"On The Lot: Competition Week 3

(originally published on 6/12 at the now-defunct www.poweredbyshows.com)

A lot of movie nerds have already turned on the Spielberg-Burnett collaboration On The Lot, a reality television competition for budding directors all vying for one big prize: $1,000,000 and a movie deal at Dreamworks. I, however, am sticking by it through all its format changes, its egotistical directors an its extremely lousy host. Many have complained of the wishy-washiness of the judges, including Carrie Fisher and Gary Marshall, but that ignores a solid principle of reality television: nobody really cares what the judges have to say. If anything, it’s just an amusing distraction while you remember the phone number of the contestant you already know you’re voting for.

Last night brought in the third week of competition, and the second week where one-third of the contestants get to show three-minute version of their submission films and get judged on their own merits and not the limits given by the show during the show’s first week (i.e. original one-minute comedies). It continued to separate the boys/girls from the men/women, and if the show got better ratings could account for some good water cooler talk (e.g. “They got rid of Trever? WTF?!").

Being the critic and film school graduate I am, I have every right to pick apart each of the five films from last night.

Contestant: Andrew Hunt
Film: Polished

Critique: The best film of the night, it had a tone to it that while attracting a bit of a primetime commercial feel (as pointed out by guest judge David Frankel) still contained a playful spirit lacking in some of the overthought and overwrought other films in the competition. The tale of an ignored office janitor who gets his revenge on those who took him for granted. Unlike other contestants, Andrew knows to bring a different sense of filmmaking to each genre he approaches, and instead of the wacky flourishes of, say, Marty Martin, he knows when to tone it down. He is quickly becoming one of my favorite directors on the show for his ability to adapt and tell great stories.

Contestant: David May
Film: Love At First Shot

Critique: I liked the film far more than the bewildered judges, having gotten the night’s biggest laugh from yours truly, but I will admit to it adding up to very little at the end. I didn’t appreciate David’s reliance on cliches (the poorly matched date between a nerd and a bombshell didn’t add anything new), but the other half of the story, where a clumsy Cupid tries to fire his arrow into the date, was quirky and Monty Python-esque in its absurdity. I know from the show (and from a friend, who knew David when they were both students at Chapman) that he intended to be an actor before pursuing directing, and his style lacks confidence and a lot of tact (the scene was overexposed to high holy heaven). Still, not bad.

Contestant: Shira-Lee Shalit
Film: Beeline

Critique: A very odd film helped along by a perfect sense of style, capturing the Woody Allen atmosphere of Manhattan. An urbanite mother, worried that her young son will get the wrong impression from her recent sexual trysts, goes around town convincing her former beaus (and one belle) to pretend they don’t know each other. This film received half my phone votes (the other being, of course, “Polished") based on the confidence of the style/content combination, even if the latter wasn’t enough to make me truly love it. Still, I think Shira-Lee has a chance to tell some really intimate dramedies in the future after this competition, so I want to see her stay.

Contestant: Marty Martin
Film: Dance With The Devil

Critique: An absolute mess of a film posing as a Tony Scott tour de force along the lines of “Man on Fire” and “Domino,” this is all flash and no story. A quick vignette about a man being unable to pay back mob loans, ending up with his death, portrays exactly what’s wrong with some of the big flash-bang blockbusters polluting theatres. All color filters and subtitles (even though the characters spoke English), unnecessary jump cuts and flash-forwards, this man has no idea how to tell a story. The fact that he rudely insulted Carrie Fisher for her critique speaks volumes about his unchecked ego, and while I’m sure he’ll last in the competition, he represents a terrible film school niche that never gave a crap during their screenwriting courses. He doesn’t realize that the directors he’s ripping off started their careers in much quieter, story-driven films that gave them the right to bring forth their unique styles in later films. He has not one original bone in his body.

Contestant: Kenny Luby
Film: Edge of the End

Critique: Still one of the most obnoxious filmmakers of the group, this skateboard film-inspired guy has no clue what a plot is made of: a beginning, a middle and an end. Sure, one is allowed to mix it up, but he does it to the point that his stories are a blur of hyperactive and headache-inducing camera tricks. He’s all about pretty colors and jolting visuals, but a director must must must must must first connect to his audience before anything else. He wreaks of film theory ignorance and stands out as a mistake for those who let him join the competition in the first place. This film, about the troubles of alcoholism, is absolutely useless.

Summary: David will probably go home, since this show seems to follow more of a popularity contest mold (more American Idol than Project Runway) and puts some elements of talent and storytelling second. I do, however, look forward to the remaining films next week, and hope for the show to finally catch on with viewers bored by reruns on E!

Why "America's Got Talent" is Part of the Problem

(original published at the now-defunct www.poweredbyshows.com)

Just to set things absolutely straight before we go on, I am a very big fan of reality television. Despite the fact that since last March Entertainment Weekly has declared the absolutely true notion that we are currently living in a “Golden Age of Television” in this country, there is still a very large percentage of poorly written, formulaic garbage on network TV we as an audience have to sift through in order to get to the good stuff. (This also would be due to the fact that a good portion of this Golden Age programming happens to not be on the Big Four.) This is where reality TV comes in: for those of us sick and tired of the same police procedurals and sloppy characterization, shows such as Survivor, Big Brother, The Amazing Race, American Idol, America’s Next Top Model and Hell’s Kitchen sort of circumvent that process and give us what we as viewers truly demand: unabashed entertainment. You can gripe all you want about its blight on the television landscape, but it has opened up the industry to nearly twice as many news jobs (consider all the editors and writers needed for each show) and have the ability to be far more interesting and unpredictable (it’s the nature of the best of the shows) than another family drama.

Just like any genre, though, reality TV has its share of groaners. Other than a few random series watched more for the novelty than for the entertainment (Average Joe, For Love Or Money, Joe Millionaire, Mr. Personality), I have avoided nearly all dating shows. Same goes with wife-swapping shows and programs that have “nanny” in the title. These are stinkers. But one that truly gets my goat is NBC’s smash summer hit America’s Got Talent.

Nothing against David Hasselhoff, but this is a pretty awful show that tries to ride the line between Chuck Barris Gong Show ridiculousness and American Idol competition and tends to fail time and time again. It preys on our interest as an audience that we want to see train wrecks happen onstage, but this rubbernecking is something that has led to ineffective nightly news and the muckraking of such pundits as Bill O’Reilly. It’s stupid without being funny, and cruel without being constructive. It’s a freakshow and nothing more.

In the best reality competitions, the contestants have to possess skills in order to move ahead, hence the combined popularity and good critical reception of such programs as Top Chef, Project Runway, Project Greenlight and early seasons of The Apprentice. The participants cannot get by on silly tricks but instead must step forward and pretty much rock the show’s foundation. Not so with America’s Got Talent. In this talent show mess, people from across the country show acts that they believe can earn them $1,000,000. Problem is, no magic show or small animal act is worth even a fraction of that, nor are circus/sideshow tricks designed for birthday parties. These people either expose their delusions, which is pathetic even on megahit American Idol, or simply want their 15 minutes of fame, something the best reality shows refuse to dole out. It’s a formula for obnoxious, unwatchable television.

The bad acts don’t entertain, the good acts belong on other shows, and against the conceit of the show that the program is intended for a variety of great acts, a singer will without question win if left up to the vote of the American people...which it is. I’d love to see a show where contestants bring forth advances in sociological or technological or political advances and allowing the show to fund their dreams and help them reach the people who can really make a difference in the world. It might not work as a show, but I won’t feel like I’ll need a shower after watching it, either. Reality television can one day change the world, and while I am very delighted with most of the good entertainment reality television brings forth, I also support it for what it can do.