Star Trek XI — more casting news

The Hollywood Reporter says Leningrad-born 18-year-old Anton Yelchin has joined the cast of Star Trek XI as Pavel Chekov, who was first played by the nearly 31-year-old Walter Koenig in 1967. This is interesting, as Chekov did not join the show until its second year — though Chekov must have been on the ship somewhere during the first year, otherwise Khan would not have recognized him years later in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982).

Star Trek XI — more casting rumours


Twelve days ago, it was announced that 30-year-old Zachary Quinto will play Spock in the new Star Trek movie. The role was created, of course, by Leonard Nimoy, who was 35 when the series began in 1966 — though he had played the role a couple years earlier, too, in the long-shelved first pilot ‘The Cage‘.

Now, Ain’t It Cool News claims to have the casting breakdowns for some of the movie’s other characters — including their ages:

  1. James Kirk — looking for an actor aged 23 to 29 — William Shatner was 35 when the series began

  2. Leonard (Bones) McCoy — looking for an actor aged 28 to 32 — DeForest Kelley was 46 when the series began
  3. Uhura — looking for an actress aged 25ish — Nichelle Nichols was 33 when the series began
  4. Sulu — looking for an actor aged 25 to 32 — George Takei was 29 when the series began
  5. Montgomery (Scotty) Scott — looking for an actor aged 28 to 32 — James Doohan was 46 when the series began

Assuming this information is correct, it would seem to kill those old rumours about 52-year-old Gary Sinise and 39-year-old Daniel Dae Kim being considered for McCoy and Sulu, respectively.

Meanwhile, IGN.com passes on the rumour that Tom Cruise — who has always seemed kind of Vulcan, to me — is being approached for a cameo as Christopher Pike, who was Captain of the Enterprise before Kirk. The role was originally played by Jeffrey Hunter, who may be best known for co-starring with John Wayne in The Searchers (1956) and playing an armpit-hair-free Jesus in King of Kings (1961). Hunter was 38 when he played Pike in ‘The Cage’, and according to the official chronology, that story took place 11 years before Kirk assumed command of the Enterprise; Cruise is 45.

Canadian box-office stats — August 5

Here are the figures for the past weekend, arranged from those that owe the highest percentage of their take to the Canadian box office to those that owe the lowest.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix — CDN $27,790,000 — N.AM $261,027,397 — 10.6%
The Simpsons Movie — CDN $12,410,000 — N.AM $128,060,578 — 9.7%
Hairspray — CDN $7,380,000 — N.AM $78,854,798 — 9.4%
Transformers — CDN $26,340,000 — N.AM $296,379,328 — 8.9%

I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry — CDN $6,920,000 — N.AM $91,795,450 — 7.5%
The Bourne Ultimatum — CDN $4,880,000 — N.AM $69,283,690 — 7.0%
Ratatouille — CDN $13,050,000 — N.AM $188,246,213 — 6.9%
Hot Rod — CDN $348,189 — N.AM $5,310,711 — 6.6%
No Reservations — CDN $1,530,000 — N.AM $24,175,203 — 6.3%
Underdog — CDN $377,407 — N.AM $11,585,121 — 3.3%

A couple of discrepancies: Ratatouille was #10 on the Canadian chart (it was #11 in North America as a whole), while Bratz: The Movie was #10 on the North American chart.

Rosenbaum on the “overrated” Ingmar Bergman


John Podhoretz of the New York Post was roundly denounced this week when he dismissed Ingmar Bergman, who died on Monday, as an over-rated figure from the past whose “day had passed”.

Victor Morton at the Rightwing Film Geek blog called Podhoretz an unproductive “twit”, Gary Susman at Entertainment Weekly‘s PopWatch Blog called Podhoretz a “spectacular . . . philistine”, and Glenn Kenny at Premiere.com wondered if Podhoretz had any actual pro-Bergman critics in mind when he belittled the Bergman buffs of the 1950s and 1960s as people who were “embarassed by the movies” and “offended” by the medium’s “unseriousness”.

Podhoretz might very well have been wrong if he was making such sweeping assertions about film critics. But what about the critics who covered other media? Todd McCarthy of Variety makes a point not unlike the one Podhoretz made when he writes:

Certainly Bergman was the director who won over literary snobs to the idea that the cinema could be an art. Fifty years ago, the American intelligentsia was dominated by critics and academics who either never saw movies or looked down on them as formulaic diversions. Bergman’s “The Seventh Seal” probably did more to begin a shift in thinking than any other film, with Alain Resnais’ “Hiroshima, mon amour,” Antonioni’s “L’avventura” and several other Bergman films soon following to fuel the fire.

In short, Bergman made cinema acceptable among the high-brows, who were additionally impressed by the fact that he practiced his art under unconstrained conditions in a faraway land unhampered by crass commercial considerations. But this doesn’t mean that his legacy should be limited to this rarefied view of his work. . . .

And now Jonathan Rosenbaum, the famously contrarian critic for the Chicago Reader, has a piece in today’s New York Times headlined “Scenes From an Overrated Career”:

Sometimes, though, the best indication of an artist’s continuing vitality is simply what of his work remains visible and is still talked about. The hard fact is, Mr. Bergman isn’t being taught in film courses or debated by film buffs with the same intensity as Alfred Hitchcock, Orson Welles and Jean-Luc Godard. His works are seen less often in retrospectives and on DVD than those of Carl Dreyer and Robert Bresson — two master filmmakers widely scorned as boring and pretentious during Mr. Bergman’s heyday.

What Mr. Bergman had that those two masters lacked was the power to entertain — which often meant a reluctance to challenge conventional film-going habits, as Dreyer did when constructing his peculiar form of movie space and Bresson did when constructing his peculiar form of movie acting.

The same qualities that made Mr. Bergman’s films go down more easily than theirs — his fluid storytelling and deftness in handling actresses, comparable to the skills of a Hollywood professional like George Cukor — also make them feel less important today, because they have fewer secrets to impart. What we see is what we get, and what we hear, however well written or dramatic, are things we’re likely to have heard elsewhere. . . .

The stylistic departures I saw in Mr. Bergman’s ’50s and ’60s features — the silent-movie pastiche in “Sawdust and Tinsel,” the punitive use of magic against a doctor-villain in “The Magician,” the aggressive avant-garde prologue of “Persona” — were actually more functions of his skill and experience as a theater director than a desire or capacity to change the language of cinema in order to say something new. If the French New Wave addressed a new contemporary world, Mr. Bergman’s talent was mainly devoted to preserving and perpetuating an old one.

Curiously, theater is what claimed most of Mr. Bergman’s genius, but cinema is what claimed most of his reputation. He was drawn again and again to the 19th-century theater of Chekhov, Strindberg and Ibsen — these were his real roots — and based on the testimony of friends who saw some of his stage productions when they traveled to Brooklyn, there’s good reason to believe a comprehensive account of his prodigious theater work, his métier, is long overdue.

We remember the late Michelangelo Antonioni for his mysteriously vacant pockets of time, Andrei Tarkovsky for his elaborately choreographed long takes and Orson Welles for his canted angles and staccato editing. And we remember all three for their deep, multifaceted investments in the modern world — the same world Mr. Bergman seemed perpetually in retreat from. . . .

Above all, his movies aren’t so much filmic expressions as expressions on film. One of the most striking aspects of the use of digital video in “Saraband,” his last feature, is his seeming contempt for the medium apart from its usefulness as a simple recording device. . . .

Despite all the compulsive superlatives offered up this week, Mr. Bergman’s star has faded, maybe because we’ve all grown up a little, as filmgoers and as socially aware adults. It doesn’t diminish his masterful use of extended close-ups or his distinctively theatrical, seemingly homemade cinema to suggest that movies can offer something more complex and challenging. And while Mr. Bergman’s films may have lost much of their pertinence, they will always remain landmarks in the history of taste.

So, in a nutshell, it would seem McCarthy and Rosenbaum are both arguing that Bergman achieved his cultural clout because of the literary and theatrical qualities he brought to his films — but not because he introduced any particularly memorable cinematic qualities to the artform. Bergman’s movies were, in other words, appreciated for something other than their movie-ness.

And ironically, it seems Rosenbaum is critiquing Bergman for not being high-brow enough — for stooping to “entertain” and for being “reluctan[t] to challenge conventional film-going habits”.

So, Rosenbaum is coming at Bergman from a very different angle than Podhoretz did, but the basic point they make is still the same: Bergman was over-rated and isn’t all that relevant any more.

It’ll be interesting to see what sort of response Rosenbaum gets!

Screened for critics, sorta, but still.


Bit late with this one, but anyhoo. As of Friday morning, I believe there were something like 14 reviews of Bratz: The Movie up at RottenTomatoes.com — there are now 46 — so evidently some critics saw this film in time to write it up. But here in Vancouver, the only press or preview screening was on Thursday night — and as we all know, night-before screenings “don’t count”. So this film gets an honourable mention in the “not screened for critics” file.

The Golden Compass — more preview footage

Yahoo! Movies and the official website for The Golden Compass have both posted the extended preview reel that played at Comic-Con recently. The actors look great, the visual effects look great, the music sounds great, and darn it, I find it all rather moving. If this were any other film, I would be very much looking forward to watching it. (Scratch that: I am very much looking forward to watching it.) But, alas, all the excellence on display is tainted by the fact that we all know where this will lead, if and when the sequels follow the story to its conclusion. Sigh.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X