An Open Letter about Original Scores, Awards and What They're Worth

To those up in arms about 'Whiplash' not being nominated for Best Original Score,

'Whiplash' is an amazing film. It undoubtedly should be nominated for Best Director, Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay.  With that said, 'Whiplash' should NOT be nominated for Best Original Score.  The film has two songs (the two main musical themes of the film) "Whiplash" and "Caravan" that were optioned for the film.  Due to these brilliant pieces of music being optioned, the film is ineligible for Best Original Score because the score indeed is not totally original.  This is the Academy standing by their guidelines and no one can fault them for that.  The film is superb, as is the music, but it is not original.

To be honest, I'm happy the Academy stood by their morals and made the choice not to include the score just for the sake of including it.  I love the music of 'Whiplash'.  I adore the film, but in this case, the Academy did the right thing.

We can't criticize the Academy for snubbing films and reward them for cutting corners.  If the score for 'Whiplash' was nominated, it would be cutting corners. I love the Oscars.  I always have, and I do not always agree with the year's nominations or the year's wins, for that matter.  However, in this case, I am happy that they did the right thing.  The score not being nominated doesn't make it any less brilliant.

Now, with all this said, I will be very upset if 'Whiplash' is not nominated for Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Editing and Best Supporting Actor.  If that happens, it appears the credit I so gladly give the Academy for not nominating a score I love, will be retracted for not nominating editing, direction and writing that is more than deserving.  Time will tell.  The Oscars are a funny thing.

The major thing to remember is that people rarely remember Oscars, but they always remember superb cinema and there is not doubt, 'Whiplash' is superb cinema!

- George McCann

'Inherent Vice' (The Brilliance of Simplicity) *SPOILERS*

I had the rare privilege of being one of the first people to see Writer/Director Paul Thomas Anderson's latest film, 'Inherent Vice' at The New York Film Festival.  Let me say now, this is not only one of my favorite films of the year, this is one of my favorite films of all time.

I love Paul Thomas Anderson.  I will watch the man make a movie about making pancakes.  My love for PTA aside, I feel 'Inherent Vice' is a rare and very special film.

There is a lot to love about 'Inherent Vice' - the cast,  the soundtrack, the fact that it is the first adaptation of a Thomas Pynchon novel, etc.  After seeing the film, I couldn't totally pinpoint what it was I loved so much about it.  After sitting and thinking about the film for a week, I have come to a fairly radical conclusion.  I love 'Inherent Vice' because it is simple.  It is a simple, complex beautiful film.  That is a major oxymoron.  Let me explain.

'Inherent Vice' isn't really about anything.  Take that in for a second.  Every film has a story, a plot, if you will and that is certainly true of 'Inherent Vice' and it's plot is interesting and a ton of fun; BUT in the end, this film isn't about the plot at all.  'Inherent Vice' like many PTA films is about the character's journey in this grand world he (and in this case Thomas Pynchon) created.  What is different about this film is the world leads back to where it began.  Things happen, hilarity ensues, but when all is said and done, 'Inherent Vice' comes down to Doc (Joaquin Phoenix's character).  It is all about Doc.  How Doc feels, what Doc sees, what Doc wants and maybe what Doc can't or doesn't have.  The film is never about the crime or the drugs or the wacky characters running in and out of the "plot".  It is about the simplest of things... a man and the woman he loves.

You see, the beauty of 'Inherent Vice' is although so much is happening, plot twists, corrupt cops, Nazi bikers, hookers, drugs, Government spies, and a Private Investigator trying to put all these puzzle pieces together, the puzzle doesn't matter.  Doc's emotions are the puzzle.  Doc's emotions are the plot.  The investigation in 'Inherent Vice' is really an investigation of emotions, as opposed to the plot device of investigating a crime.

So, at the end of the day, the movie starts and ends in the same place - in Doc's house with the woman Doc loves and neither one of them knowing what to do about how they feel... but they're both feeling it.

'Inherent Vice' is a blast and a half and upon first viewing may seem hard to follow and strange, but at the end of the day, all of the wild antics that take place never really mattered in the grand scheme of the story.  The story is the simplest story of them all... the first story ever told... boy meets girl.

And this is why I love Paul Thomas Anderson.  He made a two and a half hour beautiful, comedic thriller that had me laughing and on the edge of my seat.  When the movie ended,  I was pondering the emotions I felt and began thinking about the film for a week.

What I realized, and what, in my opinion, is the best part of 'Inherent Vice' is it could have started and ended in one scene with two seconds and three words.  "I love you."

- George McCann

'Filth', what does it mean? *SPOILERS* (An Analysis of the character Bruce Robertson)

I saw Jon S. Baird's new film 'Filth' yesterday.  It is based on a Irvine Welsh novel of the same name.  The film stars James McAvoy, who delivers both his best performance and the best performance of 2014 thus far.  I don't want to review this film.  I want to talk about what it means, or at least what it means to me.

McAvoy's character, Bruce could be simply viewed as a corrupt cop and a royal ass.  Part of this, is true.  He is corrupt and he can be a royal ass, but this is a minor point in a much larger picture.  As you may have seen in the trailers or if you've seen the film, Bruce is big on drugs, sex, manipulation and his obsessions.  This is all true... Bruce is also a mentally unstable man.  This is the area of the film that interested me the most.

'Filth' is essentially the tale of one man's decline into depression and madness.  The film is a beautiful, heartbreaking character study of a man who appears to have untreated bipolar disorder.  Bruce is a man with a good heart who has totally lost his way.  The film begs a few questions.  Could he get better if he chose to get help and take his medication?  Another interesting aspect of the film is Bruce's past.  Not only was he a mess due to his wife leaving him, he also lost his brother as a child.

Parts of the film are incredibly funny, mainly because they feel real.  As outrageous as the film is, it is also hysterical.  By the end of the film, those funny moments are actually heartbreaking because they are a perpetuation of this man's illness.

Baird has dropped us (the audience) into the mind of a man who can't get his issues together.  In the process we laugh, gasp and, in the end, want to cry.  James McAvoy makes us care deeply for a man that outwardly is filth, but because we feel like we are with him, we know he has good somewhere deep inside.  The good in Bruce is what makes the film so brilliant.  When Bruce shows his heart, opens up and informs us that he is a good man who needs help, we can't help but root for him.

Bruce states that the same rules apply to everyone.  In reality, they don't apply to anyone, except him. Bruce created rules, obsessions and challenges because of loss, his illness and the darkness he lives in... Bruce is a broken man.

The brilliance of this film is that no one truly sees Bruce as filth except for Bruce.  Bruce's rules are the the cage he has built for himself to hide from the world, to hide from his loss and it takes him deeper and deeper down a dark rabbit hole of madness.

In the end, 'Filth' is wickedly funny, dark, heartbreaking and truly a character study that is a cautionary tale about getting lost and the importance of getting help.

The film tells us that the same rules apply to all of us, and this is where 'Filth' thrives.

- George McCann

EXCLUSIVE REVIEW: '2 BUDS' Episodes 5-8

If you enjoyed the first 4 episodes of ‘2 Buds’, episodes 5 - 8 will have you caught hook, line and sinker.  Every aspect of the series is stepped up in the last four episodes.  Chase Lee’s writing and direction became crisper, and he hits a nice stride with a different, yet effective plot point near the end of the series.

Kevin Martin’s acting is far better in the second half of the show than in the first, and he seemed to hit a groove that wrapped his arc nicely.  As for Lee, his dramatic and comedic timing stay strong, yet there is something more endearing in the second half of the season and that has to do with his writing.

As a first time writer/director, Chase Lee found an interesting, different and cool story with ‘2 Buds’.  Part of me wants to see this series with a bigger budget and numerous writers and directors.  Everyone on the project seemed to know what they were aiming for, and for the most part, they hit the target.  There are still some issues, mainly editing and some cheesy moments in the dialogue, but overall the second half of this show reeled me in and held on.  

This is  a solid effort from a production crew with little or no budget, and a story worth telling.  Although, I wish the show hit a groove a little earlier on, I’m glad I stuck around for a really good second half.  Once you sit through the raunchy male humor, ‘2 Buds’ brings the human heart.

3.75/5  

George McCann

Tribeca Wrap Up 2014

The Tribeca Film Festival, in my opinion, is one of the few indie festivals around.  Yes, they have some big names here and there but, for the most part, they are independent and I love it!  This is my second year at Tribeca and I thought I would give a little wrap up/rundown of the films and events I saw.  Here we go!

The World Premiere of 'Gabriel':

Directed by Lou Howe and starring Rory Culkin.  I am very, very mixed on this film.  It is the tale of a mentally ill young man's search for love.  Although it has a superb performance from Rory Culkin, I didn't feel the film was firing on all cylinders.  There were aspects of the film that Howe specifically left out of the story (he spoke about this in a Q&A) that I think would have better served the film had they been in the movie.  I do think it is an interesting film that people should have an opinion on one way or another.  A release date has not been set.

The USA Premiere of 'Starred Up':

Directed by David Mackenzie and starring Jack O'Connell, Ben Mendelsohn and Rupert Friend.  This film is the tale of a young man in a young offenders' prison who is "starred up" to a more secure prison due to his violent nature.  'Starred Up' is one of the best, most haunting, disturbing and brilliant prison films I have ever seen.  O'Connell, Mendelsohn and Friend all give subtle outstanding performances.  David Mackenzie made a choice to not use much music in the film and it leaves the audience feeling isolated, desperate and palpably tense.  I don't know if/when 'Starred Up' will get a release date due to the violent and rough content in the film but, if this came out in December, it would be a major Oscar contender and is my second favorite film of the year.  It left me thinking days after the film ended.  I can't recommend it enough, but be prepared; it is a tough viewing experience.

Tribeca Talks: A Conversation With Aaron Sorkin:

This was my favorite event of the festival.  My screenwriting hero, Aaron Sorkin spoke about his career, the film industry and took some questions from the audience.  Listening to Sorkin speak about his television and film career was an amazing privilege.  He clearly spoke from an honest place and just listening to him speak was like being in a masters screenwriting class.  I can't really express what the event was like because... you just had to be there.  What I can say is this, if you get the chance to hear Aaron Sorkin speak, SEIZE THE OPPORTUNITY.  It will likely be an experience that you will never forget.

I will leave you with this quote from Mr. Sorkin:

"The most valuable thing you have is your own voice." ~ Aaron Sorkin

That was my experience at The Tribeca Film Festival 2014.

- George McCann

EXCLUSIVE: '2 Buds' Web Series Review

‘2 Buds’ is a web series from first time Writer/Director/Actor Chase Lee.  The first 4 episodes center on Matt (Chase Lee, who is a comedic and dramatic standout) and Luke played by Kevin Martin.  The center of the story is Matt’s girlfriend broke up with him and his life is at a stand still while he is in the process of being filmed for a reality series in Texas.  

Matt has some emotional baggage, not just from the break-up, but from some tough life experience.  As for Luke, he’s getting married and seems to be the one person Matt fully trusts, even more than he trusts himself. 

‘2 Buds’ fully captures how two male roommates and best friends talk, hangout and fight.  When comedy aspects of the writing hit, they really hit; but when they miss, it can fall a bit flat.  On the flip side, the drama hits pretty hard, minus one or two brief moments; although it always seems to regain momentum. 

All this said, my two main issues with the show are there is some exposition that I would have liked to have seen, rather than been told and I don’t know too much about Luke’s character.  He’s around, he serves the plot but, to this point, that is all. 

All in all, I would recommend watching ‘2 Buds’.  At times the male, raunchy humor is very, very funny and when Lee’s drama pops into play, the show takes a nice emotional turn.  I will continue to tune in for the next 4 episodes.

3.25/5 Stars  

- George McCann

   

The Theory - 'True Detective'

We finished episode 5 of 'True Detective' and this is my theory on the show and Detective Rust Cohle:

‘True Detective’  Theory on Rust Cohle:

 

Episode: 1

“Start asking the right fucking questions.” -Cohle

• Cohle wants to know more about the case - obsession  

Episode: 3

“The world needs bad men, we keep the other bad men from the door.” - Cohle

• Cohle doesn’t claim to be good… he’s not. But he’s better than the men he’s after. Everything he does in the end justifies the means.

  Episode: 5

   “Show me the file. Isn’t this supposed to be a consultation?” - Cohle

• Cohle is after the killer… the yellow king. 

“How about you let us see what you're keeping in storage?” - Present Day Detective 

 “Fuck no, you can’t see my storage unit.” - Cohle

• Cohle has evidence. Cohle is tracking the yellow king… and he always will be.

  

   Because life is a circle that repeats itself.  This is a world where nothing is solved...

This is my theory and maybe they will change by the end of the series...

But this is part of what's great about this show, we all have different theories.

What are your's?

- George McCann

   

True Phenomenon, The Brilliance of 'True Detective'

Until January 12, 2014 the cop drama procedural was, just that, a by the numbers procedural cop show. On the 12th, we all got a brilliant rude awakening with the HBO drama 'True Detective', a show that has flipped or, better yet, removed every single procedural cliché.

The show is about two Detectives: Cohle (played my Matthew McConaughey) and Hart (played by Woody Harrelson) as they track a ritualistic serial killer. It sounds very cliché... it is not.  The show takes place in both the past and the present.  In the past, we are following the case and the darkness in the lives of these two detectives.  In the present, these now retired and disturbed detectives are being interviewed by the police.  Why, we don't know. 

'True Detective' is a show that thrives on brilliant writing, specifically character development and development with little or no exposition. 

What is so amazing is that this show is very, very philosophical and interesting, yet not boring.  We care as much about these detectives' lives outside of the case because it informs their actions in the case.  These men lead extremely different lives.  Cohle is a man of philosophy and pessimism; where Hart is a man cheating on his wife, trying to convince himself that he is a family man.  Both men are right for the job but wrong for almost everyone around them.  The show thrives on realism both in the case narrative and character narrative.  

In terms of action, there is not a shot fired in the show until the fourth episode and when shots are fired, it's not for filler; it is furthering the story in the most impressive way I've ever seen.  We got a 6 minute one take tacking shot with Cohle undercover on a drug bust, tracking a lead to find the killer.

There is a line in the show that sums up the darkness, realism and fantastic symbolism we receive and it is this:

Hart: "Do you wonder ever... if you're a bad man?"

Cohle: "No, I don't wonder, Marty. The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."

People don't think much about this line when they first hear it, but later, down the line, everything comes full circle.  Nothing in 'True Detective' is there just to look or sound good. Every line spoken, facial expression or movement means something.  Maybe we don't realize it right away, but we do next week or the week after.  That is a gift that as a viewer I am extremely thankful for; we aren't just viewers, we are part of the case and process. As we watch this, we consciously or unconsciously are following leads, the same as Cohle and Hart, because this show is unpredictable. There are things left specifically for us to pick up and figure out.  When a show can pull that off and not be boring or convoluted, it is something remarkable. 

I think 'True Detective' has broken ground for all television from this point forward, and we are only 5 episodes into the 8 episode arc.  Although, if I'm being honest, I wish it was an 18 episode arc because this is too good to not be on my television screen every week.

- George McCann

Philip Seymour Hoffman Rest In Peace (Thank you for sharing your talent)

Today is a sad day for every actor, writer, director and fan of film across the world.  Today Philip Seymour Hoffman, an actor of immeasurable talent, was taken from his family and the world.

Philip Seymour Hoffman was an actor who transformed himself in every role, be it television, film or stage; the man did it all.  He was an Oscar and Tony winning actor and a true talent.  Thinking back, the actor Hoffman reminded me of most was Marlon Brando... two character actors who could do more than carry a film.  When they were on screen, they were the film.

Today is a sad day, indeed.  All I can do is reflect on an amazing body of work left behind by a man taken too soon, due to addiction.

My thoughts and prayers go out to Philip Seymour Hoffman's family and I hope he is resting in true peace.

Mr. Hoffman,

Thank you for sharing your talent with us, if only for a brief time.  You will live on through your work... forever.

- George McCann

Is Technology Ruining The Magic of Film?

The 21st Century has been an amazing time for cinema. It's been revolutionary.  We are living in a new age of cinema - the technological age.  We now have cinematic marvels like 'Gravity', 'Avatar', 'Star Trek' and 'Star Trek: Into Darkness'.  These films are all beautiful and filled with mind blowing images and special effects.  But in this new age of cinema, have we lost something?  Have we lost the mystique of filmmaking, the mystery?  The reason I ask is with every new technological film and, at this point, new film in general, we have updates on websites, numerous trailers, still photos and behind the scenes featurettes.  All of this is during the filmmaking process.  I think the age of technology has taken the mystery out of filmmaking and out of viewing films as a whole.

Imagine this: It is 1981 and Steven Spielberg and George Lucas have teamed up to make a film.  The film is titled 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'.  Now, imagine all the speculation, videos, trailers, articles, and set photos that would be released if 'Raiders' had come out in 2014...  all the website casting speculation and plot details, etc.  The magic that Indiana Jones has and the magic of that trilogy would undoubtedly be greatly diminished.  Why?  Because we would have numerous trailers spoiling great scenes.  There is a magic to not knowing what would have been, and that is gone.

Before the internet, it was much harder to spoil a film.  You would have to hear plot details from a crew member or read it in a published magazine.  There were no blogs.  There was no Twitter, Facebook or YouTube for people to just talk or write whatever they pleased.  It was a more mysterious time in cinema.  It was also less "in your face" with trailers and promos.

Before 1990, films really only had one trailer.  One.  That was it.  Now we have about two trailers and one teaser.  That's the average.  Now imagine this: imagine seeing the film 'The Wolf Of Wall Street' or 'Gravity' with no trailers.  Nothing.  A short synopsis and that's all you get.  Now imagine leaving the theater having never seen a trailer, you only saw the film.  I bet people would have a very, very different reaction.  Maybe a positive reaction, maybe a negative reaction, but you would have gone into the film with no pre-conceived notions of what to expect.  You would have no expectations other than the talent involved and the synopsis you read.  Wouldn't that make for an amazing experience?  I sure think it would.

I don't think anyone can honestly say the internet has made the moviegoing experience better.  You would like or dislike 'Gravity' if you had seen the trailers or not, and I tend to think you would have liked it more, had you not.  Personally, I feel we as moviegoers are spoiled.  We are like addicts. We see one trailer and we need to see the next one.  Everyone and their mother was awaiting the 'Interstellar' teaser with baited breath, myself included.  But, I wish I wasn't.  I wish I saw the looks on people's faces when I first saw the movie.  I wish I heard Hans Zimmer's music for the first time, the first time I saw the film.  We are spoiled.  There are no ifs, ands or buts about it.

Don't get me wrong, I think technology has done a lot for film; absolutely.  But with all new things, old things are sacrificed.  For example, many filmmakers don't shoot on film anymore because digital is cheaper.  Think about that for a second... many FILMmakers don't shoot on FILM anymore.  So as we go out with the old and in with the new, I ask this... is what we are sacrificing worth what we are getting in return?

- George McCann

What Gives Awards Validity? A Different Perspective on Awards Season

Last night, the Golden Globes aired kicking off the 2014 Awards Season.  Many people refer to The Golden Globes as the redheaded stepchild of The Oscars; basically saying The Globes don't matter.  I beg to differ.  I believe The Golden Globes and The Oscars both matter quite a bit and, at the same time, don't matter at all.

THE GLOBES:

1. A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE:

I can't tell you how often people get upset with the winners of the Globes (at times, myself included).  I feel like the Globes give a different take on filmmaking.  The Globes are made up of Journalists from all over the the world.  So, there will be a very different perspective, as there should be.  For example, last year Ben Affleck won Best Director at the Globes and wasn't nominated at the Oscars.  Also, Kathryn Bigelow earned a direction nomination and was not nominated at the Oscars.  So, right there we have two different perspectives on filmmaking.  This, in my opinion, is a good thing.  The Hollywood Foreign Press and The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences are two separate entities; therefore, you will never have the same result.  Why is this a bad thing?  I don't think it is. I don't think it is at all. People have  made these awards very personal.  Why?  

The main reason I feel people dislike the Golden Globes is The Best Musical/Comedy category.  Let's talk about the Musical/Comedy category.  I think it is an interesting category to have and an important one.  That being said, the definition of a Comedy always seems a bit loose.  Yet, it is a nice counter to the Oscars, which is ALWAYS serious.  The last major Comedy to win an Oscar in my recollection was 'My Cousin Vinny' in 1993; 21 years ago. The last time a Comedy won a Golden Globe... last night.  Leonardo DiCaprio took home gold for 'The Wolf Of Wall Street' - a film that may get nothing at the Oscars.  So, Best Musical/Comedy is not a bad thing in my eyes.  The category gives worthy films consideration they may not otherwise get.

2. WHAT THE OSCARS MISS:

In some years, as with any human run organization, mistakes are made and sometimes films get missed or overlooked.  People are human.

Last year, I felt the above happened at the Academy Awards.  As I stated earlier, Affleck wasn't nominated for Best Director and neither was Kathryn Bigelow.  Also, John Hawkes didn't get a nomination for 'The Sessions' (which was, in my opinion, the best male performance all year.)  People have speculated the reason 'Zero Dark Thirty' didn't win any major awards was due to the content and politics.  That may be true; that may be malarky.  I don't know.  What I do know is that the Oscars are an organization made up of Actors, Directors, Cinematographers, Composers, Editors, Set and Costume Designers, Sound mixers etc. and all of these men and women (some having huge age gaps) vote in their respective slots.  I can understand great films getting missed and people having very different views and this is a major reason why the Globes matter.  If the Globes miss a great film, the Oscars might award it and visa versa.  The two entities are different with the same goal... award great achievements in filmmaking and that is exactly what they do.

The Globes matter as much as the Oscars do.  They give a different, but worthy, view on the best of the year.  

3. WHY NEITHER MATTER:

It is simple.  In the end, we remember how a film makes us feel whether it won an Oscar, a Golden Globe or a Razzie.  The power of films and filmmaking (at least of great filmmaking) is the emotion it brings to the table... how we laugh or cry.  Making and watching a film is about feeling something and wanting to make your audience feel something.  Let's celebrate that.

- George McCann