe Reed got robbed just a bit.

So Reed has to debate again, this time against Mark with the subject being "The Biggest ‘hack’ of all time." Surprisingly, before they started, I realized this was really hard. I mean, there are just so many hacks working in Hollywood from John Badham to Roger Donaldson to Joel Schumacher – how does one choose "the biggest." Mark and Reed both chose very qualified candidates, but I think Reed got screwed again because while he made a valid argument understandable to any film fanatic, it was not so to the three idiots judging them.

Reed: You know, to define hack, you have to define somebody who can actually take talent and squander many opportunities, and we’re talking about Arthur Hiller here. This is a guy who directed Al Pacino in Author, Author, Mary Steenbergen in Romantic Comedy, directed the Man from (sic) La Mancha. My goodness Peter O’Toole in a great Broadway musical is a horrible bomb?

Mark: Arthur Hiller once in a while gets an intelligent script like The Hospital. No, biggest hack of all time is Michael Bay because he is dumbing down the American moviegoing public. It’s bad enough that people won’t watch black & white films, won’t watch subtitled films. Bay is teaching us not to focus on an image that is any longer than 1/3 of a second.

This is a toughy for me. I think they’re both pretty good arguments, and I can’t fault anybody who calls Bay a hack because he is absolutely one of the worst directors working today – I don’t give a shit how much money his movies make. Hiller has made more good movies than just The Hospital — The Americanization of Emily, the original The Out-of-Towners and The In-Laws, and I’ve personally always loved Silver Streak – but I won’t argue that in the past 20 years he has definitely become a hack.

The problem with Reed’s argument, though, is that these judges probably don’t even know Hiller. I’d even guarantee that not one of those judges had heard of Romantic Comedy. In fact, I have to admit I thought Reed had said, "a romantic comedy" and was wondering why he mentioned a film without remembering its title. At least the judges know who Bay is. Are any of the three of them members of the Academy, in which case they might have noticed Hiller’s name on their correspondence from when he was that organization’s President. Or they might have noticed Hiller in that role on the Oscars for a few years. Other than that, Hill-who?

Anyway, I thought Mark did better with his argument, especially when it comes to knowing his audience. Reed wasn’t as specific with why he was hack, choosing instead to just name movies — and oneswith which these judges were likely unfamiliar — rather than hack-ish qualities. But then, again, came the rebuttals:

Reed: Michael Bay only wishes he was the hack that Arthur Hiller is. Arthur Hiller is like … Love Story is his greatest movie. This guy can take the best script, like The Hospital, and turn it into complete garbage.

Mark: Most famous Michael Bay image: the Pearl Harbor bombing from the point of view of the bomb. How tasteless is that. James Cameron did not film Titanic from the point of view of the iceberg.

I thought Reed came back and won on the rebuttal again, especially since Mark’s rebuttal wasn’t one at all. It was a good point, a funny line and his delivery was indescribable, but it had nothing to do with anything Reed said. He was just bolstering his argument. I may disagree with Reed a bit on Hiller — Love Story is absolutely not his best movie nor is The Hospital "garbage" — but overall his was the better argument.

Of course, that doesn’t matter with these judges as their likely ignorance as to the identity of Hiller doomed Reed from the start. Mewes again based his decision on nothing having to do with the debate: "I’m sorry, I have to vote against Reed again because Mark barely took a breath." Again – jackass. Roundtree complemented them both before voting for Mark. Lords, this time, actually disagreed and threw Reed a bone, but by that point it was too late.

I think Reed was his own worst enemy by not thinking about his audience, but I think it’s unfair that he should have to do so on a judge where his "knowledge, attitude and obsession" with film are being challenged. It would be interesting to see what would have happened had Reed won the first debate and Michael and Mark had competed in the second one, but I’m not really going to complain about Michael and Mark being the final two either. I would have voted differently, but these choices aren’t as egregious as the judges’ other mistakes throughout the season, which generally made no sense.

At this point, the producers again chose to switch things up. "The Obsession War" is gone, which makes sense because we wouldn’t want to risk seeing any of the same items, and the big winner should have to step-up to a more difficult task. I don’t think they succeeded in creating a bigger test, but they at least did something slightly fun. And thankfully, they took the decision out of the hands of their idiot non-celebrity panel.

Michael and Mark were sent to have lunch with a "film legend." This indie film icon would alone decide upon the winner. Gore sends Michael and Mark out of the studio to head to Mastro’s Steakhouse in Beverly Hills where they will meet this special surprise judge. Mark has this overly-determined and stiff stride as he walks straight at the camera — almost like a forward-leaning goosestep, actually, or some type of marcg; it’s actually a bit creepy — out of the studio with Michael sauntering along behind him. But I was just rejoicing in the three blind judges being shunned from the rest of the process.

The producers have Mark and Michael enter the restaurant and head to a private room where someone sits at a table holding up a menu to mask his identity. Mark and Michael sit on opposite sides of the actor, still not knowing his identity. Suddenly, lowering the menu, we see it’s Peter Fonda. Michael and Mark are both stunned, nearly speechless. And giving the producers credit where it’s due, Fonda is definitely much more of an indie film icon, and probably more knowledgeable, than any of the three judges. Why hasn’t he been on the show the whole time? It’s not like he’s really all that busy.

Mark looks excited and nervous; Michael finally opens his mouth to say, "Mr. Fonda," to which Fonda interrupts him and says, "Mr. Fonda died in ’82." That sort of breaks the ice except for the fact that both Michael and Mark obviously can’t get visions of Easy Rider out of their heads.

The two finalists are so starstruck and relatively subdued, this segment isn’t all that exciting, but it’s also relatively short. Basically, Fonda asks them each why they think they should be the winner and why their opponent shouldn’t. Michael mentions how he wants film to be his whole life so he has made it so. Mark says that he thinks he’s more fanatical because while Michael works in "the film industry" — at some sort of video company apparently, although since he lives in the Midwest, it can’t be all that "inside" – Mark just works in sales and has to work that much harder spending the rest of his time absorbing movies. Michael, of course, turns Mark’s point around to say that he’s more fanatical because he did take it that extra step to work in an area film related because he wants every second of every day to have something to do with movies.

The best part was actually when Fonda uses the word "film geek" and Mark "respectively" takes issue with him using the word "geek." I think this moment may have actually been a deciding factor in Fonda’s (and the producers? I can’t imagine they really left it 100% up to him, but maybe.) decision, because Michael pipes up to say, "Embrace it dude. You’ve got to embrace that."

Fonda also asks them to name their favorite restaurant scene in a film, and I think Michael’s detailed answer as to the greatness of the final scene from Pulp Fiction probably did more for him than Mark’s relatively simple and straightforward response of "the incredible scene in Shampoo where Julie Christie shows us all just what she wants to do with him at that particular time."

The whole segment ran under 6 or 7 minutes, I believe, and there was plenty of dumb schtick in it too. Michael was definitely the more confident and secure of the two, and ultimately, Fonda rightly named him the winner. I remember during Michael’s regional, I wrote, "At this point, I’m rooting for Michael F. to win the whole damn thing," and I’m happy to say that Fonda agreed with me. There were some other contestants I liked, but Michael probably came closest overall to fulfilling the qualities that should have won this show, and he did. He gave a nice little speech thanking his dad for helping instill in him a love for movies that goes beyond the big mainstream blockbusters. And you know, Mark was probably disappointed, but he seems to have cherished the lunch with Peter Fonda so much, I don’t even feel that bad for him.

I’m glad UFF ended the way it did, and I hope when the show comes back next season – you can sign up to audition now, but you need to do so by 9/10; they start taping in October – they can fix much of what was wrong with it this time. This finale was by far the best of the 8 episode season.

Producers, listen to me now and hear me late. (Damn Ahnuld influence.) it won’t be that hard to make the show that much more entertaining and legitimate.

First, cast better. Make sure the contestants can debate; ask them more indie-centric trivia; and prescreen their "obsession war" items, paying special attention to not accepting people who rely on photographs at normal tourist locations that have happened to appear in a movie or diaries recording films seen.

Second, fix the trivia portion. Make it more interesting, with more difficult questions, more indie and foreign film trivia, and less importance on sudden death. Have all six competing at once rather in pairs, and make the people who move forward really earn it rather than simply get lucky because of their draw.

Third, maybe you should also allow the contestants to prepare for the debates more. Obviously you can’t do that if the debate involves opposite sides of one issue because you won’t know who will make it through, but if you utilize questions like in the finale you can. You can have everyone prepare in case they move forward. Whatever you do, if you cast better, you’ll have better debates, and to film fanatics like me, that’s the best part of your show.

Fourth, try to guide the contestants in their items or stories in their "obsession war" a bit better. I’m not asking for you to fix it, but again, this should be solved in the casting process. Too many people had items and/or stories that were really boring. If they can’t legitimately win the show, they shouldn’t make the show.

And finally, please get better judges. If IFC can get four actors to sit and gab about nothing over dinner regularly with Jon Favreau, you really must be able to find three people who actually know something about film and are fanatics in their own right. The contestants need to be judged more by their peers rather than D-List (yeah, I demoted them) celebrities. I can’t imagine the taping schedule really takes up that much time; you’ve got to get someone better.

Hmmm … I think I’m done. Yeah, I don’t believe it either. If you want to see what the hell I’m talking about, remember that IFC will broadcast the whole series over and over and over again this coming Monday. Take a look at the schedule to see which episode airs when.

In case you’re wondering, no, I won’t be trying out for the show because I don’t think I legitimately can stand up to the type of people who should win it, regardless of the level of my own fanaticism. So to all of you who will try out, I wish you the best of luck. And to IFC, whenever you want my full-time consulting capabilities, I’m still here … waiting.

UPDATE: To be fair, since I posted the above, I’ve heard from one of the finalists who mentioned that "The First Cut" round was heavily edited. So my questioning how so many big name films were missed has a simple answer: they weren’t. Apparently, in the last round in which Jordan was eliminated, there were apparently four or five sets of contestants’ answers that were edited out. So by the time Jordan couldn’t think of anything, there was quite possibly virtually nothing left.

I think it’s very unfortunate that IFC couldn’t extend the length of this one episode to fit the rounds in full. That would have been incredibly entertaining. To see contestants pull out the names of movies some people hadn’t even heard of; to be shocked and surprised as these knowledgeable film geeks pull some obscure titles (apparently both Cameron Crowe’s script for The Wild Life and James Cameron’s Piranha Part Two were named but cut out of the final episode) basically out of their asses. Sudden death is much more interesting when it takes longer for a contestant to die. Both the producers and the network should realize that. When those disclaimers at the end mention that portions may have been edited which did not affect the outcome, my reaction proves that it makes the outcome less understandable. And even if it doesn’t affect the outcome, maybe it does have some bearing on overall entertainment value.

Editing out those sections is a blunder and makes the show worse than it could have been. On a channel like IFC which is not beholden to the half-hour schedule and often starts films and other programming on the 1/4 hour, why not give the final episode 45 minutes? No reason; just limited thinking. Just lazy.

Hopefully, they won’t make the same mistake next time.