Course Idea

I've had this idea for a while now.  These days it seems a little more timely.

What if we took a semester and each week watched a popular movie that features a fictional police officer.  We then step through the actions of that character as they go through the movie and evaluate their actions based on the governing rules of conduct.

John McClane blows up a building in Die Hard.  He blows up a plane in Die Hard 2.  The one I remember most from Die Hard 3 was where he's walking up the aqueduct tunnel, about to encounter one of the drivers and shoots him and takes the truck:

There's a real body count in that line.  I went a long way along with Die Hard before I started to wonder about the justification of some of the shoots (among other interventions).

I know it is just entertainment, but I do wonder about where the center of gravity is on the thing.  We've come a long way from Dirty Harry to John McClane - and McClane was more than 20 years ago.

It does seem different when it is fantasy or science fiction.  Trinity and Neo kill a lot of people too - although they are revolutionaries not law enforcement.  Die Hard and Lethal Weapon ostensibly take place in the real world.  Does it make any sense to have them have to function in a way we would expect from real police?

Maybe it isn't a course.  Maybe it is a TV show.  There used to be this show Ethics in America.  I would love to see films critiqued by a learned panel, not with regard to if they were good or bad films but rather with regard to if the behavior of the characters was legal.  The panel would need police, government, legal scholars, all the people that govern what the proper application of force is supposed to be.

Like it or not, the impression that many people have of what real police work looks like is from movies and TV.  Maybe we would be better off if movie and TV police work was less sensationalized.

Argo

Yesterday Mrs TANBI and I went to see Argo.  It was sort of remedial Oscar viewing.  We'd meant to go see it a while ago but somehow hadn't.  So it was time to fix that.  We went to SouthSide Works.

I thought the movie was pretty good.  I like spy movies and I like behind the scenes movies so this was sort of in my wheelhouse.  The Hollywood characters were great and I could totally see how making a fake movie would be entirely possible.  Projects start and stop so often that it does seem like if you had the money to spend you could do whatever you wanted.

Movies set in the 70's and 80's are finding a special place in my heart.  I wonder if my folks had the same kind of feelings about movies set in the 50s.  Seeing the details really gets to me, like when they pan to the side of the bed and you see the kids 2XL toy.  I didn't have a 2XL but I had friends that did.  The cars and the clothes and the rotary phones all drive home the period.

Not much to talk about in terms of the story since it is a retelling of history.  I will say that all of the news resonated with me and seeing Ted Koppel and Dan Rather when they were much much younger strongly  reinforced the story.  I remember the hostage crisis.  I remember watching morning TV and having it interrupted for a news report and seeing the gate of the embassy.  As a kid it wasn't that scary.  I wonder what people old enough to have really understood would have felt.  The film really doesn't show how the news hit the home front aside from the actual players.

One of the other parts that struck me was how if they hadn't had to keep the success a secret they could have really mitigated the black eye the military got when they failed on their rescue attempt.  I can remember how inept the government and Carter looked after hearing the news about a botched rescue.  Following that up with a story of success would have made a big difference at the time. I wonder why they kept it secret for so long.

As the film progressed I found myself thinking that the actual Argo screenplay must be REALLY bad.  I came to that conclusion because I got to thinking that ti would have been a tremendous marketing advantage if they could have actually made the Argo movie to go with the original making of Argo story.  They could even have done it as an animated short, or as a made for TV special.  That they aren't using it at all suggests to me it must be really unimpressive.

Of course that is complete speculation.

I guess I'll give Argo an H.  Good film, well worth your time, and it'd probably be fine on your home screen.

Movies

When I first started doing this I thought one of the primary things I would be posting would be reviews of movies.  It never really happened, I'm not sure why.  I guess maybe politics has been more fun to write about.  But here I am, many, many years later and I am still thinking about posting about movies.  Really I thought it would be movies and TV and books.  But for the moment lets focus on movies.

If I am going to write about movies I will need some kind of rating system.  I could go with thumbs up or thumbs down, but my experience tells me that my opinions are not often that clear.  Pretty much everything would wind up thumbs up.  I could do stars: 4 stars, 2.5 stars etc.  I think that again could really say more about the film than it does.  Really, any ranking system be it stars or 1-10, or ABCD is just making an effort to rank one film against other films and I don't think that tells all the story it could.

More than hierarchical rankings imply I think there is a dimension of movie choice that hadn't been part of public discourse that nowadays is really significant.  We watch movies in different modes and have many more opportunities to watch; and those things should figure into a contemporary rating system.

Our top end movie experience these days, at least here at casa TANBI, is to go out to the theatre, see the film in IMAX on a full size IMAX screen.  There's only one theatre within a reasonable drive that fits that description.  It's a full size traditional IMAX screen with a steep house and stadium seating.  The bottom line for that is that to get a decent seat you really have to arrive pretty early.  So to be worth the drive and the price and the process a film needs to be something special.  Lets call that our top rating "IMAX Worthy."

"Top Rating" implies a hierarchy, and I guess that's ok, but would be the same a "4 stars" or "10/10."  The next ratings wouldn't work that way though.  After a film that is so special to merit the big theatre experience, the next choice is whether to see the movie in a theatre at all.  The difference here is that just because a movie doesn't call out for a theatre it doesn't mean it isn't a good movie.  So the next two ratings could be "Date Night" for films that are worth seeing and worth seeing in a theatre and "Home Theatre" which means the movie is worth seeing and will be good at home - and is worth appointment viewing on your best screen.  Although different those ratings aren't necessarily better or worse than each other.

The next rating would be "streamer."  That would be a movie that is ok to watch and it doesn't really matter how you watch - no big screen, no surround sound required.  Sometimes now we stream movies on the computers or the tablets.  The viewing experience isn't really the same but it's ok for what it is.  Finally, I think the last rating would be "Pawn Stars" which means you could watch it if it's on, but you could also watch Pawn Stars (or Dual Survival or Love It or List It or whatever).

So we're set for the TANBI movie rating system.  It goes like this:

I - IMAX Worthy

D - Date Night      H- Home Theatre

S - Streamer

P - Pawn Stars

Make sense?  Now I just need to see some movies.

Saturday Night at the Movies

It was fairly inevitable.  We went to see Les Miz tonight.  Pretty much I think if you work in theatre you have to go - so we went.

I hadn't read much prerelease press about the film.  I'd heard that they didn't loop the vocals, and I'd heard that Russel Crowe was an unfortunate casting decision - and that it was a long film.

On those three items; I didn't think the movie was overly long.  I think audiences have become accustomed to 90 minute screening times and I think that is pretty unfortunate.  Yes, this was a long film, but I never really found myself thinking "gee, this is long."  I don't think I would have noticed that the vocals weren't looped.  In thinking about it I think that particular nuance did more for the actors performances than it did for the vocals.  I would think it let themselves really get in the moment in a way they wouldn't have had they pre-recorded the vocals.

Crowe, he is not as strong a singer as some of the others in the cast.  His voice does sound shallower in his body if that makes any sense.  With him I felt he was trying harder than his castmates.  On the flipside he gives a great performance.  The acting part is spot on.

For reasons I don't understand I kept thinking about Johnathan Frakes when I saw Crowe.  I wonder if he can sing.

Otherwise... I think this story loses something going from a theatrical piece to a movie.  There's a dimension to the stagecraft that reinforces the piece that aren't offset by the freedom to shift location and time realistically.  I swear I found myself missing the lighting.  I even found myself thinking about a particular stage trick from the tour.  When he goes off the bridge.  In the movie he goes off a bridge.  On stage, they played the bridge at stage level and obscured the floor with fog.  When he falls he dropped into a trap that had previously been hidden and the bridge simultaneously flew out at high speed simulating a fall.  I hadn't thought of it before, but it is possible that was a formidable moment in shaping my career.

There's also something in the music and the sound.  The scale is just different in film.  Interestingly it felt like they played the whole thing much smaller in the movie than it felt on stage.  That's counter-intuitive, but I guess it makes sense.  If you can get right up in someone's face, why wouldn't you?  But it does change the nature of the piece.

I enjoyed the film well enough.  It is a good piece of film making and the music is everything it has always been.  Certainly it's worth a trip to the theatre.

As an aside, one of my strongest reactions to the movie was sadness.  It really drove home that I never managed to get to New York to see my sister do Eponine.  I bet she was great.

The Sad State of Action Stars

I watched "The Running Man" tonight. While taking in all the mid 80's film making and thinking about the reboot of "Total Recall" I've been reading about I had the thought that The Running Man would be a good candidate for a remake. There's just something about the casting and the visuals and the story and the concept that seems to me like it would still resonate today and that would benefit from a retooling using today's film making technology.

But there's a problem. Who would be Arnold?

Think about the action stars of today and try to put any of them in something as high concept as The Running Man. Who's out there? Matt Damon? Ben Affleck? WIll Smith? Daniel Craig? Keanu Reeves? Tom Cruise? Johnny Depp? Christian Bale? Viggo Mortensen? Shaq? Really the well of action stars doesn't much include anyone too butch. Orlando Bloom as The Running Man - shoot me now.

Hugh Jackman? Are you serious? I mean Geez, they had Kelsey Grammer play The Beast.

I suppose you could go Vin Deisel or maybe even Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. They both seem to be mired firmly in what for Arnold was his "Kindergarten Cop" phase. They'd be ok I guess. For a moment I thought about Ving Rhames, but he's never really carried his own film. Even TV is a little devoid of the big bodied action star, nobody leaps to mind from Heros, or Lost, or BSG. You don't think too long before saying "Well maybe the remake could have a woman?" Since Angelina Jolie might be the most credible action star of the past decade. But that seems wrong.

So really, what happened that has us rebounding so heavily from Stallone and Schwarzenegger? Where's the new Dolf Lundgren or Carl Weathers? I think I'd even go Van Damme. It's pretty sad.

In their time I don't think anyone would have said those guys were the best actors around, but there was a niche they filled very well, and I am not sure there's anyone waiting to step in right now. How odd.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Who Will Replace Our Retiring Movie Stars? [Listicle] (gawker.com)
• Smith voted 'most bankable actor' (news.bbc.co.uk)
• pop nosh: hugh jackman - sexiest man alive! (popbytes.com)
• The Rock Races to 'Witch Mountain' in New Trailer (cinematical.com)
• Hollywood to totally recall Total Recall (theregister.co.uk)

Movie Night

Image via Wikipedia

Mrs. TANBI and I went to the movies last night. She sorta wanted to see Slumdog Millionaire and I sorta wanted to see Gran Torino, so we saw Coraline.

I hadn't heard much of anything about the movie except that it was stop motion. When we bought our tickets it was right under a sign alerting us that there was no 3D at this location. I didn't know it had been an option, so we didn't let the admonition stop us.

It's a really good movie, and I think a movie theatre movie - or at least worth seeing in a movie theatre movie. There were moments in the film I was fairly sure were designed for 3D, but not having the effect didn't take anything away that I could tell (although I can't say if having it would add anything). I thought it was a bit hard to watch at first. It took me a little while to stop looking for what was stop motion, what was traditional animation, what were sets and what was rendered - things like that. I'm not sure why, but for some period of time that seemed to matter to me. Also, I kept having the thought that early on in the process I bet this was a live action and animation film, with one technique applied to one world and the other to the other. In hind site I am not sure that would have added anything either.

There were a lot of kids at the movie. We went to a 7:30 show and I had figured that would end later than parents wanted to be out with their kids (this is after all Pittsburgh and not Vegas, where I routinely saw kids in the grocery at 3am), I was wrong. Interestingly, the story is pretty dark for kids. The film style suggests something that a 5 or 6 year old might enjoy, but I think the PG rating is spot on. There was a girl behind us I would be surprised to find was as old as 8 who got 100% out of the movie experience; shouting "No!" and "Don't go!" Toward the end I think she might have quite possibly, actually crapped her pants, I don't blame her, it was a scary moment.

The story is good, the animation is good, the music is good, it's just all really good.

And, I just checked out a lot of behind the scenes stuff on the web site and it would appear that there was very little other than sets and stop motion. Well done.

Things Not to do at The Movies

Mrs. TANBI and I went to see Wall-E the other day. We both fell asleep somewhere between EVA's return to Earth and their arrival on the space ship. Still we both enjoyed the movie, so I guess that will be a reason to see it again.

I would however like to use this trip to highlight a couple of things I could do without at the movies (and I don't even mean the new version of Screen Gems - whatever it is, that will get its whole own post some other time). We witnessed both of these things and while you may not agree it is after all my blog.

Number 1: You can't save seats for your friends after the movie starts.
The show we were at was fairly heavily sold, so much so that people were having to sit in those three rows in front of the cross-aisle, down close to the screen. Off to our left there were three kids who had a whole empty row in front of them and every time people walked up they were all like "these are saved." I should mention too that during this time they had their feet up and over the backs of these seats and were just generally being rude. Anyway, their buds did arrive - a few minutes into the magic act, but I am sorry; once the film starts, those seats should be available to people there already. If you want someone to save your seat (and lord knows with the new pre-show I am SURE that will increase) then you had better get there before the lights go out.

Number 2: You can't bring in take out from Chang's.
I know the food at the theatre is priced more than a gallon of gas, and I guess bringing in your own food makes a certain amount of sense, but chowing down on a container of beef with broccoli is just over the line. Maybe second grade rules ought to apply here and if you are going to bring in food like that you have to bring enough for everyone. We're going to have to smell it, we should be able to eat it - if you like beef w/ broccoli. I can't imagine what the kid who cleans up between shows will feel if you just so happen to spill your kung pao scallops, and the people next to you didn't plan on going to a restaurant, they went to a film. It's hard enough with the cell phones and the talking and the babies crying - full blown restaurant take out is over the line. Sneak in a bag of Skittles if you must, but leave the lettuce wraps for another time.

This concludes the evening's rant over people I can do without. I am sure there will be more as time goes on.

Be Careful What You Wish For

So I thought it was weird. A few weeks ago Mrs. TANBI and I went to the movies, we went to see Speed Racer. The thing that was weird was that when we got to the theatre it was all quiet and then when things started up they went right to previews. At the time I told myself that since the press for the movie was so lousy that people wouldn't pay for pre-show advertising since they figured nobody would be there to see it.

Fast forward a week or two and we're back at the movies to see Indiana Jones. This time when I pay for the tickets I notice that the rate had gone up. The cashier said the price changed because they were simplifying the pricing structure - all matinées are one price and all evenings are another, just two prices. So we go into the theatre and once again no screen gems, all quiet.

It's at this point I flash back to probably like the six dozen times I sat in that theatre watching that awful slide show or commercial after commercial thinking "Geez, I would pay more if only I didn't have to watch all this crap."

Poof, so now I am paying more.

Truth be told, I think I stand by my original statement. It really was nice to go to a show and you know see the show. That preshow shit was criminal and I am glad to be rid of it. I just hope it stays gone. The track record for such things is we get a little break, pay a little more, and then presto the crap comes back. I'll keep my fingers crossed. You cross yours too.

Anyone else notice the same thing?

What are You doing July 4th?