Where is the Faith in “American Sniper” and “Unbroken?”

Posted on January 19, 2015 at 3:37 pm

Two U.S. military heroes wrote books about their lives that became movies released in the last few weeks. Both men wrote movingly about the way faith anchored their lives and guided their actions. And yet there was little mention of their faith in the two films, “Unbroken,” the story of WWII soldier Louis Zamperini, and “American Sniper,” the story of Iraqi veteran Chris Kyle.

Sarah Pulliam Bailey wrote in the Washington Post:

Both stories focus on the dramatic stories of warriors who died before the movie versions of their lives came out. Both “American Sniper” and “Unbroken” include an early scene of their families sitting in church. Both men struggle with substance abuse after returning from war.

And both films largely skirt the faith that Kyle and Zamperini said were key to their identity — and their survival.

Related Tags:

Understanding Media and Pop Culture

How Should We Look At “Offensive” Art?

Posted on January 17, 2015 at 12:40 pm

Thanks to Sam Adams and Indiewire for including me in a thoughtful discussion of “offensive art” in light of the attack on the satiric magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris. My response:

I don’t have a favorite example of offensive art, but I do have a favorite example of my favorite aspect of “offensive” art. I love to track the trajectory of art initially considered transgressive or offensive or shocking as it moves, often very quickly, to merely edgy, then acceptable, then quaintly retro. Some people thought that the Beatles’ haircuts spelled the end of civilization. And the Sex Pistols were considered very offensive in their day. They showed their contempt for society’s standards that went beyond their songs and performances. They turned down induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame with a letter that showed that contempt in form and content. A few years later, Johnny Rotten’s voice was on the audio guide at the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s History of British Fashion exhibit. On the other hand, some material that was considered acceptable is now considered offensive. Take a look at those blackface numbers in “Swing Time” and “Holiday Inn” and films with Katharine Hepburn, Alec Guinness, Marlon Brando and Mickey Rooney playing Asian roles. So all “offensive” art is important, whether it is crossing the line toward or away from acceptability because that is part of the way we test and define ourselves.

Why the Oscar Almost Always Goes to the Wrong Song

Posted on January 17, 2015 at 8:00 am

The rules governing which songs are eligible for the Oscar are out of date and out of whack. Okay, it’s fine with me if “Everything is Awesome” from “The LEGO Movie” wins this year, first because I love the song and second because I will get to laugh every time I hear the words “Oscar-winner Andy Samberg” (he co-wrote the lyrics). Gosh, if he gets a Grammy, too (the song is nominated), he’ll be halfway to an EGOT!

But nominees often include at least one song no one even remembers because it played over the credits after everyone has gone home. Also because it is completely forgettable. Songs that play an important role in the storyline are often overlooked or ineligible. I was glad to see a terrific article on the A.V. Club by Jesse Hassenger spelling out how wrong the rules are and how absurd the results are because of the strange rules.

For example, take the 74th Academy Awards. One of the five Best Picture nominees was a bona fide musical, Baz Luhrmann’s Moulin Rouge! Most of the film’s songs were mash-ups, covers, and reimaginings of previously existing pop songs, but one had never appeared in a film before: “Come What May,” a crucial romantic duet between Ewan McGregor and Nicole Kidman. But the song was deemed ineligible as an original—because technically, it was first written for Luhrmann’s 1996 version of Romeo + Juliet, only to wind up in Luhrmann’s next film instead. Never mind that “Come What May” never actually appears in Romeo + Juliet or on its soundtrack; the mere intention (and, presumably, some manner of accompanying songwriting registration) was enough to invalidate its obvious centrality to the movie in which it made its actual debut.

On its own, this case would be a frustrating technicality. But taken in context, it seems downright arbitrary. One of the more respectable recent Best Song winners, “Falling Slowly” from Once, appeared on not one but two albums released for general sale well before the movie came out. But while the Academy’s music branch did review this case, they eventually concluded that the movie’s gestation period was protracted enough to make the case that the song being written in 2002 and performed on two different albums since then had no bearing on its eligibility as part of a movie released in 2007. (The two albums on which it appeared were “venues,” in the Academy’s words, “deemed inconsequential enough not to change the song’s eligibility”).

Hassenger makes an important point about the difference between a song that is important to the movie and one that will go over well in the Oscar award television show. “We Are the Best” is a terrific movie about three girls who form a punk group. Their song is a critical part of the movie. ““Hate The Sport” is vital to the bond the characters in We Are The Best! form. It’s catchy not as a pop song, but as a piece of these characters’ lives.” But it is not going to provide a “Let it Go” television-friendly moment. Also, since the movie is Swedish, the nominees’ names would be a bigger challenge than Idina Menzel. The song should be nominated just to let John Travolta try to announce it.

The song I was rooting for this year did not get nominated. In my opinion it is by far the best movie song of the year: “For the Dancing and the Dreaming” from “How to Train Your Dragon 2,” with lyrics by Shane MacGowan (of the Pogues) and music by Jon Thor Birgisson and John Powell. It does everything a song in a movie is supposed to do. It gives the characters a chance to express what is going on and it moves the story forward. And it is gorgeously beautiful and so touching.

Critic Critiques — Has the Internet Been Good or Bad for Movie Criticism?

Posted on January 14, 2015 at 3:46 pm

Until a few years ago, the movie critics you read were determined by geography. There were a few critics in national publications, like Pauline Kael in the New Yorker and the critics for Time and Newsweek. If you lived in Chicago, you got to read Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel, but if you did not, you read the critic in your local paper. The internet made it possible to read any critic you liked. And it made it possible for anyone to be a critic. I started putting my movie reviews online in 1995 and did not start getting paid for it until five years later.

This democratization of movie criticism has been both good and bad. The worst part has been the result of overall budget-slashing at news organizations across the board. Film critics are among the first to go. A documentary called “For the Love of Movies” was a sad elegy to the era of the professional movie critic.

Director David Cronenberg is especially critical of aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. He said

Even now if you go to Rotten Tomatoes, you have critics and then you have ‘Top Critics’, and what that really means is that there are legitimate critics who have actually paid their dues and worked hard and are in a legitimate website connected perhaps with a newspaper or perhaps not. Then there are all these other people who just say they’re critics and you read their writing and they can’t write, or they can write and their writing reveals that they’re quite stupid and ignorant. … Some voices have emerged that are actually quite good who never would have emerged before, so that’s the upside of that. But I think it means that it’s diluted the effective critics.

It is clear to me that the best part of this access to technology by both critics and filmgoers (and thus the dissolving of the distinction between them) has been the range of new voices. My friend Sonny Bunch wrote for the Washington Post:

there is some use in examining the way that the movies themselves help us order our existence. The movie screen may not be a mirror for society. But it can be a roadmap for understanding and navigating it. And the non-expert may sometimes, even often, be better equipped to help us travel that path than the expert.

My Dad, Newton Minow, and the History of PBS

Posted on January 7, 2015 at 8:00 am

New York’s public television station WNET, ran this terrific “Open Mind” interview with my dad, Newton Minow, about his experiences at the FCC during the Kennedy Administration and the early days of PBS.