Showing posts with label Critic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Critic. Show all posts

Monday, September 21, 2015

Where Have All the Good Films Gone?




With the Oscar race heating up, a question has begun to linger in my mind, posing itself as a much more bothersome thought than I originally anticipated. Where have all the truly good films gone? 

Yes, I'm sure this question would adhere to backlash all over the place, as many declare their favorite recent films as the best of the best, but are they really? Are you truly looking at the film as a whole, or merely sections of it that satisfy your entertainment craving?

 These are the questions that are ringing through my mind, as year after year I'm starting to see films that are labeled, "good" "magnificent" and "Oscar bait" as just simply films with amazing actors yet no substance in the film itself, superb writing yet subpar directing, or genius directing/acting but no solid writing to speak of.

This is the problem facing many modern day flicks, as each vie for attention- whether it be good or bad- and truly miss the mark and the opportunity to make the film a good one that doesn't rely on flashy gimmicks, one actor, or any other source by itself to make a name for it.

To me, the film needs substance, and I'm not talking about a good performance alone. I'm talking about films that share equal parts outstanding acting, insightful writing, and directing that creates a world so realistic you forget you are at the movies. While I understand that latter statement may be a bit counterproductive since we go to the movies for an escape and not for a realistic world, but to me you should want that escape to be as realistic as possible and not just some cheap thrill that leaves you frustrated and moderately used as you feel the empty hole in your pocket where your money once was. 

What has led me to write this essay are recent "Oscar" contenders that have gained speed simply for the acting alone, which by no means is a bad thing, with little to no mention of the director or writer or vice versa.  

A huge example of this to me is the film, "Black Mass" featuring Johnny Depp in a truly reformative role. While his role in this film is truly a back to form piece for Depp, who has squandered his talents on some stinkers these past few years, the film as a whole falls flat. The writing is unremarkable, especially compared to the film "The Departed" which based one of its main characters off of Bulger as well and did a similar story but did it much better, and the editing/directing wasn't what I thought a film of this caliber should possess. Now I'm not here to bash "Black Mass", in fact it is still an excellent film full f some truly noteworthy scenes, but its the laziness in other categories that this film shows that many other recent films are falling onto as well. 

As more and more films come out, usually the viewer will mention the performances in the film first as the primary thing that stuck out in their heads. While yes, this is a good thing and more films should have actors in it that truly shine and show their passion for the craft, I feel as if films are simply starting to fall on that strand of thought and ignoring the other aspects that make a film one of the greats.

To me a film cannot be one of the greats without the essentials, and the essentials are everything that goes into that film…not just one thing that stands out. While “Black Mass” had some of the best performances to date in it, the lack of character development, choppy editing skills, and directing that didn’t really stand out to me really left me feeling hollow and almost bad if this is something that others are calling the film to beat so far for the Oscars. While I know my opinion may not be a popular one, I also know I’m not alone.

Recently I read an interesting article on Variety.com about the films that appeared at a major film festival, one that usually predicts the nominations for the Oscars later on. While the writer and judges agreed that the films had some truly memorable performances, many felt that almost all the films lacked something. Rather it be directing, editing, writing, make-up, etc., almost all agreed that something was missing and this is a scary thought.

Has the age of the cinema really fallen away from us? Are we as a whole trying to cling and depend more on modern day thrills, cheap and flashy gimmicks of advertising, and films that only need to entertain some part of us for the majority to consider them something great?

I don’t exactly think there is a yes or a no to this question. Films with true substance and excellence come out all the time, and have yet to be released to this day, but it’s a scary thought that the way the Oscar race is starting off seems to be based all on the performances, or just one aspect of the film, and missing the true heart of the Oscar season. That this is an award show based on all aspects of film, not merely just one, and films shouldn’t strive for one thing that is great but should choose to stand out and go above and beyond not only for the filmmaker but for the audience that is looking for that cinema itch to be scratched.

And the audience that is looking for that entertainment fix, don't just focus in on the small things that make a film good and call it a masterpiece for essentially just one thing in the film, focus on all of it! Demand the films you watch possess all the qualities you should desire in a film of great and limitless potential. Look for a change in the films we have become accustomed to, and search for the films that truly show what it means to be considered one of the greats.  

I have extremely high hopes for some films coming out that have been labeled Oscar bait, like “The Danish Girl” and “Steve Jobs”, but I am approaching all of this with some wariness after hearing the same about “Black Mass” and getting a film that showcases the performances in it but misses the point entirely to actually tell a truly brutal and terrifying tale of one of the FBI’s most wanted men.

To me, I refuse to believe the age of cinema is dead…I would rather say it may be in a bit of a transitional period. So here’s to the Oscars, here's to the modern day audiences craving a film with a little more substance, and here's to finding the good films that aren’t lost forever but merely hiding or have yet to be discovered.  
 

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Roger Ebert: In Memoriam (A short article dedicated to my idol)


Roger Ebert
June 18, 1942-April 14, 2013
Roger Ebert

            Mr. Ebert was not only an extremely talented critic, but he was also my idol. His wise words, humorous take on movies, well thought out critiques, and dedication to the art of reviewing movies inspired me. After reading my first review by him, the review for the recent horror comedy smash Cabin in the Woods, I knew I wanted to do the same thing. From that review and on I was hooked. I found myself looking at his old reviews and continuing to follow up on his recent ones. One thing never changed and that was his humor. It was a special, sarcastic brand that only a few got, and when you got that humor there was no turning back. Each review was more thought out then the other and you could tell that the man behind these articles was someone who cared, someone who wanted you to know the truth behind the movies, and someone who truly was just a simple movie man at heart. From his first review to the last, his pride and love for the art shined throughout each article. Even when ill, Ebert was diagnosed with papillary thyroid cancer, salivary cancer, and other forms of cancer which resulted in his loss of speech, he never failed in sharing his reviews with the world. Ebert’s success became widely known after his show, “At the Movies with Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert” came out and after Siskel’s death he began to host his own show, “Roger Ebert and the Movies”. In 2000, however, Ebert finally found another host for his show in Richard Roeper. The show was titled “At the Movies with Ebert and Roeper” and was a huge success. During all of this he lost his speech during surgery and never recovered it, but still kept his voice through his reviews and his loving wife, Chaz Ebert, who translated his thoughts during presentations. One day before Ebert’s death, he took to his blog to tell everyone he was diagnosed again with a form of cancer and would be dialing back the amount of reviews he did for the sake of his health. He told of his dreams to actually just review the movies he wanted to review, but said that he would still be present in reviews. In the article on his blog, the “Leave of Presence” sounded more like a farewell to good friends. The article brings tears to my eyes, knowing these were some of the last words written by my hero, but I do not fret. I know where ever he may be now; he is still watching the movies he loves and looking down on us with a smile on his face for all the up and coming critics who looked to him for inspiration. In my career I hope to become half as successful as him and to tell people twenty years from now when they ask who got me started on my path to becoming a critic, I can say Ebert, Roger Ebert. Now just like his last words, I leave you all with just a taste of Ebert. I look up from the laptop I am writing this from, with a smile planted on my face and I say to you Mr. Ebert, “I’ll see you at the movies.”