"Star Wars" is back in the news again. Over the weekend at the Star Wars Celebration V convention in Orlando, George Lucas and Lucasfilm unveiled one of the minor holy grails of the original franchise: the deleted alternate opening of "Return of the Jedi." The clip, along with several other deleted scenes, are among the promised extras that will accompany the "Star Wars" films' premiere on Blu-Ray next year. This is a great marketing move, only the latest of many similarly shrewd bits of promotion by Lucasfilm that has gotten fans to buy multiple copies of the trilogy over the years.
Let me give you an example. I broke down and finally replaced my "Star Wars" VHS tapes a few years ago when a set was released that contained "archival editions" of the films, unaltered versions that didn't contain any of the "Special Edition" changes that Lucas added back in 1997 when the trilogy was re-released in theaters. Subsequently, all screenings and television airings were of the new versions. A special retrospective screening at a Los Angeles film festival was even canceled back in 2003 because Lucasfilm wouldn't let them show an original print, resulting in controversy. Deep down, I have to wonder if this was all a marketing ploy to get us to grab the releases of the unaltered films when they finally became available on DVD. I definitely prefer the older versions because those were the ones that I grew up with, but they'll almost certainly be available again in the future at some point, and probably better quality than the ones I've got now. I admit I fell prey to the hype, like so many others.
This time around, it's no different. The deleted scenes are an extra that piques my interest, as I'm sure they've gotten the attention of a lot of other fans. As a "Star Wars" enthusiast since I was a kid, it was common knowledge that George Lucas filmed and deleted several sequences from the first trilogy. The proof could easily be found in many pieces of "Star Wars" merchandise. The "Return of the Jedi" opening that was screened in Orlando was described in detail in the film's novelization. I also remember coming across a children's "movie book" version of the first "Star Wars" that had several color stills from the famously excised Biggs Darklighter scenes on Tatooine. A lot of the deleted footage has been unofficially acquired and collected by fans over the years, and compilations will occasionally pop up on Youtube. Yet Lucasfilm is almost certainly holding on to clips in its archives that we haven't seen yet, and might surprise us with something we didn't even know about.
George Lucas encourages this kind of speculation, consciously or not. By never officially giving the fans a chance to see these deleted scenes, keeping them out of all the previous DVD releases, and yet continuing to acknowledge their existence and the interest in them, the lost footage has gained a sort of aura of mystery that Lucas can now exploit as a selling point for the new Blu-Ray releases thirty-odd years later. Not that there's anything wrong with that. This is a perfectly legitimate way to keep up interest in the "Star Wars" franchise, especially since there's not much new material in the works right now. It's a rare fandom that can summon up this much excitement for this kind of minutiae, and there's no reason why Lucasfilm shouldn't take advantage of it.
For my part, I know the allure of the deleted footage is mostly hype. I fully concede that those missing Biggs scenes would have helped set up the relationship between Luke and Biggs for when the character showed up at the end of the first movie, but most of the footage was probably best left on the cutting room floor, along with the additional endings of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, the airplane hijacking in "Lilo and Stitch," and the famous Audrey II rampage from "Little Shop of Horrors." The alternate "Return of the Jedi" opening scene contains less than a minute of new footage, and shows Luke Skywalker completing his replacement lightsaber on Tatooine before his confrontation with Jabba the Hutt. It's nice to be able to see it, but if this had been in the final film, it would have taken away from Luke's wonderfully built-up entrance at Jabba's palace.
The deleted scenes aren't some truly important discovery, like the recently recovered thirty minutes of "Metropolis" that revealed new insights about the story and characters. The small subset of "Star Wars" fans who care enough to buy the new Blu-Ray for the extra footage probably already know exactly what they'll be getting, where it all fits in continuity, and why it was cut in the first place. And after the footage becomes widely available, the fascination will fade, and younger fans may be left to wonder what all the fuss was about.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Love in the Age of Video Games
Twenty-two year old Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) plays base guitar for a band called The Sex Bob-Ombs, and is dating a high-schooler named Knives Chau (Ellen Wong). He's "between jobs" and so poor, he has to share a bed with his gay roommate Wallace (Kieran Culkin), and whoever Wallace is seeing at the time. Nonetheless Scott is happy with his slackerhood, until he falls madly in love with the new girl in town, Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), and his life gets complicated very quickly. In order to date Ramona, Scott has to duel and defeat her seven evil exes, including an Indian mystic (Satya Bhabha), an action movie star (Chris Evans), a super-powered vegan (Brandon Routh), and a machinating mastermind (Jason Schwartzman).
"Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" is the story of a very particular breed of young people in love. Their universe is made up of indie rock music, video games, and comic books. So director Edgar Wright, who mixed genres to great success in "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz," uses comic book visuals, a video game story structure, and a soundtrack full of Beck songs to bring it to the screen. And the results are fantastic. This is easily the best translation of a comic to a film that I've ever seen. The outsized stylization of the visuals is pervasive and well integrated into the narrative, so it actually serves a purpose in the storytelling. Simply having little pink hearts emerge when Scott kisses Ramona, or sound effects like "THONK" appear over Scott's head when he hits a utility pole might seem like a silly affectation by themselves, but taken to the extreme the way "Scott Pilgrim" does it, where Scott is literally dueling ninjas and supervillains for Ramona, everything fits.
Self-awareness is vital to the film's ability to balance the emotional reality of its love story with all the special-effects heavy action scenes and wild humor. Like with Wright's previous movies, "Scott Pilgrim" is largely satirical, but it also participates in and celebrates the genres it's spoofing. In this case the line is even blurrier, because nobody has ever done a straight video game or comic book genre film this well. There are so many little loving references and throwaway gags packed in here, the film deserves pop-up annotations. It's like Wright is inventing a new genre and subverting it at the same time. And it's surprising how well the film works simply as a straight romantic comedy. Even if you took out all of the wilder elements, the tone of the picture is perfect, with its hoodie-wearing hero and snarky dialogue about pretentious hipsters and wannabe rock stars.
I expect that older viewers might be wary of embracing "Scott Pilgrim" because it looks like it's geared to younger viewers at first glance. No one in the film seems to be older than thirty, but they're all carrying around an awful lot of familiar emotional baggage already. And despite the PG-13 rating, the relationships are portrayed with surprising maturity. As a viewer a bit older than the target audience, I found the romance nostalgic and the humor and action a lot of fun to watch. Michael Cera does a fine job of getting us to root for Scott, while at the same time making it clear that his greatest enemy is himself – his insecurity, his selfishness, and his immaturity. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is very wry and understated as the similarly imperfect Ramona, but she's such a memorable presence, I wish we got to see more of her side of the story.
But really, the best part of the film is the visuals. Scott and Ramona's relationship troubles get so much more oomph from being expressed in these larger-than-life showdowns and fantasy sequences. Wright is endlessly inventive, having Scott's opponents explode into showers of quarters after they're defeated, or one girl getting punched so hard, the colored highlights are visibly knocked out of her hair. Some of the best gags are the simplest, such as a character instantly identifying Ramona from one of Scott's formless scribbles. The pace of the humor is so quick and the attitude so tongue-in-cheek, it's easy to miss good bits. I know I'll have to see the movie again sometime just to catch the jokes that were drowned out by audience laughter. I haven't seen that happen since "Borat."
"Scott Pilgrim" isn't a perfect movie by any stretch of the imagination. It has too many characters, and severely shortchanges several of them, including two of the seven evil exes. The action takes too long to get going, and the last act loses a lot of momentum after a predictable plot twist. But it's bright and energetic and fresh and new, and it gets so many things right, it’s well worth the watch. I hesitate to say that I'd like to see more films like "Scott Pilgrim," because it would be so easy to do something like this badly – "Speed Racer" comes to mind – but I hope this puts all those arguments about the opposing natures of video games and films to rest at last. Not only are they compatible, I think they were made for each other.
"Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" is the story of a very particular breed of young people in love. Their universe is made up of indie rock music, video games, and comic books. So director Edgar Wright, who mixed genres to great success in "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz," uses comic book visuals, a video game story structure, and a soundtrack full of Beck songs to bring it to the screen. And the results are fantastic. This is easily the best translation of a comic to a film that I've ever seen. The outsized stylization of the visuals is pervasive and well integrated into the narrative, so it actually serves a purpose in the storytelling. Simply having little pink hearts emerge when Scott kisses Ramona, or sound effects like "THONK" appear over Scott's head when he hits a utility pole might seem like a silly affectation by themselves, but taken to the extreme the way "Scott Pilgrim" does it, where Scott is literally dueling ninjas and supervillains for Ramona, everything fits.
Self-awareness is vital to the film's ability to balance the emotional reality of its love story with all the special-effects heavy action scenes and wild humor. Like with Wright's previous movies, "Scott Pilgrim" is largely satirical, but it also participates in and celebrates the genres it's spoofing. In this case the line is even blurrier, because nobody has ever done a straight video game or comic book genre film this well. There are so many little loving references and throwaway gags packed in here, the film deserves pop-up annotations. It's like Wright is inventing a new genre and subverting it at the same time. And it's surprising how well the film works simply as a straight romantic comedy. Even if you took out all of the wilder elements, the tone of the picture is perfect, with its hoodie-wearing hero and snarky dialogue about pretentious hipsters and wannabe rock stars.
I expect that older viewers might be wary of embracing "Scott Pilgrim" because it looks like it's geared to younger viewers at first glance. No one in the film seems to be older than thirty, but they're all carrying around an awful lot of familiar emotional baggage already. And despite the PG-13 rating, the relationships are portrayed with surprising maturity. As a viewer a bit older than the target audience, I found the romance nostalgic and the humor and action a lot of fun to watch. Michael Cera does a fine job of getting us to root for Scott, while at the same time making it clear that his greatest enemy is himself – his insecurity, his selfishness, and his immaturity. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is very wry and understated as the similarly imperfect Ramona, but she's such a memorable presence, I wish we got to see more of her side of the story.
But really, the best part of the film is the visuals. Scott and Ramona's relationship troubles get so much more oomph from being expressed in these larger-than-life showdowns and fantasy sequences. Wright is endlessly inventive, having Scott's opponents explode into showers of quarters after they're defeated, or one girl getting punched so hard, the colored highlights are visibly knocked out of her hair. Some of the best gags are the simplest, such as a character instantly identifying Ramona from one of Scott's formless scribbles. The pace of the humor is so quick and the attitude so tongue-in-cheek, it's easy to miss good bits. I know I'll have to see the movie again sometime just to catch the jokes that were drowned out by audience laughter. I haven't seen that happen since "Borat."
"Scott Pilgrim" isn't a perfect movie by any stretch of the imagination. It has too many characters, and severely shortchanges several of them, including two of the seven evil exes. The action takes too long to get going, and the last act loses a lot of momentum after a predictable plot twist. But it's bright and energetic and fresh and new, and it gets so many things right, it’s well worth the watch. I hesitate to say that I'd like to see more films like "Scott Pilgrim," because it would be so easy to do something like this badly – "Speed Racer" comes to mind – but I hope this puts all those arguments about the opposing natures of video games and films to rest at last. Not only are they compatible, I think they were made for each other.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Are Comic-Book and Animated Tie-Ins Ever Any Good?
Poking through the news yesterday, I came across two items. First, FOX's "Glee" will be getting a comic-book tie-in. Second, the next project involving the "Terminator" franchise will be the animated "Terminator 3000," in 3D naturally. Fans of both properties are doubtless pretty skeptical at the moment, and I don't blame them. Spin-offs to other media, especially when they involve comics or animation tend, to ring alarm bells. I'm not so familiar with the comics world, but boy have I seen my share of the animated projects. Does anyone remember "Highlander: The Search for Vengeance"? "Hellboy: Blood and Iron"? That "Van Helsing" animated thing, that probably also has a title with a colon in it?
There's nothing wrong with comics and animation, of course, and I have seen some spin-offs done well. Very well. It's no surprise that the most successful of these projects come at the hands of creators who are familiar with these mediums and understand how to use them. Joss Whedon, a lifelong comics lover who did a popular two-year stint on one of the "X-Men" books, has successfully continued the adventures of "Buffy: the Vampire Slayer" and "Angel" as serialized comics, and has several "Firefly" projects in the works. (Alas, nothing for "Dollhouse" or "Dr. Horrible" yet.) And the recent series of direct-to-video DC Comics features from Warner Brothers Animation benefits greatly from involving a lot of the creative talent from the "Batman," "Superman," and "Justice League" cartoons that they produced for television during the 90s and 00s.
The worst ones are the fly-by-night one-shot projects from inexperienced hands. These are the ones greenlighted by executives who are trying to cash in on a trend, who've seen the animated segment of "Kill Bill" or the growing crowds and influence of Comic-Con, but don't really understand the appeal themselves. Because they have no experience, they're more susceptible to schlockmeisters and often get oddball results at best and totally unwatchable or unreadable dreck at worst. Online comics reviewers have a field day bashing old tie-in comics for everything from toy lines to heavy metal bands to professional wrestlers. As the readership has narrowed and production costs have grown over the years, the worst of them have mostly gone, but you'll still see groaners once in a while like the recent spate of President Obama tie-ins.
Sometimes it's not so easy to tell the good from the bad, or understand why some work while others fail spectacularly. Compare the two approaches taken by the creative minds behind "The Animatrix" and "Batman: Gotham Knight," which were both released with the second installments of their respective franchises. At first glance, nothing seems too different. Both are collections of shorts featuring Western properties, done in the style of Japanese anime. But it takes someone familiar with anime to realize that the Wachowski brothers took the trouble to find top-of-the line talent for "The Animatrix," including directors Shinichiro Watanabe, Yoshiaki Kawajiri, and Mahiro Maeda. Reportedly they even went to Mamoru Oshii, the director of "Ghost in the Shell," which any "Matrix" fanboy knows was a big influence on the Wachowskis' work.
"Batman: Gotham Knight" used the same studios as "The Animatrix," Madhouse and Studio 4°C, but the production wasn't up to par. Many of the shorts were decent, but you could tell that several of the "world's most revered animation visionaries" were actually mostly middling TV anime directors or animators new to directing. Also, while the Wachowskis wrote two of the "Animatrix" shorts, several of their Japanese collaborators were left to their own devices in conceiving and writing the ones they were responsible for. "Batman" was less of a two-way street. All of the segments were written by Western writers, none of whom showed any particular affinity for animation. Visuals were left to the directors, but the narratives were not. The difference in quality between the two projects was plain.
I don't want to write off either of these new spin-offs yet. There's no reason why "Glee" shouldn't be a comic book and "Terminator" shouldn't be animated. I had a great discussion with a friend about why the "Glee" brand of nerdiness belonged at Comic-Con, and this would make for a great closing argument. But I remain apprehensive too. I've seen too many of these projects end in cringeworthy product. An upcoming one I'm keeping an eye on right now is the announced "Supernatural" anime, based on the CW series about a pair of demon hunting brothers. Sure, it could come out well, but it's more likely to end up like the "Witchblade" anime. Or the "Romeo and Juliet" anime. Or an awful little live-action-to-anime mess called "Night Head Genesis" that has a very similar premise to "Supernatural."
Haven't seen it? Lucky you.
There's nothing wrong with comics and animation, of course, and I have seen some spin-offs done well. Very well. It's no surprise that the most successful of these projects come at the hands of creators who are familiar with these mediums and understand how to use them. Joss Whedon, a lifelong comics lover who did a popular two-year stint on one of the "X-Men" books, has successfully continued the adventures of "Buffy: the Vampire Slayer" and "Angel" as serialized comics, and has several "Firefly" projects in the works. (Alas, nothing for "Dollhouse" or "Dr. Horrible" yet.) And the recent series of direct-to-video DC Comics features from Warner Brothers Animation benefits greatly from involving a lot of the creative talent from the "Batman," "Superman," and "Justice League" cartoons that they produced for television during the 90s and 00s.
The worst ones are the fly-by-night one-shot projects from inexperienced hands. These are the ones greenlighted by executives who are trying to cash in on a trend, who've seen the animated segment of "Kill Bill" or the growing crowds and influence of Comic-Con, but don't really understand the appeal themselves. Because they have no experience, they're more susceptible to schlockmeisters and often get oddball results at best and totally unwatchable or unreadable dreck at worst. Online comics reviewers have a field day bashing old tie-in comics for everything from toy lines to heavy metal bands to professional wrestlers. As the readership has narrowed and production costs have grown over the years, the worst of them have mostly gone, but you'll still see groaners once in a while like the recent spate of President Obama tie-ins.
Sometimes it's not so easy to tell the good from the bad, or understand why some work while others fail spectacularly. Compare the two approaches taken by the creative minds behind "The Animatrix" and "Batman: Gotham Knight," which were both released with the second installments of their respective franchises. At first glance, nothing seems too different. Both are collections of shorts featuring Western properties, done in the style of Japanese anime. But it takes someone familiar with anime to realize that the Wachowski brothers took the trouble to find top-of-the line talent for "The Animatrix," including directors Shinichiro Watanabe, Yoshiaki Kawajiri, and Mahiro Maeda. Reportedly they even went to Mamoru Oshii, the director of "Ghost in the Shell," which any "Matrix" fanboy knows was a big influence on the Wachowskis' work.
"Batman: Gotham Knight" used the same studios as "The Animatrix," Madhouse and Studio 4°C, but the production wasn't up to par. Many of the shorts were decent, but you could tell that several of the "world's most revered animation visionaries" were actually mostly middling TV anime directors or animators new to directing. Also, while the Wachowskis wrote two of the "Animatrix" shorts, several of their Japanese collaborators were left to their own devices in conceiving and writing the ones they were responsible for. "Batman" was less of a two-way street. All of the segments were written by Western writers, none of whom showed any particular affinity for animation. Visuals were left to the directors, but the narratives were not. The difference in quality between the two projects was plain.
I don't want to write off either of these new spin-offs yet. There's no reason why "Glee" shouldn't be a comic book and "Terminator" shouldn't be animated. I had a great discussion with a friend about why the "Glee" brand of nerdiness belonged at Comic-Con, and this would make for a great closing argument. But I remain apprehensive too. I've seen too many of these projects end in cringeworthy product. An upcoming one I'm keeping an eye on right now is the announced "Supernatural" anime, based on the CW series about a pair of demon hunting brothers. Sure, it could come out well, but it's more likely to end up like the "Witchblade" anime. Or the "Romeo and Juliet" anime. Or an awful little live-action-to-anime mess called "Night Head Genesis" that has a very similar premise to "Supernatural."
Haven't seen it? Lucky you.
Friday, August 13, 2010
The Uncertain Future of "American Idol"
I haven't watched a full season of "American Idol" since the third year, when Fantasia Barrino walked away with the title and became a Broadway mainstay. Thus, I've missed the entire judging stints of Kara DioGuardi and Ellen Degeneres, and the departures of Paula Abdul and Simon Cowell. The news has been full of chatter about who the replacements should be, and I've kept my distance. This does not mean I'm not going to get in on the idle speculation, though I'll refrain from the obvious pun.
There have been a lot of concerns about FOX's rumored negotiations with recording stars like Steven Tyler and Jennifer Lopez. First, there's no guarantee that their talent is going to translate into good judging skills. Paula Abdul, for instance, was the only one on the roster who had a professional recording career, and generally played the part of the nicer, more complimentary judge to Simon Cowell's acerbic one. Her spot shouldn't be too difficult to fill, but replacing Cowell is going to be far more difficult. Audiences loved him because he was a stand-in for the viewers, the one who had no qualms about being completely honest with the contestants, was willing to be bluntly critical, cut through the industry-speak, and didn't sugarcoat his opinions.
That's why when he opened his mouth, everyone was listening. "Idol" liked to play him up as a villain, but Cowell was the vital counterbalance to all the manufactured contrivances of "Idol." When tepid clip packages and tributes were rolled out, he often looked as bored as his audience. He rolled his eyes whenever host Ryan Seacrest laid the cheese on too thick during big reveals, and bantered with Abdul whenever she threatened to get precious. In the process, he brought a dose of authenticity to "Idol" that won't be easy to replicate, and it's more necessary than I think the show's producers realize.
It's no secret that "American Idol" is not bias-free, and the American public can be lousy at picking talent. The show is set up as a giant popularity contest, and admittedly a lot of the fun comes from seeing what boneheaded outcomes may result from unfettered democracy in action. Some of the breakout stars that have emerged from "Idol," like Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson and rocker Chris Daughtry, never came close to winning the title. Nonetheless, I think the show is a perfectly good platform for new and emerging talent. It's certainly better than the old "Star Search" contests or any of the "Idol" knock-offs.
I didn't find the format engaging enough to watch for more than two seasons, but I understand why "American Idol" remains popular and don't begrudge its success. But its relevance could go away very quickly if the show loses that small bit of legitimacy that came with Simon Cowell's glower. And I just don't see someone like Elton John or Steven Tyler or any similar celebrity bringing that quality to the table, especially when it might undercut their carefully crafted stage personae. If either of them turned out to be a snarky hard-ass in real life I wouldn't complain, but the bottom line is "American Idol" needs a Donald Trump, not a Bono.
But the Bono route seems to be the way FOX is going, and they have no one to blame but themselves for the uncertainty plaguing the series now. They waited for far too long to orchestrate the changeover, and completely failed to make use of an already existing mechanism to determine the adequacy of a new judge - the show itself. This last season of "American Idol" should have been a try-out period for potential Cowell and Degeneres replacements, and giving viewers the ability to weigh in might have helped to cancel out some of the recent ratings slump. Right now there's the risk that a new judge will fail to mesh with the format of "Idol" and end up dragging the show's fortunes even lower.
FOX is intent on adding more star power, but what they fail to realize is that "American Idol" has reached such heights in the popular consciousness, it's probably bigger than any star they could find to sign on, and star power isn't going to help if they can't nail the fundamentals of the job description. You could resurrect Michael Jackson, Josephine Baker, and Elvis for the judging panel and it wouldn't make a difference if none of them could crush the dreams of the next Lady Gaga-wannabe while staying on the right side of the audience.
This could be a chance for the show to reinvent and reinvigorate itself, but I sense tough times ahead for "Idol." The show won't be back on the airwaves until January, so until then, we'll just have to enjoy the gossip and the drama and know that somewhere, out there, Simon Cowell is enjoying the hell out of this.
There have been a lot of concerns about FOX's rumored negotiations with recording stars like Steven Tyler and Jennifer Lopez. First, there's no guarantee that their talent is going to translate into good judging skills. Paula Abdul, for instance, was the only one on the roster who had a professional recording career, and generally played the part of the nicer, more complimentary judge to Simon Cowell's acerbic one. Her spot shouldn't be too difficult to fill, but replacing Cowell is going to be far more difficult. Audiences loved him because he was a stand-in for the viewers, the one who had no qualms about being completely honest with the contestants, was willing to be bluntly critical, cut through the industry-speak, and didn't sugarcoat his opinions.
That's why when he opened his mouth, everyone was listening. "Idol" liked to play him up as a villain, but Cowell was the vital counterbalance to all the manufactured contrivances of "Idol." When tepid clip packages and tributes were rolled out, he often looked as bored as his audience. He rolled his eyes whenever host Ryan Seacrest laid the cheese on too thick during big reveals, and bantered with Abdul whenever she threatened to get precious. In the process, he brought a dose of authenticity to "Idol" that won't be easy to replicate, and it's more necessary than I think the show's producers realize.
It's no secret that "American Idol" is not bias-free, and the American public can be lousy at picking talent. The show is set up as a giant popularity contest, and admittedly a lot of the fun comes from seeing what boneheaded outcomes may result from unfettered democracy in action. Some of the breakout stars that have emerged from "Idol," like Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson and rocker Chris Daughtry, never came close to winning the title. Nonetheless, I think the show is a perfectly good platform for new and emerging talent. It's certainly better than the old "Star Search" contests or any of the "Idol" knock-offs.
I didn't find the format engaging enough to watch for more than two seasons, but I understand why "American Idol" remains popular and don't begrudge its success. But its relevance could go away very quickly if the show loses that small bit of legitimacy that came with Simon Cowell's glower. And I just don't see someone like Elton John or Steven Tyler or any similar celebrity bringing that quality to the table, especially when it might undercut their carefully crafted stage personae. If either of them turned out to be a snarky hard-ass in real life I wouldn't complain, but the bottom line is "American Idol" needs a Donald Trump, not a Bono.
But the Bono route seems to be the way FOX is going, and they have no one to blame but themselves for the uncertainty plaguing the series now. They waited for far too long to orchestrate the changeover, and completely failed to make use of an already existing mechanism to determine the adequacy of a new judge - the show itself. This last season of "American Idol" should have been a try-out period for potential Cowell and Degeneres replacements, and giving viewers the ability to weigh in might have helped to cancel out some of the recent ratings slump. Right now there's the risk that a new judge will fail to mesh with the format of "Idol" and end up dragging the show's fortunes even lower.
FOX is intent on adding more star power, but what they fail to realize is that "American Idol" has reached such heights in the popular consciousness, it's probably bigger than any star they could find to sign on, and star power isn't going to help if they can't nail the fundamentals of the job description. You could resurrect Michael Jackson, Josephine Baker, and Elvis for the judging panel and it wouldn't make a difference if none of them could crush the dreams of the next Lady Gaga-wannabe while staying on the right side of the audience.
This could be a chance for the show to reinvent and reinvigorate itself, but I sense tough times ahead for "Idol." The show won't be back on the airwaves until January, so until then, we'll just have to enjoy the gossip and the drama and know that somewhere, out there, Simon Cowell is enjoying the hell out of this.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
The Incredible Shrinking Leading Man?
The upcoming weekend will host a battle of the sexes at the box office, but will simultaneously also see a minor showdown between the old-school action hero and the new. In one corner, we have "The Expendables," which collects many of the great action-hero actors of the 80s and 90s together for another romp, punctuated with heavy artillery fire, fistfights, and a few explosions. Directed by and starring Sylvester Stallone, the nostalgia factor will be high. He'll be joined by Dolph Lundgren, Mickey Rourke, "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, and relative young 'uns Jet Li and Jason Statham. And in one scene, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger will be making cameos alongside Stallone, the first time the three greatest headliners of the 80s action genre will share the screen together.
Now in the other corner we have "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World," Edgar Wright's new video-game-flavored fable about a gawky twenty-something forced to do battle for love, against his new girlfriend's seven evil exes. The hero is played by Michael Cera, who can still pass for a teenager and a scrawny one at that. The contrast to the stars of "The Expendables" couldn't be starker. "Scott Pilgrim" will make up for the deficiency of muscles with loads of CGI special effects stylized to simulate comic book graphics, complete with the occasional "Batman"-esque onomatopoeia. Cera isn't alone this year among the slighter breed of action movie heroes. "Predators" swapped out Schwarzenegger for Adrien Brody, "Sorecerer's Apprentice" featured Jay Baruchel and Nicolas Cage, and the most memorable action scene of the year so far has been Joseph Gordon-Levitt's rotating hallway beatdown in "Inception."
Of course there are still plenty of more physically substantial actors around too. Jake Gyllenhaal bulked up for "Prince of Persia," Russell Crowe gave us our most solidly built "Robin Hood," and the most successful action star of the last few years has been Sam Worthington, the lead of "Avatar" and "Clash of the Titans." But these days you're as likely to find Michael Cera or one of his contemporaries getting in on the action. Jesse Eisenberg in "Zombieland." Shia LaBeouf in the last two "Transformers" movies with a third on the way. There's been some understandable grumbling from those who prefer their heroes literally larger than life, and all sorts of speculation as to why we're seeing so much downsizing of our leading men. Stallone recently told the Los Angeles Times that the downfall of the muscle men came with the rise of the superheroes, when it became possible to "Velcro your muscles on."
Superheroes are probably a symptom of a larger trend: special effects becoming more important to an action movie than the wattage of the stars headlining them. As the age of Spielberg and Lucas gave way to Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer, protagonists became a less important piece of the picture and effects just kept getting bigger and bigger. Everyman actors like Tom Cruise and Harrison Ford gained prominence in the 90s, as fight scenes gave way to chases and escapes. "Independence Day" may have put Will Smith on the map, but he had to vie with the alien motherships for the audience's attention. Fifteen years later, you don't need a major A-list star to sell something like "2012" or "Avatar" anymore, and less physically imposing actors will often make the special effects look all the more impressive. The current trend is to use young, bland, almost interchangeable actors for effects-heavy B-movies like "Push" and "Jumper," and save the money for more effects shots.
There's also the demographic and cultural shifts to consider. Movies these days are aimed at a much younger crowd than they were in the 80s, especially action films. Young men have long been the most desirable audience for blockbusters, and as the mainstream has become more and more tightly focused on catering to them, the profile of movie protagonists have followed suit. The age of lead actors hasn't necessarily dropped, but they do tend to play younger than they did in the past, and having a skinnier frame helps in that department. The rise of the Internet and technology-conscious geek culture has also made athleticism a less important trait. Nerds have graduated from sidekick roles to top billing with films like "Eagle Eye" and "Spider-Man," which is being rebooted to feature an even younger cast than we had the first time around.
However, there are still plenty of older actors filling out the rosters of major action films, including Liam Neeson, Bruce Willis, and occasionally Clint Eastwood. Our most dependable stars these days are Robert Downey Jr. and Johnny Depp, both in their late forties. And there are still quite a few muscular guys like Vin Diesel and Duane "The Rock" Johnson out there who could match up to any of their counterparts of the 80s. But those two are mostly doing comedies these days. I think the real culprit is a change in the masculine ideal over the last thirty years. In fact, when you look back, beyond the 80s to older action films, it's the Stallones and the Schwarzeneggers who start to look like the odd ones out. Douglas Fairbanks Jr and Errol Flynn were no masses of brawn. And gangster films and westerns never featured ubermen. What we think of as the apex of the action film hero may have just been a passing trend.
But we haven't seen the last of them. Early tracking favors "The Expendables" over "Scott Pilgrim," and Stallone is already talking up a sequel. I figure there's room in the cinemascape for both extremes. And who knows? Maybe the pendulum will swing back the other way and bodybuilder builds will come back in style again. They're rebooting "Conan the Barbarian" soon. Maybe we'll get a new Arnold along with it.
Now in the other corner we have "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World," Edgar Wright's new video-game-flavored fable about a gawky twenty-something forced to do battle for love, against his new girlfriend's seven evil exes. The hero is played by Michael Cera, who can still pass for a teenager and a scrawny one at that. The contrast to the stars of "The Expendables" couldn't be starker. "Scott Pilgrim" will make up for the deficiency of muscles with loads of CGI special effects stylized to simulate comic book graphics, complete with the occasional "Batman"-esque onomatopoeia. Cera isn't alone this year among the slighter breed of action movie heroes. "Predators" swapped out Schwarzenegger for Adrien Brody, "Sorecerer's Apprentice" featured Jay Baruchel and Nicolas Cage, and the most memorable action scene of the year so far has been Joseph Gordon-Levitt's rotating hallway beatdown in "Inception."
Of course there are still plenty of more physically substantial actors around too. Jake Gyllenhaal bulked up for "Prince of Persia," Russell Crowe gave us our most solidly built "Robin Hood," and the most successful action star of the last few years has been Sam Worthington, the lead of "Avatar" and "Clash of the Titans." But these days you're as likely to find Michael Cera or one of his contemporaries getting in on the action. Jesse Eisenberg in "Zombieland." Shia LaBeouf in the last two "Transformers" movies with a third on the way. There's been some understandable grumbling from those who prefer their heroes literally larger than life, and all sorts of speculation as to why we're seeing so much downsizing of our leading men. Stallone recently told the Los Angeles Times that the downfall of the muscle men came with the rise of the superheroes, when it became possible to "Velcro your muscles on."
Superheroes are probably a symptom of a larger trend: special effects becoming more important to an action movie than the wattage of the stars headlining them. As the age of Spielberg and Lucas gave way to Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer, protagonists became a less important piece of the picture and effects just kept getting bigger and bigger. Everyman actors like Tom Cruise and Harrison Ford gained prominence in the 90s, as fight scenes gave way to chases and escapes. "Independence Day" may have put Will Smith on the map, but he had to vie with the alien motherships for the audience's attention. Fifteen years later, you don't need a major A-list star to sell something like "2012" or "Avatar" anymore, and less physically imposing actors will often make the special effects look all the more impressive. The current trend is to use young, bland, almost interchangeable actors for effects-heavy B-movies like "Push" and "Jumper," and save the money for more effects shots.
There's also the demographic and cultural shifts to consider. Movies these days are aimed at a much younger crowd than they were in the 80s, especially action films. Young men have long been the most desirable audience for blockbusters, and as the mainstream has become more and more tightly focused on catering to them, the profile of movie protagonists have followed suit. The age of lead actors hasn't necessarily dropped, but they do tend to play younger than they did in the past, and having a skinnier frame helps in that department. The rise of the Internet and technology-conscious geek culture has also made athleticism a less important trait. Nerds have graduated from sidekick roles to top billing with films like "Eagle Eye" and "Spider-Man," which is being rebooted to feature an even younger cast than we had the first time around.
However, there are still plenty of older actors filling out the rosters of major action films, including Liam Neeson, Bruce Willis, and occasionally Clint Eastwood. Our most dependable stars these days are Robert Downey Jr. and Johnny Depp, both in their late forties. And there are still quite a few muscular guys like Vin Diesel and Duane "The Rock" Johnson out there who could match up to any of their counterparts of the 80s. But those two are mostly doing comedies these days. I think the real culprit is a change in the masculine ideal over the last thirty years. In fact, when you look back, beyond the 80s to older action films, it's the Stallones and the Schwarzeneggers who start to look like the odd ones out. Douglas Fairbanks Jr and Errol Flynn were no masses of brawn. And gangster films and westerns never featured ubermen. What we think of as the apex of the action film hero may have just been a passing trend.
But we haven't seen the last of them. Early tracking favors "The Expendables" over "Scott Pilgrim," and Stallone is already talking up a sequel. I figure there's room in the cinemascape for both extremes. And who knows? Maybe the pendulum will swing back the other way and bodybuilder builds will come back in style again. They're rebooting "Conan the Barbarian" soon. Maybe we'll get a new Arnold along with it.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Ruminations on Netflix and Blockbuster
It's been a good couple of months for Netflix. They've been bringing in record revenues quarter after quarter, driven Blockbuster and its brick-and-mortar competitors to the brink of obsolescence, and they're holding their own against upstarts Redbox and Hulu. Yesterday Netflix announced a deal with Epix, a premium cable channel, that will give them the rights to stream content from Paramount, Lions Gate and MGM. Consequently their stock price jumped 6% while the rest of the market contracted.
I'm one of Netflix's fifteen million subscribers, and I can fully vouch for the their DVD-by-mail rental and online streaming services. It's by far the best deal out there for the subscription fee. For my $8.99 a month, I average six or seven DVDs a month by mail, and at least two dozen films and TV episodes streamed on my computer. Consequently, it's just about replaced my television for casual watching purposes this summer, aside from the evening news, late night, and the new episodes of "Futurama." There are currently over forty titles in my "Instant Watch" online streaming queue, and I keep adding more every day.
It's not perfect, of course. When I first started exploring DVD-by-mail services, I also tried out Blockbuster Online and Greencine, a Bay Area alternative that specializes in indie and art house titles. Both of them have much better selections of available DVDs for rental. Blockbuster's brick-and-mortar stores are still the best bet for the newest releases thanks to licensing arrangements that let them make certain titles available before anyone else, and they'll often treat films with multiple discs as a single rental, so you don't have to shell out extra for the second half of "An Evening With Kevin Smith" or the bonus disc of "TRON."
Before Netflix, I occasionally used their "Total Access In-Store" plans that let me rent as many films as I wanted for a monthly flat fee, the only limitation being that you could only have a certain number of rentals out at a time. I did this about once a year, usually in late summer, after all the prestige titles from the previous Oscar season were available, so I could work through a glut of them at once. I think it's still a good deal for renters who like their DVD extras and live close to a Blockbuster store, and depending on how rabid a cinephile is and their proximity to a store, some of the plans could actually be comparable in cost as well.
And there's something to be said for the experience of browsing through selections at video rental places. Being the media junkie that I am, I usually know exactly what I'm looking for, but for the causal viewer it's harder to get a sense of what's out there. Netflix does its best by cycling through a lot of different categories every time a user visits the site, but it's not the same as being able to walk through a physical space and being able to tell at once what's popular from the number of discs in stock, or randomly spotting something that was released six months ago that you never got around to seeing.
You also lose a lot of the spontaneity. The film that you wanted to watch two days ago might not be the one you want to watch when the disc shows up in the mail. I think this is why Netflix's Instant Watch streaming service has taken off so quickly - the consumers' desire for instant gratification. Blockbuster, along with Redbox, are the better option for those who don't rent very often, or don't want to put up with the hassle of a monthly plan, or prefer the ability to pick up rentals immediately. Despite all the forecasts of doom and gloom for Blockbuster, I doubt they'll go away soon. They have a lot of fat to trim, but once they figure out how to innovate I'm sure they'll endure, probably in some hybrid retail/rental service form. They've just announced a partnership with Comcast for a new DVD-by-mail service, which might help.
Of course Netflix won't make it easy for them. Their current push is for more content online, and the new Epix deal is a big, expensive step that will almost surely pay off in the long run. They're already looking ahead to a business model focused on streamed rentals instead of their DVD-by-mail service. The margins are better when you don't have to deal with the costs of transporting physical media, though I'm sure a good portion of their customer base would still prefer DVDs. None of the streaming movies have any extras to speak of, for instance. I've rented several DVDs just for director commentaries. But it bodes well for Netflix that they're already planning for the obsolescence of their current business model while Blockbuster is still struggling to catch up to it.
As for consumers, I think we're the big winners for now. The market is still in flux, we have a broad choice of media formats and payment plans, and a greater amount of content is getting cheaper and easier to access. I doubt it's going to last, so let's enjoy it while we can.
I'm one of Netflix's fifteen million subscribers, and I can fully vouch for the their DVD-by-mail rental and online streaming services. It's by far the best deal out there for the subscription fee. For my $8.99 a month, I average six or seven DVDs a month by mail, and at least two dozen films and TV episodes streamed on my computer. Consequently, it's just about replaced my television for casual watching purposes this summer, aside from the evening news, late night, and the new episodes of "Futurama." There are currently over forty titles in my "Instant Watch" online streaming queue, and I keep adding more every day.
It's not perfect, of course. When I first started exploring DVD-by-mail services, I also tried out Blockbuster Online and Greencine, a Bay Area alternative that specializes in indie and art house titles. Both of them have much better selections of available DVDs for rental. Blockbuster's brick-and-mortar stores are still the best bet for the newest releases thanks to licensing arrangements that let them make certain titles available before anyone else, and they'll often treat films with multiple discs as a single rental, so you don't have to shell out extra for the second half of "An Evening With Kevin Smith" or the bonus disc of "TRON."
Before Netflix, I occasionally used their "Total Access In-Store" plans that let me rent as many films as I wanted for a monthly flat fee, the only limitation being that you could only have a certain number of rentals out at a time. I did this about once a year, usually in late summer, after all the prestige titles from the previous Oscar season were available, so I could work through a glut of them at once. I think it's still a good deal for renters who like their DVD extras and live close to a Blockbuster store, and depending on how rabid a cinephile is and their proximity to a store, some of the plans could actually be comparable in cost as well.
And there's something to be said for the experience of browsing through selections at video rental places. Being the media junkie that I am, I usually know exactly what I'm looking for, but for the causal viewer it's harder to get a sense of what's out there. Netflix does its best by cycling through a lot of different categories every time a user visits the site, but it's not the same as being able to walk through a physical space and being able to tell at once what's popular from the number of discs in stock, or randomly spotting something that was released six months ago that you never got around to seeing.
You also lose a lot of the spontaneity. The film that you wanted to watch two days ago might not be the one you want to watch when the disc shows up in the mail. I think this is why Netflix's Instant Watch streaming service has taken off so quickly - the consumers' desire for instant gratification. Blockbuster, along with Redbox, are the better option for those who don't rent very often, or don't want to put up with the hassle of a monthly plan, or prefer the ability to pick up rentals immediately. Despite all the forecasts of doom and gloom for Blockbuster, I doubt they'll go away soon. They have a lot of fat to trim, but once they figure out how to innovate I'm sure they'll endure, probably in some hybrid retail/rental service form. They've just announced a partnership with Comcast for a new DVD-by-mail service, which might help.
Of course Netflix won't make it easy for them. Their current push is for more content online, and the new Epix deal is a big, expensive step that will almost surely pay off in the long run. They're already looking ahead to a business model focused on streamed rentals instead of their DVD-by-mail service. The margins are better when you don't have to deal with the costs of transporting physical media, though I'm sure a good portion of their customer base would still prefer DVDs. None of the streaming movies have any extras to speak of, for instance. I've rented several DVDs just for director commentaries. But it bodes well for Netflix that they're already planning for the obsolescence of their current business model while Blockbuster is still struggling to catch up to it.
As for consumers, I think we're the big winners for now. The market is still in flux, we have a broad choice of media formats and payment plans, and a greater amount of content is getting cheaper and easier to access. I doubt it's going to last, so let's enjoy it while we can.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Can No One Save the Romantic Comedy?
There have been endless column inches devoted to the slow critical and popular death of romantic-comedies. This recent New York Times article is a good encapsulation of the common sentiment that the once dependable genre has fallen on bleak times. Titles like "The Backup Plan," "Valentine's Day," and "Bride Wars," starring Jennifer Aniston, Kate Hudson, Jennifer Lopez, or the critically lauded debutante of the moment, are shunned and derided for their hokey formulas and questionable social messages. However, a loyal contingent of female moviegoers ensure that many of these films make money, so the demand for them has never gone away.
I have to take issue with the broad generalizations applied by some detractors, who will often neglect to mention the small number of subversive indies like "Juno" and "500 Days of Summer" that find success every year, or the Judd Apatow films aimed at male moviegoers, or the Nancy Meyers and Nora Ephron films that keep our parents happy. But on the whole I agree. The films we commonly think of as romantic comedies - the ones driven primarily by leading actresses and that are made for female audiences - are in a terrible rut. When you break it down, your standard rom-com is really a romantic wish-fulfillment fantasy with elements of farce. I enjoy some of them on occasion, like "The Proposition" and "Music and Lyrics," but all too often they come out like "When in Rome," a silly, dull little movie packed to the gills with tired cliches, that felt like a "Saturday Night Live" sketch gone horribly wrong.
Some take issue with the formula itself, which is an easy target, but romantic comedies on the whole are not any more unrealistic or socially irresponsible than explosion-laden action films or morbid slasher flicks. The excesses of those genres have attracted their share of scorn, but no one has ever written them off entirely. There is no single culprit for the sad decline of a genre that once gave us "Annie Hall," "The Goodbye Girl," and "What's Up Doc?" but I think Bette Midler and Cinematical's Monika Bartyzel hit one nail on the head when they pointed out a serious lack of leading comediennes on the big screen these days. Romantic comedies stopped being funny and fun to watch when their leading ladies were no longer also expected to be the best comedic actresses of the day. And as a corollary, modern romantic comedies don't generate much media buzz unless a major male comedian like Steve Carrell, Ben Stiller, or Ricky Gervais is involved to pick up the slack.
Think of the most prominent women in the current comedic landscape, and the names that are likely to pop up - Tina Fey, Julia Louis Dreyfus, Ellen Degeneres, Sarah Silverman - are creatures of television. Tina Fey makes a few comedies with romance in them, like "Date Night" and "Baby Mama," but not the sort of films that are readily identified as romantic comedies. Also, several of our former superstars of the genre like Cameron Diaz and Sandra Bullock have been edging away from association with romantic comedy stardom. Diaz has found a foothold in action comedies, like "Day and Knight" and the upcoming "Green Hornet." Bullock hasn't abandoned ship, but will almost certainly parlay her Oscar win into more serious projects. Others have simply disappeared. Has anyone seen Renee Zellwegger or Reese Witherspoon lately? I'm sure there was supposed to be a third "Bridget Jones" movie. And checking in with the male auxiliary, whatever happened to Hugh Grant?
The result is that audiences are now stuck treading water with the likes of Katherine Heigl and Sarah Jessica Parker, who are decent actresses, but hardly names that inspire much confidence at the box office. My current favorite among the genre regulars is Drew Barrymore, whose next rom-com "Going the Distance" is due out at the end of the month. But frankly, I'd rather see her direct a follow-up to "Whip It," one of my favorite films from last year. Bigger names who want to do romance go for straight romantic films of the Nicholas Sparks variety, or prestige projects with romantic elements. Former queen bee Julia Roberts will be returning to the big screen with "Eat, Pray, Love" this week, the latest of a string of recent feel-good female empowerment films that tend to feature solid, middle-aged actresses like Diane Lane, Queen Latifah, and Meryl Streep. They can be funny people, but not they're not "Funny People."
I miss the glory days of Diane Keaton, Madeline Kahn, Goldie Hawn, Julie Andrews, Shirley MacLaine, Ellen Burstyn, Marsha Mason, and the greatest of the great unconventional beauties, Barbara Streisand. They got the guys and could deliver zingers with the best of them, something you don't see modern romantic comedy leading ladies doing much anymore. Most of the comedy has gone out of romantic comedies, and what little remains has been reduced to contrived misunderstandings, abrasive bickering, bad slapstick, and juvenile raunch. And the worse it gets, the more talent flees the scene, reducing any hope of resuscitation. Still, hope springs eternal. There are plenty of up-and-coming actresses around who could shake up rom-coms and make them fun again. Leslie Mann, Anna Faris, Anne Hathaway, and many others have the potential to set the screen on fire if decent material ever comes along to save the day.
But I'm worried the Hollywood creative types will forget that the genre is worth saving. We've had so many bad ones, it's sometimes hard to remember that romantic comedies used to be a staple that everyone loved. Right now we're at or near rock bottom, and there's nowhere to go but up.
I have to take issue with the broad generalizations applied by some detractors, who will often neglect to mention the small number of subversive indies like "Juno" and "500 Days of Summer" that find success every year, or the Judd Apatow films aimed at male moviegoers, or the Nancy Meyers and Nora Ephron films that keep our parents happy. But on the whole I agree. The films we commonly think of as romantic comedies - the ones driven primarily by leading actresses and that are made for female audiences - are in a terrible rut. When you break it down, your standard rom-com is really a romantic wish-fulfillment fantasy with elements of farce. I enjoy some of them on occasion, like "The Proposition" and "Music and Lyrics," but all too often they come out like "When in Rome," a silly, dull little movie packed to the gills with tired cliches, that felt like a "Saturday Night Live" sketch gone horribly wrong.
Some take issue with the formula itself, which is an easy target, but romantic comedies on the whole are not any more unrealistic or socially irresponsible than explosion-laden action films or morbid slasher flicks. The excesses of those genres have attracted their share of scorn, but no one has ever written them off entirely. There is no single culprit for the sad decline of a genre that once gave us "Annie Hall," "The Goodbye Girl," and "What's Up Doc?" but I think Bette Midler and Cinematical's Monika Bartyzel hit one nail on the head when they pointed out a serious lack of leading comediennes on the big screen these days. Romantic comedies stopped being funny and fun to watch when their leading ladies were no longer also expected to be the best comedic actresses of the day. And as a corollary, modern romantic comedies don't generate much media buzz unless a major male comedian like Steve Carrell, Ben Stiller, or Ricky Gervais is involved to pick up the slack.
Think of the most prominent women in the current comedic landscape, and the names that are likely to pop up - Tina Fey, Julia Louis Dreyfus, Ellen Degeneres, Sarah Silverman - are creatures of television. Tina Fey makes a few comedies with romance in them, like "Date Night" and "Baby Mama," but not the sort of films that are readily identified as romantic comedies. Also, several of our former superstars of the genre like Cameron Diaz and Sandra Bullock have been edging away from association with romantic comedy stardom. Diaz has found a foothold in action comedies, like "Day and Knight" and the upcoming "Green Hornet." Bullock hasn't abandoned ship, but will almost certainly parlay her Oscar win into more serious projects. Others have simply disappeared. Has anyone seen Renee Zellwegger or Reese Witherspoon lately? I'm sure there was supposed to be a third "Bridget Jones" movie. And checking in with the male auxiliary, whatever happened to Hugh Grant?
The result is that audiences are now stuck treading water with the likes of Katherine Heigl and Sarah Jessica Parker, who are decent actresses, but hardly names that inspire much confidence at the box office. My current favorite among the genre regulars is Drew Barrymore, whose next rom-com "Going the Distance" is due out at the end of the month. But frankly, I'd rather see her direct a follow-up to "Whip It," one of my favorite films from last year. Bigger names who want to do romance go for straight romantic films of the Nicholas Sparks variety, or prestige projects with romantic elements. Former queen bee Julia Roberts will be returning to the big screen with "Eat, Pray, Love" this week, the latest of a string of recent feel-good female empowerment films that tend to feature solid, middle-aged actresses like Diane Lane, Queen Latifah, and Meryl Streep. They can be funny people, but not they're not "Funny People."
I miss the glory days of Diane Keaton, Madeline Kahn, Goldie Hawn, Julie Andrews, Shirley MacLaine, Ellen Burstyn, Marsha Mason, and the greatest of the great unconventional beauties, Barbara Streisand. They got the guys and could deliver zingers with the best of them, something you don't see modern romantic comedy leading ladies doing much anymore. Most of the comedy has gone out of romantic comedies, and what little remains has been reduced to contrived misunderstandings, abrasive bickering, bad slapstick, and juvenile raunch. And the worse it gets, the more talent flees the scene, reducing any hope of resuscitation. Still, hope springs eternal. There are plenty of up-and-coming actresses around who could shake up rom-coms and make them fun again. Leslie Mann, Anna Faris, Anne Hathaway, and many others have the potential to set the screen on fire if decent material ever comes along to save the day.
But I'm worried the Hollywood creative types will forget that the genre is worth saving. We've had so many bad ones, it's sometimes hard to remember that romantic comedies used to be a staple that everyone loved. Right now we're at or near rock bottom, and there's nowhere to go but up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
