MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Riff-ley's Be Screenin' It Or Not

So a journalist friend was saying to me the other day, “Do you think Fame will be any good or not?”
My answer: “Have you seen it?”
I wasn’t saying that I had and didn’t like it or that I had heard bad things. I haven’t and negative rumors are going at sub-prime rates these days. But I do know that the movie has been hyped out the wazoo and is not being shown. Who was at the “premiere” at The Grove last night? Beats me. But it was a premiere at The Grove. The last time I recall that happening, it was New Line pushing Elf out the door and not wanting to spend too much money.
Yes, I still support every studio’s right not to screen, though I do think they should all be considerate of the work process of the critics who do not break embargoes and do need to write about these releases, even if there are no all-media screenings at all. (I have no idea whether Fame will ever screen… all I know is that I haven’t heard word one. My guess is that they have already done an MTV screening and are probably working closely with EW on features and maybe have had a junket screening or two. Pete Hammond and Peter Travers probably saw it twice by now.)
Flip side…
Fox Searchlight has Whip It! coming out… went to TIFF, into the heart of critics looking for an artistic high… screening the crap out of it… doing a somewhat late blooming special screening/premiere at the Chinese… and to top things off, start weekend “sneak previews” for the movie this weekend.
And no surprise… Nancy Utley’s campaign is neon pink and green and screams, GIRLS!!!!, as loud as it can.
I hate to be making predictions about box office on a little movie that could, but I will truly be shocked if Whip It! doesn’t become a very, very hot commodity in the next two months. It’s not brain surgery, but it’s a real pleasure. And it’s messages are both honest about being a young woman and sweet about the same.
In the end, there are movies that have boldly presented and have been hurt by it and movies that hid that would have been a lot better off showing off the merchandise. But going in, it always seems that the confidence of the studio is read – especially by media – as clearly as any ad, trailer or one-sheet.

Be Sociable, Share!

31 Responses to “Riff-ley's Be Screenin' It Or Not”

  1. Nick Rogers says:

    “Fame” screened in Indianapolis last night. I didn’t go, nor have I heard from my friend who did. I have zero interest.

  2. Hopscotch says:

    I wrote a similar thing on my site http://theregimen.wordpress.com
    Not so much about Fame, analyzing the different campaigns between Whip It and Jennifer’s Body. Both films directed by women, written by women, starring women of recent hits. One aimed for horny teenage boys and was rated R, the other clearly aiming for the chicas and I too bet it’ll pay off. Good interviews DP, keepem coming.

  3. LexG says:

    Were smart movie people like David THIS fired up about STEP UP 2: THE STREETS?
    I think critics who dug the original and who love musicals (see, Poland) are counting way too much on any kind of I SING THE BODY ELECTRIC nostalgia. This is all but guaranteed to be a 90-minute VERY SPECIAL EPISODE of “So You Think You Can Dance.”
    It stars Kherrington from SYTYCD (whereas the original starred actual actors, not reality show vets and fringe participants from competition shows), and I’m sure it’s choreographed and probably exec-produced by every current TV dance-show hack.
    It sounds to me like about as much of a “real movie” as THE REAL CANCUN, and at its most cinematic, it’s probably just STEP UP 3: THE SHANE SPARKS EDITION.
    Any critics with giddy quasi-enthusiasm are expecting some kind of actual movie like the hard-hitting original, when it’s surely tween bullshit on par with Miley Cyrus stuff.
    And, again, the lead is a reality show vet. It’s like saying, OH I HOPE THIS NEW REMAKE OF BEAT STREET IS GOOD! It stars JORDAN FROM BIG BROTHER 11!

  4. LYT says:

    MSNBC has a review of Fame up today.

  5. chris says:

    “I Sing the Body Electric,” while not perfect, is about fifteen times better than the lame finale in the remake.
    Incidentally, has anyone noticed that — after treating the why-there’s-no-review-in-the-current-issue announcement about “Jennifer’s Body” with kid gloves — EW STILL hasn’t reviewed the movie written by its columnist who couldn’t get them in to an advance screening?

  6. LYT says:

    Also E! Online. The word is not good.

  7. Joe Leydon says:

    Something many people forget: The original Fame was, for all its romanticized touches, gritty enough to earn an R rating. I seriously doubt the new movie will be anywhere near as tough.

  8. chris says:

    It isn’t — no Irene Cara topless action, for starters. In fact, shockingly, it’s not even PG-13 but PG, despite underage drinking and verging-on-sex.

  9. Indeed, that’s why the remake is gonna be crap.
    But then I actually thought Step Up 2: The Streets was a legitimately very good movie.

  10. LexG says:

    Also the new one isn’t going to have BELZER, the dude who fell off the bridge in Saturday Night Fever, or Jack Bauer’s Brother from RoboCop back when he had a Red Afro.

  11. leahnz says:

    “…no Irene Cara topless action, for starters.”
    uh, ‘topless action’?
    you mean the disturbing scene in which the naive coco is quietly sobbing tears of humiliation, disillusionment and disappointment in herself after being pressured and tricked into posing nude by a sleazoid photog promising ‘fame’?
    you mean that horrible moment captured on celluloid that made a generation of girls (i must have been around 14 when i saw it) – esp. theatre rats like myself – a little wiser as to what it can be like out there for young aspiring actresses/performers, that the lure of ‘fame’ often comes at a price and exacts a toll, that flattery often comes with ulterior motives and can lead to being used and exploited?
    but yeah, ‘topless action’! boobies. hubba hubba
    (and if i’ve read too much into that comment take it with a grain of salt, seeing as i just came from my first – and last – visit to the ‘hollywood elsewhere’ blog, after hearing so much about it and deciding to finally take a look, and i feel decidedly unclean. man, what a bunch of pricks. except for a couple people who i like from here, i guess i should say)

  12. yancyskancy says:

    Kami: I kinda like Step Up 2: The Streets, too. I miss the local color that Anne Fletcher and Michael Seresin brought to the first one, but Jon Chu minimizes the damage with an energetic style that stays just slightly shy of MTV overkill while highlighting the contributions of some smashingly talented young dancers. The script is way too perfunctory for the film to be great, but it was well worth watching.

  13. Joe Leydon says:

    Leahnz; For the record — I did not use the term “topless action,” for the very reasons you mention.
    BTW: I actually am seeing a smattering of good reviews for Pandorum. Maybe they made a mistake not screening it?
    http://moviereviewintelligence.com/index.aspx?BID=27&RID=581&CID=0

  14. Crow T Robot says:

    Pandorum is the kind of movie we’d expect you to review for Variety on a Saturday, Joe. What’s the deal?
    It looks like Event Horizon all over again, but I may check it out just to see how Ben Foster’s wild-eyed looney tunes genius translates to sci-fi thriller.
    Seriously, that kid’s a supernova of crazy.

  15. chris says:

    “Pandorum” isn’t bad but you may be disappointed, Crow T. Surprisingly, Foster is the hero of the thing and there’s not much craziness (instead, Cam Gigandet plays what would usually be the Ben Foster role).

  16. chris says:

    I did use the phrase “topless action” (I suppose because I can’t take the emotional content of that scene seriously, since it has strikes me as laugh-out-loud awful rather than disturbing, but to each his or her own). I’ll rescind it.

  17. leahnz says:

    joe, that’s nice to hear (re: coco’s sad scene) but i can’t say i’m surprised, you have a great attitude towards women
    chris, that’s big of you to rescind it; given the context of the nudity – regardless if the scene in question worked for you or not – calling it ‘topless action’ sounds a bit smarmy and insensitive (i wonder, are you quite young? if so, when it comes to parker’s ‘FAME’ maybe it’s a case of ‘you had to be there’, i don’t know)

  18. movieman says:

    Leah- I caught “Fame Redux” today at a poorly attended matinee performance with a smattering of teen girls and, uh, me comprising the audience.
    Can’t say that I was disappointed because I wasn’t expecting a whole helluva lot. But for an utterly gratuitous remake, it’s largely inoffensive–i.e., inoffensively bland–and not altogether unpleasant.
    I actually think the early-80s TV spinoff might have been edgier.
    Wherefore art thou, Irene Cara?

  19. Joe Leydon says:

    Leahnz: Women are magic.

  20. Nicol D says:

    Hey Leahnz,
    You are one of the biggest woman haters around here with your view that all women must be left wing and march to beat of your drum. How dare you try to judge people on your throne.
    I don’t recall hearing your voice when late night comedians were calling for the rape of Sarah Palin’s daughter.
    You are a hypocrite.
    Let’s not also forget that the majority of men who are exploiting the Coco’s out there in the entertainment industry vote the same way as you and probably consider themselves ardent “feminists”.
    You are such a self righteous ass.

  21. Joe Leydon says:

    You know, Nicol, I have read some crazy shit written by you. But I have to say, the above is wack, even by your standards. I mean, have you been drinking heavily this evening?

  22. yancyskancy says:

    That early 80s fame series was one of the (unintentionally) funniest things ever. I particularly loved their homage to RASHOMON, and the one with the ghost of Elvis.
    They did another series 10 years ago or so, FAME L.A. I didn’t get to see much of it, but I worked with the producer, Pat Green, on a Disney Channel thing, and she was great. She was a writer/producer for Cagney and Lacey, China Beach, L.A. Law, Chicago Hope, North and South, etc., with several Emmys to her credit, so I’m sure it was a cut above the previous incarnation, if not as funny.

  23. Yancy, agreed. There was some exceptional dancing there – much better than the first, I gotta say and the film’s worst scene is the awkward to watch bit with Channing Tatum’s cameo – and I really liked the film’s determination to follow through on its social-outcasts plot line instead of just throwing it aside once they won a competition.

  24. jeffmcm says:

    Pandorum was very bad. I was wishing more-or-less throughout that I was watching Event Horizon instead.
    Leah, congrats for apparently successfully getting under Nicol’s skin. I think you’re the first one to truly manage to elicit a genuine emotion out of him.

  25. leahnz says:

    thanks, joe (and hey, sometimes it’s real magic, sometimes it’s a lot of smoke and mirrors, slight of hand and misdirection!)
    movieman, i hear that. the ‘innocuousation, blandification and homogenisation’ of movies marches on! (i made a few of those words up)
    jeff, and it was my ‘fame’ comment that finally pushed nic over the edge? who knew

  26. Joe Leydon says:

    Leahz: You forgot the literal-mindedization of movies. Last Saturday, I showed my students Rosemary’s Baby. And when it was over, ALL of them agreed that, if there really is a remake, the remakers won’t even think of refusing to show what the baby looks like in the final scene.

  27. leahnz says:

    good point, joe. sometimes when i take a trip down memory lane and re-watch old faves like ‘rosemary’s baby’ or even hard-core horror like hooper’s ‘texas chainsaw massacre’, i’m so pleasantly reminded how much is actually left up to the imagination, accomplished with terrific sound design, acting and astute story-telling, which then serves to make what violence or gore or grotesqueness that IS shown on screen that much more effective and shocking and compelling and memorable.
    (speaking of parker and in this vein, i had a late-night insomniac’s umpteenth viewing of ‘angel heart’ recently and re: the final shot with the baby, i kinda wish parker hadn’t played it that way and had left it up to our imagination instead; it’s not a deal-breaker for me by any means but an example of a sublime piece of film-making let down right at the finish by an out-of-character flourish of unnecessary obviousness. i’m always vaguely disappointed in parker for that)

  28. christian says:

    That shot in ANGEL HEART whips from ridiculous to fucking freaky in seconds.
    And Nicol, you reveal your inner Rush with your off-sanity comments on leahnz. She nailed exactly that scene in FAME, which is disturbing and memorable for that reason. There’s something seriously wrong with men who feel so threatened by a woman pointing out the view from the other side. Do you accuse Rush, Hannity or O’Reilly of misplaced rage as revealing something scary about their gender? But if a female is “angry” then that means they must hate men because they’re ugly. That’s your dough boy Limbaugh’s theory anyway. So why is Rush so angry?

  29. leahnz says:

    “That shot in ANGEL HEART whips from ridiculous to fucking freaky in seconds”
    trying to get your meaning there, christian, are you pro-spooky eyes or against?
    (personally, i adore men. i’m always saddened when i offer a feminist perspective and people say, ‘your angry, why do you hate men’. huh? does one have to hate men in order to raise up/stand up for women? not at all. i was raised by a mum who marched for civil rights, protested the vietnam war and was active in the women’s movement. our household was never negative towards men and growing up i was surrounded by fantastic strong, confident, talented caring men as my role models. i don’t think it’s necessary to tear men down in order to lift women up, and i certainly don’t see men as the enemy, far from it. i wish i could say the same for the tom leikises and his ilk out there, they freak me out)

  30. christian says:

    The freaky baby eyes have it.

  31. leahnz says:

    ok, maybe it’s just me with the ticketyboo eyes then!
    (note to self: you + are = you’re. duh)

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon