Your Daily Joe

2012 Oscar Wrap Up

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:10:00 +0000

Loose Thoughts

Well, folks, the lesson learned this year is that you should not, under any circumstances, ever, ever pay attention to my Oscar predictions. Man, did I bomb this year! Just terrible. I shouldn't even be allowed to think about awards again, let alone try to predict them. Just sit back and watch the show like everyone else. Any claim I've ever laid to recognizing quality in film or having a feel for the thought process of Academy voters is apparently wrong, and I should be ashamed to have presumed otherwise. The end.

But wait. No. Maybe I'm being too hard on myself. I mean, my reasoning was sound, wasn't it? My guesses made a lot more sense than the Academy's votes. Yeah, that's it. It wasn't I who was wrong, but them! Nice try, Academy, but I'm not taking the fall for your mistakes. You're the problem, not me. Why am I running myself through the ringer when it's you who ought to be ringed?

Here are some things that I did right and the Academy did wrong...

Technical awards. Oh, silly me! I thought Dragon Tattoo and Planet of the Apes deserved an award or two. Little did I realize that the Academy was so ashamed about not giving Martin Scorsese the director or picture awards, that they would backload Hugo with as much as they could. My mistake.

Short films. You know, I first started attending screenings of the short films three years ago. I thought it would make me better at predicting Oscar winners. Instead, it's made me worse. (Go ahead, check my record.) Whose fault is this, mine or the Academy's? I remind you, I've actually seen the short film nominees. Do you think everyone in the Academy saw all the short film contenders? Or do you think they just dashed off a few checkmarks so that they could get their ballots in the mail?

Original screenplay. This award came down to no dialogue versus all the dialogue. I erred on the side of no dialogue (The Artist), thinking the Academy would pat themselves on the back for acknowledging that there's more to screenwriting than just telling actors what to say. I should have known that they'd rather pat themselves on the back for liking Woody Allen. (In fairness, I truly did love Midnight In Paris.)

Best Actress. All right, Academy, I know I've got The People on my side with this one. Everybody knows this was supposed to go to Viola Davis. Yes, we love Meryl Streep. Clearly. And I know that Ms. Streep had -- what was the number? -- 11 losses in a row? But you know you're going to regret not giving this to Viola Davis, right? 20 years from now, you're going to give Ms. Davis an Oscar for Scent of a Woman 2: Sniffing Out a Man, and everybody's going to be thinking, "Wait, this is her first Oscar? How did she not win for The Help or Doubt?"

Best Actor. Sigh. Okay, I'll take the blame for this one. If I had gone with my heart, I would have picked eventual winner Jean Dujardin. Instead, I let other analysts convince me that the Academy really wanted to give this one to Clooney. That's on me, okay? But this is the only loss I'll take the blame for. You done me wrong, Academy. My reputation for awards predicting has taken a major hit after last Sunday.

All right, what else happened?

Angelina Jolie's leg. Deserving of all the ridicule it got. The well-rehearsed pose that she was doing on the red carpet was silly, but that's what red carpets are for, so who cares? But when she walked out on stage to present awards and struck the exact same pose? Come on! To recap: she walks over to the microphone, pauses, then methodically juts out the leg and puts her left hand on her hip. The audience reacts in a way that's not completely clear through our TVs, but sounds an awful lot like derisive laughter. This causes Angelina to chuckle too, but not in a self aware or self deprecating way; more in a self satisfied way. You know, Angelina of ten years ago would have cut each and every audience member who laughed at her. And that's why we loved her. But then again, Angelina of ten years ago wouldn't have preoccupied herself with all that posturing in the first place.

And finally, Billy Crystal. Did a nice job. It wasn't mind-blowingly great, but it was good. Some jokes were clunkers, but some were out of the park. Isn't that the way it always is? He leaned on some old schtick and some of his jokes were old man-ish, but a lot were surprisingly fresh and biting. Unfortunately, the press seems to be focusing on the negative. I think they're all forgetting how absolutely dismal James Franco and Anne Hathaway were last year. Crystal was funny, and he kept the show moving along - it went at a pretty brisk pace, and ended only a few minutes late! If you disagree, then tell me who's been better in the last ten years.

My Score Sheet

Of the 24 categories I placed guesses in this year, I only got 10 right. 10! Obviously, I'm not happy. I'll give myself a week to rest up, then I need to start training hard for next season.

In Summary

If there was a problem with the Oscars this year, it was because of the nominees. I remember, the day the nominations were announced, looking over the Best Picture list and thinking, "Oh..." That's it. Just... oh. Kinda boring. No Avatars or Inglourious Basterds or Hurt Lockers to shake things up.

That being the case, I think the awards ceremony itself actually came through pretty strong. This year's Oscarcast was a nice middle-of-the-road endeavor which, again, was a welcome change after last year. I enjoyed the show. And I watched it with a good crowd of funny people, which always makes things better. I give this year's Oscars a B+

The Official YDJ 2012 Oscar Ballot

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:03:00 +0000

Want to keep track of the nominees and winners during the Oscar ceremony? Want to see how your guesses stack up against mine? Here's the official Your Daily Joe Oscar 2012 ballot!

Click below to view and download (PDF format). And don't forget to print out your copy for Sunday night.

Click here to download

*Special thanks to Helby for creating the ballot document.

2012 Short Films Predictions

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:07:00 +0000

Continuing my Oscar predictions, now that I've seen the live-action and animated shorts nominees...

LIVE-ACTION SHORT

Pentecost, Peter McDonald and Eimear O'Kane
Raju, Max Zähle and Stefan Gieren
The Shore, Terry George and Oorlagh George
Time Freak, Andrew Bowler and Gigi Causey
Tuba Atlantic, Hallvar Witzø

The opinion was unanimous in my group of friends: Tuba Atlantic should win this one. When I tell you it's the story of an elderly man who's told by his doctor that he'll only live six more days, you might assume it's a heavy-handed or sentimental examination of life and death. It's actually a biting comedy about a grumpy old man who wants to spend his final days finishing one last project, forced to deal with the interruptions of a teenage girl who claims to be his angel of death. Funny, and just the right amount of pathos.

ANIMATED SHORT

Dimanche / Sunday, Patrick Doyon
The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore, William Joyce and Brandon Oldenburg
La Luna, Enrico Casarosa
A Morning Stroll, Grant Orchard and Sue Goffe
Wild Life, Amanda Forbis and Wendy Tilby

It's more difficult to predict the winner from this year's animated shorts. As usual, Pixar stands out from the crowd with La Luna, full of whimsy and magic. And while siding with Pixar seems like the easy and obvious way to win an Oscar pool, that was not the case last year... although La Luna is sweeter and more awe-inspiring than last year's more cerebral and clever Day & Night. So Pixar might get the win this year.

Helby thinks Fantastic Flying Books has a good chance, while I found its message so thick you could choke on it. Instead, I'm looking at Wild Life to win. This was the second time I'd seen it, and it's the type of movie that reveals more layers on repeat viewings. Based on true incidents, it's the story of a rich, young Englishman who finds himself in over his head while living off family money in Canada.

The short film nominees may be available On Demand through your cable provider or through iTunes if you're interested in watching them and making your own guesses about who will win.

Read the rest of my 2012 Oscar predictions here. And while you're there, vote in the poll!

POLL: Your 2012 Oscar Predictions

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:44:00 +0000

You've read my take on this year's Oscars. Now it's time to tell me yours. Take the Your Daily Joe Oscar poll below.

&lt;p&gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;Loading...&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&lt;/p&gt;
Special thanks to Helby for creating this poll.

2012 Oscar Predictions

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:18:00 +0000

And here we are again. Is it just me, or did Awards Season sneak up on us this year? I'd barely begun to process my thoughts on 2011 in movies when the smaller organizations started handing out their prizes. But the Big Show quickly approaches, so it's time to get my thoughts organized. Here are my predictions for this year's Oscars...

SOUND EDITING

Drive
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
War Horse

SOUND MIXING

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
Moneyball
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
War Horse

I always feel obligated to describe the difference between these two categories as, let's face it, they're not exactly the most glamorous, so nobody ever remembers what distinguishes them. But hey, these wins could give you the edge in your Oscar pool, so pay attention. Sound editing is the process of creating the aural aesthetic of a movie; kind of the audio equivalent of the cinematography and production design. Sound mixing is the recording and blending of all the sound elements, creating the final results that you hear when watching a movie.

These categories usually go to the flashiest contenders - war movies, action movies, superhero stuff. For example, both went to Inception last year. This year, however, I anticipate a split. Sound editing will go the flashy route with Transformers. Sound mixing will go the high-minded route: Dragon Tattoo.

VISUAL EFFECTS

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Hugo
Real Steel
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Transformers: Dark of the Moon

The effect that stood out from the crowd in 2011 was Planet of the Apes. Bonus points for actually being a thoughtful scifi movie as well. The Academy will be happy to reward this.

COSTUME DESIGN

Anonymous
The Artist
Hugo
Jane Eyre
W.E.

Well, this is always a tough category for me to predict. The smart money is usually on the period piece, but... they're all period pieces this year. Since The Artist is likely the big winner this year, I think it will take this award as part of its sweep.

DOCUMENTARY SHORT / ANIMATED SHORT / LIVE-ACTION SHORT

I'll be seeing the animated and live-action shorts in a couple weeks, and will post my picks shortly after that. Be sure to check back. I won't have access to the documentary shorts, so you're on your own with those. If there's one about World War II, bet on that.

[ *Updated Feb. 21, 2012 - click HERE for my short film predictions. ]

FILM EDITING

Anne-Sophie Bion and Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
Kevin Tent, The Descendants
Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Thelma Schoonmaker, Hugo
Christopher Tellefsen, Moneyball

This will probably end up another win for The Artist, although I'm concerned Dragon Tattoo could come in and grab it. But no, The Artist's momentum should carry this along with it.

MUSIC (ORIGINAL SCORE)

John Williams, The Adventures of Tintin
Ludovic Bource, The Artist
Howard Shore, Hugo
Alberto Iglesias, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
John Williams, War Horse

I was really into the Tintin score (as well as everything else about Tintin), but the Academy has pretty much rejected the movie outright, so I wouldn't expect it to perform here. I'd like to say that this will be another win for The Artist, but there was that bit of controversy specific to the score a while back. Then again, that was kind of a controversy of one. I do think The Artist will win here.

MUSIC (ORIGINAL SONG)

"Man or Muppet" from The Muppets, Bret McKenzie
"Real in Rio" from Rio, Sergio Mendes, Carlinhos Brown and Siedah Garrett

Wow, two whole songs were nominated. Two! Screw you, everyone else who wrote a song for a movie! Anyway, I personally liked the song from Rio better, but I think there's just too much goodwill surrounding The Muppets. "Man or Muppet" will most likely win.

ART DIRECTION

The Artist
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Hugo
Midnight in Paris
War Horse

This is another category where flashy and obvious seems to win, so I'd expect Harry Potter to take this one.

CINEMATOGRAPHY

The Artist
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
The Tree of Life
War Horse

Tree of Life has a good shot here; Malick is nothing if not a painstaking photographer. But as part of the overall package, the cinematography in The Artist was critical to its successful execution. The Academy will surely recognize that achievement.

ANIMATED FEATURE

A Cat in Paris
Chico & Rita
Kung Fu Panda 2
Puss in Boots
Rango

My horse was left out of this race. I'm an enthusiastic fan of Tintin, and I don't understand why it hasn't caught on better with audiences and critics in the U.S. I found Puss in Boots remarkably charming and rewatchable, if not especially funny. The two foreign films in this category are strong, but the Academy will probably end up keeping things safely American here. The Annie Award went to Rango, and I'm thinking the Academy Award is likely to follow suit.

FOREIGN FEATURE

Bullhead
Footnote
In Darkness
Monsieur Lazhar
A Separation

Full disclosure: I've seen exactly zero of these movies. I know, I know... I should be ashamed. Regardless, I've heard the buzz on all of these movies, and none has been more buzzed about than A Separation. Everyone who's seen this movie has been blown away by it. No dissenting opinions. This is the one to bet on.

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

Hell and Back Again
If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front
Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory
Pina
Undefeated

The strongest contenders here are Pina and Paradise Lost 3. Pina's smart use of 3-D -- in a documentary, no less -- could give it the edge. But Paradise Lost 3 will be remembered as the movie that got innocent people released from jail. That's a pretty strong recommendation. My gut tells me this one will go to Paradise.

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Michel Hazanivicius, The Artist
Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo, Bridesmaids
Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris
J.C. Chandor, Margin Call
Asghar Farhadi, A Separation

Strong category here. There's A Separation which, again, has been a huge critical hit. But it will win Best Foreign Film, and the Academy won't feel the need to reward the script separately. Midnight in Paris is well-reputed as a return-to-form for Woody Allen, and is a movie I particularly enjoyed. But I think the Academy will be satisfied that they merely nominated this film; they won't feel the need to actually give it the win. There's a possibility that Bridesmaids could win this one, as a de facto "best comedy picture" award. But ultimately, I'd expect The Artist to win this one in its lead-up to winning the grand prize.

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon and Jim Rash, The Descendants
John Logan, Hugo
George Clooney, Beau Willimon and Grant Heslov, The Ides of March
Steven Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin and Stan Chervin, Moneyball
Bridget O'Connor and Peter Straughan, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

There's no clear frontrunner here, at least in this observer's humble opinion. I don't think Ides of March or Moneyball have the critical or commercial oomph to land a victory here, despite the big names attached to those scripts. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy has that British edge, but also not a great deal of breakout attention. The two top contenders are Hugo and The Descendants. Hugo is a movie about movies, which gives it a strong edge (Hollywood likes nothing more than its own reflection). But I think The Descendants is slightly better loved overall, and won't be winning much else on Oscar night (although this is also true for Hugo). I'd expect to see Dean Pelton take the stage.

( This guy co-wrote The Descendants )

SUPPORTING ACTOR

Kenneth Branagh, My Week With Marilyn
Jonah Hill, Moneyball
Nick Nolte, Warrior
Christopher Plummer, Beginners
Max von Sydow, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

The elder statesmen are definitely the better bets this year; all three gave highly-regarded performances, and all three have yet to win Oscars. But Christopher Plummer's role as a cancer-stricken father who comes out to his son late in life has been one of the most talked about of the year. This is pretty close to a sure thing.

SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Berenice Bejo, The Artist
Jessica Chastain, The Help
Melissa McCarthy, Bridesmaids
Janet McTeer, Albert Nobbs
Octavia Spencer, The Help

This, on the other hand, is a sure thing. Octavia Spencer will win.

ACTOR

Demian Bichir, A Better Life
George Clooney, The Descendants
Jean Dujardin, The Artist
Gary Oldman, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Brad Pitt, Moneyball

Although the momentum of The Artist could tip the scales in Jean Dujardin's favor, what really delights people is the cleverness of the concept and the execution of it by the director. This is most likely a win for Clooney.

ACTRESS

Glenn Close, Albert Nobbs
Rooney Mara, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Viola Davis, The Help
Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady
Michelle Williams, My Week With Marilyn

If it's possible to have a more sure thing than the Supporting Actress category's sure thing, it's this. I know that everyone automatically assumes Meryl Streep will always win everything, but that's not historically true, and it won't be true here. Viola Davis will easily walk away with the win.

DIRECTOR

Michel Hazanivicius, The Artist
Alexander Payne, The Descendants
Martin Scorsese, Hugo
Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris
Terrence Malick, The Tree of Life

Look, I like all of these guys. Eight years later and Payne's Sideways still cracks me up. Hugo was charming and, as noted above, a great opportunity for a film lover like me to reflect on the act of loving film. Midnight in Paris was extremely entertaining and may actually end up being a movie I need to own... which, in the age of digital streaming content, is really saying something. And Terrence Malick's movies are always well-constructed meditations. But The Artist was a smart gimmick that managed to transcend its gimmickry and stand on its own as an entertaining movie. In short, it was an interesting premise that was successfully executed. The person who gets credit for that is the director.

PICTURE

War Horse
The Artist
Moneyball
The Descendants
The Tree of Life
Midnight in Paris
The Help
Hugo
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

I remember when I first started hearing about The Artist. It was supposed to have this cute little conceit of a concept, made by a ragtag group of French people with a tiny budget and a bit of ingenuity. The Weinsteins had picked it up, and if you lived in one of the larger cities it might play in an arthouse theater near you. Maybe it would get enough notice to pick up a Best Foreign Film nomination.

I should have known. Harvey had other plans.

While The Artist reminded me of Cinema Paradiso, it must have reminded Harvey Weinstein of Shakespeare in Love - a lofty, intelligent love story that he could take all the way to the top. And this year, there's no Saving Private Ryan to threaten his victory.

It's funny... about this time last year, I was talking about how Kevin Smith's move to self-distribute his latest movie, Red State, was reminding me of "the good old days" of Sundance - a time when some of the most exciting things in the world of filmmaking were coming out of that festival every January. Now the Weinsteins -- who stumbled a bit after being kicked out of their original company, Miramax -- are finding their footing again and are up to their old tricks of taking small, quality movies further than anyone expected them to go - all the way to top. (The King's Speech, last year's Best Picture winner, was one of theirs.) My '90s nostalgia is tripping all over again.

There's a chance that The Help could swoop in and take a populist victory. It's easily the most audience-pleasing movie on the list. But amongst Academy voters, it's The Artist all the way.

Well, that's my take on this year's Oscar race. What do you think? Agree? Disagree? Let me know in the comments below.

On Oscar night, I'll be live tweeting during the ceremony. Click here to follow me. The 84th Academy Awards will air on February 26, 2012 at 8 eastern/5 pacific on ABC.

Podcast Rollcall: Scriptnotes

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:09:00 +0000

Genre: TV & Film Info

What It's About: The feature and television industries (but mostly feature) from the point of view of the working screenwriter. In each edition, hosts John August and Craig Mazin address issues relevant to movie writers, from interacting with your collaborators to understanding residuals. Not a "how to write well" seminar, this podcast is centered on the day-to-day business issues commonly encountered by screenwriters.

Why You Should Care: Because the hosts have years of knowledge and experience to share. August and Mazin each have over a decade of professional work under their belts, as well as a variety of experience working with the union and other writers' organizations. Their collective knowledge is a fantastic resource for anyone interested in the business operations of professional screenwriting. Plus, they're interesting and amusing guys to listen to.

Frequency: Weekly

Average Length: 40 minutes

iTunes Link: http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/scriptnotes-podcast/id462495496

Website: http://johnaugust.com/

As always, if you become a regular listener to a podcast that solicits donations, try to find a way to make the occasional contribution.

The Men Who Would Be King by Nicole LaPorte

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:52:00 +0000

[ This week, Joe reviews books that are on the older side, but still relevant. On Monday, "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-and-Rock 'N' Roll Generation Saved Hollywood" by Peter Biskind. Today, "The Men Who Would Be King: An Almost Epic Tale of Moguls, Movies, and a Company Called DreamWorks" by Nicole LaPorte. ]

I remember when DreamWorks was founded. It happened right around the moment in time when it would matter the most to me: my mid-teens. This is the period in most people's lives when they develop their individual tastes and identities. For me, both my taste and identity were centered around movies and TV. I watched as much as I could. And when I wasn't watching, I was reading about the stuff I wasn't watching. The people, the places, the technology, the methods, the money; I wanted to know about all of it.

So it completely blew my mind when I pulled that certain issue of Entertainment Weekly from my mailbox -- I had put my allowance toward buying a subscription -- and learned that Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and David Geffen were starting a brand new studio of their own. I didn't know it was possible to start a new multimedia studio in modern times. It seemed to me that, like religions, movie studios were things that had to be started long before any of us were born. But if anybody was going to start a new studio, of course it would need to be these powerhouse producers. What a monumental thing to happen in my lifetime! I couldn't wait to see what would come of it.

Nicole LaPorte's "The Men Who Would Be King: An Almost Epic Tale of Moguls, Movies, and a Company Called DreamWorks" begins with everyone in Hollywood feeling pretty much the same way I did. Anticipation was high. DreamWorks was the first new American studio in 60 years and promised to be a haven for artists (commerce was to have second priority). But questions abounded. What exactly would DreamWorks provide that other studios didn't? Could a new studio sustain itself financially without a back catalogue of properties providing a steady money stream? And why would Spielberg -- with the ultimate sweetheart deal at Universal Studios -- and Geffen -- already a billionaire from his years as an agent and record label founder -- even want to participate in such a thing? (Katzenberg was the only one who needed a fresh start, after falling out with Disney.)

DreamWorks had a fascinating roller coaster of history, and LaPorte details every step of the process from its bumpy start to its rapid ascent. (Remember, this studio won three consecutive Best Picture Oscars with American Beauty, Gladiator, and A Beautiful Mind before it was even 10 years old.) But how did such a successful independent venture get bought out by another studio only 12 years after its founding? And how did it buy back its independence two years later?

LaPorte's descriptions of the people, the places, and especially the meetings are snappy and colorful. (So many of DreamWorks' key press conferences seemed to occur on those rare, rainy Los Angeles days.) Even something as simple as the brainstorming session that led to the company's name is told in just the right amount of detail to capture your imagination.

Much of my personal delight in reading "The Men Who Would Be King" stems from my familiarity with the events it covers. Unlike "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls," I was alive when all these things were happening, and I was paying attention to the way they unfolded in real time. It's interesting to revisit these moments now, with new layers of information and context, and compare them to the way things were originally portrayed in the media. For a Hollywood history junkie like me, it's great to not only get more behind-the-scenes information, but to confirm what I'd hoped had been true all along: that I was watching history unfold while it happened.

As with "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls," you'll want to take what you read here with a grain of salt. (Does Steven Spielberg really have an "escape pod" motorcycle always at the ready at his Amblin office?) But while the truths contained in this book may be embellished, you can still count on walking away with a better understanding of how it all played out, and the personalities that made it happen. If you're an entertainment lover of any kind, "The Men Who Would Be King" is essential.

Easy Riders, Raging Bulls by Peter Biskind

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:08:00 +0000

[ This week, Joe reviews books that are on the older side, but still relevant. Today, "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-and-Rock 'N' Roll Generation Saved Hollywood" by Peter Biskind. On Thursday, "The Men Who Would Be King: An Almost Epic Tale of Moguls, Movies, and a Company Called DreamWorks" by Nicole Laporte. ]

Baby Boomers lived their entire lives convinced they were the best thing that ever happened to American culture. They had the best ideas, they had the best music, they had the best politics, they had the best sex, they had the best drugs. You can try to argue any of these points; but it doesn't matter, because you don't know what's best anyway. They do.

Peter Biskind's 1999 book "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-and-Rock 'N' Roll Generation Saved Hollywood" carries forth the legend that Boomers had the best films.

"Legend" is the right word, as Biskind's book definitely stems from the "print the legend" school of reportage. While Biskind aims for journalistic accuracy, he cops to printing conflicting information and rumors, and allows his readers to entertain different possibilities while acknowledging that his account may not be precisely what happened.

Covering the span of Hollywood history that began approximately with Easy Rider* and ended with Raging Bull, Biskind details the shabby state of America's post-studio system movie industry and the events that allowed, almost accidentally, a bunch of young hippies with unrefined ideas to take creative control of mainstream filmmaking.

Resent the Boomers all you want, but there's no denying that this is a period of American film history well worth exploring. A perfect storm of cultural circumstances -- the crumbling studio system, television threatening to replace theatrical exhibition, a youth culture fighting for civil rights and free love while simultaneously being called to war -- allowed for what was ultimately a brief window of time wherein the decision-makers at the major film studios acknowledged that they had no idea what to do next, and ceded control to pretty much anyone who looked to be "with it" and talked like they knew what they were doing.

Biskind's book is written as a series of anecdotes, one leading to another. I like his style of taking advantage of a natural break point in the middle of one story to introduce people or places that will take the lead in an upcoming story. For example, in the middle of a long chapter about Warren Beatty's travails while making Bonnie and Clyde, Biskind will step away to write a couple paragraphs about Francis Ford Coppola shooting Finian's Rainbow. The only connection between the two events is that Beatty was editing and screening Bonnie and Clyde on the Warner Bros. lot at the same time Coppola was shooting Finian's Rainbow there. But it gives Biskind an opportunity to add a little texture, and to also get some low heat on Coppola and George Lucas before those two go on to dominate later chapters.

Books like this, by their very nature, must augment a certain time or place or person. An unavoidable side effect is the aura of exclusivity it creates. "You weren't there. And it's over now, so you never can be there." Again, it's that kind of Boomer mentality of, "We did it best. Sucks for you that you'll never be as awesome." It's worth noting, however, that Biskind's book was published in 1999, which means he was researching and writing it while the independent film movement of the '90s was in full swing - an era of freedom and creativity in American film history that some would argue rivals the New Hollywood of the '70s. A bit of a blind spot on Biskind's part. (Although it's been a long time since I've read it, I remember John Pierson's "Spike, Mike, Slackers & Dykes" being a good book about '90s indie film.)

"Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" is certainly flawed, and the veracity of many of the stories and anecdotes can be called into question. But the historical facts of that period of filmmaking seem to be in line and, well, as for those questionable anecdotes... what can I say? I'm a sucker for them. So I fully recommend this book. It helps if you find film history as fascinating as I do. Although these histories may be peppered with inaccuracies and self-mythologizing -- and really, what history isn't? -- this is an entertaining and informative book, though best taken with a grain of salt.

*The book's history actually begins with Bonnie and Clyde and some mention of Mickey One, which predate Easy Rider. But that clearly would have made for a less catchy book title.

My Favorite New TV Show of 2011

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:26:00 +0000

Over the last few years, I've come to dread the month of October. The television networks -- both broadcast and cable -- have settled on October as the month to just pummel us with all their new stuff. Not interested in a slow rollout, they bombard us with all of our returning favorites, and a huge crop of new shows vying for our time and affection. (But mostly time.) On top of that, I'm always trying to squeeze in as many horror movies as I can to celebrate Halloween. This leaves me with a maxed-out DVR and an overstuffed Netflix queue which don't resolve themselves until sometime in the dead of December when, all of a sudden, everything in entertainment just stops.

Nearly lost in the shuffle of all that noise was the show that became my favorite of 2011...

Homeland

The story revolves around Nicholas Brody, a Marine sergeant missing in Iraq and presumed dead for eight years. Discovered during a raid, he is returned home to a family that had attempted to move on without him. Meanwhile, CIA agent Carrie Mathison is convinced that Brody has been turned by the enemy and is planning an attack on the U.S. But Mathison's questionable mental state casts doubts on her suspicions.

"Homeland" is part political thriller, part investigative procedural, and part family drama. While the hook of the show is trying to figure out whether or not Brody plans on staging an attack, episodes spend as much time dealing with issues of post traumatic stress, reintegrating into family life after eight years of captivity, infidelity, politics and more. No aspect of the show is uninteresting. You won't find yourself merely bearing the family scenes in order to get to the investigative scenes. "Homeland" is always gripping and suspenseful.

Every aspect of this show is a home run. The characters are strongly written, and the cast elevates the material further. Damian Lewis, who first got my attention in "Band of Brothers," gives another outstanding performance as Brody. Claire Danes has grown from being America's sweetheart in the early '90s to possibly being one of its best actresses. Her turn as Carrie Mathison -- a performance that balances intelligence with recklessness and a controlled mental disorder that's straining to get out -- comes hot on the heels of her Emmy win for "Temple Grandin." And Mandy Patinkin, who is always great in every role he plays, is -- surprise! -- great as the smart and stern yet fatherly Saul Berenson.

Needless to say the story and plotting are incredibly intricate, with believable twists and turns; a show like this would fall apart otherwise. In fact, the only thing that's a letdown about this show is the opening title sequence. While the broadcast networks have all but eliminated the opening theme song over the last decade, the cable networks have picked up the slack by creating some of the most interesting show openers ever. "Homeland" attempted a somber, evocative newsreel montage, but ended up with something bland. That's a shame, because everything else about the show is just the opposite.

"Homeland" is full of surprises and goes against your expectations at every turn. Whatever's going on, it's never quite what you think. And yet, the resolution is not a cheat. And the conclusion to the season manages a rare feat: it's a satisfying, non-cliffhanger endpoint, but still provides a clear view of how the story will expand and grow in the next season.

This show is a must-see.

Surprisingly, "Homeland" is based on an Israeli TV series that I'd be very interested in checking out. The version I saw is so specific to the politics and the mood of the U.S., I can't imagine what it would look like to see this story played out under a different political system.

My Favorite Movie of 2011

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:24:00 +0000

I feel like I'm stuck in some sort of alternate universe where a Steven Spielberg movie is a little-known underdog that I feel compelled to champion. And yet that's exactly where we find ourselves, with this particular movie underperforming at the box office and inspiring little discussion in the culture at large. Still, I stand behind my choice. My favorite movie of 2011 is...

The Adventures of Tintin

Okay, technically Tintin has not underperformed. Opening first in Europe, it had earned some $250 million before U.S. audiences even had the option of seeing it. And yet, when the time came, Americans mostly chose to not exercise that option. And that's a shame, because Tintin is easily the most fun I had at a movie theater in 2011.

Tintin is an unironically intrepid boyscout of a character who is somehow not obnoxious. The story begins when he buys a model of a ship at a flea market only to discover that there's suddenly quite a bit of interest in this item. As a freelance journalist (although he looks a hair too young to have a full-time job and live on his own), Tintin takes it upon himself to investigate the mystery of the ship. The action takes off from there and never slows down until the end. Some critics have complained about the relentless pace of the movie, but I found it exhilarating.

Also exhilarating was the discovery that Spielberg can still design an action sequence like a director 40 years his junior. Better, actually, since his experience gives him more confidence in his shot compositions and timing. Pay particular attention to the virtuosic chase through Bagghar, which plays out as one long, unbroken shot. Spielberg effortlessly maneuvers his camera around characters, sets, vehicles and explosions, moving all the pieces around precisely without feeling stagy. You're so drawn into the action that you may not even notice this is one continuous shot.

The motion capture computer animation may be a turnoff for some. That was certainly my biggest hesitation about going to see this movie. We all have the same complaints - dead eyes, plasticine skin, the revolting uncanny valley effect. But I actually think they found the right range of realism for the characters in Tintin, leaving them cartoony enough to avoid appearing repellent (with the exception of the Milanese Nightingale, who I found distracting). Hats off to the character designers.

I'd never heard of Tintin before going to see this movie. The comics dating back to the 1920s, the cartoon series in the early '90s, the enduring worldwide fame of the character... I knew nothing about any of it. All I know -- all that matters -- is that I got swept up in this movie pretty much from the first frame, and had a great time the whole way through. A brilliant, globe-trotting action-adventure, Tintin is the movie Indiana Jones 4 should have been. If you haven't already, check it out.

Podcast Rollcall: Story Worthy

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:30:00 +0000

Genre: Storytelling

What It's About: Not unlike The Moth, Story Worthy is a venue for various people (mostly entertainers, and mostly friends of show creator Christine Blackburn) to share interesting true stories from their lives with an audience. Unlike The Moth, guests on Story Worthy can prepare notes or read their stories from the page. The guest brings the subject, and the host usually shares her own story on the same topic. Story time is followed by an interview between the host and the guest.

Why You Should Care: A good story is always welcome. If you like The Moth, you'll like Story Worthy. (In fact, even the name "Story Worthy" seems to be borrowed from The Moth's sign-off, "We hope you have a story-worthy week.")

Frequency: Weekly

Average Length: 30 minutes

iTunes Link: http://www.storyworthypodcast.com/Story_Worthy_Podcast/Story_Worthy/rss.xml

Website: http://www.storyworthypodcast.com/

As always, if you become a regular listener to a podcast that solicits donations, try to find a way to make the occasional contribution.

Podcast Rollcall: Reasonable Discussions

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:06:00 +0000

The very first podcast I ever profiled under the "podcast rollcall" banner was A.V. Talk, the original podcast from The A.V. Club website. Over the summer, the A.V. Club revamped and re-branded their podcast, so I figured it was time to revisit.

Genre: Pop culture review/analysis

What It's About: Writers from The A.V. Club get together in various combinations for roundtable discussions of current pop culture topics. Each episode includes the "Extracurricular Activities" segment, where the staff gets to address a topic or make a recommendation for something that was not in the episode's agenda.

Why You Should Care: While I enjoyed the previous incarnation of "A.V. Talk" well enough, it was certainly meandering and scattershot. Episodes were posted irregularly, and were of varying length dependent on how many topics they felt like addressing and how long the conversation carried on. In other words, it was underproduced. "Reasonable Discussion" is more reliable. You can expect three topics per episode, each with a sense of purpose and direction. Episodes are posted weekly, and clock in around the 45 minute mark. And, of course, you still get the informative, insightful fun and wit that we've come to expect from the top notch journalists at The A.V. Club.

Frequency: Weekly

Average Length: 45 minutes

iTunes Link: http://feeds.theonion.com/avtalk

Website: http://www.avclub.com/

As always, if you become a regular listener to a podcast that solicits donations, try to find a way to make the occasional contribution.

The Best Comedian of All Time

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 14:12:00 +0000

"Don't you think it's weird that Christians wear crosses?" my sister asked me one day after school.

"Why?" I wondered.

"Because that's how Jesus was executed," she responded. "If Jesus lived today, we'd all be wearing electric chair necklaces instead."

I guess I'd never thought of that before; but I was only 10 at the time. My sister was in high school -- high school! -- and told me that this is what they'd been talking about in one of her classes. Is this what I had to look forward to in high school? Philosophical discourse?! Those aren't the words I would have used when I was 10, but it was a concept I grasped and was looking forward to engaging in when, someday, I'd reach the magical age where I too would be a high schooler.

As it turned out, the experience of high school was significantly different than what I'd extrapolated from my sister's anecdote. College, if anything, would more closely resemble what I'd imagined; but even then, not so much. As far as philosophical discourse goes, it was during college -- but outside of the college classroom -- that I met with the single biggest influence on my perception and comprehension of the world around me.

One night after classes were finished, I was hanging out with my friend Paul and his girlfriend (at the time). My memory of how the night began is a bit hazy. I think we'd been at a restaurant, made a stop at a liquor store, and were on our way back to his apartment. I don't remember the CD beginning. I don't remember Paul mentioning he was going to start a CD. And I can't remember the definitive beginning of the standup routine. It just faded slowly into my consciousness, like it had always been there. I gradually became aware that I was listening to a comedian. I really wish I could remember it better. Because, as it turned out, these were my introductory moments to the best comedian of all time. And you only get to have that once.

"Paul, who is this?"

"His name is Bill Hicks."

Bill Hicks. I'd never heard of him before. Granted, I wasn't the closest observer of the standup comedy scene at the time; but someone this good, how had I never heard of him before?

"I guess he's been dead for a long time now," Paul mentioned. That explained why most of his references and premises were a bit dated -- Operation Desert Storm, the Clarence Thomas hearings, the Rodney King riots. But I'd been alive during those events, so I had the background knowledge I needed to get the jokes. And despite the expiration date of the references, I was amazed at how fresh the material felt. It didn't matter that he was talking about events that were almost a decade old (at the time); what I was hearing was a new, original take on those incidents that I'd never heard before.

Which is incredible, if you think about it. When something cultural -- a painting, a movie, a novel, a song -- is so profoundly good, its influence and imitators are so widespread that the original tends to lose its power. (Think of how every single frame of Pulp Fiction has been strip mined of all its originality.) I hadn't been exposed to any watered-down, third-hand dissemination of Hicks' material. It was all so thoroughly new and potent to me.

Until the CD spun to this point...

"You have to admit that beliefs are odd. A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. You think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a fuckin' cross?"

On hearing this, my reflex reaction was: "Oh, rip off! That's been done before."

Then I stopped to think about where exactly I'd heard it. From my sister. When she was in high school. That may not have been the point of origin for this thought.

A teacher of hers had said that to her. Granted, he'd tamed it down, and he'd added his own tag to it -- the thing about electric chair necklaces. But Bill Hicks had managed to reach me before I'd "officially" heard of him.

That night began a Bill Hicks obsession in me and Paul that lasted through the remainder of college and beyond. Paul bought up every Hicks album he could find and burned copies for me. We read everything about him. Learned about how he was bigger in England than he'd ever been in his homeland. (Paul first heard of Hicks via a reference in the comic book series "Preacher," written by U.K. author Garth Ennis.) Found the video of his breakthrough London performance, which was paired on a VHS tape with a documentary about him called "Just a Ride." Learned about his beef with Denis Leary. Learned about his final appearance on Letterman getting cut (more on that below). Learned about his tragically early death at the age of 32 from pancreatic cancer. We sought out everything.

What remains so appealing to me about Hicks' comedy is that it seemed to go a step beyond. He wasn't just making points; most standups are out to make points. While there was a solid strain of misanthropy throughout his work, it came from a genuine confidence in humanity's ability to improve itself. With Hicks, there was an implied call to arms, a belief that every single one of us has the power to effect change. He seemed to be able to point the way to change.

"The reason our institutions ... are all crumbling is because they're no longer relevant. So it's time for us to create a new philosophy and perhaps even a new religion, you see? And that's okay cause that's our right cause we're free children of God with minds who can imagine anything."

The fact that this sentiment could be couched in the middle of a standup routine and performed in front of drunken nightclub patrons is astounding. Hicks was a master of balancing heartfelt ideology with perfectly timed self-subversion. "By the way, there are more dick jokes coming. Please relax."

Hicks' early death is sad not only in and of itself, but also because it leaves us with a limited amount of material. One is tempted to imagine what Hicks would say about some of the current issues we're facing. But then again, he pretty much already said it. In his time, Hicks was addressing an economic recession, war in the middle east, blustering talk radio hosts, and a strain of anti-intellectualism that seemed to be creeping into the culture. It's sort of depressing how little has changed in the nearly 20 years since he died.

But occasionally, we get treated to new Hicks material. (Or perhaps I should say new packaging of the old material with a bit of previously unseen footage added in.) The latest is the documentary American: The Bill Hicks Story, which is currently streaming on Netflix and serves as a solid introduction if you don't know much about him. The strength of this particular documentary is that it eschews the obvious route of interviewing other comedians and sticks with interviewing his family and closest friends. If you want to hear other comedians talk about Hicks, there are numerous sources for that. This documentary made a smart move in going a different direction.

The other recent unearthing of "lost" Hicks footage was the fantastic January 30, 2009 episode of "The Late Show" wherein David Letterman took personal responsibility for cutting what would have been Hicks' final television appearance from his show. Letterman invited Hicks' mother onto the show to make a moving in-person apology for his "error of judgment" from 1993.

But for those of you interested in going straight to the source -- the unfiltered works of Bill Hicks -- the trifecta (in my opinion) would be the following comedy albums: Dangerous, Relentless, and Arizona Bay. There are also several videos of his standup, including an HBO special; but it's all variations of the material in those three albums.

If you're a newcomer to Bill Hicks, I envy you. You have ahead of you the opportunity to hear his stuff for the first time. You may not agree that he's the best comedian of all time, but I hope you'll enjoy his work half as much as I do.

And now, I'll close the same way Bill so often did...

"The world is like a ride in an amusement park, and when you choose to go on it you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. The ride goes up and down, around and around, it has thrills and chills, and it's very brightly colored, and it's very loud, and it's fun for a while. Many people have been on the ride a long time, and they begin to wonder, 'Hey, is this real, or is it just a ride?' ... It's just a ride. ... And we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. Just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love."

Comic-Con 2011: Jim Henson's "Tale of Sand"

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:26:00 +0000

One of the great things about Comic Con is how the grand and the modest can gracefully co-mingle. There's room for the most massive of Hollywood spectacles, and the most microscopic of independent publishing. But one of the frustrating things about Comic Con is when the organizers confuse the two.

For example, a 45th anniversary panel of the 1960's "Batman" TV series was booked in a mid-sized ballroom. Hundreds of people were turned away for lack of seating. Did they not think that Adam West could fill a larger room?

Likewise, The Jim Henson Company was squeezed into a far-too-tiny room for a nice last-day presentation. This should have been a much larger and more-prominently featured event.

Henson Co. archivist Karen Falk (pictured above) presented clips of very early Jim Henson work from the '60s, including experimental animation, TV commercials, and his Oscar-nominated short film "Time Piece." She also elaborated on Jim Henson personally, characterizing him as a man who was restlessly creative and wouldn't let any idea go to waste. She demonstrated through clips how an idea birthed in a personal experimental project went on to be used in a national marketing campaign.

But the centerpiece of the presentation was the upcoming graphic novel, "A Tale of Sand." Based on a long lost 1968 screenplay by Jim Henson and his frequent writing partner Jerry Juhl, "A Tale of Sand" is described by Archaia Entertainment's Stephen Christy (pictured above) as a paranoia piece about the future of technology -- a subject that was very much in vogue at the time Henson and Juhl were working on the script.
Ramon Perez
The graphic novel adaptation is by Ramon Perez, and is published by Archaia. It will be released this fall.

Comic-Con 2011: Marvel TV Development

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:59:00 +0000

Marvel held a presentation announcing a line of television projects currently in development. Jeph Loeb, head of Marvel TV (and noted TV and comic book writer), stressed that the following projects are strictly in development and shouldn't be considered certain until "you hear it from Marvel." Due to Disney's acquisition of Marvel a couple years ago, these shows are being groomed for various ABC and Disney networks.

Jeph Loeb

In Development

Marvel TV is developing "A.K.A. Jessica Jones" for ABC. Based on the 2001-2004 comic book series "Alias" (a name which has since been co-opted by a certain other TV series), the Jessica Jones character occupies a niche somewhere between superhero and private detective.

Also in the works for ABC is a new live-action version of "Hulk," a character who hasn't been on TV since 1982. This series will focus on the span of time just after Bruce Banner is exposed to gamma radiation, before the world learns of his horrible secret.

"Cloak and Dagger" would center on a pair of teenage runaways in post-Katrina New Orleans who are abducted and used as human test subjects by a chemist. This awakens their superpowers, which bear a striking resemblance to the Maya y Alejandro storyline on "Heroes" (of which Loeb was a staff writer).

Finally, "Mockingbird" is in development for ABC Family. This series would follow Barbara Morse, a biologist and agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. who discovers corruption within the organization and is forced to flee for her life. She then makes it her personal mission to expose and eliminate the corruption in S.H.I.E.L.D., perhaps saving the world in the process.

Coming Soon

As for shows that are in production and heading to your living room soon, Marvel TV is of course moving forward with their flagship character, Spider-Man. Pulling out the big guns, the show runner for Disney XD's animated "Ultimate Spider-Man" is none other than Paul Dini (Emmy winner "Batman: The Animated Series"), the creative consultant is Brian Michael Bendis, and the writing staff is rounded out by a collective known as "Man of Action" (creators of "Ben 10" and "Generator Rex") - Joe Kelly, Joe Casey, Duncan Rouleau and Steve Seagle. "I'm extraordinarily proud of the writing talent that we've managed to bring into this," says Loeb. "It speaks to the absolute love for this character and also for Marvel animation as a whole."

Drake Bell voices Peter Parker/Spider-Man

"Marvel Animation isn't just the stuff that we're gonna be doing with XD," says Loeb. Marvel has been running an animated division to create and distribute digital content called Marvel Knights Animation. A hybrid of comic book-style art and 2-D cell animation, Knights converts existing comic book storylines and "bring[s] them to life ... in a way that we've never really seen before" on digital platforms such as iTunes and X-Box Live.

The next project for Knights is the full 25-issue run of Joss Whedon & John Cassaday's "The Astonishing X-Men," out in 2012.

Finally, Loeb announced pre-production of another animated series for Disney XD: "Hulk and the Agents of S.M.A.S.H." Spearheaded again by Dini, the series will be loaded with "as much Hulk testosterone" as possible, including Red Hulk, Skaar, A-Bomb and She-Hulk.

With the summer movie season already dominated by comic book superhero adaptations, Marvel is moving full-steam ahead to dominate television as well. These projects represent a smart strategy aimed at varying demographics which, if successful, could keep numerous Marvel properties alive at one time without over-saturating any single group of viewers.

Comic-Con 2011: Zombie Walk

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:49:00 +0000

On July 23rd, around 5:30 PM (PDT), a Comic-Con zombie walk broke out in the Gaslamp District across from the convention center. I hadn't heard about it in advance, so I was lucky to stumble upon it.

Most folks dressed up as ordinary zombies, while some were zombie versions of super heroes or various celebrity zombies. There was one Ash, which was a nice touch.

(Click to enlarge.)*
A few people dressed up in military gear to contain the outbreak. When I told them they were doing a terrible job since there were zombies everywhere, they shot back, "Have you been bit?" How did I not see that one coming?
Here's the full (and way too long) video.

*Pictures courtesy of Helby

Chris Columbus Was a Great "Harry Potter" Director

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:12:00 +0000

When Home Alone hit theaters, I was a 10-year-old white boy living in a small, heartland-America city. To put it in business terms, I was what's known as the "target demographic." I was the type of wide-eyed youngster who could most directly relate to young Kevin McCallister. Relate, hell! I was Kevin McCallister, as far as I was concerned. I believed in nothing less than my ability to fend off a couple of hiss-worthy thieves with nothing more than my wiles and a bit of low-tech equipment.

Home Alone was a children's fantasy story, told simply and straightforwardly. That's all it aspired to be, and that's all it was.

In a recent article praising the overall artistic accomplishments of the Harry Potter film series, Slate's Dan Kois does something that countless critics before him have done: he dismisses the first two films entirely, and he takes extra care to bash their director, Chris Columbus. This puts me in an uncomfortable position. I'm not a fan, per se, of Chris Columbus; and I certainly don't think a successful, multi-millionaire (billionaire?) filmmaker needs my defense. But as a fan of Harry Potter -- both book and film -- I'm apparently one of the few people who thinks Chris Columbus was exactly what the Potter series needed to get off to the right start. And my conviction in that belief is what I feel the need to defend.

"Artistic duds" is how Kois characterizes Columbus's Potter movies (his being The Sorcerer's (Philosopher's) Stone and The Chamber of Secrets). That's reasonable, but short-sighted. "Art" has never been what Chris Columbus was known for, and it's not really fair to hold him up to expectations he was never meant to fulfill.

Columbus is now and has always been a populist film director. We're talking about the guy who brought us Gremlins, The Goonies, Adventures in Babysitting, Mrs. Doubtfire and, yes, the first two Home Alone movies. Clearly it's never been his mission to challenge an audience's intellectual or moral beliefs. He's out to give us a good time, take it or leave it. And there's a place for that, and it's completely legitimate. That's why I have a tough time allowing the Koises of the world to get away with saying things like, "Would [Warner Bros.] choose someone who could make a real movie?" or, "A real director could make something lasting" (emphasis mine). Columbus is a real director making real movies. If they're not to your taste, that's fine. Just move on. No need to invalidate his entire existence first.

To say that Columbus is a "safe" directorial choice is an understatement. If that guy has any personal demons, he's never let them within a mile of his camera. His idea of "dark and dangerous" is the occasional dutch angle in Chamber of Secrets. His idea of a seedy, impoverished artistic community in New York is the rather pristine cityscape of Rent. Was he ever going to create a sense of real danger for Harry Potter? Were we ever going to think that Harry and his friends were actually in peril? No, and that's the way it should be! Let's not forget, Harry Potter started out as children's books. They grew dark and forbidding and more adult later.

The fact of the matter is, the first two Harry Potter films needed a director exactly like Chris Columbus. They needed someone with a broad approach and, more importantly, a broad appeal. Would he bring subtext? Would he bring complexity? Would he bring deeper meaning that the more sophisticated members of the audience would walk away from the theater pondering? No. Nor should he! He need only tell the simple, straightforward story of an orphan boy who discovers that his life is much more interesting than he'd previously known. That's the fantasy of Harry Potter. What kid can't relate to that; the belief -- the hope -- that you're something special, something different than the rest of the crowd? That you possess a "magic" that puts you above everybody else? (Hell, what adult can't relate to that?)

Simplicity, straightforwardness, and a lack of nuance are the hallmarks of a Chris Columbus film, and he delivered these things magnificently in the first two Harry Potter films.

The genius of J. K. Rowling's novels is that their depth and complexity grows with each book. The maturity level ages in conjunction with Harry himself, and therefor ages in conjunction with the book's primary audience -- the kids who are roughly Harry's age, and who can relate to him most directly.

Let's try to remember, my fellow adults, how simple and straightforward the world seemed when we were kids. Even those of us who suffered tragedies in our youths did not have the cognitive skills to fully comprehend what we were experiencing. We were sad, yes, but our world was still filled with color.

That's what Chris Columbus brought to the Potter films. A childlike comprehension of the highs and lows, the mysteries and the status quo of life. This may sound like a backhanded compliment, but I mean it sincerely: possibly more than any other filmmaker, Chris Columbus is in touch with the simpleness of childhood.

When I was a kid swept up in the fantasy of outwitting a couple of grown-up burglars, should cultural critics have lamented the fact that Scorsese would have made a more artistic movie out of the same material? Is that what my 10-year-old brain needed? I contend that the Potter movies very deliberately grew with their audience. Chris Columbus eased his young viewers into the series. If the movies became more captivating for an adult audience after Columbus left, don't hold that against him. Applaud him for it. He gave the series exactly what it needed in its early days: a welcoming doormat for its child viewers. That he stepped aside and allowed other directors to take over when things became more dangerous is also to his credit. He knew his limits, and he prevented them from interfering. Perhaps Chris Columbus is a more savvy filmmaker than most critics are willing to give him credit for.

Podcast Rollcall: Comedy Film Nerds

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:00:00 +0000

Genre: Comedy / Movies

What It's About: Cross-pollinating filmmaking and standup. The show centers on reviews of upcoming movies, as well as guest interviews and general pop culture conversations.

Why You Should Care: Founders/hosts Graham Elwood and Chris Mancini are both standup comedians who started out as (and continue to work as) filmmakers. Their insights and reviews are elevated by their film school educations and their personal experience as filmmakers. And of course, given that they're comedians, the show is always funny. If a statement like "Han shot first" has a special meaning in your nerdy little heart, this show is for you.

Frequency: Weekly

Average Length: 1 hour

iTunes Link: http://comedyfilmnerds.libsyn.com/rss

Website: http://comedyfilmnerds.com/

As always, if you become a regular listener to a podcast that solicits donations, try to find a way to make the occasional contribution.

Why "Avatar 2" Will Look Better Than "Avatar"

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:53:00 +0000

It's good to know I'm not the only one who's bored with 3-D movies.

Just like everyone else, I was delighted by the gimmick when it returned to prominence a decade ago. In those days, there were only one or two major 3-D releases per year. It was a fun little bonus to see a movie in 3-D; especially, I told myself, if that's the way the filmmaker intended me to see it. And why not shell out a little extra to see a 3-D conversion of The Nightmare Before Christmas? I'd already seen it dozens of times the normal way.

But it didn't take long for movie studios to abuse the trust and goodwill of their 3-D-adoring audiences. The number of 3-D movies released per year grew rapidly. Movies that were never intended for 3-D were lily-gilded with sloppy last-minute conversions (infamous offender: Clash of the Titans). Increased ticket prices for drecky movies started to leave a bad taste in audiences' mouths, especially during a down economy. Degraded picture quality and clunky plastic glasses became less tolerable. And let's face it, the 3-D wasn't adding much to the moviegoing experience anyway. So why bother?

At least that's the conclusion I reached a few years ago. With very few exceptions, I've avoided 3-D like the plague. And it's looking like the majority of audiences is starting to do the same. This year, ticket sales for 2-D versions of movies are outpacing ticket sales for 3-D versions, casting doubts on the future of the format and pushing filmmakers to step their game up. And the first to rise to the challenge appears to be James Cameron.

James Cameron has a history of pushing filmmaking technology past its limits. He was an early adopter of computer animation, making then-jaw dropping use of it in The Abyss and Terminator 2. He helped develop deep-sea cameras that could take better pictures under more extreme underwater conditions. And whatever your opinion of Cameron's Avatar (I liked it), you have to admit that he did 3-D better than anyone before and pretty much since (although I've heard great things about Werner Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams; and Pixar's "Day & Night" short was a smart use of the format). Now, he's got his sights set on increasing the frame rate. And this has me much more excited than 3-D ever did.

A quick, remedial film lesson: The standard number of frames per second since synchronized sound was introduced to movies has been 24. 24 fps is the lowest number you can have that allows enough physical space on a film strip for a synchronized audio track. And, of course, you always want the lowest number of frames possible because the less film you use, the cheaper it is to make a movie.

But a lower frame rate also means compromised quality. The more individual photographs you can squeeze into one second of real time -- the more visual information you're giving your eyes -- the more convinced your brain is going to be that it's observing reality.

Over the years, many improvements have been made to film itself. Clearer, higher-fidelity pictures with more vibrant colors can be taken at faster speeds and with lower measures of light. This has improved picture quality in movies. But through it all, the frame rate has remained standard at 24 fps. Now, James Cameron has said he "fully intends" to shoot the next Avatar at a higher frame rate -- either 48 or 60 fps -- taking the next step to add a sense of reality to the movie.

Now this is something I'm looking forward to. This is something I'll pay extra for. Roger Ebert once described a demonstration of a 60 fps movie as so clear, it was like looking out a window. Cameron has taken it a step further, saying it "takes the glass out of the window. In fact, it is just reality. It is really stunning."

As someone who has never been stunned by 3-D, this is a movie experience I can't wait to have. Mr. Cameron, let's get those cameras rolling!

(Originally appeared on Canon-McMillan Patch)

Michael Scott Made a Good Movie

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:30:00 +0000

One of my biggest pet peeves in movies and TV shows is when a video is supposed to look amateurish or technically simplistic, but it ends up looking better than anything the average person could create. You've probably noticed it yourself, just never bothered to linger on it. But linger you should. Because, of all the common shortcuts filmmakers use to get a point across, this is the one that filmmakers themselves should find the most egregious.

Here's the routine: an amateur of some sort -- very often a child -- picks up a video camera and decides to start making a movie. Or perhaps it's someone documenting some important event, like a wedding or a party. We, the audience, are watching the end result of this non-professional documentation. (It's a whole different scenario when episodes or sequences are structured around the conceit of a professional film crew coming to town. In that case, we expect them to create a professional-looking product.)

In order to sell us on the amateurism of what we're seeing, the cameras will be placed at unusual angles; shots are overly shaky and framed oddly; focus will be in and out; important people or objects will fall off screen. On an acting level, everyone becomes stiff and self-conscious; they ham it up for the camera; they use stilted line delivery. The dialogue itself is horrible, the story is intentionally clunky and obvious, every moment is a cliche. The point is loud and clear: we're watching something made by amateurs.

So why is it that the lighting and the editing always remain at the highest level of excellence?

Editing and cinematography are notorious for never getting their due. Editing is frequently referred to as "the invisible art" - if the editing of a movie or TV show stands out to you, then it was done wrong. Even in attention-grabbing cases when a movie is intentionally choppy -- Tarantino-style time fragmentation; Aronofsky-style hip hop montage -- most people don't understand what goes into truly excellent editing (myself included).

Likewise with cinematography. Extreme camera movements or unusual lighting will stand out to the general audience and provoke them say, "the lighting in that movie is really incredible." But you're still missing the complexity and, frankly, even the basic elements of what cinematography needs to accomplish. We take it for granted that we'll just be able to see everything we're supposed to see, the way we're supposed to see it. But it takes a great deal of skill and knowledge to make film "see" things the way our eyes do.

Which is why, even when an episode or sequence is supposed to have been made by an amateur, the cinematography and editing will always remain 100% professional. Anything less would be unwatchable. Which is a testament to how important they are.

One of the most recent examples is the "Threat Level Midnight" episode of "The Office." As fans of "The Office" know, Michael Scott is a well-meaning fool who occasionally dabbled in amateur screenwriting. "Threat Level Midnight" was devoted to the end result of all that dabbling: Michael's homemade spy thriller, starring himself and all his coworkers.

The episode has all the hallmarks of this conceit noted above. Stiff acting, bad camerawork, childish storytelling. But throughout the whole thing, the lighting is perfect - there are no hard shadows on anyone's faces, backgrounds never drop off to blackness. And the editing is snappy and sophisticated - cutting on the action, matching eyelines, great pacing.

On top of that, Michael did a great job recording and editing the audio. That's one of the first things to go wrong with amateur productions. He also did a great job shooting coverage and reverse angles, two things missing from most amateur productions.

Overall, Michael Scott made a good movie.

Look, folks, I get it. The joke is that Michael Scott is inept as a filmmaker (as most people are), and we're supposed to laugh at the obvious shortcomings of his movie. I'm not saying that "The Office" failed at delivering exactly what it set out to deliver in that episode. I'm just saying that the creative and technical professionals responsible for making "The Office" know better: true amateurism looks much worse than the movie Michael Scott made. And thanks to YouTube, we all know how dreadful amateurism can be.

"The Office" did what it needed to do to get the point across the Michael Scott made a ridiculously bad movie. But I think they should have done more, taken in it further. In this day and age of the pervasive amateur, professionals need to work much harder if they want us to believe they don't know what they're doing.

Podcast Rollcall: Mr. Deity

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:16:00 +0000

Genre: Comedy/Satire

What It's About: An unspecified (but clearly Judeo-Christian) deity deals with the hassles of managing Earth and all the life forms on it. Constantly nagged and questioned by his ex-wife Lucy, his son Jesse, and his assistant Larry, Mr. Deity eventually makes the decisions that will dictate how life on Earth ought to be lived -- how nature sustains, why humans treat each other the way they do, and why he needs to be worshipped a certain way.

Why You Should Care: Because it questions the commonly-accepted notions of religion that are truly strange when you stop to think about them. Creator and writer Brian Dalton is clearly bemused by the tenets of Christianity and sets out to demonstrate the more absurd points by framing "god's" decision-making process as a series of bickering conversations between a deity and those closest to him.

Frequency: Bi-weekly

Average Length: Less than 10 minutes

iTunes Link: http://www.mrdeity.com/deityrss.xml

Website: http://www.mrdeity.com/

As always, if you become a regular listener to a podcast that solicits donations, try to find a way to make the occasional contribution.

How 'Californication' Should End

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:15:00 +0000

"Californication" hasn't always had the clearest sense of direction. As with most shows these days, it's always had season-long story arcs -- one season is about writing a music producer's biography, another season is about taking a teaching position at a university, etc. -- that act as clotheslines upon which smaller stories can be hung. But the show has typically been short-sighted, more concerned with the smaller day-to-day adventures of the main character rather than the broader scope of his life. Until the current season...

For those of you unfamiliar, "Californication" is a guilty pleasure series whose primary objective is to get as many up-and-coming young actresses as possible to take their clothes off for the camera. David Duchovny stars as novelist and sometime-screenwriter Hank Moody. The quintessential "bad boy with a heart of gold," Hank juggles more women than James Bond would know what to do with while always pining for the domestic-life-that-could-have-been with his teenage daughter, Becca, and her mother, Karen.

"Californication" is also a prime example of a growing sub-genre of cable series that manage to be good enough to keep you watching, but bad enough to make you question why you do. It crosses into unbelievable territory far too often... which would be fine, except that in other moments it wants you to confront heartbreaking realities. The tone is, let's say, inconsistent.

The downfall of many of these "Good Enough/Bad Enough" cable series is that they're bogged down by dull characters that can't be gotten rid of. In the case of "Californication," it's the afore-mentioned Karen and Becca, who bring the show to a screeching halt whenever they're on screen. It's hardly the fault of the actresses (although I won't argue the complaints about Madeleine Martin's acting) -- Karen and Becca are, unfortunately, symbols and plot devices more than characters. They serve as Hank's ultimate goal (happy family life) and moral compass (regret for his bad behavior).

At least some attempt is made to realize Becca as a fully developed character, with actual goals and motivations of her own. Somewhere along the line she started playing guitar and has since set herself on a path to become a rock star. Best of luck to her; but we, the audience, don't care. Her dad is doing far more interesting things, and that's the show we signed up for.

Karen has no such goals and motivations. In the first season, she had gotten engaged to an upstanding businessman. This, of course, rankled Hank, and he set out to prevent the wedding. That wasn't much characterization for Karen in the first place, but she's had even less to do ever since. By now, she shows up just to harangue Hank for two to ten minutes every episode and then move on. This makes her immensely unlikable, and makes us wonder why Hank is so enthralled by her. Having unconditional love for your own offspring is understandable. But why does Hank want Karen around? We've seen what his life is like when she's out of the picture, and it's far more noteworthy.

But it's a catch-22. The catalyst for the entire series was Hank's determination to win back his ex-girlfriend and his daughter, despite his compulsive self-sabotaging via sex and drugs and anti-authoritarian behavior. From an audience perspective, the sex and drugs and anti-authoritarian behavior are way more interesting. We want to spend all our time on those, and as little time as possible with the ex and the daughter. But if the writers were to get rid of the ex and daughter, then Hank has no hope of achieving his personal goals. So there's no choice but to keep those characters around, and to keep Hank perpetually pining for their affections. Hank keeps trying to make things right with them, screwing it up, but managing to keep them just happy enough to allow him into their lives. It's a perpetual motion machine. And it could literally go on this way as long as the network and the writers want it to.

But then this season (its fourth), the writers pushed something forward that's been more damaging to Hank Moody than anything that's come before. It's been brought to light that Hank slept with an underaged girl, and he's been formally charged with statutory rape. This has been handled remarkably well by the writers, especially considering the show's proclivity for "Bad Enough" territory. It would have been easy to get bogged down in heavy drama, and to lose the character of Hank. But no, Hank has remained Hank -- sleeping around, drugging around, running up debt -- even while he's on the verge of being convicted of one of the most serious crimes against civilized society.

In other words, this season has been the best yet in finding that balance between the unbelievable and the heartbreaking. As of yet, our hearts haven't been broken. But there's a lot of very subtle tension building up, and I'm loving it. Hank Moody is on the verge of a total meltdown -- one that is absolutely true to the character and has been earned by the show. And in order to truly deliver on all this potential, Hank Moody needs to become the fictionalized Charlie Sheen.

Yes, this is a Charlie Sheen article! Sorry if this feels like a sneak attack. Frankly, I was reluctant to say it, but there it is.

Look, Charlie Sheen is a real person who needs real help. He's been really abusive to real people. He is not beyond redemption, but he has a lot of work to do. I'm not making light of his situation, and I'm not pretending to have any sort of valuable insight into it. I'm talking about a TV show that has never had anything to do with any real people (except maybe Rick Springfield), which now finds itself in a position to shed a little light on the destructive nature of addiction.

And incidentally, if the makers of "Californication" had gone into the series with the explicit intention of making a fictional version of Charlie Sheen, I would have considered that crass exploitation. But they've always been doing their own thing. It just so happens that this moment of reality has converged in such a way that, through no design of their own, they've found themselves in a position to bring a bit of enlightenment to their audience. And believe me, that's more ambition than a guilty pleasure show such as "Californication" ever desired.

Granted, Charlie Sheen has never been accused of statutory rape. But other than that, there are more similarities than dissimilarities between him and Hank Moody. The excesses, the wild child extravagances; the looks and the charm and the cleverness to pretty much have the world in the palm of your hands, yet the destructive tendencies to be able to lose it all in a heartbeat. (Maybe I'm just a jealous troll.) And through the anguish and the sympathy of the otherwise extraneous Karen and Becca, we could get a sense of the impact such behavior has on loved ones. Those characters would finally serve a greater purpose to the audience, rather than just a thin purpose for Hank's motivations. It's all there.

I'm not saying the producers of "Californication" should go all "ripped-from-the headlines" with Sheen. I'm saying they've already done it without even meaning to. If they commit to what they've already set up -- that Hank has sewn the seeds of his own destruction, and that he may not be able to handle the consequences -- then I think "Californication" is in a better position to illuminate the Charlie Sheen situation than any Johnny-come-lately biographer who's looking to cash in on a celebrity's downfall. And that's the way I'd rather see it unfold.

2011 Oscar Wrap Up

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 13:37:00 +0000

Loose Thoughts
Before writing about this year's Oscar ceremony, I thought I should take a moment to review what I said last year. As it turns out, I came out pretty negatively about last year's show. Which is strange because while I was watching this year, I kept wishing it were as good as last year. Lesson learned. Despite my overall negative feelings about the Oscars this year, the passage of time will probably leave me with a better feeling about it. In that spirit, I'd like to focus on the positive.
Shorter. Last year's telecast rolled straight to 9 o'clock Pacific, midnight Eastern. That's never necessary. This year's show weighed in 20 minutes lighter, despite the strange addition of a lip synching children's choir at the end. Remember, Academy, less is more. Let's see if we can wrap it up by 8 next year.
Kirk Douglas. Look, I couldn't understand half of what the guy was saying. But he still seems really sharp despite being a post-stroke 94-year-old. Once he got on a roll, he provided one of the few moments of spontaneity the whole night. We could have used a few more Kirk Douglas moments.
Melissa Leo. Another one of the more spontaneous moments. She and Kirk Douglas were the only people to get bleeped during the night. Thanks for giving us something to talk about.
Christian Bale. Somehow didn't get bleeped, but still gave us something to talk about by delivering one of the most heartfelt -- but not blubbering -- speeches of the night. He gave due respect to the man his role was based on, and then got choked up when he thanked his wife. "I didn't think I was like this," he said. We didn't either, Christian, but it's nice to see that you are.
The Writers. Both of the screenplay writers gave excellent speeches. And while you might expect writers to be apparently good with words, speaking in front of one of the world's biggest crowds isn't always the most comfortable place for them. Aaron Sorkin and David Seidler both came through.
Best live-action short. "God of Love" wasn't my prediction to win, but it's easy to see why it did - it's probably the most casually entertaining of the five nominees. Luke Matheny's acceptance speech demonstrated exactly that. Funny and relaxed while still respectful and appreciative (and short!), it's what every awards speech should aspire to be.

Randy Newman. Not bogging down his speech with countless thank yous, Newman riffed humorously on his history with the Oscars (20 nominations and only two wins) and poked fun at the whole Oscar process.
In Memoriam. This may have been the single most respectful year for the In Memoriam segment. The audience was asked to hold all applause until the end, so the historically crass "popularity contest" aspect was removed. Furthermore, unlike last year, the camera only cut to the singer a couple of time, and this was obviously planned around moments when the video roll for the deceased was put on hold so that the home viewer wouldn't miss anything.
Spielberg. Not just because he's Spielberg, but because of the introduction he gave before he announced the Best Picture winner. "One of these ten movies will join a list that includes On the Waterfront, Midnight Cowboy, The Godfather and The Deer Hunter. The other nine will join a list that includes The Grapes of Wrath, Citizen Kane, The Graduate and Raging Bull. Either way, congratulations. You're all in very good company." Well said. With all the griping that follows the Academy Awards every year, it's best to remember that it's ultimately meaningless. We love the movies that we love, and we'll keep watching them for decades to come.

And now, the griping. Come on, you didn't think I'd let this whole thing pass without complaining, did you?
You'll notice I didn't have much to say about the hosts in the "positives" section. They were sort of a void in the evening's proceedings. Some commentators have come out in favor of one over the other, but no, they were both pretty bad. I've always liked Franco and Hathaway (well, post-Princess Diaries), and I don't blame them. They shouldn't have been asked to host. I think we, the viewing audience, would do best to forgive and, especially, forget.
Tom Hooper. In his acceptance speech, he told the story of how his mom saw the stage version of "The King's Speech" and told him he should make it a movie. "The moral of the story is to listen to your mother," he said. Cell phones across Los Angeles lit up, as mothers told their aspiring-filmmaker children that they should heed Hooper's advice. Well, mom, as soon as you start delivering me Oscar-worthy material, we'll talk.
The stage. Apparently a lot of people liked it. I found it distracting. It brought the show to a dead halt when the presenters pointed out that it was changing in front of our eyes. And then those magma colors would pulsate in the background during the acceptance speeches. No good.
Lifetime achievements. One of the most venerated directors of the last 40 years, one of the hardest working character actors of the last 60 years, and one of the biggest figures in silent film restoration and preservation won distinguished awards this year. And they were allowed onto the stage, as a group, for about five seconds to give a quick wave and then were sent on their way. If the Oscar stage isn't the place for people like these to be recognized, then where is?
I'll leave it at that. I could go -- and on -- but we're trying to keep it positive.
My Score Sheet
This year, I made predictions in 24 categories. I got 14 right. It's more than half, but still not a great average. I'll have to try harder next year.
In Summary
While some news organization were citing this year as the first official Twitter Oscars, I already made that call last year... and I still agree with myself on that. Last year, people taking their real-time Oscar commentary to the Twitter-verse seemed inspired, and their giddiness showed. This year, it felt like most people were doing it out of obligation. Not particularly inspired, going through the motions, doing it simply because they thought they were supposed to.
And that pretty much describes the Oscars overall this year. Oh well; still happy to have them around. And let's just be optimistic that next year's ceremony will be better. Grade: D-

2011 Oscar Liveblog

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 15:35:00 +0000

This is an archive of the comments I made on Twitter during the February 27, 2011 Oscar telecast, enhanced with a timeline of the televised ceremony, in Pacific time.

3:00 PM - Oscar pre-show coverage has already started on E! and locally. It's best to avoid watching it.

5:12 PM - Settle in for a long night in front of the TV. Am immediately greeted by horrible red carpet questions. Host Robin Roberts asks Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban who picked the music in the limo on their way to the show. Ugh.

5:25 PM - They give a brief glimpse inside the production trailer, with the director and others sitting in front of 20 monitors. This sort of thing might be interesting to viewers for more than three seconds.

5:30 PM - The show opens with a montage of Best Picture nominees.

I was told they were doing away with montages this year. Instead, they open with a big one. 5:33 PM Feb 27th via Echofon

5:33 PM - For the opening, pre-filmed bit with the hosts, the broadcast falls back on the old trope of inserting the hosts into recognizable scenes from the year's movies.

Isn't this Billy Crystal's bit? 5:35 PM Feb 27th via Echofon

5:38 PM - The clip finishes, and the hosts take the stage in the flesh. James Franco comes out with phone in hand - Twitter has made its official stage debut at the Oscars.

- The jokey banter between Franco and Anne Hathaway lands with a resounding thud. Mercifully, it's short.

5:42 PM - Tom Hanks arrives to hand out the first awards. He draws attention to the fact that the stage is surrounded by several arced video screens that transition into a Gone with the Wind theme background. I remember hearing that the Oscar producers planned to "bring us inside the movies" or something like that. This is apparently what they meant.

5:44 PM - The first award of the night, Best Art Direction, goes to Alice in Wonderland's Robert Stromberg and Karen O'Hara.

5:46 PM - Hanks also presents the Best Cinematography award to Wally Pfister for Inception. Then the telecast goes to the first commercial, having handed out awards to older, unfamous people in categories that few people care about. On the way to the commercial, the announcer runs through a list of upcoming categories and presenters.

That bumper out might as well have said, "We promise young famous people when we come back" 5:50 PM Feb 27th via Echofon

5:51 PM - 94-year-old, post-stroke Kirk Douglas takes the stage; so, not so much with the youthfulness the Oscars are angling for. He hands out the award for Best Supporting Actress. He teases the nominees by delaying the winner announcement as long as possible.

How are the live closed captioning people handling Kirk Douglas? 5:53 PM Feb 27th via Echofon

- Finally, he announces Melissa Leo as the winner. Somewhere in her speech, she says "fuck."

And our first bleeped swear! #MelissaLeovulgarity 6:00 PM Feb 27th via Echofon

6:01 PM - Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake start talking animation. Once again, they draw attention to the video screens surrounding the stage which "take us into" an animated backdrop.

The changing backgrounds are as annoying as I imagined them when reading the pre-show coverage 6:03 PM Feb 27th via Echofon

- Timberlake makes "an app for that" joke and pulls out his phone. We're going to be seeing more and more phones on stage in years to come.

- "The Lost Thing" wins Best Animated Short.

- Toy Story 3 wins Best Animated Feature.

Other people make animated movies too, Academy 6:07 PM Feb 27th via Echofon

6:11 PM - Anne Hathaway gives a quick tribute to the very first Academy Awards ceremony in 1929.

6:13 PM - Javier Bardem and James Brolin hand out the Screenplay awards. Social Network wins Best Adapted. Aaron Sorkin's speech goes longer than writers are allowed to go.

Did you really think the cue off music would work for Aaron Sorkin? You've heard his dialogue, right? 6:18 PM Feb 27th via Echofon

- Original Screenplay goes to King's Speech.

-King's Speech- wins best original screenplay. Christopher Hitchens must be turning in his grave. 6:20 PM Feb 27th via Echofon

6:23 PM - Hathaway sings a parody of "On My Own" from Les Miserables, jokingly lamenting that Hugh Jackman refused to sing with her... which couldn't possibly be true.

Can we replace all of Gwyneth Paltrow's singing with Anna Hathaway? 6:26 PM Feb 27th via Echofon

6:26 PM - Russell Brand and Helen Mirren do a comedic bit which has Mirren speaking French and Brand mistranslating. The Best Foreign Film goes to In a Better World.

Just noticed they went back to "the Oscar goes to..." Last year, it was "the winner is..." 6:29 PM Feb 27th via Echofon

6:29 PM - Reese Witherspoon hands out the Best Actor award to Christian Bale.

Finger ready on bleeping button 6:33 PM Feb 27th via Echofon

6:38 PM - Academy president Tom Sherak and Disney/ABC Television Group president Anne Sweeney essentially talk about renewing their contract with each other.

6:40 PM - Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman award the Best Original Score to Social Network's Trent Reznor. The telecast repeatedly cuts to David Fincher, sitting with who I assume is his daughter.

Fincher's girlfriend looks really young. Psh, Hollywood... 6:45 PM Feb 27th via Echofon

6:46 PM - Scarlett Johansson and Matthew McConaughey do the Sound awards. Mixing and Editing both go to Inception.

6:53 PM - Marisa Tomei gives a quick mention to the sci-tech Oscars, which were presented at a different ceremony so as not to nerd up the joint.

6:55 PM - Cate Blanchett hands out the award for Best Makeup to The Wolfman, then Best Costume Design to Alice in Wonderland. Colleen Atwood gives a lengthy acceptance speech from a single index card.

How did she fit all of that onto such a small card? 7:00 PM Feb 27th via Echofon

7:00 PM - They play a video where people on the street are asked to name their favorite Best Original Song winner. Obama is the last person to name a song. Yes, that Obama.

7:02 PM - Kevin Spacey introduces performances for two of the Best Song nominees. Randy Newman performs his song from Toy Story 3, followed by Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi from Tangled.

Chuck sings? 7:06 PM Feb 27th via Echofon
Sorry, but that -Tangled- song sounds 40% like an -Aladdin- song Sun Feb 27 19:10:28 2011 via Echofon
But that -Toy Story 3- song... all Newman! Sun Feb 27 19:11:29 2011 via Echofon

7:11 PM - Amy Adams and Jake Gyllenhaal present the Short Film nominees. Gyllenhaal notes that these can be vital tools in winning your Oscar pool, so everyone should strive to see the nominees. True, but it didn't help me. The Best Documentary Short winner was Strangers No More. Best Live-Action Short was God of Love.

I got all of my short predictions wrong. Why do I even go see them? Sun Feb 27 19:16:22 2011 via Echofon
Seriously, though, -God of Love- is plenty deserving Sun Feb 27 19:16:48 2011 via Echofon

7:18 PM - In an amusing bit, some movie scenes are remixed into music videos using auto-tune and fancy editing.

Musical-ized autotuned movie remixes - best, most original bit of the night Sun Feb 27 19:20:46 2011 via Echofon
Or maybe not... RT @rcbl: Welcome to Hollywood, @autotunethenews! Your funny, fresh work has been ripped off by the Oscar producers. Sun Feb 27 19:21:33 2011 via Echofon
MJMcKean Here's hoping AutoTune turns up in the "In Memoriam" segment. Sun Feb 27 19:24:51 2011 via Twittelator

7:20 PM - Oprah hands out the Oscar for Best Documentary Feature. Inside Job wins.

7:26 PM - Billy Crystal honors Bob Hope and introduces a clip reel of Hope's Oscar-hosting highlights.

I'd be more than happy to see Billy Crystal host the Oscars again Sun Feb 27 19:30:32 2011 via Echofon

- The end of the Hope clip reel is doctored to make it sound like Hope is introducing the next presenters - Jude Law and Robert Downey, Jr. They give Best Visual Effects to Inception and Best Editing to Social Network.

johnaugust Anne Hathaway also just announced that she's taped Luna Bars under all the nominees' seats. Not making this up. #oscars Sun Feb 27 19:40:24 2011 via Twitter for iPhone

7:41 PM - The remaining two Best Song nominees do their performances. First AR Rahman and Florence Welch for 127 Hours.

That was no "Jai Ho" Sun Feb 27 19:44:11 2011 via Echofon

7:43 PM - Then Gwyneth Paltrow sings her song from Country Strong.

What, no Cee-Lo? Sun Feb 27 19:45:42 2011 via Echofon

7:45 PM - Finally they award the winner for Best Original Song. It goes to Randy Newman for Toy Story 3. He frets that his speech will slow the show down.

Randy Newman wins the award for most lively acceptance speech of the night. More of those, please Sun Feb 27 19:49:49 2011 via Echofon

7:52 PM - The telecast comes straight out of commercials into the In Memoriam clip reel, with Celine Dion singing live underneath it. The audience was clearly instructed to hold their applause until the end, and the camera did not pull away from clip reel in favor of the performer as it did last year.

THANK YOU, Academy, for not disrespecting the In Memoriam as you did last year Sun Feb 27 19:56:27 2011 via Echofon

7:56 PM - Halle Berry gives a special tribute to Lena Horne at the end of the In Memoriam reel.

Academy restricted audience applause during In Memoriam - but Lena Horne wins by getting an additional solo spot Sun Feb 27 19:58:46 2011 via Echofon

8:01 PM - Hilary Swank and Kathryn Bigelow present the Best Diretor award. It goes to Tom Hooper.

8:06 PM - Annette Bening introduces Governors Awards winners - Kevin Brownlow, Eli Wallach, and Francis Ford Coppola.

Back in my day, lifetime award winners got to speak during the actual ceremony about 24 hours ago via Echofon

8:10 PM - Jeff Bridges singles out each of the Best Actress nominees for individual love, then announces the winner - Natalie Portman.

Did any of the perverts drooling over 13-year-old Natalie Portman in -The Professional- ever think they'd see this moment? about 24 hours ago via Echofon

8:20 PM - Sandra Bullock gives the individual love treatment to the Best Actor nominees, then announces the winner - Colin Firth.

TheOnion Stay tuned for the official Republican rebuttal to the #Oscars shortly after the show about 24 hours ago via HootSuite

8:31 PM - Steven Spielberg takes the stage to announce the Best Picture winner - King's Speech.

You did it again, Harv about 23 hours ago via Echofon

8:39 PM - As if the show hasn't already gone on too long, some sort of children's choir is trotted out on stage to sing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." Kind of strange, but hey, good for them.

Now sing it like Iz! 8:41 PM Feb 27th via Echofon

So those are the minutes for this year's Oscars. Check back in a couple days for my final summary, and then we can put this awards season to rest. See you then!

POLL RESULTS: Your 2011 Oscar Predictions

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:27:00 +0000

The big night is this Sunday. Here's who YOU predicted will take home the awards...

CLICK HERE to see poll results

Remember, I'll be tweeting during the show at twitter.com/yourdailyjoe. The Academy Awards are Sunday at 8 eastern/5 pacific on ABC. Be sure to print out a ballot to follow along during the Oscar telecast.