Michael Jackson
1958-2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Oscar’s Best Picture Nominees Will Expand to Ten
In the Best Picture category, instead of five nominees and one winner, next year there will be ten nominees and one winner.
Read article here:
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/breaking-oscars-best-picture-nominees-will-expand-to-ten
My opinion? This is way too little, way too late...
The Academy needs a complete restructuring, right from the bottom up, with the addition of new categories like an Academy Award for CASTING, not to mention a change in the rules for who actually gets to be an Academy member (if an Academy member dies before their ten-year term as a voter is up, the privilege of voting often goes to a family member or spouse, even if they're not involved in the industry).
Oh well, at least they're doing something, I guess...
Read article here:
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/breaking-oscars-best-picture-nominees-will-expand-to-ten
My opinion? This is way too little, way too late...
The Academy needs a complete restructuring, right from the bottom up, with the addition of new categories like an Academy Award for CASTING, not to mention a change in the rules for who actually gets to be an Academy member (if an Academy member dies before their ten-year term as a voter is up, the privilege of voting often goes to a family member or spouse, even if they're not involved in the industry).
Oh well, at least they're doing something, I guess...
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Movies You May Have Missed - #8
Roger Dodger (2002)
As always, Facebook users need to click "View Original Post" to see the video clips.
Also, regarding the clips themselves: All of them contain varying amounts of strong language and/or semi-graphic sexual dialogue - so it's probably best to consider them NSFW.
Writer/director Dylan Kidd's debut feature Roger Dodger never really got the kind of attention it deserved when it was released back in 2002. But with its terrific, memorable dialogue and fascinating insight into human sexuality and loneliness, Kidd's film was able to garner critical acclaim, several awards, and a well-deserved place among many of 2002's "Best-of" lists.
Campbell Scott (Singles) plays the titular Roger, a perpetual bachelor whose life has always revolved around himself - and, by extension, his many women. A well-educated and intelligent man with an uncanny ability to quickly size-up anyone around him, he's been able to implement this talent into a successful career as an advertising executive, where he coerces people into playing a sort of "substitution game", as they attempt to fill the insufferable "voids" in their lives by purchasing material things.
There's only one thing Roger enjoys more than women: Hearing himself talk. Roger's a man with an answer for everything, and he wants to make sure you've heard every single word of it. This, of course, is where Dylan Kidd's amazing dialogue comes into play. I present to you the opening scene of the movie:
After watching the above clip, there's probably one thing that stood out for you even more than the deft wordplay... I'm talking, of course, of the camerawork. Now, this has proven to be a real sore spot with people. Even those who praised the dialogue and performances had a real problem with the constantly-moving, intentionally "shaky" hand-held camera. Me? I loved it. I thought it was perfect. It's a bold choice (the entire film is shot this way) - but for me, it's the perfect visual embodiment of Roger's chain-smoking, loose-cannon, shoot-from-the-hip character. The one sequence where the camera is locked off - a single shot near the end of the film - is a great pay-off, suggesting his character's growth and maturity. Of course, there were other technical and budgetary reasons behind the movie's style, but we'll get to that later...
So, from that first scene, we're introduced to the kind of person that Roger is, and has been, for quite some time. But Roger, now in his late 30's, has been flirting with stability. He's been in a relationship with his boss, Joyce (Isabella Rossellini), for an extended period of time. We sense that, with him reaching middle age and she being nearly twenty years older than him, he's grown content - perhaps even comfortable - with the arrangement. But his world is about to come crashing down.
Joyce dumps him, and Roger, enraged and at a loss for what to do next, returns to the late-night bar-hopping ways of which he's most familiar. We see him eyeing a girl across the room, and we think we know what's about to occur. But then Kidd's screenplay surprises us:
He obviously sees a parallel between these women and his own situation. But, feeling deeply hurt and betrayed, he's unable (or unwilling) to care about anyone or anything other than himself, and so he sets out to destroy them, so that he''ll be able to feel - if only for a moment - a little bit better about himself.
It's at moments like this when you realize how amazing the writing and direction - and especially Campbell Scott's performance - really are, because all of this is, at face value, some really fucked-up shit... But it's funny as hell, and you can't wait to see what will happen next.
What does happen next is not only a surprise, but the perfect place for the film to go. Roger's 16-year-old nephew, Nick (Jesse Eisenberg -The Squid and the Whale) drops by for a visit. The primary reason for Nick's New York trip is apparently some college interviews, but we quickly learn that he has other intentions: He's come for some much-needed advice from Roger...
The above sequence was shot in Times Square (only a month after 9/11), with no permits, and very little money. It was accomplished by placing the camera in a van, parked on the street, and placing a "shade" in the van's window which would allow the camera to see out, but no one else to see in. An obvious case of form following function, you can now see a main reason for the film's handheld look. The scene above was shot in the only way possible for the budget available: Throwing the two leads out into a sea of real people, and quickly framing-out of the picture the many, many people who have not signed releases to be in the film. But because they've started the film's bold camerawork from the very first scene, this sequence, admittedly chaotic from a cinematographic perspective, doesn't feel out of place.
So, without going much further and giving anything away, I'll mention that the film goes on to even more amazing dialogue and an incredible, nearly 30-minute sequence consisting entirely of four characters around a table. I'll leave it at that.
This picture, while not a huge success, was far from a failure. Its final gross was $1.2 million on a somewhat low budget. I've never been able to find an exact number on the budget, but it was not nominated for the Independent Spirit Awards' John Cassavetes Award (best film made for less than $500,000) so I'd guess that the budget was somewhere between that and $1 million.
The movie's real success was on the awards circuit: It won Best First Film at the Venice Film Festival, Best Narrative Feature Film at the Tribeca Film Festival, and (most surprisingly) Best Actor for Campbell Scott from the National Board of Review.
Dylan Kidd never really ended up delivering on the promise of this picture... His follow-up, P.S., starring Laura Linney, was based on a novel and was co-scripted by the novel's author and Kidd. A good film, but a complete 180-degree turn from Roger Dodger, and it only grossed $175,000.
So, in summation: Great movie, completely worth your time, not quite as dark as I may have made it seem from the comments and clips, and very, very funny.
(I should also mention that Spike Lee in 2005 named Roger Dodger as one of his "favorite films of the decade so far", alongside films like Brokeback Mountain and Requiem for a Dream.)
Also, regarding the clips themselves: All of them contain varying amounts of strong language and/or semi-graphic sexual dialogue - so it's probably best to consider them NSFW.
Writer/director Dylan Kidd's debut feature Roger Dodger never really got the kind of attention it deserved when it was released back in 2002. But with its terrific, memorable dialogue and fascinating insight into human sexuality and loneliness, Kidd's film was able to garner critical acclaim, several awards, and a well-deserved place among many of 2002's "Best-of" lists.
Campbell Scott (Singles) plays the titular Roger, a perpetual bachelor whose life has always revolved around himself - and, by extension, his many women. A well-educated and intelligent man with an uncanny ability to quickly size-up anyone around him, he's been able to implement this talent into a successful career as an advertising executive, where he coerces people into playing a sort of "substitution game", as they attempt to fill the insufferable "voids" in their lives by purchasing material things.
There's only one thing Roger enjoys more than women: Hearing himself talk. Roger's a man with an answer for everything, and he wants to make sure you've heard every single word of it. This, of course, is where Dylan Kidd's amazing dialogue comes into play. I present to you the opening scene of the movie:
After watching the above clip, there's probably one thing that stood out for you even more than the deft wordplay... I'm talking, of course, of the camerawork. Now, this has proven to be a real sore spot with people. Even those who praised the dialogue and performances had a real problem with the constantly-moving, intentionally "shaky" hand-held camera. Me? I loved it. I thought it was perfect. It's a bold choice (the entire film is shot this way) - but for me, it's the perfect visual embodiment of Roger's chain-smoking, loose-cannon, shoot-from-the-hip character. The one sequence where the camera is locked off - a single shot near the end of the film - is a great pay-off, suggesting his character's growth and maturity. Of course, there were other technical and budgetary reasons behind the movie's style, but we'll get to that later...
So, from that first scene, we're introduced to the kind of person that Roger is, and has been, for quite some time. But Roger, now in his late 30's, has been flirting with stability. He's been in a relationship with his boss, Joyce (Isabella Rossellini), for an extended period of time. We sense that, with him reaching middle age and she being nearly twenty years older than him, he's grown content - perhaps even comfortable - with the arrangement. But his world is about to come crashing down.
Joyce dumps him, and Roger, enraged and at a loss for what to do next, returns to the late-night bar-hopping ways of which he's most familiar. We see him eyeing a girl across the room, and we think we know what's about to occur. But then Kidd's screenplay surprises us:
He obviously sees a parallel between these women and his own situation. But, feeling deeply hurt and betrayed, he's unable (or unwilling) to care about anyone or anything other than himself, and so he sets out to destroy them, so that he''ll be able to feel - if only for a moment - a little bit better about himself.
It's at moments like this when you realize how amazing the writing and direction - and especially Campbell Scott's performance - really are, because all of this is, at face value, some really fucked-up shit... But it's funny as hell, and you can't wait to see what will happen next.
What does happen next is not only a surprise, but the perfect place for the film to go. Roger's 16-year-old nephew, Nick (Jesse Eisenberg -The Squid and the Whale) drops by for a visit. The primary reason for Nick's New York trip is apparently some college interviews, but we quickly learn that he has other intentions: He's come for some much-needed advice from Roger...
The above sequence was shot in Times Square (only a month after 9/11), with no permits, and very little money. It was accomplished by placing the camera in a van, parked on the street, and placing a "shade" in the van's window which would allow the camera to see out, but no one else to see in. An obvious case of form following function, you can now see a main reason for the film's handheld look. The scene above was shot in the only way possible for the budget available: Throwing the two leads out into a sea of real people, and quickly framing-out of the picture the many, many people who have not signed releases to be in the film. But because they've started the film's bold camerawork from the very first scene, this sequence, admittedly chaotic from a cinematographic perspective, doesn't feel out of place.
So, without going much further and giving anything away, I'll mention that the film goes on to even more amazing dialogue and an incredible, nearly 30-minute sequence consisting entirely of four characters around a table. I'll leave it at that.
This picture, while not a huge success, was far from a failure. Its final gross was $1.2 million on a somewhat low budget. I've never been able to find an exact number on the budget, but it was not nominated for the Independent Spirit Awards' John Cassavetes Award (best film made for less than $500,000) so I'd guess that the budget was somewhere between that and $1 million.
The movie's real success was on the awards circuit: It won Best First Film at the Venice Film Festival, Best Narrative Feature Film at the Tribeca Film Festival, and (most surprisingly) Best Actor for Campbell Scott from the National Board of Review.
Dylan Kidd never really ended up delivering on the promise of this picture... His follow-up, P.S., starring Laura Linney, was based on a novel and was co-scripted by the novel's author and Kidd. A good film, but a complete 180-degree turn from Roger Dodger, and it only grossed $175,000.
So, in summation: Great movie, completely worth your time, not quite as dark as I may have made it seem from the comments and clips, and very, very funny.
(I should also mention that Spike Lee in 2005 named Roger Dodger as one of his "favorite films of the decade so far", alongside films like Brokeback Mountain and Requiem for a Dream.)
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Baby reacts to "Where the Wild Things Are" Trailer
This has got to be the cutest thing I've ever seen:
A one-year-old boy reacting to the trailer for Where the Wild Things Are.
I guess the studio shouldn't have had any worries about the movie not appealing to kids...
Here it is:
A one-year-old boy reacting to the trailer for Where the Wild Things Are.
I guess the studio shouldn't have had any worries about the movie not appealing to kids...
Here it is:
Trailer Reaction from We Love You So on Vimeo.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
