Friday, March 18, 2005

IT AIN'T HELEN STEINER RICE, BUT...




At the risk of being mistaken for Nadejda Fillaretovna von Meck, it is my pleasure to direct you to today's edition of Wailing and Gnashing for a splendiferous treat entitled "Ode on My Junk E-Mail Folder." I've already reserved a spot on my 2005 Top Ten List for this post. It's just more evidence of the prodigious writing talent of one Loxjet, overseer of this interesting site. Enjoy, and have a good weekend (It's raining in Los Angeles, so everything's off to a perfect start!)

Oh, and just in case anyone was wondering what this has to do with movies or baseball, the answer is: nothing. But, just to get things back on track, the Dodgers are on TV Sunday (check your local listings). And if anyone manages to find the six hours it takes to see the acclaimed new Italian film The Best of Youth, I'd surely love to hear about it. The only thing I get to do for six hours at a time these days is type, and occasionally sleep. Sounds like another Netflix wish fulfillment fantasy in the making...

Thursday, March 17, 2005

NETFLIX UPDATE: A BLESSING OF CINE-BLISS


Don't be afraid.

I'm not going to drive you crazy proselytizing about Netflix. You needn't worry about me coming around your front screen door and haranguing you through through the mesh about how convenient the service is, or how wonderful the "queue" system is, not only as a way of ordering your preferences, but also just to simply keep track of everything you're interested in seeing. And I promise not to post every time I get a new movie and go on and on about what I saw.

Except maybe just this once.

The first movie I viewed courtesy of Netflix was Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, and it was an inauspicious introduction. Good thing Netflix only has to take credit for getting the movies to and from your house in expedient fashion, and not for the quality of the movie itself. After about 15 minutes of exposure to this over-designed retro sci-fi novelty exercise I felt like someone had thrown a blanket over my head. All I wanted to do was escape from all the nonexistent scenery and the virtually nonexistent narrative. But I stayed to the bitter end, and all I got for it was the creeps when the ghostly image of Laurence Olivier, through an old movie clip, is used (with permission from his estate, of course) as the movie's Oz-ian maguffin of a villain. Sky Captain is no worse than some of the movies Olivier made when he was alive (The Betsy), and it's far better than others (Inchon). But it unnerves me when a movie that prides itself on its 99.78% pure CGI template goes the extra step and reincarnates a dead actor to fill an important role. What hast thou wrought, Forrest Gump?

Jim Jarmusch's Dead Man is better, but still a tad on the overrated side. No doubt my receptiveness to the movie was increased by seeing it after Sky Captain-- never have real humans on screen looked so welcome. (I eventually decided that Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow must also have been computer-generated-- how else to explain that feature-length hollow look in their eyes?) Dead Man is a western filtered through Jarmusch's singular sensibility, and how far that takes you depends almost entirely on your fondness for that sensibility. For me, it goes on about a half hour too long. It's blackout structure made me feel disconnected throughout, surely an intentional effect-- Jarmusch is too hip for most rooms, let alone the 19th-century Oregon wilderness. The same can be said for the repetitive pattern of the encounters of one William Blake (Johnny Depp) that find him forced to murder almost everyone he comes across, thus confirming his status as a dangerous killer, something he certainly was not before the movie began. Dead Man is barely rescued through a lyricism that emerges in the final sequences from underneath all the movie's deadpan philosophical musings and matter-of-fact violence. It's an interesting journey, but, what with all of its literary allusions and mystical tendencies, not as interesting as Jarmusch would hope.

I also ended up feeling less enthusiastic about The Misfits than I thought I might, given Jon Weisman's fondness for it (related in March 1 article posted on Dodger Thoughts just after Arthur Miller's death). It's a far better movie than either of my other two choices, but frankly, it felt a mite overwritten to me in all the big moments, such as Marilyn Monroe's salt-flat eruption, or even her one-on-one confrontation with Clark Gable regarding the morality of his mustanging ways. Even so, the movie is very well acted, particularly by Gable and Montgomery Clift, and our knowledge of the fates of the three actors adds inadvertent poignancy to their performances, and to some of the seemingly prescient dialogue. The Misfits may be unsatisfying to many because its narrative is paced at an amble, not a trot or a gallop, and its ending is muted and slightly ambiguous, emotionally raw, yet quiet and unassuming. These are not faults, however, but instead choices of tone, and there is plenty of emotion to be plumbed from them. And director John Huston is admirably, tenaciously up to the task. The Misfits is well worth seeing.

All that, and I just finished my dishes while watching Anthony Mann's spectacular Bend of the River, another one of his unparalleled westerns with Jimmy Stewart. This is one of the great westerns, and I'm so glad for Netflix's return-'em-when-you-want-to M.O., because I already want to see this one again.

Finally, Netflix has a feature that allows you to compile a "friends" list-- fellow Netflixers who can show you how they rate the Netflix films they've seen and make their recommendations directly to you via e-mail. This is just another great way that the service encourages enthusiastic dialogue and promotes watching films you may not have considered or known about previously. And if you're lucky you'll have friends like I do who pepper your e-mail server with about 10 recommendations a day. One boundlessly enthusiastic cinephile pal has sent me almost 60 recommendations since I joined last week. If I didn't believe it before, Netflix has made it clear that no matter how long I live I'll never run out of interesting movies to watch. How's that for a blessing?

Monday, March 14, 2005

TEN OF THE DUMBEST THINGS EVER SAID (and God bless 'em, every one)


Never ones to be accused to being too imaginative, we’ve given our friend Andy the same birthday gift every year for 10 years now— the 365 Stupidest Things Ever Said desk calendar. Adapted from the popular book series that collects the most mind-bogglingly dumb things ever said by human beings great and small, the calendar metes out one asinine proclamation for each day, virtually guaranteeing the reader at least 365 laughs every year. Andy used to save the best ones and bring them by my desk to share, and now my wife carries on that tradition. As a result my computer monitor is littered with choice inanities that never fail to make me smile, roll my eyes and offer thanks that there are a lot of well-known people who don’t know well enough to think before they speak. But given some of the evidence cited below, I’m not sure thinking before speaking would necessarily do any good. It’d just cause their heads to hurt just a little bit more. So now, without further ado (or, in the spirit of this post, without further adieu),

MY FAVORITE DUMB THINGS HEARD FROM THE WORLD OF SPORTS:

#5: "Freedom of speech is when you talk."
--Los Angeles Dodgers manager Tommy Lasorda, appearing before a congressional committee on the First Amendment

#4: "I was glad to see Italy win. All the guys on the team were Italians."
--Dodger manager Tommy Lasorda, on the soccer World Cup.
(I get the feeling Tommy could fill his own book…)

#3: "Down the left-field and right-field lines, it's 99 liters, whatever that means."
-- metrically challenged Mets broadcaster Ralph Kiner at Olympic Stadium

#2: "The first pitch to Tucker Ashford is grounded into left field. No, wait a minute. It's ball one. Low and outside."
--San Diego Padres sportcaster Jerry Coleman

And the number-one Stupidest Thing Ever Said from the World of Sports:

"A lot of people think it's going to take the mustard off the World Series. Well, the World Series will always have mustard on it. Anytime you're playing for the ring, there's going to be mustard involved."
-- Relief pitcher Lee Smith, when asked whether interleague play would take the luster off the World Series

And now, because people who make movies can be awfully stupid too,
MY FIVE FAVORITE DUMB THINGS HEARD FROM THE WORLD OF MOVIES:

#5: None-too-talented child actor Jake Lloyd, discussing the character of Anakin Skywalker, his role in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, who will eventually become Darth Vader:
"Anakin Skywalker is a lot like me. He's really mechanical."
(This is really more of an embarrassing unintentional admission than a moment of pure stupidity, gleaned from one of the documentaries attached to the Phantom Menace DVD, but it was just so revealing that I couldn’t help but include it.)

#4: "There's not enough sarcasm in the musical score."
-- movie mogul Samuel Goldwyn

#3: "From now on, whenever you talk to you, keep your mouth shut."
-- movie mogul Samuel Goldwyn to writers during a script conference

#2: Film producer Harry Cohn: "You want to do a Bible epic? What do you know about the Bible? I'll bet you $50 you don't even know the Lord's Prayer."
Producer Jack Cohn: "Now I lay me down to sleep..."
Harry Cohn (pulling out $50): "Well, I'll be damned. I honestly didn't think you knew it."

And the #1 dumbest thing heard from the world of movies comes from an assistant to director Cecil B. DeMille who, when filming Samson and Delilah and discussing the scene in which Samson slays the Philistines with the jawbone of an ass, said to a colleague:

"The jawbone of an ass? Never! This is a DeMille picture and we've got to use the whole ass!"

Now, you and I know that the worlds of sports and movies are virtual Petri dishes of stupidity and that there must be far more than just five great examples from each that could have been inserted into this column. And I know some of you probably have even better sources than the 365 Stupidest Things Ever Said desk calendar at your disposal. If you’ve got a stupid comment from the world of movies or sports that rivals these, please drop ‘em in the comments column and share some asininity with the rest of us, who obviously don’t get enough of it in our daily lives.

GOOD NEWS FROM DODGERTOWN: PENNY PITCHES, BRAZOBAN BEWITCHES


A couple of nice items to brighten Spring Training for Dodger fans:

First, Brad Penny threw a 65-pitch bullpen session yesterday and is feeling pretty good. Jim Tracy has expressed no great haste to push Penny to take the mound on Opening Day, which is good news-- after all, Penny is still in uncharted waters as far as this nerve injury. But this word from Florida has to be if not a huge sigh of relief for the Dodgers and their fans, then at least a momentarily relaxing of chest and diaphragm. Get the whole story here.

Also, Jayson Stark’s March 10 post on ESPN.com has some interesting observations from around the league, including a glowing report on Yhency Brazoban that amounts to a big “I told you so” from me and others who figured he looked to be who DePodesta had in mind to fill the void left by Guillermo Mota last summer. Says Stark:

Baseball's next great eighth-inning setup monster might just be the Dodgers' quasi-anonymous Yhency Brazoban. With Eric Gagne out for at least another week, the Dodgers have been running Brazoban out there in the ninth inning this spring. And let's just say manager Jim Tracy has enjoyed the view.
"With his fastball and his slider, it's a little too early in the spring for hitters to be dialing up on that," Tracy said. "And he handled himself extremely well."
As recently as last spring, after the Dodgers picked him up from the Yankees as an extra arm in the Kevin Brown-Jeff Weaver deal, Brazoban "wasn't even on our radar screen," Tracy said. But once the Dodgers traded away Guillermo Mota at the trading deadline, Brazoban just about saved their season.
"We would have liked to ease him in," Tracy said. "But we didn't have that luxury. So we had to speed the process up, and oh my gracious ... He pretty much became Mota for us by about the middle to latter part of August."


Just 21 days, 15 hours and two minutes to Opening Day. Bring on the Giants.

THE LACERATED LEGACY OF LEATHERFACE


It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone at this point in DVD history to find out that most “Making Of” segments, routinely attached to features as part of the DVD’s bonus materials package, are little more than documentary-style puff pieces in which the cast and crew spout platitudes and praise about their experience making the movie. This puffery serves as back-end publicity, to be sure, and maybe even convinces some viewers after the fact that the crummy movie they just sat through wasn’t really that bad after all. But it’s also valuable as an exercise in seeing just how far some of the participants will go to convince themselves that the experience was a good one, or to make enough nice-nice to ensure (or at least not completely destroy the chances of) their working in this town again, and with some of these same filmmakers.

Then what to make of the rare “making of” documentary that isn’t about propping up shaky pronouncements about the quality of the film in question, or about salvaging its reputation through a clever bit of historically revisionist video? What about the “making of” doc that comes right out and says, We tried to do something with this movie, but we were undercut at every turn by studio pressure, M.P.A.A. slashers and perhaps even our own ineptitude as filmmakers, but the movie bombed and it’s really not much good anyway. Wouldn’t seeing something like that be kind of refreshing? You’d think so.

But it turns out there’s a certain amount of hubris that comes naturally fused even to trotting out your failures. The cast and crew interviewed for The Saw is Family: Making Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (available on the Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III DVD) are a motley assembly of unpretentious exploitation filmmakers (with the exception of the slickly pretentious New Line Cinema executive Mark Ordesky, who oversaw the production). They spend the requisite amount of time grooving on the splatter-punk cool of retelling grisly stories about serial murderer Ed Gein, on whom both Leatherface and Norman Bates were based. Just so you know he’s down with that, the documentary’s director, Jeffrey Schwarz, treats us needlessly to notorious crime scene photos from the Gein capture that prefigure the movie series’ toned-down tendency to feature corpses as slaughterhouse slabs on the hook. (Ordesky even refers to the “Ed Gein myth.” Gein’s neighbors, and certainly his victims, would probably dispute that characterization. Maybe Ordesky’s the only one who didn’t see the crime photos.) And everybody from feature director Jeff Burr to screenwriter David J. Schow to producer Robert Engelman to actor William Butler makes very clear their reverence and appreciation for Tobe Hooper’s original Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and even, to a lesser degree, Hooper’s own 1985 sequel. (Burr correctly refers to the original as a “seminal American independent film.”)

It’s when they get to talking about their own film that the enthusiasm wanes and the smiles quickly turn upside-down. Burr and Butler are remarkably up front about how the studio continually put pressure on the director and made it clear that, even though he made it to the top of a short list of potential hires, they didn’t much like him or what he was doing. And when it comes time to submit the movie to the M.P.A.A. ratings board, it becomes clear that the movie is in for a little evisceration of its own. Burr speaks with admiration at one point about the now-defunct Cannon Pictures’ decision to release Hooper’s garishly gruesome and funny The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part Two without a rating rather than submit it to excessive cutting. And one can hardly blame him for hoping that New Line would similarly back Part 3—after all, Ordesky himself claims that the studio was enthusiastic about the “tough, nasty” script and wanted to make “a straight-ahead terrifying horror film.” So when Ordesky starts recalling his own back-pedaling after hearing ominous words about the movie being banned in foreign countries, it’s like watching a rat in a three-piece suit tell you all about how he tried to scurry off of a sinking ship:

“The film is going to have to be released overseas. So, to the extent that you push the envelope while making the movie, you’ve got to find artful ways around it in the editing of the movie… He knew he was obligated to deliver an “R” rating, so it wasn’t like he was being dictated to.”

In other words, go ahead and shoot it as gory as you want, but just know that it’s all gonna end up on the floor rather than in the movie. In these days of restored DVD director’s cuts and deleted scenes, a filmmaker is less likely to get all tied up in knots when confronted with such nonsensical logic. And many directors nowadays, from horror schlockmeisters right on up to Martin Scorsese, deliberately shoot too much gore and violence, planning ahead on what can be pruned without dismantling the director’s vision of the movie. But Burr, knowing his lowly status within the New Line family, probably figured, and correctly, that once chopped up his movie was likely to stay that way. In fact, Burr even recognizes the folly of referring to a piece of exploitation like Leatherface as “his movie.” He laments at one point, “The film can never be yours. (Thinking that it could) was my mistake.” He comes off the most sympathetic of all the interviewees, not least for the naiveté that’s mixed in with his desire to be remembered as a scrappy independent filmmaker whose vision wasn’t allowed fruition.

What’s left, beyond this group gathering together to memorialize a film best left forgotten, is the self-inflating comments of some of the other participants. William Butler, who stars in the film as “Ryan,” starts off the documentary proclaiming that “I was in one of the most infamous horror films ever made!” A quick scan of his credits on the Internet Movie Database made me scratch my head on this claim—could he be referring to Ghoulies II? Maybe he means Friday the 13th V: The New Blood? Surely he can’t be referring to the tepid 1990 remake of Night of the Living Dead, or to Watchers III? So I suppose we’re to understand he means to describe Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III as “one of the most infamous horror films ever made!” I don’t have a dictionary at hand, but one of the definitions of “infamous” must be something on the order of “rapidly escaping from memory and sense as if it were passed gas.” Butler also claims to have been killed on-screen by Jason Voorheis, Leatherface and Freddy Krueger, yet there seems to be no Nightmare on Elm Street movie among his credits, so just how seriously can we take his assessment of horror film history? Speaking of film history, Butler’s just glad to be counted among its participants:

“I’m very proud to be in (Leatherface) because, no matter what people say about it, it’s still a tiny piece of movie history.”

Undeniably true. Bigger even than the piece of film history occupied by Ghoulies II, perhaps, yet dwarfed by the influential shadow of Friday the 13th V: The New Blood. My question is: what doth a man gain from spending 26 minutes cruelly assessing a movie’s shortcomings before attempting a last-minute, badly formulated salvage job on the film’s place in history just before the credits roll? Butler functions better within the doc as snarky VH1-style comic relief punctuating the sad story of the film’s production. Sincerity doesn’t suit him, at least when referring to Leatherface.

The documentary’s best joke, however, is saved for last. Producer Robert Engelman, who functioned at one point as New Line’s hatchet man, delivering their ultimatums and threats of termination to director Burr, is as honest throughout as anyone else about the trials enduring in producing this movie about a adopted nuclear family of cannibalistic killers who while away their days snatching young travelers off the dusty roads of Texas (actually, Valencia, California), torturing them and serving them up for Sunday dinner. So when he offers up his last comment, it’s time for a bit more head-scratching:

“When you’re filming it, it’s just fun and games. Everyone’s laughing and joking. You’re eating lunch next to the guy who’s dripping blood. It was like a real family, behind the camera as well as on camera.”

And then the perfect exclamation point for the entire documentary—a quick cut to a low-angle shot of William Butler (from the film) wielding a large rock, which he uses to land a death blow on someone’s head (and the camera). Roll credits. The producer makes a lame joke, or a thoughtless comparison, equating the film’s troubled (and, from his point of view, troublesome) cast and crew with the movie’s in-bred homicidal flesh-eaters, and one of those cast members gets to drop a big rock on his skull in return. Whether it’s a pointed rebuttal to Engelman’s comments, sly visual retribution on the part of the film’s talent, above and below the line, or just a nifty way to put an end to all the twisting and squirming over a 15-year-old horror film that most people probably don’t even clearly recall, it’s the perfect way to end The Saw is Family: Making Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III.

THE LACERATED LEGACY OF LEATHERFACE


It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone at this point in DVD history to find out that most “Making Of” segments, routinely attached to features as part of the DVD’s bonus materials package, are little more than documentary-style puff pieces in which the cast and crew spout platitudes and praise about their experience making the movie. This puffery serves as back-end publicity, to be sure, and maybe even convinces some viewers after the fact that the crummy movie they just sat through wasn’t really that bad after all. But it’s also valuable as an exercise in seeing just how far some of the participants will go to convince themselves that the experience was a good one, or to make enough nice-nice to ensure (or at least not completely destroy the chances of) their working in this town again, and with some of these same filmmakers.

Then what to make of the rare “making of” documentary that isn’t about propping up shaky pronouncements about the quality of the film in question, or about salvaging its reputation through a clever bit of historically revisionist video? What about the “making of” doc that comes right out and says, We tried to do something with this movie, but we were undercut at every turn by studio pressure, M.P.A.A. slashers and perhaps even our own ineptitude as filmmakers, but the movie bombed and it’s really not much good anyway. Wouldn’t seeing something like that be kind of refreshing? You’d think so.

But it turns out there’s a certain amount of hubris that comes naturally fused even to trotting out your failures. The cast and crew interviewed for The Saw is Family: Making Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (available on the Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III DVD) are a motley assembly of unpretentious exploitation filmmakers (with the exception of the slickly pretentious New Line Cinema executive Mark Ordesky, who oversaw the production). They spend the requisite amount of time grooving on the splatter-punk cool of retelling grisly stories about serial murderer Ed Gein, on whom both Leatherface and Norman Bates were based. Just so you know he’s down with that, the documentary’s director, Jeffrey Schwarz, treats us needlessly to notorious crime scene photos from the Gein capture that prefigure the movie series’ toned-down tendency to feature corpses as slaughterhouse slabs on the hook. (Ordesky even refers to the “Ed Gein myth.” Gein’s neighbors, and certainly his victims, would probably dispute that characterization. Maybe Ordesky’s the only one who didn’t see the crime photos.) And everybody from feature director Jeff Burr to screenwriter David J. Schow to producer Robert Engelman to actor William Butler makes it very clear their reverence and appreciation for Tobe Hooper’s original Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and even, to a lesser degree Hooper’s own 1985 sequel. (Burr correctly refers to the original as a “seminal American independent film.”)

It’s when they get to talking about their own film that the enthusiasm wanes and the smiles quickly turn upside-down. Burr and Butler are remarkably up front about how the studio continually put pressure on the director and made it clear that, even though he made it to the top of a short list of potential hires, they didn’t much like him or what he was doing. And when it comes time to submit the movie to the M.P.A.A. ratings board, it becomes clear that the movie is in for a little evisceration of its own. Burr speaks with admiration at one point about the now-defunct Cannon Pictures’ decision to release Hooper’s garishly gruesome and funny The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part Two without a rating rather than submit it to excessive cutting. And one can hardly blame him for hoping that New Line would similarly back Part 3—after all, Ordesky himself claims that the studio was enthusiastic about the “tough, nasty” script and wanted to make “a straight-ahead terrifying horror film.” So when Ordesky starts recalling his own back-pedaling after hearing ominous words about the movie being banned in foreign countries, it’s like watching a rat in a three-piece suit tell you all about how he tried to scurry off of a sinking ship:

“The film is going to have to be released overseas. So, to the extent that you push the envelope while making the movie, you’ve got to find artful ways around it in the editing of the movie… He knew he was obligated to deliver an “R” rating, so it wasn’t like he was being dictated to.”

In other words, go ahead and shoot it as gory as you want, but just know that it’s all gonna end up on the floor rather than in the movie. In these days of restored DVD director’s cuts and deleted scenes, a filmmaker is less likely to get all tied up in knots when confronted with such nonsensical logic. And many directors nowadays, from horror schlockmeisters right on up to Martin Scorsese, deliberately shoot too much gore and violence, planning ahead on what can be pruned without dismantling the director’s vision of the movie. But Burr, knowing his lowly status within the New Line family, probably figured, and correctly, that once chopped up his movie was likely to stay that way. In fact, Burr even recognizes the folly of referring to a piece of exploitation like Leatherface as “his movie.” He laments at one point, “The film can never be yours. (Thinking that it could) was my mistake.” He comes off the most sympathetic of all the interviewees, not least for the naiveté that’s mixed in with his desire to be remembered as a scrappy independent filmmaker whose vision wasn’t allowed fruition.

What’s left, beyond this group gathering together to memorialize a film best left forgotten, is the self-inflating comments of some of the other participants. William Butler, who stars in the film as “Ryan,” starts off the documentary proclaiming that “I was in one of the most infamous horror films ever made!” A quick scan of his credits on the Internet Movie Database made me scratch my head on this claim—could he be referring to Ghoulies II? Maybe he means Friday the 13th V: The New Blood? Surely he can’t be referring to the tepid 1990 remake of Night of the Living Dead, or to Watchers III? So I suppose we’re to understand he means to describe Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III as “one of the most infamous horror films ever made!” I don’t have a dictionary at hand, but one of the definitions of “infamous” must be something on the order of “rapidly escaping from memory and sense as if it were passed gas.” Butler also claims to have been killed on-screen by Jason Voorheis, Leatherface and Freddy Krueger, yet there seems to be no Nightmare on Elm Street movie among his credits, so just how seriously can we take his assessment of horror film history? Speaking of film history, Butler’s just glad to be counted among its participants:

“I’m very proud to be in (Leatherface) because, no matter what people say about it, it’s still a tiny piece of movie history.”

Undeniably true. Bigger even than the piece of film history occupied by Ghoulies II, perhaps, yet dwarfed by the influential shadow of Friday the 13th V: The New Blood. My question is: what doth a man gain from spending 26 minutes cruelly assessing a movie’s shortcomings before attempting a last-minute, badly formulated salvage job on the film’s place in history just before the credits roll? Butler functions better within the doc as snarky VH1-style comic relief punctuating the sad story of the film’s production. Sincerity doesn’t suit him, at least when referring to Leatherface.

The documentary’s best joke, however, is saved for last. Producer Robert Engelman, who functioned at one point as New Line’s hatchet man, delivering their ultimatums and threats of termination to director Burr, is as honest throughout as anyone else about the trials enduring in producing this movie about a adopted nuclear family of cannibalistic killers who while away their days snatching young travelers off the dusty roads of Texas (actually, Valencia, California), torturing them and serving them up for Sunday dinner. So when he offers up his last comment, it’s time for a big more head-scratching:

“When you’re filming it, it’s just fun and games. Everyone’s laughing and joking. You’re eating lunch next to the guy who’s dripping blood. It was like a real family, behind the camera as well as on camera.”

And then the perfect exclamation point for the entire documentary—a quick cut to a low-angle shot of William Butler wielding a large rock, which he uses to land a death blow on someone’s (the camera’s) head. Roll credits. The producer makes a lame joke, or a thoughtless comparison, equating the film’s troubled (and, from his point of view, troublesome) cast and crew with the movie’s in-bred homicidal flesh-eaters, and one of those cast members gets to drop a big rock on his skull in return. Whether it’s a pointed rebuttal to Engelman’s comments, sly visual retribution on the part of the film’s talent, above and below the line, or just a nifty way to put an end to all the twisting and squirming over a 15-year-old horror film that most people probably don’t even clearly recall, it’s the perfect way to end The Saw is Family: Making Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III.

Wednesday, March 09, 2005

CHARLES TAYLOR CUT LOOSE FROM "SALON"

As Matt Zoller Seitz reported in his column in the New York Press yesterday, Charles Taylor, senior film critic for the online magazine Salon, has been fired. Seitz writes:

"What the fuck was Salon thinking when it fired Charles Taylor, intellectually serious film critic and one of the finest, funniest wordsmiths in American journalism? Will Salon, a haven for provocative criticism and fresh cultural commentary, now become yet another unpaid arm of the entertainment business, serving up "features" that are actually long, snarky ads for the latest movies?"

Good, provocative questions for a magazine that prides itself, and advertises itself, on its independent voice, on being beholden to no special interests or agendas. A quick Google search provides no information on the situation, and several questions remain unanswered. What kind of further changes does this firing signal for the tone and depth of Salon's Arts and Entertainment coverage? Can Stephanie Zacharek's similar seriousness as Salon's remaining senior film critic suddenly be interpreted as a big red target on her back? And can Taylor, whose ideas I've sparred with on this site more than once, but who clearly belongs to a rich and thinning tradition of intellectually challenging yet accessible American film criticism, find a place that will regularly allow him the creative freedom and the simple opportunity to provide the kind of top-notch criticism both cineastes and serious filmgoers can appreciate? I've taken issue with Taylor's opinions and approaches to recent films such as Sideways and Million Dollar Baby. But he's also one of the only critics who wrote seriously and thoughtfully about such films as Femme Fatale, Out of Time and Shanghai Knights, honestly assessing their pleasures and their particular artistries when other writers clearly couldn't be bothered. And though I haven't yet revisited the movie myself, his passionate argument in favor of Showgirls, upon the release of its deluxe DVD edition earlier this year, was a provocative, old-school dust-'em-up, a challenge to smug tastemakers and weary audiences to be open to the possibilities in reevaluating an almost universally reviled specimen of trashy cinema. Whether he's right or wrong about Showgirls is almost beside the point. It was just nice to have someone with that sort of forum even pose the argument, and pose it in such a vital, readable and entertaining fashion.

If anyone has any information on the Taylor firing, I'd love to be linked to some resources that I could pass along. When good, even great writers get dumped by newspapers and high-profile Internet magazines in favor of syndicated "reviewers" and other dumbed-down entertainment press operatives, it's cause for alarm, one more membrane of the critic's independent voice that separates filmgoers from studio-generated publicity masquerading as journalism peeled away and discarded. Wherever Taylor surfaces, and my kneejerk hope is that he quickly will, that publication will be lucky to have him within their pages. I only hope that if they're smart enough to hire him, they'll be smart enough to resist the pressures of the culture and the marketplace and let him do the valuable work that he does alongside the best of American film critics.