This is an article I wrote for the Huffington Post a decade ago, in 2006. There's no particular reason to post it here now, indeed there's no particular reason to post it again, period, at this point. But I like the subject matter, which still deserves attention. So, there. It's a piece that's called "Four Great Movies You May Never Heard Of." I've referred to a couple of them on this site -- Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang and The Prize-Winner of Defiance, Ohio. Also, the point of the article isn't as "valid" a decade later, since several of the films have built up a bit of notoriety over the years and been shown on television from time to time. Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang, being one, but most notably, The Greatest Game Ever Played, which was massively unsuccessful and near-totally unknown when it was.first released, but has become quite successful on the Golf Channel with several repeat airings each year. (Something which points to how wonderful it, in fact, is and how much people love it, once they get a chance to see it.). Still, these four films all remain vastly unseen, even unknown to most people, compared to how wonderful they are, and deserve the attention. And it's the "unknown" part that is most intriguing about them. When the article was written at the end of 2006 in December, these four movies weren't just unsuccessful, but as close to literally unknown to the general public as they were. One of them, The Greatest Game Ever Played, was made by Disney, and a good friend of mine had been a VP at the studio only a couple years earlier, and he prided himself at being an Industry Maven (which, in fact, he was) -- yet even he had never heard of the film...from his own recent studio. I kept nagging him to see it, if he could find it, something he was reticent to do, being about golf. But somehow it popped up at a single theater in Los Angeles, and to his credit he made his way over -- and utterly raved about it to me afterwards, stunned by how wonderful it was and equally boggled that the studio just dumped it to the degree that even he didn't even know about it. Same with The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio. A friend didn't have a clue what it was, never heard of it (like most of America), and then came across it (at a non-theatrical screening, I believe) and checked it out, if only to shut me up finally. And just completely enthused about how great it was. There's also one thing I want to emphasize. I make the point in the article, and I think I make it clearly, but when this was originally posted, people still missed the point. So, I want to reiterate it even more clearly. I'm referring to the criteria I use here for including these four movies. Every year there are countless great movies that moviegoers never hear of. Most of the time, they're small, independent films that barely get released. So, no matter how wonderful, it's understandable why you never hear of them. Sometimes, they're from studio, but with minor casts (perhaps picked up and released for contractual reasons), and no matter how great, just fall under the wire, since studios aren't set-up to handle those properly. Occasionally, they're terrific big-name films that totally flopped, but had some fair recognition, and just didn't make it. And rarely, they're really lousy films that deservedly flopped but a handful of people dearly loved them and claim that they're unfairly overlooked. After I published the article originally, comments started coming in from readers nominating their own favorite, lesser-known movies over the years. Most were interesting choices, but all completely missed the point. Hence this reiteration. The point here is different from all that. The guideline I used was that a movie had to meet four criteria. It needed 1) to be from a major studio or major distribution company, 2) that had highly-recognizable, well-known stars in it, who had fairly wide popularity, and 3) wasn't just a mere flop or even little known, or a "cult favorite", but -- at the time -- was almost totally, literally unknown to almost the entire public. Completely unaware of its existence, to the point of almost being un-released. Oh, and #4 -- something I thought would have been obvious, but wasn't: it had to be from that year. Only if a movie met all four standards did I include it. Because only then was it absolutely bewildering why these wonderful films were near-utterly unknown. I've done one additional thing for the re-posting here that wasn't part of the original article -- after the description of each film, I've now included a video of its trailer. Here then, from 10 years ago is the article. Four still-deserving, little-known, rarely seen, some still-unknown absolute gems. Four Great Movies You May Never Have Heard Of As the Academy Award season has now officially opened its door of greeting, and Hollywood has begun the dance of screening next year's hopefuls to voters, entertainment thoughts turn to visions of sugarplums and movies that got overlooked. "How could that person not get nominated?!!" is a traditional refrain one hears bemoaned annually around water coolers. (Why anyone is actually, deeply concerned about this, unless you're a Hollywood agent - or didn't get nominated yourself - is another matter entirely.) But stepping back a moment, what about movies that get literally overlooked? Not movies that got some notice, but just weren't deemed one of the "five best" in a category. Not movies that had their fair shot, but simply didn't catch on. No, what I'm talking about is something very different: wonderful and noteworthy movies from the previous Oscar season that were so utterly unsuccessful you may not have even heard of them. Major movies with major stars from major companies that barely got promoted when they were released, and when award season came, their companies didn't bother to re-screen them for voters. Four movies from the previous Oscar season come to mind. The criteria here are movies that 1) got so completely dumped that you may likely not even be aware of them, 2) were not obscure, little films to begin with, but rather high profile, and 3) were gems. Being a gem doesn't mean they're intended for everyone. Most gems aren't. But they all are beautifully crafted, intelligent and wonderfully entertaining for the audience they were meant. By the way, the question is not "Why didn't audiences go?" It's "Why didn't these movies ever get promoted?" At the very least, companies know that off-beat treasures get high attention by Academy voters. And those are the kind that would most benefit. Last year, for example, the Best Actress category had Charlize Theron in "North Country" and Judi Dench in "Mrs. Henderson Presents," both small and unsuccessful. Those got nominated for Oscars. These four - equally wonderful and just as high-profile - you likely haven't even heard of. It's all personal taste, certainly. No doubt there are people who did see these and not liked them. But this isn't a debate about likes. Here are four high quality, notable movies from last Oscar season - from major filmmakers and major companies - which got so completely, utterly overlooked that…you may not have even heard of them. "Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang" Hardly obscure participants - it starred Robert Downey, Jr., and Val Kilmer, and was the directing debut of its screenwriter Shane Black, who wrote such monster hits as "Lethal Weapon" and "Last Action Hero." This movie took the film noire detective genre and hilariously turned it on its ear, joyously playing with all the conventions, right down to the last goofball scene. Violent at times with some rough language, it's an action-filled buddy movie, with clever plot twists all over the place and unexpected humor around every dark, shadowy corner. And you probably haven't heard of it. "The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio" This featured a stunning performance by Julianne Moore which, for my taste, was the second best by an actress last year. (The best was also not nominated, Joan Allen in "The Upside of Anger." I don't include that here, since it did respectably at the box office, although her oversight is bizarre.) "Prize Winner" also had a memorable supporting performance by Woody Harrelson as Moore's deeply loving, but angrily drunk husband. It was beautifully written and directed by Jane Anderson who has many significant TV credentials ("When Billie Met Bobby" and "…the Alleged Texas Cheerleading-Murdering Mom.") And based on a popular book, there certainly was an audience for it. Extremely quirky and richly underplayed, it's the true story of an indefatigable housewife who kept her 10-children family together during the 1950s by winning jingle-writing contests for products. It's an emotional, funny movie that requires appreciating subtlety, but there's glorious subtlety exploding everywhere. It has one of the great lines of dialogue in the last 20 years (when I saw the movie at the Writers Guild of America, the roomful of fellow screenwriters literally gasped in appreciation), and one of the more moving final sequences ever. And you probably haven't heard of it. "Proof" This is probably the biggest surprise of all, because of its dazzling pedigree. It stars Oscar-winner Gwyneth Paltrow, Oscar-winner Anthony Hopkins, and was directed by Oscar-nominated John Madden ("Shakespeare in Love"). It's based on David Auburn's Tony Award-winning play. And features a supporting role by Jake Gyllenhaal. No one is obligated to like this movie - but I would imagine you'd like to have at least known about it. Moreover, Paltrow's vibrant performance is my third favorite by an actress last year. And like all three, not nominated. (When people write it was a weak year for actresses, that's simply not true. Here are three brilliant performances - Allen, Moore and Paltrow - they just didn't get nominated.) The movie tells the story of a brilliant young woman whose genius scientist-father has gone mad, and while she's tracking down what may be his greatest discovery, there's concern that she might be going mad, as well. This is class, intelligence and quality in every nook. And you probably haven't heard of it. "The Greatest Game Ever Played" Not in the same category as the others, but thoroughly overlooked for a different reason. This is a superbly-crafted, intelligent, utterly feel-good, inspirational true story from…Disney! If any studio was perfect for promoting the bejeepers out of such a joy, these are the folks. They live for this. It's beautifully directed by actor Bill Paxton and thoughtfully written by Mark Frost, who had a huge hit with "The Fantastic Four" and co-created the iconic series "Twin Peaks." No name stars [UPDATE NOTE: That turns out not to be entirely accurate, since it starred a young Shia LaBoeuf, at the start of his run to popularity), but it's the story that's riveting. Get this: at a time (1913) when golf was solely a private gentleman's game dominated by the British, the film tells the remarkable true story of Francis Ouimet, a dirt-poor 20-year-old amateur who overcame breathtaking hurdles to became the first amateur to win the U.S. Open, defeating a British legend - using a 10-year-old boy (playing hooky from school every day) as his caddy! This is a film about personal conviction, class division and unthinkable dreams, far more than "about" golf. But beyond the extraordinary story - which changed sports in America - it's simply a gorgeously-made movie. And you probably haven't…well, you know. Thank goodness for DVDs.
0 Comments
The past couple weeks, I've had a couple of pieces here that dealt with Edgard Bergen and Mortimer Snerd, his lesser-known dummy compared to Charlie McCarthy, but perhaps my fave -- not just from Bergen, but of any ventriloquist. This first post was about Spike Milligan talking about how Mortimer Snerd was his inspiration for his classic Goon Show character, Eccles. And the second here, a wonderful Goon Show sequence with Eccles, so people could hear what he sounded like. But it's time to have Mortimer himself. So, here is the quintessentially clueless and ethereally sweet Mortimer Snerd in his first TV appearance with Northwestern University grad (okay, I had to do that...) Edgar Bergen in 1950. To support the point of my article this morning -- how insane it is to rely on the cavalier whims of a referendum by the general public on whether or not to withdraw from the European Union. which would have world financial and security implications -- it turns out that the second most-searched for phrase on Google in the United Kingdom, after citizens voted to leave the EU was -- "What is the EU?"
As I was saying... Sigh. So, by now, most people have likely seen the news that the British public has voted for the UK to leave the European Union. One of the immediate results is that it has thrown the world financial markets into uncertainty and chaos.
Throughout all the debates on the subject, one nagging thought has continued to pummel me -- For something this important, for something that is this critical to world security, for something that has this much of an impact on the world's financial markets -- why is it left to a simple vote of the general public? I'm sure there's a reason. I wouldn't be surprised if there's even a very good reason. But I don't have the slightest clue what that is. In fairness, part of the reason is that the vote is "just" a referendum and not legally binding. Except that Parliament is expected to go along with the non-binding referendum, which remain problematic -- whatever the vote would have been -- because it would then have the effect of being, in essence, "virtually" legally binding. Public whim can change on a dime. And this seems like a whim-related vote. What if next month they take a poll and it shows that the British public thinks hey, y'know, we really want to be back in the union? Or someone gets pressing the issue and puts together a great ad campaign that convinces the public that being in the EU is actually a great thing? Or then something else happens and the public changes it's mind again? And again. California has the Proposition System, and it's sort of lousy. Among other things, It largely relies on TV ads to convince the public how they should vote on an issue. Yes, there are other venues of support for being informed, but it basically does come down to TV ads. But even though Proposition System decides some important stae matters, doesn't decide the Really Big and Hugely Significant issues that impact other states or the federal government -- like, say, voting to secede from the Union. And even then, if California did decide to leave...they couldn't do it, because there are safeguards built in elsewhere that requite the consent of the States, not leaving it to the whim of any given state. You may recall that when the South decided to secede without consent, it had fairly pesky ramifications... It's not that I don't inherently think the general public should have any say as to whether their nation stays or leaves the European Union. It's that I don't think that that should be the sole criteria. It's that there should be some sort of checks-and-balances, requiring both a national referendum -- and a referendum that requires, say, a two-thirds vote, not a simple majority -- along with perhaps a two-thirds vote from each representative body of a country. And then give veto power to the nation's leader, which can be over-ridden by other standards. That way, a country couldn't drop out on a petulant whim. I recall that when the Writers Guild last voted to go on strike, something that critical required around a 75% vote to authorize it, not merely a simple majority like most issues-- and even then, there was a general consensus within the Guild that the union wouldn't go on strike unless the vote was at least 90%. The belief was that to take such a drastic action required near unanimity. You couldn't pass a resolution today in the United States Senate to make the apple America's national fruit without a vote requiring 60% approval. You can't get the president's nominee for the Supreme Court to even get a vote -- and that's something mandated by the Constitution -- because there aren't enough votes to simply get it to the Senate floor for a hearing. And yet, for a sovereign nation to drop out of the European Union and impact the stability of the world, you only have to get a paltry 50% plus 1 vote by the general public??? Seriously? A "cavalier" way to decide such an intensely critical thing that impacts the world markets and international security seems a deeply, overly polite description. Cavalier doesn't begin to describe it. Insanely reckless comes close, and I say this as someone facing the results of the voters a political party choosing to make Donald Trump their leader and put him in a position to have authority over nuclear bombs. Leaving this decision to a whim strikes me as utterly bizarre. And I say this however the vote would have turned out. As I noted, I am sure there are reasons it's done this way. And perhaps there's an explanation why a mere non-binding referendum ends up having the realistic effect of being legally binding. Who knows, maybe in the end the British Parliament won't vote to leave the EU. But then, let's watch the turmoil break out for going against "the will of the people." It seems to me an idiotic, dangerous way to run a world. There was a nice article here by Todd Van Luling for the Huffington Post that was basically an interview with journalist Kim Barker about what it was like having Tina Fey play her in the movie Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, based on Barker's memoir. But one paragraph stood out for me, for an odd reason. ";Whiskey Tango Foxtrot'" is now on a very short list of journalism-focused movies with studio-sized budgets. Journalism teachers will inevitably show the movie right along with staples such as 'All the President’s Men,' 'Shattered Glass,' 'Network,' and the recent winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture, 'Spotlight.'" What's odd about that is that the four other movies Mr. Lulling named were three films which all won the Oscar for Best Picture...and one which pretty much no people have ever even heard of, let alone seen. By the way, I'm not complaining. I absolutely LOVE Shattered Glass -- and I suspect the author does, as well, which is why he included it. I even go around telling people about it and recommending they see it, when it's appropriate to the conversation -- and I suppose sometimes even when it's not. It's a great film, written and directed by Billy Ray, who also wrote and directed Breach, and wrote Captain Phillips and The Hunger Games, among others. I'm just surprised that Mr. Van Luling had it in there with the three Oscar-winners. Like me, he must really love it. Shattered Glass tells the true story -- which you may recall -- about Stephen Glass, an acclaimed journalist for the highly-admired The New Republic magazine, who it was discovered had made up a great many of his most attention-getting cover story articles. The film is sort of a tense, but disarming detective story as the publication's new editor (played by Peter Sarsgaard) starts to get suspicions and tries to surreptitiously track things down. Glass is played by Hayden Christensen, and both are wonderful. Actually, everyone is the film is terrific, including Hank Azaria, Steve Zahn, Rosario Dawson, and Chloe Sevigny, with few false steps. The fact that I'd yammer about to movie to others, even complete strangers, let to a funny tale, and one of my favorites, which is saying a lot. During the last Writers Guild strike in 2007-8, I was assigned to the picket line at the 20th Century Fox studios. I showed up one morning, signed in, got my bagel, picked up my picket sign and lingered for a few moments finishing eating. There was a conversation nearby where three writers were discussing films, and I heard Peter Sarsgaard's name mentioned. I waited for a pause in the conversation, and jumped in, saying that if they liked Peter Sarsgaard that much, I'd just seen a great movie he starred in that they'd probably love, and it was called Shattered Glass. One of the three WGA members broke into a smile and said, "I know. I made that." It was Billy Ray. I have to figure that that's about the best kind of praise any writer or filmmaker can get. When a total stranger interrupts his conversation, has absolutely no idea who he is, and start raving about his work. It was well-deserved. It's a terrific film. Smart, thoughtful, beautifully acted, taut, involving, charming, well-crafted and a true story. Here's the trailer. "This is nothing more than a publicity stunt."
-- Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) on the Democratic sit-in on Gun Law votes. Well...yeah!! It is nothing more than a publicity stunt. That's the exact point. And it's an incredibly great publicity stunt. As I write this Thursday morning, it's been the leading story in the nation for 23 hours. That's seriously impressive as far as publicity stunts go. With most publicity stunts (and I say this as a former publicist in my wayward days), you dearly hope that you simply get noticed and maybe a mention on page eight. But this? This been front page, lead-story news for a full day...and counting. Boy howdy, that's one terrific publicity stunt. And the thing is, Mr. Ryan himself acknowledges that very thing. Specifically. "This is about trying to get attention," he added. Bingo. Yes, that's exactly what it's trying to do! And it sure did get attention. The Speaker's complaint is that the sit-in is not something that it wasn't directly intending to be. "This is not about a solution to a problem," he said. And no, it's not. It's not about a solution to a problem. It's about drawing attention to the fact that the Republican Party isn't allowing there to be a vote to help get to one of those solutions. And in doing that, the intent is to then get a vote which could either bring about these solutions, and point out clearly to the country that it's the GOP which is blocking there being a solution. Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) pointed out a blunt reply to Mr. Ryan who is upset that the Democrats aren't proposing a solution. "The Speaker," he said, "should come forward with his own proposals." Actually, to be fair, the Democrats have proposed a solution. That's the whole point of the sit-in -- the get a vote on those proposals. And the proposals are pretty straightforward -- and both are supported by about 85-90% of all Americans. One, not allow anyone of the No Fly Watch List to buy a gun, and two, to require background checks for the sale of guns over the Internet or at trade shows. There's one positive thing about Paul Ryan's comments, though, which have been overlooked. The fact that he says, "This is not about a solution to a problem," shows that he actually does acknowledge that there is a problem! Something it's hard to get most Republican officials to admit. Usually it's just that the laws are fine and swell, we just need to enforce them better. In the end, it's probably Paul Ryan's dismissive, though observant, comment that is meaningless and therefore as much a mere publicity stunt as what the Democrats are doing. The difference is that he won't admit it. And may not even know it. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|