The 10 Best Films of 2011
Okay, so I realize that, as of the writing of this article, it’s almost the end of January 2012, a late start for singing the cinema equivalent of “Auld Lang Syne” to be sure, but, thanks to those last few limited releases finally shuffling their way into the Midwest over the past month, I’ve been able to see the majority of the best 2011 had to offer and can finally lay down my favorites as almost an entree for the Oscar feast for which we will soon devour. It’s been quite the year on the big screen for sure and some of these films will truly remain classics for years to come.
Honorable Mentions: “Bridesmaids,” “Win Win,” “The Adjustment Bureau,” “Source Code,” “Cedar Rapids,” “Attack the Block,” “Moneyball,” “50/50,” “The Rum Diary,” “Arthur Christmas,” “Carnage,” “The Adventures of Tintin,” and “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.”
10. Super 8
It was the perfect summer movie. High on adventure and humor, but poignant from its very first frames, “Super 8″ hit all the right notes from the 1980′s films we love, whether it be the camaraderie of “The Goonies” or the awe of the unknown from “E.T.,” and delivered it all with a fresh twist and a whole lot of heart. It is obvious that this story of a boy and alien, both searching to feel safe at home, was a passion project for director J.J. Abrams and I don’t think he could have delivered it better.
9. Hugo
It is a curious thing that a picture about the beginnings of film uses some of its newest technology better than anyone before it. “Hugo,” the story of a boy’s chance encounter with film pioneer Georges Méliès, is the most beautiful movie I’ve ever seen in 3D and has easily made an example of how such a gimmick can enhance the storytelling experience. Of course, critics once called sound in film a gimmick too. Though the pictures takes awhile to pick up steam, once the story of Méliès becomes clear, it grows to be a wonderful tale of invention, magic, and, at times, almost Capraesque characters.
8. The Ides of March
A slow burn political thriller from director/actor George Clooney, “The Ides of March” is a tale that feels both incredibly old and topically new. A mix of both Shakespearean tragedy and the sharp political films of the 1970′s, Ryan Gosling (possibly the Robert Redford of our time) clashes his acting chops against the likes of Paul Giamatti, Marisa Tomei, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and Clooney himself, delivering sparks with each encounter. Here Gosling plays a man ready to believe in something, for maybe the first time ever, only to have it all come crashing down around him- a feeling that echos with many these days, especially in an election year.
7. Take Shelter
No man deserved an Oscar nomination more than Michael Shannon in “Take Shelter.” Playing a father and a husband who finds himself addled by nightmares of a coming storm, Shannon delivered a performance both frail and haunting as someone who could be either crazy, prophetic, or both. With the economic climate we’ve been facing, the whole nation has been waiting for the rug to be pulled out from underneath it and director Jeff Nichols uses this dread to have us slip down the rabbit hole with Shannon, wondering how long we can survive without preparing for the worst we can imagine.
6. Beginners
A story of discovering love and loss, “Beginners” has its own unique and quirky style, but never lets it take away from the very real and semi-autobiographical story of a man coming to grips with his father’s new homosexual lifestyle and battle with cancer. Though the film’s subject matter is topical and, in some circles, controversial, it is never heavy-handed in its approach and, because of this, it excels with a quiet whisper and a gentle smile.
5. Midnight in Paris
“Midnight in Paris” is classic Woody Allen. A smart but sweet tale of a writer at home in another country but lost in another time, speaks on a theme that pervades many of 2011′s best films- nostalgia. As Gil Pender, Owen Wilson makes the most unlikely of Allen stand-ins, but does it better than so many before him and no film of the year can possibly claim a more fun supporting cast then the likes of Marion Cotillard, Corey Stoll, Alison Pill, Michael Sheen, Tom Hiddleston, Kathy Bates, and Adrian Brody. Though English majors may have the inside track on the most intellectual jokes, there are plenty more for all to go around.
4. The Tree of Life
Director Terrence Malick as always been something of a rogue filmmaker and, after a six year absence from the screen, he returned with a beautiful and raw piece of avant-garde storytelling that polarized audience reactions with its artistic choices. More easily described as a moving painting than a film, “The Tree of Life” portrays the struggle of grace against nature and the path each human must ultimately choose through both the lives of the O’Brien family in the 1950′s and the creation and destruction of Earth. Thanks to both its beautiful cinematography and rousing performances from Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, and newcomer Hunter McCracken, this film stands out as one of the most personal and spiritual films I’ve ever experienced.
3. The Descendants
Appearing for his second time on the list, George Clooney stars in Alexander Payne’s “The Descendants,” a film that rings true on both the humor and pain we face when problems fall on top of us, one after the other, even if we live in what many would call paradise. As the wealthy land baron Matt King, Clooney gives a very human performance in that classic Payne fashion and never seems to take a false step as someone who’s holding his family together in a time of great change and revelation, even when he himself is coming apart at the seems.
2. Drive
No film in 2011 shocked me more than Nicolas Winding Refn’s “Drive.” A tense and, at times, gory thriller, it takes its best attributes from the likes of Kurosawa, Leone, and Melville while also clinging to its very own California style and techno vibe- a “Bullitt” made better. In the best role of his career, Ryan Gosling plays more of a presence than a man in a character known only as “Driver.” He is a gentle soul, but a force to be reckoned with- a Samurai with a stick shift, who doesn’t take kindly to those who mess with his friends, who are already few and far between. But the real star of this picture is director Refn, who, in many ways, tricked his American audience into seeing a film that feels more foreign than “Fast and the Furious,” and forces them to witness what happens when an action movie goes on a collision course with gritty realism and pays for the consequences.
1. The Artist
If you know me at all, I’m sure you were certain this throwback to Hollywood’s golden era would wind up on my list, but it’s not out of pure bias that such a film should get first place. For one, in the age of widescreen, high definition, and 3D effects, French director Michel Hazanavicius went very much against the grain to create a black-and-white silent film that is presented in the original 4:3 screen ratio of the films of yesteryear. To think a movie like this could get made, let alone critically adored, speaks to one expression- ballsy. How very odd that, to be new and unique, you now must resort to the oldest tricks in the book but, then again, they were once popular for a reason. Even beyond my love for this genre of filmmaking, I have been a big supporter of Hazanavicius and his acting collaboration with Jean Dujardin since I saw their work together in “OSS 117: Cairo Nest of Spies” and its subsequent sequel. They are a magnificent team that definitely deserve the praise that both they and “The Artist” are receiving.
As you can see, 2011 was a wonderful year for both celebrating the newest film had to offer as well as remembering the people, styles, and techniques from a golden age gone by that has gotten us up to this point. I’d recommend you see all of these films and enjoy both being challenged and entertained by each and every one.
—
To stay up to date on all of Nathan’s posts about the art and industry of cinema, check out his Facebook and Twitter pages.
Ghostbusters 3
Welcome to “Cast Off!” a whole new section on the Nathan Hartman blog that will play the ever fun guessing game of casting actors in film remakes, reboots, sequels, and adaptations, even if the film in question isn’t even being made.
For our first jaunt into a sea of actor head shots, lets look at a film that would be heaven to see made, but currently finds itself in the throes of development hell- “Ghostbusters 3.” While actor Dan Aykroyd says, “Yes, we will be doing the movie,” and professes that the third film has an excellent script, many in the industry feel its dead in the water simply because of Bill Murray’s reluctance in wanting to strap on that proton pack one more time to play the film’s main character Peter Venkman.
But Aykroyd says the film will be made with or without Murray and the franchise’s legacy will live on. “The concept is much bigger than an individual role,” he says, “and the promise of ‘Ghostbusters 3′ is that we get to hand the equipment and the franchise down to new blood.” So what does our Dr. Raymond Stantz mean by new blood? Probably a whole new ghostbusting crew to give the apparitions of New York a run for their money.
So who are you gonna call? How about these actors?
Bill Murray / Paul Rudd as “The Sarcastic One”
Though obviously no new actors will play old characters, thanks to Aykroyd explaining that a torch will be past between the new and old Ghostbusters, there are definitely certain characteristics that should be present in a whole new paranormal punishing team to give it that true “Ghostbusters” feel – for one, a voice of sarcasm in the vein of Murray’s Peter Venkman.
This could be done in spades by actor Paul Rudd, who has proven his comedic chops as a master of the “aside” in everything from “Knocked Up” to “Role Models.” With his ability to be either sweet or sour when a line calls for it, he could defiantly helm his own ragtag team of “busters.”
Dan Aykroyd / Jason Segel as “The Optimistic One”
With Dan Aykroyd’s character of Ray Stantz, there was always a sense of unrelenting belief in the paranormal and an almost childlike fascination with it, which helped us all to buy into the film’s world as well as enjoy it from an aspect of innocence. For Ray was almost like a “supernatualist,” who bags ghosts not to kill them but learn from them.
With the new “Ghostbusters” needing this positive albeit naive force, no better actor could be found then “How I Met Your Mother’s” Jason Segel, who just recently perfected his “awe shucks” shtick in “The Muppets” and “I Love You Sarah Marshell” and has already shown chemistry with Paul Rudd in “I Love You Man.”
Harold Ramis / Bill Hader as “The Smart One”
Every team needs a voice of reason and tech genius, Harold Ramis’s Egon Spengler was both. Slightly sardonic in his wit, but usually more aloof to society for the sake of dedicating himself to science, Spengler was always the character to help “explain” the plot forward in his own straight forward and hilarious way.
To fit this role of the “smart one,” “Saturday Night Live’s” Bill Hader fits the bill. While known by some for his more zany roles on SNL and in film, Hader’s own particular tongue-in-cheek approach to things shined in the dramady “Adventureland” and the sci-fi road trip “Paul.” If anyone in the new team should be the gadget guy, it’s Hader.
Ernie Hudson / Kristen Wiig as “The Other One”
Though considered sort of the “Ringo” of the Ghostbuster’s team, Ernie Hudson’s Winston Zeddmore quickly became a fan favorite as well as the embodiment of the “working man’s” Ghostbuster, who’s in the business for the weekly paycheck. While Winston made a great impression, his spot could be used to shake of this boys club of busters.
Picture SNL favorite and “Bridesmaids” actress Kristen Wiig as a single working mother who’s on the team in hopes to save for her kids college fund. With the great amount of expression Wiig can convey in a single look, she could make a great tough female character, who acts as a catalyst for the funny amongst her male teammates.
Rick Moranis / Zach Galifianakis as “The Weird One”
Rick Moranis’s Louis Tully was one weird dude and a creepy neighbor to boot, who couldn’t seem to help but get wrapped up in the Ghostbuster’s shenanigans. While Moranis is one of a kind, he also has retired from show business and so that gap for the klutzy numbskull next door is left ready to be filled.
Enter Zach Galifianakis, the goofiest beard on the block. While the original “Ghostbusters” series never dealt in “heavyset humor” (unless you count the StayPuff Marshmallow Man) this new era could use itself this chubby cherub of a man, who could play some sort of amateur ghost hunter in more trouble then he can handle.
Jay Baruchel as “Oscar Barrett”
While baby Oscar, the son of Peter Venkman’s flame Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver), played a key role in “Ghostbusters II,” enough time has past that the one time youngster could be a Ghostbuster in his own right and, according to recent movie news, also possibly Venkman’s son.
While the role’s personality wasn’t really defined in its baby form, comedic performer Jay Baruchel may be able to bring just the right balance to the team if his character acts as his mother’s child and possibly a bigger voice of reason than even Hader’s Spengler-like character, much like he did as the young actor turned solider in “Tropic Thunder.”
Annie Potts as “Janine Melnitz”
“Ghostbusters! Whadda want?” I mean really, who could play the Ghostbuster’s secretary as well as Annie Potts? Nobody I say. Nobody! With the old Ghostbusters tipping their hats and heading out the door, somebody should remain from the old gang simply as an anchor for the new film franchise.
With Potts’s Janine Melnitz staying behind the desk at the old fire house, movie goers would still have that connection to their nostalgia for the old series, but not in a way that would overshadow what the new team brings. In this way, we get a new mix of hilarity as, not only would Janine remain as quippy as ever, but she would then be the oldest wisecraker on the team.
Well, if Hollywood, in its love for sequels and reboots, has anything to say, we’ll eventually see a “Ghostbusters 3″ and most likely a four, five, six. Hopefully, when the new team grabs their proton packs we’ll find their characters as appealing and lovable as the ones that came before them.
So what do you think? Who should be cast in the next “Ghostbusters” if not the ones chosen? Let us know in the comment section below!
—
To stay up to date on all of Nathan’s posts about the art and industry of cinema, check out his Facebook and Twitter pages.
A Force By Itself
Oh relentless world,
you pain and ache me
and give no love,
no hope, no breath, no life
no meaning.
You are the cruelest of taskmasters
and the evilest of slave drivers.
You bring the inspired down and lift up your lethargic.
You deliver chaos in the midst of peace
and let no man live a day
without the reminder of their mortally.
But quiver where you stand oh dark force,
oh demon of time.
For I live with love
and it melts you
like butter on toast.
Disappear bleak present
for the past reminds us of better days
and the future holds our hope for
love to come.
You can not squish it.
You can not cajole it.
You can not plead with it.
You can not make a bargain.
It is a force by itself,
so deafening as it passes,
the all for miles hear its cry.
“Live well,” it screams,
“for this world will end and the brightest of stars
will glow in its wake.”
Should Film Scores Be Considered Classical Music?
In the spring of 2009, I had the fortune of hearing John Williams, famed film composer for such classic scores as “Star Wars,” “Jaws,” and “Indiana Jones,” conduct the Los Angles Philharmonic in a night of some of his best work at the Hollywood Bowl. An event no film lover would ever forget, I found myself enjoying chord after chord of some of the most memorable orchestral music that has ever been written. Though this may seem far fetched, quickly hum as many movie themes as you can and then do the same for orchestra pieces typically categorized as “classical music.” Unsurprisingly, for most of us, the scales certainly tip in film’s favor.
Even with this being the case, many in the music community don’t consider film scores to be in the same category as the standard fare found in the genre of “classical music.” Go into any record store in the country and you’ll find these two types segregated from one other even though, in so many ways, they are two sides of the same coin. But why is this? With its large cultural footprint and similar music methods, why are film scores not categorized typically as classical music?
There are many reason given, the first being its purpose. While classical music, in the Beethoven and Mozart vein, are constructed specifically to be listened to as the main event for an audience, film scores play second fiddle (pun intended) to the the visuals being performed on the silver screen. Because of this, many find film composers to be constricted by the timing of the films they compose for while classical works are unhindered by such issues and may flourish to their fullest. Others also say that classical music stands up to deep analysis while film scores simply act as a component for the analysis of the film. Simply put, a work by Bach is looked at with no outside forces manipulating how it can be taken in while the theme for “Star Wars” can’t be played without people immediately thinking of that scrolling golden text in space.
But these issues, in my opinion, are minor at best and not enough to ignore what makes both classical music and film scores so similar- both, in most cases, are orchestrations that try to evoke emotion from their listeners. In centuries past, the concert hall was the main form of popular entertainment and it is for this reason that it has grown synonymous with the music it most featured- classical, but, as film and television have grown to become the prominent venues of the masses, it should be acknowledged that their arrangements are what is popular in orchestral music and, by being so, should be made apart of the “classical music” genre. It’s not like the sound of the music has changed, just the medium it’s enjoyed through.
But the counterpoint is still made that film scores are fenced in by the parameters of a film’s timing and, because of this, it can’t be put in line with traditional pieces. History proves this point wrong for me as well. Since the dawn of the ballet in the fifteenth and sixteenth century, musical accompaniment has been needed and, when the dance artform grew more complex so did its music, as it began to evoke the emotions of the dancers on stage and the story they were trying to tell. In this way, ballet music is held by the confines of a story, much like a film score, but, while Pyotr Tchaikovsky’s late-eighteenth century orchestrations of such ballets as “Swan Lake” and the “Nutcracker” are considered part of the long lasting tradition of classical music, the works of the Elfman’s, Newton-Howard’s, and Silvestri’s of the motion picture industry are regulated to the oddly named section of “soundtracks” in iTunes. This is unfair at best.
Throughout the centuries of classical music, many periods have arisen that have helped define the style in which orchestras played for their people and while past types, such as Baroque, Classical, Romantic have all been well established, we are still trying to fully understand what has made the orchestral periods of both the 20th and 21st centuries so unique. I believe it isn’t a far stretch to say that the film score is certainly one of the reasons and, because of this, it deserves to be included in the long history of classical music. Though not all scores have been performed by orchestras or in the “classical sense,” the works of Trent Reznor coming to mind, these deserve to be put in the genres they best fit into just as much as the string and brass driven melodies found in the works of Mancini should find their place in the classical section.
While classical music, though important, has grown unpopular on the airwaves, it is the recognition of film scores as part of its genre that would breath new life into it and help create the realization that there are not less orchestral works being made, but that there has never been a better time to get into “classical music.” The genre has shifted its gaze from the concert hall to the cinema screen and, while traditionalist may find this unsettling, this change should be embraced as an opportunity to show the world how centuries of musical composing and playing have evolved into this newest of forms- the film score.
—
To stay up to date on all of Nathan’s posts about the art and industry of cinema, check out his Facebook and Twitter pages.
Katie Leigh Interview
This past week, I was was asked by Huntington University to interview the wonderful Hollywood voice actress Katie Leigh. Though, to many, her name might not ring any bells, her voice certainly will. From classic cartoons, such as “Gummi Bears” (Sunni Gummi), “Darkwing Duck” (Honker Muddlefoot), and “Muppet Babies” (Baby Rowlf), to ADR work in motion pictures like “The Color Purple” and “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” Katie is one of the entertainment industry’s busiest and most sought after voice talents. But, what most of her fans know her from and what makes her truly unique, is her work as the character Connie Kendall on the acclaimed radio series “Adventures in Odyssey,” which she was been doing for over twenty years.
Recorded on November 10th, 2011 in the Huntington University Studio Theatre (with a production of “Once Upon a Mattress” acting as the backdrop as you can see) with an audience of both digital media arts students and fans, Katie was an absolute joy to talk to. Enjoy the interview!
To learn more about Katie, check out her website at - http://www.katieleigh.com
—
To stay up to date on all of Nathan’s posts about the art and industry of cinema, check out his Facebook and Twitter pages.
The Three Camera Calcification: The Death of the Sitcom
Every new television season comes with new shows. It’s inevitable, part of the process, but the fun really doesn’t start until, after a long few weeks of premieres, the networks have to sober up and look at their scripted “one-night-stands” in the harsh light of ratings and feedback. This is when heads begin to roll, but in this slaughter, where the promising either don’t fulfill their promise or have enough time to do so, a few of the weaker links always fall through the cracks- such is the case with NBC’s “Whitney.”
Bawdy, crass, formulaic, and stale, this self titled show spotlights the talents of comedian Whitney Cummings and is a droll affair playing in the classic three camera, laugh track addled style of so many sitcoms before it. But, what makes this little gem stick out is the company it keeps in NBC’s Comedy Thursday lineup- “The Office,” “Parks and Recreation,” and “Community,” all single camera shows, with two of them being in faux-documentary style to boot. To put it simply, “Whitney” is the most red-headed of red-headed stepchildren.
Though performing modestly in the ratings as of the writing of this article, it can be said that “Whitney” was a fossil before it even glowed off of people’s TV screens (or is it officially computer screens nowadays?). With a structure as old as radio, the sitcom, or “situation comedy,” has been a staple of television for so long, and with so little change to its structure, that it can’t help but look haggard in comparison to these new single camera shows, which range their comedy from parody (NBC’s “Community”) to almost pathos (FX’s “Louie”).
So, what went wrong with the sitcom? When did it begin its ever plummeting spiral into mediocrity? Sure, the laugh track (pre-recorded laughter added to the show in post-production) can be blamed at least for taking the innocence out of the process and allowing the material to grow weak, but shows like “Happy Days,” “The Odd Couple,” and “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” were all “sweetened” with the canned giggles in one way or another and the writers and performers still felt an obligation to the live studio audience to be funny- an extra effort that shows marvelously on the screen.
What is probably more the case is that the populace have just outgrown the format and, with their lack of caring, it has calcified on its own. “But,” you say, “how can this be true when “Two and a Half Men” and “How I Met Your Mother” still do so well?” “Okay,” I answer, “What is the definition of well? Ratings? Awards? Culture Recognition?” Sure, the sitcom is still the leader when it comes to what is watched in comedy, but, when you look at the ratings, they also, for the most part, come from the same place, CBS- the most watched broadcast network and the last clinging to the sitcom format, while the others have almost all but abandoned it for the single camera comedy. It only makes sense that the most watched network in television, who’s entire comedy line up are sitcoms, would come out ahead, but don’t forget DVR streaming either, which is the modern way to watch a show at a later time, as its ratings have single camera sitcoms farther up in their ratings and even taking the top comedy spot much of the time.
But let’s move on to the awards. The typical sitcom, while still getting recognition in acting categories, hasn’t won an “Outstanding Comedy Series” award in six years, which could have been eight if not for a mercy win for “Everybody Loves Raymond” upon its ninth and final season. Along with that, the sitcom format is only present in one nomination every year, while single camera shows fill the rest of the list. Even worse, a sitcom hasn’t won “Best Television Series – Musical or Comedy” at the Golden Globes in the last 14 years, as most of the wins went to cable comedy programming, who were the early adopters of the single camera format with shows like “Sex and the City.”
Finally, culture recognition- what shows are people talking about around the water cooler? Of course, you’d have to live under a rock to not have heard of “Two and a Half Men’s” Charlie Sheen debacle but A. that was all Sheen and B. it has only gained the show a negative connotation and a new audience eager to see them fall on their faces with the new “Sheen absent” season. That’s like rooting for the beast at a bull fight while it has a sword already in its hide. He will fall, but we want to see how long it will take. No, the buzz that goes around seems to be centered on the past evening’s “Modern Family” or the quips of an awkward Liz Lemon on “30 Rock.” I can’t remember the last time I heard someone quote a sitcom for a laugh, but I can watch a hit song shoot up the iTunes download charts after having it sung on “Glee” the night before.
So yes, the sitcom structure still putters along in jalopies like “Whitney,” but we are also seeing them slowly pay the price for a lack of originality. Sure, ratings right now are high enough for lazy TV producers to continue their onslaught of lazy sitcoms, but the internet generation doesn’t buy the preprogramed essence of this ancient formula and their laugh tracks. They don’t like to be told what’s funny, but like to tell others, as they tweet and Facebook their way from TV show to TV show and become the most discerning audience television has ever seen.
—
To stay up to date on all of Nathan’s posts about the art and industry of cinema, check out his Facebook and Twitter pages.
Cavemen of the Multiplex: The Struggle to Consume Cinema Properly
Recently, I attended a screening of Nicolas Winding Refn film “Drive,” starring Ryan Gosling, and, while I experienced a wonderful story about the struggle for normalcy in the face of brutality, a far more important life lesson was learned from the silhouetted heads that filled my theater – the majority of moviegoers have no idea how to take in a film.
Now, before we continue, it should be noted that we’re not discussing simple poor theater etiquette. The problem here is something more cerebral and most likely the actual catalyst to why that warm glow of cell phone screens have become so common place in the shadows of your local theater. What we’re looking at is the moviegoing populace’s inability to consume film as an art form or the challenges that it brings.
Deep into the second act of “Drive,” we find Gosling’s character, the Driver, heavily mixed up with two different factions that push him far out of his comfort zone. The first is a merciless mob boss and his men, who spill blood without remorse, and the second is the Driver’s neighbor, a woman he has fallen for and silently sworn to protect. In both cases, director Refn takes us out of the normal conventions found in cinematic storytelling (at least in American film) and forces his audience to experience these moments in ways that they were neither expecting or comfortable with.
For example, when the quietness of the film takes a sudden and shocking turn in it second act, depicting several moments of graphic and brutal mob violence, the majority of my theater found themselves laughing out loud in that “can you believe this” tone, subsequently shirking off any responsibility towards actually engaging with the horror that had been brought forth. Also, as the Driver and his neighbor looked longingly at each other in silence for periods greater than it takes some rom-com characters to meet and then “hit the hay,” my pack of theatergoers were fidgeting as if they had dumped their popcorn in their shorts. “Do something!” one patron yelled out to the screen as others flipped open their phones to do God knows what.
So why does this sort of thing happen? What makes an audience laugh at gore and dismiss subtlety? Simply put, the need to relieve tension. Whether of a violent or sexual nature, today’s audience seems to only be able to take so much before they break. This is natural. The body itself seeks to kill tension and laughter is one of its greatest weapons. By firing up and then cooling down your stress response through a chuckle, you increase your heart rate and blood pressure and bring about a calming feeling that allows you to be physiologically less effected by what your are experiencing. This is fine in everyday situations, but certainly a deterrent to society’s ability to consume art on a more emotional and gut level.
But film is a baby of an art form, at roughly 150 years old, and the biggest obstacle towards better consumption of what it brings to the silver screen is simply mankind’s immaturity with the medium. Though we have set up ways as a culture on how to properly observe a painting or piece of music, we are still Cavemen when it comes to cinema- simply dragging our clubs into the multiplex and, for the most part, taking in films made by a system that doesn’t mind keeping us at our Neanderthal stage. Because of this, it is only natural for people to be frustrated when a film doesn’t just spoon feed them or goes against their previous assumptions of what film can do. These are growing pains and, with films like “Drive” or even Terrence Malick’s “Tree of Life,” as another current example, our culture is forced to expand their minds to what they are watching if they venture to better appreciate the process that is going on.
So there is hope. Take for example the art of theatre, both plays and musicals. When Sweeney Todd cuts the throat of another victim or Blanche and Stanley stare at each other, ripe with passion, no one in the audience lets out a laugh or begs them to move on. To be quiet and watch the action has become a part of how we consume theatre and, as time goes by, hopefully we will see cinema find its own way up the evolutionary chain and a maturing of its consumption will take place. Only time will tell.
—–
To stay up to date on all of Nathan’s posts about the art and industry of cinema, check out his Facebook and Twitter pages.
Does Rotten Tomatoes Hurt the Cinema Experience?
In August of 1999, Senh Duong launched Rotten Tomatoes, a website that gives easy access to a variety of film critics and averages out their analysis on individual films to a single numeric percentage- deeming each motion picture featured either “fresh” (positive reviews are at least 60% of the pooled critics) or “rotten” (positive reviews are less than 60% of the pooled critics). Today, Rotten Tomatoes has grown from its humble roots (pun entirely intended) to become the biggest aggregate film-review website on the internet, garnering over 12 million viewers a month and drawing its percentiles from more than 450 online and print writers.
Though only twelve years old, Rotten Tomatoes’ impact on Hollywood is certainly evident as the scores they lay out can practically send people running to or fleeing from the multiplexes and, for filmmakers, this simple website can be like an emperor at a gladiator game, holding out his thumb to either save or kill their careers. But, while some consider Rotten Tomatoes’ success to be a helpful aid to moviegoers and a proponent for society’s continuing need for film criticism, others suggest that the simplicity used in deciding a film’s quality and its grade-like final percentage score may just showcase the mold growing in the website’s own process.
As its opposers have claimed, Rotten Tomatoes main issue seems to stem from its rather black and white way of delivering final judgment towards a film. Either “fresh” or “rotten,” there is very little room left for context or discussion to why one film might be better than another besides the final percent scores and even that is tainted by the fact that there is no standard amount of reviews to weigh everything against. This means one film can have a few reviews and another hundreds but, in the end, their scores compare them as equals. This hardly seems to make Rotten Tomatoes the great movie aid to the undecided theatergoer that it seems to be on the surface.
Also, actual film criticism doesn’t really factor into a film’s end score as they are based on the number of positive reviews a film has received and the critical strength of these pieces are ignored. This means a film could be “100% fresh” without gathering any real praise simply because it hasn’t received any outright damning feedback.
But, beyond the more technical aspects to why Rotten Tomatoes may not be as great as it seems, there is a ripple effect to what it accomplishes and this might just in fact ruin the entire film watching experience. For we must all ask ourselves, “Is it actually justifiable to rate any film with a single numeric entity and could this culminated score based on simple math actually make us critically lazy as a society or, at the very least, biased towards an opinion towards a film well before its opening credits even roll?”
A personal story. For years I had been one to check up with Rotten Tomatoes before picking a film to spend my money on and, nine times out of ten, they’ve steered me right. There is a reason their formula is so popular. I could also be heard saying to friends who would defend the newest explosion by Michael Bay that I had no interest in his film simply because of its critically low “tomato rating” and that no other consideration was necessary. I was wrong. My use of Rotten Tomatoes had created an apathy towards actual film criticism and developed thought. All I needed was a final percentage score and I was eager to either root for or jeer against any film in question. In fact, I even began speaking of films as if they were on the stock exchange. “Did you see the tomato score for such and such? It went down three percent today!”
Somewhere along the line, I realized that my experiences at the theater were starting to feel different. Though I wouldn’t say I had a bad time at the movies, everything suddenly felt preprogrammed. I would laugh at a film not because it was funny, but because Rotten Tomatoes had decided it “fresh.” I stopped scooting to the edge of my seat if a thriller had been deemed “not that scary” in the small blurb Rotten Tomatoes puts with its scores. I had, in fact, stopped experiencing films altogether. For my opinions were now being handed to me before I had ever entered the theater. If a film was “fresh” I expected certain things and, if ”rotten,” a set of others. I had ceased to go in with a blank page and see what the film’s story wanted to paint on my brain- it had all become connect-the-dots.
So I gave it up. No more Rotten Tomatoes. Now this certainly didn’t mean I was suddenly in line for the next “Transformers.” My tastes for cinema had not changed they just weren’t defined by a percentage based on a website’s opinion about a critic’s thoughts. Now, whether a film was good or bad, I could now know my opinion was based on the information I had personally gathered about a motion picture.
So, does this mean film criticism isn’t necessary as we should base all our thoughts on what we ultimately experience? No. There are a few film critics whose opinion I take because I believe we share similar views and values when it comes to the quality of film as art, but I treat these writers as I would any friend who had already seen the film before me. Listening to these seasoned movie goer’s opinion is one thing. Basing your feelings on a calculated percentile is another. But, when it comes right down to it, they are both opinion, but not my opinion, for that is now ultimately decided by me alone when the end credits roll, the lights go up, and I throw that overpriced popcorn tub away.
As a society, we must be wary of treating art as something that we can judged and labeled like a pig at the state fair. Though Rotten Tomatoes is certainly the largest offender, the website Metacritic is also guilty and the likes of Entertainment Weekly love to grade a film like its a pop quiz. The fact is all films, even the bad ones, deserve an audience who, in the end, think for themselves.
Final note: In May of this year, Rotten Tomatoes was sold to another movie-oriented website, Flixter, which is itself owned by a little motion picture company called Warner Brothers. If that doesn’t rate as “rotten” I don’t know what will.
—–
To stay up to date on all of Nathan’s posts about the art and industry of cinema, check out his Facebook and Twitter pages.
Huntington University Alumni Profile
So my alma mater, Huntington University, has written up a small article about my career and my time studying and teaching at the school. It’s a fun little piece so check it out here!
The Top 10 of the Criterion Summer
Well, what a summer it has been! With yesterday’s viewing and analysis of “The Lady Eve” I have completed my 100 Criterion films in 100 days “Criterion Summer” and I must admit it’s been quite the experience. Never in my life have I watched so many films in such a sort span of time and gained such a diverse wealth of knowledge on the art and industry of cinema, both in America and in the world as a whole, and I would like to thank the people of at “The Criterion Collection” for providing the public with such provoking and important films. The whole experience has certainly been a blessing and after spending, on average, four hours a day watching, researching, and writing out thoughts on a film, I now find it strange to sit back and not watch a film for a change.
So what will I being doing with all this extra free time? Well, there are several things in the works! For instance, I’ll be writing a new screenplay, touching up a stageplay and television spec script, teaching another semester of film classes at Huntington University, and continually writing on this website about cinema and its hot button issues.
To keep in the know about all these things, either join my facebook page or follow me on twitter!
Anyway, after watching 100 Criterion films in 100 days, it can be hard to pick just ten as my favorite, but, with a whole lot of consideration, I’ve come up with a small list of these very films. To learn more about each, simply click on their posters.
To see my thoughts on any of the 100 films watched check out “The Criterion Summer’s” page.
Note: These are in order by their Criterion spine number and not my personal favoritism. Enjoy!
1. Hard Boiled 2. The Long Good Friday 3. The Red Shoes (1948)
4. Brazil 5. Yojimbo 6. Charade
7. Autumn Sonata 8. The Third Man 9. Rushmore
10. Do the Right Thing
