los angeles times Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Bill Lobdell, longtime writer and editor for the Tribune-owned LA Times and its subsidiaries, has an excellent, insightful piece up on his new blog titled "42 Things I Know," outlining why exactly he left his cushy corporate job and what's wrong over at the LA Times. Much of what Lobdell has to say is pretty much what those of us who work in new media have been saying for a long time now: that print media (in particular, the overfed layers of managers who spend most of their days having meetings about meetings so they can plan more meetings, thereby justifying their spendy salary-and-benefits packages) don't know what the hell they're doing when it comes to the real world in the age of the Internet.

The most telling of Lobdell's "42 Things" are the following:

Newspapers were unbelievably slow in embracing the Internet, even though younger reporters have been pleading with their bosses for years to embrace the Web.

Amazingly, it took until 2005 for top editors at The Times to realize the Internet not only wasn't going away but might lead to the demise of newspaper.

Prior to that, the Internet operation at The Times was used as a place to hide reporters and editors who had fallen out of favor.

I'm not sure which I like least: newspaper ink, which gets all over my hands and clothes; or scented perfume and cologne ads, which always manage to open and cover me in their aromas (it's no wonder the internet is doing better than print media!). However, I do know that I will like a certain new innovation, which combines the two annoyances, even less. According to ComingSoon.net, Fox Walden is printing a new kind of ad in the September 9th issue of the L.A. Times that features scented ink. The ad, for Zach Helm's family fantasy film, Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium, will have designated areas printed in a soy-based ink that, when scratched, emits the smell of frosted cake. Fox Walden chose the specific scent because it should "remind consumers of all ages to be young and have fun."

But what does frosted cake -- or even scented ads in general -- have to do with Mr. Magorium? The movie is about a toy store, not a bakery. Well, I see it as being just another similarity to Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, which featured scratch-and-taste stickers of fruits (in the movie, not in its ads). Actually, this new marketing idea would have fit much better with the recent remake, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The plot of Magorium is almost completely modeled on that film -- with a little of Barry Levinson's Toys thrown in for a change of product. Dustin Hoffman plays the title character, a quirky toy-store owner who is searching for a successor to run the magical place. There's no contest or grand-prize tour of the joint -- Magorium's replacement choice is only between his accountant (Jason Bateman) or his store manager (Natalie Portman) -- but the likeness is still obvious. If you aren't as grossed out by the annoying tactic as I, you can check the ad out in Sunday's Fall Movie Sneaks section of the paper.

The bees have been buzzing for a couple days now with word that the Village Voice, once one of the great bastions of print film criticism, is gutting its film staff. Critic Michael Atkinson was given the boot a couple days ago, and now film editor Dennis Lim has also been shown the door, leaving only J Hoberman (pictured, right) to hold down the film criticism fort at the Voice. Gawker wrote up Atkinson's firing earlier this week, with a scathing indictment of the shakedown going on at the Voice, noting that the old guard is being replaced with an awful lot of friends of Voice EIC David Blum. Anthony Kaufman is mourning, especially, the loss of Lim, who, as Kaufman notes, has been a champion for independent film over the years. The IFC Blog wrote up the Voice makeover as well, bemoaning the loss of one of the few reliable print outlets that bothered to cover indie film . And David Poland, natch, has a write-up on the sackings as well.

As interesting as the string of firings over at the Voice are to follow -- including the rather shocking canning of Robert Christgau, the Voice's venerable top music critic -- what's really going to be interesting is to see what happens there over the next few months. Will the old vanguard of Village Voice critics be replaced with more generic voices writing across publications? Will the Voice's coverage of independent film be silenced as a result of the turnover?

On the Los Angeles Times website, Tom O'Neil offers a fascinating look at the voting behind the National Society of Film Critics Awards. As I reported in yesterday's post on the group's honorees, it took six ballots for Capote to be chosen as best picture - the details of the voting, however, are fascinating. The first ballot is conducted either in person or by proxy, so the vote of each member, whether they're at the meeting or not (this year's was held in New York, at Sardi's restaurant). After those 55 votes were counted, A History of Violence was in first place, but its lead over Brokeback Mountain was not substantial enough to give it an outright victory. As a result, a second vote was taken, but this time only the 26 critics at the meet were allowed to vote. In round two, those present listed their three favorites (awarding three points to the one at the top of their personal list) of the five films that received the most votes in round one: Violence, Brokeback, 2046, Capote, and The World. Still with me?

After the second round, A History of Violence had taken a substantial lead over Brokeback Mountain, but it still didn't have enough points to win (a winner must have the most points and be listed on the majority of ballots). If no winner has been chosen by the fifth round, the rules stipulate that only the top thee vote-getters - in this case, A History of Violence, 2046, and Capote - compete; after that vote, 2046 had the fewest points and was dropped. So, in round six, the remaining voters simply chose between the works of Bennett Miller and David Cronenberg. As we know, Capote won - but the victory was by a single vote.

O'Neil's article also lists the vote totals (and number of ballot) for the other major categories and is worth a read - it's not often we're allowed a behind-the-scenes look at how the winners of major awards are selected.