Parental Responsibility

Flipping through the channels this weekend I found myself in a rare situation.  Rather than the usual schedule of reruns or overplayed movies, my family and I were torn between two incredible films: To Kill a Mockingbird or One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.  Ultimately, we were unable to commit to just one, and ended up watching bits and pieces of each.  Realistically, most of what I saw was probably just commercials. 

The uncommon occurrence of having quality films on basic cable started a rather interesting conversation between my parents and I.  It started with Mom and Dad reminiscing about the first time they saw each of these monumental movies, but moved to the topic of when I first saw these movies.  More specifically, we discussed the decision behind first showing me these films.  Almost every film that has ever had a significant meaning to me was introduced to me by my parents.  So I asked them, do parents have a responsibility of bringing important movies into their children’s lives? 

The short answer, of course, is yes.  But the long answer… that took some time for my parents to articulate.  So I broke the question down for them.  I turned to the first movie I ever remember seeing as a child, The Wizard of Oz.  After much discussion I was able to discover that my parents had made a conscious decision to sit me down and make me watch this film as a child.  When I asked why, Dad revealed that he wanted The Wizard of Oz to be a movie that always gave me comfort in life.  “Movies are feelings,” Dad said.  “I wanted you to be associate certain movies with different stages and feelings in your life.  The Wizard of Oz has always been able to console me, and I wanted that for you too.” 

Aside from being incredibly sappy and slightly embarrassing in that moment, I understood the point that my father was trying to make.  Movies can shape a person’s life and as a parent, he is partly responsible for that.  And I also understand the emotions that he was using movies to instill in me as a child.  Each time I Dorothy encounters the Scarecrow on the Yellow Brick Road or the Wicked Witch throws a fireball at the Tin Man, I feel at home.  I feel comforted by a scene, a memory that has been with me my entire life. 

            Now, as a look to my future, I wonder what films I will deem as “important” for my children.  Will I follow in my parents’ footsteps and introduce my kids to the same movies, hoping that the same messages and values will come through?  Will they understand that the final scene of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is meant to express a small glimmer of hope, or that Dog Day Afternoon should teach us to fight social injustices?  Or, will I make the wrong decisions and show them the most unimportant movies of our times?  The future is certainly unknown, but maybe this is something that every potential future parent should put some thought into.      

Redemption for Rocky

            As I had mentioned in an earlier post, I would describe myself as a creature of habit.  When it comes to movies I will gladly re-watch a film I have seen 20 times then venture out to test my luck with a new movie.  I’ve been disappointed by so many movies in the past that re-watching an old film guarantees my satisfaction.  Of course this sounds boring and unadventurous, but it makes me happy. 

            Recently I revisited one of my all time “go to” films, 1976’s Rocky.  I can’t pinpoint the time or place when I first saw the movie, but it has somehow always been a huge part of my life.  I’m sure that everyone has that one movie that makes you stop whatever you are doing any time it comes on television.  This is my movie.  Unfortunately, Rocky seems to have gotten the short end of the stick in movie history.  Standing alone the film is fantastic.  It contains the most universally relatable idea of human perseverance and success on your own terms.  But, we all know that this classic underdog story is completely overshadowed by the franchise that was created around the movie.  As the series continued the opponents became more ridiculous (come on, Hulk Hogan and Mr. T?) as Sylvester Stallone clearly stepped up his steroid treatments.  The series ended as a joke, an insult to fans.  Let’s just make an educated guess that everything after Rocky II was created as an attempt to cash in on a guaranteed movie audience.  Now, the series has this tarnished reputation that Rocky does not deserve.  Somehow over the years I have taken this issue on as my own personal crusade, trying to convince my family and friends that Rocky is still one of the greatest films I have ever seen.  How could we forget that it won the Academy Award for Best Picture?!

            So for fans like me, is there no hope to revive the good name of the Rocky franchise?  How can the contemporary movie audience be convinced to honor Rocky as one of the greats?  In 2006, my prayers seemed to be answered in the form of Rocky Balboa.  As the 6^th installment of the series, Rocky Balboa reintroduces the audience to a senior citizen version of Rocky (something I thought the insanely vain Sylvester Stallone would never go for), widowed and still living in his beloved South Philadelphia.  The story follows the aging Rocky train for an exhibition match after several television sports casters predict that Rocky could beat any modern day competitor if he were still in his prime.  The film follows the same direction as the original, placing Rocky in the underdog role, almost forcing the audience to take an emotional stake in the character.  Rocky Balboa stands as a love letter to its predecessor.  It pays homage to its origins the best way it can, by reminding viewers what movie audiences loved about this story back in 1976.  If you haven’t seen this movie, please do.  See it just to learn the right way to end a film franchise.  Who knows the next time Sylvester Stallone makes a quality movie?  And come on, who wouldn’t love hearing that Rocky score one last time?          

Peary's Take on the Movies

Gerald Peary’s documentary For the Love of Movies explored an extremely wide range of subject matters.  The film covered the beginnings and history of film criticism, advise critics might give to aspiring writers, and the ultimate question of what will come next for film critics.  Obviously, there is a vast difference from where the field started to where it is now, but the question arises: should that change the quality of film criticism?  Well, the obvious answer is no, but the more realistic answer is yes.  As Peary’s film revealed, film criticism is a dying professional field, overrun with amateur writers.  Yes, many critics in the film do argue that new, untrained film critics have just as much right to explore their own ideas of film, but in turn a lot of un-credible writers are entering the film world.

Within the film two schools of thought seemed to emerge.  One perspective was from the older generation of film critics; most of who are now either retired or deceased, and the other was from the newer generation who are now competing with untrained writers.  The older generation had more of an elitist attitude.  Now, this is not necessarily a bad quality in a movie critic.  These writers need to be confident that they are the authority in this field, believing that their opinion will dominate others.  The newer school does acknowledge that amateurs with no real professional experience are challenging their area of expertise, but they seem to welcome the competition.  Most of these critics even revealed that they are no more qualified to write than anyone else.  I completely disagree with this.  These writers have had education, training, and experience that most of these internet writers have not.  Even if one may lack a formal education in film, strong writing is a must!  Obviously, writing is the most critical component of becoming a film reviewer, but a great critic must have the ability to reach an audience.  Some might argue that writing for a wide base gives a critic less academic authority, but I would beg to differ. 

Peary did examine a writer that I feel is a great writer.  I went into this film not knowing much about the history of film criticism (aside from what I had been reading for class) so I must admit that I did feel a bit lost at points.  So many names were thrown around that it almost felt like I spent most of my energy keeping track of names, rather than following the progression of the film.  And then, about halfway through the film, I reached what felt like my “A-ha” moment.  Finally, the viewers were introduced to a critic that I knew.  Not just a name that I had picked up from class or maybe read one review from, but a critic that I have had a relationship with for years.  Lisa Schwartzbaum, a critic for Entertainment Weekly, made me feel comfortable within the context of the film.  As a viewer, I now had some form of basic knowledge to anchor me down within a subject matter that I knew little about. 

Schwartzbaum provided some of the films most insightful advice for up and coming film critics, expressing the need for critics to build their own personal perspectives before writing.  Sure, she did make some whacky comments about hiking once or twice, but she did speak with authority.  However, Schwartbaum’s presence in the film did make me question how other moviegoers perceive her.  It also made me think about my own association with this critic and what that says about me.  Lisa Schwartzbaum writes for Entertainment Weekly, a national publication that I have been reading for several years now.  Each week a large portion of the magazine is dedicated specifically to film and almost always Schwartzbaum takes control of the lead article.  To some, Entertainment Weekly may not seem like a credible source for serious film discussions.  Since the publication is so popular and probably considered to be mainstream media, I feel that some elitist, self-proclaimed movie buffs may not view Schwartzbaum’s work as serious writing.  Some may think that I am amateurish in my choice of film publications, but those would be wrong.  Interestingly, Peary’s documentary helped dispel my own personal worry that I was reading a low level, generic, mass media critic.  Instead, I realized that Schwartzbaum is a talented and informative writer, mixing reviews of popular movies with lesser known foreign pieces and bits of film history. 

Aside from not knowing some of, but mostly not connecting with, the critics featured in the film, the movie also contained a few technical issues that became distracting as time went on.  The transition pieces between main sections of the film became tiring.  First the transition slides were to differentiate the periods of time that Peary was examining, but once they began to ask questions, they felt old and overused.  Even the fonts and background images used for these frames seemed out of date.  Peary himself did state that this film took him over eight years to complete, and these transition frames brought attention to that.  Each slide looked like something that you would see at the movie theaters before the preview started – a photo of a concession stand or people ripping movie tickets.  This portion of the film was really minor, but unfortunately it has stayed in my mind as distracting moments. 

I would consider For the Love of Movies to be a great introductory piece for any person that may be interested in the area of film criticism.  The film covers every aspect of the field, giving the audience a full range view into this dwindling field.    

Gypsy's Turn

The best way to describe myself would be to say that I am a creature of habit.  I love movies, but I always love the same movies.  Once I find a film that I like, I attach myself to them.  I rewatch films rather than finding new ones, which some could argue makes me a bit less cultured than others.  I take my time with choosing movies to invest in, which is the case with the first film I have chosen to write about.    

To launch my cinematic journey I will start with a movie that I have been ignoring for far too long.  Over a year ago, while mindlessly flipping channels, I came across a cable description for the movie Gypsy.  Musicals have always been appealing to me, something I would credit Disney movies for.  My second grade self rented Bye Bye Birdie every Friday until my parents broke down and bought me my own copy.  Gypsy was made within a few years of Birdie, so I figured it would be a similar style film.  I recorded the movie, swearing I would return to it within the week.  Well that week turned into a month and that month turned into a year.  Finally, after a year of being badgered to delete the recording off of the family DVR I had a reason to spend some time with this 1962 movie musical.  Before watching the film I had been introduced to Natalie Wood from two of her previous films, Rebel Without a Cause and West Side Story, but it would be unfair to use those pieces as a guide for my Gypsy expectations.  Apparently, the casting of this film caused huge controversy, but I will come back to that later. 

Gypsy is the real life story of the rise of burlesque dancer Gypsy Rose Lee.  Gypsy’s world includes a flamboyant mother trying to make her children stars in the world of 1920’s Vaudeville.  The film follows this family as they try to make it big, while parental pressures push the children in very different directions.  Gypsy introduces the audience to Rose, who could be considered the prototype for the ultimate stage mother.  Musical numbers plus dysfunctional family drama has the making for a fantastic disaster ending.  As a viewer I was looking forward to the large-scale productions I associated with Broadway musicals.           

 

Preconceived notions are difficult to ignore.  I knew that Gypsy was a film adapted from the Broadway show of the same name, so I was expecting the most lavish, over the top creation filled with strong, show stopping musical productions.  I need to say that, yes, I did like the film, but it did fall short from the high expectations I set for Gypsy.  The film was enjoyable, fun, and an entertaining way to spend two and a half hours, but the musical numbers almost became distracting throughout the movie.  The singing was, at least in my opinion, a bit rough.  A veteran stage actress dubbed Rosalind Russell throughout the film, so her vocals were strong, but unfortunately the “children” of the film did not quiet match up.  Natalie Wood sang her own songs, but it was clear that this was not the reason she was cast in this film.  She brought so much sensitively, shyness, and quiet dignity to the role of Louise, but the singing really just enforced the idea that Louise was the less talented sister.  On the contrast, both actresses that played June, Morgan Brittany and Ann Jillian, were almost unbearable.  Yes, the over the top performances were a signature of the Vaudeville theater, but even off stage June just came off as obnoxious.  One of the lowest points in the film was the musical number “If Mama Was Married.”  The scene was just really tough on the ears.  Wood’s lack of range combined with Ann Jillian’s screech made me thankful that these two only had one duet together in the film. 

The film adaptation of Gypsy could have fared as a non-musical film and still captured the same spirit of the stage show.  Russell and Wood were cast for their dramatic abilities and that is evident.  Russell is captivating in any scene, demanding attention as the larger than life Rose.  Wood, as I mentioned, brings a wonderful quietness to the less than confident Louise who really comes together in her transformation to Gypsy Rose Lee.  The two actresses display their finest abilities in the last scenes of the film, as Rose and Louise clash over the fame and jealousy the world of burlesque theater has brought into their lives.  Before I watched the film for the first time there was a brief introduction stating that many Broadway enthusiasts were upset by the casting decisions of the Gypsy adaptation.  Apparently the film was almost made with Ethel Merman in the role of Rose (which she originated in the stage show) and Ann-Margret, which would have really emphasized the musical importance of Gypsy.  Personally, I would have loved to see Ann-Margret in this film (as I mentioned before Bye Bye Birdie is my most favorite musical of all time) but even I can admit that she would not be able to match the dramatic talent of Wood. 

All in all, Gypsy was a really entertaining film.  I had hoped for a flashier, brighter, campier version for what was presented, but the story was strong enough to trump my disappointment.  The film really transformed my perception of what a movie musical should be.  While the music of Gypsy has become known as some of the traditional Broadway standards, the story of a struggling mother and daughter has been etched in movie and stage history.  Even without all of the glitz and glamour, Gypsy still dazzled.