David Your e-mail brings back pleasant memories of my late father. He wasted a zillion hours going to movies growing up (just as I did) and he had an uncanny ability to guess where a movie was headed, because he had seen so many similar ones before. We would watch together, and he would say, "I bet it is going to turn out that the butler did it, and that he was having an affair with the wife" and he was right 99 times out of 100. That's when I realized that the vast majority of movie plots were recycled. I would say to him, "But the average viewer hasn't seen a lot of similar movies, so to them it is fresh".
Now I have turned into my father in that way, and in others (I can well remember the moment around 10 years ago when I woke and stumbled into the bathroom and thought for a second my father was somehow there, and then I realized I was looking at the mirror!). My kids can enjoy lots of movies I can't, because they are fresh for them. And as you point out, they go all the time, and I hardly ever do, so who should the studios be aiming at? Bruce On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 1:25 AM, David Kusumoto <[email protected]>wrote: > *** It's been a while I've written anything* of length to MoPo; write it > off to being too swamped to get into the fights and what-nots during the > past 5-6 months. > > *** Meanwhile, you're right, Doug -- "Avatar's" story line* has been done > 1,000 times before, and that's my only objection to it. "Avatar's" script > resembled "Dances With Wolves Meets the Blue Man Group" -- with the standard > theme of "money-grubbing corporations" raping the natural resources of a > planet populated by blue aliens -- whose every utterance is noble and > forcefully profound, e.g., like lines given to every Native American > character in Disney's "Pocahontas." > > *** Anyway, **I was put in my place by a former colleague* and mother of > two kids who agreed with me -- but who told me -- (and she was right) -- > "you know, you and your historical film references makes you old and out of > date -- it makes everything you see today sound irrelevant with a "been > there and done that" feeling. Well, that's not true for everything. > Zillions of people are paying $15 to see 'Avatar' without your historical > references; they don't care about "Dances with Wolves" or "Pocahontas." > Even if they did, those pictures were made 15-20 years ago, before today's > movie goers were born; they were made in ways that seem obsolete or less > engaging to kids today. This doesn't mean old films are less important. It > just means they're not important to young people YET. Someday they'll like > them. Like we did. Geezuz, we weren't all born in 1920. Young people buy > WAY more tickets than old people. Remember how you used to go to every > opening night? You don't anymore because you hate long lines. You're not > supporting the industry and you're well past the 'sell-by' date for mass > entertainment. So stay at home and watch PBS, TCM or HBO. 'Avatar" may not > be the best picture of the year, but it is historic and my kids loved it." > > *** I thought about this tirade for a moment* and I said, "you know, > you're right. Most people coming out of 'Avatar' are having fun -- and I > admit it's astounding that a guy like James Cameron can knock out hit after > monster hit, while having total control of material that, unlike Spielberg, > always seems to strike industry watchers and the bean counters to have an > "iffy" quality -- BEFORE they're released. Cameron's films never SEEM to > feel like they will be guaranteed box office gold until AFTER word-of-mouth > spreads." > > *** The box-office receipts of Cameron's last three films* including "True > Lies" -- have blown past everything Spielberg has done since 1993, including > "Jurassic Park," a film at the time I thought was a technological game > changer. I just wonder whether "Avatar," even as a "game changer" -- has a > story/script worthy enough to be a Best Picture. "Titanic" beat back those > same obstacles in 1997 with an old-fashioned, 1940s type love story that had > teenage girls returning in droves. > > *** I liked low-budget picture, "The Hurt Locker"* -- and was shocked that > I also enjoyed the true story of Baltimore Ravens tackle Michael Oher in > Sandra Bullock's "The Blind Side" -- but "Avatar" didn't hit me in the gut. > Honestly, the best performances I saw in 2009 came from Meryl Streep as > Julia Child in "Julie and Julia" and Christoph Waltz as the smooth Nazi in > "Inglourious Basterds." > > *** If I had to root for a single picture, it might be "The Hurt Locker,"*but > only because I think it's the first picture about the war without a > political message; none of the actors "debate" why they're in Iraq. There's > no sledgehammer message. It's a strange film whereby the emotional > centerpiece is the adrenaline of survival; some soldiers have it and some > don't; this adrenaline is all that matters to the main character played by > Best Actor nominee Jeremy Renner. I also thought "The Hurt Locker" was a > giant leap for action director Kathryn Bigelow, who's never done anything > like this. If anything, its neutral political stance underscores how many > soldiers are ignorant of the politics of anything they're involved in. They > just do their job. > > *** But my gut feeling is the 9 films going against "Avatar"* -- all have > the "Gandhi" hex hung around their necks. That is, if any picture OTHER > than "Avatar" wins -- it will be a dubious distinction akin to "Forrest > Gump" beating "The Shawshank Redemption" and "Pulp Fiction" in 1994; > "Shakespeare in Love" beating "Saving Private Ryan" in 1998; "Chariots of > Fire" beating "Reds" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in 1981; "Ordinary > People" beating "Raging Bull" in 1980; "Platoon" beating " Woody Allen's > "Hannah and Her Sisters" in 1986; "The English Patient" beating "Fargo" in > 1996; "Dances with Wolves" beating "Goodfellas" in 1990 and "Gandhi" beating > "E.T" in 1982 and on and on. I remember being angry when Oliver Stone's > "Platoon" beat Woody Allen's "Hannah" in '86, the latter film much decorated > in the all-important acting and screenplay categories. And last week, I > put on "Shawshank" on the DVD player and my wife and I were in tears all > over again. Still a great picture. > > *** I know the Oscars are such bullshit* (and not the original point of > Doug and Kirby's posts below) -- and I know these trophies are laden with > the "politics of their day" -- which have proven time and again that the > Academy's choices do not a classic make. But if "Avatar" loses, I sense > many will feel like they've witnessed the "crime of the century," further > exposing the gulf between the Academy and popular sentiment (arguably as > they should be) -- but over a picture that is not only a box-office smash, > but has also received good-to-great reviews. I won't mind if "Avatar" wins > because I do know people who think despite its high-school-ish script (esp. > the romance) -- that the picture is a critical and commercial juggernaut > that should NOT be denied the biggest prize on March 7, which has forced > many production companies to re-tool their future releases to integrate the > 3D format in a "non-intrusive" way, which is "Avatar's" biggest strength. > * > ** **Despite 10 Best Picture nominees,* I'm kind of indifferent this year, > not one film screams "stupendous." But I was emotionally responsive to 5 of > the nearly 35 films released in 2009 *that I saw,* one of which is not > even among the 10 nominees: "The Hurt Locker," "The Blind Side," "Up," > "Inglourious Basterds" (despite its excesses) -- and "The (500) Days of > Summer," the latter which I thought was going to be a stupid, sophomoric > young-love beach film -- but turned out to be a new way of telling a story > about a broken urban romance that doesn't get near a beach or a keg-party. > Wonderful surprise. > > *** A digression *-- I did not object to "Annie Hall" beating "Star Wars" > in 1977. "Annie Hall" was a film I saw in contemporaneous release and I did > feel at the time that it broke new ground for Woody Allen and for the "urban > comedy genre" in a different way that "Star Wars" broke bigger ground for > family entertainment the same year. But I also vividly remember going to > work the next day. My work mates asked me, with great incredulity, "Star > Wars lost to Annie WHAT? Your movie choices SUCK." I loved both films but > I've never forgotten how that experience exposed me as a high-button, > stuck-up, holier-than-thou snob. -d. > > > Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:31:56 -0500 > > From: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: AVATAR > > To: [email protected] > > > > Much better script than Titanic, although a story line we've seen 1,000 > > times the last 90 years. > > > > I've haven't seen anything better this year. I had high hopes for Hurt > > Locker, but it just doesn't pack the punch to compete. > > > > Regards > > > > DBT > > Profile > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: MoPo List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kirby > McDaniel > > Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 11:18 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [MOPO] AVATAR > > > > Here's my reaction. > > > > I finally saw it. > > > > Spectacularly realized. Doesn't lag much. Screenwriting is a little > > stilted at times while trying to explain things to audience 8 to 80, but > > that's quibbling. Gorgeous in 3D on the full IMAX screen. 3D is some of > the best I've ever > > seen in that it seems to be "of a piece" with the film after a while. > Very beautiful to > > look at. Reminded me at various times of aspects of other films - > LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, > > ALIENS, of course, THE STAR WARS stuff, naturally, although without the > Flash > > Gordon cornball factor, especially RETURN OF THE JEDI with it's scenes of > the ewoks. > > And BAMBI of all things -- I was looking at some of the color in the > Disney > > animation the other day, and some of the same coloration and tone in > AVATAR. > > So huge in its palette that one just simply has to hand it to James > Cameron - he > > must be some kind of superman. The film is laden with messages, but it's > > all stuff I can pretty much get behind. What surprised me was how > touching > > it was at times. > > > > Oh yeah, really cute people. And they're blue. It's not easy being blue. > > > > Kirby McDaniel > > MovieArt Original Film Posters > > P.O. Box 4419 > > Austin TX 78765-4419 > > 512 479 6680 www.movieart.net > > mobile 512 589 5112 > 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.
