Tim Lippe (Ed Helms) is an insurance agent in the tiny town of Brown Valley, Wisconsin, who is for lack of a better term, a dork. He's sleeping with one of his former grade school teachers, who he still habitually calls Mrs. Vanderhei instead of Macy (Sigourney Weaver). He looks up to his boss Bill Krogstad (Stephen Root) and idolizes senior salesman Roger Lemke (Thomas Lennon). Well, that is until Roger dies in an auto-erotic asphyxiation accident, leaving Tim to fill in at an important regional conference in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
After his first ride on an airplane, Tim needs to cozy up to Orin Helgesson (Kurtwood Smith), who is primarily responsible for giving out the prestigious Two Diamonds Award that Roger brought home three times in a row. He is also warned to stay away from Dean Ziegler (John C. Reilly), party animal and all around bad influence. So who does Tim end up rooming with? Ziegler of course, along with an affable African American insurance agent Ron Wilkes (Isiah Whitlock Jr). Tim also unwittingly befriends a prostitute, Bree (Alia Shawkat), and is tempted by the charms of another conference attendee, Joan Ostrowski-Fox (Anne Heche).
I went into "Cedar Rapids" trying not to look for similarities to "The Forty-Year-Old Virgin," which also stars a "Daily Show" alum playing a sheltered and naive, but good-natured guy, who finds himself on a journey of self-discovery. This didn't turn out to be much of a problem, because "Cedar Rapids" is so much smaller scale, and has much more limited ambitions. Despite its indie roots, it feels like a very good network sitcom at times. By this I mean that it has a premise centered around a colorful collection of characters, everyone is extremely likable even when they're being jerks to each other, and there is a sense of the whole story existing in this heightened version of reality where the women are all slightly too pretty and the characters from Wisconsin and Minnesota are a tad too folksy. There's even a credits sequence that could function nicely as an ending tag. Cut out the cursing, chop it into quarters, and "Cedar Rapids" could fit in snugly between "30 Rock" and "The Office."
In spite of its limited scope, the film is perfectly pleasant, enjoyable watch, and the performances are a lot of fun. Ed Helms, in his first starring role, proves capable of carrying a picture by himself. Tim Lippe is inexperienced and uninformed rather than repressed or developmentally arrested in any sense, and Helms is great at channeling moments of confusion and hesitation, which are exaggerated, but not too overt. When he encounters Ron, the first African-American Tim has ever met, he panics momentarily, eyes bulging and stonefaced. You can see him mentally processing a lengthy list of unnamed fears before realizing the lovable Ron is a kindred spirit, and letting his guard down. It soon becomes apparent that Tim's defining quality isn't his naivete or innate decency, but his ability to adapt his worldview to new information very quickly. Sometimes he needs to freak out first, though, and when he does Helms really sells it.
The script is great about parsing out good moments to each member of the ensemble. John C. Reilly, whose presence might have overwhelmed the film, instead sees Dean Ziegler's aggressive swaggering undercut by several moments of inspired silliness. Isiah Whitlock Jr gets a running in-joke about "The Wire" that pays off spectacularly. I didn't recognize Anne Heche at first, and I suspect this is her most likable role in ages. Stephen Root and Kutwood Smith are incapable of not being awesome. Even Sigourney Weaver's Macy, with a grand total of two scenes, comes off as a remarkably well-rounded character. I think the only weak link is Bree the prostitute, who probably looked like a good idea on paper, but turns out to be more of a plot contrivance and a loose end. On the other hand, I didn't even notice that she'd disappeared from the last act of the film until well after it was over.
There's no getting around the fact that "Cedar Rapids" is a small film of small pleasures, and though it does nearly everything right, it just doesn't leave much lasting impact. However, my hope is that it will be a stepping stone to better things for everyone involved, especially Ed Helms. He's shown he's capable of much more than filling out the ranks on "The Office," or "The Daily Show," and I look forward to whatever project he lands in next.
---
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Remember, Remember, the 11th of September?
Like everyone else, I've vacillated between periods of wanting to consume more information about September 11th and periods where my stomach tied itself in knots at the very mention of the World Trade Center. My mood may change in the next few days, but right now, I'm not particularly keen on revisiting the tragedy.
And yet, it doesn't feel right to let the occasion pass unremarked, so I've decided to do it early. Get it over with. Like everyone else in the US, I was affected by the events of September 11th and its aftermath. It is one of the few truly epochal events of this generation that I'm never going to forget. I can still remember standing in the living room of the apartment I was sharing with two of my college girlfriends, watching the live news footage on my cranky old rabbit-eared television set, and debating whether or not to skip classes that day. I remember my father calling to say that he'd been evacuated from his office in a Los Angeles high rise, even though the building was two thousand miles away from Manhattan and Washington DC. Just in case.
I remember the media, trying to grapple with the events and the response. I remembered the days and weeks and months that followed, watching round-the-clock news broadcasts until the networks finally returned to regularly programming, some apologizing and explaining that they could no longer afford the continuous emergency coverage. I remember the tribute concerts and the telethons. I remember "Saturday Night Live" and David Letterman returning to the airwaves after lengthy absences. I remember someone sending me a link to Jon Stewart's monologue from the first night "The Daily Show" came back. I wasn't a regular viewer then, but within a few months the show became part of my daily routine. And as an award show fiend even then, I remember the Emmys being moved to November after multiple delays, and a somber Oscars the following February featuring a tribute montage to the City of New York - introduced by longtime Oscar ceremony avoider Woody Allen, no less.
I remember thinking for a little while that I was seeing the media and Hollywood at its best, banding together to offer what comfort it could to millions of grieving Americans. Sure, I rolled my eyes at the corny revised scenes in the following summer's "Spider-Man," and I wasn't happy about the digital erasure of the Twin Towers from movies like "Zoolander," but I also recognized that these were rare signs of sensitivity from an entertainment industry that frequently revels in sensationalism and cynicism. Of course it couldn't last. Within a few months of September 11th, the US was embroiled in one war and about to recklessly dive into a second, using the new War on Terror as justification. FOX News was gaining in prominence, using fearmongering demagoguery to fuel extremist paranoia.
Look back, and you'll see September 11th was the turning point for when this country and its media became more intolerant, isolationist, and close-minded. Suddenly everyone foreign was an enemy if they weren't willing to go along with the Bush administration on their plans for the 2003 Iraq War, even the French. The French! All sympathy for America in the wake of the terrorist attacks evaporated when it became clear that our politicians were going to exploit the tragedy for their own ends. By the time Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" was released in theaters, we were in the middle of an all-out culture war. It reached a nadir during the 2004 presidential elections, when each side seemed determined to convince us that the other was not only untrustworthy, but immoral and dangerous. The media got caught up in it, as they always do, with the 24 hour news cycle asserting itself as the new standard while journalistic integrity took a nose dive. And September 11th rhetoric fueled everything.
The event itself was a nightmare, but the American response to September 11th did far more damage to this country, and that's the part that I'm afraid the newscasters and the pundits will gloss over or sugarcoat in the days to come. That's the part I don't think that I can stand watching. If we must pause and remember those first days of horror and heartbreak and national crisis, that's fine, but it must be in context of everything else that followed. I've written before that I don't think we've reached the point where the American culture can process and compartmentalize the September 11th tragedy or the subsequent wars, because their effects are still ongoing. The anger and paranoia still linger, and may linger for a long time to come. For many of us, I don't think September 11th ever ended, not with the close of the Bush presidency, not with the fall of Saddam Hussein or the death of Osama bin Laden.
Shall we pay tribute to the dead? Of course. Look back on the last ten eventful years of history? Absolutely. It might even be nice to return briefly to that moment when the news media was trying to comfort instead of enrage us. I'm not so inclined, however, to to memorialize a tragedy that I still can't see the end of.
---
And yet, it doesn't feel right to let the occasion pass unremarked, so I've decided to do it early. Get it over with. Like everyone else in the US, I was affected by the events of September 11th and its aftermath. It is one of the few truly epochal events of this generation that I'm never going to forget. I can still remember standing in the living room of the apartment I was sharing with two of my college girlfriends, watching the live news footage on my cranky old rabbit-eared television set, and debating whether or not to skip classes that day. I remember my father calling to say that he'd been evacuated from his office in a Los Angeles high rise, even though the building was two thousand miles away from Manhattan and Washington DC. Just in case.
I remember the media, trying to grapple with the events and the response. I remembered the days and weeks and months that followed, watching round-the-clock news broadcasts until the networks finally returned to regularly programming, some apologizing and explaining that they could no longer afford the continuous emergency coverage. I remember the tribute concerts and the telethons. I remember "Saturday Night Live" and David Letterman returning to the airwaves after lengthy absences. I remember someone sending me a link to Jon Stewart's monologue from the first night "The Daily Show" came back. I wasn't a regular viewer then, but within a few months the show became part of my daily routine. And as an award show fiend even then, I remember the Emmys being moved to November after multiple delays, and a somber Oscars the following February featuring a tribute montage to the City of New York - introduced by longtime Oscar ceremony avoider Woody Allen, no less.
I remember thinking for a little while that I was seeing the media and Hollywood at its best, banding together to offer what comfort it could to millions of grieving Americans. Sure, I rolled my eyes at the corny revised scenes in the following summer's "Spider-Man," and I wasn't happy about the digital erasure of the Twin Towers from movies like "Zoolander," but I also recognized that these were rare signs of sensitivity from an entertainment industry that frequently revels in sensationalism and cynicism. Of course it couldn't last. Within a few months of September 11th, the US was embroiled in one war and about to recklessly dive into a second, using the new War on Terror as justification. FOX News was gaining in prominence, using fearmongering demagoguery to fuel extremist paranoia.
Look back, and you'll see September 11th was the turning point for when this country and its media became more intolerant, isolationist, and close-minded. Suddenly everyone foreign was an enemy if they weren't willing to go along with the Bush administration on their plans for the 2003 Iraq War, even the French. The French! All sympathy for America in the wake of the terrorist attacks evaporated when it became clear that our politicians were going to exploit the tragedy for their own ends. By the time Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" was released in theaters, we were in the middle of an all-out culture war. It reached a nadir during the 2004 presidential elections, when each side seemed determined to convince us that the other was not only untrustworthy, but immoral and dangerous. The media got caught up in it, as they always do, with the 24 hour news cycle asserting itself as the new standard while journalistic integrity took a nose dive. And September 11th rhetoric fueled everything.
The event itself was a nightmare, but the American response to September 11th did far more damage to this country, and that's the part that I'm afraid the newscasters and the pundits will gloss over or sugarcoat in the days to come. That's the part I don't think that I can stand watching. If we must pause and remember those first days of horror and heartbreak and national crisis, that's fine, but it must be in context of everything else that followed. I've written before that I don't think we've reached the point where the American culture can process and compartmentalize the September 11th tragedy or the subsequent wars, because their effects are still ongoing. The anger and paranoia still linger, and may linger for a long time to come. For many of us, I don't think September 11th ever ended, not with the close of the Bush presidency, not with the fall of Saddam Hussein or the death of Osama bin Laden.
Shall we pay tribute to the dead? Of course. Look back on the last ten eventful years of history? Absolutely. It might even be nice to return briefly to that moment when the news media was trying to comfort instead of enrage us. I'm not so inclined, however, to to memorialize a tragedy that I still can't see the end of.
---
Monday, September 5, 2011
2011 Summer Wrap-Up
It's Labor Day, and the 2011 summer movie season is over. I didn't get out to theaters nearly as much as I wanted to, and I wound up skipping a lot of the bigger franchise films like "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "Cars 2" in favor of smaller films like "Midnight in Paris." I'm not sure if I should be writing a wrap-up post like this since I only saw about a dozen films this summer in total, and not a single comedy or horror film. However, perceptions are everything and I've been keeping up with the box office reports and Monday morning quarterbacking, so I've got a good sense of which films have been considered hits and which are flops. Overall, this has certainly been a better year than 2010 for summer movies, but there have also been some notable misfires and interesting wrinkles. Let's take a look at this year by its biggest trends. One quick note - I'm not covering the superhero films in this post, but I wrote up an entire blog entry about them over here.
The Sequels - The great big franchises certainly made money, but there's been a distinct sense of diminishing returns with the majority of them. "Transformers," "Cars," "Kung-Fu Panda," "X-Men," "The Hangover," "Spy Kids," and "Final Destination" all turned in new installments that didn't do as well as the previous ones. Three that broke the trend were "Fast Five," "The Rise of the Planet of the Apes," and the final "Harry Potter" film, which were all among the better liked and better reviewed films of the summer. I was pleasantly surprised by "X-Men: First Class" and knew "Transformers 3" was inevitable, but there were several weeks where all the reviewers seemed to lament over totally unnecessary sequels like "Pirates 4" and "Cars 2." It became a running joke that "The Hangover Part II" was exactly the same as the first one.
Falling Stars - Who would have thought fifteen years ago that Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts wouldn't be able to drive "Larry Crowne" to the top of the box office charts? Or that Jim Carrey would flop so badly with "Mr. Popper's Penguins"? You might argue that both films were widely panned, but that wouldn't have stopped a movie star with any real clout back in the day. Even more significant than the drop in movie star fortunes has been the inability of directors like J.J. Abrams and Jon Favreau to turn "Super 8" and "Cowboys & Aliens" into blockbusters based on their names alone, even with Steven Spielberg lending producer credits to both. "Super 8," is a decent film, and has made a healthy profit, but it's not nearly as big as many were hoping it would be. "Cowboys & Aliens," sadly, was a waste of everyone's time.
Women and Kids - "Bridesmaids" and "Bad Teacher" made women in comedy hot commodities. Meanwhile, softer romantic-comedies like "Something Borrowed," "Friends with Benefits" and "Crazy, Stupid, Love" did moderately well despite staying under the radar. The biggest hit driven by female audiences, though, may well end up being "The Help," one of those August surprises that's just kept going and going. After four weeks of release, it's predicted to be at the top of the box office again for Labor Day, and has left a trail of high-profile busts like "Fright Night," "Conan," and "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" in its wake. Meanwhile, never count out a kid-friendly animated film. After a spring season dominated by "Rio" and "Hop," we shouldn't have been surprised when "The Smurfs," despite awful reviews, drew hordes of kids into the theaters.
The Encroaching Art House - The best films I saw this summer were limited releases, namely "The Tree of Life" and "Midnight in Paris." I've also generated a "to watch" list of other art house offerings as long as my arm, titles that I wish I could have swapped out with some of the mainstream releases: "The Guard," "Attack the Block," "The Devil's Double," "Another Earth," "Beginners," "The Whistleblower" and lots of documentaries. What struck me about so many of the art house films is that we're seeing more genre and mainstream-friendly entries. The line between the studio and indie content is getting blurrier, especially when you look at the glut of cheap studio pictures dumped in theaters during the late August weeks.
Overall, I think this has been a summer of reduced expectations and less risk taking. The studios have been staunchly sticking to the reboots and sequels in greater numbers than ever before. I wrote off many of these before I saw them, but to their credit, many wound up surprising me. At the same time, several films with original premises that I was anticipating, like Jon Favreau's "Cowboys & Aliens," turned out to be terrible. Old standbys like PIXAR proved to be fallible. There's was really no way to predict what was going to work and connect with audiences and what wouldn't. If nothing else, it was an exciting summer and one that got me to reevaluate some long-held assumptions.
Next year may be one for the ages with "The Dark Knight Rises," "The Avengers," "Brave," the "Alien" prequel "Prometheus," and many more. But first, dust off the pretentious cineaste hats. It's festival season again, and the awards races are just around the corner.
---
The Sequels - The great big franchises certainly made money, but there's been a distinct sense of diminishing returns with the majority of them. "Transformers," "Cars," "Kung-Fu Panda," "X-Men," "The Hangover," "Spy Kids," and "Final Destination" all turned in new installments that didn't do as well as the previous ones. Three that broke the trend were "Fast Five," "The Rise of the Planet of the Apes," and the final "Harry Potter" film, which were all among the better liked and better reviewed films of the summer. I was pleasantly surprised by "X-Men: First Class" and knew "Transformers 3" was inevitable, but there were several weeks where all the reviewers seemed to lament over totally unnecessary sequels like "Pirates 4" and "Cars 2." It became a running joke that "The Hangover Part II" was exactly the same as the first one.
Falling Stars - Who would have thought fifteen years ago that Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts wouldn't be able to drive "Larry Crowne" to the top of the box office charts? Or that Jim Carrey would flop so badly with "Mr. Popper's Penguins"? You might argue that both films were widely panned, but that wouldn't have stopped a movie star with any real clout back in the day. Even more significant than the drop in movie star fortunes has been the inability of directors like J.J. Abrams and Jon Favreau to turn "Super 8" and "Cowboys & Aliens" into blockbusters based on their names alone, even with Steven Spielberg lending producer credits to both. "Super 8," is a decent film, and has made a healthy profit, but it's not nearly as big as many were hoping it would be. "Cowboys & Aliens," sadly, was a waste of everyone's time.
Women and Kids - "Bridesmaids" and "Bad Teacher" made women in comedy hot commodities. Meanwhile, softer romantic-comedies like "Something Borrowed," "Friends with Benefits" and "Crazy, Stupid, Love" did moderately well despite staying under the radar. The biggest hit driven by female audiences, though, may well end up being "The Help," one of those August surprises that's just kept going and going. After four weeks of release, it's predicted to be at the top of the box office again for Labor Day, and has left a trail of high-profile busts like "Fright Night," "Conan," and "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" in its wake. Meanwhile, never count out a kid-friendly animated film. After a spring season dominated by "Rio" and "Hop," we shouldn't have been surprised when "The Smurfs," despite awful reviews, drew hordes of kids into the theaters.
The Encroaching Art House - The best films I saw this summer were limited releases, namely "The Tree of Life" and "Midnight in Paris." I've also generated a "to watch" list of other art house offerings as long as my arm, titles that I wish I could have swapped out with some of the mainstream releases: "The Guard," "Attack the Block," "The Devil's Double," "Another Earth," "Beginners," "The Whistleblower" and lots of documentaries. What struck me about so many of the art house films is that we're seeing more genre and mainstream-friendly entries. The line between the studio and indie content is getting blurrier, especially when you look at the glut of cheap studio pictures dumped in theaters during the late August weeks.
Overall, I think this has been a summer of reduced expectations and less risk taking. The studios have been staunchly sticking to the reboots and sequels in greater numbers than ever before. I wrote off many of these before I saw them, but to their credit, many wound up surprising me. At the same time, several films with original premises that I was anticipating, like Jon Favreau's "Cowboys & Aliens," turned out to be terrible. Old standbys like PIXAR proved to be fallible. There's was really no way to predict what was going to work and connect with audiences and what wouldn't. If nothing else, it was an exciting summer and one that got me to reevaluate some long-held assumptions.
Next year may be one for the ages with "The Dark Knight Rises," "The Avengers," "Brave," the "Alien" prequel "Prometheus," and many more. But first, dust off the pretentious cineaste hats. It's festival season again, and the awards races are just around the corner.
---
Sunday, September 4, 2011
George Lucas is At It Again
It's like hearing a new verse of an old familiar song. The "Star Wars" movies are being released to a new format, Blu-Ray. We'll be getting some new extras that the hardcore fans have been looking forward to, as well as better quality picture, sound and presentation. On the other hand, it's come out that George Lucas has been tinkering with them again. The puppet Yoda from "The Phantom Menace" will be swapped out for a digital version. Darth Vader is getting new lines in the most climactic scene of "Return of the Jedi." There are other, subtler changes rumored, such as blinking Ewoks, beefed up Krayt dragon calls, and more color-changing lightsabres. And once again, some "Star Wars" fans are outraged, some are defending George Lucas's right to edit the films how he likes, and some are scolding both for caring so much about a couple of space-cowboy shoot-em-ups.
As I've mentioned before, I'm generally on the side of the purists who would prefer that Lucas leave the existing films alone, aside from some basic restoration. However, there's nothing wrong with him creating new versions as long as he makes it clear to potential buyers that they're not getting the original "Star Wars" movies. Director's cuts and special editions are a very common marketing tactic, and Lucas is not the only one who has withheld the original theatrical cuts of his movies in favor of pushing new and improved ones. Disney made edits to several of their Renaissance era animated films, including "The Lion King" and "Beauty and the Beast" for Special Editions. Though less noticeable than Lucas's alterations to "Star Wars," the current official versions of these Disney films are not the ones that played in theaters. In fact, the unaltered originals have never been released on DVD.
The concern for fans and film lovers is maintaining access to the older versions of these films. The first "Star Wars" film in particular is such an important piece of cinema historically, artistically, and culturally, it has long been recognized to have considerable value beyond the simply commercial. In 1989, it was among the first films to be preserved by the National Film Registry, and "The Empire Strikes Back" followed in 2010. After the release of the Special Editions of the first "Star Wars" trilogy in 1997, however, Lucasfilm seemed determined to replace the original versions of the films with the altered ones, and for several years the theatrical versions were not shown on TV, not screened for the public in any setting, and were unavailable except on VHS after 1995.
However, Lucasfilm did eventually release the original theatrical cuts on DVD in 2006, after the "Star Wars" fan base made their displeasure clear. George Lucas may be stubborn about treating the new versions of the "Star Wars" films as the definitive ones, but he's not stupid. So I expect that Lucasfilm will probably release the unedited theatrical versions of the "Star Wars" films on Blu-Ray if there proves to be enough demand for them in the future. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the current controversy was planned - Lucas baits his older fans with yet more edits, which generate publicity and press, which generate disc sales, and after all the hubbub has died down he'll give the purists exactly what they want, just like last time. When the films are transitioned to the next new format, be it an intangible digital file or something else, we'll probably see the cycle repeat itself again.
I'm not happy that George Lucas has chosen to expend so much of his time and energy on continuously improving and revamping these few existing films. However, I can think of a few benefits to the way "Star Wars" has been handled so far. For one thing, with Lucas continuously updating the specials effects, there is much less of an incentive for others to try to remake the first "Star Wars" trilogy, which is a prime piece of nostalgia that the reboot-obsessed studios would probably love to pounce on. Also, the first "Star Wars" is quickly approaching its 35th anniversary, and no matter how much the original fans love it, the visuals have become dated and thus less accessible to the current generation of kids who like CGI-slathered summer blockbusters. I see no reason why there shouldn't be different versions with continuously updated effects.
In his own way, Lucas's actions have probably drastically improved the longevity of the original trilogy. So he wants to make 3D versions next to draw in new audiences? As long as the originals are still around for us creaky old geezer fans, bring it on.
---
As I've mentioned before, I'm generally on the side of the purists who would prefer that Lucas leave the existing films alone, aside from some basic restoration. However, there's nothing wrong with him creating new versions as long as he makes it clear to potential buyers that they're not getting the original "Star Wars" movies. Director's cuts and special editions are a very common marketing tactic, and Lucas is not the only one who has withheld the original theatrical cuts of his movies in favor of pushing new and improved ones. Disney made edits to several of their Renaissance era animated films, including "The Lion King" and "Beauty and the Beast" for Special Editions. Though less noticeable than Lucas's alterations to "Star Wars," the current official versions of these Disney films are not the ones that played in theaters. In fact, the unaltered originals have never been released on DVD.
The concern for fans and film lovers is maintaining access to the older versions of these films. The first "Star Wars" film in particular is such an important piece of cinema historically, artistically, and culturally, it has long been recognized to have considerable value beyond the simply commercial. In 1989, it was among the first films to be preserved by the National Film Registry, and "The Empire Strikes Back" followed in 2010. After the release of the Special Editions of the first "Star Wars" trilogy in 1997, however, Lucasfilm seemed determined to replace the original versions of the films with the altered ones, and for several years the theatrical versions were not shown on TV, not screened for the public in any setting, and were unavailable except on VHS after 1995.
However, Lucasfilm did eventually release the original theatrical cuts on DVD in 2006, after the "Star Wars" fan base made their displeasure clear. George Lucas may be stubborn about treating the new versions of the "Star Wars" films as the definitive ones, but he's not stupid. So I expect that Lucasfilm will probably release the unedited theatrical versions of the "Star Wars" films on Blu-Ray if there proves to be enough demand for them in the future. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the current controversy was planned - Lucas baits his older fans with yet more edits, which generate publicity and press, which generate disc sales, and after all the hubbub has died down he'll give the purists exactly what they want, just like last time. When the films are transitioned to the next new format, be it an intangible digital file or something else, we'll probably see the cycle repeat itself again.
I'm not happy that George Lucas has chosen to expend so much of his time and energy on continuously improving and revamping these few existing films. However, I can think of a few benefits to the way "Star Wars" has been handled so far. For one thing, with Lucas continuously updating the specials effects, there is much less of an incentive for others to try to remake the first "Star Wars" trilogy, which is a prime piece of nostalgia that the reboot-obsessed studios would probably love to pounce on. Also, the first "Star Wars" is quickly approaching its 35th anniversary, and no matter how much the original fans love it, the visuals have become dated and thus less accessible to the current generation of kids who like CGI-slathered summer blockbusters. I see no reason why there shouldn't be different versions with continuously updated effects.
In his own way, Lucas's actions have probably drastically improved the longevity of the original trilogy. So he wants to make 3D versions next to draw in new audiences? As long as the originals are still around for us creaky old geezer fans, bring it on.
---
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Starship Memories
When I was growing up in the 80s and 90s, TV shows about traveling the stars in search of trouble were all the rage thanks to the success of the multiple "Star Trek" spinoffs. It stood to reason that if you were in space, you had to have a ship or vessel of some sort, to be able to provide artificial gravity and a breathable atmosphere. No wonder then, that starships and space stations have been so iconic in science-fiction, and many shared names with the television shows and movies they appeared in. Enterprise. Serenity. Red Dwarf. Babylon Five. Deep Space Nine. Voyager. Battlestar Galactica. Bebop. LEXX. Yamato. Andromeda. And they always made for such great visuals, soaring through star fields and nebulas, or blowing up lesser spacecraft not worthy of headlining their own shows.
Now it's 2011 and genre shows have gained in popularity while the price tag for CGI effects have come down considerably. But look around the current television landscape, and there's not a starship or space station show in sight. Syfy's "Stargate Universe" and ABC's "V" were the last ones to spend any significant amount of their airtime away from Earth. The new "Battlestar Galactica," the last big hit for the genre, ended in 2009. "Futurama" still has the Planet Express delivery ship, the UK's "Doctor Who" has his TARDIS, and there are always a few cartoons and anime with a spiffy new spaceworthy vehicle in tow, but the age of the space-based adventure show largely seems to have ended.
During the 90s, I thought that the glut of space adventure shows got a little out of hand, with two "Star Trek" series on the air simultaneously (three if you count the endless "Next Generation" reruns), plus "Babylon 5" and a handful of other syndicated programs. All of science-fiction media tended to get lumped in with them for a while as a result, and I admit I got a little tired of starships. However, I never thought they would disappear to this extent, and I honestly think we're worse off without them. Nearly all the "Star Trek" shows and their imitators were incredibly aspirational, presenting a vision of the future where mankind had largely overcome superficial differences to explore the stars together. Following the lead of the original "Star Trek," they were often the most diversely cast programs on television and would tackle social issues and difficult topics through broader alien encounter parables.
So why have all the starships disappeared? I guess the shows that featured them remain emblematic of a certain period of science-fiction television that was considered more niche and more geek-oriented. While every show I've listed had their loyal audiences, I don't think any of them except perhaps "Star Trek: The Next Generation" at its height, could match the ratings being generated by a "Lost" or a "Heroes" airing on American network television. Softer science-fiction has become accepted as more palatable to the mainstream. So instead of space operas, there are paranormal, supernatural, time travel, and superhero shows in abundance. Also, I've noticed a certain air of pessimism has permeated recent science-fiction, possibly mirroring recent cultural shifts. We're far more likely to see global apocalypses and disaster scenarios these days than visions of utopian human societies. Maybe we're just not in the mood for stargazing.
You have to wonder if it's a coincidence that NASA's shuttle program recently ended, signaling a loss of interest in the space race. It's sad that an era of American space travel has come to a close, but I find it troubling that traveling the stars doesn't even figure into our escapist mass media fantasies anymore. Probably the only subgenre of spacefaring television shows that have increased in popularity recently have been the ones featuring alien invasions like "V" and "Falling Skies." However the way things are going, it seems unlikely that Earthlings will be willing to take the fight to the motherships and home planets any time soon.
But then again, Syfy is going to give another "Battlestar Galactica" spinoff a chance, a prequel about a young Adama titled "Blood and Chrome." And Paramount is sure to launch another "Star Trek" television series soon, especially in light of the success of the 2009 film reboot. And J. Michael Straczynski is intent on recapturing the rights to "Babylon 5." And those crazy "Firefly" fans just can't seem to take no for an answer. It might take a while, but the starships and space stations will find their way back to television eventually. After all, if they ever want to make more hopeful shows about life beyond Earth again, they'll need some transport first.
---
Now it's 2011 and genre shows have gained in popularity while the price tag for CGI effects have come down considerably. But look around the current television landscape, and there's not a starship or space station show in sight. Syfy's "Stargate Universe" and ABC's "V" were the last ones to spend any significant amount of their airtime away from Earth. The new "Battlestar Galactica," the last big hit for the genre, ended in 2009. "Futurama" still has the Planet Express delivery ship, the UK's "Doctor Who" has his TARDIS, and there are always a few cartoons and anime with a spiffy new spaceworthy vehicle in tow, but the age of the space-based adventure show largely seems to have ended.
During the 90s, I thought that the glut of space adventure shows got a little out of hand, with two "Star Trek" series on the air simultaneously (three if you count the endless "Next Generation" reruns), plus "Babylon 5" and a handful of other syndicated programs. All of science-fiction media tended to get lumped in with them for a while as a result, and I admit I got a little tired of starships. However, I never thought they would disappear to this extent, and I honestly think we're worse off without them. Nearly all the "Star Trek" shows and their imitators were incredibly aspirational, presenting a vision of the future where mankind had largely overcome superficial differences to explore the stars together. Following the lead of the original "Star Trek," they were often the most diversely cast programs on television and would tackle social issues and difficult topics through broader alien encounter parables.
So why have all the starships disappeared? I guess the shows that featured them remain emblematic of a certain period of science-fiction television that was considered more niche and more geek-oriented. While every show I've listed had their loyal audiences, I don't think any of them except perhaps "Star Trek: The Next Generation" at its height, could match the ratings being generated by a "Lost" or a "Heroes" airing on American network television. Softer science-fiction has become accepted as more palatable to the mainstream. So instead of space operas, there are paranormal, supernatural, time travel, and superhero shows in abundance. Also, I've noticed a certain air of pessimism has permeated recent science-fiction, possibly mirroring recent cultural shifts. We're far more likely to see global apocalypses and disaster scenarios these days than visions of utopian human societies. Maybe we're just not in the mood for stargazing.
You have to wonder if it's a coincidence that NASA's shuttle program recently ended, signaling a loss of interest in the space race. It's sad that an era of American space travel has come to a close, but I find it troubling that traveling the stars doesn't even figure into our escapist mass media fantasies anymore. Probably the only subgenre of spacefaring television shows that have increased in popularity recently have been the ones featuring alien invasions like "V" and "Falling Skies." However the way things are going, it seems unlikely that Earthlings will be willing to take the fight to the motherships and home planets any time soon.
But then again, Syfy is going to give another "Battlestar Galactica" spinoff a chance, a prequel about a young Adama titled "Blood and Chrome." And Paramount is sure to launch another "Star Trek" television series soon, especially in light of the success of the 2009 film reboot. And J. Michael Straczynski is intent on recapturing the rights to "Babylon 5." And those crazy "Firefly" fans just can't seem to take no for an answer. It might take a while, but the starships and space stations will find their way back to television eventually. After all, if they ever want to make more hopeful shows about life beyond Earth again, they'll need some transport first.
---
Friday, September 2, 2011
The September Follow-Up Post
It's that time again. There have been recent developments regarding several topics I've blogged about in the past few months, that I thought could do with some additional notes and commentary, but didn't warrant a whole new write-up to themselves. The original posts are linked below for your convenience.
Would You Use Movie Pass? - It's baaaaack! After the scrapped Bay Area test run a few months ago, the MoviePass service has rustled up a new partner in Hollywood Movie Money, and is going to try another limited roll out of its subscription theatergoing service in a few weeks. Among other new details, the monthly cost won't be $50 for everyone, as initially reported, but will vary depending on the cost of movie tickets in your area. That should make the reluctant theater chains a little less reluctant, though there's probably still going to be considerable resistance to this scheme. I still think MoviePass is a promising idea, and I'll be rooting for them.
2012 May be DiCaprio's Year - DiCaprio is still on track to appear as the baddie in Quentin Tarantino's "Django Unchained," but it looks like he'll be taking on the lead role in Martin Scorsese's remake of "The Gambler" instead of Clint Eastwood's remake of "A Star is Born" after that. The latter film is going to face significant delays regardless, because of female lead Beyoncé Knowles' recently revealed pregnancy. That may mean that 2012 will be the first year in recent memory where we won't have a new film from Clint Eastwood. As for "The Gambler," I never saw the original with James Caan, but this sounds like exactly the kind of challenging dramatic role that DiCaprio has gotten so good at - and that I wish he'd take a break from.
Oh PIXAR, Say It Ain't So - Breath a sigh of relief, PIXAR fans. At the recent D23 Disney fan convention, two new PIXAR films were announced, both original projects. First in 2013, we'll get "The Untitled PIXAR Movie About Dinosaurs" (see the delightful logo here), which will speculate as to what the world might look like if dinosaurs hadn't become extinct. Peter Doctor, the director of "Monsters Inc," is working on a movie slated for the following summer that will explore the "world inside the human mind," which is a pretty vague description but an intriguing one. The important thing is that it appears that PIXAR's recent spate of sequel-itis was only temporary, and the studio is getting back to the business of creating new properties instead of simply exploiting its old ones.
Casting Katniss - The MTV Video Music Awards premiered the first bit of teaser footage of next year's film adaptation of "The Hunger Games." It didn't really show us much except Jennifer Lawrence in costume as Katniss Everdeen stalking through a forest with a bow and arrow. I thought it was actually a pretty poor piece of promotional material, since it doesn't properly explain the premise or give you anything interesting to look at. That didn't stop entertainment writers from offering analysis of its minutuae as usual. However, the clip does show that Lionsgate is very serious about pushing "The Hunger Games" as the next big new fantasy franchise. Things are looking up for the studio, especially since Carl Icahn finally gave up his takeover attempts a few days ago.
DirecTV's New Bet on Video On Demand - This one just makes me laugh. The premium video-on-demand (VOD) service that had theater owners so incensed was finally launched back in April on DirecTV. The results have been awful. It turns out that next to nobody wants to spend $30 to watch a new-ish release on pay-per-view before it hits DVD. In the middle of a recession, who on earth has the kind of money these days? Oh right, the studio executives who thought this was such a great idea in the first place. Experimentation with early VOD continues, however. The upcoming Taylor Lautner film "Abduction" will be the next test, which will be made available later than the DirecTV offerings, but still a month before the DVD premier, and cost a much more reasonable $7-8 per viewing.
Where Did All the Stephen King Adaptations Go? - Well, it looks like "The Dark Tower" project has stalled for the time being, but it was recently annouced that Steven Spielberg will be producing that Dreamworks adaptation of "Under the Dome" for Showtime, possibly as a full series instead of a miniseries. I don't know how long you could really sustain the premise of a town trapped under an invisible dome, but who knows? And a team-up of Spielberg and King is definitely something to get excited about.
Nuts, Netflix! - Well now we know what they needed the money for - to try to convince a reluctant Starz to renew their content deal. Despite Netflix offering ten times the price they were currently paying, Starz called it quits over Netflix's refusal to impose a new pricing structure that would have charged viewers additional fees to access their content. It's still to early to say how much this will affect Netflix, but it may be a major blow.
'Til next time.
---
Would You Use Movie Pass? - It's baaaaack! After the scrapped Bay Area test run a few months ago, the MoviePass service has rustled up a new partner in Hollywood Movie Money, and is going to try another limited roll out of its subscription theatergoing service in a few weeks. Among other new details, the monthly cost won't be $50 for everyone, as initially reported, but will vary depending on the cost of movie tickets in your area. That should make the reluctant theater chains a little less reluctant, though there's probably still going to be considerable resistance to this scheme. I still think MoviePass is a promising idea, and I'll be rooting for them.
2012 May be DiCaprio's Year - DiCaprio is still on track to appear as the baddie in Quentin Tarantino's "Django Unchained," but it looks like he'll be taking on the lead role in Martin Scorsese's remake of "The Gambler" instead of Clint Eastwood's remake of "A Star is Born" after that. The latter film is going to face significant delays regardless, because of female lead Beyoncé Knowles' recently revealed pregnancy. That may mean that 2012 will be the first year in recent memory where we won't have a new film from Clint Eastwood. As for "The Gambler," I never saw the original with James Caan, but this sounds like exactly the kind of challenging dramatic role that DiCaprio has gotten so good at - and that I wish he'd take a break from.
Oh PIXAR, Say It Ain't So - Breath a sigh of relief, PIXAR fans. At the recent D23 Disney fan convention, two new PIXAR films were announced, both original projects. First in 2013, we'll get "The Untitled PIXAR Movie About Dinosaurs" (see the delightful logo here), which will speculate as to what the world might look like if dinosaurs hadn't become extinct. Peter Doctor, the director of "Monsters Inc," is working on a movie slated for the following summer that will explore the "world inside the human mind," which is a pretty vague description but an intriguing one. The important thing is that it appears that PIXAR's recent spate of sequel-itis was only temporary, and the studio is getting back to the business of creating new properties instead of simply exploiting its old ones.
Casting Katniss - The MTV Video Music Awards premiered the first bit of teaser footage of next year's film adaptation of "The Hunger Games." It didn't really show us much except Jennifer Lawrence in costume as Katniss Everdeen stalking through a forest with a bow and arrow. I thought it was actually a pretty poor piece of promotional material, since it doesn't properly explain the premise or give you anything interesting to look at. That didn't stop entertainment writers from offering analysis of its minutuae as usual. However, the clip does show that Lionsgate is very serious about pushing "The Hunger Games" as the next big new fantasy franchise. Things are looking up for the studio, especially since Carl Icahn finally gave up his takeover attempts a few days ago.
DirecTV's New Bet on Video On Demand - This one just makes me laugh. The premium video-on-demand (VOD) service that had theater owners so incensed was finally launched back in April on DirecTV. The results have been awful. It turns out that next to nobody wants to spend $30 to watch a new-ish release on pay-per-view before it hits DVD. In the middle of a recession, who on earth has the kind of money these days? Oh right, the studio executives who thought this was such a great idea in the first place. Experimentation with early VOD continues, however. The upcoming Taylor Lautner film "Abduction" will be the next test, which will be made available later than the DirecTV offerings, but still a month before the DVD premier, and cost a much more reasonable $7-8 per viewing.
Where Did All the Stephen King Adaptations Go? - Well, it looks like "The Dark Tower" project has stalled for the time being, but it was recently annouced that Steven Spielberg will be producing that Dreamworks adaptation of "Under the Dome" for Showtime, possibly as a full series instead of a miniseries. I don't know how long you could really sustain the premise of a town trapped under an invisible dome, but who knows? And a team-up of Spielberg and King is definitely something to get excited about.
Nuts, Netflix! - Well now we know what they needed the money for - to try to convince a reluctant Starz to renew their content deal. Despite Netflix offering ten times the price they were currently paying, Starz called it quits over Netflix's refusal to impose a new pricing structure that would have charged viewers additional fees to access their content. It's still to early to say how much this will affect Netflix, but it may be a major blow.
'Til next time.
---
Thursday, September 1, 2011
In Praise of Alice Morgan
Finished off the first series of "Luther" last night, which was a blast and everything that I hoped it would be. The show broke from police procedural formula in its final hours and became a character-based thriller, capped off by one of the best cliffhanger endings I think I've ever seen on television. Idris Elba and Steven Mackintosh gave impressive performances, and I finally recognized the familiar actor playing Mark North. However, in the end my favorite character was still the serial killer Alice Morgan, played by Ruth Wilson, not only becase Wilson is so good in the role, but because of the kind of role Alice Morgan is. Some spoilers ahead, up through the third episode of "Luther."
There have always been likable psychopaths, most notably Hannibal Lecter and occasionally Professor Moriarty. We know that they're terribly evil people, and yet they are so intelligent and so genial in their villainy, we appreciate them even as we abhor them. However these characters are almost never female, because the female killer tends to have her own set of tropes and cliches. Most involve a high degree of emotional disturbance or mental instability that make them more pitiable than impressive. And when they're not being overrun by their own worst impulses, female villains tend to be utterly cold, cruel, vindictive, and mean. Many follow the Nurse Ratched model of an asexual, matronly authority figure gone bad.
So you rarely see a villainess like Alice Morgan, who is not only entirely self-possessed and accepting if her own nature as a killer, but enjoys it in such a way that allows the audience to enjoy it too. She's also a younger woman, attractive, and has considerable charisma. Though Alice initially seems totally lacking in empathy, it's revealed that she can be quite emotional and form strong attachments. When she gets upset, she doesn't lose her temper or go into histrionics, but expresses herself in more thoughtful and deliberate ways. She can even show affection in her own twisted fashion. Above all, Alice is keenly observant and intelligent, a scientist trying to see what makes human beings tick, specifically what makes John Luther tick. She's over the top evil, clearly an entirely fantastic creation, but not so much so that she ever seems too unlikely to exist.
Ruth Wilson walks a fine line between creepiness and charm as Alice, initially an antagonist to John Luther before slowly befriending him against his will. It's a fascinating relationship we see forming over multiple episodes, and I had no idea where it was going to go. Would Alice become a love interest? Was this all part of a larger cat-and-mouse game? When push came to shove, would she turn on him? There was never a moment where it was suggested she would ever be reformed, which I appreciated. It's laughable that you could reform Hannibal Lecter, and that goes for Alice Morgan too. Every time it seemed that she was behaving too normally for too long, out came the wicked grin and the predatory gaze, and you knew she was absolutely up to no good.
I also like the way the character was used in "Luther." In a series that is all about a morally ambiguous hero trying to stay on the side of angels, Alice becomes the devil on his shoulder instead of an ultimate villain to defeat. Another reason why I put Alice in the company of Moriarty and Hannibal Lecter is because she operates on the same level as John Luther, making her a proper adversary for him rather than a simple target. Their ongoing conflict just happens to be a tug-of-war over Luther's moral fiber, rather than the usual business of trying to catch or kill one another. By becoming his ally and confidante, Alice is actually a greater danger to Luther than if she was simply one of the criminals he chases. They may yet get into a showdown in the future, but neither side seems too eager for that to happen at the end of the first series.
Why haven't we had more of these cerebral villainesses? I've seen a lot of female antagonists driven by jealousy, revenge, psychosis, or a man is in control behind the scenes. Occasionally you'll get a power-hungry manipulator or two, but never a pure serial killer of Alice Morgan's caliber. Trying to think of similar characters, they best I could come up with was the Borg Queen from "Star Trek: First Contact," another very lethal monster of great power and intelligence with her own brand of womanly wiles. I'm not calling for gender parity among criminal masterminds, but surely there should be more of these villainesses out there in TV land, especially considering the sheer number of police procedurals and caper shows that have flourished in recent years.
Alice Morgan is so much fun and breaks so many tropes and is so good at being bad - I guess I just don't understand why it took so long for a character like her to show up on television.
---
There have always been likable psychopaths, most notably Hannibal Lecter and occasionally Professor Moriarty. We know that they're terribly evil people, and yet they are so intelligent and so genial in their villainy, we appreciate them even as we abhor them. However these characters are almost never female, because the female killer tends to have her own set of tropes and cliches. Most involve a high degree of emotional disturbance or mental instability that make them more pitiable than impressive. And when they're not being overrun by their own worst impulses, female villains tend to be utterly cold, cruel, vindictive, and mean. Many follow the Nurse Ratched model of an asexual, matronly authority figure gone bad.
So you rarely see a villainess like Alice Morgan, who is not only entirely self-possessed and accepting if her own nature as a killer, but enjoys it in such a way that allows the audience to enjoy it too. She's also a younger woman, attractive, and has considerable charisma. Though Alice initially seems totally lacking in empathy, it's revealed that she can be quite emotional and form strong attachments. When she gets upset, she doesn't lose her temper or go into histrionics, but expresses herself in more thoughtful and deliberate ways. She can even show affection in her own twisted fashion. Above all, Alice is keenly observant and intelligent, a scientist trying to see what makes human beings tick, specifically what makes John Luther tick. She's over the top evil, clearly an entirely fantastic creation, but not so much so that she ever seems too unlikely to exist.
Ruth Wilson walks a fine line between creepiness and charm as Alice, initially an antagonist to John Luther before slowly befriending him against his will. It's a fascinating relationship we see forming over multiple episodes, and I had no idea where it was going to go. Would Alice become a love interest? Was this all part of a larger cat-and-mouse game? When push came to shove, would she turn on him? There was never a moment where it was suggested she would ever be reformed, which I appreciated. It's laughable that you could reform Hannibal Lecter, and that goes for Alice Morgan too. Every time it seemed that she was behaving too normally for too long, out came the wicked grin and the predatory gaze, and you knew she was absolutely up to no good.
I also like the way the character was used in "Luther." In a series that is all about a morally ambiguous hero trying to stay on the side of angels, Alice becomes the devil on his shoulder instead of an ultimate villain to defeat. Another reason why I put Alice in the company of Moriarty and Hannibal Lecter is because she operates on the same level as John Luther, making her a proper adversary for him rather than a simple target. Their ongoing conflict just happens to be a tug-of-war over Luther's moral fiber, rather than the usual business of trying to catch or kill one another. By becoming his ally and confidante, Alice is actually a greater danger to Luther than if she was simply one of the criminals he chases. They may yet get into a showdown in the future, but neither side seems too eager for that to happen at the end of the first series.
Why haven't we had more of these cerebral villainesses? I've seen a lot of female antagonists driven by jealousy, revenge, psychosis, or a man is in control behind the scenes. Occasionally you'll get a power-hungry manipulator or two, but never a pure serial killer of Alice Morgan's caliber. Trying to think of similar characters, they best I could come up with was the Borg Queen from "Star Trek: First Contact," another very lethal monster of great power and intelligence with her own brand of womanly wiles. I'm not calling for gender parity among criminal masterminds, but surely there should be more of these villainesses out there in TV land, especially considering the sheer number of police procedurals and caper shows that have flourished in recent years.
Alice Morgan is so much fun and breaks so many tropes and is so good at being bad - I guess I just don't understand why it took so long for a character like her to show up on television.
---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
