Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with Latauro's regular update on all things Downunder. Lots of goodies here, including something you don't see too often online... Someone changing their opinion on a film and admitting it to the legions of talkbackers. Before the namecalling begins, give what Latauro writes some serious thought. If you've never had your opinion or perception of a film change in your life then you've never seen one. Enjoy!
We might be in a little bit of a pickle, Dick.
AICN-DOWNUNDER
Ohio must be a funny place. By now, I'm sure you've all heard about the theatre owner who went back on his agreement to screen BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. He felt the film had a bad message for young folk, being that it claims homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle.
See, a marginally-more intelligent person would play BROKEBACK and tell everyone that it's a great film because it's anti-gay! See what you do there? You twist it around and say the filmmaker's intent is the same as your own agenda!
That's the thing about BROKEBACK. It shows who these guys are and what they do, but it never takes a stance on the subject. It's about as far from propaganda as a film about two gay men struggling against society can be. If you want to be homophobic and dumb about the whole thing, at least recruit the filmmakers in your quest! They can't do anything about it! Once art is out there, it's available for everyone to enjoy and interpret in their own way, and nobody can do nothin' about it! Unless, of course, the rights are held by Lucasfilm.
I'm on record in this column as disliking BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. In fact, I claimed it was a boring, plot-less, over-long piece of crap that would get a modicum of attention if it were about a boy and a girl. Recently, I saw it for a second time, and that second time compelled me to write another review. That review can, as always, be found below.
So while those of you in Ohio patronise stupid theatre owners whilst patronising their competition (in the spirit of this editorial, the dual meanings of "patronise" can also be used to bend my meaning to your own desires), we in Australia will await next week's BROKEBACK release in the smug knowledge that our country would never censor Ang Lee's controversial film.
NEWS
Our country is censoring Ang Lee's controversial film. At least, that's the charge leveled at Roadshow Films after some people noticed the East Coast-centric release strategy. In a statement, Roadshow refuted the claim that that regional areas of Far North Queensland were being denied the chance to see BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. Far North Queensland, where a film about two gay cowboys will undoubtedly light the box office afire, will see the film in following weeks, keeping with the US-inspired staggered release. Exceptionally gay cities like Melbourne and Sydney will see the film first, before it's spread out across the land. (Presumably, one of the reasons is to cut down on the cost of making prints. You know it costs, like, ten grand to strike a 35mm print?)
LITTLE FISH, the drug-addled Cate Blanchett film will get a North American release in the first quarter of next year. First Look Studios has picked up the Rowan Woods drama from Myriad Pictures, and will (we hope) use the tagline: "It's Galadrial and Elrond... as junkies!"
"TheWrongGuy" passed on some info about an international group of actor, director and producers who are apparently planning to create a major Australian film studio designed to make big budget blockbusters. Simon McKeon, an executive chairman with investors Macquarie Bank told AAP, "A studio in the US is all about sustainability. It's not just revolving around just one film. We have never really done that in this country before." Good to know McKeon's been reading the column (I made that exact same point here). According to the IMDb.com article, "members of the Australian film industry have expressed guarded optimism" about the plan. I like that quote. Knowing the "Australian film industry", the "guarded" bit is about the chance of our films being successful. BURN!
There are two truths in this line of work. One is to not trust anything that an English scooper tells you is "reported in The Sun". The other is not to trust any James Bond casting news until you're sitting in the cinema watching the film -- and even then, you should be cautiously skeptical. Nevertheless, AICN-D reader "E" passed on the word that one of the stars of the long-running Aussie soap "Neighbours" will be leaving the show in 2006, and has auditioned for CASINO ROYALE. Add pinch of salt, simmer for two years. (UPDATE: Everyone seems to think awesome Australian actress Rose Byrne is going to get the part... and by "everyone", I mean Clint and Garth and a bunch of other people I don't read. Wait, did this scoop originate in the Sun? Goddamn it...)
Finally, Mr Xoanon from TheOneRing.net has passed on some pretty cool info about LOTR bloopers screening at the Only Official LORD OF THE RINGS Convention in Pasadena on January 20-22. We've been hearing about these bloopers for years (I spoke to someone a year or two back who saw them... he said he doubted most of them will ever be screened for an audience!), and those lucky Californians will finally be able to see them. Drop us a line if you happen to be there...
AWARDS AND FESTIVALS
SCREEN ACTORS GUILD AWARDS
The following Australians have been nominated for SAGs... Mr Russell Crowe, Mr Heath Ledger, and Ms Rachel Griffiths, for BOXING MOVIE, GAY COWBOY MOVIE and "Morbid Death-Themed Television Series". The winners will be announced on January 29, and the losers on January 30.
CINEWOMAN
CRIMES OF THE HEART, from Aussie director Robyn Hughan, will play at the Two Boots Pioneer Theatre in Manhatten on January 24 as part of the CineWomen New York screening series. Robyn Hughan is best known for her film CRIMES OF THE HEART.
2006 GOLDEN GLOBE AWARDS
Yes; that really is Eric Bana's accent.
BOX OFFICE
Some numbers (and a few letters) have indicated that Australia's box office in 2005 took in 10% less than 2004. Screendaily.com got the advance word from the MPDAA that Australians spent $69.1million less than the year before. Look, I feel bad, but I just couldn't get to the movies that much last year. I was really busy, and was only able to spend half of the $140million I usually set aside for movie tickets. (Although, I should point out that at least $320.70 of that goes towards popcorn.)
1. THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE
2. CHICKEN LITTLE
3. RUMOUR HAS IT...
4. FUN WITH DICK AND JANE
5. KING KONG
RELEASED FAIRLY RECENTLY
Emma Thompson combines the marketing strategy of HARRY POTTER with the boring bits of MARY POPPINS, Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel sing in their graves, a thin premise gets a worse stretching than Costner's face, and the producer of SHREK makes a movie based on the idea that kids spend money on anything.
NANNY MCPHEE
THE PRODUCERS
RUMOUR HAS IT...
VALIANT
REVIEWS
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN II
Wait, what? They did a sequel to BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN? Does Heath Ledger hook up with Wes Bentley in this one? Or do Michelle Williams and Anne Hathaway temper their grief by engaging in homo-erotic acts with one another? Or does Randy Quaid simply go on a wacky Christmas Vacation with his family?
As much as I'm down for option b, I'm afraid this is more of a review sequel. A re-review, if you will. I'll explain.
When I saw a press screening of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN nearly two months or so ago, I was angry. It just that I didn't like it; I was really pissed off at the fact that my time had been so wasted. Leaving the cinema, I sent a message to my friends informing them that whenever anyone told me a tale of woe or hardship, I would, from this point forward, reply with only, "I sat through BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN". I was vitriolic. By the time I wrote my review, however, I'd settled a bit. I still thought the film was rubbish, but that initial hatred had been somewhat tempered. I wrote a slightly-more even-handed account of what I felt the film had done wrong, where the ball had been dropped.
But then the other reviews started to come in, and pretty much every one of them was overwhelmingly positive. Now, I did what I usually do when I'm swimming against the tide of opinion: I read the review with interest. Nothing more. This should be a good lesson for many of you talkbackers, by the way. It IS, in fact, possible to read an opposing opinion without casting aspersions on the reviewer's genealogy. Anyway, I didn't think a whole lot more about it until some of the more passionate reviews came out. Harry's review was one of the key ones. In it, he described a beautiful film that he had fallen for; a pure love story. Reading his review, I caught myself thinking: man, I've got to see that film. I found myself really wishing that I'd seen the film that Harry had seen, as it sounded like one I'd love. After much consideration, I decided to do something I'd sworn never to do: go and sit through the film again.
A little less than a week ago, I attended the Melbourne premiere of BROKEBACK and the Rivoli. Premieres are a bad way to see a film. Everyone around you is there to get their photo in the society pages and see movie stars. The woman in front of me was, before the film started, on her mobile to her friend outside, asking what Michelle Williams was wearing. Yeah, these are people who are really going to love a two hour plus treatise on two cowboys in love. Anyway, the film was eventually introduced by Heath Ledger (who is quite tall) and Williams (who will one day leave Tall Boy and settle down with me), and the curtain rose.
Interestingly enough, dread did not fill me when I saw that opening shot. I wasn't afraid. Briefly, I flashed upon why that might have been. At the original press screening, I had somewhere to be afterwards, and I was a little antsy about being late (I hate, hate, hate being late to anywhere, and it very rarely happens). Is it possible that my desire to be on time was so hugely overwhelming, it had made me hate a great film? I suppose any film is bad if you want to be somewhere else, but still...
I've now seen BROKEBACK twice, and the second time was remarkably different from the first. I was a lot more relaxed and *happy* to be there. I really enjoyed the film the second time around. It's certainly not flawless, and many of my original complaints still stand (that ridiculous Thanksgiving scene with Hathaway's family belongs in a lesser film, and there are some moments you could transfer frame-for-frame into a spoof), but I've come around. Yes, it's a pretty great film.
It's weird how perceptions change. I loved ELEKTRA when I saw it in the cinema less than a year ago, but watching it on DVD the other night, it just fell flat. It's strange, as practically everything in there is exactly as I remember it, but the second time around I just found it dire! It's the same with BROKEBACK. There was no shot or bit of dialogue or bit of music or anything that surprised me, or I'd missed the first time around; it was just my experience that was different.
If you condense this review down to a few words, it's probably going to look like I ran, tail-twixt-legs, back to the critics fold, offering apologies and baskets of fruit. Lose the nuance of my argument, and it would appear that I'm pandering to popular critical opinion. Actually, it's the opposite. I felt that the second time around, I was more influenced by my first response to the film, and that actually hindered a lot of my enjoyment. Part of me feels that a third viewing might finally allow me to love the film (or I might hate it again... who knows?). It's a difficult idea to express, but many people forget that our opinions of films actually change over time. The review I would write of REVENGE OF THE SITH today would be markedly different to the one I wrote back in May. Our opinions and feelings are malleable, and I think it's important to acknowledge that. I certainly felt it was a concept that made changing my opinion worth it, and if you think that's an easy thing to do (particularly on this site), you're crazy.
I'd like to end on a piece of advice that, in every way possible, completely contradicts my last review: do not, under any circumstances, avoid this film.
NEXT WEEK
- Catherine Zeta-Jones finally gets her WAR OF THE ROSES remake she's been gunning for, but with Cameron Douglas as the male lead
- Monica Bellucci will shoot scenes as Vittoria Vetra, which Ron Howard will then cut into existing DA VINCI CODE footage and release as CODE sequel ANGELS AND DEMONS next year
- Robert Altman to accept posthumous honourary Oscar in person
Peace out,
