Holding Movies to My Standards

    There are those out there that would say I am over-critical of movies. It would be foolish to try to deny these claims. I do pick up on little details and let them bother me more than they should. One the same token though, I don't usually let these details ruin a movie for me. Correction, I don't let them if the movie is good.
    I do not consider myself a "film snob." If you've ever run into a stereotypical film student, that is what I consider a film snob. If you were to go through my collection, not only would you find that some classic films that any proper film snob would include are missing, you would also find many movies that no snob would touch. Seriously, I don't think any film snob would have a copy of Puss in Boots starring Christopher Walken in their collection even if they were trying to be ironic and hipster. Now, don't think that it is in my collection for any good reason beyond it being just too bizarre to get rid of. Well, that and having it around to inflict on people.
    Ignoring for a moment those previous couple of sentences, I consider my critical opinions and general pickiness to come from my having standards. That sounds rather snobbish, I know. My standards come from the variety and number of movies I've seen and have collected. The problem comes from seeing so many really good films. Sadly, at least for Hollywood, the majority of these really good films seem to be foreign or independent. We you watch and collect these quality films, other films, especially modern Hollywood made ones, fall flat. I'll save my tirades and opinions on modern Hollywood for another blog.
    Since I can't seem to do anything simply, this is a good place to mention that my "standards" vary depending on the film. I am not going to hold a '70s Blacksploitation to the same standards as a Period Epic. That would just be silly. In order to be able to justify this varying scale of standards when it comes to film, I must address an X factor. A movie should simply be what it is. This gets a bit philosophical. We're seeing lately in American Cinema a push (not just the remakes and being generally uncreative) to try to capture an essence or style from other movies in an attempt to be one of those movies. It seems like they want to recreate "exploitation films" and the whole "grindhouse experience." Or, there is this idea of trying to make independent films have this "independent film" feel. These "feels" they are trying to create pretty consistently hurt the quality of the movies. If the movie has a good script, good director, and some good actors, generally speaking the end result will be an good movie. If you are trying to give the movie a certain "feel" that is unnecessary to the development of the film, it will show. You'll be able to tell that they were "trying too hard." Just let the movie be what the movie is.
    Let me give you some examples. Hobo with a Shotgun had many elements that would make it fall into the exploitation genre. The problem is that the elements were taken from the '70s but none of their essences were. They tried to make it an "exploitation film." They failed. They simply made a bad movie. Had they simply tried to make Hobo with a Shotgun instead of Hobo with a Shotgun the grindhouse-style exploitation movie, it may have worked. In not trying to become something, there was a fair chance that they would have actually become that very thing. Let's look next at all those so called parody films that got mass produced straight to DVD based of the success of the first Scary Movie. I don't think I really need to go into any kind of detail as far as the "trying too hard" argument goes. A joke is funny simply because it is funny. A forced joke loses its humor. I think I could easily make the comparison of these types of movies to the deterioration of something as you continue to make copies of copies. ("She touched my pepe, Steve.") The problem can be traced to the very first copy. Scary Movie based its parody off of Scream. This is problematic. Why? Most people, I'm assuming the makers of Scary Movie are included here, missed the fact that Scream was a satire of horror movies. So they made a parody of a satire. Of course they threw in a bunch of topical jokes and toilet and drug humor too. Given that those are three areas of humor that require a subtle touch and are rarely understood by the people who use them, they probably weren't the best choices to add to their "parody." Granted, topical humor generally doesn't translate well years later. Although, a properly done topical bit is still funny, just not as funny as it would be if you knew where it was coming from. The other problem was that there people were trying to make a "Zucker, Abrahams, Zucker film." I would be remiss if I didn't say that I know at least one of the Zuckers was involved in some of the Scary Movies. Regardless, we are still looking at copies of copies.
    I think I should reel this back in. Simply put, stop trying to hard to make these movies something that they aren't. You can imitate a director's style, but you'll never make one of those director's films. So yeah, anyway, standards. I hold the movies to the standards of their fellow films. It's just a shame when so many foreign, independent, or older American films set the bar so high. So, I for one, am not going to sit back and eat, drink, or buy into what the machine is saying is good. That is a different rant though.
    Highly critical though I am and holding the high standards that I do, I can say one thing for sure. I don't recommend movies lightly. If I don't think you'll like it, I won't recommend it to you. If I think it is one of those movies that is simply fantastic, I will probably recommend it to everyone. I hate to put it in this pompous way, but if the general populace finds many of the modern mediocre movies to be really good, imagine how blown away they would be if they saw a film that was actually really good.
    Regardless of your level of love for film, music, literature, or whatever is your thing, at the very least, I hope that you love them for what they are. I hope that you love them because you love them. Don't like anything simply because others say you should. If we can't love our entertainments for simply being what they are, how can we ever learn to love others simply for being who they are?

The Script Calls for Crazy

    So, I just finished watching The Perfect Host starring David Hyde Pierce. I was thinking about reviewing it on here, but I decided against that. The movie is great. There where several good OMG moments. The acting was fantastic. David Hyde Pierce's performance blew me away. This is one of those movies, however, that are better left discussed after viewing. So, go see it so we can talk about it. Tee hee. Seriously though, due to the twists and turns as well as character motivations and psyches, it would be hard to review this film without giving too much away.
    What am doing on here typing about it anyway if I'm not going to review it? The answer is pretty simple actually. I want to address crazy in movies. Mental illness of all sorts can be included in this monologue, but I'm going to be leaning more to portrayals of characters that are seriously crazy. It is an actor's profession to be able to express the emotions, thoughts, motivations, and such of a character. Some obviously are better at this than others. A good director, crew, and supporting cast can help raise an actor's apparent skill. However, I feel that it takes a very special kind of actor to do crazy properly. Most either go too far or fall short.
    When actors go too far with the crazy, it doesn't play right. It is either hokey and laughable or annoying and unbelievable. In either case, it usually comes across as "hey look at me. I'm crazy. Can't you see that I'm crazy?" A lot of what I like to call "Hillbilly Horror" contains this kind of madness. It's over the top. It starts out with you figuring something just isn't quite right, and it ends with them laughing hysterically whilst they and the corpses of their relatives dine on a character's friend. Usually, my reaction is, "oh yeah, figured they were nuts." Rarely in these cases am I surprised, shocked, or can even find a reason to care. Then again, I'm not much of a fan of Hillbilly Horror. It seems in many of the cases where they go too far with the crazy that the reason they are crazy is simply because they are crazy. "Ok, Steve, you're character is crazy, like I'm talking nuts. I like what you did in that scene, but I want you to go even crazier." The fact that they are "crazy" is enough for the script writers, cast, and director.
    When actors fall short with the crazy, it is usually because they don't go deep enough. Their characters come across as either a bland generic example of a mental illness or as someone who may have a couple of issues but nothing too extreme. Unlike when they go too far, falling short comes across as, "oh I guess he's crazy. Ok, whatever." In the really bad cases, it just leaves the audience wondering why the character is doing what they are doing.
    There are exceptions in both cases of course. If a movie is itself completely over the top and nuts, the crazy characters have to be that much more crazy. If they don't stand out as crazy, they are just another aspect of the craziness of the movie in general. If the character is some minor character like a henchman in an action flick, they are allowed to fall short and be typical. They don't really matter to the plot and will most likely be killed off pretty quickly.
    Finally, we arrive at those that do crazy right. Here we have two classes. The first are those that do crazy right, but don't necessarily shine. Brad Pitt in 12 Monkeys is a good example of this. He did his research, embraced his role, and quite frankly did a great job... but it doesn't grab you inside. Jack Nicholson in the Shining is another good example. His descent into madness is pretty good, and he goes really nuts well. It still though doesn't hit that nerve.
    The other class is really a class all to itself. This is the class where not only do they do crazy right, they nail it. They do is so perfectly that you feel...words fail me here. It is some internal feeling of not quite shock, not quite stirring, not exactly creeped out. You are captivated and yet a little unsettled. If you have felt it, you'll know what I mean. It is kind of inexpressible. Two prime examples of this are Heath Ledger and Anthony Perkins. Ledger's portrayal of the Joker was above and beyond. His Joker was so complete that I wasn't watching an actor's portrayal of a character. I was watching the real guy. There was no "character." Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates was another fantastically complete character. All the credit cannot go to Hitchcock because even in the sequels, Norman Bates doesn't change. Perkins took the character and made him real. He had such a subtlety and depth with his portrayal of Bates that just made it all so complete and real. UGH! I really wish I could express that feeling!
    I can now add David Hyde Pierce to that list. I wish I could give you my reasons for adding him to the list, but doing so would ruin so much of The Perfect Host for those who haven't seen it. So, yeah, I guess I'll wrap this up with: if you're going to play crazy, do it right or go beyond to near perfection. Your audience will thank you for it.