The Perils of Success

On the face of it, it's good news that Duncan Jones – the director of Moon and Source Code – has been brought on-board to direct the upcoming Warcraft movie. The Warcraft universe is deep and rich, Jones is a talented director who is obviously on his way up, and Blizzard is controlling enough to ensure that any film made from the franchise is of a reasonably high quality. This isn't going to be a Resident Evil film, and it would be nice to have a truly respectable video game-to-film adaptation.

But it also continues a disappointing trend I've seen over the last few years in which young, talented directors are diverted from their original works to take on "safe", big-budget franchises. Jones is probably the best example, but here are a few others:

• Josh Trank makes Chronicle, one of the best superhero films in several years. His next film will be a Fantastic Four reboot.
• Gavin Hood makes the brilliant, provocative film Tsotsi, which wins the Academy Award for best foreign film. He follows it up with the equally-provocative (if somewhat less successful) Rendition. His next two films are X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Ender's Game.
• Marc Webb makes the decent-enough 500 Days of Summer. He's then tapped to take over the rebooted Spider-Man franchise.
• After the cult hits Slither and Super, James Gunn will be directing a Guardians of the Galaxy film.
• Nerd-hero Edgar Wright's next project is an Ant-Man film slated for release in 2015.

Some of these don't even make sense. What was it about 500 Days that made Marvel think Marc Webb would be a good fit for The Amazing Spider-Man? Likewise, what's the rationale behind tapping James Mangold (of Walk the Line and 3:10 to Yuma fame) to direct this summer's The Wolverine? What about Stranger Than Fiction orThe Kite Runner made studio execs think Marc Forster would be a successful director of action-oriented films like Quantum of Solace or World War Z?

I want to be clear: I'm not accusing these directors of selling out. There's nothing "wrong" about directing adaptations, sequels, or big-budget films. And the opportunity to bring a huge budget to bear on your artistic vision must be legitimately thrilling.

Rather, I'm sad about the opportunity cost of having these directors at work on these franchises. I'm sad for the films they would otherwise be making, but aren't. 

Catch-22

At this moment in film history, it has suddenly become fashionable to hire genuinely visionary directors to helm what are essentially genre films. It wasn't always so: studios used to hire boring-but-competent directors for these sorts of films, and rely on the action and the stars to get audiences to the theater. 

That's changed, and it's resulted in some serious talent being brought to bear on major franchises. To pick just one example: Skyfall brought to the table an Academy Award-winning director, several Oscar-winning actors, and the world's best living cinematographer. And it was awesome!

But this new paradigm comes with costs, and it seems like more and more often, the casualties are the kinds of movies that made those directors famous in the first place. I really loved The Avengers, but there's something sad about Joss Whedon acknowledging that he won't be able to get new Dr. Horrible or Firefly projects off the ground because he's busy with Marvel duties until 2016. (And he's even a guy who goes to extremes to sneak in passion projects!) 

As someone who believes Hollywood should invest more in original works and less in remakes and sequels, the way these casualties pile up can be depressing. Guillermo del Toro's adaptation of At the Mountains of Madness collapsed due to his obligations to The Hobbit – a film he didn't even end up directing! And to return to the example that inspired this post, Duncan Jones has talked publicly about his plans for Mute, a Blade Runner-esque murder mystery set in a future Berlin. He's also talked about a possible Ian Fleming bio-pic, focusing on Fleming's experiences in the British Intelligence service during WWII. Is a Warcraft film really worth postponing (or possibly losing) either of these?

An Embarrassment of Riches

There's something a bit pretentious (or at least a bit greedy) in this line of thinking: aren't there enough super-talented directors around to satisfy both my love of big-budget blockbusters and of original indie-ish films?

I suppose I'll just have to hold out hope that the films I care about will someday come to exist, and enjoy the fruits of these directors' franchise efforts in the meantime. And it makes me really cherish those directors – like Rian Johnson, Jeff Nichols, or Tomas Alfredson – who seem content to make quirky, original films on their own terms. After all, not everybody has to be an auteur – but it would be nice if somebody were. 

Kitchen Atlas

My good friend Holly has started a blog where she cooks recipes from all over the world and writes about their origins and cultural context. For her first entry, she interviewed my girlfriend Satoko about how to make oyakodon, a Japanese egg and chicken dish that is basically the greatest thing ever. (You may remember it as Ryan’s favorite Asian dish from Episode 21 of Pop Cultural Osmosis.)

So if you like great food writing with a cultural bent and/or recipes for Asian comfort food dishes, you should check out kitchenatlas.com.

Pop Cultural Osmosis: Episode 29 →

popculturalosmosis:

Welcome back! We’re sorry for the impromptu hiatus, but now that the hurricanes, overseas trips, and broken laptops are behind us, we’re so happy to be recording again.

This week, we talk about our favorite 30 Rock episodes, discuss Netflix’s new original series House of Cards, and finally…

One thing I totally forgot to mention in our House of Cards discussion was how weirdly uninteresting the title sequence is. For a director who seems to devote a great deal of attention to the title sequences in his films (see: Se7en, Panic Room, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) it seems like he phoned it in for his first TV outing.

Also, I finished the series over the weekend and, though it goes off the rails a bit at the end, it’s still pretty great. 

Bill Gates' Annual Letter

I’ve been interested in the reactions to both the annual letter from Bill Gates on the state of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and to an informal sit-down that Gates had with a varied group of writers in New York City. Here are a few snippets, first from Tyler Cowen:

Gates has a command of data and analytics in development economics better than that of most development economists, or for that matter aid professionals.  He also expects everyone at the meeting to know everything about what he is talking about, or at least is willing to proceed on that basis.  That said, when it comes to answering questions he sometimes assumes a stupider version of the question than what is actually being asked.

Next, from Dana Goldstein:

Discussing the bleak living conditions in the Central African Republic and Yemen, Gates said, “If you don’t invest in health there, you’re a cold-hearted bastard.” In a rare personal comment, he discussed how one of his daughters was moved by video footage of a child survivor of polio limping down a dirt road. “What did you do to help her?” she asked her dad — an insightful comment, since Gates said he feels growing concern about the survivors of once-deadly childhood diseases like malaria and polio, who often arrive at school with cognitive delays that make it difficult to learn. 

Lastly, from Jason Kottke:

Over and over, in the letter and during the roundtable, Gates talked about the importance of measurement and results. I got the sense that before the Gates Foundation came along, money was pumped into charitable foundations and donors didn’t have much sense what result their giving had, beyond that it had “done good”. Gates is obviously running his foundation like a business, where instead of profits or number of Windows installs, the metrics are things like lives saved or children vaccinated.

Three thoughts stirred by reading both the letter and the responses to it.

First, I think the living situation for much of the developing world – especially sub-Saharan Africa – is improving much faster than our popular perception of it is. Obviously, “improving” does not always mean acceptable or even livable, but I keep reading, over and over, that things like lifespan, infant mortality, and average wages are improving the world over. The full effects of this won’t be felt for a long time, but will shape the contours of our relationship with the rest of the world for the rest of the 21st century.

Second, Gates’ analytical approach to philanthropy reminds me of Malcolm Gladwell’s incredible article “The Mosquito Killer”, the story of a single public health official’s quixotic quest to eliminate malaria. In that instance, too, the key to success was a methodical, analytical approach that required the coordination of a huge number of people in various far-flung parts of the world. It’s possibly the best public-health story I’ve ever read.

Lastly, a persistent criticism of Steve Jobs, both before and after his death, was his curiously apathetic approach to philanthropy. He famously declined to donate publicly to charity and suspended Apple’s policy of matching the charitable donations of their employees. (The policy was reinstated by Tim Cook shortly after he took control of the company.)

The defense most commonly made of this fact is: so what? It’s was Jobs’ money and time, he was free to spend it as he wished, and he chose to dedicate his life to creating the best consumer electronics company in the world. And if Jobs truly didn’t feel that philanthropy was his calling, I also don’t think there’s nothing wrong with that.

But Gates and Jobs have always been natural counterpoints, and on this issue, I do think Jobs comes out worse in the comparison. For the last thirteen years, Gates has been doing work that has and will continue to fundamentally improve the lives of billions of people. I think that counts for more than just being a really good CEO with a keen eye for design. And I suspect that in a hundred years Gates will be a hero, and Jobs little more than a footnote.

Favorite Films of 2012

I went to a lot of movies in 2012, and I seem to have done a better-than-average job of picking which films I saw – a good 2/3 of this list I would label as “good” movies, and I only really hated a few. So, here are the films I saw in the theater in 2012, from worst to best.

---

30. Prometheus

A total failure from start to finish, and the only film that made me angry I ever believed it could be good.

29. The Woman in Black

28. The Amazing Spider-Man

Worse than the 2002 version in every way.

27. Lawless

I was excited for this film because I loved Nick Cave and John Hillcoat’s last collaboration, The Proposition. Sadly, this is three hours of Shia LaBeouf mugging in a zoot suit. Even Tom Hardy can’t save this movie.

26. The Campaign

25. John Carter

Not as bad as it was made out to be, but not very good, either.

24. Les Miserables

I love the musical and I loved some of the performances here. But the cinematography, art direction, editing, sound mixing – you know, the stuff that makes this a movie – were a disaster.

23. The Hunger Games (see episode 21 of Pop Cultural Osmosis)

22. The Bourne Legacy

21. The Dark Knight Rises (see episode 26 of Pop Cultural Osmosis)

20. Haywire

19. The Intouchables

18. The Secret World of Arietty (see episode 21 of Pop Cultural Osmosis)

17. Beasts of the Southern Wild

16. Brave (see episode 25 of Pop Cultural Osmosis)

15. Robot & Frank

14. The Hobbit

13. Seven Psychopaths

12. Chronicle

A great superhero movie that’s marred by its silly found-footage conceit.

11. Cabin in the Woods

The moment that the elevator doors all open at once was the most exuberant filmmaking moment of the year.

10. 21 Jump Street

The funniest movie of the year from the unlikeliest source. Maybe the best TV-to-film adaptation in movie history.

9. Argo

Affleck continues to mature as a director, if perhaps not as an actor. This movie could easily have been reductive or pedantic; instead, it was smart and thrilling.

8. Skyfall

The best Bond film since – I’m not even sure. Goldfinger, maybe? Skyfall is somehow able to perfectly balance the inherent ridiculousness of the character with genuine stakes and drama. Plus, Mendes and Deakins are the best craftsmen ever to work on the series.

7. Django Unchained

The film’s first half is much better than its second – the action flags a bit once they arrive at Candeyland. But this is still Tarantino’s best film since Pulp Fiction, a perfectly-crafted, always-entertaining film that also makes – in its own manic way – a number of nuanced points about American slavery.

6. Cloud Atlas

I can understand why people hate this movie, but I loved it anyway. Crazily ambitious, heavy-handed, and seemingly destined for failure, Cloud Atlas is also a film devoid of cynicism and blessed with enormous emotional generosity. What can I say? It worked for me.

5. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

A beautiful, beguiling film. Gary Oldman’s performance is masterfully restrained. I’ve watched this movie over and over and I find something new to appreciate every time.

4. Looper

One of the best sci-fi films in years. (For more, see episode 28 of PCO.)

3. Moonrise Kingdom

Wes Anderson’s best live-action film, and perhaps the best live-action film Wes Anderson is capable of making. Moonrise is such the perfect distillation of his style that I have trouble seeing how he’ll ever top it.

1. TIE: The Avengers / Lincoln

A cheat! One is the best superhero film of all time, written and directed by a geeky cult-hero made good. The other is America’s best director teaming with America’s best playwright to make a film about America’s best President. They both play so directly to different passions of mine; I don’t think I could possibly choose.

Movies I wanted to see but didn’t have the chance: The Master, Zero Dark Thirty, Amour, Silver Linings Playbook, Safety Not Guaranteed, Jiro Dreams of Sushi, Searching for Sugarman.

---

I was a little bummed about how few indie or limited distribution films I saw in theaters this year, but on the other hand, the studio offerings were uncommonly great. Right now it seems like arty little films are what I’m really excited about going forward (Upstream Color, Mud, Inside Llewyn Davis, Escape from Tomorrow) but that’s probably just because Sundance is going on so that’s what people are talking about.