Can the Canadian Film Industry go commercial?

No matter how you look at it, the visual art of film is a business. Whether you call it show business, the film industry or anything else one of the biggest pieces of making it work is understanding the money behind it. Where it comes from, how to get it, how to spend it and most importantly who has it. Some people don't think of it as business. They think of it as support for art or creativity. But if you really look at the way it works, I'm not sure anyone could really call it anything other than business. You spend a lot of time looking and acting like a business person and working like an entrepeneur, even when you make it to Hollywood studio level there's a certain amount of schmoozing and business. So what part of that is art exactly?

Don't get me wrong, the film industry is incredibly artistic, even in Hollywood (you can read my thoughts on that here and here). With all the creativity and thought that goes into just producing something worth selling there has to be art involved. Otherwise it wouldn't be interesting or beautiful or funny or whatever it is that the art is supposed to be. But people don't always pay money for something that's beautiful or funny or interesting. Often times the best, most beautiful things in the world are the things you don't pay money for. At least not in any direct sense. But an industry that's built upon the idea of getting people to sit down in a dark room and watch something has to be built on the incentive to do so. That incentive is usually that it's worth paying money for.

So why is it that the Canadian film industry is so concerned with the art of it all? Trying to be the opposite of Hollywood's big business model by focusing on our culture and identity that we insist is so different from our neighbors to the south. Yet despite that we live with the contradiction that we can't compete with Hollywood and the big business model. We all want the money and the fame that comes with a big Hollywood business model but have a problem with doing what we need to in order to make that happen.

Last night, I went to see Cinecoup present a pitch to the Canadian film industry in Toronto about how to change all that. Putting forward a business plan that in a sense sounds like a Hollywood idea but has its own unique Canadian twist to it. And it's a great idea. Canada needs to think more like Hollywood in its approach to film and this will definitely move the yard stick forward to thinking in those terms. The problem I see is that I don't think it will move the yard stick far enough forward to really make a difference. For many in the Canadian film industry it will be a shock to their system. It's a plan designed to get people to think about the bigger picture. To think about where your film will ultimately end up before you even put a pen to paper, metaphorically speaking, and to care about whether it might actually make money.

I love the idea, I want to be involved, and I may even apply with my own project if I can put it together. But I worry that there won't be a round two for the business model. Canadians for all their talk about a difference in culture and the pride of their heritage have a much bigger culture with a lot more pride in their culture beaming content into their laps at an alarming speed. The kind of culture and pride that at least on the surface appears to appeal universally enjoyed.

Can the Canadian Film Industry go commercial? I think it can, and recent changes suggests that it is moving in that direction. But I don't know that the speed of the industry is fast enough to really warrant this kind of program.

What's next for my blog?

So I started my blog about a year back now and I have done my best to have consistent content. Now it appears that I will be adding more content to the mix for the near future. I've been hired as an intern at Syndicado, which you can learn more about here, for my reviews and I am going to be uploading those reviews to my blog for them on a regular basis. I still plan on reviewing my own content from time to time and voicing my opinion on the film industry and other things whenever possible. The only major difference now is that I will have more content and links to where you can see it for yourself if you're interested.

My normal schedule for this has been to have content available every Wednesday, and that will remain the same for the time being, although I have been considering moving it to Friday and adding something else for Mondays recently. If there is a change, I will definitely be letting you all know. But for now, my blog will be on the same schedule with regular injections of content from Syndicado. Where things will seem to change is in the way I title my blogs. I am going to continue to title and close each review with a question for my own content, but the Syndicado reviews will be a little bit more straight forward.

I'm really looking forward to putting out this content for you guys to see and hearing your opinions.

What's next for my blog? At the moment, a lot of good things.

Another Earth Review: If you had the chance, would you go to Another Earth?

Why did TIFF go younger this year?

Anyone who takes even a basic look at the schedule for TIFF this year will notice a bit of a difference in the type of films which were scheduled to play. In the past you would have seen a focus on independent films and Hollywood films which would focus on a more experienced, filmmaker focused audience. You had films like “The Ides of March”, “The Informant” and “Shame”. This year however you can see more of a skew towards a younger audience with films like “Spring Breakers”, “Dredd 3D”, “On The Road” and even “Much Ado About Nothing”. What’s the significance of such a move? Is there a reason for it? What can be done about it?

The answer to most of those questions is yes, all with the exception the last one. Mainly because I’m not sure they need to do anything about it. Long time patrons of the festival might look at the people involved in this year’s films and say why do we need to appeal to a younger audience? Why do we need films starring Kristen Stewart, Selena Gomez and Vanessa Hudgens? Aren’t they all just attention grabbing Disney stars with no real talent? First and foremost I would say that anyone who insists upon saying such things probably hasn’t taken the time to actually watch any of the work of any such stars and I am a big believer in the idea that you can’t judge a person’s talent if you haven’t taken the time to give it a shot.

I’ve actually seen some of their work, including some of the films I mentioned earlier, and I would say that they have real talent. It’s a little on the rough side in some areas but they aren’t supposed to be seasoned veterans of the craft because they aren’t yet old enough to have put in the kind of time a seasoned veteran would need to appear as such. Plus in looking at some of these films, they may have actually done so. They’ve been given the opportunity in many of these films to stretch their acting muscles and turned in pretty good performances.

Some might say that TIFF has to be careful not to alienate its core audience of filmmakers. But who’s to say they did? “On The Road”, while starring Kristen Stewart, is based on a Jack Kerouac novel. Hardly the tween fluff she is often accused of doing. As I said in my review, Spring Breakers was a film by Harmony Korine maker of such films as “Kids”, not exactly someone known for creating films that teenagers are encouraged to see. In fact Selena Gomez actually encouraged her younger fans not to see it given its more adult content, even as hundreds of younger girls sat in the audience after the screening while she said it. These are not exactly films which betray many of the ideas that TIFF built its reputation on.

Even if it were, why is that so wrong? I’ve said it before and I will say it again, film is not a uniform media. It’s not required to conform to a particular idea of what a good film is or who should be in such films. Some filmmakers and their films may present themselves that way, but that’s only one of many narratives available to creators in the visual arts. The most prominent narrative is that film is a reflection of society, and if TIFF wishes to stay true to that above anything else, then it has to be willing to broaden its appeal to more than just its core audience.

TIFF has to stay relevant to the audiences of today and not all of them are 30+ filmmakers who remember Sylvester Stallone as Rocky instead of The Expendables. At a certain point you have to recognize the bigger audience and figure out if you can appeal to them as much as those you admire.

Why did TIFF go younger this year? I think that much is obvious.

How far should you go for Mr. Viral?

It goes without saying that I see a lot of films, except for the fact that I just finished saying it. I’ve seen some really good films, some really bad films, and films that fall somewhere in between. Being a filmmaker I have seen films that have started from scratch and had trouble getting traction with an audience, I have seen films go from concept to production and then disappear into oblivion. I’ve even had occasions where films have      gone on to do really well. It’s hard to tell what audiences will react to, whether positive or negative, but there are certain fundamental things which we all generally react positively to.

Mr. Viral understands this quite well. After all, it’s a film about marketing. More specifically it’s about viral marketing and the effectiveness of promoting things on the internet. It’s also written and directed by a man who spent years of his life in the marketing industry, the great Alex Boothby. I would be disappointed if he didn’t understand the basics of impulse control and how to manipulate it. What’s interesting is that as much as the film is about that side of ourselves and the potential dangers that giving in to such impulses, for profit or otherwise, the filmmakers clearly attempt to prey upon some of those basic desires within its audience as well.

For all the sex and violence and exploitation that a lot of the characters go through or have done to them, the film itself is not gratuitous. So much of what goes on that would turn the film from an R rated film to an NC-17 rating is off screen or implied more than anything. The characters get more and more depraved as the story moves forward, yet we as the audience are never entirely given a full view into just how far things have gone. Which is exactly what most filmmakers should do, particularly a former marketing guy turned filmmaker.

The story moves along quickly enough that you’re always wondering what’s going to happen next and yet you spend more than enough time with each character that you actually care and kind of worry about what will happen to them. Even as some of the characters become less and less likeable, you still care enough about them to worry about what they have gotten themselves into. This is great as well because, having read one of the earlier scripts, I wasn’t sure that they were going to achieve that. After seeing the finished product though I can see that they clearly had a vision and a focus that I didn’t really plug into at the time.

What’s interesting to me as well is that I can actually see this film being a much bigger movie if it couldn’t be done. And this is not said to detract or to be critical the film or the people involved, the actors and filmmakers did a fantastic job and I really do hope that this launches their careers, but in numerous places I could see characters being played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, or Mary Steenburgen or Wallace Shawn. I hope that the people involved take that as a compliment, because it’s intended to be. This isn’t a film that comes off like a bunch of guys with a video camera trying to make it in the industry. It comes off like a group of filmmakers with the potential to handle a big Hollywood project. I have no doubt that when it goes to the Calgary film festival and beyond it will be enjoyed by all.

How far should you go for Mr. Viral? As far as you can take it. This film is going to turn some heads, and most of the heads are going to turn to the filmmakers and ask... what’s next?

Frost/Nixon, the new power couple?

Anyone who reads my blog has probably noticed that I’m a fan of politics. From real political situations like Kony2012 and gay rights, to the fictional kind like Boss, The Newsroom or The Daily Show/The Colbert Report (it is considered fake news after all), I love hearing other people’s views on controversial issues. Even if I don’t agree with everything they say, I usually find something in them worth learning from or at least considering. So when I sat down to watch the Ron Howard movie Frost/Nixon, I was really looking forward to it. The whole Watergate scandal is well before my time, but the effects of it has pretty much changed the face of politics ever since. Finding out the details brought a lot of context to how politics work in this day and age and the way in which people overuse the suffix “-Gate” every time some political scandal pops up these days.

Of course, Frost/Nixon isn’t really about Watergate as much as it was about the political fallout and aftermath of the scandal getting out, how people dealt with it and the part that the interview between David Frost and Richard Nixon played in the healing process. It’s interesting to realize that for all the controversial elements of the Watergate scandal, most of which remain somewhat unresolved, no one ever seems to talk about the fact that Gerald Ford pardoned the disgraced former president for wrong doing that he might have done. From a political perspective, I can understand why a president would do such a thing. The late Richard Nixon put a black mark on the presidency, and politics in general, and not doing something would have been so much worse than what he did.

The film begins with one of the biggest events in political history, watching the only American President to ever resign from the most powerful position in the free world. It shows the reaction of David Frost to the event and from there you watch almost voyeuristically as these two men take the journey towards their eventual clash. Now what’s interesting about the film is that while many historical or political films would strive for the actor who looks most like the figure they are playing, Ron Howard has gone for more of an interpretation of those involved then an imitation of the figures themselves. Part of the reason for that appears to be one of the historical messages of the film. Howard has made a point of saying that one of the reasons he wanted to make the film is because of the political climate of the day, post-Bush administration.

He wanted to draw parallels between the loss of political trust that occurred after both Watergate and the invasion of Iraq. That may be part of the reason that I didn’t really connect with the material as much as I would’ve hoped to. It tried to walk the line between a huge generational gap and it didn’t entirely keep its balance all the way through. While there are a fair amount of similarities between the two situations, Vietnam versus Iraq, wire tapping and clandestine investigations of citizens without their consent and invasion of a right to privacy, I don’t think we are far enough away from the Iraq war (we’re still fighting it in 2012 and the movie was released in 2008) to truly give it the historical context that it deserves.

Because of that, I’m not sure that the film has the emotional impact that it’s going for. Then again, it may simply be that I have too much emotional distance between both events that I simply can’t get as angry or invested in the tragic reality of the circumstances these two characters are living in. So is Frost/Nixon the new power couple? Unfortunately, I don’t think I care enough about them to say yes.

Should you fear Dredd because he is in 3D?

Who was more tied down by Black Snake Moan?

Musicals are a tricky thing to pull off. Whether they are on stage or in a film so many of them can fall flat if the mind behind them isn’t exceptional or they have a team behind them that is exceptional. But when they do and they get it right, they have the ability to go beyond the simple box that people tend to place them in. To put women and children and men in the seats eager to experience the magic that flows from them. And then there are films like Black Snake Moan. The type that occupies this weird middle place that is both great and controversial at the same time, great because of the music that is used within it (the director suggests that while not your typical musical, it is a musical) and controversial because of the subject matter that it deals with throughout the film.

A film like this can sometimes attract a very narrow audience given the basic framework of how the story plays out, but I can’t help but feel that a wider audience should have the benefit of watching it and trying to understand the concepts and ideas that the film is all about. It centers around two main characters, Rae (played by Christina Ricci), and Lazarus (played by Samuel L Jackson), two people who are both broken inside for different reasons that have never met but through a series of unfortunate circumstances will be thrust together and force each other to deal with what broke them in the first place.

Now I can hear people who have never heard of the movie saying, what’s so controversial about that? It sounds like your typical everyday Hollywood plot. And I can see how people might jump to that conclusion, but where the controversy comes in is in how they end up forced to deal with each other. Lazarus, because of many of the circumstances that brought Rae to him, is forced to tie a chain around Rae’s waist and keep her chained to the house until he can figure out a way to help her. She also happens to spend most of her time around the house half naked. I know, it sounds like the beginning of a torture porn film like Saw, or the premise for a really well written porn film. Many of the people who have seen the film have come to the conclusion that the chain is a metaphor for men needing to assert their power over women, and that in order to control women they have to be domesticated.

I however would take a much broader view of the film in really analyzing it. The director, for all intents and purposes, has tried to plead the fifth on whether or not the message of the film is anti-feminist. Honestly, I don’t think feminism enters into the equation of this film. Not all films have to have female empowerment or feminist, or anti-feminist messages in them, in the same way that not all movies with a racially diverse cast have to be about race. Some movies do, and some don’t. My opinion is that this movie isn’t really about race, or female empowerment. It’s a film about trauma.

Both the main characters are dealing with a type of trauma. Both of them have had key people in their lives leave them for one reason or another recently and they are both trying to come to terms with the fact that they are now alone, either temporarily or permanently. Rae being the one who has more troubles then she knows what to deal with, is metaphorically and literally tied down by the pain of what she’s going through and Lazarus is trying to help her see the metaphorical chain that she refuses to set herself free from. And so the question becomes:

Who was more tied down by Black Snake Moan? The audience or the characters?

Who wants to get Buried?

I’ve had the opportunity to rent a few DVDs recently and catch up on quite a few films that slipped through my gaze in the past few years. So I thought I would take a moment and review them. The first film of the bunch that got buried in my sub-conscious is the aptly named “Buried”, a film that seems ambitious from the get-go.

For those that didn’t hear about it when it came out, the film stars Ryan Reynolds as a truck driver in Iraq whose convoy gets attacked and they bury him so that he can be used for ransom by his kidnappers. What’s most ambitious about the film is that it takes place entirely within the coffin that Paul Conroy (the obviously stressed Ryan Reynolds) was in. There are a lot of film directors who focus on creating the right shot and for the right emotion, with the right lighting and colors to create that shot. In most movies that’s a fundamental aspect for the storytelling process, and to some extent that’s true of this film too. More important though in Buried is the performance of Ryan Reynolds. Truly this is a film built for an actor’s study.

How else do you explain a film about a man in a 6 foot box fir over 90 minutes being such a riveting piece of film? It’s a terrifying thing, watching a man struggling to deal with the reality of his situation. He starts off bound and blind to what happened to him, much as we, the audience, are coming into this. Slowly but surely we watch as, even trapped in a coffin buried under mountains of dirt and rock, things keep getting worse for him. Watching the truth of the situation unfold is unlike most films out there today. Many films, particularly horror films, rely on what’s just around the corner or the unknown to tell a story, and to some extent so does this film. But the beauty of “Buried” is that in some ways they are both the same thing. The uncertainty and the danger of the situation Paul Conroy is in, exists entirely in your head and where it might go stays there on the edge of your seat with you.

It goes without saying that Ryan Reynolds can be viewed as an unusual choice for a role that relies so heavily on the acting chops of the main actor. His most well known roles tend to be the romantic comedy kind and people don’t really associate them with great acting. But in this film, he proves that he is up to any challenge that might come at him. Does that mean he will always choose the right film or that the script will be up to the standards necessary to bring out such a performance? No, but when that great script does come along that lets him punch above the weight of other actors, boy does he have it in him.

It’s unfortunate that a film such as this seems to have flown under the radar for as long as it did, there are a lot of great things about it. But I can kind of understand why because of how uninteresting a film like this can seem to most people. Single shot movies tend to have the same problem so I can see how a film shot in a single location could have trouble finding an audience, not to mention the huge blockbuster that is Green Lantern (in the sense of money spent, if not in box office returns) which Ryan Reynolds also starred in which was released around the same time.

Who wants to get “Buried”? You should, or at the very least you should go looking for the film and dig it up from wherever it might be hiding.

Is the film industry being purposely ironic?

Recently I have read my fair share of articles and blogs talking about story telling in the film industry. Many of the discussions focus on the fact that there are too many sequels, prequels and remakes coming out lately. They talk about how Hollywood is creatively bankrupt and only cares about money. One of the newest articles I read started by asking if the film industry and Hollywood was out of original ideas? The irony of the article being that writing an article about a lack of originality in Hollywood is becoming less and less original the more it happens.

People talk, at length, about how terrible the new dynamic of Hollywood is and how it destroys creativity in the industry. Now I’m not above recognizing some of the films out there have problems. There are some pretty terrible films out there. I have even been known to get critical of really popular films, and recognizing that films that I’ve previously loved don’t end up aging very well. It’s not the prettiest thing in the world, even if many of the actors and actresses do. But I think it’s a mistake to think that this is a systemic thing that can’t be or doesn’t want to be fixed.

Film is not a uniform art. Heck, art is not a uniform art. There are many ways to go about it, many ways in which to tell a story. Independent or Hollywood, we in the arts all understand that, but if “new and original” ideas are the bench mark of good storytelling, then we pretty much bottomed out on original ideas three hundred years ago. And even then we were living on borrowed time. To use my previous review of The Amazing Spiderman as an example, just because a Spiderman has been done before doesn’t mean that the new film doesn’t have value, that there isn’t a story worth telling in the Spiderman character. Superheroes are the mythology of the modern age and there are so many different versions of them over the years, the films should be viewed the same.

Does that make them creatively bankrupt, or does it make the characters emotionally and creatively complex? There’s a prevailing belief within many storytellers that film peaked in the 1970s and things have been going downhill since then. But take a look at some of the films from that era and somewhat before. “West Side Story” is a musical version of “Romeo and Juliet”. ”It’s a Wonderful Life” is basically a retelling of “A Christmas Carol” by Charles Dickens. “Scarface” from 1983 is a more violent remake of a 1932 film of the same name. “The Wizard of Oz” is basically the same story as “Alice in Wonderland”. The films many people in the film industry view as original ideas aren’t original at all. Yet for some reason, this time it’s different.

Many people say that the reason it’s different is because the studio system has changed. That the big time corporations that now own film studios have turned them into money making monsters who only care about profit. But is that actually the case? From what I understand the popularity of “Casablanca” prompted the studios to talk about making a sequel for it. The availability of the actors involved made it hard to do but the thought still crossed the studios minds. It would seem the only major difference between 1942 and today is that studios actually plan ahead of time for sequels and find actors who are willing to consider doing them. That isn’t really much of a change in my opinion. If anything it just means that studios are becoming better planners.

And on the subject of sequels and prequels, one needs only to look at what is often referred to as film’s redheaded step child, television, to see examples of why there are so many these days. Some stories simply can’t be contained within a 90 minute time frame. Or even a 2-3 hour time frame. Television has been known to tell a story over up to 25 hours split into individual episodes. Yet people complain that stories are being told over several films? And if it’s such a problem, why are so many major Hollywood filmmakers and actors moving into television these days?

Now I will admit there are some films that don’t need sequels. There are some films that lose something because a sequel or prequel is made of the original film. I am not big on sequels like “The Matrix Reloaded”, “The Crow: City of Angels”, and the rather extensive amount of direct-to-DVD sequels to films like “Bring It On” or “American Pie”. Not to mention all the different horror films with less than decent films. But you also have films like “The Dark Knight”, “Back to the Future: Part 2” and “Superman II”, all of which have improved on the original and did great things.

For every bad sequel or prequel out there in the film industry, there are all sorts of examples of really great ones. So when I read a blog or hear someone talk about the endless parade of sequels, prequels and remakes I can’t help but wonder where all the hate is coming from. Originality is a state of mind, not a formula. It’s not the amount of money you can put into a production. It’s about emotional honesty. Any film can be great if the filmmakers care about the material and are on the same page creatively. But I continually hear about how independent film is better than Hollywood. About how creatively bankrupt and out of originality it can be. The influx of opinions that all sound the same is so much that I just have to ask...

Is the film industry being purposely ironic?

The Dark Knight Rises Review: Did The Dark Knight Rise? - That Blog Thing - Movie Reviews, Film Reviews, Film Entertainment, Entertainment, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, Superheroes, Comic Books, Film, TV Reviews, Television, TV, Television Reviews