Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Revised Final Assignment Proposal
My final assignment will be a social/cultural critical essay revolving around the film “8 mile.” The social/cultural element will concern economics, specifically Michigan’s focus on creating a movie industry, in part to clean up the mess the Big Three auto companies left behind. In this assignment I will argue against building this industry and the methods they are using to build it, for example giving movie producers tax breaks while proposing budget cuts in both arts and education. They are essentially going to be paying people from Hollywood to come in and make movies while drastically reducing the opportunity for homegrown talent. To argue this point I will be using the movie “8 mile” as a metaphor because the movie was made in Michigan and the main character’s life resembles the state’s dilemma. He starts off poor and barely makes ends meet in a decaying auto factory before finding success in show business. However, I will argue that this is not the common scenario because none of the other rappers in the movie achieve success. I will utilize this to argue my opinion that a movie industry in Michigan will only hurt the state. Further, because “8 Mile” was closely based off of a true story, I examine outside research on the fates of the real individuals that the movie depicted.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
A CLUE Movie?
I'm not really sure how they are going to make a movie after a board game. What next? Will Ferrel as the Monopoly guy?
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=53222
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=53222
2010 Oscar Candidates Already?
Apparently this guy is already looking forward to the 2010 Academy Awards...
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/2010-oscar-candidates-already
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/2010-oscar-candidates-already
Other Oscar Reviews
Now that we have all posted our Oscar reviews, I thought it would be interesting to see what others thought of the show.
http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Oscar-Review-And-The-Award-For-Most-Tedious-Montage-Goes-To-3011.html
http://watching-tv.ew.com/2009/02/oscar-oscars-te.html
http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Oscar-Review-And-The-Award-For-Most-Tedious-Montage-Goes-To-3011.html
http://watching-tv.ew.com/2009/02/oscar-oscars-te.html
Monday, February 23, 2009
The Curtain Should Have Stayed Closed
First and foremost, I would like to thank the Academy for sabotaging my Sunday night with one of the most uninspired and awkward award shows of all time.
From the onset of the three-and-a-half hour “spectacular,” when a stagehand apparently named Steve struggled to open the crystal curtains in time for the first of a seemingly endless stream of montages, the 81st Annual Academy Awards was a disaster. The once proud event has become more reminiscent of big-budget, straight to DVD movie.
In retrospect, Steve should have kept the curtain closed.
The 2009 Oscars seemed stray from the Academy’s historical, fundamental objective of show, honoring the art of filmmaking and the individuals who work so hard to make it possible.
Instead, the show often times felt like an extravagant TMZ knockoff, particularly when the camera not once, but twice cut to a close up of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie during Jennifer Aniston’s on-stage segments.
During a tribute to the nominated cinematographers, Ben Stiller appeared on stage dressed like the grizzly bearded Juaquin Pheonix and proceeded to imitate Phoenix’s now infamous David Letterman interview. While Stiller was amusing, he took the act too far and continued his antics well into the montage honoring cinematographers. Instead of paying their respects to the often times overlooked masters of cinema, both the audience and camera focused on Stiller’s exploits, denying the nominees of their moment in the spotlight.
At other times, the producers appeared as if they had been emulating the bumbling stoners from “Pineapple Express” during the show’s preparations.
The randomly placed song and dance number was reasonable in theory but was executed dreadfully. It seemed to last longer than a double viewing of “Benjamin Button” and “Titanic.” And then Disney’s “High School Musical” stars arrived. Did the Nickelodeon Awards already book the Jonas Brothers? The whole segment came across as forced filler and any momentum Hugh Jackman had build up with his stellar musical opening was slain.
Just when things couldn’t get any worse, Queen Latifah emerged to spoil the typically touching in memorandum segment. No offense to the Queen, whose display of acting prowess in classics such as “House Party 2,” “Scary Movie 2” and “Barbershop” have cemented her place in Oscar lore, but with Alicia Keys and Beyonce Knowles in the Kodak Theatre, there must have been a better option.
The 81st Oscar’s most conspicuous flaw, however, was Heath Ledger’s posthumous nomination and triumph in the best supporting actor category. His brilliant depiction of The Joker carried the “The Dark Knight” and was unquestionably one of the top five male performances of 2008. Because antagonists have obtained the leading actor nod before, notably Anthony Hopkins portrayal of Hannibal Lector in “Silence of the Lambs,” it is inexcusable to deprive Ledger of his due recognition.
While the Joker may have been snubbed, but it was the 81st Annual Academy Awards that proved to be the real joke.
From the onset of the three-and-a-half hour “spectacular,” when a stagehand apparently named Steve struggled to open the crystal curtains in time for the first of a seemingly endless stream of montages, the 81st Annual Academy Awards was a disaster. The once proud event has become more reminiscent of big-budget, straight to DVD movie.
In retrospect, Steve should have kept the curtain closed.
The 2009 Oscars seemed stray from the Academy’s historical, fundamental objective of show, honoring the art of filmmaking and the individuals who work so hard to make it possible.
Instead, the show often times felt like an extravagant TMZ knockoff, particularly when the camera not once, but twice cut to a close up of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie during Jennifer Aniston’s on-stage segments.
During a tribute to the nominated cinematographers, Ben Stiller appeared on stage dressed like the grizzly bearded Juaquin Pheonix and proceeded to imitate Phoenix’s now infamous David Letterman interview. While Stiller was amusing, he took the act too far and continued his antics well into the montage honoring cinematographers. Instead of paying their respects to the often times overlooked masters of cinema, both the audience and camera focused on Stiller’s exploits, denying the nominees of their moment in the spotlight.
At other times, the producers appeared as if they had been emulating the bumbling stoners from “Pineapple Express” during the show’s preparations.
The randomly placed song and dance number was reasonable in theory but was executed dreadfully. It seemed to last longer than a double viewing of “Benjamin Button” and “Titanic.” And then Disney’s “High School Musical” stars arrived. Did the Nickelodeon Awards already book the Jonas Brothers? The whole segment came across as forced filler and any momentum Hugh Jackman had build up with his stellar musical opening was slain.
Just when things couldn’t get any worse, Queen Latifah emerged to spoil the typically touching in memorandum segment. No offense to the Queen, whose display of acting prowess in classics such as “House Party 2,” “Scary Movie 2” and “Barbershop” have cemented her place in Oscar lore, but with Alicia Keys and Beyonce Knowles in the Kodak Theatre, there must have been a better option.
The 81st Oscar’s most conspicuous flaw, however, was Heath Ledger’s posthumous nomination and triumph in the best supporting actor category. His brilliant depiction of The Joker carried the “The Dark Knight” and was unquestionably one of the top five male performances of 2008. Because antagonists have obtained the leading actor nod before, notably Anthony Hopkins portrayal of Hannibal Lector in “Silence of the Lambs,” it is inexcusable to deprive Ledger of his due recognition.
While the Joker may have been snubbed, but it was the 81st Annual Academy Awards that proved to be the real joke.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Pauline Kael’s Repetitious Muse
During a 1994 Time Magazine interview, Quentin Tarantino, still riding the success of Pulp Fiction revealed one of his greatest influences as a director. He described someone who was “as influential as any director was in helping (him) develop his aesthetic.” While it is common for directors to revere other award winning directors, Tarantino did not have Stanley Kubrick or Martin Scorsese in mind. Rather, he was speaking of a film critic; the late Pauline Kael.
One would be hard-pressed to find a more acclaimed film critic than Kael. One of the most influential, as well as polarizing, American critics, Kael made a name for herself while writing for the New Yorker. Over her career she accumulated as assembly of loyal followers, both in the general public and in the field of film critique, while also leaving a cluster of irritated critics envying her success. However, just like the films, actors and directors she based her career on, she was not without flaw.
One can argue to what length Kael consistently accomplished her obligation as a critic. As her career matured, she became increasingly involved with the business side of Hollywood, even working as an executive consultant for Paramount. Combined with several suspicious critiques, most notably a glimmering preview of the 1975 film Nashville; it becomes difficult to have faith that Kael’s later work was consistently unbiased. One must ask if these articles were merely temporary lapses in an otherwise stellar career, such as Francis Ford Coppola’s Godfather III, or a larger plague of well-concealed flaws.
Kael has been accused of capturing movies, and through her critiques, making them her own. She has also been chastised for writing about anything but the actual movies she is reviewing, for illustrating correlations that are produced in her mind rather than the director’s. For instance, in her review for the film Top Gun she referred to the movie as “a recruiting poster that isn’t concerned with recruiting but with being a poster.”
According to Oscar Wilde, “To the critic, the work of art is simply a suggestion for a new work of his own, that need not necessarily bear any obvious resemblance to the thing it criticizes”. In making a movie her own, Kael was not only exercising her right, but also her responsibility as a critic. Much like a novelist or songwriter uses external beings or situations as muses for masterpieces, Kael merely utilizes the movies she reviews as her muse.
Kael has also been criticized for the repetitive nature of both the word choice and structure of her work.
This claim seems inconsequential because movies themselves are among the most repetitious forms of art. When one talks of a director’s “signature style,” whether it be Hitchcock’s suspense or David Mamet’s fast-paced, witty dialogue, it must be pointed out that these styles were crafted solely through similarities and repetitions throughout the course of careers. Further, a vast majority of Hollywood films follow the same distinct structure. Because the movie industry flourishes on repetition and structure, it seems unfair to chastise a film critic for the same thing.
With the recent migration of film critiques from newspapers and magazines to the more convenient internet the death of the journalistic film critic may be imminent. The internet is a place where anyone can post a review of a film regardless of qualifications, and where discussions on message boards have replaced the weekend movie headlines. With this in mind, Pauline Kael’s place in American culture has become exceedingly important in assuring the America will never forget the once hallowed Hollywood critic.
One would be hard-pressed to find a more acclaimed film critic than Kael. One of the most influential, as well as polarizing, American critics, Kael made a name for herself while writing for the New Yorker. Over her career she accumulated as assembly of loyal followers, both in the general public and in the field of film critique, while also leaving a cluster of irritated critics envying her success. However, just like the films, actors and directors she based her career on, she was not without flaw.
One can argue to what length Kael consistently accomplished her obligation as a critic. As her career matured, she became increasingly involved with the business side of Hollywood, even working as an executive consultant for Paramount. Combined with several suspicious critiques, most notably a glimmering preview of the 1975 film Nashville; it becomes difficult to have faith that Kael’s later work was consistently unbiased. One must ask if these articles were merely temporary lapses in an otherwise stellar career, such as Francis Ford Coppola’s Godfather III, or a larger plague of well-concealed flaws.
Kael has been accused of capturing movies, and through her critiques, making them her own. She has also been chastised for writing about anything but the actual movies she is reviewing, for illustrating correlations that are produced in her mind rather than the director’s. For instance, in her review for the film Top Gun she referred to the movie as “a recruiting poster that isn’t concerned with recruiting but with being a poster.”
According to Oscar Wilde, “To the critic, the work of art is simply a suggestion for a new work of his own, that need not necessarily bear any obvious resemblance to the thing it criticizes”. In making a movie her own, Kael was not only exercising her right, but also her responsibility as a critic. Much like a novelist or songwriter uses external beings or situations as muses for masterpieces, Kael merely utilizes the movies she reviews as her muse.
Kael has also been criticized for the repetitive nature of both the word choice and structure of her work.
This claim seems inconsequential because movies themselves are among the most repetitious forms of art. When one talks of a director’s “signature style,” whether it be Hitchcock’s suspense or David Mamet’s fast-paced, witty dialogue, it must be pointed out that these styles were crafted solely through similarities and repetitions throughout the course of careers. Further, a vast majority of Hollywood films follow the same distinct structure. Because the movie industry flourishes on repetition and structure, it seems unfair to chastise a film critic for the same thing.
With the recent migration of film critiques from newspapers and magazines to the more convenient internet the death of the journalistic film critic may be imminent. The internet is a place where anyone can post a review of a film regardless of qualifications, and where discussions on message boards have replaced the weekend movie headlines. With this in mind, Pauline Kael’s place in American culture has become exceedingly important in assuring the America will never forget the once hallowed Hollywood critic.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
NYT Defense
A Generous Helping of Country-Rock Comfort Music by Jon Caramanica
Jon Caramanica’s review of the Zac Brown Band followed a fairly uncommon format as he not only reviewed their latest album, “The Foundation,” but also examined a recent live performance. This “buy one get one free” approach allowed for a fascinating contrast between, and overall mixed review of, the in-studio and live version of the band.
Caramanica opened with an effective lede intended to leave the reader thinking, ‘Yes I do like comfort food as well as comfort music, I will read on.’ After a brief background of the album, where he mentions its “references, allusions and nods,” Caramanica’s “but” reveals his mixed feelings on the album. He recognizes the attempted symbolism within “The Foundation”, but because of its stereotypical nature, the album sounds “almost like a parody, what a Northerner might write when asked to imagine what’s in the mind of a Southerner.”
Caramanica opens his review of The Zac Brown Band’s live performance by claiming that the band he saw at Bowery Ballroom was more musically focused than the band he heard on the lyrically centered “The Foundation.” Regardless, Caramanica holds mixed views on the Zac Brown Band’s live performance. In his “but” statement, he refers to the performance as “genial, sometimes affective.” He criticizes both the band and the audience for becoming disinterested and “undermining the hierarchy of performer and crowd.” At other times he praises Zac Brown’s performance in some of the more desolate songs, such as “Highway 20 Ride.”
This review was very intriguing to me because of the way it managed to review two different facets of the music industry while effectively exploring the differences between the two.
Jon Caramanica’s review of the Zac Brown Band followed a fairly uncommon format as he not only reviewed their latest album, “The Foundation,” but also examined a recent live performance. This “buy one get one free” approach allowed for a fascinating contrast between, and overall mixed review of, the in-studio and live version of the band.
Caramanica opened with an effective lede intended to leave the reader thinking, ‘Yes I do like comfort food as well as comfort music, I will read on.’ After a brief background of the album, where he mentions its “references, allusions and nods,” Caramanica’s “but” reveals his mixed feelings on the album. He recognizes the attempted symbolism within “The Foundation”, but because of its stereotypical nature, the album sounds “almost like a parody, what a Northerner might write when asked to imagine what’s in the mind of a Southerner.”
Caramanica opens his review of The Zac Brown Band’s live performance by claiming that the band he saw at Bowery Ballroom was more musically focused than the band he heard on the lyrically centered “The Foundation.” Regardless, Caramanica holds mixed views on the Zac Brown Band’s live performance. In his “but” statement, he refers to the performance as “genial, sometimes affective.” He criticizes both the band and the audience for becoming disinterested and “undermining the hierarchy of performer and crowd.” At other times he praises Zac Brown’s performance in some of the more desolate songs, such as “Highway 20 Ride.”
This review was very intriguing to me because of the way it managed to review two different facets of the music industry while effectively exploring the differences between the two.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Springsteen’s “12 Minute Party” Lives Up to the Record Breaking Hype of Super Bowl 43
There was no “accidental” bearing of breasts, nor was there a sexually suggestive 60 foot silhouette depicting a guitar as something much more reproductive than a musical instrument. There was, however, an ensemble of AARP eligible rockers trying to deliver on their promise of a “12 minute party” in front of a record breaking 98.7 million party-goers around the world.
The performance of Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street band at halftime of Super Bowl 43, while not flawless, lived up to the immense hype and will be remembered among the great performance in Super Bowl history.
Opening with a silhouette reminiscent of the album cover of the classic “Born to Run,” the Boss lived up to his moniker, instructing America to “step away from the guacamole dip” and to “put down the chicken wings.” In vintage Springsteen style, he leapt onto the piano before opening with two songs from the legendary record.
The first saxophone notes of “Tenth Avenue Freeze Out” set the tone for the high-energy, raucous performance of the jazzy classic that saw Springsteen nearly enter the living rooms of America. Overshooting his patented knee slide across the stage, he bowled over the camera man. The audience gasped, the band kept playing and Springsteen got up laughing. This first song of the set not only set the tone for the rest of the performance, but got the crowd going and let everyone know that Springsteen is not your ordinary 59 year old rock and roll has been.
With the crowd already in the palm of his hand, he followed with a stunning performance of the stadium anthem classic, “Born to Run,” that left even Springsteen out of breath. He once again demonstrated the passion and stage prowess he has been known for since the mid-Seventies, providing a moment that will live in Super Bowl halftime lore right next to Prince’s scintillating guitar solo and U2’s rousing, post 9/11 performance.
The low point of the show occurred in the third song of the set, Springsteen’s new single “Working on a Dream.” It would be hard to blame Springsteen for trying to promote his new album without paying for a three million dollar ad. However, the tone and pace of the song seemed to hinder the liveliness of both the performance and crowd. With the plethora of classics in his arsenal, “Working on a Dream” was a disappointing addition to the set.
Springsteen saved the moment, reeling the crowd in with a lighthearted performance of another one of his classics, “Glory Days.” Fitting the Super Bowl theme, he changed the main character of the song from a baseball player to a football player and even had a mock referee appear on stage to throw a yellow flag for delay of game as Springsteen and the E-Street band played over their 12 minute limit.
On the biggest stage in American culture, in front of the most viewers to ever watch a televised event, Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band delivered a powerful performance that matched the fervor and excitement of the game itself, making what was supposed to be a ‘break in the action’ a defining moment of Super Bowl 43.
The performance of Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street band at halftime of Super Bowl 43, while not flawless, lived up to the immense hype and will be remembered among the great performance in Super Bowl history.
Opening with a silhouette reminiscent of the album cover of the classic “Born to Run,” the Boss lived up to his moniker, instructing America to “step away from the guacamole dip” and to “put down the chicken wings.” In vintage Springsteen style, he leapt onto the piano before opening with two songs from the legendary record.
The first saxophone notes of “Tenth Avenue Freeze Out” set the tone for the high-energy, raucous performance of the jazzy classic that saw Springsteen nearly enter the living rooms of America. Overshooting his patented knee slide across the stage, he bowled over the camera man. The audience gasped, the band kept playing and Springsteen got up laughing. This first song of the set not only set the tone for the rest of the performance, but got the crowd going and let everyone know that Springsteen is not your ordinary 59 year old rock and roll has been.
With the crowd already in the palm of his hand, he followed with a stunning performance of the stadium anthem classic, “Born to Run,” that left even Springsteen out of breath. He once again demonstrated the passion and stage prowess he has been known for since the mid-Seventies, providing a moment that will live in Super Bowl halftime lore right next to Prince’s scintillating guitar solo and U2’s rousing, post 9/11 performance.
The low point of the show occurred in the third song of the set, Springsteen’s new single “Working on a Dream.” It would be hard to blame Springsteen for trying to promote his new album without paying for a three million dollar ad. However, the tone and pace of the song seemed to hinder the liveliness of both the performance and crowd. With the plethora of classics in his arsenal, “Working on a Dream” was a disappointing addition to the set.
Springsteen saved the moment, reeling the crowd in with a lighthearted performance of another one of his classics, “Glory Days.” Fitting the Super Bowl theme, he changed the main character of the song from a baseball player to a football player and even had a mock referee appear on stage to throw a yellow flag for delay of game as Springsteen and the E-Street band played over their 12 minute limit.
On the biggest stage in American culture, in front of the most viewers to ever watch a televised event, Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band delivered a powerful performance that matched the fervor and excitement of the game itself, making what was supposed to be a ‘break in the action’ a defining moment of Super Bowl 43.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)