I wish I knew more about Indian musical tradition, so as better to enjoy "The Music Room," an early film by the the great Bengali director Satyajit Ray. Music infuses every moment, from the opening shot of a beautiful chandelier, laden with glowing candles, to the final climax, which takes place on the empty expanse of a ruined estate. It is also central to the story itself, which follows the decline of Biswambhar Roy (Chhabi Biswas), an elderly zamindar, a titled landowner, who is obsessed with giving extravagant concerts in the jalsaghar, the music room of his fading palace.
I was worried that this would be a difficult watch, as the director himself famously remarked that he thought the subject matter was too obscure for the film to travel abroad easily. Fortunately "The Music Room" deals in universal themes and Ray's depiction of the story is vivid and easily comprehensible. Though the cultural details may be unfamiliar, the audience is sure to recognize such figures as the indulgent wife Mahamaya (Padma Devi), beloved son Khoka (Pinaki Sen Gupta), and loyal old retainer Ananta (Kali Sarkar). And they will surely understand the significance of Biswambhar Roy's neighbor, the "self-made man" Ganguly (Gangapada Bose), who flourishes in business but craves the respect denied him as one of the nouveau riche. Ganguly's attempts to draw admiration through flashy concerts and celebrations drive an indignant Biswambhar to use his dwindling funds to stage competing events. Though his lands have been rendered nearly useless by the river and his influence and power are waning, he is fiercely protective of the remaining respect afforded him by his position.
In the grand cinema tradition of elderly gentlemen facing hardship in their twilight years, Biswambhar Roy is not one of the more sympathetic figures. We first see him lazing indolently on his roof, only roused by the sound of music in the distance. Multiple times it is pointed out to him that his management skills are poor and his lands could have been saved with better diligence, but he ignores all warnings. Instead, his only real passion is music, which he devotes so much of his attention to, he neglects nearly everything else. Chhabi Biswas's performance initially left me a little cold, because he so perfectly embodies entitled privilege, imperiously looking down at the upstart Ganguly and often remaining impassive during the musical performances in spite of his enjoyment. Sometimes he doesn't even seem aware that he's inviting disaster until it is suddenly upon him. And then Biswas's broad face comes alive with horror and regret, and it is impossible not to feel for his loss.
In the hands of another, "The Music Room" could have been a far darker, more dramatic film, perhaps tying the downfall of Biswambar more closely with the larger decline of the zamindars in the early part of the 20th century. However, thanks in part to the fascinating musical performances that are featured throughout, the film comes across as more of a meditative, introspective character piece. The director establishes wonderful rhythm to Biswambhar's life, marked by gently swaying chandeliers, servants fanning the humid air, and the camera slowly traveling through empty corridors and abandoned rooms. The black and white visuals are lovely, capturing the dilapidation of Biswambhar's family home and surrounding lands, and heightening the effect of the music and dance sequences. The most memorable of these is the final concert, which features a long solo by the dancer Roshan Kumari. It's here that I wish I had more knowledge regarding the styles and history of Indian music. The performance felt distinctly more modern than all the others, and perhaps was meant to be yet another sign of encroaching, inevitable change.
I also appreciated the smaller, subtler moments of humor and humanity in the film. What we see of Mahamaya is brief, but her gentle chidings to her husband carry the weight of years of familiarity. Ananta's affection for his master is palpable, and he develops his own hostilities toward Ganguly, made clear in one of the best comic moments. Though it was shot on location in a real palace, the scope of "The Music Room" is small, with no more than a dozen major characters and all the action taking place in and around a single building. Thus it retains a very intimate feel and personal character. Yet for a film that is so simple, its pleasures are endless.
I suspect that "The Music Room" will yield more enjoyment with additional viewings and better knowledge of the musical traditions being portrayed. However, after only a single viewing, it was clear to me that this film is a masterpiece. I wasn't sure about Satyajit Ray after "Pather Panchali," his most famous film, but now I can't wait to go and explore the rest of his work.
---
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
8 Happy Movie Endings (That Replaced Better Unhappy Ones)
Imagine a movie landscape where the bad guy was never allowed to get away with it, where all crimes had to be punished and all moral lapses had to be corrected by the time the credits rolled. Thanks to the Hays Code, from 1934 until the mid 50s, that was the rule in the American film industry. On top of that the studios often worried about sad or pessimistic films scaring away theater patrons, and sometimes went so far as to demand that darker endings be rewritten as happy ones. To this day, nervous executives can do a lot of damage to a good ending, now using poor test audience reactions as the common excuse to make cuts and edits. In short, not all happy endings are necessarily the best ones, and I've singled out some of the most egregious substitutions below, excluding those that the directors themselves were directly responsible for ("AI", "Source Code," etc). Spoilers, spoilers everywhere, so be careful.
"The Bad Seed" - When you think of evil children in cinema, Damien of "The Omen" gets a lot of press, but my money was always on sweet little Rhoda from "The Bad Seed." The novel and play the film was based on both ended with the murderous little girl killing her mother and getting away with it. However, under the Hays Code, crime was never allowed to pay, so Rhoda was struck by lightning in the final reel, and her mother miraculously revived. I can't be too unhappy with this one, because even though it would have been far more sinister fun to have the original ending for the film, some part of me cheers every time that pigtailed little monster gets it.
"And Then There Were None" - Agatha Christie's mystery novel, also known as "Ten Little Indians," or by its less savory original title that I'm not going to print here, killed off ten characters on a remote island one at a time, leaving a perfect closed-room mystery for those who would later find them: which one killed the others and why? The film's lighter ending leaves two survivors and the murderer's plans to commit a perfect crime are foiled. It's not a bad ending, but it's not nearly as psychologically interesting as the original. Nearly all later adaptations followed the film's example, and even Agatha Christie herself wrote a stage adaptation where the leads survive.
"Infernal Affairs" - The Hong Kong thriller that "The Departed" was based on ends with the gangsters' mole, played by Andy Lau, getting away with his policeman cover intact and resolving to use his position to become a real good guy. For mainland China, whose censors still seem to be stuck in the 50s, an alternate ending was created where Lau's character confesses his crimes and gives himself up to the police. In light of that, I wonder how they explained the sequel which features Lau still undercover as a cop - though that one does feature a final fate for the character that the censors would certainly approve of.
"Brazil" - One of the most famous battles ever waged between a filmmaker and a studio executive occurred in 1985, when Terry Gilliam went to war with Universal's Sid Sheinberg over getting "Brazil" released with its gut-puncher "1984" inspired ending intact. Sheinberg insisted on the creation of an alternate version referred to as the "Love Conquers All" cut, which pretty well sums up the problem right there. Gilliam had to make edits, but his version was the one that made it to theaters. Sheinberg's was aired on television a few times, but today mostly exists as a curiosity item on collectors' discs. Thank goodness.
"First Blood" - The movie originally ended with John Rambo committing suicide, just as he did in the David Morrell novel. It was depressing, sure, but it was perfectly appropriate for the story of a Vietnam veteran who was driven to wage a guerrilla war against some small-town cops as a result of his battle traumas. Similar films like "Falling Down" made it work cinematically, so I don't see why "Rambo" couldn't have. And frankly, the character going out by his own hand would have been a far more dignified end than getting transmogrified into the ridiculous supersoldier action-hero that Rambo became in the sequels.
"Little Shop of Horrors" - Possibly the most notorious scrapped ending of all time belongs to "Little Shop," which would have seen the sentient alien plant Audrey II swallow the main characters whole and then go off to conquer the planet. Over twenty minutes of film, whole song numbers, and a massive special effects sequence were cut, all to change the comedically dark and apocalyptic finale into a typical happy ending. Part of what makes this ending so famous is how inaccessible it has been to curious fans. In 1998, Warner brothers actually recalled DVDs of the film that included the ending as a special feature, because of squabbles over the rights to the deleted material.
"I Am Legend" - This one isn't the substitution of a happy ending per se, but it's certainly a more Hollywood one. Will Smith's character is supposed to have the epiphany that his experiments on the infected humans has made him into a monster figure to them, thus explaining the title "I Am Legend." It turns out the mindless creatures he's been fighting with for the whole film aren't so mindless after all. He subsequently abandons his work and leaves Manhattan. In the theatrical version, no enlightenment is to be had. Smith blows himself and his lab up with a grenade to ensure the escape of some other survivors, ending the film with a bang and some generic platitudes.
"Invasion of the Body Snatchers" - This should have been one of the most deliciously pulpy, campy horror movie endings of all time. The hero, having witnessed the invading pod people conquer his town, runs out into the local highway, screaming warnings to passing cars, "Can't you see?! They're after you! They're after all of us! Our wives, our children, everyone! They're here already! You're next!" And then he looks straight into the camera, wild-eyed. "You're next!" The studio took one look and made the filmmakers go back and shoot wraparound scenes so the whole film is told in flashback, and the movie ends with the authorities being alerted to go save the day. What utter spoilsports.
---
"The Bad Seed" - When you think of evil children in cinema, Damien of "The Omen" gets a lot of press, but my money was always on sweet little Rhoda from "The Bad Seed." The novel and play the film was based on both ended with the murderous little girl killing her mother and getting away with it. However, under the Hays Code, crime was never allowed to pay, so Rhoda was struck by lightning in the final reel, and her mother miraculously revived. I can't be too unhappy with this one, because even though it would have been far more sinister fun to have the original ending for the film, some part of me cheers every time that pigtailed little monster gets it.
"And Then There Were None" - Agatha Christie's mystery novel, also known as "Ten Little Indians," or by its less savory original title that I'm not going to print here, killed off ten characters on a remote island one at a time, leaving a perfect closed-room mystery for those who would later find them: which one killed the others and why? The film's lighter ending leaves two survivors and the murderer's plans to commit a perfect crime are foiled. It's not a bad ending, but it's not nearly as psychologically interesting as the original. Nearly all later adaptations followed the film's example, and even Agatha Christie herself wrote a stage adaptation where the leads survive.
"Infernal Affairs" - The Hong Kong thriller that "The Departed" was based on ends with the gangsters' mole, played by Andy Lau, getting away with his policeman cover intact and resolving to use his position to become a real good guy. For mainland China, whose censors still seem to be stuck in the 50s, an alternate ending was created where Lau's character confesses his crimes and gives himself up to the police. In light of that, I wonder how they explained the sequel which features Lau still undercover as a cop - though that one does feature a final fate for the character that the censors would certainly approve of.
"Brazil" - One of the most famous battles ever waged between a filmmaker and a studio executive occurred in 1985, when Terry Gilliam went to war with Universal's Sid Sheinberg over getting "Brazil" released with its gut-puncher "1984" inspired ending intact. Sheinberg insisted on the creation of an alternate version referred to as the "Love Conquers All" cut, which pretty well sums up the problem right there. Gilliam had to make edits, but his version was the one that made it to theaters. Sheinberg's was aired on television a few times, but today mostly exists as a curiosity item on collectors' discs. Thank goodness.
"First Blood" - The movie originally ended with John Rambo committing suicide, just as he did in the David Morrell novel. It was depressing, sure, but it was perfectly appropriate for the story of a Vietnam veteran who was driven to wage a guerrilla war against some small-town cops as a result of his battle traumas. Similar films like "Falling Down" made it work cinematically, so I don't see why "Rambo" couldn't have. And frankly, the character going out by his own hand would have been a far more dignified end than getting transmogrified into the ridiculous supersoldier action-hero that Rambo became in the sequels.
"Little Shop of Horrors" - Possibly the most notorious scrapped ending of all time belongs to "Little Shop," which would have seen the sentient alien plant Audrey II swallow the main characters whole and then go off to conquer the planet. Over twenty minutes of film, whole song numbers, and a massive special effects sequence were cut, all to change the comedically dark and apocalyptic finale into a typical happy ending. Part of what makes this ending so famous is how inaccessible it has been to curious fans. In 1998, Warner brothers actually recalled DVDs of the film that included the ending as a special feature, because of squabbles over the rights to the deleted material.
"I Am Legend" - This one isn't the substitution of a happy ending per se, but it's certainly a more Hollywood one. Will Smith's character is supposed to have the epiphany that his experiments on the infected humans has made him into a monster figure to them, thus explaining the title "I Am Legend." It turns out the mindless creatures he's been fighting with for the whole film aren't so mindless after all. He subsequently abandons his work and leaves Manhattan. In the theatrical version, no enlightenment is to be had. Smith blows himself and his lab up with a grenade to ensure the escape of some other survivors, ending the film with a bang and some generic platitudes.
"Invasion of the Body Snatchers" - This should have been one of the most deliciously pulpy, campy horror movie endings of all time. The hero, having witnessed the invading pod people conquer his town, runs out into the local highway, screaming warnings to passing cars, "Can't you see?! They're after you! They're after all of us! Our wives, our children, everyone! They're here already! You're next!" And then he looks straight into the camera, wild-eyed. "You're next!" The studio took one look and made the filmmakers go back and shoot wraparound scenes so the whole film is told in flashback, and the movie ends with the authorities being alerted to go save the day. What utter spoilsports.
---
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Echoes in the "Shock Corridor"
Samuel Fuller's "Shock Corridor" is a prime piece of 60s pulp with some interesting moments of social commentary, following journalist Johnny Barrett (Peter Breck) as he goes undercover into a mental hospital to investigate the murder of one of the patients. Barrett is driven by ambition and ego to get the story and win a Pulitzer Prize, even if he has to forfeit his own sanity in the process. His girlfriend Cathy (Constance Towers) thinks he's taking too many risks, but can't do much more than wring her hands and bear witness to his deterioration, as Barrett gets closer and closer to the truth.
"Shock Corridor" is not an exploitation film, but neither is it in any way a serious examination of life in psychiatric treatment. Fuller milks the scenario for all it's worth, presenting the full gamut of madman clichés. The hospital is initially portrayed with at least some measure of restraint. Rules and regulations are given nods, the head doctor is not especially malicious, and there are always bow-tied attendants nearby the break up any physical altercations. Nevertheless, like so many other movie madhouses, fights happen constantly, the system is rife with abuses, and the tactics used to treat poor Barrett gradually shift from therapy and medication to straitjackets and electroshock therapy.
There are also some salacious, sexually-charged elements included in the film that it would have been hard for Fuller to get away with just a few years earlier when the Hayes Code was still being enforced. Cathy works as an exotic dancer and keeps company with prostitutes, though pains are taken to emphasize that she isn't one. Barrett's ruse involves pretending that Cathy is his sister, who he harbors incestuous feelings for. Visions of her dancing, costumed figure taunt and tease him after he is committed. And in one memorably campy sequence, Barrett unwittingly stumbles into the women's ward, and nearly falls victim to a leering throng of nymphomaniacs.
In keeping with the genre conventions, the performance by Peter Breck is completely over-the-top, overselling Barrett's shift from aping made-up mental deficiencies to a full mental breakdown. He flails and he screams and he tries to hold on to the furniture when the attendants come to drag him away from a fight. It's all very enjoyable to watch. There are scenes where the audience is supposed to wonder whether Barnett is playacting of really starting to lose his mind, but the story beats are so predictable and the characterization is so simplistic, there's little ambiguity or suspense in the material. The execution, however, is another matter entirely.
Samuel Fuller does so much with the visual storytelling, which is what makes the film worth watching. The film is predominantly in stark, simple black and white, shot on limited sets. However, there are surreal touches around every corner, like Barrett's fantasy visions of Cathy and other brief dream sequences composed of documentary style footage, shot in color. As Barnett's mental state worsens, the lighting becomes more extreme and the camera work gets wilder. Some scenes turn out to be entirely a product of Barrett's imagination. The performances may be melodramatic, but Fuller keeps finding ways to summon up visuals that match them in intensity.
"Shock Corridor" also has social criticisms and counter-culture messages embedded at its core. These emerge in the three witnesses who Barrett seeks out and interrogates one by one. Stuart (James Best) is a former soldier who defected to the Soviets upon his capture, and now lives out various Civil War campaigns. Trent (Hari Rhodes) was one of the first African-Americans at an all-white college, and cracked under the pressure of trying to help the desegregation movement. Finally Boden (Gene Evans), a top nuclear scientist, reverted to the age of a six-year-old rather than work on more bombs.
The most exciting and no doubt the most controversial moments of the film involve Trent, who spouts white supremacist rhetoric while donning a makeshift Ku Klux Klan hood, intent on starting race riots in the ward. The hatred and hypocrisy he faced as a student drove him to madness, just as other social evils doomed his fellow patients. The language that Trent uses and the extremity of his delusions are potent social satire and remain jarringly effective even to this day. When you remember that "Shock Corridor" was released in 1963, Fuller's willingness to present these ideas is even more admirable.
It's fascinating to see how Samuel Fuller takes familiar genre tropes and manages to make them bigger than they are, encompassing larger themes and messages to the point where they almost become parable. He'll indulge in moments of kitsch and silliness, but "Shock Corridor" manages to be a film of great substance as well as style, and a memorable one at that.
---
"Shock Corridor" is not an exploitation film, but neither is it in any way a serious examination of life in psychiatric treatment. Fuller milks the scenario for all it's worth, presenting the full gamut of madman clichés. The hospital is initially portrayed with at least some measure of restraint. Rules and regulations are given nods, the head doctor is not especially malicious, and there are always bow-tied attendants nearby the break up any physical altercations. Nevertheless, like so many other movie madhouses, fights happen constantly, the system is rife with abuses, and the tactics used to treat poor Barrett gradually shift from therapy and medication to straitjackets and electroshock therapy.
There are also some salacious, sexually-charged elements included in the film that it would have been hard for Fuller to get away with just a few years earlier when the Hayes Code was still being enforced. Cathy works as an exotic dancer and keeps company with prostitutes, though pains are taken to emphasize that she isn't one. Barrett's ruse involves pretending that Cathy is his sister, who he harbors incestuous feelings for. Visions of her dancing, costumed figure taunt and tease him after he is committed. And in one memorably campy sequence, Barrett unwittingly stumbles into the women's ward, and nearly falls victim to a leering throng of nymphomaniacs.
In keeping with the genre conventions, the performance by Peter Breck is completely over-the-top, overselling Barrett's shift from aping made-up mental deficiencies to a full mental breakdown. He flails and he screams and he tries to hold on to the furniture when the attendants come to drag him away from a fight. It's all very enjoyable to watch. There are scenes where the audience is supposed to wonder whether Barnett is playacting of really starting to lose his mind, but the story beats are so predictable and the characterization is so simplistic, there's little ambiguity or suspense in the material. The execution, however, is another matter entirely.
Samuel Fuller does so much with the visual storytelling, which is what makes the film worth watching. The film is predominantly in stark, simple black and white, shot on limited sets. However, there are surreal touches around every corner, like Barrett's fantasy visions of Cathy and other brief dream sequences composed of documentary style footage, shot in color. As Barnett's mental state worsens, the lighting becomes more extreme and the camera work gets wilder. Some scenes turn out to be entirely a product of Barrett's imagination. The performances may be melodramatic, but Fuller keeps finding ways to summon up visuals that match them in intensity.
"Shock Corridor" also has social criticisms and counter-culture messages embedded at its core. These emerge in the three witnesses who Barrett seeks out and interrogates one by one. Stuart (James Best) is a former soldier who defected to the Soviets upon his capture, and now lives out various Civil War campaigns. Trent (Hari Rhodes) was one of the first African-Americans at an all-white college, and cracked under the pressure of trying to help the desegregation movement. Finally Boden (Gene Evans), a top nuclear scientist, reverted to the age of a six-year-old rather than work on more bombs.
The most exciting and no doubt the most controversial moments of the film involve Trent, who spouts white supremacist rhetoric while donning a makeshift Ku Klux Klan hood, intent on starting race riots in the ward. The hatred and hypocrisy he faced as a student drove him to madness, just as other social evils doomed his fellow patients. The language that Trent uses and the extremity of his delusions are potent social satire and remain jarringly effective even to this day. When you remember that "Shock Corridor" was released in 1963, Fuller's willingness to present these ideas is even more admirable.
It's fascinating to see how Samuel Fuller takes familiar genre tropes and manages to make them bigger than they are, encompassing larger themes and messages to the point where they almost become parable. He'll indulge in moments of kitsch and silliness, but "Shock Corridor" manages to be a film of great substance as well as style, and a memorable one at that.
---
Monday, September 12, 2011
The Fall TV Season Cometh
I haven't been paying as much attention as I should to the new television season that's set to kick off in a couple of days now. There are lots of new shows that are going to be premiering on network television this fall, so I figured it was a good time to take stock of some of the more interesting contenders. Who knows which are going to last a month and which will outlast "Entourage"?
"Prime Suspect" - Based on the long-running British crime serials starring Helen Mirren, the new version will follow an American policewoman played by Maria Bello. With so many other crime dramas out there right now, "Prime Suspect" needs to distinguish itself from the pack. However, with NBC's "Law & Order" empire in its decline, and the "CSI" format wearing out its welcome, this is as good a time as any to try.
"The X Factor" - The dominance of "American Idol" will be challenged by another British talent show import, "The X Factor," created by Simon Cowell. He'll also be appearing as a judge in the first season, along with fellow "Idol" alum Paula Abdul. The shows won't be in direct competition, though, since both will be on FOX, which will be running "Factor" in the fall and "Idol" in the spring. I wonder if that much reality will prove to be too much for the American public. Or if the two shows will just join forces to crush "The Voice."
"Once Upon a Time" and "Grimm" - The fairy tale bug has bitten this season hard. We have two shows that will use fairy tale elements and characters in modern settings to try and become a new genre hit. "Grimm," which uses the cop drama model, is starting out in a Friday night slot, so it already has its work cut out for it. I'm more interested in the mystery series "Once Upon a Time," which has a few "Lost" creators involved and Jennifer Morrison starring. And it'll be fun to watch the "Fables" fanboys flip out over any inevitable similarities.
"2 Broke Girls" and "Whitney" - I admit I'm not one to get too excited about sitcoms, but it looks like Whitney Cummings may be on the brink of becoming a TV superstar. She has somehow managed to come out of this year's pilot scrum with creator credits on two different comedies on two different networks. Moreover, "2 Broke Girls" will be on CBS's Monday Night comedy block, while "Whitney," where Cummings will be playing the title character, writing, and producing, will be on Thursdays on NBC after "The Office." You couldn't ask for better starting positions.
"Person of Interest" - What would a new fall season be without JJ Abrams? Add another high concept Bad Robot crime drama to the pile, one using science-fiction crime-predicting technology to stop major crimes before they happen, "Minority Report" style. "Persons" will star Jim Caviezel, Michael Emerson, and Taraji P. Henson, so I was already interested. Add some great buzz on top of that, and this is shaping up to be my most anticipated new series of the fall season.
"Pan Am" and "The Playboy Club" - Two 10PM dramas chasing the retro cool of "Mad Men." Both are trying to pull a "Sucker Punch" with their marketing, trumpeting women's empowerment storylines while plastering sexy visuals of its stars all over the ads. 60s stewardesses and Playboy bunnies? Oh yeah, that just screams women's lib doesn't it? I'll give the edge to "Pan Am" for now, since it features more reliable talent and Christina Ricci as the lead. However, controversy is sure to give "Playboy" a boost. One NBC affiliate has already refused to air it.
"Last Man Standing" and "Suburgatory" - There are lots of female-led new series this year, but ABC is pushing several sitcoms starring men, including "Last Man Standing," with Tim Allen as a last bastion of masculinity under siege, and "Suburgatory" where Jeremy Sisto will do battle with the horrors of suburbia and a few former SNL cast members. I'd say "Suburgatory" has a better shot, enjoying a nice Wednesday berth between "The Middle" and "Modern Family," while ABC hasn't had much luck lately with the Tuesday 8PM slot, where "Last Man" is standing.
"Terra Nova" - FOX's time-tripping adventure series has been in the works for ages and suffered multiple delays, because they keep tweaking those special effects that are supposed to blow all our minds. Having been bombarded by the extended trailers for this thing for months, I'm more worried about the cast of characters, who will have to sustain the series when the fancy CGI dinosaurs aren't onscreen.
There are also some more interesting titles coming up for the midseason, but that's a post for another time.
Happy watching!
---
"Prime Suspect" - Based on the long-running British crime serials starring Helen Mirren, the new version will follow an American policewoman played by Maria Bello. With so many other crime dramas out there right now, "Prime Suspect" needs to distinguish itself from the pack. However, with NBC's "Law & Order" empire in its decline, and the "CSI" format wearing out its welcome, this is as good a time as any to try.
"The X Factor" - The dominance of "American Idol" will be challenged by another British talent show import, "The X Factor," created by Simon Cowell. He'll also be appearing as a judge in the first season, along with fellow "Idol" alum Paula Abdul. The shows won't be in direct competition, though, since both will be on FOX, which will be running "Factor" in the fall and "Idol" in the spring. I wonder if that much reality will prove to be too much for the American public. Or if the two shows will just join forces to crush "The Voice."
"Once Upon a Time" and "Grimm" - The fairy tale bug has bitten this season hard. We have two shows that will use fairy tale elements and characters in modern settings to try and become a new genre hit. "Grimm," which uses the cop drama model, is starting out in a Friday night slot, so it already has its work cut out for it. I'm more interested in the mystery series "Once Upon a Time," which has a few "Lost" creators involved and Jennifer Morrison starring. And it'll be fun to watch the "Fables" fanboys flip out over any inevitable similarities.
"2 Broke Girls" and "Whitney" - I admit I'm not one to get too excited about sitcoms, but it looks like Whitney Cummings may be on the brink of becoming a TV superstar. She has somehow managed to come out of this year's pilot scrum with creator credits on two different comedies on two different networks. Moreover, "2 Broke Girls" will be on CBS's Monday Night comedy block, while "Whitney," where Cummings will be playing the title character, writing, and producing, will be on Thursdays on NBC after "The Office." You couldn't ask for better starting positions.
"Person of Interest" - What would a new fall season be without JJ Abrams? Add another high concept Bad Robot crime drama to the pile, one using science-fiction crime-predicting technology to stop major crimes before they happen, "Minority Report" style. "Persons" will star Jim Caviezel, Michael Emerson, and Taraji P. Henson, so I was already interested. Add some great buzz on top of that, and this is shaping up to be my most anticipated new series of the fall season.
"Pan Am" and "The Playboy Club" - Two 10PM dramas chasing the retro cool of "Mad Men." Both are trying to pull a "Sucker Punch" with their marketing, trumpeting women's empowerment storylines while plastering sexy visuals of its stars all over the ads. 60s stewardesses and Playboy bunnies? Oh yeah, that just screams women's lib doesn't it? I'll give the edge to "Pan Am" for now, since it features more reliable talent and Christina Ricci as the lead. However, controversy is sure to give "Playboy" a boost. One NBC affiliate has already refused to air it.
"Last Man Standing" and "Suburgatory" - There are lots of female-led new series this year, but ABC is pushing several sitcoms starring men, including "Last Man Standing," with Tim Allen as a last bastion of masculinity under siege, and "Suburgatory" where Jeremy Sisto will do battle with the horrors of suburbia and a few former SNL cast members. I'd say "Suburgatory" has a better shot, enjoying a nice Wednesday berth between "The Middle" and "Modern Family," while ABC hasn't had much luck lately with the Tuesday 8PM slot, where "Last Man" is standing.
"Terra Nova" - FOX's time-tripping adventure series has been in the works for ages and suffered multiple delays, because they keep tweaking those special effects that are supposed to blow all our minds. Having been bombarded by the extended trailers for this thing for months, I'm more worried about the cast of characters, who will have to sustain the series when the fancy CGI dinosaurs aren't onscreen.
There are also some more interesting titles coming up for the midseason, but that's a post for another time.
Happy watching!
---
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Wait, What About Pre-Theatrical VOD?
So, it's been determined that the early video-on-demand (VOD) demand scheme where the studios would charge $30 to watch a new theatrical release sixty days after its premiere date isn't going to work out. The market for this kind of service doesn't exist at this price point. Theater owners who worried about VOD cutting into theatrical runs and their profits can breathe a sigh of relief. Lionsgate seems to have found a better tactic: it will be putting its new action film "Abduction" on VOD before its Blu-ray and DVD release, but only ten days early. Exhibitors seem fine with that.
But wait a minute. If they were worried about films being on VOD less than 90 days after they premiered in theaters, what about the increasing number of films that are being made available through various VOD and online platforms before their theatrical release dates? Right now on iTunes and Amazon, you can rent "Tucker & Dale vs. Evil" or Kevin Smith's "Red State" for $10 apiece, even though both are supposed to have theatrical runs beginning later in the fall. According to this great Cinematical article (a thousand curses on the Huffington Post!), Magnet Releasing and Magnolia Pictures, who are distributing "Tucker & Dale," have been doing this for a while. They've released a variety of titles early through their "Ultra VOD" program, including the alien invasion film "Monsters," documentary "Freakonomics," and indie drama "Two Lovers." Other distributors who have tried this include IFC, Oscilloscope and Tribeca Films. Lionsgate, which is handling "Red State," still seems to be testing the waters with multiple approaches.
Clearly there's a difference in the kinds of films that are being offered through pre-theatrical VOD and the titles that theater owners were worried about. "Tucker & Dale" and "Red State" will only be getting limited releases, possibly only playing a few dozen screens for a week or two, and won't be available to great swaths of the moviegoing public. There seems to be less impact on the theatrical performance because it's so small to begin with, and works on a very different model than the big mainstream releases like "Abduction" will be getting. However, I think it's important to note that these early VOD experiments have been very limited so far. It's hard to tell if art house patrons are seeing these films in theaters because they prefer the theatrical experience or if they simply aren't aware that the films are available for rental, and might choose differently if they did. Films that are billed as being simultaneously released on multiple formats don't tend to do as well in theaters, for instance.
If early VOD becomes more widespread and popularized, I think we might see more push back from theaters. With a flood of prestige pictures just around the corner, I wonder if you could incorporate VOD into their usual release pattern, which start out with very limited releases that slowly expand into more and more theaters as the season progresses. Would larger theaters want to book a film that's already widely available on the VOD platform? One issue I'm curious about is how early VOD releases affect awards eligibility. The draconian requirements for the Academy Awards, for instance, are all tied to theatrical distribution dates, and being shown on television first would result in disqualification. Would an early VOD release mean that "Tucker & Dale vs. Evil" would be automatically out of contention, putting aside the fact that it is a horror comedy about two bumbling rednecks mistaken for psycho killers? Is this why "Freakonomics" didn't get a nod last year? Since Kevin Smith went on tour with "Red State" back in March maybe it's played enough dates to qualify. I'm not sure.
Anyway, there still seem to be a lot of these kinds of unforeseen risks associated with early-VOD, which is why you're only seeing those very few, very exceptional titles being offered so far. "Tucker & Dale" was only finally acquired for distribution in June after over two years stuck in limbo. And there's absolutely nothing normal about anything that Kevin Smith has been doing with "Red State." Where do I stand on this? I don't want to see any of these films disappear from movie theaters, and I don't think VOD is any kind of suitable replacement. On the other hand, the access to some of these smaller films just isn't there in so many cases. As the Cinematical article noted, many viewers who watch these early releases on VOD didn't even know they existed beforehand because of the lack of marketing resources. More people getting to see more films sounds good to me.
So where am I going to see these films? Well, since I'm saving up my money for a lot of other movies this season, probably in five to seven months via Netflix or Redbox rental.
---
But wait a minute. If they were worried about films being on VOD less than 90 days after they premiered in theaters, what about the increasing number of films that are being made available through various VOD and online platforms before their theatrical release dates? Right now on iTunes and Amazon, you can rent "Tucker & Dale vs. Evil" or Kevin Smith's "Red State" for $10 apiece, even though both are supposed to have theatrical runs beginning later in the fall. According to this great Cinematical article (a thousand curses on the Huffington Post!), Magnet Releasing and Magnolia Pictures, who are distributing "Tucker & Dale," have been doing this for a while. They've released a variety of titles early through their "Ultra VOD" program, including the alien invasion film "Monsters," documentary "Freakonomics," and indie drama "Two Lovers." Other distributors who have tried this include IFC, Oscilloscope and Tribeca Films. Lionsgate, which is handling "Red State," still seems to be testing the waters with multiple approaches.
Clearly there's a difference in the kinds of films that are being offered through pre-theatrical VOD and the titles that theater owners were worried about. "Tucker & Dale" and "Red State" will only be getting limited releases, possibly only playing a few dozen screens for a week or two, and won't be available to great swaths of the moviegoing public. There seems to be less impact on the theatrical performance because it's so small to begin with, and works on a very different model than the big mainstream releases like "Abduction" will be getting. However, I think it's important to note that these early VOD experiments have been very limited so far. It's hard to tell if art house patrons are seeing these films in theaters because they prefer the theatrical experience or if they simply aren't aware that the films are available for rental, and might choose differently if they did. Films that are billed as being simultaneously released on multiple formats don't tend to do as well in theaters, for instance.
If early VOD becomes more widespread and popularized, I think we might see more push back from theaters. With a flood of prestige pictures just around the corner, I wonder if you could incorporate VOD into their usual release pattern, which start out with very limited releases that slowly expand into more and more theaters as the season progresses. Would larger theaters want to book a film that's already widely available on the VOD platform? One issue I'm curious about is how early VOD releases affect awards eligibility. The draconian requirements for the Academy Awards, for instance, are all tied to theatrical distribution dates, and being shown on television first would result in disqualification. Would an early VOD release mean that "Tucker & Dale vs. Evil" would be automatically out of contention, putting aside the fact that it is a horror comedy about two bumbling rednecks mistaken for psycho killers? Is this why "Freakonomics" didn't get a nod last year? Since Kevin Smith went on tour with "Red State" back in March maybe it's played enough dates to qualify. I'm not sure.
Anyway, there still seem to be a lot of these kinds of unforeseen risks associated with early-VOD, which is why you're only seeing those very few, very exceptional titles being offered so far. "Tucker & Dale" was only finally acquired for distribution in June after over two years stuck in limbo. And there's absolutely nothing normal about anything that Kevin Smith has been doing with "Red State." Where do I stand on this? I don't want to see any of these films disappear from movie theaters, and I don't think VOD is any kind of suitable replacement. On the other hand, the access to some of these smaller films just isn't there in so many cases. As the Cinematical article noted, many viewers who watch these early releases on VOD didn't even know they existed beforehand because of the lack of marketing resources. More people getting to see more films sounds good to me.
So where am I going to see these films? Well, since I'm saving up my money for a lot of other movies this season, probably in five to seven months via Netflix or Redbox rental.
---
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Twitterpation
So after a week of technical difficulties, my laptop has been resurrected, and Twitter updates are back. However, that week of Twitter-less existence it made me realize how much of my time that one little app has been eating up. I really need to step back and figure out how I can use Twitter more efficiently.
I think a big part of the problem is that I actually read my Twitter feed and all the messages generated by the accounts I'm following, which I understand that most people don't do. Right now I'm following about a dozen accounts being posted to by comedians, writers, a few movie reviewers, and maintainers doing website updates. All together, they generate over a hundred tweets a day, some accounts considerably more than others. I'll read about thirty in the morning, fifty to seventy when I get home, and maybe another thirty before I go to bed. If John Hodgman is playing Scrabble, that number goes up considerably.
Scanning through all those tweets individually to glean the interesting content is time consuming, but there's really no other way I can think of doing it. You can't exactly set up filters for "interesting" and "not interesting," especially since I don't know which tweets are going to attract my attention from day to day. The people I follow are those I genuinely enjoy reading, and I like having such direct access to. While I skip over a good portion of their tweets without a second thought, like the travel updates, the birthday greetings, and the endless charity appeals that get passed along, I still get enough out of reading the good stuff to keep checking my Twitter feeds every day. Right now I don't do the reciprocal friending thing, where I'll just add anyone and everyone to my friends list (though that would probably help in the self-marketing department), but if I did, the dozen accounts that I have friended now are the ones that I'd keep on my main reading list.
However, sometimes I wonder if I'm using Twitter the way it was meant to be used. I don't get directly tweeted to very often or participate in many ongoing conversations. I'll get about one message a month, usually in response to something I've written. Conversely, my attempts at reaching out to other Twitterers and haven't been too successful. Part of the problem is that I access Twitter through Tweetdeck, and I don't leave the progam open continuously. I prefer to read tweets (and e-mails and blog posts) in aggregate, so I can get through a lot of them quickly. Reading them in real time as they come in just doesn't work for me. It's too distracting, having to stop what I'm doing every few minutes to read a sentence or two, which might just end up being an update about someone's adorable cat, and then try to pick up again where I left off. But getting any kind of back and forth going with other Twitterers just isn't going to happen if you're only checking in two or three times a day.
I wonder how other people manage it, staying plugged into multiple Twitter conversations and simultaneously doing what ever it is that they do in real life. How do they keep the information overload at bay? If I'm gone for more than a day or two, my eyes will boggle when I open up my Tweetdeck and see all the tweets waiting to be read. This time, after a whole week's absence, I didn't even try. I just posted my updates and got out while I still could. Honestly, even accessing Twitter two or three times a day can get to be a bit much. Sometimes I've resorted to reading my friends feed during the boring parts of movies or podcasts.
I like keeping an eye on the Twitter universe though. I'll often see reactions to major news stories before I read or hear about them through regular channels. I'll get linked to all kinds of interesting content I never would have stumbled across myself, and I get good movie and TV show recommendations from the reviewers I follow all the time. It's also a quick and easy way for me to raise my visibility as a blogger, even though sometimes I wonder if my updates are only for the benefit of the link spammers. I'm not about to give up Twitter, but there must be some way I can make the experience easier on myself. Maybe I should get a reader with bigger font sizes, or split up the accounts I'm following into separate lists.
I'll take any suggestions if you've got 'em. Thanks all.
---
I think a big part of the problem is that I actually read my Twitter feed and all the messages generated by the accounts I'm following, which I understand that most people don't do. Right now I'm following about a dozen accounts being posted to by comedians, writers, a few movie reviewers, and maintainers doing website updates. All together, they generate over a hundred tweets a day, some accounts considerably more than others. I'll read about thirty in the morning, fifty to seventy when I get home, and maybe another thirty before I go to bed. If John Hodgman is playing Scrabble, that number goes up considerably.
Scanning through all those tweets individually to glean the interesting content is time consuming, but there's really no other way I can think of doing it. You can't exactly set up filters for "interesting" and "not interesting," especially since I don't know which tweets are going to attract my attention from day to day. The people I follow are those I genuinely enjoy reading, and I like having such direct access to. While I skip over a good portion of their tweets without a second thought, like the travel updates, the birthday greetings, and the endless charity appeals that get passed along, I still get enough out of reading the good stuff to keep checking my Twitter feeds every day. Right now I don't do the reciprocal friending thing, where I'll just add anyone and everyone to my friends list (though that would probably help in the self-marketing department), but if I did, the dozen accounts that I have friended now are the ones that I'd keep on my main reading list.
However, sometimes I wonder if I'm using Twitter the way it was meant to be used. I don't get directly tweeted to very often or participate in many ongoing conversations. I'll get about one message a month, usually in response to something I've written. Conversely, my attempts at reaching out to other Twitterers and haven't been too successful. Part of the problem is that I access Twitter through Tweetdeck, and I don't leave the progam open continuously. I prefer to read tweets (and e-mails and blog posts) in aggregate, so I can get through a lot of them quickly. Reading them in real time as they come in just doesn't work for me. It's too distracting, having to stop what I'm doing every few minutes to read a sentence or two, which might just end up being an update about someone's adorable cat, and then try to pick up again where I left off. But getting any kind of back and forth going with other Twitterers just isn't going to happen if you're only checking in two or three times a day.
I wonder how other people manage it, staying plugged into multiple Twitter conversations and simultaneously doing what ever it is that they do in real life. How do they keep the information overload at bay? If I'm gone for more than a day or two, my eyes will boggle when I open up my Tweetdeck and see all the tweets waiting to be read. This time, after a whole week's absence, I didn't even try. I just posted my updates and got out while I still could. Honestly, even accessing Twitter two or three times a day can get to be a bit much. Sometimes I've resorted to reading my friends feed during the boring parts of movies or podcasts.
I like keeping an eye on the Twitter universe though. I'll often see reactions to major news stories before I read or hear about them through regular channels. I'll get linked to all kinds of interesting content I never would have stumbled across myself, and I get good movie and TV show recommendations from the reviewers I follow all the time. It's also a quick and easy way for me to raise my visibility as a blogger, even though sometimes I wonder if my updates are only for the benefit of the link spammers. I'm not about to give up Twitter, but there must be some way I can make the experience easier on myself. Maybe I should get a reader with bigger font sizes, or split up the accounts I'm following into separate lists.
I'll take any suggestions if you've got 'em. Thanks all.
---
Thursday, September 8, 2011
My Favorite Stanley Kubrick Film
The one and only time I was ever carded going to a movie was in 1999, upon the release of "Eyes Wide Shut." I went with a group of friends who were curious about all the controversy over the adult content, and none of us were really sure what we were in for. Coming out of the theater, after two and a half hours of obtuse erotic imagery, and very little of the actual nudity or graphic sexuality many were hoping for, I remember one friend vocally expressing his displeasure with the film. I countered that "I kinda liked it."
He responded, wearily, "You would." And thus, on that day a pretentious cinema geek became self-aware.
This is not the only thing I have to thank Stanley Kubrick for, not by a long shot. I didn't see many of his films until I got to college. In fact, I specifically warned my freshman roommate that I was determined to find copies of "A Clockwork Orange," "Lolita," and all the other controversial Kubrick films, since I was finally out of my parents' house. If she didn't want to be there when I watched them, I'd be happy to give her plenty of forewarning. She ended up watching "Clockwork Orange" with me, having heard plenty about the film herself.
It's difficult to pinpoint the origins of my high regard for Stanley Kubrick. From a very young age, I recognized Kubrick as a director who had this rare aura of power and menace around him. He made films that were considered classics, but some were very controversial, perhaps even dangerous. Multiple viewings of "The Shining," really the only Kubrick film I had regular access to as a kid, confirmed his reputation for me. It's still my favorite of his films, and the one most directly responsible for my seeking out his other work when I was older. Oh, I know "Dr. Strangelove" was better written, "2001: A Space Odyssey" was more visually iconic, and as far as I'm concerned, the first half "Full Metal Jacket" is the most perfect piece of film Kubrick was ever responsible for, and still "The Shining" is my favorite.
I wasn't a brave kid, and not much of a horror fan until much later, but "The Shining" fascinated me. I didn't find it scary, but it impacted me deeply. There was such a deliberateness about the filmmaking, such a distinct style and attitude that came across so clearly to me onscreen. "The Shining" was one of the first films where I could recognize many of the tactics that the director was employing to provoke the viewer - crashing piano cues, the hypnotic long shots, the sound design - and yet that didn't spoil their effectiveness in the least. I was so caught up in what was happening to the characters, and at the same time so aware that the film was being presented to me in such a ruthlessly efficient and artful way, somehow it never occurred to me to be scared. I was too intent on seeing what happened next - and more importantly how it would happen.
The most compelling character in the film is the Overlook Hotel, thanks to Kubrick. Many cinema locales have their own distinct personalities, but the Overlook is one of the few that seems to exert its own will, without ever being too obviously anthropomorphized. I love how deceptive the visuals are in this regard. At first the Overlook appears to be an empty hotel that has nothing but space, but when the snow comes down and the monsters emerge, you realize the pattern on the rug just keeps repeating, and repeating, and there's no way out. There is plenty of room to run, and many places to hide, but you never know when you're going to stumble across a madwoman in a bathtub or a pair of twins who just want to play with you.
It's hard to think of another horror film staged on such a grandiose, almost operatic level. Most of the others I remember from my childhood were low budget slashers or spent their money on eye-popping special effects. Kubrick, on the other hand, built enormous, stately sets and used the new Steadicam technology to create elaborate moving shots. Ever a perfectionist, a seventeen week shoot ballooned to nearly a year, and his leading lady collapsed at one point from stress and exhaustion. You can feel the weight of the experience while watching the film itself, that feeling of creeping, endless tension. All the images of repetition, of labyrinths, of quiet mundanity, coupled with the slow pacing, become an itch in the brain until the viewer is more than ready to go a little crazy.
And "The Shining" has such an absurdly simple premise - it's a haunted house film! But the twist is that Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson), his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall), and son Danny (Danny Lloyd) face the most danger from the specters of madness and domestic abuse, which the paranormal may have had little or nothing to do with. Most horror films are so concerned with getting a rise out of their audience on an emotional and visceral level, few go as deep as Kubrick do into the realms of the psychological. And no surprise that there turned out to be so much fertile ground for Kubrick to explore while digging up the roots of common funhouse scares, and turning over those deeper hidden fears that still keep us up at night. Then again, who else would have gone looking for human insight in the horror genre, of all places?
I've read the Stephen King novel and enjoyed it, but I always appreciated the film a little more for its ambiguity. Perhaps the visions of the dead experienced by Jack and Danny are only delusions. Perhaps only Danny's ESP was real, and his projected fears were responsible for what happened to his parents and poor Scatman Crothers. I never did trust that Tony, even as a little kid up way past her bedtime to see if Jack was going to make it out of the hedge maze or not. The smash cut reveal that answered my question, coupled with the crashing pianos, got me every damn time.
I guess even Stanley Kubrick wasn't above a jump scare.
---
What I've Seen - Stanley Kubrick
Fear and Desire (1953)
Killer's Kiss (1955)
The Killing (1956)
Paths of Glory (1957)
Spartacus (1960)
Lolita (1962)
Dr. Strangelove (1964)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Barry Lyndon (1975)
The Shining (1980)
Full Metal Jacket (1987)
Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
---
He responded, wearily, "You would." And thus, on that day a pretentious cinema geek became self-aware.
This is not the only thing I have to thank Stanley Kubrick for, not by a long shot. I didn't see many of his films until I got to college. In fact, I specifically warned my freshman roommate that I was determined to find copies of "A Clockwork Orange," "Lolita," and all the other controversial Kubrick films, since I was finally out of my parents' house. If she didn't want to be there when I watched them, I'd be happy to give her plenty of forewarning. She ended up watching "Clockwork Orange" with me, having heard plenty about the film herself.
It's difficult to pinpoint the origins of my high regard for Stanley Kubrick. From a very young age, I recognized Kubrick as a director who had this rare aura of power and menace around him. He made films that were considered classics, but some were very controversial, perhaps even dangerous. Multiple viewings of "The Shining," really the only Kubrick film I had regular access to as a kid, confirmed his reputation for me. It's still my favorite of his films, and the one most directly responsible for my seeking out his other work when I was older. Oh, I know "Dr. Strangelove" was better written, "2001: A Space Odyssey" was more visually iconic, and as far as I'm concerned, the first half "Full Metal Jacket" is the most perfect piece of film Kubrick was ever responsible for, and still "The Shining" is my favorite.
I wasn't a brave kid, and not much of a horror fan until much later, but "The Shining" fascinated me. I didn't find it scary, but it impacted me deeply. There was such a deliberateness about the filmmaking, such a distinct style and attitude that came across so clearly to me onscreen. "The Shining" was one of the first films where I could recognize many of the tactics that the director was employing to provoke the viewer - crashing piano cues, the hypnotic long shots, the sound design - and yet that didn't spoil their effectiveness in the least. I was so caught up in what was happening to the characters, and at the same time so aware that the film was being presented to me in such a ruthlessly efficient and artful way, somehow it never occurred to me to be scared. I was too intent on seeing what happened next - and more importantly how it would happen.
The most compelling character in the film is the Overlook Hotel, thanks to Kubrick. Many cinema locales have their own distinct personalities, but the Overlook is one of the few that seems to exert its own will, without ever being too obviously anthropomorphized. I love how deceptive the visuals are in this regard. At first the Overlook appears to be an empty hotel that has nothing but space, but when the snow comes down and the monsters emerge, you realize the pattern on the rug just keeps repeating, and repeating, and there's no way out. There is plenty of room to run, and many places to hide, but you never know when you're going to stumble across a madwoman in a bathtub or a pair of twins who just want to play with you.
It's hard to think of another horror film staged on such a grandiose, almost operatic level. Most of the others I remember from my childhood were low budget slashers or spent their money on eye-popping special effects. Kubrick, on the other hand, built enormous, stately sets and used the new Steadicam technology to create elaborate moving shots. Ever a perfectionist, a seventeen week shoot ballooned to nearly a year, and his leading lady collapsed at one point from stress and exhaustion. You can feel the weight of the experience while watching the film itself, that feeling of creeping, endless tension. All the images of repetition, of labyrinths, of quiet mundanity, coupled with the slow pacing, become an itch in the brain until the viewer is more than ready to go a little crazy.
And "The Shining" has such an absurdly simple premise - it's a haunted house film! But the twist is that Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson), his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall), and son Danny (Danny Lloyd) face the most danger from the specters of madness and domestic abuse, which the paranormal may have had little or nothing to do with. Most horror films are so concerned with getting a rise out of their audience on an emotional and visceral level, few go as deep as Kubrick do into the realms of the psychological. And no surprise that there turned out to be so much fertile ground for Kubrick to explore while digging up the roots of common funhouse scares, and turning over those deeper hidden fears that still keep us up at night. Then again, who else would have gone looking for human insight in the horror genre, of all places?
I've read the Stephen King novel and enjoyed it, but I always appreciated the film a little more for its ambiguity. Perhaps the visions of the dead experienced by Jack and Danny are only delusions. Perhaps only Danny's ESP was real, and his projected fears were responsible for what happened to his parents and poor Scatman Crothers. I never did trust that Tony, even as a little kid up way past her bedtime to see if Jack was going to make it out of the hedge maze or not. The smash cut reveal that answered my question, coupled with the crashing pianos, got me every damn time.
I guess even Stanley Kubrick wasn't above a jump scare.
---
What I've Seen - Stanley Kubrick
Fear and Desire (1953)
Killer's Kiss (1955)
The Killing (1956)
Paths of Glory (1957)
Spartacus (1960)
Lolita (1962)
Dr. Strangelove (1964)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Barry Lyndon (1975)
The Shining (1980)
Full Metal Jacket (1987)
Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
