Topic Of The Day: Actresses and Longevity in Hollywood

Hello, Bloggers, for today's Topic Of The Day, I figured I'd discuss something that I have my own theories about, and that is the question of why Hollywood actresses don't have their careers see as much longevity as their male counterparts.

The way I see it, I think that many ingénues who get tossed aside as they get older, are usually typecast in either sexpot or "girl-next-door" roles in their prime. Those types of roles are their bread and butter and once their bread and butter become stale, then they stop working as much. As they get older, they are stuck in rather supporting roles like the mother and whatnot, so some of them just don't want to cast their vanity aside and play those types of roles. Of course, some of them get rather unfortunate plastic surgery which really could kill your chances at getting more work like the snapping of fingers, or just stop working as much because they reach a point in their career where they can work whenever they want to.

On the flip side, however, there are those who in their prime didn't always get stuck playing roles based on their charm and looks and still steadily work today. Take, for example, Jessica Lange. Back in 1983, she won an Oscar for her supporting work as the love interest in Tootsie. That same year, she won nominated for her lead turn in a much meatier role in the biopic Frances. Four more Oscar nods including another win would follow. She may not be working in film as much now, but she is still busy winning Emmys for her work in television. Plus, there are some actresses past their prime other than Meryl Streep who still work consistently, like Julianne Moore. Julianne Moore, both now, and in her prime, has always fallen on and off the radar doing art house films (Safe, Far From Heaven, Magnolia) as well as blockbusters (The Lost World: Jurassic Park, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Hannibal). She even finds solid work on television like her Golden Globe and Emmy-winning turn as Sarah Palin in Game Change. So, like Jessica Lange, Moore has always found substantial material, whether it'd be on the big or small screen. Another example of an actress past her prime who still works steadily is Sigourney Weaver. In her prime, she was known for being an action heroine rather than the "girl next door" like Meg Ryan. As she got older, she seemed to have come to terms with the fact that her Alien days were behind her and would gravitate towards more dramatic films like The Ice Storm, A Map of the World, and Imaginary Heroes. Plus, she would still find work in sci-fi fare even if they are films where she is not front and center, in films like Avatar and her cameo in Paul.

So, that is my personal theory on why there are actresses whose careers don't foresee as much longevity as their male counterparts and why there are some that do. Please feel free to offer your thoughts in the comments section and thanks for reading!

Retro Review: Rope (1948)

                                An Intense Thriller That Gives The Feeling Of Being Tied On A 'Rope'
                 
                   Since I have developed such a hankering for Hitchcock, I figured that after Rear Window, I would watch another suspense film that was filmed in a rather special way. Not only does Rope have that, but it was just as good as Rear Window and holds the title of being one of the best thrillers I've ever seen.

                  Story:
                 Rope is a story about two students who strangle one of their colleagues because of how they want to see if they can pull off the "perfect" crime, and hide him in a drawer in their New York apartment. This killing takes place before a party and as it progresses, the guests begin to become more suspicious of the dead man's whereabouts and the killers become more nervous.

                What I Liked About It:
               First off, I absolutely loved the direction from Mr. Alfred Hitchcock. He structures the film as if it is an 80-minute long tracking shot and shoots the film in real time. The film literally starts off with the murder, and then it focuses on the killers and eventually the party guests and their interactions with one another as well. One of my favorite scenes is a scene where the nervous killer is playing piano while being sort of interrogated by their former prep school housemaster Rupert Cadell (James Stewart). As the film progresses, Hitchcock just has you asking yourselves "What is going to happen next?" or "How is it going to end?". Another thing I thought was interesting was how the nervous killer, Phillip, wears a red suit and the other who is more calm, Brandon, wears a blue shit. To me, it shows how Phillip is more guilty about the situation and Brandon is more calm and tranquil about it.

               One thing I thought was unique about this film was how it not only focuses on the idea of committing the "perfect crime", but how these two men commit this murder also because of a superiority complex. They consider themselves to be intellectually superior to the colleague that they strangle. Plus, what to me, is rather frightening is that these two men are committing this murder because they wonder if they can do something incredibly evil and they realize they can. They aren't Freddy or Jason or Michael, just two normal students who commit a murder as a simple intellectual exercise. It shows how the people who seem the more modest or harmless can be the most deadly.

              What I Didn't Like About It:
             Nothing.

              Consensus:
             Overall, Rope is a gripping thriller that will leave you guessing up until the very end. This one I would recommend to everyone since even though it is a thriller, it is literally bloodless and is rather neat to sit through. Plus, I highly, and I mean, HIGHLY, recommend this to anyone who likes to study film. Definitely give this a watch!
Rating: 5/5

Retro Review: Rear Window (1954)

                                 'Rear Window': A Voyeuristic Venture Into Sheer Mystery

                   Thus far, this is one of the few films that I have seen from Alfred Hitchcock. However, after watching both this and Psycho, I can honestly say that they did NOT call Alfred Hitchcock the Master Of Suspense for nothing as I was on edge up until the film's gripping climax.

                    Story:
                  Rear Window is about a photographer named L.B. "Jeff" Jeffries (James Stewart) who has a broken leg and is bound to a wheelchair. He spends his days looking outside the window of his apartment and one night, he hears a scream from a woman and begins to suspect that her husband is involved in her sudden disappearance.

                  What I Liked About It:
                Where do I begin here? First off, I have to really discuss the direction from Mr. Alfred Hitchcock. The film is mostly shot from a rather voyeuristic point of view, making us see what the main protagonist sees, even when he is using his camera. One scene in particular that I loved was when a neighborhood dog (*spoiler alert*) dies and the neighbors gather and peak outside as its body is found, except for the suspect whose lights in his apartment are completely shut off, making the audience more suspicious of him. The entire film is even filmed and set in one apartment room by the rear window of the title and it is amazing how Hitchcock is able to take that minimalist approach to such a gripping thriller.

                One thing that I personally took away from this film was that it was somewhat philosophical. There is one scene where Jeff asks Lisa if his form of voyeurism is wrong and she then says she doesn't know much about "rear window" ethics but asks "What ever happened to that old saying, "Love thy neighbor"? Plus, in the scene where the dog is found dead, the dog's owner yells at her neighbors saying how they don't know the meaning of the word neighbors. In my opinion, those two scenes reflect a sort of distance that neighbors tend to have with each other, regardless of how physically close they are. I also loved just how Hitchcock gives us a view of Jeff's different neighbors who live various lifestyles and come from different generations.

                What I Didn't Like About It:
                Nothing.

                Consensus:
              Overall, Rear Window is a very gripping thriller that will keep you on edge up until the heart pounding climax. This one I highly recommend not just because it is a classic by the Master of Suspense, but because it is one of the best thrillers that I have ever seen. This is one not to be missed.

Rating: 5/5

Indie Review: Pulp Fiction (1994)

                                'Pulp Fiction': A Modest Landmark In Cinema History

                 Back in 1994, Quentin Tarantino came out with a film that was not just a game changer for cinema, but a game changer for indie cinema as he was able to help indie cinema cross over to the mainstream. While this accomplished feat is admirable, I would say that despite it being a landmark film, it isn't without its faults.

                 Story:
                Pulp Fiction is a bunch of interwoven stories involving two hitmen named Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson) and Vincent Vega (John Travolta), a boxer named Butch (Bruce Willis), and even a couple that rob a restaurant named Pumpkin and Honey Bunny (Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer). All these tales are put together in a film about violence that is a throwback to hardboiled crime fiction.

               What I Liked About It:
             First off, I did like the direction by Quentin Tarantino. I especially like the scenes where he does long tracking shots and he does them masterfully. I also thought it was neat how he hardly puts any music in the intense violent scenes. Plus, one of my favorite scenes was the scene where Christopher Walken meets up with a younger version of Bruce Willis' character to hand him his father's gold watch and as Walken moves closer towards the camera, the film then cuts over to Willis getting ready for a boxing match. So, major kudos to Tarantino for his masterful direction. Another thing that I did like was the performances from the cast. There is an ensemble of great actors, but some of the standouts I would say are Samuel L. Jackson as Jules, and even Bruce Willis as Butch. Jackson is hilarious as he plays a foul-mouthed hitman who recites Bible verses as he is about to execute people and Willis really shines as a boxer who is in way over his head. But, the overall cast is excellent.

             Now, the film is structured in a non-chronological way, but I liked that Tarantino went in that direction. If it had been done in linear order, I personally feel it would have a different effect, so towards the end, I can see why the film isn't put together chronologically. I don't want to give anything away, so I'll probably just leave it at that.

              What I Didn't Like About It:
             Like I said, this film does have its fair share of faults. In particular, the biggest problem I had is that it is just way too long. It is much longer than it needed to be. At times, I honestly felt the film kind of drags and if it was much shorter, I probably would've loved it a lot more. I do love this film and think it is quite remarkable, but I would've rather it had been shorter.

             Consensus:
           Overall, Pulp Fiction is a remarkable piece of cinema that despite its problems, is still one to be treasured, especially in the indie circuit. I wouldn't say that this is for everybody because of how violent, but I would say give it a watch because of how it has become such a cultural phenomenon.

Rating: 3.5/5

Oscars 2015 Predictions: Best Actress

Hello, Bloggers, it's been a month since this year's Oscars took place and I figured since I had so much fun covering those Oscars, I would, just for fun, offer my predictions as to what could be nominated in the main categories for next year's Oscars. I'll start off with my predictions for the nominees for Best Actress and dark horse contenders:


Amy Adams, Big Eyes: This would be Amy Adams' 6th nomination and 3rd nomination in a row which would make her very dangerous in this category if Tim Burton's upcoming biopic turns out to be a hit. The film is about a painter named Margaret Keane, played by Adams, who in a divorce battle with her husband (Christoph Waltz), accuses him of stealing her paintings. Plus, this film is distributed by none other than The Weinstein Company. With all those factors, could this finally be her year?

Emily Blunt, Into The Woods: The only actress in this category who hasn't even been nominated before, Emily Blunt might score a nomination for Into The Woods because it is based off a Tony-winning musical, that's one factor, and is directed by Rob Marshall, who did the Oscar-winning adaptation of Chicago and has scored nominations for his actors in the past. Blunt has come close to an Oscar nod in the past with films like Devil Wears Prada and The Young Victoria, but this could potentially be the year where she gets recognized by the Academy. That all depends on how Into The Woods does.

Jessica Chastain, A Most Violent Year: Chastain looks to have a banner year like how she burst onto the scene back in 2011. This year, she has Christopher Nolan's upcoming film Interstellar, the film adaptation of the play Miss Julie, and the upcoming action flick A Most Violent Year. It's unsure whether or not she has a lead or supporting role, but for now, I'll put her in the lead category.

Michelle Williams, Suite Francaise: This would be Williams' 4th nomination and that could create an overdue narrative. Plus, the film is a romantic story set in the days of Nazi-occupied France and is being distributed by the Weinsteins. That, to me, has Oscar written all over it.

Reese Witherspoon, Wild: Witherspoon may have won Best Actress back in 2006 for Walk the Line, but with her upcoming slate of films, it seems she is looking to recapture her former Oscar glory. A nomination for Wild seems plausible because it is a biopic, directed by Jean-Marc Vallee who just won Oscars for his actors in his last film, Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto for Dallas Buyers Club, and the film looks to be a part of the whole minimalist trend with movies like All Is Lost and Gravity, as the film is about a woman who goes on a 1,100-mile hike.

Dark Horses:
Natalie Portman (Jane Got A Gun) If the film's behind-the-scenes drama or early release date don't hurt the film too much, Portman could be a plausible contender.

Jennifer Lawrence (The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part I): If Sandra Bullock's nomination for Gravity showed us anything, it's that the Academy is starting to warm up to performances in sci-fi films. Plus, J-Law is J-Law. She also has Serena as a possible contender, but I don't have too much faith in it.

Hilary Swank (The Homesman) Depending on how the film, which doesn't have a release date yet, plays out and whether or not the Academy will think "she already has 2".

Emma Stone (Magic in the Moonlight): The Academy loves Woody Allen's ladies as much as he does. One of them did just win.

Julianne Moore (Maps to the Stars): Moore does have 4 nominations, so that's something, and the Academy does like to occasionally nominate actors for starring in David Cronenberg films.

Charlize Theron (Dark Places): The film is based on a best-selling novel and is coming out in September around Oscar season.

So, those are my predictions as of now for who could be nominated for Best Actress and the dark horses that could sneak their way into the "Final Five". Thanks for reading!

Review: Life of Pi

          

                                     A Film About As Complex As The "Pi" Equation

       There seems to be a bit of a trend with minimalistic filmmaking: Films with fewer main characters, fewer set pieces, and even one or two settings. While this film may be filmed on a grand scale, it still somewhat fits this trend as it mostly deals with a boy stranded at sea and it does it successfully.

      Story:
     Life of Pi is about a 16-year-old Indian boy named Piscine "Pi" Patel (Suraj Sharma) who while traveling with his family and father's zoo to Canada, becomes stranded on a lifeboat at sea after he becomes shipwrecked and his family dies. He is then left with a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker and together, they try to survive at sea.

       What I Liked About It:
   First off, I loved the way this movie is shot. Director Ang Lee, who also gave us Brokeback Mountain and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, shoots this movie beautifully and the visuals are just astounding and majestic. When I was watching this film, I found it hard to believe the same guy who made this film also made Brokeback Mountain and to me, it just shows how Ang Lee really blends into his artistry. I also thought it was neat how the film and Lee make the tiger seem like a character in the film. It was unique how the film would make me invested in the bond between a boy and his animal.

    Another thing that I really liked was how the film is a visual spectacle that manages to weave in themes of spirituality and God. Since Pi is devoted to God, when you watch the film, it makes you wonder whether the perils Pi goes through is God's way of testing him and his will to survive. But one thing that I also wanted to point out was the performance from Suraj Sharma as Pi. It amazes me how a young man who had never done a film before or have any previous acting experience stars in a film where he is front and center and is able to carry all that weight on his shoulders and deliver an outstanding performance. Hopefully, we see more from this young actor and I hope he has a bright future ahead of him.

      What I Didn't Like About It:
      Nothing.

    Consensus:
   Overall, Life of Pi is a spiritual visual spectacle that is a feast for the eyes. It is not only a spiritual experience and a visual experience, but demonstrates how you can have a grand scale film with minimal characters and set pieces, just like last year's Gravity. This is one I would highly recommend, whether you are a fan of films on a grander scale or not. It is not to be missed.

Consensus: 4.5/5

Review: The Lunchbox

                                  The 'Lunchbox' Fails To Satisfy My Appetite

                  Normally, I don't review films that I watch on my Sunday Cinema Club, for some reason, but because one I recently watched just came out this weekend, I figured I'd share my thoughts on it. But, boy do I have some thoughts on this wretched movie.

                  Story:
                 The Lunchbox is about a housewife from India named Ila (Nimrat Kaur) who sends her husband lunch via a special lunchbox delivery service out in India. However, it mistakenly gets sent to a widow named Saajan (Irfan Khan). Once Ila realizes this mistake, she then sends it to Saajan again the next day with a note and eventually they send the lunchbox back and forth each day as means of communication.

                What I Liked About It:
                 I will be nice and say this: I'll give the writers props for coming up with a more original story so they get points for originality. The good stuff ends there.

                What I Didn't Like About It:
               Where do I begin here? I'll start off by saying this: NOTHING. Happens. The film is just literally these two people sending a lunchbox back and forth and the film is just so awfully boring. The film hardly even has any conflict. A film should require conflict, not the idea of conflict. There were apparently plenty of gasps when this film wasn't selected as India's entry into the Foreign Language film category at the Oscars, but after watching this film, I don't see what the problem is as I am in the likely minority of people that just found this film to be the equivalent of a poorly tasting burnt bagel. This is also a rare film that had me wanting to burst out of the theater when it was over and I usually never feel that way. This very much saddens me because I love foreign films, but this is one of the worst I've seen.

                Consensus:
               Overall, The Lunchbox is a bland tedious piece of cinema that because of its story looks "delicious" but has a sour taste. I can honestly say, the store brand pizza I usually eat from Target is more tasty than this film. I don't recommend this movie and would say if it is playing at your local theatre, spend it elsewhere on a potentially better film.

Rating: 1/5 (1 star for originality)