Oscar himself

The Academy Awards are not the be all and end all of cinema. Considered the most prestigious awards show on Earth, due in fact to longevity rather than merit, the Oscars were created to shine a light on films that not only challenge the way we perceive cinema as an art form, but also how viewing those films changes or enhances our personal lives as well as our world view.

The Oscars, at their best, are more than just a self-indulgent night of rowdy, jewel encrusted circle jerking. In receiving a nomination, be it for best picture or best supporting actress, a film has the opportunity to get more press therefore, in theory, a wider audience and a greater chance of making an impression on any given person.

In recent years, however, this simple idea of allowing truly inspiring and thought provoking feats of cinema to be seen by more people has been trumped by celebrity orientated culture and a public thirst for being comfortable in the movie theaters, rather than challenged. 2011, as in no other, offers the best example of this sudden divergence from masterful works of art to hokey, trite pieces of fluff that will be forgotten before the year is out.

Films like Shame and Martha, Marcy, May, Marlene, both highly touted yet ignored by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, offered glimpses into the sexually and psychologically disturbing yet emotionally churning realities of the world we live in, all the while creating masterworks unlike any other of the year. Both films featured timeless performances, thought provoking material and a steady direction unequaled by most films of this or any year.

So why are they ignored in favor of star-studded bashes that offer no new insight into the realm of filmmaking or the trials of being human? The answer, nor the blame, falls on the Academy but rather the more than 6,000 individuals who make up the Academy, which seems strange considering every member of the Academy is somehow involved in filmmaking.

Film is the utmost form of escapism so the justification behind ignoring thought provoking films could be as simple as not wanting to be reminded of the trial and tribulations of the world outside the cinema. Maybe people see too much of themselves inside characters that are real and do not have super powers. Maybe people just want to be entertained, which is not only understandable but totally acceptable as well.

The problem arises, however, when pop corn flicks and star-studded spectacles begin to overshadow the films that want to do more than kill a few hours with explosions and quick cuts. There is certainly room for both, but again the solution to the problem falls to the audience. A theater’s bookings are based on many things, some of it bureaucratic and based on preferences, but most of it stems from the wants of the audience.

People want to see superheroes and pirates and cars that turn into walking-talking machines. They don’t want a portal into the mind of a man with an unbridled sex addiction, nor are they interested in the tale of an emotionally damaged young woman who has just escaped from a cult. So the same should be expected from the 6,000 members designated to spotlight the best films of the year.

But what of the future? What of the films that will not fade away in a year and instead, will stand proudly for the next twenty as the apex of that year? The question relies now on the audience. If there is a demand for films that break the mold then theaters will provide them. The business is based around the audience and if the audience is there, so is the material.

So it comes down to people, as most of this life does, and are ability, or more importantly our want to not settle, but rather be moved and challenged and changed by the emotional complexities and infinite visual brilliance of filmmaking. The reflections these films offer is unrivaled and therefore necessary for the growth of not only art, but life as well.

Matthew Broderick has been in and out of the public eye for a large part of his career, being a huge star in some years, but often being a silent contender out of the spotlight. But now it seems he’s ready to comeback … if only for just a little bit. I wonder if Charlie Sheen will be in this version as well?

Check out Charlie’s early career cameo:

They annoy and frustrate, enlighten and observe, all while establishing a mood and atmosphere that grounds a show in their particular space of reality. But often characters never get due their diligence and their actions and words go unnoticed and under-appreciated.

Luckily we are here to shed some light on characters and and their real-life counterparts that never received, or receive, the attention they so rightfully deserve.

1. Nick Offerman as Ron Swanson

“Parks and Recreation” is a show driven by the heart of their colorful and relatable characters, but consistently, it is Nick Offerman that steals every scene.

As manly man Ron Swanson, who likes his meat rare, his whiskey strong and his bacon and eggs at the ready, Offerman is not only hilarious, but genuine as well. He has pitfalls like everyone else, though his are mostly related to and inspired by his ex-wife Tammy, and though he works for the state government, he believes government should interfere as little as possible with the day-to-day lives of the city’s inhabitants.

And was it mentioned that he has an epic mustache? “Parks and Recreation” is a lovable show whose popularity is only growing with each subsequent episode and while the entire cast and crew should be bombarded with praise, Nick Offerman is a standout amongst an already stellar cast.

2. David Cross as Dr. Tobias Funke

David Cross is funny. That may be the most obvious statement of all time but anyone who ever doubts the comedic abilities of the stand-up comedian/actor need only look to his performance as psychotherapist turned wanna-be actor Tobias Funke in the criminally under cut “Arrested Development”.

This show was perfect, from concept to execution, and what is perhaps most impressive was its ability to keep up a relentlessly funny and sly pace that never once faltered for its entire 53 episode run. And the same statement could be said of Cross, who was only supposed to be a supporting character but was so good that he was brought on full time.

Cross nails every aspect of Tobias perfectly, from his blatantly repressed homosexuality, to his obsession with becoming an actor, and though he his without a doubt the most awkward character in the history of television, he is made loveable and a joy to behold thanks to the talents of David Cross.

3. Callum Keith Rennie as Lew Ashby

Although Rennie was only in ten episodes of Showtime’s “Californication” his take on aging rock star and record producer Lew Ashby provided the show’s waning second season with some of its most memorable moments.

For the uninitiated, “Californication” follows the exploits of literary-Casanova Hank Moody, played by David Duchovny, as he struggles through his day to day life in Los Angeles. In the second season, Hank is hired by Ashby to write the biography of his life and get to the heart of why Ashby’s productions are always massively successful.

The two play wonderfully off each other as both are inclined towards narcotics and the company of women, and they seem at once long lost brothers and compatriots in the fight against mediocrity and the steady decline of the human sensibility.

Rennie captures Ashby’s boisterous spirit with an unequivocal ease and is so attuned to Ashby’s jumps, skips, and rolls that watching him on screen is without a doubt as good as the second season can get.

4. Jeffrey Tambor as Hank Kinglsey

Jeffrey Tambor has been around since the seventies, and no matter the role or the quality of the production he is always a pleasure to behold, as one can never know what to expect. And in 1992, practically a veteran thespian, Tambor unleashed onto the world the mismatched, funny, rude but eternally likable Hank Kingsley in HBO’s “The Larry Sander’s Show“.

As sidekick to fictional talk show host Larry Sanders, Kingsley seems a bit of an oaf with his endless product endorsements and general aloofness, but when you dig deeper, you find a man with a great drive and determination, and although he can devolve to a bumbling, crying mess, he is a genuine character with hopes, desires, shame and heart.

He is the butt of every joke and never gets the respect he believes he deserves, which inevitably and regularly leads to comic gold. And perhaps the most thrilling aspect of Hank Kinsley is Jeffrey Tambor, who, by looking at his previous work, is clearly deep in character and acts with such ease and grace that you doubt he is anyone but Hank Kinglsey.

Umm FREE?!

If you have a Nintendo DSi, DSi XL or 3DS, make sure to jump onto the online store for your handheld to grab The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords for FREE! As part of Zelda’s 25th Anniversary celebrations, Nintendo announced that this classic GameCube game would be yours to keep for ZERO DSi Points!

[via Worth1000.com]

Apparently being arrested by your ex is romantic.

Romantic comedy style movies are nothing new, they have been around for as long as film has, providing plenty of reasons for women to go see to the movies (do they really need a reason?). The growing trend in movies featuring two lovestruck people in zany situations seems to be steadily ballooning, giving such “gifted” actors like Kate Hudson and Reese Witherspoon a steady line of work – and paycheck.

But we’ve come a long way from the days of Shakespeare’s “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” and Marilyn Monroe and Tom Ewell’s romance in “The Seven Year Itch”.

Now movie producers are looking for ways to wedge romantic plots into anything they can get their hands on – it’s no wonder that there have been more romantic comedies in the last five years than all of the other years of film combined!

What is a “rom com” nowadays?

rom·com [rohm-komm] noun

1. a romantic adventure placed in a universe of improbable events
2. fanciful; impractical; unrealistic: romantic ideas often mixed with low-grade humor
3. a romantic comedy.
4. something a man will subject himself to in hopes that he will get sexual favors later
5. two people kept apart by some complicating circumstance, both are attractive, yet have some fatal flaw

Without ever really knowing the sheer pain that a man has to endure in order to watch a romantic comedy designed for women, a female movie-goer will never quite understand how terrible these films are, or how questionable the plot points and characters have become. Perhaps they ought to consider trying out some movies made specifically for men?

All that aside, it seems as thought it’s becoming harder to make romantic comedies seem so dramatic anymore, what with both the female and male leads being so overtly Hollywood attractive, which essentially means that most people that look that good will never be linked with another beautiful person. They need to have a reason to be single … but how?!

Enter the fatal flaw

Now it’s not just enough to have pretty leads, unimaginable circumstances, unlikely path crossing, or weird coincidences in a rom-com. Now the seemingly perfect female leads need to have a weakness, a clumsiness to them. After all, it’s not like they could make them ugly or fat – then people wouldn’t want to watch the movie!

Here is a montage of near-perfect woman from rom-coms that are completely and utterly terrible at doing normal daily activities:

Klutz!

Here are a few films whose directors passed over color and decided black and white would be a much more fitting color scheme for the tone and overall reception and impact of their piece.

1. Raging Bull

Supposedly, just as Martin Scorsese began filming “Raging Bull”, he took some time to look at the dailies he had assembled so far and realized something was amiss. Michael Powell, who was spending a lot of time with Scorsese and becoming a bit of a mentor to him, noticed Robert De Niro’s red boxing gloves were too striking, throwing off the pace and look of the film. Scorsese immediately agreed and decided then and there that the film had to be in black and white.

And good thing he did because not only is “Raging Bull” one of the greatest movies of all time, but without the use of black and white photography one would have to imagine the twisted and self-destructive journey of boxer Jake La Motta would not be nearly as horrid or captivating as Scorsese’s beautifully introspective masterpiece turned out to be.

2. American History X

While only half this movie is in black and white, the contrast it draws between the muted colors it establishes in the flashbacks and the brilliant and colorful surroundings of the present provides easy access into the mind Derek Vinyard.

As a young skin head with a penchant for drawing others into his cause, Derek, played with gusto and an unbelievable amount of heart by Edward Norton, sees the world in two colors: white and everything else. His racism is blinding and his actions speak loudly in support of his beliefs, but after he goes to prison for the murder of a young African American, Derek slowly begins to see the world as it truly is; a multitude of colors, faces, ideals and actions, any and all of which can be condoned or supported by any race, creed or gender.

As Derek realizes his past mistakes, the world becomes brighter, and the once gloomy and dim air that ran through his home of Venice Beach, California, becomes sunnier and crisper in its colorful flare. Black and white is used to perfection here as it establishes two, distinct frames of mind.

3. Schindler’s List

A prime example of how black and white photography can establish a mood, “Schindler’s List” is a powerful film whose black and white presentation puts it at opposite ends of the bloody, disheartening yet eventually uplifting subject matter. Before “Schindler’s List”, Steven Spielberg was still seen as the young, blockbuster producing filmmaker who could bring in audiences but had yet to achieve the intrinsic depths of mood and emotion mined by some of his cinematic counterparts like Francis For Coppola and Martin Scorsese.

But Spielberg handles this film with so much care and respect that you can see him growing as a filmmaker with each subsequent frame. His decision to show the atrocities of the Holocaust in black and white surely must have been a difficult one because while you want to enlighten an audience about a part of history you do not want to unnerve them to the point of losing sight of the story. But Spielberg is a master and his black and white photography adds age, emotion and a certain level of class to every scene and setting a mood that may be hard to get comfortable with but one you will never forget.

4. Good Night, and Good Luck

George Clooney shot his 2005 hit in color before deciding to digitally convert it to black and white, and his decision to do so grounded his real-life story of Edward R. Murrow and his fight against McCarthyism in a perfectly unforgettable time and place, creating an atmosphere exploring all sides of humanity. “Good Night, and Good Luck” is one of the best period films to be released in the last ten years and the performance by David Strathairn and the rest of the cast make it an impeccable film.

The world of television, and journalism for that matter, were still black and white during the time of Joseph McCarthy’s tyrannical witch-hunts, and Clooney’s decision to allow the audience to view his film the same way really cements the audience in the action, never allowing a blink or a sneeze to distract from the story.

This is an important film, not only as a lesson in filmmaking, acting and cinematography, but in humanitarianism and power of a few, good people to fight and overcome what they know to be indecent.

5. Ed Wood

Tim Burton had said before that he wouldn’t know a good movie if it cam up and slapped him in the face, which is probably why he is the perfect candidate to make a movie about the worst movie maker of all time: Ed Wood. Wood was fascinated by film, but he never seemed to produce anything that rose above sloppy mediocrity.

In fact, more than a few of his films are considered to be some of the worst in the history of cinema. Burton perfectly captures the trials of an artist trying his best to make a movie of substance, and Johnny Depp’s performance as the titular director brings a raw affection to man who simply wants to make his mark as an artist. While this film could have easily been produced in color, the decision to make it black and white allows for a much deeper exploration of this man’s life, which he hoped, in his own mind, could be half as good as some of his favorite black and white films.

Though Burton has recently slipped in his ability to tell a story without the reliance of over the top CGI or whacky, zany plots, he is in full form here and anyone, including himself, questions his ability to make a movie, need only look to “Ed Wood”.

On this edition, two more films will be discussed but both happen to be extremely faithful and representative of their individual adaptations. Both films created a world almost identical to the author’s vision and boasted critical as well as box office glory.

Both films are powerful, stimulating and beyond successful in their scope. As moviegoers and readers, we can only hope adaptations of this quality lead the way for more, high quality translations.

Sin City

Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez seem an unlikely creative duo, but in 2005 they teamed up and adapted one of Miller’s most creative series graphic novels to the big screen. “Sin City” is not a movie based on a comic, but rather a comic book movie in the purest and most dedicated form imaginable. Miller and Rodriguez literally took panels from the formers graphic novels and turned them into beautifully photographed, flickering images on the big screen, making the translation from novel to film seamless.

The story follows the inhabitants of the titular city as they make their way through Sin City’s corrupt and dangerous streets. The movie follows three of Miller’s novels, each a full story on their own, but when strung together on film, creates a wide spectrum detailing the livelihood of the cities righteous and unrighteous dwellers.

The first third of the film follows Marv, played magnificently by the brutish yet tender Mickey Rourke, who was genuinely snubbed for an Oscar nomination. After spending the night with a beautiful hooker, Goldie, the only woman that has treated him right, Marv wakes up to find her dead and the police already on their way. Fighting his way through hoards of police officers, Marv realizes he has been set up and goes on a violent rampage in an attempt to prove his innocence.

Rourke bleeding it up as Marv

Rourke is almost too perfect in the role of Marv, a man continuously beaten by life but who never learned to stay down. He is tough and brooding and wholly sympathetic, creating an anti-hero for a hero-less generation.

The second act of the film finds us switching gears to Dwight, an equally violent and unstable man who gets caught up in a situation that could threaten the long standing peace between the whores of Sin City and the police who let them go about their business as long as they get a cut of the profits.

Featuring the talents of Clive Owen, Benicio Del Toro, Rosario Dawson and Britany Murphy, this act is just as exciting as the first, shedding more light onto the layout and general disposition of a city fortified by the corrupt and held together by morally ambiguous characters, all of whom are just trying to get by.

The third and final chapter switches gears once again, this time to former police officer Hartigan, who was betrayed by the system supposedly sworn to protect the city but in fact just goes on to destroy it. After being locked away for almost ten years, Hartigan is released but is soon put right back into the action after a young girl is kidnapped by a notorious rapist.

Bruce Willis, Jessica Alba and the criminally underrated Nick Stahl fill out the cast for this final chapter and each one of them keeps up the dark, unrelentingly violent tone and bring to the table a sense of boiling noir.

Each of the three parts is highly representative of their source material. Rodriguez configured the storyboarded the movie based on Miller’s panels, and even the dialogue is almost identical from novel to film, creating a unified experience that is as much a joy to behold as it presumably was to create.

Rodriguez stuck to what Miller had created and in the process made “Sin City” the perfect adaptation.

No Country for Old Men

Cormac McCarthy never had much luck in seeing his work translated successfully to the screen. But in 2007, the Joel and Ethan Coen shared with audiences what an adaptation can do and how three artist’s minds could be so in tune with one another’s.

Little changed from McCarthy’s story of drugs, death and the commerce of life to the Coen’s big screen adaptation. The characters remain intact, the plot points fall as they should and the highly invocative world McCarthy enlightened his audience to is brought to life with a scintillating tact by the brothers Coen.
“No Country For Old Men”, both the book and the film, details the events of a drug deal gone sour and its unfortunate aftermaths. Llewelyn Moss, a Vietnam Vet who lives in a trailer park with his wife Carla Jean, stumbles upon the corpses of all those involved in a large scale heroin deal.

A natural hunter, Moss goes on to discover the last man standing, who holds in his dead hands more than $2 million in cash. Moss takes the money and runs, fleeing from the Mexican cartel, Sheriff Tom Bell who only wants to help Moss but has trouble understanding all the senseless violence that seems to be left in his wake, and the menacing mercenary Anton Chigurh.

Broling as Llewelyn Moss

Nothing seems lost in the translation from novel to screen and the Coen Brothers must be commended for their astute and respectful adaptation on a novel that, in lesser hands, could have seen its themes and overall impact dwindled by less capable filmmakers.

The Coens wrangled up a stellar cast in the process, giving Josh Brolin, Tommy Lee Jones and Javier Bardem the deepest, most intricate and defined roles of their careers, all of whom handle the task with more than their fare share of success.

Jones as Sheriff Ed Tom Bell

The only, major difference from the novel compared to the film, is a subplot involving Sheriff Bell and his guilt for leaving his company behind during World War II, a move that left him alive but all the members of his outfit dead. And while this could have easily been put in the film, the Coens, in their infinite wisdom, decided to do away with this subplot and have Bell see the actions unfolding before him as equally troubling as his past.

The film won four Oscars and once again proved that, if done respectfully and with appropriate gait, novels can be made into great films.

Film, on the other hand, is a collective work. Literally hundreds of people work on any given film and the images that are conjured are from the perspective of many different people, not just one.

So when a director decides to adapt a book or short story, they must make the translation so powerful and evocative as to sway the viewer from the images they have created in their own mind, and believe earnestly that the translation on screen is just as worthy as the source material.

There have been hundreds of films adapted from books, most of which fall flat when compared to the original, published works. But every so often there is a film that has been adapted from a book that shines a new light on the art of adaptation.

So without further ado, here are is Part One of this series, highlighting great films that were adapted from novels, short stories or other published works and created an experience akin to and as equally enthralling as the source material.

The Shawshank Redemption

Stephen King is perhaps the most adapted author of all time. From horror novels, to short stories, Hollywood seems infinitely dedicated to providing King’s works with a cinematic counter part. And while most of his horror works, of which he is most recognized for, have fallen flat when translated to the big screen, it seems his novellas have been adapted with the most success and with an unflinchingly high quality.

From “Stand by Me” to “The Green Mile”, his novellas have provided an outlet for a different voice from one of the world’s most famous author’s. It is a voice that does not have to rely on super natural horror, but rather the real horror of mankind, the type that stirs the soul and brings into question the decency of the human race.

And never has his work been translated with more tact and attention to detail than in 1994′s “The Shawshank Redemption”. Based on his novella Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption, the film follows newly convicted Andy Dufresne, played meekly yet intelligently by Tim Robbins, as he tries to cope with a life-long sentence in jail for a crime he claims not to have committed.

While on the inside, he befriends Red, played by the majestic Morgan Freeman. Red is a man who is known to “locate certain items from time to time” and it is through his eyes and heavenly narration that we see Andy and the rest of the inmates in Shawshank prison.

Written for the screen and directed by Frank Darabont, “Shawshank” is a film that delves deep into the nature of man and criminality, as well as the loss of humanity when kept confined in a world that revels in and functions on the misdeeds of society.

Darabont has taken King’s work, which was very good by its own merits, and given it an injection of life, soul and unnerving humanity that allows the film to progress fluidly on the screen, never once letting go or allowing the audience to escape its moving and thought provoking illustration of a prison so corrupt that the inmates become the heroes.

It is a classic film that only grows more impressive with age and more insightful with each subsequent viewing. It is a perfect adaptation that relies on the source material for inspiration but makes its way uniquely and with a new, wholly cinematic voice.

Here is a scene from the movie in which, after six years of trying to allocate funds for a library, Andy receives a check from the state as well as a large collection of used books and records to get his project started. It is a moment of joy for the imprisoned man, who decides to share the wealth with his fellow inmates, no matter the cost.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest

Author Ken Kesey was not very happy with the film adaptation of his 1962 novel “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”. In Kesey’s original text, which is as expertly executed a novel as one can find, the story is told and unfolded from the perspective of Chief Broomden, the large Native American man who has spent years in the mental institution in which the story takes place, convincing the staff and hoards of doctors he is mute. Broomden’s voice is unique and inspired, offering a beaten yet enlightening perspective on a demeaning world that forces a strong, well-meaning man to silence.

Broomden holding tight to McMurphy

So in 1975, when the film adaptation of Kesey’s work began, it was, of course, a travesty in his eyes to have the point of view switched from his quietly graceful Broomden to the brash, never folding Randall P. McMurphy, an equally powerful and provocative character but one whose perspective is entirely different from that of Broomden’s.

And while the book and the film are decidedly different from one another, maybe more so than any other successful adaptation, the film still provides the heavy sock to the stomach and soul displayed in Kesey’s original works.

The film follows the day-to-day lives of the inmates at an Oregon mental institution, whose spirits are continuously squandered by the conniving and treacherous Nurse Ratched. Ratched has a firm, autocratic rule over her ward and she takes pride in the sternness of her gait and the profound impact of her ruling fist.

So when her ward is invaded and her strength put into question by the free spirited and untamable R.P. McMurphy, the two are immediately put at odds for control of the ward and the freedom of the inmate’s spirits.

Louise Fletcher as Nurse Ratched

Milos Foreman did a fantastic job at creating a sense of time and place. The hospital is a character in and of itself, and the fact that they filmed on location at a real mental institution only adds to the sense of pained reality. McMurphy is played to the utmost perfection by Jack Nicholson who plays the perfect foil to the uptight Nurse Ratched, played harshly yet sympathetically by Louise Fletcher.

The two are, in essence, opposites and McMurphy’s struggles to be free are continuously undermined by Ratched, who wants nothing more than to keep her patients under control and under heavy medication. The plot is essentially the same between novel and film, though in the novel there are more revelations to the characters and more background to their situations, and the script does a fine job at translating the book to fit the medium of film. There is more humor in the film than the novel, but the heart is still there as is the endless battle between personal freedom and overbearing rule.

Though Kesey had his issues, since the book is decidedly different form the film, Foreman has created a world where the characters are so well defined and their motivations so clear that is hard not to appreciate this unique but equally powerful translation.

In this scene, McMurphy has just lost a battle with Nurse Ratched but decides to keep fighting the war. Using his imagination, he sparks life into the other inmates, which is exactly what the nurse has been fighting against.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfFJLFeyI1o