Burning Questions: Lifetime Passes

Michael C. here. This week’s Burning Question came to me when my heart sank upon seeing the poster for Woody Allen’s latest.

Maybe it's the inexplicably prominent placement of Roberto Benigni. Maybe it's because the Committee to Blandify Movie Titles reduced the movie's name from the interesting The Bop Decameron to the acceptable Nero Fiddled to the yawn-inducing To Rome With Love. Or maybe it was just the beige Nancy Meyers-ness of the whole thing. Whatever the reason, my gut tells me this is a return to the lifeless, script-out-of-the-bottom-drawer rehashes that have been the rule and not the exception for Woody’s output over the last decade. 

Of course this would all be a lot less distressing if I didn’t know there was no way I would miss seeing it. Why? Because I, like many others, have issued Mr. Allen a lifetime pass out of gratitude for Annie Hall and Manhattan and a dozen other titles that constitute a large chunk of the foundation of my love of movies. Therefore I will keep setting myself up for disappointment, like Charlie Brown forever returning to kick that football.

Annie Hall by Al Hirschfeld

Would it not make more sense to ignore the completist in me that insists I see every title Woody releases even when it's an obvious gutterball? Does anyone really deserve a lifetime pass?

First off, lets be clear what constitutes a lifetime pass...

Click to read more ...

Burning Questions: The New Classic Quotes

Michael C. here to see if I can blow some of the dust of the all time lists to make room for some new blood.  

If you read as much film writing as I do you know one of the most tiresome attitudes one encounters is the rose-colored “they don’t make them like the used to” mindset. This is the Pleasantville way of seeing things that insists cinema attained a sort of perfection in the forties and fifties and has been on a downhill slide towards Transformers sequels ever since. 

One of the most common forms this viewpoint takes is the lament that movies aren’t as quotable as they used to be. "Why, when the American Film Institute released its list of the 100 greatest quotes in 2005" the argument goes, "Casablanca landed six spots on the list alone, while Gone With the Wind and Wizard of Oz landed three apiece." The problem with this argument is that, while I wouldn’t deny those films a single one of their spots, it is meaningless to compare films that have had the better part of a century to secure their place in the cultural pantheon to those that have just been released. More often than not cinematic greatness emerges over time rather than instantly emblazoning itself on the face of the culture.

So if I’m correct and in four or five decades the films of the early part of this century do manage to slide in some lines alongside “You talkin’ to me?” and “Frankly My Dear, I don't give a damn.” what will they be?

photo src

What are the new classic quotes in the making?

Since the most recent quote on the AFI’s top 100 is “My Precious” from 2002’s Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers I think that would be a good jumping off point. In the decade following where the AFI list left off here are, in my best estimation, the ten quotes that have most thoroughly permeated popular culture: 

Click to read more ...

Burning Questions: What's Controversial About "A Separation"?

Michael C. checking in with some of the aftermath of Oscar 2012. According to a report on Huffington Post, despite having previously trumpeted A Separation's Oscar win as a national triumph Iranian authorities have canceled an event to be hosted by leading Iranian film groups in honor of Asghar Farhadi's contribution to the country's cinema. Apparently, conservative hardliners and clerics, who had been celebrating Iran's first Oscar win, in particular its victory over the Israeli nominee, were displeased after being belatedly clued into the film’s content.  

So why the about-face at this late date? What subversive material somehow slipped the attention of the authorities only now to come to light? What is so controversial about A Separation?

Honestly, I was surprised Iran submitted A Separation for the Oscar at all. The image of modern day Iran in Farhadi’s film wasn’t as devastating as say, the corruption and violence ravaged country portrayed in Mexico’s submission, Miss Bala, but it is still a far cry from the picture one imagines controlling government officials would be eager to present to the world. [more after the jump]

Click to read more ...

Burning Questions: To Read Or Not To Read

Michael C. here to tackle a major philosophical issue. No poking fun at Ghost Rider this week. There are some questions a movie lover ponders for a lifetime. The big questions like where to sit in the theater (close enough to fill my field of vision but not so close I crane my neck) or Godfather Part I or Part II (Part I. You Part II people can have at me in the comments)

This week I thought I’d dive into one such big question the imminent release of Hunger Games has me contemplating. Is it better to read the book first or watch the movie?

For the purposes of this discussion let us assume that both book and movie are excellent. When one is clearly superior then the call is obvious. Better version first. Read I, Robot, The Road, Breakfast of Champions. Watch Jaws, Sideways, Wonder Boys. The lesser version can be an interesting bonus at best, a horrible afterthought at worst.

The real dilemma is when both versions promise to be excellent and one experience will inevitably compromises the purity of the other. I’ll state right up front that when put to it I’m a movie first guy. I watched the entirety of the Lord of the Rings not knowing if Frodo would make it back alive (I had read The Hobbit, which was made for an ideal balance of acquainting myself with the world and preserving suspense. I recommend it)

So in the interest of fairness let me play Devil’s Advocate and make the case for book first to see if I can shake my position.

Books provide context

Book to film adaptations inevitably lop off huge chunks of backstory on the trip to the screen. When entire chapters of family history are reduced to a five seconds of Lisbeth Salander scrolling through pics on a laptop, having read the book becomes invaluable.

My response:  A movie should stand on its own. “That was explained in the novel” is not a legitimate defense as far as I’m concerned. Also...

Click to read more ...

Burning Questions: Is Nic Cage Gone For Good?

Michael C. here just back from an encounter with the Spirit of Vengeance.

There is something about movies not screening for critics that makes me want to see titles I would otherwise self-deport to avoid. I think it’s the idea that they’re trying to get away with something. I want to go to prove that they're as awful as I suspect. Not rational behavior, I admit, but I feel I have to produce some explanation as to why, when my friends suggested we go see Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, I went, instead of doing something sensible like jumping in front of a bus.

Of course, my friends didn’t think the movie would be good either. These days one sees a Nicolas Cage movie for the same reason one Googles “epic fail” or watches the GOP debates: the promise of spectacular, instantly classic moments of insanity. Cage’s recent films have been so consistently bonkers that they are now a genre unto themselves. A genre wherein a drug-fueled communion with imaginary iguanas is classified as “same old, same old”.

It’s reach a point where I don’t think it’s unfair to ask, Will Nicolas Cage ever give another great performance?

 

Click to read more ...