The 6th installment of Harry Potter was supposed to release in cinemas on the 21st of November, but as you must have gathered by the title of this post - it's not going to :]
The film is ready and the producers are happy with it, but they think they'll earn more money if they release it on the 17th of July. This perhaps would not be so weird if they hadn't already released a trailer that says "November". Clearly this was a last minute decision.
So everyone is speculating what is the *real* reason for Warner Bros moving the dates.
There seems to be a hint of it in what Warner Bros have said:
Like every other studio, we are still feeling the repercussions of the writers strike, which impacted the readiness of scripts for other films — changing the competitive landscape for 2009 and offering new windows of opportunity that we wanted to take advantage of
In other words, because of the writer's strike they have no big hit to put up during the summer (the time of biggest box office earnings), so they decided to make Harry Potter a summer release.
Some are reading even more into this... The next Terminator with Christian Bale was supposed to release May/June. Does this mean Warner Bros think it will be a flop?
Another thought I had is that now that Daniel Radcliffe is doing Equus again (this time on Broadway), he might have had less time to do promotion for the film in autumn. With the first films the promotion for Harry Potter was focused on the whole trio and on quite a bit of the supporting cast too, but more recently Daniel Radcliffe has been doing the majority of it (I think very well - as you know I'm a fan of Daniel Radcliffe doing promotion on talk shows etc. ;-P), so I wonder if Warner Bros freaked out a bit with that too. There's less talk about Harry Potter now that the books have come to an end, so they may feel they need the promotion to be very strong.
Finally, I thought I'd share a silly clip of Harry Potter fan reactions to the date move ;)
Showing posts with label Hollywood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hollywood. Show all posts
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Saturday, March 08, 2008
The Happening
The trailer for Shyamalan's The Happening has been out for a while and it looks like this:
As you may remember "The Happening" is on my list of films to see in 2008 because it's the first time that an Indian production company is co-producing what is essentially a Hollywood film (and I'm weird enough to be excited about that). But I must say the trailer has made me doubt whether I really want to see it ;) It looks dreadful!
As you may remember "The Happening" is on my list of films to see in 2008 because it's the first time that an Indian production company is co-producing what is essentially a Hollywood film (and I'm weird enough to be excited about that). But I must say the trailer has made me doubt whether I really want to see it ;) It looks dreadful!
Film Award season 2008
I finally have internet courtesy of TP S.A. *grin*
So I have to get back to posting... faaaast! There's just too much I want to post ;-P
Anyway, the two biggest film industries in the world had their most commercial award ceremonies last month, on the same day no less (24th February).
You can check out the winners here and here.
I've been following the chances of Katyń at the Academy Awards on this blog, so I guess I should now inform everyone that it lost ;) Polish speaking readers of this blog can check out some speculations about why it lost out on the award (not commercial enough, not universal enough etc. ;-P).
Interestingly, this year the Academy Awards had the lowest TV ratings ever. I think this is a good excuse not to link to any clips from the ceremony ;-P (another good one is that judging by youtube, they're monitoring for clips not to surface ;-P and also the one I did find was boring ;-P)
A clip that I absolutely must link to however is this:
It's Saif and Shahrukh hosting the Filmfare Awards and trust me - you want to see this clip ;) (or at least the beginning of it)
I watched the whole show on youtube and I have to agree that SRK and Saif are the most politically incorrect hosts ever. I think this is their third time hosting, but this year was particularly "bad". Or maybe this is just the first time I followed the Indian tabloids well enough to get most of the subtleties ;) - some of the jabs they were making at films and people were potentially veeeery offensive. If anybody cares they made a few jabs at Hollywood and the Academy Awards too ;) (not that I fully understood them as a lot of them were done in Hindi ;-P)
So I have to get back to posting... faaaast! There's just too much I want to post ;-P
Anyway, the two biggest film industries in the world had their most commercial award ceremonies last month, on the same day no less (24th February).
You can check out the winners here and here.
I've been following the chances of Katyń at the Academy Awards on this blog, so I guess I should now inform everyone that it lost ;) Polish speaking readers of this blog can check out some speculations about why it lost out on the award (not commercial enough, not universal enough etc. ;-P).
Interestingly, this year the Academy Awards had the lowest TV ratings ever. I think this is a good excuse not to link to any clips from the ceremony ;-P (another good one is that judging by youtube, they're monitoring for clips not to surface ;-P and also the one I did find was boring ;-P)
A clip that I absolutely must link to however is this:
It's Saif and Shahrukh hosting the Filmfare Awards and trust me - you want to see this clip ;) (or at least the beginning of it)
I watched the whole show on youtube and I have to agree that SRK and Saif are the most politically incorrect hosts ever. I think this is their third time hosting, but this year was particularly "bad". Or maybe this is just the first time I followed the Indian tabloids well enough to get most of the subtleties ;) - some of the jabs they were making at films and people were potentially veeeery offensive. If anybody cares they made a few jabs at Hollywood and the Academy Awards too ;) (not that I fully understood them as a lot of them were done in Hindi ;-P)
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The Boston Strangler and more of my Tony Curtis fixation
I thought my Tony Curtis phase had finally passed, but apparently not ;)
I watched The Boston Strangler (1968) on Saturday. It's based on the true story of a series of murders that took place in Boston in the 1960s. The film takes a lot of liberties with what happened, but as some of its best moments are at the times when it takes the biggest liberties I'm not particularly upset by that ;-P Curtis plays the title role of the murderer and he's quite extraordinary in it. Apparently, he had to lobby very hard to get the part as neither the director nor the studio thought he'd be any good in it (he was a blue eyed, handsome guy who did mostly conventional leads and a lot of comedy). Of course the studio and director were wrong ;) The part is one of Tony Curtis's most acclaimed performances. He doesn't come in until about an hour into the film, but once he's in he pretty much carries the film. Here's the only clip from the film that I found on-line:
Funnily enough I didn't have much trouble picturing him doing a murderer and rapist well, but what took me totally by surprise was what he does in the closing stages of the film. After the character gets caught, he's locked up in a mental institution and interrogated there. What he does in those scenes is amazing. I don't want to spoil the film for anyone, so I won't say exactly what the diagnosis is (the real Albert Desalvo was never diagnosed with anything of the sort by the way), but it's one of the most amazing portrayals of mental illness I've seen - on the one hand very intense, but on the other there's something very simple and straight about the way he does it. Usually when one thinks of acclaimed actors doing mentally ill characters they do it "big". Think people like Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man, Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind or even Edward Norton in Primal Fear. I'm not saying Tony Curtis did it "small" exactly, but it definitely was "smaller" and "more human". I loved how you could practically understand all the thought processes and feelings that were happening in the character's head during the interrogations. The way it was edited and the dialogue helped a lot of course, but there was just a beautiful clarity and simplicity in what Tony Curtis was doing.
Since I found Tony Curtis in this movie so gushworthy I'm naturally very excited about the prospect of seeing more of his films ;-P I've apparently got around 120 feature films to choose from (in the old days it was quite normal to do around 3-4 films a year and he's been at it since 1949!), but as that's a little too much even for my current level of interest in him I thought I'd make a shorter list for myself ;-P So here's a list of the Tony Curtis titles that caught my eye (including those I've already seen):
Insignificance (1985)
This sounds like some sort of very bizarre and artsy film that will be very difficult to make any sense of ;) Basically Albert Einstein, Marilyn Monroe, Senator Joseph McCarthy and Joe DiMaggio meet together in a hotel room. Tony Curtis plays McCarthy.
The only video clip I've come across is here - it's a montage of 5 films by Nicolas Roeg. Unfortunately no Tony in the clip, but the clips of Albert Einstein and Marilyn Monroe covered in blood look kind of weird and interesting ;-P
Casanova & Co. (1977)
I still haven't made my mind up over whether I actually want to see this one lol Basically, almost all the reviews I've come across describe it as a soft porn movie ;) Now that in itself doesn't scare me off (on the contrary, the idea of Tony Curtis doing a soft porn film seems so funny to me that I automatically want to see it ;-P - especially that he's supposed to be Casanova AND Casanova's look-a-like in the film), but most people write that the film is terrible and also it's supposed to be dubbed over (badly) in German.
Unfortunately I've found no clips on-line of this weird piece of work ;) Had I found any perhaps I would have made up my mind by now ;-P
The Persuaders (1971-1972)
This is the TV series I've already mentioned. The idea of seeing 24 episodes of Tony Curtis flirting with Roger Moore while both of them are playing cool action heroes is too good to pass on ;) I linked to clips in my previous post, but I'll repeat the links ;-P (here's one and here's another one).
The Boston Strangler (1968)
I've basically said all that needs to be said above, haven't I? :)
The Great Race (1965)
This sounds like a comedy with a totally ridiculous sense of humour. The hero (Tony Curtis as the Great Leslie) is always dressed in white and the villain (Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate) is always in black. It features the biggest pie fight ever staged and many other totally ridiculous scenes (for example this one). In fact the only films that I've ever read about or seen which sound anywhere near as ridiculous are Bollywood ones ;)
Spartacus (1960)
This one I've seen. I guess the main interest factor is that it's a Stanley Kubrick film, though I don't think it's one of his best. What it was meant to be would have probably been much more interesting than what it actually is. Still, it's a classic.
I've already mentioned the film on my blog, but as I concentrated on its gay subtexts I didn't link to the trailer which is sadly not homoerotic in the slightest ;-P
Operation Petticoat (1959)
It's a comedy which also stars Cary Grant. It takes place on a submarine during World War II and basically everything keeps going wrong. For example because they don't have enough paint, they're forced to mix red and white and paint the submarine pink (apparently there really was one pink submarine during the war for those reasons!).
Here's a hilarious pig stealing scene from the film.
Some Like It Hot (1959)
I've seen this one ages ago. I really want to re-watch it and I know I used to have a VHS tape of it, but can't find it anywhere grrrrr...
It's a great comedy which has Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon dressed up as girls and Marilyn Monroe is great and really hilarious in this as well (incidentally, I think it's the only Marilyn Monroe film I've seen, I should change that!). Oh and the closing line is unforgettable ;)
The trailer is here.
The Defiant Ones (1958)
This one I've already mentioned and seen. It's a beautiful film :) Already posted this before, but here's the trailer.
Sweet Smell of Success (1957)
This is supposed to be Tony Curtis' first serious dramatic part. He plays a young guy who is prepared to do some very morally repulsive things to achieve success and money in New York.
I love the look of the two clips I found (clip no.1 and clip no.2) - the atmosphere is thick with jazz, New York and degeneration ;)
Houdini (1953)
In this one Curtis plays Harry Houdini and I think this was his first major success. I'm actually convinced I saw this film on TV when I was very, very little.
Here's the clip I found (it gives me a strong deja vu feeling).
I watched The Boston Strangler (1968) on Saturday. It's based on the true story of a series of murders that took place in Boston in the 1960s. The film takes a lot of liberties with what happened, but as some of its best moments are at the times when it takes the biggest liberties I'm not particularly upset by that ;-P Curtis plays the title role of the murderer and he's quite extraordinary in it. Apparently, he had to lobby very hard to get the part as neither the director nor the studio thought he'd be any good in it (he was a blue eyed, handsome guy who did mostly conventional leads and a lot of comedy). Of course the studio and director were wrong ;) The part is one of Tony Curtis's most acclaimed performances. He doesn't come in until about an hour into the film, but once he's in he pretty much carries the film. Here's the only clip from the film that I found on-line:
Funnily enough I didn't have much trouble picturing him doing a murderer and rapist well, but what took me totally by surprise was what he does in the closing stages of the film. After the character gets caught, he's locked up in a mental institution and interrogated there. What he does in those scenes is amazing. I don't want to spoil the film for anyone, so I won't say exactly what the diagnosis is (the real Albert Desalvo was never diagnosed with anything of the sort by the way), but it's one of the most amazing portrayals of mental illness I've seen - on the one hand very intense, but on the other there's something very simple and straight about the way he does it. Usually when one thinks of acclaimed actors doing mentally ill characters they do it "big". Think people like Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man, Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind or even Edward Norton in Primal Fear. I'm not saying Tony Curtis did it "small" exactly, but it definitely was "smaller" and "more human". I loved how you could practically understand all the thought processes and feelings that were happening in the character's head during the interrogations. The way it was edited and the dialogue helped a lot of course, but there was just a beautiful clarity and simplicity in what Tony Curtis was doing.
Since I found Tony Curtis in this movie so gushworthy I'm naturally very excited about the prospect of seeing more of his films ;-P I've apparently got around 120 feature films to choose from (in the old days it was quite normal to do around 3-4 films a year and he's been at it since 1949!), but as that's a little too much even for my current level of interest in him I thought I'd make a shorter list for myself ;-P So here's a list of the Tony Curtis titles that caught my eye (including those I've already seen):
Insignificance (1985)
This sounds like some sort of very bizarre and artsy film that will be very difficult to make any sense of ;) Basically Albert Einstein, Marilyn Monroe, Senator Joseph McCarthy and Joe DiMaggio meet together in a hotel room. Tony Curtis plays McCarthy.
The only video clip I've come across is here - it's a montage of 5 films by Nicolas Roeg. Unfortunately no Tony in the clip, but the clips of Albert Einstein and Marilyn Monroe covered in blood look kind of weird and interesting ;-P
Casanova & Co. (1977)
I still haven't made my mind up over whether I actually want to see this one lol Basically, almost all the reviews I've come across describe it as a soft porn movie ;) Now that in itself doesn't scare me off (on the contrary, the idea of Tony Curtis doing a soft porn film seems so funny to me that I automatically want to see it ;-P - especially that he's supposed to be Casanova AND Casanova's look-a-like in the film), but most people write that the film is terrible and also it's supposed to be dubbed over (badly) in German.
Unfortunately I've found no clips on-line of this weird piece of work ;) Had I found any perhaps I would have made up my mind by now ;-P
The Persuaders (1971-1972)
This is the TV series I've already mentioned. The idea of seeing 24 episodes of Tony Curtis flirting with Roger Moore while both of them are playing cool action heroes is too good to pass on ;) I linked to clips in my previous post, but I'll repeat the links ;-P (here's one and here's another one).
The Boston Strangler (1968)
I've basically said all that needs to be said above, haven't I? :)
The Great Race (1965)
This sounds like a comedy with a totally ridiculous sense of humour. The hero (Tony Curtis as the Great Leslie) is always dressed in white and the villain (Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate) is always in black. It features the biggest pie fight ever staged and many other totally ridiculous scenes (for example this one). In fact the only films that I've ever read about or seen which sound anywhere near as ridiculous are Bollywood ones ;)
Spartacus (1960)
This one I've seen. I guess the main interest factor is that it's a Stanley Kubrick film, though I don't think it's one of his best. What it was meant to be would have probably been much more interesting than what it actually is. Still, it's a classic.
I've already mentioned the film on my blog, but as I concentrated on its gay subtexts I didn't link to the trailer which is sadly not homoerotic in the slightest ;-P
Operation Petticoat (1959)
It's a comedy which also stars Cary Grant. It takes place on a submarine during World War II and basically everything keeps going wrong. For example because they don't have enough paint, they're forced to mix red and white and paint the submarine pink (apparently there really was one pink submarine during the war for those reasons!).
Here's a hilarious pig stealing scene from the film.
Some Like It Hot (1959)
I've seen this one ages ago. I really want to re-watch it and I know I used to have a VHS tape of it, but can't find it anywhere grrrrr...
It's a great comedy which has Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon dressed up as girls and Marilyn Monroe is great and really hilarious in this as well (incidentally, I think it's the only Marilyn Monroe film I've seen, I should change that!). Oh and the closing line is unforgettable ;)
The trailer is here.
The Defiant Ones (1958)
This one I've already mentioned and seen. It's a beautiful film :) Already posted this before, but here's the trailer.
Sweet Smell of Success (1957)
This is supposed to be Tony Curtis' first serious dramatic part. He plays a young guy who is prepared to do some very morally repulsive things to achieve success and money in New York.
I love the look of the two clips I found (clip no.1 and clip no.2) - the atmosphere is thick with jazz, New York and degeneration ;)
Houdini (1953)
In this one Curtis plays Harry Houdini and I think this was his first major success. I'm actually convinced I saw this film on TV when I was very, very little.
Here's the clip I found (it gives me a strong deja vu feeling).
Monday, January 28, 2008
Katyń nominated for the Academy Awards
I was very stunned when this happened around 2 weeks ago. Katyń had been shortlisted for the nomination, whilst 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days and Persepolis (both of which had had far more attention internationally) were not.
But now that the nominations for best foreign picture have been announced, it's quite obvious what the Academy is doing - politics and war seem to be the main themes they were looking for. Check out the nomination list:
Beaufort (Israel)
A war film which takes place in 2000 as the Israeli army is withdrawing from Lebanon.
The Counterfeiters (Austria)
It takes place in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, based on a true story.
Katyń (Poland)
An account of the events surrounding the 1940 massacre of captured Polish army officers.
Mongol (Kazakhstan)
It's the story of Genghis Khan. It doesn't sound political, but I'm wondering if there might be some themes like that in there. It's certainly a little weird that a famous Russian director had to go to Kazakhstan to get his movie financed. Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the fact that Genghis Khan also conquered a lot of Russia...
12 (Russia)
Twelve Russian jurors decide the fate of a young Chechen accused of murdering his adoptive Russian father.
In the company of 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days or Persepolis, I'd say Katyń wouldn't have any chance of winning whatsoever. But in this company I think it has a very large one. Nor am I alone in this feeling - apparently that's how the bookies have it as well.
There's also an interesting article in the Economist weighing Katyń's chances. The main argument they have against it is that it's done from a very Polish point of view and some things in the film might not be clear to foreigners. On the other hand they also write:
Astonishingly, some in Russia are now reviving the lie that the murderers at Katyn were not by the NKVD, but the Nazis. That was maintained during the communist era, but only by punishing savagely those who tried to tell the truth. Last year, as Mr Wajda's film opened in Poland, a commentary in a Russian government newspaper, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, dismissed the evidence of Soviet involvement in Katyn as “unreliable”. An Oscar would be a good answer to that.
But now that the nominations for best foreign picture have been announced, it's quite obvious what the Academy is doing - politics and war seem to be the main themes they were looking for. Check out the nomination list:
Beaufort (Israel)
A war film which takes place in 2000 as the Israeli army is withdrawing from Lebanon.
The Counterfeiters (Austria)
It takes place in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, based on a true story.
Katyń (Poland)
An account of the events surrounding the 1940 massacre of captured Polish army officers.
Mongol (Kazakhstan)
It's the story of Genghis Khan. It doesn't sound political, but I'm wondering if there might be some themes like that in there. It's certainly a little weird that a famous Russian director had to go to Kazakhstan to get his movie financed. Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the fact that Genghis Khan also conquered a lot of Russia...
12 (Russia)
Twelve Russian jurors decide the fate of a young Chechen accused of murdering his adoptive Russian father.
In the company of 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days or Persepolis, I'd say Katyń wouldn't have any chance of winning whatsoever. But in this company I think it has a very large one. Nor am I alone in this feeling - apparently that's how the bookies have it as well.
There's also an interesting article in the Economist weighing Katyń's chances. The main argument they have against it is that it's done from a very Polish point of view and some things in the film might not be clear to foreigners. On the other hand they also write:
Astonishingly, some in Russia are now reviving the lie that the murderers at Katyn were not by the NKVD, but the Nazis. That was maintained during the communist era, but only by punishing savagely those who tried to tell the truth. Last year, as Mr Wajda's film opened in Poland, a commentary in a Russian government newspaper, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, dismissed the evidence of Soviet involvement in Katyn as “unreliable”. An Oscar would be a good answer to that.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Another Hollywood star is dead
This time the news is more high profile... Heath Ledger (who is probably best known as the star of Brokeback Mountain) died yesterday, aged 28.
The circumstances of his death are similar to that of Renfro's and the exact cause remains unknown (am I the only one finding the similarities spooky?).
Due to Ledger's involvement in Brokeback Mountain, The Westboro Baptist Church has announced they will picket his funeral.
The circumstances of his death are similar to that of Renfro's and the exact cause remains unknown (am I the only one finding the similarities spooky?).
Due to Ledger's involvement in Brokeback Mountain, The Westboro Baptist Church has announced they will picket his funeral.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Tony Curtis is very absorbing ;)
My Tony Curtis obsession has subsided a little bit, but as no bisexual 60s Hollywood star has taken his place yet, my internet searches still seem to be revolving around him ;-P
So firstly, here's a really nice interview with him in which he talks a lot about gender and sexuality in context of his film career.
I also found a great audio interview (part one and part two) - he's clearly a really good talker.
Thanks to Mr Curtis I have also discovered what I think are the two gayest action heroes ever lol In 1971 he starred alongside Roger Moore in a series called The Persuaders. I've looked around youtube for some clips and as far as I can make out the concept is that the two of them keep flirting with each other all the time ;) See for yourself - here and here. It's really cute ;)
Finally, I've been digging amongst my old video tapes, trying to find something with Tony Curtis and I've re-discovered The Defiant Ones. I'd totally forgotten the film (I'm not sure how I managed to do that as I remember really loving it when I first watched it and it's gotten the same reaction from me this time round too).
It's a film from 1958, but it's aged really well. It's the story of a black man (played beautifully by Sidney Poitier) and a white man on the run from the law. The catch is that they're chained to each other. It was the first Hollywood film that addressed racism so directly (and IMO in much less moralistic tones than what Hollywood does today). The film is much better than the trailer IMO ;-P but you can see the trailer here.
So firstly, here's a really nice interview with him in which he talks a lot about gender and sexuality in context of his film career.
I also found a great audio interview (part one and part two) - he's clearly a really good talker.
Thanks to Mr Curtis I have also discovered what I think are the two gayest action heroes ever lol In 1971 he starred alongside Roger Moore in a series called The Persuaders. I've looked around youtube for some clips and as far as I can make out the concept is that the two of them keep flirting with each other all the time ;) See for yourself - here and here. It's really cute ;)
Finally, I've been digging amongst my old video tapes, trying to find something with Tony Curtis and I've re-discovered The Defiant Ones. I'd totally forgotten the film (I'm not sure how I managed to do that as I remember really loving it when I first watched it and it's gotten the same reaction from me this time round too).
It's a film from 1958, but it's aged really well. It's the story of a black man (played beautifully by Sidney Poitier) and a white man on the run from the law. The catch is that they're chained to each other. It was the first Hollywood film that addressed racism so directly (and IMO in much less moralistic tones than what Hollywood does today). The film is much better than the trailer IMO ;-P but you can see the trailer here.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Brad Renfro dead
He died yesterday, aged 25. I'm a bit stunned...
If you're not sure who I'm talking about then see his imdb page.
If you're not sure who I'm talking about then see his imdb page.
Monday, January 14, 2008
My sudden Hollywood obsession and the quest to find a star that isn't gay ;)
Why is it that whenever one has a lot of schoolwork to do, one always has an irresistible urge to do something else? (or at least that's what happens to me ;-P) I've got something like 4 tests and 2 projects over the next week, but am I studying? Of course not ;-P What am I doing? I'm getting unhealthily obsessed with Hollywood stars from the 50s and 60s. And lets get this straight (pun unintended ;-P) - I've never been a particular fan of old Hollywood movies before! I have sometimes enjoyed older films, but a lot of the time I've watched them because I feel I ought to build on my film history awareness rather than because I really want to see an older film. So why have I suddenly become obsessed with this particular topic? Your guess is as good as mine ;-P
Well ok... I do sort of know how it started - it's because of this blog ;-P I found a very interesting article about Method Acting and I'm drafting a post on it (which of course, as always, is turning out to be extremely long). I started looking for Laurence Olivier quotes on The Method because I knew he had spoken against it and... er... that wasn't a good idea ;)
What followed was that I became totally obsessed with Laurence Olivier for 2-3 days (that has subsided somewhat, I have now turned to Tony Curtis instead and I'm wondering who will be next ;-P).
Worse still, I somehow came across this:
And well... it fascinated me... It had never occurred to me that Stanley Kubrick tried to broach the topic of homosexuality in Spartacus. The reference is so slight that if you're not looking for the subtext you might not notice it - and yet this was enough for the censors to cut it.
It was interesting also that two big stars - Laurence Olivier and Tony Curtis would have wanted to risk such subtext.
The Spartacus scene somehow led me on to other discoveries... In particular I started finding all sorts of rumours that Laurence Olivier might have been bisexual. As that sort of gossip has always amused me I followed it through. At first it seemed like gossip with little foundation, but what started making it much more fishy was the way Joan Plowright (Olivier's third wife) was being quoted and in particular that she had authorized a biography which claimed Olivier had had encounters with men. I finally came across this article which seemed to cover all the incidents that I found mentioned elsewhere. It is from the Daily Mail, so that's hardly a reliable source, but there was one bit in particular that caught my eye:
After Lord Olivier's death on July 11, 1989, aged 82, from neuromuscular disease and cancer, and his interment in Poet's Corner, Westminster Abbey, his official biographer, Terry Coleman, asked Plowright if he had had homosexual affairs. She replied robustly: "If he did, so what?"
Tarquin Olivier, Larry's elder son, 'was hell-bent on censoring' the homosexual revelations in Coleman's book and attempted to pressure Plowright into withdrawing her permission. She refused, privately remarking that "a man who had been to Eton and in the Guards might be expected to be a little more broad-minded".
The article led me on further... For one it mentioned an encounter between Olivier and Marlon Brando. I'm not sure I believe that one, but apparently there are other sources which suggest Brando may have been bisexual.
The article also mentioned an incident in which John Gielgud was caught in a public toilet trying to pick up a guy (he was arrested for it).
Finding it amusing that so many stars of the era seemed to be gay or bisexual I thought I'd try to look for somebody who was straight ;) So I searched for stuff on Charles Laughton - like Olivier and Gielgud he was also a very acclaimed British theatrical actor who'd done a bit of Hollywood. I thought it likely that he wasn't much of a sexual experimentator - I knew he had been married to just one woman his whole life (unlike most of the stars of that time). Well, I was wrong *grin* Laughton's wife, Elsa Lanchaster, had outed her husband as gay in her autobiography and apparently that was the reason for them never having children.
Feeling rather gigglish by this point I went to my dad (who had after all watched Hollywood in those times) and told him about my discoveries. He had also heard about Laughton and Gielgud, though Olivier and Brando surprised him. Having shown him the Spartacus scene, I joked I should check whether Tony Curtis was straight. My dad said he was pretty sure Curtis was straight (and I rather thought so too), but I ended up checking it up anyway just for a laugh. At first it seemed I had finally found somebody who *was* straight though probably promiscuous (6 wives! and his present one is 42 years younger than him!), but lo and behold, I found an interview with him in a gay magazine ;) Here's what he says in it:
Speaking of men and men … well, first, how old were you when you got to Hollywood?
I was 22. That was 1948.
And as beautiful as you were … I mean, you are still good-looking…
Thank you.
But as beautiful as you were, I’m assuming that you…
I had more action than Mount Vesuvius.
So, both men and women put the make on you.
Men, women, children. Animals!
I can’t wait for the headlines–"TONY CURTIS INTO BESTIALITY."
[Laughs] I loved it, too. I loved the affection of everybody around me. I participated where I wanted to, and I didn’t where I didn’t. It wasn’t like I said, "Well, I won’t do this or I won’t do that." I just had a chance to have great wonderful friends of all ethnic backgrounds, all sexual genders, and that’s the joy of being an American, that’s the joy of being alive, where all of your friends can be who-ever they want to be.
I'm not sure how serious he was about the children and animals ;) He clearly has a rather crass sense of humour, but especially in context of what he says after that he seemed fairly serious about the men ;) So yet again my quest to find a straight star had failed ;)
Am I the only person who ends up doing such moronic things rather than study? ;)
Well ok... I do sort of know how it started - it's because of this blog ;-P I found a very interesting article about Method Acting and I'm drafting a post on it (which of course, as always, is turning out to be extremely long). I started looking for Laurence Olivier quotes on The Method because I knew he had spoken against it and... er... that wasn't a good idea ;)
What followed was that I became totally obsessed with Laurence Olivier for 2-3 days (that has subsided somewhat, I have now turned to Tony Curtis instead and I'm wondering who will be next ;-P).
Worse still, I somehow came across this:
And well... it fascinated me... It had never occurred to me that Stanley Kubrick tried to broach the topic of homosexuality in Spartacus. The reference is so slight that if you're not looking for the subtext you might not notice it - and yet this was enough for the censors to cut it.
It was interesting also that two big stars - Laurence Olivier and Tony Curtis would have wanted to risk such subtext.
The Spartacus scene somehow led me on to other discoveries... In particular I started finding all sorts of rumours that Laurence Olivier might have been bisexual. As that sort of gossip has always amused me I followed it through. At first it seemed like gossip with little foundation, but what started making it much more fishy was the way Joan Plowright (Olivier's third wife) was being quoted and in particular that she had authorized a biography which claimed Olivier had had encounters with men. I finally came across this article which seemed to cover all the incidents that I found mentioned elsewhere. It is from the Daily Mail, so that's hardly a reliable source, but there was one bit in particular that caught my eye:
After Lord Olivier's death on July 11, 1989, aged 82, from neuromuscular disease and cancer, and his interment in Poet's Corner, Westminster Abbey, his official biographer, Terry Coleman, asked Plowright if he had had homosexual affairs. She replied robustly: "If he did, so what?"
Tarquin Olivier, Larry's elder son, 'was hell-bent on censoring' the homosexual revelations in Coleman's book and attempted to pressure Plowright into withdrawing her permission. She refused, privately remarking that "a man who had been to Eton and in the Guards might be expected to be a little more broad-minded".
The article led me on further... For one it mentioned an encounter between Olivier and Marlon Brando. I'm not sure I believe that one, but apparently there are other sources which suggest Brando may have been bisexual.
The article also mentioned an incident in which John Gielgud was caught in a public toilet trying to pick up a guy (he was arrested for it).
Finding it amusing that so many stars of the era seemed to be gay or bisexual I thought I'd try to look for somebody who was straight ;) So I searched for stuff on Charles Laughton - like Olivier and Gielgud he was also a very acclaimed British theatrical actor who'd done a bit of Hollywood. I thought it likely that he wasn't much of a sexual experimentator - I knew he had been married to just one woman his whole life (unlike most of the stars of that time). Well, I was wrong *grin* Laughton's wife, Elsa Lanchaster, had outed her husband as gay in her autobiography and apparently that was the reason for them never having children.
Feeling rather gigglish by this point I went to my dad (who had after all watched Hollywood in those times) and told him about my discoveries. He had also heard about Laughton and Gielgud, though Olivier and Brando surprised him. Having shown him the Spartacus scene, I joked I should check whether Tony Curtis was straight. My dad said he was pretty sure Curtis was straight (and I rather thought so too), but I ended up checking it up anyway just for a laugh. At first it seemed I had finally found somebody who *was* straight though probably promiscuous (6 wives! and his present one is 42 years younger than him!), but lo and behold, I found an interview with him in a gay magazine ;) Here's what he says in it:
Speaking of men and men … well, first, how old were you when you got to Hollywood?
I was 22. That was 1948.
And as beautiful as you were … I mean, you are still good-looking…
Thank you.
But as beautiful as you were, I’m assuming that you…
I had more action than Mount Vesuvius.
So, both men and women put the make on you.
Men, women, children. Animals!
I can’t wait for the headlines–"TONY CURTIS INTO BESTIALITY."
[Laughs] I loved it, too. I loved the affection of everybody around me. I participated where I wanted to, and I didn’t where I didn’t. It wasn’t like I said, "Well, I won’t do this or I won’t do that." I just had a chance to have great wonderful friends of all ethnic backgrounds, all sexual genders, and that’s the joy of being an American, that’s the joy of being alive, where all of your friends can be who-ever they want to be.
I'm not sure how serious he was about the children and animals ;) He clearly has a rather crass sense of humour, but especially in context of what he says after that he seemed fairly serious about the men ;) So yet again my quest to find a straight star had failed ;)
Am I the only person who ends up doing such moronic things rather than study? ;)
Friday, January 04, 2008
2007 MEETS 2008 | PART 2: 2008 in Polish cinemas
This is a list of films that I'm excited about, ordered by the Polish release date (the dates may of course still change). You can treat it as an open invitation to see any of these films in the cinema with me ;)
18th January, 2008 Lust, Caution
Why I'm excited?
It's Ang Lee's first film after Brokeback Mountain, so I guess I would have always been curious about it (like a lot of the cinema going world I think). But the controversy surrounding it has made it even more of a must see for me. It received an NC-17 certificate in the US which is very rare - especially for such a mainstream director. And Ang Lee isn't known for sexually explicit films.
The Chinese angle is also very interesting for me - it's a China-USA co-production and I guess somehow just the idea that a Chinese production company would be doing a film that is that explicit has an interest factor in it for me (even if the film was cut significantly for Chinese audiences).
Surprisingly enough there is also a Bollywood angle to the film since Anupam Kher has a small part in it (his face will probably be familiar to you if you've watched a few Indian films).
Finally, this is the film that won the main prize at the Venice film festival in September and of all the big film festivals and award ceremonies Venice is probably the one I trust the most.
Previous mentions on my blog
15th February, 2008 The Kite Runner
Why I'm excited?
Well, I'm not expecting it to be the best of films (even though AFAIK the reviews in the US have been good), but somehow I'm just getting a kick out of Hollywood making a film that is so heavily based in Afghanistan, but at the same time doesn't seem to be particularly political (I may be wrong about this, but that's my impression thus far).
The story itself sounds rather interesting (I'm just hoping it won't be told as sentimentally as it's treated on the trailer). It's about two boys who are good friends. The turning point is when one of the boys gets abused and raped and the other just lets it happen. And then the rest of the film is largely about the guilt of allowing that. Apparently, a lot of people wanted the director to take out the rape scene (leaving in just the violence). But he said it was necessary because you had to feel how terrible the deed was for the attempts at redemption to follow naturally. I guess that comment got me even more curious.
Previous mentions on my blog
None
22nd February, 2008 Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Why I'm excited?
Do I even have to explain this one? lol
Previous mentions on my blog
? March, 2008 Dhoom 2
Why I'm excited?
Bollywood + Hrithik Roshan + Abhishek Bachchan + a trailer like that = fun ;)
Previous mentions on my blog
13th June, 2008 The Happening
No trailer available yet.
Why I'm excited?
For a reaaaaally dumb reason - it's the first time that an Indian producer (UTV) is co-producing what is essentially a Hollywood film.
That said, it's directed by M. Night Shyamalan, so there's hope that in ecological thriller terms it won't be so bad ;)
Previous mentions on my blog
? September or October, 2008 Jhoom Barabar Jhoom
Why I'm excited?
Because more Bollywood in Polish cinemas is always a good thing and when it involves Abhishek Bachchan then it's even better ;)
Previous mentions on my blog
None
28th November, 2008 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
No trailer available yet.
Why I'm excited?
Because I'm amongst the Harry Potter fans who think the films are getting better and better ;) Plus there's a few scenes in this one that I soooo want to see on screen *dreamy eyes*
Previous mentions on my blog
None
Some time during 2008? I'm not there
So far there's no release date for Poland, but the film sounds big enough to have gotten a distributor, so I expect we will be seeing it at some point during 2008 (the world premiere was in September 2007).
Why I'm excited?
Because Cate Blanchett, Ben Whishaw, Christian Bale, Richard Gere, Heath Ledger and a little boy I don't know called Marcus Carl Franklin are all playing the same person and according to the buzz the film actually works lol All of these are terrific actors, so it should be quite something.
Previous mentions on my blog
None
late in 2008? Om Shanti Om
2008 is probably wishful thinking on my part as no Polish distributor has bought the rights as of yet, but hey - a year after its initial release is not exactly soon ;-P I'm pretty sure *somebody* will pick up the rights as Om Shanti Om is on its way to become the highest grosser in Indian cinema history.
Why I'm excited?
Shahrukh Khan is quite enough for me to be excited about any film ;)
Previous mentions on my blog
Late in 2008? Brüno: Delicious Journeys Through America for the Purpose of Making Heterosexual Males Visibly Uncomfortable in the Presence of a Gay Foreigner in a Mesh T-Shirt
No trailer available yet.
Why I'm excited?
This is Sacha Baron Cohen's next and I like him, so I guess a project with a title like that has to get some curiosity from me ;)
Previous mentions on my blog
None
18th January, 2008 Lust, Caution
Why I'm excited?
It's Ang Lee's first film after Brokeback Mountain, so I guess I would have always been curious about it (like a lot of the cinema going world I think). But the controversy surrounding it has made it even more of a must see for me. It received an NC-17 certificate in the US which is very rare - especially for such a mainstream director. And Ang Lee isn't known for sexually explicit films.
The Chinese angle is also very interesting for me - it's a China-USA co-production and I guess somehow just the idea that a Chinese production company would be doing a film that is that explicit has an interest factor in it for me (even if the film was cut significantly for Chinese audiences).
Surprisingly enough there is also a Bollywood angle to the film since Anupam Kher has a small part in it (his face will probably be familiar to you if you've watched a few Indian films).
Finally, this is the film that won the main prize at the Venice film festival in September and of all the big film festivals and award ceremonies Venice is probably the one I trust the most.
Previous mentions on my blog
15th February, 2008 The Kite Runner
Why I'm excited?
Well, I'm not expecting it to be the best of films (even though AFAIK the reviews in the US have been good), but somehow I'm just getting a kick out of Hollywood making a film that is so heavily based in Afghanistan, but at the same time doesn't seem to be particularly political (I may be wrong about this, but that's my impression thus far).
The story itself sounds rather interesting (I'm just hoping it won't be told as sentimentally as it's treated on the trailer). It's about two boys who are good friends. The turning point is when one of the boys gets abused and raped and the other just lets it happen. And then the rest of the film is largely about the guilt of allowing that. Apparently, a lot of people wanted the director to take out the rape scene (leaving in just the violence). But he said it was necessary because you had to feel how terrible the deed was for the attempts at redemption to follow naturally. I guess that comment got me even more curious.
Previous mentions on my blog
None
22nd February, 2008 Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Why I'm excited?
Do I even have to explain this one? lol
Previous mentions on my blog
- Initial promotion for Tim Burton's "Sweeney Todd"
- Sweeney Todd trailer - yay!
- Can Johnny Depp sing?
- Second Sweeney Todd trailer
- Sweeney Todd promotion in full throb
? March, 2008 Dhoom 2
Why I'm excited?
Bollywood + Hrithik Roshan + Abhishek Bachchan + a trailer like that = fun ;)
Previous mentions on my blog
13th June, 2008 The Happening
No trailer available yet.
Why I'm excited?
For a reaaaaally dumb reason - it's the first time that an Indian producer (UTV) is co-producing what is essentially a Hollywood film.
That said, it's directed by M. Night Shyamalan, so there's hope that in ecological thriller terms it won't be so bad ;)
Previous mentions on my blog
? September or October, 2008 Jhoom Barabar Jhoom
Why I'm excited?
Because more Bollywood in Polish cinemas is always a good thing and when it involves Abhishek Bachchan then it's even better ;)
Previous mentions on my blog
None
28th November, 2008 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
No trailer available yet.
Why I'm excited?
Because I'm amongst the Harry Potter fans who think the films are getting better and better ;) Plus there's a few scenes in this one that I soooo want to see on screen *dreamy eyes*
Previous mentions on my blog
None
Some time during 2008? I'm not there
So far there's no release date for Poland, but the film sounds big enough to have gotten a distributor, so I expect we will be seeing it at some point during 2008 (the world premiere was in September 2007).
Why I'm excited?
Because Cate Blanchett, Ben Whishaw, Christian Bale, Richard Gere, Heath Ledger and a little boy I don't know called Marcus Carl Franklin are all playing the same person and according to the buzz the film actually works lol All of these are terrific actors, so it should be quite something.
Previous mentions on my blog
None
late in 2008? Om Shanti Om
2008 is probably wishful thinking on my part as no Polish distributor has bought the rights as of yet, but hey - a year after its initial release is not exactly soon ;-P I'm pretty sure *somebody* will pick up the rights as Om Shanti Om is on its way to become the highest grosser in Indian cinema history.
Why I'm excited?
Shahrukh Khan is quite enough for me to be excited about any film ;)
Previous mentions on my blog
- "Om Shanti Om" - Shahrukh's next release
- Tom Cruise film loses out to two Bollywood films i...
- Another Shahrukh interview (OSO promotion)
Late in 2008? Brüno: Delicious Journeys Through America for the Purpose of Making Heterosexual Males Visibly Uncomfortable in the Presence of a Gay Foreigner in a Mesh T-Shirt
No trailer available yet.
Why I'm excited?
This is Sacha Baron Cohen's next and I like him, so I guess a project with a title like that has to get some curiosity from me ;)
Previous mentions on my blog
None
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Tom Cruise film loses out to two Bollywood films in the worldwide box office
Bollywood is still a long way from properly challenging the major Hollywood studios, but for the first time something of the sort has happened (although I think these results require some interpretation ;)).
Generally, trade analysts divide box office results into the US box office and the worldwide box office (worldwide = everybody except the US). This is convenient because films tend to stack up a bit differently in the US, but also because a Hollywood film can earn about a third of its revenue in the US alone. The joke is that United Artists released Lions for Lambs in 45 countries and earned $10.3 million in the worlwide box office this weekend. Whereas Saawariya made $14.4 million and Om Shanti Om $17million in India alone. It is a bit of a blip as Variety calls it because it's Diwali weekend in India and two of the most anticipated films of the season have just released. Hollywood on the other hand is probably having a weaker weekend and it looks like Lions for Lambs is going to be a flop. But considering India's economic growth this is a very strong signal of what is to come and puts my last Hollywood-Bollywood post into perspective I think. India is now becoming a very important market for Hollywood to break into and they're going to do a lot to get there. It's significant that Saawariya was co-produced by a large American studio.
While this result tells us more about India's significance as a market than about any global trends regarding Bollywood films, both films have done very well outside of India too. Om Shanti Om has made 11th place in the US weekend box office which is I think the best result any Bollywood film has made at this point. And look closely at the screen count - Om Shanti Om has been released on 114 screens in the US while its Hollywood rivals have a 2000 or more screen count! And notice the per screen average - it's 3 times that of the other big releases. Clearly there would have been room to give Om Shanti Om a wider release than that!
It's interesting to look at Saawariya's result. It has made 24th place in the US box office which is also an excellent result. And for the first time I think I'm seeing a Bollywood release that has done well in the US and the per screen result is around what other films are collecting. Since Saawariya was co-produced by Sony, it's also Sony doing the distribution in the US and it appears that they've done it properly - released it on as many screens as it needs to be released and also it is I think the first Bollywood film to be released in the US which was submitted to the MPAA for rating (it received a PG).
Both films, but particularly Om Shanti Om has made an impact in other countries as well. Om Shanti Om has made no.7 in the UK box office, just behind the Tom Cruise flick which is at no. 6 and considering all the other numbers (54 vs 404 screens, £9,977 vs £1,629 per screen average) it looks like in the long run Om Shanti Om will be the winner.
It's done well even in Australia where it has made 9th place and as usual I recommend you check out the screen count and average per screen. Sony gave Saawariya a slightly wider release in Australia than Eros was able to give Om Shanti Om, but you can still see Om Shanti Om has done better.
Finally, because as you know I'm addicted to youtube, here are some of the trailers of the films mentioned in this post ;)
So here's the loser of this week, the Tom Cruise starrer - Lions for Lambs:
This is the trailer for Saawariya, the first Bollywood-Hollywood production:
And finally two teasers for Om Shanti Om, the Shahrukh Khan starrer (Shahrukh Khan has beaten Tom Cruise at the worlwide box office buahahaha):
And here's one of the bigger selling points of the film ;)
Generally, trade analysts divide box office results into the US box office and the worldwide box office (worldwide = everybody except the US). This is convenient because films tend to stack up a bit differently in the US, but also because a Hollywood film can earn about a third of its revenue in the US alone. The joke is that United Artists released Lions for Lambs in 45 countries and earned $10.3 million in the worlwide box office this weekend. Whereas Saawariya made $14.4 million and Om Shanti Om $17million in India alone. It is a bit of a blip as Variety calls it because it's Diwali weekend in India and two of the most anticipated films of the season have just released. Hollywood on the other hand is probably having a weaker weekend and it looks like Lions for Lambs is going to be a flop. But considering India's economic growth this is a very strong signal of what is to come and puts my last Hollywood-Bollywood post into perspective I think. India is now becoming a very important market for Hollywood to break into and they're going to do a lot to get there. It's significant that Saawariya was co-produced by a large American studio.
While this result tells us more about India's significance as a market than about any global trends regarding Bollywood films, both films have done very well outside of India too. Om Shanti Om has made 11th place in the US weekend box office which is I think the best result any Bollywood film has made at this point. And look closely at the screen count - Om Shanti Om has been released on 114 screens in the US while its Hollywood rivals have a 2000 or more screen count! And notice the per screen average - it's 3 times that of the other big releases. Clearly there would have been room to give Om Shanti Om a wider release than that!
It's interesting to look at Saawariya's result. It has made 24th place in the US box office which is also an excellent result. And for the first time I think I'm seeing a Bollywood release that has done well in the US and the per screen result is around what other films are collecting. Since Saawariya was co-produced by Sony, it's also Sony doing the distribution in the US and it appears that they've done it properly - released it on as many screens as it needs to be released and also it is I think the first Bollywood film to be released in the US which was submitted to the MPAA for rating (it received a PG).
Both films, but particularly Om Shanti Om has made an impact in other countries as well. Om Shanti Om has made no.7 in the UK box office, just behind the Tom Cruise flick which is at no. 6 and considering all the other numbers (54 vs 404 screens, £9,977 vs £1,629 per screen average) it looks like in the long run Om Shanti Om will be the winner.
It's done well even in Australia where it has made 9th place and as usual I recommend you check out the screen count and average per screen. Sony gave Saawariya a slightly wider release in Australia than Eros was able to give Om Shanti Om, but you can still see Om Shanti Om has done better.
Finally, because as you know I'm addicted to youtube, here are some of the trailers of the films mentioned in this post ;)
So here's the loser of this week, the Tom Cruise starrer - Lions for Lambs:
This is the trailer for Saawariya, the first Bollywood-Hollywood production:
And finally two teasers for Om Shanti Om, the Shahrukh Khan starrer (Shahrukh Khan has beaten Tom Cruise at the worlwide box office buahahaha):
And here's one of the bigger selling points of the film ;)
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
The MPAA and the BBFC - how the US and UK deal with sex and violence in films
The Venice film festival (which is the oldest film festival in the world and remains one of the most prestigious) came to an end the week before last and it was Ang Lee's Lust, Caution that won it.
While this might seem irrelevant to the topic of this post, I assure you it's not ;) The trailer should give you an idea where I'm going with this:
Anyway, the film has received an NC-17 certificate from the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America). Focus Features, the distributors of "Lust, Caution", have not appealed it or made any cuts for the American release which is very unusual. The NC-17 certificate is usually not regarded as an option even for less commercial films because this means many cinemas will not show it, many DVD rentals and stores will not stock it and many newspapers will not advertise it. While some art house films in the past have gone ahead with this certificate, it's the first time that such a mainstream director and a film that won such an important festival is going to be released as NC-17.
All the talk surrounding this has made me want to take a closer look at the MPAA and how the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) compares. The MPAA has often been accused of double standards (Hollywood films can get away with more than art house or foreign films, sex is treated much more severely than violence).
Perhaps the strangest thing about the MPAA is that nobody knows exactly who rates the films. All the names are kept anonymous. In fact, the whole thing is so fishy that last year a documentary was made about the MPAA in an attempt to shed some light on it (they even hired a private detective to find out who was sitting on the board!). See the trailer for this documentary here.
Apart from being very secretive about their members, the feedback they give to both the filmmakers and the general public about why films received certain ratings is very limitted comparing to what the BBFC does these days. Check out the quote below from one of the MPAA FAQs:
CARA does provide explanations to the submitter of each motion picture of the reasons for the rating assigned to that picture. However, any such discussions concerning a particular motion picture will be only with the submitter and are also considered confidential. Thus, the substance of discussions about a movie being rated by CARA cannot be discussed with the press or anyone else other than, where appropriate, the submitter of the particular motion picture.
Unfortunately, the level of detail given to submitters often isn't enough for their needs. This timeline of MPAA controversies describes many cases, but one stood out to me in particular. In 1983 Brian De Palma edited his "Scarface" three times to get a lower rating, but none of those three cuts passed. Clearly if they had given him the information he needed, the first cut would have passed their requirements (and oh irony, in the end he received the rating he wanted for his original unedited version!).
In contrast, the BBFC lists quite detailed reasons for the rating and cuts made to each film on their website (the older ratings are less detailed, but the more recent ones are usually very much so) and it also invites the public to "make its views known to the Board at any stage of the classification process".
I have two of my own theories about the MPAA (which you can take seriously or laugh at - whatever ;-P). My first is a conspiracy theory - I think they're consciously giving indie and foreign films harsher ratings and that it's one of their methods of ensuring the domination of the big Hollywood flicks on the US market.
Before you roll your eyes at me (actually you probably have already, but before you do it again ;-P), check out how the MPAA is funded. Here's a quote from the FAQ on one of the MPAA's official pages:
The movie rating system is a voluntary system sponsored by the Motion Picture Association of America and the National Association of Theatre Owners
Since you're probably not familiar with these organizations, I'll "translate". You might already be confused how the MPAA can be funded by the MPAA, so maybe I'll start with clarifying that. For whatever reason, when one talks of the American rating system, one talks of the MPAA giving the ratings (that's how imdb has it for example), but actually the ratings are done by a smaller body called CARA (Classification and Rating Administration) which is part of the MPAA. The MPAA itself is an older and bigger body - you can read about it in more detail here, but it's basically a body created to defend the interests of the major American film production companies - you can see the list of MPAA members (the six biggest studios in Hollywood) on their official site.
The National Association of Theatre Owners is an association of all the movie theatres in the US - most of which are part of cinema chains owned by the six companies already mentioned.
This puts the accusations of bias against foreign and independent films in a totally different light, doesn't it? Clearly it is in the interest of the sponsors of the rating system for films made outside of the six big studios to be given harsher treatment. Wikipedia actually says that Miramax had lots of problems with the rating system while they were an independent company, but now that Disney has bought them out, their problems have ceased!
The BBFC is funded in a much more independent way. See the quote below from their policy (avaliable on their official website):
The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) is an independent, non-governmental body funded through the fees it charges to those who submit films, videos, DVDs and digital games for classification.
On the one hand this means that British distributors have extra costs (unlike in the US, every film in the UK must be rated or else it is illegal to show it to the general public), but clearly it is a system less open to bias.
My other theory is a cultural one - I honestly believe Americans have a different attitude towards sex than we do here in Europe. Just as in India the general attitude towards sex and sexual behaviours seems to be a lot more prudish than in the West (kissing in public is considered obscene and even hand holding can be seen as vulgar), so in the US it seems certain things are a lot more taboo than they are in Europe.
I thought that it was fascinating to compare reactions to Daniel Radcliffe doing a nude scene in Equus (which I covered extensively on this blog ;) - just click on the Equus tag below this post). In the UK it was a big thing, but at no point did I feel there were any moral judgements about it. It was amusing, maybe shocking, but I don't think many people felt that it was somehow morally wrong of him to be doing it. The voices from the US were different though. Just reading through imdb there were many people who felt this amounted to pedophilia and were wondering how his parents could allow him to do such a thing. There were also those who said they would boycott the "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" film. I'm not saying that all the responses from the US were like that, but certainly it did seem to be somehow "a bigger thing" over there.
In this context, I also found it very interesting to read William H. Macy's comment about the reactions to "The Cooler" (this was one of the few art house films that was released with an NC-17 rating):
William H. Macy said that when the film was shown in European film festivals, afterward people mostly discussed the script and the characters, but when the film was shown at American film festivals, people mostly discussed how good Maria Bello looked in her nude scenes.
I think these different attitudes are reflected in not just the decisions of the MPAA and BBFC, but also their guidelines. I did a sort of comparison of the guidelines for each certificate, which you can download here. I wanted to put it straight up in my post, but the formatting I wanted wasn't possible (it's not a big file, don't worry :) ). Most of the guidelines have been just copied and pasted. Pretty much all the MPAA guidelines I found are in that file, but I only put up part of the BBFC guidelines since there were many which couldn't really be compared against anything in the MPAA ones. The full BBFC guidelines are here.
Finally, two random things that I didn't manage to fit anywhere else in this post. Firstly I thought this article was a great read - particularly the list of silly rating reasons (my favourite was "“PG-13 for intense depiction of very bad weather”).
And also I found it amusing to hear about Alfonso Cuaron's protest against what various rating bodies around the world were doing to Y tu mama tambien.
While this might seem irrelevant to the topic of this post, I assure you it's not ;) The trailer should give you an idea where I'm going with this:
Anyway, the film has received an NC-17 certificate from the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America). Focus Features, the distributors of "Lust, Caution", have not appealed it or made any cuts for the American release which is very unusual. The NC-17 certificate is usually not regarded as an option even for less commercial films because this means many cinemas will not show it, many DVD rentals and stores will not stock it and many newspapers will not advertise it. While some art house films in the past have gone ahead with this certificate, it's the first time that such a mainstream director and a film that won such an important festival is going to be released as NC-17.
All the talk surrounding this has made me want to take a closer look at the MPAA and how the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) compares. The MPAA has often been accused of double standards (Hollywood films can get away with more than art house or foreign films, sex is treated much more severely than violence).
Perhaps the strangest thing about the MPAA is that nobody knows exactly who rates the films. All the names are kept anonymous. In fact, the whole thing is so fishy that last year a documentary was made about the MPAA in an attempt to shed some light on it (they even hired a private detective to find out who was sitting on the board!). See the trailer for this documentary here.
Apart from being very secretive about their members, the feedback they give to both the filmmakers and the general public about why films received certain ratings is very limitted comparing to what the BBFC does these days. Check out the quote below from one of the MPAA FAQs:
CARA does provide explanations to the submitter of each motion picture of the reasons for the rating assigned to that picture. However, any such discussions concerning a particular motion picture will be only with the submitter and are also considered confidential. Thus, the substance of discussions about a movie being rated by CARA cannot be discussed with the press or anyone else other than, where appropriate, the submitter of the particular motion picture.
Unfortunately, the level of detail given to submitters often isn't enough for their needs. This timeline of MPAA controversies describes many cases, but one stood out to me in particular. In 1983 Brian De Palma edited his "Scarface" three times to get a lower rating, but none of those three cuts passed. Clearly if they had given him the information he needed, the first cut would have passed their requirements (and oh irony, in the end he received the rating he wanted for his original unedited version!).
In contrast, the BBFC lists quite detailed reasons for the rating and cuts made to each film on their website (the older ratings are less detailed, but the more recent ones are usually very much so) and it also invites the public to "make its views known to the Board at any stage of the classification process".
I have two of my own theories about the MPAA (which you can take seriously or laugh at - whatever ;-P). My first is a conspiracy theory - I think they're consciously giving indie and foreign films harsher ratings and that it's one of their methods of ensuring the domination of the big Hollywood flicks on the US market.
Before you roll your eyes at me (actually you probably have already, but before you do it again ;-P), check out how the MPAA is funded. Here's a quote from the FAQ on one of the MPAA's official pages:
The movie rating system is a voluntary system sponsored by the Motion Picture Association of America and the National Association of Theatre Owners
Since you're probably not familiar with these organizations, I'll "translate". You might already be confused how the MPAA can be funded by the MPAA, so maybe I'll start with clarifying that. For whatever reason, when one talks of the American rating system, one talks of the MPAA giving the ratings (that's how imdb has it for example), but actually the ratings are done by a smaller body called CARA (Classification and Rating Administration) which is part of the MPAA. The MPAA itself is an older and bigger body - you can read about it in more detail here, but it's basically a body created to defend the interests of the major American film production companies - you can see the list of MPAA members (the six biggest studios in Hollywood) on their official site.
The National Association of Theatre Owners is an association of all the movie theatres in the US - most of which are part of cinema chains owned by the six companies already mentioned.
This puts the accusations of bias against foreign and independent films in a totally different light, doesn't it? Clearly it is in the interest of the sponsors of the rating system for films made outside of the six big studios to be given harsher treatment. Wikipedia actually says that Miramax had lots of problems with the rating system while they were an independent company, but now that Disney has bought them out, their problems have ceased!
The BBFC is funded in a much more independent way. See the quote below from their policy (avaliable on their official website):
The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) is an independent, non-governmental body funded through the fees it charges to those who submit films, videos, DVDs and digital games for classification.
On the one hand this means that British distributors have extra costs (unlike in the US, every film in the UK must be rated or else it is illegal to show it to the general public), but clearly it is a system less open to bias.
My other theory is a cultural one - I honestly believe Americans have a different attitude towards sex than we do here in Europe. Just as in India the general attitude towards sex and sexual behaviours seems to be a lot more prudish than in the West (kissing in public is considered obscene and even hand holding can be seen as vulgar), so in the US it seems certain things are a lot more taboo than they are in Europe.
I thought that it was fascinating to compare reactions to Daniel Radcliffe doing a nude scene in Equus (which I covered extensively on this blog ;) - just click on the Equus tag below this post). In the UK it was a big thing, but at no point did I feel there were any moral judgements about it. It was amusing, maybe shocking, but I don't think many people felt that it was somehow morally wrong of him to be doing it. The voices from the US were different though. Just reading through imdb there were many people who felt this amounted to pedophilia and were wondering how his parents could allow him to do such a thing. There were also those who said they would boycott the "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" film. I'm not saying that all the responses from the US were like that, but certainly it did seem to be somehow "a bigger thing" over there.
In this context, I also found it very interesting to read William H. Macy's comment about the reactions to "The Cooler" (this was one of the few art house films that was released with an NC-17 rating):
William H. Macy said that when the film was shown in European film festivals, afterward people mostly discussed the script and the characters, but when the film was shown at American film festivals, people mostly discussed how good Maria Bello looked in her nude scenes.
I think these different attitudes are reflected in not just the decisions of the MPAA and BBFC, but also their guidelines. I did a sort of comparison of the guidelines for each certificate, which you can download here. I wanted to put it straight up in my post, but the formatting I wanted wasn't possible (it's not a big file, don't worry :) ). Most of the guidelines have been just copied and pasted. Pretty much all the MPAA guidelines I found are in that file, but I only put up part of the BBFC guidelines since there were many which couldn't really be compared against anything in the MPAA ones. The full BBFC guidelines are here.
Finally, two random things that I didn't manage to fit anywhere else in this post. Firstly I thought this article was a great read - particularly the list of silly rating reasons (my favourite was "“PG-13 for intense depiction of very bad weather”).
And also I found it amusing to hear about Alfonso Cuaron's protest against what various rating bodies around the world were doing to Y tu mama tambien.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Initial promotion for Tim Burton's "Sweeney Todd"
It's still going to be a long wait before Sweeney Todd comes out (no release date set for Poland yet, but I think we'll be lucky if it comes out any earlier than February 2008). But even though we don't have a trailer yet, the temptation to write about it is too big - I've been extremely excited for this film ever since I first heard about it!
I mean you've got a very gory Broadway musical translated to film with Tim Burton as director - that's got to be interesting in itself, right? But once the plot and cast is put in place it gets better!
It's about Benjamin Barker (Johnny Depp) who is a barber in 19th century London. He has a wife and a very young daughter, Johanna. And then one day, with the purpose of er... taking the barber's wife for himself, judge Turpin (Alan Rickman) imprisons Benjamin Barker on false accusations. Many years later (by which time the judge is lusting after Johanna, who is now 16), Benjamin Barker comes back as Sweeney Todd and decides to revenge himself on the world for the injustice that has happened to him and proceeds in cutting the throats of all who come his way. He has help in Mrs Lovett (Helena Bonham-Carter) who uses the corpses to make meat pies.
We're also going to get Timothy Spall (he'll be playing some sort of accomplice to judge Turpin) and Sacha Baron Cohen (who will be playing a rival barber).
All of them are going to be doing their own singing which is particularly interesting in that this is supposed to be one of the most difficult Broadway musicals to sing. Some go as far as to call it an operetta rather than a musical.
The poster is out, but more interestingly just recently the first clip of the film was shown to an audience. This was at the Venice festival. Unfortunately, it hasn't surfaced on-line, but hopefully this means we won't have to wait for a trailer too long. The clip (in which Johnny Depp is psychotically singing to a razor) has gotten rave reviews, here's one of them.
And here's Stephen Sondheim (the author of the musical) teaching Guildhall School students the song in question:
It's going to be really fab, isn't it? :-D
I mean you've got a very gory Broadway musical translated to film with Tim Burton as director - that's got to be interesting in itself, right? But once the plot and cast is put in place it gets better!
It's about Benjamin Barker (Johnny Depp) who is a barber in 19th century London. He has a wife and a very young daughter, Johanna. And then one day, with the purpose of er... taking the barber's wife for himself, judge Turpin (Alan Rickman) imprisons Benjamin Barker on false accusations. Many years later (by which time the judge is lusting after Johanna, who is now 16), Benjamin Barker comes back as Sweeney Todd and decides to revenge himself on the world for the injustice that has happened to him and proceeds in cutting the throats of all who come his way. He has help in Mrs Lovett (Helena Bonham-Carter) who uses the corpses to make meat pies.
We're also going to get Timothy Spall (he'll be playing some sort of accomplice to judge Turpin) and Sacha Baron Cohen (who will be playing a rival barber).
All of them are going to be doing their own singing which is particularly interesting in that this is supposed to be one of the most difficult Broadway musicals to sing. Some go as far as to call it an operetta rather than a musical.
The poster is out, but more interestingly just recently the first clip of the film was shown to an audience. This was at the Venice festival. Unfortunately, it hasn't surfaced on-line, but hopefully this means we won't have to wait for a trailer too long. The clip (in which Johnny Depp is psychotically singing to a razor) has gotten rave reviews, here's one of them.
And here's Stephen Sondheim (the author of the musical) teaching Guildhall School students the song in question:
It's going to be really fab, isn't it? :-D
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Bollywood and Hollywood together - it's happening!
It seems like every 2-3 months is bringing stronger reasons to believe that Bollywood and Hollywood want to have a working relationship!
The first time I posted about this was in February and then again in May.
Well, now it's August and there's loads more to report :)
Hollywood is starting to take the Indian market very seriously. In other words they've realized that there's a billion people in India, that the country's economy is developing very fast, the people of India are veeeery interested in cinema and Hollywood only has about 8% of the market... oooops...
The problem is that the way they've dominated Western markets just isn't going to work in India. In the words of Gareth Wigan, vice chairman of Columbia TriStar - "The importing of American films into India is not filling a gap (...) You're not bringing a dish to a bare table. You're bringing a dish to a table where you have to move a lot of other dishes to fit in, and that's not true in a lot of other countries."
Disney, Warner Bros and Columbia/Sony in particular seem to be seeing this 8% market problem and there's no longer any doubt - they're looking for opportunities!
So a number of things have been happening...
Disney have made a deal with Yash Raj films (which is one of the biggest production companies in Bollywood) to make animated films for Indian audiences.
They've also apparently been in touch with Shahrukh Khan, hoping to invest in his production company - Red Chillies Entertainment. And they're not the only ones either, apparently Sony and Fox are considering the same move!
There's also a number of projects which are essentially Bollywood films, but with some of the money coming from Hollywood.
The first of these to come out is Saawariya, with Columbia/Sony Entertainment behind it. It will be released this November. It's directed by Sanjay Leela Bhansali (the director who also did Devdas) and will star Rani Mukherji and Salman Khan. The first teaser trailer is looking absolutely stunning. See it here.
Warner Bros is venturing out into Bollywood with "Made in China", which will be directed by Nikhil Advani (the director of Kal Ho Naa Ho) and will star Akshay Kumar.
Perhaps most excitingly, both of these films will have mainstream American distributors which makes their chances in the international box office much better! :)
But also Bollywood stars are being offered Hollywood movies!
Shilpa Shetty is rumoured to be in talks for the next James Bond movie, as well as possibly starring in a movie with Keanu Reeves. But there have been a number of other Bollywood stars approached for various projects, this article lists most of them.
Less dynamically, but Hollywood producers also seem to be thinking about Bollywood directors for their Hollywood projects. Santosh Sivan (the director of Asoka) has been approached with a script set in a colonial background.
Finally, perhaps less energetically, but Bollywood is making its own attempts at venturing into Hollywood and making use of their talents.
They have roped in a leading Hollywood VFX man into Pixion - a post-production studio in India. David Crawford is behind films like "Titanic", "Spiderman" and "Mission Impossible II"!
UTV is trying to make a big World War II movie with Vishal Bharadwaj (Omkara) as the director, hopefully bringing together Uma Thurman and Hrithik Roshan, but at the moment the project will remain in pre-production for a while yet.
UTV has also ventured into co-production with Fox on a Hollywood film - it will be Shyamalan's next film.
Not bad, huh? :-D
P.S. Not strictly related to the Hollywood-Bollywood issue, but I'll put it in anyway ;-P Danny Boyle's next film is set in India and he's supposed to have met Shahrukh Khan about it.
The first time I posted about this was in February and then again in May.
Well, now it's August and there's loads more to report :)
Hollywood is starting to take the Indian market very seriously. In other words they've realized that there's a billion people in India, that the country's economy is developing very fast, the people of India are veeeery interested in cinema and Hollywood only has about 8% of the market... oooops...
The problem is that the way they've dominated Western markets just isn't going to work in India. In the words of Gareth Wigan, vice chairman of Columbia TriStar - "The importing of American films into India is not filling a gap (...) You're not bringing a dish to a bare table. You're bringing a dish to a table where you have to move a lot of other dishes to fit in, and that's not true in a lot of other countries."
Disney, Warner Bros and Columbia/Sony in particular seem to be seeing this 8% market problem and there's no longer any doubt - they're looking for opportunities!
So a number of things have been happening...
Disney have made a deal with Yash Raj films (which is one of the biggest production companies in Bollywood) to make animated films for Indian audiences.
They've also apparently been in touch with Shahrukh Khan, hoping to invest in his production company - Red Chillies Entertainment. And they're not the only ones either, apparently Sony and Fox are considering the same move!
There's also a number of projects which are essentially Bollywood films, but with some of the money coming from Hollywood.
The first of these to come out is Saawariya, with Columbia/Sony Entertainment behind it. It will be released this November. It's directed by Sanjay Leela Bhansali (the director who also did Devdas) and will star Rani Mukherji and Salman Khan. The first teaser trailer is looking absolutely stunning. See it here.
Warner Bros is venturing out into Bollywood with "Made in China", which will be directed by Nikhil Advani (the director of Kal Ho Naa Ho) and will star Akshay Kumar.
Perhaps most excitingly, both of these films will have mainstream American distributors which makes their chances in the international box office much better! :)
But also Bollywood stars are being offered Hollywood movies!
Shilpa Shetty is rumoured to be in talks for the next James Bond movie, as well as possibly starring in a movie with Keanu Reeves. But there have been a number of other Bollywood stars approached for various projects, this article lists most of them.
Less dynamically, but Hollywood producers also seem to be thinking about Bollywood directors for their Hollywood projects. Santosh Sivan (the director of Asoka) has been approached with a script set in a colonial background.
Finally, perhaps less energetically, but Bollywood is making its own attempts at venturing into Hollywood and making use of their talents.
They have roped in a leading Hollywood VFX man into Pixion - a post-production studio in India. David Crawford is behind films like "Titanic", "Spiderman" and "Mission Impossible II"!
UTV is trying to make a big World War II movie with Vishal Bharadwaj (Omkara) as the director, hopefully bringing together Uma Thurman and Hrithik Roshan, but at the moment the project will remain in pre-production for a while yet.
UTV has also ventured into co-production with Fox on a Hollywood film - it will be Shyamalan's next film.
Not bad, huh? :-D
P.S. Not strictly related to the Hollywood-Bollywood issue, but I'll put it in anyway ;-P Danny Boyle's next film is set in India and he's supposed to have met Shahrukh Khan about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
