Scroll down for the following articles:
Oscar Nominations
A FILM CRITIC'S NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION
DO YOU NEED A TVGUARDIAN?
MOVIE WITH CHRISTIAN VALUES ATTRACTS A-LIST CAST
The 7 Deadly Movie Sins
Film Critic Asks, “Should I Relate to Moviegoers?”
Words Are What Men Live By
Casablanca and the Christian
<><<><<><
Best Picture
The Artist - Thomas Langmann, Producer
The Descendants - Jim Burke, Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor, Producers
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close - Scott Rudin, Producer
The Help - Brunson Green, Chris Columbus and Michael Barnathan, Producers
Hugo - Graham King and Martin Scorsese, Producers
Midnight in Paris - Letty Aronson and Stephen Tenenbaum, Producers
Moneyball - Michael De Luca, Rachael Horovitz and Brad Pitt, Producers
The Tree of Life - Nominees to be determined
War Horse - Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy, Producers
Actor In a Leading Role
Demián Bichir- A Better Life
George Clooney - The Descendants
Jean Dujardin - The Artist
Gary Oldman - Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Brad Pitt - Moneyball
Actress In a Leading Role
Glenn Close - Albert Nobbs
Viola Davis - The Help
Rooney Mara - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Meryl Streep - The Iron Lady
Michelle Williams - My Week With Marilyn
Actor In a Supporting Role
Kenneth Branagh My Week With Marilyn
Jonah Hill - Moneyball
Nick Nolte - Warrior
Christopher Plummer - Beginners
Max von Sydow - Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
Actress In a Supporting Role
Bérénice Bejo - The Artist
Jessica Chastain - The Help
Melissa McCarthy - Bridesmaids
Janet McTeer - Albert Nobbs
Octavia Spencer The Help
Animated Feature Film
A Cat in Paris - Alain Gagnol and Jean-Loup Felicioli
Chico & Rita - Fernando Trueba and Javier Mariscal
Kung Fu Panda 2 - Jennifer Yuh Nelson
Puss in Boots - Chris Miller
Rango
Cinematography
The Artist - Guillaume Schiffman
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo - Jeff Cronenweth
Hugo - Robert Richardson
The Tree of Life - Emmanuel Lubezki
War Horse - Janusz Kaminski
Art Direction
The Artist - Laurence Bennett (Production Design); Robert Gould (Set Decoration)
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 - Stuart Craig (Production Design); Stephenie McMillan (Set Decoration)
Hugo - Dante Ferretti (Production Design); Francesca Lo Schiavo (Set Decoration)
War Horse - Rick Carter (Production Design); Lee Sandales (Set Decoration)
Costume Design
Anonymous - Lisy Christl
The Artist - Mark Bridges
Hugo - Sandy Powell
Jane Eyre - Michael O'Connor
W.E. - Arianne Phillips
Directing
The Artist - Michel Hazanavicius
The Descendants - Alexander Payne
Hugo - Martin Scorsese
Midnight in Paris - Woody Allen
The Tree of Life Terrance Mallick
Documentary Feature
Hell and Back Again - Danfung Dennis and Mike Lerner
If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front - Marshall Curry and Sam Cullman
Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory - Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky
Pina - Wim Wenders and Gian-Piero Ringel
Undefeated - TJ Martin, Dan Lindsay and Richard Middlemas
Documentary Short
The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement - Robin Fryday and Gail Dolgin
God is the Bigger Elvis - Rebecca Cammisa and Julie Anderson
Incident in New Baghdad - James Spione
Saving Face - Daniel Junge and Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy
The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom - Lucy Walker and Kira Carstensen
Film Editing
The Artist - Anne-Sophie Bion and Michel Hazanavicius
The Descendants - Kevin Tent
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall
Hugo - Thelma Schoonmaker
Moneyball - Christopher Tellefsen
Foreign Language Film
Belgium, "Bullhead" - Michael R. Roskam, director
Canada, "Monsieur Lazhar" - Philippe Falardeau, director
Iran, "A Separation" - Asghar Farhadi, director
Israel, "Footnote" - Joseph Cedar, director
Poland, "In Darkness" - Agnieszka Holland, director
Makeup
Albert Nobbs - Martial Corneville, Lynn Johnston and Matthew W. Mungle
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 - Nick Dudman, Amanda Knight and Lisa Tomblin
The Iron Lady - Mark Coulier and J. Roy Helland
Music (Original Score)
The Adventures of Tintin - John Williams
The Artist - Ludovic Bource
Hugo - Howard Shore
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - Alberto Iglesias
War Horse - John Williams
Music (Original Song)
"Man or Muppet" from THE MUPPETS - Music and Lyric by Bret McKenzie
“Real in Rio” from RIO - Music by Sergio Mendes and Carlinhos Brown Lyric by Siedah Garrett
Short Film (Animated)
Dimanche/Sunday - Patrick Doyon
The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore - William Joyce and Brandon Oldenburg
La Luna - Enrico Casarosa
A Morning Stroll - Grant Orchard and Sue Goffe
Wild Life - Amanda Forbis and Wendy Tilby
Short Film (Live Action)
Pentecost - Peter McDonald and Eimear O'Kane
Raju - Max Zähle and Stefan Gieren
The Shore - Terry George and Oorlagh George
Time Freak - Andrew Bowler and Gigi Causey
Tuba Atlantic - Hallvar Witzø
Sound Editing
Drive - Lon Bender and Victor Ray Ennis
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - Ren Klyce
Hugo - Philip Stockton and Eugene Gearty
Transformers: Dark of the Moon - Ethan Van der Ryn and Erik Aadahl
War Horse - Richard Hymns and Gary Rydstrom
Sound Mixing
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - David Parker, Michael Semanick, Ren Klyce and Bo Persson
Hugo - Tom Fleischman and John Midgley
Moneyball - Deb Adair, Ron Bochar, Dave Giammarco and Ed Novick
Transformers: Dark of the Moon - Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers, Jeffrey J. Haboush and Peter J. Devlin
War Horse - Gary Rydstrom, Andy Nelson, Tom Johnson and Stuart Wilson
Visual Effects
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 - Tim Burke, David Vickery, Greg Butler and John Richardson
Hugo - Rob Legato, Joss Williams, Ben Grossman and Alex Henning
Real Steel - Erik Nash, John Rosengrant, Dan Taylor and Swen Gillberg
Rise of the Planet of the Apes - Joe Letteri, Dan Lemmon, R. Christopher White and Daniel Barrett
Transformers: Dark of the Moon - Dan Glass, Brad Friedman, Douglas Trumbull and Michael Fink
Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
The Descendants - Screenplay by Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon & Jim Rash
Hugo - Screenplay by John Logan
The Ides of March - Screenplay by George Clooney & Grant Heslov and Beau Willimon
Moneyball - Screenplay by Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin. Story by Stan Chervin
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - Screenplay by Bridget O'Connor & Peter Straughan
Writing (Original Screenplay)
The Artist - Written by Michel Hazanavicius
Bridesmaids - Written by Annie Mumolo & Kristen Wiig
Margin Call - Written by J.C. Chandor
Midnight in Paris - Written by Woody Allen
A Separation - Written by Asghar Farhadi
A Film Critic’s New Year’s Resolution
By Phil Boatwright
“If a critic hates a film I usually like it.” You have no idea how often I’ve heard that declaration of disdain – not so much as a response to my critiques, but in reference to the movie views of my more famous colleagues in criticism. I’d like to believe I’ve been spared that lump-summing because I’m considered a better writer and more insightful. But more probably, it’s because the assailant is being somewhat tactful. This beckons the question, “What’s the purpose of a film critic?” And the followup query, “Are critics really necessary?”
In order to defend those who critique over two hundred movies a year, it must be stated up front that we reviewers know more about movies than you do and that you are boobs when you ignore our reviews.
I got your attention with that one, didn’t I? Well, before you hurl that rotten tomato at me, I’m just kidding. Hang with me a minute, while I dig myself out of this hole.
From my research I have found that generally the public goes to movies in order to ease the tensions of the day. In most cases, they’re not looking for anything with an “art-house” ethereal flair. They just want to see something blow up or Katherine Heigl get together with her male costar after two hours of bickering. Truth be told, when we go to a movie for enjoyment’s sake, most in my profession are looking for the same things as you. But as critics we evaluate movies and often compare new releases with previous films in the same genre. And we are an essential part of the movie-making process, for as Pauline Kael once wrote, “Criticism is the only news about movies, everything else is advertising.”
Most of the film critics I know have an abiding love for this art form, but it’s a frustration knowing there are great films going unwatched while mediocrity abounds at the local cineplex. But what we movie reporters like in movies may not be your cup of tea. That doesn’t make you boobs. That’s the magic of movies; one film appeals to some while exasperating others.
So, here’s why film critics are necessary in 2012. It costs $10 a ticket – or more. (Have you ever regretted doling out $10 – or more – for a movie?) And along with this financial concern, there’s also the issue of what we as Christians should be putting into our heads. (“I will set before my eyes no vile thing.” - Psalm 101:3. “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” - Ephesians 5:11.) Religious or not, most people find the MPAA rating system inadequate and often wish they had paid attention to reviewer warnings.
Studios were once regulated by the Motion Picture Code, which was established in the 1930s to order to protect the values and moral concepts society considered the standard to live by. You didn’t need a reviewer’s warning so much. By the end of the 1960s, however, the Code had vanished, replaced by the MPAA rating system. Alas, this new policy did nothing to control what filmmakers put in their products.
Swearing, irreverence to God, excessive violence, crudity, nudity, perversity – these were forbidden under the Code. Many filmmakers thought this code of decency was restrictive, and were determined to end it. But while the ideal of the new MPAA system was to allow for more mature themes, the reality was a door opening to a bombardment of excess. There are no restrictions anymore. The “artists” finally won. But the culture lost.
When closely examined, there were films from the Code era that dealt with the same issues moviemakers address today. The difference: the execution of the subject matter under the Motion Picture Code tended to be more profound as it was handled with more discretion.
You gotta admit, there’s not a lot of discretion going on in Tinseltown these days.
In order to best serve you, today’s critic should serve as a reporter. It’s no longer his opinion that’s paramount, but his recording of the film’s plot, message and content. By supplying you with the synopsis and the reasons for the rating, you can make informed decisions before handing over that $10 bill – or more. (BTW, if your favorite critic isn’t providing you with a content breakdown – find another critic.)
So, what’s this reviewer’s New Year’s Resolution? Same as last year. And the year before. Try to write shorter and get the commas in the right places.
Happy New Year, everybody.
Phil Boatwright is the author of "Movies: The Good, The Bad, and the Really, Really Bad," available on Amazon.com. He also writes about Hollywood for previewonline.org and moviereporter.com and baptistpress.com
<><<><<><
DO YOU NEED A TVGUARDIAN?
By Phil Boatwright
What Is TVGuardian?
Britt Bennett, president of TVGuardian, clarified the intent of his product in a recent interview. “It’s a filter that allows viewers to watch the programming they want…without having to hear the language they don’t want. That’s different from the V-chip, which just blocks out a program in its entirety if any one part of it is deemed unacceptable.”
How Does It Work?
TVGuardian reads the closed captioning embedded in most forms of TV entertainment. The box now works on HDTV with HDMI support, it has expanded user selectable filter levels, improved accuracy, and TVGuardian is now available for rent as well as purchase.
Asked why it isn’t getting more support from the television industry, Bennett explained, “The need is there. The logic is there. The business case is there. We have proven time and time again that the companies who offer their customers a chance to filter out offensive language will have more customers, happier customers, and customers who’ll even pay extra for the feature. Yet they have still refused. Many of these top executives see the need for this technology personally, but can’t seem to make a convincing enough case for adding it when they present it to the higher echelons.
“I remember the vice president of one of America’s leading cable companies, after hearing our presentation—how over 40% of their customers were personally offended by the language in their programming—he leaned back in his chair and said, ‘Nope. It’s just not a sexy feature.’ (I remember thinking, ‘Exactly! That’s the whole point!’).”
TVGuardian has been upgraded.
Rick Bray invented TVGuardian back in 1997, when the company first producing more than 400,000 units. Since then updates and alterations have been made in order to make the family-friendly tool more effective. These boxes now allow viewers to choose the level of language they want to allow into their homes – from Strict to Moderate to Tolerant to Off. Offensive phrases are then automatically muted and suitable replacements displayed via closed captioning.
TVGuardian works on HDTV with HDMI support, it has expanded user selectable filter levels, improved accuracy, and TVG is now available for rent as well as purchase.
Why You Should Have It.
Why is it that we tolerate profanity and obscenity while being entertained? Finally you can do something about it. At least for your own family.
What TVG Won’t Do.
TVG doesn't filter out scenes of sex, nudity or violence--it is best suited for movies whose main offense is objectionable language. (The TVG website now provides links to reviews that detail the content of movies.)
Don’t Have Kids? Why You Should Have It.
Our public behavior and speech should indicate to others what we stand for. “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs” (Ephesians 4:29 NIV). So why is it that we tolerate profanity and obscenity while being entertained? Well, because it’s been a part of the media every since the MPAA rating system replaced the more restrictive Motion Picture Code over four decades ago. We’ve all grown up with coarse and profane language in movies. We’re used to it. Admit it, we’ve become desensitized by its frequency.
For whatever reason, people now writing movies (generally) can’t express frustration without the f-bomb or anger without profaning God’s name. And the s-word has become their new “darn it.” And we Christians accept it by saying, “Oh, I don’t pay any attention to those words.” Yeah, right. What we’re really saying is, “I want to see this movie so I’ll put up with the objectionable language.”
Where To Learn More.
For more information, go to the TVGuardian website: http://tvguardian.com/ Or, call 1-800-298-5618.
TVGuardian isn’t an expense – it’s an investment.
Phil Boatwright is a consultant to TVGuardian and provides the TVGDAILY page on their website.
<><<><<><
Movie with Christian Values Attracts A-list Cast
By Phil Boatwright
"How can a game have such an effect on a man's soul?"
- David Cook, screenwriter, SEVEN DAYS IN UTOPIA
Verbose in his faith, gentle in demeanor, David Cook is an inspirational speaker, a renowned sports psychologist, and the screenwriter of SEVEN DAYS IN UTOPIA, starring Robert Duvall and Lucas Black. In his film he uses sports as an effective background for metaphor. And although the setting is the world of golf, the story quickly reveals itself to be that concerned with forgiveness, mercy and grace. In both his best-selling book and the film, which opens on September 2, you can see that David Cook’s gift is to guide people from success to significance.
The film opens with a young pro-golfer (Lucas Black – GET LOW, FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS) going through a meltdown. Driving off in a huff after a bad display on the course, he winds up in a small Texas town called Utopia. There he is taken under wing by a local eccentric (Robert Duvall) who helps him find his future direction. Also in the cast are Melissa Leo (Supporting Oscar winner for THE FIGHTER), Brian Geraghty (THE HURT LOCKER), Kathy Baker (the JESSE STONE TV movies, PICKET FENCES) and Deborah Ann Woll (HBO’S TRUE BLOOD).
In a recent phone interview, I asked the fledging filmmaker how an independent, low-budgeted film containing Christian concepts attracted such an impressive Hollywood lineup.
“I think the story is what got to Robert Duvall. We already had Lucas Black, who happens to be an amazing golfer, as well. Since we wanted this to be the most authentic golf movie ever made, we needed a real golfer in the role. It paid off. I found the golf scenes were spectacular because of Lucas. He could be a pro if he wanted. But when Duvall said yes, a domino effect began in Hollywood. ‘If he’s in it, I’m in it.’
“There are some in Hollywood who are a little afraid of faith-based movies, but when one steps out to say ‘I’m doing it,’ others are thinking it must be okay. I think we’re finding more of the walls being broken down, where actors will step out and be involved.”
P.B. After three interviews with Robert Duvall (GODS & GENERALS, SECONDHAND LIONS, and on the set of UTOPIA), I get the distinct impression that he has a spiritual side.
D.C. “Oh yeah, he’s a man of faith. I believe with certainty that he’s a Christian. I really enjoyed being with him on the set, talking about spiritual matters. And if you watch The Apostle, which he wrote, produced and directed, you realize that after spending months with that subject matter, it had to have a deep impact on him.”
P.B. I think from talking to him on the set that there’s some spiritual depth to Lucas Black, as well.
D.C. “He grew up in the South and in church. He’s a believer and this movie really meant something to him personally.”
P.B. One of the themes in the movie has to do with accidents not really being accidents.
D.C. “If you’re a man or woman of faith, you believe that there’s an orchestrator behind everything. We’re not just a random, flotational planet out in the middle of nowhere. I kind of describe it this way: many people think that life is like the back of a tapestry, a meaningless meandering of thread. But for the Believer, though it might look like that at times, God gives us glimpses over the top and we get to see the weaving that’s being done. Those glimpses are interactions with God. Some people call those coincidences; we just call them appointments with the Creator. We get to see enough of the tapestry to know that this is not merely a random mess.”
P.B. What is the main message you want filmgoers to gain from this movie?
D.C. “That there’s more. Everyone is looking for more in their life: more purpose, more fulfillment. I think a lot of people are just empty. So, I hope the movie gives them direction and indicates where that more can be found. And I think the side aspect to this movie is that it’s going to teach people great principles about performing. But also, how to keep performance in perspective. The purpose of the movie is to open a door to the possibilities of more with God. It’s not heavy-handed, but I think we did just that. And at the end of the movie, there’s an opportunity for people to continue the journey. We want this movie to be the beginning, not the end.
“Jesus used parables, he used word pictures. Movies are modern-day parables and if we use them in a right way, then we move people close to God rather than farther away.”
P.B. Are you planning a sequel?
D.C. I have written several chapters just for me, because it meant something to me. But God has to lead that. You can’t do it just because it sounds like a good idea. That said, in my heart, I do think there will be a follow up. We’ll see.”
During my interview with Mr. Cook, I was reminded of the fun day I had in Utopia, Texas last year. Along with other members of the Christian press, I was invited to the set of SEVEN DAYS IN UTOPIA in order to see the filmmakers bring David’s book to the screen. We were there to shake hands with the actors and interview those responsible for the film. During our stay, the publicity people thought it would be fun for us to get a golf lesson. Therefore, a famed golf pro spent an hour trying to turn each press member into a seasoned player.
Preferring the sport of air-conditioned lounging to that of hitting balls into the sun, I opted for viewing my colleagues from a country club bay window as they sweltered on the first tee. It was an entertaining experience viewing a group of Jerry Lewises as they swung away at mostly unmolested golf balls. But when the call came for each of us to have his or her picture with Lucas Black, I rushed out, grabbed a club, unaware that it was for a left-handed player, and took a stylish pose with the young movie star. With my cocked cap and leisurely stance, you'd have thought I was Arnold Palmer.
Noticing the club, Mr. Black immediately questioned, "Oh, you're a lefty?"
"No, I'm a phony," was my quick response (a gift from God). As I explained that my expertise with a club extended no further than the nonchalant camera pose, he laughed. Ever make a celebrity laugh? It's a very satisfying moment.
Satisfying – that’s also the word for SEVEN DAYS IN UTOPIA.
<><<><<><
The 7 Deadly Movie Sins
By Phil Boatwright
I love movies. They combine the essence of all the other art forms, enabling storytellers to express joy and sadness, nobility and fear, love and hate, passion and romance, and hope and faith, sometimes all in the same film. But while they are modern man’s medium for relating parables to the masses, these parables are being treated with an ever increasing dose of secularism. Movies over the decades have reflected changes in the society, but they have also influenced those changes, often proving the adage “Not all change is progress.”
Acceptance of Profanity
We begin with the film that managed to break social and media taboos in the areas of sexuality, marriage and verbal irreverence toward God. Never before had there been a more searing portrait of an unhappy marriage than WHO’S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? This 1966 dramatic vehicle for then husband and wife Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor brought marital upheaval into the open. The language barrier also went down, with Burton and Taylor profaning God’s name nearly as often as their characters belittled each other. Today, the profane use of God’s name can be heard in nearly every drama and most comedies. Think the filmmakers had that in mind when they fought to get VIRGINIA WOOLF to the screen? Doubtful. But that’s where it began.
Acceptance of Crime
When the Motion Picture Code was intact (1930s to late 1960s), movie criminals were unable to get away with a crime. Boy, has that changed. In 1969, BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID starred Paul Newman and Robert Redford as these two legendary bank robbers, and it was the coolest movie around. The audience found themselves rooting for these mythic heroes, even when they were shooting at peace officers. In 1973, Newman and Redford again played outlaws, this time as men who made their living conning citizens in the STING. And this time they did get away with it. Both of these films were stylish, witty and examples of great filmmaking. But they did lead to movie crooks getting away with crimes. ENTRAPMENT, BANDITS, HEARTBREAKERS, THE SCORE, GONE IN SIXTY SECONDS, OCEAN’S 11, 12, and 13, and every heist film in this decade have allowed the outlaw to get away with his crime, while we sat there rooting for him.
Acceptance of Crudity
The mention of Mel Brooks usually generates a smile. Responsible for YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN and THE PRODUCERS, he is a creative, funny man. But Mr. Brooks is also a barrier breaker. He goes beyond bawdy, creating comedy from the crudest of concepts. (His campfire scene from BLAZING SADDLES quickly comes to mind, though I wish it wouldn’t.) He paved the way for Mike Myers, Ben Stiller, Jason Segal and Seth Rogan, who have gone on to build much of their comedy on vulgarity. Today most comic actors are not content with bathroom humor, but insist on spending much of their screen time in the sewer. Mel Brooks led the way.
Acceptance of sexploitation
The expression goes – Sex sells. Well, Hollywood has sold everything there is to sell with sex. And nobody is more bombarded by sexploitation than teenagers. Most films aimed at the teen demographic are geared to promote the idea that abstaining is no longer relevant. The world and the movies are telling them to have pre-marital sex.
Acceptance of Christ-bashing
EASY A is a film about high schoolers searching for ways to be accepted by their peers, yet the script counters its very theme – to accept one another and show one another respect – by mocking and belittling all Christians. The lead begins a misleading rumor about herself, letting others think she slept with a fellow student. She does this in order to find acceptance. Then, for money, she aids nerds by letting them tell others they have had sexual encounters with her. In the film, the Christian youth group is seen reading the Bible, praying, singing songs, all the while showing nothing but hatred and bigotry toward their fellow students. There isn't one single example of a person of faith being shown in a good light, not even when the lead goes to different churches seeking solace for her actions.
I'm sure those responsible for EASY A would counter with, “It's meant as satire, in keeping with the themes found in Hawthorne's The Scarlett Letter.” Fair enough, but try painting everyone in a minority group or an entire heritage of another religion with this same caricaturist brushstroke. They'd catch fire and brimstone if they did. Yet somehow, it's okay when mockery is aimed at followers of Christ.
Acceptance of Blasphemy
RELIGULOUS. “Religion must die so mankind can live.” So says Bill Maher at the end of his docu-diatribe, which concerns the TV comic’s belief that all faith is foolishness. In his polluted assessment of religion, Bill Maher managed to avoid religious discussions with theologians or folks versed in public speaking, preferring to ambush those who simply take God’s Word by faith. Not once does he give an example of religious people adding a positive to the culture or our world. Never does he see the life-changing transformation of truly knowing Christ, only the corruption by those who use religion for their own ends. What’s more, one gets the impression that Mr. Maher would have people of faith boiled with their own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through the heart. Bah, humbug.
Acceptance of Desensitizing Violence
The horror film has undergone more transformations than Lady Gaga's wardrobe. In the '30s and '40s, horror films such as DRACULA, FRANKENSTEIN, and THE CAT PEOPLE were actually morality plays, where good was triumphant over evil. In the ‘50s, most horror films were, well, goofy, the Saturday matinee screen being proliferated by giant lizards, ants and even a 50-foot woman. The ‘60s saw classic fright flicks resurrected by Hammer Studios, a studio known for using vivid color to captivate, especially with the use of a thick red liquid that looked more like candy apple syrup than the gushing blood it was supposed to represent. But in the ‘70s and ‘80s, horror films became gruesome showcases for studio special effects departments, and malevolent and apparently indestructible ghouls such as NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET’s Freddie Kruger, HALLOWEEN’s Michael Myers and FRIDAY THE 13TH’s Jason returned sequel after sequel to kill as many randied teenagers as possible in 96 minutes.
The ‘90s once again unearthed the classic monsters – but with a twist. In Francis Ford Coppola’s BRAM STOKER’S DRACULA, his monster was an omnipresent creature who contemptuously burned a crucifix with a stare, rather than turning away from the significance of the cross – something the vampire had done ever since Bela Lugosi first put on a set of fangs. This new spin changed the entire theme of the Dracula legend. No longer was God the conqueror of the devil; now man alone was in control of his fate.
You may have read my appreciative critique of M. Night Shyamalan’s 2002 psychological thriller, SIGNS, about alien beings coming to take over Earth. In it, suspenseful Hitchcockian elements serve to unnerve the audience. Added to the unsettling atmosphere, the story’s subtext concerned a man losing, then regaining his faith. The film also had an intriguing take concerning coincidence in our daily lives. Do things happen by chance or do they serve to develop our nature? I guess you could say it was a thinking man’s (or woman’s) horror movie.
Thought-provoking horror movies are outnumbered by the latest horror sub-genre, torture porn. SAW showed men and women being subjected to physical pain and mental abuse in creative, but disturbing manners. The sequels and the copycats simply got more gruesome. I’m not sure any of us realize the true effect of torture porn movies on our psyches, as it desensitizes us. Is that ever good?
“Garbage-in/garbage-out” may seem a strident declaration, but we moviegoers are bombarded by a great deal of media influence, much of which doesn’t feed the soul. Like all living things, the spirit of man needs to be nourished. You might keep that in mind when attending any new movie.
“Your head is like a gas tank. You have to be really careful about what you put in it, because it might just affect the whole system” (I’ve Heard the Mermaids Singing, Miramax Films).
<><<><<><
FILM CRITIC ASKS, "SHOULD I RELATE TO MOVIEGOERS?"
By Phil Boatwright
Recently I received an email from a reader who disagreed with my overall negative assessment of THE PRINCE OF PERSIA. He felt I was out of touch with the younger of the movie-going public, and though I don’t think the guy was trying to “dis” my work, he made it clear that I should “raise the bar” by being more open-minded to what a rising generation requires from movies. He further suggested that I add a much younger reviewer to my staff. Well, first off, there is no staff. I’m the staff.
Normally, I let my work defend itself, but I’d like to comment on that recent critical communiqué because I think those of us of a certain age are finding that not only does everything change, but in this the era of the Twitter, change has become incessant and unfeeling. This gives birth to the question, “Is all change progress?” The dispiriting condition of our present culture would suggest otherwise. Along with this merciless age of change, we also see the youth of our species catered to, the rest of us designated to the background of life, much like extras in a bad movie. I understand the business sense of this trend. Us old guys already know what toothpaste we’re going to use, so advertisers aim their commercials at those they consider ripe prospects. Same goes for movies. If you blow something up, studio heads are assured of a faithful adolescent audience.
This isn’t a knock on Generation X or Y. They’re prettier than me and most are able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, while I now prefer taking the escalator. But, when it comes to movies, I’ve seen 5000 more than any of the media’s demographic sought-afters. For over twenty years I’ve analyzed the many genres and determined the difference between films within those genres. So, let them relate to me (he said with a gentle smirk).
At the end of the day, my view of a movie’s worth is just opinion. How could it be more? We are, after all, dealing with personal observation when evaluating the technical, artistic and aesthetic craft of filmmaking. (Hard to equate something like GET HIM TO THE GREEK with the words aesthetic craft, but there you have it.) Opinion aside, movies are an art form and the art of storytelling in movies is most effective not just when it shows who we are, but when it suggests what we can become. If that art form is to better the culture and the society, it needs to aim up, not just placate our baser instincts. This is the reason for film reporters, for we bring intimate films to the awareness of those pied-pipered by an industry that only seems to want to satisfy the latest batch of 14-year-olds.
I won’t say movies are at their best when they make you think. Sometimes, the reason we go to movies is so we won’t have to think. That said, it’s getting harder to find films that stimulate more than testosterone levels, and it’s even more difficult finding something original. Summer after summer we are deluged by action thrillers with II or III or IV numbered behind the familiar title.
What’s troubling for me in this decade of CGI (computer-generated imagery) is that moviemakers pander to youth with things that go boom, rather than demonstrate a love for the true special effects: story, character, dialogue, and performance. Once we know how a special effect works, or we’ve seen it several times, the “wow” factor wears off. But rather than return to the true magical effects, those elements that touch the intellect or the heart, studio heads remain strident in their mantra: “Make it bigger and louder, and blow up more stuff!”
Though movies and television are an escape from daily pressures, excess in the forms of cynicism, crudeness, and lewdness have infested the mediums of entertainment. Along with the mayhem of this summer’s actioneers, look at what has changed in this area of film humor. Contemporaries Jack Black, Will Ferrell, Seth Rogan, Mike Myers, Ben Stiller, and Jason Segal, along with their comic clones, insist on spending much of their screen time in the sewer. And there are a great many people willing to sludge around in these cesspools of sophomoric stench, somehow believing this is the genesis for all things funny.
So I ask, do we film historians attempt to placate our more callow readers, allowing a future generation to think that all humor stems from scatological functions? Do we as filmgoers just forget that other forms of farce come from human conditions (CITY LIGHTS), from satire (DR. STRANGELOVE) from witty use of dialogue (THE COURT JESTER), and from life observations (BILL COSBY, HIMSELF)?
This summer, young moviegoers have digested nothing but the cinematic equivalent of Headcheese, having never been offered Filet Mignon. (Definition: Headcheese is a dish made of portions of the head, or head and feet, of swine, cut up fine, seasoned, and pressed into a cheese-like mass.) Sticking with the food analogy, the critic is a sort of waiter, who, along with his other duties, guides the patron around the entertainment menu, suggesting a more balanced movie meal. Sadly, despite the aid of the video store’s Classics section, and TV’s best channel, TCM, I don’t see a resurgence of sophistication or droll wit anywhere in Hollywood’s future. Still, I can’t complement the indecent or be content with the insipid in order to attempt relevancy. Teens and adolescents are being shortchanged by movie execs who make a whole lot of jack. It is my duty, and yours, to cultivate the tastes of our nation’s youth, not merely allow them to remain cocooned in their disconnected presumption.
That may sound high minded, even pompous, but the alternative is to acquiesce in order to relate. The Scriptures instruct us to not conform to the world, but to be set apart. We are to be the salt of the Earth and a light to the lost, not a copycat in order to be accepted. I've used this analogy before, but it seems to fit with this column's direction. If you place a frog in boiling water, he'll jump out. If you place him in room-temperature liquid, slowly raising the heat level, he'll remain until he, ahem, croaks. Over the past several decades, the media has simmered society in a stew of moral ambiguity, excusing their offenses with "Hey, it's only a movie." And like that poor frog, we Christians have adjusted ourselves to the same numbing content as everyone else.
In my appreciation for movies, I’ve adopted the new word preservatism. My goal is to direct the next generation toward new and old movies that adhere to biblical principles. Yes, I will attempt to stay appreciative of changing tastes, but when it comes to analyzing films, I shall continue to yell, “Headcheese,” whenever Headcheese is served.
<><<><<><
WORDS ARE WHAT MEN LIVE BY
By Phil Boatwright
“Words are what men live by – words they say and mean” -- John Wayne in The Commancheros.
With the upcoming opening of Jonah Hill’s R-rated Get Him to the Greek, filmgoers will once again be bombarded by raunchy situations and words that make the ears bleed. I amend that statement. Well, these words used to make the ears bleed. Now they are far too familiar.
There are well-spoken people in the real world who are nothing more than whitewashed sepulchers. Indeed, there is more to being a good person than being well-spoken. But our public behavior and speech should indicate to others what we stand for. And our words should define our character. Else, how are others to know? Like John Wayne said in that western, “Words are what men live by.” Words not only reveal character, they also indicate our spiritual values. “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs” (Ephesians 4:29 NIV).
Motion pictures shouldn’t just show us what we are, but what we can become. That’s the ultimate purpose of an art form. Yet somehow the people now writing movies (generally) can’t express frustration without the f-bomb or anger without profaning God’s name. And the s-word has become the new “darn it.”
Though much of comedy is built on outrageousness, there comes a point when the abuse of language becomes a sad commentary on society’s moral torpor. Last year, for example, Seth Rogen, this generation’s guru of grime, starred in the security cop comedy Observe and Report. With 160 uses of the f-word alone, not to mention every other obscenity he could muster, plus insensitive gags about casual drug use and mall shootings, he took the genre to a new low. But he will be outdone.
Comedy contemporaries Mike Myers, Ben Stiller, and Jason Segal, along with Seth Rogan, insist on spending much of their screen time in the sewer. And there are a great many people willing to sludge around in these cesspools of soporific stench, somehow believing this is the genesis for all things funny. You know what? They’re cheating you.
Dialogue can be clever: "I see...the pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon; the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true." --Danny Kaye making sure not to drink the potion meant for his jousting opponent in The Court Jester, during a decade when wit and a clever use of vocabulary helped give sparkle to movie humor.
Dialogue can be incisive: “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within,” (the narrator in The Fall of the Roman Empire).
Dialogue can be satirical: "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room!" -- An outraged President Muffley (Peter Sellers), in Dr. Strangelove.
And dialogue can be profound: "And I felt His voice take the sword out of my hand”-- the newly converted Ben Hur.
Dialogue can also be crude and debasing: Funny People, The Hangover, I Love You, Beth Cooper, I Love You Man, Land of the Lost, Observe and Report, Orphan, The Ugly Truth, Whatever Works, Year One, etc.
Fed up with foul language? Go to the TVGuardian website. TVG (TVGuardian) is patented technology that automatically mutes foul language while you're watching TV or DVDs. http://tvguardian.com/
<><<><<><
CASABLANCA AND THE CHRISTIAN
By Phil Boatwright
Every once in a while, I spotlight the film CASABLANCA. And nearly each time I do, an email arrives suggesting I rethink my endorsement of that film. One complains of adultery portrayed, another has a problem with Rick (Humphrey Bogart) owning a bar. Someone else mentions the smoking. And then there is the gambling. But even though my admiration for this classic stems from its themes of love, honor and patriotism, as well as that incisive, witty dialogue, there’s always a few who feel we shouldn’t praise it too highly. Balderdash, I say. But courteously.
First of all, I want those folks to know I’m sorry that something I’ve recommended caused a check in their spirit about my work. And second, I wonder what films they do feel comfortable with. It’s hard to find a film made by either secular filmmakers or Christians that doesn’t contain something someone will find objectionable.
Hopefully, after this full-out explanation of my love affair with this, the second best film ever made (IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE gets my vote for best film), those who have an affection for the film will see what I’m trying to do when I recommend it. And, hopefully, those who raise an eyebrow over its content may gain a new perspective for this film.
In 1996, THE ENGLISH PATIENT wowed critics (not this one) and it went on to win several Oscars, including one for Best Picture. That film frustrated me because its theme and its protagonists presented the antithesis of those uplifted in CASABLANCA.
Set against the African campaign during WW2, THE ENGLISH PATIENT’s story mixes the present with the lead's memories of an adulterous affair. Well-made, but in it the man sells out his country for the woman he loves – just the opposite of what Rick Blaine did in CASABLANCA.
CASABLANCA, the 1942 Best Picture Oscar winner and now considered by many film historians and fans as the best film of all time, contains not one false or ineffective camera angle, line or performance. What’s more, there are messages of morality included, or at least examples of strong character. By film’s end, Rick and Ilsa have set aside their passion to do what's right for the world. Indeed, love, honor, and patriotism prevail.
For the two people in the entire world who haven’t seen it, let me offer up the synopsis: Nightclub owner Rick Blaine runs Rick’s Café Americain in war-torn Morocco, a country where everyone but Rick wants to escape. World weary, the elusive Rick finds his world turned upside down when a long-lost love picks his gin joint, of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, to walk into. The beautiful Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman) is looking for letters of transit for her and husband Victor, in order to escape Nazis incarceration. Distraught, Rick wants revenge for being dumped by Ilsa, but his love for her overrides his bruised heart. And, he can’t help but admire Victor, a heroic underground resistance leader.
So, what’s the problem with this film for us Christians? Well, let’s take the smoking issue first. Smoking was an accepted practice when this film was made, and even though I suspect that at the time realists realized that it was an unhealthy habit, the practice went unchecked. Here, it is glamorized to the hilt, with shots of smoldering smoke billowing about the film’s stars (as well as all the extras) while they out-wit and out-bon-mot the villains. Well, can’t we learn from their ignorance of tobacco’s dangers? Bogie died from cancer, as did many other celebrities who smoked endlessly in the movies. Today, when we see someone inhale tobacco’s noxious ingredients, getting it real deep in their lungs, it has to come across as lunacy. No offense to those who still struggle with that addiction, but for those of us who don’t smoke, we just can’t figure why people would start.
Those clouds of smoke may have made for good atmosphere and terrific mood-enhanced lighting, but that atmospheric cinematography should now remind us of the message on each and every cigarette package: Cigarette smoking has been proven…
Next, there’s Rick’s ownership of a bar. Well, by the end of Act 3, he has sold the bar and moved on to a more fulfilling occupation – fighting for justice.
The big complaint – adultery – doesn’t really exist, at least in my mind. They had a romance when Ilsa thought her husband was dead. As soon as she discovers Victor (Paul Henreid) is alive, she drops Rick in a Moroccan minute, leaving him at the train station with a “comical look on his face.”
When they are reunited by fate, their passion for one another is rekindled, but ultimately denied. They realize the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. (I suspect that phrase would be retooled if the film were remade.) They separate, realizing they have a moral obligation to aid a world at war.
We live in a culture that tends toward me-ism, but there are still those among us who put country first. Our military men and women are making this sacrifice as they deploy around the world, separating themselves from their family and friends in order to bring democracy and safety to the world and our nation. CASABLANCA helps explain why those who make up the armed forces do what they do.
I must bow, however, to the one grievance I am unable to defend. Rick’s place fosters gambling in the backroom. I guess I pay little attention to gambling in movies because I’ve never been a gambler, nor temped to visit casinos. Once, in college, I played Monopoly with my girlfriend and our two best friends. I was the banker, I cheated all through the game (as a joke – they knew), and I still lost. Right then and there I wisely realized I had no luck with games of chance.
As for the gambling in the film, it is somewhat glamorized, and I have no defense for that. Have you ever met a successful gambler? Most vacationers who go to Las Vegas feel they have won if they don’t lose more than the allotted amount they brought with them for just that purpose. I’ve known people who won cars and even lots of money, but a year later, they were scrambling to pay their debts and/or doing time in rehab. Gambling destroys lives, relationships and families. That’s hard to glamorize, or should be. But need we avoid CASABLANCA because of the three or four scenes depicting gambling in the backroom of Rick’s?
When you think about it, the act of gambling is actually ridiculed in the film. It makes it clear that the odds are always with the house, and the only person in the film who wins is a young girl Rick pities. He allows her to win enough so she and her husband can purchase visas to America. The newlyweds wouldn’t have won unless Rick fixed the game. The house is always in control unless those who run it make a mistake. That’s pointed out, as well.
So there you have it. The film doesn’t make me want to smoke or gamble or commit adultery. I’m seeing it as a parable about a more noble matter: putting others – and our nation – before our own needs. Now, if you choose not to view CASABLANCA because you feel it doesn’t strengthen your spiritual muscles – well, then, you are doing the right thing because you are trying to honor God and be a positive witness. That’s a very good thing. If you can watch the film and be uplifted and come away with a sense of honor’s worth, I think that is also good.
By the way, anybody have a problem with IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE? Synopsis: A man considering suicide is given the chance to see what life for others would be like if he had never been born. The Christmas classic reinforces the belief that our compassion and responsibility do make a difference in the lives of those with whom we come in contact. But what’s this, the lead character is seen sitting in a bar, drinking! Looking closely, you’ll see that George Bailey’s glass is half empty. Or is it half full?
Immortal lines from Casablanca:
Bogart: “I came to Casablanca for the waters.”
Rains: “The waters? What waters? We’re in the desert.”
Bogart: “I was misinformed.”
“I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray, you wore blue.”
“Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine.”
“I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”
“Welcome back to the fight. This time I know our side will win.”
“Major Strasser has been shot. Round up the usual suspects.”
“If that plane leaves the ground and you’re not with him, you’ll regret it. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life.”
“Here’s looking at you, kid.”
Phil Boatwright reviews films for previewonline.org, movierreporter.com and several other Christian-owned outlets.
<><<><<><
