My Response to 6 AV Club Q & A Prompts

The pop-culture website AV Club has a fun Friday feature where they ask their writers a broad question and have them riff on pop culture with differing answers and writing styles. I noticed that I have some pretty detailed answers from the comments section, so I thought I'd elaborate a little and paste some of them over here. 

What Pop Culture Screams 1997 to You?

The summer of 1997 reflects a time when the Summer blockbuster was trying to transition into the tent pole (so called because they hold up the profit line from all the riskier projects) industry we know today. Natural disaster films like “Volcano” and “Anaconda” and the annual film starring Harrison Ford as a gruff hero of sorts (i.e. "Clear and Present Danger", "The Fugitive", "Patriot Games"), “Air Force One” took up their spaces on the calendar. Efforts to sequalize big hits were burning into the ground with epic failures like “Lost World” and “Batman and Robin.”

It was at this time when the formula was more of a prototype than a sure thing that Barry Sonnenfeld released "Men in Black" from a comic book that was not a well-known existing property. Carrying the biggest budget of the year on a movie this (for lack of a better word) weird might not make sense in retrospect, but it was on the heels of a time when visually idiosyncratic film makers Terry Gilliam and Tim Burton had their biggest commercial successes ("12 Monkeys" for the former;  Batman series and "Edward Scissorhands" for the latter). It was as good a time an effort in the vacuum of a working formula to try a blockbuster that was visually weird and stylistically unique. It also had Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones who always seem to epitomize the 90s for me. 

Which Pop Culture Party Would you Like to Attend?

I like to think of myself as a reluctant extrovert, although I am likely not the only person with a duality between getting energy from personal interactions and being exhausted by all the complications therein. As a human-interest journalist, I love the opportunity to dive into unique subcultures what's the luxury of not having to declare myself a part of any of them. That's why being a caterer on the "Party Down" crew seems like a perfect fit. Every gig I take will, at the very least, be eventful for starters. I will be at liberty to partake in the event (the show's in-universe rules will find a way to stretch my fifteen-minute break into full-on party mode) should I desire, but if I'm feeling reticent, my uniform will allow me to stay in wallflower/observer mode without fully committing to being part of the scene. I would also get a lot of enjoyment out of watching my slightly depressed coworkers alternate between flirting with each other and destroying one another's egos.

What Romantic Comedy Couple Shouldn’t Have Ended up Together?

Credit: Rogerebert.com

Romantic comedies are a viable genre when handled with care, but there is no narrative trope that is more sorely in need of reexamination than the penchant to romantically pair off any two characters who make googly eyes at each other as the standard happy ending. Aside from how it bears little  resemblance to real life and encourages unhealthy expectations, it really dilutes the magic of a romantic ever after if it’s already a foregone conclusion. Nowhere does this seem more of an egregious mistake than the 2012 indie film “Safety Not Guaranteed.” Aubrey Plaza plays emotionally detached young adult Darius (in other words, Aubrey Plaza in full snark mode), on a quest with two other journalists to uncover the truth behind a strange man (Mark Duplass as Kenneth) who thinks he can time travel. Darius’s casual cynicism gets put through the blender, as she makes her way into Kenneth's circle of trust only through empathizing with him. In and of itself, this should be enough to make a great story. Furthermore, because it’s an indie film, it would have been a great opportunity to buck the oldest trend in the book and not pair the characters up. After all, they have no chemistry, the age difference between the two characters borders on gross, and it’s quite possible that Kenneth is mentally ill. Instead, the predictable end result takes down the movie a couple pegs to forgettable.

Which Film do You Wish You’d Seen When it First Came Out?

The easiest way to answer this question is to scroll down my all-time list of favorite films, cross-reference with the proper time period, and voila! But watching a brilliant movie I know will be brilliant and that I also know (with a few exceptions) my fellow movie watchers will also appreciate, will be a foregone conclusion.

Therefore, my criteria has to be brilliant yet baffling: Trying to predict audiences’ conflicting reactions to something as full of raw anger and as adeptly staged as “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolff” would be a hoot. Films like “Five Easy Pieces” or “The Graduate” are great films I have trouble fully grasping the thematic context of because of my distance from the counter-culture movement and experiencing these films during their times could be enlightening.

The one that keeps sticking in my head is “Brazil." Terry Gilliam’s dedication to visual purity often overshadows his extremely inventive storylines and this is one where the balance between the two really shine. Opinions will vary, but this is his first film which could be considered a classic and I would enjoy seeing people discover the idiosyncratic storyteller ascending to a new level of coherence, appeal and complexity in his work. It’s also a film that takes a while to get so the post-film discussion would consist of a lot of “huh”s but it would be a lot of fun piecing the puzzles and symbolism of the film together.

What TV Series do You Love but will Never Revisit?

I get confronted with this question every time I desire some comfort TV and tune in to find “Seinfeld” and “The Simpsons” (who the Gods of syndication have been eternally kind to) are pretty much always on. While this wouldn’t be an unpleasant use of a half-hour,  I have some strange resistance to revisiting either of the series that came to culturally define the decade in which I came of age. Maybe, it’s an act of rebellion against the perceived quality of these shows: While I tend to rail against hipsterish attitudes of consciously defining your tastes against the mainstream, I can’t help admitting that the high placement of both these shows on best-of-all-time lists drives me to want to define my tastes from this decade differently.

Beyond that, there’s plenty of pedestrian reasons to resent these shows. How can I not resent The Simpsons like a privileged child for being cancellation-free when every other show (including superior sister show “Futurama”) has to contend with the axe? How can I not blame the show’s success for Jerry Seinfeld’s leverage to get away with passive-aggressive behavior or Julia Louis-Dreyfus’s frustrating lockhold on lead actress awards in the present day? There’s a myriad web of reasons not to like these shows and while I find it difficult to put my finger on exactly what keeps me from turning to channel five, I know that I’ve been able to resist the urge for a decade.

What Pop Culture Becomes More Meaningful as You Get Older?

 Credit: Readthespirit.com

I've gradually gone from liking "Dead Poets Society” but not understanding the ending, to thinking it is a perfectly realized film. As a child, Robin Williams’ character of John Keating was so right and the stuffy administration so wrong that I found the film’s “Oh Captain, My Captain” scene to not make up for all the tragedy that had been happening in the third act. As I’ve grown into adulthood and learned firsthand the myriad of ways in which an employer can screw you over (including some not particularly well-received stints in the education sector), I’ve come to appreciate the “Oh Captain My Captain” scene as a pretty solid outcome for an anti-establishment type in an employment landscape that discourages such free thinking and isn’t necessarily fair. Besides, what is the job of a teacher other than to impart a lesson onto his students? He might not have stayed until the end of the school year, but he can rightfully say "Mission Accomplished".

The best of 2007 from a guest blogger

Guest blogger Brian, a University of Minnesota freshman and cinematic studies major, had these rankings on the best of 07. I am going to make comments in addition to Brian's picks, but that's only for the chance for some point-counterpoint and to encourage further discussion. Credit for the post is all Brian, though:



Tops in the last Oscar Year:
Actor:
Tommy Lee Jones (in No Country For Old Men): Jones’ performance in the Best Picture Winner Film, has been totally overlooked, and should have at least gotten more attention with in the Cinematic Community. Jones’ performance is simple, yet chillingly haunting, providing the foundation for the film’s now famous ending.
Daniel Day-Lewis (in There Will Be Blood): Lewis definitely deserved the Best Actor award: I can’t think of another actor that deserved the award as much as he did. His performance in There Will Be Blood may very well have been the most amazing performance I have seen in years. From beginning to end, Lewis’ acting filled the screen and sent shivers down my spine. His performance during the famous baptism scene will forever be remembered as masterfully powerful.
Johnny Depp (in Sweeny Todd): Depp provided an extremely intense performance of the infamous musical star. And who knew that Depp could sing?? His singing provided an even deeper depth to his already intense performance.
Glen Hansard (in Once): From this “little film that could”, which even won Best Original Song at the Oscars, came his amazing performance. Hansard’s simple, yet powerful performance is extremely natural and life-like, and, like Depp in Sweeny Todd, provides intensely beautiful singing to his character. From his trademark “t’anks” to his trademark costume of jacket, scarf, and short beard, Glen Hansard will always be remembered as “The Guy” (The name as it is stated in the credits). Unfortunately, Glen Hansard has publicly stated that he is going to concentrate on his music career rather than his acting career.
Jonah Hill (in Superbad): Despite the fact that Superbad is anything but a cinematic masterpiece, Jonah Hill’s performance was what made the film so enjoyable to watch. Hill’s acting, albeit mostly improvised, is hilarious. It was the improvisational style to his acting that really brought out the humor in the script of the film. For a film like Superbad, you need someone who can really act out a funny script and ad-lib at the same time; and Jonah Hill was that man.
My opinion: Tommy Lee Jones is my #2 for best supporting actor behind Tom Wilkinson, so aside from a different category placement, I am pretty much in agreement on that. "Chilling" is indeed a good word to describe Jones' stoic style and blank stares into space as he seemed so consumed by the threat of Anton Chirgurh. I agree as well on Day-Lewis: Samuel L. Jackson once said that Oscars (for acting at least) are won not by movies but by moments, and the baptism scene is the clincher for Day-Lewis.

I'm pretty much on the other side of the fence on Hill, mainly because I didn't find Superbad particularly enjoyable because he's right, it takes a great actor to rescue a mediocre comedic script and bring those jokes to life (think Tom Hanks with Ladykillers or Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels with Dumb and Dumber), and at the end of the day, it still felt like a mediocre script to me. I basically have Superbad as hovering around 2 1/2 stars which in other words, is a mixed bag. I thought the dialogue wasn't particularly anything of note despite setting the record for most 4-letter words per minute (according to the claims of writer Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg) and it's saving grace was the turn of events in the storyline and its larger themes.


Actress:
Ellen Page (in Juno): Ellen Page is Juno. She was perfectly cast as the part. Page’s performance was way beyond her years, and was definitely worthy of the Oscar nod, and most likely should have won the award, despite the fact that she is so young and that this was her first widely successful film. Her performance was so lifelike that I thought I was watching one of my friends in real life. Page’s acting style is such that she seems to take the script and make it her own and in doing so, she lights up the screen. I was smiling throughout the whole movie (with the exception of the crying scene of course) because it was so enjoyable to see her act.
Evan Rachel Wood (in Across the Universe): Similar to Johnny Depp and Glen Hansard, I am huge fan of the singing-performance. I believe that if you can sing on screen or stage, then you can most likely act as well. This is certainly true of Evan Rachel Wood in Across the Universe. Wood’s singing provides a beautiful backing for her beautiful performance. Her acting reminds me of a stage performance, which, in some cases can be construed as more authentic acting, since stage acting is non-stop on stage (whereas films stop for each take).
My take: I have another Oscar nominee, Cate Blanchett from Elizabeth and the Golden Age as my #1, followed by Evan Rachel Wood (so we're on the same page there), Naiomi Watts from Eastern Promises, and then Page, so we differ a little there. I agree that Paige was perfectly cast in the part, but than in that case, doesn't that significantly lower the degree of difficulty? Although Oscars aren't supposed to be a body of work, it will be interesting to see Paige on screen with words not written by Diablo Cody coming out of her mouth. I do agree, Wood stole the show and gave a performance I will remember for years to come.


Supporting Actor:
Javier Bardem (in No Country For Old Men): Obviously, Bardem’s performance will be forever remember as the new perfect villain. His performance was hauntingly perfect in every sense of the word, even down to his now trademark coin flip.
Paul Dano (in There Will Be Blood): Dano’s performance in There Will Be Blood was unforgettable. The acting of this charismatic clergyman was hauntingly masterful for being so young and in relatively few films.
My comments: Whether Bardem was the perfect villain is a whole other discussion but I agree that Bardem nailed the part and had a certain rhythm and consistency in style to his character that made it come to life. It was such a competitive year for this category that I had to put Tom Wilkinson, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Tommy Lee Jones and Forrest Whitaker from the Great Debaters before Bardem, and I was almost considering Ben Foster who I feel was able to paint a portrait of an equally intriguing villain with few words. From the 85 minutes of There Will Be Blood that I saw, Paul Dano showed quite a bit of versatility in this role as opposed to his role in Little Miss Sunshine last year. It's almost as if he grew up.
Supporting Actress:
Helena Bonham Carter (in Sweeny Todd): Carter’s performance in Sweeny Todd was perfect. It was so enjoyable to watch. There is just something about her acting that makes movie watching so much fun. It must be the juxtaposition of her facial expressions and her hilarious comments in that British accent.
My comments: Unfortunately, being only a part-time film critic I don't see every movie to come out, and Sweeny Todd wasn't something I had the fortune of catching.


Director:
Paul Thomas Anderson (There Will Be Blood): There Will Be Blood was without a doubt a cinematic masterpiece and would not have been so amazing with a different director or cinematographer for that matter. Any viewer can see the amount of work that Anderson put into making the film.
Joel and Ethan Coen (No Country For Old Men): No Country is this Oscar year’s other cinematic masterpiece. From the start to its anti-conventional ending, the film screams amazing directing, which is nothing but understandable from two of our generation’s best filmmakers.
My comments: Interesting fact about Brian: He went to the same high schol as the Coen Brothers in Minnesota. I agree from what I saw of There Will Be Blood and what I know of the storyline that Anderson deserved a best director title over Coen. It was a more ambitious project that acheived its potential


Picture:
Once: The music alone from this film is amazing, but this anti-conventional love story is a beautiful reconnection to the French New Wave style of filmmaking.
There Will Be Blood: A hauntingly beautiful, epic, difficult cinematic work of art.
No Country For Old Men: A genius film with exciting action and a brilliant ending, but a surprising film coming from two amazing (usually comedic) directors.
Sweeny Todd: A sinister masterpiece from the dark mind of Tim Burton, which encompasses all that is great about the Musical/Film hybrid world.
Across The Universe: The best and worst film ever made. A genius idea to create a new narrative with Beatles’ music, however, it seemed too forced at times. On the other hand, the other large majority of the film has some of the most beautifully photographed scenes I have ever seen, where the visuals matched the music perfectly and sent shivers down my spine.

My comments: Whole-heartedly agree with the Across the Universe comment. The idea was genius while the execution was sloppy

10 Actors who should get a second Oscar

When someone is awarded an Oscar in acting (or anything for that matter), it's a way for Hollywood to officially declare that the Oscar-winner is officially a part of the upper echelon of accomplished actors. Every year, Hollywood has an opportunity to invite up to four distinguished actors into that group. Last year they chose a character actor who had been invisible for most of his career (Forest Whitaker), one of the grand dames of the British theater (Helen Mirren), an aging comic actor who gained most of his fame in the 70's (Alan Arkin), and a singer who cut her chops in Reality TV living out a Hollywood fairytale (Jennifer Hudson). The year before, the Academy invited one of Hollywood's most beloved character actors in one of his few lead roles (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) and one of Hollywood's biggest matinee idols in one of his few supporting roles (George Clooney).

Sometimes, however, The Academy gives an Oscar to someone who already has one, despite the limited opportunities they have to honor peers that are too talented to be without any. Whether there's an inclination to deny someone a second award, because they already have one is hard to conclude, although it isn't too far-fetched to say that the "They Already Have One" effect could have played a role in certain cases. Among recent examples where the better performance lost out, I'd say Meryl Streep losing to Catherine Zeta-Jones, Tom Hanks losing to Russell Crowe for Gladiator, and Russell Crowe losing out to Denzel Washington and then being snubbed in Master and Commander and Cinderella Man or Cate Blanchett losing to Jennifer Hudson in Notes on a Scandal. Still, an Oscar going to someone who isn't a first-timer happens fairly often.

Recently: Hillary Swank (2004), Denzel Washington (2001), Kevin Spacey and Michael Caine (1999), Jack Nicholson (1997), Tom Hanks, Dianne Weist, and Jessica Lange (1994), and Gene Hackman (1992).

Here is the list of actors and actresses who have won more than one:
Actors-Walter Brennan, Spencer Tracy, Frederick March, Gary Cooper, Anthony Quinn, Jack Lemmon, Marlon Brando, Jason Robards, Melvyn Douglas, Robert De Niro, Jack Nicholson, Dustin Hoffman, Gene Hackman, Tom Hanks, Kevin Spacey, Michael Caine, Denzel Washington
Actresses-Louise Rainier, Bette Davis, Olivia de Haviland, Vivian Leigh, Ingrid Bergman, Shelly Winters, Elizabeth Taylor, Katherine Hepburn, Helen Hayes, Glenda Jackson, Maggie Smith, Jane Fonda, Meryl Streep, Jodie Foster, Dianne Wiest, Jessica Lange, Hillary Swank.

Some of the great actors to have only one a single Oscar include Humphrey Bogart, Henry Fonda, Alec Guiness and Jimmy Stewart. A couple of others, Paul Newman and Al Pacino won the Oscars so late in their careers that it felt a relief for them to win just one. Still, others like Peter O'Toole have won none at all.

Nevertheless, here's a list of those I'd like to see get a second Oscar to join the Multiple-Oscar club and an analysis of their chances to do so:

1. Ben Kingsley (Ghandi)-He keeps on giving career-defining performance after career-defining performance but if one were to look up his win for Ghandi, it would suggest that his career peaked in the 1980’s. I think he could have won an Oscar for House of Sand and Fog if the cards went a slightly different way. Other than that, though, I don't know how he can do it again. He keeps getting gangster roles like in Lucky Number Sliven and You Kill Me and a gangster part is kind of Oscar-baity but if he does another gangster role, Oscar pundits will just say "oh, it's his usual gangster shtick." I think Kingsley would have to find another real original part like the immigrant homeowner in House of Sand and Fog, or perhaps something biographical.

2. Anthony Hopkins (Silence of the Lambs)-It's kind of a shame how Hopkins doesn't get any attention from the Oscar pundits, and probably the voters, despite the fact that he consistently knocks your socks off. Maybe it's because people just can't see him as anything but that evil brain eater from Silence of the Lambs but films like Proof or Hearts in Atlantis or even Meet Joe Black are great performances despite the quality of the films themselves, and he gets no recognition for it. Let me ask: Were Matt Dillon, George Clooney, Paul Giamatti, Jake Gyllenhall, or William Hurt truly that much of a line-up to bump Anthony Hopkins out for his performance in Proof?
Maybe, the academy only likes seeing Anthony Hopkins play evil roles and he has to be given a really good villainous role to garner the academy's attention.

3. Jeremy Irons (Reversal of Fortune)-He’s on my wish list because he's very talented and has lacked the career acclaim of some of his peers. Most people (including myself) easily forget that he won an Oscar already but this could work to his advantage because he doesn’t have as much pressure to distinguish himself in a new way with the voters: He just has to distinguish himself anyway at all.

4-5. Susan Sorandon (Dead Man Walking) and Frances McDormand (Fargo) are two that I'm rooting for because I think that they are simply the best of their generation, they've continued to stay interesting throughout the years and I think they're both being unfairly billed as old. I'm at least happy to see that Frances' Oscar in Fargo hasn't stopped her from being recognized for great performances in Almost Famous and North Country. In that respect, I'm also happy that these two talented actresses have a sizeable list of nominations to their name to reflect their prolific careers. McDormand should just keep doing what she's doing and hope for the best and Sorandon needs to try more for the starring category, in my opinion. In movies like Igby Goes Down and Elizabethtown, she's bound to get lost in the FYC ads that might push for a younger costar (i.e. Kirsten Dunst or Amanda Peete). Sorandon is capable of taking over a movie and she's not noticeably removed in age from when she single-handedly carried movies like The Client, Dead Man's Walking and Stepmom.

6. Tommy Lee Jones (Fugitive)-A project like Three Burials of Mesquilada shows he's a multi-faceted star which might make him a more prestigious name as an actor although at the same time, it could prevent him from getting an acting Oscar since he might become nominated in another category. I don't think, however, that Tommy Lee Jones, an aging star, is seen as a hall-of-fame type actor on the level of some of the other guys who have yet to win two like Jon Voight or Robert Duvall. To get another Oscar, he might have to find a meaty supporting role in someone else's movie.

7-8. Speaking of Voight (Coming Home) and Duvall (Tender Mercies), I'd count those two as the last of that De Niro/Hackman/Hoffman/Nicholson generation to not have a second oscar. I think they're considered to be slightly below the level of those four in terms of an accomplished career and that's why a second Oscar would be great for their legacy. For Voight and Duvall, it could be a combination of dues that plays into a win if the voters are thinking: it's been too long since they've won an Oscar. It would be interesting to see Voight win since his daughter, Angelina, is such a tabloid fixture, and all the subsequent publicity might give us a closer glimpse into that enigmatically strained father-daughter relationship.

9. Marcia Gay Harden (Pollock)-Wouldn't it be great for Marcia Gay Harden (Pollock) if she won an Oscar for a picture that people had actually had seen? Pollock grossed just $8 million domestically and $10 million total (accounting for international gross). She got a nomination for Mystic River and I don't think that's the last great role she has in her. People who are likely to win a second Oscar. Harden should be taking the kinds of roles that are being gobbled up by Laura Linney and Patricia Clarkson that require an intelligent woman with range. The fact that she was able to distinguish herself in Mystic River with relatively little screen time proves she's a scene stealer.

10. Russell Crowe (Gladiator)-Despite his temper tantrums, Crowe remains my favorite actor among those currently at A-level status and his knockout performances in A Beautiful Mind, Master and Commander and (from what I hear) Cinderella Man show that he has the potential to be the actor to beat on any given year. The question is whether Crowe has to work on his image before his peers award him with another statue.

In defense of Batman Forever

Thinking of extending that trilogy past its prime? I think it's important to realize how an especially bad turn in a film series can hurt the legacy of the entire series to the point where it might damage the director's reputation and the retroactive reputation of films that come before it.

As a 12-year old kid, I loved Batman Forever and I recently went to look up reviews of it. Before looking them up, however, I had a preminition that because of the disaster of Batman and Robin, Batman Forever would be seen as much worse than it actually was.

While Batman and Robin extends those "campy characteristics" to an extreme, without extending any substance to them, I think it's important to note that Batman Forever had a stopping point to its corniness before it ever interfered with the story at hand.

Furthermore, It's important for everyone to realize that since Batman's creation in what I believe was the 1920s, there have been two parallel versions of Batman going on. One is the "dark knight" Batman, the mysterious force of good who no one knows about, and then there's the "camp" batman, who's more family-friendly, and more colorful, put it that way, his costume has blues and purples in it, rather than just plain black. The key difference, when you think about it, is Robin, because with Robin in the picture, Batman is nowhere near as mysterious and extraordinary because there is at least one other person doing the same things he is and there is at least one other person who is fighting the same battles he is, and also because Batman has to watch out for someone else, you know he's not selfless and evil. The people who like the "dark knight" Batman, are probably people whose prime hobby is comic book collecting over film watching, because that's where the dark knight first appeared.

Me, on the other hand am a film watcher who was born in 1983, so when Batman Returns came out I was 9, and while the depth of Burton's dark urban vision was so extraordinary even i could be amazed by it, I had a hard time with all the violence, seeing so many of Penguin's henchmen killed (a couple at the hands of Penguin, himself) or the scene where catwoman robs a store and kills a guy with her fingernails, etc. I'm not saying I needed a happy ending, but all the characters, even Batman, were just very depressing.

When Batman Forever came out, I was 12, and unlike its predecessor I really got on board the ride, because the movie had really great heroes and villains, which i could be engaged rooting for or against. In Batman Forever, Batman and the villains are all equally perverse and dark, I really didn't care much who won at the end, and maybe people who are harsh on Schumaker's films fail to take into account what these Batman movies are like for a kid's perspective.Visually, the movie was a marvel to watch. Tommy Lee Jones' make-up job is so great, i'd like to see someone tell me they weren't blown away, the first time we see the left side of his face in the film. Some people say that Tommy Lee Jones' portrayal of Two-Face wasn't true to the original character, who was a less hysterical individual, but I think a more composed and cool villain wouldn't have been as fun, simply put. The Riddler/Two Face partnership is the best mildly deranged villain/completely deranged villain chemistry in the series, I found (especially considering the other two partnerships never really had very much interaction with each other). Just look at the movie poster for this movie and the colors of the riddler's green, two-face's purple, robin's red, batman's dark blue/black. Like a John Williams score associates musical themes with each character, those colors with surreally bold hues draw out the characters throughout the movie. Also, Nicole Kidman blew me away too. This was long before she was in a stage where every movie role she took was basically crying out, "give me an Oscar." And as for Val Kilmer vs. Michael Keaton? Well, I think the best person to answer that question would be original Batman creator Barry Kane (did I get the name right?) who aid that Val Kilmer was the actor who played Batman closest to the vision he originally conceived it to be.