Some More Movie Sites
Review Page*
My Movie Reviews* [Latest: "Bend It Like Beckham," "The Core," and "The Man Without A Past"]
Old Movies And More
Best Of 2002 *; Oscar Winners (2003)*
Horror Films: Essay; Horror Movie Survivors Guide
Horror Movies / I Spit On Your Grave*
Movie Fone
As you can see above, there is a separate page concerned with mini reviews of various movies that I have seen. This page add some more links as well as thoughts on movies, including one extended essay on a little known controversial film of the 1970s, "I Spit On Your Grave." I do not update the content on this page as regularly as my movie reviews, but I hope the content is so interesting that this is not so important. Tragedy: Hollywood has quickly acted after the bombings to postpone various violent action movies as well as a more trivial one that ridicules airport security (among other things). This is necessary on a practical level (the public does not want to see such movies now), as well as because it is rather tasteless. Some people would disagree because fantasy violence is a diversion. After all, poor people see elegance on tv and film, and people whose lives are affected by violence see violent films and play violent games. This is not necessarily a bad thing, just as football as a representation of war ("blitz," "marching the field," "defense") is a substitute of real agression. The opposite argument, of course, is often made. Nonetheless, making fun of the existence of weapons and poor security, and winning in the end anyway (the plot of the postponed film "Big Trouble"), is not a bad way of dealing in my opinion. On the other hand, the current habit of editing out the Towers in prints of newly released films is a bit much. Out of sight, out of mind? A few words on enjoying movies. First, it is key to watch all the credits -- important stuff there, even in those movies without key plot points and/or 'extras' in the credits like Wild Things and the Naked Gun movies. Second, do not think too deeply, since movies tend to follow set patterns, much like life itself actually. Third, enjoy the experience of around two hours of seeing action, comedy, horror, passion, pathos, romance, and more as you recline in your seat in the dark eating your overpriced food. Finally, try out some of those independant, foreign, or in general non-blockbuster type films sometimes or bargain shows since one provides some small gems and the other allows you to watch some of the latest garbage (some of it good btw) at the price that is almost worth it. Something should be said for 'the latest garbage,' which I said partly in jest. I live in New York City, so I have a wonderful selection of movies most weeks, but no matter where you are, there are always some good movies out there (thank goodness for video stores). I said that you should check out some lesser known films, especially since many of the wide release films are not worth seeing, but 'B' movies (or "C-" movies at times) have their pleasures as well. These not so great films (though some given that rating really deserve more credit than they get) often have a sense of style, fun, good performances, or something else that make them worth watching. Three movies from the last year or so that come to mind are The Mummy, Rage: Carrie 2 and Wild Things. Movies are not only some uplifting experiences, they are fun as well, which you can see by watching some movies on networks like USA and other late night movies. As aside, few things are as amusing as watching lousy movies on basic cable that are edited of the only content that made people watch them the first time around. :) I added a discussion of the rating system to the Movie Reviews page, so deleted the mostly redundant discussion once found here. Suffice to say, movies with subject matters clearly appropriate or at least no big shock to teens are given a 'R' rating, and sex is seen as a much bigger threat than violence. This is the reverse of the European and Japanese viewpoint (the latter even allows certain types of nudity and such in animation viewed by minors) and is ass backward in my view -- violence (sometimes of a sexual nature) against women is acceptable but not consensual sex. Idiotic. A syndicated sex columnist, Dan Savage, departed from his generally cynical style to praise Road Trip for a refreshing view of sexuality. This furthers my ongoing belief that mainstream movies can be important in supplying important messages to those who watch them. It is quite the rare movie that does not have some message (negative or positive) that doesn't supply some redeeming value. I include here quite a few of clearly cheap and poorly made comedies that hammer home some message like "so called losers can still prevail" as well as action flicks that glorify violence or address our fears of certain groups. We may not like the message, but its use suggests it appeals to many people, a fact in itself of importance. This even includes sexual themed movies, which usually have many of the themes found in mainstream entertainment, as well as a basic message that sex is good (in some cases, certain types, including homosexual). Biographies has inspired various Academy nominated films, including "Ali," "A Beautiful Mind," and "Iris." I have seen "A Beautiful Mind" and read the book on which it was based, so I will comment on that one. Nonetheless, a general statement to be made is to not trust your movies to provide your history without the filter of Hollywood and plot "dramatic license" (see "Past Imperfect" to read analysis of several movies in regards their historical inaccuracy). Movies are not primarily about informing people, but entertaining them. If simplifying and dramatizing history will help this process, those who make historical films will do so. Furthermore, as long as people realize this fact, this is acceptable within reason.
As someone interested in history, and knowing many know too little about it, historical fiction perceived as accurate troubles me. Furthermore, I know that history often is interesting without changing it to promote entertainment. I know that how history is portrayed in movies matters (think the simplistic ways native americans are traditionally shown in westerns), especially since people tend to think movies are basically accurate. So, how do we deal with "A Beautiful Mind" ignoring John Nash's homosexual relationships, divorce, illegitimate child, and altering the nature of his illusions? Areas more troubling the film's simplifying the mathematical theorem for which Nash won a Nobel Prize.
Couldn't we be entertained without being shown a watered down (Jennifer Connolly got an Academy Award nomination, but her role as Nash's long suffering wife is much more simplistic than real life) and fictionalized character. I think so. The movie uses the title of a biography (one woman's view of history it is true, but the basic facts are not whitewashed or fictionalized), which suggests it is more truthful than it really is. It is okay to use history in the development of movie plots, but why not use history's complexity and not name fictionalized accounts after truthful ones? "A Beautiful Mind" is a very good movie, one the author of "A Beautiful Mind" (the book) enjoyed as cinema and got praise from those in the medical profession as an accurate representation of mental illness. I hope you see it and that it gets its share of awards (though I like Marisa Tomei for Best Supporting Actress). Just realize it is not history, which was a bit less simplistic but no less interesting. Nonetheless, if the controversy leads to a better understanding of the nature of history in cinema, I see it as providing some good in the end. After all, I agree with the sentiment of an executive of Miramax, who put out the film itself: "I think what it will do is to force the studios to either make a story that adheres very close to the truth or just admit that it is an imagined piece that is inspired by a life. You'll have to be very clear which is which. You won't be able to have it both ways." Such films end with a notice that facts have been changed for dramatic purposes, but few think much about the credits, especially those not immediately after the film. The criticism of "A Beautiful Mind" is not all fair, but in the end, it rightly is concerned with the changes and choices made in portraying the story. A final note. In addition to his bad behavior off camera, this controversy threatens Russell Crowe's chances of another Oscar (in lieu of needing to update this, this is true even if he wins). Crowe also won last year, and putting aside back to back wins by Tom Hanks (of debatable justice in my opinion), this is rarely occurs. Ironically, Denzel Washington (nominated for "Training Day") might benefit. Washington was nominated a couple years ago for "The Hurricane," another controversial biographical portrayal that played around with facts for dramatic purposes. Not surprising, given the fact that history does have a tendency to repeat itself. There are various choices made by the writers of ?A Beautiful Mind? which water down history to fit it into a fairly typical Hollywood storyline, though one with a very good lead performance and some important things to say about mental illness. The question below to Roger Ebert, who defended the film as a movie, not true to life history, points to a separate issue I didn?t consider. I read the book, so the fact that I didn?t think about it more is notable. Note how Ebert thinks nothing of it, as if the whole movie wasn?t written to fit the story they wanted to tell. On the other hand, when a movie (?Iris,? a fairly good one at that) did this to someone he cares about, he was quite upset. Points to the biased nature of the field of criticism, I guess. Q. Re the controversy over "A Beautiful Mind," changing some of the facts of John Forbes Nash's life: That I pretty much forgave, knowing that transferring a life to film is a messy affair, and not always truthful. But changing the ethnicity of a main character, a character who was pivotal in this man regaining his life, is more than an oversight. Alicia Nash is an El Salvadoran, and has been changed into a WASP named Alice in the movie.
This provides a role for Jennifer Connolly and denies a role to a Latina actress. Hollywood filmmakers have a choice to make, and chose the easy route. In this case, they denied the role of a lifetime to a Latina, and also spit on any sense of allowing the world to know us in a different light, a positive light. Maybe if his wife had been a whore, a maid or had left him in his darkest moment, they would have allowed a Latina to have the role, and probably would have accented the fact that she was Latina.
Nancy De Los Santos, Los Angeles
A. My best guess: They went with the actress they wanted, and adjusted the character accordingly.