Blog blog blog and blog back...

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:

Naked Harry Potter?
Is anyone else disturbed by this: Naked Role for Harry Potter?

I'm sorry but that's the last thing I want to see. It totally destroys the conception that I have of that kid. I don't know if I will be able to watch the 'Harry Potter' flicks again.

This particular role is pretty controversial; the play's name is 'Equus'. I won't get into the nitty gritty, but it involves horses, sex and violence...the play is essentially a fairly disturbing commentary on what is 'normal' in society.

There's a certain innocence that is annihilated with this news. I know the actor has a career to think about and he's showing some depth, but, man, wait until they kick you off of the films to do that artsy crap.

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.

Sorry to inform you, but he is NOT Harry Potter, he is an actor who will take on many roles in his lifetime (some in "artsy crap" and some in Hollywoody Plebian pieces for you sheep that cannot think past prime time reality TV drudge) whether you want him to or not.

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,
Kevyn Knox

Lady in the Water ???????????

I finally put away my lollygagging ways and went to see M. Night Shambalamba's Lady in the Water last night. I haven't posted my review yet (although it should be up on my site by Monday sometime) but here is an e-mail I had sent out just after seeing the film. I believe it gathers my albeit raw thoughts pretty clearly.

I have heard nothing but bad press about Lady in the Water - even M. Night Shambalamba is having second thoughts - and I knew as soon as I receiv'd my friend's e-mail I had to go see for myself dammit (fist hitting desktop in dramatic flair) - so mere seconds after I read his "Hey man, I just saw Lady in the Water and I just want you to know it sucked balls. You may know this already but just in case....it sucked balls." comment on the e-mail I got up, found my hat and made the movie in seconds flat.

My opinion on seeing it? He (so eloquently) said it "sucked balls" and I am going to have to disagree with that assertation and say this about it: "It sucked big fat donkey balls god damn it!!!".

Jesus Christ I cannot believe how insanely ridiculous this film is. It fucking flabbergasts me. One expects certain films to be bad (slasher films, straight-to-video thingees, teen sex romps, Wayans Bros. movies, B-Grade horror et cetera) but one could never be ready for the stupidity of a filmmaker that should know better.

I have never been a Shamalamadingdong fan - I have never liked one of his films, but I have never disliked any either (until tonight of course). Full of some of the most ridiculous dialogue this side of a carnival sideshow fortune teller act and some of the most ham-handed acting this side of an Ed Wood film. Jesus Christ this was bad.

I'm not even sure how to review a film this shockingly stupid. How do I do it god dammit!? (like this I suppose). Of course some critics (and you know who you are) seemed to have like the film, so I am even doubly bumfuzzled now...

The Top 5 Project is Baaaaaack!!!!!!

Hello there true believers (a little Stan Lee moment for ya). After a long time away from Blogsville, it apperas as if I am back. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, The Top 5 Project - that little parlor game that took the Summer of '05 by veritable storm - is also back, with all new topics such as Top 5 First Films and last week's Top 5 Road Movies.

Many noted film critics and scholars have been participating and you can too be going over to The Cinematheque and naming your Top 5 Films set in New York (the current week's topic).

What the Top 5 Project essentially is, is a way to see what others are thinking about cinema - at least from a purely list-making perspective (although there is some commentary to go with). What I am proposing over here in Blogsville is more of a dialogue on the subjects being breached over at The Top 5 Project. A place for cinephiles and the like to exchange ideas, views, theories and perhaps even smack talk about the various Top 5 topics.

In starting us off, since this last week was The Top 5 Road Movies, let us look at a recent comment I recieved via e-mail about the final results (of which you can see here). So it goes.

Comments on the previous list - top 5 road movies: The nominees/results don't have well-defined boundaries. "Road movies" was mixed with "allegory movies". Examples of the latter: "Men With Guns", "The Searchers", "Apocalypse Now", "Lost Highway" (cat.: acid-trip/mind-f^%k/neo noir), "Grapes of Wrath" (this prompted me to write these comments).

Perhaps a "road movie" could be defined as a film that contains at least 50% running time depicting or implying movement towards an unintended physical location.

The previous comments were from Khoo Guan Soon, an Adjunct Faculty Member in Communications at Susquehanna University in PA, and a semi-regular contributor to The Top 5 Project (as well as a participant in the somewhat related Top 10 Project - check that out too).

So there you go, the possible beginnings of a cinematically-obsessed dialogue here in Blogsville. Send in your own thoughts and comments - either in the comments section of the blog or via e-mail at kevynknox@thecinematheque.com.