Much gets made about the role violence plays in movies and culture, and to what extent violence in movies is related to the perceived increase in violence in society. Most of the time I agree with Quentin Tarantino, that people are able to distinguish fantasy from reality and while movies may inform people’s perceptions of violence, very rarely do they beget violence itself, if it can be said that they do at all. Django Unchained did not make me want to go on a killing spree. It did, however, make me want to eat handfuls of candy. So perhaps the question should be: to what extent does food in movies contribute to our society’s culinary addictions and dependency??
You guys, I’m still really bummed about Enlightened getting cancelled. The more I think about it and rewatch it, the more I think it was one of the best shows produced on television in the past couple of years. But I also understand that this sort of show can only survive so long when next to nobody watches it. Unless someone like Netflix decides to pick it up—and this is 2013 after all, so surely somebody has to step in to keep a show like this from disappearing, right?—it will likely recede into that special little place in the cultural ethos reserved for cancelled TV shows that had their life support plugs pulled regrettably soon.
Usually when someone is described as “polarizing” it means that sensible people think they’re awful and foolish saps think they’re the greatest. Other times, it can be a matter of acquired taste, someone who seems weird and unlikeable at first and then over time, as you begin to understand what they’re about, becomes more interesting and cool. In other cases, people people’s impressions can be forever tinged by what their first exposure to someone is, and they refuse to change their minds, instead steadfastly clinging to their original conclusion because thinking differently is too much work.
Comedy can be difficult to appreciate during initial encounters. A lot of the comedy that is considered top class stuff today was dismissed as weird and sometimes irritating when it was first experimented with. You see this all the time: Will Ferrell’s comedy is still a point of annoyance for many, although Anchorman has established itself as enough of a comedy institution for this generation, this despite a preliminary cold reaction back in 2004, that it has a sequel set for release this winter. Other dated movies like Wet Hot American Summer are starting to take on new identities of comedy hits after their stars have endeared themselves to a wider audience.
There’s an element of puppetry to all movies, given that they usually stem from the mind of a writer whose words and actions are then brought to life by a cast of actors, who are further controlled by an overseeing director. Some directors will take a hands-off approach to their performing talent, but there are many throughout history, most famously Alfred Hitchcock, who closely guided their every move. So it seems natural that filmmakers would be accustomed to the act of dictating someone’s movements and the words coming out of their mouths.
I’ve decided I’m a 3D optimist. Ultimately, I think the format is going to improve in the hands of skilled filmmakers and technicians with able hands and keen eyes and will be as much an institution of the moving image as color is today. If the type of people who currently say 3D is a gimmick won the argument back in the day when color film was becoming popular, we’d be watching G.I. Joe in black and white. It seems inevitable that the technology has such tremendous potential that to abandon it because of a few—ok, quite a number of hiccups would be totally shortsighted.
You know what’s awesome about Tom Cruise? No matter what people think of his religious affiliations, his sometimes questionable public behavior, his romantic relationships, his various eccentricities, most are still fans of his movies. He makes seriously solid movies, frequently, consistently, dependably. He’s an actor who brings it to each role he takes on, whether he’s carrying a film like Mission: Impossible or working as a bizarre supporting player like in Rock of Ages.
On the surface, Spring Breakers is some kind of gross wet dream for dudes salivating over the idea of former Disney Channel stars starring in a super raunchy movie when they reach the age where they’re old enough to do so. Because of this, it’s a movie to treat with some caution. If you decide to see it, maybe during a matinee showing, I would recommend keeping distance away from any old lonely guys you share the theater with. You know, just to be on the safe side. It’s a safe bet that they’re there for a fairly specific reason and it’s less likely that they’re Harmony Korine fans and more likely that they’re huge fans of being generally disgusting people.
Most emerging technologies in the film industry are met with a combination of hope and dread. We’ve seen this throughout movie history, with many objecting to the inception of talkies when sound was first used in popular movies. This continued with color, and has persisted with things like digital filmmaking, and perhaps most recently the new push by champions like Peter Jackson for 48 frames per second. There are as many detractors of these innovations as there are enthusiasts. One development that has proved especially divisive is the employment and rise of 3D in big budget movies.
The idea of your quintessential ‘art film’ and director Terrence Malick go hand in hand. His latest, To the Wonder, is one of his most polarizing, some hailing it as his latest masterpiece and others decrying it as either a typical Malick poetic snoozefest or an uncharacteristic flop from an otherwise solid filmmaker. I can’t speak to the quality of this release specifically since as far as I know it’s unavailable for those of us here in Canada, but I know that this response is somewhat predictable when it comes to Malick’s movies. He’s not someone who’s going to ever really make a universal hit. But that doesn’t mean he should be dismissed by the majority of movie fans.
