All posts by James Humphreys

Top Ten Scary Moments in Family Movies

October 19, 2014 James Humphreys

Off all the emotions that we love to feel at the movies, the one that seems to be the most popular is fear. That’s probably why Horror movies are always great communal experiences. There’s nothing better than watching an audience react all at once to some unexpected jump scare, even when it comes in movies that aren’t meant to be scary. It’s manipulative, yes, but when done right and put into the right moment, it can actually help to enrich the movie as a whole. But this is also tricky as well, because as audience members grow up, they become harder to scare, especially when they’ve become so used to it. While Horror attempts to scare us with the grotesque and the shocking, our reactions as an audience usually differs based on the tolerance level that we have towards such images. What is particularly interesting about this is that depending on experiences in childhood, we react to horrifying images in movies differently. This is usually because some of the things that were passed off to us a kid-friendly entertainment sometimes features some truly terrifying moments themselves. It is surprising how many movies from our childhood have featured some dark and scary moments, whether it was in animation or in colorful live action fantasies. Family entertainment has become more sanitized over the years, but in years past, filmmakers were not afraid to test their younger viewers with moments of terror. One wishes that more filmmakers would take that kind of risk today, because it does show a degree of respect to young audiences that I think they would appreciate in the end.

For this article, I am choosing to highlight some of the most noteworthy examples of movies intended for young children that were not afraid to drift briefly into darkness. In particular, I’ll be highlighting the moments that stood out in those movies and rank them based on their effectiveness and their noteriety. Some of these moments are pretty legendary, and have been scaring young children for generations now, but others are some brief WTF moments of terror that stand out in otherwise cheerful movies. Most importantly, what makes these scenes noteworthy is how they contrast against the brightness of the scenes around them. What you won’t find on this list are family movies that already had a scary tone to them in the first place; so sorry, no Secret of NIMH (1982) or The Neverending Story (1987) on this list. For these moments to stand out, they have to really come out of nowhere. It’s moments like these that made us close our eyes in fright as kids, and at the same time, they also helped to enrich our experience and ingrain that love of being scared that we now carry over into our adulthood. So, with that, here is my pick for the top scariest moments in family movies.

10.

CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG (1968) – THE CHILD CATCHER

This character makes it onto the list mostly because of the creep factor. A secondary villain in this light-hearted musical, the Child Catcher is a surprisingly terrifying presence in an otherwise harmless movie. The character is hired by the film’s main villain to kidnap the children of the fictional land of Vulgaria after their presence there has been made illegal. While this is a dastardly deed to begin with, the creepiness comes more from how the Child Catcher seduces the children into his clutches; with candy and clownish dancing. But, it’s clear to anyone of all ages that this is a dangerous character under the cheerful facade. There’s something about the way he says “Come and get your lollipops” that just sends a shiver down your spine in the wrong way. Pretty much, this is a prime cinematic example of the “stranger danger” scenario played out, and while the film never goes into that direction entirely, you can imagine a character like him being a possible representation of a pedophile or child killer in a more horrific story-line. Indeed, there are other cinematic examples of characters like the Child Catcher in films like in Fritz Lang’s M (1931), but the fact that a character like this exists in a movie as sweet as Chitty Chitty Bang Bang just makes the idea of what he does all the more terrifying. Ian Fleming (of James Bond fame) wrote the original book, but the creation of the Child Catcher actually goes to screenwriter Roald Dahl, who himself was known for creating stories for children with dark undertones. Not surprisingly, the Child Catcher feels like a very natural creation from this notably dark author.

SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARVES (1937) – THE EVIL QUEEN’S TRANSFORMATION

No other filmmaker left his mark of family entertainment more than Walt Disney, and for the most part, many of his movies are easy-going fare for all audiences. That being said, even he wasn’t afraid to take his film’s into dark places once in a while, which was especially true for some of his earlier work. What is amazing about the darkest moments in Disney movies is just how vivid they are. Walt Disney was not one to miss an opportunity, and when a story-line called for a terrifying or dark moment, he did what was best for the story. This is something you see in many early Mickey Mouse shorts like The Haunted House (1931) or The Mad Doctor (1933), which featured some really macabre visuals that could chill audience members of all ages. But, when his films became more sophisticated and complex, especially when his studio began working on features, Walt Disney still was not afraid to push a few buttons. That’s clearly evident in his first feature Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. The movie is a light-hearted musical romp, but what people remember most vividly is the terrifying, villainous Queen at it’s center. Her character is chilling enough through most of the film, but it is this scene where she transforms herself into a crone that people remember as being truly terrifying, especially when they were kids. Probably the most legendary scary moment in any family film, though not the most particularly frightening, this vivid portrayal of dark villainy would go on to inspire many more moments like it, like with the Wicked Witch in The Wizard of Oz or countless other Disney villains since like Maleficent or Ursula.

CORALINE (2009) – “OTHER MOTHER’S” DEN

In a time when it’s become increasingly difficult to make children’s entertainment chilling and dark, the Laika studios have helped lead the way, creating refreshing new scares for younger audiences to enjoy. They pulled that off particularly well with their first feature film Coraline. The movie is more grim in tone than the average modern animated movie, but it’s darkest moments don’t come until the final stretch. Before then, the movie is charmingly surreal and delightfully comic, albeit with a tinge of the macabre always present. However, what makes this movie most notable is the primary antagonist that goes by the name “Other Mother.” Other Mother creates a fantasy world for the main hero, Coraline, that is the embodiment of all her dreams. But over time, Coraline learns the dark side of this dream and soon realizes that Other Mother is actually a child-eating monster named the Beldam. Created by author Neil Gaiman, and directed by Henry Selick, Coraline is a superbly dark fairy tale that’s not afraid to be terrifying, but is also smart enough to know when to bring on the scares. It’s not exploitative, and in fact it uses it’s scares sparingly, helping to make their impact all the more effective. The final confrontation in the Beldam’s den is particularly chilling and makes perfect use of it’s atmosphere. I particularly love the spider-like motif of the character, and her sultry, devilish way of speaking (provided by Teri Hatcher of all people). Other stop motion animated films lend themselves well to the bizarre and the frightening (Nightmare Before Christmas for example) but Coraline managed to go even further, helping to create a scene that can bring out terror in any audience member, young or old.

PEE WEE’S BIG ADVENTURE (1984) – LARGE MARGE

Now you would think that a Gothic filmmaker like Tim Burton’s first feature would be as dark and macabre as some of his later work. But in reality, Pee Wee’s Big Adventure is a fun, quirky comedy; albeit still firmly in the realm of the bizarre. For the most part, the movie is colorful and harmless. That is until we get to this scene. During Pee Wee’s travels, he gets lost in the woods in the middle of the night and has to resort to hitchhiking to get where he needs to go. He is picked up by Large Marge, a deeply disturbed lady trucker, who recounts to Pee Wee her story of the worst traffic accident that she has ever seen. Told like a campfire ghost story, Large Marge spares none of the gruesome details, and shows in what is probably the film’s most hilariously frightening and out-of-nowhere moment what the truckers corpse looked like when it was pulled from the wreck. In that moment, Large Marge’s face transforms into a bizarre mess of hellish proportions, and then returns back to normal like nothing had happened. In this moment, we see the kind of storytelling that Tim Burton would become notable for years later. Here he manages to distill terror and shock into something funny, without sanitizing it at the same time. This is something that he would take to more extremes in his next film, Beetlejuice (1988). The Large Marge scene however still stands out today due to it’s unexpected nature and it’s hilarious payoff. The fact that it comes out of nowhere is what makes the fright feel all the more rewarding, especially when it’s played off of Paul Reuben’s innocently naive Pee Wee Herman to hilarious effect. Remember, tell them Large Marge sent ya.

ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN (1989) – CHARLIE’S DREAM

Animation director Don Bluth got his start working for Disney Animation during the transition period following Walt Disney’s passing in the late 60’s. During that time, Bluth became increasingly frustrated by the aimless direction of the company, which was increasingly relying on soft, harmless fare that he felt restricted the possibilities of the medium. He felt that animation should not be afraid to explore some darker themes, and as a result, he left Disney Animation to start his own studio in order to make this ideal come true. And indeed, many of the earlier films made by the Bluth Studio were much darker and more mature than anything else that was coming out at the time. Films like The Secret of NIMH (1982) and The Land Before Time (1988) pushed the boundaries of animation into darker realms, and it earned Bluth the notoriety of being a respected filmmaker who took chances. But perhaps the scariest moment in any of his movies comes from one of the least likely places. It happens in All Dogs Go to Heaven, which is itself primarily an animated comedy. It does deal with death in a direct way, but mostly played for laughs. However, when the main character Charlie cheats death only to fall back into his bad habits, he soon has a dream that brings out his subconscious fears. What follows is a surprisingly vivid portrayal of Hell, complete with demons, fire and brimstone, and the fear of no escape. In this scene, Don Bluth best represents his ideal of animation being unafraid to go into dark places. Sadly, most of his later films like RockaDoodle (1991) and Anastasia (1997) would play it more safe, but All Dogs Go to Heaven’s most notorious scene still has the power to frighten, and it shows that it helps to be a little dark sometimes.

FANTASIA (1940) – NIGHT ON BALD MOUNTAIN

We now turn from a subconscious Hell to a literal Hell on Earth, brought to life by Disney Animation in it’s early heyday. Fantasia was created as a blending of two artistic mediums, animation and classical music. The result gave us many beautifully drawn renditions of orchestral masterpieces. While many were easy listening like Tchaikovsky’s Nutcracker Sweet and Beethoven’s Pastoral Symphony, Disney made the peculiar decision to craft a sequence of the film around Russian composer Modest Mussorgsky Gothic orchestral piece Night on Bald Mountain; a notoriously dark sounding piece of music. Disney pulled no stops with it’s rendition of the composition, and the result is one of the most vivid pieces of Gothic and macabre animation ever created. The segment is littered with ghosts, goblins, ghouls, and at the center of it all is one of Disney’s best remembered villainous entities; the demon god, Chernabog. Pretty much a representation of the Devil in the segment, Chernabog is a striking creation, showing off some of the best character animation that Disney was churning out at this time. Much of the segment’s resonance comes from the moments that he’s on screen, and he remains a terrifying presence. The segment is foreboding, without ever being truly terrifying, but it’s still remarkable to see an animated movie portray evil in such a vivid way. In the end, it provided a perfect match for Mussorgsky’s dark music and it represents another example of early Disney animation taking some chances by going into grim and unyielding places.

THE BRAVE LITTLE TOASTER (1983) – THE NIGHTMARE

One thing is pretty clear. The Brave Little Toaster is one weird little movie. Charming, and also a little brilliant, but very very weird. On the surface, the movie is a very colorful and humorous musical about household appliances setting out into the open world in hopes of finding their old owner, a little boy that they refer to as “Master.” Sounds like a trial run for the story line of Toy Story, which wouldn’t be far off; future Toy Story scribe Joe Ranft also worked on this story as well. But what this movie also has is a large number of surprisingly dark moments throughout. The main characters in this movie go through some very harrowing moments of peril, and in some cases end up becoming brutally maimed in the process, including electrocution and being crushed by giant gears. But perhaps the movie’s darkest moment comes in this particular dream sequence, which is unbelievably frightening and creepy, even when re-watching it as an adult. The titular toaster dreams of good times spent with the “Master,” until he starts to catch fire and looses his friend in the smoke. But the nightmare hits it’s zenith when the horrifying Fireman arrives in the form of a demonic clown. Why is it always clowns? I remember this moment really messing me up as a kid, and even watching it as an adult, I still get that unsettling feeling when I see that clown appear. It’s like something out of the darkest recesses Stephen King’s imagination. This movie is still an excellent animated flick that deserves a second look and the fact that it doesn’t shy away from some really dark moments works very well in it’s favor. Just keep in mind that there are some moments in the movie that will almost certainly scare your little kids.

WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT? (1988) – JUDGE DOOM REVEALED

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? has become a beloved comedy classic over time and it’s largely due to it’s mature story-line and themes, which contrasts perfectly with the wilder cartoonish segments in the movie. But, at it’s center is also a memorably dark villain named Judge Doom (brilliantly played by Christopher Lloyd). While Doom is depicted with brooding menace for most of the movie, the true nature of the character comes out during the final confrontation between him and the movie’s hero, Eddie Valiant (a remarkable Bob Hoskins). Thought to have been crushed to death by a runaway steamroller, it is suddenly revealed that the notorious toon-hater is actually a toon himself. And not only that, but the same maniacal toon that murdered Eddie’s brother. This revelation is especially frightening when we see the blood red cartoon eyes appear on Christopher Lloyd’s face, making Doom more monster than man; and it looks terrifying. This scene has all the terror of a scary monster movie, without feeling like it’s out of place in this mash-up of cartoon lunacy and film noir mystery. I give the filmmakers and Mr. Lloyd a lot of credit for pulling off that revelation perfectly. Handled differently, I don’t think the moment would have had the same kind of power that it does. The high pitched screaming by the character especially heightens the terrifying quotient of this scene even more. And, appropriately enough, Doom’s death is played out in gruesome detail, as he is literally melted away by the same chemical “Dip” that he was going to wipe out the city of Toontown with. It’s a fittingly grim ending for a character that managed to creep us out right to the bitter end. Even today, this scene still manages to be creepy, and that’s all because of how well executed the scary aspects are.

WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY (1971) – THE WONKA FACTORY TUNNEL

The best scares in movies, even in the ones that aren’t supposed to be scary, are the moments that come completely out of nowhere. Usually it is by design, and then other times it comes from strange artistic choices. Case in point, this truly WTF moment from this classic musical based on Roald Dahl’s children’s novel, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. As part of Willy Wonka’s (a perfect Gene Wilder performance) tour of his factory, the characters take a boat ride on a river of chocolate. Things go gently at first, until they reach the tunnel, and that’s where all the really messed up stuff happens. The characters are never in any real danger, but they are bombarded by images on the walls of the tunnel displaying some really frightening and grotesque stuff. Willy Wonka may be the only G-Rated movie in existence to show a real chicken’s head being chopped off by a cleaver. But that’s not the only creepy part of this scene, because as the boat ride continues, Wonka himself seems to be slipping into madness when he starts singing, and then reciting macabre poetry and then finally screaming hysterically. It’s at that point where you start to wonder if Willy Wonka is really a harmless candy maker or something far more sinister. The whole scene is one of the best trippy moments ever put on film, and it’s only made better by Wilder’s incredibly unhinged performance. According to the actors who filmed the scene, Wilder’s performance was so convincing that they actually believed he had really lost his mind. Roald Dahl was very notable for injecting dark elements into stories meant for kids, and while most of Willy Wonka seems like a sanitized version of his novel, this scene definitely feels true to the author’s own style. And it’s an excellent example of how to make a dark turn in a light-hearted story work to a film’s advantage. Yes, the danger must be growing.

PINOCCHIO (1940) – THE DONKEYS OF PLEASURE ISLAND

Of course the scariest moment ever in a family-friendly movie had to have come from the imaginations of the Disney animators. Pinocchio may very well be the darkest single movie in the entire Disney canon, and it is largely because of scenes like this. Truth be told, the original book by Carlo Collodi was far more violent than Disney’s film, but give Disney credit for going absolutely as far as they could go. The movie itself starts off much lighter in tone, as the innocent and naive Pinocchio experiences the larger world for the first time, but the second half of the film takes a considerably dark turn, especially when Pinocchio finds himself on Pleasure Island. The island seems like a fun place to be at first, but pretty soon the awful truth is revealed. As all of the boys on the island indulge themselves in their bad behavior, they literally make Jackasses of themselves, and are rounded up by the villainous Coachman who intends to sell the transformed “donkeys” to circuses and mines all over the world. This is horrifying to begin with, but the revelation hits it’s apex in this specific moment, where Pinocchio witnesses his friend Lampwick transforming before his very eyes. The scene is played out in horrifying fashion. The moment when Lampwick’s hands turn into donkey hoves is just as disturbing as anything you’ll see in a horror movie. And his final cries for his mother just brings an extra level of despair to the moment that leaves a chill in the spine of every viewer. Another horrifying aspect about the scene is the helplessness of the characters. Pinocchio is powerless to stop this from happening and he’s only saved by making a run for it. No such salvation exists for the other boys. This scene is the best example ever of how to implement a terrifying moment into a family friendly movie, and it has rightly received that distinction among many animation fans for many years.

So, why do we still accept horrifying moments in movies and shows that are meant to entertain younger audiences. You would think that many filmmakers would rather not alienate their audience too much, and indeed there are many filmmakers who do take that into consideration. I think that scenes like this exist because they help kids understand at a young age the importance of a happy ending. Before you can appreciate the light, you need to go through a lot of darkness, and that’s what these moments are meant to do. We need frightening monsters and moments of terror in our fairy tale adventures in order to see why it was all worth it in the end. It’s an essential way of teaching young kids the value of happiness and the differences between right and wrong. Even still, scary moments can be entertaining in themselves, and what I’ve found is that the darker the moment, and the bigger the contrast it has with the rest of the movie, the more likely it will be appreciated by audiences for years to come. I hope that more filmmakers in family entertainment take those same kinds of chances and not be afraid to go a little dark sometimes. Sometimes you have to walk that thin tightrope, but the end result could become all the more satisfying. And indeed, some of those dark moments in movies from our childhood become our favorite movie moments as adults. Those classic dark moments in Disney animation are still celebrated today, and the Willy Wonka tunnel scene still resonates with audiences. And in this bewitching time of year, audiences of all ages are in the mood for a good scare, and these moments show that they can be found in even the unlikeliest of places.

Evolution of Character

Evolution of Character – Count Dracula

October 11, 2014 James Humphreys

Every year when the Halloween season comes around again, we start to spotlight and celebrate the iconic monsters that populate the traditions of the holiday. You’ve got your zombies, your demons, your Frankenstein monsters, and your warewolves. But the monster that is the most iconic of the bunch seems to be the vampire, which is currently seeing a resurgence (for better or worse) in pop culture. Thanks to stories like those in the Twilight series, younger audiences in particular are now looking at vampires as not only fascinating monsters, but also as desirable role models as well; which unfortunately is a sad reduction of the real menace and attraction that vampires have had in pop culture in the past. Vampires have made far better villains in the past than instead of being the superheros that they are in today’s young adult driven media. And no better vampire figure made menace and evil look so good on the big screen than the great Count himself, Dracula. Though Dracula is larger than life and among the most imaginative monsters around, he is actually based off of a real life historical figure. Vlad Tepes III, Prince of Wallachia, ruled his kingdom in modern day Romania in the late 15th century, becoming a valuable ally for christian Western Europe in repelling Turkish invaders. However, though he was a popular king in his time, history has instead focused more on the brutality he showed towards his enemies, much of which has defined the legend around him. Dubbed Vlad the Impaler, due to his common practice of impaling people on spikes outside his Transylvanian stronghold, the man’s legacy became one of blood-soaked terror. Legends soon sprang up around the man, including one’s where people believed that he drank the blood of his enemies.

Like most legends, these were exaggerated accounts, but over time they managed to catch the interest of a gothic Irish novelist named Bram Stoker, who distilled all of the legends of Vlad the Impaler and crafted them into his now legendary 1897 novel, Dracula. Taken from the name of Prince Vlad’s ancestral house name, Draculesti, Bram Stoker crafted what would eventually become the first true literary representation of a modern vampire. Though vampirism had been present in literature for centuries before, Stoker is the one who set much of rules and mythology behind the creatures. The idea of vampires being immortal and able to infect others once they are bitten came from Stoker’s novel, as well as the ideas that vampires rest during daylight in coffins and cannot cast a reflection in any mirror. Whether he planned it or not, Stoker’s novel would become the Bible to which all future depictions of vampires would follow, and over a century after the novel first premiered, it’s influence is still apparent in most if not all vampire stories today. And the reason for this is probably because the central monster of his story, Count Dracula, is such an iconic and unforgettable creature who can still send chills down the spines of audiences both young and old. As far as vampires go, there are none who are as frightening, or as seductive, or as commanding as the Count. And though his character has changed little overall since Stoker’s original novel, it is interesting to see how Dracula has been adapted and re-adapted again to connect with audiences over time, while still maintaining his most essential elements. In this article, I will be looking at some of the most notable cinematic iterations of the character, and see how well they have adapted and redefined the character over time.

MAX SCHRECK from NOSFERATU, A SYMPHONY OF TERROR (1922)

The first cinematic telling of the tale came from groundbreaking German expressionist director F.W. Murnau. Though Murnau sought to adapt the original novel for his movie, he was denied the rights by Bram Stoker’s estate, since they believed that the new cinema art-form was nothing but trash and unworthy of a story like Dracula. But Murnau was determined to get his vision of the story on the big screen and he worked through a loophole where he could make the same story as long as he changed the names of the characters and the location of the setting. Therefore, Count Dracula became Count Orlock and the setting moved from England to Bavaria. But make no mistake, it’s still the same story and Murnau proved exactly why the movie needed to be made in the first place. The film is remarkably creepy and Gothic, which was quite a feat to accomplish back in the early days of cinema. Murnau especially makes great use of the shadows to get the more horrific moments of the movie across in subtle ways. But, what really sells this film is the intensely creepy performance by Max Schreck as Count Orlock. His performance is so perfect here that it actually led to speculation at the time that the man was an honest to goodness real vampire; something that provided the inspiration for the movie Shadow of the Vampire (2000), starring Wilem Dafoe as Schreck. I especially love the whole vampire bat motif that the character embodies, which makes him a truly grotesque movie monster. Though there were objections to the portrayal of Dracula on the big screen beforehand, there were none after seeing the brilliant results in Nosferatu.

BELA LUGOSI from DRACULA (1931)

Although Murnau’s take on the character may have set a foothold in cinematic history, it was Hollywood that truly made Count Dracula an icon. Directed by Hollywood shockmaster Tod Browning (Freaks), 1931’s Dracula brought Stoker’s famous character to life better than anyone could have expected, and that is largely thanks to the absolutely perfect casting of Bela Lugosi as the Count. Lugosi has probably had more influence in defining the character of Dracula than anyone else, other than Bram Stoker of course. His ability to deliver such menace in his eyes and the simple gesturing of his claw-like fingers brings so much out of the character and it helps to sell the idea of the true horror that this vampire inflicts without ever having to show it. Bela’s appearance would also influence the character, with his floor length cape and slicked back hair. But it was his voice that would have the most impact overall. The movie was made in the early days of recorded sound in movies, and no one had any idea what Dracula would sound like, so it seemed natural that Bela’s deep Hungarian accent would stand out in the film; giving the character an almost melodic and seductive tone to his voice, which fit perfectly for the character. Every depiction of Dracula since has taken some inspiration from Lugosi’s version, whether it’s the accent or the costume, which shows just how iconic his performance is. Unfortunately, it was a character he never was able to grow out of, and his latter career found the man typecast in cheaper knockoffs of the original tale. Still, his performance in the original is beloved today and has made Bela Lugosi a fan favorite to people all over the world.

CHRISTOPHER LEE from HAMMER PICTURES’ DRACULA SERIES (1958-1973)

While Bela Lugosi’s take on Count Dracula may be the most iconic, famed British actor Christopher Lee’s version would become the most prolific. Lee portrayed the Count in nine different movies over a 15 year period, as well as portraying vampires in many other films as well, helping to cement his reputation as the go-to-guy for vampire movies for a long time. Made by the England-based Hammer film company mostly during the mid to late 60’s, these Dracula movies were more stylized and graphic than the previous Hollywood versions of the story. Where Hollywood would imply the horror offscreen, Hammer would display it in all it’s bloody glory. Indeed, Hammer Films brought out more of the monster in the character of Dracula and helped to cement him as one of cinemas most truly horrifying creatures. That’s not to say that he was completely savage either. Hammer was wise enough to cast a quality actor like Christopher Lee in the role, who manages to balance the refined and seductive elements of the character with the more horrific. He really captures the humanity of the character well in the movies, but is also not afraid to indulge in the animalistic terror that the Count also possesses. One of the best touches that they added to the character in these films was the way that Dracula’s eye burn red whenever he’s ready to feast on his victim. It’s a remarkably terrifying take on the character, and this role no doubt helped to shape Lee’s reputation as a memorable heavy in horror movies; something he would bring with him in later roles like Saruman in the Lord of the Rings movies and Count Dooku in Star Wars. Not only that, but he also managed to give the character the update that he needed in a less innocent time, while still staying true to the character’s roots.

FRANK LANGELLA from DRACULA (1979)

After the gorier versions of Dracula made by the Hammer films, this version directed by John Badham tried to bring the character back to his more Gothic, Victorian roots. The results were well crafted, if a bit stale. By no means a bad retelling of the original tale, this one still feels a little lacking mainly because it departs so much from what had made the character so popular over the last few decades. Instead, this version of Bram Stoker’s tale wants to tell the Masterpiece Theater version of the story, with lush production values and refined, theatrical dialogue. That’s not to say that they water down the character at all, and indeed the best element of the movie is still it’s central monster. Frank Langella definitely plays up more of the seductive side of Dracula’s character, making him both charming and alluring. But, when he does go into full vampire mode, he does manage to come off creepy and menacing. A break-in scene where he hangs upside down like a bat outside of his victim’s window is an especially frightening moment, and he manages to pull off the dead eye stare very well in that moment. Unfortunately, the movie is also dialogue heavy in the wrong places, and it would have served the character better to have had a lot more moments play out silently like that creepy break-in scene did. Interestingly, this is one of the more youthful depictions of the character, showing Dracula as less of the lecherous older man that he had been in previous versions, and more like a dashing young bachelor who can more convincingly seduce his female victims, which Langella embodies very well here. It’s a flawed retelling, but one where the character still shines through.

KLAUS KINSKI from NOSFERATU THE VAMPYRE (1979)

Departing from the Hollywood image of the Count that had become more or less standardized over the years, German director Werner Herzog decided to take the character of Dracula all the way back to his cinematic beginnings and undertake a remake of F.W. Murnau’s Nosferatu. While many people would scoff at the idea of wanting to remake a beloved classic like Nosferatu, it actually seems like the perfect project for an unpredictable and button-pushing director like Herzog. Add to the mix a performance by the equally experimental and temperamental German actor Klaus Kinski as the titular vampire and you’ve got a remake that is worth seeing. The end results are mixed; amazingly the movie is only half as scary as the original, which is not good given all the advancements in cinema since the original was made. And I think that’s largely due to Herzog’s inability to make this movie stand out against it’s predecessor. You can sense the director’s affection for the original, but by emulating it so much, his film lacks any identity in itself. However, where the movie does excel is in Kinski’s performance as Count Orlock. While not as creepy as Max Schreck’s version, it is still nevertheless a bizarre and engaging performance that’s well suited for the character, as well as for the notoriously oddball actor. He embodies the character perfectly, and even manages to find some depth in the performance that wasn’t there originally in Schreck’s portrayal. As far as remakes go, the movie could have done a lot worse, and it does still works for the most part by staying true to the depiction of it’s central vampire. Still, if you had to choose between the two, I would still recommend the original, and only check out this version for Kinski’s performance.

GARY OLDMAN from BRAM STOKER’S DRACULA (1992)

Lugosi may have set the standard for the character, and Christopher Lee may have given the character his frightening backbone, but if I were to pick the greatest single portrayal of the character of Count Dracula, it would be this remarkable performance by Gary Oldman. Oldman truly proves why he is one of the greatest actors of our time with this multi-layered, nuanced, and just downright terrifying portrayal of Dracula in the movie directed by Francis Ford Coppola. In many ways, his performance is an amalgam of all the previous versions of the character all put into one. His early scenes as the incredibly creepy, ashen-faced vampire contains echos of Lugosi and Lee’s versions within it, played out in a wonderfully over-the-top fashion that’s all Oldman’s own. And then when the movie shifts to it’s London-based second half, we see Oldman embody the seductive, youthful version of the character that Frank Langella first brought to the screen. And Gary Oldman manages to infuse all of these elements together perfectly in a remarkably soulful performance. This is a Dracula that brings in all the familiar elements, but is brought to life in a way that we’ve never seen before, making this version feel wholly unique. If only the movie surrounding the performance was better. While not terrible by any means, Coppola’s movie does feel disjointed at times, especially when Dracula is not front and center. It’s also a really bizarre movie too, with many scenes taken to such outlandish extremes, that it sometime feels exploitative (not to mention that it features Keanu Reeves embarrassingly trying to work a British accent into his performance). Still, Gary Oldman is the absolute highlight of the movie, and elevates the piece as a whole. It’s probably well suited that the movie is a little on the messy side, because it makes his groundbreaking work in the role stand out all the more.

ADAM SANDLER from HOTEL TRANSYLVANIA (2012)

Certainly an odd pick to include with all the others in this article, but I chose to highlight this version of the character because it illustrates the impact that the character has had in pop culture and on Gothic horror tropes in general. This animated film focuses on a luxury resort run by monsters for monsters, with Dracula himself is the owner and caretaker. Naturally, there are in-jokes to be had regarding the monstrous inhabitants of the titular hotel, and the filmmakers actually show off a particularly extensive knowledge of all the different monsters that they are spoofing. Like many people have said, spoofing is the highest forms of flattery, and that’s exactly what goes on in Hotel Transylvania. While nowhere near Disney/Pixar in quality, this film is surprisingly better than it has any right to be, especially considering that it features Adam Sandler in the role of Dracula. The reason for this is because of the quality of it’s humor. Hotel Transylvania does an effective job of taking many notable elements of Dracula’s persona and turning them on it’s head. And indeed there are clever nods to past versions of the character, like Sandler laying on the thick accent that Lugosi made popular, or the glowing red eyes that Christopher Lee had introduced. It all brings together a version of the character that can exist within a PG-rated cartoon, without feeling like an insult to previous versions. Indeed, this movie does a better job of poking fun at Dracula movies than what Mel Brooks failed to do with his Dracula, Dead and Loving it (1995); a rare misfire for the usually reliable humorist. Is Hotel Transylvania a great movie? No, but it serves as a fine introduction to the character for younger audiences.

Dracula has had a long history as an icon for both cinematic and literary horror, and his legacy shows no signs of stopping. Even this very week we are getting a new film called Dracula Untold (2014) which gives the vampire the Game of Thrones treatment by drawing upon more of the historical figure of Vlad the Impaler and infusing him with all of the famous tropes of the modern Dracula character. What is interesting about the character today, however, is that he’s managed to become not just a defining character within his own story, but pretty much the symbol of the Halloween season itself. Dracula has managed to outshine all other Halloween monsters to become the leader of the pack, and is usually depicted as such in many Halloween themed films; particularly the ones aimed at kids. The fact that Dracula has become an accepted movie monster in kids entertainment just shows you how far flung his influence has been. And the reason why Dracula has had such a deep impact in our pop culture is because of the many great cinematic incarnations he’s had. From the creepy re-imagining of Nosferatu to the iconic portrayals by Lugosi, Lee, and Oldman, he’s a character that has deservedly “staked” his claim in our collective imaginations. And what makes him so interesting is the fact that he embodies all the things that we fear the most; the danger of the unknown and loss of innocence. No one else embodies the idea of vampirism better than the Count and one wishes that his creepy, seductive presence would take a hold once again over all of these recent cinematic vampire wannabes. You know why true horror fans always gravitate towards Count Dracula in the end? Because Dracula doesn’t sparkle.

Movie Reviews

Gone Girl – Review

October 4, 2014 James Humphreys

Taking on an adaptation of a runaway best-seller novel can be a daunting task for any filmmaker. On the plus side, you are bringing something to the big screen that already has name recognition, but the downside of this is that the same audience is going to hold the material up to high standards, putting a whole bunch of extra pressure on your translation. That almost certainly had to be the case with David Fincher’s recent adaptation of author Gillian Flynn’s 2012 novel Gone Girl. The novel was a smash hit when it first was published, spending eight weeks at #1 on the New York Times bestseller list. And while the novel itself certainly has been branded within the mystery thriller genre, it has also often been praised by fans and critics alike for it’s unexpected twists and unconventional plotting. Naturally, this instant success led to an immediate acquisition of the film rights by 20th Century Fox, who quickly moved the adaptation of the novel into production. Flynn herself was hired on to adapt her own work into a screenplay. Naturally, for such a high profile adaptation of the novel, Fox would want to get someone on board who could do the material justice, without alienating too much of the built in audience. Fincher is already a well respected filmmaker, but Gone Girl seems like a departure for the man who brought brilliant oddball features to the big screen like Seven (1995) and Fight Club (1999).

And yet at the same time, Fincher is actually perfect for the film. For one thing, he has become the go to guy for bringing almost un-adaptable novels to big screen and making them work. That was definitely the case with the gonzo Chuck Palahniuk novel Fight Club, or the oddly themed F. Scott Fitzgerald classic The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008). These two novelizations almost defy any filmmaker’s notions of trying to make them into a coherent movie, but Fincher managed to find a way. He has also proven himself to be qualified to take on popular best-sellers as well, as he did with The Social Network (2010) which was based on the popular Ben Mezrich novel The Accidental Billionaires, as well as his 2011 adaptation of Stieg Larsson’s The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. But, unlike these other novels, Gone Girl is far more conventional and less flashy. Some would say that Gillian Flynn’s novel is more or less an “airplane read;” good for passing the time, but nothing that really defies conventional standards otherwise, like the majority of Fincher’s adaptations usually do. But in the hands of David Fincher, audiences will soon learn that there is more under the surface in Flynn’s novel than meets the eye, and it shows how one artist can actually elevate the work of another, and bring out the best of both worlds. Indeed, Gone Girl may seem like another conventional thriller on the surface, but in the hands of some truly talented people in front and behind the camera, it becomes anything but conventional.

The story involves a failed writer named Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) and his wife Amy (Rosamund Pike) as they try to make life in small town America work after Nick has lost his cushy job in New York City. Naturally this has put a strain on their marriage. One day, on the eve of their fifth year anniversary, Nick comes home to find his living room in shambles and his wife nowhere to be seen. He contacts the police and is soon visited by Detective Rhonda Boney, who quickly begins an investigation into the disappearance of Amy. The investigation quickly gains traction in the press, due to Amy’s status as a quasi-celebrity, being the inspiration for a protagonist in a series of childrens’ books written by her mother titled The Adventures of Amazing Amy. Nick remains cooperative with the authorities and the media, but after a couple of days, he soon discovers that the focus has shifted away from finding Amy and more towards pointing the finger at him. Soon accusations start to fly at Nick, which he is unable to shrug off, and dark secrets about his marriage start to come to light. Even his twin sister Margo (Carrie Coon) begins to believe the worst. It all leads to where you might expect a typical missing person scandal would go, but as readers of the novel know, all of this is just half of the story. From the point where Nick seems to hit a wall and appears to be the untrustworthy psycho that the whole world believes him to be, the story suddenly shifts focus and we soon learn that there’s a whole other side to the story that I can really get into without spoiling some of the most unexpected plot twists. Suffice to say, there’s a reveling exchange that sums up the whole story when Det. Boney is told by her deputy that “The simplest answer always seems to be the right one” to which she answers, “Actually, I’ve never known that to be true.”

So, as far as adaptations go, was David Fincher the right man for the job here. Though the material may be more conventional than the typical Fincher flick, he still managed to make this film adaptation work for him. There are plenty of Fincher touches throughout, though he seems to have abandoned the flashy camerawork that defined most of his early career. Here, his style comes through in the editing and the composition of shots, which are all exquisitely done. Fincher has achieved that rarefied place in cinema where his style can work with just about any story-line, and Gone Girl is no exception. Indeed, if any other director was tasked with adapting this novel to the big screen, I don’t think that it would’ve gone over as well as it does here. Probably one of the most helpful elements in the adaptation was having the author around to help shape the story to fit Fincher’s vision. Gillian Flynn started out as a television critic for Entertainment Weekly, so she already knows the game about taking material from one medium to another, so it probably led to fewer conflicts of interest that usually plagues many big screen adaptations. And indeed, both director and author have managed to work together well here. Fincher gets to satisfy his cinematic intentions while Gillian Flynn’s story is maintained with all of the memorable twists and turns preserved. And when those twists come to light, it is exploited perfectly by the film. The third act in particular is where the movie really crosses over into Fincher territory, with some truly unexpected flourishes that helps to make this movie stand apart from other mystery thrillers. Some may be put off by where the left-field turns this movie makes, but I for one felt that it was what ultimately elevated the movie as a whole in the end.

If there’s one thing that Fincher’s adaptation manages to improve upon in his adaptation, it’s the commentary about the media. Flynn’s novel also touches upon the abuses of tabloid journalism, but Fincher brings those themes to new light by presenting the full extant of their impact on the ordinary citizen. Indeed, the harshest criticism of the movie is saved for the vultures in the media who exploit crime investigations for ratings and those who pass judgment on a case without taking in all the facts, which anyone who has seen the cable news networks in the last couple of years will know what I’m talking about. In fact, there is a character in the movie named Ellen Abbott (played perfectly by Missy Pyle) who is obviously supposed to be a very thinly veiled representation of notorious media vulture Nancy Grace, complete with Southern drawl, which helps to relate this movie with the media’s disgraceful current state. While the plot has it’s own intrigue to it, it’s the underlying message that really resonates in the end, and for a movie made by a studio owned by a giant new conglomerate itself, that’s a very bold position to take. But it’s not just the media that the movie points the finger at; it’s us the audience as well. The brilliant part of the movie is that it shows us that there are multiple sides to every story, and by showing us only parts of it at a time, through some truly brilliant story-editing, we soon realize how easy it is to be swayed by our own prejudices. It’s the kind of manipulation that the media preys upon, giving us only the side of the story that they want to satisfy their own agendas. Overall, I’m very glad that someone like Fincher took the opportunity to take that aspect of the novel and bring it too it’s fullest potential.

Another aspect that has always characterized Fincher’s films is his exceptional choices in casting, and Gone Girl continues that trend. Ben Affleck has had a hard time convincing people of his skills as an actor, given that his early career was plagued by a lot of bad choices in roles. But in recent years, he’s been reversing that characterization very effectively, and Gone Girl may be his best role to date. Let’s face it, he’s perfectly cast here, as someone who is hounded by the media and judged unfairly due to his celebrity status. Affleck has lived in this world for a long time, and he draws from that perfectly to create a memorable performance as the heavily-scrutinized Nick. But, an even more revalatory performance comes from Rosamund Pike as Amy. The British actress has been around for a while, appearing in supporting roles from 2009’s An Education to Edgar Wright’s The World’s End (2013). Here, she is elevated to lead status, and she manages to give a knockout performance as the always mysterious Amy. The brilliance of cutting between Amy and Nick’s stories, and seeing the crime from both points, is that it shows how unreliable they are as protagonists in the film, and both actors brilliantly exploit the flaws and quirks of each character. Rosamund Pike especially creates a truly memorable and strange character in Amy, and ultimately it’s her performance that sells the movie’s twisted plot and makes it work. The supporting cast is also great here, especially Kim Dickens as Det. Boney. And Fincher managed to do the near impossible by getting a good performance out of Tyler Perry (creator of the Madea films), who is actually perfectly cast as high-priced celebrity lawyer Tanner Bolt.

If the movie has a flaw at all it would be in some of the pacing. It’s something that usually plagues films that are told in non-linear ways, and while it’s not too distracting and doesn’t hurt the movie as a whole, it does detract the film a little in the beginning. By going back and forth between the past and present in the opening hour of the film, we the audience are bombarded with a lot of information and misinformation, which does lead to a lot of intrigue in the story-line, but it also lags the film as well. And that can be a problem for a film that runs 149 minutes. While the first act is interesting, it isn’t until we reach plot twist #1 that the movie starts to find it’s footing, and indeed, the movie becomes a fascinating roller-coaster ride from there. Not a huge problem, but it does make the film feel just slightly disjointed and makes this film just a little less than perfect. It does come very close to being perfect however, especially when the movie goes into some truly out-of-left-field places, but when stretched out to 2 and 1/2 hours, there’s bound to be a little flab in the way. Again, it’s the only flaw that I could see in an otherwise astounding presentation. Taking a best-selling novel, even a conventional one, and making it work as a film can be hard work, and Fincher’s skills as a filmmaker really come out to shine here, particularly when it comes to staging. Other directors may have played it too safe or would’ve gone way overboard with adapting something like Gone Girl. Fincher finds that right balance between reigning in the flourishes at crucial times in the story, while at the same time letting loose when it absolutely needs to go there. And it’s that balance that ultimately helps to iron over some of the more notable flaws in the overall story.

It may not be perfect, but I can think of few other movies out there right now that will really challenge it’s audience to think as well as Gone Girl does. Like the mystery at it’s center, there’s more to this movie than what’s on the surface. And indeed, I do think that this was a great exercise for David Fincher. It may not be as flashy as something like Fight Club or The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, but that’s only because the material here needed to be brought to the screen with a subdued tone. I actually look at this movie as Fincher’s Hitchcockian film. It’s got the languid pacing, the unexpected twists, and even a mysterious blonde at it’s center just like most Hitchcock films. And like Hitchcock, Fincher is a director who loves to play around with it’s audience. The best part of the movie is that it’s unafraid to take it’s audience through all sorts of different emotions. At some points you’ll feel un-eased and horrified by what’s going on in the plot and then by the next scene you’ll be laughing hysterically by the wild turns that that the plot takes. That certainly happened in the audience that I watched this movie with. Again, the wild third act may throw some people off, but judging by the audience reaction that I saw, it looks like Fincher managed to tap into something good here. I admire a filmmaker who can do that to an audience and that’s why I continually put my trust into David Fincher’s cinematic choices. Gone Girl may not be the kind of movie you would expect from a director of his caliber, but after seeing the final results, it’s clear that there was no one else better for the job. And that’s no mystery.

Rating: 8.5/10

Focus on a Franchise

Focus on a Franchise – Hannibal Lecter

September 27, 2014 James Humphreys

Horror has always been largely considered a niche genre in the film industry, relegated to the fringes and often ignored by critics when awards season comes around. And for the most part, it’s easy to see why. Most horror movies are low-budget schlock-fests that usually just cater to a certain type of audience; mainly those who just want to have a good scare while in the theater. But, that notion can be challenged whenever a filmmaker undertakes their own spin on the genre and creates a masterwork that includes all the elements typical of the horror. Such is the case with the series of movies based off of the Horror novels by Thomas Harris. The books themselves are hard to pin down genre-wise. They follow the same principal outlines of most popular crime novels, but are at the same infused with Grand Guignol imagery that gives the readers a very macabre picture of the crimes the stories are focused on. Obviously, adapting Harris’ novels to the big screen would require very careful direction to get the twisted tones right, which is something that this particular series has thankfully benefited from; for the most part. But of course it’s not just the visuals and the plotting that has defined the franchise. Each of Harris’ novels are their own standalone mysteries, but they’re linked together by the presence of one of the most memorable characters in literary history; and the main reason why this series has become as popular as it has. That character of course is the notorious cannibalistic serial killer, Dr. Hannibal Lecter.

Hannibal is unique among popular franchise characters. While most series tend to focus on their heroes, the Hannibal Lecter series is one that’s centered entirely around it’s villain. That helps to classify this series within the horror genre, because most horror franchises also center around their antagonists; such as Jason Voorhies and Freddy Kruger to name a few. But, even among his horror brethren Hannibal is unique. He’s intelligent, perceptive, cultured and above all else, seductive. These character traits are particularly what makes him so terrifying. No other character in film or literature has made evil seem so refined and appealing. Like a well hidden predator, he lures you into a false sense of comfort with his graceful nature, but once he’s got a hold of you, then the savage animal is unleashed. And boy, Harris’ novels and the movies they’ve inspired have not shied away from some of the gruesome details. Indeed, Hannibal Lecter has deservedly earned his place as not just one of the horror genre icons, but also as one of cinema’s overall greatest characters. Thus far, Thomas Harris has written four novels around the character and that has in turn spawned five film adaptations. Though Hannibal is featured in all five movies, it’s the three that star legendary Welsh actor Sir Anthony Hopkins which stand out as the most notable. And though Hopkins had the most influence in defining the screen presence of the character, he was not the first to play the part, nor the last. I will be looking at the franchise as a whole in this retrospective (remake and prequel included) to get a good sense of how the series evolved over time and how it ended up becoming one of the most defining series ever in both horror and cinematic history.

MANHUNTER (1986)

Directed by Michael Mann

Dr. Lecter’s first appearance on the big screen came in the form of this adaptation from Thomas Harris’ first novel, Red Dragon. Director Michael Mann, coming off of his stint as the producer and showrunner of Miami Vice, undertook the daunting task of adapting Harris’ gruesome work to the big screen. Part of that process included stripping down some of the more horrific elements of the novel, and instead focusing more on the characters and the investigation central to the plot. As a result, Manhunter plays more like a thriller than as a horror movie. That’s not to say that the film is any less effective. Indeed, it actually works perfectly as it is, mainly due to Mann’s assured direction, which is not flashy and is consistently well-paced. The story follows FBI profiler Will Graham (William Petersen) as he searches for a deranged serial killer named Francis Dollarhyde (Tom Noonan), aka “the Tooth Fairy” killer. Graham, who runs into a lot of hurdles trying to identifying his ruthless target, takes the unorthodox approach of soliciting help from a former colleague and now incarcerated felon Hannibal Lecktor (Brian Cox), who understands more than Graham the mind of a killer. Michael Mann did an admirable job of adapting the novel, but at the same time it’s not all that groundbreaking; it just stands as a solid crime thriller. Petersen makes a good lead, and Noonan in particular steals the movie as the “Tooth Fairy” killer. But, what is most interesting is Brian Cox’s take on Hannibal, with the name Lecktor re-spelled for some reason. His Hannibal keeps in tone with rest of the movie, played much more natural than over-the-top, while still keeping the character true to the novel’s interpretation. While still a great film, the focus remained away from the character of Hannibal, which served this movie probably for the better. The same would not be true for the rest of the series.

THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991)

Directed by Jonathan Demme

Here we now have the groundbreaking movie that not only set the standard for the rest of the series to follow, but also became the genre defining title that helped put Dr. Lecter on the cinematic map. The Silence of the Lambs may not only be the greatest horror movie ever made, but also the best crime thriller and best detective story ever brought to the big screen; though that’s up for debate. There’s nothing in this movie that doesn’t work perfectly, from the direction by Jonathan Demme, to the outstanding and grim cinematography and art direction, to the career defining performances. Perhaps the reason why the movie works so well is that it fearlessly adapts Harris’ second novel in the series to the fullest extant, with all the macabre elements intact. Not only that, but it’s unafraid to go over-the-top as well, creating images that we the audience will never forget, as well as images we wish we could forget. Hannibal returns again (now played by Hopkins), this time is called upon by FBI rookie Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) to help her track down a serial killer by the name “Buffalo Bill” (Ted Levine), who skins his victims before killing them. Lecter and Sterling form an unlikely bond over the course of the story, somehow gaining each other’s respect because of their intelligence. Even when Lecter makes his horrifying escape from prison, she knows immediately that he’ll never come after her, because he would “consider it rude.” It’s that bond between the characters that ultimately elevates this film above all others, and thankfully the movie exploits every element of the characters’ progression to the fullest. Hopkins’ over-the-top performance as Lecter is phenomenal and is perfectly complimented by Foster’s subdued work as Clarice. Both actors deservedly won Oscars for their performances in this movie, and the film itself accomplished the impossible feat of being the first horror flick to ever win an Oscar for Best Picture.

HANNIBAL (2001)

Directed by Ridley Scott

Because of the popularity of The Silence of the Lambs, demand was high for a sequel to both the novel and the movie; which is funny considering that some people view Lambs itself as a sequel to Manhunter. Still, Thomas Harris released his follow-up novel in 1999 under the name Hannibal, and Universal pictures quickly put the film adaptation into production with top tier talent involved. Jodie Foster declined to return as Clarice Starling, but she was replaced with well respected and Oscar-nominated actress Julianne Moore. Hopkins thankfully returned to the role that he came to own as Hannibal and direction was given over to one of Hollywood’s greatest visual artists, Ridley Scott, coming off of his huge success with Gladiator (2000). The screenplay adaptation was done by none other than David Mamet (Glengarry Glen Ross) and Steve Zallian (Schindler’s List), and the cast was rounded out by big names like Ray Liotta, Giancarlo Giannini, and an un-credited Gary Oldman as a man without a face. With all this amazing talent assembled, how could this movie possibly fail. Well, it did; critically anyway. The movie was still profitable, but almost immediately it suffered a strong backlash from critics and fans alike, saying that the movie failed to capture the brilliance of Lambs and instead focused way too much on the gory details of the original novel without purpose. Indeed, the movie is a failure in adaptation and execution and that’s partly due to director Scott not being a good fit for the material. The movie does look pretty, but there is no meat to the plot at all. The tone is unfocused, and that’s mainly because Scott put too much emphasis on showing the gore in the movie. Lambs and Manhunter proved that less is more, because it helped to make the shocking moments stand out better and have more impact. Hopkins is still great as Hannibal though, and it is a treat to watch him here. If only the rest of the movie was worthy of his performance.

RED DRAGON (2002)

Directed by Brett Ratner

Only a year and a half after Hannibal had alienated audiences and readers alike, Universal quickly released this follow-up which again returned Anthony Hopkins to the role as Dr. Lecter. Made almost as an apology for the previous film, Red Dragon was a return back to basics for the series, using The Silence of the Lambs as it’s source for inspiration. Strangely enough, instead of moving forward with more sequels, this movie actually takes us back to the beginning, adapting the first Hannibal Lecter novel of the same name, which was also the source for Michael Mann’s Manhunter. Some may think that it was a cheap way to keep an already waning franchise going, but by taking the remake route instead, the end result proved to be surprisingly effective. I think the biggest reason why this movie worked as well as it did is because the screenplay was adapted by Lambs scribe Ted Tally, who has proved better than anyone that he’s the best person out there to capture the mood of Harris’ novels in a cinematic form; other than possibly Hopkins that is. Also, the supporting cast helped out a great deal as well, with big names like Edward Norton, Harvey Keitel, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Emily Watson, and Ralph Finnes all filling out the roles. Brett Ratner has had a shaky reputation as a filmmaker, but here he actually delivers well enough direction to make the movie work effectively. If the movie has a flaw, it’s that it’s trying to hard to be just like The Silence of the Lambs. Not that the movie is trying to be a knock-off, but it unfortunately causes the film to lack any identity apart from it’s predecessors. By using the same sets as well as similar lighting and cinematography, it’s almost difficult to watch this movie and not feel like you’re also watching a scene left on the cutting room floor from Lambs. The movie still works as a whole, but the fact that it’s still reminding you of a superior film is a detriment nonetheless. But, at the very least, it gave us yet another oppurtunity to watch Hopkins at work, and it did blow some of the stench off of the series after Hannibal failed so miserably.

HANNIBAL RISING (2007)

Directed by Peter Webber

Prompted by a threat from uber-producer Dino DeLaurentis that he would make another movie about Hannibal Lecter without the involvement of the author, Thomas Harris quickly drafted yet another Hannibal novel, only this time focusing on the character’s youth and origin. Naturally a film adaptation followed, but what is interesting this time is that Harris took it upon himself to do the adaptation of his own novel for the screen. Although Harris is a remarkable and peerless novelist, screenplay adaptation is a whole different style of writing, and this movie definitely shows Harris’ amateur status in this field. The movie is very dull, lacking all of the macabre Grand Guignol excess that helped to define the series in the previous installments, and instead it feels like a grim period drama rather than a horror classic. Though there are some horror moments thrown around here and there, none are particularly noteworthy. It also lacks the presence of Anthony Hopkins, who obviously couldn’t play the role this time, considering that the film focuses on the character as a young man. Instead, we get young French actor Gaspard Uliel in the title role, who has the evil stare of the character down, but none of the same charisma. At this point in the franchise, it was clear that the character was played out, and even Thomas Harris was ready to let the character go. This film was only prompted as a way for the original author to still keep control over the development of his most famous creation and nothing more than that. So, in the end, it was still a positive exercise for Thomas Harris. If only something better had come out of this other than an obligation of a movie. It may be the final time we will ever get to see any new cinematic adaptations of the Hannibal Lecter, and it’s sadly a lackluster and forgettable way for such a great character to go out on.

Overall, the Hannibal Lecter series has a pretty turbulent record in quality, with one truly great masterpiece of a film, along with two pretty solid adaptations of the same story and two truly terrible sequels around it. But then again, which horror franchise can you recall having as much an impact as this one. The Silence in the Lambs in particular redefined all notions of what makes a movie a Horror film. Parent studio Universal even was apprehensive about calling it a horror movie, instead calling it a “psychological thriller” in the hopes that it would gain more prestige from critics who usually looked down on the Horror genre. In that respect, it probably worked, but Thomas Harris and director Jonathan Demme clearly stated that they intended their work to be considered part of the Horror genre, and indeed that argument has proven out over time, no matter what Universal says. And this is largely part to the building of a franchise that has truly embraced it’s gruesome nature. Michael Mann’s subdued take on the material is commendable, as is Brian Cox’s performance as the Doctor, but we all know that no one else brought out the best in the series better than Sir Anthony Hopkins. His performance in Silence of the Lambs is truly one of the all-time greats; milking every ounce of potential out of the character and making it seem like a lot of fun at the same time. It’s a performance that managed to redefine the way serial killers are portrayed in movies, and it’s often imitated but never matched. How many scenes do you see now in movies where the main villain toys with his captors through a glass wall prison cell. That’s all thanks to this series. Harris’ novels and the film adaptations remain influential to this day, influencing everything from X-Files to True Detective, and has even spawned a critically acclaimed series on NBC. And it’s all thanks to the charming cannibal at it’s center, who I’m sure would feast on all of this popularity with some Fava beans and a nice Chianti.

Editorials

Walrus Yes – Tusk and the Rise of Fan Driven Cinema

September 20, 2014 James Humphreys

Social Media has moved political movements, public event awareness, and even budding careers into places unseen faster than ever before, but what is most interesting about social media today is how it allowed the average person to have a say in what’s going on in their culture. And there is no other place that has exploited that accessibility to an audience better than the entertainment industry. Whenever you see a movie or a TV show advertised, it often includes a web address listed to entice you the audience to visit their home page and learn more about their product. That or it will include a “hashtag” phrase that you can link to on Twitter and/or other social media sites to let your friends or the actual film companies know that you are directly talking about their show. It’s obviously a marketing ploy by film executives to generate interest and excitement over their new projects, but it also represents an interesting new trend in Hollywood, where interactivity between the filmmakers and the audience is now more closely entwined than ever before. Social media offers a very direct link to gauge how a large group of people is feeling at the moment, and that has helped the entertainment industry figure out what are the trends that matter to which they can directly market. Not only that, but social media also motivates large groups of people instantaneously, which is helpful if what you want to market comes out of more of the underground of pop culture, and you need to grow awareness in a quick and cheap way. But, though films have used social media for a while now as a tool for marketing, it has only been recently that it has actually influenced the actual inceptions of movies. And naturally, when the Twitterverse inspires the creation of a new film, it’s got to be something that is very much “underground.”

Enter renowned comedy filmmaker Kevin Smith, who’s become noteworthy not just for his canon of flicks, but for being a unique personality both on screen and on social media. After his film career turned a little rocky in the late 2000’s, bottoming out with his horrible experience directing 2010’s Cop Out, Smith turned his attention away from Hollywood and towards a new passion, which turned out to be his weekly podcast. What started out as a modest show where Kevin and his buddies could discuss topics freely in humorous, unhinged discussions soon developed into a vast network of multiple shows, and soon Kevin Smith’s “Smodcast” became a launching point for a new phase in Kevin Smith’s career as a filmmaker. With a wide reaching show like his, he could promote his new projects in ways that he was never able to before, which became helpful when he decided to abandon the traditional route of film marketing to promote his 2011 film Red State. But, what he soon learned on his podcast was that he was able to generate new ideas for stories and actually go directly to his audience for feedback, knowing that most of his fans were indeed already listening in. This was something that happened during an episode of his Smodcast called “The Walrus and the Carpenter,” where he and his longtime producer and co-host Scott Mosier discussed a bizarre article they found online, about an ad put into a British newspaper inquiring for a new roommate to help a person with their rent and care-taking. The catch; the new tenant had to wear a walrus costume at all times. This of course spurned on Kevin Smith’s imagination and the whole episode of the podcast involved Kevin and Scott playing out that scenario in a hilarious but twisted way.

This was in no way different than most of the many other discussions Kevin and Scott have had on their show, but what made the episode special was the fact that Kevin saw potential in the idea. Indeed, within the same episode, Kevin Smith wondered if he could actually make the movie that they were dreaming up on the spot. He knew he had the means and the connections to make it happen, but what he didn’t know was whether or not he should. So, he asked his audience to go to Twitter and let him know specifically if he should make the movie or not; all they had to do was either tweet #Walrus Yes or #Walrus No. Not surprisingly, nearly everyone who follows Kevin Smith tweeted in the affirmative, and Smith didn’t hesitate to make good on that promise. He quickly drafted a script, got the funding and the cast lined up in no time, and within a years time, he had a film ready for the spotlight. And indeed, every weird thing that Kevin and Scott jokingly dreamed up on the podcast made it to the screen, in every disturbing and hilarious detail. The final film itself, Tusk (2014) may not be anything groundbreaking on the surface, but the fact that it came from such an unexpected origin is what ultimately makes it groundbreaking. Had Kevin Smith not put the idea up to a vote on his Twitter page, the movie would never have been made. This is what makes the existence of Tusk so interesting because it is 100% a film motivated by social media. It’s not just another film that uses Twitter as means for promotion. We wanted to see this movie happen, we used social media to make it happen, and now it’s playing nationwide in our local cinemas. Kevin Smith’s savvy-ness with social media may have given him a fun exercise in film-making, but the means to make it happen may be more groundbreaking than anyone realizes.

Back in the early days of Hollywood, the only way that audiences could influence what came out of the entertainment industry was to speak with their wallets. If a film was bad, audiences could just ignore it, but after a while, Hollywood found a way to work around this and they used marketing tricks to make even their most inferior products sell well at the box-office. Trends would come and go with the passing years, but whatever films were being made were still dictated by the aspirations of the directors, the producers, and/or the studios. The audience never could have a say in what stories they wanted to see; it was merely down to the choices of whatever films were available at the moment. Thankfully there’s so much variety out there in the film market that anyone could still find something that interests them at their local cinema, so it’s not like audiences have been cheated by this system. But that prompt to have a say in what films actually get made has been largely been left out of the public’s hand. Instead, the choices made by Hollywood have been more about guessing what audiences want than actually knowing what they want. Indeed, even with social media being as widespread as it is now, it’s still difficult to gauge exactly how everyone will react to something. Back in the early days, the studios would sometimes rely on polls and surveys to see what audiences wanted in their movies, but polling only reaches a handful of people and it’s mainly slanted one way or another depending on how the survey’s were conducted. Also, Hollywood has made the big mistake of having focus groups and test screenings determine some of the final cuts of films, which again is relying on a very narrow margin of people to influence and compromise someone’s vision.

The reason why Tusk is groundbreaking is because it removed the guessing game part of the equation and puts the idea up to audiences before any movement can be made on the film at all. Kevin Smith’s fanbase spoke up and indeed said that “we want this to happen,” and the rest was up to Kevin to fulfill. He didn’t have to test screen the footage to see if it would appeal to a wider audience, or get rebuffed by studio executives who thought the idea was too bizarre to be made. Here, thanks to the response on Twitter, Kevin Smith had the voice of the audience behind him, telling him directly that this story needed to be told. Indeed, by letting the audience in on the process at the very beginning, you have this ability to get people behind it early and generate excitement for it before it even sees completion. It actually works better that way than any kind of marketing, although that certainly helps as well. And it thankfully let’s audiences know what to expect and not feel like they were duped by the studios into feeling excited for something that didn’t deserve it. People know what to expect with Tusk, because they’ve been following Kevin Smith’s whole journey with it. In fact, the whole lead up to the movie’s release, documented through Kevin Smith’s own correspondences on Twitter and his podcast, has helped to generate even more interest in the film. Though Kevin Smith may have just wanted to connect with his audience for some well intentioned feedback, he may have also started a whole new trend in film marketing that studios may be following in the years ahead.

Though Tusk came about through an already built-in brand that it’s already famous creator has built over the years, it does show how some underground film-making can use social media to help gain exposure for their products. This is something that has been growing over the last few years and independent film-making is seeing new life today thanks to new forms of crowd-source funding that has also arisen from social media. Today, websites like Kickstarter and Indiegogo are allowing filmmakers who have visions that exist outside the norm find the funding they need in order to make it a reality, and it’s all made possible by getting the word out directly to the audience. The great thing about the crowd-sourcing trend is that it puts the power directly into the hands of audiences to actually make a movie happen. For most filmmakers, finding the funds is the hardest part of the process, so by going online and soliciting funds from the fans directly, with perks like screen credit attached of course, they are able to bypass the whole process of trying to woo less interested investors. Though many films like these will be micro-budgeted even with strong fan response, it nevertheless will give the audience a financial say in what they want to see. Sometimes, when the fan-base is strong enough, a film will get the funding it needs in a big way. Take for instance the Kickstarter fund set up for the making of a movie based on the series Veronica Mars. The Veronica Mars movie managed to raise $4 million in a short amount of time, and with that show of goodwill from a dedicated fan-base, the production team wasted no time making the movie a reality. That’s one example where a film that could never have gotten made the old-fashioned way, due to lack of interest in the industry, suddenly became possible due to the financial support of it’s own fans.

Although there are many benefits to programs like Kickstarter to help fledgling filmmakers get the funding they need or help unique voices be heard outside of the system, there are still drawbacks to audience driven productions. When filmmakers take to Kickstarter, they need to be sure that they are listening to their audience, and not just using the site as a means for some easy cash. If audiences are investing in something, it’s because they want to see something very particular, and not just what the filmmaker believes the audience deserves. Like with more high profile investors, filmmakers have to be beholden to those who invested money into their projects, including taking in creative input that those same investors suggest. When your film comes from thousands of investors like it would from crowd-sourcing, the same should also apply. This probably matters little when the movie that is getting funded is bringing an already familiar property to the big screen, like taking the Veronica Mars series and turning it into a film, but when the film is something new, the filmmaker owes it to their audience to include them in on the creative process. Filmmaker Spike Lee ran into trouble recently when he took to Kickstarter as a way to fund his next film so that he could avoid having to appeal to studio investors. The complaint from audiences came from the fact that Lee was using crowd-sourcing as little more that means to fund his movie, and that he was still going to do things his way without the input from his fans who invested their money in it. It could be said that just by funding the movie, the audience would have already spoken out on supporting Spike Lee’s project, but even still, one has to recognize that there’s more to that process than just finding a quick source of money.

Kevin Smith’s Tusk had the benefit of coming from a filmmaker who indeed had the connections and was listening to what his audience had to say. Though Kevin Smith’s movie may be a small oddity, it nevertheless provides us with an early outlook at how movies may be developed, produced and sold in the future. Today, audiences now have more say in what kind of movies get made than they ever have had before, and it’s all thanks to the new advances made in social media; and also thanks to people in the media who understand how to use those tools well. Not only are we getting filmmakers emboldened with new avenues of finding ways to reach their audiences, but the audiences themselves are beginning to also strong-arm the filmmakers into making the movies they’ve always wanted to see. Even rumors are now influencing film-making decisions, as some people in the media are using places like Twitter to gauge public reaction to potential film ideas before they even exist. Not long ago, word spread online that Disney was working on a third Father of the Bride movie that was centered on gay marriage. While this caused an uproar almost immediately, it was revealed later that no plans of any kind were being made by Disney on such a project, but because the feedback on the rumor was so strong, there is actually real development now on that idea that could potentially see the light of day if the curiosity remains out there. That’s a kind of audience power that has never been seen before, and it will probably spurn on development for movies in the years ahead that may have struggled to get off the ground before. If there’s an audience out there for it, those movies will be made, and social media has helped to make that link between audiences and filmmakers that much stronger. Time will tell if it leaves a lasting impact on film production as a whole. I know for one thing is that something like Tusk could only have become a reality because of this special link.

Collecting Criterion

Collecting Criterion – Ace in the Hole (1951)

September 13, 2014 James Humphreys

The Criterion Collection has given us solid editions of movies that are either universally renowned or completely obscure, and has used it’s label as a mark of quality for the films in it’s library. But, while many of the films that make it into the Collection have garnered attention because of their lack of exposure, either being from a foreign market or were little seen outside of some artistic circles, there are some instances where Criterion shifts it’s focus back to Hollywood and brings our attention to a movie that demands our attention. Sometimes it’s an important but overlooked benchmark film in a genre that deserves the Criterion label, like Howard Hawks’ Red River (1948, Spine #709) or a curious Hollywood oddity like the Charles Laughton directed The Night of the Hunter (1955, #541). But other times it’s films that were overlooked in their day that have stood up remarkably well over time and became more relevant that get the Criterion treatment. That has been the case with a lot of surprisingly prescient films like Fritz Lang’s M (1931, #30), which looked at the dangers of vigilante justice in a pre-Nazi Germany, or Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom (1960, #58), which explored the nature of voyeurism and how human privacy was more fleeting than we would’ve like to have believed. And then there are some films that would have certainly been deemed a classic in their day if they had not been overshadowed by other films at the time. This was certainly the case with a movie called Ace in the Hole (1951, #396), directed by the legendary Billy Wilder. Ace in the Hole is a movie that has thankfully been given new life as part of the Criterion Collection, and having rediscovered it as a part of the catalog, it’s a mystery as to why this movie has gone unnoticed for all these years.

Part of the reason why Ace in the Hole has largely been overlooked is because it was sandwiched in-between two of Wilder’s more successful and renowned films; 1950’s Sunset Boulevard and 1953’s Stalag 17. These movies are now considered among the director’s all time greats, while Ace is seen more or less as a quieter exercise between the two. That, however, is how the original audience reaction painted the reputation of this movie, and it should not reflect on the quality of the film itself. In fact, I believe that Ace is just as good as these more famous titles; if not better. It’s just as unforgiving in it’s satire and themes as Sunset Boulevard, and it probably works better as a film today than it did in it’s first run. Billy Wilder was no prophet, but he certainly could pick out a troubling trend in American culture and exploit the hell out of it. In this case, the subject of ridicule was tabloid journalism, and the way it can be carried out of control. Now, back in the early 50’s, sensationalizing the news was not something that anyone saw as scandalous, and Wilder’s take on the issue definitely exaggerates things to the very extreme. But the sad fact is that over the years, tabloid journalism has become so extreme and out of control, that it has actually caught up to Wilder’s absurd predictions, making his Ace in the Hole all the more prophetic. This is probably why Criterion chose to spotlight this particular film, and I’m glad that they did. It gives us all a chance to take another look at this strangely prescient film and help it to become one of the great Hollywood classics as we now reexamine it through the knowledge that we have today.

The movie follows the story of Chuck Tatum (Kirk Douglas), a big-city journalist who has fallen on hard times. He reluctantly takes a job as reporter in a small New Mexico town. He finds the new surroundings pretty dull compared to his old life, but that changes when he gets word of a cave-in at a local mine. Not one to lose an opportunity Tatum quickly investigates and he soon learns that a miner has been trapped within the cave-in, unable to free himself out of the rubble. Tatum quickly relays the story not just to his own newspaper, but to all media sources across the country. Soon, national attention is brought to this small town story, with Tatum leading the charge. Tatum soon learns that the rescue mission can be accomplished in less than a day, but through a little bit of coercion and some bribing of the local officials in charge, he manages to slow and extend the rescue mission over the following week. He even uses his wit and charm to convince the miner’s estranged wife Lorraine (Jan Sterling) that this is the right thing to do. As the story gets bigger with every passing day, so does the crowd reaction outside of the mine. The whole scene soon becomes a circus, both figuratively and literally, complete with a ferris-wheel at the mine’s entrance. But, reality starts to set it when the trapped miner’s condition starts to deteriorate, and it dawns on Tatum that he made the problem worse by trying to satisfy his own ends. Once the miner dies in the cave, Tatum is faced with the fact that he now has blood on his hands and must now deal with the chaos that he created.

The remarkable thing about a movie like Ace in the Hole is that it is both absurd and yet wholly realistic at the same time. Billy Wilder was always a master at highlighting the follies of mankind, whether it was for a laugh or for a moment of sharp insight. He managed to make that work in dark films like Sunset Boulevard and also in lighter ones like The Apartment (1960), and always with unparalleled wit. Ace in the Hole came out right after Sunset Boulevard and it’s very much in the same vein. Both films deal with unchecked human vanity, and how it consumes the lives of not just their selected main characters, but also the lives of everyone around them. Chuck Tatum is a perfect example of this kind of archetype; a man so consumed by his own ambition, that he loses all sense of the consequences of his actions. Not only that, but he does so with a righteous fervor, believing that what he’s doing is the right thing. The scariest aspect of the movie is just how quickly people succumb to the same kind of media frenzy that surrounds Tatum’s crusade; with absolutely no one raising an alarm as to the unethical practices going on behind the scenes. One doesn’t have to look far to see the same echoes of this today in our own media culture whenever there is a celebrity on trial or a political scandal being exposed. Eventually, the stories becomes less about informing people, and more about covering every minuet detail, trying to drag a story out long after it’s relevance is spent in order to hold onto the audience longer. Wilder saw this as a potential issue back in the 50’s and it’s a sad reflection on our culture today that his absurd analysis has actually proven out over time.

But, apart from what it has to say, this isn’t the only thing that has made Ace in the Hole a honored addition to the Criterion Collection. It’s an excellently made film as well; just like most other Billy Wilder films. The writing in particular is very strong, which comes courtesy of Wilder himself, and his co-authors Lesser Samuels and Walter Newman. Every character is given sharp-witted dialogue, but none of it feels inauthentic or too cinematic. Kirk Douglas in particular does exceptionally great work here, but then again when has he ever disappointed. He makes Chuck Tatum a very fascinating scoundrel and a character that’s both hard to like and dislike. Though inspired by many of the overzealous journalists of the early 50’s, you can definitely see the pomposity and full-of-themselves vanity of Chuck Tatum in modern day “journalists” like Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly, which just shows how well Douglas’ work here has held up. The remaining cast works well too, like Jan Sterling’s conflicted Lorraine, and Robert Arthur as Tatum’s idealistic assistant Herbie, who captures the effect of Tatum’s manipulations on the impressionistic young journalist frighteningly well. Wilder’s direction is also top-notch here. He manages to get the message of the story across without ever banging it into the audiences head. Small visual cues, like the “Tell the Truth” sign in newspaper’s office, helps to slowly build the story’s morals over time, allowing them to sink in before the climatic blow reaches us. Overall, it’s easy to see why this movie has made it into the Collection.

Like most other Criterion titles, Ace in the Hole has received a world-class restoration, helping to bring out the best quality in the movie’s picture and sound. Though the film’s original elements were easy to find in the Paramount Pictures’ archives, there still had to be a lot of work done on restoring it to it’s full original glory. Given that the movie wasn’t as universally renowned as it’s predecessor Sunset Boulevard, Ace unfortunately deteriorated over time and Criterion’s restoration team did a great amount of work to get the picture up to today’s standards. Seeing the film now on blu-ray, it’s clear that their hard work payed off, because it looks just as good as any other classic film from it’s era. While there are still imperfections in the picture, they are more likely the result of the original limitations of the film stock, and not at all a reflection of the quality of Criterion’s restoration. It should be clear that Billy Wilder was never a stickler for visual purity; he was just a good enough visual director who focused his films more on the dialogue and the performances, so the fact that Ace in the Hole looks as good as it does here should tell you how well Criterion’s team did. The black and white contrast is well balanced and the detail really shines through on the textures. Just take a look at the scenes in the desert around the mine to really appreciate the high-definition picture on this blu-ray. The restoration to the mono soundtrack also feels genuine and helps to support the film as well. The carnival atmosphere during the latter part of the film in particular pops out in the soundtrack as you watch the movie. Overall, another quality effort from the Criterion team on a film well deserving of a polished restoration.

The bonus features also help to highlight the significant reputation that this movie has built over time. First off is an audio commentary track from film scholar Neil Sinyard, who helps to break down the film’s social themes as well as it’s place in media history and within Billy Wilder’s own filmography. It’s a bit of a dry lecture for cinephiles, and may not be for those who want to hear a more detailed analysis of the making of the movie, but Sinyard’s comments are still informative and worth giving a listen. The biggest feature on the set though is a full length documentary called Portrait of a “60% Perfect Man“: Billy Wilder (1980). In it, director Wilder is interviewed about his career and his methods of film-making, complete with relevant clips from some of his most notable films, including Ace. The documentary shows just how funny the man was in person as well as his passion for film-making and it works as a fantastic overview of the works of one of Hollywood’s most legendary and original voices. An excerpt from Billy Wilder’s 1986 appearance at the American Film Institute is also included, which while not really relevant to the film itself, is nevertheless an appreciated addition. Rounding out the extras are some very welcome archival interview clips from star Kirk Douglas and co-writer Walter Newman, both discussing their work on the film, as well as an appreciation clip from director Spike Lee, who has long been a fan and champion of this film. Also included is a behind-the-scenes photo gallery and an original trailer, and it all makes this a very complete and worthwhile collection of extras to help compliment the presentation of this feature.

Ace in the Hole was a hard-sell in it’s time, and it’s probably the reason why it has been lost for so many years. In fact, for the longest time, the movie went by a different title, called The Big Carnival, which was a choice made by Paramount Pictures and not by Wilder. Billy Wilder thought that the new title was too on-the-nose for the film he made and took all the subtlety out of what he was trying to convey; but it was something that he didn’t fight the studio over, so the title stuck. Thankfully, when Criterion first released the title on DVD, they thankfully restored the original title just as Wilder had wished. Hopefully Criterion’s edition of the movie brings new attention to it. It really is amazing to watch this movie and see how many things that it predicted correctly about media culture and human greed. It makes a great companion film with Sidney Lumet’s Network (1976), another movie that was well ahead of it’s time dealing with the same subjects. Any student of journalism today should be required to watch both movies as a lesson in the ethical boundaries that they will inevitably face in their profession. But, apart from that, Ace in the Hole should be seen by all as just a great example of film-making. It certainly stands as one of Billy Wilder’s best and most hard-hitting films and hopefully it will now earn it’s place as one of the director’s all-time greatest. I certainly would equate it with some of his better works and I am grateful that Criterion took the time to highlight this film too. It’s a movie well worth rediscovering and it’ll be curious to see how well it’s hard-hitting themes will hold up over time as the media circus that it predicted sadly becomes all the more common.

Editorials

Time Will Tell – How Movies Become Either Dated or Timeless

September 6, 2014 James Humphreys

We’ve all seen it happen before. Something that you cherished in your youth will end up loosing value as you get older. Trends change and so do we. Whether it was some toy we played with or some book we read, our tastes in entertainment evolve over time as we begin to mature and explore new things, and movies are no different. Perhaps more than most other forms of entertainment, cinema is more prone to the ravages of time and often we see perhaps one or more films become lost to time because of how poorly it has aged. Sometimes, even entire genres are swallowed up by the passage of time, and are only revived by completely unexpected factors. But it’s only because most films want to reach the strongest possible audience in their specific time, so these movies end up reflecting the times in which they were made, making their stories more relatable to that contemporary audience. It’s not always the case though, and sometimes we find movies that can be so easily defined by the era they were made in. Movies can end up being timeless given the right kind of story or the right kind of vision. And these are the films that can still entertain decades later, while the films that are dated end up becoming curiosities of their era. What’s interesting about this is that by looking at all the films that have dated poorly over the years, you can actually learn something of the values of the culture at the time; whether it was the whitewash optimism of the 1950’s, the turbulent psychedelia of the 60’s, the grunginess of the 70’s, the excess of the 80’s, or even the naivete of the 90’s. Every era has it’s mark and the more closely the movies exploited these time periods, the more likely they were going to be left behind when it was over. Thus, do we find the movies that truly are timeless as they live on in our memories long after all the others are forgotten.

Trends tend to be the motivating factor behind the movies that get left behind by the passage of time. Mostly seen in low budget movies from any era, popular fads in the pop culture will end up motivating production studios to quickly cobble together movies geared towards exploiting the fad with little thought put into it. That’s why you see a lot of movies that give us a glimpse of a long forgotten pop cultural benchmark as well as feature some of the most paper thin plots and terrible acting that anyone has ever seen. A great example of this was the “beach blanket” movies of the 1960’s, which featured the likes of Annette Funicello and Frankie Avalon in the cast and were little else than excuses to film people hanging out on the beach and singing pop tunes of the period, which I guess was a thing 50 years ago. The beach movies of the 60’s may have hit their mark in their time, but those movies quickly went away once audiences’ tastes began to change, and the psychedelic era began to be exploited by the studios. Every era follows this same pattern, as new pop culture trends reflect back in the movies being made. Even trends that did evolve and improve over time are given films that have aged poorly when they run into the problem of having no foresight. Case in point, the 1990’s movies that tried to explore the new wonder that was the Internet. Movies like The Net (1995), Hackers (1995), and Johnny Mnemonic (1995) have all unfortunately become products of their time because they didn’t have the foresight to think that the Internet and computers would run on something other than floppy disks and dial-up service. Indeed, the world changes around us, but celluloid is forever, and when we look back on these movies, we begin to understand how fleeting a fad in our culture can be.

But it’s not only an outdated trend that can hurt a movies reception over the years. Sometimes it’s the progress in cinematic tools that causes a movie to lose some of it’s luster over time. Visual Effects have always played a part in film-making, but different advances can make movies in the past feel out of date by comparison. Stop-motion for example was a popular way for filmmakers to bring to life some of the most memorable monsters the big screen has ever seen. Animator Ray Harryhausen became a legend in the field because of his ability to make the impossible possible with his imaginative puppetry in films like The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958) and Jason and the Argonauts (1963). Stop motion was a successful tool all the way up to the 1980’s, helping to even create memorable moments in films like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) and Beetlejuice (1988). But once the CGI animated dinosaurs made their first appearance in Jurassic Park (1993) filmmakers pretty much abandoned the tried and true stop-motion for the wonders of digital manipulation. It’s usually a huge 180-shift like this that can make a once classic film feel quickly dated. Even advances in CGI over the years reflect poorly on films made at the very beginning of the era. The Sean Connery-voiced dragon in Dragonheart (1996) was seen as groundbreaking in it’s day, but when you compare it to the more advanced and photo-realistic Smaug in the Hobbit series, you start to see the artificiality of the original character. Indeed, CGI as advanced so quickly in the last 20 years, that movies made even a few years ago can feel out of date just because their effects are not up to today’s standards. It’s any wonder how Jurassic Park has managed to still amaze audiences with it’s effects after all of these years.

Now while many films have succumbed to the changing tastes of audiences over time, there are other movies that unfortunately are asking to be ridiculed for being so dated, and those are the films that naively try to predict the future of society. These movies are either bold visions of a progressive and homogenized society of the future, or are dystopian cautionary tales. Either way, each of these movies try to showcase what the future will be with the knowledge that they have with them at the time, and sometimes even the best guesses don’t really pan out so well. Particularly in the genre of Sci-fi do we see the most films that you can consider as dated. Many space age movies of the 50’s thought that we would have discovered life on Mars by now, or have colonized the moon. And remember movies like The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957) or the Amazing Colossal Man (1957) where it was believed at the time that exposure to radioactivity could give you mutant powers, instead of cancer. Sometimes even a dystopian view of the world ends up dating a movie. Even great dystopian movies like Blade Runner (1982) make the fatal mistake of trying to put a definite date on their futuristic setting. The fact that we in 2014 are now just 5 years away from the future seen in that movie does not reflect well on how well the film imagined the future. But then again, Science-fiction is all about letting the imagination go, so it’s one that we can give it a pass on. But, movies like Logan’s Run (1976) and Rollerball (1975) don’t have that kind of luxury because their visions are so limited. They’re futuristic visions are only reflexive of the time periods in which they were made, making it seem like they believed that no advances in technology or culture would be made in the intervening year. This is primarily the reason why so many of these films tend to fall prey to the evolving tastes in cinema.

But, while some films that are a product of their era can age poorly, there are others that inexplicably live on for many years. This mainly has to due with how well the films are made and how timeless their themes and stories are. You can see this clearly in the lists made of all of the best films made over time. The one thing most of them have in common is their rewatchablitity. Movies like Lawrence of Arabia (1962), The Wizard of Oz (1939), The Godfather (1972), and E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) can be watched over and over again many years removed from the time periods they were made because they did the same things exactly right; they didn’t try to reflect their own time periods and instead tried to remove themselves from the pack and try to be more universal in their appeal. And most importantly, timeless films like these embody their own unique worlds and exist by their own rules. A great timeless film doesn’t try to follow trends, nor is it seeking to try to start them either. There are exceptions though. The era of wartime propaganda message films in the 1940’s gave us a lot of dated and stilted films that barely are remembered years later; but out of this same pack we got Casablanca (1942), which is still considered one of the most timeless films of it’s era. And the amazing thing about Casablanca is that it was never meant to be anything more than another product of it’s time. Sometimes, timeless films just happen and then there are those that end up being discovered.

What is amazing sometimes is the fact that movies that should be dated end up achieving a timeless quality, partly due to the effectiveness of their story. Another factor however is the nostalgia factor. Sometimes we are in the mood for a movie that is clearly a product of it’s time and our entertainment values comes from how poorly the film has aged. That, or we just want to examine how the world was viewed in a time other than our own. One such movie that became a cult hit due to it’s very definitive vision of it’s time period was the 1982 Disney film Tron. Tron is a poster child for 80’s cinema, with it’s blocky CGI-based environments, it’s excessive use of back-lit colors, and it’s synthesizer-based soundtrack. Not to mention the fact that the plot revolves around the world of Arcade games. And yet, the movie is still beloved all these years later because it feels so uniquely of it’s time. It even spawned a sequel in 2010 called Tron Legacy, which itself smartly kept the aesthetic of the first movie while still updating the technology behind it. Other films from specific eras have also withstood the test of time due to the fact that vision behind them is so imaginative that they end up defining themselves, and the era they came from; such as Barbarella (1968) or even Star Wars (1977). Sometimes, even taking a timeless source material and adapting it for a certain time period helps to make a film resonate many years later. The 1995 film Clueless is definitely a product of it’s time, and yet it still resonates years later, mainly due to the fact that the story is from a classic source; Jane Austen’s 1815 novella, Emma. Smartly combining the classic story with a contemporary setting, filmmaker Amy Heckerling was able to make a film that felt timeless in it’s themes, but also be a commentary on the time in which it was made, thereby transcending it’s 90’s aesthetic.

But what usually happens is that we don’t know what’s going to be the definitive movies of an era until that time period has passed us by. And any attempt we make to proclaim a certain film as the best reflection of our culture at any certain time will fall under scrutiny over time. Sometimes, a movie takes many years to be considered an all time classic, while others fade into obscurity after a brief time at the top. This is sometimes reflective in the choices made during Awards season. What we thought was the standout film in one particular year may end up being forgotten by decades end. American Beauty (1999) was once considered a daring choice for Best Picture at the Oscars, but now it’s viewed as a forgettable and somewhat naive movie about middle-class malaise. Considering that there have been so many imitators in the years since American Beauty won, that brave choice now is viewed as the safe bet, especially when you look at all the other groundbreaking films that came out that year that have gone on to become classics; like The Matrix and Fight Club. Sometimes, it ends up working in a movie’s favor to be the underdog, because then you’re not left with the mark of the era in which you were made; that is as long as you still have that timeless quality about you. But withstanding the test of time can also be unpredictable. I’m sure that Robert Zemekis never thought that his small, time-travel comedy called Back to the Future (1985) would become a decade-defining movie, but it ended up doing just that. Sometimes it’s not the awards that define a classic, but the way it touches an audience, and even the smallest and silliest of movies can end up overshadowing the most prestigious of productions when all is said and done.

That is what ultimately separates the timeless from the dated; the impact that they leave on us. It is entirely unpredictable how well a film will age over time, but when we benefit from hindsight, we can see the trademark signs of what leads to so many movies becoming forgotten. But, even still, the very fact that a movie has not aged well doesn’t mean that it can’t still entertain. Indeed, the most dated of movies are the ones that enjoy the most dedicated of cult followings. Take for instance the movies of Ed Wood or John Carpenter. Their movies are very much cemented in their particular eras, and yet movies like Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959) and Big Trouble in Little China (1986) can still leave audiences satisfied. Also, there are films that transcend their eras by taking the aesthetics of the period and working them to their fullest potential. Stanley Kubrick’s movies in particular should all feel dated, and yet every single one is considered a masterpiece of it’s era, mainly due to the un-compromised vision behind it and the timeless themes, which helps to elevate his films beyond the aesthetic. After a while, all films will be viewed differently, because cultural tastes are constantly evolving. Even beloved timeless movies that we proclaim about now may end up being viewed in a different way by future generations. It’s a challenge for filmmakers, but for film lovers, exploring the past is a fascinating journey into cultural history, because cinema preserves a place in time better than any other art form. It’s the best kind of historical time capsule and the longer that a movie withstands the test of time, the better it is observed as a landmark of our culture.

Movie Previews

The Movies of Fall 2014

August 30, 2014 James Humphreys

We’ve reached the end of yet and as I predicted, Hollywood has begun to back off on some of their bigger gambles in the past in the hopes that it would help boost their returns at the box office. And in a way, that plan succeeded. This summer saw films that disappointed, but there was no catastrophic flop this season, such as The Lone Ranger (2013) and Battleship (2012) had been in the last previous summers. But, with a lesser number of big gambles this summer, we also saw another unfortunate trend, and that was the lack of a runaway hit. For the first time in years, no movie this summer crossed the $250 million dollar mark by summers end, except for Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy, which just barely made that milestone in this final week. And considering that by this point in previous summers there had been more than a couple that could reliably reach that point and more, it shows a growing concern that the summer movie season is not generating the same kind of clout that it once did. That’s not to say that the movies that came out in the summer of 2014 were bad. In fact, after watching most of them this summer, I actually believe this was one of the most consistently strong seasons we’ve seen in a while. In particular, movies like X-Men: Days of Future Past, 22 Jump Street, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, and especially Guardians of the Galaxy proved to be better than the average blockbuster. It’s just unfortunate that, other than Guardians, none of their box office numbers made any of them stand out. One could argue that tepid marketing and a disinterested viewership could be blamed. That was certainly the case with the exceptional, but under-performing Edge of Tomorrow, a movie that I even misjudged due to it’s lackluster trailer, and it’s one that signifies exactly what went wrong for so many movies this year.

But, now that the summer season has moved behind us, we look forward to the fall months ahead. These are the movies that could serve as potential Oscar season material, or at the very least, generate some much needed heat at the box office over the holidays. Some of this fall’s big entries may be more indie driven than in past years, with big names like Spielberg and Scorsese noticeably absent. We are, however, getting a new epic production from acclaimed director Christopher Nolan, whose become a reliable name when it comes to box office success. There’s also the final chapter in the Hobbit trilogy, the next chapter in the Hunger Games saga, as well as the long delayed follow-up to Dumb and Dumber (1993). Prestigious directors like David Fincher, Ridley Scott, Bennett Miller, and Paul Thomas Anderson are also prepping their newest films for the fall as well. Like past previews I’ve done before, I am going to take a look at the upcoming films that will premiere in the months ahead and tell you which ones that I believe will be the must sees, which ones I have worries about, and which ones that are worth skipping. Of course, I’m purely going on speculation with all of this, based on news of their production and how they are being marketed through their trailers. So that being said, let’s begin looking at the movies of Fall 2014.

MUST SEES:

INTERSTELLER (NOVEMBER 7)

Of course, whenever Christopher Nolan, the director behind the Dark Knight trilogy and Inception (2010), makes a new film it’s going to be an event. And though many of his films are grand in scope, they always seem to be grounded in a sense of realism that few other directors can replicate so effectively on the same kind of scale. With Interstellar, Nolan is venturing off into a much different direction; delving further into the realm of sci-fi than he has ever gone before. The movie is written by his brother Jonathan Nolan, who at one time had Steven Spielberg attached to the script, before he moved on to other projects. Thankfully Christopher was there to pick it up and judging by the trailer above, it seems like he is really putting all of his talents as a visual storyteller behind it. The cinematography in these short clips are particularly eye-catching. And I’m sure that like all of Nolan’s previous movie, this one is going to push the envelope and possibly become yet another movie that sets trends in Hollywood. Suffice to say, this is the movie I am most looking forward to this fall season. My hope is that it is good enough to be the movie that finally earns Christopher Nolan that Best Director nomination that he’s always been denied in previous years, and maybe even be good enough to get him the award itself. It does have the benefit of having recent Oscar-winner Matthew McConaughey as it’s lead, as well as a bunch of past award winners like Anne Hathaway and Nolan regular Michael Caine filling out the rest of the stellar cast. If Interstellar isn’t the best film of the fall season, it will almost certainly be it’s most ambitious.

THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES (DECEMBER 17)

Another ambitious film for the fall season, this movie marks the end of a grand scale trilogy, as well as the end of one of the most ground-breaking franchises ever. Time will tell if this is the final adaptation we will see of one of J.R.R. Tolkein’s novels, but this will almost certainly be the last one to be helmed by director Peter Jackson. While The Hobbit trilogy may not be as universally beloved as The Lord of the Rings trilogy, no one can deny that these films feel just as ambitious as their predecessors, and maybe even more so. I for one have enjoyed every one of the films in this series, and that excitement is certainly making me look forward to this final chapter. Though there is a lot of excitement to be had, there will also be the sad feeling knowing that this will indeed be the end to an era that has left an impact on movie-goers around the world like me. But while the movie carries a lot of weight behind it, my hope is that it will stand well enough on it’s own apart from it’s place in the franchise. The previous film, The Desolation of Smaug (2013) ended on quite a cliffhanger and it will be interesting to see how that carries over and leads to the ultimate conclusion; and how that will all tie into the events we’ve already seen in the Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit has been a fun yet still engaging series of movies that I do believe compliments Rings very well, and helps to make Tolkein’s Middle Earth feel bigger and more complete. Sometimes the final chapter is the hardest movie to make, especially when the story is this big and complex, but if Peter Jackson’s Oscar-winning The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is any indication, Jackson is hopefully saving the best for last.

BIRDMAN (December 2014)

Looking at an entirely different, but no less ambitious movie, this awards season will include this new, trippy flick from acclaimed Mexican director, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (2006’s Babel). What I find so interesting about this premise is the way it seems to be crafted around it’s main star, Michael Keaton. The plot is about an aging actor (Keaton) who became famous for playing a popular superhero on film, but is having trouble adjusting his career after leaving that behind; something that the one-time Batman actor probably identifies with. The film is naturalistic like most of Inarritu’s films, but there are parts where the movie will take wild, imaginative departures into the realms of insanity that the main character is experiencing, and it all looks very fascinating. What I find most exciting though is the casting of Michael Keaton. To me, he was one of the best Batman’s ever on the big screen (if not the best) and seeing him use that experience as an inspiration for this character could make this a truly standout role for him. It would be great to see this movie act as a jumping off point for a whole new phase in Keaton’s career, and help him get some awards attention. I always felt that he has been a severely underused actor and he’s much more talented than his reputation as the Caped Crusader would have you believe. Hopefully this is the movie that helps everyone to see that as well. It certainly helps to have an acclaimed director like Inarritu in charge, and the movie looks like an interesting experiment for him as well. Hopefully this is one of those indie films that lives up to it’s potential and earns the awards that it’s gearing itself up for.

BOXTROLLS (September 26)

Animated films are popular during the fall season, but rarely do you see one that is not-CGI animated nowadays. Thanks to the Portland, Oregon based Laika studios, stop motion animation is still thriving, and that’s largely due to the fact that the animators at Laika are churning out films that are not only visually stunning, but are also clever and charming as well. That has been true with their last two films, Coraline (2009) and ParaNorman (2012), which were both smart and fun, without ever having to make compromises to appeal to a wider audience. The same looks to be true with their new film The Boxtrolls, which gets it premiere in a few short weeks. Like it’s predecessors, the movie looks to be just as imaginative and clever as the others, and hopefully it continues the great track record that the company has already maintained. I for one am happy to see any animated company take risks and try to challenge the audience’s expectations instead of pandering to them. That’s unfortunately been the case with most animated films from the bigger studios. Laika seems to work under the mentality that audiences will enjoy their films as long as there is substance behind the style, and that everything is done with sincerity, and not for just the cheap laugh. Coraline and ParaNorman proved that it was possible, so hopefully Boxtrolls lives up to that same promise.

FOXCATCHER (NOVEMBER 14)

Unlike the other movies I’ve discussed, this is a movie that has already garnered attention from critics and the film festival circuit for months now. A winner at the prestigious Cannes Film Festival, Foxcatcher is considered an early favorite for the next Oscars. Time will tell if that proves to be true, but there is no doubt that this movie is certainly one to get excited for. What’s especially interesting about this movie though is the casting against type of Steve Carell in one of the lead roles. Based on the notorious DuPont murders, Carell is almost unrecognizable as the manic John du Pont, the millionaire sponsor of an Olympic wrestler (played by Channing Tatum), who he ends up killing in an act of murder-suicide, which is documented in the film. Director Bennett Miller has already had success around awards time, with Capote (2005) and Moneyball (2011) respectively, but Foxcatcher is getting the hottest buzz yet, and it looks like a film that will certainly be awards material come the end of the year; especially for Carell. My hope is that the movie lives up to the hype and becomes the awards juggernaut that everyone is saying that it will be. In any case, it will be interesting to see someone like Steve Carrell expand his range as an actor and succeed at it too. And these true life stories are always fascinating to see dramatized, especially when quality talent is behind it.

MOVIES THAT HAVE ME WORRIED:

FURY (OCTOBER 17)

Now on the surface, there shouldn’t be anything about this movie that should make me worry. It’s production values look impressive and it’s got a charismatic star in the lead with Brad Pitt. So, why do I think this movie may end up disappointing in the end. My worry is mainly due to the fact that there has been so many other movies that look exactly like this one (Saving Private Ryan comes to mind) and nothing about this trailer makes me believe that it will add anything new to the war movie genre. I enjoy war films alright, but the ones that stand out to me are the movies that bring something new and interesting to the genre, and not just recycle all of the old cliches that we’ve seen before. Another Brad Pitt WWII flick managed to do that a few years back; the Quentin Tarantino directed Inglorious Basterds (2009). This movie, on the other hand, looks to be playing it safe, and feels more like Saving Private Ryan with tanks. Another area of apprehension is the cast, which apart from Brad Pitt, features some fairly unappealing actors in most of the key roles (Shia LeBeouf, for example). Of course, that may just be how the film appears in the marketing and the final product may end up being much better. Let’s hope director David Ayer does deliver a worthy entry to the genre.

BIG HERO 6 (NOVEMBER 7)

Disney Animation is coming off one of their best years in company history, with their last film Frozen (2013) breaking all kinds of box office records. This fall, we get their follow-up production, which also marks their first adaptation of a property owned by their sister company, Marvel Comics. Big Hero 6 is a marked departure from the style seen in Frozen, and unfortunately that may work as a disadvantage for this film. The fact that Frozen was such a huge success may end up overshadowing every film that comes after it, especially this one, given that it’s premiering so soon after. The same thing brought down Disney Animation in the late 90’s and early 2000’s, as no film in that time could ever match up to the massive success of 1994’s The Lion King. As of now, there’s nothing about Big Hero 6 that tells me that it end up being as successful as Frozen; but few other films ever will. The best we can hope for is that Big Hero 6 will still be a charming and fun animated film. The trailers are already doing a good job of selling the personalities of the characters, as well as the imaginative action bits. Let’s just hope that the Disney executives expectations are not too high this time around, and that they’ll be satisfied with a box office return that’s still strong, but well below Frozen standards.

INTO THE WOODS (DECEMBER 25)

Musicals tend to be a popular choice during the holiday season, and this year brings us the first cinematic adaptation of Stephen Sondheim’s Tony-winning classic, Into the Woods. Woods is all about the classic Grimm Brothers fairy tales, but with a darker and more contemporary twist. Given that the movie is adapting an already beloved musical with a strong fan-base, you would think that there would be a lot of excitement surrounding this film. Unfortunately, worries have already arisen about the production, leading people to believe that the film’s distributor, Disney, is watering down the darker themes of the musical to make it more appropriate for family audiences. Also, the marketing is also doing a poor job of selling the movie as well, and leads one to believe that even Disney doesn’t have much faith in the final film. The fact that they’re trying to sell a musical, and not once in the trailer do you see any of the all-star cast belting out a tune, is a revealing indicator of that worry. That being said, the cast is impressively assembled (with A-listers like Meryl Streep and Johnny Depp), and award-winning director Rob Marshall has a proven history of adapting musicals successfully to the big screen (2002’s Chicago), so the final product could end up surprising and hopefully gives the classic production the translation it deserves.

DUMB AND DUMBER TO (NOVEMBER 14)

On the surface, this one looks like a movie that’s just destined to fall flat on it’s face. Given that the previous movie was made over 20 years ago, this long delayed sequel could be seen as too little too late. I for one am cautiously optimistic about the film. I want to see this movie work, mainly because I still regard the original as a comedy classic, although I do know that not everyone shares that same opinion. What makes me happy is the fact that this film returns all of the original people involved; the Farrelly Brothers along with stars Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels. Unfortunately, none of them are anywhere near as relevant as they were since the first movie came out; with maybe the exception of Daniels. More than likely, this film will not work out well in the end, but then again it could end up surprising us. Jeff Daniels especially looks like he’s having a blast playing this character once again, and Jim Carrey is certainly at his best when he takes on roles like this. Also, this film has the benefit of being a true sequel, and not a cheap cash-in like the horrible prequel film Dumb and Dumber: When Harry Met Lloyd (2003), made without Carrey and Daniels, or the Farrelly’s. Let’s hope that this film is the sequel that was well worth the wait.

MOVIES TO SKIP:

ANNIE (DECEMBER 19)

Yet another remake of the seemingly ever present Annie musical. This one is attempting to shake things up by casting African-American actors in the key roles of Annie and ‘Daddy’ Warbucks (Quvenzhane Wallis and Jamie Foxx respectively) which is actually an admirable and good way to go towards re-imagining the musical for a contemporary audience. And the main stars are certainly better selected here than how this movie started out in pre-production; as a vanity piece for Will Smith and his daughter Willow. But the fact that this musical has been done over and over again many times makes this film feel just unnecessary. Also, like Into the Woods, this movie’s marketing is noticeably de-emphasizing the fact that it’s a musical, which could be an indicator of some of the studio’s worries. Another warning sign seems to be the very miscast Cameron Diaz as Miss Hannigan. She’s very much out of her league in this film, and doesn’t even come close to holding a candle up to Carol Burnett’s performance in the original 1982 film. There are too many negatives working against this movie to make me believe that it was worth revisiting Annie again, and I doubt that this one is going to leave me surprised in the end.

EXODUS: GODS AND KINGS (DECEMBER 12)

Ridley Scott is one of the greatest visual directors of our times. Some of his movies are definite masterpieces (Blade Runner, Alien, Gladiator), but unfortunately his recent track record has been a little shoddy. Exodus looks like another visually stunning entry into his filmography, and some of the set-pieces definitely feel like vintage Scott. Unfortunately, it also feels like another retread of ground he has already covered in films like Gladiator (2000) and Kingdom of Heaven (2005), and not in a good way. Also, the awful looking transformation of actor Joel Edgerton into Pharaoh Rameses makes me worry that this movie may end up being unintentionally funny instead of awe-inspiring. Given that the story of Moses has already been done again many times before on the big screen, my biggest worry is that Scott’s version will feel superfluous and unnecessary, which is an unfortunate fate for such a great visionary filmmaker. That being said, Christian Bale does seem like ideal casting in the role of Moses and the film does have some beautiful production values. Unfortunately as of now, it looks like more style than substance.

NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM: SECRET OF THE TOMB (DECEMBER 19)

Now here is the very definition of a movie that serves as nothing more than a cash grab. After two lackluster, yet inexplicably popular films prior, we are now get a third film in this series that no one seemed to be clammoring for, other than greedy studio executives. Just watching the trailer, you can see that the film’s star, Ben Stiller, has completely lost interest in this series and is now just phoning it in. Also, the movie seems to be relying more heavily on cheap slapstick and bodily humor than on anything clever and witty. And what’s most unfortunate is that this will be one of the final movie roles from the late Robin Williams; thankfully it’s not the last, because I don’t think this is the kind of movie that he would’ve wanted to be his swan song. Overall, the best I can describe this film as is that it is unnecessary, and it will probably come and go very quickly this holiday season.

So, these are the movies that stand out to me the most this holiday season. I know that there is another Hunger Games movie scheduled this Fall, but I have to confess, I just don’t care enough about that franchise to want to write about it. Maybe I’ll review it when it comes out, but after two previous films, I have yet to get on the bandwagon and I doubt one more film will change that. For now, it’s the big productions this Fall that have me most excited, as well as the smaller films that are generating all the Awards season buzz. It will be interesting to see which films stand out the most by year’s end, and which ones that may end up surprising. I for one am eager to visit my local cinema over these next few months and hopefully this season is a standout one compared to years past.

Top Ten Lists

Top Ten Giant Movie Monsters

August 23, 2014 James Humphreys

It’s funny how our tastes in movies are sometimes dictated by whatever mood we are in. Sometimes we gravitate towards thoughtful, provocative and classy pictures, and then other times we just like to see shit blow up in a loud action flick. The latter of the two is probably the kind of movie that draws more people in, and that’s not necessarily a negative. Action movies offer a great deal of entertainment value, and sometimes what appears on the surface to be dumb action fun can actually have an intellectual undercurrent to it. That’s probably why a lot of smart filmmakers out there dabble every now and then in a larger than life action flicks. Hell, even subversive filmmaker David Lynch had made a loud sci-fi action film called Dune (1984), and many of his fans didn’t see it as a sell-out for him. I think the reason why action films are such an attractive avenue for film-making is because they offer more opportunities to let the imagination go. And indeed, this has become true for a whole generation of filmmakers that were weened on B-Movie flicks from yesteryear. Once a sub-class of filmmaking that was looked down upon by critics and studio execs in Hollywood’s early years has now become mainstream, with big idea filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, Peter Jackson, and yes even Michael Bay leading the way. Nowadays big money rules the action genre, and more and more ambitious filmmakers are getting their chance to take these concepts they learned from all of those cheap and campy B-Movies of the 50’s and 60’s, and bring them to their full potential. And the most common of those B-Movie inspirations that seems to have left an impact on the big screen in recent years is the presence of giant, larger than life monsters wrecking havoc on modern civilization.

A staple of 50’s sci-fi, Giant Monsters have become some of the most beloved cinematic creations in movie history. Whether created by science, or through magic, or are visitors from another planet, we always seem to love watching these creatures wreck havoc on society. But, what is it about them that has let them to leave such an impact? I think it’s due to the overwhelming threat that each of them poses and how humanity is able to deal with it. Some of these creatures are based off of animals that we are all familiar with in real life, and also ones we know how to deal with if they threaten us. When that same creature is many times it’s normal size, then the stakes are raised, and humanity’s best laid plans are not quite as effective. It’s the point where human beings become vulnerable to creatures that are beyond their comprehension that we find most interesting in these movies, and the more creative the creature, the more we are entertained by all the chaos they create. True, nowadays we have CGI technology to help bring these massive creatures to life, but in the early days, you either had to use puppetry or stop-motion, or a combination of both to bring these iconic creatures to life, or just trick photography. And if you were making monster movies in Japan, more than likely you would be using a actor in a rubber suit. But, even with those crude techniques, we saw many unique and varied monsters come to life; anything from giant ants; to giant lizards; to even giant people. What follows is a list that I put together of what I think represents the most iconic of these modern movie monsters, based on the creativity of their design, their impact on the movie, and how well they left an impression on audiences.

10.

THE “CLOVERFIELD” CREATURE from CLOVERFIELD (2008)

This J.J. Abrams produced, Matt Reeves directed movie about a monster attacking New York City could not have been more mysterious when it was due to premiere in early 2008. The first trailer for the movie didn’t even have a title listed, and when it was revealed to the public that the movie was going to be called Cloverfield, I’m sure that it left people even more confused. All we knew going in was that something big was wrecking havoc in the middle of NYC and it very well could have been anything. Thankfully, when the monster was fully revealed nearly half-way through the film, it was actually worth all of the teasing. The design of the creature is like nothing we’ve ever seen before; sort of a mix of a giant spider with what looked like the enormous appendages of a crippled horse. And boy was it big too. At least over 200 feet in height. This was truly a monster that not only looked terrifying, but felt like it was indestructible; as if nothing could stand in it’s path of destruction. The movie also chose to wisely to hold off on showing the creature until it would have the best impact, successfully pulled off with the narrow viewing of a hand-held camera. Had the monster not worked in Cloverfield, I’m sure the found footage gimmick would have failed, so thankfully for the filmmakers, they created a beast that definitely stood out.

GAMERA from THE “GAMERA” SERIES (1965-80)

Japanese cinema in the 50’s and 60’s emulated a lot of the same formulas that were popular in the west, and that included many of the B-Movies that were imported overseas. Not to be outdone, Japanese filmmakers sought to make action movies of their own, and that included taking concepts known in their culture, namely the idea of Kaiju monsters, and bringing them to realm of Sci-fi. Kaiju literally means “giant monster” in Japanese, so it could be a good term to use for any monster on this list, and indeed it was the Japanese “Kaiju” films that popularized the concept to an international audience. Many popular monsters came out of this era in film, but one of the standouts was definitely the giant Snapping Turtle known as Gamera. Unlike many of the other Kaiju monsters, Gamera was not malicious in nature, and indeed, in some of his later films he acted more like a savior to mankind than a threat. That’s not to say that he wasn’t ferocious. He had a lot of signature moves, like his fiery spinning attacks, which helped to make him a favorite to audiences worldwide and certainly among on the Japanese culture’s marquee names, along with another on this list. Because of monsters like Gamera, the Kaiju concept has lived on and left a lasting impact that while still distinctly Japanese in origin, nevertheless has influenced filmmakers all over the world.

THE WINGED KAIJU from PACIFIC RIM (2013)

Speaking of filmmakers influenced by Japanese “Kaiju” movies, director Guillermo del Toro put his own spin on the genre when he created his critically-acclaimed action thriller, Pacific Rim. He went so far as to name the alien creatures in his movie simply Kaiju, clearly stating the overall Japanese influence in his film. The movie’s plot is pretty straightforward; it’s nothing more than giant monsters fighting giant robots called Jaegers. But what makes the movie so memorable is just how well that concept is executed. Many of the numerable fight scenes in the movie features Kaiju monsters that would easily find their way on to this list, most of which were designed by del Toro himself. But if I were to single out just one, it would be the Winged Kaiju that’s featured in the movie’s most extended and memorable action sequence. We see the creature attacking the city of Hong Kong and searching high and low for it’s target; specifically the character played by actor Charlie Day. Once it finally encounters the memorable Jaeger robot named Gipsy Danger, we get what is probably the film’s most pleasing showdown, and it’s a fight that brings out the full potential of del Toro’s imaginative concepts. This particular Kaiju gets the nod for being the right kind of foe in the best part of the movie, bringing Gipsy Danger to the absolute brink of it’s power, taking the machine even into the outer limits of space. Luckily they thought to give Gipsy a sword for just such an occasion, which also gives this memorable creature an even more memorable sendoff.

THE KRAKEN from PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN’S CHEST (2006)

Though a popular staple in many fantastical cinematic adventures, such as Disney’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954) or the cult classic Clash of the Titans (1981), the monster known as the Kraken has been present in literature all the way back to ancient Norse mythology. Essentially a giant squid that is large enough to destroy a ship with it’s mighty tentacles, The Kraken represents a very different kind of monster; one that represents people’s fears of the unknown and what lies deep down in the abyss of the mighty ocean. Naturally, this makes the Kraken a perfect adversary in stories of Pirate lore as well, and indeed that is how the creature became a part of Disney’s grand scale Pirates of the Caribbean series. Featured prominently in the second film of the franchise, Dead Man’s Chest (2006), the Kraken is summoned by the film’s villain Davy Jones to destroy any sailing ships they come across, so that Jones can collect the souls that the creature destroys. What makes this version of the creature so memorable is the absolute ferocity of it’s destruction. When the Kraken has it first appearance in the film, it is a truly brutal scene, showing that the creature is a force to be reckoned with and perhaps the deadliest predator in the entire ocean. When it uses it’s two largest tentacles to smash a ship apart, the full scale of the creature becomes apparent, and it was smart on the filmmakers part to not reveal too much of the creature. By doing so, they left it up to our imaginations to determine what the true scale of this monster was. Much like the fabled creature that it’s based on, this Kraken is a mighty force that will definitely stick in one’s mind, and probably one of the best things to come out of the Pirates franchise.

THE GREAT WHITE SHARK from JAWS (1975)

Probably the most realistic monster on this list, the shark from Jaws is no less a monumental movie monster in cinematic history. This beast was the brainchild of famed novelist Peter Benchley, who conceived the idea of a creature from our familiar natural world but with an unnatural ferocity that makes him far more threatening than any other average shark in the ocean. The shark in this movie is larger and more keen on eating humans than any other of it’s kind, and that’s what makes him so memorable in this story. Sharks are of course a creature to be feared to begin with, but after this film made it to theaters, there was actually a sharp decrease in oceanside vacationing across the country, because people thought that sharks like the one in Jaws were lying in wait just about everywhere. This shows the magnitude of just how well Spielberg’s adaptation of Benchley’s novel was. The shark in question was a mechanical puppet that gave the film’s crew many nightmares during production, which actually turned out to be a blessing in disguise. Because the shark barely worked on set, Spielberg shot around those moments by taking the camera underwater and showing us the world from the shark’s point of view. By doing this, Spielberg actually heightened the impact once we finally see the full body shark, and it also gave us the unsettling tension of watching what it’s like to see a shark stalking it’s prey from it’s own perspective. Altogether, it makes this Great White Shark a truly menacing and fear-inducing monster. He may not be one of the largest creatures on this list, nor one of the most other-worldly, but there is no doubt that he’s still one of the most frightening creatures that has ever been brought to the big screen.

SMAUG from THE HOBBIT: THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG (2013)

Author J.R.R. Tolkein created some of the most imaginative creatures in his Middle Earth novels, as well as some of the most terrifying monsters as well. When Peter Jackson took upon the adaptations of Tolkein’s work, he sought to use all the best film-making and visual effects tools to bring those same creatures to life. While there are many monsters that stood out in the Lord of the Rings trilogy that would deserve a place on this list, like the Balrog from The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) or the Mumakils from The Return of the King (2003), the most remarkable creature from Middle Earth that has made it to the big screen is actually from The Hobbit trilogy. That honor goes to Smaug the Dragon; a truly immense creature that dwarfs all others in these Tolkein universe. Smaug truly does represent the culmination of everything that Peter Jackson’s production team has learned to date and you can see that fully in how well they made the creature feel both authentic and other-worldly all at the same time. The way that Smaug moves around in the golden vaults of the Lonely Mountain is animated with such beauty and it displays the fully weight and size of the creature. Also, Smaug is the only creature on this list that can speak; with the voice of Benedict Cumberbatch. So, not only is Smaug an imposing force physically, but he also has human-like intelligence, which makes him an even more deadly foe. Truthfully, it was a risky thing to give the character a voice, considering that no such ability was established with any of the other creatures in the Rings and Hobbit movies, but doing so stayed true to Tolkein’s novels and the final result managed to work in the end.

THE STAY PUFT MARSHMALLOW MAN from GHOSTBUSTERS (1984)

Probably the strangest of of the creatures on this list, the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man is also one of the most imaginative. The living manifestation of Sumerian god Gozer’s destructive Traveler monster, it takes the form of whatever it’s victim chooses. Since the Ghostbusters themselves were left to chose the Traveler’s form, they tried to consciously avoid making that choice. Unfortunately, ghostbuster Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) thought up something that he thought would be harmless when he should have thought of nothing, and low and behold, the Traveler arrived in the form of cuddly corporate icon, Mr. Stay Puft. The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man really does represent the movie in a nutshell; being altogether hilariously silly and horrifically terrifying at the same time. Though he may look adorable, make no mistake, he is out to destroy you. He appears briefly in the film, but still manages to tear up a good portion of Mid-town Manhattan in the meantime. He even destroys a church, which really gets the Ghostbusters steammed. What I love best about this particular monster is just how well executed it is. If you look at the idea on face value in the original script, this should have been the most ridiculous idea for a climax ever in an action comedy, and yet Mr. Stay Puft perfectly fits within the irreverant nature of the whole film. When he shows up at the end of the movie, it’s a perfect punchline to the whole adventure that the Ghostbusters have been on. Not only that, but the creature has also become an iconic element of the film, becoming just as popular as some of the main characters. We may not remember every little detail of the movie itself, but we remember a monster like Stay Puft, which is what all the best monsters do.

THE TYRANNOSAURUS REX from JURASSIC PARK (1993)

Like in the shark in Jaws, another Spielberg production, the tyrannosaurus is a real life monster from our own naturalistic history; albeit transplanted from a different time and place. When put into contact with human beings in this movie, the dinosaur does what all great movie monsters do and that’s to become a larger than life threat that cannot be controlled. Brought back to life through genetic cloning, the T-Rex in the movie is certainly the film’s most iconic creature. Spielberg cleverly used a variety of techniques to help bring this monster to life, using both animatronic puppetry as well as breakthrough CGI animation. The end result is a truly spectacular creation that really makes you believe that dinosaurs have come back to life. Amazingly, those CGI-animated scenes still hold up after 20 years. But it’s not just the gadgetry behind it’s creation that makes the T-Rex such an iconic monster; it’s also the way he’s used in the film. The scene where he first makes his escape is one of the most tension filled scenes in movie history. I’m sure that a lot of people remember every moment of that particular scene, from the the iconic ripple in the water to the moment when the T-Rex eats the man sitting on the toilet. The T-Rex in Jurassic Park represents a perfect example of taking a wild animal out of it’s element and letting it run wild. A lot of credit is due to the sound effects team, who gave the T-Rex a truly memorable and terrifying roar. Though the T-Rex may not be the ultimate foe for the heroes in the movie, and in fact he saves the day by attacking the villainous Raptors, he is still the standout part of the film and one of cinemas greatest giant monsters.

KONG from KING KONG (1932 ORIGINAL AND 2005 REMAKE)

Essentially cinemas first iconic giant movie monster, Kong made an impact not just in the visual effects world when he first debuted in 1932, but also on all film-making in general. For the first time ever on screen, we saw a visual effect actually give a performance in a movie, and in some cases show more personality than his live action human co-stars. Everything about the original has become legendary today; his first appearance out of the jungles of Skull Island, his fights with the menacing dinosaurs that also call the island home, and also his unforgettable trek to the top of the Empire State Building. Kong is without a doubt a groundbreaking character, and justifiably has earned his spot among the greatest movie monsters of all time. Not surprisingly he has influenced many of the other movie monsters that have come since, like the Japanese Kaiju’s and the creatures that inhabited many of those classic B-Movies of yesteryear. But, what is most surprising is that unlike many of the other monsters on this list, Kong is not inherently malicious. In fact, he’s pretty docile for the most part and only attacks humans when provoked; much like how wild animals are in real life. This was something that was explored more fully in Peter Jackson’s 2005 remake, where Kong actually acted as a protector to his human companion Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), who in turn grows more sympathetic towards the monster as the film goes on, and slowly begins to see the humanity underneath Kong’s rough exterior. That’s not to say that Kong isn’t a push-over either. His fight with a group of blood-thirsty dinosaurs in the remake is particularly brutal and shows just how mighty the giant ape is. Brought to life by motion-capture from actor Andy Serkis, Peter Jackson’s Kong brings out a lot of the extra personality that was hinted at in the original and does an excellent job of updating the mighty monster to the modern age, while still being respectful to what was there before.

GODZILLA from THE “GODZILLA, KING OF THE MONSTERS” SERIES (1954-PRESENT)

We’ve seen many iconic monsters in the movies over the years; from giant turtles, to giant apes, to even a marshmallow man. But if there is one that has managed to become the mightiest of them all, it would be Godzilla, the King of Monsters. Godzilla is without a doubt the most iconic of the Japanese Kaiju monsters, and has enjoyed a long running shelf life in movie theaters that has been going on for 60 years strong. Starting off with his debut in the 1954 Japanese classic Gojira, Godzilla has gone on to international fame and notoriety. Even people who have never seen a single movie in the franchise can recognize the spiky tailed creature just by looking at him, showing how strong his cultural impact has been. He’s appeared in over 20 films to date and has clashed with many other monsters, almost always coming out as the victor. Hell, he even has gone up against two other monsters on this list in various films; King Kong and Gamera, and even they were no match for the mighty Godzilla. He earns the top spot on this list mainly because no other monster has had the same kind of over-arching legacy that he has had. Found in all sorts of different media, from movies to television, and even in animation, Godzilla is without a doubt a cinematic icon. Although he’s still a firmly Japanese cinematic property, he has managed to become popular enough to get the Hollywood treatment twice; first in the disastrous 1998 Roland Emmerich misfire, and again in the better but still flawed 2014 film. The good thing about the latter production is that it did right by the monster himself, and when he was allowed to show off his best talents, it was done spectacularly well. Thankfully, Godzilla’s legacy is still going strong and will continue to cement his reputation as the undisputed King of all Monsters.

So, there is my list for the greatest Giant Monsters in movie history. Though there are many more noteworthy creatures that could have made the list, these I thought best represented the best of the concept on the big screen. When you want a memorable display of destruction captured in a movie, you’ve got to have a worthy foe capable of causing the biggest amount of mayhem. And certainly, the bigger the foe, the greater the odds are against our heroes, which helps to make the tension in these action movies all the more exciting. Sometimes it’s good enough when the mighty beasts are just forces of nature, like the Great White Shark or a T-Rex, but it’s sometimes even more unforgettable when the monster comes from the unknown like Mr. Stay Puft or the ferocious Kaijus. Even more dangerous is a malicious monster with an intelligent mind, like Smaug. Overall, these are the creatures that leave an impact on us when we watch a great action movie, and it shows all the many creative ways that filmmakers can make the extraordinary happen. In the end, that’s what makes it alright to appreciate an over-the-top action thriller, because our imaginations really hit their highest points whenever we dream up the most trying of adversaries. Not only that, but it’s also just a lot of fun to see big monsters having fun destroying things. That’s cinema for you.

Editorials

In Memorium – Remembering Robin Williams and How Hollywood Deals With Tragedy

August 17, 2014 James Humphreys

This week brought the passing of one of the most prolific and influential entertainers of the last 30 or so years. Famed actor and comedian Robin Williams ended his own life in the privacy of his home after a long struggle with his alcoholism and depression; these factors possibly playing a role in his suicide. What is most shocking about Robin’s death however is that few ever saw this coming. Mr. Williams was noteworthy for his seemingly effortless ability to make others laugh and do so with unparalleled energy and charisma. But what this shows now is the fact that even though someone may seem jovial on the outside, they may also be hurting on the inside. Williams hid that from the world very well, so it’s probably why this tragedy came as such a shock to everyone. While it is sad to see people in the media like Robin pass so suddenly, it does however illustrate something interesting about how we, the media, and the film industry all respond to tragic events like this. And this is mostly due to the magnitude of the response that Williams’ passing had on everyone. I for one can’t remember the last time that a celebrity death hit the public this hard; maybe Michael Jackson being the last recent example. Not to say that all other celebrity deaths are less worthy of acknowledgement, but there seems to be a select few who end up standing out from the rest. In Robin Williams case, I believe that it was a variety of factors that made his passing such a big story in the news and social media world this week; namely his lengthy legacy in Hollywood and the shocking nature of his death. What’s more, it’s interesting how a sudden tragedy like this seems to overshadow everything else, such as the passing this same week of legendary actress Lauren Bacall going almost unnoticed. All tragedies have their own unique responses, but how they evolve seems to reveal something interesting about the culture we live in.

When it comes to how the public responds to a sudden passing of a famous star, it seems to be almost universally the same. Of course everyone reacts the same way when learning about someone’s demise; starting off with surprise and then branching into feelings of grief, acceptance, or even relief (if that individual was a bad person, of course). With Robin Williams, everyone’s first reaction had to have been shock, because it was so sudden. Social media exploded when the news hit, with people expressing their grief and sharing their condolences in real time, mere hours after the news broke. It was our way of coming to terms with what we were feeling and sharing that with the people around us. Strangely enough, celebrity deaths has created something new in our society which is like mass social grieving; people from all over the world uniting for a short period to communally eulogize together a person that we’ve all shared memories of. And even though this comes sometimes from purely online interactions, it nevertheless helps us to understand just how many lives had been touched by Robin Williams, and I’m sure that his family is quite overwhelmed right now by all of the heartwarming remembrances being shared this whole week. I’m sure that the most likely way that people dealt with Robin Williams passing this week was to find one of the many movies he made over his career and re-watch it again. I for one looked up my own favorite clips of the man in action, but it wasn’t any particular film. Instead, I looked up his stand-up routines from both his earlier and later career, because I felt that these best represented what he was great at, which was his boundless energy and ability to make people laugh, and it felt good to see him doing his very best work there.

Of course, when people are compelled to say something about the recent passing of a famous person in a public forum, it unfortunately also leads to some unfortunate statements whenever someone doesn’t think hard enough about what they are going to say, or don’t show any empathy. This is complicated when a celebrity dies suddenly either by suicide or by some other unusual act. We saw that this week with lacking in thought statements like one from Fox News anchor Shepard Smith, who called what Williams did a “cowardly” act, or the Motion Picture Academy tweeting a misguided phrase like “Genie, you’re finally free,” referring to Williams’ famous role in Disney’s Aladdin (1992). We all have a passionate reaction when it comes to issues like suicide and deaths from substance abuse. And unfortunately, sometimes those feelings can cloud our judgement when it comes to commenting on a tragic event like this. I don’t think that anyone intended to say something hurtful about Williams death this week, but it’s obvious that good taste had to be considered when commenting on what happened.

But sometimes when a celebrity dies in such a peculiar way, it unfortunately leads to some unfortunate speculation that has no basis in truth. This usually happens when an actor dies in an accidental nature, like the case with actor Heath Ledger in 2008. His accidental overdose on sleep medication led some people to believe that the actor was suffering from depression, with even more speculating that it was the result of his recent work as the Joker in the movie The Dark Knight (2008), believing that it was the role that actually killed him. None of this speculation has any real proof, and it’s probably results from people wanting to make the actor’s death seem less random than it was, thereby adding some level of intrigue into it. That’s not only foolish to think, but also disrespectful to the persons memory. I doubt Heath Ledger would’ve wanted people to think that he died in such a melancholy way when that wasn’t the case at all. It’s unfortunately a product of our celebrity culture that even when a person dies, it has to be seen as something larger than life just like the person that it happened to, other than viewing it as a result of our own common mortality.

Because Hollywood is such a huge and diverse community, it’s very common for some people to stand out from the others, and that is certainly the case when they meet their demise as well. Like I stated before, we also lost famed actress Lauren Bacall this week at the ripe old age of 89. I’m sure that her death didn’t go completely unnoticed this week, as there were still many out there who highlighted her career in the media. But, news of her passing seemed somewhat muted in light of Robin Williams sudden departure. Is that because Mrs. Bacall’s worth in the industry was less than Robin’s? Absolutely not. I just think it came as less of a shock to many of us given her age and the fact that she went peacefully through natural causes as opposed to Robin. Robin Williams’ death was unfortunately the story that proved more fascinating, and as a result it dominated the headlines for much longer. Sadly this happens to many other celebrities who make their final farewells in the midst of another headlining tragedy. There’s this urban myth in pop culture that “celebrities die in threes”, which is attributed to the common, coincidental occurrence of famous people sometimes passing away in a very short time frame and it’s always three at a time. Though that wasn’t the case this time with Williams or Bacall, it does illustrate the idea that sometimes the deaths of celebrities overlap, and one or more will be singled out. There were many others in the entertainment industry who also passed away this week, but Williams and Bacall took precedence because their legacies made them standouts. The selection of “threes” usually is just the result of us selecting three celebrity deaths that mattered the most of us, and not because they were the only three. It’s unfortunate that more emphasis is given to a few over others, but it’s a by-product of how the business works.

If you look at what separates the reactions to Robin William’s death with Lauren Bacall’s the most, apart from how they died, it’s the generational reactions to each. Fewer people today have grown up with Lauren Bacall’s movies in this generation. More people in my generation grew up with Robin William’s movies, like Aladdin, Hook (1991) and Mrs. Doubtfire (1992), so we feel very attached to him as a performer, seeing as how he was a shared part of our childhood. Many of us became more aware of Bacall’s films as we got older and discovered her work through classic film studies or through our own fascination of with her long and prosperous legacy in the business. Nevertheless, their passing affects different generations in different ways, even when both have equally as impressive legacies. I’m sure that as time goes along, both actors will stand apart and become honored icons in the whole of Hollywood history. It’s just unfortunate that one becomes more iconic in the moment of their death than the other. Perhaps that’s the one negative of all the coverage that’s come Robin Williams’ way this week; that it’s been focused more on how he died rather than what he’s left behind. I’m sure Williams himself would’ve been very happy to see people rediscovering all the things that he did well over the years, but I also don’t think he wanted to be singled out either. From what I’ve read, it seems like his suicide was an escape from the pain of his depression and not a desperate cry for attention. Unfortunately, suicide does garner attention, whether or not it was intended, and that’s what has pushed him into the spotlight. And in an industry like Hollywood where getting attention matters, it has led to this result. I know that Hollywood attempts to downplay favoritism after a popular entertainer dies (they’ve recently started muting the audience reactions at awards shows during the In Memorium segments), but there are some things that just can’t be avoided.

Then there is the unfortunate circumstance in Hollywood when a celebrity dies with unfinished business. Due to long gestating projects in development and production, sometimes there will be a case where an actor or filmmaker will die before their work on a movie is done. Sometimes it’ll happen when a film is nearly complete or has barely started, which makes it easier on the production team to either put the finishing touches on the actor or director’s work, or recast them altogether. In Robin Williams case, he had thankfully finished all of his films in progress and had yet to begun on the ones that remained on his future slate, making his film appearances complete and without complication. There have been cases in the past, however, where a film had to work around an incomplete performance, and this leads to some ethical challenges on the filmmakers part.

For instance, on the set of the movie Gladiator (2000), actor Oliver Reed died of a heart attack shortly before he filmed his final scene. Not wanting to waste his standout performance, director Ridley Scott found a way to digitally impose Reed’s face onto a stand-in double for the last scene, thereby completing the film with the majority of the actor’s original work still in tact. No one noticed the difference and saw that as an acceptable alternative. The same cannot be true for actor Bruce Lee’s final film Game of Death (1978), which was cobbled together from an unfinished movie made before he died, with poorly dubbed dialogue and horrible super-imposed facial replacement on a double used to finish the film, and was purely done to exploit Lee’s name in the years since his death. But probably the only time that a film actually changed entirely because of an actor’s death was when Heath Ledger died unexpectedly in the middle of shooting director Terry Gilliam’s The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009). Gilliam restructured the film around Ledger’s scenes and made a film that was very different in form than the one he started, thereby still letting the world see the actor’s final work and giving the film a better overall vision; with actors like Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell filling in the remainder of the movie. Though it rarely occurs, Hollywood has to show good judgement when they work an actors final performance into a film, because it can either look like you’re honoring their memory or exploiting it for profit.

My hope is that even with Robin Williams untimely end, that it won’t cloud the legacy that he left behind. He had an impressive body of work and it’s easy to see why the outpouring has been so strong for him this week. While his track record in film wasn’t the most solid (1998’s Patch Adams being a particular blunder), whenever he delivered something good, it proved to be spectacular. Apart from his slate of family-friendly projects, he was also fantastic in darker and more serious films as well, like 1990’s Awakenings, or 2002’s disturbing One Hour Photo, or Christopher Nolan’s remake of Insomnia (also 2002); and of course the role that won him an Oscar in Good Will Hunting (1997). Also, just the fact that he was a peerless comedian made him special. I love how he would also cop to some of his cinematic blunders and admit that they were horrible too (the dreadful 1997 film Father’s Day was one that he loved to slam often). It just shows how clever and honest he was. Every celebrity death leaves an impact, and I don’t blame anyone for wanting to put more focus on Robin Williams’ death over others. He touched that many lives and the way he left certainly left a vacant hole in many of our hearts. I just hope that when people highlight Robin Williams’ legacy this year, that they also remember other like Lauren Bacall, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and Eli Wallach, and all the other great Hollywood icons that we’ve recently lost. Some may have not touched our lives in the same way, but they all contribute something extra to the great tapestry that is the world of Hollywood. What’s great is that all of them have left behind bodies of work that will enable them to live far beyond their time here on Earth and that is an encouraging thing to think about. So keep their memories alive by revisiting all their best moments and follow in their example. Carpe diem.

CINERAMBLE

All posts by James Humphreys

Top Ten Scary Moments in Family Movies

Evolution of Character – Count Dracula

Gone Girl – Review

Focus on a Franchise – Hannibal Lecter

Walrus Yes – Tusk and the Rise of Fan Driven Cinema

Collecting Criterion – Ace in the Hole (1951)

Time Will Tell – How Movies Become Either Dated or Timeless

The Movies of Fall 2014

Top Ten Giant Movie Monsters

In Memorium – Remembering Robin Williams and How Hollywood Deals With Tragedy

This is….