list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around An Inconvenient Truth on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/An_Inconvenient_Truth/274995/default.aspx Title: An Inconvenient Truth
Year: 2006
Director: Davis Guggenheim
Plot: Former vice president Al Gore shares his concerns on the pressing issue of global warming in this documentary. A long-time environmental activist, Gore first became aware of evidence on global warming in the 1970s, and since leaving public office he has become a passionate advocate for large- and small-scale changes in our laws and lifestyles that could help alleviate this crisis. An Inconvenient Truth records a multi-media presentation hosted by Gore in which he discusses the scientific facts behind global warming, explains how it has already begun to affect our environment, talks about the disastrous consequences if the world's governments and citizens do not act, and shares what each individual can do to help protect the Earth for this and future generations. An Inconvenient Truth was directed by Davis Guggenheim, a veteran documentary filmmaker who also has an extensive background in episodic television. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 47
Number of Lists: 28
Number of blog posts: 20
Number of discussion threads: 4
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:33:50 GMTAn Inconvenient Truth2006Davis GuggenheimFormer vice president Al Gore shares his concerns on the pressing issue of global warming in this documentary. A long-time environmental activist, Gore first became aware of evidence on global warming in the 1970s, and since leaving public office he has become a passionate advocate for large- and small-scale changes in our laws and lifestyles that could help alleviate this crisis. An Inconvenient Truth records a multi-media presentation hosted by Gore in which he discusses the scientific facts behind global warming, explains how it has already begun to affect our environment, talks about the disastrous consequences if the world's governments and citizens do not act, and shares what each individual can do to help protect the Earth for this and future generations. An Inconvenient Truth was directed by Davis Guggenheim, a veteran documentary filmmaker who also has an extensive background in episodic television. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide47Tag Target (>10)282043http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t88412cqriq.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/An_Inconvenient_Truth/274995/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/22/38710.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/22/2008 1:01:38 PM
Body: The Academy’s list of 49 tunes deemed eligible for the Best Original Song Oscar this year seems like a lot for the Music Branch to pick through. That is, until you notice that more than one-fifth of those contenders are from the same film (High School Musical 3, which, thanks to a new rule, is only allowed, at most, two nominations in this category) and you recall that last year’s list included many more songs (59) to choose from. The talent involved this year, however, is tremendous, at least in terms of those performers who sing the tunes on the soundtrack (many of whom had a hand in the songwriting). These artists include Mariah Carey, Etta James, Beyonce Knowles (who played Etta James), Norah Jones, will.i.am, Jack White and Alicia Keys, Danny Elfman, Emmylou Harris, Chaka Khan and Regina Spektor. Add to those big names such heavyweights as Bruce Springsteen and Peter Gabriel, both of whom are locks to be nominated, as well as tween favorites Miley Cyrus and Zac Efron (along with the rest of the cast from High School Musical 3), and you could have one hell of a concert if the Academy simply turned its awards telecast into one big celebration of the year’s songs written for the screen. Unfortunately for ABC, the Oscars aren’t just about securing viewers, so there’s no promise that the most popular artists will be among the five nominees. Rather, the true Oscar-worthy songs are those tunes that serve their respective films best — in terms of context as much as in the quality of their songwriting. In addition to Springsteen and Gabriel, another sure thing nominee is Clint Eastwood, who wrote the title song for his film Gran Torino. As for the fourth slot, Cyrus could very well find herself a contender, which would technically allow the marketers of her upcoming Hannah Montana Movie to advertise the film as starring “Academy Award Nominee Miley Cyrus.” Her song, “I Thought I Lost You,” co-written with Jeffrey Steele (and co-performed with John Travolta), from Bolt has already received nominations for both a Golden Globe and a BFCA Critic’s Choice Award (as have Springsteen’s title song from The Wrestler and Gabriel’s “Down to Earth” from WALL-E). The only issue with a telecast performance of this song, despite the fact that it might draw higher ratings than a Best Picture nomination for The Dark Knight, is that a live duet between Cyrus and Travolta could be the creepiest musical number since Rob Lowe and Snow White’s infamous rendition of “Proud Mary” back in 1989. The final nominee is more difficult to predict. The Golden Globes selected Knowles’ “Once in a Lifetime” from Cadillac Records, which the Academy could use to make up for the singer/actress’ nominal exclusion as one of the songwriters of the 2007 nominee “Listen,” from Dreamgirls. Another favorite is M.I.A. and A. R. Rahman’s  “O…Saya” from Slumdog Millionaire, though this song has stiff competition from Rahman’s “Jai Ho” from the same film. A nod for the latter would be a wonderful recognition of Indian music, yet in a way it would also beg the question of why thousands of other great tunes from Bollywood haven’t been honored in the past (nor will they be recognized in the future). And why this song over other great “world music” possibilities like Bebel Gilberto’s “Forever,” from They Killed Sister Dorothy, and Angelique Kidjo’s “Djoyigbe,” from Pray the Devil Back to Hell? Oh yeah, because it’s the catchier number from the more upbeat (and fictional) Best Picture favorite. It will be a shame if, like many Oscar categories, there are no real surprises in the nominees for Best Original Song, so to assist the Music Branch in their task, I’ve picked out five alternative selections to those more likely to be nominated: “Barking at the Moon” by Jenny Lewis, from Bolt – Cyrus might be the bigger ratings draw, but Lewis would bring that indie “hipster” cred not really seen from the Academy since Elliott Smith’s nomination and performance more than ten years ago. Ratings aside, though, “Barking at the Moon” is actually the better of Bolt’s two eligible songs, and it’s just as catchy as “I Thought I Lost You.” Plus, its context is equivalent to the usual Randy Newman tune played over an animated film’s montage sequence. And since Newman is shockingly absent from the category this year, Lewis should fill in for him. “Sweet Ballad” by ‘Munchausen by Proxy,’ from Yes Man – If the Academy would rather recognize an actress who is also a singer rather than a singer-turned-actress (Knowles) or an actress-turned-singer (Lewis), then it’s time to honor Zooey Deschanel, who has performed on many of her films’ soundtracks, often diegetically and in character. This time she joined up with Von Iva to form Yes Man’s fake band Munchausen by Proxy, which has two songs eligible for the Oscar. The better of the two is this track, which sounds kind of like Julie Cruise fronting Goldfrapp (maybe David Lynch needs to cast Deschanel in something). It might be a little racy to perform a song featuring the repeated backing vocal lyric of “whore, whore, whore,” but it’s no worse than the Oscar-winning lyrics of “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp.” “Trouble the Water” by Blackkoldmadina, from Trouble the Water – Recently the Academy has honored two rap songs (“Lose Yourself” from 8 Mile and “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp” from Hustle & Flow) and one track off a documentary (“I Need to Wake Up” from An Inconvenient Truth), so it’s only fair to go the next step and at least nominate this rap song from a documentary. It would be another of the Academy’s favored stories of triumph, since the track is by the doc’s subject, a relatively upbeat Katrina survivor who turned lemons into lemonade with her home video footage of the hurricane. “Up To Our Nex” by Robyn Hitchcock, from Rachel Getting Married – If for some reason the Academy wishes to ignore the usual old guys (sure, Gabriel’s never been nominated, but isn’t he almost interchangeable with his former bandmate Phil Collins?), it could do well to nominate Hitchcock, whose song is both lyrically relevant to the film’s story and prominently performed diegetically, which is precisely how an Oscar-winning song should be. Considering how important music is to Rachel Getting Married, it would be terrible for it to be ignored in this category in favor of an end-credits number. “Dracula’s Lament” by Jason Segel, from Forgetting Sarah Marshall – It’s easy to dismiss both this and Hamlet 2’s “Rock Me Sexy Jesus” as being “funny” songs, comparable to the Oscar-nominated “Blame Canada” from South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut. But “Dracula’s Lament,” though plenty humorous, is no joke; it’s actually a great song that reflects the feelings of Segel’s character in the movie. And it would be the first Muppet-related Oscar-nominated song in more than 20 years. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:01:38 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/22/2008 1:01:38 PMThe Academy’s list of 49 tunes deemed eligible for the Best Original Song Oscar this year seems like a lot for the Music Branch to pick through. That is, until you notice that more than one-fifth of those contenders are from the same film (High School Musical 3, which, thanks to a new rule, is only allowed, at most, two nominations in this category) and you recall that last year’s list included many more songs (59) to choose from. The talent involved this year, however, is tremendous, at least in terms of those performers who sing the tunes on the soundtrack (many of whom had a hand in the songwriting). These artists include Mariah Carey, Etta James, Beyonce Knowles (who played Etta James), Norah Jones, will.i.am, Jack White and Alicia Keys, Danny Elfman, Emmylou Harris, Chaka Khan and Regina Spektor. Add to those big names such heavyweights as Bruce Springsteen and Peter Gabriel, both of whom are locks to be nominated, as well as tween favorites Miley Cyrus and Zac Efron (along with the rest of the cast from High School Musical 3), and you could have one hell of a concert if the Academy simply turned its awards telecast into one big celebration of the year’s songs written for the screen. Unfortunately for ABC, the Oscars aren’t just about securing viewers, so there’s no promise that the most popular artists will be among the five nominees. Rather, the true Oscar-worthy songs are those tunes that serve their respective films best — in terms of context as much as in the quality of their songwriting. In addition to Springsteen and Gabriel, another sure thing nominee is Clint Eastwood, who wrote the title song for his film Gran Torino. As for the fourth slot, Cyrus could very well find herself a contender, which would technically allow the marketers of her upcoming Hannah Montana Movie to advertise the film as starring “Academy Award Nominee Miley Cyrus.” Her song, “I Thought I Lost You,” co-written with Jeffrey Steele (and co-performed with John Travolta), from Bolt has already received nominations for both a Golden Globe and a BFCA Critic’s Choice Award (as have Springsteen’s title song from The Wrestler and Gabriel’s “Down to Earth” from WALL-E). The only issue with a telecast performance of this song, despite the fact that it might draw higher ratings than a Best Picture nomination for The Dark Knight, is that a live duet between Cyrus and Travolta could be the creepiest musical number since Rob Lowe and Snow White’s infamous rendition of “Proud Mary” back in 1989. The final nominee is more difficult to predict. The Golden Globes selected Knowles’ “Once in a Lifetime” from Cadillac Records, which the Academy could use to make up for the singer/actress’ nominal exclusion as one of the songwriters of the 2007 nominee “Listen,” from Dreamgirls. Another favorite is M.I.A. and A. R. Rahman’s  “O…Saya” from Slumdog Millionaire, though this song has stiff competition from Rahman’s “Jai Ho” from the same film. A nod for the latter would be a wonderful recognition of Indian music, yet in a way it would also beg the question of why thousands of other great tunes from Bollywood haven’t been honored in the past (nor will they be recognized in the future). And why this song over other great “world music” possibilities like Bebel Gilberto’s “Forever,” from They Killed Sister Dorothy, and Angelique Kidjo’s “Djoyigbe,” from Pray the Devil Back to Hell? Oh yeah, because it’s the catchier number from the more upbeat (and fictional) Best Picture favorite. It will be a shame if, like many Oscar categories, there are no real surprises in the nominees for Best Original Song, so to assist the Music Branch in their task, I’ve picked out five alternative selections to those more likely to be nominated: “Barking at the Moon” by Jenny Lewis, from Bolt – Cyrus might be the bigger ratings draw, but Lewis would bring that indie “hipster” cred not really seen from the Academy since Elliott Smith’s nomination and performance more than ten years ago. Ratings aside, though, “Barking at the Moon” is actually the better of Bolt’s two eligible songs, and it’s just as catchy as “I Thought I Lost You.” Plus, its context is equivalent to the usual Randy Newman tune played over an animated film’s montage sequence. And since Newman is shockingly absent from the category this year, Lewis should fill in for him. “Sweet Ballad” by ‘Munchausen by Proxy,’ from Yes Man – If the Academy would rather recognize an actress who is also a singer rather than a singer-turned-actress (Knowles) or an actress-turned-singer (Lewis), then it’s time to honor Zooey Deschanel, who has performed on many of her films’ soundtracks, often diegetically and in character. This time she joined up with Von Iva to form Yes Man’s fake band Munchausen by Proxy, which has two songs eligible for the Oscar. The better of the two is this track, which sounds kind of like Julie Cruise fronting Goldfrapp (maybe David Lynch needs to cast Deschanel in something). It might be a little racy to perform a song featuring the repeated backing vocal lyric of “whore, whore, whore,” but it’s no worse than the Oscar-winning lyrics of “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp.” “Trouble the Water” by Blackkoldmadina, from Trouble the Water – Recently the Academy has honored two rap songs (“Lose Yourself” from 8 Mile and “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp” from Hustle & Flow) and one track off a documentary (“I Need to Wake Up” from An Inconvenient Truth), so it’s only fair to go the next step and at least nominate this rap song from a documentary. It would be another of the Academy’s favored stories of triumph, since the track is by the doc’s subject, a relatively upbeat Katrina survivor who turned lemons into lemonade with her home video footage of the hurricane. “Up To Our Nex” by Robyn Hitchcock, from Rachel Getting Married – If for some reason the Academy wishes to ignore the usual old guys (sure, Gabriel’s never been nominated, but isn’t he almost interchangeable with his former bandmate Phil Collins?), it could do well to nominate Hitchcock, whose song is both lyrically relevant to the film’s story and prominently performed diegetically, which is precisely how an Oscar-winning song should be. Considering how important music is to Rachel Getting Married, it would be terrible for it to be ignored in this category in favor of an end-credits number. “Dracula’s Lament” by Jason Segel, from Forgetting Sarah Marshall – It’s easy to dismiss both this and Hamlet 2’s “Rock Me Sexy Jesus” as being “funny” songs, comparable to the Oscar-nominated “Blame Canada” from South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut. But “Dracula’s Lament,” though plenty humorous, is no joke; it’s actually a great song that reflects the feelings of Segel’s character in the movie. And it would be the first Muppet-related Oscar-nominated song in more than 20 years. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/8/38088.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/8/2008 5:00:35 PM
Body: It’s beginning to look a lot like 1991. A former Disney starlet is on track for a Best Actress nomination. One of cinema’s greatest villainous performances is a sure thing for an acting Oscar. And, due to a relatively disappointing crop of Academy Award contenders, an animated feature is being talked about for Best Picture. One major difference between now and 1991, however, is now there’s a separate Oscar category for Best Animated Feature. While that doesn’t mean Wall-E can’t be the first animated film nominated in the top category since Beauty and the Beast, it does potentially mean that it shouldn’t be. Historically, animated features have been marginalized by the Academy, though not unfairly. The first of its kind in the U.S., Walt Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarves was not adequately recognized at the 1938 Oscars, so the Academy gave Disney a special Honorary Award (in the form of one normal-sized statuette and seven miniature statuettes) in 1939 to make up for it. The official credit given to Snow White was that it was a “significant screen innovation,” that “pioneered a great new entertainment field.” Basically, but not technically, this designated animated features as a new, separate art form from live-action motion pictures. Fantasia was similarly set apart a few years later with two Honorary Awards spotlighting the film’s achievements in sound and music, yet this time credit was given to the film for “widening the scope of the motion picture as entertainment and as an art form.” Still, for almost fifty years, the closest an animated feature came to being nominated inclusively in such a scope for Best Picture were live-action films incorporating animation, such as Anchors Aweigh and Mary Poppins. It should have officially been made clearer in the 1930s or 1940s that animated features are in a class of their own. Since 1932, the Academy has differentiated between animation and live-action with its short subject categories, but no corresponding distinction was ever made for features, possibly because there weren’t enough animated features to recognize with a separate award for many decades. Even today, the Best Animated Feature Oscar is only given if there are a certain number (eight) of animated features eligible in that year. Thanks to the Best Animated Feature Oscar, though, there is greater encouragement for the mainstream production of this kind of film and also a greater acknowledgement of foreign feature animation. Some critics might argue that it seems to lower the esteem of animated features, yet the creation of the category was in fact pushed for by animators, according to the AMPAS press release announcing its inception (the animators’ campaign, spearheaded mostly by Dreamworks Animation’s Jeffrey Katzenberg, was apparently fueled by the snub of Chicken Run as Best Picture in 2001). The Academy’s error, then, was in continuing to allow animated features to be eligible for Best Picture rather than renaming that “top” category Best Live-Action Picture. Now, if Wall-E or any other animated film is recognized in that category, the Best Animated Feature Oscar will indeed appear to be a lesser honor. An unsourced claim on Wikipedia says the existence of the Animated Feature category creates a sort of psychological effect, which blocks voters from considering an animated feature for Best Picture. However, with enough campaigning from Disney and plenty of prodding from the media (blogs especially), Wall-E may have sufficient placement in the consciousness of Academy members to allow such a nomination to happen. The call for a Best Picture nod for the film has been around and growing since New York magazine’s Vulture blog first championed the idea back in June, writing that it “would be the smartest thing the Academy’s done in years.” For ratings, perhaps, but individual members themselves do not think of nor are they encouraged to consider telecast viewership when marking their ballots. As a celebration of great filmmaking, though, it would be smarter for voters to acknowledge Wall-E’s place and prestige as a front-runner in the Best Animated Feature category and then pick another deserving film, which isn’t likely to be recognized elsewhere, to nominate as Best Picture. For example, how about a popular and critically acclaimed foreign film that hasn’t been submitted for consideration in the foreign-language category, such as Tell No One or Let the Right One In? In July, Time magazine, which referred to the separate Animated Feature category as “Oscar’s cartoon ghetto,” began sampling quotes from supporters like New York and went so far as to call the film an “Obamaesque trailblazer.” In some way, Wall-E could resonate with Academy voters with relation to Obama, but perhaps only because it is one of the few hopeful, feel-good movies contending at a time when Bush–inspired negativity is supposedly no longer welcome (New York writer Logan Hill also acknowledged Best Picture candidate Slumdog Millionaire as similarly fitting the optimism bill after Fox Searchlight’s COO referred to the film as “Obama-like”). And maybe the environmentalist theme of Wall-E will be heavily supported by liberal Academy members, but ultimately the film seems even more preachy and, at times, dystopic than even The Dark Knight, let alone An Inconvenient Truth (which, by the way, had to settle on Oscar’s documentary ghetto and wasn’t considered Best Picture material, either). One significant point against the likelihood Wall-E receiving a Best Picture nomination was noted by Anne Thompson at Variety: actors tend to vote for live-action films because they feature live actors. Surely actors, forever in fear of being replaced by computer-generated characters, look at an eerily realistically rendered computer-animated film like Wall-E and contemplate the worst for their profession. Still, on the other hand, actors could actually celebrate Pixar for making an animated film that incorporates live actors (a kind of reversal of Anchors Aweigh and Mary Poppins, no?). But if actors want to pay respect to this technique, they should completely surprise Oscar prognosticators (and pay them back for another 2001 snub) by nominating Fred Willard for Best Supporting Actor. Maybe Wall-E is one of the best films of 2008, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it should be recommended for a Best Picture nomination. The Oscars are never an exact or fair measure of a year’s best in cinema, and even Oscar bloggers should be aware of the politics and logic of the Academy. This is the same organization that, for its first awards, ruled The Jazz Singer ineligible for Best Picture (or “Best Production” as it was named then) because it had the unfair advantage of being a sound film. Instead, the landmark film received a Special Award (almost like Disney received in 1939). Perhaps it is best, then, to think of animated features as also having an unfair advantage. After all, particularly with computer animation, they allow for more ease in certain aspects of direction, cinematography and special effects. In that case, let us, if not the Academy, view the Best Animated Feature category as the actual “top” category and shake off this unnecessary desire for an animated film to win “Best Picture.” Now, can we re-channel our energy into campaigning for Wall-E to be nominated in other categories, like Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and Best Art Direction? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 22:00:35 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/8/2008 5:00:35 PMIt’s beginning to look a lot like 1991. A former Disney starlet is on track for a Best Actress nomination. One of cinema’s greatest villainous performances is a sure thing for an acting Oscar. And, due to a relatively disappointing crop of Academy Award contenders, an animated feature is being talked about for Best Picture. One major difference between now and 1991, however, is now there’s a separate Oscar category for Best Animated Feature. While that doesn’t mean Wall-E can’t be the first animated film nominated in the top category since Beauty and the Beast, it does potentially mean that it shouldn’t be. Historically, animated features have been marginalized by the Academy, though not unfairly. The first of its kind in the U.S., Walt Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarves was not adequately recognized at the 1938 Oscars, so the Academy gave Disney a special Honorary Award (in the form of one normal-sized statuette and seven miniature statuettes) in 1939 to make up for it. The official credit given to Snow White was that it was a “significant screen innovation,” that “pioneered a great new entertainment field.” Basically, but not technically, this designated animated features as a new, separate art form from live-action motion pictures. Fantasia was similarly set apart a few years later with two Honorary Awards spotlighting the film’s achievements in sound and music, yet this time credit was given to the film for “widening the scope of the motion picture as entertainment and as an art form.” Still, for almost fifty years, the closest an animated feature came to being nominated inclusively in such a scope for Best Picture were live-action films incorporating animation, such as Anchors Aweigh and Mary Poppins. It should have officially been made clearer in the 1930s or 1940s that animated features are in a class of their own. Since 1932, the Academy has differentiated between animation and live-action with its short subject categories, but no corresponding distinction was ever made for features, possibly because there weren’t enough animated features to recognize with a separate award for many decades. Even today, the Best Animated Feature Oscar is only given if there are a certain number (eight) of animated features eligible in that year. Thanks to the Best Animated Feature Oscar, though, there is greater encouragement for the mainstream production of this kind of film and also a greater acknowledgement of foreign feature animation. Some critics might argue that it seems to lower the esteem of animated features, yet the creation of the category was in fact pushed for by animators, according to the AMPAS press release announcing its inception (the animators’ campaign, spearheaded mostly by Dreamworks Animation’s Jeffrey Katzenberg, was apparently fueled by the snub of Chicken Run as Best Picture in 2001). The Academy’s error, then, was in continuing to allow animated features to be eligible for Best Picture rather than renaming that “top” category Best Live-Action Picture. Now, if Wall-E or any other animated film is recognized in that category, the Best Animated Feature Oscar will indeed appear to be a lesser honor. An unsourced claim on Wikipedia says the existence of the Animated Feature category creates a sort of psychological effect, which blocks voters from considering an animated feature for Best Picture. However, with enough campaigning from Disney and plenty of prodding from the media (blogs especially), Wall-E may have sufficient placement in the consciousness of Academy members to allow such a nomination to happen. The call for a Best Picture nod for the film has been around and growing since New York magazine’s Vulture blog first championed the idea back in June, writing that it “would be the smartest thing the Academy’s done in years.” For ratings, perhaps, but individual members themselves do not think of nor are they encouraged to consider telecast viewership when marking their ballots. As a celebration of great filmmaking, though, it would be smarter for voters to acknowledge Wall-E’s place and prestige as a front-runner in the Best Animated Feature category and then pick another deserving film, which isn’t likely to be recognized elsewhere, to nominate as Best Picture. For example, how about a popular and critically acclaimed foreign film that hasn’t been submitted for consideration in the foreign-language category, such as Tell No One or Let the Right One In? In July, Time magazine, which referred to the separate Animated Feature category as “Oscar’s cartoon ghetto,” began sampling quotes from supporters like New York and went so far as to call the film an “Obamaesque trailblazer.” In some way, Wall-E could resonate with Academy voters with relation to Obama, but perhaps only because it is one of the few hopeful, feel-good movies contending at a time when Bush–inspired negativity is supposedly no longer welcome (New York writer Logan Hill also acknowledged Best Picture candidate Slumdog Millionaire as similarly fitting the optimism bill after Fox Searchlight’s COO referred to the film as “Obama-like”). And maybe the environmentalist theme of Wall-E will be heavily supported by liberal Academy members, but ultimately the film seems even more preachy and, at times, dystopic than even The Dark Knight, let alone An Inconvenient Truth (which, by the way, had to settle on Oscar’s documentary ghetto and wasn’t considered Best Picture material, either). One significant point against the likelihood Wall-E receiving a Best Picture nomination was noted by Anne Thompson at Variety: actors tend to vote for live-action films because they feature live actors. Surely actors, forever in fear of being replaced by computer-generated characters, look at an eerily realistically rendered computer-animated film like Wall-E and contemplate the worst for their profession. Still, on the other hand, actors could actually celebrate Pixar for making an animated film that incorporates live actors (a kind of reversal of Anchors Aweigh and Mary Poppins, no?). But if actors want to pay respect to this technique, they should completely surprise Oscar prognosticators (and pay them back for another 2001 snub) by nominating Fred Willard for Best Supporting Actor. Maybe Wall-E is one of the best films of 2008, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it should be recommended for a Best Picture nomination. The Oscars are never an exact or fair measure of a year’s best in cinema, and even Oscar bloggers should be aware of the politics and logic of the Academy. This is the same organization that, for its first awards, ruled The Jazz Singer ineligible for Best Picture (or “Best Production” as it was named then) because it had the unfair advantage of being a sound film. Instead, the landmark film received a Special Award (almost like Disney received in 1939). Perhaps it is best, then, to think of animated features as also having an unfair advantage. After all, particularly with computer animation, they allow for more ease in certain aspects of direction, cinematography and special effects. In that case, let us, if not the Academy, view the Best Animated Feature category as the actual “top” category and shake off this unnecessary desire for an animated film to win “Best Picture.” Now, can we re-channel our energy into campaigning for Wall-E to be nominated in other categories, like Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and Best Art Direction? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/2/37861.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/2/2008 4:01:04 PM
Body: It’s already been called the most important civil rights film of the decade, but only time will tell if Milk has any real impact on the gay marriage issue or any other related civil rights matter. Obviously the film, which is set thirty years in the past, can be appropriated by the campaign to overturn Proposition 8, but if that campaign is successful, it will be difficult to prove with certainty Milk contributed to the end result. The Birth of a Nation may have inspired a reformation of the Ku Klux Klan and Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner may have opened some minds to wider acceptance of interracial marriage (which had just recently been legalized). However, as Time magazine reported earlier this year, it’s quite rare for cinema to really change the world. A movie like Philadelphia easily gets moviegoers thinking about AIDS and discrimination, for instance, and Sicko exposes some of the supposed benefits of universal health care, yet most of these kinds of message films preach primarily to the choir. But at least five films have made an actual difference, either on a local or national level. Will Milk join the small group of movies detailed below? Victim (1961) Long before Milk, Philadelphia or even Cruising, this British thriller became the first motion picture in history to feature the word “homosexual.” At the time, same-sex acts were illegal in the UK, and so, even though the laws weren’t strictly enforced, the film was quite controversial (and it was banned in the U.S.). Still, this story of a closeted bisexual lawyer who becomes the target of an anti-gay extortion ring had a deep, lasting effect on the people in Britain, and it’s unofficially yet widely considered to have influenced both general acceptance of homosexuality and the 1967 Sexual Offenses Act, which legalized consensual same-sex relations across the pond (anti-sodomy laws in the States, on the other hand, were not completely eliminated until 2003). I Am Curious (Yellow) (1967) It may seem extremely tame by today’s standards (in the recent words of John Waters, it’s nothing more than a “limp dick and some ugly women naked.”), but this warmer-titled of Vilgot Sjoman’s I Am Curious films became infamous for its depiction of full frontal nudity and an oral sex act that could barely be called fellatio. After being banned in Massachusetts, where it was labeled pornography, it became the subject of an obscenity case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was ultimately determined not to be obscene. Once it could be freely distributed, it became a must-see, though many were disappointed with it, and it held the record for highest grossing foreign film in the U.S. for more than twenty years. More importantly, the Supreme Court decision was groundbreaking in terms of obscenity law, and the multi-billion dollar pornographic film industry of the 70s was able to happen as a result of this one little Swedish art film. The Thin Blue Line (1988) This Errol Morris film is considered one of the most influential documentaries of all time, for a couple of reasons. In addition to being significant to the craft of nonfiction cinema, it also had a direct effect on the freedom of one man. Rather than merely present the story of Randall Dale Adams, who was tried and convicted of murdering a Dallas police officer, Morris also investigates the case, with enough detail to convince viewers of Adams’ innocence. Following the release of the film, Adams was able to get his conviction overturned and eventually was released from prison. While rescuing one individual may not be the same as changing the world, The Thin Blue Line is considered one of the only motion pictures to be directly influential in bringing about some kind of change. JFK (1991) Oliver Stone’s controversial look at the Kennedy assassination didn’t exactly tell us who killed the president. It didn’t even convince everyone that Oswald wasn’t responsible. But despite all the controversy and negative reviews, JFK went on to be a landmark film for its cause, because it led to the passage of The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Act of 1992 (aka the JFK Act) and the formation of the U.S. Assassination Records Review Board. Officially, Congress was more annoyed by the conclusions of JFK than inspired by the film, but the result just goes to show (and Michael Moore likely was paying attention) that being a burden can be as worthwhile as being convincing. An Inconvenient Truth (2006) Davis Guggenheim’s film of Al Gore’s Global Warming presentation didn’t bring about a lot of change or legislation in the U.S., but it did have a significant effect in terms of breaking ground on discussion of the issue. However, it was apparently instrumental in the passing of a law to curb greenhouse gases in California. Meanwhile, elsewhere, it has been employed in school curriculum and it certainly helped Gore win the Nobel Peace Prize. Because not all films can be as direct and quickly effect as The Thin Blue Line and JFK, though, we’ll need more than the past two years to fully see the difference made by this one. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:01:04 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/2/2008 4:01:04 PMIt’s already been called the most important civil rights film of the decade, but only time will tell if Milk has any real impact on the gay marriage issue or any other related civil rights matter. Obviously the film, which is set thirty years in the past, can be appropriated by the campaign to overturn Proposition 8, but if that campaign is successful, it will be difficult to prove with certainty Milk contributed to the end result. The Birth of a Nation may have inspired a reformation of the Ku Klux Klan and Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner may have opened some minds to wider acceptance of interracial marriage (which had just recently been legalized). However, as Time magazine reported earlier this year, it’s quite rare for cinema to really change the world. A movie like Philadelphia easily gets moviegoers thinking about AIDS and discrimination, for instance, and Sicko exposes some of the supposed benefits of universal health care, yet most of these kinds of message films preach primarily to the choir. But at least five films have made an actual difference, either on a local or national level. Will Milk join the small group of movies detailed below? Victim (1961) Long before Milk, Philadelphia or even Cruising, this British thriller became the first motion picture in history to feature the word “homosexual.” At the time, same-sex acts were illegal in the UK, and so, even though the laws weren’t strictly enforced, the film was quite controversial (and it was banned in the U.S.). Still, this story of a closeted bisexual lawyer who becomes the target of an anti-gay extortion ring had a deep, lasting effect on the people in Britain, and it’s unofficially yet widely considered to have influenced both general acceptance of homosexuality and the 1967 Sexual Offenses Act, which legalized consensual same-sex relations across the pond (anti-sodomy laws in the States, on the other hand, were not completely eliminated until 2003). I Am Curious (Yellow) (1967) It may seem extremely tame by today’s standards (in the recent words of John Waters, it’s nothing more than a “limp dick and some ugly women naked.”), but this warmer-titled of Vilgot Sjoman’s I Am Curious films became infamous for its depiction of full frontal nudity and an oral sex act that could barely be called fellatio. After being banned in Massachusetts, where it was labeled pornography, it became the subject of an obscenity case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was ultimately determined not to be obscene. Once it could be freely distributed, it became a must-see, though many were disappointed with it, and it held the record for highest grossing foreign film in the U.S. for more than twenty years. More importantly, the Supreme Court decision was groundbreaking in terms of obscenity law, and the multi-billion dollar pornographic film industry of the 70s was able to happen as a result of this one little Swedish art film. The Thin Blue Line (1988) This Errol Morris film is considered one of the most influential documentaries of all time, for a couple of reasons. In addition to being significant to the craft of nonfiction cinema, it also had a direct effect on the freedom of one man. Rather than merely present the story of Randall Dale Adams, who was tried and convicted of murdering a Dallas police officer, Morris also investigates the case, with enough detail to convince viewers of Adams’ innocence. Following the release of the film, Adams was able to get his conviction overturned and eventually was released from prison. While rescuing one individual may not be the same as changing the world, The Thin Blue Line is considered one of the only motion pictures to be directly influential in bringing about some kind of change. JFK (1991) Oliver Stone’s controversial look at the Kennedy assassination didn’t exactly tell us who killed the president. It didn’t even convince everyone that Oswald wasn’t responsible. But despite all the controversy and negative reviews, JFK went on to be a landmark film for its cause, because it led to the passage of The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Act of 1992 (aka the JFK Act) and the formation of the U.S. Assassination Records Review Board. Officially, Congress was more annoyed by the conclusions of JFK than inspired by the film, but the result just goes to show (and Michael Moore likely was paying attention) that being a burden can be as worthwhile as being convincing. An Inconvenient Truth (2006) Davis Guggenheim’s film of Al Gore’s Global Warming presentation didn’t bring about a lot of change or legislation in the U.S., but it did have a significant effect in terms of breaking ground on discussion of the issue. However, it was apparently instrumental in the passing of a law to curb greenhouse gases in California. Meanwhile, elsewhere, it has been employed in school curriculum and it certainly helped Gore win the Nobel Peace Prize. Because not all films can be as direct and quickly effect as The Thin Blue Line and JFK, though, we’ll need more than the past two years to fully see the difference made by this one. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/24/37595.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/24/2008 7:01:27 PM
Body: When the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announces a shortlist for one of its Oscar categories, many critics immediately focus on what titles are missing. Religulous was snubbed! Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired was punished for having a “secret” qualifying run! The Academy’s rules for eligibility must be amended! Such reactions were seen all over the web last week as awards season pundits looked at the narrowed-down list of 15 Feature Documentary hopefuls and criticized the Academy for its omissions. But the better response (which is the one SpoutBlog had) is to primarily address and celebrate the included films, not just for being contenders for the Feature Documentary Oscar but also for being showcased in general. The wonderful thing about shortlists is that they expand further the idea that it’s great just to be nominated. For feature documentaries, particularly those without a lot of media and major distributor attention, it is also great just to be shortlisted. Non-fiction film fans may now see this as an opportunity to take note of some documentaries that weren’t previously on their radar (unfortunately none of these films are actually allowed to advertise their recent achievement of being shortlisted). But the Academy Awards are, of course, still a competition. So, while we take notice of the 15 semi-finalists for the Feature Documentary Oscar, we shall also weigh their chances of being selected for the final five and predict which titles are likely to be announced as nominees on January 22. 1. Blessed Is the Match: The Life and Death of Hannah Senesh It’s a constant joke that any film related to the Holocaust is guaranteed an Oscar nomination. Obviously this is a generalization based on common trend, and not every Holocaust doc has in fact been recognized by the Academy, but if such a film is good enough to reach the shortlist, there is a very good chance that it will also be nominated. And since there hasn’t been a feature doc on the subject nominated since 2002, it’s probably time for a new one to get the spotlight. Blessed is narrated by Oscar-nominee Joan Allen and details the courageous life of Hannah Senesh, who took part in a mission to rescue Hungary’s Jews. If Hollywood doesn’t nominate this doc, it will probably at least use it as a springboard from which to produce an Oscar-bait dramatization about Senesh in the near future. 2. Trouble the Water Never mind the fact that it’s one of the best-reviewed films of the year, this is the Academy’s first chance to get behind the Katrina issue. Though some mistakenly see the Feature Documentary Oscar as primarily a category with which to showcase its favored causes rather than recognizing the actual best documentary filmmaking of the year, there is a miniscule amount of truth in the matter. It’s part of the reason that the Holocaust-doc joke is so often made, and it’s also why the films Born Into Brothels and An Inconvenient Truth were named winners, despite their being subject-over-style kinds of documentaries. Trouble the Water is a tad bit sloppy, but it has the subject matter and enough inspirational substance to receive a nomination. 3. Encounters at the End of the World This may be the Academy’s chance to make up for their exclusion of Werner Herzog’s Grizzly Man a few years back or simply honor a filmmaker who has been important to the non-fiction genre for decades. Also, with their snub of Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the Academy Documentary Branch could use this as more opportunity to distinguish and make an example out of the difference between a theatrical documentary and a television documentary (as David Poland recently pointed out, “if you are a TV doc, be a TV doc…if you are a theatrical doc, that is what the Oscars reward”). People who went to see Encounters recommended it on the basis that it needs to be seen on a big screen, which is not often said about documentaries. Other things it has going for it are a shared location with Oscar-winner March of the Penguins (even if Herzog starts the film addressing that this is not like that film) and a slight relevance to the global warming issue, which is one of the Academy’s currently favored issues. 4. Standard Operating Procedure The Academy Documentary Branch does seem to favor former nominees in their category, perhaps due to the number of documentarians who turn to fiction filmmaking after breaking out in non-fiction (maybe that explains their snub of Barbara Kopple recently after her attempt into fiction). So Morris, who was infamously rejected by the Academy with his monumental film The Thin Blue Line, and who later won the Oscar for The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons Learned from the Life of Robert S. McNamara, should be given another go. It also helps that Standard Operating Procedure is the sole Iraq War-relevant documentary in the bunch, an interesting fact given how many films dealing with this topic have been shortlisted in the past few years. Even though last year the Oscar was given to a similarly themed doc about torture and prisoner abuse, the issue is likely still one that the Academy feels strongly about. Of course, speaking of that film, Taxi to the Dark Side, its director’s latest film was not shortlisted. 5. Man on Wire This is the highest grossing (and best-reviewed) of the 15 shortlisted films, and that could mean a lot, even if it is only the fifth top grossing doc of the year. The Academy is hardly a sucker for popular documentaries, but most years since Michael Moore was honored in 2002 have seen at least one popular doc, such as Super Size Me, March of the Penguins and Moore’s Sicko. In fact, only four of the ten top grossing (non-IMAX, non-concert, non-compilation, non-reality TV-based) documentaries have not been nominated for an Oscar. The only drawback for Man on Wire could be that it features a very large percentage of re-enactment or dramatization, and even if the Academy’s rules have a greater permission for these kinds of documentaries than in the days of The Thin Blue Line’s snub, it’s very possible that members of the Academy Documentary Branch are more appreciable towards one of the films that aren’t so heavily dependent on re-enactments. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:01:27 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/24/2008 7:01:27 PMWhen the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announces a shortlist for one of its Oscar categories, many critics immediately focus on what titles are missing. Religulous was snubbed! Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired was punished for having a “secret” qualifying run! The Academy’s rules for eligibility must be amended! Such reactions were seen all over the web last week as awards season pundits looked at the narrowed-down list of 15 Feature Documentary hopefuls and criticized the Academy for its omissions. But the better response (which is the one SpoutBlog had) is to primarily address and celebrate the included films, not just for being contenders for the Feature Documentary Oscar but also for being showcased in general. The wonderful thing about shortlists is that they expand further the idea that it’s great just to be nominated. For feature documentaries, particularly those without a lot of media and major distributor attention, it is also great just to be shortlisted. Non-fiction film fans may now see this as an opportunity to take note of some documentaries that weren’t previously on their radar (unfortunately none of these films are actually allowed to advertise their recent achievement of being shortlisted). But the Academy Awards are, of course, still a competition. So, while we take notice of the 15 semi-finalists for the Feature Documentary Oscar, we shall also weigh their chances of being selected for the final five and predict which titles are likely to be announced as nominees on January 22. 1. Blessed Is the Match: The Life and Death of Hannah Senesh It’s a constant joke that any film related to the Holocaust is guaranteed an Oscar nomination. Obviously this is a generalization based on common trend, and not every Holocaust doc has in fact been recognized by the Academy, but if such a film is good enough to reach the shortlist, there is a very good chance that it will also be nominated. And since there hasn’t been a feature doc on the subject nominated since 2002, it’s probably time for a new one to get the spotlight. Blessed is narrated by Oscar-nominee Joan Allen and details the courageous life of Hannah Senesh, who took part in a mission to rescue Hungary’s Jews. If Hollywood doesn’t nominate this doc, it will probably at least use it as a springboard from which to produce an Oscar-bait dramatization about Senesh in the near future. 2. Trouble the Water Never mind the fact that it’s one of the best-reviewed films of the year, this is the Academy’s first chance to get behind the Katrina issue. Though some mistakenly see the Feature Documentary Oscar as primarily a category with which to showcase its favored causes rather than recognizing the actual best documentary filmmaking of the year, there is a miniscule amount of truth in the matter. It’s part of the reason that the Holocaust-doc joke is so often made, and it’s also why the films Born Into Brothels and An Inconvenient Truth were named winners, despite their being subject-over-style kinds of documentaries. Trouble the Water is a tad bit sloppy, but it has the subject matter and enough inspirational substance to receive a nomination. 3. Encounters at the End of the World This may be the Academy’s chance to make up for their exclusion of Werner Herzog’s Grizzly Man a few years back or simply honor a filmmaker who has been important to the non-fiction genre for decades. Also, with their snub of Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the Academy Documentary Branch could use this as more opportunity to distinguish and make an example out of the difference between a theatrical documentary and a television documentary (as David Poland recently pointed out, “if you are a TV doc, be a TV doc…if you are a theatrical doc, that is what the Oscars reward”). People who went to see Encounters recommended it on the basis that it needs to be seen on a big screen, which is not often said about documentaries. Other things it has going for it are a shared location with Oscar-winner March of the Penguins (even if Herzog starts the film addressing that this is not like that film) and a slight relevance to the global warming issue, which is one of the Academy’s currently favored issues. 4. Standard Operating Procedure The Academy Documentary Branch does seem to favor former nominees in their category, perhaps due to the number of documentarians who turn to fiction filmmaking after breaking out in non-fiction (maybe that explains their snub of Barbara Kopple recently after her attempt into fiction). So Morris, who was infamously rejected by the Academy with his monumental film The Thin Blue Line, and who later won the Oscar for The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons Learned from the Life of Robert S. McNamara, should be given another go. It also helps that Standard Operating Procedure is the sole Iraq War-relevant documentary in the bunch, an interesting fact given how many films dealing with this topic have been shortlisted in the past few years. Even though last year the Oscar was given to a similarly themed doc about torture and prisoner abuse, the issue is likely still one that the Academy feels strongly about. Of course, speaking of that film, Taxi to the Dark Side, its director’s latest film was not shortlisted. 5. Man on Wire This is the highest grossing (and best-reviewed) of the 15 shortlisted films, and that could mean a lot, even if it is only the fifth top grossing doc of the year. The Academy is hardly a sucker for popular documentaries, but most years since Michael Moore was honored in 2002 have seen at least one popular doc, such as Super Size Me, March of the Penguins and Moore’s Sicko. In fact, only four of the ten top grossing (non-IMAX, non-concert, non-compilation, non-reality TV-based) documentaries have not been nominated for an Oscar. The only drawback for Man on Wire could be that it features a very large percentage of re-enactment or dramatization, and even if the Academy’s rules have a greater permission for these kinds of documentaries than in the days of The Thin Blue Line’s snub, it’s very possible that members of the Academy Documentary Branch are more appreciable towards one of the films that aren’t so heavily dependent on re-enactments. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/unclefestering/archive/2008/9/1/34632.aspx Post By: unclefestering
Post To: unclefestering Blog
Post Date: 9/1/2008 11:38:44 PM
Body: Out of Balance is a documentary of the worst type: pick an easy target, show what they do is wrong and claim a moral victory. It doesn’t attempt to portray any kind of balance to the story it is telling. While there are plenty of talking heads, I expected them to quote from more than three documents to prove ExxonMobil is the greatest threat to the environment. According to this movie, ExxonMobile is the single, greatest source of evil on the face of the planet. The company single handedly is going to destroy every aspect of life on Earth. Am I exagerating the claims made by the documentary? Yes. However, my exaggerations are not as much as you would expect. This movie spends slightly more than an hour featuring one talking head after another from extremely radical environmental groups claiming that ExxonMobile has stifled the debate on global climate change. They claim the company has exerted undue influence on the government. And that they have created massive amounts of doubt in the mind of the public on how serious the problem of global warming is. Of these claims made by the movie, really the middle one is the one I believe most strongly. It is also the one that they have the most documented evidence. It appears to be clear that Exxon and the other oil companies were able to use their personal relationships with the president and the vice president of the United States, to craft an energy policy that favors the current energy producers and prevent any real reform in researching and producing alternative energy sources. This part of the movie comes very late and in a way is the most compelling because, finally, people other than environmental lobbyists are on camera and they have some actual proof the match the claims. During the rest of the movie, when the speakers are not onscreen, the viewers get treated to stock footage of the ecological devastation caused by the Exxon Valdez spill. This footage is shown again and again over the discussion that ExxonMobile funds researchers and organizations which take the position that global warming is a myth or that the effects are greatly exaggerated by the people who believe in it. This is the bulk of the movie and this is what I had the hardest time with. Very little time in the movie is devoted to the idea of what can be done to stop the juggernaut that is ExxonMobile. Other then a couple of the speakers saying they don’t buy gas from Exxon, only about 10 minutes at the end is devoted on what people can do to make a change. And really the conclusion they draw is that the government has to tell the company it has been bad and make them change. I know one person who thinks that global warming is a hoax. I know one other person who tends to doubt the validity of scientific studies and even he believes the global climate change is a real crisis. I think the people who are trying to move the global warming discussion back to the “Is it Real” phase have really long lost the argument. The movie tries to make the claim that this is where the energy debate is. In reality the debate has moved on to the “What can be done to address the problem” stage. This is a fact that the movie doesn’t want to address because it would make Exxon seem like less of a looming threat. The problem with polemics like Out of Balance is that they are all arguments with very little in the way of facts to support those arguments. What made An Inconvenient Truth so compelling was that Al Gore compiled fact after fact to show how serious the issue was and how incontrovertible his conclusions were. Here the facts are just replaced with anger and even if you agree with the idea they present, the undocumented single-mindedness of their attack undermines their position.
]]>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 03:38:44 GMTunclefesteringunclefestering Blog9/1/2008 11:38:44 PM Out of Balance is a documentary of the worst type: pick an easy target, show what they do is wrong and claim a moral victory. It doesn’t attempt to portray any kind of balance to the story it is telling. While there are plenty of talking heads, I expected them to quote from more than three documents to prove ExxonMobil is the greatest threat to the environment. According to this movie, ExxonMobile is the single, greatest source of evil on the face of the planet. The company single handedly is going to destroy every aspect of life on Earth. Am I exagerating the claims made by the documentary? Yes. However, my exaggerations are not as much as you would expect. This movie spends slightly more than an hour featuring one talking head after another from extremely radical environmental groups claiming that ExxonMobile has stifled the debate on global climate change. They claim the company has exerted undue influence on the government. And that they have created massive amounts of doubt in the mind of the public on how serious the problem of global warming is. Of these claims made by the movie, really the middle one is the one I believe most strongly. It is also the one that they have the most documented evidence. It appears to be clear that Exxon and the other oil companies were able to use their personal relationships with the president and the vice president of the United States, to craft an energy policy that favors the current energy producers and prevent any real reform in researching and producing alternative energy sources. This part of the movie comes very late and in a way is the most compelling because, finally, people other than environmental lobbyists are on camera and they have some actual proof the match the claims. During the rest of the movie, when the speakers are not onscreen, the viewers get treated to stock footage of the ecological devastation caused by the Exxon Valdez spill. This footage is shown again and again over the discussion that ExxonMobile funds researchers and organizations which take the position that global warming is a myth or that the effects are greatly exaggerated by the people who believe in it. This is the bulk of the movie and this is what I had the hardest time with. Very little time in the movie is devoted to the idea of what can be done to stop the juggernaut that is ExxonMobile. Other then a couple of the speakers saying they don’t buy gas from Exxon, only about 10 minutes at the end is devoted on what people can do to make a change. And really the conclusion they draw is that the government has to tell the company it has been bad and make them change. I know one person who thinks that global warming is a hoax. I know one other person who tends to doubt the validity of scientific studies and even he believes the global climate change is a real crisis. I think the people who are trying to move the global warming discussion back to the “Is it Real” phase have really long lost the argument. The movie tries to make the claim that this is where the energy debate is. In reality the debate has moved on to the “What can be done to address the problem” stage. This is a fact that the movie doesn’t want to address because it would make Exxon seem like less of a looming threat. The problem with polemics like Out of Balance is that they are all arguments with very little in the way of facts to support those arguments. What made An Inconvenient Truth so compelling was that Al Gore compiled fact after fact to show how serious the issue was and how incontrovertible his conclusions were. Here the facts are just replaced with anger and even if you agree with the idea they present, the undocumented single-mindedness of their attack undermines their position. http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_american_dream/archive/2008/6/3/30450.aspx Post By: The_American_Dream
Post To: The_American_Dream Blog
Post Date: 6/3/2008 11:35:28 PM
Body: A truly rare and unique documentary. "Manda Bala" has about everything good about it. Everything from in depth interviews from everyone involved with the wide range of topics this documentary approaches, to just plain old good filming. But about the movie. "Manda Bala" takes an unflinching look at an ugly subject. Interestingly enough, the subject of this movie is not really one you see people yelling about in the park. "Manda Bala" is about corruption and violence in Brazil, particularly Sao Paulo. The movie makes it very clear just how broad this topic is, but this does not stop the film makers from putting together this extraordinary film. I say film for a reason, this film is more than just a documentary, I would go so far as to say that this is a stand out in its field movie, it brings together facets of documentary and marries them with cinematic principals that are easily lost in the making of documentaries. "Manda Bala" stands out as a documentary for several reasons. It has in it a few simple topics that it it calls our attention to, corruption and street violence, and presents them without fooling around or going in circles over and over again. Poignant interviews and on-the-spot photography bring the viewer into the causes and effects of the corruption and violence in Brazil. Movies in general take these themes upon themselves all the time. "Syriana", although a decent and compelling drama on a similar subject, seems to loose focus on these themes, and not just because it is a fictional movie with drama and characters. "Manda Bala" has characters and drama in the sense that there are real people that the audience follows on journeys in their lives. There is even a sense of connection, compassion even, for people concerned, all the while stressing the brutality with extreme vividness. And finally, "Manda Bala" brings the good, the bad, and the ugly right on the screen so the audience can see it. The cruelty of politicians and murderers, the compassion of doctors and police. As a strait-up movie, "Manda Bala" also excels. Brazil lends itself to some cinematic qualities, vast cities with skyscrapers reaching out of sprawling slums, mountains covered in rain-forest, all under azure skies. This imagery abounds in "Manda Bala", blues and greens of nature splashed with the ochre tones of the slums and the skyscrapers. But there is also simply good filming, the way shots are set, the juxtaposition of interviewers and translators. Beautiful photography, with even quirky scenarios. It is strangely elegant. The film also uses its status as a documentary to punctuate this beauty with stark, edgy, stock footage. It is good to have these qualities in a documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth", even though it is a good documentary, gets boring. "Manda Bala" also holds its own. "The Fog of War", another great documentary, it just one interview. Both of these movies are equally insightful, but "Manda Bala" has them beat in some way as documentaries, in addition to its cinematic qualities. Also as a documentary, "Manda Bala" is not for the fait of heart. It is one that can turn your stomach, but the audience of a documentary knows that this is the world. The audience faces the brutality of a movie like this for a reason. The fact that this movie pulls it off is truly a mark of great documentary film making. This is something to look for in the best of movies, stories, and particularly, documentaries. This is a great film. Well worth the while of any audience. But part of this fact is that it cannot be taken lightly, even when this movie has irony or dark-humor. "Manda Bala" is a wonderful portrait of the world we sometimes have to face. Directed by Jason Kohn Not Rated
]]>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:35:28 GMTThe_American_DreamThe_American_Dream Blog6/3/2008 11:35:28 PM A truly rare and unique documentary. "Manda Bala" has about everything good about it. Everything from in depth interviews from everyone involved with the wide range of topics this documentary approaches, to just plain old good filming. But about the movie. "Manda Bala" takes an unflinching look at an ugly subject. Interestingly enough, the subject of this movie is not really one you see people yelling about in the park. "Manda Bala" is about corruption and violence in Brazil, particularly Sao Paulo. The movie makes it very clear just how broad this topic is, but this does not stop the film makers from putting together this extraordinary film. I say film for a reason, this film is more than just a documentary, I would go so far as to say that this is a stand out in its field movie, it brings together facets of documentary and marries them with cinematic principals that are easily lost in the making of documentaries. "Manda Bala" stands out as a documentary for several reasons. It has in it a few simple topics that it it calls our attention to, corruption and street violence, and presents them without fooling around or going in circles over and over again. Poignant interviews and on-the-spot photography bring the viewer into the causes and effects of the corruption and violence in Brazil. Movies in general take these themes upon themselves all the time. "Syriana", although a decent and compelling drama on a similar subject, seems to loose focus on these themes, and not just because it is a fictional movie with drama and characters. "Manda Bala" has characters and drama in the sense that there are real people that the audience follows on journeys in their lives. There is even a sense of connection, compassion even, for people concerned, all the while stressing the brutality with extreme vividness. And finally, "Manda Bala" brings the good, the bad, and the ugly right on the screen so the audience can see it. The cruelty of politicians and murderers, the compassion of doctors and police. As a strait-up movie, "Manda Bala" also excels. Brazil lends itself to some cinematic qualities, vast cities with skyscrapers reaching out of sprawling slums, mountains covered in rain-forest, all under azure skies. This imagery abounds in "Manda Bala", blues and greens of nature splashed with the ochre tones of the slums and the skyscrapers. But there is also simply good filming, the way shots are set, the juxtaposition of interviewers and translators. Beautiful photography, with even quirky scenarios. It is strangely elegant. The film also uses its status as a documentary to punctuate this beauty with stark, edgy, stock footage. It is good to have these qualities in a documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth", even though it is a good documentary, gets boring. "Manda Bala" also holds its own. "The Fog of War", another great documentary, it just one interview. Both of these movies are equally insightful, but "Manda Bala" has them beat in some way as documentaries, in addition to its cinematic qualities. Also as a documentary, "Manda Bala" is not for the fait of heart. It is one that can turn your stomach, but the audience of a documentary knows that this is the world. The audience faces the brutality of a movie like this for a reason. The fact that this movie pulls it off is truly a mark of great documentary film making. This is something to look for in the best of movies, stories, and particularly, documentaries. This is a great film. Well worth the while of any audience. But part of this fact is that it cannot be taken lightly, even when this movie has irony or dark-humor. "Manda Bala" is a wonderful portrait of the world we sometimes have to face. Directed by Jason Kohn Not Rated http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/13/28834.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/13/2008 4:15:20 AM
Body: When I compile my list of the year's ten best films, I have a pretty good feeling that An Inconvenient Truth will take the top slot. There are more artful films, but none as important. Indeed, the advertising is correct-it could be the important film you'll ever see. A filmed lecture by Al Gore, who is not known for being one our nations most charismatic speakers, might at first seem like an endurance test. But Gore has never appeared more at ease with himself. More than one person I know has remarked that if he were this casual and self-confident in the 2000 election, he would have won. But then again, he actually did win… Throughout the course of a ninety-six minute film, Gore clearly, concisely, and entertainingly explains the causes and effects of global warming. And indeed the film is the truth- like evolution, global warming is something at which there is great controversy about on the national political stage, but a tested and proved reality to virtually all scientists who study it. Unlike evolution, there is little religious reason to disagree with it (I actually don't think there's a religious problem with evolution either, but that's just me), which makes its opponents grasp at straws. A clip is shown of Oklahoma Senator James M. Inhofe, who calls climate change "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Its opponents, most of whom who are lobbied by the auto and energy industries claim that the science is not real, even though a study commissioned by George W. Bush himself proved it was. The administration did nothing, which is not surprising considering both the President and Vice President are Texas oilmen. To be fair, the movie also implies that the Clinton administration didn't do nearly enough either. Gore uses photographs, animations, and film clips to illustrate this. Among the most striking are pictures of ice peak and glaciers that were taken 50 years ago, and then a side-by-side comparison with photos of the same subject from the same angle today. The difference is striking, some mountain peaks have no snow on them anymore. Even more compelling, Gore makes the argument that the problem is far more urgent that most think. We are can't just leave the problem for our grandchildren to solve, we are seeing increased levels of disease, hurricanes, tornados, and typhoons all due to global warming. Guggienhiem occasionally intercuts the lecture with biographical information about the former Vice President and Senator from Tennessee. Although certainly pro Gore, it is not a piece of political propaganda. In the most moving section, Gore reveals that he grew up on a tobacco farm, and voted against anti-tobacco legislation- until his sister died of lung cancer. The implication is clear- short term political expediency can have dire consequences. The movie never ventures into preachyness because it doesn't have to. The evidence is objective enough that it is made clear that there is a problem, and something must be done about it, or Earth as we know it will be lost forever, along with many animals and plant species. But the film doesn't end with fear but with hope. Gore is confident that since Americans have solved huge problems in the past, they can solve this one. This film was one of the few times since 2000 that I have felt proud to be an American. An Inconvenient Truth (2006)
]]>Tue, 13 May 2008 08:15:20 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/13/2008 4:15:20 AMWhen I compile my list of the year's ten best films, I have a pretty good feeling that An Inconvenient Truth will take the top slot. There are more artful films, but none as important. Indeed, the advertising is correct-it could be the important film you'll ever see. A filmed lecture by Al Gore, who is not known for being one our nations most charismatic speakers, might at first seem like an endurance test. But Gore has never appeared more at ease with himself. More than one person I know has remarked that if he were this casual and self-confident in the 2000 election, he would have won. But then again, he actually did win… Throughout the course of a ninety-six minute film, Gore clearly, concisely, and entertainingly explains the causes and effects of global warming. And indeed the film is the truth- like evolution, global warming is something at which there is great controversy about on the national political stage, but a tested and proved reality to virtually all scientists who study it. Unlike evolution, there is little religious reason to disagree with it (I actually don't think there's a religious problem with evolution either, but that's just me), which makes its opponents grasp at straws. A clip is shown of Oklahoma Senator James M. Inhofe, who calls climate change "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Its opponents, most of whom who are lobbied by the auto and energy industries claim that the science is not real, even though a study commissioned by George W. Bush himself proved it was. The administration did nothing, which is not surprising considering both the President and Vice President are Texas oilmen. To be fair, the movie also implies that the Clinton administration didn't do nearly enough either. Gore uses photographs, animations, and film clips to illustrate this. Among the most striking are pictures of ice peak and glaciers that were taken 50 years ago, and then a side-by-side comparison with photos of the same subject from the same angle today. The difference is striking, some mountain peaks have no snow on them anymore. Even more compelling, Gore makes the argument that the problem is far more urgent that most think. We are can't just leave the problem for our grandchildren to solve, we are seeing increased levels of disease, hurricanes, tornados, and typhoons all due to global warming. Guggienhiem occasionally intercuts the lecture with biographical information about the former Vice President and Senator from Tennessee. Although certainly pro Gore, it is not a piece of political propaganda. In the most moving section, Gore reveals that he grew up on a tobacco farm, and voted against anti-tobacco legislation- until his sister died of lung cancer. The implication is clear- short term political expediency can have dire consequences. The movie never ventures into preachyness because it doesn't have to. The evidence is objective enough that it is made clear that there is a problem, and something must be done about it, or Earth as we know it will be lost forever, along with many animals and plant species. But the film doesn't end with fear but with hope. Gore is confident that since Americans have solved huge problems in the past, they can solve this one. This film was one of the few times since 2000 that I have felt proud to be an American. An Inconvenient Truth (2006) http://www.spout.com/groups/B_Movies/Re_Double_features/588/27733/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: SkyPilot
Post To: B Movies
Post Date: 4/23/2008 11:29:38 PM
Body: [quote user="porcupine"] [quote user="ElCid2002"] Snatch and Shaft [/quote] LOL! As far as double features go... even though they're not really B Movies, I've always wanted to see An Inconvenient Truth followed by Waterworld. [/quote] lol ... ElCid your name should be "El Cad," you rake. and Porcupine, I think your suggestion's amusing for a few reasons. one is that I like imagining someone trying to lead a serious discussion group after the double feature, and people would totally be unreachable, throwing food and quoting Dennis Hopper -- "If I ever see him again, I'm going to cut open his head and eat his brain." I also consider Waterworld to be an overblown B movie, too. I can't believe it was the most expensive movie ever! I can imagine Roger Corman doing the whole thing on an altered cruise ship for only a few million. besides that, I think the top 5 "Plot Keyword" entries at imdb will convince you this is a B movie in spirit: 1. Glass eye 2. Nudity 3. Drunkenness 4. Mouth To Mouth Air Exchange Underwater 5. Female Nudity
]]>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 03:29:38 GMTSkyPilotB Movies4/23/2008 11:29:38 PM[quote user="porcupine"] [quote user="ElCid2002"] Snatch and Shaft [/quote] LOL! As far as double features go... even though they're not really B Movies, I've always wanted to see An Inconvenient Truth followed by Waterworld. [/quote] lol ... ElCid your name should be "El Cad," you rake. and Porcupine, I think your suggestion's amusing for a few reasons. one is that I like imagining someone trying to lead a serious discussion group after the double feature, and people would totally be unreachable, throwing food and quoting Dennis Hopper -- "If I ever see him again, I'm going to cut open his head and eat his brain." I also consider Waterworld to be an overblown B movie, too. I can't believe it was the most expensive movie ever! I can imagine Roger Corman doing the whole thing on an altered cruise ship for only a few million. besides that, I think the top 5 "Plot Keyword" entries at imdb will convince you this is a B movie in spirit: 1. Glass eye 2. Nudity 3. Drunkenness 4. Mouth To Mouth Air Exchange Underwater 5. Female Nudity http://www.spout.com/groups/B_Movies/Re_Double_features/588/27693/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: porcupine
Post To: B Movies
Post Date: 4/23/2008 12:21:17 PM
Body: [quote user="ElCid2002"] Snatch and Shaft [/quote] LOL! As far as double features go... even though they're not really B Movies, I've always wanted to see An Inconvenient Truth followed by Waterworld.
]]>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:21:17 GMTporcupineB Movies4/23/2008 12:21:17 PM[quote user="ElCid2002"] Snatch and Shaft [/quote] LOL! As far as double features go... even though they're not really B Movies, I've always wanted to see An Inconvenient Truth followed by Waterworld. http://www.spout.com/blogs/pratchettfan/archive/2008/1/29/24491.aspx Post By: pratchettfan
Post To: pratchettfan Blog
Post Date: 1/29/2008 7:41:20 AM
Body: Something special had to happen to celebrate my 25th birthday. And going to the movies all day long is something unique, something I haven't done before :). To my pleasant surprise lots of people decided to join me, even if just for one or two movies. Nevertheless, there were four of us going the whole nine yards.The day started at 2pm with 'An Inconvenient Truth', Al Gore's documentary about global warming. To be honest, there were now new facts revealed, but it was nevertheless very interesting to see those facts condensed and supported by powerful pictures.After a short break we continued with 'Pan's Labyrinth', which turned out to be my favorite movie of the day. A compelling fantasy-tale about a small girl trying to flee the cruelties of war into a fantasy world, it isn't a movie for children though.Third in line was 'Smokin' Aces'. The trailer looked quite promising, but the movie failed miserably. We weren't sure if it wanted to be more comic or more dramatic, but neither approach worked. The term 'mindless violence' quite closely fits the feeling that we left the movie with.To round things up we visited the midnight screening of 'Ghost Rider'. After 'Smokin' Aces' this was a real joy. The movie was funny and successfully so and still had very cool characters and scenes.On the whole it was a memorable birthday party :)
]]>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:41:20 GMTpratchettfanpratchettfan Blog1/29/2008 7:41:20 AMSomething special had to happen to celebrate my 25th birthday. And going to the movies all day long is something unique, something I haven't done before :). To my pleasant surprise lots of people decided to join me, even if just for one or two movies. Nevertheless, there were four of us going the whole nine yards.The day started at 2pm with 'An Inconvenient Truth', Al Gore's documentary about global warming. To be honest, there were now new facts revealed, but it was nevertheless very interesting to see those facts condensed and supported by powerful pictures.After a short break we continued with 'Pan's Labyrinth', which turned out to be my favorite movie of the day. A compelling fantasy-tale about a small girl trying to flee the cruelties of war into a fantasy world, it isn't a movie for children though.Third in line was 'Smokin' Aces'. The trailer looked quite promising, but the movie failed miserably. We weren't sure if it wanted to be more comic or more dramatic, but neither approach worked. The term 'mindless violence' quite closely fits the feeling that we left the movie with.To round things up we visited the midnight screening of 'Ghost Rider'. After 'Smokin' Aces' this was a real joy. The movie was funny and successfully so and still had very cool characters and scenes.On the whole it was a memorable birthday party :) http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Loved-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxLoved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/documentary/MemberTagFilms.aspxdocumentary
Number of films tagged: 402

Number of people who tagged: 127

Number of times used: 496

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:11:06 GMT402127496Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/gore/MemberTagFilms.aspxgore
Number of films tagged: 246

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 136

]]>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:53:52 GMT24650136Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/depressing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdepressing
Number of films tagged: 55

Number of people who tagged: 45

Number of times used: 74

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:23:43 GMT554574Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/biography/MemberTagFilms.aspxbiography
Number of films tagged: 56

Number of people who tagged: 30

Number of times used: 66

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:11:06 GMT563066Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/smart/MemberTagFilms.aspxsmart
Number of films tagged: 34

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 40

]]>Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:46:30 GMT342840Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/activism/MemberTagFilms.aspxactivism
Number of films tagged: 651

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 27

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT6511727Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/controversial/MemberTagFilms.aspxcontroversial
Number of films tagged: 161

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 19

]]>Sun, 18 Jan 2009 02:51:39 GMT1611719Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/green/MemberTagFilms.aspxgreen
Number of films tagged: 13

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 20

]]>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:45:01 GMT131720Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/evolution/MemberTagFilms.aspxevolution
Number of films tagged: 217

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 21

]]>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:02:27 GMT2171421Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/simple/MemberTagFilms.aspxsimple
Number of films tagged: 14

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 15

]]>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:35:56 GMT141415Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/environmentalism/MemberTagFilms.aspxenvironmentalism
Number of films tagged: 390

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 11

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT3901011Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/educational/MemberTagFilms.aspxeducational
Number of films tagged: 25

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 27

]]>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:04:44 GMT25927Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/compelling/MemberTagFilms.aspxcompelling
Number of films tagged: 14

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 15

]]>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:36:40 GMT14815Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/globalwarming/MemberTagFilms.aspxglobalwarming
Number of films tagged: 55

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 8

]]>Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:12:44 GMT5588Tag