A piece of David Cronenberg’s mind

(Photo by Roger Ebert)

In his splendid Salon.com interview with David Cronenberg focusing on “A Dangerous Method,” Andrew O’Hehir begins by noting that Cronenberg is “a beloved interview subject for film journalists” — both because of the richness of his work and the stimulating quality of his conversation. I can testify to this, having interviewed Cronenberg several times over the years (starting with “Dead Ringers” in 1988, which in retrospect seems to have begun the second phase of his career). As O’Hehir says, Cronenberg is “a genuine intellectual in a realm crowded with poseurs and pretenders. He can talk easily about almost any topic you bring up; if he hadn’t turned out to be one of the premier cinematic visionaries of his generation, it’d be easy to imagine him as a writer or philosopher or historian.” Few filmmakers are as articulate about their own work.

What immediately struck me about the five paragraphs I’m about to quote — in response to O’Hehir’s first suggestion — is the breadth and depth of Cronenberg’s understanding of his own filmmaking process… and even the impetus and history behind auteurism. Cronenberg is a man who thinks when he speaks, exploring and refining his ideas as he communicates them. In the fast-serve business of media-coached mini-interviews and rigid, publicist-enforced talking points, that’s a rarity.

O’Hehir raises an idea from Charles Drazin’s book, French Cinema, “where he talks about the difference between old-school French movies, what they used to call the ‘tradition de qualité,’ mostly literary adaptations and historical dramas, and the auteurism of the New Wave, where you had to be a writer-director. It struck me that in your career you’ve almost gone backward, from the second kind of cinema to the first.”

Cronenberg responds:

December 14, 2012

E-mail from a publicist

This e-mail pitch has been going around (with all the identifying information that I’ve stripped out), and I’m just not sure what to make of it. A “celebrity film critic” is “representing [yellow tail] Reserve wine” and wants to talk about movie-and-wine pairings… and the Oscars:

As you prepare your content for the Oscars, I’m wondering if you’re available for an interview with celebrity film critic Ben Lyons? Ben is available for interviews… for either phone or Skype interviews. If you prefer Skype, we can record it and provide back to you as a YouTube video.

During the interview, Ben can discuss his Oscar picks, as well as Oscar party planning tips. He is representing [yellow tail] Reserve wine and can also discuss suggested movie and wine pairings.

Appreciate your feedback. We only have a few slots left for the day, so I appreciate it if you could get back to me as soon as possible.

Who has accepted this remarkable interview opportunity? I googled “ben lyons” and “movie and wine” and learned that WPIX, former employer of Ben Lyons and Lyons Sr. (Jeffrey), did — just last September, which is either seven months after the Oscars or five before, depending on how you’re counting.

“Something tells me that if I wasn’t here you guys would be drinking [yellow tail] Reserve anyway,” said Ben Lyons at the top of the segment.

December 14, 2012

Deep Focus: Freedom of (eye-)movementin eight of the greatest long takes ever

We tend to remember long takes that call attention to themselves as such: the opening shots of “Touch of Evil” or “The Player”; the entrance to the Copacabana in “GoodFellas”; all those shots in Romanian movies, and pictures directed by Bela Tarr and Jia Zhangke… And then there are the ones you barely notice because your eyes have been guided so effortlessly around the frame, or you’ve been given the freedom to explore it on your own, or you’ve simply gotten so involved in the rhythms of the scene, the interplay between the characters, that you didn’t notice how long the shot had been going on.

For this compilation, “Deep Focus,” I’ve chosen eight shots I treasure (the last two I regard as among the finest in all of cinema). They’re not all strictly “deep focus” shots, but they do emphasize three-dimensionality in their compositions. I’ve presented them with only minimal identifications so you can simply watch them and see what happens without distraction or interruption. Instead, I’ve decided to write about them below. Feel free to watch the clips and then re-watch (freeze-frame, rewind, replay) the clips to see what you can see. To say they repay re-viewing is an understatement.

December 14, 2012

The films of Joni Mitchell: A brief retrospective

View image Hejira: The refuge of the road, a prisoner of the white lines on the freeway…

Joni Mitchell is a gifted musician, a great songwriter, and a damn fine actress. (People always talk about her lyrics, but its her performances that make those words sing.) She’s also a terrific director and cinematographer and all-around filmmaker and critic — and I’m taking exclusively about her recorded music. I’ve been thinking about this for a long time, and then a thread on girish’s blog a while back made me want to write about it. So, here goes. A few of my favorite examples, music and lyrics, analysis and critique (hers), composition and montage:

How about the camerawork in this shot from “The Boho Dance” (from “The Hissing of Summer Lawns”):

A camera pans the cocktail hour

Behind a blind of potted palms

And finds a lady in a Paris dress

With runs in her nylons

I see this as a horizontal dolly shot more than a “pan.” And not too much zeroing in on the legs. Maybe a tilt down as the lady drops an hors d’oeuvre, just so you have a chance to notice. Or maybe somebody seated in the foreground spots the flawed stockings from across the room and there’s a bit of rack focus to the lady’s gams. Maybe we just see her in a full shot, with her back to us, standing in a cluster of other people who can’t see the runs that are turned toward the camera. Or, if she’s seated, perhaps she crosses or uncrosses her stems briefly, allowing us a glimpse of the telltale hosiery. There are lots of ways to shoot it, but Mitchell tells you what the shot needs to convey so you can come up with the specific compositions yourself.

Then there’s this amazing zoom out from “Hejira” (song and album — my personal favorite):

White flags of winter chimneys

Waving truce against the moon

In the mirrors of a modern bank

from the window of a hotel room

You see the snow-topped chimneys and the moon and you feel the mood. Then your perceptual awareness shifts. The tone drops a bit and you realize what you’re seeing is a reflection off a bank building. The music slips higher and you pull back even further. These images aren’t just objectively out there. You’re watching them from the window of your hotel room.

It’s a song about traveling, about getting away, about returning to oneself after the “possessive coupling” of a recent love affair. But it’s been fairly impressionistic (“all emotions and abstractions,” as she sings in “Song for Sharon”) until this point: “I’m traveling in some vehicle/I’m sitting in some cafe.” It’s an anonymous landscape, dotted with specific observations: “… as natural as the weather/In this moody sky today,” or “snow gathers like bolts of lace/Waltzing on a ballroom girl. And then, at the end, you (and the narrator) are actually back in the world, at a specific place at a particular moment, with the understanding that, even as a “defector from the petty wars,” it’s only until “love sucks me back that way.” Jaco Pastorius’ gray and wintery bass is just like that moody sky.

If Mitchell has a signature shot, it may be that hotel-room long shot. Like this one overlooking Central Park in “Song for Sharon” (from “Hejira”):

Now there are 29 skaters on Wolman Rink

Circling in singles and in pairs

In this vigorous anonymity

A blank face at the window stares and stares and stares and stares

Or this one from “Harry’s House”/”Centerpiece” (“The Hissing of Summer Lawns”):

He opens up his suitcase

In the continental suite

And people third stories down

Look like colored currents in the street

A helicopter lands on the Pan Am roof

Like a dragonfly on a tomb

Mitchell is also an expert sound designer. Watch (and listen) to this, from “For the Roses” (song and album):

I heard it in the wind last night

It sounded like applause

Chilly now

End of summer

No more shiny hot nights

It was just the arbutus rustling

And the bumping of the logs

And the moon swept down black water

Like an empty spotlight

Or this atmospheric (and subjective) sound work from “Car on a Hill” (on “Court and Spark”), where the protagonist waits, anxiously and uncertainly, for her lover to arrive in the Hollywood Hills. I think of this song as a kind of sequel to the Beatles’ “Blue Jay Way”:

Ive been sitting up waiting for my sugar to show

Ive been listening to the sirens and the radio

He said he’d be over three hours ago

Ive been waiting for his car on the hill…

Fast tires come screaming around the bend

But theres still no buzzer

They roll on…

Can you hear that? Definitely a Surround effect. Squealing tires in the canyons, maybe emerging out of the distant sound of sirens — you can’t quite tell where the sounds are coming from up here — getting closer, then… no buzzer. The song ends with a repeated circular figure on Fender Rhodes and guitar, with drive-by oboe (or synth), that leaves you — and her — hanging…

December 14, 2012

Is it rape? Is it funny?

“If you thought Abu Ghraib was a laugh riot then you might love ‘Observe and Report,’ a potentially brilliant conceptual comedy that fizzles because its writer and director, Jody Hill, doesn’t have the guts to go with his spleen. […]

“What follows next should have been the shock of the movie: a cut to Ronnie [Seth Rogen] having vigorous sex with Brandi [Anna Faris] who, from her closed eyes, slack body and the vomit trailing from her mouth to her pillow, appears to have passed out. But before the words ‘date rape’ can form in your head, she rouses herself long enough to command Ronnie to keep going.”

— Manohla Dargis, New York Times

“Because we laugh and gasp at what follows, does that mean we approve? Having seen Ronnie’s actions in a movie, do we now believe that date rape should not be prosecuted — that it is just harmless fun?

“Although I have never had such a dilemma in life, usually being the first to pass out, I hope I’d have the decency to walk away from a semi-conscious woman. I hope I also wouldn’t harass a Muslim co-worker, use a Taser on a man who parks next to a loading dock, break into a mall and assault policemen, or triumphantly shoot an unarmed criminal. Although I adore ‘Lolita,’ I hope I am never tempted to lay a finger on a prepubescent girl….

“All this might seem crashingly obvious, but at least in this culture it can’t be restated too often that comedy is not safe.”

— David Edelstein, The Projectionist

Last weekend I witnessed a sort-of argument over whether “Observer and Report” was funny or not. Or maybe it was really about whether the movie was even supposed to be funny. I don’t know for sure because I haven’t seen it yet. So to me the discussion sounded mostly like: “It’s not funny!” / “Yes it is! I laughed!” / “No it’s not! I didn’t!” / “Yes it is!” / “It’s only funny to people I hated in high school!” / “Humor is hard to analyze because it’s personal!” / “No it’s not!” / “Yes it is!”…

December 14, 2012

Films on fire: Tony Scott and Christopher Nolan

“A man can be an artist … in anything, food, whatever. It depends on how good he is at it. Creasey’s art is death. He’s about to paint his masterpiece.”

— Rayburn (Christopher Walken), “Man on Fire” (2004)

While I’ve never been a fan of the late Tony Scott or Christopher Nolan, a few thoughtful articles in recent days have helped me see them in new lights, and got me to thinking about their resemblances as well as their dissimilarities. Several appreciations of Scott (especially those by Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, Bilge Ebiri, David Edelstein and Manohla Dargis), along with David Bordwell’s incisive essay on Christopher Nolan (“Nolan vs. Nolan”) got me to thinking about the common assumptions about these popular filmmakers, both of whom are known for quick, impressionistic imagery, intercut scenes, slam-bang action and a CGI-averse insistence on photographing the real world.¹ Regardless of what you ultimately make of their work, there’s no question they’ve done it their way.

This is an attempt to look at both filmmakers through the prism of others’ points of view, refracted in critical appraisals like the above.

Of course, Scott and Nolan have passionate admirers and detractors. Until Scott’s shocking suicide last week (from a bridge, a landmark that figures hauntingly in the climaxes of several of his movies), I wasn’t aware of many critics who championed his movies, but with a few exceptions the obits seem to have been more admiring than the reviews over the years — understandably, under the sad circumstances.

Those who applaud Scott and Nolan’s films see them as genre boundary-pushers (thrillers, action pictures, science-fiction, superhero movies); those who denigrate them see them as symptomatic of the debasement of resonant imagery in modern Hollywood movies. Both have been subjected to that worst of all critical insults, comparisons to Michael Bay:

“‘Inception’ may have been directed by Christopher Nolan, but Nolan’s dreams are apparently directed by Michael Bay.” — Andrew O’Hehir, “Inception: A clunky, overblown disappointment”

“If it sounds like I’m describing Michael Bay, that’s because I sort of am. What we like to think of today as the Bay/Jerry Bruckheimer aesthetic was, in fact, originally the Tony Scott aesthetic (often deployed in films made for Bruckheimer and his late partner Don Simpson). Only back then there was a lot more art to it.” — Bilge Ebiri, “To Control Something That’s Out of Control: On Tony Scott”

One of Scott’s notable defenders has been The New York Times’ Manohla Dargis. She identifies him as a “maximalist” who used “a lot of everything in his movies: smoke, cuts, camera moves, color. This kind of stylistic, self-conscious excess could be glorious, as in his underappreciated film ‘Domino’ (2005),” which Roger Ebert also somewhat grudgingly admired, quoting a character to describe the movie itself as having “the attention span of a ferret on crystal meth.” Dargis writes:

December 14, 2012

Four-star faves for January

Ben Whishaw in a stinky place in “Perfume.”

Roger Ebert on “Perfume: The Story of a Murderer”: “Why I love this story, I do not know. Why I have read the book twice and given away a dozen copies of the audiobook, I cannot explain. There is nothing fun about the story, except the way it ventures so fearlessly down one limited, terrifying, seductive dead end, and finds there a solution both sublime and horrifying. It took imagination to tell it, courage to film it, thought to act it, and from the audience it requires a brave curiosity about the peculiarity of obsession.”

Jim Emerson on “Letters from Iwo Jima”: “In both his films, Eastwood empathizes with the “expendable” soldier on the ground, the “poor bastard” who is only a pawn in a war conceived by generals and politicians, some of whom have never come anywhere near a battlefield or a combat zone. And Eastwood fully commits to a boots-on-the-ground POV: The raising of the American flag, presented as a routine, off-hand task to the soldiers in “Flags of Our Fathers” (and which would have remained that way if a photographer had not been present), is only glimpsed obliquely from afar by the Japanese in “Letters from Iwo Jima.” Life or death, heroism or folly: It all comes down to which side you’re on, and which piece of ground you’re occupying, at any given moment in the battle.”

December 14, 2012

Don Draper pitches Facebook Timeline

YouTube has disabled embedding of this video. Watch here.

“Technology is a glittering lure, but there’s the rare occasion when the public can be engaged beyond Flash.” Or even HTML5.

(tip: kottke.org)

December 14, 2012

Inverting a Zodiac code

There. That’s fixed. The corrected analog version.

Dear David Fincher:

Just a note to say how much I appreciate your film “Zodiac” — especially its use of 1960s and 1970s analog technologies and strategies. Cryptograms, city grids, travel distances, postmarks, calendars, trailer stall numbers, gun calibers, meal schedules, geographical jurisdictions, faxes, date books, phone numbers, addresses… well, I’ve expressed my admiration of how your film works and plays with these signs (no, I’m not a semiotician) before, and Manohla Dargis does a fine job of it in today’s New York Times, too. (I particularly like her observation that: “‘Zodiac’ is about thinking, it’s about working things through intellectually, hazarding guesses, trying to solve puzzles (the killer largely communicates through ciphers) and about the dawning of awareness, which encapsulates the experience of watching it.” That’s one way I like to describe a good movie: It not only teaches you how to watch it, but becomes about the experience you have as you watch it.)

The theatrical release analog version.

In a movie about obsessive detail, and the life-or-death importance placed upon even the tiniest, one little thing has stood out to me from my first viewing as being slightly… askew. Prominently displayed by the desk of San Francisco Chronicle reporter Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) is a campaign button for Richard Nixon. The problem is that this button reads: NIXON. It has always struck me that Avery would have done what so many of us did at that time, which is to flip the button (or bumper-sticker or whatever) upside-down so that it read NOXIN — a simple visual gag that’s also a kind of cryptogram, and maybe a malformed counter-cultural pun (NIXON = TOXIN). We found it amusing that the monolithic GOP (or the RNC or CREEP or the FBI or some other Republican Establishment entity) had unwittingly, through the use of simple block letters, made it so easy to turn their message on its head. Mild subversive gestures were rarely so delightfully effortless. Best of all: 100% analog!

 Whip Inflation Now. The WIN button, from the Gerald R. Ford administration.

Anyway, I hope you have already made this little adjustment in your Director’s Cut of “Zodiac,” which I am about to watch. Just in case, I’ve taken the liberty of making a slight freehand PhotoShop tweak to the still, above.

Many thanks again,

jim

December 14, 2012

How much spoilage does a spoiler really spoil?

At The Frontal Cortex (a blog you should bookmark), Wired contributing editor Jonah Lehrer reveals his backward reading habits (yes, he likes to peek at the endings first) and cites a study that may indicate people enjoy stories more when they know spoilers ahead of time (“Spoilers Don’t Spoil Anything”). Is this why some moviegoers actually want to see trailers that consistently give away not only a movie’s major plot developments but the best lines and most memorable (that is, salable) images?

I’m always in favor of spoiler warnings in criticism out of respect for readers, who should be able to choose whether they care about discovering certain developments or twists if they haven’t seen the film under discussion yet. If, like Jonah Lehrer, you prefer to know about endings (or story points beyond the basic premise) in advance, then go ahead and watch the trailers or skip to the end of the DVD or peek at the final pages of the book. Nobody’s stopping you. But don’t try to force your ways on the rest of us. The critic who delights in giving away spoilers is like the drunken heckler who’s seen a stand-up comic’s act and shouts out the punchlines before the jokes are set up.

I’m also interested in counter-intuitive arguments, however. (I’m fascinated that today’s electric cars actually create more pollution and consume more energy than gas-powered vehicles, because of how their batteries are manufactured and charged — which is not to say that we shouldn’t make them, because the greater the demand, the more efficient the production cycle will become. And, of course, the less we rely on coal to generate electricity, the cleaner that process will get.)

While I question the statistical significance of the data in the study Lehrer cites, I do find some of Lehrer’s observations intriguing. (I enthusiastically recommend his book about the arts and the brain, “Proust Was a Neuroscientist.”) He concludes his post with three “random thoughts,” to which I will respond one by one:

December 14, 2012

A.O. Scott’s perspective on NYFF

“The Queen”: NYFF Friday, commercial theaters Saturday.

In this morning’s New York Times, A.O. Scott offers his “Critic’s Notebook” view of where the NYFF fits into movie culture (at least in New York). Scott sees it as a showcase for “quality.” Compare to my questions and comments about NYFF:

Film festivals crowd the calendar and circle the globe, but New York’s is different. Instead of hundreds of films, it presents a few dozen, and it presents them, for the most part, one at a time, rather than in a frenzy of overscheduling. It is neither a hectic marketplace nor a pre-Oscar buzz factory, like Cannes or Toronto, or a film industry frat party, like Sundance. Its tone tends to be serious, sober, and perhaps sometimes a little sedate, even when the movies it shows are daring and provocative.

If I may trot out another metaphor, the New York Film Festival might be compared to an established, somewhat exclusive boutique holding its own in a world of big box superstores, oversize shopping malls and Internet retailers.

December 14, 2012

Crash!

Sorry about the scarcity of posts in the last few days. I’ve been very, very busy catching up with year-end movies for ten-best list considerations. Then my PowerBook slowed to a crawl and went… bits up — just as I was in the middle of writing a review for the Sun-Times. As the guy at the Apple Genius Bar delivered the diagnosis today: “Fatal hard drive error.” I don’t even want to think about how many frame grabs for future Opening Shots were on that drive.

Anyway, I hope to be back up and running soon.

December 14, 2012

Overheard exposition, Part II

Seeing a series of exquisitely subtle films that includes Jeff Nichols’ “Shotgun Stories,” Eran Kolirin’s “The Band’s Visit” and Bill Forsyth’s “Housekeeping,” you become sensitized to how clumsy most movies are about unloading their expository details. These Ebertfest films and filmmakers know how to reveal what needs to be revealed indirectly, without the audience necessarily even realizing that it’s being let in on a wealth of information.

So: A real-life example of efficient, semi-oblique expository dialog overheard in a restaurant in Champaign-Urbana on a stormy Friday night. A young couple have just arrived and are about to be seated.

Hostess (smiling): “Oh, it’s just the two of you tonight.”

Man: “Yeah, we popped in a Disney movie and slipped out the side door.”

See, that’s a little movie right there. Filmmakers, take note: How much do we know about the lives of this man, this woman, and their history with this restaurant from these two short lines?

More about this subject (and others) in further catch-up Ebertfest posts…

December 14, 2012

Roger’s take on the Oscars

Supporting actress nominee Rinko Kikuchi (center) plays a deaf girl in “Babel.”

Here’s Roger Ebert’s analysis of this morning’s Oscar nominations:

Oscar is growing more diverse and international by the year. This year’s Academy Award nominations, announced Tuesday, contain a few titles that most moviegoers haven’t seen and some they haven’t heard of. That’s perhaps an indication that the Academy voters, who once went mostly for big names, are doing their homework and seeing the pictures.

From relative obscurity came the nominees Ryan Gosling, whose overlooked work in “Half Nelson,” as a drug-addicted high-school teacher was little seen, and Jackie Earle Haley, the conflicted child molester in “Little Children,” an erotic tale of stolen love in the afternoon. Also consider 10-year-old Abigail Breslin, and 72-year-old veteran actor Alan Arkin, in “Little Miss Sunshine,” a story of a dysfunctional family’s cross-country road trip. Adriana Barraza, whose heartbreaking role as a housekeeper in “Babel” earned her a supporting actress nomination, and Rinko Kikuchi, whose emotionally wrenching performance as a grieving deaf teenager in “Babel” also earned her a nomination in that same category.

Read complete article at RogerEbert.com

December 14, 2012

Re: Saddam’s penis

Satan bunks with Saddam.

At The Hot Blog, David Poland has somehow gotten ahold of an obscenely funny memo from “South Park”‘s Matt Stone, sent to the MPAA Ratings Board during negotiations over the rating for 1999’s “South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut.” (WARNING: Explicit language — as if you couldn’t have anticipated that.) Stone even misspells “Sadaam.” Ah, those were such innocent times. It ends with one of the great kiss-offs in Hollywood studio correspondence history: “P.S. This is my favorite memo ever.” One of mine, too.

December 14, 2012

Message from Mucusville

I was hit with a heckuva headcold last weekend and I feel like Steve Buscemi at the end of “Fargo.” If only I could get my head out of this woodchipper. I’ve been making notes and trying to watch some stuff, but it’s too hard to write through all this viscous residue in my head. Hope to post again very soon. NyQuil calls…

Phlegmatically yours,

Jim

December 14, 2012

Letter: Inconvenient truths

This letter from Leland McInnes eloquently sums up so many of the issues I keep returning to in Scanners (recently in regard to “United 93,” “The Da Vinci Code,” “An Inconvenient Truth”) — because, well, I’m obsessed with their vital importance: (film) criticism and critical thinking, skepticism, logic, conspiratorial thinking, art, religion, science, politics, you name it:

Joe Killin wrote a letter on the topic of theories and skepticism. There is a valid place for skepticism, especially in science where no result is ever certain, merely highly likely given the evidence. There is a distinct difference, however, between the skepticism that keeps an open mind and the sort of perverse skepticism required to reject well-supported theories.

There is a classic tale of Pyrrho, the founder of skepticism as a philosophy. He took the view that without certainty it was impossible to know which course of action was wiser. When out walking one day he found his teacher stuck in a ditch, unable to get out. After contemplating for a while, he walked on, having decided that he could not be certain he would actually do any good.

December 14, 2012

Blood rights

Woody Allen (foreground, center) in “Stardust Memories.”

Regarding issues raised by Brian De Palma and “Redacted” (see below): Here are two frame grab from Woody Allen’s 1980 feature “Stardust Memories,” a United Artists release. The movie is a Felliniesque comedy (it starts right off as a parody of “8 1/2”), not a documentary. The blown-up image on the wall was taken a dozen years before “Stardust Memories” (February 1, 1968) during the Tet Offensive by Associated Press photographer Eddie Adams in Saigon.

From “Stardust Memories.”

The man with the gun is South Vietnamese National Police Chief General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan. The man in the plaid shirt, who is or is about to be shot in the head (his death is shown in NBC News footage taken at the same time), is thought to be Nguyễn Văn Lém (or possibly Le Cong Na), and was either a Viet Cong officer or a political operative. His face was disfigured because he had been beaten. The title of the photo, which became instantly famous around the world, is “General Nguyen Ngoc Loan Executing a Viet Cong Prisoner in Saigon” and it won a Pulitzer Prize for Spot News Photography in 1969. It was widely reprinted and was used as a symbolic image by the anti-war movement.

Adams later wrote in Time magazine:

The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths… What the photograph didn’t say was, ‘What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American soldiers?’Although a number of “galleries and artists” are acknowledged in the end credits of “Stardust Memories” for the use of photos and artworks in the film, the source for this picture is not cited. The film does contain a standard disclaimer, reading: “The story, all names, characters and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious. No identification with actual persons is intended or should be inferred.”

December 14, 2012

Johnie’s Broiler, RIP

Johnie’s Broiler, 7447 Firestone Blvd., Downey, CA.

The Googie landmark Johnie’s Broiler in Downey, CA (known as Harvey’s Broiler when it opened in 1958), was ground into dust overnight last weekend, to expand a used car lot. Local preservationists were not pleased, and said the demolition was “illegal.” As of today, the Johnie’s sign is still standing, but the building has been destroyed.

Moviegoers may remember it as Lily Tomlin’s place of work in Robert Altman’s “Short Cuts.” It was also featured in “Reality Bites,” “What’s Love Got To Do With It” and “Unstrung Heroes.”

More reports on the demise of Johnie’s at The LA Times and Roadside Peek, which is where I found the picture used here.

Anybody know of other movies in which Johnie’s played a role?

December 14, 2012
subscribe icon

The best movie reviews, in your inbox