I was commiserating with a friend recently about family woes, and had an idea that turned into a kind of car ride game (sans the car). What if you could construct a dream family of celebrities? Who would be in it? Now, this can't just be a matter of celebrities you think are cool - like, would you really want Angelina Jolie as your mom? She might ignore you because you're not from a third-world country. You can't just pick celebrities you think are hot, either, because we're talking family here, and incest is so not okay. We decided that "celebrity" includes all famous people, regardless of profession. Fictional characters of any type are not allowed. We also decided that you could resurrect one person from the dead.
My family looked a bit like this:
My dad would be either Steve Carrell or Will Smith. I know this whole exercise is based on arbitrary character judgments of people you don't actually know, but I just feel that these two would be good dads.
My mom would be Reese Witherspoon, but a version of Reese Witherspoon that didn't make crappy romantic comedies constantly. I am not a devoted Reese fan by any means, but I am basing this choice solely on a tidbit I read in an interview with her, where she said that the only Barbie she lets her daughter play with is President Barbie. Girl power!
Cameron Diaz would be my sister. Many silly sisterly montages abound.
Jonah Hill would be my brother. Hilarious and vulgar - and would probably behave in a rowdy fashion that would make me look even better to my parents. (But then again, I have cool celebrity parents now, so they're probably way chill).
Conan O'Brien would be my fun uncle (funcle), Sarah Jessica Parker my hip aunt.
Shirley MacLaine is one of my grandmas. She can regale me with stories of the Rat Pack, and we can have sing and dance-alongs.
Ian McKellen is my cool, knighted British gay grandpa, and Tim Gunn is his partner, my effortlessly suave, stylish and classy gay grandpa.
For my resurrected celebrity family member, after much consideration, I decided that Alfred Hitchcock would be my eccentric grandpa with a dark sense of humor. Oh, and he'd slide me into the movie biz real easy.
I couldn't decide on cousins, more aunts and uncles, and another grandma, though. In discussing this with the aforementioned friend (and other friends later), some names that were suggested were:
Bill Murray for a dad
Bill Cosby for an uncle
Nancy Sinatra for a grandma
Paul Rudd as a brother (I think that came up with two different people)
Craig Ferguson as an uncle
Dustin Hoffman as an uncle
Meryl Streep as a grandma
Morgan Freeman as a grandpa
Jimmy Stewart as a dad
Chris Farley as an uncle
Mel Brooks as a grandpa
Karen Allen as a mom
Howard Zinn as a dad
Vincent Price as a grandpa
Seth Rogen as a brother-in-law (one friend got very specific and drew an actual family tree)
Who would you want in your celebrity family? (If there are good suggestions, I am SO imaginary-snatching them.)
November 23, 2007
November 13, 2007
Boston in Cinema
I am a proud Masshole. I don't say "pahk the kah," but I do say "wicked." I'm indifferent to sports, but part of me still hates the Yankees. I refuse to sell out and go on a duck tour. I don't think of Boston as "New York junior," which some people seem to do. I love this town.
Thus, it distresses me how my beloved city is shown on the silver screen. I recently saw Gone, Baby, Gone, which is an excellent film worth checking out. But I had the same problem with it that I had with Mystic River, The Departed, etc...they portray Boston as a shithole. And mind you, some parts of the city are shitholes - but not all.
I have concluded that Boston movies are of two main varieties - films about gangsters and thugs with ludicrous accents, and movies that take place at Harvard (or MIT - here's looking at you, Good Will Hunting). Really? That's it? There is so much culture and vibrancy here - why are we reduced to those two depictions?
The Harvard one is obvious - nobody can control that one of the nation's top institutions of higher learning is in our fair state. But why all the thugs? Well, New York has lots of gritty crime movies, you say. True. But for every Taxi Driver, there's a Manhattan, or a West Side Story, or a Spider-Man, or Breakfast at Tiffany's. New York has hosted comedies, musicals, dramas, romances, sci-fi, mysteries, action - anything you can think of. It's not typecast. With Boston, however, the only films of note that are not Harvard-based or crime sagas are Fever Pitch and Next Stop Wonderland. Due to recent tax incentives for filmmakers shooting in Boston, there's been an influx of movies shooting here, such as Bachelor No. 2 with Dane Cook, a remake of the 1939 classic The Women, and the Pink Panther sequel. Okay, that's a start. But the infuriating thing is that often, since Boston is now cheaper to film in than New York, the films shot here are just said to take place in New York! Or the reverse happens, where "genuine" Boston movies like The Departed are shot largely in the Big Apple.
Boston does have a crime history. We do have white-trash people with funny accents that kill each other sometimes. And I totally support that being exploited for its cinematic value. Except here's my other problem: Boston is a big city. It's not homogenous. Everyone knows that New York has very different parts - even a random farmer in Iowa is probably going to know that Manhattan and Brooklyn might as well be two different planets. But people outside of Boston are not as widely aware of the city's segmentation - it's all one thing to them. Take Gone, Baby, Gone , for instance. It's a "Boston movie" by all definitions - it's based on a novel written by a native, directed by the local Ben Affleck, and takes place in the city. Or does it? There are actually only a few fleeting shots of Boston proper. The bulk of the movie takes place in Dorchester, which is an adjacent city that is really dangerous and trashy. It's "the bad part of town." It's where people have Boston accents - which, for the record, nobody in Boston proper has. It's a separate zip code, a separate way of life. The movie also takes place in Chelsea and Everett, two towns that while bordering Boston, are a pretty far hike from it. And lord are they trashy. They really have nothing to do with Boston. And while natives of the city are going to see the movie and know the difference, other people won't. For all they know, Everett could be the name of a downtown Boston neighborhood. Same with The Departed and Southie - they take place in South Boston, which again, is a different zip code and a different way of life. In recent years, Boston's image and tourism industry have been hurting (read more here). Maybe this is jumping to conclusions, but perhaps out-of-towners see these unglamorous and downright unpleasant depictions of the city - again, with no counterpoint - and decide against the city as a travel destination.
I tried to play devil's advocate and think of another American city that is typecast like this, but came up dry. I've already mentioned New York, but other cities - even ones where not many films take place - have varied depictions. San Francisco, for instance, hosted a string of film noirs in the 1940s, but broke the pattern and now hosts films as varied as Dirty Harry, Sister Act, The Hulk, and Basic Instinct. Chicago has Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Barbershop, Risky Business, and The Man With the Golden Arm, to name a few. Los Angeles has a ton of showbiz-oriented movies, but also romances and action films. Some cities don't really have films that take place there, but perhaps that's better than being stereotyped.
After seeing Gone, Baby, Gone, my boyfriend and I joked that there should be a crime caper set in Boston's South End. Heard of it? Not to be confused with South Boston, it's an area of the city known for expensive and fabulous dining, posh shopping, tiny dogs and its large - dare I say predominantly - gay population. Or how about Beacon Hill, with its combination of students and bigwigs, quiet streets and political protests? There's the lovably snooty Back Bay, the college student jungle of Allston, the quirky culture of Brookline, the hippies of Cambridge. Where are these on screen? I'm not asking for a movie where people dance around holding lobsters and baked beans and screaming "wicked pissah" all the way down the Freedom Trail, but what would it hurt to shoot your romantic comedy in a cheaper city, throw in a few shots of the skyline and actually acknowledge where you are?
P.S. - while I'm on the subject, nobody knows your name at Cheers. It is a horrible tourist trap that locals avoid at all costs.
Thus, it distresses me how my beloved city is shown on the silver screen. I recently saw Gone, Baby, Gone, which is an excellent film worth checking out. But I had the same problem with it that I had with Mystic River, The Departed, etc...they portray Boston as a shithole. And mind you, some parts of the city are shitholes - but not all.
I have concluded that Boston movies are of two main varieties - films about gangsters and thugs with ludicrous accents, and movies that take place at Harvard (or MIT - here's looking at you, Good Will Hunting). Really? That's it? There is so much culture and vibrancy here - why are we reduced to those two depictions?
The Harvard one is obvious - nobody can control that one of the nation's top institutions of higher learning is in our fair state. But why all the thugs? Well, New York has lots of gritty crime movies, you say. True. But for every Taxi Driver, there's a Manhattan, or a West Side Story, or a Spider-Man, or Breakfast at Tiffany's. New York has hosted comedies, musicals, dramas, romances, sci-fi, mysteries, action - anything you can think of. It's not typecast. With Boston, however, the only films of note that are not Harvard-based or crime sagas are Fever Pitch and Next Stop Wonderland. Due to recent tax incentives for filmmakers shooting in Boston, there's been an influx of movies shooting here, such as Bachelor No. 2 with Dane Cook, a remake of the 1939 classic The Women, and the Pink Panther sequel. Okay, that's a start. But the infuriating thing is that often, since Boston is now cheaper to film in than New York, the films shot here are just said to take place in New York! Or the reverse happens, where "genuine" Boston movies like The Departed are shot largely in the Big Apple.
Boston does have a crime history. We do have white-trash people with funny accents that kill each other sometimes. And I totally support that being exploited for its cinematic value. Except here's my other problem: Boston is a big city. It's not homogenous. Everyone knows that New York has very different parts - even a random farmer in Iowa is probably going to know that Manhattan and Brooklyn might as well be two different planets. But people outside of Boston are not as widely aware of the city's segmentation - it's all one thing to them. Take Gone, Baby, Gone , for instance. It's a "Boston movie" by all definitions - it's based on a novel written by a native, directed by the local Ben Affleck, and takes place in the city. Or does it? There are actually only a few fleeting shots of Boston proper. The bulk of the movie takes place in Dorchester, which is an adjacent city that is really dangerous and trashy. It's "the bad part of town." It's where people have Boston accents - which, for the record, nobody in Boston proper has. It's a separate zip code, a separate way of life. The movie also takes place in Chelsea and Everett, two towns that while bordering Boston, are a pretty far hike from it. And lord are they trashy. They really have nothing to do with Boston. And while natives of the city are going to see the movie and know the difference, other people won't. For all they know, Everett could be the name of a downtown Boston neighborhood. Same with The Departed and Southie - they take place in South Boston, which again, is a different zip code and a different way of life. In recent years, Boston's image and tourism industry have been hurting (read more here). Maybe this is jumping to conclusions, but perhaps out-of-towners see these unglamorous and downright unpleasant depictions of the city - again, with no counterpoint - and decide against the city as a travel destination.
I tried to play devil's advocate and think of another American city that is typecast like this, but came up dry. I've already mentioned New York, but other cities - even ones where not many films take place - have varied depictions. San Francisco, for instance, hosted a string of film noirs in the 1940s, but broke the pattern and now hosts films as varied as Dirty Harry, Sister Act, The Hulk, and Basic Instinct. Chicago has Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Barbershop, Risky Business, and The Man With the Golden Arm, to name a few. Los Angeles has a ton of showbiz-oriented movies, but also romances and action films. Some cities don't really have films that take place there, but perhaps that's better than being stereotyped.
After seeing Gone, Baby, Gone, my boyfriend and I joked that there should be a crime caper set in Boston's South End. Heard of it? Not to be confused with South Boston, it's an area of the city known for expensive and fabulous dining, posh shopping, tiny dogs and its large - dare I say predominantly - gay population. Or how about Beacon Hill, with its combination of students and bigwigs, quiet streets and political protests? There's the lovably snooty Back Bay, the college student jungle of Allston, the quirky culture of Brookline, the hippies of Cambridge. Where are these on screen? I'm not asking for a movie where people dance around holding lobsters and baked beans and screaming "wicked pissah" all the way down the Freedom Trail, but what would it hurt to shoot your romantic comedy in a cheaper city, throw in a few shots of the skyline and actually acknowledge where you are?
P.S. - while I'm on the subject, nobody knows your name at Cheers. It is a horrible tourist trap that locals avoid at all costs.
October 24, 2007
10 Standout opening title sequences
Opening title sequences. Most movies have 'em, but very few are memorable. In the early days of film and continuing up through about the 1960s or so, it was always the same format - diagonal lines of credits with an overture. Often it's just text thrown haphazardly and almost begrudgingly over the beginning of the movie, but in some cases the filmmakers actually elevated the creation of title sequences to the art form it deserves to be. After all, it's part of the movie, so shouldn't it be as good as the rest?
I have to acknowledge how incomplete this list is from the start. I couldn't make this a "top" list because most movies have opening titles, so right off the bat I am forgetting dozens, nay, hundreds of excellent candidates. It's not like making a list of say, dinner table scenes. So rather than try to make a definitive list, these are just examples that stuck out in my mind and are worth checking out.
What are your favorites?
I have to acknowledge how incomplete this list is from the start. I couldn't make this a "top" list because most movies have opening titles, so right off the bat I am forgetting dozens, nay, hundreds of excellent candidates. It's not like making a list of say, dinner table scenes. So rather than try to make a definitive list, these are just examples that stuck out in my mind and are worth checking out.
1. Napoleon Dynamite. I don't care what you ultimately thought of this movie. When you saw the credits spelled out endearingly on or with lunches, school supplies and chapstick to the sweet sounds of "We are Gonna Be Friends" by the White Stripes, you thought it was pretty awesome.
2. The Graduate. A good title sequence sets the tone of the film, and The Graduate is an amazing example. Simon and Garfunkel accompany Dustin Hoffman's seemingly endless journey down the moving sidewalk in the airport... into his future!
3. Catch Me If You Can. The movie is basically acted out here in the span of a few minutes by little retro animated figures. Fun!
4. Amelie. This whole film is pretty dreamlike, and the titles set that up by showing a young Amelie playing and making silly faces with some surreal effects. Really beautiful. (Titles are a little bit into the clip.)
5. Sweet Charity. This is one of my favorite "day in the life" type of sequences. It shows Charity skipping around New York City, going about her morning in her cheerful Shirley MacLaine fashion, occasionally using a colorized freeze frame to freeze her in a goofy pose and slap some credits on. Really captures the essence of the character. (Clip not available - boo.)
6. A Hard Day's Night. I included this as more of a fan favorite, because if you pay attention, you'll notice that the actual credits here are pretty sparse. It's more of just an opening sequence, but oh well. Endlessly imitated and parodied, there is still a sense of silly fun in the John, Paul, George and Ringo's attempts to escape their maniacal female fan base. See also the opening credits of the first Austin Powers, which is a loving homage to this. Speaking of Austin Powers...
7. Austin Powers 2: The Spy Who Shagged Me. Austin frolicks about naked, while words or objects obscure his junk. Then there's a synchronized swimming sequence. Two things: first, this means that people actually sat around and thought of ways to obscure Mike Myers' junk, and second, I feel that as a cast or crew member, it would be an honor to have my name obscuring Mike Myer's junk.
8. The Women. This bitchy classic even has bitchy credits: each elegant star is introduced with her name accompanied by a clip of her smiling, and then an image of the animal she most resembles. The cunning one is a fox, the fat one is a cow. Ouch! (Clip not available - perfect excuse to watch the whole fabulous flick!)
9. Spider-Man 2. In the first Spider-Man, the credits were spelled out into a spiderweb, accompanied by Danny Elfman's kickass score. The second film's opening keeps the web motif, but cleverly adds clips to sort of recap what happened in the first one, and also mixes in comic-style illustrations. Engaging, energetic, and gets you totally pumped.
What are your favorites?
October 4, 2007
The cinematic guide to insulting, putting down, and generally pwning others
One of the reasons that movies are so awesome is because people always have the perfect quip or comeback at the right moment. This, of course, never happens in real life, where ideas for a witty retort come to you somewhere between minutes and years later. However, if you study my handy guide, you will never be left defenseless again! Note to lit nerds: there are no Shakespeare (movie) insults here, cuz that's a whole other barrel of monkeys and they already have t-shirts listing all the best ones and stuff.
Situation: Your girl is stone-cold cheating on you.
Use the approach of: Robert Gold (Dirk Bogarde) in Darling (1965)
Procedure: Remain cool and nonchalant. Go out on the town with her. When she suggests taking a cab home, veto her suggestion casually but firmly. When she asks why, you're ready with this zinger. "You're a whore, baby, that's all, and I don't take whores in taxis."
Situation: Old business partners that were hostile to you suddenly want you back now that you have power and/or valuable resources.
Use the approach of: Charles Tatum (Kirk Douglas) in Ace in the Hole (1951)
Procedure: In Charles' case, he had the exclusive rights to news coverage of a major event. His old employers tried to bribe him back, but he wasn't biting. They may try to appeal to your level and say, "We're all in the same boat." To this, you coolly reply: "I'm in the boat. You're in the water. Now let's see how you can swim."
Situation: Someone is pointing a gun at you, and all you have to defend yourself is your wit.
Use the approach of: Philip Marlowe (Humphrey Bogart) in The Big Sleep (1946)
Procedure: Laugh it off, and say: "My, my, my! Such a lot of guns around town and so few brains! You know, you're the second guy I've met today that seems to think a gat in the hand means the world by the tail." And they won't shoot you, because you are ridiculously cool.
Situation: You're not interested in the advances of a suitor.
Use the approach of: Lady Lou (Mae West) in She Done Him Wrong (1933)
Procedure: If a fresh fella tries attempts to, or asks if, he can hold your hand, brush him off with, "It ain't heavy, I can hold it."
Situation: Someone is having difficulty recognizing that you are better than them.
Use the approach of: Blake (Alec Baldwin) in Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)
Procedure: Strut into the room and don't take shit from nobody. Don't even bother to introduce yourself. If someone asks, "What's your name?" you reply: "Fuck you. That’s my name. You know why, mister? ‘Cause you drove a Hyundai to get here tonight, I drove an eighty thousand dollar BMW. That’s my name."
Situation: You're dealing with an abrasive personality.
Use the approach of: Carol Connelly (Helen Hunt) in As Good as it Gets (1997)
Procedure: Say up front, "Try not to ruin everything by being you."
Situation: You're dealing with an abrasive personality, part II.
Use the approach of: Oliver (Ryan Philippe) in Igby Goes Down (2002)
Procedure: Declare, "I think if Gandhi had to spend a prolonged amount of time with you, he'd end up beating the shit out of you, too."
Situation: You are surrounded by incompetence.
Use the approach of: Dignam (Mark Wahlberg) in The Departed (2006)
Procedure: If anyone questions your credentials, simply respond: "I'm the guy who does his job. You must be the other guy."
Situation: Someone is boring you to death with their uninteresting babble, and you need to shut them up quick.
Use the approach of: Carlotta Vance (Marie Dressler) in Dinner at Eight (1933)
Procedure: Cut them off abruptly with a scathingly sarcastic "How EXTRAORDINARY! We must talk of the Civil War someday, you and I."
Situation: You feel compelled to put down an obnoxious group of pseudo-intellectual pricks.
Use the approach of: Isaac Davis (Woody Allen) in Manhattan (1979)
Procedure: Mutter, "They probably sit around on the floor with wine and cheese, and mispronounce 'allegorical' and 'didacticism.'"
Situation: Your marriage has, um, seen better days.
Use the approach of: George (Richard Burton) in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
Procedure: Whenever your significant other starts to irritate you, say, "(Their name), in my mind you're buried in cement right up to the neck. No, up to the nose, it's much quieter."
Situation: Someone unattractive is trying to elicit a compliment about a new outfit.
Use the approach of: Fletcher Reede (Jim Carrey) in Liar Liar (1997)
Procedure: This technique is only recommended for very advanced insulters - even in the movie, Fletcher only blurted this out because he was under a truth curse for 24 hours. Perhaps it is only justifiable if this person has done something mean to you. In any event, when they ask "Do you like my new (shirt, necklace, etc.)?", respond with, "Whatever takes the focus off your head!"
Situation: You want to write a totally scathing review of a band.
Use the approach of: An anonymous writer in This Is Spinal Tap (1984)
Procedure: Write, "What day did the Lord create (name of band), and couldn't he have rested on that day too?"
Situation: Your friend is ragging on you for something you're interested in.
Use the approach of: Mark (Peter Sarsgaard) in Garden State (2004)
Procedure: Casually snap back, "Don't tease me about my hobbies. I don't tease you about being an asshole."
Situation: Your girl is stone-cold cheating on you.
Use the approach of: Robert Gold (Dirk Bogarde) in Darling (1965)
Procedure: Remain cool and nonchalant. Go out on the town with her. When she suggests taking a cab home, veto her suggestion casually but firmly. When she asks why, you're ready with this zinger. "You're a whore, baby, that's all, and I don't take whores in taxis."
Situation: Old business partners that were hostile to you suddenly want you back now that you have power and/or valuable resources.
Use the approach of: Charles Tatum (Kirk Douglas) in Ace in the Hole (1951)
Procedure: In Charles' case, he had the exclusive rights to news coverage of a major event. His old employers tried to bribe him back, but he wasn't biting. They may try to appeal to your level and say, "We're all in the same boat." To this, you coolly reply: "I'm in the boat. You're in the water. Now let's see how you can swim."
Situation: Someone is pointing a gun at you, and all you have to defend yourself is your wit.
Use the approach of: Philip Marlowe (Humphrey Bogart) in The Big Sleep (1946)
Procedure: Laugh it off, and say: "My, my, my! Such a lot of guns around town and so few brains! You know, you're the second guy I've met today that seems to think a gat in the hand means the world by the tail." And they won't shoot you, because you are ridiculously cool.
Situation: You're not interested in the advances of a suitor.
Use the approach of: Lady Lou (Mae West) in She Done Him Wrong (1933)
Procedure: If a fresh fella tries attempts to, or asks if, he can hold your hand, brush him off with, "It ain't heavy, I can hold it."
Situation: Someone is having difficulty recognizing that you are better than them.
Use the approach of: Blake (Alec Baldwin) in Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)
Procedure: Strut into the room and don't take shit from nobody. Don't even bother to introduce yourself. If someone asks, "What's your name?" you reply: "Fuck you. That’s my name. You know why, mister? ‘Cause you drove a Hyundai to get here tonight, I drove an eighty thousand dollar BMW. That’s my name."
Situation: You're dealing with an abrasive personality.
Use the approach of: Carol Connelly (Helen Hunt) in As Good as it Gets (1997)
Procedure: Say up front, "Try not to ruin everything by being you."
Situation: You're dealing with an abrasive personality, part II.
Use the approach of: Oliver (Ryan Philippe) in Igby Goes Down (2002)
Procedure: Declare, "I think if Gandhi had to spend a prolonged amount of time with you, he'd end up beating the shit out of you, too."
Situation: You are surrounded by incompetence.
Use the approach of: Dignam (Mark Wahlberg) in The Departed (2006)
Procedure: If anyone questions your credentials, simply respond: "I'm the guy who does his job. You must be the other guy."
Situation: Someone is boring you to death with their uninteresting babble, and you need to shut them up quick.
Use the approach of: Carlotta Vance (Marie Dressler) in Dinner at Eight (1933)
Procedure: Cut them off abruptly with a scathingly sarcastic "How EXTRAORDINARY! We must talk of the Civil War someday, you and I."
Situation: You feel compelled to put down an obnoxious group of pseudo-intellectual pricks.
Use the approach of: Isaac Davis (Woody Allen) in Manhattan (1979)
Procedure: Mutter, "They probably sit around on the floor with wine and cheese, and mispronounce 'allegorical' and 'didacticism.'"
Situation: Your marriage has, um, seen better days.
Use the approach of: George (Richard Burton) in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
Procedure: Whenever your significant other starts to irritate you, say, "(Their name), in my mind you're buried in cement right up to the neck. No, up to the nose, it's much quieter."
Situation: Someone unattractive is trying to elicit a compliment about a new outfit.
Use the approach of: Fletcher Reede (Jim Carrey) in Liar Liar (1997)
Procedure: This technique is only recommended for very advanced insulters - even in the movie, Fletcher only blurted this out because he was under a truth curse for 24 hours. Perhaps it is only justifiable if this person has done something mean to you. In any event, when they ask "Do you like my new (shirt, necklace, etc.)?", respond with, "Whatever takes the focus off your head!"
Situation: You want to write a totally scathing review of a band.
Use the approach of: An anonymous writer in This Is Spinal Tap (1984)
Procedure: Write, "What day did the Lord create (name of band), and couldn't he have rested on that day too?"
Situation: Your friend is ragging on you for something you're interested in.
Use the approach of: Mark (Peter Sarsgaard) in Garden State (2004)
Procedure: Casually snap back, "Don't tease me about my hobbies. I don't tease you about being an asshole."
Situation: You need to put a bitch in her place.
Use the approach of: Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) in Gone with the Wind (1939)
Procedure: The line that shook the world: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." Especially effective for use in the 1930s, when this one line contained the same volume of profanity as the entirety of a Quentin Tarantino movie.
September 30, 2007
My Impact on Hollywood
Today, at long last, I was noticed by industry professionals from Hollywood.
It did not, however, transpire in the manner I had always imagined.
There are two major films shooting in my native Boston right now: The Women (http://imdb.com/title/tt0430770/) and Bachelor No. 2 (http://imdb.com/title/tt1046163/). They're both all over the city, so I figured it would only be a matter of time before I stumbled onto one of the sets. Yesterday was the day. My boyfriend called and said that Bachelor No. 2 was filming near his apartment, if I wanted to come down and be a creepy celebrity stalker with him. Um, of course I did. So we follow the big trucks and sure enough, we come to a little set in an alley. There's a moderate crowd, and at first I don't see anyone famous. Boo. Then we see my boyfriend's roommate, who has apparently been staking out at this location for a while, and he has a prime viewing location. He points out Dane Cook to us, who I did not initially recognize because of his now-black hair. I found it weird that Mr. Cook, notorious fan-lover and MySpace celebrity, deliberately had his back to the crowd the whole time and looked pretty grumpy (oh and by the way, he's a native Bostonian). Then we see Jason Biggs on set too. I try to act cool, but I'm not. I am a starstruck tabloid whore, no denying it. I start taking pictures like everyone else. Of course they're sorta far away, and they're hard to see in the pictures even on maximum zoom, but it doesn't matter - I HAVE REAL-LIFE PIX OF CELEBRITIES OMG. So they're doing multiple takes of this one scene, and after a few times I figure out Dane's blocking so that I'm ready to take his picture when he gets as close to me as possible. I am always very vigilant about turning off my flash, primarily because it doesn't look as good but also in this case because it will mess things up. The crew seems kind of annoyed by the crowd and keeps telling us to be quiet and no flash photography, which I am complying with. I've turned my camera on and off a few times at this point, but I turned it back on when I was about to snap the money shot of Dane. I took the picture.
My flash went off.
It was at the very end of the shot, so they finished it up. But then everyone just stopped and looked really pissed. The crew started asking "Whose flash was that?" They were going up to random onlookers and asking if they were the culprit. I was petrified. I stood nailed to the spot. Somehow they didn't suspect me, even though I was pretty much front and center. I whispered to my boyfriend that we should go. We backed away slowly, and then sort of galloped away. And that's when I realized it:
I ruined a take of a major Hollywood movie.
This will be something I can hopefully confess with a laugh when I am a famous director years down the line, but for now, it's my dirty little secret. I may end up seeing the finished movie for this sole reason, knowing deep down that for like 73 seconds on September 29, 2007, Jason Biggs and Dane Cook were pissed at me.
It did not, however, transpire in the manner I had always imagined.
There are two major films shooting in my native Boston right now: The Women (http://imdb.com/title/tt0430770/) and Bachelor No. 2 (http://imdb.com/title/tt1046163/). They're both all over the city, so I figured it would only be a matter of time before I stumbled onto one of the sets. Yesterday was the day. My boyfriend called and said that Bachelor No. 2 was filming near his apartment, if I wanted to come down and be a creepy celebrity stalker with him. Um, of course I did. So we follow the big trucks and sure enough, we come to a little set in an alley. There's a moderate crowd, and at first I don't see anyone famous. Boo. Then we see my boyfriend's roommate, who has apparently been staking out at this location for a while, and he has a prime viewing location. He points out Dane Cook to us, who I did not initially recognize because of his now-black hair. I found it weird that Mr. Cook, notorious fan-lover and MySpace celebrity, deliberately had his back to the crowd the whole time and looked pretty grumpy (oh and by the way, he's a native Bostonian). Then we see Jason Biggs on set too. I try to act cool, but I'm not. I am a starstruck tabloid whore, no denying it. I start taking pictures like everyone else. Of course they're sorta far away, and they're hard to see in the pictures even on maximum zoom, but it doesn't matter - I HAVE REAL-LIFE PIX OF CELEBRITIES OMG. So they're doing multiple takes of this one scene, and after a few times I figure out Dane's blocking so that I'm ready to take his picture when he gets as close to me as possible. I am always very vigilant about turning off my flash, primarily because it doesn't look as good but also in this case because it will mess things up. The crew seems kind of annoyed by the crowd and keeps telling us to be quiet and no flash photography, which I am complying with. I've turned my camera on and off a few times at this point, but I turned it back on when I was about to snap the money shot of Dane. I took the picture.
My flash went off.
It was at the very end of the shot, so they finished it up. But then everyone just stopped and looked really pissed. The crew started asking "Whose flash was that?" They were going up to random onlookers and asking if they were the culprit. I was petrified. I stood nailed to the spot. Somehow they didn't suspect me, even though I was pretty much front and center. I whispered to my boyfriend that we should go. We backed away slowly, and then sort of galloped away. And that's when I realized it:
I ruined a take of a major Hollywood movie.
This will be something I can hopefully confess with a laugh when I am a famous director years down the line, but for now, it's my dirty little secret. I may end up seeing the finished movie for this sole reason, knowing deep down that for like 73 seconds on September 29, 2007, Jason Biggs and Dane Cook were pissed at me.
September 8, 2007
What movies get wrong about sex - and why it matters
Movies get a lot of things wrong about sex. Most notable is that the majority of people that a person has sex with in his or her lifetime are not going to look anything like people in the movies! But things like that I begrudgingly accept, because movie stars have always been unnaturally good-looking. However, there is something I've noticed lately that I think is genuinely troubling and should be addressed - and changed.
In cinematic sex, there is no foreplay.
My boyfriend and I were recently having a discussion (which partially served as the inspiration for this post) in which we tried to think of non-pornographic American movies that featured "second base," or a man touching a female's breasts in a consentual sexual situation. I could think of only one, he could think of one where it may have happened (The Secret Lives of Dentists and The Squid and the Whale, respectively). That, my friends, is really fucked up. Boob contact has always been a very obvious, mainstream component of heterosexual intimacy. I remember when I saw the aforementioned The Secret Lives of Dentists - I was perhaps 16 years old. The film focuses on a married pair of dentists experiencing marital troubles. In one scene, the two of them start to get it on in their living room. They start, as is typical, by kissing, but then he unbuttons her shirt and starts to feel her up. I remember being stunned by this - not because it is strange or perverse in any way, but because I absolutely could not remember another movie in which it had happened. We're not talking about the dirty Sanchez or gay incestuous orgies here - we're talking about sexual touch of one of the more notoriously sexualized parts of the female anatomy. What's the deal?
I know that American media can be very prude - you need only see five minutes of a European film to figure that out. And if it was the 1940s and the only intimacy you ever showed was kissing, that would be fine. But for god's sake - American movies feature SEX! The original sin, the act that some consider to be so sacred or vile that it can only occur between spouses, the act that gay people are ostracized for performing - this act can happen anywhere from crappy action movies to surreal arthouse cinema.
I'm not just concerned with the lack of boob-grabbing, but the lack of foreplay in general. Europe, again, is better with this issue - the Pedro Almodovar film Matador, for example, features what has to be at least a two-minute shot of a man's roaming tongue. But I'm not even asking that it be shown - just acknowledged. Because like it or not, people learn about sex from the movies. And in the same way that movies get criticized for teaching society bad lessons about violence, I think they should be criticized for teaching society bad lessons about sex - but not in the way that some conservative people think.
Here is the average sex scene in an American movie: the foreplay consists solely of two people wanting to get with each other for a while. When they do, they make out for a bit, then rip off each other's clothes and shag real hard. And the woman always orgasms within, like, seconds. If you didn't grow up with liberal sex therapist parents, this might be your primary source of sex information.
But it's so, so wrong.
Here's something that even some married men don't know, let alone confused teenagers watching movies: the average woman usually requires at least 20 minutes of foreplay if she is to orgasm. Even if it's sex with Brad Pitt, it is a biological fact that it will take more than some passionate movie star kisses for a women to become naturally lubricated enough for penetration. According to sex therapist Dr. Ava Cadell, for every 30 minutes of sex, only a quarter to a third of it should be spent on actual intercourse. Ian Kerner, Ph.D. and author of "She Comes First: The Thinking Man's Guide to Pleasuring a Woman" recommends at least 10 straight minutes of oral sex on a gal before you even think about penetration.
Hm...I can't remember the last time I saw anything remotely like that on a movie screen. Why is this detrimental? Because seeing inaccurate sex like that can make men, women, and couples frustrated and ashamed. Women may think, if Actress X can be over the moon with pleasure after a few thrusts from Actor Y...then why can't I? Men may form the impression that women don't really need foreplay to achieve pleasure from sex. Unlike movie-star looks, where there is well-documented knowledge of the disconnect between fantasy and reality, silver screen sex has yet to be widely exposed as fiction. People know that things like impossibly perfect mood lighting and music won't occur in real life, but there's no public outcry about how misleading the actual sex is.
Also, women in movies orgasm at the drop of a hat (or pants) - or at least reach a state of howling ecstasy within seconds. This, too, is a gross exaggeration. According to Women's Health magazine, only 25% of women surveyed achieved orgasm every time they had sex, compared to 90% of men asked the same question. So when the average girl without much sexual experience of her own sees these multiorgasmic super-creatures on screen, she may feel inadequate. This, too, is something where the fallacy has not been widely addressed. Mothers may tell their daughters "don't compare yourself to celebrities, honey, because they're airbrushed...you're beautiful how you are," but I doubt that most will tell their daughters "don't worry, honey, achieving orgasm is a complicated process that requires an attentive partner and lots of foreplay."
As a final, somewhat related issue, people having sex in movies rarely use any sort of protection. Oh, perhaps the girl is on the pill, or it's assumed that a condom was applied at some point, but this isn't good enough. Yes, I know it wouldn't be very sexy or cinematic to show someone laboriously putting on a condom, but there's no artistic harm done with a quick shot of a frenzied hand grabbing for one. Again, consciously or not, movies are in a position of power to educate and influence. Take the recent crackdown on smoking in films - not only has it sharply declined over the years, but now Disney has announced that smoking will be a factor that contributes to the rating of a film. The idea is that showing this irresponsible behavior without showing the consequences can glamourize the behavior and falsely educate impressionable audiences. Why shouldn't the same idea be applied to safe sex? I'll tell you why it won't happen - because some think that promoting safe sex to young people means promoting sex, period. But if people in movies are going at it anyway, then why shouldn't you show them being responsible?
In cinematic sex, there is no foreplay.
My boyfriend and I were recently having a discussion (which partially served as the inspiration for this post) in which we tried to think of non-pornographic American movies that featured "second base," or a man touching a female's breasts in a consentual sexual situation. I could think of only one, he could think of one where it may have happened (The Secret Lives of Dentists and The Squid and the Whale, respectively). That, my friends, is really fucked up. Boob contact has always been a very obvious, mainstream component of heterosexual intimacy. I remember when I saw the aforementioned The Secret Lives of Dentists - I was perhaps 16 years old. The film focuses on a married pair of dentists experiencing marital troubles. In one scene, the two of them start to get it on in their living room. They start, as is typical, by kissing, but then he unbuttons her shirt and starts to feel her up. I remember being stunned by this - not because it is strange or perverse in any way, but because I absolutely could not remember another movie in which it had happened. We're not talking about the dirty Sanchez or gay incestuous orgies here - we're talking about sexual touch of one of the more notoriously sexualized parts of the female anatomy. What's the deal?
I know that American media can be very prude - you need only see five minutes of a European film to figure that out. And if it was the 1940s and the only intimacy you ever showed was kissing, that would be fine. But for god's sake - American movies feature SEX! The original sin, the act that some consider to be so sacred or vile that it can only occur between spouses, the act that gay people are ostracized for performing - this act can happen anywhere from crappy action movies to surreal arthouse cinema.
I'm not just concerned with the lack of boob-grabbing, but the lack of foreplay in general. Europe, again, is better with this issue - the Pedro Almodovar film Matador, for example, features what has to be at least a two-minute shot of a man's roaming tongue. But I'm not even asking that it be shown - just acknowledged. Because like it or not, people learn about sex from the movies. And in the same way that movies get criticized for teaching society bad lessons about violence, I think they should be criticized for teaching society bad lessons about sex - but not in the way that some conservative people think.
Here is the average sex scene in an American movie: the foreplay consists solely of two people wanting to get with each other for a while. When they do, they make out for a bit, then rip off each other's clothes and shag real hard. And the woman always orgasms within, like, seconds. If you didn't grow up with liberal sex therapist parents, this might be your primary source of sex information.
But it's so, so wrong.
Here's something that even some married men don't know, let alone confused teenagers watching movies: the average woman usually requires at least 20 minutes of foreplay if she is to orgasm. Even if it's sex with Brad Pitt, it is a biological fact that it will take more than some passionate movie star kisses for a women to become naturally lubricated enough for penetration. According to sex therapist Dr. Ava Cadell, for every 30 minutes of sex, only a quarter to a third of it should be spent on actual intercourse. Ian Kerner, Ph.D. and author of "She Comes First: The Thinking Man's Guide to Pleasuring a Woman" recommends at least 10 straight minutes of oral sex on a gal before you even think about penetration.
Hm...I can't remember the last time I saw anything remotely like that on a movie screen. Why is this detrimental? Because seeing inaccurate sex like that can make men, women, and couples frustrated and ashamed. Women may think, if Actress X can be over the moon with pleasure after a few thrusts from Actor Y...then why can't I? Men may form the impression that women don't really need foreplay to achieve pleasure from sex. Unlike movie-star looks, where there is well-documented knowledge of the disconnect between fantasy and reality, silver screen sex has yet to be widely exposed as fiction. People know that things like impossibly perfect mood lighting and music won't occur in real life, but there's no public outcry about how misleading the actual sex is.
Also, women in movies orgasm at the drop of a hat (or pants) - or at least reach a state of howling ecstasy within seconds. This, too, is a gross exaggeration. According to Women's Health magazine, only 25% of women surveyed achieved orgasm every time they had sex, compared to 90% of men asked the same question. So when the average girl without much sexual experience of her own sees these multiorgasmic super-creatures on screen, she may feel inadequate. This, too, is something where the fallacy has not been widely addressed. Mothers may tell their daughters "don't compare yourself to celebrities, honey, because they're airbrushed...you're beautiful how you are," but I doubt that most will tell their daughters "don't worry, honey, achieving orgasm is a complicated process that requires an attentive partner and lots of foreplay."
So what is to be done? I am not asking for literal 20-minute sequences of foreplay. Rather, it would be a big relief to see at least some acknowledgement of the facts stated above. Perhaps show the beginning of a man's migration south of the border, leaving the audience to assume what happens next. Have a woman start out with soft whimpers, show a leap in time on a clock, and then show her wailing. Use fades to show the passage of time. Show a variety of positions. Show the women's face with the implication that the man is pleasuring her. Show sex not working. Or if all of this is too revolutionary, just show them afterward and avoid showing the sex at all. Whether they know it or not, filmmakers should feel a sense of responsibility to their viewers. You might argue, then, that it's irresponsible to show crazy violence. It's not. Most of us with have sex in our lifetimes; very few will get caught up in a violent mafia ring.
As a final, somewhat related issue, people having sex in movies rarely use any sort of protection. Oh, perhaps the girl is on the pill, or it's assumed that a condom was applied at some point, but this isn't good enough. Yes, I know it wouldn't be very sexy or cinematic to show someone laboriously putting on a condom, but there's no artistic harm done with a quick shot of a frenzied hand grabbing for one. Again, consciously or not, movies are in a position of power to educate and influence. Take the recent crackdown on smoking in films - not only has it sharply declined over the years, but now Disney has announced that smoking will be a factor that contributes to the rating of a film. The idea is that showing this irresponsible behavior without showing the consequences can glamourize the behavior and falsely educate impressionable audiences. Why shouldn't the same idea be applied to safe sex? I'll tell you why it won't happen - because some think that promoting safe sex to young people means promoting sex, period. But if people in movies are going at it anyway, then why shouldn't you show them being responsible?
September 2, 2007
Five lost classics worth checking out
Okay, I know that my use of the term "lost" will probably draw ire from some. I don't mean that they were literally buried in some vault, but rather that they inexplicably did not draw the attention they deserve. They all feature able directors, solid casts and Oscar nominations in some cases. Some are the "lesser-known" projects of famous directors. And before you get your panties in a bunch, I acknowledge that a few readers will claim to have known about these films since they were in utero. But I consider myself fairly well educated in cinematic history, and some of these I didn't even know existed until I saw them on a movie store shelf. So check them out and give them the attention and respect they desperately need.
1. Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
How is Spencer Tracy so cool? Whether he's bitching out creationists in Inherit the Wind or bantering with Katharine Hepburn in one of their many comedies, he's just always the man. But I didn't realize how much he was truly the man until I saw this John Sturges film. He plays a one-armed stranger who comes to the sleepy town of Black Rock on a mysterious mission - and let's just say that the locals there don't like strangers. (According to IMDB, the character's disability wasn't in the original script, but they wanted Tracy so badly that they wrote it in, because they claimed that no actor could resist playing someone with a handicap.) Saying too much more would give it away, but I love movies where protagonists can defeat villains with their compassion and intellect instead of just guns, and Tracy takes all the hatred and ignorance with dignity. Received Oscar nominations for best screenplay, director, and actor for Tracy.
2. Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)
Before Eddie Murphy was making movies where he was basically the entire cast, Alec Guinness did the same thing in this British film where he plays the complete extended family of Louis (Dennis Price). Basically, Louis vows to avenge his deceased mother's disinheritance by killing off all the family members that stand in his way of the money. It's black comedy at its darkest. Price is a suave, horrible and compulsively watchable slimeball with deadpan narration, and Guinness is a riot as eight vastly different characters. Despite its relatively below-the-radar status, it's in the IMDB Top 250 (as rated by users).
3. Night of the Iguana (1964)
I rarely rent a movie that I have not heard anything about previously - it takes a lot to sell me on it straight from the shelf. When I was checking in returns at work and this film dropped into my hands, however, I had to see it. A John Huston adaptation of a Tennessee Williams play with Richard Burton, Ava Gardner and Deborah Kerr? How had I not heard of it?! It certainly delivered, though, and launched my mild Richard Burton obsession. He plays a heavy-drinking, defrocked clergyman who now makes a living guiding tours in Mexico. Over the course of a few fateful days, he gets pursued by the criminally young Charlotte (Sue Lyon, reprising her Lolita shtick), meets up with old flame Maxine (Gardner), and does some soul-searching with stranger Hannah (Kerr). Like any Williams piece, it's talky and heavy, but the actors give amazing life to the material. It won an Oscar for best costume design, and was nominated for best cinematography, art direction and supporting actress for Grayson Hall (who plays the relatively small role of a bitchy group leader). I was seriously shocked that the three leads didn't get more recognition for their roles. You'd even think that the fame of the Huston name would have made it more well-known, but it has somehow slipped from everyone's memory.
4. Ace in the Hole (1951)
Billy Wilder seemed hell-bent on being impossible to classify. He could produce comedies, dramas, mysteries, satires, and noirs with equal ease. In his brilliant career, this film somehow got shuffled out of view - perhaps intentionally, because it was too dark and controversial. You thought Sunset Boulevard was cynical? This film makes that look like Mary Poppins. Kirk Douglas gives in a stunning, tour-de-force performance as a reporter who tries to make a media circus - and a career - out of a mine collapse (particularly relevant in the wake of the media-infested mine collapse in Utah). The message is clear, although Wilder doesn't violently smack you over the head with it. It might sound kind of boring, but the fact that the stakes are crazy high for every character from the get-go makes it utterly compelling. In describing it to a friend after viewing, all I could say was "scathing." Douglas deserved an Oscar and a half for this performance, but the film's only nomination was for its screenplay.
5. In the Heat of the Night (1967)
Where is the love for this film?! I mean, it did win a shitload of Oscars including Best Picture, but I feel that it was immediately forgotten afterward. (They did just include it in the new AFI list, which made me happy). I think it's because people approach Racial Issues Movies with apprehension. Done well, you can get Do the Right Thing - done poorly, you can get Crash (don't get me started on that). The key, I think, is subtlety. People running around screaming "I VEHEMENTLY DESPISE ALL BLACK PEOPLE" just makes for sloppy storytelling. Another reason that it may be fuzzily remembered is that in the very same year, star Sidney Poitier was in a similarly themed but ultimately very different movie - Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. Somehow, that emerged as the more famous of the two (it did pack the Hepburn-Tracy punch) - but I personally consider it to be the weaker one. In Dinner, Poitier plays Token Friendly Black Guy That Shakes Up Supposedly Liberal White Household; in Night, he's Awesome Badass Detective That Won't Take Rod Steiger's Shit. A sign of a good Racial Issues Movie is that characters express their racism through actions or even just stares, as opposed to spelling it out with words. Steiger had a good sense of this, and got an Oscar for his efforts. Oh, and there's also a totally sweet soul soundtrack that features Ray Charles doing the title song. This film rises above being a Racial Issues Movie to just being an incredible drama that excels in every aspect.
Bonus: All that Jazz (1979)
I made this a bonus one because I felt kinda funny labeling a 1979 film a "classic." Still, I couldn't leave it out entirely because it's a semi-autobiographical musical about death starring Captain Brody from Jaws SAY WHAT?! This is the musical that could beat up other musicals in a dark alley. Roy Scheider plays a slightly fictionalized version of director/choreographer Bob Fosse, whose destructive lifestyle causes him to have a heart attack and reevaluate his life. Song and dance numbers range from a highly erotic and highly naked avant-garde piece in a dance studio to a morbid but razzle-dazzle finale featuring women dressed as human hearts. I feel cliche saying this, but it really is like nothing I've seen before.
What "lost classics" can you recommend?
1. Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
How is Spencer Tracy so cool? Whether he's bitching out creationists in Inherit the Wind or bantering with Katharine Hepburn in one of their many comedies, he's just always the man. But I didn't realize how much he was truly the man until I saw this John Sturges film. He plays a one-armed stranger who comes to the sleepy town of Black Rock on a mysterious mission - and let's just say that the locals there don't like strangers. (According to IMDB, the character's disability wasn't in the original script, but they wanted Tracy so badly that they wrote it in, because they claimed that no actor could resist playing someone with a handicap.) Saying too much more would give it away, but I love movies where protagonists can defeat villains with their compassion and intellect instead of just guns, and Tracy takes all the hatred and ignorance with dignity. Received Oscar nominations for best screenplay, director, and actor for Tracy.
2. Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)
Before Eddie Murphy was making movies where he was basically the entire cast, Alec Guinness did the same thing in this British film where he plays the complete extended family of Louis (Dennis Price). Basically, Louis vows to avenge his deceased mother's disinheritance by killing off all the family members that stand in his way of the money. It's black comedy at its darkest. Price is a suave, horrible and compulsively watchable slimeball with deadpan narration, and Guinness is a riot as eight vastly different characters. Despite its relatively below-the-radar status, it's in the IMDB Top 250 (as rated by users).
3. Night of the Iguana (1964)
I rarely rent a movie that I have not heard anything about previously - it takes a lot to sell me on it straight from the shelf. When I was checking in returns at work and this film dropped into my hands, however, I had to see it. A John Huston adaptation of a Tennessee Williams play with Richard Burton, Ava Gardner and Deborah Kerr? How had I not heard of it?! It certainly delivered, though, and launched my mild Richard Burton obsession. He plays a heavy-drinking, defrocked clergyman who now makes a living guiding tours in Mexico. Over the course of a few fateful days, he gets pursued by the criminally young Charlotte (Sue Lyon, reprising her Lolita shtick), meets up with old flame Maxine (Gardner), and does some soul-searching with stranger Hannah (Kerr). Like any Williams piece, it's talky and heavy, but the actors give amazing life to the material. It won an Oscar for best costume design, and was nominated for best cinematography, art direction and supporting actress for Grayson Hall (who plays the relatively small role of a bitchy group leader). I was seriously shocked that the three leads didn't get more recognition for their roles. You'd even think that the fame of the Huston name would have made it more well-known, but it has somehow slipped from everyone's memory.
4. Ace in the Hole (1951)
Billy Wilder seemed hell-bent on being impossible to classify. He could produce comedies, dramas, mysteries, satires, and noirs with equal ease. In his brilliant career, this film somehow got shuffled out of view - perhaps intentionally, because it was too dark and controversial. You thought Sunset Boulevard was cynical? This film makes that look like Mary Poppins. Kirk Douglas gives in a stunning, tour-de-force performance as a reporter who tries to make a media circus - and a career - out of a mine collapse (particularly relevant in the wake of the media-infested mine collapse in Utah). The message is clear, although Wilder doesn't violently smack you over the head with it. It might sound kind of boring, but the fact that the stakes are crazy high for every character from the get-go makes it utterly compelling. In describing it to a friend after viewing, all I could say was "scathing." Douglas deserved an Oscar and a half for this performance, but the film's only nomination was for its screenplay.
5. In the Heat of the Night (1967)
Where is the love for this film?! I mean, it did win a shitload of Oscars including Best Picture, but I feel that it was immediately forgotten afterward. (They did just include it in the new AFI list, which made me happy). I think it's because people approach Racial Issues Movies with apprehension. Done well, you can get Do the Right Thing - done poorly, you can get Crash (don't get me started on that). The key, I think, is subtlety. People running around screaming "I VEHEMENTLY DESPISE ALL BLACK PEOPLE" just makes for sloppy storytelling. Another reason that it may be fuzzily remembered is that in the very same year, star Sidney Poitier was in a similarly themed but ultimately very different movie - Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. Somehow, that emerged as the more famous of the two (it did pack the Hepburn-Tracy punch) - but I personally consider it to be the weaker one. In Dinner, Poitier plays Token Friendly Black Guy That Shakes Up Supposedly Liberal White Household; in Night, he's Awesome Badass Detective That Won't Take Rod Steiger's Shit. A sign of a good Racial Issues Movie is that characters express their racism through actions or even just stares, as opposed to spelling it out with words. Steiger had a good sense of this, and got an Oscar for his efforts. Oh, and there's also a totally sweet soul soundtrack that features Ray Charles doing the title song. This film rises above being a Racial Issues Movie to just being an incredible drama that excels in every aspect.
Bonus: All that Jazz (1979)
I made this a bonus one because I felt kinda funny labeling a 1979 film a "classic." Still, I couldn't leave it out entirely because it's a semi-autobiographical musical about death starring Captain Brody from Jaws SAY WHAT?! This is the musical that could beat up other musicals in a dark alley. Roy Scheider plays a slightly fictionalized version of director/choreographer Bob Fosse, whose destructive lifestyle causes him to have a heart attack and reevaluate his life. Song and dance numbers range from a highly erotic and highly naked avant-garde piece in a dance studio to a morbid but razzle-dazzle finale featuring women dressed as human hearts. I feel cliche saying this, but it really is like nothing I've seen before.
What "lost classics" can you recommend?
August 21, 2007
10 movies I am supposed to like, but don't - and why
You know that awful feeling when you don't like a film that has received unanimous critical and popular acclaim? You're sitting around with your friends, and they're talking about how great it is, and you don't know whether to pipe up with your opinion and risk being ridiculed and ostracized. Well, I am about to take that risk, and share with you movies that I am "supposed" to like, but don't - and why. Hopefully none of you know where I live. WARNING: Spoilers follow.
- Children of Men
Why I should have liked it: Several Oscar nominations, solid cast, promise of a good story.
Why I didn't: As promised, this film delivered amazing cinematography and visuals - I can't deny that. And I was very intrigued by the premise that woman worldwide suddenly became infertile and the human race risked extinction. Too bad they didn't flesh out that idea AT ALL. I wasn't looking for a scientific play-by-play of why...I just wanted them to explore it more. The film, despite praise for its provocative rendering of the future, is so minimalistic and unexplained that it's basically a glorified road/chase movie. A girl becomes miraculously pregnant (again, no reason given) and Clive Owen and Co. have to smuggle her to The Human Project, which they don't explain either. The characters get killed off carelessly. Julianne Moore, whose character shows promise and an interesting backstory with Owen's, dies unceremoniously about 8 minutes into her screen time. That, my friend, is a waste of Julianne Moore. Michael Caine gets offed too, and Clive-dawg dies right at the end. I get it. These individuals have to die so mankind can survive. What's that vague throbbing pain I feel? Oh, it's this movie whacking me violently over the head with its message. Plus, they just show the pregnant girl (who has since given birth to her baby) arriving at a boat that supposedly contains members of The Human Project. They don't even show her getting on the boat! I kept thinking how funny it would be if the boat didn't see her and left. Maybe her baby is sickly (um hello, it was about six weeks premature and spent the first couple of days of its life in a war zone) and it dies the second she gets on the boat. Oops, sorry, human race.
- One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Why I should have liked it: Won the coveted 5-Oscar sweep (Best Picture, Actor, Actress, Director, Screenplay), inclusion in the AFI Top 100, Jack Nicholson finally channeling his craziness into a movie about a mental institution.
Why I didn't: You'd think that a movie about crazy people would have a lot of energy, but this film just seemed lethargic to me. Maybe it's the 3-hour running time. You see, I have a short attention span. I am not opposed to long movies, but if it goes for one nanosecond over two hours, it better be fucking captivating. I had absolutely no problem with Gone With the Wind being four hours long, because I feel that every minute was entertaining and justified. But a film this slow and psychological just can't be this long. Plus, everyone's obsessed with Louise Fletcher's performance as Nurse Ratched (for which she won an Oscar) but I wasn't terribly impressed. She just reminded me of my uptight 11th-grade chemistry teacher who really needed to get laid.
- M
Why I should have liked it: It's a universally praised 1931 German thriller by Fritz Lang starring Peter Lorre as a child killer! Fun!
Why I didn't: Seriously though, I was kind of excited to watch this. It let me down. In fact, I only got through about 30-45 minutes. Petey didn't even show up til pretty far in, so it was just a bunch of unknown German actors running around with mild concern because they couldn't find their kids. I could see that at a playground. Maybe it gets better later on, but I don't know if I can sit through enough to find out.
- Blade Runner
Why I should have liked it: Hailed by some as the greatest sci-fi movie ever, just got included in the revamped AFI Top 100 list, cult favorite.
Why I didn't: In the film's defense, I think its 78 different versions hurt it. Okay, there's only about 6, but that's still a few too many versions. I saw the director's cut, just because it was the version available to rent. I did think that the futuristic vision of L.A. was pretty cool. But Harrison Ford's acting ineptitude is just unbearable to watch. I recently read an article that accused Ford of constantly having his mouth hanging open to look dramatic and pensive. It's painful. He shows the dramatic range of celery. The still unanswered question as to whether Ford's character is a replicant is also problematic. It'd be fine to just leave it open, but Ridley Scott and Ford keep having these arguments about it (Scott allegedly said he was a replicant; Ford said that he and Scott had explicitly agreed that he wasn't) that I think weaken the film. The love story seems forced, and Daryl Hannah's character is just fuckin weird. Sorry, Blade Runner.
- Lord of the Rings
Why I should have liked it: The third one won best picture and got included in the new AFI Top 100, film snobs and Tolkien nerds alike hold it in high regard
Why I didn't: I only saw the first one, but I already know I couldn't deal with the other two. I think to fully enjoy them, you have to have a huge boner for the books, or at least the characters. I didn't. We read "The Hobbit" in 7th grade and I was not impressed (although I did deliver a stunning performance as Thorin in our class' movie adaptation). Also, I am not interested in movies with such an epic scope. Whether it's the Civil War or Middle Earth, I don't like wrapping my brain around that much in one movie. I prefer movies that focus on the lives of just a few people. When Return of the King won Best Picture in 2003, resulting in a united asthmatic wheeze of joy from nerds everywhere, I found it strange that among its numerous nominations, there was not a single acting nomination. How do you have a strong movie without good acting?
- My Fair Lady
Why I should have liked it: Won Best Picture and Best Actor, inclusion in the AFI Top 100, my undying love for musicals.
Why I didn't: The movie should really be called "An Hour of Audrey Hepburn Screaming, Followed By a Forced Love Story." Seriously, the beginning of this film made me want to honorably retire my ears. I get it, she's a Cockney flower girl - but I didn't know that "Cockney flower girl" was synonymous with "autistic indecipherable screaming bitch." Once Rex Harrison's character "tames" her, she falls for him. Because if there's one thing women love, it's men that spend months torturing and ridiculing them until they have proper grammar. At the end, AuHeps runs away, decides she loves him, and goes back, and then it ends with him telling her to get him his slippers. Great. A blissful life of chauvinistic domination awaits her. Oh, and did I mention that it's 3 hours long?
- The Sting
Why I should have liked it: It won Best Picture in 1973, and it stars Robert Redford and Paul Newman.
Why I didn't: I made it through about an hour. It's all fine and good, but I realized the problem - it has no oomph. It was in the drama section at the video store, but it's not dramatic. It's not that funny either. It's not really action-packed. It was just kind of matter-of-fact, like someone describing their day at work. That's not what I want from movies. Oh, and I think I was expecting Paul Newman to look as delicious as he did in the 1950s. Damn aging!
- Sideways
Why I should have liked it: I liked Alexander Payne's other directing work, Oscar for best adapted screenplay, seemingly indie and quirky.
Why I didn't: I saw this in the theater, and perhaps my impression of it is tainted because I was new to driving at the time and got terribly lost on the way home. Anyway, this must have come out amongst a sea of pure cinematic crap, because it got hailed as the most unique and indie thing of all time. It's not. Writer/director Alexander Payne is very hit or miss. He wrote the (adapted) screenplays for Election and About Schmidt...but he also wrote the screenplays for Jurassic Park III and some softcore porn. Hm. Thoms Haden Church's character is fun, but Paul Giamatti's character in this is just plain unlikeable. He's a grumpy, frumpy, whiny alcoholic. As we all know, women totally go gaga for men like that, and Maya (Virginia Madsen) is no exception. Except...no. That would never happen. The part where I really threw up in my mouth a little, though, is when Maya and Miles (Giamatti) are talking about pinot wine, during a Deep Moment of Mutual Sharing. What transpires here is a Blatant Comparison of Miles to Pinot As Written By A Developmentally Delayed Third Grader. "Only somebody who really takes the time to understand Pinot's potential can then coax it into its fullest expression"?!?! Oh wait, you guys, see, like, Miles is socially challenged, so I think A. Payne is actually talking about MILES here and saying you have to be patient with him or something. WHOA.
- Manhattan
Why I should have liked it: I like Woody Allen, and this is hailed as one of his best.
Why I didn't: I don't like watching Woody Allen carry on a relationship with a 17-year-old for two hours. It was just too creepy - and prophetic. Plus, the entire movie was just really depressing, but then Muriel Hemingway says some catchy happy bullshit at the very end and it's all better? Not.
- Vertigo
Why I should have liked it: I'd never met a Hitchcock movie I didn't like, it soared up the AFI list this time around.
Why I didn't: I don't know. Something just didn't click with me. I found the plot confusing, the characters unsympathetic, the ending weird. I know I am probably alone here.
So there you have it. I have probably made many enemies here today, but hopefully I've also made some friends who can sympathize with the feeling of not liking a popular movie. What movies tickle everyone's fancy but yours? Comments welcome, but please don't try to convert me to liking the above selections. Live and let live, people.
- Children of Men
Why I should have liked it: Several Oscar nominations, solid cast, promise of a good story.
Why I didn't: As promised, this film delivered amazing cinematography and visuals - I can't deny that. And I was very intrigued by the premise that woman worldwide suddenly became infertile and the human race risked extinction. Too bad they didn't flesh out that idea AT ALL. I wasn't looking for a scientific play-by-play of why...I just wanted them to explore it more. The film, despite praise for its provocative rendering of the future, is so minimalistic and unexplained that it's basically a glorified road/chase movie. A girl becomes miraculously pregnant (again, no reason given) and Clive Owen and Co. have to smuggle her to The Human Project, which they don't explain either. The characters get killed off carelessly. Julianne Moore, whose character shows promise and an interesting backstory with Owen's, dies unceremoniously about 8 minutes into her screen time. That, my friend, is a waste of Julianne Moore. Michael Caine gets offed too, and Clive-dawg dies right at the end. I get it. These individuals have to die so mankind can survive. What's that vague throbbing pain I feel? Oh, it's this movie whacking me violently over the head with its message. Plus, they just show the pregnant girl (who has since given birth to her baby) arriving at a boat that supposedly contains members of The Human Project. They don't even show her getting on the boat! I kept thinking how funny it would be if the boat didn't see her and left. Maybe her baby is sickly (um hello, it was about six weeks premature and spent the first couple of days of its life in a war zone) and it dies the second she gets on the boat. Oops, sorry, human race.
- One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Why I should have liked it: Won the coveted 5-Oscar sweep (Best Picture, Actor, Actress, Director, Screenplay), inclusion in the AFI Top 100, Jack Nicholson finally channeling his craziness into a movie about a mental institution.
Why I didn't: You'd think that a movie about crazy people would have a lot of energy, but this film just seemed lethargic to me. Maybe it's the 3-hour running time. You see, I have a short attention span. I am not opposed to long movies, but if it goes for one nanosecond over two hours, it better be fucking captivating. I had absolutely no problem with Gone With the Wind being four hours long, because I feel that every minute was entertaining and justified. But a film this slow and psychological just can't be this long. Plus, everyone's obsessed with Louise Fletcher's performance as Nurse Ratched (for which she won an Oscar) but I wasn't terribly impressed. She just reminded me of my uptight 11th-grade chemistry teacher who really needed to get laid.
- M
Why I should have liked it: It's a universally praised 1931 German thriller by Fritz Lang starring Peter Lorre as a child killer! Fun!
Why I didn't: Seriously though, I was kind of excited to watch this. It let me down. In fact, I only got through about 30-45 minutes. Petey didn't even show up til pretty far in, so it was just a bunch of unknown German actors running around with mild concern because they couldn't find their kids. I could see that at a playground. Maybe it gets better later on, but I don't know if I can sit through enough to find out.
- Blade Runner
Why I should have liked it: Hailed by some as the greatest sci-fi movie ever, just got included in the revamped AFI Top 100 list, cult favorite.
Why I didn't: In the film's defense, I think its 78 different versions hurt it. Okay, there's only about 6, but that's still a few too many versions. I saw the director's cut, just because it was the version available to rent. I did think that the futuristic vision of L.A. was pretty cool. But Harrison Ford's acting ineptitude is just unbearable to watch. I recently read an article that accused Ford of constantly having his mouth hanging open to look dramatic and pensive. It's painful. He shows the dramatic range of celery. The still unanswered question as to whether Ford's character is a replicant is also problematic. It'd be fine to just leave it open, but Ridley Scott and Ford keep having these arguments about it (Scott allegedly said he was a replicant; Ford said that he and Scott had explicitly agreed that he wasn't) that I think weaken the film. The love story seems forced, and Daryl Hannah's character is just fuckin weird. Sorry, Blade Runner.
- Lord of the Rings
Why I should have liked it: The third one won best picture and got included in the new AFI Top 100, film snobs and Tolkien nerds alike hold it in high regard
Why I didn't: I only saw the first one, but I already know I couldn't deal with the other two. I think to fully enjoy them, you have to have a huge boner for the books, or at least the characters. I didn't. We read "The Hobbit" in 7th grade and I was not impressed (although I did deliver a stunning performance as Thorin in our class' movie adaptation). Also, I am not interested in movies with such an epic scope. Whether it's the Civil War or Middle Earth, I don't like wrapping my brain around that much in one movie. I prefer movies that focus on the lives of just a few people. When Return of the King won Best Picture in 2003, resulting in a united asthmatic wheeze of joy from nerds everywhere, I found it strange that among its numerous nominations, there was not a single acting nomination. How do you have a strong movie without good acting?
- My Fair Lady
Why I should have liked it: Won Best Picture and Best Actor, inclusion in the AFI Top 100, my undying love for musicals.
Why I didn't: The movie should really be called "An Hour of Audrey Hepburn Screaming, Followed By a Forced Love Story." Seriously, the beginning of this film made me want to honorably retire my ears. I get it, she's a Cockney flower girl - but I didn't know that "Cockney flower girl" was synonymous with "autistic indecipherable screaming bitch." Once Rex Harrison's character "tames" her, she falls for him. Because if there's one thing women love, it's men that spend months torturing and ridiculing them until they have proper grammar. At the end, AuHeps runs away, decides she loves him, and goes back, and then it ends with him telling her to get him his slippers. Great. A blissful life of chauvinistic domination awaits her. Oh, and did I mention that it's 3 hours long?
- The Sting
Why I should have liked it: It won Best Picture in 1973, and it stars Robert Redford and Paul Newman.
Why I didn't: I made it through about an hour. It's all fine and good, but I realized the problem - it has no oomph. It was in the drama section at the video store, but it's not dramatic. It's not that funny either. It's not really action-packed. It was just kind of matter-of-fact, like someone describing their day at work. That's not what I want from movies. Oh, and I think I was expecting Paul Newman to look as delicious as he did in the 1950s. Damn aging!
- Sideways
Why I should have liked it: I liked Alexander Payne's other directing work, Oscar for best adapted screenplay, seemingly indie and quirky.
Why I didn't: I saw this in the theater, and perhaps my impression of it is tainted because I was new to driving at the time and got terribly lost on the way home. Anyway, this must have come out amongst a sea of pure cinematic crap, because it got hailed as the most unique and indie thing of all time. It's not. Writer/director Alexander Payne is very hit or miss. He wrote the (adapted) screenplays for Election and About Schmidt...but he also wrote the screenplays for Jurassic Park III and some softcore porn. Hm. Thoms Haden Church's character is fun, but Paul Giamatti's character in this is just plain unlikeable. He's a grumpy, frumpy, whiny alcoholic. As we all know, women totally go gaga for men like that, and Maya (Virginia Madsen) is no exception. Except...no. That would never happen. The part where I really threw up in my mouth a little, though, is when Maya and Miles (Giamatti) are talking about pinot wine, during a Deep Moment of Mutual Sharing. What transpires here is a Blatant Comparison of Miles to Pinot As Written By A Developmentally Delayed Third Grader. "Only somebody who really takes the time to understand Pinot's potential can then coax it into its fullest expression"?!?! Oh wait, you guys, see, like, Miles is socially challenged, so I think A. Payne is actually talking about MILES here and saying you have to be patient with him or something. WHOA.
- Manhattan
Why I should have liked it: I like Woody Allen, and this is hailed as one of his best.
Why I didn't: I don't like watching Woody Allen carry on a relationship with a 17-year-old for two hours. It was just too creepy - and prophetic. Plus, the entire movie was just really depressing, but then Muriel Hemingway says some catchy happy bullshit at the very end and it's all better? Not.
- Vertigo
Why I should have liked it: I'd never met a Hitchcock movie I didn't like, it soared up the AFI list this time around.
Why I didn't: I don't know. Something just didn't click with me. I found the plot confusing, the characters unsympathetic, the ending weird. I know I am probably alone here.
So there you have it. I have probably made many enemies here today, but hopefully I've also made some friends who can sympathize with the feeling of not liking a popular movie. What movies tickle everyone's fancy but yours? Comments welcome, but please don't try to convert me to liking the above selections. Live and let live, people.
Wild Hogs Bonanza
At the video store I work at, the manager ordered 14 copies of the movie Wild Hogs.
Fourteen.
Let me give you a sense of scale here. We're not Blockbuster, we don't have 50-75 copies of the hottest new movie. We're small and independent. Some numbers for you:
- Norbit, which was a box office success and highly asked about in the months preceding its DVD release: 4 copies
- The Departed, which eventually won the Oscar for best picture, boasted an amazing cast and director, and had everyone from film snobs to grubby townies excited because it took place in Boston: 20 copies (I think 20 is our maximum)
So that puts Wild Hogs, which had been asked about to a moderate degree, nearly in a league with arguably the most popular movie ever to hit our store. None of the employees can explain this. There are just too many. One employee decided to have some fun with it.
This employee is usually rather quiet and serious, so I wouldn't expect this from him. His claimed that the maneuver was in the name of profit, but I think it was a dry sense of humor. He mentioned something about a Wild Hogs "section" that he organized. I went over to take a look, and found that he had arranged the copies to take up an entire shelf, and added the following sign:
Fourteen.
Let me give you a sense of scale here. We're not Blockbuster, we don't have 50-75 copies of the hottest new movie. We're small and independent. Some numbers for you:
- Norbit, which was a box office success and highly asked about in the months preceding its DVD release: 4 copies
- The Departed, which eventually won the Oscar for best picture, boasted an amazing cast and director, and had everyone from film snobs to grubby townies excited because it took place in Boston: 20 copies (I think 20 is our maximum)
So that puts Wild Hogs, which had been asked about to a moderate degree, nearly in a league with arguably the most popular movie ever to hit our store. None of the employees can explain this. There are just too many. One employee decided to have some fun with it.
This employee is usually rather quiet and serious, so I wouldn't expect this from him. His claimed that the maneuver was in the name of profit, but I think it was a dry sense of humor. He mentioned something about a Wild Hogs "section" that he organized. I went over to take a look, and found that he had arranged the copies to take up an entire shelf, and added the following sign:
August 17, 2007
Marquee Makeovers: Imaginary Re-Dos of Current and Recent Movies with Classic Directors
I'm not going to take the fatalistic approach of many self-appointed film scholars and say that modern-day cinema is all crap. It's not. I've seen some great movies this summer - why just a few days ago, Superbad renewed my faith in the teen sex comedy. (The fact that it was written by a 14-year-old Seth Rogen and his friend - and has writing that kicks the ass of most of its peers - is a huge slap in the face to Hollywood. But I digress.)
Having said that, there IS a lot of crap out there. For everyone who moans about the demise of artistic, meaningful cinema, I have news for you: mad scientists in a volcano somewhere have discovered that these here moving pictures make MONEY. Money can buy you toupees and sports cars so people will have sex with you. As aging Hollywood bigwigs do not wish to remain celibate, they make crap. I know this is the system, but still a little part of me dies whenever somebody rents Wild Hogs at the video store.
I can't change the system. But I can create fantasies in this blog. So, without further ado, I present to you my dream "marquee makeovers" - pairing classic, talented directors with recent craptastic movies to see if they couldn't fix em up a little.
1. License to Wed, as directed by Alfred Hitchcock
The real movie: Sadie (Mandy Moore) and Ben (John Krasinski) are engaged, but a wacky reverend (Robin Williams) insists on putting them through a series of tests to determine their readiness for marriage.
The Hitchcock version: Hitchcock once lamented that he was a typecast director, and that if he directed Cinderella, "the audience would immediately be looking for a body in the coach." Well, sorry, Hitch, it's gonna continue here. Lovely Sadie has a whirlwind romance with dashing Ben, a man with a mysterious past. Despite knowing little about him, she enthusiastically accepts when he proposes. Her family doesn't approve of the union, so to get their approval, she enlists the blessing of a local reverend who is new in town. He agrees to bless the couple and perform the wedding only if they undergo a series of tasks to prove their devotion. Unbeknownst to Sadie and Ben, this man is only posing as a reverend to hide from the police, as he is wanted for several murders! The reverend's tasks are just an excuse for him to monitor their every move. Meanwhile, Sadie's relationship with Ben has become strained, as he has started acting strange. He is fed up with the tasks and just wants to elope somewhere and begin anew. One day, Sadie goes to the reverend to discuss the tension in her relationship, and he suggests they go for a walk. Back at the house, Ben is reading the newspaper and there is a picture of the reverend and a headline describing him as a wanted killer. Realizing that his fiancee is alone with this madman, he races to the church. By now, the reverend has already led Sadie into the woods, so Ben runs around like mad trying to find them. He sees them in the woods and shoots the reverend dead. He explains it all to Sadie, and they go to the police. Except you never know if the reverend was really trying to kill them OMG!
2. Blades of Glory, as directed by Billy Wilder
The real movie: Chazz Michael Michaels (Will Ferrell) and Jimmy McElroy (Jon Heder) are figure skaters disqualified from competing in the mens' singles anymore, so they compete as a pairs team.
The Wilder movie: Billy Wilder takes you inside the cutthroat and ethically ambiguous world of men's figure skating. Chazz Michael Michaels used to be the figure skating king back in the day, but an aging body, a flurry of scandals and a love of liquor caused him to fall from grace. Jimmy McElroy is the new kid to the sport, unspoilt by its demanding nature. Despite his skill and youthful optimism, Jimmy doesn't make the cut for the Olympic men's singles competition. Chazz, desperate to get back in the game and reclaim his glory, pounces on the naive Jimmy and offers to defy convention and become a pairs team with him. Jimmy idolizes Chazz and accepts the offer immediately. The trouble is, the public doesn't want any more of Chazz, and their partnership starts to tarnish Jimmy's image. Jimmy realizes this, but dumping Chazz would mean sacrificing his spot in the Olympic team. He tries to wait it out, knowing he'll lose the dead weight immediately after and be a star in his own right. Chazz, meanwhile, realizes that his plan to use Jimmy has backfired, and seeks his revenge. At the Olympics, Chazz gets violently drunk and takes several pills before he is to compete. He is a disaster out on the ice, dropping Jimmy in almost every lift and causing him to be seriously injured. At the end of the routine, Chazz collapses dead from the drugs next to a stunned and wounded Jimmy.
3. I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, as directed by Woody Allen
The real movie: Chuck (Adam Sandler) and Larry (Kevin James) are two hetero firefighters who fake a domestic partnership for the benefits.
The Allen version: Chuck is Jewish, which is half the screenplay right there. Then add a lot of shots of New York. Then the two actually fall in love, and date for a while, but decide it won't work out.
4. Rush Hour 3 as directed by John Huston
The real movie: Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker are back, and now they're fighting the Chinese mafia in Paris or something. Whatever. Hey, isn't it funny that they have trouble understanding each other?
The Huston version: Chan and Tucker (does anyone even know their character names?) are jaded cops who reluctantly go to Paris despite fatigue and indifference. They're hunting for an enigmatic and charismatic mobster who is smuggling a valuable and stolen amulet across country borders. Their search takes them to the Swiss Alps, where they get lost among the terrain. There are signs that the mobster was there, but they are difficult to follow. The days are long and the pair engages in lots of intense dialogue about life. Chan starts to go kind of nuts and becomes suspicious that Tucker wants to kill him, so he runs away while Tucker sleeps to hunt the villains on his own. Tucker awakes and figures that the bad guys have captured his trusted partner, so he goes in heated pursuit. He encounters the mobster and his posse, who outnumber him and shoot him to death. Chan, meanwhile, sets up a complicated trap utilizing his natural surroundings, which the villains fall into nicely. Victorious, Chan delivers a scathing monologue to his captives, and then walks off into the sunset.
5. Evan Almighty as directed by Orson Welles (and yes, I am familiar with Welles' directing career outside of Citizen Kane)
The real movie: In this sequel to Bruce Almighty, God (Morgan Freeman) warns Evan (Steve Carrell) of an impending flood, and instructs him to build an ark, a la Noah.
The Welles version: Evan grew up poor, but has worked his way up and became a successful businessman. Now rich and arrogant, he believes that he begins to hear the voice of God telling him to build an ark. He does. He alienates his family and friends and becomes a huge jerk. But he also employs lots of people to help, and soon creates a thriving ark-building empire. The police get word of this profitable operation and decide to steal it from Evan and claim it as their own, because it's an Orson Welles movie so the cops are corrupt. Evan doesn't really notice this, because one of his workers has a femme-fatale-ish wife who hangs around all day and flirts shamelessly with Evan, who falls hard for her. They make secret plans to escape together on the ark. But then the woman's husband turns up dead, with Evan as the prime suspect. Scared for his life, he forgets all about the woman and runs away. He falls ill, and unable to seek medical attention because the police would surely find him then, he dies alone, leaving a trail of broken hearts and corruption. Did I mention that all of the above is shadowy and full of deep-focus cinematography?
What other good makeovers can you think of?
Having said that, there IS a lot of crap out there. For everyone who moans about the demise of artistic, meaningful cinema, I have news for you: mad scientists in a volcano somewhere have discovered that these here moving pictures make MONEY. Money can buy you toupees and sports cars so people will have sex with you. As aging Hollywood bigwigs do not wish to remain celibate, they make crap. I know this is the system, but still a little part of me dies whenever somebody rents Wild Hogs at the video store.
I can't change the system. But I can create fantasies in this blog. So, without further ado, I present to you my dream "marquee makeovers" - pairing classic, talented directors with recent craptastic movies to see if they couldn't fix em up a little.
1. License to Wed, as directed by Alfred Hitchcock
The real movie: Sadie (Mandy Moore) and Ben (John Krasinski) are engaged, but a wacky reverend (Robin Williams) insists on putting them through a series of tests to determine their readiness for marriage.
The Hitchcock version: Hitchcock once lamented that he was a typecast director, and that if he directed Cinderella, "the audience would immediately be looking for a body in the coach." Well, sorry, Hitch, it's gonna continue here. Lovely Sadie has a whirlwind romance with dashing Ben, a man with a mysterious past. Despite knowing little about him, she enthusiastically accepts when he proposes. Her family doesn't approve of the union, so to get their approval, she enlists the blessing of a local reverend who is new in town. He agrees to bless the couple and perform the wedding only if they undergo a series of tasks to prove their devotion. Unbeknownst to Sadie and Ben, this man is only posing as a reverend to hide from the police, as he is wanted for several murders! The reverend's tasks are just an excuse for him to monitor their every move. Meanwhile, Sadie's relationship with Ben has become strained, as he has started acting strange. He is fed up with the tasks and just wants to elope somewhere and begin anew. One day, Sadie goes to the reverend to discuss the tension in her relationship, and he suggests they go for a walk. Back at the house, Ben is reading the newspaper and there is a picture of the reverend and a headline describing him as a wanted killer. Realizing that his fiancee is alone with this madman, he races to the church. By now, the reverend has already led Sadie into the woods, so Ben runs around like mad trying to find them. He sees them in the woods and shoots the reverend dead. He explains it all to Sadie, and they go to the police. Except you never know if the reverend was really trying to kill them OMG!
2. Blades of Glory, as directed by Billy Wilder
The real movie: Chazz Michael Michaels (Will Ferrell) and Jimmy McElroy (Jon Heder) are figure skaters disqualified from competing in the mens' singles anymore, so they compete as a pairs team.
The Wilder movie: Billy Wilder takes you inside the cutthroat and ethically ambiguous world of men's figure skating. Chazz Michael Michaels used to be the figure skating king back in the day, but an aging body, a flurry of scandals and a love of liquor caused him to fall from grace. Jimmy McElroy is the new kid to the sport, unspoilt by its demanding nature. Despite his skill and youthful optimism, Jimmy doesn't make the cut for the Olympic men's singles competition. Chazz, desperate to get back in the game and reclaim his glory, pounces on the naive Jimmy and offers to defy convention and become a pairs team with him. Jimmy idolizes Chazz and accepts the offer immediately. The trouble is, the public doesn't want any more of Chazz, and their partnership starts to tarnish Jimmy's image. Jimmy realizes this, but dumping Chazz would mean sacrificing his spot in the Olympic team. He tries to wait it out, knowing he'll lose the dead weight immediately after and be a star in his own right. Chazz, meanwhile, realizes that his plan to use Jimmy has backfired, and seeks his revenge. At the Olympics, Chazz gets violently drunk and takes several pills before he is to compete. He is a disaster out on the ice, dropping Jimmy in almost every lift and causing him to be seriously injured. At the end of the routine, Chazz collapses dead from the drugs next to a stunned and wounded Jimmy.
3. I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, as directed by Woody Allen
The real movie: Chuck (Adam Sandler) and Larry (Kevin James) are two hetero firefighters who fake a domestic partnership for the benefits.
The Allen version: Chuck is Jewish, which is half the screenplay right there. Then add a lot of shots of New York. Then the two actually fall in love, and date for a while, but decide it won't work out.
4. Rush Hour 3 as directed by John Huston
The real movie: Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker are back, and now they're fighting the Chinese mafia in Paris or something. Whatever. Hey, isn't it funny that they have trouble understanding each other?
The Huston version: Chan and Tucker (does anyone even know their character names?) are jaded cops who reluctantly go to Paris despite fatigue and indifference. They're hunting for an enigmatic and charismatic mobster who is smuggling a valuable and stolen amulet across country borders. Their search takes them to the Swiss Alps, where they get lost among the terrain. There are signs that the mobster was there, but they are difficult to follow. The days are long and the pair engages in lots of intense dialogue about life. Chan starts to go kind of nuts and becomes suspicious that Tucker wants to kill him, so he runs away while Tucker sleeps to hunt the villains on his own. Tucker awakes and figures that the bad guys have captured his trusted partner, so he goes in heated pursuit. He encounters the mobster and his posse, who outnumber him and shoot him to death. Chan, meanwhile, sets up a complicated trap utilizing his natural surroundings, which the villains fall into nicely. Victorious, Chan delivers a scathing monologue to his captives, and then walks off into the sunset.
5. Evan Almighty as directed by Orson Welles (and yes, I am familiar with Welles' directing career outside of Citizen Kane)
The real movie: In this sequel to Bruce Almighty, God (Morgan Freeman) warns Evan (Steve Carrell) of an impending flood, and instructs him to build an ark, a la Noah.
The Welles version: Evan grew up poor, but has worked his way up and became a successful businessman. Now rich and arrogant, he believes that he begins to hear the voice of God telling him to build an ark. He does. He alienates his family and friends and becomes a huge jerk. But he also employs lots of people to help, and soon creates a thriving ark-building empire. The police get word of this profitable operation and decide to steal it from Evan and claim it as their own, because it's an Orson Welles movie so the cops are corrupt. Evan doesn't really notice this, because one of his workers has a femme-fatale-ish wife who hangs around all day and flirts shamelessly with Evan, who falls hard for her. They make secret plans to escape together on the ark. But then the woman's husband turns up dead, with Evan as the prime suspect. Scared for his life, he forgets all about the woman and runs away. He falls ill, and unable to seek medical attention because the police would surely find him then, he dies alone, leaving a trail of broken hearts and corruption. Did I mention that all of the above is shadowy and full of deep-focus cinematography?
What other good makeovers can you think of?
August 16, 2007
MUSICAL TALENT ALERT
So I know that people who read my blog are movie nerds. Well, here's hoping that you're music nerds too! For you see, dear readers, my boyfriend happens to be a part of a talented music group that just finished their new album, and it is my girlfriendly duty to inform you of this. It's hiphop, but it's hiphop that even non-hiphop lovers can appreciate. They don't rap about bitches and hos over dirrrty Southern beats, but rather compose thoughtful and clever rhymes about life, love and music over beats that could stand on their own. So head on down to http://myspace.com/lyricalcollective and give their first three singles a listen. (I'll know if you do, because I get up-to-the-minute reports about how many plays they've gotten courtesy of my ecstatic bf.)
July 25, 2007
The Super Sweet 16 Movie: A Review
Generally speaking, films can usually fall into one of the following four categories: great, good, mediocre, and bad. Obviously there are shades of grey, but usually one of those descriptions will fit. There is, however, an ominous fifth category that must be mentioned separately from the rest: the abominable. These are the movies that do for cinema what Hitler did for Germany. And among those is Super Sweet 16: The Movie.
Evidence of this movie's putrid staying power is that I saw it several weeks ago, and it keeps creeping back into my brain, like some kind of campy B-movie monster. I should probably give the justification for why I saw it: I was at my boyfriend's house, where about 19 trillion different channels are available for our viewing pleasure. We were channel surfing and came upon this, and couldn't look away - it was like a car wreck. I expected it to be like the show. For those of you who don't know, "My Super Sweet 16" is a reality show on MTV that chronicles psychotically bratty and spoiled teens in their quest to have LIKE OMG THE BEST SWEET 16 PARTY EVAR. It's addictive, it's disturbing, and after watching it you feel like you just ate ten pounds of fast food. So naturally I expected the movie version to be a 90-minute edition of the 30-minute show, where they had found some superbrat to fill the time. I was wrong.
Super Sweet 16: The Movie is cast and scripted. I honestly don't know if that's better or worse. Probably worse, because the antics of these particular teens have screenwriters and directors to be blamed. I should also clarify that I only saw between a half and three-quarters of the movie, but it was the latter half/three-quarters, so all I really missed was the introductory parts and thus I can safely consider myself a scholar on the subject.
I should further note that I am not biased against this genre going in. I often find guilty pleasure in made-for-TV movies starring sugary teen stars and aimed at 12-year-olds. Hell, I've seen Cadet Kelly at least five times, which aired on the Disney Channel and features Hilary Duff going to boot camp. But maybe I just like the idea of Hilary Duff going to boot camp.
So in this "film," apparently there are two girls that are BFF. I didn't see the very beginning, which probably features a montage of them being BFFy, but damn, if this isn't the most contrived friendship I've ever seen. One of the girls is black, which I mention because the other one looks and seems like she comes from a super-Aryan colony that has never seen a minority and would ostracize anyone with even a slight tan. So they have the same birthday, which they usually celebrate together, but some shit went down and now they're having competing parties on the same day. One of the stupid ways this sense of competition is shown is a scene where the two girls and their respective posses are distributing invitations, and keep making more grandiose claims in order to lure the crowd to their side. The fickle nature of the throbbing mass of high-schoolers is shown as a wacky, fast-motion montage to goofy music where they keep racing back and forth between the two sides as the party promises get bigger and better. WE GET IT.
The Obligatory Quasi-Celebrity Role here goes to Debra Wilson, most notable for her long run on MAD TV. She's also done voice work for respectable outlets such as Over the Hedge and "Clone High." But she also hosted the World's Ugliest Dog Competition (no joke), so maybe her career is in more trouble than I thought. Apparently the paycheck from that wasn't big enough to keep her from gravitating to this disaster, for which she isn't even credited on IMDB (smart woman). She plays a truly obnoxious party planner who gets one of the girls' parties to be on a boat. It's all very sad.
The Obligatory Dreamy Blond Spiky-Haired Love Interest in this case is named Shannon. They also opted to make him a Sensitive Filmmaker Type. You know the character of Ricky in American Beauty? Imagine a wholesome, less creepy, neutered blond version of that. So naturally the Aryan girl (Sara) is like totally in love with him. In one hilarious scene, they go on a date, and she gets super dressed up and primped, and then they end up going to Chili's. Yes, Chili's. It goes beyond mere product placement, however, as every third line in this scene is one of them commenting on how amazing the food at Chili's is. They even start describing the menu items in detail. It's bizarre. Shit gets even more surreal when Shannon busts out his laptop and starts showing the girl pictures of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Wait, WHAT?
Yes. But she kind of ignores it and keeps talking about her party. TRANSLATION FOR STUPID AUDIENCE: She's shallow. But the Hurricane Katrina theme doesn't stop there. Sensitive Blond Filmmaker Boy, who has been endowed with a sense of worldly wisdom and justice at 16, sends both of the feuding girls a dramatic slideshow of post-Katrina pictures with emo music. And then they feel shallow and cancel their parties.
Yes. I could not make this up.
Except the black girl (Jacquie) can't cancel her party because so much money went into it, so she has to have it anyway, but feels bad. (Sara's dad is understanding, because he is a pro wrestler. Dead serious). So Jacquie makes it a joint party with Sara, because somehow Hurricane Katrina fixed their friendship. Their relationship is salvaged in a scene where the Sara brings Jacquie ice cream, and they eat it together despite Sara stating at least 97 times prior to this moment that SHE'S A VEGAN. Vegans can't eat ice cream, and it was specifically Ben and Jerry's, which to my knowledge does not have any soy products. Awesome. So then I guess Jacquie wants to be a fashion designer, which is convenient, because her mom inexplicably has Beyonce's mom on speed dial. (Beyonce's mom Tina is, both in the movie and real life, an established designer.) So Jacquie's mom calls Beyonce's mom and asks her to turn Jacquie's sketches into the real thing, so their joint party ultimately becomes a fashion show for charity. They invite some random orphans or something to the party, which is pretty weird because everyone else is a teenager and some rap group is performing. During this performance, my boyfriend astutely pointed out that the editor of this movie was awful, because he felt the need to put a cross-dissolve between virtually every cut, which quickly makes the viewer nauseous. And then Beyonce's mom appears as herself, and has a few filler lines. And Shannon and Sara make out in front of a lot of people - ew. You really couldn't supress your passion for the 8 seconds it would take to get to the bathroom or something?
The ending, though, completely contradicts all of the prior Katrina-induced do-gooder-ness. At the end of an episode of the show, the parents inevitably lead their crazed spawn outside to see their BRAND-NEW SHINY PORSCHE! So we get to that point in the movie, where the girls are led outside to see a van decked out with the name of the charity they started. That's nice. They're happy. But then you see that behind the van are TWO BRAND-NEW SHINY PORSCHES! (Or some other equally high-end vehicle). And then the girls scream a lot and then the movie ends.
I learned a lot from this movie. I learned anything is possible when your mom is tight with Beyonce's mom. I learned that you can make people immediately cease to be shallow if you show them aftermath pictures of natural disasters. I learned that Chili's has really great food and that somehow it's okay for vegans to eat ice cream. But above all, the only thing that really matters is that at the end of the day, you have a shiny new car.
(For a ridiculous article where the stars of the movie talk about how it will bring world peace, click here.)
July 16, 2007
Should Portrayals of Real People Have Their Own Oscar Category?
Let's look at two of this year's Oscar nominees for Best Actress: Helen Mirren as Queen Elizabeth II in The Queen and Penelope Cruz as Raimunda in Volver. Both were outstanding performances by talented actresses in great movies. There is one major difference, however: Mirren played someone who really exists, while Cruz did not. By pitting these two performances against each other, was the Academy comparing apples to oranges?
There has been a surge of actors winning golden statues for playing real people in recent years: Charlize Theron as Aileen Wuornos in Monster, Reese Witherspoon as June Carter Cash in Walk the Line, Forest Whitaker as Idi Amin in The Last King of Scotland, Cate Blanchett as Katharine Hepburn in The Aviator, Philip Seymour Hoffman as Truman Capote in Capote, Russell Crowe as John Nash in A Beautiful Mind, Julia Roberts as Erin Brockovich in the film of the same title, Nicole Kidman as Virginia Woolf in The Hours, and on and on and on. That's only (some of) the winners - there's also been a marked increase in nominees.
I don't know why this is. Maybe it was the rise of Method acting in the 50s and 60s - to really get into the character, do what they would do, etc. Before that, it was more about Cary Grant being Cary Grant and Clark Gable being Clark Gable. I am reminded of an article I read once which claimed that two types of people populate the silver screen: actors and stars. An example given of an actor was Meryl Streep, which is a good choice: she's very versatile, and when you picture her, you don't immediately connect her to a particular role or type of role. A star is someone who just always plays him or herself, but the audience loves it anyway. They gave the example of Jack Nicholson. From The Shining to As Good as it Gets, Jack is always Jack. The Academy doesn't look as favorably upon stars anymore. They want you to pile on pounds, an accent, and an attitude and play someone completely unlike yourself. Cary Grant can't play, say, a dictator very well if he's still playing Cary Grant.
That still doesn't solve the problem, though. The character of Raimunda may not be very much like Penelope Cruz. I can't explain the phenomenon of this increase, but I can explain the psychology of gravitating to these performances. It's simple: the comparison factor.
Judgment of acting is a very nebulous thing. But when you're comparing a portrayal against a real person, it offers some kind of scale. If Philip Seymour Hoffman walks and talks like just like Truman Capote, then clearly he nailed the role. Cate Blanchett mastered Hepburn's distinctive accent, Forest Whitaker could go batshit crazy with the same ferocity of Amin. In these cases, acting can be measured quantitatively.
The problem with this is that it can deteriorate into an impression contest. "OMG, Nicole Kidman looked and sounded JUST LIKE Virginia Woolf, give her an Oscar for that!" Obviously, this is not a conscious stream of thought in the mind of Academy voters, but I feel like it might be subconscious.
It should also be noted that biopics aren't made about just anybody. Filmmakers seek out the juiciest stories that actors would claw out each other's eyes to star in. I feel like the lead in Monster was just an Oscar waiting to happen. Of course Theron did a good job, but I really think any other talented actress working today could have brought home the gold for playing an ugly, scary, lesbian prostitute serial killer. The Academy eats that shit up.
So here's the dilemma. Can roles that are hand-picked for juiciness and able to be measured quantitatively justly compete against ones that aren't? I don't think it's fair. If you're judging a costume contest and one of the finalists is dressed to look exactly like a famous person, and the other is wearing some impressive abstract thing, you're probably going to be biased towards the former, based on the recognition factor. It won't matter how amazing the abstract one is. Is it fair to judge these together?
God knows the Oscar ceremony is long enough already. But perhaps a "Best Performance Based on a Real Person" category could encompass both male and female, or both lead and supporting.
What do you think?
There has been a surge of actors winning golden statues for playing real people in recent years: Charlize Theron as Aileen Wuornos in Monster, Reese Witherspoon as June Carter Cash in Walk the Line, Forest Whitaker as Idi Amin in The Last King of Scotland, Cate Blanchett as Katharine Hepburn in The Aviator, Philip Seymour Hoffman as Truman Capote in Capote, Russell Crowe as John Nash in A Beautiful Mind, Julia Roberts as Erin Brockovich in the film of the same title, Nicole Kidman as Virginia Woolf in The Hours, and on and on and on. That's only (some of) the winners - there's also been a marked increase in nominees.
I don't know why this is. Maybe it was the rise of Method acting in the 50s and 60s - to really get into the character, do what they would do, etc. Before that, it was more about Cary Grant being Cary Grant and Clark Gable being Clark Gable. I am reminded of an article I read once which claimed that two types of people populate the silver screen: actors and stars. An example given of an actor was Meryl Streep, which is a good choice: she's very versatile, and when you picture her, you don't immediately connect her to a particular role or type of role. A star is someone who just always plays him or herself, but the audience loves it anyway. They gave the example of Jack Nicholson. From The Shining to As Good as it Gets, Jack is always Jack. The Academy doesn't look as favorably upon stars anymore. They want you to pile on pounds, an accent, and an attitude and play someone completely unlike yourself. Cary Grant can't play, say, a dictator very well if he's still playing Cary Grant.
That still doesn't solve the problem, though. The character of Raimunda may not be very much like Penelope Cruz. I can't explain the phenomenon of this increase, but I can explain the psychology of gravitating to these performances. It's simple: the comparison factor.
Judgment of acting is a very nebulous thing. But when you're comparing a portrayal against a real person, it offers some kind of scale. If Philip Seymour Hoffman walks and talks like just like Truman Capote, then clearly he nailed the role. Cate Blanchett mastered Hepburn's distinctive accent, Forest Whitaker could go batshit crazy with the same ferocity of Amin. In these cases, acting can be measured quantitatively.
The problem with this is that it can deteriorate into an impression contest. "OMG, Nicole Kidman looked and sounded JUST LIKE Virginia Woolf, give her an Oscar for that!" Obviously, this is not a conscious stream of thought in the mind of Academy voters, but I feel like it might be subconscious.
It should also be noted that biopics aren't made about just anybody. Filmmakers seek out the juiciest stories that actors would claw out each other's eyes to star in. I feel like the lead in Monster was just an Oscar waiting to happen. Of course Theron did a good job, but I really think any other talented actress working today could have brought home the gold for playing an ugly, scary, lesbian prostitute serial killer. The Academy eats that shit up.
So here's the dilemma. Can roles that are hand-picked for juiciness and able to be measured quantitatively justly compete against ones that aren't? I don't think it's fair. If you're judging a costume contest and one of the finalists is dressed to look exactly like a famous person, and the other is wearing some impressive abstract thing, you're probably going to be biased towards the former, based on the recognition factor. It won't matter how amazing the abstract one is. Is it fair to judge these together?
God knows the Oscar ceremony is long enough already. But perhaps a "Best Performance Based on a Real Person" category could encompass both male and female, or both lead and supporting.
What do you think?
June 28, 2007
Top 10 Most Memorable Dinner Table Scenes
Ah, the dinner table. It is a place for a family to sit down together, enjoy a nice meal, and...display superpowers? Eat their own brain? Call their guests Hitler? Learn about homosexuality? No? Okay, then that's probably what makes these dinner-table-centric movies so memorable. For this list, I created very specific criteria. First, the dinner had to be in someone's home - I realized that memorable restaurant scenes are a whole other bag. Second, the meal had to specifically be dinner. And finally, people had to actually sit down and consume food. Okay, in no particular order:
1. American Beauty. This movie served as an end-of-the-century reminder that the suburbs are still really fucked up. In this scene, the all-American motif of the family dinner table becomes a frantic - and hilarious -war zone. Mom Carolyn wants to know what her husband Lester was thinking when he quit his job, daughter Janie just wants to leave, and Lester wants respect - and someone to pass the asparagus.
2. Borat. Which is less appropriate to bring to the dinner table: a prostitute or a bag of feces? Lovably inept and vulgar Borat Sagdiyev brings both during his fancy dinner with Southern socialites. It's a riot to watch Sacha Baron Cohen pretending to be this outrageous figure in order to elicit genuine responses from people stranger than fiction. This clip is only part of it, but you get the idea.
3. The Incredibles. Kinda like the American Beauty scene, this is just your average depiction of a suburban family - oh, except they're superheroes. Bob's super strength causes him to cut the table when trying to cut his son's steak, and then the kids get in a fight using all their powers which ends with their elastic mom holding them under the table. The only clip I could find is dubbed with subtitles, for some reason.
4. I Heart Huckabees. I saw this movie a while back and under regrettable hookup circumstances, so I don't remember much of it. Some Googling brought me back to the great dinner scene though, where Mark Wahlberg and Jason Schwartzmann's characters have dinner with the family of the mysterious man they have been seeing everywhere. The family's hyper-religious views clash badly with the liberal, esoteric ideas that their guests bring to the table, and eventually they get kicked out. I think I just adore Marky Mark and his incredible scene-stealing abilities (see also: The Departed).
5. Annie Hall. I know that this movie is on every Top 5 or 10 list I make, but whatever, it's a fuckin good movie. Alvy spends Easter with Annie's family, and the dinner is tremendously awkward, including one shot from Grammy Hall's point of view where Alvy is decked out like an Orthodox Jew. Then it cuts to a split screen comparing what Alvy and Annie's families do for the holidays (Alvy's: fast and bicker). I couldn't find the clip, but if you haven't seen this movie, get thee to a video store!
6. Little Miss Sunshine. From the second the harried mother plops the takeout fried chicken on the table, we know this is not going to be a peaceful meal. Grandpa doesn't want chicken again, uncle Frank just tried to commit suicide after being jilted by another man, Dad's business is still a failure, and Dwayne is just sullen and silent as usual. Seven-year-old Olive inquires about Frank's problem, leading her to learn about suicide and homosexuality in one sitting. There is a bright side though - Olive learns she's made it to the next round of the titular Little Miss Sunshine pageant. The only clip I could find is Grandpa bitching about the chicken, but Alan Arkin won an Oscar. Respect.
7. Hannibal. Yeah, the movie was kinda lame, and I watched it before my official banning of all horror movies from my cinematic diet. But the final scene had me in a state of horror and mindfuck for quite a while. It's dinnertime with Dr. Lecter, which is never a good thing for nearby humans, and tonight's entree is the brain of one of the guests, played by Ray Liotta. I guess Hannibal removes the part of the part responsible for freaking out if someone removes part of your brain, because Ray is just sitting there, smiling absently. And then, Hannibal feeds him his own brain. I will repeat that. HANNIBAL FEEDS HIM HIS OWN BRAIN OMG. And he likes it. Ew. Fun fact: some of the shots in this scene used an animatronic Ray Liotta puppet, and in the final cut even Liotta has confessed to not knowing the difference. I want that on my resume: Animatronic Ray Liotta Puppet Maker. Be warned: the clip is really gross.
8. Wedding Crashers. Dinner and a handjob? Yeah, it's kind of an unorthodox combo, but Vince Vaughn's character really has no say in the matter as fem-unit Gloria suddenly starts to vigorously massage his crotch during a family dinner. This movie scene is not going to cure cancer, but it's slapstick and awkward comedy in its purest form. Oh, and Grandma calls Eleanor Roosevelt "a real rug muncher."
9. Rope. This film toys with the definition of "dinner table," because in this case, dinner is served on a wooden chest containing the dead body of the man that all the guests have in common. The first scene of the film is Brandon and Philip strangling David to death, because they can. Then, just to be sneaky and pat themselves on the back for being so badass, they host a dinner party inviting all of David's nearest and dearest. Philip starts to crack with anxiety, and Brandon's overconfidence starts to look suspicious. It's hard to isolate just one clip here, because dinner takes up at least a third of this short-ish movie. But yeah, you should watch it, because it's Hitchcock and it's good and it has Jimmy Stewart in it.
10. The Gold Rush. I saved the happiest for last. This scene is unabashedly delightful, and I don't just throw around the word "delightful." It's Chaplin in top form, when he has some lady friends over for dinner and entertains them with dinner rolls. It sounds weird, but it's hilarious and brilliant. This scene was so popular in theaters that some projectionists would rewind it and play it again. There's another notable dinner scene in this film as well, when the Tramp eats his own boot out of hunger (for shooting, the boot was made of licorice).
June 23, 2007
Top 10 Nontraditional Happy Endings to Movies
Sometimes, you just gotta have a big ol Hollywood happy ending - kill the villain, kiss the heroine, say something suave, fade out. But often that's not good enough, and so frequently when watching movies, the endings disappoint me. I was really into The Departed until the last 10 minutes, for example, which left a sour taste in my mouth that I retroactively applied to the whole film. Endings are a big deal, and I worry that directors and screenwriters don't pay as much attention to them sometimes as they do to the beginning and middle. So I started compiling a list of my favorite endings of all time, and realized that I had a bias towards nontraditional happy endings. There are some twist endings I like, some really ambiguous ones I like, but most seem to fall into the previously mentioned category. Sometimes the hero gets the girl, sometimes not, and not everybody wins, but you walk away feeling good - at least content. So here's my list. Oh, and obviously:
**********************************MAJOR SPOILERS ABOUND*************************************
* The star indicates that this ending made me cry. I'm a sucker.
1. Fargo. One of the most heartwarming and understated endings imaginable. Before I saw this movie beginning to end, it was on TV, and a friend of mine declared that Marge and Norm Gunderson have one of the best relationships ever, which is definitely true. After crazy days of bloody murders and wood chippers, pregnant police chief Marge comes home to discover that her stay-at-home husband has won a bird-drawing contest and his mallard is being featured on a 3-cent stamp, and she congratulates him wholeheartedly. Then her husband happily rubs her pregnant stomach. It's effective precisely because it is so different from the rest of the movie.
2. Gone With the Wind. For such a blockbuster, it had a decidedly un-blockbuster-ish ending, probably because it was based on a novel. Rhett Butler famously tells Scarlett O'Hara that he doesn't give a damn what she does, while she tearfully begs him not to leave her after treating him like shit for years. She doesn't know what to do, but then she gets that glint in her eyes again, declares she'll think of a way to get him back, and says a terrific mantra: "After all, tomorrow is another day!" And you'll know she'll get what she wants, because she always does. If GWTW had been made today, they'd probably be hard at work on a sequel, but here's a film that knew when to stop.
3. Annie Hall. Long story short: he doesn't get the girl. But it's okay. Alvy is at first hopelessly depressed after the breakup, but moves on with his life and recounts his final meeting with the titular Annie in a voiceover after the characters have left the screen. He makes peace with their relationship and says that it was great just to know her, and says that, like the man who refused to turn in his brother who thought himself to be a chicken, relationships are totally irrational, but we go through it because we "need the eggs."
4. The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Andy loses his virginity. Then he breaks out into a rousing version of the song "Aquarius," and the whole cast joins him. Illogical, and perfect.
5. *The Apartment. Fran runs away from the man that causes her constant unhappiness, and heads for the apartment of nice guy Baxter, who has given up all hopes of being with her. Eschewing the traditional seal-with-a-kiss, though, that brilliant bastard Billy Wilder has Fran insist, over Baxter's "wtf-are-you-doing-here / omg I love you" exclamations, that they finish a gin rummy game they began weeks ago. The last line of the film is Fran saying "Shut up and deal" (the cards).
6. *Little Miss Sunshine. Over the course of their road trip to Olive's little-girl beauty pageant, every member of her crew has had something horrible happen to them: her parents' relationship gets worse, her brother realizes he can't become a pilot, her uncle is generally miserable, and her grandpa dies of a drug overdose. And when Olive begins her racy dance for the talent portion, her family realizes that something horrible could happen to her too. So they all jump onstage and dance with her, letting go of all their problems and issues with each other. It's hilarious, but touching. The family gets banned from attending any more pageants, but they drive away looking content.
7. Casablanca. Of course. Rick lets Ilsa leave on the plane OMG SACRIFICE. But he gets Claude Rains as a consolation prize, which is pretty cool.
8. *The Squid and the Whale. Some people say this ending is pretentious; I disagree. I absolutely love this movie because it's pretty much the exact story of my life in terms of my parents' divorce, but it's also hilarious and well-written. One of the major themes is the story of older brother Walt's "redemption" - that is, coming to terms with his identity post-divorce and forgiving his mother. The title refers to the exhibit he would visit with his mother at the Museum of Natural History, which he would always be afraid to look at. So the ending consists of Walt running epically to the museum and staring at it, to the beat of the awesome "Street Hassle" by Lou Reed. It's a minimalist way of saying that everything is gonna be alright.
9. *Lost in Translation. Bob and Charlotte form a special connection in Tokyo, despite their significant others. When it comes time for them to leave, they kiss, hug, and part ways forever. Bob also whispers something in Charlotte's ear, which is impossible to hear, but was actually recently revealed to most likely be, "I love you. Don't forget to always tell the truth." Allegedly, the kiss was also improvised in the heat of the moment while filming. Those two bits of trivia, discovered just now on IMDB, make this ending even better.
10. The Great Dictator. A satire of WWII before it even really happened? Charlie Chaplin was always cutting edge. And true to form, this movie provides plenty of laughs. But it gets serious at the end. Having been mistaken for dictator Adenoid Hynkel (also played by Chaplin), the unnamed Jewish barber takes the opportunity in front of a microphone to deliver an eloquent 10-minute speech about how men have to love and respect each other. I can't do it justice - the whole speech can be read here. He ends this address, being broadcast on the radio, with a personal message to his companion Hannah, telling her literally and figuratively to "look up." If it seems like a random ending, know that Chaplin in real life was a big pacifist whose liberal leanings did not sit well with the government. It suits the film, and also has a Big Message.
**********************************MAJOR SPOILERS ABOUND*************************************
* The star indicates that this ending made me cry. I'm a sucker.
1. Fargo. One of the most heartwarming and understated endings imaginable. Before I saw this movie beginning to end, it was on TV, and a friend of mine declared that Marge and Norm Gunderson have one of the best relationships ever, which is definitely true. After crazy days of bloody murders and wood chippers, pregnant police chief Marge comes home to discover that her stay-at-home husband has won a bird-drawing contest and his mallard is being featured on a 3-cent stamp, and she congratulates him wholeheartedly. Then her husband happily rubs her pregnant stomach. It's effective precisely because it is so different from the rest of the movie.
2. Gone With the Wind. For such a blockbuster, it had a decidedly un-blockbuster-ish ending, probably because it was based on a novel. Rhett Butler famously tells Scarlett O'Hara that he doesn't give a damn what she does, while she tearfully begs him not to leave her after treating him like shit for years. She doesn't know what to do, but then she gets that glint in her eyes again, declares she'll think of a way to get him back, and says a terrific mantra: "After all, tomorrow is another day!" And you'll know she'll get what she wants, because she always does. If GWTW had been made today, they'd probably be hard at work on a sequel, but here's a film that knew when to stop.
3. Annie Hall. Long story short: he doesn't get the girl. But it's okay. Alvy is at first hopelessly depressed after the breakup, but moves on with his life and recounts his final meeting with the titular Annie in a voiceover after the characters have left the screen. He makes peace with their relationship and says that it was great just to know her, and says that, like the man who refused to turn in his brother who thought himself to be a chicken, relationships are totally irrational, but we go through it because we "need the eggs."
4. The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Andy loses his virginity. Then he breaks out into a rousing version of the song "Aquarius," and the whole cast joins him. Illogical, and perfect.
5. *The Apartment. Fran runs away from the man that causes her constant unhappiness, and heads for the apartment of nice guy Baxter, who has given up all hopes of being with her. Eschewing the traditional seal-with-a-kiss, though, that brilliant bastard Billy Wilder has Fran insist, over Baxter's "wtf-are-you-doing-here / omg I love you" exclamations, that they finish a gin rummy game they began weeks ago. The last line of the film is Fran saying "Shut up and deal" (the cards).
6. *Little Miss Sunshine. Over the course of their road trip to Olive's little-girl beauty pageant, every member of her crew has had something horrible happen to them: her parents' relationship gets worse, her brother realizes he can't become a pilot, her uncle is generally miserable, and her grandpa dies of a drug overdose. And when Olive begins her racy dance for the talent portion, her family realizes that something horrible could happen to her too. So they all jump onstage and dance with her, letting go of all their problems and issues with each other. It's hilarious, but touching. The family gets banned from attending any more pageants, but they drive away looking content.
7. Casablanca. Of course. Rick lets Ilsa leave on the plane OMG SACRIFICE. But he gets Claude Rains as a consolation prize, which is pretty cool.
8. *The Squid and the Whale. Some people say this ending is pretentious; I disagree. I absolutely love this movie because it's pretty much the exact story of my life in terms of my parents' divorce, but it's also hilarious and well-written. One of the major themes is the story of older brother Walt's "redemption" - that is, coming to terms with his identity post-divorce and forgiving his mother. The title refers to the exhibit he would visit with his mother at the Museum of Natural History, which he would always be afraid to look at. So the ending consists of Walt running epically to the museum and staring at it, to the beat of the awesome "Street Hassle" by Lou Reed. It's a minimalist way of saying that everything is gonna be alright.
9. *Lost in Translation. Bob and Charlotte form a special connection in Tokyo, despite their significant others. When it comes time for them to leave, they kiss, hug, and part ways forever. Bob also whispers something in Charlotte's ear, which is impossible to hear, but was actually recently revealed to most likely be, "I love you. Don't forget to always tell the truth." Allegedly, the kiss was also improvised in the heat of the moment while filming. Those two bits of trivia, discovered just now on IMDB, make this ending even better.
10. The Great Dictator. A satire of WWII before it even really happened? Charlie Chaplin was always cutting edge. And true to form, this movie provides plenty of laughs. But it gets serious at the end. Having been mistaken for dictator Adenoid Hynkel (also played by Chaplin), the unnamed Jewish barber takes the opportunity in front of a microphone to deliver an eloquent 10-minute speech about how men have to love and respect each other. I can't do it justice - the whole speech can be read here. He ends this address, being broadcast on the radio, with a personal message to his companion Hannah, telling her literally and figuratively to "look up." If it seems like a random ending, know that Chaplin in real life was a big pacifist whose liberal leanings did not sit well with the government. It suits the film, and also has a Big Message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)