In Memoriam 1942 – 2013 “Roger Ebert loved movies.”

RogerEbert.com

Thumb wildlife

Wildlife

One never senses judgment from Dano, Kazan, Gyllenhaal, or Mulligan—they recognize that there’s beauty even in the mistakes we make in life. It’s what makes…

Thumb halloween poster

Halloween

Do you know the biggest sin of the new Halloween? It’s just not scary. And that’s one thing you could never say about the original.

Other Reviews
Review Archives
Thumb xbepftvyieurxopaxyzgtgtkwgw

Ballad of Narayama

"The Ballad of Narayama" is a Japanese film of great beauty and elegant artifice, telling a story of startling cruelty. What a space it opens…

Other Reviews
Great Movie Archives

Movie Answer Man (08/20/1995)

Q. Any idea why there isn't more media coverage of the tobacco industry's practice of paying to have stars -- particularly those appealing to teen-agers and preteen-agers as "adult role models" -- smoke onscreen? Seems to me this topic has been treated in a "hands off" fashion when it comes to reviews and coverage, as nobody wants to let out the dirty little secret of how all that money is moving around in the movie industry. From what I've heard among friends in the business, however, this is the most effective strategy the tobacco industry has undertaken in decades, and is largely responsible for the recent explosion in teen smoking. Your thoughts? -- Thom Hartmann, Marietta, Ga.

Advertisement

A. Product placement is commonplace in movies, and Sylvester Stallone has recently denied reports that he accepted $500,000 to smoke Brown & Williamson products in his movies. However, has the practice of smoking ITSELF been included in movies after payments by the tobacco industry? Such a practice, while not illegal, would certainly reflect badly on any studios or stars who took the money.

Q. Disney has recently said they will release a letterboxed version of "Pulp Fiction," due to consumer demand. I work part-time at Blockbuster Video and am trying to convince the store to purchase a few copies. I am sure that there are many others who, like me, would much rather see the 2.35:1 width rather than the square television image. We have received a panned-and-scanned demo copy of "PF," and it is revolting. My problem is that the averagevideo consumer is so ignorant of the filmmaking process that he has no idea that there is any difference between the two versions. When I try to explain about aspect ratios etc., the customers have either refused to listen or angrily told me that they will not pay for "half a picture!" My reply was, "You already are." My question is: What is a good, concise way to explain the concept of letterboxing to the average Blockbuster customer? -- Yancey Martin, Huntsville, Ala.

A. In the case of "Pulp Fiction," which has such fanatic fans, I'm surprised your store wouldn't leap to stock the letterboxed version, since no one who loves the movie could possibly view the cropped version without anguish. Just ask customers this question: "Would you rather see the whole movie, or this version we have that is missing one-third of the movie?" When they say "the whole movie," explain that movie screens are not the same shape as TV screens (this will come as news to some people), and that letterboxing is the only way the entire picture area can be seen on a TV screen. If a little social pressure seems called for, quietly add, "People who don't demand letterboxing are revealing that they don't know or care much about movies."

Q. I read that Paramount is re-releasing the movie "Braveheart" on Sept. 15 for a limited time in about 1,000 theaters nationwide. Is this a new precedent for a motion picture which had its premiere just 2 1/2 months ago? I personally bombarded Paramount with fax after fax telling them that they severely "mismarketed" this brilliant motion picture ... I guess they finally got my message. What was their mistake? They neglected to promote the film to women. At ALL of the showings of "Braveheart" that I've attended (and there have been many), it has been WOMEN who have been profoundly affected by its message. Overseas, where the movie was distributed by Fox, it was marketed as a "romance." I expect some profound marketing changes with "Braveheart's" re-release by Paramount. -- Sue Ritchie, Phoenix

Advertisement

A. In my opinion, "Braveheart" rather surprised Paramount, and many others in the movie business, by being as good as it was. They expected a swashbuckler, and got a sensational action and romance picture, directed by Mel Gibson with real style and vision. Although the movie is already a success, the September re-release is intended to "reintroduce" it as part of a campaign to position it for Academy Award nominations. The ads will portray it as a classier, "Lawrence of Arabia"-type epic, rather than just an adventure.

Popular Blog Posts

Who do you read? Good Roger, or Bad Roger?

This message came to me from a reader named Peter Svensland. He and a fr...

Netflix’s Terrifying, Moving The Haunting of Hill House is Essential Viewing

A review of Mike Flanagan's new horror series based on the Shirley Jackson novel, The Haunting of Hill House.

Always Leave 'Em Laughing: Peter Bogdanovich on Buster Keaton, superheroes, television, and the effect of time on movies

Peter Bogdanovich, film historian and filmmaker, talks about Buster Keaton, the subject of his new documentary.

"It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" Gets the Deluxe Treatment from Criterion

An epic essay on an epic comedy of the 1960s, now given deluxe treatment on Blu-ray and DVD by Criterion.

Reveal Comments
comments powered by Disqus