30 Comments

1. jedrury:

Well, don’t lament too much.

There are still fine screen writers out there doing warm, clever, funny movies like “Sideways” with real live actors who can still charm the audience who leave the theater yearning for more good scripts. With no car chases or crashes or cartoons and no stars, but only romance at heart, the viewer dsicovers the ultimate power of the script. Not a bad discovery for the price of a ticket.

Nov 23, 2004 - 10:49 am 2. kynna:

Now if they could just find a way to CGI the studio heads.

If you want to know what people like Roger go through you should read a book called “Monster” by John Gregory Dunne. It’s a mind-blowing account of the development and writing of the script for “Up Close and Personal.”

Hollywood is a different world.

Nov 23, 2004 - 11:10 am 3. thedragonflies:

(This is my second try to post this, if it shows up twice, I apologize)

I think we are moving into a new cultural era (see “Generations” and “The Fourth Turning” by Strauss and Howe). In this new era the silliness of the ’90s is starting to disappear. Part of that silliness is hero worship of the pretty people who happen to be movie stars, sports stars, celebrities. When the country has no deeply dangerous threats to it people are easily entertained by the sex lives of the pretty people. When the country is under attack by Nazis or Islamofascists, the pretty people’s lives and opinions mean less and less.

Nov 23, 2004 - 11:14 am 4. kynna:

I just looked at that Frigid 50 list (the top 10 anyway). I agree with all of it except Reese Witherspoon. I have high hopes for her career. I think she’s a very good actress who just happens to have taken a few dud roles. It’s not like there are a lot of opportunities for a young woman who happens to be very pretty. With 80 available actresses for every part written, it may be a while before she really gets the attention she deserves.

Nov 23, 2004 - 11:22 am 5. Old Dad:

The old time studio system had many merits, among them, the understanding that it was important to maintain pleasant off screen fictions about its major stars.

I don’t know that most people believed the hype, but at least the terpitude and idiocy of many of our major stars was not thrown in our face.

That fiction, of course, is now impossible to maintain, but there is a simple solution.

Hollywood types should simply shut up and work. If I want the opinions of immoral asshats, there’s always Congress.

Nov 23, 2004 - 11:22 am 6. Catherine:

Seeing Michael Moore go down in flames has been S-W-E-E-T.

I don’t think I quite realized, until after it was all over, how much stuff I was voting against.

Michael Moore

Ben Affleck

Bruce Springsteen

John Cougar Mellencamp

Kofi Annan

anyone who’s ever known, worked for, or been related by blood to Kofi Annan

Jacques Chirac

Gerhard Schroeder

Dan Rather

Al Neuharth (retroactively)

The Guardian

The list goes on . . .

Reese Witherspoon is a genius.

Nov 23, 2004 - 11:27 am 7. Michael B:

Many Hollywood “stars” have revealed themselves to be PR-enhanced white dwarfs – celebrants who primarily celebrate themselves and their own highly presumptuous and incredibly superficial moral stature. On the other hand there’s no reason to overly generalize or be cynical. As personalities they do supply some entertainment (if inadvertently on occasion), of varying quality certainly, but they do so rather brilliantly as well at times. Give ‘em some applause, when it’s deserved.

But to kowtow, virtually unthinkingly, to their arrogating, insinuating, pontifical and very often self-serving opinionating is to reduce oneself to nothing more than a Stepford fan, one who willingly voids his or her own thinking capacities and moral sense in order to conform to the expectations and insistencies of the PR-enhanced personality du jour.

Nov 23, 2004 - 11:54 am 8. JimT:

Last night I recorded “Simone” so my wife and I could watch it tonight. It may have been far out when it was made, but it gets closer every day. It will be a shame if Simone (or one of her sisters) keeps the next Audrey Hepburn from getting work, but a real blessing if it keeps beautiful airheads (I’ve got a little list; they’ll none of ‘em be missed.) from polluting the public discourse.

Nov 23, 2004 - 12:43 pm 9. Hovig:

Does anyone out there think that, as a result of movies becoming more computer-generated and spectacular, we will see a rise in demand for live-actor community theater?

Nov 23, 2004 - 1:00 pm 10. Patrick Tyson:

The past is gone

Off-topic (I suppose), but I looked through the The Rolling Stone 500 Greatest Songs of All Time (ooh yeah!) to see if there were any tunes in there I didn’t know. To my surprise, there were. There was also this trio:

171 Dancing Queen — Abba (1976)

172 Dream On — Aerosmith (1973)

173 God Save The Queen — The Sex Pistols (1977)

that caused a bit of a stream-of-consciousness jag because, among other things, the Queen songs illustrate perfectly the transition from “Oldies” to “Modern Rock” and the band in the middle is the amazing transitional (without transition) success story in music in my lifetime (both versions of Walk This Way are on the list.)

Half my life’s in books’ written pages

Live and learn from fools and from sages

The Talking Heads’ Once In A Lifetime and Chuck Berry’s Back in the USA are the most glaring omissions.

Well, I’m so glad I’m livin’ in the U.S.A.

Yes. I’m so glad I’m livin’ in the U.S.A.

Anything you want, we got right here in the U.S.A.

Sorry, Roger. Sideways is worth a look.

Nov 23, 2004 - 1:15 pm 11. Roger:

Er.. what’s all this talk about “Sideways” as if I had not seen it or criticized it? In fact, I saw it several weeks ago and liked it.

Nov 23, 2004 - 1:25 pm 12. notthisgirl:

Well, Roger, I bet you didn’t know that Arab conspiracy theorists claimed that OJ was an Israeli intel operative! I happen to see that on John Gibson’s show on Fox the other night.

Gee, between trying to find the *real* killers, and being an Israeli spy – he’s so busy!

Nov 23, 2004 - 1:26 pm 13. scaramouoche:

I don’t know about Ben, but that Sponge Bob is one warm dude.

Nov 23, 2004 - 2:10 pm 14. bdog57:

I’d say that this is just a phase. Nobody’s going to replace De Niro, Nicholson, et al. Much like live music, people are always interested in the atmosphere and dynamics of the real thing. That said, hopefully the film industry doesn’t become like the live entertainment industry: A few well-known acts re-living their glory days surrounded by an undifferentiable sea of mediocrity (with overlooked gems here and there).

Pixar’s on a roll: Great stories and great animation presented in a family-friendly format are going to make money…big time. People tend to denigrate American intelligence, but I would beg to differ when it comes to movies. People loved The Blair Witch Project and shunned (rightly) its sequel. Movies like L.A. Confidential, The Sixth Sense, and all of Pixar’s output got their due. Movies like Hulk or Pluto Nash didn’t fool anyone with their hype.

All that said, Spider-Man was (I believe) the biggest movie of 2002 despite its (IMHO) relative mediocrity (B-). My Big Fat Greek Wedding was amusing, not funny, and not deserving all the accord given. Even so, while there are cases where the public unfairly gives attention to or ignores certain films, it seems like the (tired cliche coming) cream rises to the top in most instances.

I don’t think CG will overtake live actors but hopefully it does render them less consequential and self-important. I don’t know how a screenwriter’s pay compares to an actors, but I imagine that there is a disparity there that needs to be addressed. Frankly, most people go to the theater to be entertained by a good story…all the eye candy in the world can’t make up for it.

Remember, too, that there are plenty of mediocre cartoons out there as well: Anyone here see Cool World or (more recently) Monkeybone?

Last week I used a free movie ticket -given to me two months ago- to go see The Incredibles with my 9-year-old. Before seeing the movie, I read the reviews (universally good) and found the premise to be interesting. Thoughts afterward: (1)”Man, that was cool!” (2)”The reviews were actually right!” (3)”Why can’t they make more movies with a great story and attention to detail like this?” I can guarantee that there’s millions of other people thinking the same thing (#3 especially).

In summation, I don’t think a major sea change is underway. Good storytelling will never go out style and live actors will still work (with less clout and for less pay, if needs be). As a bonus, perhaps guys like you (Roger) will start getting paid more to write movies that we want to watch…regardless of whether it’s live action or CG.

Nov 23, 2004 - 2:42 pm 15. lindenen:

“Nobody’s going to replace De Niro, Nicholson, et al.”

They’re both getting pretty long in the tooth, can you name any new generation actors with their abilities and iconic style?

There was an article in Entertainment Weekly a couple months ago asking where the new Julia Roberts or other high wattage star was, and it’s a good question.

Nov 23, 2004 - 4:02 pm 16. Caroline:

Catherine – I don’t think any of the pundits analyzing the results of this election should overlook what you voted AGAINST. For all the Anybody But Bush rhetoric from the left – despite the hysteria over the gun-toting, bible-thumping blah blah blah – my own personal opinion – is that voters ultimately voted against ANTI-AMERICANISM. Michael Moore perhaps epitomized the trend and even that might not have mattered had he not been given a primo spot at the Democratic convention – leading most folks with any self-preservational impulses to ask themselves whether they should trust their national security to these folks? . But didn’t John Kerry have enough of an anti-American history himself to count? Throw in the French for good measure – to which the democrats aligned themselves. Given a little thought I’m sure I could produce a veritable thesis on the salience of Bush vs. Anti-Americanism in this election. What the left and the Europeans and others don’t seem to grasp is that anti-Americanism is tres chic and all – but most Americans now understand that it is a very dangerous game the Dems and the European left are playing. We are NOT invulnerable and in this day and age one can not simply play with crap like that. Well – thats my 2 cents about the real cause of the Democratic loss.

And personally I don’t mind seeing more of Ron Silver on the silver screen. As I’ve said before, I love Enemies: A Love Story. And I hope to hear from Roger one day about the bizarre coincidence that they were both such prominent Bush supporters this election year.

Nov 23, 2004 - 4:18 pm 17. richard mcenroe:

Hey, “National Treasure” is a fun movie; I recommend it.

And I’ve always considered Ben Stiller proof the comedy gene skips a generation, so I’m not surprised at his place on the List…

Nov 23, 2004 - 4:49 pm 18. Gerard Van der Leun:

Oh, they’re not over yet. We can still wait for the “Academy” to really drive the nails into their coffin by giving Moore the Oscar for Best Picture.

One thinks, “They can’t be that stupid.”

Then one thinks, “Oh yes they can.”

Nov 23, 2004 - 4:53 pm 19. Charlie (Colorado):

You really don’t think National Treasure will have legs? It’s been trashed in the reviews, but I don’t think I’ve heard a civilian speak poorly of it.

If The Incredibles isn’t at least nominated for Best Picture (”best animated feature” be damned) then the Academy collectively (present company excepted) are a buch of idiots.

Nov 23, 2004 - 5:28 pm 20. Catherine:

Caroline

voters ultimately voted against ANTI-AMERICANISM

I agree, provisionally!

I’m going to be riveted by this election for a long time to come.

What exactly did it mean?

What happened?

Was rejection of anti-Americanism the heart and soul of the “Red State” vote?

Hugh Hewitt says that the 2004 vote was the “end of the sixties”—is that what we mean, today, by “anti-Americanism”?

I don’t mean to sound pretentious—–I’m just riveted.

I’m also ongoingly stumped by Blue State reaction.

My copy of the NEW YORKER came today, with a signed editorial by Philip Gourevitch complaining that Bush has misinterpreted the election to mean that a majority of the public “approves of” his war in Iraq.

I read a statement like that and think:

What am I missing here?

Or, alternatively:

What part of ‘you lose’ don’t you understand?

Joseph Stiglitz had a somewhat similar opinion piece in Les Echos, which is apparently the French answer to the Financial Times.

In it he assures the French that no one–no one!–in America approves of George Bush’s economic policies.

Then he says that the vast majority of Americans are committed multilateralists.

In short, George Bush may have won, but the French were right, and the American voter agrees!

It’s true enough that Americans are multilaterlists in the sense that Americans always tell pollsters they prefer multilateralism to unilateralism, and want the USA to “go through” the U.N. These responses never surprise me. Americans are adventuresome and gregarious, and we’d just as soon not get bogged down in shouting wars with the rest of the world if we can help it.

But multilateral-versus-unilateral polling questions leave out the when-push-comes-to-shove factor, which is the only factor that counts when push does come to shove.

So I read our media and academic elites and I think: what would it take for reality to penetrate?

Back to the election, I wonder whether there was was a Casablanca element as well. You know: Bogart, in the end, rejecting cynicism & cool, and finally taking a side.

There is a big, wide irony gap separating Red from Blue; remember Roger saying he used to be cool, but now he’s a Republican?

That’s an irony gap.

I’ve been against irony forever. By the time I graduated from college I perceived people who quipped as being not fundamentally serious.

The 60s produced a hell of a lot of quipping. Even an inveterate non-quipper like John Kerry lived his life at a quipster’s remove: he never became a leader or a builder of his country’s history. After his tour in Vietnam he was a watcher & critic.

I’ve come to feel that way more and more often about liberals, Dems, 60s people . . . at some point they seem to have stopped being history’s actors, and settled for being history’s critics. Two thumbs down, way down.

The ME may be impossible to fix, or even to nudge. That is the Blue State position.

They could be right.

But I think Red Staters voted to try. I know I did.

The Matt Bai story in the SUNDAY TIMES MAGAZINE about the Ohio Democrats on election day is fantastic, by the way. Lots of twists and turns; it’s suspenseful even though you know how it all ended.

Nov 23, 2004 - 6:50 pm 21. Splashman:

CGI is a tool, no more and no less. Some filmmakers will use it to enhance and support their story; others will attempt to prop up a poor script with over-the-top CGI. And some will use CGI to tell a story that simply can’t be told any other way.

No, CGI isn’t a phase. It is simply the next step in the evolution of special effects. The specific uses and style of CGI effects will go through phases, sure, but anybody suggesting that CGI will be “out of style” in X years, probably believes the same about the Internet.

Movies are entertainment. The best entertainment is achieved through “suspension of disbelief” — when the viewer recognizes that something in a movie is “fake”, the ability to entertain is severely limited. That’s where CGI comes in. When the technology (and the industry’s use of it) matures, it’s going to open up possibilities for filmmakers and storytellers that could only have been dreamed of a few years ago. Witness Lord of the Rings.

BTW, in my extremely humble opinion, Pixar currently has a monopoly on good pure-CGI movies. Dreamworks (Shrek 1 & 2, Shark Tale) relies on the same bag of tricks as your typical stand-up comedian: a rapid-fire potpourri of pop-culture references, potty humor, and sexual innuendo — lowest-common-denominator entertainment at its best. Disney can’t tell a good story from a hole in the wall; even though I have two young daughters, we don’t own or watch ANY Disney movies from the last 20 years. Pixar, on the other hand, tells a great story, gets the most from their actors, and treats their audience with respect. Pure gold.

Nov 23, 2004 - 7:34 pm 22. Rick Ballard:

Catherine,

When the analysis of the election is complete it will return to the starting point. The so-called security moms (and Glock gals) were thought to be determinant by Rove in the beginning and he called it correctly.

Women have become much more serious concerning concerning security issues since 9/11 and they aren’t backing off. The shift was noted in the ‘02 election but there was one school of thought that said that it was anomalous and that attention would return to table top issues for this election. Instead, it appears that the phenomenon has deepened rather than disappeared.

Strategists for the ‘06 election are going to have a tougher time. I expect that we will see continuing improvement both in Iraq and Afghamistan which may allieve some of the security tension but I will not be surprised at all if we reduce Iran’s nuclear program to dust through a very heavy bombing campaign. It will be very interesting to see how the electorate reacts to expansion of the WoT to a third country.

Nov 23, 2004 - 9:34 pm 23. Crank:

Don’t worry Roger, they’ll never replace writers with machines. (Not that you could tell the difference with some of the scripts out there).

TV is also rebelling against actors, what with the reality craze. I liked Gary Shandling’s crack at the Emmys about how he gets excited when a commercial comes on because he’ll get to see something with actors and a script.

As with any business, the competition from animated films and reality-show amateur performers is most harmful to the mediocre, replacement-level talent, just the way that bloggers threaten the domain of the weakest, most cliched pundits and sloppiest journalists, but will never replace people like Michael Barone, John Burns, Tim Russert, or Charles Krauthammer.

Nov 24, 2004 - 6:14 am 24. dorkafork:

And of course President Bush is #43 on the list of Frigid 50 in Hollywood. Those guys need to seek serious professional help.

Nov 24, 2004 - 6:36 am 25. Ed Poinsett:

Catherine

You left a guy by the name of John Kerry off your list of people voted against. I’m a red state vet, and he irretrievably lost my vote when he refused to sign the Form 180 and disclose his actual military records. I agree entirely with the rest of your list except that it’s way too short. To set the record straight, I don’t go to church and I don’t hate gays.

Nov 24, 2004 - 7:17 am 26. ahem:

Strange thoughts, perhaps, the day before Thanksgiving…

The movement of CGI to replace human actors is inexorable. Not only for financial reasons and because of the great quantity of entertainment that needs to be churned out, but because of the general lack of charisma of contemporary ’stars’. Most of the up-and-comers can easily be duplicated – or even originated – by computer. A pretty face is only a pretty face.

Anyone who acts on film today had better make a damned strong impression on the public imagination quickly, because they are being rendered obsolete.

By whom?

For one, by the indelible stars of the past.

In the future, CGI will advance to the point where it can add the persona of a classic star to the lead of any contemporary film you choose.

If you ever wondered what ‘Gone With the Wind’ would look like starring Bette Davis instead of Vivian Leigh, you’ll be able to find out. I’d go so far as to predict that the consumer will be able to enjoy custom films, matching favorite films to stars of their own choosing: Spencer Tracy in Spielberg’s ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’, Harrison Ford opposite Lauren Bacall in the original ‘The Big Sleep’.

And you’ll get to enjoy cultural mash-ups, too. For instance, imagine a classic musical like ‘Kiss Me Kate’ with a major dance turn by the brilliant, but urecognized, Nicolas Brothers.

Cookie-cutter acting personas to fill TV shows and B-level content will soon be the sole province of CGI. Those who look average or act average are going to have to consider a profession other than acting; the competition will be far too tight.

In short, the only actors who’ll thrive in the future will be those with real talent and real charisma. It’ll be a revolution no less profound than that inspired by the advent of sound.

Nov 24, 2004 - 7:49 am 27. Patrick Tyson:

from the Anthony Lane review of The Incredibles in the Nov. 15, 2004 issue of The New Yorker:

Not that we should jack the film up to a plane where it doesn’t belong; there is no moral sophistication here that can keep pace with the technical variety, largely because that technique itself—at Pixar, at DreamWorks animation, and in the hands of every director who is tempted to tamper digitally with live actors—is, by definition, unable to cope with spontaneity. The camera no longer catches a gesture, or a play of expression, on the wing; someone has to create a program for it and patch it into place. That is why Brad Bird and his team were wise not to attempt physically authentic humans. From “Toy Story” onward, it was evident that computer animation was itself a shiny new toy, perfect for plastic cowboys and space rangers but hopeless at Homo sapiens. When I first heard about “The Incredibles,” I dreaded the prospect of a hero who would, like every other digital man so far, resemble one of Barbie’s boyfriends. Imagine my relief when Bob, Helen, and the kids, for all the nicety of their emotions, turned out to be—if I can risk a word that may be taboo in Pixar land—cartoons. Long may it stay that way.

Amen. Stars are a tried and true mechanism through which to obtain the cash to turn an idea into a product and there is zero reason to think that will change.

Genre is another such tried and true mechanism. Disney stuck with the animation genre during the out years and finally produced the animated muscials (The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King) that brought the genre back. Now Pixar is one gold standard in the genre and Studio Ghibli is another. Long may it stay that way.

Nov 24, 2004 - 11:40 am 28. Kevin Shaum:

Splashman,

Just to qualify something you said; I can think of one non-Pixar CGI feature on a par with Pixar’s offerings: Ice Age. Aside from having a well-told, engaging, and funny main storyline, the movie is interspersed with a series of vignettes featuring a non-speaking character named Sqrat. The Sqrat bits (including the “Gone Nutty” short on disc 2 of the DVD set) are hilarious: non-verbal physical comedy reminiscent of Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote. Highly recommended.

Nov 24, 2004 - 12:46 pm 29. Dean Esmay:

I have long suspected that the first thing to go is going to be body doubles and stuntmen. Except for the rare spectacle which promises “absolutely no special effects!” (ala early Jackie Chan stuff) there will soon be absolutely no need whatsoever to put a stuntman in danger, and absolutely no need to use a body double for anyone who’s squeamish or unattractive.

Then the next phase will hit when we suddenly wonder why we need our actors to starve themselves constantly to look good on screen. It is remarkable how even the men in the screen industry have to be unnaturally thin at all times just to look good on screen. Even the ones we consider “brave” or “cutting edge” because they’re a little heavier than average are actually quite on the thin side for normal people. But soon there’s going to be no need for that.

The final piece will come when we realize anyone with decent acting skills can be made to look good on screen and can do literally any role–any race, any sex, with CGI creating perfectly presentable, impossible-to-distinguish-from-real-life images.

It’ll be another decade or two I expect, but thats how I expect Hollywood to go. Pretty soon being a screen actor will be very much like being a radio actor was 60, 70 years ago. It won’t matter what you look like much at all.

Nov 24, 2004 - 12:54 pm 30. dewaun:

THE REAL THANKSGIVING

It would behoove everyone born since 1960 and raised up in the US Public School system to click on the link below and learn the Real Thanksgiving story. I almost choked when I heard this. It’s really different than everything public education ever taught me about Thanksgiving!!!

RushLimbaugh.com: The Real Story of Thanksgiving

It’s even better than I had thought. It’s a story of Free Enterprise and Individual rights over collectivism and socialism. Go figure!

Nov 24, 2004 - 11:01 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: