BLOGLESS.
It's high time I added a post. I've been trying to get the Blog header's image right and add text to it. This has proven very difficult. One good thing about computers: they work the mind. They are like a contrary spouse; you have to do things their way or not at all. But that's not a put down to contrary spouses; they teach you things. If you survive them, you get stronger and savvier.
But now I'm Blogless. I only like to write when I have something to say, a bit like "Mr. Ed the Talking Horse". I have a son like Mr. Ed. I wondered if he'd ever learn to talk. It turns out he was just saving it for when he had something to say. When God was handing out tongues, I got two and my son got a lot less.
So, what to rattle on about today? I had a thought that I should rate the films I've seen this year. Don't you love those '100 best films to see before you die' things? When they add "E.T." and leave out "Gone With the Wind", I just don't bother to read them.
I should add, not that it really matters in any way, that I obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree majoring in Communications, with particular emphasis on the study of media: that is, cinema, television, radio and newspapers. Even more particularly the media studies on cinema were based on Australian Cinema. I was subjected to many showings of Australian cinema and learned its history.
Now, I'm not crazy about a lot of Australian films but its history is interesting. Australia was the first country in the world to produce a full length feature film. However, while it had creativity in great globs, it lacked business savvy. The U.S. bought up all the distribution rights in the Pacific and it was bye bye to Australian cinema. The U.S. film industry went to California and churned out films to an already captive Pacific and who knows where else and they were darned good at it too.
Isn't it a kind of just retribution that the U.S.A. is now getting a lot of its major stars from the land Down Under? I believe it's because Uncle Sam became so productive, so efficient, that it forgot its soul. They had to look elsewhere for inspiration and the Oz film industry, so delightfully unaffected by commercial success, was still creative.
From this dearth of pecuniary success, the Australian industry still worked at producing actors and directors and from these came Peter Weir, Fred Schepisi et al. It was like a definitive moment in evolution that creates a type. Hollywood, paying attention to this new evolutionary step forward, immediately imported it. Once ensconced the Australian directors must have asked probably the whole of, NIDA's (National Institute of Dramatic Art) graduates to Hollywood. While an American cannot do an Australian accent without permanently damaging their tongue, an Australian actor can mimic the American drawl as easily as throwing a prawn on the barbie.
As this was happening Australian television took the hint. For years it had made shows like 'Homicide', 'Skippy' and 'The Sullivans'. The actors, although perfectly normal looking human beings, were not glamorous or, even necessarily, good looking.
"Neighbours" started the push to pretty people. Even Kylie Minogue with her, then, appalling Australian accent, killed off her dreadful eighties hairdo and, with a little help from Britain, rounded her accent and became quite dazzling. Many stars from that equally appalling (in my humble opinion) show were then chosen for their physical spunkiness. What else, after all, could have kept it going? Many somehow made it to the US and stardom.
Where am I going with this? Actually, I have no idea. I think I was about to give a rating to the movies I have seen this year; that is 2012-2013.
One I really liked was a strange, eclectic little film called, "Moonrise Kingdom". It just keeps coming back into my mind when I have forgotten so many others. Bruce Willis, Frances McDormand, Bill Murray and Harvey Keitel all play curious under-stated roles. I won't explain it. If you like curious, memorable little films, it's worth watching.
"The Heat", with Sandra Bullock was actually really funny. Her foul mouthed co-star helped make the film, about two very different policewomen, a real winner.
On the other hand "Gravity" with Bullock was awful. Some fool thought a hand held camera would work even with the extraordinary special effects. George Clooney floats off into space to die as if he's going down the street to buy something. He doesn't seem to mind at all. He reappears as sort of a ghost in Bullock's mind but, having given her a pep talk, disappears again to his next movie. The final scene with Bullock is obviously an analogy to life beginning on earth.
The appalling remake of "Carrie" with the actress who should have known better, Julianne Moore as her mother, also uses a hand held camera. No one, absolutely no one, and I can speak for everybody, likes films made with a hand held camera as if they are trying for the realism of a documentary. So why use one on a big budget film? Is this a new trend or is someone cutting costs?
The only other interesting things to watch this year have been the television series, "Game of Thrones" and "Hannibal" . I can't believe the producers of "Game of Thrones" finished it at Season 3 and left us in limbo. They are still making Season 4. So too are the producers of "Hannibal". I hope, that after all this waiting, we're not left with a feeling an anti-climax; so long the case after you wait too long for something. It's like you work up too many digestive juices waiting for a meal and, having eaten, get a stomach ache.
To ease my distress during the wait I've tried watching a few new shows. "The Blacklist", with James Spader, is so-so. Spader was one of the cutest, sexiest men in movies. He is now slightly overweight and bald. He's grown as an actor in every respect. I really miss cute Spader. Older Spader is nothing to look at and the show is entertaining but predictable.
I tried watching "Elementary" with Lucy Liu as Dr. Watson and someone who plays a modern Sherlock Holmes. I yawned and turned it off.
Then I found "American Horror Story". If you saw "The Twilight Zone" in the Sixties, this is its worthy grandchild in the Tens (2010's). It's quite different to "The Twilight Zone" but is also very spooky and it's great to see an older Jessica Lang really acting. It's a suite of stories; three to be exact; each with about eight episodes. The same actors play different roles in each suite. If you've got the stomach, I recommend it. This is really different television, but don't let the kids or the easily spooked watch it.
OK, that's a post. I'll have to label it something; maybe Film and TV Critiques. Yes, that'll do.
END
No comments:
Post a Comment