Out of Focus

This Sunday night marks the true beginning of the Oscar race. Oh sure, the nominating ballots will have already been turned in to PricewaterhouseCoopers (they’re due tomorrow by 5 PM), so the actual winners of the Golden Globes won’t really sway the nominations, but you can bet your ass that Sunday’s winners will be coming first thing Tuesday morning (no trade papers on Martin Luther King Jr. Day) just hoping that they’ll get the nod when big daddy’s finalists are announced on the morning of Tuesday 1/25.

One film that should be able to save a ton of money is The Phantom of the Opera. Of the 11 films receiving Golden Globe Best Picture nominations (six dramas and five musicals/comedies), Phantom was the only one I hadn’t seen … until last night. I mention this in passing over at The Conversation this morning, but I walked into the theater with very low expectations. Generally when that happens, even if I don’t like a film, it won’t annoy me to death. I had very low expectations for National Treasure, and although I’m not going to bestow upon it any awards, I actually had a good time. I’ve made no secret of my dislike for the work of Vincent Gallo, so I wasn’t anticipating much from The Brown Bunny, but even though I didn’t like the movie, it was better that I thought it would be and an improvement on Buffalo ’66, which I despised.

Being directed by Joel Schumacher is an immediate strike against this adaptation of the long-running Andrew Lloyd Weber musical. Unlike many people, I never hated the stage show. I didn’t love it either, and in many ways, I consider it the prime example of everything that was wrong with musical theater from about the mid-80s through the late-90s, with continuing residual effects lingering still today. Phantom was “musical spectacle,” not musical theater. The most important part of the stage show wasn’t the music, songs or singing, but it was a gigantic chandelier crashing to the stage at the end of Act I. But the music, in its own overly manipulative way, was still somewhat stirring, and the performances by that original cast gave the cheesy fantasy-filled love story some degree of oomph. Phantom the stage show wasn’t as good as Les Miserables, but it also wasn’t as torturous as Miss Saigon. And while Weber isn’t any sort of true musical genius, he’s actually much better than composers like Frank Wildhorn who has given us The Civil War, The Scarlet Pimpernel, Jekyll & Hyde and, most recently, the now-closed flop Dracula: The Musical.

So when I sat down to watch Schumacher’s filmed Phantom — made with heavy input from Weber – I may have been predisposed to not like the movie, but not due to any hatred of the material. Instead, I just never expect a good film from Schumacher anymore. I wrote about this theory of mine last year in a post regarding the terrible Phone Booth. Basically, if you give Schumacher too big a budge and let him go wild with his production design and effects, he’ll ruin your film. Schumacher is one of the few directors who really needs to spend less time looking through the camera lens and more paying attention to what the fuck he’s actually shooting. You give a film like Tigerland and send him off with no money, he comes back with a minor gem. I still haven’t seen 2003’s Veronica Guerin, but I’ve heard good things, and this is another movie that he had to make for under $20 Million.

You throw $60 Million at Schumacher (with no real high-priced talent, mind you) and tell him to recreate a 19th Century Parisian opera house, and you’re fucked. Schumacher shattered all my low expectations for Phantom. He jumped right through them and made a movie far far worse than I ever thought was possible. It would be much hard to pinpoint what isn’t wrong with this movie than comprehensively describing what is.

Continue reading “IF ONLY JOEL SCHUMACHER WOULD BECOME A PHANTOM AND DISAPPEAR”

I mentioned this yesterday in my 2004 Top 10 list post, but now that things are in fuller swing, I wanted to remind everyone to come join the CONVERSATION where four very good film bloggers needed someone to dumb-down the proceedings so they invited me to be a part of the club. Bloggers are writing and readers are commenting, and things are picking up steam, so please come join us. Unlike Slate’s “Movie Club,” while the five of us may be having the conversation, we’re hoping as many people as possible will take part in the discussion.

See you over there.

I’m not always a huge fan of my birthday. As one who is mentally and emotionally probably still in his teens, my march toward’s mid-30s isn’t all that exciting. With that said, there was news yesterday that almost makes me want to rush my 35th birthday.

On my birthday (September 21) in 2006, one of the all-time great musicals will return to its rightful place along the Great White Way: “A Chorus Line, one of the biggest hits in Broadway history and a landmark work of the musical comedy genre, will return to the Great White Way in 2006.”

For all the hype, muss and fuss that treated Rent like the greatest thing since West Side Story, there really hasn’t been a genre-busting Broadway musical that transcended all possible expectations of quality since A Chorus Line — at least until Avenue Q. (Well, Sweeney Todd, I guess, but that’s a relative contemporary of Chorus Line, never received the same degree of hype or popularity, and I mean, with Sondheim, it’s pretty much just a given that it will almost always be close to brilliant.) I didn’t live in New York when A Chorus Line played Broadway (1975-1990), although I have seen stage productions.

For those of you out there saying, “I never understood the big deal. I saw the movie. It was no big whoop. In fact, I think it was kind of boring.” Well you’re right — the movie definitely isn’t all that. Why anyone would think Richard Attenborough was the right man to helm this film is beyond me. The filmmakers took a non-conventional, non-linear storyline about the lives of Broadway line-dancers, those who were likely never to step in front of the line and find their names on the marquee (in many ways, the show was the anti-42nd Street and All About Eve), and they tried to highligh a primary conventional plot centered around the former romantic relationship between ex-lead dancer Cassie and director Zach. It just all became a lot of blech. (They also added/cut songs, with the new ones being nowhere near as strong as what was replaced.)

The movie version of A Chorus Line is an unfortunate record of what truly is one of the few truly magnificent examples of musical theater from the last quarter of the 20th Century. While no production in 2006 could conceivably replicate the freshness and excitement of the original productions 1975 debut, nor, I’m sure, will it run anywhere close to as long, I’m much happier knowing that revivals of this show will take up residence on Broadway reminding people how much of what has come since really hasn’t been up-to-par. If it didn’t also mean I was still getting older, I would wish that this opening night, more than 18 months away, would could arrive tomorrow! Now I’m just waiting for that often-discussed, long-in-the-works revival of HAIR!

I know, I know. I’ve been mentioning and promising: “Here comes the list. I’m working on my list.” I’m sure by this point, you’re all listed out. I understand, and I apologize for the delay. But hey, at least I’m joining the game sooner than I did last year.

What’s taken me so long? Well, I really wanted to see as many contenders for best of the year as possible, and with 2004 releases, that includes a lot of movies. This was one of the best years for film in recent memory. Of the 350-400 films receiving a theatrical release for at least a week in either NYC or LA, I saw somewhere around 100. That doesn’t include a number of films still without distribution or coming out in 2005, and for the purposes of this list, I only included 2004 theatrical releases.

There are several films I wanted to see and will probably get to in the coming weeks, but at a certain point I simply had to say, “That’s enough.” Why today? Damn fine question. Because today is the beginning of the CONVERSATION. The wha? If you’re familiar with Slate.com’s “Movie Club,” you’ll have an idea of what some cohorts and myself have in mind for the CONVERSATION. We were a little tired of the “pros” having all the fun, and besides, certain members of the Slate crew were giving some of us headaches. For some reason, the Dorothy Parkers of film bloggerdom — the great cinetrix and Liz Penn — decided to honor me with a seat at their table. Joining us will also be the estimable Filmbrain and the all-seeing, all-knowing David Hudson. The discussion will start today and continue through Monday, ostensibly centered around this weekend’s Golden Globes, but really just all about the movies of 2004. Hopefully, you’ll also be joining us, so head over to the CONVERSATION.

BUT BEFORE YOU DO, don’t leave yet. The lists of the best are below – the worst will come later. My comments on the “Top 10” and “Next Tier” can be found by clicking on the film titles. And without further ado …

The Top 10 Films of 2004

1. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
2. Before Sunset
3. Bad Education
4. Sideways
5. The Incredibles
6. I ♥ Huckabees
7. Spider-Man 2
8. Tarnation
9. The Door in the Floor
10. The Aviator

The Next Tier

• Fahrenheit 9/11
• Garden State
• Hero
• Hotel Rwanda
• House of Flying Daggers
• Million Dollar Baby

Rerelease/Reconstruction Special Mention
The Big Red One: The Reconstruction, Donnie Darko: The Director’s Cut

Other Honorable Mention
Baadasssss!, Born Into Brothels, DiG!, End of the Century: The Story of the Ramones, Finding Neverland, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Kill Bill, Vol. 2, Maria Full of Grace, Metallica: Some Kind of Monster, The Motorcycle Diaries, Undertow, Vera Drake, William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice

Might have made it (or might not!) had I seen them
Assassination of Richard Nixon, Dogville, Goodbye Dragon Inn, Last Life in the Universe, Moolaadé, Primer, Red Lights, Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter … and Spring, A Very Long Engagement, and others, I’m sure.

Continue reading “AT LONG LAST, THE BEST OF 2004 – A GREAT YEAR FOR MOVIES”

So, I’m a day behind, sorry. But if you don’t subscribe to Charlie Suisman’s MUG, yesterday was a perfect example of why you should. Thanksfully, the daily newsletter is just a copy of what gets posted to the site, and yesterday’s entry of New York area film festivals is quite comprehensive: a month-by-month listing of what must be almost every film festival taking place in the city including the big ones (New Directors/New Films, GenArt, Tribeca, New York), but also smaller and even obscure ones such as this week’s New York Jewish Film Festival, March’s New York Underground Film Festival, May’s Bicycle Film Festival (for all you Critical Mass folk) and October’s Coney Island Film Festival. I’m sure he’s missing a few, and certainly places like the Walter Reade will have regularly programmed series (such as the ones focusing on new French and Italian cinema) that aren’t so different from these festivals, but this MUG entry is a good place to start if you want to find the breadth of what’s out there. Way to go, Charlie.

P.S.: Today’s MUG entry: Foot Care!

You know what is a marvelous phenomenon within entertainment/celebrity news these days? The fact that the thoughts, feelings and lives of Jessica Simpson and hubby Nick Lachey seem to be important news. Yes, we the masses may care about Brad and Jen’s split, but what we really want to know is what do Jessica and Nick think about it? Well, wait no more fellow worriworts. The AP is here to ease our pain: Simpson, Lachey Sorry for Pitt, Aniston. WHEW! I say.

Thankfully, Simpson, caring for her fans, decided to pass along some words of wisdom as well in an interview with Access Hollywood, quoted in the article: “Any marriage is tough. You go through struggles and it’s work. You have to make it happen.” You said it sister. You know, I think I see a Presidential campaign in her future. I mean, if W. could win with, “It’s hard work,” Simpson seems half-way there!

I meant to mention this last week, but for awhile now, Fox has been promoting the “two night, four hour premiere” of the new season of 24, which started last night. For some reason, this annoyed the hell out of me. Here’s a show that progresses in what’s supposed to be real time. If you want to claim you’re showing a two hour premiere — the first two hour’s of this season’s new “day” — fine, but once last night’s telecast was over, tonight’s not part of the premiere. The damn thing has already been on. Tonight is just two more hours.

Yeah, this isn’t the biggest deal in the world, but it’s exactly how these network marketing departments keep bullshitting the audience into thinking something special is going on. Why don’t they just say, “join us for 24’s 12-week premiere, right before the stunning 12-week conclusion!” I mean, it really is the same thing. When you’re second, you simply aren’t first.

Meanwhile, I’m so behind. Not only have I not watched the first two hours of 24, but I still need to see last week’s Alias season premiere. The one thing I am happy about — assuming neither pisses me off in the early hours, enough to stop watching — is that both shows will run this season virtually every week with no repeats. The whole purpose of starting in January was to have virtually no gaps in episodes. I have a feeling this will benefit 24 greatly since one of the problems with the series is due to the entire program’s basic gimmick: sure the characters may have only been up around for 24 hours by the end, but when you’re watching something in May that started 9 months earlier, no matter what the show is telling you, it becomes harder to believe that all this action was simply “yesterday.”

Anyone watch last night’s People’s Choice Awards? Yeah, me neither. But did you see the results? “‘Fahrenheit,’ ‘Passion’ Win People’s Choice Awrds”, the AP news headline reads. Further examination of the story is even more interesting as “‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ was named best film and ‘The Passion of The Christ’ best film drama.”

The People’s Choice Awards have never really been a show about quality. I don’t think they necessarily even truly represent the most popular of entertainment — if so, then the absolute top grossers would likely always win. Until this year, the awards were always decided via Gallup Poll, but this time around, CBS formed a partnership with Entertainment Weekly, and just about anyone could vote via online ballot.

These two movies split this country just like the last election. The number of people who were able to view either film objectively was tiny, with the majority of critics praising one film and calling the other trash. Of course, on the surface, these two movies had very little to do with each other, but they do represent the whole red state/blue state phenomenon, and if their individual grosses had been used as tea leaves, it should have come as no surprise that the conservative right would be able to mobilize people to get out the vote. The certainly convinced enough followers to head to the multiplex and turn The Passion of the Christ into a box office sensation. The caveat that Fahrenheit’s over $100-Million gross was incredible for a documentary may be valid, but it doesn’t hold up against The Passion’s nearly $400-Million, astonishing in its own right since audiences had to read subtitles.

I don’t want to place too much importance on The People’s Choice Awards, but how fascinating that these two movies (I assume) split much of the voting. (It’s important to note that the two films did not compete against each other in either category.) How interesting that enough people are still so passionately behind both of these films to name Fahrenheit best overall movie and The Passion best drama. (Meanwhile, Shrek 2 — the year’s box office champ with $436-Million gross — is the lucky winner of best comedy and best animated film.) Even within a silly, innocuous, popularity contest awards show, Fahrenheit was able to beat out major box office earners (and fan favorites) like Spiderman 2, Shrek 2 and The Incredibles. The only film nominated for “Favorite Movie” it attracted a larger audience than was Eternal Sunshine. Meanwhile, The Passion’s competition for “Favorite Movie Drama” also included fan favorites (even if they’re not all great movies) The Bourne Supremacy, Collateral, Finding Neverland and Ray. Yet among all these titles, these are the two that won.

It would have been interesting to see what might have happened had people actually have to vote for one versus the other. How close would this sort of “popular vote” really been.

Well, we can assume we now know somewhat how the Oscars will look, and chances are at least one incredibly undeserving nominee will get a nod for direction. As reported everywhere (lets go with indieWIRE; they’re nice) yesterday, the DGA announced the nominees for their annual award. They include Martin Scorsese for The Aviator, Alexander Payne for Sideways, Clint Eastwood for Million Dollar Baby, and two guys who have no right to be in this list. (I’m still, for the moment, going to stay away from the Million Dollar Baby argument which several other film bloggers are not just calling bad but one of the worst films of the year!)

Alright, that may be a little harsh. Finding Neverland is a very good movie, but its flaws were in its direction. Director Marc Forster just doesn’t know how to leave the camera alone when necessary, and with such a magnificent cast, there were plenty of moments when the flash and dash and swirls of his moving camera are distracting rather than meaningful. He did the same thing in Monster’s Ball (I know that puts me in a minority, probably similar to the Million Dollar Baby haters), a movie I absolutely loathed. Again, I think he did a good job overall with this film, but one of the five best direction jobs of the year? You’ve got to be kidding.

Still, give me Forster’s work this year any day over Ray. Ray is really a mess, and Taylor Hackford once again earned the first syllable of his last name. The flaws in this film are obvious and they come directly from the script and direction. The only reason this film is even watchable is thanks to Jamie Foxx’s magnificent performance. He carries the movie and does so fabulously. I’ll also give Hackford credit for at least attempting to approach the storytelling in a somewhat novel way: to have the individual songs drive the story. But Ray also has one of the absolute worst and most abrupt endings that I’ve ever seen onscreen. Ray isn’t a bad film but it’s not a good one either. It’s a movie that should have been great; a biopic about a man whose life story was ripe for cinematic exploitation. And Hackford tried valiantly (for many years with I’m sure a lot of heart) to tell that story in an interesting way, but ultimately he failed.

I wish I could say I was shocked that Michel Gondry did not receive a nomination for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but I’m not. The DGA (which is the director’s union after all) is too conservative and probably too old to truly award a work which is as unique, visionary and revolutionary as Gondry’s. Eternal Sunshine is the kind of film that springs from the mind of a screenwriter and then gets completely enhanced by the interpretation of a director. If anyone thinks that movie would have been the same, regardless of the strength of Charlie Kaufman’s script, or as incredible, had anybody else helmed it (Spike Jonze included), you are sadly mistaken.

In my head, judging the job of a director may not be easy, but it’s relatively simple. Before you accuse me of contradicting myself, here’s what I mean: a film director should first and foremost follow something similar to the ideal “First do no harm.” (Hey, guess what? In checking myself, I just discovered that those words exist nowhere within the actual Hippocratic Oath. Go figure!) While a director is not responsible for writing the screenplay (unless of course he/she has done that as well), it is still the filmmakers job to help the screenplay become as good as it can be. Beyond that, there have been plenty of interesting, good scripts turned into terrible films. That is the director’s fault. If you make a film basically as good as the script on which it’s based, you’re capable, but nothing more.

The great directors are the ones who will always improve on a script. If you read a script and say, “That was OK,” but then see the movie and really like it, the director has done his/her job. Sometimes a great script may not have that far to go, but it would still be easy to fuck it up, and just making a movie competently is no easy task. The Aviator is a film with a little too much going on and severely underwritten characters, but Scorsese makes it more than simply a watchable movie: he made a great movie (even if not a great Scorsese movie – there is a higher standard there). I personally believe the same can be said about Eastwood’s work on Million Dollar Baby. The film’s script isn’t a mess, but it is a bit trite and filled with cliché. (I for one, however, did not find it predictable, and was happy with many of the questions left unanswered.) It’s tone and visual style are fantastic though, and it’s in the shooting and the editing that you can see what Eastwood at the helm accomplished. The script isn’t a mess by any means (like Ray or Collateral), but it needed improvement from the production phase, and it received that.

See, the rules really are simple. Great direction isn’t about being flashy or showy or epic (and by that reasoning, only Payne’s nomination truly stands out), not that there’s anything wrong with any of those qualities, but it all depends on what’s right for the film; what will make that script better than it was on the page. If the DGA is supposed to honor the best of its member’s work, they’re missing the boat this year.

Thanks to everyone who seemed to think I was deathly ill on Wednesday. That wasn’t exactly the case. I was actually fine by the time I wrote that post in the afternoon … at least physically. Yesterday, on the other hand was a different matter, which is why I’m only now getting around to mentioning the three very important programming notes of the week: an unfortunately timed screening of The Red Shoes, Taxi Driver at Film Forum, and the return of Ultimate Film Fanatic on IFC.

My Wednesday morning sickness was more bizarre than long-lasting. I was just trying to draw some likely non-existent connection to the fact that I was walking through the day in a bit of a fog. That’s better then yesterday though when, for some still unknown reason, I managed to wake up at 4 AM to discover my hands were swollen and would hurt whenever I tried to close them into a fist. Oh yeah, that freaked me out a little bit. Allergic reaction? Could be, but to what, I don’t know. Neither does my doctor. The good news is that the freakish swelling was about 90% gone by 11:30 AM, and the weird tingling has finally almost disappeared this morning. Yay.

The only major effect either of these two weird ailments have really had on me is that I didn’t post yesterday, and on Wednesday, I missed my last opportunity to see Playtime at the Walter Reade. I did make last night’s Young Friend of Films screening of Takeshi Kitano’s Brother, which I had never seen. Sadly, there’s no way I’ll be able to get back to Lincoln Center today at 3 PM to see The Red Shoes, one of my all-time favorite movies, and one of the few in that category that I have never seen projected on a big screen. If you’re in New York and you have any opportunity to get to this screening, I highly encourage you to do so. Michael Powell’s and Emeric Pressburger’s 1948 film is simply one of the all time great cinematic experiences in history. A visually breathtaking movie with a riveting story and magnificent performances, this is one of the few films that makes me want to say, “If you don’t love it, you can’t love movies.” The third act ballet sequence alone leaves me in wide-eyed, open-mouthed awe whenever I see it. Seriously, if you’re free, and especially if you’ve never seen it, get your ass to the Walter Reade at 3 PM. If you can’t get there, you should seriously consider renting the magnificent Criterion disc.)

You have a little more flexibility to see another one of my favorite films. Film Forum was supposed to be screening the brilliant Raging Bull, but for reasons not detailed, they’re unable to screen that film and have replaced it with Martin Scorsese’s earlier masterpiece, Taxi Driver. In fact, as much as I love Raging Bull (and to all you Million Dollar Baby haters, in comparison to this film, it certainly does fail miserably), Taxi Driver is my all-time favorite Scorsese film. It’s strange to realize that Taxi Driver is now almost 30 years old. It’s scary, and somewhat upsetting, to notice how late ’70s New York, especially the now cleaned-up 42nd Street, looks like a completely different place. But the character of Travis Bickle and his ongoing internal monologue is one which I think most people can relate to on some level, a person sickened by the darker elements of our world, who only wants to do good but doesn’t know how. A person who always feels like an outside, but his lack of social graces stop him whenever he tries to become “normal.” Granted, we hopefully won’t go to his extremes, but just because we might on the surface call him crazy, we’re better off realizing the Travis Bickle who exists in all of us than discarding him so easily. Taxi Driver will play at Film Forum only through this coming Tuesday 1/11, so hurry down there.

And finally, tonight is the premiere of the second series of Ultimate Film Fanatic (10:30 PM on IFC). If you’ve been reading this blog for a little bit, you may remember that at the end of the summer, I kept writing very detailed, and highly critical, reviews/recaps of IFC’s little game show. (Here is my post on the finals, from within which you can find links to the individual episode posts.) I thought the show was a gigantic missed-opportunity: great idea for IFC, a game show that people who watch the channel and love movies could really get into, but just terribly produced and written. In its attempts to be “indie” and cool, it was just lame. Happily, I received a lot of great response in comments and via email from several of the show’s contestants as well as host Chris Gore, who wrote me that some of the elements frustrated him and he hoped to have more input into the creative elements of the show (which I would consider a good thing). The format of the finals was better than any episode, and hopefully the producers have learned from their first season mistakes, and this go around will be less frustrating. IFC aired a “casting special” last night (which I have yet to watch), but IFC should know that while I may not spend hours detailing every last element of the show, I will be watching. Oh yes I will. Here’s hoping we see some a better show; I’ll try to contain myself a wee bit if we don’t, but no guarantees.