Hollywood Round-up, 8/12

25 thoughts on “Hollywood Round-up, 8/12”

1. Another inane, obnoxious Hollywood movie where they go after the Europeans who founded America … if these lefty filmmakers are so in love with the Native American culture that was here before the Europeans came, why don’t they go and live with them today under those exact same conditions?

   What exactly is the purpose of films like this, except to inspire hatred? There’s nothing that can be done to “undo” the European settling of America (and probably it’s a bunch of Americans of European descent who made this film anyway), so what exactly is the objective of a film like this?

   1. The idea here is to associate the founding of America with a crime.

2. Pingback: Hollywood News
3. Pingback: Tweets that mention Hollywood Round-up, 8/12 » LFM: Libertas Film Magazine -- Topsy.com

4. Re: “Actor James Caan tells Fox News that he’s an “ultra conservative” – which is ironic, given that Caan is currently in the news because he’s starring in a movie that more-or-less glamorizes the porn industry. Just sayin’.”

   This is just my opinion but I think it’s a mistake to assume that just because an actor is conservative, that every movie they make or character they play will also be conservative. They’re actors – some just need to work. 🙂

   1. Thanks for the comment, Scott. I would say, however, that Caan has made a ton of money – he even owns his own internet distribution platform – so he’s able to pick and choose roles.

      Personally, I don’t really care what these guys do with their time. I would just prefer that if they are, indeed, “ultra conservatives,” that they maybe put some of that into their films – because I rarely see that.

5. Another take on the Nolan obssession: could just be his writing reveals his worst fears. The first two novels I’ve written involve the main character’s children dying. I wrote a short story where the entire premise is a father having to tell his children that their mother died in a car accident. Those are the things I fear more than anything else, the undercurrent being the fear of being alone. Could very well be that Nolan fears the same things. You write what you know, sure, but more than that, I write what I fear. Maybe he does too.

   1. Thanks for your comment, Brian. You’re more forgiving than I am. I can’t know what’s going on with Nolan personally – he himself may not even know – but I can react to what I see in his films … which is women constantly being killed off. And since films invariably deal with both fears and fantasies, it should really give people pause that this stuff recurs in his work.

6. I find the whole Christopher Nolan thing creepy. Whether it’s facing his darkest fears or facing his fantasies or whatever, the fact is this is what he keeps putting in his films. And as a woman, I find it very suspicious and off-putting. Conservatives get angry when they’re constantly abused on-screen, killed off in brutal ways, etc. – but women aren’t allowed to be suspicious when a major filmmaker like Nolan in film after film is having the female love interest be already dead or killed off horribly during the film?? If a major woman filmmaker did this in film after film, all the men would be up in arms about it and say that she hates men, etc. So why can’t we ask some questions about Nolan and his motivations here? Why is he off limits for questioning?

   1. I agree completely. When people like Nolan make their films for hundreds of millions of dollars and put them out on thousands of screens, we all have the right to examine his films – indeed anyone’s films – and question what is in them. We continually examine the ideological content of Hollywood movies when it comes to detecting liberal or conservative themes, so I don’t see why the issue of how women are treated in movies is off-limits all of a sudden because it’s Christopher Nolan’s films now being examined. Plenty of people have problems with his films, and just because they make a lot of money doesn’t mean that everything in them is great. “Avatar” made a lot of money too – does that mean then that everything in the film should be supported?

7. “Piranha 3D’s Kelly Brook has a new interview out today in which she reveals that Piranha 3D’s French director Alexandre Aja discovered her in an LA restaurant … while she was eating fish and chips.

   The fish get their revenge on August 20th.”

   Very funny, Jason, but I have to ask what your excitement is about this film? Is it just the babes, or is there some other buzz on this?

   1. “Just” the babes” “Just”? You should visit the film’s website. It looks like a lot of fun. Great trailer, good cast.

8. That would be great if Stallone made a film going after Bin Laden. It’s about time. Since no-one else in Hollywood will even touch this material, maybe he can pull it off.

   1. He may be the only person left who would even try such a project.

9. Anyone know why they cast this guy as the lead in the “Mad Max” reboot? I’m confused.

   And it’s funny they have all these second generation Hollywood people in the movie … Zoe Kravitz and now Riley Keough (but I guess she’s third generation). Btw, it’s uncanny how much like her grandpa Keough looks … not so much in this picture but in some others I’ve seen.

10. I hope they don’t mess up “John Carter of Mars.” This is one sci-fi classic that shouldn’t get the usual Hollywood dumb-ass treatment.

    1. I strongly agree.
       ERB’s John Carter of Mars books has been a favorite of mine since I was a kid.
       Unfortunately I don’t lend much hope when after what they’ve done to other classics of adventure/fantasy/sci-fi.

11. A couple of Christopher Nolan’s films also feature a very outre villain. And several of them deal centrally with plays on perception. Following from the reasoning of Apuzzo and Murty above, I see only one conclusion we can fairly reach: Nolan is secretly a flamboyant villain who is using his films to play with his audience’s perceptions of reality. One day we will rise up and do his bidding. Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn.

    Alternatively, we could: admit that the death (often tragic and/or gruesome) of a friend or loved one is a time-honored plot device in film; note that Nolan’s heroes are generally male, which means that their most important loved one is likely to be female; and let it go at that.

    Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m all for examining films to “question what is in them,” as Murty suggests. But her comment that “just because [Nolan’s films] make a lot of money doesn’t mean that everything in them is great” is a beautiful example of a straw-man argument — I’m unaware of any serious Nolan proponent who takes that tack. And Apuzzo’s comments that “film invariably deal with both fears and fantasies,” and the implication that Nolan is a misogynist…that’s unreal. Does Joel Surnow secretly harbor fantasies of beating the crap out of people, just because he ran a show where that happened a lot? This argument also chooses to skip right by the possibility (even as it acknowledges it) that losing his love might be one of Nolan’s greatest fears, and his films are attempts to deal with that fear. Neither of those arguments necessarily seems plausible to me based on the evidence at hand, but there’s no question which one is more charitable.

    If you don’t like Nolan’s films, that’s okay. It’s a free country, we all have different tastes, and no one is forcing you to like them. But it would be better to say “I don’t like Nolan’s films” and leave it at that, instead of launching personal-attacks-as-critiques that are not all that different, in the balance, from the intellectually dishonest comments levied by progressives every day about Tea Partiers being racist.

    1. ‘Mr. Rational,’ all of that verbiage proves precisely nothing. You’re playing cheap, sophistic games and dancing around the issue. You’re still left with the fact that women are constantly being killed off in Nolan’s films – and whereas you take a more benign interpretation toward that, I don’t. It’s that simple. What’s more, I’m not hiding anything here because I have said that I don’t like Nolan’s films – quite often, actually. And the violence depicted toward women in his films is part of the reason for that. How in hell is that a ‘personal’ attack? I’m merely commenting on what happens in his films.

       1. You’re straw-manning me, Mr. Apuzzo. If you don’t like Nolan’s films — in part or in whole — because you feel there is too much violence directed against women, fine. To return to my earlier example, which I noticed you left completely alone, I know a few people who don’t like “24” because they feel it excuses torture. But none of those people, to the best of my knowledge, has implied that Joel Surnow harbors secret fantasies of torturing people.

          Disliking an artist’s output for any reason at all related to the art itself is a criticism of the work…which is your job, after all, and I don’t fault you for doing it even though I disagree with you. Going on to attribute some negative characteristic to the artist based on characteristics of his/her art, when (as far as I am aware) you have precisely nothing else on which to base your claim, is a personal attack — and yes, you HAVE done that. From what little of your film criticism I’ve read, I think you’re a very bright guy. You should be able to see the distinction I’m drawing here.

          1. Mr. R, from everything I can tell Christopher Nolan is a sedate, urbane and intelligent individual. I suspect that any interactions I would ever have with him would be of an entirely pleasant and civilized nature. I happen to think, however, that artists bear responsibility for the imagery they put on the screen – and I don’t like the violence against women that he repeatedly puts in his films. Many other people don’t like it either – and it leads us inevitably to ask questions about the man himself, and where all this volatile imagery might be coming from. So perhaps what I’m saying here is that you’re making a distinction without much of a difference. You’re erecting a firewall between the man and his films that may or may not hold. Neither of us really knows. All we have are the films to judge, and a lot of dead female characters – including a noteworthy sequence in The Dark Knight when the ‘hero’ of the film deliberately chooses a woman’s death in order to save a politician’s life – arguably one of the least chivalric moments in recent cinema.

             So the firewall you’re erecting between Nolan and his films may hold, or may not over time. I’ll give you an example. When “The Passion” came out a lot of critics attacked the film as being anti-Semitic. At the time I personally thought that charge was debatable. Over the years, however, we’ve unfortunately come to know a lot more about Gibson – and inevitably one begins to look at the film and its depiction of the Jewish authorities in a different light. I certainly look at the film much differently now – one can’t help but do so.

             Let me answer your question on the torture issue in “24,” because it’s a good question. Truthfully I think the show did push it on some occasions; in some instances into outright sadism. But Joel was hardly the only person responsible for every single plot or storyline; there were a lot of writers on that show over the years, with a lot of different agendas.

             1. I agree with you, without reservation, that artists bear at least some share of the responsibility for what they put on the screen. As Homer Bannon put it in “Hud,” “Little by little, the look of the country changes because of the men we admire.” And we do take a lot of our life lessons, rightly or wrongly, from our entertainment and our entertainers. Also, I like the way you put what I’m trying to do — “erecting a firewall.” Metaphorically, that’s exactly what I’m trying to do.

                It’s interesting to me that you bring up “The Dark Knight,” because I think it’s the film that might best bolster your case from your point of view. I do disagree…not about your “least chivalric” description, which is certainly apt, but about the import of the moment. It’s not simply a choice between a woman and a politician. It’s a choice between the life of Rachel Dawes, Bruce Wayne’s love, and the life of the city that he as Batman has sworn to protect. The film does state a number of times that Harvey Dent is the last real hope to clean up the city, and whether that’s true or not, it’s quite clear that Wayne believes it. So his choice, as he perceives it, is between his love and his duty. That Dawes is female is, I think, immaterial. If Wayne has the character attributed to him by the movie, he would have chosen Dent over anyone, because he would have judged the salvation of Gotham as more important than the life of any one person…even the person he cared about most in the world.

                Where we differ, I think, is not in the most basic observation we would make — that an artist necessarily puts a great deal of him/herself into his/her work. It’s just that you seem more willing to apply that observation to specific things about the art in question. “X created Y…therefore, we must wonder whether this feature of Y comes from X.” I’m not as willing to make that leap, for two reasons. First, I think it’s potentially unfair to the artists, who must also put in their films a great deal with which they disagree in order to have the conflicts that are necessary to narrative cinema. Even if a motif recurs, I just don’t think that’s good evidence for an implication of personal belief. Second, I think it’s quite definitely unfair to the art, which should be allowed to stand apart from its creator. Even with the recent revelations about Mel Gibson and his CONSIDERABLE number of issues, for example, I still don’t believe “The Passion” is anti-Semitic, though I understand and agree with your point that many people have been forced to view the film differently now. Gibson can be anti-Semitic without his art being tainted. The taint is certainly much more likely, given the subject matter, and yet I can’t find it in “The Passion.”

                In any case, I’ll let this stand as my last response. I don’t wish to give the impression I’m trolling — I had concerns, I aired them, I doubt we’ll agree on the issue at hand even though we appear to agree on the underlying issues, and so that should be an end to it. I appreciate your willingness to let me air my views on your site, and I very much appreciate your willingness to engage in a bit of dialogue. The next time I’m back — and it will be soon — I’ll try and respond where I agree with you. 🙂

                1. Mr. R, let me return the compliment: I enjoy your probing analysis very much, and can tell that you’re a smart guy. Please do continue to return here. Disagreements are always a bit more fun, anyway, and sharpen ideas, so don’t worry – I love the debate.

                   And let me say something that I probably should have set at the outset, which is that it’s by no means obvious to me that Nolan is even aware of all these issues bubbling beneath the surface of his films. I credit him with being a an astute filmmaker; but not knowing him personally, it’s difficult to judge beyond that how programmatic he is in terms of developing these themes from film to film. What an artist ‘intends’ is not always the point; things sometimes emerge unexpectedly in the artistic process.

                   Beyond that, I’ll make just a few quick points and then we’ll both move on:

                   • I’m reminded here of what they used to say about Beethoven, which is that he was something of a jerk in his personal life … while also being the greatest composer (outside of Bach) who ever lived. It’s perfectly true: artists and their art should be judged separately. [Another example: I’m much more a fan of Frank Capra the man than I am of John Ford. But I like Ford’s films better.] But occasionally we learn something about the one through the other.
                   • Your characterization of the themes at stake in that sequence of The Dark Knight is correct. Yes, Batman is making a decision betweeen his love (Dawes) and the politician (Dent) who is ostensibly the savior of Gotham City, etc. What’s a bit perverse, in my opinion, is the underlying assumption that for the political order represented by Dent to survive, a woman must be sacrificed. If that’s the case, in my opinion, that order isn’t worth supporting. I would also say that Nolan knew what he was doing here: namely, that he was reversing the classic chivalric code of the hero, who always saves the woman first. In fact, the ‘surprise’ conclusion of the sequence is only possible due to Nolan having reversed the audience’s – not to mention Dawes’ – expectations in this regard.

                   Keep coming back to our site. You’re very welcome here.

12. I think the problem with both of your interesting commentaries on The Dark Knight (which I loved) is that for some reason you’re both misunderstanding Wayne’s choice. He _doesn’t_ choose to save Dent – that is (arguably) what he should have done. He chooses to save Rachel. This is quite explicit in the movie – when Gordon asks him “Which one are you going after?” he yells back “Rachel!” He arrives at the place where Dent is being held, that’s true. But there’s a simple explanation for that (it’s even on the IMDB trivia page). The Joker (of course) lied about which one was being held where, precisely to make Batman try to save the “wrong” one. The limit Wayne reached in the movie is precisely that he’s _not_ willing to sacrifice Rachel in order to save Gotham – and then he ends up doing it anyways.

    1. Well, that does put a wrench in things, doesn’t it! I wasn’t aware of that … but now I have a different complaint, re: Nolan, which is the hash he makes of his plotlines.

Comments are closed.