Out of Focus

THIS JUST MEANS I'VE BEEN WRITING THIS BLOG TOO LONG

This is the fourth time that I have posted on Sept. 21. That means it's the fourth time I've posted on my birthday. I remember when I started this blog a little over three-and-a-half years ago how I felt I was joining the party late. There were all these people who had already been writing in various forms on the web for one, two, three, even five years or more. And yet, when it came time for the indieWIRE film blogger panel nearly two years ago, Eugene Hernandez (who was moderating) introduced Andrew Grant and I as some of the first film bloggers about whom he, at least, had become aware. We were the old fogeys of the panel, and not just cause we were somewhere close to old.

I haven't exactly been the most consistent blogger or writer or whatever-I-should-be-called since I staked claim to this little corner of the webiverse in February 2004. I don't know if it's because of a weird degree of over-ambition -- always wanting to do more, but often not sitting down to do it -- or the fact that some days, I love to write, and others, there is absolutely nothing I would like to do less. I do know, however, that as I look upon this birthday, I think this blog is, in fact, somewhat representative of the last four years of my life. For better or (more often) worse. It's had its ups and downs. I've sometimes ignored it due to busy-ness; other times out of pure laziness. I've occasionally worked very hard on it and been quite conscientious covering and writing everything I've intended; other times, I've let things slide until they're so old, I just give-up on them. Some of the time, this blog has been exactly the way I've wanted it to be; others ... not so much, and in fact, exactly the opposite.

Today I'm 36 years old. That is utterly unimaginable. If I didn't know it was true, I would say it was also completely impossible. I've been in New York for nearly 11 years. I've had lots of ups and downs while here. So I take solace in reminding everyone that I share date-and-year with Alfonso Ribeiro! come on and admit it ... you're jealous! Me and Carlton! I wonder who's actually older. That's even cooler than the fact that I also share date-and-year birthday with Luke Wilson! Yes it is. Stop it. Yes. OK ... maybe not. But yes it is!

GOOD ON NBC, BUT HERE'S HOW GREAT IDEA COMPRIMISES GET ALL SCREWED UP

I don't know about you, but I find myself incredibly enthusiastic about Bill Carter's story in today's NY Times detailing NBC's plan to offer free downloads -- not streaming -- of many of its series. Of course, I am annoyed that this service won't be available to all of us Mac users until the unspecified "later," but it's still a step in the right direction. There are so many problems with streaming large, long pieces of video content, but it's understandable that the networks don't want to give whole episodes away for free forever. So NBC is making the files available for seven days past broadcast premiere and then the files essentially self-destruct. The files will have embedded commercials that can't be skipped. If one wants to keep the episode, it will be available for purchase. A purchased version would drop the advertisements..

I hate having to spend $1.99 -- or anything -- on one episode of a series because that's the only way I have to see it. I buy a lot of DVDs but not a lot of series television. No matter how much I love most of the series to which I find myself addicted, I'm not a huge repeat viewer of television. But every now and then, I may want that one episode of Rescue Me or Eureka, or to be specific to NBC, Heroes, 30 Rock, My Name Is Earl, etc. These are all series which I would be quite unlikely to purchase.

How do ideas like these get complicated? By naysayer business analysts like Chris Crotty, quoted by Carter as saying the NBC idea "is a stretch." Carter goes on to say that Crotty apparently explains, "that it would not be attractive to consumers to have to range far and wide over a number of services to find the programs they want to download."

I'm not going to deny that having one central clearinghouse to find everything you need is nicer, but ... Hey asshole! If I have to go to each individual network to get a free episode rather than spending lots of money to get lots of paid episodes that I don't need to keep forever, I would prefer to have that degree of choice. Crotty also says that consumers view NBC as "highly greedy" for leaving iTunes. That may be fair. And I'm a huge lover of Apple -- a cult-member, if you will -- but who knows what really went on in those negotiations. Would Apple have allowed NBC to leave its series on iTunes if they were also offering free downloads for seven days? Maybe. Maybe not. Is Apple protecting the consumer by keeping its single-tiered pricing system, and is NBC trying to gouge us with variable pricing. Maybe. But to me, this system is all upside with the only true and meaningful downside being that it won't be available to me yet.

So kudos NBC. And other networks, don't pull off of iTunes, but try to follow-suit, and please don't listen to analysts who speak for consumers while having little to no concept of what it must be like to be one.

WHILE WE'RE ON THE AWARDS SHOW FRONT ...

Congrats to Jon Stewart who will once again be hosting the Academy Awards come February. I only have one hope that I will throw out to the universe in a brief letter as follows:

Dear Oscar Telecast Producer Gil Cates:

So you're back huh? This every other year thing with you is getting a bit tiresome. I mean, I realize that somehow every other producer who comes in between your shows somehow manages to screw-up everything worse than anyone could imagine, trying to add all these "inovative" segments or what-have-you to recreate the show but in the process always making the damn thing longer and less watchable. And so, it makes your dry, tedious, stiff, formulaic telecasts seem more exciting in retrospect, so how can you really go wrong?

And two years ago when you first brought in Jon Stewart as host, I applauded you, quite sincerely. After the show, I commented that I thought, like Chris Rock the previous year, he did as well as he could have under your conservative producers hand.

So please ... do us a favor. Hands off. Get Bruce Vilanch out of the writers' room and let Stewart and his crew do their thing. Yeah yeah ... I know you have to deal with the FCC and ABC censor crap too, and I will say, I have no doubt that you will be much better in handling it than Fox did last night, but please please please ... just let Stewart be Stewart. Let him actually host. Try to go back to the days when the host ran the show as opposed to acting as filler between the off-screen announcer. Let him schtick; let him riff; just let him be!

And while you're at it ... you get one montage in addition to the "In Memorium." Let's trim the fat, OK? Seriously ... nobody will miss it. In fact, if you bring the damn show in on time and there was absolutely nothing but the awards themselves, the song performances -- all together again would be nice -- the Best Picture nominee clips/presentations and the "In Memorium," that is more than enough show and more than enough of a celebration for all of us. Trust me. It should actually be easy for you because doing so will take very little thought or creativity. I'm just saying ....

Anyway, that's all I've got to say. Hopefully, throwing this out there five months ahead of time might actually get it to sink in. But I won't put my money on it. As usual, I'll have my ass planted firmly on my couch in order for the Annual Grand Disappointment on Feb. 24, 2008.

Sincerely,

Aaron

THIS IS WHAT THE FOX FUSS WAS ABOUT?

I didn't notice the Katharine Heigl moment, but in my Emmy post below, I referenced the cutaways Fox made from both Ray Romano and Sally Field while asking why the producers couldn't have figured out a more elegant solution.

And what was it that caused the Emmy producers and/or Fox censors to jump on that button? What was the salty language that would have caused such an uproar?

Well, according to The Hollywood Reporter ...

Ray Romano said "screwed," as in "screwed my wife."

Sally Field said, "goddamned" as in "there would be no goddamned wars in the first place."

Are you FUCKING KIDDING ME? This is the country in which we live? These are the sensitivities to which we have to succumb? FUCK YOU Fox and Rupert Murdoch! FUCK YOU FCC for causing this kind of panic to which the word "screwed" and the implication of sex has to be bleeped or cut out of a live broadcast. (This is going to get this blog censored from half of your workplaces, I'm sure.) The Republicans are all concerned about the free speech issues involved with campaign finance reform that allows them (as well as the Dems, to be fair) to buy their ways into elective office, but their sure as hell going to continue to make sure that broadcasters don't get away with any dirty words ... like "screwed." Or "goddamn" ... my how that might have melted the brains of so many of the devoted in our nation. The Lord's name in vain, etc. etc.

Personally, I found the lame-ass Wayne Brady/Rainn Wilson/Kanye West promotion of Don't Forget the Lyrics (a show I actually kind of like) far more offensive than anything Sally Field said. Why didn't you bleep that you assholes? Or just cut it out all together so that the show would have lost five of its 15 minute runover right there.

Reading this actually made me glad that this year's Emmys appear to have been the lowest rated in the prime 18-49 demo ever and lowest in total viewers in nearly 20 years.

EMMY QUICK BITES: MULTIPLE THOUGHTS IN THE IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH

It's nothing new to say that the Emmys as a show generally sucked, and although this year actually had a few great moments, overall, there was a lot to be wanting both in the show itself and several of the award choices. After three hours and 15 minutes of that crap (OK, I watched it on delay, fast-forwarding through the commercials -- sorry Fox -- so it was probably more like 2:45), I don't know that I have the patience to actually write that much. So with that in mind:

TORONTO IN FOCUS: DAY 7 - A DAY LATE, REPORTING FORM NEW YORK

The last 48 hours are a bit of a blur. A full day of movies on Wednesday that ended in total exhaustion, followed by the intent of one final screening Thursday morning that just didn't happen because I was too damn tired. I wish I had actually planned to stay at least one or even two more days to observe some more public screening activity: the Toronto folks have their shit down, if I do say so myself, although I also discovered that, as much as it may be hard for some New Yorkers and Tribeca attendees to believe, we do a much better (or at least comparatable) job than I even thought we did. Toronto has one edge over Tribeca: Canadians, in general, seem to be much calmer and not as complaint-happy as Americans, and Torontonians (is that right?) are certainly not as aggressive as New Yorkers. Plus, they seem to be better trained to get to places on time. I'm just saying ....

Anyway, aside from hopefully getting some individual more detailed review posts, tomorrow I'll do my own version of a Toronto wrap. For now, however, here's the rundown of my last day doing a lot of sitting in dark rooms watching flickering light. So, after the jump, To Love Someone, Chacun son cinéma, L'Amour caché, Very Young Girls and Vixelle.

TORONTO IN FOCUS: DAY 6 - EXHAUSTION MOST DEFINITELY SETTING IN

I have most definitely not "done" the Toronto Film Festival as well as I could, or should, have. I definitely should have prepared more in advance, because then I wouldn't have spent so much time simply trying to figure out what I would and wouldn't be able to make. I've managed to see a hell of a lot, but I haven't always been able to make the complete most of my time. Today, I wound up getting to only three films because after stayng up ridiculously late last night doing some work and writing, I found it impossible to wake-up this morning. When I finally did get going, I had missed the Israeli documentary I had been trying to see virtually the entire time I've been here: Ran Tal's Children of the Sun.

I did get to a trio of films, however, starting with the Indian The Voyeurs from director Buddhadeb Dasgupta and part of Toronto's "Masters" section. Starting with a good premise and reasonably interesting characters, the film devolves into a standard and almost corny "crime drama" involving terrorism and mistaken identity. The point is obviously to critique the police and government, so quick to jump to conclusions even if the evidence isn't truly there. But the film is far more interesting for its first two-thirds when exploring these young characters in Kolkata as they struggle with living, working and gender-interplay, including some very subtle ideas between love and sex, trust and deceit, and the city versus the country. It's quite unfortunate that The Voyeurs doesn't wind-up in as good a place as it begins.

Next came another highlights of the festival for me, Peter Askin's documentary Trumbo, a fascinating exploration of the life and career of Dalton Trumbo, one of the most celebrated blacklisted members of the "Hollywood 10." Askin utilizes a combination of archival footage and recent interviews as well as actor readings of excerpts from many of the writer's letters and works to great effect, painting a portrait of one of the most remarkable writers and artists of the 20th century, not to mention a true hero who never stopped fighting the system that so unfairly tried to throw him away. Here and there, some of the readings go on a bit too long and the film feels a bit more than its 96 minutes, but no matter: Trumbo is an important and, unfortunately, timely documentary that will hopefully have a long life theatrically as well as on TV and video.

Finally, I went to see the Irish film Kings. One of the film's reps announced before the screening that Kings had just been selected as Ireland's submission for Best Foreign Language Film at next year's Oscars. The movie was directed by Tom Collins, who also adapted the script from a play -- and you can tell. It's not a bad movie by any means, but the entire premise, story and character interactions seem like they would work much better -- at least with this script -- in a theatrical setting. Ultimately, the film tries to explore both the strength and fragility of friendship and the meaning of "home" in terms of a place in the world. The film presents six interesting characters, but each is -- as is the case in much theater -- too clear an archetype. These characters share a history and a place, but they are all together in this story so that they can each serve very specific and identifiable purposes with no crossover, leaving virtually no possibility unturned. This isn't necessarily a flaw, but it makes for less interesting viewing. The film is powerful and depressing, and asks some truly interesting questions, but how long any of it will actually sit with me is up for grabs, and if I was a betting man -- which I kind of am -- I wouldn't place too much on it sticking too long.

A full day tomorrow means an attempt to get to sleep now. And in just over 36 hours, I'll be flying home.

TORONTO IN FOCUS: DAY 5 - A DAY CAN'T BE MUCH MORE FULL

I went to six films today, but I only sat through five. One was simply too unbearable, and combine that with the sweltering heat of that particular screening room, there was no way I could stick it out for more than 30 minutes, even though I had no other particular place to go. All-in-all, though, today was a pretty good day for film finds. Brief comments on Blind, Silent Resident, Garage, Dr. Plonk, Love Comes Lately and Glory to the Filmmaker follow:

TORONTO IN FOCUS: DAYS 1-4, WOW AM I WEARY

Something unexpected has taken-up all the time I meant to write while here in Toronto: simply figuring out what the hell I'm going to get to see while here. With the New York Film Festival press screenings starting next week, I'm staying away from all of those big titles, trying to use my time on films I either need to cover for work and/or sound interesting. I also am simply observing different elements of how this Toronto International Film Festival is run: what we do similarly; what we do differently; etc.

I arrived here on Thursday, and over the past four days, I've been going to movies non-stop. Well, almost non-stop. I've spent a couple hours every night simply trying to figure out what to see the next day. Then, I've slept for roughly five hours, until last night when it all caught up to me and I slept through the three alarms I had set, missing the two films I had intended to get to Sunday morning.

No matter: I hope to find time to sit and discuss several of these titles, but for now, and in brief, here's my Toronto-so-far rundown: