Spontaneous Musings

Co-workers saw Batman vs. Superman over the weekend, and the consensus appeared to be, it's not a bad film, and really doesn't have that much action. Most of the action scenes, what little there is, are at the end. They found it a bit slow actually, and their attention wandered. But overall, worth seeing in a movie theater for the cinematography, just maybe not for $16 in IMAX.

And I found this review or rather commentary interesting...mainly in what it states about critical reviews in general and specifically in regards to superhero films.

Batman V Superman is rocking a Fresh 72% with audiences at Rotten Tomatoes, and a 7.4/10 with audiences at Metacritic. It’s not that audiences are “right” and critics are “wrong” here, but it does feel like the critical consensus is a bit off the mark this time around. I think that sometimes movies become fair game, or that some sort of critical mob mentality sets in, and a perfectly decent film is piled on a little too harshly. (If I hadn’t looked ahead of time I would have guessed Batman v. Superman would have scored upper 60′s to lower 70′s on Rotten Tomatoes. No masterpiece, but a good superhero movie regardless.)

And also from Forbes...this article How Even the Worst Dawn of Justice Reviews Helped Rather Than Hurt..

One of the narratives coming out of this weekend’s blockbuster Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice opening was that it “defied the critics” or that “critics don’t matter.” Well, as always with these sorts of things, it’s a little more complicated than that. Yes, the film got a stunningly low 29% on Rotten Tomatoes, and the average score was 5/10 (which is closer to mixed-negative as opposed to outright dismissal). And yes, the film made (as of this writing) $170.1 million domestic and $424.1m worldwide despite the fact that 7.1/10 critics on that popular aggregation website disliked the picture.

You might think that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was something of a critic-proof picture, but you’re only half-right. The majority of those critics confirmed that, be it good or bad, viewers of said picture would get their money’s worth in a few key areas. It wasn’t so much that audiences ignored the critics (although some surely did), but rather that the negative reviews offered up confirmation of several core elements that were part of the film’s marketing campaign.

They confirmed that Batman and Superman do beat the heck out of each other. They confirmed that the film is full of “gotta see this in IMAX” spectacle and cinematic grandeur. They argued that Ben Affleck made a compelling Batman. They mostly were thrilled to see Wonder Woman in her late-in-the-game action cameo. The reviews were terrible to be sure, but they acknowledged that the film provided value regarding most of the core elements that a viewer might want out of the film.

Had those notices been along the lines of “The movie is boring, Batman and Superman don’t fight, visually bland and/or lit with a flashlight, Wonder Woman is lame, Affleck is a terrible Batman, and don’t take the kids,” I would argue the numbers would have been a lot lower. Okay, that last one applies, but that wasn’t a deal-breaker. If you’re a regular moviegoer already on the cusp of buying a ticket, even those poor reviews assured you that you’d, at least, get the stuff you wanted to get in a movie called Batman v Superman.

I have to agree...the reviews, if anything, have made me more curious about the film than less so.
Also, Superman and Batman have been done to death -- the only thing left to do with either is have them meet up. There really is nothing else you can say about them that hasn't been already said, ad naseum. Here's a brief list of all of the Superman/Batman movies and television series that I can remember:

Superman - I-IV (starring Christopher Reeves. Just watch I-III.)
Tim Burton's Batman films (I-II)
Joel Schumaker's Batman (skip - it is the worst Batman film ever made, actually I think it may be amongst the worst films I've seen. It bombed.)
Chris Nolan's Batman series (Batman Begins, Dark Knight, Dark Knight Rises)
Batman Beyond (cartoon series - quite good)
Superman (cartoon series)
1950s Superman films
Lois & Clark: the New Adventures of Superman
Smallville (Superman as a teen)
Gotham (Batman as a kid)
Batman - 1960s television series starring Adam West -- notable for the slogan "Same Bat Time, Same Bat Channel" (if you were a kid in the 1970s, you probably saw it in reruns.)
Frank Miller's Animated Dark Knight Returns - films based on his books
Justice League (cartoon)
Superman : Doomesday - animated cartoon (Lex Luthor is voiced by James Marsters, so bonus) - this is actually really good by the way, animation wise and story-wise. Does the Death of Superman story arc justice.

There's probably more. Zombies, Vampires, Batman, and Superman seem to have been done a lot.

That said? I admittedly have a weakness for the character of Batman. He fascinates me. Wounded fictional male characters fascinate me. Not in reality, just in fiction. Also have a weakness for superhero flicks. Always have. Somewhat burned out now, though. (Gee, I wonder why. It's not like we don't have a superhero flick every two or three months, plus five or six television series focused on them, or anything.)

I'm admittedly tempted to go this coming weekend, but alas, already have plans to see the far lighter and witter, live musical revival of The Robber Bridegroom at the Roundabout Theater on Saturday. I love live theater. Plus the audiences are better behaved than movie theater audiences for some reason.
The Robber Bridegroom also got much better reviews than Batman vs. Superman, so there's that. And I think Stephan Pascale is more attractive than Henry Caville (who for some reason doesn't do anything for me, I know I'm in the minority on that point) or Ben Affleck. He plays the Robber Bridegroom and has a great singing voice.

The Robber Bridegroom is a rarely seen musical adaptation of an Eudora Welty novella of the same name...based in turn on a folk legend. It's part Tall Tale and part American Fairy Tale. Has a live blue-grass band.

The Roundabout Theater Company, in association with commercial producer Daryl Roth (“It Shoulda Been You”), will produce the 1970s musical, which bowed on Broadway in 1975. Alfred Uhry (“Driving Miss Daisy”) wrote the book and lyrics for the bluegrass-infused music by Robert Waldman.

Based on the 1942 novella by Eudora Welty, “Robber Bridegroom” centers on a Robin Hood-like bandit (Pasquale) who falls for the daughter of a rich plantation owner. The original Broadway production starred Kevin Kline and Patti LuPone in the lead roles.

The story intrigues me, as does the music. Besides my fetish for superheros, I have a fetish for musicals. Except for Opera...which irritates and bores me. The appeal of Opera, for some reason or other, remains lost on me. (I know I'm in the minority on that score as well. But there it is.)

First off, I don't put much store by Oscar nominations or winners. It's just a bit of fun. Stopped taking the whole thing seriously when that unmemorable bore-fest of a bio-pic Ghandi won. Titantic merely sealed the deal. The problem with the Oscars is you know that the people who do this for a living don't watch that many movies. Any more than the people who create tv shows watch many tv shows. Or people who do theater, necessarily see that many plays. Seriously - they don't have the time, and the free time they do have? Not spent on work-related things. Also, hello, biased, their friends and family members are up for these awards. The Oscars is more of a popularity contest than an actual awards show. The only awards that matter - are the ones given by people who watch all the movies (ie critics) and even then? It's subjective, so impossible to take that seriously. In other words - still fun.

That said, of the films that I've see so far, which have been nominated for Oscars - The Social Network is the one I liked the least and therefore find the nomination the most bewildering (it's probably for socio-political/pop culture reasons much like Ghandi and Titantic were, which means it will most likely win, even if it is deeply flawed and the least interesting, memorable and/or noteworthy of those nominated.). Granted I have yet to see The King's Speech or Inception or A Winter's Bone - so that could change.

( Film Review of the Social Network - spoilers )

[After comforting myself watching Ugly Betty and Grey's Anatomy, I'm NOW comforting myself with Barbara Walters' 30 Interview Mistakes in 30 Years - made by Barbara and her guests. Somewhat reassuring to know that no one is infallible and we all screw up royally or at least be reminded of that. I'm also glad that I'm not famous and don't have my faux pas on tape saved for all time. Warning mucho typos, I'm certain. No real time to edit.]

Just finished a fantastic article by Paul Schrader in Film Comment entitled Canon Fodder: As the sun finally sets on the century of cinema, by what criteria do we determine its masterworks

In the article Schrader defines what a canon is, the history of canon, devises criteria to set up a film canon, and lists 60 films that he'd put in the canon. I'll list the 60 at the end of this as a sort of film meme, putting in bold the ones I've seen. I'm not going to reproduce the article here, since that would be a huge violation of copyright. If you want to read the reader's responses to the canon and Schrader's responses, go here. For the article? You can probably still find it in a copy of the Sept/Oct 2006 issue of Film Comment.

( What is meant by Canon? )

Schrader states and I agree with this statement: "It is much easier to make lists than to explain why. When you logically resolve Kant's contradiction - if there are judgements of taste, some judgements must be true and some false, resulting in criteria - you descend into a purgatory of shifting sentiments. This, scholars tell us, was the fallacy of David Hume. I'm not so sure. Standards of taste, as Hume understood, do not restrict art; the work of art will always find a way around the rules. They do, however, establish a necessary framork for judgement."

This is true. You can't put human creativity or even nature in a box. It cannot be contained. It will evolve. It will change. It will find its way out of the box, outgrow the box, possibly even redesign the box. People like it or not do not stay put, stagnate. We are ever changing life-forms. That however does not mean rules should not be created nor for that matter criteria made to assess art, to better understand what moves us, and what does not, what lasts and what hasn't. To understand in a matter of speaking our own personal taste - or rather the "why" of liking something as opposed to the merely liking. And more to the point - to what extent can we come to agreement on those works of art that are "brilliant" amongst the multitude produced, an agreement based on something other than popular opinion or emotion, ie. gut response? Hence the criteria.

Here it is - and I like it so much, I've decided to attempt a second post, possibly tomorrow depending on how bored I am - applying said criteria to the Television medium.

1. ( Beauty )

2. ( Strangeness )

3. ( Unity of form and subject matter )

4. ( Tradition )

5. ( Repeatability )

6. ( Viewer engagement )

7.( Morality )

Paul Schrader's Canon - which he limits to narrative/fictional films, excluding short films, documentaries and experimental films. He does not delineate based on director, money, cultural environment, time period, gender, race, etc - since he feels such criteria is irrelevant stating - while such factors enrich discussion they don't define it. "There is no equal-opportunity canon". And that "motion pictures are the most collaborative of the arts...." "A film may be the creation of one strong individual, it may be the product of several; in either case only the film can be judged." "The merit of the film is the film itself."

Of all the films he ranks, the one he starts with, the one he considers the one work in which a canon of film cannot properly exist without, is one I have not seen, entitled "The Rules of the Game" by Jean Renoir. For the literary Canon, Harold Bloom listed William Shakespeare and Hamlet. Beginning the discussion with that work. I don't know, never been a huge fan of Hamlet, but then again it has been the most produced of any work, and referenced. Which may be why I'm not a fan, I got burnt out after the tenth viewing of it. I think I've seen every film of it made at least once. My favorite version may well be either Kenneth Branagh's or Derek Jacobi's. Although have an odd fondness for the modernized Ethan Hawk. But I digress.

I've updated this to include a brief analysis of my thoughts regarding the selections I've seen. Can't comment on the ones I haven't.

( Paul Schrader's Cannon )