Scanners

Another critical voice severed

Jim Emerson

Voice Media slashes another film critic.

Adding further grist to the discussion of “critical sameness” (“The Stepford Critics?),” Village Voice Media has cut another (film-)critical voice from its payroll. This time it’s National Society of Film Critics member Rob Nelson, of the Minneapolis/St. Paul City Pages. GreenCine Daily quotes critic Dave Kehr:

This is not good. Soon, we will have a choice between the re-animated Paulettes who dominate the print media and the Knowles-nothing fan boys who dominate the internet. Which in my book isn’t much of a choice at all.(See Kehr’s clarification in comments below.)

As far as I can tell from the CP web site, Nelson’s final piece for them was on the critically acclaimed documentary “No End in Sight” (“Surge This,” August 22, 2007):

As the movie’s more begrudging admirers will likely acknowledge, Ferguson is no Michael Moore. His background is as a scholar and a Brookings wonk, and “No End in Sight” — his first film, amazingly — is less a work of investigation (or activism) than history. There’s no psychology in the movie (e.g., Dubya has daddy issues), and neither are there conspiracy theories (e.g., the war is about redrawing the Middle East map and further fueling Halliburton’s tank). On some level, it even endeavors to be a film without politics—and might be that if such a thing were possible. […]

December 14, 2012

If David Lynch directed Michael Jackson’s life story

Jim Emerson

Steven Boone at Big Media Vandalism has composed a mesmerizing collage (OK, montage) using text from Jackson’s 1988 biography “Moonwalk,” audio interviews with MJ, and footage from some of Lynch’s films, notably “The Elephant Man,” “Mulholland Dr.,” “The Straight Story,” “The Grandmother” and “Eraserhead” to imagine a biography of Michael Jackson directed by David Lynch. He calls it “Notes for a David Lynch adaptation of Moonwalk.”

Boone writes:

It all comes down to what you believe, because none of us knew the man….

December 14, 2012

Termite booster: Manny Farber 1917-2008

Jim Emerson

“I get a great laugh from artists who ridicule the critics as parasites and artists manqués — such a horrible joke. I can’t imagine a more perfect art form, a more perfect career than criticism. I can’t imagine anything more valuable to do.”

— Manny Farber, quoted in Roger Ebert’s appreciation of the late, great critic

Painter and critic Manny Farber, whose book “Negative Space” is one of the essential collections of visual-arts criticism, has died at the age of 91. Farber’s writing was scrappy, unpretentious and iconoclastic, not unlike the films and filmmakers he favored, from the genre pictures of Sam Fuller, Don Siegel, Sam Peckinpah and John Wayne, to the visionary and experimental work of Werner Herzog, R.W. Fassbinder, Andy Warhol and Chantal Akerman. (See pages from the expanded 1998 edition here.)

Unquestionably his most famous and reverently-quoted essay was 1962’s “White Elephant Art vs. Termite Art.” Modern art, he wrote, had become “a yawning production of overripe technique shrieking with preciosity, fame, ambition: far inside are tiny pillows holding up the artist’s signature, now turned into mannerisms by the padding, lechery, faking required to combine today’s esthetics with the components of traditional Great Art.”

Farber is as much fun to read as he is to agree — and argue– with. I can think of no better tribute than to cite a few excerpts from his “termite art” treatise:

December 14, 2012

Larry King accuses Polanski of murder (accidentally)

Jim Emerson

The 2008 documentary “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (which I recommend to anyone who wants a deeper understanding of the charges facing him now) documents a public perception of Roman Polanski that blamed him not only for the darkness of his films, but even for surviving the Holocaust and for the Manson-led murder of his wife, Sharon Tate, and friends. All of this years before he pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor and then fled the country before sentencing.

I don’t know what was going through Larry King’s mind last night on his CNN show, but here’s what happened (from the CNN transcript):

KING: Joining Lawrence Silver with us now is Debra Tate, Roman Polanski’s former sister in law, the sister of the late Sharon Tate. On a persona note, I knew Sharon Tate. I had interviewed her a couple of months before her tragic murder. What do you want to see happen?

DEBRA TATE, FMR. SISTER IN LAW OF ROMAN POLANSKI: I would like to see this whole thing go away. I think that there has been a lot of time that has passed and we need to bring it to an end.

KING: Have you ever talked to Roman Polanski?

TATE: I have.

KING: How can you have a civil conversation with someone who so brutally murdered your sister?

TATE: Roman didn’t murder my sister.

KING: I’m sorry. When the fact that he would have this terrible thing happen to him after the death of your sister, to once again focus you into the public light. That’s what I meant.

Bizarre how easily the lines get blurred…

December 14, 2012

Singin’ 2: Electric Boogalooing in the Rain

Jim Emerson

OK, now they’ve done it. They’ve shown that they really can take performances from old movies and re-animate them to make new scenes the original actors never did. And make it look pretty convincing. Take a gander at this astonishing UK ad for the VW Golf GTI (“The original, updated.”), in which Gene Kelly does a whole new kind of singin’ and dancin’ in the rain. Sacrilege or marvel? Whatever you make of it, at least it’s a hell of a lot better made than the infamous 1997 Dirt Devil spot with Fred Astaire and the vacuum cleaner, based on the famous “dancing on the ceiling” bit from “Royal Wedding”…

(tip: AS)

December 14, 2012

It Ain’t the Meat (It’s the Motion): Thoughtson movie technique and movie criticism

Jim Emerson

“People who are just getting ‘seriously interested’ in film always ask a critic, ‘Why don’t you talk about technique and “the visuals” more?’ The answer is that American movie technique is generally more like technology and it usually isn’t very interesting. […] The important thing is to convey what is new and beautiful in the work, not how it was made – -which is more or less implicit.”

— Pauline Kael, “Trash, Art and the Movies” (1969)

“By neglecting to analyze technique, Miss Kael can do no more than assert that a given film is new, or beautiful, hoping that her language will provide the reader with something parallel to the qualities implicit in the work of art.”

— Charles T. Samuels, reviewing Kael’s 1970 collection Going Steady (which includes “Trash, Art and the Movies”) in the New York Times Book Review

“It is this implacable ignorance of the mechanics of filmmaking that prevails in all Kael’s books. Yet she is never called on it. The reason, of course, is that her audience knows even less of these mechanics than she does, and professional film people do not wish to incur her displeasure by calling attention to it. She seems to believe that films are made by a consortium of independent contractors — the writer writes, the cutter cuts, the actor acts, the cameraman photographs. In effect she is always blaming the cellist for the tuba solo.”

— John Gregory Dunne, reviewing Kael’s Deeper Into Movies (1973) in the Los Angeles Times Book Review

“To me, a good review, good criticism — whether it’s in the Cahiers du Cinema or Film Comment — would be trying not to say, ‘I don’t feel,’ or ‘I don’t see it the way you saw it,’ but, rather, ‘Let’s see it. Let’s bring in the evidence.'”

— Jean-Luc Godard, debating Kael in 1981 and challenging her approach to criticism

“Listen, you miserable bitch, you’ve got every right in the world to air your likes and dislikes, but you got no goddam right at all to fake, at my expense, a phony technical knowledge you simply do not have.”

— director George Roy Hill in a letter to Kael (quoted in Brian Kellow’s biography, “Pauline Kael: A Life in the Dark”)¹

– – –

In her 1969 Harper’s essay “Trash, Art and the Movies,” Pauline Kael made her case for trash, saying semi-famously: “Movies are so rarely great art, that if we cannot appreciate great trash, we have very little reason to be interested in them.” But what separates “art” from “trash” (whatever she means by those labels) and is it really an either/or question? What if the differences have something (or everything) to do with “technique” (by which Kael, depending on which sentence you cite, might mean anything from technology to professional craftsmanship to directorial style)? After all, her favorite filmmakers (Altman, Peckinpah, De Palma, Godard, Spielberg) are stylists whose artistic vision (trashy vision?) is inseparable from their distinctive techniques. Even at a glance, you’re not likely to mistake these auteurs’ films for anyone else’s.

So, I’d like to look into how the term(s) “technical” and “technique” are used by Kael (mostly in “Trash, Art and the Movies”) and in those cherce quotations above. Way back when, Sidney Lumet said he considered Kael one of the most “perceptive and articulate” reviewers to come along in years, but that, like most critics, she lacked “any technical knowledge of how a movie is made.” That mattered to him — maybe especially after she said in his presence (after many spirited libations) that her job was “to tell him which way to go.”²

Dunne, the occasional screenwriter, observed: “Few critics understand the roles of chance, compromise, accident and contingency in the day-by-day of a picture.”³ I’d add that a failure to recognize the collaborative back-and-forth of the creative process — and the industrial process — of making movies (including contractual measures and union guidelines) also contributes to embarrassing critical misunderstandings that regularly find their way into print.

December 14, 2012

Call him “Mr. Contrarian”

Jim Emerson

Latest Contrarian Week News:

In his New York Observer year-end wrap-up (and ten-best list), Andrew Sarris attempts to steal the thunder of one of his New York “alternative weekly” rivals.

Sarris writes:

Fortunately, modern technology makes it almost impossible for a good movie to get “lost” because of end-of-the-year mental exhaustion. So, with the proviso that I still have a great deal of catching up to do, here are my considered choices for the various 10-best categories, and one of my patented 10-worst lists under the provocative heading of “Movies Other People Liked and I Didn’t.” I am not at all deterred in dishing out my annual supply of negativity by the correspondent who informed me last year that he preferred all the films on my 10-worst list to all the films on my 10-best list. I have long ago become resigned to my fate as a reviled revisionist ever since my first column in The Village Voice in 1960 hailed Alfred Hitchcock as a major artist for “Psycho,” and inspired more hate mail than any Voice column had received up to that time. That clinched my job at the ever-contrarian Voice, and I have simply gone on from there.So, how contrarian is the “reviled revisionist” 46 years later? Let’s see:

“The Departed” as best film of the year. (Only in New York!)

“Blood Diamond” as #5.

Best Supporting Actresses:

1) Jennifer Connelly, “Blood Diamond”

2) Gong Li, “Miami Vice”

3) Maggie Gyllenhaal, “World Trade Center”

And then there’s this:

Other striking male performances were provided by: Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, Ray Winstone, Alec Baldwin and Anthony Anderson in The Departed; Edward Norton, Liev Schreiber and Toby Jones in The Painted Veil; Wim Willaert in When the Sea Rises; Leslie Phillips and Richard Griffiths in Venus; Clive Owen, Denzel Washington, Christopher Plummer, Willem Dafoe, and Chiwetel Ejiofor in Inside Man; Ken Watanabe, Kazunari Ninomiya, Tsuyoshi Ihara, Ryo Kase and Shido Nakamura in Letters from Iwo Jima; Greg Kinnear, Steve Carell, Alan Arkin and Paul Dano in Little Miss Sunshine; Edward Norton, Paul Giamatti and Rufus Sewell in The Illusionist; Patrick Wilson, Jackie Earle Haley, Noah Emmerich, Gregg Edelman and Ty Simpkins in Little Children; Keanu Reeves, Christopher Plummer and Dylan Walsh in The Lake House; Nicolas Cage, Michael Pena and Stephen Dorff in World Trade Center; Tim Blake Nelson, Pat Corley, Jeffrey Donovan, Stacy Keach and Scott Wilson in Come Early Morning; Ryan Gosling and Anthony Mackie in Half Nelson; Jason Schwartzman, Rip Torn, and Danny Huston in Marie Antoinette; Matt Damon, Michael Gambon, Alec Baldwin, William Hurt, Billy Crudup, Robert De Niro, Keir Dullea, Timothy Hutton, Eddie Redmayne, Mark Ivanir and Joe Pesci in The Good Shepherd; Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Kelsey Grammer, James Marsden, Shawn Ashmore, Aaron Stanford, Vinnie Jones and Ben Foster in X-Men: The Last Stand; Mads Mikkelsen, Jeffrey Wright, Giancarlo Giannini, Simon Abkarian, Sebastien Foucan, Jesper Christensen and Tobias Menzies in Casino Royale; Ebru Ceylan and Mehmet Eryilmaz in Climates; Adrien Brody, Ben Affleck and Bob Hoskins in Hollywoodland; Jamie Foxx, Danny Glover, Keith Robinson and Hinton Battle in Dreamgirls; Brian O’Halloran, Jeff Anderson, Jason Mewes, Trevor Fehrman, Kevin Smith and Jason Lee in Clerks II; Justin Kirk and Jamie Harrold in Flannel Pajamas; Stanley Tucci, Simon Baker and Adrian Grenier in The Devil Wears Prada; Will Ferrell, Dustin Hoffman and Tom Hulce in Stranger Than Fiction; Samuel L. Jackson, Curtis Jackson, Chad Michael Murray, Sam Jones III and Brian Presley in Home of the Brave; Harris Yulin, Ty Burrell and Boris McGiver in Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus; Max Minghella, John Malkovich, Jim Broadbent, Matt Keeslar, Ethan Suplee, Joel David Moore and Nick Swardson in Art School Confidential; Joseph Cross, Brian Cox, Joseph Fiennes and Alec Baldwin in Running with Scissors; Jamie Foxx, Colin Farrell, Ciarán Hinds, Justin Theroux, Barry Shabaka Henley, Luis Tosar and John Ortiz in Miami Vice; Michael Sheen, James Cromwell, Alex Jennings, Roger Allam and Tim McMullan in The Queen; Samuel L. Jackson, Ron Eldard, William Forsythe, Anthony Mackie, Marlon Sherman and Clarke Peters in Freedomland; Vin Diesel, Peter Dinklage, Linus Roache, Alex Rocco, Ron Silver and Raul Esparza in Find Me Guilty; Josh Hartnett, Bruce Willis, Stanley Tucci, Morgan Freeman and Ben Kingsley in Lucky Number Slevin; Hugh Grant, Dennis Quaid, Chris Klein, Shohreh Aghdashloo, John Cho, Tony Yalda, Sam Golzari and Willem Dafoe in American Dreamz; Keanu Reeves, Robert Downey Jr., Woody Harrelson and Rory Cochrane in A Scanner Darkly; Adam Beach, Ryan A. Phillippe, Jesse Bradford, John Benjamin Hickey, Jon Slattery, Barry Pepper, Jamie Bell, Paul Walker and Robert Patrick in Flags of Our Fathers; Chow Yun-Fat in Curse of the Golden Flower; Sergi López, Doug Jones, Álex Angulo and Federico Luppi in Pan’s Labyrinth; Bill Nighy in Notes on a Scandal.Take that, A—– W—-!

December 14, 2012

Gérard Brach, 1927 – 2006

Jim Emerson

Collaborator with Roman Polanski on “Repulsion,” “Cul-de-Sac,” “Fearless Vampire Killers,” “The Tenant,” “Tess,” “Frantic,” “Bitter Moon” and others. From The Guardian:

“Cul-de-Sac” (1966) had echoes of “Waiting for Godot,” but was more directly influenced by Harold Pinter, not only in the casting of Donald Pleasence, who had triumphed in Pinter’s “The Caretaker” a few years previously, but also in the portrayal of sexual humiliation and in the relationship of the two gangsters. However, the depiction of a married couple’s sexual tensions that erupt into violence when an outsider intrudes on their world was a favourite theme developed in the Polanski-Brach screenplay…. […]

Throughout their partnership, Brach did most of the writing. “We talk and then he writes it,” Polanski explained. “Then he comes back into the room and we change it together.”

Besides his work with Polanski, Brach co-wrote screenplays for several of the most notable films of the 1980s, mostly for non-French directors: “Identification of a Woman” (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1982), “Favourites of the Moon” (Otar Iosseliani, 1984) and “Maria’s Lovers” (1984) and “Shy People” (1987), both by Andrei Konchalovsky. Nevertheless, his most acclaimed screenplays were for Frenchmen: Berri, the two-part Marcel Pagnol adaptation, “Jean de Florette” and “Manon des Sources” (1986); and Jean-Jacques Annaud, “The Name of the Rose” (1986), “The Bear” (1988), “The Lover” (1992) and “Minor,” currently being shot in Spain.

Brach was agoraphobic, and for almost the last 10 years he hardly ever left the Paris apartment where he lived alone, rarely receiving visitors, except for the occasional director.

December 14, 2012

Crimes of Bush: Bugliosi’s case for murder

Jim Emerson

Everybody knows that murder has no statute of limitations. So although it may seem a little late to bring criminal charges against George W. Bush for his conduct in office, the evidence against him is is overwhelming and undisputed. The facts aren’t in question, but now that he’s no longer president the matter of what to do about them remain: How should he and his administration be held accountable for their deceit? Should Bush be prosecuted? Who has the jurisdiction to do so? And what are the proper charges? Vincent Bugliosi, the celebrated prosecutor who convicted Charles Manson, believes Bush should be tried for murder. And from the sound of it, he’d rather have a beer with Manson.

December 14, 2012

Written in the Flesh: A Crash Course in David Cronenberg

Jim Emerson

No filmmaker has more daringly and relentlessly explored what it means to be human than David Cronenberg.

Two weeks ago, critic Robert Horton and I discussed Cronenberg’s work as part of Robert’s Magic Lantern Series at the Frye Art Museum in Seattle. This short film, conceived as a self-contained critical essay/appreciation, has been expanded and refined from the seven-minute version I assembled the night before that occasion, tracing Cronenberg’s thematic obsessions and the development of his artistic vision across 40 years of filmmaking. “From the Drain” to “Eastern Promises” (neither of which are included here), it’s all one big Cronenberg movie, no matter what the genre: horror, science-fiction, fantasy, biography, crime thriller…

Clips from nine chapters in the ever-mutating cinematic saga of David Cronenberg (“The Brood” to “A History of Violence”) are interwoven to illuminate some of the director’s major themes: technology (and art) as an extension/expression of the mind and body (guns, game pods, television, cars, computers, typewriters, eyeglasses…); the human appetite for extreme sensations; violence as sex, and sex as violence; the evolution of humankind beyond biology, and the inevitable dissolution of the flesh through mutation, disease, aging; corporate co-option of the intellectual property behind new technologies… all in only 12 minutes!

I warn you, it’s going to be a wild ride…

December 14, 2012

A priest reviews A Serious Man

Jim Emerson

Here’s a spoiler-loaded reading of the Coens’ masterpiece from Father Robert Barron, self-described “Catholic Evangelist.” I don’t know anything about Fr. Barron, but this is certainly a Catholic interpretation — of the movie, of the book of Job, and of the Jefferson Airplane’s “Somebody to Love.” Of course, I don’t see the movie the way he does (and he doesn’t even mention Larry’s doctor or Schrödinger’s cat or the… dybbuk?), but he does have some interesting ways of looking at it. I do like the way he understands how we reconsider the rabbis’ counsel as the movie goes along.

And Fr. Barron makes one simple, important point that I think some people overlook: “No one in the movie disbelieves in God. It’s not a question of is there a God or not. But they’re trying to discern, what does God want? What is God doing?” That is correct. The film takes place in a world in which God is obviously not dead (although it’s set not long after the TIME cover) because these people still believe Hashem is a presence in their lives — if a somewhat distant one. Instead, God is either silent, indifferent, passive-aggressive, or nonexistent. The question, then, becomes not so much what God wants from these characters as what these characters want from the (unexamined?) vision of God that they cling to, and how are they going to square that faith with the day-to-day world they live in?

What do you think? And let’s agree that all comments below are for people who’ve seen the movie…

December 14, 2012

IFC signs pact with devil Blockbuster

Jim Emerson

View image The site says “NC-17” but the box art says “R.” Ang Lee’s “Lust, Caution” won the Venice Film Festival last year. But that’s not the version Blockbuster carries. Would you have known you weren’t seeing the version released in the US — especially if you rented it based on the contradictory online info you see here?

IFC Entertainment has made a two-year agreement with Blockbuster® Video, giving the moribund sales and rental mega-chain “an exclusive 60-day rental window, including both the physical and digital rental distribution channels, for each title as it becomes available. During this period no title will be available on a retail basis in any format.”

According to a joint press release, “After the 60-day period, the IFC titles will be available on a non-exclusive basis both for retail and digital distribution. However, Blockbuster will retain the exclusive physical rental distribution rights for IFC titles for three years after each street date.” (You read that right: It’s a two-year agreement with a three-year exclusive.)

Currently, some IFC Films, released on their First Take label (“Paranoid Park,” “4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 days,” “Hannah Takes the Stairs,” “The Wind That Shakes the Barley”), have been available via Comcast’s On Demand service the same day they arrive in theaters. Will that still be the case?

The Weinstein Company made an “exclusive” four-year deal with Blockbuster that went into effect in 2007, although that hasn’t prevented NetFlix or other competitors from renting or selling Weinstein movies under the “first sale doctrine.” As the Dallas Morning News reported at the time of the Weinstein-Blockbuster agreement: “Under federal statute, companies such as Blockbuster and Netflix are able to rent out the movies they purchase without getting permission from anyone.”

December 14, 2012

For Your Consideration: Anton Chigurh, Supporting Actor

Jim Emerson

View image Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem): You may think you know what you’re dealing with, but believe me, you don’t.

(A comment by Phillip Kelly in reply to an earlier post made me chuckle and got me thinking. He wrote: “I guess my theorizing [of] Anton Chigurh as main character doesn’t stand now that Miramax is touting him for Best Supporting Actor. Too bad.” That’s the jumping-off place for this entry.)

The New York Film Critics Circle gave Javier Bardem its 2007 Best Supporting Actor award for his role as Anton Chigurh (“shi-GUR”) in Joel and Ethan Coen’s “No Country For Old Men” (which was also named Best Picture). The funny thing is, so much of the discussion of the of the movie centers around Chigurh that you’d think he was was the lead. And critical reservations about “No Country” tend to focus on interpretations of Chigurh, and whether the critic accepts him as a character or a mythological presence or a haircut or some combination thereof.

“No Country” traces the path of Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), from his opening narration to his closing monologue, from his nostalgia about the “old times” and his fear of the violence in this modern world to his account of two dreams about his father. Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), sets things in motion by taking the satchel of drug money, and Chigurh spends most of the film relentlessly tracking him down, while Ed Tom follows a trail of blood to catch up with them both. None of these characters is a conventional “lead.” We never even see Moss or Ed Tom come face-to-face with Chigurh. He exists in the physical world, but his presence is strongest when it’s felt by these other two characters, even though they don’t share screen space with him.

December 14, 2012

Opening Shots: The American Friend

Jim Emerson

The opening shot of Wim Wenders’ moody color noir “The American Friend” (1977), based on Patricia Highsmith’s 1974 novel “Ripley’s Game,” isn’t anything fancy or complicated — no intricate tracking or crane movement — but, wow, does it announce the movie. First we hear the sirens and the traffic noise behind a black screen, over which the title is immediately emblazoned in electric red-orange block letters: “DER AMERIKANISCHE FREUND.”

Bam! We’re there, at street level on the lower West Side of Manhattan. We get a look at a few cars and a truck heading uptown, and the ghostly outlines of the World Trade Center towers that stand in the distant haze — modern New York looming over this less imposing block of old New York. (They also provide a Roman numeral II to mark this sequel to the Scanners Opening Shot Project, which is why I chose this shot for last week’s announcement of Part 2).

December 14, 2012

TIFF 08: Torontoids: Seen and overheard

Jim Emerson

Cell phone photo at right: MSN Movies editor Dave McCoy, New York Deli, Bay Street, Toronto, 9/10/2008. Seven years later and what have we done?

Torontoids #2:

“I’ve seen a lot of good shit and a lot of bad shit but not a lot of meh.”

* * *

Old man on a bench, speaking to a wire construction fence, or possibly a pigeon on the other side of it. Or maybe a Bluetooth headset: “But the best picture Judy Garland ever made was…” (Just then, a loud truck roared past, in the opposite direction from the one I was heading, and drowned out the title. I hesitated, almost went back to ask, but I was hustling to get to a screening. I’m kind of hoping it was “Meet Me in St. Louis.”)

December 14, 2012

A film critic packs it in

Jim Emerson

Frustrated with the constraints of watching films as a critic, the strange new world of publishing in HTML, and the diminishing returns of the movies themselves, critic Duncan Shepherd of the San Diego Reader, after 38 years, says “So Long”:

Old Hollywood, it would not be mere nostalgia to recall, always strove to be inclusive. Not with every movie, but with the aggregate. These days I find myself asking after a movie — a gestating new critical criterion now aborted before its public debut — whether, if I were not a critic, I’d have gone to it, and whether, having gone, I was glad I went. The declining percentage of affirmative answers translates into a declining percentage of hope. […]

Attractive alternatives are fewer and farther between. “Appaloosa,” a thickly disguised reworking of the Earp-Holliday tale, was a chewable bone thrown to us Western bitter-enders two years ago, but we would have to dig back five more years for another such bone, “Open Range.” A healthy movie industry ought to be hatching five of those every year, not one of those every five. It goes against my sense of the fitness of things. Could “Hickey and Boggs” or its equivalent come out today, a pair of marginal L.A. private eyes on a case that embodies E.M. Forster’s slogan of “only connect,” it would be by a mile the year’s peak pleasure. An inconceivability. The long and short of it is that what seems nowadays to fire up other people (3‑D, CGI, comic books, video games, Brangelina, the weekend box-office) seems unable to fire up me. That was always true to some extent, given the disparity between a casual interest and a vocational one. But the extent has yawningly ­widened.

December 14, 2012

Questions for the Academy

Jim Emerson

View image “Citizen Kane”: No matter what anybody says, “It’s Terrific!”

Edward Copeland had a bunch of questions about anomalies in Oscar history and technicalities in the (ever-changing) rules. So, he went straight to the source, the staff of the Academy’s Margaret Herrick Library, and sent them an e-mail with his queries. Now he’s got the answers, which you can read at Edward Copeland on Film.

A sample:

Question No. 4.: For years I heard the statistic that Orson Welles was the first person to be nominated as producer, director, actor and writer for a single film for “Citizen Kane” until Warren Beatty repeated the feat twice for “Heaven Can Wait” and “Reds.” Later, the Welles stat seemed to be revised under the argument that in 1941, the studio head would have won the Oscar if “Citizen Kane” had taken best picture. Should Welles be considered as having had four nominations for Kane or not?

Answer: From a strictly statistical standpoint, no. The rules were not the same then as now, so technically, as that statistic is stated, you can only apply it to films from the 1951 (24th) Awards on, when the nominees for Best Picture become the individually named producers rather than the production companies. The nominee for Outstanding Motion Picture for “Citizen Kane” was Orson Welles’ company Mercury. So if you want to consider that being in the “spirit” of the statistic, feel free. In which case, you might also want to give consideration to Charlie Chaplin and his Honorary Award for “The Circus,” given how the citation is worded. But again, from a strict statistical standpoint, neither of these two meet the Warren Beatty statistic of 4 competitive nominations for the same film in the stated categories.

December 14, 2012

Temple of Doom: Bang a gong, sing a song

Jim Emerson

View image

The beginning of the dissolve (recall, with nostalgia, when Paramount was A Gulf + Western Company?).

View image The new/old Paramount Pictures Presents.

(… or “You’re a Better Man Than I Am, Short Round”)

This is a contribution to Ali Arikan’s Indiana Jones Blog-a-Thon at Cerebral Mastication.

View image Lucasfilm gets gonged.

“Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” tells you how to watch it in the first shot. Well, actually before the first shot, since the Paramount logo dissolves (as it did in “Raiders of the Lost Ark”) from one mountain into another, so that it pokes into the movie for a few seconds. This time the twin peak is revealed to be embossed on a gong — which establishes the retro-1930s “Oriental”-exoticism theme of the adventure, and kicks off Kate Capshaw’s Cantonese “Anything Goes” musical number with a bang, beginning with the extended take that immediately follows.

For movie fans of all ages, this gong instantly evokes fond, resonant memories:

December 14, 2012

Wandering the hallways from Marienbad to the Overlook

Jim Emerson

View image It’s the third door on your…

Kathleen Murphy has written a stunning piece over at Testpattern called “The Haunted Palace.” (I’ve been waiting weeks for it to appear so I could send you there.) Although primarily about Alain Resnais’ “Last Year at Marienbad,” the article moves through those haunted corridors, into Stanley Kubrick’s Overlook Hotel, passing through doors (and walls) into the worlds of Max Ophuls, Luis Buñuel, Josef von Sternberg… As you wander through the maze of this “Lady from Shanghai” hall of mirrors you’ll catch glimpses of ghosts around every corner — not just the phantom images of particular movies, but insights into a spectral world Dave Kehr has described as “the lost continent of cinephilia.”

From Kathleen’s magnificent guided tour of the grounds:

Once upon a time, movie-loving folk actually, in the words of Susan Sontag, “arranged their emotional and intellectual lives around an art that was ‘poetic and mysterious and erotic and moral all at the same time.'” We thrived on films such as “Vertigo” (1958), “L’Avventura” (1960), “Jules and Jim” (1962), “My Life to Live” (1962) — works that, like [Ophuls’] “Letter From an Unknown Woman,” plunged into the very DNA of the cinematic imagination. We happily drowned, not in narrative alone — or even at all — but in the seductive images, spaces and faces conjured by the formidable magic of the medium….

December 14, 2012
subscribe icon

The best movie reviews, in your inbox