by notesfromachair

An Experiment

As a teenager I remember standing on line in the cold for two hours to see The Exorcist in Manhattan during its first week of release. It was a thrilling, scary and overall fantastically fun experience. I met a group of slightly older, cool people I got to hang out with, the movie was that rare combination of smart AND frightening, and I drank wine from a bottle someone had bought at the liquor store down the street so we could all stay warm. All of this then added to the major buzz that I already had for being so in the know.

Never mind that news reports of several members of the nationwide audience suffering heart attacks at the sight of Linda Blair’s 360-degree head revolve turned out to be false. I felt like the hippest person on my block in Flushing, Queens for the next day (or was it month?) because, let’s face it – after that evening I was.

Clearly, times have changed.

Do we all really enjoy going to movie theatres anymore? Or better question – do we really all still enjoy movies, at least the way we used to? Well, the answer to that is, I guess it depends.

Clearly, we don’t enjoy waiting in/on line. Okay, maybe the latter is just me getting older but I’m not entirely convinced. This is partly because of how popular it’s become to buy your tickets in advance and print out a reserved seating bar code you can just scan at the door, and partly because of the new subset of people who actually make a modest to decent living being paid to wait in line for all sorts of things by those wealthy or clever enough to avoid any form of human interaction they deem to be unnecessary.

See: The Cronut black market

Of course, both movies and movie theatres are far different today than they were in the early 1970s – a time period that is now looked on as a bit of a cinematic golden age. And even if we ARE excited at the anticipation of going out to see a new film, forty years ago we didn’t have the option of watching it at home via a decent size screen of our own on exactly the same day the rest of those poor suckas or cooler than cool Manhatttanites (take your pick) were braving, well – the cold. Not to mention their fellow man.

All of this being the case, I decided to try a little experiment this weekend.

Take two films I was looking forward to seeing that were BOTH opening theatrically on Friday (Yes, I know upfront neither one will come close to The Exorcist)
Watch one at a movie theatre where I buy a ticket, wait in line at the entrance and the snack stand, and view it with strangers sitting next to me in the dark.
Watch the other at home upstairs on my own 52-inch screen (yes, size DOES matter), sprawled across my big red couch and munching an array of my own snacks as loudly as I please.
And try to determine which experience is more enjoyable.

THE FILMS:

AT THE MOVIE THEATRE

Elysium – Starring Matt Damon & Jodie Foster, Written and Directed by Neill Blomkamp.

Pre-movie assessment: A big action movie with smarts and a story by the filmmaker who did the superb District 9. It promises to be what we now commonly call a real movie movie, employing all the bells and whistles of today’s technology. Also, both of its stars lean towards playing real characters involved in at least a semblance of a story. It demands leaving your crib.

AT HOME

Lovelace – Starring Amanda Seyfried & Peter Sarsgaard. Directed by Jeffrey Friedman & Rob Epstein. Written by Andy Bellin.

Pre-movie assessment: A small character film directed by two guys who made the Oscar-winning documentary The Times of Harvey Milk (among others), but this time about another aspect of that changing time in the seventies they both lived through and understand. A period movie about the star of the most famous porn film ever made that is set in my youth and co-stars Sharon Stone as the uptight mother of a porn queen who grew up in not too far away Yonkers, NY? I am soooo on my red couch for this one.

Here’s what happened:

Elysium at the Movies

I’d like to report that theatrical filmgoing is alive and well and not going anywhere but I can’t. Not that this was an awful experience and not that the movie, itself was awful. But they weren’t particularly special either.

Elysium is one of those films that should be great but isn’t. It’s better than average, which is far preferable to being bad. Technically it delivers well, the acting is all around very good, and for an original screenplay the story is fairly original. It has some depth as it explores a particularly dystopic future world of the have and have-nots, plus, in the tradition of the best of sci-fi films, it attempts to be politically relevant (its issue is immigration) even though it doesn’t entirely succeed. Okay, points for trying and bigger points for not bowing to the ridiculous and laughable in order to shoot off a few more special effects (are you listening Man of Steel?).

Looking at you Mr. Cavill

So why am I not at least a little excited? Because that’s not enough to pry people out of their pods these days. Sorry, it just isn’t. District 9 was a bizarre alien story done documentary style that came out of nowhere and seemed to be accidentally relevant – a discovery. Elysium screams big movie, teases us with a story, and then never delivers with enough clever twists and turns/depth of character or – and I hate that I’m saying this – particularly spectacular special effects. Not to mention, Man of Steel has grossed more than a third of a billion (that’s with a “B”) dollars worldwide being mediocre. In order to dissuade studios from giving us more than movie theatre mediocrity, bigger original movies have to exceed the bar of just sort of good.

As for the movie theatre experience itself, here’s what I got. No line to buy a seat and only one couple ahead of me on a line inside to scan my credit card and print out my reserved seat. The theatre lobby was huge – huge enough for groups of people to talk amongst themselves and to no one else they didn’t know.

Not too shabby.

The theatre itself was fairly clean, though not spotless. It was mostly full but not sold out, probably due to the fact that Elysium was also playing on two of its other 12 screens just a handful of yards away. Excitement in the air? Not really, especially after watching eight trailers (yes, 8!). The biggest in-theatre audience reaction trailer– Jackass presents Bad Grandpa. (Note: I didn’t laugh once). Only film even mildly interesting-looking to me: George Clooney’s Monuments Men, though I can’t say it’s a must-see.

My seat was comfortable, no one near me was on their cell phone or felt the need to talk to their neighbor and raked seating plus a polite crowd guaranteed I had a full view of the show. The sound was excellent, the screen was big and my popcorn was stale. Was it worth venturing out of the house? Eh. I don’t regret it but I wouldn’t run to do it again if I can’t get even a contact high of crowd excitement on opening night.

Final Verdict: I wasn’t expecting anything close to The Exorcist yet it wasn’t even close to the fun level I was expecting.

Final Grade: B or B minus – depending on how generous I’m feeling at the moment.

Lovelace At Home

Perhaps Boogie Nights has forever set the bar too high for films about players in the porn industry or maybe fiction is, indeed, stranger and more interesting than the truth. Whatever the case, the creation and travails of Linda Lovelace as a sort of lens into the changing social mores of the seventies is a ripe idea that never quite…blossoms? Explodes? The metaphors are endless. Still, it’s another case of okay to good but not great.

Amanda Seyfried is convincing, Peter Sarsgaard as her awful husband is sleazy enough to make you want to take three showers (and you can, because you’re at home), while James Franco (the original choice for the part of the husband) has thankfully been bumped down to a brief bit playing Hugh Heffner that doesn’t do much. Sharon Stone in a sexless black wig as the somewhat sexless bleak mother of the decade’s biggest star of sex is believable – which I suppose is some sort of achievement since Sharon Stone was a bit of a legitimate sex goddess herself two decades later. But is what we’re believing all that interesting? Not particularly, or perhaps not particularly enough.

The filmmakers capture the time period perfectly; the movie’s well made on a fairly low budget and it’s never boring. But neither is it ever exhilarating or exciting or frightening enough. You get the feeling you’re watching a cable movie not because you’re viewing it at home on television but due to the fact that its style, substance and/or storytelling doesn’t grab you in the way a theatrical feature about porn – say Boogie Nights – needs to. Lovelace is amply watchable but it never compels you – most certainly it isn’t compelling enough to view outside the comfort of your own home on the big screen. Which is a shame.

* Not my living room, but can't beat a movie night with Bette.

* Not my living room, but how could I not post a movie night with Bette?

I had some frozen yogurt early on, paused the TV to go to the bathroom once, and then concluded towards the end of the film with some green tea and a power bar. The sound and picture at home very good – not as great as the movie theatre and not as big (hey, we’re talkin’ porn here!) but still very good. Especially for a film that is not big on visual effects but merely big on visuals.

Note: It’s about as easy as it can be to watch a film VOD (video on demand). I mean, seriously – you type in your choice of film on the search function of pay movies, it comes up, you push the button and, for $7.99 you get it for two days. How much would it cost in a movie theatre? Double that price, plus add for refreshments, parking and combat pay if you’ve got noisy neighbors.

VOD oh yeah!

Final Verdict: For a movie about sex, I got more thrills, albeit of a different kind, from The Exorcist than from Lovelace. I don’t think it’s unfair to say that somehow I expected more. Though it was sort of fun to relive the seedy seventies and, the more that I think about it, the more I want to say that Sarsgaard plays a superb scuzzbucket, if you can stand it.

Final Grade: B or B minus, depending on how generous I’m feeling at the moment. Yes, that’s the same grade as the previous film and no, that’s not a typo.

Conclusion:

It’s not that the screens that are getting smaller and more private, it’s the films that are getting more undemanding, less exciting and to a whole new level of oddly generic. A lot is made about the circumference of your tablet or the quality, sight and sound of you and your venue. Yet it’s not about that at all. The only thing this experiment has taught me is what I’ve always known. In the end it’s all about what you’re watching – not how you’re watching it. In deference to Marshall McLuhan – the medium is not the message – the message still is. At least to me and a few select others who remember a time when that wasn’t the case and long for a time when it will be again. But perhaps we’re dinosaurs.

08.04.13

by notesfromachair

The Big O

…Everybody is talented, original and has something important to say.

– Brenda Ueland, 1938, If You Want to Write

You can choose to be original or you can choose to take the easy road and be derivative. If this sounds like a value judgment – it is. Like many entertainment fans, I’ve grown weary of creative laziness, especially in the movie business. I’m even tired of reading about it. Certainly, I’m tired of writing about it. So for at least a single moment I hesitated before deciding it’s a subject that once again needs addressing since the subject is, by definition, not even vaguely original.

But last weekend I went to see a wonderfully original new film called The Spectacular Now at one of the scheduled weekend screenings at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Normally these Sunday night screenings are fairly crowded yet, sadly, this one was less than half-filled. Which is too bad. Because after attending about 10 of these free movie nights this summer, which often feature the top creative people from the film in a short talk back afterwards to the top creative professionals in Hollywood (well, they must be the top- they’re the ones who vote for the Oscars, gosh darn it!), this one was by far the best.

Truly Spectacular

The reason this film was so much better than anything else you will see this summer is because it is one of the few movies made by people for no other reason than passion for a script and a story. The money wasn’t particularly great, there is no chance for a franchise, a television spinoff, or even a videogame, AND the process of getting this project off the ground took five years – much of it spent with its creators seeing little hope of ever making it to that prestigious Sunday night film series.

Still, they persevered. It sort of gives you hope. And if it doesn’t, it should.

Nothing about the subject matter of this film is new. It’s a coming-of-age story about what happens when the funny, fast-talking charmer in high school wakes up after a drunk night on the lawn of the fresh-faced, smart, high school good girl who would be wrongly mistaken as unhip by TMZ. Their relationship is not an offshoot of what happens post detention in a Breakfast Club type world but it could be seen that way from the trailer. It is also not a rip-off of a great character arc on beloved television shows like Friday Night Lights or Dawson’s Creek but no doubt some people will be determined to view it that regard.

This is a movie that instead unfolds solely on its own terms and in its own unique way. The script was adapted by the writers of 500 Days of Summer, Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber, from a novel written by Tim Tharp that was nominated for the National Book Award. It is worth noting that 500 Days was an original script and the first movie produced by these writers, and the novel was the first breakout hit for the novelist, who teaches college and lives in Oklahoma. Neither of them are, as they say, veterans capable of snapping their fingers and getting magic reviews and attention for their work.

In fact, the script languished for three years despite getting excellent buzz from Hollywood. It was only when the wonderful young actress from The Descendants, Shailene Woodley, who plays the female lead, read it and asked her representatives why she couldn’t make THAT kind of film after the former picture came out, that anyone became interested again. Several directors were also attached during that time and fell out leaving it essentially rudderless. That is until its tireless producer decided to approach a young director who had just done a similarly themed smaller film that had gained some positive response from other people in the creative community but was by no means any kind of financial hit. Like everyone else before him, he read it and loved the story, though he was initially hesitant to do so when someone at his production company pitched him the story as a one-liner. Luckily, he was not yet a jaded enough director who thought he knew better than the people who worked with him and read the script anyway. And was immediately convinced. As was the producer after they met over beers and the director presented a 50-page book of how he proposed to shoot this film. (Take Note: The producer is Tom McNulty and the director is James Ponsoldt).

Team Perserverance: From left, Ms. Woodley, actor Miles Teller, screenwriter MIchael H. Weber, Director James Ponsoldt, screenwriter Scott Neustadter, producer Tom McNulty and producer Michelle Krumm.

The Spectacular Now is not likely to go down as one of the top 10 great movies in the annals of film history but it’s a damn good one. It’s human and it connects to its audience in a deceptively simple way that is only achievable by people who are trying to connect for real. Unfortunately, that used to be more the norm in the industry than it is today.

Too often we all do creative work for the wrong reasons and once you’ve been in the business for a while you see how it happens. You need to make a living, you want to keep working, you’re building a brand, you want something (anything) to take your mind off of your lousy life, you’re accepting the best of what’s out there, you need a new kitchen, you’re bored or you simply want to feed your family. All are perfectly valid reasons but all together they don’t come close to the real reason most people get into the business – to express themselves in their own original way.

Every week the entertainment industry serves up a slew of both derivative and original offerings. Yes – EVERY week. They are not often the most promoted TV programs, or films, or live presentations, or online entertainment. But they are there. This even includes announcements of new projects or talent, and even promotions in the executive suites. If you look closely you can take your pick. There is quite a lot of good or bad, depending on whatever floats your boat.

This week had a host of choices. There was NBC’s big bold announcement that is was embarking on a huge four hour television remake of the classic film Rosemary’s Baby – one of the only films I’ve managed to show to almost every screenwriting class I’ve ever taught that gets 99% positive reaction. What is the motivation to remake a classic film that takes place in NY in the sixties and is, for the most part, really about the 60s, and reset it in…Paris? Is it about originality? Trying to build on something that could now be original because they didn’t get it right the first time? I don’t think so. I SO don’t think so.

A force of nature

Joke all you want about Sharknado, but the filmmakers are not laughing. The ratings numbers of this recent camp classic have grown from 1.4 to 1.9 million viewers and who knows what the third showing will be next week – or the grosses for the midnight screenings that are now set at movie theaters across the country. See, original doesn’t have to be high art. There’s nothing wrong with giving people a good time when you decide that’s what you’re doing and put your talent into doing it the best way you can. The writer of Sharknado, a man with the distinctive name of Thunder Levin, knew he wanted to make an over the top sci-fi film and did it. It doesn’t matter that’s it’s known for being campy and silly if that was its original intention all along. What isn’t admirable is just throwing something together with not an original thought in your head and hoping against hope of getting by while you’re boring us and making money in the process.

A class act

This week the Motion Picture Academy announced it had hired its first African American president – a terrific woman named Cheryl Boone Isaacs. She’s a marketing executive who started in the business in the late seventies and I had the pleasure of working with her a bit early in my career. She was smart, talented and classy – which is more than you can say for most Hollywood executives who’ve had a career as long as she has. She also had a terrific brother who was one of the first male African American executives in Hollywood. His name was Ashley Boone and he was the head of marketing at Twentieth Century and responsible for marketing Star Wars. He later went on to market Chariots of Fire to a surprising best picture Academy award. He was also, like his sister, smart, talented and classy. And, like his sister, an original because unlike a lot of his cohorts he always went about his work in a respectful yet smartly dedicated manner. You’d be surprised how rare that is still and how original it seemed when he did it back in the late 70s and early 80s.

When you go down an original road you have the ability to not be riding the derivative wave of an established trend for whatever scraps you can keep as they fall off. You have the potential to be a trend setter – helping to create something that people want to follow. That thing can be a product, an art form, or you or perhaps some combination of all three. Which is probably why you wanted to do it in the first place – if at one time you ever liked what you were doing.

Too often it’s too easy to go with the flow and not go with your gut. I’ve done it. We all have. Suggestion to not keep doing it: Go see The Spectacular Now and think about why a small movie that shouldn’t work at all seems to work on almost every level. It might then be wise for all of us to consider not how we can imitate it but what are the simple stories of our own that we want to bring to light in the world. That’s a thought not only for writers but everyone. If you don’t believe me read Brenda Ueland’s seminal book about Art, Independence and Spirit mentioned above. She offered many of the same thoughts and more almost 80 years ago. But it’s still worth reading because in addition to that it’s all done in her own original way.

notes from a chair

Monthly Archives: August 2013

An Experiment

The Big O