The Avengers

Posted on May 14, 2012 by Mark DuPré

Critics and filmmakers are going to study and pick apart The Avengers (officially Marvel’s The Avengers) for years as an example of how to make a successful franchise film, and a film with “too many” major characters. As it stands, it’s a wildly crowd-pleasing ride of a film; it’s funny, occasionally thoughtful (but only in spurts), and has too much action. But what is nearly incredible is how much it gets right when so very much could have gone wrong. (See Watchmen for what can go wrong with similar ingredients.)

With so many superheroes of such different stripes and attitudes, creating a believable world where they all can live, relate and fight was a challenge I thought beyond the reach of almost any filmmaker. That’s the grand success of the film. We have a sturdy and sincere Captain America relating to Tony Snark’s (OK, Tony Stark’s) Iron Man, and a Thor and Hulk, who shouldn’t even share this sentence, much less screen time—all believably inhabiting the same film world. None of this should work, yet it does. And miracle of miracles, each hero keeps his/her own personality and gets his/her own moment to shine.

The plot is ridiculous, and is dispatched with appropriate speed and relative inattention. What’s fun and important is the clash of titans before they unify to save the earth. Everything is predictable plot-wise, and even with the superhero collisions. But since we’ve rarely seen these oh-so-different heroes as anything but the dominating champions of their own films, it’s fun to see them insulted by competing as equals, sometimes on the level of a junior high playground exchange. Those insults and challenges, more than their struggles in saving the world, humanize them to us while sharpening and further demonstrating their individual characters.

Here again the film surprises. There’s room for all attitudes. Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.) is often surprisingly sharp in his putdowns, much as Greg Laurie’s Dr. House on House, MD can take you back a bit just when you thought you’d heard it all from him. Yet Chris Hemsworth’s Thor has breadth and authority, and even an anachronistic stentorian tone that is given ample and respected room in the film. Chris Evan’s Captain America is happily and enjoyably un-ironic, acting with old-fashioned ingenuity and bravery, and even once mentioning what is assumed to be the Judeo-Christian God without a hint of distance or sarcasm.

Having a good villain helps any film like this, and The Avengers has a great one. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is an immediate classic film villain. He’s smart, has father and brother issues, and is evil without being Hannibal Lector creepy. He never stops, like No Country for Old Men’s Chigurh, but is more comprehensible, debonair, and has much better hair. He and the Hulk also share a moment that is as simple dumb fun as Indiana Jones pulling out his gun and shooting his opponent when we all expected a major fight.

The others fit into director Joss Whedon’s world, but bring less enjoyment. Jeremy Renner’s Hawkeye’s only real addition to the film (spoiler alert) goes from good to bad and then back to good; Renner may have an intensity the makes the screen squirm at times, but we prefer him as an edgy protagonist over an intense bad guy. We’re satisfied ultimately, but it takes a while to get there.

Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow has plenty to do, but her role is either underwritten or underplayed or both. She kicks butt, and is calculatingly brilliant at times, but it’s all less fun than it should be; she needs more depth or more edge. Mark Ruffalo, who plays the Hulk, is like Bill Murray in that they both inhabit a screen space different from anyone else in movie in whatever film they’re in. Since the Hulk is the most “outside” character in the bunch, that works here.

One of the small problems is Samuel L. Jackson’s Nick Fury. Jackson has achieved an iconic status, and perhaps he or others think he can do no wrong, that intensity covers a multitude of thespian sins. Jackson’s intense, but his character somehow isn’t, despite the name. He doesn’t exactly phone in his performance; it’s more like he Skyped it in. His personal authority holds the character together, but it doesn’t add.

These small quibbles aside, The Avengers is a joyride. Few recent films have been so simply enjoyable. A second viewing—a must—may reveal more of the elements that make it all work so well and achieve that hard-won balance for all those dissimilar superheroes. Right now, I’m still just enjoying the memory.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged | 1 Comment

The Hunger Games

Posted on April 9, 2012 by Mark DuPré

I find myself in an unusual position in regard to the latest box office phenomenon. I haven’t read the books, and don’t intend to (no time and no interest, in that order). I approach it not looking for how well it hewed to the best sellers, or even for how it speaks to us to day vis-à-vis reality shows, politics or Young Adult female role models. I’m viewing it, simply, as a film.

As a film that is a stand-alone, it works for the most part. It’s well cast, well acted, generally well directed and looks good. The film lives or dies with Jennifer Lawrence, and it does both, in a way. What’s generally right either hangs on her shoulders or is reflected in her performance and casting.

There has been some talk about how Lawrence is—can you believe the terminology?—too fat for the role. Jennifer is a lovely, medium-figured young actress of impressive skill and sensitivity. Aside from the real harm that could be done to female tweens or teens in calling someone like Lawrence by that term, under it all is a genuine criticism that extends beyond the actress’s form. Knowing nothing other than the general plot before seeing the film, I expected that Katniss would share the same “lean and hungry look” as Shakespeare’s Cassius (Julius Caesar). For better or for worse, Lawrence has a soft, rounded look that doesn’t quite reflect the struggles of someone in her character’s position.

That wouldn’t be too noticeable if the entire film hadn’t followed the same pattern. It’s a little soft where it should be lean and strong, and rounded where it should be edgy. People are working hard to survive, and then they are picked in a diabolical cross between Survivor and Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery to fight one another to the death. For whatever reason, that upside down, grossly unfair world is presented as is. There’s hardly a note of anger or opposition, or even an attempt to escape. It’s “just the way things are.” There is a little historical explanation of how things got to this point, but it’s a hermetically sealed world, not resonating with ours in any internal way. Only near the end, when Cato (Alexander Ludwig) talks about himself just before his death, do we hear anything that connects us emotionally with the present.

The film’s strengths are also its weaknesses. Lawrence is clearly an actress to watch (see her Oscar-nominated turn in Winter’s Bone), and she has the uncanny ability to contain several off-times contradictory emotions at one time. She can look brave, fearful, insecure, and full of wonder all at once. She’s an acting first cousin to Carrie Mulligan. Yet that refusal to lock down on just one emotion sends some scenes soaring while over the course of the film leaves Katniss without the power and edge that the movie suggests she possesses. Based solely on the film, Katniss seems as if she should be more dark and specific than emotionally removed, which is how she is often played.

The world of the film suffers from the same problem as Lawrence. The material is necessarily dark, but the film leans towards a lovely, even painterly, palette, making the world prettier and softer than the events taking place in it—without exploring that irony. The action sequences work and then they don’t. Whether it was to keep the PG-13 rating or not, the scenes of teens dying are dispatched quickly, with a camera deliberately placed around the event rather than on it. The horror remains in the mind rather than on the eye, which keeps the rating and a distance from the carnage. Since teens slaughtering teems is anathema to most viewers, this keeps the film from a possible tipping point. Yet it turns out that almost all of the action sequences are treated in this same generalized manner. Having virtual air quotes around the teen killings seems to have a purpose, but keeping the viewer as unengaged in the other action sequences merely works to disconnect us from the film.

The scenes in the Capital are disconnected as well. Yes, there is beautiful food and an exquisite presentation of it, but the contrast with life back in District 12 is left largely unexplored. The costumes and behavior of the TV personnel suggests The Fifth Element, but without a context that makes any sense of it or comments on it for us. There is no sting to the outfits or over-the-top actions of these people, as they exist in their own unrelatable world.

Beside Lawrence, the casting seems spot on. Josh Hutcherson as Peeta fits nearly perfectly here. He’s strong enough physically (and made more so to our unbelieving eyes by the script’s insistence on his bakery muscles) as well as emotionally, but not strong enough that he doesn’t need rescuing by our heroine. He and Lawrence have no problem carrying the film. Happily, the obvious Team Peeta/Team Gale ridiculousness that will undoubtedly replace the Twilight boy-girl-boy conflict once the final film in that series comes and goes is only suggested here; we are all granted a temporary reprieve.

Stanley Tucci as TV host Caesar Flickerman (what a name!) proves once again, as if needed, that he can do anything. He gives a small acting master class for anyone with eyes to see. Donald Sutherland has a small part (for now?) in what could easily have been cast with an obvious heavy such as Malcolm McDowell. He brings humanity and depth in a small (for now?) but crucial role. He could have phoned in this part and no one might have noticed. Thankfully, he didn’t. As has been noted, Elizabeth Banks (Effie Trinket—quel nom encore une fois!) is nearly unrecognizable, but nails the part without taking it too far. Lenny Kravitz is not really an actor, but he brings some welcome breathing room and quiet life into the film with a gentle understated performance. Woody Harrelson’s casting is a near-cliché, but after his first sequence, he moves into a specificity that takes the role beyond the usual and expected.

Director Gary Ross may just be too soft for the material. Seabiscuit and Pleasantville are not necessary the first films one would look at to find a director suitable for this material. Rumors fly that in spite of the box office, that Ross would be replaced for the sequel. I don’t mean to damn him with faint praise, but his work here is “fine.” Time will tell if that is enough for the future.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | 1 Comment

Like Crazy

Posted on March 14, 2012 by Mark DuPré

Like Crazy (2011) is an indie film about young love and young lovers.  She’s an English student, he an American one. They fall in love, make one big wrong decision (among many smaller stupid ones), and then get bounced around by the repercussions of the decision.

Felicity Jones as Anna has received the majority of the attention (various “Breakthrough” awards) for her performance, but Anton Yelchin (Star Trek) as Jacob has had his deserved share of attention. She looks a little as if she could eat him for breakfast, but they are almost equal on the screen. I’d recite the plot if it made any difference, but it’s mostly not so much of a plot as a series of plot devices.

What struck me most about the film, aside from the solid acting, was its self-conscious mise-en-scène and near addiction to jump cuts. Sometimes it’s fresh; at other times merely distracting and bumpy. What might interest most of its target audience is the presence of Hunger Games star Jennifer Lawrence (known to the rest of us as Oscar nominee for Winter’s Bone) in a minor but significant part as Jacob’s other love interest.

Perhaps I’m just getting old, but a part of me wants to screen this for every young person in the target age bracket and say, “See what one stupid decision to not obey the law can do to mess up your life?!” Or, “Look at what happens when you get emotionally and physically involved too early—such complications, such confusion!” The contrivance of the bad decision creates situations that both strain credibility and our tolerance for these two characters. We are set up to believe that this is a great love attacked by circumstances. But it turns out that instead we have a quick, medium-depth love compromised by a stupid decision that’s entirely their fault, and further compromised by a lack of patience, emotional immaturity and a profound inability to think.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Leave a comment

Act of Valor

Posted on March 5, 2012 by Mark DuPré

Act of Valor can’t be looked at like other films, as it fits in its own created category. It’s the best film about Navy SEALs starring Navy SEALs, which of course tells you nothing. It’s a little like Courageous (really a sermon, but a good one), or The Artist (a one-time experiment that worked). It’s not a work of art, or really entertainment in the usual sense.  Act of Valor is an action film, a recruitment piece, a fictionalized documentary, and unlike anything out right now.

In film school, we studied the role of story and the role of spectacle in film. Spectacle can be whatever grabs or entertains you that is outside of the story. It’s Judy Garland singing, or Gene Kelly dancing, Jim Carrey doing his physical comedy, or Carmen Miranda just standing there. It may be just barely connected to the story, but it’s the wow factor that makes some films so enjoyable.  Here, the wow factor is real SEALs doing the action, and how much you like the film is to a great extent dependent on how that grabs you. I’m the product of two WWII vets, and I have a huge soft spot in my heart for the military. I have a great deal of respect for every serviceman and –woman, and both gratitude and admiration for the most highly trained personnel in the various branches. That made this film an enjoyable ride for me.

The acting, to be kind, is terrible. There are a few real actors, most notably Roselyn Sanchez of TV’s Without a Trace. Those real actors help carry the narrative burden of the plot, which involves international terrorism and scary terrorist alliances. Those scenes that move that along are not embarrassing, and help tie the film together with a degree of believability. The scenes of the SEALs relating to their families or one another in non-combat situations—well, those are something else.

Act of Valor also a Rorschach test. It’s not really political, but those of a political mind will find it so (as they do most everything else). How you feel about the military and our involvement in the affairs of other countries may well color how you take in the film. If you look at it as you would the Oscar-nominated films of 2011, you’d be disappointed and would miss the point. It’s about the spectacle of real trained men and women doing the things we only think we see in other action films.

As an action film, Act of Valor just stumbles along, its scenes of daring sometimes just barely held together by a rescue mission that unearths other dangers and connections that must be dealt with. The film is so focused on the SEALs and their work that it’s curiously involving at times in terms of the plot, which in other hands could be shocking or horrific. The cool and detachment of the central characters unhappily makes the film almost too detached and flat emotionally. The film eschews emotional highs and lows, as it focuses on the work of the SEALs, whose job it is to stay cool and detached. We’re tied in as viewers to what the SEALs are doing, but their “get the job done” approach pushes drama away. Great for them in real life; less great for the viewer. The action sequences have the same approach, and are both amazing (look at what they are really doing!) and lacking in dramatic structure and impact. Not going Hollywood sometimes has its downs.

Be warned: This is not a kid’s movie; it’s R for a reason. No sex or nudity, but the violence is rough at times, though never dwelt on for its own sake. Some is even implied or shown indirectly, but this film is still filled with torture, combat, explosions and flying bullets. The language, again not exploitative, is what you’d expect from people doing dastardly deeds and from those trying to stop them.

Though it has its moments of visual beauty, I doubt I’ll ever use this in my film class as any kind of example of the art of film. As a dramatized look inside what some of the bravest and most highly trained among us are doing, however, I appreciated the chance to glance inside.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | 1 Comment

2012 Oscar Report: Warm Fuzzies and Nostalgia

Posted on February 28, 2012 by Mark DuPré

Old-fashioned show. Tried and true host. Cautious, safe winners. Welcome back to “The Way We Were.”

Much has been made of the fact that this is the year of looking back in movies, with only one of the nine nominees for Best Picture set in the present. Tracking with that simple fact, the Academy Awards went the old and safe route, resulting in a generally enjoyable show (running shorter than usual) that was both a reaction to last year’s failed attempt at contemporary relevance and a reflection of the nostalgic flavor of many of the major films of 2011.

For those complaining that the awards went to films that looked backward rather than forward—well, these are the films that were made last year; let’s not blame the Academy for voting for what’s there. It just turns out that the best films of the year happened to look back with curiosity and kindness rather than anger. We’ll leave the interpretation of that to others.

Also, let’s not blame the Academy too much for dragging back the self-proclaimed “War Horse” Billy Crystal. No, he’s not current, but he’s really more classic than retro. Besides, he’s only back because previous producer Brett Ratner spoke inappropriately and his dismissal ended up taking host Eddie Murphy out of the show as well. Billy was reliable and generally kind-funny, and went for irony rather than blood. He was as warm and familiar as the show wanted us to be with the evening’s theme of Love of the Movies. Compared to last year, the warm and fuzzy approach was a relief and more in tune with what the Oscar show really is—an anachronistic self-congratulatory gathering that’s fairly clueless about what’s going on in the rest of the world today. That’s one of its greatest charms, and it veers from that path to its peril.

The awards, IMHO, generally got things right. I’m disappointed that The Tree of Life didn’t win Best Cinematography, but Hugo was my number two pick, and I was happy to see that Scorsese film so rewarded.  It’s a visually stunning film, and deserved its many technical awards. It should be seem (in 3D) by many more people.

I was never so happy to be wrong about Best Actress. I was persuaded that Viola Davis was going to win for The Help, but I thought that Meryl Streep’s performance in The Iron Lady was superior. (The two performances couldn’t be more different in tone and style, and it really is apples and oranges to compare the two. But Streep’s apple is just big bigger and juicier than Davis’ orange, that’s all.) The good news here is that Streep’s win will mean that this performance will become more than an also-ran historically. Since it’s a master class of fine acting, it will be more studied now that it’s won the golden man. That can only help all future film acting.

Other than that, there were no surprises. I was happy to see The Artist’s Jean Dujardin beat The Descendants’ George Clooney for reasons I’ve gone into in previous posts. We’ll probably never see the Frenchman on the Oscar stage again, but we’ll likely see George there soon. His day has come, and will come again, probably soon.  Christopher Plummer’s and Octavia Spencer’s wins were set in stone before the evening began.

Best Picture and Best Director for The Artist—a good thing. There is no consensus definition of “best” anyway, and in any event, the greatest film of the year was The Tree of Life. But while it was great, it was also greatly flawed. The Artist was a beautifully realized piece of work that was daring in its attempt to recreate yesterday in a fresh way. The Descendants was also a solid, well-written and well-acted film, but the mid-life crisis/family problem film just wasn’t delightful, daring, and fun, as is The Artist.

Are the Oscars important in any real way? Well, the show is a blessed reprieve from harsh reality—in that way, a reflection of the role of most films in our lives. More practically, Oscars generally mean that more people will see the awarded films, and for the art of film, that’s generally a good thing, too. Those who win will likely have more opportunities and more dollars attached to those opportunities. Good for them; may they use those opportunities wisely.

For film people, the Oscar show is just the biggest of the awards show, and the ultimate “Best of the Year” list. The greatest part of those shows and lists is that it gets people talking about films, and that’s great for the art form as well as the business end of things. If that doesn’t seem like much, you just invested a few moments reading this and thinking about films, didn’t you?

Posted in Film-Related Articles | Leave a comment

2012 Oscar Predictions

Posted on February 22, 2012 by Mark DuPré

They’re coming Sunday night, Feb. 26. It’s my Super Bowl.

PICTURE
The only thing interesting about this category is that the still-getting-used-to-them rules have yielded the odd number of nine nominees. The larger number hasn’t seemed to solve any problems or added any value other than that more films can hit us with “Nominated for Best Picture” on their advertising.

This is really between The Artist and The Descendants. The Tree of Life, as the most ambitious and far-reaching film in the group, is the greatest work of art this year. But it’s flawed, and not accessible. Just happens to be brilliant and ground-breaking, that’s all.

Right now the ebb and flow between the other two films mentioned puts The Artist at the top at the moment. Hollywood likes fresh, and old is new again this year (The Artist, Hugo, War Horse, Midnight in Paris). Plus it’s so enjoyable, and introduces America to a trio of talent in the leads and director. It’s also no threat, as it’s a one-off. No new trend here!

Prediction: The Artist

Preference: The Artist 

BEST ACTOR

See above for the two dueling pics. The same holds true for the actors. And in keeping with all the “who’s on top at the moment?” changes, right now the money is on Jean Dujardin to take the prize. He’s a complete delight in The Artist, and nails the performance. It’s one of those “perfect fits” between part and actor that come by once a decade or so. As I’ve written, I know that Hollywood loves Clooney, but he is overrated, though this is likely his best performance. I don’t want him to peak yet. Keep improving, George. You’ll earn another one to put beside your supporting award for Syriana.

Prediction: Jean Dujardin, The Artist

Preference: Jean Dujardin, The Artist

BEST ACTRESS

This one is also between two people: Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady and her friend Viola Davis for The Help. This one is too tough to call with any certainty. I would have predicted Davis easily a few weeks ago, but Streep has won the BAFTA (“British Oscar”) Best Actress Award over Davis, and since Octavia Spencer is a lock for an Oscar, the shift might go to Streep. There are two competing pairs of tensions here: Davis turned in a beautifully subtle performance and easily deserves the award. Streep’s performance, equally worthy, was a triumph of technique and is breathtaking in its virtuosity—essentially the opposite in style and feel of Davis’. Then there is Streep’s string of nominations. Some feel since she gets nominated all the time (a clear exaggeration), that the award should go to Davis. Others just as strongly feel that with 17 nominations under her belt, a win for Best Supporting Actress and one for Best Actress doesn’t begin to do her justice. And since this is a worthy performance, the thinking goes, let’s honor it and give our greatest living actress her first Oscar win in nearly 30 years.

Prediction (with great hesitance): Viola Davis, The Help

Preference: (with some hesitance) Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Why even discuss this? This is a life achievement award for Christopher Plummer. It could have gone to Nick Nolte in Warrior—for the same lifetime reason. But the film underperformed (see it, everyone!). Max von Sydow is a greater film legend than Plummer will ever be, but Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close opened too late to get the proper attention, and then received mediocre reviews. So the nomination is his prize. And Plummer has one advantage over the other two: He wins the politically correct prize as a gay old man coming out as his life is near the end. So he has a double whammy going for him: the gay theme paired with the sick theme. That beats Nolte’s ex-alcoholic and von Sydow’s mute old man. Any of these latter two would have won in other years, especially a heavyweight like von Sydow. But this is Plummer’s year.

Prediction: Christopher Plummer, Beginners

Preference: No one.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

This one is as much of a lock as Christopher Plummer. If Octavia Spencer doesn’t win for The Help, it will be one of the greatest upsets in Oscar history. It’s a wonderful performance, and shines the brighter for being in that film, and for being paired with Davis’ superior and more restrained performance: Spencer is just a little too much Wanda Sykes in her line delivery and facial expressions at time for my taste. But it’s a joy and it, with Davis’ work, anchors the film. Plus the Academy wants to honor the film, and this is one way to do it. And she has a trail of wins behind her.

Prediction: Octavia Spencer, The Help

Preference: Spencer is fine, though part of me would love to see Jessica Chastain win. She’s nominated for The Help, but an award for her this year would be for her stunning body of work in 2011. A future Oscar winner for sure.

BEST DIRECTOR

This one will likely go to Michel Hazavanicius for The Artist. It’s a beautiful piece of directing, and some folks are loath to divide the directing award from the best picture award. But Martin Scorcese pulled off a triumph with Hugo, which is unlike any other film made this year, and Terrence Malick reached farther and more successfully than not with The Tree of Life, also unlike anything else this—or any other—year. But I think that the last two directors have their win in the nomination, and MH is the likely winner.

Prediction: Michel Hazavanicius, The Artist

Preference: Terrence Malick for The Tree of Life (never happen) or Martin Scorcese for Hugo (small chance, but unlikely)

BEST SCREENPLAY

There were many great scripts this year, and I wish there were more awards for them. Best Original: The nomination for Bridesmaids is as far as the Academy is going to go. They love Woody Allen, and Midnight in Paris is not only fresh, it’s the best thing Allen’s done in years. Best Adapted: The Descendants is on the descent, but my guess is that the Academy will rally around the script, which is more than worthy of the prize. But I think that Moneyball was a triumph of problem-solving (a movie about statistics?) and great storytelling.

Prediction: Original: Midnight in Paris

Prediction: Adapted: The Descendants

Other points of interest

In any other year, Iran’s nomination for Best Foreign Language Film, A Separation, would be a lock. With all the saber-rattling coming out of Tehran, however, the film might suffer. I doubt it, but it’s a possibility.

 

Hugo’s Art Direction nomination is an understatement. If it deserves any award, this is it. If that’s going to extend to Best Cinematography, I wouldn’t have any problem with that. But my slight preference for that is The Tree of Life.

Posted in Film-Related Articles | Leave a comment

Going to Movies (Part Three)

Posted on February 8, 2012 by Mark DuPré

Food

You’re watching a movie, and you have to undo a candy wrapper. If you can’t cover it with a jacket or something, just, for Pete’s sake, do it quickly. It is majorly irritating to have sometime take 47 seconds to slowly undo a piece of hard candy—and very distracting.

Cell Phones

Actually, you really should do what they tell you to—turn ‘em off. If you are expecting a really important call, put it on silent or vibrate and sit where you can leave the theater quickly to speak to someone. DO NOT carry on a conversation in the theater—I can’t believe people who do that. Do what they tell fighters in a bar—Take it outside! And if you get a text, don’t hold your phone up so that a third of the theater can see that you’re reading it. That takes all those people out of the movie experience, and that’s just something you don’t want to do. If it’s that important, get up and get out and read it. Or put a coat over your head, sit on the floor, and read it there. Quietly. Really.

Posted in Film Reviews | Leave a comment

Going to Movies (Part 2)

Posted on February 6, 2012 by Mark DuPré

Reprinted with permission from How to Act Like a Grown-Up (http://actlikeagrownup.com/category/interactions/page/2/).

If you’re with a group, everyone gets that you’re with a group. But don’t think that being one of 4 or 6 or even more gives you the right to take away from everyone else’s movie experience. It doesn’t. So learn the whisper, hardly use it, and then talk your heads off when the movie is done.

Let me get movie-professorish: There is something very special about letting the film take you over, pull you into its images and noises and themes and colors, and take you on its ride. You can’t have that experience if you’re still trying to be a part of a small group of friends. Let yourself become a member of the audience for a couple of hours. Then you’ll really have something worth talking about.

Like driving, the movie experience is actually bigger than you are. That’s a good thing. Become a part of it. Then go home and pop in a DVD and talk as much as you want. At home (most of the time, and depending on the folks present), that’s OK. In fact, that’s a whole other experience.

Posted in Film Reviews | Leave a comment

Going to the Movies, Part One

Posted on February 4, 2012 by Mark DuPré

Reprinted with permission from How to Act Like a Grown-Up (http://actlikeagrownup.com/category/interactions/page/2/).

Watching movies at home is one thing. But once you go into a movie theater, the rules change. (Trust me on this—I’m a film professor and I know about all this stuff!)

Watching movies is a group experience. It’s a whole different animal than watching at home. Don’t let that slip away from you, both for your sake and the sake of everyone else in the theater.

So….

Keep your mouth closed (in general). Quietly during previews is OK, but quietly. Intro credits—settle in and close down the conversation. We don’t come to a movie theater to hear you talk. And once the movie starts, only a whispered comment a couple of times is cool. The public whisper is nearly a lost art—try to resurrect it.

Posted in Film Reviews | Leave a comment

A couple of thoughts on the 2012 SAG Awards

Posted on January 30, 2012 by Mark DuPré

The Screen Actors Guild awards were handed out last night. No big deal, and no huge surprises. Of course, these awards carry a great deal of prestige because they are given to actors BY actors, and in many ways, makes this a more focused and fun event. For the winners, the awards are a great personal joy, and you can easily see the recipients reliving the joys of being in their profession.

For most of the rest of the film world, however, they are (unfairly) just another precursor to the Oscars. In that context, I don’t think there’s a lot of big news here. This morning’s entertainment portion of the news on my local radio station says that because The Help won the “Best Ensemble” award, there is now a new competitor to the current two-film Best Picture Oscar race between The Artist and The Descendants. I don’t believe that. Best Ensemble is focused on the acting, and since Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer both won their individual awards, and Jessica Chastain was nominated alongside Spencer, it’s not a leap to see the guild go for The Help. The Descendants only had one acting nomination (unfortunately—Shailene Woodley, as they say, wuz robbed) and The Artist only had two. It was a Davis/Spencer coronation last night, and The Help received the reflected glory. Can’t imagine that vote affecting the Oscars.

It’s not hard to predict the future Oscar winners of two out of the four acting categories last night. Christopher Plummer’s gracious acceptance speech virtually guaranteed his receiving his life achievement Oscar this year. Spencer is the same kind of lock for The Help that Mo’Nique was with Precious two years ago.

Jean Dujardin was the surprise choice for Best Male Actor in The Artist, and I hope that extends to the Academy Awards. Hollywood is in love with Clooney, and this choice is perhaps the strongest signal yet that Clooney’s nomination for The Descendants may be award enough. Clooney was very, very good in that film, and has moved me as he never has before. But Dujardin in The Artist is a marvel. Go, SAG.

The Best Female Actor award going to Davis can be viewed two ways. One perspective says this locks her in for the Oscars. The other perspective says that since Davis won here, Streep was therefore—you pick the word—snubbed, ignored, passed over, whatever. Streep, who is loved by Hollywood almost as much as Clooney and who nailed her part in The Iron Lady, could get a kind of “let’s not forget this great performance that elevated a mediocre film” and “ Davis got the SAG, so let’s balance these two great performances” award.

As always, we’ll see.

Posted in Film-Related Articles | Leave a comment