I'll probably offend people by saying this, but...wait for it, wait for it...I hated The Wizard of Oz. There, I said it. I know it's blasphemous to make such a confession, but the original film just seemed so corny to me and overblown. I didn't like the flying monkeys, the agressive trees, the disgustingly jovial munchkins. The Tin Man and Scarcrow just seemed silly to me and the Cowardly Lion irritated me to no end. The biggest offender of my sensibilities, however, was Dorothy. Her wide-eyed innocence and high pitched voice grated on me like fingernails on a chalkboard.
But just as school house chalkboards have evolved into computerized Smartboards, I've been forced to adjust my attitide toward the 1939 Judy Garland film. Admittedly, the last time I saw the movie, I was in my early teens (and that was several decades ago). I couldn't really appreciate the character development, the themes and the life lessons of the film. I also didn't recognize that the effects were actually quite impressive considering they were made so long ago when the country was in the throes of the Great Depression. All that was lost on my young mind. But a recent viewing of Oz the Great and Powerful has changed all that.
The film, which was directed by Sam Riami, starts like the original did in black and white. Unlike the spoiled and wining Dorothy, this film gives us James Franco's Oz, a con man and wanna-be magician who lives for no one but himself. Immediately, it was a character I could appreciate. I won't go into detail about the rest of the plot because there are countless other online reviews that have already done that. The purpose of this writing is to discuss my evolution. Since Riami and Franco sucked me in with the opening black and white sequences, I joined them in The Land of Oz with it's oversized flowers, biting fairies and flying monkeys. I'm not sure if it was because I saw a world like this in Avatar that I was more accepting of it than I was decades ago with the original film, but I found myself following the adventure whole heartedly. Of course, it helped that Mila Kunis was waiting for us as soon as we arrived in the colorful, fantastic Land of Oz.
I thought James Franco's character was appropriately developed during the film. He stayed true to his selfish self so convincingly that we still believed in the final act of the movie that he might leave the people high and dry and abscond with their gold. Of course, he didn't do that, but it was nice for us to be able to think that he would.
As an origins story, Oz the Great and Powerful had a difficult task of having to set up the original...a story that (most) people know and love...while also having to create something fresh and unique. While the filmmakers impressed me with their satisfaction of the latter task, it was their handling of the former that compelled me to re-evaluate my attitude toward The Wizard of Oz. I liked how and why they turned Mila Kunis' character from a beautiful innocent to a wicked revenge seeker. As I said, they did a great job of developing the main character of Oz. I liked how they made the three witches in the story personal so that we could identify with them. I enjoyed the film's subtle references to the Cowardly Lion, Scarecrow and Tin Man (though that one was a bit harder to detect in this story than the others). And I loved the way the filmmakers carried through with their theme that the wizard's magic was illusionary, but the basis of his power was the people's belief in him. It was a compelling theme that has as much relevance for us today as it did when the original film came out during the Great Depression.
I wish I could have seen Oz the Great and Powerful before I watched The Wizard of Oz. If that had been the case, I might not have spent decades criticizing Dorothy, The Tin Man, The Scarecrow and The Cowardly Lion. As penance for my hostility, I plan to order the original film from Netflix and watch it for the first time in thirty years. Hopefully, it will become as vibrant to me as the oversized flowers in The Land of Oz.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
THE VIKINGS are more than football...'bout time Hollywood noticed!
The Vikings were taylor made for Hollywood!
I mean the real Vikings...an historical mixed bag of good and evil. They were unspeakably violent and essentially invented the term rape and pillage. They were fierce and merciless to their enemies. They celebrated brutality and drank to excess. By today's civilized standards, they were as wild as the wildest beasts. They lived to fight, feast and have sex. But they weren't completely low brow. The Vikings had hierarchical societies with codes, well-established religious beliefs and kinship bonds. They were also brilliant navigators and ship builders who found the New World 500 years before Columbus.
I say the Vikings were taylor made for Hollywood because they are a lesson in contrasts and because their every deed seemed to be larger than life...of course, that's not entirely true. They did the things that every other society of their day did: farming, fishing, blacksmithing, etc. But the grand things they did were grander than those done by everyone else around them, and Hollywood loves epic
lives.
I'm surprised, therefore, that it took Hollywood this long to give the Vikings their due. I know...I know...there have been movies about the Vikings before. The one by Kirk Douglas comes to mind, as does the 2007 film Pathfinder and, of course, Thor and Marvel's Avengers. But none of these films did any justice to the real Vikings. Their depictions of the Northmen (Vikings) were as accurate as the images put forth by the NFL team from Minnesota. That's why I'm so delighted that the History Channel brought us a new series entitled The Vikings.
Admitedly, I have a few personal reasons for being excited about this new series. First, I'm half Norwegian and the Vikings have long been my people's claim to fame (and infamy). Second, my novel Long Live the King: Book One of the Charlemagne Saga explores how the great emperor Charlemagne dealt with these raiders from the north. Third, as a student of history, I've long been fascinated by these hard living people from some of the coldest places on earth.
As of this writing, the History Channel has aired four episodes of The Vikings and I've been captivated by each installment more than the last one. What is more amazing is that the show's creators are making me root for people who do dispicable things like steal from churches and slaughter innocent monks. The storytellers bring a sympathetic humanity to the characters and the actors led by Travis Fimmel and Gabriel Byrne allow us to identify with the people they portray. Above all, The Vikings offers a realistic portrayal of Viking life...not the cartoon version that popular culture has fed us for so long.
As a fan of this sort of entertainment, I can only hope that this series has a long and fruitful run. I'm anxious to see how the show's creators deal with the power struggles within the Viking community and the influence of Christianity on their pagan lives. If the show's currently high ratings are any indication, there are millions of others who share my sentiments. Lets hope the suits at the History Channel continue to see it our way!
For more info about my book:
http://www.amazon.com/Long-Live-King-Book-Charlemagne/dp/193824379X/ref=sr_1_1_bnp_1_pap?ie=UTF8&qid=1364380807&sr=8-1&keywords=guy+cote+long+live+the+king
I mean the real Vikings...an historical mixed bag of good and evil. They were unspeakably violent and essentially invented the term rape and pillage. They were fierce and merciless to their enemies. They celebrated brutality and drank to excess. By today's civilized standards, they were as wild as the wildest beasts. They lived to fight, feast and have sex. But they weren't completely low brow. The Vikings had hierarchical societies with codes, well-established religious beliefs and kinship bonds. They were also brilliant navigators and ship builders who found the New World 500 years before Columbus.
I say the Vikings were taylor made for Hollywood because they are a lesson in contrasts and because their every deed seemed to be larger than life...of course, that's not entirely true. They did the things that every other society of their day did: farming, fishing, blacksmithing, etc. But the grand things they did were grander than those done by everyone else around them, and Hollywood loves epic
lives.
I'm surprised, therefore, that it took Hollywood this long to give the Vikings their due. I know...I know...there have been movies about the Vikings before. The one by Kirk Douglas comes to mind, as does the 2007 film Pathfinder and, of course, Thor and Marvel's Avengers. But none of these films did any justice to the real Vikings. Their depictions of the Northmen (Vikings) were as accurate as the images put forth by the NFL team from Minnesota. That's why I'm so delighted that the History Channel brought us a new series entitled The Vikings.
Admitedly, I have a few personal reasons for being excited about this new series. First, I'm half Norwegian and the Vikings have long been my people's claim to fame (and infamy). Second, my novel Long Live the King: Book One of the Charlemagne Saga explores how the great emperor Charlemagne dealt with these raiders from the north. Third, as a student of history, I've long been fascinated by these hard living people from some of the coldest places on earth.
As of this writing, the History Channel has aired four episodes of The Vikings and I've been captivated by each installment more than the last one. What is more amazing is that the show's creators are making me root for people who do dispicable things like steal from churches and slaughter innocent monks. The storytellers bring a sympathetic humanity to the characters and the actors led by Travis Fimmel and Gabriel Byrne allow us to identify with the people they portray. Above all, The Vikings offers a realistic portrayal of Viking life...not the cartoon version that popular culture has fed us for so long.
As a fan of this sort of entertainment, I can only hope that this series has a long and fruitful run. I'm anxious to see how the show's creators deal with the power struggles within the Viking community and the influence of Christianity on their pagan lives. If the show's currently high ratings are any indication, there are millions of others who share my sentiments. Lets hope the suits at the History Channel continue to see it our way!
For more info about my book:
http://www.amazon.com/Long-Live-King-Book-Charlemagne/dp/193824379X/ref=sr_1_1_bnp_1_pap?ie=UTF8&qid=1364380807&sr=8-1&keywords=guy+cote+long+live+the+king
Sunday, March 17, 2013
BURT WONDERSTONE's box office isn't INCREDIBLE
For decades, people have complained that Hollywood lacks originality. This complaint goes at least as far back at the 1970s. In 1975, Jaws introduced Hollywood to the concept of "tent pole" filmmaking where studios produce a few big budget, epic-style films each year. These tent pole films are expected to pull in massive revenues and thereby prop up the studios in the event that their other films flop at the box office.
The tent pole strategy usually works pretty well for studios...witness last year's Marvel Avengers for example or Avatar. If a tent pole film hits with audiences, the studio can afford a few flops throughout the year. It is when a tent pole fails that the studio is in serious trouble...like last year's John Carter that cost Disney $250 million to make and only pulled in $73 million at the domestic box office. Fortunately, Disney also generated revenue from the overseas markets, DVD, pay-per-view, etc. so they were able to off-set some of those expenses. But John Carter did his damage to The House of Mouse and I'm sure someone somewhere lost their job over it.
The Incredible Burt Wonderstone was never intended to be a tent pole film. It's budget was only around $30 million, a figure that is generally considered low budget by Hollywood standards. It has some big stars, Steve Carrell and Jim Carrey, but it was released in March, a typically slower time at the box office. Tent poles are almost always released in the summer and at Christmastime. So does this mean that Hollywood wasn't expecting much from Burt Wonderstone?
No.
I think they were expecting a great deal from this film about magicians. The marketing campaign for the movie was impressive and expensive, which shows that the studio had faith in the film. And it had what people often complain is lacking in Hollywood...originality. Very few films have been made about magicians, especially in recent years. When you add to that the fact that it's a comedy, you should have something truly original on your hands.
As of today (Sunday 3/17/13), Burt Wonderstone generated $10.3 million since it hit the theaters on Friday March 15. Expectations were for it to make more than $15 million. Because it only made two-thirds of what it was expected to make, the press is already labeling it a failure. Since studios are deathly afraid of flops and the media is already panning Burt Wonderstone, we should expect that the film will probably disappear from theaters within two to three weeks.
I, for one, think that's sad because Burt Wonderstone may not be a roll-on-the-floor, clutch-your-sides hilarity, but it was fun, light-hearted and, above all, original. I wish Hollywood would take more risks with material like this, but entertainment is a business and the purpose of a business is to make money. If audiences won't pay to see original product, Hollywood will give them what they will pay for...overdone formula flicks, sequels or remakes.
So when it comes to Hollywood, it really is a case of...YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.
The tent pole strategy usually works pretty well for studios...witness last year's Marvel Avengers for example or Avatar. If a tent pole film hits with audiences, the studio can afford a few flops throughout the year. It is when a tent pole fails that the studio is in serious trouble...like last year's John Carter that cost Disney $250 million to make and only pulled in $73 million at the domestic box office. Fortunately, Disney also generated revenue from the overseas markets, DVD, pay-per-view, etc. so they were able to off-set some of those expenses. But John Carter did his damage to The House of Mouse and I'm sure someone somewhere lost their job over it.
The Incredible Burt Wonderstone was never intended to be a tent pole film. It's budget was only around $30 million, a figure that is generally considered low budget by Hollywood standards. It has some big stars, Steve Carrell and Jim Carrey, but it was released in March, a typically slower time at the box office. Tent poles are almost always released in the summer and at Christmastime. So does this mean that Hollywood wasn't expecting much from Burt Wonderstone?
No.
I think they were expecting a great deal from this film about magicians. The marketing campaign for the movie was impressive and expensive, which shows that the studio had faith in the film. And it had what people often complain is lacking in Hollywood...originality. Very few films have been made about magicians, especially in recent years. When you add to that the fact that it's a comedy, you should have something truly original on your hands.
As of today (Sunday 3/17/13), Burt Wonderstone generated $10.3 million since it hit the theaters on Friday March 15. Expectations were for it to make more than $15 million. Because it only made two-thirds of what it was expected to make, the press is already labeling it a failure. Since studios are deathly afraid of flops and the media is already panning Burt Wonderstone, we should expect that the film will probably disappear from theaters within two to three weeks.
I, for one, think that's sad because Burt Wonderstone may not be a roll-on-the-floor, clutch-your-sides hilarity, but it was fun, light-hearted and, above all, original. I wish Hollywood would take more risks with material like this, but entertainment is a business and the purpose of a business is to make money. If audiences won't pay to see original product, Hollywood will give them what they will pay for...overdone formula flicks, sequels or remakes.
So when it comes to Hollywood, it really is a case of...YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Thank God for the History Channel's The Bible mini-series
It is the most influential book in the the Western World and the best selling book in all of human history. For thousands of years, people have killed for what is written on its pages. Wars have been fought and societies have risen and fallen because of its teachings. Even today, world leaders pay homage to it whether they believe it or not. Roughly a third of the world's population, more than 2 billion people, consider themselves adherents of this book. It is, of course, the Bible and it is the subject of a new History Channel mini-series.( http://www.history.com/shows/the-bible)
To say it is a monumental task to capture this book in a mini-series is like saying that Jaws was a fish and the moon is just a rock. The Bible is so full of stories, life-lessons, history and prophecy that it can't ever be fully captured by a television production, no matter how great the budget. When you add to this the fact that its stories are so well-known and its text is so revered, it would seem like a Mission Impossible assignment for any filmmaker to receive. To tighten the noose around the filmmakers' necks even more, we need to remember that in our politically correct world it is not prudent to talk too much about God or to ever get too religious...especially if you want to appeal to a broad audience, as is the case with television.
Well...now that the parameters have been set and we know what the creators of the mini-series are up against, how did they fare? As of this writing, only one episode of The Bible mini-series has aired. The story starts with Noah on the Ark recounting the creation story as it is told in Genesis and it progresses through the stories of Abraham and Moses. Episode one concludes with Joshua taking the city of Jericho. For a two hour show that is interrupted by commercials, the first installment in the series covers quite a bit of territory. Of course, it glosses over a lot. It also expects the viewer to be familiar with the material...for example, a rainbow is shown during the Flood sequence, but it is never explained to be God's promise not to bring another flood. As I watched this, I couldn't help but wonder if someone who didn't know the stories would have understood these touches.
The Bible mini-series also had other more theological subtleties that I'm not sure many viewers would get...like when Abraham was talking to God and the figure of God was Jesus, who we will see in a future episode. Theologically speaking, the series creators were of course saying that Jesus and God are one and the same and they have always been so, but will the average viewer catch that? I don't know.
At this point, I can't render a verdict on the entire series because I've only seen one episode. But I can say that I am duly impressed by the scope and quality of the production. I am also respectful of the task the filmmakers have before them and appreciative of their faithfulness to the spirit of the text. Lastly, I am thankful that they chose to take this on. Every generation should have a television or motion picture collection of Biblical epics to call their own. In my estimation, its an important guidepost for our society. Hopefully, its ratings will be good enough to make other Hollywood filmmakers sit up and take notice. To quote Cecil B. DeMille's most famous work, "So let it be written, so it shall be done."
To say it is a monumental task to capture this book in a mini-series is like saying that Jaws was a fish and the moon is just a rock. The Bible is so full of stories, life-lessons, history and prophecy that it can't ever be fully captured by a television production, no matter how great the budget. When you add to this the fact that its stories are so well-known and its text is so revered, it would seem like a Mission Impossible assignment for any filmmaker to receive. To tighten the noose around the filmmakers' necks even more, we need to remember that in our politically correct world it is not prudent to talk too much about God or to ever get too religious...especially if you want to appeal to a broad audience, as is the case with television.
Well...now that the parameters have been set and we know what the creators of the mini-series are up against, how did they fare? As of this writing, only one episode of The Bible mini-series has aired. The story starts with Noah on the Ark recounting the creation story as it is told in Genesis and it progresses through the stories of Abraham and Moses. Episode one concludes with Joshua taking the city of Jericho. For a two hour show that is interrupted by commercials, the first installment in the series covers quite a bit of territory. Of course, it glosses over a lot. It also expects the viewer to be familiar with the material...for example, a rainbow is shown during the Flood sequence, but it is never explained to be God's promise not to bring another flood. As I watched this, I couldn't help but wonder if someone who didn't know the stories would have understood these touches.
The Bible mini-series also had other more theological subtleties that I'm not sure many viewers would get...like when Abraham was talking to God and the figure of God was Jesus, who we will see in a future episode. Theologically speaking, the series creators were of course saying that Jesus and God are one and the same and they have always been so, but will the average viewer catch that? I don't know.
At this point, I can't render a verdict on the entire series because I've only seen one episode. But I can say that I am duly impressed by the scope and quality of the production. I am also respectful of the task the filmmakers have before them and appreciative of their faithfulness to the spirit of the text. Lastly, I am thankful that they chose to take this on. Every generation should have a television or motion picture collection of Biblical epics to call their own. In my estimation, its an important guidepost for our society. Hopefully, its ratings will be good enough to make other Hollywood filmmakers sit up and take notice. To quote Cecil B. DeMille's most famous work, "So let it be written, so it shall be done."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)