My faith in Hollywood is restored...for now

After reading so much ridiculous spin from big studios lately, about how they will only place bets on familiar franchises and less on original works, I was feeling a bit hopeless. Were we really destined for a future of Transformers 23 starring Shia LeBouf's great grandson and Spider Man 64 starring whichever actor is less high-maintenance than Toby Maguire? The fact that one of the studios even said that a lackluster movie franchise is cheaper to keep going than bombing with an original work with which no one is familiar is just sad. Are we really that stupid and boring?

So it was actually quite funny to read all the hype about Inception, the sci-fi thriller starring Leonardo DiCaprio and - in a "WTF?! But it works!" pairing move, Ellen Page of Juno famo (loved her in that). The WSJ had a full spread about how this movie was being closely watched to see how a completely original idea would do at the box office. Again, sad state of affairs when that makes news.

It wasn't until we heard a glowing review on my husband's favorite BBC podcast from film critic Mark Kermode that we decided to venture out. Now that we have Netflix on Demand, this was a big deal indeed.

And we were so glad we did.

This was everything a movie should be. The suspense and tension carried through the entire film, like the best of the Bond movies. Leo was excellent, leading a crew (like Ocean's 11 without the snarkybanter) of misfits who are hired to steal information from people's dreams. Think corporate espionage or the locations of hidden plans - that sort of thing. Then they are hired by an Asian oil magnate to actually plant an idea (inception) into a young scion's head about breaking up his father's global empire - their biggest competition. This is trickier and more risky than just stealing information that is already there, as it required going several layers deep into the subconscious (a dream within a dream within a dream). Things get further complicated by Leo's character's own subconscious demons, that often manifest on these "missions" and put everyone in jeopardy.

I won't give the rest away, but while it might sound really complicated, it's surprisingly easy to follow. I usually get lost with plots like this, having to ask my husband what the hell is going on. But they did a beautiful storytelling job of assuming the audience would buy into some of the more sci-fi elements without overexplaining them. This simplification and faith in our abiltiy to "buy into it" kept the plot nimble and clear. They could have gotten bogged down in explaining how it all works, but thankfully, they didn't insult our intelligence and thus avoided confusing us in the process.

The acting was fantastic. The alternate reality was completely believable and everything tied together nice and neatly to explain everything. For example, the simple explanation for how they get our of the dream is to receive a "kick" that revives them and brings them back into reality - whether their sleeping body is knocked over in a chair or dunked into a bathtub full of water. This device was cleverly used and explained as they had to descend into multiple levels of subconscious and provided the most intense suspense in the film. All without dumbing it down nor overexplaining the concept. You just had to accept this as it was and it worked.

I'm pleased as punch that Hollywood's test for orignality paid off so handsomely at the box office. Maybe this means insightful and smart storytelling and filmmaking is not dead after all. Hurrah!

Dave and Maya

Last night, my husband and I, tired of the the exploits of political idiots on The Daily Show (most days it's funny, but some days I find the stupidity and hypocrisy downright depressing) caught Sundance Channel's Iconoclasts. This smart show pairs up two unlikely figures and let's them just talk, debate and get to know each other. Pairings have included people like Ashley Judd + Madeline Albright; skater Tony Hawk + director/actor Jon Favreau; activist Desmond Tutu + entrepreneur Richard Branson.

We watched as comedian Dave Chapelle met with poet, activist, and general inspiration Dr. Maya Angelou. What a pairing! It was a poignant meeting of a wise older soul passing life lessons onto a 30-something man who has been through a lot but is still on his journey. As some of you may know, Dave walked away from his hit TV show and $50 million dollar contract at Comedy Central a few years ago just to get away from it all and save his soul. Maya seemed to understand this act, while many others have not.


You could see in Dave's eyes he wanted to just soak up as much knowledge and insight from this woman as was humanly possible. And she was eager to share, teach, praise and comfort. It was just awe-inspiring to watch so much love pass between two souls right in front of your eyes.


I am a huge lover of independent film and adore many of the selections on the Sundance Channel. Having attended the Sundance Film Festival 5 years in a row (2009 was the first year I'd missed it in a while), I love the energy of storytelling and community that permeates Park City for 10 days out of the year. But I often have a hard time with some indie film that is avant-garde for the sake of being avant-garde, rather than in pursuit of the story. Sometimes shocking is just shocking and it doesn't work. I will never forget an interview I saw back when Melanie Griffith was promoting the film Working Girl in 1988 (not that I would ever confuse that film with an arthouse classic, but bear with me on this point...). She was justifying a scene where she is vacumming the house topless because she's in a rush as "central to the story and what my character would do" or something like that. Seriously? That was pivotal to the entire plotline to have you vacuum topless and was not just a shameless attempt to sex up a late 80's film? I love non-cerebral entertainment just as much as the next guy, but let's call a spade and spade, shall we?


But I digress. Often Sundance Channel carries over some of the best films from the festival, ones that never got full distribution in the light of day. And original, smart, compelling, and eye-opening series like Iconoclasts actually help me regain some of my brain cells back from shows like I wrote about last time. True, honest, insightful storytelling is why I love film so much and showcases its potential to change minds, hearts and the world.

Oscar 2008: A Whole Lot of Yawn....and Red

Only 3 blog posts this month? Egad! Sorry dear readers (reader) but starting a business requires much more time than anticipated. But last night brought us the star-studded bonanza that is Oscar Night. And with the writer's strike becoming a memory, Hollywood came out in full frontal glamour.

First, the event itself. You really can't go wrong in my book having Jon Stewart host anything from the Academy Awards to a Junior High Spelling Bee. His monologue was witty with just the right balance of political and entertainment references and thankfully, he didn't beat us over the head with Writer's Strike jokes, which I had feared. One of his greatest moments was quipping about the historic Democratic race for the White House: "Normally when you see a black man or woman president, an asteroid is about to hit the Statue of Liberty. It's the future!" which cracked me up since it was so dead on. Stewart's stock also rose in my book when he allowed the co-winner of best original song to come out after the break and give her Thank You speech after her partner ate up all the time before the Speech Nazi's in the orchestra pit drowned them out. It has to be said that on more occasions than not, the orchestra does a service to helpless viewers everywhere by cutting short the likes of rambling or annoying winners, but sometimes have a heart, man. As my friend Melanie so eloquently put it: "Not that I needed any other reasons to love Jon Stewart but that was quite nice of him to bring her back on stage to say her thank you after stupid Bill Conti and his band of egotists played her off. " Oh, and sassy Mel has started her own blog - finally - to regale the world with her post-Awards show musings. Hurrah!

Secondly, random commentary on the awards and people themselves:

1) Great crop of good movies this year, from what I hear as I have not seen them all and hats off to the Coen Brothers for No Country for Old Men. These guys are geniuses and men of few words. Or at least one of them is. My husband commented they were like Penn and Teller, when one of them talks all the time. The other just said, "Thank you." Given their roster of amazingly unique films over the years, I have no doubt this one delivers. Juno was excellent and I was so happy to see Diablo Cody win for Best Original Screenplay. Her FIRST screenplay. After a career as a stripper. You go girl. Jon Stewart made a great joke about her going from an exotic dancer to a Hollywood writer: "How's that pay cut treating you?" Love Diablo. Loved her lack of a designer gown. Loved the fact the she wore sleeveless so her tattoo was boldly exhibited to the world. I'm all for Hollywood glamour, as we'll discuss later, but I'm also a fan of a woman with chops.

2) This year, the theme was "Actors from Abroad" as Europeans swept the four main acting categories. Nice to see globalization hitting Hollywood. And ya just gotta love acceptance speeches that begin with hesitant broken English and then break into rapid-fire native tongues just because they are short on time and just so damn happy.

3) We had an Oscar competition during the telecast and I won by virtue of every sound and editing award going to "The Bourne Identity." If you want suspense that moves you and a story that never lets you take a breath, but that doesn't require a lot of brain cells, rent it today. It's excellent.

4) We will not see the last of Ellen Page, even though that Marion chick from France won for playing Edith Piaf. Whatever. Juno Rules. And I have a rule to try to see anything that Laura Linney is in. I love her, I want to be her and I hope she wins someday.

5) Tilda Swinton may have looked like death warmed over wrapped in a Hefty bag, but she is a sarcastic chick and I dig that about her. Her speech referencing her admiration for George Clooney donning his Batsuit for the Batman movies "nipples and all" was bizarre but very dry and fun. I could see doing shots in a pub with this one. I have not yet seen "Michael Clayton" but hear it's great and this woman has had a long career of great work going back to "Orlando" so good for her. I saw her at Sundance a few years ago and she's as skinny as my pinky and has twins. I'll have what she's having.

6) Miley Cyrus? Seriously? SERIOUSLY? God, who the heck invited her to present and why and when will her 15 minutes be up? Oh yeah, probably a second after the cast of "High School Musical." Please.

7) In the MIA department: Keira Knightly, the makers of "Atonement" called and thank you for your support even though you weren't nominated and decided to bag it as a "non-event". I hope she was filming or had the flu to excuse not showing up. But James McAvoy, her co-star made it and presented and he's delicious (my husband will only let me say this since he's Scottish as well). Ben Affleck, your brother gets nominated, your wife is presenting, and - for anyone who saw it - was neck-licked by Gary Busey on the Red Carpet to her shock and embarassment. Where the heck were you?

8) In the "Why" department, aside from Miley Cyrus who everyone was confused about: Cameron Diaz presenting? Why? Does she have a new movie coming out or something? And The Rock? I do not get it.

9) Please do not hold the "Enchanted" musical number against Amy Adams. Please. She's better than that and a luminously gifted actress who I adored in "Junebug" a few years ago. She had a film at Sundance this year with Emily Blunt called "Sunshine Cleaning" about two sisters who form a bio-hazard cleaning service (ya know, like to clean up murder scenes and stuff) and I can't wait to see it. It sounds dark and funny and fabulous.

10) Speaking of which....will the Senate be voting on if being exposed to not one, not two, but THREE musical numbers from "Enchanted" counts as torture? I think I know a few folks who might want to opt for waterboarding.

11) Nicole Kidman Urban (Kurdman?) is pregnant but where the heck is she hiding the little thing? It is simply against natural law to be blessed with beauty, height, flawless skin AND the ability to look stunning pregnant.

Thirdly, THE FASHION!

The Carpet was ablaze in red this year and, while not consistently popular, I thought it looked great on so many. Overall, old Hollywood glamour is making a comeback and my Audrey Hepburn-idolizing heart can't get enough of it. Long dresses that fit like gloves, slicked back men's hair, temperate jewels.....it was so dreamy.

Penelope Cruz, Jennifer Garner (I don't care about the haters, I thought she looked great in black), Jessica Alba, Renee Zellweger (the dress - she herself has seen better days), Katherine Heigl (a vision), and Anne Hathaway just wowed. I also would like to know what I need to sacrifice to which God to look like Helen Mirren when I'm 60. How does this woman have a better waist than most women half her age? Sigh....

What I was not so in love with was the HAIR. What happened here? All this time and money spent on fabulous dresses and everyone either went for one of two looks: the "throw your hair in a ponytail after running from the gym" look of Cameron Diaz, Ellen Page, and others; or the "I tried to channel Veronica Lake but just have a chunk of hair in my eye" look of - everyone else except Anne and Penelope. Jennifer Garner, Marion what's her name, even Johnny Depp got a piece of the action. I'm all for escaping romantic tendrils, but there's a line, people.

As for men, I really don't have much to say as they can wear what they want and then people forget it. But George Clooney was classic debonair and handsome, Daniel Day-Lewis looked like he beat up an AMC Theatres movie usher in the bathroom and stole his jacket, and I was happy to see Javiar Bardem has better hair (and is clearly more good looking) than in the trailers for his film. And Jack, we'll keep telling you this and you'll keep not listening but..."Sunglasses in a dark auditorium are not cool. Despite what you've been told, the 'young people' are not wearing them inside. Leave them in the car."

Overall, the show was not racy, unexpected, trashy or emotional. It just WAS. I, unlike many others, love when they show old clips from Oscar's past and you get to see the movie stars of yesteryear. I also like the In Memoriam tribute, or as my husband says, The Parade of Dead People, because we get reminded one more time of many great movie folks who have long been forgotten and who in many cases, blazed a trail. Call me a sentimental old fool, or a morbid voyeur. In any event, dreams were realized last night and as I always say for those who won, its a feeling of achievement in their chosen career that not many people get to experience, so kudos to you. Party hard.

Hollywood and the Web

Sorry, dear readers, for the way overdue promised summary of "Webolution! Hollywood Adapts to the Web" panel from the Sundance Film Festival '08. As mentioned, Kara Swisher did a great job filming and summarizing this panel on All Things D. But here are my notes and thoughts on this hot topic.

Let me preface by saying I have never understood why the monolithic music and production companies get their panties in a bunch about their trailers or song snippets circling the web. Yes, yes, I am not so stupid as to overlook the copyright and piracy issues where millions of dollars are at stake. I'm talking about folks like Viacom who take down clips from YouTube in the name of copyright protection. As a marketer, I want to hit them over the head with a frying pan, "Don't you know how much this branding and press is worth in the long run? It will help drive viewership, paid downloads, album sales, etc. if you give people a taste and a tease." It is SO frustrating to me. I did ask this question and the panel basically said, "Those that get it, will win. Those that don't will fall behind." OK...I guess. But a young filmmaker in the audience did say that her trailer on YouTube kept up steady DVD sales - until she got into the Tribeca Film Festival who made her take the trailer down for the duration of their festival. Her DVD sales ground to a halt. I'm not saying....I'm just saying.

But I digress. The panel:

• Ted Sarandos, Netflix (in charge of a lot of their subscription service for original content, as well as DVD's)
• Dmitry Shaprio, Veoh.com (a site that offers a one stop shop portal for content. The content is still streamed from Veoh, no matter where it's linked, so viewership can be tracked)
• Dan Glickman, CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)
• Jason Kilar, Hulu.com (another content network; a News Corp and NBC Universal joint venture)
• Mike Volpi, Joost.com
• Erik Flanagan, Digital Media, MTV Networks/Comedy Central/Southpark Studios (he is helping the South Park guys with their digital strategy - they are one of the view content providers in tradition media actually putting thought into giving access and monetizing this new media)
• Phil Lelyveld, Entertainment Technology Strategic Advisor (read: consultant. Also was a big wig at Disney)

If I could sum up the main theme of how Hollywood is embracing the web it would be "trial and error." Studios and traditional media do get that they need to embrace all these new distribution channels, but they are just not sure how to do it responsibly and quite frankly, in the way that makes them the most money. Fair enough. The monetization issue came up in question after question. Some of the panelists see people trying different things in this new Wild West. They all had various opinions about which model will win out: ad supported (the most popular one that they feel Google is making more efficient), premium subscription based (a la Netflix). There was no argument among the panelists that any model needs good, relevant content to succeed no matter what. Nice to see they are keeping their eyes on the ball here.

What are the major challenges with video over the Web today? Answers ranged from "availability of good content" to "finding the right niche" to "protecting intellectual property" (care of the MPAA) to "monetizing the new viewing habits" as mentioned above. The interesting note on this discussion was that much of the uncertainty has been justified in the name of "artist protection" but the panel got to the heart of it and said monetization was more of a real concern that the altruistic positions. That was refreshing.

Many felt access to the good content is the main issue in consumer choice, whether it's through poorly regulated broadband access (a side discussion ensued about how the US lags behind other countries like Japan in universal high-speed Internet from the government vs. what competition has done in this country to slow us down) or finding a single place to aggregate relevant content. Think beyond YouTube, which shows actual short films with videos of Johnny's cat playing poker. That's like having one TV channel and expecting to appeal to the History Channel and G4 audiences all at the same time. How can advertisiers expect to get behind that kind of scattershot ad model? They can't, so until there are niche avenues for content, the advertisers might wait.

The other tangent this took us down was advertising on the web in general. Interestingly enough, these new media are showing actual viewers, length of time viewed, traffic sources - basically data that is not available in traditional media. The old guard has often priced advertising based on algorithmic extrapolations and padded assumptions (for example, the pass along statistics magazines cite to pump up their ad costs) and they were never questioned. Now the Web comes along with trackable metrics and the numbers are appalling in some cases, but usually REAL. So maybe it's not that web advertising doesn't work, but that advertising measurement in general was always flawed and now the curtain has been pulled back. Discuss.

Most talent is not really thinking about their digital distribution strategy, except for the South Park guys. They have created a whole web property where users can take parts of their content and then augment it and virally distribute it. This is a bold move with all the piracy concerns, but as we see from You Tube and social sites like Facebook and MySpace, user-generated and customized content is the name of the game. You have to give a little to get a little and very few artists embrace this philosophy because it requires a lot of trust and connection with your audience.

Everyone generally felt "movie screens would never die out" but the new media has indeed impacted the traditional distribution windows by which the film industry has lived and died. "Windows" are like when a movie is released and only in theatres for a while; then it goes to cable; then to DVD and never the windows shall overlap. Until now. 2929 Entertainment did some experimentation with concurrent windows on some of their films ("Syriana", I believe). And HBO and Netflix did a deal with "Pan's Labrynth" to have the DVD window open the same time as the cable window - as the Netflix guy so aptly stated, "And the sky didn't fall and we all got paid well." So seems those willing to structure win-win deals and take the chance can meet their objectives.

Finally, the other main point was that content producers need to not just see the Web as another distribution channel, where they simply take their content from one media and port it directly to your browser. Thought needs to go up the value chain so that content can be created distinctly for these multiple channels. Anything that succeeds on the web is highly specialized, and soon specific skills for Internet or Cell Phone fimmakers will be in demand from a creative perspective. For example, panoramic shots may work well in a movie theatre or on your 62" Flat Screen but not on small square of video on your laptop or on your iPhone. Also, to the point made earlier, viewers may want to interact with that content in a new way and add self-generated content, recommend to friends and a whole host of other personalization options. One panelist noted, "If there is a free flow of content, piracy goes away because you have eliminated the friction."

Some companies to watch that may help push this digital envelope are Facebook, Google, and ironically some of the folks on this panel.

The panel was great. I was concerned at how they'd balance all the speakers, but they were all to the point and brief, and the conversation was lively. Kara pulls no punches and inserts her own opinions, often challening panelists on their answers to go beyond the PR-approved sound bit. Well done.

The overall relevance for Indie film makers is clear: the distribution opportunities are increasing and this is good news. Especially for short films. For example, in the old world, short films could only aspire to film festivals like Sundance and then there was no mass market for them. Now they can get picked up for distribution on Netflix, iTunes and......wait for it.....XBOX Live. Yes the same evil box that sucks your spouse into Halo 3 has a service to offer short films for download. And bingo, there's a whole new market and channel for the filmmaker's voice.

The next few years should be very exciting on this front. And it also inspired me to maybe produce my short film idea this year after all. But of course, that is always the effect Sundance has on me. Hey, does anyone have stats showing a spike in sales of HD cameras and Final Cut software right after the festival? Hmmmmm.....

I Hate When Meg Ryan Has a Point

Do you remember the scene in "You've Got Mail" where Meg Ryan laments to her email-lover (unknown to her to be Tom Hanks) that she hates rude confrontations where she is left speechless and then, hours later, tries to think up some perfect comeback "zinger" she should have used? I had two such moments this weekend. One with my home builder (who, until I get the issue resolved, I will refrain from mentioning) and one from some crazy chick in the movie theatre.

Those who know me know I am not usually at a loss for words. Comes from years of honing my Ninja-like responses to my older brothers' teasing and sarcasm. But sometimes I act so accomodating in the moment, revert subconsciously to a good little Catholic girl - and then get pissed at myself for not saying something meant to put someone in their place.

Forget about the specifics of both cases. One was just someone who tried to guilt me into feeling badly for calling when his personal issue had absolutely no bearing on his responsibility to me. He completely tried to blur the issue by making me feel I was inconveniencing him and I thought, "Don't be heartless, be understanding" so I fell for it hook, line and sinker. Only later I realized the manipulation that had taken place- and I was pissed I wasn't more direct and demanding with him. I SHOULD have calmly said, "With all due respect, that has nothing to do with me. If you had called me back 2 weeks ago when you were supposed to, or if you had already fixed the problem, I wouldn't be calling right now, so let's not act like this is the reason you can't honor your responsibility, shall we? Now, when are you coming to fix the door?" Some people are so good at not only turning the situation around to avoid the real issue, but have a knack for making the other person apologize for it in the end. Wow, what a skill. Not only do I make you feel bad for my breaking into your home, I'm actually going to have you apologize for not leaving the doors unlocked, thus causing me pain and suffering at having to break the window. While the situation was not quite this tragic, it does make you feel like a naive sap.

The second case was just of someone who, as my husband likes to put it, is not self-aware. Not everyone in the world is doing something that annoys you on purpose. You are not that important, relax. And why did I act all apologetic , as if she acted appropriately? To the lady at "The Golden Compass" this weekend who practically hit me and annoyingly told me to sit down or move (at the end of the movie, lights up. trying to leave our row with everyone else - yeah, I know...) because she was desperately trying to read the credits, here's what I SHOULD have said: "Miss, a) no need to hit me, just ask politely, b) you are not so significant in my life that I planned throughout the entire 2 hours to think of ways to piss you off, and c) if knowing that Ian McKellan was the voice of the ice bear who has a whisky problem was THAT important, here's 4 letters for you: I. M. D. B. (.com)."

I guess sometimes it feels like you are the one being taken advantage of, and other times it feels like people are oversensitive about you taking advantage of them. I guess overall it is better to be nice and regret not being mean, then to be mean and regret not being nice (peace on earth, good will towards men, and all of that.) Ay yay yay. I think I'm as guilty as anyone in the end but really....can we hope to stop wars abroad when we can't even get along at a Disney picture? Sheesh. Let's all go get a drink already and calm the heck down.