So, in case I have failed to mention it, I am a fan of Bravo's Project Greenlight. Today, the New York Times, in its typical humorless fashion, reviews the show. I'm still not certain why I bother to read entertainment reviews by the Times - they hate just about every movie, every television show, and every book. In contrast, their restaurant reviews now gush about every TGI Fridays in the city. Of course, worse than admitting that they hate something are the reviews where you have no idea if they enjoy it or not. That is the case with their Project Greenlight profile.
Annnnyyywaaayyy, what's good about Greenlight? Frankly, anytime you put together a bunch of creative types and cranky studio execs, you'll have a laugh. But it is really the endless tug of war, with the producers running interference, that allows us to see how a great idea can become a shitty movie, or vice versa. I sadly saw King Arthur in the theaters last summer, in large part because my man Clive Owen was in it and I haven't disliked anything he was in yet (note: I have not seen Beyond Borders and have no plans to). I suspect that King Arthur is the type of movie that could have been good, but Antoine Fuqua had to make too many sacrifices with the studio. Or I could be wrong and Antoine sucks (Tears of the Sun, anyone? Gag.).
Ultimately, Greenlight is a realistic love letter to filmmaking. It reads: We love movies and filmmaking, even if it's filled with egomaniacs and whack jobs. So here it is in all its crazy glory. Or, as the director's father, Clu Gulager, puts it:
"We need a laugh. We need to be scared. We need to hug our girl in the theater. It lightens the load of this crummy life."