CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT

JER'S TURN: OVERVIEW OF THE 84th ANNUAL ACADEMY AWARDS!

2012-02-28T16:42:00.006-08:00

JER: Sunday February 26^th 2012 brought us the 84^th Annual Academy Award presentation. It was, as is the annual tradition, a special and revered night that I always look forward to dearly. Some people start viewing football off-season and review players trading off to other teams, baseball players and how their early pre-season games fair…but I look at an entire year’s worth of hopefuls and begin picking- off or highlighting the films that begin filling in the slots that would garner the nominations and eventually win the coveted Oscar.

In review, let’s begin from the start and move on through to the anticipated finale.

Host Billy Crystal

The Host: Billy Crystal returned for his ninth appearance as host. Based off of his previous gigs, it had always been a sure bet that you got a full show of humor and hijinx with Mr. Crystal…yet, something didn’t quite jell this year. An older (63) Billy kept getting in the way and didn’t quite deliver enough punches as previous turns had seen. What was to blame? Possibly the eight year span since he last hosted back in 2004? Let’s just blame it on the fact that maybe it had been far too long since he had been on stage anywhere and needed to get his feet wet or re-learn how to peddle on that old bike again. If so, couldn’t he had found a playground to practice on before show time in front of…oh, I don’t know… millions of people?! Not really sure but it felt as if the hosting played ‘safe’ and didn’t take too many jabs at the expense of the honored guests or the industry they worked for, as he’d been known to do so in the past. The unfortunate thing that kept my interest focused on Crystal was to help answer the question that touted me throughout the course of the evening: Was he wearing a toupee or did he just have a really bad hair-dye job! Ouch!

Winner of 5 Awards: HUGO

Highlights: The Tech Winners: Not too many people know or even care about such categories like Sound Editing or Art Direction, but the Academy seems to think that the majority of the viewing audience does. Don’t get me wrong, I know I am not alone in the appreciation of such awards and many do really care, including me. But let’s be honest… the numbers would probably end with lots of zeros if a survey was taken about your least favorite nominations to which the reply would lean back towards the tech awards probably ranking up there along with Documentary Short and Live Action Short Film. I, however, am not speaking on behalf of the general public but rather of my own thoughts and opinions and I am always intrigued by the nominations and the wins. HUGO kicked off the winning trend in a big way…almost in an undefeated blaze of awards gathered that included Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Visual Effects, Cinematography and Art Direction. That’s where the magic of HUGO would end totaling five wins from its high ranking eleven.

The trailer for Martin Scorsese's HUGO

Honorable Mention: The Governors Awards: Allow me to clarify this ceremony and its significance. Since 2009, the Governors Awards are a private and separate AMPAS (Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Science)- hosted presentation that include the bestowing of the Irving Thalberg Award, the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award and the Academy Honorary Award. To help save time on the already lengthy ceremony of today, these awards are now distributed on its own special night in the Governors’ Ballroom located on the corner of Hollywood and Highland in Los Angeles. Oprah Winfrey received the Humanitarian Award, but the real winners I would like to highlight are two men who have made personal impacts in my life.

Honoree Dick Smith with Rick Baker

Academy Honorary Award Winner: Dick Smith: He may not be a household name, but his contribution in Special Effects and the films he has worked on are both respected and highly recognized. His Make- Up Effects can be both enjoyed and thrilled by in THE EXORCIST, THE GODFATHER and his Award winning effects in AMADEUS. Mr. Smith is the architect that interned a young Rick Baker before he would go on to win his own respected Academy Awards in the field for AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON and most recently THE WOLFMAN. For me, I expressed a serious interest in becoming a Make-Up Special Effects artist and found Mr. Smith to be an inspiration and a career I closely followed and continually remained awe with at his works of art on the screen for years to come.

James Earl Jones and Jer! (early 90's)

Academy Honorary Award Winner: James Earl Jones: For his brilliance in performances both in film and on stage, Mr. Jones is as powerful an actor as is his distinctive baritone tones that will always be best recognized as the voice of Darth Vader in the STAR WARS series. His acting credits span a variety of different genres and characters throughout his career including his nominated role in THE GREAT WHITE HOPE, COMING TO AMERICA, THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER, CONAN THE BARBARIAN and FIELD OF DREAMS. Having had the pleasure to have met Mr. Jones in person, I can only describe him as a towering but gentle giant. He does leave you in a sense of unworthiness, yet a man with a warm disposition that is personable and welcoming. Here is to both of you and congratulations!

Highlights: The Performance Awards: The evening proved to be one of passing out the right awards to those I felt deservingly should receive and not have a singular film sweep all of the majors.

Best Foreign Language Film: It came as no surprise to many that Iran’s submitted A SEPERATION would win this year. Crossing many tabooed barriers, the film deals with an Iranian couple dealing with real- life decisions during a break-up in their marriage… hardly a topic of discussion within certain religious channels. Writer/ Director Asghar Farhadi was moved by the award and accepted the Oscar on behalf of the Iranian community.

The fantastic and thrilling trailer for A SEPERATION

Best Picture: THE ARTIST won the prestigious award for 2011 as well as five of its ten nominations. You will remember Johnny Chazz bringing this film to our attention back late last year and our predictions soon followed. This was my film of choice. What makes THE ARTIST so unique and ground-breaking is that it is the first silent film since 1929’s WINGS to win a Best Picture award. Two of the other wins went to Best Costume Design and to Ludovic Bource’s Best Original Score whose music accompanied the film from start to finish, a typical expectancy during the silent era.

Jean Dujardin: Best Actor- THE ARTIST

Best Actor: Another ‘first’ is Jean Dujardin’s win, due to the fact that a Frenchman had never won the award previously. Dujardin was probably a surprise to many as the ‘sure bet’ seemed to had leaned towards George Clooney for THE DESCENDANTS. As Silent film star George Valentin, Dujardin dug into the very heart of the genesis of being an actor: relying solely on emotion, body language and facial characteristics to relay to an audience what needed to be said without saying it. Being that THE ARTIST is considered a foreign film of its own, a number of barriers were broken to convey what needed to be said on the screen and not rely on subtitles or dubbing over of original voices. It proved to be a literal spanking to all actors globally.

Michel Hazanavicius: Best Director- THE ARTIST

Best Director: Rounding off the fifth win for THE ARTIST was given to Michel Hazanavicius. His contribution to the film went beyond that of telling actors what to do… this was Hazanavicius’ baby. He wrote the story and script and had his wife, Best Supporting Actress nominee Berenice Bejo, co-star as Peppy Miller. Michel said that this was an homage to the Golden Age of Cinema, a time highly respected with many films making its way to his native France to be enjoyed. It was a long road for a Parisian to make it to Hollywood, but the journey was made and completed! Tres Bien, Monsieur!

It's Offical: Best Picture of 2011- THE ARTIST!

Meryl Streep: Best Actress

Best Actress: Wowing an audience was Meryl Streep’s win for her portrayal of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in THE IRON LADY. Streep herself was genuinely taken back as well since the odds seemed to favor Viola Davis in THE HELP. Her acceptance was 30 years in the making since her last Best Actress win for SOPHIE’S CHOICE in 1982. Streep jokingly poked fun at the occasion stating that she knew the viewing audience wasn’t expecting her to take the award this year… she then blew it off with a calm reply, “Oh well.”

Plummer and Davis: Supporting Winners

BestSupporting Roles: If there is such a thing as a ‘sure bet’, then it definitely belonged to the two actors, respectfully, who won in these categories. Octavia Spencer nabbed Best Supporting Actress for her memorable portrayal of Southern housekeeper Minny Jackson in THE HELP. The role seemed tailor-fit for Ms. Spencer and would have been considered unconceivable to imagine anyone else in the role. The Best Supporting Actor award went to 82 year old Christopher Plummer in BEGINNERS. Mr. Plummer’s win marks the oldest living actor to receive the Academy Award. The previous title was held by Jessica Tandy, who was 80 year old when she won Best Actress in 1991 for DRIVING MISS DAISY.

Lengthy, enjoyable, boring or exhilarating might be but a few adjectives used to describe the three and a half hour presentation, but one thing stands above it all: OSCARS! The glitz, the glamour and the surprise few words that follow the opening of the envelope as everyone holds tight for the reply as the presenter says, “And the Oscar goes to…”

Highlight: Billy Crystal's funny Opening Montage with film clips

What was your take on the winners or losers this year? Did your favorites win and did you feel a grave oversight was made? Please chime in and give us your opinions and comments. Please check back with us when JOHNNY CHAZZ selects the next topic of film discussion on Wednesday March 14, 2012!

Have you visited the official CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT page on YOUTUBE? Check out classic and contemporary trailers, scenes and other great trips down memory lane! Just click the link and check out the "Favorites" on our site! Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/user/cinemacounterpoint?feature=mhee

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JOHNNY CHAZZ' TURN: FILM: A HYPNOTIC STATE OF BEIN...

2012-02-14T22:44:00.000-08:00

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JOHNNY CHAZZ' TURN: FILM: A HYPNOTIC STATE OF BEIN...: Georges Melies': VOYAGE DANS LA LUNE (1902) JOHNNY CHAZZ : So often here on CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT we spend time focusing on specific f...

JOHNNY CHAZZ' TURN: FILM: A HYPNOTIC STATE OF BEING

2012-02-13T22:53:00.000-08:00

Georges Melies': VOYAGE DANS LA LUNE (1902)

JOHNNY CHAZZ: So often here on CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT we spend time focusing on specific films and the particular cinematic aspects associated with each. We dive into the details of script, production, sets, performance, cinematography, editing and so on. Rarely though do we take a moment to step back and examine a phenomenon which has always amazed me: The ability for films to place each of us into a “hypnotic” state where we as audience members have completely bought-into the experience on screen and are no longer conscious of the fact that we are sitting in a seat inside a movie theater. What is key is to remember that the subconscious mind is truly “accepting”, and it is often this level of consciousness where people are affected and changed at the inner core of their being. Oh, the power of film.

Remember “Mulholland Drive” in 2000? The scene inside of Club Silencio shows us two characters sitting inside a “movie-like” theater / playhouse watching a performance that not only do they know is strictly a “performance”, but the host even makes it clear time and time again that everything they see on stage is just an illusion. Still, the characters completely buy-into what they see and it is the inter-weavings and power of the lighting, the costumes, the music and the performance that leave our characters in such an emotional and hypnotic state. Oh, the power of theater.

Visit 'Club Silencio' in this clip from MULLHOLLAND DR.

We see it in other films that are simply too far-fetched for the conscious mind, yet we still believe and react to what we see. Examine “El Topo” from 1970 for a moment when the colonel says “Who are you to judge me?” and the response from our main character is: “I am God”. Now we know this cannot be true, but the journey that the film has led us on takes us to a point where we absolutely must believe what we hear from beginning to end in the film. Oh, the power of desire.

In 1980, audiences experienced “Altered States” with William Hurt. Aren’t we all, in a sense as audience members, placed into a tank or isolation chamber such as a movie theater and given a hallucinatory drug to realize the full effect of the experience? What a tremendous monologue by Hurt when he states: “There’s a physiological pathway to our earlier consciousnesses. There has to be.” Oh, the power of dreams.

Fantasy genre films act in the same fashion. Films such as the recent “Avatar” and “Pan’s Labyrinth” were truly outstanding examples of a film that was too “incredible” for the conscious mind to fathom, yet the director’s ability to use tools such as color, light, sound, sets, music, effects, CGI and more forces the audience into a trance state.

In 1966, “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” stunned audiences with such graphic language and scenes, yet we all bought-in. Why? The realism. The script punched audiences in the face like an angry-fist. It was the hypnotic patters of language and story-telling that grabbed us. It was the combination of script and performance that elevated this genre to a point where audiences simply do not like to think of actor’s really “acting” – rather that they are drawing from something deep-down inside of themselves that really illuminates their performance on screen to the point where it becomes real. One only needs to take a look at the performance by Sandy Dennis where she says “I like to dance….and you don’t want me to dance.” It is purely gripping – and audiences at this point of the film have completely consigned to oblivion in respect to the real world at this point.

Antonioni’s “Blow-Up” would later follow in 1966 causing another wrinkle in the hearts, minds and ultimately – the consciousness of film-goers.

Adult films also qualify. Do we as audiences not have a vested interest in what we see on the screen? Laugh if you will, but there is little doubt in my mind that avid viewers of these films and fans of this genre allow this vehicle to completely transport them into another type of consciousness – and desire for that matter. The outside world is forgotten and all of our problems have completely melted away.

Film is a vehicle. Placed in Lehman’s terms: Film hypnotizes us without us knowing it. As a matter of fact, the great films should always strive to tap into the subconscious mind of the audience while creating an “altered state”. For a film to simply be brilliant it must utilize traces of realism combined with touches of abstract expressionism per se to create enough balance that audiences will want to become deeply involved. Casting, script, lighting, sound, effects and editing remain crucial to the process. What remains constant is that in order for the movie-making industry to continue to offer audiences the full experience of “escape”, and to begin giving us this drug all over again, we simply have to care about the subject and the specific motivation of characters on screen. I just do not see films doing this in this era of today.

Allow me now to turn this topic over to Jer to respond to along with two (2) questions attached: “Do you feel that films today are truly placing audiences in a hypnotic state”? Finally, what films over the years do you feel have been most effective at transporting your conscious state into a dream-like state?

JER: I applaud your decision to go with this topic and stay within the boundaries of safely selecting yet another film recommendation or other familiar go-to’s. Before I take a turn in the recognition of our topic, let me address the questions at hand.

2009's WATCHMEN

The first question proposed: “Do you feel that films today are truly placing audiences in a hypnotic state”? Reply? Only a very minor and select few are able to successfully drive the mind into a location or state it rarely goes to. By way of example, most films referenced here are usually classic films and not anything worth mentioning within the last couple…aside for an exception (AVATAR) or two (WATCHMEN, the UNDERWORLD series).

The first film to capture our state of imagination is also one of the earliest films ever made: French director Georges Melies took us on a journey to the moon in 1902's VOYAGE DANS LA LUNE. This would only be the start for both audiences and film makers to take the leap forward into expanding the concept of film to be used as a medium for artistic expression for years to come. Well, now giving it some second thought…I could maybe plea the case that an “attempt” to make more imaginary films are taking place now then ever before because of the advancement in cinema technology, namely the use of CGI (Computer Generated Images). Films like TERMINATOR 2, THE LORD OF THE RINGS and THE MATRIX are just a small example of the worlds we have been able to view. Allow me to discuss the more successful use of these techniques and how they have transported our imaginations to other places.

Director Zack Snyder

To start, director Zack Snyder is one of the most influential directors working comfortably in the new world of cinema technology. With a small but highly impressive list of films under his belt already including 300 (2006), WATCHMEN (2009) and SUCKER PUNCH (2011) and in post- production on the newly re-tooled Superman film: THE MAN OF STEEL (set for 2013) Snyder makes no secret of the fact that most of his film are shot in front of screens to allow him the freedom of creating the worlds around the actors. The familiarity/ unfamiliarity of these films rely on its audience to see and accept what is common to us: earth, buildings, vehicles, etc. yet still feel foreign to non-human abilities: super human strength, slow motion sequences, etc. Nonetheless, the director requests that a ‘suspension of reality’ be placed when viewing his work.

Enjoy this great tribute to Director Zack Snyder and his films

THE ELEPHANT MAN (1980)

The same can be arguably said about director David Lynch who has made a career of suspending and even questioning the ‘dream state’ to the conscious effort. Lynch originally began his early career in the hopes of becoming an artist. After high school he attended the School of the Museum of Modern Art in Boston and planned a 3 year trip through Europe…only lasting 15 days when he decided it wasn’t for him and returned home. It is through that expressionistic level that he has been able to relay his dreams on film and not the canvas. Films like the cult classics ERASERHEAD (1977), THE ELEPHANT MAN (1980), BLUE VELVET (1986), MULLHOLLAND DR (2001) and the popular TWIN PEAKS television series, only solidifies the fact that a director can dedicate his life’s work to always blurring the lines of what is real and what we interpret as fantasy.

The second question: What films over the years do you feel have been most effective at transporting your conscious state into a dream-like state?

VIDEODROME (1983)

I would have to say that there have been a small selection of films that have effectively taken me to that dream-like state. There is a method to watching these films that have proven to be the best way to really appreciate the ambience created by the director, the cinematographer and anyone else involved in the creative process. Usually I like to hold-out until after midnight, the surroundings take on a different life of its own and things seem quieter and my senses feel more adapt to believing the world presented to me. Such films include David Cronenberg’s VIDEODROME (1983), Lynch’s MULLHOLLAND DR (2001), Francis Coppola's ONE FROM THE HEART (1982), Sofia Coppola’s LOST IN TRANSLATION (2003), Peter Weir’s THE MOSQUITO COAST (1986), Ridley Scott’s BLADE RUNNER (1982), Richard Elfman’s THE FORBIDDEN ZONE (1982), Brian DePalma’s PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE (1974), Stanley Kubrick’s A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971) and Kubrick’s THE SHINING (1980) and Oliver Stone’s THE DOORS (1991). These are but a few films that I feel take me out of the world I live in and allows me to visit on the occasion when I need to. So much can be said about the grouping of these titles, yet can be said about each film and where it takes its audience.

The original trailer to THE MOSQUITO COAST with Harrison Ford!

JOHNNY CHAZZ: The "suspension" of reality as you refer to here Jer is well taken and hits home with our topic at hand this week. What the audience interprets as "fantasy" certainly qualifies as a worthy escape, and thus - audiences find themselves in that hypnotic-state.

BREATHLESS (1960)

Hitchcock films including the likes of "Vertigo", Fellini's "Roma" or "8 1/2", any film from Yasujiro Ozu ("Tokyo Story", "Early Summer" and "Late Spring") or even "Wild Strawberries" from Bergman could fall into this realm of outstanding dream-like and late-nite films that have a profound impact on us at a subconscious level. How about Godard's "Breathless" or Antonioni's "The Passenger"? Where do we place Francois Ozon's "Swimming Pool" from 2003 or Haneke's "Cache" (2005)? The transitions used in terms of score, lighting, editing and pacing virtually would begin at the end of one scene and simply dissolve into the next - just like a dream.

How about "Inception" (2010) as another film that recently placed us in a hypnotic state? Heck, during that film my occasional move to my popcorn bag was my own little "totem" in a sense.

Christopher Nolan's Oscar nominated film INCEPTION

A nice selection of films you have chosen here Jer including works from Kubrick, Lynch, Stone, and Coppola (S.) with the common theme of that late-night, hypnotic trance that these films seem to put you in - and there is real truth in the fact that they work best in the wee-hours. Thus, the topic for this week: The power of films to hypnotize us and to impact us at deep, subconscious levels.

So, we turn the attention of this blog over to our audience to see what films in particular hold them in that hypnotic-grip when watching. In essence - what films out there simply engross you when you experience them? Are we just mesmerized and transfixed visually, or are we simply being controlled / hypnotized by the hand of the director and the players? Perhaps the power lies within: Films have the power to change and to alter the way we think and feel about the world around us. Is it subliminal per se? Is it really fair, or is it in a bizarre sense....a violation? We leave this for you decide this week ~

Tune in next on WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 29th, 2012 for a very special look at the Academy Award results. You do not want to miss what we will have to say about who won and who deserved to win!

http://www.youtube.com/user/cinemacounterpoint?feature=mhee

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JER'S TURN: THE ROAD TO THE ACADEMY AWARDS 2012!

2012-01-31T20:59:00.000-08:00

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JER'S TURN: THE ROAD TO THE ACADEMY AWARDS 2012!: JER: It is early morning on January 26 th 2012 and the 84th annual Academy Award nominations for 2011 have been officially announced...

JER'S TURN: THE ROAD TO THE ACADEMY AWARDS 2012!

2012-01-30T14:16:00.000-08:00

JER: It is early morning on January 26^th2012 and the 84th annual Academy Award nominations for 2011 have been officially announced. There is a wave of excitement and enthusiasm in the air as we begin the race to the coveted spot on Sunday February 26^th, 2012. Let’s dive right into it…

Too early for you? Here are the announcements made that morning

BEST PICTURE: (nominations) over the last few years, the controversial decision to move the Academy’s usual five nomination slots to ten was an outrageous and an obvious financial choice for lucrative reasons! I feel the Academy is not being completely true in focusing on five great films, but now a feeling of some good mixed with great nominations to help as fillers. This year, however, only nine slots were announced:

THE ARTIST

THE DESCENDANTS

EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE

THE HELP

HUGO

MIDNIGHT IN PARIS

MONEYBALL

THE TREE OF LIFE

WAR HORSE

Our pick: THE ARTIST

If you have been a regular reader of CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT then you know that my choice has been and always will be THE ARTIST. Period. The film is so appealing and speaks more than dialog can ever present on the screen! It is lavish yet heartfelt; touching yet funny, without words yet translates clearly. It is the kind of film Hollywood needed to be kicked in the ass with to get it rethinking about today’s loud and obnoxious presentations of Computer Generated- filled crude! IS someone paying attention here? Less is and always means MORE! Can any actor today take on the challenge of communicating through expressions sans dialog as well as actor Jean Dujardin did? So, why wasn’t a tenth slot filled this year? Did the Academy feel satisfied with only nine or could a tenth not be produced or even drummed- up?

Here’s my tenth submission: What about THE IDES OF MARCH? How did this film fall off the radar when it was touted so heavily in its initial release? Moreover, how did Clooney’s other film THE DESCENDANTS end up on the list over THE IDES OF MARCH? This feels like an unjust slap in the cinematic face. Clooney co- wrote, directed and starred in THE IDES OF MARCH and was the kind of film that sucked you into its political web and slowly weaved a story of intrigue which quickly turns into a high- end thriller! I was not expecting that and the chain of events that occurred. Sounds interesting? Please see this film!

Alongside with THE ARTIST, the following are the other nominees I have had the pleasure to have seen and my individual takes on them. They are as follows:

WAR HORSE is an exceptional film! Beautifully photographed and worthy of both the Best Picture nomination and its accompanying nominations for Best Cinematography (Janusz Kaminski) and Best Art Direction (Rick Carter)… the film may tug too roughly on the soft spots in the old ticker. You know what you are gonna get when you make films mixing animals and parlous journeys… not a dry eye in the house is an understatement! Spielberg masterfully takes this story to both a visual and heartfelt level that only he can successfully accomplish.

The second Best Picture contender of the year...WAR HORSE

THE HELP reflects on racial tensions within the Civil Rights movement in the 1960’s and the brave undertakings of writing a tell-all book from the hired help’s point of view. Controversial topics are seasoned between humorous moments to help soften the blow slightly, but although it is worth the view it just doesn’t have the legs to carry it through the finish line for a win. An excellent ensemble cast with strong performances from nominated actress Viola Davis and supporting actresses Octavia Spencer and Jessica Chastain.

MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, is by far one of Woody Allen’s more resent better films since 2002’s HOLLYWOOD ENDING. The native New Yorker comes at you with typical Allen topics and conversations about: art, museums, culture, love, sex, relationships and the desire to transport ourselves to be amongst objects that only be admired and longed- for but can never be claimed. The story of a romantic American writer with his fiancé in the ‘City of Lights’ imagines what the evenings of the 1920’s were like bustling with artists, musicians and writers of the time… only to find himself literally transported to the era at the stroke of the midnight bells! Superbly written by Allen with both a flair for sophistication and humor followed by his uncanny eye for direction makes this film a loving addition to the nine nominations, but alas, still not strong enough to win the coveted. If it’s any consolation, Allen may walk away with a Best Screenplay award, though.

Jean Dujardin: THE ARTIST

ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE: Could this be the year of George Clooney? It might be or at least present himself as a threat for his role in THE DESCENDANTS. My personal choice is leaning on Jean Dujardin’s flawless performance as the lovable silent film actor George Valentin in THE ARTIST. I am not worried about the other nominations posing a dark horse win, but performances still note worthy are:

Demian Bichir: A BETTER LIFE

Gary Oldman: TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY

Brad Pitt: MONEYBALL

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE: Much is being said about Meryl Streep’s uncanny physical and audioable transition into the role of Britain’s former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in THE IRON LADY. Could her win for Best Actress (Drama) at the Golden Globes be a deal- sealer? Is there a guarantee that Ms. Streep has this in the bag? Strong talk and a win for Best Actress (Comedy or Musical) went to Michelle Williams for MY WEEK WITH MARILYN at the Golden Globes might make this category tough to choose. Personally, I believe that Viola Davis’ nomination for THE HELP was strong and deserving to be recognized! The other nominations are:

Glenn Close: ALBERT NOBBS

Rooney Mara: THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO

Director Michel Hazanavicius: THE ARTIST

Snubbed...but not forgotten

BEST DIRECTOR: It would seem the obvious conclusion that if a film receives a Best Picture nomination that the logical next- step would be to nominate its Director…right? Although Steven Spielberg was won two Oscars (SCHINDLER'S LIST, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN) he has been snubbed from nominations in directing, the first was for 1986’s THE COLOR PURPLE and again for this year’s WAR HORSE. So, now that I had the chance to mention the 'should've,' let’s talk about the nominated instead. French director Michel Hazanavicius, having just won the Director’s Guild of America award for Best Achievement by a Director, may have catapulted his Oscar chances for THE ARTIST. Why, I could not tell you, but an opposing threat may come from director Alexander Payne for THE DESCENDANTS and there is this year’s Best Director Golden Globe winner Martin Scorsese for HUGO! The two other directors in this category are:

Woody Allen: MIDNIGHT IN PARIS

Terrence Malick: TREE OF LIFE

I believe I have done just enough pot- stirring to get my buddy JOHNNY CHAZZ all revved- up and ready for his take on the road towards the Oscars…take it away, JC!

SNUBBED as well???

JOHNNY CHAZZ: Films such as "We Bought a Zoo", "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy", "Drive" or perhaps your previously mentioned "Ides of March" were probably all deserving of filling the tenth (10th) spot in the nominations. Even based on popularity and marginal box office success, where was "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo?" Nonetheless, we have nine to work with this year in the category of Best Film. Why the Academy refuses to consider foreign films in this category (read-on to see a film that should have filled the tenth slot) is beyond me.

All right - let's examine how this year's awards should pan out:

BEST FILM: I recall having posted a topic many months ago titled "The Art of the Possible" highlighting "The Artist" as quite possibly being the best film we would see this year. Simply stated, other than perhaps "A Separation", "The Artist" is the most impacting and unique film of the year containing all of the winning ingredients necessary for the top award. Thus, with recent success at the Critics Choice and Golden Globe Awards, "The Artist" is without a doubt the favorite for this year's Best Picture.

Possible Upsetter? "The Descendants" or "War Horse"

George Clooney: THE DESCENDANTS

BEST ACTOR: As wonderful as Dujardin was in "The Artist", George Clooney for "The Descendants" probably gets the nod here considering his veteran status in movie-making, acting,etc. I know that your choice in this category, Jer, is Jean Dujardin, but as you stated this may well be the year of George Clooney....well, at least in the option of Best Actor.

Possible upsetter? If not Dujardin, then perhaps Brad Pitt for "Moneyball," which was actually a decent performance.

BEST ACTRESS: True, Jer - this category looks primed for a mild upset and certainly has a grab-bag feel to it. Viola Davis will be the trendy pick here, but Meryl Streep remains the main danger in this category for "The Iron Lady". Still, the feeling here is that this category may take a small spin on itself and land on Michelle Williams for "My Week With Marilyn" whose performance was gripping and classy.

Possible Upsetter? None other than these top 3.

Christopher Plummer: BEGINNINGS

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Christopher Plummer wins this for "The Beginners" (you may recall that he was overlooked just a few years ago at the awards for "The Last Station"). Plummer's performance was honest, understated, witty and quite emotional - that is what it takes to win here.

Possible Upsetter? Kenneth Branagh ("My Week With Marilyn")

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Octavia Spencer for "The Help". Here is a film only deserving of an award in the female performance categories and it may win both Actress and Supporting Actress if Viola Davis comes through. Octavia was quite convincing in this role and should win hands down here.

See the incredible female cast at their best in THE HELP

Possible Upsetter? Berenice Bejo ("The Artist")

BEST DIRECTOR: Michael Hazanavicius is the lone threat in this category and with a recent recognition from the Critics Choice is a strong sign that he will take this award. True, he did fall to Scorsese at the Golden Globes, but Scorsese's chances of winning here are much slimmer - one only needs to take a close look at both films and use some common sense.

Possible Upsetter? Scorsese ("Hugo") or Alexander Payne ("Descendants")

Writer/ Director: Woody Allen

BEST SCREENPLAY (ORIGINAL): It won't be easy topping Woody Allen for "Midnight in Paris" in this category. With two prior victories, Woody should earn his third this year. One must take note however: The casting for this film was sub-par, the story was too long and it likely falls in the bottom 30% of Woody Allen's overall film portfolio......

Possible Upsetter? "A Separation" - a tremendous foreign film that is not receiving much attention.....look out as it could surprise with two Oscars in both this category and in the Best Foreign Film Category as well.

A very riveting and moving trailer for nominated A SEPERATION

BEST FOREIGN FILM: "A Separation" out of Iran should take this award combining exceptional performance, dramatic moments, tension in scene and formidable writing. One again, here is a film that should fill our 10th slot in the Best Picture nominations - there is no reason why foreign films should not be considered.

Possible Upsetter? "In Darkness" (Holland)

JER: There you have it, two very different and opinionated ‘critics’ actually coming together to support and defend many similar choices here. I'll say it again, this is a bizarre year for films with many ‘good’ movies but lesser ‘great’ films. Will a time ever come in which the Academy would just have to throw its hands up in the air and say, “No Academy Awards this year” simply because films are not holding up to such a prestigious honor or caliber?

Returning Host: BILLY CRYSTAL!

The Academy Awards ceremony is still an honored institution, but continues to fail on many levels. For many, it is far too lengthy a presentation with too many none- interesting categories being recognized. For others, it’s a constant turn-stile of hosts changed out from year to year. There was a time when it was understood that Johnny Carson or Bob Hope were the expected hosts for the umpteenth time and no one complained about it… most recently, Billy Crystal was performing repeated duty as well... until NOW! Crystal has been confirmed to return to host this year! Another gripe were the big lavish numbers produced to present and highlight Best Song for many years…this year we are reduced to an embarrassing two forgettable nominations that no one seems to really be holding their breathes about this year. So what’s happened? Too many Producers ruining the soup? Maybe they have their own turn-stile as well! This year's show will be produced by first- timer Brian Grazier (APOLLO 13, A BEAUTIFUL MIND) and his promise? His goal is to try to keep the presentation at to hours! I'll have my stopwatch in hand!

Look for your local presentation time for Sunday February 26^th as the 84^th Annual Academy Awards will be broadcasted. Make sure you keep it locked right here as we continue our own coverage of the Awards and present our annual reaction to the ceremonies shortly thereafter.

What are your favorite moments every year? What do you think of the nominations and what are your hopefuls? Share with us and return back for our comments in return! JOHNNY CHAZZ will have the chance to select a topic of his choice when we return back with a brand new entry on Wednesday February 15^th , 2011!

http://www.youtube.com/user/cinemacounterpoint?feature=mhee

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JOHNNY CHAZZ' TURN: A LOOK BACK AT THE GOLDEN GLOB...

2012-01-24T08:28:00.000-08:00

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JOHNNY CHAZZ' TURN: A LOOK BACK AT THE GOLDEN GLOB...: JOHNNY CHAZZ : Sunday January 15, 2012 was an evening of fun, but unpredictability as always as the Golden Globes surfaced and honored t...

JOHNNY CHAZZ' TURN: A LOOK BACK AT THE GOLDEN GLOBES 2012

2012-01-22T23:11:00.000-08:00

JOHNNY CHAZZ: Sunday January 15, 2012 was an evening of fun, but unpredictability as always as the Golden Globes surfaced and honored the films of 2011-2012.

Now, let's dive in and take a look at how predictions favored with the actual wins at this year's awards:

BEST PICTURE DRAMA: I expected that "The Descendants" would probably win this and it did, but where were films such as "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" or "Drive"? This category was poorly selected and really is not much in the running for any serious considerations on Academy Award night. "Hugo" has a shot based solely on box office results as well as connections, but the film lacks merit. Nothing really deserves to win here......

BEST PICTURE - COMEDY / MUSICAL: "The Artist" won this hands down. The only film that would have surprised me was "Midnight in Paris" or "My Week With Marilyn" which were both decent films, but it would've been a bit of a shock if they had won.

This never get old... the original trailer for our pick: THE ARTIST!

Streep as Thatcher: IRON LADY

BEST ACTRESS DRAMA: Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher in "Iron Lady" looked like the main choice and my guess was right. Also, I wouldn't have lost sleep on Viola Davis for "The Help" in a Supporting role. The film was vastly overrated and flat-out dull, but she was fairly impressive in the film and even if Viola had lost out at the Globes, she may still have a shot at taking home an Oscar in February. Don't sleep on Tilda Swinton however as she was very, very good in "Talk About Kevin".

BEST ACTRESS - COMEDY / MUSICAL: Michelle Williams was excellent in "My Week With Marilyn" and got the nod here. Kristin Wiig from the overrated "Bridesmaids" could have posed a threat, but Michelle had this. I didn’t overlook Charlize Theron either for "Young Adult" - even though her acting ability is pretty limited in this critic's opinion.

Clooney: Best Actor

BEST ACTOR DRAMA: A lousy list of performers here really - but George Clooney got the nod for his role in "The Descendants". DiCaprio is overrated and so was his film "J.Edgar" - so that probably failed to contend here. Brad Pitt did have a chance to upset for his role in the undervalued "Moneyball" -

BEST ACTOR - COMEDY / MUSICAL: Jean DuJardin had a remarkable and memorable performance in "The Artist" and won here hands down in this category.

SCREENPLAY: Here is the ultimate category - and probably the one that should dictate your Best Picture award, although that is not always the case. "The Descendants" offered safe enough dialogue for audiences to digest, and thus - it could've won here. "Midnight in Paris" and "The Artist" were also dangers however - but I didn't overlook the screenplay of "Moneyball" as it was actually quite well-written and very impacting. The winner? - “Midnight In Paris.”

Woody Allen's latest offering: the trailer for MIDNIGHT IN PARIS

SCORE: "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" had a wonderful score - both chilling and mysterious, but I am afraid that it may have fallen short to "The Artist" since tonight belonged to composer Ludovic Bource.

BEST SONG: Who cares part II....... (That song by Madonna…)

TV GOLDEN GLOBES: This is not Cinema - so who cares part III.....

Now, let's turn this over to Jer to gather his thoughts on tonight's awards.ANIMATED FILM: Who cares...... (“Adventures Of Tin- Tin” won)

JER: Let’s begin with a little Golden Globes’ 101: What makes this award show different from the Academy Awards are defined by a variety of both similar and different levels. The Globes is a ceremony created by and voted upon by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) this network is made up of journalists who write about the Hollywood films and television shows presented in America and the reporting to foreign countries about them. Since a majority of Hollywood entertainment is presented on a global scale, it is the duty of the HPFA to create awareness to their respected markets. The Academy Awards, however, are voted upon by their peers on the individual category they represent… for example, film editors vote for their choices for Best Editing by selecting who gets nominated and who wins. Finally, the Best Picture category is voted upon by all members collectively. It had been said that one can usually see where the Oscars might go based off of the Globes’ nominations and wins… but that has not been the exact case over the last several years. Some potential nominees have been snubbed in either ceremony without reservation as to why. So, what does this mean? Basically, you just never know which way the Academy Awards may sway with both its nominations and wins!

I’m going to analyze The Golden Globes for just a quick minute: there has always been more of a ‘party’ atmosphere because of its settings (usually at the Beverly Hilton in Beverly Hills, CA) and the obvious serving of alcohol. Some of the uptight Hollywood elite is given the opportunity to let its hair down at this event and it presents for a more relaxed and ‘anything goes’ show!

Behind that glass is host Ricky Gervais...really!

On that same note let’s focus on returning host this year: Ricky Gervais. Although he threw a few jabs at the audience, the network (NBC) and even some current hot- topic events…the rest of the evening consisted of holding a glass of anything liquid and a decline in humor and a rise for impatience on the show’s length of time (a standard 3 hours). What’s the matter, Ricky? Were you not paid by the hour? Less drinkie…more talkie! More jokie! It seems as if certain members of the audience came prepared and loaded with their own assaults towards Gervais. Everyone from Madonna, Meryl Streep and Antonio Banderas all had remarks that left the host without reply. Tell you what… don’t bring back Gervais and let Madonna, Streep and Banderas host the Golden Globes next year instead!

THE ADVENTURES OF TIN- TIN

Something that has to be mentioned, JC, before I go any further. You need to get over this boycott you have over Animated Films! They have seriously evolved into a respected and reputable category. Although some Animation put out today might be childish and locked- on to a certain demographic… most films, present and past, have been designed for a broader acceptance an audience’s palate. I personally have no interest in seeing GNOMEO AND JULIET, but I will possibly watch PUSS ‘N BOOTS and definitely ADVENTURES OF TIN- TIN for the nostalgic and it’s win for Best Animated Film…oh, a big factor would be director Steven Spielberg as well. This subject may make a great heat- infused blog topic for 2012!

DISAPPOINTMENTS: Although there were very few, there were still some worth mentioning. I have a problem with THE DESENDANTS winning Best Picture (Drama)! Even George Clooney’s other film, THE IDES OF MARCH, Spielberg’s WAR HORSE or Martin Scorsese’s HUGO had more of a clearer definition of winning such an Award. Let me explain: a film has to make a very important first impression to me. It has to show me from the beginning how serious it is at a nomination much less a win. I’ll never forget the first trailer I saw on THE DESENDANTS…I sat with my mouth open, thinking it looked like another MEN THAT STARE AT GOATS- type film for Clooney. I don’t mind him making a silly or goofy film… but when it wins Best DRAMA??? The Marketing Department must have received an earful because the strategy of promoting this film changed its course quickly and swiftly and played on ticket- buyers' heartstrings (and pocketbooks) for a more dramatically- driven set of trailers… this may have had an impression on the HFPA!

The magnificent trailer to Spielberg's WAR HORSE!

Directors Spielberg and Scorsese: Winners of Globes

ACHIEVEMENTS: I must admit that my theater- going time has not been major this past year, but I just didn’t feel the urgent need to see a larger sum of nominations simply because most were unattractive or unappealing. Admiringly, (during the time this blog was submitted) I have only seen IDES OF MARCH, WAR HORSE and THE ARTIST with hopes of tackling HUGO, MONEYBALL, THE HELP and MIDNIGHT IN PARIS before Academy Award night. I was absolutely invigorated with THE ARTIST winning Best Film: Comedy or Musical! This is definitely what true cinema is about… it is a risk- taker as well as providing thorough entertainment from the first frame until the very last…how many films can you think of that can take on that kind of task? A “Best Picture”, in this critic’s opinion, is ALL elements pulling together to create the final product that is memorable and worth talking about for years to come. It is also very satisfying to see director Steven Spielberg accept the Golden Globe award for Best Animated Film: THE ADVENTURES OF TIN- TIN and director Martin Scorsese nab Best Director for his first family- friendly adventure film: HUGO. Although not present to receive his, Woody Allen would also be recognized with a Best Screenplay win for MIDNIGHT IN PARIS.

JOHNNY CHAZZ: Without a doubt, the Golden Globes is more of a "relaxed" and as you stated, "party" atmosphere than what we will see at the Academy Awards. In a sense, this is almost a reflection of the caliber of film that was presented to audiences this year. Thus, one can see, Jer, why your movie-going and mine were both fairly limited this past season.

As for boycotts of animated films, I do agree that it has developed into a far richer category than I ever expected. Therefore, a heated discussion on this topic may not be as easily foreseeable as it may actually be a bit of an eye-opener for me to learn more about the genre - accepted.

Better Hosts? Hmmm...

I am not exactly quick to endorse Madonna or Banderas as a host as I frankly find both of them to be a bit dull and for a better word, full of themselves - but Gervais was simply the wrong choice - a flop indeed on this night.

Williams was quite deserving for her role as Marilyn Monroe in "My Week With Marilyn." This film was in all actuality somewhat entertaining and her performance was quite believable. Scorsese winning for "Hugo" was also nice to see, but is the film really what you would label as one of his best works? It seems like a reach.

On a final note - you had mentioned that you were enthralled by "The Artist" and I share that opinion with you. "The Descendants" won strictly by default and for the name of "Clooney" being worn on its' back. Is this not an immediate red flag as to the caliber of films released in the drama genre this year?

It would be safe to say at this point that the Academy Awards will reflect a great deal of what we saw at the Golden Globes. "The Artist" should shine bright, while "The Descendants" and "War Horse" loom the only real dangers at this point.

JER: The Golden Globes have always been considered by some to be the future forecasting of what the Academy Awards will play out as. The race is about to begin and there are a full TEN Best Picture nomination slots needing to be filled. I can and want to get into that heavy discussion…but I will shelf it for the next blog which will be posted on Wednesday February 1st with a listing of the official Academy Award nominations and our predictions and ‘counterpoints.'

STOP THE PRESS! BEFORE THIS BLOG COULD BE POSTED, THE OFFICIAL ENTRIES FOR THE 2012 ACADEMY AWARDS WERE ANNOUNCED! HERE IS THE TOP NOMINATIONS!

Do you have any films you are rooting for? What was your take on the Golden Globes and everything tied into it? We are always wanting to hear from you and we will respond to everyone! Thanks for stopping by and we will see you again on WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 1^st!

http://www.youtube.com/user/cinemacounterpoint?feature=mhee

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JER'S TURN: ALL THAT IS: SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER

2012-01-10T17:55:00.000-08:00

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JER'S TURN: ALL THAT IS: SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER: HAPPY 2012 TO ONE AND ALL! WELCOME TO CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT’S ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY! BOTH JOHNNY CHAZZ AND I (JER) WANT TO THANK YOU FOR CH...

JER'S TURN: ALL THAT IS: SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER

2012-01-05T20:53:00.000-08:00

HAPPY 2012 TO ONE AND ALL! WELCOME TO CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT’S ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY! BOTH JOHNNY CHAZZ AND I (JER) WANT TO THANK YOU FOR CHECKING IN THROUGHOUT 2011. THIS YEAR WE WILL CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON VARIOUS CINEMATIC TOPICS WITH OUR INDIVIDUAL VIEWS. ON THE SAME NOTE: WE WILL BE PEARING DOWN OUR BLOG ENTRIES TO BI- WEEKLY SUBMISSIONS. DATES WILL ALWAYS BE POSTED TO INFORM WHEN YOU CAN EXPECT THE NEXT ENTRY… SO PLEASE CHECK- IN WITH US OFTEN AND WE WELCOME YOUR COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS! THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN AND NOW… ONTO THE BLOG TOPIC OF THE WEEK!

JER: Campy… Dated… Corny…”That disco flick with John Travolta”… these are but just a few words and phrases that have described one of the greatest phenomenons (aside from STAR WARS, of course) to come out of the 1970’s. This week’s subject: 1977’s SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER.

PROLOGUE: To the common viewer, the film has only represented the ‘disco era’ of the mid to late 1970’s backed by the multi- platinum selling Bee-Gees’ double album soundtrack and the iconic white suit worn by Travolta while he posed with his right arm extended upright pointing his index finger skyward. I, for one, have always seen it a little differently right from the very beginning. There was a sense of representation about not only what it was like to be a youth growing up in the 70’s: an era defined by music, drugs, alcohol, the residue of Vietnam and freedom of expression in sexual, political and other means available… it also allowed the audience to experience what it was like to keep- up appearances amongst your peers (peer pressure), the ‘act’ of being cool and life on the streets of Brooklyn and the dream to escape to the upper- crust world of Manhattan for New Yorkers.

Check out the original 1977 trailer for SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER

Another way of looking at it… the film can also be reviewed based upon two factors the story has to offer: 1) revealing the point of view of a young Italian- American male carrying the stigma of the ‘macho’ representation of a man based on his culture (drinking, having sex and not claiming responsibilities for ones’ actions) and 2) the realization: recognition of the accountability on ones’ shoulders to eventually leave the teenage world behind and enter into the rite of adulthood. When does that time come for each of us and when do we feel we can take ownership of our lives?

STUDIO 54

ORGINS: New York City- Mid 1970’s: Disco was quickly becoming the alternate ‘fun’ music coming out to appose the post- punk music scene and the acid/ metal rock music of the late 60’s- early 70’s. The change brought forth an entirely new formation of living that not only represented what was being heard in the clubs and on the radio but literally designing a lifestyle and way of life all in its own. The clothing of choice consisted of polyester and double- knit suits… hot pants and platform shoes, satin dresses and shirts, spandex, gold chains and medallions including zodiac signs and Italian horns were adorned on both the streets and on the dance floor. It was the age of Studio 54: the dance club of all dance clubs located on 54^th street in Manhattan. 54 became the place that you had to be seen in, hob- knobbing amongst celebrates and musicians of the day… that’s if you could get through the very restrictive velvet ropes! ‘Recreational’ drugs were part of ‘heightening’ the experience of the music and the single scene to a whole new level. Marijuana, cocaine and heroin were the most preferred. A good mixed drink or your favorite booze ‘on the rocks’ was also very hip for the times as well as the freedom to smoke cigarettes anyplace you preferred.

From all of this, influences were moving into various parts of America and quickly mentoring globally as well. Television ‘jived’ its way through dialog and humor with shows like “All In The Family” and “Good Times.” Films were taking bolder steps in screenplay writing and acting stances. Watergate was the hot topic on the political sidelines and the times were slowly changing the media as well. This brings us up to speed to where we need to start. Our story didn’t begin in the mind of a screenwriter or a studio looking to cash in on the latest craze… it began as a publication. In 1975, the New York magazine published an article entitled “Tribal Rites of the New Saturday Night” focusing on the lifestyle of the teenager/ young adult’s weekly routine of working for the weekend and spending their week’s salary for the usual Friday/ Saturday night fun. The story was put to script and within a two year period, it jumped from article to the silver screen.

Tony (John Travolta) is gonna go steppin'!

STORYLINE: Nineteen year old Tony Manero (John Travolta) is a native Brooklyn who works at a local paint store throughout the week and goes out to the discothèque on Saturday nights. His earned wages are not saved up for a new car or an apartment to live on his own, but rather spent on new clothes, platform shoes and such. His vanity is revealed early on as he is watching himself in the mirror while blow drying his hair and moving his hips as he dresses… already projecting the moves and look on the dance floor and more importantly, how the chicks are going to see him. He wears a table cloth at the dinner table to insure that not a drop of spaghetti sauce stains his new digs.

Manero lives at home with his parents, a younger sister and his grandmother… a middle- class family built on constant bickering and fighting. While he makes the conscious choice to stay, he must endure the praises of his older brother, Frank Jr., who went on to become a priest… a prestigious honor for any Catholic- Italian family. Although content with his slight- slacker ways, he is a loser… stuck in a dead- end job without any signs of improving his life by way of furthering his education, experiencing independence, setting career goals or taking any kind of responsibility. The one thing he knows how to do extremely well and that he enjoys doing is dancing on Saturday nights.

Tony and the boys AKA "The Faces"

When he enters into his favorite hot spot, 2001 Odyssey, guys want to be him and girls want to be with him. Along with his four close friends, they call themselves “the faces”, representing yet another egotistical view point of how they see themselves. The hair is perfect, a cigarette carelessly hanging off the corner side of the mouth as an even- paced strut leads them to their ‘reserved’ table to admire (or critique) whoever is on the dance floor. Being that dancing is the one true passion of Tony’s, he signs up for a dance contest that will be taking place in a matter of weeks. The motivation and importance immediately goes to work as a way of possibly feeding his already disproportioned ego and to maybe prove something to his family, his friends and himself.

Annette (Donna Pescow) waits for Tony

Annette (Donna Pescow), a local barfly who briefly ‘went out’ with Tony, tries to talk him into being his dance partner. Alas, poor Annette’s intentions are ulterior as the request is only pulled to allow time alone with him; however, he sees it as a strictly professional partnership that would not include any funny business. Her happiness is only short- lived as Tony decides to dump Annette and move on to an even better dancer he saw at the club and again at the dance studio, Stephanie Mangano (Karen Lynn Gorney).

Tony and Stephanie (Karen Lynn Gorney)

At first, Stephanie comes across as someone slightly more sophisticated than Tony…possibly a few years old. Quickly, it is understood that she is from the same streets and has been continually mentored into a more high- end way of living, talking and the kind of employment she deserves. Drawbacks fall out of her demeanor by way of her Brooklyn drawl creeping out in her pronunciations when speaking and switching from coffee to drinking tea with lemon because that what office women drink. An eventual move to Manhattan might be what she thinks (or what she is being told) is the next step up the ladder, but she still carries the residue of the old neighborhood no matter what.

Tony may finally start to see the big picture through Stephanie’s eyes as he his world slowly comes crumbling around him. His friends aren’t really his friends after all, but rather just a group of losers who leach off of his presence on the dance floor and get them laid just by default. His older brother, the patriarch of the Manero’s, decides to walk away from the priesthood while leaving his family questioning Tony as to what he may have said to influence Frank’s decision to leave the church. The final straw comes from a one- two punch of events concerning his alleged friends and their careless attitudes towards everything. For once, we finally see Tony take charge by abandoning them and walking to the nearest subway. The late night trip allows him solace and the chance to access his life more carefully then he has ever imagined himself doing. His destination lands him in Manhattan as he arrives at Stephanie’s new doorstep at a very early Sunday morning. The arrival could be looked upon as washing off the scum of events that occurred the night before on Saturday (like leaving behind the scummed life he had led) and starting over like the dawn of a brand new day (thus the beginning of a whole new life and finally accepting his responsibilities).

The Bee- Gees

Yvonne Elliman

THE SOUNDTRACK: The songs not only played an important factor throughout the film, for both the heightening of emotional and dancing sequences of the film, but undoubtedly reflected the high influence it had on a generation of would- be disco- clubbers and hipsters. For 1977, the soundtrack was available in both a vinyl and 8- track cartridge listening format… the two- disc edition set was my preference at the age of 9. The album stayed on the Billboard charts for 120 weeks and was a certified 15x Platinum best seller (15 million copies). Australia’s trio of brothers; Robin, Maurice and Barry Gibb, were better known as The Bee- Gees and contributed writing seven of the songs and singing six of them. Up and coming singing sensation Yvonne Elliman (Mary Magdalene from JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR) would sing the seventh entitled “If I Can’t Have You”. In addition to The Bee-Gees version, the R&B group Tavares sang a second version of “More Than A Woman” having both appear in the film as well as in the album. Other well- known groups contributed hits to the album as well including Kool and the Gang’s “Open Sesame,” K.C. and the Sunshine Band’s “Boogie Shoes” and The Trampps’ very popular hit “Disco Inferno.” A very bold edition came from Walter Murphy who presented a controversial spin on Ludwig Von Beethoven’s classically composed “Fifth of Beethoven” by rerecorded it with a disco beat. TRIVIA: Oddly enough, the songs written by The Bee-Gees were never intended to be a part of any soundtrack but intended to be their next album. When producers heard the new direction into disco the group was heading towards, it was requested that the music become the main focal point of the soundtrack and film to which they agreed upon… the rest was history!

The Bee Gees with Andy Gibb on "You Should Be Dancin'"

THE AFTERMATH: SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER was drawing in such success from its theatrical run and the highly- ranked album sales, that it prompted Paramount Pictures to release a more ‘audience friendly’ version of the film by offering a PG rated edition of its original R rated release. This version pared down on the stronger language, nudity and drug use and shaped the plot and storyline towards the direction of dancing and dysfunctional lifestyle of Tony and his friends. I was nine years old back in 1977 and had a mature view of film appreciation even then. My mother saw that and granted my request to view the R rated version at that age as she somewhat reluctantly purchased tickets for a viewing. This would, no doubt, be my first ever ‘restricted’ film I had ever seen and viewed it with strong enthusiasm!

Yet another reflection of its success prompted Paramount Pictures to pair up the film with its other John Travolta hit GREASE as a double- feature run in 1978 as well. This decision proved to be highly lucrative for the studio.

Travolta was about 23 years old at the time of the film’s release on December 18, 1977. Although new to films, he had already created a ‘heartthrob’ image of himself from his television appearances as Vinnie Barbarino in “Welcome Back, Kotter.” Travolta garnered himself a Best Actor nomination for SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER… he lost to Richard Dreyfuss for THE GOODBYE GIRL. Keeping his family close by, his sister Ann, is the gal who sells Tony his pizza slice in the beginning of the film. His mother Helen is the lady he sells the marked- up can of paint to. To prepare for the role, Travolta lost 20 pounds by running daily and dancing for about three hours a day. He worked closely with dance instructor Deney Terrio, who went un-credited. Terrio was best known as television host for the very popular “Dance Fever” (1979- 1985).

Like any good film, studios felt that it could catch lightning in the bottle twice by making a sequel. Directed by Sylvester Stallone, STAYING ALIVE (1983) continued the story of Tony Manero with Travolta reprising his iconic role. Living on his own and disowning his loser friends, Tony has a new life as a dancer trying to make it into Broadway! His strut is still intact and shades of his past comes back throughout the story, but the film builds on his struggles to not only stay independent but to be successful in the one thing he always was good at: dancing. Released on July 15, 1983 the film grossed a modest 64 million dollars but didn’t make the impact that the original film made. The Bee- Gee’s were asked to supply a few songs to the soundtrack, but it was actually Sly’s brother Frank Stallone that provided the radio- hit song “Far From Over."

Frank Stallone's video for "Far From Over"

An inspired musical of the same name premiered in the West End on May 5, 1998 at the London Palladium. It went to Broadway in 1999 and played at the Minskoff Theatre for 501 performances. It is this writer’s critique that the show inflated all of the stereotypical disco references and tried its hardest to find a legit audience to by into it. It didn’t… the musical became more of a cult hit overseas and has produced many revivals since.

The 'gweedos' of JERSEY SHORE

INFLUNECES TODAY: In a world that has taken on the ‘new flavor’ of how cool it is to be an Italian- American, or to proudly take the slang term ‘gweedo’ as if someone was paying you a compliment, has only become more famous due to the capitalization of reality television with the over-rated “Jersey Shore” leading the pack. A short lived reality television series entitled “My Big Frigging Wedding” offered a number of Italian couples preparing for their wedding day… all of which follow a certain stereotypical behavior and attitude while mugging and fist- pumping for the cameras. Another underground favorite was VH1’s “Tool Academy” that presented guys with an all- muscles/ macho- brainless view of themselves and looking upon their girlfriends as either play objects or possessions.

EPILOUGE: In short, I have often times brought up SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER in previous blogs either as an example of modern storytelling, capturing the era of the 70’s with justification or simply because it is one of my most favorite films. I had once said that this is a sad and depressing film if the soundtrack was removed and stripped away from the focused dancing sequences. In essence, it is the examination of egotistic and bigot behaviors from a bunch of Italiano pretty boys that pop pills, drink too much and seek out meaningless sex that stemmed from high school- like acts that should have been outgrown about two or three ago. The act of invincibility, realistic issues and plain stupidity of youth is closely regarded as subject matters throughout the film: Bobby C (Barry Miller) contemplates marrying his girlfriend because he got her pregnant while struggling with the morality of his Catholic upbringing, Annette (Donna Pescow) pursuits Tony to have sex with her, Tony’s brother Frank Jr. (Martin Shakar) talks about leaving the priesthood due to a lack in faith, Tony’s father is unemployed and cannot find work… amidst other topics requiring reflection.

JOHNNY CHAZZ: The 1977 release of “Saturday Night Fever” was a hit indeed. The timing was right considering that the late 1970’s was truly the disco era, and the film was highly entertaining. We might look at a film such as “Star Wars” as being another “hit” that year along the same lines of entertaining audiences.

The seventies (1970's) however provided ample films that could be referred to as real phenomenons however. The likes of “Chinatown”, “Taxi Driver”, “The Godfather”, “Jaws”, “Annie Hall”, “The Conversation”, “A Clockwork Orange” and even the foreign influences with “Cries and Whispers” and “Day for Night”. Thus, is it a stretch that “Saturday Night Fever” could be considered a phenomenal film? Safely said: yes.

The film was without question a unique concept with a tremendous style and soundtrack to accompany. To add, this was the film that made John Travolta (as Tony Manero) a household name, and better yet – a true star in Hollywood. The cinematography as well as the dance sequences are quite impressive and they combine to make for an entertaining and fun movie to re-visit from time to time.

On the other hand, let’s not carry this too far. “Saturday Night Fever” has a nice little story-line and offers excellent eye-candy throughout the film. However, the message is not exactly “deep” to use a generic term here. It is a dance movie dealing with a young man with raging hormones (just look at the ridiculous line: “You gotta decide if you are going to be a nice girl or a ____”) living in the seventies – and that really is the essence at the film’s core.

If we are to take this film at face value, then perhaps it offers us 7 to 8 picture points and that score works just fine for some. However, if we really want more from this film and hope to get to the deeper meaning and the true message(s) being delivered, we fall short and must score the film in a lower range. The plot is thin – that is the truth in all actuality. The performances are marginal to average and the dance sequences combined with the cinematography are all that really save the movie from falling even lower on tally board.

The rape scene has always bothered me as well. It is not the violence or the inherency of the act itself per se, yet it is the fact that the film never really addresses the repercussions of what has occurred on screen. Did it never happen? Are we to just brush it off and say farewell and good tidings to the young girl? The reaction, the journey, the scarring and the end result are what the audience need to experience in this girl’s eyes – and the film completely ignores it. The film, at this level naturally becomes bland, thin and careless which immediately discards the audience at the basic level. The scene is insulting.

Director JOHN BADHAM

The film’s director, John Badham, does utilize the dance scenes and the soundtrack as an effective character however. This is what saves the film entirely and is the primary value of the film which stands the test of time. The emotional triggers on an audience with this disco and funky soundtrack are really what maintain interest and create a film that some consider both iconic and a classic.

Is there a sub-plot in this film? Is Tony’s priest-brother that sub-plot? If so, I guess we found our sub plot. What we remember in this film is the music and the dancing – not the plot or the story-line….let’s face it – that is the harsh truth. The film reminds us of an era – an era of disco and carefree behavior in a sense. The Bee Gees are really what immediately come to mind when the topic of “Saturday Night Fever” rises to the limelight of your discussion circle. Is this what I was supposed to get out of the film? I imagine so.

Did we talk about the music already? Oh yes, we did. Moving along-

Where am I? Oh, um.....“Saturday Night Fever” is entertaining and fun – and it was a real platform for both the musical artists on the soundtrack as well as for John Travolta. A classic? For some, perhaps. For this critic? Not even close and yet so far, far away (had to use it. Carole King).

Nope - this is not what we can define as a movie classic by any means. It is, at the very root a film full of “fluff” and “fun”. Grab some milk duds, turn out the lights and listen to “More than a Woman” yet again, and again. It's fun I guess - and the music is pretty good.... (current brain cell loss: 325,204,588)

Ok. What else is on?

Overall Grading (Picture Points) for the Film:
Narrative and Plot: 4/10 (generous here)
Acting: 6/10 (this was generous, but I feel like I have to be kind...)
Cinematography and Editing: 7.5/10
Soundtrack: 9/10 (great soundtrack, but it gets real old....)
Artistic Value: 4/10 (it was either 0 or 4...I chose 4 by flipping a coin)

*** CHAZZ'S PICTURE POINTS: 5.5/10

JER: JC, I will agree with you that there are better films released throughout the 70’s including THE GODFATHER, TAXI DRIVER and even ANNIE HALL. I am not stating that SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER is the absolute definitive film of that decade. What I am trying to state is how this film has never been looked upon as anything other than a send- off on the disco scene…and from the looks of it, you would agree with them. I believe the film has layers that few recognize. It has been lowered to a level of campy fun; it has been made fun of and joked about for years since. The point missed is the true drama beyond the music and dancing.

Yvonne Elliman's "If I Can't Have You" to clips from the film

The subplot you are searching for lies within the choices Tony makes about his life throughout the story. There is a constant ‘flip of the coin’ of decisions that lean for the better or worst that takes him down various avenues and paths that lead to his ultimate choice made in the end. It might be fair to say that story suffers from certain holes in the story: What happens to Brother Frank? I will also include your raised concerned about Annette and the controversial rape that occurred. I believe that such topics were and still continue to be very difficult to deal with on the screen and Tony almost closes that moment when he looks back at her with disgust and states, “Well, I guess you are a _ _ _ _.” A crude remark indeed considering what has just happened to her, but by her own instigations and willfulness to excess in pills and alcohol and quickly flirting with Tony’s friends to get over Manero may have been the results developed by her own doing. It is hard to analyze the choices made by director John Badham and why it is closed- up so quickly… maybe it was an editor’s view or even Paramount Pictures who decided to pear- down on the sequence… who knows.

The fact of the matter is this: It is an R- rated film for good reason. I do not like the PG version whatsoever. The plot gets too watered down and it does become a film focused on music and dance and lags on the harsh plots and dramatic aspects it was designed to illustrate.

What are your thoughts on SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER? How do you see this film? What kind of an impact has been made and what impressions have it left behind on you? All comments are welcomed and replied back! Check back with us on Wednesday January 25^th when JOHNNY CHAZZ brings up the next topic of discussion for 2012!

Have you visited the official CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT page on YOUTUBE? Check out classic and contemporary trailers, scenes and other great trips down memory lane! Just click the link and check out the "Favorites" on our site! Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/user/cinemacounterpoint?feature=mhee

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JOHNNY CHAZZ' TURN: "JUST CUT IT OUT..."- THE ART ...

2011-12-20T21:56:00.000-08:00

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JOHNNY CHAZZ' TURN: "JUST CUT IT OUT..."- THE ART ...: JOHNNY CHAZZ : To witness, and better yet, to experience a film with minimal cuts is positively sensational. The problem is that we just...

JOHNNY CHAZZ' TURN: "JUST CUT IT OUT..."- THE ART OF MINIMAL EDITING IN FILM

2011-12-20T00:26:00.000-08:00

JOHNNY CHAZZ: To witness, and better yet, to experience a film with minimal cuts is positively sensational. The problem is that we just do not see it much anymore. Use of minimal cuts and extended takes is a direct sign of strength in direction, writing and in the overall editing process. To witness, and worse yet, to experience a film with constant cutting borders on both tiring and annoying, serving as a sign of weakness in direction and in the overall film-making process. Hence, the subject for this week: The effects of constant cutting in film.

Director James Cameron: "JC, I have you now!"

Today’s worst films are placed into one single category: The action and adventure film. These are not films – they are popcorn movies that saturate the screen with endless and pointless action, over-cutting and a complete lack of meaningful dialogue. Little is being accomplished with these films and they have become a dime a dozen. Simply put – they are tasteless eye candy. Even James Cameron (“Avatar” and “Titanic”) analogized today’s action films as being so over-cut that they appear as ‘chopped salad’.

The idea of an extended scene or take not only adds to the realism of the film, but creates a real bond between audience and character. Constant cutting creates distraction and more importantly, a space between the character and the audience resulting in a separation that we never want. Constant cutting also disorients the audience wherein you completely lose your audience and destroys the scene from the top-down and from the bottom-up. The effect is a total reduction in the dramatic and tension effect that these types of scenes are capable of creating.

Acclaimed Director: AKIRA KUROSAWA

How conscious are we really of the cuts in a film? It is the idea of the ‘uninterrupted shot’ that creates the emotion. Camera angles may constantly change and dollies may move in and out adding to this amazing effect without effects being used. To shoot an extended scene within a limited space is priceless. Directors such as Kurosawa, Scorsese, Truffaut and Woody Allen are especially known for utilizing long-takes to draw audiences into them and create the right mood. Other examples might include the party scene from “Far From Heaven”, the interior scenes of “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” the final scene from Coppola’s “The Conversation” or Antonioni’s “The Passenger”. Perhaps the opening scenes to most Kubrick films ("A Clockwork Orange" or "2001: A Space Odyssey"), might qualify, or even the extended take in Lynch’s "Mulholland Drive” at Club Silencio. Both “Before Sunrise” and “Before Sunset” also have memorable and extended scenes allowing us (as an audience) to become emotionally invested into the characters. How about the tour through the House of Blue Leaves in “Kill Bill”? Tarantino’s “Reservoir Dogs” also offers us an opening scene that we instantly become invested in. Finally, the extended take during the last scene of "The Third Man” could easily be regarded as another long-take that works with great effectiveness.

An awkward tender moment without edits from BEFORE SUNRISE

We could go on and on, but I imagine that this week’s readers get the idea of where I am heading. Most directors and audiences who enjoy constant cutting do so to maintain interest – a visual interest. The truth is that when a scene is extended and minimal cuts are used, well – that is precisely what makes some of the most memorable scenes in Hollywood and film history. Just think about some of your favorite scenes of all time and it would be a safe bet that the cuts used in those scenes are strictly limited. Extended cuts will always allow the audience to be emotionally drawn into the scene while creating a sense of real-time.

Someone once said: “Audiences prefer to move their own heads and to examine a scene, but when our view is forcibly changed – we lose all interest”.Judge for yourselves CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT readers. I leave this portion now with my counterpart Jer, and eagerly anticipate his response in reference to the effects of over-cutting in film.

JER: Yet another great topic pulled from the heavens to talk about! It is funny how you diligently mentioned directors such as Kurosawa, Scorsese and Coppola…yet, again, no love for one of my personal favorites and an exemplarity of the extended scene director: Mr. Brian DePalma!

Director Brian DePalma

I took it upon myself to cover one of DePalma’s greatest films and a prime example of long shots in a motion picture when I covered THE UNTOUCHABLES in my November 7^th, 2011 posting. There are several extended/ uninterrupted scenes to converse about. The opening scene hangs over Robert DeNiro’s portrayal of Al Capone as he sits in a barber’s chair. The scene is unflinching as it stays on a wide shot and slowly begin descending into a close- up (or tight- shot) of the hot towel wrapped around his face only to have the barber remove the warm cloth and reveal Capone for the first time. The shot still remains unedited as you hear him reply to reporter’s questions. An excellent tracking shot (or dolly shot) has a low positioned camera circling around the table occupied by Sean Connery, Kevin Costner, Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith. The camera never cuts to any other shot and steadily paces round them, like an inpatient waiter, circling while the actors carry on with their talks. One other wonderfully extended shot has Martin Smith walking into an elevator within the Chicago Precinct as the camera remains on the outer doors as they close and pans to the left to catch both Costner and Connery walking into the scene while in conversation. It is a well- choreographed moment involving a busy hallway of officers and citizens carrying on their own business while intermingling with the real action taking place.

Another example of a long- steady cam shot can be found in 1992’s RAISING CAIN, also by DePalma. The scene is a well executed moment as we follow Dr. Lynn Waldheim (Frances Sternhagen) as she followed by two investigators as she rattles off an impressive and extensive piece of monolog concerning the main character’s multiple personalities. The scene begins in an interrogation room, moves out into the hallways, down two sets of stairs, into an elevator and into the basement morgue. The entire unedited scene clocks in at a staggering four minutes and fourteen seconds!

Start counting after 0.21! Here is the scene from RAISING CAIN!

Famed music video director Julien Temple directed the feature length film ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS in 1986 with musician/ actors David Bowie and Sade. Taking a page from his recent Janet Jackson video entitled “When I Think Of You” which had Miss Jackson strolling and singing through the neighborhood streets while pedestrians walk, chefs cook and a policeman directs traffic all in one single and unedited shot, Temple would re-create a similar scene as the opening to his film. Most of the main characters repeat the basic choreography and scenery from Jackson’s video on a grander, more cinematic scale. Same scene, different budget!

Not the film, but Temple's Janet Jackson video for "When I Think Of You!"

THE SHINING (1980)

Director Stanley Kubrick embraced the newly- introduced Stedi- Cam by using its equally balanced camera operation to avoid shaking while the camera followed a moving sequence in his 1980 classic THE SHINING. The best use of both the camera and the continuous unedited scenes followed little Danny Torrance (Danny Lloyd) as he would peddle his tricycle throughout the corridors of the emptied Overlook Hotel. The pace is quick, as we are almost bring driven by Danny’s energetic legs peddling though lobbies and hotel walkways… as he is unaware of what may lie around every bend turned, the audience is victim to his maneuvering ways.

A very complex extended shot would appear in Martin Scorsese’s 1990 mob film GOODFELLAS. The film is sprinkled with tiny shots but one has to lean towards the sequence involving Ray Liotta’s Henry Hill as he escorts Lorraine Brocco’s Karen as they exit out of a car, cross a busy street filled with cars, though the backdoor of a nightclub, passing the kitchen and though the waiters’ doors to the front of the club where a table is brought forth on cue with chairs awaiting to finally sit and enjoy Henny Youngman on stage beginning within seconds after their grand entrance. Intricate in its timing including busboys, waiters, patrons and cooks along the way. A flawless piece of work played to the tune of The Crystals’ “Then He Kissed Me."

Here is the scene from GOODFELLAS for your entertainment

JOHNNY CHAZZ: I will, of course give Credit to DePalma for his use of extended scenes and long takes as well. Specific moments in "Carrie", "The Untouchables" (nice detail you included here in your response as the wide / tight shot is highly effective in the opening barber scene) and well - the forgetful, but appropriate for this week "Black Dahlia" utilized this technique quite well. It is virtually impossible as you know Jer; to include every director in these discussions, so I simply try to highlight the ones that immediately come to mind. Still - DePalma does come to mind when discussing the films mentioned above. Kurosawa, Scorsese, Kubrick, Truffaut, Coppola and Allen are all immediates however and must be included as well - thus, I am glad you agreed with this.

A great moment from Akira Kurosawa's final film DREAMS

"Absolute Beginners" is a film that I am unfamiliar with, but the idea of the single, and unedited shot sparks my interest.....Netflix is calling here.

You mentioned "The Shining" (that specific Kubrick style I have tried to allude to this week) as well as "Goodfellas" (Scorsese again) and I could not agree more. The use of the Stedi-Cam is highly effective and creates that real, genuine tension that gives both films such power. The ultimate effect is to develop an atmosphere of authentic suspense or what we refer to as "cinéma vérité" to heighten dramatic scenes. It is also intriguing that you mention the tune "Then He Kissed Me" as having such an effect on a scene - as music is just another way to heighten the emotional impact and overall effectiveness of the single-shot......

So CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT Fans - it appears as though the ball is in your court now. How do you feel about films today being cut-up like "chopped salad"? Chime in with your thoughts and opinions on the subject and leave us your comments. Please note that we always respond to all so please check back here for our replies.

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT will be tuning- off for a holiday- break and will return with a brand new topic on Wednesday January 11^th, 2012! On behalf of both JER and JOHNNY CHAZZ… we wish you all the Happiest and Safest of Holidays and a prosperous and eventful New Year! See you back here in 2012!

http://www.youtube.com/user/cinemacounterpoint?feature=mhee

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JER’S TURN: FILMS (AND DIRECTORS) THAT DEFINED THE...

2011-12-14T07:30:00.000-08:00

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JER’S TURN: FILMS (AND DIRECTORS) THAT DEFINED THE...: JER : If you haven’t already noticed or if you are a first- time visitor to CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT , most of our film comparisons (or disagre...

JER’S TURN: FILMS (AND DIRECTORS) THAT DEFINED THE ERA THEY REPRESENT

2011-12-12T00:05:00.001-08:00

JER: If you haven’t already noticed or if you are a first- time visitor to CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT, most of our film comparisons (or disagreements), recommendations and topics have involved the reflections of good films long past. You may also have noticed that the rarity of talking about any films made within the last 10 years. I think I can speak on behalf of myself and my ‘counterpart’ Johnny Chazz when I say,”movies just ain’t what they used to be!”

With that said I can confidently sally forth with looking into cinema’s past and pluck my topic of the week!

PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE (1974)

At a most recent Movie Party at my place, I had a viewing of Brian DePalma’s THE PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE. Those who had attended mentioned how the film had represented or ‘marked’ the era that the film was made in, thus 1974. One of my buddies had even mentioned the possible remake of this cult classic! The mere thought made my legs give out….oh, and even worse… a possible remake of THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW??? What??? These films defined an era that cannot be repeated or duplicated and it was these films that time-stamped the right actors, music, photography and even marketing that made them stand- out as the solitary works they are.

1974's campy musical PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE

This inspired my topic of discussion: are there films made within a decade that carry that recognition of the era they represent? Confusing? Possibly, so let me give you my definition and what they stood for when they were made.

REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE (1955)

Automatically, I will make my first reference to 1955’s REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE. It is a story about teenage angst that takes place in the 1950’s and was made in the 1950’s… get it? The film wasn’t made in 1980 to represent 1955, like BACK TO THE FUTURE was. The actors (James Dean and Natalie Wood) stood for their misunderstood generation and spoke to them at their level. They were relatable and what happened to them within the film made teenagers feel their frustrations because they were going through similar domestic issues as well. Boys impersonated the ‘puppy- dog’ looks of Dean and even bought up red jackets like the one he wore in the film. Strong topics such as overbearing parents, rebellious teenagers and uncontrollable young love were probably being revealed for the first time with such truthful impact.

It wouldn’t be fair to start the subject right in the middle of film’s history… we would almost need to go back to the beginning… the beginning of film.

A TRIP TO THE MOON (1902)

Since the creation of moving pictures and the experimentation with images dating back to Thomas Edison playing with the kinetoscope between the 1890’s and early 1900’s, the fascination of capturing images and showing them back had always been the goal of a filmmaker. Even in the early films, going back to Georges Melies’ 1902 classic A TRIP TO THE MOON, imagination would blur the concept of straight capturing or filming of current era reality.

Fast- forward a few decades and we arrive into the 1930’s: Prohibition, speak- easies and gambling were making a stronger impact on the American lifestyle and brought forth the dawn of a new name for the bad guys: the mobster. Hollywood was ready to cash- in on the new bullies and create some of its own along the way.

LITTLE CAESAR (1931)

LITTLE CAESAR (1931) starred Edward G. Robinson as ‘Rico’ and dealt with true events occurring at the same time the film was in production. It was the story of how a little known gangster wanted to rise to the top surrounding himself with booze, women, corruption and violence. The film was pivotal and very impactful for its time…

The same year would see James Cagney in PUBLIC ENEMY, telling the tale of a ‘hoodlum’ making his way through the crime wave of Chicago. Soon thereafter, other films began defining the era, such as Paul Muni as SCARFACE (1932) and ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES (1938)… all of which represented the mob era of the 1930’s.

Moving into the 1940's, another war was boiling over and the world was either involved in or shook in anticipation from what the outcome might bring. Several films reflected the times including CASABLANCA (1942) and THE BIG SLEEP (1946)… but one film took a defiant stand against The Third Reich and the deviant mind that created the war… surprisingly enough, it was Writer/ Director/ Star Charles Chaplin’s 1940 controversial offering entitled THE GREAT DICTATOR! In playing the role of dictator Adenoid Hynkel, ruler of the nation of Tomainia, Chaplin was blasted for going too far and hitting too many resemblances between his character and that of Adolph Hitler. He was accused of being a communist sympathizer at the time, which only made matters worst.

See it for yourself, the 1940 trailer to THE GREAT DICTATOR

THE GRADUATE (1967)

Having mentioned REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE earlier in my topic for the 1950’s, I can go right into the 1960’s. Times were changing once again, America’s innocence was lost with the assassination of JFK and quickly shifted into the Vietnam War. Two films can easily be categorized as those that defined the later 60’s: THE GRADUATE (1967) and EASY RIDER (1969). Both films plunged forward into forbidden topics and not only spoke of them, but almost dragged them out into the public’s eye for all to see and judge. THE GRADUATE touched on insecurities within relationships and offered the grand MILF in the character of Mrs. Robinson, played by Anne Bancroft. EASY RIDER was about freedom on the road, experimentation of drugs and the morality of human life and the appreciation of it. Cinema, it would seem, was starting to lean towards the interest of what young adults were saying and Hollywood was ready to start focusing its attention to a new breed of audience.

SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER (1977)

We could also look upon 1977’s SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER as a similar ‘young adult’ case study: this time representing the changing world of the 1970’s. Disco music ruled the nightclubs and both young men and women were dressing up in their best polyester suits and satin dresses as they blew their hard- earned week’s wages every weekend. The film took advantage of ‘cashing- in’ on the popular craze by filling every shot with both visual and audible ‘candy.’ In just a few short seconds of coming off the Paramount logo (the studio that released it) we are drawn into the very distinctable streets of Brooklyn and the slow crescendo of the disco anthem, “Staying Alive”, performed by the Bee- Gees.

But films didn’t just speak to the younger generation nor define it for the youth. Some filmmakers spoke loud and proudly for adults as well.

WOODY ALLEN

It would be unfair to just focus on a film or two from director Woody Allen, but instead, look at a large body of films. ANNIE HALL (1977), INTERIORS (1978), MANHATTAN (1979) and HANNAH AND HER SISTERS (1986) are just a small list of case studies that might similar in range. They all take place in the boroughs of New York; they are both the humorous and serious topics of life lessons: divorce, infidelity, illness, parenting, dating, courtship and family imperfections. Allen might be considered the ‘director of contemporary classics’ as he knows great dialog, hand- selects the best cast to deliver his work onto the screen and within just some of the films mentioned here, captures the events of life within the East Side.

THE BREAKFAST CLUB (1985)

Another such director who was able to capture the human spirit and defined the decade of the 1980’s was John Hughes. Hughes was my topic on a previous CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT blog posting entitled “Remembering Director/ Writer John Hughes” (June 2011) in which I expressed in great detail and reverence the body of his films that helped me through my ‘generation’ with recognizing that dweebs, morons, nerds, princesses, jocks, tools, geeks, cool kids and metal heads all had their time to shine within the 1980’s. SIXTEEN CANDLES (1984), THE BREAKFAST CLUB (1985), FERRIS BUELLER’S DAY OFF (1986) and even SHE’S HAVING A BABY (1988) showed us that even the man best remembered for adolescent fun needed to grow up, get married and start having children, too.

Corruption of the system had its blinders pulled off; when director Oliver Stone’s 1987 film WALL STREET had Americans take a long, hard look at what was now being acceptable in the world of finances and take- over. The scariest line to ever to be taken away from the film was the slogan: “Greed is good.”

By the 1990’s, films got a lot more creative visually but were almost starting to lose its flair for storytelling. Not all films were marked with this stigma…yet. That wouldn’t become more evident until the 2000’s… but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. 1991 offered a very real look into the increasing world of urban gangs when director John Singleton made his debut with BOYZ ‘N THE HOOD. Heading by a cast of unknown actors at the time (Cuba Gooding Jr and Ice Cube) the film opened awareness to the lifestyles of South Central in Los Angeles and the rules to which you live to survive and survive to live. This was also one of the first films to expose viewers to the ‘Crips’ and ‘Bloods’ gang war fought in the public, shamelessly taking lives in the daylight and where innocent bystanders can fall prey to stray bullets.

The explosive trailer for 1991's BOYZ 'N THE HOOD

PHILADELPHIA (1993)

1993’s PHILADELPHIA was one of the first ever films to tackle the topic of AIDS and the dangers surrounding it. Back in the early 1990‘s, when this horrible epidemic started to become more publicly known, was still a very infant disease and no one knew what it was or how you got it. Tom Hanks won an Academy Award for his daring portrayal of Andrew Beckett, a man fired from his very conservative law firm because of his condition and the suit he filed against the firm for wrongful dismissal. If ever there was a time of confusion and trumped- up rumors of contagiousness, it was the topic of AIDS in the early 90’s.

Of course, there are numerous titles and eras still yet unmentioned, but the topic is left to your recollection. Everyone will have either a favorite era genre or event in mind. At this time, I would definitely like to hear what Johnny Chazz has to say about the topic and what films and/ or directors he mentions… it’s all yours!

CITIZEN KANE (1941)

JOHNNY CHAZZ: Let's begin this by seconding Jer's comment that movies are not what they used to be. The truth is that films today, for the most part, lack the very essence of what used to comprise an outstanding film including: quality script, strategic sets and lighting, quality actors and actresses, careful editing, strong direction and a narrative that is something that audiences can relate to.

This week Jer suggests that we take a look at the films that define the era they represent. This really should not be too difficult, and will span the decades from 1940 to 2010. Thus, I will select a total of at least three to five films to represent each decade representing a total of roughly thirty (30) films in this week's topic.

1940-1949: CITIZEN KANE (1941); PHILADELPHIA STORY (1940); THE MALTESE FALCON (1941). Here was a decade where black and white films dominated the screen, and Hollywood film-making set the barat a new level for future features to follow.

The original classic 1941 trailer to THE MALTESE FALCON
J

1950-1959: The decade of the melodrama - that's what really defines this era. Additionally, the Japanese and European invasion into film-making became increasingly important during this time period. My selections? ON THE WATERFRONT (1954); SUNSET BOULEVARD (1950); VERTIGO (1958); SEVEN SAMURAI (1954); WILD STRAWBERRIES (1957)

1960-1969: Oh my - what a decade, and how difficult this will be to only choose three. Oh well, here it goes: 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968); 8 1/2 (1963); BREATHLESS (1960). I imagine that I left out close to 100 films that could represent this category, but I will settle on these for the time being. Fellini, Godard and Kubrick (Antonioni left out....quite triste about that) bring new ideas, new approaches and new angles to film-making - a quality and work of art that both commented on society while making a mockery of it simultaneously. The directorial techniques and performances during this era will never be surpassed in our lifetimes.

1970-1979: THE EXORCIST; ANNIE HALL; TAXI DRIVER. The struggle with inner turmoil defined this decade as love and romance were completely placed on the backburner. What a blessing for audiences.......

1980-1989: A disastrous decade for film as only "movies" began to surface on the big screen. Entertaining audiences became the focus and that simply was not good enough. Three films that best define this era? RAGING BULL (1980); BLUE VELVET (1986); CINEMA PARADISO (1988). Well, at least I found three......

1990-1999: CASINO （1995） FARGO （1996）； SCHINDLER'S LIST（1993）

2000-2009: MULHOLLAND DRIVE (2001); TRAFFIC (2000); THE LIVES OF OTHERS (2006). Now, where is the escape door from this decade? Mercy.....and of course you can now see what we are left with in 2011.

Let's look back at the classic 1950 trailer for SUNSET BLVD.

JER: I see where you were going here, but I think you kind of missed my point. Example: Although 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968) was a milestone film and clearly set the bar for science- fiction film from the late 60’s on forth…it isn’t a film about the 1960’s… it is a futuristic film.

Again, SCHINDLER’S LIST (1993) was an excellent film that boldly showed audiences what the Holocaust was, is still not a film about the 1990’s… it is about the 1940’s.

Regardless, the films mentioned are strong and can be validated in its own way for the era they were made in… not the era they are representing based on the events or the pop culture of its time stamp. Speaking for myself, I think of countless films made in certain decades that couldn’t have been made in another. The right actors, script, direction, cinematographer, music and locations need to fall into place. If any one piece fails, then the entire project should be scrapped. To this date, I know of certain films produced in the mid 50’s and into the 60’s that might had been a better film had the movie’s score not sounded so comical or ‘cartoonish’. You could look back at anything starring Sandra Dee or Patty Duke for examples. I’ll even through in BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S (1961) as a clear example of a film that defined its era, but is too over- the- top and is, in my opinion, a highly overrated movie from the start. This might be another future topic, however, so I might just leave it alone for now…

So, are there any films you feel define a particular era you find interesting? Maybe one you grew up in or that takes you back to a time that was much simpler and enjoyable? Let us know your thoughts and comment back to us with your favorites. We always look forward to hearing what you have to say! Until next time, when JOHNNY CHAZZ takes his turn at the keyboards… we will, as always, SEE YOU NEXT WEDNESDAY!

http://www.youtube.com/user/cinemacounterpoint?feature=mhee

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JOHNNY CHAZZ' TURN: "TENSION, TEARS, DRAMA AND CLI...

2011-12-07T15:34:00.000-08:00

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JOHNNY CHAZZ' TURN: "TENSION, TEARS, DRAMA AND CLI...: JOHNNY CHAZZ : One primary focus in film is to cerate a sense of feeling – a deep and embedded lasting emotional reaction on the part of...

JOHNNY CHAZZ' TURN: "TENSION, TEARS, DRAMA AND CLIMAX"

2011-12-07T14:21:00.000-08:00

JOHNNY CHAZZ: One primary focus in film is to cerate a sense of feeling – a deep and embedded lasting emotional reaction on the part of the audience. For a melodrama to really work, strict themes of loss, desire, love, death, betrayal and anger must present themselves in a believable and thoughtful manner on screen. The ultimate goal?: Leave your audience in a state of shock, disarray, deep reflection and enveloped in tears. Simply put – force the viewers to endure precisely what the characters on the screen are experiencing, and for them to witness a film that truly “moves” them – then and only then and there do you have a working melodrama.

BETTE DAVIS

The likes of Bette Davis (“Of Human Bondage”; “Jezebel”; “Now Voyager”; “All About Eve”) was probably one of the great names and actresses who appeared in so many early melodramas during the 1930’s and 1940’s. Greta Garbo and Barbara Stanwyk are also prime fits for that genre during those years. Liz Taylor would be the next in line during the 1950’s and 1960’s (“Butterfield 8”; “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”). The key is that they were all characters that were bland and dry like a martini; yet, they remained ultra-cool while being transformed as the film progressed. They were a bit on the trashy side as well as edgy, but their mood remained dark and blue, yet with a glimmer of inspiration and hope.

Sets, sound, timing and virtually all aspects of mise-en- scene (a French expression for “placing on stage”) are fundamental in the classic melodrama. Sets must reflect the inner turmoil of characters while being lit and cast in a manner that reflects the nature of the genre itself. Sound must remain symbolic, honest and literal in every sense of the word if the character(s) are to be well complemented in the film. Thus, we must dwell. We must dwell on mixed emotions, inner distress and find resilience in character that runs silent and deep (no reference of course to the film of the same name). The final product is a work of art on screen that amplifies the “emptiness” and “longing” of characters on screen. The opening to a film such as “Ikiru” (1952) combined with the camera work, mood and editing of “Far From Heaven” (2002), then adding a dash of the timing with “In the Mood for Love” (2000) and finished off with the honesty, resiliency and subtle nuances of “The Scent of Green Papaya” (1993) and the final scene in “The Conversation” (1974). These are the end products of how a director not only should, but also must utilize the melodrama in the most efficient, and ultimately, understated manner. It takes just the right touch in terms of mise-en-scene (placing on stage), lighting, mood, dialogue, timing and score can give a melodrama the proper ingredients to deeply impact an audience.

The original trailer from Akira Kurosawa's IKIRU

So, what films make my list for best melodramas of all time? In essence, I am really asking myself: “Which films do the best job of communicating elements of mood, tension, drama and climax on screen?” Let’s keep in mind that not all melodramas are what we would call “tear-jerkers”, but the dramatic elements of the film weigh quite heavy on our hearts and in our minds. The ideal melodrama must use the proper tools to completely transcend all other genres in order to generate a real, a lasting and a genuine emotional response from the viewing audience. Thus, let’s keep both ideas in mind this week. Here is my list in chronological order:

Sunrise (1927)
Of Human Bondage (1934)
Love Affair (1939)
Gone With the Wind (1939)
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
Now, Voyager (1942)
The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)

CHAINS (1949)

All About Eve (1950)
Sunset Boulevard (1950)
Death of a Salesman (1951 & TV Version of 1966 and1985)
Ikiru (1952)
On The Waterfront (1954)
East of Eden (1955)
All That Heaven Allows (1955)
The White Angel (1955)
Wild Strawberries (1957)
Death of a Cyclist (1955)
Le Notti Bianche (1957)
An Affair to Remember (1957)
When a Woman Ascends the Stairs (1960)
Butterfield 8 (1960)
Lola (1962)
To Kill A Mockingbird (1962)
Marnie (1964)
Doctor Zhivago (1965)
The Sandpiper (1965)
Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
The Graduate (1967)
The Last Picture Show (1971)
Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore (1974)

THE CONVERSATION (1974)

Rocky (1976)
Taxi Driver (1976)
The Deer Hunter (1978)
Ordinary People (1980)
Paris, Texas (1984)
Stranger Than Paradise (1984)
The Color Purple (1985)
Au Revoir Les Enfants (1987)
Beaches (1988)
Cinema Paradiso (1988)
Schindler’s List (1993)

THE SCENT OF GREEN PAPAYA (1993)

Philadelphia (1993)
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
Fargo (1996)
Life Is Beautiful (1997)
The Sweet Hereafter (1997)
In the Company of Men (1997)
The Ice Storm (1997)
In the Mood for Love (2000)
A Beautiful Mind (2001)
Far From Heaven (2002)
The Pianist (2002)
Talk To Her (Habla con Ella) (2002)
Lost in Translation (2003)
The Sea Inside (2004)
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
The Lives of Others (2007)
An Education (2009)
Winter’s Bone (2010)
The Artist (2011) ???? To be determined.

GRETA GARBO

JER: What a great topic to come back from November’s holiday break with… very powerful and profound. This seems to be the subject that began building up about a couple of blogs back. The conversations were becoming stronger and opinions of cinema were becoming very insistent with personal perspectives. I don’t pretend to be that heavy and that deep on the subject and your views stem from two different aspects; one: being your love for classic story development and film and two: being your education from attending film school. My voice and dialog was picked up from the streets with no formal schooling. I learned as I went along and deemed what I felt were good movies to glorious works of film!

Your coverage of the earlier screen icons (Davis, Garbo and Stanwyk) will give me the opportunity to talk about more contemporary actors and films. The tempos of film changed drastically between decades. The culture, political standpoints and pop- standards go in and out quickly and both music and movies can be outdated quickly if not produced correctly and with a sense of timing.

Johnny Chazz left his portion of discussion off at around the 1960’s, so let me pick up with the dawn of the 1970’s. This would be the decade that might have introduced an alternative take: the storytelling became grittier with more firepower coming from both the written screenplay and the scenarios they developed based on drama, misery, action or high- tension depictions.

The 1976 trailer for Brian DePalma's OBSESSION

A new wave of film makers were graduating out of film school and most of their hands- on training came from self- made documentaries and home movies. At around the same time, many others were coming from theater backgrounds and bringing more dynamics and a flare for the drama. Some stage writers were also trying their hand at more realistic dialog and developing characters that an audience could relate with. Most of the work was also based on the culture of what the world was surrounding itself with: the age of the Vietnam War, the Cold War and economic and social growth (good or bad, depending on who you spoke with). Hollywood took a chance and needed to speak to those who were forming protest lines to voice their minds and find a way to appeal to them. The years would pass into decades to come and the role of a “screen idol” had drastically changed.

MERYL STREEP

A new breed of talent was arising and bringing a new form of acting techniques and style. Meryl Streep, Robert DeNiro, Dustin Hoffman, Gene Hackman, Jessica Lange, Sally Fields, Jack Nicholson and Glenn Close are amongst just a few names of a new generation of talented unknowns that would soon rise to top in both their performance and artistic caliber. I will be the first to admit that their films would portray a different recognition for acting and cinema that could never be compared to the “Golden Age of Hollywood” … but a talent, nonetheless, worthy of mention.

As to not repeat any titles, I agree with some of the films selected by Johnny Chazz, but I wanted to bring forth a list of other titles, more contemporary, but still worthy of the topic at hand. If there was a list of recommendations that I would hand deliver, this would be it. Review carefully: how many of these films have you already seen, been far too long since last seen or never viewed at all? Look, find, buy or rent them and make the call yourself. Here it is:

A MAN CALLED HORSE (1970)

THE GODFATHER (1972)

LADY SINGS THE BLUES (1972)

BARRY LYNDON (1975)

ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975)

OBSESSION (1976)

THE OMEN (1976)

MIDNIGHT EXPRESS (1978)

INTERIORS (1978)

COMING HOME (1978)

KRAMER VS KRAMER (1979)

THE ELEPHANT MAN (1980)

DAS BOOT (1981)

BLOW OUT (1981)

HEAVEN'S GATE (1981)

FRANCES (1982)

THE BIG CHILL (1983)

SILKWOOD (1983)

AMADEUS (1984)

THE KILLING FIELDS (1984)

MISHIMA: A LIFE IN FOUR CHAPTERS (1985)

RAN (1985)

PLATOON (1986)

DANGEROUS LIAISONS (1988)

THE ACCIDENTAL TOURIST (1988)

THE ACCUSED (1988)

MISSISSIPPI BURNING (1988)

GRAND CANYON (1991)

AMERICAN HISTORY X (1998)

THE GREEN MILE (1999)

TRAFFIC (2000)

21 GRAMS (2003)

BEFORE SUNSET (2004)

HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS (2004)

CACHE (2005)

CRASH (2005)

MUNICH (2005)

EL LABERINTO DEL FAUNO “PAN’S LABYRINTH (2006)

CURSE OF THE GOLDEN FLOWER (2006)

UNITED 93 (2006)

ALPHA DOG (2007)

AUGUST RUSH (2007)

GONE BABY GONE (2007)

DOUBT (2008)

SEVEN POUNDS (2008)

THE WRESTLER (2008)

JOHNNY CHAZZ: There is no doubt that the films beginning in the 1970's - although still an honest and literal era, became "grittier" as you state here, Jer. The subject material (One looks at "Easy Rider", "The Exorcist" "The Deer Hunter", "One Flew Over..." or perhaps "Apocalypse Now" or "Taxi Driver" and that ‘new flare’ had definitely been brought to the genre.

Christopher Walken: THE DEER HUNTER

How intriguing, Jer, that you mentioned that these films and new breed of actors (male and female alike of course) could “never be compared to the "Golden Age of Hollywood” but that their talent remains worthy of mention. Well, that is an understatement in my mind. As much as I appreciate classic cinema, the films of the 1970’s may very well have been the compilation and the climax of what audiences have experienced in melodramas considering precisely the ingredient your referred to prior: The subject material was so gritty and daring that characters with inner turmoil now had to deal with a world and other characters posing threats to their inner being. We can never sell short what we have seen in this genre post-1960, and in some ways we are seeing better and more impacting melodramas as time marches on.

UNITED 93

I am sure that I took some titles away from you in my list which is not to say that you agree with most of them, but I would imagine that you are on-board with me on a large portion of those selections. Looking at your list for a moment – and the list is good (no pun intended again): “The Godfather”, “Barry Lyndon”, “Interiors”, “The Elephant Man”, “Silkwood”, “The Accidental Tourist”, “Amadeus” (nice choice here), “Traffic” and “21 Grams” (how did I forget those….perhaps I felt they fell into the suspense and thriller genre, but fair enough), “Before Sunset” (refer to earlier blogs and Jer really seemed to have a love affair with this one and I was so pleased), “Cache” and “Crash” are simply amazing, “Pan’s Labyrinth” (a melodrama and fantasy film weaved into one), “United 93” (terrific performances throughout, but was it a true melodrama? Perhaps…..enjoyed it immensely though), “August Rush” (never saw it….ahem, but will log-onto Netflix immediately), “Doubt” (I know your love for this film – and it definitely falls into this realm), and both “Seven Pounds” and “The Wrestler” were very impacting films.

The intense and tragic trailer for Woody Allen's INTERIORS
This list of yours is outstanding and I think the combination of both selections from us, at the very least, creates a compilation for our Cinema: Counterpoint readers to scan over and decide which films they would to like to re-visit or perhaps to view for the first time. The goal this week? Let’s fall in love with the Melodrama all over again and never forget the place and value of this genre in film history, as well as in the future of what studios aim to release.

This closes out this segment and as always we will see you here on Cinema: Counterpoint with another motif and distinct discussion topic this time from Jer. SEE YOU NEXT WEDNESDAY and happy film-going!

http://www.youtube.com/user/cinemacounterpoint?feature=mhee

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JER: AN EDITORIAL FOR NOVEMBER & RECOMMENDATION OF...

2011-11-22T22:54:00.000-08:00

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JER: AN EDITORIAL FOR NOVEMBER & RECOMMENDATION OF...: Just JER! JER : Greetings Friends of CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT . I wanted to take this time in thanking you, the readers, for all of y...

JER: AN EDITORIAL FOR NOVEMBER & RECOMMENDATION OF "PLANES, TRAINS & AUTOMOBILES"

2011-11-22T22:41:00.000-08:00

Just JER!

JER: Greetings Friends of CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT. I wanted to take this time in thanking you, the readers, for all of your support and the many comments we have received throughout the 2011 year. As JOHNNY CHAZZ and I are coming around to celebrating the blog- site’s one year anniversary since its launch on January 31, 2011, we entered into a verbal pact when talking about the premise of the site: It would always focus on topics pertaining to our love for cinema and everything relatable, we would both be brutally honest with our individual opinions and that we would always shake hands and come out fighting in support of our expressive views AND finally… we would continue doing this as long as we had fun along the way!

JOHNNY CHAZZ!

I am happy to report that from a recent phone call to my fellow co-critic and partner in cinema crime, Johnny Chazz... we are still having fun presenting our weekly endeavors for your reading pleasures! Due dates, sleepless nights and countless hours hammering away on the lap- top can be pressing at times, but the words come together that makes it all worth it in the end. I know I speak for my counterpart when I also thank those family members and friends (you know who you are) that have continually given us the strength, the encouragement and the moxy to get this off the ground and fuel this ever- growing project for as long as we have been going! THANK YOU!

In celebration of the upcoming holiday, CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT will take a needed break, with a new posting to be delivered on Wednesday December 7, 2011.

While you are enjoying your celebrated Thanksgiving Weekend, or whatever you prefer to call your time with your loved ones, I cannot help but make a quick recommendation while I am here…

Thanksgiving, by way of film, doesn’t get much love! There are Easter films (EASTER PARADE, JESUS OF NAZARETH); Holiday films (WHITE CHRISTMAS, A CHRISTMAS STORY, 8 CRAZY NIGHTS) … even Halloween gets a film named after the day! I can be extremely evil and off my rocker and recommend the enjoyment of director Eli Roth’s (HOSTEL) faux trailer included in 2007’s GRINDHOUSE. The trailer in question is for a horror film entitled THANKSGIVING… enjoy, if you dare!

Gobble- Gobble! Gulp! The fake trailer for THANKSGIVING!!!

Now, if that doesn’t get you all excited about leftover turkey sandwiches, then I don’t know what will! OK, seriously, I will lean in the direction of something much more pleasant by recommending the 1987 comedy classic PLANES, TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES directed by the late John Hughes.

Neal Page (Steve Martin) is an advertising executive who just wants to fly home to Chicago to spend Thanksgiving with his family. But all he gets is misery instead! Misery named Del Griffith (John Candy) - a loud mouthed, but nevertheless loveable, salesman who leads Neal on a cross- country, wild goose chase that keeps Neal from getting home and tasting his turkey!

Although the film is Rated R (there is an ‘f-bomb’ rant that Martin goes through at the Car Rental kiosk) the film is quite sweet and touching. Both Martin and Candy are hysterical and both play off each other as Martin is more the straight man to Candy’s dumb- lug comic. Writer and Director John Hughes was at the top of his game when he pieced this project together and the proof is in the smartly written and laughable dialog, the timing and execution of physical comedic moments and the tenderness one came to expect from Hughes’ films.

Enjoy the hilarious trailer from this holiday delight!

So, undo your belt straps and girdles, slip into your sweatpants and put your feet up with a slice of pumpkin pie and enjoy this tasty treat! Enjoy your Holidays and we will SEE YOU DECEMBER 7^th!

http://www.youtube.com/user/cinemacounterpoint?feature=mhee

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JER'S TURN: RECOGNIZING DIRECTOR JOE JOHNSTON

2011-11-22T21:39:00.000-08:00

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JER'S TURN: RECOGNIZING DIRECTOR JOE JOHNSTON: JER : It is probably safe to say that all film lovers, at any level of dedication to the art, goes through various stages. Sometimes you c...

JER'S TURN: RECOGNIZING DIRECTOR JOE JOHNSTON

2011-11-22T21:08:00.000-08:00

JER: It is probably safe to say that all film lovers, at any level of dedication to the art, goes through various stages. Sometimes you can stay stuck in a groove of watching love stories or action films. Other times it may be your personal film festival on an actor or actress of choice… as we go into the core of real cinema lovers, we start looking at more specific genres like classics, or epic films of the 1950’s. The more deranged, I included, enjoys staying on a film studios’ favorite releases, music composer…even a director of photography… and even a very specific film director.

I know this will be a controversial subject to my ‘counterpoint’ partner, Johnny Chazz, but I feel that one director in particular deserves recognition for a huge body of work but whose name is seldom spoken of. Ladies and Gentlemen, you know his films; I now introduce you to director Joe Johnston.

Director Joe Johnston

I dubbed Johnston as ‘the director who can’ for a number of reasons. He is the film maker who went up against 1989’s explosive release of Tim Burton’s BATMAN with his own debut film of Disney’s HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS and pulled off a very impressive box office take despite the comic frenzy of caped- crusader fans! Johnston breathed new life into a possible dying franchise when he was hand- selected by Steven Spielberg to helm JURASSIC PARK III. Finally, he was the man who threw his own hat into the ring during the ‘Comic Book Year of 2011’ when he submitted CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER and went up against the likes of other superhero/ action movies like THE GREEN HORNET, THOR and THE GREEN LANTERN and still grossed a whopping 178 million dollars worldwide.

Not a bad track record for a man who isn’t a household name! Let’s start from the beginning…

Born Joseph Eggleston Johnston III on May 13^th, 1950 in Austin, Texas, he was a towering man that stood 6’ 1 ½ “ (1.87 m) and expressed an interest in film early on in his life. During the time he attended Cal State- Long Beach in California, he answered an ad belonging to George Lucas, who was seeking employees at the time. He was brought on board and worked as a storyboard artist for Lucas and was responsible for the final designs for STAR WARS’ characters Yoda and Boba Fett. Lucas encouraged Johnston to attend USC, his alma- mater. He accepted in 1984 and Lucas paid his tuitions and kept him on the payroll as a part- time employee.

While working for Lucas under his special- effects company: Industrial Light & Magic, Johnston would go on fine- tuning his skills to win him an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects for RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK in 1981. The award was shared with Richard Edlund (GHOSTBUSTERS), Kit West (STARGATE) and Bruce Nicolson (ARMAGEDDON). Being around the company of such talented directors like Spielberg and Lucas only led him to his directorial debut with HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS.

The summer of 1989 belonged to the highly- anticipated BATMAN starring Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson. At the time, pre- merchandise sales prior to the film’s release was so astounding that it rivaled the days of STAR WARS sales during the late 70’s- early 80’s. No studio dared go up against the box- office predictability foreseen on its opening weekend and beyond… no other film would stand a chance… or would it? The Walt Disney studios budgeted an estimated 18 million dollars and released HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS, a family/ adventure/ comedy about an average ‘nutty professor’ who created a miniaturizing laser machine that accidentally shrinks his children. Despite BATMAN’s earnings that summer, HONEY brought in a gross of approximately 131 million dollars. Soon thereafter, Hollywood was taking notice of Johnston and awaited as to what he had in- store for his next feature.

Disney’s very prestigious project, THE ROCKETEER, was given to Johnston to direct after the success of HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS. The studios’ expectations were that it would be a potential franchise and spawn merchandise sales and sequels to follow. The story opens in 1938 and centers around a jet pack created by Howard Hughes. Meant to modernize the US military, the pack is stolen and chased after… eventually ending up in the hands of an airfield stuntman. Curiously, the pack is worn during a stunt show and audiences are wowed and amazed by the acts performed… the news makes its way back to the villains who want the pack for potential Nazi use to win over America and beyond. It would seem as if THE ROCKETEER had all the right elements: it was a family- friendly Disney film, the storyline was based off a comic book taking place in Los Angeles, CA before the outbreak of World War II and it had heroic do-gooders and evil Nazi baddies. Unfortunately, the studios financial expectations were not met during its theatrical run. After its release in 1991, however, the film eventually picked up an audience over the years and celebrated its 20^th Anniversary in 2011 with a special theatrical presentation at the El Capitan Theater in Hollywood and a new digital presentation release on blu- ray.

Enjoy the original trailer of THE ROCKETEER!

1994 would still have Johnston dabbling in the genre family- friendly world with his next release, THE PAGEMASTER, a combination of live action sequences taking the story into an animated world of literature enchantment. The film starred child actor Macaulay Culkin, best known for his role as little Kevin in HOME ALONE. 20^th Century Fox was hoping that Culkin’s success with his earlier films, combined with Johnston’s track record at Disney, would bring in revenue for the film…it did not. The film’s gross was actually under what the budget was. The film would eventually compensate in foreign release and video sales.

Johnston had a formula he had been working with within his first years as a director: family films that combined action and comedy, but could still be special- effects driven. He tested that theory once again in 1995 with the release of JUMANJI starring Robin Williams… the theory would prove to be very effective and lucrative for Tri- Star Pictures. Grossing over 260 million worldwide, the adventure film focused on a curious board game centered on the mysteries of a jungle- type safari… whatever happens as you role the dice, would happen to you in real life! The film also incorporated some new advances in computer generated imagery (CGI) by making many jungle creatures come to life. Effects would include Williams coming face to face with a lion and a runaway parade of monkeys, rhinos, zebras and others run down an intersection of town! By today’s standards, the effects may come across a bit crude and underdeveloped, but it was a strong step ahead in the world of visual effects for its time.

Johnston with actor Jake Gyllenhaal

After a few years of rest and focusing further on a variety of different directions Johnston could take to challenge himself, 1999 would allow him to flex- out into the world of dramatic tellings minus the visual effects with OCTOBER SKY. Based on a true story about a small mining town within the 1950’s, a coal miner’s son expresses interest in the stars when in October 1957, Sputnik goes into orbit. Although it was the departure Johnston was hoping for as well as favorable reviews from critics, the box office didn’t see the figures racing into space…

Moving into a new decade and century hoped to provide new projects and new directions for Johnston. 2001 would kick- off the new decade with the highly anticipated JURASSIC PARK III, adding another chapter in the very popular series. Steven Spielberg, director of the first two film of the series, decided to step down and act as Executive Producer. Grossing over 366 million dollars worldwide, the film proved to be a hit with thrill- seeking audiences and for Universal Studios. Taking yet another step forward in the advancement of visual effects, the film made improvements on its dinosaurs’ appearances as well as provide new prehistoric foes to fear!

A behind-the-scenes look at JURASSIC PARK III!

HIDALGO, released in 2004, would tell the heart- warming tale of a down- on- his- luck cowboy living in 1890 and the travels he made with his horse to Arabia to compete in a wild and dangerous desert race. The film was produced by Disney’s sister company, Touchtone Pictures and presented a great mixture of wild west adventure blended with a scoop of humor and family- friendly fun. Its opening was a misguided March date and suffered box office receipts due to what clearly would have presented itself as a Summer or Winter film instead.

DelToro as THE WOLFMAN (2010)

Universal Studios called upon Johnston again…and he answered. Having just successfully given JURRASSIC PARK III to Universal, the studio was looking forward to breathe new life into one of its classic monster films, to which Universal was greatly known for during the 1920’s and 30’s. THE WOLFMAN (2010) would bring many elements into the spotlight: Anthony Hopkins and Benecio Del Toro were casted as father and son with deep and dark secrets, the film would call upon creature and make- up special effects artist Rick Baker who won an Academy Award for his on- the – screen transformations of man into wolf for AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981). Baker had always wanted to be a part of a remake of the original 1941 version with Lon Chaney Jr. as an upright wolf man that walks on two, not four, legs. Baker would go on to win another Academy Award for bringing that vision to the screen 29 years later. The story stayed classic by taking place in 1891 within the European countryside and was penned with dramatic overtones and not relying on humorous antidotes to amuse the storyline. The film had suffered a number of production flaws including a change in release date originally set for October 2009 (what would have been an ideal Halloween box office hit) was pushed back to February of 2010.

In looking back at Joe Johnston’s directorial career at this point in time, there are a few things that define his body of work; it is clearly obvious that he loves family films (THE WOLFMAN is the only “R- rated” film he has directed), his films are ladled with visual effects and his stories are usually family- friendly. It would almost be fitting to see Johnston take it to the next level as he has with his following film?

As mentioned earlier in the premise of my blog, 2011 was one filled with many entries into the adaption of comic book stories into films. It is also my opinion that many of them horribly failed as well... all, but one. CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER would play along to a string of tie- in stories, each of them introducing a new super hero into what will forge an alliance as THE AVENGERS (projected release date is May 2012). This is a large project for Marvel Comics and its film studio… but I am getting ahead of myself. Originally, director Jon Favreau was chosen to direct, but he opted for the IRONMAN series instead. Johnston, however, was selected for his period films (THE ROCKETEER and OCTOBER SKY) since the premise of the story takes place in 1941. Chris Evans (‘The Flame’ in FANTASTIC FOUR) stars as Steve Rogers, a military reject who will do anything to fight for his country. Recognized for his good ol’ American attitude, Rogers serves as a government guinea pig to produce ‘elite and strong soldiers’ to fight and eventually win World War II. No longer the scrawny Rogers, he is to become and be known as Captain America.

See the exciting trailer for CAPTAIN AMERICA!

BOBA FETT: The Movie???

At present time, it would seem as if Joe Johnston has no future projects in the works. Talks in mid 2011 had him negotiating a possible re-working of the JURASSIC PARK franchise that would take the action out of the island, but it seems as if the story has been shelved. Another rumor is a possible BOBA FETT film, fittingly so considering Johnston’s designs on the STAR WARS character. No official confirmation is available.

JOHNNY CHAZZ: Jer mentions that this week's blog will be a controversial subject to his ‘counterpoint’ partner - me of course. He is right.

Although Joe Johnston is certainly not what we would refer to as a poor director, his career and life-work ("Honey, I Shrunk the Kids"; "Jurassic Park 3", "Jumanji", "The Wolfman", "Captain America" and "The Rocketeer") it is really a challenge to place this director anywhere near the upper echelon of directors today and yesteryear.

"Psst... Hey, JC...bring it, bitch!"

It is fairly easy to make a small list of directors that I feel are vastly overrated. These would likely include, but of course not be limited to the likes of Robert Zemekis, Ed Wood (lol), Tyler Perry, Michael Bay and more. Still, I am sure that there is a flip-side with some of our readers considering my praise of Woody Allen, Stanley Kubrick, Fellini and Godard to be a bit ridiculous.

Now, we must understand that any director is capable of and will eventually make a "flop", but doing it on a consistent basis is hard to do - and it becomes even more difficult to give any acclaim to a director with that kind of track record.

Jer presents us with the career and films of Joe Johnston this week, so let's take a closer look at his filmography and attach 'picture points' to each:

"Honey I Shrunk The Kids" (1989): A family-oriented movie that people seemed to enjoy and was a big hit that year which I found extremely surprising to this day. Rick Moranis is dull and far too much of a goofball to watch and is completely over the top. To add, so many of the effects and sets just look plain fake and cheap. I think you have to be a kid or at least a kid at heart to even begin to accept a movie of this caliber. Pass ~ * Picture Points: 3/10

"The Rocketeer" (1991): This film bombed when it was released and rightfully so, unless you are a hardcore fan of this genre, which I am not. This comic book themed movie has a throw-back feel to it with a cast that was actually fairly decent. My primary concern with the movie was the whole "Nazi" thing that seemed to be extremely overwhelming during the film and especially towards the end. It's not hard, therefore, to see why this movie flat out flopped -and it wasn't just the Nazi thing. What is so bizarre is that the film deals with a time period that likely escapes so many audience members: Classic Hollywood, Al Capone, Howard Hughes and more. Thus, the film seems to work on some levels and is intriguing in parts - especially with the classic feel, but the Sci-Fi aspect of it simply makes it a bit too fantastic......ridiculous that it. **Picture Points: 4.5/10

"Jumanji" (1995): This is perhaps my favorite movie from Joe Johnston. As one of Robin Williams' top performances, this certainly is not - but the movie did hold my interest. To be honest, I actually thought the effects in the film as well as the score were entertaining enough for me to stick around and watch. Believe it or not, I re-watched "Jumanji" the other night and it seems to stand the test of time with its' clever imagination and decent story-line. *** Picture Points: 6/10

The original trailer for JUMANJI!

"Jurassic Park III" (2001): This series simply got worse as it moved along and the original wasn't exactly something to write home about. A decent cast, really, with Laura Dern, Sam Neil and William H.Macy, but “Jurassic Park III” was really bland and what is even more disappointing is that the cast really did not perform that well in the movie. The director must take some blame for that - and he does.

As for the movie itself, we saw the same old action and the same creepy and scary-looking dinosaurs that we were subjected to years prior. Everybody in the movie does the same thing that they did in the original - they run around like animals to try to escape from the island and free themselves from the terror. Simply put, there is nothing original about "Jurassic III" and I have no quarrels about labeling it a complete waste of time. *** Picture Points 3/10.

"The Wolfman" (2010): Here is a movie that everyone raved about prior to its release....and yet - another stark disappointment. Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins were an intriguing pairing here, but were the elements that make a good film there? Once again we plainly see in this movie that both character and plot / story development takes a backseat to special effects and make-up. Additionally, the concept of the Wolfman as a creature never really interested me - so I label the entire concept as boring. How cool it was however that Geraldine Chaplin makes an appearance in the film - but my, oh my, is she in the wrong place......mercy. Remember “Dr. Zhivago”, “Peppermint Frappe” and “Talk to Her”? What was she doing in this film? No clue really. *** Picture Points: 3.5/10

The trailer for THE WOLFMAN- Winner: Best Make-Up Effects!

"Captain America: First Avenger" (2011): I have not seen this movie yet, but something tells me to save the $10. Superhero films are done like burnt toast these days and there is no way that I could be dragged to this thing. To add: is it just me or does the cast look fairly lousy? Who in the world is Chris Evans and why should I even begin to care? It appears to me to be just another comic / pulp movie put together by Johnston, and although there is a bit of "buzz" out there, I am certain that I will not be listening. *** Picture Points: Undetermined, but duly anticipated.

I guess Joe Johnston has made a few dollars and maybe that is what he was after. When you are best known for the films listed above, something is terribly, terribly wrong. His association with Lucas and Spielberg had an obvious impact on the types of films he would go on to make - and that genre has become worn-out. His casting is somewhat respectable, but the focus on storyline and character development is virtually non-existent.

Johnston talks about BOBA FETT & making CAPT. AMERICA!

Jer dubs Johnston as ‘the director who can’. What does that mean? From my perspective, I guess he is the only director who can draw a red-line through his name come awards-night every year. I and so many other film lovers do not want to spend our time watching comic book movies - it is simply insulting. Johnston's movies present themselves at a level far, far below what is required from a quality director. The fact that he has no future projects in the works is in all actuality, a blessing. In sum, it is a far, far reach for me to find any justification as to why we offer any praise here on Cinema: Counterpoint to this director's career…

JER: Once again, JC, the boat has taken off and has left you waiving from the docks! I believe that not ALL films/ movies need to be in- depth or cerebral in order to get through the velvet ropes and make it to the party. There is a wide range of entertainment options…the key word is ‘entertain’, being ¾ of the word. I find that variety makes the world go round… within reason. As openly acceptable as I can be to films stretching the imagination…or tolerability levels to others, there are most definitely movies I would avoid and have a few choice words to share with those responsible for splattering them onto my sacred silver screen.

I think that your ‘Picture Points’ are too critical and laid upon too thick on films that are merely presented as ‘entertainment’ (there’s that word again) prospects and not ever intended as contenders for Academy Award nominations! It may be a word unfamiliar with some, but the key ingredient here is ‘fun’.

Johnston with cast the from THE WOLFMAN premiere

On an earlier phone call during the midst of our topic discussion, you accused me of blatantly selecting topics that would raise your eyebrows… the more recent being my recommendation of THE UNTOUCHABLES and my very- early Oscar predictions that you deemed controversial on the last page discussing our favorite film, THE ARTIST. This, of course, is not true…although, I would love to sprout horns and a pointed tail and wickedly laugh out my reply as, “YES!” I believe that Joe Johnston is a man who has contributed many imaginative offerings and I felt that it was high time that a little love be directed his way.

I have to contradict several statements made by you that were I derived as direct insults. Johnston is not overrated… he is unrecognized, thus the reason I dedicated this page to him. I would also throw any of his films as non- overrated… his films are recognized, but let’s not confuse the two statements. Secondly, your remark about ‘the focus on storyline and character development is virtually non-existent’ when referring to his films is false. If anything, he has been consistent with imaginative storylines with intriguing characters. I would also appreciate the fact that he takes his time selecting his projects then throw himself into something that would favor his technique and abilities.

With that mentioned, let’s let our readers tell it how they see it… what do you think? Is Johnny Chazz right in saying that his films aren’t worth mentioning or do you agree with me and believe that he deserves a little recognition? Comment, comment, comment all you like! We always look forward to them and all will be addressed and replied! Check us out next week as JOHNNY CHAZZ enlightens us with his views of the art with a unique topic… as always, we will SEE YOU NEXT WEDNESDAY!

http://www.youtube.com/user/cinemacounterpoint?feature=mhee

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JOHNNY CHAZZ' TURN: "THE 'ART' OF THE POSSIBLE..."...

2011-11-15T20:57:00.000-08:00

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JOHNNY CHAZZ' TURN: "THE 'ART' OF THE POSSIBLE..."...: JOHNNY CHAZZ : It’s too early for predictions right? Maybe not. With the Academy Awards just a few months away, perhaps it is time t...

JOHNNY CHAZZ' TURN: "THE 'ART' OF THE POSSIBLE..."

2011-11-14T21:36:00.000-08:00

JOHNNY CHAZZ: It’s too early for predictions right? Maybe not.

With the Academy Awards just a few months away, perhaps it is time to take a simple look at a relatively simple film, and one that might be right there in the thick of things on Award night 2012.

Without getting too deep into Academy Award ‘contender’ discussions, I will acknowledge here on Cinema: Counterpoint that the early favorites appear to be “War Horse” (Spielberg’s attempt to please audiences), “The Descendants” (Clooney stars in this emotional rollercoaster and tear-jerker), “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” (I have a feeling Jer will relish this one…..perhaps it’s a Gary Oldman thing – but the film looks quite intriguing) and perhaps even “J. Edgar” (Eastwood and DiCarprio tandem). We will put all that aside for a moment however and throw a film at you this week that could be one of those big surprises that comes in small packages.

For your consideration: Steven Spielberg's WAR HORSE

"The Artist" takes place in Hollywood as films are making that stark transition from silent movies to talkies (sound). Filmed on real locations in Los Angeles (primarily the Hollywood area), director Michel Hazanvicius brought French stars Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo to Los Angeles and mixed-in American stars such as John Goodman, James Cromwell and Penelope Ann Miller. As an added note, by the early 1930s, the ‘talkies’ as we say had become, well – globalized.

What is so intriguing to me is that we must ask ourselves (an American audience that has been sadly numbed by trash films over the past 20 years) “When was the last time any of us actually sat down and watched a silent film”? Well, here is one that may keep you on the edge of your seat and you are virtually guaranteed to enjoy. An open mind and an understanding of where film has been and where it is at now remains paramount however.

Judge for yourself, the trailer for THE ARTIST

Cannes loved the film and “The Artist”, but it was just one of the twenty (20) films shown there. What remains in questions is how is will perform at the Palme d’Or. A win there or at least a gain in momentum could secure its’ place in the Academy Awards in 2012. The just film was released in United States on November 9, 2011.

Dujardin & Bejo as George Valentin and Peppy Miller

The plot in essence focuses on character George Valentin – a silent film star (played by Jean Dujardin who may be best known for “99 Francs” and “Contre-Equette”) in Hollywood during 1927. The drama and potential tragedy occurs when the talkies begin to surface on sound stages which immediately spells trouble for George’s career. On the other hand, enter Peppy Miller (played by Bérénice Bejo), is destined to relish in the fact that the films now have sound and stardom awaits.

The costuming is lavish and highly significant and reflective for this period piece. The men of course are in tux and tails and the pearls and gowns dress the ladies. What is fascinating is that a pit orchestra accompanies the action on screen, but the sound we, as an audience, hear is non-existent since the score is, at times in the film – ‘silent’ as well.

Once confronted with the new trend – movies with sound that is, George simply finds the entire idea ludicrous and impractical. As a reaction, George stays true to his heart and decides that only “true art” and “real story telling” can be accomplished in the silent fashion. Thus, he invests a small fortune into a silent film that is scheduled for opening on Oct 25, 1929.

The films will succeed on three (3) counts. It is a classic Hollywood picture; it is the classic story of one man struggling with his career and his ego due to an advent in society; and it is a strong commentary on the media then and even today. If there was a fourth reason for this film to make noise at the Academy Awards next year, it is the unique concept of the film that remains its’ major strength.

“The Artist” is a fairly low-budget film – and extremely low-budget compared to the likes of American Cinema today. Yet, less is more – especially with the minds of the European influence, the concepts, the formidable dialogue and the overall passion and flair. “The Artist” appears both entertaining and rich – and in that sense, it is highly original. The score is also quite entertaining, but a wonderful complement to the film – and it better be since this is really the only sound that we hear. It is charming, witty, vibrant and clever – a true throwback to the Gershwin sounds of the 1920’s and 1930’s. Still, the score is intended to be dark reflecting the melodramatic feel of the film. It is just sensational.

Penelope Ann Miller

Thus, “The Artist” is not only a major contender, but my early choice to take home the top prize at the 2012 Academy Awards. ‘Tis true that foreign-language pictures are at a disadvantage over what audiences are comfortable with here in the States (i.e.: "War Horse" and "J. Edgar"), but “The Artist” has such a unique quality and aura while maintaining a melodramatic feel and timely hints of “surrealism” – that very feeling that always seems to surround silent films. Additionally, the score as well as the inter-titles make the film so charming and reflective of the ‘Roaring Twenties’. The International cast is also a major asset and this very blend of the two promises to lend richness and vivacity to “The Artist”.

If audiences open their mind a bit and let their guard down, they are likely to be pulled into this film while drawn to the overall charm of “The Artist” portrayed in each and every scene. Being well-received at Cannes, this could also be enough to relay to American audiences that they had better take a serious look at the most unique film of 2011.

Now, I eagerly await Jer’s response to perhaps the most intriguing of films audiences will experience in the 2011 season.

JER: Here is where it begins. Dare I mention the possibilities of Martin Scorsese’s adventure/ family 3D extravaganza HUGO being nominated? If the Academy goes another year with bloating the Best Picture ballots to 10 nominations again, there is a likelihood it may fall into an empty slot, but it looks to be a strong contender for some technical nods for sure. Could HUGO be this year’s AVATAR? At a recent sneak preview screening at the Director’s Guild in Los Angeles, director James Cameron announced HUGO to be the best 3D feature film he had ever seen. However, in following AVATAR’s footsteps…could this also mean that it may be the dark horse in the potential race to the Oscars? Also, could Scorsese possibly see a second nomination for Best Documentary Feature for GEORGE HARRISON: LIVING IN A MATERIAL WORLD to which he served as director and producer of the project? Chances look highly likely, reflecting on his track record and consistent recognition from the Academy for his efforts. The feature focuses on the life, love and spiritual mantra of the ‘silent’ Beatle through a series of interviews with family and friends and archived photographs and various clips.

A double Scorsese feature- Enjoy them both

I will also touch on J. EDGAR; the Clint Eastwood directed drama about the man who would become the Director of the FBI. I must say that I have started to warm- up to Leonardo DiCaprio over the years and he actually looks great as J. Edgar Hoover. The film takes you through a time span of Hoover’s life, including the alleged ‘closet’ homosexual double- life he kept away from the public. Let’s talk possible nods here… the screenplay is by Dustin Lance Black who won a Best Screenplay award for 2008’s MILK starring Sean Penn. Chances are that Black might receive another nomination, however, early previews are showing signs of a lackluster screenplay. Eastwood and DiCaprio are possible shoe- in’s for their respectable categories of Director and Actor. Of course we should also be looking at a Best Picture nod as well. While I am playing ‘Fantasy Academy Awards’, let me bring up some other wishful thoughts… Oscars, are you listening? Here I go…

Best Supporting Actor: Alan Rickman for HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PT II. The subject of ‘supporting’ has always given more slack when it has come to nominations and actual wins. In less serious roles, actors as Cuba Gooding Jr, Kevin Kline, Geena Davis and Marisa Tomei have all walked away with the golden statuette. As Professor Severus Snape, Rickman portrayed the role of a martyr for a cause that would end catastrophically. This final act should get some attention but Rickman should be a must. Is it a far stretch to go by way of a Best Picture nom? I can only imagine what JC would say in reaction to this comment, but let us not forget LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING receiving a vote but also winning Best Picture in 2004.

Best Picture: Thus far I could dream big and place Spielberg’s WAR HORSE, Scorsese’s HUGO, Eastwood’s J. EDGAR and THE ARTIST would be the ‘best bets’ for potential nominations. Minor considerations might include Roland Emmerich’s controversial tale about William Shakespeare’s writings in ANONYMOUS and an even slimmer chance for a nom would be HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PT II and possibly REEL STEEL. . Seven openings filled with three more to go… wait a minute, you don’t think Generation Zero would consider 50/50? I mean, if JUNO meant something to anyone back in 2007...

Clint Eastwood's latest feature: J. EDGAR

Alright, back to the main topic in hand. The main focus is on a little- known film that caught my eye somewhere in the early part of October 2011. I came across an intriguing trailer that I might have normally bypassed if it weren’t for the fact that it took place in the ‘Golden Age’ of yesteryear Hollywood. Our attention is turned towards THE ARTIST.

John Goodman

In today’s vast and highly technological world of the early 21^st century, we have seen the introduction to the digital world, high definition television, blu- rays, GPS, smart phones, I-pods and I-pads…just to name a few of the toys our grandparents only read about in science fiction novels. So then, how is it that a blatant black- and- white, silent, foreign film squeaks its way to get some recognition and still cause pre- nom talk?

I give strong kudos to JOHNNY CHAZZ for haven beaten me to the punch and spread a little more publicity to a movie that sparkles and shines, if ever so briefly, during its 2- minute trailer. You will not read a ‘counterpoint’ objective on my part to what has been already written by JC. I am looking forward to seeing this film ever since I previewed the trailer.

Director Michael Hazanavicius

After reviewing the trailer, the film speaks volumes with the irony being that it is a silent picture. Director Michael Hazanavicius is believed to have always wanted to direct a black and white silent film but couldn’t find any studios willing to finance or release that type of film in this day and age. The success of two of his native French films, the OSS 117 series (reminiscent of the James Bond films) allowed him to call the shots on his project and do it as he wanted to. As JC had previously mentioned, it is a foreign film first and foremost. It was made on Euro- dollars and produced by French companies starring French actors in the protagonist and antagonist’s roles. Yet, it was shot in and around Los Angeles and Hollywood USA and has a supporting cast of American actors like John Goodman, James Cromwell and Penelope Ann Miller.

THE ARTIST had its premiere in France on May 15, 2011 during the Cannes Film Festival. It was nominated for two awards including the Palme d’Or Award and won Best Actor (Jean Dujardin).

JOHNNY CHAZZ: Ok - it looks as though we do share interest in the upcoming film "The Artist". Yet, how - and I am still wondering...well, how did "Hugo" and "Harry Potter" even begin to get into the mix of the blog this week? Additionally, DiCaprio is such a "tired" subject and every year we have to endure his films over and over whilst the general public makes it a front-runner to win it all.

It really comes down to this for me these days: If I have to bear through another movie trailer dealing with vampires, the Harry Potters of this world or Leonardo DiCaprio, I am literally - and I mean LITERALLY going to cash in my chips and avoid the cinema all-together. It is completely meaningless and exhausting - and it goes on and on and on........it is just wretched.

Theater front from THE ARTIST

"The Artist" is a little-known film as you mentioned Jer simply due to the fact that American audiences just are not ready for this type of film or subject matter. The very fact that it is little-known speaks volumes and volumes. American audiences are lost - lost in a haze of Deathly Hallows, Vampires, DiCaprios, and Hugoland - how sad.....how incredibly feeble.

A film (whoops - a movie / cartoon) such as "Hugo" has little chance of winning Best Picture. "The Artist" as discussed in detail this week will absolutely tower over this film in virtually every single category. Also, come awards night, "Harry Potter" has an even slimmer to zero chance of winning the top prize. As a matter of fact, it really has no business being nominated in the top-10. Why in the world are we even discussing these two movies?

Realistic long shots to win at this point may include the up and coming "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" (deals with a real issue such as 9/11); "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy."; or even "The Ides of March"(a tremendous cast and a hot issue). Now those are quality films that actually have a shot at winning next year. Realistic front runners remain "The Descendants"; "The Artist" and "'War Horse".

So, let's stop kidding ourselves, and let's also quit playing around. The best films deal with real people with real problems; real drama; real dialogue, and real issues. This is what cinema is about, and this is precisely what it takes to win Best Picture. Nothing will change this year - - -

JER: Normally, I would close the topic by the ending statements made by the person who begins it…however, I will not keep my mouth shut without firing off a few rounds! Now, let me now ‘counterpoint’ some statements made by my associate and partner in cinema crime!

I must admit that this blog topic was going to primarily shed light towards THE ARTIST and it took it as a vehicle to bring up Oscar predictions as well... that was my fault entirely... however...

Hmmm, could it be? NAH!

My remarks about what are MY thoughts and mine alone came from comments you actually began when introducing possible films taking position for the Oscar race. As you were allowed the chance to chime- in your opinions…so am I. Mere mentions of my first- run thoughts such as HUGO or HARRY POTTER are my guesstimated predictions. I hold no crystal ball or Ouija board as to what will ultimately fill the emptied ten slots for Best Picture… so I will be allowed my guesses until I get to actually view these films for myself.

Another point needing clarification is that I do not hold THE ARTIST any less a film nor do I give grandiose implications to either HUGO or HARRY POTTER… where did you get vampires from? Are we anticipating TWILIGHT: BREAKING DAWN a little too much? You know how I feel about that tripe myself!

Taking a look back at what has historically won Best Picture throughout the years… I don’t know if I can go with your statement of “…real drama…is precisely what it takes to win Best Picture”. Can you argue your views on such films as AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS, TOM JONES, THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH or YOU CAN’T TAKE IT WITH YOU as “real people with real problems; real drama; real dialogue and real issues”? I am not apposed to these films, just using them as contradictions to your statements.

The point of the matter is that the views of film and cinema are like those opinions on politics and religion… everyone has their own thoughts and one can talk until their eyes bleed out to their standpoints! One view that I am sure everyone can agree with is that great film and cinema is what one thinks is great film and cinema. I can argue about TWILIGHT and movies by Tyler Perry but there is a fan base for them as well… all we can do, the lovers of quality films, is remain true to the art and not give the high- signal to the power-s that- be to make movies like PORKY’S 9 or THE LOST BOYS 2 1/2 : THE SMELL OF FEAR! Oh, as a final closing thought, let us remain factual to one last true statement…as the scene comes to a close… one last glimpse left as we fade to black… JC, HUGO is not a &%$@ cartoon! Put that in your pipe and smoke it! LOL and Hahaha...

So, after taking the kettle off the stove and letting the steam out…we want your opinions and comments on either THE ARTIST or other films we have talked about. What about your views on cinema or the race to the Academy Awards? We look forward to your words and keep the age open to our audience! Keep it right here as I take my turn at the jukebox and drop a quarter to play my tune…SEE YOU NEXT WEDNESDAY!

http://www.youtube.com/user/cinemacounterpoint?feature=mhee

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JER'S TURN: FILM RECOMMEDATION OF THE WEEK- THE UN...

2011-11-09T07:55:00.000-08:00

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JER'S TURN: FILM RECOMMEDATION OF THE WEEK- THE UN...: JER : June 3, 1987… continued impressions and enthusiasm for better cinema was a thriving hunger that could never be satisfied. Graduat...

JER'S TURN: FILM RECOMMEDATION OF THE WEEK- THE UNTOUCHABLES

2011-11-07T23:48:00.000-08:00

JER: June 3, 1987… continued impressions and enthusiasm for better cinema was a thriving hunger that could never be satisfied. Graduation from high school was days away and a dream to direct film was still a nervous wish. Movie trailers and opening film dates in theaters acted- out like the night before Christmas… I waited impatiently for the opening of new films and weekends were planned by showtimes. Love and continued respect for a long list of directors kept growing and growing. Every day was another opportunity to learn more from the likes of Coppola, Scorsese, Spielberg, Kubrick, Scott and Brian DePalma.

Director Brian DePalma

Brian DePalma had already established himself as a recognized director, although, some would argue if he has the respect that he deserves. With earlier films like CARRIE, DRESSED TO KILL and BLOW OUT… his filmography was criticized for reading like a list of over- produced B- movies mixed with cliché Alfred Hitchcock storylines and suspense ploys. This opinion was of some but not of mine. He would begin to mature as a film director when he surprised audiences and critics alike with his attempt to try something that would take him to the next level of his craft…the year was 1983, the film was SCARFACE! Starring A- Listers Al Pacino and Michelle Pfeiffer and written by Oliver Stone, DePalma would take a gamble in the re-telling of the original Howard Hawks 1932 mob film by updating the storyline to 1980 Florida and involve the Cuban deployment of refugees into America. Oh yeah… let’s not forget the excessive use of drugs, violence and language to boot!

Fast forward to June 3, 1987: audiences and critics would waiting for DePalma’s next big film… could lightning strike twice? How about “yes” for an answer and how about a bigger lightning storm than the last. The date in question would release THE UNTOUCHABLES.

The original 1987 trailer

Martin Smith, Kostner, Connery & Garcia

STORY SYNOPSIS: It is 1920’s prohibition Chicago and Al Capone (Robert DeNiro) controls the streets. At the same time, newly promoted Federal agent to the Treasury department Elliot Ness (Kevin Costner) is assembling a group of men who will not take a bribe, thus ‘untouchable” to slipping onto the wrong side of the law. Learning that he cannot trust his own department, Ness takes it upon himself to outside the available pool of men and begins to build his own personal force. Along the way, he gathers a rookie officer fresh out of the Academy (Andy Garcia) and an accountant (Charles Martin Smith) while under the mentoring ‘streetwise’ expertise of an old beat cop that walks the streets of Chicago (Sean Connery). As the agents are hot on the heals of Capone, there are back- stabbers and crooked politicians doing everything to sidetrack the ‘good’ being down by the new squad.

Robert DeNiro as Al Capone

CHARACTER OVERVIEW: The overall take of the film’s feel is that no one is safe! That rule is established early in the film when a child is a murdered victim in a bar’s establishment bombing caused simply for not wanting to partake in Capone’s liquor vending. The bad guys are ruthless and Capone is an unstoppable force. He has two sides to himself: he has that ability to coyly smug for the reporters and act as if he is the Mayor of Chicago. He has a dry delivery in his humor with a rough Brooklyn accent… reminding all what streets he calls home. The flip side emulates the true businessman he has used to abandon the slums of New York with. He will claim what he wants and take anything he pleases and puts the price he wants on the things you buy from him. DeNiro’s portrayal of Al Capone is brilliant. DePalma actually teases us with Capone, using a ‘less is more’ technique by only allowing the audience brief encounters of his screen time. His presence is known and felt as a sort of puppetmaster that controls his henchmen to do his dirty deeds. He would never dare allow his hands to get dirty when someone else can do it for you! His appearance is stocky, as DeNiro gained weight for the role. He is a prime example of a Chicago mob boss. He has the cigar dangling off the side of his mouth, the pushy talk and the relentless attitude that he will prevail.

Kevin Costner as Elliot Ness

The film’s “untouchables” are ones to root for. A sense of ignorant innocence establishes Kevin Costner’s portrayal of Ness from the beginning. He is a devoted husband and father who just wants to be proud of what he does. His idea of justice is by the book and becomes a task much greater than expected. He is given the disposal of Chicago’s police force to aid in his first attempt at cleaning the streets based off an alleged reliable tip. When the raid becomes an embarrassing failure, Ness takes it as a lesson to learn from. Instead of crawling back from his shame, Ness cuts out the newspaper clipping and posts it on his office corkboard… serving as a harsh reminder that he will do right the next time. Costner may play Ness with a sense of blandness, compared to his previous bit as the two- gunned 'loose cannon' role of Jake in SILVERADO (1985). But I believe that adds a level of innocence... we do see Ness grow from unaware to insightful throughout the course of the film.

(left) Sean Connery as Jimmy Malone

Riddled by his failures, an unexpected run- in with Officer Malone (Connery) sets him right and informs Ness that he must literally fight fire with fire and possibly break certain rules to uphold the rules he was sworn to protect! The audience gets to see a different man grow from the changes in his life beginning with minor victories favoring his unit. Ness grows darker still as he is challenged and his work becomes more personal… threats against his family’s safety and the mortality of his men are tested. No longer can he be so squeaky clean… he almost needs to think with a criminal mind in order to survive the concrete jungles created by Capone. The rules have changed!

The Untouchables aided by the Canadian Mounties

TECHNICAL ASPECTS: Cinematographer Stephen Burum would have a career history with director Brian DePalma. Previous to UNTOUCHABLES, Burum would lens the cameras for BODY DOUBLE (1984) and then do future work with films CASULATIES OF WAR (1989), RAISING CAIN (1992), CARLITO’S WAY (1993), MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE (1996), SNAKE EYES (1998) and MISSION TO MARS (2000). Many wonderful photographic opportunities were bestowed in shooting this film. The film opens with a wonderful overhead shot of Capone sitting in a chair having a shave while a few men of the press ask questions. Other views begin with capturing the streets of Chicago: daylight shots are very crisp and colors are vibrant and sharp. Nighttime brings a casting- over of blue lighting against outside walls and streets. Towards the middle of the film, we are introduced to a sequence occurring at the borders of Canada: DePalma calls UNTOUCHABLES a western, not an action film. The scenes definitely defines the director’s views as we open with a great crane shot of the Canadian hills on a wide- open plain. A pan upwards reveals the men and the Mounties on horseback overseeing the bordering bridges that Capone’s men must pass with the smuggled liquor. A gorgeous opportunity is presented in the cinematography within these scenes. However, nothing can top two great moments caught on film.

Frank Nitti rides with George and Agent Wallace

One has accountant Oscar Wallace (Charles Martin Smith) escorting captured henchman George with an accompanied police officer… turns out it’s Capone’s right-hand executor Frank Nitti (Billy Drago) in disguise as the elevator doors close, already guessing the fate of the two unsuspecting men. Walking into the scene with great timing is both Ness and Malone walking up the hallways discussing the birth of Ness’ son. The camera shot is one continuous scene showing the men entering the elevators and then panning over to the others coming up the hall without an edit to another scene for quite some time… capturing a continued sense of tension and growing concern for the innocent.

The second is what I personally consider to be one of the best sequences ever shot on film involving a continually growing intense moment occurring within the Union Station towards the latter half of the film. The set piece is actually pays homage to the Odessa Steps sequence in the silent classic BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN (1925). Capone’s accountant is accompanied by an entourage of henchmen taking a train to safety away from the law… however, a tipped- off Ness and fellow cop George Stone (Andy Garcia) are already there. Also at the station are a cavalcade of people arriving and leaving including a few sailors and a single mother carrying her luggage in one hand and pushing a baby’s carriage up the long flight of stairs. Timing is literally everything as Ness, Stone, the accountant, the henchmen, a few sailors and our unsuspecting mother are all caught in a heart-pounding, slow- motion sequence of peril and suspense as shots are fired in all directions: ever- guessing where the next bullet will land! Again, fine work brought forth by Burum: classic and contemporary at the same time, if that makes any sense at all!

The Union Station shoot-out!

Composer Ennio Morricone

Another key ingredient to the film is the Academy Award nominated soundtrack written and conducted by Ennio Morricone. Even though he didn’t win Best Original Score in 1987 for THE UNTOUCHABLES, Morricone received an Honorary Academy Award in recognition or his contributions to the art of music in film. His soundtracks include memorable scores including A FIST FULL OF DOLLARS (1964), THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY (1966), ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST (1968), LA CAGE AUX FOLLES (1978), THE THING (1982), CINEMA PARADISO (1988) and BUGSY (1991) just to name a select few. A man able to construct music using smaller orchestrations, THE UNTOUCHABLES proved to be an achievement in music using a larger, more expanded orchestra utilizing more classic instruments including woodwinds and strings to more contemporary devices such as a well devised drum machine for the film’s introduction theme. As has been the key instrument in more classical “spaghetti westerns” scored for Sergio Leone films, Morricone has a revisiting harmonica manifesting throughout the entire film’s score. A sad and low playing harmonica, similar to the occurring notes used in the theme for Charles Bronson’s character in ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST. The orchestra is best utilized in a wonderful, stand-up-and-cheer musical piece used in the introduction of the Canadian sequence and again the closing theme of the film.

The piece can be heard accompanying the following scene!

Overall, the film is a masterfully designed contemporary classic that should not be taken for historical accuracies, as it is solely based on Ness’ memoirs while pursuing Capone.

A definite highlight in what was an already marvelous film career for director Brian DePalma proving that his talents would not be pigeon- held into the gems of his thriller/ suspense films that he best be remembered for.

JOHNNY CHAZZ: 1987 was an intriguing year for movies including the likes of "The Last Emperor", "Moonstruck", the underrated yet wonderful "Au evoir Les Enfants" from France "Babette's Feast", "Full Metal Jacket" and of course...."The Untouchables", a film we are discussing this week.

From the outset of the film ("The Untouchables"), audiences are confronted with a mob situation in Chicago primarily due to the effects of prohibition sparking organized crime and prostitution activity not just in Chi-town, but Nation-wide. Meanwhile, Chicago police were turning a blind eye to these irregular and questionable activities. Still, this was the method for the mob to build their new empire.

It is perhaps the plot of the film and the narrative that primarily drives us that keeps our interest complemented with an honest and pertinent musical score that heightens at every climactic moment of the film. The train station shoot-out scene probably stands out as a real highlight in the film as far as action, suspense and score are concerned. Thus, these elements in conjunction are what make "The Untouchables" work on at least some level as a crime / mob / dramatic film.

Costner with DePalma

It's not "The Godfather" or "Once Upon a Time In America" nor even "Casino" or "Scarface", but perhaps this film is on par with the likes of "Donnie Brasco" or "Goodfellas" (a film I always considered to be vastly overrated). Still, DePalma's style is apparent in "The Untouchables" as he once again faces dark themes head-on and as Jer said - it was a "definite highlight" in a tremendous career for the director. Perhaps that is what DePalma has always done so well - give the audience a contrast between the sweet life and the violent aspects of the mob / gangster world. His films are a play on juxtapositions in theme, sound, color, costume (the gangster's Armani suits), sets (the red carpets and lush interiors) and more - and in some ways, it works.

It's become a bit of a cliché, but you really can't go wrong with DeNiro in a film unless of course you try to "Analyze this and that....." - Ok, bad humor there. Still, the truth surfaces in jest. Infamous gangster and Chicago boss Al Capone is played by Robert DeNiro who oversees the operations and dealings of the speakeasies, the bars, the backroom casino gambling, and the prostitution. You stand in his way and it is really quite simple - you get gunned down on the spot.

There are concerns with the film however. Kevin Costner seems to receive a strong reputation for everything he does and in the majority of his films he seems to offer a lackluster and robotic / passionless performance. Sean Connery was a plus however and Andy Garcia also lent solid support to the casting.

Capone gets a shave in the opening scene

Hollywood and DePalma pretty much changed history here. The true facts of what Al Capone was all about and the world around him were skewed in "The Untouchables". Capone always boasted ‘I own the Police’ and the film needed to play more off of that philosophy. He was the real and true ‘Scarface’ of his time and very few of the characters in the films really felt like true "racketeers" to me. Another shortcoming of the movie is that Al Capone and his associates really only play a relatively minor role in the film and for some reason Hollywood and DePalma only choose to focus on the four law enforcement men - and frankly speaking, that is boring. Capone's role was, in essence - underdeveloped in the film and that is a crying shame.

The screenplay also has issues of its own. It seemed dummied down for audiences thru and thru and compared to the likes of "Casino" or "Once Upon A Time In America" and "The Godfather" it simply falls short.

Television's THE UNTOUCHABLES

In sum, "The Untouchables" is watchable, but only classifies as a decent mob film. For those who really understand mob history (I do classify myself in that realm) - the original television series "The Untouchables" in 1959-1963 on ABC was so much more realistic and impressive. It was the Great Depression that was focused on and what anyone would do to sell, cheat and lie their way through it.

The vast majority of movie lovers and even some critics feel that this is DePalma's masterpiece in comparison to the likes of "Scarface" and perhaps "Body Double". So I am going to nutshell this for our readers and see what their take is: "The Untouchables" was nice for the time period, but the 80's really had little to offer in the way of outstanding films. As a mob film, it is marginal - and the only parts that really stand out to me are, well - once again, the score and the sets / costume design. It seems as if it had been years since Hollywood had seen a mob-film and especially a period piece that surfaced during the 80's when films were primarily focused on the sci-fi and action genre. It is the harsh truth, but some of us film critics could easily have disposed of the 80's all-together and nothing would go amiss.

'Hey, JC: you're alotta talk and a badge!'

It is not a stretch to say that many of us could list at least five (5) or six (6) gangster / mob films before "The Untouchables" was even up for discussion. This is not a powerhouse film, and there are holes in specific point of the film - primarily in the dialogue, periodic dull performances, and an account of the life of Al Capone that was created by Hollywood for Hollywood. Where is the passion? Where is the sensuality and focus of the film? Al Capone's final words in the final scene are quoted as: "You're nothing but a lot of talk, and a badge." Perhaps that is the way I view the "The Untouchables" as a film - a lot of talk, and no chalk. There is little merit here, and in now way can it be included with the likes of the great mob and gangster films that have spoiled audiences over the years. "The Untouchables" simply does not measure up to what we have seen before 1987 and after. *** PICTURE POINTS: 6.5/10.

JER: I am a bit, no, overly surprised with your take on this film. Not only did you take an upper jab on what is an absolute favorite film of mine but you also kicked me in the groan with your comment about the films of the 80’s in general!

Screenwriter David Mamet

To begin with, I think you are understating this film by large degrees. I do not understand what is meant by the comment of “dummied down” ...meaning that the audience could only comprehend a film of this caliber by having the author (in this case Playwright virtuoso David Mamet) keep the language to a lower- grade so that general audiences could get the dialog and make it easy to follow? I think it was a smartly written screenplay and the dialog plays very realistically with its protagonists and antagonists alike. The words may seem a little ‘operatic’ or play- like but I think that it works for the era that our story takes place. Human language and tones used to communicate change at almost every decade and we most definitely speak and communicate far differently then they did in Chicago back in the 1920’s!

I think that THE UNTOUCHABLES plays fairly to what the film is supposed to be portraying…after all, the title is a reference to the men who cannot be bribed and after Capone and likes of…it isn’t titled CAPONE or MOB BOSS. We cannot expect the film to be taken- over by the baddies as it focuses on the good being done and the temptations along the way. I think director DePalma played the appearance of DeNiro’s role carefully by not overdoing it and showing too much. The timing was right and should be left alone, not a minute more!

Andy Garcia as George Stone

Could it be very Hollywood to take the story of actual events and make it more than what it really is and take liberties in its storytelling? Yes… alright, I will give you that. It tells, however, the tale well and the ‘spirit’ of the thrill and the pursuit is never exhausted…rather heightened to give an audience more to feel and be a part of. Is exaggerating or embellishing the truth a necessary evil to draw audiences into the scope or feel of things to make them truly understand the plights of true events? When is it considered a line drawn or crossed… meaning, too much is simply too much? In the case of THE UNTOUCHABLES, although historical, it isn’t a historical recounting that all Americans know like the first man on the moon or the assassination of JFK.

Shot as seen: Chicago!

Going back to the fact that it was made in the 80’s (1987 be to exact) doesn’t phase the film negatively for me. I couldn’t or wish for it to have been made 10 years earlier or later… it was made prior to the days of the dreaded CGI, meaning, the film was shot on location throughout the greater areas of Chicago for authenticity. DePalma was on the top of his game and was ready for this! He proved to be a wise and perfect director for this project. It has been known that DePalma understands his limits. He actually passed- on the project of TAXI DRIVER to Martin Scorsese simply because he felt he was the better director for the project. That shows much integrity as far as I am concerned.

JC, once again, I feel that you are in the minority on this one. What are you honestly expecting? Bare in mind that you have often times expect too much and I am wondering if that isn’t the case again with the topic at hand. The talk is talked and the walk was definitely walked! Taking a quote from Connery’s Malone character, “So endith the lesson."

JOHNNY CHAZZ: Let's remember that it is the "film" that I am concerned with and upper jabs and groin kicks are certainly not intentions of mine. I think your comment about Hollywood taking liberties with the storytelling is just a part of the whole concern with this movie. True, a film like "Casino" was 90% accurate (and maybe more) and that was what gave it such merit and value - and you will probably find that there are more "Casino" lovers out there in the film world than "Untouchables" fans.

Now, this is not a battle between "Casino" and "Untouchables", but I do expect (taking a look at your last paragraph) a better script, a primary focus on the mobsters themselves (not the agents) and a historical account that is true and, for the most part - accurate. It also seems as if DePalma is more concerned about who is starring in his film and giving them ultra-camera time instead of focusing on the real story at hand - that disturbs me and detracts from my interest in the film.

Additionally, it is not the fact that "The Untouchables" was made in the 1980's that lessened the rating of the movie for me. It is simply the idea that we have seen far superior mob-genre films prior to this and even after this time period. This is the case for most of the films in the 1980's and to prove the point, simply one look at AFI's top 100 films of all time (not that we should consider that gospel....but it is a strong reference) it is hard to find any film in the 80's in the upper-half of that list as most films fall in the 1940's-1970's. This does not even include foreign films which would likely topple this list by a landslide.

As for DePalma passing on the "Taxi Driver" project, well - let's be thankful for that or the film would have probably been set in Chicago and casted Sissy Spacek in the role of Iris (Jody Foster's role).....mercy.

Director Brian DePalma

Was DePalma really that strong as a director? If so, what was his true message? I'm still not sure. Since 1993 we have seen nothing from this director ("Black Dahlia" and "Redacted") were both a disaster and a complete embarrassment and some of his films from prior decades were also forgetful - "Get to Know Your Rabbit?"; "Mission to Mars?"; "Bonfire of the Vanities?", "Casualties of War?" - Yikes. I could probably name 10 films on this director's list that could never make the cut. That is a miserable track record.

Maybe "Scarface", "Blow Out" and "The Untouchables" were his best work, but if that is all that we see in a career from this director, we can look elsewhere - and well, I do. None of these films were really outstanding and each would be lucky to surpass a 7/10 rating on my list.

Yes, I am critical - and that is done for the sole purpose of our fans who consider themselves both shrewd and discriminating (used in the proper sense of course). They deserve to know the good, the bad and the ugly. Still, I strongly believe that the value of what we offer here in Cinema: Counterpoint is two (2) perspectives that both make valid points in respect to "The Untouchables". So now, I guess we leave it to our readers to see what their thoughts are regarding this week's topic: "The Untouchables" (1987).

JER: To cap this off… if Director DePalma’s concern was “on- screen” time for his actors, then half the film would have been about Robert DeNiro and the other half about Sean Connery, since they were the two biggest names in the film. Connery is a supporting character as well as DeNiro.

Watch a memorable DeNiro moment as Capone

I also think it was a low- blow to bring up the ‘disastrous’ films DePalma has directed. The topic at hand is THE UNTOUCHABLES and nothing more. If so be the case, I would say that every film director has had a ‘miss’ or ‘disaster’…some more than others. Some will argue that Brian DePalma is more of a director than you are giving him credit for and I may decide to pay my respects to him and his works on CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT some day soon. I cannot wait to see what that will stir up!

Until our “Thrilla In Manila” arrives, I will say that we always have a high respect for our individual comments and we know we can duke it out right here! We definitely look forward to your comments and thoughts… what do you think? Please chime in! Keep it locked- in when JOHNNY CHAZZ takes a turn on the cinema speedway..as always, we will SEE YOU NEXT WEDNESDAY!

http://www.youtube.com/user/cinemacounterpoint?feature=mhee

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JOHNNY CHAZZ' TURN: COMMON "CASABLANCA"

2011-11-02T00:51:00.000-07:00

CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT: JOHNNY CHAZZ' TURN: COMMON "CASABLANCA": JOHNNY CHAZZ : It is amazing how often the film “ Casablanca ” is brought up in casual or even serious film conversation over the year...

JOHNNY CHAZZ' TURN: COMMON "CASABLANCA"

2011-11-02T00:29:00.000-07:00

JOHNNY CHAZZ: It is amazing how often the film “Casablanca” is brought up in casual or even serious film conversation over the years. To so many film-goers, “Casablanca” rates high on their list and more often than not in their top-3 of all time. The fact is that there is very little offered in the film in terms of cinematic, performance and technical greatness that allow it (in this critic’s opinion) to reach a top-100 list. Thus, the purpose of this week’s blog is not to destroy this great American film, but rather to try to put the film in perspective for what it really is.

Perhaps it is the idea that the film is simply in black and white. Perhaps it offers a glance into another world – a romantic and exotic one. Or, quite possibly it is the very fact that the film has become such a cliché that people simply slot it into their top-three list as a default. This is quite sad.

At its very essence, “Casablanca” always seemed, to me, to be lacking all the goodies that such great classic films (not only black and white) do. Prime examples might include films such as “Tokyo Story”, “Citizen Kane”, “8 ½”, “La Dolce Vita” and even the tremendous classic “Seven Samurai”. Performances in all of those films have real depth. To add, the storyline has not only substance, but real dimension as well as sub-plots. The screenplays are magnificent and take us through a journey that is not only realistic, but unpredictable.

I recall my grandfather and I sitting down one Sunday afternoon in 1989 to watch this movie and it was probably the second time I had seen it at that point. For him it was simply a trip to the past – a walk down memory lane re-visiting a film that once was. Perhaps that is exactly what defines this film: a nostalgic piece with touches of romance. What exactly is with this love affair with “Casablanca?”

Enjoy the original 1942 trailer

There are very few dramatic effects. The dialogue is plain and sappy and almost borderlines on juvenile. The sets are marginal and uninteresting – and they look like sets. The film just does not offer enough for this critic.

Come on down and visit the Cafe American!

“Casablanca” is really no better and simultaneously no much worse than any other film. In respect to many of the films we love and adore here on CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT, there really is no comparison and it simply does not live up to expectations or the hype. As I continue to impress over and over on COUNTERPOINT, the “screenplay” is 75% of a film’s success in terms of greatness and that percentage may be on the low-side. Great films have great writing – and it is really that simple. Take a look at the classic “Sunset Boulevard” which offers us a main character of a screenplay writer. Any job title could have been used to define the greatness and the potential downfall of American Cinema and the screenwriter was the tool of choice….brilliant!

The bottom line is that “Casablanca” simply does what any other marginal film does with the narrative. It is plot focused and remains linear through and through. This defines ‘dull’ and lacks creativity. Audiences want and crave more – so give it to them. “Casablanca” does not – and never will. Amongst them the fact that it is melodrama- driven by plot, not by character development. The characters simply react to everything that is said and their motivation is only a function of the last spoken. The film is a classic version of the domino effect shot in black and white.

Is the fact that the film takes place during wartime make it so terrific? If that is the case, then we must immediately turn our heads to the great war films of all time – and that list could be quite long beginning with the likes of “Gone With The Wind” (a better romance set in war time), “All Quiet on The Western Front” then moving to “Paths of Glory” (Kubrick), Coppola’s “Apocalypse Now” and even “Platoon” or “The Deer Hunter”. These films are not plot driven – it is the motivation of the characters and the world around them that drives the plot. So, what really is the plot in “Casablanca?” What is the point of the film?

There are countless flaws with the film, and the film only deserves this type of critique as it remains very “average” on this critic’s rating scale. I could list 300 films that could take the place of this one on an all-time list and I bet that our reading audience could do the same.

Dooley Wilson as Sam

“Casablanca” remains somewhat entertaining and is fun to visit from time to time and most of that is due to the notoriety that the film has received over the years. Perhaps the title track ‘As Time Goes By’ is the only area of the film that offers intrigue and a true memory. Still, this critic views the film “Casablanca” lacking originality, true purpose and vision. It has little effect on a shrewd and discriminating audience, and offers almost little in terms of personal growth and both artistic and cinematic value. Bogart and Bergman’s performances are also no better than what we have seen in their other films, and quite possibly worse. How often do we here the meaningless and juvenile line “Here’s looking at you, kid” in the film? It remains tiring and uninspiring.

Judge for yourselves CINEMA: COUNTERPOINT fans. I leave this portion now with my counterpart Jer and eagerly anticipate his reply.

JER: There is a lot to be said in the span of a few short paragraphs, J.C., but let me see if I can address each of the concerns and topics brought up.

To begin with, I am not a huge fan of CASABLANCA, but I have enjoyed it in the past and I could see myself watching it again very soon after I am done typing this up! I have come to respect the film for what it is over the years and that is what I am going to base my overviews on. For the reader, let me inform you of spoilers about the film, including the ending…proceed with caution…

Humphrey Bogart as Rick Blaine

The year is 1942 and the world is at war. The film takes place during the early part of the war in an unoccupied part of Africa. We are introduced to Rick Blaine (an immortalized role for actor Humphrey Bogart) who owns the hottest nightclub in Casablanca. The film, in my opinion, was an escape for war- occupied Americans having to deal with the harsh realities of the truth happening in their lives. Like many Americans in present day 2011, many had loved ones involved in the war during that time. To imagine a place that the Nazis had not taken over or stepped foot onto was a place of Zen.

The bubble is all too soon left to pop as Nazi Major Strasser steps into this little part of the world with his own suspicions. Underground Czech leader Victor Laszlo is detained by Strasser, when Rick discovers a passenger riding with Laszlo…his one- time love, Ilsa Lund (Ingrid Bergman). Rick is left to deal with many emotional thoughts, since she had left him in Paris… only to find out later that she had good reason to.

Paul Henreid and Bergman as Victor & Ilsa

Spoiler: ‘Rick’s Café Americain’ worked as a front for many Europeans who were avoiding the Germans before heading towards America. The Café found a way to provide exit visas to people making their way out of the country…owned and operated by Rick himself. Rick is stricken with disbelief when he finds that Ilsa is now married to Victor, Rick still lends a hand to assist in their escape…still hoping that her love for Rick would prevail. With Strasser on their tail, Rick gets the Laszlos off safely… it is here that Rick gives his famous speech to Ilsa to get on the plane and be with her husband since “we will always have Paris.” Rick is joined at the airport by Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains) who invites him to join the Free French before more Germans arrive into Casablanca. As the fog roles in and the plane has taken off, it is at this classic moment that Rick turns to Renault with the final words, “Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.”

Cheesy? Maybe…every cliché imaginable has been played and over- played in today’s world of cinema. Remember that the year of CASABLANCA’s release was 1942 and bare in mind that endings like this were unsuspecting and caused an emotional reaction when everyone hoped that Rick and Ilsa would reunite and ‘live happily ever after.’ This isn’t the way films like this are supposed to end. I think that its original approach to the storybook ending and flipping it around as it did, may have caused the rules of film- watching to change.

I can agree with JC, to a certain degree, about countless films that could have been listed before CASABLANCA in my list of favorites. The film carries a certain feel and mysticism about it. Perhaps it’s the exotic location of this hideaway in Africa… perhaps it’s the idea of romance and it being in the wrong place in the wrong time…or perhaps it’s the act of chivalry from Rick’s part to let his love, Ilsa, depart to safety with a man he can only hope will bring her joy and happiness in his own absence.

Contemporary films that have followed may have been better written, better acted and even better produced than CASABLANCA… there is no doubt about it. The key word, however, is contemporary. The newer films have re-written the way that films have been made. It would be completely unfair to compare the likes of ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT to SAVING PRIVATE RYAN or PATHS OF GLORY with FULL METAL JACKET (both directed by Stanley Kubrick, I might add) so I believe that the same kind of level of unfairness might derive from comparing CASABLANCA to the likes of PLATOON, THE DEER HUNTER or APOCALYPSE NOW. Each of these films deserve the respect they demand for their continued greatness in storytelling, screenplay and production as much as CASABLANCA should receive its own…in its rightful placing on any film lover’s list.

JOHNNY CHAZZ: Some solid statements here Jer, and I can identify with a few of your angles on this. We do certainly have to keep in mind that it was released in 1942 and the emotional reaction caused by the film was formidable. Now, you mentioned the word "Cheesy"...my reply? "Yes" - and with conviction.

Still, romance and war as a genre was commonplace in film during this era and “Casablanca” was really nothing new. Mysticism? I think that only exists due in part to what we have been told growing up and how influenced some of us may have been by the idea that some movie-goers actually state that this was the greatest film ever.

Ingrid Bergman as Ilsa Laszlo

The performances are marginal for the time period and for these actors and the script are common and dull to say the least. There were countless films where Ingrid Bergman offered better performances ("Murder on the Orient Express", "Gaslight", "Spellbound" and "Notorious" would be prime examples). Additionally, the script borders on 'juvenile' and is full of one-liners to support it. Neither character seems believable in the film even though they are almost both cast as "heroes" per se, completely taking away from the film's realism. Simply put, the film was dummied-down for audiences - it was predictable, simply-written, the sets look like cardboard and the film (oh, excuse me....the movie) lacked any cinematic technique that was commonplace in virtually every other "outstanding film" at that time.

Sam plays it again: "As Time Goes By"

Classic films (drama and war movies alike) that absolutely tower over Casablanca during that time period would include and most certainly would not be limited to: "Citizen Kane"; "All Quiet...."; "The Longest Day"; "Dr. Strangelove"; "The Third Man"; "Notorious"; "The Third Man"; "Bridge over River Kwai"; "Stage Door Canteen"; "The Best Years of Our Lives"; "Double Indemnity"; "Rebecca"; "It's a Wonderful Life" and "On The Waterfront".

In sum, "Casablanca" is pop-art in a sense. It lacks merit, is full of one-liners used to give it a spark and the performances are extremely dull. The point here being: Casablanca just does not live up to its hype and was very, very "common" for the time period and what we saw coming out of Hollywood. What is worse is how films today continue to copy and cliché the film over and over again. *** PICTURE POINTS: 6.5/10

Another blog topic is laid to rest with a return of JER’s turn coming at ya… as always we hope to SEE YOU NEXT WEDNESDAY!

http://www.youtube.com/user/cinemacounterpoint?feature=mhee