Oscar Nominee: Letters from Iwo Jima
Of all the films nominated for Best Picture, Letter from Iwo Jima presents us with the bag that is the most mixed. One factor in its favor: it is an American movie with the audacity to use subtitles. This is refreshing in light of last year’s Memoirs of a Geisha and other films where foreign language speakers, for some odd reason, speak accented English. The film also fully commits to showing the Japanese side of the Battle of Iwo Jima. In the same way that All Quiet on the Western Front forced readers into the lives of the “enemy”, Letters allows the stereotypes about the Japanese army (unemotional, hyper-patriotic and willing to blow themselves up on order to kill Americans) to dissolve into a more realistic gray area.
Once the film establishes these two novel (and important) elements, it devolves into a fairly pedestrian war movie. There are explosions and gore; messages and morals. This aspect of the film is not handled as creatively as it should be. The present-day bookend segments make the viewer think of Titanic, and that is not a good thing. Director Clint Eastwood is not afraid to apply a heavy hand to this delicate work. The ideas that the filmmakers want to put across are shown in images AND explained in words…just in case you missed them. It is as if they are afraid that the viewer can’t read subtitles and think at the same time.
Like a bag of fresh popcorn mixed with stale Cheetos, Letters from Iwo Jima should be enjoyed for its marvelous aspects and the rest can be discarded.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Obligatory Oscar Post #4
Oscar Nominee: Babel is intense. It has intense music. It takes place in intense locales. Brad Pitt is so intense that his hair has gone white. The trouble is all of this intensity builds up around a set of characters you are never given incentive to care about. The four storylines bounce around at a pace that all but guarantees you won’t lose yourself in this film. Instead you are constantly reminded that the stories are being manipulated by director Alejandro González Iñárritu’s vision. Instead you think about how exhausting it must have been shooting in so many varied locations. Instead you think about how you wouldn’t mind if the two American children in the movie were left to die in the desert because they are so damned annoying. This film has been crafted, not simply made. Those who crafted it will not let you forget about them even for a minute.
The movie isn’t a total wash. There are two stellar performances that bring some humanity to this cold, cold, film. Said Tarchani plays a young Moroccan boy whose ability to fire a rifle sets two of the storylines in motion. His facial expressions are undeniably authentic and you begin to feel what it would be like to be in such a horrific situation. Rinko Kikuchi is similarly able to pull us into her character’s search for contact in a sterile and bigoted environment. Too bad they get swallowed up in this supposed grand gesture of a movie that ends up minimizing these ostensibly intense stories with the manner in which they are displayed.
The movie isn’t a total wash. There are two stellar performances that bring some humanity to this cold, cold, film. Said Tarchani plays a young Moroccan boy whose ability to fire a rifle sets two of the storylines in motion. His facial expressions are undeniably authentic and you begin to feel what it would be like to be in such a horrific situation. Rinko Kikuchi is similarly able to pull us into her character’s search for contact in a sterile and bigoted environment. Too bad they get swallowed up in this supposed grand gesture of a movie that ends up minimizing these ostensibly intense stories with the manner in which they are displayed.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Obligatory Oscar Post #3
Oscar Nominee: The Queen
Some critics have stated that The Queen is more movie-of-the-week than Best Picture material. But it is this film’s ability to take a story from (relatively) recent history and not sensationalize it that makes it worthy of praise. At first the viewer feels she is watching a group of actors do imitations of famous British people. This feeling fades very quickly as the characters are allowed to develop. This is where the exceptional talents of Helen Mirren (as Her Majesty) and Michael Sheen (as a young, promising Tony Blair) make all of the difference.
Another point of criticism is that several scenes in the film have been fabricated. The plot of the film is well known so the movie cannot draw its power from shock or suspense. It must instead reveal aspects of the characters that would be impossible for the viewer to see in real life. Watching the Queen of England watch T.V. is more fascinating than one might think. Imagining certain aspects of the story allows the movie to be more than reenactments of clips from BBC news.
The most inspiring thing about The Queen is the commitment the filmmakers had to traditional narrative storytelling. It is through well crafted dialogue, acting, and pacing that The Queen becomes an engrossing picture. Too often in recent years directors have resorted to cinematic trickery (flashbacks and flashes forward, elliptical plotlines, interweaving stories, revealing the narrative backwards, etc.) to make an average movie seem revolutionary. If The Queen had been a poorly made film the viewer would know. The movie leaves itself with nothing to hide behind.
Some critics have stated that The Queen is more movie-of-the-week than Best Picture material. But it is this film’s ability to take a story from (relatively) recent history and not sensationalize it that makes it worthy of praise. At first the viewer feels she is watching a group of actors do imitations of famous British people. This feeling fades very quickly as the characters are allowed to develop. This is where the exceptional talents of Helen Mirren (as Her Majesty) and Michael Sheen (as a young, promising Tony Blair) make all of the difference.
Another point of criticism is that several scenes in the film have been fabricated. The plot of the film is well known so the movie cannot draw its power from shock or suspense. It must instead reveal aspects of the characters that would be impossible for the viewer to see in real life. Watching the Queen of England watch T.V. is more fascinating than one might think. Imagining certain aspects of the story allows the movie to be more than reenactments of clips from BBC news.
The most inspiring thing about The Queen is the commitment the filmmakers had to traditional narrative storytelling. It is through well crafted dialogue, acting, and pacing that The Queen becomes an engrossing picture. Too often in recent years directors have resorted to cinematic trickery (flashbacks and flashes forward, elliptical plotlines, interweaving stories, revealing the narrative backwards, etc.) to make an average movie seem revolutionary. If The Queen had been a poorly made film the viewer would know. The movie leaves itself with nothing to hide behind.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Obligatory Oscar Post #2
Oscar Nominee: Little Miss Sunshine
The appeal of Little Miss Sunshine is understandable. It is a cute movie with fairly sharp dialogue and acceptable performances by its ensemble cast. The thing about this movie that irritates me is its supposed “indie” sensibility. Just because a movie is bought at Sundance does not make it a piece of fringe entertainment. Many fans of this movie think it makes them hip. They act as if they have just watched Andy Warhol’s Chelsea Hotel. Like Napoleon Dynamite before it, this film is a crowd pleaser in disguise. There are no shocks being sent through the film community with the craft or content of Little Miss Sunshine. I am not saying there is anything wrong with liking the movie but it needs to be enjoyed for what it is: a standard Hollywood comedy (with a slightly better script and a slightly lower budget) that steals way too many of its “quirky” points from National Lampoon’s Vacation (which, should have won Best Picture in 1983).
Oscar Overlooked: Little Children
Much ado was made about the dysfunctional family portrayed in Little Miss Sunshine. The dysfunction in display in Little Children manages to be both more realistic and more humorous than in the other film. This is the film I have wanted to talk about this year. This is the film that has kept evolving in my mind weeks after viewing it. Little Childeren makes the audience feel uncomfortable; not for the sake of doing it but to bring us closer to the characters and their motivations. I witnessed this films ability to grab a theater full of jaded film snobs and envelop us in this story. For that feat alone this film deserves recognition.
The appeal of Little Miss Sunshine is understandable. It is a cute movie with fairly sharp dialogue and acceptable performances by its ensemble cast. The thing about this movie that irritates me is its supposed “indie” sensibility. Just because a movie is bought at Sundance does not make it a piece of fringe entertainment. Many fans of this movie think it makes them hip. They act as if they have just watched Andy Warhol’s Chelsea Hotel. Like Napoleon Dynamite before it, this film is a crowd pleaser in disguise. There are no shocks being sent through the film community with the craft or content of Little Miss Sunshine. I am not saying there is anything wrong with liking the movie but it needs to be enjoyed for what it is: a standard Hollywood comedy (with a slightly better script and a slightly lower budget) that steals way too many of its “quirky” points from National Lampoon’s Vacation (which, should have won Best Picture in 1983).
Oscar Overlooked: Little Children
Much ado was made about the dysfunctional family portrayed in Little Miss Sunshine. The dysfunction in display in Little Children manages to be both more realistic and more humorous than in the other film. This is the film I have wanted to talk about this year. This is the film that has kept evolving in my mind weeks after viewing it. Little Childeren makes the audience feel uncomfortable; not for the sake of doing it but to bring us closer to the characters and their motivations. I witnessed this films ability to grab a theater full of jaded film snobs and envelop us in this story. For that feat alone this film deserves recognition.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Obligatory Oscar Post #1
With five days until the event that we all love to have mixed feelings about, the Academy Awards need to be addressed. Each day for the next five days I will post a brief review of a movie that is nominated for best picture and some for movies I wish had been nominated. Here we go with installment #1:
Oscar Nominee: The Departed
This movie worked. I found myself honestly engaged in the two competing plotlines (even when the coincidences stretched the limits of believability). Martin Scorsese deserves his Oscar for direction not because this is his greatest film, but that he was able to take six lead actors (Jack, Leo, Matt, Alec, Marky Mark, and Martin (Sheen, not Lawrence)) and set each at the correct level. What could have been a contest of scenery chewing resulted in a truly successful macho movie for the ages.
Oscar Overlooked: United 93
This film deserves recognition for both its courage and sense of decency. This was a movie that no one wanted to see but did wonders for those who did. Taking the events of September 11th and placing them on film could (should) have been a disaster. All of us cynics expected the film to exude a repulsive mix of sentimentality and jingoism. The actual film is pitch perfect. Director Paul Greengrass’ cinema verite choices create a truly honest depiction of these infamous events. At one point the camera settles on a young soldier who found herself working that morning. While reporting to her superior she begins to break down. This one moment, with its utter lack of melodrama, hit me on a deeper level than anything I have seen on film in years. Greengrass had the courage to make this film, it is a shame that the academy didn’t have the courage to honor this achievement.
Oscar Nominee: The Departed
This movie worked. I found myself honestly engaged in the two competing plotlines (even when the coincidences stretched the limits of believability). Martin Scorsese deserves his Oscar for direction not because this is his greatest film, but that he was able to take six lead actors (Jack, Leo, Matt, Alec, Marky Mark, and Martin (Sheen, not Lawrence)) and set each at the correct level. What could have been a contest of scenery chewing resulted in a truly successful macho movie for the ages.
Oscar Overlooked: United 93
This film deserves recognition for both its courage and sense of decency. This was a movie that no one wanted to see but did wonders for those who did. Taking the events of September 11th and placing them on film could (should) have been a disaster. All of us cynics expected the film to exude a repulsive mix of sentimentality and jingoism. The actual film is pitch perfect. Director Paul Greengrass’ cinema verite choices create a truly honest depiction of these infamous events. At one point the camera settles on a young soldier who found herself working that morning. While reporting to her superior she begins to break down. This one moment, with its utter lack of melodrama, hit me on a deeper level than anything I have seen on film in years. Greengrass had the courage to make this film, it is a shame that the academy didn’t have the courage to honor this achievement.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Hollywood Goes to Africa (sort of)
Two of the films that have received Oscar nominations this season are set in Africa. Both Blood Diamond and The Last King of Scotland attempt to deal with aspects of the post-colonial era on the continent. While one of these films is far superior to the other, both illustrate a troubling trend seen when Hollywood tries to delve into Africa’s issues.
As a concept, Blood Diamond seems like a film worthy of attention. Solomon Vandy (played by Djimon Hounsou) is a fisherman who is torn from his family during Sierra Leone’s civil war. Vandy is forced to work in the diamond fields where he finds and hides the film’s titular gem. How Vandy will parlay his find into the reunion and security of his family becomes the most compelling plotline. Through this story the viewer learns about the atrocities being committed by warlords and European businessmen alike in Africa.
The fact that the lessons of this movie are delivered with the heaviest of Hollywood hands (complete with sweeping music and impassioned speechification) is only its minor flaw. The real trouble with Blood Diamond is that it does not stay focused on the Vandy character . Instead Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio), an Afrikaner mercenary who assists Vandy in the recovery of the diamond, is given too much of the spotlight. In a film that is already attempting to seriously deal with issues as distressing as the inscription of child soldiers, the viewer is supposed to also become emotionally invested in the romance between Archer and an American reporter (Jennifer Connolly). This bogs the film down and makes it, at times, unwatchable.
As a film, The Last King of Scotland is much more successful. It is the story of Nicholas Garrigan (James McAvoy) a Scottish doctor who, through a series of events, becomes a close adviser to Idi Amin (Forest Whitaker), the man who ruled Uganda for the majority of the 1970’s. Unlike Blood Diamond, the film allows relationships between the characters to propel the narrative, not the issues the filmmaker wants to be discussed. This less didactic approach stirs more insight and interest in the viewer. At the end of Blood Diamond it is assumed that the film has taught you everything you need to know about the causes of turmoil in modern Africa (in fact the postscript tells you how you can go out and solve these problems as well). When The Last King of Scotland closes, there is a desire to go out and learn about Uganda and the dictator depicted in the film. Compelling performances by the two lead actors, beautiful art direction and costume design pull the film through several unbelievable plot points and an over reliance on arty dream sequences.
Both of these movies should be commended for taking on African issues. There is a sore lack of this subject matter in today’s popular culture. However, why must we be shepherded through these stories by white characters? It is really believed that moviegoers need to see a white face on the screen responding to these issues so that they can do the same? This maneuver keeps us one step removed from the most vital elements of the narrative, Africa and its people. At several points in Blood Diamond when important issues need to be discussed, Danny Archer and other white characters will literally walk into the foreground of a shot, leaving Solomon Vandy to stand silent and stoic in the background. This image illustrates a divide between people the film is surely attempting to break down.
These films do not need white characters to achieve their purposes, be they artistic or political. Instead of focusing on the relationship between Solomon Vandy and his forcibly estranged wife(a romance that would have been inherently engrossing) immense effort and screen time is dedicated to making us care about whether or not Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Connelly will get it on. Idi Amin had a far more terrifiying and facinating relationship with the people of Uganda than he did with this European advisor, why not make that the driving force of the movie? There is an African doctor in The Last King of Scotland who works alongside Dr. Garrigan. By the end of the film it becomes clear that by focusing on the African doctor instead of the European one even greater light would have been shed on the topic.
These films and others in recent years (The Constant Gardener comes to mind) show that the film industry is not quite ready to dedicate itself to stories that are completely and authentically African. Sadly this trepidation mirrors the level of commitment that many in the political arena have for the continent as well.
As a concept, Blood Diamond seems like a film worthy of attention. Solomon Vandy (played by Djimon Hounsou) is a fisherman who is torn from his family during Sierra Leone’s civil war. Vandy is forced to work in the diamond fields where he finds and hides the film’s titular gem. How Vandy will parlay his find into the reunion and security of his family becomes the most compelling plotline. Through this story the viewer learns about the atrocities being committed by warlords and European businessmen alike in Africa.
The fact that the lessons of this movie are delivered with the heaviest of Hollywood hands (complete with sweeping music and impassioned speechification) is only its minor flaw. The real trouble with Blood Diamond is that it does not stay focused on the Vandy character . Instead Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio), an Afrikaner mercenary who assists Vandy in the recovery of the diamond, is given too much of the spotlight. In a film that is already attempting to seriously deal with issues as distressing as the inscription of child soldiers, the viewer is supposed to also become emotionally invested in the romance between Archer and an American reporter (Jennifer Connolly). This bogs the film down and makes it, at times, unwatchable.
As a film, The Last King of Scotland is much more successful. It is the story of Nicholas Garrigan (James McAvoy) a Scottish doctor who, through a series of events, becomes a close adviser to Idi Amin (Forest Whitaker), the man who ruled Uganda for the majority of the 1970’s. Unlike Blood Diamond, the film allows relationships between the characters to propel the narrative, not the issues the filmmaker wants to be discussed. This less didactic approach stirs more insight and interest in the viewer. At the end of Blood Diamond it is assumed that the film has taught you everything you need to know about the causes of turmoil in modern Africa (in fact the postscript tells you how you can go out and solve these problems as well). When The Last King of Scotland closes, there is a desire to go out and learn about Uganda and the dictator depicted in the film. Compelling performances by the two lead actors, beautiful art direction and costume design pull the film through several unbelievable plot points and an over reliance on arty dream sequences.
Both of these movies should be commended for taking on African issues. There is a sore lack of this subject matter in today’s popular culture. However, why must we be shepherded through these stories by white characters? It is really believed that moviegoers need to see a white face on the screen responding to these issues so that they can do the same? This maneuver keeps us one step removed from the most vital elements of the narrative, Africa and its people. At several points in Blood Diamond when important issues need to be discussed, Danny Archer and other white characters will literally walk into the foreground of a shot, leaving Solomon Vandy to stand silent and stoic in the background. This image illustrates a divide between people the film is surely attempting to break down.
These films do not need white characters to achieve their purposes, be they artistic or political. Instead of focusing on the relationship between Solomon Vandy and his forcibly estranged wife(a romance that would have been inherently engrossing) immense effort and screen time is dedicated to making us care about whether or not Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Connelly will get it on. Idi Amin had a far more terrifiying and facinating relationship with the people of Uganda than he did with this European advisor, why not make that the driving force of the movie? There is an African doctor in The Last King of Scotland who works alongside Dr. Garrigan. By the end of the film it becomes clear that by focusing on the African doctor instead of the European one even greater light would have been shed on the topic.
These films and others in recent years (The Constant Gardener comes to mind) show that the film industry is not quite ready to dedicate itself to stories that are completely and authentically African. Sadly this trepidation mirrors the level of commitment that many in the political arena have for the continent as well.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Video Store Lament
I have fond memories of my childhood video store. In the mid-80’s we used to borrow my grandparents VCR when they were out of town. This meant that Friday afternoon, on the way home from school, my dad and I would hit Video Town. Video Town was a wonderful place where a child could learn the difference between VHS and Beta Max in a nurturing environment. Each empty display box was meticulously placed on the shelf equidistant from her neighbors on both sides. There was even a classy area behind a silken curtain, no doubt a lounge or mini-day spa, but I never ventured there.
At that time the home movie was a wonder. Films that people hadn’t seen in years could be borrowed for a nominal fee and watched (and rewound and watched again) in the comfort of a private abode. I was able to watch Marx Brothers movies and Little Rascals shorts in a way that no previous generation could have imagined. Video Town recognized that they were providing a magical service and treated the task with the necessary respect.
For years, Americans were happy with their local video peddlers. Family owned operations each with their own particular character. Then, out of nowhere, came the chain video superstore. I remember when the first one of these bad boys came to our town, with the fanfare of a postwar victory parade. We were amazed at the evolution in the video store experience. Compared to Video Town this place was enormous with wall after wall of videos. The store was replete with glitzy signage that made the costumer feel like they were walking the red carpet. Actual copies of the video behind the empty display box let us know if the video was available for check out. The films were categorized in impressive ways. Any male of my generation can remember the “Wild Action” section, which was a euphemism for films with explosions and at least one boob. Our shabby construction paper Video Town membership cards were soon lost in the euphoria over these seemingly perfect video vendors.
But it didn’t take long for the chain stores to lose their luster. These stores refused to carry NC-17 or unrated material. Those of us who have seen the R-rated version of Showgirls know how a move like this can kill a film’s narrative structure. This was done in order to secure a family friendly image. It seems a bit hypocritical to refuse to stock Kids, Happiness, or Y Tu Mama Tambien when R-rated films like Gator Bait, Femalien, and Gator Bait 2 were readily available (in the Wild Action section to be sure).
Rumors abounded that these stores were going so far as to edit the content of the movies that they stocked. I can prove these rumors to be true. You remember that part in Species where the alien chick (technically a “femalien”) kisses that guy and then kills him by sending her crazy alien tongue through the back of his head? I don’t because the copy I watched had that scene cut out. Some corporate fool thought he was keeping me safe from damaging material. All he succeeded in doing was robbing me of a major element of my coming of age.
Things turned from bad to worse. It seems these superstores only waited until most of the independent stores went out of business before they really started to let themselves go. By the late 1990’s these video stores took on the aura of Soviet Bloc pension offices. Video clerks had gone from being nerdy and knowledgeable to utterly incapable. Upon inquiring about the availability of Fellini’s 8 ½, I was asked, “How do you spell that?” Gone was a respect for cinema. Gone was a basic understanding of alphabetizing. Gone was the magic of Video Town.
I know that there still are amazing video stores out there. If you frequent one or work(ed) at one, we’d like to hear about it. The Middlebrow Film Society would like to highlight the work of individuals who are preserving the dying breed that is the quality video store. You are, of course, welcome to share your favorite video store horror stories as well.
At that time the home movie was a wonder. Films that people hadn’t seen in years could be borrowed for a nominal fee and watched (and rewound and watched again) in the comfort of a private abode. I was able to watch Marx Brothers movies and Little Rascals shorts in a way that no previous generation could have imagined. Video Town recognized that they were providing a magical service and treated the task with the necessary respect.
For years, Americans were happy with their local video peddlers. Family owned operations each with their own particular character. Then, out of nowhere, came the chain video superstore. I remember when the first one of these bad boys came to our town, with the fanfare of a postwar victory parade. We were amazed at the evolution in the video store experience. Compared to Video Town this place was enormous with wall after wall of videos. The store was replete with glitzy signage that made the costumer feel like they were walking the red carpet. Actual copies of the video behind the empty display box let us know if the video was available for check out. The films were categorized in impressive ways. Any male of my generation can remember the “Wild Action” section, which was a euphemism for films with explosions and at least one boob. Our shabby construction paper Video Town membership cards were soon lost in the euphoria over these seemingly perfect video vendors.
But it didn’t take long for the chain stores to lose their luster. These stores refused to carry NC-17 or unrated material. Those of us who have seen the R-rated version of Showgirls know how a move like this can kill a film’s narrative structure. This was done in order to secure a family friendly image. It seems a bit hypocritical to refuse to stock Kids, Happiness, or Y Tu Mama Tambien when R-rated films like Gator Bait, Femalien, and Gator Bait 2 were readily available (in the Wild Action section to be sure).
Rumors abounded that these stores were going so far as to edit the content of the movies that they stocked. I can prove these rumors to be true. You remember that part in Species where the alien chick (technically a “femalien”) kisses that guy and then kills him by sending her crazy alien tongue through the back of his head? I don’t because the copy I watched had that scene cut out. Some corporate fool thought he was keeping me safe from damaging material. All he succeeded in doing was robbing me of a major element of my coming of age.
Things turned from bad to worse. It seems these superstores only waited until most of the independent stores went out of business before they really started to let themselves go. By the late 1990’s these video stores took on the aura of Soviet Bloc pension offices. Video clerks had gone from being nerdy and knowledgeable to utterly incapable. Upon inquiring about the availability of Fellini’s 8 ½, I was asked, “How do you spell that?” Gone was a respect for cinema. Gone was a basic understanding of alphabetizing. Gone was the magic of Video Town.
I know that there still are amazing video stores out there. If you frequent one or work(ed) at one, we’d like to hear about it. The Middlebrow Film Society would like to highlight the work of individuals who are preserving the dying breed that is the quality video store. You are, of course, welcome to share your favorite video store horror stories as well.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Mission Statement (draft #1)
Established on February 12th, 2007, the Middlebrow Film Society is a revelation of sorts. It is a place where movies will be discussed in a serious, but not ostentatious, manner. It is a place for those of us who understand the artistic and entertainment value that can thrive at the movies. Most importantly it is for those of us who feel the need to talk about film on a regular basis.
The Middlebrow Film Society is NOT:
1. A place for celebrity gossip. The Society does not care whose crotch is on fire.
2. A "Fan" page. Whether you are a Ringer, a Potter, or a Narnian, you must be a movie lover first. We will not be discussing who should direct The Hobbit or trashing the new Transformers. We will be discussing and critiquing movies of all sorts with at least a modicum of objectivity.
3. A place for film snobs. Both La Strada and Beerfest are up for discussion here.
4. A place for film slobs. If you don't have anything more to say about Little Children besides "Kate Winslet takes it off", perhaps there are other pages for you.
The Middlebrow Film Society will soon be the only cinema related page that matters. How quickly this staus is achieved is up to you.
The Society needs movie lovers like you to do the following:
1. Read the page. Often. Then reread it.
2. Comment on the posts.
3. Come up with reviews, articles, and ideas of your own and donate them to the society. Submissions can and should be sent to: middlebrowfilm@gmail.com
4. Tell your know-it-all friends/family members/MySpace stalkers to partake in steps 1-3 above.
We here at the Society will work quickly to have fresh content made available to you. You do the same.
The Middlebrow Film Society is NOT:
1. A place for celebrity gossip. The Society does not care whose crotch is on fire.
2. A "Fan" page. Whether you are a Ringer, a Potter, or a Narnian, you must be a movie lover first. We will not be discussing who should direct The Hobbit or trashing the new Transformers. We will be discussing and critiquing movies of all sorts with at least a modicum of objectivity.
3. A place for film snobs. Both La Strada and Beerfest are up for discussion here.
4. A place for film slobs. If you don't have anything more to say about Little Children besides "Kate Winslet takes it off", perhaps there are other pages for you.
The Middlebrow Film Society will soon be the only cinema related page that matters. How quickly this staus is achieved is up to you.
The Society needs movie lovers like you to do the following:
1. Read the page. Often. Then reread it.
2. Comment on the posts.
3. Come up with reviews, articles, and ideas of your own and donate them to the society. Submissions can and should be sent to: middlebrowfilm@gmail.com
4. Tell your know-it-all friends/family members/MySpace stalkers to partake in steps 1-3 above.
We here at the Society will work quickly to have fresh content made available to you. You do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)