Debating the Rating

When it comes to filtering what is deemed acceptable in film, how much responsibility should to be placed on the viewer? Now I am not talking about the film buffs who can argue the merits of Spielberg and Kurosawa, I mean the average filmgoer. The person who helps Jackass 3D make 50 million dollars instead of supporting an independent or foreign film being shown in the same theatre. Currently the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is the governing body that determines what rating a film will get. They are the ones who decide that Toy Story receives a G rating while Inglourious Basterds receives an R rating. When it comes to the MPAA, Alan Moore’s famous line “Who watches the Watchmen?” is often quoted. Yet I think the phrase “Who profits from the Watchmen?” is more appropriate.

This question has been on my mind for a few weeks now since I first heard that the MPAA had given the movie Blue Valentine an NC-17 rating. Giving a film an NC-17 rating is essentially the kiss of death for any film. Besides the fact that it restricts anyone under the age of seventeen from accessing the film, it also gives the stigma that the film is as offensive as pornography. After seening Blue Valentine at this year’s TIFF, I was stunned that the film received such a harsh rating. According to Deadline , the film received the rating for a scene “in which the characters played by Gosling and Williams try to save their crumbling marriage by spending a night away in a hotel. They get drunk and their problems intensify when he wants to have sex and she doesn’t, but will to get him off her back. That hurts his pride and the result is an upsetting scene that makes you squirm”

Having sat through the infamous scene in question, I can say, without spoiling the film, that there is no violence in the scene and things do not unfold they way you initially think it will. The scene is actually one of my favourite moments in the film for reasons which I will elaborate more on when I post my review. Still, the fact that a film can get such a harsh rating for simply making the viewer squirm raises concern over whose interest are the MPAA really serving?

Now this is by no means a rant for the abolishment of the MPAA, unlike most film lovers I actually believe the MPAA can be a useful organization. I just think that they have lost their way in regards to ratings. Instead of taxing big budget studio films that will be seen in 2000 plus theatres, the MPAA seems to more often than not punish the films that the average filmgoer would not be seeing in the first place. With the exception of Showgirls, which is a teenage boy's wet dream of a movie, how many of the following NC-17 rated films were the average underage person really eager to see: Crash (Cronenberg’s version)? Bad Lieutenant? Requiem for a Dream? Mysterious Skin? Lust, Caution;? Chances are good these films would not have played to a wide audience even if they had received an R rating. So why do these films get the NC-17 rating while other films like Inglourious Basterds, Predators, The Expendables, Splice and the Jackass movies are allowed to play in close to 3000 theatres?

Some may argue that it is an issue of escapist fare versus more realistic themes. How then do you explain Oscar nominated films like Precious? The main character in that film is repeatedly raped, has a television thrown at her, etc. While I really enjoyed Precious, it was just as, if not more, unsettling as Blue Valentine, yet no controversy at all. I wonder if Tyler Perry and Oprah had not produced the film if the ratings would be different. It is time for the MPAA to really look at the big budget studio fair with the same fine toothed comb it looks at the smaller independent films. There should be no reason that you can watch people die on screen in gruesome ways, yet intimate character studies, that would play primarily independent, get penalized so savagely.

Again, I am not calling for the disbanding the MPAA, they are an important organization to have around. Their intentions are valid, it just that their systems for ratings films needs to be updated and clarified. The easiest and most effect solution would be to first do market research on the films that the general public are most likely to see. The research should cover everything from age, types of movies the person regularly watches, the theatres they most often go to etc. Then, based on the overall feedback, the MPAA should adjust their overall standards accordingly. There is no reason small films that skew to a more adult audience, such as Blue Valentine, get slapped with NC-17 ratings while you can go into any multiplex and watch films like Machete, or The Town without even a second thought.

TADFF Review: Centurion

Centurion

Set in Britain in AD 117, The Roman Empire is at war with savages known as Picts. The Picts refuse to submit to Roman rule, and plan to destroy any Roman that crosses their path. Quintus Dias (Michael Fassbender), the sole survivor of a Picts’ raid on a Roman frontier fort, finds himself leading a small group Ninth Legion soldiers. The Ninth Legion was once a fearsome band of Roman soldiers until they were ambushed by the Picts. After their general (Dominic West) was captured, and the majority of the men slaughter, Dias was entrusted with the task of leading and six remaining Ninth Legion soldiers home. Yet their quest home is riddled with danger as the Picts’ leader, Gorlacon (Ulrich Thomsen), has made it his personal mission to hunt down the remaining members of the Ninth Legion at all cost. Dias and his band of soldiers must navigate through unfamiliar terrain, and evade the Picts’ expert tracker Etain (Olga Kurylenko), in order to reach Roman soil before it is too late.

Normally a film with this much blood and carnage would hold my interest on the most basic, and primal, level. Unfortunately the relentless amount of decapitations was not enough to keep my eyelids from closing down a few times throughout Centurion. Now I am fully aware that the unusually large amount of softball that I have played in the last couple of days may have factored into my weary state. Yet Centurion, of all the films at the Toronto After Dark Film Festival, should have been the jolt of adrenaline that my body needed. Sadly, the repetitive nature of the film only added to the dullness of the overall production. The film pretty much follows the same formula throughout: The Romans talk a big game, get their asses handed to them by the Picts, then run into the woods looking for a safe place to hide. Add in some beautiful scenery and that is pretty much the film in a nutshell,

Centurion was high on my “to see list” as it stars Michael Fassbender and was directed by Neil Marshall. After his brilliant work in films such as Hunger and Fish Tank (my review to come soon), not to mention his role in Inglourious Basterds, Michel Fassbender is quickly becoming one of my favourite actors. He brings so much vigor to every role he plays. Fassbender’s talents are wasted in this film. He is not giving much to work with at all as Neil Marshall spends more time on the action scenes than he does crafting a solid plot. Although Marshall’s previous films Dog Soldiers and Doomsday were entertaining, neither really showcased his talents fully the way The Descent did. I was hoping that Centurion would be Marshall’s best film yet but it ended up being his weakest one to date. The only thing I will say in Neil Marshall’s favour is that he always incorporates strong female characters into his film. Olga Kurylenko, who you may remember from Quantum of Solace, is the real bright spot of the film. Not only is she a fearsome warrior but she is also one of the few characters who actually has an interesting back-story. Granted, her life is summarized in two or three lines but at least it is something. Most of the other characters are rather indistinguishable from each other.

Since the bloody action is always at the forefront, Marshall never provides enough character development to bring any depth to all the carnage. At the beginning the Romans are portrayed as good and the Picts are viewed as bad…but is really the case? Both sides have committed great sins against each other. As the film goes on, it becomes increasingly tough to care for either side. Centurion tries hard to follow in the footsteps of the many sword and sandal films that came before it. Yet, at the end of the day, Centurion is nothing more than a mindless action film that is fairly easy to fall asleep to.

Grade: D

A Christmas Carol Out of Tune

A Christmas Carol

The massive success of Avatar only cements that 3D films are here to stay. So the question now becomes what requirements does a movie need to warrant this technology? Would Inglourious Basterds or Up in the Air be better or worse if they were done in 3D?

Robert Zemeckis follows up his Old English 3D epic, Beowulf, by revisiting the holiday terrain he first ventured to with his 3D movie, The Polar Express. A Christmas Carol finds Zemeckis tackling Charles Dickens classic tale of Ebenezer Scrooge (Jim Carrey) who is visited by three ghosts (all Carrey) on the eve of Christmas. The three ghosts will not only show Scrooge the errors of his past and present, but how Scrooge's decisions may lead towards an unsettling future.

Zemeckis has been one of the prominent filmmakers who has been championing the 3D movement for that past 5 years now. While the animation in Zemeckis's 3D films keeps improving, the 3D technology continues to thwart his overall storytelling. A Christmas Carol follows a ever growing number of films that serves no real purpose in 3D format at all. The flow of each ghosts' segment is constantly interrupted for no other purpose than to justify the extra price of admission. As a result we are provided with 3D scenes of Scrooge being shot into space, speeding down the street on a soda bottle, etc. Sure these scenes may please the really young kids in attendance, whose attention spans are small to being with, but for the rest of us this is just plain annoying.

The need to justify the 3D format hurts the one element of the film where Zemeckis actually got it right, the story. Although the tale of Ebenezer Scrooge has been interpreted numerous times, it was actually refreshing to see how close Zemeckis stayed to Charles Dickens' original story. While many incarnations of A Christmas Carol have glossed over, or simply left out, the religious element of the text; Zemeckis does not shy away from it at all. Robert Zemeckis even goes as far as making the ghost of Christmas-present God himself. There is even a great scene where the ghost of Christmas-present, after being questioned by Scrooge, chastises those who use his name as grounds for conducting evil deeds. It is moments like this, and not the 3D snowflakes, where A Christmas Carol really connects with the audience.

Another thing connects, but ultimately gets lost in Zemeckis' 3D excess, is Jim Carrey's performance. Carrey actually does a really good job not only as Scrooge but the three ghosts as well. As Scrooge, Carrey finds the right balance where we believe him as botha crotchety old-man and a misguided soul who just wants one last shot at redemption. In A Christmas Carol, Carrey is actually the best he has been since his 2004 combo of Eternal Sunshine for the Spotless Mind and Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events. It is just too bad that Zemeckis inadvertently overshadows Carrey's work with his need to have objects flying off the screen. If A Christmas Carol had just played it straight, it might actually be worth recommending. Unfortunately Zemeckis tries too hard to create a 3D experience for a picture that should not have been in 3D in the first place.

Hunger Can Be Quite Filling

The Full List of Big Thoughts From A Small Mind's 2009 Reviews.

Hunger

There have been many predictions regarding who the Oscar nominees will be this year. Yet the one thing that is usually left out of these discussions is timing. In a year in where the Academy Awards have expanded the Best Picture category to allow ten films, one of the best films of 2009 is not even eligible to compete. Although Steve McQueen's stunning debut, Hunger, hit most theatres this year it actually was eligible for Oscar consideration last year. If Hunger had been able to compete this year I am sure more people would be singing its praises. Similar to The Hurt Locker, I think Hunger would have benefitted greatly from the new Oscar rules; and what seems to be a weaker competition pool in general this year.

Set in Belfast's infamous Maze prison in 1981, Hunger looks at the events leading up to IRA hunger strike led by Bobby Sands (Michael Fassbender). The interesting thing about this tale is that Bobby Sands only really factors into the third act of the film. The first part focuses on a prison guard (Stuart Graham) whose work has scarred him emotionally beyond repair. In the second section we see what has caused the prison guard all the mental distress. McQueen shows us two inmates (Brian Milligan and Liam McMahon) who endure hell while participating in a IRA prisoners' protest wear they refuse to wear prison clothes and bathe. The IRA prisoners do not see themselves as criminals and want to get political prisoners' status from the British Government. The protest results in a volatile and violent standoff against the prison guards. The remainder of the film focuses on why Bobby Sands was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for the cause.

Hunger is a bleak and unrelenting film that will probably drive many viewers mad with its unconventionality. Why should you see it then? Despite its harsh realistic moments, it is an immensely rewarding picture. Hunger is a brilliant piece of filmmaking that not only renews your faith in the future of cinema, but also challenges you ever step of the way. This film raises many questions and shows you both sides of the tale. Yet do not expect any simple answers, this is a film where the viewer must ultimately come up with their own conclusion and the choice is far from easy.

On one hand you must reflect on the war outside the prison before you can look at the one waging within it. Regardless of the events which led to the birth of the Irish Republic Army, the group, during was considered by many to be a terrorist organization. McQueen provides a glimpse of their ruthlessness in a chilling scene at a nursing home. On the other hand, does this justify the harsh treatment that the men had to endure in prison? Does Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s final decision actually mean that the men, though misguided in their methods, were actually fighting for a proper cause on the outside?

The events in Hunger exist completely in a grey area where actions, no matter how horrible, can be justified for and argued against by both sides equally. The only real commentary that McQueen will divulge is that the whole conflict impacted both sides on a deep emotional level. The fact that neither the government/guards nor the IRA prisoners wanted to back down only made the emotional wounds that much deeper.

Hunger may be Steve McQueen's first film but it is far more accomplished than some of the veteran directors working today. This is a film that will resonate with you for a long while. McQueen is able to get extraordinary performances from his cast. One of my favourite scenes in the whole movie is the twenty minute conversation between Sands and a priest (Liam Cunningham). There is so much going on in this scene, from both an acting and story standpoint, that it take multiple viewings for all the subtle elements to come fully into view. Michael Fassbender, who was also good in Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds, gives a phenomenal performance as Sands. We have seen many actors gain and lose weight for a role but few have given a performance so powerful that you actually forget you are watching an actor.

Hunger is a film that will make you angry, gross you out at times, and ultimately make you sad for all the parties involved. Yet it is a film that you must see for the sheer magnitude and brilliance of it all. Hunger is hands down one of the best films of the year.