Letters to the Editor
JD_Johnson
Published Letters: 8
-
I think I can! I think I can!
[Read the article: Oscar and Hollywood in splitsville!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Another interesting phenomenon; tangential to the actual Oscar race, is the rise of the so-called "little indie that could". This goes back to at least 2004 when "Sideways" became a hit with a certain critical mass of moviegoers (and Merlot haters). Since then, we've had "Crash", "Little Miss Sunshine", and "Juno" assume the same mantle. This is always billed as a surprise marriage between the little-known indie and the blockbuster-weary public. But is this phenomenon really so serendipitous?
All of these films are born on the film festival circuit, and you can bet that the studios have their fingers to the wind at those initial screenings in Telluride and Toronto. When, and only when, a "Sideways" or "Juno" generates a certain amount of street buzz, the studio bidding machines come out in full force. As such, these festivals allow studios to test market before they actually invest a single $.01 on the films themselves. Furthermore, when it comes time to release these films in the theatres, there's a pretty high probability that they'll become "sleeper" hits. Of course, this approach will occasionally backfire. The Iraq war-themed drama "Grace is Gone" was a huge audience hit at last year's Sundance Festival, and was the beneficiary of an intense bidding war, but it failed to catch on with critics and ultimately became a box office dud. Still, when you consider the economics, it makes overwhelming sense for studios to go shopping for indies rather than try to make these films on their own.
On an entirely different note, what in tarnation is a $5000 "mumblecore" film? Could it finally be that Andrew Bujalski is getting some love from the mainstream press?
-
I agree about Day-Lewis...to a point
[Read the article: Too great to be good]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ms. Zacharek makes a valid point about the trajectory of Daniel Day-Lewis's career, though I tend to think his performance as Daniel Plainview hit the right notes for the type of film he was in.
High style performances are essential to the kind of sensualist films that PT Anderson specializes in. Think of Tom Cruise in "Magnolia" or ALfred Molina in "Boogie Nights". That these often sit alongside naturalized "method" performances from the likes of John C. Reilly or William H. Macy is somewhat akin to frogs falling out of the sky. Perhaps it's a perversion, but it's what makes PT one of this generation's most interesting filmmakers.
For all the talk of Day-Lewis aping the Hustons (Walter/John), I see a lot more of the Kubrickian anti-hero in this performance-- think Malcolm McDowell in "A Clockwork Orange" or Jack Nicolson in "The Shining". John Huston was a terrifying monster in "Chinatown". His few onscreen moments cast a shadow over everytyhing leading up to the final haunting moments of the film. If he went over-the-top, it felt entirely consistent with the volcalnic nature of his character. The performances of McDowell and Nicolson, on the other hand, were absurdist. Their characters were circus barkers at Kubrick's mad carnival. It's clear that PT Anderson aimed for this style with "There Will Be Blood", and Day-Lewis hits exactly the right notes (even if they were high-pitched atonal notes; a sort of companion piece to Johnny Greenwood's score).
If Day-Lewis excels in this role, it's not necessarily a sign that he's on the right trajectory as an actor. I agree that his performances in films like "The Age of Innocence" and "In the Name of the Father" have a lived-in vitality that somehow seemed to go missing with "Gangs of New York". It is in that film where his portrayal overstepped the requirements of his character. Bill the Butcher should have been a simmering, earthy madman. Day-Lewis's performance was all vaudeville. It's little wonder that his most effective moment was during the knife-throwing scene.
-
I'd rather see "Sack Lunch"
[Read the article: Oscar, are you listening?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you, thank you, thank you, (....thank you) Anne Lamott for knocking "Atonement" down a notch on the critical praise-o-meter. This film started out on such a promising note but devolved into a mess of stilted dialogue, bludgeoning visual metaphors, and pointless tracking shots.
A smart filmmaker would have chosen to make the movie all about Paul Marshall and Lola, the comely red-headed coquette. The scene where he instructs her to "bite hard" on a piece of candy was one of my favorite moments in any film this year and was a thousand times more erotic than that little bit of ugly bumping in the library.
Also, this film was unable to disprove my suspician that Keira Knightley is, in fact, a 16-year old anorexic boy.
-
faith vs. politics
[Read the article: Rev. Jeremiah Wright isn't the problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Do Catholics refuse, by the Pope's decree, to practice birth control? Do evangelicals believe that homosexual Americans are partly to blame for 9/11 because of what Jerry Falwell said? The answer to both of these questions is: some do, some don't. But those who disagree with statements or doctrines offered up by church leaders are not automatically obliged to turn in their church memberships. The same should hold true for Barack Obama. We assume that Rev. Wright couldn't possibly be Obama's spiritual advisor on one hand and say things that run contrary to his political beliefs on the other. My question is: why? Reverends and priests are just as fallible and imperfect as any other human being. And, while one hopes that they are theologically astute, there's no requirement that they be politically agreeable. We're truly limiting God if we believe that politics is a force that should keep us separated in matters of faith.
-
@ brunnhilde
[Read the article: Rev. Jeremiah Wright isn't the problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]brunnhilde- I agree completely. It troubles me to no end that James Dobson and other right wing evangelical leaders are invited to the inner circles of the White House to discuss policy matters. It's this legacy that gives us all pause when something like the Rev. Wright dust-up arises, because we've been conditioned to assume that our politicians don't know the difference between theology and politics.
I do, however, believe that Barack Obama is capable of separating the two and that his political positions are well-reasoned and not informed by divisive polemics.