The "Shouldabeen" Lois Lane

Few superhero movies contain as much charisma and character as Richard Donner's superb "Superman" (1978). The film shines brightly as the gold standard of superhero films. Looking back on it through the lens of history, it appears even more impressive. Nearly every aspect of the film's production was executed with success; the gravitas of the opening Krypton sequences (and subsequent tragedy), the sweet nostalgia for midwest Americana in its second act, and the movie-within-a-movie aspect of its third act, which takes place in the big city of Metropolis.

One aspect of the film that sometimes gets overlooked is its wholly original and satisfying characterization of Lois Lane. Margot Kidder's Lois is a strange bird; quirky and weird, fascinated with the morbid (her first scenes show her giddily finishing up a big story for The Daily Planet on the East Side murder spree) and an inability to spell ("How do you spell 'massacre'?"). Not to be overlooked, she brings a great deal of humor to the role; her scenes with Christopher Reeve as Clark/Superman are snappy and hilarous, reminiscent of the best screwball comedies.
Much like Rosalind Russell in "His Girl Friday," or Claudette Colbert in "It Happened One Night," Kidder's Lois Lane is strange, yet cute. She's strong, yet vulnerable. In a word, she's complex. And much of this is to be owed to director Donner and the consummate actress, Kidder. She went on to reprise her role in the nearly-as-brilliant "Superman II" and two more ridiculous sequels.

Flash forward a few decades, as a new Superman film was being developed by director Tim Burton... ahem, J.J. Abrams... I mean, Joseph McGinty... gosh, I meant Brett Ratner... oh, no wait, it was Bryan Singer. Yep, Bryan Singer ended up with the job. "Superman Returns" was Singer's attempt to continue the story where it left off in "Superman II." This was not exactly a reboot (a la "Batman Begins"), this was a fresh continuation of the world and events from the first two Superman films.

Casting Brandon Routh as Clark Kent/Superman was a good start, at least on paper. He has many similarities to Christopher Reeve; they were both relative unknowns when they were cast, each have deep, captivating voices, and have physiques appropriate for The Man of Steel. Routh, however, did not have a fraction of Reeve's charisma. But I digress.

On paper, the casting of Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor, with a cast rounded out by Frank Langella, Parker Posey and Eva Marie Saint, seemed inspired. However, the filmmakers made an enormous error with the casting of Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane.

If the film was designed as a standalone or as a complete reboot, perhaps this casting could have worked. Bosworth has proved herself in the past, doing a fine job in otherwise mediocre, forgettable films ("Blue Crush," "Win a Date With Tad Hamilton"). But with "Superman Returns," a film that is ostensibly a continuation of "Superman II," including numerous references and homages to the two original films, Bosworth was a disastrous, seemingly studio-driven choice, one obviously fueled by Bosworth's popularity.

(Lest you think I'm picking on Bosworth, let me clearly state that the miscasting of Bosworth was simply one error in a giant sea of errors when it comes to the creation of the dreadful film "Superman Begins." The filmmakers could have used a time machine to get 1978-version Margot Kidder to perform in this film, and it still would have been awful.)

Most obviously, Bosworth's sheepish and muted screen presence does not match the character-- the rugged, tough, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist from Metropolis. The film clearly states that five years have passed since the events of "Superman II," yet Lois has the physical and emotional appearance of a second-year university student (Bosworth was 23 when she made the film). There was no depth, no gravitas, no honesty to this characterization. When Kidder's Lois entered the frame, the viewer could feel the electricity and excitement; she commanded the frame with her amazing screen presence. When Bosworth's Lois entered the frame, the viewer is left wondering why this girl with the bad wig is loitering around the offices of The Daily Planet.

Although it's clear that a better choice for Lois Lane would not have even remotely saved the film, it's fun to fantasize about alternative choices. Who would have been a better choice for Lois Lane?
Anyone who watches NBC's "The Office" knows Rashida Jones, who joined the magnificent cast when Jim Halpert leaves the office and works at another branch of Dunder Mifflin, and meets Karen (Jones). Boy, she would have made a fantastic Lois Lane.

Physically, Jones and Kidder have a lot in common. She's an exquisite actress, bringing a genuinely unique characterization to television with her role in "The Office," a role that requires a great deal of charisma and weight. I may be imagining it, but I think Jones even has a bit of a squeak in her voice, just as Kidder has ("You've got me? Who's got you?!"). She also is the perfect age to play the continuation of Kidder's Lois (Margot Kidder was 30 when she originally played Lois, Jones was 30 in 2006), and as indicated by her performance on "The Office," she clearly has the acting chops to portray Lois as an experienced, well-travelled, award-winning Daily Planet reporter.

But most importanly, Rashida Jones has a twinkle in her eye, just as Kidder. I could easily see her pulling off the quirky weirdness that Kidder brought to the role.

She would have been perfect for Lois Lane.

Or Maura Tierney.

• Rashida Jones on IMDb

"Ratatouille" and Moving the Camera

updated: article now includes a YouTube clip, clearly marking "Shot A" and "Shot B." -tv
I'm a real stickler for camera movement. I want the movement of the camera to feel logical, and be motivated by the context of the shot. I strongly believe that executing ridiculous, over-the-top, flashy camera moves without motivation is one way to quickly turn off an audience.

This is why I call Brad Bird a genius with the camera.

I had the distinct honor of seeing "Ratatouille" last weekend, and the delightful film is another example of Brad Bird's genius with action choreography. Just as he did for the animated films "The Iron Giant" and "The Incredibles," Bird once again treats us to a beautiful animated world whose camera movement is wholly organic and never flashy.

This is just a preview of a much larger article, soon to appear on FXRant; I wanted to write that larger article first, but after seeing "Ratatouille," I became so excited about this topic that I had to just get some ideas out on digital paper, so bear with me.

I despise unmotivated, out-of-context camera moves; camera moves that are, in and of themselves, all flash and no substance. The camera moves of "Spider-Man" and its two sequels, Stephen Sommers' "Van Helsing," and just about any Dreamworks animated film all fail a basic rule of camera movement: never let your camera move be more flamboyant than your content. If you're using the camera for flash, then you're using the immense power of the camera move as a creative crutch, and not as a way of truly illustrating the action. (That was much harder to summarize than you can possibly imagine. Like I said, a larger article is forthcoming... sit tight.)

Bird's "Ratatouille" follows the adventures of Remy, a Parisian rat who wants to be a gourmet chef. The very nature of Remy gives the camera an opportunity to follow him through places that only a mouse could go.
There are some elaborate sequences in "Ratatouille" which are exhilarating and exciting, partially due to the exquisite and precise use of camera movement and editing. Watch this nine minute nine minute sequence from the film and come back.
Notice how the camera moves seem effortless. They're not specifically flashy-- but, logically, they're defying the laws of physics. The action moves seamlessly from one area to the next, and the edits are absolutely precise and, most importantly, invisible. One of the most important tenants of classic Hollywood narrative filmmaking is the necessity for editing and camera movement to be as invisible as possible; they need to be seamless and wholly appropriate for the type of film you're making. These action-filled scenes from "Ratatouille" (with a wonderful score by Michael Giacchino) illustrate this concept perfectly.

Watch the scene again, starting at 2:20, where Remy climbs out of the kitchen sink. Notice how the aggregate of all of those shots gives us a very clear indication of the geography of the scene, the relative scale of our hero with his world, and the danger involved. The audience is completely rooting for our hero; although it is a chaotic scene, the action is very clear and the audience is right along with Remy, instead of fighting to keep up. When necessary to set up important spatial relationships, Bird makes sure to not break the 180 degree line of action. When chaos and action are not dependent on spatial relationships, he ignores it with abandon.

Then, watch this clever little bit of filmmaking, starting at 3:02 of the Quicktime movie. Or just view this YouTube video below:



We'll call this Shot A. Remy enters the right side of the frame, revealing Linguini (the human) on the left side of frame. Wishing not to get caught, Remy hides behind a jar...
...the camera dollies to the right, and as Remy darts forward, the camera actually follows him forward.
After only a few steps, we cut to Shot B (below), with Remy appearing from behind the jars, moving right to left, entering frame. The camera is dollying right to left as we cut into the shot.
What just happened there? Why, in Shot A, did we actually follow Remy for a beat before cutting to Shot B? If this is an animated feature, why would that action be initiated, only to cut out of it? Doesn't that seem like a wasted effort? Here's why that little extra camera move exists: it perceptually helps bridge the gap between the shots, because our eyes and minds are led forward beyond the cut. Shot A initiates the action (the movement forward) and Shot B continues that action (Remy entering frame, while dollying right to left).

Bird, editor Darren Holmes, and director of photography (layout) Robert Anderson 'covered' the scene like a live-action film, expertly creating blends between shots that soften the transition from one shot to the next, even when it means creating a seemingly needless camera move (at the tail of Shot A). This is obviously a complicated process, and one that needs to be carefully constructed in the layout and previsualization process.

The more complicated and frenetic your camera moves are, the more you need to pay attention to the movement of the camera and the hookups between shots. Otherwise, you risk losing your audience and alienating them at a time you should be exhilarating them. That's why audiences are mesmerized and entranced by complicated action films like "The Incredibles," "Terminator 2," and are regularly turned off by action films by Michael Bay and Stephen Sommers.

Look forward to a much larger article on camera movement, especially within the context of films like the "Spider-Man" series, Michael Bay, "Children of Men," "The Incredibles," "Van Helsing," and "Terminator 2."

• Nine minute preview to Disney/Pixar's "Ratatouille"
• Nine minute preview to Disney/Pixar's "Ratatouille" alternative site
  

Appearing As Himself: Sam Elliott

An actor with a powerful presence, Sam Elliott doesn't seem to get the chance to flex his acting range. He kinda ends up playing Sam Elliott over and over again. He's the displaced cowboy with the "It's What's For Dinner" voice, looking up at ya with that long face, slowly dishing out some oddly profound advice with a fantastic drawl.

"The Big Lebowski," "Tombstone," "Ghost Rider," about 5,324 other films, and now Chris Weitz' "The Golden Compass."

Of course, that mustache does most of the acting for him. The giant cowboy hat helps, too.

Spectacle

Do you like it when things blow up? If so, you'll be very happy on July 4. Then you'll learn what this guy is shooting at.

To get a taste of Bayhem, click here and make sure you watch it in HD.

• "Transformers" Trailer on Yahoo! Movies

Wonder Takes Time

A nice little New York Times article about marketing an original summer movie amidst a sea of sequels.

“Wonder takes time,” said Brad Bird, the movie's director. “You don’t rush wonder. You have to coax the audience toward you a little bit.”

For a summer whose blockbuster films include:

• Spider-Man 3 (sequel)
  
• Pirates 3 (sequel)
• Shrek 3 (sequel)
• Die Hard 4 (sequel)
• Harry Potter 5 (sequel)
• 28 Weeks Later (sequel)
• Fantastic Four 2 (sequel)
• Rush Hour 3 (sequel)
• Ocean's Thirteen (sequel)
• Evan Almighty (sequel)
• Hostel 2 (sequel)
• Transformers (based on toy/tv show)
• The Simpsons Movie (based on tv show)
• Halloween (remake)

... releasing an original movie like "Ratatouille" seems positively quaint. Article includes a blurb from Bob Gale, co-writer of one of the most original blockbusters of the last 30 years, "Back To The Future."

“It’s tragic,” the screenwriter Bob Gale said of what he sees as Hollywood’s lost inventiveness.

article:
It’s Not a Sequel, but It Might Seem Like One After the Ads
By Michael Cieply, The New York Times

The Future of Television

The great folks over at The AVClub have a great article about the future of the American television seasons. Noel Murray and Scott Tobias have a fantastic in-depth discussion about 1hr dramas , 1/2 hour comedies, 13-episode seasons, 24-episode seasons, and more.

Personally, I think that quality network dramas (i.e. "Lost") would benefit significantly from switching to a 13-episode season. Yes, this means less money for the studio, but creatively it would mean significantly less 'filler' episodes, you know, episodes that do not forward the main mythology of the series. More meat, less fluff.

In its waining years, "The X-Files" had far too many 'filler' episodes. I mean, those last three years were all 'filler,' weren't they?

• Is the American TV Season Outmoded? (The AVClub)
  

Fox is Awesome

Happening this morning on Fox News Channel:

Brian Wilson of Fox News Channel's "Weekend Live" news program is devoting a segment to the "American Idol" phenomenon. He's interviewing Kimberly Caldwell, the host of "Idol Tonight," a show on the TVGuide Channel that solely covers "American Idol."

Did you get all that? Fox-owned Fox News is interviewing a woman who works for a Fox-owned channel (TVGuide Channel) and Fox-owned magazine (TVGuide) about a show that is on the Fox network. And this is all occurring on a News channel.

It's kinda like when Pat O'Brien gets an 'exclusive' interview with Tom Cruise just before the release of "M:i:III" on "Entertainment Tonight," which is preceeded by an ad for "M:i:III" on a CBS affiliate. Did you see what happened there? Ever single piece is owned by Paramount/Viacom. "ET" itself, the very station that it is airing on, the advertisement, and "M:i:III" itself are all controlled by a single entity.

Don't you think it's strange that Harry Potter has been on the cover of Entertainment Weekly, oh, seven hundred and twenty two times? You wouldn't think it is strange when you realize that Time Warner owns both E.W. and the Harry Potter film and book franchise.