Discussions in The Spoon

I was going through some recent comments when I was struck with a sudden realization: hardly anybody disagrees with me. Now I'm not so conceited that I believe I'm always right, and I know for a fact that I'm not because I totally got called out on my exclusion of some big name child stars in yesterday's post about the trials of childhood stardom.

Andersoncm brought this lack of -- how should I say it? -- "vigorous" debate in The Spoon into focus when he disagreed with my negative review of Balls of Fury and opined that the film was "hilarious" with a "great cast" and a "hot chick." He also called me a douchebag, but that's beside the point.

Balls of Fury is a source of much debate in addition to being a source of much testicle grabbing

In response to his comments I wrote:

I go into every movie hoping to see greatness and my reviews are my honest opinions. I may be critical of some movies (like BoF) but that doesn't mean I'm criticizing your or anyone else's taste in movies.

Immediately after typing this I realized I was telling the truth. I know that people shouldn't be judged by their taste in movies -- hell, I liked Failure to Launch so what does that say about me? -- so I hope nobody is avoiding disagreeing with me for fear of criticism or my incessant tendency to stalk. As long as we're all respectful I welcome any and all discussions at The Spoon.

Come with me if you want to discuss movies

Consider this an open invitation to disagree -- or agree -- with me anytime you darn well feel like it.

Child Actors

Earlier tonight I saw the first twenty minutes of a Spanish subtitled movie called Valentin. It’s an endearing story about a precocious eight year old boy named – you guessed it -- Valentin. Growing up in 1960s Buenos Aires with a caustic, widowed grandmother has given the boy an unusually mature outlook on life, which he uses to understand and help those around him. One such effort involves asking his uncle for girl advice; not because Valentin needs new pick up lines – his "crush" is made up -- but because he thinks such “manly” discussions help his uncle feel useful.

Cute kid

While watching Valentin, I was continuously impressed by Rodrigo Noya’s ability to portray such a complete character while (presumably) never having experienced the same situations in his own life. Older actors may be able to train themselves or draw upon similar life experiences, but what do child actors do?

Was Rodrigo simply mimicking how he imagined an adult would act in each situation and the resulting display of maturity coupled with his naturally childlike mannerisms created the impression of precociousness? Or did he actually “become” an eight year old boy who also happens to act like an adult? Linda Blair has demonstrated how this may be possible.

I am so frightened of doing a Google image search for The Exorcist that I'd rather look at a naked Burt Reynolds

Shirley Temple, Macaulay Culkin, and Haley Joel Osment are (or rather, were) some more remarkably skilled child actors (say what you will about Home Alones 1-34 but Macaulay forever proved himself beyond reproach in Uncle Buck). They too were able to channel more intelligence and charisma into their film roles than most children display in all the years preceding high school (during childhood, I was too busy exploring my own nostrils to be anything other than disgusting). Yet no child star that I know of has proven him or herself to be an equally successful big person actor.

Macaulay Culkin, you poor bastard

Does this mean that the child actor’s instincts, which work so well in little person roles, do not prepare them to play more physically (but not necessarily emotionally) mature characters?

If I were forced to answer my own questions, I’d say that two major reasons prevent child actors from enjoying a successful career as an adult.

The first reason deals with development. A child’s acting ability can be likened to certain kinds of athleticism. Some youthful runners have blazing speed relative to other members of their age group but peak before they reach adulthood. They may still grow up to be fast adults but some of their previously slower rivals will pass them by. Child actors may similarly outgrow their talent.

The second setback for child actors is marketing. Shirley Temple is now an old, haggard looking ex-diplomat but if I were to mention “Shirley Temple” to you, chances are you’d think of an adorable, tap-dancing little girl, or, if you were an alcoholic, a really, really slow way to get drunk. My point is that once an actor’s persona gets burned into the public eye, it’s very difficult to change that image. I think Vanessa Hudgens is going to learn this the hard way.

Still, I imagine that if child actors worked at their craft as hard as four-fifths of all waiters in Los Angeles do, then they’d have a legitimate shot at maintaining a successful acting career. The odds would still be against them, but the odds are against anyone who wants to act for a living. An acting career is like an eighty year old man trying to get it on with a prostitute; sure you might get lucky once or twice, but good luck trying to keep it up for a while.

Natalie, if you're reading this, I want you inside me

I just thought of an exception to the Logan’s Run principle of child acting: Natalie Portman. I think Natalie has broken the mold partially because she started out older (she was 13 in Leon), partially because she’s an extremely talented and intelligent young woman, and mostly because she’s hot.

What do you think?

Race and Gender on the page and in the movies

Sometimes I forget that there’s more to the internet than music downloads and celebrity gossip and, no, I’m not talking about naughty pictures of barnyard animals - I never forget about those. What I am talking about is a provocative discussion on race and gender in the publishing word (which got me thinking about race and gender in the movie world, but more on that later).

Apparently I confused myself whilst looking for a race-related picture

I first saw this discussion at the always fascinating Fantasy & Sci-Fi Lovin’ Blog although it was author David Anthony Durham who initially challenged readers to think about how their choice of reading material is directly shaped by publisher’s and bookseller’s categorization of an author’s race (and, presumably, gender).

If you think about it, just about any business will make use of people’s race and gender if it means making more money. Take television. Back in college I took a communications course that broke down the demographics of the actors and actresses on television shows.

One study on American television programming revealed that there were a disproportionately high number of men on screen compared to women. And of the female actresses, a disproportionate amount were younger women while the men on television had a wider distribution of ages. And it probably goes without saying that racial minorities were also underrepresented.

Think about that for a second. In the television industry, men are more likely to be hired for roles than women and younger women are more likely to be hired than older women. And good luck if you’re an aspiring actress who’s both female and a minority.

"Uh, no intense offended there"

Now this kind of discrimination may not be news to you, but, just as in the literary world, it’s largely shaped by consumers’ choices.

You could argue till the U.S. Army withdraws from Iraq whether it’s the network executives or the viewing public who are responsible for the hiring bias towards television actors and actresses, but the bottom line is that networks are only interested in making money and that means airing shows that people will watch. And whether it’s intentional or not, people are watching shows that under represent women and minorities.

Now you might be wondering where I’m going with all of this. As it turns out, I’m hoping to use this discussion to win an argument I’m having with my dad.

But before I get to the argument, I’m going to assume that all of the results from the television study can be applied to the movie industry as well. It might be a bit of a stretch, but I’ll do a quick analysis of the current top ten movies (through the week of August 10th, 2007) and each film's top one or two lead actors and actresses to see if my shapely-gut-instinct is correct.

From Rush Hour 3 (number 1) to Daddy Day Camp (number 10) there are roughly fourteen “leads.” Eleven of the fourteen leads are men (or male voice actors). None of the female leads are older than Catherine Zeta-Jones (37) and only four of the fourteen leads are racial minorities (that’s including Catherine Zeta-Jones). And if we use our “lead” role here as a sample for the general population of movie actors and actresses then our results seems pretty consistent with television standards.

You're a lucky man Michael Douglas. Lucky I don't seduce your wife.

Now on to my bitch fight argument with my dad.

Not too long ago my dad told me how he was disappointed to see Marisa Tomei playing William H. Macy’s significant other in the “comedy” Wild Hogs. My dad reasoned that a role opposite an older, relatively “fugly” man signaled the end of Ms. Tomei’s acting career.

Basically, he and I are in agreement that Marisa Tomei will have a difficult time getting future work. But we disagree on the reasons behind the difficulty.

My dad believes that Marisa Tomei’s career up until now has been based on her looks (in addition to the requisite modicum of acting ability) and that her career will end when she is no longer appropriately attractive/desirable. Simply put, when she is no longer pretty, she will no longer work. Being cast as the love interest for an unattractive man (William H. Macy) therefore implies that Ms. Tomei herself is no longer an attractive actress and that her career will soon end.

Those leather pants have seen better days

My argument is that the success of Marisa Tomei’s future career is dependent on more than just her ability to look good. Going back to our understanding of acting gigs in movies, it’s possible to see that Marisa Tomei (and female actresses in general) struggles under a significant handicap. Remember how there are fewer roles for women than men? This means that, through no fault of her own, Ms. Tomei is less likely to find work than a comparatively talented male actor.

(Obviously we’re speaking in generalities here and even though Marisa Tomei is the subject of our debate, her name is being used to represent any attractive woman who continues to work as a professional actress beyond her early youth.)

Okay, I’m pretty certain I’ve gone on longer than is healthy, so now I’ll give the floor to you guys.

What I’d like to hear from you all is what you think on the matter. Am I full of hot air? Is my dad not seeing the big picture? Are we both missing the point completely?

Please share your thoughts so I can rest my poor aching head.

Transformers is a spanking good time

I don’t usually look at other reviews when I want to write about a movie, in fact I often go so far as to cover my eyes and ears and hum “Na Na Na Na. Hey Hey Hey,” to myself before quietly whispering “goodbye.” But in the case of Transformers, there are just too many opinions out there to ignore. Here are a few examples.

Readers at IMDB have given Transformers a hearty 8.1 rating with many glowing reviews like, “Best Cartoon Adaptation Ever!!!” and “2 ½ hours of Power Rangers (at least, I think that’s a positive review).” On the flip side are the negative reviews such as “Disappointmentron” and “A Noisy Mess.”

Readers are more critical at Rotten Tomatoes where the average score is 57%. And even that number pales in comparison to the ongoing discussion that the success of Transformers director Michael Bay is proof that God does not, in fact, exist. While This Distracted Globe makes some very astute observations about Bay’s preference for Satanism style over substance, I’ve swallowed this amalgam of reviewing madness and produced a very simple theory for the polarized opinions on this summer's newest blockbuster:

Transformers is robot porn.

Admittedly, this photo of Megan Fox isn't from Transformers but
I still think it supports my claim. And I like it. Grrrrrr

I did not arrive at my porn conclusion lightly. Far from it. Many hours of deliberation were spent whilst squatting on the toilet and groaning. Groaning in deep, deep concentration.

If you consider the film’s composition, I think you’ll agree with my pornographic analysis. Transformers is about robots. Robots that fight each other and get very sweaty (obviously not with normal human sweat, but with DW 40 and other artificial lubricants) and grunt and “get physical” with one another. Frequently these robots interact with humans in interracial scenes, if you will. And like many other Michael Bay/porn productions, the plot merely serves to create semi-plausible scenarios for said robot action. It’s also plausible that you’ll want to take a nap after this orgy of robot action replete with multiple fighting partners, occasional tag teams, back door attacks and bondage. The only thing this movie is missing is light petting and – oh wait, even that’s in Transformers too.

This one's for the ladies

Watching this kind of movie will no doubt separate people into different camps.

One of these camps is for people that don’t want to admit any interest in a Michael Bay/porn flick. These types of people are liable to say things like, “I hardly ever watch these kinds of movies,” and “I didn’t want to see this at all but my finger must have slipped on the wrong 3 button sequence while my other hand was simultaneously scratching a very strong itch on my upper thigh.”

The other camp enjoys the thrills and isn’t ashamed to scratch their itch in public.

The third and final camp just doesn’t like this movie.

Of course, these camps are only filled with adults since Transformers seems innocent enough to kids who don’t know anything about the birds and the bees. But everyone not regularly watching Dora the Explorer will know that they are seeing pure, unadulterated, orgiastic action that is simply not interested in producing genuine emotion or character development.

Maybe my analysis still seems far-fetched. I offer one final quote from Michael Bay.
“I make movies for teenage boys.”

And what do teenage boys want to see? That’s right, robot porn.