Showing posts with label Rants and Raves. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rants and Raves. Show all posts

Eight 80s Films Kids of the 2K0s Must See to 'Get' Their 40-something Parents



As I was watching a movie the other day, yeah, I tend to do that, set a couple of decades back, I got to thinking about how certain movies serve as a generational window into who we are. Given that many parents are waiting longer to have kids these days, I offer up this summary of Eight 80s Films Kids of the 2K0s Must See to 'Get' Their 40-something Parents.

1981 Raiders of the Lost Ark
Yes, Emmeline*, there was a real Indiana Jones, not like the one you saw when forced to go with your parents this past summer—they claimed you'd love it didn't they? No, he was a real adventurer, and it explains why your mom and dad will venture into almost any cave, anywhere, without any visible sign of fear. Likewise, it shows why your dad cannot stop laughing any time they re-do the famous Indiana Jones scene in movies, tv shows, and comedy sketches where a little guy hops up to attack another guy with his fancy moves, and the big guy just pulls out a gun and shoots him dead. Ah, such a defining moment for this generation. If you don't have style and flair, just have the bigger weapon.
___________
*Named after Brooke Shield's character in Blue Lagoon (1980).

1982 Poltergeist
Ever wondered why your parents don't think the horror movies you want to see with all this blood and gore are worth the price of admission? Well, for one thing, they're not really scary. Actually, you haven't been scared until a puppet clown disappears off the side chair in your bedroom in the middle of a thunderstorm where the lightning strikes keep getting closer and closer, and when you look under your bed for him, he grabs and pulls you under. Now, that's scary. Here's a movie that touches on every single basal fear human beings have from those frightening circus clowns to the tree branches that cast creepy shadows on our bedroom walls to the omnipresent dark closets in our bedrooms that obviously serve as the gateway to hell. I'm getting scared just writing this, and it explains why your parents always, always, always keep the closet doors shut and pay outrageous monthly fees for cable tv so there are NEVER any channels of tv-snow—you may not have ever even seen tv-snow for exactly that reason. No 40-something parent wants to return home from work and find their kid sitting there mesmerized by the white noise and indicating, "They're here."

1983 Risky Business
Every single teenager of the 1980s saw Risky Business repeatedly. This is where all 40-something parents, and I do mean all, fell in love with Tom Cruise—whom, to this day, no matter what the tabloids say and any such incidents of jumping on the couch on "Oprah", will always be the defining actor of their generation. He was the absolute coolest teenager…ever! My gosh, come on, who among them didn't wear those Ray-Ban® Wayfarer sunglasses 10 years past their prime—oh, by the way, they're back in fashion gents so pull them out of the back of your bureau sock drawer and don't pretend like you didn't save them. But, if you didn't, you can get a new pair at Ray-Ban.com. Kids, this is why you may have caught your dad dancing down the stairs in his unmentionables wearing nothing else but his unbuttoned dress shirt, white tube socks, and those Wayfarers while serenading apparently an empty living room. Yeah, he didn't make that up. It also explains their irrational allegiance to Tom Cruise (who is not crazy just because he follows a religion conceived by a science fiction writer), their love for funky old sunglasses, and their carved in stone rule that teenagers must never, ever be left in charge of the house when they are away on a trip.

1984 The Karate Kid
It's unclear whether is was the crane move, the expression of "wax on wax off", or just the fresh faces of Ralph Macchio and Elisabeth Shue that caught them off guard on this one. More than likely, The Karate Kid was the first coming of age film of the 1980s that sort of made sense in that it drew in a generation of teenagers to the stern but loving father figure of Pat Morita's Mr. Miyagi when their own sadly often absent fathers were hard at work trying to make a living off a menial salary that barely supported their two-car garage, tri-level ranch in the burbs and then only with tremendous sacrifice on their family budget. This was a defining film in giving them a belief that they could do anything despite their station in life. And, I just gave away one of the great mysteries of your life. You now know why either one of your parents or guardians might just crack up silly when assigning you chores and demonstrating the circular technique of polishing or waxing or scrubbing anything in a circular fashion with a customary line "wax on wax off" hee hee hee. You still don't get what's so funny? Well, wait until you're 40-something and you will.

1985 Back to the Future
Hello, McFly. Gosh how they loved Back to the Future. You teens have no idea how surreal it was when your younger sister forced your parents to listen to the Jonas Bros. and they understood not a single word of it save the mention of the "flux capacitor" in "The Year 3000"? No way you could get this reference unless you've been forced properly to watch Back to the Future. This is the movie that made Nikes and Calvin Klein jeans the mainstay of a hip dude. For girls it was the long curly hair. This was Huey Lewis and the News baby and "Hip to be Square". 40-something parents have to face it, you really were the nerd generation, and this movie brought many mantras you still utter to this day. 1985 was also the year of The Breakfast Club—the runner-up choice for this year. It's also a must-see if you want to understand why your parents are so cool about you being assigned to Saturday detention.

1986 Ferris Bueller's Day Off

Does anything have to be said about Ferris Bueller's Day Off? No film of the 1980s probably defines this 40-something generation better. Every one of you who's got a 40-something teacher has had to endure the inexplicable "Bueller, Bueller, Bueller?" line, right? But, what made this movie so defining was its theme of thumbing your nose at parental expectations and just living life in the moment. Of course, don't you expect to get to follow this example. They learned the hard way, as a philosophy of life, it doesn't exactly work too well. While your grandparents saved and scrimped to put them through college, they must instead explain to you, "Kid, I barely have $20K in my 401K, let's find you need something that can get you a scholarship!" See it and you'll no longer wonder why your father will walk four miles in a blizzard rather than surrender his car keys to a valet—it's not that he's too cheap to tip. This was also the year of Top Gun. Yeah more Tom Cruise, and it taught them the tragedy of losing a best friend.

1987 Dirty Dancing
Truthfully, there have been some other dancing films, like Flashdance that were pretty instrumental to the generation. But Dirty Dancing kind of has it all doesn't it? Come on Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey? This explains why "Dancing with the Stars" was destined to be a sure-fire hit. They like to deny it, but they love to watch people dance. They don't like to dance themselves, at least the men, but they sure do like to watch—especially if there's some really dirty dancing going on.

1988 Coming to America
When it comes to comedy, their superstar comedian Eddie Murphy defined the decade. His Beverly Hills Cop films were a riot--all the foul language, the daring stunts, the in your face comedy that was so raw. They'd never seen anything like him before. They didn't have Comedy Central. There was no "South Park". My gosh, there wasn't even "The Simpsons"—they didn't start until 1989. Yeah, 40-somethings, hard to believe, huh? Anyway, Eddie Murphy was the first comedian of the decade to really test the limits of comedy and define for a generation what was to become acceptable humor. It most definitely was not acceptable to their parents. So, Coming to America gets the nod here. Not only was it one of his funniest and best comedies and the first one where he played multiple characters, but it was also a great film where the all-black cast didn't occur to anyone. It signaled a change in the culture espoused by the generation that didn't think of Black people so much as Black people as much as they just thought of them as being cool people. History had finally afforded conditions whereby young people could grow up in the United States without acceptable racism. And it showed in not only this film but in many others of the decade as Black entertainers became mainstream and eventually, a Black man could acceptably run for president as this generation rose to power. This is not to say that racism is entirely in the past, unfortunately, still there are those who cling to their disgusting and antiquated views. However, thanks to films like Coming to America and the genius of Eddie Murphy and many others, great talents like Tyler Perry and Spike Lee can thrive today.

In conclusion, I leave a list of films that were close, but didn't quite make the list. Add them to your rental queue, though as each will give you one more slice of insights into your 40-something parents.

• Home Alone
• Adventures in Babysitting
• St. Elmo's Fire
• Pretty in Pink
• Terminator 2
• Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
• Star Wars: Return of the Jedi
• Superman II

Young Children at [R]-Rated Movies: Advice for Parents and Guardians

Increasingly, I have noticed an increase in the number of young children at [R]-Rated films, and I'm not talking about the ones that 'sneak' in even. I'm talking about ones that appear to be in the company of other people. While I haven't conducted surveys or exit interview, yet, it was apparent to me, for example, at last night's screening of Halloween, there were a bunch of young children in the age range of 4-9 scattered just rows from me. They were constantly bobbing up and down and needing go to the bathroom--which was annoying to the rest of the adult audience. Worse, however, is that these children were seeing such a violent and bloody film.

Parents and guardians of young children, beware. My contentions were that many of these young children were there in the presence of either baby sitters or older siblings. What a great idea! Huh? Instead of staying home to babysit, take the kid to a movie with some of your friends. Hopefully, the parents or guardians will never find out. Or maybe the sitter even mentioned taking them to the movies, just not which movie. In any case, while film ratings are by no means perfect, clearly an [R]-rated slasher movie is not place for a little kid. Halloween (2007) is the kind of movie that could traumatize a youngster for years to come. Many kids have long-lasting nightmares from animated villains in [G]-rated films, it's hard to imagine what kinds of dreams kids who see Halloween (2007) might have especially with all of the little kids in the film talking about the Boogey Man and then him actually showing up on their doorstep.

I implore parents and guardians to pay attention to the films your children are watching either on television or at the movies. Set your V-chip in your television to block matured content. As for the movies in theaters, don't take them to see [R]-rated films. Don't allow people in charge of them to do so either. Ask you child about the movies they saw and make sure they weren't taken to a different movie than you approved. Ask the sitter for the time of the film, and confirm there was a showing of the film you approved at the time stated with theatre. Ask for ticket stubs from the films (one for each person--the child and the sitter). Be wary of this method, though because ticket stubs can be picked up anywhere, and clever sitters or even older siblings can switch theaters. Ask your sitter to sign a pledge stating that he or she won't override your regulations on movie viewing. If all else fails, make sure you are the one taking your child to the movies.

It seems like a lot of parents and guardians, especially younger ones, seem to think it's ok to take a young kid to an [R]-rated film as long as they are accompanying the minors. After all, it sort of makes sense because the rating says, "No children under 17 will be admitted without parent or guardian". However, when you read what gets an [R]-rating you can see that most children under 17 would not benefit from seeing a film of this rating. For example, here is what the Motion Picture Association of America stated when giving Halloween (2007) an [R]-rating--"Rated R for strong brutal bloody violence and terror throughout, sexual content, graphic nudity and language." Having seen the film, I would challenge the notion that the film probably should have gotten an [NC-17] rating which excludes admittance by anyone under the age of 17. Unfortunately, the MPAA has had a hard time with this rating category because studios claim it is a kiss of death and that it kills box office results as many theaters won't show [NC-17] rated films--they don't want to have to go to all the trouble to enforce it. Lately, the MPAA has been loathe to use the [NC-17] rating unless there is strong sexual content in the film. Many film historians would agree they've always been more lenient on violent films than highly sexual films. It is any wonder then that the percentage of violent crimes in our nation's youth is so high?

The MPAA states the following in their rules as updated in April of 2007 which is of note: (from page 8 of the their Ratings Rules)

"Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R-rated motion pictures." The same section also states, "An R-rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements...."

The raters, according to the same guide, in rating films, are supposed to have the average mindset of American parents in determining if a film would or would not be approved by most parents.

Access the official ratings and reasons for the ratings for any approved film released in the United States along with the download of their ratings rules guide at www.filmratings.com

Finally, movie theatres always claim there's no really effective way they can ensure that kids don't slip into the wrong theaters. Actually there is. They could simply wait outside when the film is over, and ask for stubs from all kids who look like they are underage. Kids that have the wrong stubs or no stubs at all could then be banned from the theater and have their parents called. We worry a lot in our nation about underage drinking, but we don't worry that much about underage exposure to violent films. Then we turn around and ask why so many young people join gangs and become violent. Hmm. The film industry still claims there is no evidence that watching violent films leads to violent behavior, and they may be right, but why take the chance when it seems like a pretty logical correlation? They go to all the trouble to rate the films, why not just adhere to them?

American Film Institute - 40th Anniversary Tribute

This year marks the American Film Institute's 40th Anniversary. In honor of that occasion and their 10th Annual 100 year 100 movies tribute show (which airs this year on CBS at 7:00 p.m. Central and Mountain Time), they have been asking people to comment on their blog about their favorite film. I laud the AFI and their involvement in honoring achievements in American cinema and for inviting so many of us to participate in the conversation about great films.

Accordingly, I took a moment to post a bit on their blog and mine about my favorite film, which is no secret on this blog.

The Sixth Sense -- Best Twist Ever

(Click to Purchase Poster)

First of all, there is a difference between a person's favorite film and, perhaps, the film that he or she might rank as the best of all time. For a great many years, E.T. The Extra Terrestrial was my favorite film. As a young high school newspaper film critic, I was invited to see it at the Denver area trade screening--long before most regular critics had even seen it. I'll never forget how it felt experiencing the film having no clue as to whether E.T. was a good or bad alien. It was that twist that the rest of the world never enjoyed. They'd already seen E.T. and Elliot side-by-side on the cover of Time Magazine as best friends. For me, really, to become my favorite film, it's all in the magic of the twist. Hence why no sooner did The Sixth Sense come out, then it became my new favorite film, somewhat sadly, as I hated to see E.T. replaced. The Sixth Sense was the first film that I saw and immediately went to the ticket counter to see a second time. I needed, right then, to discover how I had been 'tricked'. Why had not I noticed? Were there clues I just had not see? In my mind, at the present point in time, the twist in The Sixth Sense is a crowning achievement in cinema. It will be very, very hard to ever top it. Even M. Night Shyamalan has not done so, and if anyone should be able to top him, it would be himself.

Haley Joel Osment from as Cole Sear
(Click Still Photo to Purchase)

The elegance of this film though with its incredible ability to weave together all of the most potent human emotions from fear to joy to humor to sadness comes from the interactions of young Haley Joel Osment--who definitely got robbed with no nomination for Best Actor and losing the Supporting Actor to, with all due respect, Mr. Michael Caine--with Bruce Willis and Toni Collette. I have seen the film in excess of 30 times, and no matter how you slice it up, the film is a masterpiece in every way. Shot by shot, moment by moment, the film's depth of perception into the souls of what ails us captivates and challenges our own understanding of the value of a life filled with regrets. There have been amazing, gripping, powerful, and outstanding films before and since The Sixth Sense to be sure, but no film before or since has dangled the bait of such a compelling twist and in a quick montage at the end tied it all up revealing with clever compunction how it was all right there to be noticed but for, perhaps, us not seeing that which we would not want to believe.

Please visit their blog to post about your favorite film: AFI's 100 Years 100 Movies Blog and / or visit the AFI main site to find out all about their annual 3-hour show and all the good work they do for American film.


Internet Movie Piracy Sites and Links to Them

Today's rant surrounds a growing problem on the web regarding illegal movie piracy, and it has two parts. First, there are a growing number of sites that are either sending people to theaters with video cameras to film movies or pirating copies some other way and then loading these onto the web for people to download or watch for free. The second part has to do with the ever-increasing number of web sites that are nothing more than link sites disguised as real movie enthusiast sites that provide all the links these people can find back to the host sites that host these illegal copies of movies.

Some basics for people that seem to be confused.

(A) It is illegal to upload your own purchased copies of films to the internet or to share them over the internet. By the way, this has never been legal. Some people think it's just fine because they think it's just the same as them loaning a copy of their DVD to a friend. Well, guess what, it is legal to loan your copy to a friend. It is not legal however to upload your copy to the internet so that it can be shared with millions of people.

(B) It is illegal to go into a movie theater and pirate the film by recording it. Most people seem to know this. People that do this are committing a crime. If you get caught doing this, expect to be in a lot of trouble. We are talking huge fines and prison time. International treaties and laws are in place to handle people caught doing this. If you see someone doing this, you should report it to an usher immediately.

(C) It is illegal to make a copy of movies and give them away or sell them. Yep! You read that correctly. People always seem to think that it's ok as long as you don't sell it. WRONG! It is illegal to make the copy. US Copyright law permits anyone who legally obtains optical data (DVD) or magnetic data (VHS) to make an archival copy (now virtually impossible with all of the copy protection) to store in case the original is destroyed. Beyond that, no copying is legal. Giving away a copy or selling a copy is an even more serious crime.

Why is all of this illegal?
I am constantly asked why should this stuff be illegal? Why shouldn't people just be able to post up their copy of Spider-Man 2 to the YouTube broken into bite-sized segments for all their friends to watch? It's no different than having them over and eating pizza and watching it together is it? Well, yes, because it of (C) above. You see, you cannot upload the film because that is making a copy of it, and the owner of the film did not give you the right to make a copy on a computer server somewhere, even in your own house. It may not, in some ways be different from inviting friends over to watch it, however, the principle notion here is based on the concept that the artists involved in the creation of the film are entitled to royalties. When you buy a DVD of a film, the artists are all sharing in the price you paid. Given that it may have only cost you $15 and there may be over 250 people in the credits, even if they all got an equal share of the $15 (which they don't becaus the store which sold it gets a big share, etc.) that would be a pretty small amount of money per artist. If you make a copy and give it to a friend, the artists are getting zilch. If you invite 10 people over to watch the film, the artist is also gettin zilch. But that's only 10 people, it's not the millions that can be reached from your YouTube post. The current agreements take into account that most people do not buy a DVD and watch it alone. It presumes a few others will watch that copy. If every person had to have his or her own copy to watch it, guess what, they would sell DVDs at a lower price! It's sort of like the movie ticket concept. Every person that goes in has to buy a ticket. And because every person pays, every person pays a lower price. If everyone got to bring along 10 friends, the ticket would have to cost a lot more. Makes sense?

But the artists are all so rich and make so much money anyway, why should I care?
Well, first of all, the headliners may be rich. But they derive their income from many other sources than their salaries in movies. But, stay and watch the credits and see how many people are really involved. And these people are not rich, and these people are working hard to earn a living for their families. And they may not even be getting royalties, but they are hurt if you pirate films because movie studios make less money, and have less money to make more movies therefore that could be the 250th person in the credit's next meal ticket in an industry that is pretty fickle, hit and miss, work when you can get it in the first place.


But if they'd charge less I'd buy rather than pirate or try to download for free.

Ironically, this is the very attitude that forces the industry to charge more. They are charging more to try to offset some of the the theft. As they have no way of knowing how much theft there is, only that there is some theft, they charge the honest people an upcharge to offset the cost of the money lost to pirates. Again, it's easier, probably to think about a movie theater again. They charge everyone who comes in a fee for a ticket. If suddenly every person who went to the movies had the attitude of the person who made the statement above and decided to let in their friend through the back door, the theater would see the ticket sales cut in half. Eventually, to stave themselves from bankruptcy, they'd have to raise ticket prices. So, it people would stop pirating, prices could and would come down to more affordable levels. Pirates don't quite get that they are not just stealing then from the companies that make movies, they are really stealing from everyone as the honest people pay more and more to offset the piracy. I've had good friend tell me that they see nothing wrong with pirating a movie or buying a dupe of a DVD from a street vendor. Huh? It's hurting me! Are we still friends?

For much more on this topic, the Motion Picture Association of America® (MPAA) has a lot of great info on movie piracy and who it hurts and why. Here is a link to their site: http://www.mpaa.org/piracy.asp. They also have a way to report piracy.

On to the second part: The Sites with Links
Lately, I've been growing more and more annoyed by the huge number of sites people are creating that are directories to sites that display or download movies illegally. Oh sure, a lot of them have huge disclaimers "We do not host these films, we just provide the links." That's supposed to make it all good. Worse, these people are making a lot of money off these link sites. I checked out 3 today. Two of three had disclaimers, the third didn't bother. One of them had a bunch of comments about how unfair it was that Google® was threatening to close their blog and not let them carry ads. Well, honestly, I'm not a huge fan of any site that is nothing more than links to other sites unless it is a directory site or search engine. But a site with links to illegal sites, run by people who say, "I'm not doing anything wrong," seem silly to me. Is it illegal to have such sites? No. Is it moral? To me it's like a person that knows there's a market in town that if you ask "Can I see your Oriental rugs?" and that's code for "let me into the back room to check out the stolen merchandise you have for sale" and puts up a big sign advertising this market in their own shop with the password "Can I see your Oriental rugs?" just under the sign. Sure, it's true, you aren't selling the illegal merchandise. But you are drawing people to your site to direct them to the illegal sites. Make no mistake, these sites that allow the uploading and transmission of copyrighted materials or movies are illegal. So, it may not be illegal to use your site to direct people to illegal sites, but it's certainly a very morally questionable concept. If all you can do with your site for content is post up links to illegal sites, one has to wonder why you are bothering to have a site. Unless, of course, you are making a good deal of money off your site, in which case, one would say, "Hmm, aren't you profiting indirectly, therefore, off the illegal movie sites?" Again, this is a legal gray area, but it is not gray morally. Morally, it is wrong. A person that assists people in finding ways to break the law, is not much different from the people that break it.

In conclusion, as there are so many excellent and legal ways to obtain films that reward the people involved in the making of the films in the first place, and the industry would be able to charge less were it not having to offset losses due to piracy, I would like to encourage all movie watchers to consider the consequences of either seeking pirated movies to watch or download or taking part in the proliferation of pirated movies. Second, I would like to ask everyone running a blog or site of links to pirated movies to consider the morality behind their actions. This is a stunningly bad and particularly distasteful endeavor.




Some Perfectly Excellent and Legal Options for You:

MovieLink

Movielink, LLC

iTunes™

Apple iTunes

Amazon.com UnBox

Female Directors Get No Respect



What you can do?
• sign the electronic petition
• write the Academy (sample letter below)
• send the link to this article to a friend
• support films directed by women at the box office
• buy films directed by women

Today, as I was writing my review for Waitress, it dawned on me again that female directors get no respect. Here is a film written, directed, and acted in by Adrienne Shelly. Yes, she was very much a female. And, wow was she ever talented. [Note: Adrienne Shelly was tragically murdered in November of 2006 before her last film, Waitress, was released. Please support the foundation created by her husband which supports film careers of young women. The Adrienne Shelly foundation.]. I'm always amazed by people who can really write and direct their own work. But to be able to act in the story as well, that's a true gift. In any case, thinking about Ms Shelly's talent, however, returned me to one of the things that outrages me most in today's film industry and about which I have written before. My apologies, in advance, for sounding like damaged iPod™ in repeating this over and over; but, honestly, it is time to make this a major national cause. It is time to recognize again that, since 1927/28 according to awardsdatabase.oscars.org, there have only been three nominations out of 385 nominations that have gone to female directors:

Lina Wertmüller for Seven Beauties at the 49th Academy Awards®
Jane Campion for The Piano at the 66th Academy Awards®
Sofia Coppola for Lost in Traslation at the 76th Academy Awards®

Guess what? Not one of them won for Best Directing.

That's 0.77% of the nominations have gone to women and 0% have won.

Let's think about this. Imagine if it were the same for Best Actor. Imagine if there were no Best Actress Award. Imagine if there had been 385 nominations since 1927/28 and only 3 women had ever been nominated. Imagine if not one had ever won. Wouldn't there be an outcry? Would people say, "Ah, well women don't get strong roles."? Would they say, "Well there aren't that many women out there acting."?

Let's break this down:

Either (A):

It is entirely gender-biased that the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences broke the acting category into two--one for each gender to recognize the best acting performance of each gender each year. It has held nominations and awards separately for actors every year since the beginning, by the way. When actually, the award should be given for the best, overall performance by an actor (the inclusive term that includes both men and women).

or (B):

It is entirely gender-biased that the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences has not broken the directing category into two--one for each gender to recognize the best directing by a person of each gender each year.

I do not protest to know which would be better or worse except that it is all too clear at this time that female directors are not getting the support they need. Not from fans, not from studios, not from producers, etc. Can women not handle the job of being a director? Absolutely they can. Clearly they can even be nominated for their work up against men as were Ms Wertmüller, Ms Campion, and Ms Coppola. Some industry experts will shrug at the question and say, "Well, there just aren't that many women directing films." Yikes and gulp! Isn't this the same thing we used to hear about physicians, lawyers, and CEOs. Did we throw up our hands and say, oh well? Women now outnumber men in medical school, by the way, and how many female asst. district attorneys has Sam Waterston had on "Law and Order"? The CEO category still needs help, but the numbers are growing.

The time has come to split the Academy Award® for Directing into two categories: one for men and one for women. The Board of Governors needs to be persuaded that this change must come until we see equality in the nominations. This is the only fair and equitable way to effect change in the industry, provide acknowledgement for achievement in Directing by women; and, most importantly, encourage young women to believe they too can become directors thereby opening doors and smashing this paradigm. Some critics of this proposal would obviously say it weakens the category or the pool or whatever. Shame on them. Would they say the same about the Actor/Actress awards? My point is you really cannot have it both way. This is only one of the top awards that has not proven as equally open to women as the others. All of the writing awards and documentary awards have proven to be equal opportunity endeavors. But the Academy and Hollywood in general have seen fit to squeeze women out of the Best Directing award.

While I have written about this topic before, now I am choosing to do something about it. I'm doing the following:

(A) Asking you to post your comments in support of this cause,
(B) Asking you to write letters to the Academy urging them to split the category ASAP so that it can begin as soon as possible (a sample letter you can use is shown below with their address),
(C) Asking you to sign the electronic petition I set up at and indicate your support for this cause,
(D) Asking you to encourage everyone you know to support this cause by emailing them a link to this post and/or the petition, and
(E) Asking you to support the cause at the Box Office where it matters most by seeing films directed by women.

The time was long ago that the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences needed to make this change rather than waiting over 70 years to realize a major gaffe in inadvertently supporting ingrained, rampant, gender bias in their industry.



Sample Letter for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences:


(insert your name and address here)
(insert the current date here)

Mr. Sid Ganis
President of the AMPAS
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
Academy Foundation
8949 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, California 90211

Dear President Ganis,

I am writing today to address an issue that has recently begun to gain some national attention. Specifically, the lack of nominations for female directors in the category of Best Directing for your annual awards is cause for alarm. In the history of the awards, there have been 385 nominations for Best Directing, only 3 nominations, less than 0.8%, have gone to women, and no woman has ever won the award. Would the Academy members sit back and let this go on if the same could be said for Best Acting? No, they likely would not. We cannot know for certain though because since the Awards began in 1927/28, the Academy had the wisdom to ensure this never happened by splitting the acting awards along gender lines. Maybe this was a gender-biased decision at the time, but it has served the Awards well ensuring that both genders would be honored equally ever since. The same cannot be said for the Best Directing category.

Please consider the voice of the people and urge your members and Board of Governors to split the Best Directing category along gender lines as soon as possible. Doing so will vastly increase the opportunities for young women with a glimmer in their eye about the possibility of becoming the next Academy Award®-winning director, ensure gender equity in the nominations of Best Directing, and improve the industry overall by increasing opportunities for women in the industry.

Sincerely,

(insert your name here)


A related article from CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/08/07/female.directors.ap/index.html?eref=rss_showbiz

Today's Rant: Cell Phone Users Ruining Movie-Going Experience

Recently, I've noticed a new way in which cell phone users are ruining the movie-going experience. Looks like we're going to need a new round of pre-movie advertisements from cell phone companies. Note: My favorite one yet is the one featuring Academy Award®-winning director Sydney Pollack interrupting a guy's smarmy apology phone call to his girlfriend and ending with him asking, "I'm sorry. Is my directing interferring with your phone call?" So, I'd suggest a sequel to this hilarious reminder to cell phone users calling on them to recognize their activities disrupt the experience for everyone else only this time reminding them that while texting messages on their cell phone during a movie might be silent, the glaring, Luxor® Hotel beacons of light they shoot up in the otherwise mostly darkened theaters is nearly as bad. So, we don't just need cell phones silenced, we need the blasted things dimmed. I cannot fathom why they don't just turn them off and put them away. Why are they at the movies? Why did they just shell out over $10 in ticket, snacks, and parking fees to sit and text their buddy during the entire movie? If they are that bored, why don't they just go back home and text to their heart's content? People, going to see a movie in a theater is a shared experience just like going to see a show on Broadway or a sporting event. There are different levels of etiquette. One doesn't shout during a tennis match. While it may be okay to cheer during a break-away run toward the end zone. Nobody stands up and goes to the bathroom during a Broadway show, they wait for the intermission. Movie theaters have some relaxed standards. You can munch your nachos while sipping a frosty Mr. Pibb®. You can quietly exit to use the facilities and return without too much disruption of the experience for others as long as you sit on the end of a row! You should not, however, talk, shout out your own lines, talk on your cell phone, or light it up so that you can find your way back to your seat or text your friends or write emails or whatever. Think about those seated around you who also shelled out heavy dough to see the movie. They did not hope to see you or hear you or be distracted by you. So, please silence your cell phones and put them away. Dim them and keep them in your pocket. Go to the movies to see the movie. Such actions are disrespectful of the artists who made the film and those others who came to enjoy it.

mEd Readers 2006 Film Award Winners


movieEVERYday.com Presents
Winners for 2006

Official movieEVERYday.com 2006 readers poll results and winners for best films and acting performance categories of the year as well as worst film.

Best Film of the Year


(click poster to purchase)

Nominees: Children of Men, Little Miss Sunshine, Notes on a Scandal, Pan's Labyrinth, We Are Marshall

Worst Film of the Year


(click poster to purchase)

Nominees: Beerfest, Black Christmas, Date Movie, Hostel, Jackass: Number Two, Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector, Slither, Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, When a Stranger Calls

Best Animated Film of the Year


(click poster to purchase)

Nominees: Cars, Happy Feet, Monster House, Renaissance, A Scanner Darkly

Best Male* Director of the Year


(click poster to purchase)

Nominees: Alfonso Cuaron -- Children of Men, John Curran -- The Painted Veil, Stephen Frears -- The Queen, McG -- We Are Marshall, Edward Zwick -- Blood Diamond

Best Actress of the Year


(click poster to purchase)

Toni Collette -- Little Miss Sunshine, Beyonce Knowles -- Dreamgirls, Helen Mirren -- The Queen, Naomi Watts -- The Painted Veil, Kate Winslet -- Little Children

Best Actor of the Year


(click poster to purchase)

Nominees: Christian Bale -- The Prestige, Leonardo DiCaprio -- Blood Diamond , Aaron Eckhart -- Thank You for Smoking, Will Ferrell -- Stranger Than Fiction, Edward Norton -- The Painted Veil

Best Supporting Actor of the Year


(click poster to purchase)

Nominees:Michael Caine -- The Prestige, Terrence Howard -- Idlewild , James McAvoy -- The Last King of Scotland, Michael Sheen -- The Queen, Mark Wahlberg -- The Departed

Best Supporting Actress of the Year


(click poster to purchase)

Nominees: Ivana Baquero -- Pan's Labyrinth , Cate Blanchette -- Notes on a Scandal, Jennifer Hudson -- Dreamgirls, Scarlett Johansson -- The Prestige, Paula Patton -- Idlewild

________
Note: Voting was conducted for the nominees throughout the month of February. The winner was declared in each category from all votes received.

Also Note: movieEVERYday.com is not affiliated with the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences® in any way.

*Note: movieEVERYday.com in as avid supporter of equal rights and gender balance in the art of filmmaking. Unfortunately, a terrible oversight was made this year in following the lead of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences® (with whom we have no affiliation) by offering nominations and awards in the Best Directing category without a gender split as there is in acting. This long-held paradigm difference in the directing and acting categories, we now believe has negatively contributed to the disparity in the field of directing when it comes to the acceptance of women as directors. Hence forth, the movieEVERYday.com readers awards will split the category into two: one for best directing by a man and best director by a woman. We believe this split should be done by the AMPAS® as well and have started a petition and letter writing campaign to urge them to do so. Please support these causes. Also please feel free to read more and the statistics supporting the exclusion of women from the category on this site.

jump to petition
jump to letter writing campaign information and statistics