Movie preview: Limits of Control

Moving on to another film that caught my eye is Limits of Control. This is a film by Jim Jarmusch, who did the impressive Ghost Dog. It is based in Spain, and again takes the viewer to a different place than expected.



Based on the movie trailer there are a few things that immediately come to mind. The guitars and violins bring up thoughts of El Mariachi. The pace seems similar to that film and Ocean’s Eleven (the Clooney - Pitt remake). The diversity of characters and the subdued hint that there is more going on than at first revealed brings up thoughts of The Usual Suspects. So the combination of these elements bodes well for the film.

Adding to that is the inclusion of Bill Murray, John Hurt, and Isaach De Bankole. Each has a huge line of success behind them, and is a bonus for audiences. In fact the casting seems to be excellent.

Given the bright expansive landscape of Spain, and the many well lit rooms, the movie looks to be gritty. But this does not appear to be an action based film. That may cost it part of its potential audience in the U.S. but will be fine in Europe and the rest of the world.

Still there is never a problem with a well-done intellectual thriller. Having to think or pay attention is always a bonus in the movie experience to me. Because if you wanted to just be a lump for a few hours, you can always stay home and watch American Idol.

“Sometimes the reflection is far more present than the thing being reflected.”

With lines like that, the expectations are raised. But Jarmusch is know to hit the mark. Likely to be in only selected movie theaters, I’d keep an eye out for this.

Australian movie exec calls Forest Whitaker 'ugly, black, unbankable'

Australia is an interesting nation. The people I have met from that nation have been pleasant and good natured. They have provided America with several excellent entertainers, most notably Mel Gibson (who is American but grew up in Australia).

Yet that nation had, and continues to have many problems. The interaction with the native Aboriginal population is in many ways similar to the slavery issues that were found in America. Even to this day there are extreme racial conflicts between the 2 groups, though the distance to the rest of the world helps to ensure that most of this news is unseen.

It is perhaps because of this racially derisive past and present that an Austrailian film executive felt the need to claim this about Forest Whitaker

“Even if he wins the Oscar he's ugly, he's black and he's unbankable.”

Bollocks! Who the hell is this executive?

I realize that Australia, along with neighbor New Zealand, have gotten quite a bit of attention from Hollywood in recent years. I understand how they might see their importance growing with this greater influence. But that does not justify such comments.

Forest Whitaker is an acclaimed actor, director and producer. His credits include:

• Last King of Scotland – where he received an Oscar, Golden Globe, Screen Actors Guild, and BAFTA Awards
  
• Color of Money
  
• Bird – Cannes Film Festival Award and Golden Globe nomination
  
• Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai - an exceptional film that I recommend people see
  
• The Shield
  
• Fast Times at Ridgemont High
  
• Good Morning Viet Nam
  
• Platoon
  
• The Crying Game
  
• Prêt-à-Porter - National Board of Review Award for Best Acting by an Ensemble
  
• Panic Room
  
• The Great Debaters
  
• A Rage in Harlem
  
• Waiting to Exhale
  

I could go on as his career spans 26 years. In fact he will be working steadily into 2010, where he will be directing and acting in It's A Wonderful World about Louis Armstrong. There aren’t many actors that can be assured of leading roles 2 years in the future, and those that can are the best in the entertainment industry.

Somehow I think the fact that Whitaker is this successful, in all aspects of film, does not only make him bankable – it makes him one of a few actors that are bankable over decades.

To say that Whitaker is ugly is just a base, moronic, and unrealistic comment. It’s similar to the inane argument made by racists that people (usually implying Whites) will not go to see a film starring an actor/actress of a different color. The financial success of films by Will Smith, Denzel Washington, Samuel Jackson, Jamie Foxx, and Forest Whitaker to name but a few prove that to be absurd drivel.

Now the issue at hand was the upcoming movie Winged Creatures, directed by Australian director Rowan Woods. To the credit of Woods he fought to have Whitaker as the lead. He believed that the ability, look, quality, and bankability of Whitaker would be an asset to his film. And he would not budge on his choice of lead.



The Australian entertainment industry responded to this with a racially based slap-in-the-face. The initial budget of the film was $11 million, it was cut to $4.5 million. Who did the racists want? Al Pacino or Michael Douglas. Now I personally don’t think that Al Pacino was ever the most handsome leading man. And Michael Douglas is a good looking guy, but his age shows through these days. So the reality was that they just wanted a White face as lead.

To the credit of the director, Woods, he was able to fill out his cast – on a budget that was a pittance of the initial target – with actors of high quality. I have to believe that each of these actors had no problem with a Black man, and more importantly a quality actor who happens to be Black, as the lead. The other actors are:

Guy Pearce, Kate Beckinsale, Dakota Fanning, Jeanne Tripplehorn and Jennifer Hudson

Racism is a despicable thing in any nation or part of the world. It is usually based in unfounded, illogical, small-minded, envious, mindsets. It is the reason that so many are persecuted by so few. It is the worst image of any group of people.

Again I note that the Australians I have met have been great people. The director of Winged Creatures helps to show that not every Australian is the closed-minded, repugnant, imbecilic racists that seem to populate their entertainment industry (and more than just a few in Hollywood too).

But I think that future directors should think twice before going to Australia for a film. Because if the film has anyone that is Black it seems they will shun the film. And in an industry that is supposed to represent the boundless depth of the human imagination, this repressed limited and potentially psychologically damaged view is a cancer that sours the best of work.

**I want to thank the owner of 1800blogger for bringing this to my attention, and D.C. Moviegirl for speaking on this**

Screen Actor's Guild Award winners - 1.29.2007.2

Excuse me for a moment as I take a second to give myself a bow. Yes I got 5 out of 7 right – 71% - which I call pretty respectable. If you are wondering why I’m so pleased with myself, of the guesses I made on January 9th for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards [Bad films and Screen Actors Guild Awards hopefuls - 1.9.2007.1] I came pretty close to a clean sweep.

Not too bad for a regular guy. Perhaps the Oscar Award voters are paying attention. They should be. Considering how they have completely disconnected with the public, again, in not nominating Dreamgirls for Best Picture. I would love to hear the reasoning on why it was not nominated. I will give the SAG Awards the benefit of doubt on Little Miss Sunshine, at least they recognized the talent in Dreamgirls by giving them a nomination for best ensemble (basically best picture).

The snub really irritates me. 8 Oscar nominations, but not best picture. Never in 79 years has the leading nominated film not been a best picture. If it is so highly regarded how can it not also be best picture? This reminds me of the fear in 1993, when Malcolm X was not nominated for best picture, nor Mr. Spike Lee for best director. Yet there was large critical acclaim for the film, it won several awards (lesser ones but still won all the same), and Mr. Denzel Washington was easily recognized for his portrayal. In that case though I think the political commentary of Mr. Malcolm X was too much for the predominantly liberal white Oscar committee. [By the way I think this was the reason Mr. Washington won the Oscar. Often the Oscars will give a deserving actor/actress an award in a later good movie for a phenomenal role they were passed over on previously.]

The excuse for Dreamgirls escapes me. It’s popular, making money, still in movie theaters, well done and critically acclaimed – even before the Oscar nod. The only reason I can see for it to get snubbed as it has is a horrible and deplorable reason. I can only hope that isn’t the reason.

But to get back to the point of this post, I am sure that my winning choices will win the Oscar Awards as well. The choices that apply anyway. My congratulations to the winners, Mr. Hugh Laurie (you really should see him play the title character House. Biting wit and sarcasm matched with intense ability. Well written and balanced by an excellent cast), Mr. Forest Whitaker (a long time favorite of mine. His work in Ghost Dog is especially good, though his role as Idi Amin is even better), Mr. Eddie Murphy (I spoke about him in What does Eddie Murphy make you think of? - 12.22.2006.1), Ms. Jennifer Hudson and all the other winners.

Now let’s see how I do for the Oscars.

This is what I think, what do you think?