Spielberg delivers the T-Rex money shot in "Jurassic Park".

(Steven Spielberg, 1993)

November 26, 2009

by Joel Crary

For my money, no modern director is as consistently reliable as Steven Spielberg, who approaches a wide variety of genres with a seemingly tireless eagerness to make exemplars for each. The first three-quarters of “Jurassic Park” is superb adventure filmmaking of the highest order. One scene, in which a Tyrannosaurus Rex breaks free of its enclosure and attacks a group of tourists, remains among one of the most harrowing ever filmed. Before the 21st century Spielberg, who elected to go all George Lucas on a re-released “E.T.” that toned down its scarier material, his younger self had no qualms with putting children in harm’s way.

As a child, I loved him for it. Sixteen years after I saw the film in theatres, there is still a palpable sense of terror to the T-Rex scene as it nearly crushes the children under a sunroof before flipping the car and grinding it into the muddied road like a finished cigarette. In that scene and others in which dinosaurs are majestically portrayed as having returned to roam the earth after 65 million years, the boy in Spielberg is apparent, using all of the tools at his disposal to recreate the wonder he must have felt at a young age when flipping through illustrations in a grade school science textbook.

I had a first or second row seat for my first viewing of “Jurassic Park”. People crammed into theatres to see it , the result of a marketing campaign that spent a dollar for every year that dinosaurs had been extinct. It seemed less a film that a full-on cultural event, something completely unique in light of most of its competition in the summer of ‘93, which included “Super Mario Bros.” and “Last Action Hero”. Merchandise and ancillary products dominated store shelves. Toronto named their new basketball team after a dinosaur that no one had so much as heard of three years prior.

Most significantly, “Jurassic Park” was the film that changed the movie-making landscape with regard to CGI. Sequences such as the running of the gallimimus herd and the brachiosaurus encounter, animated by the effects creators at the still teenaged Industrial Light & Magic, opened up doors of possibility for animators still working within the limitations of stop motion on productions. After “Jurassic Park”, unreal creatures began to move more fluently, extending the possibilities of the corporeal onscreen.

The film’s strongest effects work, however, remains in the realm of animatronics, which have always trumped CGI. The T-Rex is actually there in the frame, screaming like something out of a nightmare as it tears an electric fence to pieces. The potency of “Jurassic Park’s” dinosaur scenes comes from the effort of the effects team to study the creatures’ behaviour and apply it to their movements. The filmmakers are aware that all most of us know about dinosaurs comes from what we have retained from lessons and theories learned in childhood – the T-Rex can’t see you if you don’t move; the brontosaurus eats leaves, not people – thereupon building our empathy for the hapless characters as they find themselves at the mercy of natural selection.

For the most part, Michael Crichton and David Koepp’s script is wisely fueled by the awe of their characters. These days, the movie starts to lose me around the time Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) has to restore electrical power to the park. Spielberg gets a little too energetic with his camera movements, which try in vain to pump life into the film after the T-Rex scene has shattered the nerves. There are plot holes and conveniences galore, such as the scene where Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) throws a stick at an electric fence to see if it’s still working, or the fact that 13-year-old Lex (Ariana Richards) knows how to navigate a UNIX interface to restore the compound’s locking mechanisms.

“Jurassic Park” was my introduction to the brilliance of Jeff Goldblum. Viewing Ian Malcolm in the post-Brundlefly context puts a whole new weird spin on his oddly delivered observations regarding chaos theory in the evolutionary process, but he’s wasted in the film’s second half, where he is positioned in fetishistic shots that linger on his bare chest and placement akin to some kind of fallen Greek deity. Samuel L. Jackson also plays an understated role as one of the park’s technicians with an Andy Capp smoke perpetually dangling from his lips, and in his portlier days, Wayne Knight tangles with an acid-spitting dilophosaurus and loses in mucky fashion.

The character I’ve come to enjoy most is Robert Muldoon (Bob Peck), who lived in Crichton’s book but dies in the film. In spite of his fatal error in hunting velociraptors, he’s the one guy out of the lot I’d trust to escape the island with, as he’s the only one who seems to acknowledge exactly what the dinosaurs are capable of. Had he survived, I believe he could have single-handedly prevented the next two installments in the “Jurassic Park” series, or at least brought some much needed good sense to “The Lost World”.

John Hammond (Richard Attenborough), the showman, cares little for the science behind his attraction. I like his bit of dialogue about the flea circus, pregnant as it is with the idea of trading in things we can’t see for things that are too big to imagine, overwhelming ourselves with our own power simply to see if it can be done. “Jurassic Park” is about ambition and a desire for capital triumphing over good ideas, told with an excitement for the scientific method and what becomes possible for the adult who never fully grows out of his childhood fantasies. Spielberg clearly never has.

Generale tedesco rivolto al capitano Hilts (Steve McQueen): Alla fine sembra che lei veda Berlino prima di me…

Roger Bartlett “X Uno”, leader dello squadrone ( Richard Attenborough): Si devono chiedere un sacco di cose strane nel mio lavoro…

When did you move to the UK and why?

I have always been a bit of an anglophile, and living here allows me to travel round the UK and Ireland on the weekends. Also I was bored in Sydney and wanted to move to a country where I didn’t know anyone or have any connections – it makes things more exciting.

What was your first weird experience?

I haven’t really had one weird experience, but if I had to name something I guess it is realising how easily offended the English are generally. Despite all the Australians in London, they still haven’t picked up that when we say pants we mean trousers and thongs mean flip-flops. I’m trying to remember those two just so that I don’t get any more looks.

You worked for the same company in Sydney and London? How do they compare?

Both are friendly, but Australians approach work differently for sure – they are more straight forward and don’t have so many meetings. Londoners love meetings.

What do you miss the most about home?

My friends, for sure. I’ve had to cut back my swearing and dark humour a lot since moving here as it doesn’t seem to go down well!

Who are your fave English bands and writers?

The Kinks I think. I like a lot of the writers for the Times, like Sathnam Sanghera.

Which B grade British celebrity do you love to hate?

Kerry Katona. Whenever I’m having a bad day I just think of her latest shenanigans and I realise I’m doing okay after all.

What do you read on the tube?

I rarely use the tube as I walk to work, but when I do I pick up whatever newspaper is left on the seat, like the Metro.

Finish these sentences

The best things about the UK are … the innumerable places of historical significance, safe pubs, good transport system, great accents.

The best thing to come out of England is … Richard Attenborough (David’s not too bad either), BBC Radio 4, high tea.

The next prime minister of England should be … the Queen. She’d get the place back on track.

Boris Johnson is … well spoken, blond.

#100!

Data
Title: The Great Escape
Year: 1963
Length: 172 minutes
Director: John Sturges
Writers: James Clavell & W.R. Burnett, based on the book by Paul Brickhill
Starring: Steve McQueen, James Garner, Richard Attenborough, James Donald, Charles Bronson, Donald Pleasence, James Coburn, Hannes Messemer
Music: Elmer Bernstein
Distinctions: currently #100 on IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: WWII POWs plot a massive escape attempt to distract German resources
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Good. The plot is great, but the details start to seriously fall apart at the end.  I had to look it up online to even see if the plan worked.
Characters: Indifferent. I had no investment in any of these people. Also, after looking online, it seems that the people on which the characters are based were actually pretty interesting. But in the movie we get “I like to ride bikes.”
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good. Attenborough is great. Most of the other leads are just okay.
Music: Bad. “…this land belongs to you and me!” So. Very. Obnoxious.
Subjective Rating: 5/10 (Indifferent). Lots of potential, but a pretty boring movie.
Objective Rating: 6/10 (Okay).

ஒரிஜினல் லிஸ்ட் இங்கே. பாஸ்டன் பாலாவுக்கு நன்றி!

சைரனோ டி பெர்கராக், Cyrano de Bergerac – எட்மண்ட் ரோஸ்டாண்ட் எழுதிய புத்தகம். வெகு நாட்களுக்கு முன் படித்த நாடகம், கதை மட்டுமே மங்கலாக நினைவிருக்கிறது. ஹோசே ஃபெர்ரர் நடித்து ஒரு முறை, ஜெரார்ட் டிபார்டியூ நடித்து ஒரு முறை வந்திருக்கிறது. இரண்டையும் கமல் குறிப்பிடுகிறார், இரண்டையும் நான் பார்த்ததில்லை.

ஸ்பார்டகஸ், Spartacus – ஹோவர்ட் ஃபாஸ்ட் எழுதிய நாவல். ஸ்டான்லி குப்ரிக் இயக்கி கிர்க் டக்ளஸ் நடித்த புகழ் பெற்ற படம். என் கண்ணில் சுமாரான படம்தான். நாவல் படித்ததில்லை.

எ க்ளாக்வொர்க் ஆரஞ்ச், A Clockwork Orange – அந்தோனி பர்ஜஸ் எழுதிய நாவல். படித்ததில்லை. ஸ்டான்லி குப்ரிக் இயக்கி மால்கம் மக்டொவல் நடித்தது. பிரமாதமான படம். குப்ரிக் கலக்கிவிட்டார்.

லாஸ்ட் டெம்ப்டேஷன் ஆஃப் க்ரைஸ்ட், Last Temptation of Christ – நிகோலாய் கசான்ட்சாகிஸ் எழுதிய நாவல். மார்டின் ஸ்கொர்ஸஸி இயக்கி இருக்கிறார். பார்த்ததுமில்லை, படித்ததுமில்லை.

பீயிங் தேர், Being There – ஜெர்சி கொசின்ஸ்கி எழுதிய நாவல். ஹால் ஆஷ்பி இயக்கி பீட்டர் செல்லர்ஸ் நடித்தது. படித்ததில்லை, ஆனால் படம் பார்த்திருக்கிறேன். சுமாரான படம்.

ட்ரெய்ன்ஸ்பாட்டிங், Trainspotting – இர்வின் வெல்ஷ் எழுதிய நாவல். ஸ்லம்டாக் மில்லியனர் புகழ் டான்னி பாயில் இயக்கியது. பார்த்ததுமில்லை, படித்ததுமில்லை, கேள்விப்பட்டதும் இல்லை.

பர்ஃப்யூம், Perfume – யாரோ பாட்ரிக் சுஸ்கிண்ட் எழுதியதாம். டாம் டைக்வர் இயக்கியதாம். பார்த்ததுமில்லை, படித்ததுமில்லை, கேள்விப்பட்டதும் இல்லை.

சிட்டி சிட்டி பாங் பாங், Chitti Chitti Bang Bang – ஜேம்ஸ் பாண்ட் புகழ் இயன் ஃப்ளெமிங் எழுதிய சிறுவர்களுக்கான புத்தகம். டிக் வான் டைக் நடித்தது. படம் சிறுவர் சிறுமிகளுக்கு பிடிக்கும். நாவல் படித்ததில்லை.

க்யூரியஸ் கேஸ் ஆஃப் பெஞ்சமின் பட்டன், Curious Case of Benjamin Button – ஸ்காட் ஃபிட்ஸ்ஜெரால்ட் எழுதிய சிறுகதை. ப்ராட் பிட் நடித்து டேவிட் ஃபிஞ்சர் இயக்கியது. இந்த வருஷ ஆஸ்கார் போட்டியில் ஸ்லம்டாக் மில்லியனருக்கு பெரும் போட்டியாக இருந்தது. படித்ததில்லை, இன்னும் பார்க்கவும் இல்லை.

ஃபாரஸ்ட் கம்ப், Forrest Gump – வின்ஸ்டன் க்ரூம் எழுதியது. டாம் ஹாங்க்ஸ் நடித்து ராபர்ட் ஜெமகிஸ் இயக்கியது. சராசரிக்கு மேலான படம். பல ஆஸ்கார் விருதுகளை வென்றது. ஆனால் அந்த சமயத்தில் வந்த பல்ப் ஃபிக்ஷன், ஷாஷான்க் ரிடம்ப்ஷன் ஆகியவை இதை விட சிறந்த படங்கள். புத்தகம் படித்ததில்லை.

மாரத்தான் மான், Marathon Man- வில்லியம் கோல்ட்மான் எழுதிய நாவல். டஸ்டின் ஹாஃப்மன், லாரன்ஸ் ஒலிவியர் நடித்து ஜான் ஷ்லேசிங்கர் இயக்கியது. பார்த்ததுமில்லை, படித்ததுமில்லை.

மாஜிக், Magic – இதுவும் வில்லியம் கோல்ட்மான் எழுதிய நாவல். அந்தோனி ஹாப்கின்ஸ் நடித்து ரிச்சர்ட் அட்டன்பரோ இயக்கியது. பார்த்ததுமில்லை, படித்ததுமில்லை, கேள்விப்பட்டதும் இல்லை.

டிராகுலா, Dracula – ப்ராம் ஸ்டோகர் எழுதிய நாவல். கமல் ஃப்ரான்சிஸ் ஃபோர்ட் கொப்போலா இயக்கிய படத்தை சொல்கிறார். நான் பார்த்திருப்பது பழைய பேலா லுகோசி நடித்த படம்தான். லுகொசி ஒரு eerie உணர்வை நன்றாக கொண்டு வருவார். நாவல் சுமார்தான், ஆனால் ஒரு genre-இன் பிரதிநிதி.

காட்ஃபாதர், Godfather – மரியோ பூசோ எழுதியது. அல் பசினோ, மார்லன் பிராண்டோ நடித்து ஃப்ரான்சிஸ் ஃபோர்ட் கொப்போலா இயக்கிய மிக அருமையான படம். நல்ல நாவலும் கூட.

கமல் கொஞ்சம் esoteric படங்களை விரும்புவார் போல தெரிகிறது. எனக்கு மிகவும் பிடித்த, மிக அற்புதமான நாவலும், அருமையான படமும் ஆன To Kill a Mockingbird-ஐ விட்டுவிட்டாரே!

கமலின் லிஸ்டில் காட்ஃபாதர் மட்டுமே நல்ல புத்தகம், மற்றும் நல்ல படம் – என்னைப் பொறுத்த வரையில். நான் படித்திருக்கும் புத்தகமும் அது ஒன்றுதான். கமல் சொல்லி இருக்கும் படங்களில் நான் பாதிக்கு மேல் பார்த்ததில்லை. பார்த்த வரையில் காட்ஃபாதர் மற்றும் எ க்ளாக்வொர்க் ஆரஞ்ச் மட்டுமே பார்க்க வேண்டிய படம். ஆனால் அவர் சொல்லி இருக்கும் படங்களில் பல பிரபலமான படங்கள் – ஸ்பார்டகஸ், ஃபாரஸ்ட் கம்ப், பெஞ்சமின் பட்டன், சிட்டி சிட்டி பாங் பாங் – இருக்கின்றன. பார்த்திருப்பீர்கள். படித்திருப்பீர்கள். நீங்கள் கமலின் தேர்வுகளைப் பற்றி என்ன நினைக்கிறீர்கள்?

தொடர்புடைய பதிவுகள்
கமல் சிபாரிசுகள் – சிறந்த திரைக்கதைகள் உள்ள தமிழ் படங்கள்

Jurassic Park (1993)
★★★★ / ★★★★

“Jurassic Park” was one of my favorite movies when I was about seven years old and it still remains a guilty pleasure of mine. (And I’m guessing my love for this film will be passed on to my kids.) Based on the novel by Michael Crichton and directed by the great Steven Spielberg, this film made me experience every emotion that there was to experience in (smart) summer blockbusters and creature-feature movies: heart-pounding thrills, suspense embedded in silences, funny one-liners, and astute script supported by storytelling that inspires true wonder.

John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) wanted to open a new theme park that was full of dinosaurs and everything else from that specific time period. But in order for the park to get a green light to open, he must get the approval of outside parties: a mathematician who loves to talk about the chaos theory (Jeff Goldblum as Dr. Ian Malcolm) and two dinosaur experts who are opposites but undoubtedly share great chemistry (Sam Neill as Dr. Alan Grant and Laura Dern as Dr. Ellie Sattler). Other characters included Hammond’s grandchildren (Joseph Mazzello and Ariana Richards), a greedy computer expert who made a deal with another research group to smuggle DNA outside of Jurassic Park (Wayne Knight), another computer expert who likes structure and discipline (Samuel L. Jackson), a dinosaur hunter (Bob Peck), and a lawyer who values money over safety (Martin Ferrero). Although none of the characters were fully explored, I did not think that was too big of a problem because each of them contributed something to the picture, such as being dinosaur bait for our entertainment. And who really wants character development when one can look at how ferocious and fatal dinosaurs can be?

I admired this picture’s ability to balance. With its two-hour running time, I noticed that the first half served to explain how the scientists were able to replicate (with slight but crucial modifications) extinct creatures and the second half focused on the many brutal ways of getting hunted. As a Biological Sciences major, I liked the fact that it offered an explanation that made sense with regards to how the scientists acquired the dinosaurs’ DNA. Moreover, I also liked that it mentioned that acquiring the DNA would not be sufficient. That is, there were missing gaps in the DNA that had to be solved in order to commence the process of DNA replication and eventually cloning entire organisms. As for the chase sequences, I found that once it started it never lets go until the final three minutes. There were definitely a plethora of highlights in the second half but I’m only going to mention some. The kitchen scene that haunted me when I was younger was even more thrilling than I thought. When I was seven, I remember being able to identify with those kids because I thought that if I were in their situation, I wouldn’t want to get eaten by those hungry velociraptors either. Not that I’m older, I still could identify with them but on a different level: I didn’t want them to get hurt because they are smart, funny and energetic kids. Another highlight was the first appearance of the infamous Tyrannosaurus rex and how the water vibrated as it moved closer to the characters. I’ve seen the impact of vibration reference in a plethora of films that came after “Jurassic Park” so I think it’s safe to say that that scene is pretty much embedded in the collective media unconscious. And it rightly deserves to be because of Spielberg’s great execution by building suspense and eventually delivering the thrills.

The special and visual effects must be given applause. I’ve seen a number of movies surrounding 1993 and nothing even comes close to this film’s magic. Back in 1993, it must have been that much more impressive. Nowadays, if one was to watch this movie, one would find out that some effects were noticably computerized. Given that, while the two sequels greatly improved on the effects, neither comes close to the original’s sense of wonder and tension. For me, it goes to show that a movie can have the best special and visual effects in the world but if there’s not enough story and heart, it’s essentially weak as a whole. Last but certainly not least, I liked that it managed to tackle ethical questions of building such a park. I was glad that the whole “playing God” issue/religion was acknowledged but it eventually focused on defying nature without thinking of the consequences first. Goldblum’s character provided much of the ethical questions and I was always interested with what he had to say. And really, his questions are still relevant today because of all the technological advancements our generation are acquiring.

“Jurassic Park” is truly one of the best summer blockbuster popcorn flick ever made. By the time the credits started rolling, despite the death and terror that happened in the park, I still wished we had one just like it in real life so I could visit. If I were to describe this movie in the fewest words possible it would be “A Landmark.”

E.R. RAMACHANDRAN writes: Why didn’t Mahatma Gandhi get the Nobel Peace Prize?

To answer this question, the Nobel Prize Foundation has released documents to prove to the world how hard it tried to give the Prize to Gandhi but how unlucky he was to miss it each time.

Advising against giving the Prize to Gandhi, Dr Jacob Wormuller wrote in his diary:

“He is a freedom fighter and a dictator, an idealist and a nationalist. He is frequently a Christ, but then, suddenly, an ordinary politician.”

Over the years, members of the Wormuller family have made valiant efforts to make amends and somehow land a Nobel on Gandhi. All the time, fortunately, members of the Wormuller family maintained their own dairies, the collection of which is called Worm Papers.

A spokesman of the Nobel Foundation and an authority on the Worm Papers was in India on Friday shortly after Barack Obama’s name was announced.

***

“I am happy you are here to clarify to the world about Gandhi and the Nobel Peace Prize,” I started off.

“I am glad we have this opportunity. You are aware he was nominated in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1942 and a few days before he was assassinated in 1948?” the spokesman said.

“Yes, of course.”

“The people of India should know that since Gandhi had made it a habit of missing the Prize so many times, we at the Nobel committee had decided to track him down wherever possible and give it to him no sooner an opportunity presented itself.  Did you know we were almost ready to give him one when he came to London to attend what you people call as “Round Table”conference? A small issue of dress code came between Gandhi and the award. Gandhi was dressed in a kind of tribal dress, a single loincloth large enough for two or a mob of three. Our chairman wanted to dress like Gandhi but it would have been too much in the cold weather. He would have caught pneumonia or something.”

“No point in taking such a risk.”

“We tried again in 1942. We came to India with the medal, prize money, etc. As soon as we landed in Bombay, we found signs of “Quit India” everywhere. Gandhi had ordered the signs to be installed everywhere. I think this was the “dictator Gandhi”, Mr Wormuller was talking about. Somebody told us that Gandhi was near some water tank in Bombay. Our chairman, who always followed the rules, felt we should obey Gandhi’s commands and leave immediately. We stayed long enough to crossover from Arrival to Departure lounges. Gandhi was again unlucky.”

“No doubt.”

“Then there was the time when he marched next to the beach in Gujarat.”

“That was the Dandi March,” I added.

“Gandhi would get up early morning and although he called it a March, he would literally run off with a walking stick. All his followers had a tough time keeping pace with him. Our chairman and his deputy, who had arrived in India, dressed in shorts and jogging shoes couldn’t catch up with him even once. Also it was quite scary to go anywhere near him because of the stick he carried. This was the “militant Gandhi” the world hardly knew. They had to carry the award back.”

“It must have been terrible. Perhaps this is what Wormuller had in mind when he wrote, ‘There are sharp turns in his policies which can hardly be satisfactorily explained by his followers’.”

“I am glad you understand. He was assassinated on January 30, 1948 just two days before the closing date for peace prize nominations. See how close it was again? If only the assailant had waited for three days more?  Gandhi still got six nominations that year but the Committee did not give the award to anyone in 1948 as per its own words, ‘There was no suitable living candidate. That’s the irony of life. It was heart wrenching.”

“Very very tragic.”

“Indeed. Which is why while giving the Nobel in 1989 to the Dalai Lama, our chairman mentioned that it is in a way a part tribute to the memory of Mahatma Gandhi. We are still not satisfied. By the way, have you seen Gandhi, the film I mean?”

“Yes. Very nice movie.”

“Our Committee has seen it more than 20 times. Every time we see a photograph of Gandhi we are reminded of Ben Kingsley! That’s why we gave Kingsley the Oscar.”

“That would have pleased Gandhi no doubt.”

“Since we couldn’t give the award to Gandhi, we started giving it to those who followed Gandhi and struggled for peace and invoked his name. That’s why we gave it to Henry Kissinger. That’s why Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin and Menachem Begin got it. I am sure Gandhi would have liked that too.”

“No doubt, as they were all apostles of peace.”

“I am glad you are able to see our point of view. We are making amends for missing out on Gandhi.”

“That’s nice to hear, but what about Obama? How did he find favour”

“We gave it to him because he mentions the Mahatma in every grand speech he gives. Since he has given so many grand speeches in just eight months, we thought giving him the Prize could inspire him to mention it every time he stands up to deliver a grand speech over the next seven years. It’s almost like buying insurance.”

Also read: Maureen Dowd: Gandhi wuz robbed

King John of England

Im Oktober geht es mit den Dreharbeiten für IRONCLAD los, ein weiteres mittelalterliches Actionspektakel (siehe auch Black Death oder Season Of The Witch), diesmal jedoch auf historischen Tatsachen beruhend. Paul Giamatti wurde jetzt für die Rolle des King John verpflichtet, der eine Gruppe rebellischer Adliger und Tempelritter (u.a. James Purefoy, Robert Carlyle, Bob Hoskins, William Moseley, Pete Postlethwaite, Richard Attenborough) in der Schlacht um Rochester Castle in die Kniee zwingen will. Regie führt Jonathan English. Wenn das Projekt nicht in die Trash-Ecke geraten will, dann sollte auf die (Gerüchten zufolge) Verpflichtung von “Schauspielerin” Megan Fox verzichtet werden.

Cd naszych veni vidi vici… Na Leicester Square w Londynie, gdzie znajduje się Odeon – kino, znane z wielkich premier filmowych, codziennie spotkać można znanych aktorów. W sumie może nie ich samych, ale na pewno można się przywitać przykładając rekę do wmurowanego w ziemię odlewu znanych twarzy filmu! Jest Connery, Law, Helena Bonham Carter czy Michael Cain. Kino u twoich stóp – przewrotnie to brzmi, right?

A tak to wygląda w ‘praktyce’:

There is no easy way to say it.  I lied.  I am a liar.

I lied to strangers, acquaintances, friends and family.

In Closing the Ring my voice was dubbed over.  The decision was made to record another voice over top of my voice. This happened because my performance wasn’t good enough.  It tears me apart to say that, but it’s true.

Here is how I lied:

• I told people I was doing a “1940’s voice”.
• I told people that the studio decided to “increase the pitch” of the three male characters from the 1940’s.  David Alpay and Gregory Smith did not have their voices dubbed.  My apologies to them.
• I speculated over power-struggles between Richard Attenborough (the director) and the Canadian distributor, with my voice being the casualty of their bad blood.  (85% fabricated)

Here’s the truth:

Being cast in Closing the Ring was one of the happiest days of my life.  Everyone involved in the production from Lord Attenborough (the closest thing to Santa Claus I can imagine), to Jo Gilbert; who championed my hiring and treated me like a son through my time in Belfast right up until wrap on principal photography and beyond.  It was a stunning group of people to work with and I am forever grateful for the opportunity.  I did everything I could to play my character to the best of my ability.  In the end, I suppose I let all of you down.

This has been a hellacious year for me professionally and I can’t help but think that Closing the Ring was my golden opportunity lost.  If I’m ever going to extricate myself from this mess, I need to come clean.

I don’t want to watch the movie, ever again.  When it’s on, I avoid it.  When people bring it up, I find it grating, saddening and embarrassing.

The tone of the person who recorded my lines doesn’t match my body language, which, in turn, makes the performance seem almost comically wooden.  Every awful review that was written…  I read them.  I read every single one of them.

My hiring was based on merit.  My work was praised and lauded everyday I was on set.  I saw my performance before the voice was switched and I was peacefully happy.  When I was first told that my voice was being changed my body reacted so violently that within an hour I had a giant ulcer on the back of my throat.  (That’s true.  Verifiable by my Wife.)

If I don’t get this lie off of my chest and put this episode behind me, it will always be there.  Lurking.  Casting a shadow over the pride I have in my profession, my work ethic and my ability to tell the truth.

So there it is.  I lied and I’m sorry.

Here’s an old version of my demo reel.  Sandwiched around the clip from Closing the Ring are two clips from the appearance on ReGenesis that won me a Gemini.  (They thought my voice sounded just fine.)

Things are going to get better.  There will be new acting jobs.  There will be more moments to seize.  I just couldn’t shake the nagging feeling that they wouldn’t be rolling around until I left Closing the Ring in the past.

EDIT: It’s been approximately 8 minutes since I posted this.  I feel so much better.

DADOS DO ARQUIVO
Formato: RMVB
Qualidade: DVDRip
Áudio: Inglês
Legenda: Português
Tamanho: 431 MB
Divididos em: 5 partes
Servidor: Rapidshare

Sinopse: Em 1952, na Universidade de Oxford, surge o relacionamento entre o professor e intelectual C.S. Lewis (Anthony Hopkins) e a escritora americana Joy Gresham (Debra Winger). Eles se encontraram após ela lhe ter escrito uma carta, sendo que esta correspondência a levou a sua primeira viagem à Inglaterra, que ela fez em companhia de Douglas Gresham (Joseph Mazzello), seu filho. Lewis a recebeu como cortesia, como parte da rotina de sua vida de professor, mas ele não sabia o que fazer quando algo lhe ficou claro: que estava apaixonado.

DOWNLOAD:
Parte 1
Parte 2
Parte 3
Parte 4
Parte 5

Puede llegar a establecerse un ligero paralelismo entre Anthony Hopkins y C. S. Lewis, al que encarna en esta película dirigida por Richard Attenborough. Hopkins, uno de los actores con más talento de todos los tiempos, no alcanzó fama mundial hasta que pasaba de los cincuenta y dio vida al (tal vez) villano más aterrador de la historia: Hannibal Lecter. Lewis, en cambio, ya gozaba de una importante reputación cuando tenía la misma edad… pero todavía no había empezado a vivir.

El caso del novelista, desde luego, es infinitamente más dramático. Y, sin embargo, es más que probable que no sea único: una existencia ordenada, aburrida, casi monacal, profesor en Oxford que vive con su hermano también soltero, profundas convicciones religiosas y un hecho crucial en su infancia, la muerte de su madre cuando tenía nueve años. El pequeño Lewis sufrió, además de la pérdida, dos fenómenos: una crisis de fe, que luego superó, y más hondamente, un repliegue sentimental que le llevó a refugiarse en una vida segura y espartana, alejada de toda posibilidad de sufrimiento. Fue así durante más de medio siglo; exactamente, y en esto se centra la película, hasta que apareció en su vida una americana algo excéntrica con un crío de la mano. O, dicho de otra forma, hasta que el amor irrumpió como un huracán, poniendo patas arriba todos y cada uno de sus esquemas.

Lewis, demasiado tiempo oculto tras su coraza, no descubrió hasta qué punto amaba a aquella mujer hasta que ella cayó gravemente enferma. Reprimía sus sentimientos. Y es aquí donde entra en escena sir Anthony Hopkins. Hopkins que, curiosamente, el mismo año en que se estrena Tierras de penumbra (Shadowlands, 1993) presenta otro trabajo, Lo que queda del día, donde interpreta un papel parecido, que no idéntico, y marcado también por la represión, el corsé, la mordaza en el corazón. El mayordomo de la segunda película no llegaba, como Lewis, a superar ese obstáculo. Lo que nos interesa, no obstante, es la interpretación de Hopkins. Su poderío es tan insultante que llega a intimidar. En El señor de los corderos demostró ser un refinado psicópata insuperable, pero es en estos personajes de perfil bajo, tan asustados, con tanto miedo de vivir, donde su habilidad inunda la pantalla y obliga al espectador a observarle, inmóvil, en una actitud casi reverencial. Aquí, en Tierras de penumbra, desespera, conmueve, mueve a la lástima y, lo más importante, nos empuja a compartir su dolor de forma inconsciente.

Lewis se preguntaba a menudo, especialmente en sus conferencias, en qué consistía el sufrimiento, y dada la vertiente religiosa de su trabajo, por qué Dios permitía que marcara al ser humano. Cuando el sufrimiento le golpea por segunda vez comprende que no tiene ningún sentido, que es parte de nuestras vidas y el reverso de esos otros momentos felices. El autor de Las Crónicas de Narnia tardó más de cincuenta años en conocerlos. Fue gracias a una mujer que le abrió el corazón. Hopkins, soberbio, y una inspiradísima Debra Winger les ponen carne, hueso y rasgos en un duelo interpretativo sublime. Tras la cámara, otro británico de lustre: lord Richard Attenborough, impecable en su dirección, magistral a la hora de manejar esa material tan inflamable como son los sentimientos. Tierras de penumbra sale indemne de la ardua tarea de no ser nunca ñoña y sí dejarnos la garganta con más de un nudo.

En un plano meramente anecdótico, la muerte de Lewis no estuvo exenta de un cierto fatalismo: al coincidir con el asesinato de Kennedy, apenas tuvo repercusión. Sus libros, al menos, le han aupado al lugar que merece.

Clubul Cinefililor / miercuri 8 iulie, ora 18 / Casa de Cultura “Mihai Ursachi” – Parcul Copou / intrare libera

Gandhi (prima parte) de Richard Attenborough | drama | cu Ben Kingsley, John Gielgud, Candice Bergen | UK-India | 1982 | alb-negru | 100 minute | subtitrare in romana

Sinopsis: Cine a fost in realitate Mahatma Gandhi, omul care a readus Indiei demnitatea si oamenilor acestei tari speranta? Cum a reusit el sa-si elibereze tara, fara a crea conflicte? De ce pacea a fost pentru acest lider conceptul pe care l-a respectat cel mai mult? (cinemagia.ro)

// coultura de generat: “Traieste ca si cum ai muri maine si invata ca si cum ai trai vesnic” (Mahatma Gandhi)

Awesome gangster noir at Film Forum. Richard Attenborough plays the super psychopath Pinkie Brown trying to protect his gangland turf by the seaside between the wars. Must read the book by Graham Greene.

Gandhi, ese hombre controvertido que luchaba contra las injusticias sociales. Ese hombre que se ponía siempre del lado del débil, que luchaba por él. Ese hombre que respetaba todas las creencias. Ese hombre que se hacía su propia ropa, sueltecica. Ese hombre que bien podría ser considerado un sadomaso porque eso de que te dejes dar tantos palos… ¡es que te mola! Ese hombre que era considerado por el pueblo un Superma…hatma Gandhi (Risas y aplausos) con pañales Huggies en vez de con mallas y capa.

El análisi:

La peli empieza con la llegada de Gandhi (Ben Kingsley) a un sitio abarrotao de peña que no sabemos de momento cuál es (Pakistán, ya te lo digo yo). Una persona entre la turba de gente nos informa de que debe haber lo menos 10.000 personas reunidas (según los convocantes y 4 gatos y 30 personas malfollás que pasaban por allí según fuentes policiales). Vamos a ver, aquí hay menos gente que en la batalla de Rocroi en Alatriste. Si hay 70 personas en pañales es de milagro y seguramente que se repiten los extras del fondo. Gástate un poco más en el catering que una triste Freeway Cola y un bocata de butifarra no invita a la gente para pasearse en gayumbos por el plató (bueno, lo que Sardá conseguía con su público en su ñordama es algo que algún sociológico debería investigar a fondo, pero el reparto de coca – sin cola- en los descansos es un buen argumento a tener en cuenta para tanta efusividad y devoción).
En esas estamos cuando vemos a Gandhi yendo a algún lado rodeado de toooooda esta gente cuando le llega uno y le pega tres tiros mal daos.

Y digo mal daos porque en el siguiente plano se ve que se los ha dado en otro sitio distinto a donde se los dieron antes. Además que le cambia la gente de alrededor en menos de un segundo.

Así que nada más empezar se lo cargan pero como ves que la peli dura 3 horazas y 3 minutazos te ves que le queda bastante al tema porque no van ni 10 minutos.
Y así es porque empiezan a contar la vida de este hombre desde cuando estaba en Sudáfrica donde los británicos, que son mu remalos ellos, tratan fatal a los que no son blancos. Así que Gandhi organiza una revuelta donde quema los pases de ciudadanía de las personas no blancas ya que él cree en la igualdad entre los hombres.
Claro, este mensaje tan incendiario (espero que hayáis pillado el ingenisísimo juego de palabras sólo a la altura de Matías Prats) le lleva a recibir más palos que una estera y a la cárcel pero al convertirse en un símbolo de la revuelta lo sueltan en un tris y consigue que revoquen esa ley. Aplausos. Bravos. Hurras. Birras. Campeonato de barra horizontal. Birras. Birras. Birras. Barra. Birras. Birras. Birras. Resaca. Pota. Pota. Sobar. Pota. Birra. Pota. Birra. Birra. Minipota. Currar.
Tras esto se pira a la India, de donde es él. Nada más llegar todos los grupos independentistas (debéis saber, amiguitos, que en estos tiempos India pertenecía al Imperio británico. Este dato espero que sea muy clarificador para todos nuestros amiguitos del Progressive) se lo rifan y le ofrecen tickets restaurant e incluso seguro dental (Lisa necesita un aparato) para que se una a ellos. Pero él es un alma libre que no puede ser enjaulada (metafóricamente porque ya ha recogido unos cuantos jabones en las trenas de Sudáfrica) y decide recorrer la India para ver cómo vive la gente. Ver cómo está el tema.
Tras hacerse cargo de cómo está el percal sucede de tó: decide convocar una huelga general, los británicos le detienen cada 2×3 (Carrefour), matan los ingleses a 1516 manifestantes pacíficos, los hindúes empiezan a matar británicos, hace Gandhi una huelga de hambre para que no lo hagan,… Fueron años loquísimos.

En una de estas que no estaba en la cárcel convoca una marcha para coger sal, algo que estaba prohibido ya que los derechos de extracción eran exclusivamente de los ingleses. Pero al final consigue cogerla y cunde el ejemplo como la pólvora por todo el país. Los británicos que no saben que hacer deciden volver a encerrarlo que es algo que les ha funcionado estupendamente. ¡Ah! Es algo que nunca les ha funcionado, pero bueno. A la trena con él. ¡Yo actúo, no pienso!
Así que con la tontería de las huelgas de hambre, la no violencia y dejarse dar palos hasta que los británicos se cansen consiguen la independencia. Pero hete aquí que ahora los musulmanes quieren separarse de ellos y formar Pakistán, Gandhi dice que vivir todos en armonía y cogiditos de la mano es mejor, que patatín que patatán. Al final se monta una revuelta popular que lo único que consigue es que haya muertes. Gandhi hace otra vez una huelga de hambre con lo que consigue detener las peleas pero al final se independiza Pakistán de India.
Al poco decide ir a Pakistán de visita pero parece que alguien tenía resquemor con él y lo mata de tres tiros mal daos como vimos antes.

Conclusión:
La peli no está mal pero es tan larga que te aburre. De hecho la tuve que ver en dos partes y ninguna después de comer nada porque me sobaba sino.

Los actores muy bien, sobre todo Ben Kingsley que hace un papelazo al igual que hizo de Schindler en la lista de y es que este hombre parece que está hecho para hacer papeles de bonachón porque los clava. Tanto es así que la segunda venida del Señor será para hacer de este hombre en su biopic. De hecho se llevó el Oscar a mejor actor por este papel.

Esta peli se llevó nada menos que 8 oscars en total:

Sólo una cosa más que decir: Birra.

Por: Gran Cabeza.

Two videos from different perspectives worth looking at.

The first is by British film-maker Richard Attenborough:

The second is a presentation by Jared Blumenfeld on how a city responds to climate change. Jared is the Director of San Francisco’s Environment Department. He visited the Decision Theater, and also spoke at ASU’s Global Institute of Sustainability.

Recently, I saw some episodes of Planet Earth (including the absolutely mind-blowing “Caves”) on the Discovery Channel and I started complaining about the replacement of the original British narrator with Sigourney Weaver. Don’t get me wrong, I think Weaver is a gutsy actress and good speaker (and I relate to Rick Moranis’ nerdy neighbor character’s infatuation with her in Ghostbusters). But I couldn’t help think that some milquetoast studio executive or focus group whined about whether American audiences could handle listening to a British accent. We can! It’s not like a nature documentary would be full of obscure British slang like “bits and bobs,” “claggy,” “gob,” or “gammy,” when describing the feeding habits of the blind salamander.

Anyway, to finally come to the titular point of this post, when I was crabbing about the replaced British narrator for the American broadcast, I stated that I thought highly of Richard Attenborough. Oops! Planet Earth was hosted by David Attenborough.

They’re both good guys and here’s my quick guide to them:

David Attenborough (1926- ):

• naturalist
• hosted many TV wildlife specials since the 1950s including Planet Earth
• younger brother of Richard (see below)

Richard Attenborough (1923 -):

• actor and director
• directed the highly acclaimed film Gandhi
• starred in The Great Escape (possibly my favorite war movie)
• older brother of David (see above)

There you go. Don’t make a faux pas like I did next time you’re hanging out with the nature documentary crowd.

– Tim

p.s. Bits and bobs = bits and pieces, claggy [of clothes] = wet and uncomfortable, gob = the mouth or a slimy lump, gammy = injured.