The first, Frost/Nixon (see poster to the left), is a political-drama based on the play by Peter Morgan, focusing on a series of interviews conducted in 1977 that occurred between BBC talk show host David Frost, and former President Richard Nixon. The film stars Frank Langella as Richard Nixon, and Michael Sheen as David Frost, who both appeared together in the stage production, and directed by legendary filmmaker Ron Howard (A Beautiful Mind, Apollo 13). While the film may take place over 30 years ago, one cannot avoid the themes that Frost/Nixon addresses, and their similarities to today’s politics. Uncovering the truth, demanding accountability from our President, and the media’s role in politics are at the forefront of American discussion. While these issues are prominent themes in the film, the differentiating factor in Frost/Nixon is that these themes will not be force-fed to the audience, unlike other political films. Audiences are now smart enough to tell the difference between a film like this, and a film that over-emphasizes its cause. Frost/Nixon will be a perfect example of a film that will achieve the balance between Hollywood credentials (Ron Howard, Peter Morgan, Frank Langella) and the indirect association with topical themes.Another film that achieves the balance both audiences and producers are seeking is Sam Mendes’ Revolutionary Road. Based on Richard Yates’ novel by the same name, Revolutionary Road (see poster bottom right) is a story set in 1950’s Connecticut, and focuses on a married couple once free spirits, caged in a life of suburbia in order to raise their kids. The primary theme of the story, an issue that also happens to face millions of Americans today is suburban malaise. While this is not the first potentially
successful film about what the editor in chief of Variety magazine Peter Bart calles "suburban malaise" (1999’s American Beauty won Best Picture, and also happened to be directed by Sam Mendes), it too does not necessarily force-feed the theme to its audience. Along with its topical relevance, Revolutionary Road, like Frost/Nixon, also boasts an impressive cast of Hollywood talent such as Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet (whose last film together was 1997’s James Cameron epic Titanic which also happened to win Best Picture). I fully expect Revolutionary Road to not only captivate audiences, but also secure a position as a Best Picture nominee.While it may not have been recently, this will not be the first time a trend like this has occurred in Hollywood. According to not only Peter Bart, but also esteemed film critic and University of Southern California professor Leonard Maltin, in the 1930s, “response films” became increasingly popular after The Great Depression. This was primarily due to the fact that people were no longer ignorant to the issues facing America. Producers learned all too quickly that educated audiences want to watch films that do not necessarily educate, but can assume that the audience is educated enough to understand the parallels between the film itself and modern issues. However, this is not to say that the only successful films this fall will be those that indirectly address issues facing the American public. There is a big difference between successful, and unforgettable. There are plenty of highly anticipated comedy (Zach and Miri Make a Porno) and science-fiction (The Day the Earth Stood Still) films alike that I’m sure will succeed tremendously in the box office. Conversely, this does not mean that the films that address these relevant, and for the most part morose topics will be the box office hits of the year. In fact, I can almost guarantee that both Frost/Nixon and Revolutionary Road will do less than favorably in the box office. I do however, believe that the films that not only excel in cinematic value, but also resonate with the American audience will be the films that dominate the Best Picture category. The American audience has progressed significantly since five years ago (2003’s Best Picture winner was Lord of the Rings: Return of the King), and the Best Picture winner this year will be a clear example of that distinction.
2 comments:
This is a great post, Teddy! I think you do a good job of presenting your points. You demonstrate how each film ties into your overall thesis of films in Hollywood in a succinct manner. I particularly liked the connection at the end to past Hollywood trends in the '30s; it was a well-thought out comment that added depth to your argument. Moreover, the sites you link to are on the whole well-chosen, though I think your blog could benefit from more links that go to other blogs or newspapers to provide more evidence to support your arguments.
While your sites are well-chosen, I think you could better place the links within your blog post. For instance, you like to Chicago as an example of "Hollywood wizardry," but the connection between the two took me a few moments to understand. It might be better if you included a parenthetical "(like 2003 Best Picture winner CHICAGO)" and place the link at the word Chicago instead. In a similar fashion, you should probably move your link to Lord of the Rings IMDB entry to the actual title of the movie. Also, it might be a good idea to have someone read your blog merely for the sake of checking the punctuation. There were some minor missing apostrophes and commas; having them fixed will make your blog that much more professional, and it wouldn’t take that long to fix.
As you know from reading my blog, I’m skeptical of choosing nominations before the film is actually viewed, but I think your analysis of the current mood in Hollywood is accurate and insightful. Personally, I would condition your analysis of the movies with the point that these movies have yet to be released. After all, while the information available points to material that will make a great movie, there might be unforeseen flaws that could sink the film. Otherwise your blog is quite good, aesthetically and argumentatively.
Post a Comment