Cinema Hype

Let’s talk a little bit about The Dark Knight, the second installment in Christopher Nolan’s take on Batman. After Batman Begins, things around the Batman franchise are looking up: the story’s meaty, the cast is strong, and Nolan has a good eye for the onscreen image.

Now, The Dark Knight introduces Batgirl, which seems like a plum role for some starlet: from the hands of Alicia Silverstone, the pleather suit seems like it might gravitate towards, I don’t know, Hayden Panettiere? How about Kristen Bell? Do you see where I’m going with this?

Apparently “where I’m going with this” isn’t where the casting directors were going: the new face of Batgirl is Melinda McGraw, the all-purpose TV actor probably best known as Dana Scully’s ill-fated hippie sister on The X-Files. We’re not saying she’s a bad choice; we at CH admire the decision to cast someone unusual. We’re just surprised, okay?

So: Melinda McGraw. Neither a bat nor a girl, per se. Talk amongst yourselves.

The Dark Knight, Batman, Batgirl, Melinda McGraw, Christopher Nolan

Naomi Watts to
be Lord Voldemort’s minion?
Coy agents say no.

So, you may have heard it here first, but…you may have heard it here wrong. Or maybe not. It’s….hard to tell. According to MTV Movies, Naomi Watts’s rep denies any involvement with the sixth Harry Potter movie. Of course, although MTV is clearly a fountain of truthful information, not everyone’s buying it, so we may just be dealing with a publicist biding his or her time. The truth remains to be seen. It’s a pity, though; Watts probably would have been fantastic. Or will be. We’ll see.

Naomi Watts, Narcissa Malfoy, rumors, casting rumors, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

With great power comes
great responsibility;
don’t leave us, Toby!

The internets are buzzing–it’s a series of tubes, you see–with the unofficial announcement that Tobey Maguire is just about done with his role as Peter “Spiderman” Parker. The question: Do we care? The answer: Maybe. Maguire makes a good Peter Parker. He’s rocks the Larry King glasses, but we’re not begging him to put a shirt on, either (a rare combination, to be sure). He’s sensitive, but the man flies through the air on a string of spider web secreted from his own arm, which speaks of a certain masculinity to me. He’s nailed the most important element of superherodom, in the opinion of this blog: he plays the hero and the alter ego equally well. Nicely done, Maguire.

On the other hand, surely he’s not the only actor in Hollywood who looks like he can read a book while also doing pleasant things with spandex, right? If the ratings for his show are any indication, Black Donnelly Jonathan Tucker should be available soon. Jake Gyllenhaal’s looking a little too world-weary and too well-paid by now, but since he’s basically The Other Toby Maguire, he’d do in a pinch. Justin Long is busy smugging it up opposite John Hodgman in the Mac commercials, but surely he’d give that up for a shot at the Big Insect? One would hope. I’m not saying that Maguire won’t be missed around town, just that I’m sure there are a few young men hanging around who wouldn’t mind a shot at the Spidey Suit.

As a semi-pro movie geek and a lifelong bookworm, I occasionally struggle with the relationship between literature and film. I like both, and I like them for many of the same reasons. And yes, most books are better than their adaptations. But aren’t there some novels that are so compelling and so visually satisfying that they just cry out to be committed to film? Aren’t there stories that we know might not be as perfect onscreen as they are on the page, but we’re dying for somebody to try anyway? This is why we have the Harry Potter movies. It’s why we have the Lord of the Rings movies. And it’s why we should have a new version of Daphne du Maurier’s novel Rebecca.

Of course, Rebeccahas already been adapted. Alfred Hitchcock made a very faithful version in 1940 and won his only Best Picture award from the Academy for his efforts. But…isn’t it time for a new version? The Hitchcock adaptation is in black and white; surely Manderley would look that much better surrounded with rhododendrons that are actually red? There’s an entire generation out there who need a good, pre-1950s psychological thriller.

This is what I’m proposing: a lush, full-color version of Rebecca, filmed on location in southern England at an estate that looks exactly like the one in my head (got that?). I’m thinking Ruth Wilson. I’m thinking a well-aged Hugh Jackman. I’m thinking…I don’t know, Rose McGowan? And David Strathairn can play Frank. It’ll be great. Pssst, Hollywood! Over here! I’ll do the casting; you…take care of the rest, okay?

New on DVD this week, we have a perfect example of a “what might have been” movie. Regardless of what anyone thinks of The Da Vinci Code as a novel (Atrocious? Or the finest literary thriller since, well, ever?), there’s little doubt that a film adaptation could have been good, in a summer-blockbuster kind of way. It could have been interesting, and maybe suspenseful, because it could have highlighted the fun parts of the novel and eliminated some of its more glaring technical flaws. Also, it had Paul Bettany, which is money in the Bank of Awesome. Yes, things could have gone well for the adaptors of The Da Vinci Code.

Unfortunately, Opie Ron Howard got a hold of the screenplay and promptly cast Tom Hanks and his utterly distracting Academia!Mullet in leading roles. Now, I like Hanks as much as the next girl, and I’m willing to place a fair bit of faith in his ability to inhabit a wide range of roles. But he’s too old, too normal, and too serious to be Robert Langdon the way we want to see him. There’s a note of nerdiness (and maybe innocence?) that’s just not there–Hanks is unassuming, but he never seems truly surprised when his characters get swept into strange circumstances. My vote would have gone with Robert Downey, Jr., or maybe Tim Robbins (Again, the absence of my opinion in this decision is glaringly obvious! Will they never learn?).

And then there’s Sophie. I try not to complain too much about the casting here, because I actually think Audrey Tautou is a good fit for the role. I sort of suspect that she ended up in the role just because she’s one of two and a half readily recognizable French actresses out there (Juliette Binoche and possibly Julie Delpy being the others), but that doesn’t make her a bad choice. The tragedy here is in the complete dumbing-down of the role, and in its subordination to Langdon. In the novel, Sophie manages to be both alluring and far, far smarter than Langdon. Somewhere during the process of adapting the screenplay, she was demoted to his adorable sidekick and eventual love interest: we see her on the posters, already sort of leaning on Hanks, and then she spends the movie trailing along after him instead of charging ahead. It’s disappointing, seeing a strong, likeable female character dissolved that way. Things might have been better if the screenwriters hadn’t been so eager to simplify the relationship between Sophie and Robert and to give Hanks his required screen time.

Aside from casting, what makes The Da Vinci Code a bad movie is that it’s, well…it’s boring. When you think about it, this isn’t that surprising. The plot of The Da Vinci Code isn’t dull. In fact, it seems made for the big screen. There’s a catch, though: that plot depends on historical events that need to be explained to the audience clearly but succinctly, which makes adapting the script something of a challenge. Somehow, Howard and his team neglected to deal with all of that explication. What we end up with instead is Hanks rattling off long historical lectures, which is approximately as interesting as it sounds.

Aside from the challenge of all that non-action text, there’s the always-delicate matter of “feel,” which I think may be the biggest problem with the movie. It’s a basic question of the letter vs. the spirit of the text. The best adaptations follow the original text as closely as possible, but they also capture whatever intangible it is that makes them worth adapting–whatever it is that makes people love them. Here, Howard followed the events of the novel pretty closely, but he was so wrapped up in plot accuracy that he forgot to look up and keep track of how those events affect the audience, and how he could make them more engaging. In doing so, he left the audience with nothing new or particularly exciting, nothing to ooh and aah over as they left the theater. It’s sad, since he put so much time and effort into getting everything else right.

So I guess what I have to say to Howard is this: it was a good try. Maybe you should try watching some movies for awhile. Practice being an audience member again before you go anywhere near East of Eden, mmmkay?

I don’t think it’s going out on a limb to say that 99.999% of the time, any story is better told in print than on film. It’s a tough dichotomy for the screenwriters and art directors to handle: as a culture, we’re eager to see our favorite books played out on the big screen, but someone else’s views of those books hardly ever equal what we come up with in our own minds—the people never look quite right, the scenery is all off, and don’t even get me started on action sequences.

I suspect, however, that the upcoming adaptation of Philip Pullman’s incredibly popular novel The Golden Compass–the first in the His Dark Materials trilogy–is going to be one of those exceptional movies that proves the rule. There, I said it. I think I’m going to like the movie better than the novel. Please don’t throw garbage at me.

I should start by admitting that I’m setting the bar pretty low, here: I wasn’t fond of the book in the first place. I finished it, I thought the story was fine, but I’m perfectly happy to leave The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass alone. However, nearly all of my problems with The Golden Compass stemmed from Pullman’s prose—namely, the fact that he needs a fearless editor, or possibly a ninth-grade English teacher—and not the plot, or even the characters. Therefore, having the same story told in someone else’s voice sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Plus: armored polar bears. Who doesn’t like a good armored polar bear?

Regarding actors, while I’m a little skeptical of the willy-nilly casting of Nicole Kidman in every movie, I think she’s an excellent choice to play Mrs. Coulter—she may be just a wee bit old for the role, but nobody will notice (Did I just say that about fantasy fans? These words will be delicious later, I can tell.), and there just aren’t that many women in Hollywood who can be so effortlessly evil. If the cosmic They had asked me–they’ll learn someday, but until then they’ll have to just live with their mistakes–I might have suggested Amy Acker as an alternative. But Kidman’s everywhere for a reason. She’ll be great and terrifying, and will also probably scar an entire generation for life.

I’m excited, and I’ll be even more excited when the preview comes out (possibly in time for the 2006 Christmas rush, since the movie comes out during the 2007 Christmas rush). Bring on the polar bears!