Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Hollywood’

We’re starting to learn more about what was in the “fiscal cliff” measure that the President supported and Congress cravenly passed at the eleventh hour.  Of course, the information shows that the legislation is loaded with targeted provisions, tax breaks, and loopholes for special interests — just as any rational person predicted.

For example, the bill included a film production tax credit for Hollywood that allows deduction of millions of dollars in production costs if a TV or movie production occurs in an “economically disadvantaged area” — whatever that is defined to mean.  Supporters say the tax credit helps to keep productions from going overseas and “helps get investors who would like to have a significant impact in their taxes reduced.”  Sure, sounds good!  Let’s make sure that Hollywood fat cats get a bit fatter, so producers, directors, and actors can continue to make sober public service announcements that lecture us not to engage in the crazed gun violence that every Hollywood production seems to glorify.  And I’m sure we can all be confident that the millions of dollars that the Hollywood moguls and “stars” have contributed to political campaigns had nothing to do with Congress’ reasoned judgment to extend this tax break.

In the bill there’s also a tax break for NASCAR, to allow accelerated (no pun intended) depreciation for anyone who builds a racetrack.  Apparently all of the races on TV and gear that you see people wearing are misleading and, in reality, NASCAR is struggling and needs all the help it can get.  Perhaps the tax break recognizes that high gasoline prices have hit the owners of those powerful, gas-guzzling cars even harder than they hit the rest of us.

IMG_2787As the Washington Post reports, the fiscal cliff legislation also includes tax breaks, tax credits, and subsidies for banks and multinational corporations, Manhattan apartment developers and railroads, and even manufacturers of plug-in two-wheeled electric scooters.

With our current system, it’s all about who you know, who you can afford to hire to lobby for your cause, and whether they have the access and power to make sure that, when the last-minute deal goes down and an emergency bill is passed that the vast majority of members of Congress haven’t even read, your pet provision is included.

It’s a great system, if you are one of the people who can afford to play the game.  If you’re one of the rest of us, who can’t afford a gold-plated lobbyist to represent your interests, you’re left defenseless.  Of course, average citizens are supposed to have representatives in Washington, D.C.  They are called Senators and Representatives, but who can count on them to protect our interests?  Most of them didn’t even read the entire bill that they voted on.

Read Full Post »

Kish and I went to see The Company Men today.  It is not a great film, but it had its points of interest.

The movie is about what happens when white collar workers lose their jobs.  The main character, played by Ben Affleck, goes from a highly self-confident yuppie executive to a blue collar family man after he confronts the desperate reality of months of unemployment and rejection.  His wife supports him as he adjusts to the fact that he is not God’s gift to the business world, he reconnects with his family, and he realizes that his brother-in-law, who gives him a mercy job, is a good guy.  His story, alone, would have been a decent plot line for a movie.  Ben Affleck is not the greatest actor in Hollywood, but he did a decent job in conveying a character whose gets torn down by life like a raw recruit gets torn down by the drill sergeant in Marine boot camp.

Of course, The Company Men is a Hollywood product — which means it can’t just tell a simple story.  Instead, it inevitably must be gussied up with extraneous back stories, unnecessary characters, an affair that seems to be in the movie only to allow for a gratuitous nudity scene, the pontifications of a sad-eyed, craggy Tommy Lee Jones, and other predictable Hollywood trappings that detracted from, rather than contributed to, the essential story.  All of the Hollywood stuff slowed down what otherwise could have been an interesting and enjoyable movie about how lives are not defined by jobs and and how money and possessions are not essential to happiness.

Read Full Post »

Last night Kish and I went to see Toy Story 3 in 3D at the Easton movie theatres.  It was well done, I suppose, but I found myself thinking about how little true creativity we see in popular culture anymore.  As nice as it was to see Woody and Buzz Lightyear in a new adventure, I would rather see the team that made Toy Story 3 devote their considerable talents to creating something totally new and different.

It seems like 75% of the movies showing at any given time are movie versions of TV shows or comic books, or sequels of prior successful movies, or remakes of old movies, or even remakes of sequels.  Everybody seems to be searching for a “franchise” that they can ride for a few sequels until diminishing quality and declining audience interest have irreparably damaged the memory of the excellent original movie.

Contrast the current approach with the golden age of Hollywood, during the ’30s, ’40s, and ’50s.  The most popular movie ever, Gone With The Wind, ended with a cliffhanger if there ever was one, but the studio resisted the temptation to crank out a sequel.  There was no sequel to The Wizard Of Oz, High Noon, or Rear Window, or It’s A Wonderful Life.   After Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was a big hit, Walt Disney made Pinocchio, not Snow White 2:  Grumpy’s Revenge.

I sometimes wonder whether the focus on sequels has caused writers, directors, actors, and animators who are at the peak of their abilities to take the path of least resistance, rather than breaking new ground and creating new characters, story lines, and techniques.  What potential masterpieces have gone unmade as a result of the emphasis on producing sure-fire sequels?

Read Full Post »

Well, they’re making a new round of Superman movies. This news comes right after the announcement that Hollywood will also be rebooting the Spiderman franchise.

When I was a columnist for the Daily Northwestern, I wrote that I thought Hollywood should make fewer sequels and more movies with original plots and characters. I used the latest Terminator movie as an example of an uninspired sequel that strays from the vision of the original.

The new Superman and Spiderman movies are an even greater offense to our film tradition. At least the new Terminator broke new ground within the franchise. Like it or not (I did not), the new Terminator movie explored a different aspect of the Terminator universe than its predecessors. In the first three movies, we only saw Terminators sent back in time to kill humans who would end up playing a role in the future war. We never saw much of the war itself until the latest movie.

The new Star Wars and Indiana Jones films also get passes. The Star Wars prequels showed us an era of the Star Wars universe that we hadn’t seen before. “The Crystal Skull” gave us a different Indiana Jones – growing old,  even ready to settle down with a wife. And heck, at least they were made by the same talent that made the originals.

There’s no new perspective to shed on the Superman and Spiderman stories. Both franchises have been done recently. The Spiderman franchise was rebooted in 2002. I remember the excitement around it very well. There were sequels in 2004 and 2007 – less than three years ago. The series’ stars, Tobey Macguire, Kirsten Dunst, and James Franco, are still young. The Spiderman story has already been told for our times.

Same with Superman. “Superman Returns” came out in 2006, not that long ago.

Maybe someone can revisit these franchises in a few decades, when special effects have improved, memories of the last movies have faded, and our society has changed a little bit. I didn’t mind the current Batman series, which began in 2005, even though the previous one only ended in 1997. Special effects technology progressed dramatically between “Batman and Robin” and “Batman Begins”, but more importantly, we changed. September 11th made us more paranoid and self-doubting, and as a result the new Batman movies are darker than the old ones. Jack Nicholson’s Joker in the 1989 “Batman” was obnoxious; he liked to spray paint on classic works of art. Heath Ledger’s 2008 Joker was evil and perverted, taking delight in disfiguring and murdering people. He took advantage of our society’s weaknesses to confront us with difficult moral choices.

We haven’t undergone any changes since 2007 significant enough to justify rebooting these two franchises. Leave them alone for a while. When the current Spidermans look as dated as the 1960s Batmans, then you can reboot. (OK, maybe you don’t have to wait that long.)

The sad thing is that these pointless movies occupy lots of valuable talent. Christopher Nolan, who directed “The Dark Knight” and the innovative “Memento”, shouldn’t waste his time acting as a “mentor” for the new Superman. He should be making another “Memento”.

Read Full Post »

Here’s an interesting article on how the Roman Polanski and David Letterman episodes and the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama have undercut the political credibility of Hollywood and the Nobel awards committee.

I agree that the Nobel Peace Prize has been discredited by this award and prior overtly political awards, but I’m not sure that Americans really paid much attention to it, anyway.  I think the Polanski and Letterman episodes probably will have more long-term impact because TV and movies are such important cultural forces in America.  The Polanski and Letterman episodes reveal the Hollywood types who mount a soapbox to espouse liberal dogma as hypocrites who will readily circle the wagons and excuse the obvious misdeeds of those within their circle — and argue that “artistic” contributions should trump the law and normal moral and ethical behavior.  I find it unimaginable that anyone could defend Roman Polanski’s rape of a 13-year-old or Letterman’s philandering with employees, and I think many other people share that view.  The next time Whoopi Goldberg or some other Hollywood type attempts to lecture Americans on how we should think, vote, or conduct our affairs, I think Americans will remember her tartuffery and ignore what they have to say.

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,121 other followers