ARCHIVE FILES (see complete listing below)
June 28, 2010
COMFORT FILMS--Why Old Films "Feel" The Best
My wife Susan loves to cook "comfort food" in the winter months, because she feels such long-cherished childhood meals renew the spirit and feed the soul.
Old movies do that for me. Especially those made during the decade of the 1950s, when I was a kid growing up.
Sometimes I love to put on a movie such as RETURN OF DRACULA, THE VAMPIRE or even THE MONOLITH MONSTERS, because I love the depiction of small town America where everyone knows everyone else and most people get along just fine and dandy. Everyone greets one another with a smile. Young teens deliver prescription medicine from the drug store on bikes, usually to houses that are not locked and the person inside invites the person outside in. And both feel safe. People buy groceries on credit and neighbors trust and respect one another. Even in films such as I WAS A TEENAGE WEREWOLF or BLOOD OF DRACULA, where there's trouble in paradise (psychologically damaged teens with anti-social behavior and adult predators who take advantage of such situations), life at high school is depicted as being a nurturing environment, with kids acting as kids at the high school hop, having fun side-by-side with innocent flirtation in the science lab or after school on the parking lot or soda shop. I am sure back in the mid fifties, such a world was very Hollywood-esque and not quite realistic, but enough of the truth of such times shines through and movies such as these, and others, remind us of a world and society that no longer exists.
Sometimes I watch movies such as EARTH VS. THE SPIDER and INVADERS FROM MARS because that is the type of world or society where I would love to spend a little time. Hey, I would not wish my parents to be zombified by Martians with little probes at the base of their necks that could be exploded, causing fatal strokes, at the whim of the alien overseer. But wouldn't you love to play in those sand dunes out in back of your house where the wooden planks end? Wouldn't you love to live in a neighborhood where you are friends with all the neighbors and play with all the neighbor kids, and when you go downtown you are on a first name basis with the police force and feel safe? During the decade of the 1950s your teacher not only challenges you but is your friend, and you are willing to help your teacher in any side projects requested, even if that means exploring uncharted caves that house deadly giant spiders. The world was so much safer then, so that the threat of mutated monsters was even more frightening because the horrors existing beneath such idyllic worlds created a far greatest contrast. In this world young people were not subjected to violent street crime, drive-by shootings, gang violence or home invasions. Yes, of course crime existed, but it occurred on a smaller scale.
In those films of our youth we encountered heroes of the chiseled good-looking features variety, heroes who were not morally conflicted and who always took the high moral ground. Heroes were self-sacrificing and were willing to die to keep their community and friends healthy, safe and happy. Thus we grew up looking at smiling good guys such as John Agar, Robert Clarke, Arthur Franz, Kenneth Tobey, Ed Kemmer, Grant Williams, Richard Denning, and Gene Barry. Most of the characters played by these actors did not have complex back stories or troubled pasts. They were good-natured working people who were productive citizens of their community, people who stood out and willingly gave back. They were well liked and well known. They were heroes in whom we immediately could place our trust. And how did such stereotypes defeat the enemy? They prevailed by using common sense, intelligence (most of these heroes were doctors, military men, scientists) and courage. Such characters were usually ordinary in one sense but superior in another--the community usually looked up to such people as being slightly more knowledgeable, even if they occupied the roles of everyday working people. But such characters made children feel safe and protected.
And when it came to defeating the enemy, it usually took a team, either a small community of people working together or the entire community working together. Think of the quaint independent production (smartly gobbled up by mainstream Paramount) THE BLOB (1958). Yes, hero Steve MacQueen was a belligerent and flip high schooler (looking as though he were on the ten year graduation plan), but at heart he was a good kid who was a a team player (he even called his adversary cop by his first name Dave and, through his actions, he shows he respects Dave, even if he is subject to teenage hi-jinks, such as drag racing on public streets). When MacQueen needs multiple fire extinguishers, he rallies not only his fellow high school buddies but teachers and the principal as well, who all cooperate to destroy this monster from space. Even when the monster invades the town grocery store, it takes teamwork and intelligence to defeat the Blob. When MacQueen and citizens are trapped in the diner, it takes communication and cooperation to defeat the monster. The community pulls together to stay alive. What starts as a low-rent version of REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE soon becomes something else all together, a testimony to young rebels and mainstream society working together (using intelligence, courage and common sense) to defeat the threat to their society. And by the last frame the monster is being carried away by airplane, the "cancer"being removed symbolically from the quaint Pennsylvania burgh, restoring order and safety because opposing personalities came together to fight a common cause, both rebellious youth and entrenched old-timers alike.
And what makes these old 1950s movies so endearing is ultimately those set pieces that become iconic vestiges of the nostalgic past. Many of these movies spend quality time in the local doctor's office, one filled with a waiting room of only 1 or 2 people where the doctor knows everyone by their first name. Doctors or employees deliver medicines directly to the home. People walk down main street USA and seem to know everyone they meet, and everyone has a smile and friendly comment or two. People in drug stores or grocery stores never seem rushed and everyone cooperates. High schools seem fun and safe and dances are always high energy with the kids having one helluva blast. The police are authority figures, but they are also nurturing and friendly, as are teachers, ministers and members of the military and federal agents. Shopping seems to be more like an excuse to socialize and visit friends then it is to rush through aisles, in high stress, and plunk down money or plastic to buy unnecessary products. Neighbors always have time to visit and be visited by other neighbors, and everyone has a cup of sugar or tool to loan. Families sit down and speak and eat together in kitchens or dining rooms. Family picnics and family togetherness becomes the norm. Sidewalk streets are safe and neighborhoods have well kept homes and lawns that always seem bright and inviting (exceptions exist, remember what happens to the little old lady who was out too late on the streets in THE VAMPIRE!). The streets are flowing (never crowded) with roomy automobiles with never a thought of how much the gas prices may rise (with gas costing 39 cents a gallon, why the concern). Community is always front and center, with community socials and picnics (either school or church related) bringing people together in bright spirits and camaraderie.
Even though as a child I best remembered the menaces to society, those monsters or alien invaders or mishaps of ego-driven science, but now as an aging baby boomer I most remember that idyllic world, those communities that no longer exist and probably never ever will again. While Hollywood never tells the truth, it does create an emotional palette on which to paint our collective emotions and feelings about a particular time in our lives, a time when life was simpler, easier, more comforting and emotionally renewing. When I now watch all the I WAS A TEENAGE... or INVASION OF... or ATTACK OF... style B movies, I do enjoy the monsters and mayhem, but I find myself noticing more of the community backdrop and societal interaction. I might enjoy a riot in the high school gym, but I find myself noting how the teens act before the riot. I might enjoy a giant fiend prancing through small town America, but I notice what people were doing before that monstrous rampage begun. I might enjoy that Cousin Bellac (in actuality, Count Dracula) is living in small town America, and while I enjoy the sequences with stakings and mist, I find myself becoming more mesmerized with the quiet parlor sequences and the family interacting.
It is no longer only about the monsters, invaders and giant atomic fried creations, it is just as much about that perfect little community that is about to be invaded and the aftermath of that invasion and restoring peace to the community. After watching these movies for over 50 years, perhaps 10 to 20 times, isn't it about time avid viewers find some new chestnut to feed upon, to continue to intrigue our imaginations and play to that "comfort food" mentality? For me revisiting the past small town cinematic America brings a warm, fuzzy feeling that I can never get enough of. And the greater thought is the idea that as we age we watch the movies that we enjoyed in our youth, but we look at them through aging eyes and focus on different aspects that continue to justify our obsessions watching them over and over again.
May 28, 2010
24 Calls It A Day While Jack Bauer Becomes the Iconic Noir Protagonist for a Modern World
I am very depressed--Fox's "real time" serial ended its eight-year run on Fox TV this past week. I have referred to the show here and there, but I never once sat down to write just how important the series meant to me. I was there the first Monday night when the series started and I NEVER missed an episode during its initial broadcast. Even during the past few years, when I was able to DVR each episode, I never wanted to hear about surprises second hand the next day at work or online. I was there, glued to the screen, for all 195 episodes. While the quality of various "days" or seasons varied, and even during the best "days," some hours, just like in real life, were less thrilling than others. But for me this was the essential, time-defining television experience for the New Millennium, the greatest TV experience since TWIN PEAKS left the airwaves, in my humble opinion (LOST was also culturally defining and excellent, but it never stuck to my ribs like 24 did; same with THE WIRE and THE SOPRANOS).
I can remember clearly some of the most exciting moments from quintessential episodes. I was there when Jack's lover Nina Myers (Sarah Clarke) killed Jack's wife Teri (Leslie Hope) in the final moments of the final episode of Day One, just when we thought that the good guys won and everyone in peril was now safe (to me Teri's brutal murder was the most shocking moment I ever experienced in fictional television). I was there when best bud and also worst enemy Tony Almeida (Carlos Bernard) died TWICE. I was there when second major love Audrey Raines (Kim Raver) came back from China emotionally broken, shell-shocked, almost comatose, and confined to bed for perhaps the rest of her life. I was there when 24's best president, David Palmer, was attacked by a terrorist wielding deadly bio-bacteria in her seemingly innocent handshake, and moments later, Palmer writhers and falls, his hand almost decaying before our eyes, ending that season on a shocking note. I was there at the beginning of a new season when David Palmer was assassinated by another terrorist who got off a terrific shot that pierced the plate glass exterior of his hotel suite, the bullet lodging in his throat, ultimately killing the ex-president. I was there when teddy bear Edgar, one of the most endearing nerds working at CTU, the one who always worried about his mother's welfare, died slowly and painfully in the haze of bio-viral clouds released at CTU. I was there, this final season, when Jack Bauer, colder than James Bond, walked up to a defenseless (but totally evil) woman and shot her point blank in the chest. And moments later he delivered the death shot, just for insurance sake. Also, I was there, this season, when Jack gutted another assassin, using a knife to retrieve a smart card swallowed moments before. I was there when Jack endured a nuclear explosion and somehow survived. I was there when Jack was at long last allowed to spend a few minutes alone in the bedroom with his current love, Rene Walker (Annie Wersching), making passionate love, when in the warm afterglow of sex, Walker naked and wrapped in a thin sheet, gets shot in the chest, an inch below the heart, bleeding out, causing the equally heroic Walker to die a painful death as Jack carries her wrapped in a sheet to the hospital, where she dies almost immediately. I was there when a deadly cougar stalked Jack's daughter Kim (Elisha Cuthbert)! And finally, I was there when in the final moments of one season we see Jack sitting alone in a car and break down and cry after a very bad day. And these are just a few stellar moments that come to mind. There are at least twice as many equally impressive moments in a series filled with them. For instance, how could I not mention the tense moment in one early episode when Jack was ordered by terrorists to shoot his boss in the head, execution-style. And he did, reluctantly (his boss also gave him the order, for the good of the country).
But why did 24 become such a defining moment in television history? Oh sure we can speak of the real time approach and the fact that each day (each TV season) was comprised of 24 hours. We can speak of the cutting edge violence and tension that existed in almost every episode. But for me 24 was great because Kiefer Sutherland's performance as Jack Bauer was classic in the same way that Sean Connery's performance as James Bond was iconic. The phrase "don't go Jack Bauer on me" will survive for a long time. He created this psychically damaged antihero and made him raw and real. And most importantly for me, Jack Bauer became the symbol of the film noir "damaged" protagonist, the noir hero, for our modern times. When we speak of film noir, we speak of moral ambiguity and the fuzzy distinction between good and evil. 24 was crafted as a suspense thriller, an action adventure with clearly defined characters. But Jack Bauer became the modern symbol for the inability to distinguish between true right and wrong. Don't get me wrong here. Bauer's quest was always one to search for and find the right thing to do, but in the past few seasons Jack has found it increasingly more difficult to define the right thing to do. Every American institution from the FBI to CTU (the show's fictional Counter Terrorism Unit) to the American government, including the president's inner circle, was always corrupted or at least playing a high-stakes game of the ends justify the means. The past two seasons we had the first female president Allison Taylor (Cherry Jones), a woman so immersed in her morality to do the right thing that she even sent her own daughter up the river when her child overstepped legal boundaries, thus forcing her husband, whom she loved, to leave and divorce her in disgust. Now with Day 8 this same president is sleeping metaphorically in the same bed as her enemy in order to orchestrate a career-defining (for HER) peace treaty--but at what cost? Even her closest friend and adviser abandons her because her diseased sense of morality disgusted him.
Last season was book-ended (and it was one of the finest seasons, Day 7) with a federal investigation of the use of torture to fight terrorism. Jack Bauer made it clear during a Senate investigation that the enemy does not play by any rules, so if we want to defeat evil, we must also use evil. People who play by the rules are weakened and ultimately will lose. Jack's moral mirror image Renee Walker, introduced last season as a by-the-book FBI agent, was the moral compass that questioned Jack's fuzzy morality. But by the end of that day, Agent Walker was using torture to justify the moral ends of catching the bad guys and saving the day at any cost. The entire journey of Day 7 was to make us question Jack Bauer's intentions by casting him as a dangerous rogue who takes the law too freely into his own hands. But by the end of the season, we came to understand exactly what Jack Bauer represents and why he does what he does. When there is no one else around to do the dirty job and to do it by breaking the rules for a larger cause, Jack is willing to sacrifice all, even his soul, to save his country. In this season Bauer even stated as much when one terrorist refused to talk under duress and only smirked, telling Bauer he would see him in Hell. Bauer, without missing a beat, stated, "You first!!!!" Bauer makes no pretenses or justifications for his actions. He purposely tries not to think things through too thoroughly (and thus avoid becoming the modern era's Hamlet, who ultimately does nothing). Instead, he sees the end game and accomplishes by any means that end game goal. When his lover is killed, he becomes rogue in the sense that Charles Bronson became rogue in DEATH WISH and methodically Bauer tracks down all the parties responsible and makes them die horrible deaths... for the sake of justice. Of course there is a price to pay for slaughtering higher echelon Russian dignitaries.
Jack Bauer knows he is dirty. Bauer knows he will most likely burn in Hell. He knows he is not part of any system or society except his own, and that his goal is saving America from even its own government, fairly often a weak or power hungry president, and always those corporate quasi-military organizations who claim they exist to defend America (Jon Voight's armed-to-the-gill defense security group became the major evil of Day 7). Jack is the ultimate individual acting alone and doing what must be done. At first he worked within CTU, but for the past few seasons he worked with CTU, but from the outside, as a consultant, and always working on his own terms. As we all know, CTU has more "moles" than Old MacDonald's farm!
By the end of the series, Day 8, every person from Jack's past life that meant anything is gone except for daughter Kim and true friend, the quirky and anti-social Chloe O'Brian (Mary Lynn Rajskub), the woman who rose to become acting director of CTU, rising within the system, while Jack saved everyone's ass working as the rogue from outside. Interestingly, the climax of the series finale demonstrated their ultimate friendship as Jack bids Chloe a tearful good-bye and heartfelt thank you.
24 might not be film noir, but Jack Bauer (and Sutherland's performance) most definitely is. He plays the tortured (both physically and emotionally) loner who is willing to bring down the US government for the betterment of America. He is not beholding to any organizations, philosophies or authority figures. He is a firm believer in revolution and overthrowing any group whose grasp for power means they would sacrifice the good of the American people for its own agenda. Jack does not respect the powerful or the wealthy because he knows that ultimate power corrupts (as President Taylor has shown this season) and that money is the root of all evil.
At the beginning of this final season Day 8, Jack was the doting grandfather playing with daughter Kim's children. He was prepared to leave his line of work, move from the East Coast to the West Coast to be nearer Kim, to take a job in the private sector in security and live a mundane normal life spoiling the grandchildren. But a mere 24 hours later he has lost his soul and crossed the line from which he cannot go back. He is a man without a country, hated and hunted by both the USA and Russian governments (President Taylor will resign and her successor won't owe any loyalty or credence to outlaw rogue Jack Bauer), and a man who must abandon his beloved America for his own survival. He was one plane ticket and journey away from salvation, but as the series creators Robert Cochran and Joel Surrow made clear, they could not envision a happy ending for Jack Bauer. They felt it would not ring true to the progression of Bauer as a character and the series as a whole. Before Jack Bauer butchers the murderer of Renee Walker, the equally damaged warrior with whom he might have found a soul mate, he cries out to her assassin, "Why couldn't you have just left us alone!!!!" Jack Bauer leaves us as the archetypal modern warrior, a man who cannot ever put his sword down, a man who is manipulated by his own impulses and dedication to a cause that he might not even understand. And isn't this the essence of film noir?
I will truly miss Monday nights at 9 pm. 24 is more than merely a great TV series. It was art and philosophy and existentialism all wrapped up in one untidy, messy package. Jack Bauer has become the iconic, archetypal modern man and the impression he made will live on for a long, long time. At least longer than the clock ticking away those nerve-wracking minutes that provided the ultimate adrenalin rush for the past eight years.
May 16, 2010
Is BEST PICTURE always the GREATEST movie of the year?
I was fascinated by this year's battle for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. The techno forward-thinking AVATAR appeared to have the Best Picture award in the pocket until the little picture that could, THE HURT LOCKER, stole the honors.
I then began to think of all the Academy Award-winning Best Pictures that I could think of and then consider are all those movies truly the greatest examples of cinema for that year, or even the best? And in my introspections, I came up with a few ideas about good, better and best.
First of all, did THE HURT LOCKER deserve to win the Oscar for Best Picture of 2009? Well, of course it did when considering other less-than-stellar movie that won the Best Picture award. In other years movies such as TERMS OF ENDEARMENT, ROCKY and ORDINARY PEOPLE (not to forget CHARIOTS OF FIRE and THE ENGLISH PATIENT) won. Certainly, THE HURT LOCKER was a better movie than many winners for Best Picture from previous years, but in no way was it the best movie of the year. But the film did not win because it was the best film of the year. Of course politics and personal agendas dictate that.
Two types of movies win the Oscar for Best Picture, and I say two types in the broadest sense. First we have the culturally defining moment movie. Sometimes this film is huge at the box-office and seems to resonate with the movie viewing public (including those Academy members who have the power of the vote). In such instances the movie might not be great but for its artistic vibrations to the pulse-beat of the American culture at that moment in time, the movie is great. The other type of Best Picture is a movie that simply rises up as a movie that is artistically superior and tells a riveting story well, with a cast of actors that make the viewing audience feel and care. In such movies direction, editing, cinematography all congeal to form a movie that stands above. It might not be the biggest moneymaker or garner all the hip press raves (but sometimes it rises from the others because it has been embraced by the hip press), but it simply stands above and gets itself noticed, for whatever reason.
This year's contest featured such a duel of the titans. First we had the ground-breaking technological defining movie that pushed CGI light years ahead, much in the same way that 1933's KING KONG demonstrated an evolution of stop motion special effects that became the standard bearer for generations to come. That movie AVATAR was a classic visual feast making us believe in and care for computer generated characters (of course CGI characters based upon living, breathing human actors). Many critics constantly rave about movies that depict a world we never saw or imagined before, and James Cameron's vision of a new world more than meets that criteria. But Cameron had a problem... his world and vision was larger than his self-penned script, which became almost a cliché recalling other movies already too familiar. Movies that come to mind include POCAHONTAS, DANCES WITH WOLVES and many Western movies too numerous to count. It is acceptable when an original screenplay borrows some ideas from one source, blends them with inspiration from another, ultimately crafting a unique vision that has glimmers to past works of which we are reminded. But almost every plot gesture in AVATAR is clichéd, even down to the jealous indigenous male warrior who is upset that his indigenous female warrior has fallen for the outsider male warrior. Very nuance is easily guessed to the point that the plot has very few surprises. About one-third through the movie Sue knew that our crippled male warrior would find a way to remain in his Avatar body for life. Everything is predictable and telegraphed to the point that not even the visuals can save the movie. We have elements of greatness in AVATAR, but we also have moments of the bland generic and lack of freshness.
The fact that AVATAR was perhaps the biggest grossing movie of all time typically sways Academy voters who tend to vote for the movie that makes the most money. However, this year, AVATAR broke the bank and perhaps became too boastful of its success (not by any fault of its own). Making too much money is akin to not making any. The visuals and technology of AVATAR pushed it nearer and nearer the Oscar, but its inherent weaknesses drew attention to the Academy voters.
Now our second type of Best Picture is simply the movie that told a wonderful story acted by an ensemble cast that clicked, featuring inspiring direction and editing. THE HURT LOCKER is that movie. Nothing in the movie is cutting edge. It is an example of solid old school movie-making, with perhaps its only gimmick being that it was modern desert war movie directed by a woman who got her start in B horror movies. But we can't fault her for that. Early on in the year, many critics created a buzz that this little movie could become a contender for the Oscar later on in the year. In a typical movie year such a great little movie, released early in the year, would tend to be forgotten
In my estimation, too many other really good movies would have been recognized first. THE HURT LOCKER only made something like 20 million before Academy Award night, making it at best the sleeper that may have deserved to win but never does. But then, after the Academy Awards evening, the film opens wider theatrically and doubles its take in a matter of weeks. In other words, films such as THE HURT LOCKER become the bridesmaid who catches the bouquet and becomes noticed only in a secondary sense. Too many other great films exist, so why should THE HURT LOCKER be singled out as "the one"?
Well friends, the answer is politics.
We all love David and Goliath stories, and AVATAR simply had too big a push. Too many people had too high expectations for the movie. AVATAR made too much money too fast. It met all the criteria of what a Road Show style epic encompasses when it is being considered for a Best Picture Oscar, but it flew too close to the sun. It made too much money and it dazzled too many people's vision. If any movie could obtain human characteristics, it almost became too arrogant for its own good.
But the great little picture, the polar opposite to AVATAR, THE HURT LOCKER suddenly had wings of steel. Of course the press never lost sight that Kate Bigelow was formerly married to the director of AVATAR, James Cameron. What a great press PR buildup. The wealthy "king of the world" director of the overwrought TITANIC, James Camera, vs. his former wife, the almost lost in obscurity Kate Bigelow, struggles to have her little epic noticed. Her movie with not a name star in sight, filmed on a low budget but a movie that looks expensive. In other words, AVATAR became the over-blow Hollywood production and THE HURT LOCKER the little picture that could.
Once the press and political Hollywood machine got hold of that clichéd scenario, how could THE HURT LOCKER lose? It was a shoe-in from the get-go.
Even if we agree that AVATAR is one flawed masterpiece or a movie that advanced technology and computer generated effects at the expense of a decent and original plot, well, other great movies failed to get notice. In many ways I feel the most groundbreaking movie of the year was UP. Simply that emotionally riveting montage depicting the life of the two children in several minutes, growing up, falling in love, marrying, aging, with one of them dying, is the most audacious, emotional and classic visual sequence in cinema for that entire year. If any film other than AVATAR deserved the Best Picture nod other than AVATAR, it should have been UP.
But wait, we are forgetting another great one of the year, when it comes to a director who wrote a powerful screenplay and brought it to the screen with pure cinematic exuberance, what film surpassed Quentin Tarantino's INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS last year. For me, BASTERDS was the film of the year and riveted me to the screen for two hours in such a way that I had to fist pump, smile and even yell at the ambition of all the artists who brought such a wonderful movie to life. Of course it could not win the Oscar for Best Picture. INGLOURIOUS BASTERS was too violent, sexy, outrageous and weird (its shifts in tone were jarring and artistic at the same time) for Academy voters to take the chance on the one film that screamed out its originality. Even more than UP, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS deserved to win the Best Picture Oscar. But for me winning such a gutless and homogenized award would have meant nothing. Tarantino, by not winning, kept the integrity of what great films did in the past and continue to do in the present-- fail to win the Oscar. Great movies are like forces of nature--they simply emerge. They do not need to be recognized by card-carrying Academy members for whatever agenda preoccupies them that year. Go up to Cinema Paradiso and ask Alfred Hitchcock (Lifetime Achievement awards do not count), Orson Welles and John Ford what it meant not winning an Academy Award. I'd bet they would say it was their badge of honor!
May 2, 2010
One Generation Gets Old With No One to Pass the Torch To!
Last weekend I attended the monthly meeting of the Baltimore-based Imaginative Film Society, a group of fans dedicated to classic horror movies and related subjects. It was a special meeting, as writer Tom Weaver was the featured guest and equally acknowledged author Greg Mank came along for the ride. After the meeting was winding down, I was off to the side speaking to the club's president David Willard about the state of the classic horror film genre and its immediate future. Willard's fear was that after the baby boomer generation passes, no one remaining will give a crap about Universal horror classics, Val Lewton, giant bug movies and Lon Chaney shall finally die (to echo the sentiment of Forrest J Ackerman)! Willard asked me if I had any ideas about how to reach the audience of younger fans, to help keep the torch burning for future generations.
Myself, I am not very optimistic about the torch continuing to burn brightly. Look around. The torch hasn't been burning brightly for decades. Yes, yes, we do have organizations like the Imaginative Cinema Society and the Classic Horror Film Board and various conventions and the like. But the niche market that cares is small and only dwindling. Genre magazines are dying and even the so-called fan often refuses to support the remaining genre magazines unless he or she can purchase them at newsstands where the zine can first be examined before purchase. Mail order purchases and subscriptions seem to frighten such people off. They argue, suppose the magazine folds before the subscription runs out! Suppose I like the contents of issue #77 but not issue #78. Such true fans proclaim they don't wish to purchase anything sight unseen. Their commitment to the beloved niche market is questionable.
When we boomers were kids in the 1960s and raving about the classics, we only had to go back 30 years to reach the decade of classic horror movies, the 1930s. So for those Monster Kids, 30 years took us all the way back to our horror roots. True, some fans admired the silent movies, but they basically only cherry-picked the best ones (horror chillers such as THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE, NOSFERATU, THE CAT AND THE CANARY, THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, THE GOLEM and a few others). For FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND fanatics, other than the battle cry of LON CHANEY SHALL NOT DIE, we pretty much favored the sound era and cared only for the silents if they starred Lon Chaney or featured a monster.
Today's young movie fan might think of the 1980s as the classic era, much in the same way that the boomers went back three decades to admire the 1930s. Horror cinema did not begin too much earlier than the 1930s; however, why aren't today's emerging horror film fan curious in the earlier decades that featured the originals of the horror genre? Why not view and study films made 40, 50 or even 70 years ago? Boomers did not have that opportunity when we were in our teens and early twenties. I think the boomer generation was interested in film history and tracing, dot by dot, what we liked currently with the evolution of the past, leading right up to current cinema. In a sense boomers understood only too well, as children, that the films made 20 and 30 years earlier were infinitely better than most of the modern movies (with some exceptions). We were currently enjoying the best of the American International drive-in theater features and the emerging Roger Corman Poe series, but we also witnessed the current releases of HORROR OF PARTY BEACH, THE FLESH EATERS and FRANKENSTEIN AND THE SPACE MONSTER. Not necessarily bad movies, but also not classic ones either.
Today's fan might think that Peter Jackson's KING KONG is superior to the 1933 classic, by nature of the fact that special effects improved with 70 years of evolution. They might also think that the new version of A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET is better than the original one, because technology has improved in the 25 years since the original was released. For the same reasons today's fans embrace remakes of movies that only first arrived during the 1970s or beyond (DAWN OF THE DEAD, THE HILLS HAVE EYES, TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE). Fans today only have the monstrous make-up to admire, or the CGI special effects. We no longer have genre stars, human beings, to associate with the horror film genre, so fans of the genre are usually fans of makeup, special effects or gore. We no longer have any Karloffs, Lugosis, Chaneys, Prices, Cushings or Lees to fuel the world of the horror film. So a dedicated fan base is difficult to maintain.
Of course we realize that younger movie fans shun black and white photography in classic older movies, and before long they might also shun any movie that is not projected in 3-D if this over-promoted gimmick returns and sticks. When I show the William Castle classic HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL to teenagers today, they jump and enjoy the movie (although they claim the movie does get a little boring in between shock sequences). But would they rent it on their own from NetFlix or Blockbuster? I doubt it very much.
So what about the legacy of the icons of horror--the Karloffs and the Lugosis? How many people 40 years and younger rush out to buy the Universal DVD box sets? How many people in their 20s and 30s recognize the name of Boris Karloff or Bela Lugosi (let alone The Marx Brothers, Humphey Bogart, Laurel and Hardy or even Vincent Price)?
Speaking as both a fan and a publisher (of magazines and books geared toward the classic horror film niche), I can say, without reservation, that book and magazine sales are dwindling. Once in a while a youngster will purchase one of our products, but that seems to be the exception. This imaginative film genre we love seems to only appeal to people nearing or at retirement age.
The bottom line is this. We love what we remember from our own childhood, not the childhood of generations before us. How many collectibles from former generations have passed to the wayside, items once highly desirable by a dedicated fan base now forgotten and thrown away as junk. The photography, direction and acting of those creaky early sound features do not hold the interest of people who are wowed by AVATAR. It does not matter what is better, what is best. All that matters is art that speaks to the current generation using the language and communicative tools of that generation. Movies are based upon or look like video games because that is the art that speaks to young people today. Computer generated special effects cause young fan's imaginations to soar because computers are their creative tool and one they love and understand. Boomers are intrigued by the imagination and technology of Ray Harryhausen's stop motion animation, and it was truly state of the art for a generation or two. But now new tools exist, tools that use the imagination of newly emerging technology. Today people might like movies because they are reminded of their favorite video games, not the other way around. Video games might be the preferred art format and movies come off as copycat second best.
Movies for our generation were an overwhelming experience, one involving traveling to those sacred houses of the holy, the movie palaces. And besides one or two feature films, we had the opportunity to watch newsreels, cartoons, two-reel comic shorts, etc. It was more than a night at the movies, often for many of us, it meant staying the entire day. And the movies themselves were special. They were creations of inspired art and imagination that were fun as were. Today movies are products, seldom art except in the disposable sense, and today's movie fans think of them as akin to a day at King's Dominion amusement park.
Even the hope for our generation, those film students graduating from film schools, think of the 1970s as the beginning of the era of classic cinema. Some may be required to take one class that shows something earlier than the 1970s, but that is akin to kids in school being forced to read a literary classic for a passing grade, not something that resonates with them emotionally. Most younger film fans simply don't care about the creaky and outmoded past. STAR WARS, TAXI DRIVER and THE GODFATHER Trilogy are about as classic as today's film fans desire.
By mid-century, purchasing a copy of BRIDE OF FRANENSTEIN will be as relevant as purchasing a Harold Lloyd movie is today. The names Karloff and Lugosi will be remembered about as well as the name of comedian Mabel Norman. Today's young people are so obsessed with future technology that they don't have time to remember the past. And while baby boomers always worshiped the past, today's generation does not share that same compelling obsession about that which has come before. Perhaps we should be sad, or perhaps this is simply a fact of life. But for so many people today, the past simply does not exist or is considered irrelevant. At least it's not in their consciousness. And our cultural heritage will continue to suffer because of it.
Baby boomers are proud of the torch they seem ready to pass on. The only problem is no one seems to care to want to reach out and grab it. And so the flame flickers and slowly fades away.
April 5 , 2010
Why the ACADEMY AWARDS Show Isn't What It Once Was
As a child, I never missed the television broadcast of the Academy Awards program. I looked forward to seeing the stars, watching movie clips and laughing to the antics of Johnny Carson and Bob Hope, who usually hosted the event. I was prepared to stay up late and struggle to school the next day (at first as a student and soon as a teacher). The broadcast fascinated me until just about 10 years ago, or perhaps even 15 years. A sense of lethargy crept in and recently a sense of boredom, created by the sameness of the show and its ungodly length.
But there's more to it than that.
A generation ago stars were mysterious and seeing them at the Academy Awards was something very special. Imagine seeing John Wayne interviewed on broadcast TV regularly, or the same with James Stewart or Henry Fonda. Today, we have shows like ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT or ACCESS HOLLYWOOD or The E-Channel broadcast entertainment news seven nights a week. If Lindsay Lohan trips and falls wearing her spiked high heels leaving a party at 3 a.m., it is broadcast the very next night. Stars are overexposed and their sparkle fades quickly. So seeing movie celebrities on the Academy Awards is almost a form of over-exposure. We don't have to wait a year to see or hear them descend upon the Red Carpet. It has become almost a monthly ritual.
Also, the awards use to contain surprises and friends would host parties predicting the outcome of the awards, and who and what won was actually a crapshoot. For this year, every award went down as predicted. AVATAR was the early favorite, but as the press reported, the little picture that could, THE HURT LOCKER, was fast gaining momentum and ultimately won. Now that was almost a surprise. In the past the best movie did not win, the most popular and generally the movie that made the most money or struck a specific chord with viewers was the odds-on favorite to win. However, this year people wanted to slay the "King of the World" giant, James Cameron, and see his independent-budgeted ex-wife take home the prize, and that she did. For the first time in ages, AVATAR appeared to be too big a picture to win, too successful, making too much money. And instead the movie that only grossed $20 million at the time became the new David that slew Goliath. Today's winners are almost always predicted correctly the week before the broadcast, but most times one or two awards startle or surprise. But that was not so this year.
Third, the acceptance speeches have deteriorated into almost a bland press release thanking the winner's agents, publicist and anyone associated with the movie. Generations ago, acceptance speeches came from the heart, and celebrities expressed their gratitude by way of a personal reflection or private anecdote. Who wants to hear a litany of unknown names? We want heart and soul, and we formerly got it in big bushels. Today we get a carefully orchestrated (even the emotion appears to be rehearsed... most of these people are performers remember) PR list. The speeches, which should be the guts of the broadcast, now become humdrum. Director Kathleen Bigelow, who was the first women to win the best director's award, did not make mention of the fact and her speech was almost forgotten by the next morning. It wasn't even memorable the night before.
The tribute clips are not even so well constructed. Take the tribute to the horror film shown this year (introduced by stars of the TWILIGHT series). It was very bland. For most of its few minutes, we were bombarded by colorful images of modern (mostly mainstream) horror movies--NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, THE EXORCIST, JAWS, ROSEMARY'S BABY--and were wondering where the originators and classic clips were hiding? Toward the end clips from the classic Universal Pictures appeared, all bundled quickly together, but no clips from the Lewton series or other vintage classics appeared (of course PSYCHO appeared). It was a tribute to a niche genre designed by a mainstream vision, a vision that missed some obvious left-of-center choices (I don't believe I saw one clip from any Hammer production). As Anthony Ambrogio would say, this was a tribute to horror cinema by people who do not like horror cinema very much.
Before, a generation ago, when the Best Picture was announced, a feeling of exaltation occurred, a sense that great art was being honored, that this film was going to last in the annals of cinema history and that somehow a torch was being passed on. We stood in the cast and company of greatness and a lump formed in our collective throats. However, today the greatest films are not particularly great. Where are the great artists, the John Fords, the Howard Hawks, the Alfred Hitchcocks, the Preston Sturges, the George Stevens? Where are the stars, the "faces," and not the cookie-cutter professionals (do you notice that so many of our younger male and female stars all look alike?)? Where is the magic and glory of Hollywood?
Certainly not at the Academy Awards!
February 7, 2010
AVATAR is Not the Future of American Cinema; It is An Affirmation of its Past!
While I seldom go out to the movies anymore, preferring to wait for movies to be released on home DVD/Blu-ray to watch in our home theater, I wanted to go out and experience AVATAR theatrically. And not just theatrically, but at an IMAX 3-D theater (where the ticket price was $12 per adult).
My friend Bill Littman is a fan of the so-called Road Show theatrical releases of the 1950s and 1960s, where seeing a film theatrically, mostly downtown, became an event. Many of these Road Show movies featured an elaborate souvenir program book, which could be purchased for a few dollars extra. Many of the films were released in Cinerama or Todd-AO, or perhaps in 70mm. And the major way to recognize a Road Show release was to notice the sometimes-longer running time, experience the movie with Intro and Exit music. And of course the required Intermission occurred before the final hour or so of the production. Going to downtown theaters, virtual urban palaces, was also part of the experience. And nothing since has rivaled such cinematic exhibition prowess. Until now. Newly emerging IMAX theaters, being slightly downsized from the original IMAX theaters, now modified and housed in multiplexes, allow large curved screens to present, in 3-D no less, something akin to the spectacle of the long gone Road Show production of bygone eras. Once again going to the movies becomes something very special again.
Of course I must mention a few negatives. On the ticket I purchased online, it states that the purchase of the ticket only guarantees a seat, but ticket holders are expected to appear half an hour early, required to wait in long lines, to be assured of a good seat (imagine sitting in the front row and having to look straight up to watch the movie). Also, while waiting for the movie to begin, we are bombarded with never-ending commercials, many of them for TV shows. Also, on the more positive side, loads of theatrical trailers are shown (most of which in 3-D). While the eloquent pageantry of the past has been replaced by the blatant commercialism of the present, IMAX 3-D is still rather special. And I will say that the sharpness of the digital print and the quality of the 3-D, along with oversized and very comfortable 3-D glasses, only increased the theatrical experience. Bravo!
But what about AVATAR, the movie? I must say that AVATAR was an excellent movie and one that grabbed me both emotionally (most important) and visually. But it was a movie not without flaws. As many noted, the film presents us with an archetypal cinema experience, but one that has been explored many times in movies past. The archetypal plot blueprint used before in the past (noticeable in movies such as DANCES WITH WOLVES) delves into the relationship between Native Americans and American settlers, where the so-called savages are revealed to be primitive yet intelligent and imbued with an innocence and closeness to nature. In such stories we see the roots of AVATAR. In such films, by the last reel, the primitives are revealed to be more humane, kind and attuned to nature than the so-called civilized folk. But just because we have seen this story many times before does not mean it cannot be recreated in a new way for a new generation. Think back to the original STAR WARS trilogy, where the Empire's reliance on technology and super-science, as symbolized by Darth Vader, is contrasted to the natural alignment of inner energy (the Force) and primitive and seemingly more pure lifestyles, as symbolized by the Ewoks. And as RETURN OF THE JEDI demonstrates, when technology meets the power of the primitive, the primitive kicks ass! AVATAR took its time developing its background narrative, and the sequence where Jake Sully's Avatar is indoctrinated into the Na'vi culture, absolutely necessary and vital to the film's message, seemed drawn out. Here the film threatened to become a big over-bloated yawn. I enjoyed all the visual marvels of Pandora and enjoyed the overblown symbolic characterizations. But at the same time I was aware I was sitting, watching a movie.
But then something special occurred. The sequence when the bulldozers appear, suddenly and violently, everything changed. From this shocking sequence (not shocking it occurred--we knew it was coming--but shocking how it was introduced) until the last shot of the movie, pure visual magic occurred. Not just the fact that this final section of the movie featured pure action, but it also featured gut-wrenching emotion with horrible destruction and unnecessary deaths. It just did not enthrall the audience visually, but it engaged us emotionally, all at the same time. Nothing that came before could rival what follows. Just the visuals, with or without 3-D, were storyboarded and photographed to perfection. Also, the manner in which female Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) defends her mate Jake contains such stark imagery that her dramatic stances are frozen into our consciousness and will remain embedded there. The eventual battle between masterful villain Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang) and Jake is iconic and gripping (and those mechanical body armor machines are more than a little bit similar to the machine used by Ripley in James Cameron's ALIENS). But these sequences, dazzling in visual execution, are equaled by the emotional wallop they deliver. Perhaps Cameron would argue the first two-thirds of the movie was necessary for the fast-paced payoff of the final third, but this same argument did not work for me during the decade of the 1950s when movie-makers argued that the best monster shots and attacks were saved for the final reel of the movie in order to ratchet up the suspense and not overdo the sequences of the giant monsters early on. Once we grew up we knew that the decision was almost entirely a budgetary one, but in AVATAR it seems the film's initial two-thirds could have been tightened up with some tough love editing. Unfortunately, Hollywood grants directors too much creative control and films, at times, suffer because of that single-minded control.
I do not believe that the future of movies has to be a world of expanded CGI and 3D. James Cameron should be proud of creating old-style moviemaking in such a technologically advanced production. His story is old school, as are his characters and the manner in which they are presented. Good storytelling is good storytelling (even if the rehashed plot is instantly recognizable) and it is Cameron's ability to assemble the film visually by creating such a fully realized world that becomes its major artistic success. Even though everyone is lauding 3D as the only answer to Hollywood's ills, I still feel that the wearing of goggles takes one out of the movie experience and makes us aware that we are, in fact, watching a movie. I admire the ability of Cameron to envision a world in his head that he makes real on the big screen, and his creation of such a believable society, complete with all its rituals and mythology, is nothing short of amazing. Yet, viewed flat, I feel such an accomplishment would prove to be almost as great. Yes, the 3D in this case embellished the movie experience, but the 3D embellished the experience by using a gimmick, though admittedly used quite effectively. But for me such a gimmick took me out of the viewing experience and only emphasized that I was watching a movie. Someday, if 3-D could be accomplished without the use of goggles, then perhaps the format might become one that sticks.
So, finally, AVATAR is one of the most gripping movie experiences of the decade, an overblown production that was worthy of the production expenses. But at heart it is only superficially nouveau and remains simply an old-style movie done right, with good storytelling, characterization and cinematic style creating a world we never before experienced. James Cameron is a sly devil, having both his cake and eating it too. To youngsters he is avant-garde and cutting edge; to veteran movie buffs he continues to do what great filmmakers of the past has always done. And AVATAR continues its journey to become the most successful movie of all time. Bravo to James Cameron for remaining true to his political vision and having the guts to follow it through to the end. And any movie where we come to hate a segment of humanity and cheer for the alien race to destroy human greed is innovative and gutsy in the most pure artistic sense. Now that is totally subversive cinema, presented upon the mainstream movie platform!
December 31, 2009
The Best DVDs/Blu-ray Discs of 2009
This was the year that people started to turn "blu" and buy both standard definition DVDs and high definition Blu-ray discs. This was the year I made the switch, and boy, am I glad I did. Even though up-conversion makes standard def discs look pretty good, nothing beats a Blu-ray disc shown on a 1080p monitor or projector. When it comes to my list of the best discs of 2009, I avoid selecting my favorite movies for this particular year and instead select the "best" presentation of the finest movies, from any era, that came out on DVD during the year.
A few comments first. Even though years ago people said only classic films will ever make it to DVD, necessitating the need to keep their VHS tapes, such has not been the case. Well, let's face it, most of the horror and science fiction film classics (of every major decade) have been released, and now we are awaiting the release of movies sliding way down in the barrel of quality. The same is true with all movie genres. So welcome both the Warner Archive Collection and the TCM Vault Collection, two made-to-order (print on demand for the movie buff) distribution companies that will be releasing those less-in-demand movies, but movies that fans nevertheless are dying to see and own. And I believe it is this made-to-order video that should be considered the trend of the year and perhaps even the decade. Some may complain that Universal's HOUSE OF HORRORS was released before Paramount's ISLAND OF LOST SOULS, but the neglect of releasing such classic titles is a rare occurrence these days. Therefore, besides the classics, this year we applaud the release of those films that typically fell between the cracks, but films that deserve to be watched and enjoyed.
These releases appear in no particular order, but all of them remain favorites of mine that saw release in 2009.
BORIS KARLOFF AND BELA LUGOSI HORROR CLASSICS--Yes, it is about time that THE WALKING DEAD saw release (even if I consider the movie to be over-rated), but it was also delightful to see the release of those enjoyable B productions YOU'LL FIND OUT, ZOMBIES ON BROADWAY and FRANKENSTEIN 1970. Most of these programmers have been slammed over the years, but upon fresh-eyed review, looking at gorgeous video prints, we can re-evaluate these entries and deem them all to be entertaining fun.
ICONS OF SCI-FI: TOHO COLLECTION--When it comes to those wondrous Japanese monster romps of our youth, besides the early GODZILLA movies and THE MYSTERIANS, the three Toho films that I remember fondly are the three released in this collection--BATTLE IN OUTER SPACE, MOTHRA and THE H MAN. Presented in both Japanese subtitled and dubbed versions, these movies are presented with saturated color, sharp and clear. The truth of the matter is that these movies were made for children and what thrilled us as children might not perform the same magic as adults. But the cross-genre crime/horror thriller THE H MAN still features moments of visual horror difficult to forget.
THE WARNER ARCHIVE COLLECTION--Where to begin? Should we select the long-anticipated Gordon Scott Tarzan Collection featuring all six of his feature films? Or should we select those lesser but eagerly sought after film noirs that never before saw DVD release? Films such as THE FALLEN SPARROW, NORA PRENTICE and EXPERIMENT PERILOUS. Or how about those delightful mystery thrillers such as THE UNSUSPECTED, starring Claude Rains as the masterful murderer? Or how about those propaganda war movies or post-war movies? Movies including I WAS A COMMUNIST FOR THE F.B,I., THE MASTER RACE and BERLIN EXPRESS. Even horror movies made their first appearances on DVD, including Hammer's SHE and the delightful B romp FROM HELL IT CAME. Seeing the official release of such titles has been the video highlight of the year for me. Warner Archive, bring it on!
THE TCM VAULT COLLECTION--Appearing late in the year, TCM's Vault Collection first release was the box set, THE UNIVERSAL CULT HORROR COLLECTION, featuring the release of eagerly anticipated B gems such as HOUSE OF HORRORS, THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. RX, THE MAD GHOUL, MURDERS IN THE ZOO and THE MAD DOCTOR OF MARKET STREET. After this collection, not too many more Universal horror/mystery titles remain unreleased, so this TCM release is essential for even the casual fan. Also TCM Vault Collection released the rarely seen Christmas classic REMEMBER THE NIGHT, with Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck, working from a script by Preston Sturges. This rambling bitter-sweet "road" romp is a true delight and provides something different to watch during the Christmas season.
COLUMBIA PICTURES FILM NOIR CLASSICS, VOL. 1--Yes, the classic and formerly released THE BIG HEAT is included in this collection, causing somewhat of a sour taste in our mouths because we are forced to re-buy a movie most of us already own, but those other releases demand our attention. Not all of these movies are anything resembling classic noir, but for now seeing those minor gems that have eluded us for years is a real treat. The movies included in this package are 5 AGAINST THE HOUSE, THE LINEUP, MURDER BY CONTRACT and THE SNIPER. And with Volume 2 forthcoming, featuring four more new to DVD releases, the wealth of rarities from film noir, affordably priced, just keeps coming and coming.
THE THREE STOOGES COLLECTIONS (Volume 8 is the final release for 2009), which debuted in 2008, continue in 2009, and every Stooge short through most of 1954 has been released. As the declining quality of the more recent releases has been noted by critics, also duly noted has been the release of the first widescreen Three Stooges shorts and the release of the 3-D Stooges shorts (available in the collection in both a flat and 3-D version, complete with two pairs of glasses included). With fantastic restoration of the complete, uncut prints, I have gotten so much pleasure and so many laughs out of this series of releases that I had to add it to my top-10 best-of-list for a second year in a row.
The remainder of my top-10 list contains Blu-ray discs restored, re-mastered and replicated in 1080p. Such is cause for celebration! Simply stated, whether classics or modern, these movies have never looked or sounded better than they do here.
SNOW WHITE and PINOCCHIO, two of Disney's greatest classics, arrived in pristine looking and sounding Blu-ray discs during the past year, and both of them are outstanding and bargain priced. Remember, PINOCCHIO is truly a tale of horror, showcasing the fear of little boys turning into animals and dealing with the horror of body parts that grow too large, too fast. Disney spares no expense in the Blu-ray releases of their classics.
IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE and A CHRISTMAS CAROL both saw wonderful restorations (with IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE an absolutely pristine, perfect one; with A CHRISTMAS CAROL a noticeably improved one) presented in Blu-ray. IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE can be watched in both the original black and white version, or the superbly colorized one (by Legend Films) that is also well worth seeing. To me, these are classic Christmas movies that transcend the Christmas film genre to produce profoundly emotional studies of the human condition. Both are superb productions that look the best they've ever looked in Blu-ray.
SIN CITY (Theatrical and Extended Director's Cut Edition)--For me this is perhaps one of the most eye-popping cinema experiences of the decade. Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez, coming from the world of movies and the graphic novel, combine talents to co-direct one of the most uncompromising dark crime/film noirs ever produced. The film made money and was critically recognized, but for me, the film was not recognized to the extent that it needs to be. It was truly, and still remains, cutting edge for the ages, taking comic books and film noir and transforming them to the screen in the way they can once again be relevant for today's younger film generation. I love the interconnected stories, the acting, the stylized photography, the makeup and the crisp dialogue. On Blu-ray, this film kills.
THE WIZARD OF OZ 70 TH ANNIVERSARY ULTIMATE COLLECTOR'S EDITION--Yes, it costs a lot. But besides getting three discs of movie watching, we get collectable cards, an Oz watch and marvelous reproductions of the movie's pressbook and a wonderful book that details the film's production. In other words, we get the movie and the entire kitchen sink thrown in (stores such as Walmart and Target sold less expensive movie-only Blu-ray versions at a more reasonable price). But the restoration performed on THE WIZARD OF OZ is mind-blowing and becmes a demonstration of how Blu-ray can make even movies made 70 years ago look pristine and vital once again. Even if you already own the movie, this version is worth buying once again. Don't fight it, just go out and buy it. You won't regret your decision.
NORTH BY NORTHWEST--Not as old as THE WIZARD OF OZ, but this 1959 Alfred Hitchcock suspense classic looks as though it were filmed last month, or perhaps looks as though it were mastered from a negative that was stored in a vacuum-sealed vault under ideal conditions, so that the video prints made look as good as the theatrical prints struck when the movie was brand spanking new. It is not only the picture but the sound that is also just perfect. True, Blu-ray was made to make today's movies look their absolute best. But for anyone who still thinks his VHS of NORTH BY NORTHWEST is anywhere in the same ballpark as watching this masterfully restored Blu-ray version, that person is certifiable and needs to be sealed away in a time capsule immediately. To be honest, movies such as NORTH BY NORTHEST only testify to the fact that classic movies, those made 50 years ago, or 70 years ago, look and sound incredible in a Blu-ray 1080p release. Blu-ray brings the classics to rip-roaring life, and that's why I want to see studios reach further back when releasing new Blu-ray titles.
Another year of home video entertainment has come and gone, but 2010 threatens to see the release of even more vital and breathtaking movie experiences. Read about all of them in MAD ABOUT MOVIES and MIDNIGHT MARQUEE.
December 15, 2009
Warner Bros. Archives Series and TCM Vault Collection: Why the Complaints???
Isn't it logical that after Warner Bros. released multiple collections of film noir, gangster movies and vintage Hollywood star-powered box sets, that the demand for the lesser classics might be commercially bankrupt?
Let's face it, scores of classic movie fans want to purchase gems such as THE MALTESE FALCON, THE BIG SLEEP, OUT OF THE PAST, LITTLE CAESAR, THE ROARING TWENTIES and the list goes on and on. But how many people want to purchase those similar movies that might have been awarded two to three star ratings and that come up a little short when compared to the best of the best?
In the world of book publishing, Midnight Marquee Press can afford to release a paperback for $25, while similar smaller publishers like McFarland can release paperbacks for $30 to $45. Many book buyers complain that mainstream publishers can release similar-sized quality trade paperbacks for $15. So why should they pay almost double or triple to buy a similar product?
The answer is a simple one. Those mainstream trade paperbacks might evaluate the careers of Johnny Depp or Leonardo DiCaprio, or touch upon the films of such modern directors as Judd Apatow. Even casual buffs might shell out minimal money to read about the current blockbuster playing at the multiplex. Or better yet, anything on the TWILIGHT series or HARRY POTTER is bound to sell copies through the roof. But this is not the audience that most small press publishers are chasing after.
Instead, small press publishers try to appeal to a smaller, less hip niche audience, one whose love of movies extends 50 to 75 years ago. Instead of profiling prolific mega-stars such as George Clooney or Megan Fox, they analyze the careers of celebrities that appeared left of the dial, cult stars and directors such as Peter Cushing, Terence Fisher, Andre Morell, Brett Halsey and Edgar Ulmer. Publishers can expect to sell thousands of copies of any book on the TWILIGHT film series, but a book about Andre Morell can hope to sell 500 copies tops (and that's being rather optimistic). So with smaller press runs and more frequent print-on-demand titles, the cover price for small press books is higher simply because the demand for these titles is much smaller than the demands of mainstream titles.
The same is true with the release of more and more esoteric and non-classic vintage movie titles. How many copies of THE MALTESE FALCON sold? How many copies of, say, Jacques Tourneur's EXPERIMENT PERILOUS will sell? That is the point precisely. Warner Bros. initiated their Archive Series several months ago as a type of print-on-demand or made-to-order archive of titles that will never be mass released. These titles have not been restored to impeccable standards with costly re-masterings, but the titles themselves have been mastered to the highest standards from the best negatives and prints that currently exist. To be quite honest, the quality for the Archive series does vary slightly, from film to film, but when projected on my nine-foot screen, all of these titles appear crisp with deep contrast and inky blacks. The sound is as good as any audio on the other box-set release titles. Yes, the titles cost $20 each (Warner does not charge for shipping but TCM does), while typical mainstream release titles cost $15 when sold alone or $5 to $10 each when sold in thematic box sets. But these $20 DVDs are the titles that most likely would not have ever been released. These are the titles that many of us love and have a fondness for, but these are the titles that would only sell in small quantities, making their mainstream release unprofitable.
So instead of celebrating the fact that FROM HELL IT CAME is finally released on DVD, many people state they would not pay more than $10 to own it and that charging $20 is highway robbery.
But if these same people follow the Warner Archive website they can see multiple sales are available every week, and, praise the celluloid gods, for their Black Friday weekend, the Archive series offered pretty much their entire catalogue for 50% off (shipping free), if you purchased 10 titles. Now that's a bargain. And the Archive series bundles movies together to sell them in box sets (although titles are shipped individually always). For instance, the six Gordon Scott Tarzan movies finally became available at a cost of $10 each, if you purchased all six together (or you could purchase the two best, TARZAN'S GREATEST ADVENTURE and TARZAN THE MAGNIFICENT, for $20 each). Fans have been crying for a decade for the release of these superior Tarzan entries, and now that they have arrived, many fans are disappointed that they cannot be purchased for $5 apiece.
In a similar move, TCM, working with Movies Unlimited, have opened up movies from their vault and are selling them in a similar print-on-demand way. The first release is THE UNIVERSAL CULT HORROR COLLECTION, containing five sought after B movies from the Universal vaults--MURDERS IN THE ZOO, HOUSE OF HORRORS, THE MAD DOCTOR OF MARKET STREET, THE MAD GHOUL and THE STRANGE CASE OF DOCTOR RX. And the price is $60 for all five movies. As a bonus, they ship in a very attractive case. True, if Universal had released the box set, it would street price for around $21 to $25, but again Universal would only release classic mainstream titles such as THE BLACK CAT, FRANKENSTEIN and THE WOLF MAN. How many people, except true fans, would purchase THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. RX?
If we truly want to see every Universal horror title released, now that the classics are all available (I know, everyone still awaits a DVD release of ISLAND OF LOST SOULS), we need to support the release of less desirable, less mainstream titles to see the DVD release of all the rest. It's time to stop bellyaching and step up to the plate.
Let me put it this way. I purchased recently the KARLOFF LUGOSI box set that featured THE WALKING DEAD, FRANKENSTEIN 1970, YOU'LL FIND OUT and ZOMBIES ON BROADWAY for around $21. I paid $60 for THE UNIVERSAL CULT HORROR COLLECTION mentioned above. For me the $60 purchase was the true "bargain," containing those titles that mean the most to me. I would have preferred to pay $25 for the set, but once we all understand the difference between releasing mainstream titles and esoteric, less commercially viable ones, we can understand the logic that states I would rather purchase the McFarland BELA LUGOSI AND BORIS KARLOFF bio book for $75 instead of some mainstream modern Hollywood celebrity bio for one-third the cost. When it comes to esoteric, niche products we all must expect to pay a little more. [We at Midnight Marquee Press do manage to provide esoteric niche titles at the most affordable prices for fans, but we realize that selling fewer copies of such titles makes it more and more difficult to make a profit and to continue publication of future titles.]
But at last we can add the Rondo Hatton thriller HOUSE OF HORRORS to our collections. That is cause to celebrate, isn't it???? At any price!!!
July 1, 2009
Busy Being Born or Busy Dying? Why Many Adults Hate New Music and New Movies
I hear it and read it all the time. Baby boomers claim that the best rock and roll ended about 1976, along the time that punk rock broke and became popular... before Disco hit the scenes. Even many of the teens I teach claim that classic rock of the 1960s and 1970s blows away everything recorded today. But is this true?
The same thing seems to be true with movies and the baby boomer generation. Movies from the 1930s through the 1970s are the only ones that matter. Many boomers bemoan the death of the delightfully unreal Technicolor movies, replaced by the de-saturated color photography of the 1970s and beyond. Many boomers feel classic cinema died by the late 1960s, or at least by the mid-1970s.
People of my generation constantly argue that art created today is just not as good as art created 30 years or more ago. And to their way of thinking, they may very well be right. Remember when dialogue in movie screenplays was literate, adult and intelligent? Not so today!
Basically, when we are pre-teenage or teenagers, or even college age 20-somethings, movies and music are perhaps the most important way how we define ourselves. Just as we may dress preppy or punk, watch classic Hammer or AIP black and white teenage monsters wreak havoc or listen to garage bands, Phil Spector's Wall-of-Sound, Prog or Psychedelic rock, we define who we are by what we watch, what we listen to and all this affects what we wear. Or at least, during adolescence, this is very much true. During those days, for baby boomers, waiting for the new Rolling Stones album to arrive was a life-altering event. In the mid-1960s, Bob Dylan sporting leather and plucking an ELECTRIC guitar was huge, after deserting his corduroy cap and acoustic guitar. The art we enjoyed was life defining, or at least life altering. The movies and music that touched our psyches during adolescence were the most profound of our lives. And for most generations, this truth is a constant.
As we age, it was never a case of becoming un-cool. People who enjoyed the free form jazz of the late 1950s, people who grooved on Miles Davis, John Coltrane and Ornette Coleman would not suddenly embrace the Beatles a few years later (of course, some jazz fans actually would, but not the majority). The same is true with people who grew up in the 1950s grooving to the swinging pop sounds of hip Frank Sinatra. These generally were not fans of rockabilly and Elvis Presley.
As we baby boomers matured into our 30s--where career, marriage, savings accounts, preparing for retirement, relationships and the harsh realities of life took the forefront of our energies--music and movies still were important, but they were put on the backburners, squeezed in between these harsh slaps that life dished out, and while music commanded so much of our time, it soon became something to do while driving to the store, after putting the baby to sleep or perhaps during a few stolen minutes grabbed here and there. The new music was not OUR music. It belonged to younger people, or so it seemed. People who "got" the Beatles and the Stones perhaps "got" pre-punk such as The Stooges or The New York Dolls, but when the Ramones and The Sex Pistols came upon the scene, it became more difficult to embrace such new sounds and musical styles. The pressure was on to grow up musically, to stop being an adolescent and to embrace more adult sounds. And my god, how could we deal with Disco and Saturday Night Fever! Time surely had passed us by! And even if you were one of the few who simply followed the new music, and tried to embrace it, it become increasingly more and more difficult to understand Rap, Dance/Trance, World Beat and electronic-created/computer generated rock. (Was it still rock... with the guitar downplayed or omitted and drumbeats being just as often played electronically and not pounded out on the actual instrument we call the drums?). How can a baby boomer today relate to bands such as Grizzly Bear, Death Cab for Cutie, Deer Tick, LCD Soundsystem, Pains of Being Pure at Heart or Animal Collective??? Some of us try, because wouldn't it be sad to think that the best music of our entire lives was created by the time we turned 26 or so!
Well, some of us still try to be relevant. We live by that great Bob Dylan line that "he who is not busy being born is busy dying," and if we reject everything that is new, then we are dying artistically and becoming the old fogy that we always dreaded we would become. It's okay to love classic horror cinema, but when we state that splatter films repulse us, or that the nudity and sex quotient is overdone for our tastes, are we actually admitting that our tastes and sensibilities are becoming old? That we who ranted and raved in favor of eccentric and cutting edge New Wave music and French Cinema would now shut down when it comes to anything that smacks of cutting edge today? Are we just too zoned out, tired or lazy when it comes to appreciating today's movies and music? Since our adult lives are pulled in too many different directions, perhaps we simply don't have time to sit down and watch and listen and try to understand. Instead we assume that anything new is not as good, and when we listen to those vocal harmonies created by bands such as Animal Collective and Grizzly Bear, we remember that the Beach Boys did it first and did it better. It seems so much of today's modern art is too similar (meaning inferior in the sense of having been there, seen that, heard that) to the great movies and music of the past, and that when movies or music try something radically new or different, that it pales compared to the creativity of the best of (movies) Hitchcock, Ford, Hawks and Whale or (music) Chuck Berry, Muddy Waters, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan or The Velvet Underground (let alone Big Star or The Replacements!).
At least the best music of the past was collaborative, even solo artists recording and creating with a band, either in a garage or in the studio. Today, so much music in insular, created by one guy holed up in his bedroom with his computer, creating the equivalent of musical masturbation.
And with digital camcorders and computer-based editing systems such as Final Cut Pro readily available, now anyone can make a feature film at home for lots less money (of course, this is not saying such movies are any good!).
Movies today seem to either be the Big Products earmarked for the teenage demographic or the low rent independent production that frowns upon any commercial considerations. The best movies of the past combined the best of both extremes, without committing exclusively to only one.
Bottom line--I don't know if the baby boomers are simply getting old, complacent and too pooped to rock or really focus on current cinema, or, if the music and movies of the past were simply superior and we are sick and tired of being force-fed mediocre music and movies.
As Bob Dylan sang in 2006 on his classic album MODERN TIMES, "For the love of God, you ought to take pity on yourself."
