Celebrating Films of the 1960s & 1970s - Editorial & Opinion

WHY ROGER EBERT'S TV PROGRAM SHOULD BE SAVED

nospam@example.com (Cinema Retro) — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:43:14 -0600

By Lee Pfeiffer

Roger Ebert Presents is a half-hour syndicated program that carries on the tradition started by the legendary film critic and his colleague Gene Siskel back in the 1970s. At the time, serious discussion of movies and the film industry was largely relegated to brief reviews sandwiched in on local news broadcasts. Ebert and Siskel changed all that by pioneering a program that featured intelligent debates about movies- and not just high brow fare. The two Chicago critics would often disparage prestigious releases as pretentious and lavish praise on other movies that were often derided as "B" films. In doing so, they revolutionized film criticism in general and exposed millions of people to movies that would otherwise have languished in obscurity. A lot has changed in the ensuing years. Siskel has passed away and Ebert has been robbed by health problems of his ability to speak. Ironically, he's probably as influential as ever. Ebert has mastered social media programs to keep in touch with his readers and he continues to write high profile, well-regarded books. He and his wife Chaz have also valiantly tried to keep Roger Ebert Presents on the air. Despite the fact that the show is widely syndicated to a large audience, the Eberts have not been able to find funding to continue for the 2012 season. In this era of austerity in the arts, Roger and Chaz have been forced to violate the key rule of producing: never fund the project yourself. That's exactly what the Eberts have been doing: paying the bills for all costs associated with the program. They have not even been taking salaries for their efforts. However, they can't continue to do so and have put out a public appeal for potential investor(s) to save the show.

I have never met Roger Ebert and my sole interaction with him was exchanging signed copies of books we had written many years ago. I have no idea if he has read Cinema Retro magazine or what he thinks of it if he does. I point this out because I have no vested personal interest in championing his cause- except for the fact that with so much sludge and valueless sleaze on TV today, it would truly be a shame if a man who is trying to maintain a bit of class and integrity in the medium would not find any takers. The budget for keeping Ebert's show (which features two young film critics) on the air wouldn't cover the coffee budget on the set of most programs. So here's hoping one of our most prolific film reviewers succeeds in his quest. For more click here

PETITION LAUNCHED TO HONOR CHARLTON HESTON WITH POSTAGE STAMP

nospam@example.com (Cinema Retro) — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 12:57:00 -0500

In the 1960s, Heston was one of several prominent film stars to march for civil rights. He also attended Dr. Martin Luther King's legendary rally in Washington, D.C.

Charlton Heston's former publicist has launched a petition to honor the iconic actor with a postage stamp bearing his likeness. Although Heston was a controversial figure in his later years due to his staunch support of the National Rifle Association, he was also a beloved symbol of the golden age of Hollywood. Considering we've had Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse adorn U.S. Postage stamps, it seems appropriate to honor Heston, who considered himself a devout patriot. Click here for more and a link to the petition site.

LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: WHY "INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS" SHOULD WIN BEST PICTURE OSCAR

nospam@example.com (Cinema Retro) — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:03:00 -0600

Lawrence O'Donnell, TV producer and political pundit, is going against the grain in stating that Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds should not only win the Best Picture Oscar- but will, indeed, do so. Read his rationale by clicking here.

ENZO G. CASTELLARI'S "EAGLES OVER LONDON" RELEASED ON BLU-RAY

nospam@example.com (Cinema Retro) — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:03:00 -0600

By Lee Pfeiffer

The release of Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds has thrust Enzo G. Castellari, the director of the Italian WWII pic that inspired it, back into the spotlight. This has resulted in a re-examination of his work, which has been relegated to cult status outside of his native Italy. Severin Films, which is fast becoming a major source of first-class presentations of otherwise neglected films, is honoring Castellari with the U.S. home Blu-ray DVD edition of the director's 1969 WWII adventure Eagles Over London. Even fans of Castellari's Inglorious Bastards (note the spelling difference for the Tarantino version), probably are unfamiliar with this ambitious, relatively big budget 1969 film that was a hit in Italy, but was virtually unseen in America or England. Thanks to Severin, and Tarantino, who continues to champion Castellari's work, the movie can finally be seen and judged by English-language audiences. The film is highly impressive on all levels and one realizes the frustration that Castellari must have felt in having his achievement virtually unseen outside of mainland Europe.

Continue reading "ENZO G. CASTELLARI'S "EAGLES OVER LONDON" RELEASED ON BLU-RAY"

INVASION OF THE REALITY SHOW POD PEOPLE

nospam@example.com (Cinema Retro) — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:29:00 -0600

Unlike the invaders in Independence Day and Superman II, reality show stars don't require space ships or ray guns to infiltrate the White House. Their weapons of choice are gowns, tuxedos and chutzpah.

By Lee Pfeiffer

No sooner had I partly recovered from TV's endless coverage of the ludicrous "Balloon Boy" story, then another scandal arose, caused by a couple whose mad desire to gain a reality show made them the center of international attention. The couple in question (whose names I refuse to promote), somehow managed to crash a White House state dinner and gain personal access to President Obama, Vice-President Biden and other dignitaries. They might have gotten away with it had they not bragged about their scam on their Facebook page (The two were so clueless that they misspelled White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel's name as "Ron Emanuel"!) Aside from exposing a serious breach of procedure in the Secret Service, the incident just points out how far people will now go to gain even a modicum of media coverage. They look like real people, smell like real people, but like the pods in Invasion of the Bodysnatchers, they are driven solely by a inherent need for self-preservation and lack any empathy for others. Ultimately, it's up to the public to put a stake through the hearts of these mad men and women by simply shutting off "reality shows". Like the character of Henry Hill states in Goodfellas, the worst fate for some people is just to be an ordinary schmuck. Read actor/comedian Harry Shearer's hilarious take on the invasion of the reality shows stars ("Sign Us Up Before We Kill Again!) by clicking here.

LATEST DISGRACEFUL AMERICAN NEWS COVERAGE: BOY IN BALLOON STORY FULL OF HOT AIR

nospam@example.com (Cinema Retro) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 07:37:00 -0500

Move over, Obama - the networks found a REAL newsmaker: a 6 year old boy who wasn't inside a runaway balloon.

By Lee Pfeiffer

In yet another example of America's cable news networks jumping on any story to fill air time, yesterday wall-to-wall coverage was devoted to a bizarre story centering on a home made hot air balloon that was accidentally launched from a family's backyard in Colorado. A 9 year old boy in the family said his 6 year old brother was inside a small basket in the balloon when it took off. The networks began streaming live video of the balloon's 80 mile flight, breathlessly speculating as to whether the kid was somehow inside the balloon or whether he was in a basket that had dropped off somewhere. Everyone but Lassie was called in for the rescue attempt, and when the balloon finally landed, the kid was nowhere to be found. Reporters spoke breathlessly about his presumably horrible fate- perhaps he was struggling to survive in some desolate patch of wilderness. This went on for three hours virtually uninterrupted. This on the same day as the President's visit to New Orleans and as the health care debate continued to heat up. At 6:00 PM, I tuned in to political commentator Ed Schultz's nightly news analysis program on MSNBC - generally a compelling and informative show. I was distressed to find that Schultz, who never engages in sensationalist stories, was carrying over the "Boy in the Balloon" tale. It was then revealed that the story was a non-starter because the little brat was found hiding in his attic, having possibly set the entire thing up as a joke with his brother.

This should have been the end of the story, but even the normally sober Schultz continued to exploit it, bringing on a woman named Sheree Silver who - get this- had been a contestant with the boy's family on the nutcase ABC reality show Wife Swap. She described her adopted TV family as a bunch of eccentrics who were obsessed with amateur science projects with the intention of proving the existence of extraterrestrials. The father is apparently a combination of Caractacus Potts and The Nutty Professor, who dabbles in building the kind of home-made contraptions that always end up transporting hapless people to the moon in B sci-fi movies. According to Silver, the young boy (whose first name is Falcon!) was a foul-mouthed prankster who was rarely disciplined by his family. If you thought it couldn't get any crazier, Silver then revealed herself to be a self-proclaimed psychic! Schultz kept driving the story even after introducing political commentator Arianna Huffington, founder of The Huffington Post. To her credit, Huffington quickly chastised Schultz and asked why the hell they were still discussing this non-story even after it was proven to be a possible hoax. Amazingly, Schultz dug in his heels and tried to defend the relevance of the story on the reed-thin premise that it would teach parents to better keep an eye on their kids. (Yeah, there's been a rash of kids in runaway helium balloons in my neighborhood - how about yours?) Huffington was not having any of it and kept criticizing Schultz until he was embarrassed into switching the topic to the war in Afghanistan. If only someone with Huffington's good instincts could show up on cable news every time network ninnies decide to abdicate real news in favor of unproven, but sensational stories, the medium might enjoy some respect once again. (Click here to watch the debate) The bad news? Now we'll be inundated by thousands of reports of UFO sightings from naive people who observed the runaway balloon.

Update: Speculation is growing that this story was a hoax from the start, possibly caused by parents who simply wanted to get media attention. Disgracefully, even though the networks knew yesterday the kid was never in the balloon, the family has been rewarded by being given coast-to-coast interviews on TV. This morning on two TV shows, little Falcon vomited on air. The kid is clearly sick, but the family keeps shuffling him in front of TV cameras - with the full co-operation of network brass who would rather endanger a child than pass up the opportunity for ratings.

SHADES OF BILLY MAYS! CNN FORCES ANCHORS TO SHILL FOR ITS NEW I PHONE APPLICATION

nospam@example.com (Cinema Retro) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:35:53 -0500

Watch out, Sham Wow guy- CNN's Anderson Cooper may be auditioning for your job!

By Lee Pfeiffer

It's bad enough that CNN forces its anchors into those God-awful, cookie-cutter Ken and Barbie teams to co-host broadcasts. There is also no shortage of celebrity stories disguised as genuine news, stories about cute animals and star anchor Anderson Cooper's nightly cringe-inducing funny photo caption contest. Now comes a new low: CNN has introduced a new application for I Phones that allows consumers to get some pretty amazing updates. However, the network is too stingy to use its commercial breaks to promote the new app, because it would mean bumping out paid advertisers. Thus, the anchors have been forced to shill for the new application, with significant segments of news broadcasts devoted to having the hosts demonstrate how it works. The low point came tonight when Cooper, bringing boot-licking to a new level, threw in an enthusiastic remark that, at only $1.99, consumers couldn't afford not to have the new CNN application! Deceased cable pitch man Billy Mays has nothing on the CNN team when it comes to shilling. What next? Maybe Cooper will have to start using a CNN-brand Sham Wow to clean his desk while delivering the news. When you wonder why the golden age of broadcast news has passed us by, try to imagine what Walter Cronkite's reaction would have been if someone tried to get him to shill for a product while delivering stories. Mind you, there are still some excellent reporters at the network, some of whom risk their lives to bring vital segments to the air while Cooper and company keep the world informed of the latest developments on Jon & Kate Plus 8. The network also still retains the services of top flight show host Howard Kurtz, who often uses his Sunday morning program Reliable Sources to criticize his own network. The efforts of these genuine reporters are undermined by their employer's trivialization of the news. CNN should just admit what its call letters stand for: Commercial News Network. (Gotta run: Cooper just announced the next segment - something about "the world's fastest nudist." Sadly, I kid you not.)

NY TIMES: "A" LIST STARS FAILING AT BOX-OFFICE

nospam@example.com (Cinema Retro) — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 06:47:00 -0500

Denzel Washington: a $16 million paycheck is beneath his dignity.

By Lee Pfeiffer

The New York Times has an insightful piece regarding the concern among Hollywood agents and studios about the lack of drawing power exhibited by top movie stars this year. Under-performers include Julia Roberts, Denzel Washington, John Travolta, Will Ferrell and Johnny Depp. The consensus is that these actors have not delivered audiences in numbers great enough to justify their paychecks. (The article cites Eddie Murphy among the non-performers, but apparently only Hollywood executives didn't get the message that Murphy hasn't been hot since Bill Clinton was in the White House). Consequently, studios are cutting back on paychecks - and actors aren't happy. Denzel Washington refused to take "only" $16 million for his next movie - despite the fact that his recent films have all performed softly. Reasons given for the falling star power is everything from distraction by other forms of entertainment to poor marketing. Here's another one: many new films are simply lousy - and in the current recession, it now seems to cost a king's ransom to have a night out at the movies. For more

click here

JOE JACKSON USES INTERVIEWS TO PROMOTE NEW RECORD LABEL

nospam@example.com (Cinema Retro) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:20:00 -0500

By Lee Pfeiffer

Joe Jackson: a legend in his own mind?

Predictions that the Jackson family would make a circus out of Michael's death are coming true, though even I didn't think it would occur before the pop legend was interred. The family patriarch, Joe Jackson, has shocked even hardened reporters with an interview last night at the BET awards show and in a press conference today by using the media spotlight to plug a new record label he has established. Joe Jackson tried to imply that he was responding to CNN reporter Don Lemon's questions about his business plans, but Lemon played the interview today again to prove that his question was only about plans for Michael's funeral. Instead, Joe Jackson made an awkward promotion for his new label and introduced his business partner, who had to remind Jackson what the name of the new label was. The situation was repeated this afternoon when Jackson made some rambling statements at a press conference in which he cheerily promoted the new record label again. He again implied he was responding to a question from Lemon about his "plans". This prompted Lemon to say on air to CNN anchor Ali Velshi that no such question was ever asked of Mr. Jackson. Lemon then took the extraordinary step of saying outright that "one member of the Jackson family" was personally turning the death of his son into a circus, even as other members of the family were intent on mourning.There was no mystery as to who Lemon was referring to.

Joe Jackson, who was accompanied by the ubiquitous "Reverend" Al Sharpton, was then brought before the microphones again after apparently having been told that his comments were tasteless. (When Al Sharpton is held up as a paragon of good taste, you know you've crossed the line.) Jackson again offered a weak and rambling explanation, and was all smiles despite the fact that his son's death was the reason for him being on-camera. He said he mourns Michael's loss inwardly, not outwardly, apparently in answer to those who have criticized his seemingly jovial demeanor while on camera.. He also made reference to "my publicist" and said he knew that "we" are loved the world over. Funny, I don't recall seeing any kids wearing Joe Jackson t shirts. The frenzy is only beginning...and here's a bit of unsolicited advice for the Jackson family: put a lot of miles between papa and the nearest microphone. - Lee Pfeiffer

HERD MENTALITY: MICHAEL JACKSON DEATH SPAWNS MANIA AMONG "FANS"

nospam@example.com (Cinema Retro) — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:17:00 -0500

By Lee Pfeiffer

Like most people of my generation, I can remember where I was when I heard the news that Elvis Presley had died. I was in a tacky souvenir shop in the beach resort of Seaside Heights, New Jersey when the announcement came on the radio. Like anyone who had grown up with Elvis as one of the dominant pop culture figures of our time, I felt a sense of loss over the fact that the world had lost a great artist. However, I was shocked when friends of mine began to tell me how emotionally devastating the news was. A female friend said she couldn't cope with the sense of loss and a number of my others friends immediately went out and bought an assortment of Elvis albums. All of this would have been understandable if any of these people had idolized The King, but, in fact, none of them had ever mentioned his name to me prior to news of his death. To most of us twenty-somethings, Elvis had long ago lost his "street cred" as an innovative entertainer. Granted, he worked hard and put on a great show, but he had been content to live off past glories and pick the low hanging fruit of being a Vegas attraction. Still, upon news of his death, millions of people who barely knew he was still performing became Elvis fanatics overnight. The irony is that The King earns more in death than he ever did in life.

I mention all of this because of the inevitable fact that the same scenario will be played out regarding Michael Jackson.Although he still maintained an enormous world-wide following, for most of the general public, he was a punch line on a late night comedy show. Yet, the beatification process has already begun. It's one thing to acknowledge Jackson's well-earned reputation as a master performer and musical genius, but the news media is making Jackson sound like Mother Theresa. The immediate aftermath of a man's death is not the time to assault his reputation. Jackson's scandalous behavior in many aspects of his life has been amply chronicled elsewhere. However, one has to question the emotional stability of anyone who is now indulging in the world-wide mania for Jackson memorabilia. It stands to reason that virtually none of these people could have been induced to purchase this junk just two days ago. What comfort does it give someone to jump on a bandwagon and become an instant loyalist to a man they had virtually no interest in up until his death? It's a curious phenomenon, but one we should be used to by now. The Times of London reports that sales of Jackson's music and memorabilia is skyrocketing around the world. Why? Most of us probably already own the good songs he made (and Thriller is as standard as furniture in most households) So what motivates a person to go out and buy the second-rung music? Does one really get a sense of personal worth from wearing a cheesy T shirt commemorating Jackson, even though it was ground out by an opportunist within minutes of his death? Given Jackson's propensity for the outlandish, he would probably be complimented by all this - after all, in his world, any attention was better than being ignored. However, for many of these people, as of a few days ago, Jackson was as relevant to the contemporary music scene as Liberace. The international news media predictably deemed that there was no other story in the world worth covering than Jackson's life and career. Iran on the brink? Who cares? The health care debate in America? Big news a few days ago, now irrelevant. Violent eruptions in Iraq on the verge of the U.S withdrawal from urban centers?Yawn... The only one grateful for this is South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, the Amelia Earhart of politicians, whose bizarre disappearance and related sex scandal pushed him off the front pages.

Continue reading "HERD MENTALITY: MICHAEL JACKSON DEATH SPAWNS MANIA AMONG "FANS""

CINEMA RETRO COMMEMORATES THE 65TH ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

nospam@example.com (Cinema Retro) — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:36:02 -0500

On this, the 65th anniversary of D-Day, Cinema Retro commemorates the heroes of the epic battle, both living and dead. At today's moving ceremonies in Normandy, President Obama, President Sarkozy, Prime Ministers Gordon Brown and Stephen Harper and Prince Charles paid tribute to the men who liberated Europe in the greatest battle in the annals of modern warfare. As this was probably the last major gathering of veterans of the invasion, the ceremonies took on special significance. Some of the veterans who made the journey were quite infirm and one American veteran passed away on the eve of the ceremonies after visiting the graves of his comrades. Today is an appropriate time to reflect on the sacrifices of these men. Why not view the two best D-Day movies, The Longest Day and Saving Private Ryan? Better still, have your kids join you so they can gain a greater understanding of the type of heroism that not even Hollywood can do justice to. - Lee Pfeiffer

NOT SO PRETTY WOMAN: JULIA ROBERTS USES THE "F" BOMB AT TOM HANKS LINCOLN CENTER TRIBUTE

nospam@example.com (Cinema Retro) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 07:39:00 -0500

By Lee Pfeiffer

If class among the Hollywood elite is dead, Julia Roberts is among those who buried it. The woman many say epitomizes glamour was among a star-studded line-up that toasted Tom Hanks at The Film Society of Lincoln Center's annual lifetime award ceremony on Monday. Roberts noted to Hanks, "So everybody fuckin' likes you." This was followed up by the observation that "I'm wearing the same fucking dress tonight as your publicist." Apparently it brought down the house and Hanks good-naturedly joked about Roberts' "potty mouth". I'm far from a prude (as regular readers can readily attest), and there is indeed a place for dirty humor. However, there was a time when it was restricted to roasts at the Friars Club and similar venues. What does it say about Roberts that a vaunted venue like Lincoln Center should act as a recepticle for crass comments? There was a time when society would not applaud such behavior, but boo her from the stage. Then again, we live in a society that extolls the worst type of behavior. In England, an idiot game show contestant recently went from national disgrace to virtual saint when she was diagnosed with a terminal disease - and coverage of her death rivaled that accorded to Churchill - despite the fact that she was prone to vile, racist comments. In America last week, only a sane judge prevented indicted the former Illinois governor from being a contestant on another game show set in the jungles of Costa Rica! (I'm not making this up.) We idolize singers who engage in self-destructive behavior and sports figures who beat up women and charge little kids for their autographs. I suppose it says more about society than it does the miscreants it puts on pedestals. For those who consider Julia Roberts and her ilk to be modern incarnations of old time Hollywood class, I say "Are you kidding?" Can you imagine a similar event decades ago at which Grace Kelly made such remarks in "tribute" to Cary Grant?

JUST "PLANE" CRAZY: NETWORK OVERKILL ON AIRLINER RESCUE

nospam@example.com (Cinema Retro) — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:54:13 -0600

By Lee Pfeiffer

Like many news addicts, I keep the cable TV stations on during the day while I go about the more mundane aspects of running the Cinema Retro "empire". Yesterday's miraculous landing in the Hudson River of an airliner that suffered the loss of its engines after striking a flock of geese, was truly a head-turner. The networks, both local New York affiliates and national cable stations, appropriately reported on every second of the breathtaking event. The captain of the stricken craft had managed a truly spectacular water landing in the shadow of where the World Trade Center once loomed and, equally impressive, a Dunkirk-armada of disparate rescue boats managed to get all 150+ passengers evacuated from the plane within 90 seconds. The only thing that would have made it more riveting is if we found out Karen Black had been piloting the plane a la Airport '75. However, as the minutes turned to hours, the networks fell back on their reliably lazy and pandering methods of showing endless loops of the same footage, interviewing and re-interviewing the same passengers and aviation experts even as it became clear no remarkable or new information was forthcoming. As compelling as this story was, it was still mostly relevant to New Yorkers - after 9/11, the prospect of any airliner flying at an abnormally low altitude over the city would be of great concern. However, the incident occurred so quickly that there had been no panic or even speculation about what was happening. If you lived in Des Moines, Iowa and finally wanted to get some international news, you were out of luck. The networks were giving you wall-to-wall coverage of a story they decided was so compelling that the outside world would not exist. This is usually the same treatment afforded cases pertaining to missing sexy, white teenage girls.

Think I'm being too harsh? Well, I like a heart-warming story as much as anyone - and this one not only provided some real heroes but the all-too-infrequent happy ending because all of the passengers escaped without life-threatening injuries. However, at what point does coverage of a feel-good story become excessive and find the networks abdicating their responsibilities to report on what is happening elsewhere in the world? Consider just what else was occurring yesterday:

There was a contentious senate confirmation hearing for Eric Holder, who stands to become the most powerful law enforcement official in the United States.Want to know where he stands on the important issues and how he would run the department differently from the Bush administration? Well, if you didn't see the hearings when they were broadcast live in the morning, you were out of luck as far as cable news networks went.
Both Senators Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden gave their farewell addresses to their colleagues before assuming their new positions as Secretary of State and Vice-President.
The battles in Gaza saw the worst day of violence so far and a UN building was shelled.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Fuggetaboutit! Journalists are risking their lives to cover these conflicts, but they seem to get as much airtime as the battle of Gettysburg.
Finally, President Bush gave his farewell address to the nation, though it was clear the networks only reluctantly afforded him 13 minutes of precious "non-news" coverage of the airliner crash. Depending upon where you stand on the President's performance, the speech was either moving and gracious or delusional and arrogant - but there was little air time afforded to discuss these issues or debate the significance of the speech, though MSNBC did allow its hosts to dwell on it a bit before resuming the "All Airliner, All the Time" coverage.

Late in the evening, and hours after the last relevant news had been released about the incident, I turned to the BBC to find out if there were any other human beings left on the planet who were making news. Alas, it did not appear so. How about Nightline for analysis of the Holder confirmation or Presidential speech? Nope - it was 100% airliner news - and included an entire segment on the bird menace to airliners. There were so many of these stories about feathered fiends that aired last night, I thought Hitchcock had risen from the grave to direct them.

This morning I turned out CNN in the vain hope the airliner story had been placed in proper context, but no such luck. In spot-checking the network, it's been hours and I haven't found a single story that wasn't related to the rescue. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Paddy Chayefsky's Network now seems like a documentary instead of a comedy. I guess the airline rescue story will be omnipresent on the news shows - at least until the next sexy, white teenage girl goes missing.

MORE ON DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR IN MOVIE THEATERS - AN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE

nospam@example.com (Cinema Retro) — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:36:28 -0600

Inspired by David Brierly's column about disruptive and rude behavior witnessed in UK movie theaters, writer Steve Vertlieb weighs in with horror stories from the American point-of-view, thus proving the Brits don't have a monopoly on uncouth idiots. To read Steve's previously published essay on his web site Thunder Child,click here - and while on his site, browse through his incredible archive of insightful film-related columns, accessed through his home page.

THE QUANTUM OF SILENCE (AND THE DEATH OF CONSIDERATION IN THE CINEMA)

nospam@example.com (Cinema Retro) — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:07:00 -0600

Guest Editorial
By David Brierly

The sound, if hushed, is unmistakable. Like the sound of the captain on the flight tannoy announcing choppy turbulence ahead or next door’s house alarm going off in the middle of the night, you know that the shape of your immediate experience is about to be altered by forces beyond your control. It may come in the form of giggling, gruff voices or popcorn being spilt. But, rest assured, when the sound of disruption slips its way into the cinema theatre it is piercingly familiar.

It would seem that, nowadays, if you don’t talk during a film at the cinema, then you are in a minority. For most, the box office is not only the vendor of a mere flick ticket, but a gateway to passive unrest. Whether they are parents, couples, professionals or OAPs, a trip to the movies is that apt opportunity to trade-in the burden of responsibility for the anarchy that boils over when a teacher leaves the classroom for two minutes. For, the teacher has abandoned the classroom - the traditional ‘usher’ has become somewhat of an enigmatic figure in the cinema in recent years. In fact, one could argue he left the screen almost twenty years ago and never came back. He may be spotted before the trailers begin, and reappear at the closing credits. But he is nowhere to be seen for the two hours in between when you need him most. Like a father who waits in the hall whilst his wife goes into labour, contemporary ushers are reluctant to get roped into the nitty-gritty of child birth. It is now a case of ’shut the door and leave ’em to it’. Report any noise and to the rescue comes a 21^st Century Adrian Mole, torch shaking in his hand, as he apologises to the perpetrators for having to ask them to keep the noise levels to a minimum. With castigation such as that on the sidelines, who would dare a put a foot wrong? It is that age old defiance; - ask the public not to talk, and they will willingly lose themselves to a double bill of Tourettes.

No genre offers any asylum. From the baby sick and flying Farley’s Rusks of Happy Feet, to the intrusive distraction of somebody explaining every scene of Casino Royale to the donkey that accompanied them, there exists no anodyne to the contagious evil of these bullies. You think subtitled drama would harbor a bit of hush? You’d be wrong. The Diary of Anne Frank tenders no refuge; Schindlers List will still prove too intense for the Heat-reader on the row behind. Who gives a hoot about theHolocaust when it looks like Amy Winehouse’s fella might get bail? Multi-plexes are now a pantheon for these brutes to wave their single-fingered salute at the mindful minority who still acknowledge the pillars of respect and self-control, whilst they showboat all the restraint of a fig leaf. To some extent, it is hardly surprising. To morons such as these, just the impact of a visual image before them is more than enough to kick start the stimulated urge to say something. It doesn’t matter what. In fact, anything will do. Preferably though, utter nonsense tends to do the trick. At times all that is missing is Roy Walker stood to the right of the screen begging you to say what you see. Because for the most part, the visual incitement of cinema-going is much like placing a picture puzzle before a laboratory monkey; where reserved judgment and primitive excitement collide, there is only ever one winner.

I am sure that this will sound to many like the outburst of your typical killjoy. But then I can rest equally assured that it is that ‘many’ which this rant is aimed at. They will scoff at this attack just as they scoff at the idea of not being heard for an hour or two. What is most worrying is that, in many ways, this behaviour is a simple snapshot of today’s society, and the selfish, impatient inconsideration of the everyday Joe. The same one who flashes you to get out of his way in the fast lane of the motorway, the same one who still barges in front of you at the supermarket check-out with two-weeks worth of shopping in his trolley, leaving you to queue behind with your 30 pence newspaper and exact change. Through the echelons of time, the “sshhhh!!!!’’ factor of cinema-going is a cliché that has gathered momentum within the rude thoughtlessness of modern life.

Cinemas may still be theatres. But no longer is their priority to showcase the latest films. They have become forums, which are concession-dependent for their profit. Candid in their ability to match your mortgage payment for a small Asda cola, and shameless in their drive to push loud, messy and garish three course meals onto the very same John Motsons who will commentate their way into the screens. Once inside, the film plays a poor understudy to a gamut of commercials and in-house promotional reels - on average, a movie will in actuality begin over twenty minutes after the printed showing time. Showing times - much in the same way as certificates - mean nothing in today’s climate. Turning up half an hour after the advertised time? Worry not, you will be free to barge in any way. Never mind the disruption to those who paid to watch a film uninterrupted from start to finish. ‘Chris and Claire’ decided to see what was on at the last minute, and that folks means another £15 in the till. £30 if they’re peckish. Is it any wonder the noise issues are as they are, if you usher in people who not only arrive forty minutes late, but still buy food? This is why the theatre managers themselves are just as much to blame as the gaseous chatterboxes themselves. It is like buying Bart Simpson a drum kit for Christmas and telling him not to make a noise.

(David Brierly is a UK-based freelance writer. Send comments to him at david.brierley29@hotmail.co.uk. Visit his profile page.)