Top 10 of 2010 Part 2 Documentaries

Top 10 Documentaries


1. Waiting for “Superman” - Definitely the highlight of Sundance 2010 for me. I didn’t have a ticket for the movie but managed to get waitlisted and get in. Really was an eye opening movie for me. It seems the school system has been broken for a while and no one seems to be able to fix it. This movie proposes some radical ideas and shows what some parents go through to get their child into a good school. If anything this movie is a great movie just because it starts the conversation. I would love to hear some feedback from teachers if they have seen the movie and how they feel about the ideas talked about in it.

2. Restrepo - A fascinating look into the life of a platoon in one of the deadliest parts of Afghanistan . The movie really captures the real experiences of an American Soldier from the highs to the lows.

3. The Tillman Story- Another fascinating look at the military. This one deals with the controversial death of football star Pat Tillman. More about government propaganda then about the military it gives a glimpse how the government tried to use the death of a celebrity to promote the war.

4. Best Worst Movie- One of the funniest documentaries of the year. It looks at the cult following of Troll 2 which is considered the worst movie of all time. It is directed by one of the stars of the movie as he interviews other cast members and fans of the film. Two interesting points of the movie are how people get obsessed with their own celebrity and the director who thinks it’s a great movie and doesn’t understand why everyone is laughing at it.

5. A Small Act- A real touching movie about how making a little donation can change someones life. The movie is about a man who grew up in Kenya and had his education sponsored by a charitable organization and an unknown women who gave money to the organization. After going to school in Kenya he ends up getting a scholarship to Harvard and ends up working for the United Nations. He eventually seeks out the women who made the donations and finds out she is a Swedish women who he eventually becomes friends with. He has now started his own charitable organization to help other school children in Kenya . The point of this movie is to show that what we might consider a small donation can go a long way.

6. Catfish- A somewhat controversial documentary because some claim it is really not a documentary. About a guy who becomes friends with a family on facebook but things isn’t always what they seem. I don’t want to ruin the ending but it is an interesting look at how we connect through technology.

7. Exit Through the Gift Shop- This movie had been getting great reviews but the premise didn’t sound at all interesting. I finally watched it on Netflix streaming and was pleasantly surprised. The movie is a documentary about a guy making a documentary about street artists. Sound ridiculous but the people in this movie are some unique they make it work. Banksy a world famous street artist whose identity is unknown flips the camera on the guy who was making a film about him. Basically because the guy ends up being a bad filmmaker. I heard on the DVD is the original documentary the guy made but turns out his is the more interesting story.

8. Gasland- This is one of those muckraking movies that sets out to expose a dangerous practice of a corporation. Josh Fox finds out that energy companies are using a technique called “fracking” to get natural gas out of the ground. And while it works and could lead to lower energy prices the practice has a lot of hazards. The corporations are using their government connections to create loop holes that allow them to keep doing despite some evidence that it is harming the environment and people.

9. The Red Chapel- This is one of the funniest and sad documentaries I saw this year. Basically this comedy troupe from Denmark gets invited to North Korea to perform their routine. The leader of the troupe Mads Brugger brings two Korean comedians with him and documents the whole experience. The point of the movie is to get a sneak peek into the world of the North Koreans. He does things purposefully to get a reaction from them and the two comedians with him struggle with what the injustice they see around them and the crazy things Mads want them to do.

10. Marwencol- Interesting documentary the delves into the mind. The movie is about a man who was beaten within inches of his life and makes a recovery but now suffers serious brain damage. Unable to work he creates war scenes with his toy soldiers and pretty much lives in this fantasy world of Marwencol where he can be a brave soldier. He takes a lot of pictures of his soldiers in action and has elaborate sets. These pictures end up taking him to an art show where they become instantly praised and he struggles to figure out how this new found reality fits into his fantasy world.

I did not see Inside Job or A Film Unfinished two of the best reviewed documentaries.

Top 5 Short Documentaries

1. Born Sweet - Definitely the best documentary short I saw at Sundance and now has the chance of being nominated for an Academy Award. It is about a village in Cambodia whose wells have been poisoned by arsenic. The movie shows the struggles of one boy with effects of the arsenic.


2. Quadrangle –The story of two couples who end up swinging in the 70’s. The story is made by the daughter of one of the couples and she gets her parents to be very frank about their experiences as they try to explain it to her. http://www.quadranglefilm.com/ Quadrangle will be premiering on HBO 2/16 check it out.

3. The Poodle Trainer – The title pretty much says it all. About a Russian lady who trains poodles for circuses. I don’t know what is more fascinating how smart the dogs are or how crazy she seems. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kwwb_G_92tk


4. Dock Ellis and the LSD No-No – An animated short about one of the craziest baseball feet’s in history. Doc Ellis tells how he ended high on LSD and still ended up pitching a no hitter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vUhSYLRw14

5. Lets Harvest the Organs of Death Row Inmates – A 2 minute animated documentary that is both disturbing and thought provoking. Since my dad had a heart transplant this subject is very near to my heart and makes you think. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJkpDNwM0lk

Lawrence of Arabia

Considered one of the greatest films of all time. It was ranked in the top 10 of AFI’s Greatest Movies of all time both in 1997 and 2007 along with almost every other list. The movie is almost 4 hours long. Making it pretty much a tie with Gone With the Wind for longest movie ever to win best picture. Here is the break down from http://www.filmsite.org/


It remains a very close call, a tie virtually, between the top two 'longest' Best Pictures: the total film time (without music) of Gone With The Wind (1939) is almost 221 minutes (3 hours, 41 minutes), and with the Overture, Intermission, Entr'acte, and Walkout Music, it reaches 234 minutes (3 hours, 54 minutes). The total film time (without music) of the "original" Lawrence of Arabia (1962) is just over 222 minutes (3 hours, 42 minutes), slightly longer, while its additional elements extended the film to about 232 minutes (3 hours, 52 minutes). If just counting the film itself, Lawrence of Arabia is the longest of the two contenders.

Being nearly 4 hours long I was surprised to only get one disc from Netflix since I got two discs for Ben-Hur, but they managed to get it all on there and I watched up to the intermission one day and picked back up after the intermission the next.

The movie is about T.E. Lawrence a British officer who fought with the Arabs against the Turks during the First World War. He was both crazy and brilliant and no one really knew which side he was on. The movie follows him as he starts off as a guy who doesn’t fit in with his fellow soldiers and is sent off to Arabia on some unclear mission. He eventually makes friends with the Arabs and helps lead them to victory over the Turks. Along the way we are never quite sure if he is doing it for the British, the Arabs, or just for his own ego to prove he is some god like person.

What I like about this movie is that it is a glimpse into a history that is not well known at least not known by me. And it makes me want to learn more about this guy and find out how much of this movie is true. While the movie is good I don’t think it is the greatest movie of all time or even in the Top 10. This is similar to how I feel about Citizen Kane. Both movies have their good parts but it is usually the technical aspects that get the two movies recognized as the best movies. And I guess the art is just lost on me. The long sweeping shots of the desert are cool and I am sure was very hard to do but it makes the story drag. I am all about story. It takes Lawrence over and hour to cross a desert without much happening to him. I get it he'scrazy for walking across a desert that some say are uncrossable but really a whole hour of him walking is a bit much.

A major plus for this movie is the acting. All the actors are amazing, from Peter O’toole (in his first major film) to Alec Guinness (who was great in A Bridge on the River Kwai and who would go on to play Obi Wan Kenobi in the Star Wars movies) with Omar Sharif, Anthony Quinn, and Claude Rains in great supporting performances. But, besides Peter O’Toole and Omar Sharif the characters just don’t have much interaction between them, I would have loved to see them go toe to toe more often.

While Lawrence of Arabia is usually considered the deserving winner of Best Picture there was a number of other great movies released in 1962. It’s biggest competitor for Best Picture was To Kill a Mockingbird. Gregory Peck ended up beating Peter O’Toole for best actor and To Kill a Mockingbird beat Lawrence of Arabia for Best Screenplay. The two movies are again a contrast of large epic movie and small movie with great emotional story. Other movies that came out that year are The Manchurian Candidate, Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, The Miracle Worker, The Music Man and the first James Bond movie Dr. No.

Random Fact-Lawrence of Arabia has no female speaking parts and is considered the longest movie without any female dialog.

Top 10 of 2010 Part 1

Top 10 movies of 2010
It’s that time of year again when everyone is making their Top 10 lists and figured I would throw my 2 cents out there.

1. Inception- The most creative and inventive movies of the year. Entertaining and made you think. It is one of those movies that it takes several views to figure it out.

2. Social Network- I had high expectations for this movie. With Aaron Sorkin writing and David Fincher directing it had a lot of potential. Luckily it lived up to the potential. I love Aaron Sorkin’s writing. It is fast and snappy. And it takes some great actors to deliver the dialogue. Luckily the cast was great, and is there anything that Justin Timberlake can’t do.

3. Blue Valentine- When this movie was over I wasn’t sure how to feel about it. Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams were amazing in it. The story is a very sad movie and that’s what I didn’t like about it at first. It is a raw emotional story. Then I realized that a movie that could make me feel that emotional about the characters and want them to stay together must have done its job.

4. 127 Hours- AKA the movie where the guy cuts his arm off. The part where he finally cuts his arm off has gotten alot of headlines with people passing out or getting sick but the movie leading up to that is very good. Here is a guy stuck litterly between a rock and a hard place and he contemplates his life and how he ended up there. Similar to Into the Wild from a few years ago where the life lesson learnedis you need friends and family around to be truely happy.  I heard and interview with Danny Boyle the director and he described the movie as “an action movie about a guy who can’t move”. And he managed to pull it off.

5. Black Swan-I was really looking forward to this movie. Darren Aronofsky directed Requiem for a Dream about drug users decent into madness. This one about a ballerina’s decent into madness and he is at his best. The visuals and the overall feel of the movie you never know what is real or imagined. It will keep you thinking about it for days.

6. Buried-Similar to 127 Hours this is a movie about a guy who cant move. But unlike 127 Hours we never leave him. It is 90 minutes of Ryan Reynolds in a coffin. The camera never leaves him and we never see what is going on outside. It is a very claustrophobic movie and could have just been a very boring movie, but it somehow works. One of the best psychological thrillers I have seen in a while.

7. Kick Ass- Had to throw this in my top 10. One of the most fun movies I have seen this year. The story actually is pretty cool but it is the action that takes it over the top. It has some of the coolest action and fight scenes of any movie this year. Chloe Grace-Moretz is just amazing as Hit Girl.

8. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo-Now Swedish movies usually put me to sleep. Must be something about the language that is very soothing. But this movie kept me awake the whole time. Which is impressive considering I watched it after work and I was kind of tired which is reason enough to make it on my top 10. But it is a dark movie and has some very shocking parts that caught me off guard.

9. Feed the Fish-Along with Blue Valentine and Buried this was one of the highlights of the Milwaukee Film Festival for me. Made in Wisconsin by Wisconsinites and starring Tony Shalhoub. It is a fun little movie and I wish it got a wider release. It was made even better by having the filmmaker and Tony Shalhoub there for a little Q and A.

10. The Human Centipede (First Sequence) - Probably the movie I talked about the most. While not a great movie the premise is bizarre and disturbing and made for some interesting conversations. If you don’t know what it is about I wont gross you out now, but needles to say it is one of those movies that just sticks with you. The first half hour plays out like any other silly horror movie but quickly turns into something else.

Honorable Mention: Tucker and Dale vs. Evil-Looking over my list there isn’t any real funny movies. And thinking over the year there hasn’t been any movie that made me laugh as much as The Hangover did last year. But Tucker and Dale vs. Evil comes closest. It is a parody of horror films where a bunch of kids get lost in the wood and cross paths with what they think are killer hillbillies. The movie is told mostly from the hillbillies’ perspective as they try to just fix up their cabin. It is very funny without spoofing specific film like the Scary Movie franchise. Just a lot of fun but there is also a lot of blood.

There were some movies that got a lot of good reviews that I did not see and maybe would have made the list if I did.
Highly praised movies I did not see: The Town, The Kings Speech, Toy Story 3 and The Fighter.

For me 2010 was the year of documentaries and shorts. I was on the Milwaukee Film Festival short committee and got to see a lot of shorts. Here are some of my favorites some from MKE Film Fest and some from Sundance. Next week I will post my favorite documentaries of the year.

Top 5 Short Movies

1. Drunk History-Tesla and Edison-While Drunk History is not really a documentary it was part of the docu shorts at Sundance. It is one of the funniest shorts I have ever seen. There were two of them at Sundance Tesla and Edison and Lincoln and Douglas. But Tesla and Edison in my opinion is far better. You should check them out online along with some of their others. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwI1Xpwhyi8


2. Little Children, Big Words-One of the standouts at the Milwaukee Film Fest it is a dramatic short which shows a lot of emotion. This also has the chance to be nominated for and Academy Award. The acting in this movie is amazing, and what makes it stand out for me is that fact that most shorts are either silly or funny and I find it is rare for there to be a great dramatic short.

3. Banana Bread-This is a fun little movie that combines action and humor. About a hit man who has a nagging mother who feels the need to call him when he is on the job. Just a lot of fun. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFO0_x99gMw

4. The New Tenants –This movie won best short last year at the Academy Awards and has some of the oddest dialogue. About two gay guys who end up moving in to an apartment where there previous tenant was killed and a bunch of odd people start showing up to their door. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITE7Nshd3SM

5. The Surprise Demise of Francis Coopers Mother-One of the only animated shorts I like at the MKE Film Festival. About a guy whos mother dies unexeptedly and he tries to figure out statistically when he will die.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWphsMc8MGs

West Side Story

Feels like I am finally getting to movies people have actually heard of. And this one is still pretty popular. West Side Story was the first of 4 musicals to win Best Picture in the 60’s and won a total of 10 awards making it the most honored musical in Oscar history. Another interesting fact I did not know was that originally the play was going to be called East Side Story and be about a Jewish girl and a Catholic boy. Either way it still is a good movie.

The movie is a modern take on Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. It is about two gangs the Sharks and the Jets. The Sharks are a Puerto Rican gang that the Jets feel are taking over their territory. At the same time Tony (Richard Beymer) a member of The Jets falls in love with Maria (Natalie Wood) the sister The Sharks leader. Both gangs are not happy about this new found love and they do what they can to try to break it up. All around Tony and Maria people are fighting and there is mistrust and they think they can find a way to make everything better. Yet all their optimism can’t stop the tragedy that is coming.

This movie still feels fresh today. It is hard to believe that it is 50 years old. The music by Leonard Bernstein lyrics by Stephen Sondheim still hold up. The dancing does feel a little silly and corny but that might have to do with the fact that it has been often imitated and spoofed. Still it does seem odd that there will be that many spinning pirouettes in a movie about fighting gangs. The movie started with two directors, Jerome Robbins who directed and choreographed the Broadway production and Robert Wise who had directed some horror movies. These two directors seemed to come from different worlds but Robbins was hired to direct all the musical parts and Wise was to direct the dramatic elements. Robbins who wanted everything to be perfect took so long directing his parts that the film ran over budget and the actors were exhausted and injured from all the dancing. He was eventually fired and yet the two became the first team to win the best directing Oscar. The only other duo to win is the Coen Brothers for No Country for Old Men in 2007. The movie also won best supporting actor and actress for George Chakiris as the leader of the Sharks and Rita Moreno as his girlfriend Anita. They beat out favorites in two great movies Judgment at Nuremberg and The Hustler. While neither of the two lead got nominated for this film Natalie Wood was nominated for Splendor in the Grass.
It was ranked 41 on AFI’s Top 100 in 1997 and 51 in 2007.

The night after I saw the movie I was watching the Colbert Report and Stephen Sondheim who wrote the famous lyrics for the movie was on. So, I included the link if you would like to see the fun interview.
Colbert Report-Stephen Sondheim Interview

Rating System

Recently there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the rating of Blue Valentine which opens this week. The controversy is that it was originally rated NC-17 for one sex scene. On appeal it was re-rated R without having to make any changes. This is not the first time the rating of a movie has caused controversy; one of the most notorious is Midnight Cowboy which was rated X in 1969 and went on to win best picture. The questions raises are what is the point of the ratings and what does it mean to get one rating over the other?

First lets look at the history of the ratings. The ratings are issued by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). The MPAA was started in 1922 by the major motion picture studios as a way of self regulation to avoid government censorship. The first head of the MPAA was former Postmaster General Will Hays. He developed what is called the Hay’s Code which had a list of things that could not be in a movie if it was going to be released in the United States. According to the Hays code there could be no immoral behavior in the movie or the movie would not get released. Then in the late 60’s filmmakers started pushing the envelope with what they were showing. This led new head of the MPAA Jack Valenti to try and come up with a different way of reviewing movies without making the filmmaker edit the movie to be released. So with the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) he developed the modern ratings system.

The new rating system was started on November 1, 1968. Originally the ratings for a movie were G, M, R, and X. M was changed to PG in 1972, and in the 1980’s they added PG-13 to kind of bridge the gap between PG and R. This was mostly due to parents uproar over the violence in the Indiana Jones movies and Gremlins. This led Steven Spielberg to suggest another rating would be useful. In 1990 the X rating was changed to NC-17 to get away from the notion that an X rating made it a pornographic film. Basically G is General Admittance, PG is Parental Guidance, PG-13 is Parental Guidance for those under 13. The difference between R and NC-17 is one that many people get confused. An R rating means that 17 and under need to be accompanied by and adult and a NC-17 rating means no one 17 and under can see the movie even if with a parent.

So why are filmmakers upset over the ratings? In theory it seems to make sense. Give parents a guide so they can make informed decisions about what their kids watch. I am all for that. There are certain movies should not be allowed to see and it is up to the parents to decide what is appropriate. But there are a number of problems with the system.

One of the biggest problems is the MPAA close association with NATO. National theatre chains are all members of NATO and there is an agreement between NATO and MPAA that any movie rated NC-17 will not be shown in their theatres. Therefore any movie that gets an NC-17 rating will not make any money even if it is good because no one will be able to see it. Also, it makes it harder to advertise since most TV and print media wont show advertisements for NC-17 movies. That is not as much a problem any more with the Internet and low profile movies can still generate a lot of buzz and you can see “red band” trailers online. “Red Band” trailers are trailers for rated R or NC-17 movies that were not approved by the MPAA as suitable for all ages. Also, movie retail stores like Blockbuster and Walmart will not sell or rent any movie with an NC-17 rating. Blockbuster will also not rent any movie that is not rated by the MPAA. So, while the stated purpose of the MPAA ratings is to avoid censorship and while it does not directly censor if a movies gets the dreaded NC-17 rating it sets it up to lose a lot of money. An example is what happened earlier this year with Hatchet 2. A horror movie that came out around Halloween got a NC-17 rating. Every theatre refused to release it unedited. There was one AMC theatre that said they would show it. After showing it on one screen for two days they pulled it off the screen. Their story was that it wasn’t doing well but it appeared to be due to pressure from other theatre chains for showing it.

The other problem with the system is that I feel the ratings are too vague and there is not clear distinction when a movie crosses the line from PG-13 to R to NC-17. Unlike the Hays Code there is no specific criterion for what each rating means. The biggest difference in NC-17 and R is usually sex. Very rarely does a movie get a NC-17 rating strictly for violence or language. Exceptions are as noted above Hatchet 2 for violence and Clerks originally had NC-17 for language. According to the movie This Film is Not Yet Rated the MPAA’s own website says that 4 times as many films receive NC-17 ratings for sex then for violence. So while a movie like Hostel can get an R rating even though it has graphic violence a movie like Blue Valentine gets an NC-17 for one scene of sex. And that sex scene is between a married couple in love. It is not gratuitous in anyway it is just a very raw and passionate scene. Also they do not have to tell the filmmakers why the movie is rated what it is. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t. The MPAA appears to favor studio movies over independent movies. A perfect example of that was in 1999 when American Pie and But I’m a Cheerleader came out. Both movies had a masturbation and a sex scene but American Pie got an R rating and But I’m a Cheerleader got an NC-17 rating.

There is an appeals process for movies. And it usually takes a famous star, director, or major studio to get a rating overturned. In the past you were not able to cite precedent. Therefore if you feel that you were not given an appropriate rating you could not reference any other movies to show how your film compares to a scene in that movie. They now allow you to mention other movies but the appeals board can ignore it.

This Film Not Yet Rated is a great movie that really shows a lot of the hypocrisy in the ratings system as it stands today. The movie is sort a tale about censorship and a spy drama. Because the identities of the people on the board are kept private no one knows anything about the members. So to try and find out who are these people giving the ratings Kirby Dick the director of  hires a private investigator to find out who they are and hold them accountable. The board is supposed to be made of parents of kids aged 5-17 but during his investigation he found out that is not true of all of them. Also he found out that during the appeals process there is always clergy present. It is not real clear why that is. The best quote form the movie is by Darren Aronofsky. “It seems backwards that to show human sexuality in pretty much any form is getting to R territory while you can shoot as many bodies as long as there is no blood and its PG-13…It should be flipped where if there is violence without blood its fantasy and should be for adults… but if you show violence with blood it should be PG-13 because you can see the consequences.”

Not a parent I am just curious how others choose what movies to let their kids see. I think that the current ratings system is helpful to a point. I think it helps parents to see which movies might be age appropriate but I don’t think it really helps parents see what kind of content is in a movie. R ratings can be for any number of things and for some reason things that can be R in one movie will be NC-17 in another or PG-13 in a different one. I am glad they don’t try to censor the movie’s but all the financial implications from a NC-17 rating is a form of censorship. The website I find very helpful and recommend to my friends that are parents is Kids in Mind . They rate movies based on 3 different categories violence, sexuality and language. So a movie that has 1-1-6 you know has very little violence, very little sex but some cursing. That website also goes into very detailed descriptions of why each movie is rated what it is (Almost too detailed for me as it can give away some spoilers). But if I had kids I think that is the kind of rating system I would like. I would love to hear any parent’s thoughts on this topic.

The Apartment

This small movie seems a little misplaced between epics and big extravagant movies like Ben-Hur, West Side Story, and Lawrence of Arabia. At just over 2 hours it is the shortest  but its the writing and Jack Lemmon's performance that elevates the movie to greatness.The movie zips along and doesn't feel that long at all. Its one of those rare movies that can combine comedy and tragedy to capture the everyday life of an ordinary man. Jack Lemmon portrays the everyman as only he could do. With a sense of humor and a sense of sadness.

The Apartment is about this guy Bud played by Jack Lemmon who is trying to move up in the corporate world. So, he decided to lend out his apartment to the executives so they can have flings with their mistresses. He falls in love with this women Fran(Shirley Maclaine) who unbeknownst to Bud is one of the girls his boss Jeff Sheldrake(Fred MacMurray) is having an affair with. One night after Fran and Jeff have a fight in the apartment she attempts suicide and Bud comes home to find her passed out from an overdose. After getting the doctor from next door to help her Bud realized that she might not be as sweet and innocent as he thought. But he doesn't want to do anything to make the executives mad because he just got a big promotion.

All the actors are amazing. Jack Lemmon really makes this movie work. He pulls off the goofiness of the character but also the sadness when he realizes the girl of his dreams isn't what she appears to be. Shirley Maclaine starts off the movie as a perky girl who has a reputation as a good girl, but ends up just being as lost as everyone else. Billy Wilder wrote and directed another great movie. He wrote this one after Some Like it Hot which was named funniest movie of all time by AFI. Here he combines humor with some ugly situations. It is not very often you find a suicide in the middle of a comedy, but he some how makes it all work. It has the feel of everyday life both funny and tragic. The movie was kind of a sign of the times. Moving from more modest films of the 50's to the more sexual provocative movies of the 60's,  where adultery and divorce are treated as the norm and no consequence's are shown.

How this movie didn't win any Oscars for the main actors is beyond me. Billy Wilder did win Best Director, Best Writing, and as a producer got an award for Best Picture making him one of the only men to win all three awards in the same year. The one movie in my opinion that came out in 1960 that got overlooked by the academy was Psycho. It was was nominated for 4 awards including Best Director for Hitchcock, and lost all. But it was not nominated for Best Picture, or Best Actor for Anthony Perkins great performance as Norman Bates or the now famous score.  A few other things about the 1960 awards. Shirley Jones best known for playing the mother on the Partridge Family won the Best Actress award for Elmer Gantry, and The Apartment was the last all black and white movie to win best picture(Schindler's List which was mostly black and white won in 1993 had a few shots in color).

By the Numbers
Number 93 on AFI's 100 Greatest Movies in 1997 and number 80 in 2007
Number 20 on AFI's 100 Greatest Comedies and Number 62 on AFI's 100 Greatest Passions
Currently number 91 on IMDB Top 250

Off Screen Behavior

I recently read an article  Do the Politics and Behavior of Actors Affect How You See Them on Screen? and that thought came to mind again after watching Ben-Hur because growing up all I knew about Charlton Heston was his pro gun activism with the NRA. I know a few people who refuse to watch movies if certain actors are in it. For example one of my friends is very conservative and if Sean Penn or Tim Robbins are in a movie they won’t watch it (sad for them they won’t see Mystic River because it is a great movie and they both give amazing performances in them). On the other hand I understand not watching a movie that has an agenda. Movies like Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 turn me off because of its propaganda style.

While politics is one thing what if an actor does something illegal? For example should we support people who are accused of abusing women (Mel Gibson) or rape (Roman Polanski)? Mel Gibson has been in the spotlight lately due to his being cut from a cameo appearance in The Hangover 2. While the exact reasons for him being cut from the movie aren't real clear it is speculated to be because Zach Galifianakis objected to Mel on a moral grounds. It would be interesting to know if an audience would feel the same way. Would people not see the movie because Mel Gibson was in it for a few minutes? I actually think it would have been funny to see. As some have pointed out it is odd that Mel has caused a big ruckus for the cast of The Hangover 2 but no one seemed to complain about Mike Tyson in the first movie, and he was convicted of rape. That movie went on to gross a huge amount of money and I never heard anyone say they wouldn't see it because a convicted rapist was in it.

The fact that Mike Tyson was convicted brings up an interesting point. Does it make him less evil of a person since he went to jail and served his debt to society?  Are people more willing to forgive him then Mel Gibson because Mel has not been convicted of anything? I had a conversation similar to this with a co-worker of mine not about a movie star but about an athlete. We were talking about Michael Vick and how he is having a great comeback this year. She said she could not forgive him for abusing animals.  She feels that Vick did not get the amount of punishment he deserved and should not be playing football.  Personally the only person I have a moral issue watching their movies is Roman Polanski. Here is a guy charged with raping an underage girl and before he could be arrested he fled the country and is living as a free man. While it appears that Hollywood has already forgave him (they awarded him Best Director for the Pianist in 2002) I can not do it so quick. He committed a crime and has not had any punishment for it.  Should we reward him for getting away with it by watching his movies and making him richer? I don’t think so. And while his last movie The Ghost Writer got a lot of critical praise I could not bring myself to watching it. Maybe one day I will but I am torn about it.

Now everybody likes a good comeback story especially in Hollywood. The big question is when will the public forgive them and let them move on from their past. Take for instance Drew Barrymore and Robert Downey Jr. Both have overcome substance abuse and scandal to become headliners again. But to me that is different. They overcame personal demons and the only people they were hurting were themselves. Unlike Mel Gibson, Mike Tyson, Michael Vick and especially Roman Polanski who purposefully hurt others. I think that this should warrant a second look at them and maybe we should not support their careers especially if they appear unremorseful.

Another thought occurred to me while I was watching a gossip morning show while at the gym. They were talking about Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie. It got me thinking if people care so much about the politics of stars do they care about their personal beliefs? The answer to this question is obviously no. Hollywood gossip has been around as long as Hollywood. The gossip columns only make stars even bigger. But why is that? Should we not watch an Angelina Jolie movie because she is an adulteress and stole Brad Pitt away from Jennifer Aniston? It hasn't hurt any of their careers. In fact it might have helped Jennifer Aniston's because now everyone feels sorry for her. Stars can do what many people consider immoral behavior and no one seems to care and in fact they get celebrated for it. It makes me wonder if people care so much about what they say politically why they don’t care what they do in their personal life. Should we only support movie stars that live by a strict moral code? It’s an interesting question for my conservative pals who feel they can't watch a movie with a liberal in it but no problem with someone who has a shady personal life.

I agree sometimes actors off screen behavior takes away from their movies. I do have trouble watching a Tom Cruise movie since he went crazy and was jumping on Oprah's coach. I don't think it is fair to boycott movies just because their actors are outspoken on an issue or issues. I think a movie should be judged on the merit of its content not the off screen antics of its stars, as long as those antics doesn't hurt anybody. The line starts to get a little blurry when it goes from talking about issues to criminal acts.  I know this is not something I have thought a lot about in the past. I have always just judged the movie based on its creative and entertainment value. But all this talk recently has given me pause and got me thinking and maybe I will be more carful who I give my money too in the future. It will be interesting to see how people greet the return of Mel Gibson in the upcoming movie The Beaver. I am still not sure if I will be seeing the movie.
What are your thoughts? Leave a comment would love to know what others think.