For the first time in at least three of four years, this year I found myself faced with The Academy Awards and the realization that I hadn’t seen hardly any of the films. In years past I not only saw a good 80 to 90% of the films, I also participated in pick ‘em contests. This year there were tons of films I hadn’t even heard of. I thought moving to New York would increase my film viewing, but strangely it hasn’t. This is something that needs to change immediately.
MG Siegler has a great write up here. He explains how the studio owning the rights to The Bodyguard staring Whitney Houston has been pulling the rental rights from companies like Netflix in order to profit from the star’s death. This is why people hate Hollywood.
This is also why people hate the music industry. Sony got caught increasing the prices of her albums the day after her death.
And they wonder why people turn to piracy.
Star Wars and by extension, George Lucas were both huge parts of my childhood. I’ve seen the original trilogy hundreds of times. I would come home from school, but in one of the vhs tapes and let it play in the background while I played with my toys. Every single line of each of the films has been burned into my memory for eternity. Somewhere along the way I lost interest in Star Wars. I got older, grew up and moved on to other things. When I would see my young cousins over the Holidays and they would show me their Star Wars toys, I would say, “Star Wars! I used to play with stuff like this all the time.” I still looked back fondly on Star Wars and was willing to overlook the terrible new trilogy. Star Wars was a warm memory in my heart, until recently.
This week a few bits of news broke. The first is Star Wars would finally be put out on Blu-Ray. The second is that there will some changes. The third, well I’ll return to the third. The changes in Star Wars aren’t the first. When the original trilogy was re-released in the late 1990′s there were some changes. Minor cosmetic changes, updated effects, etc. There have now been so many changes and re-releases that the subject has merited its own Wikipedia Entry. The latest changes are on one hand seemingly inevitable given the history of changes and completely outrageous on the other. Completely replacing puppet Yoda with a CGI one? Blinking Ewoks? (Confirmed by NY Times) Why is this necessary? People would buy these movies on Blu-Ray just because it is Star Wars. We don’t need something “new” about it other than a better format. You aren’t giving people more for their money, you are destroying their beloved childhood memories.
Does this man not realize he is destroying his legacy for a few extra bucks (millions probably, but still…)? He made a set of movies that were universally loved by both fans and critics despite their flaws. He was unduly worshiped by millions as one of the great auteurs of all time. He had cemented his legacy. He had nothing left to prove. So what does he do? He decides to change a bunch of stuff. Why George, why?
Back to the third bit of news. Someone drudged up an old speech Lucas gave in the 1980′s in which he said, “people who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians.” Seriously? (Full Transcript here) If George Lucas had the secret ambition to become the biggest hypocrite in the history of the world, in that he has succeeded. Unfortunately in the end, this is his to destroy. I’m not sure why anyone would make the decisions he has, but it is totally within his rights to do so. As one internet commenter succinctly put it, “I have altered the film. Pray I do not alter it further…”
Duncan Jones is quickly becoming one of my favorite film directors. If you haven’t seen Moon or Source Code, his only two films to date, you probably shouldn’t read this because it spoils to great films. Spoiler warning, you’ve been warned. I’m assuming you’ve seen both of these films, otherwise this probably won’t make much sense.
It is really interesting to see a director develop an artistic style and trademarks that will be seen throughout a career. Some directors are well known for artistic quirks. Hitchcock would always show up in a small cameo in his films. Tarantino always shows people opening trunks of cars and peering into them. Sofia Coppola always has a character gazing out the window of a car, with the reflection of the streets seen in the window. Kubrick’s films always dealt the theme of man’s inhumanity towards fellow man while Scorsese has obvious influence from his Catholic upbringing in his constant portrayal of guilt and redemption. In the case of Jones, the most obvious is moral ambiguity.
Moon deals with an endless supply of clones with a life span of only a few years. If something happens to one of the clones, easy it’s just disposed of and a new one is activated. At the end of a clone’s natural (and short) life cycle, it is also disposed of and again a new one is activated. This seems pretty straightforward at first: big evil corporation employing clones to save money. However, the clones are every outright murdered (although we are lead to believe this could definitely be an option). The corporation attempts to keep the clones satisfied by supplying them with satisfying work and creature comforts. I won’t get into anything regarding the rights / nature of clones, but you get the idea. Morally ambiguous territory.
In Source Code, the moral ambiguity is much more subtle. At the end of the film Jake Gyllenhaal’s character creates a new life for himself when he is able to stop the train’s bombing, but in the process he takes over some innocent guy’s life, or at least I’m lead to believe he does. One on hand he is set free from his life in a vegetative state, but on the other in some parallel reality he has taken someone’s life. And the guy would have died anyway if Gyllenhaal didn’t intervene. Again, morally ambiguous territory.
It is interesting to see this develop in Jones’s films. He even addressed it in one of the Source Code press interviews. It will be great to see this develop in his future projects. Moral ambiguity leads to great discussion and for me that’s the best part of a great movie, the thinking and discussion that follows a viewing and keeps at the forefront of your mind.
I’ve seen 46 new releases in the past 52 weeks. For the full list, click here. First, a couple of rules on how I ranked my top ten movies of 2010.
Rule #1 – The film must have technically been released in 2010. In the film rankings of all the movies I’ve seen in the past year, there are a few that came out around holiday season 2009, but I didn’t see them until 2010, so I added them to the list.
Rule #2 – I had to have actually seen the movie.
Rules #3 – While my film ranking list is based on how much I personally enjoyed a given movie, this is based about 80% quality of movie, 20% how much I liked it.
This year I saw slightly fewer films than last year, but the quality (or at least my perceived quality) was much better. This year I didn’t bother with films like The Last Airbender, whereas two years ago I probably would have at least given those a chance. I’ve done a much better job of filtering out the bad ones and not wasting my time. I missed out on some major films this year including The Fighter, Somewhere, Winter’s Bone, Let Me In and Four Lions to name a few. Hopefully I’ll get to those once they’re available on Netflix.
#10 – Toy Story 3 – I’ll be the first to admit that a poor movie going experience probably hurt my impressions of this film. I think this is the last kid movie I’ll ever see in a theater. Why would you bring your kids to a movie if you know they can’t behave? Beyond those issues, I’m hearing that this is an early contender for Best Picture, not just Best Animated Film. Is it the year an animated film can finally take the top honor? I don’t think so. Good, but not best picture good.
#9 – Kick-Ass – In the past few years we have been inundated with super hero movies, a trend that doesn’t seem to be stopping any time soon. It is really refreshing to see a creative and unique take on an over saturated genre. Kick-Ass deserves a lot more love than it got.
#8 – The Joneses – Probably the least well known film on the list. David Duchovny and Demi Moore star in a critique of keeping up with the Joneses syndrome. I am a fan of anything that explores the darker sides of living a blissful existence in suburbia.
#7 – True Grit – If it weren’t for the pacing issues, this one would be a lot higher on the list. There are some absolutely classic lines, most of which come from Hailee Steinfeld’s character. I really wish there was a category for best trailer at the Academy Awards. This film would easily win in the category.
#6 – The Kids Are All Right – Julianne Moore is awesome in everything she does. Name one bad movie she has ever been in, I dare you. Everyone else about this movie is also awesome. It features a same sex couple and their children. The kids decide to find their real father and hilarity / emotion / chaos ensue.
#5 – Splice – Whoever came up with the marketing plan for this one should be fired. It is not a horror film. I repeat, Splice is not a horror film. Instead it is a smart thriller about the consequences of cloning and genetic manipulation. Viewers should be aware, that this one is really disturbing, but it is absolutely necessary to explore all the areas it does.
#4 – Black Swan – I’ll put money on Natalie Portman winning an Oscar for her performance. Dark, disturbing tale of obsession of perfection. I’ll definitely have to watch this one again once it is available on dvd.
#3 – Inception – I saw it twice the first week it was out. I wrote 1,800 words about its meaning. I loved it. Apparently so did Americans, based on the box office gross. For most people this was the one movie they saw this year. If you still haven’t seen it, change that soon. It came out on dvd / blu-ray a few weeks ago and tons of people got it for X-mas.
#2 – Exit Through The Gift Shop – I’ve now seen this one three times. Elusive street artist Banksy makes his debut as a filmmaker. The statements he makes on art, talent and taste are so profound. Go into this one blind for the best experience. I guarantee you’ll enjoy it. The real enjoyment comes from the debates it will launch afterward.
#1 – The Social Network – Also saw this one three times in theaters. Best Screenplay Oscar guaranteed, with a lot of other wins fairly certain. Two hours of nothing but talking has never been so interesting. For those turned off by the prospects of “The Facebook Movie” know this, it is much less about a piece of technology and much more the story of the relationships between people and a depiction of how true human nature comes out once money is involved.
What do you think? Agree or disagree? What did I leave off the list?
This is absolutely awesome.
If you haven’t seen the movie yet (how is that even possible?) you should avoid this. It spoils everything.
The dvd for Inception comes out soon and as a result there has been a ton of press about the film. Christopher Nolan gave an interview to Wired about the film. In the interview they ask him about all of the internet theories (like this one I wrote) and he responds to some, but overall remains pretty vague.
The video below is a really cool idea, but could have been executed a little better. There is not a proportional amount of footage for everything to quite match up like it should.
An infographic about movies? Count me in. The only observation I will make is this: Every time I think about how much money (after inflation) Gone with the Wind made I’m in shock. Was this the only movie playing for a year straight or what?
Update: How did Alice in Wonderland make so much money? That also baffles me.
click to enlarge
In the weeks leading up to the release of David Fincher’s latest film, The Social Network, there has been a sudden surge in interest surrounding the origins of Facebook’s founding. I won’t rehash my issues with the service, instead I want to address the burning questions the film (and book) leave us with.
Should I go see it?
Yes, you should absolutely see it. As of this posting, I’ve already seen it twice.
How accurate is this story?
There is a ton of conflicting information out there. Aaron Sorkin who wrote the screen play claims he tried to get as close to the truth as possible. Without writing 1800+ words Inception style on the subject, I’ll say that I believe it to be as close to the truth as we can get. An article from Business Insider lays out the ten most glaring inaccuracies like the following:
The movie starts with a falsehood: that Mark Zuckerberg never rowed for a crew team. Actually he did, back at Exeter, the super elite boarding school he went to.
Some of the inaccuracies are a little bigger, but tonally the inclusion of these wouldn’t change much.
Who is the actress mentioned as a Harvard student?
Natalie Portman, apparently she had dinner with Aaron Sorkin and told him some stories about what it was like to be a student there at the time. The line of dialogue was probably a nod of thanks from Sorkin.
Did Facebook get involved?
The filmmakers approached the company and showed them early versions of the script, but the two company ultimately wanted creative changes made that director David Fincher was unwilling to make. Facebook also refused to allow the film to be advertised on the site.
Is Facebook really worth $25 billion dollars?
According to Forbes it is actually worth $33 Billion and Zuckerberg is the 35th richest person on the planet.
Who is right and who is wrong?
Finally, a serious question.
Aaron Sorkin’s incredible dialogue has Zuckerberg’s character at one point exclaim, “If you were the inventor of Facebook, you would have invented Facebook!” With this one line, Sorkin captures the heart of the issue. He didn’t come up with the idea of a social network, but he went out there and built one. Not only did he build one, he built the best one.
If I were to wake up today and say, “I have an idea to build this new revolutionary product that is the going to be the next big thing,” I don’t have ownership of that product unless I go out and build it. Having an idea and executing an idea are completely different things. Another brilliant Zuckerberg line states (does) “a guy who makes a really good chair owe money to anyone who ever made a chair?”
What about Eduardo Saverin having his stock diluted from 34% to .03%? Another line of dialogue sums up my feelings exactly. “You’re gonna blame me because you were the business head of the company and you made a bad business deal with your own company?” Don’t forget Saverin settled for an estimated $1.1 billion.
He hasn’t made the best decisions, but I’m not sure you can really hold that against him, given the circumstances. History will come down on the side of the person who actually went out there and did it, which in this case is Zuckerberg. Through the good and the bad, he is an incredible, albeit single minded visionary who hasn’t let anything distract him from his dream.
I won’t spoil the surprise, but this is a pretty awesome twist on the traditional thoughts about the holiday.