And You Thought It Was Just a Cartoon

You're upset about an arranged marriage? What, are you gay?

There was an article written about the new Pixar film Brave (2012) which caused a bit of stir this past week. Seems somewhere in the bowels of the increasingly tabloid-esque pages of Entertainment Weekly a staff writer interpreted the main character Merida's unwillingness to shack up with one of three dingus male suitors as an indication that she might be gay. He then used its release date which coincided with Pride Week in New York and San Francisco as further evidence of her sexual orientation.

Apparently it does matter

Having seen the film about a princess wanting to drive her own path instead of the one meticulously set-up by her mother, I can tell you first hand that sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with it one way or another. While the reviewer put it in the best of terms by saying that Merida should be considered a “proud” example of gay pride, and while I have absolutely nothing wrong with the homosexual life style, all I can really say to this interpretation is...really? Have we seriously gotten to the point where we're giving sexual labels on kids cartoons? Does it matter that much?

If that's the way you want to read it, fine. As far as you know Merida is a bow touting redheaded Amazonian who will likely run away with Katniss from Hunger Games (2012) and open a used book store in the sequel. But for those of us who don't have an over-reactive gay-dar, we get to enjoy the movie for what it is; a moving tale about the evolution of a mother-daughter relationship and a princess willing to forge her own path. The latter lesson is rather uncommon in today's blockbuster dominated movie landscape. We like to think that sexism is on the retreat and yet annoying little gender stereotypes specifically towards women still remain; especially in mainstream film. At best they are treated as intelligent spewers of exposition. At worst, they are window dressing meant to give the required T & A to a demographic of horny middle schoolers.

100% Straight

Put on the make-up, get out the pumps, slather on the argan oil because if you're not constantly looking like an angel in a tube-top no gentlemen will have you. You're fat, you're ugly, you're too opinionated, change yourself now so you can eventually get a man who has is own gender stereotypes to enforce upon you. Who knows, maybe if you're passive enough you'll get a vampire!

What does this say to otherwise straight women who enjoy sports like archery, rock climbing and horseback riding? What does this say to lesbians who like to wear high heels and like to look pretty? If we have gotten to the point where gay men can join the Army and straight men can sing and dance on Broadway, why the hell can't women save themselves from harm way for once in cinematic history? 

These gender stereotypes are ridiculously outdated and ultimately as harmful as racial ones. They limit people from their potential whatever that might be. Pixar confounds stereotypes in favor of once again telling a great story which I'm sure we can all agree is a pretty brave thing to do.

Rock of Ages

Year: 2012
Genre: Musical Comedy
Directed: Adam Shankman
Stars: Julianne Hough, Diego Boneta, Rusell Brand, Alec Baldwin, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Bryan Cranston, Tom Cruise, Paul Giamatti, Malin Akerman
Production: New Line Cinema

New Line Cinema and Warner Brothers wants you to know something: they hate you. They have no respect for you and they want your money. This is the message I received loud and clear while watching Rock of Ages (2012) this last week; a movie as foul and unnecessary as the innards of my garbage disposal. But lets back up a bit.

As if you didn't already know they hate you

As you may have guessed by now I have all but surrendered to my desires of watching any movie I damn well please. My list of a hundred movies, while still a goal set for the end of the year, is not my focus for this blog. The reasons are many but the largest is the sheer amount of movies I have and will likely miss out on, not just in theaters but on Netflix as well. Since liberating myself from the shackles of my list of 100, I have watched these films not included in it: John Carter (2012), Ace in the Hole (1951), Potiche (2010), Men in Black 3 (2012), The Day of the Jackal (1973), Mona Lisa Smile (2003), The Hidden Fortress (1958) and Rock of Ages (2012). They along with Prometheus (2012) bring my total to 2971 movies. Only 29 to go before I reach my goal.

Hard to believe this man has never won an Oscar

None of the movies I had watched were particularly bad. In fact they were at least okay and I'd recommend them all with the exception of one. Which brings us back to the subject at hand; that subject being the face and inner ear rape that was Rock of Ages. Now for those of you who aren't familiar with the Broadway show let me lay some knowledge on you. Rock of Ages is a Tony nominated jukebox musical about a small town girl (Julianne Hough) "living in a lonely world" who comes out to L.A. for her big singing break. Once there she gets a job as a waitress at an infamous rock club thanks to a pretty boy bar-back (Diego Boneta) who, of course, wants to be a rock star. The club however is on the verge of bankruptcy and is being protested by local politicians played by Catherine Zeta-Jones and Bryan Cranston (You read that right Bryan Cranston). To stop the bulldozers from leveling the place, bar owner Dennis Dupree (Alec Baldwin) is putting all his cards on "legendary," but unreliable rock star Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise).

I stay up past my bed time like a true rebel!

I can see the movie's creators pitching the idea to investors thusly: its the perfect date movie. A heartfelt romantic comedy for the ladies, set to the tunes of 1980's classic rock for the fellas. Oh and its also PG-13 which means its diluted enough to entice the young who didn't grow up in the age of vinyl and those old enough to remember protesting outside of Def Leppard concerts. While I don't know enough about the musical to assume the same of it, the film feels like a sorry assemblage of compromises. What is a strip club without nudity? What is rock and roll without sex or drugs? What is a love story without love? This movie.

Y'all got nothing on this shit

All these plot devices and processed, squeaky-clean camp are the perfect ingredients for a mediocre movie ala Footloose (1984). But there is no redeeming this clunky, overlong waste of marquee space. The movie is simultaneously exhausting and boring. Not five minutes goes by without someone belting out a song and yet the plot has no sense of urgency so you basically sit there waiting for the song to end and the plot to begin. The songs themselves rarely fit the characters, mood or circumstances. What does Foreigner's "Jukebox Hero" have to do with losing your vinyl collection, Twisted Sister's "Were not Gonna Take It" have to do with shutting down a club or Bon Jovi's "Wanted Dead or Alive" have to do with anything? Furthermore the choreography consisted largely of actors walking in front of colored lights while extras walked behind them. I guess the days of Fred Astaire and Gregory Hines is over replaced by the days of Julianne Hough climbing a stripper pole and hanging perfectly still.

And yet, I get the noise violation

And what of the love story? You know that one thing that should drive the plot but plays second fiddle to three other uninteresting subplots? Well you know how in every romantic comedy there is that "complication," where two thirds into the movie one person takes the others words or actions out of context, resulting in a twenty minute brooding period that's resolved by the time the credits roll? Yea, that happens. And it happens in such moronic way that I honestly felt these people did not deserve happiness.

Rock of Ages was down right insulting. At no time they attempt to honor the actual ethos of rock and roll, give a shout out to the people who wrote the songs they were butchering or even try to tell a discernible story. The best you can say about it is that it's like watching decent karaoke. But lets face it, unless you're the one up there singing, you know its better just to listen to the real thing.

Final Grade: F

Haters Gonna Hate

Heated discussion seems to be in vogue over the past week. With Prometheus having hit theaters last Friday, the reviews on the blogosphere has been anything but positive. Many were disappointed by its merely casual relation to Alien (1979) the sci-fi horror that put director Ridley Scott on the map. Others didn't like the open ending which left everything, cosmologically speaking up in the air. And some (myself included) just didn't like the litany of horror movie cliches.

I shall call you Cuddles

I'm partially to blame for my own disappointment with the film. The trailer and positive buzz around the movie built it up to be the go-to sci-fi of the year. Placing the ad side-by-side with The Dark Knight Rises (2012) trailer only made it look more exciting than it should have been. With friends galvanized by the thought of Ridley Scott returning to form, it seemed nearly impossible for Prometheus to exceed expectations and the hype.

Or maybe it was the other way

The fact remains Prometheus is a solid film. Not a masterpiece but if it was part of a double feature with Robinson Crusoe on Mars (1964) I'd feel I got my moneys worth. Those who have been cursing Prometheus as a monstrous failure or worse yet, a prattling and pretentious mess are only trying to defuse their own unrealized visions. The fact is Prometheus is not your vision nor mine, it stems from the expanded universe created by Ridley Scott. To put it in terms a fan-boy can understand, just like George Lucas can ruin Star Wars (1977) or Spielberg can ruin Indiana Jones (1981), so too can Scott "ruin" Alien.

But what exactly was ruined? Prometheus isn't Alien anymore than Star Trek is Star Wars. It has a completely different feel, different cinematography, different themes. Alien didn't ask a lot of cosmological questions but Prometheus at least tried. Anything that attempts to solve eternal questions while inserting facets from both faith and science is worth spending a little extra time and effort discussing.

So that's how many licks it take to get to the middle of a Tootsie pop

And I have, as should you if you've seen it. Try not to focus on the bad-decision syndrome (BDS) most of the crew seem to suffer from. Instead revel in the atmosphere, the grandeur and the various existential quandaries that excite your brain. If you watch the film with those things in mind and have a good time; bully for you. If not, watch The Tree of Life (2011) and/or 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). Both pose and answer such questions much better.

Yea, I know, totally gay right?

Its ridiculous how much of the ire seems to be directed towards Ridley Scott. One of my friends mentioned she didn't like Scott very much because of his pomposity, especially in the light of Prometheus. This reminded me of a similar argument I had with one of my managers over the work of James Cameron. He was of the opinion that Cameron is a hack who makes movies that are shallow, unoriginal and overly dependent on special-effects. I defended Cameron as best as I could. I'm in the minority here I know, few people my age, manner and gender like Titanic and fewer still like Avatar (2009). He even went further to say that Titanic (1997) is the reason for Hollywood's love affair with CGI and big budget spectacles.

Hey look a convenient excuse for good storytelling!

First off, if you want to blame CGI on someone, blame it on John Lasseter and the success of Toy Story (1995) if you want to blame anyone for big budget spectacles blame Louis B. Mayer and Cecil B. DeMille; Though my belief is if you have a movie without spectacle its not a movie its a slide show. The idea that Cameron, Scott or even Michael "bang-crash" Bay is somehow to blame for bloated blockbusters is just absurd. The basis for such arguments are mostly due to the accessibility of such films coupled with the specific auteurs' success. To some people, the fact that something is popular means its somehow bad or at least worth a sharper critical eye.

I suggest after watching Prometheus you sit down and give Titanic and Avatar another try. They're all strong movies that try to do big things. I like big things. I like it when people express big ideas and do so with a sense of style, wizardry, and yes even a little bit of hokum. Those who are overly critical of mass culture risk being alienated and can't see that these films can actually enrich them if they let their guard down. But you know what they say...

The Many Degrees of Dennis Quaid

And hovercraft too!

It has been two weeks since my last post and since that time I have not watched a single film I have not already seen. The reason for this is certainly not the fact that so many movies of my list of 100 are hard to come by and it is most definitely not the fact that Blockbuster.com is completely in competent. No, I have been working on a story that will tear the movie making industry asunder. A story so elaborate that I had to criss-cross the country to find all the answers I was looking for. The results of my plane, bus and snowmobile riding will cost me fans due to their heads exploding but in the pursuit of journalistic excellence I must tell the truth. I recommend that if you’re of a weak heart you go back to your Facebook page.

My investigation started when I sat down and re-watched the western classic Wyatt Earp (1994). Legs crossed on the barcalounger I noticed that the characters Doc Holliday and Wyatt Earp played by Dennis Quaid and Kevin Costner respectfully, were always shot at eye level with one facing the other. This of course was when they were in the same frame which happened surprisingly rarely. More often than not however, the director cut back and forth between the two men and in one scene when Dennis Quaid’s back is turned towards the bar he appears a foot shorter than before. This seemed puzzling since both men are six feet tall. Then it hit me; that wasn’t Dennis Quaid at all but a poorly realized body double. The it hit me again, he could have just been slouching. Then it hit me a third time; nay it couldn’t have been Dennis Quaid because Quaid and Costner are the same person!

Also the Olsen twins are actually clones

Now I know what you’re thinking, “Of course, how have I not seen this before!” But lest you be one of those people who require evidence from as reputable a source as the internet, let me put some fresh gunpowder in your mindsplosion. First just look at these guys:

 

Dennis Quaid in Kevin Costner make-up

Both look like your average Anglo-American, Suburban driving, fatherly, baseball coach types with effortless sandy brown hair and blue sunk-in eyes. Both have similar lone cowboy acting styles and both have publicly stated they won’t do sequels. Coincidence? Perhaps, but this is only observational evidence.

Apart from Wyatt Earp, Costner and Quaid have never been in the same movie ever. Its been known to happen of course but since both of their acting careers started in the 1980’s you’d think they’d at least bump into each other. When the cast of Wyatt Earp hit the talk show circuit, neither Costner or Quaid were ever seen in the same place at the same time. During the premiere in Hollywood, Costner suddenly felt sick and couldn’t make it. Coincidence? Complete balderdash? Perhaps, but read on.

Now director of Wyatt Earp, Lawrence Kasdan has used split screen technique in the past in the film I Love You To Death (1990) starring Kevin Kline. And while the records and finances of both films are privately owned by Kasdan’s production company, I was able to break into their HQ in Pasadena, CA and find receipts for among other things, a split screen camera. The same type used in Back to the Future (1985) and The Nutty Professor (1996) so Michael J. Fox and Eddie Murphy could play a multitude of characters seemingly at once. Why would they need that in a western?

Lawrence Kasdan was not available for comment but his agent released this official statement.

Talk to the hand bitch

“Dear Mr. Krause,
Please stop bothering my client with this story or we will be forced to put a restraining order against you.”
-Hank Louberry

It is obvious they’re hiding something. I then came in contact with a person who prefers to stay anonymous. They claimed to be on set of A Perfect World (1993) a film starring Kevin Costner that was shot around the same time as Wyatt Earp. My source claimed to have walked in on the Waterworld (1995) star as he was applying makeup in his trailer. Enraged by the walk-in, Costner swung his squash racket wildly covering his face as he did so. The anonymous source was confused since Costner had just ended shooting for the night and would not be called to the set for the next two days. Could it have been he was on his way to the Paramount lot to film Flesh and Bone (1993) a Dennis Quaid vehicle? Perhaps.

So top secret its scary

The most damning evidence however came a couple of days later. I was asked by an anonymous source to meet him at his ranch in Montana and make sure I wasn’t followed. I made my way up the I-15 until I reached Montana and drove until I could no longer get phone reception. Dark and raining I hiked the rest of the way to an isolated cabin hidden away from the prying eyes of civilization. Betwixt rolling hills and high grass the cabin itself was in shambles. I walked under the awning to get out of the rain, my footsteps alerting whoever might be inside.

“Come in,” they said. “Come in quick.” I opened the creaky door and walked into the dark single room cabin. Looking around for a light switch , I stumbled on a pile of newspapers. I looked up I saw a dimly lit cigarette burning a hole through the night. The silhouette of a man wrapped around a chair became visible. As he turned on the light beside him I saw for the first time who he was.

Randy Quaid was a character actor back in the day featured in roles as varied as a Navy ensign in the film The Last Detail (1973), to an alien abductee who saves the world in Independence Day (1996). You may know him best as cousin Eddie from the National Lampoon’s Vacation series. At this point in his career, Quaid has not had a decent role in four years, a lifetime in an actor’s world.

Randy Quaid in no make-up

After the perfunctory banalities of getting to know each other, Randy let me in on a few secrets. “Dennis Quaid is my brother and Kevin Costner is a character he plays,” he said. When Randy had left to Hollywood, his younger came with him but being a shy and boring actor according to some, Dennis was only able to get very minor roles. In 1980, that all changed. “That summer, Dennis was shooting a film with Ringo Starr called Caveman (1981). He was a big Beatles fan and Dennis wanted to be very close to his childhood hero…Because he couldn’t handle the butt load of drugs they were doin’ on set, Dennis had a

A cause of so much heartbreak

bit of a mental break…” said a caustic Randy. Randy claimed that due to a drug induced haze while listening to Sgt. Pepper, he came up with an idea of the Kevin Costner character.

“The man would be everything Dennis wasn’t,” said Randy. “He would have the intense directorial eye of John Ford with the screen presence of Sylvester Stallone…he thought this would prove he was a good enough actor.” Indeed for years, Kevin Costner surged up the ranks of the Hollywood elite to become one of the most successful Actor/Directors of his day, now famous for such classics as Dances with Wolves (1990), The Untouchables (1987) and Field of Dreams (1989). Dennis Quaid on the other hand, had marginal success

A case of split personality

at this time, with films like Dreamscape (1984), Innerspace (1987) and Postcards From the Edge (1990).

“It seemed for a while Costner was on top,” continued Randy. “Dennis lost himself in that role and was eclipsed by the bastard.” Randy claims he saw the Costner character turn ugly. When confronted, Dennis claimed to be worried for his life and further claimed Costner was trying to kill Quaid with copious amounts of alcohol and drugs. Quaid went on a three year hiatus from films from 1990-1993 at which point Randy didn’t speak to his brother. “He just wasn’t him anymore, he was Costner.”

Then came Costner’s first blunder as a Hollywood A-Lister; the Whitney Houston vehicle The Bodyguard

We're gonna need a bigger boat

(1992). The film’s critical and financial failure unraveled Costner’s fragile psyche allowing Quaid to come out. “His first few movies were okay but he managed to get his foot in the door. Then Wyatt Earp came along. Wyatt Earp was high noon for them.” While the dailies painted a picture of professionalism between the two, Randy claims the realities were far from that. “Dennis had hoped Larry [Kasdan] would put them in a film together so they could duke it out.” said Randy. “And they did. It was all very hush-hush.”

After the success of Wyatt Earp, Dennis Quaid went on to do bigger and better things while Kevin Costner continued to downward spiral. Following the double failure of Waterworld and The Postman (1997), “…Dennis was in touch with his faculties again…So long as Costner keeps making crappy movies, my brother will continue to have a normal career.”


I left that cabin with many unanswered questions. How were so many documents falsified? Who helped Costner in his quest to take over Quaid’s psyche? Will Costner take revenge after the looming success of Man of Steel (2013)? Answers to those questions may come in time as the truth will always set you free.

The end of Dennis Quaid?