Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login

Filmsi - A not so serious look at films and film reviews

 
Anything film =D

Filmsi - June 2009

Biggest con game ever: The Hollywood Code

You all remember those stories, don't you? Grandma and Grandpa, or Mom and Dad probably tell them all the time. They talk about how movies today are full of graphic violence, sex, nudity, and all that stuff that's "ruining our society as we know it". They remember those good old days when movies were clean and had good character.

Now Mom and Dad can reminisce about that, and in SOME cases(depending on age), Grandma and Grandpa can too. But I can safely say very few know their movie history. Hell, I have to admit I wasn't keen to this till the other day.

I'm in a Barnes and Noble looking through the DVD section when I noticed a set of movies entitled "Hollywood's Forbidden Movies", or something to that effect. Basically, these were movies that, between the end of silent films, and 1934, pretty much had carte blanche on what was included. This included nudity, sex, and violence. Yes, there are people that think that all that started in the 60s and 70s.


Count me as one of those people. Guess you learn something new every day.

Here's a little history lesson.

The 20s and 30s were sort of like the 60s and the 70s when it came to the ever changing times. The roaring twenties brought upon a new generation of people who started to rebel from the old "Victorian" ways, which were considered stodgy, boring, and way behind the times. The code was kind of an unwritten rule before, but films largely ignored them. Sex starlets like Jean Harlow were doing sexually suggestive films far before it was popular, violence was prevalent, and endings weren't always happy.

From here, we introduce the Catholic Legion of Decency.

In 1933, the Catholic Legion of Decency threw their two cents into the issue and promoted their outrage over all the violence and sex in film(Hey, I can see their beef! I mean it had to be overshadowing all that child molesting they were doing to altar boys!). They helped endorse a new film code entitled "The Hays Code" after Will Hays, former chairman of the Republican Party.


Here are the basic principles of the code.


No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin - Complete and utter BS. Moral standards come from a good family life, good religious background(depending on your background, if there is one), and your conscience. It doesn't come from two hours of suspended disbelief on celluloid.

Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented - You mean like that strong moral ground that most Hollywood actors have? Hell, George Burns once said(paraphrased) "The things you see women do in movies today are what they used to do to get into movies back then".

Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation - Again, not a decision for the humans of the world.

Nakedness and suggestive dances were prohibited - Good and bad. Most filmmakers have no clue how to use nakedness and suggestive dance in a story. Most just use it to wank off to for about fifty takes.

The ridicule of religion was forbidden, and ministers of religion were not to be represented as comic characters or villains - Oh lordy, even GOD gave us the right to ridicule religion. You know that little story with the Garden of Eden? Now you go over God's head?

The depiction of illegal drug use was forbidden, as well as the use of liquor, when not required by the plot or for proper characterization - Yup, having a beer is a SIN!

Methods of crime (e.g. safe-cracking, arson, smuggling) were not to be explicitly presented.
References to alleged sex perversion (such as homosexuality) and venereal disease were forbidden, as were depictions of childbirth - That probably saved Rock Hudson's career?

The language section banned various words and phrases that were considered to be offensive - Eh, I don't mind this SO much. I can't say I'm perfect in the cussing department(far from it), but too many writers fill pages with cuss words instead of using them correctly. Only writer I truly know that can cuss incessantly, and make it a part of a good story is Mamet.

Murder scenes had to be filmed in a way that would discourage imitations in real life, and brutal killings could not be shown in detail. "Revenge in modern times" was not to be justified. Again, family, conscience, etc....

The sanctity of marriage and the home had to be upheld. "Pictures shall not imply that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common thing." Adultery and illicit sex, although recognized as sometimes necessary to the plot, could not be explicit or justified and were not supposed to be presented as an attractive option - This is why 100% of marriages were COMPLETELY perfect in Hollywood! I'm just imagining Ward Cleaver having three ways with two prostitutes while the room is filled with smoke! Life without the code, I guess.

Portrayals of miscegenation were forbidden - Gee, here's a surprise.

"Scenes of Passion" were not to be introduced when not essential to the plot. "Excessive and lustful kissing" was to be avoided, along with any other treatment that might "stimulate the lower and baser element." - Again, sometimes that's not bad. Some writers and directors have no clue what to do these days if sex isn't involved. It's killed creativity.

The flag of the United States was to be treated respectfully, and the people and history of other nations were to be presented "fairly." - You know this brought upon the horrible McCarthy blacklist(another subject for another time)

The treatment of "Vulgarity," defined as "low, disgusting, unpleasant, though not necessarily evil, subjects" must be "subject to the dictates of good taste." Capital punishment, "third-degree methods," cruelty to children and animals, prostitution and surgical operations were to be handled with similar sensitivity - That kills about 98% of movies today being made way back when.

Look, to me it's a con game. Not because of the rules portrayed(I agree with a few personally for myself, but not for the work itself), but for the hypocrisy of it all. People are worried about Obama wanting to control the world, and control what we do.

Have no fear, it's been going on for years.
Comments (1)Comments (1) Add CommentsAdd Comments
52
Vote
   


Movie Review: Boiler Room

Have you ever watched one of those movies that should've been so much better, but there were a few holes that hurt the movie?

Also, have you ever watched one of those movies that should've sucked worse than it did, but it had its moments that make it a bit memorable?

Boiler Room is the best(and worst) of both worlds, if you will. It has some serious pros and cons that would even be evident at a Helen Keller famiy reunion, and when both good and bad clash so heavily, you are left to wonder "what if". That's not a good thing because it can leave you bored fast.

Here's the pros and cons of the movie. Apologies for writing out spoilers if you haven't seen it yet.

Pro: The story - A small time hustler wants to do right by a father who doesn't respect him. He takes what he thinks is an honest job, only it's an even bigger con than he's ever seen before. The writer, Ben Younger, had a real good premise, and had a real good chance to make something memorable, but one big problem to start......

Con: The lead is Giovanni Ribisi - This isn't saying that Ribisi is the worst actor on earth, which he's not. In fact, he's actually a good actor. Problem is that he's really not right for the Seth Davis role at all. Seth Davis needed to be naturally cocky going right into the company. He came from owning his own underground casino, and making some bank already, so he should've gone in with a bigger sense of worth. Instead, he looks as lost as the goobers in the room with him. That brings me to the next point.

Pro: Casting was pretty realistic - Not necessarily on the primary characters, although that wasn't terrible, but with the extras and secondary characters. Think of this for a second. You are stepping into a "chop shop"(less than reputable brokerage firms that cheat investors by offering stock at their prices, and leave the investors with no place to trade when the business is bogus), and watching someone extoll the virtues of his millions of dollars at under 30 years old. The sort of people you will NOT see in there are people with their Series 7 license, because they would probably learn about "chop shops" going for their license(There's a part in the beginning where a guy with his license is going for a job there, and he's kicked out. Not realistic). The people around the table look like losers, dress like losers, and are losers, which is pro quo around those places anyway. Those type of guys never had direction in life, and they think they are doing something "cool", without realizing that the guys with the cars and the money probably helped start the company, and were the cool kids in school.

Con: ONE of the best acting jobs in the movie came from Vin Diesel - Mind you, the best actor in the movie was Ron Rifkin, the guy that played Seth's Dad. He's a respected stage and film actor that was obviously going to carry this movie(When your co-stars are Nicky Katt and Vin Diesel, that's not going to be tough). But surprisingly, one of the best actors in the movie was Vin Diesel. He was believable as Chris Varick, someone who is invariably a good guy, but is magnetized into the world of easy money, and doesn't want to get out of that world. He was one of the few actors that didn't phone it in halfway through the movie.

Pro: Ron Rifkin - Bringing him up again, he absolutely saves the movie at points. Playing a conflicted, tough guy father, he wants to see his son do well, but being a judge, he is ashamed of his son, and covers up an old wound between the two also. Ribisi was lucky to have this guy, or his role would've been lost. His best acting in this movie was around Ron Rifkin, without a shadow of a doubt. It was like Rifkin completely refused to accept garbage, and he'd stay all night to make sure the scene was right. I don't know that, but that's how it felt.

Con: The worst man-woman chemistry in the history of film between Ribisi and Nia Long - This was nothing more than an attempt to make an interracial relationship work, and it didn't. ZERO chemistry whatsoever, and it wasn't even necessary in the first place. One thing you notice about screenwriters is that they can add way too much at points, and paint themselves into a corner. This was an example. Watch and you'll see my point. The only good thing of that relationship was the very end of it.

Finally:

Con: They put the wrong ending in the movie - The end the movie by having the FBI raid the offices and Seth leaving as they are showing up. The original ending was an investor who was cheated showing up to get revenge on the people that cheated him. That would've added far more to the ending, and brought things full circle. Instead, it leaves you with this unnecessary "what do you think happened" scenario that had no business being in the film.

Overall, it's about a 6 out of 10, but it missed its mark. You had the perfect thing going with young alpha males with a lot of money carrying the bulk of the film, but there were too many things that weren't necessary, and a lot of actors phoned it in halfway through. This is one movie I'd like to see a remake of, just to see it done right.

Maybe I'll write it, who knows.
Comments (1)Comments (1) Add CommentsAdd Comments
58
Vote
   


Playing a bad guy IS fun

Patrick Duffy, the man who played Bobby Ewing on "Dallas", once said that he would've much rather had the J.R. role.

Now this seems a little far fetched at first. Patrick Duffy played the ultimate alpha male. Rich, successful, good looking, could get women any time he wanted, and married a brick oven hot woman to boot. Combine that with him being a good guy, and that's just about every woman's dream.

Notice I said "Just about".

Duffy was quoted as saying that he would've rather had Larry Hagman's role. That Larry had all the fun, that he got to do more cool things. Considering how well loved Bobby Ewing was(Dallas' ratings took a HUGE freefall when they killed him off the first time), you wouldn't think he'd have a complaint about anything.

But Patrick does have a point, and even with Bobby's popularity, J.R. got just as much fan mail, whether it was someone wanting to beat his ass, or someone wanting him in the sheets. The bad boy got just as much recognition as the sweetheart.

This shows, more than ever, that a lot of women dig the bad boy. There's an element of danger, an element of surprise, and an element of interest in a guy that doesn't have much moral ground. With a bad guy, you know where they are coming from. Sometimes, with a good guy in this cynical world, there's the tendency to figure what their agenda is every minute. Better the enemy you know, than the enemy you don't.

I, myself, can attest to enjoying bad guy roles. The first one I played was in a short film in Savannah, GA(I'll tell the whole story of that shoot on another blog), and I didn't know what to think when I was given the role as a murderer. Always played good guys, bit parts, or goofy characters before that, so this was a role where I thought my scenes would last a while because I didn't have a basis of comparison on being bad. I didn't even drink in high school, so I wasn't exactly James Dean, you know.

But I was also hired on because my voice can carry.....and I mean REALLY carry. That part wouldn't be the problem. I was worried about being convincing, but I guess I was convincing because everyone was happy(again, another blog for another time)

Thing was that it was actually kind of cool to be bad, just for those moments. It gives you a fresh perspective on why real people do turn bad at times. Some don't figure they are bad, but they are, and some have too much fun to be honest. Now this is coming from someone who doesn't exactly have a past of being a rebel, but it truly can be more fun being bad. There's a level of adventure in not always following the rules. That doesn't mean I'm going to go on a shooting spree, or on a twenty state bank robbery spree, or even cheat on every woman I go with, but there's much more of an understanding of a bad guy, whether real or fictional.

The good thing is that I can live vicariously through bad guys the rest of my career, and be Bobby Ewing off the set.

I'll just make sure to hone up on my fighting skills.
Add CommentsAdd Comments
46
Vote
   


The appeal of James Bond

I watched Casino Royale last night for about the 5th or 6th time(can you tell it's one of my favorite movies?). While watching it, I was thinking about the appeal of a character that's been around since 1953(the first book.....first movie was 1962). What is the appeal from other people's perspective.

Personally, I know what the appeal is from my standpoint. Simply, it's a reality I am aiming for every single day.

That's not to say I'm going to be some kind of secret agent, tracking down international criminals, and have crazy gadgets(although it would be cool to have a few gadgets for the hell of it). Not what I mean whatsoever. The reality is simple. The best cars, the best clothes, the best women, the best of everything. The James Bond image is of excellence, and that's always my goal. I watch Entourage for the same reason(even if the boys had to have some strife last season). What can I say, I'm single right now, so I can aim for all this.

But thinking on the other end, I start to realize that it is every man's fantasy to be Bond. The biggest difference is that most of them wish that the fantasy that is in front of them was real. The secret agent idea is so appealing to most males, especially ones that really haven't accomplished much in their lives(whether for real, or their assumptions).

Think about this for a second. You are a man that married your high school sweetheart. At first, she was gorgeous, and you pretty much had a prize. Before kids, you acted like newlyweds and couldn't take your eyes off one another, or keep the hands off one another. You went on vacations, had parties at the house, and basically had fun in life. Then a kid comes around, then another, then another. Both of you still love each other very much, but you are both kinda immune to each other after all these years. Plus you've both put on weight, and you've both kind have lived the mundane existence. Now women can adapt to this a little more. Honestly, they mature much faster, and much more, than men do. They have kids and other things to keep their minds going. Plus a lot of women love being mothers.

Men, on the other hand, are stuck. A lot of them act EXACTLY like Al Bundy. They think the fates of the world stuck them with kids and a wife, and not the exciting life of traveling the world and meeting beautiful women everywhere. Everything from the movies in their DVD to the swimsuit calendars in their garages show nothing but a fantasy world. Even worse, they do nothing to make it work for them. The woe is me scenario. Mind you, there is not one thing wrong with marriage, but it is half their fault for not making it exciting. They think of the fantasy, instead of the reality.

I say any man can be Bond. Maybe they won't detonate missiles, or save the world every day without a sweat, but they can still be Bond.

The simple way to do that? Expect excellence in yourself, no matter your situation. That's the true James Bond right there.
Add CommentsAdd Comments
35
Vote
   


Men aren't men anymore

What I say is absolutely true.

Go back in time and remember how men were portrayed. The Cary Grants, the Clark Gables, the Gene Kellys, the Humphrey Bogarts. They were cool, calm, collected, in control. Alpha males, masters of their domain, all of that. It was simple and direct. Women, whether the ones playing with the men on screen, or the ones watching the screen, wanted them. It was more than just the looks, it was the confidence that they portrayed, and confidence is EASILY the #1 thing women love.

But now, modern media has changed everything, including how a man is portrayed. This is not a knock on a woman's portrayal because that has changed for the better the past fifty years. My problem with that change is that, instead of just making women stronger, they made men either mopey and dopey, without any stretch of charisma whatsoever, or a safe looking pretty boy that probably borrows mascara from his girlfriend(all with a few exceptions, of course). Let's look at some examples.

Freecreditreport.com ads - I know they are pretty much off the air now, thanks to the government(and I thank them every second for that), but the person that started these ads need a complete beatdown. It's some complete loser being portrayed as a down on his luck goof who made his own dumb ass mistakes not checking his credit report, and getting the shaft for it. He marries a hot chick, and they are stuck in her parents' basement, he can't get a good car, he can't get a good job, all that stuff. All in all, he's supporting his loser friends that play bad music behind him.

Everybody Loves Raymond - Ok, I'm sure Ray Romano's a nice guy for real, but his show completely started the mopey dopey wimp Dad. There are arguments that Cliff Huxtable did this on the Cosby Show because his wife was such a strong character, but at least he took control of his kids, and they had an even marriage. The Ray Barone character might possibly be the wimpiest man in television history. HIs kids ran over him, his wife ran over him, his mother ran over him, life ran over him. The combination of that and his whiny, sniveling voice when things go wrong(which is all the time) makes me want to punch him so hard. The Ray Barone character has brought about a BATCH of shows with sniveling, mopey, dopey wimps that get ran over by their wives. Two examples are King of Queens, and Yes, Dear.

Paul Blart, Mall Cop - Giving credit where it's due, it made a LOT of money, and that's what we're all aiming for. But this completely mocks the idea of the male as a hero, and I can't stand that. What's so ironic about Kevin James is that he's big into mixed martial arts, so he's complete alpha male.

The Lifetime Network - Don't get me started here. Men are punked out worse on this station than any other. Living with a friend upon my move to Atlanta, I had to watch it all the time because the girl of the house was addicted to it. A normal storyline is woman in trouble, runs to her man for help, man offers support but little else, man gets beat up or shot by the person after her, and she ends up taking care of the evil guy at the end. Yes, this is a woman empowering network, but what's the point of the man then?

Adam Lambert - Yes, Glambert! When a male wears the same makeup as the females screaming in the audience, and those same females think he's hot(and even funnier, the feeling is not reciprocating when it comes to him), it shows that males have been made WAY too safe. Remember Han Solo? Indiana Jones? Rocky? Rambo? James Bond? All did have some emotion(especially Rambo at the end of 1), but they had had an element of danger to them that made them INTERESTING. Ok, ok, so I used movie characters to compare to a real life human being, so I'll change course.

Johnny Cash?

The man was simply cool. There was a charisma to him, a level of danger, something that made him interesting. His voice was cool, his look was cool, his charisma was cool, everything was cool. This guy could probably make reading a newspaper look cool. Most of all, he could get away with being a man. Different time, different place.

Now I'll give a little bit of credit. We are starting to see some people try to bring MAN back in the fold. You have the Ketel One and Dos Equis ads that show it's cool to be an alpha male, and it emphasizes that this is a MAN'S WORLD! You have Entourage, which is an alpha male show if there ever was one. Most of all, you have the movies "Taken" and the James Bond flicks, which are blockbuster hits, and it showed the man as a hero again. At least there are obviously people that agree with me on this.

But as I said, it's just a start. What I say doesn't mean I want to see women brought back to damsel in distress level of the early Hollywood years. Far from it. Those characters are way too one dimensional for my tastes.

At the same time, there shouldn't ever be a complete reciprocation of characters making women the hero and men complete putzes. What happened to men being proud that they are men? Rich men are vilified because they own $100,000 cars and enjoy the fruits of their labor. There are stories of wealthy men that are so afraid of a backlash that they won't even buy what they want anymore.

I'll just say it now. Don't be afraid to be a man. Be who you are.

Just make men interesting again.
Comments (2)Comments (2) Add CommentsAdd Comments
54
Vote
   


The worst film ever made: Review of

Every once in a while, you come across a film that is so vile, so hideous, and so completely worthless to human brain cells. There aren't very many of them, of course. Hell, even Steven Seagal movies, bad as they are, have cool fight scenes. Even crazier, even Uwe Boll movies have an ugly charm to them.

But this movie I'm reviewing is so across the board bad that this disclaimer should be placed before the beginning


[ Click here to read more ]
Read MoreRead More Comments (3)Comments (3) Add CommentsAdd Comments
69
Vote
   


Striking while the iron is hot

My Dad always used this term.......strike while the iron is hot.

That term always applies to me. I've quit those mundane jobs before because of that. Nothing going on whatsoever, and even though the money is good, you feel trapped. That's why this career is so appealing to a lot of people. There is so much freedom, even with the unpredictability


[ Click here to read more ]
Read MoreRead More Add CommentsAdd Comments
47
Vote
   


The unpredictable start to my unpredictable career

I don't have a Hollywood past. In fact, none of my family has anything past high school musicals on their resume(and ironically, that wasn't even me). Hell, this wasn't even considered till I turned 22 years old. Late start, I know, especially in this business.

It didn't even start by conventional ways. As I mentioned before, I wasn't an actor at 14 or 15(although I was in a little school play at 8 years old, playing a newspaper boy), I didn't have lots of modeling experience, and I wasn't noticed in a gas station or anything like that. My life in this unreal world started in the least likely of places.......Cleveland, TN


[ Click here to read more ]
Read MoreRead More Add CommentsAdd Comments
43
Vote
   


Stars are stars for a reason

This business is the biggest roulette game ever.

Everything has to go right at a particular time to make it as an actor. Right place, right time, right look, right everything under the sun. Watching that Meisner DVD I mentioned, I know some of those faces, but I haven't seen a lot of them in years. They either left the business, or are probably stage actors out of the spotlight, I don't know, and very few others truly know. Either way, to be in the class, they had to be top notch actors to be there, and yet that isn't enough for some people


[ Click here to read more ]
Read MoreRead More Add CommentsAdd Comments
45
Vote
   


More Posts
3 Posts
3 Posts
1 Posts
93 Posts dating from March 2008
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:

Samira's Blogs

311 Vote(s)
2 Comment(s)
6 Post(s)
Moderated by Samira
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]