ampersandology: film. culture. words.

Showing posts with label paul newman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label paul newman. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Great Stars and Their Last Films



by Jillian Butler, Ampersandology


There's one film that leads the discussion of Famous Last Films, and that's The Misfits (1961). Arthur Miller originally wrote the screenplay as a Valentine's Day present to his then-wife Marilyn Monroe, and in the years since, The Misfits has acquired a misty nostalgic sheen to it; it stands as a kind of talisman that film buffs can point to and say, "Look. Here. This is when the change started."


Whether or not that's accurate, it certainly is a tempting mythology. Starring Monroe, Clark Gable and Montgomery Clift, the entire production seems like cinematic kismet, as the film details the efforts of an aging cowboy (Gable) to rustle up mustangs to sell, while befriending an aimless divorced woman (Monroe) and rodeo drifter (Clift). Here, the symbolism starts to work overtime: the horses are sold for dog food, but the cowboy can remember the days (the good old days, in case you were wondering) when these same horses would be sold for children's fairs.

All three of its stars were approaching the end of their careers, though of course none of them knew it: Gable was a lifelong alcoholic and would collapse from a heart attack two days after filming; Clift, whose had only escaped his matinĂ©e idol good looks by being uncommonly talented, had been very badly disfigured in a motorcycle accident some years before and had never quite found his footing in Hollywood after that.

And then, of course, there is Marilyn Monroe, whose troubled life have filled a thousand pages of a hundred books far more impressively than I could attempt here; I will mention, however, that she had to attend the film's premiere on a pass from the psychiatric ward she had checked herself into for narcotics abuse.

Gable, who'd begun his career as an extra in silent films, was one of the last leftovers from the studio system, one of the last holdouts of the traditional, stoic masculine screen image that actors like Clift had fought hard to reinvent. Watching him in The Misfits is a little like witnessing the end of an era. And it's not just Gable: in their own ways, both Monroe and Clift were also the last of their kind, both raised in a largely studio-based Hollywood system that would begin to crumble in just a few years.

It's hard to watch The Misfits without all of this in mind; I tend to judge it as a haunting punctuation to three bright and troubled lives. Is this always the case, I wondered? It's a morbid tendency I've always nursed: the minute I hear that a famous Hollywood name has passed on, it's usually my first instinct to check their IMDb page for the last movie they completed.

Why? I'm not entirely sure, though I think it may have more to do with my need for symmetry. It touches me deeply when a star's last film provides some kind of symbolic closure on a life lived in the public eye; it disturbs me greatly when it seems arbitrary, or happenstance. 

Discuss! 


Audrey Hepburn - Always

 By 1989, Audrey Hepburn had begun the slow descendant of a successful star on the downswing; after her Oscar-nominated turn in 1967's Wait Until Dark, she worked only occasionally while raising her family or promoting the charities closest to her heart (as a child who'd grown up in the Nazi-occupied Netherlands, the plight of impoverished children hit her especially hard). In a career marked by style, charm and gamine grace, this treacly remake of 1943's A Guy Named Joe is an oddity on an otherwise impeccable resume.

Hepburn plays an angel to Richard Dreyfuss' downed airline pilot, and her charming, ever so maternal grace is a comforting distraction. The first clue to the film's general quality is how many genres it straddles: billed as a romantic comedy drama, Always strikes me as a jack of a couple of trades, but master of none. Also, many critics consider it a direct forefather to Ghost, so at least we know who to blame for this:





Monday, February 1, 2010

Butch Cassidy and the Worst Idea in the World

by Jillian Leigh, Ampersandology



I can't hold my tongue any longer. Tom Cruise is planning a remake of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and..well, there goes my last vestige of hope that my childhood would survive the New 'Aughts unscathed. Oh, and it gets better: John Travolta is set to take Paul Newman's part.

Yeah. I'll let that sink in.

Look. This isn't anything against Hollywood and their annoying tendency to throw money at bad ideas. This isn't even anything against Tom Cruise or remakes in general. This is a protest against trying to improve that which cannot be improved, AKA the Greatest Buddy Film Ever Made(tm).

This may come as a shock, considering the shiny purist hat I'm known to wear on occasion, but I don't think remakes are an inherently bad idea. I think that, if done with the right intent, remakes can be an amazing gauge for the fluid changes within a society. I've had a pet theory involving Invasion of the Body Snatchers (ask me more!) and the fact that every time it gets remade, it takes on the subtle paranoias dominant in culture at the time. There's been three or four versions so far, and every time, the tenor of the aliens doin' the snatching changes, evolving from Commie fears to hippie hatred to...well, whatever conglomerate it is that troubles us in the 2000s. I don't know, Nicole Kidman's pristine, creaseless forehead maybe? Anyway, the point is, it's like a Tabula Rasa that a filmmaker can use to overlay the concerns that pulse underneath the surface of a culture.

Remakes can be a handy tool, but usually only if there's a point to making them. As much as Disturbia bugged me as a pale imitation of the perfect Rear Window, it was still kind of neat to see the classic storyline interpreted using technology that probably spies on us more than we spy on each other. I've heard rumors of an upcoming remake of The Birds starring George Clooney and Naomi Watts, and I was excited, even with Michael Bay's name attached--it wouldn't be hard to update the "nature's revenge" in a way that resonates the same way it did in 1963, considering the hypocrisy that's found in a society that drops off the weekly recycling in the back of a gas-guzzling SUV. Plus, the caliber of the attached stars (Clooney and Watts)  made me hope for a smart reinvention rather than a lame grab for money.

Anyway, back to the main point: what is the real purpose behind remaking Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid for the 2000s, especially in its current Cruise/Travolta incarnation? I've gotten pretty good at reading the writing on the wall and I don't like what I see: Meet the Parents with cowboys. Cruise has already admitted he loved the movie as a kid, which literally makes him the worst possible choice to helm the remake.

That's not to say a remake couldn't work: give it the Deadwood treatment, and grunge up the already grungy lives of two affable outlaws. The original was admittedly light on the revisionist history angle, so you could play that up: not even cowboys lived like cowboys, after all. Try and work in something about the last frontier. Oh, and cast unknowns, as Robert Redford was at the time.

Otherwise, cast Brad Pitt and George Clooney. Those two could really use the money, you know, and they DO seem to get along. That's a remake I would proudly slide onto the shelf next to the original.

What do you think? Any remakes that you thought really worked? Or drove you crazy with their blatant wrongness?

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Newman + Christmas = MIRACLE!


by Jillian Leigh, Ampersandology


You ever hear about enabling? It's the psychological concept that usually develops in relationships when one party is addicted and the other commits behavior that perpetuates the addiction while thinking it's for the best. It's true because PsychologyWiki told me so


So, I bring this up because it's necessary to my Christmas miracle. Consider me plum flummoxed when trying to figure out if this amazing gift from my wonderful boyfriend counts as "enabling" or "thoughtful and sweet." My gut says both, and since '08, my gut has learned not to speak out of turn. 




Yeah, that's right. The Paul Newman Tribute Collection, mothercussers. In all its 17-disc special features glory. There are Newman movies in there I ain't never ever heard of. Enabling? I think so. Unrelenting happiness? I know so. Christmas = SAVED!


It's sweet to think that even after all this time, and all this babbling, he still supports understands complacently accepts my doomed love for ol' Blue Eyes. Thanks, Bug! 

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

James Lipton owns me.


by Jillian Leigh, Ampersandology





Inside the Actor's Studio used to be my favourite guilty pleasure. It had actors! INSIDE THE STUDIO! Talking about their roles! CANDIDLY! I love candid. It's so real and stuff. 


I particularly dug the singular approach of host James Lipton: the way his bottom lip quivers with excitement as he listens; the way his questions usually took longer than his subjects' answers; that beard. One word, ladies: endearing! Way back on the first episode, when my beloved Paul Newman was its first guest, you could tell he was a little intimidated by how much this man knew about him. That's Lipton's greatest strength: his overbearing research tic. He's like a stalker-- only hilarious and elderly! It was amazing, because Lipton's charming OCD researching skillz were not the pop culture legend they are, SO NO ONE WAS WARNED. 


It didn't hurt that he's proven to have an amazing, bordering on Damon-esque sense of humour about his pompous rep. He was on Arrested Development! That's like solid GOLD for the cool kids table! 


But then, as they always do, things got silly. The guests on this once beloved cultural touchstone began to get a little unorthodox (Billy Bob Thornton? Oh, okay, yeah, sure I guess...) to questionable (has Tim Allen ever actually acted? Since when does 'aping' count? Aw, did I miss the vote again?) to unfortunate (wait, wait, wait-- Jennifer WHO-pez?). Then the once veritable Studio, that had nurtured such talents as Marlon Brando, Montgomery Clift and Sidney Poitier dove straight into implausible with just two words: Bon. Jovi.


Clearly, the Studio had cross-examined all the real actors and was busy chipping its way through anyone marginally eligible for the moniker of "thespian." It's more like "Inside the People Who Have Uttered Words in a Public Venue's Studio." And to be quite honest, it was embarassing to heard Lipton apply his special brand of hyperbole to the ouvre of Queen Latifah. Look, I sekritly like Last Holiday as much as the next guy, but come on. It's no Center Stage, people. 


But losing streak be damned...this clip brought the magic back. Damn it Lipton; I just can't quit you. 






Sunday, November 22, 2009

Love.



by Jillian Leigh, Ampersandology


If this isn't true love, then it doesn't exist. 





I love how he watches her. Like it's going out of style.




Thursday, October 15, 2009

A House With Yellow Walls

by Jillian Leigh, Ampersandology


I think people doubt my devotion to Paul Newman sometimes, especially now that he's gone. But not only has it not dimmed in the least, I've also figured out a way to (yet again) discuss him in my master's thesis. Do you know why? Because if there's one truism about my life, it's that I will always find a way to talk about Paul Newman (some more).

So I submit to the jury what hangs on my living room wall, proudly and a little sadly.


It's from Hud. I commissioned it from a wildly talented artist of my almost-acquaintance. I consider its placement in my home my official entry to the Charmingly Obsessive and Borderline Eccentric Brigade (Howard Roark was the founding father!!!!). Before I owned this, I didn't have an answer to the question, "What would you save if your house was burning down?" Now it's less a question and more a firm statement. An avowal, if you will.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

A Thin Line Between Homage and Knockoff: A Question in Three Parts



by Jillian Leigh, Ampersandology












At what point does an homage become a rip-off?


That's a question on my mind amid all the hype for the new Quentin Tarantino film, Inglourious Basterds—if this is the first you’ve heard of it, congratulations: you’re the first human being to successful survive without food or water under a rock for nine months.



My relationship with Tarantino’s work has always been a mixed bag—I can watch his films, enjoy them even, but something’s never quite right. The line between rip-off and homage has always been very thin, and it's one that Tarantino seems happy to stomp over time and time again. The question is difficult to answer: at what does a loving tribute transform into uninspired shorthand?


But this is a fact: films reference films. It's a visual medium, and therefore, it quickly becomes difficult to pull off a shot that is unlike any other shot in over 100 years of examples. There are really only so many ways to set up a shot; so many ways to portray a character. Sometimes, an homage becomes a shorthand to conveying to your audience certain themes, dilemmas or times of social upheaval (see: Christ figure, Cool Hand Luke); other times, it seems the lazy way to let someone else's work telegraph the hard parts (see: any Scary Movie film, ever).


This is where the tricky part with Tarantino comes in: anyone who has heard him speak at length can sense the man's deep love of films. But it doesn't take much investigation to find how just how deep that love goes: he has taken his favorite scenes from his favorite movies and reproduced them wholesale. Many sequences are an elaborate game of 'pin the film reference.' He even references himself. My problem with this is that I can't help but think: is that even making a film? It's the Dr. Frankenstein method of directing.


Or, when it comes to Tarantino, is homage the whole point? The man’s a rip-off artist...but with an emphasis on rip-off or artist? To solve this, you’ve got to look backwards to see where he came from to understand where I'm going.





Part One: The Birth of the Loving Tribute



Blame it on the 1960s.


Late in the decade, a new school of thought was stepping in on traditional studio-era film making, thanks to the newly minted graduates of the industry's first formal film schools. Hailing almost exclusively from the East Coast, these cats were one of the first generations that had been raised by movies --kids in the 1930s and 40s, when American film making had transformed from an amusing fad to an art form, they had grown up worshipping the silver screen and its infinite possibilities.




Their names are big nowadays –Scorsese, Coppola, Spielberg, Bogdanovich and Beatty, to toss out a few---but back then they were just kids who had gotten into the business not for the fame, or for the perks—by and large, they had been lured in by a simple love of movies.


The 1970s also marked an incredible freedom of control for the people behind the camera—the director was the thing. Studios turned out creative control and gave artistic freedom—mostly because they sensed the change a-comin’ and feared losing the box office receipts of counterculture kids who were uninterested in lining the pockets of the Man.


The decade had been a long battle to win viewership away from the newly-popular television, which was both free and surrounded by the comforts of home. Hollywood first tried to go big, trying to imitate past successes--showboat musicals (like Hello Dolly! and Doctor Doolittle) and historical epics (Cleopatra) were churned out in an effort to provide an experience that the audience could find nowhere but the big screen. But the formula fell flat and these films were by and large flops--the audience wasn't interested in the same old thing. A new wisdom was born, mostly out of desperation: give the pictures over to those same long-haired kids who thought their stories were going to change minds, and stay in business.



So there’s your recipe: take one crop of green, eager filmmakers, mix in plenty of freedom and cash, and watch Hollywood become one massive inside joke. It was awash with people who knew each other socially and planned their movies over a long evening of wine and dope--a far cry from the wheel-deals of the studio. Most of these well-educated film buffs were looking overseas for their inspiration, and it’s written all over their films, most explicit of these influences being the French New Wave. The French New Wave, an admitted small term for a very big subject, was an informal movement in Europe that was all about self-conscious film making that rejected traditional cinematic form. In other words, no more tidy Hollywood maxims about films unfolding in a certain way. Try instead: abrupt and jarring jump cuts, bizarre and lengthy montages and vague story lines.



So for the fresh faces suddenly ruling Hollywood, referencing their favorite New Wave and European films and directors became a kind of insider shorthand. In other words, a visual or thematic reference to the films of Francois Truffaut or Jean Luc Godard (or even each other) was an easy way of communicating that this film, too, spoke a different language than the ones that came before it. This film, unlike its ancestors, was now tapped into a new wave of thinking about the way that films were watched and discussed. It was a loving tribute by empowered fanboys, and in a Hollywood still yet to outgrow the rigid studio system, it had a long way to go.


That was a long precursor to a simple idea: the birth of the film buff, and the idea of homage in film would never be the same.







Next: Part Two, A Breakdown of Onscreen Shorthand

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

A Guide to Knowing My Saints

by Jillian Leigh, Ampersandology


In the meandering conversations I tend to have with those in my immediate circle, I was shocked to learn the extent to which many people have let their movie education fall. These are smart people. These are canny people. But the spots in their filmic education left me crestfallen. Fallen are the state of my crests.

In most cases, it's no one's fault. Social circumstances (including the stigma that surrounds old movies, the unavailability of many of them, and culture's tendency to look in one direction--ahead) leave many would-be cinephiles unsure of where to begin. Now granted, I'd never hold my own education up as a gauge. That would be unfair and also ridiculous, because not only do I have a roughly 12 year headstart, but film culture has ingrained itself onto my radar, not unlike the ears of a well-trained, underfed Doberman tuned to his master’s backyard. It's more than a little sad, honestly.

That said, taking a page from Pajiba, I'm compiled a short list of starter films, sorted by genre. If there's one great thing about old movies, it's that one wonderful picture will usually lead you to many more.

The Western: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)
I don't like Westerns as a rule, but if I'd stuck to that tenet, I never would have seen this film. Two birds with one stone? You must be talking about Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, a film that never fails to make my top three. It's both a buddy comedy and history lesson, a incidental picture of the Wild West and a sad portrait of two men living on the outskirts of society. That's what I love about this film, beyond the cracking dialogue, great locations, and genuine affection between the leads. You come to love these characters so much, and believe in their schemes, that by the film's end you'll come to realize that if they'd maybe been on a different path, there's no reason that these two smart, canny men couldn't have made a real go of it. But then, that's probably where half the appeal of the story comes from in the first place.

This film also introduced me to the love of my life, Paul Newman. Sorry, Boyfriend of Jill. It's true. Funny, wise-cracking, and more than a little obtuse, his mouthy Butch is the perfect and delicious counterpoint to Redford's stoic, sick-talented Sundance.

Like this? Try these: The Magnificent Seven, Cool Hand Luke, The Searchers, Bonnie and Clyde, The Wild Bunch



The Social Issue Film: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)
Blast it, Hollywood. Look at you, bein’ all adorably concerned. The funny thing about this category is that the earlier you go, the most likely you’ll get a title card helpfully outlining the dire place the film’s problem takes up in society. Teenage delinquents, amoral gangsters, chain gangs—Hollywood has definitely gone through its fretful phases, clucking like a mother hen and scurrying to add Important Social Commentary. And if the Social Issue Film had a patron saint, you'd better believe it would be Jimmy Stewart who, with 1939's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, took on a corrupt government system and fought with his last ounce of strength. If you can get through the last moments of Stewart's filibuster stand without getting a little weepy, you're made of stronger stuff than I.

Like this? Try these: Meet John Doe, In the Heat of the Night, The Public Enemy, The Wild One, Rebel Without a Cause


The Billy Wilder Film: The Apartment (1960)
Billy Wilder is a longtime hero of mine. He’s like the Nabokov of film: excelling linguistically in an adopted tongue.
He does what most of us couldn’t even fathom—he moved from his native Poland to Hollywood and had to learn the language, something you’d never guess from the crackling dialogue he puts onscreen. He was always ashamed of his thick accent, but it never mattered—he went on to become THE name in screenwriting, in a profession where the whole point is that people forget you’re the one putting words in people’s mouths. And The Apartment is my favorite--driven by dialogue and character, it’s unflinching in its portrait of the New Man—and New Woman—of the 1960s. It tells of C.C. Baxter, a cog in an insurance company that rents out his apartment to higher-ups to conduct their affairs, hoping to make good and get promoted. Heartbreaking but unsentimental, with Jack Lemmon in the best role of an impressive career, it’s a very human story of funny, lovable characters who are still too screwed up to get anywhere.

Like this? Try these: Some Like It Hot, Ace in the Hole, Ninotchka, The Lost Weekend, Double Indemnity, The Seven Year Itch


The Screwball Film: The Awful Truth (1937)
The story in screwballs is rarely the focus—it’s incidental, and is really only preset to gather together all the wacky misfits so that the fun can begin. My favourite of these is
The Awful Truth, starring the always marvelous Irene Dunne and screwball staple Cary Grant. The story? Well, officially, it's the tale of a well-to-do couple who divorce on little more than vague suspicions (on both sides) of infidelity. The unofficial one? It's the tale of an endless battle of the sexes, with man and wife delivering snappy one-liners, timing their pratfalls, and sabotaging the other's happiness before they end up back where they belong.

Like this? Try these: His Girl Friday, It Happened One Night, My Favorite Wife, The Philadelphia Story, The Thin Man



The Inside Scoop Film: All About Eve (1950)
I always loved films that had that backstage, insider feel. Whether it's for stage or for film, stories that take place around the fringes of a production have that shiny glint of the unknowable gossip. After all, who better to make a picture about the hopeless plight of ac-TORS than their handlers? And All About Eve is no disappointment on this front—giving you the catty backstabbing, fraught narcissism and endless ladder-climbing that goes hand in hand with the (noble? Ignoble? Inexplicable?) profession of acting. What I love most about All About Eve—and any of the movies in this category—is that they give you characters who have been in the business for so long that stage (or the screen) has lost its glitter, and it’s just another job to them. Margo Channing (Bette Davis), shining star of Broadway, meets gushing fan Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter) backstage at one of her shows. Flattered by the girl's relentless adoration, and facing the insecurity of a middle age lived onstage, Margo hires Eve as her personal assistant. From then, it's only a matter of time before the once docile Eve secretly reveals an ambition to be a star that overshadows even her idol. Bottom line: there's no people like theater people, and THANK GOD for that.

Like this? Try these: Singin' in the Rain, A Star is Born, Sunset Blvd., 42nd Street, The Player


The Boy's Club Film: Taxi Driver (1976)
Looking back on the boy's club of the 1970s, with the conscious shift to the younger, hipper director New Hollywood, I find it a time-period of endless fascination. With the glint of the blockbuster sdummer movie still on the far horizon, the late 1960s and early 1970s was an amazing orgy of creative control and experimentation, as directors, writers and producers called the shots for the first time in Hollywood history. The result is cinema at its finest--more films worthy of classic status in a year than the entirety of the 2000s. Taxi Driver, the story of alienated Vietnam vet turned cabbie Travis Bickle, played famously by Robert DeNiro.
Nowadays, the starstruck adulation from a generation of teenage boys has tarnished the cultural significance that Taxi Driver still holds. Taxi Driver, along with American Gigolo, Light Sleeper, and The Walker, made up the “Night Worker” series, films that profile and near-mythologize the unusual social space occupied by those who are earning their living as the world sleeps. It is an exploration of loneliness, obviously, but it is moreso a love/hate song to the New York of the 1970s that was wiped clean by the Disneyfication of the city in the 1990s – New York is a gritty, filthy character in its own right. I always like to see it as Martin Scorsese's desperation to save the city he loves in the same breath that he realizes it's already a lost cause.

Like this? Try these: Chinatown, Raging Bull, The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, The Conversation

The Most Perfect Movie Ever Made Film: Tootsie (1982)
Just watch it. Seriously. There’s a reason they still teach this one in screenwriting class, and it ain't because Dustin Hoffman makes a scarily prescient woman. Well, okay, it's partly that.

Like this? Try: Watching it again. No, seriously. I'll wait.

Monday, June 1, 2009

Paul, publicity photo circa mid-1950s.


And please keep in mind: this picture was taken before he grew into his looks. 

If that sentence makes no sense to you, welcome to my world. 

Sunday, January 4, 2009

The End of Year Tally

2008: nice knowin' ya. Here's what your saucy trails left behind.  

Best in Show

 DRAMA

Mad Men.

Oh, Mad Men. How do I love thee? Let me inappropriately hit on the ways. In its second season, everything about Mad Men I loved was warped and rendered impotent: the changing times made youth the new buzzword and the old guard looked rigidly traditional, the excessive drinking got once-ballyhooed employees quietly fired, and his wicked ways nearly cost Don his home, his wife and his suit as he went on a bizarre pilgrimage to California (actually, the part where he was kind of naked was pretty awesome; also awesome was all that completely hot!bad!wrong! sex he found himself having. Oh, I am a fan in so many, many ways). And in the end, we were back at the beginning- with Betty and Don together, Pete without Peggy or a prayer and those things left unsaid loudly exposed- but it had changed imperceptively yet distinctly, like a party dress worn the next day. The end of season two was a quiet riot that'll ripple into the next. 

 Dexter

In other news, Michael C. Hall continued to confuse my delicate sensibilities as the inexplicably attractive sociopath Though, I suppose next to the overbearing Jimmy Smits, a potted plant would be sexy (future note, Jimmy: “yelling” is not a synonym for “acting.”). Its third season had an excruciatingly slow start, but once it took off, it went running. But once again, it does tend to fall back on its own worn-in tropes: Dexter is given a seeming soul mate only to be forced to exterminate them; La Guerta has poor taste in friends and feels betrayed; Harry Morgan is a douchebag. 

For the win: Mad Men, because at least its sociopaths have an attractively human veneer.

COMEDY

How I Met Your Mother

I remember the announcement of How I Met Your Mother in the din of other sitcoms that would ultimately prove a disappointment. It sounded stupid: a father relays the entire story of how he met the mother of his children to said kids. But check this out: How I Met Your Mother is, dare I say it, amazing, sweet, hilarious and heart-rending. It only gets funnier with time and repeat watching. It corners that nebulous period in between leaving your natural family and starting your own, when your friends and lovers are the only family you need, and pinpoints the exact bittersweet tinge of this gradually evolving lifestyle. It’s a show that blows continuity out of the water (a gag set up in one episode may not pay off for three) and doesn’t waste one of its considerably talented cast members.

30 Rock

30 Rock, on the other hand, corners a far more specific 30 something: the neurosis-fuelled, post-Oprahfied single woman. Skimming the footsteps left by her more obvious ancestors (from Mary Tyler Moore to That Girl--which yes, I remember despite being a ‘maybe someday’ in my mother’s vocabulary at the time of its release), Tina Fey rocks the single girl instability with more candor and honesty than her spiritual foremothers. Plus, here’s Alec Baldwin at his most sexually confusing to tide you over! (WHY AM I ATTRACTED TO HIM?!?)

For the win: How I Met Your Mother. Anything that puts money directly into the bank account of the ridiculously talented comeback kid Neil Patrick Harris is the winner of basically everything.

Best in Suit: Um, even having a category suggests there's anyone other than Don Draper who could take this distinct honor. And I’m insulted by the possibility.

Best in Buff: Is it just me, or should Daniel Craig, Robert Downey Jr. and Kate Winslet just never wear clothes again? It seems like such a waste of effort on their part. Or at least wear as little as possible.  OR! Just make a series of 1930s throwback pictures where they lie around smoking and bantering in various states of undress. NOTE: this is probably one of my better ideas. 

Honorable mention: Chace Crawford, if you’re not going to take off your shirt, at least help your friend and co-star Ed Westwick do so. Honestly. Do I have to do everything around here? Because I’m okay with that.




 Most Bittersweet Inevitability: 

 Best in Film

 The Dark Knight: Hype that’s well-earned, for once. Bless the socks of anyone in this film whose name doesn’t rhyme with “wreath,” because they were overshadowed by his powerhouse, celluloid-shaking turn as the Joker. There’s not much to say that hasn’t been said already.

 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days: Nuanced, gripping and tedious in a way that feels like friendship, this little film about repressed liberties haunted my synapses for way too long.

 Frost/Nixon: I just…I just can’t deal with the fact I’ve placed a Ron Howard film on any list of mine, so I’ll leave it at this: YAY SAM ROCKWELL. 

 Vicky Cristina Barcelona: Charming, frothy and still thought-provoking, Woody Allen granted me the mercy of making Javier Bardem attractive again. Woody: thank you for this. No, seriously.

 Iron Man: Look. Ain’t no better time onscreen than watching Robert get his Downey Jr. on. The marriage of superhero and cool have never blended so logically; in the past, it was a relationship that needed work and a lot of special effects, but in Downey’s hands it becomes an afterthought. His Tony Stark is snickering at us the whole time: “You thought that was cool? Give me two seconds. Ha. See? I know. I’m awesome.”

  

The Spielberg Award for Artistic Echo 2008

 An award that goes out every year to the filmmaker that most clearly exhibits a trademark fascination with a certain subject, movie after movie. Named for Steven Spielberg, who likes to fall back on his artistic themes like a junkie falls behind on the rent, this award commemorates those in filmmaking who, though they do it well, do it often.

 Previous winners include Adrian Lyne (“Hey everyone! I like adultery! Ask me why!”), Sam Mendes (“The suburbs blow—permit me to demonstrate.”), and Stanley Kubrick (“Dear human race: FUCK YOU.”).

 This year’s winner is…


Steven Spielberg, for a stunning return to extraterrestrials! Just when you thought he got it out of his system, folks, it crops up again in the latest ode to B-movie serials, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (sidenote: did someone get paid by the letter for that title?). All those madcap caper flicks and serious dramas couldn’t distract him forever: Steven has a serious thing for the otherworldly, the unexplained, the big-headed and eight-fingered. Steven, darling—I love you. But you really need to get over this little fixation on outer space. It’s beginning to embarrass us all. Out of his entire filmography (both as director and producer) I counted no less than 12 films with either explicit or implicit connections to aliens. Steven, this is too many. Admit it--deep down, if you could have found a way to blame Jaws on little green men? You would have.

 Oh my God. You did, didn’t you? Oh, Steven.

 Extra points awarded because  The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull  managed to straddle at least two more of Spielberg’s old standbys. First up, the unresolved daddy issues: Shiiiiiiiia LeBeouf (goddamn, I love that kid) shows up to give Indy a chance to muse on the disappointed daddy syndrome left dangling by The Last Crusade. Marion is such a whore. Anyway, it’s a big thing with Spielberg: guys and their dads. Never growing up. Etc, etc.

 That being said, Shia LeBeouf is awesome. The fact that his entire character is a thinly veiled attempt to piss off Marlon Brando’s already pissed off ghost made my decade (ps. The Wild One called—it wants its DVD cover back).

 Which leads me to item two: pop culturbation. Steven knows his pop culture, that’s for sure. Between the ode to 1950s greasers (the only time I actually enjoyed myself in the entire running time) and the thwarted attempt to capture the golden age of campy sci-fi, Spielberg had the outlines of something real good. Which brings us back to the insertion of aliens, and the unfortunate fixation therein. Oh Steven. You may be a broken record, but it’s one I like to listen to. 

Sunday, September 28, 2008

I Come Here to Praise Fast Eddie, Not to Bury Him




"For a moment there, I thought we were in trouble."
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

The story begins as many stories do; I met him in the countryside. I was staying in a quiet cabin nestled in the middle of the woods, at least two zip codes away from civilization. The cabin belonged to my grandfather, and my twelfth year was still hovering threateningly on the horizon (given that year 12 is the one I recognize as changing it all). The night was long and sticky, hollowed out by a day’s worth of diversion, and the isolation from even the closest of our neighbors left us with nothing to do. Admittedly, it was probably his insertion into what had been a dull night that’s made the memory so crystalline for me, even years later.


It was Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, and it was the worst television reception in the history of the medium. Seriously. In fact, I’m pretty sure the generator gave out somewhere before Big Daddy’s last speech and left me staring at a blank screen. It was CBC, and it was years beyond my maturity level, so I didn’t grasp what the hell was going on, for the most part. I was still operating on a Lion-King = good, anything else = bad level of quality assurance. So the nuances of the film fell on deaf ears, never mind the subtext (which they skate over in the film anyway, but that’s something I do on my own: Brick? Gay? Nah, not with those arms). So the film itself was something less than remarkable for me, with one exception. I remembered that man.

Maybe a leap for an eleven year old to make, to stamp a handsome face with a sexual buzz based on nothing more than a fuzzy television reception. He probably stole my heart that night, even if I didn’t know it at the time. In the following years, this moment had created what can be called a buzz around the name Paul Newman. Still, nothing crystallized for me until years later. Caught up in my adolescent cinephilia, hopelessly childlike in my single-minded devotion, I was gulping down the AFI 100 in fives, a list which, to the uninformed, is the logical starting point in an education of cinema (to the informed: it is not). I was rounding the Westerns of the list, something which I hated then and still hate now. It was for that reason that I came to meet the Paul Newman that would define my preoccupation; otherwise, would I have ever picked up Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid? Doubtful.


After I’d seen that…forget about it. No way, no how, was anyone ever replacing Paul for me. He was The Movie Star, the one face that would be pinned to my inner teenager’s bedroom wall forever, provided that my inner teen was trapped in the early 1960s. He was the Charmer, with that rapier wit, that good-natured bravado—all packaged with the assurance that, no matter what the role, there was a good man underneath the trappings. He was the Good Ol’ Boy, all impish humor and Southern sass. And, I only found this out by accident, after I was done drooling over those electric blue peepers, he was a Great Actor, distracting his audience with his tangible charms while he slipped in one thoughtful, controlled performance after another.

Today’s a sad day. Long live ol’ blue eyes and the forever graceful.

Paul Newman, 1925-2008


originally published Saturday, September 27, 2008

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails