+BROWN BUNNY (2003) - (A Movie Review)

Roger Ebert hated the 120 minute version of Brown Bunny that debuted at festivals in 2003, but he gave the 90 minute re-edit three stars despite some reservations. I personally found it more interesting than Vincent Gallo’s directorial debut, BUFFALO 66. That film too may have benefited from a shortened length.

Gallo looks like a street hood straight from central casting and therefore Gallo the director uses that image to give the audience the wrong impression of the main character. He looks dangerous like young Marlon Brando on the outside, but he’s Jimmy Stewart on the inside. The action in both Gallo movies is the slow peeling away of the Brando for the Stewart. He likes to do that with his real-life image as well. Gallo has been on record several times saying that he is a Republican. He’s even attended events with Jenna Bush.

But the sex scene at the end of Brown Bunny is the most graphic thing I’ve ever seen between 2 mainstream actors. So is Gallo being ironic or contradictory or just enigmatic? Since being a Democrat in that community is the most conformist choice you could make, I think Gallo is asking his audience which choice is more provocative. I mean what’s a more avant-garde these days than identifying with George W. Bush? And when you can identify with Bush but make “open-minded” critics like Roger Ebert blush at the sexual content, you are really blazing a unique trail. Whatever Gallo’s actual politics, he’s certainly demonstrating that he wants to be a maverick.

BROWN BUNNY is mostly silent with intermittent dialogue to break things up. I liked the pace quite a bit and felt that the payoff tied the character’s actions together rather well. Some critics howled at what they considered an overly simple meaning, but most heart-wrenching events of real life are rather simple if you think about it.

Director Todd Haynes was lavishly praised for his Douglas Sirk rip-off FAR FROM HEAVEN by playing into our egos as open-minded individuals. It was well-made with good performances, but neither challenging nor surprising, though it was treated by critics as some sort of revelation. Critics love to pat themselves on the back and it’s a most comforting movie in a politically correct age. Gallo has made the antithesis of that effort, a movie that makes you feel uncomfortable before reminding you of the simple human yearnings that mirror real life much more than the “realism” critics usually praise. I liked it enough to watch it again the next night when Trish got back into town.

PAUL McCARTNEY IN CONCERT (Review of his 9-17-05 performance in Tampa, FL)

Paul McCartney ended the US leg of his 2002 tour in Florida and in 2005, he began here. I hadn’t thought that would be significant, but McCartney and band were so sharp in Tampa in 2002 that it was a phenomenal experience. So much so, that I talked Brother John into driving down to Fort Lauderdale to see him again. Now neither Sir Saunders nor I had ever seen him in concert before, so that would certainly lead to good feelings, but the second time in South Florida was maybe even a bit better, it was certainly no worse. Last night the band seemed a bit off and since it was only the second night of the tour it played more like an extended rehearsal.

Later when a portion of centerstage lowered so that the crew could roll a piano on, Paul was still unsure enough of his blocking that he accidently rode it down to the bottom joking that it got a big enough laugh that maybe he would keep that gag in the show.

Last time the show began with a sort of operatic costume procession through the audience. He must have had 50 people dressed and marching up to the stage. It didn’t serve much purpose but it gave us something to look at while people took their seats. This time it began with a DJ on stage playing dance versions of more obscure McCartney solo efforts. From there it showed an interesting biography of Paul beginning with air raids over Liverpool when Paul was born. I had never thought about how being born during the war might have shaped all the Beatles and their surroundings. The problem with the documentary was that the sound was too loud to the point of distortion in places. The speakers were geared to rev up over the crowd noise during music, but the fans were quiet here and the knob was on eleven.

McCartney and band began the concert with MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR which is a good number but it seemed a bit flat. It certainly didn’t match his introduction last time with HELLO/GOODBYE. His second song was a poor choice too, something from the album released on Tuesday that no one has heard. The crowd wasn’t quite invigorated enough by MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR and it brought them down having to listen next to something that they didn’t know.

It’s interesting what Paul chooses to sing considering he has such a wide catalog. How many singers could play 2 ½ hours and not get to some of their #1 hits? Of course, I can understand his not wanting to play SAY, SAY, SAY and EBONY AND IVORY. But on neither tour did he play UNCLE ALBERT/ADMIRAL HALSEY, SILLY LOVE SONGS or WITH A LITTLE LUCK. Thankfully, he played one of my non-charting favorites both times, LET ME ROLL IT.

He tried a few “new” old songs this time among them the interesting “TOO MANY PEOPLE” from the underrated RAM album. He also did “HELTER SKLETER” during the second encore. I had read that those two songs were at the top of a poll of what fans wanted to hear him play.

During his playing of the melodic “I WILL” he accidently skipped ahead and sang

“Love you whenever we're together
Love you when we'r e apart”,

before singing

“Love you forever, and for ever
Love you with all my heart”

He stopped himself before the second verse and joked that he wrote the song a long time ago.

He also explained that the last shuttle crew was awoken with the song “GOOD DAY SUNSHINE” on the day of their return. He played the intro audio from ground control leading into his playing the tune himself. After the song he said very boyishly proud way, “Imagine if they chose your song to play to the astronauts.” Songs like GOOD DAY SUNSHINE really separated Paul from the hippy part of the 60s. Sure he did his experimenting like the rest of them, but his life affirmative songs were really in direct contrast to a more ambivalent culture.

I was also happy to hear “GOT TO GET YOU INTO MY LIFE” a song that actually charted 5 years after the band broke up. I can easily imagine that an average sixties band could have made a whole career out of a song like that, much like the RASCALS did with “GOOD LOVIN’.” Here it’s one more in the catalog.

We all have our tastes. The first Beatles album I had was the 20 Greatest Hits and I played it over and over. So now I’m more tired of the big songs and yearn for the obscure stuff. Still, I could hear songs like GET BACK and LET IT BE endlessly, but PENNY LANE, ELEANOR RIGBY and LONG AND WINDING ROAD get boring to me. Even YESTERDAY wears thin with me nowadays.

He didn’t plan a lot of early British Invasion tunes this time. We did hear PLEASE, PLEASE ME and I’ll GET YOU though. He also sang that cover from the Music Man, “’Til there was you.” explaining that he use to sing it in Cabaret clubs long ago. He also sang a cover of what he called the first recorded Beatles song that predated even Pete Best and Stu Sutcliffe. I don’t remember the name though I have heard someone else sing it. The band contained a guy named Duff that I had never heard of and another guy I didn’t remember.

DRIVE MY CAR was the only number from RUBBER SOUL album, but I guess that record was dominated by Lennon songs like IN MY LIFE and NORWEGIAN WOOD.

He seems to love his work from REVOLVER because we heard FOR NO ONE in addition to RIGBY, GOT TO GET YOU INTO MY LIFE, and GOOD DAY SUNSHINE.

He’s 63 now so I wonder what singing a song like WHEN I’M 64 is like for him. He didn’t try it last night.

A few moments reached the heights of 2002, including HEY JUDE where Paul has the crowd sing the chorus. It’s amazing that so many people singing together can sound that good. I thought the biggest crowd pleaser was BAND ON THE RUN, especially the change from “If we ever get out of here” to “The rain exploded with a mighty crash.” That change brought people to their feet including me.

The concert ended the same way as the previous one with the reprise of SGT PEPPER and THE END from Abbey Road. After the standing ovation, Paul went to the mic and said “See you Next Time.”

Having seen him twice already I wasn’t committed to going again this time. The concert sold out the first day and I didn’t get any tickets. I did win some on an EBAY auction in May, but the cheep chiseler didn’t send the tickets. I had to go through PAY PAL to get a refund minus $25. I decided that it was probably a sign that I didn’t need to hear him again. About a week ago, fellow McCartney fan, James Cheshire told me that rumors were circulating that he was going to sing some non-Paul Beatles songs. That became an intriguing reason to see the concert. I thought that hearing Paul sing things like TICKET TO RIDE, HELP, COME TOGETHER, WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM FRIENDS or YELLOW SUBMARINE would be unique. Of course, the rumors about the play list were unfounded, but I did get a heck of deal on tickets.

I had originally won two seats in the third deck. It was far enough behind the stage that I wouldn’t have been able to see the screen. I was lucky he was a crook. This time I bought the tickets in an EBAY fire sale the day before the concert and got seats in the first deck with a good view of everything. The seller really took a bath on them. I paid $142 (about the same price as the others) for a pair of tickets that cost over $300 face value if you count the convenience charge and taxes.

I go through periods of listening to music, but unlike most people I know, I go through periods of being tired of music for long stretches. At certain times of year, I’ll forgo music entirely to watch movies and listen to talk radio. I don’t go to concerts very often. I’ve seen 5 or 6 (when I wasn’t working it) in my life and I haven’t been to one since McCartney last played here. My going to see McCartney in concert is like how people who avoid art museums might change their minds to see a touring Van Gogh exhibit. Or like how my friend Dan, though hostile to basketball bought tickets to see Michael Jordan’s last game in Orlando. People make exceptions to their usual rules when greatness is involved.

Although, I liked the 2002 concert better, I would recommend seeing this tour as it comes through America this year. It might be the last chance to see one of the greatest artists of the 20th century.

STAR WARS III: Revenge of the Sith (2005) - A movie Review

This is the only film that I have seen in the theatre this summer and although I saw it way back in June, and I enjoyed it more than the first two, I've since been troubled by it's meaning as it relates to the series.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most revealing thing about this final film is what wasted opportunity this whole series was. It’s the best entry in the new trilogy, but that’s only because George Lucas actually uses the background material we’re familiar with and he has fewer opportunities to expand and revise his vision. You can forgive ridiculous ideas like Chewbacca being a pal of Yoda in Episode III, but it’s hard to forgive the series when you realize how far he has strayed from the original material with the first two episodes.

Lucas was once a young filmmaker struggling to become somebody and that struggle is embodied in the Luke Skywalker character from the first trilogy. Mark Hamill isn’t a great actor, but he's an earnest one and his struggle to overcome was gripping for three films. Lucas can no longer identify with Luke’s struggle to find himself. You need to understand self-doubt to write that character. Now Lucas is a man that has made some of the biggest box office successes of all time and the only holdout to his greatness are film critics and the Academy Awards. So Annakin’s struggle is not finding his place in the world but being recognized for his greatness by the Jedi counsel.

Luke’s struggle was man v. self while Annakin’s struggle is more man v. society. Lucas had an inherent understanding of the first conflict and we the middle class filmgoers could identify readily. Unlike Orson Welles who could show you the greatness of the character struggling against society, Lucas shows you a sniveling brat that’s whining and he has to remind you with dialogue of how he’s the “chosen one” because he can’t show you any greatness. The plot shows the one great character to be Obi-Wan Kenobi, but the dialogue wants us to believe Annakin is more important. The ending of this movie should be tragic with the supposedly “great” Annakin being forced into the dark side. The ending of Jedi with Vader finding his inner goodness is now hollow because we didn’t see any deepness in this current trilogy. His motivations are all selfish.

Had this second trilogy been produced immediately after JEDI, it might have retained something from the early films. The harbinger for these last three can be seen in the Special Edition films from the late 90s when Lucas re-edited episode IV to have the Greedo character shoot at Han Solo before he’s smoked. Besides the fact that there is no way Greedo could miss Solo shooting him at point blank range, it’s most significant because it changes the whole complex nature of Solo’s character. The point before was that Solo was a rogue that would do anything to avoid the arm of Jabba and he entered into the deal with Ben and Luke to pay off his debt to the mob boss. He slowly comes around in the series to see himself as part of a larger community. This is a character of the greatest tradition in American film, played most effectively by people like Humphrey Bogart in CASABLANCA. By changing that one thing in the first film, Solo’s character has no where to grow. Now it’s just a matter of time before Solo stops the big talk and signs on with the rebellion.

This new trilogy misses those two elements, the young man’s struggle with self-doubt and the rogue’s gradual realization that he belongs in a community of like minded individuals. The only real theme I can identify is the danger of unrecognized genius. That’s the most self-indulgent and boring choice a filmmaker could choose, but I don’t think he consciously chose it, rather I think that these new screenplays were an outpouring of his current auto-biography and that became the most consistent theme of his current life.

Like many, I had longed that he would continue this story someday, but his break after Jedi was detrimental to his thinking on these characters and the meaning of the story overall. He no longer identifies with the characters he created in the mid 70s and is in some ways he’s embarrassed by them. It shows in the inconsistencies and changing motivations in the two series. The larger part of Episode III should have really been episode I with the more stories to follow to flesh out Annakin’s fall.

Now Lucas is done making Star Wars films and rather than explain more of the universe that meant so much to many of us in our youth, he has muddied the whole thing. He says he won’t re-release the old version ever again. These wretched SE versions are now considered the definitive work. Choices like the insertion of cartoon Jabba in episode one and Han’s emasculating are now the new “truths.” It’s like Van Gogh lived to be 80 and went back and painted modern looking clothing on his authentic period subjects.

It’s a loss to those who will read about the importance of Star Wars in 1970s cinema, but will never actually get to see the movies that we saw. Orson Welles was once quoted as saying he wanted Ted Turner to keep his crayons off his films, although Turner never eradicated the original version of any movie. Lucas owns the Star Wars films and can cut them up and throw them into the fireplace if he likes, but it’s a weak choice to not let your original work stand as a testament of the time. I now wish Lucas would have been as tired of STAR WARS as Sean Connery was of James Bond. Too bad that we couldn’t imagine how great the films might have been rather than live with the reality that lightning didn’t strike twice except if you mean it burned down everything the original films stood for.

MOVIES REVIEWS CATCHUP

I am way behind in posting my reviews. Some of these date back to May. I haven't posted a book review on Amazon since January. Taking a leadership spot at work has certainly curtailed my criticism writing.

Since Netflix has allowed me to create my own mini film festivals, Ill start with a recent creation.

JAMES STEWART-ANTHONY MANN WESTERNS

WINCHESTER ’73 (1950) – This is the first entry and the only B/W. The story centers on a rare rifle that everyone wants and a character called Dutch Henry Brown that Stewart wants to kill. There are some great moments and the psychological elements that made the series famous are also present. It was unusual in contemporary westerns that a hero like Stewart would proclaim that he wants to kill someone, but it’s still a bit stuck in other conventional Western patterns nonetheless. The New York sounding Dan Duryea plays a cold blooded killer. Rock Hudson plays an Indian chief. Tony Curtis can be seen somewhere. The underrated character actor John McIntire has a small role and he would turn up as the heavy in a later installment.

BEND OF THE RIVER (1952) – It develops early as a buddy film between Stewart and Arthur Kennedy two guys that share a similar past as gun fighters. The two volunteer to help some settlers get provisions to their new homestead. Stewart shows that ill reputes can be redeemed while Arthur Kennedy shows that it’s not always so. Rock Hudson gets a bigger role as a gambler that pitches in against the villains. The relationships here are bit clumsy. I have trouble believing Kennedy would turn his back on Stewart while the Rock Hudson character seems a little too ambiguous leading up to the conclusion.

THE FAR COUNTRY (1955) – This is my favorite of the series. McIntire plays the heavy and Walter Brennan plays Stewart’s sidekick. There’s also a love triangle with Stewart on either side of the worldly Ruth Roman and the naïve Corrine Calvet. Stewart seems the most torn between morality and self-determinism here and that’s the theme of the whole series looking back. I heard a critic once say that Stewart was more in touch with his anger than any prominent American actor in the history of film. It‘s his anger in this series that’s so unusual for leading men and Stewart in general. There’s a look in his eyes that says temporary insanity.

The series also includes THE NAKED SPUR (not on DVD) and MAN FROM LARAMIE (which I couldn’t get to play in my machine). Either could be the best of the series. I've seen snipets of both on AMC through the years.

ONES I SHOULD I HAVE SEEN BEFORE NOW

DO THE RIGHT THING (1989) – Spike Lee makes better movies than his militant persona leads on. For instance, Danny Aillleo is much more sympathetic than you’d expect a white character to be. Spike even makes his own character ambivalent rather than heroic. The movie has some really good performances by the likes of Ossie Davis and John Turturro, but still the movie gets too much credit overall. Spike sets up a believable story of hot summertime Brooklyn and even the eventual riot that ensues makes dramatic sense, but the epilogue between Lee and Aiello rings so false that it spoils the realism that led up to it. Lee wants the audience to forgive the mob violence that ruined Aiello’s pizza joint with the reasoning that Aiello is insured. That it never seemed to be about money to Aiello is conveniently ignored so that the people who started the riot can be forgiven without consequences.

F FOR FAKE (1973) – The last completed movie directed by Orson Welles is many times interesting but too fragmented to make a cohesive whole. He’s great to see on camera, funny and mischievous. His voice over line readings have always been the gold standard. The movie breaks down into two parts. The first is the study of famous fakers and the second is Welles own fraud to bring the film to feature length. It’s a shame that Welles didn’t helm a commercial film in the 1960s to keep his directing career alive. Nobody could have done better with this material than Welles and yet style can’t always make up for substance.

+ ADVISE AND CONSENT (1962) – Otto Preminger directed film based on the Pulitzer Prize winning novel by Alan Drury. Charles Laughton’s last film is a great example of his uniqueness in film history. Laughton was one of the few homely character actors to attain leading role status due to his incredible talent alone. Dude’s recent comparison to P.S. Hoffman is apt. I once thought that Gary Oldman was taking on the Laughton mantle, but he’s more chameleon like while Laughton could never disguise that mug. The center of the story is the ailing Democrat President wanting to name the controversial Henry Fonda as his new Secretary of State. Laughton is the southern Democrat opposed to the nomination. The story takes on a number of twists and the supporting characters, Walter Pidgeon, Peter Lawford and Burgess Meredith are well cast. Like George Stevens, Preminger hasn’t been given due credit for his body of work.

BUNNY LAKE IS MISSING (1965) is probably Preminger last decent film. Here an American brother and sister relocate to England to with the sister’s young daughter. Soon after the film begins, the sister’s daughter comes up missing and it’s up to English detective Lawrence Olivier to find the daughter or discover is she ever even existed. Since the audience has never seen her, we are given reason to wonder the same thing. Like 80% of all films that begin well, you have to forgive the disjointed ending a little.

RECENT FILMS

THE FORGOTTEN (2004) – This is not quite a remake of Bunny Lake, but it does share the story of the missing daughter that no one believes exists. From there is heads into otherworldly territory that might intrigue Dude and his recent studies. The trailer doesn’t give this part of the movie away. Good character actors, Alfre Woodard, Gary Sinise, and Anthony Edwards help make this a little better than the average genre picture.

HOSTAGE (2005) - I like Bruce Willis enough to watch his average action films hoping for another DIE HARD. He made his money in films like this, but movies like PULP FICTION, SIXTH SENSE and even NOBODY’S FOOL show his range much better. This is full of the petty villains that grow more psychotic, the authorities that are clueless and the big overarching super villains that always keep their poise. While entertaining enough at the time, you’ll forget it by the end of your next meal.

KINSEY (2004) – Commentators have always treated Kinsey as a pretty straight-laced guy in real life, but the filmmakers make him out to be a pervert by modern standards and a freak by the standards of his time. Interestingly enough is that the movie seems to be designed more to normalize his behavior than explain his importance on the scientific study of sex. Liam Neeson does a decent job. The secondary characters played by Chris O’Donnell, Timothy Hutton and Peter Sarsgaard aren’t developed quite enough outside the little petty rivalries they develop. John Lithgow plays Neeson’s father as a derivative of the character he played in Footloose. I don’t think Bill Condon decided whether he was making a comedy or drama, because the movie weaves back and forth. And although it’s just under two hours, it still seemed 30 minutes too long. Condon also directed GODS AND MONSTERS, another acclaimed film that left me cold.

THE NOTEBOOK (2004) Nick Cassavettes has cashed in his father’s indie credentials for a studio directing career. His mother Gena Rowlands and the reliable Jim Garner provide the sentimentality, while the youngsters including the fetching Rachel McAdams provide the sex appeal. It’s hard not to like, but guiltily so.

BRIDGET JONES: The Edge of Reason (2004) – While the Notebook was in response to the wife’s insistence that I stop throwing art house movies at her, Bridget Jones is a full capitulation of my aesthetic tastes to the art of compromise. Trish loves these books and forgives this sequel despite the 20% Rotten Tomatoes rating. The first movie is actually better than I would have thought and the second one suffers from repetition more than anything else. It goes to show that $100 million at the box office dictates sequels, not rich storylines.

Assassination of Richard Nixon (2004) – Sean Penn is believable playing the sympathetic loser that slowly blames his problems on Richard Nixon. There are some sad scenes of him trying to reconnect with his ex-wife and kids. A couple of other scenes with him working as a furniture salesmen seem realistic too. Frank Capra said that movies are real life with the boring parts cut out. Here the boring parts are left in.

NAPOLEON DYNAMITE (2004) – Like My Big Fat Greek Wedding, this movie gets street cred not for being great, but for outperforming at the box office. The filmmaker has a quirky sense of humor that reminded me of Wes Anderson. The scene where Napoleon meets Pedro and the scene with the uncle and the time machine seemed to be a B movie version of Anderson. Overall, I got kind of tired of it and it didn’t end particularly well.

Undertow (2004) – The latest film from David Gordon Green has a couple of recognizable actors including Dermot Mullroney. Roger Ebert loves this guy’s filmmaking and I have to admit that it’s not without interest. I didn’t love his debut GEORGE WASHINGTON but I respected it. I did admire his follow-up ALL THE REAL GIRLS. This runs hot and cold with me liking a good deal of it, but not really believing the ending.

THE LIFE AND DEATH OF PETER SELLERS (2004) – Geoffrey Rush is one of my favorite actors. Peter Sellers was brilliant. Geoffrey Rush plays a stellar Sellers. The movie isn’t much more beyond that. It’s just one more example of how a humble enough guy becomes a heel through too much adoration and fawning.

+AVIATOR (2004) – One of the better movies from last year. Scorsese has been a little spotty lately with even the entertaining GANGS OF NEW YORK becoming forgettable. There is nothing about this film that would make me think he directed it, which might be a positive if you compare it to his work during the last ten years.

TWO STEVE MCQUEENS

+THE CINCINNATI KID (1965) I saw this again right as it came on DVD. Depression era New Orleans makes a great setting and the supporting players, Karl Madlen, Ann-Margaret, Rip Torn, Jack Weston and Tuesday Weld add production value. The essence of the film is the showdown between Steve McQueen and Edward G. Robinson and although the final poker hand is a stretch the drama is quite good. Commentary tracks by Norman Jewison and another by Phil Gordon and David Foley add something too. The old VHS ending had McQueen alone. The TV and DVD version has McQueen reunite with Weld.

THE WAR LOVER (1962) – Based on the novel by John Hersey, Steve McQueen is the guy you like early on until he reveals himself to be a dirtbag. Robert Wagner is his pal and co-pilot. This was one of McQueen’s early breakout roles and you can see the star power come through. Wagner’s career was already longer than McQueen’s but you can see why it never really took off. The movie itself was less interesting with every exposed frame.

REVISTING FILMS I LIKED

+LAST OF THE MOHICANS (1992) – Mark Twain hated the novel by James Fenimore Cooper so much that he wrote an entire essay on it. Michael Mann and Daniel Day Lewis do a great job of making a compelling film. I liked it in the theatre years ago and I still liked it on this my second viewing. Very few films tackle this pre-Revolutionary war period well. This might be the best effort I have seen.

HONKEYTONK MAN (1981) – The critics have never much like this Eastwood film, but I have always found it charming and understated for this period in his career. Eastwood is an obscure country singer dying of TB trying to become famous before he leaves the world. Eastwood’s son Kyle makes a good co-star. James Stewart was offered the role as Grandfather, but since he refused to ever play grandfathers, he turned it down flat. The Grandfather is instead played by Stewart’s FAR COUNTRY nemesis, John McIntire. What a small world. It’s overly sentimental and a stretch and yet I fall for it every time.

+HIS GIRL FRIDAY (1940) I just finished Ben Hecht’s autobiography last week and Trish wanted to see something funny so this movie played into both of our desires. The lightning fast dialogue and interplay between Cary Grant and Rosiland Russell will hold up 100 years from now, I suppose. It’s not realism, but the kind of zany world that’s much more fun than the life.

OTHER FILMS

+BRUTE FORCE (1947) – This is a good testament to the lasting influence of those commie blacklisted filmmakers and the support they still garner by the zillionaires in Hollywood. Before the openly communist, Jules Dassin was exiled to make films in Europe, he was undercover in America making films like this. There’s great drama here with Burt Lancaster leading a group of prison inmates that are either sympathetic for their innocence or the mitigating circumstances that led them to crime. It’s almost funny that the only real bad guy is sadistic prison guard Hume Cronyn. It certainly foreshadows Shawshank Redemption. Warner Brothers may have let gangsters become leading men, but they were always shot for cause in the last reel. Their ends here are treated as less than just. The over riding villain is not even Cronyn but the cold free market system itself that brought these little angels to crime. While this was a shockingly anti-American position in 1947, it’s become so standard in modern film its no wonder the Left hates HUAC and Kazan more than the Rooskies. Brute Force is one of those superior efforts with B material that is both entertaining and historically significant for its influence on modern themes.

MICHAEL MOORE HATES AMERICA (2004) – It’s not the negative film that the title suggests but a look at the positive things about America that Moore ignores for the sake of his own drama. Michael Wilson presents some interesting ideas about documentary film especially talking with Penn Gillette. He traces Moore’s steps in Flint Michigan to show it’s not such a hell hole. He also visits the bank from BOWLING FROM COLUMBINE to prove that the storyline behind the gun giveaway is totally misrepresented for the sake of drama. Wilson mostly shows how Moore plays into the dominant media bias enough that critics refuse to see beyond their own prejudices to critique the actual truth behind Moore’s claims.

+George Stevens: A filmmakers Journey (1984) – This is the second time I have seen this documentary on the forgotten filmmaker. Stevens’ son, George Jr. runs the American Film Institute at the Kennedy Center and he narrates this movie. Stevens began shooting Laurel and Hardy films in the 1920s and all but stopped making films when his big budget GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD flopped despite 5 years of production to get it just right. Stevens made some real classics, GUNGA DIN, WOMAN OF THE YEAR, A PLACE IN THE SUN, and GIANT that I have seen numerous times. This documentary makes you want to see his movies all over again.

VIVA LAS VEGAS (1964) – Elvis movies are something you like as a kid, dislike as a film student and then learn to like again on their own terms. Elvis wasn’t a good actor (or at least he didn’t try much) and his movies are usually shoddily written and yet the camera loved the guy. I tend to think his pre-Army movies are the best. Even the somewhat underrated LOVING YOU (1958) has a lot of charm. This is probably one of his better 60s movies and although you don’t believe it one moment, it’s still fun enough to watch.

TALL IN THE SADDLE (1944) – The Duke in a B-Movie Western known best by the Junto as the movie where Wayne calls the Queen dead during a poker game. “He’ll be back, he’s the type.” Kevin saw this before me and re-told the poker scene in great detail that had me laughing. When it came on DVD I decided to jump on it for old times sake. I wish Dude had been in the director's chair, because the poker game is a humorous scene, but I prefer Dude's telling of it a little more.

(+) denotes exceptional film

Tom's APRIL Movie Reviews (coming a little late)

I'm tough on them this month.

LIFE AS A HOUSE (2001) – I wanted to like this Kevin Kline film. Mary Steenburgen, Kristen Scott Thomas, Hayden Christianson, and even Scott Bakula rounded out the decent cast. But that doggone script got in the way of a good film. The first signs of a wreck happen early when Kline gets fired and smashes the work he’s done through the years. He walks out onto the sidewalk and passes out. It’s terminal cancer. So why not spend the last remaining months building a house with my estranged son? Irwin Winkler has some pretty good Producing screen credits and he should stick to that line of work, because as a director he ain’t all that.

ANCHORMAN (2004) – I liked OLD SCHOOL despite being ready not to. I fully expected to like this and was disappointed. Will Ferrell is only funny in an uncomfortable way which doesn’t work for me. Guys like Vince Vaughn and Luke Wilson carried OLD SCHOOL and their brief cameos here can’t pick up the slack.

+LAST DAYS OF CHASENS (1997) – Interesting documentary about the famous eatery where Ron proposed to Nancy. We get to know the staff, many of which have been there for 30+ years. Stars make a brief appearance and the history of the place is revealed. A good example of how an unscripted film can be brought together in tiny pieces successfully in unpredictable ways.
MAGIC CHRISTIAN (1970) Peter Sellers is funny. Ringo too a little bit. There are some funny moments like Sellers in the train car buying a hotdog from the vendor on the platform at 30MPH. The downside is that I saw it only a week ago and I remember little else.

13 GOING ON 30 (2004) – I didn’t pick this one, but it’s not bad for the genre. A female update of the Tom Hanks BIG concept. You don’t need to see it, but it will pass the time.

CLOSER (2004) – Told in an interesting way, but not interesting in and of itself. I liked it a good for a while. Mike Nichols seemed to have cast it well. I just didn’t buy the last ¼ of it. The question of jealousy and unfaithfulness seemed to be better handled in THE SECRET LIVES OF DENTISTS.

+GARDEN STATE (2004) – This is one of the best movies of 2004. I found it to be a modern day combination of THE GRADUATE and HAROLD AND MAUDE with its wayward protagonist and ballad soundtrack. It was funny enough to be a comedy and sweet enough to be a date film. And yet it was nothing like those WHEN HARRY MET SALLY ripoffs we've seen in the last 15 years.

I HEART HUCKABEES (2004) – I can respect an idea taken to the limit and this has a particularly witty screenplay, but I was easily distracted away from it. I think it was a combination of too many characters or maybe just too much Jude Law lately. He's in everything.

NAPOLEON DYNAMITE (2004) – The character is funny enough and his uncle is even a little funnier, but the movie doesn’t have much to say or do. The Pedro character was funny in a Wes Anderson sort of way. It was very Anderson like in general, but I was struggling to stay awake for the big dance at the end.

MOVIES FROM TOM

I've been writing reviews and not posting. Here is what I saw in March.

+TOUCHING THE VOID (2003) – The story of two mountain climbers that run into trouble and how they deal with it. The story is quite compelling and the cinematography is also brilliant. It’s somewhat controversial in that it’s part documentary and part drama. Does that make it a docudrama?

+CHARLEY VARRICK (1973) – Another early Walter Mathau film that’s quite entertaining. It doesn’t hurt that it’s directed by the under-rated Don Siegel right at the height of his creative powers. Mathau plays Varrick, a cunning bank robber that attempts to steal a few thousand dollars from a soft rural bank, but accidently steals a couple of hundred thousand dollars in mob money in the process of being laundered. Mathau knows immediately what it means and is worried to death. His partner Andy Robinson (The villain from Dirty Harry) won’t listen to Mathau and really over plays the part. Still it’s an overall entertaining movie and a chance to see the underrated Mathau play another solid role.

GO TIGERS (2001) – A decent documentary about the Massillon High School football program. The filmmakers portray Massillon as the most storied high school team in the country. They even show parts of a 1950s era documentary called “TOCHDOWN TOWN” about Massillon’s love for the game. Even by 1950, Massillon had already won 10 State Championships in the sport. The school is in the heart of Canton Ohio, home of the Pro Football Hall of Fame. The famous Paul Brown went to Massillon as did the recent pro bowl player Chris Spielman. Even soap opera actor David Cannary played football as Massillon. The story in the documentary is how Massillon 4-6 the previous year will rebound. Also weighing on everyone’s minds is whether the city can pass a levy for more school revenue. It’s obvious the school is spending all their money on football and without the levy they’ll fire teachers rather than skimp on pigskin. We also get to know a few of the Massillon players and the DVD gives us an update on their lives this many years later.

+SIDEWAYS (2004) – Alexander Payne of ELECTION and ABOUT SCHMIDT fame hits the mark again. Two buddies living out a weeklong bachelor party gets the tone of real life in a way most movies do not. I’ve heard complaints that the movie talks about wine too much and that might be true for people who don’t like wine, but I think the screenwriter does a good job of using wine to underscore their lives. Giammati was the victim of Eastwood’s legend and didn’t get a nomination. That will probably be remedied in his next performance.

BADLANDS (1973) – Terrance Mallick’s debut film contains much of the style we saw again in the 1998 film, THIN RED LINE. Martin Sheen plays this James Dean look-a-like killer who has a lot of charisma. Cissy Spacek plays the jailbait sidekick. I can see how this move was controversial and how Mallick proved he was a major talent (some might say wasted talent), but since we’ve seen this kind of material played out any number of ways since, the style is the main interest here. I’d recommend it for history and some really well done visuals, but it left me kind of hollow. Maybe that was the point.

THE TERMINAL (2004) – Tom Hanks is well cast as the foreigner in limbo between countries. Catherine Zeta Jones is fetching although seeming a bit overused lately. The story guides along for a good hour, but since conflict is the essence of drama, Spielberg and the screenwriter make a cartoon villain out of the usually reliable Stanley Tucci, after introducing him as a much more complex and interesting character. Tucci’s motivations seem petty and suspect and it’s that central conflict that is supposed to explain the second half of the movie. Skip it unless you like to hear Tom Hanks do accents.

STRAW DOGS (1971) – is much like Badlands in that it’s a violent film in the early 1970s that found controversy. Dustin Hoffman is plays an American living in rural Great Britain with his English wife. Hoffman is a mathematician trying to be productive on sabbatical while his sexy wife is getting bored with his inattention. Although the violence is hinted at early on, the film is into the second half before you see any real ugliness. Anyone schooled on modern films won’t find this terribly worse than what their use to. Still, it has the Peckinpah style that makes you root for more bloodshed. If you like comely English blondes you’ll enjoy Susan George. I won’t see it again, but I’m happy I saw it once.

DeLovely (2004) – I often forget what a good actor Kevin Kline is and after seeing EMPEROR’S CLUB I decided to see his take on Cole Porter. I’ve always enjoyed porter witty tunes like ANYTHING GOES and deeper ones like I’VE GOT YOU UNDER MY SKIN. Kline is decent enough as Porter, but the movie is annoying for being gimmicky and slow-moving.

IN MEMPHIS WITH SIR SAUNDERS

I tagged along with Steve for two days as he met with lawyers and ultimately testified before federal court as an expert witness in the sentencing phase of a University of Alabama football booster.

The actual trial was over in February and it involved a Memphis areas businessman, Logan Young, who was approached to help convince a low income family to send their star athlete to 'Bama to play pigskin. A good way to convince them is to present large coarse bank notes, and Logan will now go to jail for the pleasure.

The worst kept secret in sports is the fact that college athletes are paid under the table to play. It's no longer a matter of whether they'll get money to play, but who gets to be the token example every now and then when someone has to be caught. As long as the NCAA makes periodic suspensions and Johnny Law makes the occasional arrest, we who watch college sports are to think that everything is clean again.

The defendant, Logan Young, is the latest token. The charges against the poor guy include racketeering which I think is a good example of how dangerous vague laws can be. Legislation intended to end such things as organized crime can easily be manipulated to go after, in this case, an overzealous fan. The Feds case boils down to this: a poor student athlete was a victim of adults that exchanged money in order for him sign with a certain football program. He was called a slave by the prosecution. No slave in this history of this union was victimized with this kind of payoff. The best they can figure, this kid and his family got a minimum of $60,000.

Logan is also charged with bribing a public official. It’s a stretch, but since the coach of Alabama works for the state of Alabama and since that University accepts money from the federal government, Logan is just as corrupt at Don Corleone.

Anyway, that's over. He's guilty. We're ready to bring the guillotine. Wait. Logan Young has Kidney problems and needs a transplant. Steve is called as a defense witness to describe the bureaucratic nightmare in getting an inmate a transplanted organ.

It began with smooth waters as the defense witness asked Steve to explain the procedures. Having roomed with Steve for two years he would frequently share funny stories about how the federal government operates. Just listening to the chain of command is enough to convince you that inmates would better use their time constructing their own coffins.

The prosecution began piping in with objections. Steve is just a psychologist, what does he know about medical procedures? Ah, but Steve knows the bureaucracy as well as anyone and a number of his psych inmates also needed medical help. He was involved with both. The prosecutor hammered home the fact that Steve wasn't a medical doctor and that he had never known anyone trying to get a kidney transplant from a federal prison. The prosecutor then shared with the court that only one person had ever gotten a kidney transplant in federal prison. The point was to prove that Steve didn't know anyone who had, but it really proved Steve's point that it would be impossible to get.

The prosecution's next witness, a nurse who works as a regional medical director with the federal prisons would tell us that so many people are on the list for these transplants that someday soon we'll have a whole hell of a lot of examples of kidney transplants. I think they were trying to show that a system is in place to help all of these people, but Steve's advance testimony that the bureaucratic machine would ruin those plans hurt the prosecutions argument. Add that to the prosecutor stating that only one such transplant has ever happened, and wala, you put enough doubt into the judge’s mind that such procedures really happen. You have a lot of people waiting on one side and only one completion on the other.

The prosecutor spent most of his time with the nurse establishing him as the real expert. The nurse is a regional health director with 17 years of bureau experience and his testimony was making Steve look like a guy outside of his field of knowledge. Steve was sitting next to me at this time and he would whisper when the guy had it wrong. I felt bad for Steve like he couldn't do anything to defend himself.

It was 3:30pm by now and we were expecting to catch the 5:30 back to Orlando when at recess the defense attorney asked Steve to stick around for a possible rebuttal.

After the recess, the defense attorney got up there and tied the nurse into knots. Steve had brought along with him a bunch of policies straight from the bureau's website. Those policies not only contradicted the prosecutions star witness, but made him look less than an expert. It only took a couple of questions until you realized that the nurse didn't even know the written policies. With not too much work, the defense lawyer had built Steve back into an expert and turned the nurse into a guy licking his wounds in the back row. Steve felt bad for this nurse because bureau people don't even get paid to testify in court whereas Steve was doing it as a freelance job. The nurse was less than hospitable when Steve approached him later. The lesson is that it's easier to be charitable when you turn out to be the credible witness.

Steve never got back on the stand, but we stayed and heard a number of character witness tell us that Logan was a generous guy and nonviolent. He has a lot of ties to the community and isn't a danger to flee.

At some point Steve turned and said, "There goes the plane."
I said, "Who cares. This is more fun."

When it looked like the judge would finally decide the sentence, the oldest of the defense lawyers, an ex-prosecutor that indicted G Gordon Liddy, got out a copy of the Memphis paper and used the words of another defendant to postpone the sentencing. He made the argument that quotes attributed to the ex-high school coach, Lynn Lang, contradict the case made by the prosecution against Logan Young. So now the whole circus begins again on Monday with Lang summonsed to court.

At 6:30pm or so Sir Saunders and I were bunny hopping it over to the Memphis airport in the rain with a car to return off site and no idea whether or not a later flight even existed. Steve was unsure of his performance. The defese lawyer said. "Well you told the truth you couldn't do any more than that."

I was right there and understood the lawyer to mean that the prosecutor had done the best he could to discredit Steve by pointing out Steve's status as a psychologist and not a physician. Steve couldn't pretend to be a doctor. He had to be honest.

It was Steve’s first time as an expert witness and he really needed more feedback from the attorney, but it was obvious that the attorney was already three pages later trying to make his next point about a different subject.

I was particularly impressed with two things that Steve did on the stand. The first was Steve had never had an inmate who needed a kidney transplant, but Steve did have a number of inmates that needed medical procedures that were identical in process to asking for a kidney transplant. The defense lawyer never directly asked this question and from the audience I kept waiting for it to be asked. Finally Steve, who was thinking the same thing, got the information in through the backdoor. Second, I thought the prosecution was harsher with Steve than any other witness we saw. He really talked down to him and tried to belittle his experience. It was obvious that the prosecution was afriad of him. Steve really kept his composure. I’m sure he felt rattled, but he kept the kind of confidence he needed to be credible.

Steve’s most important contribution wasn’t his testimony but a greater understanding of bureau policy and procedure. Steve handed the defense a packet of policy papers the day before and that packet allowed the defense to contradict the nurse as any kind of expert on policy. The audience wouldn’t have known, but the psychologist with half as much time in the bureau knew more about the workings of medical procedure than someone who works as a regional medical director.

We were lucky enough to get another flight and still make our connection in Atlanta. I hope this poor Logan Young gets his kidney and the government gets off his back. If poor kids want money to play football in college I’m not sure why the government thinks they need to step in and keep it from happening. When liberals complain that the war in Iraq is keeping the government from doing their real job here at home, is this what they want, more prosecutions related to college athletics?

The government as a mechanism grows without thought to productivity. One result of such growth is the need to do something proactive about the real or perceived injustices of life. Soon the quest for correcting grand wrongs reaches the margins of inequity until some day people are prosecuted simply for wanting a better defensive lineman at their alma matter. The lesson is that anything can be made illegal if enough people are offended by it, but do we really prosper as a nation that spends its time getting into everyone else's business?

A judge, his staff, a team of federal prosecutors, court reporters, bailiffs, defense attorneys and private citizens will gather again on Monday, spending a bunch of tax payer money to decide whether or not an ardent football fan will be allowed to get his new kidney. Is the taxpayer served by this circus? Isn’t the real problem with budget deficits and high tax rates related right back to how the government is willing to waste taxpayer money on non-violent state-created criminals?

Logan Young didn’t bribe a public official in order to get the government to do his bidding. That’s the point of such a law. You don’t want private citizens buying the strength of the government so that they can break the law with impunity. Logan just wanted a winning season. If he were to die in prison for such a desire, will our country be well served?

FEBRUARY MOVIE ROUNDUP

DANGEROUS LIVES OF ALTER BOYS (2002) – In the tradition of STAND BY ME in that it’s a movie about kids made for grownups. It has an inventive first act, and it sustains itself through Act II, but the ending doesn’t dramatically fit the lead up. It’s set in the 1950s and our main character and his friends have drawn their own alter ego comic book super heroes. Periodically through the film the characters come to life in an animated sequence that parallels the live action angst of our hero. I found this to be generally interesting, but it annoyed me that it wasn’t done in 1970s style animation. Would this kid really have imagined the technological advances of the medium?

DEVIL’S PLAYGROUND (2002) - It turns out that Amish kids can run wild when they turn 16 and most do. They’re expected to eventually give it up and join the church and be God fearing in the old tradition and most do that too. This was an interesting documentary about what these kids actually do when the freedom comes. Some of the subjects join up and others go running off. I grew up about 20 minutes from where this was shot so it was particularly interesting for that reason alone.

THE ALAMO (2004) – This was the equivalent of a well made TV movie. The script is adequate. The actors don’t run into the furniture. I was maybe supposed to be thrilled by the battle scenes, but they weren’t particular inventive. We did get to fly with a cannonball once like we fell with that bomb in PEARL HARBOR (2001). Video games use to copy movies and now movies are copying video games. Another similarity to PEARL HARBOR was that this massacre didn’t complete the film. We got to see Sam Houston route Santa Anna like we got to see General Doolittle bomb Japan. We’re not far away from a time in which Romeo and Juliet ends with Mr. Capulet strangling Friar Lawrence and the Nurse.

+ANIMAL HOUSE (1978) – Still good after all these years. Tim Matheson does a decent job leading the film and Belushi is still funny. Bruce McGill plays D-Day, which means nothing except that he’s turned into a very productive character actor. You see him all the time in small roles. He played Ralph Houk in 61 and he played Peter Arnett in LIVE FROM BAGHDAD. He’s also in Collateral, Matchstick Men, Ali, The Sum of All Fears, Bagger Vance, The Insider. . . Why didn’t Tim Matheson have a better career?

+DRESSED TO KILL (1980) De Palma’s Psycho homage. The heroine dies early in the film via the ugly knife. The shower is used in dream sequences. An adultery angle pops up. The killer is fighting multiple personalities, one male and one female. DePalma’s career choices? SNAKE EYES? MISSION TO MARS? Gimme a freakin break.

SECOND HAND LIONS (2003) – Duvall and Caine wasted on an uneven film that changes tone frequently. The title is some sort of obvious symbolism, while the plot reminds one of BIG FISH (2004) without the stylish magic. There are some funny moments early on, but the screenwriter ran out of gas and the director couldn’t keep things together.

A PERFECT CANDIDATE (1996) The movie doesn't seem to take sides in the 1994 Senate race between Oliver North and Chuck Robb. It's mostly about North though and he comes off as earnest, although his campaign manager is a self-promoting jerk. North is gracious in his defeat, but the campaign manager is so self-involved he doesn't even care how his candidate feels. And who knew Chuck Robb was so void of personality. No wonder George Allen defeated him in 2000. The most interesting character in the movie is the Washington Post reporter who follows and asks questions of the candidates. He's totally over Chuck Robb, because Robb claims to have never told a lie. Who hasn't told a lie? A seminal moment is that same reporter asking Robb to clarify his position on strikebreakers. Robb talks in circles and will not answer the question no matter how many ways it is posed.

+TARGETS (1968) – Peter Bogdanovich’s debut was a low budget suspense film produced by Roger Corman. Corman told Bogdanovich that Boris Karloff owed him two days and that he could use 20 minutes from the Karloff picture, THE TERROR. Instead of writing a horror film around the footage, Bogdanovich dreamed up a scenario in which an aging film actor wants to retire while a young man goes on a shooting spree. It’s just a matter of time before the two meet up. It’s full of the gee whiz acting style contrasted by some grizzly shootings.

+SHORT CUTS (1993) I hadn’t seen this since the theatrical release, and at the time I had only seen two Altman films, THE PLAYER the year before and MASH when I was real young. In the last year or so I have seen NASHVILLE, LONG GOODBYE, and THREE WOMEN. I am amazed at how they all have the same soft dreamy camera work and nonchalant pacing style. Of the previous three, I only liked LONG GOODBYE, and I would have liked it better had they stuck to the original Raymond Chandler novel. For all the praise NASHVILLE gets I found it one long snooze. THREE WOMEN was Atlman’s attempt at a weird Euorpean style. SHORT CUTS works better than any of them.

+ASHES AND DIAMONDS (1958) – I just recently came across the name of Andzej Wajda, a man considered Poland’s greatest director. There was a time that I would read about someone like this and just forget all about it. Now we have Netflix. Zbigniew Cybulski is a young man who is part of an underground movement to rid Poland of Communists shortly after the war. The movie begins with he and his boss offing a couple of dudes thought to be the new communist leaders coming to town. They got the wrong guys. The rest of the movie takes place inside their hotel where the real communist leader is also staying. Cybulski is ready to try it all over again, but in the interim he meets and romances the fetching young bartender, Eva Krzyewska. Our character is therefore torn between having a normal life with Eva and carrying out his duty to the resistance. If Eva is the standard looking Eastern European babe, it’s no wonder it took them so long to tear the iron curtain down. Who could keep their mind on the revolution?

HAPPY ACCIDENTS (1999) From Director Brad Anderson, the guy who just directed the MACHINIST with Christian Bale’s weight loss. Kooky actor Vincent D'Onofrio plays a kooky character that may be from the year 2470. Marisa Tomei plays his wacky girlfriend that alternates between playing along with him for the excitement and getting angry at his active imagination. These actors are both better as supporting players. They don’t have enough of that heroic magnetism to make you root for them. The payoff is somewhat interesting if you make it that far. I was ready for it to end.

THE CROSSING GUARD (1995) – This is a perplexing movie at first sight. It’s written and directed by Sean Penn, a man who couldn’t put a single coherent thought together in one hour on the Larry King show in 2002. Penn’s case that night of the wonderful people in Iraq and why we shouldn’t go to war was nothing but emoting through a string of disjointed words and phrases that lacked argument, evidence and conclusion. It might go down as the perfect example of how artists are ill equipped to function in the real world. The CROSSING GUARD is full of the same kinds of unfocused emoting, but it works here somewhat better. Jack Nicholson and Anjelica Huston split up after their daughter was killed by a drunk driver. The driver (David Morse) is getting out of prison at the beginning of the film and Jack plans to put a hole in him. The plot gets no deeper. Morse feels as bad as Jack and they spend the movie in parallel despair. It’s certainly the kind of movie made by someone who likes to see acting rather than story. If you add this movie to his other directorial effort, THE PLEDGE and the Eastwood film, MYSTIC RIVER, the Robbins film DEAD MAN WALKING one would get the idea that Penn is building an entire portion of his career around the murdered daughter plot device.

HURLY BURLY (1998) – One of those showcase for actors movies that gets a top notch cast because the characters get to do so many random and exciting things. For the audience waiting to see how this slice of life nonsense fits together, it’s less thrilling. There’s a few moments and even some decently written dialogue, but it falls short of something I would call either art or entertainment. My old theatre teacher, Susan Harper labeled this category as actor masturbation.

+EMPEROR’S CLUB (2002) – Kline is a classics teacher in one of those typical Eastern prep schools circa 1975. Emile Hirsch (one of the kids from DANGEROUS LIVES OF ALTER BOYS) plays the rebellious kid that Kline must set straight. It has something interesting to say about how teachers sometimes waste effort on bad kids that cannot be reached at the expense of kids that could better use and appreciate that same help. It also has much to say about the inherit value of personal virtue. The movie doesn’t denigrate capitalism or the real world, but appreciates the successful graduates who learned their lesson in that school. You’d expect the rebellious kid to be redeemed through efforts of the great teacher, but instead he’s proven dishonest twice, once as a student and later as a candidate for the Senate. As the Senate candidate he repeats the hackneyed lines about the importance of education that as we know he doesn’t believe. His donation to his Alma Matter is nothing but cheap political opportunism. This film is about the inherent value of education not a propagation of the institutions or processes that masquerade as education while functioning as jobs programs and daycare. Since I spent the better part of the movie trying to guess the liberal twist, I was surprised to find a conservative movie that didn’t apologize for it.

+61* (2001) – I had no patience for reading when I was a kid. But meeting Mickey Mantle when I was 7 changed my life. I started reading books about Mantle and the Yankees. Reading those books led to other baseball books and I eventually wrote Roger Maris a letter asking for his autograph and he kindly sent me his signature only a few years before his early death from smoking. Mickey would eventually succumb to the drink and both habits can be witnessed in the painfully accurate Billy Crystal movie. I saw it again last night for the 5th or 6th time. Will McGwire, Sosa and Bonds someday die from the effects of Steroids? Crystal uses CGI to great effect and he has a real love for the material. Mel Allen and Scooter Rizzuto are fun. Yogi has a couple of Yogi lines. Whitey Ford pipes in from time to time. It's hard to get over how much Barry Pepper and Thomas Jane look like Maris and Mantle.

MILLION DOLLAR BABY (A movie review) - Semi-Spoiler warning. I tried my best but may have given away too much.

Clint Eastwood is the greatest working star in Hollywood. Ten years ago that honor may have gone to Paul Newman, but he only co-stars in a few movies now. Clint stars and directs and this time even writes the music. Eastwood portrays his own vulnerability in a way that other directors might not attempt. He looks plain old in the way Henry Fonda did in the last ten years of his life and I say Fonda because Eastwood makes a face that reminded me of Fonda. He did this thing with his mouth that I saw Fonda do in ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST and ON GOLDEN POND. I’m not sure why it works but it made both of them look almost helpless. Fonda saves it for the last 20 minutes in “Once Upon a Time” when he realizes he’s being hunted by his own men. Eastwood shows it to us pretty early on here.

It’s been the unspoken conventional wisdom that Eastwood the director outshines Eastwood the actor, but Clint proves more than once in this film that it isn’t always so. I’m not surprised that he was nominated for best actor, because Eastwood the Director needed Eastwood the actor this time more than usual. You can’t teach a good actor to be a movie star, but sometimes a movie star teaches himself to be a better actor as he ages. Both Clark Gable and Paul Newman got better with age and the same goes with Eastwood.

It helps that Eastwood continues to give himself the kinds of roles where he seeks redemption. He blames himself for the Kennedy assassination (In the Line of Fire) or he has estranged children and he seeks reconciliation (Absolute Power, Million Dollar Baby). Way back in 1981 he played a drunken country singer that wanted to record an album before he died of consumption. In Heartbreak Ridge he redeems the loss in Vietnam by winning the battle in Grenada while winning back his ex-wife for good measure. In Unforgiven he balances the promises he made his dead wife with the realities of feeding his children. He’s the Astronaut in Space Cowboys that gets a second chance to go to space. In all of these movies he plays against the heroic action hero that we grew up with. He frequently shows naked vulnerability in a way that only an artist or an exhibitionist would attempt. Overcoming these obstacles makes him a different kind of hero than he use to be, but there is no doubt that he is a hero.

The Oscar nominations told me that this was going to be a serious movie, but I was pleasantly surprised with the way Eastwood used natural humor early on between his character and Morgan Freeman’s. Eastwood can be one of the most intimidating people in real life. I’ve seen his look scare interviewers and even Michael Moore didn’t talk any trash after he warned Moore to stay away from him. The humor here softens him up for the audience so when he gets tough with Hilary Swank later we know he doesn’t mean it. But I don’t think it’s just a device here either. Eastwood has always used humor in his films. Space Cowboys has running old age gags. In the Line of Fire has the joke of them ripping off their clothes and guns. True Crime has the race through the zoo. Even Dirty Harry had a witty catch phrase in each film.

Add the vulnerability and the humor and you have a real regular guy who also has the potential to be heroic. If you think about it, that’s a combination more recognized in romantic comedy than dramas and yet he always seems to make it work. It’s a treat this time too. Hilary Swank is everything she needs to be in the role. She shows guts, determination, and yet she never loses her innocence. Eastwood always picks good actresses over famous movie stars. He chooses Laura Linney and Marcia Gay Harden for roles when Hollywood would pick Helen Hunt or Gwyneth Paltrow.

But part of the effectiveness of Swank’s acting job here is that we see her through Eastwood’s eyes. She becomes the daughter Eastwood lost and we want her to win to please Clint. No one is surprised that she and the always interesting Morgan Freeman were nominated. But they shouldn’t be surprised for Eastwood either, because for as good as they are, it’s really a picture about an old trainer and how he comes to manage this girl.

There are certain moments in the film that will be played in Eastwood retrospectives. When Hilary Swank asks Clint to fix her broken nose so that she can go out and win the fight you cringe with the pain she must feel and see the love that Eastwood has for her at the same time.

One of Eastwood’s weaknesses as a director is that he doesn’t always get the proper payoff for his emotional moments. Space Cowboys plays as this geriatric romp which makes Tommy Lee Jones’ death surprising. They handle it by shooting him to the moon as some sort of last wish. It’s not the least bit believable in execution or emotion and yet it stands as some sort of attempt as a serious denouement.

In Mystic River, Tim Robbins' needless mistaken identity revenge murder doesn’t seem to bother the killer or the cop, though they were all kids together. Instead we’re left with his wife sadly wandering around in the middle of the street while life is normal for everyone else. The buildup between Penn and Robbins before the killing was such that it was for nothing if Penn doesn’t show some sort of remorse at the end and yet the moment is wasted.

Here the emotion seems to play out correctly all the way through. The tone seems consistent except for a few odd scenes with a priest. It’s the kind of movie where you’re happy for the characters and want to see them succeed.

One of the key points of the movie was how effort and persistence pay off. We see Hilary Swank work her way up from nothing through determination and hard work. It’s even more impressive when you meet her mother later who is angry that Hilary bought her a house. The mother is afraid that she’ll lose her welfare check. Later the same lazy mother is trying to money grub. Both scenes are great examples of Libertarian philosophy. The mother isn’t a victim of society, but a poor lazy fat old hag.

Our heroes struggle and yet win. Eastwood is estranged from his daughter, but he gets a new one. Freeman was blinded in the ring, but he’s still man enough to punch out a bully. Swank comes from poor lazy white trash and yet she has the spirit to win.

So it came as a complete surprise to me that Swank gives up at the end. The screenwriter penned a nice little speech about how she was only two pounds at birth and her daddy called her a fighter. The lesson she seems to learn from her life experience is that she should use her last dying breath fighting to give up. Her desire is consistent with the earlier libertarian philosophy of self-determination, but inconsistent with her life up to that point. If Swank was such a quitter why did she leave Missouri? Why did she train so hard to fight against the odds?

Was the ending intended to make a political point or was it a device so that we could see Clint struggle with his own heroism. Is Clint strong for giving her what she wants or weak for going against his own beliefs? I think the movie tries to have it both ways. Even his exile at the end is never explained as a punishment for immorality or a new lease on life. And I don’t think it’s meant to be ambiguous. I think you see Clint struggle to show what a good man he is and yet doing what he thinks is the wrong thing has no consequences for him. Just like Penn’s decision to off Robbins in Mystic River lacks reflection and consequences. Although it is preposterous that the authorities cannot locate Clint on his own property, you’re left with the impression that he’ll spend his life in safe seclusion.

I think it would have been consistent to have Clint worry over his mistakes and yet have Hilary be the beacon of hope as she had been all throughout the earlier part of film. It might not be a perfect life but Eastwood and Swank still would have had each other despite the negatives. Heroic people are capable of weak acts, but the script doesn’t even hint that she is being weak.

The more I think about it, the screenwriter must have wanted to make the point that her decision was heroic and not cowardly thus it should be legal. Now while you can make the case that her decision should be legal because of self-determination, the writer didn’t do enough explaining of why it was heroic. He seems to be saying “well this character is very heroic throughout and has done nothing un-heroic, therefore her every decision is by definition, heroic.” That’s no argument just manipulation by the screenwriter god.

I’ve got more thinking to do on how this could have ended better, but it’s too Eastwood’s credit that I can’t stop thinking about it. It's a film that shouldn't be missed by the serious moviegoer.

MOVIE ROUNDUP January 2005

Here are the movies I’ve seen since last time.

+CELSUIS 41.11 (2004) Documentary produced by Lionel Chetwynd, one of the few out-of-the-closet conservatives in Hollwyood. Chetwynd was also behind the Tom Selleck IKE film that showed on A&E last year. The main purpose of this film is to refute Michael Moore and MoveOn.org type critics before the November election. The movie begins with interviews of the unwashed protesting in NYC before the Republican convention. They let and old leftist lady tell us that she doesn't mind dictators if they provide education and healthcare. That footage is cut together with scenes of some Mullah cutting off a guy's hands. The other genius play is cutting together Michael Moore insisting that there is no terrorist threat with the twin towers footage. The rest of the film is a refutation point by point about the war in Iraq and John Kerry's leadership ability. For this we get interviews from noted conservatives like Fred Barnes, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Medved (A Yale Classmate), and Fred Thompson. I liked it quite a bit but it seems to have lost its punch with the election over.

OCEANS 12 (2004) – is one of those sequels born out of box office expectations rather than compelling continued storyline. There are some good moments like a Bruce Willis cameo and Julia Roberts impersonating herself. The first movie had such a great cast that it was fun to see them again. It’s not difficult to figure out some “surprising” elements of the story and yet the central heist is so convoluted that you might as well wait for them to explain it at the end.

+ TOKYO STORY (1953) As I continue to make my way down the Sight and Sound list, I came across this Yasujiro Ozu film about a postwar Japanese couple that travel to Tokyo to visit their grown children. The children are busy. The oldest son is a doctor always on call. The daughter is a shrew that’s outwardly critical of her mother at every turn. At first the parents seem pathetic, but as we get to know them we realize it’s the kids that are missing a wonderful opportunity to know their parents the way we’re getting to know them. This is especially true when the mother spends the night with her war-widowed daughter-in-law that appreciates mama more than her blood children do. The movie was a great reminder of how we have but one set of parents and when they go we don’t get another chance to live those moments. Ozu does all of this with subtleties instead of mallets over the head. It’s even better on reflection than it was a few weeks when I saw it.

DARK DAYS (2000) - A documentary about a group of bums living in the Amtrak tunnels below Manhattan. Using plywood they have constructed these little shanties. They all have electricity and thus television and cooking capabilities. Some of these people are crack heads and others are just hustlers selling trash-rescued goodies on the street or recycling bottles to make money. Interesting, but it had no unifying point.

+THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (2004) – I’m not a fan of remakes, but Demme and company did a pretty good job here. Despite the movie critics looking for and finding Bush parallels, the criticism is really leveled at Democrats by members of the farther left. Senator Meryl Streep can say that her character was based on Peggy Noonan or Karen Hughes, but the director made sure she looked just like Hillary Clinton. Liev Schreiber is the decorated military hero that uses his accomplishments to fuel a political career (John Kerry). His father is a famous Senator that never reached potential (Al Gore Sr.). Though no political parties are named, and I even heard one critic claim that the mother and son were of different parties, it’s obvious from a political junkie POV that these people are Democrats. No Republican would give the speech that VP hopeful John Voight gives at the Convention. The company Manchurian Global (A way to use the 1962 title) was compared to Haliburton in the newspaper rags and that was probably their target, but Haliburton was on no-bid contracts under Clinton and that seems to be the point here too. The movie has a socialist bent in that we should fear corporations not governments, but its not a Bush hit piece like the critics wanted it to be. It was even entertaining if a bit hokey at times.

MEAN GIRLS (2004) The dialogue is a little wittier but the story is no better than average teenage comedies. There was a period in which Clueless, Election, 10 Things I hate about You, and Cruel Intentions gave teenagers meatier scripts, but those days seem to be over.

THE HUMAN STAIN (2003) A decent effort by the usually reliable Robert Benton, but I can see how this material was much better suited to Phillip Roth’s novel than it is to the screen. I think novels are more about the journey and movies are more about central conflict. Some movies can play the journey card, but they often lose the descriptive prose that made it work in the written form. The main character’s central secret would fit well inside your head, but it didn’t seem believable played out. In fact, the secret wasn’t big enough for a big movie bang, while I can imagine it being a shocker in print. It had some good moments and a wonderful cast, but it didn’t work for me as cinema.

MAKING OF THE MISFITS (2001) A rather pedestrian look at the making of the classic film that failed to be a classic.

+BOTTLE ROCKET (1996) Wes Anderson’s first film has the style that you’d expect and the Wilson brothers to remind you further. Scorsese said that it was one of the best films of the 1990s, and my guess is that he liked it because Anderson uses color and music much like Michael Powell does in Scorsese favorites, THE RED SHOES and TALES OF HOFFMAN.

+BROADWAY: THE GOLDEN AGE (2004) This was an interesting documentary about New York theatre from end the of World War II to the beginning of the Vietnam War. It was the pet project of Rick McKay, a PBS guy who couldn’t convince any network of its worth. McKay spent 5 years interviewing every surviving Broadway star of that era that he could find. There was a lot of interesting tidbits including a horde of cast members talking about a particular actress that one remembers today. We also got to see a lot of old rare footage of Time Square.

SOMETHING'S GOT TO GIVE (2003) Womanizer Jack Nicholson has a heart attack at Diane Keaton's house. Nicholson is dating Keaton daughter, the winning Amanda Peet. Keanu Reeves plays the Doctor Dude that mends Jack's heart and tries to steal Diane's. The movie's purpose is to get Nicholson to realize that he's supposed to be with Keaton and not those youngsters. It takes a rather long time for a comedy (a little over 2 hours) to get there. It's the kind of movie that casts faces in even small roles. Jon Farveau shows up at Jack's assistant for two scenes. Paul Michael Glazer (Starsky) shows up twice as Keaton's ex. I enjoyed it more than I would have predicted, but that doesn't mean that it's not predictable.

WILD BILL (1995) Quirky western directed by Walter Hill with Jeff Bridges as the famous lawman. The critics didn't think much of it and it the public didn't show up. Rather than a straight plot the movie contains a bunch of random scenes of Bill killing people and romancing Diane Lane. Lane's son feels that Bill did her wrong and he returns to get revenge. It's laughable as history, but Bridges is good and the supporters are good and it had its moments.

MOVIE ROUNDUP

Here are some films I’ve seen recently:

+MAN ON A TRAIN (2002) Stylish French film with robber Johnny Halladay meeting and staying with college professor Jean Rochefort. Rochefort is fascinated by this rogue and through invstigations learns of his plans to rob a local bank. Both men come to envy the life of the other. The robber wishes he had a normal life and the professor wishes he had a more exciting one. The dual climax is Halladay risking his life to rob a bank as Rochfort risks his life in surgery.

BIRTHDAY GIRL (2002) is like a lot of films that begin with stylish promise become conventional at the first plot point and resolve in ways that are inconsistent with the movie in order to deliver a happy ending.

TAKING LIVES (2004) I saw it on the strength of an interesting trailer (I know, bad idea) and the fact that Ethan Hawke picks his projects more carefully than his contemporaries. Adhere’s to the Agatha Christie rule of mysteries – No matter how baffled the heroes are by the identity of the culprit, the person has already been introduced to the audience. Movies like SE7EV that ignore the device are usually better than the ones that don’t, therefore this movie is more of an academic exercise in deduction than unique entertainment.

+THE SLASHER (2004) Washed up director John Landis (Blues Brothers, Trading Places) moves to documentaries with this look at the car dealership industry. The Slasher is Michael Bennett the man car dealerships hire to fly in and move their dusty inventory. Bennett is the kind of guy that drinks beer for breakfast and gives speeches on how he doesn’t believe in high-pressure sales (Ya Ya). He and his team land in Memphis and help a local dealer in a depressed part of town with their troubles. Often funny and quite illuminating on how the car industry really works from a sales standpoint.

+MAYOR OF SUNSET STRIP (2004) Documentary by George Hickenlooper (Hearts of Darkness) about Rodney Bingenheimer a diminutive guy who was Davy Jones’ stand-in for the Monkees TV Show, owner of the first Hollywood Disco, discoverer of David Bowie, and currently an obscure figure by the general public that works as an LA DJ two hours a week from 12-2am on Sundays Nights. It’s both sad and funny.

RIVERS AND TIDES (2003) Documentary of Andy Goldsworthy, an artist who does his work almost exclusively in the outdoors. Though we meet his family briefly, we learn little of his life. The footage is of the man in action trying to create his vision before nature destroys it. I found portions of his work beautiful and other parts uninspired and pointless. The movie sways back and forth from dull to interesting depending on the current project.

+ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (2004) (See Dude’s exhaustive review of this film and Charlie Kauffman) Eternal Sunshine is well-written, but directed in that Terry Gilliam style of mayhem that’s hard to sustain through an entire film. Jim Carrey continues to prove he’s a decent dramatic actor, Kate Winslet puts in another plus performance, and the supporting cast of Wilkenson, Wood and Dunst are also good. Once you buy into the science fiction premise, the characters’ actions seem pretty consistent with human behavior in that memory may be erased but attraction puts people back together. It’s unique, thoughtful and though provoking. I enjoyed it, but don’t imagine that I’d ever see it again.

+GHOSTS OF THE ABYSS (2003) James Cameron returns to the Titanic for real with submarine gadgets for filming and Bill Paxton to provide commentary. Cameron spent a ton to build mini-submarines and they often fail. The stuff they discover is educational though and we get to see what many of the intact artifacts looked like when the ship was launched. The film is mostly of interest to those who enjoy the history of the Titanic.

EASY RIDERS, RAGING BULLS (2003) Documentary of 70s films and filmmakers based on the Peter Biskind book I read recently. It explores a few areas not touched upon in the book, but it excludes some of the most damning items. It’s a good way to absorb that film history. A strong filmmaking effort though it seems to borrow a little from THE KID STAYS IN THE PICTURE. I probably would have liked it better had I not read the book.

George Washington (2000) David Gordon Green’s slice of life debut reminds me of a John Cassavettes film without all the shouting. Rather than a story arch per say, Green takes the characters through a bunch of random episodes to see them react to surprising challenges. The actors all seem like naturals living in real houses and eating real food. Add a narrator and you’d think documentary if you caught it flipping around. Still, if you’re waiting around for a point you’ll have to dig way between the lines. Otherwise you might get the idea that this film is about the randomness of human life and little more.

+All the Real Girls (2003) I saw David Gordon Green’s second film first and like it better. Paul Schneider who had a small part in the first film plays a small town playboy in this one. When the pure little sister (Zooey Deschanel ) of his best friend returns after years in boarding school they soon start an honorable flirtation that ruins his friendship with the brother. In the conventional indie classic TAO OF STEVE, the hero meets his match and falls for the girl. Green doesn’t make it so easy for his characters. Just when things are heading the conventional way here something unexpected happens and our hero has to struggle with himself. All in all it's a better use of Gordon's knack for realism than GW.

+SHOOT THE PIANO PLAYER (1960) Francois Truffaut film about one-time big shot concert pianist that’s reduced to playing in a saloon. If that’s not bad enough his criminal brother drags him into the middle of his own drama. Our hero is tasked with fleeing the bad guys and reliving the experience that cost him his career as a virtuoso. Traffault’s influence from American film noir is evident and I liked it better than THE 400 BLOWS that gets so much ink.

I AM CHARLLOTE SIMMONS by Tom Wolfe (A Book Review)

To paraphrase Michael Barone, our society creates the most inept 18 year-olds and the most super competent 30 year-olds in the world. Tom Wolfe shows us in I AM CHARLOTTE SIMMONS how incompetent the 18 year olds of today are, in the setting of a prestigious University full of the best and brightest. His third novel should worry parents and enlighten the rest of us.

Those familiar with Wolfe’s style of new journalism will appreciate how he uses a combination of subtlety and action to reveal character traits and feelings. Wolfe’s characters are funny because they are mostly charlatans, egomaniacs or self-righteous bores. This novel and his last both introduce sympathetic characters and he puts them into a society that doesn’t understand their inherent goodness. Wolfe makes his heroes re-think their own values in a world that would just as soon stomp on them.

Charlotte has been given the immense gift of fleeing her poor rural life and living amongst contemporary geniuses. What she assumes will be discussion groups on philosophy and science is, in fact, a campus of frat parties and hooking up. She’s isolated and clings to her own small town values, but as her loneliness grows deeper, she compromises little things and later bigger things to better fit in. Wolfe gives us 700 pages to watch Charlotte’s strength get sapped by the unforgiving realities of contemporary life.

Along the way we meet jocks, geeks, frat boys, sorority girls, genius professors and radical hippy ones. We meet college coaches and rich parents and famous politicians and very few of them come off looking noble. Wolfe can be salacious when he describes the goings on and it’s a big plus for the book, because we can enjoy the description and later feel morally superior to the acts themselves. It’s not too unlike how Cecil B. DeMille created biblical epics to get away with all kinds of lasciviousness.

This is an unforgiving look at how modern colleges have adopted ancient Greek Bacchus like behavior, while ignoring the virtuous Socratic philosophy. Some writers may have used this material to endlessly moralize, but Wolfe seems more like one of those ancient Greek Gods laughing from Mount Olympus.