|
|
|
On a recent low day I took myself to the movies to see a light romantic comedy to lift my mood. I saw Forgetting Sarah Marshall with low expectations but was suprised to find a decent plot-line, some hilarious and enlightening moments, along with some creative acting.
It is incredibly difficult to find a film that appeals to a variety of demographics, but the SNL team responsible for Sarah Marshall, Superbad and Knocked Up have evidently found that balance. It featured some topical and crude remarks specifically with the boys, but offered the right mix of witty and light humour for everyone else.
Of course there was the typical romantic drama, but Forgetting Sarah Marshall presented character insights that were both easy to relate to and likeable. The male actors are endearing and the leading lady Mila Kunis showed her versatility, next to prior roles like That '70's Show and Family Guy.
The plot was somewhat predictable, but I managed to overlook that because the humour along the way provided that extra incentive to give it a chance to the very end.
The only weakness was Kristen Bell, who played the pretentious and unnatural Sarah Marshall. Her acting was wooden and the others carried her through the film.
Overall, a great light comedy for a rainy day or weeknight.
3.5/5
There is no doubt that recent technological advances and reforms have changed the structure of the current mass media. In addition to print, television and radio, we are now faced with a myriad of other ways to learn about the world. But are these changes for the better and can we rely on the information we receive over the internet?
One argument states that we are destined to see a decline in quality journalism, with resources that were traditionally allocated to print journalism being redirected towards other methods of dissemination. Subsequently, there will be more voices expelling information but less reliability. If anyone can become an author, without sufficient training or education, can we trust and rely on the version of truth they present?
On the other side, the 'new media' (primarily expanding internet technology) offers a more accessible, less exclusive medium to present and absorb the news. For decades, concerns have escalated over how much power media moguls have and how biased they are when presenting information. With new media, people have the oppotunity to offer a range of diverse and uncensored opinions, representing the stories of minorities and bringing to the forefront alternate opinions. But again, how reliable is the information we receive over the internet?
There has also been the suggestion that quality journalism will persevere but will change forms, whereby journalists will apply their skills over an electronic forum. Indeed, the internet has given us all extended freedom in the way we express ourselves, but has it led to a decline in the quality of what we read?
I'd love to know your opinion...
American Telvision Comedy, after a rather doubtful period, has seemed to make a bit of a return in the last 5 years, with witty and satirical portrayals fo real-life scenarios in shows like The Office, Family Guy and Californication. But is this enough to convince the networks that quality comedy still has a place on our tv screens? Is this enough to curb the wave of comparably inexpensive reality tv? I fear not.
Popular shows like The Office offer great escapism; the viewer doesn't have to think too much but can still relate to the situations and characters. Its documentary style whimsically pokes fun at Corporate personalities that are oh so familiar. Yet Office viewers suffered recently during the writers strike where networks made it clear that there is a price on quality comedy and it's not often open to negotiation. Shows like Family Guy further emphasise the power of the dollar to studios. Family Guy, a less subtle form of political and social criticism, was cancelled after 2 or 3 seasons, then reconsidered following massive DVD sales, post release.
Nevertheless, more subtle, satirical humour is often misunderstood and thus gets the axe very quickly on American Television. Take for example Arrested Development, a family-orientated comedy that made frequent reference to Saddam Hussein and America's political failures. The controversy surrounding Arrested Development led to its cancellation after 3 seasons. A real tragedy in my opinion, as it offered some of the funniest and most genuine characters in the last decade. But it seems controversy and comedy are a fatal combination in the eyes of television executives. Unless of course, the show brings in big dollars for the studio like The Simpsons does.
In conclusion, it seems there are some great pilots and comedy series on offer but in general, quality humour is diminishing due to two factors: 1) its rawness and controversy and 2) the cost of intellectual and quality productions compared to the mindless reality tv on offer.
As an avid film fan and participant in social trends, I often find myself at the movies watching the latest release blockbusters. Recently however it’s been hard to overlook the diminishing quality of cinema film. I understand that certain storytelling formulas have led to massive success for film studios. Indeed, a systematic approach is favourable to most audiences over a more ‘postmodern’ style that defies conventional methods of conveying a narrative. Yet I still believe that formula has gone too far making recent movies both predictable and dull. Good movies should be supplemented with special effects; the special effects should not be the movie! Furthermore, action scenes, despite their controversial popularity, should be the intermediary between plot sequences. Yet it seems that more frequently in films that are supposedly political in nature, the violence becomes the plot.
A recent example is the ‘star-studded’ Deception which instantly appealed to my friends and I when we saw the previews. The basic premise appeared to be a mysterious man who became associated with a sex group and subsequently found out that the people he met had multiple personas and dangerous motives. I expected surprising twists and multiple, eventual aligning plots. However, instead of a carefully devised scheme, the ‘deception’ surrounded money; a let-down as you can imagine
[ Click here to read more ]
Plug 'Michael Moore' into Google and the listing at the top of the page is, to be expected, Moore's official website . Then there's his entry on Wikipedia and his Internet Movie Database page. His controversy as a filmmaker, public commentator and activist (although he rejects the term) becomes blatantly clear when you see that three of the ten entries on the first page are dedicated anti-Moore websites (www.mooreexposed.com, www.moorelies.com and www.moorewatch.com).
The opening paragraph on the homepage of mooreexposed.com gives you an idea of what you're in if you delve into these online diatribes
[ Click here to read more ]
Welcome to the second installment of 'Now and Then', looking at the old and the new from directors and writers who've got both current work showing in cinemas and a tasty back catalogue to get stuck in to. In my last post I reviewed Dr Plonk, the silent film from Rolf De Heer. In this piece, I've gone back to his 1992 film Dingo. Read on for more...
[ Click here to read more ]
In my last post, I promised to bring you reviews of new release films, ploughing through the back catalogue of those filmmakers to look at some of their earlier material. I was calling my little venture 'first and last', thinking that I would track down the first features of the director or writer I was interested in and comparing the two films. As it turns out, finding copies of the first films of some of these directors and writers is harder than I thought - or at least prohibitively expensive. And so, because, I'm something of a pedant, I've decided to rename my musings 'now and then.' Following this correction is a review of Dr Plonk, the latest offering from one of Australia's most interesting and prolific independent filmmakers, Rolf De Heer. Coming soon to Film Cipher will be a review of Dingo, Rolf De Heer's 1992 film starring Colin Friels as a jazz pilgrim journeying through the heart of Australia, which includes a rare cameo by Miles Davis. For now, here's my thoughts on De Heer's latest work...
*********************
[ Click here to read more ]
My first blog, and my first post. Another invisible node sparking into new life on the web. What can you expect from this new voice in the wilderness of democratised media? Film Cipher will bring you reviews and thoughts on film from a writer's perspective. The first series of posts, called "first and last", will be looking at new release films and comparing them with early work from directors and writers associated with those projects. Down the track, you can expect explorations of film-making and film art that will take you from the shamelessly commercial through to the wonderfuly obscure, trying to veer toward Australian content as much as I can. However things play out, I'm looking forward to getting some tasty word-meat up onto the page real soon. I hope you enjoy it!
More Posts
8 Posts dating from August 2007
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:
|
|
|
Kate Cowling
Comments (1)
Add Comments
Read More
