Shallow Thoughts from a Deep Mind

No, wait.  I meant Deep Thoughts from a...never mind.

Why What You Like Actually Sucks

Do your parents enjoy the same movies you do?  Do you enjoy the same movies your kids do?  Most likely, the answer to both of those questions is ""no."  There is a very valid reason for this.  Movies, and pop culture in general, are not meant to stand the test of time.

Pop culture is meant to be taken in immediately, much like a can of soda.  Open and consume it now, or else it'll go flat.

If you are like me and grew up in the 1980s, you are probably shaking you head at the number of films released (and due to be released) recently that "rob" your childhood.  Transformers, G.I. Joe, Dukes of Hazzard, the television version of V, the upcoming A-Team and Clash of the Titans...the list could go on ad nauseum.

None of these remakes (or "reboots" as Hollywood has dubbed them) are any good.  Most likely, you will tell anyone younger than you (who will listen) how much better the original was.  The problem is - you're wrong.  The original sucked as much as the reboot.

Here's why.  When you're a kid, what you experience for the first time is always the best.  You remember those lazy days wasting hours upon hours watching what, to you, was the best thing ever.  What was "old" sucked; what was "cutting edge" was the latest and the greatest.

When you grew up a bit, became more serious about life, and had less free time to waste away, pop culture often escapes the average person.  What's left is the memory of those days, and the memories are of those movies, TV shows, and music which enveloped that time.  The memories, regardless of the truth, are usually "great."

In revisiting what you thought was great, often times you will be left disappointed.  What was hilarious when you were 13 isn't always that funny when you're 30.  Special effects become cheesy and transparent.  And that "special someone" you had a deep crush on may still seem cute, but their later spiral into the depths of drug addiction really destroyed that endearing fantasy.

So you become stuck in a time warp, wrongly remembering pop culture of the past as something that transcended the era in which it was created.  Certainly some films (and music or television programs) are great no matter the era that spawned them.  Yet for the most part, these creations overextend their expiration dates within a decade if not sooner.

Remember when every thought Tim Burton's Batman was the greatest take on Batman ever?  Hmmm.  Now no one can touch Christopher Nolan's version.  Is it really that much better, or it is because Nolan's take is happening now while Burton's Batman became dated - not because it's necessarily bad, but because a new era of critics and film goers has the say in what's today's best and brightest?  How will Nolan's Batman be viewed in 10-15 years when yet another filmmaker has taken the reigns of the series?

Unfortunately, you cannot explain this to today's youth (as no one could explain it to you back then).  One has to experience it to learn it.

So don't feel so bad.  Yes, it's fine to relive those days of yore and remember them fondly.  Just do go around thinking they just made great movies back then while today's offerings suck. 

The truth is that Hollywood's has always been Hollywood and it cranks out movies aimed at the youth because that's where the money is.  For the most part, they all suck.  What the kids hold dear and raise to crazily unnecessary heights of genius (can you say Twilight?) will ultimately die the death of the truly mediocre.

Even so, these films will remain beloved to that youth until old age when those crusty old timers will be cursing the weak offerings of that era's Hollywood.

The Curse of Being Hollywood's Newest Sweetheart

Take a moment and ask yourself this question: How many great actresses can you name under the age of 35? Now by “great,” I don’t mean “sexy” or “do-able,” I mean actresses that can actually, you know, act.

My guess would be, even if you consider yourself quite knowledgeable about all things cinema, you couldn’t name more than perhaps three or four. When I posed that same question to myself, I came up with four names – only one of which I was sure of.

Kate Winslet is indeed a solid actress and has proven her range and versatility. She was my given.

Natalie Portman has done some solid work, yet it’s hard to forgive her for her leaden role in the 2nd Star Wars trilogy. Sure, Lucas might’ve been an acting anchor, but a stronger actress could’ve over come even him.

Amy Adams followed, and while her performance in Doubt upped her overall Q, she’s got an acting history littered with forgettable moments.

Finally, I hit upon Rachel McAdams. She’s shown some guts, picking indie films after strong showings in Mean Girls and Red Eye. But she’s not completely proven herself.

Now is it wrong to expect any actress to be great by the time of hitting her mid-thirties? No. And here’s why – for an actress, if she doesn’t establish herself by that age, her career is basically over. The problem is, and it’s a historical Hollywood fact, actresses are not necessarily expected to act. They are eye candy, and little more.

Now sure, some actresses manage long and prosperous careers. Meryl Streep, Emma Thompson, Sissy Spacek, Dame Judy Dench…these actresses, among others, have lasted. Note, none of them are – or I believe ever – have been considered “hot.” But damn, can they act.

Another group, the Meg Ryans, Sandra Bullocks, Reese Witherspoons and Jennifer Anistons of the world, has been willing to enjoy long careers in which acting isn’t really necessary. They create their own projects that more or less continue what they became best known for – often playing variations of the quirky girl-next-door (or as they age, the uptight married woman) in instantly forgettable rom-coms. Nothing wrong with extending the career, girls, yet mediocrity is not really worth striving for, is it?

What is left over, and what the Hollywood “star factory” is more known for, is the actress better known as the flavor of the month, or Hollywood’s newest sweetheart. Megan Fox currently reigns supreme, yet she has yet to prove she can do more than looking unbelievably hot. She’s not alone. Isla Fisher, Elisha Cuthbert, Jessica Biel, Jessica Alba…a few years ago they were better known as Rachel Bilson, Kirsten Dunst, Jennifer Lopez, Cameron Diaz…and prior to that Alicia Silverstone, Kristy Swanson, Kelly LeBrock, and even at one time, the legendary P.J. Soles.

The career arch for these women usually goes:  low budget crapfest, small budget recognition, star making performance as the damsel in distress, lead role in rom-com that’s mildly successful, poor attempt at an Oscar performance, fade in to distant memory. Oh sure, some stick around, find a role on a TV show or two, and elongate careers that perhaps should’ve mercifully ended years ago.

But many actresses vanish completely. It’s only upon stumbling across an older film starring one of these former “It” girls that makes you ponder, what ever happened to her? Madeleine Stowe, where are you? Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, you still out there? Did the psych ward finally capture you, Lori “Tank Girl” Petty? Laura Dern? Hell, even Ashley Judd, Mira Sorvino or Tea Leoni need maps to get back on screen.

Meanwhile others, such as Julia Roberts, Michelle Pfeiffer and Halle Berry (yeah, both Catwomen), who maintain their sexiness even as they age and pop out kids will stumble across the big screen on occasion. But the roles are fewer and farer between than in their heyday.

The ultimate reason for this often short stint for any actress in Hollywood is simple – the men involved. As these actresses achieve more and more success, the label of “diva” becomes attached to their lives whether warranted or not. Then someone in the studio food chain figures, hell, if she wants $15 million for this pic, why not find someone a little younger (read: a little hotter) who’ll work for peanuts? And right then and there, that actress’s career is on the down swing.

Plus, unlike women who will continue to swoon for aging stars like Robert Redford when they reach grandpa-hood, male movie goers always want the next, young hot piece of ass. Magazines like Maxim constantly argue over which body has lost it and whose new face is the best to fantasize about. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m saying that’s the way it is, was and forever will be.

So ladies, if you’re going to be the next big thing in Hollywood, remember – save your cash, because your career is likely to last about as long as looks…or maybe even less.

The Law of Diminishing Comedic Returns

Once upon a time, there was a writer/director by the name of John Hughes. You may have heard of him. He was the creative force behind some of the best loved ‘80s teen comedies – Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Sixteen Candles, and The Breakfast Club to name a few.

As the 80s turned into the 90s, Hughes golden touch faded. For some unfathomable reason, he began turning out mindless “family” drivel, sometimes under the pen name Edmond Dantes (which may be telling as that is the name of the lead character in The Count of Monte Cristo). Curly Sue, Baby’s Day Out, and the Beethoven series all soiled a reputation that had at one time seemed untouchable. By the turn of the century, Hughes simply cashed checks as he spit out the stories for the likes of the J Lo vehicle Maid in Manhattan and the Owen Wilson suicide comeback Drillbit Taylor.

Many wondered, for good reason, “what ever happened to that guy?” Hughes’s story is no different from the one certain to befall Hollywood’s latest “comedic genius” Judd Apatow. It’s what I like to call the Law of Diminishing Comedic Returns. Or in other words One-Trick Pony-ism.

The history of Hollywood is littered with stories like that of John Hughes. It’s not that the industry turned its back on “genius” (as Hughes may be hinting in his pen name) and ran him out of the business. It’s that 99% of all comedians do one thing and one thing only. Once we, the general public, have seen what’s offered, and laughed at it, we are only offered more of the same – often only with some lame twist added.

Some may want to point the Finger of Blame towards type casting, saying ridiculous things like "...but Dice Clay could've been so much more had they not kept forcing him into those bad films."  Yet "they" never forced the Diceman - or anyone else for that matter - into anything.  In truth, the comedian in question chose his own path.  And the reason all those movies your favorite comedian starred in look and sound the same is that the “one thing” the comedian first offered is the only thing the comedian can provide. And the same joke, no matter how it’s told, gets old. Fast.

In the 1930s through early 1940s, the Marx Brothers released 14 films which acted as a bell curve for their collective careers. By the fifth film – their magnum opus Duck Soup – the Marx Brothers had reached their creative pinnacle. From that point on, every film they released was simply more of the same zaniness from the Brothers. Yet the entertainment quotient slowly whittled its way down to zero by 1949’s Love Happy. Groucho would continually prove he was indeed comedically talented until the end of his life, but as a team, the Marx Brothers could only do so much.

The other set of brothers from that era, The Three Stooges, also prove the rule. The Stooges were at their best early in their careers with Moe, Larry, and Curly (Moe’s real life brother) in the mix. While the Stooges output was 5 times what the Marx Brothers released (thanks to the Stooges reliance on shorts rather than features) and the Stooges constant slapstick (emphasis on the slap) routine was not quite as sophisticated as the Marx’s verbal wittisicm, the Stooges could be downright hilarious. Yet even the Stooges shtick with Curly could become boresome. And if that weren’t enough, once Curly left the threesome in 1947, his brother Shemp joined the crew, and the downward spiral began in earnst.  It picked up its pace when even Shemp exited and was replaced with (oy) Joe and later Curly Joe. The Stooges had creatively peaked nearly two decades prior to their final demise.

This list could go on and on if you began to run down the film careers of the likes of the Bob Hope & Bing Crosby in their "road" flicks, Jerry Lewis and his Rat Pack cohorts, Woody Allen (though he had more ups and downs than most), and even the Monty Python troupe.  No one is an exception to this law.

Jump forward to today, and the law remains consistant. Film comedians debut, reach a quick peak, then either disappear or worse – hang around long enough to soil themselves in “family” comedies.  Just take a quick inventory of modern comedians and see:

Mel Brooks – Undoubtedly a comedic genius – just watch Young Frankenstein or Blazing Saddles if you dare doubt – Brooks made serious missteps with the likes of Robin Hood: Men in Tights, Dracula: Dead and Loving It, and - just guessing here - the animated version of Spaceballs soon to crash land on TVs everywhere.

Steve Martin – He showed his “wild and crazy” brilliance in the likes of The Jerk, The Man with Two Brains, and even The Three Amigos balanced with a perfect turn in Planes, Trains, and Automobiles (penned by John Hughes, oddly enough) and his own Roxanne. Then came Parenthood and The Father of the Bride(s) redux, and Martin was figuratively done, relegated to trying to capture the magic of Peter Sellers (like that was possible) in lame Pink Panther sequels/remakes.

Adam Sandler – Sandler plays a mentally challenged character too well not to be somewhat touched in the head himself. It’s a crutch he needed to lose. Even so, after peaking with a relatively normal performance in The Wedding Singer, he backed that up with Big Daddy, Little Nicky, Click, Zohan, etc., all films that relied not only on Sandler's one and only comedic take, but on an expanded one joke premise. I cannot raise my voice fast enough to yell that HE WILL NEVER MAKE A TRULY FUNNY MOVIE AGAIN.

Ben Stiller – I admit, I have something personal against the guy. However he may have redeemed himself with Tropic Thunder (and may be best off staying behind the scenes as he continues his career). Yet he still needs constant reminder that his put upon schlub character he continually plays in the likes of Along Came Polly and Night at the Muesem needs to die once and for all.

Kevin Smith – Was he ever funny? Who gives him money to make that crap? Who’s he blowing? Seriously. I want answers.

The Farrelly Brothers - They deservedly held the title as the "Kings of gross-out comedies" with Dumb & Dumber, Kingpin, and their most loved There's Something About Mary.  Then disaster struck in the form of Me, Myself, & Irene and the brothers haven't been the same since.  Shallow Hal?  Stuck on You?  Ick.

Will Ferrell – Seriously, dude, quit showing off the body. The naked run in Old School was great, but no more. Please. No more weak attempts at sports films – Talladega Nights, Blades of Glory, Semi-Pro, and even Kicking & Screaming. And if I hear one more idiot scream “Mom! The Meatloaf! Fuck!” and think it's funny, I’m coming after you.

The Airplane Guys (aka Zucker, Abrahams, & Zucker) and their imitators – Airplane! is phenomenal. The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad is awesome. I even have a soft spot for Top Secret. But once this flood gate was opened, we were deluged with more Naked Guns, then Hot Shots, and then the even worse rip-offs – the Scary Movies, Epic Movies, Superhero Movies, etc. Someone make it stop. Now.

Vince Vaughn – Look,Iknowyoutalkfastandsometimesevenmakeitseemfunnythatyoucantalkfastberudeand haveapointdoingit,buttheresalimittothissupposedcharacteryou’replayingwhichyou’renotreally playingbecauseitsthewayyoureallyare.Ididn’tforgetthatyoutriedtobearealactionandmadea shitpoorattemptatitinthePsychoremake.Enjoyyourmomentinthesun,it’ssetting.

Robin Williams – Insert your own joke here. I think you know what he was once capable of, and what he’s presently doing. Perhaps the drug habit helped, I don’t know.

Seth Rogen – The pudginess, the curly hair, and the pot-smoking thing: You strip those three things away, and you got nothing, boy. Nothing. If he keeps playing the same roll in every film, and they keep releasing them every six months, you’ll get the idea.

Eddie Murphy - 48 Hrs., Trading Places, Beverly Hills Cop - all 100% pure Murphy, all great.  Then what?  Did being a parent go to his head?  Did he suffer some sort of brain damage?  He went from adult comedies to highly these weird, self-serving "family comedies" (Dr. Dolittle(s), Holy Man, Meet Dave, etc.) that were neither funny or showcased his ability.  And he's not about to change.

Judd Apatow – Freaks and Geeks was canceled for a reason, people. The guy needs to learn how to edit. No comedy should run more than 100 minutes. You cut 30 minutes out of 40 Year Old Virigin, and 45 minutes out of Knocked Up and we can talk. Maybe. But his production company is the real culprit. I know his $30 million films make $100 million, but they get less and less funny as they’re spit out.

Jim Carrey – Is there a better poster boy for my theory that Mr. Carrey? Even with the overacting in The Mask and Liar, Liar (someone needed to tone down his “normal” characters here) he was beyond great. And then there's Lloyd Christmas in the classic Dumb & Dumber. Could Carrey top that?  Apparently not. Either he overpriced himself, or more likely, he’d emptied his bag of tricks and what do we get? Yes Man. Poor Jim.

The scary part is, comedic actors aren’t the only ones to which this theory could be applied. “Real” actors often fall into rolls playing the same character type in different films. Again, this isn’t type casting. It’s that these aren’t really characters, but versions of the actor themselves. But that’s for another rant.

The best comedies do indeed come from comedic minds like those listed above. The sad reality is that these minds go only so deep. The well runs dry fast, and instead of new ways of thinking or the willingness to present something more daring or off-the-wall, they settle for the familiar. Because there’s cash attached and a ready audience that remember what once was with hopes of what may be. And that’s a comedy killer.