Bernardo Villela is like a mallrat except at the movies. He is a writer, director, editor and film enthusiast who seeks to continue to explore and learn about cinema, chronicle the journey and share his findings.
I cannot say I’m a die hard Die Hard fan, not just because that’s a pun, but also because it’s true. However, what the chatter about the latest Die Hard did reveal to me is that even in disappointment, which is the fairly universal reaction to the latest installment, there are different grades of frustration. Furthermore, differing thoughts on what the future of the franchise should be by those who hold it dear.
Essentially, what struck me as most interesting to write about was examining the logic of differing plans through the spectrum of my feelings on other series’.
One of the first I heard can be succinctly described as “Ain’t Goin’ Out Like That.” In other words, “Why end the series on a sour note?” However, if I were to apply that to a series I truly liked there would need to be something that I wanted to see salvaged. Because on the surface it can seem a contrarian statement to say “Man, that wasn’t very good, they’ve got to make another one.” However, I do get the sentiment. I think a series in my mind that has gone off course but can still be righted is say the Final Destination films. So far as Die Hard goes, I don’t think a third generation is an eventual solution or becoming further spy-oriented. Again, not a die hard, so I won’t over-speculate.
As opposed to continuing and just fixing the story, another reaction that’s possible it to want to go back to square one. I doubt this would be satisfactory to Die Hard fans. I know it’s a course of action I would accept as a fan of the Hellraiser concept and works wherein Barker was involved, that series is so far from healthy, restarting is the only way to come close to his intention for the character. Especially when the last film prompted Barker to respond that this particular plot it didn’t even come from his a-hole much less his mind, one wonders how worried about being true-to-form Dimension really are. In Die Hard terms, I find it hard to believe an attempt that doesn’t involve Bruce Willis would be made any time soon. The reboot option may only come when he’s really, really old and plays a humorous cameo wherein my generation and those above can tell the youngins that he made the first one and it was better.
So righting the ship and a reboot are options, but not viable ones in this series. The other two options that are theoretically possible would be a prequel, which also doesn’t makes sense here, and just ending it. These two seem to be the two hardest options to accept when your the fan of a franchise. Usually my litmus test about a prequel, or a tale in the same realm being told, is involvement of the originator of the series, like if Rowling pursued other wizarding stories or pursued a new strand of tales with her triad.
Another determining factor is: is there room for narrative growth? Lucas had plans for more Star Wars, so now that the decision about proceeding on a new installment belongs to someone else; it’s happening and that’s fine by me. The reported stand-alones are too. The differentiation between the Star Wars and Harry Potter properties is one of time and ownership. So far as we know, lest we get new indications otherwise, Rowling’s world-building is complete. Lucas’ plan was always longer.
Few franchises have a grand design, and that prompts many follow-ups to come about due to responding to questions such as “Well, why not?” or “Well, what now?” Those with a grand design seem to have more staying power, and those who are consistently trying to re-invent the wheel are gambling more.
In the end, I believe “The Ain’t Going Out Like That” school should be the one we feel a film falls into least. A desired abandonment, as nihilistic as it may sound, could be the preferred reaction to most disappointing late-franchise sequels. The cessation of installments ends the false hope, that no matter if we know better, that part of us always holds onto believing that an intangible piece of the first film’s magic will come along into the second, third, fourth and fifth. So perhaps rather than wanting it to be fixed perhaps a franchise we feel is broken should be left alone until it heals or dies.
The term arcmchair activism has recently come into being and while it may sound like it has a negative connotation, it can get things done. Online petitions and chatter have brought about small changes in reaction to public relations disasters. The only downside I’ve seen of this activism is that for the most part it seems to be extremely reactionary. What I’ll propose in this post, or these posts as the case may be, is more of a proactive approach.
There are good causes in the film world where your support is easy to show and it could make a difference. So here are the three that came to mind for this first post.
Greed on DVD
I’ll readily admit that what prompts me to think of this right now is my heinous mismanagement of my DVR, wherein I lost my unwatched copy of Greed from when it aired on TCM last year.
Any film, not on DVD, has a vote prompt on TCM. The votes tally up and a rank is presented. It’s concrete data, though a small sampling, that shows an interest in the film exists. Film, like most everything, is a demand economy. Go here and vote for a Greed DVD release. Or better yet, search your favorite currently undistributed or under-distributed older film and vote for it in its stead.
“Save” films on Netflix
Even before Netflix was facing stiff competition from other streaming sources, its policies about acquiring and distributing indie films shifted. They have been more inclined to stream them but in general terms it does take into account how often you save to your queue before deciding whether it’ll pick a film up. I save many films to my queue just to get it out there at times.
One of my favorite films from last year, In the Family, which has been traveling North America for the better part of two years will finally hit home video in May, so it needs this support. If the story appeals to you please do save it and help this great story be seen by a wider audience. As with above, if this title doesn’t work for you consider this method with another film.
Bakshi Kickstarter
Ralph Bakshi is a renowned and respected animator. I’ll admit not knowing him by name until recently. I haven’t seen many of his films, but I think many saw his animated Lord of the Rings. The character design of the Hobbits irrationally freaked me out when I was very young. I know some of his other titles and have had them on my nearly-infinite watchlist for some time. I’ve always known, even if not knowing him by name, that he was on the forefront with regards to rounding out animation proving it to be a medium rather than a genre; meaning it’s not just for kids.
He is also one of the more renowned artists I know of who is using Kickstarter to fund a project. It becoming a more popular avenue. It’s not a free option, but if you know a deserving artist this is a good way to go.
So there are the first three concrete and easy ways I found to be a film activist. There will likely be others, seek them out, find something you’re passionate about and support it. The interwebs is great for that too!
So to spare my friends And followers on social media I’ll be live blogging the Oscars here.
Thoughts may be more sporadic this year.
Red Carpet/Pre-Show
George Clooney is just naturally funny. Great stuff.
Audio issues. Yikes.
Once I heard Anne’s guess (about the mystery item) I knew she was right. That’s the first time she’ll win tonight.
Not sure it’s a gimmick that should stay, but an interesting wrinkle for this year.
Watched the countdown clock more than ever. That was an ordeal.
I wonder if Hugh Jackman gets tired of being referred to as Wolverine. He’s not actually Wolverine. He just plays him in the movies.
Didn’t see enough red carpet to pick a best dressed.
The Show
Love the profit joke and the Ben Affleck obviously.
Shatner!
Well, I expected sporadic updates just because I wanted to watch but that opening was spectacular!
Excellent speech by Waltz.
Got the first shot of Jack and the mandatory playing of the E.T. theme in segment one.
Animated short was no surprise. I had a feeling it’d be nominated since I saw it.
Brave winning actually did surprise me. It was rather divisive and I was lukewarm on it. Animated films are deep right now, there were other viable winners, and better ones in my estimation.
Well, I expected those two to go to Pi. Miranda’s speech was memorable. The Rhythm and Hues comments by the VFX team had to come earlier. I expected them. Using the Jaws theme to play them off was just too funny.
Hair and Costume winners are always tough to figure. Very pleased with the results. Glad to see Anna Karenina get some love.
“Goldfinger” sounded amazing!
So the shorts just got announced. I didn’t see the short subject docs, but it was a good opportunity for an apropos stump speech.
As per usual, it would seem, my favorite live action short didn’t get the win. It makes Death of a Shadow even more marked in my mind. It’s a short I’ll remember.
Didn’t see any of the Feature Documentaries. Based on buzz I was expecting Sugar Man.
I know Affleck tried to pass it off as a joke, but he sounded kinda ticked off by the stupid Kardashian joke. I mean, I laughed, but I agree with MacFarlane, likely should’ve been dropped.
Had to wait 2 segments to update.
Thankfully, they had three musicals to draw upon for the past decade tribute. Musical theme plus Seth MacFarlane makes perfect sense, but musicals aren’t as prominent as they once were, clearly. They can still clearly work the Tatum-Theron dance was great at the start.
Obviously Les Mis would bring the house down. When you record live those songs live with you forever.
I don’t know the last time, if there ever was a tie, but that’s surely a historic moment. Glad that Skyfall, an action film took one of them. It’s a really well done work.
Argo owes much of its success to the edit. It moves along brilliantly. It’s not just about shot selection and cuts, but also pace. It’s a thriller at its core for all its other fenestrations, and it needed that edit to succeed.
Glad to hear “Skyfall” during the broadcast. Performing all the songs got too routine, but combining a Bond theme and allowing the song to be in the broadcast is definitely a highlight.
The Governors Award winners for this year is a varied field and a good one. Most notably to me is George Stevens, Jr. I was unaware he founded AFI. I staunchly support any organization that promotes and preserves film.
I was pulling for Anna Karenina again, but Lincoln winning the newly re-named Production Design is fine with me. Lots of great sets throughout bring that world to life.
The In Memoriam was well-handled. I hadn’t thought ahead to it. Amazing surprise having Streisand come out and sing in honor of Hamlisch.
So I was off and they added one more performance, the Norah Jones song in Ted</em that I'd forgotten about. A little awkward to go from saying you saw two, here's video of two more and another live. I thought it a toss-up between Skyfall and Les Mis. Glad Skyfall took it though. It’s an intrinsic and quintessential Bond song.
Best Original Score not my favorite choice of the night. Coul’ve picked any of the other four in that one and I’d be happy.
I was pulling for Lincoln but fully expected Argo.
However, the highlight of the screenwriting tandem was Quentin getting it. Right before it was announced I pleaded “Come on, this is the one other thing it can get!” It was likely my favorite win tonight because I shouted with glee. I didn’t expect it to happen.
OK, weird footnote: Ang Lee has now won Best Director twice. Will he have that distinction with no Best Picture wins? Life of Pi won in categories I expected it to until recently. Is it a fourth front-running candidate for Best Picture?
Very cool that Jack came out for Best Picture. And as for Michelle Obama announcing and speaking via satellite, great message.
So it turns out that quirky footnote happened. Argo won as the tea leaves have been showing.
I think the closing song would’ve worked better if both were former nominees who didn’t win.
Conclusion
I expected many of the awards but it was a greatly entertaining show. Unlike last year where I gave it a pass, I was biased here, being a MacFarlane fan and he delivered. He even got to get his favorite Sound of Music gag in, which I think is great. Basically, the new paradigm should be, regardless of sensibility, treat it like it’s your only shot to host. He and the writers knowledgeably poked fun at Oscar trends and patterns and occasionally ruffled feathers. It was great fun, especially as the musical theme gave it that air of gaiety and celebration.
As I’ve mentioned on a number of occasions, part of my desire to start my own site, with its own agenda, was to not necessarily have to always be feeding into the voracious entertainment news cycle. Keeping that in mind, this is why I didn’t immediately jump all over the latest Rex Reed fiasco.
To be another voice in the chorus that chided Reed for going way out of bounds in insulting Melissa McCarthy in his review of Identity Thief would add nothing to the conversation. As Scott E. Weinberg eloquently pointed out, and I’m paraphrasing, if Reed’s sole purpose was to slam the film for having one joke, and going back to that well far too often, this was not the way to do it.
I will preface my further comments by saying I’ve never liked Reed’s work. Growing up I saw three critics on TV frequently: Reed, if I recall correctly, added film reviews to The Gossip Show on E!. Then there was Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert.
Of the three, I held the late great Gene Siskel in the highest regard. Roger Ebert is a great source of knowledge, but I don’t frequently agree both with what he says and how he goes about saying it. My last piece on a critical blunder was on the first in now a string of spoilers by him (and it shan’t resurface on here lest he does so again). Reed’s latest gaffe comes about a year after his egregious errors in fact on The Cabin in the Woods, which were embarrassing whether he liked the film or not.
To get back on point, corrections and admonitions of Reed based on the content of his piece and his track record, which is unquestionably long, are fine. However, it was only in this debate wherein Reed’s sexuality was confirmed to me based on people’s comments. This fact was brought to light in part due to the fact that he is insulting a woman on her appearance and weight. The veiled insinuation being that this latest breach of professional etiquette is due at least in part to his sexual orientation, which is completely and utterly asinine.
Boorish writing and unprofessional behavior is perpetuated by those in all walks of life. There’s no excusing Reed’s behavior, and to try and explain it is wasteful. Especially considering the fact that Reed has gone on to defend his comments and not retract them.
Anyone who either dabbles or works solely in the arena of opining likely has made regrettable statements or pieces, I know I have. My real contribution to this conversation is the following: In general terms, when criticizing someone’s insensitive remarks do not make generalizations or you’re stooping to their level (e.g. “Oh, well he/she would say that because they’re this). More specifically, if we’re debating the quality of someone’s work their sexual orientation has no bearing on the issue.
For example, I’d go so far as to say Joel Schumacher is one of the more wildly inconsistent directors there is, but when he’s good I think he’s very good and when he’s bad, well, you’ve seen it, and believe me there’s worse than the one you’re thinking of. However, any debate of on works of gay directors whether highly regarded like Gus Van Sant or not-so-much like Joel Schumacher almost invariably brings the fact up at some point. Anyone who strives to do something, and do so well, doesn’t want a qualifier: you don’t want to be a great gay filmmaker, black quarterback or female senator. You want to be a great filmmaker, quarterback or senator. It works on both ends of the spectrum. If Rex Reed is a bad critic, which I always found him to be, it’s because he’s not good at his job. Period.
Not too long ago I was asked to participate in a medical study to gather information, and further knowledge, about a metabolic condition I am afflicted with. Part of the process which I was subjected to was a very long MRI. Any and all people taking this MRI were encouraged to bring in a movie to watch. This movie would be viewed in the tube through an angled mirror that would reflect the screen’s image in to you.
What this piece of information made me realize is that there really is a film for all occasions. With this situation I was thinking about what film had a hypnotic quality, that would keep me fairly still for an extended period of time. I also thought to pick a rather lengthy movie should the scan run long for whatever reason, which it did.
I chose Jeanne Dielman, which ended up working perfectly. I have since noted that there are films that, of course, have seasonal connotations such as Halloween and Christmas, but also those that are perfectly suited for other more idiosyncratic occasions. While I usually try to go to the movies on my birthday, those choices are particular to me and my tastes, there are even more obscure occasions that have movies that fit them. It’s all about finding the right tone and rhythm for you. What other odd occasions have movies that suit them perfectly, I now wonder, seeing as how I found the perfect MRI film?
I made a comment after seeing The Campaign over the summer that it was a silly skewering of campaigning and American politics in general. As I rewatched it, after this year’s election, it suddenly seemed less silly. Granted there’s comedic exaggeration but some of the incidents in the campaign weren’t that far off. And in keeping with my vow to do more off-beat pieces and not always reviews, allow me to take the silliness just slightly more seriously than I did before.
“You can call me dad.”
This ad, while hilarious, struck me as one of the largest exaggerations when I watched it. However, when Tagg Romney took it upon himself to stick himself into the election saying he wanted to “take a swing at him [Obama],” then this scene seemed not so crazy anymore.
“I spoke last.”
As hilariously insightful as this line Ferrell delivers is, I never thought it’d be quite so prophetic seeing as how after the first debate Jim Lehrer was roundly criticized for losing control of it and Mitt Romney was cited as the most frequent abuser of debate decorum, essentially wanting to get in the last word regardless; even if it was as inane as “I spoke last.”
The Sex Tape
This campaign was devoid of sex scandals, and as many sex tapes as exist, there’s yet to really be one that incriminates a politician, to my knowledge. However, sex scandals are clearly nothing new politics. Even before his eventual impeachment Bill Clinton had to fend off marital infidelity rumors during his first presidential campaign.
Mera-Kai
Through all the discussions about tax codes one issue that popped up, and was only really ever of concern to voters who paid close attention, was relations with China; namely who did or did not invest in Chinese firms, and who would or would not be tough on their trading practices. It’s a far cry from the scenario the film paints, but perhaps a portent of one of the crucial foreign policy concerns in coming years.
“Is he an Al-Qaeda?”
It will never be a stretch in my mind to make any joke about fear-mongering in American politics. This is not only a jab and poor grammar and syntax but also one about baseless accusations, trying to show your opponent in a negative light, and as “not one of us.”
Conclusion
The aforementioned accusations is levied by Ferrel’s character who plays the frequently-unopposed Democratic incumbent, so the film is pretty fair and doesn’t play into stereotypes that the left and right have about one another whenever possible in making its points, which as silly as they are rendered, it is saying a bit more than you might think upon first glance.
It is Australia Day today. Much like the post I created last Canada Day I wanted to create a post that highlighted films set and produced in each territory/state of the nation on this day. Unlike the Canadian entry, I created this in part to seek further suggestions, as with the Canadian list I had ideas and sought to bolster my list.
Another unique issue that the Australian list presents is that as I looked up films I knew to be set/produced there many didn’t seem to have specificity to their locale and were shot in multiple territories/states. In the end, I did take one film that was shot all over and attribute it to one location, other more obvious titles that could be attributed to many areas were omitted.
As I mentioned above, I really am seeking suggestions too. It’s not the most comprehensive of lists, and the geographical subdividing makes it a bit tougher to assemble, but it was still fun – especially since it allowed me to do some more geography nerd-work, and Canada always came easier to me than did Australia, but now I think I have it all sorted.
The last disclaimer that applies is that I did find links to information on and video of documentaries about the Torres Strait and Christmas Islands, but found nothing suitable about the Capital District or Norfolk Island; so it really is mainland Australian titles within. However, it must be stated for the record that in my searches I did find a plethora of film festivals, agencies and resources in Canberra so that’s very cool.
Over the past few years I’ve been more drawn to Australian films and culture, so I would definitely be eager to find more and also to celebrate some of what I have seen thus far.
Victoria
The Up Series
Though it is a British production, The Up Series of documentaries has had cause to go abroad as its subjects have grown. The series of films has interviewed subjects every seven years starting at the age of seven. While Nick has spent time teaching in the US, Bruce has taught in Bangladesh, John has done charitable work in Bulgaria; its most frequent trips have been to Australia where Paul moved shortly after the first film. His segments have been amongst the most interesting as his move preceded the talks of expatriates, which entered the series later on.
Lake Mungo
I am not against found footage as a rule. Furthermore, even if you hate it and cite say Chronicle or The Blair Witch Project as the exception that proves the rule, this is a film that should be viewed. In large part due to the fact that it utilizes a mockumentary structure with critical moments being examination of footage. It is a a higly effective slow burn that really packs a wallop.
The Devil’s Playground
Fred Schepisi may not be a name you consciously know but odds are you’ve seen something he’s directed. His credits include Roxanne,A Cry in the Dark (Which features later on this list), The Russia House and Six Degrees of Separation. This is his debut feature, which is an acclaimed, award-winning film that he also wrote, which is better than a vast majority of boarding school-set coming-of-age dramas that are more renowned.
Northern Territory
Australia
OK, OK, I realize that it’s not original in the least to include a film called Australia on a list of Australian films. It’s such an obvious pick that I’d include it here whether I liked it or not, however, I am a fan of this film as the 2008 BAM Awards will evidence.
This is definitely a case where a propriety title (i.e. Baz Luhrmann’s Australia) may be very fitting. It’s clearly one man’s vision. It’s a Golden Age aesthetic plopped into the 21st Century and a sweeping epic that does traverse the nation.
However, much of the film does center around Darwin in the Northern Territory, hence that’s where I place it.
Tasmania
Looney Tunes
I grew up on Staten Island, the forgotten borough of New York City, so I have an affinity for any island that’s part of a larger whole. However, even as Staten Islanders we had our occasional moment of cinematic pride (as cheeky as it might be) like in Working Girl. I write that intro because I’m fairly sure that my Tasmanian selections will leave some nonplused and/or vexed. Believe me I am more than welcome to suggestions here, and for what it’s worth I think Tasmania should have an Aussie Rules team. Having said that, here’s my take on Taz:
My first introduction to the isle of Tasmania was through the insane depiction of the Devil as created by the Looney Tunes. Granted I had an inkling, even being young and only slightly informed, that it was a broad caricature but like with everything the Looney Tunes did it’s hilarious; even if the Devils don’t spin like dervishes, spit or even walk on their hind legs.
To mention an actual Australian character: the internet has shown me that Ginger Meggs is quite funny.
Young Einstein
At least this one features a person who actually is Australian and made his character from Tasmania. Many don’t like this film. I didn’t quite expect to when I saw it in theaters, even though I was young, but I did.
Queensland
Crocodile Dundee
Perhaps one of the most insightful jokes ever on Family Guy was about Crocodile Dundee. Crocodile makes a random appearance and then Peter says “I want to see a lot more of you and then suddenly none of you.” This film epitomizes this pop culture phenomena. We here in the US glutted ourselves on this film and Hogan such that the over-saturation seemed to have nauseated us to the concept by the time the sequel hit. That is rather unfortunate since the reception to the delayed third installment was fairly good, though the box-office was fairly tepid, as expected.
Western Australia
December Boys
The films that the cast of the Harry Potter series did, while the series was ongoing, got a bad wrap at the time. In essence, Radcliffe’s involvement in this film was it seems mostly designed to buoy a film that deserved a wider reach. This a very well-told, heart-wrenching film that should be sought out.
New South Wales
When thinking of New South Wales and doing research three titles immediately jumped to mind. One I still have yet to see, two I have.
A Cry in the Dark is by this point an iconic film, and sadly, in the US in a bit of an infamous way due to the Seinfeld joke. However, this was not only a very popular film but features a great performance by Meryl Streep, one of her myriad Oscar nominations, and it’s a rather effective drama.
Finding Nemo, although it’s animated, takes place underwater, one of the major plot elements is hitting the East Australian current, but of course, the first line that pops into most people’s heads when it comes to this movie is “P. Sherman, 42 Wallaby Way, Sydney.” It is where the dentist’s office is, and it is a beloved film so it most certainly belongs.
Lastly, is Muriel’s Wedding. I honestly cannot tell you how I have not seen this film yet. It’s directed by P.J. Hogan won BAM Awards for his involvement in Peter Pan and stars Toni Collette who is a two-time BAM Award winner in her own right. I will rectify this and seeing the Mad Max films soon.
South Australia
With South Australia I have selected two titles. I have done so with two different trains of thought: one title I want to see based on what I learned about the plot. The second, I have seen and though it was not a film I personally enjoyed (far from it) it is a film that has received a lot of acclaim, but not necessarily viewership.
The film I would like to see is Australian Rules, which deals not only with the antipodean version of the game, which I love, but also with race relations (white and aboriginal).
The film I have seen is Snowtown (aka Snowtown Murders). My displeasure with the film is mostly due to the narrative.
So there are the films I could come up with based mostly on what I’ve seen. As I said, I do these in part to have new films to hunt down. So what say you? Comment below or tweet me @BernardoVillela.
A large part of why I started this blog, as opposed to continuing at the site I was perviously, was that I wanted to control my content and also if I should choose to be publishing daily I wanted to not necessarily constrain my focus to a particular region or breaking news.
Yes, having access to information is great, and I partook in the internet explosion that occurred when Jurassic Park IV added itself to next summer’s calendar, but I want to focus mostly on things I have seen rather than will see. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, and the new Universal/Blumhouse production of Mercy, which starts rolling today, is an exception.
Background
Mercy is based on a short story by Stephen King. The original story was entitled “Gramma” and was first read by most in his short story collection The Skeleton Crew.
When I heard the news the name of the story didn’t immediately ring a bell. As the casting announcements started coming I decided to revisit it. This time I read it not just to be refreshed on the story but to look at it as an adaptation. I can still mostly keep prose in mind as pure prose (Hitchcock reached a point where he could no longer read for pleasure because he read everything with an eye for adaptation), unless I am consciously adapting it like I did with Suffer the Little Children.
So, how are the elements being prepared for the screen? How good do they look? For the most part they reinforce my positive outlook.
The Story
Now, as is the case with a lot of prose (particularly King’s), a certain amount of externalization will need to take place. Much of the tale takes place in a single location and chronicles the protagonist’s reaction, through inner monologue, to the predicament he finds himself within.
It’s a highly effective narrative, which has potential for great visuals, interesting construction and a lot of tension. In fact, it was brought to the small screen during the short-lived return of The Twilight Zone.
The Screenwriter
Brought in to adapt the story into a screenplay was Matt Greenberg whose previous credits include Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest, The Prophecy 2 and Halloween H20: 20 Years Later as his franchise prolonging starting points, then Reign of Fire; an intriguing installment of Masters of Horror called The Fair-Haired Child, then most importantly 1408, based on King and the upcoming Pet Sematary remake. King projects have been botched enough that track record and pedigree matters; Darabont and Garris usually means a good visual treatment of the tales; Greenberg may as well, if his previous works are any indication.
Director
Peter Cornwell has genre experience in a film I happened to like quite a bit, A Haunting in Connecticut. That does lead me to the next point…
Marketing
Based on the narrative of the story itself this film should be a PG-13 horror movie. I believe a faithful adaptation would make it so. You’d need to amp things up to get it to an R-Rating. I don’t have an issue with that in and of itself, it’s just something I predict.
Casting
Stephen King, the story and the team (including Blumhouse the production company helming who have had much genre success lately, namely Sinister and the Paranormal Activity series) are enough to make this a movie to anticipate, however, then you get to the cast.
Dylan McDermott is first billed. In recent years he’s not only had a return to prominence, but I’m sure gained many new fans with his very successful forays into the horror genre. Most notably on American Horror Story. I know my appreciation of his work has grown exponentially.
The lead as per King’s text is George, the younger of two brothers, who I presume will be played by Chandler Riggs. Playing Carl Grimes in The Walking Dead is no small feat. You know this to be true whether you’re a fan of the show, graphic novels or both. I read a lot of the books before trying the show and Riggs gives a much more well-rounded interpretation of Carl than I had imagined.
If we are to presume McDermott and O’Connor are the parents and Riggs is the younger sibling, then naturally Joel Courtney (Super 8) would be Buddy, the older brother. If this is to be the case then it would be an interesting change of pace from Courtney‘s appearances thus far. In Super 8 and his guest spot on The Haunting Hour he’s been a dreamer, a bit of nerd, and all-around good kid. However, Buddy, as written from George’s perspective, is your typical older brother maybe a little meaner, a little more antagonistic than most.
Last, but certainly not least when the source material is called “Gramma,” is the grandmother who will be played by Shirley Knight, which is another great choice. It’ll be great to see her in a film like this as opposed to Paul Blart: Mall Cop.
Conclusion
I don’t want to wander into potential spoilerdom. The story, which should give you an idea what the film will sort of be (but don’t judge it on that!), is out there if interested. I also needn’t go into each production department and discuss where else awesomeness can happen, but the potential exists elsewhere also! The more I got into the story and examined in cinematic terms the more exciting a prospect it became. I am definitely looking forward to this one.
This award is one I will present annually to the actor, writer, director or any combination thereof who has in my estimation the best year. The only real criteria is that they have multiple credits. The credits can be two responsibilities on the same film or more than one film. The idea came to me based on Robert Downey, Jr.’s incredible 2008. He was the first winner and the name stuck.
The cast of It continues to go places. Aside from all the movies I saw Jaeden in this year, one of which was a delayed viewing of Knives Out, he was also in Defending Jacob on AppleTV+. His films also ran the gamut of genre and were seen throughout the year.
Holland’s appearances as Spider-Man continue to be stellar. One of the litmus tests of my Entertainer of the Year Award are appearances through the year. Avengers: Endgame and Spider-Man: Far From Home took care of the spring and summer appearances. At Christmas he leant his impressive voice talent to Spies in Disguise. What about the fall? Well, when it appeared Spider-Man was doomed to cinematic limbo outside the MCU after Disney and Sony couldn’t come to an agreement, he stepped in behind the scenes and helped remedy that situation. It was the kind of movie news needed this year.
Being nominated twice in the same year does not guarantee you the award as the transcendent performer of the year by default. Being as magnetic, wonderful, and bookending the year with A Quiet Place and Mary Poppins Returns made it a cinch.
If you’ve been to my site over the years it’s not secret that I am a huge fan of Stephen King, and I have sought almost any opportunity I could find to write about him.
However, in the BAM Awards as entertainer of the year was not something I foresaw.
Throughout the year I made mental notes of actors and directors who had multiple credits to their name who made their mark through a large swath of the calendar year. I usually like these awards to be like revelations rather than conscious decisions. Once I tried resisting choosing King, I knew he was the only choice.
And I only resisted because picking the creator of source material would be a new frontier, but it is worthy of inclusion. I always cite the author of source material in my nominations on equal footing with the screenwriters.
With it seeming, based on early looks, that King was going to have a very good year, many retrospectives came but the new work showed there are people working now who want to work with his material, and know how to mold it for film.
And it was a very good year for Stephen King, and the BAM Awards were no exception. Films based on his works garnered 30 nominations; including three of five Best Adapted Screenplay nominations.
He also saw two more of his works turned into TV shows Mr. Mercedes and The Mist.
He and his son Owen released the timely novel Sleeping Beauties, and he has a new novel due out this spring; so it’s clear he’s still kicking but his impact on me and many has been long-lasting and will continue, but 2017 cinematically was a standout for highlighting his work, and it’s why he’s the recipient of this prize.
To say that I never expected when he was making a name for himself in the WWE that I’d one day award Dwayne Johnson anything would be an understatement.
However, with the second season of the HBO show Ballers, Central Intelligence, and one of the bigger Gray Area films of the year, Moana.
Johnson has come a long way, but has always seemed a parallel on a higher plain than another honoree on this page.
It was a great year for him, he has three big 2017 films and has become one of the more enjoyable personalities onscreen and one of the few movie stars.
NEW YORK, NY – APRIL 22: Actor/activist Leonardo DiCaprio speaks during the Paris Agreement For Climate Change Signing at United Nations on April 22, 2016 in New York City. (Photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images)
Sometimes it’s next to impossible to pick this award and not confuse it with a Lifetime Achievement award. Though the main difference is, even though this is also a body-of-work trophy it’s awarded for a year’s work irrespective of the accomplishments made in prior years.
Yes, Will Ferrell has been at it longer than many of us care to realize right now and I’ve been a fan for quite some time and think he has had very few misses along the way. However, this year there was a lot of stuff, all throughout the year, and it was all hilarious; at least his involvement was.
I like to be inclusive of comedy, and horror, and any other genres the awards generally disregard, so those are just some reasons this funny man is honored this year. Now, for some more specifics about his 2015….
First, there was Get Hard, as with any projects he does with Adam McKay behind the scenes there is silliness and farce in equal measure. There’s much topical humor about the world of high finance aside from broad generalizations and stereotypes exploited for comedic value.
A Deadly Adoption really should have sealed it any, but these awards are ones that kind of occur to me rather than being ones that I consciously plot more often than not. First, this film was a secret project. It was then a surprise announcement as a Lifetime Movie mocking Lifetime Movies, mysteriously pulled from its premiere then rescheduled. It then received a drubbing from those not prepared for the film’s tongue-so-firmly-planted-in-cheek. Will McKinley’s take on it echoes my sentiments on it perfectly. It’s very effective, funny when the absurdity hits you with its subtlety and marks the 2nd straight year a TV film has been included in the BAM Awards.
Ferrell Takes the Field is Ferrell taking his love of baseball to a hilarious extreme to help a charity, create a documentary and promote the MLB by making appearances at 10 positions in real Spring Training games. It aired on HBO and is well worth your time if you like him or baseball or both.
Shortly after that I discovered that perhaps his most hilariously insane character Orson Welles caricature (my reading) Eric Jonrosh had The Spoils Before Dying on IFC. I was able to stream the first two so far. It doesn’t start as strongly as The Spoils of Babylon but he’s as funny as ever.
Then came Daddy’s Home, a re-teaming with Mark Wahlberg and a return to more family-friendly fare where he’s more successful than most comedians.
The cherry on top of his 2015 was his unannounced return to SNL in a recent cold open as Dubya.
Clearly it was a great year for him, and one thing Wahlberg said in his junket/circuit interviews was true, to paraphrase he said “His comedy doesn’t come from a dark place, he just genuinely wants to me make people laugh,” and in 2015 he made me laugh quite a lot.
One of the awards in the universe of them that has always particularly bothered me are handed out at the ShoWest Convention. They are the Male and Female Star of Tomorrow. What bothers me is that usually when I see these winner announcements there is very little that the recipient has done to earn it. Seeing as how it is labeled as a “tomorrow” prize I can allow that to slide, but it gets my hackles up and gets me feeling like going on a good Dennis Green-style tirade. Even the BAFTA Rising Star Award to contrast usually has nominees who are a bit more accomplished. This roundabout lead-in is to explain the fact that at 25 years of age, yes, Brenton Thwaites is young but he had a breakout year unlike too many I’ve seen and I’ve missed one of his credited titles.
Early in 2014 he was one of four actors to give an absolutely tremendous performance in Oculus. Horror movies are both notoriously overlooked in terms of performance but also typically don’t even seem to care if there are good ones being turned in. His work as a young man who has just been released from psychiatric observation for a traumatic experience that lead to his conviction for the murder of his father is a tremendous part of the success of this film.
Then there is the small, yet significant role, that seems to need to factor into this award on an annual basis. He plays Prince Phillip in Maleficent. Now, one of the things that Maleficent did get right it is that the film was about Maleficent and Briar Rose almost exclusively, and similar to Sleeping Beauty (and other Disney tales) the prince is almost incidental, but he is cast well and carries himself quite regally.
Also in the summertime he was the face, the centerpiece of Jeff Bridges’ longtime-coming labor of love The Giver. Being the memorykeeper of his dystopian futuristic society he has to come off as the dreamer and a hero and does so in both calls to duty. He shares the screen with Jeff Bridges and Meryl Streep among others and does amazingly well in a film I thought to be highly underrated.
Lastly, there’s The Signal, which is far more than an “indie cred” project but a twist-heavy sci-fi tale that continuously wanders down the rabbit hole. Confused by his circumstances Thwaites’ character here is like a cross of his two other performances on the year and he has not only much dialogue to handle, but plenty of solo time in the early stages of act two where he excels.
It’s rare for a performer in one year to go from unknown to the reason to see a movie, but Thwaites certainly did that in 2014 in my estimation. If I were to place a bet on his future I would think it’s a sure thing but this award, unlike those others, is solely about the year you just had. Whereas, I had cause to nominate some actors twice like Tom Hardy, Thwaites certainly did threaten to earn individual nods, had a great year and established a cinematic presence one that I believe will both grow and linger for quite some time.
In what ended up being a prescient post I was assigned James Franco in a Facebook Actor Game. Basically I was assigned him by a friend and asked to categorize movies he’d been in. Here were my observations, both general and on one of his films of this year. In general:
In my first time playing I was assigned James Franco, which is a pretty interesting choice, and not just because he’s already in the running for Entertainer of the Year this year. So I figured I’d share my thoughts in something slightly larger than a Facebook post here. Also, if you’re so inclined you can like The Movie Rat’s Facebook page here.
It’s too early to tell if this film really is a game-changer, however, what can be said is that it’s a fantastically executed concept and uproariously funny. Crass and immature, yes, but funny too.
As it turns out it was a bit of a game-changer for James Franco, as opposed to a comedy trend (as of yet), because I saw a few other titles with him since then that sealed the deal.
Oz the Great and Powerful is no great shakes, but it wasn’t in my estimation a poor or disconnected Franco but rather a fairly flat film that he made a little more interesting and a less-than-admirable character.
As for more specifics about his participation in This is the End, if it was the last film I’d seen him in this past year, I’m likely picking someone else as a winner. However, the fact that in the middle of the performances of his I saw is a hilarious send-up of how he’s perceived (being perhaps overly-intellectual and perhaps pretentious) while shouting down Danny McBride’s masturbatory habits is the jewel in the crown, for lack of a more humorous term.
Following that I saw Homefront. In Homefront he plays a character named Gator in what is essentially one of the more ideal Jason Statham vehicles yet devised. And while I’d fall short of calling his antagonistic turn there multi-faceted it is a bit more dimensional than most characters of that ilk are given the leeway to be. Franco’s handling of the character and the way he operates surely make Gator stand out more than he likely wold have in the hands of most other actors.
Lastly, at least based on what I saw, there was Spring Breakers, now you’ll note I didn’t particularly care for that film. However, make no mistake about it that there are things about it that I appreciated, and had it not been for Franco as Alien I may not have even have had the desire to complete it because after a certain point he was all that tethered me to the narrative.
That just takes into account what I could see. Many other things Franco was involved in hit Netflix later in the year, or didn’t even get there by year’s end, and they are things I do want to see, like: Interior. Leather Bar., Lovelace, As I Lay Dying, Palo Alto and Child of God.
And that’s just film work. With Franco going to adapt classic works of literature like The Sound and the Fury, I’m more than a little curious about his fiction. All that and he’ll be back perhaps a bit more inspired of all this for the continuation of the Apes prequels. One way in which this award can be viewed as in a career-path altering one, at least in terms of perception. My first selection, the namesake, was a comeback; next a multiple hat-wearer; next a breakout star; next an established star with a varied year; here it’s more an established name elevating his standing in my eyes based on an incredible run, may it keep going.
I think I did start to list potential candidates for this but then thought it’d take some of the drama out of it. Also, if you have to think too much about a body-of-work award like this one, it’s nearly invalidated.
So first there are honorable mentions…
I admit to being woefully ignorant about the oeuvre Joss Whedon before this year. I was not one of the legion following his TV series’. However, with the anticipation building towards The Avengers I saw Dr. Horrible and previously fell in love with The Cabin in the Woods.
Late in the year when this topic was bandied about Matthew McConaughey’s name was getting a lot of traction for roles in Magic Mike, Killer Joe, The Paperboy and Bernie. Also, Mud did well on the festival circuit and is an anticipated 2013 film for me. McConaughey’s year was astoundingly good.
So why not those two? Whedon lacked the spontaneity of some of my past choices. I know of him but not his work and was looking forward to the releases based on premise/buzz. McConaughey’s accolades though mostly genuine almost seem like mea culpas. For whatever reason, he’s got a bad rap. I’ve always liked his work. He hasn’t always been put in the best situations casting-wise (I like Contact but that comes to mind) but if anyone sees Frailty they’d be willing to give him a permanent seal of approval. I’d argue he’s always been underrated and never phoned anything in unlike some who reach tongue-in-cheek cult status, and this year he found dynamite parts and knocked them out of the park. Always felt he could, but was a closeted fan.
However, owing to the fact that last year’s winner had four roles of note and set sort of a precedent and also appeared in films I saw at different stages of the year, those things are some of, but not the only reasons, I choose Samuel L. Jackson.
Jackson, of course, is part of the phenomenon that is The Avengers. To an extent Jackson’s work as Nick Fury is akin to Alan Rickman’s in the Harry Potter series. Jackson has been establishing Fury as the Marvel Universe built itself up on film. The culmination of the effort is the first Avengers film.
However, before and after that film in the year there were two indies that when combined with Django Unchained make him the clear choice.
Now, Meeting Evil and The Samaritan may not be the most universally embraceable films but I enjoyed both and he seemed to also. Sam Jackson has been quoted as saying that he sometimes bases decisions on roles by deciphering if he would’ve wanted to see these films when he was a kid. I think all his choices for 2012 pass that test with ease.
Last, but unquestionably not least, is his performance in Django Unchained. What he does there is nothing short of astounding especially when you consider his screen time. He plays older than he is, adopts new physicality, puts a slightly different spin on his usual tough-guy persona, and then, with impeccable timing and brilliant results, sends up the sidekick subservience that far too many African-American actors of the the past had to settle for.
However, when hearkening to the past in a different way, Jackson also took part in two films that could be classified as neo-noir and played both sides of the equation (protagonist and antagonist).
Smauel L. Jackson is the kind of actor who upon being involved in a project elevates it and has the potential to do something extraordinarily special. He did so in 2012 four times over. If that’s not entertainer of the year, I don’t know what is.
Now, I know what you’re thinking but believe it or not this has very little to do with The Rise of the Planet of the Apes though I will get to that at some point.
Andy Serkis was the lead in the first qualified movie of 2011 an indie film called Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll where he played Ian Drury a punk rock frontman and icon. The film covered a lot of time chronologically and he had a lot of character to play and was nearly honored by the BAM Awards with an acting nomination. It’s a film that makes some interesting creative decisions that is worth seeking out.
Next I saw him playing a completely different type of character entirely, as is par for the course it seems. He played Colleone in the British crime film Brighton Rock and every scene he had in it was just entrancing, he’s flamboyant and pure evil in it and it’s great to watch.
Not I will get to Planet of the Apes. I recognize and get a lot of the positive commentary Serkis received for that film. Whether or not motion capture work can and should be award fodder is a discussion for another time. He emotes for Caesar and makes him a character. In a film that could’ve used a bit more from the human cast he humanized the apes well.
What really seals it though is the fourth Serkis title I saw. When I went to see The Adventures of Tintin I saw his name in the credits and didn’t expect it. So I played a little game wherein I tried to figure out who he was. I had a guess but it wasn’t based on the fact that I knew it was him. It’s more like I know how versatile and impeccable he is.
The man truly is a chameleon and an entertainer to the core and more than deserves this honor.
A few years ago Robert Downey, Jr. was hot on the comeback trail and he could do no wrong. He made Iron Man much cooler than we ever thought it could be and he was side-splittingly funny in Tropic Thunder. Conversely I had been considering creating an Entertainer of the Year award for the BAMs. When those events converged I decided to both name the award after him and have him be the first recipient.
The only real qualification is that you need to have at least two participations (meaning they can be either two films in which you played the same function actor, writer, director, etc. or two functions in one film in which you excelled). Last year’s winner was Michael Keaton for starring in and directing The Merry Gentleman.
This year’s winner is a young lady who has burst on to the scene with three very memorable performances in three disparate films and is now one of the most sought after actors in film.
Chloë Grace Moretz I first saw as a girl who is literally too cool for school in Diary of a Wimpy Kid. She is the kind of character who while somewhat jaded doesn’t waste time trying to be someone she isn’t or impressing people who don’t matter.
Then, of course, there is her performance as Hit Girl. A turn that only just slightly missed multiple nominations. She literally is the whole reason Kick-Ass works, she floats through a bloodbath of her own creation with ease unlike we’ve seen since the Kill Bill series.
As if that wasn’t enough Miss Moretz also took on the role of the vampire in Let Me In, an American rendition of the neo-classic Swedish film Let the Right One In. While the script and director dictate a different direction for her character than previously indicated she still brings to the role incredible vulnerability, menace and a certain disarming innocence, which help make the film great.
For all those reasons she is Entertainer of the Year.
Due to Robert Downey, Jr.’s incredibly entertaining performances in 2008 I decided to name an Entertainer of the Year Award in his honor. Naturally, he was the first winner. This year, at first, qualifiers for that award were few as qualification was stringent to be in keeping with the award’s namesake, meaning that a candidate needed two magnificent parts in films that both equally deserve recognition. Then upon further thought the “Entertainer of the Year” portion of the award’s title came to the forefront and the criteria changed slightly to two participations of equally great entertainment value and thus the award could be easily handed to Michael Keaton for his performance and his direction in The Merry Gentleman, for few had two acting roles that merited recognition on that level.
Keaton not only confidently directs a very adept cast but tells a tale visually with great cinematography. It is also a very different kind of tale which, consistently defies expectations. Unlike some actors-turned-directors the part he plays is not very large in terms of dialogue or very glamorous but it is a great part and he plays it astoundingly well. It is a departure from his usual affable persona. Also, unlike many actors-turned-directors he is unafraid to tell his story in pictures.
In an interview with Guardian he said “It’s great to make your own choices, but there’s a price to pay.” While more mainstream films and appeal have alluded him he found a film here he connected with on many levels. He has crafted a film onscreen and off it that is an embodiment of his statement that “You don’t want to lose your status, but I was never willing to preserve it by doing things I didn’t want to do.” Keaton may not be the name he once was in terms of box office figures but as an artist he has grown in leaps and bounds and this project is a testament to that and this critic hopes there are more on the way.
What else can you say about a man who actually inspires an award to come into being? He literally could’ve swept the male acting categories in 2008 and there wasn’t much that he did that wasn’t awesome and he’s been on a pretty good streak since as well. The award is something that needed to happen and he gave it the push necessary.
Below you will find not only the few winners of my lifetime achievement award but the writeups I did for each, when they were awarded. You will find some redundancy in them as in each I give you a bit behind the genesis of said award. In the first year of this award there was no accompanying text so I have added a slight amount now.
This award is named after Bergman because when I was set to establish an award of its type his last film blew me away and was nominated for many awards. The idea then is that it’s not a parting shot but rather recognition of someone still very much at the top after many, many years.
2020 Robert De Niro, Christopher Walken, Tom Hanks, Goldie Hawn, and Kurt Russell
Rather than overthinking this one I chose a handful of actors I’ve loved for a long time.
George Lucas’s credentials need hardly be listed here. He was the architect of the Star Wars franchise and one the architects of the Indiana Jones franchise. And, of course, there are his tech innovations with THX, Industrial Light & Magic and Skywalker Sound. Normally, I want my honoree of this award to have a credit in the year of his/her honoring. Lucas does and his contribution is unconventional: of course, he’s credited with “Based on characters created by” but he also helped shape the ending which I loved.
Picking Švankmajer for this award was the first decision I made for these awards. I have featured his work on the site several times, including his cracking one of my film discoveries lists and a feature in one of my earliest posts, when I backed a crowdfunding campaign for his final film, in Bermanesque fashion, it did not disappoint and earned several nominations.
When I posted my BAM Award honorees, it was another long day and I claimed I’d post special awards the following day. The delay in posting any and all of these honorary awards has been due in large part to wrapping a long first draft of a piece of fiction and the fact that a record keeping mistake almost led me to pick the same Lifetime Achievement recipient as last year. Not that John Williams hasn’t done enough for multiple lifetimes, but let’s spread the wealth.
As such I will instead post at least one honoree a day to balance this blog with my other works.
As I deliberated picking people who aren’t exceptionally old as other awards do, I wasn’t inspired by many of my options until I looked at the history of my own awards and how in recent years I had seen the reemergence of some of my favorites into the nominated list. So, that seemed like the perfect reason to celebrate all of their works as I also like to select people who are still making an impact.
Best Supporting Actress winner in 1996 (Mulholland Falls) Best Supporting Actress nominee 1997 (Lolita) Best Actress nominee in 1999 (Shadow of Doubt) Best Actress winner in 2001 (Cecil B. Demented) Best Cast nominee in 2001 (Cecil B. Demented) Best Cast Nominee in 2017 (The Disaster Artist).
Even before the era wherein the BAM Awards were a part of my life Melanie Griffith had already made an impression on me, and in retrospect I went on to view many of her films.
Prior to her most well-known work (Working Girl) she had already made a splash with two films that would end up standing the test of time (Body Double and Something Wild).
While the string of films she was in following Working Girl had varying degrees of success commercially, critically, I enjoy most and like her work in them even more (Pacific Heights, Bonfire of the Vanities, Paradise, Shining Through, Born Yesterday, Milk Money, Nobody’s Fool, Buffalo Girls, Celebrity, Another Day in Paradise, Crazy in Alabama and RKO 281 among those not yet mentioned).
Smaller independent works intervened between her last BAM nomination and The Disaster Artist, but I’d not happened to come across them or gone out of my way to see them, though I should have. The Disaster Artist was a tremendous jolt, a reminder that I’ve not tracked down enough of her works as she was one of the first actors or directors I made a point of seeing.
“Do you even want to be an actor?” her character, an acting instructor, says to Greg Sestero (Dave Franco) in The Disaster Artist. He responds in the affirmative. “Well, you hide it well,” she retorts, and in a film about the making of a cult film, and in many ways the cruelty of Hollywood and entertainment in general; Melanie’s part, and Sharon Stone, as an objectifying talent agent, seems a very conscious and shrewd commentary: these are talented, professional women deserving of respect and recognition.
The delay in posting any and all of these honorary awards has been due in large part to wrapping a long first draft of a piece of fiction and the fact that a record keeping mistake almost led me to pick the same Lifetime Achievement recipient as last year. Not that John Williams hasn’t done enough for multiple lifetimes but let’s spread the wealth.
As such I will post at least one honoree a day to balance this blog with my other works.
As I deliberated picking people who aren’t exceptionally old as other awards do, I wasn’t inspired by many of my options until I looked at the history of my own awards and how in recent years I had seen the reemergence of some of my favorites into the nominated list. So, that seemed like the perfect reason to celebrate all of their works as I also like to select people who are still making an impact.
Best Actress nominee in 1997 (A Thousand Acres) Best Actress nominee in 1998 (Hush) Best Actress winner in 1999 (Cousin Bette) Best Actress winner in 2000 (Titus) Best Cast nominee in 2000 (Titus) Best Supporting Actress winner in 2014 (In Secret)
In the early days of these awards when I was prone to revisionism and trying to create credible nominees from 1981. I was compelled to go back and watch as many things as I could by my favorite directors and actors. Jessica Lange was among these actresses.
Even scrapping those provisional, untrue awards she made more than enough of a mark. Her nominations as Best Actress in four consecutive years was a feat I didn’t notice until I started composing this piece (I like to compose these award without being conscious of things like how many nominations a film is racking up or if so-and-so made it in the year before).
I believe I first knew of Jessica Lange when in a high school cinema class we screened the 1976 King Kong. That allowed me then to seek out and watch many of her films in approximate chronological order. Eventually she became an actress I made a point of going out to the movies to see.
Like many other admirers, I was thrilled when American Horror Story acted as a renaissance for her career. When In Secret was released I rushed out to see it, and I thought for a Zola novel I did not know much about it portrayed a story of that vintage in as modern a way as possible without reinventing it, and Lange stole the entire film, and she was not only nominated again but won her third BAM Award.
In 2015 it was time for her to move on from AHS, but recently she made another tour-de-force appearance on a television series Feud: Bette and Joan, which bears mentioning here as she played Joan Crawford and was dealing with the struggle of being a woman of a certain age in Hollywood, and contrary to her trajectory playing an actress whose talents were never fully appreciated. That role showed that she by no means is done, as I prefer these honorees to be.
If there was one thing that 2016 showed the world, it’s that there should not be a limitation on appreciation. While my lifetime awards want to try to award those “not on their deathbed” it’s become even clearer to all that there are not guarantees and being too premature awarding in a category like this is not the end of the world.
In that spirit I picked two this year, and may find a way to squeeze in three for 2017. Here they are:
50 Academy Award Nominations.
5 Oscars.
Nearly all of Spielberg’s credits.
The basis upon which the scoring of Star Wars and Harry Potter scores are built by others.
Movie stardom is a rare commodity now it seems, and Schwarzenegger definitely has always had that kind of magnetism.
However, after serving two terms as the governor of California, in 2011, as Arnold Schwarzenegger started to appear on the big screen again, I realized something: I’d missed him on-screen. 2016 was an off-year in as much as most of what he’s worked on lately will be out in 2017 and beyond, which is part of the tradition I like to follow (to have things forthcoming of note like (Triplets, The Legend of Conan, Journey to China: Mystery of the Iron Mask, Aftermath, Why We’re Killing Gunther and more) but he still managed to make people take notice:
But while that brought entertainment value to his now-too-rare, sane conservatism this is not a political trophy. Since 2011 he has returned to the Terminator franchise (in which he was far superior to the narrative of the most recent film), delivered perhaps his best performance in Maggie, not only cemented his action legacy but muscled his way into Liam Neeson’s action niche, and, of course, we all know what he was to action in the ’80s.
I like these awards to come around almost by osmosis. I considered another way for Bergman-connected people: like Liv Ullmann, unfortunately I did not see her most recent film (as director).
It seemed like a stretch to pick Max von Sydow, as someone active this year only in the very beginning of the new Star Wars, but as I thought about it it started making more and more sense. He’s been considered before and was part of a BAM-nominated cast this year.
In the future, he will be the human embodiment of Bran’s raven on Game of Thrones.
He has connections with other liftetime winners: He co-Starred with Werner Herzog in What Dreams May Come, was in Woody Allen’s Hannah and Her Sisters, 14 feature films with Ingmar Bergman himself and Best Intentions based on Bergman’s novel, Sleepless with Dario Argento, and Minority Report with Steven Spielberg.
In a year with another sub-par Bond, it made me long for old Bond films and von Sydow was Blofeld in Never Say Never Again.
Considering that Robin Williams passed well before his time, and the seemingly-immortal Christopher Lee did as well, it’s not too late but about time to honor Max von Sydow. He clearly has well-earned longevity of his career on his side with credits in the ‘50s, ‘60s, ‘70s, ‘80s, ‘90s, ‘00s, ‘10s; in other words consecutive decades. He’s 86 years old, and debuted at 22 in Miss Julie (1951).
He was Oscar nominated in 1989 and 2012 (most recently for Extremely loud and Incredibly Close), Golden Globes in 1967 and 1974, Emmy in 1990.
Yet more impressive are his list of credits I’ve not even mentioned yet.
He went from something like Winter Light to playing Christ in The Greatest Story Ever Told to being Father Merrin in The Exorcist.
His credits are multi-lingual.
Even the blind spots I have with him are well-regarded:
Tudors
Dune
Dreamscape
Ice Pirates
Three Days of the Condor
Steppenwolf
New Land
Emigrants
His voice has even featured in games like Skyrim and Ghostbusters.
When I discovered he was going to be on Game of Thrones my reaction was simply “Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow,” which was frequently how I reacted to his performances.
In what is usually something I like to consider a norm, Meryl had quite a year in this one where I decided the time had come to honor her so. Back in January the nationwide release of August: Osage County hit theaters and I went to see that and her performance there nearly earned her a second BAM Award nomination this very year. Then, of course, there is her BAM Award nominated turn in Into the Woods. These three roles broke a long string in her filmography which for one reason or another did not compel me to watch them.
However, what Meryl Streep having a year such as this does remind you of is the many years and many roles prior that stood out for so long.
Manhattan, Kramer vs. Kramer, Sophie’s Choice, Silkwood, Falling in Love, Heartburn, A Cry in the Dark, Postcards from the Edge, Defending Your Life, Bridges of Madison County, Before and After, Marvin’s Room, …First Do No Harm, Dancing at Lughansa, Music of the Heart, Artificial Intelligence: A.I. (Yes, she is in that, too! Look it up!), Adaptation., The Hours, The Manchurian Candidate, Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events and many more.
One thing I’ve had occasion to discuss both this year and in the past is my interludes of revisionism. That impulse is not one I feel any longer, however, this is the one chance at anything like it. Clearly one musn’t sit about feeling the need to award Meryl Streep, but it is the very award culture that at times obscures the nearly unparalleled accomplishments some have made. So take a moment and reminisce on these titles, on the scenes, and wonderful little moments therein, and that should bring on more sincere gratitude. This award, as it is meant to be, is not a salvo. I’m quite sure we’ll see much more of her and for that we should all be thankful.
I saw a tweet over the summer, leading up to the release of Blue Jasmine, that asked something to the effect of: I wonder why now is the time that many publications have chosen to do a career retrospective on Woody Allen? Logically speaking, I can’t answer that. He hasn’t necessarily slowed down and like all of us he’s not getting any younger. My theory though is that it took the film-loving community by surprise that shortly after Midnight in Paris he returned with another widely acclaimed film so soon. Due to that fact it caused many to want to start looking back over his career.
I must say it hit me the same way. I caught Blue Jasmine a little later than many but I was quite blown away by it, and even with his recent triumph surprised by it. Woody Allen was one of the earliest writer/directors I gravitated to by name. He’s also one I came back around to, at least once, after I became obsessed by Bergman, seeing as how Allen is a fellow disciple.
It’s a virtual prerequisite that I’ve seen most of the works if not all of the works of the winning director. However, I know there are some of his I’ve not yet checked out (many recent) and I also have a volume of his short stories to check out. It’s a retrospective I’d be glad to take in.
Especially considering that one of the most overlooked aspects of Allen’s repertoire is his ease of going back and forth between comedy and drama, and even mixing them. In my family Allen’s name has long been synonymous with greatness, in writing especially, if not also directing; and I’ve certainly taken the ball and run with it in terms of tracking down his works.
While Allen has had his share of off-screen production-related drama lately he seems to have found a new home at Sony Pictures Classics and has adopted a late-career globetrotting aesthetic that is making returns to New York, even for a scene, a breath of fresh air as well. And, as always, these awards are a recognition of onscreen accomplishment, and Allen’s works have been with me a long time already and I hope to many more years of enjoying his films.
In my 2005 BAM Awards wrap-up, I wrote how I was considering creating a Lifetime Achievement Award and giving it to Ingmar Bergman. The idea was to award him upon completion of his swan song that proved unnecessary when I saw Saraband and it was one of my favorite films of that year and he won Best Director.
It seems this prize has now come full circle as another great director has made what he claims (and right now I believe him) is his last film and it is a great one. This year’s recipient is Bela Tarr.
Tarr is a director I’ve come to know well. However, when I first learned of him and what many consider to be his masterpiece (Satantango) I knew nothing save for the plot of the movie, that it was very long and I had to see it. I went in fairly cold and there was a sort of kinship there. I connected and I got it. That connection extended through much of Hungarian cinema, but it started with Tarr and it started instinctually.
I’ve since come to learn about him, read writings on his work – perhaps what is most fascinating about him is he went from stark cinéma vérité to an aesthetic all his own of long takes, moving cameras, black-and-white minimalist existentialism that is unique in all the world.
I’ve tackled Satantango a number of times, I agree it’s a film that could be viewed annually but I haven’t in a few years and its time to change that. I’ve, of course, seen as many of his films as possible.
It’s one I want to watch all over again. For one thing that is certain is that he proves that auteurism is indeed a live and well. He’s a rare breed, and is also giving back to the cinema fostering artists and striving for aesthetic excellence first and foremost.
The one thing that in my experience I’ve found Tarr has in common with Bergman is this brilliant final bow, his being The Turin Horse.
Tarr’s cinema is one that has evolved and is as exacting as Bergman’s, though not as prolific.
A great filmography is one where many films stand out and apart; Tarr has that:
Hotel Magnezit Family Nest The Outsider Prefab People Macbeth Almanac of Fall Damnation Satantango Journey on the Plain Werckmeister Harmonies The Man From London The Turin Horse
I’ve come to know Hungarian cinema in part because of Bela Tarr and admire it. I admire this man, his work and his vision. This admiration grows leaps and bounds when you add the fact that he’s trying to help ensure the future of the artform in his home country, and around the world.
A great filmmaker’s films will last forever, even greater is the man whose trying to ensure cinema itself lasts forever.
Steven Spielberg has been quotes as saying about Ingmar Bergman “I have always admired him, and I wish I could be a equally good filmaker as he is, but it will never happen. His love for the cinema almost gives me a guilty conscience.” So it seems fitting that someone as talented as he is, who aspires to be the master Bergman is should get this award.
Going into the year I knew the kind of year Steven Spielberg was likely to have. I knew there were many projects coming out that he had some kind of involvement with so the odds ere good he’d be in the running for one of these honorary awards.
Amazingly Steven Spielberg has already won this kind of Award before. The Irving G. Thalberg Award awarded by the Academy is for “Creative producers, whose bodies of work reflect a consistently high quality of motion picture production” and Spielberg won this in 1987.
I pick Steven Spielberg this year because he had turned 65 and because 2011 saw one of his most resounding single-year résumés: Spielberg released this year two films he directed War Horse and The Adventures of Tintin, both of which are excellent as one might expect from a director with his track record but Steven Spielberg is also a talented and prolific producer and 2011 saw many titles he produced come out and do great things most notably were Super 8 and Real Steel.
There were a few other box office titans along the way too. The year had a Spielberg project to talk about from beginning to end. Even on television there was Terra Nova and perhaps the most talked about not picked up pilot of Joe Hill’s Locke and Key. And that’s just this year.
While young for a man who has had a career as long and successful as Spielberg has he has been making great movies for a long time. He has made movies that have marked the lives of generations. His great works we all know. The above is just a year in the life. It’s been 40 years since he made Duel and what has transpired since then is one of the most amazing careers in the annals of cinema and it just keeps going. What’s best is that most people when asked will likely have a different favorite. If you ask me, and you have the time, I will tell you why Artificial Intelligence: A.I. is his greatest work. But I won’t argue if you say your favorite is E.T. or Indiana Jones or The Color Purple or Empire of the Sun or Schindler’s List any of them really.
I’ve tried to pick years in in which these artists had a release or two so I could honor them. This year Spielberg has a slew and he’s due. Many of us who love film know he’s great but it’s good to stop and recognize it. Thanks for the memories you given use so far Steven and here’s to many, many more.
The Ingmar Bergman Lifetime Achievement was sort of born because I was set to award my first ever Lifetime Achievement award to Mr. Bergman in light of the US release of Saraband, his last film. In typical Bergman fashion, however, it was one of the best films of the year and no honorary trophy was necessary.
When I decided to finally award one it was perfectly fitting to name it after him. The criteria are somewhat vague but a few things are obvious: a long and distinguished career with many good movies in it and no posthumous/deathbed honorees, which is to try to avoid the slightly uncomfortable Academy Award standard of waiting far too long to prize those who deserve it.
The recipient of this year’s Ingmar Bergman Lifetime Achievement Award is Dario Argento.
Even before he started to make a name for himself as a director in 1970 Argento already had major writing credits, namely Once Upon a Time in the West. However, once he stepped behind the camera and became an auteur he started to leave an indelible mark.
Immediately he started making his presence known by virtually creating a new subgenre, Giallo, single-handedly. His first three films are variations on this theme and due to their titles and motifs are called The Animal Trilogy.
Upon its release The Bird with the Crystal Plumage was an international sensation, which earned him his first of many comparisons to Hitchcock, eventually even Hitch himself would comment that “This young Italian guy is starting to worry me.”
The trilogy closed with The Cat O’ Nine Tails starring Karl Malden. The fame and recognition he received from these film prompted RAI (an Italian television network) to give him a virtual carte blanche for a series of short films sort of like his version of Alfred Hitchcock Presents called La Porta sul buio or Doorway to Darkness.
He followed that up with perhaps the best one-two punch any director in the horror genre ever had with Deep Red and Suspiria. You could argue for days on end about which is better but the latter still gets cited to this day as one of the finest horror films ever crafted.
Suspiria also marked the beginning of a new trilogy called The Mother of Tears Trilogy, which continues with the 1980 release of Inferno. Despite only being completed in 2007, the third installment, Mother of Tears, is brilliant and was quite literally one shot away from being awarded Best Picture.
His three other releases in the 1980s, while in my opinion varied in quality, all have their moments but are cited by many as films that impacted them. First, there is Tenebre, the only one of his films to be set in the future based on the release date and year in the story. Then there is Phenomena, which definitely has its highlights like Donald Pleasence and one of the creepiest kids you’ve ever seen. Then comes another masterpiece called Opera, which is in hindsight somewhat similar to and much better than Black Swan.
The 90s were another mixed bag with the highlight most definitely being The Stendhal Syndrome, which stars his talented daughter Asia Argento.
Yet though some may contend he is fading he still has had some very strong recent turns. For example: Do You Like Hitchcock? a tale wherein film obsession plays a big role; Jenifer, perhaps the most frightening girl you’ve ever seen; Pelts, a genuinely disturbing tale that has a bloody, gruesome frame, the aforementioned Mother of Tears and despite the issues its faced getting distributed, Giallo, a rare film which he didn’t write but still has some very strong parts.
One can only hope that there is much more coming from Mr. Argento as some of his canon is now gaining classic status and is starting to be remade hopefully his films live on and he gives us new material to love.
At the bottom of the BAM Nominee list, this critic’s personal awards for year’s best, there is mention of two honorary awards and who those recipients are. Here is where you will learn more details as to what the those prizes are and why the indicated person won each award.
First listed is The Ingmar Bergman Lifetime Achievement Award, named after the late legendary filmmaker of countless masterpieces. Bergman was initially going to be named the first winner of the prize but instead with his final film Saraband earned him the award as Best Director of 2005 and the film was one of the best of the decade, so the award was named in his honor instead. The previous winner was Clint Eastwood.
In a concerted effort not only to recognize greatness but also to not wait too long to recognize it this year’s recipient is Werner Herzog. Herzog is a man who never makes one film exactly like another. He writes and directs narrative films but is also an accomplished and renowned documentarian. This year alone he released Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans; My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done and a 4-minute version of La Bohème which combines the song “O Soave Fanciulla” with images of Africa. Not only that but he announced the opening of his Rogue Film School in January in Los Angeles. Always pushing the envelope the time for Herzog’s recognition has come.
It’s hardly necessary to go on a lengthy diatribe about the accomplishments of Clint Eastwood as an actor, director and composer. Needless to say he seems to be getting more prolific and better with age. He has had several acclaimed releases since he was given this award and will likely have several more. Rather than give you a laundry list let it suffice to say that Eastwood is awe-inspiring.
The Movie Rat 