No Concessions: George Clooney Stares at “Goats”

Critics have split over The Men Who Stare at Goats — some find it an amusing military satire, while others reject it as unfunny mush. Which side is Bob Cashill on?

Comments

No Concessions: George Clooney Stares at “Goats”

Jon Ronson’s The Men Who Stare at Goats had the makings of a good movie. The journalist got hold of an interesting strange-but-true subject: the story of the First Earth Battalion, an Army/CIA initiative that, from the ’60s to the ’80s, explored “psychic warfare.” That is, training soldiers to read minds, walk through walls, and stare at hamsters and goats so long and hard they keeled over dead. I can see a documentary in the coming together of the New Age and the New World Order, or, fictionalized, a sci-fi epic. What we have, instead, is a just-for-the-hell-of-it military satire, so shapeless it just sort of flops around for an hour-and-a-half, oblivious to attention spans and entertainment value.

This is the feature directing debut of Grant Heslov, who, with George Clooney, co-wrote the Oscar-nominated screenplay of Good Night, and Good Luck. Clooney co-stars as Lyn Cassady, whose eyebrow-raising tales of being the army’s prized goat whisperer attract flailing reporter Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor). Wilton, whose life and career are in tatters after his wife dumped him for an editor, wants to be embedded in Iraq, but instead winds up entwined with Cassady, who claims to be a member of the “New Earth Army” that is training “warrior monks” to literally brainstorm America’s enemies. But the program’s founder, uber-hippie Bill Django (Jeff Bridges) has gone missing, and the whole agenda is floundering due to petty grievances between the New Earth Army and a rival camp run by rebel psychic Larry Hooper (Kevin Spacey), who is training his own elite squad. Hooper is wildly envious of Cassady, who is bent on finding his mentor, as Wilton ultimately finds himself. (more…)

No Concessions: “Antichrist,” A Hell of a Movie

One of my favorite moviegoing experiences occurred when I lived in San Jose, CA, and decided one weeknight to see Lars von Trier’s Zentropa (1991). The Danish filmmaker and provocateur was pretty much unknown to me, but I was absorbed by the clever gamesmanship and look-at-me stylization of the production. Not everyone was. “This is the worst film I’ve ever seen!” cat-called one viewer, to general laughter. “No it isn’t, it’s brilliant!” countered another, to which I added my two cents. This went back and forth for several amusing, agreeable minutes, and afterwards everyone met in the lobby to talk it over.

Since then I’ve pretty much been on the other side of the fence, finding von Trier trying. I did enjoy the supernatural satire of his two-season Kingdom TV show, which Stephen King did not improve upon for US viewers. But the Oscar-nominated Breaking the Waves (1996) made me seasick, and don’t get me started on his alleged musical Dancer in the Dark, with the ever-glamorous Catherine Deneuve in a kerchief as an oppressed factory worker, and Bjork so terrorized on-set she ate a sweater between takes (Cannes ate it up, and von Trier and Bjotk split an Oscar nom for best song, the aptly titled “I’ve Seen it All”). The Brechtian Dogville (2003) was another exception, marred by closing credits that suddenly underlined everything that had been fascinatingly submerged in its seamy portrait of an America he has never visited (intensely phobic, he doesn’t get out much)—the awful sequel, Manderlay (2005), was essentially that condemnatory coda extended by 135 minutes. So I didn’t know what to think when, after an intense period of depression, von Trier announced his return with a horror movie, Antichrist, which expands its run this Halloween weekend (and is also available on IFC on Demand). (more…)

No Concessions: Spike Jonze’s “Wild Things”

Spike Jonze has given us more pleasure than most other filmmakers, just in smaller doses. Like this:

And this:

And of course this:

A Spike Jonze short film of Maurice Sendak’s pint-sized classic Where the Wild Things Are might have been solid gold. (An animated short was produced in 1973.) But Jonze has attempted a full-length, live-action version, which makes no sense. Then again, on paper, Being John Malkovich (1999) and Adaptation (2002) didn’t make a lot of sense, either, but he and screenwriter Charlie Kaufman conjured movie magic from them. There was hope. (more…)

No Concessions: The Value of “An Education”

Hot on the heels of his new novel Juliet, Naked is Nick Hornby’s screenplay for An Education. Though the writer’s name is a selling point for the film (a rare honor for a lowly scribe) don’t expect the pop- and sports-obsessed musings of the movies based on his books About a Boy, Fever Pitch, and High Fidelity. Based on a memoir by Lynn Barber, this one’s about a girl. And what interesting company 16-year-old Jenny (Carey Mulligan) proves to be.

An Education takes place in 1961, just before London started to swing. From the start, the movie is excellent at signifiers: The period production design (Andrew McAlpine), art direction (Ben Smith), set decoration (Anna Lynch-Robinson), and costume design (Odile Dicks-Mireaux) all show a proper, if mildewed, English reserve, and the lighting, by John de Borman, has an uncanny restraint, as if it too is being rationed. Conservatively raised by parents Jack (Alfred Molina) and Marjorie (Cara Seymour), Jenny would seem to be far from the epicenter of the cultural earthquake that would collapse the fifties into the sixties. But she’s a little braver, and more precocious, than her schoolmates, to the occasional dismay of her teacher, Miss Stubbs (Olivia Williams), and the institution’s headmistress (Emma Thompson), who see her as Oxford material.

However, the enigmatic businessman who gives Jenny a ride home one day in his Bristol roadster, David (Peter Sarsgaard), sees her as something else. At least twice her age, and Jewish to boot, David is enchanted by his slightly thorny rose, who is in turn captivated by his stories of Paris and his familiarity with the worlds of art auctions, nightclubs, and racetracks. That David’s business partner, Danny (Dominic Cooper, from Mamma Mia! and The History Boys) and Danny’s girlfriend, the sexy but scatter-brained Helen (Rosamund Pike), are a rougher sort, and that the nature of their business is on the shady side isn’t too worrying. Jenny’s hooked, and so, to her surprise, are her parents, who buy the couple’s white lies, figuring that her association with a worldly type who brags about his friendship with C.S. Lewis can only improve her chances of getting into Oxford. (more…)

No Concessions: The Essential, Annoying New York Film Festival

The 47th annual edition of the New York Film Festival kicks off tonight at Lincoln Center. Except for last year’s paternity leave I’ve attended every one since 1994. Back before I acquired grown-up responsibilities I’d see (and pay for) upwards of half of the annual selections, spending weeknights and entire weekends at Alice Tully Hall during its two-week run. I remember getting up early one Saturday to see a splendid four-hour Japanese drama (Eureka—which was sepia-toned, no less), then sitting happily through three more movies—and doing pretty much the same thing the next day. I may have even fit a commercial release or two at the nearby multiplex during breaks.

The good times. Ed Wood at midnight. Vertigo, Playtime, and the 2007 restoration of Blade Runner in 70mm. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and numerous other movies with the creative personnel in attendance, seated feet away from me in the cheap seats (the ones closest to the stage and podium). Discovering prominent international filmmakers like the Dardenne brothers—The Son was the film of theirs that really knocked me out. Hooting at Gaspar Noe’s putrid I Stand Alone—he did stand alone, before the most hostile audience I’ve seen.

If there were an easier way to access the year-by-year festival lineups online, I’d stroll down memory lane for an entire column. (One more: My sympathy for the unemployed protagonist of the film Time Out, when I was in the same unhappy boat.) That’s one bone I’d pick with the festival, whose archiving could use work. Then again, there are memories I’d rather block out. Like the snide questioner who asked Boogie Nights writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson how much the film cost, to which he shot back a temperature-lowering “Was it worth it?” when Anderson replied $15 million. The audience questions in general tend to be migraine-inducing, particularly when asked in three parts—but I have to say that the Q&As after festival press screenings, with professional journalists raising their hands, aren’t always that much more enlightening. Then of course there are the many tepid-boring-bad movies I’ve paid an escalating price for, from $8 fifteen years ago to $20 today; I’d regret them more if I could summon them from the web and actually recall them. (more…)

No Concessions: Stars Fall, But Streep Soars

Add to your list of national crises the death of the American movie star. The obituary was written as soon as the summer grosses were in. Digital effects, franchising, and cartoons are the engines of boxoffice success this year, a familiar story. You have to go down to the current No. 10 slot to find a truly star-driven movie in a CGI-free context, and that is The Proposal, with a long-in-the-tooth Sandra Bullock wringing a few last dollars from romantic comedy.

Sandra, I loved you once, peaking somewhere around 1995, but girlfriend, you’re not growing. And I know you know it. And you know your audience knows it, too. You fooled them once this summer. But having to discover All About Steve, at your age, is as much a chore for them as it is for you. (“This finding-out-about-love shit again,” I imagine you muttering as you report for duty.)

How you, and all the other gals—and all the other guys, for that matter—must envy Meryl Streep. At age 60, with an astonishingly flab-free 32-year career in film, TV and theater behind her, and Katharine Hepburn-type longevity clearly ahead of her, Streep is at the top of her game, as an actor and as a genuine movie star, that rare performer who can get butts into seats without gimmicks. How does she do it? It’s simple—she plays real people uncannily well, and we respond to that knowingness.

I caught up with Julie and Julia, her latest hit, the other night. Writer-director Nora Ephron was correct to split the movie’s structure between her Julia Child and the blogger (rising sort-of star Amy Adams, her co-star in Doubt) who’s emulating her. Child was pretty much a happy, unconflicted personality, and happy, unconflicted personalities don’t make for good biopics. The critics were wrong—while I wish the movie weren’t as shapeless as it is in places, and that Adams’ scenes didn’t smack of manufactured crisis, I didn’t want more of Child. I got what I wanted, and that was Streep busting through Dan Aykroyd’s infamous parody (which Child loved, and which is shown in its entirety in the film) and the subject’s peculiar mannerisms to get at the marrow of the matter. The way Child responds to later-in-life husband Stanley Tucci’s declaration of love on Valentine’s Day, the way she masks her pain when sister Jane Lynch writes that she’s having a baby, the unstated heartache of her life (“I’m so…happy,” she exhales), her quiet whoops at finally having her cookbook published…that’s what I wanted to see, and I saw it so clearly through her acting. Wisely, Ephron doesn’t make a big deal of Child’s prowess in the kitchen and indulge in food porn—the point is that if you apply yourself, like Julia and Julie, you, too, can master the art of French cooking. It’s not Iron Chef. It’s a discipline, and Ephron knows we’ve come to see her star practice her craft. (more…)

No Concessions: The Film Four, or All You Need is YouTube

noconcessionsAs you might have heard, the Beatles albums have been remastered, in a format called “CD.” (“Compact disc,” right? I owned some of those back when I had hair.) Not that you would know from this site—Popdose has done a lousy job covering this.

Actually, as you well know, Popdose has been on the leading edge of the new Beatlemania. I’m just bitter: When I misidentified Mae West’s version of “Twist and Shout” as a “Beatles cover” I was thrown under the bus as our magical mystery tour meandered through all the hoopla. But no Blue Meanie can stop me here.

This week we look at Beatles movies. No, not A Hard Day’s Night, Help!, or Yellow Submarine, which by Popdose law you have to watch at least once per year. Nor Let It Be, which I haven’t seen in its entirety. Has anyone since before those DCs, I mean CDs, were introduced? The boys won Oscars for their song score, beating out the fearsome competition of The Baby Maker, A Boy Named Charlie Brown, Darling Lili, and Scrooge. Did recipient Quincy Jones hand-deliver the statuettes, or simply put them in the mail to the fractured four? Whatever—speaking words of wisdom, this is the time to free Let It Be.

I really wanted to include a clip from the 1976 curiosity All This and World War II, which sets Fox-owned footage of the conflict to Beatles covers in a desperate bid to win over the kids and the “nostalgia” audience that was hungry for the next That’s Entertainment! Only in the 70s, folks. But the movie is presumably such a seething mess of rights issues that not even the copyright banditos want to touch it. With a little help from my friends at YouTube, then, my focus is the non-Beatles movies JPGR worked on. (more…)

No Concessions: Summer Hits and Misses

It’s Labor Day Weekend, and if you’re like me, you’re off to the movies. What to see: The unstoppable Sandra Bullock in another romantic comedy? Gamer? Hmmm…maybe a double feature, the unstoppable Sandra Bullock in another romantic comedy and Gamer? (What the heck is Gamer? Doesn’t a sequel to The Crow usually fly into this spot?)

No, you’re not like me. But I’ve got news for you: I’m not like me, either. Drag me to hell: I’m not gonna sit on my ass in some multiplex when the best weather of the season has arrived at the 11.5th hour. I’m going to sit outside and taunt the kids who have to go back to school on Tuesday—man, I hated Labor Day Weekend when I was a kid, knowing that the school bus was going to pull up like Charon the ferryman to escort me back to Hades.

Summer. It was good, now it’s dead. And it’s time to reflect on the corpse.

Boxoffice-wise, the top five films of the season were the Transformers and Harry Potter sequels, Up, The Hangover, and Star Trek. I saw the last three. (In a simpler time in my life, say any day before Aug. 25, 2008, I would have seen them all. The franchises got the boot.) And they were good. Well, The Hangover and Star Trek were good; I can’t say I got down with Up, which struck me as minor Pixar, not out-of-gas Pixar like Cars but a little thin. Still, I’ll buy the DVD—except for Cars, I have them all, even Monsters Inc. and Finding Nemo—and give it another spin. (more…)

No Concessions: Take “Woodstock”—please!

Halloween 2 opens today, Aug. 28. Checking my calendar just to make sure I didn’t need a costume, that’s two months too early. But, according to Miramax, it’s good business: Halloween H20 and Rob Zombie’s reboot opened to big numbers in August. Relieved that I don’t have to cut holes in a sheet to dress up like a ghost, I’ll roll with that.

What, though, was Focus Features smoking when it decided to open Taking Woodstock two weeks after the 40th commemoration of the actual event? Maybe I’m wrong, yet I’d say the buzz has faded, man. Or what buzz there was—due to a combination of our fragmented media culture and my lack of much media at all while on vacation earlier this month, I pretty much missed it. Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be, and the main stage was crowded with other golden oldies from the summer of 1969, among them the moon landing, the Manson murders and Chappaquiddick, which has been churning up headlines again. Director Ang Lee and writer and co-producer James Schamus, the co-president of Focus, aren’t quite striking while the iron is white-hot.

Then again, the film is more Woodstock-ish than Woodstock, a pot brownie with some Capra corn mixed in. My memories are purple hazy, but I recall sitting through Woodstock the documentary once, perking up for the best bits. (Last man on Earth Charlton Heston, an unlikely viewer even under the entertainment-deprived circumstances, sat through it hundreds of times in 1971’s The Omega Man.) Taking Woodstock, a sort of making-of the event, is the same way, though the choice moments are few. Most of them come from the real-life anecdotes sprinkled in: the organizers ordering lots of brown rice to “keep the hippies from shitting in the fields,” or the mild electrification of metal surfaces after a lightning storm, which crimped the performance schedule. It’s the fact-based stuff that’s a bummer. (more…)

No Concessions: Arrested Adolescence, or 25 Years of PG-13

In the summer of 1984 audiences weren’t ‘fraid of no ghosts and made Ghostbusters number one at the box office. But parents were up in arms over the heart-snatching antics of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and the monster-ridden, Christmas-set Gremlins and wanted something done about it. With the blessing of behind-the-scenes perpetrator Steven Spielberg — who as the director of Temple of Doom and the executive producer of Gremlins was clearly concerned about jeopardizing his stature as a family-friendly filmmaker — the Motion Picture Association of America quickly came up with a new rating: PG-13. That is, harder than a PG, or Parental Guidance (Suggested), but not as hard as an R, or Restricted.

And the movies have been poorer for it ever since.

Our ratings system is in its 40th year. Creating one-size-fits-all designations for a country of constituents is no easy task, and it’s satisfactory — or as satisfactory as any never-wholly-satisfactory solution can be. PG-13 was the first rating instituted since 1972, when PG replaced the allegedly more lax GP and the now-obscure GP*. PG covered a multitude of sins — I’m surprised ’70s parents didn’t complain about the likes of The Towering Inferno or Spielberg’s Jaws. I suspect my own regretted taking me to Inferno, with Susan Flannery’s horrific “fire run” and other smoldering all-star atrocities; I didn’t see Jaws on cable till after we’d seen Jaws 2 in theaters, by which time I was 13. Looking back on it, I’m proud of their sensible parenting, as they knew I loved the ocean and didn’t want to scare my preteen self out of the Atlantic, however much my playground cred suffered.

But even in the shadow of Nixon and Ford, Joy of Sex-reading parents were more indulgent of us (or some of us) as we transitioned to Carter country for a term. Unfortunately, the days of wine and peanuts came to an end in Reagan’s America: the MPAA wanted to win one for the Gipper, as conservative moms and dads got riled up about sex and violence. An early skirmish was over the Spielberg-produced Poltergeist (1982), less for its supernatural scares than its nonjudgmental, even positive, portrait of pot-smoking parents. Nixon’s silent majority had again found its voice and was scolding a free-and-easy permissiveness that dared to linger on-screen.

Two summers later we had PG-13 to handle the problem children that sprang from the id of E.T.’s father, as well as the other movies that were too suggestive for parental guides. What was this new rating all about? I’ve pulled the exact wording below from the MPAA website; “take heart” as you work your way through it.

“A PG-13 rating is a sterner warning by the Rating Board to parents to determine whether their children under age 13 should view the motion picture, as some material might not be suited for them. A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category. The theme of the motion picture by itself will not result in a rating greater than PG-13, although depictions of activities related to a mature theme may result in a restricted rating for the motion picture. Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented. There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie, but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence. A motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher sexually derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context. The Rating Board nevertheless may rate such a motion picture PG-13 if, based on a special vote by a two-thirds majority, the Raters feel that most American parents would believe that a PG-13 rating is appropriate because of the context or manner in which the words are used or because the use of those words in the motion picture is inconspicuous.”

That may read better on weed. It’s by far the wordiest definition of any of the five ratings in use (the others being G, applied to 2001: A Space Odyssey at the dawn of the ratings system, now too unhip for anyone to bother changing over the decades, and the disreputable, rarely used NC-17). You might think the association was just being thorough, but really, the legalese tone of it (“The theme of the motion picture by itself will not result in a rating greater than PG-13, although depictions of activities related to a mature theme may result in a restricted rating for the motion picture”) opened a Pandora’s box of not-quite-restricted loopholes.

Let’s cut through the crap (a PG word) and look at the first PG-13 movies. The very first, Garry Marshall’s coming-of-age comedy The Flamingo Kid, was intended for summer release but held back for Christmas. It was, I think, the first film I saw advertised with the PG-13 logo.

It’s a pretty good movie, with a great early-’60s soundtrack. And the new rating solved a problem that had bedeviled PG movies since at least All the President’s Men in 1976: what to do when the harshest of those “sexually derived words” — you know, “fuck” — cropped up in a PG movie. Once was okay, at least as an expletive, but any more than that was fucking pushing it, and any talk about actual fucking was an automatic fucking R. My memory’s fuzzy, but I assume a single “fuck” — and typically leering coming-of-age-in-the-’60s humor — landed The Flamingo Kid in the PG-13 hoosegow.

And that made sense. The movie was too soft for an R, unlike, say, the first R-rated movie I saw theatrically, National Lampoon’s Animal House (1978), or summer 1984’s raunchy Bachelor Party, The Hangover of its day. But “crudity creep” was just around the corner. With its “fuck,” John Hughes’s Sixteen Candles, released in May of ‘84, made it under the PG-13 wire. Following the solidly-R-for-language The Breakfast Club in early ‘85, Hughes (R.I.P.) returned that summer with Weird Science, a movie with an R premise (boys make woman) but a teen-safe PG-13 execution. Had there been no PG-13 to fall back on there would’ve been no movie, or at least no movie with the same amount of juvenile, gross-out gags to throw the filmmaker’s career temporarily off course.

I had misremembered Cocoon (1985) as a PG, but it too was a PG-13. Why? Was it a sexually rejuvenated Don Ameche singing “I’m in the mood for love / Simply because I’ve got one”? Steve Guttenberg getting it on with anyone, human or alien? Or was the primary theme itself, of senior hanky-panky in an E.T. scenario, enough to get it the more restrictive rating? Less than a year after it was adopted you could see how PG-13 worked, as a catch basin for lowbrow humor but also a place to put more adult films with mildly eyebrow-raising subject matter. The dumbing down of the PG category had begun.

August 10, 1984, brought us the first PG-13 movie released into theaters, the Cold War flag waver Red Dawn, which was cut from the same red, white, and blue cloth as Chuck Norris’s copycat Invasion U.S.A. (1985), the laughable miniseries Amerika (1987), Iron Eagle (1986), and a big chunk of Sylvester Stallone’s mid- to late-’80s film career. The Soviet Union couldn’t fall fast enough to clear our screens of these rabble-rousers.

But here’s where PG-13 really came into its own, as movies given the rating piled up like so many wrecked cars. More movies are rated PG-13 these days than anything else, with action and fantasy pictures the biggest beneficiaries of its more-but-not-too-much-more intention. The problem is, a PG-13 today is practically indistinguishable from an R. “Violence creep” is the single biggest negative contribution the PG-13 rating has had on movies, one that’s completely retarded film culture along with the digital-effects-for-effects’-sake boom since the early ’90s.

I sort of enjoyed the recent hit Taken, with Liam Neeson making like Charles Bronson in the ’70s. (I didn’t enjoy the director, Pierre Morel, of the immigrant-friendly thriller District B13, turning xenophobic in this Paris-set actioner, but that’s what it takes to make it in the big leagues.) The DVD has the theatrical (PG-13) cut, which, like Casino Royale and the Bourne trilogy, chafes against the rating — the violence in all these films is indeed “realistic, extreme, and persistent.” There’s been so much envelope pushing in the last quarter century that I suspect the raters, a secretive bunch who are known to be craven to the big studios, don’t really know what they’re looking for, or what they’re looking at.

In a familiar hustle, the Taken disc includes an extended (by a minute), unrated cut, which amps the mayhem to a higher, nebulous level. (“Unrated” looks more dangerous on the packaging than a plain old R.) It essentially invalidates the “wimpier” PG-13 cut, which was necessary only to capture the largest possible audience in theaters before the film moved on to the even more profitable afterlife of home video, cable, etc. It’s mildly refreshing that both cuts are on the same disc rather than the unrated one appearing somewhere down the ancillary-market food chain after you’ve already bought the PG-13 one. But I still feel like I’ve been taken, with the theatrical version — the only one you could’ve seen in theaters — reduced to the status of bait.

Meanwhile, PG has gone the way of G. It’s a largely untouchable rating, so out-of-it that movies based on toys no one at or over the age of 13 would be caught dead playing with, namely Transformers and G.I. Joe, are rated PG-13. The Spielberg-produced Transformers movies are the worst of all worlds: megamachine violence combined with smutty humor. Today’s parents, whipped into submission by the high-velocity smackdowns, don’t have the energy to complain, if they (or the theater owners) even care all that much anymore.

As for the Red Dawn trailer, I’d say it’s an artifact, a reminder of a time when we were expected to take prisoner roundups at McDonald’s and internment at high school parking-lot concentration camps seriously. But, like everything else from the ’80s, Red Dawn is being recycled, with the teenage “Wolverines” pitted in the remake against hard-line Chinese and old-school Soviet marauders. The remake’s producers vow that they’re going for an R and won’t pussy out with a PG-13. But I bet the iron boot of a distributor fearful of losing an audience of John Birchers and Palinistas ages 13-17 will crush that plan.

Indiana Jones costar Kate Capshaw was kind of scary in her brief heyday, before marrying the boss and pretty much retreating to a temple of gold. But Dreamscape, the second PG-13 movie released — on August 15, 1984 — got the rating for jump-out-of-your-seat moments like the eruption of the “snake man,” in a pre-Nightmare on Elm Street scenario. For horror fans, however, PG-13 has more often than not been a bad dream.

Horror, always discriminated against as immature, is too often driven by excess — like, for example, the so-called “torture porn” genre, which typifies the MPAA’s leniency toward the major studios that are calling the slashes. PG-13 can be a good middle ground: The Sixth Sense is a perfect fit of film content and rating. Drag Me to Hell, on the other hand, had the bite marks of violence creep, however fantastic the gypsy-curse hullabaloo was. The main problem with movie horror and movie ratings, though, is the watering down that happens in order to get the movie that profitable mainstream rating.

The well-reviewed Drag Me to Hell tried to have it both ways and failed. The movie has a high ick factor, but Universal didn’t want to risk an R rating, so the intended audience missed out, burned too often by the many letdowns of PG-13 horror. Movies like The Haunting in Connecticut, The Unborn, and The Uninvited almost invite their quick disposal — from the generic titles on down, there’s nothing in them for a fan to sink his or her teeth into. And we’re savvy to the whole bait-and-switch business, figuring that an unrated cut will circulate on DVD (and knowing that the new scenes won’t help). The best horror resists being machine-tooled for a demographic, which doesn’t stop a glut of gutlessness.

Spend too much time thinking about this and you begin to imagine that we live in a PG-13 world. Our discourse on so many issues is more about pushing buttons and redefining the edge than engaging in specifics and finding mutual ground; we’re fearful of G-rated naiveté, but perpetually shy of maturity. Like a well-intentioned but clueless parent, the MPAA is no help with our coming of age as a society. Let’s meet again in 2010 to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the NC-17 rating, which the MPAA created to bring our cinema to adulthood, but bungled just as surely as it did the movies’ developing years.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]