Author: admin

  • Interview: Kevin Smith & Matt Johnson for THE DIRTIES

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    Check out my other column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me onTWITTER under the name: Stipp

    Kevin Smith and Matt Johnson SDCC 2013 (Via Geek Legacy):

    There was much mirth, merriment and creepy cosplay on display at the San Diego Comic-Con this past July but one of the most exciting treats of the convention was being able to have an audience with Kevin Smith. It was notable not so much for the opportunity to talk about what Smith has been up to but because he was sharing the floor with a fresh voice in the landscape of teenage-themed films, Matt Johnson. Johnson’s film, THE DIRTIES, http://www.thedirtiesthemovie.com/, deals with a couple of friends who have to deal with systematic bullying which results in the kind of violence we are all too aware of in this age of Columbine. It balances the humorous and the serious while trying to get at something raw and visceral. You can watch the entire interview above as Kevin explores all manner of topics that focus on why this film spoke to him, what he sees in Johnson as a filmmaker and how he sees his role as a shepherd for these kinds of movies.

    I asked Kevin about that and how he sees himself now in a role where he take people under his wing to show them where the pitfalls are and where not to make the same mistakes he might have.

    “Absolutely, there’s a real Kevin Spacey-ish, kind of PAY IT FORWARD, to it because I got real fuckin’ lucky and won the lottery with CLERKS… So, it’s nice to get to a point where there are enough people who follow what I do and I can be like, ‘Watch this as well!’ And advocate for someone else. That’s the altruistic version of it. But, honestly, like I’ve said before, all I do is get instant credibility by aligning myself with a movie this bold, this strong, this fresh, this original. So I’d be stupid to say, ‘Nah, you guys figure it out for yourself.’ There’s also something in it for me so it’s mutually beneficial, I guess, but it probably helps me out a little bit more.”

    For more on what Kevin thinks of THE DIRTIES and why he thinks it needs to be one of your must-see’s this fall, check out the interview in its entirety.

  • Opinion In A Haystack: PACIFIC RIM review

    haystackheader.jpg

    pacific-rim-poster-comic

    We live in a cinematic climate where everyone from top to bottom is trying to capture some form of the past. It’s partly the reason the film industry is struggling and artistically becoming bankrupt, however that is a topic for another day. We are trying to recapture, and repackage our youth. The big guns in Hollywood are doing it, the little guys with HD consumer cameras in their hands are doing it. We have an obsession to recreate the Reagan-era theater experience, but the popcorn is never flavored right. Hollywood, ala Transformers and such, makes it’s attempts with labels, logos, NAMES. That’s the problem really, you can call it “Transformers” or “Total Recall” all you want, you can plaster the nostalgic logo all over the posters and scream the title from the mountaintops, but in the end it doesn’t feel the same. More often than not it comes off as depressing instead of capturing that “FEEL” that it aims for and we crave. That’s because that “FEEL” isn’t in the logo, and it honestly can’t be found in low-budget “supposed to be awful” parodies of 80’s mainstream entertainment. It has to be in the DNA of the movie and filmmakers like Guillermo del Toro know how to work that double helix magic and bring it out, not with logos and fan service, but with TONE and WRITING and CONCEPT.

    Pacific Rim, Guillermo del Toro’s Robots vs. Monster action homage to an eclectic handful of genres from cinemas past, is without a doubt a complete triumph for its intended goal. Oh, and most delightful of all, it’s a completely NEW property, a homage to the Godzilla (kaiju) and Robot movies of 30 or more years ago.

    pacific_rim_banner_1_20130430_1807391588

    For a synopsis and cast list here’s a direct link to the IMDB page.

    The “triumph” aspect stems from the tone and the characters, surprisingly more so than the spectacular action scenes. Del Toro gives us a story that revolves around an ensemble cast doing their best to have a good time. Ron Perlman in a cameo role chews up the scenery as a comic relief along side Charlie Day’s Kaiju obsessed scientist. Idris Elba steals the show as the heavy, and the rest of the cast pulls us into the film in an almost effortless, sometimes pleasantly cheesy, effort. The great thing about the movie is, unlike say Bay’s Transformers films, this isn’t a red, white, and blue America-to-the-rescue patriot-fest. This film feels all-inclusive. The world is facing a giant threat and we all come together equally to stop it. This is especially evident because of the process needed to control the giant monster crushing robots, it’s called “drifting” (not the Tokyo kind) and its when two people lock minds to control the robots because a single human mind can’t do it by itself. This leads us through the emotional through line of the film and is the plot device, which gives us both a male and female hero at the end of the day.

    SSD-21929.DNG

    While there is an emotional through line, let’s say this, the film has a light touch. Light touch? Yes, it is very odd to say a film about giant, skyscraper sized monsters and robots fighting has a light touch, but in the “tone” department that is exactly what Del Toro is Aiming for. The movie is meant to be enjoyed, to be savored by those of use who grew up watching Godzilla movies and smashing robot toys together out of pure glee. In other reviews and discussions I’ve seen Jurassic Park mentioned quite a few times, because it’s a movie that made this current generation of almost-30-somethings walk out of a theater with their eyes twinkling with the glee of imagination (this reviewer included.) Pacific Rim, much like the 20-year old Jurassic Park, has the potential to do just that for a new generation of kids. That’s a bold statement to make in a cinematic climate where huge CGI action films are, sadly, the standard. However, Del Toro knows the genres he’s trying to capture, and he captures them right.

    pacific-rim

    Pacific Rim is highly recommended. Furthermore, IMAX might actually be worth the ticket price for this one, but avoid the 3D. Always avoid the 3D.

    Thanks for reading!

  • Trailer Park: Phoenix Film Festival 2013

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    Check out my other column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me onTWITTER under the name: Stipp

    It’s been a while, folks, since I last checked in. Now, judging by the outpouring of concern I can see that you’re all thirsty for an update of where I’ve been. Suffice to say, I’m still here, I’m still writing up a storm, and I’ll be back more regularly soon. In the meantime, though, our good buddy Ray checks in from the Phoenix Film Festival to talk about gems that came to the desert.

    Highlights from the PFF by Ray Schillaci

    pff2013art.jpg

    At first glance one may wonder if the 13th Annual Phoenix Film Festival (PFF) was following a theme of mental illness and riding on the coattails of the popular “Silver Linings Playbook”. With not one, but three films involving mental disorders, the powers that be at PFF might have considered a more mainstream thought of choosing just one. But instead, the festival took a bold step forward and disregarded the similar themes and placed three wonderful and enlightening films in competition with completely different tones. “Lonely Boy,” “The Story of Luke” and “Putzel” opened our minds, tugged at our hearts and even made us laugh. The films proved to be only the beginning of some remarkable work by the independent film community.

    Thirteen proved to be a very lucky number for the festival that included the International Horror & Sci-Fi Film Festival (IHSFFF). Many had questioned how the festival (PFF) would top themselves after last year. The festival provided the answer with”¦more premiers, an abundance of great films and a much smoother running film festival than ever before. Talent from all over the world attended and they made themselves readily available for the audience that enjoyed their work.

    The IHSFFF delivered a fun filled time with most of the shorts being as entertaining as the features. The audience wound up clapping and whopping it up in the middle of some of these highly imaginative horror and sci-fi shorts. Best Horror Short went deservedly to “Killer Kart” an extremely funny and gory piece of food chomping madness. The festival also had Meg Foster presenting the John Carpenter cult classic, “They Live”. If you have not seen this one, run out to your nearest Red Box or Blockbuster (if it hasn’t closed its doors) and rent this horror/sci-fi/social commentary piece of paranoia that is more relevant today than it was when it was released.

    tumblr_mkyow96gzt1qd6zaco1_500Many of the competition films at PFF became in such high demand it was hard to get a good seat or see all of them over the seven day period. “The Retrieval” was one film that built tremendous momentum leaving the audience blown away and eventually winning Best Ensemble Acting, Best Director and the Cox Audience Award. I had to wait a couple of days to find the time to see what the buzz was all about.

    Director, Chris Eska delivers an Oscar worthy film with riveting performances along with a budget that appeared the size of a studio production. Of course, that is not the case and kudos to Mr. Eska to not only push the budget boundaries of an independent feature, but also bring us a first rate production that leaves an indelible mark on our hearts and minds. Chris Eska is one to watch out for.

    This civil war western is a jaw dropper that had some comparing it to “Django Unchained”. But that would be a disservice to both films. While Tarantino’s film is a slick and entertaining homage to spaghetti westerns and all sorts of other films with a subplot involving slavery, “The Retrieval” takes a far more serious look at the skeleton in our nation’s closet and delivers an original nailbiter.

    From the opening shot that fills the screen with dread; Eska introduces us to a 13 year-old slave and his uncle who are being used by an unscrupulous bounty hunter to snare unsuspecting runaway slaves. This scenario alone captures our attention with a diverse range of emotions. How far will one go to survive? They are eventually dispatched to retrieve a slippery and allegedly dangerous slave only known as Nate, played brilliantly by Tishuan Scott, under false pretenses.

    All three leads, Tishuan Scott, Ashton Sanders as the 13 year-old Will and Keston John as Uncle Marcus, ratchet the tension playing off each other and leave us breathless as they take us on a dark and harrowing journey of mistrust. The turnkey performance being that of Tishuan Scott, commanding the screen and bringing comparisons as far back as the legendary Paul Robeson. In fact, seeing Scott in this fascinating role and meeting him in person, one cannot help but know that he is classically trained with his unique stature and rich eloquent voice.

    This is not to undercut the other leads’ acting ability. Sanders and Keston bring so much believability and heart to their characters that when one combines all three they become a dream team which is why they won Best Ensemble. “The Retrieval” with its stunning visuals, brilliant acting and four star production values is not just a must see, it’s a must own.

    Paul Osborne is no stranger to PFF. The director brought his scathing and very funny documentary that exposed many film festivals to PFF with a rousing acceptance several years ago. This year director, Osborne premiered his new feature film “Favor” to the competition. After seeing the director’s, “Official Rejection,” who would think that the man was capable of such Hitchcockian darkness? In fact, being spoiler free, I will only tell you that at one point towards the end of the film I actually got up from my seat and approached Mr. Osborne who was observing the audience reaction on the side and whispered to him, “You’re a very sick man.”

    He actually smiled at me in glee and said, “Wait, there’s more”. Damn him for being right. This is not to say that Osborne has delivered a disgusting film, but a very unsettling tale of friendship, favors and a very dark part of the human soul that unsettles the audience to no end. Is it entertaining? In a very sick and twisted way”¦YES! Watching Osborne avoid mimicking Hitchcock and instead capturing his spirit can be pure joy for those willing to take the ride. It brings to mind the Coen Brothers’ first film, “Blood Simple” and yet Osborne is straight forward with his nasty tale and more interested in good storytelling than displaying technique that could take away from the harshness of it all. Best Screenplay at the Phoenix Film Festival was a well deserved honor to writer/director, Paul Osborne.

    favorFrom the opening shot “Favor” grabs you. Kip Desmond (Blayne Weaver) has it all; wonderful, good looking wife, great rewarding job, affluent lifestyle and a better looking waitress on the side for sex. It all comes crashing down at a seedy hotel when Kip’s side dish drops dead. What’s a guy to do? Let the chips fall where they may and risk everything or stack the deck and solicit a childhood friend for that “favor” he always agreed upon? Kip confides his tale of woe to Marvin Croat (an unnerving performance by Patrick Day) and brings him to the scene with eventually ugly results.

    Marvin is the “closet” friend that people like Kip only see on occasion. Life has been cruel to Marvin. At least he would tell you that. He’s lost his job, his wife and practically his life and has no idea how to function in Kip’s world. But he remains a faithful friend because he remembers how close they were when they were kids. For Marvin, that has never changed. For Kip, he doesn’t care. Marvin is the scapegoat. And, if he can help him with this one “favor,” he will be eternally grateful (only on the surface). But Marvin takes that literally and that is where the chaos begins.

    There are so many devilish twists and turns in Paul Osborne’s film, one cannot help see the extreme dark humor in it all akin to the best of the old “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” series. Weaver and Day play a wonderful game of cat and mouse, keeping us on our toes while the supporting players provide the empathy as the victims on the sidelines. “Favor” keeps us guessing and makes us think twice before asking.

    A standout at the IHSFFF was director/writer, Drew Thomas’ science fiction opus, “Channeling”. Once again, it was exciting to see a filmmaker do wonders within his limited budget. Killer car chases, cool stunts and a wonderful take on the near future of social media. “Channeling” has it all and then some.

    I usually go into low budget science-fiction films with a prejudicial judgment. But I must admit, every so often some creative artist delivers a kick to the head with the likes of a “Terminator” or “Robocop”. Drew Thomas’ feature may not be as action packed, but it is as intriguing and thought provoking. His feature is a slick, well oiled machine that is ready to take you on a wild ride.

    Thomas introduces us to a world where people are broadcasting their lives via a high tech contact lens and basically shaping their lives to their ratings. They can even get sponsors to endorse them and their antics. The shows can range from anything; a young girl just trying to get recognized in clubs to carjacking expensive cars, only to race them and then ditch them. It is the later that a young soldier accidently becomes involved with after his brother’s suspicious death. He only has 72 hours to delve into the mystery and possibly bring his brother’s alleged conspirators to justice.

    In so many low budget sci-fi films the acting is awful to passable, production values are limited to the cheapest CG that makes Hannah-Barbera cartoons looking more realistic and there is little attention to detail. Usually it’s because producers look at them as a silly little cash cow that can be abducted by aliens and dumped onto the Scyfy channel. What makes the film “Channeling” so good is the look of a high quality production and the cutting edge writing that brings to mind some of Paul Verhoeven’s sarcasm and commentary on social values displayed in “Robocop” and “Starship Troopers”. Landon Ashworth plays the soldier, Max Hodges with an appealing laconic machismo and a dash of the fresh fish out of water. The rest of the cast do a bang up job to get us to root for our hero. “Channeling” is an exciting first feature from Drew Thomas. One can only imagine what the man and his company could do with a medium to big budget.

    Documentaries were very powerful this year, but the won that won our hearts and Best Documentary at the festival was Elise Salomon’s fun-filled touching glimpse into an L.A. indie music label, Wild Records. “Los Wild Ones” chronicles the beginnings, struggles and future of this very edgy music label that favors Hispanic Rockabilly music lead by Irish rebel, Reb Kennedy. If that doesn’t get your attention, I don’t know what will. Salomon’s film is infectious, audacious and raucous all at the same time. The musical artists are riddled with turmoil and talent making a combustible paradigm along with a vinyl-loving leader who defiantly opposes iTunes.

    Salomon handles the chaos well and sometimes gives us a very difficult peak at struggling artists who also juggle their family life while others are at odds with their addictions and discipline. She does not shy away from the realities of it all, but accomplishes a sense of hope for so many involved.

    Salomon goes beyond the sordidness of reality TV and delivers a noteworthy film that not only sheds light on a very little known fringe of the music scene, but introduces some very talented musicians that appear far more exciting and fresher than anything we have witnessed on the homogenized shows of American Idol or X Factor. Her focus on Reb Kennedy as father/confessor nearly presents him in a legendary status. Reb would deny that right away and place his wife on the pedestal for keeping things running in a semi-professional manner. But his stories, his thoughts, his interactions with his artists are what really fuel this enjoyable film. Elise Salomon delivers a movie that makes you want to get up and dance while rooting for the underdogs of the music industry. Rock on!

    Mentioned in the beginning, PFF introduced three very different films involving mental disorders. Each one was lauded with recognition and all well deserved. “Lonely Boy,” Dale Fabrigar’s sensitive look into the mind of a schizophrenic and how this disorder affects the people who care for him became a Festival Favorite. Alonzo Mayo’s “The Story of Luke” won the Special Jury Prize for Lou Taylor Pucci’s remarkable portrayal of a young man coming-of-age with autism. Finally, there was the huge crowd pleaser that won Best Picture, Jason Chaet’s, “Putzel” concerning not only a young man dealing with a form of agoraphobia that keeps him within the confines of his small community in the Upper West Side of Manhattan, but also has him struggling to be the heir of his uncle’s smoked fish emporium and juggling falling in love with his uncle’s mistress.

    putzelDirector, Chaet was proud to wear a button asking “What is a putzel”. His answer was, “go see the movie and find out”. And, that is probably the best answer for anybody that is not Jewish or aware of the expression. I knew of “schmuck” and “schmeckel,” but Chaet was quick to point out those were Yiddish words. Most importantly you don’t have to be Jewish to enjoy this very funny romantic comedy.

    Chaet’s comic timing along with his cast is impeccable. But the film is not just played for laughs. There is a sensitive side to “Putzel” (and I feel weird stating that) and Rick A. More and Jason Chaet’s story plays to our heart as well. The cast goes beyond the stereo-types and reaches into the complex souls of these characters. Jack Carpenter is both endearing, charming and a bit of a putz as Walter the young man with the mild obsession in succeeding his uncle. Walter’s mental disorder (agoraphobia) appears as more of a sub-plot to all the other antics surrounding him and driving him nuts. Melanie Lynskey and John Pankow (as Uncle Sid) also add much heart and humor to an extremely funny situation that gets awkward by the minute.

    There are also hilarious turns by the supporting players; Allegra Cohen as Walter’s unfaithful wife Willa, Adrian Martinez as Hector the man whom Willa is cheating with and also the guy that tries to befriend Walter and give him advice! To top off the hilarity there is Fred Berman as Tunch, a man with an unusual passion that has to be seen to be believed.

    Once again, the producers and director pull off the magic feat of making a production look far more impressive than the limitations they were faced with. That is a big plus for the “Putzel” cast and crew. The acting is spot on and the look and feel is a fun cross between earlier Woody Allen films and Borscht Belt comedy that tickles the audience incessantly. But most important, this film is about family, how we treat one another and how far we can come when we manage to let go. “Putzel” is pure joy.

    A far more serious and sensitive approach to mental disorder was Dale Fabrigar’s, “Lonely Boy”. Alev Aydin (also the screenwriter) plays Franky a man that is struggling with himself, his family’s past and the harsh world of dating while dealing with schizophrenia and trying to wean off his prescription drugs. It’s a world few of us have encountered on the screen without crass exploitation. Fabrigar has a light approach and does not hammer us with the seriousness of the situation.

    We are slowly sucked into Franky’s world and struggle with him as he tries so hard to escape the clutches of his disorder. It’s a slow awkward spiral that does have its share of light moments, but we are always aware of the circumstances that can be devastating. “Lonely Boy” also takes into account the family that is affected and their frustration in consistently trying to be there for an adult that may not be able to care for himself. It is a quandary and one that keeps us glued to Franky’s journey towards self-actualization.

    At times Alev Aydin’s script sometimes feels more like a play rather than a film. But that may have something to do with the way Fabrigar has us viewing so much through Franky’s eyes. The portrayal is a mix of being fascinating, sad, awkwardly funny and sometimes downright scary.

    Then there is Franky’s connection with Alex, Natalie Distler delivering an earthy performance that throws so much off kilter (in a good way). Alex may be Franky’s savior or his downfall, we’re just not sure and that is what makes “Lonely Boy” so interesting. Dale Fabrigar’s direction and Alev Aydin’s script have presented a unique look into the world of schizophrenia, one that is definitely worth viewing.

    “The Story of Luke” happens to settle somewhere in the middle of the other films. It is both a serious, funny and engaging story of a 25 year-old autistic man that lived a sheltered life with his grandparents. That all changes when grandma is laid to rest, grandpa is going senile and the caretakers, Luke’s dysfunctional aunt and uncle, look for a place to retire grandpa leaving Luke very alone. Luke becomes obsessed with his grandfather’s final words urging him to get a job, find a girl, go scr*w and live your own life.

    Luke’s obsessive quest becomes his new family’s problem as if they did not have enough with their own problematic kids. But Luke’s obscure ways seem to slowly work their way into the family’s hearts and makes them view things in a whole different light. Lou Taylor Pucci does not play Luke; he is the young afflicted man. It’s no wonder he was awarded the Special Jury Prize. His portrayal is so multi-layered and convincing that you end up hanging on his every thought.

    Kristin Bauer and Seth Green turn in wonderful performances as well. They make us cherish every scene they share with Lou Taylor Pucci. Director/writer Alonso Mayo definitely has a keen insight into the spectrum of autism and has delivered a story with warmth, heart and hope. It had audiences applauding at the end.

    Finally, one of my favorites and another Festival Choice was Ben Shelton’s “Waking”. Writer and lead actor Skyler Caleb as Ben gives us a piece of romantic fantasy bliss. Ben appears to have everything going for him; on the verge of success, riding on his fiancée’s father’s coattails and soon to marry his long term girlfriend/now fiancée. But from the outside looking in, we can see that Ben’s fiancée is annoying and working under daddy may not be all that it’s cracked up to be. Enter the girl of our dreams”¦literally.

    Ben is suddenly conflicted with dreams of a young mystery woman, Nadia, who inhabits his dreams and makes him feel truly alive. To make things even weirder, this mystery woman exists (hundreds of miles away) and she is sharing these dreams with him while in a relationship as well. Shelton and Caleb’s story works so well due to the chemistry shared by both Skyler Caleb and his co-star Meg Cionni.

    Cionni is a rare find. She is not only perfectly cast as a dream girl, but brings an innocence and vulnerability to her character that is both genuine and sublime. She is a joy to watch and listen to with a lilt in her voice that is near mesmerizing. Outside of his dreams, Cionni’s Nadia captures us with her sweet apprehension and honest confusion as to how to handle such an impossible situation. Ben was not the only one taken by Nadia, most of the audience (men and women alike) were also captured by Cionni’s performance as well.

    Ben Shelton’s “Waking” touched the romantic in me and much of its audience. It’s a fun tale of chasing your dreams even though they could come crashing down and hoping against all odds that everything works out. “Waking” is a crowd pleaser and makes one feel really good about films that put a song back in your heart. Thank you, Ben Shelton, Skylar Caleb, and Meg Cionni.

    As mentioned before, there were so many other films that I have not been able to view from World Cinema to documentaries and horror. I hope to have the chance to see a few more so I may get the word out. One that now intrigues me is the winner of Best Horror film at IHSFFF, “Found”. Having heard about the subject matter I had second thoughts in the beginning about viewing it. But the word is out that it is a must see. I will leave you with a taste of what is to come”¦”Found” is a coming-of-age horror story about a shy, bullied fifth grade boy that takes refuge in horror films until his life becomes one. He discovers that his older brother has a penchant for severed heads and a ghastly use for them. The young boy tries to save his brother and his family, but not even good counseling is going to aid in the release of such darkness.

    Until next time.

  • Trailer Park: CLOUD ATLAS and a Top 10 for Halloween

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    Check out my other column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me onTWITTER under the name: Stipp

    CLOUD ATLAS: a Good Picture Missing its Burst of Brilliance By Ray Schillaci

    cloud_atlas_quadThe Wachowski’s, Andy and Lana, (The Matrix) newest outing is one with so much promise and moments of awe inspiring imagery that one would think that the audience would be walking out of the theater with a sense of wonderment after what had been presented. Instead, we have occasional set pieces that are memorable as they did with “The Matrix Reloaded” and only wished it had stepped up to the plate of such multiple storyline classics as “Pulp Fiction” or “Magnolia”. The storylines in “Cloud Atlas” are far more expanse, but if one were to take the individual storylines apart and view them separately, most of them would come across simplistic and ordinary rather than the themes this film suggest. It is a daring effort by the directors, Wachowski’s and Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) and one that is worth viewing at least once if not for the grandeur, then for two of the storylines; the fatal love story that transcends gender boundaries and the pure lunacy Jim Broadbent provides as a vanity book publisher.

    “Cloud Atlas” weaves six stories in six very different time periods and locales with a common thread; how the action and consequences in our lives impact one another throughout the past, present and future. From their one can bring into play their own interpretation after a viewing or several viewings. There is some suggestion of Karma, reincarnation, good vs. evil, man’s unquestionable greed and the hope for a better life ahead.

    A diary of an ocean voyage across the Pacific in 1849 provides some adventure laced with greed and danger. Letters from a budding composer to a dear friend delivers one of the most poignant moments in the film and probably accomplishes a universal feeling of love and its heartache better than most in the past decade. A mystery that is not quite as thrilling as it wants to be involving a murder in a nuclear power plant. A hilarious and touching romp with a publisher in over his head with criminal low-lifers and a nursing home is probably the best story line in the lot. A rebellion brought about by a clone in futuristic Korea delivers interesting eye candy. And, finally there is the tale of a tribe in a post-apocalyptic future that has one singular interesting character.

    Sound complicated yet? Not as much as one would think. The three directors did well in interweaving their story lines, but the question remains; will an audience sit still for a film that is bouncing back and forth attempting to show you how everything connects? The first 45 minutes can be trying. Some will not have the patience and those that do may or may not like the outcome. For me it was like eating a great Chinese meal and being hungry a half hour later, not ever quite being fulfilled. I appreciated it and would recommend, but not to the masses.

    “Cloud Atlas” has gone on record as the most expensive independent film ever made. From a technical standpoint you get your money’s worth. But there is something missing that keeps it from being a milestone in the annals of cinema as “The Matrix” did. There is also a stumbling block that gets in the way of several of the stories and that is the brilliant make-up job that comes into play with major actors playing multiple roles. One tends to play a guessing game of who’s who and that takes away from the stories or perhaps it takes away from the weakness of some of the stories.

    We never quite get a connection between Tom Hanks’ character and Halle Berry’s in the nuclear power plant story, other than they are somehow connected in other lives. The ocean voyage, attended by Jim Sturgess’ character, is rife with rousing adventure, intrigue, the insensitivity of slavery and prejudice. But the story and the importance of what it is trying to get across is reduced to cliff notes. It’s like watching a musical dance number and saying, “Hey, I want to see the whole movie now”. The storyline does not hold the weight or value like the composer’s story that nearly moves us to tears or the wonderful charm portrayed in the publisher tale with a huge laugh going to Hugo Weaving in a surprising role.

    Then there are the two tales of the future. One is post-apocalyptic with the usual look up until the near ending, the other a visually dazzling treat at times with a very somber tone. But the meat of these stories tread dangerously close to bad Syfy Channel. The staged fighting and laser beam shoot outs nearly undermine the importance of the clone story. Tom Hanks’ tribesman, Zachry (in post apocalyptic), has interesting moments with an evil side that demands our attention. But what he sets out to accomplish with Halle Berry’s character feels almost contrite. The big discovery is nicely played out, but there are weaknesses that hamper the film as a whole.

    Not much is asked of Halle Berry as an actress and it’s a shame. Tom Hanks is given far more to do and overdoes it at times. You would think he was playing one of the many characters from the film he did with Zemeckis’, “The Polar Express”. Hanks becomes a live cartoon version of some of these characters while Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Keith David and Ben Whishaw make no attempts to hide beneath their make-up. They actually incorporate their disguise and deliver far more believable characters with depth.

    At times I felt I was going on a pseudo-intellectual sojourn. Maybe some of the story elements had been dummied down for mass consumption. But then there are moments of subtle beauty and nuanced humor that touches our hearts and opens our minds. “Cloud Atlas” demands you to think and engage in a conversation afterwards. Very few American films do that these days. That is probably why it will do better in the foreign market.

    With all its weaknesses, the film is an admirable effort by talented individuals that clearly love their material. Perhaps the filmmakers’ only wish is for you to come out of the theater being more than entertained. Does it add up to big box-office? I am not sure. The domestic release will definitely test the patience of filmgoers and whether or not they are ready for a thinking man’s adventure with high minded themes. With all its faults, “Cloud Atlas” is worth seeing on the big screen even though it does not fulfill the promise of brilliance that its ad campaign suggests.

    10 Nasty Treats for Halloween by Ray Schillaci

    Every year as the leaves turn color and the chill of fall is in the air (unless you live in Phoenix ““ then it drops from 120 to 92 and small animals appear to frolic again), critics come out in droves offering their 10 best lists for Halloween. Like sheep being led to slaughter they all whip out their favorites and it’s usually similar to their fellow critics with top spots varying. There is no disputing the fright quotient of classic movies like “The Exorcist,” “Psycho” and “Night of the Living Dead”.

    Every now and then some more daring critics will slip in “Re-Animator” or a Herschel Gordon Lewis movie (“The Wizard of Gore,” “2,000 Maniacs”). Then there are the purest that insist on listing a true classic or two, Bela Lugosi’s, “Dracula” or Boris Karloff as the monster in “Frankenstein”. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Those are great cinematic achievements for their day, but lack the frightmares sought out by so many younger thrill seekers.

    As an alternative, I’ve set out to deliver 10 freaky independent gems and one sick puppy Giallo (Italian crime, fiction, mystery usually accompanied by ridiculous gore ““ for its time). Some of these pieces of sinema should make you squirm, think and surprise you. Some of them may even have you laughing inappropriately. So, this October 31st you have a choice to pick one of the usual fares from the list of the mundane or select something truly unique and off the beaten path that will sure to leave an indelible psychological scar long after All Hallows Eve is over. Are you up to the challenge?

    tumblr_mb722tnsh01qzt9q7o1_500Juan of the Dead ““ Oh my God, this is the BEST dark comedy zombie movie since “Shaun of the Dead”. It is a foreign film and for some that is a deterrent. To that I say, “GROW UP!” You have a choice of subtitles (which I prefer) or dubbed. This slacker Cuban crisis is so unique and outlandish you’ll be screaming at the screen and laughing at the same time. Juan is a 40 year-old slacker who begins to suspect that the rioting in the streets is not just ordinary dissidents who support the evil that America is trying to infect his country with as the Cuban government reports. With a handful of low-lifes, Juan finally makes a decision that will profoundly affect his life as well as others in his community”¦start a business exterminating other people’s flesh-eating loved ones.

    Grave Encounters ““ Not just another first-person pseudo-documentary. This sucker slowly gets under your skin and then unleashes a virtual haunted house of chills and thrills that even got picked up for a sequel. The story of a reality-based group of ghost hunters that have themselves locked in one of the most notorious abandoned asylums over night is filled with unexpected humor and genuine scares that will make you jump off the couch and turn on the lights. The crew effectively captures all the creepy feelings one can have in such a place and then goes one step further ““ diving head first into a very nasty bloodbath of terror.

    The Tunnel ““ This is yet another in the first-person pseudo-documentary, but it is also an accomplished creepy claustrophobic thriller. An investigative journalist and her video crew descend the abandoned underground train tunnels in Sydney, Australia to find out why the government scraped a big project midway through. Possible government cover-up and urban legends cross paths in this dark tale of “be careful what you wish for”.

    absentia-movie-poster-2011-1020694267Absentia ““ This is by far the eeriest of my list of ten. This film is probably the closest to a great H.P. Lovecraft inspired story. For those not in the know, “Absentia” is Latin for “in the absence of (someone indicated)”. In this strange case, it’s regarding a new husband who suddenly disappears. After 7 painful years his wife, now pregnant and trying to move on with her life, has her troubled sister visit to help her cope as she declares her husband’s passing via “dead in absentia”. She battles with her visions of the dead husband visiting from beyond while her sister becomes obsessed with an ominous tunnel near the house, a pathway from the neighborhood to the park (or is it just that). Freaky sounds, things that go bump in the night and unnerving shadows make this picture perfect for late night viewing.

    The Innkeepers ““ Who likes a good ghost story? Well, this one will have the hairs on the back of your neck stand up. I really like Ti West as a director. His “House of the Devil” harkened back to the Satan worshiping 70’s films with enormous gusto. Now he brings us the ill fated story of the last employees and the few visitors of the Yankee Pedlar Inn. Mr. West delivers this haunted tale in spades with sounds that make you cringe and images that nearly cause one to cover their eyes. Shut the lights, bring up the sound and lock the kiddies in a safe place. This one could unnerve you.

    Splinter ““ Have you ever been unfortunate enough to hit something on the road? Did you ever see roadkill that was nearly indescribable? What if that same roadkill decided to attack you while inspecting it on a dark night? The story practically has one setting, a gas station convenience store. There are basically four main characters, two we sympathize with two we can’t wait to see die along with one sick and twisted spiny monster that does horrible things to the human body. This one will jangle your nerves and the morphing effects are far more original and gruesome than 2011’s prequel to “The Thing”.

    Stake Land ““ This is a nasty cross between “Evil Dead,” road trip pic and vampires. These are not good looking suckers. They almost resemble fast zombies with sharp teeth. Nothing is sacred in this film, so be warned. It is a dark, moody piece that breathes new fright life into the bloodsucking legends.

    Tucker & Dale vs. Evil ““ It had to happen with all the hillbilly horror movies from “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” to “Wrong Turn,” someone finally came up with a dark comical gory version with teeth. Two innocent rednecks decide to go camping in their favorite spot only to find a group of young annoying college kids that stupidly end up killing themselves while trying to avoid some friendly backwoods hospitality. Sounds dumb? Dumb has never been this bloody funny.

    Midnight Son ““ If you’re like me, you want to put a stake in the “Twilight” series and bury it in garlic. I know most of you are getting tired of vampire films and I already offered one up for your liking but this one is so different from all the rest. In fact, some people have compared it to George Romero’s minor classic, “Martin”. But in many ways, “Midnight Son” is a far better unpredictable horror story that becomes very personal. A lonely young security guard who works the night shift has an aversion to sunlight. It is not till he reaches a certain age that he becomes very sick and discovers quite by accident that blood is the only thing that quenches his hunger pains and makes him feel better. Making things more difficult for the young man is his chance meeting with a troubled young lady. The attraction for both becomes a danger with the young man’s hormones and cravings being kicked into overdrive.

    Twitch of the Death Nerve ““ Here is an Italian import that predates the original “Friday the 13th” by nearly 10 years! Watch this movie for fun and as a little historical lesson, because this Giallo gem is practically the outline for Sean S. Cunningham’s, “Friday the 13th” with murders and all. In fact, “Friday the 13th Part 2” takes two murders from this film shot per shot. It has come under more titles than any other movie including Bay of Blood and Last House on the Left Part II. It has also had several video releases from bad to so-so, but now Image Entertainment has delivered a really good copy in widescreen and uncut. This is considered one of the best Mario Bava (Susperia, Deep Red) films and his personal favorite. It is dated and dubbed, but that just adds to the fun.

    Honorable mentions: Apartment 143 (Emergo), Session 9, Shallow Ground and The Dead Next Door (for lovers of “Evil Dead” and micro-budget horror filmmaking)

    Have a safe and Happy Halloween!

  • Trailer Park: Tomasz Thomson of SNOWMAN’S LAND

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    Check out my other column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me onTWITTER under the name: Stipp

    TOMASZ THOMSON – INTERVIEW

    All you need to know is that you must see this film.

    If you need a little more context, though, here is the long and short of it: A hitman makes a mistake. An honest one, anyone could’ve made it. He’s shuttled to the Carpathian Mountains to a lush, snowy, remote, desolate, locale where his only job is to keep his boss’ wife in good company. As these things usually go, the good boss’ wife meets and accidental demise and wackiness ensues from there. I say wacky but this movie is four on the floor fun. It’s been the best reason to check out something described as a German black comedy. Those three words are diametric opposites and don’t belong with one another but going into a movie expecting nothing but a good time is the right way to ensure this movie hits you just the right way.

    I was able to interview the movie’s director, Tomasz Thomson, about making a movie that is visually dark and cold yet is able to make this a pretty gripping tale as everything comes undone. It’s Tarantino meets IN BRUGES’ Martin McDonagh. One of a kind.

    The movie is now playing…

    600full-snowmans-land-posterCHRISTOPHER STIPP: Your filmography shows your last work coming in 2001. What brought you back 10 years later to do this project and how were you keeping your skills sharp in this time?

    TOMAZ THOMSON: Yes, a very long time. I was surprised myself how long it took to shoot the second feature, as my first film was quite successful on film festivals and the critics liked it. But making films can take ages sometimes. It is not uncommon to write a script with all the drafts for two or three years, then you spend another one or two years talking with your producer to TV stations, funds, actors and distributors. And then, just when you think, yes, this is going to happen, the project suddenly dies. This happened twice in a row to me, what was kind of frustrating but is a part of the job. You have to accept it and go on. And yes, you are right, one has to keep the skills sharp. You have to practice. You are not a director if you”˜re not directing. I was lucky to direct commercials and other small projects in the meantime what was not only good fun but paid my rent and made it possible to write the next script.

    THOMSON: The main idea was to keep the mood switching. You let the viewer laugh about a joke and in the next second you surprise him or her with a serious, maybe even violent scene. This mix creates a dynamic that I love. It keeps things vivid. And you can balance it in the editing room quite well. Nevertheless the main tonality is rather melancholic.

    CS: Where did the inspiration come from to write a movie that feels so original in the way it tells its story?

    THOMSON: You need to have partners who back you up and give you the freedom to be creative. I was very lucky to do this film with Boris Michalski, a great producer. We had a very open and confident relationship and I always felt, that he believed in this project as much as I did and fought for it and our common vision. It wouldn”˜t have be possible if he had doubts. Probably he had some, but at least he never told me. So it was easy for me to feel free and brood over absurd scenes.

    CS: Were you constrained in telling the story by your budget or were you able to tell the story you wanted, the way you wanted to?

    THOMSON: From the very beginning it was clear that we would have a difficult budget situation. So the question was, are we going to do it anyway? And the answer was: Yes! Sure! Working low budget means, you have to adapt your story to the circumstances much more than you expect. You can”˜t postpone a shooting day just because of bad weather. You need snow but there is no? So you better change the scene so that it fits again. Or you need that car for the scene which is stuck in the snow a few miles away and won”˜t be here within the next hours? You need to be very flexible and you have to have fun in improvisation. I do and honestly, some of my favorite scenes were created on location.

    CS: What did you find after shooting the movie and getting into the editing room? Did the story stay consistent or did you see something fresh you had not considered before?

    THOMSON: It is crucial to kind of reset yourself and your vision in the editing room. Try to edit what you initially wanted but in the end you”˜ll have to forget the script and forget what you planed, to get the best out of it. Editing is a very creative process where you need to have a fresh view on the material you have shot. It is not easy, but it”˜s worth it. It was especially hard for me as I edited it myself. I changed a lot in the storyline, not only due to the improvisation and adaptation we made during the shooting but also because of the overall drama. For example, the narrated illustrated scenes were added afterwards.

    0CS: The biggest challenge on this set feels like it was the elements. Did the snow or cold present any interesting obstacles?

    THOMSON: Yes, the snow and the cold gave us a hard time. But on the other hand it had it”˜s advantages. The actors for instance didn”˜t have to pretend to be exhausted or to be freezing. Just because they were.

    CS: After having seen the finished film, is there anything you’re most proud of in the movie that you feel you were able to capture perfectly (or near perfect)?

    THOMSON: I like this movie. Added up I”˜ve probably seen it for a few hundred times now and I still like it. Don”˜t get me wrong, usually I”˜m very strict with my own work, so there are always a lot of things I would change. But the movie is finished, that”˜s the way it goes. So why do I still like to see it? I guess because of the characters. The actors did a fantastic job and really brought this weird characters to life. I have fun watching them every time.

    CS: What was any big lesson you took away about filmmaking as you made this movie?

    THOMSON: You never stop learning, that”˜s right and during this project I had two big lessons: the first was rather a technical one. The script was actually a bit too long when we started shooting. We all knew but thought, well, that”˜s good, then we have more material in the editing room. But in a low budget movie you have to concentrate on what is absolutely necessary because you don”˜t have the time and money to do extra scenes as a kind of a backup. You have to be very effective. Lesson two sounds like a worn out advice: never lose your vision. Stay open to other opinions, allow others to be part of the project but in the end it”˜s your film, you have to know what you”˜re doing and you have to decide. My producer and I did, and it was a very long and difficult way but in the end it paid off.

  • Comics in Context: Spider-Man’s Oedipus Complex

    comicsincontext4.jpg

    SPIDER-MAN’S OEDIPUS COMPLEX

    Thanks to the enormous success of the recent movies about the character, Marvel’s Spider-Man has become more popular than ever. Sam Raimi directed the first three live action Spider-Man films, starring Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker alias Spider-Man, all of which I’ve reviewed in past installments of “Comics in Context.” Raimi, Maguire, and the rest of the original cast have left the series, and Columbia Pictures and Marvel have now “rebooted” the film series, starting it over from Spider-Man’s origin, in this year’s new film The Amazing Spider-Man, directed by the appropriately named Marc Webb, with Andrew Garfield taking over the role of Peter Parker. And Mr. Webb and his collaborators are taking a strikingly different approach to the Spider-Man saga than Mr. Raimi did, including a focus on Peter Parker’s fathers, both real and figurative.

    As usual, in analyzing this film, I will be discussing the entire plot. So if you haven’t seen the movie yet, it behooves you to go watch it before reading this critique.

    But before I begin psychoanalyzing Spider-Man in his latest movie, I want to address just how long Spider-Man has been a part of American popular culture.

    THE MARVEL REVOLUTION IN MIDDLE AGE

    Back in college I signed up to take a course in Modern Literature, thinking that I would be studying novels from the previous few decades. Instead I discovered that “modern,” or “modernist literature” is a term used to describe fiction mostly from the 20th century before World War II; postwar literature was instead described as “contemporary.” Years later I similarly learned that the term “modern art” refers to works from the late 19th century up to the 1960s; after that comes “contemporary art.” Thus what is still called “modern” becomes old.

    When I was growing up, the classic Marvel superheroes like Spider-Man were the new, cutting edge superheroes of the day. The Marvel Revolution of Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko and their colleagues had revitalized the superhero genre, giving characters new psychological depth, their world greater realism, and their stories greater dramatic and emotional impact. The heroes of the Marvel Age of Comics sharply contrasted with the DC Comics superheroes, who had already been around in one form or another for decades. As time passed, we grew used to referring to the comics of the late 1950s and the 1960s as those of “the Silver Age,” a term that made it sound like a legendary period of past history. Yet probably to many of us, 1960s Marvel still represented modernity in the superhero genre, a new phase in the superhero genre that new writers and artists carried on through the 1970s and 1980s.

    But now we have to face a startling fact: this year, 2012, is the fiftieth anniversary of the debut of Spider-Man in his origin story, by editor/scripter Stan Lee and artist Steve Ditko, in Amazing Fantasy #15. Spider-Man and the Marvel Revolution are a half century old. Kids discovering Spider-Man now are fans of a character whom their grandparents read about in comic books. To the new generation Spider-Man must seem to have been around as long as Superman. And when I was growing up, it seemed as if Superman had been around forever. I would have to remind myself that my father was born before the creation of Superman or Batman or Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny or various other characters in cartoon art who seem to be permanent parts of American popular culture.

    Nowadays continuity at DC Comics is in continual flux, seemingly changing with the whims of whoever the latest editors and writers are. Back in 1986 John Byrne’s The Man of Steel famously rebooted the Superman mythos, supplanting the Silver Age continuity of Superman comics edited by Mort Weisinger and Julius Schwartz. The Byrne revamp held form for years, but then started undergoing revisions. Then Geoff Johns set down the new, post-Byrne version of the Superman origin in the Superman: Secret Origin series in 2009-2010. And that held for only a year before the Superman origin got rebooted yet again by Grant Morrison in the “New 52’s” Action Comics starting in 2011.

    One of Marvel’s great strengths has long been its strong sense of history. For the most part, Marvel continuity has remained intact for a half century. Indeed, admirably, in recent years, through such books as the Marvel 75th Anniversary titles, The Marvels Project, and the Agents of Atlas series, present day Marvel has even reincorporated neglected superhero characters from Marvel’s pre-1960s history, as Timely and Atlas Comics, into the canon of Marvel continuity.

    I suspect that in large part Marvel’s refusal (so far) to give in to the trend for reboots is due to the strength of the foundation of modern Marvel Comics: those classic 1960s stories by Lee, Kirby, Ditko and the rest. Newer writers may tweak and fiddle with them in retellings, but (for the most part) no one wants to replace them, not yet anyway.

    Lee and Ditko’s origin story for Spider-Man is still so well conceived, so well told, and so dramatically powerful as to seem miraculous. (It is also concise, telling the origin in only eleven pages, whereas in the contemporary period of “decompressed” storytelling, the Ultimate Spider-Man series took six issues to tell its alternative version.) And to think that Lee and Ditko considered this story to be a throwaway, an experiment to run in the final issue of a cancelled comic, that may well never have led to a continuing series, much less to become Marvel’s flagship series and the source of blockbuster movies a half century later.

    That is another proof of the power of the Marvel Revolution in the superhero genre. The Revolution may be a half-century old in the comics, but it was reborn in another medium, movies, in 2000 with the first X-Men movie. Great commercial and creative successes like Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy, Jon Favreau’s Iron Man movies, and Joss Whedon’s Avengers film demonstrate that the Marvel Revolution of the 1960s can be translated into vivid, brilliant contemporary work in cinema today. And through the movies, the Marvel characters and storytelling style of the 1960s is reaching a far wider audience, across the world.

    Nonetheless, as more time has passed since Lee and Ditko did their classic Spider-Man stories, newer writers will reinterpret the character or be tempted to alter his past saga. In the comics, Marvel launched an alternative continuity in its Ultimate line of comics, starting with Ultimate Spider-Man, while continuing the traditional continuity in the main Marvel Universe line of comics. (The biggest change in Ultimate Spider-Man was the recent death of Peter Parker and his replacement by a new, African-American Spider-Man.)

    Moviemakers feel free to revise traditional continuity from the comics; what is most important is that the films get the characters’ personalities and the spirit of their original comics series right, as the recent Marvel movies mostly have. In critiquing these movies, we should examine what they changed and why. In making a change to the original continuity, did the moviemakers make an improvement, or did they miss something important about the way the character and his series work?

    FROM RAIMI TO REBOOT

    When it was announced that director Sam Raimi and his cast were leaving the Spider-Man movie series, one prominent Marvel executive publicly asserted that the next Spider-Man film would not be a “reboot.” But of course that is exactly what The Amazing Spider-Man movie is, starting the Spider-Man saga over again from the origin story, with Peter Parker, Spider-Man’s alter ego, once again a high school student. Director Marc Webb and his screenwriters would understandably want to put their own stamp on this new Spider-Man film series. So they would presumably want to make revisions in the continuity, not only from what it is in the comics, but also to differentiate the new version from Raimi’s. So just what have Webb and company changed, for better or for worse?

    For example, one thing that is decidedly missing from Sam Raimi’s trilogy of Spider-Man films is something that all of Spider-Man’s leading writers for the comics have understood and used. Spider-Man has a sense of humor. He continually makes wisecracks. In combat he makes jokes at his adversaries’ expense. As I asserted in a column I wrote way back in the 1980s, Spider-Man is Marvel’s Bugs Bunny. He is a trickster character. Raimi’s Spider-Man doesn’t make jokes when he is in action. Marc Webb’s Spider-Man in the new The Amazing Spider-Man film does have a sense of humor, most notably in the scene when he contends with the car thief and pretends to be frightened of his knife. I wish that there was more of the wisecracking Spider-Man from the comics in the film, but at least he is heading in the right direction. I also like all the comedy that Webb and company get out of Peter’s initial inability to control his new super-powers, sticking involuntarily to things. This is an imaginative and effective new approach to the part of the origin saga in which Peter discovers his super-powers, and I like it.

    Actor Andrew Garfield seems to me to be too conventionally good-looking to be Ditko’s high school wallflower version of Peter Parker. But Garfield makes up for this by persuasively playing Peter early in the movie as a withdrawn introvert who is not adroit at social interaction. Over the course of the film Garfield’s Peter Parker gradually grows more self-confident and more at ease in interacting with people outside his family, and it’s a pleasure to watch the character thus evolve in the course of two hours or so.

    The Raimi movies and even the Ultimate Spider-Man comics series turned Mary Jane Watson into Peter’s first love interest, going back to their high school days, introducing Gwen Stacy later on. In Stan Lee’s original comic book stories, it was Gwen who was Peter’s first true love, and Peter did not meet either Gwen or Mary Jane until he was in college. Although the comic book Gwen seemed standoffish at first, she evolved into an idealized girlfriend for Peter: beautiful, sweet, devoted, but actually rather lacking in psychological depth. Mary Jane, in contrast, was sassy, flirtatious, funny, openly sexy, but somewhat frivolous. Spider-Man writer Roger Stern used to maintain that Mary Jane was exactly the wrong woman for Peter Parker. However, after the shocking death of Gwen in the comics at the hands of the Green Goblin, Mary Jane, as the remaining important supporting female character who was Peter’s age, emerged as the obvious candidate to be Peter’s new girlfriend. Writer Gerry Conway brilliantly justified a relationship between Peter and Mary Jane through his graphic novel Spider-Man: Parallel Lives, which revealed that Mary Jane’s party girl persona was like Peter’s Spider-Man identity: alternate personas to compensate for the sadness in both their lives. On Stan Lee’s own suggestion, Peter and Mary Jane were married in the comic books and Spider-Man newspaper strip in the 1980s, although the wedding was recently undone in the comic books by Peter’s unfortunate deal with the devil Mephisto to alter past history.

    With Gwen long gone in the comics, it was understandable that Raimi cast Mary Jane as Peter’s girlfriend from high school onward in the movies. But I think that Mary Jane in the movies and some other recent adaptations of Spider-Man ended up being depicted as Gwen with red hair, lacking the distinctive personality that Stan Lee and artist John Romita, Sr. had originally gave her.

    So I’m glad that in the reboot Webb and his colleagues have restored Gwen to her traditional role as Peter’s first girlfriend. I like the fact that actress Emma Stone has been given a hairstyle and costumes to emphasize her resemblance to comics artist John Romita, Sr.’s version of Gwen. I also appreciate the fact that the movie gives Gwen more substance as a personality than the comics of the 1960s did. She is now a brilliant science student herself, although perhaps as a result Peter’s own talent for science seems less special. No mere damsel in distress, Gwen gets to act bravely in helping Spider-Man against his foe the Lizard. In the movie Gwen initially seems to like Peter because he stood up to bully Flash Thompson to defend one of his victims. I don’t know why she continues to like Peter after he nearly gets her in trouble at OsCorp when he poses as an intern there.

    Early in the film, after Peter gets his super-powers but before he becomes a superhero, Peter is distraught over them. So why doesn’t he tell someone he trusts, like his Uncle Ben or Dr. Curt Connors, what happened to him? But instead, after becoming a costumed vigilante, Peter suddenly decides to trust Gwen with his secret identity, even though he doesn’t know her that well yet. Moreover, he does so at a dinner at her home after her father, Captain Stacy of the NYPD, declared Spider-Man to be a menace. In a subsequent scene Peter asks Gwen if she believes what the police say about Spider-Man; if she did, then it would have been a big mistake telling her he is the vigilante the cops are hunting. course Stan Lee got drama out of the misunderstandings between Peter and Gwen because he felt he could not tell her his secret. Still, even if the movie Peter is too quick to trust Gwen, his trust in her is not misplaced, and she works well in the rest of the movie as his confidante.

    As Uncle Ben, Peter’s moral guide, the new movie cast Martin Sheen, who brings with him a certain moral authority due to his past roles, notably President Bartlet in The West Wing. To a Baby Boomer like myself it’s startling to see Sally Field – Gidget!–playing Peter’s Aunt May. Ah yes, we’re getting old. Ms. Field’s Aunt May isn’t as elderly as Rosemary Harris’s version in the Raimi films, or the ancient Aunt May of the Ditko stories. But nor is Ms. Field’s Aunt May as youthful and hip (for her age) as the Aunt May of the Ultimate Spider-Man comics and animated TV series; I came across one issue that depicted the Ultimate Aunt May in a miniskirt for a night on the town!

    In the original comics it was Uncle Ben who taught Peter that “With great power there must also come great responsibility,” though in the Lee-Ditko origin story that line only appears in the narration for the final panel. Since then that line has been ascribed to Uncle Ben (as in Spider-Man: With Great Power #4 in 2008). But the line goes unspoken in The Amazing Spider-Man movie, although its version of Uncle Ben does talk about moral responsibility. Director Webb has said in an interview that he felt the line was too on the nose and unnecessary. I disagree. I think that in a retelling of a classic origin story for a major. mythic character in pop culture such as Spider-Man, there are certain notes that you have to hit. Just as you have to have the spider bite Peter Parker, you have to have the line “With great power there must also come great responsibility,” probably by bowing to tradition and having Uncle Ben speak the words.

    Oddly, in the new movie, Uncle Ben ascribes the idea of moral responsibility to Peter’s deceased father. So Ben is just echoing the principle of Peter’s father! I get the sense that The Amazing Spider-Man movie is deemphasizing Uncle Ben’s role in Peter’s saga. That may be because, as Marc Webb has stated in various interviews, one of his goals in this new series of Spider-Man movies is to explore the mystery of Peter Parker’s missing parents. This, clearly, is one of the ways that Webb intends to put his mark on this version of Spider-Man’s continuity, differentiating it from both the comics and the Raimi trilogy.

    PETER PARKER AND PATRICIDE

    In Stan Lee and Steve Ditko’s origin story for Spider-Man, they establish that Peter Parker is an orphan who was raised by his kindly, now elderly Uncle Ben and Aunt May. But Lee and Ditko demonstrate no interest in revealing anything about Peter’s deceased parents. Not until after Ditko has left the series does Lee finally reveal a backstory for Peter’s parents, Richard and Mary, in Amazing Spider-Man Annual #5 (1968): they were secret agents who were killed during a mission.

    Why did Lee and Ditko show so little interest in Peter Parker’s parents? Indeed, why did they make him an orphan in the first place? There is a long tradition of heroes who are orphans, Harry Potter being a prominent contemporary example, or seeming orphans, such as Luke Skywalker before he discovers the truth about his missing father. Superman is an orphan twice over in some versions of his continuity: his birth parents, Jor-El and Lara, died in the explosion of Krypton, and in Golden and Silver Age continuity, he did not begin his adult career as Superman until after the deaths of his foster parents Jonathan and Martha Kent. Batman is famously an orphan. Perhaps heroes are presented as orphans to emphasize how the hero must define himself through his own efforts, without the help of parents. Perhaps, too, there is the implication that the son cannot truly achieve a position of authority as long as his father remains on the scene.

    The death of the parents haunts the hero. Arguably, Superman copes with the loss of his parents and their world by becoming a fatherly figure who protects his adopted world, Earth. Batman channels his rage over his parents’ deaths into his never-ending war on criminals. One could also argue that Batman suffers from survivors’ guilt: even though, as a child, he could not prevent the murder of his parents, he still subconsciously blames himself and compensates by fighting other criminals as an adult.

    In Amazing Fantasy #15 Lee and Ditko daringly took this idea much further, with a revolutionary effect that still does not seem to be fully appreciated. Traditionally, when a superhero gained his super-powers, he chose to use them to fight crime and to help people. Lee and Ditko took a more realistic approach: when Peter Parker gets his super-powers, he decides to use them to gain fame and fortune, albeit in a masked identity. So as Spider-Man he goes into show business, and is initially quite successful. Infatuated with his new fame, Spider-Man egotistically and selfishly refuses to help a studio guard catch a fleeing thief, claiming it is none of his business. Shortly thereafter Peter learns that a burglar broke into his home and killed Uncle Ben. Enraged, Peter dons his Spider-Man costume and hunts the burglar down, only to be devastated on realizing that the Burglar is the thief he let escape earlier. Hence, through his own irresponsibility, Spider-Man inadvertently allowed the Burglar to kill Uncle Ben.

    But let’s phrase this differently. Uncle Ben was in effect Peter’s second father, raising him as if he were his own son. So Peter Parker was an unwitting accomplice in the murder of his father figure: Spider-Man bears the partial guilt for patricide!

    Although I doubt that Lee and Ditko thought of this, the death of Uncle Ben echoes the myth of Oedipus, who killed an old man in a fit of anger, became king, launched an investigation into his father’s death, was shocked to learn that his father was the old man he had killed, and was overwhelmed by guilt.

    Could it be that Lee and Ditko subconsciously decided to have Ben be Peter’s uncle, not his father, because the idea of a superhero being responsible for his father’s murder seemed too horrific?

    Comics aficionados now take Spider-Man’s origin story for granted,. But it must have been shocking to its original readers in 1962. A superhero who, however unintentionally, caused his relative’s death! And that death was real; it was not a hoax or miraculously undone, as a death in editor Mort Weisinger’s Superman comics of that time would have been. Batman is driven by anger against criminals for killing his parents; Spider-Man must direct his anger against himself.

    In the workings of Lee and Ditko’s Spider-Man origin story, Ben effectively was Peter Parker’s father, so Lee and Ditko had no reason to investigate who Peter’s birth parents were. Aunt May was still alive, but Lee and Ditko portrayed her as frail and ancient, in continual danger of succumbing to a heart attack (as was the much younger Tony Stark in 1960s Iron Man comics; clearly this was a subject much on Stan Lee’s mind). Having lost his uncle through his own irresponsibility, Peter was now obsessively driven by his need to protect Aunt May, and not lose her to death as well.

    Uncle Ben was the brother of Peter’s father Richard Parker, yet Uncle Ben and Aunt May seemed old enough to be Peter’s grandparents. It’s as if Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, both middle-aged men when they created Spider-Man, were thinking of how old the parents of their own generation were when they created Uncle Ben and Aunt May. I wonder if Lee and Ditko may have had another subconscious reason for giving Peter two sets of parents. Richard and Mary were the idealized young parents, who took care of Peter when he was a small child. But as you grow older, so do your parents, and the young parents who protected you in childhood become the elderly parents who become your responsibility. The absent Richard and Mary represent one’s youthful parents when one is a child; Uncle Ben and Aunt May represent one’s elderly parents when one is an adult.

    But if Lee and Ditko did not feel a need to investigate who Peter’s birth parents were, it was inevitable that the question would someday be addressed, as Lee finally did in Amazing Spider-Man Annual #5. It shouldn’t be surprising that he decided to make Richard and Mary into heroes. It’s also a familiar trope in the adventure genre to make the hero the son or descendant of other heroic figures. The heroes of myths are in many cases the children of gods: Hercules is the son of Zeus, and Siegfried is the son of Wotan/Odin. Superman is the son of Krypton’s greatest scientist, Jor-El, and Silver Age continuity made Superman’s ancestors in the House of El some of the greatest figures in Kryptonian history. A classic Batman story revealed that Bruce Wayne’s father Thomas once wore a batlike costume himself to combat criminals.

    There is also a tradition of heroes having two sets of parents. Though raised I relatively humble surroundings by foster parents, the hero has birth parents from a more exalted background. The ultimate example is Jesus Christ, whose father on Earth is the humble carpenter Joseph, but whose real father is God. Superman’s foster father is humble farmer Jonathan Kent; his real father is Jor-El of Krypton. So if Peter Parker was raised by a ordinary couple in Queens, New York, Ben and May Parker, were his birth parents also of higher status?

    In the alternate continuity of Marvel’s Ultimate Spider-Man, Richard Parker was not a C. I. A. operative but a biologist. The Amazing Spider-Man movie takes this further, indicating that Richard Parker was working with Dr. Curt Connors on experiments on transferring the genetic traits of one animal to another. The filmmakers have perceptively noticed that Spider-Man and the Lizard, Connors’ other self, each derived his super-powers from an animal, so it makes sense to link their origins together. So the movie seems to be implying that Peter derived his Spider-Man powers indirectly from his father’s experiments in genetic engineering.

    Lee and Ditko’s origin story famously involved a radioactive spider, but the Ultimate Spider-Man comics and the Raimi and Webb films all substitute a genetically modified spider as the source of Spider-Man’s powers instead. This makes sense. In the 1960s, due to the threat of nuclear war, radiation was very much on people’s minds, and Stan Lee used it over and over as a means of endowing people with super-powers, as if it were magic. Nowadays the Cold War has long been over, and the public is probably more aware that nuclear radiation is more likely to kill than to produce benevolent mutations. In recent decades genetic engineering has become a reality and continued to advance; even cloning now is old news. So genetic engineering becomes a more credible explanation for Spider-Man’s powers.

    FATE VS. COINCIDENCE

    But I’m somewhat uneasy with what seems to be the new film’s implication that Richard Parker is ultimately responsible for his son’s super-powers, and that hence Peter was clearly destined to become Spider-Man. In the Lee-Ditko origin, Peter becomes Spider-Man through sheer chance: the unlikely accident of being bitten by that radioactive spider. And did Lee and Ditko mean to suggest that anyone bitten by a radioactive spider would get those super-powers? Or was Peter developing super-powers instead of radiation poisoning yet another act of chance?

    Although in Lee and Ditko’s comics, Peter Parker is clearly brilliant in science (inventing that web fluid), he is basically an ordinary teenager from an ordinary background. He is not a god like Thor, or a wealthy and famous inventor and corporate head like Tony Stark/Iron Man. It is by sheer chance that he gains his super-powers. Amazing as those powers may be, they are limited. Even non-super-powered adversaries, if they are sufficiently adept, like the Enforcers and the Kingpin, can give Spider-Man a hard time in combat. Spider-Man’s super-strength is dwarfed by that of Thor or the Hulk. Moreover, Spider-Man basically operates in the streets of New York City. In the classic stories of the 1960s he rarely if ever traveled into outer space or other dimensions, like the Fantastic Four or Doctor Strange, and when he did, he was clearly out of his comfort zone. Similarly, though Spider-Man had a formidable rogues gallery of weird super-villains, he rarely dealt with the top echelon of Marvel villains, such as Doctor Doom in Amazing Spider-Man #5.

    In short, Peter Parker is an Everyman, and Spider-Man, even if he is Marvel the company’s flagship hero, is, within the context of the Marvel Universe, a small time super hero. He is a local New York City superhero, using his limited super-powers primarily to battle crime in the streets, rather than the threats to the planet or to the universe that the Fantastic Four and Avengers deal with. He’s not Superman; he is a superhero on a smaller, more down-to-Earth scale.

    Hence, there shouldn’t be a grand destiny that decreed that Peter Parker became Spider-Man. Nor should there be some great mystery involving his parents behind his acquisition of super-powers. The story should be as simple as possible. Peter Parker is an ordinary teenager who got super-powers through a chance event. What makes him a hero is how he behaved after his life was changed by this whim of fate. But though Spider-Man’s powers, background, and adversaries are not on the grand scale of Superman’s, Peter Parker’s life can nevertheless rise and has risen to the heights of great triumphs and tragedies.

    Chance and coincidence are two of the themes of Lee and Ditko’s origin tale. Former Spider-Man editor Danny Fingeroth tells me that when he tells Spider-Man’s origin story to people, they roll their eyes at the coincidence that the Burglar whom Spider-Man lets escape turns out to be Uncle Ben’s killer. But simply telling someone the story is one thing; dramatizing it, whether in comics or a movie, is another. No one in the audience laughs when the thief is shown to be Uncle Ben’s killer in the movie screenings I’ve attended. Again, the coincidence is not unlike the one in Oedipus Rex, and the revelation in that play, if staged properly, should be harrowing.

    An act of chance sends Peter Parker’s life off in a wholly unanticipated direction when the spider bites him. That works in Lee and Ditko’s story because it represents how unexpected, sudden events can greatly alter our lives. Remember Alan Moore’s Batman: The Killing Joke, which offers a possible origin of the Joker and compares it to Batman’s, and makes the point that the events of a single day can turn one’s life upside down.

    There is also dramatic power in the coincidence that the Burglar that Spider-Man failed to stop went on to kill his uncle. It demonstrates how our actions – and inaction – can have effects that we cannot foresee. It shows how our small sins can lead to major consequences. It shows how an individual’s actions affect those around him, for good or for bad. Yes, it is a coincidence that the Burglar killed Uncle Ben. But the point is that it is not an impossible coincidence. And Spider-Man should have realized that by not stopping a fleeing criminal, he was allowing that criminal to perpetrate more crimes, which could well have included the murder of one or more people. The horror in Lee and Ditko’s story is that someone close to the hero proved to be the criminal’s next victim.

    People think of comics’ Silver Age of the 1960s as a more innocent and optimistic time in the superhero genre. But Lee and Ditko’s origin story for Spider-Man is one of the darkest, bleakest stories in the genre. It ends unforgettably with Spider-Man trudging away into the darkness, realizing that the man who acted as his surrogate father was dead, and that it was his fault. Had the Spider-Man saga ended with that story, we would see it as ending in despair. Spider-Man is the villain of his own origin story.

    POWER AND IRRESPONSIBILITY

    Spider-Man’s origin story is famously about how “with great power there must come great responsibility,” as its narration states in the final panel. It is because of Spider-Man’s irresponsible refusal to catch the Burglar that Uncle Ben died. But Spider-Man’s refusal to act is only one example of a pattern of irresponsibility, which takes a different form in the new movie than it does in Lee and Ditko’s original story.

    I believe it was writer/artist John Byrne who once described the Peter Parker at the beginning of Amazing Fantasy #15 as “the good son.” Peter is devoted to his studies and to his loving uncle and aunt, who have raised him as if he were their own son. This is a boy who plays by the rules, and does what he is supposed to do. And his reward is that he is an outcast at high school; we see on the first page how he is shunned and mocked by the supposedly cool kids. It is clear that Peter is a shy introvert, who, though he longs for social acceptance, follows solitary pursuits (his studies) and closely bonds with only a few people (his uncle and aunt).

    Gaining super-powers enables Peter to break free of the pattern of his life up to that point. Whereas Peter Parker was an introverted bookworm and wallflower, as Spider-Man he goes into show business to become rich and famous. In part he intends his new career to help earn money for his family, a noble motive. But it becomes increasingly clear that as Spider-Man he is feeding his own ego by becoming a celebrity. Why does he assume the costumed identity of Spider-Man rather than perform as Peter Parker? On the surface his reason is that the masked identity of Spider-Man is a gimmick to attract public attention. But perhaps subconsciously he chooses to perform in a masked identity to distance his new self from “puny” Peter Parker, the object of ridicule in school. As Spider-Man Peter constructs a new identity for himself in which he can act out, act entirely differently than the shy and quiet Peter Parker. Up until now he has followed the rules, and been the “good son,” and been frustrated by social rejection; now, as Spider-Man, he can go in the opposite direction, and make his own rules. As New York’s newest celebrity, Spider-Man indulges his own swelling ego. You could say that he is becoming as smug and arrogant as Flash Thompson and his other high school tormentors; now that he is “cool” he is acting as badly as the cool kids among his classmates did. A victim of bullying, he is developing a bully’s mentality himself. He lets the Burglar escape because he considers it to be beneath him to help the security guard catch a thief. Spider-Man is preoccupied with himself and his career; he does not care about strangers. Spider-Man has a severe case of hubris, that traditional failing of tragic heroes who are about to undergo a fall.

    Neither Sam Raimi nor Marc Webb chose to show Spider-Man going into show business. But I wish that someday, in some future cinematic retelling of the origin, that filmmakers decide to dramatize this. Wouldn’t it be entertaining to watch Spider-Man’s rise in show biz? Imagine if the filmmakers hired one or more of the late night talk show hosts to appea in the film, showing Spider-Man perform on their shows? Or what if Spider-Man had his own “reality” show?

    In Sam Raimi’s retelling of the origin, a masked Peter Parker experiments in using his new powers in the wrestling ring, as he does in Lee and Ditko’s origin tale. When a man in charge pays Peter only $100 for winning, not the promised $3000, Peter lets the Burglar rob him. This is not the full-blown case of hubris that Lee and Ditko give Spider-Man; this is Peter just going into a snit over being cheated.

    In Lee and Ditko’s version, it took the temptations of fame and fortune to turn a “good” kid like Peter Parker into a dangerously self-centered, irresponsible one. Surprisingly, in The Amazing Spider-Man film, Peter Parker was rather irresponsible all along. Learning about the connection between his father and Curt Connors, Peter sneaks into a high school interns’ tour of OsCorp labs, where Connors works, by lying about his identity and usurping a real intern’s ID. Parker looks on without guilt when the real intern shows up and is carted off by security guards. Gwen Stacy, who is already an OsCorp intern, recognizes Peter but warns him not to get her in trouble and not to wander off from the group. Peter immediately proceeds to wander off; in snooping about he goes into a room he shouldn’t, which is full of genetically altered spiders, one of whom bites him. So Peter acquires his Spider-Man powers as a result of disobeying instructions.

    After gaining super-powers, Peter uses them to humiliate his nemesis, bully Flash Thompson, on their high school’s basketball court. And goes too far. As a result he and Uncle Ben have to appear in the principal’s office, and Peter is assigned punishment. Ben is not happy, since he had to rearrange his work schedule to go down to the school. Since Ben will have to work that night, he instructs Peter to pick up Aunt May at her job after dark. But Peter meets with Connors instead, ignores a cell phone call from Ben, and fails to meet May, forcing her to walk home after dark through what Ben considers a dangerous neighborhood.

    A point is made about Peter forgetting to bring home eggs after he was asked to do so. Really, it becomes hard to understand why Ben and May are so devoted to Peter considering that he keeps screwing up and angering them.

    After arguing with Ben, Peter goes out to a nearby convenience store, and tries to buy chocolate milk (I think), but because he is short by two pennies, the cashier won’t let him have it. This is when the Burglar appears and holds up the cashier. This version of Peter is also in a snit, and lets the robbery proceed as his own act of petty reprisal. In a nice touch, the Burglar throws something (money?) to Peter as a thank you gift, reinforcing the idea that Peter has just been his accomplice. Again, this Peter isn’t acting out of excessive ego and pride like the Lee-Ditko version; he’s just getting even with a stranger in a petty way.

    Leaving the store, the Burglar immediately runs into Ben, who tries to stop him, so the Burglar shoots him. Well, that certainly does away with the coincidence in the original story in which the Burglar turns up in both a Manhattan television studio and the Parkers’ home in Queens. Of course Peter is shocked by Ben’s death, but he never expresses any sense of guilt over it. Did Webb and the screenwriters feel that it was obvious that Peter would blame himself? I don’t think it is; Peter has to say it, and in this film he doesn’t. Moreover, Lee and Ditko staged this much more dramatically. In their version, on learning that Ben is dead, Spider-Man vengefully hunts the Burglar down, and Lee and Ditko build to their powerful dramatic climax, as Spider-Man, shocked, realizes that the killer is the same thief he previously let escape. Then Lee and Ditko show us the unmasked Peter, distraught, overwhelmed by guilt.

    The new movie’s Peter Parker appears motivated not by guilt, directed at himself, but anger, directed at the Burglar. So Peter begins hunting down criminals, creating first a mask and then a costume to disguise himself to avoid reprisals. But, as has been pointed out, the masked Peter is specifically hunting criminals who look like the Burglar. As a result of Ben’s death, he hasn’t decided to use his powers responsibly by fighting crime in general. Instead, he’s hunting down one individual, and, along the way, capturing any criminals who look like him.

    In the new movie Spider-Man never captures the Burglar. Perhaps the filmmakers are saving that for a future film. But the result is that the film seems to forget about the Burglar as it moves on to other matters. The film also appears to forget about Uncle Ben as it progresses, although his recorded voice is heard at a significant point later on. But again, we hear no soliloquies from Peter, or conversations between him and Gwen once she becomes his confidante, about any guilt or sense of responsibility he feels over Ben’s death. This should be the motivation that propels him through the film, but it’s absent.

    Instead the film builds towards a different turning point. There is a well-crafted sequence in which Spider-Man saves a boy from a car that is in danger of falling from the Williamsburg Bridge and bursts into flame. To calm the frightened by, Spider-Man takes off his mask, showing him a friendly human face, and has the boy don the mask instead, telling him it will make him “brave.” By implication, the mask has also served to make the formerly withdrawn Peter Parker courageous in his new costumed identity. And now Spider-Man has to accomplish an important feat without the mask and the psychological crutch it provides him. Although he is forced to let the car fall into the river, Spider-Man rescues the boy. His mask back on, Spider-Man returns the boy to his father, who wants to know who he is. It is at this point that the masked Peter calls himself Spider-Man for the first time. He has found his new identity, and it is defined by his using his powers to save people from danger; he has learned how to use his great power with great responsibility. This scene thus prepares the way for the last act of the film, in which Spider-Man acts to save the entire city from the Lizard.

    THE CASE OF THE MISSING FATHER FIGURES

    One of the themes of the movie seems to me to be the way that Peter Parker needs, but keeps losing, father figures. He is trying to learn about his deceased birth father Richard. He loses his foster father, Uncle Ben. Captain Stacy is Gwen’s father, making him a potential father-in-law for Peter, and is also a father figure in the sense that he represents authority. Captain Stacy spends most of the movie as a father figure as adversary, until he becomes a benevolent father figure, helping Peter and giving him his advice and blessing, towards the end of the film. But Peter loses him, too, since Captain Stacy sacrifices his life in helping Spider-Man battle the Lizard. Even Curt Connors is a potential father figure, since he is linked to Peter’s real father, Richard, and becomes Peter’s benevolent mentor. Connors becomes a nightmarish version of the father figure as adversary when he turns into the Lizard, thus enacting the mythic situation of the symbolic father who attempts to kill the symbolic son. So it is appropriate on a mythic level that the symbolic son, Spider-Man, with the aid of a formerly adversarial, now benign father figure, Captain Stacy, defeats the nightmare father figure, the Lizard. Spider-Man even redeems both adversarial father figures: Captain Stacy becomes his ally once he realizes that Spider-Man is Peter Parker, and Spider-Man literally cures the Lizard, allowing the benevolent personality of Dr. Connors to return. The clearest example of the theme of the son redeeming the adversarial father is George Lucas’s Return of the Jedi. That film and the new Spider-Man movie are both dealing in what Joseph Campbell described as the hero’s “atonement with the father.” Arguably, The Amazing Spider-Man movie is also about Peter Parker learning to assume the role of the father himself, as in the scene in which he rescues that small boy from death in the fiery car. Indeed, by the end of the film Spider-Man has taken over Captain Stacy’s role as protector of the people of New York City.

    SHORT SPIDER-SUBJECTS

    I think the hardest thing to accept in the original Lee-Ditko Spider-Man origin is the idea that Peter Parker was able to invent the fluid he uses to create his artificial webbing, something that is portrayed in the comics as a unique discovery that no one else has duplicated, and moreover, does it so quickly. The Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies got around the problem by having Spider-Man produce organic webbing directly from his hands. I kept wondering whether he would dehydrate himself by using large quantities of webbing, like when he uses webbing to stop the train in Spider-Man 2. In The Amazing Spider-Man film Peter Parker acquires (steals?) some “biocable” from OsCorp to use as his webbing. Later on Spider-Man claims he came up with the webbing himself, so I suppose he must have modified the biocable, converting it into webbing form. Still, I don’t like this. Did Parker steal the biocable from OsCorp? That’s not right. Will he have to acquire more from OsCorp in order to replenish his webbing supply? Will someone at OsCorp figure out that Spider-Man’s webbing is biocable? Will that mean that OsCorp can duplicate Spider-Man’s webbing and even sell it to other people? Lee and Ditko’s making Peter Parker brilliant enough to create his unique webbing does seem like a stretch of credibility, but maybe it is indeed the best answer.

    I was surprised and disappointed when I learned that J. Jonah Jameson would not be in the new Spider-Man movie, but the Daily Bugle newspaper is shown prominently at one point. Moreover, Peter Parker is established as an amateur photographer early in the film. Perhaps the intention is to have the Daily Bugle and Jameson appear in the next Spider-Man film in the rebooted series, and then Peter will become a freelance photographer for the paper. Considering how many characters filled Raimi’s Spider-Man 3, perhaps it was wise to limit the focus of this first film in the rebooted franchise to a small number of characters.

    I was also disappointed at my first looks at Captain George Stacy, as played by Denis Leary, in trailers and preview clips of The Amazing Spider-Man. As depicted in the comics by Stan Lee and John Romita, Sr., Captain Stacy was a wise, gentle, elderly man who became a father figure to Peter Parker. In the film Captain Stacy is not only much younger, but he seems at first to have usurped J. Jonah Jameson’s traditional role as Spider-Man’s implacable nemesis, convinced he is a menace and determined to end his career. Moreover, the relationship of Captain Stacy, his daughter Gwen, and her boyfriend Peter seemed to echo the similar nightmarishly Freudian triangle in the 1960s and 1970s stories of The Incredible Hulk: Bruce Banner is in love with Betty Ross, the daughter of General “Thunderbolt” Ross, who is obsessed with hunting and capturing Banner’s alter ego, the Hulk.

    But in the end the movie’s Captain Stacy ends up in the same place as the Lee-Romita version: as a benevolent father figure towards Peter. You may recall that the Lee-Romita version of Captain Stacy figured out Spider-Man’s secret identity but protected it. Moreover, both the Lee-Romita and film versions of Captain Stacy die heroically during Spider-Man’s combat against a super-villain. I even thought that Leary’s final speech as Captain Stacy was more moving than Martin Sheen’s farewell speech as Uncle Ben.

    Mr. Leary has been saying in interviews, including on David Letterman’s show, that three decades ago his fellow comedian Jeff Garlin told him he looked like Captain Stacy. Really? Would Mr. Leary in his twenties look anything like the sixtyish or seventyish George Stacy as drawn by John Romita, Sr. in the comics? Too bad that Mr. Letterman wasn’t a fan of superhero comics so he could have pointed out that this is nonsense.

    It’s ironic that Sam Raimi kept setting up the eventual appearance of the Lizard on screen through the appearances of actor Dylan Baker as Dr. Curt Connors in his Spider-Man movies, but it is director Marc Webb who got to use the Lizard instead. I used to think that when the Lizard finally appeared onscreen, he would look something like the velociraptors in the Jurassic Park movies. So I was disappointed that the movie’s Lizard lacks the reptilian snout that Ditko gave the character. Instead he has a humanoid face, and looks to me more like Batman’s reptile-like foe Killer Croc; one reviewer observed that the movie Lizard looked like the Thing in the live action Fantastic Four movies. Director Webb has explained that he wanted the Lizard to have a humanoid face to enable actor Rhys Ifans’ emotions to come through; it seems that motion capture technology was used to translate Ifans’ performance into the CGI Lizard. I still feel disappointed: without the inhuman, lizard-like head, the movie Lizard looks as disappointing as old-time movie werewolves whose heads look more like those of apes than of wolves. Watching the movie, I was thinking I was going to write that I was also disappointed that the movie Lizard didn’t wear a lab coat, like the Ditko version, but in one scene he does! Ditko also had the Lizard retain Dr. Connors’ pants, though I eventually realized that when the Lizard turned back into Connors, there must have been a big hole in his pants where his tail had been! Good thing the lab coat was so long. In the comics the Lizard is bulletproof against low-caliber firearms, but I was surprised that he survived such a fierce gun attack by police in one scene. Perhaps his ability to regenerate limbs also enables him to recover nearly immediately from gunshot wounds?

    Speaking of werewolves, I was somewhat confused by the film’s depiction of Dr. Connors’ personality. In the comics, Connors and the Lizard are very much like the traditional depiction of the werewolf. Dr. Connors is a good and benevolent man; the Lizard has an entirely different personality, savage and vicious. In the new film Dr. Connors seems to be a good man at first, befriending Peter, although it is hinted that he has willingly blinded himself to the way that his employer OsCorp treated Peter’s father Richard. (The film seems to hint that OsCorp arranged the plane crash in which Peter’s parents perished.) In the movie once Connors first transforms into the Lizard, he shifts back and forth between his human and reptilian forms; in the comics, the Lizard must take an antidote to revert to human form. We are shown a video in which the human Connors rants about the weakness of humans and how he prefers the power of his reptilian form. But towards the end of the film, after Spider-Man exposes the Lizard to the antidote, Connors, reverting to human for, saves Spider-Man’s life. Moreover, in the movie Connors/Lizard finds out that Spider-Man is Peter Parker, yet, though Connors is jailed at the end of the film, he apparently keeps Peter’s secret. I would assume, then, that the serum that transformed Connors into the Lizard distorted his personality even when he is in human form, and that the antidote finally enabled his real, benign personality to reemerge. I wish that the film had made this clearer: while I was watching the movie, considering his earlier rant, I didn’t understand why Connors saved Spider-Man’s life towards the end.

    In the Raimi Spider-Man movies Spider-Man became a local hero in New York City, and there was even a “Spider-Man Day” in his honor. In Webb’s film Spider-Man is very much the outsider, hunted by the police as an outlaw vigilante. I assume that though Captain Stacy changed his mind about Spider-Man, the New York City police will continue to hunt Spider-Man as an outlaw in the next film. Will there be a new police character to lead the manhunt? Will this be the time to introduce J. Jonah Jameson, who could use the Bugle to continue to whip up public opinion against Spider-Man? Or might the next film adopt Jameson’s new role in the comics as mayor of New York, a fine position from which to direct the police’s attempts to capture Spider-Man?

    The movie changes the name of Peter Parker’s high school, Midtown High, to Midtown Science High. “Midtown High” never made sense as the name of a school in Forest Hills, Queens; New Yorkers use “midtown” to refer to part of Manhattan. Would Midtown Science High be a special high school for science students? Are we to assume that Peter commutes from Queens to this school in midtown Manhattan? But if it’s a school specifically for students who are especially talented in science, what is a jock like Flash Thompson doing there?

    New York City has been an important real-life location for Marvel Comics stories all the way back to 1939. Whereas Sam Raimi shot his Spider-Man movies extensively in New York City, The Amazing Spider-Man was filmed primarily in Los Angeles. Nevertheless, there was some location shooting in New York City; for example, I can add to my list of real life Marvel locations the U. S. Customs House, with its beaux-arts architecture, that “plays” the role of New York City police headquarters. There are also references to real life New York City locations, notably the Williamsburg Bridge, as well as shots of New York cityscapes (some added through CGI?). I notice that Peter stands in front of a sign reading “3 Columbus Circle” when he visits the fictional OsCorp building. Is there an in joke here? In real life Columbus Circle is the site of the new Time Warner Center, the headquarters of the corporate owner of Warner Bros. and DC Comics, the rivals of Columbia Pictures and Marvel Comics. And so in the world of this film, the headquarters of Spider-Man’s enemy, Norman Osborn, stands on the location of Time Warner’s HQ!

    I was happy to see that Stan Lee and Steve Ditko get a credit up front and in nice big letters early in the film’s credits sequence as the creators of the comic book on which the movie is based. How strange that Sony is better at this than Marvel Studios; one has to search and not blink to find the credits to Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and other creators of the original comic in the credits for The Avengers movie and related films. I prefer Stan Lee’s cameos in Marvel movies when he is given lines to say, but his silent cameo in The Amazing Spider-Man as a school librarian wearing headphones, who pays no attention to the fight going on behind him is perhaps his funniest.

    AN OMINOUS CONCLUSION

    I’m surprised that I haven’t read more about the very end of the movie. In his dying speech, Captain Stacy makes Peter/Spider-Man promise not to involve Gwen in his life. The Captain clearly foresees that Spider-Man’s life will endanger people close to him; after all, it has claimed his own life. There is a graveyard scene for Captain Stacy’s burial, but Peter does not attend. Angrily, Gwen goes to confront Peter, who will not explain why he did not attend and has been avoiding her. Surely the filmmakers are aware that this echoes the end of Sam Raimi’s first Spider-Man film, which had a graveyard scene. Peter attended that burial, but it was there that he broke off with the bewildered Mary Jane, since he believed that his life as Spider-Man would continue to endanger her. At the end of Spider-Man 2, Mary Jane convinces him to reverse that decision, though, of course, she continues to be endangered by Spider-Man’s enemies in both Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 3.

    I didn’t understand why Peter just didn’t tell her that her father made him promise to stay away from her, and that he agreed it was for the best. But it comes as a welcome surprise that Gwen figures this out for herself. But later, in class, there is a reference to “promises you can’t keep,” and Peter whispers to Gwen that those are the best kind. That implies that he is not going to keep his promise to the Captain, and that their relationship will continue.

    It appears that the filmmakers are already setting up future developments in this new series of Spider-Man movies. As noted, this new film establishes that peter is a photographer and shows us a copy of the Daily Bugle, thus possibly laying the groundwork for J. Jonah Jameson showing up in the sequel. Norman Osborn’s company, OsCorp, figures prominently in the new movie, and Osborn is mentioned, but not seen. And who is that shadowy figure who appears in Curt Connors’ jail cell in the teaser sequence during the closing credits? Could that be Norman Osborn himself? Maybe not. We don’t see this figure’s face, but we hear him talk in a voice that I can’t identify. Surely the filmmakers will cast some prominent actor in the role of Norman Osborn, and haven’t done it yet. So more likely the shadowy figure is some Osborn underling. Still, the filmmakers are obviously setting up the introduction of Osborn into the film, and presumably his other identity, the Green Goblin, as well.

    Moreover, Emma Stone, who plays Gwen, has hinted in two interviews I’ve seen (including the one on PBS’s Charlie Rose), that Gwen will meet the same fate in the movies as she did in the comics. If that’s right, then Gwen will be killed by the Green Goblin in a future film as his vengeance on Spider-Man. I wonder if moviegoers who don’t know her comics history will be as shocked by her demise as readers of the comics were in the 1970s. This new Spider-Man film series has already killed off Captain Stacy, as in the comics. If they plan to kill Gwen off, too, then this rebooted series will be far darker and more tragic than Sam Raimi’s brightly optimistic Spider-Man trilogy.

    So if Gwen dies in the movies, then the ending of The Amazing Spider-Man movie becomes morally ambiguous and ominous. Peter Parker has already brought about the death of Uncle Ben by failing to follow this father figure’s teachings about power and responsibility. Now he is about to break his promise to another deceased father figure, Captain Stacy. And the result will be the death of Gwen Stacy.

    “Comics in Context” #246
    Copyright 2012 Peter Sanderson

    CLICK HERE FOR THE COMICS IN CONTEXT ARCHIVES

  • Trailer Park: Zac Levi for Nerd Machine at 2012 Comic-Con

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    Check out my other column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me onTWITTER under the name: Stipp

    ZACHARY LEVI – INTERVIEW

    break-nerd-machine-comic-conThere is something wonderful about those who go out their way to make their experience at this week’s San Diego Comic-Con memorable. From the hours that fans put in to get their costume just right, the planning some geeks will do in order to get the ultra exclusive from brand X that scores of fellow basement dwellers also covet, to the meticulous schedule jiggering (present company included) in order to account for every moment of the day so as not to waste a single second. It’s this kind of thought and effort that make coming back every year to the land of the strange smell so wonderful. As the event has become so ginormous and almost unwieldily, event planners have taken it upon themselves to think outside of the four walls of the convention center.

    You now can find odds and ends to do without ever having to possess a ticket to get inside 111 West Harbor Drive and that has only proven the power that the nerd herd has a collective. Actor Zac Levi, best known for his years as Chuck Bartowski, is back for a second straight year at his offsite Nerd HQ which proved to be a successful compliment to the official offerings of Comic-Con. Where once fans had to wait in long, slow, spindly lines just hoping that they could have the chance to have a seat to sit in their favorite panel, Levi offered them the chance to get a ticket and reserve their chance to sit in on a conversation among the cast of Chuck, with Jared Padalecki, with Zachary Quinto, Felicia Day and many others who showed up somewhere else besides the congested innards of the Con floor. So successful was the novel approach to offering fans what they really want, a guarantee and a chance to intimately share the space with those they really came to San Diego to see, that Levi is doing it all again in a new space but with the same commitment to offering an opportunity to sit in on conversations with celebrities who are just as excited talking as the people sitting, listening.

    This year’s list of notable notables include some cast members from The Expendables 2, Chuck, Twilight, Joss Whedon, Stan Lee, Seth Green, Guillermo Del Toro, and so many others. In addition to brining out the talent, Levi is once again making a commitment to label these small panels “Conversations for a Cause” as he helps raise money for Operation Smile, adding an element to humanitarian stewardship to a convention known as much for its excess as for its geekery. Levi took some time as he comes upon zero hour to chat about what’s on board this year and what made him think that he could do it all over again for a second year in a row.

    The finer details of where you can be a part of the goings on at The Nerd Machine:

    Located just two blocks away from the convention floor at Block No. 16 Union and Spirits (344 7TH Ave., San Diego, CA 92101), Nerd HQ gives fans a unique experience through cutting edge technology and gaming showcases, exclusive parties including Levi’s annual Nerd party and exciting autograph signings. In addition Nerd HQ will bring back the popular “Conversations for a Cause” panel series.

    The popular “Conversations for a Cause” panel series, which benefits Operation Smile through ticket sales, allows fans access to their favorite celebrities to have un-moderated, up close conversations. This year Break Media will broadcast the panels live on their site at www.break.com/nerdhq. Last year’s participants included Kevin Smith, Jared Padalecki, Zachary Quinto, Nathan Fillion, Olivia Munn, Felicia Day and Seth Green among others and the series raised $40,000 for Operation Smile. Individual tickets will sell for $20.

    In addition to live streaming the “Conversations for a Cause” panels, Break Media, the official digital partner of Nerd HQ, will broadcast nightly highlight reports hosted by Zachary Levi and have produced a three part original series. “Trailer Park Heroes” premieres today and features Zachary Levi, Adam Baldwin, Aly Michalka, Joel Moore, Jason Biggs and surprise guests. The nightly highlights and “Trailer Park Heroes” can be viewed at http://www.break.com/nerdmachine-2012/nerd-machine-trailer-park-heroes-part-1-2339892 .

    Xbox, the official gaming sponsor, will provide gaming stations featuring the newest and yet-to-be released titles including the debut the first hands-on demo of the completely reborn Tomb Raider franchise from Square Enix. Also playable exclusively at Nerd HQ will be OverRun, the new multiplayer mode coming in Gears of War: Judgment. VIZIO, the official technology sponsor of Nerd HQ, will provide laptops, tablets, and PCs for fans to demo. New LED monitors will fill the space and showcase the newest 3D and Internet App technology.

    As an added feature, Spike TV will be broadcasting live from Nerd HQ on Friday, July 13 and Saturday, July 14 to their network and digital outlets through their ALL ACCESS LIVE programming.

    For more information, schedule updates and tickets please visit www.thenerdmachine.com.

    Like us on Facebook at The NERD Machine, Follow us on Twitter @thenerdmachine

    fp_2nfprvkfa_4069CS: Hey, sir, how are you doing?

    LEVI: I’m doing well thanks.

    CS: Are you hip deep in logistics for next week or is that just not on your plate?

    LEVI: Fortunately Dave, my business partner, Dave Coleman, there is a reason I started a company with a partner. It’s so that somebody could take care of all the nuts and bolts of operation. There’s still a lot of stuff I’m busy with and decision making that needs to be done but I’ve been kind of having to focus on some other things outside of HQ so it’s been good to toss that onto Dave’s plate. But, yeah. It’s crazy the amount of things that pop up or go wrong right before you are supposed to open the doors. It’s like everything is smooth sailing and you’re a week out and then it’s this that and the other thing. And you’re like why didn’t this happen a couple of months ago? But, we’re good. We’re excited. Hopefully the logistical stuff will work itself out. Last year was kind of a surprise to us as much as anyone else that it came out being as special as I think it was and being able to sit on as many panels as we did and raise as much money for charity and have some great parties ““ great partnerships. We’re really excited about this year and hoping that it lives up to last year. Not necessarily in size, but in how people walk away from it. I feel people walked away from celebrities that they liked and it all felt good. I want people to feel good when they spend time with us and when they leave I want them to feel like I really enjoyed myself at that spot and I want to do that again.

    CS: It’s funny that you bring that up. I was there ““ either Sunday morning or when the Chuck panel when that conversation happened and there was just energy ““ devotion ““ these people have that really came out. It was electric and you could feel it. Was there any point in your mind thinking that should we do this again or is it always I knew I was going to be coming back next year?

    LEVI: I believed in the idea enough when I was coming up with it that barring it being a failure I was planning on doing it in years to come but you still have to open the doors and see if it’s a failure or not. And there were a couple of dicey moments leading up to it wondering if people were going to know about it, if people were going to be into it. And there’s a lot of other ““ I can’t really get into it but when you go to make a big event ““ poor Dave and Paige ““ she’s not only my personal publicist and has been for so many years but basically came on to do the PR for it last year and it was going to be a one day ““ no, actually, it was going to be a party. The year before, two years ago, we threw the first nerd party and was just so launch our first shirt in the company, it was a soft launch and we had a great time and danced until 4:00 in the morning. So, the next year we were going to try and get a little booth ““ space on the convention floor and have a party. And when Comic-Con said there was no room on the floor, I was just like, how do we sell shirts, how do we keep name recognition and brand recognition out there?

    So, I thought what if we do like ““ have some people come and do signings, not even thinking panels, just have people do signings, I know Baldwin goes down to conventions and he can make his money while he’s there. We will just host it and that will bring traffic through and when people come we can sell them a tee shirt ““ yeah, that’s it ““ and at night we will have a party. We all kinda settled on that and then the next day or whatever, I called Dave and I said, I think we should do this for two days. And they’re like, that’s double the cost, and I said, I know and it just kept going and going and I finally said guys, if we’re going to do this, let’s really do it and let’s do it the whole week of Comic-Con ““ all four days and four nights and let’s bring in video games, let’s bring in technology and let’s give the fans and celebrities a really cool place to come and hang out. Where they can have a drink and order some food and play some cool video games that they’ve never played before. I just really believe ““ and I think people know this of me because of the panels we’ve done at Comic-Con or other interviews I’ve given, but as an entertainer, if you boil it all down, take away all the glitz and glam and money and all that stuff, which is all great and lovely and I’ll take it anyway they want to give it to me if that comes with it, awesome, benefit of the job, but I like entertaining people. I like that that’s my job that I get to bring a smile to people’s face but you are only as good as your audience.

    You boil it all down and it’s like community theatre that I’ve done most of my life. Your show is only as good as the people that decide to go and come see you. You have to appreciate them. So, I started to think about that, I’m always thinking about it, but in regards to HQ, how do we offer something different or improve upon on an idea or thought as far as events go. And I started thinking about CES and E3 and how they’re awesome but unless you’re a vendor or a company you’re not going to be able to go and I’ve been really blessed to go to them ““ especially E3 for years. Because I’m quote unquote celebrity so I get a pass. I think about all these fans at Comic-Con that I know love video games ““ very similar demographic. So I thought why don’t we get some cool games there that they didn’t get a chance to play at E3 because they weren’t even allowed in. And then I love Xbox a lot and I play that more than any system ““ I mean I love all my systems but I probably play Xbox the most. I already had some friends that worked there so I said hey would you like to be our gaming sponsor and Break.com was interested in being able to cover it and have content for their site and content for our site ““ were very generous and I thought this was coming together rather well. And I went out of pocket a good amount last year but to me if you want to make an impact on the world you have to sacrifice. And whatever, dude, I could die tomorrow ““ like you don’t see a hearse on the back of a U-Haul.

    Might as well spend a little money while I’m here and try and give people something that’s memorable and exciting and fun and inclusive and intimate. And the panels ““ the biggest site guys for the panels was I just always felt a little cut short doing my panels for Chuck at Comic-Con. Comic-Con has a tough job trying to juggle everybody. What’s the best way to do a panel? How do you make everyone feel comfortable? Moderators do. They balance questions out ““ they make people feel comfortable but I was always bummed when we did our panel because they were 6,000 people out there dying to ask a question and you have a lovely reporter like yourself, or Alan Sepinwall, asking a question but you guys can ask us questions all the time and I would look out at this audience and felt like can’t we just let them talk the whole time. They might ask stupid or silly questions but at least we’re interacting with them ““ at least they are sitting there for a reason. And also going to panels in hall H and being like wow these are giant and massive and cool but if you’re in the back you can’t see Kevin Smith ““ the moderator of them. And again, I’m not trying to knock Comic-Con in any way, shape or form.

    That’s the mothership.

    tumblr_louoyamxns1qc3y9wThey bring everybody down there but I just kinda felt if I was going do to panels, what would I do? And, how would I want to do it differently? And then I started to think about ““ every time I’ve been down to Comic-Con there’s all these brown coats running around. And I’m like ““ there are still so many Firefly fans still ““ that still dress up but there’s never going to be another panel for it. Retro-panels rarely happen. So I called up Fillian who is a buddy of mine and asked if he would be interested in doing a Firefly panel. Get the cast back together ““ a small intimate panel. That was the first panel I thought of. He said, dude that’s a great idea ““ that would be so much fun. He’s going to be hanging out at the HQ basically all weekend long just to hang out ““ just to hang out with fans or have a drink or play video games. He and I are very kindred spirits in that regard. And so excited that Comic-Con is having a 10 year reunion for them. That’s really awesome. But anyway, that’s the little things that kept swirling through my head.

    And I’m like, can we put this all together ““ how do we put it all together ““ how do we make it all about something that’s bigger you know? Because obviously I want to do well by Nerd Machine ““ that’s my company. I believe in capitalism but conscientious capitalism. If felt if we can do good by us and sell some merch and get some brand recognition while simultaneously offering fans a really cool intimate hands on experience with games, tech and celebrities AND give those celebrities the same kind of “¦ Basically I told Seth Green or Zach, do whatever you want to do with your panel, it’s yours. If you want to sit there and juggle for an hour, then do that. If you want to talk about a project your doing or pump another product, it’s yours. I just want you to have fun with it and have fun with the fans because that’s what they’ll walk away from the most. And then to be able to let the event be a free event where anyone can just walk in off the street and not charge anybody for it but to use the panel as a tool to raise money for those less fortunate around the world, I just felt like was a really good fit. All the pieces just came together. It’s just kind of crazy to think that it did! We’ve been planning this one literally since Comic-Con ended last year.

    CS: Really?

    LEVI: Yeah, it’s been in different phases obviously but the next day we went out and started looking at venues. We liked where we were but we wanted to see if there was anything else out there. We did, found another great venue. And then securing sponsors which I thought would be a lot easier this year given our track record from last year but it still wasn’t super easy. In some respects it was but in other ways we still had to fight. We haven’t announced any of our panels yet because we have to wait for Comic-Con to announce their schedule before we can even do our schedule. And also, it’s just a big, big jigsaw puzzle. We can only put 225 people in our audience so it’s not like your having to fill 1,000 or 6,000 or 10,000 people.

    Hopefully the people that we’re going to have on the panel so far the ones we have locked ““ I’m so freakin’ excited about it and wish I could tell you about “˜em ““ but to me the coolest thing is to see people that I’m intimidated by ““ stars or show runners or directors where I say holy crap – they are down to do a panel at our little venue. It’s a testament to them being really cool people who want to be decent and cool with their fans who are into the idea of raising money for charity and like the idea of having a cool place to hang out. So, definitely, the next day after Comic-Con Dave and I and his wife just walked around San Diego ““ had some food. I love the Gas Lamp. I love it down there. It’s a really cool location.

    CS: Were there efficiencies from last year that you said we could make this an even better experience by doing x or y? Was there anything off the top of your mind that you thought would make the experience a little bit better?

    tumblr_louoymwehe1qc3y9wLEVI: I gotta say that most of the things that we felt like needed to be polished were very kind of venue contingent and by that I mean one of the things we had issues with last year was fire code for example. There were only so many people we could fit into any particular room in the location we were at last year. And that was just because it was kind of an older building and had very few entrances and exits and they were small. So when it came to the party or it came to having a lot of people at the panel and signing, and games and stuff, that was difficult. All the things that you think about or things you don’t think about like how do we do this. Every venue has it’s challenges. The venue we’re in now poses a challenge but that’s something you gladly take on. How do we roll our sleeves up and solve this puzzle and I think we’ve done that pretty well. I’m trying to think of other things. Honestly I think it was all just little logistical things that weren’t really too much of a worry then and are not too much of a worry now. We’re spacing our panels out a little more just to give ourselves some breathing room. Last year it was one audience was getting up to go into the signing room while we were loading another one in – we just felt a little frazzled. Because everyone that’s coming in to do a panel is volunteering their time and they are busy. They are running to other panels at Comic-Con or doing other appearances with other publications and stuff and parties.

    So, it was very advantageous of us to just spread that out a little bit. Give ourselves some breathing room, and we’ve done that. Can’t wait for the parties. I’m just excited about all of it. Because I’ve been busy with other stuff it’s more my personal career ““ I’m constantly juggling these two brands ““ Zach the actor and Zach the entrepreneur which gets a little tricky in some ways and I’ll tell you about that some other time maybe. But I’ve been forced to have to juggle a lot in the Zach career so David has taken the brunt of the stress of HQ. So, I’m looking forward to him not being so stressed anymore. That’s one of my best friends and I was best man at his wedding. I never like seeing him stressed. I never like seeing anyone stressed. It’s just a testament to how much he cares. He really cares. He cares about the fans. He worked with me on Chuck. He knew how important they are.

    CS: At what point did it become more of you thinking about this is something that would be cool to have ““ you connecting with your idea of connecting to a charity ““ which I think you had a very large presence for that charity ““ that marrying those two ideas together ““ that everyone can have a really good time but we can also do something that’s positive and impactful. When did those two things collide?

    LEVI: It was kind of midstream with the planning of HQ. Basically every time I do something ““ at my birthday parties ““ they all have some kind of charity aspect to them. I just think there is no reason why if God has given you some sort of influence and a little bit of sway – I have a lot of friends and I like having big birthday parties ““ not necessarily for me just because it’s a great excuse to throw a big dance party. So, I always try to have something there where people either ““ I don’t ever force people to donate because that takes the whole heart of donating and charitable giving out of the equation ““ you can’t strong arm anybody ““ but it’s always a presence ““ I always encourage people. If I can have a big carnival birthday party and have 500 people and they all just bring one dollar, that’s $500 ““ that’s changing two children’s lives through Operation Smile. $240 dollar operation. Their lives are changed forever. So for me, again, I believe in capitalism and I believe in going out and doing well for your life ““ do whatever and be successful at it but along the way realize the blessing you have and try and give back as much as you can through the process.

    It was always something in the back of my mind that I intended to bring to the HQ so it was just a matter of trying to find the most impactful way to do it. We have places at HQ that you can just donate. Even if you don’t pay for a panel you can donate money. That’s great but how can you guarantee that you can get more money without strong arming somebody in return. And that’s where the panels were the light bulb. I didn’t want to charge people to come to the venue. I didn’t want to say hey come and play video games for free oh but it’s a donation in order to get in. That makes it a little tricky and then you have people possibly waiting outside in line and it’s just a logistical thing. It just didn’t feel right. So much of what I go on in life really is just gut feeling. If I were John Doe and I walking around downtown ““ what feels like it’s a scam what feels like it’s cool, what feel like it’s organic like I’m not getting ripped off? What feel like a place where they really put a lot of thought where everything comes together? And to me that’s a testament to somebody. When I walk into a venue or a restaurant or a bar or an event or whatever, I look at all the aspects of it ““ parking to refreshments to everything. And I go, was there thought put into this or were the people planning this just going whatever, they’ll figure it out. I don’t like that.

    the-nerd-machine-nerd-hq-comic-con-2012-sdcc-zachary-leviI want to feel like people thought of somebody. And not only did they think about the people coming in, but they are also thinking more globally and thinking about ““ like in my case ““ Operation Smile is my charity. I am an ambassador for it, proudly, and have been for years and will continue to be. It struck a chord with me that is incredibly deep and personal. I’ve never had a cleft lip or pallet or oral deformation but I’ve had friends growing up with cleft lips and pallets. And the effect that that has on a child growing up ““ in a lot of third world countries they are considered cursed. They are considered damned. I can’t even imagine. It was one day I was driving around town and I felt like God just put it in my face. I saw six billboard and six commercials in two days. And I’d seen them before but all of a sudden it dawned on me that I make a living and a big part because I have a good smile. I have a good dentist and good orthodontist. I’ve got a good smile. But what if I didn’t? What if my teeth were all mangled? Or slightly mangled? That would have a huge impact on me as an actor. Everyone knows that Hollywood is a physical beautiful place or whatever. And it just sort of hit me that not only do I get to have a normal life, even if I couldn’t be a working actor, what if I was in this kids shoes. This child is a human being, has a heart and a soul and because of some weird birth defect, they are shunned and have no friends and being able to get medical assistance to them in the middle of nowhere. Stories that I’ve heard of families trekking hundreds of miles with their kid on their back so they could get in line to get their child an operation and having been turned away because there were too many people there already and they trek hundreds of miles back and wait for the next one to come around.

    Anyway, I’m sorry, I went off on a tangent there but the point is that I think that if people are always mindful of the impact you can make in the world, even in the smallest of ways, collectively that’s where you change the world. That’s how you do it. And if it means going to fans and saying, “Fans of Firefly, you got Nathan and Alan, Adam and Jewel and Morena and they are all willing to come and hang out with you guys and you can secure a seat, you don’t have to wait in line hoping to get a seat if you are lucky enough to be in it. If you buy the seat, it’s yours ““ it’s $20.”

    A pretty nominal fee.

    I feel everyone will walk away from the experience like we had done something special that was bigger than ourselves. And also, it was very much about ourselves it was very much about the relationship you maintain with your fans and supporters that give you that validation and the reason that you do what you do.

    CS: Let’s say it’s Sunday, Nerd HQ is closed, it’s done. What is the definition of success for you ““ what will tell you that you did well, that you can leave there happy?

    LEVI: I gauge it all the way down. First and foremost the amount of money that we can raise for charity and that all depends on the fans and the panels and selling out the panels and hopefully we are offering panels that they really want to buy tickets for. So the biggest success is that. The most money we can raise for Operation Smile and then just below that would be the response from the talent involved and the fans and if they felt like it was special.

    If they felt, even aside from the philanthropic aspect, if they felt like the time they got to spend with each other ““ the communication, the back and forth between the fans and talent was good, intimate, real and good and off the top and was really unique and one of a kind and you don’t find it anywhere else. And then of course just under that is hoping that the sponsors that trusted us with their money and their resources walk away from this feeling like it was an investment well spent. And if all that comes together, even if I have to spend more of my own money then it was worth it.

    CS: Sir, again, as always, thank you, thank you for taking some time out of your day to talk with me. It is always a pleasure.

    LEVI: Brother, it was great to talk to you again.

  • Trailer Park: THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, SAVAGES and More Ray Ray

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    Check out my other column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me onTWITTER under the name: Stipp

    THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN – REVIEW

    220px-the_amazing_spider-man_theatrical_posterThe problem with Marc Webb’s reboot of a comic property that needed a new lease on its comic book shelf life isn’t that it’s somehow unfaithful to the web head’s past. Rather, Andrew Garfield is placed in a role that just doesn’t have the much of a spark. Sure, the love interest that Peter has with Gwen Stacy flirts with some genuine heat the two seem pushed together way too fast, too soon, and without so much of that certain bit of romance that we felt between he and Mary Jane in previous films.

    Where the movie excels, though, is in its effects that make this a true summer blockbuster that deserves to be seen on the big screen with its action set pieces and more than obvious set ups that barely even hide that these are needed in order to move the plot along at such breakneck speed there is no time for introspection or even a little bit of character development. We have plot points that need development. Dad Parker needs to get rid of his son, Uncle Ben and Aunt May need to show how old they are and Ben needs to die, Peter needs to know what it is to have that kind of responsibility which comes with having the power to scale walls, Peter needs to avenge his uncle’s death, but, wait, therein lies another problem with the movie. We spend a good amount of time in this film waiting to find out what Peter is going to do to the man who killed his uncle. It’s the revenge fantasy and even Uncle Ben himself chides the boy for getting a cheap shot in at Flash, who previously humiliated him in an over-the-top ridiculous schoolyard bullying scene that I haven’t seen played that straight since CAN’T BUY ME LOVE, when Peter has the chance to do so. It’s that sense of revenge, of getting even, that really does define Peter as a character and as a hero. That plot point is left to wither and left unanswered as the movie does with a lot of its previously raised questions and problems. The most unsatisfying resolution is no resolution at all and when the movie wants to skirt these issues only to end on a 3D spectacular that involves the last remaining fight Peter has in him there is nothing left to do but wonder why, if you make a movie about Spider-Man and have to retell everything all over again, do you leave out the very thing that could have redefined the man behind the mask? As it stands, we have an unmade man, a hero who doesn’t yet deserve the mantle of one just yet.

    SAVAGES – REVIEW

    savages-poster1Make no mistake, this is a B movie. C movie, more like it.

    Not that it’s a bad movie by any means, OK maybe a little means, but the movie only reaches a certain amount of thrills before reverting into a production that is filled with scene chewing villainy from Benicio Del Toro and Salma Hayek that really makes this a fun film. Outside of them, however, we have two drug dealers, played with diametrically opposite aplomb by Taylor Kitsch and Aaron Johnson who play best friends John and Ben, respectfully, who share a common cooze: Ophelia, played by Blake Lively. As Ophelia, she is our sometimes narrator, imbued with the kind of hippie sensibility that is reserved for the kind of individual whose ideals aren’t grounded in a reality other than the one they’ve created in their own head. As a weed business, John and Ben are at the top of their game and they’ve proven that they’re good at it. Why they choose to also live in a candy coated nirvana, sharing the sexual affections of one girl, isn’t really explained so much as it’s shown. It’s their relationship, actually, that sags this narrative down.

    The only real excitement comes in the form of the nasty feud that dusts up when Hayek’s entreaties to go into business with the weedies is rebuked and a kidnapping ensues. It’s this plot line, and it’s not especially a new one, that proves to be one thing that makes this movie palatable. Outside of a few chases, a few shootouts, the material that Oliver Stone is working with just comes off as flat and uninspired. Whether or not he has something to say about drug policy or the current state of the war on drugs, it’s irrelevant as he’s either distracted by having to push forward a plot that has our anti-heroes turning the tables on the cartel that seeks their obedience or trying to put a pretty bow on a movie that only has one honest conclusion. A conclusion, mind you, that completely upends itself and renders the story in a dreamlike haze. It’s an ending that doesn’t earn it and it certainly doesn’t deserve anything more than a passing glance or a one-and-done viewing. It’s best left to sit there as a fairytale that doesn’t need to be revisited once you consume it.

    Long Hot Summer in a Cold Dark Theater By Ray Schillaci

    prometheusofficialposterI’ve been gone for awhile if you have not noticed. Not physically but mentally, although I would prefer to be somewhere cooler where small mammals are not threatened to explode with contact to the intense morning heat that greets the Phoenix residents on a daily basis. I finally figured out after eight years why the city was anointed with such a name; survive the fire and you may rise above it all. In the dead heat of this summer people either flee the state (they’re called “snowbirds,” flocking to cooler destinations), seek refuge hibernating in their air conditioned homes (if not working at their jobs), wolfing meal after meal at Golden Corral (where ““ if one listens very carefully ““ you can hear the faint musings of satisfied cattle among the mostly portly patrons) or converge to the nearest multiplex subjecting one’s self to the least expensive form of what we’ve been told is entertainment.

    Without a thought, we reach into our economically tight pockets and pay anywhere from seven to fifteen dollars a head, not including the sometimes stale popcorn and other overpriced confections, to get us through these hard times we are facing. Movies, video games, entertainment news and reality TV happen to contribute to a saying dated back to the Roman Empire, “Give them bread and circuses and they will never revolt.”

    But every so often we do witness a ripple that disturbs the powers that be (at least in the studio system) for all the special effects, 3D and stunt work do not always add up to a good story. That is exactly what people want from their escape and time and time again many of the powers that be just don’t get it. As long as failed filmmakers continue to propagate the studios as bean counters/lawyers that morph themselves into studio executives we will continue to be subjected to countless cookie-cutter products that rarely meet expectations.

    Many of these high powered decision makers churn through what they just view as product at such a rapid pace that release dates override the importance of good content. They are like children with ADD given tremendous responsibility with no idea how to properly take charge and place story first and foremost. Some of our favorite filmmakers are no better; having become lazy in their storytelling and substituting it with either homage’s to themselves or attempting to jar are senses with editing techniques that are best left for small screen commercials.

    Ridley Scott’s, “Prometheus” has been sighted as an aggravating disappointment to many critics and audiences. It is not a complete failure, but it is an intriguing and gorgeous looking let down that is blatant in its storytelling flaws. There are those who defend Scott’s vision and feign daring to tell an original story that did not appear to be lifted from the rest of the “Alien” franchise, but something apparently got in the way.

    The first hour appears to breathe new life, but eventually descends into familiar territory that feels too much like “been there, done that”. Jarring moments of the stupidity of characters are nearly laughable and are far more acceptable in a movie like “Cabin in the Woods” that pokes fun at the genre rather than a story claiming to take itself and its lofty notions of creation so seriously. Scott was also able to get away with putting a distance between us and the characters in such classics as “Alien” and “Bladerunner,” because the actors excelled over the underwritten parts. The characters that are sprinkled throughout Prometheus are not only minimally written but near vapid in their portrayal.

    The only characters worth investing in are an android and a captain that seems to be nearly as down to earth as the original one in “Alien”. Unfortunately Idris Elba’s, Captain Janek is carried by the actor’s charisma and not what the writers provided him. Michael Fassbender’s android starts off interesting but with some of his suspicious actions we tend to distrust his character, leaving no one else to care about. Once we’ve lost our investment in characters the movie ends up like an expensive set piece. It’s cool to look at, but you’re never really sure where it is going and the tag-along ending nearly elicits a vocal groan from many. This leads me to believe that the “Prometheus’” box office take may end up being disappointing compared to it’s over inflated budget that did not have the story fleshed out to its fullest to warrant such a high dollar amount.

    Continuing the grumblings of public and box office is Adam Shankman’s film version of “Rock of Ages”. Problem number one with this film is the limited audience appeal; hair band 80’s nostalgia fans. The film version lacks the darkness of the play that brought to light the luridness of the time while never quite capturing the all around joyous fun that director Shankman was able to convey in “Hairspray”. In the director’s earlier musical, he demonstrated a sure footing in his dance numbers, but with ROA Shankman substitutes hyper editing for dance routines that barely go anywhere along. “Hairspray” had quirky fun characters with some depth and soul. ROA barely scratches the surface with any investment in their characters. This musical outing is nearly peppered with wafer thin soulless creations that have us begging for the next musical number so we do not have to listen to them drone on.

    There are guilty joys in Rock of Ages depending on the viewer. Some will absolutely love Alec Baldwin as the aging owner of the Bourbon Room and his daffy assistant played by Russell Brand. But I have found that it goes either way for these two. Some people enjoy their humor and liken it to the best SNL skit while others find them just as annoying and out of place as Tom Cruise in his role as the burned out Stacee Jaxx.

    Those finding Cruise miscast do not seem to get the fine high wire act Cruise committed to in playing the aging rocker. He skirts just playing it for laughs and slips in a soul now and then showing a heart still aching to be relevant. For those who have cited Cruise’s “time to leave his shirt on,” his critics should be reminded that the actor was purposely not in tip top shape to capture the look of the wasted rock star.

    Rock of Ages does not do well as a crossover movie. Today’s young generation has little interest in the 80’s culture and there is only a small segment of baby boomers that it caters to. It might have been a hit on Broadway, but the film’s story is uninspired and its characters are barely three dimensional, which may end up having Shankman’s latest musical opus experience a slow death at the box office unless it finds its way into the hearts of the midnight cult circuit that is kinder to such fare. I will admit that for me personally and my family it ended up being a guilty pleasure. I did laugh, found myself secretly rocking out and feeling good at the end even with its flaws.

    Unfortunately, there have been few films worth seeing with strong stories and good characters. “Marvel’s Avengers” “Cabin in the Woods” and “Moonrise Kingdom” are refreshing compared to what the studios have had to offer us. Those films give us a reason to return to the theater. Whether or not “The Amazing Spiderman” will be amazing or “The Dark Knight Rises” will rise above the rest is a question still to be answered. Even turning one of our most revered presidents into a vampire hunter with the blood sucking crave in high gear may not be enough to lure its victims. If audiences even get a hint of a sub-par story, their patience may wane for this kind of entertainment and the hesitancy of dolling out their hard earned money may be reserved for the next video game to add to their collection.

    In the meantime, there are some strong independent films still struggling to get a theatrical distribution deal and all of you should seek them out. Kurt Kuenne’s, “Shuffle” happens to be one of the most powerful films in many years. It strikes an emotional chord with its audience that is rarely experienced. Unfortunately, theatrical distributors are uninterested in small unless it involves nude nuns with guns (an actual title to a movie). The powers that be have cited small budget, a black & white presentation and no name stars as its hindrance. But Kuenne’s story about a man with narcolepsy who wakes up at different ages and has no control of his life shuffling out of order has fascinated its audiences who demand repeat viewings.

    Aaron Rottinghaus’ “Apart” is also searching for a better theatrical deal. Having played in L.A. and New York in a very limited release, the teenage audience it attracts is dedicated and there is very little reason to wonder why. The film is part art/teen angst/thriller that never panders to the tweens. It treats all of us as intelligent viewers looking for some depth while not getting too high brow for its own good. “Apart” is reminiscent of “Donnie Darko,” “Memento” and “Rebel without a Cause” in mood and tone. It does all of this without ever being derivative while introducing a new director with a distinct and profound vision.

    Both films mentioned have home video deals, but it is a shame that they take a backseat to high profile films that have little joy or substance that litter the screens with their 3D effects, aged toilet humor and simple-minded rom-coms. The only way to get the message to the infantile mind of the nukie sucking executives responsible for such dribble is to get them where it hurts ““ at the box office. Boycott manufactured crap with little if no human emotion and support good well thought out entertainment.

    If you must see crap why pay the $7 to $15 price tag for air conditioning when many of us have the A/C on already at home, the candy, popcorn and beverage are far less expensive, and you can rent that regurgitated mess for a buck or borrow it from the library? It usually has less than a six month shelf life before reaching home video, but why should that matter when we know going in it ain’t worth it. We do this enough; perhaps somebody up there will care and start putting out better films and less by-products.

  • Comics in Context: Four From Pixar

    comicsincontext4.jpg

    FOUR FROM PIXAR

    Have you ever read a story or watched a movie that you thought was going in one direction and then went in an entirely different one? Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960) is a prime example, when you first see it. But I’m not just talking about a switch in the direction of the narrative, but a shift in what the story seems to be about thematically. What if you think that the story is expressing one point of view and then you realize that it is actually saying something quite different? In other words, what if you, as a member of the audience, think that the story means something different than what the creator seemed to intend? I will avoid the overused word “deconstruction” here, but this is what I am about to do to the new animated feature film from Disney and Pixar: Brave, from a story by Brenda Chapman, the film’s direction is credited to both Chapman and Mark Andrews. And as always, I am putting you on spoiler alert: in critiquing the film, I am going to write about what happens in this story from beginning to end.

    Accompanying Brave is a new Pixar animated short, La Luna, directed by Enrico Casarova. It reminds me of children’s stories in which the universe actually is like it seems to small children, before they learn how science describes it. As I pointed out in a previous column, P. L. Travers’ Mary Poppins books are like this. And so in La Luna, the moon isn’t as big or as far away as science tells us; if you have a long enough rope or ladder, you can climb up to the moon. Moreover, rather than being gigantic balls of super-heated gas, stars really are small five-pointed objects that shine in the sky, and so meteors, as falling stars, also look like that. The three cast members of La Luna are a boy, a man, and an old man; they do not talk in a way we can understand, but we may assume they are a boy, his father, and his grandfather. Their duty is to climb up to the moon, which is covered by the small, fallen stars, and sweep it clean. The short is charming and beautiful, but I kept wondering why the characters were trying to get rid of the fallen stars. The moon looks better covered with them; when they sweep an area clean, what’s left is a gray barren patch of lunar landscape. The high point of the short comes when a particularly large star falls onto the moon; the boy hits it just right and it shatters into many small stars, creating a lovely glow that impressed the father and grandfather. But of the stars are so pretty, why get rid of them? And where did the fallen stars go when the moon is swept clean? It’s as if the short is going in opposite directions at once: showing the fallen stars to be beautiful, yet at the same time insisting on sending them into oblivion.

    Similarly, Brave seems to go in two different directions. The advertising for the film focused on the image of the young heroine, Merida, a princess of a clan in 10th century Scotland, holding a bow and aiming an arrow. Like this summer’s other young female archer in the movies, Katniss in The Hunger Games, Merida echoes the image of the Greek goddess Artemis, known as Diana to the Romans, the huntress. One widely seen trailer for the movie consisted of an entire scene from the first act of the film, in which several comical contestants compete in archery to win Merida’s hand in marriage. Then Merida herself joins the competition, declaring she will win her own hand, or, in other words, compete to win her independence, rather than submit to an arranged marriage. She wins in spectacular fashion. From all of this, it would seem that the film will be a story about female empowerment, a feminist story about breaking free from the restrictions imposed by a male-dominated society and traditional female roles. Even the title of the film, Brave, suggests it will be an adventure or quest film, in which the heroine will prove her courage, and thereby prove her right to be treated as men’s equal. Moreover, it has been widely observed that Brave is Pixar’s first feature film with a female lead character. I consider Elastigirl to be one of the leads of Pixar’s The Incredibles (2004), but she shares that title with her husband; Brave focuses on a single female lead, although, as we shall see, Merida’s mother, Queen Elinor, is nearly as important. So, again, one might have expected story about female empowerment and equality, perhaps somewhat like Disney’s animated film Mulan (1998), whose young heroine poses as a male warrior in China centuries ago, becomes a great hero, and ultimately is recognized and acclaimed as a woman for her bravery.

    The feminist aspects of Brave are clear enough. Scenes of Merida’s childhood show that her father gave her a bow and encouraged her wish to learn archery, considered a skill for men, while her mother disapproved. The first act shows how Queen Elinor keeps insisting that Merida should not use a bow and arrow, and should conform to traditional women’s roles and behavior, including allowing herself to be married off to the son of the leader of one of the three other clans.

    But you can also see Merida’s rebellion in other contexts. For one, there’s a generational gap between Merida and Elinor, with Merida representing a more modern view of women’s role in society. Merida represents the future, and, indeed, her point of view on arranged marriages wins out at the film’s end.

    Furthermore, Brave can be seen as a story about anyone, male or female, young or older, pursuing his own sense of self, his own ambitions, and his own muse, despite the pressure to conform to more conventional social roles. Elinor attempts to limit what Merida’s role in society, and indeed her personality, can be. Elinor disapproves of Merida’s archery, disapproves of the way Merida laughs, and indeed disapproves of pretty much everything Merida does, while insisting that Merida conform to Elinor’s ideas of proper feminine behavior. Before the archery competition, Elinor has Merida war a confining gown, literally forcing her into what Elinor considers proper shape, and makes her wear a headdress that conceals all of Merida’s red hair, the visual sign of her distinctive individuality. Defiantly, Merida keeps one strand of her hair visible.

    One could interpret Merida’s passion for archery as a metaphor for anyone’s passion for his or her goal in life. She develops her skill in archery just as a creative person strives to master his or her skill as a writer or artist or whatever his or her chosen profession may be.

    There’s also a stirring sequence in which Merida rides her horse through the woods, firing arrows with perfect accuracy at targets as she rushes by. It’s an image of freedom, joy, and self-expression through exercising one’s talents. It also links Merida with the natural world. Brave depicts the landscapes of Scotland beautifully. I saw the film in 3-D, and it’s only in these dazzling portrayals of the natural world that I thought the 3-D was truly effective in heightening the beauty of the film. Merida seems to be happier, freer, and more able to be herself within the natural world than in the civilized one, where she is hemmed in by the pressure to follow prescribed roles and modes of behavior. Even her lush, somewhat unruly red hair seems to express a certain wildness in her personality, another link to nature. The film seems to suggest a connection between Merida and the natural world, and that it is more natural for her to express herself through such means as riding and archery than to conform to the oppressive roles society would force her to adopt.

    So this first act of the film builds towards the archery contest, when Merida asserts her independence and right to follow her own desires through her triumph there. What is her next step up from there in her liberation?

    Instead, she is forced to go backwards. Her mother, Queen Elinor, is outraged, and forces her back into the castle. Though we have seen in flashbacks how close Merida and Elinor were when Merida was a small child, now they are angrily at odds with each other. Elinor throws Merida’s bow into the flames of a fireplace, as if symbolically to destroy her art and the means of her self-liberation. Merida tears a tapestry that depicts her and Elinor, thus literally rending one from the other. Merida escapes into the woods. Significantly, the bow is not consumed by the flames, and Elinor seems to regret having cast it into the fire; perhaps the implication is that Merida’s art and ambition are not so easily destroyed.

    Whether in fairy tales or in Shakespearean comedy and romance, the forest is a place in which change can occur; it is also a place that hides the dark side of existence. Within the forest Merida encounters a witch, and asks her for the means to “change her fate” by altering her mother’s opposition. The witch sells her an enchanted cake, and Merida returns to the castle and gives it to Elinor. Upon eating the cake, Elinor magically transforms into a bear, initially terrifying Merida. In this form Elinor can no longer speak, and can no longer act as queen, controlling Merida’s life. But it soon becomes clear that Elinor-as-bear is no threat to Merida as yet; she retains her human personality. But unable to talk, and having difficulty adapting to moving in her new form, Elinor is now relatively helpless; moreover, if the men in the castle see her, she will be killed.

    Thus Brave, with seeming abruptness, at least on first viewing, changes the apparent direction of its story. Merida insists that she is not responsible for Elinor’s transformation, and that the witch is to blame. But of course Merida really is to blame. She overreached by making the bargain with the witch, who seems not evil but eccentric. Merida should have known better than to deal in magic when she did not know exactly what it would do. This seems comparable to the mistake that Ariel makes in Disney’s The Little Mermaid (1989), selling her voice to a witch in change for getting human legs, enabling her to walk on land and meet the prince she loves. Ariel’s bargain also has negative consequences she did not foresee, but at least Ariel chose only to handicap herself by the spell, by losing her voice. Merida was attempting to change her fate not through her own actions but by magically forcing her mother to change.

    Merida has transformed her mother into a potentially dangerous beast. Could this be a metaphor, suggesting that by rebelling against her mother’s wishes, Merida has turned her into a powerful and wrathful enemy?

    The film seemed to spend its first act getting the audience on Merida’s side. But is it now suggesting that Merida was wrong to rebel and to assert herself? There have been hints before this. In arguments with her mother, Merida could come off as a teenager having a tantrum. The queen also contended that it was necessary to marry Merida off to the son of one of the clan leaders in order to preserve peace among the clans. According to the queen, by refusing to wed any of the sons, Merida was acting irresponsibly, threatening to throw Scotland into civil war. I don’t think that the film backs up this idea with sufficient dramatic force. The clansmen all seem like buffoons rather than potential threats. At one point Elinor puts an end to brawling by asserting her authority with the clan leaders. Moreover, later on, as we shall see, the clansmen are easily persuaded to give up the idea of arranged marriages.

    From this point on, Merida is no longer striving for freedom and self-realization; instead, she is a sinner who has harmed her mother, in a sort of magical matricide in which she destroyed her mother’s human identity, and who now must clean up the mess that she made. Merida has Elinor-as-bear leave the castle with her, and they go into the woods, where Merida watches over her transformed mother and searches for a means of reversing the spell, which will otherwise soon become permanent.

    Being transformed from a human into an animal has a long tradition as a trope in Disney animated features. It goes back to Walt Disney’s The Sword in the Stone (1963), which was based on the book of the same name by T. H. White, that was originally published in 1938. In both the book and film, the magician Merlin magically transforms the boy who is the future King Arthur into different animals in order to teach him about different aspects of life. In later animated films the protagonist is transformed into an animal against his or her will: examples include The Emperor’s New Groove (2001), Brother Bear (2003), and The Princess and the Frog (2009). In each of these cases, as with Elinor in Brave, the transformation becomes a learning experience. The idea seems to be to strip the character of all of the exterior trappings of his or her identity – his or her role in society, clothing, and even his or her human appearance – leaving only the core elements of the character’s identity, his or her personality and set of moral values. The character has left behind his or her old human identity to enter a transitional state, represented by being an animal, in which he or she can explore his or her psyche more deeply. Within this physically transformed state, the character can work a change in his or her own psyche. The Princess and the Frog was fairly explicit about this, when the voodoo sorceress Mama Odie counsels the transformed heroine and hero in song to “Dig a Little Deeper” to discover what they truly want and need in life. Once the protagonist has learned his or her lesson and changed in his or her outlook on life, then the protagonist can resume his or her human form. The human identity has thus been purified, if you will: the protagonist’s personality flaw has been overcome. Disney’s Beauty and the Beast (1991) transformed a human prince into a beast, causing him to take on the bestial image of his own dark side, although he retained his clothing, palace, and ability to talk. But he too turned out to be in a transitional state, undergoing a learning experience, and once he learned and experienced love and self-sacrifice, he underwent a symbolic death and resurrection, returning to human form, purged of evil.

    It quickly becomes clear that the transformed Elinor is not a threat, or not yet, since if the spell is not broken, she will become a bear in both mind and body. For now, though, Elinor retains a human personality, though she cannot speak. But in her bewilderment over her condition and her difficulty in coping with her new form, Elinor now seems somewhat childlike. Merida now has to take care of her, try to protect her from being hunted and killed by the men of the clans, and even teaches her how to catch fish to eat, as a real bear would. Merida, the daughter who struggled against her mother’s control, now has to assume a protective role towards Elinor. In short, Merida and Elinor have reversed positions, and Merida acts something like the “mother” in this relationship.

    There was something similar going on in director Brad Bird’s animated film for Warner Bros., The Iron Giant (1999). Its young protagonist, Hogarth, was somewhat rebellious against his mother’s authority. He discovers the Iron Giant, an immense alien robot of great potentially destructive power, who finds himself in an unfamiliar world, Earth. Hogarth assumes a “parental” role towards the robot, who has a childlike personality. Hogarth protects the robot as best he can and teaches him, encouraging him to protect life rather than take it. Through teaching and caring for the Iron Giant, Hogarth learns to take responsibility and achieves a degree of maturity.

    So in both The Iron Giant and Brave, there is a young person who learns responsibility by becoming the guardian and teacher – surrogate parent – of a much larger figure, who has childlike difficulty in coping with his or her new situation. Although the Iron Giant and Elinor-as-bear are peaceful, and indeed, in some ways helpless and in need of guidance, they are both large figures of great power, and each, at moments, abruptly and temporarily changes personality, becoming dangerously destructive. The Iron Giant and Elinor-as-bear may partly represent sides of Hogarth and Merida themselves: the childlike rebelliousness with the potential to cause serious trouble, especially when they grow into adults. By guiding and teaching the Iron Giant and Elinor-as-bear, Hogarth and Merida are figuratively taming their own inner demons.

    So, within the forest, Merida and Elinor both undergo changes. Elinor has already been physically changed into a bear, but she learns to appreciate her daughter, who has taken charge and points out that it is her skill with a bow that is enabling them to survive in the wilderness. Merida is changing by going from being her mother’s opponent to being her protector. Moreover, the two of them are now working together, renewing their bond. Merida eventually learns that the way to undo the spell is to repair the torn tapestry, thus figuratively bringing herself and Elinor back together. Having already grown closer together in their sojourn in the wilderness, they return to the castle to find the tapestry.

    In the castle Merida makes a speech to the clansmen in which she is about to agree to the arranged marriage to prevent war from breaking out. But Elinor, though she cannot talk, uses gestures to direct Merida to say something different: to argue that there should not be forced marriages and that the first-born of the clans – herself as well as the sons – should get married when and to whom they want. The clansmen accept the idea; the sons, it seems, didn’t like the idea of arranged marriages either.

    Now this scene shows that Elinor has changed inwardly too, and that she now accepts Merida’s point of view about enforced marriage. It’s also significant that Elinor and Merida worked together to make this speech. Still, this scene bothers me. Merida was on the brink of surrendering her independence and submitting to this male-dominated system; it is only because Elinor changed her own mind that she didn’t. It’s as if it was wrong for Merida to assert her own independence, and as if she could only have it if her mother, an authority figure, gave her consent. But surely having the rights to be oneself and to be free are not dependent on getting the permission of people in power, who could just as easily deny them. Perhaps that what New York Times film critic Manohla Dargis meant in her review of Brave by writing “But hers is a contingent freedom won with smiles, acquiescence and a literal needle and thread with which she neatly sews up the story, repairing a world where girls and women know exactly where they stand.”

    Bears had actually become extinct in Britain centuries before the time in which Brave is set, but all the bears who appear in Brave are actually magically transformed humans. Towards the film’s end Elinor-as-bear turns into a wild bear mentally as well and attacks Merida and her father. But then another human-turned-bear, Mor’du, who has become a vicious killer, appears. Elinor-as-bear defends her husband and daughter by attacking and killing Mor’du. This could be interpreted as Elinor figuratively defeating her own dark side, the beast within herself, that had also manifested itself in her former rage at Merida. The death of Mor’du releases the spirit of the prince he once was, appearing again in human form, suggesting that Elinor has not only destroyed the evil Mor’du’s bear form represented, but purified and liberated the human within, just as her own experience in bear form is changing her.

    Early in the film Merida had angrily ripped a tapestry that pictured herself and her mother, thus figuratively tearing their relationship asunder. In the final act Merida races on horseback to save her mother, but this time she is not shooting arrows as she rides, but knitting the tapestry back together. This is what Ms. Dargis means by the “literal needle and thread.” Repairing the tapestry figuratively means restoring the loving relationship between mother and daughter; in the story it also literally serves to undo the magic spell that turned Elinor into a bear. The image of Merida riding on horseback while knitting suggests that she has succeeded in fusing her own image of herself, the archer and free spirit, racing through the woods, with the more conventional feminine role that Elinor intended for her, since sewing is a craft traditionally associated with women.

    Disney animated films have a tradition of symbolic death and resurrection scenes. In Brave Elinor seems to be dying as a result of the battle with Mor’du. Merida covers her with the repaired tapestry, the symbol of the renewed bond between them. Significantly, nothing happens until Merida weeps, finally acknowledges that she is responsible for the trouble that befell Elinor, and voices her love for her mother. In other words, Merida confesses her sin and demonstrates her repentance. As a result Elinor revives, transformed back to her human form. The film emphasizes the point that Elinor is nude beneath the tapestry. That works symbolically, too: she has undergone a physical and spiritual rebirth, and newborns are naked. It might also suggest that Elinor is now characterized not by her queen’s garments, the symbols of authority, but by what she is now wearing, the tapestry that commemorates the love between mother and daughter.

    It has been widely noted that Brave does not follow the usual pattern of Disney “princess” movies by uniting its heroine romantically with a male hero, a trope that could be interpreted as suggesting that marriage is a woman’s ultimate goal. Instead Brave puts its emphasis on the bond between mother and daughter, concluding with an image of Merida and Elinor riding on horses together in the woods. Merida and Elinor are united through love, and the fact that they are both riding horses (Merida’s pastime), but at a slow pace (in keeping with Elinor’s more stately manner), suggests that they are combining and merging their lifestyles and interests into something they can share.

    So Brave starts out as what seems to be a fable of feminist liberation, but then abruptly shifts gears and turns into a parable about resolving the division between mother and daughter, or to take the theme further, between parent and child, or even between generations. My problem with the film is that I find the first act, about Merida’s liberation, to be more stirring, dramatic and involving than the rest of the film. The rest of the movie, about Merida’s efforts to help her transformed mother, seem to me less imaginative, less strongly plotted, and less dramatically affecting than the saga of Merida’s rebellion against what did indeed seem like the oppressiveness of a society that attempted the force women into certain roles and modes of behavior. As Hollywood Reporter Todd McCarthy wrote, “What results is a film that starts off big and promising but diminishes into a rather wee thing as it chugs along. . . .”

    Moreover, the movie seems to me to imply that Merida’s rebellion was wrong; the story forces her to do penance for her actions, and even offer herself up as a pawn in marriage to keep peace in the male-dominated social order. She does not get forced into an unwanted marriage, but only because her mother changes her mind about it. Merida does not win her freedom so much as it is granted to her by an authority figure. Brave starts out as a story of Merida’s one-woman revolution, and then shifts to a more conservative mode, in which the individual must sacrifice her freedom to society, and liberty is granted, not won. Perhaps I would feel that there was more balance in the movie had it allowed us to see more clearly into the mind of Elinor as her attitudes towards her daughter were changing, but Elinor-as-bear could not talk. Merida remained the sole point-of-view character in the film, and as she changed from feminist rebel to repentant sinner, I felt that Brave shifted in direction to a story I found much less appealing.

    TOY STORY 3

    Due to my two year sabbatical from writing “Comics in Context,” I haven’t yet commented on two other recent Pixar features, both sequels: Toy Story 3 (2010), directed by Lee Unkrich, and Cars 2 (2011), directed by Pixar’s Chief Creative Officer John Lasseter and Brad Lewis.

    The Toy Story movies establish that toys are alive but they only talk and move when people cannot see them. (This is an old trope in animated films, and there are many vintage animated cartoons showing toys or books coming to life after dark.) One of the aspects of Toy Story 3 that I found startling was its far from sentimental attitude towards small children. The original Toy Story (1995) drew a sharp contrast between Andy, the boy who owns, plays with, and loves Woody, Buzz, and the other principal toy characters, and his neighbor Sid, who destroys toys and constructs distorted, monstrous toys out of toy parts. In Toy Story 3 Andy has grown old enough to leave for college. Accidentally discarded, most of the principal toy characters find a new home at the Sunnyside day care center. However, Sunnyside’s head toy, Lotso the bear, runs the place like a prison camp: he imprisons Andy’s toys at night and forces them to serve as the playthings for young toddlers during the day. The toddlers are portrayed as wildly, insensitively destructive; it is clear that the toys will not survive for long if they have to put up with such rough treatment every day. But it’s also surprising, in a Disney family film, to see small children depicted, not as sweet and innocent, but as so insensitively brutal. Is it just that they are too young to have a sense of responsibility? Or is the film hinting that kindness and sensitivity among small children is a rare trait? The daycare center kids seem to represent a generation of bullies.

    The story of Toy Story 3 becomes a partly comedic, partly serious variation on movies about escaping from prison or a prison camp, like The Great Escape (1963). What is even more startling is just how dark the film becomes. The toys escape from Sunnyside to a garbage dump where they get on a conveyor belt leading to a shredder. They escape only to become trapped on another conveyor belt inexorably moving towards an incinerator. Thinking themselves doomed, the toys link hands. Their destruction seems inescapable. The scene is an evocation of inevitable mortality, that seems startling and even chilling in the context of an animated film about children’s toys, perhaps the last place where one would expect a fearsome image of death. Indeed, being burned up by the incinerator seems a particularly horrible way to perish; the incinerator’s flames also seem like an allusion to hell. At the last moment the toys are saved by a giant claw manipulated by the toy Little Green Men aliens from the previous Toy Story films. It seems like a miraculous escape. Consider that in the Toy Story movies the Little Green Men seem to worship the claw as if it were the hand of God. So having the claw rescue the Toy Story toys seems like the filmmakers’ joke on the old concept from Greek tragedy of the deus ex machina, the god descending from the machine. That phrase has also come to mean a plot device that is suddenly introduced to resolve a seemingly insoluble problem.

    The main dilemma in Toy Story 3 is what will happen to the toys when their owner, Andy, grows too old for them and moves on towards adulthood. Will they be destroyed or discarded? The solution comes when Andy gives them to a young girl names Bonnie, who will now care for and play with them. Unlike the kids at the day care center, Bonnie is the kind of caring, sensitive child that will take good care of the toys. As sentient beings, the toys need someone to play with; you could say that they need an audience.

    I suggest that, among other things, Toy Story 3 is also about popular culture and generational change. For popular culture creations to endure, they have to be accepted and embraced from one generation to the next. Presumably the creative people at Pixar have created characters who have entertained people ranging from small children to adults over the last two decades. Presumably the Pixar creative teams hope that these characters and films will continue to entertain future generations as well. Indeed, the ideal may be that the Pixar characters and films of the 1990s and early 2000s will continue to appeal to new generations after their original audiences have passed away, just as Walt Disney’s classic films and characters still do. To my mind, Andy’s passing the toys along to Bonnie can represent how popular culture creations, if they are true classics, will be passed from the generation for whom they were created on to the next generation.

    After all, how many examples of such enduring pop culture characters can you think of in your own lives? Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, Superman and Batman, among many others, were created when my parents were young, long before my birth, yet I accepted them all when I was growing up. The first Star Wars film premiered after I’d become an adult, but now there are younger generations who also love the Star Wars films yet can’t remember a time when the first film did not exist.

    You could also say that the toys in Toy Story 3 need a director or writer. The films show how Andy imagined stories in which the toys played roles; Toy Story 3 even begins with Andy’s fantasy of the toy characters acting in a Western with science fiction elements. Significantly, in turning the toys over to Bonnie, Andy describes them in terms of their characters and the roles they play in his games. Bonnie too will invent scenarios for stories in which the toys will play parts. Andy and Bonnie are not simply an audience for the toys; they are the creators of their imagined adventures. So I also interpret Andy passing the toys over to Bonnie as a metaphor for the original creators of a pop culture concept passing the torch to a new generation of creators. Again, you can see this in the history of long-running characters and series in popular culture. Consider how many generations of creators have now served their time as the caretakers of the Marvel and DC Comics characters who have now existed for a half century or much longer, and will keep going probably long after we have all passed from the scene.

    Toy Story 3 raises the specter of inevitable mortality, but it also shows how artistic creations can indeed achieve immortality.

    CARS 2

    As for Cars 2 it was generally regarded by critics as a disappointment, and I agree that it wasn’t as satisfying as past Pixar features, although I found it pleasant enough to watch. Though it was a sequel to the original Cars, it was about as different as a sequel can be. The Cars movies are set in an alternate universe in which humans are absent and cars are living, sentient beings. (Who built them? How do the cars construct buildings and machines when they have no hands? How do they reproduce? These are questions that apparently we should not ask, lest the entire premise of the series collapse.) The first Cars was the story of racing car Lightning McQueen, who is arrogant and obsessed with winning, who gets stuck in a small town out West, Radiator Springs, learns humility and the virtues of friendship and community, and comes to value these things more than racing victories. It would seem that the people at Pixar decided that McQueen’s character did not need further major development; after all, he does seem to have become as good as he can be by the end of the first film. So Cars 2 focuses instead on Mater, the tow truck with the voice of a rural Southerner, a comic relief character who became McQueen’s friend in the first film. It appears that Mater is considered the breakout character in Cars, since he is the main character in the Cars Toons shorts, titled Mater’s Tall Tales, that have followed, as well as the lead in Cars 2. In the shorts McQueen and Mater reverse positions, and McQueen seems like Mater’s sidekick.

    In the first Cars McQueen was the proverbial “fish out of water,” the celebrity from the big city who was stuck in a small town. The “fish out of water” theme continues in Cars 2, but this time it applies to Mater. First, Mater accompanies McQueen abroad to Japan, Italy, and England, where McQueen is racing in a “World Grand Prix.” Second, Mater is mistakenly identified as an American spy by members of British intelligence and gets caught up in their effort to thwart a criminal conspiracy. Whereas the first Cars was a story of small town life, Cars 2 is a partly humorous, partly serious spy story with international settings. If the first Cars seems modeled on the 1991 film Doc Hollywood, then Cars 2 echoes thrillers about ordinary individuals who are mistaken for spies or recruited into being spies. The example that first comes to mind is Alfred Hitchcock’s North by Northwest (1959), in which Cary Grant’s character, a New York advertising executive, is mistaken for a an American secret agent by enemy spies, an ends up accepting the role that was forced upon him in order to combat them.

    What I most liked about Cars 2 were the international settings: the film’s richly detailed and handsomely depicted versions of Tokyo, Italy, and London, all created on computers, with certain clever alterations to reflect the fact that the culture is designed by cars, not humans. I also like the British spy car characters. In the original Cars the late Paul Newman was cast as McQueen’s mentor Doc Hudson, surely in part to evoke Newman’s past association with driving racing cars, both on and off screen. (Lightning McQueen’s last name refers to the late Steve McQueen, another actor associated with racing.) In Cars 2 the lead British spy car, Finn McMissile, is voiced by Michael Caine, surely in part to evoke Caine’s past roles in spy movies such as The Ipcress File (1965). Through their acting skills and associations with past films, Newman and Caine brought a sense of authority to their roles in the Cars movies while linking those films to cinematic traditions of stories about car racing and spies, respectively. I also liked Emily Mortimer’s vocal performance as McMissile’s fellow spy Holley Shiftwell, succeeding in conveying an appealingly sexy personality through her voice alone. However, I find it hard to believe that Ms. Shiftwell would end up falling for Mater, and this leads me to the film’s biggest problems.

    One problem is that the spy storyline isn’t that interesting or imaginative. Are these adult viewers of Cars 2 who can’t spot who the secret mastermind behind the conspiracy is a mile off? The bigger, key problem with Cars 2 is that Mater doesn’t have the depth as a character to carry the film as its lead. If Cars 2 had been a farcical comedy, yes. However likable Mater is, he is basically a comedic stereotype of a rural Southerner who isn’t very bright: a comical redneck, to use a term that some Southerners embrace while others regard it as disparaging (rather like “geek” and “nerd” in comics culture). As depicted in the Cars films, Mater isn’t really stupid, as the stereotype implies; he’s more likably childlike, characterized by a boyish enthusiasm. Indeed, in Cars 2 he proves to have enormous knowledge about the inner workings of automobiles. But is it credible that anyone would think Mater was a master spy who was just pretending to be a hick? Even more importantly, the audience is meant to feel sorry for Mater, first, when he has a falling out with his best friend McQueen. Then we are meant to sympathize with Mater as he realizes how little other characters think of his true personality; the British spies initially only take him seriously because they assume that he is merely feigning his hick persona as a sort of disguise. By the film’s end the British spies recognize Mater’s true personality and Mater proves himself to be a genuine hero, but it still seems to me unlikely that Holley would want to date him, as she says she does Mater makes such a strong impression as a comedy stereotype, and the filmmakers’ efforts in Cars 2 to give him a serious side, and more dimension to his personality, just fall short. I’m not saying that it can’t be done, but it’s an uphill effort, and as far as I’m concerned, Cars 2 doesn’t pull it off. Perhaps a different sort of storyline could. And since Mater continues to appear in new animation, perhaps someday Pixar will find the way to bring it off.

    “Comics in Context” #245
    Copyright 2012 Peter Sanderson

    CLICK HERE FOR THE COMICS IN CONTEXT ARCHIVES

  • Opinion In A Haystack: SEEKING BRAVE PRESIDENTS FOR THE END OF THE WORLD

    haystackheader.jpg

    Pixar’s BRAVE – spoiler free review

    I think the title is a mistake.

    All the advertising, marketing, trailers, ricketa, racketa, even the first third of Pixar’s newest movie seem to be pushing one singular obvious plot that is nowhere to be found in the movie itself. This isn’t really a bad thing, just a confusing one.

    The movie is a scottish period piece, a story about a soon-to-be Queen, Merida (voiced by Kelly Macdonald) who wants a life free from the expectations of her future. She has an overbearing mother, the current Queen (Emma Thompson,) and a very supportive father, the current King (Billy Connolly.) Merida is an expert archer, highly adept at life in the wilderness and is pretty much the antithesis to anything prim and proper. Surrounded by a kingdom of ruthless warriors and the “manliest” of manly scottish men, she is expected to be everything she hates on top of being expected to marry a prince she’s never met. You can see where this is going right? I mean the title, the setup, all of it points to the obvious conclusion that she is going to prove that she is something more than just a pretty smile by her extreme bravery, probably by showing up even the best of the best warriors in the kingdom at some yet to be known task. Right?

    I mean look at this poster:

    brave-apple-poster

    Wrong. I’m glad it’s wrong too. BRAVE is not trying to tell that story no matter how much the marketing and the setup seem to want to. This is a movie about mistakes (much like the title of the movie itself,) responsibility, identity and the relationship of a mother and her daughter. Without SPOILING anythng I’ll just say that the princess tries desperatley to change her destiny and ends up cursing her mother.

    I won’t go too in depth with the story, but all of princess Merida’s wilderness and archery skills come into play and her mother sees that she is a much different personality then the one being imposed on her. It’s a very touching story, a very weird tale and even a welcome one, but at the heart of it its not about bravery, sure Merida has to be brave in one scene but it just doesn’t merit the title and the tone of the marketing.

    The animation is exceptional, Billy Connolly, Emma Thompson and Kelly Macdonald give great performances. For all of you who were heartbroken at CARS 2 sadly existing, BRAVE will remind you why your standards for Pixar were so high prior to CARS 2. Still, I don’t know if BRAVE is good enough to make up for putting Larry The Cable Guy in theaters TWICE.

    Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter – Review

    abraham_lincoln_vampire_hunter_3

    I’ve never read the book, so don’t expect any perspective involving that.

    please carefully study the following Pictures by SharpWriter:

    abraham20lincoln20riding20a20grizzly20bear-thumb-600x337-45749

    roosevelt20bigfoot

    thomas_jefferson_vs_gorilla_by_sharpwriter-d3fxuo8

    ben_franklin_vs__zeus_by_sharpwriter-d4hjp6a

    …and you basically just felt the exact tone, joke, and overall absurdly senseless “badassery” of Timur Bekmambetov’s Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. The movie makes little to no sense, doesn’t bother to truly explain the vamps, Lincoln’s powers are ill-defined and the film often defies its own logic and physics.

    However, much like the above “internety” photographs of our founding fathers in absurd situations, fighting beasts while forcing them to “deal” with historical documents, this film succeeds on its complete dedication to the joke. It’s the phrase “AMERICA, F!@#$ YEAH!” formed and molded into celluloid. It is both a satire of “American Exceptionalism” and a homage, albeit a silly one, to arguably this nations greatest president.

    Benjamin Walker’s performance, regardless how this movie strikes you, is actually quite great. In both body and spirit he embodies a noble, honest figure, which is a pretty impressive feat when you consider he’s surrounded by so much cartoonish action.

    Some of the set pieces in this movie, cartoonish or not, pretty much define the term “AWESOME!” for better or worse.

    spoilers

    – Abe Lincoln fighting a vampire in the center of a horse stampede? AWESOME.

    – Vampires, fighting for the south, during the battle of Gettysburg? AWESOME.

    – Abe Lincoln chopping a tree in half with one blow with the power of TRUTH? AWESOME!!!

    ***************SPOILERS OVER*******************

    The movie isn’t that coherent and like I said it defy’s its internal logic, and never really explains the “vampire rules” of its universe, but I enjoyed it none the less for the nuggets of ridiculous that flowed throughout.

    Oh, and DON’T SEE THE 3D…something was seriously flawed with the 3D print, it looked to be a victim of extreme DIGITAL NOISE REDUCTION, wide shots looked laughably horrible. I hope the 2D doesn’t follow suit.

    It looked like the awful 2010 bluray of PREDATOR, but in 3D:

    predator-blu-ray-comparison

    SEEKING A FRIEND FOR THE END OF THE WORLD spoiler free review

    seeking-a-friend-for-the-end-of-the-world_poster

    Earlier this year, when reviewing Cabin In The Woods, I spoke about my desire to reach into Joss Whedon’s nipple abyss, where he keeps his talent, and steal some for myself. This was basically cause I wish I had the idea for Cabin first, well I can say that I’m jealous I didn’t think of Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World first as well.

    A light comedy that takes place during the last 3 weeks of the apocalypse , one that doesn’t whimp out in the end, it’s a good idea. Personally, I don’t know if I would consider it a great film, but it’s a very well acted, directed, and funny flick. The comedy isn’t coming from the leads here either, but from the various cameos by T.J Miller, Gillian Jacobs, Rob Corddry, Patton Oswalt, Rob Huebel, Adam Brody and William Peterson of all people. It’s a great cast, and Steve Carrell himself gives a very understated performance that is polar opposite to his Michael Scott.

    Please don’t let “THE END OF THE WORLD” part in the title fool you, this isn’t a Michael Bay film, we don’t see much of the chaos and panic and destruction of the world in a storm of mania over it’s end, its only hinted at both visually, audibly, and through suggestion. In fact, that might be my biggest compliment to the film itself, they figured out just the perfect balance to keep the whole affair low budget but without feeling like they were skimping on showing us glimpses of the premise.

    Writer/Director Lorene Scafaria doesn’t force armageddon down our throat, the movie knows we get what the apocalypse means, it pushes that aside and tells this small story of one lonely man.

    Sadly, I foresee this film disappointing a wide variety of filmgoers expecting either the brash comedy of Carell’s other work, or as I said, a Michael Bay film. If you can except the movie for what it’s trying to be and not what the title would normally make our Hollywood glazed brains envision, it’s worth the price of a ticket.

    Ok that’s all for now. I’m Bob Rose and thanks for your eyeball time!

  • Opinion In A Haystack: THAT’S MY BOY Review

    haystackheader.jpg

    That’s My Boy ““ A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!

    Why am I always so on the defensive with comedy these days?

    Not really sure if this makes me a contrarian or what, but one of the things I miss most about the “˜90s is that it was like a mid-budget comedy-film heaven. A time where studios were investing in sillyness, stupidity and laughs on a consistent basis, and where the cynicism born out of the soon-to-come net-generation was nowhere in sight. Sue me”¦I loved the Hollywood that could release films like Dumb and Dumber, Wayne’s World, Coneheads, Tommy Boy, Happy Gilmore, Dirty Work, Cabin Boy, etc. Comedy is undoubtedly my favorite genre, I was raised on it, and those were the type of films released during my impressionable years. It was practically on tap at the theater, and I make no apologies for loving them. Why did it all stop? Can’t really be sure, but perhaps it was some mixture between the fact that Hollywood no longer can make a mid-range budgeted film anymore AND somewhere along the lines comedy in film became associated with bad cinema.

    I blame Tarantino, and I’ve been accused of being a Tarantino fanboy”¦but in my humble opinion, Tarantino is to studio comedy films what Nirvana is to “Fun Music” (see Darren Aronofsky’s The Wrestler for further explanation.) They came on the scene and suddenly everything needs to be gritty, real, and/or serious or “IT SUCKS!” (at least in the mind of the audience.) Which doesn’t even make sense since there’s nothing “real” about Tarantino’s films”¦in a good way, but I digress.

    That’s My Boy is a return to form for Sandler, a return to the Sandler of his early comedy albums, his SNL days, the era of Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore. For some this isn’t really a good thing, if you hated Sandler before you aren’t going to magically love him now, ESPECIALLY with him doing a silly accent for 90 minutes, it even took me a few minutes to adjust without cringing. In retrospect though, I like the over the top absurdity of his (Boston?) accent. I’m the guy who loved and still loves Little Nicky after all .

    What is the “form” that this is returning to? Basically, R-rated, family-unfriendly humor. It’s Sandler as the goofball dad and Andy Samberg as his estranged son, the straight man who can’t stand the constant free-flowing sex jokes, stupidity and/or slobbery. Sure, it’s an old formula, but a great formula when played right. I submit the following examples:

    Awesome:

    tommyboy

    Even more awesome:

    planes_trains_and_automobiles

    This poster looks familiar, the posing, the spilling beverage, the word “BOY” :

    Print

    The best comment I have for That’s My Boy is that it isn’t our worst fear, it isn’t JACK AND JILL 2: JACK AND JILL AND JED (I’m just guessing.) This is the Sandler that we fell in love with in the 1990s. Now that he’s back on track, and the fact that this film is essentially a non-violent Uncle Donnie movie (his name is even Donnie,) I hope and pray that he will finally make my dreams come true and make Toll Booth Willie: The Movie.

    I’m Bob Rose and thanks for your eyeball time!

  • Comics in Context: When Burton Met Barnabas

    comicsincontext4.jpg

    WHEN BURTON MET BARNABAS

    I went to an opening day showing of director Tim Burton’s Dark Shadows movie, starring Johnny Depp as its vampire protagonist Barnabas Collins, with trepidation. The film is based on the legendary daytime serial that was created by the late producer Dan Curtis, and ran on ABC from 1966 into 1971, attracting an immense audience, including myself. It was a modern, ongoing version of Gothic melodrama, incorporating nearly every element of classic horror and Gothic romance, and gripped the imaginations of young Baby Boomers like myself. (It has also been a source for comics adaptations, from Ken Bald’s 1970s newspaper strip to Dynamite Entertainment’s recent comic book series, which is why it fits in “Comics in Context.”) But the trailers and commercials for the movie appalled many of the show’s admirers, seemingly indicating that Burton and his collaborators had turned Dark Shadows into a heavy-handed farce, set to a 1970s rock score. In interviews Burton, Depp, and screenwriter Seth Grahame-Smith expressed bafflement at the negative reaction, saying they did treat the saga of Barnabas Collins seriously, but Burton and Grahame-Smith also ominously spoke about emphasizing the “weirdness” of the show. Then Warners put Danny Elfman’s score for the film online, and it was what I had hoped for: grand and powerful music for a Gothic drama on an operatic scale, with nice momentary homages to Robert Cobert’s score for the original TV series.

    So I hoped that Burton and the others, as well as some reviewers who had seen preview screenings were right, and that the movie would turn out to be basically serious, but with Burton’s characteristically goofy touches here and there. But still, why would Warner Bros. marketing people go out of their way in the publicity to make the movie seem like a comedy? Did they somehow think that in this current wave of vampire fiction, from Anne Rice’s novels to Joss Whedon’s Buffy and Angel to True Blood and Twilight that there was no audience for a serious and romantic vampire movie? Did they think there would be more potential audience if they claimed Dark Shadows was the second coming of Burton’s horror comedy Beetlejuice? Or were they acting out of desperation because Burton’s Dark Shadows really wasn’t good?

    Watching the movie, I felt considerably relieved. Yes, the goofy gags in the trailer and commercials are there, and rock music alternates with Elfman’s evocative score. But much of the movie is done more or less seriously, and much of it works quite well. But Burton and company’s lapses into comedy continually undercut the drama, and in various important ways they fail to bring out or even seem to understand the power of their source material. In short, I was relieved because the movie wasn’t as bad as I had feared. It was entertaining and sometimes even perceptive, but it is deeply flawed.

    To understand what Tim Burton gets right about Dark Shadows and what he gets wrong, you should know something about the nearly half century history of this property. I’ve written a number of previous “Comics in Context” columns about Dark Shadows in the past, most recently “Remembering Barnabas Collins,” on the occasion of the recent passing of Jonathan Frid, the actor who originated the role. You may wish to read that column as background.

    In the course of this current column, I will refer to the various past incarnations of Dark Shadows. There was the original 1966-1971 television series, created by Curtis and starring Mr. Frid as Barnabas, in which the character was introduced as a villain but evolved into a tragic antihero and finally into a genuine hero. Curtis directed the 1970 film House of Dark Shadows, starring Frid and other members of the television cast, which was an alternate version of the show’s continuity, in which Curtis carried out his original intent for Barnabas, presenting him as a villain. In 1991 a new Dark Shadows television series, produced by Curtis, starring Ben Cross as Barnabas, ran on NBC. This was a reboot of the original continuity, that covered Barnabas’s arrival in the present day and included the flashback to his 18th century origin. NBC canceled the show after its initial season, despite its popularity with the young demographic; by the time NBC realized its mistake and tried to revive the series, the cast had gone their separate ways and it was too late. In 2004 Curtis produced a pilot for yet another revival for the WB television network, but it did not work and was not picked up.

    As usual I will discuss the entire plot for the 2012 Dark Shadows movie, so consider yourselves given spoiler warnings.

    CAMP AND THE COLLINS FAMILY

    An awful lot of the recent newspaper and magazine articles about Dark Shadows and even many of the reviews of the new movie predictably recycle the old cliches about how the original Dark Shadows television series was camp: actors blew their lines, props malfunctioned, scenery fell down. Most of these pieces are written by lazy journalists who seem to have done more research on old articles about the show than bothering to watch any of it themselves. The worst case is critic Terrence Rafferty’s feature article about the original Dark Shadows in The New York Times in which he gives no sign of having watched any of the old episodes himself. Instead he interviews Tim Burton about the original series although Burton has a particularly eccentric take on the show, even missing aspects that lie at the heart of the series, as we shall see. David Edelstein in New York Magazine recalls watching the original series as a child but he too spends more time discussing the bloopers than explaining why he found the show so appealing back then. At least he perceives the Burton movie as a “camp travesty” of the original. Time‘s Richard Corliss, to his credit, watched original episodes more recently and declares them show to be “creakier than it is creepy”. I suspect he watched some of the earlier episodes when the show moved as slow as molasses, which is to say, as slowly as a typical soap opera of that time. By the time Dark Shadows reached its peak, it was moving at a rapid clip that had me and my friends on the proverbial edges of our seats; if you missed a few episodes and you were somewhat lost. Projecting their own attitudes onto the audience, some critics have persuaded themselves that the millions who watched the original Dark Shadows in the 1960s liked it precisely because it was camp. Sigh. No, we didn’t.

    If the original Dark Shadows was camp, then it was unintentional camp, unlike the Batman TV show which ran in this same period. Due to its low budget, the show was done “live on tape,”and it was extremely rare for retakes to be done. Therefore, any mistakes were preserved for posterity on the videotapes. Dark Shadows is the only 1960s daytime serial that has survived through the decades through reruns and home video. I wonder how many other soap operas of the time had similar bloopers.

    You can easily find Dark Shadows blooper reels on YouTube, they are indeed funny, and they might give you the impression that the show was a continual series of onscreen calamities. But if you watch the actual episodes just looking for amusing bloopers, then you’re wasting your time. The actors are professionals, not bungling amateurs. If you spend enough time watching enough episodes, sooner or later you will indeed come across a mistake, but most of them, which simply involve an actor forgetting a line, aren’t funny, but simply reminders that you’re watching something close to live drama. (For example, in the recent live episode of 30 Rock, the show’s creator Tina Fey mixed up two characters’ names in one of her lines.) So if you’re just watching the show looking for blunders, you’re wasting your time. Don’t you have better things to do?

    Another reason for Dark Shadows‘ “camp” reputation is that it is acted and directed in a theatrical style. The cast mostly consisted of New York theater actors, and the show, in its best years, was written in a theatrical style. This is not to say that the actors are overacting and chewing the scenery, but that they are performing in a larger than life manner. Some cast members, included David Selby, have pointed out that this style gives the show its dramatic intensity. Certainly it is appropriate for a modern recreation of melodrama. To appreciate the show, you have to allow yourself to accept the style.

    I suspect that many people who dismiss the show as camp simply can’t bring themselves to accept fantasy material like vampires and ghosts as the stuff of serious drama. Comics aficionados who read this column should be aware that this is the same mindset that dismisses superheroes and some other comics genres.

    Finally, it should be pointed out that the writers and actors put some intentional comedy into the show. Certain characters provide comic relief, notably John Karlen’s portrayal of Barnabas’s high-strung servant Willie Loomis, and even more so Karlen’s literally hysterical half-mad Carl Collins in the 1897 story arc, as well as Nancy Barrett’s bawdy Cockney songstress Pansy Faye, also in the 1897 sequence. But Willie, Carl and Pansy all had serious sides, as well. More often the humor in Dark Shadows comes through the wry and sardonic comments of various characters, on the action, notably Quentin Collins, Professor Stokes, and the villains Nicholas Blair and Count Petofi; one can sense the writers’ pleasure in scripting dialogue for these characters. The discerning Dark Shadows enthusiast can even detect occasional in jokes, delivered straightfaced, on the show: for example, at one point Donna McKechnie, who was already becoming famous as a Broadway dancer, claimed in her DS role of Amanda Harris that she could not dance. But almost never does Dark Shadows go over the top with such humor; instead it’s done stylishly and usually subtly.

    Over the years I have attended a great many Dark Shadows Festivals and there watched episodes of the original series, or excerpts from them, alongside large audiences. So I know how Dark Shadows aficionados react to the show. Yes, when there is a blooper onscreen, or an actor goes over the top in a line reading, or a line seems over the top, the audience laughs affectionately. But otherwise the audience is riveted to the story, dedicated to the characters, and applauds loudly and sincerely at the end of powerful scenes. In other words, they take the show very seriously indeed; the unintentionally amusing moments are just a bonus.

    BARNABAS COLLINS

    After Barnabas is freed from his coffin, he sees the golden arches of a nearby McDonalds, and wonders aloud if this giant “M” stands for Mephistopheles, the name of the devil. This is the first of the movie’s many, many gags about Barnabas’s bewilderment by 1970s culture, and it’s not funny, nor are any of the others. This isn’t just my opinion; the audience I was with laughed at only one of these gags (not the McDonalds one), and even then their laughter sounded muffled.

    Just why did Burton and Depp decide to set their Dark Shadows movie in 1972? That’s the year after the original series ended. But Burton isn’t continuing the continuity from the original series, like Lara Parker does in her novels, which are set in the early 1970s; he’s rebooting the series instead. The easy answer is that Burton wanted to make fun of popular culture from this decade of his youth. But Dark Shadows is really part of 1960s popular culture, as I will show elsewhere in my commentary on this movie. Moreover, making fun of the 1970s is hardly a new phenomenon (See, for example, Mike Myers’ Austin Powers in Goldmember) and is like shooting fish in a barrel. Besides, I expect that Warners is aiming this movie at a young demographic who weren’t even alive yet in the 1970s. How much sense does it make to have Johnny Depp’s Barnabas reading and commenting on the notoriously kitschy 1970s novel Love Story when much of the intended audience has never heard of this book?

    Dan Curtis’s various film and TV versions of Dark Shadows never explored any culture shock that Barnabas might have experienced in coming to the 20th century. The only clear example that Barnabas felt out of place in this new century was the fact that he did not have electricity installed in his home, the Old House, preferring to use candlelight. The characters who did not know he was the 18th century Barnabas presumably regarded this as his eccentricity, and certainly it added to the atmosphere of scenes set in the Old House. Barnabas also typically wore a kind of cape, though it was a modern one, and kept his 18th century hairstyle, but these were subtle signs that he was attempting to find modern equivalents to his 18th century wardrobe.

    Of course it was essential to Curtis’s concept of Barnabas as an 18th century vampire posing as his own descendant that Barnabas seem outwardly to be a modern man. Viewers were left to presume that between the time that Willie released him from his coffin and Barnabas’s first visit to Collinwood that Barnabas had quickly learned enough about the 20th century to pass for a man of that time. That presumably meant that Willie Loomis, hardly the brightest or most cultured of men, must have been Barnabas’s principal source of information!

    But a major reason that the TV series did not delve into Barnabas’s culture shock was that Curtis and his collaborators were very careful to minimize their references to modernity on the show. Original cast member Nancy Barrett has joked that the wealthy Collinses apparently did not own a television set. Indeed, there were telephones at Collinwood, and a tape recorder played a key role in one story arc, but one never saw a television set. In the second episode Carolyn is seen dancing to rock music, but that is the first and last use of rock music on the show. There are no references to current events. In 1969 and 1970 the younger actresses on the show and in House wear miniskirts in the present day sequences, but the characters’ wardrobes and hairstyles are nonetheless rather conservative for the late 1960s and early 1970s. When there is a major exception, like actor Christopher Pennock’s very 1970s outfit as astrologer Sebastian Shaw, it seems like a shock in the setting of this show. I also like a clever touch at the start of the 2004 Dark Shadows pilot: on arriving in Collinsport, Victoria Winters discovers that her mobile phone no longer works. (That’s actually true in some isolated small towns, such as Woodstock, New York.)

    It seems that Dan Curtis and his collaborators wanted to create a timeless sort of atmosphere on Dark Shadows, that was suitable to their goal of creating a modern version of a traditional Gothic romance. Though set in the late 1960s, Dark Shadows from its beginning, with young Victoria Winters journeying to become governess at a great old mansion on the rocky coast of Maine, evoked the plots of novels of past decades, like Daphne DuMaurier’s Rebecca or even Jane Eyre. As the show delved increasingly into the supernatural, it would do its own versions of story elements from 18th and 19th century romances and horror tales, like Dracula and Frankenstein. Collinwood and Collinsport seemed to stand apart from modernity and the outside world, so they seemed more credible settings for traditional romance and horror storylines. Perhaps this is why the show’s audiences were willing to accept the long story arcs on the show that were literally set in the 18th and 19th centuries. Surely this was part of Dark Shadows‘ appeal. Imagine: millions of young people in the late 1960s were watching a show that spent months doing period drama set in past centuries! This timeless air of Dark Shadows presumably is another reason why the show has continued to flourish in reruns and home video for nearly half a century; it doesn’t date as badly as many other shows from its period.

    By emphasizing 1970s popular culture, Burton’s Dark Shadows subverts Curtis’s strategy for his creation. It’s as if Burton and Depp and Grahame-Smith were fans wondering how Barnabas would react to television or to lava lamps or to rock music. In other words, this aspect of their Dark Shadows movie comes off as fan fiction, attending to irrelevant trivia while missing the point of the series they are adapting.

    Moreover, they are distorting Barnabas’s own character. They have him ranting about the devil, when confronted by some aspect of modern culture he dislikes and does not understand. Thus Barnabas sounds more like one of the show’s versions of Reverend Trask, the witch-hunting religious fanatic who was one of the series’ most memorable villains. Barnabas was always Trask’s adversary. In the original series’ 18th century arc, Barnabas, before his transformation, was depicted as a man of reason who regarded Trask’s ravings about witches as dangerous superstition; Barnabas strove to save the time-traveling Victoria Winters from being tried and executed by Trask for witchcraft. The 1991 series emphasized that Trask was an anachronism in the 18th century, still hunting alleged witches a century after the Salem witch trials, and that Barnabas was a rational man of the 18th century Enlightenment. Indeed, Joshua Collins, Barnabas’s father, was a supporter of the American revolution, and Barnabas would have been a contemporary of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. It’s more likely that Barnabas, as depicted on the TV series, would be amazed and fascinated by modernity than that he would react to its manifestations as if it were the devil’s work.

    But I think that Burton may have had another reason for setting this film in 1972, and this one works. All the past film and TV versions of Dark Shadows have started out set in whatever year is then the present one. Thus Barnabas was imprisoned in his coffin in the late 18th century, but he is released in the present. I think that we all tend to assume that the present day represents the height of human achievement to date, and that we in the present are more enlightened than people were in the past.

    But as the present turns into the past, its flaws become evident in retrospect. For example, to many people who lived in the early and mid-1960s, that was a period in which American culture was making great strides forward: the Kennedy Administration, the space race, the civil rights movement, and so forth. Yet now in the 21st century the Mad Men television series portrays that same period as deeply flawed by our contemporary standards, with faults ranging from sexism to smoking. (The Mad Men episode that debuted on Sunday May 13, 2012 was set in 1966, was titled “Dark Shadows” and even made reference to the show, although one character dismissed it as “crap.” Well, it wasn’t good until Barnabas showed up in 1967.)

    In Burton’s Dark Shadows, Barnabas still comes from the 18th century, but is released not into our present but into a less distant past, the 1970s, and now aspects of the popular culture of that decade look dated and strange and even absurd to us from our vantage point of the 2010s. Burton’s Barnabas seems out of place in the 1970s, but we in 2012 would not fit in that easily either, nor might we want to. Barnabas’s teenage cousin Carolyn sneers that he is “weird,” but so are the 1970s as Burton pictures them. Moreover, despite Barnabas’s many faux pas in the movie, his gentlemanly manners from another century still seem admirable in this new setting. Barnabas’s courtly manners endure well over the passage of time, whereas so much of the 1970s culture that the movie pictures has fallen from fashion and nearly disappeared. If Barnabas’s personal style makes him a “weird” outsider in 1970s Collinsport, the film seems to be saying that’s a good thing, better than adopting the trappings of 1970s culture, which is what the movie finds to be truly weird.

    This is an aspect of Barnabas that Burton, Depp, and Grahame-Smith have perceptively recognized and emphasize: Barnabas as the model of a true gentleman, who has carried his sense of proper behavior and style, and indeed his own moral code, including devotion to family, into a new and more vulgar time period.

    It might be helpful to regard Burton and Depp’s Barnabas as an older, less innocent version of their earlier character, Edward Scissorhands, another “weird” outcast, an innocent good person who tries to fit into a conventional society that is itself rather odd – that film’s caricature of 1950s-1960s style suburbia – but is handicapped by his own potential to destroy and kill, represented by the knives he possesses instead of hands.

    And what of Barnabas’s own murderous side? As in the original series, it is the witch Angelique who, jealous that her former lover Barnabas had rejected her in favor of Josette, transformed him into a vampire. In Burton’s film Barnabas blames Angelique for the killing he has done.

    Dark Shadows creator Dan Curtis introduced Barnabas into the series as a villain, but within a year Barnabas had wreaked a revolution in vampire fiction. He became a “reluctant vampire,” a good man who was forced to attack victims die to the curse placed upon him. Whereas Dracula and vampires up until then seemed willingly to kill their victims, Barnabas was depicted as a victim himself of the curse. His vampiric bloodlust was depicted by both the writers and by actor Jonathan Frid as an addiction, as if to alcohol or drugs. The rising use of drugs was a phenomenon of the 1960s; this mat be another way in which Dark Shadows tapped into the zeitgeist of that decade.

    Regular viewers of the original TV show are familiar with one of its recurring tropes, a scene that was repeated with variations numerous times in the course of the series. A young woman on the Collinsport docks, sometimes implied to be a prostitute, encounters Barnabas. They strike up a conversation. Barnabas turns hesitant, and tries repeatedly, even desperately, to break off the conversation and get away, but the woman persists in flirting with him. Then it is as if a switch is flipped in Barnabas’s mind; he has passed the point of no return, and the addiction takes control. His face and manner turn sinister and predatory, and then he bares his fangs and attacks.

    Jonathan Frid was excellent at performing Barnabas’s struggle with his addiction as well as his sense of guilt and self-hatred after being compelled to give in to it.

    But what about Depp? When the workmen free him from his coffin early in the film, Depp’s Barnabas informs them in a matter-of-fact tone of voice that he is sorry, but he is very thirsty, and then proceeds to slaughter them all. In previous versions it was Willie Loomis alone who found and released Barnabas, who then bit him, putting Willie under his control, but did not kill him. It makes a certain amount of sense that in Burton’s film Barnabas kills so many people on first being freed; after nearly two centuries of confinement, a vampire must need a lot of blood and quickly. Why the workmen do not rise again as vampires is not explained.

    But Depp’s Barnabas shows no sign of struggling with his conscience before or after he attacks and kills those men. Indeed, his matter-of-fact manner when he tells then he is about to kill them shows no sign of emotion whatsoever.

    Similarly, Barnabas later encounters a group of hippies. (Not only does this movie try to find humor in 1970s pop culture cliches, but drags in one from the 1960s as well.) And he ends his conversation with them by informing them that he is about to kill them all, as he proceeds to do. Again, Burton and Depp do not have Barnabas display any emotion at all when he delivers this line, not predatory bloodlust nor anguish over being unable to control his predatory urges nor shame over them. Burton and Depp seem to be playing Barnabas’s deadpan declaration of mass murder to get a laugh out of the audience. But why should we laugh at the deaths of these hippies. If you are to take this story seriously, Barnabas is murdering people, not abstract objects of 1960s pop culture.

    As in previous versions of Dark Shadows, Dr. Julia Hoffman attempts to cure Barnabas, and succeeds to the extent that he is able to walk outside in daylight. (The movie does not make it clear why Barnabas is able to exist in sunlight at some points in the movie and not in others, and New York Times critic Manohla Dargis pointed to the seeming inconsistency without realizing the reason for it in the plot.) In the Burton film Barnabas discovers that Julia’s real motive is to use his blood to make herself immortal; angered at this betrayal, he murders her. Later, Barnabas claims that by putting the curse on him, Angelique is responsible for this as well as his other killings. But is she? When Barnabas killed Julia I got no sense that he was being driven to do it by forces beyond his control. He never shows regret over murdering her, and keeps her death a secret. Watching the movie, I wondered if at this point Burton was trying to get the audience to turn against Barnabas. Was this a turning point at which we are to regard Barnabas as a villain, as in Curtis’s House of Dark Shadows, when the murder of Julia marks Barnabas’s reversion to evil? But no, Burton and Depp continue to present Barnabas as the movie’s hero, as if the murder of Julia had no moral consequences.

    At one point earlier in the movie, Depp’s Barnabas tells Michelle Pfeiffer’s Elizabeth about his curse and how it forces him to kill, and Depp does let anguish show in his voice and manner. But Burton and Depp subvert the dramatic impact by having Barnabas hit his head repeatedly against the keyboard of an electric piano, producing discordant notes until Elizabeth turns it off. Thus Burton and Depp turn Barnabas’s agony over his curse, something at the core of the character in previous versions of Dark Shadows, into an unfunny joke. One must draw the conclusion that they simply don’t care about the tragic side of Barnabas, and hence about the essence of this character they claim to love.

    And just why is Depp’s Barnabas telling Elizabeth that he is a vampire, anyway? In previous versions of Dark Shadows Barnabas hid the fact that he was a vampire from the present day members of the Collins family, claiming instead to be a “cousin from England,” the lookalike descendant of the 18th century Barnabas. The initial reason why is clear: he didn’t want to be hunted down and destroyed as a menace. When Barnabas evolved into the guilt-ridden vampiric antihero of the series, another reason was implicit: Barnabas’s deep shame over his curse. This is another aspect of Barnabas’s character that one would have assumed was essential. But Burton and Depp’s Barnabas freely admits what he is to Elizabeth, and it is she who has to get him to agree not to tell anyone else. But Barnabas seemingly cannot help himself, and keeps talking about his secret to other members of the family (who don’t realize he’s talking about being a vampire) and to those hippies (who end up dead). Despite Barnabas’s supernatural hypnotic powers, Dr. Hoffman is able to hypnotize him easily; this is hard to believe, but Burton and Depp seem unable to resist such a cheap joke. But she didn’t have to hypnotize this Barnabas to find out that he is a vampire; all she had to do was just listen to his dinner table conversation! So where is this Barnabas’s sense of guilt and shame?

    Or his wish to disguise his true nature? In the previous versions Barnabas sought to pass as a modern day human, and apart from his unusual hair style, he looked the part. Depp’s Barnabas has a more extreme version of Barnabas’s bangs, chalk-white skin, and long, claw-like fingernails, and appears in public in 18th century costume! (I have seen concept drawings that Burton did of Barnabas Collins; he pictured Barnabas as something of a cartoon-like figure.) If the good people of Collinsport believed in vampires, as they seemingly come to do in the course of the film, then Barnabas is the obvious suspect. And if Burton and Depp intend to do a sequel (as the final revelation about Dr. Hoffman seems to set up), isn’t it a problem that the townspeople all seem to know in the film’s last act that Barnabas is a vampire? And I do hope that since Burton sets Collinwood, the mansion where the family lives, that the fire department arrives after the closing credits to put out the blaze. Even Burton admitted in an interview that Collinwood is essential to Dark Shadows.

    But Burton’s Dark Shadows does get some things about Barnabas right. For one thing, Angelique tells him that they are both “monsters.” Josette, the woman that Barnabas loves, represents the nobility and goodness to which Barnabas aspires. But Barnabas’s vampirism represents and brings out his potential for violence and ruthlessness. Arguably, he and Angelique are alike in that both are capable both of passionate and obsessive love and of terrible violence and vengefulness.

    For another, Depp’s Barnabas tells Elizabeth that he values family and will be a protector of the Collins family of modern times. That was indeed one of Barnabas’s principal motivations in the original television series after he became its hero: he was the guardian and defender of his family and friends, who would risk his existence for them. This is something that even Dan Curtis omitted in House of Dark Shadows, in which Barnabas even slew two members of his own family. But to the credit of Burton, Depp, and Grahame-Smith, they get this aspect of Barnabas Collins’ personality right. And in a future “Comics in Context” about Burton’s Dark Shadows movie I will explore how the film handles the other members of the Collins family and other principal characters.

    “Comics in Context” #244
    Copyright 2012 Peter Sanderson

    CLICK HERE FOR THE COMICS IN CONTEXT ARCHIVES

  • Trailer Park: Dallas Hallam & Patrick Horvath of ENTRANCE

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    Check out my other column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me onTWITTER under the name: Stipp

    DALLAS HALLAM and PATRICK HORVATH of ENTRANCE

    It absolutely reminded me of something that Ti West would have put out. Oddly, West is hosting a Q&A with directors Patrick Horvath and Dallas Hallam this Friday night, the 18th, in LA at the Downtown Independent and it’s so fitting. A movie about a woman who is living an isolated existence and feels disconnected to the environment around her. When her solitary life is interrupted by the very worst kind of interruption, life goes south and what was a quiet portrait of a lovely woman turns into a deranged expose of evil. I had a chance to talk to Patrick and Dallas about their film, their relative newness on the scene, and what the future holds for a couple of guys looking to redefine what horror should be.

    ENTRANCE is in theaters and On Demand starting today

    entrance-poster_280x415DALLAS HALLAM: Hi, Christopher, I’m Dallas Hallam.

    PATRICK HORVATH: Hi Christopher, I’m Patrick Horvath

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP: Hi, how are you doing?

    HALLAM: Doing alright. How are you doing?

    CS: Doing well, thank you. I’ll just launch right into it I got to see the movie a few days ago and was really wowed by it.

    HALLAM AND HORVATH: Very cool, thank you so much, Christopher

    CS: Really loved it. I’m sure people have brought it up ““ that there are elements of TI WEST in there ““ that you seem to really be going back to making horror films that are moving away from torture porn and trying to make it more cerebral, more visceral.

    HALLAM AND HORVATH: We really appreciate hearing that. Thank you. It can get frustrating after a while when you see a movie coming out that is just there because they thought if we do that and the other we will get people to come watch it but we were lucky enough to be at the same festival where The Innkeepers was playing and part of what they do every year is fly all the directors up and hang out and get drunk at this ranch. So that’s why we were actually able to hang out with Ti and get to know him better as well.

    CS: So is this a genre that, much like Ti works in it movie after movie, is this something that you feel comfortable with sticking around in or is it something more like a one and done ““ out of your system and you want to go into something else?

    HALLAM AND HORVATH: We’re definitely going to stick around with horror films. I made a zombie film back in 2008 ““ I think we love horror but love all sorts of films ““ we’re huge film buffs and to be honest in the future we want to make all sorts of movies. And what we were saying about the businessman’s aspect of horror films, is that it’s sort of the symptom of how easily accessible ““ they are very visceral and very easy to jump on to. A bonus to that is that you don’t necessarily have to have big names in the film in order to be successful. It’s honestly why a lot of directors end up starting off in horror for sure. But yea, horror is definitely a genre that we both love. And going into the future we will definitely be working in horror again but we would love to work in other stuff as well.

    CS: Speak to me about how you two came together. It’s interesting that you both co-directed and co-wrote the movie, what brought you two together to say, “Hey, why don’t we make a movie and co-direct it with one another?”

    HALLAM: Almost a decade ago at film school at the University of Iowa we had similar interest, we had a band together, made films together and worked together and then Pat went to Chicago and I went to LA and a couple years later Pat came to LA and we just kept in touch. I never thought that we would co-direct together but we would help out with each other’s projects.

    HORVATH: We would help out in anyway we could.

    HALLAM: To answer your question, I don’t even know the answer ““ just instinct. It came about because something else fell apart and I don’t even remember asking Pat if he could co-direct. I just said how about this thing and we’ll co-direct together and blah blah blah. And it just came out like that. Just instinct. And since then what I’ve learned is that we really compliment each other. The things we’re good at we make better for each other, things we’re not good at, we cancel out each other. We compliment each other and love working with each other.

    CS: So take me though the steps of actually putting rubber to the road after the script was written. You wanted to direct it and I know, Patrick, you directed before, Dallas not so much, but what was the process like of actually getting this off the ground and finding Suziey and getting this thing shot?

    HORVATH: Necessity is the mother of invention ““ Dallas had basically secured a good chunk of change, about $6,000 bucks and that’s what we went in to shoot it with. But we wanted to make something and for different reasons his project fell apart, whether because people backing out or their schedules not working, so then we had the desire to run in and make something and we had a time limit because we were both still working. I’m actually at my day job right now. We had a window of a month and a half and came home from work and Dallas already had a tiny idea of, “Hey, what if we made a horror film?” And immediately I liked it a lot. We took a couple weeks and pounded out what would be used as a script and then we pretty much, the whole film, was made from necessity. All the characters that were involved were accessible and agents were accessible and throughout the whole film we came up with all these stylistic rules formed by other films that we were inspired by. Just to keep the whole thing moving ““ we shot in 12 days. Suziey was working, she would work all day, come back, and we would shoot her at night.

    ifcHALLAM: I actually met Suziey while casting my ill-fated projected that fell apart. She wasn’t right for that project so I didn’t cast her but she was a nice person. And I remember when I told her she didn’t get the part she vehemently told me I was wrong and that she was the right person for it. She had such gusto and she was so terrific ““ she had such a spark and was so right for this thing I just said, you don’t have to cast the lead, I got her. I said Pat and I share the same brain and he just trusted me and she was totally right. Everbody else just came once we started making the film. Suziey had to have a job and it turns out she worked for a coffee shop and we could shoot there at night so now her character works at a coffee shop.

    CS: It’s interesting you mentioned about the script, it’s so much a departure that many people would classify as a horror kind of movie. It really takes a step back in that we are just really watching her live and things happen here and there that kind of lead up to the third act when things really start coming together in a huge way. When you were putting the script together did it materialize the way you saw it as you were writing it as you see the finished product now?

    HALLAM: Very much so. We knew that we couldn’t write out a full dialogue of scripts and have the time to activate that by shooting it. What we focused on was a very detailed plot point list and all these pieces that we needed. It was a very collaborative process of improvisation in rehearsals that we got the dialogue to where it is. We just had all these rules and because of the rules what we ended up getting back was better than what we thought it would be.

    HORVATH: It was funny because the rules set us free in a way. By chaining ourselves to a strict style and the strict way of making the movie set us free and kind of feels more real because of it. We never attempted anything in the movie that we couldn’t pull off with $6,000.00. We tried to make a movie that could have been made for any amount of money. We didn’t want people to go this is a little movie. We wanted to just enjoy it. So I guess to answer your question, the style in the end was exactly what we pictured.

    CS: Once you had the finished product and thankfully IFC has come in and is giving it a nice push, when did you know ““ every filmmaker thinks this is going to be great and get recognized as a great film and take us places ““ at what point did you think you really had something special with this movie?

    HORVATH: I don’t think we ever did. We made it and we both loved what we made. But, at the same time, we have worked on projects that just don’t get around and I think a lot of it has to do with, I don’t want to say luck necessarily, but you really do have to wait for an opportunity to help push you along.

    HALLAM: There were times when I thought, is this really good or am I too close to it? I can’t tell. It always felt like it was a part of my soul. When we were finished we immediately rented out a theatre to screen it ““ just to screen it, which is the way to do it. I think the first time we saw it with an audience we got a real strong reaction from the audience. That was the first time we thought we really had something rad on our hands. And then after that, it was a slow process. I have a friend who is a sales rep and I want to show it to him and he had a positive response and also once we got into the Los Angeles Film Festival ““ that was a very gratifying response and pleased that it sold out. I think by that point, we thought that this was more success that we had ever had with anything.

    CS: So now the movie is finished and you’ve seen the critical reception of it, what do you think a) about the finished piece and b) has it made you think about what will be next for the two of you together?

    HORVATH: I must admit and I think that all artists do have moments of insecurity, before every showing I would look at Pat and say did we trick everybody? Is someone going to pull the clothes off of us and say this isn’t good? It feels good and reactions are good and I realize it’s just the normal insecurities people go through.

    HALLAM: This is not a film for everybody. It’s definitely a film that we would like to see. I always enjoy watching it and think at the end of the day it didn’t take that much money to make it and it will last forever and we have long lasting relationships making it and I can say we will work with Suziey Block the rest of our lives. We owe her so much. Her performance is so great. Without her the film wouldn’t be anything. We probably would be here today talking to you. And we’ll keep those things with us forever.

    HORVATH: Moving ahead, we’re well into a script that we’ve been working on and hopefully will increase interest and that’s actually going to be Christmas ““ like a dysfunctional Christmas family film that goes off the rails and go into extreme horror with a capital H.

    (LAUGHS)

    HALLAM: And a different kind of style. Our next film with have some tripods, a musical score. We want to make ““ I don’t want to say traditional ““ but something that pushes the envelope of horror, we will always do that but the bombstic score and the style of the film will be what you would think of as a horror movie.

  • Comics in Context: Avengers Annotations Assemble!

    comicsincontext4.jpg

    AVENGERS ANNOTATIONS ASSEMBLE!

    Here’s one of the advantages of living in New York City. On the last Saturday in April, shortly after my birthday, I attended the Museum of Comic and Cartoon Art’s annual Art Fest, celebrating independent and small press comics. Then I headed down to the Tribeca Film Festival to watch the red carpet entrances for its closing night gala: a screening of Disney/Marvel’s new movie The Avengers, directed and scripted by Joss Whedon. Many times crowds in New York are so big that I have gotten shut out of events. Take this year’s Free Comic Book Day, for example. By the time I arrived in Manhattan in the afternoon, major comics stores were out of copies of most of the free comics, which had already been snapped up by fans who waited in line in the morning. But there were fewer people than I expected at the sight of The Avengers screening, and I arrived early enough to get a good place to stand, and sighted Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), and even Robert Downey, Jr. (Iron Man).

    This was far easier, less time consuming., and less stressful than waiting to see them in the dreaded Hall H at the Comic-Con in San Diego. The New York Comic Con is rapidly getting equally crowded; I couldn’t get into the packed auditorium for Hiddleston’s appearance with some other Avengers cast members at the con last fall. But, you see, I’ve found a way to see Avengers actors in person without the convention hassle!

    Moreover, for the first time in my life I now live within only a short walk of a movie multiplex. It’s even better than that: I can walk in one direction to one multiplex, and in the opposite direction to another, each near a train station. Disembarking from a train at 11:30 PM the night of May 3, I was puzzled to see people walking to the multiplex next to the station; the theater isn’t open that late on weeknights. Investigating, I discovered that there was a midnight screening of The Avengers, the first of opening day. So of course I went. I had been fired up with anticipation for weeks after seeing the dynamic and exciting trailers for the film. Those trailers should serve as object lessons for the makers of the trailers for the new John Carter movie (which made the film look dull) and the upcoming Dark Shadows movie (which make it look like a farce, as we shall examine in a future column).

    My eager anticipation for The Avengers movie was not misplaced. Although it began slowly and conventionally, it built in interest and momentum, and the final act was like nothing I have ever seen on screen before. That climactic battle between the Avengers and Loki’s invading forces, in the heart of New York City, captured the fantastic spectacle and visceral excitement that the superhero genre can create more fully than I had ever imagined seeing in a live action film. Longtime Marvel comics aficionado that he is, Joss Whedon did not let the rest of us Marvelites down. The Avengers movie has established itself as one of the peaks of the superhero genre on film.

    There is so much to say about this movie that my discussion of it will extend over more than one edition of “Comics in Context,” and I will break it down into individual subtopics. And, as always, there will be spoilers, so consider yourselves warned: you should see the movie first.

    THE BLACK WIDOW: I’ve always imagined the Black Widow speaking with a Russian accent, No, I didn’t want her to have an accent as thick as the one voice actress June Foray gave that more famous Natasha in The Bullwinkle Show, but still, being Russian seemed essential to the Widow’s personality. So I was surprised and disappointed when Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow turned up in Iron Man 2 minus a Russian accent. Oh, yes, if the Black Widow is a master spy, then she would have learned to speak English with an American accent. But still, though she is given her Russian name (with an Americanized ending) – Natasha Romanoff – in the film, moviegoers who were unacquainted with the comics would think she was American. They also wouldn’t know she was called the Black Widow, since, as we shall see elsewhere, Marvel Studios seems unduly skittish about using superhero names. (Look, Marvel, if Batman and Spider-Man are hugely popular in the movies, then the mass movie audience clearly has no problem with superhero names and costumes.)

    But otherwise I have no problems with the onscreen Black Widow. Okay, I have imagined the Widow as being taller than Scarlett Johansson, but that’s not important; she looks the part and exudes a real life sexiness that her comic book counterpart cannot match. Iron Man 2 gave the Widow an astonishingly dynamic fight scene in which she quickly and singlehandedly overpowers a large number of male attackers, capping it off by incapacitating one adversary with what looks like a spray of Mace without even bothering to look at him. ” It couldn’t have been done better, I thought.

    But then in The Avengers, Whedon and his collaborators manage to top it, with the Widow bound to a chair and still managing to overcome her captors with with incredible force, speed and seeming ease. Moreover, in this scene she gets to speak Russian, complete with a Russian accent. Here Whedon seems to be signaling the comics buffs that he is well aware of the Black Widow’s background in the comics. Reportedly Marvel Studios is planning a Black Widow movie that will be set in Russia and explore her origin.

    The movie equips the Black Widow only with guns as weapons, not with her “widow’s sting” from the comics, though it seems to me that her “sting” is not unlike a real life taser. In the climactic battle against the alien invaders, she seems the least powerful of the Avengers, lacking either super-powers or special weaponry. But Whedon and company succeed in finding a way for her to hold her own, notably in her astonishing acrobatics in getting aboard one of the alien skycraft. Moreover, throughout Iron Man 2 and Avengers Scarlett Johansson succeeds in projecting the impression of being truly formidable, so much so that it seems credible that she could even confront Bruce Banner, who could transform into the far more powerful Hulk.

    The movie Black Widow’s Russian accent may come and go, but I am content.

    HAWKEYE: I wish that Marvel Studios had more faith in such tropes of the superhero genre as the characters’ superhero aliases. Unless I’m mistaken, Hawkeye is referred to in the movie once as “the Hawk,” and never as “Hawkeye”; instead he is usually called by his real name, Clint Barton, which is rather drab. What’s wrong with the name Hawkeye, which seems appropriate for an archer, as well as alluding to the original bearer of the name, the hero of James Fenimore Cooper’s The Last of the Mohicans?

    Of the six superheroes in The Avengers movie, Hawkeye is by far the most disappointing,. Beyond being a highly capable professional in the use of the bow and arrow, the movie Hawkeye seems to have little personality. In the comics, of course, he is known for his irreverent humor and, in the early days, for his rebelliousness and resentment towards authority figures like Captain America. Maybe the problem is that the movie version of Tony Stark/Iron Man has taken over these personality traits. Still, Robert Downey Jr. plays Tony Stark as flippant and fast-talking, whereas Hawkeye has struck me as being either angrier with his jibes, or later, after he became more emotionally mature, more laid back and easygoing in his humor. At first in the Avengers comics Hawkeye seemed hostile to his leader, Captain America, but evolved into the Captain’s loyal friend and supporter. But in the movie Iron Man is resentful towards the Captain, whereas Agent Coulson takes over the role of his admirer. In the comics Hawkeye and the Black Widow were romantically involved for years; that might have given the movie Hawkeye more to play. But my impression is that the film versions of Hawkeye and the Widow were colleagues but not lovers. Even when he is under Loki’s mental control in the film, Hawkeye isn’t particularly sinister. I’m glad the character is in the movie, but he lacks a distinctive personality in it. If only the movie Hawkeye could have called the long-lived Captain America “Methuselah,” either mockingly (as in the mid-1960s) or affectionately, the way he used to in the comics!

    NICK FURY: When Marvel introduced a version of Nick Fury who resembled actor Samuel L. Jackson into its Ultimates line of comics, I was surprised, but later came to think it might be a good idea. Since the Ultimates line depicts an alternate version of traditional Marvel Universe continuity, why not make changes? That’s why I applaud the recent introduction of Miles Morales, an African-American, as the Ultimate universe’s new Spider-Man. It makes more sense to me to have a different Spider-Man in this alternate reality than to have Marvel publishing the adventures of two different Peter Parkers.

    It was the Ultimate universe version of Nick Fury who started turning up in the Marvel movies, played by the real Samuel L. Jackson, who is a comics fan and apparently approves of his lookalike in the comics. Once Jackson started appearing on film as Fury, perhaps it was inevitable that his version of Nick Fury would supplant Stan Lee and Jack Kirby’s original Caucasian version, even in the “mainstream” Marvel Universe comics. And that is what has just happened: the original Fury is being revealed to have had an African-American son, who looks like Jackson in the movie, complete with eyepatch, who will go by the name of Nick Fury. Fortunately, Marvel is not killing off the original Nick, who will continue to appear, if not quite as much as his son. (Besides, as we should all now realize, such “deaths” almost never prove to be real or permanent anyway.) This is a clever solution that enables both versions of Fury to co-exist in the mainstream Marvel Universe.

    Just what is the personality of Lee and Kirby’s Nick Fury? It seems to me that of all the classic Marvel heroes of the 1960s, Nick Fury may be the hardest for subsequent generations of writers to understand. When Stan Lee and Jack Kirby created the comics series Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD, they were obviously responding to the immense popularity of James Bond in the 1960s, which had spawned all sorts of imitations and variations, including television series like The Man from UNCLE and British TV’s The Avengers. Making Nick Fury the hero of their superspy series was a brilliant stroke by Lee and Kirby. Instead of the sophisticated figure of a James Bond, with his tuxedos and connoisseurship of drinks that were shaken, not stirred, Lee and Kirby substituted Fury, with his rough language, hot temper, cigars, and permanent five o’clock shadow. Fury was still very much the former army sergeant who had grown up on the Lower East Side of Manhattan in the Great Depression, who now found himself heading up this super-spy agency, SHIELD, with its futuristic technology. He seemed like the proverbial fish out of water. Yet he brought with him a streetwise common sense, a soldier’s dedication, and his personal incorruptibility that made him exactly the right man to head this vast organization in its war against adversaries like the high-tech terrorist army known as Hydra.

    Moreover, I expect that Lee and Kirby may have particularly identified with Fury because he was, like them, a member of the “Greatest Generation” of the Great Depression and World War II who now found himself in the very different world of the 1960s, when the entire culture was going through radical changes. Fury’s situation both paralleled and diverged from that of his contemporary, Captain America. In Lee and Kirby’s stories, Captain America, like Rip Van Winkle, had awoken from years-long sleep to find a world that had changed tremendously, in which he felt an outsider. Fury had lived through the two decades since the war, but rather than feel lost, he took command of SHIELD, drawing upon his wartime experiences to lead agents both his own age and younger in combat against modern foes. Indeed, Hydra was really a high-tech costumed version of the Nazis, something that writer/artist Jim Steranko later made explicit by casting Fury’s wartime archenemy Baron Strucker as Supreme Hydra.

    In the mid-1960s Nick Fury would only have been in his forties, like Lee and Kirby themselves; all three were middle-aged men who were proving themselves to be successful and effective in the changing world of the 1960s. Later, Howard Chaykin and Walter Simonson would introduce the “Infinity Formula” as a means of keeping Fury relatively young as the decades passed. By introducing the Samuel L. Jackson version of Fury, who was not around during World War II, the Ultimate line and the Marvel movies do not have to worry about explaining why their Fury does not look as if he is in his 80s or 90s.

    The key to Lee and Kirby’s Nick Fury is that he is an outsider who became the ultimate insider in SHIELD; he is still that tough World War II sergeant, without a college education, but with a strong moral code, a Greatest Generation everyman who became the unlikely leader of this futuristic spy agency. He is not an establishment figure, does not share the values of the political and corporate elites, and does not abide strictly by the book. In the Lee and Kirby SHIELD stories Count Bornag Royale of A. I. M. (Advanced Idea Mechanics) even tries to turn the government and public against Fury before A. I. M. is exposed as a secretly subversive organization.

    Following Lee and Kirby on the SHIELD in the late 1960s, writer/artist Jim Steranko spectacularly heightened the series’ resemblance to the James Bond movies while remaining faithful to Fury’s basic personality. Yet it seems to me that in subsequent decades writers have repeatedly lost track of what makes Fury work as a character. Since the 1960s Fury has only starred in short-lived series; he more often appears as a guest star. There has been a tendency for writers in popular culture to depict intelligence agencies like the C. I. A. as amoral or ruthless. As director of SHIELD, Fury has often been depicted as an authority figure who will hand down harsh decisions, manipulate people, or even violate individual rights, in the name of a higher justice. But in fact Lee and Kirby intended him to be a rebel himself, who holds firmly to his moral code even within the huge security bureaucracy he commands. This still comes across when Fury stars in his own series, such as Nick Fury vs. SHIELD and Secret Warriors, as the honest and moral spymaster who contends against corruption within SHIELD and the security establishment.

    In The Avengers movie Whedon and Jackson play Fury both ways. The revelation that SHIELD is planning to use the Tesseract as a weapon against alien invaders is met with disapproval. But in the movie Fury seems mainly to be steering the moral course he thinks best. Whedon introduces into the movie the shadowy SHIELD governing council, which has appeared previously in the comics, and to which Fury reports. The council ends up representing the dark side of the intelligence establishment, while Jackson’s Fury follows his conscience and best judgment. He seems somber, perhaps somewhat world-weary, but nonetheless patient and persistent in pursuing what he believes to be the right path. The council disapproves of the superheroes; Fury acknowledges that they are “unstable” (which seems to me to be an unduly harsh description, except for the Hulk) but nonetheless believes they can be shaped into an effective team. At the end of the film the council warns that the Avengers are “dangerous” and objects to Thor taking the “war criminal” Loki off to Asgard for punishment. Fury, who trusts the Avengers, defends the decision to let Thor take Loki, and claims the Avengers have dispersed to places unknown., That doesn’t seem entirely believable: we know that Tony Stark is in Stark Tower, and the Black Widow and Hawkeye are SHIELD agents. But Fury clearly wants to keep the Avengers free from government control, while assuring his superiors that they will reunite if need be to combat new threats. In the movie Fury’s finest moment comes after the council orders a nuclear strike on New York City to stop the alien invasion. (Just who are the members of this council, and who gives them the authority to make such a decision?) Fury goes out and shoots down the plane taking off to attack New York! Now that is an action very much in the tradition of the Lee and Kirby version of Nick Fury. Bravo!

    AGENT COULSON: I was puzzled by SHIELD Agent Phil Coulson when he first appeared in the first Iron Man movie. Why create a new SHIELD agent when there were so many from the comics to use? Jasper Sitwell, who had a long run as a supporting character in Iron Man’s comic, would have been my choice. He had a distinctive personality, which Coulson did not. That made it even more of a surprise to me when I realized that Coulson had an enthusiastic fan following. Why? The character seemed to me to be little more than a blank. Even actor Clark Gregg, who plays Coulson, says in interviews how surprised he has been that Coulson keeps coming back.

    Finally, in the Avengers movie Joss Whedon gives Gregg and Coulson a significant role to play. Coulson turns out to be a devoted admirer of Captain America, and, indeed, a fan, who even has a set of Captain America trading cards. The movie could easily have mocked Coulson as a fanboy, but doesn’t. Whedon and Gregg are themselves comics aficionados, and through Coulson they seem to be saluting devotees of the superhero genre. When Coulson tells Captain America how much he admires him, Whedon and Gregg portray Coulson with dignity and seriousness. One can sense the character’s genuine dedication to Captain America, who may have served as a role model for Coulson in joining SHIELD.

    Indeed, Coulson follows the example of Captain America and other superheroes by sacrificing his life in a courageous attempt to stop Loki in the battle aboard the helicarrier. Before his apparent death, Coulson predicts that his demise will give the superheroes someone to “avenge.” Indeed, Nick Fury uses Loki’s killing of Coulson as a means of motivating them into continuing to battle Loki and his forces. That justifies calling the team “the Avengers.” In Lee and Kirby’s Avengers #1, the Wasp comes up with the name, seemingly because it sounds cool to her; the team isn’t really avenging anyone or anything.

    Presumably Coulson really is dead. If he isn’t, and turns up alive in a subsequent film, that will retroactively reduce the dramatic impact of his supposed death scene in Avengers. We know that they’re not going to kill off the superheroes in The Avengers movie; it’s dramatically necessary that someone significant die in the helicarrier battle to emphasize the impact of the Avengers’ defeat. Still, it seems odd that Coulson dies in the movie when he is regularly appearing in the new Ultimate Spider-Man animated TV series and has turned up in the comics. Maybe this is just another reminder of how meaningless death has become in the superhero genre at Marvel and DC these days.

    THE TESSERACT: This is an example of the movies taking a strong concept from the comics and watering it down into something much less memorable. Longtime Marvel comics readers will recognize the Tesseract as the Cosmic Cube, created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby in the Captain America series in the mid-1960s. Perhaps Marvel Studios thinks the name “Cosmic Cube” is too corny, but they should trust Lee and Kirby’s knack for names. The alliterative “Cosmic Cube” is much catchier, more memorable, and more evocative of great cosmic forces than the dull, mathematical name “Tesseract.” Nor does the scientific name “Tesseract” make this power object sound like it comes from the mythical realm of Asgard, where magic is dominant, as it does in the movies.

    And that is another problem. The movies treat the Tesseract as a seemingly infinite power source, not as a magical device, so why establish that it comes from Asgard? And why would the Asgardians leave such a powerful object unguarded on Earth, as the Captain America movie established? In the comics the original Cosmic Cube was created by the criminal scientists of A. I. M. (Advanced Idea Mechanics) and was eventually established as a matrix that captured great cosmic energies; this makes more sense.

    To Whedon’s credit, he has characters in The Avengers movie refer several times to the Tesseract as “the Cube.” Moreover, in the movie he describes the Cube as channeling great forces of the universe, as if it is science fictional rather than magical, even if he has Thor take it back to Asgard at the end.

    But the biggest problem with the Tesseract is that it doesn’t do what the Cosmic Cube should.

    It is treated as if it is a generator of energy without limit. But in the comics the Cosmic Cube is a device that transforms thoughts into reality: whatever its bearer wishes will come true. It is like a super-scientific version of Aladdin’s lamp. This is a much more powerfully mythic concept. In the comics Thanos is one of those who has wielded the Cosmic Cube. Perhaps if and when Thanos turns up as the main villain in a Marvel movie, he will get hold of the Cosmic Cube and use it according to its proper function.

    NEW YORK CITY: From the Golden Age of the 1940s onward Marvel has set superhero stories in New York City rather than fictional metropolises; over the last half century Marvel stories have even included specific locations in New York, like Central Park, the Empire State Building, Times Square, and famously after the 9/11 attack. The site of the World Trade Center.

    Just as the gods of ancient Greece lived atop Mount Olympus, it seems appropriate that superheroes should be found amidst the towering skyscrapers of Manhattan. New York City remains America’s greatest city; this is where the superheroes should be found.

    New York City is practically a character in Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man film trilogy. One can always tell when a movie set in New York City was actually shot on location in New York City and not in Vancouver or some other location. Up until The Avengers, the movies produced by Marvel Studios have not emphasized New York City as a setting. When Stan Lee wrote Iron Man, it was set in New York, but Denny O’Neil moved Iron Man out to Silicon Valley, and then David Micheline moved Tony Stark to Southern California; similarly, the first Iron Man movie is set in southern California. However, though Tony Stark himself is based in southern California in Iron Man 2, much of the movie is set in New York City at the Stark Exposition, which is clearly inspired by the New York World’s Fair of the early 1960s. The Unisphere, the symbol of that World’s Fair, still stands in Flushing Meadows, Queens, and is prominently seen in Iron Man 2.

    The Thor movie was set in the Southwest, like J. Michael Straczynski’s recent run on the Thor comics; presumably this was a less expensive place for Marvel Studios to shoot the film. The Captain America movie starts out in New York City, with the young Steve Rogers established as a Brooklynite (In the comics he grew up on Manhattan’s Lower East Side but lived in Brooklyn as an adult), and memorably has Rogers, revived from suspended animation, finding himself in the center of 21st century Times Square. Most of the movie, however, is set in Europe during World War II, though at the climax Captain America has to save New York City from being blown up by the Red Skull.

    Marvel Studios and Whedon did a week or so of location shooting for The Avengers in the real New York, and apparently used CGI to create Manhattan backgrounds for other scenes. The result is that this is the first Marvel Studios movie in which New York City takes center stage. The film’s primary Manhattan location is Stark Tower, a fictional skyscraper set in a real location. It looms behind Grand Central Terminal, which is on East 42nd Street; the nearby Chrysler Building is visible in numerous shots set at Stark Tower. Loki’s Tesseract-powered device atop Stark Tower opens a wormhole in the sky above Manhattan, enabling the alien invasion force to come through. On ground level the Avengers battle alien invaders on Park Avenue South in the low 40s, directly in front of Grand Central Terminal. This is a spot in Manhattan that is very familiar to me, and indeed is just a short walk from the old Marvel offices on Park Avenue South and East 27th Street, where I used to work. I expect that comics fans who visit New York City may want to visit this spot in front of Grand Central, the real life battleground from The Avengers movie.

    Of course such superheroic battles royal in Manhattan have long been featured in Marvel stories. In staging the Avengers’ battle against the aliens so spectacularly, Whedon and his collaborators have thus powerfully captured this trope of Marvel superhero stories.

    But in the post-9/11 period, such an extraordinary battle scene, on and above the streets of Manhattan, takes on an emotional resonance beyond the thrill of sheer spectacle. Whedon emphasizes shots of terrified New Yorkers fleeing from the warfare in the streets, horrified New Yorkers watching the attack from their skyscraper office windows, and Captain America and other Avengers rescuing people or guiding them to safety. Before the 9/11 attacks, the catastrophic attacks on New York in Marvel stories seemed to be pure fantasy, something that could never happen in real life. Now the alien attack in The Avengers movie comes across instead as a fantasy version of the sort of terrorist attacks that have taken place in real life and that we know can happen again. Loki and his alien allies thus seem more realistic, and the Avengers become the heroes we wish for, powerful enough to fight back against enemy attacks.

    THANOS: Loki obtains his army of alien invaders through bargaining with a character identified as “the Other.” Viewers of Marvel movies now know to expect a post-credits sequence which sets up concepts for forthcoming Marvel movies. In The Avengers the first of these takes place after the initial part of the closing credits. The Other is reporting to his master about how formidable the Earthmen proved to be in repelling the invasion. In the cleverest line in Whedon’s screenplay, the Other advises his master that to battle the Earthmen “is to court death.” The master displays a sinister grin, and though he is not identified, Marvel readers will recognize him as Jim Starlin’s creation, the mad Titan Thanos. (When I saw the movie I heard a gasp from the audience; someone there besides myself recognized him.) Starlin’s Thanos was in love with Mistress Death, the personification of mortality, and was willing to obliterate all life in the universe to please her. No wonder that in the movie Thanos smiles at the double meaning of the phrase “to court death.”

    Is this scene meant to set up Thanos as the villain in the next Avengers movie, which is at least three years away? He’s a good choice, but that’s a long time to wait. I’ve seen it suggested that Thanos might actually be intended to be the villain for the next Thor movie. After all, he is a sort of god, and if Mistress Death appears, she would fit better into a Thor movie, which deals with the supernatural.

    If Thanos will indeed be the villain in Avengers 2, then I fear we have quite a long wait to see either of the two archvillains who are most associated with the Avengers in the comics: the robot Ultron, who could easily be done as a CGI animated figure, and Kang the Conqueror, who would provide a good role for a major actor.

    WHAT’S IN A NAME?

    When Chris Hemsworth recently appeared on the Late Show with David Letterman to promote The Avengers movie, Paul Shaffer and the band cleverly played the theme music to the other Avengers: the British adventure series about secret agent John Steed, played by Patrick Macnee, and his serries of partners, most famously Mrs. Emma Peel, a pioneering action heroine, as memorably portrayed by Diana Rigg. For those of us who grew up in the 1960s this series was a classic. It was continually in reruns on American television until about a decade ago, it is available on home video, and there was a bad movie version, starring Ralph Fiennes as Steed, Uma Thurman as Mrs. Peel, and Sean Connery (!) as the villain, in 1998.

    But as far as I know, The Avengers has been off American television since its run on BBC America several years ago, even though it would seem a natural choice for the new retro TV networks like Me-TV and Antenna TV. Most articles and reviews I have read about the Marvel Avengers movie do not mention the other Avengers in popular culture, with A. O. Scott’s review in The New York Times being a prominent exception. (Scott, who hates the superhero genre, said he wished that the new Avengers movie was a new version of the British series instead!) It seems as if the British Avengers has quickly faded from popular consciousness in the United States.

    But I suspect that it hasn’t in the United Kingdom, where the new film is titled Marvel Avengers Assemble, presumably to avoid confusion with the Steed and Mrs. Peel version. And maybe the series isn’t as forgotten as I fear in the United States, either, since the official title of the new movie is Marvel’s The Avengers.

    I have long wondered whether the fact that the Marvel superhero team and the English adventure series share the same name is merely a coincidence. The Avengers did not come to television in the United States until 1966, years after Marvel’s Avengers comic debuted in 1963. However, the television series premiered in the United Kingdom in 1961. Stan Lee’s wife Joan is British, and though she moved to the United States long before The Avengers debuted on British television, is it possible that she could have heard about the show from friends or family in England?

    After all, in the context of the first issue of Marvel’s Avengers comic, the title doesn’t make sense. Just what are they avenging? Marvel’s Avengers are usually battling to stop villains from committing crimes, not to take vengeance for their victims. So why did Stan Lee (or Jack Kirby?) name the team the Avengers? Just because it sounds cool?

    The similar names are probably coincidental, yet the character of Mrs. Peel, a liberated woman, who often wore a black catsuit in combat, and used martial arts to subdue male opponents, seems to have had an influence on American superhero comics. Perhaps Mrs. Peel was the template for DC’s remodeling of Wonder Woman in the late 1960s into a woman without super-powers, who dressed in contemporary fashions and used martial arts instead. When the Black Widow debuted at Marvel in 1964 she had black hair and wore conventional clothing. Subsequently, she wore a mask and costume that resembled a combination of a black swimsuit and fishnets. Then in The Amazing Spider-Man #86 in 1970 her visual appearance was revamped into her familiar current look, with no mask, red hair, and a skin-tight black catsuit. In other words, she looked like the auburn-haired Mrs. Peel. Thus, paradoxically, Marvel’s The Avengers movie features a character who seems to have been visually modeled after the most celebrated heroine of the British Avengers television series.

    THE MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE

    Previous Marvel movies have included post-credits sequences that set up Marvel films to follow. The movies make allusions to other films in the series (For example, a character in Thor wonders aloud if the Destroyer is one of Tony Stark’s creations.), and Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury and Clark Gregg as SHIELD Agent Coulson keep turning up in Marvel movies. But it is The Avengers movie first fully establishes the concept of the Marvel Universe onscreen, and in more than one sense. Jaded comic book fans, who have long grown used to Marvel heroes crossing over into each other’s comics, may be less impressed than the far larger audience who know the Marvel characters primarily from the movies. The latter have never seen anything like this before. After all, DC’s Superman and Batman have yet to appear together in a live action movie; Warners’ attempts to do a Justice League movie have so far been in vain.

    The idea of teaming up superheroes from disparate series did not originate at Marvel. DC Comics started the idea with the Justice Society of America in the 1940s, as well as with the regular team-ups of Superman and Batman in World’s Finest comics; editor Julius Schwartz revamped the Justice Society idea into the Justice League of America at the start of the 1960s. Marvel’s Avengers comic followed in the JLA‘s wake a few years later.

    But what happened in Justice League in the Silver Age of the 1960s rarely had any connection to events in the individual members’ series. One of Stan Lee’s great achievements in the Marvel revolution of the 1960s was to integrate the various superhero titles more closely with one another. Heroes, villains, and supporting characters from each series continually made guest appearances in other series as well. For example, in the first issue of Amazing Spider-Man the title character tried to join the Fantastic Four. Soon Stan Lee created the impression that the Marvel roster of superhero titles were telling one multifaceted story that spread through all the books, and hence the truly committed Marvelite should read them all. The many Marvel superhero series were all set in the same fictional shared universe, the “Marvel Universe.”

    In the past Marvel licensed the movie rights to different superhero series out to different movie studios, so now Sony/Columbia has the film rights to Spider-Man, while Fox controls the film rights to the X-Men, the Fantastic Four, and Daredevil. Marvel Studios, which is now owned by Disney, retained the movie rights to Captain America, Iron Man, and Thor, as well as to the Avengers concept, and regained the movie rights to the Hulk from Universal, thus making it possible to do an Avengers movie including all four of these original Avengers. For the foreseeable future, Disney/Marvel will not be able to use the heroes that were licensed to Sony and Fox, and hence will not be able to integrate them into the Marvel Cinematic Universe in live action films. But that is not that disappointing. Despite the long run of Marvel Team-Up and his current membership in the Avengers in the comics, Spider-Man still works best as a loner, as does Daredevil. The Fantastic Four are already a team, and a movie combining them and the Avengers would likely seem overcrowded. As for the X-Men, in the comics that series has spawned so many spinoffs in the comics to have created an “X-Men Universe” within the Marvel Universe. I expect that now that Disney owns Marvel, Disney will not allow rival studios to obtain the film rights to other Marvel heroes, so who knows who might turn up in his or her own Marvel movies in the future, or as guest stars in other characters’ films, or as team members in future Avengers movies? I see that in a recent interview Stan Lee has already suggested that Ant-Man and (more promisingly) Doctor Strange join the movie Avengers.

    Has there ever been anything comparable to The Avengers in movie history? The closest thing I ca think of are movies with “all-star” casts, in the tradition of Grand Hotel or Dinner at Eight in classic Hollywood, or even It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World with its army of celebrated comedians. Top stars get so much money these days that such “all-star” movies have become a rarity in contemporary cinema. But The Avengers movie is not so much about teaming stars as it is about teaming up the characters that starred in their own blockbuster action films. It’s as if, say, James Bond, Indiana Jones, Luke Skywalker, and Harry Potter teamed up in a movie!

    Again, moviegoers who know these Marvel heroes principally from the movies, not the comics, must be astounded to see these characters appear together on film. Moreover, they are seeing how these characters’ disparate worlds – Captain America from World War II, Iron Man from the world of cutting edge high technology, and Thor from a mythical realm of magic – can all fit together into a single consistent fictional universe. We longtime comics readers may indeed be used to such crossovers and team-ups. But Whedon and his collaborators have done The Avengers movie so well that it should even give us something of the same sense of wonder, joy and excitement that the first readers of the Justice League and Avengers comics must have had at seeing their favorite superheroes team up for the first time.

    The Avengers movie also establishes the Marvel Universe in another sense. Previous Marvel Studios movies were set in familiar locations: New York City, southern California, the American Southwest, Europe during World War II. The Thor movie went far beyond this by adding the otherdimensional mythical world of the Norse gods, Asgard, as well as Jotunheim, the dimension of the frost giants, and alluding to the rest of the “Nine Worlds” of Norse mythology. The Avengers movie goes still further, by bringing in an extraterrestrial race, the Chitauri. Then the first of the post-credits sequences is set amidst the vastness of outer space, introducing a menace from another world (the moon Titan in the comics), Thanos. With this stroke the Marvel Cinematic universe expands far beyond Earth into the universe itself. Once again, longtime comics fans may be too jaded to realize the effect this must have on people who know Marvel mostly from the movies: their jaws must be dropping as they realize that the term “Marvel Universe” is no exaggeration.

    There’s a lot more to say about The Avengers movie; I haven’t even gotten to the Big Four characters yet. But they will have to wait for a “Comics in Context” column in the near future. The next “Comics in Context” will be my review of the next major summer release, Tim Burton’s take on Dark Shadows.

    “Comics in Context” #243
    Copyright 2012 Peter Sanderson

    CLICK HERE FOR THE COMICS IN CONTEXT ARCHIVES

  • Opinion In A Haystack: THE AVENGERS Review

    haystackheader.jpg

    THE AVENGERS ““ Review ***SPOILER FREE***

    e1336059317

    In the western world, in the culture of Hollywood, we have made films the apex of a property’s existence. When any creative, artistic or entertaining endeavor reaches a certain level of popularity, respect, profits or prestige we turn it into a film, or possibly threaten to turn it into a film, if its isn’t already a film itself. So we’ve grown up salivating for certain things to come to fruition. Impossible things. For better or worse many of those things in my generation, due to new technology powered by James Cameron’s ego, have come into being as live action romps of varying degrees of success.

    c79428a9cec6e0cd62cb3fecb244da2a

    Well as far as “things” go, The Avengers is most certainly one of those “things” for me. The good news being that I went completely ape-“fecal matter” for the movie. I sang the praises of Sir Joss Whedon in my Cabin In The Woods review not long ago, and here I’m not even sure that singing is going to do him justice. The man is having a good year, so good in fact that his career is probably going to take a different path from now on. Avengers most certainly has the potential to skyrocket him into the big leagues of Hollywood Event Filmmakers like Michael Bay or Stephen Sommers, but the good news for us is that, unlike those guys, Whedon makes sure to take care of character and story first. However, once those are locked he will let loose on the action spectacle with the best of them. He has the potential to be, and I apologize for saying this, a “thinking man’s Michael Bay.” If you remove all the storied history of the characters involved with the Avengers that is what it boils down to: a Bay film where you actually care what happens amidst all the silliness and explosions. Joss Whedon: Man of Emotional Explosions.

    Unlike Cabin though, Avengers is “A Joss Whedon Film,” written and directed in full. I’ve been yapping to everyone who would listen that my main satisfaction with this movie is that it truly feels like a comic book script, as in, a script written with the intention of being drawn, inked and printed for Marvel to distribute. It’s very comic-book-like. What exactly do I mean by that? Well, I don’t know really. I suppose if my hand is forced to explain I would say that is has that ever so sacred balance of comic book reality, physics, logic, and tone without ever delving into being stupid or silly. It’s not cynical of its own source material, this movie is proud to be sopping wet with comic book mythology and atmosphere. At no point does it shy away from the exaggerated world of comicdom. It’s as big, awesome, and faithful to the source art form as Joss Whedon is a fan of that art form himself.

    the_avengers_by_arco2002-d3h9i2b

    The reason Avengers fires on all cylinders is balance. Whedon is no stranger to the group dynamic in his writing and it most certainly shows here. Thor, Banner, Cap, Stark, Hawkeye and Black Widow all share the screen with things only slightly tipping towards Iron Man. However, that isn’t a problem, this is Iron Man’s film and it makes perfect sense. Cap is still reeling from his 70 years under the ice, his rise to leadership is not cemented especially considering this is an “origin” story of a team. Not to mention, that as far as the public is concerned Tony Stark and John Favreau’s triumphant first Iron Man film is responsible for this whole gargantuan undertaking in the first place. It’s impossible to deny Downey’s presence as well, with a character as “large” as his version of Stark on screen it’s going to take at least two films for the cream, or in this case the Captain, to rise to the top.

    the-avengers-film-images

    It’s an impressive achievement on Whedon’s part as well that Jeremy Renner’s Hawkeye and Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow not only have presence in the film but actually prove themselves useful and interesting in the face of being over shadowed by a super soldier, a demi-god, a genius billionaire, and the ultimate engine of destruction. Tom Hiddleston proves once again that he was perfectly cast as Loki, at every turn, even when he’s losing he is deep in character without flinching. Chris Evans gives a convincing take on a recently unfrozen and confused Captain America. Chris Hemsworth probably has the most unsung hardship of the entire group as he succeeds in playing Thor with an undercurrent of shame and disappointment in his adopted brother Loki and the horrors he is bringing about on earth. Fans might complain that Thor doesn’t get as much time to strut his powers this time around, but he is mentally focused on his brother and the plot unfolds as such. I think once we get a Loki-free Avengers flick we will truly see Thor cut loose. (Also, I still say that Hemsworth is quite possibly the best casted superhero role ever. The guy just exudes Thor at every turn. Just my opinion.)

    Oh, and Sam Jackson knocks it out of the park playing Nick Fury as”¦well”¦Sam Jackson.

    samuel-jackson-hamburgers-funny

    There were two huge standouts of the film for me. First is Clark Gregg as Agent Coulson. His screen time isn’t long but the little he gets he sells hard, going so far as to give his character a lot of heart and a lot of balls. Second is Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner/The Hulk. Now, I admit right here and now that I am a lifelong Hulk fan. The comics, the TV show, the movies, I love the Hulk in all his forms, always have. As a credit to Whedon and Ruffalo I would go as far as saying that with the exception of Bill Bixby, Rufalo might be might favorite live action Banner ever. This is the first time in this new era of cinema tech we get to see the green guy “smash” as a hero instead of a menace and it is incredible (sorry.) That is especially a compliment considering Ruffalo did all the motion capture himself. When Hulk is unleased in this film, especially in the last third of the movie, it takes the “awesome” to a whole new level of incredible (sorry again.) However it isn’t just the smashing that wins me over, it’s Ruffalo as Banner. Much like Bixby, Ruffalo is playing a Banner who was been to hell and back and has begun to live with the curse instead of trying to fight it, this movie particularly furthers that very narrative. Of course all the buzz Hulk is getting from audiences and critics for Avengers is due to the smashing, I’m just saying for the rest of us who love the character this movie has other things to offer as well. Hats off to the design team too, the green guy has NEVER looked more accurate, and just plain perfect, to the source material than he does here.

    the-avengers-movie-hulk-600x337

    Thanks for reading and for the love of Thor: STAY AFTER THE CREDITS!!!

  • Comics in Context: Remembering Barnabas Collins

    comicsincontext4.jpg

    REMEMBERING BARNABAS COLLINS

    The Silver Age of the 1960s brought an explosion of creativity in the superhero genre that has not been equaled in it since; now, a half-century later the Marvel characters created during that decade are now conquering movie screens. But the Marvel revolution was only one aspect of the change in American comics in the 1960s, which also launched the underground comix movement which evolved into today’s alternative comics and graphic novels. And what happened in comics is only one aspect of the major revolution across popular and political and sexual culture that took place during the 1960s. I don’t think there has been as seismic a generational shift since. Just look at all the middle-aged people using computers and smartphones and social networking; the Boomers have proved to be adept at adopting new cultural developments.

    The rise of a new wave of superheroes in the 1960s paralleled a similar creative explosion in science fiction, fantasy, and adventure series on television during that decade. Think of all the memorable series that debuted in the 1960s and that live on in reruns, remakes and home video. When I think back on 1960s television series that dealt in the fantastic, I think of iconic character portrayals by various actors: among them, William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy and (my favorite of the three) DeForest Kelley on Star Trek, Patrick Macnee and Diana Rigg in The Avengers (the UK spy series, not the Marvel superhero comic), Patrick McGoohan in The Prisoner. And then there was Jonathan Frid, who passed away on April 13, 2012, as the vampire Barnabas Collins in Dark Shadows.

    Probably all of you reading this are aware of the new Dark Shadows movie, directed by Tim Burton and starring Johnny Depp as Barnabas, that opens in May. Younger readers may not be entirely aware that the Burton film is based on the original Dark Shadows, a daytime serial – a soap opera, in other words – that was created by the late producer Dan Curtis, ran on the ABC network from 1966 into 1971, dealt in reworkings of classic horror stories and tropes, and was an astonishingly huge success with the Baby Boomer generation. Dark Shadows is also “the show that would not die,” that spawned two successful movie spinoffs, House of Dark Shadows (1970) and Night of Dark Shadows (1971), and continued in reruns for decades, on PBS stations and later on the Sci-Fi Channel (now Syfy). The entire original series is available on DVD. There was a short-lived revival, with an entirely new cast, in 1991 on NBC, and you can still see this entire 12-episode series, legally and free, on YouTube. Hence, Dark Shadows is not just known by aging Boomers; it gains new fans with each generation.

    And yes, this has something to do with comics. There was a Dark Shadows newspaper comic strip, in which artist Ken Bald superbly captured Jonathan Frid’s likeness as Barnabas Collins. There have also been various Dark Shadows comic books, from Gold Key’s version in 1969 to the Dynamite Entertainment version that debuted in 2011.

    Arguably, more than anyone else, even Curtis himself, the late Jonathan Frid is responsible for Dark Shadows‘ success. On meeting Mr. Frid on the set of the new Dark Shadows movie, Johnny Depp reportedly said that none of them would be there without him, in other words, without Frid’s original portrayal of the character. If not for Jonathan Frid’s Barnabas, Curtis’s show would have been canceled, probably after only a year on the air.

    Why did this performance have such impact? It was because Jonathan Frid and Barnabas Collins revolutionized the concept of the vampire. Frid’s Barnabas was the first vampire with a soul in popular culture, the first one with a multidimensional personality, and the first to become a truly heroic figure. Perhaps there had been sympathetic vampires in past, little-known stories of which I am unaware; Barnabas was the first to reach an audience of millions.

    Hence, every subsequent major example of fiction about heroic or antiheroic vampires owes a debt to Dark Shadows, Barnabas, and Frid. That includes Anne Rice’s books such as Interview with the Vampire, Joss Whedon’s Angel, Forever Knight, the Twilight series, and HBO’s True Blood, among others. Ms. Rice has acknowledged knowing Dark Shadows. But even if some subsequent vampire fiction creators did not watch the show, that does not matter, Curtis, Frid, Barnabas and Dark Shadows laid the groundwork that made contemporary vampire fiction possible.

    Keep in mind what the popular image of the vampire was before Dark Shadows. Look at F. W. Murnau’s classic silent film Nosferatu, his unofficial adaptation of Bram Stoker’s landmark novel Dracula. Its vampire, played by Max Schreck, is a grotesque creature, and it is difficult to believe that anyone in the film could think he was human. Of course the dominant popular image of the vampire became that of Bela Lugosi in the title role of Tod Browning’s film Dracula, based on a stage adaptation of Stoker’s novel. Stoker, Browning and Lugosi presented Dracula as a being who not only looked outwardly human, but appeared to be a sophisticated European nobleman with refined manners, who travels from his homeland into English society; this, however, was merely a facade disguising a vicious predator on other humans.

    Subsequently, most vampires in popular culture were based on the Stoker/Lugosi/Dracula template. So too is Barnabas Collins, another man with aristocratic manners and bearing, who arrives from abroad, and conceals his darker nature. But the difference is that Barnabas proved to be a vampire with a sense of guilt, an aura of tragedy, and a human heart.

    In large part, the revolution was Frid’s creation. Producer Dan Curtis created Dark Shadows, which debuted on the ABC Network in 1966, as a modern daytime serial version of a classic Gothic romance. In the first episode heroine Victoria Winters follows in the footsteps of Jane Eyre by taking a job as governess in a gloomy and mysterious mansion. This was Collinwood, the ancestral home of the Collins family, headed by Elizabeth Collins Stoddard – played by Joan Bennett, a star of Hollywood’s Golden Age – on the rocky coast of Maine.

    In its initial months Dark Shadows struggled to find an audience. The specter of cancellation gave Curtis the incentive to experiment with introducing supernatural elements into the series, including a ghost of an 18th century woman named Josette.

    Then, nine months into the series, in April 1967, Curtis went “for broke” as he put it, and introduced a vampire into the show. A disreputable drifter named Willie Loomis, played by John Karlen, hunting for a legendary lost Collins treasure, discovered a secret room in the family’s 18th century mausoleum. Inside Loomis found a chained coffin; removing the chains, he opened the lid, and was horrified when a hand reached out and seized him by the throat.

    Soon afterwards, a man with courtly, gentlemanly manners arrived at Collinwood, where he introduced himself as Barnabas Collins, a “cousin from England.” The family members were amazed by his resemblance to their 18th century ancestor, the original Barnabas, whose portrait hung in their foyer. The newcomer claimed to be the descendant of that Barnabas, who, according to family history, had left for England in the late 1790s. Pleased with their new relation, the Collins allowed him to live in another mansion on the property, the abandoned Old House. Of course the “descendant” was the original Barnabas, who had become a vampire and survived for nearly two centuries trapped in his coffin.

    In the first months that Barnabas was on the show, Curtis and his writers dealt subtly with the fact that he was a vampire. Perhaps he or the network was worried about going too far; after all, there had never been a vampire on a daytime soap. The word “vampire” was never used in this early period. There were references to strange attacks and deaths in the village, which were attributed to bites by animals. For many months Barnabas was never shown with fangs or biting anyone. Instead, he seemed to have a sinister, Svengali-like hypnotic hold over his victims: first Willie Loomis, who became his submissive servant, and then local waitress Maggie Evans, played by Kathryn Leigh Scott. Dominating her will, Barnabas compelled her to dress as Josette, the woman he had loved in the 18th century, and made her his prisoner in the Old House.

    Curtis’s original intention was that Barnabas was a villain who would menace other characters for thirteen weeks and then be destroyed. But Barnabas proved to be unexpectedly popular with the audience. It is an oversimplification to think that the early Barnabas was entirely a villain. In Barnabas’s early episodes, the writers did provide the character with some material that allowed the audience to feel some sympathy for him. Notably, for example, when Barnabas first arrives at the Old House, he is given a speech expressing his joy at returning to his original home after so long an exile. Jonathan Frid’s triumph was that he seized the opportunities that a speech like this gave him to make Barnabas much more than a one-dimensional villain.

    A Canadian actor who had played major Shakespearean roles, Jonathan Frid thought that Barnabas was only a brief, 13-week assignment. He had no interest in playing Barnabas simply as a conventional horror movie monster. Instead, from his first appearance on the show, Frid was intent on playing Barnabas not as a as a credible, three-dimensional character. He played Barnabas’s charm and gentlemanly manners not as a deceptive facade, but as genuine; they also seem to have been part of Frid’s actual personality. Barnabas did not come across as an invader of Collinwood, but as someone who belonged there, who loved the Old House and cared about the family history. Frid always said that the key to his performance was in seeing Barnabas as a man with a secret. Barnabas may have been a menace, but Frid conveyed the character’s insecurity beneath his outer confidence, his gnawing worries that his dark secret, being a vampire, would be exposed. Frid said in interviews that his own insecurity about performing on television, and worries about remembering his lines, came across on television as Barnabas’s insecurity. Perhaps this is so, but Frid took advantage of it, and surely used his own nervousness to shape his performance. The audience responded to this vulnerability of Barnabas’s; they did not want him to be exposed, either. This early Barnabas was obsessed with his lost love Josette, so much so that he tried to mold Maggie Evans, her lookalike –both roles were plated by Ms. Scott – into a recreation of her. Even so, the audience could sense a genuine romantic longing when Barnabas spoke of his “ancestor’s” love for Josette. Through much of 1967 Barnabas was written and played as a villain, menacing poor Maggie, but there was something intriguing about Barnabas’s villainy as Frid played it. Frid had a charismatic presence that worked well on television. Frid’s Barnabas was just what this modern day Gothic romance needed: a dark, brooding, sinister antihero in the Gothic novel tradition. Audiences responded positively and grew in number. The ratings went up, and the plans to destroy Barnabas after thirteen weeks were set aside. Frid’s Barnabas had saved Dark Shadows from cancellation, and soon became the dominant character on the show.

    The next major step in Barnabas’s evolution came when Curtis took another big chance. During a séance Victoria Winters vanished from 1967 Collinwood and reappeared in the 1790s. For the next several months Dark Shadows was set in the 18th century, with most of the already established regular cast playing characters of that period, as the show told Barnabas’s origin story. Jonathan Frid now got to play Barnabas as a human being, who was engaged to marry Josette DuPres (played by Kathryn Leigh Scott). But he had to fend off her servant, Angelique (played by Lara Parker), with whom he had had an affair and who was still passionately in love with him. Unknown to him, Angelique was a witch, who used her sorcery to cause Josette to fall in love with Barnabas’s uncle Jeremiah, whom he then shot in a duel over her. Angelique again secretly used sorcery to manipulate Barnabas into marrying her, but he then discovered she was a witch and turned against her. In retaliation, Angelique sent a demonic bat that killed him. Barnabas’s family entombed him in the secret room in the mausoleum, but he then rose as a vampire.

    Through this first part of his origin story, the audience could sympathize entirely with Barnabas. He was was capable of killing in anger, but who was also devoted to Josette and to his sister and mother, and willing to befriend and defend the time-traveling Vicki, whom Angelique had framed for witchcraft. He was not portrayed as an evil man, but as a good but flawed man who unjustly fell victim to a curse.

    Here began the truly revolutionary change in depicting vampires. Dark Shadows now presented Barnabas’s vampiric list for blood as an addiction and compulsion that he despised but that he could not ultimately resist. As he descended into killing victims for their blood, Barnabas was wracked by guilt. Here Jonathan Frid found the emotional core of his role; he was superb at dramatizing Barnabas’s remorse over his attacks, and his anguish as he lost his loved ones: his sister Sarah, his mother Naomi, and his true love, Josette. At first he stayed away from Josette, not wishing her to learn what had happened to him. But ultimately he was unable to stay away from her, and began putting her under his power, believing that they could only be together if she became a vampire as well. Frightened by a vision Angelique sent of the fate that awaited her, Josette leapt to her death from Widow’s Hill, a cliff overlooking the sea.

    The Barnabas-Josette-Angelique triangle became the heart of the show’s narrative; in subsequent storylines Barnabas would fall in love with other women, who took over Josette’s place in his heart (and who, in one case, turned out to be Josette reincarnated), as Angelique and fate continued to thwart his hopes for happiness.

    Angelique’s curse not only gave Barnabas vampiric lusts that, in these early days, he could not control, but also unleashed the dark, violent side of his personality. He became ruthless and even sadistic with his adversaries, memorably walling up the witch hunter Reverend Trask in the basement of the Old House.

    Yet Ben Stokes, Barnabas’s servant in the 1790s, seemed to be a point-of-view character for the audience. Appalled though he was by his master’s violent excesses, Ben remained loyal to him, recognizing that his master was not only the victim of a curse but was still basically the good man he had always been. For example, Barnabas still tried to rescue Trask’s victim, Victoria Winters, from being hanged as a witch. After his father Joshua discovered what had happened to his son, Barnabas decided to have his father destroy him by a stake through his heart. Unable to bring himself to do it, Joshua chained Barnabas’s coffin shut, the way that Willie Loomis would find him two centuries later.

    By the time this 1790s origin sequence had ended, Frid and the series’ writers had radically transformed Barnabas from charismatic villain into the show’s genuinely tragic antihero. Again, this was appropriate to Curtis’s original intent of creating a modern Gothic romance: Frid’s Barnabas was a a romantic figure of grand passions, a good man struggling against the dark side of his own nature, a man suffering under a curse that he could not control, a victim of the fates. Significantly, Angelique’s curse was that anyone whom Barnabas loved would die.

    In fact, when Vicki returned to the present (now 1968), the show was briefly in something of a quandary, since the ominously threatening Barnabas that the show had been depicting in the present no longer matched the tragic antihero who had emerged in the 1790s sequence. The problem was quickly solved when the show began its own version of the Frankenstein story. Barnabas’s confidant, Dr. Julia Hoffman, who had discovered his secret and had been trying to cure his vampirism, completed a colleague’s experiment to bring an artificially created man, Adam, to life. In transferring part of Barnabas’s life force into Adam, she somehow caused Barnabas to revert to a normal human. Over the subsequent months the writers scaled back Barnabas’s capacity for ruthlessness. Instead, they focused on his contention against the enraged monster he had helped to create, as well as Angelique, who had appeared in the present and was determined to restore her curse. Barnabas was now earning the audience’s sympathy in his struggle to prevent reverting to vampirism and to protect himself, Vicki, and the Collinses from the menace of Adam. By the summer of 1968, Barnabas and Julia, though middle-aged and unglamorous, had clearly become the unlikely heroes of this daytime serial that was attracting a large audience of the young.

    Through much of the Adam sequence, Barnabas was motivated by self-interest: protecting himself. But the character’s heroic altruism began to emerge through the summer and fall. He risked his life to save Julia from a vampire, Tom Jennings, who had made her his victim. In the climax of the Adam storyline, the warlock Nicholas Blair had forced Barnabas and Julia to create Eve, a mate for Adam, using Maggie Evans to provide the life force. Realizing that the experiment would kill Maggie – the woman he himself had once victimized – Barnabas defied Blair by sabotaging the life energy transfer, destroying the body of Eve. When Adam retaliated by capturing Vicki to throw her off Widow’s Hill (thereby recreating the death of Josette), Barnabas shot Adam, despite learning that if Adam died, he would revert to vampirism. In other words, Barnabas had now grown so heroic that he was willing to sacrifice his life – or worse, take on his hated curse once more – in order to save the lives of two innocent women.

    In the next story arc, Barnabas and Julia discovered that Tom Jennings’ brother, Chris, was a werewolf, This made Chris another victim of a curse that he could not resist, and that transformed him into a murdering monster. Barnabas befriended and sought to help Chris, who was grateful but puzzled by Barnabas’s benevolence. But the audience realized that Barnabas saw himself in Chris, a fellow victim of a curse. The series was moving Barnabas into a new role, that of a guardian figure.

    To my mind the greatest story arc in the original Dark Shadows was the sequence set in 1897, which continued for nine exciting months, through most of 1969. The set-up was the haunting of Collinwood by the ghost of Quentin Collins, in a story arc inspired by Henry James’ novella The Turn of the Screw. In early 1969 Quentin’s ghost had driven the Collins family from their mansion, Collinwood, and taken full possession of the mind of the youngest Collins, the boy David; then Chris seemed permanently transformed into werewolf form. To try to communicate with Quentin’s ghost, Barnabas, continuing his new role as family guardian, went into a mystical trance. Instead, the trance sent his spirit back intro his body lying in the coffin in the mausoleum’s secret room back in 1897, the year of Quentin’s death. Escaping from the coffin, Barnabas was again a vampire, but though he still needed to find victims, he was also determined to find out all that he could in order to try to change history for the better, thus saving David in the present. Thus, during the 1897 sequence Barnabas was using his powers as a vampire, not as a menace but as the defender of the Collins family against a series of memorable adversaries, including the “phoenix” Laura Collins (years before X-Men‘s Phoenix), Reverend Trask’s equally fanatical descendant, and Count Petofi, whose supernatural powers exceeded even Angelique’s. Several months into the sequence, Barnabas’s mission was complicated by his exposure as a vampire, the very thing he had long dreaded in the present. As a result he became a hunted outlaw, an outcast from the Collins family, even as he continued to risk his undead life to protect them from the menaces surrounding them.

    As riveting as Jonathan Frid had been as the series’ villain, he made an even stronger impression as this champion of his family, a true hero rather than an antihero. He vividly projected Barnabas’s determination to oppose evil, his persistence despite continual obstacles, his sense of vulnerability when trapped by foes, and his compassion for innocents. It was a pleasure to watch Frid’s Barnabas when he triumphed over his adversaries; the character still had an edge. But perhaps to the surprise of longtime viewers, Frid’s Barnabas now conveyed a powerful sense of saintliness: he was the man who would risk everything for his family and friends, past and present. (Moreover, Petofi, and later in the series the Leviathans, ultimately posed a threat to the world, as did Nicholas Blair’s plans for Adam and Eve, which Barnabas had earlier thwarted.) Barnabas had even seemed to gain a greater measure of control over his vampiric urges, had fewer victims, and sought not to kill them. His main victim in the 1897 sequence was the second Reverend Trask’s daughter Charity, yet Barnabas desperately sought to prevent her from dying from blood loss. Intriguingly, the show even presented the repressed Charity’s liaison with Barnabas as a sexual liberation that brought her happiness.

    Why was Barnabas so popular with millions of viewers during the show’s original run? Looking back, it seems to me that even though Dark Shadows sought to evoke the Gothic romance tradition, and did variations of numerous classic horror stories and romances, it and Barnabas were also very much creations of the 1960s. The Sixties were famously the time of a cultural shift away from the conformist culture of America in the 1950s, which, at its worst, was exemplified by the witch hunting of the McCarthy period. It should be no wonder, then, that the various incarnations of Reverend Trask, a literal witch-hunter, were among the most memorable villains on Dark Shadows. 1960s popular culture has many examples of secret nonconformists hiding behind a conformist facade from the disapproval of society. Of course there are the Marvel super heroes who arose in that decade, with their secret identities, like Spider-Man, as well as the immense 1960s television success of another double-identity superhero, Batman. But there are also various popular television comedies of that decade which follow the theme of an outwardly normal person who secretly leads a private life with nonconformist elements, often represented by the metaphor of the supernatural or science fictional: Bewitched, I Dream of Jeannie, My Favorite Martian, even Mister Ed. Using the imagery of horror films, the comedies The Munsters and The Addams Family presented families who disdained the outer trappings of normality and were proudly, freely nonconformist.

    In interviews Jonathan Frid repeatedly stated that from the start his key to playing Barnabas was not as a monster but as a man with a secret. The core members of the Collins family lived in the Great House of Collinwood, usually unaware of the supernatural events that were taking place (although this situation changed over the course of the series, as when Quentin’s ghost drove the family from the house). The townspeople of Collinsport were similarly unaware of the supernatural, blaming vampire attacks on animals, for example. In his own home, the Old House, Barnabas became the center of a small alternate community of allies, notably his confidant Dr. Julia Hoffman, his servant Willie Loomis, and later Quentin (both in 1897, and, after history was altered, in the present), who were aware of the supernatural and contended against it, thereby protecting the others.

    Originally Barnabas guarded his secret, being a vampire, to prevent his exposure and destruction. Unlike current vampire fictions like Twilight and True Blood, Dark Shadows did not present vampirism as an acceptable alternative lifestyle; it was a destructive curse. But when Barnabas evolved into a hero, the show depicted his vampirism not as an expression if his inner evil but as a literal affliction, one that Dr. Hoffman sought to cure (and at times, temporarily succeeded in doing so). Vampirism was the source of Barnabas’s power, and in effect gave him super-powers (hypnosis, disappearing, near-invulnerability, etc.), anticipating Joss Whedon’s treatment of vampires as superhumans. But vampirism was also his weakness for which, when exposed in 1897, Barnabas was unjustly persecuted by people who could not recognize that he was on the side of the angels.

    Barnabas was the hero as outsider and even sometimes as outcast, fighting for the safety of a society that would turn against him if they knew he was not a conventional human being like themselves.

    The more I think about it, the more I see parallels to the Marvel super heroes of the 1960s. There is Doctor Strange, in his own mysterious house, from which he combats supernatural menaces of which the public is unaware. There are the mutant X-Men, another small community in their own mansion, who in the 1960s posed as ordinary human beings when out of costume, and fought to protect a public who famously feared and hated mutants. Other classic Marvel heroes, like Spider-Man and the Hulk, are outsiders and outcasts. Bruce Banner suffers from his own werewolf-like curse, transforming into a destructive monster (originally, like a werewolf, at night), yet he is shown to be less of a menace than the villains he combats.

    Jonathan Frid made such a strong impression as a vampire hero that the viewers resisted the show’s subsequent attempts to change Barnabas. Following the 1897 sequence, Dark Shadows tried turning Barnabas back into a villain in the present (late 1969), when he fell under the influence of the cult of the Leviathans, an ancient race of monsters that were clearly inspired by the works of H. P. Lovecraft. Viewers rebelled, ratings fell, and the show hurriedly had Barnabas rebel against his new masters and return to the side of good. Moreover, in late 1969 Barnabas had once again been freed of his curse; presumably to bring back departing viewers, the show had the Leviathans turn Barnabas back into a vampire in early 1970. Once more Barnabas had his vampiric super-powers, and once more he was in the grip of his addiction to blood, which had heightened, enabling Frid once again to play Barnabas’s guilt, his self-hatred, his attempts to resist his urges and ultimate succumbing, all of which he portrayed so powerfully and well. Indeed, regular viewers of the show would become accustomed to one of its favorite tropes, in which Barnabas encounters a woman (usually a prostitute) on the Collinsport docks, attempts to resist his vampiric urges even as she flirts with him, as we witness his distress, and then we see him reach the point of no return, as his attitude shifts, turning grimmer, and he finally attacks.

    Perhaps that is another aspect of Barnabas’s appeal to viewers. After his early months on the show, he was no longer a sinner without conscience, but he was a person, who like us all, but on an operatic scale, struggles with his weaknesses, temptations, and character flaws, and regrets them when he gives in to them. But at the same time he is the noble hero on his journey, struggling to survive, trying to safeguard his family and few friends, seeking redemption. That, indeed, is a familiar pattern on Dark Shadows: Quentin, too, started on the show as a menace, but, as played by David Selby in the 1897 sequence, evolved into a multifaceted character with whom the audience could sympathize, and turned from villain to antihero to the show’s second hero. Even Angelique became more sympathetic over the years, sometimes becoming Barnabas’s ally, and finding redemption in the show’s late 1970 episodes.

    After the misstep with the Leviathans, Barnabas remained a hero for the rest of the series, and stayed a vampire for most of the rest of it. The show had been so astonishingly successful at its height that producer Dan Curtis made the 1970 MGM film House of Dark Shadows with the television series’ cast and writers. Directed by Curtis, the film was a big commercial success, but perhaps it showed that not even Curtis quite understood Barnabas’s appeal. In the film Curtis did what he had initially intended to do with Barnabas on the show: present him as a villain who is justly hunted down and destroyed. Hence, House of Dark Shadows is a reboot, once again starting with Willie releasing Barnabas from his coffin, but taking the familiar characters from the show, including Barnabas, in a very different direction. Fans of the TV show get glimpses of Barnabas’s sympathetic side, but ultimately he becomes a monster who murders various characters from the show. The television show was notoriously done “live on tape” and retakes were a rarity, since video editing back then was far more expensive. Able to do multiple takes thanks to the movie’s bigger budget, Frid consistently demonstrates in House just how powerful his portrayal of Barnabas was at its best. But even when I first saw the film, I realized that it captured only one side of the character. This was Barnabas as villain in House, with brief flashes of the antihero; the guilt-ridden, long-suffering but indomitable hero of the television series was missing.

    Like the 1960s Batman show, Dark Shadows‘ popularity, though once immense, faded quickly. That may not be surprising: though always good, the later storylines could never match the greatness of the 1897 arc. Moreover, Dark Shadows had become much more fast-paced than normal daytime soap operas; if you missed a day, you missed important developments, and perhaps much of the young audience tired of making that five day a week commitment. But there was another movie, 1971’s Night of Dark Shadows, with Selby as the lead rather than Frid, who declined to do it.

    And not only did Dark Shadows live on, in reruns, home video, and revivals, but so did its influence, even in comic books. Roy Thomas mentioned Barnabas in Daredevil, and in 1970 did a story in Daredevil #65 and 66 about a supernatural daytime serial named Strange Secrets with its villain Brother Brimstone, clearly inspired by Dark Shadows and the early Barnabas. Surely Barnabas Collins influenced Thomas’s co-creation of Marvel’s own guilt-ridden vampire, Michael Morbius. Later in the 1970s Marv Wolfman and Gene Colan created Hannibal King, a vampire detective, in Tomb of Dracula, following the new path of heroic vampires that Barnabas and Frid had begun. When Wolfman and Colan subsequently created Night Force at DC Comics, its lead character, Baron Winters, bore a strong visual resemblance to Frid’s Barnabas, including his distinctive hair style (and coincidentally or not shared a last name with Dark Shadows heroine Victoria Winters). And of course there were the many heroic and antiheroic vampires in novels, film and TV that followed Dark Shadows, many of which I mentioned earlier.

    Surely it is the success of contemporary vampire fiction that laid the groundwork for the latest resurrection of Barnabas Collins, in the new Dark Shadows movie, directed by Tim Burton, which opens in May, starring Johnny Depp in the role of Barnabas. The trailer and commercials have proved to be controversial with admirers of the original Dark Shadows.

    The marketers at Warner Bros. Are promoting the film as if it is a comedy, even a farce, as if it were like Burton’s classic Beetlejuice (1988). Some who have seen the film contend that it actually is a blend of serious Gothic horror and romance with comedy, closer in tone to Burton’s Sleepy Hollow (1999). Certainly Danny Elfman’s musical score for the film, which you can hear free and legally online here sounds not like a comedy but like the grand operatic version of Gothic horror that longtime Dark Shadows fans surely hope for.

    We will learn in just a few weeks, when the film opens, whether Burton and Depp’s Dark Shadows realizes the potential of the original material. In this column I have attempted to show how complex and powerful a role Barnabas Collins became in the hands of Jonathan Frid and the original TV series writers. Burton and Depp claim to have been fans of the original Dark Shadows from their childhoods on. I hope that they do not trivialize the iconic character of Barnabas, but instead rise to the challenges it presents. I plan to write a column about the film after I see it, so we will return to this subject then.

    Barnabas Collins was Jonathan Frid’s most famous role by far, but I was fortunate to see him in many other stage appearances over the decades. When Dark Shadows was still in its original run on television, I saw him perform St. Thomas Becket in T. S. Eliot’s play Murder in the Cathedral, staged in an actual church. He was excellent in the role, and I was pleasantly surprised to spot other Dark Shadows cast members in the audience. Years later he was in a production of the classic black comedy Arsenic and Old Lace on Broadway, playing the role originated by Boris Karloff. A few times, as a New York theatergoer, I even sighted him in the audience at a play or opera. I met him briefly at one of the first Dark Shadows Festivals in the New York City area; for many years the Festivals’ daytime programming concluded on Sundays with one of Mr. Frid’s one-man shows of “reader’s theater” shows in which he performed dramatic readings in his sonorous voice, captivating his loyal audience. Then he disappeared from the Festivals, remaining in semi-retirement in Canada. But in recent years he returned to the Festivals, looking much older and more frail, hosting programs of video clips of memorable scenes from Dark Shadows, on which he incisively commented. I saw him in his last Festival appearance, only last summer in Brooklyn.

    And I also own a copy of his final performance as Barnabas Collins, which I highly recommend. Over the last decade the British company Big Finish Productions has produced numerous Dark Shadows audio dramas featuring members of the original series cast, and even some actors from the 1991 NBC-TV reboot/revival. Big Finish had to recast Barnabas for his appearances in the audio dramas. But finally Mr. Frid consented to do one of them, and recorded his role in Canada for the 2010 audio drama Dark Shadows-The Night Whispers. You can hear his advanced age in his changed voice, but you will also hear the authority he still projected in his performance, the acting skills undiluted by time.

    Then last year Mr. Frid journeyed to England along with three of his former castmates, Mr. Selby, Ms. Parker and Ms. Scott, to make came appearances in Tim Burton’s Dark Shadows movie. At the time that I write this, it remains to be seen whether Tim Burton and Johnny Depp will be able to capture what Mr. Frid brought to the role of Barnabas. But Mr. Frid himself will lend a haunting presence to the film, reminding us of what Barnabas Collins can be.

    “Comics in Context” #242
    Copyright 2012 Peter Sanderson

    CLICK HERE FOR THE COMICS IN CONTEXT ARCHIVES

  • Trailer Park: The 2012 Phoenix Film Festival, SHAME, THE INNKEEPERS

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    Check out my other column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me onTWITTER under the name: Stipp

    Highlights from the 2012 Phoenix Film Festival/Int’l Horror and Sci-Fi Film Festival Part I By Ray Schillaci

    phoenixfilmfestivalOnce again, far too many good films to see and so little time. That is including the documentaries, World Cinema and short films provided. I am hoping to follow up with some of them in the next couple of weeks. As for the festival itself; stars were in attendance starting with Academy Award winning actress, Marcia Gay Harden present for a tribute to her body of work. Michael Biehn (Terminator, Aliens and The Abyss) introduced his directorial debut with “The Victim”. Tom Sizemore (Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down) popped in to greet everybody with his new film “Slumber Party Slaughter” and the festival had a host of filmmakers introducing their films as well.

    “Robot and Frank,” starring Frank Langella and Susan Sarandon kicked off the festival to a glorious start with huge applause. Due to pending release dates I have been asked not to review this film as with a couple of other wonderful ones; Lawrence Kasdan returning to his true form with, “Darling Companion” and the French hit, “The Intouchables”. But that does not preclude me from reviewing some of the other great feature films in competition.

    I have yet to see the much talked about “Hollywood to Dollywood” that was nearly sold out with every showing. I’ve heard HTD is a very funny road trip movie about twin brothers trying to get their dream script in the hands of the legendary Dolly Parton. The documentary, “Connected” also had good word of mouth, involving the exploration of “visible and invisible connections linking major issues of our time” while the documentarian searches for her place in the world during a “transformative” time in her life.

    “How Do You Write a Joe Sherman Song” was an audience pleaser, winning Breakthrough Director and the Cox Audience Award. Director Gary King undauntedly tackled a non-studio musical with unknowns. A struggling lyricist/composer gets the opportunity to write for an Off-Broadway musical and is forced to aid in the casting of his long-time girlfriend or a “newly discovered muse”. Sounds like a certain TV show? Whatever similarities are present are merely coincidental and can be looked as a plus for this small independent film. Christina Rose turns in a sweet and memorable performance and nearly outshines the rest of the cast. King’s use of split-screen during choreographed scenes is tight and effective, proving that he does have the ability to bring a dramatic flair to the big screen.

    Director, Kenny Riches demonstrates a wonderful sense of humor and pathos with “Must Come Down”. Two very quirky individuals briefly find each other while trying to get through their early twenties crisis. Riches has found the perfect cast to convey the off-beat people that are marching to their own drum while sometimes banging it a little too loud around normal people, bringing a smile and laugh to all of us. Everything about this film echoes independent and cult, and it is a refreshing journey after so many studio driven rom-coms that we have all been subjected to.

    Annie Howell’s, “Small Beautifully Moving Parts” is also a classic independent that moves us in every way. A tech-geek discovers she is pregnant and goes head first into discovering who she is and the estranged mother that lives “off the grid”. Anne Margaret Holleyman opens our eyes and breaks our hearts with a personable and sensitive performance. Her journey proves to be both funny and poignant. Howell provides a unique look into this woman’s life and delivers pleasant little surprises with every turn.

    “Searching for Sonny” had the audience howling in laughter. A group of high school friends reunite when their friend goes missing and discover the eerie coincidences between his disappearance and the high school play he had written. Andrew Disney (no relation to the House of Mouse) giddily delivers the kookiness of guys who refuse to grow up while providing a tongue-in-cheek Raymond Chandler style mystery that becomes sillier than expected. Disney gives us a winning cast with many recognizable faces from TV and the Web. Together they give us a delightful comedy that received Best Ensemble Cast and Best Screenwriting.

    mv5bnde5mzgymdazn15bml5banbnxkftztcwmtg3mtq2nw_v1_sy317_Best Documentary was whisked away by “We Run Sh*t”. Directors, Michael Rogers and Scott Storm (star of last year’s “Official Rejection”) bring us an insane tale of five veteran event producers who plan a five day rave party in Miami only to have everything and anything go very, very wrong. Sex, drugs and music pervades a lurid tale of corruption in the club scene while platinum selling artists and spoiled celebrities are the nasty spice that no one in their right mind needs when their life is being threatened. Michael Rogers was the videographer throughout the event and the man is to be commended. He practically gave his life for this document of decadence. Scott Storm managed to not only piece it together and make sense of it, but he also provided the witty animation where no cameras were allowed to go.

    The event producers all have distinct personalities that have us captivated throughout the whole ordeal with James DiFiore as the stand out. We go through his pain, but also laugh at it as well with his highly animated gestures and expressions. He appears to be the leader or tries to be, but he is holding court with a group of man/boys who appear to have not reached his seasoned level. I could be wrong on that one and every viewer will have another take on it, but that’s what makes this film more than just a documentary. It captures the hook that reality TV uses to entice its audience, keeping us watching with bated breath as to what will happen next. Michael Rogers and Scott Storm deliver a documentary on the seedy side of club life and it has the capability of being a huge hit with its particular audience and anyone else who is open-minded for a tawdry tale of madness and mayhem.

    mv5bmje3odkwnzc4nf5bml5banbnxkftztcwmtq2ntu3ng_v1_sy317_cr50214317_The winner of Best Picture was a surprise to me, at first. I had seen the trailer of “Shuffle” several times and was not impressed, but upon my first viewing, like many others, I was wowed and reduced to tears. Director Kurt Kuenne gives us the best movie regarding time jumping since George Roy Hill’s interpretation of Kurt Vonnegut Jr’s, “Slaughterhouse-Five”. Kuenne, cast and crew give us a film that touches our heart and soul and makes us better for it while having us reflect on our own lives. Lovell Milo’s life is shuffling away. He keeps falling asleep and waking up at different ages; 28, 30, 8, 92 and so on. Lovell attempts to get a handle on what is going on and to what purpose. The mystery is suspenseful, funny and endearing with T.J. Thyne giving a very honest and empathetic performance, Paula Rhodes making us so very easily fall in love with her as Grace and the two children Dylan Sprayberry and Elle Labadie who play their young counter parts deliver the joys of youth in spades.

    There is not one false note in this film. Some may compare it to an episode of “The Twilight Zone” or “It’s a Wonderful Life” and those are not bad comparisons, but it does a disservice to the original voice of all involved. From its beautiful black and white photography to its subtle special effects Kuenne’s film captures our imagination in the very first scene and never lets it go. “Shuffle” is a testament to the human heart and spirit, and can be enjoyed by all.

    Hopefully, next week I can give you Part Deux of the PFF and Int’l Horror and Sci-Fi Film Festival. A chilling southern gothic tale with Scooter Downey’s, “It’s in the Blood” starring Lance Henrikson will be reviewed. Also, I can give you some insight into some fantastic shorts from documentary, live action and horror. As a special mention, check out one of the past Phoenix Film Festival favorites on DVD next week. David Dilley’s complex crime drama, “Suspicion” (full review – http://asitecalledfred.com/2011/04/15/trailer-park-phoenix-2/) has an April 17th release date and now is the chance to pump that down and dirty soundtrack as loud as you want.

    THE INNKEEPERS – Blu-ray Review

    the-innkeepers-blurayWatch this, buy this. Support horror comedy done right. There is something so fun about a movie that knows what it wants to be and embraces it fully.

    Back when I talked to the movie’s director, Ti West, the movie was really gaining steam within a community of fans who appreciated Ti’s previous work, HOUSE OF THE DEVIL, and heard his call to see the movie in a theater and to make a genuine effort to support a well made genre movie. Watching it for the second time you can see how right West was when he urged people to see a movie that would be worth their time. No blowhard-y false modesty, this was a movie that was able to build suspense and deliver on the thrill that movies have somehow lost in an age when splatterfests are taking all the fun out of building up to something great.

    There would be a danger in getting to that boiling point, as we are wrapped up in a mystery surrounding an old hotel and its haunted past, if it didn’t deliver, everything hinges on it, but it does. It pays off in a way that has easily landed this movie in my top 10 of the year for sheer craftsmanship. For those wanting a scream a minute thrill ride, you would be better served elsewhere because what this minimalist production does is upend your expectation of what a horror movie should be and rewards you with something that satisfies completely.

    About the Blu-ray/DVD:

    An New England inn about to close for good is the classically creepy setting for THE INNKEEPERS, the acclaimed new film from Ti West, the young filmmaker whose critically praised House of the Devil gave the genre a jolt. Starring Sara Paxton, Pat Healy and Kelly McGillis, THE INNKEEPERS comes to Blu-ray and DVD from Dark Sky Films and MPI Media Group on April 24, 2012.

    After over one hundred years of service, The Yankee Pedlar Inn in Connecticut is shutting its doors for good. The last remaining employees Claire (Sara Paxton, Shark Night 3-D, The Last House on the Left) and Luke (Pat Healy, Dirty Girl) are determined to uncover proof of what many believe to be one of New England’s most haunted hotels. As the inn’s final days draw near, odd guests start to check in and the pair of minimum wage “ghost hunters” begin to experience strange and alarming events that may ultimately cause them to be mere footnotes in the hotel’s long mysterious history.

    Writer-director Ti West has revealed a unique style that pays tribute to classic horror of the 1970s and 80s with the bold spirit of the new American independent cinema. THE INKEEPERS, which co-stars Kelly McGillis (Top Gun, Stake Land), was an award-winning hit on the film festival circuit and opened to rave critical reviews last week in theaters nationwide. The way he works his magic is through a technique that some fans have called the slow burn: long takes and deliberately paced scenes, in which the camera follows characters down hallways, through the woods or into empty rooms says The New York Times “Featuring great fun, scares and characters, it’s a film that has the wonderful ability to both make you laugh and scream without ever becoming a parody of itself.” says CinemaBlend. Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times wrote, Ti West knows how to build suspense.

    THE INNKEEPERS, which blends the classic ghost story style with a solid modern twist is an original Dark Sky Films in partnership with Glass Eye Pix. The extras on the Blu-ray and DVD will include:

    The Innkeepers: Behind the Scenes

    Commentary with Writer/Director/Editor Ti West, Producers Peter Phok & Larry Fessenden, and 2nd Unit Director/Sound Designer Graham Reznick

    Commentary with Writer/Director/Editor Ti West and Stars Sara Paxton & Pat Healy

    Trailer

    SHAME – Blu-ray Review

    51up9or0hol_sl500_aa300_This is a movie not for the timid.

    After I watched it a second time, I began to feel more sympathetic towards Brandon (Michael Fassbender) and his grinding addiction that simply is eating at his life one empty conquest at a time. It’s not so much the trigger of his sister coming to stay with him and, thus, disrupting his voracious appetite for sexual activity that needs constant fuel but it’s the film’s examination of addiction that is really satisfying from a narrative standpoint.

    The entire movie is meant to keep you uncomfortable and it succeeds in trying to emotionally telegraph what it would be like to be caught in an echo chamber of impulse and self-satisfaction. While his nameless job and nameless company would be somehow disconcerting if we thought that it had some reflection on the movie’s direction, it’s just emblematic in a film where names are not important. Fassbender does an exceptional job in depicting the life of a man who is too far gone to save, who operates on a compulsive schedule that, and while it certainly won’t be a movie you will be excited to re-watch again and again there is some satisfaction to be had in watching this man unravel and succumb to the demons that need release.

    About the Blu-ray/DVD:

    From visionary director Steve McQueen, one of the most talked about films of 2011 comes home to stunning Blu-ray from Fox Searchlight and Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment. A film festival powerhouse, SHAME has captivated viewers through its haunting depiction of the life of a sex addict and his emotionally troubled sister. Evocative performances from Golden Globe® nominee Michael Fassbender and Academy Award® nominee Carrie Mulligan make SHAME the must-have release of the year. Get your hands on SHAME on Blu-ray Combo Pack April 17 and see the movie everyone is talking about in the privacy of your own home. Available for pre-order now on Amazon.

    Brandon (Michael Fassbender) is a New Yorker who shuns intimacy with women but feeds his desires with a compulsive addiction to sex. When his wayward younger sister (Carey Mulligan) moves into his apartment and stirs up memories of their shared painful past, Brandon’s insular life spirals out of control.

    The SHAME Blu-ray Combo Pack presentation features a premium high definition Blu-ray loaded with special features, a DVD version of the film and Digital Copy. Get a behind-the-scenes look at McQueen’s groundbreaking vision with exclusive extras and featurettes. Pre-book date is March 21.

    SHAME Blu-ray Combo Pack Features:

    ●Focus on Michael Fassbender

    ●Director Steve McQueen

    ●The Story of Shame

    ●A Shared Vision

    ●Fox Movie Channel Presents: In Character With Michael Fassbender

    ●Theatrical Trailer

  • Comics in Context: Cabin (in the Woods) Fever

    comicsincontext4.jpg

    CABIN (IN THE WOODS) FEVER

    Here we are again, at long last. For those who came in late, as they say in The Phantom, I’m Peter Sanderson, and I’ve been writing about comics since I was a contributor to Silver Age DC Comics editor Julius Schwartz’s letter columns in the 1960s. After doing graduate studies at Columbia University, I planned to become a teacher, but got diverted into the comics business, where I researched and helped write the original DC Who’s Who and Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe. Since then I became Marvel’s first archivist, taught about comics at New York University, helped curate exhibits at the Museum of Comic and Cartoon Art in New York, worked on documentaries about comics, and write and co-wrote a lot of books about comics. There’s even a new one that is just coming out now. Years ago I reviewed the first edition of The Superhero Book, an encyclopedia of superheroes in comics, movies and television, edited by Gina Misiroglu. Years later, Gina invited me to help her revise and update the second edition, and I ended up writing lots of new entries and updating nearly all the rest. You can find the new edition on Amazon here: The Superhero Book.

    In 2003 I started writing a weekly online column “Comics in Context” for my friend and editor Ken Plume, originally at IGN. I followed Ken to Kevin Smith’s Quick Stop Entertainment and then to Ken’s own A Site Called FRED and ended up writing two hundred and forty installments on comics, animation, movies based on comics, and anything else that I thought might relate to these subjects. Eventually, though, I suspended the column, due to various upheavals in my life, including my father’s final few years, the necessity of moving twice, and the Great Recession. I’m still dealing with the problems caused by the last, and, as you will see, looking for a job. But friends have persuaded me that I should start up the column again to increase my visibility and show people examples of my writing. So here I am, and writing the column again feels good. I already have a batch of subjects I want to write about, and I hope you stick around for the ride. And please spread the word!

    WHAT THE OUTSIDE WORLD (STILL) THINKS

    Those of you who read my first “Comics in Context” column a decade ago may recall that one of my motives for starting this column was anger. The current wave of movies based on comics, especially superhero comics, began in with the first X-Men movie, and I was appalled by the incomprehension and condescension with which some movie reviewers greeted them. Besides its alliterative catchiness, that was the reason I named the column “Comics in Context”: to criticize comics and related works in the media from an informed perspective, based on my years of studying the comics artform, the superhero genre, and other fields.

    Lately, in need of paying work, I’ve joined two local support groups for job seekers. At the first meeting of the night group, each of us was asked to tell the group about his or her career. So I spoke about being a comics historian, writing books on the subject, teaching about comics at New York University, curating museum exhibitions on comics, writing reviews of graphic novels for Publishers Weekly, and so forth. The rest of the group was silent, and I got the impression that the founder of the group commented that comics had entertained him in the past. But I got the sense that no one really knew anything about my chosen field. After the meeting ended, my spirits were brightened a little when one of the other participants came up to me and said he had been a big Marvel fan when he was growing up. But he hasn’t come to any of the subsequent meetings.

    At one of these later meetings, with only a small number of people present, we were all asked to do our “elevator pitch” about what we do and what kind of job we’re looking for. I again talked about being a writer about comics and graphic novels. Again most people said nothing, but one of them asked, “What’s a graphic novel? We know what comics are.” I explained, and talked about how over the last few decades comics and graphic novels had received serious attention in mainstream publications like The New York Times and in academia and in libraries (including the one where we were meeting). The man who didn’t know what a graphic novel was said, somewhat disbelievingly, that I was talking in “general” terms and wanted a specific example. So I talked about Art Spiegelman’s Maus, his graphic novel about the Holocaust, and how it had come out over a quarter century ago, had won the Pulitzer Prize, and was widely taught in schools. This came as news to everyone there. “How do you spell that?” the man asked about the title. (There was a copy in that same library!)

    I was finding it hard to keep my temper, and apologized. It was dismaying. It seemed that nobody there had heard of the graphic novel revolution or really understood or appreciated what I did. I mentioned this on Facebook, and one of my Facebook friends asked, in effect, what did you expect?

    I had naively expected more. For a dozen years there has been a wave of movies based on comic books and graphic novels, including blockbusters like Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies and Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy. But there have also been successful films based on indie comics, like American Splendor. Newspapers including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and USA Today regularly cover news in the comics industry, so frequently that it has ceased to be surprising. San Diego’s annual Comic Con has become an event covered by mass media throughout the country. The Sunday before this meeting The New York Times had run an article on the front page of its Sunday Arts & Leisure section about a museum retrospective of alternative cartoonist Daniel Clowes’ work; the Times subsequently ran an article about a retrospective of Robert Crumb’s career in Paris. Just last Sunday, as I write this, the Times did a long article about office politics at Archie Comics in its business section, and two pages of graphic novel reviews by Douglas Wolk in its Sunday Book Review. Only a few weekends before I attended “Comic New York,” a two-day academic symposium on comics at my alma mater Columbia University, marking the donation of longtime X-Men writer Chris Claremont’s archives (including my old fan letters to X-Men!) to the Columbia University library. There are graphic novel sections in public libraries now, as well as major bookstores. And how can anyone in America or various other countries avoid seeing the trailers and commercials and magazine covers for this summer’s movies, Joss Whedon’s The Avengers and Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises? When I was a student at Columbia, decades ago, that all of these things would happen seemed impossible and unimaginable. Indeed, even when I wrote my first “Comics in Context,” I would not have thought that comics would have this much impact on American culture only a decade hence.

    And yet, in other ways, it seems as if nothing has changed at all, and as if I’m back at Columbia in my student days, trying unsuccessfully to persuade people (even some in the comics industry!) that, yes, comics is an artform and that superhero stories can be taken seriously. As astoundingly successful as various comics-based movies are commercially, and as enormous as the major comics conventions have grown, in other ways comics seem to be in a bad state. So many of my contemporaries have left the business. When comics were below the mainstream cultural radar, I got more paying work consistently than I do now.

    Much of my dilemma is in trying to continue a career writing about comics history, and more importantly, doing comics criticism. Oh, yes, now there are academic conferences on comics, but my impression is that academics may get to include graphic novels in a course that is mainly about non-comics works, or may even be able to teach a course on comics, but that the latter are still rarities. Back when I was a graduate student, Columbia would never have let me do a dissertation on comics; I’d love to do one now, but have yet to find a way back into academia to do it.

    I’ve proposed teaching courses on literary criticism of comics, or on the superhero genre, or on the bodies of work by major comics creators. But I’ve been told that people will not pay money to take such a course. There are plenty of courses about comics, but they’re mostly about how to write or draw comics. I keep seeking to write books about critically interpreting comics, but one editor has told me that no one wants to read books like this. Some academic presses may publish such books, but my former literary agents didn’t want me to deal with them. And, of course, it’s more likely to be alternative cartoonists who receive serious attention than comics writers and artists who work on genre material.

    I am amazed by all of this. I earned three degrees in English literature at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, concentrating on the drama of Shakespeare’s time and the 20th century. None if my courses were about how to write plays or novels; if I wanted to do that, I would have gone to Columbia’s School of the Arts. No, these were courses in critically analyzing great works of literature, the sort of courses you will find in English departments at any college or university.

    Similarly, I like to think that comics studies will pursue a route like film studies. In the early 1960s, I’m told, film courses at universities, when there were any, were only about how to make movies, more likely industrial training films that art films. This rapidly changed in the late 1960s. Now walk through the film section of a bookstore, and, yes, there will be some technical books about filmmaking, and certainly books on how to write screenplays. But the majority of the books will be studies of film genres, biographies of actors and directors, tomes on cinema history, guides to films on home video, and, of course, critical writings on the works of significant filmmakers.

    Another important factor in the development of American film criticism is that it had to learn to take genre films seriously. It was the French critics who wrote for Cahiers du Cinema in the 1950s, many of whom became filmmakers in France’s “New Wave,” who pioneered the serious analysis of Hollywood studio films. “Auteurist” critics like Andrew Sarris (one of my teachers at Columbia) and Peter Bogdanovich carried on this work in the United States in the 1960s. And now it is generally accepted that Hollywood entertainments like John Ford’s Westerns and Alfred Hitchcock’s thrillers can be art.

    I would like to think that comics studies will someday reach a similar point. But they haven’t yet. I’ve been working my whole life, from my letters to Silver Age letter columns – my first attempts at comics criticism – to the present, preparing for a kind of career that doesn’t seem to exist yet.

    Well, I can’t wait. I am returning to doing “Comics in Context,” whenever I can find time, because those of us who can do this sort of writing about comics should, to lay the foundation for the golden age of comics studies that I hope will someday come. I’ve done 240 “Comics in Context” columns in the past, all of which you can find on the Internet by Googling. I wish they had a wider audience, but someday perhaps they will. The age of social networking is much more advanced now than when I left off doing “Comics in Context”; maybe some of my new columns will go viral.

    THE CABINET OF DR. WHEDON

    As longtime “Comics in Context” readers know, I use my blog to cover not just comics but all forms of cartoon art, including animation, and also live action movies based on cartoon art. So you can expect over the coming weeks to see me do critiques of Joss Whedon’s The Avengers, Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Returns, the reboot of the Spider-Man movies in The Amazing Spider-Man and Pixar’s first heroine-centric film Brave. I’ll also cover museum exhibitions of cartoon art, and stage versions of comics properties: I expect to write down my memories of seeing the infamous Spider-Man musical sooner or later. Sometimes I will delve into subjects that don’t belong in a column on comics, strictly speaking, if I can find some excuse. I’ve dealt with the classic television series Dark Shadows in the past, with the excuse that it has served as source material for comic books and comic strips over the decades, and plan to review Tim Burton’s controversial forthcoming film version. And I will sometimes critique non-comics works by writers who are also known for their work in comics or animation. So Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and overseer and sometime writer of Dark Horse’s Buffy comics, has been a recurring past topic in “Comics in Context,” notably in my critique of the start of his run writing Marvel’s Astonishing X-Men comic.

    And that brings me to this week’s topic. As a prelude to writing about Whedon’s Avengers movie, I want to examine his other film that recently came out: the metafictional horror film The Cabin in the Woods, directed by Whedon’s longtime collaborator Drew Goddard, produced by Whedon, and co-written by both of them.

    Publicity for the movie and many reviewers have cautioned that they dare not reveal any of the plot, apart from the basic premise of teenagers going to stay in a cabin in the woods where Bad Things happen, lest they give away the many plot twists and surprises. As a result I ended up somewhat disappointed, since there were fewer twists and surprises than this secrecy had led me to expect. There is one big casting surprise towards the end though, that I never saw coming and really liked.

    But longtime “Comics in Context” readers know that I can’t do a thorough analysis of a story unless I deal with the whole plot. So consider this your spoiler warning, and let us proceed.

    The first big revelation, which some reviewers have given away, is that the five hapless teenagers are being watched and manipulated by some mysterious high-tech organization, whose principal figures are played by actors Bradley Whitford and Richard Jenkins. There are echoes here of past Whedon projects, such as the Initiative in Buffy, the secret government operation – located beneath a university full of teens instead of a cabin hideaway for only five teens – that held monsters captive, who eventually escape and wreak bloody havoc. Then there’s the Dollhouse, in the TV series of the same name, a secret corporate organization that manipulates young people as if they were slaves. The high-tech organization in Cabin even includes actress Amy Acker in a lab coat, visually echoing her roles in Whedon’s Angel and Dollhouse.

    Who is running this high-tech organization that seems to be experimenting on these victimized teens without their knowledge? If that question was answered in the film, I missed it. Was it the Big Bad Government or the Big Bad Corporation, both of which seem like cliches, albeit effective ones. As a Boomer who recalls the 1960s, I used to think of the Big Bad Government Agency as a bogeyman for the anti-establishment left wing. Chris Carter’s The X-Files did a great deal with the Big Bad Government Conspiracy, headed by the Cigarette-Smoking Man; heroes Mulder and Scully and their boss and ally Skinner seemed to be among the very few truly trustworthy people in the federal government in this series. The limitations of government intelligence and power became clearer in the post-9/11 period. I think it is now harder to imagine an X-Files-style all-powerful government conspiracy that succeeds in remaining secret from the public. The government isn’t that omnicompetent, and the bigger the supposed conspiracy, the more likely people are to talk. In watching 24 I began to think that the Big Bad Government might really nowadays be a bogeyman for the right wing, and maybe, in retrospect, The X-Files had played on such fears from the right. So nowadays we have a left wing that wants to expand the services of government, like through universal health care, and a right wing that insists on shrinking government and that government cannot operate as well as an less regulated free market. In the first X-Files movie we were told that FEMA was the means by which the Big Bad Government would take control of the country; this was before FEMA so famously blundered during Hurricane Katrina. Now in real life there are Republicans who claim that Obamacare is an attack on freedom.

    Since it’s hard for me to imagine a corporation tormenting Cabin‘s teen protagonists without any obvious financial benefit, then I presume that it’s the government running the Cabin experiment; indeed, we are shown that other countries, notably Japan, have their own versions. So I find the Big Bad Secret Government Project something of a cliché, although arguably Whedon and Goddard are counting on its very familiarity. Cabin is a movie that deals with archetypes and tropes of horror fiction, so why not include tropes from other forms of genre fiction as well, like the scientists who manipulate and victimize unwilling subjects as if they were lab rats?

    What Whedon and Goddard have created in Cabin is a work of metafiction, in other words, a work of fiction about the creation of fiction. The five teen protagonists, isolated in a creepy house in the wilderness, beset by threats to their lives, are archetypal figures in an archetypal situation common to a large subgenre of contemporary horror films. Whedon and Goddard appear to be very much aware that they are bringing a different perspective to what have become contemporary horror film archetypes.

    Hence, Whedon said in a recent interview for Salon: “‘Cabin in the Woods is, for me, a way of making the kind of movie that I love and at the same time making another kind of movie that I love. It’s a way of taking the cabin and – not blowing it up, but kind of exploding it. Not just enjoying it, but turning it over in your hand over and over and looking at it. I know that’s not a great sell, but that’s really what it is to me. If you take the premise, and then you take the idea that the premise is a premise – without losing the audience, without winking at them – how much can you do? How far can you take it?”

    So the movie treats the “premise” as “a premise”: the scientists are creating a narrative, using their teen victims as their cast. The scientists put them into this horror movie scenario, watch how they react, and subject them to terrors that cause the teens to suffer and die. And it is indicated that the scientists do this over and over to different sets of young victims, thus staging this narrative, this drama, on a recurring basis.

    The scientists, therefore, can be interpreted as stand-ins for the creators of horror films, who devise these fantasies in which young victims are subjected to suffering and death for the entertainment of the horror film audience. Take the analogy further, and the Whitford and Jenkins characters become stand-ins for Whedon and Goddard themselves, at least in part. In the Salon interview Whedon admits this: “Besides being lovely guys and great actors, Bradley and Richard represent a completely different kind of identification. We are them – and not just me and Drew, although specifically me and Drew – but they are the people who have chosen for what happens to happen.”

    Moreover, the Whitford and Jenkins characters are not only the creators of the horrific story, but also its audience. They and the other members of their team watch what happens to the teens on large viewing screens, as if they were watching a horror movie in a theater or on television. One of the things that most struck me about the Whitford and Jenkins characters was how jaded and even bored they often look, watching these screens. They have apparently watched these horror scenarios they devise so many times that they are inured to the horror, and even the sexuality that they observe. Whitford’s character, for example, waits, seemingly bored, for one of the girls to perform that standard trope of such films, going topless, is disappointed when she doesn’t, and seems mildly relieved when she finally does but more as if he’s checking off a list than being actually aroused by the sight.

    Portraying Whitford and Jenkins’ characters as audience implicates the film’s actual audience in their willingness to torment innocents for its supposed entertainment value. Whedon points this out to Salon as well: “And you, as the viewer, are the person who chooses that, if you have gone to see this movie. The act of walking into the movie makes you the one to see these people suffer. It does not happen if you do not watch.” The interviewer then compares the situation to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Agreeing, Whedon notes that “If you don’t go to the movie, maybe those kids have a really nice weekend.”

    The real target of Cabin, it seems to me, is lack of empathy towards other people. Specifically, it is the lack of empathy by those in power towards those who are out of power, by establishment insiders towards outsiders, by the old towards the young. The scientists have no sympathy for their teenage victims, and no sense of identification with them; they make the kids suffer for the minimal entertainment it provides to their jaded psyches. They even take bets on the outcome. As far as they are concerned, the five teens are the Other, who exist merely to be destroyed in a demonstration of their power to manipulate events.

    This too is an archetypal situation: human history is full of examples of one group in power tormenting a powerless group who serve as unwilling scapegoats. Take, for example, the Romans in the Colosseum taking enjoyment in seeing Christians thrown to the lions. Moreover, it strikes me that this theme of lack of empathy is particularly appropriate to the present day, with politicians campaigning to shred the social safety net, reduce the availability of medical care to the less prosperous, cut Social Security and Medicare for the elderly. Remember in one of the Republican presidential candidates’ debates when people cheered at the idea of letting someone without medical insurance die?

    In Cabin Whedon and Goddard are questioning the motivations of horror film makers, and their audience, including themselves in both categories. Why do you take pleasure in seeing these young people suffer? Why do you enjoy seeing people killed off one by one?

    Perhaps Whedon and Goddard point to a possible answer through the third act’s big twist. It turns out that the scientists are not just staging these horrific scenarios for their own perverse pleasure. Each of the five teens is revealed to be a representative of an archetypal figure: the Athlete, the Whore, Student, the Virgin, ad the Fool. Metafictionally speaking, these are character types in this horror subgenre. Moreover, the scientists’ repeated scenario of having menaces of different sorts attack and kill an isolated group of teenagers is revealed to be a ritual, that has presumably been enacted for millennia. Here Whedon and Goddard are indicating that they are not just dealing with the conventions of a certain type of horror film; they are showing that these conventions are actually modern versions of a mythic pattern involving similarly mythic archetypes. Thus this “cabin-in-the-woods” horror subgenre is a contemporary version of a mythic ritual of human sacrifice, in which the innocent young perish at the hands of dark forces.

    According to Cabin, this ritual is conducted over and over in order to appease ancient H. P. Lovecraftian gods so they will refrain from destroying all of humanity. Does this have any figurative meaning with regard to Whedon and Goddard’s metafictional exploration of horror films? In this case I couldn’t find any clues in Whedon’s recent interviews. Perhaps, though, Whedon and Goddard are suggesting that horror films are the filmmakers’ and audience’s way of dealing with greater terrors than those the films evoke, such as the inevitability of mortality. We cope with our awareness and fears of death by watching inflicted on other people who are Not Us, while we remain safe, like Whitford and Jenkins’ characters watching on their screens.

    At the end of Cabin, the two surviving protagonists decide to allow the Lovecraftian gods to exterminate humanity rather than keep playing the scientists’ game. Can the deaths of billions, the genocide of the human race, really be the preferable solution? The end of the film seems not a victory or restoration of order, but an expression of exhaustion: let the world die, give in to darkness.

    As such, Cabin seems to me to be the most extreme step yet in the continuing darkening of Whedon’s work, ever since the latter seasons of Buffy. Whedon first won his devoted audience through the early seasons of Buffy, which succeeded in combining intense, operatic drama and genuine darkness with a compensating humor and optimism; Buffy was a tormented teen, doomed to be unhappy in love, and yet she was embarked on a heroine’s journey of empowerment, providing a source of hope. The Whedonverse has steadily grown darker and even more despairing at times. I followed Dollhouse but never truly found it appealing; Whedon’s trademark wit was absent or misfired, and the plight of the heroine, unaware of her true identity, manipulated as a slave and prostitute by her masters, seemed dismayingly unpleasant to watch, far removed from the heroism of past Whedon characters. In Cabin even though two protagonists defy the ritual and survive, hope and heroism are absent. (Anyway, the those two protagonists will only survive until the Lovecraftian monsters get around to killing them. too.)

    I wonder if Whedon and Goddard’s revisionist take on horror films even loses its way in Cabin‘s third act. The movie ends with chaos, with monsters loosed from their cages, slaughtering everyone , including all but two of the principals. Blood is literally everywhere. If the filmmakers are questioning why the audience should enjoy watching people suffer and die, then why fill the end of the film with so much suffering and death? Whedon told Salon that he intends for the viewers to care about not only the teen protagonists but also even Whitford and Jenkins’ characters. But recall that he also noted that “Cabin in the Woods is, for me, a way of making the kind of movie that I love.” Maybe the love gets in the way of the critique at the end, since it ends in a universal bloodbath, and the film seems impassive towards the deaths of all the scientists. Just more bloody slaughter to entertain jaded moviegoers.

    Telling The New York Times about his next project, a web series called Wastelanders,-created with Warren Ellis, Whedon said “”It’s very dark and very grown-up,” he said. “But it’s the next thing that I want to say, so I can’t worry about “˜Well, where’s the empowerment narrative that people love?’ “. So the journey into darkness continues. But will this affect the Avengers film, which I would like to think will ultimately be a celebration of the superhero genre?

    Interestingly, Whedon told Salon about Cabin and Avengers, “There’s going to be the people trying to manipulate a situation and controlling it from above, and the people who are actually in the trenches. In that sense, Cabin in the Woods and The Avengers are oddly similar.” Later, he added, “I’m incredibly excited and proud of both of these movies and they have many similarities, but they really couldn’t be more different in so many ways It’s nice to be able to do that.” Well, after I get to see The Avengers movie, you may expect to see me compare and contrast it with Cabin here in “Comics in Context.”

    Thinking about Cabin‘s critique of horror filmmakers;’ motives, I wonder if the same approach can be applied to superhero comics. Take the common contemporary trope of continually killing off long-running, beloved characters, sometimes horrifically (consider Supergirl’s demise in Crisis on Infinite Earths, for an early example). Usually the character is eventually resurrected, although readers may have to wait decades for this, as with the Silver Age Flash. Death and resurrection, real or symbolic, are part of the mythic hero’s journey, but how triumphant are many of these resurrections in contemporary comics? Indeed, more and more, these killings and resurrections seem to be devised as cynical ploys to appeal to the jaded palates of fans who have seen too many supposedly shocking scenarios in latter-day comics. Surely no one at Marvel really intended the recent demise of Captain America, whose body was then show decaying on panel, to be permanent, and yet readers fell for it, and even after Cap’s return, readers fell for the seeming demise of the Human Torch in yet another cynical scenario that inevitably resulted in his return. Sometimes I have found myself wondering about the mindset that devises these storylines. When did the superhero soap operatics that Stan Lee pioneered turn into this cold manipulation of heroic icons, dragging them through death and degradation for the entertainment of a generation of readers of “grim and gritty” comics? Are these iconic superheroes inspiring figures, or merely puppets manipulated into increasingly dark and despairing narratives by an industry desperate to keep sales from falling any further?

    “Comics in Context” #241
    Copyright 2012 Peter Sanderson

    CLICK HERE FOR THE COMICS IN CONTEXT ARCHIVES

  • Opinion In A Haystack: CABIN IN THE WOODS & THREE STOOGES Reviews

    haystackheader.jpg

    THE CABIN IN THE WOODS ““ Review
    SPOILER FREE!!!

    cabin-in-the-woods-poster

    Walking out of the theater there was anger coursing through the circuitry that connects my brain to my face to my lips. This wasn’t normal anger, but a very complimentary one. “How did I not think of that?!?!” Cabin In The Woods, a monumentally entertaining romp with a concept so simple, so genius, it’s hell-bent to anger any determined screenwriters out there munching popcorn.

    Joss Whedon, the man, the myth, the soon-to-be legend, how does he do it? That’s what I wanted to know. All the empirical evidence that I have researched is telling me that exactly three to five inches from Joss’s left armpit resides a dark black hole the diameter of a 2-Liter RC Cola bottle. This hole leads to a place that only a few entertainers in history have ever felt the cool caress of on their talented fingertips. This place, this hole, is where a seemingly endless supply of creativity and knowledge of story and character based entertainment is derived. All of it floats freely, you just need to reach in and grab it. Need to create three shows that lead to pulp culture phenomenon? No prob! Just reach in Joss’s nipple abyss and you’ll be writing in no time flat. Stephen King also has a creativity hole, his is located just below his right thigh (the scarier one.)

    If it’s not abundant with clarity yet, I very much enjoyed Drew Goddard’s Cabin. Wait, strike that, reverse it”¦loved. Why? Well I don’t think I can fully answer such a question without spoiling the large meaty sandwich of awesome that this film is. Also I don’t mean to hold Joss high and downplay Goddard’s role here, as the direction, pacing, acting and production are all very effective. This is quite possibly the type of film that will define it’s own Horror/Comedy genre for a generation, much like Evil Dead 2, Ghostbusters, or Dead Alive. While it might be a bit MORE or LESS gore/scare filled than those I mentioned, the spirit and craftsmanship is there. The tone located in the center of Cabin, especially the last third, reminded me of a young Sam Raimi with a dash of Ivan Reitman for good measure.

    What in the heck is it about?”

    How should I put this? It’s a packed-tight meta-horror-comedy with a plot that bows its head to, arguably, history’s greatest horror writer. Cabin is most certainly a post modern take on the horror genre of the last 40 or so years, something we have seen more than a few times in the last decade. The difference here is, the execution is excellent. At no point is the movie “bad for bad’s sake” or pumped with cheese and camp in an attempt at homage. It manages to comment on its own genre using parody, but with no parody of then genre’s low points at all. Yeah, it’s hard to explain without spoilers, give me a break.

    The tagline for Cabin is:

    “You think you know the story. Think again.”

    This is really pointing to everything you get from the trailer, which I’m designating as non-spoiler territory. Kids go to a cabin in the woods. Someone is controlling the horrors that befall them. It’s the “hows” and the “whys” that come into play here that make the film great. The cast is solid, especially with the likes of the now legendary character actors Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford leading the way. Their banter anchors the film in it’s comedy-horror roots and was easily my favorite aspect of the whole ordeal.

    This film was supposedly shelved for two years, why I can’t imagine, but since it was filmed some of its principal cast have gone on to do bigger projects, most notably Chris “THOR” Hemsworth. They are all perfectly cast in roles that are themselves “meta” yet there is still personality brought through even in the homage. Fran Kranz being a particular stand out as the staple stoner “with a twist!” (M. Night’s favorite character?)

    You could say I have trepidations about speaking further on the flick. Discussing this film without spoilers is near impossible. If you are a horror fan, I have a hard time imagining you will regret the very overpriced ticket-sized void in your pocket when walking out of Cabin, and to Joss Whedon’s and Drew Goddard’s credit, neither will casual audience members looking for a good time at the theater.

    This is that rare breed of film, like say Hot Fuzz, that reflects on everything that came before but still maintains its own “Ghostbuster-Evil-Deadish” comedy-horror entity in the process. I can’t help but be excited about whatever Drew Goddard is directing next, and of course I’m prepared to be baffled when Whedon blows me away AGAIN this year with Avengers. Whedon, I’m trying to be a screenwriter too, so could I uh, well”¦let me reach into your nipple abyss”¦please?
    The Three Stooges ““ Trailer & Movie Review

    three_stooges_ver3

    Oh man. Where do I begin?

    No, I don’t say that AT ALL because it was, as the COMIC BOOK GUY would say, the “WORST MOVIE EVER.” No, I liked it a lot, damn near loved it, and so did the audience I saw it with. I ask “where do I begin?” because I’m tired. Drained, if you will. I am so utterly disgusted and tired of defending comedy, especially in this world of internet criticism. My brain is tied in a knot so complex that I couldn’t induce a seizure even by fast-forwarding Japanese children’s programming.

    I’ve covered part of this territory before in my review for Macgruber, but I’m not satisfied with my explanation given there. How do I condense what could easily amount to an 800 page dissertation on the misguided modern day view of how comedy and levity in film is viewed by the public, the web, and critics in general? I don’t, I can’t, I won’t”¦I have to keep this smaller. This review is not going to be about the defense of comedy in all its forms, that is just too big and better left to a more eloquent writer to defend.

    The negative reaction to the first two Stooges trailers was one of the more hateful waves of venom I’ve ever seen spewed on the internet. I just don’t understand why. First, if you are not a fan of the original Three Stooges shorts, stop reading right now. For this particular film, I don’t care about a “non-fan’s” opinion, your stance is moot to me, and honestly you are most likely (but possibly not) part of the group that need to read that 800 page dissertation about comedy. I’m not saying it’s wrong that you aren’t a fan of the source material, nor am I trying to force it on you, just saying that what follows is not for you in the least. Thanks for trying to read this review, but please stop. Thank you and goodbye.

    Ok Stooge Fans, now that they are gone please help me to understand WHY you hated those first two trailers so, so, so much. My first question is this:

    “Can you get over the fact that it exists, and that people who aren’t the original stooges are playing the stooges?” AND If I tell you that the directors, The Farrelly Brothers, have considered this a dream project and have been trying to get this movie made for almost 10 years, and it is not just a quick Hollywood cash-in, but a beloved and carefully constructed love letter to their comedy heroes does that help sway your answer at all?

    If your answer is “no” then I will have to ask you to please also stop reading. If you can’t except the above then you can’t accept the movie. I respect your decision, now go on and enjoy the rest of your day.

    We are losing people quicker than Spinal Tap drummers. Alright, so you love the original Stooges, you can accept new actors playing them, and you are aware that the movie isn’t a Hollywood cash-in board-room decision without any passion behind it. Good. NOW. Here are the only feasible reasons I could see you going into this with a negative perspective based on the trailers:

    1) It’s not black and white.

    2) It’s takes place in modern day instead of when the originals took place.

    3) Modern day references that will become dated and seem like a cheap gag and degrade the “timelessness” of the project as a whole. (ala The Jersey Shore cameo.)
    I’ll address these one by one, and I am going to act as though I, assumedly like you, have only seen the trailers.

    “Why can’t it be in black and white?” – Regardless of The Artist winning best picture, do you honestly think any studio is going to fund a black and white summer comedy? There’s a reason it took 10 years to get this made, and why any movie has troubles getting made”¦MONEY. Believe it or not, they don’t make these decisions based on how awesome you personally think it would be.

    “Why can’t it take place sometime before the 1940s, why do they always have to bring them into the modern world?” ““ Money. Money. Money. Once again, I’m sure the Farrellys would have loved the option to make a black and white 1930s period Stooge flick, but NO ONE is going to fund that. It’s either this or nothing, you might prefer nothing but THIS exists. Deal.

    The Jersey Shore? COME ON!!!” ““ I agree with you here, upon seeing the first trailer I could have done without this, but once again: MONEY. Jersey Shore and iPhone jokes are going to bring in the kiddies, sad but true.

    Now, everything I just blathered about is pure common sense, things you already know and are more than capable of figuring out, so what else is left for you to instantly hate on this movie? I’m a lifelong Three Stooges fan, born and raised at the Nyuk Nyuk University of comedy and I’m also a pretty harsh critic when it comes to things I so dearly love. With the exception of the three obvious complaints I made above all I could see was completely, nigh perfect, impressions of the three great ones themselves. Will Sasso, Sean Hayes, and Chris Diamantopoulos are giving their all at every turn and succeeding.

    three-stooges-movie-photojpg-f7ffb266ce60bf70

    Not to mention the film itself looks to stay true in both plot and technical production to the originals. As stooge fans you should be aware that the Three Stooges were never high art, or shot and filmed by Federico Fellini”¦they were broad comedy shorts produced for a broad audience back in their day. So I guess my question to all you venom squirters is”¦what exactly is your argument for all the hate? It looks 100% accurate sans the obvious changes made due to money and of course the deceased original stooges. Why is this the end of the western civilization as we know it? Why is it somehow MORE AWFUL and MORE OFFENSIVE than the original stooge shorts? Are you absolutely positive that you are even a fan? Please, send all explanations to the comment section.

    **********Possible light spoilers ahead**********

    The film itself is actually a very accurate and a damn funny 90 minutes. The overall plot is split into 3 shorts that are loosely connected via a main storyline about saving the orphanage the stooges were raised in. A lot of care was taken to actually replicate the same type of physics, editing, side characters, and cinematography of the original shorts. Most things are shot wide and for the most part static to incorporate the three boys doing their stooge thing all in the frame at once, just like the originals.

    The physics are “stooge physics” applying to everyone, not just Larry, Moe and Curly themselves. There’s no blood, no reality, and absolutely no permanent effects of violence. An example of this is when Craig Bierko is in a full body cast with a stick of dynamite shoved in the head area, when it explodes, he floats off the bed, smoke shoots out the holes and he sticks his head out with black ash stains all over his face. This isn’t reality. The effect, like this one, was even filmed and executed in such a manner that with the exception of being IN COLOR it felt like it was filmed in 1940. Die hard fans with a keen eye will completely appreciate the filming, editing, physics and FX.

    The performances are amazing, not just because the three leads have the look and the voices down, but they are believable as a cohesive comedy trio. The story itself actually is a pretty cliché, on purpose no doubt, but it’s a sweet story with some heart. Larry David as the cantankerous Nun who is often screaming at everyone steals every scene he’s in just for the utter absurdity of”¦well”¦Larry David in a Nun costume screaming at kids.

    As for the Jersey Shore cameo, yeah I was dreading it like one does. Little did I expect it to be one of the funniest parts in the movie, it’s almost cathartic seeing Moe slap the tan off their skin for 5 minutes. Sure I would probably prefer it not to be in the flick, but I’d be telling a stone-cold lie if I said I wasn’t laughing.

    This whole write up has been way too long and rather on the defensive, which I fully admit. I’m also admitting that this movie isn’t for cynical post-modern internet trolls or Stooge Fans who can’t adjust. Sure, it is a valid point to wonder if this whole venture is disrespectful to the original actors and I agree that it totally could have been, and in fact it was a very high probability it was going to be. After seeing the flick, and especially seeing it with such a satisfied crowd of critics, I must say that I felt no disrespect, and in all honesty it’s a rather harmless, sweet movie that is faithful as all living hell. In this guy’s humble opinion I think the Farrelly Brothers accomplished what they set out to do. They made a pretty darn good Stooge flick, still that doesnt mean it will appeal to the “twitter” generation one bit (I guess that’s why the Jersey Shore is shoved in there.)

    Thanks for your eyeball time! Bob Rose signing off!

  • Trailer Park: JOHN CARTER Reviewed

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    Check out my other column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    JOHN CARTER – FILM REVIEW

    John Carter Soars By Ray Schillaci

    john_carter_72First off let’s have a reality check for all those haters that have not even seen this film. The great Edgar Rice Burroughs (of Tarzan fame) delivered the character of John Carter in his stories of Barsoom (Mars) in September of 1911 in a serialized form within a pulp magazine through July of 1912. In 1917 a hardcover novel was produced entitled, “A Princess of Mars” and subsequently 10 other novels were to follow for the next 45 years. The character of John Carter appeared in 8 out of the 11 novels. Burroughs stories have inspired films from Flash Gordon, Star Wars and all the way to Avatar and even Cowboys & Aliens.

    Add all this to the fact that many studio executives and filmmakers have tried to get a John Carter project off the ground and failed miserably. To quote one famous novelist who was at the screening, “For every dollar Disney spent, there are 10 people that want to see this fail.” Enter Pixar’s Andrew Stanton (director and writer of Wall-E, Finding Nemo and writer of Toy Story 2 & 3) determined to deliver the same whiz-bang feeling we experienced when we first saw the original “Star Wars”. Other than the minor glitch of having a slow start incorporating a back love story, “John Carter” proves to be a rousing spectacular, fun-filled adventure for all ages.

    Andrew Stanton has given us a wonderful story infused with good humor and an anti-hero that we want to cheer for. John Carter, a former famed Confederate officer from Virginia has been captured by the North just after he discovers a cave filled with gold. They try to recruit him for his abilities as a strategist and fighter, but Carter has no intention to fight anybody’s battles. Upon his escape, Carter heads back to the cave and is mysteriously transported to another world.

    john_carter-_billCarter’s introduction to the gravity of the new world is enjoyable and becomes increasingly fun as he realizes he is no longer on Earth when he encounters the unusual life forms. The exchange is very humorous and that is where director Andrew Stanton and his cast shine. It brings back the joys of watching Han Solo from “Star Wars”. The subtle tongue-in-cheek humor pervades and makes our journey all the more enjoyable. John Carter is once again urged to join another war, but he is more inclined to save himself until he meets up with the princess of Mars, Dejah Thoris. Lynn Collins is fetching as the princess, poised, classy and sassy all at the same time.

    As one would expect, Carter ends up helping the Martian tribe and the princess, but not without the intention of helping himself as well. He is a flawed hero and Taylor Kitsch makes him all the more interesting with his charismatic presence. Carter leads a fight against another tribe all fighting for the dying planet’s resources. The opposition is also aided by mysterious astral beings that appear to have control over time and space, which makes Carter’s fight all the more suspenseful.

    John Carter is a fantastic fantasy/science-fiction tale that captures both the spirit of its originator Edgar Rice Burroughs and the sweeping epic feel of David Lean (Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on the River Kwai). Some may compare it to a desert version of “Avatar,” but that would be doing this roaring adventure a disservice. The comparisons of so many past films will not be helped since this story was basically the impetus for so many others, right down to the flying vehicles.

    Everything about the film is top notch from the set design, special effects to the rousing score by Michael Giacchino. There is no question about viewing an IMAX presentation. John Carter is meant for the BIG screen. Whether or not there is a need to see it in 3D is debatable (at least for this critic). I still have my reservations about 3D. I felt that way about “Up” and “Hugo”. The only true depth perception that really captured the imagination was “Avatar” and even that, after awhile, was hard on the eyes with its running time.

    John Carter deserves to garner repeat business and it definitely warrants sequels. It is definitely far better than the last three Star Wars movies. I may even go as far as saying that it nearly exceeds “Return of the Jedi” since it is sans anything that is like a Ewok.

    Is it a film that everyone will love, probably not? Rom-com and pseudo intellectuals will scoff at the fun and that Saturday matinee feel, but this film was not made for them. John Carter’s audiences are thrill seekers searching for an escape to another time and place in order to leave their troubles outside the theater doors. So, grab your popcorn and soda and as the theater lights dim, be prepared for enough action and adventure for several summer openings, and it’s barely spring.

  • Opinion In A Haystack: JOHN CARTER Review

    haystackheader.jpg

    On the subject of Filmmakers, Filmmockers, Critics, and Cynics:

    Tucked and sucked deep within the underbelly of the no-dough-low-budget-micro independent realm of filmmaking for too long can turn a man (or woman, or hermaphrodite) into a bitter by-product that splits off into two essential steams of flowing hate-fire directed at very different targets.

    Group A, or as I like to call them, “Groupay” are the ones brimming with classic fits of jealous spite toward that town located on the west coast with that giant hill with words on it. They spell out HOLLYWOOD. Deep within his hill is of course the very dwelling in which Michael Bay sleeps in his money-bunker nightly, on top of a pile of gyrating women who have been genetically modified to smell like newly minted cash. Groupays have diamond-solidified opinions with serrated teeth attached to them, the kind meant to tear flesh off the bone with a single quip. They are busting their ass to make their flick, sweat, blood, tears, and some type of stupidity-passion-willpower mixture pour over every location, shot, and actor they thank almighty Odin for bestowing to the set on their day off work.

    If they make it to the final cut of their film still standing and with enough debt to be able to afford avoiding scurvy for a few months they have won, they are adept vikings, they sit atop the mighty throne and look down on the kingdom they stitched together with After Effects and lots of ADR. Those people, those Groupays, when they go to the cinema, shirts soaked in bile and hard work, pockets empty from the massive Pizza-Hut runs to feed cast and crew, they sit there and see a movie in which the catering bill for ONE DAY was more than the budget on their entire production. Of course they aren’t going to give them an inch. The slightest misstep in a $200 million tent-pole film is enough to write off the entire thing as a “pile of sucktastic suckicide with a side of suckitude.” Now it’s easy to assume that the reasoning behind this is, as indy filmmakers, they see a world where the talentless reign and the gifted fail and struggle, and while that might be the main catapulting force behind their searing contempt, one must consider the possibility that they are also, much like myself, natural born buttholes (but not surfers, indy filmmakers hate water and sunlight. We are the gizmos of humanity.)

    "...Actually Michael, that was you that said it. In fact, you screamed it."
    "…Actually Michael, that was you that said it. In fact, you screamed it."

    That brings us to Groopee, or as I like to confusingly call them, “Group B”, the rarer of the two species, the one with no country, the outcasts of a society that tolerated Outkast. This is a group that until around 3 years ago I was uninitiated of their existence and I’m still not quite sure that Group B is even a group, as I only know about 3 people that fall into this reject community. B, the group, consists of the same blokes with silver-screen colored fantasies as I spoke of above, with one major difference, a severe and intense sympathy for all their fellow filmmakers and crews (here comes the difference) INCLUDING Hollywood sized productions past and present. Unlike Larry Talbot, I’ve witnessed the change within me slowly occurring over years, luckily with much less deer slaughter. Being on the other side of production has made me re-examine the constant onslaught of criticism that seeps from the pores of GENERATION PWNED like needles on a gamma irradiated cactus. The venom coming from the net (where Sandra Bullock jokes have finally subsided,) as well as from those that are in, or yearn to be in, film production doesn’t speak to me any more. In fact, seeing behind the curtain has infected the very foundations of my feelings on criticism, art, and ultimately what exactly the word SUCKS truly means, vacuums and straws aside.

    thecritic

    It has been said before, will be said again, and is being said in about three or four words from now, you can’t respond to critics with “Well let’s see you make a better film.” You can’t look Roger Ebert in his face after he eviscerates your favorite Bruce Willis film and challenge him to make a better movie than Hudson Hawk. Why? WHY? Well…um…because while it makes perfect sense, you negate all criticism, OF ALL KINDS, in one simplistic statement. It’s a retort that all of us see on the web from time to time but it has to be largely ignored just because of its power to destroy the very institution of criticism. Having an opinion is a human right, voicing it a constitutional one, but being able to actually prove it? (no one is going to shell out the cash for Hudson Hawk: The REquel directed by Roger Ebert.)

    "I like HUDSON HAWK this much."
    "I like HUDSON HAWK this much."

    Now, this specifically is interesting to think about in the world of independent filmmakers. In my travels and adventures (all of which usually require less movement than chewing) I have many a spirited session of movie discussion with fellow filmmakers and have often wondered, as I listen to them claw the ass out of the likes of Underworld 9: Rim Job Restitution, if it’s ok to say “Well let’s see you make a better film.” Is it? Is this indy film world the exception? I really don’t have the answer. The first point that will be made is budget. “Give me $200 billiontrillion and I will make a better movie, until then, it’s sucks. FACT.” And yeah, that seems like a pretty great rebuttal, but…is it? Is anything being taken into consideration here besides the “art” of it? Yeah, I could give you a truckload of money, but could you bring in a better Transformers film than Michael Bay on time and under budget that is artistically superior but not alienating to the broad base audiences enough to cause it to lose returns? The average person, and I’d say the average indy filmmaker, couldn’t do such a thing right out of the gate, if at all. I couldn’t. Shouldn’t there be some respect at least toward the type of WAR GENERAL you need to be to get Transformers 3 made on time and underbudget and have it still be arguably coherent?

    “I’ve seen you on set man, I’ve seen your last film…the problem isn’t money and time, the problem is talent, and I suck worse than you, how do you think that makes me feel?”

    You probably think I am trying to make some grandiose point about how “everyone should shut their damn mouths cause everything is awesome and made of happiness and pink bunnies!” No. I’m not even sure I have a point, I’m trying to lay out all that has run through my head in the past 3 years or so that has contributed to my newfound bafflement at criticism. As all filmmakers know, no one sets out to make a bad movie, and every movie IS NOT suppose to be made or tailored to each individual audience member during every picosecond of its runtime. My thoughts also transferred to critics themselves and the “art” of criticism, sure you can’t tell them to make a better movie, but you can point out that since facts and/or the scientific method aren’t involved in this world that really what criticism is (get ready for a thunderous roar of “duh”) is a giant bullcrap weaving institution. I realized that my love of a film didn’t matter, I could easily “intellectually” bullcrap my way through a negative review of something I loved just as easily as something I loathed. Anyone worth their weight in wit, with the power to truly critically think about their ramblings knows that its not about GOOD or BAD, it’s about how a piece of “art” strikes you AND what amazing streaming barbs of bullcrap you will fire out of your head hole in order to defend what is essentially a gut reaction that you really can’t explain. Sure, there are people who will violently disagree with me here, they will say that there are rules, there are time tested patterns, there are dimensions and facets to all areas of art, specifically film for our purposes, and GOOD and BAD are real and definable and there’s no arguing that. Well…I’m arguing that. Why? Answer these two questions:

    1) (directed at all heterosexual males and homosexual females) Could you write a well thought out review of boobs? Yes…boobs.

    2) How do you account for enjoyment?

    “I don’t get the boobs thing.” Right, its sort of a weird point, one that I normally reserve for defensive discussion of equality in marriage. Let’s say you are a boob lover, not everyone is, but most people at least are casual fans. You know why you like them, you can research WHY you like them, science, psychology and/or biology and all that will explain to you WHY it is that you just seem to be hopelessly addicted to boobs: instinct. Plain. Simple. Now, biological reasoning aside, can you actually put into words why you personally love them beyond the deeply imbedded evolutionary instinct? (feel free to substitute boobs with feet, or lips, or Alf costumes, whatever floats your boat.) I can’t do it. I sit there and think and think and think and no matter how well spoken and thoughtful I try to explain my endearing love for them all I get is this:

    “They…uh…they are awesome for one, and uh…they are…well they are awesome cause they are, wait…did I say awesome? They are so awesome.”

    boobs_131967405869

    Really, what is instinct if not nature’s hardwired version of “gut reaction.” My love for The Big Lebowski can be explained with all sorts of examples of film theory, historical relevance, script originality, line delivery, story structure, but when it comes down to it THAT ISN’T WHY I LOVE WATCHING THAT MOVIE, THAT IS ME TRYING TO GIVE FACTUAL REASONS WHY I LOVE WATCHING THAT MOVIE. Is it not the same for you? Am I a weird guy? Do the films you most love to enjoy and absorb time and time again only get placement into your dvd player due to a list of “artistic quality criteria” that they meet or because you truly, unexplainably love it for reasons either personal to you, and only you, or beyond your own ability to define in words, such as your love of Alf costumes. All I’m saying is think about why you’ve watched Better Off Dead a hundred times since the 80s…is it because of its merit? or cause you enjoy it? If it’s the former how come a film buff like yourself isn’t constantly watching Schindler’s List, Das Boot, or Ghandi? If you are a champion of “Good Art” then why watch films that don’t seem to really fit into that scheme? How do you separate the merit of “merit” itself and pure enjoyment?

    The definition of "pure enjoyment."
    The definition of "pure enjoyment."

    That brings me to…

    “What do you mean? How do I account for enjoyment…what?” Why are we so bitter, why do we hate so hard on these things when they react improperly with our guts? I don’t know. SERIOUSLY I DON’T. Why does it anger us to know that some dude who loved Glitter is at his home right now watching that movie and having a grande ol’time? I’ve admittedly never seen Glitter, but if it’s anything like the substance I won’t be a fan, that stuff gets on everything. Sure, the movie most likely isn’t a shining example of the historical and time tested requirements of the nationally approved cinematic checklist…but that dude, that dude truly enjoys watching it, it brings him endless glee. You and me might not get it, the dude might not even get it, but the question is, is Mr. Dude wrong? I realize its only natural to want the entire planet to adopt our personal opinions as law but really, concerning art and entertainment, why?

    Once again, and I apologize for beating you over the head with it, but I DON’T KNOW. It has been a slow process but the notion that other people’s palpably real enjoyment of films I downright hate is completely valid. That dude isn’t faking his Glitter-mania because he is an agent of all that is hackneyed-evil-dreck in the world. He’s not out to destroy me and my opinions, which are righteous and true, fighting on the front-lines of quality and SUPERB TASTE! No. He legitimately enjoys it, and its not some war between good and bad or art and garbage…its essentially a war between opinions and delusions of grandeur, and history has shown that those are always battles that we can be proud of! (the sarcasm checker in Microsoft word froze my computer after that last sentence. I sooooooooooooo love when that happ{{}}{>><<<|||||||||||||||||——#######{program not responding.}#######

    Dudes love this movie.
    Dudes love this movie.

    with all that being said…my review of JOHN CARTER:

    john-carter-2012

    It didn’t suck too much.

    filmjohn-carter_jpg_627x325_crop_upscale_q85

    Dooders and Dooderettes, seriously thanks for reading… I promise I’ll be back soon with more “conventional” reviews.

    -Bob Rose

  • Trailer Park: THE OTHER F WORD, Schillaci’s Top 10 of 2011, and director David Dilley

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    Check out my other column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    THE OTHER F WORD – DVD REVIEW

    other-f-word-dvdDocumentaries like this just remind me how much older I’m getting every day.

    It used to be that the world was young and our musical heroes would stay in some kind of stasis for ad infinitum but as time rolled on some of these rock gods became dads. Such is the premise for a documentary that explores how anarchists had to conform, to some degree, to rules and Barbie dolls.

    Looking at the lives of guys like Flea from Red Hot Chili Peppers, Fat Mike from NOFX and how they’ve had to capitulate, to some degree, to societal norms you realize that no one is immune to the pull of wanting more for those you bring into the world. While we see that none of them have lost the ethos of what made their music compelling, it’s bizarre to see a softer side to these tough men.

    The film is really a portrait of an artist as a working father. The pulls of life at home and life of the road is wonderfully captured, albeit at the expense of the mothers who are noticeably absent from a story that really could have benefited from the perspective of the ladies who keep things going once these working dads go off to earn a paycheck. And that’s really the pull once you get past that these men reproduced. Some of them are in the twilight of their careers while their kids still need shoes, still need food, still need money coming through the door.

    In some ways, the movie is an ode to fatherhood from unlikely dads. It’s worth any man’s time to see how life can twist in ways that are unexpected but that is completely natural in every way.

    About the film:

    This revealing and touching film asks what happens when a generation’s ultimate anti-authoritarians ““ punk rockers ““ become society’s ultimate authorities ““ dads. With a large chorus of punk rock’s leading men – Blink-182’s Mark Hoppus, Red Hot Chili Peppers’ Flea, Rise Against’s Tim McIlrath – THE OTHER F WORD follows Jim Lindberg, a 20-year veteran of the skate punk band Pennywise, on his hysterical and moving journey from belting his band’s anthem “F–k Authority,” to embracing his ultimately authoritarian role in mid-life: fatherhood.

    Other dads featured in the film include skater Tony Hawk, Art Alexakis (Everclear), Mark Mothersbaugh (Devo), Tony Adolescent (The Adolescents), Fat Mike (NOFX), Lars Frederiksen (Rancid), and many others.

    DVD FEATURES:

    Feature length audio commentary with Jim Lindberg (Pennywise / The Black Pacific), Art Alexakis (Everclear), director Andrea Blaugrund Nevins, and producer Cristan Reilly

    Outtakes – including Mark Mothersbaugh (Devo) and Dr. Drew

    Acoustic performance outtakes of “Father of Mine” (Art Alexakis) and “Swing Life Away” (Tim McIlrath)

    Post-screening Q&A at SXSW Film Festival premiere

    Music videos by The Black Pacific: “Living With Ghosts” and “The System”

    Original theatrical trailer

    Top Ten of 2011 By Ray Schillaci

    I had every intention of getting my best ten list out before the Oscar nominations, but I really wanted to be diligent and give serious consideration for all the films out there. All too often, small independents and early releases (Jan, Feb & March) get ignored and so many people miss the chance of seeing some great work. The Academy is no different; early releases and small independents are nearly invisible to them unless major studios back the films with big buck campaigns. Oscar has beaten me to the punch and they have recognized greatness, but I cannot help but feel they also missed the mark on several brilliant films. Below is some of the proof.

    the_tree_of_life_movie_poster_011. The Tree of Life ““ Possibly the best picture of the year. Only one other film comes close and that’s my number “2” choice. The Tree of Life transcends the ages and takes us places very few have ever gone before with a power that is both earth-shattering with its emotions and as soft as the wing of an angel brushing upon a newborn’s brow. Some may be turned off by director Terrence Malick’s story technique, but those who are more open-minded are in for a rare treat. Malick’s latest opus and reflection on life, grief and where we stand in the universe is by far the greatest achievement in the artist’s repertoire (Badlands, Day’s of Heaven, The Thin Red Line).

    2. The Descendents ““ This could be the film to beat. Although not as ambitious as Malick’s film, Alexander Payne addresses many of the reflections of life on a much more laid back level which makes The Descendents far more accessible to an average audience. Director Payne delivers a beautiful poignant story of one man at odds with what life has dealt him and his family, and although living in near paradise and financially well off he is not immune to the adversity that life can throw at us. George Clooney delivers one of the most down to earth performances we’ve seen in years. The rest of the cast is wonderfully natural as well. Here is a film so bittersweet that it has us laughing, crying and being thought provoking in all of its 115 minutes. It is effortless in its storytelling and could easily win best adapted screenplay.

    3. Hugo ““ Martin Scorsese has delivered pure art in a children’s tale that continually fascinates and warms our heart. He has somehow encompassed his love for film and nurtured it with a fond tale of humanity and humility regarding an orphan boy surviving in a train station, its inhabitants and a toy peddler’s secret. It is both a simple and complex tale. Director Scorsese walks a wonderful high wire act with a story that touches the mind as well as the heart.

    4. Midnight in Paris ““ Put aside that this is the best Woody Allen film in the last ten years. Very few can match the man’s genius for storytelling and superb dialogue in any given year. With “Midnight in Paris,” Allen has delivered one of the greatest comic/cosmic fantasies and yet he remains down-to-earth in the end while winning us over with his vision of Paris, France, past and present. Owen Wilson gives a wonderfully subtle performance as our surrogate Allen-type character who visits Paris with his fetching fiancée, Rachel McAdams only to accidentally time travel and fall in love with a past that is not quite up to nostalgic expectations in the long run. The setting alone is meticulously recreated and Woody Allen’s original screenplay towers over all others for Oscar. Add this one to the pantheon of Woody Allen classics; Annie Hall, Manhattan and Hannah and her Sisters.

    5. The Artist ““ I struggle with this one. Michel Hazanavicius’ movie is a student of films dream. But it does owe a lot to other great films of the past and their soundtracks. It’s hard not to have sour grapes over the (so-called) ingenuity when two of our most famous humorists, Mel Brooks (Silent Movie, “˜76) and Steve Martin (Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid, “˜82) delivered similar works that were merely discarded at the time as a neat little gimmick. Now all of Hollywood seems to be enlightened and clamoring to award the French director on his “silent movie” fairy tale of a Hollywood silent film star’s fall with the introduction of talkies. Actually, this idea was also addressed in the American classic, “Singing in the Rain”. In defense to this ode of love to film and Hollywood, “The Artist” and its cast has a unique charm that can easily win one over. Also, the entire production has been expertly crafted. From the cinematography, art direction, editing, costumes and the original score that was intricately weaved around the love theme from Alfred Hitchcock’s “Vertigo,” the film has ended up with 10 Oscar nominations. It is an inventively entertaining movie, but not the best film of the year. The dialogue could have been stronger.

    6. The Help ““ A film that nearly wears its heart on its sleeve, but carefully avoids any hint of being maudlin. Instead, it is thought-provoking, informative and quite humorous tale told through the eyes of maids in a Southern town during the civil rights movement. All the performances are spot on and judging from the recognition by the Hollywood Foreign Press and others some of the actors could very well go on to win an Oscar.

    drive-poster17. Drive ““ Is Nicholas Winding Refn the Rodney Dangerfield of directors? Can this guy, his cast and crew get any respect from the Academy? After wowing so many with “Bronson” and being a film festival darling, Refn delivers the coolest movie of 2011 and breathes new life into a story so many have done before. This sleek vehicular thriller reminds us of the top-notch classics from Peter Yates’ “Bullitt” to William Friedkin’s “To Live and Die in L.A.” The movie could have easily been another “Transporter,” but in Refn’s skilled hands “Drive” shifts its way into a classic cerebral fable that takes our breath away with one of the best ensemble casts of the year. Albert Brooks was not overlooked for an Academy nomination, he was robbed.

    8. Rare Exports ““ As mentioned; so many attempted to capture the old Spielberg magic, including the maestro himself and fell terribly flat this year. This Norwegian entry not only recaptures that magic, but gives it a dark spin worthy of a classic Brothers Grimm tale involving the discovery of the “real” Santa Clause and the dangers behind him. It is by far the most original film I have seen since Tim Burton’s, “Nightmare before Christmas” and for that alone it should be on any top ten list.

    9. I Saw the Devil ““ Think of the first time you saw “Taxi Driver” or “Raging Bull” and the powerful blow that fell on you with not only the raw emotion but the sheer audacity and artistry of the way the story was weaved together ““ that is “I Saw the Devil” in a nutshell. The tale of authority going beyond the call of duty and exacting revenge on the most evil person imaginable is harsh, brutal and magnificent all at once.

    10. Thespians ““ Sure, there are other documentaries that are crying out to be heard, but I feel a special need to throw this very worthy film into the ten best lists. Without thespians, there would be no theater and frankly, no film either. It is an important film for the future of performing arts and an immensely entertaining one as well. Warren Skeels has brought to light the real world of high school teens participating in the Thespian Society and how it touches and changes so many lives. This is required and enjoyable viewing for all ages.

    Special Mention:

    Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 ““ Okay, it’s no Lord of the Rings, but the ending to this highly successful franchise was a fitting climax that thrilled most fans and proved to be a well crafted fantasy filled with heart and soul.

    Cyrus ““ one of the best voices for independent films since Harold and Maude. It is audacious in its storytelling with honest acting provided by a very gifted cast. Once again, John C. Riley bares his soul as a social inept sad sack being pushed back into the dating scene via his ex-wife only to find the (al)most perfect mate on his first and hilarious outing. The one hitch is the woman in question, Marisa Tomei (cute as ever), has a very dysfunctional and near obsessive relationship with her son that should have moved out on his own years ago. The man(ipulating)/boy is played by Jonah Hill, the fuse to John C. Riley’s fireworks. It’s an unsettling, disturbing and downright hysterical.

    Beyond “Suspicion”: Interview with Director, David Dilley By Ray Schillaci

    While at the Phoenix Film Festival 2011 I touted director, David Dilley’s crime thriller that was delicately laced with a “good taut human drama” entitled, “Suspicion”. Dilley’s film has received a release date and audiences will finally have a chance to see on the big screen an intense look into the last days of a nearly rehabilitated second rate mobster struggling with his humanity, mortality and how his decisions affect all those around him. There will be inevitable comparisons to “Pulp Fiction” and “The Sopranos” with its multi-layered story and its insightful look into the underworld and those that dabble with them, but, Dilley’s film stands on its own as an intriguing slice of the criminal life.

    I had a chance to sit down with Dilley and discuss his film, the two lead actors that deliver very realistic performances and supporting actor, Carlos Larkin who chills us with his rendition of a cold blooded underworld figure. Dilley is fascinating and has a deep love for storytelling and film as an art form. His view on the world of independent filmmaking and major studio films is very entertaining, but he does not pit one against the other. He is more saddened by the missed opportunities of the majors (like me).

    We both agree it’s an industry far more driven by dollars than art. We also touched on SOPA and PIPA, the legislation the major studios are pushing for, veiled under a concern to save jobs in Hollywood. We both agreed this is only a clever ruse, as Dilley put it, “to maximize revenue”. If the majors and the government were interested in saving American film industry jobs, they could easily start by placing a halt on the mass exodus of runaway production. The majors have consistently sought tax incentives in Canada, Mexico and even Romania leaving thousands of American film industry workers jobless. So, how does SOPA or PIPA help them? It doesn’t. Before continuing on with the interesting dialogue, I realized I had to hone us in on the purpose of our meeting; discussing the release of “Suspicion”.

    61603_131277616920655_130686256979791_169319_449662_nRay Schillaci: Congratulations on your release date. For the benefit of all those other independent filmmakers out there; it’s been nearly a year since the Phoenix Film Festival, what has happened since then to get where you are now?

    DILLEY: After the Phoenix Film Festival we screened it at Big Bear (Big Bear Lake Int’l Film Festival). We took the Jury Prize there. We were acquired for distribution mid-December and then a couple of weeks after that Harkins called me and said they wanted to give me a theatrical release. That limited theatrical release is March 2nd through the 9th and then around April 17th the movie will be available through Netflix, cable, VOD, streaming and all that stuff.

    RS: How many film festivals did you play?

    DILLEY: Just two.

    RS: Just the two, Phoenix and Big Bear?

    DILLEY: Yea, no need to do anything else.

    RS: Wow. Just there are people out there that do a lot of film festivals”¦

    DILLEY: So, when I made “Suspicion,” I was like”¦a lot of like true independent movies, those movies are made because they’re very geared toward film festivals. They have that look, the feel, like it’s a road trip, that kind of movie. With “Suspicion” I wanted to be like, this is a real movie. Life does not end when the film festival circuit ends, it’s going to have a lot of mass appeal. So just as long as we get into a couple of film festivals I’ll be happy, but it was never my intention for it to live in the festival world. My intention was to make a good story driven movie and if you do that, I think a lot of people will like it and a lot of people will see it.

    RS: Talking with you, I understand where you’re coming from but I think when this goes to print you could raise the ire of some indie filmmakers and film festivals. Do you want to clarify what you mean by “Suspicion” being “a real movie” and you’re thought on film festivals?

    DILLEY: Definitely. I am not putting down independent movies or film festivals. When I made “Suspicion” I wanted it to be a mainstream movie. It’s an ultra-low budget, independent movie, sure, but I wanted it to stand out in comparison to other “indie movies”. There are many indie movies that lean towards the concept of two characters taking a road trip to Mexico or a group of twenty-somethings sit around and talk about their relationship problems (generalizing). So with “Suspicion” I didn’t want to do that. I didn’t want to show another indie movie that we’ve all grown accustomed to.

    The hope was, if I looked at the mafia and presented it in an original way, and then a lot of people would appreciate it. Let me add, film festivals are wonderful, they really are. And, what’s even more wonderful than going to one is winning a jury prize for best feature film as we did at Big Bear.

    RS: So, if I’m getting what you are saying right; when you mentioned that you wanted your film to be a “real movie,” what you had hoped for was that “Suspicion” would appeal to an arthouse audience as well as a mainstream one. Similar to Nicholas Winding Refn’s “Drive”?

    DILLEY: That’s right.

    RS: Not that I’m comparing the two films. They are very different in story and style. “Suspicion” is your first feature and it is a far cry in subject matter from your short film, “The Diner” back in 2009. What made you tackle such a story and did you have influences?

    DILLEY: I’m a guy. I like mafia movies. So that was my desire to do that. I had some people ask me, “Why a mafia movie as your first film?” Because most directors will make a romantic comedy or that kind of stuff. I think at the end of the day, I just don’t like romantic comedies. I like story driven movies and I’ve always liked mafia movies. Why not make my first movie a mafia movie?

    Influences; I’ve seen a lot of mafia films. I’ve seen a lot of films in general and my philosophy is whatever type of movie that you’re doing, show that movie in a unique angle. If you just approach a mafia film, like every other mafia film out there, you’re never going to give your audience anything new. And, you should do that with whatever you do. I know with a lot of mafia films what works and what’s been overused. I didn’t want to prescribe to that. I wanted to show a different story that’s in a genre that’s over a hundred years old and if I can’t do that, then I will not make the movie because I don’t want to waste anybody’s time.

    RS: The chemistry between your two leads, Brad Blaisdell and Suzanne May is very natural. How long did it take to find those two and realize they were the actors for those important roles?

    DILLEY: First with Suzanne; I worked on a film with her called “Gentleman Broncos”. I worked on that film with her in 2008 and she and I are friends. She was actually in the short I did, “The Diner”. We had an open casting call and I told her about the film. I told her she should come out an audition for it. She did and she killed it and that’s where I picked up Suzanne for the Alicia role. Her audition was spot on. Brad we got through an open casting call and he did a really, really excellent job. But I was kind of concerned because I thought, okay I’ve seen Brad and I’ve seen Suzanne, but I haven’t seen them together yet. Then we had a couple of read throughs and I thought it was the right choice to make for both of them and it was just good stuff.

    RS: I find it interesting that you went for very natural looking leads. You didn’t type cast. Brad, at first glance, does not look like the typical mafia guy we’re use to and Suzanne’s looks are played down. If this was studio casted you might have had a very Italian looking guy and possibly Megan Fox in tight shorts and a loose top. Did you intentionally go against type?

    DILLEY: Right. My thing is when it comes to movies, I think the best kind of movies, for me personally, I don’t know what other people go for but you never know that. For me it’s like, when I watch a movie I’d rather, 9 times out 10, watch the movie and be like – these essentially are real people versus actors who are playing just a character. I think movies are a lot more powerful that way. When you see a movie and you’re like “wow,” that could be a real person that lives down the street versus some idiosyncrasy that no one would have. I think that kind of stuff is really overplayed. It has to be natural.

    RS: So to reiterate, you casted against type.

    carloslarkinDILLEY: Yea. I know why it’s done and all that stuff and for a lot of films it works, you know quite effectively. But I’d rather watch a movie that had real people than characters and that’s “Suspicion”.

    RS: That reminds me; there were two films at the festival last year, one of them being yours, that had a little bit of a flavor of John Cassavetes. Did you ever see Cassavetes’ “Killing of a Chinese Bookie”?

    DILLEY: No.

    RS: The reason I ask is because you have that bit of naturalness, almost as if some scenes were improvised (I’m referring to this in a good way). Were you trying to go for something like that?

    DILLEY: After we cast everyone in the film, I sat down with all my actors and said, this is the story, this is my script, this is how I see things, but that being said you (the cast) are “the actors”. You’re bringing these characters to life. So, you’re free to explore and do anything you want to do to make these characters more real. I was like, if something doesn’t work, we’ll adjust then. But until we get to that point just have fun with it.

    And, so like when you’re watching the film and you’ll see like they are not just sitting down and talking, especially Brad. Sometimes he is fidgeting and that kind of stuff and it just goes back to what I was saying that he just feels like more of a real person rather than a character. You would do that if you were talking with somebody. You would have some sort of movement. Yea, sometimes things were improvised and I would look at it and say, yea that’ll work.

    RS: Like the little dance?

    DILLEY: Yea. Brad has been on Broadway and off-Broadway and he can dance. In that scene, you know they are getting high and he’s an old hippie at heart and so he’s just dancing around in his apartment. Brad and I spoke about that dance for all of two seconds. He’s like, “I don’t think it’s choreographed.” And, I agreed. I told him, “You’re high and you’re 60, 61 and you have a 23 year-old girl, very attractive, very smart woman in your house, But at the same time there is nothing going on between the two of you. Even though you are a 61 year-old man, you might be like, yea I really wish something would happen, but there’s no way it ever would. So obviously you’re delighted to be around this person and you guys are high and you just reflect all that.

    I think the only direction I gave him in that scene was like; you’re kinda like the dancing elephant in the room. You’re this big mafia guy and you want to have fun, but when you’re dancing, you’re kind of making a fool of yourself. It’s fun though.

    RS: It’s a very nice, light moment and it’s funny because after I viewed the film again I realized I neglected to mention James Khoury’s haunting score. Please extend my apologies to him. His music really sets the tone from beginning to end. Did you have an idea right away, when you were doing the film, what kind of score would drive this film?

    DILLEY: No, I mean the way I operate is I like giving people as little as direction as possible. I think that there’s a tendency in Hollywood that people, the directors especially, a lot of them micro-manage and so I think when you do that, like you’re not”¦if you’re hiring this person as your cinematographer, you’re hiring this person because you know that this person is really good at what they do, one. And two; they are a lot better at what they do than you can be at their job.

    If you’re hiring these people to do whatever roles whether it is your composer, your cinematographer or your actors, you should give those people as much freedom as possible. Obviously, talk to them about what the movie is, the tone and all that stuff, but in terms of like being intrusive you shouldn’t do that.So, I sat down with James and told him this is obviously a mafia film, it’s dark and he had read the script. I asked him to give me some things that I can work with. Give me all the music on stems that way we can adjust and he agreed. There was some stuff we had to take out because it was a little bit too much, but that’s just how it works.

    RS: It wasn’t grandiose and there was nothing that screamed out Italian about it. It was a very nice score. The first time I saw your film, you know what really struck me was a stand-out performance and I probably harp on it too much”¦

    DILLEY: That’s good.

    RS: That was Carlos Larkin. Tell me; was his audition a slam dunk? Where did you find him? As I’ve mentioned before, the guy resembles a young Peter Fonda and sounds like a cross between Nick Nolte and Kris Kristofferson. But when I met him, he was nothing of the sort.

    headshot-suzanne-may-193x300DILLEY: Yeah, I know. So, my really good friend, Alex McCullough, helped me produce the film and Alex knew Carlos. They had worked on a couple of projects before and he was like, would you mind if this person auditioned? I said, no problem, absolutely. He came in for the open casting call and he read it and I looked at the tapes and I wasn’t sold. I talked to Alex and he was like, what do you mean? And, I told him I didn’t know. It seemed like he played it too nice and I told him to record himself again and let me see it. The second tape he sent in, he essentially invented that voice, that’s in the movie which is really cool. I was like, YEA. He says in the audition tape that he’s thinking like a Kris Kristofferson kind of thing. I’m watching this tape and it works!

    RS: That was funny, because when I met him and I told Carlos exactly how I felt that he kind of channeled a combination of Kris Kristofferson and Nick Nolte, he was surprised that I was the first person to catch that.

    DILLEY: It was just funny; he does a lot of voice work and that kind of stuff. He’s a number of characters on the World of Warcraft. I think he’s working on something else, but he really can’t talk about it because he signed an NDA agreement that’s two or three hundred pages, probably. He did a really good job. It was like what I said before; you should be as natural as possible. For me, at least, my favorite movies are when you watch a movie and say, this is a real person versus a character. I think really good actors can do that. That’s what makes movies so powerful for me. It’s like you’re telling a story, but you’re telling it with real people doing it. Carlos did an amazing job with that.

    RS: As I mentioned before, you walked this tightrope with human drama and crime thriller. How hard was that? Did you ever find yourself shifting more towards one or the other?

    DILLEY: No, because I wrote the script. I knew what the story was going to be, but I didn’t just want it to be a mafia film. You have to give your audience a new story. If you’re doing a mafia movie and mafia movies are as old as cinema, they’ve been around for over a century, so every type of mafia film has already been done. So if you don’t do it from a unique angle you are going to lose your audience. So it was not that difficult because I knew what kind of story I wanted to do going into it.

    RS: Why the Arizona location when so many films of this kind take place in New York, New Jersey and Chicago? Was it the sense of relocation for criminals, since they have been known to be sent this way?

    DILLEY: I’m from Arizona. My family moved out here when I was 9 and I consider myself a native. Phoenix is the 5th or 6th largest city in the United States. So, there is going to be an element of organized crime here. There always has been, there always will be. I t would have been really cool to film in New York. I’m not going to lie. It would have been really cool to film in Chicago. But it’s like; it goes back to telling an original story. Not all mafia movies have to be in Chicago or have to be in New York. There’s organized crime everywhere and there is also evidence of that in Phoenix. In the late 70s, early 80s journalists, honestly would turn their car on and like “Casino,” their car would explode. These people had put bombs under their cars. There is history here with that.

    RS: Did you have any talks with any persons of interest”¦you know where I’m going with this?

    DILLEY: (laughs) Yea. So funny thing is I had done a good amount of research and when we screened at Big Bear there was these people that were obviously retired. They had been retired for a number of years and one of the guys had seen the film introduced me to his friend and his friend use to be “involved,” in that line of work and he was like, “Haven’t seen it yet. I hope you didn’t mess it up” This is after we won the Jury Prize. The winners were going to screen their movies again. After he had seen it he was like, yea, I know a lot of people like that, and a lot of people like Daryl. That was just coincidental and really cool.

    RS: So just with research alone you had your finger on that pulse.

    DILLEY: Yes. Like I said before, mafia movies have been around for well over a century and you’ve watched a lot of them and you’re like if I’m going to do this I’m going to approach it from a unique angle and at the same time I have to do real research. Like what would happen. One of the things I found was a lot of people say you’re in the mafia until death. That’s not true. The mafia is and always has been an economic enterprise. If you’re involved in that line of work and you can’t do it anymore for whatever reason there are a number of people that will gladly take over that work load for you because it’s an economic endeavor. There wasn’t anything with Daryl where it was like; oh I left the family now I’m going to get killed. What happens in the movie is because of his relationship to this mafia boss but it never directly deals with how you dare leave the family.

    bradblaisdellS: Many filmmakers have a tendency to get pigeonholed in a genre, but I think that would be hard to do with you since you’ve shown that you can handle drama as well as the down-and-dirty of a thriller. What do you see on the horizon? Do you have a desire to branch out in other genres?

    DILLEY: Yes. I’m hopefully directing another movie in September or October. It’s a legal political type thriller. I have some meetings in the next two months. We’ll see if this movie materializes or not. But I have a good feeling it will. I always want to tell good story driven movies regardless whatever genre that is. I’m going to hopefully be able to do that.

    RS: How does a filmmaker like you gain funding for such a project like “Suspicion” with its very independent film feel?

    DILLEY: Obviously it’s not studio financed. You can’t go to a bank. It’s just like anything else, any sort of business now. A bank will not give you a loan unless you have some very serious collateral. So you end up talking to people you know that might want to do this. They might agree to finance it or a part of it and then you end up asking them if they know anybody else. That’s how independent movies get made nowadays and I think that’s how it should be.

    RS: You live here in Arizona. How does that work for you with the buzz of the Industry primarily in L.A.?

    DILLEY: I lived in Los Angeles for three years. When I was in Los Angeles I really wasn’t living there because I was working every place else. For the three years I worked, I was probably only living there for maybe five months. You don’t really have to be in L.A. as long as you have a good network and you always stay busy. If you do need to go to L.A. it’s a one hour flight (from Phoenix) or it’s about 5 to 6 hours by car. I go out to L.A. quite a bit for meetings and that kind of stuff. I think Phoenix is very uniquely positioned that you’re obviously outside of L.A. but you’re close enough you can come back for meetings and such. I don’t know. I think it’s very easy to get wrapped up in the whole scene in Los Angeles and a lot of people that move out there might have the best intentions in the world but very soon they get wrapped up in the lifestyle, the nightlife and everything else and then they’re not able to make movies. I like living in Phoenix because it’s removed from L.A. and if I do need to go out there, I can very easily.

    RS: Do you have an agent?

    DILLEY: No, not yet.

    RS: Have you been contacted?

    DILLEY: Yes, by UTA and CAA. And, one of my best friends, he actually works at Imagine Entertainment and if this next movie materializes there’s a good chance we will be able to bring that to Imagine. So, we’ll see. But again, that is down the road.

    RS: Do you think Brad or Suzanne may have a part in that?

    DILLEY: Yea, well my thing is like, obviously each movie has to be unique. So you couldn’t have this character play a lead in your other movie, but there is still room to bring these people over if there is a role for them.

    RS: Is it fair to say that you’re pretty loyal?

    DILLEY: Yea, I have my inner circle. That’s the great thing about film or any other sort of business venture. You’re always going to meet new people and you’re always going to find people who are hard working, very talented and you’ll always add to that group of people.

    RS: You tend to see that not so much in big films, but with famous directors such as Quentin Tarantino and his use of Michael Madsen, Martin Scorsese using Robert DeNiro and Joe Pesci, all the way down to Sam Peckinpaw and his use of Warren Oates. So you’re like that.

    DILLEY: It all depends on the project. If you’re doing a comedy, Brad might not be the best for that role. But if you can, you should.

    RS: But you would definitely consider your editor, your cinematographer”¦

    DILLEY: Oh absolutely.

    RS: And, I have to tell you it’s beautifully done. I was watching it again. The editing, all the different shots very carefully thought out, a fine independent film.

    DILLEY: Thank you. It was fun making it.

    RS: I just want to make sure I have this right. The pending dates for the release you have March 2nd through the 9th at the Harkins Valley Art Theater on Mill Ave in Tempe.

    DILLEY: Yes and Harkins about a year ago finished upgrading all their technology so all of their projectors are digital now. So we’re actually screening “Suspicion” on Blu-ray. There is a difference on the Blu-ray since we shot with the RED camera and we had prime lenses. The maximum resolution on a RED Camera is a 4K camera, so 4000×1080 and that’s maximum resolution which is fine for a forty foot screen.

    RS: Could the run get extended?

    DILLEY: It could. Harkins told me that if it does well for that week, they’ll give me another week but the definition of how well it does ““ you never know. Mid-April it will be available on Netflix, VOD, cable and we might get picked up in Los Angeles and New York for another theatrical release which would be kinda cool. You could say my movie was in the theater in these three states. Yea, that would be cool

    RS: I will recommend to people that they see it in the theater. Somehow the story and the tension it provides always appears better on the big screen. Thank you very much for this interview.

    DILLEY: You’re welcome and thank you.

  • Trailer Park: REAL STEEL, BOMBAY BEACH and Warren Skeels of THESPIANS

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    Check out my other column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    BOMBAY BEACH – DVD REVIEW

    bombay_beach_dvdAn emotionally gripping documentary that charts the lives of those living around the Salton Sea area in California this is a film that incorporates the emotional punch of showing a triad of stories that deal with rural poverty and abject isolation with some artistic injections of poetry and dancing. I know, it sounds like a combination that should not work and if it wasn’t anyone else but filmmaker Alma Har’el at the helm of this project it wouldn’t have worked well but the truth of the matter is that you understand her subjects more because of these disparate elements. You appreciate their inner plight when you can peel back the superficiality of living in a place that seems to be oozing despair and show them as human beings who yearn for more than what they have, what they’re surrounded by.

    Just like General Orders No. 9, this documentary blends the literal and surreal in ways that just make sense. The lives of people who are living closer than any of us will to the edges of society make for more than just documentary fodder, it makes for the perfect platform with which to illustrate people many of us try so hard to ignore. There is no place to hide here and thank God for that.

    About the film:

    Bombay Beach, the Tribeca Film Festival 2011 winner “Best Feature Documentary” is now on DVD

    – A documentary that is as much MTV as PBS… an awesomely fresh piece of cinema.” ““IndieWIRE

    “It’s an American beauty.” ““The Wall Street Journal

    “A beautiful, quirky and ultimately very moving film” ““Terry Gilliam

    WINNER OF THE BEST FEATURE DOCUMENTARY AT THE 2011 TRIBECA FILM FESTIVAL, FILMMAKER ALMA HAR’EL’S “BRILLIANT AND POETIC ” FESTIVAL SMASH IS A MOVING AND MADLY INVENTIVE DOCUMENTARY EXPERIENCE

    PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Decades ago, the Salton Sea was a California tourist hotspot and a symbol of 1950s-era American optimism. Now, in a state of environmental decline and abandonment, its inhabitants still cling to their dreams despite living among the decaying relics of a bygone era. This year’s winner of the Tribeca Film Festival documentary competition and a festival hit around the world, BOMBAY BEACH creates a portrait of this small community living on the fringes of the lost American dream, and the dreamers who populate its surreal and poetic landscape. The film makes its DVD debut this January, from Entertainment One under the Focus World brand, which is charged with finding the most exciting voices in international and independent film.

    “Many films try to portray dignity in rural decay, but the authentically poetic Bombay Beach is the real deal.” ““The Associated Press

    True to her roots as a photographer, video artist, and music video director, Alma Har’el crafts an adamantly atypical and artistically innovative film, telling the story of three protagonists: Benny Parrish, a young boy diagnosed with bipolar disorder, whose troubled soul and vivid imagination create both suffering and joy for him and his complex and loving family; CeeJay Thompson, a black teenager and aspiring football player, who has taken refuge in Bombay Beach hoping to avoid the same fate of his murdered cousin; and Red, an ancient survivor and former oil field worker, living on the fumes of whiskey, cigarettes and an irrepressible love of life.

    Each narrative is interspersed with dance sequences choreographed to music composed for the film by Zach Condon of the band Beirut, and songs by Bob Dylan; however, it is the camera that sets this film apart. Quite simply, the landscape of Bombay Beach is as fantastic and surreal a place as a dream. Each image appears to have been folded up and sent through the wash in somebody’s back pocket. Light collects in folds and pours through creases, revealing an earth that is worn, soft and surprising. The result is a moving and madly inventive documentary experience – an evocative, symbolic portrait of rural America and its inhabitants.

    BONUS FEATURES

    “¢ Deleted Scenes
    “¢ “Where Are They Now?” Featurettes
    “¢ Selected Scenes with Commentary by filmmaker Alma Har’el and editor Joe Lindquist
    “¢ Alma Har’el Music Videos

    REAL STEEL – DVD REVIEW

    real-steel-blu-ray-dvd-1If any of you have watched OVER THE TOP you’ll have a good idea of where things are going in this one.

    And that’s not a knock against a movie that is really made for families and in a landscape that is filled with dreck like Mr. Popper’s Penguins the pickens are slim. There really should be a handicap when it comes to family entertainment because it truly does have to serve many masters: mothers, fathers, and the kids. When you have to blend these many audiences it’s easy to see how too much of one could be a bad thing and end up with a movie best left to the kiddies but director Shawn Levy deserves some praise, however slight, for giving everyone their bread and circuses.

    When you have a story about a father who has never met his son, who initially doesn’t want anything to do with this sudden parenting situation he finds himself in, a robot who wants to be more than just a robot (don’t they all), and a love story that is about as tame as something you’d see on the Disney Channel, you shouldn’t expect much. But, what you do get, is more than the sum of its robotic parts.

    The action is good, the pacing is incredibly passable, and the ending, while not altogether surprising, is enough to make this one of those movies that if you had to find yourself choosing from a list of others in its weight class, should be your very first pick.

    About the movie:

    “It’s Rocky with robots”¦a heartwarming movie for everyone.”
    – Pete Hammond,

    Box Office Magazine

    DreamWorks Studios’ REAL STEEL, starring Hugh Jackman, muscles its way into the Home Entertainment arena on Blu-rayâ„¢, DVD, Digital and On-Demand on January 24, 2012. This visually stunning action-adventure filled with heart and soul is a “must-add” to every home movie collection, delivering a premium in-home experience complete with knockout bonus materials that dive deeper into the action.

    The Blu-ray Combo Pack, with its perfect picture and sound, delivers the ultimate punch, offering viewers a variety of supplemental bonus features that take them ringside with Director Shawn Levy on the making of the film. Exclusive features include a bare-knuckled exposé of the life story of Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman), deleted and extended scenes that go deeper into the film and storylines, and a riveting profile with legendary boxing champion Sugar Ray Leonard. Plus, the revolutionary Real Steel Second Screen app lets viewers sync their iPad™* or computer with the Blu-ray movie to peel back layers of effects with progression reels, check out 360-degree turnarounds of the robots, explore seamless branching pods that delve into the cutting-edge technology used to create the fights, and much more.

    The #1 movie in the country for two consecutive weeks during its theatrical run, REAL STEEL is directed by Shawn Levy (Night At the Museum franchise, Date Night and What Happens in Vegas), produced by Steven Spielberg (Saving Private Ryan, Schindler’s List), with a screenplay by John Gatins (Coach Carter, Summer Catch). Set in the not-so-distant future where boxing has gone high-tech and 2000-pound, 8-foot-tall steel robots have taken over the ring, the film stars Hugh Jackman (X-Men franchise, Australia) as Charlie Kenton, Evangeline Lilly (TV’s Lost, The Hurt Locker) as Bailey Tallet, Dakota Goyo (Thor) as Max Kenton, Kevin Durand (I Am Number Four, X-Men Origins: Wolverine) as Ricky, and Anthony Mackie (The Adjustment Bureau, The Hurt Locker) as Finn.

    Bonus Features Include:
    REAL STEEL SECOND SCREEN
    Countdown to the Fight – The Charlie Kenton Story
    Sugar Ray Leonard: Cornerman’s Champ
    Deleted and Extended Scenes with introductions by Shawn Levy
    Extended “Meet Ambush”
    Deleted “Butterfly” Storyline
    PLUS All DVD Bonus Features

    1-Disc DVD (1 DVD)
    Making of Metal Valley
    Building the Bots
    Bloopers
    HIGH-DEFINITION & STANDARD DEFINITION DIGITAL
    Sugar Ray Leonard: Cornerman’s Champ
    PLUS All DVD Bonus Features

    FILM SYNOPSIS:

    Balancing gritty action and emotional heart, “Real Steel” is an inspiring and visually stunning film that takes audiences on an action-packed journey. Washed-up boxer Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman) scrapes by as a small-time robot-fight promoter as he tries to make a comeback. Against all odds he eventually succeeds – at least in the eyes of his son Max (Dakota Goyo). “Real Steel” is spectacular family entertainment that will have everyone cheering again and again.

    ###

    Director, Warren Skeels of “Thespians” – Interview By Ray Schillaci

    Back in May of 2011, I raved about a documentary at the Phoenix Film festival that brought laughs and tears to the audience that packed the theaters. Warren Skeels’ “Thespians” now has a DVD release and has premiered on Showtime. Warren recently graced me with an interview and gave me some insight into the amazing journey of this special film.

    warrenintroRS: Warren, I have to tell you how excited I am that your film is moving forward. Not enough people see documentaries and it’s probably been since Michael Moore that audiences discovered documentaries can be informative and entertaining at the same time.

    WARREN: Very true.

    RS: Your film has a similar emotional journey as entertaining as Alan Parker’s 1980 film, “Fame”.

    WARREN: I’m glad you feel that way. My background is with the performing arts. I went to a performing arts high school and did the theater thing. I went through this whole journey that the kids that we followed went through. So, I could empathize with them. I went to So Cal and got a Bachelor of Fine Arts in Acting and minor in Film, and after I made two films, two narratives, I was trying to think of what project I could do next.

    Sometimes when you’re doing a narrative project, it’s like making a movie and there’s maybe no kind of future inherent or value in it except for the fact that it’s an entertainment product and that it’s done. I really wanted to do something that had a bigger meaning to it, but also could be entertaining. I was talking with my sister, who also has a performing arts background and we were discussing what a great time we had doing thespians in high school.

    Then it just hit me that would be a highly entertaining film to follow different trips on this journey. At the same time, it could also be a way to highlight the value and the importance of theater arts and education. I wanted to do so in a way that was entertaining and hopefully inspiring, but not like a Dateline, news magazine. I did not want the approach where I’m going to Capitol Hill and talk about the lack of funding in the arts and just allowing that to be the 800lb gorilla in the room.

    RS: I’m curious, how did you go about distinguishing the four different schools?

    WARREN: I would love to say, I had an audition process for that. I certainly needed to hedge my bet, so to speak. I was close with the state director from when I was a senior in high school. He had been doing it for eighteen years”¦it was actually the last year he was going to be doing it.

    He was reluctant as to tell me who was performing well. I didn’t say; tell me who the best schools are. I just said; over the last five years tell me some of the recurring schools who seem to be showing up in the critic’s choice. That way I could go and talk to them and see if they would be interested in the experience and seeing if the teacher was interesting and dynamic, can kind of articulate their experiences as well and that sort of thing. I ended up choosing four high schools off that kind of list and the fifth high school I chose ended up being the “Alter Boys” school, which was not on the list at all.

    RS: They were great.

    WARREN: Yea. The teacher, Shirley Sachs, of that group was a teacher of mine in high school. When she found out I was making this film, she requested me to come out and see an early rehearsal of “Boys”. They could not put one foot in front of the other. But she was so convinced that they would compete and that because they were such brainiacs and their work ethic was so determined, by the end of it, I would be surprised as to what they had put together, and that they would bring a quality product to the table. I would watch them and I thought, wow, they are going to bring a lot of levity to this film.

    RS: Yes, they did.

    WARREN: It was one of those things where the outline of where I thought I was taking the film, but at the same time, that’s why you create an outline. You create a blueprint so that you can veer if you need to pick up something. What we ended up doing was essentially following five schools, one of which did not make the final cut, which was Coral Reef High School in Miami, a predominantly Hispanic-Jewish school that was really fascinating to me. In the end, it just did not have a strong enough story line that shared the spotlight with the other storylines.

    The “Alter Boys” story was really funny to me, because watching them learn it the first time that Jade came in from New York, and he’s the choreographer and he’s like, “I’m not going to pull any punches. I’m going to treat you like how anybody else would in New York.” I don’t know if it’s that evident in the film. I think it’s partially evident and it’s humorous just being there, on the floor and it’s highly entertaining even outside of what you see in the film.

    RS: It’s funny that you say that, because I was going to ask if you thought anybody was holding back when you were filming, the students or the teachers. I remember way back that my drama coaches could be brutal or there always seemed to be a drama queen, a young woman or man in class.

    WARREN: What was interesting, I wanted to put a particular filter on the film as well. Which was, we all know what high school theater kids can be and the last thing I wanted to do was make a film and bolster that perception of the loud, annoying theater kids. I really wanted to examine and show the value of what is really happening. I specifically had that filter on going into it. When there were moments or times where that was kind of exhibited I found ways not to make that into the cut of the film.

    RS: Did you ever expect the reaction you are getting as far as the documentary?

    WARREN: It’s really flattering to see the response to the film and I think as a filmmaker you just hope that people want to see the film. So, with that in mind, I feel very fortunate. I feel most fortunate that the people, kind of opened up their lives to us, to follow their process and the schools that allowed us into the classroom and give us access to tell their story.

    You know, in this day and age, it’s kind of difficult to walk a camera into a school. There’s a lot of red tape and fortunately we were given permission and a lot of that had to do with the fact that I had produced a documentary film prior to this called, “Chops”. That was about the largest high school jazz competition in Lincoln Center, New York with Wynton Marsalis and the late Ed Bradley made a cameo as well. We premiered that at the Tribeca Film Festival. We sold it and with that little bit of critical acclaim it gave us some footing and some credibility to kick-start dialogue with the school systems that we were going into. They were much more opened to us being there. I think if we had just walked off the street and did not have any credits it would have been a more difficult process.

    RS: Would you say there were other hurdles in pre-production and filming?

    WARREN: What was interesting was; I did not know how long it was going to take for the kids to warm up to us. Yet some of them like Jeremy were, “Sure, you want to start filming. You can start right now. What do you want to know?” Then the “Altar Boys” were a like, “Ah maaan, they got a camera here? They’re going to film us, oh no!” It took them a little bit too warm up. Brendan could walk through his room and describe his toy frog and the maps made for Halloween and his interest in history and architecture. Then all of a sudden I was like a voice for him and he was really excited about that.

    Then there were others like Adam and Melanie doing the duet piece from “Danny and the Deep Blue Sea” by John Patrick Shanley. Adam was really anti my presence for a good bit of time before he started to get a little more familiar with me and saw that my crew and I were there on good terms and we were doing something positive. He kind of turned on us a little bit, but in a good way. Initially, he was kind of unapproachable, which was unfortunate because we were really trying to highlight what he was doing and it just took awhile.

    The interesting thing is all the kids that are in this film, I stay in touch with a lot of them and they’re like my younger brothers and sisters. I’m trying to look out for them and their careers. Tiffany from the “Look Homeward Angel” play, I’m trying to get back with her and people regarding representation. Ana also from “Look Homeward Angel,” the blonde, I actually directed her in a short film that hopefully I will bring to the Phoenix Film Festival, which I would love to do.

    warren-and-anaRS: I have to tell you, two people for me stood out from the rest. Jeremy was one. What’s happened to him so far?

    WARREN: Jeremy actually has a band called Easton and they have something like 30,000 fans on Myspace. He was the lead singer of this pop rock band in his middle high school years, but then he started getting more and more involved in theater, but being a lead singer in a band was his first love. He kind of fused into acting. He went up to SUNY Purchase in New York. Melanie from “Danny in the Deep Blue Sea” stayed as a senior at Boston University BFA program and Adam is a senior at Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh.

    RS: The other person that really struck me was Ana. Were you aware while you were filming her that she had a striking resemblance to another actress?

    WARREN: Who do you think? Sharon Stone?

    RS: I’ve heard so many people say, that’s a young Sharon Stone.

    WARREN: Yea. What’s actually funny is that when we were filming at State our executive producer came to visit and was kind of hanging out at our room and he was like, “How’s my young Sharon Stone?” the whole time. The thing about her is that she’s a very attractive girl and she’s very talented too. She’s doing a ton of modeling in Greece and in China and modeling in New York. She’s working on a degree on PR/Communications at Platford University, in St Augustine, Florida. She just played one of the leads in a suspense/thriller short film that I directed this past summer. We should be working together again.

    RS: With your theater background, you had to find yourself very connected to these kids. Did you ever find yourself becoming emotionally involved with your subjects to the point where it upset you when certain players did not do as well as expected?

    WARREN: There’s kind of two different motions to that kind of run the gamut with this kind of scenario; 1.) I really started rooting for all of them and wanted them to do well, because I genuinely liked them as kids and liked what they stood for. I felt like an older brother to the performers. 2.) (WARNING: SPOILER ALERT”¦for several paragraphs) as a filmmaker you kind of hope for some successes and some failures. With Jeremy, when he went overtime and ended up losing, at first I was really bummed, cause I thought he was going to be someone who was going to go all the way.

    He’s so super talented and his monologues were really strong. But in the end, by him losing early and failing, it gave us some conflict of a resolve that this could happen to the others, and better, we’re going to be moving forward. It also gave us value in a story that you can’t lose. It’s not that everybody is going to win, but someone will lose and how Jeremy, who was so strong, actually is the first one out. I think it was kind of a wake-up call for the viewer, realizing, “Oh, we’re not going to be watching him for the next hour-and-a-half. He’s done.”

    RS: It was pretty much a shock to a lot of people. I know that my son’s drama class, when they saw it, they were in total suspense after that. They had no idea who was going out.

    WARREN: As a filmmaker and working with my editor, Billy, we took out that part (originally) because he (Jeremy) didn’t go any further and so we focused on the Dr. Phillips High School kids and “The Altar Boys’ and others. Then I realized, I was missing out on that sense of loss, that you can’t lose and we went back in and added all of Jeremy’s stuff, because I really enjoyed that storyline. If he was a little more disciplined, he could have gone all the way. But he let his talent; ego and pride go beyond itself.

    What we didn’t have on camera, which I really wished we did, we were not rolling at the time, the rehearsal prior to the District when he did his monologue, his teacher Beverly timed his monologue and said, “Right now, you’re thirty seconds over. I think we should work on this and cut some lines, so you have some time.” He responded, “Oh I’m not worried about it. I’ll be fine. I’ll get under.” And, of course, he didn’t. I wish we had that on camera, because it would have built it up even more.

    (SPOILER ALERT ENDED)

    And, what’s interesting is that he’s kinda made out to be a little bit more egomaniacal in this film than he is in real life. He’s actually a sweet heart as a kid. But you’re making a film and it’s entertainment so you kinda bring out certain elements and I talked to him about it after the editing and I told him we have a certain focus on your character, it’s going to be hilarious. He couldn’t wait to see it. Then he came to New York when we held a special advanced screening for Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS who is a beneficiary of the film (15% of our net profits go to them on behalf of all Thespians). Jeremy loved it. It was like, “I’m in a movie, and this is great!”

    Adam, the guy from “Danny and the Deep Blue Sea” actually just saw the film for the first time after a friend of the family’s brought to his mom’s attention that a picture of her son was in Entertainment Weekly. She was surprised when the friend inquired if he was in the movie, “Thespians,” and she acknowledged it, but had not seen it. She didn’t know what was happening with it. He just kinda lost touch with everybody because he was going through college and that sort of thing and kind of MIA for a little while.

    She finally caught it on Showtime and called Adam, insisting he catch it on the cable. I got an email about six days ago from him telling me how he felt so bad about giving me a hard time, at first, because this is really a great film. He told me I did a wonderful job and he was really proud to be a part of it. I thought it was really cool to see that. It’s like the best self-help video anyone could ever make for me. I was like, “Aaaah.” He did give me a real hard time at first. Like, “What are you doing? Why are you filming us? Why do you want this so much? Trying to cause trouble?” He gave a lot of lip, so to speak.

    RS: Warren, this is such an important film for young people involved in the Arts, and I feel from middle school on, is there any movement to make this documentary required viewing in schools.

    thespianproductionWARREN: Not that I know of and if that were to happen I think that would be fantastic. We are trying to make the educational rights affordable. We want to allow the school to screen it as many times as it wants for their students, faculty, staff, guests and etc for a onetime fee of $270. They just can’t charge admission, but they could screen it for eternity as long as it’s at the school district. I talked to our investors and relayed that schools have it really tough right now and if we could get any kind of price break on this and I finally got them to agree on a $99 rate.

    Currently online, through the website thespiansthemovie.com you can purchase the DVD for $19.95 (for individuals) and receive a 20% discount by using the code, “heart”. For teachers and schools (for the educational license) enter the code “xmas” and it will go from $270 to $99 and the educational license comes with the DVD, 12-page film guide, and a 24×36 movie poster. We wanted it to be the holiday season year round for teachers when ordering the educational license.

    What I would love, is to find a way to where if the school themselves cannot afford it in their budget that boosters or parent association or kid’s parents via a program can afford to buy it for the school. So it would not have to be bought by the school but for the school. We tried to work that out with people in Texas and California already.

    RS: I want to thank you for your time and cooperation granting me this interview and I will continue to my praise for this film by letting you know that “Thespians” has made it to my top ten list of films of 2011.

    WARREN: Awesome.

    RS: I’m going to encourage young and old to share in the enjoyment of this wonderful motion picture experience that celebrates the joys of being a Thespian.

    WARREN: Thank you so much, Ray.

    RS: You’re welcome. I wish you the best of luck. You have a powerful film that touches so many people and I’m proud to have been able to talk to you and to convey this to everybody I know.

    WARREN: Thanks, that means so much. It really does, more than you know.

    Attention teachers, parents and anyone who knows any person with an interest in the performing arts, this film is for you. I urge you to check out their website and make the purchase of this DVD that is perfect for any home video library and educational institution that promotes the Arts. When viewing, be prepared to laugh, cry and cheer. Warren Skeels’ “Thespians” is a wondrous emotional journey.

  • Trailer Park: TI WEST and PAT HEALY of THE INNKEEPERS

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    Check out my other column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    THE INNKEEPERS

    the-innkeepers-posterI don’t get many two-fers around these parts but I was sure going to take advantage of the opportunity after being offered when both PAT HEALY and TI WEST came up for THE INNKEEPERS. Many have probably heard of the film by now either because people have been muttering about how great it is or because of director/writer Ti West’s appeal to the 21st century generation to not download his film. What is remarkable about the plea, though, was that it was a manifesto not admonishing people who would do it but that it took a decidedly positive tone in the way it championed the independent spirit and grit of those who helped make the film and to make a statement by buying a ticket, by buying into the idea that this movie has an intrinsic value and that by buying it you’re not owning a commodity but are making a statement about independent movies. It was a special thrill to talk to Ti and to get an idea of his passions and his motivations. Equally, talking to Pat Healy was fascinating if for no other reason than to talk to an actor who isn’t buying into the usual affectations of Hollywood actors. He’s easy like Sunday morning and his performance in the movie only helps make the case that Ti’s writing is sharp and on point. THE INNKEEPERS is a must see this winter and you can catch it now through VOD or wait until February 3rd when the movie will be coming to theaters.

    TI WEST – INTERVIEW

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP: It’s a pleasure to talk to you. House of the Devil is still one of my favorite horror movies to come out in the last few years. After watching The Innkeepers, I was struck that you’re not one to gravitate towards splatter. How did you reject the pull to make something akin to torture porn that is en vogue? Did you say to yourself that you wanted to make more intelligent, better thought out horror?

    TI WEST: Well, it’s not that it’s really thought out on my end. The style just comes out that way. I remember being at the premiere and we were like “Alright, here we go”¦” when people started calling it a slow burn. The reason it’s called a slow burn is because it doesn’t have a scare every scene and all these positive reviews that called it “the new slow burn movie””¦it was then that I realized I had no control over it. It was actually a great moment because I realized there is no point in me thinking about that anymore. For me, it’s a movie first and a horror movie second. I don’t go to movies to see people get killed. I go to see stories and characters and that’s the way I make movies and I’m just going to keep doing it that way.

    CS: The reception, like you said, has been so positive much in the way the House of the Devil was marketed so well and The Innkeepers, following that movie up, has got a little bit of comedy, little bit of that scare. When you sit down to write these kinds of films, what is first and foremost in your mind when you begin just penning something like this?

    WEST: I don’t know. It’s such a personal experience. With this movie it was personal because we lived in that hotel. And then slowly as the production went on people started to believe the hotel was haunted and the staff thought it was haunted. There really was a guy at the front desk with a ghost hunting website ““ the whole town is obsessed with the place. And so a year or so later when I wanted to do a ghost story I thought, man. I lived one. Wouldn’t that be cool? I know that so well so why don’t I do that movie? And what if we actually went back to the real place? How bizarre and a strange filmmaking this would be. So that’s what we did. And I tried to infuse ““ what was most important to me was to make it a charming ghost story because I had never seen that before. I always tell people I am cut out to either direct movies or be like a bus boy. I don’t have any skills. I can do minimum wage jobs, I can direct movies and I have a fondness that comes with the existential crisis that comes with a minimum wage jobs and I thought it felt ““ like the juxtaposition of that with a ghost story made sense to me. I don’t know. It’s the creative process. You come up with stuff and get excited about it and if you can stay excited about it, then it’s legit. This is one of those ones ““ it was two years of trauma making a movie and I’m still proud of this movie and I’m still excited about it and I’m still happy to talk about it. I think just because there are enough personal elements to the movie that it means something to me. And hopefully if it does mean something to me ““ and then mean something to you ““ you will somehow sense that there is enough care in it from the person who made it that something will come across.

    CS: And it does. I think that’s what’s been so great about The Innkeepers and the House of Devils that there is a level of craftsmanship that somebody actually had skill and wanted to really nurture the movie that you’re watching. Do you feel as a filmmaker of the 2000’s is it possible to keep going at the clip you want and get the kind of creative freedom you want at this level? Or do you see if you want to get bigger, you would have to give up something in return?

    WEST: I don’t know. And the times I’ve tried to do bigger things I’ve had had to give up. But the misconception that to do a bigger movie “well, you’re going to have to compromise” and I always answer with, “Alright, what does that mean?” Every movie we’ve ever made, every single day is a compromise and there is always something that you just can’t do the way you want to. I don’t have a problem with compromise. Compromise is filmmaking. And then you find out, if you like my movies and then you like a script that I write, then what are we compromising on? We’re on the same page. You like what I do and others do that and that would be great. Where I get scared is the mainstream world postproduction is treated very differently. So the process of developing a movie, shooting a movie, is very similar, very creative and very exciting, for lack of a better term. But postproduction in indie world is a continuation of the importance of what you’re trying to do. The Hollywood-world, for lack of a better term is a calculated, marketing, mass audience appeal testing, all the way that that happens doesn’t make any sense to me. I shoot a movie to be edited in a certain way and then I cut it together that way. Whereas, a lot of the big movies are like you should shoot a lot of coverage so you have lots of options just in case we want to change it. But, we don’t want to change it. We all agreed that this is the way to go. So there’s a second-guessing period that is huge in postproduction. I think that there are a lot of people with opinions that don’t really know what to do during production ““ it’s moving too fast that they can’t stop the ship and change their mind. Whereas in postproduction they can say stop editing and let’s discuss this and maybe change it and then everyone get panicky and that’s where I worry about making a very good movie but it gets derailed. It’s happened to me. I am always gun shy because of that.

    CS: Hearing you talk I am reminded of the story with John Hughes and how he wrote Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. It was done over a weekend, he sketched it all out. While some musicians say their biggest hits were written in a day or an hour, there are so many stories of people over-thinking the process.

    WEST: I wrote The Innkeeper in 3 days. So, it is what it is. I don’t know if it’s better or worse but that’s how it goes sometimes. When you’re making it, I’ll go back to the post production thing, it’s like there’s a point where it’s like, this made sense to us 6 months ago, don’t panic now.

    (Laughs)

    But on a larger scale there’s a lot of people who’s jobs are on the line and in any world you’re job’s not on the line it’s just your life, a lifestyle, but if you go to the office everyday and you’re in post production, you don’t want to lose your job so it becomes show it to everyone on the planet and we have to address all the problems as if all those people made the movie and to me that just doesn’t make any sense. I can kind of see where you’re coming from but it’s not a smart way to do things and you’re just going to have this muddled mess. And, so what if they thought 2 minutes of the movie, were like I didn’t like that one section, well so what. You don’t have to. But when everyone panics that’s a bad way to make decisions.

    CS: Do you fall on the side of “I’m OK over here in the indie world” or do you like internally hope that if someone wants to throw a hundred million dollars your way and say, “OK kid, go make your film”?

    WEST: Well, if someone gave me one hundred million I would absolutely do that. But they all do that. They come to you with either a remake or a sequel or a script that’s not very good and they say we have 10 million dollars and you think this isn’t as good as doing a hundred million go-make-your-film-thing. I’ve had a lot of options to do bigger stuff but it’s never been appealing enough and there hasn’t been enough of a trade-off to risk making a shitty movie. If they gave me 10 million dollars I probably would just take one for the team and try but that’s not the case. It’s not a beneficial thing for me. What am I getting out of this? I’m making a movie I don’t care about, it’s probably not going to turn out well, I don’t make a lot of money, I don’t get to work with anyone I want, the idea is stupid. That’s not selling out to me. Selling out is, like you said, someone comes to you and says we’re going to give you 100 million dollars to do this thing and that’s just not the case.

    Or, people have come to me and say we love what you do and we love your new script, let’s make that for more money. That’s ideal. But it’s a weird time right now where everyone goes have you heard have you heard about that Paranormal Activity movie? It was made for 30 grand and made 150 million dollars. We’ll give you 30 grand to make a movie. Dude that’s like hitting roulette, big. Yes, it’s the best way to hit it but you usually don’t so can we not just shift the whole industry to make the cheapest movie? It’s a weird time for movies. The indie movies have become Hollywood movies just made with less money. The stories are the same as any studio movie ““ they are just made cheaper, so now their indie. When I grew up, I grew up in Philadelphia, the art house theatre I would see movies that were different than any movies I had seen before ““ they weren’t hard core art movies but they were indie movies and it doesn’t feel like that anymore. It just feels like you have a bunch of celebrities and you made it for 6 million dollars instead of 70. OK?

    CS: And I know my time is short but I’d like to pull it back together with your statement a couple of weeks ago where you asked people to not illegally download the film, I was moved by it and want to get your thoughts about a) why you wrote it and then b) how it felt from getting such a positive reception, from people saying he’s damn right about it?

    WEST: It’s not about stealing and that’s just a semantic situation people get very reactionary about. It might be stealing but I don’t think about it like that. I think of it as not supporting. It doesn’t have to be me but everyone has their idiosyncratic thing in life whether it’s a band, a movie, a filmmaker, that they like cherish because it gives them something that they really enjoy. I think you really need to give back to that and you need to support that back. It is important as a consumer for lack of a better term to actually think about what you’re doing. It’s a powerful time to be that and it does make a statement and I think people should be more responsible. It’s a lifestyle or a culture more than it is an industry or business and to keep that going you need to have conversations. If nothing else, I hope to have started a conversation that can keep going.

    CS: I agree. It would be easy to take a cookie from the cookie jar but for a little movie that could it’s important to support it and my little part here is to help get that word out for whatever it’s worth.

    WEST: I appreciate that.

    patPAT HEALY – INTERVIEW

    CS: Thank you so much for talking with me.

    HEALY: My pleasure.

    CS: Phenomenal film. I saw it and saw it last night again and it’s great. I would like to get started by at least finding out ““ you and Ti seem to have known each other for awhile and anyone who has seen House of the Devil would jump at the chance to work with the guy.

    HEALY: Exactly right.

    CS: How was it that he told you about the role you were playing? How did you fit within his vision?

    HEALY: I met him at the LA Film Festival in 2007 ““ he had Trigger Man and I was doing Great World of Sound, he had seen that, and I saw House of the Devil and I was really knocked out by that. I think, coincidentally or maybe not, right after I had seen it I got an email from a mutual friend of ours and an actress and said he was looking for me for his new movie and I really right there was ready to do it. Once I got the script I looked at it and we share the same sort of dry deadpan sense of humor. He certainly believed in me. I didn’t audition or anything like that, he believed I was the right person from the work he had seen and we got to know each other a little bit.

    I inherently understood that that sense of humor, that cynicism, is not necessarily me but comedy rhythm is me ““ that dry stuff. And then I think what I thought was really interesting in reading it maybe some of the stuff I talked about with him was the idea of reality of haunting vs. something going on in a person’s head and my character being a skeptic who doesn’t necessarily believe in all that ““ the sort of cynic of the two and the other person ““ Sara plays it way overboard in the other direction. I understand that because I myself am a skeptic and don’t really believe in that stuff and think it’s mostly a product of environment and things in people’s heads. But, I think the thing that really send that over the top for me is like a lot of people say, and I agree, that what makes the movie work is that you actually for once in this genre care about the characters and they’re finely tuned relationship.

    I like that through line without giving too much away. I know you’ve seen it but he’s really sort of purely motivated by his feelings for her which are not reciprocated by her. He’s operating under this delusion that he sort of gets shattered and sets this whole final act into motion. I really like that about him and understood that. That scene where the unrequited love gets spoken and then towards the end of the film was interesting but heart breaking to play but fun to watch in the theater. It’s really funny because we all relate to or understand being in that situation at one point or another. It comes off as funny I think because it’s played genuinely.

    Paramount TheaterCS: And he’s able to evoke something that is really sort of natural ““ it’s not forced and obviously something people have seen and really responded to it in House of the Devil. It’s great that we have filmmakers who are making paranormal activity ““ the idea that you don’t need to have a hack and slash to be able to scare people. Talking with Ti and what he was expecting with this movie and how he wanted you to play it, how did you understand it? Obviously there’s a little bit of humor in this movie which is weird to some people coming into a movie where you are expecting to get scared a little bit. How did he approach it and say this is going to be a scary movie but with humor?

    HEALY: I think it’s all there on the script. I don’t think there was that much explaining to do. I don’t think it’s a great idea as an actor to focus on the genre that it is, unless it’s some really specific art soft of style that needs to be played for the thing to work. I never approached it like it was a horror movie until the last day of shooting where we shot, at least my climax of the movie. It does get very scary for me and it does get very real for me. We had done the whole movie at that point so it was easy to play that tension. But so much was done with the way he cuts it. They way Ti cut it, and the way Elliott shot it. He’s so meticulous with the work that he does with Graham Reznick the sound designer and Jeff Grace the composer.

    He spent much more time with that than shooting it. If you get a chance to sit in a theatre and see it, every little creepy crack and every little string is really has an effect. Having been familiar with his work and being a movie fan I I can see what the end result was going to be so some of that is in my mind as I’m doing it. I just followed the story. I had the script for a couple of months and followed the story and had the projectory of the character and luckily we shot it for the most part in sequence. He was easy to play. You don’t think I’m doing horror or I’m doing comedy. I just get to behave and you’re on location and you just do the work in this weird place and you’re having fun with these fun and funny people and it comes off as effortless. It’s a different thing for him. I think that Ti is not necessarily a horror guy. It’s what’s been offered to him and that’s what he’s done but I think he’s capable of so much more. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, he’s one of the best at what he does but I think in this movie he’s very good with actors and relationships and comedy and all sorts of things. I think he’s going to go and do a variety of great things.

    CS: I absolutely agree. He’s one of the freshest talents in the market right now.

    HEALY: He’s a real person, a real down to earth guy and he understands how regular people talk and are with each other. He’s worked retail jobs as have I and he gets it. I think people respond to that.

    CS: To that point that he takes longer in the editing room that it was to shoot ““ if I’m looking at this correctly, it was a 17 day shoot. To go that fast, to actually bust through it like that, is there any sort of preparation on your part as an actor/performer? He’s obviously not big on giving ornate direction and wasting everyone’s time of having to be prepared.

    HEALY: And, I’m not interested in that either. Say you are doing a television show or something ““ sometimes you get the part on Friday and you have to go to work on Monday, you don’t get that kind f prep time. I did have the good fortune to have the script for a couple of months. To me, an actor’s job is really all homework. He casts you so you believe that he believes you can do it so you do your homework. It’s been really fun. I don’t want to sit around and waste anybody’s time talking about motivation for hours. He doesn’t either. Then we can just play with it. Everyone knows what they were doing. Everyone was really prepared. Then you can have fun and that’s what it was like. It’s stressful, it’s not any money if things screw up, and luckily they didn’t.

    Shooting on film, so it’s not like you can do take after take and God bless them for doing that by the way. I don’t know, it forces you to be really creative on the fly in a way. Sometimes I think if you have too much time and too much money ““ too much time to think about things and too much money to blow on stuff ““ it’s not necessarily as interesting as what we got. We got spur of the moment rather than deliberating on stuff. Ti is extremely prepared down to every detail. He knows exactly what he wants it to be and he’s exacting but it never felt like we were working with a task master or anything like that. It was more of I’ve seen this man’s work, I know what he’s capable of doing, he knows what he’s doing and I trust him. I won’t speak for him but I certainly felt that he felt the same way about me, so it was a good working relationship.

    CS: I know I’m almost out of time but I have to at least ask the question ““ looking at the finished product and again, it was a short schedule, a short shoot, knowing what you saw on the page, seeing it all the way through, did you see what was on the page or did he surprise you in areas.

    HEALY: It far exceeded my expectations. It shouldn’t have because I was so impressed with House of the Devil and I thought they had even less time and less money on that and that was really impressive so I shouldn’t have been surprised but it impressed me. Especially once I’ve seen it a few times and got over the shock of seeing myself or remembering how it was shot ““ maybe I had seen it two or three times and with an audience watching it for the first time in a 35m print for the first time. It really is impressive and far exceeded my expectations for what it could be to see all the interesting, different things he’s trying to do all at the same time, harkening back to something more innocent and old-fashioned at the same time.

    I’m really impressed by it.

    I’m pleased with my work and everyone else’s work on it but I think Ti and his team did an exceptional job and it seems people are responding positively to it. Hope it will lead to more opportunities for him. I’m sure it will.

    ###

    THE SCORPION KING 3: BATTLE FOR REDEMPTION and KILLER ELITE

    I’ve got a couple of Blu-rays to give away and they’ve got your name on them.

    scorpion_king_3_blu-rayFor those who are looking for a film that looks like nothing but cheesy goodness here is a description of the film straight from THE SCORPION KING 3’s press release:

    A once-powerful warrior king takes on a new life as an assassin for hire in the DVD Original â„¢ The Scorpion King 3: Battle for Redemption. The latest chapter in Universal’s enormously popular The Mummy franchise, The Scorpion King 3: Battle for Redemption brings the heroic, larger-than-life saga of the dethroned king Mathayus to face some of his fiercest demons and most vicious rivals-both real and supernatural-ever.

    In a dangerous, action-packed battle to regain his glory and reclaim the empire, Mathayus’s journey is steeped in intrigue, sorcery and romance, fueling this new film that spawned from the billion-dollar The Mummy film franchise. The Scorpion King 3: Battle for Redemption tops the series once again, featuring even more of the heart-stopping action, mind-bending stunts and astonishing plot twists that have earned the series millions of fans the world over. The film’s spectacular fight scenes, choreographed by renowned stunt experts Kawee “Seng” Sirikanerut (Ongbok, Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Cradle of Civilization) and Supoj “Jimmy” Khaowwong (Batman Begins), are showcased within enchanting ancient palaces, against a backdrop of breathtaking desert vistas.

    The Scorpion King 3: Battle for Redemption stars Golden Globe® winner Ron Perlman (“Sons of Anarchy,” Hellboy II: The Golden Army) as Hours, the powerful King of Egypt and Billy Zane (The Roommate, Titanic) as the villainous Talus. Directed by Roel Reiné, the film also stars Victor Webster (“Castle,” Surrogates) as Mathayus and UFC star Kimbo Slice (Locked Down), Bostin Christopher (Unbreakable); six-time WWE World Champion Dave Bautista (House of the Rising Sun), and Temeura Morrison (Green Lantern, Stars Wars: Episode 3 – Revenge of the Sith), Selina Lo (Shanghai) and Krystal Vee (Streetfighter: The Legend of Chin-Li).

    250x334px-ll-ea077493_killerelAnd for those needing a little more Jason Statham, Clive Owen and Robert De Niro in their lives, comes a film that feels gritty, raw and all sorts of action packed. Here, then, is a blurb about KILLER ELITE:

    When his mentor is taken captive, a retired member of Britain’s Elite Special Air Service is forced into action. His mission: kill three assassins dispatched by their cunning leader. Based on a shocking true story, Killer Elite is a gritty battle between guns-for-hire that has been hailed as “one of the best action thrillers of the year!” by Richard Roeper, ReelzChannel. Pitting two of the world’s most elite operatives against the cunning leader of a secret military society, Killer Elite stars Jason Statham (The Transporter, Death Race), Academy Award® winner Robert De Niro (The Godfather Part II, Raging Bull) and Academy Award®-nominee Clive Owen (Children of Men, Closer). Featuring unstoppable action and a tremendous cast ““ including Dominic Purcell (“Prison Break,” Straw Dogs), Yvonne Strahovski (“Chuck”), Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (“Lost,” “Oz”), Aden Young (Sniper, “The Starter Wife”) and Ben Mendelsohn (Trespass, Knowing) ““ Killer Elite is “a classic action thriller that will keep you guessing till the last scene.” (Patrick Carone, MAXIM).

    All you have to do in order to be eligible to win one of these beauties is send your name and address to me at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and I’ll put you in the running. Good luck!

    ###

    Marty Works his Magic on Melies By Ray Schillaci

    hugo-movie-poster-021If you had told me that the man responsible for some of the darkest and greatest films of our time (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas) was to be the creator of the most endearing family film of the decade, I probably would have scoffed. Put aside your humbug, Martin Scorsese has delivered his magical gift, “Hugo” just in time for the holiday season. The only drawback is the marketing department at Paramount. The trailer gives the film a homogenized family-film look that does not do this wonderful tale justice. To add insult to injury; nothing is said about the use of 3D being the best since “Avatar”.

    Director, Martin Scorsese weaves a tale of wonder around an orphan whose life has been dedicated to keeping the clocks wound and fixed while living in the walls of a train station. His observation of the life around him in 1930s Paris is one of amazement and magic with a touch of melancholy. The boy, Hugo Cabret, played with heart wrenching realism by Asa Butterfield, involves himself in a mystery encompassing his deceased father, an automaton and a bitter toy peddler. Also captured is the wondrous world of George Melies, film pioneer extraordinaire.

    In anybody else’s hands this movie might have been a disaster. Slapshtick could have been drawn with even broader strokes, characters might have been paper-thin and CGI special effects would have dominated the screen with loud pompous sound effects. But in the hands of the master and lover of cinema, Mr. Scorsese unfolds this gentle tale with great alacrity. Every actor involved delivers a performance that captures our hearts and imagination. The standouts may already have their mark on the Oscar race with Ben Kingsley’s grand performance, Chloe Grace Moritz capturing the spirit of a young Ingrid Bergman and Sacha Baron Cohen channeling the subtlety of the great comic actor, Peter Sellers.

    The film is also a technical marvel with the 3D delivering snowflakes nearly making us shiver in delight, surrounding us with intricate clock mechanisms and delivering a magical side of film rarely seen. The entire production is first class and is guaranteed to be recognized come award time. In fact, this may be Scorsese’s triumph, for it is his true passion of film history that gives this movie its emotional punch.

    For once, I can say this is a movie for the whole family. I had taken my kids (including a teenager), my wife, father and his cousin (both in their 70s) and everybody fell in love with “Hugo”. We also had friends join us and they had asked me about some of the film history discussed in the movie and their fascination spurred a fun conversation that delved even deeper. I believe my dad summed up the movie beautifully when he turned to me with deep emotion and stated, “That was a work of art.”

  • Trailer Park: DETECTIVE DEE AND THE MYSTERY OF THE PHANTOM FLAME, THE HELP, RARE EXPORTS: A CHRISTMAS TALE, COWBOYS & ALIENS

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    Check out my other column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    DETECTIVE DEE AND THE MYSTERY OF THE PHANTOM FLAME – GIVEAWAY

    dee-dvd-box-artI had a blast with this film.

    Flat out, if you’re as big a fan of Tsui Hark’s earlier work, ONCE UPON A TIME IN CHINA and TIME AND TIDE, this movie will entertain as much as it will delight fans of Asian cinema.

    A story that marries together historical fact, the female emperor of China, part of the Tang Dynasty circa 689, and fantastical fiction, people are spontaneously combusting, DETECTIVE DEE is a yarn that blends action and character development in a way that I yearn for in my action films as of late.

    Where the movie really excels is in the performance of Andy Lau who plays Dee. As he investigates what is behind these combustions there is a heavy emphasis on having a story that twists and turns but giving fans of famed action choreographer Sammo Hung the martial artistry what they want. The colors and fights pop in a way that Hark knows how to capitalize on. It barrel rolls you but then injects love and heart into a story that feels more like a roller coaster you never want to get off of than anything else. One of the greatest compliments for a movie’s worth is its replay factor and you’ll find yourself looking at shots that Hark has composed and wonder at why no one else is taking his lead and making action as fluid and kinetic as he can do it. As well, he makes it known that you can have thunderous violence but also be intelligent about it. Cannot recommend it enough that you check out this movie as soon as you can.

    To two of you, though, you won’t have to search far. Just shoot me a line at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and let me know your favorite Hark film and I’ll put you in the running to get one of two DVDs of the movie to check out at your own.

    Good luck!

    ABOUT THE MOVIE:

    “A GRAND-SCALE ADVENTURE” NEW YORK TIMES

    “FROM START TO FINISH IS A TERRIFIC ENTERTAINMENT” LOS ANGELES TIMES

    Official Selection-Toronto International Film Festival 2010

    Nominated- Best Visual Effects- Asian Film Awards 2011

    WINNER! HONG KONG FILM AWARDS (Including Best Director and Best Actress)

    Famed Director Tsui Hark Takes Audiences On An Epic Adventure

    Master genre director, Tusi Hark’s critically acclaimed action adventure masterpiece, DETECTIVE DEE AND THE MYSTERY OF THE PHANTOM FLAME, starring legendary Hong Kong actor, Andy Lau (Infernal Affairs, The House of Flying Daggers), Bingbing Li (Forbidden Kingdom), Carina Lau (2046), and Tony Leung Ka-fai (Bodyguards & Assassins), leaps on to Blu-ray, DVD, Digital and Video on Demand, this December 13 from Indomina Releasing. Critics have called the epic “A Masterpiece” (TIME Magazine), “Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon Meets Sherlock Holmes, Only A Lot More Fun” (New Your Magazine) and “The Most Purely Entertaining Film Of Our Vanishing Summer” (WALL STREET JOURNAL).

    After wowing critics and audiences as an Official Selection at Toronto International Film Festival 2010, DETECTIVE DEE AND THE MYSTERY OF THE PHANTOM FLAME, went on to win at the Hong Kong Film Awards, including Best Director and Best Actress and was nominated for Best Visual Effects at the Asian Film Awards in 2011. DETECTIVE DEE AND THE MYSTERY OF THE PHANTOM FLAME is now armed to knock out action, adventure and mystery fans alike on Blu-ray and DVD, featuring super cool bonus features including four behind-the-scenes featurettes.

    Synopsis
    A period epic from genre master Tsui Hark (Seven Swords), DETECTIVE DEE AND THE MYSTERY OF THE PHANTOM FLAME, is an action-packed, visually breathtaking Sherlock Holmes-style mystery starring some of China’s top acting talent: Andy Lau, Bingbing Li, Carina Lau, and Tony Leung Ka-fai. Nominated for Best Special Effects at the 2011 Asian Film Awards and stunningly choreographed by master Sammo Hung, this intricately plotted whodunit is set in an exquisitely realized steampunk version of ancient China.

    On the eve of her coronation as Empress (Carina Lau, 2046), China’s most powerful woman is haunted by a chilling murder mystery: seven men under her command have burst into flames, leaving behind only black ash and skeletal bones. Recognizing this threat to her power, she turns to the infamous Dee Renjie (Andy Lau, Infernal Affairs, House Of Flying Daggers): a man whose unparalleled wisdom is matched only by his martial arts skills. As he battles a series of bizarre dangers, he unveils a chilling truth that places his life, and the future of an entire dynasty, in peril.

    CAST: Andy Lau, Bingbing Li, Carina Lau, and Tony Leung Ka-fai

    DIRECTOR: Tsui Hark

    WRITER: Zhang Jialu

    LANGUAGE: In Mandarin with English subtitles

    BONUS FEATURES:

    “The Making of Detective Dee”
    “Creating the Characters”
    “Weapons, Stunts and Action”
    “The World of Dee”
    Production Stills Gallery
    Behind-the-Scenes Stills Gallery
    Poster Gallery
    English-Language Dub

    English Subtitles
    French Subtitles

    WEBSITE:
    http://releasing.indomina.com/detective-dee/

    TWITTER:
    @Indomina

    THE HELP – DVD REVIEW

    the-helpJust watch this for Viola Davis.

    I will admit that I am not in the core demo for this film, nor should I be, but I will be honest and say that this is a really fine film. It’s not spectacular by any means but the movie succeeds on the performances of the ladies who make this a movie that is less chick-flick and more Disney in its presentation. To wit, a story that talks about racial stereotypes could be a crucible in which heady topics could be raised to a red hot level but this movie’s ginger tone actually takes the edge off, for better or worse, of a subject that really could have used a little more barbs in its skewering of small minded individuals.

    Alas, while I was hoping there would be a little more oomph to a story about a book that rankles the delicate sensibilities of a racially divided Southern town and puts everyone’s metaphorical cards on the table as people shuck and jive their way through trying to either come to an accord or inch back into the dark confines of their bigotry this still is a worthy movie to have in your collection if for no other reason than it could introduce young people to the real issues facing the South in the 60s. It’s a primer, if you were, to the racial divide that some say still exists in some pockets all across the nation.

    Again, while it’s not earth shattering it at least shatters some notions of people’s misguided philosophies on race and the performances are uniformally excellent and ought to be seen just for that.

    ABOUT THE BLU-RAY:

    The Help, the inspirational summer hit film people can’t stop talking about, arrives in homes just in time for the holidays, delivering this powerful story on Blu-rayâ„¢ Combo Pack, DVD, Digital Download and On-Demand, December 6, 2011.

    The #1 New York Times bestseller by Kathryn Stockett comes to vivid life through the compelling performances of a phenomenal ensemble cast including Emma Stone, Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer and Bryce Dallas Howard. The Help is a courageous and empowering story about very different and extraordinary women in the 1960s South who build an unlikely friendship around a secret writing project.

    “Davis and Spencer are both brilliant” ““ Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly

    The Help Blu-ray Combo Pack provides audiences with the chance to delve deeper into the movie through compelling, never-before-seen bonus features, including “The Making of ‘The Help:’ From Friendship To Film,” an intimate look at how the life-changing experiences of close-knit childhood friends director Tate Taylor and novelist Kathryn Stockett led to the creation of the best-selling novel and its transition to the big screen.

    Additional bonus includes “In Their Own Words: A Tribute To the Maids Of Mississippi,” which is an honest observation of life in the South from real-life maids, including director Tate Taylor’s childhood caretaker, Carol Lee; Deleted Scenes; and nine-time Grammy Award®-winning and multi-platinum selling singer/songwriter, Mary J. Blige’s “The Living Proof”, music video from the film’s end titles.

    In continued efforts to provide consumers with multiple viewing choices and unprecedented quality, value and portability in a single purchase, The Help has been packaged as follows:

    The 3-Disc Blu-ray Combo Pack (Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy) =

    Exclusive Blu-ray Bonus Features:

    * The Making of “The Help:” From Friendship To Film

    * In Their Own Words: A Tribute To The Maids Of Mississippi

    *Three deleted scenes with introductions by Director Tate Taylor, including ‘Humiliated,’ ‘A Book About Jackson’ and ‘Johnny’s Home’ (which is a Blu-ray exclusive)

    DVD Bonus Features:

    * Two deleted scenes with introductions by Director Tate Taylor including ‘A Senator’s Son’ and ‘Keep On Walkin’

    * “The Living Proof” music video by Mary J. Blige

    2-Disc Blu-ray Combo Pack (Blu-ray + DVD) =

    Exclusive Blu-ray Bonus Features:

    * The Making of “The Help:” From Friendship To Film

    * In Their Own Words: A Tribute To The Maids Of Mississippi

    * Three deleted scenes with introductions by Director Tate Taylor including ‘Humiliated,’ ‘A Book About Jackson’ and ‘Johnny’s Home’ (which is a Blu-ray exclusive)

    DVD Bonus Features:

    * Two deleted scenes with introductions by Director Tate Taylor, including ‘A Senator’s Son’ and ‘Keep On Walkin’

    * “The Living Proof” music video by Mary J. Blige

    The #1 New York Times bestseller by Kathryn Stockett comes to vivid life through the powerful performances of a phenomenal ensemble cast. The Help is an inspirational, courageous and empowering story about very different, extraordinary women in the 1960s South who build an unlikely friendship around a secret writing project – one that breaks society’s rules and puts them all at risk. Filled with poignancy, humor and hope – and complete with compelling, never-before-seen bonus features – The Help is a timeless, universal and triumphant story about the ability to create change.

    The Help stars Emma Stone as the courageous Eugenia ‘Skeeter’ Phelan, who goes against the beliefs of her family and friends to find her own voice. The critically praised, emotional performance of Viola Davis as Aibileen Clark, a woman who secretly dreams of one day having more than she has been given, offers a deep emotional storyline. The breakthrough performance of Octavia Spencer as Minny Jackson, whose sass and tough exterior disguise the pain and fear she faces every day, brings both drama and humor to the film. Bryce Dallas Howard breathes life into the catty Jackson socialite Hilly Holbrook and Jessica Chastain brings charm and humor as Celia Foote, a kind housewife living outside of town who longs to fit in. Sissy Spacek, Allison Janney and Ahna O’Reilly also provide vivacious performances that round out this all-star female ensemble.

    COWBOYS & ALIENS – GIVEAWAY

    35469l

    Everyone needs to chill out on this movie.

    After watching COWBOYS & ALIENS I was struck by the fact that people should have absolutely been a little struck by the way this movie played out because it feels like it is going to find some fans in the secondary market.

    By that I mean for those who spent more than $20 to see the movie were expecting something that they didn’t get while the schmoes like me who saddle up to a Redbox every now and then and pop a dollar into the machine are getting a great return on their investment. This is a movie that will play well with kids, with dudes, people of any background who understand that it’s show business for a reason and sometimes you just have to find the right price point.

    A story that takes us from the old west to centuries beyond our own, the movie succeeds once you stop taking it so seriously. I had fun with it for what it is and the effects are more than enough reason to give this one a second chance. To that end, then, I have some copies of the movie to give out.

    If you would like a chance to be one of the lucky ones to prove the summer audiences wrong then by all means shoot me a line at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and I’ll get you entered to win a copy!

    ABOUT THE BLU-RAY:

    This summer’s movie event becomes the holiday season’s must-own Blu-rayâ„¢ as a lone gunslinger leads an uprising against an alien threat in the explosive, stunningly-imagined film, Cowboys & Aliens. A blazingly original, cross-genre adventure from acclaimed director Jon Favreau (Iron Man, Iron Man 2) and top moviemakers Steven Spielberg, Ron Howard, Brian Grazer, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, Cowboys & Aliens features heart-pumping action, spectacular visuals and a first-rate cast. Arriving in stores December 6th from Universal Studios Home Entertainment, the Blu-rayâ„¢ Combo Pack edition of Cowboys & Aliens bring all of the thrills and fun home with perfect hi-def picture and perfect hi-def sound and includes a never-before-seen extended version of the movie, over two hours of exclusive bonus features, and a DVD and digital copy of the film that can be viewed anywhere, anytime on an array of devices including laptops, tablets, Internet-connected TVs and set-top boxes. The Blu-rayâ„¢ also boasts an upgraded version of Universal’s Second Screen – a groundbreaking new technology that enhances the viewing experience by allowing viewers to simultaneously control and interact with the film and bonus material on a WiFi-connected tablet or computer as the movie plays on the television screen. The new Flick View Feature will allow fans to interact even more with the movie and be able to move content from their tablet to their TV screen! Cowboys & Aliens is also available on DVD, digital download and On Demand.

    Daniel Craig (Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace) and Harrison Ford (the Indiana Jones and Star Wars franchises) headline as adversaries obliged to join forces against a terrifying enemy, with a supporting cast that includes Olivia Wilde (TRON: Legacy, The Change-Up), Sam Rockwell (Iron Man 2), Ana de la Reguera (Eastbound and Down), Adam Beach (Flags of Our Fathers), Paul Dano (There Will Be Blood), Clancy Brown (The Shawshank Redemption), Keith Carradine (Nashville) and Noah Ringer (The Last Airbender). The script for Cowboys & Aliens is by Star Trek’s Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci and Damon Lindelof (television’s Lost), based on Platinum Studios’ graphic novel created by Scott Mitchell Rosenberg. Grazer, Howard, Rosenberg, Kurtzman and Orci produce. Steven Spielberg, Jon Favreau, Denis L. Stewart, Bobby Cohen, Randy Greenberg and Ryan Kavanaugh serve as Executive Producers.

    BONUS FEATURES:

    IGNITING THE SKY: THE MAKING OF COWBOYS & ALIENS – A comprehensive, behind-the-scenes look at the production that invites viewers on set to meet the filmmakers and cast as they create this one-of-a-kind action film. In revealing conversations, Jon Favreau, Steven Spielberg, Ron Howard and Brian Grazer, as well as stars Harrison Ford, Daniel Craig and Olivia Wilde, share their insights about the movie. Also featured are visual-effects powerhouses Legacy Effects and ILM, which join forces once again to push the technological envelope beyond anything ever seen before on screen. It includes:

    FINDING THE STORY – Cowboys & Aliens, based on the graphic novel by Scott Mitchell Rosenberg, has been in development for over a decade. Filmmakers, writers and cast explain why this particular team of Hollywood heavyweights hit the right note to bring this to the big screen.

    THE SCOPE OF THE SPECTACLE – A look at the team behind the camera for the film’s massive New Mexico shoot, as the stars ride horses, shoot guns, jump from explosions, and get yanked 80 feet in the air! Director Jon Favreau stages unforgettable action set-pieces as cameras capture every moment, while legendary stuntman and Cowboys & Aliens’ second unit director Terry Leonard brings a lifetime of experience to the big-screen stunts, from legendary moments in John Wayne classics to doubling for Harrison Ford in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

    OUTER-SPACE ICON – Take a closer look at the creation of a new, terrifying alien design from Legacy Effects and Industrial Light and Magic.

    And exclusive to Blu-rayâ„¢ these additional segments:

    A CALL TO ACTION – A profile of prolific actor, writer and director Jon Favreau featuring on-set video diaries shot throughout the production.

    ABSOLUTION – A look at the practical re-creation of a dusty Old West mining town, the town’s inhabitants and the amazing ensemble of actors who portray them, as well as an exclusive look at the film’s meticulous production and costume designs.

    CONVERSATIONS WITH JON FAVREAU ““ Jon Favreau hosts candid interviews with cast and crew, including:

    Daniel Craig

    Harrison Ford

    Olivia Wilde

    Steven Spielberg, Ron Howard and Brian Grazer

    Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci

    Damon Lindelof

    FEATURE COMMENTARY WITH DIRECTOR JON FAVREAU

    ADDITIONAL FEATURES EXCLUSIVE TO BLU-RAY:

    U-CONTROL: Universal’s exclusive feature that lets the viewer access bonus materials without leaving the movie!

    BD-LIVEâ„¢: Access the BD-Liveâ„¢ Center through your Internet-connected player to access the latest trailers, exclusive content, and more!

    pocket BLUâ„¢ App: The popular free pocket BLUâ„¢ app for smartphones is now even better with newly updated versions for iPad®, Androidâ„¢ tablets, PC, and Macintosh computers, with features made especially to take advantage of the devices’ larger screens and high resolution displays.

    Advanced Remote Control: A sleek, elegant new way to operate your Blu-rayâ„¢ player. Users can navigate through menus, playback and BD-Liveâ„¢ functions with ease.

    Video Timeline: Users can easily bring up the video timeline, allowing them to instantly access any point in the film.

    Mobile-To-Go: Users can unlock a selection of bonus content with their Blu-rayâ„¢ discs to save to their device or to stream from anywhere there is a Wi-Fi network, enabling them to enjoy content on the go, anytime, anywhere.

    Browse Titles: Users will have access to a complete list of pocket BLUâ„¢-enabled titles available and coming to Blu-rayâ„¢. They can view free previews and see what additional content is available to unlock on their device.

    Keyboard: Entering data is fast and easy with your device’s intuitive keyboard.

    And with UNIVERSAL’S SECOND SCREEN, viewers can enjoy an innovative and interactive viewing experience, that allows them to control, interact and explore Cowboys & Aliens with groundbreaking new features right on a networked tablet or computer, in synchronization with the movie on the television screen! While the movie plays, experience features such as:

    Flick View: Interact with the movie, move content from the Tablet to the TV screen, and compare storyboards, animatics, and other executing content by “Flicking” them from on their tablet to their TV screen, simply by gesturing their fingers upwards on their tablets.

    Scene Explorer: Viewers select various progressions of the same scene including storyboards, pre-visualizations and behind-the-scenes.

    Behind the Scenes: Viewers get an all access look at the making of the film featuring interviews with cast and crew.

    Storyboards: Viewers will be able to take a closer look at the storyboards created for some of the amazing sequences in the film.

    3D Models: Viewers can take a look at the aliens and otherworldly gadgets in Cowboys & Aliens by the touch or swipe of their fingers. You can move the models in a 360 degree view, get tech specs and more.

    SYNOPSIS

    It’s 1873 when gunslinger Jake Lonergan (Daniel Craig) awakens in the Arizona desert with no memory of his past and a mysterious metal shackle encircling his wrist. Stumbling into the nearby town of Absolution, Lonergan discovers a tightly closed community that takes its orders from the iron-fisted Colonel Woodrow Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford) – and Dolarhyde has a bone to pick with Lonergan. But the colonel’s influence wanes when the desolate city is attacked by monsters that drop from the sky with blinding force and abduct the helpless townsfolk one by one. As Lonergan’s memory slowly returns, he realizes he holds a secret that could give the town a fighting chance against the alien force. With the help of mysterious beauty Ella (Olivia Wilde), he assembles a posse comprised of former opponents: townsfolk, Dolarhyde and his boys, outlaws and Apache warriors. United against a common enemy, they prepare for an epic showdown for survival.

    “Rare Exports” an Exceptional Treat by Ray Schillaci

    rare_exports_ver4The new Blu-ray Oscilloscope release of “Rare Exports: a Christmas Tale” may not be everybody’s cup of Christmas tea, but it is definitely the most original and delightfully dark holiday tale since Tim Burton’s, “Nightmare before Christmas”. This is the second fantasy film from Norway (the first being Troll Hunter) that has hit our shores and it has all the earmarks of a cult classic and is even better than its predecessor. Several films of late (Super 8, Cowboys and Aliens) have tried to recapture the magic of Spielberg in the 80s and they have fallen short. Director, Jalmeri Helander delivers that magic in spades with an unwavering “R” rating and has us giggling all the way as to how wrong it is.

    There is so much wonderment involved in this fantastic tale of the “real” Santa Clause being discovered that I hesitate to provide you any spoilers with this review. The basic idea; pesky Americans have invaded the Korvatunturi mountains, disturbing the local townsfolk with their blasting. Pietari, a mischievous Norwegian boy, and his friend spy on the secretive area and believe Santa Claus has been unearthed. But this is not the jolly old fat man that parents have been talking about for ages. Pietari fears this is truly the demon that was known for stealing children and placing them in boiling water. When the boy’s harsh father accidentally snares a naked old man with a long grey beard suspicions peak and fantasy turns deadly.

    Helander captures the magic of the holiday season with the beautiful snow covered landscapes and wide-eyed children. He also manages to keep us in suspense with the reactions of the adults and legends revealed. There are moments of giddy pleasure with the absurdity of it all; a possible unconscious Santa on a butcher block, a child pleading to be spanked for bad behavior for fear of Santa and a herding (it has to be seen to be believed) like no other.

    Oscilloscope has delivered a crisp and dynamic Blu-ray presentation with a soundtrack worthy of a big Hollywood budget that never overwhelms or becomes annoying. Subtitles are easy to read. If you are one to avoid subtitled movies, I would strongly suggest giving this one a chance. It is well worth it.

    The two disc set is the best way to go with one of the most ingenious packaging displays that is a great conversation piece. Extras include two short prequels “Rare Exports, Inc.” and “Rare Exports, Inc. ““ Official Safety Guide,” hilarious. The making of this Christmas gem, concept art, animatics and computer effects video comparison, still photo gallery displaying behind the scenes production and the original trailer from Finland is all included. Oscilloscope has also thrown in the camp classic, “Santa Clause Conquers the Martians”. All of this is worth the couple of dollars extra compared to the single disc Blu-ray or the DVD.

    The film is so full of surprises throughout its production. All the actors hit their mark, tug at our hearts and make us cringe in fear all at once. But do not mistake this as a simple horror show ““ it is definitely not, it’s more of a playful creep fest that is full of fun. “Rare Exports” is a cup of spiked Christmas cheer, sit back and enjoy it.