This Carlos Reygadas Guy and his Stellet Licht

February 10, 2009 by cinemaspeak

by Memo Salazar

Just one of the million beautiful frames of Silent Light
Just one of the million beautiful frames of Silent Light

I have just seen a great, great movie…  sorry…  film. It’s by a fellow Mexican (let’s hear it for Mexico) named Carlos Reygadas, a fairly new filmmaker, and it captured the Grand Jury Prize at Cannes in 2007. Here we are, almost 2 years later, and it’s barely making a splash in the Big Apple, where it just finished a very short run on a single screen- hardly the fanfare this masterpiece deserves.

The film is called Silent Light. It is set in Northern Mexico, though you’d hardly notice, since it takes place among a Mennonite community speaking an obscure dialect called Plautdietsch. How Reygadas convinced this usually-closed community to let him into their homes and act in his crazy tale of infidelity (don’t worry, this spoils no part of the story) is beyond me. How he was able to tell the story using nothing but perfectly-composed, jaw-dropping shots, who’s every frame could be a photograph hanging on the wall of the Met, blows my mind. From the very first shot- an incredibly long tracking time lapse from night until day (tracking, as in, the camera is panning down and moving forward over this 12-hour period)- Silent Light does what very few movies ever manage- tell a genuinely worthwhile story in an amazingly visual way without resorting to flashy gimmicks and effects.

You can have your Tim Burtons, Luc Bessons, and even your Matthew Barneys. They’re either hacks with huge budgets or self-indulgent visual masturbators.  I do not exaggerate when I say that this film contains more visual power in one scene than an entire movie by [insert Hollywood Flyboy here]. Reygadas’ influences are obvious- Terence Malick, for one, who’s slow, ponderous, artful framing and weighty emotional and spiritual issues find fertile soil in this film. But Reygadas isn’t just a good rip-off artist- his eye is clearly his own, passionate and hungry to show you the world through his creatively-charged lens.

The older I get, the harder it is for me to be genuinely blown away by a movie. I might really enjoy a good flick, but to actually witness something that is so fresh that every scene embeds itself into my brain, well, that just doesn’t happen these days. But Silent Light- golly gee! I think I could recap the entire movie, scene by scene, if you asked. And this is NOT a plot-driven film. The story is quite simple, and in lesser hands, this thing would be a boring, ponderous, pointless chore. Instead, at 144 minutes, the slow pacing is never too much to bear. Even though this has “art film” written all over it, my eyes couldn’t get enough of that beautiful camera work or that incredible framing, both in the service of telling a poignant morality tale that’s as timeless as the Mennonites themselves. Let’s not forget the sound design, equally as important. A simple scene featuring father and son walking out in the fresh snow becomes memorable simply with the crisp “crunch crunch crunch” of snow under boots; another scene, shot in a clearly non-manufactured rain storm, both looks and sounds so vivid, you find yourself checking to see if your clothes are still dry. The most basic, seemingly-mundane stuff becomes sheer poetry in this film, and, believe me, I know how clichéd that statement sounds. Silent Light deserves such hyperbole. If you’re not a “film person” you can appreciate the well-told story. If you are, you will salivate scene after scene, wondering how this guy found such perfect locations, characters, and lighting, blown away by how it all comes together in the ultimate expression of cinema.

Have I raved enough? Think I’m exaggerating? Check it out and see for yourself- projected, if you can. The use of darks and lights, pushing exposure latitudes to their maximum, just won’t translate to video- not even HD. As film snobbish as that sounds, as overdone this kind of marketing jargon may seem, it’s, for once, the truth.

Nude Pictures of Rosario Dawson’s…

February 4, 2009 by cinemaspeak

By Dan Tester

pinkpanther2pic2

Okay, okay. There will be no nude pictures of Rosario Dawson’s vagina here. Believe me, if I had pictures like that I would share them because Ms. Dawson is one of my “Top Ten Hottest Women in Hollywood“, and I like to share those kinds of things with my faithful readers. In full disclosure, I sort of wish I did have those pictures, because this blog would be a huge hit, and I want to have the most read blog on CINEMASPEAK. But alas, I do not have any pictures of her vagina, so I apologize for any bait and snatch here. I am simply an internet bloggie (or whatever that term is) and earlier tonight I felt compelled to write an important bloggish thing that I truly feel will be an important addition to internet culture. For further full disclosure here, to further explain my previous full disclosure that was really only partial in it’s entirety, I just needed a “catchy internet-style pre-cum shot” kind of title to bring in the hits for the website.  Hey, website hits are hits, and it doesn’t even matter if interneters actually READ the article they linked to or not…only the click matters, those horny bastards. I just want to be the most read blooger (or whatever the fuck) on the internet. But still, if you have any kind of soul whatsoever, please read the following. It is important:

When did Steve Martin become such a pathetic sell-out???

HOW DARE HE try to recreate the comic masterpiece that was Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau. I watched that first PINK PANTHER movie with Steve Martin, and it just made me sad. Sad in two regards. ONE: There is NO need to even TRY to recreate the comic brilliance of Peter Sellers in his iconic role. TWO: It was just stunningly unfunny. I mean, did anyone REALLY like that movie? Did anyone laugh EVER??? Did YOU????? “Hamburger, Hammburrrguuuerrrr”??? THAT is funny??? Steve Martin’s PINK PANTHER was a fucking rooster fuck. It was embarrassing. I openly admit I am coming at this as a huge fan of the original series orchestrated by the great Blake Edwards, but honestly, even if I had never even heard of the original films, I would have thought that Steve Martin’s version was a complete donkey fuck in rooster’s clothing. Yes, it was THAT BAD. “Hamburger, Hammmbouygerrrrerrrr?:“ FUCK YOU!!!!! And now I see the sequel is coming out. Are you kidding me? PINK PANTHER 2?????? I give my props to Kevin Kline for bowing out of this one, but I also lower my brows in consternation in his direction for having even participated in that first film, which was really kind of like a rooster fuck that was crashed by a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off, resulting in unnecessary cock and bullshit the likes of which no one has seen since that KNIGHT RIDER remake earlier this year on NBC. FUCK PINK PANTHER 2. And as much as I love Steve Martin, FUCK HIM TOO!!!!! God I love the internet. You can say whatever you want. I just wonder what would happen if Corky from LIFE GOES ON decided to star in a remake of THE JERK. I bet Steve Martin would not be happy at all. And I guarantee that remake would be a rooster fuck of donkey proportion.

At this time, I would like to take a moment to honor the late, great Herbert Lom. <MOMENT OF SILENCE> If you don’t know who Herbert Lom is, that is because you accidentally only watched the bullshit Steve Martin PINK PANTHER movie.  But take my word for it…Herbert Lom ALONE is worth renting the original series of PANTHER films. Good Lord man, Lom probably should have received an Oscar Nomination for Best Supporting Actor for THE PINK PANTHER STRIKES AGAIN in 1976. But I know, I know. Legions of filmgoers with lemming-esque minds and “butter stuff” on their breath will soon tromp through theater lobbies en masse to watch the new PINK PANTHER 2 starring Steve Martin…simply because it exists and they are American. And as we all know, Americans love to visually ingest ANYTHING placed before them by evil, soulless corporations intent on destroying creativity and originality  in the marketplace. You see, these vile conglomerates know that it takes far too much effort for the average dopey American to simply “look away” from mind-numbing crap placed in front of their noses like the carrot on the stick at a union-sanctioned rooster fuck, due to the average American’s “clusterfuck addiction” to mass acceptance…leading them down the oddly ironic road to complete social dissolution, and the possibility of THE PINK PANTHER 3 starring Steve Martin as Inspector Jacques Clouseau. So, in conclusion, to all of the average Americans reading this blog who will be going to the theater this weekend to passively ingest PINK PANTHER 2, with all due disrespect I shall simply beg of you…stop being “so damn average”. Or as the French would say…”So damn American”. Or as Peter Sellers’ Clouseau would have said…”Swine Parrots”.

In conclusion, I will list a number of HOT TOPICS that are often searched online that have absolutely nothing to do with my blog per se, but have everything to do with website hits from search engine inquiries by average Americans. Like I said before…a hit is a hit. LINDSAY LOHAN, CLITORIS, PATRICK SWAYZE CANCER, RUTH BUZZI, TAINT, EHRLICHMAN, HALDEMAN, DEAN JONES, BLOODY STOOL, DICTAPHONE, JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH, JESUS, JESUS CHRIST, YAHWEH, MARSHALL APPLEWHITE, TOM CRUISE, DOUGHNUTS, MIDGET SEX, HELPING THE HOMELESS, ABRAHAM LINCOLN’S NUTSACK, SARAH PALIN, HINDENBURG, BRETT FAVRE HAS A VAGINA, FRED ‘RERUN‘ BERRY, BLOOD SAUSAGE, CURTIS SLIWA, ANN COULTER, MALNOURISHED LESBIANS, OPRAH SMOKED CRACK COCAINE, OPRAH’S FAVORITE THINGS, OPRAH’S CHEESEBURGERS WITH CRACK COCAINE ON THEM, KITTENS, PUSSY, CUNT, CONDOLEEZZA, MILLARD FILLMORE, HEATH LEDGER, DRUG OVERDOSE GUARANTEES OSCAR GOLD IN A BATMAN MOVIE, ARTICHOKE HEARTS, SMEGMA, BUDDHISM, REVERSE WHITE PAGES, AMY WINEHOUSE, CINEMASPEAK, and WILLIAM HUNG.

 

FIVE MOVIES YOU MUST SEE BEFORE YOU DIE!!!!!!!

January 9, 2009 by cinemaspeak

By Dan Tester

Charles Nelson Reilly

As we begin 2009, I thought it would be a nice idea to offer some movie rental suggestions. People are always coming up to me and asking, “Tester, can you recommend a movie that I have not seen and will always regret not having seen upon my deathbed?“ Sometimes I am caught off guard and cannot come up with a slam-dunk response to their query on the spot. So I decided to take the time here and recommend five “little seen” gems from my own personal Beta collection that you simply must see before you cease to exist. Some of these titles may be hard to locate at this point, but they are definitely worth any time it takes for you to seek them out. Enjoy!!!!!!

FOR GOD, PRINCE AND FATHERLAND (1979)- This little seen epic psychological thriller from director David Lean stars Sir Laurence Olivier and Bronson Pinchot as innocent pawns involved in the mysterious disappearance of the Prince of Liechtenstein’s favorite pair of dress socks. Sir Laurence is at his absolute best as the failed tollbooth collector caught up in intrigue while on holiday in Europe, and Pinchot is in top form as Mansard, the mysterious and semi-retarded Liechtensteinian with a penchant for lucky guesses. Pinchot’s hysterical accent ALONE is worth the price of a rental, even though it isn‘t even supposed to be funny!!!!! The bizarre scene in which Mr. Olivier is strapped to a gurney, as a long-winded goon (Richard Kiel) dangles a buzzing chainsaw near his crotch while repeatedly asking “Sir, can I adequately assume that IT is secure from liability to harm, injury, danger, or risk involving little or no mishap or error?” as a confused Olivier can only scream “Whaaaaaaaaaa??????” as the chainsaw begins to clip his zipper is one of the most chilling scenes ever committed to celluloid. And of course, TV’s Gordon Jump is priceless as the Prince of Liechtenstein!!! And keep an eye out for Mr. T’s movie debut as “Impatient Black Guy #3” in the classic “Chicken and Waffle House” chase scene!!!

CROSSWALK TO GLORY (1988)- It is an absolute sin that Adrian Zmed was overlooked for a Best Actor nod in 1988 for his portrayal of Lester Stubbins – a man born with no arms and no legs who attempts to become the first of his kind to cross the street all by himself. While most audiences will not remember this film due to bad distribution, I doubt that anyone is unfamiliar with the classic line “I AM NOT A SPEED BUMP!!! I AM A HUMAN PERSON!!!” that the American Film Institute declared as one of the top 20,000 quotes in cinema history!!! However, I suggest you avoid the sequel POSTAGE DUE from 1990- a slapdash and highly inferior attempt to recapture the magic of CROSSWALK, this time with George Takei taking over the role of Stubbins as he attempts to become the first of his kind to retrieve his own mail from the mailbox. 

NAUGHT-ZI (1972)- This weird hodgepodge of sentimentality and poop jokes from Writer/Producer/Director/Executive Producer/Editor/Caterer/Executive Executive Producer/Best Boy/Director’s Assistant Jerry Lewis stars Jerry Lewis as Hee-Hee Hitler, the little brother of Adolf Hitler who owns an interpretive dance studio in Prague in 1940. When Hee-Hee learns through the grapevine that  his estranged older brother doesn’t like the Jews, he takes his dance troupe on a long road trip to Germany in an attempt to persuade him otherwise. During the road trip all sorts of hilarious misunderstandings ensue and all the members of the troupe, including Hee-Hee himself, learn about themselves. And the ending of the film is explosively subtle, as Hee-Hee performs his 25-minute interpretive dance routine in front of Adolf Hitler titled “HEYYYYYYY HITLAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!”, ultimately leaving Adolf in tears and full of regret. Many years later when Jerry Lewis was asked about this film in an exclusive interview with Screw Magazine,  Jerry got very emotional and responded…“Perhaps if Hee-Hee had really existed, that ‘Koo-Koo’ war may never have even happened in the first place.” Indeed!!

BITCH (1929)- Judy Garland stars in this classic black and white soaper as Penny Purse, a beautiful girl who everyone thinks is a bitch just because they are all jealous of her huge breasts and they don‘t take the time to get to know her. She is hot and accidentally exposes her left nipple to office manager Clark Gable at the water cooler one morning, but she does not sleep around so an angered and horny Gable tells everyone in the office that he banged her. Penny Purse is painfully shy, so when pool secretary Katherine Hepburn tries to strike up a conversation and gets no reply, she vindictively tells everyone that Penny is a dirty bull dyke and recreates the act of cunnilingus on a hoagie while everyone just laughs and laughs at Penny‘s expense. A young Mickey Rooney plays Mikey, the only one who sees through the emotional shell that Penny has built around herself and becomes her best friend. But when Mikey offers her some marijuana and she declines, he gets pissed off and tells everyone that she gave him a hand job in the Bob’s Big Boy parking lot for free. It is the breaking point for Penny Purse. The final scene, in which a depressed Penny Purse throws herself from the top of the “Hollywood Sign” and lands on a startled and masturbating Jimmy Stewart is both tragic and telling!!! INTERESTING BIT OF TRIVIA:  This is the very film that compelled Hollywood to establish “The Hays Code” to monitor and remove “morally inappropriate content” from American films, and the code was firmly in place less than one year later. 

TINKER, TAILOR, MAGIC MARKER (1978)- Charles Nelson Reilly plays Nelson Charles Reilly, a man born without a tongue who communicates solely by holding up light blue cards with double entendres handwritten on them in magic marker. When Nelson Charles Reilly is elected President of the United States…hold onto your seats, there is fun ahead!!! The scene with Brett Somers as Margaret Thatcher is a gift from the comedy Gods, especially when Somers holds up a light blue card that reads “BALLS“ and President Reilly starts to yank at his collar and makes that trademark “Yuuuunnnggg Yuuuunnnggg Yuuuunnnggg“ sound while licking his lips and looking directly into the camera!!!! And when Gene Rayburn makes a surprisingly predictable cameo as Russian President Leonid Brezhnev the movie achieves some sort of celluloid Nirvana, especially the scene in which Rayburn’s Brezhnev runs into the Oval Office and begins to beat President Reilly about the head with his six-foot long microphone while Reilly holds up a light blue card that reads “QUEER” and Secretary of State Betty White laughs so hard she coughs up one of Alan Ludden’s long lost belt buckles and Secretary of Commerce Fannie Flagg farts so loudly she makes Secretary of the Interior Richard Dawson purse his lips and remark “That Stinks, Dahling”. And the ending of TINKER, TAILOR MAGIC MARKER is one of the most beautiful ever captured on film. As President Reilly presses the nuclear button and launches the missiles toward Russia, he scribbles onto one of his light blue cards with a magic marker, and the audience is expecting one more hilarious double entendre. But Reilly’s lower lip begins to quiver, and when he holds up the card, it reads…”THIS IS ALL COMPLETELY AVOIDABLE, PEOPLE. CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN TODAY”.  Fade to Black, as John Williams’ haunting and Oscar-nominated END theme song plays over the end credits.

Kick-Ass-Bollywood Part 1: NASEEB

December 29, 2008 by cinemaspeak

by Memo Salazar

Naseeb- a true film for our times

Naseeb- a true film for our times

Yes, friends, this new year kicks off with a short series of looks at unknown-to-Americans-Indian-Films inspired by my recent trek across that great and wonderful land.

My 22-hour plane ride was made much more enjoyable by the good people of Air India, which, like India itself, are a group of laid-back, non-uptight, chill folks who aren’t obsessed with FAA rules and regulations. Want to get up, walk around, get a drink of water? Help yourself- the pitcher’s sitting in that little “flight-attendant kitchenette”. Want to videotape the action in the plane? Sure. We won’t flip out. Bored? Watch our crazy selection of new and old Bollywood films right there in your seat. These are the real friendly skies.

Using my keen sense of “Let’s Find A Good Flick” radar, I settled on one called Naseeb from 1981. The short synopsis, about a group of friends who share a lottery ticket, wasn’t exactly helpful, but something told me this had potential. Here’s a longer wikipedia synopsis I will not repeat, since a) I don’t want to spoil the insane plot twists and b) the story is absolutely ridiculous anyway, so even if you do read the synopsis, it’ll just confuse the hell out of you. Suffice to say, Naseeb is both a classic example of the Bollywood style of filmmaking as well as a unique and insane movie in its own right. And what is the “Bollywood style of filmmaking,” you ask?

First, it’s a really long movie. We here in the west are all hung up on these ideas of “story arcs” and “acts 1 through 5″ and all sorts of Syd Field bullshit that India deals with by simply ignoring. To my Western-saturated eyes, watching these long films with seemingly-random plot twists was refreshing and invigorating. Just when a conflict is resolved, the movie throws in a whole new set of characters, or jumps ahead 10 years, and blam- we’re off to the next dramatic situation. Combine this with long dialogue scenes that rarely advance the story and lots of musical breaks with elaborate, intricate dance numbers, and you’ve got yourself a typical Bollywood film. What makes Naseeb so special, however, is that all of these flashy, over-the-top elements are handled with an original eye and inspired craftiness that puts Tarantino to shame. I drop Quentin’s name because Naseeb could easily be described as a Kill Bill without the hipster, retro-irony. Remember, this film was made in 1981, in India, no less- far from the cold, detached, ironic sensibilities so prevalent today. All the craziness you see is sincere and genuine; all the character paths crossing each other and the screwball twists of fate lack a self-aware wink. Even the opening title, where the screen freezes on the mug of a dude who has just double-crossed his pal, is played straight, though you’d swear there had to be an ironic smile in there, somewhere.

The basic theme of this film is fate, and it’s crafted in the most basic way possible: four friends, one winning lottery ticket, and lots of back-stabbing and double-crossing that spans a couple of generations. The action scenes are nuts, and the musical numbers (several, but not so many that they get in the way) are even more nuts, such as a big final scene that takes place in a revolving rooftop restaurant where our heroes come out dressed and dancing in styles from countries all around the world, like a twisted It’s A Small World Epcot-dance number with gun battles sung in Hindi. The fact that it features several of India’s top Bollywood stars, starting with the über-famous Amitabh Bachchan, ensures it a spot in Bollywood History, but for those of us for whom this means little, it’s the genuine creativity that will find a home in our hearts.

And, hey, ladies, take note- Naseeb features some ass-kicking, motorcycle-riding heroines who give the men a run for their money- again, way before this kind of a thing was common in the films of our own “liberated west”. Watching Naseeb is like unearthing a hidden archaeological artifact, as if I were the first person in North America to discover John Woo or Jackie Chan; like those two cinematic traditions, Naseeb is evidence of a culture that swallowed some American Cinema and shat it out with a lot of spicy Masala thrown in. As of this writing, you can watch it for free in 10-minute youtube segments (not recommended, but better than nothing) or rent it on dvd, though you may have to go through your local library system or places like netflix to find it. Either way, Naseeb is not to be missed.

Ask the Movie Answer Man

June 1, 2008 by cinemaspeak

By Dan Tester

A few months ago, CINEMASPEAK asked for movie related questions from our faithful readers, to be answered by our own Movie Answer Man, Dan Tester. Only a few members of our readership queried, and now we present the first of what we hope will be many ASK THE MOVIE ANSWER MAN features

Q: Hello, Movie Answer Man. What is your opinion of action films these days? I can’t get enough, to be honest. God help me, I enjoy action!! 

- Chuck Charles, Topeka, KA 

A: I couldn’t agree with you more, Chuck. As I often mention to my entertainment journalist colleagues at dinner parties, I truly feel Hollywood has now entered the “Golden Age of Action.” I particularly love car chases. Hey, I pay good money to see a movie, and I want to be entertained!! It never ceases to amaze me how creative Hollywood can be with car chases. I never get tired of them. How can they still come up with clever situations for a car chase that I have seen so many times before, but still make them feel so darn fresh? It boggles my mind. I couldn’t think of that many!!! They are always subtly different. This time, it is Will Smith. Or Tom Cruise. Or somebody else. And the car is usually different too. And usually, the setting is different too. Sometimes, the car crashes into Taco Bell, or sometimes it crashes into McDonalds, and sometimes it actually crashes into a non-product placed generic hot dog vendor (I love that one!!!), but it is always different in a way. Usually the music is different, or the mood is different, or the actor is STILL different (sometimes it is even Sylvester Stallone, or sometimes Bruce Willis, or sometimes even Nick Cage!). But I never pay attention to that kind of stuff to be honest. I just like a good car chase. Thanks for the question!!!

Q: As I am a fan of cinema, particularly of the French New Wave, I was wondering if you think that there are any current American filmmakers who have taken the baton of this movement? Obviously, Truffaut and Godard were the pioneers of the French New Wave, but I must admit Jacques Rivette is my personal favorite. Just curious about what your take is on this subject?

- Phillipe Douvier, Paris, France 

A: French New Wave? Oooooooooh La La, Pierre!! LOLOL. What are you, one of those gay homosexuals or something? LOLOLOLOL. Do you like crepes? I bet you do. I am not a fan of subtitles. 

Q: Who played Mr. Slate in that Flintstones movie they made that one time? My girlfriend and I have a bet on it. Thanks!

- A. Folker, Oshkosh, WI

A: I will assume you mean THE FLINTSTONES feature from 1994 that starred John Goodman as Fred. The answer to your question is Dann Florek. You may also remember Dann from his regular role as David Meyer on TV’s “L.A. Law”. Hope you win the bet! Thanks for the question!

Q: Quick question: Bergman or Fellini?

- Carl Berger, Jr., Tucson, AZ

A: I hope to God you are soon beaten to death outside of a loser bar in Tucson, sir.

Q: I just rented CLOVERFIELD, and I have to say, that movie ROCKED!!! It was amazing. I think it is my favorite movie of all time! Just wondering what you thought of it?

- Bebe Rebozo, Key Biscayne, FL

A: Yes. I wholeheartedly agree, Bebe. I particularly appreciated the love story aspect of CLOVERFIELD. So many movies these days forget this important detail. I loved it when the entire world was coming to an end, and the protagonist was determined to save the girl he humped a few weeks earlier and is now in love with. He is so in love after his one night stand that he is determined to face off with the unearthly beast that is decimating existence…to save her…and it is pure romantic cinema. This is the exact reason that THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT sucked in my opinion…no romance!!!! CLOVERFIELD kind of reminded me of the movie TITANIC, another great cinematic love story. In TITANIC, a guy met a girl and humped her, and then painted her picture, and then it was a love story. He froze to death eventually, but the girl remembered their 10-hour love affair through the ages, and then years later threw her jewelry into the drink. I remember I saw a similar romance on THE LOVE BOAT one time, where John Byner portrayed an angry divorcee who met angry divorcee Joanne Worley on board the cruise, and then he humped her, and then hilarious misunderstandings ensued. Their story would have ended badly, but Doc intervened and at the end of the episode they got married. But of course, there was not a grotesque monster involved in that particular love story. Well, unless you include Isaac. LOLOLOLOLOL. Just kidding. Isaac was the essence of cool. Thanks for the question!

Q: As I was watching CHARLIE WILSON’S WAR recently, I was struck by something…Julia Roberts. Not only is she a bombshell, but she always adds that “certain something” to every movie she is in. What is your take on this wonderful star?

 - Gina Maladroit, Sydney, Australia

A: I couldn’t agree more, Gina. No one…and I mean NO ONE…is better at playing Julia Roberts in a movie than Julia Roberts. If film performances were food, Julia Roberts would be filet mignon.

Q: I recently rented NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, and all I can say is…whaaaaaaaaaaahh? I really, really liked it, until the end. Whaaaaaaaahhhhh? I really hate it when movies are really good for pretty much the whole time, but then they have no ending!! Now I hate that movie. What is your opinion of movies that are really, really good for most of it, and then have no ending???? I HATE THAT MOVIE NOW!!!!!!!!

- Wally Phillips, Intercourse, PA

A: You hit the nail on the head, Wally. That movie was so good, but then that ending just ruined it. It is completely irresponsible for filmmakers to make a movie called NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, and simply end it with a scene in which an old sheriff retires because he is too old to deal with the country anymore. I was hoping for a car chase. 

 

Guy Maddin Turns History Into Fantasy Into History

May 30, 2008 by cinemaspeak

by Memo Salazar

Guy Maddin\'s My Winnipeg = history in dreamland

I don’t know, exactly, how to describe Guy Maddin’s narrative style. It’s completely unique, yet moments after I experienced it for the first time, I completely got it, as if I had found an old t-shirt buried in my closet. His imaginative and trippy, yet completely accessible and cohesive storytelling embodies, in some ways, everything I’ve aspired to with my own work, and it’s a weird experience to see someone crystallize everything that’s been brewing inside you in such a perfect, brilliant, idiosyncratic way. It’s not so much that you want to claim his techniques as your own; rather, his poetic, magical vision serves as a tangible benchmark for how good you can be in your own way; it makes you want to dig deep inside yourself and come up with something as uniquely you as Guy Maddin’s work is uniquely Guy Maddin’s.

My Winnipeg is all that, as well as love sonnet to Winnipeg, Ontario, Maddin’s birthplace and current home. Our protagonist narrates the film, letting us in on his plans to escape this Northern prison that handed him a lifetime sentence. He’s tried, and failed, to escape several times before, but perhaps, this time, he’s discovered a way out- through a series of cinematic recreations involving his family and the house they grew up in. While he carries these experiments forth, we are treated to a delicious feast of historical Winnipeg nuggets- bizarre anecdotes and factoids about this odd Canadian city that have just enough truth in them to keep you from dismissing them outright as pure conjectures of a fertile imagination. A three-level public swimming pool where budding homosexual feelings are first felt, a series of uncharted backroads, a phantom hockey team named after Wall Street’s historical crash, hair salons full of old ladies, streets full of sleepwalkers, a beloved tree in the middle of the road, nuns, labor strikes, a Nazi invasion, a homeless population living on rooftops, an ongoing tv serial about a man always ready to jump off a ledge (which brings to mind the work of another creative Canadian, David Boswell, who had a similar imaginary tv show in his comic Reid Fleming, World’s Toughest Milkman)… all of these weird, hilarious attractions in Maddin’s filmic tour of his beloved city have been permanently branded upon my brain, pardon the pun- such is the paradoxical clarity of Maddin’s seemingly obscure storytelling techniques.

But My Winnipeg is also about nostalgia and the ill-fated desire to keep things as they were, to fight the inevitable tidal wave of change. Shot in good old-fashioned black and white film, full of scratches and blurry, silent-film-era titles, Maddin displays an incredulous attitude of disgust and frustration with the direction his city has chosen to go- corporate and modern, eager to throw out all the rich qualities of the old for the shiny, empty veneer of the new. Ugly, stark color video is used only when depicting such modern architectural monstrosities, in contrast to the rest of the film’s ancient, enigmatic look. Like yet another fellow Canadian, the great comic artist Seth, Maddin is clear in his assertion that everything was better in the past, and this passion for the beauty of a mythical time that probably never actually existed except in the twilight of memory is turned into a powerful aesthetic vision, one so convincing that you find yourself loving Winnipeg along with him, sharing in his memories as if they were your own. Film is, itself, a medium of fantasy, where even the most stark, “verite” documentary is transformed into fiction by the very act of pointing a camera at something, by someone. Rather than trying to portray Winnipeg in some illusionary “objective” documentary style, Maddin accepts the fact that this is a losing, impossible task, so he drops all pretense and goes as far as he can in the other direction, unapologetically mixing fact and fiction to expose a deeper truth. I eat this shit right up; whether it’s Michael Moore’s political comedies or Oliver Stone’s historical dramas, it’s wonderful to see people bend historical fact to their creative whims (as long as the result is interesting), for it reminds us that there really is no such thing as a historical fact- every history book has been written by a (fallible, subjective) someone; even if you go to the source materials in hopes of discovering and depicting historical truth, the minute those materials get processed through your mind, they’ve been converted into the same stuff as that which Shakespeare painted. Perhaps this is why I’d much rather read fiction than non-fiction books… ultimately, they’re way more honest, admitting to the reader up front that it’s all bullshit, rather than pretending that they’re just stating the facts, ma’am.

From one point of view, My Winnipeg is simply a bunch of stock footage edited over 80 minutes of stream-of-consciousness narration. From my point of view, it’s a beautiful autobiography, an expression of Guy Maddin’s fertile mind, a whirlwind journey through a Winnipeg that doesn’t exist in time, nor space, yet is way more real than anything Ken Burns or the History channel could hope to produce. Using his Canadian Dollars, Guy Maddin has fashioned My Winnipeg into a movie that’s more magical than anything Spielberg can manage dish out, at only a fraction of the cost.

Oliver Stone’s “TURDBLOSSOM”

April 13, 2008 by cinemaspeak

by Dan Tester

I have heard, through the Hollywood grapevine, that Oliver Stone is making a movie about this century’s greatest two-term president, GW Bush. Many are screaming that it is inappropriate. Many say it is “too soon.”  I say…BRING IT ON!!!!  Hey, GW said the same thing to the terrorists, so I can say that to Oliver Stone. Stone has made films about a number of our country’s most dubious presidents, and the films have all been wonderful. He made a film called JFK. It was about a Roman Catholic president who fucked starlets in the White House swimming pool while his wife was out shopping, and then he was shot dead in Texas. Great movie! Then Stone made a film called NIXON. It was about a Quaker president who used the Constitution as if it were unscented toilet paper, and then he shot himself dead. Great movie! It only seems fitting that Stone will now focus on George Walker Bush. It will be about a Christian president who used the Constitution as if it were unscented toilet paper, and then drank too much whiskey while watching a Dolphins’ game one weekend and fell down and bounced his head off of the coffee table while “choking on a pretzel.” Sounds like a great movie to me!!!!

Much has been made about the casting of the film. Josh Brolin as GW? I just can’t see it. But then again, when I first heard that Anthony Hopkins would be playing Richard Nixon, I thought the same thing. How could a Brit play a Dick? It seemed preposterous. But when I saw the film, I realized it was a Shakespearean tragedy and it was beautiful casting. Now we have a Goonie playing Bush. I think it might work. The chick that is playing Laura Bush is unfamiliar to me, so I have no opinion I suppose. According to IMDB, she was in WET HOT AMERICAN SUMMER, so I tend to like her. Although, I see she was also in SWEPT AWAY with Madonna. Oy. Ellen Burstyn as Barbara Bush??? That is a weird one. Babs has a few too many “Texas Toasts” on her gluteous maximus for Burstyn to pull off that role, but maybe the film will ultimately be nominated for Best Prosthetics come Oscar time. On that note, it is only fitting that James Cromwell has been cast as George Bush, Sr. I can only dream of the scene where Barbara slinks into the bedroom wearing sexy lingerie, her bulbous buttocks flowing out of the thong like the head of warm beer tapped too quickly from a Miller Lite half barrel, and Cromwell mutters “That’ll Do Pig…That’ll Do.” Fade to black, mercifully. I have also heard that Thandie Newton has been cast as Condoleezza Rice? Wha huh? Is Stone just going for the “hot” here? Thandie is hot. Condy is not. Sorry, but Condy should be played by David Letterman in blackface. WHAAAAAA???? That is racist!!!!!!!!! No it’s not. It’s all about the teeth.

But there is a lot more casting to go. Who will play Dick Cheney? Rummy? Wolfie? Rovey? I have a few suggestions. Believe me, I am no Lynn Stalmaster, but I have my own casting opinions. By the way, did you know that Lynn Stalmaster is a man??? Blew my mind. I remember, even as a youth, seeing the name “Lynn Stalmaster” during the opening credits of almost every movie I saw, and I always figured it was a broad. Who knew?

Dick Cheney is a tough one. Who could capture the subtle humanity? To be fair, Willem Dafoe already pretty much did it in AMERICAN DREAMZ, but that movie just sucked. I would not recommend that movie whatsoever. I think the perfect person to play Dick Cheney would be Joy Behar. Why not?  Evil, outspoken, small penis.  Stone could really make a statement here. Donald Rumsfeld? That is easy…Ted Knight from CADDYSHACK. Paul Wolfowitz is a tough one. He is spindly. He is weasly. He licks his comb before he combs his own hair, and then relicks. I GOT IT!!!!!!!!!!!! Ba-Ba Booey!!!!!!! Well, Ba-Ba Booey is not spindly I suppose, but I think I saw him eat his own boogers one time on a special Howard Stern VHS from years ago. A perfect Wolfie.

Which brings us to Karl Rove. Who could play this man? Is he Machiavelli? Is he Buffalo Bob Smith? Fuck, is he Clarabelle? Rove definitely has to be played by a guy who has his hand up a puppet’s ass and makes him say funny things. I haven’t seen the Jerry Lewis Telethon lately, so I am not sure who the “hip” puppeteers are nowadays. How about that guy who had his hand up Madame’s ass back in the 70s? Is he even still alive? I could check IMDB, but either way, he doesn’t have ‘box office” written all over him. I know I saw a guy recently that had his hand up a camel’s ass, and they made hilarious jokes and stuff. But I don’t know his name. Isn’t it weird that we never know the name of the puppeteer, only the goofy puppet? Oh wait…I just remembered the name of the guy who had his hand up Madame’s ass. It was Wayland Flowers. But it doesn’t matter now. Oh hell, Karl Rove is just too difficult. I don’t think there is a human on the planet that could perfectly convey his essence, hand up an ass or not. For Karl Rove, I will just cast a character-generated Pol Pot. Maybe “Industrial Light and Magic” can partake in the endeavor, but I doubt it. Jar-Jar was enough.

So anyway, I look forward to the new Oliver Stone film about GW Bush. Quite frankly, I can’t wait. I think it should be called TURDBLOSSOM. It is a title that is resonant of the content, but is also the kind of “wacky” name that might attract the “kids” to the theater, who are considered a major filmgoing demographic. Unless, of course, this war continues on until the release date. Then, these same demographic kids will just be considered casualties.

I’m Not Totally There – A Little Slap on Todd Haynes’ Creative Wrist

March 16, 2008 by cinemaspeak

by Memo Salazar
bob dylan, todd haynes, i’m not totally there

Let’s begin with this: I love Todd Haynes’ films. His first major release, Poison, caught my young college-aged eye immediately, with it’s crazy stylistic shifts and interweaving stories. It was a little lacking in the substance department, but showed lots of innovative storytelling promise. Then came Safe, Haynes’ best film to date. Quiet and subtle, it tells the story of a woman who believes her environment has become hostile to her. Is she right, or is it psychosomatic? Haynes uses an unobtrusive visual style to keep you considering all points of view, and ends up with one of the best films of the decade. After that thoughtful masterpiece came the flashy Velvet Goldmine, a glamorous film about… glam. This one wasn’t too popular, but I was on board with Haynes’ tribute to Bowie and his stylish revolution, contrasting the excitement of a homosexually-liberated 70’s with the stark, cold reaction of the Reagan 80’s. Perhaps it wasn’t his deepest film, but it wasn’t supposed to be- it was a love sonnet to a time who’s spirit was thankfully preserved in the music that it spawned. Haynes managed a film where the style fit its subject matter perfectly, even without the presence of any actual Bowie music (which actually helped make the film more mythical and poignant.)

Haynes loves to pillage past filmmakers’ oeuvres for his own needs, usually in an overt way, as he did in the Douglas Sirk-drenched Far From Heaven, which also goes for using a high-concept conceit to frame his story (in this case, subverting the stereotypically sterile 1950’s Hollywood style with two overtly non-1950’s tales of racism and homosexuality.) Four films, four winners for Haynes- five if you count his Mattel-banned Superstar, which tells the Karen Carpenter story via animated Barbie Dolls. That’s Todd for you- an unapologetic formalist through and through.

I’ve always been of the belief that, if an artist proves himself to be a genuinely creative person who’s always trying to challenge himself and expand his medium, anything he produces should be given the benefit of the doubt. I don’t mean we should blindly love everything that person does- simply that, if the question of “Is this film a piece of shit, or am I just not getting it?” comes up, we should be a bit more reticent to jump to conclusions. Each of us ends up making that decision for ourselves every time we watch something new, whether we do it consciously or not. It’s unfair to write a given work off as crap simply because it doesn’t suit our own prejudices and tastes; rather, it’s our responsibility as the audience to get off our mental asses and try to figure out, if we’re lost, why an artist has done something the way they did- especially if they’ve proven their worth with previous works. Sometimes the work clicks perfectly with our sensibilities, and love at first sight ensues, but other times, it takes effort; as with any relationship we might find ourselves in, it’s not always an easy road- but when it comes to art, we rarely put in the energy that it takes to come around to someone else’s point of view. If it doesn’t cater to our sensibilities, we’re not interested- especially not in these days of instant gratification.

That’s a stupid, though common, way of thinking. It limits our ability to appreciate -and even love- something that’s good, simply because it’s not good the way we want it to be. The first time I saw Blue Velvet, I thought it was weird for the sake of being weird; the first time I heard the Pixies, I thought they were just making noise. That was a long time ago, and both David Lynch and the Pixies have since become dear, dear pals, but it took me a conscious second try to come around to their manner of speaking. Lynch’s seemingly nebulous imagery makes perfect sense if you stop thinking linearly and tune in to the emotional terrain he’s trying to depict; the Pixies sound has been ripped off enough times to make it pretty accessible these days, but there was a time, believe it or not, where it was a pretty aggressive sound to the ears of someone more into jazz and classic rock. Speaking of the Pixies, Frank Black, iconoclast that he is, has since estranged himself from his fan base by moving into less hip, but more musically challenging, directions. He’s another artist who’s unique vision has been well established, and I’m willing to go wherever he wants to take me, because he’s pretty much always on the money.

After such an eloquent introduction, you’d think I’d be defending Todd Haynes’ latest big-budget art flick, I’m Not There, with vigor- but I’m not. For once, I’m of the opinion that he’s tipped the scale between style and substance a bit too far over towards “style”, a line he’s always flirted with and usually succeeded at touting. It’s not the hype, it’s not the overload of attention to whatshername’s “groundbreaking” Dylan portrayal, and it’s not the constant inter-cutting of 60’s film styles or the Christopher Guest-quality of his documentary recreations. It’s not the overly theatrical dialogue, the emotionally-vapid performances, or the assortment of clichés dressed up as rock n’ roll lifestyle motifs. It’s that, ultimately, this movie is little more than a fancy, artsy film version of a Bob Dylan wikipedia entry. It provides no insights into the artist or the person, nor does it take any interesting creative liberties (i.e. making shit up in the name of inspiration) save for the one Richard Gere storyline that taps into the mythological nature of Dylan’s persona… but even that is peppered with easy cliches rather than anything thought-provoking. Because I know and love Haynes’ methods, I’m Not There didn’t bother me as much as it did, say, the person fidgeting with boredom in the seat next to me, but I completely understood why they were as frustrated as they were. I’m Not There spends its entire time basically telling you that Dylan just wanted to be left alone to do his thing, clearly uncomfortable with the cultural-icon status he was thrust into. The more society pushed, the more he pulled away, retreating into his many facets, stages, and personas- a fact which Haynes bases his whole film on, literally, by using different actors to portray dear ol’ Bob.

But, like, so what? We already knew all of it- if not with Dylan specifically, then certainly with celebrities in general. The world doesn’t need another movie about people floating astray in the world of celebrity as their personal lives spiral down into chaos; La Dolce Vita said it best several decades ago. Nor do we need another movie about Dylan specifically- any memorable line you might have heard in the film probably came straight out of the quintessential Dylan documentary, Don’t Look Back, which provides more insight into Dylan’s mental and musical personality than the sum total of everything that’s been made since- I’m Not There conspicuously included. If the movie doesn’t say anything new about fame in general, nor about Dylan specifically, then maybe it’s, at least, an excuse for Haynes to flex his creativity. The problem here is that he already did this with more focus and to better effect in Velvet Goldmine by having his Bowie-esque protagonist change looks and personalities to adapt to the ever-changing climate of our times. Not only was the style of the film part of the story, but Velvet Goldmine actually had something interesting to say about our culture and times. Both films are stylistically-daring reworkings of pop music history, but I’m Not There’s hubris allowed Haynes’ obsession with detail to get in the way of providing a compelling narrative. Despite its grand ambition, I’m Not There is basically a stylistic and expensive cultural scavenger hunt: I spy, with my little eye… Richard Lester! Joan Baez! Film and music geeks can feel superior catching references and appreciating the arty cleverness while everyone else falls asleep.

I’m Not There isn’t bad… it’s just hollow, like one of those chocolate rabbits you get during Easter- looks yummy, but once you bite in, there’s nothing inside. It is beautifully-made, because Todd Haynes is a master of his craft, and that was enough of a reason to keep me watching… but I’m not sure why anyone else should. Like Milos Forman’s Man On The Moon, all the best bits of I’m Not There can be found in the original source material; Jim Carey’s rubbery Andy Kaufman isn’t nearly as brilliant as Kaufman himself, and Dylan’s numerous interviews make for a much more interesting time than all the cutesy Haynes deconstructions ever will. Now that our more recent historical figures can live on forever through archival footage, merely recreating the life of someone famous isn’t quite enough- you have to one-up them. Haynes employs all his old tricks with the hope of doing so, but it’s tough to talk about an over-exposed cultural icon without falling into “VH1’s Behind The Music” territory.

To his credit, I must say, Mister Haynes is definitely not irrelevant. He’s managed to make a movie some love and others hate even as they all seem to agree on what it’s basically doing. One person I know claimed the opening shot is “the greatest in cinematic history” while another gave a convincing doctorate dissertation on it’s artistic pretensions. From this perspective, I can’t really fault Haynes at all, since he’s doing exactly what he should be doing- following his own muse and pushing people’s buttons while doing so. As long as he keeps doing that, I’m willing to go wherever he wants to go, even if I’m not always there.

The Juno and the Hype

February 23, 2008 by cinemaspeak

By Memo Salazar

Juno, Junk, Whatever

The internet, being an infinite depository of ideas, has a lot of bad ones. Dumb videos, boring music, blowhard opinions… though I support this new democratic playing field in principle, I’m not oblivious to the overload of utter intellectual dreck we have to suffer for such freedom. When it comes to “film criticism” or “movie reviews”, there are plenty of self-appointed “critics” who’s ego can’t help but masturbate endlessly on cyber-paper, even if no one is watching. The thrill of seeing your opinion “in print” is still alluring enough, apparently, to convince hundreds of geeks to take a break from their X-Box and start typing away…  a leftover idea from the days when “being in print” meant that someone important actually thought you had something worth saying.

One could argue that Cinemaspeak is just such a place- one of countless movie blogs that exist for purely self-serving reasons. Maybe it is- but the truth is I see value in this here little site, full of idiosyncratic thoughts put forth by individuals, rather than committees. I try to write about movies that receive little coverage, movies that truly inspire thought and provoke reaction. This is not a paid gig, so I am under no pressure to have something snappy and clever written every week; I speak up only when I have a reason to, and that usually happens when I see something worth talking about. For the most part, this involves writing about worthwhile films that escape the mainstream media’s myopic eye, but sometimes it means writing about the opposite- movies that bypass our eyes and get shoved right up our asses for no good reason. Which brings us to Juno.

It all started with The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. This is a great film- one that lets you see the world through the eyes of a fully-paralyzed man, unable to communicate, save through his left eye. Beautifully shot, it could have come off as artsy and pretentious if it hadn’t been made with such intelligence and creative vision. On paper, it reads like a shitty Hollywood feel-good movie: arrogant rich guy awakens from a coma, paralyzed and cynical, eventually finding a newfound appreciation for life via his imagination, which culminates in a best-selling autobiography. Sounds like something stupid enough to earn the title Awakenings II. Leave it to the French, however, to take a much more interesting route, employing several cinematic techniques that come off as inspired rather than gimmicky. I’m sure a lot has been written about it already, so I’ll just say it’s definitely worth your time. What isn’t worth your time is the movie we decided to sneak into right after watching this one- Juno, which begged the question “how bad can it be if it’s free?”

Let’s see. The opening scene, in which we are introduced to our spunky, wise-cracking young protagonist as she purchases her third pregnancy test that day, has got to be one of the biggest pieces of cinematic shit I have ever witnessed: horribly-written dialogue, the kind worthy of MTV Corporate Suits hoping to sound hip and current; completely unlikable, un-redeeming, uninteresting characters, speaking to each other in pure ironic drivel. One-dimentional, cold, cruel and crass… these are just a few of the many words applicable to the unfolding mess. In a mere five minutes, this movie was already worse than three other over-hyped pieces of shit I could recall: American Beauty, Reality Bites, and Napoleon Dynamite. All of those mediocre efforts, if you recall, captured the hearts and minds of American audiences, which goes to show you how a good marketing campaign can fool everybody most of the time. But none of those corporate-minded movies could seem to compete with the utter stupidity and lack of talent found in Juno, and as the film trudged through it’s first half hour, the lack of clothes on this cute little empress was just more and more obvious. Michael Cerra did his best to add a little genuine humanity to the thing, but his humble performance did little to curb the tide of shit spraying all over the audience. For the first time this century, I was seriously considering walking out.

That is, until our heroine encountered a young couple hoping to adopt her child, played by Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman. Only then, finally, did something genuine finally start to seep through. Juno’s relationship with this young father-to-be, who’s really an overgrown college student incessantly reliving grunge music’s early-90’s glory days, rings true. Despite the film’s completely unsuccessful attempt at making her the sharpest, hippest 17-year-old you’ve ever known (basically an updated Punky Brewster- older and pregnant, but just as contrived) Juno’s character finally achieves a little depth vis-a-vis her pseudo-crush on this older dude. Though their conversations remain dumb and completely unrealistic [Juno is clearly every 30-year-old male hipster's wet dream: a 17 year old non-comformist who happens to be an expert on late 70's punk rock, who can recognize a Les Paul guitar from across the room, and who's ready to debate the Stooges vs Sonic Youth on demand- in other words, a nerdy, white, Brookyln-music-geek with boobs- about as realistic a portrayal of a teenage girl as Chasing Amy was of lesbians. Amazing, when you consider the screenwriter is a woman. Moviemaking tip #42: kids, once you graduate from film school, you no longer have to share the same pop-cultural tastes as your lead characters, and they certainly don't need to double as an on-screen blog entry about your all-time favorite album.] Pardon me- as I was saying, though their conversations remain unrealistic, the characters’ situation itself rings true… at least, truer than everything else we’ve seen so far. Amazingly, the second half of Juno begins to develop a little charm, despite the repeated faux hipster-speak and the completely derivative use of old 60’s tunes (clearly, the filmmaker has been jerking off to Wes Anderson films for the last several years)- a now-clichéd device which may have permanently ruined some of my favorite songs (thanks a lot, “director” Jason Reitman!) The Velvet Underground, the Kinks, and Belle & Sebastian all fall victim to a completely neanderthal use of pop music in movies. While Wes Anderson uses his songs as counterpoint to the action on screen, Jason Reitman, clueless director that he is, merely blasts them in our faces every time a scene ends and a new one begins… and then rapidly fades the song out, with no craft or thought, the same way every tv sitcom has done for the past 50 years. The “original” songs by Kimya Dawson fit perfectly into this uncreative stew, since they echo the sensibility of the movie: faux-sentimentality that thinks it can bullshit its way into being “raw and honest” simply because said artist can’t sing or play her way out of an open mic night. Dawson’s “bad” voice is so contrived and insincere it makes Wesley Willis and Daniel Johnston sound like Juilliard graduates; her songs’ pretensions are even more obvious since they share soundtrack space with Moe Tucker’s beautifully untrained voice on the Velvet Underground classic I’m Sticking With You. As usual, those without a clue think that by copying the surface characteristics of something great, they too can create something great. They forget that you have to have something to say first.

By the end of the film, I will concede, Juno does have a little bit to say. Not much, but it’s something, at least, which comes as a total surprise after its painful beginning. Shallow, airheaded wifey actually ends up faring better than her cool, rock n’ roll hubby- a clever reversal from how they were first introduced to us. Even Juno’s stepmom transcends her “parent trying to stay young” schtick, providing some of the film’s more insightful lines of dialogue by the end. Were this a friend’s little indie film, shot on DV for a few hundred bucks, I’d be impressed and remark that, if they got rid of all the contrived dialogue, their script showed some promise. But, alas, this is a Hollywood film, with professional actors, a real budget, and an Oscar nomination for… Best Picture? Are you fucking kidding me? The fact that this script was able to pass through the gauntlet of readers and studio heads without having someone edit out much of its obviously-poorly-written dialogue shows you just how clueless Hollywood has become. No big revelation there, I guess, but with its critical acceptance and awards, Juno has achieved newfound heights of cultural irony; this is what we call our country’s best effort in 2008. In a couple of decades, Juno will be all but forgotten; youth culture will view this emo-induced bag of fumes with the same cynical eye that Gen-X-ers viewed hippies, a new set of sensibilities leading Hollywood into further areas of contrived exploitation. Until then, however, we’ll have to endure our retarded culture’s “It Girl” of the month a little while longer: Juno, now playing at a waste of time near you. If you’ve yet to see this little nugget, consider yourself warned.

“He Puts Asses in Seats!”

February 18, 2008 by cinemaspeak

 by Phineas JWhoopee

kimbosliceblog.jpg 

Next month there is a film being released called “Never Back Down,” which sounds like an updated version of “The Karate Kid,” except it’s set in the world of mixed martial arts instead of karate. Oscar nominee Djimon Hounsou plays the Mr. Miyagi role, and I’d have to say it’s questionable if this is a good career move for the actor.  If you’ve seen a TV ad for the film, you’ve also probably noticed that it looks a lot like any Jean-Claude Van Damme straight-to-video vehicle (here’s a treat for you Van Damme fans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOIJtS4gbaY). Whether or not that’s a bad thing is up to you.  I’m not criticizing, simply observing.  And this leads me to…

(Warning: what you’re about to read has nothing to do with movies.  Proceed with caution)

It’s around 10:30 PST on the night of Saturday February 16, 2008, and I’m lying on my living room couch listening to my iPod.   My wife is already fast asleep in our bedroom (yes, married life is that exciting), and a little over an hour ago I finished watching a decent boxing match between Kelly Pavlik and Jermain Taylor.   It’s at this point that I recall seeing ads for a mixed martial arts event that was to air on Showtime at 10:00.  The ads mainly remain in memory because headlining the telecast is a guy named Kimbo Slice (that’s a picture of him above; a difficult person to forget).  He’s been described as something of a mythic figure — “a street fighting legend” is an exact quote, if memory serves.

Mixed martial arts — or MMA, as it’s more commonly referred to — is a relatively new sport, at least inasmuch as it’s made a dent in American popular culture.  UFC is the dominant MMA organization, and I recall watching their first pay-per-view event with college roommates in the fall of 1993.  We had seen commercials for weeks, showing us clips of combatants being pummeled into oblivion.  To state the obvious, we couldn’t wait to watch.  Predictably, our high expectations weren’t close to fulfilled.  Instead of the mayhem that had been advertised, we were given a bunch of matches where the competitors wrestled each other to the floor before one guy would choke his opponent into submission.  It wasn’t dynamic, exciting or even obviously violent (except when the sumo wrestler got several teeth kicked out by a fat, balding French guy).  That was my first and last real exposure to MMA.

Until this past Saturday night. 

I’ve been a hardcore boxing fan for about 15 years now, and in the past few years I’ve seen MMA grow significantly in popularity.  A major aspect of its marketing campaign has been to position itself squarely against boxing, drawing an indelible line in the sand, because the powers that be (namely UFC president Dana White) apparently believe the world isn’t big enough for two equally popular combat sports.  MMA proponents would have you believe that boxing is for generations long since past, and because boxing is only one facet of MMA, it’s undeniably a lesser sport.  Regardless of what boxing purists (count me among them) think, it’s tough to argue with the numbers.  MMA, as evidenced by its live attendance and pay-per-view figures, is a thriving sport and seems to connect with younger fans to a degree that boxing does not and perhaps never will again. 

I haven’t avoided MMA due to any need to defend the tradition of boxing.  In fact, I’m of the opinion that both can co-exist and each can garner a sizeable audience.  But in my mid-30s, I just don’t feel any sort of inclination to suddenly start following a new sport.  Couple that with the lingering aftertaste of my one MMA experience, and it’s been easy for me to avoid.

But on Saturday, I succumbed to the temptation of watching “street fighting legend” Kimbo Slice.  I mean, just take a look at the guy.  Now think about the chaos he can potentially create while locked in a caged circle with some poor sap.  How exactly could one not tune in?

From what I can deduce (and I’m not exactly going out of my way to do a whole lot of research), Kimbo Slice fights for an MMA organization called Elite XC.  I have no idea if this group is affiliated with UFC, nor does it matter to me, though I bring this up because it’s possible Elite might be similar to UFC’s minor league.  While watching the telecast, I’m immediately struck by how much in common MMA appears to have with pro wrestling.  A horde of fans (mostly male, under 35, from what I can tell) proudly hold signs that read “Kimbo Kick Ass” while music blares from the arena’s PA system any time there’s no action in the ring.  A group of scantily clad women serve as round card girls, but also line up on a catwalk and dance between fights.  I concede that MMA certainly links sport and entertainment much more aggressively than boxing does, and at this moment I’ve never been happier to be a boxing fan.  As if to hammer the connection home, former pro wrestling champion Bill Goldberg serves as the third member of the broadcast team and interviews the winner of each match, immediately following the contest, in the ring.

As I wait for the main event, I sit through a couple of undercard bouts.  In one, a guy takes a knee to his face, drops to the ground and is then blasted by a right cross, prompting the referee to the stop the fight.  In another, an Australian dude is knocked semi-conscious by a punch and falls flat on his back, completely defenseless. But even in this prone state, his opponent wastes no time rushing over and smashing the guy in the face with a follow-up punch.  Wow…boxing has never looked like such a tame, peaceful sport.

After an uneventful fight, it’s the moment I’ve been waiting for — the entrance of Kimbo Slice.  As the crowd’s excitement builds to a fever pitch, Bill Goldberg exhorts, “he puts asses in seats!”, which isn’t amusing simply because a sports announcer enthusiastically bellowed the word “asses,” but also because the countless shots of a packed arena the television audience has seen all night render this among the most unnecessary observations in the history of broadcast journalism. Kimbo squares off against a fat 42-year-old named Tank Abbott, whose most impressive feature is his beard and who sports a record of something like 8 wins and 14 losses.  You needn’t know anything about MMA to realize this guy, who vaguely resembles a plumber, stands no chance.   The fight lasts about 30 seconds, and the action goes like this: Kimbo punches Tank in the face, Tank is on the ground, Tank gets up, tries to tackle Kimbo, Kimbo punches him in the face again, Tank falls down, Kimbo waits for him to get back up, punches him in the side of the head, Tanks falls on his face, the referee stops the fight.

Instead of criticizing this for being an obvious mismatch, the giddy announcers pontificate as if they’d just seen the second coming of the US hockey team beating the Soviet Union in the 1980 Winter Olympics.  Goldberg, of course, is soon in the ring interviewing Kimbo.  As has been the case all night, Goldberg begins his questions strongly, before it becomes clear he really isn’t asking anything.  A typical query falls along the lines of, “You trained hard and faced a difficult opponent tonight.  We all know how much you love the sport….you’re a good man.  Let’s all put our hands together for Kimbo!”  It’s less an interview than a public coronation, which underlines an important difference between the current state of MMA and boxing.  MMA is all about incredibly obvious (tasteful or not) self-promotion and self-glorification, while the boxing media (separate from the general sports media that basically ignores boxing) is often the sport’s biggest critic.  If a similar match-up and result had occurred on HBO Championship Boxing, analyst Larry Merchant, in all his curmudgeonly glory, would have called the fight a farce and questioned the winner why he wasting everyone’s time by being involved in it.  MMA’s complete lack of modesty might be its biggest asset.  Boxing, on the other hand, could be too self-aware for its own good.

In the post-fight “interview,” Kimbo claims that his dream has always been to fight “Tank or Tyson.”  I assume he means Mike Tyson.  This strikes me as being the equivalent of an aspiring actor saying his/her dream is to share a scene with Ted Lange or Gene Hackman.  Goldberg returns to broadcast position, and his inability to complete a coherent thought continues.  He remarks to his broadcast partners about Kimbo’s performance (and I paraphrase), “I know you’ve seen a lot of fights in Japan, but wherever, you know, you have to say, uhhh, well…uhhh…he puts asses in seats!” apparently wanting to make sure the point is not lost on the audience, or his co-broadcasters, by uttering the phrase twice in less than ten minutes.

After a few closing comments, the show ends, I turn off the TV and go back to my iPod (which I now lament listening to during most of the undercard fights, pondering all the inspired Goldberg analysis I missed).  So what did I learn from this experience?  Well, nothing, really. If I needed further proof that MMA isn’t my bag, I got it…but it’s hard to deny that I derived some enjoyment from the event, and not all of it was ironic.  I can’t imagine ever becoming even a casual MMA fan, but I wouldn’t rule out tuning in to see Kimbo Slice in the future.  After all, it’s not every day that a street fighting legend with the power to put asses in seats comes along.

And look for “Never Back Down” in a theater near you on March 14.  But only the box office numbers — and not Bill Goldberg — will tell us if it, like Kimbo Slice, can put asses in seats.