THE OBENSON REPORT

So, the message seems to be: if you're a black filmmaker, and/or have a film about a black person or black people, then IFC Films just might be the distributor whose door you should be knocking on right about now :o) Of course, I'm being facetious, but if I did have a film, I'd certainly have consider seriously the facts above.

Needless to say, he doesn't actually build a time machine, rather just simply lays down the groundwork for the potential creation of one sometime in the future, once all the uncertainties of building such a thing have been sufficiently resolved.

How Spike Lee will adapt this is a mystery. I think it could be a challenge if it's a completely faithful adaptation, but I doubt that it will be. Spike will have to get creative, and squeeze as much life as he can out the humanistic elements of the book, and find a way to balance the scientific, without allowing it to dominate.

Spike could also follow the same path that writer/director Shane Carruth took when he made his 2004 Sundance grand prize winner, Primer - also a time travel film. I own Primer on DVD and I've watched it more than thrice, but I still can't say that I completely understand the theories and ideas that the starring characters constantly share with each other. The 79-minute film hits the ground running - no backstory, no footnotes. It's as if Carruth is saying, you either understand what we're talking about or you don't, but we're not going to "dumb it down" by explaining everything to you... We're scientists and this is how scientists interact with each other and their work. So, either you buy it, or you don't. But yet, somehow, I've never been turned off by the fact that much of what is discussed is foreign to me, and instead find myself fascinated by it all.

So, I suppose Spike could implement a similar strategy.

Or Spike could maybe consider something along the lines of PI (by Darren Aronofsky), another Sundance winner, and another favorite film of mine that I've seen countless times but haven't completely digested - essentially, making it something of a thriller... one man's relentless quest in search of an answer to a problem that's been consuming him, as others close in on him to gain control of the knowledge in his head.

It's a book about one man's life's work and passion, chased vigorously, unwaveringly, at the expense of his social sanity. It's not sci-fi in the typical Hollywood sense - there aren't any scenes that would require computer generated effects, no aliens, no interstellar explosions, no time machines, despite the film's title. There are moments of reverie which Spike could have some fun with, wherein, Dr Mallett dreams about seeing his work realized, and utilizing it for the purpose that initially motivated him to dedicate his life to creating it. Other than those moments, there really aren't any other possibilities to razzle and dazzle the audience with spectacle!

If I were the screenwriter adapting the book, I would focus in on a very specific period of Dr Mallett's life, instead of attempting a bio-pic that covers the 50+ years the book lives in. I would focus on Dr Mallett as an adult, which is where he made the most progress on understanding and laying the foundation for his time travel machine; his life was fuller then - married twice, meeting several Nobel Prize winning physicists he could only admire from afar when he was younger... And I would attack those latter years in much the same way Carruth did in Primer - except, unlike the men in Primer, Mallett had a life outside of his research (the older version of him anyway), which would make for an even more interesting story, hence, the balance I mentioned earlier that Spike will have to manage.

I have no idea when the film adaptation will go into production. Just because a book is optioned doesn't mean that its celluloid brethren will be born instantaneously. It could be years before we hear about this again, or possibly not at all. Octavia Butler's Kindred has been optioned several times over the last 15 years or more, and we're still waiting for someone to finally see it all the way through. Not surprisingly, financing is often the hold-up. But I think Mallett's story is one that can be done "cheaply," relatively speaking of course, in the $10 to $30 million range. Keep in mind that the average studio movie budget these days hovers around $60 to $80 Million. So, $10 to $30 Million is less than half the average. Whether Spike will be able to raise the money is an uncertainty. If he gets a star to play the older Mallett, then funding might be a snap.

So, who do I think could assume the role? Mallett is 63 years old this year. If Spike takes my advice and focuses on the man's recent life, where much progress was made on his time machine project - meaning roughly the last 10 to 15 years - he'd need an actor in his mid 40s/early 50s, who could be easily and naturally aged with make-up, as he ages from about 48 to 63 years old. So, that narrows the list of potentials down to just a handful of actors in that mid-40s/early 50s age range - Don Cheadle, Jeffrey Wright (he'd probably be my first choice if Spike goes the path I just described), Denzel Washington (although he's in his 50s now, however, I can see Spike going with him since they've worked together several times before)... who else? Maybe Laurence Fishburne. Unless Spike goes with an unknown, but I doubt it, especially if the budget is substantial.

I plan to read the book again. Sometimes it's better the second time around - not that it was bad the during the first read. But going back over the physicist jargon that dominates the memoir might do me some good. I'll keep Wikipedia open on my laptop for easy look-up access!

By the way, incase you are wondering, here's a clip from Primer. It's not the most indicative of the point I made above, but it gives you an idea of what I saw in my mind as I read Mallett's memoir:

Here's the trailer for PI:

Puffy announces that he's lightening his load at BadBoy so that he can focus on acting - claiming to have several projects in the oven, including a supposed Miles Davis pic. Ludacris, dba Christopher Bridges, is in Guy Ritchie's upcoming RocknRolla, while in production are a sci-fi flick called Game and a video-game adaptation with Mark Wahlberg, titled Max Payne. Mos Def has 8 films scheduled for release from 2008 to 2010, including a teaming with master thespian, Jeffrey Wright in a Walter Mosley written, Easy Rawlins romp, Little Scarlet. 50 Cent has 5 films planned for release over the next 2 years - co-starring with the likes of Nicolas Cage, Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro. Xzhibit hopes to shine in 3 films this year alone including X-Files sequel, and an intriguing-looking Oliver Stone drama/horror film called Pinkville, which stars Bruce Willis. I think it's probably safe to say that Ice Cube has made the transition to film, where he plans to enjoy the same kind of commercial success he enjoyed in music. And of course, Common will co-star in this Friday's Angelina Jolie starrer, Wanted. He's already attached to the next installment of the Terminator franchise, while wrestling with rumors that he'll assume super hero duties as Green Lantern in a big screen adaptation of The Justice League comic book series.

Who am I forgetting?

Clearly these guys realize that they can't be rappers forever - well, I suppose they could be, but how many septuagenarians do you know have chart-topping hip-hop albums? As I've said before, diversify, diversify, diversify, and they all are trying to do just that, and I can't blame them! So, no matter how much we despise their performances and cry that they are taking jobs away from "real" actors, it's clear that they are in demand and so are here to stay, whether we like it or not! As Will Smith has shown, going from rapping to become the biggest box office draw to come along in some time, anything is certainly possible!

I stumbled upon this interview with Common on CBR News, talking about his roles in the upcoming films I mentioned above.

Here are some snippets:

About his role in Wanted - I definitely feel that I’ve laid a foundation to let youth know who Common is... As an actor, you’re becoming a person. As a person, you can’t really judge yourself too much so I just approach it like that, taking on these roles and just really wanting it to be a good role; to be in good films. That’s really the goal.

About his role in Terminator 4 - Having been to the set, Common described it as “just incredible. I went to that set and it was like, ‘Man, we are in this world. This is like Terminator. I’m in ‘The Terminator’, right in this world.'

About the rumors of his involvement in Justice League - Man, rumors, those rumors. I can say that if they do a Justice League movie, I would love to be Green Lantern. That’s all I can say. I do like Justice League. I love it.

In closing, he stated, "I don’t think I would want to be pigeon-holed with just one character. I want to show my diversity and make classic movies.”

Read the entire interview HERE.

I'll let you all in on a secret of mine: if I weren't a filmmaker, I'd probably be an architect. That's right! I've had this clandestine love affair with architecture for some time, and with recent developments, especially those in some UAE states, as well as in certain south east Asian territories, my attraction has grown even stronger. No worries, I'm not going to suddenly abandon film to pursue architecture, but one thing I've learned to do is to never say never. One of my sisters is an architect, and from what I've learned from her experiences, it's a challenging industry to get ahead in, especially in this country, where creativity and risk are often suppressed in favor of conformity. The rooms in a building don't always have to have 4 walls, nor does the building itself have to be shaped like a rectangle or a box with a pointy hat on top. Just as I'm sometimes the frustrated filmmaker, I think I'd be just as frustrated, and maybe even more so, as an architect.

But it's always such a thrill when I see images of the works of people I would call renegade architects like Zaha Hadid (the first female recipient of the Pritzker Prize - architecture's equivalent of the Nobel Prize), Rem Koolhaas (also a Pritzker recipient and owner of probably the coolest name that an architect could ever have - or should I say KOOLest), and Santiago Calatrava. Their creations are masterful, brave and inspiring. They challenge every notion of what the average human being probably thinks of when they consider the idea of a building structure.

There are other architects who also inspire and challenge, like David Fisher, whose rotating Dynamic Tower, is the world's first "building in motion." I don't know what the downside could be in bringing a structure like this to life, but I can't deny how intriguing an idea it is, whether you like it or not.

Watch the clip below. You can also learn more about the Dynamic Tower HERE:

This came in a little earlier than expected. I guess we can call it the first "official" review of Hancock.

Thanks to Sergio for the email heads-up!

Based on what the reviewer states below, the blog entry I posted about the film last week - the one with the spoilers - isn't too far off in accuracy and perspective. Also, this review agrees with the overwhelmingly negative sentiment amongst those who've already seen the film in some form.

Despite all of that, I still think the film will do well - or at the very least, it'll have a strong opening weekend. What it does after that depends greatly on word of mouth, because it will face some stiff competition in the weeks after its release from the likes of the next Batman movie and a few other notables. So, its opening weekend will be crucial.

Will it make its budget back? Probably! At an incredible $150 Million, it'll be a tall order, even for Will Smith. With marketing costs included, that number will likely be closer to $200 Million. But one thing Will has going for him is his popularity in foreign markets. So, even if the film flops in the States, it could do very well internationally.

Here's Variety's review by Todd McCarthy:

An intriguing high concept is undermined by low-grade dramaturgy in “Hancock.” This misguided attempt to wring a novel twist on the superhero genre has a certain whiff of “The Last Action Hero” about it, with Will Smith playing an indestructible crime-buster in a pointedly real-world context. Although it will inevitably open very large, this odd and perplexing aspiring tentpole will provide a real test of Smith’s box office invincibility.

The central idea of Vy Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan’s script -- of Smith’s John Hancock being an ornery, unwilling hero who escapes from his ordained role in life via booze and general cantankerousness -- is amusing and plausible enough to sustain the first section of the film. What the writers and director Peter Berg do with the concept in the end, however, is nowhere near sufficiently thought out, and narrative illogic and missed opportunities plague the film increasingly as it cartwheels through its surprisingly brief running time.

When the world-famous Hancock reluctantly swings into action -- he can fly at supersonic speed, lift any weight and is impervious to all weapons -- his drunken recklessness invariably causes more damage than it’s worth.

Although valuable to the police, Hancock has a bad name with the public for his destructiveness, impudence and all-around bad attitude; an adjunct to this is his foul language, which treads the very edge of PG-13 permissiveness and will no doubt catch many July 4 weekend kid-herding parents unhappily unaware.

As much in need of rehab as this week’s tabloid celebrity, the raggedly attired Hancock finds an eager savior in PR whiz Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman). Rescued from certain death by the rasty hero, Ray returns the favor by inviting him to dinner with wife Mary (Charlize Theron) and son Aaron (Jae Head) and announcing he’s going to remake Hancock’s image.

The strongman’s first step will be to submit to rehab and anger-management training, along with some prison time (although Hancock resists wearing an actual superhero outfit because it’s too “homo”). What he shortly does to two tough-talking inmates in the pen crudely literalizes the taunt about sticking your head where the sun don’t shine. Such vulgar goofiness is one thing in an Adam Sandler film, but doesn’t sit well in the rough-and-ready realism of Berg’s raw visuals, which grievously misapply hand-held jitteriness to material that demands more precise stylization.

The genre satire and numerous Will Smith moments, with the star throwing off the attitude-laden quips and looks audiences expect from him, carry the first half without too much trouble, in anticipation of where the film will go from there. Where it goes, unfortunately, is right down the tubes!

Read it all HERE.

I actually didn't see Love Jones until several years after its initial release - I'd say 2003/2004 - and I think that was to my detriment (and maybe the film's as well) because I had seen almost all the children it helped give birth to - I'm referring of course to films like The Best Man, Brown Sugar, Love And Basketball, Disappearing Acts, and some could even argue that my film, Beautiful Things belongs in that group). So, it felt dated. I tried to mentally place myself in 1997/98 when the film was initially released, hoping to embrace the zeitgeist of the time, so that I could maybe really understand the film's significance - at least as suggested by many cinephiles. But my attempts failed. That's not to say I thought it wasn't a decent film. I actually quite enjoyed it... but just not as intensely as others seem to have, or as I may have if I experienced its "novelty" in 1998.

But I suppose one can't deny that, what Boyz In The Hood did for "hood" movies in the early 90s, Love Jones did the same for "urban buppie romance" flicks of the late 90s through the early 21st century - a crown that I think Spike Lee's She's Gotta Have It certainly could have worn in its day, but had very little follow-through to afford it such a title.

Even though I do wonder if we're giving the film too much credit for the trend it supposedly started, I think it's obviously made its mark on black cinema, given how much I read and hear it referenced by black cinema lovers alike, constantly showing up on top 10 lists and such. And it will probably continue to be referenced for years to come.

So, certainly not what I'd call a flawless film, but one that could have gotten me excited to see what the filmmaker would have followed it up with. Too bad he never quite took advantage and satisfied the hype that accompanied Love Jones after its release.

A Google search turned up very little on Theodore Witcher - mostly Love Jones mentions as one would expect. On his IMDB page, he's only other credit is as writer of a film called Body Count, also a 1998 film which starred a post-NYPD Blue David Caruso, Ving Rhames and Forest Whitaker. Nothing to get excited about, from all I read about it. Like Chris Cherot, I could only find 1 single picture of him - the one you see above. Granted I didn't search too deeply, meaning there might be some information about him online that I missed altogether. So, if anyone has any knowledge of Theodore Witcher's current whereabouts and dealings, please let the rest of us know. I'd like to have seen where his talents would have taken him - hopefully Body Count was strictly a paycheck job.