Films referenced in class

The 3-D Ann Miller dance number was from "Kiss Me Kate" (1953), which is a musical version of "10 Things I Hate About You." (or, technically, Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew, if you want to be picky. That was followed by Sammie Davis Jr. in "Robin and the 7 Hoods"(1964), the black/white boys are delicious number from "Hair" (1979), and finally "Hedwig and the Angry Inch" (2001).

In terms of genre stages, we started with a Roy Rogers film, then under classical stage, we saw scenes from  "Calamity Jane" (1953) and "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" (1954). The there was the weird looking western "Red Garters" (1954) and the airport number from "All that Jazz"(1979).

And if you enjoyed the off beat nature of some of the scenes, critic Jonathan Rosenbaum did a list of off-beat musicals for DVD Beaver, which includes a couple of the above films, as well as some other prizes like Dr. Seuss's one foray into film -- "The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T." You can read the full list here. 

elvis presley - king creole

In the preceding post I mentioned that there was an Elvis double feature and that King Creole shows better than most why Elvis was so popular to a certain generation. This is not the fat white jump suit Elvis but a scarily charismatic performer that just exudes sex appeal. Watch the video and tell me I'm wrong. ... And let me know if it inspires interest in venturing out to see it on the big screen.

Tarantino's Top 20 Movies Since 1992

I mentioned this in class. Tarantino's talks about Unbreakable at the end of his list and what he says is relevant to our discussion. He also talks about several other films, like Battle Royale, that are brilliant.
Well worth listening to.

Thanks, Judi (and Michael)

Friend of the program Judi Bloom makes this blog post, which seems to link directly with Gia's as well:

NYTimes: "recession-era movies are raking it in at the box office" and attendance is way up this year."

"For the first seven weeks of the year, total United States box- office revenue was roughly $1.5 billion, up by nearly 23 percent compared with the same period in 2008. Perhaps even more important, attendance — which had flagged in the past few years — has risen by about 21 percent.

"The surge appears to validate conventional Hollywood wisdom that says people flock to movies in a down economy."

And, also interesting, from the Carpetbagger blog, interest in Oscar-nominated movies is at an all-time low. Apparently, folks are more inclined to see "Marley and Me" than "Frost Nixon."

Hmm. Maybe something to hash over lunch at Langer's or wherever.

Can't help but wonder what that will mean for the upbeat "Watchmen".

‘Friday the 13th’ Lasts All Weekend at the Box Offic

By MICHAEL CIEPLY

Published: February 16, 2009

LOS ANGELES — Moviegoers are finding everything but cold, hard reality to their liking these days. Riding a powerful surge in movie attendance over the last two months, the horror film “Friday the 13th” led the box office with $45.2 million in ticket sales over a long Presidents’ Day weekend that proved to be Hollywood’s best so far this year.

In the four-day period that began Friday, total domestic box-office sales were about $223 million, far outstripping the $165.9 million in total ticket sales for the same period last year, according to Media by Numbers, a box-office consulting service. The previous record for a Presidents’ Day weekend was set in 2007, when there was $186.6 million in total sales for the period.

For the first seven weeks of the year, total United States box- office revenue was roughly $1.5 billion, up by nearly 23 percent compared with the same period in 2008. Perhaps even more important, attendance — which had flagged in the past few years — has risen by about 21 percent.

The surge appears to validate conventional Hollywood wisdom that says people flock to movies in a down economy.

“The movie business is still the cheapest form of entertainment in the marketplace today,” said Dan Fellman, theatrical distribution president of Warner Brothers, which distributed both “Friday the 13th” and “He’s Just Not That Into You,” the weekend’s second-ranked film. “He’s Just Not That Into You,” a romantic ensemble comedy starring Jennifer Aniston, Scarlett Johansson and others, had $23.4 million in ticket sales, for a total of $58.8 million since opening on Feb. 6.

Only one weekend since the beginning of the year has failed to beat the previous year’s performance. The upswing, if it continues into the summer, would be good news for the studios, as their biggest cash cow, DVD sales, has begun to shrink after years of growth. The box-office bonanza might spark stronger DVD sales, because hits in the theaters tend to become hits in the home market as well.

The film industry’s strong performance began during the Christmas holiday period, with strong sales for pictures like the comedy “Marley & Me,” with Ms. Aniston and Owen Wilson, and the drama “Gran Torino,” with Clint Eastwood.

“Gran Torino,” with $7.6 million in ticket sales for the Presidents’ Day weekend, has taken in $129.7 million so far. Mr. Fellman said he expected total box-office sales for that film to approach $150 million.

“Taken,” a thriller from 20th Century Fox, was the weekend’s third-ranked film, with $22.2 million in ticket sales for the four days and $80.9 million since opening on Jan. 30.

“Coraline,” a 3-D stop-motion film from Focus Features, was fourth, with $19.1 million in sales, and $39.4 million since it opened on Feb. 6. “Confessions of a Shopaholic,” a comedy from Walt Disney’s Touchstone unit, ranked fifth, with $17.3 million in sales for the four days.

The biggest disappointment of the weekend was “The International,” starring Clive Owen and Naomi Watts, which made just $10.7 million. Perhaps a movie about the villainy of banks hit a bit too close to home."

Baby, It's you!

A couple of thoughts about The Baby.
In class we talked about Laura Mulvey's Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema and we looked at examples of the male gaze in The Lady from Shanghai and Peeping Tom. Mulvey says, in part, "In a world ordered by sexual imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female. The determining male gaze projects its phantasy on to the female form which is styled accordingly. In their traditional exhibitionist role women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote to-be-looked-at-ness. Woman displayed as sexual object is the leit-motif of erotic spectacle: from pin-ups to striptease, from Ziegfeld to Busby Berkeley, she holds the look, plays to and signifies male desire. Mainstream film neatly combined spectacle and narrative. ... The presence of woman is an indispensable element of spectacle in normal narrative film, , yet her visual presence tends to work against the development of a story line, to freeze the flow of action in moments of erotic contemplation."

You can read Mulvey's essay here.

We then saw how in certain genres. specifically the western, it the male Westerner who is the sexual object, the erotic spectacle. We then looked at narrative devices within the genre that might serve to thwart the homo-erotization of this figure. In the case of The Beguiled, we run the gambit, from putting him in a dress (night shirt) to ultimately castrating him (at least symbolically).

Which brings us to the Baby and fetish night at the Egyptian. Thought no.1 -- When Laura Mulvey is writing about visual pleasure, she's not accounting for some of our fellow audience members last night. There were clearly people there last night that experienced the images of "Baby" differently than we did (which is a problematic statement itself, in that I am assuming all of you experienced it the way that I did). Mulvey's theory becomes suspect as concepts like fetishes intrude, and her apprach suddenly seems as over;y broad as the structuralism we looked at the week before.

Thought no.2 -- At the same time, the spectator of last night's film was clearly positioned to experience a voyearistic experience by spying on Baby, and he, asd object, was both hard to watch and fascinating at the same time. I'm not sure I would call him the object of MY desire, but he is clearly the object of my gaze in the film. The character lacks the capacity to gaze back, as he has little control over his body so it's impossible to see the film from his eyes. This is most clear in the babysitter nursing sequence. If this were a typical horrror film, we would have shifted into his viewing position at this moment and had a voyeuristic opportunity to see the babysitter's breasts. In this film, however, we are kept out of Baby's head and we never see from his eyes, thereby foregoing the breasts and keeping Baby as the object of the gaze even with that scene. (Compare this with The Beguiled -- atlthough Eastwood is objectified, the film is mainstream in the way it shifts viewpoint to allow the viewer visual pleasure at Carol's cleavage and nudity). This babysitter scene serves as a good example that this film is really outside film norms not just because of the content of the film, but on a deeper level. It screws with our expectations, it exposes traditional filmmaking by its deviations from it. Most viewers are not allowed visual pleasure at all, as we have to painfully watch Baby -- no relief like a traditional horror film would have -- in fact the daughters make heterosexual desire off limits by their sheer weirdness -- and the babysitter and her no panties comment render her potentially sexual, but like the westerner, she is severely punished for that potential) No, we are trapped into watching this alternative play out, and perhaps that's where the horror designation of the film lies. (By the way, the tagline for the film was "Horror is his formula.") On the other hand, for a select group, including some sitting next to me last night, I suspect the film worked very differently and that the film has nothing to do with the horror genre.

Regardless, I think the film shows how much we can learn from fringe cinema -- the stuff that falls into the cracks.

Your thoughts?

Fine Art to Movies - Note to Gia

Gia mentioned thinking about (A)rtists who go on to make films, for her cyber-journal/paper presentation. It just occurred to me that one candidate for a subject would be the films of Julian Schnabel -- Basquiat and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.

Best Ten lists

'Tis the season. I don't think there's such a thing as a a bad best ten list. Some are more in line with my personal tastes, but I personally find them useful for two reasons: (1). Sometimes they will list a film that wasn't on my radar and it makes me want to give it a chance. For example, Time just listed Speed Racer on its list. Based upon all of the negative reviews, I gave this a pass. Based upon Corliss' comments, I'm going to pick up the DVD. (2). These lists can be informative as to how the list-makers and my own opinions coincide. For example, Steven King's list seems too self-consciously low brow to be of great use to me -- even though I agree with some of his selections, so I'm not going to rush out and see Death Race just because he included it. King's list tells me more about King, than it does about what films I should see -- but that's useful info too. Thoughts?

With that said, here's some lists, and watch this post as I add others. Let me know if anything useful emerges.
Edgar Wright's Top 29

Roger Ebert

Stephen King

AFI

Time (Richard Corliss)

The New Yorker (David Denby)

barbie zombies (as if there was any other kind)

Boing Boing tells us how to make our (uh, yours actually) Barbies into zombies. Learn how here.
I only mention this in the context of genre: Is it fair to say that zombie is now a genre in itself, rather than a sub-genre of horror? I ask because Twilight shows the vampire film's essential element is not horror; it's sex -- The one thing zombies films are not about. I just wonder if these former horror icons have established such firmly attached themes that they have outgrown the overly broad "horror" genre. Or in a different way of thinking -- has horror become a meta-genre the way comedy and drama have?Are vampire films the romantic comedy to the zombie movies' gross-out teen comedy? (Analogically speaking -- although with Shawn of the Dead ...)

While you ponder those questions, I'm going to see if the same tricks used for Barbie will apply to my old G.I. Joe.

NY Times Magazine "Screen" issue

"Every fall the magazine publishes a special issue about Hollywood, acelebration and investigation of that unique experience calledmoviegoing: sitting in a dark theater for two hours with a few hundredstrangers and being entertained by flickering lights and amplifiedsound. This year, we’ve stretched the issue to reflect a new reality:when you watch moving pictures these days, a theater is the last placeyou are likely to be. Cable, YouTube, DVDs, DVR, news briefs in theelevator and cartoons on your cellphone — through a variety of media,we now consume fragmented narratives on multiple screens. From a16-second panda-sneeze video to 60 straight hours of “The Wire,” this is the way we watch now." -- NY Times

There's some nice pieces on the industry in this issue, including "how we watch" themed material, which seems to be the "thing" to discuss. Click the cover to go to the whole issue.

WSJ reports on new technologies

For anyone interested in the distribution and exhibition ends of the industry, as compared to production, the Wall Street Journal has a "things to come"piece today on The Way We'll Watch...

Survey

Last year I don' think it's unfair to say the Duke in LA class was socially conservative (not all, but a majority [a moral majority?]) In years past, I've shown some fairly challenging films, like Crash (the good one by Cronenberg, not the recent Academy award-winning one that I found much more pornographic under the classic sense of the word) . Yet, I don't want to offend anyone and wonder if what was once acceptable is now taboo.
So my question for all of you is how would you feel about me showing an art house gay zombie sort-of-porn film for post-modern week. Is it too much? Should I stick with Shanghai Noon?

Why we study comics, part 24

From Hero Complex/LA Times interview with Barry Levine:

“Right now in Hollywood, the rush is on, comic books are the new sensation and they are not going away,” Levine said with an insider’s assured nod at he sat in front of a plate of pasta at a Los Angeles sidewalk café. “What’s happened already is impossible to ignore but what’s happening now and what's going to happen next is even more interesting.”

The past-tense statement was a reference to “The Dark Knight,” “Iron Man,” "Hancock," “Wanted” and other 2008 comic-book films that have been piling up box office receipts that, collectively, are astounding. “The Dark Knight” alone is closing in on a billion dollars in ticket sales and may even end up as the first comic-book movie to fly high at the Oscars.

The interesting future, according to Levine, is on the way because Hollywood players are climbing over each other for comic-book properties, both famous and obscure, like gamblers trying to pump coins into the same slot machine. Levine is taking a different approach –- he’s built his own slot machine.

Levine is co-founder of Radical Publishing, a company that began publishing comics this year with sleek production values and the proud agenda of treating every comic book as if it is a storyboard for a film that’s just waiting to be made. Some people make pitches in Hollywood, Levine hands out comic books.

I have to say, the guy seems to have a pretty good sensibility for the contemporary cinematic version of the fantastic; the comics he is putting out sound like movies. There’s “Caliber,” the tale of King Arthur reimagined as an Old West adventure where the magic sword is replaced with a six-shooter and Merlin is a Native American shaman; the future police-state tale “City of Dust,” a sort of tricked-out “Blade Runner” channeling of George Orwell's thought-crime fears; and a bloody take on “Hercules,” where the embittered man-god runs with an ancient, all-star mercenary group, a sort of “300” version of “The Magnificent Seven.”

Yes, at Radical it’s all high concept, all the time. And Hollywood is paying attention."

Read the rest here.

Eulogy/Elegy to the film crtic

Roger Ebert just did a very moving piece on the end of the professional film reviewer, without ever mentioning his own contributing role in its destruction. Surprisingly, there's no focus on the advent of internet "amateurs" either -- only on the print media's focus on "celebrity." Despite my criticisms, it's a piece well worth reading here.

Twilight

Here's a genre question for you all -- and the answer would inform how Twilight was conceived and constructed and cast, how one should market the film, and how as an audience member you should "experience" it.

Is "Twilight" a vampire movie, or is it a movie about Vampires?

I saw it last night and so wish I had time to write a review that started: "If Twilight is in fact a vampire movie, it lacks fangs -- the most horrific aspect is how much it leaves me feeling long in tooth ..."

Best fill in the blank movies of all time

We are flooded with lists of the 25 best car chases, the 60 greatest vampire films, Entertainment Weekly's 50 sexiest movies, etc. In class we'll consider the genre ramifications of this MSM preoccupation with "listing," which serves to create genre canons. I'm posting this morning though with a Who Watches the Watchmen kind of question. When EW lists the sexiest movies, and it's incredibly wrong, how do regular people protect themselves from being imprinted with this list. (At its root, there's this suspicion that Citizen Kane gets listed as greatest film of all time more because of stare decisis than any real understanding of its actual greatness.)

One question to ask is whether or not "sexy movie" is a genre? If it makes the cover of EW, and thousands of people post messages on EW online complaining of omissions, and there seems to be rules about what doesn't qualify, i.e. porn, then on some level doesn't it qualify as a "genre." But here's a list that doesn't include Brokeback Mountain, M. Butterfly, or Women in Love (Oliver Reed and Alan Bates wrestling in the nude) -- does that mean sexy is hetero. Does "genre" help establish our concept of societal norms. (I should say in full disclosure that the EW list isn't exclusively hetero, it includes Maurice and Yossi & Jagger, but those are obscure films and don't have the influence of Brokeback)

The other interesting question raised by the sexiest list is how we as a culture define sexy vs. romantic.

Anyway, just in case my students pick up this EW issue because they like the cover, let me say on the record that you shouldn't simply accept on face value that the 50 sexiest movies should automatically include:
His Girl Friday, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Once, Titanic, The 1981 Postman Always Rings Twice, The Bodyguard, King Kong, Bridges of Madison County, 300, or How Stella Got her Groove Back.

And if you're looking for the sexiest movies of all time, I'd personally suggest you go past EW's love of neo-noir and instead look at early Stanwyck or the original Postman instead of the remake. Also I can't believe there's no mention of Choose Me, The End of the Affair, The Big Easy, Sea of Love, Barbarella (or Cat Ballou), Damage, Last Tango in Paris, Cabaret, All that Jazz, Dead Ringers, A History of Violence and the list could go on forever.

If amateur genre lisitng is completely subjective (Do Republicans get more aroused by watching Wall Street or Top Gun?) , then what's the point. At the same time, there's an undeniable pleasure in seeing the cover, and instantly naming your list to see if it matches, i.e "Let's see, I know Bull Durham is in the top ten, but I bet body Heat is number one ...."

So my Thanksgiving question is "Should we beware of canons, or at least ones that don't include Death Proof on its 20 greatest car chases?"

75 Comics being made into film!

Read it here. 'Nuff said.*

*But I'll say it anyway. This is why we're studying comics and super-heroes. It's why I want you to know about manga, anime, toys, games, etc. This is a huge aspect of the industry right now.

A to Z meme

The Sergio Leone ... site had a post today about an A to Z film list meme "currently coursing through the arteries of the blogosphere." The respondent is supposed to name 26 films, one for each letter of the alphabet, which represents the author in some way. As stated on Sergio ... --

"Larry constructed his entirely of films noir, thrillers and detective movies; Bill, on the other hand, went for a more generalized representation of his tastes in films, and wondered out loud what it meant that there were so few horror movies on his list.

... the one hard and fast rule-- the one that insists entries that start with “The” be classified not as “T” entries but instead by the letter that begins the second word of the title, per classical alphabetization standards—therefore, The Green Slime is a “G” entry. I decided, rather than trot out another version of my top 100 (or in this case top 26) movies, I’d try something a little different-- it was apparent this would be a necessity when I saw Bill’s list and realized that if I stayed in a generalized arena I could probably just cut and paste 80% of his list and call it my own. So, in a hopefully not too annoying attempt to cut a slightly different trail through the brush, I decided that I would make my list entirely out of movies that were either much better than their reputations, or movies that were less likely to be on the tops of many readers’ minds, especially when it comes to favorites-oriented projects like this.... "

For more of the article, including his A to Z click here.

I'm going to attempt to do my own, which I'll publish as a comment. I am going to attempt 26 different genres! "Do y'all even know 26 movies?" I say as an obvious taunt!

Nice Interview

Those of you interested in how digital technology is impacting the film industry should read this interview in Filmmaker Magazine with Scott Kirsner, author of Inventing the Movies.
Here's a taste:

"Why are indie filmmakers so behind the curve on Web marketing? It‘s because not every filmmaker is naturally an entrepreneur or a marketer. They want to communicate through film, and I feel that the challenge for them is to get more attention, to build more of an audience for their films and a fan base to support their own careers. Filmmakers do need to spend more time on this stuff because in the worlds of music, film, publishing and art, the middleman and distributors are not doing as much as they used to. Promotion falls on your shoulders. That‘s what I want to concentrate on in my next book.

Okay, so forget about indie filmmakers — why are indie distributors so reluctant to be innovative on the Web? When you have something going on in your life that works, you are loathe to change it. So many of these small distributors are used to the idea that there‘s a press kit for the movie, which is a folder with a picture of the movie on the front, and there‘s a press release and a filmmaker bio inside, and if you‘re lucky a CD-ROM with some digital pictures. But you can do more on the Web because your production and distribution costs are lower. Why not have a podcast interview with the director on the Web, or have the producer do a blog? But [for some companies] all of this stuff feels like it‘s creating more work, or it‘s changing existing workflows in ways that are uncomfortable."

Film Screening matters

I am updating some of the border link categories on the blog and I just finished the Film Screenings Matters section. The main addition is the Southland Cinephiles link, which does a good job of listing the next week's special screenings around town. This is primarily for a couple of former Duke in La'ers that are "the real thing" film fans, ones who are about to move here (Yay!) .

As always, anyone who knows a great link that I'm not including in any of the categories should let me know and I'll add it.

Entertainment Weekly

This week's EW --the 25 entertainers of the year issue -- has the cast and crew of the Dark Knight as #3. If you read it on line, there's pictures of the cast, etc. BUT if you pick up the hard copy, there's a four page comic written by Jeff Jensen (smartest LOST fan out there) and drawn by Jillian Tamaki. It's outstanding. Buy it, thumb through it in line at the store, but don't miss it. Nice work.