Looking forward to MUNICH. The fact that it got trashed by both "left"
and "right", was accused of being TOO pro-Palestinian, not
pro-Palestinian enough, and/or TOO pro-Israeli, or not pro-Israeli
enough probably meant he had got the even-handed approach he wanted.
We'll see. It opens at our local flea-pit of a theatre this week and
making the exception to go see it.
I'm one of the few people ( it seems) that saw beyond WAR OF THE WORLDS
as a science fiction blockbuster remake of a fondly-remembered but hardy
classic 1953 SF film, that used H.G. Wells source for the same thing
Wells did - to make a political statement.
A lot of people don't like that. They just want "entertainment". Sadly,
thought-provoking films, are rapidly becoming a thing of the past as
more and more people just want disposable eye candy delivered in
fast-food size chunks for easy digestion and waste removal.
That was also the mistake Peter Jackson made with KONG, I think. He made
a film for people that wanted a film to take its time to tell its story,
people it with more fully drawn characters than the original and give
plenty of bang for the buck, along with some ideas and concepts that
were almost Swiftian in their concepts.
Apart from the short attention span of many (most?) film goers these
days, Jackson didn't consider that dreaded enemy lurking out there that
Spielberg also encountered.. the Old Film Fart Brigade (the OFFB) just
lying in wait, ready to hate any remake of a film they choose to
perceive as an "untouchable classic"... and long before it even opens.
It's only a movie folks, at the end of the day. Enjoy, don't enjoy....
but don't whinge. Especially if you haven't seen it.
Phil
David Kusumoto wrote:
Two words for this movie and most of the rat race is buying it...
G I M M I C K & H Y P E
Duane: Have you seen this picture? If so, back it up. If you
haven't, let
me ask you: are you just proud you're not "giving in" to what you
feel is
undeserved praise for a movie you had zero intention of seeing
anyway? I
don't see how anyone who's seen "Brokeback," even if they think it's
overpraised (as I do), will say the gay-theme is a "gimmick."
Hype, however, has nothing to do with quality and everything to do with
marketing and critical praise that feels disproportionate to what's being
sold. I could make a case for it, but "Brokeback" had danger written all
over it before it gained any traction to get where it is today. Focus
Features, the people who brought you "Lost in Translation" -- hardly a
major
film distributor or studio -- is responsible for "Brokeback." I'll
tell you
what "hype" is -- it's when a film opens on more than 1,500 screens, gets
saturation TV ads by a major distributor like Paramount or Warners or
Sony-Columbia or NewLine -- just pick any film that opens on any given
weekend, finishes #1 its first week -- and then disappears. That's
HYPE --
that's the "rat race" you describe that buys movies based on previews and
ads BEFORE reading product labels or giving two s**** about reviews
and the
like. That happens EVERY week. "King Kong" was the most hyped film
of the
year -- but you know what -- despite its flaws, it earned its hype and
produced the best value for my $10 in 2005.
"Brokeback" opened IN DECEMBER, very slowly, to give it a chance to
find an
audience BEYOND those who were gonna see it regardless. When it
opened, it
was on a handful of screens in New York and LA. That's it. I may not
think
the film is great cinema, but as a person who knows a little about
publicity
and marketing, the people at Focus Features are geniuses. It's not
perfect,
but if you're a p.r. person, at least "Brokeback" is nothing you have to
apologize about when the boss isn't looking. It's still a good film.
Just
not a great film.
As for the nominations, the thing I found interesting (and this goes in
waves) -- is every film nominated for Best Pic (Crash, Good Night and
Good
Luck, Capote, Brokeback Mountain) -- except Munich -- was independent,
the
type of film first shown in "Landmark" art house type theaters (Kirby's
favorite, hooray!). The only "big budget" picture "best pic" nominee
among
'em, and the budget itself was modest by Spielberg standards, is
"Munich,"
which got mixed reviews. As Spielberg says this week in Newsweek, he
expected to be "hit" by the "right" by his film -- but was shocked to
be hit
by what he felt were shrill critics on the "left." Personally, I was
hoping
"King Kong" or even "Cinderella Man" would sneak in there this
morning, just
to prevent the art house "snobs" (grin) from taking over -- because all 5
best pic nominees were message or preachy films, not crowd pleasers. And
that's a downer to me. Even "Match Point" got zonked, and it was Woody
Allen's best film since 1989.
-koose.
----Original Message Follows----
From: Duane Nycz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Duane Nycz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Brokeback Blues Backlash
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:27:18 -0800
Two words for this movie and most of the rat race is buying it...
G I M M I C K & H Y P E
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
