Johns Hopkins
Frame of Reference ~Film Magazine~
What’s Inside
Article 1
A Guide for Someone Who’s Seen Nothing
Article 2
Best Directors Over 70
Article 3
Fictional Playlists for Fictional People: The Second Edition
Article 4
Film Criticism in the Post-Ebert World
Article 5
What’s With the Vampires and Werewolves?
Article 6
Underrated and Forgotten Films Made Before 1990
Article 7
Conjuring Crap: How The Conjuring is Haunting the Horror Genre
Article 8
The Problems with Hollywood Adaptations
Throughout
Julia Gunnison’s “Look Alikes”
A Guide for Someone Who’s Seen Nothing
Abby Sussman
I’ve seen a lot of movies. I’m sure of it. And yet, when I started spending more time with film majors I was assured that I had not seen anything. Apparently, I have spent most of my life Jaws watching the wrong movies. Maybe this is because I’m a film minor and not I didn’t go near the ocean for a year a film major. Maybe it’s because my after seeing this movie. You know, because mother raised me on Meg Ryan roman- of the sharks. “You’re gonna need a bigger tic comedies and not Star Wars (which I boat.” saw for the first time in April). Maybe I was running with a “bad crowd” while growing up, the kind of kids that would choose to see Elektra over Million Dollar Baby.
Excuses aside, the dearth of “good movies” in my film knowledge has become quite embarrassing. However, because there is just no possible way Gone with the Wind I could find time to watch all of these “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a movies when I need to re-watch You’ve damn.” “After all, tomorrow is another Got Mail at least three times a year, I’ve decided the best way to save my reputa- day!” “As God is my witness, I’ll never be hungry again.” That’s all you need. It’s altion is to lie. So here is brief guide on how to fake it until you gain the respect most four hours long. Do you think anyone has actually watched the entire thing? of your fellow students of film. Fight Club
As a frequent splicer of 35mm film, I’ve learned that someone splices frames of pornography into film reels. Brad Pitt is definitely in this movie. And Edward Norton (maybe). Something about soap.
Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers and The Return of the King
I’m assuming Frodo Baggins, Sam, and Orlando Bloom are still around. Gandalf comes back? Mount Dooooom. Also, the Ring is still an issue. Requiem for a Dream
A piece of my soul died while watching this movie. I’d rather not talk about it. Sophie’s Choice That was a difficult choice. West Side Story
Just talk about Romeo and Juliet but replace Verona with Manhattan, Montagues and Capulets with Sharks and Jets, and add in more singing and dancing. The Godfather Part III
This is so much worse than the first two Godfather movies. Why are we even talking about this?
BEST DIRECTORS OVER 70
Bedram Bararpour Clint Eastwood (83, born 31 May 1930) New Film: Jersey Boys (20 June 2014) No director churned out as many great films as Eastwood in the last decade, his finest including Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, and Letters from Iwo Jima. Jersey Boys, his twelfth film since 2000, tells the story of the band The Four Seasons. Don’t expect Eastwood to stop directing, as he has stated he wants to keep working even if he lives to be over 100, citing Manoel de Oliveira as an inspiration. Manoel de Oliveira (105, born 11 December 1908) New Film: O Gebo e a Sombra (No release date for U.S.) Oliveira started making films in 1927, completing his first short in 1931. The Portuguese man is not attached to anything at the moment, but has directed (including shorts) seven films in the past five years. His last feature, O Gebo e a Sombra, is about a patriarch who decides to sacrifice himself for the sake of his fugitive son. Paul Verhoeven (75, born 18 July 1938) New Film: Hidden Force (No release date) One of the best satirists cinema has seen, Verhoeven made the transition to Hollywood from his native Netherlands in the 1980s. Many claim his early Dutch work to be his best, namely Soldier of Orange and The Fourth Man, but he has directed numerous iconic films such as RoboCop, Total Recall, and Basic Instinct in the States. He has left Hollywood, and has stated he will probably not return. His next film, Hidden Force, revolves around a colonial officer sent to an island in the Dutch East Indies at the end of the 20th century. Ridley Scott (76, born 30 November 1937) New Film: The Counselor (25 October 2013) Scott has been working since the 1950s, the director of such films as Alien and Blade Runner. His most recent film, The Counselor, written by the famous novelist Cormac McCarthy, received poor critical reception, though it did find some vocal supporters. Scott is attached to direct two films at the moment, one titled Exodus, starring Christian Bale, and a Blade Runner project.
Roman Polanski (80, born 18 August 1933) New Film: Venus in Fur (premiered at Cannes on 25 May 2013) Polanski has been making movies since the 1950s, most known for such works as Rosemary’s Baby, Chinatown, and The Pianist. The controversial director has kept busy, directing three films in the past four years. His most recent, Venus in Fur, is based on a David Ives’ play of the same name. Woody Allen (78, born 1 December 1935) New Film: Blue Jasmine (23 August 2013) Allen directed his first feature in 1966, and has directed an impressive fourteen films since 2000, with a fifteenth in post-production. His latest film, Blue Jasmine, has gotten rave reviews, with many praising Cate Blanchett’s performance. His next film, Magic in the Moonlight, stars Emma Stone and Colin Firth. Abbas Kiarostami (73, born 22 June 1940) New Film: Like Someone in Love (premiered at Cannes on 21 May 2012) Kiarostami, arguably the greatest Iranian director, has been directing films since the early 1970s. He has shown no signs of stopping, having directed three films in the past five years. His latest film, Like Someone in Love, is set in Tokyo, following a young prostitute who befriends a widower. Brian De Palma (73, born 11 September 1940) New Film: Passion (30 August 2013) De Palma has been working since the 1960s, his most notable work being Scarface. He has directed many other notable films, including Carrie, Blow Out, The Untouchables, and Carlito’s Way. He has directed five films since 2000, most being commercial and critical failures, though his films have their fair share of supporters. His latest film, Passion, is a remake of the 2010 French film, Love Crime, starring Rachel McAdams and Noomi Rapace. David Cronenberg (70, born 15 March 1943) New Film: Maps to the Stars (2014) Arguably the greatest director of horror films, Cronenberg’s best works include The Fly and Videodrome. Cronenberg has done much more than horror however, exploring crime and violence in A History of Violence and Eastern Promises. His next film, Maps to the Stars, will explore Hollywood, and contains an impressive cast, including Julianne Moore, Robert Pattinson, Carrie Fisher, John Cusack, and Mia Wasikowska.
Martin Scorsese (71, born 17 November 1942) New Film: The Wolf of Wall Street (25 December 2013) Scorsese has been working since the late 1950s, directing iconic films such as Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas over the years. He has been busy as ever, having recently completed The Wolf of Wall Street, his fifth collaboration with Leonardo DiCaprio. He is currently attached to direct three upcoming films, including a Bill Clinton documentary, a Frank Sinatra biopic, and a historical drama revolving around Jesuit priests in Japan. Michael Mann (70, born 5 February 1943) New Film: Cyber (16 January 2015) Mann, perhaps most well-known for such films as Heat and The Last of the Mohicans, has directed four films since 2000. He has directed several crime dramas in addition to Heat, including Collateral Damage, Miami Vice, and Public Enemies. His next film, Cyber, is currently in post-production and will be released in 2015.
Look Alikes
Actors John Hawkes (The Sessions) and Sean Penn (Milk)
Fictional Playlists for Fictional People: the Second Edition
Ian McMurray Ever wonder what tunes your favorite characters listen to in the shower, in their crime-fighting-mobile, or during their morning commute in to space? Last year’s Frame of Reference featured playlists personally curated by celebrities Norman Bates, Darth Vader, and Snow White. This year’s issue features three new playlists from three new unforgettable characters. Below, you’ll find playlists hand-crafted from the likes of Hannibal Lecter, Ron Burgundy, and Ellen Ripley, each with songs you’ll expect, and some you definitely won’t. Happy listening, movie-goers! “Bon Appetit”, by Hannibal Lecter: In addition to his love for jazz and classical music, Dr. Hannibal Lecter has recently expanded his appetite into classic and contemporary-alternative rock. Alternating between the soft and loud, the rough and gentle, this playlist exemplifies the monster beneath Lecter’s gentlemanly facade. 1. “In the Hall of the Mountain King”, Edvard Grieg 2. “I Think I Smell a Rat”, The White Stripes 3. “Memoir”, Villagers 4. “Don’t Worry, We’ll Be Watching You”, Gotye 5. “Flowers Grow Out of My Grave”, Dead Man’s Bones 6. “Eyes on Fire—Zed’s Dead RMX”, Blue Foundation 7. “Strange Fruit”, Billie Holiday 8. “Nocturne #20 in C Sharp Minor, Bi 49”, Frederic Chopin 9. “Intro”, Dead Man’s Bones Bonus track: “The Johns Hopkins University Fight Song” (Hannibal “the Cannibal” Lecter is a graduate of Hopkins Medical School!)
“Good Night, San Francisco”, by Ron Burgundy: When listening to the music of TV’s most historic news anchor, you may feel intimidated; fear not, however, as the gracious Ron Burgundy has included tracks that embrace not only his superstar heroism, but his softer, more sensitive side, as well. Do yourself a favor and listen. 1. “Eye of the Tiger”, Survivor 2. “I Am a God”, Kanye West, God 3. “Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)”, Beyonce 4. “Another One Bites the Dust”, Queen 5. “Afternoon Delight”, Starland Vocal Band 6. “Hush”, Deep Purple 7. “The Avengers Theme”, Laurie Johnson 8. “The Rose”, Bette Midler 9. “Carry On My Wayward Son”, Kansas 10. “We Are the Champions”, Queen “Alien Slayer”, by Ellen Ripley: For someone who remained in catatonic stasis for 57 years, Ellen’s music taste remains surprisingly contemporary, opting to listen to a soundtrack with a synth-pop feel to get her through a day of slaying the universe’s most dangerous life-form. Additionally, Ellen is all about female empowerment, so don’t be surprised to find some of music’s toughest women on Ripley’s playlist. 1. “Immigrant Song”, Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, Karen O 2. “Warrior”, Ke$ha 3. “Electric Feel-Justice Remix”, MGMT 4. “The Monster”, Eminem, Rihanna 5. “Wrecking Ball”, Miley Cyrus 6. “Burn”, Ellie Goulding 7. “Small Talk”, Faded Paper Figures 8. “Apply”, Glasser 9. “Barracuda”, Heart 10. “Hold On, We’re Going Home”, Drake, Majid Jordan
Film Criticism in the Post-Ebert World
Julia Gunnison
In the past, whenever I finished a movie I read Roger Ebert’s review of it. I was drawn to Ebert’s articles due to their succinct and oftentimes witty analysis, and I could always rely on him for a valid opinion. Over the years, reading Ebert’s reviews became a necessary component of my movie-watching experience. In many ways, my conception of a film would not be complete without seeing how many stars Ebert awarded it and reading his thoughts on how well the film achieved its purpose. Consequently, the critic’s death in April of last year came as quite a shock. At the time, I had been anxiously anticipating Ebert’s review of Les Miserables; Ebert’s prolificacy and reliability led me to assume he would eventually review the film, though it had been several months since the film’s release. However, in the week following his death, it dawned on me that I would never learn Ebert’s opinion of Les Mis, or of any other new movie ever again. The implications of this revelation were slow to take effect. Last summer’s movie offerings were pretty slim and I was content to stay out of the theatres, where I stuck to films Ebert would have reviewed. This changed, however, when the fall season came around, bringing with it a great line-up of new films. But to watch these movies without Ebert’s guidance was a frightening prospect, particularly to such a devoted fan as myself. The way I saw it, I had two options: a) never watch another movie released after March, 2013, or b) find myself a new critic. After deep contemplation, I decided the latter option would be more constructive. So, in recent months I have been reading quite a lot of reviews from a handful of contemporary critics and auditioning them, if you will, to find a replacement. What follows are descriptions of a few of the more prominent critics I investigated. Peter Travers Peter Travers is a film critic for Rolling Stone magazine, a position he has held for over twenty years. Travers has a very distinctive voice and tone in his reviews, which are quick, straightforward, and entertaining. His reviews are generally very short. Although there are anomalies, they mainly span only a couple paragraphs and I’ve read many that last a mere five sentences. They are easy to understand, as his analysis focuses on a film’s story, writing and acting, which are the most accessible aspects of a movie to most viewers. I myself appreciate Travers’ reviews mainly for their comedic value. The descriptive language he uses is often highly dramatic; adjectives like “engulfing” and “electrifying” are standard, while he tells of actors “grabbing their roles like men possessed.” He also does not refrain from throwing in the occasional sassy remark: “People, work with it”, or “if you’re still enthused about Gandhi, my apologies, I’m not.” Travers uses a four star rating system, and his reviews can be found at rollingstone.com.
David Denby David Denby writes film criticism for The New Yorker. In contrast to Travers, Denby’s reviews are long and very detailed. He provides fairly in-depth analysis, addressing various aspects of each film, though their ultimate worth seems to boil down to the skill of their directors, measured by the success of the various devices they employ. Denby’s judgments on films are thoughtful and careful, and seem much less hasty than Travers’. Denby’s skill as a writer and his knowledge of film come through in his reviews very clearly. This is what I like most about his work. I feel that I learn something new about cinema each time I read his articles. Denby is not quite as prolific as Ebert or Travers, as he is not The New Yorker’s only film critic. David Denby does not use a rating system, and some of his reviews are available at newyorker.com. A. O. Scott A. O. Scott is The New York Times film critic. The goal of Scott’s reviews seems less to critique the decisions of the director than to analyze the film’s story. His articles spend most of their time discussing plot, exposition, characters, themes and symbolism, and the quality of these factors will make a film good or bad. Scott used to write book reviews full time, and this may contribute to the way he views film. Additionally, Scott’s reviews have a mild wit that is appealing. Scott is very popular, and may well take Ebert’s place as the most widely read and highly esteemed contemporary critic. A. O. Scott does not use a ranking system, and some of his reviews can be read on nytimes.com. James Berardinelli Unlike the three critics discussed above, James Berardinelli is a web based film critic, the sole writer for his website, Reelviews. To a significant extent, Berardinelli makes judgments on movies based on who their audiences are, and how the movies will engage these audiences. He rarely fails to address how audience expectations will match their viewing experience. He often describes movies with generalizations regarding what “type” of movies they are; this, I believe, is an effort to help viewers determine if they are interested in the film or not. In this way, Berardinelli’s criticism is less of an artistic or cultural project than it is a tool for movie-goers. Berardinelli is extremely prolific, having written over 2,600 reviews. James Berardinelli uses a four star rating system, and all his reviews can be accessed through his website, reelviews.net. Although Ebert’s death was a great loss to film criticism, it forced me to take a deeper look into the industry and I have undoubtedly benefited as a result. Although I find myself gravitating towards David Denby, I will most likely continue reading reviews from all four of these critics, as well as others. Sites such as metacritic make a wide variety of professional opinions on film readily available, while additionally allowing for a certain “democratization” of film criticism by representing responses to movies by viewers. Thus, my odyssey through the post-Ebert world has really been quite painless.
What’s With The Vampires and Werewolves?
Hannah Ingersoll The past few years have seen a ridiculous number of paranormal teen romance movies, shows, and books: there’s True Blood, Teen Wolf, The Mortal Instruments, Beautiful Creatures, Beastly, The Vampire Academy, Bloodlines, Blue Bloods, and, of course, Twilight (just to name a few). The rise of supernatural romance is not a sudden phenomenon emerging from the wake of Twilight’s success, as some people claim. In reality, the process has been relatively slow, starting sometime in the late 70’s and early 80’s. What inspired this trend? J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogy, pieces that inspired nearly all works of western fantasy to follow, were first published in the 30’s and 40’s but experienced a resurgence of popularity in the 60’s and 70’s, breathing new life into the fantasy genre. However, The Lord of the Rings is by no account a romance, as there are nearly no female characters—however, the resurgence of Tolkien’s popularity paralleled the social changes and changes in stigmas of the late 20th century. The WASP-ocracy was falling and the Civil and Gay Rights movements were underway. Walls were tumbling down, and with them, stigmas about marrying between different social groups. The key to a good romance is conflict. There must be some force, either internal or external, driving the lovers apart. Historically, there have been many such external forces: culture, class, race, religion, and physical distance have all worked to keep star-crossed lovers separated. However, in modern America, these obstacles have largely been mitigated. People of all races, classes, and genders coexist in many areas of the country. Physical distance doesn’t matter as much with modern transportation, and even The Notebook-esque misunderstandings are nearly impossible thanks to cell phones and the Internet. There are simply fewer plausible reasons for the couple not to get together. To solve this, fiction has turned away from place as a dividing factor, and towards species. What happens if one of the lovers is not human? This is the question that fantasy and supernatural romances are able to explore. The 1987 movie The Lost Boys is a classic example of hot teenage vampires exploring their supernatural sexuality and the dangers that accompany such experimentation. The original 1985 movie Teen Wolf uses puberty as a rite of passage into supernatural powers, a clear metaphor for sexual awakening, recycled in many stories since. The 1987 The Witches of Eastwick casts Jack Nicholson as the Devil who helps women become fully sexualized and magical beings. All of these stories spawned adaptation after adaptation, until finally, Stephenie Meyer published her first book, Twilight, in 2005. So to those of you who bad-mouth supernatural romance, keep in mind its long history and the diverse range of writers and directors who have taken inspiration from this history, including Joss Whedon, Tim Burton, Mel Brooks, Guillermo del Toro, Joel Schumacher, and many others.
Underrated and Forgotten Films Made Before 1990
Bardia Bararpour Angst (1983) Banned during its original release, this little-known Austrian film remains Gerard Kargl’s only feature film to date. The film begins with a man released from prison after serving time for murdering a seventy-year old woman, after previously attempting to murder his mother. Upon release, he soon feels the urge to kill again. While the plot is pretty standard, there are few films that put you in the mind of a serial killer as effectively as Angst. The majority of the film is narrated by the psychopath and hearing his thoughts throughout adds to the uncomfortable atmosphere of the film. Erwin Leder is fantastic in the lead role and his commitment to the role is impressive. The cinematography is equally fantastic, featuring some unique and inventive camera work.
This is an unsettling and disturbing film, and of the best in its genre. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974) Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia follows an American as he travels across Mexico in order to find and turn in Alfredo Garcia’s head for a bounty of one million dollars. The film was initially universally panned by critics, but has since gained a cult following and recognition from critics. The film contains many of Peckinpah’s signature touches, such as graphic violence and slow-motion action sequences. This is a cynical, violent, nihilistic, and beautiful film with one of Warren Oates’ best performances. It is not a movie you will soon forget.
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986) Similar to Angst, this film features an honest portrayal of a serial killer and endured censorship issues regarding its violent content. Henry does not possess the technical excellence of Angst, but more than makes up for it with a fantastic character study of a killer. The film is loosely based on American serial killer Henry Lee Lucas and features a chilling performance by Michael Rooker, a relative unknown at the time. The film is particularly disturbing due to its bleak tone, realism, and refusal to moralize violence—the perfect antithesis to most horror films.
Look Alikes
Directors Jean-Luc Godard (Breathless) and Woody Allen (Annie Hall)
Conjuring Crap: How The Conjuring is Haunting the Horror Genre
Edmund Nowicki
I don’t know why I feel I have to disagree with professionals. I don’t know why in my quiet moments I often imagine delivering an uninterrupted rant about how wrong these more-successful-than-me strangers are, picturing their once-smug faces sour in defeat at my perfectly articulated monologue. It is likely a byproduct of my being so smart and clever and right all the time, but despite the uselessness of it all I know that this habit will continue. It’s with this in mind that I look forward to the annual mundane year-in retrospectives that every publication, no matter how small, will churn out over the winter. One specialist typically staffed on many of these outlets, especially with the absolute glut of journals dedicated exclusively to American pop culture, is the film critic. It will be their duty to hand out meaningless rankings and honors for the year’s-worth of Hollywood spittle that has pooled at our feet. This year in particular there is one title I expect to see repeatedly. It is one of the year’s most commercially successful and critically well received horror films, James Wan’s The Conjuring. And let me tell you, the reactionary bile that thoughts of this movie’s reputation cause me to pump out cannot spew from my mouth fast enough. Sitting through this movie was one of the most unpleasant film experiences I have ever had. Yet, I must say that the passion of my sentiments is not a direct product of the film itself, much as I truly disliked it. Rather, it is the obscene amounts of praise heaped upon this mediocre, profoundly not scary movie (coupled with its mass commercial success) that’s left me reeling. To me, the implications of movies like this doing so well are what is truly terrifying. It was impossible not to be optimistic about this movie based on the good press surrounding it. It was being hailed as a recent peak for horror films, with many reviewers emphasizing its use of “subtlety” and “avoiding clichés.” Imagine my surprise, then, when the film opened with, I shit you not, a possessed doll. In its brief scene, the doll is gawked at by its dullard owners, and in their absence writes “Remember me?” all over their walls in red crayon. It is a plotline that mimics the repulsive style popularized by countless online film makers, who have somehow convinced my generation that any simple sentence repeated in a child-like manner should merit pissing yourself. This doll does nothing for the overall story other than establishing a background for the Warrens, the “real life” paranormal investigators on whose exploits the movie is centered (it should also be clarified that the Warrens, like all, yes ALL ghost hunters and clairvoyants, were actually real life scam-artists). This whole sequence is easily my favorite to pick on, but it is one of only countless examples of tripe this movie managed to serve up that critics and audiences alike, being the swine that they are, gobbled up gluttonously.
In fact, the movie is drowning in clichés. A Midwestern white family (like yours!) moves into a spooky, isolated farmhouse, without explanation. The youngest daughter makes an “imaginary friend” only she can see. The family dog immediately distrusts their new dwelling and is subsequently murdered. Ghosts, being able to possess people and objects and warp reality, are still helpless against Catholic icons and ceremonies. Most baffling of all is the lead Gobbly-Wobbly, a witch’s ghost (as if that weren’t cliché enough), who spends the entirety of the movie donning a nightgown, which, coupled with her rotten green flash, makes her bear an uncanny resemblance to the little girl in The Exorcist. According to its defenders, these tired tropes somehow manage to transcend the genre. To unapologetically spoil the ending, the scene in which the forces of demonic possession are vanquished is meant to be one of those “touching” moments in which a character is reminded of their inner goodness. Think of an action movie where, say, a once-friendly robot has been made evil and his (usually childlike) friend brings him back to the light through the power of hugs and friendship and you’ll essentially have the idea. Numerous characters are trotted out to perform singular gimmicks and subsequently either moved to full background roles or never heard from again. The central family, for example, consists of Mom, Dad, and five daughters. For what seems like the sake of time, the film hands each daughter a single characteristic and makes that the focal point of every one of their respective scenes. The youngest one, as previously mentioned, being sickeningly innocent, immediately befriends the ghost of a child through a possessed toy, and thus every scene concerns her being manipulated by the Gobbly-Wobblies. The eldest one is a pouty teenager, whose first lines express her obvious contempt at being forced to move. There’s a middle child who sleepwalks, and quite hilariously tends to repeatedly bang her head on the walls, further permitting all manner of ghostly shenanigans. I can’t even remember the other two, and the effort of trying is giving me a hernia. Then, besides the main ghost, the house is also haunted by a handful of other former occupants. One of these, a maid, appears in one scene for a single ridiculous jump-scare and nothing else. There are also two comic relief characters introduced at about the midway point as assistants to the Warrens, who were just peripheral and likable enough to be primed murdered. But, to offer another spoiler, nobody else dies in this movie. This left the sadist in me is disappointed, sure, but the film snob in me also sees this as a major problem. To clarify, perhaps, by which I mean almost certainly, it is hypocritical of me to so viciously crucify this film for using some clichés, while further chastising it for avoiding others. However, this is one that, I feel, is more often than not an essential part of the horror genre. Death doesn’t need to be some messy splatter-affair present to satisfy the audience’s collective bloodlust. In a horror film, death is an excellent mechanic to establish vulnerability. After a while, talking about centuries-old superstitions and making loud noises just doesn’t cut it anymore. Something substantial needs to happen to retain the mood, but even if there is a suitable substitute for death, this film doesn’t have it.
The Conjuring is not the horror form at its finest. It is a symptom of the identity crisis of the modern horror film. There are franchises like Saw which have established an expectation of gore among audiences, that, while gross and good for shock value, are not particularly scary. Meanwhile, there is an abundance of remakes, from A Nightmare on Elm Street to House of Wax, each of which proves to be little more than a soulless copy, failing miserably in attempting to recapture the appeal of their inspiration. Meanwhile, silly ghost stories like The Conjuring, and in fact the recent trend of other films concerning exorcisms and haunted houses, are stuck in the same pattern. They too follow a tired and dated formula, attempting to mimic premises that seemed to have worked in the past, but just don’t know how. However, the frequent commercial success of these films means that their producers don’t have to care. The Conjuring should be condemned to life in a “2 for $5” bin at your preferred local retailers, its “Exorcist-girl” antagonist relegated to a place of campy obscurity in film history alongside the space-crabs from Apollo 18, and its creators stripped of their profits and flogged for exacerbating the poor condition of American cinema. And yet, due to what I have come to suspect is a conspiracy by the entirety of professional critics to piss me off, it will, at least for a little while, be mindlessly promoted by most outlets as one of the best horror films of the last decade.
Look Alikes
Actors Simon Gleeson (Love Never Dies) and Brad Pitt (Fight Club)
The Problems with Hollywood Adaptations, as Illustrated by The Hobbit
Elizabeth Mattson Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings movies are some of my favorite fantasy films. I was happy when they, along with the Harry Potter franchise, kick-started a wave of fantasy and science fiction movie adaptations that the whole family could enjoy. However, some annoying trends began to crop up in these new genre films, almost all of which are evident in the Lord of the Rings prequels, the Hobbit movies. 1.
Cutting one book into multiple movies:
An irritating trend has popped up in Hollywood adaptations of book series as of late—splitting up the final book into two films to make the movies last longer. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Mockingjay in The Hunger Games series, and The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn were all cut in half in their movie adaptations. The Hobbit movies are an exaggeration of this trend, expanding one short book into three full-length movies. Whereas some of these books can be excused by length concerns, the obvious underlying motive is to keep a cash cow alive by artificially lengthening a franchise’s life and producing more movies that are guaranteed to sell tickets. The problem with this approach is that it fractures story arcs and tends to leave the movies feeling incomplete. Generally, the first of the two films made will be boring and slow, followed by a fast-paced, action-filled, entertaining sequel, because the first half of a book is buildup while the second half contains the climax and resolution. The first half will seem incomplete without the second, because it is setup for a payoff that won’t come for years. This is a huge problem with the Hobbit movies in particular. The second feels incredibly cut-off, with almost all of the characters’ actions seeming futile until the final conflict redeems them, a conflict for which moviegoers will have to wait another year. There is none of the closure one should feel at the end of a movie, nor does it leave the audience with a satisfactory cliffhanger. 2.
Adding pointless or out-of-place subplots, especially romance:
The abrupt endings are not the only pacing problems the Hobbit has. The franchise has had to pull elements from other aspects of the Tolkien canon and invent new characters and subplots, in order to make up for the expanded length of each film. Our heroes are now chased from place to place by an evil band of roaming goblins, Gandalf prepares to fight an ancient evil, and one of the dwarves has a rushed, awkward romance with a random elf girl.
Many adaptations feel the need to add characters and side-plots that don’t mesh or mean anything to the plot or themes, most commonly romances. In the movie version of Prince Caspian, Caspian and Susan share a kiss goodbye with very little reason or buildup. Although Life of Pi is not a traditional fantasy, the film adaptation baffled me when it replaced the teacher of faith Pi leaves behind with a new girlfriend, who existed in one scene, had no impact, and was never mentioned again. These examples are simply pointless changes meant to add a new level of appeal to different audiences, but they can be malicious and intrusive. Orson Scott Card refused to allow an Ender’s Game movie for years because studios wanted to give the emotionally isolated and unapproachable main character a girlfriend, a move that would fundamentally change both his characterization and the terms of the overall conflict. 3.
Adding unnecessary action:
Another common plot change is the addition of fighting and action to nonviolent stories. This is particularly noticeable in adaptations of children’s stories, like Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, or fairy tales, like Snow White and the Huntsman. Both have their heroines take up arms against evil in war, unlike their innocent source material. Even a fairly adventurous book like The Hobbit has several action scenes and fights shoehorned in as part of its hours of padding, distracting from the story and seeming out of place. Characters were constantly making illogical decisions that inevitably led to lavish action sequences. At times, it was hard to remember the main plot because the film was much more interested in irrelevant goblin chase scenes and archery battles. The reasoning for the added action is the same for the added romance—to appeal to new demographics by inserting what is popular. 4.
Sacrificing a unique tone for cinematic appeal:
The Lord of the Rings was a perfect saga to adapt to film, because it is the classic epic adventure, full of action, drama, high stakes, huge battles, and everything else that is a blast to see onscreen. Unfortunately, Peter Jackson tried to preserve this same tone in the thematically different prequels. The Hobbit is a fairy tale, with a protagonist who triumphs by luck, stealth, and his wits. Trying to adapt that into a standard Hollywood spectacle, with world-destroying villains, tragic romances, and as many battles as it can fit, ultimately sacrifices the charm that made the original tale so good. All of the quirky and unique elements now seem out of place. Many fairy tale adaptations sacrifice a grand, beautiful world where anything can happen for the standard grim-and-gritty setting that we’ve seen many times before. Change is not necessarily bad, but it gets extremely tiresome when every change just makes everything more cliché. What is the point of adapting these stories if you’re only going to sacrifice what makes them special? The last thing that Hollywood needs is to get rid of originality. There’s nothing wrong with a funny little hobbit learning to be a burglar, and no amount of marketability makes it worth changing what makes him special.
More “Look Alikes” by Julia Gunnison
Senator Rick Santorum and family, George Bailey and family (It’s a Wonderful Life)
Actors Chuck Wagner (Automan) and George Clooney (Up in the Air)
Actor Samm Levine (Freaks and Geeks) and journalist Stephen J. Dubner (Freakonomics)
Actor Gunter Meisner (Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory) and political scientist John Mearsheimer
Film critics Kenneth Turan (Los Angeles Times) and Leonard Maltin (Leonard Maltin’s Movie Guide)
Created and Edited by Hannah Ingersoll and Elizabeth Mattson
Frame of Reference 2014