Ok. Now it's time for another rant. This time about the Oscars. I watched the whole show yesterday and mixed emotions as usual. There were things I thought were good, but there were lots of terrible moments.
First, the opening number. I like the performer who sang in it but this whole number reminded me of 60s-80s era kitsch, the kind that were nixed when Billy Crystal hosted (he's always poke fun of those numbers). Apparently some Academy programmer felt the need to bring it back I guess, but it didn't work for me.
What they should have done is opened with that montage of the musical moments from movies and Eminem's performance. That would have made sense. Also someone should have emphasized musical moments from the last 30-40 years, since that montage included nothing from classic Hollywood, not even a Judy Garland movie.
In future years, they should do something different with In Memoriam. Maybe make it longer, 5-6 minutes. Who is really looking at their watch during that segment besides commercial advertisers?
This year, the montage-makers started a new trend by including two people on the same screen to speed things up. But come on, is that needed? I saw Katherine Burns on the screen with Terry Jones. I think it's nice that someone remembered her; she had one significant supporting role in the mostly-forgotten 1969 film Last Summer and was nominated for Supporting Actress. However, she was in virtually nothing since then and hardly anyone knows who she is or that film credit. On the other hand Terry Jones had more prolific credits. What they need to do is honor one person and show a clip of their film and/or a title/logo of the movie with it so people know what movie they were associated with. The Oscars used to do this years ago and it was a good practice.
I think it's time to admit that most people watching the Oscars In Memoriam have no idea who half the people are. That's why you need to include more movie clips with the person's picture, and not just 1 second of them. Show the title and logo too. People - especially groups of people watching at a viewing party - like to go "ooh" and "ahh" and have their memories jarred with movies when they watch these clips.
And as far as who was left out..... Someone needs a talking to. Not honoring Michael J. Pollard or Valentina Cortese seems really brainless. Sure, they didn't have many prolific credits but they were Oscar nominees at least. How Katherine Burns was left in while those two - as well as Luke Perry who was in the Tarantino movie - were left out is a mystery to me.
Maybe in future years, just eliminate that segment - is it really needed?
I don't know. I don't think it's necessary, but it is nice to be reminded of movie history a little. When else during the ceremony do you see clips from older movies? Or even veteran stars? It was great that Jane Fonda, Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks made appearances, but what about some other movie legends?
Were Maya Rudolph and Kristen Wiig there to plug a movie? If so, someone should have said so. Same with Will Ferrell and Julia Louis Dreyfus (they are appearing in one opening soon). Without an announcer or presenter/host we're left in the dark as to why some of those people - TV stars mainly - are there.
I liked seeing Shia LaBeouf and his costar from The Peanut Butter Falcon, the young actor with Down Syndrome. But please, plug the movie at least. It's a good movie. Someone should have been there to champion it and say, "And here are the two stars of one of last year's pleasant surprises, etc"
I could go on but I think that's it for now. Rant over....haha
Showing posts with label Judy Garland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judy Garland. Show all posts
2/10/2020
1/13/2020
Judy (2019) and Factory Girl (2004)
I'm not sure how I feel about the movie "Judy". I read somewhere that Judy's family did not approve/endorse the film, and that Liza Minnelli never met Renee Zellweger and never gave her approval on the project.
Something about that seems unsettling to me...here we have the filmmakers devoting time and effort on a biographical film about a much-beloved celebrity, yet not even getting the approval of the family? Is it a movie critical of Judy -- or is it a celebration her life? What is the director aiming to do?
For example, the new movie "It's A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood" - which features the character of Mr. Rogers - did get the approval of Rogers's family, and the director was upfront by aiming to make this a celebration of Rogers.
But with Judy, I wasn't sure what to expect. There are some darker moments depicted in the film - such as her dependency on drugs and personal difficulties with people - but I don't think the movie introduces anything new that hasn't been written about before.
Having seen the film, I see it as a celebration of her life, and a tribute to Judy, even though it only focuses on the last year of her life. A few flashbacks go back to the late 1930s when she was filming Wizard of Oz and some other MGM films, and the beginnings of her drug addiction.
But it's not really an all-encompassing life story. It would be interesting to see more of 1940s Judy during the MGM years, or 1950s Judy. Bobby Rivers recently wrote on his blog that the 2001 TV biopic was far superior, and was endorsed by the family.
Renee has been getting rave reviews for her performance in "Judy"; her acting is good but it is obvious to me that she is doing an impression of the Judy from interviews she gave on tv in the 1960s. Renee gives the character grandiosity, no question about that; I did get a sense that she was the most popular person in the world, and also got the sense that she was a very troubled person, insecure. But overall it is a rather average film. I think it should have been called "Judy in London", because the entire film is set there during Judy's tour during 1968 and 69, and also focuses on her relationship with her third husband Mickey Deans.
The best parts of the movie in my opinion are these scenes with Mickey and the scenes where she befriends a gay couple and spends time with them in their home. It's interesting to watch because you never expect a mega-superstar to mingle with fans like that.
There's one scene where Judy visits her twenty-something daughter Liza at a party; it's interesting but totally unnecessary. There's really no need for it because we never see Liza again in the film and it feels thrown in there. There is a character who is an assistant to Judy in London (played by Jessie Buckley), and I wish her character was explored a bit more. There are several scenes of singing and they are ok but I wish the film were a bit more compelling.
A much better film in my opinion is Factory Girl, which came out in 2006 but I only recently saw. Sienna Miller plays the artist Edie Sedwick who becomes famous simply by being associated with Andy Warhol in the 1960s. It's an great movie because both characters are explored while the focus remains on Edie's character. Like Judy Garland, Edie was troubled and addicted, but her fame was a different kind of fame, and the movie explores that. Afterwards, I wanted to find out more about the director and writer; the writer doesn't have too many other credits but the director was co-director on the Hearts of Darkness/Coppola documentary from 1991, which is really impressive. I read somewhere that he initially set out to do a Edie/Andy documentary but ended up doing a feature instead. Interestingly, in the end credits (and in the DVD's Special Features) are clips of interviews from people who knew Andy and Edie so this really give the movie an extra punch.
Bob Dylan is depicted as a character that is obviously based on him - but only the name is changed. (I read he was not a fan of this depiction).
Some of these personal details are dark and seemingly trashy or sleazy, however they are real-life details about celebrities that we can relate to and try to understand. The director does an amazing job of recreating Andy's art studio in New York. The costumes, makeup, and camera work / cinematography are really good; each shot looks really well-positioned and carefully crafted.
The movie only focuses on Edie's years in New York, and not her last years when she was institutionalized, although that might make for an interesting film or story as well, because she eventually marries someone she meets there (per the epilogue).
I suppose perhaps that Edie's last year was not unlike Judy's in some ways.
Additional articles:
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/12/andy-warhol-and-edie-sedgwick-a-brief-white-hot-and-totally-doomed-romance
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/edie-sedgwick-the-life-and-death-of-the-sixties-star-431412.html
https://www.npr.org/2014/02/02/251651304/a-suburban-teen-saw-the-sparkle-of-edie-but-not-the-pain
Something about that seems unsettling to me...here we have the filmmakers devoting time and effort on a biographical film about a much-beloved celebrity, yet not even getting the approval of the family? Is it a movie critical of Judy -- or is it a celebration her life? What is the director aiming to do?
For example, the new movie "It's A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood" - which features the character of Mr. Rogers - did get the approval of Rogers's family, and the director was upfront by aiming to make this a celebration of Rogers.
But with Judy, I wasn't sure what to expect. There are some darker moments depicted in the film - such as her dependency on drugs and personal difficulties with people - but I don't think the movie introduces anything new that hasn't been written about before.
Having seen the film, I see it as a celebration of her life, and a tribute to Judy, even though it only focuses on the last year of her life. A few flashbacks go back to the late 1930s when she was filming Wizard of Oz and some other MGM films, and the beginnings of her drug addiction.
But it's not really an all-encompassing life story. It would be interesting to see more of 1940s Judy during the MGM years, or 1950s Judy. Bobby Rivers recently wrote on his blog that the 2001 TV biopic was far superior, and was endorsed by the family.
Renee has been getting rave reviews for her performance in "Judy"; her acting is good but it is obvious to me that she is doing an impression of the Judy from interviews she gave on tv in the 1960s. Renee gives the character grandiosity, no question about that; I did get a sense that she was the most popular person in the world, and also got the sense that she was a very troubled person, insecure. But overall it is a rather average film. I think it should have been called "Judy in London", because the entire film is set there during Judy's tour during 1968 and 69, and also focuses on her relationship with her third husband Mickey Deans.
The best parts of the movie in my opinion are these scenes with Mickey and the scenes where she befriends a gay couple and spends time with them in their home. It's interesting to watch because you never expect a mega-superstar to mingle with fans like that.
There's one scene where Judy visits her twenty-something daughter Liza at a party; it's interesting but totally unnecessary. There's really no need for it because we never see Liza again in the film and it feels thrown in there. There is a character who is an assistant to Judy in London (played by Jessie Buckley), and I wish her character was explored a bit more. There are several scenes of singing and they are ok but I wish the film were a bit more compelling.
A much better film in my opinion is Factory Girl, which came out in 2006 but I only recently saw. Sienna Miller plays the artist Edie Sedwick who becomes famous simply by being associated with Andy Warhol in the 1960s. It's an great movie because both characters are explored while the focus remains on Edie's character. Like Judy Garland, Edie was troubled and addicted, but her fame was a different kind of fame, and the movie explores that. Afterwards, I wanted to find out more about the director and writer; the writer doesn't have too many other credits but the director was co-director on the Hearts of Darkness/Coppola documentary from 1991, which is really impressive. I read somewhere that he initially set out to do a Edie/Andy documentary but ended up doing a feature instead. Interestingly, in the end credits (and in the DVD's Special Features) are clips of interviews from people who knew Andy and Edie so this really give the movie an extra punch.Bob Dylan is depicted as a character that is obviously based on him - but only the name is changed. (I read he was not a fan of this depiction).
The movie only focuses on Edie's years in New York, and not her last years when she was institutionalized, although that might make for an interesting film or story as well, because she eventually marries someone she meets there (per the epilogue).
I suppose perhaps that Edie's last year was not unlike Judy's in some ways.
Additional articles:
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/12/andy-warhol-and-edie-sedgwick-a-brief-white-hot-and-totally-doomed-romance
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/edie-sedgwick-the-life-and-death-of-the-sixties-star-431412.html
https://www.npr.org/2014/02/02/251651304/a-suburban-teen-saw-the-sparkle-of-edie-but-not-the-pain
4/18/2010
Top 10 Most Popular Movie Stars of 1945
The rankings come from Quigley Publishing Co.'s annual list (since 1932) of top money making stars, which based on a poll of hundreds of theater executives. The list does not rank stars only on how much cash their films made, but on what theater owners say about who attracts audiences on their star power alone.
Bing Crosby
Bing Crosby's 1945 films: The Bells of St. Mary's, Here Come the Waves (released Dec. 1944)
Bells was the long-awaited sequel to "Going My Way", and was the #1 film of the year at the box office. This was also a huge year for co-star Ingrid Bergman, who will make the Top 10 next year.
2.
Van Johnson
Van Johnson's 1945 films: Thrill of a Romance, Between Two Women, Week-End at the Waldorf, Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo (released Nov. 1944)
Van was a shooting star, and stepped up to the plate with several leading roles this year. In the preceding years, his roles were mostly supporting, yet he gained notice playing servicemen in WWII themed filmes - a soilder in The Human Comedy, pilots in Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo and A Guy Named Joe, and a sailor in Three Girls and a Sailor.
3.
Greer Garson
(1945 films: The Valley of Decision, Adventure)
In this poster, notice how Greer's name is above Gregory's. She was the star of this one, no question! "Valley of Decision" was one of the Top 5 biggest hits of the year. She also appeared with Clark Gable in "Adventure", which was the first film he appeared in after his service in the war.
4.
Betty Grable
(1945 films: The Dolly Sisters, Diamond Horseshoe)
5.
Spencer Tracy
Spencer Tracy's 1945 films: Without Love, Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo (released Nov. 1944)
"Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" was one of the Top 5 biggest hits of the year. Spence also starred in "Without Love", which was the third movie he did with Katherine Hepburn, who surprisingly didn't make any of the Top 10 rankings of box office draws in the 1940s. Though I'm sure she was in the Top 20.
6. (TIE)
Humphrey Bogart | Gary Cooper
(Humphrey Bogart's 1945 films: Conflict, To Have and Have Not [wide release])
(Gary Cooper's 1945 films: Along Came Jones, Saratoga Trunk)
7.
Bob Hope
Bob remained a top box office draw this year even though he did not have a new film released during the calender year (Though The Princess and the Pirate was released in Nov. 1944). More "Road" films were planned.
8.
Judy Garland
(Judy Garland's 1945 films: The Clock, Ziegfeld Follies, Meet Me In St. Louis (wide release: Jan 1945)
"Meet Me In St. Louis" was released Christmastime 1944 and became one of the biggest hits of the year. One of everyone's best loved Judy Garland films.
9.
Margaret O'Brien
Margaret O'Brien's 1945 films:Music for Millions, Our Vines Have Tender Grapes, Meet Me In St. Louis (wide release: Jan 1945)
Young Margaret O'Brien was so popular in "Meet Me in St. Louis" that she was cast as a lead in several more films, including "Our Vines Have Tender Grapes".
10.
Roy Rogers
Roy Rogers' 1945 films: Don't Fence Me In, Sunset in El Dorado, Along the Navajo Trail, Man from Oklahoma, Bells of Rosarita, Utah
1945 and 1946 were the biggest years for Roy Rogers at the movies.
The rankings come from Quigley Publishing Co.'s annual list (since 1932) of top money making stars, which based on a poll of hundreds of theater executives. The list does not rank stars only on how much cash their films made, but on what theater owners say about who attracts audiences on their star power alone.
4/14/2010
Top 10 Most Popular Movie Stars of 1941
The rankings come from Quigley Publishing Co.'s annual list (since 1932) of top money making stars, which based on a poll of hundreds of theater executives. The list does not rank stars only on how much cash their films made, but on what theater owners say about who attracts audiences on their star power alone.
1.
Mickey Rooney
(1941 films: Babes on Broadway, Life Begins for Andy Hardy, Men of Boys Town, Andy Hardy's Private Secretary)
2.
Clark Gable
(1941 films: Honky Tonk, They Met in Bombay)
3.
Abbott and Costello
(1941 films: Keep Em Flying, Hold That Ghost, In The Navy, Buck Privates)
4.
Bob Hope
(1941 films: Road to Zanzibar, Caught in the Draft, Nothing But the Truth, Louisiana Purchase)
5.
Spencer Tracy
(1941 films: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Men of Boys Town)
6.
Gene Autry
(1941 films: Down Mexico Way, Under Fiesta Stars, Sunset in Wyoming, The Singing Hill, Back in the Saddle, Ridin' On A Rainbow, Sierra Sue)
7.
Cary Cooper
(1941 films: Sergeant York, Meet John Doe, Ball of Fire)
8.
Bette Davis
(1941 films: The Little Foxes, The Bride Came COD, The Great Lie)
9.
James Cagney
(1941 films: The Bride Came COD, The Strawberry Blonde)
10.
Judy Garland
(1941 films: Babes On Broadway, Ziegfeld Girl, Life Begins for Andy Hardy)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)