Hello, I Must be Going...
This blog is officially dead!!
This blog is officially dead!!
Being the Media Whore that I am (and I even capitalized it) and that my wife says I am (and I agree), I am once again quoted in the Harrisburg Patriot-News. This is the second article this Summer that I have quotes in - and who says I'm not famous !!? The first article can be read HERE.
Just today, I was browsing through our local paper's daily entertainment website and came across a blog on there. It had an article (so to speak) about Daniel "Harry Potter" Radcliffe and his new role in Equus (where he does indeed go bareback for one scene). This seemed to have disturbed their regular blogmeister. This is what she had to say:
My response was this:Just the fact that you used the term "artsy crap" tells me something about your obvious commoner mindset, so it comes as no surprise to find that someone exploring a deeper acting challange than waving a wand about in some overwrought kiddie flick would offend your blantantly pedestrian tatses.
Her response was then this:
My main point would be that the machinery fueling Daniel Radcliffe's career is Harry Potter. He would not have the huge amount of opportunities to do the work he is doing now, if not for the 'Harry Potter' series.
A lot of money went into his career, therefore, like many child actors (often tragically) - until he comes out with something as successful as 'Harry Potter' (or more respectable for that matter) - iconically, he is Harry Potter.
Sorry, but I am going to give credit to the Hollywood pack of sheep that created him and perpetuated his career. I have no shame admitting that I did enjoy the films along with the masses and that I will continue to go see the subsequent films. They're pretty solid pieces in my opinion; the fact that they have a good plot and characterization is enough to suit me considering the choices we've had at the box office lately.
I agree that the lack of substantial films is frustrating and it's great that he's expanding his repertoire, but you pay your dues and attribute your successes (at least that's my motto).
And I do like 'artsy' films, but I find 'Equus' disturbing. While I can appreciate its honesty and message, I wouldn't want to see it. I would prefer to spend my time with other indy pieces.
Then me again:
You are right about "the machinery fueling" Mr. Radcliffe's career and I can see the idea of that said machinery taking a dislike to this particular role.
To cite a somewhat off-the-mark point, hafter Leo DiCaprio did Romeo + Juliet, the film that turned him into a teen upstart, and then Titanic, the film that drove him from teen upstart to true blue super mega star, a film he had done a few years before was (for the first time) put onto dvd. It was the film, Total Eclipse, wherein he plays the tortured gay poet Rimbaud. There were several scenes in the film that would have greatly distressed his legion of adoring teenage girl fans (mainly brutally sexual scenes of sodomy) but for the most part, the people that would see Titanic and love it were not the same fans that would see a small independant half-Brit hybrid film such as Total Eclipse.
This is of course not the same scenario, and the only reason - due mainly to the rather disturbing imagery of Equus (and yes it IS disturbing) - the paths of Potter fans and those who will see Equus would cross would be the media-hyped connection of Radcliffe.
This probably won't effect the Potter franchise as much as we might think, and anyway, starting with the next film (and I suppose a little with this last one) things at Hogwarts will be getting a lot darker.
As for "the sheep" that I spoke of, I do tend to get rather high-handed at times and probably should be knocked down every once and a while (although I'm sure I'll just climb right on back up again). I did "enjoy" the films for the most part. For children's films they really weren't all the poorly done, but my tastes usually go toward the Tarkovsky, Bresson, Bergman side of things and tend to be a little on the dark, moody side in general.
As for you thanking me for being polite, I reread what I had written and I must say I didn't come off very polite at all (all that high-handed pretention I harbour), but thank you for thinking so - and I truly meant NO HARM in what I did say.
Thanx for listening,
AFI: 'Most inspiring films' list inspires some local dissent
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
by Colin McEvoy of The Patriot-News
Whether through an underdog boxer from the streets of Philadelphia, a man on a bench with a box of chocolates, or Julia Roberts fighting the powers-that-be in a push-up bra, we've all been inspired by the movies at one point or another.
In its ninth annual series celebrating the first century of cinema, the American Film Institute will honor the films that have emboldened and invigorated with "100 Years...100 Cheers," a list of what it calls the 100 most inspiring movies of the last century.
"'100 Years ... 100 Cheers' will celebrate the films that inspire us, encourage us to make a difference and send us from the theatre with a greater sense of possibility and hope for the future," said Jean Picker Firstenberg, AFI director, who will be retiring next year.
The list, to be televised at 8 tonight on CBS, will feature such film figures as Steven Spielberg, Jane Fonda, Sally Field and Sidney Poitier presenting, in ascending chronological order, the movies selected by a jury of 1,500 film artists, critics and historians.
While local film experts are mixed in their response to the AFI and its latest list, all agree with the motion picture's capacity to inspire.
"Films that inspire me are those that take the audience to places where people act differently, think differently, and have a different perspective on world events," said Todd Shill, founder of Harrisburg's Midtown Cinema. "Those films remind you that our corner of the world is very small and that there is always a different point of view."
And while some films -- "The Wizard of Oz," "Schindler's List," "Rocky," "It's a Wonderful Life" -- are all but guaranteed a spot in the top 10, some fans of cinema are hoping at least a few more contemporary films make the bill.
"There are many newer films and filmmakers who are going beyond the filmmaking boundaries in both image and storytelling," said Caleb Smith, program director of local arts organization Moviate, citing such movies as "Magnolia" and "The Royal Tannenbaums".
"[These] are two examples of modern inspiration, people dealing with inner turmoil and public issues, and then learning from their experience and overcoming problems."
But these films, as well as others Smith mentioned including "Lost in Translation" and "Broken Flowers," were not among the 300 films nominated for the list.
Kevyn Knox, a local film critic and operator of thecinematheque.com, said this is typical of the AFI.
Knox said the main purpose of the list programs are to sell DVDs and that the Institute ignores independent and lesser-known but worthy films in favor of Hollywood products.
"The AFI gives no regard for many of the obscure great films and filmmakers of American cinematic history," Knox said.
"Everyone knows of 'Star Wars', why do we need to hear about it again? But not many have seen 'Greed,' so why not let them in on that little secret bit of cinema?"
AFI officials defended the list series, saying that the AFI itself does not choose the movies, but that they are selected from a jury of more than a thousand "leaders from the creative community," who may also register write-in votes for films not among the 300 nominees.
The Wednesday program will be the ninth in the AFI's "100 Years..." series.
Previous lists included "100 Years of Film Scores," "100 Movie Quotes," "100 Heroes & Villains," "100 Passions," "100 Thrills," "100 Laughs" and "100 Stars" and "100 Movies."