No Oscar For Gran Torino?

GRAN TORINO: definitely the best movie so far of 2009. Well directed, well acted, superb story. Entertaining throughout. Perhaps even better than 2008's, and that’s saying a lot, putting it in front of BENJAMIN BUTTONS, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, yes, even perhaps past THE DARK KNIGHT. 2008 was a solid year for good films, true, and this is definitely a must see. The trailer for GRAN TORINO doesn’t reveal the depth or emotional range that this film fathoms, and it’s no surprise how well this story is told: Clint Eastwood has been doing this long enough to know how to work a story into its own weight and let it stand for what it is. He’s been acting in movies since 1955 (REVENGE OF THE CREATURE), directing since 1971 (THE BEGUILED) and producing since 1982 (FIREFOX). What is that, like, fifty years in show business? They say it takes 15 years of serious study to be an expert in a field; he's qualified to be a three time expert in three different areas...

Does Size Matter?

How many times has this happened? You see a movie in the theatre, and it’s great. I mean, really great. In fact, you’re certain that this is the best movie ever made, maybe. And then, three months or so later, the movie comes out on dvd, and you rewatch it, sans 60 foot screen and million dollar sound system and you realize something’s not right; the great masterpiece you acknowledged as you left the theatre suddenly seems, well, average, maybe even mediocre, or worse yet, bad. Like, how could I have ever thought this thing was good bad. Several years ago when I was working as a projectionist, I had a friend who labeled this “the 9 to 5 syndrome.” He had seen 9 to 5 at the movie theatre, loved it, and then months later watched it on network tv, expecting to enjoy it as he did in the theatre, only to discover that he very nearly hated it. When it was shown on tv, the network had done the unthinkable: panned and scanned the picture, reducing the widescreen ration to 4:3. I took a more global view of the situation: it’s not just the pan and scan; size matters in a person’s critical awareness of a film, because the visceral impact is lessened with a shrinking image size. Being in the theatre with giant subwoofers and surround sound enveloped in darkness with only one thing to focus on (that 60 foot image) puts your senses in heightened alert. The movie slams it into your subconscious at a hundred miles an hour and your critical reservoirs flashflood out. Sometimes just looking at a car going by or a beautiful woman in the movie theatre is enough to make you think you're looking at the next Mona Lisa... (Add to this an interesting inverse rule component: a person’s “critical” sense grows as the size of the viewing screen shrinks and the number of sound channels decreases. Lose stimulus input and you distill a movie down to its basics: storyline. No smoke. No mirrors. No flash. When I was at USC, in one of our sound classes we watched two cuts of RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and STAR WARS to emphasize the sound factor. One without sound, one with it. Without sound, the Star Wars opening credit crawled along (or seemed to) as well as the speed at which Indiana Jones escaped the booby traps protecting the golden idol. Try it.) There is a simple – if unproven -- logic to it: the smaller the image, the lesser emotional impact it can have because of the limited amount of stimulus it provides…

New DVD Artwork

Rock Operas By Any Other Name?

The other night I was watching HAIR, and I was struck by the structural / thematic nearness of this film to the more recent ACROSS THE UNIVERSE. In my film studies class, we analyze film according to decade, identifying dynamic characteristics, influences, changes, and popularity, keeping in mind internal structural changes within the Hollywood "machine" that causes one film to be made over another. When we get to the 70’s, we discuss the “rock opera” and how it becomes a genre unique to the twentieth century art of filmmaking, combining music originating in the 50’s with the experimental / artistic film muscle of the 70’s. The question always arises, what is the first rock opera, and how do we define it? Ultimately the argument of what to include and what not to include (categorically speaking) pivots on quantitative and qualitative issues: how much does the music tell the story (as opposed to dialogue), and just what constitutes rock music itself. I.e., at what point does a rock opera become a rock opera and not just a musical? There’s not much argument that the first “true” rock opera is Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) followed by Tommy (1975) by the Who, and later Quadrophenia (1979) (also by the Who). But what about Yellow Submarine and Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Heart’s Club Band? (featuring music by the Beatles) or Across the Universe (also featuring Beatles’ music). What about Mamma Mia (ABBA)? Merriam Webster’s online dictionary defines opera as “a drama set to music and made up of vocal pieces with orchestral accompaniment and orchestral overtures and interludes.” Not much help there; my inclination is that a) the music must play a large role in the movie and also progress the storyline in a direct manner and b) the music must be rock music. This tends to leave out Elvis movies (not because of type but because songs are relatively interchangeable) but definitely includes Moulin Rouge (which features all kinds of rock music).