Movies Need More Double Entedres!

One of the great things about Production Code-era Hollywood is that it forced writers and directors to find roundabout ways of including adult or bawdy subject-matter in films. Just because some censor board decided that all movies had to be chaste didn’t mean filmmakers and audience wanted less adult-oriented films. But, instead of being crude and vulgar, movies of classic Hollywood hid sex in witty dialogue and double entendres. Then the 60s happened and the Production Code died and audiences became more accepting of open sexuality in films and the whole thing went to shit.

I’m fine with more direct sex and language in films. I love me some Judd Apatow. But wouldn’t it be nice to go back to the days where filmmakers couldn’t rely on spelling things out crudely and directly? Wouldn’t it be nice if there was some more creativity in the dialogue of romantic comedies or dramas? Those thinly veiled double entendres were witty and funny and bold and sexy as hell, and I want them back!

Stop Asking For a Sequel to ‘The Incredibles’!

It’s happening again. It happened back when Toy Story 3 was announced, and then when it came out. It happened when Cars 2 was announced, and when that came out, as well. Now that Disney has released the teaser trailer for Pixar’s Monsters University, it’s happening all over again. I’m speaking, of course, about the annoying requests for a sequel to The Incredibles. It pops up in lots of threads about one of these Pixar sequels. It can’t be escaped. The logic is always the same: we want Pixar making original movies, and we don’t want them to become Dreamworks, so no sequels or prequels or unending franchises, oh but wait, make an Incredibles sequel because it’s a superhero movie so it must have one.

I’d rather see “Incredibles University” – Sanford Bell, /Film commenter

Do you know how many times I’ve heard people claim that the end of The Incredibles was a perfect set-up for a sequel? I swear, these people have no concept of humour. The ending of The Incredibles is not some call to arms for an inevitable sequel, but a thematic capper that completes the arc of the Parr family. It’s left open only because that is thematically functional. Plus, the concept of the Underminer is hilariously silly. It’s an ending almost like the joke ending of Back to the Future, only with more emotional and thematic resonance. And sure, that joke at the end of Back to the Future was used as the the set up for sequels, but by using that scene as a jumping-off point for Back to the Future Part II, the film was significantly hampered all the way through. So why would anyone on earth think The Incredibles was setting up a sequel? And more importantly, why on earth would anyone think an Incredibles sequel is necessary? It’s this mentality, quite frankly, that is destroying Hollywood blockbuster entertainment.

Should Filmmakers Be Accountable For Failing the Bechdel Test?

I got into an interesting conversation at a film blogger meet-up last night about Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom. Specifically, the discussion was about the fact that the film only barely passes the Bechdel Test, and that in general Anderson doesn’t go to great lengths in his depictions of female characters. First, what is the Bechdel Test? Well, it’s name given to a test that comes up in one of Alison Bechdel’s graphic novels. It’s basically a test meant to illustrate how few complex portrayals there are of women in Hollywood films. To pass the Bechdel Test, a movie must meet the following criteria:

1. It has to have at least two named women it it
2. Who talk to each other
3. About something besides a man

The test does have problems. There are some great films with great portrayals of women that, by virtue of function, don’t pass the test. But that’s not really the point. A film not passing the test is not also a condemnation. The test simply highlights a larger problem in Hollywood films, where white males are effectively seen as the blank norm and anything else, including a female character is often a purposeful deviation. But that’s not what the conversation was really about. We didn’t just talk about whether the film passes the test, but how much responsibility we should place upon Anderson for these failings.

Getting Kids into the Art House

If you’re not already a regular reader of Matt Singer’s Indiewire Criticwire blog, you’re seriously missing out. Every day, Matt posts amazing content and commentary about the state of film criticism and film appreciation. Some of the best film discussions on the net begin or end up at Criticwire, which makes it an invaluable source for cinephiles today. But what about those budding cinephiles out there? What about the kids who aren’t yet exposed to the wider world of film? Well, Criticwire has that covered this week with the latest entry in the Criticwire Survey column. Every week, Matt Singer poses a question to a selection of online film critics and then posts the responses. This week he had a particularly interesting question submitted by contributor Rania Richardson.

“I mentor a 14-year-old from Harlem and nothing would make me happier than to have her enjoy ‘art house’ movies. She goes to Hollywood movies in chain theaters, and doesn’t particularly like what she sees. Of course, the fact that she’s African-American makes it even harder for me to find movies that I think would speak to her. She is sophisticated and would probably not mind some subtitles and nontraditional narratives. Help!”

It’s a really great question. What “art house” movies could you recommend to a kid about 14 years old who hasn’t yet had much exposure to films outside the Hollywood norm? The answers were varied, and in some ways quite indicative of the people recommending. Particularly interesting to me were the responses that I couldn’t imagine subjecting a kid to.

Open Letter: Stop the Budget and Box Office Hysteria!

That ape is almost as big as the budget for this movie!

Dear Film Critics/Journalists,

Every now and then a film comes along with a wildly insane budget. Peter Jackson’s King Kong, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, Spider-Man 3, Avatar… The list goes on and on. I get it. It’s fun to talk about the ins and outs of the movie industry, and quarter-billion dollar budgets are great fodder for attacks on the excesses and mismanagement of Hollywood. Sometimes the results of all the pre-release budget madness is a James Cameron-level success, and other times it’s Mars Needs Moms. Most of the time it’s somewhere in between, but it’s still enjoyable to keep track.

But I’ve had it.

Hollywood Continues to Dig Its Own Grave

In a brazen show of complete ineptitude, Sony Pictures Entertainment has decided that, beginning in 2012, theaters will have to front the cost of those disposable 3D glasses. The Hollywood Reporter picked up the story yesterday, and today the National Organization of Theater Owners (or, NATO for short, really) has responded, saying that Sony must reconsider this decision. If the cost of 3D glasses is offloaded onto exhibitors, it’s likely we’re in for either a full bump in ticket prices, or at the very least an increase in the current $3-5 surcharge for 3D presentations.

Apparently Hollywood just isn’t getting the hint. If the only way to make 3D a worthwhile, profitable venture is to charge as much extra for it as possible, then clearly it’s a waste of time. Conversely, if offloading the cost of glasses is not necessary for 3D to be profitable, then all they are doing to forcing the hand of the fine people who screen the films and causing ticket prices to be raised even further. In the short run, this idea may get Sony even higher profit margins from their successful 3D releases, but in the long run they are only contributing to the seemingly unstoppable erosion of theatrical audiences.