Category: Film and TV

What’s it like to grow up as Harry Potter?

I don’ t know. And in fact nobody knows since Harry Potter is a fictional character.

But one kid has an unusual insight on the matter–Daniel Radcliffe–the kid who plays Harry Potter in the movies.

Time Magazine has a story about him and the other kids playing in the Potter films.

Reading the article makes for an interesting insight into the world of child actors.

The fact that the Harry Potter movies are so successful has kept the kids locked in an unusual sociological bubble for years, with years yet to go (apparently–unless they re-cast the parts).

Personally, I’m disturbed by some of the things child actors go through. I often see scenes in movies and TV shows where I find myself thinking, "I really hope they got the child actor off the set before they filmed what’s going on in this shot"–or realizing that they clearly DIDN’T.

I couldn’t imagine allowing a child of mine to grow up in the entertainment biz, and especially not becoming a central player in a franchise like Harry Potter. I’d want my kids to have much more normal experiences growing up. Even with precautions taken (like only letting the kids film for four hours a day), I’m afraid that the experience would fundamentally warp them as adults. After all, former child stars don’t have a very successful track record as a whole.

GET THE STORY.

HERE’S A REALLY INTERESTING ARTICLE ON THE FUTURE OF TELEVISION.

The author argues that broadcast TV is in for a major shakeup in the wake of broadband technology.

It’s certain that the Internet is going to change the way television operates–that’s been obvious for some time–but what isn’t clear is what the resulting TV landscape will look like.

At some point we’re going to be downloading TV programs. There are already experiments inthat direction: There’s suppose to be a scaled-down tie-in for the program 24 that you’ll be able to download onto your cellphone. Apple is talking about a video iPod. But these are just experiments.

What has to happen is for someone to come up with an economically viable model–or set of models–for how to pay for TV content to be produced in the age of downloads.

That’s where the above-linked articles comes in. The author speculates on how the economics of TV will work in the future.

Among his predictions:

• Broadcast TV will go back to being a live medium covering things like news and sports as non-live television programs (e.g., sitcoms and dramas) shift to downloadable distribution.
• Downloaded TV shows will not have the equivalent of commercials. There will be no interruptions in the show for commercial breaks.
• Instead, the advertising will be embedded in the show itself–like the station-identification "bugs" that currently appear in the corner of your TV screen (or, though he doesn’t mention this, through product placement).
• (If I read him correctly) Shows will move back toward having a single sponsor instead of a host of different advertisers.
• The audience will continue to not pay directly for TV content.

These are interesting ideas, as is the way he fleshes out how it all might work, though I’m dubious about his last prediction. I think that audiences WILL be willing to pay for content. We’re already paying for cable service and for DVDs we buy and for TiVo boxes that cut out the commercials for us.

I suspect that, as the download TV market develops, there will be people who will be willing to pay the producers of the shows in order to get advertising-free versions of the broadcasts, just as is now happening via DVDs. A model may emerge where you can either download the free version of the show, which has embedded advertising, or pay a fee to access an advertising-free version of the show.

I suspect that the latter will at least be experimented with as the market matures.

Now, what role does Battlestar Galactica play in this series of developments? For that you’ll have to

GET THE STORY.

Maybe. . . .

GET THE STORY.

A BIG, Texas-sized CHT to the reader who e-mailed me a link to the just-released DVD of The Call of Cthulhu!

For those who may not know, The Call of Cthulhu is one of the keystone stories of early 20th-century weird fiction writer H. P. Lovecraft.

The story dates from 1926, and now the H. P. Lovecraft Historical Society has adapted the story to film–done in the style of a 1926 silent film!

This was an outstanding choice.

Though there have been a number of Lovecraft film adaptations, they are generally regarded as unworthy by Lovecraft fans. Too much of Lovecraft’s ability to create mood depends on his narration, and when you have characters speaking to each other in naturalistic dialogue, the same effect just can’t be created. Also, many filmmakers who have adapted his stories have been notoriously unfaithful in doing so, changing elements left and right so that the film bears little resemblance to what Lovecraft wrote.

This film, being done by a historical society, is extremely faithful to the story and, by chucking out naturalistic dialogue in the manner of a silent film, it is able to capture the eerie mood of a Lovecraft story through the power of image and music.

This film is a REALLY good adaptation. Lovecraft (who did go to the movies and even had a job as a ticket salesman at a movie theater for a while) would have LOVED this flim if it had been made in 1926 so that he could have seen it. He would have raved about it in his letters to friends.

Continue reading “The Call Of Cthulhu!”

There’s a couple of interesting films in theaters right now (for my money, at least). SDG has reviews of both of them. If you’re looking for a movie to go to this weekend, you might check out

SERENITY

or

WALLACE & GROMIT: CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT

Be sure to check out Steve’s reviews of them.

I really like the Marx Brothers brand of zany humor.

Recently I re-watched their movie Duck Soup and it reminded me of just how funny the brothers can be.

Duck Soup is my favorite of all the Marx Brothers films–at least of all the ones I’ve seen thus far (there are still some I have yet to watch). It’s also widely considered the best of their films by film critics.

One note for readers who aren’t native English-speakers: The title of the movie is not to be taken literally. Americans almost never eat duck soup. Instead, the phrase "duck soup" is a metaphor that refers to something that is very easy. If you say, "That’s just duck soup," you mean "That’s very easy" (not that many folks use this phrase much any more; presumably it dates to an era when more Americans went duck hunting).

The film was made in 1933, in the midst of the Great Depression. It shows the Marx Brothers at the peak of their form. (In fact, this was the last Marx Brothers film to feature Zeppo–the Marx Brother who served as "romantic interest" in their early films. After this, Zeppo stayed behind the scenes and let Groucho, Chico, and Harpo completely take over the spotlight.)

Among other classic bits, Duck Soup contains the famous "mirror gag."

In this scene, Groucho is confronted with Harpo (and later Chico) dressed exactly as he is.

They mimmic his behavior to an impossibly exact degree, creating the illusion that he is looking into a mirror when he is really looking at someone mimmicing him.

This was not the first or the last time the mirror gag would be used. It was previously used in a couple of silent films and was later used by Lucille Ball (with Harpo Marx) and on The X-Files.

In addition to physical comedy involving Harpo, there’s also a lot of wordplay involving Groucho and Chico. Recently here on the blog we were talking about the nature of comedy and the subject of wordplay came up as a form of (frequently) unhurtful humor that doesn’t presuppose that anyone is unfortunate. It can just be a game where we see how cleverly words can be bounced off each other.

The Marx Brothers were great at that. (Though some of their wordplay does contain barbs–particularly toward their regular leading lady Margaret Dumont–as well as occasional politically incorrect remarks since these films were made in the 1930s.)

I don’t remember when but I apparently saw this films as a boy.

How do I know that if I don’t remember it?

Because the film messed me up with respect to American history. We Americanistas all know of "the midnight ride of Paul Revere"–a famous event in our history in which the silversmith Paul Revere made a . . . uh . . . midnight ride and warned the countryside that British troops were coming in from Boston.

This occurred in 1775, the year before we threw off the shackles of Our British Oppressors (now Our British Best Buddies).

According to the story, Paul Revere was supposed to watch the tower of the Old North Church, where he would see one lantern if the British troops were coming by land and two lanterns if they were coming by sea. In HISTORY, he saw two lanters and rode off telling people that the British Redcoats were coming by sea, but in Duck Soup‘s re-enactment of the scene there’s a joke where Groucho sees three lanterns, and he declares that "They’re coming by land and sea!"

I saw that as a boy and that one image sank into my brain. The image of those three lanterns being lit stuck with me, and I thought I’d seen it in one of those stiff, formal "you are there" history reenactment films they’d show us in school.

I was in my twenties or thirties before I realized that this was A JOKE and not what really happened.

The film makes fun of all kinds of history–including the contemporary European history of when it was made. It features the fortunes of an imaginary European country named Fredonia, which is locked in conflict with the neighboring country, Sylvania. It deals with the problems of taxes and economics and national pride and self-defense that plagued the nations of Europe between the two World Wars.

Evil dictator Benito Mussolini thought it so closely reflected the events of the day in Italy that he BANNED the film, much to the delight of the Marx Brothers.

The movie is a regular history-slaw, which must have used just about every historical costume that Paramount Pictures had in their wardrobe department.

Despite the fact that Duck Soup is commonly regarded as the greatest of the Marx Brothers films (by me and others), it was for many years unavailable on DVD.

It was apparently released on DVD early on, but went out of print and was only available at insanely expensive prices (like $300 a disk!).

But it has recently been re-released and is now available again at HUMAN prices!

GET THE FILM ALONE.

GET IT AS PART OF A 5-DISK MARX BROTHERS SET FROM PARAMOUNT.

I’m very jealous that the publicists for the upcoming movie Serenity (based on the cult sci-fi show Firefly) have invited the guys over at Powerline to have a screening of the movie for themselves and 120 or so of their readers.

I mean, John Hinderaker, who does their review, spends half of the piece talking about the fact that he isn’t a sci-fi fan, doesn’t watch TV, and hasn’t seen a sci-fi movie since Star Wars (the ORIGINAL one).

What pearls before swine! I mean, that’s just fahng-tzong fung-kwong duh jeh.

On the other hand, I’m very pleased to note what this represents. As Hinderaker explains:

These folks have figured out that the major bloggers have audiences that exceed those of most newspaper and magazine movie reviewers, and that we can help generate word of mouth traffic and, better yet, controversy [SOURCE].

Yet another indication of life in the fourth age of human communications.

And I’m not really bitter about not getting a Serenity screening.

After all, they can’t take the sky from me.

PRE-UPDATE: STEVEN D. GREYDANUS’S REVIEW OF SERENITY IS AVAILABLE ONLINE. (And it’s insightful.)

And by "a good idea" I mean "my idea."

You may have noticed that the time between the theatrical release of a motion picture and its DVD release is getting shorter. MUCH shorter.

My idea: Eliminate the time discrepancy COMPLETELY. Release movies on DVD at the same time they are in the theater.

In fact, SELL THEM IN THE THEATER. There’s no better time to hit a person up to by a DVD of a movie than when they’ve just seen it and are all excited about it. Make them wait 3-6 months and their enthusiasm will cool and you’ll have less of a chance of selling them that DVD.

I know I’ve come out of a movie and really wanted a DVD of it only to find myself thinking, months later when it finally comes out, "Was it really that good? Do really want to spend the money for a DVD?" My memories of the movie have faded enough that I end up not buying one, even though I now have the chance.

Selling DVDs in the theater would also (a) help boost flagging theater revenues (good for the theaters) and (b) cut down on film piracy if people can buy a legitimate copy the same way selling songs through iTunes cuts down on illegal downloading (good for the studios) and (c) please the customer (good for the customer)!

I know, I know.

People will argue that letting people buy the DVDs will cut down on ticket sales. Maybe so. Maybe not. You can cut down on that some if you only sell the DVDs in the theater while the movie is showing, so you have to go there to buy them.

At any rate, it gives customers more choice, and in principle, that’s a good thing. (Me being a customer.)

I think it’s an idea that’s at least worth experimenting with.

AND NOW, FINALLY, SOMEONE IS.

That’s one way of trying to transcribe the most famous scream in motion picture history:

THE WILHELM SCREAM!

It’s named after a character named Pvt. Wilhelm in the western The Charge At Feather River (1953), who is just filling his pipe when he is shot in the leg by an arrow, prompting him to utter the now-famous scream.

The scream went on to be used in countless Warner Brothers movies and, after it was discovered by Star Wars sound designer Ben Burtt, in countless additional movies as well.

Burtt ran down the source of the scream and found that it was originally used in the 1951 film Distant Drums, where an unnamed character is eaten by an alligator.

After the photography on the film was done a series of voice takes was done under the title "Man being eaten by an alligator," and these became (collectively) known as the Wilhelm Scream.

Who the voice actor was doing the Wilhelm Scream is not known for certain, but Burtt has uncovered evidence that it was Sheb Wooley. best known for recording the song "Purple People Eater."

The scream has been used in innumerable movies, including all of the Star Wars films, all of the Indiana Jones films, and the second and third Lord of the Rings films.

It’s even used in TV shows and video games.

No doubt, you’ve heard it dozens of times, and now you know its name!

LISTEN TO THE WILHELM SCREAM (.wav).

(PARTIAL) LIST OF MOVIES WITH THE WILHELM SCREAM.

NPR RADIO FEATURE ABOUT THE WILHELM SCREAM (.real).

WATCH A MONTAGE OF CLIPS WITH THE WILHELM SCREAM (.mov; 48 mb!).

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE WILHELM SCREAM.

BUY MOVIES WITH THE WILHELM SCREAM.

BUY WILHELM SCREAM MEMORABILIA.

How many films have you seen with the Wilhelm Scream?

(Maybe I’ll take the .wav file and use it for one of my Windows sound events. Every time my computer crashes, it could make the Wilhelm Scream.)

The Gray Lady, in an editorial inexplicably placed in the New York Times‘ Science section, is bemused over the success of the film documentary March of the Penguins, noting in wonder that political conservatives have taken a shine to the film’s affirmation of such traditional values as monogamy and pro-life commitment. After Michael Moore’s anti-America screed Fahrenheit 9/11, March of the Penguins has become the second highest-grossing documentary ever.

"[O]f all the reactions [March of the Penguins] has evoked, perhaps the most surprising is its appeal to conservatives. They are hardly its only audience; the film is the second highest grossing documentary of all time, behind Fahrenheit 9/11" [because, in the World According to the Gray Lady, there are not enough Red Staters to dance on the head of a pin, much less turn a film into a blockbuster].

"But conservative groups have turned its stirring depiction of the mating ordeals of emperor penguins into an unexpected battle anthem in the culture wars" [which liberals didn’t dream of doing with Fahreheit 9/11].

"March of the Penguins, the conservative film critic and radio host Michael Medved said in an interview, is ‘the motion picture this summer that most passionately affirms traditional norms like monogamy, sacrifice and child rearing.’

"Speaking of audiences who feel that movies ignore or belittle such themes, he added: ‘This is the first movie they’ve enjoyed since The Passion of the Christ. This is The "Passion of the Penguins".’ [Weirdly enough, there are sufficient numbers of Red State wackos to turn The Passion of the Christ into a record-breaking megahit — must have been since no one else would dream of contributing to that film’s success, right? — but the Red State wackos don’t have much to with the success of March of the Penguins because it has been too successful to depend on the money of Red State rubes, quoth the Gray Lady.]

"In part, the movie’s appeal to conservatives may lie in its soft-pedaling of topics like evolution and global warming. The filmmakers say they did not consciously avoid those topics — indeed, they say they are strong believers in evolutionary theory — but they add that they wanted to create a film that would reach as many people as possible." ["They wanted to create a film that would reach as many people as possible"? Wow, what a great idea for an industry that depends on audience appeal!]

GET THE STORY.

I haven’t yet seen March of the Penguins myself, but it sounds wonderful.  I’ll have to send the Gray Lady a thank-you note for piquing my interest in this film by appealing to my Inner Conservative.