Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Similes that may go nowhere...

Papa John's has made pizza creation an exact science. When you order a large pepperoni pizza, the dough is pre-measured, slapped out in a uniform way, sauced with an exact portion of sauce, topped with two cups of cheese, and pepperonis are placed in three rings; the outer ring should have 24 pepperonis, the second 16 and the third 6. The company has a distribution wing that delivers the same product to each store, and they procure their products from the same sources continually, thus guaranteeing that every time you order a pepperoni pizza, it will be exactly the same product that you ordered last month.

I'm all for quality control, and I understand its the goal of the pizza empire to assure that its product is uniform, that their customers can expect the same quality of pizza from any store they order, any time they order it. My guess is also that these exacting measures wind up saving the stores in food costs, etc. What I wonder is, if we were offered a taste test - Papa John's uniform pizza process as it stands today, or a pizza from John Schnatter's original pizzeria in Louisville, KY, which didn't have any of these systems in place to ensure uniformity of product, which would we prefer?

My money is on the original product. While I know what to expect from a pepperoni pizza at Papa John's, I also think back to years ago when we first heard about the franchise, and it strikes me that I liked the pizza back then a lot more than I do now. Has the quest for uniformity erased the unique touches a creative person may have felt inclined to add to the product when those strictures weren't in place? While I agree that there's a lot of science you can consider while cooking, at the end of the day good food is more art and passion than science.

Like Papa John's pizza, I think some producers have discovered that they have 'perfected' the movie industry and on-screen storytelling in general, and that there is a uniform product that can be dispensed to theaters nationwide that will guarantee 'x' return in box office proceeds. Light hearted romances are a prime example of my point - it's exceedingly difficult for me to discern any real tangible difference between The Ugly Truth, How To Lose a Man in 10 Days, or The Proposal. It's not that the films are bad, it's just that they follow a formula that's been honed in Hollywood over the past 20 years or so into an extraordinarily predictable film. The jokes are a little different, but you know that two people are thrust into an awkward situation and fall in love, and they do so at a stunningly similar pace.

There's no question that people remember Gone With the Wind and Casablanca as remarkable love stories and treasures of the movie industry. Which romance film of the past twenty years lives up to those older films now? I would think that a truly special movie is rare in any day, and I think it's true that when Casablanca came out studios were releasing a film a week, so perhaps it's inevitable that with so many monkeys typing at once you'd be bound to get a copy of Hamlet or two. What does our generation have to look forward to, in terms of quality film? What makes a film unique storytelling experience?

What's the process these movies follow to get made? Are these uniform films developed by a committee? While playing an online game I had the fortune to briefly meet the author of the blog Kung Fu Monkey, who writes and produces the TV show Leverage and also wrote the original script for the movie Transformers. I remember asking him what the storyline was, since the film was still in production at the time, and he told me that after everyone in Hollywood had their say about it, the film would be nothing like his original draft. Does every script get shredded so badly by Hollywood these days, that no matter how original or interesting the script initially was, it inevitably becomes cliche by the time it is released?

Monday, August 16, 2010

The Age of Remakes?

Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark was released into theaters in 1981 and created a sensation across the country, much in the same way that Star Wars (1977) and Jaws(1975) did in the mid-to-late seventies. They were revolutionary movies, and helped to usher in a new era of films that borrowed elements of those films - setting, plot, special effects, dialog, soundtrack, actors, that set the stage for the new style of storytelling for the following decades. Each film explored different themes - the very primal concept of man v nature for Jaws, the old saga for the Star Wars trilogy, and Indiana Jones appealed to a theme of high adventure, a variant of the old King Solomon's Mines sort of storytelling with some Nazis mixed in for good measure.

So many films have tried to copy the themes of these three films, with varying degrees of success. Jaws bred a veritable cornucopia of giant animal related knockoffs, from giant snakes (Anaconda) to giant alligators (Lake Placid) and more, most of which are singularly awful. Star Wars made sci-fi cool in a way that Trek never did or ever would (sorry Trekkies) and spawned an immense number of space-themed films in its wake. Raiders spawned several high adventure themed films - High Road to China, for instance, but I think that most people missed the charm of Harrison Ford's everyman in Raiders. I attribute most of the action hero films of the 80s to the success of Raiders, even though Jones is no Rambo. Action films generally are forgettable.

At least all of these knock-off films made some attempt to distinguish themselves from the films they tried to imitate; it seems that people are less interested in coming up with something new these days; they'd rather take an old film or television show and make it new again.

It seems as though we're plagued with films and shows that are remakes of older original ideas. Battlestar Galactica was rehashed on the Sci-Fi channel, we've just seen a remake of The A-Team hit theaters in the past couple months, as well as a do-over of Clash of the Titans. Ang Li's Hulk had barely made it to video before producers were calling for a mulligan, and a retooled Hulk came out five years later starring Ed Norton. This winter we'll be feasting our eyes on the not-awaited-at-all sequel to Tron, a curious film to remake considering how far computers have advanced since the original came out in 1982.

Okay, so the Kraken looks better than it used to...

Is it just pure laziness that prompts people to not seek out an original story to tell? Or is the film industry just cynically squeezing big bucks out of a new Knight Rider movie because people of my generation have a special desire to see our childhoods redone on the screen? Age eight, mark 2.0, still starring David Hasselhoff? I know the truly original story is rare, but I also don't remember a remake of The Howdy-Doody Show coming out in the past twenty or thirty years, so I'm guessing it has something to do with people of my age group, rather than those of my father's.

Or... are we as the consumers so lazy that remakes are what we demand? Have we given up on investing our time and thought on something new? Or are we so stung by being charged $8 for a ticket and $795 for popcorn in a film that we instinctively dodge new themes as dangerous and rather stick with what we know will at least be marginally entertaining? Clearly, it's easier to chuckle at the antics of Faceman and B.A. Baracas than to invest our time and psyche on becoming attached to new characters - is the cost of investment in something new too high to chance it these days? If so, we're never going to see the a groundbreaking sensation the likes of Raiders again.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Harmless, Aimless, Crude Fun


Hot Tub Time Machine
It was actually pretty funny. Not as funny as The Hangover - and the plot was definitely disjointed and didn't make much sense... but what are you expecting from a film whose plot centers around a hot tub that travels through time into the 80s?

Hot Tub carries on in the same humor vein that The 40 Year Old Virgin and The Hangover did - fairly crude but not so disgusting that you can't watch the film. If you enjoyed those two films you'll enjoy this one, only slightly less.

The one thing that really bugs me about this film is that Cusack, one of the premier icons of the 80's, does nothing to play this up as they meander about a 1980s ski lodge. I think it would have been so easy to offer a cameo to Curtis "Do you realize what the street value of this mountain is?" Armstrong or Demian "I want my TWO DOLLARS!" Slade from Better Off Dead, a film that features Cusack skiing throughout the film. It seems as though someone really missed the boat on that facet - or maybe it was something that the legal dept killed.

**Note** - An astute reader (I have one or two!) pointed out two items in the film that I didn't notice; in one case I must have been grabbing a beer, and the other went straight over my head. The "Two Dollars" joke was dropped pretty early on in the film (this is the one I must have missed because of beer) so I'll have to retract my complaint. The other tidbit was a cameo I completely missed - William Zabka showed up as the gambler in the sports bar that Rob Corddry's character watches football in. Zabka is better known to the world as Johnny, the bully in The Karate Kid. Kudos to Brandon for the catch!