MarchOfThePenguins Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Longevity, much less watchability, seems to be the last priority of filmmakers these days, thanks in no small part to the importance of opening-weekend grosses, the increased prominence of DVD and Blu-ray bonus materials, and the fact that more movies than ever seem to occupy space in our collective consciousness. But when a movie is really, truly good, none of that should matter, right? We should be able to watch and revisit and indulge and enjoy just as much every time we see it, from here until the end of time - or at least that's the thinking.

Unfortunately, that simply doesn't seem to be the case, whether it's because the movie is too weighted with importance to make it casual viewing, its effectiveness is directly linked to our discomfort or unease watching it, or maybe we just appreciated all there was to enjoy the first time and don't need to see it again to "get it." As such, we've put together a list of personal favorite films that we really don't want to see again, those titles that you go, yeah, it's great alright, but you don't need to subject yourself to repeat viewings to know or remind yourself. In order of ascending importance:

It wasn't that long ago that documentaries carried the stigma of being educational first and entertaining second. As with foreign-language fare, an audience for them lingered on the fringe, and an industry was willing to offer them their very own awards, but they really weren't terribly high-profile box-office prospects... that is, until the '04-'05 summer successes of Fahrenheit 9/11 and March of the Penguins made it seem perfectly okay for audiences to see, and for studios to market, a film without so much as one measly explosion in it.

But then along comes American Teen: a film openly marketed as - and arugably assembled to be - anything but a documentary that finds itself underperforming in its current limited runs (it goes wide this Friday). Last May, I witnessed a group of young women leaving whatever indie they caught at Washington D.C's Landmark E Street Cinema as they approached the film's poster and wondered aloud if someone was remaking The Breakfast Club, with a tone that suggested neither horror nor concern, nor any great interest in the big, fat what-if scenario placed before them.

What I wonder now is, at what point did we begin to craft documentary filmmaking specifically to the masses, and then what happens when the masses simply don't show?

Enough with the same old lists of favorite holiday movies! Every year, I see the same entries, probably because there hasn't been a good Christmas movie in years. At least here at Cinematical we shake things up a bit and present you with our favorite Christmas horror, favorite Christmas action, favorite holiday musicals, favorite Christmas movies for Jews, favorites you probably haven't seen, favorite R-rated Christmas, Scrooge's favorites, least favorite obnoxious Christmas comedies and we have a guy who really hates the usual favorites, including A Christmas Story.

Last year we also had a list of non-Christmas movies set during Christmas. Somewhat similar to that, I present you with my favorite non-Christmas movies NOT set during Christmas. I know, that just defines any movie that isn't a holiday movie. I could pick ... Old School ... or The Hunt for Red October. But there's actually some logic here. On Christmas I like to avoid all true holiday movies, whether they are about Christmas, set at Christmas, make fun of Christmas, steal Christmas, blow sh*t up at Christmas, whatever. Yet there is enough holiday spirit in me to choose movies that could almost just barely be associated with Christmas, at least for me. So, if you're tired of It's a Wonderful Life, Gremlins, Home Alone, Santa Claus: The Movie, or whatever you normally watch today, try out one or seven of these:

My Neighbor Totoro (Hayao Miyazaki, 1988)

I've never been a big fan of Santa Claus as a character. If I had to reinvent Christmas I'd choose another large jolly figure that brings joy to young children: the Totoro, specifically the largest, O-Totoro/Miminzuku. He's kind of like Santa without the annoying "ho, ho, ho", and he's probably more fun to fly with (the Catbus is likely also more comfy than a reindeer-led sleigh). Sure, Totoro's origins are more Shinto than Christian, but isn't appropriation what Christmas is all about?


Brewster's Millions (Walter Hill, 1985)

Or is Christmas really all about consumerism? The Richard Pryor and John Candy version of George Barr McCutcheon's novel (also adapted in 1914, 1921, 1926, 1935, 1945 and 1961) is one of my favorite movies that both celebrates and scorns the idea of being rich and the act of spending money frivolously (Capra's Mr. Deeds Goes to Town is another). In the movie, Pryor is a minor league baseball player who inherits $30 million that he has to blow in 30 days, after which if he's successful at maintaining no assets or savings, he receives $300 million. Another fun Pryor comedy that would make for great holiday viewing is The Toy, in which he's bought by Jackie Gleason as a plaything for his son (but that one might be viewed as a tad too racist nowadays).

Picturehouse has acquired the U.S. rights to The Fox & the Child, the first narrative film from the team that created The March of the Penguins. If you're one of two people not familiar with that movie, it was last year's surprise smash, winner of the Best Documentary Feature Academy Award, and even spawned a full-length spoof. Since The Fox is also being listed on imdb as Le Renard et l'enfant, I'm betting this will be a French film (I'm excellent with languages). The Fox and the Child is currently in production, with Penguins director Luc Jacquet both writing and directing.

Variety reports that the film is based on Jacquet's own childhood experiences. Seeing that the film tells the story of a little girl who goes into the woods and winds up entering a different dimension by following in a fox's footsteps, I'd say Jacquet had a much more exciting childhood than I did! The story sounds very Chronic - what?- cles of Narnia to me, hopefully these guys will put a new spin on things. Jacquet has his work cut out for him -- the switch from documentary to narrative filmmaking is one that several doc makers haven't made that smoothly. See Michael Moore's Canadian Bacon. Actually...don't. No word on casting for The Fox, but let me just suggest either Jamie, Matthew, or Michael J.

So in honor of the season of goodwill towards men, yet another lawsuit is on the way. First up was Jon Peters and a sexual harassment suit, and now Laurent Chalet, who was the Director of Photography for the award-winning documentary March of the Penguins is suing for directorial credit alongside Luc Jacquet.

Variety confirmed that Chalet has filed a lawsuit against the producers of the film. Chalet states that he shot most of the film with the second director of photography Jerome Maison during a 13-month production in Antarctica. Already talk of an out-of-court settlement have begun between the lawyers, but the producers are unwilling to budge on giving Chalet the credit. Producer Yves Darondeau stated "As director of photography, Laurent Chalet did a very good job in difficult conditions, but that doesn't qualify him for a director's credit -- The director has the idea, the point of view, tells a story and has the final cut. It is a very different job." Maison, who is currently working with Jaquet on his follow up The Fox & the Child, about a little girl who tames a fox, is standing behind the producers, and makes no such claims about directing Penguins. Darondeau isn't worried, stating "Unfortunately, when a French film does well, there are practically always lawsuits like this; It's become a fashion." The case is set to come before the court this February.

Back when that seriously overrated March of the Penguins was cleaning up at the box office, comedian Bob Saget felt an apparently irresistable impulse: Why not shoot a bunch of penguin footage and then invite a bunch of his comic pals into a recording studio to tell some jokes?!? It's such a lazy idea, I can't believe it hadn't been done before! Voila, Farce of the Penguins was born.

But aside from his work on Full House and America's Stupidest Home Videos, I happen to think Bob Saget is a pretty funny guy, so I was more than happy to play "wait and see" regarding Farce of the Penguins -- and when the voice-cast list ballooned to include Samuel L. Jackson, Dane Cook, Tracy Morgan, Jason Alexander and Christina Applegate, I considered myself "actively anticipating" the goofy little experiment.

And then we learned that ThinkFilm was releasing the thing directly to video ... and then they released this trailer, which could be described by way of 3,000 different adjectives, but "funny" wouldn't be one of 'em. I mean, how lame do the rest of your jokes have to be if TWO different trailer gags start out with the line "If I had testicles"?

It's still waiting in my Netflix queue, and I'd be thrilled to report that the movie's actually pretty damn funny, but based on the trailer it seems like Farce of the Penguins will be a lot like The Discovery Channel on MUTE while a bunch of semi-drunk comedians crack wise in the background. And there's no way something like that will fill 90 minutes without making me want to stick pins through my ears.

I still don't understand the success of March of the Penguins. I don't understand the film's popularity, and I really don't understand how it beat Murderball for the documentary Oscar. I do understand its influence, though. Yes, Happy Feet was coincidentally in production before the release of the penguin doc, but as far as the public knows, the animated movie is coming on the heels of March, and it should be of help to Warner Bros. that kids might be hungry for more penguins (not literally, of course). Earlier this month, the New York Times featured an article on the penguin craze and mentioned other related movies coming out in the near and distant future, including Surf's Up, a Madagascar sequel and a long-in-the-works Opus picture. Of course, there's also Bob Saget's March parody, Farce of the Penguins, which heads straight-to-DVD in January.

But what about the nature documentary? What influence has March of the Penguins had on its genre as opposed to its subject? Obviously, Hollywood isn't so keen on celebrating the medium, especially when that medium is one typically associated with the Discovery Channel and other cable outlets more than with theatrical box office gold. Sure, before March of the Penguins there was Winged Migration, another doc about birds that grossed about $11 million domestically, but compared to March's $77 million domestic earnings, that can easily be forgotten in studio execs' memories.

AMC Theatres is continuing its lead in exhibitor promotions by giving out more free movies this summer. Perhaps you remember last summer when the cinema chain offered a money-back guarantee for Cinderella Man. Then last month it gave out free Akeelah and the Bee tickets to teachers. This time, the deal includes 12 different movies, is open to anyone and goes through the season.

In select cities (listed after the jump), G- and PG-rated films will be shown for free on Wednesday mornings. The films are not new, of course, but they are all popular family fare that are undeniably good deals. They include Shark Tale, Shrek, Shrek 2, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Racing Stripes, Because of Winn-Dixie, Ice Age, Dreamer, Madagascar, The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie, Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed, March of the Penguins, and, the movie I will go see free any time, Wallace and Gromit in the Curse of the Were-Rabbit. In addition, The Cartoon Network is producing the pre-show entertainment, which will include bonus cartoon shorts.

It doesn't get any better than free movies, and the only catch is that the program's sponsors will likely be showing commercials during the pre-show. Like that is any different than when we pay, right? AMC's plan is brilliant, especially if they have their concession stands open at 9am. Since the movies aren't first-run, the theatres don't have to pay a lot to the studios to show them. In fact, the program's sponsors might be paying for the titles by themselves. And as packed as any of these shows is likely to be, seeing as they're free, they should be guaranteed to sell out on any rainy wednesday morning. If they sell popcorn to a good percentage of the audience, AMC will be making a ton of money (If they would sell better popcorn, they'd get some of the money from me, as well).

Mon Dieu! It appears that the French are losing their taste for homegrown films - just as demand for them outside of the country is growing. According to the AFP, France rode the international success of films such as March of the Penguins to the tune of $453M this year, representing a 50 percent increase in foreign audience appreciation. At the same time, domestic consumption of French flicks dropped over 14 percent. Penguins itself accounts for over $70M in box office sales internationally, with over 16 million people having seen the story about Emperor penguins doing it all for the nookie. In France, however, the penguins only tempted 1.2 million people to waddle their butts into theater seats.

So, what have YOU done for French cinema lately? What's the last French flick you watched? I went through a phase several years back where I attempted to bone up on some classics of French cinema, getting addicted to Truffault along the way. But I have to admit I've been a Parisian slacker as of late. And "slacker" is generous: the last French flick I can remember watching is Amelie. Before that, it was Romance, which probably deserves an award for being the world's most depressing porn flick. (Um, not that I have tons of expertise in that area...)

MPAA lead man Dan Glickman had a "get me out of here" look on his face for most of Saturday afternoon's Brave New World: Entertainment and Social Change panel. And can you blame him? A sometime congressman and former Secretary of Agriculture, Glickman was nothing but humble upon his turn to speak. "I came here as the least qualified person to speak about movies," he admitted. "Here I am representing what I believe is the most powerful industry in
America ... [and] I have a lot to learn about this business." Cue poor agriculture metaphor in 3 ... 2 ... 1: "Indie film is the intellectual fertilizer of America," Glickman said. Presumably, this was his way of beslavering the assembled masses, but it hardly came off.

By that point in the panel, Glickman had already dug his own grave with an opening gaffe that pretty much stripped him of what little credibility he had as even a film fan, let alone as the enforcer o fpolitics over content. Earlier, moderator Pat Mitchell got the following all-in-fun jab in the ribs whilst introducing panelist/God of Sundance Robert Redford:

Mitchell: [Redford's] body of work includes, from the very begining ... films about so much
more than enjoying ourselves– they were about changing the world. The Candidate actually led to some people running for office –
Redford: Yeah – the wrong people.

About twenty minutes later, after his own introduction from Mitchell, Glickman tried to improv-riff on that little exchange, with the worst possible results.

Glickman mumbled, so I'm paraphrasing, but his opening statement went something like, "I may have been the wrong person to run for office, but I did it long before The Graduate." It's not just that Hollywood's most powerful government representative managed to accidentally insult the most important independent film advocate in (maybe) the world whilst enjoying said advocate's hospitality – he did it by referencing a film that then-pretty-boy Redford was famously up for the lead in, only to be passed over for Dustin Hoffman. The reaction? Darts from Redford's eyes, a murmur from the crowd, and an interruption from Mitchell: "The Graduate?"

Glickman is a convenient scapegoat in this crowd – probably everyone on the panel (which also included producer Jeff Eberts, founder of eBay and Participant Productions Jeff Skoll, and indie distribution master Bingham Ray) has had a ratings scuffle of some kind, and surely a good portion of the audience lives in fear of his determination to brutally prosecute any and all piracy that appears on his radar. But other than a few moments of minor humiliation for a guy who was probably asking for it by showing up in the first place, the panel was smoothly engaging, if not revelatory. The remainder of my notes follow, below the jump. I think, beyond Glickman, they really key stuff here comes from Jeff Skoll, who broke down exactly why his Participant Productions can justify putting out two potentially incediary George Clooney films in a single year without every worrying about using the star to turn a profit.