The Indiana Jones series

This post comes with a wildly inaccurate claim: I do not consider Crystal Skull to be part of the Indiana Jones canon. No fridge nuking for me.

I love these films. What's not to love? Harrison Ford playing an archaeological nerd that takes and gives a punch, gets the girl, utters the great one liners and retrieves (steals?) the treasure. The guy that every woman loves and every man wants to be. I heard a great saying recently: "Boys don't want to see movies about other boys. They don't want to be the smart mouthed 10 year old. They want to be Han Solo, James Kirk or James Bond." You can certainly add Indiana Jones to this list.

There is a problem with these movies. Clearly, for the vast majority of the screen time, it is aimed at boys with swashbuckling ambitions. But for some fleeting (face melting) moments, it is too much George Romero, too little George Lucas. The films' climax scenes all seem to lend themselves to horror. Don't get me wrong, horror has it's place. It's just not appropriate for a 10 year old. But, all of the other scenes in these films are perfect for a 10 year old. The other problem is the same one I have for the Star Wars films; how do you keep these films for the right age when our culture is saturated with them? Some kid at my son's school is going to give away all of the good bits. And my son (with his film loving father) is going to miss out.

I'm going to go with 10 years on this one. This sucks.

E.T. The Extra Terrestrial

My elder son was sick last week and by chance I happened to be walking through my local KMart and found this classic for $9.

$9?!? Bargain!

And what an opportunity to show this indisputable classic of children's cinema. Unfortunately I had to work that day so I didn't get to see my kids' reaction until after they had seen the movie.

Upon my return home I was greeted with "Phone home!" So clearly, they were impressed with the film. Since then it has had several viewings over the weekend, without my boys getting tired and wanting to see something else.

This is one of those rare films that achieved both critical acclaim and box office receipts (highest grossing movie until Jurassic Park). Unfortunately for Spielberg, when the time came for Academy Awards he was a) competing against Ghandi (all things the Academy loves: political, exceptional acting, epic and depressing) and b) he made the mistake of making a brilliant kids movie. George Miller said it best when asked about his chances of winning Best Picture for Babe in 1995: "Kids movies never win Best Picture!"

This is the perfect film for a five year old. It teaches them about acceptance of the unknown, overcoming fears and being able to stand up to authority when you know you're right. It adds the right touches of fantasy to encourage the sense of wonder that can connect parents and children while watching a movie. And while they will grow up and see films like Alien, Predator and The Thing, I'm happy that their introduction to alien life is E.T.

One for me: Primer

Just a quick one:

I have been told to see Primer. That it is a mindbender on a par with the first time I saw The Matrix.

Looking forward to it....

Update coming after the weekend.

Update:

So it's been a while. Since I've written this, I've had some idiot break in to my work car and steal two laptops and a projector. Getting through all of the insurance and paperwork has been an ordeal. Add to that a couple of regional trips and I've let this month go by without an update.

So on to Primer.

This could only have been done as an independent film. This feels like the first film to be unashamedly intellectually challenging. If you're not smart enough to understand what's going on, that's ok because this film is not for you. Studios seem to have no problem producing films that some viewers will not understand on an emotional level - guys just don't seem to get Fried Green Tomatoes or Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants - and I'm guilty here. So why is it that we never seem to see films that can challenge us on an intellectual level? And I'm not just talking about weird. There are plenty of films that are weird - unnecessarily so. So, more of these please.

This film is outstanding. Nothing short of brilliant. And not just because of it's challenging content. It has a homey feel to it, almost hand crafted. Does that sound stupid? I was reminded of Hitchcock, that what a director doesn't show is as important as what he does show. Once we move past the creation of the device itself, the film moves along at its own pace.

If I had one criticism it is the ending. I know this was a debut film, shot on a shoestring and the director has ambition to shoot more films. But please - the unfinished ending hoping for a sequel? Smacks of desperation at worst, laziness at best.

So on to the age. I ran into a bright 13 year old today and he was quite the young person to view this film. Be prepared for multiple viewings and quite a great deal of discussion around this film. For a nerd father and son, I could not think of a better way to pass a weekend.

The reality check weekend: Thirteenth Floor, The Matrix and Blade Runner

In my first blog, I wrote that I was too young when I saw Blade Runner. I think you need to be old enough to look beyond the dialogue and pictures on the screen to see what is actually happening. But how difficult is it going to be to keep my kids away from this movie when it is such a classic? And how best to introduce it?

And then it hit me. Use Blade Runner as the climax to a weekend of films that challenge our idea of reality; the Reality Check Weekend.

First things first, how old should you be to see Blade Runner? I think if you can read a Philip K. Dick story, you're old enough. Personally, I would start with Second Variety or We Can Remember it For You Wholesale. Simple plot, easy to read and both have been turned into films. Maybe I could add Screamers and Total Recall to the list as an introduction...

I would think that a fifteen year old would be able to handle this series. Maybe even thirteen. You might think this is a bit too young. I agree. But I live in the real world and I know that some of my boys' classmates will have already seen these films by then. So to avoid the inevitable, I intend to show Blade Runner a little earlier than I would normally by introducing it in the context of The Matrix and Thirteenth Floor.

If you haven't seen Thirteenth Floor, don't worry. It's not a great film and it explores some of the same territory as The Matrix. I'd be willing to try a different film, but I can't think of anything better. You might suggest Total Recall. I find Paul Verhoven's films lacking in a certain polish, his special effects look like special effects and his treatment of Wholesale is woeful. I would be happy to add Recall to the Reality Check Weekend, but I would not be keen on letting it stand next to The Matrix and Blade Runner. You might also suggest Minority Report.... There's a moment where you could go back and ask if what is we are seeing is real or not, but it is fleeting and more of a P.K. Dick signature than an exploration of a theme.

There's also, The Island, Paycheck and Existenz... But all of them tend to leave the thinking behind and focus more on the loud bangs and chase scenes. Give me the thinking any day.

Anyway, I'm curious to hear your thoughts. I have about 10 years before I'll be running this as a weekend event, so I'll be keen on finding out if anyone else has done this sort of thing.

Rear Window

I remember seeing this film in 1987. I was 15 years old, on holidays and having a bit of a rest after a day of touring around. There was nothing else in English on the hotel TV, so I thought I would give it a shot.

That day I had an awakening. Up until then, I had been raised on a diet of action and thrillers, big on spectacle and short on script. I was blithely following the trends of my peers, more interested in the latest blockbuster than trying to find anything on my own. I had also dismissed any of my parents' favourites as boring talkfests. I had reluctantly sat through their viewing of North By Northwest and Vertigo and not really understood the value in their narrative. The action in these films was interspersed with long periods of dialog which did not appeal to my diet rich in Stallone and Schwarzenegger.

But I would give this one a go. And was seriously impressed. I had thought that films produced before I was born were a cultural wasteland just waiting for the advent of special effects. Ah, the pride of teenagers. This movie had Jimmy Stewart displaying his considerable acting chops while being limited to a single room. In a wheelchair. And his focus must have been sorely tested with Grace Kelly smoking up the set. Talk about class. Talk about chemistry.

And what a unique film. Forget for a moment the top shelf acting and script. Technically, this was a brilliant film. To my young eyes, I knew there was something "different" about this film. It was all shot on a sound stage, with a purpose built apartment building, no musical score and with most shots originating from Jimmy Stewart's apartment. Hitchcock was forcing us to live the life of the voyeur through Stewart's experiences.

Imagine pitchcing this sort of movie today:
"We're going to take one of Hollywood's leading men.."
"Like Tom Cruise? Good, I like it."
".... and pair him up with a hot young actress..."
"Like Cameron Diaz? This just gets better!"
"...and we'll put him in a wheelchair, he gets to spy on his neighbors and we're not sure if he's seen a murder or not."
Pause. "Okay, you lost me there. How many car chases do we have?"
"None. It's all shot on a sound stage."
"Hmm. How about the murder scene?"
"We never get to see it."
"You're losing me. There has to be some kind of fight or something!"
"There is! He gets to fend off the bad guy using..."
"A gun! No, an axe!"
"Better! A flashbulb!"
Pause. "Get out. I suggest you don't dawdle, I have released the hounds."

In looking up this film, I was surprised that it didn't win any Academy Awards and completely missed out on any acting nominations. Okay, so it was up against On The Waterfront. And it wouldn't be the Academy without making boneheaded decisions every now and then. But come on, surely there was some artistic merit to this film.

This is one of those films that requires a certain maturity to view. To my mind, it needs to be shown to a growing teenager (say, around 14) to remind them of their own cultural heritage, that there was something before the internet, before CGI effects. It is a wonderful movie to show on a rainy afternoon, when there are no other distractions and your teenager is trapped inside the house. It is the sort of film you will want to keep under the radar. Rent it out with a handful of other movies and slip in in to the DVD player in the same way that my wife will make herself gorgeous and say, "What, this old thing?" Don't make a big fuss about it.

Either your child will get it or they won't. And if they don't get it, don't despair. Just save it for another rainy day.

Game for movie nerds

I have invented a game I thought I would share with you all. It's helpful if you know and love movies - if I'm honest only those who know and love movies will actually enjoy it.

It's called "3 Actors." It can be played with 2 or more people and works well in a party setting. How it works is I think of a movie and name three actors that starred in that movie. Everyone else has to name that movie.

How about an example:

Al Pacino

Robert DeNiro

Val Kilmer

Now, name that movie.

If you said "Heat," congratulations! You win and now get to stump your buddies with your own set of three actors.

That example is as easy as it gets. Try this one on for size:

Matthew Broderick

Jeremy Irons

James Earl Jones

Give up? "The Lion King."

What? Animated movies? Isn't that cheating? No. It's not. My game, my rules. Speaking of rules, this game gets very boring if you're allowed to look up either the answers or the actors in question. So no IMDB.com and no Google.

The key here is coming up with three actors. Any movie that has three big time actors has normally done very well at the box office and is pretty easy to guess. A more obscure movie may have two familiar faces, but the third... not so much. Right now, I'm thinking of Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone; now who was the third person in Basic Instinct...? And Basic Instinct isn't obscure at all.

Let me know how you go...

How to watch the Star Wars series

Ok, so not a film post - I would like to discuss how you would like a newbie watch the Star Wars series.

Two schools of thought here, release date (New Hope, Empire, Return, Phantom, Sith then Clones) or chronological order (Phantom, Sith, Clones, New Hope, Empire and Return).

Release date gives my boys the same experience I had where I, II and III are a prequel to IV, V and VI. Chronological ruins the surprise in Empire.

With a quick hat-tip to Wired.com, I would like to show them in order of New Hope, Empire, Phantom, Sith, Clones and Return. This way, the surprise is maintained in Empire and Anakin's back story is shown before his redemption in Return.

Your thoughts...

Fight Club

Entertainment is a risky proposition. It doesn't matter if the risk is taken by a stand up comedian willing to face silence from a crowd or a trapeze artist working without a net, we as the viewers are impressed by the amount of effort required in creating the act and the level of danger in its presentation - unless it crosses the line into self indulgence.

Fight Club's creation was a high wire act. It combined effort in its crafting and danger in its content. It was a risky film to produce and poorly handled could have hampered the careers of Ed Norton and Brad Pitt.

It was released in 1999, which I believe marked the slow demise of a short golden age of film. An age where studios were more willing to spend money on quality writing and actors were more interested in their craft than their box office appeal. It was during this mini golden age we had such gems as Pulp Fiction, The Usual Suspects, 12 Monkeys, Fargo, The Big Lebowski and American Beauty. The end of this era was boldly stamped by the release of American Pie.

I know I have warned you before, but I must make it clear now. I will talk about spoilers from this point on.

Fight Club is a masterpiece. It is a movie that demands repeated viewings and has one of the best "Wait... what?" moments ever. Often the second viewing follows immediately after the first. Which is where you move past the "Tyler = Narrator" thing and listen to the actual message.

Unfortunately, I was told the twist of this movie prior to seeing it. Who does this? If you're going to get someone to see this movie, surely you say to them, "I can't tell you anything about this movie because the first rule of Fight Club is that nobody talks about Fight Club."

I missed this on in the cinemas because the trailers focused on the scenes of action and violence. It's like the marketing people didn't get the message of the movie at all. Which is quite ironic - that an anti establishment, anti consumerist movie is misunderstood by the people whose jobs it is to sell said movie.

So, on to the age to see this movie.

First, if you can't handle the violence of an MMA cage fight, you're too young to see this movie. The violence is presented in a way that is realistic. People are hurt, they wince in pain, they need first aid and they have scars that last. They get knocked down and don't get back up again and this can be confronting if you've been raised on a diet of Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Willis, Statham or anything starring a wrestler. This is not an action movie where Bond hits the bad guy in the face and he smiles. Nobody has ever done that in real life.

Second, if you haven't had a job and you don't know the pressures of conforming versus the limitations of a paypacket, you're too young to see this movie. You just won't understand if Mum and Dad are paying all your bills and you haven't done the maths to figure out how many hours it will take to pay for a new iphone while you're flipping burgers at McD's.

Finally, you have to have parents that are cool with you watching the content. And that's a pretty big ask. I would not be comfortable watching this with my parents, but I would be ok with discussing it with them afterwards.

Most countries have this movie rated at 18+. I would be ok with my kids watching this when they are around 20.

Over to you...

Star Wars - A New Hope

The first to be released in the Star Wars franchise and one that totally changed the culture of film making and film watching. Take a look at the top 50 grossing films of all time (according to Wikipedia). Find one that does not have a big special effects budget.

I know what you're going to say; a top grossing film does not mean it is a good film. True. But it does make it a popular film. And I would suggest that that popularity can be laid at the feet of New Hope.

Don't believe me? In 1976, New Hope won the best Special Effects Academy Award. What movie won in the previous year?

I'll spare you the Googling, it was Logan's Run.

So from Logan's Run, whose best effect was a flashing red light on the palm of the hand, George Lucas took us on a quantum leap in visual effects, creating green screens on the way and incorporating old school techniques like models and rubber suits. For that, we should forgive George all his subsequent sins - many thought they be.

But this film isn't just about special effects. After all, every summer is littered with the corpses of unprofitable films that spent big on special effects at the expense of a decent story. Lucas took the tried and true Western (or even further back - the Hero's Journey) and gave it a new backdrop. It could have failed miserably. Problems on set and Lucas' own flights of fancy could have destroyed the project - after all who would have predicted that Chewbacca would be a massive hit and Jar Jar Binks would be a massive annoyance? A New Hope was such a simple idea that was executed with great attention to detail.

And what we are left with is cinematic gold. A flawed film, one that should have been left in time (and never re-released under a Director's Cut) but one that has defined popular culture since it's release.

It is this impact on popular culture that leads me to think that I should show this film sooner, rather than later to my 5 year old. I feel he would be ok with some of the scarier scenes - the first appearance of Vader, the Tuskan raiders attacking Luke, the (unseen) Jawa massacre and the light sabre battle between Obi Wan and Vader.

I don't think I need to be concerned with the political machinations of the Empire versus the old Republic. It has very little impact to the viewer when this movie is taken on its own. Later, when viewing Empire for the first time, we would need to review New Hope to give a little context.

So over to you. Do you agree that 5 is an appropriate age to view Star Wars: A New Hope?

Update: My five year old (must think of a better nickname...) saw it on the weekend and couldn't get enough of it. He's off to visit Granny and Grandad today and begged to take the DVD with him. No can do son, the grandparents will not sit through a SciFi movie.

My fears over the scarier scenes were unfounded.

I'm glad I saw this again. Any good movie should show you something new each time you watch it. While looking at the mundane farming existence of Luke's family, I couldn't help but think "You'll be dead tomorrow." Luke and Owen spent most of their time bickering over joining the Academy and getting chores done. It made me think of my own mortality and the mundane moments in my life, how should I fill my days...?

Their relationship had reached an impasse where Luke's priorities were developing beyond Owen's needs of keeping their farm going. I think Mark Hamill's performance was hampered by one fact: he was too old. Most males make this rebellious transition around the age of 16 to 18; Mark was 25 at the time of filming. It's a meaningless hypothetical, but what if Lucas had access to some of the actors born in 1959- 61: Kevin Spacey, Sean Penn, James Spader, Tim Hutton, George Clooney...? Would it have made New Hope a better movie? How would it have affected the franchise? Or would we have ended up with Scott Baio, Danny Bonaduce or Ralph Macchio in the role?

How To Read This Blog

Let me say this up front: I love film. I love film as art, popular culture, satire or escapism. I am a film nerd. And it is this love of film that I would love to pass on to my two children, both boys.

The desire to start writing came about from two separate events. Indulge me, as I relate these stories.

The first was a discussion with an employee at a video store at a time when the market was being saturated with low quality horror...

Me: I would like to find something that's really scary.

Video Guy: What have you found scary in the past?

Me: Remember the first time you saw Alien? Something like that.

Video Guy: I don't remember, I was too young.

Now, I have a problem with this. Not necessarily that my Video Guy saw a scary movie when he was too young in the eyes of the censors and he might get nightmares. No, I have a problem in that he was too young to understand and appreciate it. In my opinion, if you're that young, you're seeing monsters jumping out of dark shadows and not really getting the context of biological warfare and corporate manipulation which makes the movie that much more frightening.

The second involved Blade Runner. I saw the movie when I was 12. I had the discussion around "Deckard was a replicant" when I was around 18. That delay coloured my perceptions of the film, so much so that I wished I had seen it when I was older.

And so to the point of these discussions. My two boys are 5 and 2 years old. They are both at an age where they can sit down in a theatre and see a 90 minute film without becoming too fidgety. There are many films that I want them to see as they grow up, but...

At what age should they see these films?

I want them to see classics - Hitchcock, Capra, Coppola and Kubrick. I want them to see quirky - Tim Burton, Spike Jonze and Coen brothers. I want them to see funny - from Charlie Chaplin to Adam Sandler (hey, funny is in the brain of the beholder). And I think you, fellow interwebbers can help me.

Some rules:

• When I talk about a film, I will be discussing it with the view that you have already seen it. Therefore I will gleefully cover spoilers without warning. Do not leave a comment asking me to write "Spoiler alert" at the top of the post because you have been warned now.
• I am quite happy to talk about the relative merits of a film, but I do not want to get into discussions about what is appropriate from a Chiristian or family friendly perspective. I am not particularly fussy about depictions of bare skin, guns, drug taking, violence or any of the more controversial aspects of mainstream cinema. If a film is released in my country, eventually my children may end up watching it. The age that they watch the film is important in terms of their maturity level, not so much in terms of what is "right" or "wrong" to watch.

Otherwise, anything goes. I am big enough to handle being called names; if you don't agree with me, feel free to call me an idiot. Just be prepared to back it up. If you want me to review a particular movie, let me know and I will give it a shot.