BEFORE: Speaking of Oscars, I'm looking forward, as always, to Turner Classic Movies' "31 Days of Oscar" marathon, I just downloaded their schedule (Feb 1 - March 2?) and I think I will pick up maybe 5 or 6 films that I have not seen. "The Defiant Ones", "Lilies of the Field", "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane", and so forth. I'm happy to report that I was able to go through the list and cross out the films I've already seen, and that percentage was substantial.
However, I don't quite understand how they arranged the films this year. I realize that they're essentially showing the same films, year after year - Oscar winners and nominees - so what makes the marathon difference each year is the method of organization, and you know I'm all about that. One year they arranged the films by the location where the films were set (I borrowed that idea from them) and another year every film shared an actor with the film before it and the film after (yep, I approve) - and best of all, the chain began AND ended with films starring Kevin Bacon.
This year seems like a real mishmash - even with the schedule explaining these are the nominees for Best Sound, 1947 - or this is a marathon of Best Actor winners from various years - I still don't get it. Maybe I'm missing something. Jeez, even last year, when the films were arranged by STUDIO, it made more sense to me.
I jokingly suggested they should arrange the films by rhyming. "My Fair Lady", followed by "Star 80". "Argo" followed by "Fargo". "Cabaret" followed by "The Longest Day", and so on. Look, I even followed "Ruby Sparks" with "Swimming with Sharks", just to show how easy and fun it can be!
Linking from "Ruby Sparks", Annette Bening was in the Oscar-winning "American Beauty" with Kevin Spacey (last seen in "Outbreak")
THE PLOT: A young, naive Hollywood studio assistant finally turns the tables on his incredibly abusive producer boss.
FOLLOW-UP TO: "Horrible Bosses" (Movie #1,332)
AFTER: Of course, the other connection to "Ruby Sparks" is that both films are about writers - only tonight's writer is working at a film production company in order to get his foot in the door. I'm not sure why they made him a writer, because his writing ability barely had anything to do with his job or his aspirations - he seemed more like a producer, or someone who wanted to work his way up to management in Hollywood, and writing seems like a completely different track to me.
This is a subject I know a thing or two about - meaning that I am working for two production companies, in various non-writing, mostly non-creative capacities. And I have started at the bottom (actually, three times) and worked my way up to - let's say middle-management. But I got there by being adept at many different things - payroll, light accounting, being able to fix spelling/grammar errors in scripts, shipping, and just generally being able to get shit done.
So, what I think rings true here is the "get your foot in the door" mentality. Then it's volunteer, listen closely, learn, and don't screw up. You might think Spacey's character is abusive here, but really he's occasionally handing down some good knowledge about a tough industry, just not always in the best way. It took me, no lie, about ten years at one gig before my opinion on things was even listened to, let alone considered. The film biz judges you by your age and experience, and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing.
However, what the film gets wrong is suggesting that kidnapping your boss and torturing him physically in retaliation for his verbal abuse is a good idea. Wait, is it? No, I'm going to say that it's not. Sure, everyone's had a fantasy or two, particularly on tough days, but this should not be considered as a valid method of career advancement.
I have to also deduct at least a point for not displaying the story in linear fashion - instead it toggles between the present (post-abduction) and the past (detailing all of the abuse that provoked said abduction). I know why they did this, it's to move the exciting torture scenes up toward the front of the film to raise interest, and to keep the third act of the film from being all about the torture. But as a result we see the abduction before the abuse, so we're not quite sure at first if the torture is warranted. And then we spend most of the rest of the film playing catch-up, so really, if your story doesn't work in one linear path, there might be something wrong with the story that back + forth editing cannot fix.
I also don't really agree with what the film ultimately says about women, or the fact that in order to succeed in the film business, you have to sacrifice everything else, including a personal life. But I guess that's one filmmaker's opinion. Maybe I've lived a life too close to what's depicted in this film to find it hilarious.
Also starring Frank Whaley (last seen in "Born on the Fourth of July"), Michelle Forbes, Benicio Del Toro (last seen in "Licence to Kill"), with a cameo from Roy Dotrice.
RATING: 6 out of 10 Sweet 'N Low packets
No comments:
Post a Comment