The Thankless Stuntman

The job of the stunt coordinator on a film involves planning, budgeting, designing, and executing the complex action sequences.  It's a job that requires immeasurable creativity and leadership to achieve the mind-blowing action sequences in films.  Like the stuntman, it's a thankless job - and that's the way Hollywood wants to keep it, as they again denied requests for an Academy Award for "Best Stunt Coordination."

To give recognition to the stunt coordinators, stuntmen and stunt women responsible for executing Hollywood's most dangerous and exciting scenes would be to expose the magician's illusion for being just that - an illusion.  Most actors and filmmakers would love for audiences to believe that the people they see on screen are the ones actually risking their lives doing the stunts and that the stunts aren't an highly choreographed illusion, but an actual actor doing the action.  The sad part is that these are the same people who decide who gets recognized at the Academy Awards.

The truth is that most stunt people take pride in being the work horse behind the scenes.  They are truly the athletes of the film industry and love what they do.  Most people have a perception of stunt people as aspiring actors trying to make a living on their way to something better, and while there are some who wish for that, most have worked all their lives to become the best at a skill that they can capitalize on in the film industry by doing it on screen.  Most accept the fact that it is a thankless job, but the Academy has not done their part in recognizing the people who make up a large part of the film community - the part that is responsible for creating some of the most memorable moments on screen and filling theaters with adrenaline hungry audiences.

It's not that the Academy is not aware of this discrepancy in giving credit where it's due, or that the stunt community has not made it known.  Jack Gill, a renowned stunt coordinator has been working on the problem for over 20 years to no avail.  The first reason the Academy denied the request was because they said they don't want to add another branch (like hair/make-up, sound design, acting, directing, etc.) because it will make an already long program even longer.  So the stunt community offered to be on the untelevised segment; to walk the red carpet before the media shows up and to get an award at a separate event all together, but the Academy denied that request as well.

As everyone knows, the Academy Awards has been a program that has been going down hill for years now.  Someone always hates the host and everyone complains of the length of the program.  They are constantly making attempts to get a younger viewership by getting younger hosts, such as Anne Hathaway and James Franco, and recently Seth MacFarlane, but with little success.  Wouldn't adding a stunt category give the Oscars the exciting bump they need to keep things interesting while at the same time recognizing an incredibly talented group of people?

Please comment!

Student-Athletes Get the Short End of this Deal

 Huge schools like USC make millions upon millions showcasing their athletes on national television, selling their jerseys in student stores, and reaping the benefits of their performance on the grand stage, but the athletes get very little in return.  

A large factor for many people going to a school is not just their academics, but also their athletics. Students want to attend a school with an attractive athletic program because it creates a fun college atmosphere.  My sister is a high school senior and was just recently accepted into several schools around the country.  Of course academics is the most important factor to her her decision making process, but another large part of her decision is the athletics program at the school.  It's not that she actually cares about football or basketball, but a strong athletic program bredes a strong school spirit.  The so-called "Trojan Family" at USC is a result of the strong athletic program, but it reaches into the work place as well creating a strong student atmosphere. 

So they use these athletes to essentially bolster their school in every way, but don’t give the athletes any monetary reward for doing so. Scholarships are great but one of my best friends is on a full scholarship and he literally lives from stipend check to stipend check just to get by. He’s devoted his entire college experience to being an athlete. He became a kinesiology major because it was supposed to be easier to get through, which he now greatly regrets as a senior more interested in entrepreneurship and design. Because he is so consumed with practice, meetings, weight training, and occasional homework, he rarely has time to socialize with me or any of his other friends, and when he does he literally can’t afford to do anything because he is always so strapped for cash. It’s not that he is lazy and refuses to work, but actually doesn’t have the time for a job. Like every other athlete at a major university, his sport is his job, and the only one making money from his work is that same university.

Why Not Go Green?

     As a non-smoker of marijuana who favors the legalization of the drug, I feel obligated to express my reasons for my opinion, sort of in the way a non-gay person might support gay marriage, since this is one of those issues that seems not to greatly affect those not involved.  In a recent post, blogger Eric Matthews writes:

     "All the people who say [marijuana] legalization will help America are just ignorant and uniformed. Tax revenue would be offset by higher social costs, increased usage would be a huge burden on the criminal justice system and legalization would do nothing to stop drug cartels from continuing their operation."

     While this is wrong on so many levels, the quote itself is ignorant and uninformed, but as a supporter of legalization, I am neither.  The bottom line is that the law is not stopping anyone who wants to smoke marijuana from doing it.  If I wanted to light up I literally know several people I could call anytime to get it.  For the people who don't smoke, like me, it's not because of the illegality of it, it's most likely because they just don't like to smoke it for one reason or another.

     Everyone knows the staggering statistics that the state pays to combat minor crimes like possession and use of marijuana as well as the violent war on drugs to keep out Mexican drug cartels.  Why not make the drug legal, stop cartels, and make a little coin by taxing the hell out it while we're at it.  We arrest over 750,000 people a year just for possession.

    Legalization would allow American companies to step in and compete for the business, driving cost down and cartels out.  Teens who want to smoke marijuana already do, and I'm not encouraging that, but legalization would make teens less likely to use and sell marijuana.  The sheer illegality of marijuana gives it value among teens, allowing them to capitalize on the opportunity to sell it to their peers.  Of course teenage use of alcohol and tobacco remain serious public health problems even though they're legal for adults, but the availability of alcohol and tobacco is not made worse by providing kids with economic incentives to sell either one to their friends.

     The bottom line is it doesn't cost the non-user anything, and we only have positive things to gain from the legalization.  If you don't want to smoke weed, nobody will force you too, just like how you don't have to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol. In fact, marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes AND alcohol.

Theaters are here to stay… for now

In the last decade as the entertainment industry has began a drastic digital transformation, constant claims have been made about how the theater system as we know it will vanish.  One bold blogger for The Wrap states,

           

 “Movie theaters are going to go away.  There are currently about 6,000 theaters in the U.S. containing nearly 40,000 screens. In 10 years there will be under 1,000 and in 15, under 100. And we won’t miss them… I choose to accept and embrace the idea that theatrical will be entirely irrelevant for studio films within 10 years. Especially for blockbusters. With no less speed and much greater impact than 3D, the coming metamorphosis will not only provide a superior and untethered AV experience, it will enhance the communal aspect of ‘moviegoing’ to an almost unimaginable level.”

-Mark Lipsky

I call bull.  There’s something people love about the theater as much as the film they are there to see, and that’s the experience of coming together with 300 strangers to go on a journey together.  In a way it’s like church – you don’t just go for the message you go for the community.  Indeed those messages, or movies, are getting weaker in some senses (see previous blog on Hollywood crap), but to say that the home audio-visual experience will be superior to the average theater with a 50-foot projection screen and 6 channels of professional surround sound is STUPID.  In the last ten years the only change in my home AV experience has been from a ~40” plasma screen in the living room to a 56” LCD TV that recently took its place.  Tell me how in ten years time that situation could possibly evolve into something better than the movie-going experience.

The next thing Lipsky spews is that this evolution will “enhance the communal aspect of ‘moviegoing’ to an almost unimaginable level.”  I can imagine a whole lot Mr. Lipsky, so given that I imagine that my TV gets transformed into my own private multiplex in the next decade, tell me how I’m going to cram 300 of my closest friends into my living room for a more “communal” moviegoing experience.  I’m not.  And neither is the rest of the moviegoing public, not in the next ten years anyway.

My last beef with this ignorant splurge is that Lipsky says that theatrical will be entirely irrelevant for blockbusters and other studio films.  In 2012 the box office grossed over 10.9billion dollars… UP 6.5% from the year before.  I’m curious to see how exactly Lipsky sees that number magically dropping to a number that is “irrelevant” for studios within ten years’ time. 

The road ahead for exhibitors isn’t all roses, but it’s not the complete transformation that Lipsky paints the picture of above.  Undoubtedly, theaters need to become nicer and perhaps start incorporating restaurants and bars in them to draw more of a crowd.  Sure YouTube, Netflix, and home theaters draw some mild attention away from the theaters, but I don’t know anybody rushing to their living room when they want a change of scenery and a show to get their mind off things.

Comment below!