Are You Sure Fincher Didn't Direct This? The Red Flags in 'Steve Jobs'

'Musicians play the instruments, I play the orchestra.'

I'm just as excited to see the Steve Jobs movie as you are. A couple of things are already raising flags. Let's go down the list shall we?

1. Marketing is smoking something. Every TV spot I see for Steve Jobs starts out great. It's the titular character (played by Michael Fassbender) narrating; 'The two most significant events of the 20th century; the allies win the war, and this...' exposing the first ever Apple Mac. Awesome. I'm in. In fact, the History Channel just put the smart phone (which doesn't have to be an iPhone but come on) as the #1 invention of all time. But then it's 25 more seconds about the fact that he won't acknowledge his illegitimate daughter like he's Henry VIII or something. Who cares? No one. Steve Jobs is not a figure about whom the personal life is important. Do we care about Thomas Edison's sex capades? Me thinks not. As literally the second greatest inventor since the aforementioned Edison, Steve Jobs interests most of us as a pioneer of technology and a pillar of innovation. Why even put that in the movie in the first place? But that's a different story. The trailer is great, especially when Wozniak (Seth Rogen) asks him; 'what do you do? You're not an engineer you don't write code, so WHAT DO YOU DO?' It is great for exposition, and pretty much right on target considering no one took Steve Jobs seriously initially because he didn't really DO anything, he was a designer as far as Silicon Valley was concerned. But to market the film as a lazy Lifetime movie is just stupid. It will appeal to women, Fassbender is in it, so you don't have to pander to that demographic.

Boyle (left) converses with Fassbender and Rogen in between takes.

2. After The Social Network (2010), we all expected that the creative union of Aaron Sorkin and David Fincher would continue. Unfortunately they divorced, and out of all directors who are great at this kind of no-holds-barred bio-pic, and can handle the biting writing of Aaron Sorkin, it's definitely not Danny Boyle. I know he's made some great films; well one or two. Personally I think the man's only good ones are Trainspotting (1996) and 28 Days Later (2002). This is far too big a mountain for him to climb. Also, the film is about technological innovation as I said. Who handles that awesomely? Fincher. Which movie was so perfect it's almost subliminal? The Social Network. I'm sure we'll all be sitting there thinking; 'I wish Fincher had directed this'. This is a pretty heavy assumption, but that's what I'll be thinking. 

'I can't wait for you to think of a proper metaphor' the words of Sorkin are music to my ears.

3. In terms of award season fodder, I'm skeptical. As much as I love Fassbender, and how method he is, and basically flawless as an actor, he doesn't seem like he's the strongest performer in the movie. I really hope that this doesn't turn into a film where the main character doesn't even carry his own story. The supporting roles already seem to be played with more gusto and bravado. But all that the trailer shows me is that Fassbender has a great wardrobe department (that's a given considering Jobs famously only wore black turtlenecks and dad jeans) and has the voice down. Ergo, when it comes to the Oscars, we might see the exact kind of backlash we saw with overhyped films like The Social Network. I know all of the principals are going to be nominated, but honestly, I don't see a win in any of their futures (perhaps because I'm rooting for Eddie Redmayne in The Danish Girl and can't possibly conceive of saying 'Oscar winner Seth Rogen', but only time will tell. 

4. Just to sing Fincher's praises a bit more, I don't think anyone understands that dark side of humanity in all of us better than him. He's proved it again and again with Se7en, Gone Girl, and AGAIN The Social Network. Danny Boyle is a few clicks away from being Baz Luhrmann; as in style without substance. Fincher tells the story of a person that is unbelievably flawed but is somehow, through Fincher magic, is endearing. Boyle, not so much. Steve Jobs is in essence a character study. It's the Citizen Kane of the technological revolution; the story of a man who gains the world and loses his soul. Boyle loves spectacle, whereas Fincher loves deep and complex personal stories no matter what the setting is. He looks at the characters before he looks to the aesthetic. Boyle, in my opinion, does the exact opposite. 

Sorkin's don't-fuck-with-me face. 

5. Maybe I'm just being a nit picky bitch here, but I get frustrated when a story that is inherently American, not in a flimsy patriotic way, but where being American is so important to the story is directed by a British guy. It's like when people were outraged that Milos Forman (a Soviet defector) made One Flew Over a Cuckoo's Nest (1975), which was very clearly an indictment of American culture. The only thing is, Forman is an infallible director and he pulled it off and no one gave an argument when he, his film, and his actors, all won Academy Awards. Steve Jobs, like Marilyn Monroe and Superman, is an American icon. And the setting of his losses and triumphs highly effects his destiny. I'm not saying that Jim Sheridan, Neil Jordan, or Ken Loach can't make American movies, but have you ever seen one? I know Neil Jordan directed Interview with the Vampire (1994) but that's basically a fairy tale that's set in New Orleans. Also Neil Jordan is awesome. Boyle has proved his versatility in working outside of his cultural comfort zone with Slumdog Millionaire (2008), but I don't think that makes him an ideal candidate. Just off the top of my head, I'm thinking Gus Van Sant, Robert Zemeckis, The Coen Brothers, or probably Paul Thomas Anderson should have been in line to direct this before Boyle. But maybe it will be one of those accidental miracles like when Spielberg decided to direct Schindler's List (1994) after Martin Scorsese turned it down. Handing Sorkin's material is no easy feat ok children? It's like trying to adapt a dense but fascinating text book. Every single word, punctuation, and inflection is important. And it goes damn fast. Only time will tell is Boyle was up to the task. 

Jobs is a very 'recent' person for a bio-pic as in he didn't die 100 years ago. When he unveiled the iPhone it was a historic moment. Aside from the OJ Bronco chase, it was perhaps the most memorable moment that we all collectively watched on TV and lived through. Ergo, material is still fresh, ergo it's easier to screw up. 

Anyway, we're all excited so I don't want to piss on that. Fassbender can play anything, I'll acknowledge that. And hey it's not like distinctively American films didn't have foreigners in it; look at L.A. Confidential (1997), where 75% percent of the cast that were playing LAPD officers were Australian. It's a risky film, and I just would have liked a little bit more of a safety net. I'm going to go in watching it with the onset of a panic attack. It aesthetically looks great. This is a pejorative ya'll. When something aesthetically looks great, it usually doesn't have much else. It's the director's way of saying; I know I fucked up on the story, but look how pretty! Based on the pre-release hype, it looks like a film that grazes the surface, but underneath it all, doesn't have much soul. My shining beackon of hope is Sorkin, as he's more stubborn with his scripts than Billy Wilder. Want to change something because it doesn't 'feel' right? Fuck you, say what's written on the page. He's one of the few writers who can actually do that. So let's hope he stuck to his stubborn guns and people listened to him first, and Boyle second, if at all. 

Below, the trailer: 

Below, the actual unveiling of the iPhone at Apple headquarters in Cupertino, CA in 2007. You don't have to watch the whole thing it's long, but it is a piece of history. When we're all wearing silver jumpsuits and riding around in our hovercrafts, I'm sure we'll still be using an iPhone of some kind...model 16 that, like Google Glass, we can wear on our heads, or we'll be microchipped with. I can't wait for the future. 

A quick lesson about filmmaking brought to you by the films, style, and aesthetic of David Fincher. Seriously, in my subjective (and well informed) opinion, he's the best director working right now.

Why 12 Years a Slave Will Win Best Picture and Gravity Won't

Basically these are the two main contenders at the moment, and it's really not that hard to see why my title is accurate here. To whomever watched both, if you actually think Gravity (2013) will win top honors maybe you should go back to film school for a semester. Both actually have similar underplots; which is the story of survival against immeasurably difficult odds and circumstances. But here's where one triumphs over the other. What's that thing that's really important in a film that has to be nuanced and explored and worked on before principal photography even starts? Oh yeah, the fucking story. What's the story of Gravity? The plot? Two astronauts are stranded in space trying to get home safely. The end.

Both Alfonso Cuaron and Steve McQueen are auteurs in their own right but you have to admit that McQueen's work, though less prolific than Cuaron's is far superior. Here he's taking on a story that basically enormous in scope and emotion, it has to be dealt with delicately and with finesse, and he accomplishes that task beautifully. 

Visual effects don't equal Oscar gold no matter how awesome, didn't we learn that with Avatar?

I may not be a 'big player' in the film business but I did graduate (with honors I might add) from two of the top film studies programs in the country and was taught by some of the best professors in the academic world so excuse me but I know a thing or two about these things. Also, I pride myself in knowing what wins Oscars and what doesn't. A film based mostly on gimmick and technical tricks will not win anything but technical awards. Like anyone gives a shit about those anyway. Oh Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Visual Effects awards are coming up, time for me to freshen my drink and use the bathroom. That's where Gravity will hit home runs.

Three huge contenders for acting nods this year, (L to R) Michael Fassbender, Lupita Nyoung'o and Chiwetel Ejiofor)

On the other hand we are blessed and I truly mean blessed with a film like 12 Years a Slave (2013) which doesn't come out every so often, it will definitely be in that category of There Will Be Blood (2007), The Social Network (2010), and others that granted didn't win Best Picture honors but that was mostly due to politics, but it's a film that 50 years down the line film schools will make their students study.

It's basically the Slavery version of Schindler's List (1993), which I have to say while watching I saw so many similarities between. It was a no-holds-barred account of the story of a man through whom we saw the atrocities of what people are capable of doing to other people that actually happened in our human history. It is brutal, and yet so sincere, that's how you approach making a movie about such a delicate subject. 

the brutality and visceral nature of Schinder's List made people appreciate and understand the content in ways they'd never had before, same goes for 12 Years a Slave.

Really all you have to look at is the history of the Academy Awards, yeah they're political, yeah they're just dumb show and a fashion 'meat parade' as George C. Scott famously quipped but who wins Best Picture? Perfect example is when The Hurt Locker (2009) triumphed over overblown bullshit gimmicky crap film Avatar (2009)...in 2009. Here's a few things that matter to the Academy; Scope, brevity, STORY, and pathos. Usually a film has to have all to win. Some times they miss the mark, but I think there's nothing about this film that they can use against it. It is literally perfect Best Picture material. A better film couldn't have been fitted for that category. And they LOOOOOOOVE it when a true story is brought to life. My friend and I are talking about this as we speak and she said the following about 12 Years a Slave; 'it's dark and violent and hard to watch', all good points. But that's never stopped the Academy. Sure Passion of the Christ (2004) didn't even get nominated, but that was largely due to controversy of antisemitism and a valid one at that, and also lest we forget the same director won a decade earlier basically every award for the 'dark, violent, and hard to watch' epic Braveheart (1994). And what else fell into all those categories? One of the greatest films of all time that as difficult to watch as it was we all still did and we were better people for it, that's why all awards went to Schindler's List (1993) the year prior. 
This film to me is basically the new version of that, it has all of those things I spoke of earlier; heart, pathos, humanity, tragedy, redemption, and it makes us FEEL rather than sit there going 'woah that was cool'. So it's no question in my opinion, and if you want to put money on it, I'm ready. 12 Years a Slave to win, Steve McQueen to win, John Ridley to win, Chiwetel Ejiofor to win, Michael Fassbender to win, Sarah Paulson to win. I'm putting all my eggs into this basket this year, and though it might not turn out as I want on some of them, the first two are a sure thing in my mind. 

Trailers below: 

How I Would Cast Fifty Shades of Grey

Recently published composite of the ideal Christian Grey. Looks like a meat-head to me.

That's right people, my second post on 'Fifty Shades of Grey' and it's not even a film and/or Lifetime special yet. As I said before, and I wasn't wrong. 'Fifty Shades of Grey' is a literary phenomenon on par with sensations like 'Gone with the Wind', and 'Harry Potter'. In fact, a new survey shows that dolar for dollar, Fifty Shades recently surpassed Harry Potter in sales, and that's all of the Harry Potter books put together.

Hollywood is currently shitting itself in anticipation of buying the rights to retell this, even though anything slapped with any less than an NC-17 would be outright atrocious.

The number one frontrunner currently in the coveted race to play sadist, chauvinist woman-abuser that women are obsessed with for some reason is ridiculously hot nice-guy Canadian and saver of British women's lives Ryan Gosling. But I think that's a tad obvi. 

The story is based on the characters from the Twilight series so Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson our out because that's of course tired and who gives a shit about those two anymore? 

Here's what I'm thinking, and this might be obvi too but it just seems so perfect. Michael Fassbender as Christian Grey. It's perfect in-it? He's already a serious contender, and fingers crossed And he's no stranger to full-frontal and hardcore almost-porn, and the man is fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine. That's an industry term. He seems like he'd tie you up, smack you around, and leave you asking 'Thank you sir, may I have another?'

Two words. 'um...yes.'

Now, casting the naive college student who galls head over heels in love with Christian and with being tied up, Anastasia Steele, is going to be more difficult, it has to be someone who's a fresh-face, but is totally not against doing demeaning nudity and being ball-gagged for the majority of the film. I think Ellen Page is just a bit too annoyingly dignified for that. Once you get an Oscar nomination you all of a sudden see yourself as far too good for kitschy mommy porn. So I'm going to go ahead and nominate Lilly Collins or perhaps Fassbender's former co-star Sarah Gadon, or even Lady Sybil herself, Jessica Brown Findlay. Of course Sarah Gadon would have to put on a stone or two and dye her hair, but she's my favorite in this race, especially considering she's ballsy enough to work with Cronenberg twice already and she's not even 24 yet.

Now, what's really important is who's going to direct it. 

Sarah Gadon just has one of those great faces that screams 'please corrupt me, I'm impressionable and also a virgin' so she's perfect in my opinion.

Off the top of my head, three names that instantly come to mind are Sally Potter, David Cronenberg, and Paul Verhoeven. How amazing would any of those be, but Hollywood being Hollywood they'll probably hire some guy who does second unit on Jersey Shore or turn it over to Tom Hooper who'll make it some cheesy, weepy, clap-trap melodrama about sexual depravity and take all of the filth out of it. Please grow some balls Hollywood and listen to me. I'm praying for a wildly farcical, seriously graphic, campy shit-show, just like it was originally written.

Below, an article on the casting of Christian Grey that has housewives everywhere queefing in their granny-panties.

'Fifty Shades of Grey's' Christian Grey Composite Photo Uses Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp, David Beckham (Poll)

Are Brits Sexy? Quite...Indeed...Indubitably.

I'm a Benedictian...or would it be Cumberbacher? Either way, the flag looks like the picture above basically. I designed it myself. 

So I'm in the process of watching BBC America's 20 Sexiest Brits (2012) special because it's Saturday morning and I have nothing better to do with my time. Magic Mike (2012) opens at 11am so I still have a good half an hour to kill. My first thought was 'are there any of those?' my second thought was 'why do I give a shit?' but before I knew it there I was on the couch, diet coke for breakfast in hand watching this shit, and canceling my Magic Mike plans!

So the obvies were on the list, professional do-nothing fish-dog Pippa Middleton, British Jennifer Aniston - Emily Blunt, beef-cake supple-lips Tom Hardy...yada yada British yada. But then they wild-carded it and threw Benedict Cumberbatch at me. First of all, most British name since the Commonwealth was first formed, and he looks like an otter. I like them weird so I was all 'hell to the yes' during this segment, because he looks evil and like he might hurt me, but not really. So I get excited about that. 

Then I got pissed off. They put Fassbender on that list. First of all BBC, Fassbender was born in Germany to Irish parents and raised in Dublin. So I don't think any of that qualifies him to be a 'Brit', last time I checked the Republic of Ireland wasn't part of the Queen's Empire, so knock it off. I know you'd like to lay claim to him but, ain't gonna happen.

And just as I was about to get pissed at a TV show as if it were an ex-boyfriend they soothed me with announcing that Ben Whishaw made the list. Yes! thank you! I like them skinny, androgynous, quiet, and generally weird. So thank you, BBC America. That's a perfect man to me. 

Ben Whishaw. Mama like. 

But then they angered me again by putting someone as predictably bland as Colin Firth on the list like anyone gives two shits about him anymore. He was so bland even when he was younger, that I was not into it no matter how much British snobbishness and mumbling he brought to every role he ever played. Fail. 

My favorite part was the fact that they put Cadbury's flake on the list. I've lived in the UK and made the mistake of buying one or two of these things, probably when I was drunk. It basically looks like a cross between a stick of beef jerky and a mummified penis, and consists of rotten milk chocolate flakes condensed into the shape of a strange phallic stick that you could probably masturbate with. So the story behind this is that back in the day, the BBC had a sense of humor about itself made these tongue-in-cheek sensual commercials when a beautiful woman basically performs fellatio on the Cadbury's flake stick and then has some kind of chocolate orgasm. They are very similar to those Calvin Klien Obsession commercials over here in the states back in the 80's. Ironically, they would never make it past censors these days. 

Well kids, it looks like I have to sign off, they are about to talk about Andrew Garfield and I want to be fully present. Or at least I think it will be Andrew Garfield. The alluded to 'sexy men who've ever put on rubber suits' so better not be Chrisitan Bale. Cheerio! 

Below, Cadbury's Flake advert. 

Who's Hotter? Garfield or Fassbender?

You can chuck this up to comparing apples to oranges considering how different the two really are, but I honestly don't care. My mind has been going wild since I went to see Prometheus and they showed a new cut of The Amazing Spiderman trailer in 3D. And yes, I believe that if I really want it, I will end up with on of them one day, the question is who? 

It was inevitable that Fassy and Garfy would eventually be compared to each other considering they are both the starring in two of the biggest 3D films of the year. That's what I'm calling them by the way. Now, let's look at the disparities and see if we can figure things out. 

Garfy is British, mild-mannered, slightly dorky, and Jewish. Fassy is as aryan looking as they come, German-Irish, dominant, and somewhat aggressive. Both are insanely charming and attractive in their own unique ways, and now that they put Garfy in a skin tight rubber suit, I'm starting to loose my mind a little bit. 

From doing gritty independent dramas like Hunger (2008) and Fish Tank (2009), Fassy has blossomed into box office gold with films like X-Men: First Class (2011) and Prometheus (2012) but I don't necessarily think he's the wet dream of all screaming young girls in the theater. Garfy, on the other hand is androgynous and harmless looking enough for teenagers with budding sexualities to have a party in their lady parts. 

Fassy does amazingly hot sex scenes, just watch Shame (2011), that's all you have to do. You'll have your porn fix for the year. Garfy, on the other hand, has not yet done a sex scene quite as graphic, but then again no one has, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have the potential. I foresee plenty of weird graphic sweaty nipply sex scenes in his future. All  has to do is ask Cronenberg. 

This leads me to believe that Garfy is actually better at sex than Fassy, he seems like he would be more giving and less into himself during which is a vibe I tend to get while watching Fassy bump and grind with whomever. (Why not me, god?)

Fassy as David the robot, who is engineered to be the resembling the perfect human specimen. Sounds about accurate. 

But here's the thing, Garfy has that nerd appeal thing that is hotter than hot right now. He goes from playing Eduardo Saverin to the king of all nerds, Peter Parker. So he's the kind of guy you want to deflower. Slowly take off those thick-rimmed glasses, frazzle that hair a little bit and throw him on the bed after ripping his expensive American Eagle faded salmon colored polo shirt right off his nubile body. Ok, that's all going into my cheesy romance novel. Back on track, this also means he's the guy you want to bring to mom. I mean try explaining the plot of Shame to her and watch her have a mild cardiac infarction right before your very eyes when it's followed with 'oh and by the way, we're dating'.

Now, who's got the hotter accent? Since both of them are forced to adapt an American accent for many of their roles, it's really hard to tell, but Fassy's is very strange its a hybrid of Irish, British and German, and he talks very fast when he's off-script. The only time I think I've ever seen Garfy speak in his normal voice is when he made a cameo on SNL when Emma Stone was hosting for the second time.  and I'm going to have to give the edge to him on that one. 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Garfy will soon catch up to Fassy in the hot sex-scene category. 

I'm also going to go ahead and give him best eyes, and best mouth. Disagree all you want, but I like supple full lips. I think we all do. And because I like harmless, nice, guys, which I of course don't know for sure if that's what Garfy's like, I'm goingt to have to give my whole vote to Garfy and really start working on that, first thing's first - figure out where he lives, second item on the agenda, night-vision goggles. But that does not mean that when i'm in the mood I'm not going to go to my instant queue and scroll down to Fish Tank and watch it because the sex in that film (only two scenes) is hotter than any porn I've seen of late. 

Got you guys some trailers. Put on 3D glasses now.