ir.gif

List: Movies for World Habitat Day

Posted on October 4, 2010 at 3:59 pm

Today is the United Nations’ World Habitat Day, dedicated to the principle that affordable, adequate housing should be a priority everywhere. Take a moment today to be grateful for your home, for the warmth and comfort it provides for you and your family. Talk about ways you can help others in your community or elsewhere to ensure adequate shelter. And make time for one or more of these movies about what home means:
1. A Home of our Own Kathy Bates plays an indomitable mother of five who builds a home for her family despite enormous obstacles and difficulties.
2. Places in the Heart Sally Field won an Oscar for this fact-based portrayal of a Depression-era widow who will do whatever is necessary to keep her home.
3. The Wizard of Oz Dorothy learns that there’s no place like home and that even a technicolor land filled with magic cannot compare to a small farmhouse in Kansas.
4. It’s a Wonderful Life George and Mary Bailey (James Stewart and Donna Reed) take a ramshackle abandoned house and make it into a home. The newel post may not stay on the banister but everyone in the Bailey household feels safe and secure and George, whose profession is in helping others to be able to afford a home, learns how lucky he is.
5. Annie A plucky little orphan girl and a wealthy industrialist both learn that it takes more than a house to make a home in this tuneful family treat.

Related Tags:

 

For Your Netflix Queue Movie Mom’s Top Picks for Families Neglected gem

The Karate Kid

Posted on October 4, 2010 at 8:00 am

B+
Lowest Recommended Age: 4th - 6th Grades
MPAA Rating: Rated PG for bullying, martial arts action violence, and some mild language
Profanity: Brief mild language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Character gets drunk
Violence/ Scariness: Martial arts action and violence, some graphic
Diversity Issues: A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters: June 11, 2010
Date Released to DVD: October 5, 2010
Amazon.com ASIN: B002ZG99CC

“Play the pauses,” the stern, English-accented music teacher tells his violin student (Wenwen Han as Meiying). Watching, and clearly paying close attention, is Dre (Jaden Smith, son of Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith), just arrived in China from Detroit, where he has left behind everything he knows and cares about. Young Smith himself was paying attention, too. Watch him hold the screen even when his character is not doing anything special. Smith knows better than many adult actors how to play the pauses. In his first starring role, his deft and engaging work is the heart of the film.

The first “Karate Kid,” released in 1984, starred Ralph Macchio as a teenager who gets martial arts lessons from a handyman (Pat Morita) and takes on the guys who have been bullying him at a big climactic karate match. There were two sequels with Macchio and then “The Next Karate Kid” starring future Oscar-winner Hilary Swank. In this version, Smith plays a 12-year-old who moves to China when his mother (Taraji P. Henson) is transferred to Beijing. At first he feels lost. Bullies attack him, leaving him humiliated and angry. When the maintenance man, Mr. Han (Jackie Chan) comes to his rescue, Dre asks for lessons. And when Mr. Han commits to have Dre compete in the kung fu championship in just three months, it’s time to cue up the training montage and zoom in on the Great Wall.

Even if they had not already made this movie four times, there would not be any surprises in the story. But the movie can still surprise us with its specificity of choices and the connections of its characters. Chan, who has too often been ill-served in his American movies, is well-suited to the role of the taciturn mentor. His one fight scene is as electrifying as ever and should bring a new generation of viewers to his Chinese classics. Smith has his father’s confidence and charm on screen. And it is a pleasure to see the match of the dedicated, courageous young man and the wise teacher work as well for the performers as it does for the characters.

Related Tags:

 

Action/Adventure Drama DVD/Blu-Ray Pick of the Week For the Whole Family Remake Stories About Kids
ir.gif

Interview: Chad Troutwine of ‘Freakonomics’

Posted on October 3, 2010 at 8:36 pm

Who could have imagined that economics would become cool? Often referred to as “the dismal science,” economics has long been associated with formulas filled with little Greek letters and articles that propose valuing human life at x. But Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything, by economist Steven D. Levitt and journalist Stephen J. Dubner, has become a blockbuster best-seller with a sequel and now a major theatrical release documentary with top documentary makers each taking on a different chapter of the book. I would not be surprised if the next development is a Broadway musical or a PlayStation game.

The Steves had a couple of great ideas to capture readers’ attention. First, there’s that “rogue” idea, right there in the title of the book. We’re always interested in rebels; even if they’re wrong, there will be some fights to sort it all out, and even intellectual battles are fun. And second was chutzpah; they were willing to take on conventional wisdom and widespread assumptions and back up their controversial findings with data and hard-core analysis. That extends even to the marketing of the movie itself; they are experimenting with economic incentives like a “pay whatever you want” screening and an unprecedented simultaneous release in theaters, on demand, and on iTunes.

Producer Chat Troutwine is a lawyer and entrepreneur, and I had a blast talking to him about making the film.

What is different about the way economists look at why we do what we do?

Steven Levitt is not the typical economist. There is not anything unique about his tools; what is fascinating is the things that interest him. He has applied his lens to areas that have mostly gone ignored, and he struck a chord. He’s an odd bird. He brings a playfulness to his work, but he is respected as an academic. He has captured the popular fancy with the books and blog and radio show and he maintains a deep respect from his colleagues. He was recently called the most influential and powerful voice among the esteemed group at the University of Chicago.

There are a lot of different kinds of economists. What category would you say Levitt is in?

He really is in some ways an applied or empirical sociologist. He just tends to use the tool kit that you typically associate with economists. He loves big pools of data and using regression analysis, seeing if he can shine a light into areas that were previously darkened.

Probably the best example of that was his rigorous analysis of the data on sumo wrestlers. As in many other cases, he was able to bring clarity to a counter-intuitive conclusion.

That’s right. It was an inescapable conclusion that there was collusive behavior, match-rigging, and rampant cheating in sumo culture. He showed an almost statistical certainty; there was no mathematical likelihood of those results if they were randomized. As soon as those results came out, they created a bit of a scandal in Japanese culture. Generally speaking, the reaction was, “That can’t be accurate.” But within two years there were several investigative reports proving abuse and match-rigging phenomena. Had Levitt not done his investigative work, we might still think that sumo culture was as pristine as Shinto culture.

I think that’s what’s compelling about his work, uncovering perverse incentives.

If you don’t, then you reap what you sow and you will be surprised because you did not understand what you were sowing. You’ve created an incentive scheme that will lead to what in hindsight should have been predictable results. There were also some surprising conclusions. That’s the great thing about Levitt and Dubner; they will devote a great deal of time to learning about these things and they don’t shape the facts to fit what they hope will be revealed.

Given the rigor of their analysis of incentives and options, how did you persuade them to turn over their work to someone they had never met?

Handing over their baby, all their work to someone they had just met — it took some months to win them over. I reached out to them within a few months after the book was published. I wrote them a long, personal note describing almost exactly what, four years later, we produced. They wrote back warmly and told me to work with their agent. The agent was a little chillier and said I should keep an eye on the trades because they were close to a deal with a studio. But that didn’t materialize so I circled back and won them over.

What they had to trust me to do was make the material engaging and entertaining but still take the same position they do, as a kind of intellectual referee. Levitt and Dubner do not take sides. People try to assign a slant or position to them, but I don’t want a label on it at all. The work speaks for itself.

Each of our directors is strong-willed and has a point of view. Occasionally our film diverges, subtly or sometimes even more aggressively veers away from the book. One example is the sumo wrestler segment we were just talking about. Alex Gibney sees real parallels between the financial services community and investors and the way the sumo culture let down the Japanese culture. But Levitt had not done the research to back that up, so that’s a more speculative association.

With Morgan Spurlock , who did the baby-name segment, he actually went to another economist, who has been a critic of some of Levitt’s work, and it goes in both directions; Levitt has in a nice academic way taken apart some of his work as well. But Morgan thought it was important to bring it into the film. We weren’t afraid to bring into the film not only people who are closely allied with Levitt’s work but those who come up with some contrary conclusions.

Why did you decide to use different directors for each chapter?

As I read the book the chapters were disconnected but with similar themes about incentives and better decision-making and looking inside Levitt’s mind. I thought perhaps it would be fun and the best way to understand the material to bring on different film-makers to each take on one subject. I wanted to keep people engaged and entertained without dumbing down the material in any way and I thought the different visual styles would help make that work. Each segment will be completely different and visually arresting. And the interstitial material is some of the best of what’s in the film. I always cringe when I see the comparisons in reviews, but it is very satisfying that each segment has been highlighted by at least one critic as the best. But it was a challenge! I don’t want to say it was like making five movies but in terms of the resources and time and stress, it was more challenging than making a single feature.

You had some of the top documentary directors working on this film, each with a very individual style — how did you decide which director did which segment?

It worked out perfectly. I met Morgan Spurlock socially when I was getting close to getting the rights to the book and asked him if he would be interested. He said, “I’m in!” We just shook hands on it. That enabled me to pluck up my courage and go to Alex Gibney, the dean of non-fiction film-makers. He was in immediately and had a fondness for the sumo segment. He had lived in Japan. No one understands cheating and corruption and bringing that to life on film than he does. Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady had some interest in the abortion and crime segment. Eugene Jarecki had a full-developed pitch for that one; he said he saw parallels to “It’s a Wonderful Life.” We can go back and imagine a world had their not been legal abortion. He wanted to do it animated to soften the emotionalism of any discussion of abortion. That gave Heidi and Rachel a chance to do what they do best, verite, with the new material on the experiment in Chicago for giving kids cash for good grades.

You are using economic principles and theories to help you design an unprecedented distribution model for this film.

Most of my family comes from very rural parts of Missouri. One reason I wanted “Freakonomics” to be available on many different distribution platforms is I wanted to democratize the process as much as possible. This is the first time a movie has been available on iTunes before its theatrical release. For people who read the book, there is a great section about a man who sells bagels in offices here in Washington DC. He leaves a wooden box and people pay what they want, the honor system. He has tracked it meticulously at different locations every day, every year. And people in the most expensive offices pay less. Radiohead made their album “pay what you want.” A lot of people thought it was a failure because they made two pounds, a little less than four dollars, per download. But there were no middlemen, and they are convinced that they were able to reach dramatically more consumers and expand their concert sales. We gave people the chance to buy their tickets online in ten cities on a single night, one screening. You logged on and filled out a very short survey and bought a ticket for anything from one penny to $100. We sold out of seven cities in three hours. The most popular choice? One penny. That was mostly for fun. I think some of the other parts of the experiment will have a more lasting impact, the fact that we made the film available on demand and on iTunes, that will be an important legacy.

Since the film focuses so much on incentives — how do you define your goals for this movie?

I had three goals for this film. First, I wanted it to stand alone artistically, to have people look at it and think it was a wonderful film as a work of art. Second, I wanted it to be financially successful so that I can continue to make other films. I put up half the budget personally and so I have a real financial stake, real skin in the game. Third, I am a total believer in this way of thinking. I am convinced that if we have the right data it will allow us to be better decision-makers. That doesn’t mean that we omit our moral compass or experience or other things that go into what we assign to intuition.

For example, the State of Illinois wanted to improve child literacy so they sent a book to every family. But the program failed. It based on good intentions but not on good data. It is very sweet and a bonding moment to read to your child, but it helps inspire him to read if you get him to read to you. Very often the conventional wisdom is accurate or at least consistent with the data. But sometimes it isn’t. Correlation is not the same as causality. I wanted to start that conversation.

Related Tags:

 

Behind the Scenes Documentary Interview

Say No to Informercials Masquerading as Programs for Kids

Posted on October 3, 2010 at 3:57 pm

The FCC has issued a call for public comment on the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood’s petition that the upcoming Nicktoons children’s television show Zevo-3 violates the public interest. It is the first children’s show to feature commercial spokescharacters; the stars are characters whose only previous existence was in commercials for Skechers shoes. CFCC believes the show violates the Children’s Television Act and FCC policies that limit the amount and kind of advertising in children’s television programs. Comments must be filed by October 18.
Zevo-3, produced by Skechers (the footwear giant) is scheduled to begin airing on Nicktoons on October 11. The animated series stars superheroes named Kewl Breeze, Elastika, and Z-Strap and a villain named Dr. Stankfoot who, until now, have only been used in advertisements to promote specific lines of Skechers shoes. The characters were originally created by Skechers for comic books distributed in shoe boxes and have also appeared in numerous Skechers’ television ads. Since the characters themselves have always only been ads, CFCC says that the show’s broadcast will violate the time limits for commercial matter in kids’ TV shows (12 minutes per hour on weekdays) and FCC policies that call for strict separation of commercial matter and programming.
Children are not clear on the difference between programming and advertising, and blurring the line further by putting advertising characters into programs turns them into an infomercial. Zevo-3 is the first children’s program based on advertising logos. Its main characters, Elastika, Kewl Breeze, Z-Strap and the evil Dr. Stankfoot have only appeared in advertisements for Skechers shoes. Zevo-3 violates policies designed to protect children from overcommercialization on television such as the limits on commercial matter (12 minutes per hour on weekdays) and clear separation between commercial matter and programming. It escalates commercialism in children’s media and will open the floodgates for a slew of children’s programming based on spokescharacters such as Ronald McDonald, The Burger King, and Tony the Tiger. The CCFC’s petition is asking the Commission to uphold the few laws and rules that exist to protect children–not asking the FCC to create new rules.
This isn’t the first time a corporation has tried this: In 1992, Fox planned to air a show based on Chester Cheetah, the Cheetos spokescharacter. However, when advocates petitioned the FCC, the show was pulled. In the intervening eighteen years, there has been no development of children’s television programming based on advertising spokescharacters – until now. Zevo-3 might be the first, but unless it’s stopped it won’t be the last. Public opinion will matter, and it’s essential that the advocacy, public health, and education communities weigh in on behalf of children. That’s why the FCC needs to hear from parents, teachers, and other concerned adults.
The deadline for comments in October 18 and it does not need to be more than a single sentence: I support the CCFC’s efforts to enforce the existing FCC regulations and policies by protecting children from commercials masquerading as programming in Zevo-3. Be sure to refer to #10-190.
If you are filing your comment as an attachment (Word or .pdf), you can upload your submission.
Or, type or cut and paste a brief comment into the FCC’s express form.
CCFC’s petition and the supplemental material provide more background.

Related Tags:

 

Advertising Marketing to Kids Parenting
THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2024, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik