Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Happy/Merry 25th of December!

In the spirit of the day, here are two old posts from last year--two movies that, every December, find a way into both my DVD player and my heart. Enjoy.



THE SNOWMAN (Raymond Briggs/Dianne Jackson, 1982)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

One settles in to watch this short as a lighthearted holiday short, a 26-minute piece of children's fluff which will allow parents a moment of respite from the squalor that is the anticipation of Christmas. But The Snowman is not so ordinary. Its animation is coarse and rough-hewn, imitative of Raymond Brigg's illustrative style in his eponymous book. It's pantomimed, the music taking on a Prokofiev-like character. All of this is certainly intriguing, but in the grand picture, these qualities do not set it apart all that drastically.

What makes The Snowman one of the most (if not the most) devastating children's films ever is composer Howard Blake's central theme, used in three strategic locations: over the opening credits, the middle sequence when the boy and the snowman are flying over the northern hemisphere, and the closing credits. The film's first shot--a man walks across a barren clearing, narrating about a particularly snowy day in his childhood, and then melts into an animated crane shot over a snowy landscape--is bleak, but alluring. The music haunts and engages, but does not overpower; it merely suggests. In the middle sequence, a boy sings the song "Walking in the Air" as flight over the world marks the first transformative steps of the boy into adulthood. The theme is now rapturous, full of passion and possibility.

But the circle of the boy's mature awakening comes to a close in the final moments, when the boy leaves his house the next morning to see the snowman. What he discovers, however, is but a pile of snow and tattered clothing. He has witnessed death first-hand; he is no longer a child. Jackson doesn't leave any room for sentiment or tenderness. The film cuts away from the boy immediately after his discovery, cranes up, and fades into the all-consuming whiteness of the ground. The theme re-enters. This time, it is the harbinger of death, the melody of a heart discovering that it can be broken. Innocence is lost, experience remains. It is brutal, honest, terrifying, full of pathos, and beautiful. Death's inevitability and the loss of innocence has rarely been rendered so powerfully.



Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Home Alone: The Wondrous Terror of the Forbidden


What creatures haunt the inner recesses of the Child’s subconscious? Are we to believe that the agony and the ecstasy of freedom from the chains of the womb are truly one and the same? Is a freed tarantula the most poetic expression of vagina dentata the cinema has yet to produce? John Hughes and Chris Columbus dared to pose these questions, and found heart-breaking triumph in the face of Innocence itself: Macaulay Culkin.

Home Alone may be the most frightening and euphoric film about the awakening of adulthood because it refuses to shy away from manifesting those fears and joys in the external, always impressing upon us that demons lurk among us, and if one looks hard enough, you will always find them. For life is joy and terror, agony and ecstasy; the two are always coupled, and can emerge from the same source. Young Kevin McAllister, in being abandoned inside the cavern that is his suburban home, is ripped from the uterus of his overbearing mother for the first time, and must finally come to grips with life. The Munchian scream he utters while applying aftershave is his awakening of the Other in the Mirror. He goes grocery shopping; he eats ice cream for dinner; he battles criminals. All of these are fantastic expressions of the banal, symbols for Kevin’s transformation, his becoming.

And then there is Candy. O Candy, where be your gibes now, your gambols? You are the angel that awakens the transformation in the Mother, the recognition of a similar transformation, that the womb must no longer be a prison. Only then can the Mother and the Child reconcile themselves to each other. And it is the long quest, the night drive from Scranton to Chicago with the Polka Kings of the Midwest, which allows this to occur. Candy, you are Rilke’s spirit of Duino, facilitating but never participating, awakening the inner spirit but never actively engaging.

And what of the demons which emerge from the comforting shadows of police officers to be the terrors of the McMansions of suburban Chicago? Pesci and Stern are failed men, men of frustration and desperation, lashing out at the very forces which have smothered their hopes and dreams. Of course, they are the things which have emerged from Kevin’s soul, making one wonder: are these the secret manifestations of Kevin’s true fear, oppression of the spirit in the face of the modern capitalist system?

From every pore, the world of fear and displacement teems with life: the curmudgeonly Uncle Frank; the evil brother Buzz; the understanding father, the introduction of Big Pete to the rest of the world. And when what Kevin believed to be the true evil–Old Man Marley–is revealed to be his angel of awakening, then the climax of euphoria, the violent purge of the real demons, can commence. And Kevin is thus freed to rejoin Life. It never ceases to take the breath away, and electrify one with the wondrous terror of the Forbidden.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Film Critics Might Know Something.

This is a response to Richard Corliss's recent piece in TIME Magazine, Do Film Critics Know Anything?


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket


Now having read Richard Corliss’s piece on the state of film critics’ awards ceremonies twice over, I am even more baffled than the first time I parsed through the thing. Corliss, one of TIME Magazine’s two film critics and a former editor for Film Comment, laments the fact that time and again, film critics associations declare very obscure, very little-seen films as the very best of the year. Case in point: as of today, the film critics associations of New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Washington DC, and the National Board of Review have all declared either the Coen brothers’ No Country for Old Men or Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will Be Blood to be the best film of the year. (The New York Online Film Critics split their vote between Blood and Julian Schnabel’s The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, but more on that film later.) No Country has only grossed $28 million in 5 weeks of release, and There Will Be Blood hasn’t even opened yet. Ben Affleck’s Gone Baby Gone and Sarah Polley’s Away from Her have cornered the acting awards (for Amy Ryan and Julie Christie, respectively), and Daniel Day-Lewis has cleaned up for his turn in Blood. Neither Affleck or Polley’s films have made too much bank, either. Corliss laments that critical and popular success of 2007–films like Knocked Up, Superbad, and Ratatouille–have gone virtually unmentioned in critics’ awards ceremonies. Late-year coming-of-age comedies like Juno and animated films like Persepolis are getting most of the attention instead, and will most likely not be box-office Goliaths. Ditto the Best Foreign Film giants, Diving Bell and the German espionage thriller, The Lives of Others. The most important barometer for giving out awards, according to Corliss, is popular taste.

In case you missed the dripping scorn with which the last sentence was imbued, don’t worry, it was there. Corliss is a fine critic; when he was editor of Film Comment in the 1970s, he helped shape the discourse of film history and aesthetics as we now understand it. Paul Schrader’s landmark piece on film noir and Donald Richie’s revelatory overview of Yasujiro Ozu’s career were encased in the pages of that magazine under Corliss’s leadership. But now, as the mouthpiece for film criticism in 2007 for much of the American public, he is lost in the morass of a rather typical schizophrenia for men and women in his profession. Critics often lament the fact that the movies they love so dearly go unseen. Many critics take the position that this is their own fault, however, that the movies which should be recognized are the ones people actually see. Indeed, Corliss takes this position, at least mostly, in his piece: “Gee, you're wondering, did The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, the French story of a man totally immobilized by a stroke, beat out the German spy drama The Lives of Others? (Three out of five critics groups say yes.) If you're getting restless, movie lovers, too bad. You'll be hearing the same obscure names at the Golden Globes and on Oscar night.” Later, he observes, “[i]n the old Golden Age days, most contenders for the top Oscars were popular movies that had a little art. Now they're art films that have a little, very little, popularity.” If Corliss had his way, it seems, Ratatouille would win Best Picture, beating out Knocked Up and Enchanted.

Except there’s a wrinkle in the fabric: Corliss just recently published his list for the 10 best movies of the year, and there’s only one bona fide hit among them: Beowulf. (And that is certainly not a film which has reached popular and critical consensus.) In fact, No Country for Old Men was #1, and whose win at the New York Film Critics Circle Corliss certainly helped bring about. #3 was a movie that only played in major metropolitan areas and grossed next to nothing, and #s 4, 5 and 6 haven’t even been released yet, another ailment Corliss diagnoses in the critics’ awards distribution. (“Maybe the critical establishment has A.D.D.”) Corliss even openly disses his #6 choice, Persepolis, for consistently beating out Ratatouille, The Simpsons Movie, Bee Movie, and Beowulf in the animated film category. (“An art-house film beat out movies that have already grossed nearly $1.5 billion dollars (or about 47 euros) worldwide.”) This all seems more than a little bit contradictory, non?

Of course, Corliss defuses the bomb a tad, remarking that critics “obviously...should pick their favorites.” But then he says that this is just critics’ way of “contribut[ing] to the art-industrial complex,” that these critics awards are the steam needed to hurtle films to Oscar nominations. Which is certainly a no-no, since Oscars should be reserved for the high-grossing critical faves.

So which is it? Critics awards are bad for not recognizing popular taste and for steamrolling certain films to Oscar glory. But critics awards are good because they recognize the films you love. Can we have the cake and eat it too? Let’s not forget that Corliss completely ignores the economic fabric which causes films like No Country or Diving Bell to never eclipse $50 million (the vagaries of specialized distribution, multiplex exhibition strategies, etc). And let’s also not forget that a large collection of films which many critics love very dearly are legitimate victims to the art-industrial complex and never make it out of the art-house ghetto. (After all, No Country and Diving Bell are both Miramax products, a studio with a substantial cash flow, whereas my 3 faves of the year, I’m Not There, Colossal Youth, and Syndromes and a Century, have grossed roughly zilch among the three of them.) Corliss, in all of his incarnations, also doesn’t seem to care a whit for any films not made in the English language, barring two exceptions whose high profiles and mainstream aesthetic agendas seem to prove the rule.

At the end of the day, a critic’s responsibility is to him- or herself. When it comes to awards, they must vote for the film they believe deserves it. And isn’t it the essential job of a critic to make the public aware of the films that they love in order for the public to go see them? And did every single ticket-buying customer of Knocked Up actually like the film? Isn’t Corliss playing into the hands of the art-industrial complex by placing a film’s value on its box office draw? C’mon, he’s gotta be smarter than that.

Corliss is being quite pandering and condescending to his audience. By not wishing to look elitist and snobby, he overcorrects and sells himself out in order to seem populist. Truth is, all awards tend to be rather limited in their scope, and do lay down a red carpet toward Oscar night. But what’re you gonna do but try and be true to you? Maybe I’m a little more fiery this year because I like No Country so much, and am quivering in anticipation for There Will Be Blood. (By contrast, I didn’t much care for Brokeback Mountain, Crash, Million Dollar Baby, or Sideways, to name a few awards-mongers of recent years.) But he really should know by now that he’s never going to be in tune with the populace Hollywood likes to create if he keeps liking the things that he does.

In case you’re keeping score, here’s Corliss’s Top 10:

1. No Country for Old Men
2. The Lives of Others
3. Killer of Sheep
4. Atonement
5. Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
6. Persepolis
7. No End in Sight
8. In the Valley of Elah
9. Waitress
10. Beowulf

Monday, December 10, 2007

Live From Pawleys Island: Movie Journal, 12/3-12/10

I'm beginning my year-end DVD whirlwind a few weeks early this year, and here are the discoveries of the week:


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket


Zoo (Robinson Devor, 2007)

On the surface, Zoo is a documentary about men who like to have sex with male horses. This is like saying that War and Peace is about the Battle of Borodino. Robinson Devor has created the closest successor to Errol Morris’s lyrical, meditative documentaries, juxtaposing actual interviews with dramatic reconstructions of the events described. Devor refuses to judge or exoticize the community of men in rural Washington who come together to have sex with these horses, but he does present their world as a dreamy, haunting and alien universe. It is extremely difficult for a non-zoophile to completely understand and totally identify with the lifestyle of a zoophile, but the notion of considering them any less acceptable in their sexual practices becomes essentially moot. Their world may be strange, but it contains the same quality of beauty that any other world might contain.



Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket


Offside (Jafar Panahi, 2006)

Jonathan Rosenbaum said it best when he declared Jafar Panahi’s latest political entertainment “so accessible and entertaining that some discerning viewers are suspicious of it.” Offside is a blast, a warm, humanist comedy that is immensely watchable, but suspicious of it I am. Not for any subversive political message: the story of several young women arrested for attempting to watch the 2005 World Cup qualifier between Iran and Bahrain is as direct as they come. (In Iran, women are not allowed to attend soccer matches, so many attempt to disguise themselves as boys in order to gain access to the stadium.) Its tricky balance between toughness and sentimentality, however, often lapses from one side to the other. Certainly the film’s most enjoyable moments are when the girls engage in pure ecstasy at outwitting their captors, and their captors’ eventual giving up at trying to control them. But then there are moments when Offside veers into cuteness, a tendency to let the personal cloud the political. The ending purports to close the gap between the soldiers and the girls by using the game as a nexus of community rather than division, but Panahi’s tone betrays him. At the end of the day, however, so many of these quibbles are those of a spurned lover wanting the film to be something it is not and does not want to be. As Roger Ebert did at the end of Almost Famous, I gave myself a big hug at the conclusion of Offside.



Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket


Regular Lovers (Philippe Garrel, 2005)

Philippe Garrel’s love letter to his youth and his stern rebuttal to Bernardo Bertolucci’s facile The Dreamers, Regular Lovers is a haunting portrait of the aftermath of May ’68. Shot in sumptuous but also charmingly tossed-off black and white, Garrel’s chamber epic follows a young poet, Francois (Louis Garrel, the director’s son and also one of the stars of The Dreamers), as he negotiates how to exist after his and his friends’ moment of triumph evaporates. Regular Lovers is intoxicated by the quotidian, the casual atmosphere of young people unsure of where to go or what to do. It also does not demonize all figures of authority, nor does it sanctify the behavior of Francois and his friends. (The scene where some cops enter Francois and his friend’s apartment is hilarious in the way the cops admire the art on the walls.) The centerpiece, a communal dance to The Kinks’ “This Time Tomorrow,” is a gorgeously rapturous and melancholy ode to trying to establish a community in a world that has rejected you.



Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

In Between Days (So Yong Kim, 2006)

Although it is set in a Canadian metropolis, In Between Days could be set anywhere. The cold and isolating atmosphere in which the protagonist, Aimie (Ji-seon Kim) finds herself is emblematic of the isolation she isn’t even aware of within herself. Haunting pillow shots where she recites letters to her father remind us just how distant her reality is from her perception of it. She falls in love with the only person with whom she can communicate, drops out of a class in order to buy him a bracelet, and holds a typically adolescent insouciance toward the larger universe. After Tran (Taegu Andy Kang) rejects her affections, she begins to understand how alone she really is. Kim films these intimate moments in tossed off, handheld takes, using quiet, effortless dialogue. In Between Days is a delicate and sad slice of life.



Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

The Golden Compass (Chris Weitz, 2007)

I really wanted The Golden Compass to be good. It would mean that the meaty portions of Philip Pullman’s “His Dark Materials” series, The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass, could be brought to cinematic life with all of their dark, beautiful nuances intact. Instead, The Golden Compass is a loud, CG-stuffed piece of fantasy ephemera, lacking in spiritual or philosophical depth. Certainly the notion of religion as the ultimate force of evil in the world hasn’t been completely sanitized–the leaders of the evil Magisterium have a certain clerical look and feel to them–but any weight or toughness of Pullman’s ideas are pretty much absent. Even Lyra Belaqua (a competent Dakota Blue Richards) is missing her edge. And the ultimate punch pulled is leaving the film on a note of hope, whereas the book’s conclusion is Lyra’s first major step away from innocence and toward experience. One can feebly hope for improvements in The Subtle Knife.


Holiday in Handcuffs (Ron Underwood/Sara Endsley, 2007)

I hate TV Christmas specials. Most Christmas movies are bad enough, but the massive churning out of feel-good, 2-hour pieces of sentimentality on the tube just about kill me. But ABC Family’s Holiday in Handcuffs is so deliciously absurd that I couldn’t help but plow through the sappy ending. There’s nothing family-friendly about this tableau of grotesques. Melissa Joan Hart is depicted as a PMS-raging psychobitch, her parents the ultimate suburban perfectionists, her brother a closeted golden boy, her grandmother a hard-drinking, tough-talking, all-around bawdy broad. Downright kinky sexual innuendos abound, and by the end of the first 90 minutes, I thought I’d walked into a John Waters movie. The plot is completely preposterous: Hart is dumped by her boyfriend, and she believes she must impress her parents by bringing somebody home for Christmas, so she kidnaps loveable rich boy Mario Lopez. Of course, the jig is eventually up, Lopez and Hart fall in love, and everybody learns a lesson. But for about an hour-and-a-half, the movie is so damned out of its mind I couldn’t help but love it. Please go to http://www.abcfamily.com to find out the next showtime!



Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Away from Her (Sarah Polley, 2006)

Fiona (Julie Christie) and Grant (Gordon Pinsent) have the sort of wealthy-liberal marriage most of us could only dream about. But the fairy tale ends when Fiona is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, and is placed in a treatment center. The great sadness of having to cope with such a loss informs every single frame of this beautiful, graceful film, one which neither sentimentalizes nor trivializes the effect of Alzheimer’s disease on a marriage. Grant watches as the woman he knew vanishes, as she finds it difficult to remember him, and even takes up with a fellow patient. Grant was once unfaithful, many decades ago, and perhaps this is Fiona punishing him. Or perhaps it is an inevitable byproduct of Fiona desperately attempting to find something which makes sense to her. Neil Young’s “Harvest Moon,” in its original version and a new, instrumental version, haunts the backdoors of the film, where Grant realizes that he and Fiona must invent new lives for themselves, and performs the ultimate sacrifice–which is also the ultimate act of love. Polley’s direction and camerawork is so understated, so quiet, so assured, that we can only marvel at the beautifully sad thing she has created, and wonder what true love ultimately means.



Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Black Book (Paul Verhoeven, 2006)

I have been mulling over Paul Verhoeven’s first Dutch film in 22 years for a couple of days, and still can’t decide how I feel about it. Verhoeven’s career is certainly a peculiar one, one which has seen him fashioning gaudy blockbusters that contain a nastily satirical edge to them. This is a more muted work, but only barely: after all, this is a film which features a woman dyeing her pubic hair blonde to match her new coiffure, and later getting a bucket of shit dumped on her. Verhoeven’s direction is raunchily propulsive, pulp disguised as art. (Or is it the other way around?) What’s so maddening/fascinating is the way he shifts our sympathies around. There are anti-Semitic Dutch Resistance fighters, sympathetic Gestapo commanders, Dutch collaborators and subversive Nazis. The only one behind whom we firmly stand is Rachel (Carice van Houten), a force of nature who uses her body to do battle with anyone who may stand in her way. The film’s most haunting image is Rachel watching her parents mowed down by a Nazi gun boat, and she seeming to float away, an apparition no longer connected to the corporeal world. That soon changes, as she infiltrates the Gestapo by screwing her way to precious information. But it seems too convenient that she’d start schtupping the one nice Nazi in Amsterdam, while the rest are monsters. And the ending, with all of its twists and revelations, feels too clean in a bizarre way. And what of Ronnie, Rachel’s freewheeling friend who fucks Nazis and Canadian soldiers alike, and has a rip-roaring good time while doing it all? She lacks any political conscience, and is consistently rewarded for it. Is Verhoeven being salaciously subversive in these ambiguities, or is he simply morally backward? I still can’t tell.

Sunday, December 2, 2007

"And I Mean Any Swingin' Dick."

(I understand that this is a rather peculiar way to announce that I've returned to blogging, but that's just me, freewheelin' and always keepin' you on your toes.)

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket


Beowulf (Robert Zemeckis, 2007)

PREFACE: The following piece must be considered as a completely subjective, rather phenomenological experience. I went into this movie this afternoon completely expecting not to enjoy it. I was also thinking about Tim Burton, since Sweeney Todd's trailer played before the movie started. Also, I don't like agreeing with my grandparents about movies; call it a rather snobby, contrarian reaction I seem to have when we see movies together. (They hated the film, by the way.)

Beowulf certainly bears little resemblance in visual style to the literary form of the oldest known work of English literature. While the plot of the first two sections of the poem are more or less intact, Roger Avary and Neil Gaiman's script veers toward the level of trashy camp throughout. The most blatant and controversial shift is in the characterization of Grendel's mother: from gross old hag Beowulf battles and beheads to sleek golden Angelina Jolie who corrupts the hero and poisons his future, this is certainly not your momma's Beowulf.

Beowulf's most unconscionable sin is its images. Director Robert Zemeckis retreads his 2004 hit The Polar Express, using motion capture technology to render the actors completely lifeless. What's more, the movie never uses this technology organically; as one reviewer has pointed out, the movie feels like a vehicle for showing off what movies are going to look like in 5-10 years. This terrifies me. Any technology that attempts to monopolize film aesthetics must be taken extremely seriously for the danger that it poses. Nothing of interest comes from motion capture in Beowulf; it is another excuse for Zemeckis to be a lazy, kid-in-a-candy-store kind of filmmaker. (A recent re-viewing of Forrest Gump only confirms this feeling.)

The conflict which runs counter to Zemeckis's technological indulgences is the script by Avary and Gaiman. (They apparently wrote it in the late 1990's, and envisioned it as a small-budget, gritty action piece; Zemeckis subsequently talked them out of it once the project exited development hell in 2005.) The dialogue is nothing less than hilarious camp, pulpy trash that the two men are clearly having fun with. The scene in which Beowulf (Ray Winstone) removes all of his clothing and armor to sleep and fight naked is one of the most homoerotically ridiculous things I have seen in a long while. But their most interesting triumph is the revamping of the poem's third act.

Beowulf is a poem of heroism and male love, but lacking in any psychological complexity. Ever the mythical revisionist, Gaiman, along with Avary, transform the story to give as much sympathy toward Grendel as they would Beowulf. Crispin Glover--who may be America's most bizarre actor--gives a very sweet, anguished performance as the flesh-eating troll. His actions can be seen as righteous vengeance against the father who abandoned him. Similarly, making Beowulf procreate with Grendel's mother, rather than kill her, turns him into an arrogant, petty fortune-hunter, whose entire legacy is called into question. The final moments of Beowulf's life call to mind the famous dictum of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

At the end of the day, Beowulf is a strange film, filled with authorial tension: repugnant for Zemeckis's fetishization of technology and his sex-and-gore-for-sex-and-gore's-sake visual treatment, and fascinating for the revisionist weirdness of Avary & Gaiman's script, along with the strength of the performances. (Seeing pudgy, middle-aged Ray Winstone as a muscly badass is almost worth the price of admission alone.) If this is the future of movies, we can only hope the CG-mongers of Hollywood continue to use scripts like this one.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Reflections on Orson Welles, Pt. III

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket


REFLECTIONS ON ORSON WELLES, PT. III: THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI


THE BACKGROUND

Orson Welles came to make his penultimate Hollywood film in September 1946. He had finished work on The Stranger nine months previously, and had nearly bankrupted himself over the summer producing a touring theatrical adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days. He was desperate to work profitably again. The notoriously monstrous head of Columbia Pictures, Harry Cohn, invited Welles to make a film at his studio. After considering several projects which he had developed with the producer Alexander Korda, Welles decided to adapt the 1938 pulp novel If I Die Before I Wake, by R. Sherwood King. Welles had acquired the rights to the book in 1945 on the suggestion of his friend William Castle, and had the rights reassigned to Columbia, which then slowly developed the project for over a year.(1) Initially conceived as a quick B thriller, Welles soon found himself, at Cohn’s request, reshaping the material into a solid A picture starring his estranged wife, Rita Hayworth. Like The Magnificent Ambersons and The Stranger, Welles didn’t have final cut over the film. The final script had as many as four writers, although Welles was the only one to receive credit. With a 65-day schedule spread out over 12 weeks and a $2.3 million budget set, Welles began shooting on October 2nd, 1946.

The production was rife with problems from the get-go. Despite the renewed bond that Welles and Hayworth created from working together, every other circumstance surrounding filming portended the project to be doomed to failure. The weather during location filming in Mexico and California was wretched, and various cast members became terribly ill, holding up production. Additionally, Cohn continually demanded that Welles shoot more close-ups of Hayworth, for fear that Welles wouldn’t use his star to her sexiest potential. He also forced Welles to film sequences that cost extra time and money, much to Welles’s chagrin. The most explicit of these was a scene of Hayworth lying on the deck of her husband’s (Everett Sloane) yacht, singing a ballad called “Please Don’t Kiss Me.”(2) To add to the turmoil, the original cinematographer, Charles Lawton Jr., exited the production at the late stages, and Rudolph Mate (Carl Dreyer’s cinematographer) was brought in to finish the shoot (although this may have been quite welcome to Welles, since Lawton worked slowly).(3) By the time principal photography wrapped at the end of February 1947, the budget hovered just below $2.8 million, with an additional 32 days of shooting having been used.

The next few months saw Welles being subjected to a scenario with which he was all-too familiar by this point in his career: studio tampering. Cohn still wanted more close-ups, so he had Welles shoot them in the studio against a process screen, making Welles’s tightly constructed sequences even more disjointed. Parts of scenes were re-dubbed, which created an incongruity of dubbed and direct sound being juxtaposed within the same scene. Welles begrudgingly agreed to all of these requests. But the most egregious of all of Cohn’s meddling was during the editing of the film.

According to Welles’s cutting continuity, dated January 1947, the film was 155 minutes long. Sixty-nine minutes were then cut, leaving the existing version at 86 minutes. Cohn and his editor, Viola Lawrence, gutted numerous sequences throughout the film in order to pare down the length. After an unsuccessful test screening in Santa Barbara, Lawrence cut the movie even more, eventually making much of the plot incomprehensible. Welles and his friend Charles Lederer then wrote a voice-over narration to help clarify narrative points lost in the muddle, much to Welles’s chagrin.(4)

James Naremore cites not only the film’s most famous sequence–the Crazy House/Hall of Mirrors climax–as one of those most tragically gutted, but also the opening sequence when Michael O’Hara (Welles) and Elsa Bannister (Hayworth) meet. The sequence would have begun with heavy cross-cutting, establishing the main players, and why many of them–Broome (Ted de Corsia), and Grisby (Glenn Anders) in particular–are in Central Park when Elsa is trying to get back to her car. After this cross-cutting, a long tracking shot would have followed Elsa’s carriage riding through the park, then to Michael walking, then to a police car driving (Jonathan Rosenbaum compares it to the opening shot of Touch of Evil). The dialogue between Michael and Elsa after he rescues her from being mugged was also more substantial, with a suggestive reference to Don Quixote; interestingly, Cohn had Lawrence cut all dialogue pertaining to literature or the characters’ fascinations with books.

Sadly, Welles had to swallow all of these changes. He did not have final cut, nor did he have the clout among Columbia executives to prevent these changes. He wrote a lengthy memo to Cohn protesting many alterations, but it was too little, too late. He was most furious with the score by Columbia composer Heinz Roemheld. Welles had very specific ideas for the music, and believed Roemheld discarded all of the irony, satire, and bite that Welles had planned; in its place, melodrama and corny romanticism filled the soundtrack. He was especially annoyed with the turning of “Please Don’t Kiss Me” into a theme that ends up recurring throughout the entire film. One scene in particular sparked Welles’s ire:

"...There is nothing in the fact of Rita’s diving to warrant a big orchestral crescendo...What does matter is Rita’s beauty...the evil overtones suggested by Grisby’s character, and Michael’s bewilderment. Any or all of these items might have inspired the music. Instead, the dive is treated as though it were a major climax or some antic moment in a Silly Symphony; a pratfall by Pluto the Pup, or a wild jump into space by Donald Duck." (Orson Welles & Peter Bogdanovich, This is Orson Welles, ed. Jonathan Rosenbaum, 1992, p. 195)

The terrible score, along with the cutting of the Crazy House/Hall of Mirrors sequence, were the problems about which Welles would talk most over the next several decades. Welles’s friend and one of Shanghai’s associate producers, Richard Wilson, even said one of his greatest professional regrets was not saving Welles’s first cut of the Crazy House sequence. Inexplicably, Cohn held up the release of The Lady from Shanghai for a year. By the time it was released in May 1948, Welles had shot Macbeth at Republic Studios in just three weeks, and then had decamped for Europe, destined to become financially what he had always been artistically: independent.(5)


THE REVIEW

Unlike The Stranger, which does require one to wonder what might have been, there is more than enough of Welles’s madness in The Lady from Shanghai to marvel at its wicked glee, acidic satire and weary romanticism. Welles allegedly screened The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari for the cast and crew before production began, and its shadow haunts the many baroque set pieces within Welles’s film.

What is striking about The Lady from Shanghai, for better and for worse, is the film’s juxtaposition of tones. From the first sweaty, swooping crane shot descending into the sailor’s hiring hall, where we see rich attorney Arthur Bannister (Everett Sloane) ask Michael O’Hara (Welles) to captain his yacht, to the legendary shoot-out in the Hall of Mirrors at a San Francisco amusement park, the film is filled with wickedly baroque, grotesque images and characters. Bannister’s crippled attorney, the drunk madman Grisby (Glenn Anders), and the smart-aleck detective Broome (Ted de Corsia) all border on the demented, sick characters born of a sick culture that believes human beings are its playthings. Welles’s camera shoots warped close-ups and highly suggestive tableaux to evoke the nightmarish world into which O’Hara has entered. Even Hayworth is otherworldly. On the surface of things, this only makes sense, as her hair is short and blonde. But it is something else. She is cold, distant, all interior, as opposed to her vibrantly sexual persona. Elsa is both innocent and vicious, and when she begins to speak in Chinese while pursuing Michael toward the climax of the film, one realizes that this is a fiercely intelligent woman whose past is far deeper than one may have anticipated.

Blended with this acidic, nightmarish tone is a remarkably romantic, dreamlike one. This comes not only from Harry Cohn’s butchering of Welles’s original vision, but also from the character of Michael O’Hara himself, and Welles’s portrayal of him. Welles has never looked so gentle onscreen. (This was his only makeup-free role in his own narrative films, aside from young Charles Foster Kane.) Michael lives in a daze, unable to make either heads or tails of the people with whom he’s faced, or the situation in which he finds himself. (Indeed, this bewilderment, one could suggest, is even enhanced by Cohn’s hatchet job, as the narrative becomes unclear to the spectator as well as Michael.) He’s gentle, poetic, and deeply romantic. Michael is Welles’s only foray into a role that could be described as a dashing leading man.

This blending of tones and styles qualifies the film to be considered of the film noir genre, but Welles’s vision of noir is decidedly different from that of Wilder, Tourneur, Lang, Preminger, Siodmak, Fuller, Ray or Kubrick. The satirical quality of the scenes with Bannister and Grisby indict modern society in a way that the aforementioned directors do not. Satire even explodes into absurd farce in the courtroom scene after Michael has been framed for Grisby’s murder. The judge isn’t aware of courtroom etiquette, Bannister and the prosecutor just yell at each other, and the jury members giggle and loudly blow their noses. Justice isn’t likely to be served to Michael. Elsa is also not a simple femme fatale, a la Phyllis Dietrichson or Brigid O’Shaughnessy. Hayworth’s performance as she lays on the floor of the Crazy House, dying, actually reminds me of the women of Sam Fuller’s films. These women are intelligent, tenacious, and not merely vicious or gentle. There is something about Elsa that makes her murderous tendencies and her romantic innocence synthetic, rather than dichotomous. As James Naremore and others have suggested, Welles has deconstructed Hayworth, exposed the audience’s sexual voyeurism, and endowed her with the intelligence she claimed he knew she had.

As much as there is to enjoy within the film, much of it feels awkward. The dubbed lines, the abrupt close-ups, and the process screen shots make scenes disjointed, almost comical. The narration is grating, especially when one knows that Welles’s version didn’t have it, and wouldn’t have needed it. The score is atrocious, and like the music of The Stranger, it makes one long for Bernard Hermann. And the editing leaves scenes feeling rushed and incomplete. The Lady from Shanghai is a film whose individually Wellesian moments leave one in awe at what the man could do, and how much he’d changed since Citizen Kane. The violence done to it by Harry Cohn, Viola Lawrence, and Heinz Roemheld, however, leaves one regretting the lost, potential masterpiece.


Notes

1. There is much debate as to the origins of the project. Welles told a story throughout his life that he grabbed the book off a shelf randomly, and asked Cohn to bail out his failing production of Around the World if Welles made him a movie. According to Castle, however, he gave Welles his own treatment of the novel, which Castle had tried, unsuccessfully, to sell to Columbia. Castle was then called into the Columbia offices to be assigned as associate producer to Welles’s version, unbeknownst to Castle that Welles had successfully sold the project in September 1945. Welles’s friend Fletcher Markle, however, claims that he and Castle helped Welles with the script in the spring of 1946, and also during location shooting in Acapulco later that fall. My initial account is a minor attempt to coalesce all versions of these stories. For more, see This is Orson Welles, pp. 508-9.

2. In fact, Stylus Magazine’s Paolo Cabrelli makes a convincing case for the scene, a view I shared even before I knew of its being against Welles’s intentions.

3. IMDb says that Joseph Walker, Frank Capra’s cameraman, did some uncredited work, but I haven’t been able to verify the claim. If I were to speculate, I would guess that he lensed some of the studio re-takes in March 1947.

4. Lederer, twistedly enough, was the nephew of Marion Davies, who in turn was William Randolph Hearst’s mistress. Lederer also married Welles’s first ex-wife, Virginia. As Simon Callow puts it, “[Welles’s daughter] Christopher accordingly spent occasional weekends in San Simeon under the roof of the man who had done everything in his power to destroy her father and his precocious masterpiece [Citizen Kane]” (Simon Callow, Orson Welles: Hello Americans, 2006, p. 222).

5. James Naremore saw a version of The Lady from Shanghai in Frankfurt, Germany in 1981 that contained slightly different editing, alternate takes of some scenes, and shots that don’t exist in the U.S. version at all. It is a mystery if this version has ever been seen outside of Europe, or if it will ever be released anywhere else.


Works Cited

–Welles, Orson & Bogdanovich, Peter. This is Orson Welles. Ed. Jonathan Rosenbaum. 1st ed. New York: HarperCollins, 1992.

–Callow, Simon. Orson Welles: Hello Americans. New York: Viking, 2006.

–Naremore, James. The Magic World of Orson Welles. 2nd ed. Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University Press, 1989.

–Rosenbaum, Jonathan. Discovering Orson Welles. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2007.

R.I.P. 1923-2007

(June 11th, 2007.)


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

BLACK GIRL (1966)
MANDABI (1968)
XALA (1975)
CEDDO (1977)
CAMP DE THIAROYE (1987)
GUELWAAR (1992)
FAAT KINE (2001)
MOOLAADE (2004)


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

You will be missed.

Reflections on Orson Welles, Pt. II

(June 9th, 2007.)


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket


REFLECTIONS ON ORSON WELLES, PT II: THE STRANGER


THE BACKGROUND

Orson Welles had been out of filmmaking for almost three years by the time he came to his next project. With The Magnificent Ambersons butchered, It’s All True sabotaged, and his credibility ruined by RKO Pictures, Welles decided to explore other interests. In those three years, he was highly active in radio and politics, regularly writing columns, making speeches, even ghostwriting for Roosevelt a time or two. And it wasn’t even the studios that came calling in the summer of 1945: it was Sam Spiegel, an independent producer looking to attach Welles as actor and director for his new property, The Stranger. Anthony Veiller and John Huston had written a script called Date with Destiny (Huston had to take his name off the project, since he was still serving in active duty with the U.S. Army), and Spiegel & his producing partner, Bill Goetz, were looking for a director. They decided to take a chance on Welles, a man who was seen in Hollywood as “damaged goods.” This would be a new experience for Welles: he was a hired gun, not having anything directly to do with the writing process, and was being kept on a tight leash by both Spiegel and Goetz. He wasn’t allowed final cut, and had to bring the project in on time and on budget. His initial casting ideas–like having Agnes Moorehead play the Edward G. Robinson role–were shot down. These restrictions notwithstanding, Welles was enthusiastic about the chance to make pure Hollywood product and prove himself as a financial asset, rather than a liability. What’s more, the story of a Nazi masquerading as a history teacher in a quiet Connecticut town certainly appealed to his creative and political concerns. True to his word, he finished the film on time and under budget, and The Stranger became the only film Welles ever directed to turn a profit.

As with any of his projects in Hollywood after Citizen Kane, the editing process withered away Welles’s vision. Before production had even begun, one of Spiegel’s editors cut the script by thirty-two pages. According to the original cutting continuity (found in the Welles archives at the Lilly Library in Bloomington, Indiana), on which scholars James Naremore, Bret Wood, and Simon Callow have done extensive work, the original cut of The Stranger was roughly 115-125 minutes. After Welles delivered his version to Spiegel and Goetz, they proceeded to remove somewhere between 20 and 30 minutes of footage. This consisted of a pre-credits sequence involving the female protagonist, Mary (Loretta Young), having a prophetic nightmare. A complete 10-20 minute chase sequence with Meineke (Konstantin Shayne) going to an Argentine dog kennel before he goes to America was removed. For the rest of the film, a flashback structure showing Charles Rankin’s (Welles) first few weeks in Harper, Connecticut–along with other dream sequences–was removed.

These cuts certainly point to Spiegel and Goetz desiring to streamline the narrative and bring the running time down. As Simon Callow astutely observes in his Welles biography, Hello Americans, the cuts would actually have clarified certain lines spoken by Wilson (Edward G. Robinson), as well as made actions by both Mary and Rankin more organic to their characters. Welles believed those elements were the only visually stimulating images in the whole film (see This is Orson Welles, p. 186), but of course, he couldn’t do anything about it. Once the film was released, it did turn a profit, but the experience made Welles realize that working within the system was no longer a viable creative option. He would make two more films in Hollywood, The Lady from Shanghai for Columbia, and Macbeth for Republic. Then in late July 1947, Welles exiled himself to Europe, not to return to America for nine years.


THE REVIEW

The version of The Stranger found in Welles’s original cutting continuity certainly sounds more gripping than the final cut that exists today. The film has been historically viewed as the least personal and least important finished film in Welles’s career. (This seems true of his Hollywood work; from what I’ve read, The Immortal Story also seems to fit this description.) The narrative–a paranoid thriller centering around a death-camp mastermind (Welles) taking refuge in small-town Connecticut with a U.S. governement agent (Edward G. Robinson) hot on his trail–sounds like a wickedly Expressionist nightmare, quite Wellesian in both its artistic potential and political subtext. It is also Welles's first attempt at making a thriller, to be repeated in The Lady from Shanghai, Mr. Arkadin, Touch of Evil, and The Immortal Story. Indeed, many of the Welles flourishes are here: relaxed long takes, dramatic shadows, eloquent monologues (written by Welles himself). But there are too many narrative gaps to let the whole thing hang together. For instance, why would Wilson (Robinson) be sure that Rankin was in fact the infamous Franz Kindler after their dinner conversation, but then only decide to stay in Harper after he believed Rankin could be linked to Meineke’s (Konstantin Shayne) murder? Also, why would a cold-blooded Nazi all of a sudden feel great remorse for making his wife complicit in his crime, then attempt to kill her, then feel even more remorse for letting her brother die instead of her? The film doesn’t develop Rankin as anything more than a bug-eyed paranoiac, quietly waiting until the Nazis try to take over the world again. Welles’s performance doesn’t help matters, leaving the audience almost bored by his constant physical overacting. Loretta Young as Mary is similarly problematic; she just falls into hysterics a lot, only establishing a firm sense of self at the end, when she goes to the clock tower to kill Rankin. Robinson is the only member of the cast who works within the film; he is cold, but Welles’s camera allows his character to breathe, especially in his scenes with Potter (Billy House), the town clerk. The worst offender is the composer, Branislaw Kaper, whose syrupy score muffles any sense of real dread that might come across otherwise. It leaves one wishing for the gifts of Bernard Hermann, who delivered a masterpiece of film music with Citizen Kane.

Welles called the climax on the clock tower “pure Dick Tracy,” and in a way it is. The final piece of dialogue is far too chipper, and distracts from the gruesome violence that just came before. One gets the impression that many of these complaints could have been solved had the released version been Welles’s, but of course, there is no way of knowing. Unless the cut footage miraculously resurfaces, The Stranger remains a curiosity to Welles fans, with charming stylistic moments injected throughout, but ultimately less his own than even Ambersons, Shanghai, or Mr. Arkadin.

Reflections on Orson Welles, Pt. I

(June 2nd, 2007.)


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket


REFLECTIONS ON ORSON WELLES, PART I: AN INVENTORY


It is no secret among my friends and family that my favorite movie of all time is Orson Welles’s debut, Citizen Kane. I even wrote an 11-page paper for my high school American history class about the making of that film. What shocked my friend Igor a year-and-a-half ago was that I had seen only two of Welles’s ten completed films that are available in the U.S. (he completed thirteen in his lifetime, but three are only accessible in Europe). Shouldn’t this man be a kindred spirit, the filmmaker in whom I see myself most clearly? This is only partially true. It is because of that very description–and some of my former misconceptions about Welles and his work–that I compulsively avoided exploring all the other things he did for the next 40 years. Citizen Kane, to my mind, is just about perfect, and because of my knowledge about the studio backstabbings that destroyed It’s All True and The Magnificent Ambersons, which then led to the strife of making Othello, I thought it best to let Welles live as he should have lived, as the greatest American filmmaker of all time.

That does the man little service, however. After the controversy of Kane, RKO Pictures, in conjunction with Nelson Rockefeller, sent Welles to Brazil to make a documentary that would counteract potential fascist spheres of influence in South America. Welles sculpted It’s All True as a loving elegy to a culture that the Brazilian government was attempting to exterminate, the jangadeiros (fishermen) of the Fortaleza region. Of course, this didn’t wash with either President Vargas or RKO, and they stole Ambersons away from him, re-cutting and re-shooting much of what he’d done. (Welles had had to negotiate away his right to final cut in order to make It’s All True on the schedule that both he and RKO demanded.) What’s more, they demolished It’s All True, allowing the Brazilian bureaucracies to destroy much of what he’d shot, and never let Welles edit what was saved. RKO began a propaganda campaign against him in the U.S., declaring that he was a party-loving playboy who indulged in every excess at the expense of the “poor studio.” According to their logic, they were justified in snuffing out this “boy genius” who dared challenge their working methods.

It would be four years before Welles could make another film, a quickie thriller called The Stranger. He made it to prove to Hollywood that he was “bankable,” but that didn’t stop them from re-cutting the film behind his back; the same went for the next film he made the following year, The Lady from Shanghai. Ambersons, The Stranger and Shanghai represent, to my knowledge, the most sustained period of a studio not only re-cutting a director’s films, but destroying the footage they slashed, thus leaving the future public unable to ever see how Welles had actually intended these works to look, sound, and feel. After making a cheap version of Macbeth for Republic Pictures–and cutting out twenty minutes at the studio’s request–Welles left the U.S. for Europe, not to return until 1957.

Welles’s versions of his 1950's films–Othello and Mr. Arkadin in Europe, Touch of Evil in the U.S.–all met with venerable setbacks. It took Welles three years to film Othello because he kept running out of money, and had to act in others’ movies in order to begin shooting again. Mr. Arkadin was hacked to pieces by its producer after Welles missed editing deadlines, and currently exists in as many as six circulating versions, none of which are Welles’s final cut. Touch of Evil was gutted by more than half-an-hour and severely re-edited, so much so that Welles wrote a 58-page memo to Universal Studios with a long list of changes he believed were necessary. (Editor Walter Murch and producer Rick Schmidlin used this memo as a guideline to reconstructing the film, and that version is what’s available on DVD. Neither Welles’s original cut nor the studio’s original release version can be seen.)

Beginning in 1962 with his adaptation of Kafka’s The Trial, Welles reasserted his ability to gain final cut over his films. Unfortunately, he met with a plethora of financing problems, unable to begin or finish other projects swimming inside his head. Welles only finished five films between 1962 and his death in 1985, hardly the output he had desired.

There were seven major works that Welles started and was unable to finish in the last thirty years of his life, primarily to due to financial or legal difficulties:

The Merchant of Venice (1969)
The Deep (based on Dead Calm by Charles Williams, 1968-1973)
Don Quixote (based on Cervantes’s novel, 1955-1973)
The Other Side of the Wind (1970-1976)
Filming The Trial (1981)
The Dreamers (based on “The Dreamers” and “Echoes” by Isak Dinesen, 1978-1985)
The Magic Show (1969-1985)

Only scraps of The Dreamers and The Magic Show have survived. The Deep, The Other Side of the Wind and Filming The Trial were all but finished; however, money always got (and continues to get) in the way of their completion. The Merchant of Venice was completely finished, a 40-minute adaptation intended as part of a Welles anthology T.V. series. Before it was ever screened, two work print reels and the soundtrack were stolen and have never been recovered.

From what I understand, only Don Quixote may not have been meant to see the light of day. Filmed on and off for twenty years, it existed in as many as four different forms before star Akim Tamiroff died in 1972, and the money ran out again. Scholar Jonathan Rosenbaum has speculated that the film was “Welles’s ultimate plaything,” something he loved to kick around when he wasn’t occupied with other projects.

In addition to Welles’s unfinished films, there are at least three scripts of major significance in his body of work that never got past pre-production: Heart of Darkness (written in 1940 as his first idea for a movie, which RKO rejected), The Big Brass Ring (a political thriller written between 1981 and 1982) and The Cradle Will Rock (an autobiopic written in 1984 about Welles’s work in late 1930's socialist theater). Countless other ideas, notes and scripts exist that have never seen publication, along with an extensive body of television shows produced in Europe and the U.S.

What are we to make of Welles’s now-exceedingly messy career? One is faced with a choice: hold onto the notion that what must be evaluated is completed work, ignoring all else, or begin to incorporate the idea that unfinished product may reflect more about Welles in terms of process, and is thus just as important. If we are to embrace the former, then only three films can be seen correctly, and before a couple of years ago, only one was widely available in the U.S.:

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Citizen Kane (1941) [Released on DVD through Warner Home Video, 2001.]


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Chimes at Midnight (1966) [Easily accessible as a region-free import DVD.]


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

F for Fake (1974) [Released on DVD through Criterion Collection, 2005.]


One other film exists in Welles’s original cut and has never been tampered with–Filming Othello–but it is unavailable on home video in any country.

Should we decide to expand our horizons a little bit more, the following films are widely available, but often exist in versions not corresponding to Welles’s original intentions:
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Macbeth (1948) [There is a French DVD box set that contains both of Welles’s cuts, thankfully.]


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Othello (1952) [The version most easily found on DVD is a botched “restoration” from 1992.]


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

The Trial (1962) [Only public domain copies exist, many of which use truncated cuts.]


The Immortal Story (1968) [The only available version is a truncated Italian import DVD.]


The next level of interest would be to incorporate Welles’s work that was tampered with before it was ever released, thus making his original vision impossible to see. The vast majority of the films on this list are, sadly, all of the ones he made in Hollywood (barring Kane, of course), and thus the Welles films most readily available in the U.S.:

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) [Released on VHS.]


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

The Stranger (1946) [Released on various public domain DVD’s.]


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

The Lady from Shanghai (1948) [Released on DVD through Columbia Home Video.]


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Mr. Arkadin (1955) [Three versions released as a DVD box set through Criterion.]


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Touch of Evil (1958) [Reconstructed version released on DVD through Universal Home Video.]


Of course, Welles’s eight major unfinished films can’t be viewed by we average Americans, only read about; the same goes for his three major unproduced scripts, as their published versions have gone out of print. Over the next few months, I intend to view as many of the 11 completed Welles films to which I have ready access. I hope to begin a series in this blog that will explore just what the hell the work of Orson Welles really means, and if viewing them as completed works is really the way to make sense of a man who delighted in confounding expectations. Also forthcoming is an in-depth conversation with the book which helped begin this new understanding of Welles, Jonathan Rosenbaum’s recently published Discovering Orson Welles. I hope to discover, as Rosenbaum and other scholars sympathetic to his positions have assured me, that Orson Welles really was more than just Citizen Kane.

First Published Gig

(from April 2007.)


I've been working as a freelance film critic for the Times-Picayune in New Orleans, the biggest daily paper between Houston and Atlanta. My first piece was published today.

THE LINK: http://www.nola.com/living/t-p/index.ssf?/base/living-8/1175666819171250.xml&coll=1


THE ORIGINAL REVIEW:

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket


"Ice Cube's Latest is Neither Funny Nor Poignant," By Evan Davis


Are We Done Yet? has two quite disparate sources: the film is a sequel to 2005's Are We There Yet? and a remake of Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House, a 1948 comedy starring Cary Grant and Myrna Loy. It is a bizarre combination of source material, and from the evidence of what is onscreen, the synthesis doesn’t work.

Nick Persons (Ice Cube, striving for the Everyman in his character’s last name) tells us in voice-over that he is now married to Suzanne (Nia Long), the woman he was attempting to date in the earlier film. He is also trying to cram his new wife and stepchildren into his small bachelor pad. Suzanne gently pressures him toward getting a bigger place, and before you can say, “plot push,” Nick has packed up the family and shipped them to a stately country home in some unspecified wilderness (the movie was filmed in Vancouver). Chuck Mitchell (John C. McGinley), their daffy, pseudo-hippie real estate agent, makes it sound like everything they’ve ever wanted in a home. Things quickly turn south, as Chuck turns out to also be the town contractor and inspector. When he reveals that a ton of work is going to be needed, he quickly turns their dream house into a nightmare.

As charmingly wacky as the plot may sound, the movie is just plain boring. Director Steve Carr and writer Hank Nelkin have the opportunity to explore the vagaries of middle-class existence, as well as the changing dynamics of family in the modern age. Instead, we’re given a 90-minute cartoon that doesn’t have enough sense to provide sharp comic timing for all of its physical pratfalls. An overwrought score practically stolen from the Home Alone movies never allows any of the jokes a chance to breathe or register with the audience. With no real visual style to speak of, the film also doesn’t engage on a sensual level.

The most infuriating thing about Are We Done Yet? is its complete lack of understanding of character progression. How are we to believe that Nick–previously shown to be incompetent in the hands-on department–could put the house back together all by himself in a matter of months, with some last-minute help from his new friend Chuck? Instead of going for absurdist gusto all the way, Carr and Nelkin stop short by loading the conclusion with enough bathos to make one never want to get married or have kids. Adding insult to injury is a frame story concerning Suzanne’s pregnancy, which only makes the film even more unbelievable. It sure doesn’t feel like nine months has passed; well, I felt like I had been sitting in the theater for nine months, but that is another problem altogether.

The film’s (alleged) lesson is that family and notions of home are far more important than the physical nitty-gritty of a “house,” but Are We Done Yet? doesn’t trust its audience to arrive at these conclusions. It also doesn’t bother to create a truly funny comedy. The film will be lucky to be remembered as anything other than filler on the ABC Family Channel.

Live From New Orleans: Movie Journal, 3/13-3/20

(from March 2007.)


We had originally planned to plunge into an Alain Delon Film Festival while my girlfriend and best friend were visiting me in New Orleans last week (films like Rocco and His Brothers, Purple Noon, L'Eclisse, The Leopard, Le Samourai, Le Cercle Rouge, and Un Flic), but things took a decidedly different turn. Here are some notes about this weekend's cinematic offerings.


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

ZODIAC (David Fincher, 2007)

In many respects, Zodiac is the opposite side of the same coin as Fincher's breakthrough, Se7en. Both are serial killer procedurals, but whereas Se7en was all philosophical doom, Zodiac plunges into a labyrinth of quotidian details, adding up to something and nothing at the exact same time. Facts overlap, contradict each other, converge and split apart, until no matter how long you've been staring at them, they refuse to bring you any closer to unmasking the man who murdered five people between 1969 and 1970 in northern California. Police are able to generate a rough sketch of what he looks like, but in one letter, he says he wears a disguise. He seems to be psychotic, but always sounds calm. Moreover, he ceases to kill for no apparent reason--hardly the standard reaction for a psychotic murderer. Three men commit themselves so deeply to the case that it ultimately wrecks them: for Gyllenhaal's cartoonist, his marriage disintegrates. For Downey's reporter, he crawls to the bottom of a bottle and loses his job. For Ruffalo's cop, he nearly puts away a man he is convinced is guilty, but can't prove. Questions of obsession, the media, and the potentially inherent falsity of facts leaves us with nothing to grasp onto, which is exactly how Fincher wants to leave us.


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

JUST FRIENDS (Roger Kumble, 2005)

I was convinced by my friend Akiva that this was worth it, but it wasn't until I actually sat down and watched the thing that I realized that he was right. The narrative exists only to hold together outstanding comedic performances from Ryan Reynolds, Anna Feris, Chris Klein, Christopher Marquette, and Julie Hagerty. The repartee that all of these actors have with each other--along with very crisp editing--allow for expert timing, gleeful anarchy, and wall-to-wall laughs. Just Friends is a comedy for the sake of comedy, a form rarely seen in theaters or on television or DVD anymore.


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

BEERFEST (Jay Chandrasekhar, 2006)

The Broken Lizard troupe is not naturally funny. Their first film, Super Troopers, was brilliant. Since, they've delivered two duds: Club Dread and Beerfest. Their latest has the occasional joke that hits its mark, but overall, it's a film which tries too hard to make us laugh. It's as if Broken Lizard know that, so they throw a bunch of tits in to spice things up (also to no avail). I guess Super Troopers is the exception which proves the rule.


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

BEER LEAGUE (Frank Sebastiano/Artie Lange, 2006)

I missed the first twenty minutes of this 84-minute film, but my friends told me that those twenty were the best in the whole thing. I hope they were right. The idea of Beer League is actually more appealing than Beer League itself. It's crass, proudly un-PC, and in a strange way, is a commentary on northern 'Jersey culture. However, too many of its jokes just left me not laughing. Granted, there are some real gems (Jerry Minor telling Artie Lange that he actually likes black jokes because they reveal the shortcomings of white guys in comparison to their black counterparts stands out). But there isn't enough comedy or narrative to hold the rest of the film up. Then again, now that I think about it, Lange and Sebastiano don't care, and neither does their film. And I guess that "fuck you" insouciance must be respected.


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

WAITING... (Rob McKittrick, 2005)

My friend Jon swears by this movie. He is not correct in doing so. I turned it off an hour in, and I should have long before that. Ryan Reynolds's young-W.C. Fields schtick holds him back rather than liberates him, as it did in Just Friends. McKittrick thinks he's got some new insight into the day-in-the-life workplace comedy, but none of his jokes work, his characters are two-dimensional at best, and his follow-your-dream moral comes off as petty. I haven't been that bored at a movie in a while, at least since Are We Done Yet?

Documentaries in 2006

(from February 2007.)


Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
(This is one of my heroes, Ross McElwee; he and Errol Morris are the greatest contemporary documentary filmmakers, and they not having films released this year is a serious bummer.)


In addition to all the fiction features I just wrote about, there was a slew of documentaries I didn't see in 2006. What makes this a total sin, however, is that NONE of the 39 films I did see last year were documentaries. This is an incredible anomaly, as I've always loved the nonfiction cinema. Documentaries have experienced an amazing renaissance in the new millenium, not only in terms of prodcution, but also but also of reception. The most lucrative documentaries in history have been released in the last 5 years, which means the public is catching on as well. Nonfiction cinema is serious business for people to deal with, especially with the glut of Iraq documentaries from the last 3 years. (I counted no less than 5 major Iraq doc's released last year to theaters; there were undoubtedly more.)
I hang my head in shame for not seeing any of these 2006 documentaries.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting 49 Up (Michael Apted)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting 51 Birch Street (Doug Block)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting The Blood of My Brother (Andrew Berends)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting The Case of the Grinning Cat (Chris Marker)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting Dave Chappelle's Block Party (Michel Gondry)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting The Decay of Fiction (Pat O'Neill)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting Deliver Us from Evil (Amy Berg)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting The Devil and Daniel Johnston (Jeff Feuerzeig)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting The Ground Truth (Patricia Foulkrod)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting An Inconvenient Truth (Davis Guggenheim/Al Gore)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting Iraq in Fragments (James Longley)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting The Ister (David Barison & Daniel Ross)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting Jesus Camp (Heidi Ewing & Rachel Grady)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting My Country, My Country (Laura Poitras)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting Neil Young: Heart of Gold (Jonathan Demme)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting Our Daily Bread (Nikolaus Geyrhalter)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting Romantico (Mark Becker)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting Shut Up and Sing (Barbara Kopple & Cecilia Peck)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting The War Tapes (Deborah Scranton)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts (Spike Lee)


Feel free to admonish; I know I have sinned.