Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Pairings


The first in a series of serendipitous movie-watching experiences from the summer of 2016. To come: Love and Friendship/High Rise, A Bigger Splash/The Lobster, and Maggie’s Plan/Don’t Think Twice.




In the beginning of Notfilm, a “kino-essay” on the unlikely 1965 collaboration of Samuel Beckett and Buster Keaton, writer/director Ross Lipman remarks that he has never enjoyed films about film. The reason: they cannot approach the work itself. With regard to his own film – a fascinating if at times academic (in the bad way) look into the creation of a 24-minute short – he may be right, as neither Beckett’s Film nor the making of the film come close to approaching even the minor individual artistic triumphs of Beckett and Keaton (indeed, some of the best parts of the movie are the old clips of Keaton or the TV versions of Beckett’s plays). It is the work of an insightful, competent researcher, and if it played on TV would almost surely be the most interesting show for a week, but it’s not great art.

Los Angeles Plays Itself, however, from the documentarian and professor Thom Andersen, proves Lipman wrong, as his collection of thoughts and musings about Los Angeles, combined with an extraordinary number of movie clips and other items, makes for a beautiful and insightful film, one that not only surpasses most of the films it quotes, but makes you want to see all of them again or, in many cases, like Messiah of Evil, for the first time. I’m happy I didn’t have access to a world of infinite steams, because I would have to go back and check out The Glimmer Man or The Replacement Killers, to mention just two films that get almost as much time as Terminator. Hell, after following Anderson’s keen eye for detail and setting, it makes you want to watch just about any movie. Immediately.

While Lipman’s Notfilm begins with a mystery (how the heck did Keaton and Beckett make a movie together), Anderson begins with a paradox. His concern is that Hollywood has come to define Los Angeles in the public imagination, both as a metonym for the city and through its selective description and portrayal of the town, but it has largely been wrong about the place from which it sprang. As Andersen notes (or proves really, given how forcefully he makes his case), directors from both California and elsewhere have chosen the beaches or the hills for the settings of films, leaving out the great middle who neither participate in the making of movies nor find themselves represented in the films (before Sean gets animated, he cites Jackie Brown as an exception). As he notes, just one in 40 Angelenos work in the entertainment business, and countless middle-class people (from Heat to Cobra) are depicted as living in posh hillside towns or beachfront properties when they could not possibly afford the rent. In Hollywood’s world, nearly everyone is white, travels with ease by car, and is involved with the entertainment business. You can argue with Woody Allen’s take in Annie Hall about the cultural achievements of the city (and Andersen does; there’s more than just making a right on red), but it largely reflects the vision of the place that Hollywood presents. In a shrewd response, Andersen notes that Allen's ignorance of Los Angeles comes from the same source as his ignorance of New York; he’s only interested in what the cultural elite of each place do.
While Hollywood’s portrayal of any city is almost necessarily skewered, Andersen makes the case that the people of his city have to suffer a double-whammy of sorts because the movies are made so close to home. In the first place, the city itself was re-appropriated to play “everytown, USA” because it was so close to the studios. Los Angeles become Main Street America, Chicago (in The Public Enemy!), Chinese Rice fields or, most improbably, Switzerland. Countless residents not only saw their neighborhoods repurposed, but saw incongruities in places they knew, like their home airport or train station being set in another city, or being destroyed in an apocalyptic event (as Andersen claims: “silly geography makes for silly movies”). In probably the best example of how Hollywood lies about Los Angeles, Andersen notes that one of the city’s points of pride – its extraordinary examples of modernist architecture – is turned against them by filmmakers. Once great and inspiring gems that argued for utopian ideals are transformed into locales for arch villains, most notably in L.A. Confidential, but also, most comically, in Jackie Treehorn’s lair with the Dude. And the final indignity: Andersen argues that the unsophisticated diminutive of “L.A.”, lacking the rythym and gravitas of Los Angeles might be the creation of the movies themselves.

As in the case of the Big Lebowski, you find yourself yelling at the screen for examples, and while most discerning film fans will quibble with a point or two – I wanted to see Andersen’s gloss on the Naked Gun, and was surprised to see only a brief reference to Boyz n the Hood - he almost always anticipates where you’re going. As soon as you start to think, wait a second, Lynch has done some pretty good L.A. films, there is Mullholland Drive. And though you have to wait forever to get to Chinatown, Sunset Boulevard, and L.A. Confidential, Andersen cleverly builds his narrative from mostly unknown films to the most iconic presentations. He also delivers dozens of dead-on appraisals of classic films, such as his take on why Blade Runner is so adored today in spite of its many nonsensical and incorrect predictions about the future. In a line so great I had to stop the movie to write it down: “Blade Runner represents a nostalgia for a past vision of dystopia that itself has become outdated.” If you like this, there are about three dozen more perfect apercus on classic films and actors (ok, one more: “Whenever there’s a disaster movie, there’s George Kennedy”).

Perhaps even more impressive than hitting the classics is the historical research Andersen puts into refuting some of the biggest lies told by Hollywood depictions, even in undisputedly great films. Blade Runner, for example, rather than giving us a dystopia gives us an urban planner’s dream: walkable downtowns, vibrant night activities, and an almost complete lack of car traffic. In Chinatown, the nefarious plot to steal the valley’s water is an inaccurate conflation of two periods of Los Angeles history, and the dirty dealing was not done in the secret records and archives, but on the front pages of the daily newspapers. L.A. Confidential similarly imagines a world of nonsense skullduggery, as Andersen smartly points out that the police had no need to be as underhanded and corrupt as James Cromwell’s police chief; the cops openly controlled the city and violated civil rights, a kind of policing that was not hidden, but celebrated. It is Dragnet Anderson argues, with its depiction of law enforcement as completely hostile to the citizens they are supposed to protect, that gives the true state of the L.A. police force (I’m serious when I say the whole 169 minutes of the movie could be on Dragnet). Not even Who Framed Roger Rabbit? is safe, as we learn that the highways were coming anyway and the much-vaunted streetcars were not so successful to begin with. Nearly every line is a lesson in history, if not film.

Given the vast number of sources that Andersen can draw on, it may be a bit unfair to compare Los Angeles Plays Itself to Notfilm, which has as its source a single film that, at least on first viewing, is just a little bit intriguing, a little bit boring, and a whole lot of confusing (the wonderful presentation at the Philadelphia International House showed Film first). Anderson has hundreds of movies to draw from; Lipman has one, and one that almost didn’t come about. What Lipman does have going, however, and what makes the film so interesting, is that while the film being made includes a certifiable genius of cinema (Keaton), it is actually made through a collaboration of three people with almost no knowledge of the medium. Beckett had never been behind the camera, director Alan Schneider had only directed plays, and the thing was dreamed up by Barney Rosset, the publisher of a literary press! While cinematographer Boris Kauffman came from good stock, Keaton is described by his longtime friend James Karen as basically being forced to sit around the set (without shade) while the novices tried to block out scenes and figure out the script. It’s so comic that it sounds like the set-up to a Keaton picture, which it basically is, except with Keaton’s formula of one part existential dread, nine parts comedy, reversed.

While the story of how Film got made is a good yarn – with the possibility of Chaplin appearing instead being one of many great What Ifs – Lipman does get bogged down a bit in details. His work to find Beckett’s voice and missing scenes from the film will make him a hero to academics and those in search of Beckettian trivia, but is it necessary to note that when flying to New York, it was so dark that the airport had to turn on the runway lights? Similarly, there’s a lot here on other work Beckett was doing at the time, and while the arresting Billie Whitelaw makes for a fascinating interview, she had literally nothing to do with the making of Film. The diversion to Leonard Maltin’s childhood memories are a wonderful light note, but do we need to hear him calling for his dog? More problematically, the interview with Rosset, whose memory is badly fading, leads to an ill-advised groping for artistic meaning.

While Notfilm and Los Angeles Plays Itself are obviously driven by the needs of their respective subject matters, they reveal that films about films might work best when motivated by the concerns of the directors themselves. Whether it’s Anderson, Zizek’s Pervert’s Guide to Cinema, or Mark Cousins’s epic case for innovation in The Story of Film, movies that begin with clear articulations and ideas might work better than film driven by curiosity. Notfilm makes a late, and entirely unconvincing, case for Beckett having anticipated the era of digital recording and projection (the “end of film”), but almost none of the first two hours points towards this conclusion and it feels like a grad student looking for a thesis in the hours before the paper is due. Andersen, however, has clearly lived his thesis his whole life, as the movie’s portrayal of his fellow citizens – particularly those who are poor, dispossessed, or of color – is the culmination of years of research, care, and thought. Though he might argue, all the sins of Hollywood’s past might just have been worth it, if for no other reason than to give us the beautiful act of redemption that is Los Angeles Plays Itself.

Sunday, March 20, 2016

On the Eye of the Beholder

As I was thinking about the Oscars these past couple months, it lead me down the rabbit hole of nostalgia. It's a subject that should be on the minds of many since it impossible to escape the glaring light of it in today's popular culture. (If having to wrap my brain around the words "Fuller House" means I get hours of undiluted David Lynch next year, maybe it's worth it?) But as I scratched my head over how the Oscars appeared to be scratching a nostalgic itch with Spotlight, it lead me to wondering how much our favorite movies of the past influence our tastes today.

For the vast majority of us, Hollywood played some sort of role in shaping the way we look at movies and what constitutes our likes and dislikes. These are the movies we are most exposed to at a young age before more exotic fare might be piped in from the open-minded sources we encounter as we grow up. And our high school and college years are so formative that I challenge you to show me a film fanatic who watched a new movie after they turned 30 and determine that to be their favorite film of all time. Such choices are made during the impressionable years of one's late teens and twenties, a prime nostalgia time.

Everybody knows first impressions are important. You could even break down some of your favorite movies simply by the impact and impression they made on you when you first watched them. A lot of this has to do with timing. Nowadays, the shock and awe of touchstone movies like Bonnie and Clyde or Pink Flamingoes can greatly depend on when someone sees them during their own filmic upbringing. It's sad but inevitable to see them lose some of their initial impact and for folks to require some Film 101 style contextualization if they don't catch them at just the right time.

This happens with some of the best and most cherished movies, since the ones that have the most impact and leave the biggest impressions are the ones that get carbon copied for years afterwards, diluting the very elements that made it special to begin with. Like many people my age, seeing Pulp Fiction at a theater in 1994 as an18 year-old was like freebasing uncut cinema - which is to say: it left quite an impression. 20 years later, my biased eyes think it still holds up but I have little doubt someone watching it for the first time today will get the same kick.

Now, I know sentimentality and nostalgia aren't exactly the same thing, but I have long carried the movie Flirting around as a sentimental favorite of mine. Like most of my favorite movies, Flirting happened to get watched at just the right time and, perhaps by no coincidence, the movie itself is steeped in nostalgia. I saw it on TV when I was 16 or 17 and it hit me as one of the most honest depictions of teenage awkwardness I'd ever seen. It made me wonder why there weren't more movies like this - a feeling I took with me to film school and still hold on to today.

These are the kinds of movies that add up to define us, our tastes and our reactions to the movies we see today - the movies that drove us to keep digging and wanting to see more. And no two people, even if they are the same age and received the same education and had similar life experiences are going to end up with the same taste in movies. Which means neither person is going to be any more right or wrong when it comes to appreciating what a movie has to offer.

I feel lucky that I was able to get an early exposure to a wide variety of films growing up and that my parents were pretty early adopters of the VCR. Most parents would probably wag their finger at letting a 13 year old kid watch a mix that included lots of David Lynch, Stanley Kubrick, John Landis and repeat viewings of Evil Dead 2. My childhood and adolescence wasn't the best, but I do have some rose-colored nostalgia for sitting around with the family, watching The French Connection or Raising Arizona. For all of the various issues my parents had, and perhaps passed on to me, at least I got an all-inclusive love for movies out of the bargain.


As I inch ever closer to 40 years of age, I really do get the feeling that most of what defines my tastes in movies is pretty well cemented. They're not completely done evolving but I no longer have the omnivorous desires I once had and my patience for bad movies - be they ironically bad, so-bad-they're-good or simply dispassionate, boringly bad - is shrinking more and more every year. It used to be that I would watch multiple movies per day, but nowadays I average about three over the course of a week.

And this is where good film criticism comes in. I understand someone in their 20s who holds little regard for some pretentious, high falutin critic's opinion. Godspeed, since that person should go right ahead and devour anything they're inclined to regardless of what some critic says, that's what your 20s are for and bad movies go a long way to educate and help hone tastes and perspective. But that kind of stamina rarely lasts. Chances are, 20 years down the road that person is going to check in with the handful of critics they've come to rely on in order to decide what movies they're going to invest their time in.

In my experience, you'll never find a critic you will always agree with. (If you find someone you agree with 100% of the time then you might be reading this from a cult's shared computer - which is to say: you're probably highly impressionable and easily convinced.) Everyone who writes a review is going through the process of filtering a movie through a lifetime of experiences, influences, considerations and holding it up to whatever other comedy, drama, thriller, horror, or psychedelic freak-out the movie deserves comparison to. If the end result comes close to your own perspective even 50% of the time, that's a critic you might consider holding on to.

Realistically, no two people are going to see the same movie the same way. In fact, most people will bring a lot of internal and external static with them when they see a movie - and the choice of movie they make will often reflect their current disposition. Sometimes you feel like a comedy, sometimes you feel like an 8 hour Bela Tarr movie. But the lucky/unlucky professional film critic often doesn't have the benefit of picking and choosing which movie they get to review based on how rosy or bitterly nihilistic they may be feeling that day - but that's why they're professionals.


And that's why movies are magical. You can enter a movie theater, check your baggage at the box office and get caught up in someone else's story. I knew a guy at film school who, among other reasons, loved movies because he could enjoy two stress-free hours with his ex-wife and their kids. Whatever they were watching at the time probably rated a little higher in his perspective because when the lights dimmed and the movie started he could put the rest of his life on pause.

I think it's part of the professional critic's job to try and view a movie with clear eyes, separate from whatever else may be going on in their lives. I'm sure each and every one might have struggled with this at some point. But, despite what internet commenters might think, it's not part of the critic's job to remove themselves, their beliefs, personality or experiences. If a critic is a bleeding heart liberal or a stodgy conservative, that's the eyes they're seeing the movie with and that's what should be reflected in their opinion.

Maybe I'm stating some obvious points here, but everywhere you look (again, thanks/damn-you internet) people reading movie reviews are acting like they expect some dispassionate, personality-free review to simply describe the movie and tell them whether it is good or bad - like an opinion could simply be determined by a movie-watching robot that is programmed to determine craft, acting and intentions. Actually, a good review can spark epiphanies, debate, reevaluations, and, if your mind is open enough, the ability to see consider a movie through a outside perspective. This last example is what seems to get people really confused - yet, offering an honest, informed, unique and well-written perspective on a movie is exactly what good criticism is all about.


For those looking simply for thorough accounts of a movie's plot and some version of an unbiased opinion I suggest waiting for the wikipedia page to get up to snuff or sticking to IMDb. But more than that, I suggest taking a movie review for what it is - one person's opinion, not a threat to anyone's sensibilities. Hopefully a critic has the sense to clearly write why and how they came to their opinion so that hopefully, with a little thought on their part, the reader can understand where they're coming from. And again, there's a good chance it won't be the exact same place other people are coming from - but that's the nature of the beast.

I believe there is very little that is or should be considered universally accepted opinions regarding what makes a good movie. I think there's a certain level of craft we can probably agree on, and some ideas about what constitutes good acting and writing - but even these ideas aren't unassailable. All it takes is the right kind of movie to come along and people will be redefining these things once again. This is one of the many reasons I love movies, it's grown, morphed, mutated and continues to do so - and it would be really, really sad if there were some sort of universally accepted notions of what a filmmaker should or shouldn't do when they go about creating.

Anyone who is a fan of movies should understand this. The people who make movies, write about movies, or just sit around watching them in their spare time - everyone has their own sensibility, perspective and tastes. It can be a deeply personal thing because these things gets formed over a long period of time, starting when we're young. This is probably why, when we disagree about movies, we can get super emotional and defensive. It's like an personal attack on everything we stand for and all that we've been through, those very things that have created our tastes and perspective - the stuff that we hold dear, the nostalgic parts of our lives that made us who we are today.


At the risk of over extending my time on RFC this week, I want to give one more example. I can't pinpoint first time I saw Brazil, I must have been around 12 or 13, but it was one of those movies that made me feel like my mind was expanding while I was watching it. This vast, fully realized world was put in front of me and it seemed like anything could have happened by the time the movie ended. I was fully transfixed.

Fast forward 20 years and I now look at the impression Brazil had on me as the reason why I am more lenient and forgiving when it comes to ambitiously messy films. I'll watch a movie like Southland Tales and I'll easily be able to look past the scattershot storytelling to admire the gonzo, go-for-broke ambition it took to create its bizarro, original universe. So, if I were to write about the movie, I'd make sure to add that, nope, it ain't for everyone. I'll tell the reader the kind of glasses I'm wearing, the perspective that caused me to appreciate a weird and flawed movie and that they might want to pop on this pair if they're interested in watching it.

When it comes to talking or writing about movies, no one is right or wrong. It's all in the eye of the beholder. Nobody's going to show up with an answer sheet and start handing out gold stars. The only way you can mess it up is to come to it with a bad attitude, taking aim to rain on people's parades and, generally speaking, be a dick. Whether or not someone else's perspective matches yours doesn't add or detract value from either party. If you're thoughtful about it, and you express yourself that way, then chances are you'll get respect. And that's about the best we can hope for anyway.

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

Mr. Freedom

Director: William Klein
Viewed from: The Balcony (International House Philadelphia)


Is Donald Trump really Mr. Freedom (John Abbey), a comic-book live-action superhero entrusted to "save" the French from the Red Menace of China and Russia in 1969? Take away about forty years, put him in the gym for a few months, squint, and just maybe...

No, not really, but the America currently supporting Trump is the America parodied in the film Mr. Freedom, a wild, gonzo avant la lettre, art-house trip of a provocation that lands all the right blows, if only a few decades in advance of their target. What likely looked to 1969 audiences as an art troupe run amok with occasional slapdash and unsophisticated politics now looks like a dead-on satire of American ignorance and obsession with sex, violence, and the repression of women and non-white men. Those in 1969 had good reason to oppose a number of both foreign and domestic policies, but at least the Americans who supported policies in Vietnam and America did so because they believed in the goodness and decency of their leaders. It's hard to believe that anything so noble is motivating Trump backers today.

Jonathan Rosenbaum in 1991 called Mr. Freedom "conceivably the most anti-American movie ever made," and I'm not sure what it means in 2016 then to champion its relevance. Maybe I don't want to know. But here is the case:

Mr. Freedom (seen above) is the alter-ego of a "Sheriff", who we only see briefly in police attire. His first job, however, is to spread freedom to African-Americans, and so we seem him (amidst the backdrop of screeching sirens) burst into a party, jump on the table of a black family, and demand they embrace American freedom or suffer the consequences. Firing two pistols, he manages only to wound one African-American man who protests his authority.

The repression of internal threats seemingly assured, Mr. Freedom is sent to France by a shadowy figure named...Dr. Freedom (a creepy Donald Pleasance, letting loose a monster far scarier than Michael Myers). The job is simple: avenge the death of France's own great superhero - Captain Formidable - and save the French from two competing monsters: Moujik Man and Red Chinaman, both played in absurd costumes needed to be seen to be believed (lots of great stills can be found here). There is also Super Frenchman, probably one of the most delightful characters I've seen, surrounded by hilarious little henchman (left) who must have been a joy to design. If nothing else, this is a brilliant use of an artist sensibility in film; a lot of work went into making what looks like a very cheap film.

The plot from here devolves into a brutally violent war whereby American aggression ultimately undermines not only the French, but Mr. Freedom himself. An obvious parable of Vietnam and Cold War hysterics, it seems equally apt for the Age of Terror and the American adventurism of the 2000s. Though most of the violence is rendered in comic and absurd fashion, there is at least one scene - a kind of violence training that for some reason recalled Anthony Quinn's gladiator combat scenes from Barabbas - where the actors "practice" rapes and murders and the response moves from comic to disturbing. There is also a guy who when I saw him, about thirty minutes in, I thought to myself "hey, he kinda looks like the guy who played Serge Gainsbourg in that movie," This guy turns out to be none other than Serge Gainsbourg, who not only stars as one of the French leaders of freedom but also contributed to the score.

Against the backdrop of this is a constant echoing of "freedom," a word repeated so often in the film that it looses all meaning (and by this I mean like 15 minutes in). Like maybe hearing that America will be "great again." Backers of Mr. Freedom are even offered limited time shares and branded "Freedom" gear (see Freedom Spray at right) to garner their support. All that's needed is complete submission to authority and a willingness to commit murder and rape. And although Mr. Freedom is all bombast and excitement, it turns out his outward aggression and bullying are actual reflections of his own deep insecurities. When not insulting others, he's easily wounded and petulant.

Still not convinced that Klein knew someone like Trump was coming (it can be argued, also, that Ronald Regan actually makes a better Mr. Freedom). The Donald may talk about limited intervention now, but does anyone really doubt that he wouldn't direct the country to war on even the slightest pretense if he thought it would boost his standing?

Of course, the idea that America would let itself be run by a fool is not new. Sinclair Lewis gave us Buzz Windrip in It Can't Happen Here (1935) and David Foster Wallace's Johnny Gentle showed how easily America might be captured by a celebrity politician. But there's nothing quite like seeing the rally posted below to understand how it's possible for one of the two major parties to possibly elect a self-aggrandizing fool. (Incidentally, the montage beginning at about 4:48 says more in a few minutes about the triumph of American "civilization" over nature than ten slogs through The Revenant).




Here it must be said that if the clip didn't resonate, it may be because you watched it by yourself. And most people who have seen Mr. Freedom I'm guessing have seen it on video. And I can understand those who might critique its absurdist plot or unrelenting satire; parts of the movie (especially Moujik Man) are damn near impossible to hear or understand, and there is little in the way of actual drama to keep a viewer invested. But with a group, man is this stuff fun to see. The International House, just a few blocks from the University of Pennsylvania and the People's Republic of West Philadelphia, included a very raucous audience happy to see their own frustrations with the country presented in such a clear-sighted manner.

In many ways, for many people (not the least those not white and not men and not hetero-normative) America does often seem like a big bullying bastard dressed in sporting gear who laughs away his violence and repression. Mr. Freedom is the very dark side of Alec Baldwin's Jack Donaghy, a big rich white man who just wants to play golf and be left alone. It's not just that today Americans make mistakes in foreign and domestic policy - perhaps a plausible argument for the policies of the 1960s - it's that the decisions are not being made by serious people but by hypocritical caricatures. Those who dismissed Mr. Freedom in 1970 as "epically mindless" might have had good reason to do so in an era when people in the Senate were nice to each other and even the biggest bad guys had long careers in public service and operated publicly within the bounds of good taste and decorum. No one I'm sure could have envisioned an outwardly aggressive thrice-married real estate mogul with a crazy haircut and numerous public tawdry affairs as a statesmen.

But William Klein might have had a sense that all that seeming seriousness of politics was a cover for the basic hypocrisy of an American leadership who really did want to simply shout freedom so they could watch sports, ogle women (if not outright rape them or buy them), commit violence against those who cannot protect themselves, and make a steady profit off of it to boot. As Paul Krugman pointed out, Trump's cons are really just poorly spun cons that have been in place for years (and many would say since the country's inception). And if you truly believe that this is all there is to America, that Mr. Freedom is America, then you really are anti-American (and should be!).

But satire is not reality, and for everyone who might show up at a Mr. Freedom rally, there are dozens who would condemn it. If there is a fault in Klein's work, it is that while he does show a Trumplike figure in Mr. Freedom, he doesn't bother to show the multitudes who would oppose him. While there was a Vietnam prosecuted by Americans, there were also Americans who worked to end it, and all but a small minority today view it a blemish on American history. As long as there are people still laughing and resisting this kind of stuff, Klein might need to be reminded, there is also an opposition to the America of Mr. Freedom. We'll find out if there really is in a few months time.

Friday, March 4, 2016

The Oscars Part II: Death to Nostalgia

Last week, before the latest Academy Awards ceremony, I vented some of my frustrations with Academy's long history of handing out statues to mediocre movies. It's a tradition that has left many people to consider the Oscars irrelevant and boring and it's one that has perhaps inevitably led to the hashtag #oscarssowhite. But despite this venting, I was still holding out hope that there might be some signs of life this year - that maybe the controversy leading up to this year's ceremony would light a fire under the voters. Hell, I knew the chances of Mad Max: Fury Road winning best picture were slim to none but it was my horse in the race and we all hold a vast capacity for self-delusion.

But if there's a third guarantee, after death and taxes, it's that the Oscar's will let you down. It seems as if the almighty powers of nostalgia are just too great. Which is why I question whether it's even worth getting mildly disgruntled about.

Unfortunately I'm stuck with a love for movies and Mad Max is one of the only Hollywood movies to come around in recent memory that got me excited about the medium and all its potentials. It made me giddy about movies again by tapping into all the reasons I fell in love with movies in the first place: the wild creativity, a sense of wonder and amazement at seeing someone manifesting their dreams - it is audacious.

Now I know everyone didn't fall in love with movies for these reasons and this is by no means the only reason I love movies. And I also know that we can't help which movie it was that left that some important imprint on us, what we may consider an ideal movie or perhaps a Best Picture.

Notice how visually interesting a movie about the newspaper business can be?

You can't knock anyone who might look at the great film All the President's Men, see a kind of picture that should be made more often, and therefore cast a vote for Spotlight. But here's where a movie like Spotlight (and The Revenant for that matter) differs from Mad Max: it simply excels at being a type of movie. It doesn't have any ambitions beyond telling its story effectively, which it does entirely through a good script and solid performances by its actors.

Yes, Mad Max: Fury Road excels at being an action movie but it also creates and immerses you in a wholly unique and thoroughly realized world filled with subversive and thought-provoking themes. It does this by expertly using every single facet of the filmmaking toolkit and what you end up with isn't just good storytelling but also an ambitious technological marvel that pushes the boundaries of the medium forward.

You can make an argument for The Revenant getting close to this level of filmmaking but at its core it comes up far shorter in the story department. There's nothing new or memorable in a tale of a man keeping himself alive to exact revenge. In reading interviews with Tom Hardy where he talked about his perspective on his character, it's easy to think of the flip-side to The Revenant as being a much more interesting movie. We've seen far fewer movies follow and try to get inside the head of the doomed target of revenge. As it is, the only interesting thing about the movie is its cinematography, technological wizardry and the crazy story behind the making of the movie.

So why did Spotlight win Best Picture? Did Mad Max and The Revenant split the vote? Or does it come down to nostalgia?


The Oscars are more often than not steeped in nostalgia. These events often have a theme that will enable the ceremony to look back and honor past glories and contain more than one touching montage-style highlight reel. And this is largely unavoidable since movies are inherently suited to evoke and take advantage of the immense powers of nostalgia.

No one is immune to these powers. It's easy to be like Max from Kicking and Screaming and be despairingly nostalgic for conversations you had yesterday. And it's even easier to let nostalgia blind you when it comes to judging the quality of a movie.

So, in a way it makes perfect sense the most nostalgic movie nominated for Best Picture would win. The Oscars often honor non-threatening movies and what's more comforting than Spotlight? The movie could easily be mistaken for being made at any point in the last 30 years, if it weren't for some passing references to the internet.

I made this point last week, but Spotlight makes it even more obvious: When it comes to the Best Picture, the Oscar's aren't interested in change, forward thinking or making advancements in filmmaking. Perhaps the members save that kind of thinking for the technical awards and it doesn't even enter into the criteria for Best Picture. But, man, is it dispiriting.

I get excited when I hear people like William Friedkin and David Byrne talking about not having a nostalgic bone in their body. Maybe these two guys aren't the most relevant people in popular culture nowadays but at least they continue to move forward. They know nostalgia is a creative killer. The worst thing any industry or art form can do is nurture thoughts about how better things used to be back in the good old days.

Yes, nostalgia is an unavoidable part of human nature but so is being unimaginative and unoriginal - which is what nostalgia can lead to in any art form unless you're extremely clever about it. What we can try to do is fight these tendencies as best we can. Certainly, we can also try to award movies that fight these tendencies and represent imaginative and original voices.

Spotlight isn't a bad movie, but its win is bad for movies just as Leo's win is perhaps bad for acting. You can hope that wining an Oscar for Best Picture might increase attention for the need of good investigative journalism and change in how the Catholic church operates. But the irony is that it will likely have very little effect because when movies like Spotlight win Best Picture, the honor just keeps losing its value.

Friday, February 26, 2016

Oscars, Good God Y'all, What Are They Good For?

We’re now into the 88th year of celebrating, or condemning, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as they honor some movie industry folks with shiny awards everyone likes to call Oscars. And once again the debate arises over whether this ceremony holds any relevance other than seeing the American version of royalty mix and mingle with each other in public. After all, we must know, what is she wearing!?


I’ll admit, as a movie-loving kid I looked forward to the Oscars every year. In fact, I’d say that these past few years are the only Oscar telecasts I’ve missed since I was old enough to remain awake for the endless ceremony. And that’s mostly because I’m halfway around the world without cable or satellite TV. But even as a kid, it was probably clear to me that the main attraction was maybe hearing some funny jokes from the host and seeing Jack Nicholson in his shades cracking everyone up with a simple smile.


It was obvious to me early on that the Oscars, just as with box office receipts, is no accurate barometer for quality filmmaking. And this has been the case since year one.


This might be a good time to tip the hat to a site that Paddy hipped me to: Oscars and I. Here is where you'll find a noble man venturing to watch 88 years worth of Best Picture nominees. It is highly entertaining to read about his endeavor, but I do not envy the amount of arguably bad and truly boring movies he will have to sit through to.


What is clear looking back at Oscar’s history is that they rarely acknowledge the truly innovative, remarkable or even memorable movies of any given year. Judging from the nominations, the award ceremony is largely a grand effort at maintaining a mediocre status quo and handing out awards to people who do a good job of being respectable and not rocking the boat.


Certainly this is the case for the Best Picture category, where a winner emerges from the largest pool of an elderly white folk mind-hive desperate to keep things from changing. Sometimes, in the pinko infested pool representing the writer or documentary categories, you might see a nice win for something that truly represents a step forward for filmmaking. Here’s where you might find an award given to a Coen, Charlie Kaufman or Errol Morris - people who could accurately be described as having an independent, forward-thinking voice.


There are Best Picture outliers and yes, even sizable chunks of time where you can look back at the nominees and see the movie industry coming to terms with itself. At the 40th ceremony in 1967, following wins for The Sound of Music, My Fair Lady and A Man For All Seasons, you see a seismic shift sprouting a crop of amazing nominees including Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate and the sweaty winner, In the Heat of the Night. But by the 53rd Oscars in 1980, the studios had realigned and Ordinary People, the filmic equivalent of slightly toasted white bread, emerged victorious over The Elephant Man, Raging Bull, Coal Miner’s Daughter and Tess.


There were signs in 1991 of another possible sea change when Jonathan Demme’s The Silence of the Lambs won Best Picture. Indie film was seeing a resurgence at the time with movies like Reservoir Dogs and Sex, Lies and Videotape making waves. But, by now the studio stronghold was secure. Lessons had been learned in the 60s and 70s and there was to be no further uprisings. All the major studios sprouted “indie” branches, gobbling up the darlings of Sundance and keeping everything in order. In what feels like a grotesque message of maintaining the status quo, the rest of the 90s includes the following: Forrest Gump, The English Patient, Shakespeare in Love and Titanic.


And this feels like a trend that could continue forever more. You might get one outlier here or there followed by a drastic reaction in the other direction. In this way, the random hodgepodge of modern era Oscar winners doesn’t even provide much in the way of sociological insight. For its first 60 years you could at least look back on nominees and awards and get a sense of what was popular at the time and maybe get a window into what people were responding to. But for the past 20 plus years, even that sort of relevance is gone from the Oscars. The King’s Speech? The Artist? Chicago?! It feels like random nonsense.


When a popular movie does win these days, all you can really do is shrug and say, “Oh yeah, that’s when all those Lord of the Rings movies were coming out.” Or, “What the fuck were people thinking with that Titanic craze?” Perhaps it is a sign of the times, but the popular movies of the past few decades tend to signal a response to advancements in special effects over any sort of relevant theme or concern - even when they win Best Picture.   


The Hurt Locker wasn’t a blockbuster or a masterpiece but it does feel like an outlier simply by addressing a highly relevant sociological problem in PTSD. But like 12 Years a Slave or Crash, the issues being addressed are ones we’ve been dealing with since before the start of the 20th century. Perhaps the insight provided here just goes to show how little we’ve really grown over the past millennia. (And yes, Crash is a perfect example of how we shouldn’t award movies based solely on its good intentions.)


You can argue that at least Best Picture winning movies like Ordinary People and American Beauty still accurately reflect the endless navel gazing that goes on in middle to upper class white society. Given the predominance of wealthy white men that make up Academy voting pool, you could imagine them pointing to these movies as sign that the Oscars have remained a relevant indicator of societal concerns.  


But, really, it isn’t difficult to see that the folks behind the Oscars are well aware of their lack of relevance. Since 2009 they’ve increased the number of possible Best Picture nominees in the blatantly desperate hope that more movies will attract more viewers. There are two very Hollywood mindsets at work here. The first, increased viewership equals an increased relevance, is flimsy at best. The second, when in doubt add more crap and see what sticks, is a classic way to simply make matters worse by further diluting the waters.


You’d think that people in the movie industry would recognize the power of a good narrative. Why not gain relevance by simply telling the story of the ever-evolving art form of the movies. Sure, old people are always going to be scared of change and unwilling to award something that could be perceived as a threat to the status quo but if the Oscars want to be taken seriously they need to embrace it. Stop awarding forgettable nonsense like The King’s Speech and Chicago just because Harvey Weinstein’s a bully. Relevance comes by recognizing innovative work, not mediocrity.


By going in this direction it could at least hold its head up high as being a respectable awards ceremony. The only other game in town that gets anywhere near as much attention is the Golden Globes. And at this point you could argue that they’ve become more respectable by not pretending that they have any respectability to begin with. The Golden Globes are honest and unashamed about the inherent meaninglessness of awards and the fact that it’s all about who campaigns more diligently and sends more fruit baskets or whatever to the members of the Hollywood Foreign Press.


By their very nature, these things are always going to be a popularity contest, but it’s not hard to make the nominees an accurate reflection of who made the biggest impact on the industry in the previous year. Obviously, history will be a better judge of what movies end up having the biggest long term affect on filmmaking but by continuing to tip its hat to stale biopics like The Theory of Everything and The Imitation Game, Oscar is going to continue to come off as an equally stale product.


This is the very same reason there’s been increased animosity towards the Academy Awards this year. More people seem to be noticing that by looking back at the past decades of nominees you get no sense of narrative, of evolution, diversification or progress. Indeed, it is boneheaded and backwards thinking for the Oscars to believe that at this point they can have any real impact on the future of the industry. It’s going to continue to evolve, diversify and progress with or without them. So the smart move, and relevant move, is to get on board and shine a light on it.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Joe (2014)

Dir. David Gordon Green
Viewed: From the Couch

Sean:

I’d heard plenty about Joe leading up to this viewing. Not only was it being called a continued return to form for director David Gordon Green (coming less than a year after Prince Avalanche), just as many words were being written about Nicolas Cage’s performance as the titular character. Cage and Green are certainly not an expected pairing. Even the outliers in their respective careers (and at this point Cage may have more outliers than inliers) wouldn’t lead anyone to expect a collaboration - certainly not one that works as well as Joe does. Say what you will about David Gordon Green’s dalliances with the Hollywood studio system, he has always been a master of tone - even when dealing with medieval dick jokes. Harnessing the powers of Nicolas Cage’s screen presence into something resembling a human may be a crowning achievement of sorts for Green.

For the first time in a while, it would seem, Cage is acting instead of giving one of those flamboyant performance-pieces that he seems to channel out of the ether to make otherwise unwatchable movies perversely entertaining. (That Green’s next film is starring Al Pacino could lead one to believe that Pacino’s agent took note?) His Joe is well rooted within the first half hour of the film as he expertly shepherds his crew of tree-poisoners, helps his friends manage some literal in-house butchering and patrons the local whorehouse.

But the tone of the film, one of highly tuned menace and impending doom, is well established by Green in the opening three minutes of the film. We’re introduced to 15 year-old Gary (Tye Sheridan, who after this and Mud is making quite the name for himself as the go-to actor for a wayward teenager in search of a father-figure) and his poisonous, drunk dad Wade (Gary Poulter). It’s a tense bit of business as Gary calmly lays into his father over his drinking and continuously ruining their prospects. Wade responds by slugging his son and purposefully walking up a hill to take the beating he has coming to him for whatever his past discretion was.

David Gordon Green found Gary Poulter, a homeless man who died shortly after filming his role as Wade, and he gives one of the more haunting performances in recent memory. Green has always had a habit of casting local non-actors for his films but I don’t think he’s ever captured something like what Poulter bring to Joe. Wade’s threatening presence is felt even when he’s not on screen stealing his son’s hard-earned money or another sad-sack’s booze. And when he is on screen, like all real-life drunks, he hovers between a pathetic mess and an evil animal. As someone who spent too much time with his own drunk dad, it’s unnervingly uncanny.


At the halfway point of the film, after he has given Gary a job in his crew and is deciding on whether to betray his instincts and further intervene, Joe gives a mini-monologue of sorts that Green sets to one of his typically impressive montages. Joe tells his girlfriend that restraint is what has kept him alive so far and that doing the right thing, stepping-in to help Gary, doesn’t mean their story will have a happy ending. “Do you think I have a move here?” Joe asks, incredulously. Part of what makes Joe such a good character is his self-awareness. He knows his strengths and his weaknesses and it’s a good bit of acting that Cage can sell this character as confidently as he does.

Of course Joe does step-in and take Gary under his wing. Thankfully there’s many, albeit brief, moments of humor in the film and a few of the best come from Joe trying to teach Gary some life lessons from his own peculiar book of rules. His instructions on how to make a cool face, “Hold the pain, smile through it,” is a particular delight (and reportedly improvised)... “Stand like you own land.” But even in these moments there is a sense that Joe knows he doesn’t have much time with Gary. Try to make a difference in this world they live in and something wicked will surely this way come. By this point Joe’s already taken a bullet from a predatory asshole he tried to straighten out in a bar fight so this kind of interference is bound to bring even worse.

This is David Gordon Green working squarely in his sweet spot. Those who long for his George Washington days will find plenty of that film’s leisurely paced scenes in D.P. Tim Orr's gorgeously shot fields of ruin. All that’s missing to really tie this film in as a finishing trilogy to George Washington and Undertow would be Gary’s casual voice-over narration - but the film is all the better for sticking to the ominous melodies of Jeff McIlwain and David Wingo (who has contributed music to all three films including working with McIlwain on spiritual cousin, Mud).

So Paddy, what are your impressions of Joe? I’m particularly interested in your thoughts on the ending. (And one of these days I want to get around to having a discussion about the power of a good or bad ending and how it can ruin a good movie or salvage a mediocre one.) If there’s one detriment to a movie that telegraphs and builds towards a grim conclusion it’s that you can get to feeling like it really has to deliver on it. For the most part I think it did, though, aside from my struggling with this feeling of it all happening more or less as expected, I have some issues with Ronnie Gene Belvins being a little too actory with his predatory asshole character - which feels like it is really saying something given that he’s acting alongside Nic Cage. But I must say I quite enjoyed watching him get interrupted by Joe while trying once again to bring up his experience with that windshield he didn’t give a fuck about.


Padraic:


So I hate to spoil the good vibes we had after our Ida review, but I had a difficult time with this one. I think Joe has some strengths – the deliberateness with which Green handles the scenes of the men working in the forests, a few of the set pieces between Cage and Sheridan (they do have some real chemistry, though Sheridan is on the road to -ish likability and would probably have good chemistry with anyone) and the tremendous sense of place created by the location shooting – but this was a real slog to get through.

I suppose we should start with Cage himself, whom I’ve never cared much about, either in the sense that he was a wasted talent or in the ironic way people rush about to see his horrible movies. He does better than expected here, and doesn’t look comical with a beard and flannel shirt, but the presence of Cage still overwhelms the more subtle and nuanced film Green is aiming for. This doesn’t have to be the case: McConaughey in Mud (I’ll come back to this comparison, which is not flattering) or Stiller in Greenberg, or whoever Tarantino drags out of the 70s, all seem to inhabit real people, while here the persona that is Nick Cage completely subsumes whatever real person Joe is supposed to be; you could have picked a New York stage actor at random and had a more moving and touching film.

Few actors I think would need such cliché early shots of realness (the distracting reliance on cigarettes, booze, dogs, guns and brothels) to establish him as a bona tough guy, or the absurd action-movie scene of him healing his own gunshot wound. We see Cage as a part-time drunk and chain smoker, yet he still looks in great shape. He even can smoke cigarettes in the pouring rain. And I’m not sure if it was the script, Green, or Cage’s vanity that required establishing Joe’s sexual acumen, but the scenes with his various women at the whorehouse and the girl shacking up with him at home seemed so jarring with the otherwise sensitive tone of the film. Yes, Joe is a beaten down old man who smokes and drinks constantly, but he’s still a great lover!

While Cage is the most prominent acting problem here, he only slightly eclipses Ronnie Gene Blevins, who you note might be laying it on a bit thick. I can’t speak to his overall talent, but I don’t see what else he was supposed to do given his less-than-fleshed-out role as guy with a scar who has a feud with the good guy (what was their beef about again…I forgot before the credits finished rolling). This is a character merely introduced to have something happen in the plot. Aside from doing absurd things like wiping down his shotgun prior to picking it up again and throwing it in a creek, he just pops up to have things for Joe to do. Their history is barely sketched out, as is the whole history of Joe himself. We learn far too late in the film about his proclivity for beating up cops, but there is no real depth to his supposed issues – I can’t imagine anyone caring about what happens to him at the end. While Mud delivered a complex character with a fully realized history and motivation, Joe gives us two guys shooting at each other because…well, because they have to shoot at each other to get the film to its ending. It’s astonishing that Mud’s island-dweller who is looking to rebuild a boat is a far more believable and three-dimensional character than Joe’s average dude who works, drinks beer, and smokes cigarettes.


I’m more ambivalent about Poulter, who is genuinely scary. I think it borders on exploitation to cast him in this role, but there is no denying the fact that his character is believable, and he provides more than enough to get you to empathize with Gary and his sister (though the murdering of a fellow homeless man to get some wine was gratuitous – we get that he’s horrible). The problem for me was that he was in some sense too real, and the reaction when he was on screen was close to what happens when a truly disturbed (and possibly threatening) homeless approaches you in real life – you’re disgusted and want to get away as quickly as possible. I simply did not want to watch the movie when he was on screen, and not in a way like, say, legendary cringe-worthy figures like Bill Maplewood from Happiness. Maybe it’s not Green’s job to humanize such a monster – they no doubt exist – but Wade as played by Poulter seems to reflect every worst thought I have about a homeless drunk. Maybe it’s true, and maybe its true (as for Gary's mom) that some homeless people really would be delighted and baffled by a mechanical alarm clock, but I would hope a goal of the film would be to add more complexity to characters and not to confirm gut reactions and instincts.

Whether it is the acting, the original story, or Green’s directorial and editing choices, the lives of these characters (Gary aside) simply never came alive for me. Aside from the well-chosen locals who chopped the trees, butchered the deer, and worked the convenience store, I was always aware that I was watching a film, its devices and motivations were all too transparent; its efforts to induce empathy fell flat. I was bored. At the end, when Gary is talking with his new employer, in a shot that beautifully echoes and inverts the first scene of the film, I so wanted to follow Joe in its story of a moral lesson of good hard work over the lures of alcoholism and hate, but so many things got in the way for the previous 100 minutes that I just wanted it to end. 

The problem may be in the title itself: why is it called Joe, and not “Gary,” when the kid is the better actor, and has a more richly developed character? The kid arrives at Joe’s work already possessed of a hatred for Wade, ambition, and a work ethic to escape his roots, so why does he even need Joe? He's got nothing to learn, and Joe has nothing to teach him - the lessons on women and how to stand are superfluous; Gary has the important shit down cold from the first second he picks up an axe. As in so many of those “flamboyant performance-pieces” you mention, Cage’s character is pointless, and generally only helpful with a gun in his hand. Unfortunately, in this case, it distracted from an actual attempt to make a real movie.


Sean:

I can't say I had any issues with Joe being about Joe. To me it felt like a film about a guy who has to make a choice and face the repercussions of that choice. I certainly didn't get this morality tale about good work over alcohol at all. I think everyone, even Gary, enjoys a drink in this movie (okay, except for the mail-lady). I don't think the movie is making the case that Wade is evil because of booze - I'd say it goes out of its way to not make that point. (Anyway, no one has, or will, put it any better than Homer Simpson did when he said it was "the cause and solution to all of life's problems".)

From the first scene, which shows Wade taking a beating for the unspoken transgression he's made, to the last being Joe getting his - it felt cohesive and on point throughout. If anything, Gary is the plot point character. He could have walked in from any dozen of other movies, yeah Mud being the most obvious one, and is the character who exists to get the machinations of the plot, however thin it may be, going.

As with Wade's beating, I liked that we don't have Joe and Ronnie Gene Blevins' (for the record, his character's name is Willie-Russell, not "predatory asshole") backstory spelled out for us. Joe punched him in a bar over something or other and after spending a minute with him Gary kicks the shit out of him too and the film doesn't make it difficult to believe that these things would happen to Willie-Russell, being as he is. Which is to say, an asshole (and a pretty dumb one as well - perhaps why he wipes a gun of before throwing it in the river?).

Getting into Joe himself, I can completely understand the casting of Nicolas Cage casting too large a shadow on the picture. Here's a guy with numerous websites and Tumblr pages devoted to his outsized personality. I'm not immune to it either. But in this case I bought it. As they say, every movie is owed a suspension of disbelief and David Gordon Green makes it easier than most. I actually have a much easier time buying Cage as Joe than I do (to use a related filmmaker) Richard Gere in Days of Heaven. Joe is the boss and not only does Gary not have a job (or a cool truck giving him hope, self-esteem, something to live for, etc.) without Joe but you get the idea that some of these other people under his employ might not have quite the same lives without him either.

I still feel the need to defend Joe's character just a little bit. I don't know where you picked up this "beaten down old man" idea from this movie. It makes a strong case in the early going that he's a pretty happy, respected guy (aside from this predatory asshole - but that's Texas and, speaking of which, do you think Joe has health insurance?) until this kid shows up and forces him to go down a road he'd rather not. Even after he gets shot, he isn't mopey or acting "beaten down" about it. In fact, he gives one of my favorite lines of the movie. His girlfriend asks, with him in bandages, bleeding and coughing, "Are you ok?" To which he replies, "I gotta quit smoking." From reading what I have about the film, there's little doubt that Cage improvised this line as well and it only adds to my appreciation to what he brings to the roll.


As far as Wade/Gary Poulter goes, my only tinge of worry comes from wether or not Poulter was too proud of the work he did and celebrated a bit too much, leading to his death. But none of this is for me to say. Gary Poulter was clearly someone completely different from Wade. I feel pretty certain he wouldn't be allowed within sight of the set of this film, never mind being cast and giving the performance he did, if he showed up to work like Wade does or was anything like this character he plays. Wade isn't homeless so I don't understand why you think his character represents your worst fear about homeless people. Instead I would admire that some homeless people have the capability of giving a film performance as well as Poulter does here. As far as drunks go, I think the scene (as nasty as it is, agreed) of Wade committing murder isn't as unnecessary as you think - if only to show how much Wade doesn't represent your typical drunk. Though I think it was important to show how far his evil ran - past lazy and abusive which is all that we witnessed before.

Well, I had only around a 50-50 feeling that you might get around the CageFactor of the film. I thought maybe, as I, you might harbor unending goodwill due to things like Raising Arizona, Birdy, Wild At Heart, Leaving Las Vegas, or even Bringing Out the Dead. As odd as he's gotten in the past let's say 15 years, I have always felt this weird "good intentions" thing about even the most misbegotten films he's ventured into. Granted, I haven't seen most of them, not even his quasi-misstep of most high regard, that Neil LaBute Wicker Man remake. But unlike a lot of actors who act in a lot of things (even those without crazy IRS debts like Cage) there tends to be an underlying respect for the craft with Nicolas Cage that sometimes has a difficulty shining through the muck. That is to say, even in the worst of movies, he doesn't half-ass things and people respect that. Maybe there is a percentage of fans that only like him ironically, but I think it is small and they are young and even the Tumblr pages don't really care about them.