Who Has Hit Rock Bottom: Lindsay or Us?

Over the past few months Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, and Britney Spears have provided enough scandal to give the Bush administration a run for its money. With this week's arrest of Lindsey Lohan on DUI and cocaine possession charges, its seems that another of Hollywood's so called "Girls Gone Wild" will face potential prison time. And since everyone loves a scandal, especially if it involves a young beautiful woman falling from grace, many "news" organizations have jumped on the story, letting it lead news segments and allowing the coverage to eclipse other issues like Iraq, Afghanistan, the 2008 Presidential race, or natural disasters. In the past few days I have observed a number of "news" programs flashing Lohan's mugshot with titles like "Girls Gone Wild" and "Hitting Rock Bottom" and diagnosing Lohan's legal issues as a symptom of addiction. I am not prepared to make a determination as to whether or not Lohan actually has an addiction, although I must say that substance abuse does not necessarily equal addiction and "rock bottom" means more than getting arrested for a DUI.

But the bigger issue here is the attention given toward the gossip. It's nothing new, as this MSNBC article illustrates. An excerpt:

When the newsmedia zeroes in on the indiscretions of a larger-than-life actor, entertainer, athlete or politician, it’s often accompanied by plenty of lofty clucking about how tabloid journalism has gotten out of hand. But we’ve always had Paris, or some other eye-poppingly wayward personage like her.

The reality may be that it’s the rampant proliferation of media in the digital age — not the public’s seemingly growing hunger for the trials, tribulations and unfortunate video moments of the famous — that has magnified the amount of celebrity journalism with which we’re inundated. Where we once got our news from the old living room Philco and the nearest newsboy, most Americans are now addicted to an intravenous drip of cable news crawls, wireless headsets and the bottomless World Wide Web.

There were, to be sure, certain factors beyond a relatively compact news industry that limited the extent of celebrity coverage in the early half of the 20th century. When told of Mitchum’s arrest, Howard Hughes’s first reaction was to ask where to direct the hush money. Police, reporters, politicians and other gatekeepers of information were more prone to back-alley arrangements then than now, in our ever more transparent age.

Sportswriters and campaign reporters, it’s now well known, were disinclined to reveal the secrets of the athletes and politicians on whose livelihood they depended. The indiscretions of Babe Ruth and John F. Kennedy are just two of the best-known examples of public figures whose statuesque shoulders have been spattered by insinuation and inference since their deaths.

Many topics were taboo. Were Montgomery Clift, for instance, acting today, he almost certainly would be expected to submit to a Barbara Walters sit-down about his sexuality. William Faulkner might have been hounded into a public apology after one of his alcoholic episodes was caught on videotape, in the next suite over from David Hasselhoff’s.

Not that the newsmedia once knew only the high road. The mysterious death of starlet Virginia Rappe at a San Francisco bacchanal hosted by the silent-film comedian Fatty Arbuckle set off a national debate about Hollywood morals — even as editors and readers alike obsessed over the sordid details.

The article, written by James Sullivan, makes some important points, that there is a strange love-hate relationship between the consumers, the media, and troubled starlets. It strikes me as a sublimated misogyny. The culture loves its beauties but it also loves to see them corrupted and ultimately destroyed. It is a symptom of sexual repression, in that we look on and lust after the bodies and lifestyles of the Lindsays and the Britneys but in order to reconcile that lust with our guilt, we relish in the degradation and punishment of the starlet. And if, by some chance, she is able to turn it around and be redeemed, that gives us a chance to now hold her up as a Madonna-figure (think Christianity, not the singer). But either way, our obsession with the corruption of women is troubling.

In recent months, I have begun to include a five minute news segment in the weekly episodes of Maverick at the Movies and I made a conscience decision to exclude celebrity gossip, partially for this reason. I believe that this obsession with gossip has polluted the discussion of film in the mass media to the point that the evaluation of film has been tainted by what celebrities are alleged to have done in the tabloids. The show has attempted to be a antidote for this and I hope that listeners can appreciate the effort.

AFI "100 Films" List Commentary

On last Sunday's episode, I finally talked about the American Film Institute's new 100 Years, 100 Films list (see the entire list here).

Here is a breakdown of some of the changes from the 1998 list to the 2006 list:

FILMS THAT DROPPED OFF THE LIST

• Doctor Zhivago was 39
• Birth of a Nation was 44
• From Here to Eternity was 52
• Amadeus was 53
• All Quiet on the Western Front was 54
• The Third Man was 57
• Fantasia was 58
• Rebel Without a Cause was 59
• Stagecoach was 63
• Close Encounters of the Third Kind was 64
• The Manchurian Candidate was 67
• An American in Paris was 68
• Wuthering Heights was 73
• Dances with Wolves was 75
• Giant was 82
• Fargo was 84
• Mutiny on the Bounty was 86
• Frankenstein was 87
• Patton was 89
• The Jazz Singer was 90
• My Fair Lady was 91
• A Place in the Sun was 92

NEW FILMS TO THE LIST

• 18. The General
• 49. Intolerance
• 50. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
• 59. Nashville
• 61. Sullivan's Travels
• 63. Cabaret
• 67. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
• 71. Saving Private Ryan
• 72. The Shawshank Redemption
• 75. In the Heat of the Night
• 77. All the President's Men
• 81. Spartacus
• 82. Sunrise
• 83. Titanic
• 85. A Night at the Opera
• 87. 12 Angry Men
• 89. The Sixth Sense
• 90. Swing Time
• 91. Sophie's Choice
• 95. The Last Picture Show
• 96. Do the Right Thing
• 97. Blade Runner
• 99. Toy Story

WHAT THE HELL?

On both lists there are a few film that I found surprising, objectionable, or just seemed out of place on this list.

Titanic (No. 83): Against my better judgement, I've often defended this film. It is a great big sentimental romance set against the backdrop of a natural disaster. It's a great crowd-pleaser and it accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do. However, the stilted acting, thin characters, the lack of substance, and music by Celine Dion ought to disqualify it from being considered the greatest films of all time.

The Sixth Sense (No. 89): M. Night Shyamalan has certainly had a checkered career with The Village on the high end and Signs at the bottom. This is one of his better films but it is very much a one trick pony. Once the twist of the film has been revealed, it does not play as well on repeated viewings, which ought to be a requisite of a list like this.

M-A-S-H (No. 1970): I've never been a fan of Robert Altman, who I always thought was a bit of an art house fraud. He was famous for allowing his actors to improvise, but the result was scenes that went on forever and films that were more fun for those involved in the production than for the audience. The spin off television series was far superior to this picture.

Forest Gump (No. 76): Another film that isn't bad, but seems out of place next to other films on the list. It is a great piece of nostalgia for baby boomers, but the movie does not really reveal anything about our history seeing it through Gump's eyes.

Tootsie (No. 69): Of all the films on my "What the hell?" list, this is the one I am most willing to relent on. Dustin Hoffman's performance is amazing and this film plays on the man in a dress gag better than Robin Williams, Eddie Murphy, or Tyler Perry. Tootsie is noteworthy, but compared to other films on the list it just seems a bit out of place.

E..T. the Extra Terrestrial (No. 24): By no means am I a Spielberg hater. He has emerged as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, filmmaker of his generation and I was pleased to see Schinder's List and Jaws on the list. But this particular film is just too damn sentimental.

Toy Story (No. 99): I'd like to see the AFI embrace animation more than they have, so this is probably a step in the right direction. However, compared to other animated films, even recent films like Finding Nemo and Monster House, this particular choice seems odd.

ALTERNATE CONSIDERATIONS

Here are some films that I'd like to propose for consideration on the list. I'm not sure what films these ought to replace, if any, but they are well made, important films that are worth consideration.

Horror

• Halloween (1973)
• Night of the Living Dead (1968)
• Frankenstein (1931)
• Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
• Dracula (1931)
• The Exorcist
• Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer
• A Nightmare on Elm Street
• The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1973)
• Evil Dead 2

Comedy

• Caddyshack
• Airplane
• Blazing Saddles
• Ghost Busters

Musicials

• Moulin Rouge!
• Chicago

Historical and Epic Films

• Kingdom of Heaven
• Braveheart
• Nixon
• Gladiator (2000)

Fantasy Films

• Superman: The Movie
• Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
• The Matrix
• Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
• The Empire Strikes Back

Documentaries

• Bowling for Columbine or Fahrenheit 9/11
• Woodstock
• Hearts and Minds

FINAL THOUGHTS

The AFI's 100 Years lists have been a great asset to film viewers, especially for those who haven't gone through a film studies program. There are plenty of films on the AFI's lists that are worthy and that audiences may not have heard of, and the Institute's endorsement may connect films with viewers that might not have seen them otherwise. On the other hand, there is the risk that viewers will take the list at face value and not question what was chosen and how it was compiled. And, as I've pointed out, there are certainly some questionable films here. But over all it is a boon to the advancement of cinema as an art form.

Family Movie Night in Mankato

Free, family-friendly film screenings will be held outdoors the next three Friday nights at dusk at the intergovernmental center in downtown Mankato. This is the same area that Songs on the Lawn occurs.

July 13: Happy Feet
July 20: E.T. the Extra Terrestrial
July 27: The Princess Bride

The screenings are sponsored by Century 21. The films will be projected onto a large outdoor screen and refreshments will be available for 25 cents. Bring your blankets and lawn chairs.

See an interview with the coordinators from Century 21 here.

AFI's New 100 Greatest Films List

Last Wednesday, the American Film Institute announced its new list of the 100 Greatest films of all time in their 100 Years Series. Here is the new list:

1. Citizen Kane, 1941.
2. The Godfather, 1972.
3. Casablanca, 1942.
4. Raging Bull, 1980.
5. Singin' in the Rain, 1952.
6. Gone With the Wind, 1939.
7. Lawrence of Arabia, 1962.
8. Schindler's List, 1993.
9. Vertigo, 1958.
10. The Wizard of Oz, 1939.
11. City Lights, 1931.
12. The Searchers, 1956.
13. Star Wars, 1977.
14. Psycho, 1960.
15. 2001: A Space Odyssey, 1968.
16. Sunset Blvd., 1950.
17. The Graduate, 1967.
18. The General, 1927.
19. On the Waterfront, 1954.
20. It's a Wonderful Life, 1946.
21. Chinatown, 1974.
22. Some Like It Hot, 1959.
23. The Grapes of Wrath, 1940.
24. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, 1982.
25. To Kill a Mockingbird, 1962.
26. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, 1939.
27. High Noon, 1952.
28. All About Eve, 1950.
29. Double Indemnity, 1944.
30. Apocalypse Now, 1979.
31. The Maltese Falcon, 1941.
32. The Godfather Part II, 1974.
33. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, 1975.
34. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, 1937.
35. Annie Hall, 1977.
36. The Bridge on the River Kwai, 1957.
37. The Best Years of Our Lives, 1946.
38. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, 1948.
39. Dr. Strangelove, 1964.
40. The Sound of Music, 1965.
41. King Kong, 1933.
42. Bonnie and Clyde, 1967.
43. Midnight Cowboy, 1969.
44. The Philadelphia Story, 1940.
45. Shane, 1953.
46. It Happened One Night, 1934.
47. A Streetcar Named Desire, 1951.
48. Rear Window, 1954.
49. Intolerance, 1916.
50. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, 2001.
51. West Side Story, 1961.
52. Taxi Driver, 1976.
53. The Deer Hunter, 1978.
54. M-A-S-H, 1970.
55. North by Northwest, 1959.
56. Jaws, 1975.
57. Rocky, 1976.
58. The Gold Rush, 1925.
59. Nashville, 1975.
60. Duck Soup, 1933.
61. Sullivan's Travels, 1941.
62. American Graffiti, 1973.
63. Cabaret, 1972.
64. Network, 1976.
65. The African Queen, 1951.
66. Raiders of the Lost Ark, 1981.
67. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, 1966.
68. Unforgiven, 1992.
69. Tootsie, 1982.
70. A Clockwork Orange, 1971.
71. Saving Private Ryan, 1998.
72. The Shawshank Redemption, 1994.
73. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, 1969.
74. The Silence of the Lambs, 1991.
75. In the Heat of the Night, 1967.
76. Forrest Gump, 1994.
77. All the President's Men, 1976.
78. Modern Times, 1936.
79. The Wild Bunch, 1969.
80. The Apartment, 1960.
81. Spartacus, 1960.
82. Sunrise, 1927.
83. Titanic, 1997.
84. Easy Rider, 1969.
85. A Night at the Opera, 1935.
86. Platoon, 1986.
87. 12 Angry Men, 1957.
88. Bringing Up Baby, 1938.
89. The Sixth Sense, 1999.
90. Swing Time, 1936.
91. Sophie's Choice, 1982.
92. Goodfellas, 1990.
93. The French Connection, 1971.
94. Pulp Fiction, 1994.
95. The Last Picture Show, 1971.
96. Do the Right Thing, 1989.
97. Blade Runner, 1982.
98. Yankee Doodle Dandy, 1942.
99. Toy Story, 1995.
100. Ben-Hur, 1959.

I will comment on the list in another post.

Ron Weasley: Ice Cream Man

This MSNBC article focusing on the three child stars of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix contains this gem from actor Rupert Grint, who plays Ron Weasley. Asked how he has spent his profits from the films, Grint replied:

“I’ve recently got an ice-cream van,” he said.

And further:

All three young stars have begun to look toward life after Harry Potter. Watson wants to attend university and would like to appear in a costume drama. Grint, too, wants to carry on acting — “and if it doesn’t work out, I’ve still got the ice cream van.”

Reflections After The Last King of Scotland

My DVD pick on the June 17th edition of Maverick at the Movies is The Last King of Scotland, a dramatized portrayal of Ugandan dictator Idi Amin. After I watched it, I looked around for some other critical reactions. I had heard that some people had criticized the film as racist, a white man's depiction of Africa as a savage continent. Although most critics at rottentomatoes.com gave the film a positive review, the negative reviews did level this accusation at the film:

The colonialist spirit is alive and well in The Last King of Scotland, a return to the pandering celluloid depictions of African turmoil that insist on putting a white face on black suffering.
--Jan Stuart, Newsday


I had heard some of the same comments upon the release of Blood Diamond:


Africa has long been exploited by the West: for ivory, for gold, for diamonds, for oil. And, more recently, for, and by, Hollywood.
--Stephen Rea, Philadelphia Inquirer


DiCaprio is terrific, but he can't save this lecture from the shame of using Africa as a vehicle for another white man's redemption.
--Peter Travers, Rolling Stone

Action and message cancel each other out. To put it another way, this movie wants you to be appalled by the real slaughter of Africans by Africans - which it blames on you - but be entertained by the slaughter of Africans by DiCaprio.
--Kyle Smith, New York Post

While I will admit that Blood Diamond was a flawed film, it did make my Honorable Mentions of 2006 list and I stand by that. What I see in these critical reactions is a slight misinterpretation of the text. Yes, these films, like Joseph Conrad's novella Heart of Darkness, place white men in the jungles of Africa wherein they discover some evil part of humanity. And some people have objected to these texts, especially Conrad's, on the basis that the stories debase the native population. "Why should these indigenous cultures be the savages?" they ask. "Why is their culture equated with barbarity?" That does set up a problem, especially in a time when people are concerned with representation in art.

I think the questions and accusations are just slightly off, because the people making them presume that these texts equate the indigenous with savagery. I would challenge that, especially in these particular films. Idi Amin was a by-product of the colonial system, and this point is made in the course of the film. The Last King of Scotland points out that the British supported his coup and the political structures that Amin walked into were a result of the Uganda's history as a British territory. In Blood Diamond, the civil war in Seirra Leone is result of and supported by Western demands for illegal diamonds. DiCaprio starts out as a part of that system but ends up being redeemed by coming to the aid of indigenous people and fighting that system. The villains of the film are both white and black, and the film shows that greed knows no color barrier.

In The Ghost and the Darkness, a film also mentioned on this episode of Maverick at the Movies, a pair of lions bring construction of a British railroad to a halt as they prey on the workers. The lions are identified by some Africans as the ghosts of dead medicine men who have come to stop the expansion of Western power. While the movie is flawed in many ways, it is an interesting portrayal of nature run amok because of the presence of the colonial power. The lions are a metaphor for nature balancing against the intrusion of Western industry upon the African continent and in this story nature turns against both whites and blacks as they attempt to build a bridge to connect the two.

This is not to say that the people of Africa or other places are always represented fairly by Hollywood. Far from it. Consider Birth of a Nation, Rambo: First Blood Part II, and The Patriot. But before critics begin to categorically label films as racist or xenophobic, it would be wise to pull back the other layers of these films and attempt to discover if they penetrate deeper, as these pictures do.

Debate about Return of the Jedi

I found this vintage clip on YouTube between film critics John Simon, Roger Ebert, and Gene Siskel debating the merits of Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi. Their comments are very interesting in retrospect, given what critics ended up saying about the prequel trilogy, but also because some of Simon's comments are relevent to what has happened to Hollywood and the take over of spectacle in the marketplace.