(no subject)
Jul. 22nd, 2006 03:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWeekend is quiet so far with intermittent spats of rain. Did not make it to the grocery store and back without a downpour, but did not mind so much...2006 has been a wet year. I may be wrong about this, but I think mother nature is pissed off with us, not that we haven't given her just cause.
Ran into landlord, whose cable is also out - so somewhat of a relief that it is not just me. Told landlord that I'd been laid off, but not to worry, had severance package and things in the works. Decided to do so, since he'll see me wandering about more in August.
Entertained self with watching Office Space...a quaint comedy about working in a soulless environment and getting downsized - very appropriate. Wish there were more women in it. But it's a Mike Judge film - so what can one expect. Found it hilarous in places, perhaps because I identified.
The critiques of M. Night Shalaman's new film "Lady in the Water" amuse me a bit but do not surprise me, they feel almost pre-ordained. Let me explain why.
A few weeks ago, I read a book excerpt in Entertainment Weekly from a soon to be published non-fiction piece about M. Night Shyamalan's career. The books is called The Man Who Heard Voices or How M. Night Shyamalan risked his career on a fairy tale by Michael Bamberger.
The excerpt describes Disney's rejection of Night's script and it's eventual purchase by another studio. Disney was the producer of all of Night's previous films and had first dibs on future ones. Night also had a long-standing working relationship with Disney. In fact Nina Jacobson, president of Disney, whose tastes dictate what kinds of movies Disney makes, had with Night on Sixth Sense and got Night's career rolling.
The first people to read the script - which was shipped to them in utmost secrecy on a Sunday, were Nina Jacobson (Disney president) and Dick Cook (chairman of the motion picture group). Nina read the sixth draft of the script for Lady in The Water, and prior to this script, enjoyed Night's work - all of the four previous works were, according to the writer, well crafted, unique, and interesting. "They didn't have any big plot holes." "The story was told through the dialogue, in what was said, and often in what was not said. Reading Night's scripts was like reading a play." So she had confidence this one, whatever it was, would not be a mess.
The introductory portions were more or less fine, although she wasn't sure a stutterer as a lead would work for an audience. What bugged her were:
1. There was a scary looking creature (too scarey for Disney)
2. 3 characters were smokers and logged years on bongs (also not Disney)
3. A film critic in the movie gets attacked.
4.Night wants to play a huge role in the film himself and it's the role of a stymied writer
5. There's an enormous Korean girl who gives the exposition and she does it with words not action
Her biggest problem though? She did not understand the myth. She calls her boss and says, "I don't get it." Neither does he.
So they decide to do Night a favor and arrange a dinner meeting in a restaurant, where they confront him on the script and attempt to get him to change a few things.
Here's what Nina says...
"You said it was funny; I didn't laugh...You're going to let a critic get attacked? They'll kill you for that...You're part's too big, you'll get killed again...You've got a writer who wants to change the world but doesn't, but somebody reads the writer and does? Don't get it...What's with the names? Scrunt? Narf? Tartutic? Not working...What's with all these rules? Don't get it...Lin Lao Chin - and good luck finding a six-foot Korean girl - is going to explain all these rules and all these words. Not buying it. Not getting it. Not working."
After the dinner, Dick Cook takes Nigha aside and says they'll give him 60 million to prove them wrong. But Night refuses and takes his film elsewhere, he wants someone who will support him. The movie gets picked up by Warner Bros, whose entertainment president quickly agreed to make the film.
End of story, right? Wrong.
Movie opens. The reviews come out...and I've admittedly only read two so far, on in EW and an excerpt reprinted on a friend's journal, so far they are exactly, almost word for word, what Nina Jacobson states above. Which oddly makes me want to see the film. Because Nina's diatribe made me uncomfortable. The fact that she read the critics as well as she did, is probably why she is president at Disney. It is also why I stopped caring what critics said about the movies I chose to watch. Half of the time I love films they hate and vice versa. Film criticism like all criticism is really no more or less than someone's opinion. They are merely recommending or in the case of a negative review - recommending against - the viewing or reading or listening of a work. I liked this, so see it. I hated it, avoid it. Whether you do it or not, has a heck of lot to do with how often your tastes coincide. One way or another your still taking a risk.
The criticisms and excerpt remind me of something else - an off-hand quote stated by Sidney Pollack several years back at a Q&A that I attended in college. Sydney Pollack was the producer of Tootsie and several other popular films in the 80's. He stated: "You are only as good as the last film you made. It does not matter that I did Tootsie, what matters is what I'm delivering today. People have short attention spans and even shorter memories in the entertainment business, remember that."
Not just in the entertainment business.
Ran into landlord, whose cable is also out - so somewhat of a relief that it is not just me. Told landlord that I'd been laid off, but not to worry, had severance package and things in the works. Decided to do so, since he'll see me wandering about more in August.
Entertained self with watching Office Space...a quaint comedy about working in a soulless environment and getting downsized - very appropriate. Wish there were more women in it. But it's a Mike Judge film - so what can one expect. Found it hilarous in places, perhaps because I identified.
The critiques of M. Night Shalaman's new film "Lady in the Water" amuse me a bit but do not surprise me, they feel almost pre-ordained. Let me explain why.
A few weeks ago, I read a book excerpt in Entertainment Weekly from a soon to be published non-fiction piece about M. Night Shyamalan's career. The books is called The Man Who Heard Voices or How M. Night Shyamalan risked his career on a fairy tale by Michael Bamberger.
The excerpt describes Disney's rejection of Night's script and it's eventual purchase by another studio. Disney was the producer of all of Night's previous films and had first dibs on future ones. Night also had a long-standing working relationship with Disney. In fact Nina Jacobson, president of Disney, whose tastes dictate what kinds of movies Disney makes, had with Night on Sixth Sense and got Night's career rolling.
The first people to read the script - which was shipped to them in utmost secrecy on a Sunday, were Nina Jacobson (Disney president) and Dick Cook (chairman of the motion picture group). Nina read the sixth draft of the script for Lady in The Water, and prior to this script, enjoyed Night's work - all of the four previous works were, according to the writer, well crafted, unique, and interesting. "They didn't have any big plot holes." "The story was told through the dialogue, in what was said, and often in what was not said. Reading Night's scripts was like reading a play." So she had confidence this one, whatever it was, would not be a mess.
The introductory portions were more or less fine, although she wasn't sure a stutterer as a lead would work for an audience. What bugged her were:
1. There was a scary looking creature (too scarey for Disney)
2. 3 characters were smokers and logged years on bongs (also not Disney)
3. A film critic in the movie gets attacked.
4.Night wants to play a huge role in the film himself and it's the role of a stymied writer
5. There's an enormous Korean girl who gives the exposition and she does it with words not action
Her biggest problem though? She did not understand the myth. She calls her boss and says, "I don't get it." Neither does he.
So they decide to do Night a favor and arrange a dinner meeting in a restaurant, where they confront him on the script and attempt to get him to change a few things.
Here's what Nina says...
"You said it was funny; I didn't laugh...You're going to let a critic get attacked? They'll kill you for that...You're part's too big, you'll get killed again...You've got a writer who wants to change the world but doesn't, but somebody reads the writer and does? Don't get it...What's with the names? Scrunt? Narf? Tartutic? Not working...What's with all these rules? Don't get it...Lin Lao Chin - and good luck finding a six-foot Korean girl - is going to explain all these rules and all these words. Not buying it. Not getting it. Not working."
After the dinner, Dick Cook takes Nigha aside and says they'll give him 60 million to prove them wrong. But Night refuses and takes his film elsewhere, he wants someone who will support him. The movie gets picked up by Warner Bros, whose entertainment president quickly agreed to make the film.
End of story, right? Wrong.
Movie opens. The reviews come out...and I've admittedly only read two so far, on in EW and an excerpt reprinted on a friend's journal, so far they are exactly, almost word for word, what Nina Jacobson states above. Which oddly makes me want to see the film. Because Nina's diatribe made me uncomfortable. The fact that she read the critics as well as she did, is probably why she is president at Disney. It is also why I stopped caring what critics said about the movies I chose to watch. Half of the time I love films they hate and vice versa. Film criticism like all criticism is really no more or less than someone's opinion. They are merely recommending or in the case of a negative review - recommending against - the viewing or reading or listening of a work. I liked this, so see it. I hated it, avoid it. Whether you do it or not, has a heck of lot to do with how often your tastes coincide. One way or another your still taking a risk.
The criticisms and excerpt remind me of something else - an off-hand quote stated by Sidney Pollack several years back at a Q&A that I attended in college. Sydney Pollack was the producer of Tootsie and several other popular films in the 80's. He stated: "You are only as good as the last film you made. It does not matter that I did Tootsie, what matters is what I'm delivering today. People have short attention spans and even shorter memories in the entertainment business, remember that."
Not just in the entertainment business.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 01:08 pm (UTC)And critics are actually quite powerful. They can and often do propell the success of a piece of work. Some films, books, tv shows are like tefelon, impervious to criticism. Pirates of the Caribbean, Da Vinci Code, and Star Wars are examples. Although, in each case, there were critics who enjoyed each of those. So perhaps not so impervious.
Critics can destroy a movie - if they hate it and it is not a well known commodity, they can also cause it to do very well if they love it and it is not a well-known commodity. Southland Tales - which is a small film and does not have the serious studio backing behind it - is an example of a film that's distribution may have been irreparably damaged by negative criticism from Cannes. So they do have an influence.
TV - same deal, Buffy got picked up and continued to stay on the air even with lacklustre ratings, partly because it was a critical darling - same deal with Veronica Mars, Hill Street Blues, and St. Elsewhere - which all struggled in the ratings, but were applauded by the critics and gave the networks airing them a feeling of being artistically awarded by the critics praise. But, if the audience loves it and the critics hate it - the network will go with the audience the critics be damned. Examples include quite a few situation comedies...such as Two and a Half Men, and that show that used to star Randy Quaid. Critics hated both.
Agree with your last statement. Not sure it is a hot idea for a writer who is not an actor to cast himself in his own film, which is already arguably self-referential. Whedon tried to do the same thing in the Firefly series - cast himself as Badger, but the network nixed it.
Lots of reasons for this - one being the whole union issue. Granted, directors like Costner, and Clint Eastwood, and Mel Gibson and Robert Redford have cast themselves in their films - but often because they couldn't find someone else to do it or they needed their name as the lead to get it made. They proved themselves as actors first. And Hollywood is an actor/director town not a writer's town. It respects the box-office name over the one listed in the credits. Most people have no clue who wrote say Pirates or Devil Wears Prada but they know Johnny Depp and Meryl Streep by name. Shylaman is one of the few that people know by name - but again as a director not as an actor. That's how they think of him. It's easier for a movie goer to see an actor become director (that happens constantly in tv and film) but not the other way around. I think the reason for this may be that in the past the directors who tried their hand at acting, Sydney Pollack, Croenberg, Lynch, Waters...weren't that good. While actors who tried their hand at directing won academy awards. Making acting look like the harder sport. It's not, it's just the camera, it don't love everyone.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 01:09 pm (UTC)