Sunday, November 30, 2008

MOVIE OF THE MOMENT: TRANSPORTER 3



One might righteously (or self-righteously) ask the question, does the world really need Transporter 3, the third installment of the relatively under-the-radar action franchise fathered by loony French auteur Luc Besson (he’s the writer/producer of all three installments, but not their director)? Well, if the third episode of any franchise turns out as well as this one has, then the answer must be a resounding “Absolutely!” Taking the directorial reins from stunt coordinator Cory Yuen (who helmed the first film) and Louis Letterier (Transporter 2) is graffiti artist-turned-filmmaker Olivier Megaton, and yes, according to Stephanie Zacharek, the name is too good to be true—it’s an assumed moniker taken in remembrance of the bombing of Hiroshima, on the 30th anniversary of which the director was born. But it’s appropriate nonetheless to characterize the wicked energy that runs through the picture like high-voltage current.


Transporter 3 bears superficial resemblances to Quantum of Solace, namely a wily, slightly wimpy villain in charge of facilitating environmental disaster under the guise of environmental protection. But outside of Quantum’s admirable attempts to infuse Bond with recognizable humanity and to take measure of it as it modulates (some might say slows down) the narrative, Transporter 3 trumps the new Bond movie in just about every other way. It is, like Quantum, edited like shattered glass, but here the shards have been choreographed so that a sense of spatial geography is maintained. There’s never a doubt as to what blow is landing where, and the hand-to-hand combat is actually enhanced by the surging-receding tempo of the visuals. (I don’t recall any other movie making me laugh out loud at something as simple as the brazen, cheeky crispness of a smash cut to a car-- the Audi-- coming to a sliding highway stop on what seems like the edge of the world’s thinnest dime.) The action is cheeky too—the movie starts with a superb sequence that intercuts a rip-roaring chase with the serene pleasure of two men fishing, expertly timed so that their conversation punctuates the action with astonishing rhythmic precision, and it just goes uphill from there. (A memorable episode involving two trailer trucks and the ingenuity of the talented transporter’s two-wheeled driving skills--glimpsed briefly in the trailer-- has surely already entered the annals of the all-time classics of roadway pursuit.)



But the movie belongs almost entirely to Jason Statham, who provides a perfectly sleek, impossibly muscled corollary to the movie’s impressive design and filmmaking prowess. Statham is about as stripped down and graphically functional an action hero as moviegoers have ever seen—that bullet- headed profile highlights a face not humorless but almost always engaged in some measure of an industrial-strength scowl, and it sits on top of a body that is perhaps as convincingly cut a weapon we’ve seen since the days of Bruce Lee. (I don’t know what the star’s actual martial arts abilities are, but no matter--the Transporter series is not selling, of all things, verisimilitude, and Statham sells himself, with the help of his directors, quite nicely, thank you.)


He wears his no-frills black jacket, tie and crisp white shirt as a faint echo of Bond at his most dapper, but the effect on Statham is functional style—he rarely looks less than spiffy, but if the situation calls for it (and it will call for it), you can damn well bet that jacket and shirt will get pressed into service when a set of nunchaku are simply unavailable. (The effect is something like Enter the Dragon by way of MacGyver.) Statham’s trump card (and the series’) is his talent as an actor of some style and grace as well-- he has elevated far less worthy vehicles than this with his stillness, the sense that he is listening to, not just tolerating, his on-screen companions, and his crack timing (assisted, no doubt, by the movie’s intuitive and quick-witted editors). But Statham is sharp enough that his performance already feels felt out in terms of the way the film is pieced together—he’s a corker all on his own.

(I’ve come to enjoy Statham’s big-screen appearances, even in crap like Death Race, so much that I finally had to admit to my wife that I just might have a man-crush on the actor. She was disgusted, but when I revealed as much to a wise colleague in an e-mail over the weekend, he told me of an editor who once advised him that we can't let our sense of beauty at the movies be determined by our sexual orientation. Words to watch Transporter movies by, for sure!)

Earlier this year, in The Bank Job, Statham effortlessly conveyed a sense of assurance mixed with fears borne of family concerns and sexual tension, and infused his robber-with-a-conscience character with far more than the standard issue invulnerable swagger. As the transporter Frank Martin, whose allegiance to his own code of asking no questions and not getting involved with the motives of his employers is here put to the ultimate test, he’s working far more inside the stoic and no-nonsense template we’ve come to expect of modern action heroes. But part of the kick in watching Transporter 3 comes from seeing just how he is seduced into bending those rules and to what degree, underneath all the rock-hard conviction, he really wants to be seduced.


The plot involves Frank being hired by a slimy American environmentalist (Prison Break’s Robert Knepper, who looks like Morrissey as a desiccated second-rate playboy) to transport the spectacularly freckled Valentina (Natalya Rudakova), daughter of a blackmailed Ukranian official (Jeroen Krabbe), back to her father as payment for authorization of the delivery of some very nasty toxic waste to the Black Sea port at Odessa. Frank must balance the overtures of a mysterious group of assailants who seem to want him (and her) dead with his employer’s insurance policy, which comes in the form of explosive bracelets that will detonate if either driver or passenger moves further than 75 feet from the vehicle. (The movie tests this potentially explosive dilemma in a spectacular sequence in which Frank, separated from his Audi by another low-rent transporter, pursues the car by bike, across rooftops and through plate glass in the hopes of not increasing the separation to a fatal 76 feet.) Initially turned on by the efficiency of Frank’s driving and fighting, Valentina does what she can to get under our hero’s skin, and part of the surprise in Transporter 3 is not only how believably effective she is at it, but that because of Statham’s understated, burgeoning interest in her as something more than annoying freight (they pass the time by talking about their ideal meals), we don’t see the dip into romance as an unnecessary diversion. The movie makes you believe the characters deserve their moment to, as Valentina says in her charmingly broken English, “feel the sex” before they might quite possibly die.

A movie that moves this fast, this swiftly, can paper over a lot of silliness, and Transporter 3 certainly disguises its share. But a movie that moves this fast can also unexpectedly take your breath away with quick bits of business, like that highway stop, or a sly smile flitting across an actor’s face (Statham gets lots of these, as does series veteran Francois Berleand as Frank’s beleaguered ally on the French police force), and it can seduce us much like Frank ends up at the hands of his bespeckled passenger. (Rudakova is spunky and sexy, but she’s no replacement for the first movie’s delectable Shu Qi, seen at left.) At times Transporter 3 seems more like a shiny toy, or a shiny car commercial, than a movie—- Megaton occasionally overdoes some of the picture’s signature ad campaign-style image speed-shifting. But an action thriller that generates as consistently wide a grin as this one does shouldn't be made to suffer too many such relatively churlish complaints. Transporter 3 is a goofy movie gift-- loud, wild, absurd, and unexpectedly pleasurable-- and it comes wrapped in as-yet-unassuming, whiz-bang packaging that I hope its filmmaking shepherds use several more times before the franchise, and its singularly entertaining star, get too big for that black suit and tie.

UPDATE 12/1/08: This is from Wednesday, November 26, but it's new to me-- Armond White registers his approval. (Is "approval" a strong-enough word?)

Friday, November 28, 2008

FOUR-STAR HOLIDAY PHOTO ALBUMS



Something else to be thankful for: My friend Larry Aydlette tells the fascinating story behind this brilliant photograph and many others in a wonderful new post (accompanied by many more stunning images) entitled "The Train Photos of O. Winston Link." Larry’s post will likely inspire you, as it has me, to find out more about Link, as well as order up a poster-sized print of the photo for myself for Christmas. Luxuriate in Link's images and the well-told story of his career right here.

And since we’re on the subject of evocative photography, please do check out Tom Sutpen’s photo essay miniseries "Les grands ballons des Macy’s" at his incomparable blog If Charlie Parker Were a Gunslinger, There’d Be a Whole Lot of Dead Copycats. Thanks, Tom, for another great collection, and for your Thanksgiving wishes. They are returned tenfold upon you. (And thanks to Robert Fiore for suggesting we all point ourselves toward this superb series.)

Thursday, November 27, 2008

THE THANKFULS




How can we not be most thankful for the people we love, who influence us, whose business it is to help us along our way and enrich our lives? Without the following people in my world, I would have damned little to be thankful for.

*************************************************************

My wife Patty and my two daughters, E. and N. You three give me reason to get out of bed every day as well as renewed hope for a happy future and constant joy during even the toughest and most tiring of days. I love you all.

Bruce Lundy, my best friend. How lucky I have been to have known you for 31 years and counting. Your unfailing support and your honesty mean so much to me—I’ll always be grateful to you for all the late-night laughter ever since we were kids, and the way you defined what being a true friend can mean. I love you too.

My parents, both sets: Reggie & Neoma Cozzalio, and Yoneo & Kimiko Yokoe. To know your love is there is the greatest assurance.

*************************************************************

And to Brian Conboy, Carrie & Evan Cossey, Liz DeKam, Pattie Elder-Lundy, Chris & Teresa Lundy, Don Mancini, Beverly Pura, Paul Reilly, Angie & Tom Schneider, Jonas Sjogren, Haruka Sometani, Andy Torres, Mark Wagers, Katie Warrener, Angie Yokoe, Debbie Yokoe & Cameron Ashbaugh: Each of you made my life enjoyable and happier in your own way through your friendship, respect and support, and I’m thankful for each moment I got to spend with each one of you; I only wish that time could have been multiplied a hundred times over.

To my teachers, Dorothea Soghomonian and Virginia Karanfilian: All the thanks in the world for your wisdom, patience and good humor; you are making my life richer with each day I spend learning from you.

*************************************************************

Larry Aydlette: You, sir, are the best. I know that’s just, like, my opinion, man, but it’s a good one. Give my best to Aydlettes one and all! (And where did you get that great picture on your header?)

Peet Gelderblom: for Directorama, sure, but more for just being a good friend. Here’s to you and yours, all the way to Holland.

Jim Emerson: Rest in peace, Frances, a friend well loved. All my best to you for the coming year, Jim.

And to David Edelstein, James Wolcott, Kim Morgan, Brian Darr, Campaspe (Thank you especially, C., for that special shout-out earlier this year!), Bill R., Sal Gomez, Glenn Kenny, Ray Young, Paul Matwychuk, Kimberly Lindbergs, Rick Olson, Paul Clark, Mr. Peel, Andrew Grant, Ali Arikan, Brian Doan, Matthew Kiernan, Ed Howard, Robert Fiore, Chris Stangl, Tom Sutpen, Ross Ruediger, Adam Ross, Andrew Bemis, Girish Shambu, Jonathan Lapper, Peter Nellhaus, Aaron W. Graham, Michael Torgan, Phil Blankenship, Brian Quinn, Nick Schager, Stacie Ponder, Joe Dante, Steven Carlson, Schuyler Chapman, Marilyn Ferdinand and Heidi Sackerson: You have all enriched the experience of reading this blog with your smart commentary and invaluable presence over the past year. I only hope I can continue to give you all reason to keep reading and making your voices part of the community I cherish on this site, and I thank you for the work you do in your own arenas as well. Some of you I’ve been honored to meet in person; for the time we were able to spend together in 2008, I am once again beyond grateful.

*************************************************************


This week alone I am thankful to Jim Emerson for republishing his wonderful essay on Nashville’s Lady Pearl and also for his moving pictorial tribute to his good friend.

**********************************************************

And it may seem odd, but Stephanie Zacharek’s completely sincere appreciation for Transporter 3 may be the single most purely enjoyable piece of film criticism of any stripe that I’ve read all year. When most other reviewers signal their preconceived notions of a movie like this by the level of the dismissive, above-it-all snark that characterizes their approach, Zacharek’s open delight seems even more refreshing and disarming. I liked the first Transporter, the second not so much, and after reading her keen prose on 3 I am more than ready to give it a whirl. And whether I end up liking the movie or not, I’m sure I’ll always enjoy reading her thoughts on it.

**********************************************************

On this Thanksgiving Day, when Frank and Jamie McCourt are sending out the mixiest of mixed signals regarding their intent to resign Manny Ramirez, or any other free agents for that matter, I am exceedingly grateful for the intelligence Jon Weisman brings to that most intellectually and emotionally dodgy of pursuits, being a Dodger fan.

************************************************************

This is going to sound strange, but I’m actually grateful for being diagnosed with type-2 diabetes this past April. I’m not glad I have the disease, but I’m extremely grateful for the level of awareness of my own health that it has precipitated. Since that diagnosis my blood sugar and blood pressure levels are better than they’ve been in years—all normal, finally—and I’ve been able to dialogue with lots of smart, level-headed people who communicated to me in no uncertain terms how easy it is to control the symptoms and to realize that having diabetes, while serious and inconvenient, is no death sentence. Thanks especially to Bill R., who really helped me understand this way back in April, when the option to start looking at life through mud-colored glasses was definitely on the table.

*************************************************************

I’m really thankful for the Trek 520.

************************************************************

I’m thankful for the 2008 election results (and to Alonso Moseley for highlighting an aspect of Obama the candidate in the second link that struck me as really valuable and unique among modern-day politicians). And of course I’m thankful to Sarah Palin, a onetime slick move turned high-fashion albatross, for helping to make it all happen. (Thanks, Jim, for the clip.)



************************************************************

And finally, even though there’s still plenty of exciting film to come in 2008, I’m grateful for this bit of late-breaking, hard-hitting news from the world of cinema breathlessly posted on IMDb yesterday, November 26, dateline Hollywood: Guttenberg, Selleck And Danson Reteam For Another Three Men Sequel


"Actor Steve Guttenberg will reunite with Tom Selleck and Ted Danson for a new sequel to 1987 hit movie Three Men And A Baby. The acting trio scored huge box office success with their comedic turn as bachelors forced to look after a girlfriend's kids after they are left holding the baby. They made a sequel in 1990, titled Three Men and a Little Lady, and now, 18 years later, Guttenberg, Selleck and Danson are set to reprise their roles for a new installment. Guttenberg, 50, says, ‘Tom Selleck, Ted Danson and I are looking to make another Three Men And A Baby movie. It's called Three Men and A Bride. The script is pretty much written and we are really keen to get that made. We're very hopeful.’ Guttenberg is also in the process of reviving the Police Academy franchise, which shot him to fame in the early 1980s.”

Yes, but just like that proposed Plant-less Led Zep reunion, this will only be a true reunion if Leonard Nimoy directs.

But really, why stop with Three Men and Police Academy? Surely the time is right for sequels to A Fine Mess, High Road to China and, of course, The Chicken Chronicles while we're at it.

**********************************************************

Finally, because you know it's coming, because it just wouldn’t be the holiday without it…



Have a wonderful Thanksgiving, everyone. (And just what is that guy doing to that bird right at the end there?)

Monday, November 24, 2008

HE DRIVES A $5,000 CAR AND WEARS A $100 SUIT-- HE'S BLACK DYNAMITE!



Twitch has all the details on the real movie behind this hilarious trailer, which will bow to audiences eager to get their Slaughter on at the Sundance Film Festival in 2009.

If this one plays as straight and straight-funny as it does in the trailer, writer-director Scott Sanders (Roc) may have cooked up blaxploitation parody that could end up a deadpan classic and make you forget all about I'm Gonna Git You, Sucka! Or it may just make you want to leave the theater early and rent the collected works of Fred “The Hammer” Williamson. Either way, honkies and bitches, it's a stone-cold can't-miss deal, right?



(Thanks to Robert Hubbard and Sal Gomez for sending this one my way. Twitch features higher-resolution clips, if you're into the whole clarity thing, man, but somehow low-rez seems to work better for me in this case. Either way, Twitch's warning is well-heeded and worth repeating: don’t watch this one at work unless you want to get fired.)

Low-rez conversation starter: What's your favorite blaxploitation movie? (Whatever it is, it's sure to get a shout-out in Black Dynamite.)

SLIFR SHORT ROUNDS: MY MOVIE WEEKEND


A SLUMDOG WORTH A MILLION


Insofar as the thematically chameleonesque Danny Boyle can be pinned down from film to film, Slumdog Millionaire seems like the most potent expression of his own stylistic preoccupations since he virtually set them in celluloid stone with Trainspotting back in 1996. That is, there is lots of luscious, detailed camerawork (perhaps even more since Boyle and cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle have shot Slumdog in expressive, vibrantly grainy, purposefully mobile HD video) and frenetic, some might say impatient editing (including a preponderance of smash cuts and other techniques of visceral graphic continuity), all laid down on top of a propulsive soundtrack heavily laden with world music beats as the characters jump and dash and hurtle through their urban obstacle courses. Though borne of the same visually oriented British filmmaking sensibility that unleashed advert veterans Ridley and Tony Scott and Alan Parker upon the world, Boyle’s movies, even when they don’t work, seem to go down easier than those of his cohorts. He hasn’t either Ridley’s pretentious indifference or Tony’s apparent contempt for most of the characters he chooses to put on screen, nor is he crippled by the morally addled sensationalism that is the hallmark of the typical Alan Parker film. But Trainspotting often seemed to value effect and lip service to a humane worldview over that worldview itself, which is why the movie, though admirable in many ways, has always seemed slightly, weirdly aloof to me, snappy but built on a twitchy vitality that is the opposite of the benumbed opiate orientation of its characters. But in Slumdog Millionaire Boyle strains his cinematic gifts through a Bollywood filter and puts them to the service of a romantic fable wrapped around a vivid portrait of modern-day Mumbai (formerly Bombay) as a kingdom of corrugated roofs and overflowing, mobile humanity, the story of a life lived on the streets where crushing poverty and nouveau riche consumption coexist without commentary, as if a microcosm of the world could be seen in this one teeming, aching city.

The action swirls and bolts and otherwise centers around Jamal (Dev Patel), whose unbelievably successful performance on the Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? leads to torture at the hands of the local police, who are convinced that Jamal, a chai wala (one who serves tea) at an international telemarketing organization, couldn’t possibly have answered the questions on the show without somehow cheating. But Jamal insists that he simply knew the answers, and the movie is structured as a series of episodes, intercut with his appearance on the show, that illustrate, in the impossibly symmetrical dovetailing manner of a true fable, the painful methods by which Jamal becomes aware of the trivia that will make him, for a brief moment, the focus of a nation’s fantasies of wealth and escape. He and his brother, Salim, are orphaned during anti-Muslim riots and fall under the influence of thugs who maim children in order to ensure their successful careers as beggars whose afflictions will best appeal to the guilt of those on the street with money to give away. It is here that Jamal and Salim connect with Latika, with whom Jamal falls in love and devotes his life to saving from the horrors of the Mumbai underworld as they grow older.

Boyle’s empathy with his young cast (there are three set of actors playing Jamal, Salim and Latika at different stages of their lives) is a marvel to behold, crowned by the limber, natural beauty of the three who portray these Mumbai musketeers in young adulthood—Patel, all charming determination and wounded, anxious grace; Madhur Mittal as Salim, the epitome of ambivalence as he straddles the fence separating gangster amorality and fraternal duty; and Frieda Pinto, impossibly beautiful, ultimately violated, but never more a symbol of virtue than she is a human being, even as her voice calls to Jamal out of the dark and offers, for a moment, the possibility of redemption while an entire country watches and listens breathlessly. Working from Simon Beaufoy’s screenplay (itself based on a novel by Vikas Swarup), the director deftly balances the requirements of disbelief in the film’s very structure—that convenient referencing of key events in Jamal’s life during the game show—with a hauntingly beautiful, but never romanticized picture of how a pulsating, overpopulated city like Mumbai works and breathes. Boyle’s overcaffeineated approach takes some getting used to, but it ends up in the service of the rare movie that uses its cacophonous, visually cluttered aesthetic as a vital extension of the experience of its characters, not just as a way of keeping its jaded audience from falling asleep. Far from lulling complacency, Slumdog Millionaire generates palpable highs through dedication to the generous telling of its narrative, and by the celebratory it’s-only-a-movie Bollywood dance number that will entice you to stay for the end credits and may just send you out of the theater, as it did me, aloft and sated on yet another in a series of unexpected pleasures.

IS THAT A GIANT SPIDER ON YOUR HEAD, OR ARE YOU JUST GLAD TO SEE ME?


The god-awful The Giant Spider Invasion, on the other hand, may send you searching for the off switch on your DVD remote, or in the best-case scenario, sprinting for the volumes of the collected criticism of Joe Bob Briggs on your shelves to find out more, so intoxicating is its homemade ineptitude. A bitter, worn-down farmer and his incongruously beautiful (and alcoholic) wife witness a meteor crash into their cow pasture—the leavings found in the crater look like little rocks with diamonds in them, but they’re really interstellar arachnid eggs that hatch into hairy pet shop specimens, which in turn sometimes (the biological scenario is never made clear) turn into giant Volkswagen-sized beasts that roam the horizon and threaten to chomp on veteran character actors like Barbara Hale, Steve Brodie and Alan Hale Jr. If you were a drive-in movie veteran in 1975, chances are you saw this one and plenty others like it—part of the post-Willard creature wave of the early ‘70s that included hits like Stanley (rattlesnakes), Night of the Lepus (giant bunny rabbits), the Bert I. Gordon double-header of The Food of the Gods (chickens, rats, et al.) and Empire of the Ants (um, giant ants). I was thrilled to come across The Giant Spider Invasion as part of TCM’s Friday night cult movies lineup—it’s no Food of the Gods, but as an example of a no-budget regional cheapie that did relatively phenomenal business during the summer of Jaws, it will slake your impulse hunger for the found comedy and cheap thrills only a genuine piece of crap can deliver while at the same time throwing a cold bucket of water on your nostalgia for drive-in pictures. (Turns out they weren’t all as keen as Death Race 2000, now, were they?) The Mystery Science Theater 3000 version is purportedly hilarious, but I recommend The Giant Spider Invasion uncut by someone else’s snark. It’s much more fun enjoying your own jokes while imagining yourself watching it in your hometown drive-in 33 years ago, when not every big monster movie had to be whiz-bang slick, and most of them, like The Giant Spider Invasion, weren’t even close.

BOLT OUT OF THE BLUE


Disney’s Bolt is a surprisingly enjoyable family picture, one rejiggered under the auspices of new Disney head of animation John Lasseter. The new movie is a beaut, low on self-conscious pop culture japes and high on Pixar-style storytelling virtues—it’s a meta-comedy about a Hollywood dog (John Travolta in fine form) who doesn’t know his entire life spent rescuing his favorite person, little Jenny (Miley Cyrus, who has a lovely, smokily expressive voice for cartoons), has actually been a choreographed fake—he’s the unwitting star of a wildly popular Lassie-with-superpowers TV show. After Bolt inadvertently escapes the set and ends up across the country in New York City (where he hooks up with a cynical alley cat voiced by Susie Essman), the movie turns into a road trip on which he struggles to reconnect with Jenny, even as he becomes increasingly confused and concerned that his powers, including a patented and devastating super-bark, no longer seem to be quite so effective. In addition to showing the revitalizing influence of Pixar on a Disney animation division previously beholden to rickety straight-to-video sequels, Bolt, in its 3D incarnation, bodes well for a surging trend in 3D computer-animated films in that (and again, this may be the Pixar influence) it is primarily a showcase for its smart script and the filmmaking talent behind the keyboards and computer towers and not just a flimsy excuse to throw things at the audience. The gorgeousness of Bolt’s visual design seems organic (if a computer-generated movie can be called organic), and the thrills are rooted in seeing the movie’s familiar action template (and its nods to The Incredible Journey) play out in what my old ViewMaster would have called StereoVision. The instances of things being flung at the audience are few—no bouncing paddle balls threatening to knock your 3D glasses off—and the vivid, bright landscapes and character renderings preclude the kind of muddy imagery that has marred 3D films from their inception up through previous attempts to revive the novelty with movies like Jaws 3D and Comin’ at Ya!. Instead, we get to luxuriate in a realistically rendered cartoon world and marvel when that world, as it does more often than not, seems unpredictably naturalistic, on top of being simply impressively detailed. And when you see Bolt in 3D you’ll likely see a preview from Dreamworks’ promising jumble of Mars Attacks! and Monsters, Inc. entitled Monsters vs. Aliens, as well as a tantalizing, and happily none-too-explicit, trailer for Pixar’s upcoming summer release, Up (also in 3D), which offers a mere suggestion of its premise—an old man’s house gets borne aloft (with him in it) by thousands of balloons—and leaves you craving much, much more.

A ROLE MODEL FOR SMART, NASTY COMEDY


I’ve reserved a spot on my best performances of 2008 list for Paul Rudd in Role Models, a toxically funny Apatowian mixture of politically incorrect character humor, incredibly bad behavior and unsentimental life lessons that could have played maximum mean-spirited were it not for the sly virtues of its actors, Rudd’s being chief among them. The star and pal Sean William Scott (toning down the usual smarm to just the right level here) are assigned 150 hours of community service instead of jail time in the aftermath of a metal-crunching episode involving their dead-end jobs as energy drink salesmen, their company vehicle and an exasperated tow-truck driver. Rudd (featured earlier this year in hilarious support of Forgetting Sarah Marshall) is one of the credited screenwriters here, along with director David Wain and co-scenarists Ken Marino and Timothy Dowling, and he plays the lines he’s helped give himself with a perfectly wry crinkle, the suggestion of a shrug that cannot be formulated to express the full-on disdain he actually feels, and the tossed-off cynicism that is his ultimately powerless response to the absurdities of everyday life. That cynicism gets a full airing when he and Scott end up doing time as big brothers under the auspices of swaggering ex-coke head social worker Jane Lynch (who finally gets a good, meaty role after a run of welcome cameos in lesser movies, like Alvin and the Chipmunks). Scott becomes chaperone to a foul-mouthed 10-year-old African American kid with a harsh wit and the kind of appetites enflamed by oncoming puberty, which makes the two of them a perfect pair. Less than perfect is Rudd’s matching with a young geek (Christopher Mintz-Plasse, better known as McLovin’) whose immersion in a medieval role-playing society offers plenty of opportunities for his mentor to openly suffer and, as it turns out, even more opportunities for Role Models to expand beyond the usual litany of crass set pieces into the kind of ribald character comedy that places it far closer to Superbad than most other comedies thriving in Apatow’s shadow. I’ve resisted the temptation to repeat jokes here out of allegiance to preserving the movie’s high laugh ratio, but also because much of what’s funny about Role Models is untranslatable, so much as it is derived from the glee that the actors bring to the table and the way Wain knows how to cut to perfect reactions and aside glances without pushing the jokes down our throats. Better just to recommend you see it soon, before some well-meaning soul tries to goad you into going by trying to outdo the spin Rudd puts on the mocking retorts that are this picture’s bread and butter and ends up deflating them into simple laff lines, ones that sound like they could come from any of a number of recent movies that are far less smart and satisfying and funny than this one.

QUANTUM OF BOND


Finally, there’s not a lot of be said about Quantum of Solace that can’t be summed up by the somewhat noncommittal phrase, “It’s not as bad as you’ve heard.” Actually, it’s pretty good, especially if you recognize it as a transitional movie, one that doesn’t exist on its own so much as provide the bridge between the spectacularly effective revision of the Bond franchise in Casino Royale (Can there be a moratorium on the phrase “reboot” to describe the retooling of age-old series like this and Star Trek?) and the new post-Bourne Bond to come. This 2008 vintage offers none of the series touchstones-- Bond gets drunk on shaken martinis with nary a quip, and even the pre-credits action sequence is left unpunctuated by the familiar silhouette firing at the audience. (It is significant, I think, that this familiar bit of business comes at the end.) I think Armond White is onto something when he speaks of Quantum as being an exercise in which Daniel Craig and company are engaged in the process of reinventing a pop myth, which, as Robert Altman and Elliot Gould could tell you, requires a whole lot more than just recasting your main character and updating the technology on and off the screen. It makes emotional sense that Bond should be as deadened as he is here—he’s transitioning from government robot to an agent with a fuller understanding of what it is his bosses, including the superbly poker-faced M (Judi Dench), must ask of him. And we as an audience are being asked to approach the gaining of that knowledge with a bit more patience than is usually asked of us, especially by a hugely expensive chapter in the most reliably entertaining and popular franchise in movie history.

Art-house director Marc Forster turns out to be a more interesting choice that expected here because he naturally works in rhythms that are a challenge to the action movie template, and he helps give the entire enterprise the feeling of something unusual, hints of feeling that may be too well hidden under the movie’s infatuation with extreme violence. But the shepherds of Bond, whether Forster is asked to return or whether another identifiable director comes on board for film #24, should look beyond the Bourne template if they are to truly give 007 new life. Many of the action sequences here, while ostensibly well-staged, are turned into cinematic hash by editing that has no identifiable variance, just metronomically fast smash-cuts that fail to enhance the action and instead distract from it. The car chase that opens the movie and a rooftop foot chase 20 minutes later (that pales in comparison to that parkour-inflected beaut that opened Casino Royale) both have considerably less impact than they could because the experience of watching them (and recalling them hours later) is like looking through prisms of glass at rapidly moving objects which you want to see much more clearly than you are able. (Would it be too much to hope that the next director-editor team takes a look at Ronin instead of whatever Paul Greengrass is up to?) All that said, the dialogue is sharp; the story, involving global manipulations at the hands of an environmentalist with the usual delusions of world domination (Mathieu Amalric), is borderline too complicated but ultimately coherent and compelling; Forster and screenwriters Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade work in a nifty, nasty nod to Goldfinger; and there is still Daniel Craig, whose brute, working-class beauty and genuine acting skill bodes well for the immediate future of the Bond series even if the current episode comes off, especially in comparison to the last one, a mite flat. But those sackcloth-and-ashes claims that Quantum is one of the worst of all the Bond films seem to me the slightest bit overstated. Need I remind anyone of Moonraker, or A View to a Kill, or The World is Not Enough? Even the much derided opening credits song (caterwauling courtesy of Jack White and Alicia Keys) isn’t as bad as what Madonna did for Die Another Day. It is enough though, as the series looks to the future, to make one hope that someone looks back to Shirley Bassey and finds some inspiration there again soon.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

FACES I LOVE #11: ON THE BIG SCREEN


Faces that made me glad to be alive and watching movies in 2008, even when sometimes the movies themselves weren't always so good...


Brendan Gleeson, In Bruges



Sally Hawkins, Eddie Marsan, Happy Go Lucky


Bingbing Li, The Forbidden Kingdom


Danny McBride, The Foot Fist Way


Anna Faris, The House Bunny


Jason Statham, Death Race, The Bank Job


Anne Hathaway, Get Smart, Rachel Getting Married



Lina Leanderson, Kare Hedebrant, Let the Right One In


Juergen Vogel, Der Freie Wille


Elizabeth Pena, How the Garcia Girls Spent Their Summer


Asia Argento, Mother of Tears


Angelina Jolie, Wanted



Dev Patel, Freida Pinto, Slumdog Millionaire



Norah Jones, Rachel Weisz, My Blueberry Nights




Christina Ricci, Roger Allam, Paulie Litt (with Willy and Kenzie), Speed Racer

Friday, November 14, 2008

THE SLIFR A to Z LIST




***********************************************************

So here I was, peacefully navigating through the benign streams of the World Wide Internets, when I was tagged (in a very general way by old pal Larry Aydlette, and more specifically by Bill R.) for the A to Z Film List meme currently coursing through the arteries of the blogosphere. (Is it a mixed metaphor if you have to imagine the corporeality of one of the metaphor’s elements? I’m just curious…) Anyway, the general idea of the meme is that the respondent name 26 films, one for each letter of the alphabet, which somehow represents the author in some way-- Larry constructed his entirely of films noir, thrillers and detective movies; Bill, on the other hand, went for a more generalized representation of his tastes in films, and wondered out loud what it meant that there were so few horror movies on his list.

But I am taking Larry’s notion that the list be constructed in any way and to represent anything that the author sees fit, as long as it adheres to the one hard and fast rule-- the one that insists entries that start with “The” be classified not as “T” entries but instead by the letter that begins the second word of the title, per classical alphabetization standards—therefore, The Green Slime is a “G” entry. I decided, rather than trot out another version of my top 100 (or in this case top 26) movies, I’d try something a little different-- it was apparent this would be a necessity when I saw Bill’s list and realized that if I stayed in a generalized arena I could probably just cut and paste 80% of his list and call it my own. So, in a hopefully not too annoying attempt to cut a slightly different trail through the brush, I decided that I would make my list entirely out of movies that were either much better than their reputations, or movies that were less likely to be on the tops of many readers’ minds, especially when it comes to favorites-oriented projects like this. The fact that I am far less well-rounded and esoterically experienced than potential players like Girish, Filmbrain or Brian Darr may cast this second part of my classification in a possibly unintentionally humorous light (“He thinks no one’s heard of that?!”). But forward I sally nonetheless, never being one to actively resist the opportunity to appear foolish. What follows is an A to Z list undeniably and primarily populated by mainstream films, many of which have the reputation of being dogs of various breeds, many of which may not be as familiar to some readers as others, but all of which are, in one form or other, available to view online or on DVD. The intent, really, is simply to jog memories and, of course, to cast a light on some favorites of mine, the titles of which usually don’t get bandied about in a discussion of what makes a good film. That is the one thing these films, the disreputable, the disavowed, the financially disappointing, all have in common—they are genuine pleasures, not at all guilty ones, and they all carry my most sincere recommendation.

*************************************************************

A


(David Fincher; 1992) It may never be fashionable to appreciate David Fincher's feature film debut, this much-maligned chapter (held in none-too-high regard by the director himself) in the apparently ongoing (as long as there's a Predator to smack down) Alien saga. But there's awful beauty in Fincher's relentlessly downbeat, religiously tinged film, and as an intellectual extension of the original film's hushed B-movie moodiness, Alien 3's bleak existential inevitability has it all over James Cameron's more immediately entertaining gung-ho militaristic revisionism of the series' powerful maternal obsessions. Ripley's sacrifice at the end of this film is the chillingly resonant punctuation mark this series truly deserved. (Too bad the allure of potential further profits couldn't leave a good thing, even a relative box-office flop like this one, alone for long.)

B


Robert Altman; 1976) Altman's Bicentennial celebration took the country's celebratory tendency toward self-mythologizing (never more exuberantly on display than during this 200th-year party) and turned it on its sow's ear, exposing the spirit of determination colored by the paranoia and fear jangling around inside the American Dreamscape. As I wrote recently on the occasion of the death of Paul Newman, "(The actor's) Buffalo Bill is a fool haunted by the demons of his own insecurity, his own knowledge of his inability to even come close, as a man, to the epic shadow he has already begun to cast over the nation’s view of itself. The actor’s piercing blue eyes have never seemed as haunted as they do peering out from the bewigged leonine visage of Bill Cody in full performance regalia, as he simultaneously embodies the full bluster of American manifest destiny and cocks an ear toward the voices echoing in his head that will constantly remind him, in the night, of the bitter truth behind that bluster." Here is a rendering of coarse, vital Americana that, while not as as vibrant and rich as Nashville, can stand with that landmark film as an important part of a great American director's great national portrait.

C



(Ron Shelton; 1994) Here is one of the best movies about baseball, albeit one with the least actual baseball played in it. Shelton's subject is the elusive nature of heroism, and what better avenue to examine that subject than through the dark glass of the life of one of the sport's greatest competitors and most reviled figures. (Shelton's next movie will be an adaptation of the book revolving around the BALCO-Barry Bonds investigation, Game of Shadows.) Tommy Lee Jones' performance as Cobb is at times hard to bear, so raw and unmerciful is its tenor and aggression. But that was the real-life Cobb too, a man who played hard, hated perhaps harder, and embodied a strain of heroism combining respect, dedication and unbridled fury that seems more inextricable from our national character with each passing year.

D


(Brian De Palma; 1980) I had to include this brilliant movie as a prime example of a title that hardly deserves the reputation it has in some quarters, as the most egregious example of artistic cannibalism by a director who would be nothing were it not for his ability to subsist off the collected works of Alfred Hitchcock. De Palma is merely the most open of directors about his influences. But how many willing to level this age-old charge have noticed how dissimilar the movies are from their supposed sources of inspiration? Does Dressed to Kill feel anything like Psycho? No, it is, whether you like it or not, its own beast, a creation forged in the feverish imagination of a director who has a lot more on his mind-- certainly in this movie-- than just empty homage. De Palma uses Hitchcock-- and Antonoini, and Powell, and many others-- as jumping-off points toward fulfilling an artistic geography that, at its most potent (as it is here), mixes fear and sex and comedy like no other director ever has. A De Palma movie is as easily recognizable as a Hitchcock film, yes, but not just because they share some of the same elements. In modern Hollywood, it's a sick joke, one worthy of one of his own movies, that this director should be held up as an example of someone bereft of an original thought.

E


(Robert Aldrich; 1973) A great, underrated masterpiece of spectral existentialist machismo from an vastly underrated director. The movie, about a symbolic battle for primacy between a seasoned hobo (Lee Marvin) and a psychotic railroad conductor (Ernest Borgnine), avoids easy sentimentalism like the plague. (Not for nothing did the movie's initial ad campaign show Lee Marvin as king of a garbage heap.) As I wrote here two years ago, "Emperor of the North looks, to these eyes, like the director’s most sustained, well-paced, crisply edited and viscerally imagined film, surely the zenith of his career as an 'action director.'”

F



(Errol Morris; 1997) Morris may have made more socially significant documentaries, but he's never made one that taps into the human soul as deeply as this one does. A quadtych of portraits, of a lion tamer, a topiary gardener, a robotics engineer and a man obsessed with mole rats, that eloquently illustrate the desire/need for man to impose control upon the essentially uncontrollable. FC&OOC emerges as a superbly sympathetic symphony of eccentricity, a moody and stylistically eclectic tone poem in the guise of a standard talking-heads piece that quickly shreds all allegiance to that form as it takes flight and defines itself as something entirely unique. Just like its four subjects.

G


(Sidney Gilliatt; 1947) A stark and subtly creepy British murder mystery set in a military hospital during World War II, Green for Danger is captivating and dryly, mordbidly funny throughout. The movie is shot through with the fresh devastation England was still processing in the shadow of the war's conclusion and manages to make that devastation part of the framework of the picture without ever becoming turgid and heavy-handed. Alastair Sim's performance as Inspector Cockrill is a gem, heading a peerless cast that includes Trevor Howard, Rosamund John, Leo Genn and the profoundly sexy Sally Gray, all gorgeous eyes, insinuating looks and smoky tones as one of the nurses both in danger and under suspicion as a murderer continues his deadly work.

H


(Stephen Herek; 1998) A strange little comedy that deserves a closer look, and far less bile than it has managed to generate amongst those who even remember it exists. Murphy is an evangelist of sorts who is nearly run over by a shopping network marketing genius (Jeff Goldblum). The marketing whiz the saves his own job by turning Murphy into a bizarre basic-cable phenomenon, grafting the preacher's religious fervor onto the materialistic compulsions of an overly eager TV audience. Neither as sharp or as spare as the movie with which it shares its essence- Being There-- but it is gentle and funny and pointed in its own way, and far better than the other dreck baring Murphy's name (Metro, Dr. Dolittle, The Distinguished Gentleman, et al.) that was being released at the time.

I


(Harold Ramis; 2006) My one direct steal from Bill R.'s list-- it's just too good a movie to let slide by. Cusack and Thornton orchestrate a robbery from Mob middle management on the night that Wichita, Kansas does a 15-degree freeze-over, making a clean getaway next to impossible. The hooks that femme fatale Connie Neilsen and besotted, cuckolded old pal Oliver Platt have planted in Cusack's cynical, but empathetic hide don't exactly ease the process along either. Bill contends that The Ice Harvest is the grim flipside of Ramis' Groundhog Day; together the two movies constitute as complete a directorial vision of the fickle, cackling comedy of fate and the (slim) possibility of redemption as any in the movies. And remember: As falls Wichita, so falls Wichita Falls.

J


(Josef von Sternberg; 1957) Delirious seems a woefully insufficient way to describe this genuinely odd, yet affecting action-romance. John Wayne is an Air Force colonel in charge of escorting a Soviet pilot (the entrancing but none-too-Siberian-looking Janet Leigh) during her defection. The two fall in love, and Leigh may be trying to coerce Wayne into changing affiliations himself, but if the will-he-or-won't-he suspense is less than compelling, there are always those long, dreamy flight sequences in which Wayne and Leigh (and their stunt pilots) censor-bait their way through some of the most thinly disguised coital reveries in movie history.

K


(Barbet Schroeder; 1978) The second of Schroeder's great documentaries of the '70s (the first being 1974's General Idi Amin Dada-- Self-Portrait) has at its center a far more benign protagonist, a primate being taught to communicate with humans by American Sign Language. Schroeder and cinematographer Nestor Almendros craft a wondrous and disturbing work that frames a fascinating, none-too-easily delineated debate about nature, animal rights and the primacy of humanity, all through the searching eyes (and prehensile manipulation) of the title character.

L


(Tay Garnett; 1937) Tyrone Power, Loretta Young and Don Ameche (never funnier, even in the T's below) are terrific in this swift screwball comedy about a crafty reporter who hounds a heiress and eventually gets the tables turned on him when she announces to the world, without it being factual, their impending engagement. As the reporter's world, including his sterling reputation, begins to crumble around him, true love ways start their sneaky march toward the end credits, and along the way the audience is treated to an exemplary comedy often lost in the shadows of mightier members of the species such as Nothing Sacred and His Girl Friday.

M


(Charles Barton, Charles Lamont(4), Edward Sedgwick, Lee Sholem; 1949-1955) Not one picture, but a seven-film series that virtually defines low-brow, audience-friendly un-art comedy and will never, ever gain a measure of critical respect. But damned if the gloriously gravel-voiced Marjorie Main and her main squeeze, Percy Kilbride (the only Pa), don't consistently appeal to this ex-farm boy's sense of nostalgia not only for growing up rural but also for the people I knew who adored as much as I do the arcane antics of this cornpone couple.

N


(Elaine May; 1972) Disavowed by its writer-director-star after it was re-edited at Paramount's insistence, there's still enough of May's singular comic cadences and wit on display here to rank this as one of the movies' most charming largely-unknown quantities. While Matthau's murderous gold-digger matches up with May's deceptively mousy heiress for some hilarious, often tonally odd moments down the path toward True Love, one comes to understand that even if May's version might not have been a masterpiece, the bowdlerized version (the only one we'll probably ever see) shines brightly enough to create a very special, morbidly emotional vibe all its own.

O


(Sam Peckinpah; 1983) The great director's last film is widely viewed as a for-hire hack job by a man desperate to prove he still had it. And anything but a cursory look at the movie ought to prove that he did. Ragged around the edges, this adaptation of the Robert Ludlum novel may feature now-dated technology, but that in no way diminishes its critique of a surveilled and self-conscious society that bears mention beside those of Brian De Palma. It's a messy, frustrating, compelling movie, both as social commentary and as an action piece.

P


(David Butler; 1936) Most notable historically as 14-year-old Judy Garland's film debut, this is a typical college comedy of the 1930s-- lots of musical numbers, clean-cut fraternities, star-crossed romance and, of course, the big game. But with a cast this fat and sassy-- everyone from Stuart Erwin to Patsy Kelly, Jack Haley, Betty Grable, Grady Sutton and Elisha Cook, Jr. are given room to shine-- the result is almost an embarassment of good-natured, giddily entertaining riches.

Q


(Howard Franklin, Bill Murray; 1990) It covers the same basic ground as The Ice Harvest-- bank robbers can't quite swiftly flee the city where the crime took place. But this picture is more rooted in in exploration of the fascinations and fruistrations of its locale-- New York City-- than Ramis' film was in discovering Wichita as a true character. It is, in its fashion, no less bitter and barbed than The Ice Harvest, however, with an undercurent of off-kilter sadness that makes the movie more difficult to shake than your average crooks-dressed-as-clowns comedy.

R


(Antonia Bird; 1999) A skittish studio marketing department and dismissive reviewers put off by excessive gore and gristle doomed this cannibalistic vampire thriller, set in the Sierra Nevada Mountains during the mid-1800s, to bad box-office and an undeserved rep as a stinker. In reality, it's an exceptionally weird, funny, scary and grueling satire of rampant U.S. manifest destiny embodied by a westward-bound military force headed up by flesh-eaters in Union uniforms. Robert Carlyle stands out in a brilliant cast as a mysterious man who may not be telling all he knows about surviving a Donner Party-style disaster. And by the time this movie finishes, you may share Guy Pearce's brittle disposition as he creeps toward insanity while battling the hungry (and the hunger), as well as his repulsion from a juicy steak.

S


(James Landis; 1963) A bare-bones, white-knuckle scenario-- three folks on their way to a Dodger game have auto trouble that leaves them at the mercy of a murderous psychopath (Arch Hall, Jr.) and his weirdo girlfriend-- is packed to bursting with suspense and visual intelligence (courtesy of young cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond). If I'd seen this as a young movie fan, it probably would've driven me crazy with pleasure. As an adult, it merely shook me to my core.

T


(Allan Dwan; 1939) I'm not exactly the most likely audience for a musical version of Alexandre Dumas' classic novel starring Don Ameche, Binnie Barnes, Gloria Stuart and the Ritz Brothers. But damned if this happy-go-lucky take on The Three Musketeers isn't, in its own way, as entertaining as Richard Lester's revered 1973 version, as well as compelling evidence that the Ritz Brothers, in the right context, were indeed a terrific comedy team.

U


(Malcolm D. Lee; 2002) Anyone who doesn't get at least a baker's dozen solid laughs out of this cheerful blaxploitation send-up ought to have their Curtis Mayfield records taken away. You probably thought Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy was a dud too, didn't you? Eddie Griffin, Chi McBride, Dave Chappelle, even Chris Kattan and Denise Richards, they all earn the yuks and a Super Big Gulp's worth of good cheer in this most improbably keen of comedies.

V


(Roy Ward Baker; 1970) Ingrid Pitt and Kate O'Mara head a delicious cast (that also includes the stalwart and always-welcome Peter Cushing) in Hammer's typically lurid vampire tale, for which tantalizing dollops of nudity and lesbian suggestion were stirred into the stage blood-heavy proceedings. The result was one of the studio's most memorable efforts, one that actually came close to living up to the trangressive promise of the advertising campaign. (Do heed the warning, however: NOT FOR THE MENTALLY IMMATURE!)

W





(Werner Herzog; 2005) I couldn't resist a double feature for the W's: Herzog's dreamy, zany terra-space nature documentary, in which cavernous and claustrophobic under-ice Antarctic seascapes are wedded to the director's conceit of a Man Who Fell to Earth-type character (Brad Dourif) achingly accounting his heartfelt longing for another world.



(Les Blank; 1980) In which Herzog makes good on a bet to marinate and eat his own shoe in front of a Berkeley audience. The occasion turns into a cracked, grandly Herzogian meditation on the passion of cinema, as well as the weirdest cooking show ever recorded.

X


(Chris Carter; 2008) The year's first great dread-of-winter chiller. (Here's the other one.) Curiously, I Want to Believe took heat for hewing closer to the self-enclosed intimacy of the series than did the more blockbuster-oriented (not to mention mythology-driven) Fight the Future. Take another look on DVD and see if the crisis of faith that anchors the film (Gillian Anderson has rarely been so moving as Scully) doesn't seem like one of the year's most compelling, not to mention frightening, dramas.

Y


(Lewis Gilbert, 1967) The movie that ushered out the original wave of Sean Connery Bonds (the Scot would return for one more Broccoli pic, Diamonds are Forever, after George Lazenby's one-off in the terrific On Her Majesty's Secret Service). The one-sheet says it all-- wild, overscaled, silly and proud of it, yet muscular and kinetic. This is Connery as his loosest as 007, in a movie (scripted by Roald Dahl) that holds up extremely well in the Bond canon-- it's my all-time favorite from any era.

Z


(Peter Medak, 1981) Made in the fading glow of the far less genial (not to mention considerably less funny) Love at First Bite, this is Exhibit A in the case for the zippy and endearing quality of George Hamilton's self-deprecating sense of humor. A laff riot, as they used to say, especially if you know your Don Diego de la Vegas from your Sgt. Demetrio Garcia Lopezes.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

JOE'S GARAGE: SCRUTINIZING THE STAGE INCARNATION OF FRANK ZAPPA'S RUDE DYSTOPIAN MASTERWORK



Jason Paige and the Utility Muffin Chorus bring the bawdy bile of Joe's Garage to brilliant life

How you react to the Open Fist Theater’s first-time-ever staging of Frank Zappa’s satirical rock opera Joe’s Garage, or even simply the news that director Pat Towne and producer/co-writer Michael Franco have taken on the long-thought-unstageable project, will depend almost entirely on your affinity/reverence for Zappa’s music. Attending Joe’s Garage is not likely to make a convert to appreciation for Zappa’s singular talent out of anyone who doesn’t know “Catholic Girls” from “Jewish Princess,” or what the hell means Waka/Jawaka, or the story of Bobby, the very potato-looking ne’er-do-well who resides in Zappa’s San Ber’dino. But for those, like me, who consider Zappa an epic musical genius often misunderstood and/or dismissed by both the star-maker machinery behind the popular song and the general audiences who never, beyond the occasional novelty hit, cottoned to his avant-garde leanings or his penchant for holding a foul-mouthed mirror up to the basest stupidities of human society, Open Fist’s production of Joe’s Garage (extended through December 21) is, literally, a dream come true, made flesh. The wonderful thing is, for those of us who have navigated and examined the soundscapes of Zappa’s seminal three-record set since its two-part release in 1979, the new production in many ways surpasses the dream.


What you’ll see on stage for your ridiculously reasonable $25 ticket is a dark-hearted satiric revelation disguised as a smutty carnival, the embodiment of what was a speculative social nightmare nearly 30 years ago, based on what Zappa postulated as our society’s apparent trajectory toward a Reagan-inspired fascist theocracy, staged at a time in our history when we are even closer to that speculation being realized than ever before. In the aftermath of the Obama election, one might be forgiven for breathing a little easier over the “alternate reality” Zappa suggests in Joe’s Garage, in which that fascist government creates the straw dog of music as a force that opens up the soul to its ultimate destruction and uses it for across-the-board legislative and moral oppression. (The governmental forces at work against freedom of expression in JG are not strictly borne of theocracy, but they certainly lie down with that particular breed.) But one only need to recall the name of the instigator of the Parent Music Resource Center controversy against which Zappa was a prominent and vocal resister—Tipper Gore—to realize that the cautions of Joe’s Garage are as much rooted in battling the complacency we can most often find in ourselves or those ostensibly aligned with us-- complacency, say, borne of relief over dodging a devastating election result, for example-- as they are rooted in the forces from without that work to strip our lives and individuality and turn us into lobotomized muffin factory workers.

Here’s Zappa from the Joe’s Garage liner notes (1979):

Joe’s Garage is a stupid story about how the government is going to try to do away with music. (A prime cause of unwanted mass behavior!) It's sort of like a really cheap kind of high school play ... the way it might have been done 20 years ago, with all the sets made out of cardboard boxes and poster paint. It's also like those lectures that local narks used to give (where they show you a display of all the different ways you can get wasted, with the pills leading to the weed leading to the needle, etc., etc.). If the plot of the story seems just a little bit preposterous, and if the idea of The Central Scrutinizer enforcing laws that haven't been passed yet makes you giggle, just be glad you don't live in one of the cheerful little countries where, at this very moment, music is either severely restricted ... or, as it is in Iran, totally illegal.”

The “stupid story” finds Joe (Jason Paige), a garage rocker whose band makes a bit too much noise for the neighbors and who ends up tossed into Catholic school in the hopes that he'll eventually ease up on the power chords a bit. There he falls in love with Mary, who eventually betrays him by becoming a “crew slut” for another rocker. Joe finds out about this betrayal and rebounds with a fast-food waitress who gives him an unpronounceable disease (something like “ginococcocochus”), which itself leads to Joe falling prey to a preacher for the First Church of Appliantology. This Hubbardesque evangelist determines that the way out of Joe’s personal doldrums (as well as his little venereal problem) is to come out of the closet by going back into the closet and having sex with the various and sundry electrical appliances he finds there. Joe’s subsequent torrid love affair with a magical pig-shaped toaster device (Open Fist's version looks more like Robby the Robot) goes horribly sour when he short-circuits the machinery during a passionate golden shower episode. Having destroyed private property and being stuck for the cash to make repairs, Joe’s “offenses” are conveniently blamed by the government on his passion for music. (The government is embodied by the piece’s narrator, the Central Scrutinizer, itself embodied by a genius bit of puppetry that sets the perfect unsettling/grin-inducing tone right from the start.) Joe is thrown into a prison which houses other musically oriented “criminals” where he is repeatedly gang-raped by some of the pokey’s foulest citizens, including many fiendish and corrupt record executives. Joe gradually retreats into a fantasy world of imaginary guitar solos (and, in a hilarious bit of business, imaginary rave reviews written by imaginary rock critics) that sustain him through his nightmare of incarceration, but do nothing to stave off encroaching insanity when he is released into a world that he discovers has almost totally given in to the mechanistic prerogatives of governmental control. (“I can hardly wait to see what it’s like/On the outside now,” sings the increasingly mournful chorus as a zombified citizenry greets Joe on the street.) After one final glimpse into the ethereal musical landscape happening underneath Joe’s crumbling exterior (“Watermelon in Easter Hay,” one of Zappa’s most achingly beautiful solos), Joe’s mind finally gives way and he is subsumed into the assembly line culture, drooling and staring into space while working a menial job at the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen. Here he dutifully “poots forth” little green rosettas, icing on bland muffins that will provide as little nutrition for the public as anything else, artistically speaking, in this increasingly neutered society where empty calories are king, all the better to keep the thoughtless masses docile and in their place.


Zappa’s chosen mode of expression was, of course, music, and his ribald talent served him well in grafting the telling words of this no-holds-barred social critique, itself the end result of a lengthy and bitter legal dispute with Warner Brothers records in the late ‘70s, to this soaring, mathematically challenging, desperate and soulful guitar-based, jazz-influenced rock symphony. But it is readily apparent watching Joe’s Garage (perhaps more so than listening to it) how much of a pretext music is for the pretenses and agenda of this government. The real interest is suppression of ideas—one gets the feeling that innocuous music, in Zappa’s vision, is a perfectly acceptable mode for the propagation of the kind of nullified emotional and political behavior that is, after all, the ultimate goal. The white elephant in the room during Pat Towne’s staging of Joe’s Garage is the notion that the real M.O. of Joe’s government, or of a government like Iran’s (1979 and 2008 variety), or of the post 9/11 Bush cronies, is the discouragement or discrediting (via outright suppression or other means, like, say, the demonization of intellectualism) of a potent artistic expression or vision. And that can come through music, or writing, or film, or theater, or anything else that one is poised to invest of oneself entirely. And one of the reasons why this version of Joe’s Garage seems such a cathartic and exceptional visualization of a beloved, well-known album is that it itself feels explosive; the shards of broken glass from the mirror the production holds up to this society, post-Bush, in the current economic crisis, still cut deep when they make their way into the audience. Zappa’s attacks on mechanized sex (Girls Gone Wild on Internet porn are available in every home), religious fanaticism and hypocrisy (Ted Haggard and the Catholic buggery scandals are so much more freshly stinging than Jimmy Swaggart, aren’t they?), greed (Haliburton and Enron, anyone?) and every other form of bad behavior you can think of (including bad music—the name Toto is invoked, however briefly) seem at once rooted in their time and deeply prescient as well.


The genius of Open Fist’s production is how well the music—brilliantly performed by a seven-piece band just off stage left—meshes with the Hunter S. Thompson-Circus Circus bent of Jennifer Lettelleir’s ingenious choreography and Towne’s limber, let’s-put-on-a-show aesthetic. Zappa, who likely harbored a measure of his own guilt about feeding the rock and roll beast while trying to live past it and break through its strictures, would have appreciated the way this show dances along the razor’s edge where eroticism and dehumanized porn coexist. (The ghastly sight of that chorus line of Catholic girls in their plaid school skirts fellating those future Knights of Columbus is simultaneously hilarious and chilling, a blow-up doll aesthetic writ on embossed C.Y.O. stationery, and Lettelleir’s dancers weave throughout the show from number to number with similar effect.) Similarly, crude humor is made to serve a subtly subversive and serious consideration of the price one can pay for having a specific vision, much less the freedom or the balls to make it come alive.

Too much praise really cannot be heaped on the cast, who with unflagging energy wrestle this difficult beast to the stage floor and pop up on their heels with infectious energy. Jason Paige, a formidable singer (and not a bad guitar player either) plays Joe with an appealing mixture of smart-ass devilry and potent empathy—his is an Everyman that jacks into the audience’s desire to see a satiric representation of themselves as powerless and slightly dopey. Joe suffers no messiah complex; his suffering is specific and personal, and more powerful for the actor’s (and the director’s, and the composer’s) resistance to making him a symbol. By the second act Paige marshals an impressive stage presence, even as Joe dwindles, and the production achieves the scale of tragedy that seems befitting. (And if you sit in the third row you might just become involved in Joe’s “impromptu” bit of audience participation, as I did. Be prepared to in some way be violated. You’ll love it! It’s a way of life!) Also excellent are David Castellani as Father Riley; Becky Wahlstrom as Mary, Joe’s ill-fated girlfriend; Michael Dunn, the unctuously imposing voice of the Central Scrutinizer; Ben Thomas as Joe’s slick band mate (his big number, ”Crew Slut,” is a dirty, disturbing highlight) and Mario Moseley as the Reverend Ike-ish leader of the First Church of Appliantology, L. Ron Hoover (“Well, you have nothing to fear, my son!/You are a latent appliance fetishist, it appears to me!”). It should also be noted that as brilliantly as the music is performed (and the Joe’s Garage band, under the direction of Ross Wright, provides as much reason as any to see the show—to hear the music, rarely performed live, in person), the dancers and singers, breathing life into Lettelleir’s inventive choreography and Zappa’s music simultaneously, are in a class by themselves. Nicole Disson (pictured above), Matt Crabtree, Crystal Keith, Lindsay Loesel, Pip Lilly, Maia Madison, Jonny Marlow, Franci Montgomery, Herbert Russell, Laura Sperrazza and Glen Anthony Vaughan all have reason to enjoy the high spirits they artfully spin from this dark, bitter comedy.


Restrictions on the performance of the music insisted upon by the Zappa estate, and dissatisfaction with proposed treatments, led initial pre-Open Fist attempts to successfully mount a production go unrealized. (Gail Zappa, the musician's widow, has however been a staunch supporter of this production, leading the theater company to bestow upon her the credit of Consultant on All Things Zappa.) But one significant legal hurdle hindering the live performance of Joe’s Garage ended up, for director Towne, resulting in one of the musical’s most sublime, transporting moments. Designated by the composer as one of the three signature guitar pieces that he decided should never be played by anyone else, “Watermelon in Easter Hay,” the piece that represents Joe’s final interior guitar reverie before he trades in his sanity for an icing-caked apron, was the one piece that the band could not interpret themselves. Towne and company were faced with one choice, and depending on their own performance up to that point in the show, it was a potentially risky choice artistically. At the point where Joe drifts off, the lights go down and the Open Fist stage space is plunged into darkness, as apt and spare a representation of Joe’s benumbed brainscape as anything set designers Franco and Charlie Otte (himself another producer) could have likely conjured. It is here that the live aesthetic gives way to around eight minutes of the original recording of “Watermelon” from the Joe’s Garage album, and the transporting effect of the imaginary guitar solo transfuses itself directly to the audience. It is a sublime moment of eyes-closed contemplation in which the nimble strains of Zappa’s guitar seem perfectly, tonally emblematic of those within every soul which tries to connect with a sense of being, of purpose, of self-worth, of the necessity for music to once again mean something apart from the acrobatic ability of its performers and its unerring capacity to separate us from our cash. As much as the original recording was in 1979, this stage version of Joe’s Garage is a vital, brutal, scorched-earth social commentary wrapped up in some of the most moving, funny, challenging music Frank Zappa ever wrote. The show has been extended through December 21, and one can only hope that it will have a long and utterly unexpected future beyond the friendly confines of the Open Fist Theater. This is a production and a vision, based on a great, messy, funky, angry, shattering original work, that deserves a long life all its own.

***************************************************************************

SIX DIRECTORS WHO COULD CONCEIVABLY PUT JOE’S GARAGE ON FILM:

KEN RUSSELL: At 80 I bet he’d still have the visual chutzpah to bring to the table; his biggest hurdle might be dealing with the obstinate and protective Gail Zappa, as rigid in her vision of her husband’s work as Paddy Chayefsky was in his.

JOE DANTE: He’d connect with Zappa’s anti-establishment themes and would have a good time making the stage production’s carnival quality all his own.

STUART GORDON: An original member of the Steppenwolf Theater Company, he’d have unique insight into how to make what worked on album and stage translate into film. He’s an unknown quantity with music, but the sinister comedy of Re-animator and Stuck suggests grisly social satire of Zappa’s ilk might be well within his grasp.

ALEX COX: Hard to say how this avowed punk sympathizer would connect with Zappa’s decidedly D.I.Y., but anti-punk sentiment. But his sense of social outrage and fearlessness as a filmmaker might be just the spark for a filmed version of Zappa’s rock opera.

GUY MADDIN: Could Maddin’s faintly antique-feeling surrealism be made to gibe with Zappa’s sensibility? Might be interesting, in a masterpiece or a folly sense, to find out.

DANNY BOYLE: Perhaps this director’s chameleon-like approach, combined with the fresh film technique he brings to each project, would yield a Joe’s Garage that could bridge the 30-year gap between the original work and modern audiences with ease.

Anyone else have any other ideas?

*************************************************************************

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH:

Buy your tickets to see Joe's Garage here. (The show has been extended through December 21.)

Variety's Terry Morgan writes appreciatively about Joe's Garage.

Steven Leigh Morris' L.A. Weekly cover story about the production.

Two stories on Joe's Garage courtesy of the Los Angeles Times.



Behind the scenes as Open Fist prepares to unveil Joe's Garage this past summer



FZ debates Tom Braden and Robert Novak on Crossfire circa 1986. The discussion of Zappa's notion that the country was even then moving toward a fascist theocracy leads to considerable condescension (especially from Novak), but it goes a long way toward making clear Zappa's seriousness as a social satirist and commenter, as well as the presience of works like Joe's Garage.





Here are parts 1 and 2 of FZ on The Mike Douglas Show circa 1976, promoting Zoot Allures. On the panel are Jimmie Walker and a very appreciative Kenny Rogers.

And finally...



FZ and the Best Band You Never Heard In Your Life performing "Watermelon in Easter Hay" in Barcelona, 1988.

Monday, November 10, 2008

LAUREL AND HARDY'S MAIN STREET


Updated!


Laurel and Hardy filming Perfect Day (1928) on Vera Avenue in Culver City, California

A pop culture historian and Laurel and Hardy fan in excelsis by the name of Piet Schreuders has undertaken to design and create a digital version of 1920s-era Culver City as it appeared in countless Laurel and Hardy classics and other films made by the Hal Roach Studios at the time. The video documents the project, an off-shoot of Schreuder’s exhaustive book The Shortest Main Street in the World, which is dedicated to those themselves dedicated to the history and cinematic antics of Mssrs. Stan and Ollie. Take a look.

(And thanks for the tip to Scott Hewitt, who passes along this link to further reading on the subject of what Los Angeles and Hollywood looked like during the era of Chaplin and Keaton, and Laurel and Hardy, of course.)



And this by way of friend and reader Sal Gomez, a tour of the Culver City locations for Laurel and Hardy's Big Business 75 years later:

DEAR ENNIO, HAPPY 80th BIRTHDAY!



Ennio Morricone reads a giant Happy 80th Birthday card from all of us

Dear Ennio,

Just a quick note to say happy birthday and thank you for all those notes you’ve managed to put together over your career that, when combined, have resulted in some of the most sublime, giddy, thrilling music ever written for the movies. If you’d only written the theme from Once Upon A Time in the West, well, we might have begged for more but would have had to admit that such haunted loveliness would be far in excess of what we could ever expect from the average composer. But then you did give us so much more. Some of my personal favorites would have to include the mournful dread of your scores for Brian De Palma, including Casualties of War and Mission to Mars (and, of course, the thrusting toughness of The Untouchables); the playfulness of your melodies for Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! which underscored the ambivalence we were feeling about the situation of the characters on screen; the soaring stories of the countryside and the people that infuse your beautiful music for Days of Heaven and 1900; and of course the inimitable (though so many have tried) whistles and blasts and twangs and cresecendoes and sudden silences you created for the Dollars films— music to score a life by, and many of us have done just that. So much to get lost in amongst the aural streams of those works alone, yet those are not even the tip of your iceberg. You have given us so much musical pleasure, so much musical challenge in your 80 years. It would be greedy to hope for 80 more, and yet I cannot resist the impulse, and so I do. May you not see the end of this day without knowing full well how much your work means to those of us who listen with our hearts as well as our ears, those of us who cannot wait to the experience the tales you tell us with your exceptional and unique talent each time we see the credit, “Music by Ennio Morricone.”

Happy birthday, old friend.

Dennis

(As always, Green Cine Daily points the way toward myriad tributes to Morricone on this special day, including fine pieces by Tim Lucas and Robert Cumbow.)

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL 3: THINGS MY DAUGHTERS TAUGHT ME



During these times of my ever-more-fractured attention span, I have found it more difficult than ever to devote the kind of time that my instincts, and my sense of guilt and duty, however misplaced, seem to insist upon when it comes to blog writing. The fourth anniversary of this enterprise will be marked on November 15, and when I started it my life was considerably different, less hectic—to continue the evocation of outdated politics, I barely had a pot to cook a chicken in, obligation-wise, much less the actual chickens to cook. But the work I’ve been able to take on because of this blog, to speak nothing of the career changes I’ve initiated in my life outside of it, have made regular contributions to SLIFR in 2008 far less regular. (It’s a shame that with less profligacy greater keenness of observation has not necessarily followed.)

That all said, I’ve still been catching up on as many movies as I can, and a lot of thoughts have been clanging around that I probably should stop imposing on unsuspecting friends in otherwise unrelated e-mails and form into some sort of post-worthy material. I’ve decided to take advantage of that the fact that, though I still feel like I’ve been shrunk by fever and muscle aches down to about ¾ of my actual size (a viable diet plan?), I’m able to sit up straight in bed and type. So here I am, faced with several daylight hours during which I can write, and you, Dear Reader, must now, if you have the will to continue, pay the price.

*************************************************************************************

As a relatively responsible movie-going parent, I’ve always been curious as to how much of an influence our children’s responses to the movies we take them to works to color our own. One of the first movies I ever took my first daughter to, when she was two years of age, was Monsters, Inc. Of course she loved it. She even reached up midway through the movie to give me an unsolicited kiss, as if to say, “Thanks for taking me to this movie.” I came away convinced that Monsters, Inc. was a masterpiece of children’s entertainment, and that sublime ending, with Sulley peeking through the doorway at a sleeping Boo, did nothing to dispel that notion. (Neither did my daughter’s resemblance to Boo at the time do anything to dampen my happiness over our experience.) Thus began a history of taking my daughter(s) to the movies, one in which we’ve endured plenty of duds (any chance I could trade in our two screenings of Open Season or Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull for one more shot at Wall-E on the big screen?), but one which I’ve also had some genuinely lovely experiences. We’ve thoroughly enjoyed movies together (Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D) that are unlikely to end up on anyone list of children’s classics. And I’ve been blessed to be able to turn them into fans of the drive-in movie, thanks to that quintessentially American format’s unlikely local renaissance courtesy of theaters like the Mission Tiki Drive-in, the Vineland Drive-in, the Rubidoux Drive-in, and the Van Buren Drive-in.

(There exists somewhere a videotape of me and my then three-month old daughter taken in 2000 at the now-defunct Foothill Drive-in in Azusa, CA, in which I guide her on a tour of the near-deserted lot just before movie time and express my regret that by the time she’s old enough to see them drive-ins will likely be completely extinct. Thank God for my inability to suitably conjure Nostradamus for my inaccurate prognostications.)


Finally, this summer we definitely rode that same wavelength in our mutual adoration of Speed Racer. After spending the movie’s opening day simmering in a downtown jury room awaiting the call that would ultimately never come, I spent a goodly portion of my downtime reading the Los Angeles Times and various other sources (accessed on the courtroom’s $5.00-a-hour Internet access computers) as they proclaimed Speed Racer to be an incoherent dud the scale of which could ultimately bring down its studio, Warner Brothers, after an epic botch of the movie’s marketing. (These were, after all, the bleak days before a certain Dark Knight came and cheered up everybody on the WB Burbank lot.) To celebrate my release from jury duty sans commitment to an actual trial (the system works, folks), I called my daughters and told them to make plans—we were gonna head out to see Speed Racer, my thinking being that if nothing else it would be a boatload of fun witnessing just how far off the rails a major studio movie can go in this age of buttoned-down, micro-precise marketing strategies. At dinner before the movie, we encountered a waiter who overheard us talking about seeing a movie afterward, and when he found out what we were seeing this rather tall, imposing gentleman immediately revealed himself to be a hyperactive member of the uber-geek community. He’d seen Speed Racer earlier in the day (remember, this is opening day) and was hard-pressed to contain his enthusiasm. He implored us to come back and let him know how we liked it, and I thought to myself, “You’re a nice guy, Bub, but you’re not gonna want to hear what I’m probably gonna think about this movie.”

I couldn’t have been less surprised when my daughters began immediately squealing with delight over the candy-colored antics of the Wachowski Brothers’ movie splashing with abandon upon the wide screen. But I kept waiting for that moment when, rather than giving in to the abandon, I had to shut down in the name of self-protection and begin actively rejecting the nonsense. That moment never came. And about three-quarters of the way into the movie, sometime either during or just after the movie’s spectacularly disorienting Fuji race, its track deliberately evocative of the loop-de-loop Hot Wheels tracks of my youth, I turned to my oldest daughter with a huge grin on my face and admitted, “I love this movie!” I spent the remainder of its short summer theatrical run returning to Speed Racer, five times in all, and twice in IMAX, with my daughters and my friend Don, the only other grown-up I know who seems to understand. (The night of the movie’s release on DVD I got a message from him that stated simply, “Have you watched it yet?”)


But then, my kids also loved Open Season. And Indiana Jones and that cheesy crystal skull. And Steve Martin’s remake of The Pink Panther. And Madagascar. And countless other crass movies pitched primarily to their demographic which I, either proudly or sadly, cannot abide. This is the group into which I have traditionally lumped the High School Musical phenomenon. Despite featuring an abundance of tunes that seem to have sprung directly out of a hit-making machine, so insidiously, preternaturally catchy are their hooky melodies, HSM just seemed too Disney-prefab for anyone old enough to be able to draw the line between the adventures of Troy and Gabriella and those of Frankie and Annette. Of course, the entire raison d’etre of HSM is giving the elementary school set a freshly scrubbed look into a universe that they’ll soon be experiencing, with all its real-world complications, soon enough, thank you. And of course that universe doesn’t resemble reality in any meaningful way beyond the carefully marketed multiculturalism of its casting, which is, I suspect, an issue of far more importance for those who don’t have kids or are looking for an easily accessible ax to grind with the movies. High School Musical is simply the wrong place to go trolling for evidence of social reality, and to knock the series for the absence of cholas in the hallways of whatever the hell that high school is called, or because the movies don’t deal with the hard-hitting issues like pregnancy or premarital sex that face today’s teens, is to miss the point entirely.

(Peter Travers’ appalling review of High School Musical 3: Senior Year, in the pages of Rolling Stone, seems to me a particularly egregious and desperate attempt to pander to the demographic and presumed tastes of his magazine’s readership, not to mention their prejudices. “If you're gay and/or eight years old, HSM3 is the movie event of the year,” Travers opines. “From the first leering close-up of Zac Efron shaking off sweat on the basketball court before bursting into sappy song, the movie — like the two TV movies that preceded it — is a nonthreatening sexual marshmallow.” Does that sound like an opening sentence written by a man who isn’t in some way threatened by this fairly innocuous entertainment? Okay, we got ya, Peter--- you’re way too smart, and too butch, for this shit. Sadly, Travers’ review is not an isolated instance of his continued assault on the credibility of film critics, not to mention the music of the English language.)


High School Musical is, again, fantasy, the kind that many of us grew up on in various forms, whether it be Annette and Frankie, or the Tammy movies, or even The Brady Bunch and The Partridge Family. I don’t see a lot wrong with my daughters having someplace to hang their hopes in a pop culture framework for the life they eagerly anticipate as they get older and school gets tougher. It seems to me they have a right to a fully romanticized idea of high school they can revel in, one which will undoubtedly be snatched away from them far too quickly in any case. (And anyone who subscribes to the Entertainment Weekly-fueled enthusiasm over shows like Gossip Girl or the new 90210 and doesn’t admit that they are simply fantasies of another kind, built on puerile sensationalism and exploitation of trendy attitudes instead of googly-eyed innocence, is conveniently deluded.) I have yet to see the first two TV movies, so the duty of taking my daughters out to see HSM3 fell to my wife, who has indulged the girls’ enthusiasm to a far greater degree than I ever have. (I have been, up to this point, exclusively the one who needles my oldest about Zac’s hunkiness and how I far prefer the perpetually plaid-clad Ryan.) Of course my daughters loved the movie—I would have been foolish to expect anything else. (If somebody would have concocted a big-screen version of Jonny Quest when I was eight years old I probably would have similarly flipped out.) What was surprising, however, was the report brought back to me by my wife regarding the reaction of my eldest, the eight-year-old. Patty said that, about midway through the movie, during an emotional number in which Troy, Gabriella and Troy’s best friend Chad confront the reality of Gabriella moving to Stanford (“Just Walk Away”), my daughter, never one to hide her emotions, began weeping openly, uncontrollably. Patty attempted to comfort her, but it was clear that our daughter, to whom these characters were close to real people she has seen grow up over the course of three zippy, poppy movies, was taking their dilemma utterly seriously. And it was breaking her little heart. (It made me think of Pauline Kael’s comment about how, for many people whose primary experiences in the movies were the Star Wars trilogy, it’s understandable how, no matter how raggedy the last chapter, the fates of Luke, Han and Leia might be experienced on a deeper level than some might be willing to concede.) My daughter’s emotional outbursts were not confined to the scenes involving the separation of her friends—the tears continued to flow through the end credits, along with the presumably real tears of the actors on screen who, in taking their final bows, couldn’t help but acknowledge their own emotional responses to the ending of a series that has framed their entire teenaged lives. It was this summing-up that my daughter was finally reacting to—she got to experience, through the power of this prefab little musical phenomenon, feelings about a series of movies that has been hugely important to her. Though they scared her a bit and she didn’t initially know what to do with them, those feelings somehow found an outlet and she felt safe enough to express them.

The following Saturday it rained in and around Los Angeles. Stuck for something to do while my wife spent the afternoon working, curiosity got the best of me and I suggested we three go see High School Musical 3. Both my daughters were shocked that I even wanted to see it, and they extracted a promise from me that I would not openly mock the movie throughout. I agreed, and off we went to a Glendale auditorium packed exclusively with moms and daughters, and me. (I feel confident in asserting that I was the only male of any age in attendance that day. Take that, Peter Travers.) Turns out that, for this non-veteran of the HSM experience, the third chapter is a pleasant-enough diversion. My tolerance for chirpiness was tested from time to time, and there was a patch when I was fighting off slumber—a frequent occurrence whenever I hit the matinee circuit—but both my daughters helped me through that rough patch (“Dad, you’re snoring! Knock it off!” cried my youngest, and I don’t think I dozed a wink after that.) As I suspected, HSM3 is very much a product of Andy Hardy-Annette and Frankie lineage, and it has the same kind of enthusiasm mixed with blithe ignorance of how silly it all must seem to those outside its hermetically sealed universe that is either wearying or cheering, depending on your perspective. As a director, Kenny Ortega proves himself to be a fine choreographer. (Hairspray's Adam Shankman was far more limber and adept at mixing the two vocations.) It’s a good thing that the movie is as packed as it is with catchy, well-staged tunes, because all that people-interacting-with-each-other-sans-backing-track stuff seems beyond Ortega’s reach—- most of the interstitial scenes between production numbers are as flatly lit and imagined as a Swedish pancake, with Ortega seemingly content to turn the camera on in sit-com style proximity to his actors and hope that their toothy grins will carry the day. Fortunately they usually do, at least long enough to get to the next musical outburst. And at least they neatly capture the kinds of dilemmas young people find earth-shattering—divided allegiance to life pursuits and the difficulty of leaving friends behind are this glossy picture’s meat and potatoes. Thankfully free of the pretension and exploitation that pervades most modern depictions of high school life readily available on cable TV, HSM3 is a movie any adult could see through with little effort. But it’s one that this adult can also fairly effortlessly enjoy, with no ties to the previous installments, and I credit that to the movie’s commitment to its retrograde charms in honoring the emotional pact it has forged with its young audience.

Speaking of which, the moment came when Gabriella must leave for Stanford, and sure enough, my lovely, open-hearted little girl let fly the sobs as she tucked herself in my arms for the duration. And I know I was simply reacting to her reaction, but I didn’t resent the fact that I ended up crying too. Any movie that can touch my daughter without resorting to cheap tactics, but instead by allowing her to get to know a group of kids, the corollaries of whom she’ll likely never meet in real life, kids with little else on their mind but their personal loyalties and that intense need to sing and dance, is okay by me. It doesn’t matter that I don’t necessarily think it’s a great movie. This time it’s enough that she does.

KEVIN SMITH MAKES A DOODY



I had openly hoped on this page last week that Kevin Smith, master promoter, perhaps less than a master filmmaker, might have come up with a movie that would be worth talking about a week after its release instead of just the week before. Well, it’s my sad duty to report that Zack and Miri Make a Porno may be an even bigger disappointment than the smug, inept Clerks 2 because, ostensibly, Smith is not simply coasting here on past laurels but supposedly striking out in new territory. However, Zack and Miri feels desperately old-hat, and not only just for a Kevin Smith movie but for one made by Judd Apatow too, of which this potty-mouthed, envelope-stretching romance is but a pale imitation. David Edelstein aptly suggested in his review that Smith has overextended his cleverness beyond his ability to write blue banter with this movie by openly aping Apatow’s approach. Irony being ironical and all, it was Smith movies like Clerks and Chasing Amy that paved the way for Apatow's bromantical escapades. Now Smith finds himself in the unenviable position of creating a milquetoast shadow within in the shadow of a filmmaker who has basically eclipsed his own single-minded take on modern heterosexual relationships. (That Apatow and the whole outrageous-comedy-with-a-sentimental-heart-of-mush syndrome is already, just two short years after the release of The 40-Year-Old Virgin, teetering on the brink of cliché, speaks volumes.)

Best friends and slackers nonpareil Zack (Seth Rogen) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks), faced with a Pittsburgh winter and no electricity, lights or running water due to their inability to pay their utility bills, decide to dabble in the sex trade and make a porno, which they are convinced will be their ticket to, if not fortune, then at least keeping a roof over their head. They recruit a motley crew of compatriots, including ex-porn royalty Traci Lords, as well as Smith regulars Jeff Anderson and Jason Mewes, and vow to film themselves having meaningless sex, an activity these two platonic pals have avoided their entire lives, in service to their dire financial straits. But long before I got annoyed at the obvious trajectory of what will happen when our two foul-mouthed protagonists finally copulate (what’s the over-under on them discovering how they really feel about each other?), it became apparent that Smith himself was operating on autopilot. A large portion of the movie is devoted to tossing out possible names for their porn epic (none of which are half as funny as the ones bandied about in the original Clerks) and then to an extremely tired and uninspired porn parody of Star Wars, and it’s all only slightly less funny than the average Mad magazine movie satire. (If the utterance Star Whores and endless plays on character names like Princess Lay-her tend to slay you, then by all means buy your ticket now.) After production on the actual movie resumes—the Star Whores soundstage is demolished and the porno becomes a far less ambitious affair shot after hours in the coffee house where Zack ekes out a living—we’re left with nothing for the movie to do but bombard us with F-bombs and other sundry, overly clever nasties while we wait for Zack and Miri to reveal its creamy center.


Turns out that’s plenty of time to think about how much flack Smith has taken for his one true attempt to do something different within his oeuvre—the unfairly maligned Jersey Girl-- and how much slack he’s been cut for just about everything else since Dogma. I appreciated Smith’s attempt to take his sensibility, born of his new experience as a father, in a different direction than his carefully cultivated fan base might expect. And the reaction—tainted by the tabloid response to stars Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez and their affair, and by the perceived notion that Smith had made a mealy family picture with no place for the fanboys to dig in their dirty nails—assured the movie’s quick and painless box-office death. But, speaking as a previously enthusiastic fan of Smith who even enjoyed the inside-out navel gazing of the relatively clunky (for a Smith joint) Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, it has to be fairly evident that ever since Dogma, a picture I still admire for its engagement with some serious subject matter not usually found within the body-function purview of most modern American comedy, Smith has been cruising-- on Clerks and on his own rep as a raconteur. (The Evening with Kevin Smith DVD series is enough to test even the biggest fan’s constitution— by the release of An Evening with Kevin Smith 2: Evening Harder I had happily left the director’s self-generating cult of personality behind.)

And I think it’s high time to hold Smith’s feet to the same fire that Diablo Cody’s were held (I being one of the primary inquisitors) in regard to the screenwriter’s much-lauded ability to write dialogue. Clerks had a profane jauntiness that influenced an entire generation of film writers, in much the same way that Quentin Tarantino did. But with each subsequent movie Smith’s writing has become further entrenched in that Jersey-fied, self-referential, insular universe, and it’s becoming readily apparent that Smith is incapable of writing characters that don’t sound like himself and his chatterbox buddies, each one at the ready with some wild and crazy variation on “cocksucker” or “fudge-packer,” but bereft of a smidgen of individuality or personality that might leaven the effect of the obscenities and give someone other than a card-carrying member of the Movie Poop Shoot faithful a pathway into the movie. All of this casts an interesting light on the movie’s ultimate box-office reception. The $10.5 million opening for Zack and Miri may or may not be a career highlight for Smith—on some level I take a certain pride in not knowing—but it must irk Smith, so proud in the parading of his characters’ crassest tendencies, that his movie got beat by a week-old Disney musical. And I’d be curious if he wonders at all, given his professed confidence in Zack and Miri as his most commercially viable project yet, whether or not general audiences have not offered a referendum of indifference re the Smith worldview, certainly in comparison to Apatow’s. (Even the relatively tepid and tepid-performing Forgetting Sarah Marshall made more of a splash than Zack and Miri seems poised to generate.) Could it be that commercial concerns might ultimately force this most complacent of directors to finally strike out in a new direction?

HAUNTED, BELATED HALLOWEEN



I had really hoped I’d had time to address some thoughts I had on horror movies in time for Halloween, but the hour of the wolf grows nigh and I’m going to have to settle for providing you with links that will slake your blood thirst for great reading material about this most resilient and adaptable of genres. Jonathan Lapper’s Cinema Styles has really come into its own as an excellent read over the past year, and Jonathan spent the last month luxuriating in the extremities and excitement of the horror genre. Similarly, Bill R. recently launched a blog entitled The Kind of Face You Hate (it’s Dr. Mabuse’s, not Bill’s), the attendance to which hopefully accounts for his recently scaled-down appearance in the comments columns here. (My lack of posts might have something to do with it too.) It’s been worth Bill’s efforts, though—his blog has quickly become one of the best, and at the risk of being too reductive about such an ambitious project, he spent the entirety of October discussing the vast array of horror literature, much of which you don’t know about (I didn’t either). Finally, if getting a great overview of the entirety of the blogosphere as it engaged with the horror genre this past month is your cup of brew, then please check out Green Cine Daily’s multi-post “Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps)” series, spread out over the course of a very busy Halloween month for this most excellent of websites.


My own Halloween movie fun ran far more on the trick-ish than the treat-ish side. Things began inauspiciously enough with Alexandre Aja’s skittish, cluttered Mirrors (2008), which misinterprets horror as a constant state of jittery camera movement, splintered editing (no doubt justified by the visual motif of all those broken mirrors), and sequences of Kiefer Sutherland glowering and baring a flashlight through darkened halls, all the better to orchestrate a plethora of cheap “boo” gags and distract from the low-rent, Shining-rip-off storyline. Oh, and Amy Smart gets a truly gruesome death scene in a bathtub in which her jaw is broken and hyper-extended by the unseen ghoulies hiding out in her medicine cabinet mirror. (Aja uses some of the movie’s longest, most loving takes here.) Movies like this and the wretched The Haunting of Molly Hartley (2008), which lifts its plot (but not its lack of energy) from formulaic, and much better, ABC TV Movies of the Week like The Initiation of Sarah, are made by people who betray not a lick of reverence for or facility with the horror genre and its possibilities, its power, its fun.


Then I revisited John Carpenter’s Prince of Darkness (1988), a pseudo-religious post-Exorcist thriller-- Argento by way of Carpenter touchstone Howard Hawks-- in which a group of no-nonsense physicists (headed by no- nonsense TV actor Jameson Parker) lock themselves in a church basement to do battle with (and get zombified one-by-one by) a whirling Day-Glo substance in a jar that just might be Satan himself. Yes, it’s as dumb as it sounds, made even more tedious by Carpenter’s deadpan directorial torpor and patented matter-of-fact approach to the most absurd material—the movie plays like a greatest-hits album for a director whose best tricks weren’t all that good to begin with. Alice Cooper is the leader of a group of street people turned into shuffling flesh-eaters in the presence of the Day-Glo jar, and the singer’s perpetual glower is played entirely straight, which would be fine if anything in the movie was remotely scary. The movie’s only juice is provided by Donald Pleasance as a priest saddled with the script’s most portentous expository dialogue—it’s the exact same performance he delivered in Halloween, only wearing a clerical collar.


I want to spend more time than I have here extolling the virtues of the mournful and visually brilliant Swedish import Let the Right One In, which was the highlight of my cinematic Halloween adventures. I vow to write more about this movie in the very near future. But I will say that, along with The X-Files: I Want to Believe earlier this year, the movie makes an excellent case, in a completely different context, for the atmospheric dread of winter that has gone, to my mind anyway, greatly underexplored in modern horror films. Director Tomas Alfredson has an uncanny instinct for the chilling effect of quiet and he never pushes his individual sequences, frightening as they are, into excess. This atmospheric tale of a spectral young boy who is befriended by an equally mysterious girl apparently his own age—a girl who doesn’t seem to eat and is strangely unaffected by the incessant cold—turns what could be the merely gruesome into a evocative, visually rich fairy tale which is as much a haunting tale of finding one’s true soul mate as it is one of a quiet town whose adults fall prey to a 12-year-old vampire. Let the Right One In put me in mind of the somber fairy tale atmospherics of Val Lewton’s Curse of the Cat People (directed by Robert Wise and Gunther von Fritsch), a movie in thrall to the interior fantasy world of the similarly adrift young girl at the center of its story. I finished off Halloween weekend with Lewton, Wise and von Fritsch’s beautiful movie, and combined with Let the Right One In (a strong contender for movie of the year) it proved the most perfect corrective for the misapplied technology that is the only possible justification for a folly like Mirrors. (Prince of Darkness, on the other hand, seems merely harmless and dated.)


I’m not sure if I share Noah Forrest’s sense of despair over the condition of the horror film in general—it seems like there’s always someone like a Tomas Alfredson to breathe new life into wineskins that would seem, after a century of cinematic storytelling, to be exhausted. But seeing too much crap like Mirrors and Saw 5 can make you start to believe that the people who control the production of modern horror movies are the ones least qualified to delineate precisely what makes a good one. (Does Alexandre Aja really believe he made a scary movie when he looks in his own Mirrors, or is he just as cynical and manipulative as his film suggests?) That’s why I’m excited by what I’ve heard about the upcoming Splinter, and why I look forward to what my friend Don Mancini, as knowledgeable and talented a caretaker as any horror movie could have, will do with his upcoming projects, including his own remake of Child’s Play. These are the kinds of movies that tend to respect horror’s past and promise to take it in new and unexpected directions-- projects that true horror aficionados can’t help but get excited about.

NOTES ON POLITICS AND KINDERGARTEN



Well, the Satanist Muslim cat is out of the bag. The American people provided this generation with the spectacle of one of the most impressive voter turnouts in a century for a presidential election that could hardly be mistaken for anything other than a rousing call for change. For many African-American voters of a certain age, and those of every color who have built their lives around adherence to the basic tenets of civil rights in this country, it may have seemed that a day like this would never come. But for just as many younger African-Americans interviewed coming out of polling places and into the celebratory night last evening, their awareness of the historical reality of what kind of hindrance the color of their skin has been for those that came before them did little to temper the difficulty they had understanding how such a world could have existed and operated, so apparently different is the one they live in today. The election of Barack Obama is an indication of that difference, a marker of the reality of true possibility that does not exclude the awareness of how many entrenched, institutionalized attitudes are left to be enlightened. Those who are so excited about Obama’s historic win (myself included) would be well advised to temper expectations of the effects of some magic Obamaesque wand that will be put to use against overt racism, a crumbling economy, and the management of two expensive, deadly wars, one of them pointless as well. But it is hard to begrudge anyone the sense that we’ve seen something important and historic in the past 24 hours, experienced a sea change in the body politic that more accurately reflects the personal politics of many voters, Republican and Democrat, than have very many elections past. It is a moment on which to speculate, but more accurately build upon the opportunities that have been afforded us through the electoral system.


Sorry, but I just couldn't publish a picture of that woman...

Why, even the conservative radio talk-show host Al Rantel, whom I listened to in the shower this morning, was talking conciliation. This man, who has been harshly critical of both the Clinton and Bush administrations in the past, is to my ear one of the more fair-minded voices on a Los Angeles AM radio frequency (790 KABC) which the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Larry Elder and Tammy Bruce call home. Rantel was able to see the forest for the trees this morning. He called for “the haters” to examine fairly Obama’s words and actions in the next couple of years and join in working together with a true rainbow coalition of voters to help Obama to begin fulfilling some of the promise of his candidacy, not to undermine it before it even begins. Is this kind of reaching across the gap possible? It would be, from my perspective, had John McCain won. Most of the people I’ve talked to never held much animosity for McCain, outside the general perception that he would extend the war in Iraq indefinitely. Most of the hesitation I’ve personally felt toward a McCain presidency was mired in questions about his health, and those questions would have been moot had he chosen (or had chosen for him) a running mate for whom I could have held an ounce of respect or confidence. But the prospect of the shockingly inept weirdo Sarah Palin being a heartbeat away from the Oval Office and that oh-so-tempting button was just too overwhelming. What looked like a crafty, typically cynical play by the Republican Party to steal Obama’s thunder (gender trumps race, right?) and get a big push by the People/Us Weekly contingency got exposed for what it was—a shell game on the national stage in which, thankfully, a majority of American voters followed the rotten egg under the cup, exposed it and tossed it to the curb.


But maybe the most immediately gratifying thing for me about the Obama win is thinking about these bigots, closeted and out in the open, who have been including me in strings of anti-Obama e-mails leading up to the election. Their missives are always couched in language that reflects their level-headed, heartfelt concern about Obama and his ties to Muslim terrorists (well, with a name like O-BOMB-a, right?!), the Muslim faith (well, with a middle name like Hussein, right?!), and how this insidiously charismatic man, the color of whose skin is, naturally, of no concern at all, will surely lead our nation away from the righteous Christian faith it has claimed to have been based in since its inception and down the primrose path toward pagan idolatry, the formation of terrorist cells in your neighborhood and, perhaps most vile of all, race-mixing-- you know he’s half white, right?! (One can only chalk it up to a failure of imagination that these clowns managed to miss the opportunity to raise our hackles about Obama’s grooming habits based on his undoubtedly demon-inspired initials.) To think of these fretting cowards having to face up to a truly new world where Barack Obama is undeniably their president is satisfying indeed. It’s also frightening—from this kind of thinly-veiled fear can often blossom the true fruits of hate. But if the election of Barack Obama can signal a change in a country whose history is littered with the corpses of people of all colors whose lives were taken in the name of God and American sovereignty, then maybe there’s room for change in those who still hold out the fears that have otherwise been so effectively diminished by this current generation of voters.

************************************************************************************


The tree, the spider web and the “Kindergarten Votes!” sign are my contributions to the hallway decorations at R. D. White Elementary School in Glendale, California for Election 2008

I spent Election Day in bed, listening to the returns on TV as they clanged around in my fever-wracked head and got all mixed up with the howls coming straight out of my aching, constricted musculature. This was my body saying, “Okay, enough.” I’m in the final week of my first six-week leg of student teaching, and as I was teaching my lesson yesterday morning (my last kindergarten observation by my supervisor too, so there was even extra added pressure there) I started to feel rundown. At lunch my supervising teacher, the one in whose classroom I have been working since early September, took a look at me and thankfully sent me on my merry way. But before I did, I was able to turn my own voting into a teachable experience for my kindergarten kids. It just so happens that the elementary school where I teach also doubles as my polling place. So round about 11:00 a.m. we all trudged down to the auditorium where the kids got to watch Mr. C. cast his vote for Rock Obama, as he is widely known in the primary grades, and against a ballot measure that would call in question the right to gay marriage in the state of California, a measure which, unfortunately, did not ride the coattails of the state’s Obama endorsement. (The measure was approved by about a four-percent margin.) The election has been a lot of fun for us in class this year—the kindergarten teaching team even set up an election in which the wee ones were able to cast their own votes and encourage the kids to get familiar with being involved in the process. (Results: Obama, 86 votes, McCain, 26 votes, and four ballots disqualified when the voter decided to check off both boxes.)

After all this, it was time for me to shut down for a while. I haven’t been sick in bed for quite a while, but I’m not surprised that it happened during this fairly rigorous schedule which I find myself in as I complete my journey to become a teacher. The amount of work required in school, coupled with the amount of work I have to do just to bring in a fraction of the amount of money I’m used to at my day job, finally caught up with me yesterday. But it’s been a grand journey so far, and as I close out my time in kindergarten I thought I’d show off a couple of pictures and offer special thanks to kindergarten teachers extraordinaire Beth Hank, Teresa Peplow, Bonnie Lewis, Mariena Jacobs, Heather O’Dell, Pam Andrissani and fellow student teacher Kathryn Nishibayashi—these folks have offered me nothing but friendship, support and cogent criticism which I can take directly back to the classroom the next day (or the next minute, sometimes) and directly improve my teaching skills. But most of all, I offer my gratitude to my supervising teacher, Dotti Soghomonian, who has never let our friendship (she was kindergarten teacher to both of my daughters) get in the way of being the best, most constructive advisor I could ever hope for. There have been days I’ve walked out of school thinking I was in over my head, but Dotti never let me forget her confidence in my skills and my ability to relate to the children, and because of that I have been able to come back in the next day, regain my footing and keep on truckin’. My experience in her classroom has me seriously considering a career in kindergarten, which I would have never thought about before. And if I end up with a tenth of her skill as an effective, empathetic, concerned and proactive teacher, then I will have a grand second-half career in teaching indeed. Thanks, Dotti.

Here’s a look at the classroom under the guidance of Mr. C.:


Halloween day: Dotti’s costume was a big hit; unfortunately, I could think of nothing to wear and ended up, as you can see, in my street clothes…


Mr. C seizes the occurrence of some actual fall-like weather outside to teach the class about clouds (For Jonathan Lapper and anyone else concerned, note the absence of the baseball cap)

Monday, November 03, 2008

PABLO FERNANDEZ'S HOLLYWOOD




There is a feeling we might all be familiar with, one of being cast adrift in a more-than-slightly unreal world which is, for all intents and purposes, modeled on our recognizable one but bereft of the tactile and aural familiarity one might reasonably expect when moving around in this flattened-out version of reality. It’s this abstraction of feeling that filmmaker Pablo Fernandez brings to the forefront of his little gem of animation entitled, provocatively, Hollywood. It’s a particularly fascinating piece in terms of its use of sound, which recalls the disaffected, roiling-just-under-the-surface work of the late Alan Splet in Eraserhead and Blue Velvet. (The setting also purposefully accesses Lynch’s Lost Highway. And what Kubrick movie does that bear remind you of?)

Thanks to The Mysterious Adrian Betamax for the viewing tip about Hollywood, which features appropriately eerie voices supplied by Paul Anthony Reilly, a friend of about 16 years who I hope someday finds a welcoming and sustainable path into the world of voiceover work. Projects like Hollywood suggest good things to come for both he and Pablo Fernandez, and a lot of fun for the rest of us who get to watch and listen to what they come up with next.