PG-13 Superheroes in Pre-K Books

Posted on July 22, 2008 at 5:31 pm

Children’s book author Erica S. Perl has a gallery in Slate about books for early readers featuring superheroes from PG-13 movies like The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man and even the very violent and disturbing Dark Knight. Perl reports that
at many chain bookstores there is now a specifically labeled “At the Movies” tier on the early-reader rack. This isn’t the first time brand extensions have shown up in early readers–books starring SpongeBob and Dora the Explorer have been around for several years now. But there’s something more unsettling about books aimed at preschoolers and kindergartners featuring PG-13 movie characters, and they pose a tricky question for parents. Books like A Hero Called the Hulk and The Dark Knight: I Am Batman practically beg to be plucked by small hands.
Perl says that some of these books are educationally sound, while others are not.
I Am Iron Man!, one of the best of the bunch, blithely ignores much of the plot of the movie my husband called “the loudest film ever made,” and Guido Guidi’s drawings of Iron Man’s suit convey the undeniable excitement of a snazzy magic flying costume. As important, his pictures provide a good jumping-off point for kids who want to make up their own stories about gaining the power to soar through the skies. Other movie-based early readers, however, present problems. A Hero Called the Hulk, seen here, provides none of the educational scaffolding beginning readers need.
Pedagogical value aside, I think it is wrong to use these books to market characters and movies to kids who are too young for them. Earlier this year, the Federal Trade Commission urged the Motion Picture Association of America to reconsider guidelines that allow some PG-13 movies to be marketed to young children, following a complaint by an advocacy group that the blockbuster film “Transformers” was inappropriately advertised to children as young as 2. It also urged toy manufacturers, fast-food chains and retailers to review how they sell movie-based toys to young children. These books are essentially ads for movies that are inappropriate for children and the Federal Trade Commission and the MPAA should prohibit this kind of licensing for products intended for those who are too young to see the movie.
FTC contact: Mary Engle, Director of the Division of Advertising Practices
* Online:secure complaint form
* Phone: Toll-free helpline: 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357);
TTY: 1-866-653-4261
* Mail:
Federal Trade Commission
Consumer Response Center
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20580
Or complain to the publisher:
Carolyn Kroll Reidy
CEO, Simon & Schuster, Inc.
1230 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Phone: 212-698-7000

X-Files Artifacts at the Smithsonian

Posted on July 16, 2008 at 1:51 pm

The setting was almost too perfect. In order to get to the ceremony for the donation of X-Files artifacts and memorabilia I had to go into the Smithsonian Institution’s Museum of American History through the “staff health center” entrance inside the parking lot and be escorted to the event by an intern who took me through eerily empty exhibition halls, all the items disassembled and covered with plastic sheets. What would Mulder and Scully say? Is the truth out there?

The museum is closed to the public for renovations (or so they say…) but the donation of this important collection was an event, and I was lucky enough to be invited. The people behind The X-Files television series and movies were there to donate artifacts from the show to the museum’s permanent collection. The nine-season television show, with its second feature film to be released next week, starred David Duchovney and Gillian Anderson as FBI agents Mulder and Scully, caught up in a series of mysteries and conspiracies relating to the normal and the paranormal.

The donated items include a “maquette” (model) of an alien used as a reference point in the first X-Files movie, a stiletto used by characters to exterminate aliens masquerading as people, an “I Want to Believe” poster that appeared in Mulder’s office on the show and is signed by Carter and stars David Duchovney and Gillian Anderson, the annotated script from the very first episode with a page of storyboards, prop FBI badges and business cards, a photograph of Mulder’s sister, Samantha, whose abduction by aliens is the motivation for his work, and the crucifix necklace worn by Agent Scully that symbolized her commitment to her faith.

“We are in the forever business,” said Melinda Machado, director of the museum’s Office of Public Affairs. They were delighted to make these items a part of the Smithsonian’s “forever” collection of over 6000 artifacts from the world of entertainment, including Dorothy’s ruby slippers from “The Wizard of Oz” and Mr. Rogers’ sweater. Curator Dwight Blocker Bowers spoke about the way that the show reflected the ambivalence of contemporary society with its dark themes, ironic humor, and balance between skepticism and hope.

The creator of the series, Chris Cooper, said, “my love is telling suspense thrillers with smart people and interesting subjects.” He was especially proud of staying with the show throughout its nine years, citing Robert Graves: “one of the hardest energies to find and sustain is maintenance energy,” and remained committed to “creating it anew every week.” He said that one of the best pieces of advice he received was from a production designer who read the original script and told him, “Don’t show them anything. Keep it in the shadows. You will have no time and no money and what they don’t see is scarier than what they do see.”

Carter, who recently completed a three-month fellowship in theoretical physics at the University of California at Santa Barbara, said he liked to create scripts that began with hard science and then asked “what if?” The students there knew of the show but had not seen it and he realized there was a new audience to be introduced to these stories and characters. He assured us that the new movie will satisfy the non-fans and the casual fans, and “will not insult the hard-core fans.”

We want to believe!

Related Tags:

Understanding Media and Pop Culture

How Would Wall?E Vote?

Posted on July 9, 2008 at 8:00 am

The chattering classes are already going after that sweet little robot Wall?E. Some on the right accused the film of being leftist propaganda because of its environmental message. As the New York Times points out:
Blogland moves at the speed of thought, however, and already the right-wing backlash to the right-wing backlash against “Wall-E” is underway.
Other conservatives are embracing the film as an exemplar of conservative values. Beliefnet’s own Crunchy Con Rod Dreher writes that Wall?E

embodies a traditionalist conservative critique of modernity, one that advocates a more or less Aristotelian view of humanity and politics. Philosophically, this is one of the most subversive movies I’ve ever seen. Crunchy cons, this movie is for us.
Of course the movie is neither conservative nor liberal. If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. And if all you look at is partisan politics, everything you see has to be categorized as either for or against whatever position you are espousing. This is especially the case if you are on deadline — or if you would like to leverage a hugely popular movie by attempting to appropriate it for your cause.
Like all great art, “Wall?E” is far too nuanced and layered to be used as anyone’s soundbite. And the attempts to do so say far more about the speaker than they do about the message of the film and the views of the people who made it. Those who argue that the film is “leftist propaganda about the evils of mankind” are saying that it is left-wing to point out that human beings have been careless with the earth’s resources in a way that could lead to making the planet uninhabitable and that corporations do not always have the best interests of the community as their top priority. Beliefnet’s Crunchy Con argues that this critique is a fundamental misunderstanding of the true nature of conservatism.
Technology emerges as a villain here — but it’s a complicated villain, as I’ll explain. Technology allowed for the development of the consumer economy, and the creation of the fantastic spaceship that allowed humanity to escape an earth it despoiled with technology. But technology also shaped the consciousness of the humans. It led them to break with nature (Nature), and to think of technology as something that delivered them from nature. As humanity became more technologically sophisticated, the film argues, they became ever more divorced from Nature, and their own nature…Consequently, they’ve become slaves of both technology and their own base appetites, and have lost what makes them human.

(more…)

Do Movie Critics Matter?

Posted on July 6, 2008 at 8:00 am

In 2006, Time asked whether movie critics still mattered. Since then, more than 30 major national critics have retired or been laid off and there has been a lot of commentary about the pros and cons of the democratization of movie reviews. The internet has erased the boundaries between professional and amateur critics as well as the boundaries of geography and outlet. You don’t have to live in Chicago to read Roger Ebert and you don’t have to be Roger Ebert to be read.
As one of the beneficiaries of the new outlets made available on the internet (I was one of the very first critics to post online, 13 years ago this month), I have mixed feelings. I am delighted with the way that the internet has made it possible to read such a wide range of reviews. I especially love Rotten Tomatoes, the best place to read all the critics, which is now celebrating its 10th anniversary. But I am sorry that some of our wisest, most knowledgeable, most insightful, and most graceful writers are disappearing from the conversation. The bloggers who contributed to the loss of MSM critics have documented and even lamented this decimation of the ranks. thumbs down col.gif
With a bit of gallows humor, Patrick Goldstein of the L.A. Times, which covers Hollywood the way the Wall Street Journal covers stocks, calls producer Avi Lerner his favorite critic. Few professional critics would disagree with his assessment of The Love Guru: “The worst movie I’ve seen in my life. It was so stupid I wanted to cry.” And this from the producer of such classics as “Shark Attack” and Rambo. With more than a bit of glee, the producers of the execrable Norbit pointed out that it received reviews from professional critics that ranged from disgusted to horrified and managed to make more than $150 million.
But critics are about more than telling people which movies are good and which are bad. Critics who understand the medium can help audiences understand what makes them good or bad and can provide background and context and their own insight and wit. A good review of a bad movie can be a pleasure to read. When movies are good, critics are very, very good, but when they’re bad, we’re better.
Slate’s Erik Lundegaard (note, an expert on business, not movies) writes that on a per-screen basis, movies recommended by critics make more money. “Critically acclaimed films average about $2,000 more per screen than critically lambasted films…Percentagewise, the critic effect is less pronounced for the supposedly critic-proof blockbusters, but it’s still there.”
I like Lundegaard’s idea of publishing brief non-spoiler reviews the date of release and longer, more thoughtful reviews on message boards a few weeks later, inviting audiences to participate in the discussion. Slate’s “spoiler” podcast is a variation. They are separate reviews intended for people who have already seen the movie, and I really enjoy them.
But what I like best in Lundegaard’s essay is his conclusion, which fits with my sense of, well, fitness and my belief in efficient markets (over the long term) in both of my careers: “he main point of all of this is something obvious yet little-heard in our bottom-line culture: Quality matters. Yes, it even matters in the ledger books.”

Women Critics on Superhero Movies

Posted on July 5, 2008 at 6:00 pm

The members of the Alliance of Women Film Journalists speak out on superhero movies. Are they just for boys?
MaryAnn Johanson, who’s carved her critic’s niche by taking superhero movies seriously, provides an introduction:
“Comic books and comic book movies ain’t just for boys anymore-if they ever were. The latest slew of superhero flicks, which began to come of age with 2000’s “X-Men,” have gotten increasingly sophisticated and now focus equally on the existential dramas of their heroes and the mythic arcs of their typically tragic stories as they do on slam-bang action…Today we’re seeing fantasy drama with an accent on the drama. Superhero movies are not longer lighthearted comedies dressed up in capes-as in 1978’s “Superman”-or expressions of over-the-top outrageousness-as in Jack Nicholson’s Joker in 1989’s “Batman,” for example. Even “Hancock,” which was marketed as a comedy, turns out to be more intensely dramatic than it is funny.
Lexi Feinberg comments, “I’d say they’re mythic. Adam Sandler movies represent the dumbing down of audiences much more than “Spider-Man” or “Batman”.”
The critics overwhelmingly chose “Iron Man” as the best recent superhero movie and hope for better superhero movies featuring women. The survey quotes my comment about Elektra and Catwoman: “they were made by people who don’t understand women, comics or movies.”