Act of Valor receives more and more press everyday. Real Navy SEALs, real combat tactics, real bullets, real action (well, quasi-real action). The narrative posing as a doc found its selling point among the most patriotic of us and took off faster than a Tuskegee airman. The movie was shot in cinéma vérité style on a Canon 5d Mark II.
So, because the movie is a box office success, it begs the question: should these SEALs receive SAG cards? They haven't.
Judge for yourself. Now, technically, they cannot receive compensation for this film. However, given the filmmakers are making beaucoup money (sorry, beaucoup was the only word that works here), is it fair that these "few and proud" are not receiving the compensation they would if they were actors?
They were given lines to speak. They performed “action” and “business”. That’s the basic definition of an actor. Even reality TV defines one as such. It’s a complicated, legal issue. These SEALs are active-duty. They are already receiving a stipend. But, what about actors who sing? Or design clothes? Or have endorsements stated elsewhere?
I say go ahead and give them a SAG card. The film is not classified as a documentary. There may be some true actors upset; there may be some military members upset. But in the end, they performed the task of actors and if they were in any other profession (President Regan, anyone?), they would still receive residuals.
It's all about "New Media." That 21st-century way of displaying the art of capturing life on film. What the writers' strike taught us is that New Media is not unlike the Wild West: undisciplined, unregulated, and so fairly new, everyone wants a cut.
The final ballots for the SAG decision are due 6 June. Variety reported wide Hollywood opposition towards the deal, however, smaller-named actors seem more willing to negotiate.
I'm spilt on the decision, mainly because I am not an actress. I agree that actors should be compensated fairly for their work, but at the same time, actors already tend to receive more benefits and pay than other industry professionals. Not to mention, everyone and their momma wants to act. Studios can easily make anyone the next Megan Fox.
But what about the Indies? There's the rub. Maybe this is one of those wait-and-sees.
What a busy day in Hollywood. The Academy Awards are tonight, but looks like there is a cloud of uncertainy after all the glitz disappears.
SAG rejected the final offer from the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) Saturday night, Variety reports. So will there be a strike? Well, the board requires a voting member approval of 75% in order to strike. Saturday's vote fell short.
Will this affect Indies as well as Studios? The obvious answer is yes, but how exactly will the indies hurt is a more appropriate question. Only time will tell.
Even though SAG is still considering an industry-wide strike, the awards must go on. There were few upsets. Meryl Streep won best motion picture actress for her role in Doubt, and surprise, surprise, Heath Ledger wins another award for his role as Joker.
Surprisingly enough, The Case of Benjamin Button seems to be snubbed in the SAG awards. Although the film has 13 nominations for the Oscars, the film went home empty-handed at SAG. Maybe its luck will change in February. However, I think most indie lovers are pulling for Slumdog Millionaire. We sure love those "rags to riches" stories.
It's January, which means its time for film awards. Film awards, depending on whom you ask are either hokey popularity shows or prestigious lifetime achievements. Although some awards ceremonies have gone downhill as more Americans tire of all the unnecessary glitz and glamour, Hollywood still holds on this tradition like a small child holds on to his mother's pants leg. Award shows are Hollywood's pats on the back.
There is one American statue, however, that seems to hold more weight than, say, your average Golden Globe: The Oscar.
It's art deco design demands a classical respect from whomever cannot get their hands on one. Holding one is a common fantasy of all filmmakers, Hollywood or Indie. Nevertheless, Oscars are reserved for those who have achieved rare cinematic prestige, or at least those who have received the most press.
Enter Heath Ledger. One year ago, the electrifying actor was found with a lethal cocktail of legal drugs in his system. He was the main topic of discussion at Sundance 2008. This year, as everyone knows, he is up for Oscar for Best Actor in a Supporting Role. Hollywood loves young tragedy, so of course, he will receive this award. While Ledger's Joker makes Jack Nicholson's Joker look like a clown at a six-year-old's birthday party, one must one's self: would Ledger be a contender for this Oscar if he were alive?
Also enter Martin Scorsese. Last year, Marty finally won an Oscar for The Departed after being passed over too many times. Not wanting to make the same mistake as with Hitchcock, the Academy essentially granted him his Oscar for his past work.
Oscar also seems to follow this particular formula: Major awards go to arthouse films almost no one saw, and technical Oscars (sound mixing, art direction, special FX) go to those who do it best: Hollywood blockbusters. While people cry and moan over Dark Knights' "oscar snub," I wonder, "why did people expect this film to be an Oscar contender?" Oscar likes to avoid blockbusters in an attempt to appear to look classy. But with the scandals Hollywood places itself into these days, doesn't it almost seems hypocritical?
Whatever. Cinema is always a business and awards are good advertising. Enjoy the Oscar nominees. I'm sure all the nominees will enjoy their moment. I wish them luck.
