Bye bye Miss American Privacy

“What ‘American Pie’ betrays is not good taste but any notion that privacy could matter to these kids or to us. Everything in this picture is out front: whatever humiliates the characters most is precisely what everyone in the school learns about them, and the movie views this as proper and humane. For we are all swimming in the same soup of confusion and embarrassment, voyeurism and malice. But without some feeling for privacy as a value, a movie about teen sex and romance can’t be made with any grace or style. The idea that everyone should know everything, however productive of comedy, links the movie to the kind of daytime talk show in which neighborhood friends betray one another’s secrets and the audience howls at them in mock disapproval and open pleasure. The new hit comedies make us join that audience, whether we want to or not.”

— David Denby, The New Yorker (July 12, 1999)

Andy Warhol got it almost right. Everybody is a “Superstar” (in the Warholian sense) already, or at least everybody behaves like one. And in the future — that is, 10 years after “American Pie” and 22 years after Andy’s death — everybody’s also a self-publicist, using sophisticated technology to manage a public image that masquerades as a mutant form of privacy. Blogs, Flickr, YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter — these and so many other powerful promotional tools can be used by anyone, kids or mega-corporations, to create an illusion of intimacy with (in Facebookspeak) “friends” and “fans.”

December 14, 2012

Sensitivity training: the fallacy of feelings

The “New Political Correctness,” as I came to call it during the aughts (though it is neither new nor correct) is the pressure to reframe discussion by controlling language. In recent years it has come mostly from the political right (“moral clarity,” “War on Christmas,” “moral equivalence,” “homicide bombers,” “Freedom Fries,” “restoring honor”…) and, I insist, is an insidious menace to society even greater than the old-school institutionalized PC that came from the left, because its motives are transparently rooted in demagoguery rather than civility and altruism.

Back in early 2007, Sarah Silverman’s “Jesus Is Magic” prompted me to write this:

I’ve been arguing for several years now that, especially since 9/11, “political correctness” has evolved into a mostly reactionary phenomenon. The lefty PC that began as a way of showing sensitivity to minorities and those who had been discriminated against for years (women, the disabled, etc.) eventually turned into a form of monolithic, euphemistic denial of reality, where questioning was verboten and anything that could be interpreted as doubt or dissent was denounced as “fascist.” Now we see the same thing coming from the right. The terminology has changed but the brainwashed thinking hasn’t.

December 14, 2012

Cutting the Basterds

After the devastating news of Sally Menke’s death last week, I read some moving and heartfelt tributes to her… and yet, some of them didn’t seem to understand what an editor actually does, or what made Menke’s work in particular so remarkable.

I suppose just about anybody could string together a rough assembly of a movie. All you have to do is follow the script and put things in the right order, as Sir Edwin, the great Shakespearean actor played by John Cleese, said of words in a play: “Old Peter Hall used to say to me, ‘They’re all there Eddie, now we’ve got to get them in the right order.'”

December 14, 2012

Days of Heaven: “Somewhere, I don’t know, over there…”

“Troops of nomads swept over the country at harvest time like a visitation of locusts, reckless young fellows, handsome, profane, licentious, given to drink, powerful but inconstant workmen, quarrelsome and difficult to manage at all times. They came in the season when work was plenty and wages high. They dressed well, in their own peculiar fashion, and made much of their freedom to come and go.

“They told of the city, and sinister and poisonous jungles all cities seemed in their stories. They were scarred with battles. They came from the far-away and unknown, and passed on to the north, mysterious as the flight of locusts, leaving the people of Sun Prairie quite as ignorant of their real names and characters as upon the first day of their coming.”

— Hamlin Garland, “Boy Life on the Prairie” (1899), epigraph for Terrence Malick’s screenplay for “Days of Heaven,” revised June 2, 1976

At some point in 1976, “Days of Heaven” was a screenplay that contained conventionally discrete scenes, developed exchanges of dialog and a fairly straightforward (melo-)dramatic narrative structure. Principal photography took place that year in the plains of Alberta, Canada (standing in for the Texas panhandle shortly before World War I), and the movie that emerged in 1978, after two years of editing, did away almost all of it. What the movie became — as everyone couldn’t help but notice at the time of its original release — is a film in which the “background” (nature, the landscape) moves into the foreground and the human characters recede into macrocosmic expanses of earth and sky, and microcosmic observations of flora and fauna. And bugs.

Terrence Malick’s vision is reflected in his process, whereby an enormous amount of material — scripted and unscripted, A-roll and B-roll — is pared down, peeled back, opened up.¹ Camera operator John Bailey, in an interview on the Criterion Blu-Ray edition of “Days of Heaven,” describes how the so-called “second unit” work. The close-ups of animals or plants, or the pastoral images of trees or streams are “very, very inserty-type shots, and yet they have the same kind of dramatic impact” as the spectacular wide shots — or, for that matter, the scenes involving the lead actors. Some complained about that at the time — that the film was gorgeous but insufficiently developed as human drama, that characters were cyphers, that the technique was “intolerably artsy” and “artificial.”²

December 14, 2012

Seeing behind the images: Standard Operating Procedure

View image Lynndie England and Charles Graner. In… happier times?

I. What’s Past is Prologue

“What are Arabs seeing, and what does that mean for us?” asked Duncan McInnis, the US State Department official in charge of fighting “the war over America’s image in the Middle East,” in a “Frontline/World” documentary, “News War: War of Ideas” (broadcast March 27, 2007).

“For instance in Iraq. Because Arabs are upset about the presence of armed forces in an Arab country, there are no good images of an American soldier. An American soldier building a hospital in Iraq is still an American soldier in Iraq. In that case, all images are bad. And we need to know that, we need to know that’s what they see.”

The image is the world’s only remaining superpower. Understanding their power of images — not just what’s in the pictures themselves, but what they signify — is the key to understanding the world and our place within it. It’s also, recently, the source of the most deadly and dismal failures in American history. From the attacks of 9/11 through the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Americans’ inability to comprehend what they were seeing — or even to recognize the primacy of the image itself as the representation of events — has had catastrophic consequences.

December 14, 2012

“You’re taking this very personal…”

“Those who think “Transformers” is a great or even a good film are, may I tactfully suggest, not sufficiently evolved. Film by film, I hope they climb a personal ladder into the realm of better films, until their standards improve.”

— Roger Ebert, “I’m a proud Brainiac”

“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” is the “Dark Knight” of 2009. In what way? It’s the pop-smash action picture that has excited a bunch of fanboys fans who don’t usually read movie critics to howl with inarticulate rage about movie critics who don’t like their movie. Of course, “The Dark Knight” was met with considerable mainstream critical acclaim, and “ROTFL” with equally considerable mainstream critical disdain, but the important thing to remember is: critics had nothing to do with making these movies hits.

Want to see critics made completely superfluous? Bestow upon them the magical power to predict box-office success. Instead of awarding thumbs or stars or letter grades, they can just provide ticket sales projections that can be quoted in the ads: “I give it $109 million in its opening weekend!” Voila! Instant redundancy, instant irrelevance. Why do you need critics to gauge grosses when you already have tracking reports, followed by the actual grosses themselves?

December 14, 2012

Ben Stein: No argument allowed

The interview takes place at Dachau. Ben Stein questions Dr. Richard Weikart (author of “From Darwin to Hitler”) with the concentration camp as backdrop:

Was Hitler insane? (no)

Was Hitler evil? (yes)

Is there such a thing as evil? (yes)

Is there such a thing as good? (yes)

And evil can sometimes be rationalized as science? (yes)

And (Dr. Weikart adds), Hitler probably believed he was doing good, improving humanity.

Therefore, Intelligent Design is science.

According to Stein, “Darwinism” (the label Stein applies to those who have dismissed “Intelligent Design” as unworthy of serious intellectual consideration) has been shown — historically and scientifically — to lead to evil and the celebration of death, as exemplified by Naziism, the Holocaust, eugenics, abortion, euthanasia…

And that is why Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific theory.

Scene after scene of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” repeats this mutant species of illogic, which falls laughably short of basic scientific or mathematical standards of expression. I could quote you a hundred similar examples, but you can’t really argue with the movie because it fails to put forth an argument — any argument. OK, that’s not really fair. It doesn’t try.

December 14, 2012

All about your parents

The Blocks on the block. Such a nice Jewish family.

One of the highlights of my moviegoing experience at the 2005 Toronto International Film Festival is about to become one of the best theatrical releases of 2006: Doug Block’s “51 Birch Street” opens Wednesday in New York, Friday in Los Angeles and then slowly around the rest of the country from there. Check out the release schedule here. If this movie doesn’t get an Oscar nomination, we’ll know that there’s something seriously wrong with the Academy’s docu– oh, wait, we already know that, don’t we?

Although my post below is safe, I urge you NOT to read too much about the movie before you’ve seen it. But after you have, check out Doug’s web site at 51birchstreet.com and this article that appeared in the New York Times and this one from The London Times.

Here’s my original post, from September 15, 2005:

TORONTO — How much do you know about your parents’ marriage? How much do you want to know? How much should you know? Those are the dilemmas faced by filmmaker Doug Block in his quietly shattering, and eventually healing, documentary, “51 Birch Street.” Block’s film, as engrossing as any murder mystery but without melodrama or histrionics, could be this year’s “Capturing the Friedmans” — and yet the lives it investigates are more or less ordinary ones. No, there are no accusations of child pornography or molestation as in “Friedmans,” but the film is no less compelling for being about a seemingly unexceptional, unremarkable, but relatively stable and successful marriage — indeed, one that lasted more than 50 years.

As Block has said: “I never intended to make this film. But looking back on it, I guess it was the film I was born to make.” Certainly it is a film only he could have made, because it is about his own family. It’s a mystery he kind of stumbled into, interviewing his parents for a “family history” video he was thinking of making, and using the camera (a la Ross McElwee [“Sherman’s March”], who is thanked in the credits) as a tool for getting closer — to his father, in particular. He didn’t expect to find what he found — like 30 years of his mother’s daily journals, beginning in 1968, which were mostly about her psychotherapy and her unhappiness with his father.

“51 Birch Street” is, in some ways, an antidote to the sugarcoated myths and lies the movies have taught us about love and marriage. I wish it could be shown as a second feature to every one of those “happily ever after” movies that culminate with the wedding ceremony — as if that was an ending rather than a beginning. (It’s like they say about the difference between comedy and tragedy being dependent entirely on where you choose to stop telling the story.)

The movies teach us romantic cliches that, once we become aware of them, are leached of their potency in real life. How romantic can a moonlight walk on the beach really be when, in the back of your mind, you’re thinking: “Wow, this is just like a movie! How romantic!” Or: “Wow, a Moonlight Walk on the Beach. I’m inhabiting a cliche out of a movie. Can’t we come up with something more original than this?” Maybe the very idea of “romance” belongs to the movies and art and pop culture and “silly love songs” (see John Turturro’s deconstructionist musical love story, “Romance & Cigarettes”). What we live is something else.

Same goes for marriage. “51 Birch Street” is an account of the disappointments, resentments, accommodations and hard-fought compromises (with oneself and one’s partner) that a marriage entails. There are no heroes or villains or homewreckers or philanderers. There’s just husband and wife, Mom and Dad.

I can’t wait to read your comments and questions after you see it — and maybe some of your own stories, as well…

December 14, 2012

What Lars von Trier really said about Nazis…

… and Germans and Jews and Albert Speer and Susanne Bier, etc., at the post-“Melancholia” press conference at the Cannes Film Circus. The quotations I’ve seen in print have been fragmentary and/or inaccurate, and understandably can’t convey tone. This isn’t the whole press conference, either, but, for the record, it should give you a better idea of how the thing actually unraveled, and how it played in the room. It’s excruciating to watch somebody flounder and dig himself in like this (how much of it is meant to be a provocative joke? a perverse publicity stunt? an artistic confession?), but from this angle you can also see Kirsten Dunst squirm in mortification. She and the moderator try to interject and rescue him, but he won’t give up.

To me, it appears he has some vague idea of where he’s going (something about understanding the worst in human nature, perhaps?), but gets hopelessly lost on the way there — until, in apocalyptic von Trier fashion (hey, he just made a movie about the end of the world), he throws up his hands and drops the bomb in a desperate attempt to dissipate the gathering tension by saying exactly what everybody is fearing (or hoping) he’ll say… And what was the question again?

UPDATE (05/19/11): The festival has now declared von Trier “persona non grata,” though what that means is not entirely clear. Ben Kenigsberg of Time Out Chicago reports from a post-press conference gang-bang interview with von Trier:

December 14, 2012

What makes a movie a “classic”?

View image

I wasn’t old enough to experience the French New Wave first hand. My introduction to the New German Cinema (Fassbinder, Herzog, Wenders, et al.) was getting my mind blown by Werner Herzog’s 1973 “Aguirre, the Wrath of God” when it was released in the US in 1977. The bossa nova craze was before my time, as was Elvis, but I vividly remember Beatlemania and felt that punk and grunge were mine. It’s hard for me to imagine what it must be like to look back on some of the things I experienced first-hand and to approach them retroactively.

I’ve been thinking about this for a while — what a pleasure it has been, for example, to see Steven Spielberg develop, having watched his TV movie “Duel” when it was first broadcast and being absolutely riveted; discovering the monstrous phenomenon of “Jaws” when it opened and created the “summer blockbuster” before we had a term for it; witnessing the remarkable suburban double-whammy of “E.T.” and “Poltergeist” (in which Spielberg’s presence was clearly felt) in the summer of 1982…

But what brought it to the forefront of my consciousness was this (last?) week’s Entertainment Weekly cover story touting a big ol’ list of 1,000 “New Classics” in film, music, theater, video games, etc. I’m not entirely sure what their definition of “classic” is meant to be, though among the terms they use to describe them are “iconic” (“Pulp Fiction”), “primal work of popular art” (“Titanic”), “quotable” (“Jerry Maguire”), “apotheosis of its genre” (“A Room With a View”), “most amazing” (“Children of Men”)… and, um, “classic” (“When Harry Met Sally”).

December 14, 2012

Make it a double

Think you know which movie this is from? Tell Filmbrain.

I enjoy Filmbrain’s Screen Capture Quizes over at Like Anna Karina’s Sweater, which as to be one of the best blog names out there — along with Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule, of course. (And thank you, FB, for the recent post about one of my favorite films of the 1970s, Jerzy Skolimowski’s “Deep End.” At the moment, moviegoers may be discovering Skolimowski the actor — Uncle Stepan in David Cronenberg’s “Eastern Promises.”)

So, I’m not sure which picture the capture above is from (and, of course, I wouldn’t give it away even if I knew the answer — as I did last week, but that one was pretty easy). But this, appearing at the same time as Flickhead’s Bunuel-a-thon (Flickhead/Filmbrain — the associations are unavoidable) made me think of a great double-bill I’d like to do for Broken Projector’s upcoming Double Bill Blog-a-Thon (Oct. 22-26), which would involve pairing Bunuel’s “The Criminal Life of Archibaldo de la Cruz” with the movie I think this image is from. But, you know, I could be wrong — and then there’d be trouble in paradise. That’s all I want to say for now.

But, in the meantime, take a look at that portrait from a 20th Century Fox film that appears on the far wall. You may ask yourself: Where have I seen that before? You know the feeling of something half remembered… of something that never happened, yet you recall it well. You know the feeling of recognizing someone that you’ve never met as far as you could tell… How familiar those eyes seem. Is it her? Or is she only a dream?

P.S. Well, damn me to hell. OK, I just figured out it’s NOT the movie I thought of at first sight, but I can’t wait to go ahead with that double-bill idea…

December 14, 2012

Best of 2008: East coast vs. West coast crix

A few weeks ago, the Hollywood trades were observing (or complaining) that, because of the 2008 presidential election, all the big studio Oscar-bait films had been pushed back into December. I mean, how are mere movies going to compete with that cast? “Obama. Biden. McCain. And Sarah Palin as Jaws.”

Last year’s Oscar-winner, “No Country for Old Men,” played the Toronto Film Festival in early September, the New York Film Festival in early October, and began opening around the country November 9. The critics groups split between “NCFOM” (NY) and “There Will Be Blood” (LA, National Society), which was a 2008 release in much of the country.

This year, it’s anybody’s guess. “Slumdog Millionaire”? “Milk”? “WALL-E”? Something that hasn’t won a critical consensus honor yet? (Right now my hunch is that the National Society of Film Critics will wind up going for either “The Wrestler” or “Wendy and Lucy.” Just a hunch.)

UPDATE: The Hollywood Foreign Press Association, bestower of the Golden Globules, has announced its nominations… and even with a total of ten best picture slots (in Drama and Comedy/Musical categories) it overlooked “Milk,” “The Wrestler” and “The Dark Knight,” all of which seem to me like fairly obvious Globuley-Oscary pictures. Sean Penn, Mickey Rourke and Heath Ledger all got acting nods, though. Go fig.

There will be lots to see between now and New Year’s Eve — and I still haven’t caught up with “Milk,” “Happy-Go-Lucky,” “I Loved You So Long,” “Ballast,” “Rachel Getting Married,” “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” — all of which have already opened theatrically. Still to come: “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” “Nixon/Frost,” “Revolutionary Road,” “The Reader,” “The Wrestler,” “Doubt,” “Seven Pounds”… none of which, however, have made much of an impact with critics groups.

The East Coast and West Coast critics have agreed on a few things here and there: Sean Penn in “Milk,” Sally Hawkins in “Happy-Go-Lucky,” Penelope Cruz in “Vicki Cristina Barcelona,” “Man on Wire” for documentary, but… well, see for yourself:

Los Angeles Film Critics Association

Picture: “WALL-E”

Runner-up: “The Dark Knight”

Foreign language film: “Still Life”

Runner-up: “The Class”

Documentary film: “Man on Wire”

Runner-up: “Waltz With Bashir”

Animated film: “Waltz With Bashir”

December 14, 2012

Roger Ebert writes from rehab

As most of you know, Roger Ebert has been undergoing physical therapy in a rehabilitation facility in Chicago, and — great news! — is recovering well and has filed his first review since June (of Stephen Frears’ “The Queen”) for Friday. We’ll also have Roger’s interview with Michael Apted about “49 Up,” which is going into limited release around the country in October and November. Meanwhile, read Roger’s latest letter from rehab here. An excerpt:

During all of this, I didn’t lose any marbles. My thinking is intact and my mental process doesn’t require rehabilitation…. — although, curiously, I found myself more interested in plunging into the depths of classic novels (“Persuasion,” “Great Expectations,” “The Ambassadors”) than watching a lot of DVDs. I prefer to see the new Oliver Stone, Martin Scorsese and Clint Eastwood films on a big screen, for example. But our “Ebert & Roeper” producer Don DuPree brought around a DVD of “The Queen” (2006), and when I viewed it, I knew I wanted to review it.

A few more recent movies also will be reviewed, but I won’t be back to full production until sometime early next year. The good news is that my rehabilitation is a profound education in the realities of the daily lives we lead, and my mind is still capable of being delighted by cinematic greatness.

I plan to have my Overlooked Film Festival again in April, and cover the Academy Awards and Cannes. I can’t wait to be back in the Sun-Times on a full-time basis, and to rejoin Richard Roeper in the “Ebert & Roeper” balcony.

December 14, 2012

Precious Moments

Precious Moments – watch more funny videos

NOTE: I have not seen the movie “Precious Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire.” I don’t want to. I’m hoping I don’t have to.

December 14, 2012

Alan Moore on American comic books & graphic novels: Why so serious?

“Watchmen” creator Alan Moore would probably disagree with my argument for taking superhero movies seriously. He vehemently distances himself from any movies based on his own work. In an interview with Wired, the 55-year-old comic-book veteran suggests that fans have been taking superhero pulp fiction too seriously for too long:

I have to say that I haven’t seen a comic, much less a superhero comic, for a very, very long time now–years, probably almost a decade since I’ve really looked at one closely. But it seems to be that things that were meant satirically or critically in “Watchmen” now seem to be simply accepted as kind of what they appear to be on the surface. So yeah, I’m pretty jaundiced about the entire “caped crusader” concept at the moment. […]

December 14, 2012

MoMA: Images on ice

Lost treasures of Xanadu — in a Pennsylvania warehouse?

For five years now, one of the great film resources in America has been unjustly imprisoned, boxed up and sitting in the corridors of a film storage facility in Hamlin, Pennsylvania. It’s a scandal, a tragedy, and an enormous disservice to film scholarship. In a recent e-mail, Mary Corliss, creator and curator of the Film Stills Archive at the Museum of Modern Art, the source of images for countless film-related books and publications (Corliss is also the stills editor for both Roger Ebert’s “Great Movies” books), brings us up to date on the struggle to make this invaluable treasure accessible again:

I have been remiss in sharing the final chapter of the [National Labor Relations Board] vs. MoMA saga with all of you who supported me and Terry Geesken after our abrupt lay-offs and the closing of the Film Stills Archive in January 2002. This September, I received a document signed by the three Republicans appointed to the Washington office of the NLRB. (The Democratic minority on the panel was not represented). In their ruling, they not only fully agreed with MoMA’s arguments; they reversed those points that the judge in the NLRB trial had decided in our favor.

Essentially, they found MoMA’s decision to close the Film Stills Archive to be solely the result of the Museum’s need to reduce services and spaces during its $850 million expansion, and not a personal retaliation for our union activities. That verdict represents the end of the legal battle.

But the struggle to keep the Stills Archive alive does not, cannot end there. Since MoMA argued that the Archive was closed for temporary lack of space, it follows that, when even more space was made available, the Archive would reopen. That was Terry’s and my understanding when we took a low severence in order to have recall rights to our jobs of 34 and 18 years, respectively, returning when the Archive reopened. In other words, the future of the Archive bore no relevance to the disposition of the NLRB case.

December 14, 2012

The Lonely Critic

In the days before aggregators like RottenTomatoes and Metacritic created the appearance of instant-consensus by assigning numerical values to opinions, it was more fun to have an opinion of your own because it wasn’t quantified and averaged with everybody else’s.

The tendency now is to view critical opinion as a measurement — and I’m not just talking about rating systems like stars or letter grades or thumbs. Those things may be mistaken for substantial observations, for the simple reason that the idea of a four-star rating is more tangible than, say, a sentence like, “This tension between realism and spectacle runs like a fissure through the film and invests it with tremendous unease,” from Manohla Dargis’s rich and revelatory New York Times review of “There Will Be Blood.” But Dargis’s sentence actually conveys a hell of a lot more about the movie than “Four Stars!” does. (Times critics don’t do star ratings, which means that somebody at RottenTomatoes and Metacritic has to actually read the reviews and make them up. The results can be incongruously amusing. Sometimes they don’t read very closely.)

When what somebody has to say about a movie is subordinated to a numerical scale — and then all the grades themselves are plotted on a curve…. well, who cares about the textures of the experience: What percentage did it get on the TomatoMeter?!?!

I bring this up because of an experience Roger Ebert describes having last week:

December 14, 2012

Opening Shots: ‘Flowers of Shanghai’

View image

From Girish Shambu, Buffalo, NY:

“Flowers of Shanghai” (1998), by Taiwanese filmmaker Hou Hsiao-Hsien, has an opening shot that lasts — I kid you not — eight minutes! Jazz bassist Marcus Miller once said about James Brown’s music that no matter how small a piece of it you took, like DNA, it had the “funk in it.��? That’s how I feel about this shot: it contains, in its eight minutes, the entire film.

The camera is an observer at a table in a 19th century Shanghai brothel or “flower house,��? where several clients are playing a drinking game. Most of them are young, dressed in dark and gleaming silk robes. The only light in the shot is provided by a couple of curved lamps. (In fact, we will discover that the film will never venture outdoors.) Next to the patrons, standing, are their “flower girls.��? Every now and then, promptly but gracefully, they light opium pipes or pour wine for their clients. Like a plaintive sigh, a melancholic melody-drone accompanies the shot.

December 14, 2012

‘Fire Walk With Me’ and the Lost Language of Code

Here is Lil. She indicates that this is one of Gordon’s blue rose cases.

When I saw David Lynch’s “Inland Empire” for the first time a few weeks ago, I knew I was going to be reviewing it for the Chicago Sun-Times and, given the quintessentially Lynchian, fractal nature of the three-hour film, I didn’t know how I was going to do that. It’s just not a movie that you can summarize in the usual terms of story, character, cinematography, direction, etc., and still convey a sense of what it’s about, and what it’s like to watch. The first thing I thought of was a scene near the start of Lynch’s radically underestimated “Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me,” in which a complex set of coded information is conveyed entirely through pantomime, involving facial expressions, gestures, dance and dressing up. I wish I could have reviewed “Inland Empire” by doing something like what Lil does in “Fire Walk With Me.” (If I could, I’d try dressing up like Grace Zabriskie and contorting myself into a writhing human mobius strip…)

Please consider this article my contribution to The Lynch Mob at Vinyl Is Heavy, where this week you’ll findt lotsa Lynch links and criticism. What follows is a slightly revised and updated version of a piece I wrote about nine or ten years ago for my Twin Peaks site at cinepad.com.

^ ^

“Break the code, solve the case.”

— Agent Dale Cooper

“Twin Peaks” was conceived as a series (like “The Fugitive” before it) in which the central “mystery” (Who killed Laura Palmer? Who killed Dr. Richard Kimble’s wife? And what of the one-armed man?) would spin off new complications, week after week, but would never really be solved — at least (in the case of “The Fugitive”) until the end of the series. (I like to think of it as sort of the TV series version of Buñuel’s “The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie,” where the characters keep on walking but never seem to get anywhere. Instead of preventing these people from eatinga meal, “Twin Peaks” would continually deny the audience and the characters a solution to the mystery. I still think that’s a great idea.)

But soon (or finally, depending on how you look at it), public and network pressure forced the hand of “Twin Peaks” co-creators David Lynch and Mark Frost, and they revealed Laura Palmer’s murderer a few weeks into the second season. Lynch said recently (2007) in Seattle that, for him, the series was basically over once identity of Laura’s killer was exposed. Ratings dived and creative ennui set in shortly thereafter. But a year later Lynch released a feature film (hissed and booed at the Cannes Film Festival) that promised to go into explicit detail (certainly more so than you could do on network television in the early 1990s) about exactly what happened on the night of Laura Palmer’s death.

It was a typically perverse Lynch move — belatedly rehashing details about a year-old, already-solved murder on a TV show that had been cancelled by the time the movie was released. Even more perversely, Lynch and co-writer Robert Engels began this feature-film prequel with an absurdist prologue that — in case you hadn’t caught on by know — pretty much explained the spirit, and method you should have invoked to watch “Twin Peaks” in the first place. (The film — originally sub-titled “Teresa Banks and the Last Seven Days of Laura Palmer” — was supposedly re-cut before release; Lynch’s full shooting script is available online here.)

Lynch himself reprises his role as FBI Bureau Chief Gordon Cole, standing in front of a woodsy photorealistic backdrop in his office that recalls the tropical mural used for trompe l’oeil effects at the house of Dr. Jacoby (Russ Tamblyn) in the series. Gordon, as you may recall, can’t hear too well. He is accustomed to communicating in other ways — through signs, signals, symbols, omens, clues. And he expects his agents to speak his language.

“I’ve got a surprise for you. Something interesting I would like to show you,” Gordon yells into the phone at Special Agent Chester Desmond (Chris Isaac). When Desmond and Sam Stanley from Spokane (Kiefer Sutherland) (“Sam’s the man who cracked the Whitman case”) meet Gordon at the private Portland airport, they’re treated to a peculiar, ritualistic display of body language by a woman in a reddish-orange dress with flaming hair to match. Gordon introduces her as Lil, “my mother’s sister’s girl.” Lil makes faces, blinks, sashays around, and waddles away.

Afterwards, in the car, Sam asks the questions that all good “Twin Peaks” devotees are meant to ask again and again: “What exactly did that mean?” And Desmond matter-of-factly (“I’ll explain it to you”) deciphers a bizarre series of signs and signals and symbols and omens and clues that Lil’s little “dance” conveyed about the case they were about to embark upon.

The details don’t really matter much (a sour face indicates trouble with local authorities, one hand in her pocket suggests they’re hiding something, walking in place means a lot of legwork, tailored dresses are code for drugs, etc.) — it’s the manner in which this info is coveyed that’s important. In its secret heart of hearts, “Twin Peaks” is an epistemological thriller about perception and the ways that we assemble information about the world around us (see Mystery Without End, Amen). We humans may be capable of certain higher brain functions, but Lil’s dance conveys information in a sophisticated, ritualized way that isn’t that far evolved from, say, the dances of cranes. In “Twin Peaks,” dreams and Tibetan rock-throwing rituals are just as vital and valid forms of detective work as forensic science. Maybe more so.

View image Me at the Double R Diner (aka the Mar-T) in the spring of 1990, with a waitress who looks suspiciously like Laura Palmer.

Oh, and the most important sign was that Lil was wearing a blue rose. But, Desmond says, “I can’t tell you about that.”

“You can’t?” asks Stanley.

“No,” repeats Desmond. “I can’t.”

And here we have a little mystery. The conundrums without answers are, of course, the most intriguing of all. Suddenly, all the other stuff evaporates from our consciousness — OK, drugs, legwork, local authorities, fine. Got it. Let’s move on: What about the blue rose?!? All we ever really learn about it in the rest of the movie is a remark Agent Cooper makes to Diane that this is “one of Gordon’s ‘blue rose’ cases” — whatever that may mean. I can’t tell you.

^ ^

[For more about the thematic and geological territory of “Twin Peaks,” please take the Topography (or “Top-off-graphy”) of Twin Peaks Guided Photo Tour, part of my Twin Peaks site.]

^ ^

Relevant excerpt from the script after the jump.

December 14, 2012

The Double-Best of the Year

The Pale Man sez: “Use your eyes — both of ’em!”

The forthcoming “Grindhouse” notwithstanding, the motion picture double bill is a nearly dead art. Marquees have always been plugged with twosomes that just happened to be from the same distributor (it’s the same kind of logic that gives us a “The Robert Altman Collection” on DVD, consisting of “M*A*S*H,” “A Perfect Couple,” “Quintet” and “A Wedding” — simply because they were all released by 20th Century Fox). On a slightly more creative level (sometimes), today’s few remaining revival houses might connect two films by language, genre, director or star.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a fairly straightforward double bill of, say, Scorsese/De Niro pictures (“Mean Streets” and “Taxi Driver”) — or David Lynch LA nightmares (“Lost Highway” and “Mulholland Drive”) or Michael Haneke puzzles (“Code Unknown” and “Cache” ) — all of which are illuminating pairings. As I like to remind myself, you invariably view movies through the prism of the movies you’ve already seen — particularly those you’ve seen recently, and never more so than when you see two of ’em back to back. You can’t help but make associations, and a well-considered double bill can help you see both movies from new angles — emphasizing some aspects over others, and creating a kind of conversation between the two films.

When I was in college, at the University of Washington, I got to program hundreds of movies in the student film series — a different double bill every Friday and Saturday night (and sometimes Wednesdays and Sundays, too!) over a couple of years — and I had a blast doing it. My favorite strategy was to put an older or less well-known (and cheaper to rent!) film with a more recent or recognizable title in hopes of pulling in an audience (and maybe blowing people’s minds!).

Put “Citizen Kane” with “All the President’s Men” and all kinds of things start happening: They’re both detective stories, journalistic stories, overshadowed by famously flawed and powerful public/private men who remain essentially unknowable to the end… Or put Francis Ford Coppola’s “The Conversation” with Michel Deville’s “Dossier 51,” and you have two accounts of psychological meltdowns under the glare of intense surveillance — one by the watcher and one by the watched — but both from the perspective of the voyeur. Or how about Peckinpah’s “Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia” with Huston’s “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre”? Eric Rohmer’s “Preceval” with Robert Bresson’s “Lancelot du Lac”? I would love to have paired Brian De Palma’s “Hi Mom!” with Quentin Tarantino’s “Reservoir Dogs” — for perverse structural and audience-freaking reasons. On the other hand, I don’t recall exactly what I was going for when I put Bunuel’s “L’Age d’Or” with Godard’s “Weekend,” except that I knew they were both shocking and transgressive… and, most of all, I really wanted to see them. Anyway, you can set up all kinds of thematic, historical and stylistic clashes and consonances reverberating between films….

So, that’s what I’ve decided to do with some of my favorite movies of 2006. Rather than a traditional “ten best list” (which I’ve already contributed to MSN Movies), here are my suggestions for fruitful ways of viewing some of the year’s best movies, alongside some of the best of past years. Make an evening of it — in theaters and/or on DVD!

December 14, 2012
subscribe icon

The best movie reviews, in your inbox