Hey all…I want to return to the topic of Napoleon Dynamite for a moment. The College is sponsoring a free screening of the film this Wednesday night. On Thursday night, Aaron Ruell (Kip) and Efren Ramirez (Pedro) will appear at our Sotille Theater to speak, present assorted clips, and do a Q&A. The students who organized this event asked me to moderate. I’d like to use this blog as a sounding board of sorts–see if you all think I’m heading in a good direction.
Author: john
Peckinpah unbound
“Major Dundee” has gotten the “restored” treatment. Fat chance this thing comes to Charleston, so I’ll wait for the DVD. But please, please, somebody on this blog go see this in the theater (is Michael the only person who would be able to go see this?). From what I understand, it will be quite an experience. The most striking thing is not the additional 12 minutes (after all, Peckinpah’s original cut was 2 hours 44 minutes, and the theatrical release was 2 hours and 2 minutes–this “restored” version is only 2 hours 14 minutes), but the completely new soundtrack and the dolby digital sound. Of course, the original aspect ratio will add to the experience (the only way to see Richard Harris is on the big screen–his performances can be measured best by the square foot). I haven’t seen this film in a while…I saw it on VHS years ago. I remember it was pan-and-scan, with the colors all but lost. A bit of a disappointment. Continue reading Peckinpah unbound
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
This post falls under the category of “the state of things.” I was thinking of posting a wise and lengthy denunciation of this trend in Hollywood of remaking horror films from the 70s (and importing more recent ones from Japan). But I’ve run dry of wisdom, and in order to make this post lengthy, I’ve decided to add a little twist to the plot. That is, rather than howl and fuss over a rash of (mostly subpar) remakes over the past several years (“Amityville Horror,” being the most recent), I wonder if it’d be more interesting for us to consider that Hollywood was in the business of recycling from the get-go. Even before there WAS a Hollywood, there was the remake. How many Frankensteins were there before Boris Karloff climbed into his elevator shoes? Okay one. But you get the point. Better: think of all the Hunchbacks, the Jekylls & Hydes and Phantoms of the Opera. In 1926, D.W. Griffith remade “The Sorrows of Satan”–just nine years after the original. There were three versions of “The Cat and the Canary” in fifteen years! But it’s not just horror films that get the rehash treatment. Edwin Porter’s smash hit “The Great Train Robbery” (1903) was remade the following year by some hack producer named Siegmund Leiben. “Stella Dallas,” directed by Henry King, was released in 1925. Twelve years later King Vidor gave us another one, this time with Babs Stanwyck and John Bowles (what a talent, that Bowles). Fast forward 50 years or so and yet another version, starring Bette Midler. Hitchcock remade one of his own films. It’s only a matter of time before another Star is Born. And who can forget Marty Feldman’s “The Last Remake of Beau Geste”? Strange that he was right. It WAS the last remake…
Jerry Lewis
Just a heads up: Jerry’s solo films are now available on DVD. I recommend the following film be added to your Netflix cue ASAP (I insist you update your cue as well, because “The Incredibles” and “Sex and the City, Season 6, Vol. 2” will just have to wait for this one):
“The Ladies Man” (1961). This film is ahead of its time. Much of the film is shot on a set so large that it took up two Paramount sound stages. Built by Lewis at a cost of $500,000 (ridiculous at the time), the cutaway set of a four-story mansion allowed the camera to roam in and out, up and down, without cutting. Jean-Luc Godard had this film in mind when he shot “Tout Va Bien.” Wes Anderson must have had “The Ladies Man” in mind as well, because some of the scenes on the Belafonte are shot in the same way.
Overall, Lewis’s films are pretty dated–they seem to please only the most hardcore of fans. But this film is really stunning. The story is this: a college grad, swearing off women for the rest of his life, unwittingly takes a job as a houseboy in an all-girl boarding home. It has no plot, really. Basically, it’s a masterful stringing-together of choreography, cinematography, and gags. Not his funniest, but it’s probably the most visually impressive film he ever made.
Truth is stranger than fiction
Or: truth is no stranger to fiction. Hey, could we talk about documentaries? The College has a Film Club, and I’m the acting advisor. One of the things the Club’s president has asked me to do is recommend films for the Club to screen. I noticed that none of the films the Club has screened in the recent past are non-narrative or experimental. So I suggested they put together a documentary film series. I don’t know if they’ll run with this idea, but I am hoping they’ll have an official screening of at least one documentary in the near future. I told them a nice start would be the Maysles’s “Salesman”–which I think is a classic. It’s as painful, funny, and intriguing as “Glengarry Glen Ross” or “Death of a Salesman.” Any other suggestions? Doesn’t matter if it’s obscure or marginal, just as long as it’s available. By the way, does anyone know if Errol Morris’s “Gates of Heaven” is available in any format? And why hasn’t there been more talk about experiemtnal or non-narrative films on this blog? J’accuse!
Paul Giammati poops
This is a frivolous post, so forgive me. It is prompted by a casual exchange between Frisoli and Arnab regarding the somewhat regular cinematic appearance of Harvey Keitel’s peeeeenis. I watched “American Splendor” for a second time the other night, and I noticed that, as in “Sideways” there’s a (brief) shot of Giammati sitting on the crapper. Does anyone know of other films that feature Giammati pooping? And has anyone seen “Kings of the Road”–it features perhaps the most touching scene of a man pooping I’ve ever found in film (not that I look for it…often). Anywho, I take it that a man pooping is always a figure of pathos. I’ll be interested in seeing who responds to this first.
Oscar predictions again?
Oscars are coming up, don’t forget. Shall we take another stab at looking at the trends in this year’s nominations and discussing what folks can expect at the ceremony? Arnab started us with a few ideas. He’s under the assumption that because Scorsese has never won he’s bound to win this year. Is he using projection data? That is, is there something built into this whole process that makes it more or less predictable? Or is this a guessing game? Take, for instance, the documentary short nominee “Autism is a World.” Although I have not seen the film, I am quite confident it will win because autism has been in the news a lot lately. A cause celbre. Another example: I think Thomas Haden Church will win for best supporting actor. Although I saw “Sideways” and liked his performance very much, I am instead basing my prediction on the fact that Paul Giamatti didn’t get the nomination for best actor. The Academy likes to try and clean up after itself as much as possible by offering “concession” awards, so the nod will go to Church. Does the Academy try to distinguish itself from the Hollywood Foreign Press Association? If that’s what you think, you probably expect that Hilary Swank will not win Best Actress, and that Jamie Foxx will not win Best Actor. Any thoughts? Any timeless trends worth pointing out? Joan Rivers scares me.
Central Station
Arnab mentioned this film in one of his most recent comments. I saw it recently, and it’s terrific. I especailly like the pilgrimage scene. It made me want to write a letter to Jesus. I think I’m the only one in this group who has not seen “The Motorcycle Diaries,” but I want to see it now more than ever. By the way, does everyone know that Salles studied film at USC?
Ben Stiller
This is really just a test, but I thought I’d try to say something interesting along the way. New Yorker critic David Denby doesn’t like Ben Stiller: “He’s never done much for me.” “He’s not effortlessly funny.” “He looks like a mildly paranoid gibbon.” By the time I read the last comment, I had already dismissed Denby for making, earlier in the piece, the ridiculous error of describing Eugene Levy’s career as “fizzled out” (commercially-speaking, Levy seems to be doing more than all right. He’s in no danger of not finding work. Besides, unlike Martin Short, Levy was never a bona fide star to begin with. So how can his movie career, like Short’s, “fizzle out”? And did Denby not see Levy’s amazing performance in “A Mighty Wind”? The fact is, Levy is talented and we’re seeing him more and more. Isn’t that good? Presumably, if you are funny, talented, prolific, and hairy, Denby will hate you). I know mildly paranoid gibbons, Mr. Denby, and Stiller is no mildly paranoid gibbon.
Tucker: the Man and his Dream
The topic of Scorsese’s “Aviator” has prompted me to add this title to our slowly-growing list of underrated films. My favorite scenes: Tucker’s meeting with Senator Ferguson (played by Lloyd Bridges) and his late-night rendezvous with Howard Hughes (played by Dean Stockwell) in the Spruce Goose hangar. No one plays the naif more charmingly than Jeff Bridges (“Starman,” “Tucker,” “The Big Lebowski”).