BBC Blog Network

User Profile

colinr0380

Listed below are comments made by colinr0380 between Thursday, 23rd October 2008 and Saturday, 28th February 2009.

«Newer
Older»

The Kermode Awards and You 11:00am on 28 Feb 2009 I find Jolie's career frustrating - she was perfectly formed (moulded?) to be Lara Croft, and had a great supporting cast but was let down by the poorly scripted films, the second far worse than the first.

Then she has been excellent in A Mighty Heart and Changeling but has not received the recognition for it, while I assume the awful Wanted has become a 'cult' success (giving cult movies a bad name in the process).

So I don't feel she has had either a breakout action role or become a big star through recognition of her more challenging roles. She's had a few defining roles but they have not been widely recognised. I did hear she was considering giving up acting (though this may be just one of those statements actors periodically make to sound dangerous and exciting - see Joachim Pheonix), but if she does she'll leave a semi-fulfilled career behind her.

Anyway, talking about cult movies, are you going to do a follow up post on Fantastic Planet? In the last one you said you were getting the DVD to reacquaint yourself with the film. How did that go?
Profile: Reconstructing Woody 6:17pm on 12 Feb 2009 I suppose also if you are so strongly associated with the character you play or your persona on film then it must rub off on you in some fashion, as much as you may want to keep professional and private separate - especially in the modern era of gossip magazines and celebrity 'journalism' trying desperately to create their own interpretations of what a famous person is 'really' like (glad to find out that you detest Heat by the way!)

We should also add in the idea that people get cast in films or are allowed to make films by appealing to certain things others are looking for - just as beautiful women get cast as Woody's co-stars, so Woody himself comes with certain expectations he has to fulfil.

Whether that causes an acknowledgment of the similarities or alternatively a backlash response against being pigeonholed, both reactions show that there is an awareness of the effects of being famous and 'known'.
Opinion: I vill say ziz only vonce 8:54pm on 01 Feb 2009 Ah, the 'Last Emperor' effect!

The big problem is that these films are made for a mass audience who want Tom Cruise but don't want him doing anything out of the ordinary. Some actors have personalities that become such a part of their persona that they cannot 'become a character' - for better or worse they'll always be Tom Cruise, Michael Douglas, Sean Connery or Michael Caine, and so on.

It is a double edged sword as on the one hand there is a ready made persona that just gets slotted into the story about the racing driver or the plot to assassinate Hitler or the defecting Russian submarine commander - the 'general' audience (by which I mean the executives who greenlight the film) feel safe knowing that the film has the reassuring and unchanging presence of a familiar looking and sounding actor to guide them through the scary world of politics or situations that they did not previously know much about (or to get them to sympathise with a Nazi by having them played by the lovely Winslet or Cruise). This also allows the actor to feel comfortable knowing that a good portion of their job is done by just sticking to their meta-persona, rather than subsuming themself into a character, as a 'character actor' would.

The other side of this though is that the actor is trapped by their persona - Sean Connery can never escape being Sean Connery and therefore is never really going to be able to tackle a range of different and challenging material. Nobody seems to want to see actors of this type try to do character actor material (and if they do try a project to stretch themselves they usually do poorly with both critics and audiences, seeming like unsatisfying and overblown vanity projects).

If the public tire of the persona, or if the actor tires of keeping that persona going, there is little left to do but retire - see Sean Connery.

Michael Caine has shown another alternative - do some more challenging work in cameo roles. He will never get past the Michael Caine persona, but not carrying the film as the 'star' lets him take some chances with different material than he is normally 'allowed'. See also Cruise in Magnolia.

So being a megastar is both a blessing and a burden - you'll never be anonymous in a film, and will never really convince as anything other than a really famous actor playing a role rather than someone who 'inhabits' their part. But then is that not what the Oscars are about - honouring the best star turns rather than the best, and most appropriate for their material, performances? (This may also apply to any debate over Heath Ledger's Joker nomination and whether came about through performance reasons or for reasons outside of the film that he was nominated for)

Sometimes the heavens align and the star turn and the performance come together, as with Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood, Helen Mirren in The Queen etc. (The Wrestler actor nominations look like where this alignment has occured this year, well cast actors in suitable roles that complement both the actor and the film).

At other times one overpowers the other and it becomes more about the actor rather than their work in the role being particularly convincing (i.e. Judi Dench winning for her cameo in Shakespeare in Love, which was something that arguably overpowered the film in the short scenes where she appeared), and usually comes at a detriment to the quality of the film itself, or the story it tells, which to my mind should be the primary consideration.

The other thing I would add to this is that Valkyrie, Defiance and The Reader are part of a big genre aimed at an audience still in love with the Second World War. World War Two has been commodified and commercialised as 'the acceptable face of war' to such an extent that it is becoming, to my mind, dangerous.

There are of course many serious films made on the subject, and these often do have characters speaking in their appropriate language with subtitles, but when we are talking about mass marketed 'entertainment' pieces aimed at a wide audience there is a wish not to tax the viewer.

There are many conflicts around the world since 1945 that audiences could certainly benefit from knowing about, but a seeming lack of will by filmmakers to venture away from the tried and tested (and lucrative) ground of WW2. It seems a cynical and blinkered focus to me, one conspiring to keep viewers ignorant of events that have occured since.

I should list the exception to this though. I kept away from Antoment for a few months fearing that this was last year's Oscar 'WW2 bait' film (I had not read Ian McEwan's novel either), and was pleasantly surprised to find that this film despite appearances tackled the romantising and commercialising of a WW2 setting in an extremely mature way. Is the main character trying to 'atone' for her actions in her latest novel because she feels bad for what she did (in which case, why did she leave writing the novel for so long?), or is she simply dredging her past for lucractive stories with a commercial World War Two setting to feed an insatiable public (and publisher) appetite for such material?
Review: There Will Be Blood 03:07am on 24 Jan 2009 One of the great things I most admire about Paul Thomas Anderson is that in a profession where once you find a niche in a genre or style that is successful you are expected to stay in that field, he has had the courage (and, of course, the ability!) to produce films which seem so different on the surface (different genre, different morality, different period. Even the different running times of his films, which would seem unimportant, show that he can handle a three hour epic like Magnolia or a ninety minute comic drama such as Punch Drunk-Love. I do not really know of another modern director who can work comfortably both in brief and at length - usually it seems that a filmmaker finds a running time that they are comfortable with and sticks with it. The same with finding an influence -Welles, Kubrick, Scorsese, Hitchcock etc - and sticking to that), and yet underneath have a through line of constant themes of creation of substitute families of characters who have their loyalties tested, of characters with insecurities that define them at the same time that they threaten to destroy them, and so on.

I'm not a big fan of Punch-Drunk Love, in the sense that I don't 'enjoy' the film, but I do sincerely admire the technique and daring on display throughout it.

I thought the theatrical trailer for There Will Be Blood was perfectly chosen, not just for the power of the scene itself but the way that Day-Lewis's speech played differently in that context - more of a stand alone rant, a grand monologue - which still left the nice surprise of the way it was used in the film itself where the listening Henry changes the subject a couple of times and Daniel sticks with his train of thought, so ingrained it is that he doesn’t really need the other party to converse, just to witness his confession. I like that idea of the material you use in a trailer being used with a slightly different context in the actual work itself - it adds resonance and even prevents the scene from seeming stale from having seen it used a hundred times before in the advertising!
More Points of You: Part Two 02:36am on 24 Jan 2009 I'm rather overwhelmed by having my question answered during one of the Good Doctor's videos! For not having been aware about the Ninth Configuration DVD commentary at the time of my earlier question, I'll make a promise to track it down and buy a copy as an (enjoyable!) penance!

As he was introduced in the video I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank Mr Jones for his overall work in bringing films to a wide television audience. I was someone old enough to remember his name in the end credits of those Alex Cox Moviedrome introductions and 1995s Forbidden Weekend amongst others!

Usually I scoff at attempts at moral issues, which in Hollywood films often seems to go hand in hand with mawkish sentimentality. However I was surprised to find myself greatly enjoying The Shawshank Redemption and felt the film perfectly balanced the darkness with an earned sense of, well, redemption!

I'm not ashamed to admit that I well up at the ending every time I see it!

I felt that Darabont's film also beautifully built upon the short story in Stephen King's Different Seasons collection. I was wondering what Mr Kermode's opinion of the other film to come from that collection, Apt Pupil by Bryan Singer, was? Personally I felt that the film adaptation pulled its punches somewhat ending up as a less interesting film than its source material, especially when compared to another film which tackled similar subject matter, In A Glass Cage.
Points of You: Part Two 7:49pm on 09 Jan 2009 OK, I'll try my hand at this with a comment designed to appeal to Mr Kermode's ranting/rhapsodising nature!:

I wonder if you could tell us your opinion of Exorcist II: The Heretic and Exorcist III (Legion). Received wisdom seems to suggest that the second film is atrocious yet watchable for its goofy insanity. Is this the case or is it just Bad with a capital 'B'?

The third film seems to have quite a cult following. I have to admit to liking it more than the original (I know what's coming: "I'm right and you're wrong", and I forgive you!)

Or if these subjects are too obvious for comment, covering overly familiar territory, can you tell us your thoughts on The Ninth Configuration? (A severely underrated film)
Review: Zack and Miri Make a Porno 2:38pm on 14 Nov 2008 There is a difficulty all these films have with reconciling a fun and bawdy comedy about making sex films with the stark and often devastating effects doing so has on people's lives.

Boogie Nights only succeeded in its portrayal of that world because it was first and foremost a drama that featured brief comedic/sexy elements that arose due to the situation, but which quickly disappeared again as reality set in - the tragectory of William H. Macy character's relationship with his wife showed that most clearly, creating laughs at the situation of the cuckolded husband until it all ends in tragedy.

Perhaps the people who make films about making sex films get too caught up with the premise and title being a marketable hook for material that firstly is unshowable in a widely released film (unless subtitled, or made by Michael Winterbottom...or Shortbus!) and secondly will inevitably have to end in a darker and depressing place than it began if the filmmaker wants their film to bear any relation to reality at all.

In other news, I guess Mr Kermode is already aware of the recent passing of Deep Throat director Gerard Damiano.
Tribute: Local Hero 02:45am on 09 Nov 2008 The bagpipe stylings reminded me of the opening to The Wicker Man! :)
Review: High School Musical 3 8:27pm on 23 Oct 2008 "For succintness, the review of High School Musical 3 could have stopped with "Here we have a profit and loss line..."

Yes - they profit and we lose! Ba-zing!

"Well I suppose it does what it says on the tin....which is more than be said for a lot of films"

Wasn't that the tag line for a certain brand of wood stain, and insert your preferred joke about wooden actors here!

Oh and Mr Kermode I now dare you to illustrate The Devils in the style of the film itself (It might make the blog X-rated though!)
Review: Eagle Eye 8:19pm on 23 Oct 2008 I've not seen "Evil Eye" yet but the thing that struck me the most from the clips is the way that this voice is controlling the characters in a similar way Morpheus does to Neo at the beginning of The Matrix. I'm assuming that the Wachowskis will be sueing some time soon! (I guess the Wanted people will also be having a word!)

Doesn't this all lead to a discussion about the way films are becoming more like computer games, with constant action and cypher characters who the audience can project themselves onto rather than being fully rounded characters existing in their world. Yet unfortunately in striving to become like computer games, films forget that the one thing they don't do well is interactivity - no matter how much they IMAX or 3D something.

The sooner films learn that the thing they do better than computer games is to tell a cohesive, compelling story (along with spectacular and most importantly appropriate visuals!) the better

I guess I wouldn't hate Michael Bay so much if he didn't come across in his commentaries as such a self assured "I'm perfection personified" kind of person! Yes I've listened to him whittle on for hours on end, for my sins! I even listened to his commentary over the four hours of Pearl Harbor, though at least there he was paired up with Jeanine Basinger who played the sycophant, which was somewhat easier to handle than someone mythologising themselves!

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

colinr0380