Digital Joe

---

Tools:
Send to a friend »

---

Well, I always like to start any new relationship by introducing myself (make no mistake, this will be a very intimate and, hopefully, long term relationship). My name is Jason, though I'll answer to just about anything. I currently make my home outside of Detroit, Michigan. My hobbies include:

Okay, stop. This is starting to sound like one of those oh-so-desperate personal ads we've all put up online at one point or another. You know the kind, right? Um, guys?

Moving on, you should know that Digital Joe is designed to be a weekly DVD and movie column. I have a wee bit of experience, seeing as I did the same thing for the late, great DVD Shrine a couple years ago. But this isn't going to be the safe, ultra-PC, top 10, kiss the feet column we see in so many other places. Sure, I love "Lost", "Battlestar Galactica" and "The Amazing Race". I'm also a kid of the 80s, so "He-Man", "Thundercats" and "G. I. Joe" are all on my list too.

I take direction on what I like from one person: me. "King Kong" (2005) was not a four star picture. "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" was a bit too creepy for me. I enjoyed "Saw 2" more than I probably should have. And I have more than one movie in my collection I prefer people not to know I have ("Flash Gordon", anyone?).

You should also know before we get too far into our relationship I have a very strange sense of humor. It's wicked, occasionally vulgar, hardly PC and never quite good enough to land me a Jerry Seinfeld-type contract for my own TV show. Despite that, I keep trying. So if something comes across as off-kilter or just plain odd, try to look at it as a joke or humor; it'll probably make more sense that way.

Believe it or not, there is something I wanted to bring up during our first date today, besides of course our little intro. And that is the subject of movie timliness. Specifically, one of the knocks against the blink-and-you-missed-it theatrical release of "Rent" (not to mention some online reviews when it hit DVD last week) was that its themes of AIDS, homelessness and Bohemia were not relevant to 2005 and that it would be more suited to the 1990s. So I've just gotta ask: does a film's success or failure rest on its theme and when its released?

I don't think so. You see, part of the allure of any movie is finding a character we identify with and making their situation our own. Surely, we can't do that for every film out there (or else we'd have a society of 20-something men who fancy themselves as He-Man, Han Solo or Marty McFly). Even if we don't identify with any of the characters, it's still possible to enjoy a movie.

Now, let's be completely honest: no situation or character is going to be an exact duplicate of our own-it just isn't possible. But there is always some part of ourselves on screen. Sure, I'm not homeless, jobless, poor or HIV+, but I identify with Roger more than anyone else in "Rent". He's looking for his purpose throughout the production, the one thing people will remember him for after he dies. I don't intend on dying anytime soon, but I (and this goes for all of us) want to know we'll be remembered for something positive when it is our time.

To say that a film succeeds or fails based on a theme's relation to the present day is absurd. Bu that logic, "Jarhead" (any major Oscar nods?) and "Over There" (FX series that has been cancelled) should be been unqualified hits (both dealt with war and we're currently engaged in a war of sorts; get the connection?). Would "Rent" have been more timely and better received by critics if Roger'illness was cancer as opposed to AIDS? I don't think so. This is one time where I'm not trying to be flippant, but it seems everyone has cancer on film. Frankly, that's an old device to use. Besides, it couldn't have been changed even if director Chris Columbus wanted it to-"Rent" is based on a stage play, so its an adapted work. Plus, the people who went to see "Rent" (affectionately known as "Rent-heads") would've screamed at the top of their lungs about the change-and deservedly so.

As another example, "The Polar Express" was released in 2004 (November, to be exact) to less than expected box office. It moved to IMAX and was finally released on disc at the end of 2005. By all rights, "TPE" should have been a success since it is a family friendly Christmas adventure with the voice of America's favorite thespian, Tom Hanks. Was it a case of the theme (finding Christmas) being in the "wrong time" or did it just not get the proper push? I'll be the first to say "TPE" is a superior film to "Rent", but that's like comparing apples and oranges. About the only thing they share is the fact they're on the silver screen.

"Rent" didn't succeed because it is notoriously difficult to bring musicals to the screen (even 2004's installment of this genre "The Phantom of the Opera" pretty much bombed) not because of the theme being irrelevant. If anything, the idea of homelessness, poverty and corporate greed should resonate now more than ever, especially after the summer of Katrina, Wilma and Rita. And ask Angelina and Brad is AIDS is going away in Africa. This is a relevant movie. "Rent" comes along and gets blasted but an overblown, overlong egotistical piece of cinema like "King Kong" (told ya I didn't like it) gets praised, lavished and held in high regard.

Certainly "Rent" is not perfect; I've yet to see a perfect film. But it's not nearly as easy to dismiss as some people would like for us to believe.

---