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
