|
|
||||||
| Seven answers on 7Q (also known as the FAQs of life.) |
Interviewed by Tom Mangan Brian Koller, moviegoer, Elvis listener, epinions reviewer |
AUTHORS
Michael Fuchs ARTISTS/POETS/
Jon C. Allen COOL SITE KEEPERS
Mike Cash DIARISTS
Ralph Becker FILMMAKERS JOURNALISTS
Bernie MOVIE MAVENS HUMORISTS
Debbie Farmer SOLDIERS TEACHERS TECHIES
Chris Adamson TEENS UNDECLARED WEBLOGGERS |
||||
|
|
||||||
| ONE |
While you tend to join the critics' consensus on most of the great films, I notice a certain contrarian streak in your reviews -- you panned "Blair Witch," for instance, and rated "Red River" your favorite movie of all time. How does your desire to break from the crowd color the way you review a movie? If I feel that a movie is overrated or underrated, I will change the tone of my review accordingly. I can give two movies the same grade, but one review can be much more critical. However, I would never let the grade of a film be affected by its reputation, one way or another. I write the review after I have seen the film. The grade is assigned first, and any venom that I put into the review comes later, when it is written. Your examples aren't completely correct. For example, Leonard Maltin gives "The Blair Witch Project" 2.5 stars, and "Red River" 4 stars (out of four). But it is true that many critics, especially early, were lavish (and probably foolish) in their praise for "Witch. No doubt many people were disappointed when they finally saw the film. I think that many critics play follow the leader, and many viewers are looking strictly for entertainment. I don't blame them, but I am really only interested in how good the film actually is. It is true that there are a great many critical and popular favorites that I have written about unkindly. "Vertigo, "Bambi, "West Side Story, "Some Like It Hot, "La Strada, and more recent films, "As Good As It Gets, "Good Will Hunting, "Titanic. I am sure that alienates most people who read these reviews, but I am going to be honest in writing about how I feel about a movie. I don't look for something different in a film than what is represented, but if I do see a difference, I will report it. |
|||||
|
|
||||||
| TWO |
What are some of the things you see in movies that turn you off right away? A bad script, characters who behave inconsistently or artificially, miscasting, scenes that seem unlikely. For example, a few minutes into "King Kong, you are already presented with all of the above except miscasting. Typical problems with casting are leads who are obviously older than their characters, as in "Grease" and "To Catch a Thief. Or of a different ethnic origin that their characters, or they don't make a convincing villain, etc. Blatant manipulation (you are supposed to feel a certain way towards a character or situation) can be annoying as well. Anything that makes you stop watching the film and think, hey, wait a second! After you've been seeing films critically for a while, this happens very often when watching a bad movie. |
|||||
| THREE |
|
Great films almost always have great character actors in secondary parts (Walter Brennan, Slim Pickens, etc). Whom would you rate as your favorite character actor from all the movies you've seen? > I guess Victor McLaglen. He was in "Wee Willie Winkie" and a number of John Wayne films like "The Quiet Man. Always entertaining. Walter Brennan, Geraldine Page, Humphrey Bogart (in the 1930s), Edward G. Robinson, Dustin Hoffman ("Midnight Cowboy, "Papillon"), Marlene Dietrich, Gladys Cooper, C. Aubrey Smith, Peter Sellers, Meryl Streep also have been great supporting actors at one time or another. |
||||
| FOUR |
Tell us about a movie you revisited months or years later that seemed like a much different film when you saw it again. I saw "The Country Girl" when I was a teenager. It's a 1954 Bing Crosby vehicle in which he plays an alcoholic. It was fascinating psychological drama when I saw it then. I saw some of it again on television recently, and now it seemed like forgettable psychobabble melodrama. It can be a real letdown to discover the flaws in films we once enjoyed, but it is a necessary step in understanding them. |
|||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
| FIVE |
Most critics whine about what happens to a movie when it gets cut down to fit into a TV-sized box. I'm assuming most of the old movies you've reviewed are based on seeing them on video, so I'm wondering: what basic elements of a movie seem to survive the pan-and-scan process? In truth, everything but the art direction (sets, costumes, cinematography). I have seen the letterbox version of "The Longest Day" and the TV version. Of course the former is more impressive, but in truth it's the same great movie either way. I am not in favor of colorizing films, dubbing them (ugh!), or 'formatting them to fit your television screen'. But it's the same script, story and characters, which are the heart of the film. |
|||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
| SIX |
You're also a big fan of Elvis, which brings to mind a movie-related question: What kind of movie thespian would he have been if he'd gotten the good material that Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby got? Elvis was a great singer, but he really wasn't much of an actor. Of course, he could have been in great films, if they had a great script and direction, but the same could be said of anyone. Elvis did make one very good film, "Jailhouse Rock, where he got to play a "tough" version of himself. The script and songs were good, and so was the movie. After the commercial success of "G.I. Blues" and "Blue Hawaii, his handlers put him in increasingly awful musicals, destroying his acting career. While Elvis loved the movies, he was much less shrewd than Sinatra or Crosby. His manager, Tom Parker, was an excellent businessman but a poor judge of what damage a quickie, profitable musical would do to Presley's career. Sinatra's film career was once in ruins as well. He was ridiculed after "The Kissing Bandit, for example. But Sinatra was a good character actor, while Crosby was smooth as glass. Elvis was always Elvis, and generally painful to watch in a dramatic role. |
|||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
| SEVEN |
Speaking of Elvis, tell us about a little-known recording of his that seems to cement his reputation as one of the all-time greats. There are many hundreds of outstanding Elvis songs, only a handful of which get airplay. Of course, this is the same for every artist. Elvis is remembered for his style and eccentricities, instead of for his amazing voice. If I had to limit myself to one obscure Elvis song, it would be "I Need You So" from 1957. It's not quite pop, rock or jazz. It's a little of all three, truly without genre. And it is absolutely perfect. If you have Real Audio on your PC, you can hear it at http://elvisfan.simplenet.com/years/1957/f003.ram |
|||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
A TO Z ARCHIVE... Everybody here, with quickie bios. Go there now. Return to the main Seven Questions page See the original Newsies 7Q project Contact info@sevenquestions.com Copyright 1999-2002, Thomas L. Mangan
|
||||