Jive, turkey!

Peracchio transcribed my last post into "jive," which I've always thought is slang for a certain sort of black dialect, but as I can best figure it in this context, means "how black people talk in 70's cop movies." I giggled for hours after reading it, and then started to worry about what kind of crazy time he had on his hands to develop this. But someone was in my office chatting with me and said "oh, they've got translators for that sort of thing online." So I ran a search and found some, and was relieved that Peracchio's new job giving press releases about vein disorders (really) hadn't exploded his head after all. Then I started trying translating myself. Here's a best of list for the best translations of the following phrase:

It's just more information for the consumer. So if 101 Dalmations or Peter Pan is now an R-rated film, who really cares? Parents can still buy the films and show it to their kids.

Cockney
"It's just more information for the bloomin' consumer. So if 101 Dalmations or Peter Pan is now an R-rated film, right, 'oo right cares, eh, luv? Parents can still buy the chuffin' films and show it ter ffeir kids. Yer can't 'ave a knees-up wivout a joanna."

Redneck
It's jest mo'e info'mashun fo' th' consoomr. So eff'n 101 Dalmashuns o' Peter Pan is now an R-rated film, who pow'ful cares? Parents kin still buy th' films an' show it t'their kids.

Jive
Man! It's plum mo'e info'mashun fo' de consumer. Ah be baaad... So's if 101 Dalmashuns o' Liva' Lips Pan be now an R-rated film, who real cares? Parents kin still steal de films and show it t'deir kids.

Elmer Fudd
It's just mowe infowmation fow the consumew. So if 101 Dawmations ow Petew Pan is now an W-wated fiwm, who weawwy cawes? Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! Pawents can stiww buy the fiwms and show it to theiw kids.

And, my personal favorite.

Swedish Chef
Um de hur de hur de hur. It's joost mure-a inffurmeshun fur zee cunsoomer. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp! Su iff 101 Delmeshuns oor Peter Pun is noo un R-reted feelm, vhu reelly ceres? Perents cun steell booy zee feelms und shoo it tu zeeur keeds. Um gesh dee bork, bork!

That is all.

How the MPAA gave us back the movies.

AVI, also known as my dad, has posted a quick post about the MPAA's decision to consider glamorized smoking as a category when rating a movie. The U.S Senate is also trying to get into the game by giving the FCC power to control film content and possibly improve the morality of the medium. That first bit of news is funny but relatively unimportant, but that second bit is awfully serious.
Content of movies has not always belonged solely to the studios (more on that later), but it does now, the MPAA does not and cannot change the content of any movie being released in the United States. They rate these movies purely as a method of keeping parents informed on the violence, sexuality, or profanity appearing in every movie released to theaters. Keep in mind that the MPAA does this only for movies, which is a medium available only in venues in which the consumer has complete control: movie theaters, video rentals, and DVD purchases. It is well-nigh impossible to see a movie with an R-rating accidentally, since these are the only ways to view films: for a movie to be broadcast on television, it has be re-cut to meet all FCC regulations.

Jack Valenti, who died a few days ago, created the MPAA system in order to keep the FCC and the government out of movies at a time when that seemed impossible. For years, the government had forced movies to avoid all of the stickier issues of life - no one was allowed to have any really tough problem in their home or anything like that; ideally, no one would ever have any problem tougher than whether Mickey would be able to get that tugboat moored or not. But then television took over as the major entertainment medium of the country, and since no one had figured out how to really enforce decency standards on broadcasts yet, they were crossing a lot of boundaries that the government wasn't allowing movie studios to cross. The studios were already upset to have lost so much of their market share, and figuring that maybe if they were able to show some of the reality about what was going on in our country - this was, by now, the late 60's - they started clamoring to be able to dig into meatier issues in their movies: marital trauma, social rebellion, domestic violence, sexual indiscretion, and the like - issues the government had expressly forbidden them to reference in any way. I'm not talking about showing nudity or having extensive profanity, I'm talking about referencing these issues at all.

Valenti created the MPAA system as a safeguard to keep the government out of the studios' hair. They would evaluate and rate movies according to a checklist morality system, and that way, parents would be to see what each film was rated and decide if they wanted to allow their children to see the film or not. After the R-rating was created, theaters started enforcing that, too, keeping underage kids out of these theaters (as best they could) and not selling them tickets. I have real issues with the MPAA on certain points, but the system has, by and large, been a huge success.

If the MPAA feels that they want to include smoking as one of those categories, there's no real problem with that. It's just more information for the consumer. So if 101 Dalmations or Peter Pan is now an R-rated film, who really cares? Parents can still buy the films and show it to their kids. Their kids'll probably love it.

Every other day we come across facts and figures that show that children today absorb an alarming amount of violent or sexual images over the course of their young lives, and I won't argue that it makes a real effect on the psyche of the youth of our nation. But motion pictures aren't the same thing as broadcast television, this isn't something where these images are broadcast over airwaves, able to be picked up by any receiver; these films are played in the theaters, or available for purchase at local stores. The government can slap on warning labels or force stores to require picture ID, they can station armed guards outside of theaters and announce mandatory 5-year minimum sentences for all 16-year-old ticket agents who sell R-rated tickets to minors. That's all within their boundaries. But they cannot, cannot, absolutely cannot force studios to change the content of their movies. It's a violation of the First Amendment, which - hey! - the U.S. Government wrote.

I don't know why we seem fully willing to forget our principles on items that Americans feel morally superior to, and movies have always been in that category. Since movies sometimes have violence or sexuality, it's our responsibility to force the movie makers to make films that don't have these things. We could force them to make movies about how violence and sexuality is bad, but they already make a lot of movies like that. We don't go to them because they're full of violence and sexuality.

It's possible we could make studios only make clean, acceptable movies by only going to see clean, acceptable movies. Nothing speaks louder than the almighty dollar. But we don't go to those movies because those movies are... well... boring.

In fact, the only thing we can get the public to agree on is that they aren't going to go see movies about 9/11. We have standards, you know.

I'm sorry, but I'll take issue here.

Don't mean to dig at Erin or anything, but her comment on my last post touched off a nerve, since it's something a lot of people have been saying, it's becoming the generally accepted truth, and it's not true: that Babel is a less effective rip-off of Crash, a cheap imitation a year after Crash took the Best Picture Oscar. To watch both movies in the order they were released, it would seem that Babel would just be a Oscar-hungry version of its earlier predecessor, but the opposite is true.

Babel's director, Alejandro González Iñárritu, essentially invented this style of movie: several intertwining storylines end up coming together, showing an overall theme and the connection between disconnected people. He directed most of the defining films of this genre (Amores Perros, 21 Grams), and exec produced some of the others (Nine Lives). When Paul Haggis made Crash, it was Iñárritu that he stole from, taking that style and popularizing it into a more American sort of movie. And ultimately he was more successful with it, as Crash had far more of a broad-based appeal, and really succeeded in clarity of vision where Iñárritu sometimes failed (though you have to give him credit for actually naming his first big movie Amores Perros - literally, 'love's a bitch'). But it was never Haggis who developed this sort of filmmaking, that work was already done for him.

The Prestige vs. The Illusionist

I was talking with a friend of mine about a month ago, and we got around to comparing The Prestige to The Illusionist. Both films came out at about the same time, they're both historical dramas about turn-of-the-20th-century magicians, they both center around that "are they for real?" question that surrounds magician movies, and they both have surprise endings. But I hadn't seen both movies. I'd only seen Prestige.

My friend, who I will never trust again, told me that he enjoyed Illusionist much more. "I liked 'em both, but The Illusionist is actually a better movie." I added the film in Netflix, my queue rolled around to it this week, and I finally watched it last night.

It's not in the same league as The Prestige. It's not even close. I'll prove it to you.

Here's 5 Reasons The Prestige is Way, Way Awesomer than The Illusionist:

1. Ace Director Christopher Nolan Beats First-Time Director Neil Burger Any Day of the Week. Lessee here, before directing Prestige, Nolan directed the film school told-in-reverse whodunit classic Memento, followed by Insomnia, a creepy study of sleepless guilt starring an even creepier Robin Williams, and the finest superhero movie of all time, Batman Begins. Burger made a mockumentary five years ago. You gotta check the pedigree before you spend your cash, folks.

I could've followed that last sentence with about 6,000 tasteless sex jokes, but I held it in check. Barely. Wow, that was close.

2. The Acting In The Illusionist Isn't On The Same Par As The Prestige. You question me? Well, you should, because the phrase "on the same par" doesn't exist in our written language. But you also might put forward the valid point that Illusionist stars gifted thespian Ed Norton and fiery indie favorite Paul Giamatti, and so maybe I should rethink my premise before I give Piper Perabo too much credit and make a fool of myself. But you are wrong.

You see, Norton and Giamatti pitched their performances as if they were acting in a movie on a giant scale, a story where the characters tilt the very direction of history, the wrench in the cogs that breaks the machine. Illusionist never reaches that point, it stays small and intricate, a study of mystery in a bigger world. But I don't think anyone ever told the actors, who stay in Epic Mode. If the movie around them matched up, I think I'd find their performances far more dynamic.

Too many terrible things have already been said about Jessica Biel throughout her career, and I refuse to add to them. I thought she was perfectly acceptable in her role, and it would be nice to see her get some meatier roles like this in the future. Good luck to her on that front, though. I'll throw five dollars down right now that she's Thankless Role #3 next year in whatever horror Michael Bay's got coming down the pipe.

In contrast to all of this, Michael Caine gives us a characteristically perfectly paced performance to counterbalance the intensity of Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale focusing very hard for an entire movie. The pathos of their self-loving dedication is surprisingly bittersweet, though, considering that both of them spend much of the plot saying to themselves, "hey, how can I f--- that other guy over?" Except they say it in a very 1900's fashion.

In both movies, the female leads are secondary, but they still carry a good bit of weight for what are essentially penis-measuring movies, if you know what I mean. And while I'm not saying anything against Biel, it's not like her performance can stand up against combined efforts of Perabo, Scarlett Johansson, and Rebecca Hall. Honestly, I don't think she could've stood up against any of 'em, but let's leave that be.

And here's the knockout punch - eccentric yet spot-on performances by Andy Serkis and David Bowie. Bam - it's over. Someone tell the round card girls they can go home.

3. The Magic is Cooler. We get one good magic show out of Norton, and then he sits and stares at a mirror on stage for the rest of the movie. Prestige gives us people shooting each other, and creepy stunt doubles, and blind stagehands, and a lot of dove-crushing.

4. It's Cinco de Mayo, And I Can't Do A List With Only Four. But I'm lazy and I don't want to come up with another reason. So, yeah, this one here's a throwaway, folks.

5. The Surprise Ending. I'm not giving anything away, but I've had half a dozen conversations with people mentioning that when Prestige finished, they wanted to go back to the beginning and watch the whole thing again, and seriously considered just sitting in the theater and waiting for the next showing to begin. I myself found that I would suddenly remember a line of dialogue from the movie a month later, and say "oh... that's what that meant, I thoug... oh, wow!" Watching The Illusionist isn't like that. When the shocking ending is revealed, it's... how can I say this without giving anything away?

Oh yeah, it flat-out sucks.

TV Done Right

By the way, if you didn't watch NBC's "Comedy Night Done Right" last night, you missed some great television. Between "My Name Is Earl" doing Scratch-N-Sniff night with TV guide, along with having Sean Astin show up to do a send up of Rudy, and "The Office" having a "Women's Appreciation Day," and "Scrubs" getting back to its JD-Elliot romantic roots while guest-starring Keri Russell, it was... it was just some good television. Some real good television. And this is after "30 Rock" finished its season run two weeks ago. Check out NBC's website if you need to catch up, or just click here to watch the whole "Earl" episode right now.

Quote of the night would have to be Dwight Schrute, of course:

"Well, I wish I could menstruate. If I could menstruate, I wouldn't have to deal with idiotic calendars anymore. I could just count down from my previous cycle. Plus, I'd be more in tune with the moon, and the tides."

It's worth spending the $2 to download the episode if you missed it.