My Predictions

Football blog here.

So, I've been informed by Tracy that someone, somewhere is predicting that the Carolina Panthers will, I don't know, win it all or at least be good.

Has anyone else noticed that this has become an annual tradition? You know what else has? Their collapse during the season.

Apparently, if you analyze Carolina's line-up every year, something magical happens and you are compelled to write that they will win. I don't look at their line-up. I'm not a sports writer. I'm a sports observer. And so I get to stand way back here without having to look through the Matrix-like waterfall of numbers. And from over here, do you know what I see? A team that is so fragile that lose any one component, you lose the team. And a quarterback who is above average at best.

So I predict that Carolina will go where it has gone every year in recent memory: nowhere.

Now, as for the Bears, Kyle Orton will start. He's simply better at doing what needs to be done and nothing more. Call him the Billy Bob Thornton of football. Also, the defense doesn't expect much from him, so there's no resentment. They step up their game.

These are my predictions.

This has been Scott Cupper, signing off from way back here.

Why Ask Why?

"Why is The Dark Knight so successful?" The ways that people have found to answer this question astound me. Like there has to be this great, insightful reason. The very people who cry out against Hollywood's slavish passion for formula are perhaps not trying to decipher the puzzle, but are none the less asking the question. And that's dangerous business. Hollywood doesn't need any help thinking this way.

Do you want to know why The Dark Knight is so successful? Because Batman Begins was a good movie. And as people talked about it (there's is no better publicity than word-of-mouth), anticipation for The Dark Knight grew. And you know what happened? It was even better than Batman Begins. My guess is word-of-mouth is just now getting people to the theater.

Another thing: people actually want good comic book movies. That will come as a shock to many. Everyone seems so surprised that movies based on comic book characters are suddenly doing so well when they once did so poorly, the general exception being Superman. Everyone looked at the data and said, "People don't like comic books movies." No. People don't like bad comic book movies. And generally, between Superman and Spider-man, there were nothing but bad comic book movies. Did you see what happened when Spider-man succeeded? A whole bunch of comic book movies! Suprise!

"People like comic book movies!" Well, yes. But what are you going to do with this information? "We're going to put out every comic book movie we ever even thought about developing." Um, have you thought about the quality? "Huh?"

Did any of them do as well as Spider-man? No. And some did pretty poorly. Why? They weren't good. Sure, Fantastic Four did OK. Because people like comic book movies.

I'll tell you another thing. People just like good movies. This certainly isn't hurting The Dark Knight either. However, our society runs on instant gratification, so when we gather statistics, we tend to analyze them with this bias. Hence the importance placed on opening weekend box office receipts. Unfortunately, this emphasis has basically ruined the possibility of there ever being a true sleeper hit. One that may never win a weekend but simply chugs along and outlasts the others. I still believe that if Shawshank Redemption had been allowed to stay in theaters, it would have eventually been an enormous hit. It seems like every other person I meets says it's their favorite movie.

You know that if The Dark Knight beats Titanic for reigning box office champ (something I still doubt will happen), it's meaningless. Box office lists don't account for inflation. Really, we should be counting attendance. Here's the most recent article I could find about movie attendance. It's from 2002. As noted in my last post, Gone With the Wind reigns supreme. And most likely always will. The most recent film in the top 10? Titanic. At number six.

But attendance don't fill the coffers, so who cares? So quality is the last thing that comes to mind. Oh, how I wish it were the first. But with so many bad movies winning opening weekend, and that being the only statistic anyone looks at, I guess this is what we're doomed to. So, expect another glut of bad comic book movies. After that, it's only a matter of time before Christopher Nolan decides he's moving on and Brett Ratner is hired as funeral director.

This is What I Talk About

Much has been written/discussed about the state of contemporary film criticism. There are many reasons for this question being posed so much recently. I trace the beginning to the rash of horror movies that were being released every weekend to great success. Naturally, the critics had an identity crisis because, not surprisingly, they hated the majority of these movies and told people as much, but it didn't matter. It must have been doubly frustrating for a horror movie of exceptional quality (The Descent) to finally be released only to find itself in a market that didn't care anymore.

Perhaps this is the difference. One group waits for the pleasure of quality. The other pleasures itself immediately so when quality comes along, it tastes like everything else.

I digress.

More recent reasons for this discussion are major professional critics leaving (Jonathan Rosenbaum, Chicago Reader; David Ansen, Newsweek) and the abundance of amateur criticism on the internet. These have something to do with one another. But there's plenty about that out there.

So yes, much has been written and I've read most everything. And I got tired of it. And along came Armond White to set the debate ablaze once more. Actually, he's been there, I just hadn't heard of him.

So film criticism: what exactly it its place?

Well, for one thing, it doesn't really have a place. Or at least not an immediate place. I'm sorry, but the aforementioned horror movie inundation proved this. The problem with movies is that admission is cheap. It is! $10 to see a movie. Yes, we complain, we don't want to pay that much and if it wasn't for gas skyrocketing, it would be the only thing I could point at and say, "I remember when movies cost $3.50." Has it stopped me from going? No. Prevented me? On a few occasions. But if I want to see a move in the theater, I'm going to see it in the theater. It's what I do. So critics can't really tell us what we should and shouldn't see. Unless we want to see everything, like I do, and need to be told what is worth seeing and what isn't. But for people who go occasionally, well, who cares? Why would they listen to a critic. You have a cheap meal before or a few drinks afterward and either can make the night bearable if the movie isn't.

Now consider theater. In Chicago, seeing a production for $10, well, unless you can go on an industry night, doesn't happen. Average for a storefront is probably $20. I don't drop $20 lightly. And think of New York City where tickets are even more expensive. That's where critics truly matter and will be voices that are heard. Money talks. It all depends on who it's talking to. In the instance of movies, the money is talking to studios. So they'll let us see exactly what we want to see. In New York, the money is talking to the people who are putting it down. They're going to look to someone they consider an expert to tell them where to invest their money. Say hello to your investment broker, the theater critic.

So should we stop writing film criticism? Well, if the reason we write is to affect box office, yes. Wait...what? Let's not fall into the very trap we bemoan. Just because the money "talks" to the Hollywood producers doesn't mean it's ignoring critics. Yes, people don't listen to critics on opening weekends. But who is to say that they don't listen later when assembling a Netflix queue? And so sorry Mr. White, people just aren't going to intelligently discuss movies on the scale you would hope. We don't live in a time where that can happen. Everything is too niche. In 1939, Gone With the Wind made nearly $200,000,000. Adjusted for inflation, it made over $1 billion. Why? Only thing going in town. And really, Mr. White, do you think everyone in line to see GWTW was really there for intellectual exercise? There's too much out there now for everyone to pay attention to everything. And what happens when public and critical opinion coincide? The Dark Knight anyone? Even if they don't agree with you, Mr. White?

So what type of film criticism should we write? If you ask Mr. White, he's going to tell you there's one kind and one kind only. It's what I've come to think of as Macro-criticism. This places a film in its larger cultural context. Some other critics I would put into this category are Jonathan Rosenbaum and Jim Emerson. I prefer, and Ebert (whom Mr. White takes to task for beginning this trend) writes, Micro-criticism. You take a movie, and you explain why or why it doesn't work. If you see an original VW Bug, you're probably doing a little of both.

What Mr. White does is mistake bias for an absolute. He compares apples to oranges and calls one bad. I'm all for someone being able to place a movie in an immediate cultural context. I simply edit myself too much to be able to speak about something I might be able to define in another 10 years if I'm particularly observant. What's ironic is I often find this type of criticism to miss the emotional impact of a movie exactly as Mr. White finds the oppopiste to be true.

Eash bias has its own faults. I can praise a movie that I find flawed simply because it moved me. Mr. White and I both share a fondness for War of the Worlds. Is it a perfect movie? No, but it swept me up. I couldn't help it. At the same time I'm laughing at some of the dialogue for its horrendousness, I can't deny that I was moved. And in this instance, I can certainly see that it grew out of 9/11.

But where's your excitement, Mr. White? I've seen Shotgun Stories and I love it and when I talk about it with people, I get excited. That's why, I'm sorry, I go to Ebert. And why, most humble apologies, I think he's a great critic. Because he tells me whether he likes a movie and why. You tell me about its cultural relevance, which is awesome, but it doesn't tell me whether I'll like it or not. Sorry.

I guess what I'm trying to say is let's not inflate the importance of film criticism. The 60s and 70s showed us that films aren't going to change the world. But as long as people respond to movies, they will be made, and people will talk about them and critics will lead the way. Movies are an an art form, and there will always be true artists. But in the words of Pauline Kael (did you forget these, Mr. White?), "Movies are so rarely great art that if we cannot appreciate great trash we have very little reason to be interested in them."

The Dark Knight

****

7/21/2008
by Scott Cupper

Batman/Bruce Wayne................Christian Bale
The Joker.........................Heath Ledger
Harvey Dent.......................Aaron Eckhart
Lt. Gordon........................Gary Oldman
Rachel Dawes......................Maggie Gyllenhaal
Alfred............................Michael Caine
Lucius Fox........................Morgan Freeman

Written by Christopher & Jonathan Nolan
Story by Christopher Nolan & David S. Goyer
Directed by Christopher Nolan

Rated PG-13
Runtime: 2 hrs. 32 mins.

Any review of The Dark Knight must begin with Heath Ledger’s performance as The Joker. I expected him to be great, but I was not prepared for just how good he is. He makes an amazing choice in every single scene. The inevitable backlash has already begun, and yes there are tics and lip-licking and a weird voice, but these are decorations, flourishes, that come from somewhere. To hear The Joker explain that Batman needs him is to see the heart of this character. Ledger’s performance is terrifying. And funny. That was what surprised me most. At no point does it seem The Joker actually believes he has a sense of humor. He is a monster, but Heath Ledger is able to show there is great pain in this character without the script giving him the opportunity to explicitly state this. Amazing.

So, the movie. It is dark. Oppressive at times. But it is excellent. Batman has become what he wanted to be, a symbol, but it’s been lost in translation. Copycats dressed like him in hockey pads are trying to fight crime. He wonders whether he has done more harm than good. Things are not much better for Bruce Wayne. Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) has a new boyfriend, the new DA Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). But this man whom Bruce harbors jealousy of quickly presents himself as a potential savior, a “White Knight” able to rid the crime in the daylight and allow Bruce to hang up his cape and cowl forever.

Enter The Joker. From where? We don’t know. He simply arrives on the scene, pulsating with a lust for chaos. He has been aligning himself with various mobs, but sets his sights on Batman, or more specifically, Batman’s identity. How to go about getting it? Kill people. At that point, all the major players (Batman, Lt. Gordon, Harvey Dent, and Rachel Dawes) are forced to focus on him. This pursuit entwines them and leads them to places both physical and mental none of them could have expected.

Christopher Nolan deserves all the credit for the film’s success. His casting decisions (remember when no one wanted Heath Ledger?) are perfect. The script (written by he and his brother, Jonathan) is novelistic in its scope and themes. The stunts, at least the majority, are real and awe-inspiring. He even learns from his mistakes: The fight scenes are much cleaner and more fluid, the result of longer takes from a camera that is further from the action.

I do have one minor quibble: the court room scene with the gun is so bad as to not even feel like it’s in this movie. I honestly thought a character was going to wake up from a dream.

This aside, well, Christopher Nolan has realized in my mind the perfect Batman movie.

Where Have I Been?

You'll have to forgive me. I'm a slow writer and I've been very busy. Some know, some don't: I'm an actor and have been in shows since the beginning of the (not-so-new) year. My current show, The Mysterious Elephant and the Terrible Tragedy of the Unlikely Addington Twins* *who kill him closes this weekend.

I was asked to write a little something about performing in the show which you can find here.

It will have to suffice for now.

Scott

PS - If this is interesting to you, let me know. I'm not sure how this blog should work. Let me know what you want to read.