Romantic Classics

It's been a while since I've given a damn about romance in Hollywood

Where is the love, Tinseltown?

Sunday, Apr 22, 2012 3:40 PM

Roth Cornet

Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable in "Gone with the Wind"

Credit: Warner Brothers Pictures

Guy and I have something in common (other than the fact that we both write for In Contention). Producer David O. Selznick’s seminal Civil War epic “Gone with the Wind” stands out for each of us as one of our most beloved films of all time. The film won eight Academy Awards including Best Picture and has remained a significant part of our cinematic history for over 70 years.

I was introduced to the adaptation one Sunday afternoon as an 11-year-old and soon found myself obsessed with all things to do with the production. I had biographies of Selznick, each of the film’s stars, every “making of” special I could get my hands on and even a “Gone with the Wind"-inspired cookbook.

I was fascinated by Selznick’s compulsion to see his own vision fulfilled, his attention to detail down to the petticoats that each of the O’Hara sisters wore beneath their elaborate dresses and with the directorial hirings and firings along the way. (Although Victor Fleming ultimately received the credit, both George Cukor and Sam Wood took turns at the helm).
The animosity that existed between the two romantic leads, an avarice that through some magic translated to an indelible on-screen chemistry, stands as the first time that I truly understood the world of make-believe that cinema dwells in. There was some part of me that even in my snarky preadolescence was shocked that Vivien and Clark were not as enamored of one another as their counterparts Scarlett and Rhett.

I shut the world out for four continuous days as I devoured Margaret Mitchell's Pulitzer-winning novel. And though I was fascinated by the alterations that the characters underwent from page to screen, I discovered that I ultimately preferred Clark Gable’s Rhett Butler and Vivien Leigh’s Scarlett O’Hara to the portraits that Ms. Mitchell originally painted.

“Gone with the Wind” is visually lush with an aesthetic that has been repeatedly imitated over the years. It is grand in scale both thematically, cinematically and emotionally. It addresses the demise of a culture via its own hubris and endemic poisonous beliefs and practices.Though the film has since, rightly, faced criticism for its portrayal of a seemingly idyllic South (I would argue, however, that it presents the image as a falsehood that is inherently and deeply flawed) as well as its presentation of the African American characters.

Via Rhett and Scarlett’s unbearable missteps the film explores the damage we do to our own lives when we lie to ourselves about our genuine nature and what we truly want. And ultimately, it remains one of the most haunting love stories ever brought to life, haunting in that it echoes with the viewer long after the final credits have faded. Scarlett’s final promise to us “I’ll think about that tomorrow” in turn becomes our promise to her. And we do think about it. The climactic confrontation between Rhett and Scarlett is so perfectly in tune with who we understand them to be: willful, arrogant, dangerously protective of their own vanity and cursed with tragically mismatched timing.

But as much as we embrace the film’s willingness to see them through to their inevitable end, many of us refuse to accept that one as adaptable and cunning as Scarlett will not find a way to recapture what she has lost, nor that two humans so perfectly crafted to fit together will be forever lost to one another.

The beauty of the tale is that it continues on in our imagination and that as we age we come to understand Rhett and Scarlett’s vices and shortcomings more and more and, possibly, see them reflected in our own lives. At least I have. I see how my silence, my stubborn inability to express what I am feeling or my failure to recognize what that is until it was too late has damaged some of my relationships, potentially beyond repair.

“Gone with the Wind” continues to resonate for me as emotionally true with characters that are as alive and vital today as they were when the film was initially released in 1939. Rhett and Scarlett are unabashedly flawed, more so than any of the other central characters in the piece. And yet, we are able to see that it is their perceived weaknesses that also make them survivors. They are unapologetic fighters who are capable of forcibly pulling those around them (those who would otherwise flounder and die) up by the roots of their hair if they must so that they may survive as well. Their weaknesses become their strengths and their strengths their weaknesses, as is true for so many of us.

I set that against this weekend’s romantic drama, “The Lucky One,” the latest adaptation from novelist Nicholas Sparks. Sparks is the author who brought us such offerings as “Message in a Bottle,” “Dear John,” and the popular “The Notebook.” It is perhaps somewhat unfair to compare a single release to one of cinema's masterworks, but a truly successful romance is so rare these days that I thought I would explore the failings that many of these endeavors have in common, as I perceive them.

The main characters in many of our modern tales of love must seemingly be “perfect,” morally upright, gentle, ever forgiving and calm. If they do not begin as such then they are quirky and endearingly misguided initially and ultimately easily brought to heel. The milquetoast Ashleys and Melanies of romantic fiction have taken center stage, whereas the more richly textured and dynamic Rhetts and Scarletts are relegated to secondary “best friend” position.

Certainly that is the case in the adolescent phenomena “Twilight,” which often reads as unbearably preachy. For me, Katniss lost a bit (though not all) of her bite in the cinematic adaptation of “The Hunger Games.” Zac Effron and Taylor Schilling (through no real fault of their own) are nearly unwatchable and unfathomably bland in their portrayals of Logan and Beth, respectively, in “The Lucky One.”

The film itself relies on repetitive plot devices to create dynamic tension: a frustratingly ill-conceived series of misunderstandings, a cartoonish jealous ex-husband, artificially forced danger and an angelic child to bond the pair. War is present as an inciting incident in the story (Effron is an Iraq veteran who believes a photo of a mystery woman has saved his life and as such seeks said woman out), but is only dealt with in the most cursory of measures.

Two of cinema's greats, “Casablanca” and the aforementioned “Gone with the Wind,” manage to engage with the larger elements of their respective socio-political backdrops even as they weave a gorgeously intricate romance. Though I will confess I find Scarlett and Rhett to be far more equally matched in terms of dimensionality than Rick and Ilsa.

There are a plethora of romantic films released each year in Hollywood, be they comedic or dramatic (I am focusing on U.S. releases because that is where I see the bulk of problematic love stories emerging from), and very few of them are even marginally memorable. Perhaps I am looking upon the past with rose-colored glasses. "They don't make 'em like they used to." But certainly there is a tradition of an abundance of forgettable formulaic fair peppered with the extraordinary emerging from Tinseltown.

The enduring love stories seem to be fewer and farther between. The last U.S. romance that truly left its mark on me was 2004’s “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.” Nearly a decade latter I again must ask: Where is the love, Hollywood?

For year-round entertainment news and commentary follow @JRothC on Twitter.

Roth Cornet & Melissa Silverstein: Women in the Film Industry

Women and Oscar

And other things rich white men like

Thursday, Feb 23, 2012 4:58 PM

Roth Cornet

Earlier this week the LA Times unveiled the fruit of 20 researchers’ labor: old, rich, white men dominate the AMPAS. I was as shocked as you are.
I kid. I do. There’s nothing wrong with the article as such, and the structural dynamics of the Academy do bear looking at.
One of the strange, self-devouring aspects of the internet is that it is now common practice for critics to reflect on, riff off, add to or otherwise deconstruct one another’s work. A positive element of the trend is that a conversation develops in our virtual realm. Of course, levels of discourse are, as ever, varied. We’ve not yet weighed in on the matter and I do so now with a grain of salt, and a bit more sass than I had originally intended. Is it earth shattering news? Clearly not. Does it seem to be indicative of an overindulgence of the paper’s resources? Ish.
Let’s take a glance at the United States Congress. According to ThisNation, the House has 362 men and 76 women. In the Senate, there are 17 women and 83 men. 361 members of the House are white, 44 are African American, 25 are Hispanic and seven are Asian. 96 members of the Senate are white, two are Hispanic and two are Asian. To be frank, I’d rather see the LA Times devote those man-hours to investigating how the racial and gender composition of Congress effects the way laws are created and implemented.
(Hint: They convene a council on women’s reproductive health issues, and decide that it’s best for the ladies to retire to the drawing room at that time.)
I assess a fair portion of this situation from the feminine perspective because it is one I can speak to on an experiential level. But the truth is that the bias revealed in the LA Times piece is felt across gender and race lines.
We’ve all had to manage and negotiate the burden of perception in one way or another. Though the lion’s share of the people in my field are remarkable creatures I feel blessed to know, I tire of the indulgent looks a small (but felt) number my colleagues bestow upon me as they assume a position of grandiosity whilst stating their cinematic opinions. It seems to matter little to them what my background may or may not be, and they rarely bother to investigate as it is so much easier to assume, for the most part, inaccurately. I am a small blond female and have encountered countless “oh, look, it talks and knows what color reversal is!” expressions of shock mid-interview with a filmmaker. Annoying? Very. But there are certainly larger issues in the universe, even in my own little world.
I can say with clarity that I’ve had jobs where I was hired based on appearance (though they were primarily in a service capacity) and I have had positions where, due to superficially based perceptions, I was paid less than a male who had fewer skills and qualifications than I. And so it goes. Should it be an issue that I am a female? Who cares? It is one. Not one that defines my choices, but to pretend that things aren’t so keeps them stagnant. Women still earn roughly 75 cents to the male dollar here in the U.S. and until I receive a 25% “vagina discount” from my creditors, I’m going to find that more than a little bit problematic.
Does it matter that the Oscar voters are (as the LA Times reports) nearly 94% Caucasian and 77% male? Well, it does to me. It matters in the sense that it speaks to an industry that is grotesquely outdated and atrophied. It happens to be my industry, so yes, it matters. It affects the livelihoods of many people I care about, as well as my own. In light of a continued recession, it matters.

The real issue is employment and how these figures effect and reflect employment practices. Believe me, most of us would rather have a job than see the Academy manufacturing a false sense of diversity. Create diversity via your hiring patterns and then let that, over time, be reflected come Oscar night.
Here is a brief overview from the article of how employment breaks down along gender lines in the industry at present:
“Women account for 17% of film writers employment. The academy's producers branch is about 18% female, and the directors branch is 9% female, figures comparable to those in a study by San Diego State University's Martha Lauzen. She examined the 250 top-grossing movies of 2011 and found that women accounted for 25% of all of the films' producers, and 5% of all their directors.”
(Let us pause to really reflect on the fact that women represent over 50% of the population.)
As we can see, women have fared a bit better in the producer’s sphere. That is a good thing. And yet it so often feels like one step forward, two steps back. Brand new stereotypes have cropped up to stranglehold women in what is so often, at its root, a support role. “Producer” is an amorphous term in Hollywood. There are so many facets to the job that it can describe a myriad of positions. Sometimes it denotes a high level of influence (indeed, the most significant if you are a studio executive), sometimes it denotes a financial stake and sometimes it denotes a role that is more akin to a management position.
So we begin to hear things like “women are good producers because they are organized, because they can multitask, because they are nurturing” and so on. There may in fact be some truth to those assessments. I would not and do not argue that men and women are very different beasts. Indeed, I love those variances. I love that we each have some of the masculine and some of the feminine. I love the way that balance plays out in both our individual psyches, in our relationships and ultimately in society at large. I love the traits that are so uniquely male and I also, very much, love being a woman. The point is to recognize our unique skill sets and value them equally. Additionally, we must account for individual strengths and weaknesses.
It may be true that women (in very general terms) have some native and some developed attributes that lend themselves to a producer’s tasks. It is also true that those same attributes can, and do, lend themselves equally well to a director’s chair.
Scientists are working to understand how the physical differences in the male and female brain translate to traits and strengths. But one difference they can discern is that women have more white matter, a larger corpus collusum and more cellular connections, allowing for a faster transfer of information between the left and right sides of the brain. This means, theoretically, they can connect seemingly unrelated pieces of information and tend to conceptualize in less linear terms (think: big picture).
Whereas men have more grey matter, tend to operate more from the left-side of the brain, and function in more individuated terms (think: one task at a time). Both the male and female proclivities lend themselves to different, but effective, directorial styles that have an equal chance of yielding powerful and evocative films.
Of course, these are incredibly broad stokes and each person is going to bring their own singular talent palette to the table. But the endeavor is to get a seat at said table to begin with.
The Times article indicates that Frank Pierson, a former Academy president who won the Best Original Screenplay Oscar for "Dog Day Afternoon," feels that the Academy’s structure is a result of an egalitarian meritocracy. "I don't see any reason why the academy should represent the entire American population,” he said. “That's what the People's Choice Awards are for. We represent the professional filmmakers, and if that doesn't reflect the general population, so be it."
The notion that the financial and power discrepancies present in the world are entirely a result of the “cream rising to the top” as it were, is willfully ignorant, rude, self-aggrandizing, irresponsible and frankly bullshit. We could sit here and argue about the cause for the incongruity “on the ground.” But let us look at just the U.S. as an example.
The truth is, if you really cannot concede that a culture that emerged from a history of slavery, that signed the 14th amendment into law less than 50 years ago, never (yes never) signed the ERA into law and has misogyny imbedded in nearly every aspect of the language (“Hi, I am a FeMALE, be careful or I may get hysterical”) has some intrinsic and deeply ingrained biases then...you must be on your period.
With all that in mind, let's take a look at the (quite salient) video Melissa Silverstein of Women and Hollywood put together looking at some of the extraordinary work from women directors just this year. And let's also remind ourselves that in 84 years only four women (Lina Wertmüller, Jane Campion, Sofia Coppola and Kathryn Bigelow) have been nominated for Best Director.  Only one, Bigelow, has won.

Again, I must beg pardon for focusing on the feminine aspect of the issue, when the problem (and by that I mean inequity across industry and national lines) is clearly far larger in scope.
In any event, we must take note that this business of the Oscars is really a small matter in the grander scheme of global concerns. And the weight and gravity with which the LA Times presented their (somewhat “common-sense says”) study begged for a bit of ribbing. With that in mind, and to conclude on a slightly lighter note, here's a look at what goes on behind the cotton blend golfing pants curtain of the Academy Awards:

To The Academy: Consider the Women

Blogs by Melissa Silverstein | February 23, 2012

It's that time of year, The Academy Awards, the "Super Bowl for Women."  It's the night where we all get catty about whose dress doesn't work, who's got a new boyfriend or girlfriend, and who looks like they haven't eaten all month.
Because the world is paying attention to Hollywood in a bigger way this week there is an opportunity to raise awareness about gross inequities in the business.  So we here at Women and Hollywood are taking this opportunity to say that THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE WOMEN CONSIDERED FOR BEST DIRECTOR.
So we put together this video (it's only a little over a minute) highlighting some of the women directed films from this past year that were passed over.  We're not trying to say that all of them should have been nominated (though we think a couple of them should have), what we are trying to say is that we have to find a way to get women directors into these conversations.
We are so tired of watching parade after parade of men being praised for their work.  Last year at least we got to see Kathryn Bigelow up on the stage giving out the best director award, this year, the lack of women will be glaring.   Not only are there no women directors nominated, no films directed by women are nominated for best picture.

Here are the stats again:

• In 2011, only 5% of the top grossing films in Hollywood were directed by Women.  The number has decreased since 1998.
• In 84 years only 4 women -- Lina Wertmuller, Jane Campion, Sofia Coppola and Kathryn Bigelow -- have been nominated for best director.  One 1 has won.

We want to acknowledge the women directed films nominated:

• Best Animated Feature: Jennifer Yuh Nelson for Kung Fu Panda 2;
• Best Documentary Feature: Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory Charles Ferguson and Audrey Marrs
• Documentary (Short Subject): The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement Robin Fryday and Gail Dolgin; God Is the Bigger Elvis Rebecca Cammisa and Julie Anderson; Saving Face Daniel Junge and Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy; The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom Lucy Walker and Kira Carstensen
• Foreign Language Film: Agnieszka Holland for In Darkness

Please feel free to send this video out far and wide, and on Sunday, remember that women directors voices and visions are missing from this very large cultural conversation.   Telling people this is a cultural problem and not just a gender equity problem is a first step.

Reactions and Tweets

@NancyODell

Nancy O'Dell December 14, 2011

W/ Angelina-U shud check out her movie she directed "In the Land of Blood & Honey"-really good!

Variety_DSCohen David S. Cohen

In the Land of Blood and Honey to get Stanley Kramer Award from PGA. That event just became a hot ticket. #Brangelina

Angelina Jolie’s IN THE LAND OF BLOOD AND HONEY Angers Some Serbs, Wins Producers Guild Stanley Kramer Award

Andre Soares | Dec 13, 2011 


 So far, In the Land of Blood and Honey has been all but ignored by the various US-based critics' groups that have already named their Best of 2011. Possibly, Jolie's movie hasn't been made as widely available to critics as, say, late-year releases such as David Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Stephen Daldry's Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, both of which have managed to get several nods from the Broadcast Film Critics Association.

@JRothC Jennings Roth Cornet 

 

 

Angelina Jolie's directorial debut inspires praise and controversy

As the PGA announces plans to honor "In the Land of Blood and Honey," a Serb association calls for a ban

Tuesday, Dec 13, 2011 11:27 PM

Roth Cornet

 

My woman crush on Jolie reignited as I wrote this: Angelina Jolie's directorial debut inspires praise and controversy hitfix.com/blogs/in-conte…

 Angelina Jolie’s directorial debut “In the Land of Blood and Honey” is stirring the initial rumblings of critical praise as well as a bit of controversy. The mix feels oddly fitting given the trajectory of the filmmaker's own relationship with the public.
Earlier this week producers were faced with a potential lawsuit from James Braddock, a Croatian author claiming that the script plagiarized his 2007 novel “The Soul Shattering.” He has since withdrawn his motion for a restraining order against the film.
Meanwhile, the Producers Guild of America (PGA) announced today that the film will be honored with the 2012 Stanley Kramer Award at the 23rd Annual Producers Guild Awards ceremony. As the PGA explains it, the award was established in 2002 to honor a motion picture, producer or other individual whose achievement or contribution illuminates provocative social issues in an accessible and elevating fashion.
Set against the backdrop of the Bosnian War that tore the Balkan region apart in the 1990s, “In the Land of Blood and Honey” follows Danijel (Goran Kosti), a soldier fighting for the Serbs, and Ajla (Zana Marjanovi), a Bosnian woman who is held captive in the camp he oversees. They knew one another as man and woman before the war and must reconcile who and what they have become to one another in the face of one of the most brutal and bloody genocidal conflicts in modern history.

• 
  The Land Of Blood and Honey - Angelina Jolie, Zana Marjanovic and Vanessa Glodjo
  Angelina Jolie, Zana Marjanovic and Vanessa Glodjo talk to HitFix about "The ...

Jolie wrote and directed the film, which was (quite ambitiously) shot in both English and BHS (Bosnian language). As she explains in her interview with Greg Ellwood, the director made an initial English language cut with her editor Patricia Rommel, at which point they collaborated with a Bosnian editor to create the BHS version of the film. The BHS language version will ultimately be released in theaters with English subtitles.
On the very day that the PGA announced its plans to honor “In the Land of Blood and Honey,” The New York Times reports that Branislav Djukic, of the Bosnian Serb Association of Camp Prisoners, has called for a ban on the film in the Serb-run portion of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Though he has only been privy to a trailer for the film, Djukic claims that it is “telling lies” in its depiction of Serbian soldiers raping women during the war. I am not sure what this association hopes to gain with their sight unseen protest of the film. Rape was repeatedly, horrifically used as a method of torture during the war, by both sides.
In another twist, Jolie had come under criticism during production by an association of Bosnian women for writing a female lead that “falls in love with her torturer.” All of these critiques are of course, as mentioned, being made prior to a full viewing of the film. Some, though likely not all, of the detractors may very well alter their stance once they have the full scope of the story.
As for me, I was already compelled by the trailers, as well as by the idea of Jolie stepping into the director’s chair. And whenever I get the sense that groups or organizations are threatened by a particular subject or tale, it only serves to pique my interest further. We should talk about the things that scare us; we should look at the images that shame us.
For year-round entertainment news and commentary follow @JRothC on Twitter.