10 Reasons Not To Sit In A Theater Full Of Old People

Posted on August 28, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

This is the most difficult post I’ve ever had to write.

This is largely because I wore my glasses (instead of my contacts) last night because I knew I was going to be sleeping over at Jeff’s place. Now, it’s the morning and we can’t find my glasses. So, while he continues to search, I am sitting here trying to write despite being blind. Seriously, as I type this, my face is less than half-an-inch away from Jeff’s monitor. If I squint real hard, I can kinda sorta make out the letter-shaped blobs that are blinking in front of me.

In other words, there might be some typos in this post. Sorry — I’ll correct them once I can see again.

This post came to me last night as we were watching the new Robert Duvall film Get Low at the Regal Keystone Park 16 in Richardson, Texas. Get Low is a good movie and Duvall gives a brilliant performance but, from the minute we first found our seats, I realized that I was literally the youngest person in the audience.

I suppose I should define just what exactly this article’s definition of “old” is. Originally, I was thinking of old as being anyone who is older than me (that is, anyone born before 1985). However, that would include Jeff, all three of my sisters, and just about every other contributor to this site. So, I revised my definition.

From now on, old is anyone over the age of 40.

With that cleared up, on to this list:

1) Old people never show up for the movie on time. Seriously, the first 20 minutes of Get Low were pretty much dominated by fat old people wandering around in the dark, searching for a seat. Considering that movies never actually start when they’re supposed to and even then there’s about 15 minutes worth of commercials and trailers, there’s really no excuse for being that late. Beyond, I guess, the arrogance that comes from being old.

2) Old people are mean. It’s true! And who wants to sit in the dark with a bunch of mean people?

3) Old people reek of buttery popcorn and stale nachos. Listen, I like popcorn and I like butter on my popcorn. And I like nachos too though I prefer the real thing as opposed to the lukewarm American version. And, sometimes, I’ll get some popcorn to eat during the movie. That, in itself, is not a sin. That’s just being American. However, I don’t use popcorn as a substitute for any of the major food groups. But my God — what is the deal with old people who come waddling into the theater late and, of course, they’ve got a giant tub of popcorn in one hand and a giant tray of nachos in the other. And since they waddle, what that means is that every step they take means that popcorn is going to be flying everywhere. And then, once they do find a seat, they seem to feel the need to shake their giant tub of popcorn every few minutes as if to remind the rest of us that they’ve got a giant tub of popcorn and we don’t. I mean, seriously, it’s time that the obese old people of the world accept the fact that not everything has to revolve around them.

4) Many old people are obese. Before anyone says anything, I don’t feel good about writing that. Obesity is a legitimate health concern and it’s often more the result of low self-esteem than anything else. If I had enough money to get every obese old person liposuction, I would. But I don’t and it doesn’t change the fact that obese old people make it difficult to enjoy a night out at the movies. Whether it’s the fact that it takes them forever to find a seat and sit down or just the fact that they remind me of death, the grotesquely obese can be an issue.

5) Old people can’t drive. This is less an issue when you’re watching the movie but definitely a concern when you’re trying to leave the theater afterward. I mean, I understand that cars worked differently back in the Middle Ages but seriously, we’ve reached a point where the engine’s not going to explode just because you tap the accelerator a little.

6) Old people can’t hear. I love movies that are full of twists and turns. What I can’t stand, however, is when I have to listen to the person behind me explaining all those twists and turns as they happen just because her companion is too freaking stubborn to get a hearing aid!

7) Old people always want to do the whole Roger Ebert thing. By this, I mean that after the movie ends, old people always want to sit there and go, “I didn’t like that…” or “The plot was too predictable.” Okay, good for you, you’ve got an opinion. So do I. But I, at least, try to express my opinions in an interesting way. “That plot was too predictable.” Seriously, with all your years of life experience, you can be more witty than that.

8 ) Old people make weird noises. Seriously, if you have to clear your throat that many times, you should probably be at the ER instead of the movies.

9) Old people don’t respect your privacy. Seriously, what me and a friend choose to do while the movie is playing is our own business. Keep your eyes on the screen, you old perverts.

10) Old people create awkward situations. Seriously, no disrespect is meant by this but if someone in the audience dies while the movie’s playing, what is my obligation here beyond calling 911? Is it acceptable for me to then watch the rest of the movie once I’ve called 911 or would that be considered a faux pas on my part? I mean, what if it’s a really good movie?

Satoshi Kon R.I.P (October 12, 1963 – August 23, 2010)

Posted on August 24, 2010 by pantsukudasai56

It’s been awhile since I’ve posted any updates, and while I’ve always meant to get something written up, I always found excuses not to. But with the recent passing of Satoshi Kon, it would be remiss of me not to post up my thoughts of the career of one of the truly great anime directors. First I’ll give a brief rundown on his works as director, along with my thoughts of each and then I’ll end with some closing thoughts on his career in general.

Perfect Blue (1998)

This was my first experience with the directing talents of Mr. Kon, as well as his directorial debut. Back in 2001 when I was just starting to get into actually buying DVDs of anime, I asked around which titles I should own. Among the responses, Perfect Blue kept coming up, so I decided to give it a shot. Back then I didn’t really follow anime websites or magazines, nor was torrenting really a driving force, so this was a complete blind buy for me. What I got really opened my eyes to what anime could be like. Before this, anime to me largely was giant robots blowing things up, or martial arts masters powering up for 20 episodes and blowing things up. Never did I think that anime would be an effective means for bringing me a psychological thriller that so blurred the lines between reality and fiction. Plus, it tells a tale of obsession for idols in Japan that rings just as true today as it did back in 1998, as one can see happening between Aya Hirano and the degenerates of 2ch.

Millennium Actress (2001)

Next up for Mr. Kon was Millennium Actress. A popular, recurring theme in most of his works is the blurring of the lines between reality and fiction and this movie brought it to an even higher level than Perfect Blue. The biggest difference between the two is Millennium Actress is a lot more light hearted in tone than the fairly dark Perfect Blue was, even if the argument can be made that it doesn’t necessarily have a happy ending. Throughout the film, we are brought through the life of an actress as she recounts her career and her search for the love of her life. However, it’s shown by placing the people telling the tale into the movies of her career and then popping back into reality, sometimes leaving one to wonder what was real and what was scripted. Such a directing technique does come with the risk of turning viewers off if it gets too convoluted, but Satoshi Kon knew just the right amount of tweaking to do to keep one thinking, but turn into outright confusion for the sake of confusion.

Tokyo Godfathers (2003)

For his third film, Satoshi Kon put the blurring of reality and fiction on the back burner and instead focused more on the human relations. Tokyo Godfathers looks at the lives of three homeless people and a baby they find on Christmas Eve. While the story told here is a bit more straightforward than his other offerings, it has a lot more emotional impact as you find out what led each of these three to where they are, and also what led the baby to being abandoned. Rest assured, the story doesn’t get to its conclusion without a couple twists and turns along the way, but this one has the closest to a happy ending as any of his movies. The fact that it manages to tell a compelling tale without having to use his psychological tool shows why Satoshi Kon was such a respected director.

Paranoia Agent (2004)

This marks Satoshi Kon’s first and only foray into directing a television series, and if Tokyo Godfathers was him taking a break from the psychological aspect of his stories, Paranoia Agent more than makes up for the lost time. The show centers upon a police investigation into a series of attacks on people by a boy with a golden bat. But, as I said, this is a return to form for Mr. Kon, and so there’s much more to this than merely some attacks. Plus, add in the fact that in each case after the attacks, the people feel almost grateful for it as it seemed to help them fix their various stresses in life and you have a story that will keep you wondering right up until the end. Admittedly, there are times when it seems like the story is going to get out of control, and it’s easy to see that Mr. Kon is much more comfortable creating feature length films rather than regular television series, but the fact that it still manages to work shows the true talents of the man. I feel confident that had he lived longer, we would have seen another series from him, and since he already had the experience under his belt, he could have done an even better job than the already fine showing he did here.

Paprika (2006)

His most recent completed work was 2006’s Paprika. A big theme in this movie is dreams, so as you can imagine the lines between reality and fiction get blurred once again. In fact, they’re so blurred, that they often wind up breaking the fourth wall within the context of the movie to the point where dreams and reality become one and the same. While personally not my favorite movie of his, it shows that even though he uses the same theme throughout most of his works, he still is able to tell a compelling story each time without it feeling predictable and tired.

Satoshi Kon was working on a new film set to release in 2011 called Yume Miru Kikai, or The Dream Machine. Sadly, due to his untimely death, the status of the film is now unknown. One would imagine that production will continue, and hopefully Mr. Kon shared his vision of the film with others so that it may be completed as he would have wanted it to be. The head of Madhouse Studios, for which Mr. Kon was working, stated it was a sudden death from cancer, although Japanese entertainment firms are notorious for their privacy and the privacy of their talent so just how long Mr. Kon had been afflicted with the disease is hard to say. Whether or not this film sees the light of day, one of the shining lights of the anime industry has sadly been extinguished far too early. With the dearth of talented young anime directors, this loss will be felt all the more acutely. Rest in peace, Mr. Kon, you will be sorely missed.

Rooney Mara as Lisbeth Salander?

Posted on August 16, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

It’s official. The role of Lisbeth Salander in the thoroughly unnecessary and borderline insulting American remake of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo will be played by Rooney Mara.

It’s hard for me to say how I feel about this casting. When I first heard about it, my initial thought was, “Who’s that and how could she be better suited for the role than Jena Malone?” However, after talking to Arleigh, I realized that I actually do know Rooney Mara. She was the lead in another remake, this year’s Nightmare on Elm Street. In that movie, Mara was a likable presence but she was no Lisbeth. Then again, woman like Lisbeth Salander — independent women who refuse to be solely defined as either a good virgin or a bad whore — don’t appear in slasher films. What is important is that Mara has proven she can carry a film. She hasn’t proven that she can carry The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.

Then again, considering just how iconic a figure as Lisbeth has become (both in the original novel and in the original film) it’s probably for the best that director David Fincher went with an unknown. Rooney appears to be a talented young actress but she’s got a very difficult job ahead of her.

It’s probably not a coincidence that Rooney also has a small role in Fincher’s upcoming film, The Social Network (which is going to suck, by the way). It’s possible that Fincher saw something in Rooney that she hasn’t been allowed to show the rest of the world. Me, I’m just happy that if there is going to be an American version of Lisbeth Salander, at least she’s going to be played by an Irish-American. At heart, Lisbeth is as Irish as a Swede can get.

(Though again, the ideal Irish-American to play Lisbeth would have been and still is Jena Malone.)

As I’ve stated before, I have mixed feelings about the remake of the Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. (And yes, it is a remake regardless of what they’re saying over at Awardsdaily.com.) On the one hand, the entire literary Millenium Trilogy (of which The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was the 1st part) is one of the best recent works of pop cultural fiction. Lisbeth Salander is destined to be an iconic noir figure. On a personal note, even though she’s ultimately just a fictional character, she is a fictional character who has provided a great deal of strength and hope to abuse survivors (such as myself). When we read about her and her refusal to allow herself to be victimized or to be dependent on even as well-meaning a man as Mikael Blomkvist, the book’s nominal hero, Lisbeth Salander becomes the vehicle for our own wish-fulfillment fantasies. She is a character who transcends the page to become a role model in real life as well. In many ways, she is the 21st century version of Scarlett O’Hara. Scarlett gave hope to aging Southern belles. Lisbeth gives hope to bipolar neurotics like me. And much as everyone couldn’t wait to see Scarlett on-screen, a lot of us couldn’t wait to see Lisbeth on-screen.

And that is the biggest hurdle that director David Fincher and Rooney Mara are going to face with this much-hyped remake of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. We’ve already seen Libseth onscreen and, in our mind’s eye, she’s not Rooney Mara. Instead, she’s Noomi Rapace. Both Fincher and Mara have a difficult task ahead of them. Not only do they have to meet the expectations of the people who have read the original novel, they have to exceed the expectations of the people who have seen the original Swedish film.

And that, to me, is the issue that is being avoided, the proverbial Elephant in the room. For all the wannabe, internet-based film critics who are currently gleefully devouring any crumbs of information concerning Fincher’s production, nobody has yet to answer the question as to why this film needs to be made at all? (Beyond the obvious fact that there’s money to be made…)

I found it interesting that, at the end of the EW article concerning Mara’s casting, it is mentioned that the film is set to begin filming in Sweden. Why exactly? Hasn’t a film about a girl with a dragon tattoo who helps a smug journalist investigate a disappearance in Sweden already been made? It would seem that the “American version” has little to offer beyond offering up a fantasy Sweden where everyone speaks English and those viewing the film are freed from having to try to read subtitles and rattle their jumbo tubs of popcorn at the same time. Or are we just sending David Fincher over to Sweden because we think we’ve got a thing or two to teach the nation that gave us Ingmar Bergman?

It’s easy to find a lot of people trying to convince themselves that this film is a guaranteed classic. (“I’m so happy they cast Robin Wright!” they exclaim. “I usually hate remakes but with David Fincher aboard, I’m looking forward to this,” another one will say. And, of course, my favorite: “This movie is not a remake!”) But nobody seems to be willing to address just why exactly we would need a new Lisbeth Salander when she’s already been created to perfection by Noomi Rapace.

Seriously, both Rapace and Lisbeth deserves better.

For that matter, so does Rooney Mara.

Too Sordid To Ever Be Corrupted

Posted on August 1, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

“How could you have possibly enjoyed that movie?”

I hate that question. I hate the self-righteous tone of it. I hate the demand that I justify anything that I choose to do with my life. I hate the implication of the question, the suggestion that somehow there is some sort of moral force at the center of the universe that determines whether or not a movie can be enjoyed.

Unfortunately, no matter how obviously justified I am in loathing that question, it’s still one that I am frequently asked. How can I not only enjoy watching old school exploitation and grindhouse films (the majority of which were made before I was even born) but also devote a good deal of my time to not only watching these movies but tracking them down and then telling the rest of the world how much I love them?

(Of course, what they’re really asking is what are you doing watching exploitive trash like House On The Edge of the Park or Fight For Your Life when you should be out finding a husband, driving an SUV, and living a life of quiet desperation?)

First off, I should confess. I have commitment issues, I know it. I realize that, as a result of some personal experiences in the past, that I tend to beg for affection and attention even while I’m putting up my own invisible wall to keep anyone from getting too close. It’s not easy for me to trust but, after writing for this site since May, I feel like maybe it’s time to share a little bit more about me. Hi. My name is Lisa Marie. I’m 24. I have three older sisters that I love. I’m a proud to be an Irish-German-Spanish-Italian-American. I lived in five different states before I was 13 and I’m rarely amused when people point out the country twang in my voice. Up until I was 17, ballet was my life but then I fell down a flight of stairs, broke my ankle in two places, and that was the end of that. I worked very hard to earn a degree in Art History. Not surprisingly, my current job has nothing to do with art or history. I have asthma and heterochromia (my right eye is a darker shade of green than the left). I’m blind without my contacts. I like cats, driving fast, and being single. I dislike dogs, needy men, and those tiny little smart cars. The only thing that can equal my love for the Grindhouse is my hatred for the Mainstream.

Here’s a few reasons why.

1) Before Independent Film, there was the Grindhouse.

Today, if a young director wants to show what he’s capable of doing, he makes his own little film and enters it into various film festivals and, if he’s made something interesting, he might sign a distribution deal and his film might pop up down here in Dallas at the Angelika theater. In the 70s, that young director would make an exploitation film, hope that it had enough sleaze appeal to make back its budget by playing in a New York Grindhouse (or a Southern drive-in) and, if he had made something interesting, his cheap, exploitation film might eventually end up being released on DVD by Anchor Bay or Blue Underground. The best Grindhouse films were made by director who were eager to show what they were capable of doing. These movies were not made by multimillionaires with houses on both coasts of the country. Grindhouse movies were made by director who had to work to create something memorable, filmmakers who knew that they might never get another chance to put their vision on-screen.

2) The Mainstream Lies. The Grindhouse is honest.

Mainstream films are just that. They are films designed to appeal to the widest possible audience. A mainstream movie is not made for you. A Mainstream movie is made to appeal to the brain-dead suburbanites who can be easily recruited at the local mall to be a part of a test screening. A Mainstream movie is made to be inoffensive. A Mainstream movie is edited and re-edited to remove anything that could possibly negatively reflect on the bottom line.

Grindhouse movies, however, didn’t have time for that. Grindhouse movies were made to exploit the moment. As a result, there was no time to worry about appealing to everyone. There was no time to constantly edit until not a single rough edge remained. Grindhouse films are messy. Grindhouse films are not always pleasant. They don’t always have the perfect ending. In short, Grindhouse movies are like life itself.

In the end, safe and inoffensive mainstream movies are made to appeal to the who we wish we were. Grindhouse movies — sordid, sometimes uncomfortable, and always appealing to the audience’s most primal thoughts, fears , and desires — are made to appeal to who we actually are.

3) The Mainstream is bland. The Grindhouse is dangerous and unpredictable.

Where else but in a Grindhouse film could you hear a killer who speaks like a duck like in Lucio Fulci’s The New York Ripper? Because the Grindhouse was free of the need to try to fit in with what the mainstream decreed to be normal, the Grindhouse had the freedom to come up with some of the most brilliantly demented plots in the history of film. When was the last time that the plot of a Mainstream film really caught you off guard? I’m not talking about safe, inoffensive surprises like Avatar‘s 3-D effects. I’m talking about a plot where, halfway through, you look at your fellow viewer and you both say, “What the fuck was that!?” Anything can happen in the Grindhouse. As soon as things start to feel safe and a little boring, the Grindhouse has the ability to make things exciting again. The Mainstream, meanwhile, just asks you to get married.

4) The Mainstream always condescends. The Grindhouse occasionally empowers.

Here’s a story of two movies. In the mainstream Brave One, Jodie Foster gets a gun after she’s raped and her dog is stolen. (In typical mainstream fashion, the movie doesn’t seem to be sure which crime is supposed to be worse.) In the grindhouse Ms. 45, Zoe Tamerlis gets a gun after she’s raped twice in one day. In the Brave One, Foster passively sits on the New York subway and waits until she threatened with rape a second time before she kills the potential rapist. In Ms. 45, Tamerlis shoots every man she sees because she knows that every man she sees is a potential rapist. In The Brave One, Foster gets her revenge by remaining the victim. In Ms. 45, Tamerlis becomes the aggressor. Both Foster and Tamerlis act in self-defense but Foster is wracked with guilt because the mainstream cannot risk losing its audience. Tamerlis becomes stronger and more confident with each murder as, for the first time, she has found a way to control her own destiny. At the end of The Brave One, Foster is not only rescued by a man but she gets her dog back too. At the end of Ms. 45, Tamerlis goes on a shooting rampage at a Halloween party and is finally killed by another woman. The Brave One‘s tag line was “How many wrongs to make it right?” Ms. 45’s tagline: “She was used and abused and it will never happen again!”

I know this is probably going to be my most controversial argument. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating that we should just go out and start randomly shooting men. But, I will say this — in Ms. 45, Zoe Tamerlis refuses to be a victim and she — and the film — refuses to let society off the hook. When I think about Ms. 45, it doesn’t inspire me to hate men (because, trust me, I don’t) and it certainly doesn’t inspire me to grab a gun and start shooting. It does, however, inspire me to not allow myself to fall into that never-ending cycle of victimhood.

I’m not attempting to argue that Grindhouse films are secretly feminist films. Grindhouse films are infamous for exploiting women. However, so does the mainstream. (Of the two films, The Brave One features nudity. Ms. 45 does not.) Both the Grindhouse and the mainstream obviously get off on victimizing women. However, in the Grindhouse, women were occasionally (though certainly not often) allowed to fight back with the same aggression and determination that the mainstream, for the most part, usually reserves just for men.

(If The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo had been released in the 70s, it would have played at the Grindhouse.)

5) Lastly, and most importantly, the Grindhouse is still our little secret.

Let’s just admit it — independent films are trendy. Contemporary independent films have, to a large extent, become the new mainstream. The earnest film students who had a Sundance hit are now going to Hollywood to make the next Benjamin Button. Sundance is just ShoWest with more facial hair. However, the old school grindhouse will never sell out because it no longer exists. It was destroyed by the morality police before it could sacrifice its soul. While an independent filmmaker is just a director who will eventually grow up and break your heart, the great Grindhouse films are frozen in time, too sordid to ever be corrupted. The Mainstream will never embrace the Grindhouse and for that reason, the Grindhouse will always be the ultimate statement of freedom.

6 More Exploitation Film Trailers That I Love

Posted on July 31, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Back in May, I posted 6 old school exploitation trailers that I love. At the time, I said that even though I only posted 6 of them, I could have easily listed 666. While I don’t have the space to put up quite that many, here’s 6 more exploitation film trailers that I love.

1) A Black Veil For Lisa — There’s several things that I love about this trailer. I love the faux-noir narration. I love the teasing tone. I love the old school femme fatale attitude of lead actress Lucianna Paluzzi. But, to be honest, the main reason I love it is because it’s all about a redhead named Lisa. That and the line “Every man wants a Lisa…”

2) The Italian Stallion — This is the trailer for the re-release of Sylvester Stallone’s porn debut, A Party At Kitty and Stud’s. I’ve never seen the movie nor do I have much desire to see it but this trailer just amused me to no end. Whether its the awesomely phony line readings of Gail Palmer or the catchy and empty theme song, this trailer feels like a genuine time capsule.

3) The House On The Edge of the Park — Speaking of catchy but empty theme songs, Ruggero Deodato’s The House on the Edge of the Park features my personal favorite, Riz Ortolani’s infamous Do It To Me (Once More). It can be heard at the end of this trailer and once it gets stuck in your head, it’ll stay there forever. As for the trailer itself, it’s a perfect example of how a well-edited trailer can actually make a somewhat draggy film seem exciting (that said, this movie is one of my all-time guilty pleasures, as misogynistic and wrong-headed as it ultimately is). A few things I love about this trailer — the blue-tinted views of New York City, David Hess’s iconic psycho performance, the sight of my man Giovanni Lombardo Radice dancing, and the fact that the trailer actually manages to 1) get the movie’s name wrong and that 2) nobody ever bothered to fix it.

(Author’s note: Whoops! Before you watch this, I have to admit that I’d forgotten just how explicit, violent, and exploitive this trailer really is. So, consider this to be definitely NSFW — not that you should be watching any of these trailers at work, to begin with — and seriously, no joke, don’t watch this trailer if you are easily upset or offended. Honestly, if I saw this trailer without having any knowledge of how silly the actual movie really is, I would probably find this trailer to be deeply offensive. Well, no, actually, I probably wouldn’t. For the most part, I’m only offended by things that happen offscreen in the real world. — Lisa Marie Bowman)

4) The Texas Chainsaw Massacre — Yes, I know everyone’s probably seen this trailer a hundred times but it’s still probably one of the best and most effective trailers of all time. Plus, I’m from Texas so you know I had to mention this movie at some point. (I may have mentioned this in the past, but seriously — try to imagine this movie being as effective if it was called The Vermont Chainsaw Massacre.)

5) Mindwarp (a.k.a. Galaxy of Terror) — I’ve been eagerly awaiting the chance to buy this film on DVD ever since seeing this trailer on the latest 42nd Street Forever compilation. Rumor has it that this film was actually directed by James Cameron, back when he was still interesting. Supposedly, this film features a very aggressive tentacle but, to be honest, I mostly just want to see Sid Haig’s arm get cut off. (Seriously, who doesn’t? Take that, Capt. Spaulding!)

6) Stage Fright — This is the wonderfully intense and claustrophobic trailer to the great Michele Soavi’s 1st film, Stage Fright, a movie I’m going to watch as soon as I finish up this post. So, with no further delay…

A Few Thoughts On The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo Remake

Posted on July 28, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Have I mentioned how much I loved The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo? Have I suggested that the late Stieg Larsson, in the Millenium Trilogy, did for Europe what James Ellroy did for America with the American Tabloid trilogy? Have I gone into the fact I think Noomi Rapace’s performance as Lisbeth in both the original film and its sequels will probably be remembered as one of the greatest film performances of all time? Have I explained that I think, even beyond Rapace’s performance, Lisbeth herself is one of the best characters in the history of film? For that matter, have I talked about the hours that I’ve spent standing with my back to a mirror and looking over my shoulder and debating on which shoulder-blade a dragon would look most appropriate? Personally, I think my left shoulder-blade is a bit nicer than my right but last night, my friend Jeff was telling me that…

Sorry, I’m losing focus here. Okay, getting the ADD under control. Anyway, the point of the matter is that I love The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.

That’s why I feel a lot of caution about the upcoming, David Fincher-helmed remake. First off, quite frankly, I really don’t see what can be improved on the original films. It’s not as if the original film version of the Girl With The Dragon Tattoo failed to do justice to the book (if anything, the book fails to do justice to the film that eventually made from it). I suppose a remake would give people who can’t handle subtitles the chance to see the story but honestly, who cares about those losers? Speaking of the story, the rumors I hear seem to indicate that this remake is going to be an “Americanized” version of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, which I’m not really sure can be done as the entire book is basically meant to act as a metaphor for Swedish society. Of course, it is possible that the remake is going to be set in Sweden as well but if that’s the case, what’s the point of the remake?

I know the usual argument to these concerns is that, as a director, Fincher will not allow the film to be Hollywoodized. At one point that may have been true but, judging from The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Fincher’s got more Hollywood in him than most people want to admit. The fact that he’s also teamed up with Aaron Sorkin (an establishment figure if there ever was one) to direct a movie about Facebook doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence but I’ll hold off on judging until the Social Network actually shows up in theaters.

However, I am encouraged by the news (announced yesterday) that Fincher has cast Daniel Craig as the male lead, Mikael Blomkvist (or whatever his name is going to be in the Hollywood version). Craig’s name had been mentioned for the role ever since the remake was first announced but there were also reports that the role would go to Brad Pitt (who, of course, has already made 3 films with Fincher). Nothing against Brad Pitt (who I think is a truly underrated actor) but it’s hard to think of a worst choice for the role of Mikael. Mikael’s defining characteristic is just how ineffectual he is. He’s the ultimate well-meaning intellectual, the type of guy who wants to fight injustice but is to insulated from the harsh realities of life to effectively do so. (That’s why he needs Lisbeth, she represents everything he wishes he could do but can’t.) In short, Mikael is a hero by default and casting an actor like Brad Pitt would throw the entire movie off-balance.

Mikael is not a role for a star. Mikael is a role for a character actor and, James Bond aside, that’s exactly what Daniel Craig is. (That’s one reason why Craig’s Bond is dull, regardless of how good a performance Craig gives in the role.) Not only is Craig the right age, he projects just the right amount of idealistic weariness for the role. Admittedly, it helps that Craig bears a passable physical resemblance to the original Mikael, Michael Nyqvist which, if nothing else, will make it easier for fans of the original film — like me — to accept him.

(For the record, my personal choice for Mikael would have been Tim Roth.)

Of course, the question now is who will win the role of Lisbeth and why would they want it? For me, Noomi Rapace is Lisbeth. She is the girl with dragon tattoo. It’s hard to think of single mainstream actress in her 20s or early 30s who could hope to match Rapace’s performance. (Perhaps a young Angelina Jolie could have though physically, Jolie is all wrong for the part.) However, even beyond what Rapace did with the character, Lisbeth is one of the most vivid and memorable characters in recent literary history. Even without having to worry about the shadow of Rapace’s previous performance, the role is not an easy one.

Originally, rumor had it that Kristen Stewart was a lock for the role. At the risk of being burned at the stake as a heretic, I’m going to say that I think Stewart could have been an adequate (though not a great) Lisbeth except for the fact that she’s about ten years too young. (While Lisbeth is described as looking like a teenager, she also projects a worldliness of someone much older. Physical appearance can be faked but life experience can not.) Carey Mulligan, star of An Education (the best film of 2009, by the way), was another actress who was frequently mentioned.

Well, according to Entertainment Weekly, neither Stewart nor Mulligan will play Lisbeth Salander. Neither will Natalie Portman who, according to EW, was offered the role but turned it down. The offer to Portman makes sense as she’s physcially right for the role and she’s an undeniably talented actress. However, much as Pitt could never have been convincing as Mikael, Portman would have been miscast as Lisbeth. Portman may be a talented actress but she’s also a rather passive one. Even in her previous “action” roles (Leon, V For Vendetta), Portman essentially played a lost, damaged character (much like Lisbeth) who needed an older male figure to serve as her mentor (which, needless to say, is nothing like Lisbeth).

Again, according to EW, the role of Lisbeth has been narrowed down to four actresses: Rooney Mara, Lea Seydoux, Sarah Snook, and Sophie Lowe. It’s probably a good sign that none of these actresses are household names exactly. Competing with the shadow of Noomi Rapace’s Lisbeth is going to be difficult enough without also having to deal with the shadow of their own previous performances. (For instance, even if Stewart gave a brilliant performance as Lisbeth, it would still be impossible for me to get through the remake without making at least one Twilight joke.)

For me, the real question is not who is going to be cast as Libseth but if Fincher and his producers are going to give us the real Lisbeth — this would be the unapologetically lesbian Lisbeth who can only befriend Mikael once she’s sure that she doesn’t any sort of sexual attraction towards him — or if we’re going to get a more mainstream, Hollywood version of Lisbeth. Are we going to get the real Lisbeth who needs no one or are we going to get another version of what Hollywood claims to be a strong woman, one who can fight up until the final 30 minutes of the film at which point she’s suddenly rendered helpless by the demands of Mainstream Filmmaking 101.

More than anything, that will be the test that Fincher’s Girl With The Dragon Tattoo will have to pass if it wants to be anything more than an unneeded imitation of the original.

(Incidentally, the perfect Lisebth Salander would be Jena Malone. End of story.)

2010: The Year In Film So Far

Posted on July 18, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Everyone views history in their own individual way. Some people remember past years by what they saw on the evening news (hence, 2004 becomes “the year Bush was reelected”) but I define them by what was playing at the nearest movie theater. Ask me when I was born and I won’t tell you, “1985.” Instead, I’ll tell you that I was born the same year that Terry Gilliam’s Brazil was butchered by Sid Shienberg. For me, the quality of a year is determined by the quality of the movies that were released during those twelve months. You may have hated 2009 because of the economy. I hated it because it was the year of the overrated movie, the year in which otherwise sensible people ignored great films like An Education, A Serious Man, District 9, and Inglorious Basterds (which, praised as it was, deserved considerably more) in favor of Avatar and The Hurt Locker.

2010, however, is shaping up to be a far better year. Though a final judgment can’t be passed on 2010 until 2011, here’s a few thoughts on the year so far.

Best Film (so far): Exit Through The Gift Shop, a quasi-documentary that might just be one of the most perfectly executed mindfucks in modern history. Runners-up: The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, Fish Tank, Please Give, Winter’s Bone, A Prophet, Toy Story 3, and Inception.

Best Male Performance of the year so far: John Hawkes, in Winter’s Bone. Hawkes has been overshadowed by Jennifer Lawrence but he dominates every scene that he appears in. Just consider the scene where he “talks” his way out of a traffic stop. Runners-ups: John C. Reilly in Cyrus, Ben Stiller in Greenberg, Leonardo DiCaprio in Inception and Shutter Island, and Sam Rockwell in Iron Man 2.

Best Female Performance of the year so far: Noomi Rapace as the Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and The Girl Who Played With Fire. Rapace is my new role model, a Ms. 45 for the 21st century. Runners-up: Jennifer Lawrence in Winter’s Bone, Katie Jarvis for Fish Tank, Rebecca Hall in Please Give, Greta Gerwig in Greenberg, and Chloe Grace Moretz in Kick-Ass.

Best Ending: The final shot of Inception.

Best Horror Film: The Wolf Man, which should have been oh so bad but instead turned out to be oh so good with Anthony Hopkins and Hugo Weaving both giving brilliant supporting performances.

Best Bad Movie: Sex and the City 2. Yes, if I’m going to be honest, it was a horrible movie. But it was fun. the clothes were to die for, and the film managed to bring new depths of shallowness to the examination of the oppression of women in the Middle East.

Worst Film Of The Year (so far): Chloe. Oh, Atom Egoyan, poor baby, what have you done, sweetheart? You made a trashy, campy softcore movie and then you forgot that these things are supposed to be fun! Runner-up: Robin Hood, because the entire freaking movie was a lie. However, it did feature Oscar Isaac screaming, “Outlawwwwww!” and that saves it from being named the worst.

Worst Horror Film So Far: The Black Waters On Echo’s Pond. So. Fucking. Bad.

The Get-Over-It-Award For The First Half Of 2010: The makers of Prince of Persia, who just had to try to turn an otherwise entertainingly mindless action film into yet another half-assed cinematic allegory for the Invasion of Iraq. Ben Kingsley will probably be playing thinly disguised versions of Dick Cheney for the rest of his life. I was against the Invasion of Iraq from the start but seriously, I’m so bored with every movie released using it as a way to try to fool the audience into thinking that they’re seeing something more worthwhile than they are.

The Read-The-Freaking-Book-Instead Award: The Killer Inside Me. A lot of viewers are disturbed by the violent way that the main character deals with the women in his life. I’m more disturbed by the fact that all the women in his life are presented as being simpering idiots. The original novel is by Jim Thompson and it is a classic.

The worst ending of 2010 so far: Splice with the Killer Inside Me as a strong runner-up.

Future Film I’m Not Looking Forward To: Roland Emmerich’s Gusher, an ecological thriller based on the BP oil spill, starring Will Smith as the President, Dev Patel as the governor of Louisiana, Paul Bettany as the head of the evil oil company, and Ben Kingsley as Dick Cheney who will be seen cackling as oil-drenched doves wash up on the shores of California. (How did the oil get to California? Emmerich magic.) Of course, the nominal star of the movie will be Jake Gyllenhaal as the young engineer who says stuff like, “This well is going to blow!” and who is trying to reconcile with his estranged wife (played by — does it really matter? Let’s just say Emily Blunt gets the role this time around). And let’s not forget Robert Duvall, who will play a grizzled old-timer who says a lot of grizzled old-timer stuff. Look for it in 2012.

My prediction for which film will be the most overrated of 2010: The Social Network, which has not opened yet but Sasha Stone at awardsdaily.com seems to think that it’s a slam dunk for greatness which is usually a pretty good indication that the end result is going to be a predictable, bourgeois crapfest.

So, that’s 2010 so far. It’s shaping up to be a good year. I’m still looking forward to the release of Blue Valentine, Animal Kingdom, Get Low, The Disappearance of Alice Creed, The Last Exorcism, Wall Street, and the rerelease of Godard’s classic Breathless, which is one of my favorite movies and now I’m going to get a chance to see it in a theater! Life is good.

Paranormal Activity 2: Too Scary For Texas

Posted on July 1, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

According to Variety, Cinemark has pulled the trailer for Paranormal Activity 2 from several theaters in my homestate of Texas because, apparently, filmgoers (the majority of whom were apparently in the theater to see Twilight: Eclipse) complained that it was too frightening.

Uhmmm….right.

I’ve seen the trailer for Paranormal Activity 2 online and, to be honest, the scariest thing about it is that it confirms that a sequel was actually made to Paranormal Activity One.

(As a sidenote, the PA 2 trailer recycles the old footage of viewers supposedly jumping in fright while watching the first film. I always wondered just who exactly these idiots were and whether or not they’d ever actually seen a movie before.)

This whole thing seems to be an old-fashioned publicity stunt designed to create word-of-mouth among the type of people who probably think that the obnoxious filmmakers in Cannibal Holocaust actually were eaten by cannibals at the end of the movie.

It’s especially interesting that these complaints supposedly came from Texas. I suppose that’s going to be the new advertising angle — Paranormal Activity 2: The Movie So Scary That Even Texans Are Afraid To Watch. I imagine that now filmgoers are supposed to say, “Wow, it’s got to be scary! I mean, we expect that sort of cowardly behavior from those new age hippies in Vermont but these are cowboys here!”

(By the way, I’m from Texas and I’ve never worn a cowboy hat and I don’t own a horse. I do say “y’all” on occasion. Seriously though, FUCK VERMONT. Sorry, I’ve always wanted to say that.)

I have to be honest, as much as I disliked the first Paranormal Activity, this publicity stunt has won the filmmakers a very small place in my heart. This is the type of shameless, silly stunt that would make the grindhouse proud. Hopefully, they’ll have a nurse present at all screenings of Paranormal Activity 3.

Anyway, if you think you can handle it, here’s the trailer that’s apparently too scary for Texas:

Happy Birthday to Felicia Day!

Posted on June 28, 2010 by Arleigh

Today is the birthday for the queen of Geekdom. She has slayed with Buffy. She’s sang-along with Dr. Horrible. She’s even fought in a post-apocalyptic future. But she’s really earned the hearts of geeks (men and women) everywhere as Codex in the award-winning and popular web series, The Guild. I speak of one Ms. Felicia Day and from geeks and non-geeks everywhere I wish her a Happy Birthday!

Film Review: Bloody Sunday (dir. by Paul Greengrass)

Posted on June 15, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

On January 30th, 1972, in the Bogside area of Derry, Northern Ireland, the British army opened fire on what-was-meant to be a peaceful demonstration. 13 men were killed on the spot, another died later of his injuries. In the months leading up to the demonstration, the British army had been frequently attacked by pro-independence, largely Catholic “nationalist” groups and the Army was quick to claim that the were acting in self-defense and that they had been fired upon. Others, however, pointed out that almost all of the men killed (most were just teenagers) had been shot while fleeing the soldiers and none had any weapons on them. This was the event known that later became known as Bloody Sunday and served as one of the leading catalysts for the decades of “Troubles” that would follow.

Earlier today, 38 years after the fact, British Prime Minister David Cameron finally publicly acknowledged the fact that the 14 men killed on Bloody Sunday were murdered. Much like the classic Monty Python skit where Eric Idle is convicted of murdering 300 people in one day, Cameron said that he was “very, very sorry.” (Actually, Idle said that but the idea is the same.)

The Bogside Massacre also served as the basis of one of the best (and most important) films of the first decade of the 21st Century, 2002’s Bloody Sunday.

Directed by Paul Greengrass (who would later, of course, direct the final two Bourne films), Bloody Sunday is a disturbing recreation of January 30th, 1972. We watch as the civil rights activist Ivan Cooper (a very likable James Nesbitt) makes his way through the Bogside area of Derry, encouraging people to attend the march while still finding time to beg the local IRA leadership not to start any violence. While most critical attention is, understandably, given to the scenes that recreate the massacre itself, these early scenes are just as important. They establish the idea of the people of Bogside as being a community full of actual individuals as opposed to just a collection of pawns in the war between the nationalists and the unionists.

While Cooper tries to ensure peace, we are given contrasting scenes of the British army preparing for the exact violence that Cooper is trying to prevent. Ironically, in these opening scenes, both Cooper and his military counterparts are motivated by the same basic fear of the IRA. Its only once the demonstration has started and the first shots are fired that Cooper realizes that the establishment is far more dangerous than the insurgents.

Throughout the film, Greengrass directs in his signature, documentary-style, employing hand-held cameras and rejecting any artistic flourishes that might take the viewer out of the “reality” of the situation. Each scene ends with a fade-to-black and, as a result, the viewer gets the feeling that he is literally dropping in on the action. This is not to say that Greengrass is not an artful director. The power of his artistry, however, comes from his ability to hide the technique. As a director, he does not demand attention with a lot of showy tricks. Instead, he earns the attention by perfecting his craft.

Greengrass’s psuedo-documentary style is at its strongest and most devastating during the recreation of the massacre itself. Perhaps because the film was made for British television at a time when there was still official doubt about what set off the Bogside Massacre, Greengrass leaves hazy the exact reason as to why the army starts firing. However, what he does make clear is that the 14 men killed were, essentially, murdered. One of the unfortunate things about being as big a movie fan as I am is that I’ve grown jaded to the sight of people dying on-screen. However, unlike many other similar films, the deaths in Bloody Sunday are not presented as just being plot devices or as an excuse to get an emotional response from the audience. Instead, the deaths in Bloody Sunday hurt because you immediately know that, regardless of which you side you support as far as the Troubles are concerned, none of the deaths were necessary. They were, instead, the product of a nation’s wounded pride. 14 men died so that the British could feel British again.

As you can probably guess, the British don’t come across particularly well in Bloody Sunday and, quite frankly, they shouldn’t. Watching this movie, you’re left with the impression that the Bogside Massacre was the British Army’s attempt to exorcise the demons of the collapse of the British Empire by killing the Irish. (Though, in all fairness, the Irish killed a lot of British in the time leading up to Bloody Sunday.) However, and this is to Greengrass’s credit, individual British soldiers are shown to question the massacre. Its only when those soldiers are forced give up their individuality and function as a collective that they commit (and, at the film’s end, conspire to cover up) murder. For just that, this movie should be required viewing for anyone who insists on claiming that “individualism” is a threat to society.

The film ends on a quiet note as a somber Cooper announces that he no longer sees a “peaceful” solution. This scene gets its power largely from Nesbitt’s own charismatic performance. Playing the closest thing the film has to a central character, Nesbitt makes his early enthusiasm for the march so infectious that its simply devastating to see him after the massacre, angry and disillusioned. It also reminds the viewer that, in the years after Bogside, there was no peace and many more innocent people — on both sides of the conflict — would die. The British army may have thought it was going to scare Northern Ireland into submission but instead, they helped to perpetuate a continuing cycle of death, destruction, and hatred that, regardless of any treaty, continues to this very day.

I should admit that I’m a fourth Irish. My great-grandparents were born and raised in Ardglass, Northern Ireland. Though I’ve never been, I hope to visit Ardglass some day. Though I no longer consider myself to be a member of any religion, I was raised in the Catholic church. As such, I’ve always had an interest in Irish history and the Troubles in particular. I’ve also always been biased towards the nationalist side.

So, it would be fair for someone to ask if I’d have the same reaction to this film if I was a Protestant with family living around London and the honest answer is that I don’t know.

However, the power of Bloody Sunday doesn’t come from political ideology. Instead, the movie serves as a disturbing but powerful reminder of what can happen when people surrender their free will to groupthink. Though the oppressors in Bloody Sunday may be British, recent history has proven that, when actively opposed, those with all the power will always react with the same brutal fury. The forces of oppression remain the same whether they’re in Northern Ireland, Iran, Honduras, or the U.S.A.