As part of my slow-movie-week posts, I'm continuing my rambling about movies I'm looking forward to seeing, and having "previewed" Zack Snyder's Man of Steel I will now discuss one of the movies I have been most eagerly anticipating this year, along with Star Trek: Into Darkness: Guillermo del Toro's giant-robots-vs.-giant-monsters epic Pacific Rim.
I find it strange that, even though I grew up in the 80s and loved collecting Transformers toys and watching their cartoons, I did not rush out to see their first-ever live-action movie back in 2007, and in fact I have only seen one of the three Transformers movies in the theater. I would certainly not say it has because I have "grown up" because though I may be pushing forty I love my pop culture as much as the next fanboy.
Rather, I would argue that, other than the notion of giant, living robots from outer space doing battle on Earth, the movies had very little in common with the cartoons I grew up adoring. The first film was basically an orgy of computer-generated imagery and little else, and its story, characterization and dialogue quite frankly made some of the Saturday morning cartoons look Shakespearean in comparison. To add insult to injury, it even threw toilet humor into the mix. Ultimately, for all of the explosions and destruction that take place in these movies, the real casualty of these movies, for me, was any sense of humanity in them, and any sense of consequence. Nothing that happened in these films felt like it mattered because the characters received next to no development. The fact that they swapped one bimbo who can't act (Megan Fox) for another (Rosie Huntington-Whitely) as Shia LeBeouf's leading lady speaks volumes about how much they care about the human element of the film.
I hold out hope, however, for the upcoming Pacific Rim, Guillermo del Toro's upcoming big-budget love letter to old Japanese serials or movies starring Godzilla and other kaiju (giant monsters) as well as those starring giant robots.
From the trailers, at least, there is some indication of a world in peril where humans, as the pilots of giant robots called Jaegers, are front and center, rather than just collateral damage in a CG-slugfest. Of course, the fact that del Toro, director of the multi-awarded Pan's Labyrinth and a certified pop-culture junkie as evidenced by his work on two Hellboy films and Blade II is at the helm suggests that this movie may have more than a little substance to go along with the style that's been put on display so far. Sure, it's not necessarily an "original" piece of work in that many aspects of it have been done before. Hollywood has churned out a long line of disaster movies from Earthquake to 2012, they've done giant robots, with the aforementioned Transformers movies as Exhibits "A" through "C," and they've done giant monster movies too, from the ill-fated Godzilla remake to the more recent Cloverfield. The difference is that I'm fairly sure that nothing of this scope has ever been attempted by a major Hollywood studio, and that this is the first time viewers will see the full force of Hollywood's current technology brought to the table in order to realize these fantastical concepts.
I also know that Del Toro's participation is not a guarantee of this film's quality, no matter how spectacular the trailers may have been, but it is nonetheless hugely comforting to know that this time, the CG wizards of ILM will be guided by someone whose films have both brains and heart to go along with the action.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Looking Forward to Believing a Man Can Fly
It's basically a slow week at the movies; I have no plans of seeing Fast and Furious 6 or The Hangover III or of spending money on repeat viewings, so instead I'll muse on the movies that I intend to see in the upcoming months. I start with Man of Steel, which is due out this June.
I was only three years old when the first Superman movie came out in 1978, so I did not catch it in movie theaters, but I do remember watching Superman II, from which Zack Snyder's upcoming Superman reboot draws some characters and story elements, and how cool it was at the time. Superman was my first big screen superhero, and though I have grown to favor Marvel's heroes, both on the printed page and the silver screen, over those of DC, I have never forgotten Superman's stature as the granddaddy of all superheroes.
As an icon, Superman arguably deserves an update like fellow old-timers James Bond and Jim Kirk, and like his fellow superheroes Batman, Spider-Man and even Iron Man, a living, breathing film franchise. From the look of the trailers of Man of Steel, it looks like he'll be getting both.
Warner Brothers seriously dropped the ball with Superman Returns for a number of reasons, the first and arguably the most of obvious being that as a direct sequel to a movie released in 1980, it didn't make an ounce of sense considering that it was quite obviously set in 2006. Director Bryan Singer was so enamored with the first two films that rather than try to put his own stamp on the character and the material he tried to make something that would stand as a companion to these films, something that simply didn't work. Singer's film came up with some pretty astonishing visuals, and to my mind, had SR been more memorable as a whole, the shot of a bullet bouncing off Superman's eye would have been downright iconic.
In making Man of Steel the folks at Warner Brothers have finally come to recognize that the best way to show reverence to the first two Superman movies is to leave them alone and start anew. They did exactly that with Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, which completely departed from Tim Burton's well-received take on Batman, and are doing so again here.
I'm not without my reservations over this new film; the de-saturated, bluish tint I've seen in a lot of the scenes seems to suggest that Superman's gotten a "darker" treatment, which is the last thing the character needs, but as the trailers have gradually come to show more and more material I've gone from being cautiously optimistic to highly enthusiastic. What I think I'm seeing here is a slightly more "grounded" Superman, or at least, as "grounded" as a guy from space who flies, can shoot beams from his eyes, and has super strength can get.
One of the things that that really strikes me about this film is Russell Crowe's somewhat majestic rendition of Superman's doomed father Jor-El. This is the perfect role for Crowe as he nears his 50s and with all due to respect to the late Marlon Brando, Crowe's Jor-El looks far more convincing as a father of a superhuman than Brando did. The costume design, from Superman's briefs-free outfit to the clothes of the Kryptonians, designed by Spider-Man costume designer James Acheson, looks like a somewhat welcome update as well from the outfits worn by Marlon Brando and Terence Stamp many years ago. I'm also eager to see more of Amy Adams' take on Lois Lane; while I'm not entirely happy she didn't dye her hair black to be more faithful to the character, I can easily see her playing the ambitious reporter that Lois has always been, and can even overlook the fact that she kind of looks her age (which is seven years older than that of Henry Cavill, who plays Superman, for whom she is supposed to be a love interest), and a character as well-known as Lois Lane certainly deserves not only a performer with acting chops but an attractive one, and unlike Kate Bosworth and Margot Kidder before her, Adams definitely brings both to the table. Cavill is a little more of a question mark for me, but he looks pretty convincing in the red and blue tights, and that's good enough for now.
All told, while I'm still basically a Marvel guy, Man of Steel is now one my most highly-anticipated films for this year.
I was only three years old when the first Superman movie came out in 1978, so I did not catch it in movie theaters, but I do remember watching Superman II, from which Zack Snyder's upcoming Superman reboot draws some characters and story elements, and how cool it was at the time. Superman was my first big screen superhero, and though I have grown to favor Marvel's heroes, both on the printed page and the silver screen, over those of DC, I have never forgotten Superman's stature as the granddaddy of all superheroes.
As an icon, Superman arguably deserves an update like fellow old-timers James Bond and Jim Kirk, and like his fellow superheroes Batman, Spider-Man and even Iron Man, a living, breathing film franchise. From the look of the trailers of Man of Steel, it looks like he'll be getting both.
Warner Brothers seriously dropped the ball with Superman Returns for a number of reasons, the first and arguably the most of obvious being that as a direct sequel to a movie released in 1980, it didn't make an ounce of sense considering that it was quite obviously set in 2006. Director Bryan Singer was so enamored with the first two films that rather than try to put his own stamp on the character and the material he tried to make something that would stand as a companion to these films, something that simply didn't work. Singer's film came up with some pretty astonishing visuals, and to my mind, had SR been more memorable as a whole, the shot of a bullet bouncing off Superman's eye would have been downright iconic.
In making Man of Steel the folks at Warner Brothers have finally come to recognize that the best way to show reverence to the first two Superman movies is to leave them alone and start anew. They did exactly that with Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, which completely departed from Tim Burton's well-received take on Batman, and are doing so again here.
I'm not without my reservations over this new film; the de-saturated, bluish tint I've seen in a lot of the scenes seems to suggest that Superman's gotten a "darker" treatment, which is the last thing the character needs, but as the trailers have gradually come to show more and more material I've gone from being cautiously optimistic to highly enthusiastic. What I think I'm seeing here is a slightly more "grounded" Superman, or at least, as "grounded" as a guy from space who flies, can shoot beams from his eyes, and has super strength can get.
One of the things that that really strikes me about this film is Russell Crowe's somewhat majestic rendition of Superman's doomed father Jor-El. This is the perfect role for Crowe as he nears his 50s and with all due to respect to the late Marlon Brando, Crowe's Jor-El looks far more convincing as a father of a superhuman than Brando did. The costume design, from Superman's briefs-free outfit to the clothes of the Kryptonians, designed by Spider-Man costume designer James Acheson, looks like a somewhat welcome update as well from the outfits worn by Marlon Brando and Terence Stamp many years ago. I'm also eager to see more of Amy Adams' take on Lois Lane; while I'm not entirely happy she didn't dye her hair black to be more faithful to the character, I can easily see her playing the ambitious reporter that Lois has always been, and can even overlook the fact that she kind of looks her age (which is seven years older than that of Henry Cavill, who plays Superman, for whom she is supposed to be a love interest), and a character as well-known as Lois Lane certainly deserves not only a performer with acting chops but an attractive one, and unlike Kate Bosworth and Margot Kidder before her, Adams definitely brings both to the table. Cavill is a little more of a question mark for me, but he looks pretty convincing in the red and blue tights, and that's good enough for now.
All told, while I'm still basically a Marvel guy, Man of Steel is now one my most highly-anticipated films for this year.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Fulfilling the Needs of the Many: A Review of Star Trek: Into Darkness
When director J.J. Abrams took over the reins of the dying Star Trek franchise a few years back, few people could have expected exactly how well-received it would be. It may have had its fair share of detractors, but by and large, 2009's Star Trek gave Paramount Pictures exactly what they had hoped for: a healthy franchise for the 21st century. Four years later, Abrams is back with his entire principal cast for the sequel:Star Trek: Into Darkness.
The film opens with Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) of the U.S.S. Enterprise and his crew, specifically Dr. McCoy(Karl Urban), Lieutenants Sulu (John Cho) and Uhura (Zoe Salanda), and First Officer Spock (Zachary Quinto) trying to save a planet covered in red flora and populated by what appears to be aborigines painted white from the eruption of a volcano. It falls on Spock to descend into the volcano with a cold fusion device, but when he is trapped in the volcano, Kirk and his crew are forced to reveal their ship to the relatively primitive natives, in violation of Starfleet's primary directive, in order to beam Spock back on board and save his life.
A stickler for the rules, Spock eventually files the report of Kirk's transgression which lands him in hot water with Starfleet, the consequence being that Kirk is stripped of the Enterprise. He received a proper dressing down as well from Admiral Pike (Bruce Greenwood) the man responsible for recruiting Kirk into Starfleet in the first place. The "band" is broken up, with Spock transferred to another ship and Kirk demoted.
However, an attack on a Starfleet archive in London by one of its own officers, a man named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) which leaves dozens dead prompts a meeting of Starfleet's top brass, including Admiral Pike, with Kirk and Spock in tow. Unfortunately, Harrison attacks the Starfleet meeting, killing even more people, only to flee to Klingon space using a portable transporter when Kirk cleverly disables his ship. As a result of the attack, Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) authorizes a covert strike on Harrison using a mysterious set of torpedoes. It's a plan that violates all that Starfleet stands for, but motivated as he is by a desire for revenge, Kirk agrees to the mission.
As he and his crew journey to Klingon space to deal with the rogue Starfleet officer Harrison, Kirk and crew soon learn that things are not quite what they seem to be.
While the script still isn't quite the strongest that's ever emanated from the franchise, screenwriters Alex Kurtzman, Bob Orci and Damon Lindelof have crafted a narrative that both drives the action at a breakneck pace and tosses several juicy tidbits to those who remember the first few Trek films. Also, the time-travel gobbledygook that left many viewers and reviewers (including the late, great Roger Ebert) a bit cold is no longer discussed here, though anyone questioning Kirk's characterization would definitely benefit from the knowledge that he's now living in a world where he grew up without a father. Still, I recognize that the choice of story for this movie was bound to stir up controversy, and without spoiling anything I think it'll be safe to say that of this new iteration of the long-running Star Trek film franchise, this particular installment will most likely go down in history as the one most talked-about by fans.
What makes this movie work for me are a number of things, starting with some very strong performance all around from the leads Pine and Quinto as Kirk and Spock, and an absolutely commanding performance by Cumberbatch at the villain of the piece. If any doubt at all lingered after the first film Pine really makes a clean break from Shatner's hambone acting of antiquity, and while Nimoy still remains the definitive Spock for me, Quinto has brought something new to the role; he has explored Spock's human side more than Nimoy ever did. While Kirk and Spock got off on somewhat the wrong foot in the previous film, this is the film where they firm up their working relationship and friendship. Their onscreen interaction has been amusingly described as a "bromance" and in truth the description does feel rather apt, but I suppose Abrams and his screenwriters had to crank up the evolution of their friendship a notch. After all, these incarnations of Kirk and Spock haven't yet had the benefit of the long running TV show to get to know each other; that's all still to come. By the time the first few movies rolled out they really were "old" friends in most senses of the word. The supporting characters have a fair bit to do here; Scotty (Simon Pegg) gets to have a little spat with Kirk in the beginning which ends in his resigning his commission, only for him to play a large part in the storytelling later on, Chekhov (Anton Yelchin) takes over from Scotty and has his hands full, Sulu gets to spend quite a bit of time in the Captain's chair, McCoy is basically a life-saver (and a virtual library of one-liners) and Uhura, among many other things, gets to speak a a considerable amount of Klingon! The crew are joined by new recruit Carol (Alive Eve), whose full identity I will not spoil.
As for Cumberbatch, all I can say is that whenever he's onscreen he just elevates the film. One of my major gripes with this film's immediate predecessor was its ill-conceived, poorly-executed bad guy Nero. Things like his motivation, misplaced rage, and even his muddled accent courtesy of actor Eric Bana really just irritated me. This was not at all the case with Cumberbatch, whose John Harrison, for me, deserves a place among some of the biggest badasses in all of science fiction, not just the Trek universe. He was certainly an infinitely more mesmerizing villain than the bad guy of Iron Man 3. It's hard to go in depth about what his character means with the story without flirting with spoilers, but I think it's enough to say that by bringing to this film the intelligence with which he imbues BBC's "Sherlock" he has done the character a huge favor. What makes him such a formidable foe, more than the fact that he's so strong he can actually crush people's skulls with his bare hands, is how frighteningly crafty he is.
Of course, no sci-fi pic would be complete without stunning visuals and sound effects, and Abrams and crew, including visual effects vendors Industrial Light and Magic, have stepped up their game accordingly from the last film. It was wonderful to finally see updates on classic Trek characters like the Klingons; I loved the new take on their ships, and even on the character makeup when Uhura confronted a Klingon commander. My family and I didn't bother catching this film in 3-D, and to be honest I don't think our experience was any the worse for it. The visuals are still great. Abrams claims he's no Trekkie, but the care with which he realizes this new take on something old and much beloved would suggest that he has truly come to love this universe.
Considering that in two years Abrams will be delivering the first new Star Wars movie in ten years, it's worth watching how he handles the space battles and the digital wizardry; his ability to balance storytelling and slam-bang action in his first Star Trek are basically what got him the job at Lucasfilm. I fervently hope whatever he does with those films will conclusively wash away from the franchise the stink left by Lucas' prequels. If anyone can do it, it's Abrams.
What saddens me about his involvement in the Star Wars movies is that now, Into Darkness may well be the last Trek film we see from him, though personally, I honestly hope not.
4.5/5
The film opens with Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) of the U.S.S. Enterprise and his crew, specifically Dr. McCoy(Karl Urban), Lieutenants Sulu (John Cho) and Uhura (Zoe Salanda), and First Officer Spock (Zachary Quinto) trying to save a planet covered in red flora and populated by what appears to be aborigines painted white from the eruption of a volcano. It falls on Spock to descend into the volcano with a cold fusion device, but when he is trapped in the volcano, Kirk and his crew are forced to reveal their ship to the relatively primitive natives, in violation of Starfleet's primary directive, in order to beam Spock back on board and save his life.
A stickler for the rules, Spock eventually files the report of Kirk's transgression which lands him in hot water with Starfleet, the consequence being that Kirk is stripped of the Enterprise. He received a proper dressing down as well from Admiral Pike (Bruce Greenwood) the man responsible for recruiting Kirk into Starfleet in the first place. The "band" is broken up, with Spock transferred to another ship and Kirk demoted.
However, an attack on a Starfleet archive in London by one of its own officers, a man named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) which leaves dozens dead prompts a meeting of Starfleet's top brass, including Admiral Pike, with Kirk and Spock in tow. Unfortunately, Harrison attacks the Starfleet meeting, killing even more people, only to flee to Klingon space using a portable transporter when Kirk cleverly disables his ship. As a result of the attack, Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) authorizes a covert strike on Harrison using a mysterious set of torpedoes. It's a plan that violates all that Starfleet stands for, but motivated as he is by a desire for revenge, Kirk agrees to the mission.
As he and his crew journey to Klingon space to deal with the rogue Starfleet officer Harrison, Kirk and crew soon learn that things are not quite what they seem to be.
While the script still isn't quite the strongest that's ever emanated from the franchise, screenwriters Alex Kurtzman, Bob Orci and Damon Lindelof have crafted a narrative that both drives the action at a breakneck pace and tosses several juicy tidbits to those who remember the first few Trek films. Also, the time-travel gobbledygook that left many viewers and reviewers (including the late, great Roger Ebert) a bit cold is no longer discussed here, though anyone questioning Kirk's characterization would definitely benefit from the knowledge that he's now living in a world where he grew up without a father. Still, I recognize that the choice of story for this movie was bound to stir up controversy, and without spoiling anything I think it'll be safe to say that of this new iteration of the long-running Star Trek film franchise, this particular installment will most likely go down in history as the one most talked-about by fans.
What makes this movie work for me are a number of things, starting with some very strong performance all around from the leads Pine and Quinto as Kirk and Spock, and an absolutely commanding performance by Cumberbatch at the villain of the piece. If any doubt at all lingered after the first film Pine really makes a clean break from Shatner's hambone acting of antiquity, and while Nimoy still remains the definitive Spock for me, Quinto has brought something new to the role; he has explored Spock's human side more than Nimoy ever did. While Kirk and Spock got off on somewhat the wrong foot in the previous film, this is the film where they firm up their working relationship and friendship. Their onscreen interaction has been amusingly described as a "bromance" and in truth the description does feel rather apt, but I suppose Abrams and his screenwriters had to crank up the evolution of their friendship a notch. After all, these incarnations of Kirk and Spock haven't yet had the benefit of the long running TV show to get to know each other; that's all still to come. By the time the first few movies rolled out they really were "old" friends in most senses of the word. The supporting characters have a fair bit to do here; Scotty (Simon Pegg) gets to have a little spat with Kirk in the beginning which ends in his resigning his commission, only for him to play a large part in the storytelling later on, Chekhov (Anton Yelchin) takes over from Scotty and has his hands full, Sulu gets to spend quite a bit of time in the Captain's chair, McCoy is basically a life-saver (and a virtual library of one-liners) and Uhura, among many other things, gets to speak a a considerable amount of Klingon! The crew are joined by new recruit Carol (Alive Eve), whose full identity I will not spoil.
As for Cumberbatch, all I can say is that whenever he's onscreen he just elevates the film. One of my major gripes with this film's immediate predecessor was its ill-conceived, poorly-executed bad guy Nero. Things like his motivation, misplaced rage, and even his muddled accent courtesy of actor Eric Bana really just irritated me. This was not at all the case with Cumberbatch, whose John Harrison, for me, deserves a place among some of the biggest badasses in all of science fiction, not just the Trek universe. He was certainly an infinitely more mesmerizing villain than the bad guy of Iron Man 3. It's hard to go in depth about what his character means with the story without flirting with spoilers, but I think it's enough to say that by bringing to this film the intelligence with which he imbues BBC's "Sherlock" he has done the character a huge favor. What makes him such a formidable foe, more than the fact that he's so strong he can actually crush people's skulls with his bare hands, is how frighteningly crafty he is.
Of course, no sci-fi pic would be complete without stunning visuals and sound effects, and Abrams and crew, including visual effects vendors Industrial Light and Magic, have stepped up their game accordingly from the last film. It was wonderful to finally see updates on classic Trek characters like the Klingons; I loved the new take on their ships, and even on the character makeup when Uhura confronted a Klingon commander. My family and I didn't bother catching this film in 3-D, and to be honest I don't think our experience was any the worse for it. The visuals are still great. Abrams claims he's no Trekkie, but the care with which he realizes this new take on something old and much beloved would suggest that he has truly come to love this universe.
Considering that in two years Abrams will be delivering the first new Star Wars movie in ten years, it's worth watching how he handles the space battles and the digital wizardry; his ability to balance storytelling and slam-bang action in his first Star Trek are basically what got him the job at Lucasfilm. I fervently hope whatever he does with those films will conclusively wash away from the franchise the stink left by Lucas' prequels. If anyone can do it, it's Abrams.
What saddens me about his involvement in the Star Wars movies is that now, Into Darkness may well be the last Trek film we see from him, though personally, I honestly hope not.
4.5/5
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Hollywood Stars: From Overpaid to Underpaid?
I remember, and not with much fondness, the days when Hollywood lavished enormous upfront salaries on movie stars on a regular basis. From Tom Cruise to Arnold Scwarzenegger to Julia Roberts, throughout the eighties, nineties and early "noughties" it seemed that most Hollywood execs believed that a key ingredient of any real Hollywood blockbuster was a star whose face people would want to see. This was the rule of thumb; the only exception to the rule seemed to be that certain directors, with or without stars, could put fannies in the seats, like Steven Spielberg and James Cameron, the latter of whom gave the world its first billion dollar hit with Titanic. By and large, though, it was all about who was in front of the camera rather than behind it. Studios were basically starstruck, ponying up astronomical amounts of money to one or two people in the hope of earning even more. It was amusing how even stars without proven box-office clout commanded obscene salaries for years despite starring in several consecutive box-office disappointments, probably because some market analyst had declared them to be "it" boys or girls.
At the beginning of the new millennium, however, three films came out that changed the rules of the game completely: Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring and Spider-Man. All three movies were based on hugely popular pop-culture properties and therefore had massive built-in audiences, all three movies achieved gargantuan success at the global box-office all three of them flirting with the magic billion dollar mark, and all three movies were "movie-star-free." Not a single member of Hollywood's so-called "elite," with the possible exceptions of Tom Hanks or Leonardo di Caprio, could claim to have starred in any one movie that made as much money as any of those three franchise-starting juggernauts made. None of them had been made by Spielberg or Cameron, either.
Suddenly, $25 million for the services of one actor, whether it was Brad Pitt or Jim Carrey, started to feel a tad expensive. Sure, there were actors who were still worth that much to the powers-that-be, like Will Smith, and the stars of some of the franchise movies were able to jack up their asking price considerably to reappear in sequels (Tobey Maguire's salary went from a song in Spider-Man to a reported $25 million in Spider-Man 2), but the paradigm shift had begun. Soon it became clear that not even Tom Cruise, once thought of as Hollywood's sure thing (TM), could guarantee a movie's box-office success and producers were no longer as willing as they once were to spend huge amounts of money on the stars.
Arguably, Marvel Studios, which kicked off its film roster with 2008's Iron Man, took this new "actors are not the be-all-and-end-all" philosophy of production and cranked it up several notches and in the process became rather notorious for low-balling several of its prospective acting talents. They offered Mickey Rourke a couple of hundred thousand dollars to star in Iron Man 2, and offered an undisclosed but reportedly small amount to Samuel L. Jackson, whose take on Marvel character Nick Fury is practically iconic by now, to star in multiple Marvel movies for years to come, offers which were both initially rejected and had to be renegotiated. With the exception of Robert Downey, Jr., who scored a minimum of $50 million in upfront compensation and back-end deals, the rest of the cast of last year's box-office phenomenon The Avengers were paid a comparative song, with the most optimistic figure amounting to $2 million, after the smoke cleared at the box-office and the smallest figures being something like one-tenth of that.
Now, I would hardly describe a bunch of Hollywood types who probably use their enormous salaries to pay off the second mortgage on their second Malibu mansions or buy their Ferraris as poor, marginalized laborers. After all, a few hundred thousand dollars for a few months' work, which is what Marvel supposedly waved under Rourke's nose while he was basking in the glow of his Oscar nomination for The Wrestler, is the kind of money most people in the world would love to earn over several years, let alone a couple of months.
The thing is, though, that these movies, when they hit, hit big, and I'm not even talking about box-office, which nowadays almost seems like the icing on the cake when compared to income from merchandising and product placement. For years, the Star Wars films had a virtual monopoly on the concept of earning more money from related products than the films themselves, until the Cars franchise came along in 2006 and in a few years earned a reported $8 billion from the sales of its related merchandise, principally consisting of little toy cars sold to kids all around the world.
Franchise movies, particularly runaway successes like The Avengers, make serious money, the kind of money that can even put the annual Gross Domestic Product of several countries in the developing world to shame, and the truth of the matter is that the actors who appear in these movies are on the front line. They spend months living off diets and workout regimens that, if I understand correctly, the human body was not built to sustain, then another several months shooting and in post-production and finally flying around the world promoting the movie. While as actors they're trying to best embody the characters on the written page, in a franchise movie they are serving another function; they double as glorified salesmen and women, tasked with ensuring that people will buy the lunchboxes and blankets and actions figures with their faces on them. I would not go so far as to say that these tasks are worth the tens of millions of dollars that the previously overpaid "A" list used to receive, but in the name of equity I would say that they are worth more than what basically amounts to a few crumbs of a very large pie.
I do not miss the days of $20+ million movie stars, to them I say good riddance, but neither am I a fan of the mindset that actors, previously believed to be the heart and soul of the Hollywood blockbuster, are now basically disposable. There's a chilling effect to all of this and it's the thought that if this can happen to movie actors, it can happen to anyone, like camera crew members, film editors, sound engineers, composers, visual effects animators or the various crew members whose work can spell the difference between cookie-cutter garbage and a work of art. It alarms me to note that the Iron Man franchise, has had three composers in as many films despite being the single most lucrative solo superhero franchise in Marvel's roster. In a pop culture landscape where people have been humming or performing covers of the themes of Superman and Star Wars for over three decades, the fact that Marvel Studios' single most recognizable superhero does not have his own distinct music theme feels like a crime against art.
The most insidious thing about this paradigm shift away from the overpaid movie star is that apparently, the only people who remain indispensable to the production are the "suits," people who, all things considered, contribute the very least to the creative process, but who hold the purse strings, which appear to be the most important consideration. Truth be told I'm not altogether sure that the cure for the $20 million diva is any better than the disease.
I enjoy movies, whether they're larger-than-life blockbusters or subtle, quiet little affairs. Normally, I care very little for what goes on behind the scenes of a movie, meaning that I don't really care if this actor or that director is a prick in real life, for so long as what appears on the screen captivates me. To find out that these performers are decent people in real life is basically a bonus.
When the behind-the-scenes brouhaha threatens the very existence of the movies that I love to watch, however, like squabbles over the actors' asking prices, I cannot help but sit up and take notice. If I may offer unsolicited advice to all concerned, it is simply that there really is no such thing as a win-win solution; there is only what one is willing to pay, and what the other is willing to accept, and the chasm in between, which is where you'll find your solution, whether it's back-end deals, creative control, or some other perk only Hollywood insiders know about.
Surely there is a reasonable middle ground somewhere.
At the beginning of the new millennium, however, three films came out that changed the rules of the game completely: Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring and Spider-Man. All three movies were based on hugely popular pop-culture properties and therefore had massive built-in audiences, all three movies achieved gargantuan success at the global box-office all three of them flirting with the magic billion dollar mark, and all three movies were "movie-star-free." Not a single member of Hollywood's so-called "elite," with the possible exceptions of Tom Hanks or Leonardo di Caprio, could claim to have starred in any one movie that made as much money as any of those three franchise-starting juggernauts made. None of them had been made by Spielberg or Cameron, either.
Suddenly, $25 million for the services of one actor, whether it was Brad Pitt or Jim Carrey, started to feel a tad expensive. Sure, there were actors who were still worth that much to the powers-that-be, like Will Smith, and the stars of some of the franchise movies were able to jack up their asking price considerably to reappear in sequels (Tobey Maguire's salary went from a song in Spider-Man to a reported $25 million in Spider-Man 2), but the paradigm shift had begun. Soon it became clear that not even Tom Cruise, once thought of as Hollywood's sure thing (TM), could guarantee a movie's box-office success and producers were no longer as willing as they once were to spend huge amounts of money on the stars.
Arguably, Marvel Studios, which kicked off its film roster with 2008's Iron Man, took this new "actors are not the be-all-and-end-all" philosophy of production and cranked it up several notches and in the process became rather notorious for low-balling several of its prospective acting talents. They offered Mickey Rourke a couple of hundred thousand dollars to star in Iron Man 2, and offered an undisclosed but reportedly small amount to Samuel L. Jackson, whose take on Marvel character Nick Fury is practically iconic by now, to star in multiple Marvel movies for years to come, offers which were both initially rejected and had to be renegotiated. With the exception of Robert Downey, Jr., who scored a minimum of $50 million in upfront compensation and back-end deals, the rest of the cast of last year's box-office phenomenon The Avengers were paid a comparative song, with the most optimistic figure amounting to $2 million, after the smoke cleared at the box-office and the smallest figures being something like one-tenth of that.
Now, I would hardly describe a bunch of Hollywood types who probably use their enormous salaries to pay off the second mortgage on their second Malibu mansions or buy their Ferraris as poor, marginalized laborers. After all, a few hundred thousand dollars for a few months' work, which is what Marvel supposedly waved under Rourke's nose while he was basking in the glow of his Oscar nomination for The Wrestler, is the kind of money most people in the world would love to earn over several years, let alone a couple of months.
The thing is, though, that these movies, when they hit, hit big, and I'm not even talking about box-office, which nowadays almost seems like the icing on the cake when compared to income from merchandising and product placement. For years, the Star Wars films had a virtual monopoly on the concept of earning more money from related products than the films themselves, until the Cars franchise came along in 2006 and in a few years earned a reported $8 billion from the sales of its related merchandise, principally consisting of little toy cars sold to kids all around the world.
Franchise movies, particularly runaway successes like The Avengers, make serious money, the kind of money that can even put the annual Gross Domestic Product of several countries in the developing world to shame, and the truth of the matter is that the actors who appear in these movies are on the front line. They spend months living off diets and workout regimens that, if I understand correctly, the human body was not built to sustain, then another several months shooting and in post-production and finally flying around the world promoting the movie. While as actors they're trying to best embody the characters on the written page, in a franchise movie they are serving another function; they double as glorified salesmen and women, tasked with ensuring that people will buy the lunchboxes and blankets and actions figures with their faces on them. I would not go so far as to say that these tasks are worth the tens of millions of dollars that the previously overpaid "A" list used to receive, but in the name of equity I would say that they are worth more than what basically amounts to a few crumbs of a very large pie.
I do not miss the days of $20+ million movie stars, to them I say good riddance, but neither am I a fan of the mindset that actors, previously believed to be the heart and soul of the Hollywood blockbuster, are now basically disposable. There's a chilling effect to all of this and it's the thought that if this can happen to movie actors, it can happen to anyone, like camera crew members, film editors, sound engineers, composers, visual effects animators or the various crew members whose work can spell the difference between cookie-cutter garbage and a work of art. It alarms me to note that the Iron Man franchise, has had three composers in as many films despite being the single most lucrative solo superhero franchise in Marvel's roster. In a pop culture landscape where people have been humming or performing covers of the themes of Superman and Star Wars for over three decades, the fact that Marvel Studios' single most recognizable superhero does not have his own distinct music theme feels like a crime against art.
The most insidious thing about this paradigm shift away from the overpaid movie star is that apparently, the only people who remain indispensable to the production are the "suits," people who, all things considered, contribute the very least to the creative process, but who hold the purse strings, which appear to be the most important consideration. Truth be told I'm not altogether sure that the cure for the $20 million diva is any better than the disease.
I enjoy movies, whether they're larger-than-life blockbusters or subtle, quiet little affairs. Normally, I care very little for what goes on behind the scenes of a movie, meaning that I don't really care if this actor or that director is a prick in real life, for so long as what appears on the screen captivates me. To find out that these performers are decent people in real life is basically a bonus.
When the behind-the-scenes brouhaha threatens the very existence of the movies that I love to watch, however, like squabbles over the actors' asking prices, I cannot help but sit up and take notice. If I may offer unsolicited advice to all concerned, it is simply that there really is no such thing as a win-win solution; there is only what one is willing to pay, and what the other is willing to accept, and the chasm in between, which is where you'll find your solution, whether it's back-end deals, creative control, or some other perk only Hollywood insiders know about.
Surely there is a reasonable middle ground somewhere.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Busong
I missed director Auraeus Solito's widely-acclaimed debut film Ang Pagdadalaga ni Maximo Oliveros (The Blossoming of Maximo Oliveros) back when it was widely released in 2007, and I confess I always regretted not seeing it; I heard and read really good things about it. When my wife told me that she and Mr. Solito were actually college classmates and that he had invited her to a screening of one of his most recent films, Busong (Palawan Fate), a smaller, more independent film than Maximo Oliveros which has received considerably less mainstream attention, I pretty much jumped at the opportunity.
Busong, as the director himself has said, is equal parts myth, personal experience, and imagination,and what an imagination it is.
The film, set entirely on the island of Palawan, begins with the introduction of the mythical Punay (Alessandra di Rossi) a girl with sores on all over her body whose brother, Angkadang (Rodrigo Santikang) carries her from place to place in search of a cure for her affliction, which she has had since birth and for which reason her feet have never touched the ground. As they travel in search of the one who can heal her, the two of them meet three people, the first being a woman named Ninita (Bonivie Budao), whose husband, a logger named Tony (Walter Arenio) meets a tragic fate while cutting down a sacred tree, the second being a fisherman and loving father named Lulong (Dax Alejandro) who is chased off his traditional fishing ground by a foreigner (Chris Haywood) and his goons, and the last one a Manila backpacker named Aris (Clifford Banagale) who has come home to Palawan after many years in the city and whose connections to the land run deeper than he may realize. All of these characters must meet their fate, or, as the title says their "busong."
Though di Rossi is obviously the only high-profile Filipino actress in this movie (although Banagale had a small role in Sacha Baron Cohen's Bruno some years back), she hardly gets any screen time, which to my mind is a good thing, not because I don't appreciate her talents but simply because it's the various Palawan-born actors who really carry this film.
The story of Ninita, arguably the most tragic of the lot, is also the longest of the three "mini-films" that take place within the greater tapestry of Busong. Budao carries a considerable burden here, given both her extended screen time, which is one of the longest, and the physical demands of her role, which in several scenes has her running at full speed, barefoot, on a rocky beach. Hers is a powerful screen presence, and her acting is never overstated. I'll admit that her rather voluptuous figure, visible even through her somewhat shapeless dress, caught my eye time and again but Solito was so judicious with his shot selection that her flesh enhanced, rather than distracted, from the experience. Of all the "mini-stories" though, I confess that this one felt the least coherent. Solito went out on a limb with this particular segment of his film, with slightly mixed results.
The story of Lulong and his son is the one I connected to as a father, and of the three it is the most compact. It takes place on a very short strip of beach, and happens in the shortest amount of time. Dax Alejandro has a number of touching scenes with his young son, though he does not quite make the impact that Budao did in her scenes. Still, like Budao, he conveys the plight of a man on a collision course with fate, but who faces it with courage and quiet resolve.
The final story, that of Aris, is the one that most directly intertwines with Punay's travails because it eventually falls upon Aris, who is a shaman by birthright, to heal Punay's wounds. Banagale, the most seasoned of the performers in the film, although still a newcomer to Filipino cinema, captures the pathos of a man who has come home to Palawan after spending much of his life in Manila. Perhaps Banagale drew inspiration from the fact that he had spent most of his life in the United States before coming home to shoot this movie. Aris is Solito's alter-ego and he echoes the pain of having grown up with a mother who was ashamed of her own culture. The reasons for this shame are evident as, in one scene where Aris accompanies his friends and their baby to the doctor, they are mocked as "mountain folk" or "Palawan." To save Punay, who needs a spiritual healer more than any doctor, Aris has to draw deep within himself, and Banagale conveys that inner conflict quite effectively to my mind. Punay IS Palawan, after all, ravaged with sores the way Palawan is pockmarked with rapacious miners and relentless woodcutters. The land's pain is her own, and ultimately it is up to the spirit of her people to save her.
There is a primal power to the way this film was captured, from the use of natural sound and in many cases light to the rocky, untrodden paths chosen for many of the scenes. It's a far cry from the postcard-quality scenery used to plug Palawan in the tourist advertisements, but it's no less beautiful in its rawness. Of course, popular tourist hub Honda Bay featured rather prominently in the underwater scenes, but for the most part I saw in this film a Palawan I had never seen before, not in any of the flashy the ads and not when I went there a couple of years ago and did the whole tourist routine.
This is an environmental-themed movie that speaks to the heart more than any bombastic CGI-fest like Avatar ever could. It has heartfelt, wonderfully rendered performances and a director with a singular vision and deep love for his native culture that translates into a truly powerful viewing experience.
4.5/5
Busong, as the director himself has said, is equal parts myth, personal experience, and imagination,and what an imagination it is.
The film, set entirely on the island of Palawan, begins with the introduction of the mythical Punay (Alessandra di Rossi) a girl with sores on all over her body whose brother, Angkadang (Rodrigo Santikang) carries her from place to place in search of a cure for her affliction, which she has had since birth and for which reason her feet have never touched the ground. As they travel in search of the one who can heal her, the two of them meet three people, the first being a woman named Ninita (Bonivie Budao), whose husband, a logger named Tony (Walter Arenio) meets a tragic fate while cutting down a sacred tree, the second being a fisherman and loving father named Lulong (Dax Alejandro) who is chased off his traditional fishing ground by a foreigner (Chris Haywood) and his goons, and the last one a Manila backpacker named Aris (Clifford Banagale) who has come home to Palawan after many years in the city and whose connections to the land run deeper than he may realize. All of these characters must meet their fate, or, as the title says their "busong."
Though di Rossi is obviously the only high-profile Filipino actress in this movie (although Banagale had a small role in Sacha Baron Cohen's Bruno some years back), she hardly gets any screen time, which to my mind is a good thing, not because I don't appreciate her talents but simply because it's the various Palawan-born actors who really carry this film.
The story of Ninita, arguably the most tragic of the lot, is also the longest of the three "mini-films" that take place within the greater tapestry of Busong. Budao carries a considerable burden here, given both her extended screen time, which is one of the longest, and the physical demands of her role, which in several scenes has her running at full speed, barefoot, on a rocky beach. Hers is a powerful screen presence, and her acting is never overstated. I'll admit that her rather voluptuous figure, visible even through her somewhat shapeless dress, caught my eye time and again but Solito was so judicious with his shot selection that her flesh enhanced, rather than distracted, from the experience. Of all the "mini-stories" though, I confess that this one felt the least coherent. Solito went out on a limb with this particular segment of his film, with slightly mixed results.
The story of Lulong and his son is the one I connected to as a father, and of the three it is the most compact. It takes place on a very short strip of beach, and happens in the shortest amount of time. Dax Alejandro has a number of touching scenes with his young son, though he does not quite make the impact that Budao did in her scenes. Still, like Budao, he conveys the plight of a man on a collision course with fate, but who faces it with courage and quiet resolve.
The final story, that of Aris, is the one that most directly intertwines with Punay's travails because it eventually falls upon Aris, who is a shaman by birthright, to heal Punay's wounds. Banagale, the most seasoned of the performers in the film, although still a newcomer to Filipino cinema, captures the pathos of a man who has come home to Palawan after spending much of his life in Manila. Perhaps Banagale drew inspiration from the fact that he had spent most of his life in the United States before coming home to shoot this movie. Aris is Solito's alter-ego and he echoes the pain of having grown up with a mother who was ashamed of her own culture. The reasons for this shame are evident as, in one scene where Aris accompanies his friends and their baby to the doctor, they are mocked as "mountain folk" or "Palawan." To save Punay, who needs a spiritual healer more than any doctor, Aris has to draw deep within himself, and Banagale conveys that inner conflict quite effectively to my mind. Punay IS Palawan, after all, ravaged with sores the way Palawan is pockmarked with rapacious miners and relentless woodcutters. The land's pain is her own, and ultimately it is up to the spirit of her people to save her.
There is a primal power to the way this film was captured, from the use of natural sound and in many cases light to the rocky, untrodden paths chosen for many of the scenes. It's a far cry from the postcard-quality scenery used to plug Palawan in the tourist advertisements, but it's no less beautiful in its rawness. Of course, popular tourist hub Honda Bay featured rather prominently in the underwater scenes, but for the most part I saw in this film a Palawan I had never seen before, not in any of the flashy the ads and not when I went there a couple of years ago and did the whole tourist routine.
This is an environmental-themed movie that speaks to the heart more than any bombastic CGI-fest like Avatar ever could. It has heartfelt, wonderfully rendered performances and a director with a singular vision and deep love for his native culture that translates into a truly powerful viewing experience.
4.5/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)