Just got out of the world premier of “Over the Hills and Far Away.” This documentary follows a family’s journey as they travel halfway across the world in search of a miracle to heal their autistic son. The father is a British
journalist and human-rights activist. The mother a psychology professor from suburban California. A perfect life begins to unravel when their son is diagnosed with autism at age three. They try conventional therapies, diets, and medication, all without luck. The father feels that traditional healing is the only route remaining and, seeing a special bond that his son has developed with horses, seeks to find a place where shamanic healing and horseback riding can be combined. That place, it turns out, is Mongolia. And so, they set off on a month-long journey to Ulaanbaatar and travel on horseback searching for reindeer herders and the most powerful shaman in the country.
Directed by Michel Orion Scott, it’s an amazingly spiritual film that finds you questioning your own relationships and personal journey. And I know you’re asking this: does the journey “cure” Rowan’s autism? In many ways, yes. Miracles occur and Rowan finds a new footing. But, as his father is quick to point out in the film, the autism itself is still very much there. That hasn’t changed. What did change is the physical and psychological manefestations of the autism that were keeping Rowan from leading a “normal” life. Gone are the tantrums. Gone is the propensity for Rowan to completely pull into himself and escape from physical and emotional human contact. Was he healed by the shaman or merely the Mongolian journey itself? Difficult to say.
I’m not certain if this film has been picked up or not, but it’s straight up the alley of HBO. I sincerely hope that this film finds a larger audience because it’s honestly one of the best documentaries I’ve seen.
During a quite emotional Q&A following the screening, the film’s director along with both of Rowan’s parents spoke further on their amazing journey and how their views toward autism have changed over the course of their time with Rowan. Pretty amazing stuff.
Learn more at http://www.horseboymovie.com
“Over the Hills and Far Away” was preceeded by a screening of the short film “The Kinda Sutra,” directed by Oscar-winner Jessica Yu. It’s a comic mixture of animation and live-action interviews that digest the crazy stories we’re fed as children about where babies come from. Very well done.
Grabbing a quick lunch following the world premier screening of Antoine Fuqua’s newest film, “Brooklyn’s Finest.” The film is a return to a familiar genre for Fuqua and could, in many ways, be pitched as the New York version of “Training Day.” Here once again we find ourselves in a gritty, raw world of cops and crooks with lines constantly blurred between the two. Ultimately it’s a story of corruption and attempted redemption for three unconnected Brooklyn cops who find it necessary to take the law into their own hands. As writer Michael Martin put it during the Q&A, it’s essentially “one story told three times.” Sure, on paper the basic premise seems a bit cliché, but Fuqua as you’d expect finds plenty of ways to bring the concept to a brutal reality. The end point is that there are plenty of cases where there’s no such things as right or wrong - as Martin put it, “nothing is ever black or white, but shades of grey.” He continued saying that the script was all about “complexity and levels” as a way to “see behind the [murder] headlines” to get a glimpse of the decisions and situations that lead up to something going horribly wrong. Without Denzel Washington, the film doesn’t carry quite the emotional punch of Training Day, but the cast, including Ethan Hawke, Don Cheadle, Wesley Snipes and Richard Gere (playing against type), all pull strong performances.
This is classic Fuqua, so if you like his style of brutal realism in service of story, then this film is for you. Those not comfortable with people getting gunned down at close range, then “Brooklyn’s Finest” is not a film you’re likely to get very far through.
Though the weather is far warmer than last year’s balmy 5 degree highs, it’s still most definitely winter outside in Park City. Thus I’m quite glad to be back in front of a nice, warm fire after returning from the world premier screening of “Art & Copy.” Here’s a documentary film that’s really masterfully put together. It at once informs while still being incredibly entertaining and even, dare I say it, uplifting. The film centers on the world of advertising, specifically the huge creative revolution that occurred in the 1960s and what ended up coming out of that. It’s a “celebration” of the top advertising creatives (words of Doug Pray, the film’s director). Sure, there’s a slight history lesson hidden between the pages, but really it’s about what creative advertising attempts to accomplish and how that process has formed over the years. Various advertising luminaries, including Lee Clow, George Lois, Hal Riney and Dan Wieden, present their own views of how campaigns like “Got Milk,” Nike’s “Just Do It,” and the famous Apple “1984 won’t be like 1984″ came into being and how, in many cases, they almost didn’t even make it to market. Portions get a bit long in the tooth, but overall it’s quite an enjoyable ride. Masterfully directed and edited, this doc really stands out in my eyes as a shining example of what documentary filmmaking should be. And for anyone who works or aspires to be in a creative field, this film definitely leaves you excited about possibility.
“Art & Copy” was preceeded by a short film entitled “The Archive,” a seven-minute documentary focused on Paul Mawhinney, the owner of the world’s largest collection of records. Numbering over two and a half million, the vast majority of his collection can’t even be purchased anymore. Due to health issues and a struggling record industry Paul is being forced to sell his collection. It’s quite a fascinating window on an individual, as well as on the state of phonographic records in general. Very well directed and edited… I wouldn’t be at all surprised if we find director Sean Dunne doing more great cinematic things in the near future.
You can watch the entire documentary on Vimeo at www.vimeo.com/1546186
I’m going to try and get in some downtime tonight before launching into tomorrow. I’ve got five scheduled screenings starting with the 9am premier of Antoine Fuqua’s newest film, “Brooklyn’s Finest” with Richard Gere, Ethan Hawke, Don Cheadle and Wesley Snipes. Catch you all on the flipside.
“Oh my God, we’re at the Sundance Film Festival because my son killed himself.”
These are the words spoken by Dana Perry, director of “Boy Interrupted,” when asked what was going through her head while watching the world premiere of her documentary film. Since leaving Temple Theater about 30 minutes ago, I’ve been searching for the right way to talk about this film - a film directed by the mother of a boy who committed suicide at age 15 after 10 years of battling with diagnosed bipolar disorder. He goes through periods of happiness, then periods of extreme depression. Suicide is a subject all-too-common since the age of 5. All seems to be going well for the first time in years as he moves into his teenage years, but then he’s slowly taken off meds and, without warning, he jumps from his New York apartment bedroom window. It’s a heavy experience, so here’s what I’m going to do - split this two ways:
Emotional: Hard to argue with such a personal story. With both parents of Evan Perry, the subject of the film, intimately involved with the project as director and cinematographer, respectively, it’s nearly impossible to imagine how it must have been to distance themselves enough from the material. Hart, the father, made it clear to the audience during the Q&A that this film was really about sharing the experience of their journey toward trying to make Evan well and not about the extreme grief of losing a child to suicide. However, it’s tough to escape that framing since it underscores so much of the film. Both Dana and Hart entered into the project also hoping it might allow them some closure, but found that not the case in the slightest. Though Evan’s death is now three years in the past, the wounds are clearly still fresh. As Dana said following the film, “that’s the first and last time I’ll have seen this film with an audience.”
Technical: This is not a film that prides itself on production quality. Told mostly through somewhat blurry home video clips and talking-head interviews, it’s not a film that will win awards for cinematography or for editing. At first I was struck by the lower perceived level of quality, but at the end of it all, the quality of the imagery on screen doesn’t really matter. The story is communicated effectively and with a lot of emotion. What more is needed?
Should you see this film? Not if you’re disturbed by teen suicide or the thought of your children killing themselves. But if you’re up for an emotional story about loss and a family’s journey to try and save their son from his own mind, then it’s definitely worth a look.
You can find out more at www.boyinterruptedfilm.com
Just returned from the US premier of “It Might Get Loud,” my first screening of this year’s fest. I was pretty excited to be able to catch this film here at Sundance since it got pretty good buzz when it first screened back in May at the Cannes Film Festival and subsequently in September at the Toronto Film Festival. Sony Pictures Classics has already picked up distribution for the film, so it’ll definitely find a home at a theater near you.
Directed by Davis Guggenheim, who most recently directed “An Inconvenient Truth” and made Al Gore a movie star, “It Might Get Loud” is a documentary film about the history of the electric guitar framed through the eyes of three accomplished guitarists - Jimmy Page (of Led Zeppelin fame), the Edge (of U2 fame) and Jack White (of the White Stripes and the Raconteurs). The basic premise… take all three musicians and lock them in a soundstage together for two days and see what comes out. It sounds unstructured, but out of this loose idea Guggenheim manages to get some really interesting things out of all three as they trace their steps back through their own artistic upbringings to arrive at where they are today. Each has a unique sound and a very different story, but at the end all three find many common threads. As Guggenheim mentioned during the Q&A following the screening, most documentaries about music are either encyclopaedic and try to cover everything or they focus on the personal stories of drugs, alcohol and bus crashes. With this film, he made a concious decision to not do either, instead opting to simply let the three artists tell their own stories and develop from that an arc that allows you glimpses into some of the definining moments that lead each to their current relationship with their instruments and music. Jack White talks about how for him it’s all about creating a “challenge,” eschewing the synthetic and fighting with instruments, Jimmy Page disusses his beginnings creating Musak (really), and the Edge allows a brief glimpse into what his work sounds like once you turn off all the layered effects that so define his style. Ultimately it’s a fantastic glimpse into each artist’s process and how they relate to their work.
Will you like this film? Maybe, maybe not. For those who feel that rock music speaks to them or consider themselves electric guitar officianados, this film will land itself high on your “most awesome documentary ever” list. For those who don’t feel rock music is a window to the soul or tire quickly of listening to artists spout what many might consider cliche words about their art, then you’re probably better off seeing something else. I, for one, thought it was fantastic and want to immediately go back and watch it again.
If the conversations at the opening night party are any indication of the festival landscape, it may well be that the 25th anniversary of the Sundance Film Festival proves that there’s still plenty of opportunities to sell a film. While in the midst of flowing absynthe (not to be confused with absinthe, illegal in most countries) and, for once, a decent DJ, I picked the brains of several who were at the fest in support of particular films. Spirits are high. Interest seemingly abounds. One woman exclaimed that she’d already sold three films just tonight. The trades are also reporting that several deals have been made - HBO just today picked up US television rights to “Burma VJ” ahead of it’s North American premier, which I’ll be seeing Sunday night. Also today, Sony Classics reportedly finalized a deal for North American rights for James Toback’s documentary “Tyson,” which originally premiered at last year’s Cannes Film Festival and centers on none other than boxing heavyweight Mike Tyson.
Expectations are still tempered, but perhaps the economic downturn isn’t going to breath as strongly down the neck of the fest as most say it will. We’ll see how the rest of the week shapes up.
Over the next couple of weeks, Movie Blog reader “Gunther” will be posting regular reports from this year’s Sundance Film Festival. He’s been covering Sundance for years now and we’re thrilled that he’ll be filing these reports. Now, over to Gunther:
SEAT 14B - SOMEWHERE BETWEEN LOS ANGELES AND SALT LAKE CITY
As I sit here crammed into an airplane seat the size of a tin can looking out at the Grand Canyon from 35,000 feet, it’s tough to believe that we once again find ourselves in the middle of January on the first day of what’s become an annual pilgrimidge to one of the world’s most revered film festivals. Yes, that’s right - today marks the opening day of the annual Sundance Film Festival. On paper, this years festival promises to be everything for those looking to explore the latest in independent cinema. Still trying very much to act like a small, hometown-style event, Sundance has long been proud of its humble beginnings and its unwavering focus on finding new talent and bringing a raw cinema to the people. However, over the years the reality of Sundance has grown to be something different. There are mobs of people, a dearth of parking and celebrities seemly go out of their way to make waves as they walk down Main Street. Still remaining are the vestiges of what Robert Redford and Geoff Gilmore believe to be at the heart of the festival, but it’s now become a far more splashy affair with swag booths, miniature red-carpet-style premiers and celebrities that are there to be seen. More than anything, the festival now walks an interesting dichotomy between being the hometown festival it once was and a full-blown Hollywood event. It’s not that the festival has lost its way, more that it’s evolved due to its own success and the fact that it’s now considered THE American film festival. Hard to escape Hollywood when that’s exactly who the party of primary interest is.
This year’s festival is likely to mark a change. I feel like I say this every year to an extent - there’s always something that’s different about the festival each year. But this year we’re talking a whole new landscape. Economic times are a near 180 from what they were last year. Sponsors of the festival have dropped like flies. Volkwagen, long a staple, is nowhere to be seen. Adobe is no more. Delta is still the official airline of the festival, but is rumored to be scaling back quite heavily. Outside of the festival, independent film distributors have been through a rocky year with many not living to tell the tale. And then there’s the whole money issue. Hollywood was flush with cash over the past few years as hedge funds became the hot funding source and investors were beating down doors left and right with money to burn. Hedge funds are now mostly a bad memory and tight credit markets mean that even the major studios are cutting way back on the number of films they’re planning to release.
So what does this mean for Sundance? The answer depends on who you talk to. Some are decrying that this year’s fest will be mostly a bust - well-received films with top talent won’t be able to find buyers and the number of people who actually go to the festival will be a fraction of what we saw last year. On the other hand, many are saying that, while we’ll certainly see distributors being far more selective with purchases than in the past, films that are ready for an audience will sell and sell well. After all, Hollywood had one of its best-ever years in 2008, so why wouldn’t they snap up films ready for market? It’s tough to say from here, on the day of the opening night festivities, who’s going to be right. What we do know is that the fest will most definitely be more subdued this year - gifting suites will be scaled back, the once-ubiquitous bidding wars over film acquisitions will likely be few and far between and many serious journalists aren’t able to even attend, thus cutting the buzz-building reviews that so many films rely on. Will this restore some of that low-key, independent vibe that Redford and Gilmore feel is still very much at the foundation of the festival? Probably not much as rumblings on the street suggest some semblance of the usual mixing of corporate sponsorship, Hollywood industry and filmmakers - and the general circus that defines the fest’s opening weekend - will be very much in evidence.
Thus begin my annual postings direct from the 2009 Sundance Film Festival. As in the past, I’ll be writing on-the-fly from a Treo mobile phone while standing in lines and traversing the gauntlet that is Sundance. First film for me, the guitarist documentary “It Might Get Loud,” unspools at a bright and early 8:00am sharp. Hopefully the opening night party will still allow for some semblance of sleep before the dawn.
It’s a really weird spot I find myself in at the moment, but at the same time a very interesting one. For those of you who don’t know, on Feb 2nd I start shooting my first feature film. It’s a comedy I wrote called “The Anniversary” and I’m extremely pumped about it (more info on that to come later).
The thing is, I have said many times over the years here on The Movie Blog that directors should not openly criticize other directors to the media. As a matter of fact I once wrote this:
Here’s the thing. I’m all for critiquing and giving negative commentary. HOWEVER… I don’t think it’s the place of any director to bash another director that way. Nor do I think any actor should publicly bash another actor. I find it really distasteful and pathetic when a person in a field, publicly bashes the work of another person in their field. That’s pussy. You don’t do that. Let other people do that.
So this raises a very legitimate question that some people have asked me that I’m working through. The question basically is: “Is it hypocritical to be a movie blogger… whose job it is to comment, praise and criticize the work of directors (movies) and then to be a director yourself”? That my friends, is a very fair question to ask.
I guess the way I’ve approached it right now is the same way I approach the question of if I’m a “film critic”. I AM NOT A FILM CRITIC. I have never claimed to be a film critic. As a matter of fact I’ve told people over and over and over again I’m not a film critic. I’m just a guy. That’s it. I’m a guy with a BLOG who talks about my opinions on movies. Sometimes that means doing a “review”, but my “reviews” are nothing more than a film fan talking about what he did and didn’t like about a certain movie… just like anyone else on the planet standing around a water cooler. Just because a bunch of people read my thoughts doesn’t make me a “film critic”. The work of professional film critics is far above me and I don’t deserve to be called one. Which is fine… because I’m not one.
That being said, I still do engage in openly criticizing and critiquing movies openly (duh… it’s a blog). So how can I be a director, and sometimes openly criticize the work of other directors?
The answer is this: I’m not a director.
Here’s the thing. If you decide one day to paint your own living room instead of hiring a professional painter. Someone who is, by trade, a PAINTER… does that suddenly mean YOU are a painter? No, obviously not. If you put air in your own car tires, are you suddenly a mechanic? No, obviously not.
I guess the way I look at it right now is that I’m not a director. Oh sure, I’m directing my own movie that I wrote… but I’m not a director. No more than a guy who paints his own living room is a “painter”. Quite frankly, if I had the money I would have probably hired a REAL director to direct the film for me. I’m directing this because I need to direct it… and yes, to see how much I enjoy it and if I’d be any good at it.
Let’s put it this way, if The Anniversary (the name of my movie) turns out well, I enjoyed doing it and people think I have a talent for directing… then I may decide to direct more… at which time I will be a “director” and I’d have to retire from Movie Blogging because I can’t be a director and actively criticize the work of other directors publicly at the same time. That would be wrong in my opinion. But that’s just my opinion.
There are other examples out there. Some guys from Ain’t It Cool News are actively trying to get a film career going as writers and producers. John from JoBlo’s Arrow In The Head is a talented filmmaker and actor with a number of credits to his name. Jay Cheel over at The Documentary Blog and Film Junk is a gifted documentary filmmaker in his own right and is venturing into narrative filmmaking as well.
I think the bottom line here is that deep down, any movie website guy (or girl) wants to be in the movies (on screen or off screen) and be involved in the business. I’m certainly no exception… but the key, I think, is to know when you’ve actually crossed over. When you can actually call yourself a “director” or “actor” or “producer” or “writer” or whatever, and then separate yourself from the blogging.
Other people may have different opinions on this issue, and that’s cool. I’m not sure my opinion is the right one. But it is mine… and so I have to govern myself accordingly. Just a thought.
Since the comments are down right now… feel free to email me your thoughts and I’ll post them up later. You can reach me at [email protected].
Hey there guys. As I mentioned a few days ago we’re getting ready to change the design of the site yet again. This one is the best ever and was put together for us by Rob Heath over at Nerd Fellowship who has obviously done a fantastic job (better than my sorry ass attempts). The new page should be up next week but I thought I’d give you guys a sneak peak at it now.
You know what really tops off the “suck” meter? Going on a ski trip with some friends only to stumble across an old horde of Nazi Zombies up in the snow. It totally kills the buzz. Cindy will never be in the mood to give you the ski bunny treatment now.
Add all that together and you have the new Zombie flick “Dead Snow“. I’m going to tell you right now, I know almost NOTHING about this little movie about to play at Sundance, but I’m dying to see it already. Our friends over at Cinematical have a little more info. For now, check out the sweet poster.
Stumbled across the synopsis. Sounds way too good:
For eight medical students, Easter vacation begins innocently enough. They pack their cars full of ski equipment and enough beer to fuel their escape from everyday life to the snowy, isolated hills outside of Øksfjord, Norway. Once there, they receive a late-night visit from a shady hiker, who tells them a story about Nazi occupation of the area during World War II. After doing their fair share of raping and pillaging, the dreaded battalion faced a brutal and vengeful uprising by the citizens of the town. The soldiers who managed to survive the onslaught, including their dreaded leader Colonel Herzog, were driven into the hills by the angry mob, where they supposedly froze to death, never to be seen again. But if the horror genre has taught us anything, it’s that the raucous behavior and promiscuity of the younger generation always have a way of bringing evil spirits back to life.Director Tommy Wirkola pulls no punches in the carnage department—heads roll, blood flows, and entrails ooze as the young vacationers attempt to make it through the night. Wirkola adeptly utilizes the snow’s eerie and ominous backdrop to its fullest extent while orchestrating this wickedly gory, yet somehow delightful, tale of Nazi zombie terror.
I still remember seeing Iron Man for the first time. When the credits started to roll I desperately tried to get as many people… strangers… to sit back down and not leave yet… that something was going to come after the credits. Those who stayed were very glad they did when a shadowy figure who called himself Nick Fury appeared on screen… and then emerged out of the shadows to reveal that he was being played by Sam Jackson.
It’s been known for some time that Marvel has wanted to tie the various heroes together for a future Avengers movie, and that Jackson as Fury was going to be key to that. But now it appears that Jackson MIGHT be out of the equation. The good folks over at ComingSoon give us this:
SAMUEL JACKSON: “There was a huge kind of negotiation that broke down. I don’t know. Maybe I won’t be Nick Fury. Maybe somebody else will be Nick Fury or maybe Nick Fury won’t be in it. There seems to be an economic crisis in the Marvel Comics world so [they're saying to me], ‘We’re not making that deal.’”
This would be a damn shame. I’m all for the idea that any actor CAN be replaced… but that doesn’t mean they should be. Hell, even the new comic version of Nick Fury was modeled after Jackson and honestly I thought he’d make a great Fury.
For now nothing is certain. I’ll survive if I hear Jackson is 100% out… but it would be unfortunate.
Honors handed out by other people are always kind of a nifty pat on the back. This one is pretty nice. One of the great movie magazines, Total Film, is handing out their annual Movie Blog Awards and they’ve informed me that The Movie Blog is one of the nominees. Aww shucks!
What makes this one extra special to me it who else is nominated. The webmasters of all the sites are people that I consider friends of mine and all run fantastic sites.
Screenrant - run by Vic
/film - run by Peter
Twitch - run by former movie blog contributor Todd
First Showing - run by Alex
Oh… and Obviously The Movie Blog
Anyway, if you feel so inclined to vote for The Movie Blog or any other of the very well deserving sites, you can just head over here to vote.
Just a heads up. Some of you may have noticed that comments aren’t currently posting on The Movie Blog. Here’s the low down:
1) We’re getting ready to change the design of the page AGAIN. Yes… AGAIN. Only this time, it’s not something I designed (Thank goodness). It’s something a very talented Web artist designed (who I will introduce you all to later once I have his permission to spill his name) and I can say without a doubt that it is the very best design The Movie Blog has ever had. Seriously, I can’t wait for you to see it. It’ll be online within the next 14 days.
2) We’re changing servers in the next week
3) While doing some preparations for both of these events, some technicals issues have arisen that have left the comments not working. That wasn’t intentional, but we probably won’t be able to fix it for a couple of days.
Ok… if you have any thoughts just leave them in the comments section. Oh wait….
When Heath Ledger died many wondered if his portrayal of The Joker could be his best performance of his career. Turns out it was. As a mater of fact, he was so good that even though The Joker survived The Dark Knight, many assumed that we’d never see the character again in Christopher Nolan’s version of Batman.
However… recent comments from one of the films producers MAY suggest that they’re thinking about returning to the Joker with another performer. The folks over at Total Film give us this:
The Dark Knight producer Chuck Roven has claimed that people need to “separate the actors from the role,” in response to a question regarding The Joker and Heath Ledger. When asked by MTV whether the filmmakers would have done anything different had they known Ledger wouldn’t be reprising the role, Roven claimed that the character wasn’t tied to the actor.
“On a personal level, Heath was a friend of mine,” he said at the People’s Choice Awards. “We had worked together before The Dark Knight, but I still think that The Dark Knight is its own thing, and we have to separate them.”
I celebrate this news IF it indeed turns out to be true.
I think it would be appropriate for me to revisit my previous arguements as to why I think Heath Ledger can indeed be replaced as The Joker for future films:
_______________________________________
ORIGINALLY WRITTEN AUGUST 4th 2008
Before I go into the reasons why I reject the idea that “no one will ever be able to play The Joker as well as Ledger did”, let me briefly address another issue I’m hearing some people bring up. Some people are suggesting that having another person play The Joker at this point would somehow be an “insult” or a “slap in the face” to Heath Ledger. That notion to me is utterly absurd.
First of all, do you think Heath Ledger put all his heart and sole into that character, sank so much energy and effort into the role to elevate it and raise the bar… just so the character would be retired if he couldn’t play the part anymore??? That’s sheer nonsense in my opinion. That’s the equivalent of saying “The best way to honor the magnificent career of Michael Jordan and to thank him for what he did for the game of basketball is to shut down the NBA after he retired”. Or “Lance Armstrong was so good at being an inspiration to people in his recovery against cancer, that no one else should ever try to overcome the disease and inspire others”. If WB doesn’t want to use The Joker again because he doesn’t fit into their future story plans, that’s totally fine. But to not use The Joker (who Ledger worked so hard to elevate and raise the bar for) because of some misguided notion that it would somehow be disrespectful to Ledger’s memory is one I reject outright.
Secondly, just because an actor does a wonderful job portraying a character, does not suddenly mean the character BELONGS to that actor. Ledger did his job magnificently… but his job was only one part of brining The Joker to “The Dark Knight”. The director who guided Ledger owns The Joker just as much as Ledger does. The Nolan brothers who wrote all the things that The Joker said and did owns The Joker just as much as Ledger does.
So would getting another actor to portray The Joker in the future be an “insult” to Heath Ledger? No, not even remotely. On the contrary, it could be the greatest honor you could give him.
But now let’s address the main issue here. The notion that no one could ever do as well as Ledger did playing The Joker. As amazing as Ledger was… i reject this idea. So due to the following reasons, here is why I believe Heath Ledger can be replaced as The Joker:
#1 - HEATH LEDGER WAS A GOOD BUT NOT GREAT ACTOR
During his career, Heath Ledger turned in some truly exceptional performances. Brokeback Mountain (which despite how good Ledger was in it, I believe was an overrated movie) and The Dark Knight showed us how good Ledger could be when he was really on his game. But unfortunately, for every one Brokeback performance, there were 2 Casanova’s and The Order’s. For everyone one “The Dark Knight”, there seemed to be two The Four Feather’s and A Knight’s Tales. Ledger was hit and miss. That fact doesn’t detract from his accomplishment as The Joker one little bit… but there are many better actors out there than Ledger, and to suggest none of them have the potential to turn in an even better performance than Ledger did is pretty myopic and short sighted. It’s not to say that anyone WOULD be better… but that there are actors out there who carry the potential to do even better if they were really on their game like Ledger was on his. I’m not saying it’s PROBABLE… I’m saying it’s POSSIBLE.
#2 - WHAT IF GUY PEARCE GOT THE ROLE INSTEAD OF LEDGER?
Let’s play “what if” for a moment. Let’s say that Christopher Nolan ended up choosing Guy Pearce to play The Joker instead of Heath Ledger. Ok, now let’s assume that Pierce did an amazing job (when does Pearce ever do anything less?) playing The Joker, let’s say just 0.0005% less well than Ledger ended up doing. Ok… now follow me here. We’d all be praising Pierce for the great job he did right? Now can you imagine how much you would be laughing at me if I came out of nowhere and said “I bet Heath Ledger would be an even better Joker than Pearce just was”. I would have been laughed out of town. “Pierce’s Joker was perfect” people would be sure to tell me. “No one will ever be able to do it as well as he has”. Yet little do they know that Ledger would have been better… even if only by 0.0005%. It would therefore be naive of us to not acknowledge that out there are some people that would be 0.0005% better a Joker than even Ledger was… and probably names that we would laugh at in our ignorance, just as we would have laughed at Ledger’s name 2 years ago.
#3 - IT CAN ALWAYS BE DONE BETTER
There was a time when it was said no one would EVER be as dominant or equal the accomplishments of Arnold Schwarzenegger in the world of professional bodybuilding. The man won the Mr. Olympia 7 times. You’re an idiot if you think anyone will ever do it better! Yeah well… that sounded safe enough to say until the day Ron Coleman won his 8th Mr. Olympia in a row. Whenever anyone says something has been done as well as it will ever be done… someone comes along and does it better. That’s the nature of things. Remember at the beginning of this post I mentioned that it is my opinion that Ledger’s performance as The Joker is the best performance in the history of the genre? That’s true… but it won’t be forever, or maybe even for long. Someone else will come along, probably someone we don’t really expect, and will beat it… and that’s a great thing to think about if you’re a fan of the genre.
#4 - ONLY CRISPIN GLOVER CAN BE THE JOKER. ONLY LACHY HULME CAN BE THE JOKER…
I remember back before Ledger was cast for the role, the online message boards were filled with casting ideas for The Joker… and usually the word “ONLY” preceded their name. ONLY Mark Hamill can be The Joker. The only person to play Joker is Guy Pearce. No one else other than Crispin Glover can really make the role work. The only person they should consider is Jack Nicholson again! Yeah, everyone had their idea about who the “ONLY” person alive was who could adequately play The Joker. Turns out they were all wrong, because Heath Ledger came in and rocked the hell out of that role. But now people, refusing to learn their lesson, are once again using the word “ONLY”, but this time it’s with Ledger. The lesson here is that there is NEVER “only” one person for a role.
At this point we have no idea if The Joker was even in the plans for the next Batman movie before Ledger died, so all this discussion could be for nothing. My only point here is to say, as great as Ledger was as The Joker (I believe great enough to warrant Oscar consideration), to believe that no one can possibly do it as well or better is completely naive in my opinion. And being aware of that fact is in no way a “slam” on the breathtaking performance he gave us, but rather just a recognition of how life and reality works.
Should they have The Joker in the next Batman flick? That’s a totally different question. Maybe the character doesn’t fit in with the story arch plans they have. But if they do have a story in mind that involves The Joker character, then it is possible that another actor could do the role just as well or even better than Ledger did, and to do so would be honoring and a tribute to the level that Ledger brought that character to in his final, and most brilliant performance.
After that ill-adisved open letter, it looks like cooler and more rationale heads may prevail after all. After a lot of tough “we’re not backing down” talk, it seems that Fox and WB are finally close to reaching a deal which would allow the Watchmen movie to get released on time.
Yahoo News gives us this:
Attorneys for rival studios fighting over the release of the superhero flick told a federal judge on Friday that they’re having fruitful settlement talks. Attorneys for 20th Century Fox and Warner Bros. asked the judge to delay a hearing Friday so those discussions can continue over the weekend.
U.S. District Judge Gary Allen Feess agreed to continue the hearing but says a trial over whether to block the film’s March release is still set for Jan. 20. Lou Karasik, who is representing Fox, told Feess that the delay would be “very, very helpful” to settlement discussions he deemed “productive.”
Friday’s revelation surprised Feess, who noted that Warner Bros. had been seeking to move up the Jan. 20 trial to next week, citing the film’s marketing campaign and its March 6 release date. An injunction barring the film’s release also jeopardizes the $150 million Warner Bros. has invested in the “Watchmen” movie, the studio’s attorneys argued in court documents filed this week.
Fox sued in February to stop the release of “Watchmen,” claiming Warner Bros. violated its interests by filming the tale. Feess agreed last month that Fox appears to have the right to distribute the film.
Finally! Looks like Fox has succeeded in forcing WB to make a deal… something WB should have done a year ago.
Bias isn’t a bad thing in and of itself. Bias in many cases isn’t a CHOICE. It is, more often than not, a result of circumstances someone finds themselves in. Bias enters the conversation when the person involved stands to gain or lose or has a vested interest in the result of a given situation. That’s not the person’s fault… it’s just the result of their circumstances. In that way being biased neither makes you good or bad. If your house was on fire, you would be very biased in your desire to see the fire department arrive sooner rather than later. If your place of employment was making job cuts, you would be biased in your opinion of who should be allowed to stay and who should be fired.
And, in the same vein, if you were a producer of a mega budget Hollywood movie that you stood to gain or lose a fortune on, you would, through no fault of your own, be extremely biased on any issue relating to your film getting released. Being biased isn’t a negative reflection on the character of that individual… it’s just something that the observer has to weigh and keep in mind when evaluating the opinion of those who are in the biased position.
With that being said, Lloyd Levin, producer of Watchmen, has issued an open letter to the public giving his thoughts and knowledge of the current legal battle between WB and Fox regarding the release of the movie. The following open letter comes to us through Hitfix:
Who is right? In the Watchmen dispute between Warner Brothers and Fox that question is being discussed, analyzed, argued, tried and ruled on in a court of law. That’s one way to answer the question - It is a fallback position in our society for parties in conflict to resolve disputes. And there are teams of lawyers and a highly regarded Federal Judge trying to do just that, which obviates any contribution I could make towards answering the “who is right” question within a legal context. But after 15 plus years of involvement in the project, and a decade more than that working in the movie business, I have another perspective, a personal perspective that I believe important to have on the public record.
No one is more keenly aware of the irony of this dispute than Larry Gordon and I who have been trying to get this movie made for many years. There’s a list of people who have rejected the viability of a movie based on Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon’s classic graphic novel that reads like a who’s who of Hollywood.
We’ve been told the graphic novel is unfilmable.
After 9/11 some felt the story’s themes were too close to reality ever to be palatable to a mainstream audience.
There were those who considered the project but who wished it were somehow different: Could it be a buddy movie, or a team-up movie or could it focus on one main character; did it have to be so dark; did so many people have to die; could it be stripped of its flashback structure; could storylines be eliminated; could new storylines be invented; did it have to be so long; could the blue guy put clothes on… The list of dissatisfactions for what Watchmen is was as endless as the list of suggestions to make it something it never was.
Also endless are the list of studio rejections we accrued over the years. Larry and I developed screenplays at five different studios. We had two false starts in production on the movie. We were involved with prominent and commercial directors. Big name stars were interested. In one instance hundreds of people were employed, sets were being built - An A-list director and top artists in the industry were given their walking papers when the studio financing the movie lost faith.
After all these years of rejection, this is the same project, the same movie, over which two studios are now spending millions of dollars contesting ownership. Irony indeed, and then some.
Through the years, inverse of the lack of studio faith has been the passionate belief by many many individuals - movie professionals who were also passionate fans of the graphic novel - who, yes, wanted to work on the film, but more for reasons of just wanting to see the movie get made, to see this movie get made and made right, donated their time and talent to help push the film forward: Writers gave us free screenplay drafts; conceptual art was supplied by illustrators, tests were performed gratis by highly respected actors and helped along and put together by editors, designers, prop makers and vfx artists; we were the recipients of donated studio and work space, lighting and camera equipment. Another irony, given the commercial stakes implied by the pitched legal dispute between Fox and Warners, is that for years Watchmen has been a project that has survived on the fumes of whatever could be begged, borrowed and stolen - A charity case for all intents and purposes. None of that effort, none of that passion and emotional involvement, is considered in the framework of this legal dispute.
From my point of view, the flashpoint of this dispute, came in late spring of 2005. Both Fox and Warner Brothers were offered the chance to make Watchmen. They were submitted the same package, at the same time. It included a cover letter describing the project and its history, budget information, a screenplay, the graphic novel, and it made mention that a top director was involved.
And it’s at this point, where the response from both parties could not have been more radically different.
The response we got from Fox was a flat “pass.” That’s it. An internal Fox email documents that executives there felt the script was one of the most unintelligible pieces of shit they had read in years. Conversely, Warner Brothers called us after having read the script and said they were interested in the movie - yes, they were unsure of the screenplay, and had many questions, but wanted to set a meeting to discuss the project, which they promptly did. Did anyone at Fox ask to meet on the movie? No. Did anyone at Fox express any interest in the movie? No. Express even the slightest interest in the movie? Or the graphic novel? No.
From there, the executives at Warner Brothers, who weren’t yet completely comfortable with the movie, made a deal to acquire the movie rights and we all started to creatively explore the possibility of making Watchmen. We discussed creative approaches and started offering the movie to directors, our former director having moved on by then. After a few director submissions, Zack Snyder came onboard, well before the release of his movie 300. In fact, well before its completion. This was a gut, creative call by Larry, me and the studio… Zack didn’t have a huge commercial track record, yet we all felt he was the right guy for the movie.
Warner Brothers continued to support, both financially and creatively, the development of the movie. And eventually, after over a year of work, they agreed to make the film, based on a script that, for what it’s worth, was by and large very similar to the one Fox initially read and deemed an unintelligible piece of shit.
Now here’s the part that has to be fully appreciated, if for nothing more than providing insight into producing movies in Hollywood: The Watchmen script was way above the norm in length, near 150 pages, meaning the film could clock in at close to 3 hours, the movie would not only be R rated but a hard R - for graphic violence and explicit sex - would feature no stars, and had a budget north of $100M. We also asked Warner Brothers to support an additional 1 to 1.5 hours of content incurring additional cost that would tie in with the movie but only be featured in DVD iterations of the film. Warners supported the whole package and I cannot begin to emphasize how ballsy and unprecedented a move this was on the part of a major Hollywood studio. Unheard of. And would another studio in Hollywood, let alone a studio that didn’t show one shred of interest in the movie, not one, have taken such a risk? Would they ever have made such a commitment, a commitment to a film that defied all conventional wisdom?
Only the executives at Fox can answer that question. But if they were to be honest, their answer would have to be “No.”
Shouldn’t Warner Brothers be entitled to the spoils - if any — of the risk they took in supporting and making Watchmen? Should Fox have any claim on something they could have had but chose to neither support nor show any interest in?
Look at it another way… One reason the movie was made was because Warner Brothers spent the time, effort and money to engage with and develop the project. If Watchmen was at Fox the decision to make the movie would never have been made because there was no interest in moving forward with the project.
Does a film studio have the right to stand in the way of an artistic endeavor and determine that it shouldn’t exist? If the project had been sequestered at Fox, if Fox had any say in the matter, Watchmen simply wouldn’t exist today, and there would be no film for Fox to lay claim on. It seems beyond cynical for the studio to claim ownership at this point.
By his own admission, Judge Feess is faced with an extremely complex legal case, with a contradictory contractual history, making it difficult to ascertain what is legally right. Are there circumstances here that are more meaningful, which shed light on what is ultimately just, to be taken into account when assessing who is right? In this case, what is morally right, beyond the minutiae of decades-old contractual semantics, seems clear cut.
For the sake of the artists involved, for the hundreds of people, executives and filmmakers, actors and crew, who invested their time, their money, and dedicated a good portion of their lives in order to bring this extraordinary project to life, the question of what is right is clear and unambiguous - Fox should stand down with its claim.
My father, who was a lawyer and a stickler for the minutiae of the law, was always quick to teach me that the determination of what is right and wrong was not the sole purview of the courts. I bet someone at Fox had a parent like mine who instilled the same sense of fairness and justice in them.
Lloyd Levin”
It’s a good open letter. But my thoughts on it are this: Aside from the completely biased position Lloyd is in, it’s still pretty much totally pointless.
The main thrust of the letter seems to be that Fox wasn’t going to make Watchmen into a movie. Ok, fine. The problem is that has never really been the question. That’s also never really been disputed. The question of this legal battle has NEVER been if Fox was going to make the movie. The question… the ONLY question of this dispute has been who owns the rights. PERIOD.
As I, and others have mentioned before, if you own something then you have the right to put it in your living room and use it everyday or the right to put it in a box up in your attic for 50 years never to see the light of day. It’s yours. You can do, or not do with it as you please.
At the end of the day the issue here is STILL that WB failed to do the proper diligence to ensure they actually had the right to make Watchmen. They failed to do so (as a judge has already ruled). Now this mess is here. Fox (and trust me, I like WB a lot more than Fox) is simply doing what they have the right, and legal obligation to do… protect their legal rights.
But I do take one issue with Levin’s letter. The patronizing paragraph that reads: “For the sake of the artists involved, for the hundreds of people, executives and filmmakers, actors and crew, who invested their time, their money, and dedicated a good portion of their lives in order to bring this extraordinary project to life, the question of what is right is clear and unambiguous - Fox should stand down with its claim.” I call bullshit. All those people got paid Lloyd. I’m sure this has nothing to do with the fact that no one individual stands to make more here than you… and that’s what this is really all about.
Lloyd Levin is the single most biased individual in this entire situation. And that’s not Lloyd’s fault, nor is it a negative reflection on Lloyd in the least. It’s simply the circumstances he finds himself in that make it that way. And, as I mentioned near the beginning of this post, Levin being biased isn’t a reflection on him as an individual… it’s simply something that you and I have to weigh and keep in mind when considering his opinion and comments on the matter he is biased in.
That’s my point of view. What’s yours? Share in the comments section.
Well hot damn… wouldn’t this be something. Being on something of a hot streak with Sin City and now all the acclaim he’s so rightfully been getting for “The Wrestler”, it looks like Mikey Rourke could be appearing in his first major studio film in ages. Which major studio film? How about Iron Man 2 as the bad guy!!!
The folks over at Variety give us this:
Rourke is in discussions to play a villain described as Tony Stark’s Russian alter ego, a heavily tattooed bruiser who is in the arms trade and battles Iron Man in his own nuclear-powered armored suit. Actor Sam Rockwell is in negotiations to play another villian in the pic.
The script — which is still being written — is a guarded secret, but speculation is that villain is likely comicbook nemesis Crimson Dynamo.
I always say: “It’s never a mistake to add talent”. This my friends, would be no mistake. Rourke is an insanely gifted actor and his addition would make a wonderful gift to the fans.
My one worry in all of this is Rourke’s reputation for being something of an asshole. It’s known that one of the reasons director Jon Favreau wanted Terrance Howard out of Iron Man 2 was because he had a hard time getting along with him. I wonder if Rourke can keep things in check or if there would be problems. Here’s hoping for the best.
So with big banks and auto makers asking the government for free money, it seems another industry, hurt by the bad economy, is asking for some assistance too. The porn movie industry is going to ask for a $5 billion bailout.
CNN gives us this:
“The take here is that everyone and their mother want to be bailed out from the banks to the big three,” said Owen Moogan, spokesman for Larry Flynt. “The porn industry has been hurt by the downturn like everyone else and they are going to ask for the $5 billion. Is it the most serious thing in the world? Is it going to make the lives of Americans better if it happens? It is not for them to determine.”
Francis said in a statement that “the US government should actively support the adult industry’s survival and growth, just as it feels the need to support any other industry cherished by the American people.”
No I obviously know that Larry Flynt is just being a bit facetious here. The porn industry is probably the one recession proof business in the galaxy… but I’m sure even that business is being hit too. I guess we all need banks. We all need cars. We all need porn. :P
PROSPECTOR THEATRE, PARK CITY
EMPIRE AVENUE, PARK CITY
Over the next couple of weeks, Movie Blog reader “Gunther” will be posting regular reports from this year’s Sundance Film Festival. He’s been covering Sundance for years now and we’re thrilled that he’ll be filing these reports. Now, over to Gunther:
Honors handed out by other people are always kind of a nifty pat on the back. This one is pretty nice. One of the great movie magazines, Total Film, is handing out their annual Movie Blog Awards and they’ve informed me that The Movie Blog is one of the nominees. Aww shucks!
When Heath Ledger died many wondered if his portrayal of The Joker could be his best performance of his career. Turns out it was. As a mater of fact, he was so good that even though The Joker survived The Dark Knight, many assumed that we’d never see the character again in Christopher Nolan’s version of Batman.
After 
Well hot damn… wouldn’t this be something. Being on something of a hot streak with Sin City and now all the acclaim he’s so rightfully been getting for “The Wrestler”, it looks like Mikey Rourke could be appearing in his first major studio film in ages. Which major studio film? How about Iron Man 2 as the bad guy!!!
