Well, I know this is a little late in coming, and perhaps, you don't even care anymore, but I had promised to write about the Oscars so here it goes.
The telecast was, overall, enjoyable. I thought Hugh Jackman did a fine job hosting (though I still have yet to see anyone top Billy Crystal), and I really enjoyed pieces of his opening number. However, to me, the Oscars are so much about glitz and glamour that I found his "home-built sets" too tacky to find funny. My favorite part was probably the bit where Anne Hathaway sang. Who knew that she had an absolutely gorgeous voice? Someone put this girl in a musical now! Might I suggest a musical version of the The Princess Diaries?
Although I adore musicals, I found Hugh Jackman's "The Musical is Back" montage exceedingly underwhelming. He and Beyonce simply did not mesh as a performing couple. It was like watching Fred Astaire and MC Hammer attempt to perform together -- it just doesn't work. And furthermore, why were the clips of the songs so short? Were they trying to avoid extensive copyright fees by putting only one line of the song in? It prevented the segment from having any sort of flow. Furthermore, why in god's name were Zac Efron and Vanessa Anne Hudgens performing at the Oscars (and why was Miley Cyrus in attendance?)? Not only are they rather untalented, but those of us watching the Oscars absolutely don't want to see any reminders of High School Musical. It's a pathetic attempt at film-making and a shame to the musical genre. However, this number did have a high point, when members of the Trojan Marching Band came out to back up Hugh and Beyonce. The TMB makes any performance better -- no matter what the circumstances.
Speaking of musical numbers, who came up with the idea for the Best Song presentation this year? I already wrote off this category for the year when the Aacdemy snubbed the Boss, but this was the absolute lowest point of the evening. No wonder Peter Gabriel declined to perform. If my Oscar nominated song was being remixed with the base line from "Jai Ho," I would refuse to participate too. This was an absolute train wreck. It gave you no real feeling for what any of the nominated songs actually sounded like in their entirety. Next year, can we please go back to just having each of the performers sing what they were nominated for with the integrity of the song intact?
Personally, they two funniest parts of the evening had nothing to do with Hugh Jackman. The most enjoyable ten minutes were the ones I spent watching James Franco and Seth Rogen, in the guises of their Pineapple Express characters, watching movies from the past year. It was hysterical watching their wildly inappropriate laughter at The Reader and Doubt, and I also got a real kick out of Franco watching himself in Milk and commencing to put his arms around a very uncomfortable Rogen. From now on, the Oscars should always have a segment directed by Judd Apatow. And kudos to Ben Stiller for a perplexing, yet hilarious send-up of Joaquin Phoenix.
As for the new format of the show, it took some getting used to, but I did like it in the end. I vastly preferred the order in which they handed out the awards to the usual random conglomeration, leaving all the big awards for the end. The idea to present the awards while simultaneously discussing how to make a movie was truly inspired. It was nice to have the screenplay awards be given out in the first half of the evening. Speaking of which, was anyone else on the verge of tears during Dustin Lance Black's acceptance speech? What an honest and touching show of thanks! I was so glad to see what I thought was the best film of the year awarded for its truly fantastic script. I also really liked the way they had five past winners present the acting awards. I must say, I did miss my little "Oscar winning moment" clips, but it was nice to see people like Eva Marie Saint and Robert De Niro presenting an award. I particularly enjoyed the new approach to presenting the five films nominated for Best Picture. Whoever edited that montage of the films with classic films with corresponding lines and themes interspersed did a fantastic job! Can this please be the way we always see the Best Picture award presented?
And now for my analysis on some of the major awards: With award season lasting for two months and the Oscars at the concluding end, most of the awards were quite predictable.
Best Picture: I can't say I was surprised to see Slumdog Millionaire win, but I still wish it hadn't. This film was so unbelievably over-hyped, and when people watch it in five years, I think they will find that it doesn't quite hold up. The storyline was cliche and trite in its attempt to suggest that growing up in extreme poverty can teach you what you need to know to win a game show and find your lost love. The idea that appearing on a game show would be an easy feat and that winning could make the horrors of one's life worthwhile experiences is infantile. Furthermore, advertised as a "feel good film" the film expects audiences, like Jamal, to forget the horrific nature of the first hour and a half of the film once he gets his happy ending. Maybe it's just me, but this film didn't leave me with a sense of bouyuant optimism and hope...it just left me fixated on the terrible things that human beings do to one another overriding whatever 10 minute happy ending it might have. I mean, don't get me wrong, as a lover of the romantic comedy, I welcome films that are cliched. But I don't welcome them being called true art. Both Milk and The Reader deserved this award over Slumdog. They were wholy original approaches to old topics, and moving, touching films. I would have liked to seen Milk win for its outstanding ensemble and the way it flawlessly incorporated actual footage into a story that touched me more than any other this year.
Best Actor: There was a lot of grumbling about the fact that Mickey Rourke didn't win, but personally I don't think playing a washed-up loser was much of a stretch for the man. But perhaps I'm being too harsh -- I didn't see The Wrestler after all, so I don't really have a right to comment on Rourke's performance. Penn, however, truly deserved this award. He did something I have never seen him do before and really stretched himself. After all, he did play a character who spent a good portion of the film smiling. ; ) A feat in itself for Penn. No, but seriously, he did not make Milk a caricature, but rather a three dimensional being, faults and all. He made me fall in love with Harvey Milk -- a man who I did not know much about before the film. Penn was the heart and soul of this superb film and deserved all the accolades he got.
Best Actress: All I can say is finally! Kate Winslet, in conjunction with Merly Streep, is arguably the best actress of our times. If her 6 career nominations up to this point are not a testament to this fact, I don't know what is. She was astounding as Hanna Schmitt, fully exploring a woman who I would not relish getting to know. But yet, her ability to make a callous and largely unlikeable woman undeniably appealing is just part of the nuance of her phenomenal performance. I know many detractors may say that she only won because she did a Holocaust film, but I disagree. To begin with, The Reader is not about the Holocaust. It is about the effect that we have on each other's lives, often without realizing the enormity of that effect. And irregardless, even if it was a Holocaust film - Winslet gave the best performance of the year, hands down.
Not much else to say, besides that I was glad that Heath Ledger and Wall-E both won. Ledger's family's speech was the most heart-wrenching portion of the evening (especially given that the In Memoriam segment was ruined by odd camera angles). All in all, it was an enjoyable, if predictable evening. Until next time, here's looking at you kid...
-Reel Classic Dame
Friday, February 27, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
The Birds: Horrific or Macabre?
For the most part, this blog is going to be a critical analysis of film and film related programming, but occasionally, I will reflect on my encounters with classic film (particularly those that occur as a result of my internship in the Warner Bros. Archives). Hopefully, this gives you a little more insight into the intentions of this blog.
On Wednesday evening, I had the supreme pleasure of attending a TCM screening of The Birds preceded by a talk with Tippi Hedren and Robert Osborne. First, I have to say, that TCM really knows how to host an event and if you ever get the opportunity to attend one of their functions, jump on it! Not only was the screening free, but they gave us comp parking, as well as supplying each ticket holding individual with a free medium soda, tub of popcorn, and box of candy (choices included Junior Mints, Raisinets, and Milk Duds). To cap off this already extraordinarily generous evening, each guest was given their choice of a set of 6 TCM Leading Ladies or Hollywood Musical coasters -- a welcome addition to my future apartment furniture/supplies.
Anyway, aside from the parade of gifts, the screening and discussion were treats in themselves. Tippi Hedren still looked amazing -- every inch the classic stunner she was when she first appeared in The Birds. Her stories may have shown her years, but her looks did not. Robert Osborne was delightful. As his introductions on TCM evidence, he is quite the congenial man. If only he could fit an adjunct post at USC into his busy schedule! Anyway, their discussion about Tippi's work on The Birds and her work since was informative. However, I do wish that they would have covered a little more new ground, as much of what she had to say has been hashed over in numerous writings on The Birds and elucidated in even clearer terms by Dr. Drew Casper of USC. She, of course, mentioned the unwanted attentions of Hitchcock, which after so many years is beginning to become a tired complaint.
Although her discussion with Mr. Osborne was fascinating, it was the audience questions that were the real let down. One woman felt compelled to share her story of her visit to Shambala (Tippi's wildlife preserve) and the two elephants she saw there. I'm sure Ms. Hedren and the rest of the audience were forever changed by this moving story.; ) Additionally, another question inquired as to whether Ms. Hedren could explain the ending of the film and tell us why the birds attacked? I could not help but throw my hands up at this. Hitchcock himself said that the terror of the film largely stems from the fact that there is no clear reason why these birds suddenly attack. Part of the film's status as a Hitchcock masterwork is the ambiguous ending and lack of answers. But apparently, this woman failed to grasp this concept. Indeed, Ms. Hedren herself seemed baffled as to why this question was being asked and attempted to answer the question, while mentioning that she had never received any more explanation than the audience.
As for the film itself, I had only seen it once before this evening, also in 35 mm on a movie screen the way all movies really should be viewed. Although one could say much about the philosophy of the film -- the almost Oedipal nature of Mitch (Rod Taylor) and Lydia's (Jessica Tandy) relationship, the hysterical witch hunts that inexplicable disaster brings, and the question of a "bird-pocalypse" -- audience reactions are perhaps even more fascinating to examine. As a resolute scaredy-cat, this film did not fail to cause me to squirm in my seat and hold my breath each time the feathered fiends launched another attack. However, while I sat transfixed with horror as gulls preyed on innocent children, many of those around me laughed. This puzzled me. Is it merely an example of the fact that many people use laughter to handle tense, uncomfortable situations because they know no other way to cope? Yes, there is a certain macabre humor in some of the attacks, and particularly in the set-up to the attacks (the crows on the jungle gym). Indeed, Hitch himself was a dark man with a twisted sense of humor. His remark that he "always viewed Psycho as a comedy" illustrates that facet of his personality. However, at their core, these things are not funny. Horrific is more like it. But at the same time, I find myself hard-pressed to call any of Hitchcock's work dated. He sought to explore human relationships and illicit visceral reactions by playing on the core of human nature. This is why his work has held up so well. And why films today, particularly thrillers, bear marks of his influence throughout.
Or, does the film seem dated and more comical than frightening? In a world that has seen such horrors as the Vietnam war and 9/11 broadcast into their living rooms, is the idea of attacking birds simply too ridiculous? With PG-13 and R ratings coming to mean even less in our society; where it seems that almost anything is acceptable to display on a screen and words like b***h proliferate network television shows, has The Birds become an irrelevant farce to the majority of our desensitized population? I would like to hope that the answer to this question is no. For those of us who treasure classic film and the evasive creativity the the Production Code necessitated, we must hope that the answer is no. Indeed, I doubt that anyone who devoted their Wednesday evening to this event, would call the film irrelevant. But this smattering of a few hundred people are most likely a select few.
So, then I suppose, the real question at hand, is not whether The Birds is dated in a postmodern, desensitized world (which certainly does hold some truth), but whether Hitchcock intended it to be darkly funny in the first place? How did audiences in the 1960s respond to The Birds? Certainly, in a decade that saw the assassination of JFK, the first televised war, and the upheaval of the Civil Rights movement, the terror in The Birds may have seemed trivial. But in a world that to many seemed to be spiraling out of control, perhaps this inexplicable and unstoppable attack (and even worse, attacks largely levied against innocent children) was the most terrifying prospect of all. The counterculture and its effects on the American psyche, combined with political and social upheaval, probably did seem like the end of the world to some. At any rate, it was certainly an end to an era and certain American viewpoints and values. The simultaneous decline of censorship at this time reflects this shift of attitude, and the visceral nature of the violence within The Birds only reinforces this.
I hope this has perhaps caused you to consider The Birds in a different light and to further point out the need for raising awareness of classic films to prevent further generations from finding them irrelevant. Next time, I'll share my opinion on the Oscar broadcast and winners....Until then, "Here's looking at you kid!"
-Reel Classic Dame
Copyright Maureen Lee Lenker
On Wednesday evening, I had the supreme pleasure of attending a TCM screening of The Birds preceded by a talk with Tippi Hedren and Robert Osborne. First, I have to say, that TCM really knows how to host an event and if you ever get the opportunity to attend one of their functions, jump on it! Not only was the screening free, but they gave us comp parking, as well as supplying each ticket holding individual with a free medium soda, tub of popcorn, and box of candy (choices included Junior Mints, Raisinets, and Milk Duds). To cap off this already extraordinarily generous evening, each guest was given their choice of a set of 6 TCM Leading Ladies or Hollywood Musical coasters -- a welcome addition to my future apartment furniture/supplies.
Anyway, aside from the parade of gifts, the screening and discussion were treats in themselves. Tippi Hedren still looked amazing -- every inch the classic stunner she was when she first appeared in The Birds. Her stories may have shown her years, but her looks did not. Robert Osborne was delightful. As his introductions on TCM evidence, he is quite the congenial man. If only he could fit an adjunct post at USC into his busy schedule! Anyway, their discussion about Tippi's work on The Birds and her work since was informative. However, I do wish that they would have covered a little more new ground, as much of what she had to say has been hashed over in numerous writings on The Birds and elucidated in even clearer terms by Dr. Drew Casper of USC. She, of course, mentioned the unwanted attentions of Hitchcock, which after so many years is beginning to become a tired complaint.
Although her discussion with Mr. Osborne was fascinating, it was the audience questions that were the real let down. One woman felt compelled to share her story of her visit to Shambala (Tippi's wildlife preserve) and the two elephants she saw there. I'm sure Ms. Hedren and the rest of the audience were forever changed by this moving story.; ) Additionally, another question inquired as to whether Ms. Hedren could explain the ending of the film and tell us why the birds attacked? I could not help but throw my hands up at this. Hitchcock himself said that the terror of the film largely stems from the fact that there is no clear reason why these birds suddenly attack. Part of the film's status as a Hitchcock masterwork is the ambiguous ending and lack of answers. But apparently, this woman failed to grasp this concept. Indeed, Ms. Hedren herself seemed baffled as to why this question was being asked and attempted to answer the question, while mentioning that she had never received any more explanation than the audience.
As for the film itself, I had only seen it once before this evening, also in 35 mm on a movie screen the way all movies really should be viewed. Although one could say much about the philosophy of the film -- the almost Oedipal nature of Mitch (Rod Taylor) and Lydia's (Jessica Tandy) relationship, the hysterical witch hunts that inexplicable disaster brings, and the question of a "bird-pocalypse" -- audience reactions are perhaps even more fascinating to examine. As a resolute scaredy-cat, this film did not fail to cause me to squirm in my seat and hold my breath each time the feathered fiends launched another attack. However, while I sat transfixed with horror as gulls preyed on innocent children, many of those around me laughed. This puzzled me. Is it merely an example of the fact that many people use laughter to handle tense, uncomfortable situations because they know no other way to cope? Yes, there is a certain macabre humor in some of the attacks, and particularly in the set-up to the attacks (the crows on the jungle gym). Indeed, Hitch himself was a dark man with a twisted sense of humor. His remark that he "always viewed Psycho as a comedy" illustrates that facet of his personality. However, at their core, these things are not funny. Horrific is more like it. But at the same time, I find myself hard-pressed to call any of Hitchcock's work dated. He sought to explore human relationships and illicit visceral reactions by playing on the core of human nature. This is why his work has held up so well. And why films today, particularly thrillers, bear marks of his influence throughout.
Or, does the film seem dated and more comical than frightening? In a world that has seen such horrors as the Vietnam war and 9/11 broadcast into their living rooms, is the idea of attacking birds simply too ridiculous? With PG-13 and R ratings coming to mean even less in our society; where it seems that almost anything is acceptable to display on a screen and words like b***h proliferate network television shows, has The Birds become an irrelevant farce to the majority of our desensitized population? I would like to hope that the answer to this question is no. For those of us who treasure classic film and the evasive creativity the the Production Code necessitated, we must hope that the answer is no. Indeed, I doubt that anyone who devoted their Wednesday evening to this event, would call the film irrelevant. But this smattering of a few hundred people are most likely a select few.
So, then I suppose, the real question at hand, is not whether The Birds is dated in a postmodern, desensitized world (which certainly does hold some truth), but whether Hitchcock intended it to be darkly funny in the first place? How did audiences in the 1960s respond to The Birds? Certainly, in a decade that saw the assassination of JFK, the first televised war, and the upheaval of the Civil Rights movement, the terror in The Birds may have seemed trivial. But in a world that to many seemed to be spiraling out of control, perhaps this inexplicable and unstoppable attack (and even worse, attacks largely levied against innocent children) was the most terrifying prospect of all. The counterculture and its effects on the American psyche, combined with political and social upheaval, probably did seem like the end of the world to some. At any rate, it was certainly an end to an era and certain American viewpoints and values. The simultaneous decline of censorship at this time reflects this shift of attitude, and the visceral nature of the violence within The Birds only reinforces this.
I hope this has perhaps caused you to consider The Birds in a different light and to further point out the need for raising awareness of classic films to prevent further generations from finding them irrelevant. Next time, I'll share my opinion on the Oscar broadcast and winners....Until then, "Here's looking at you kid!"
-Reel Classic Dame
Copyright Maureen Lee Lenker
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
First Post
This blog intends to discuss classic films, that is primarily films of the classical and post-classical eras. Although, at times, I may decide to mention some current films. To start things off, here's a look at my menu for Oscar Night:
Appetizers:
Slumdog Millionaire Hummus and Pita Bread
Hanna Schmitt's Sliced Bratwurst
Main Course:
Queenie's Chicken Gumbo
Dessert:
Harvey "Milk" Shakes
Frosted/Nixon Cupcakes
Hope this inspires some of you to create your own Oscar menus! May the best picture win! Until next time, have a cinematic day!
-Reel Classic Dame
Appetizers:
Slumdog Millionaire Hummus and Pita Bread
Hanna Schmitt's Sliced Bratwurst
Main Course:
Queenie's Chicken Gumbo
Dessert:
Harvey "Milk" Shakes
Frosted/Nixon Cupcakes
Hope this inspires some of you to create your own Oscar menus! May the best picture win! Until next time, have a cinematic day!
-Reel Classic Dame
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
