Last week's answer: Five Easy Pieces. Here's this week's quote:
“I have a little confession to make. I really am a horse doctor, but marry me and I’ll never look at another horse.”
Remember, e-Mail answers to this address no later 11:59 PM Eastern on Wednesday. Good luck!
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
"By the power vested in me..."
"I'm an asshole... with an Uzi!"
"My body is a roadmap of pain."
"Sheriff! You are violating my territorial bubble!"
Jeffrey Combs is so awesome as Dammers. That is all.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Criterion Watch: June 2008 edition
Aside from its ongoing commitment to awesomeness, I don’t really have any exciting news to report as regards my relationship with Angela. So I’m sorry to say this month’s Criterion Watch will be markedly less exciting than last month's. That said, plenty of goodness to go around.
Naturally, the big Criterion news for September is the release of three of Max Ophuls’ most celebrated films on snazzy new DVDs. Like it or not, the majority of movie lovers watch classic films primarily on DVD, which may explain why Ophuls doesn’t have the same rep as, say, Douglas Sirk or Nicholas Ray. So of course, this release is very, very good news:
While I’m a tad disappointed that Letter From an Unknown Woman will be part of this release, I expect it’ll end up in Criterion’s hands sooner or later. Besides, I haven’t yet seen Le Plaisir, so this will afford me the chance to do so.
Also, more Ozu! The final Ozu, to be precise. Box cover art to be posted when it's announced.
And let’s not forget about Eclipse, the scrappy lil’ brother of Criterion. Eclipse previously announced the upcoming release of a Larisa Shepitko box set:
But I’m even more excited about the release that follows that:
Can a box set that includes Take Care of Your Scarf, Tatjana and Drifting Clouds be far behind? I sure hope not.
Finally, here’s this month’s teaser from the Criterion newsletter:
That would be Martin Ritt’s masterful adaptation of the John le Carré novel, The Spy Who Came In From the Cold, right? After all, Criterion's doing Paramount now, at least since Days of Heaven. If this is the case, itwould be my first double-dip in ages, and I’m completely OK with that.
Naturally, the big Criterion news for September is the release of three of Max Ophuls’ most celebrated films on snazzy new DVDs. Like it or not, the majority of movie lovers watch classic films primarily on DVD, which may explain why Ophuls doesn’t have the same rep as, say, Douglas Sirk or Nicholas Ray. So of course, this release is very, very good news:
While I’m a tad disappointed that Letter From an Unknown Woman will be part of this release, I expect it’ll end up in Criterion’s hands sooner or later. Besides, I haven’t yet seen Le Plaisir, so this will afford me the chance to do so.
Also, more Ozu! The final Ozu, to be precise. Box cover art to be posted when it's announced.
And let’s not forget about Eclipse, the scrappy lil’ brother of Criterion. Eclipse previously announced the upcoming release of a Larisa Shepitko box set:
But I’m even more excited about the release that follows that:
Can a box set that includes Take Care of Your Scarf, Tatjana and Drifting Clouds be far behind? I sure hope not.
Finally, here’s this month’s teaser from the Criterion newsletter:
That would be Martin Ritt’s masterful adaptation of the John le Carré novel, The Spy Who Came In From the Cold, right? After all, Criterion's doing Paramount now, at least since Days of Heaven. If this is the case, itwould be my first double-dip in ages, and I’m completely OK with that.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Famous Last Words 3.3
Last week's quote was from Once Upon a Time in America. Here's this week's:
“Where we’re goin’ it’s gonna get colder than hell.”
“Nah, it’s OK. I’m fine. Fine, I’m fine.”
Remember, e-Mail answers to this address no later than 11:59 PM Eastern on Wednesday. Good luck!
Actual content to come later this week, time permitting.
“Where we’re goin’ it’s gonna get colder than hell.”
“Nah, it’s OK. I’m fine. Fine, I’m fine.”
Remember, e-Mail answers to this address no later than 11:59 PM Eastern on Wednesday. Good luck!
Actual content to come later this week, time permitting.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Famous Last Words 3.2
Last week's quote: Manhattan.
This week's quote: “I hope the investigation turns out to be nothing. It'd be a shame to see a lifetime of work go to waste.”
Remember, answers get sent here and are due by 11:59 Eastern on Wednesday. Good luck!
This week's quote: “I hope the investigation turns out to be nothing. It'd be a shame to see a lifetime of work go to waste.”
Remember, answers get sent here and are due by 11:59 Eastern on Wednesday. Good luck!
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Famous Last Words: The Return (Week 1)
For those of you who haven't been visiting The Screengrab lately, I've kicked off the next round of Famous Last Words over there. So if you'd like to play along, I'll go ahead and post the quotes here as well. Here's the first week's quote:
“Not everybody gets corrupted. You have to have a little faith in people.”
Remember, submit all guesses to famouslastwords@nerve.com no later than Wednesday at 11:59 PM. Good luck!
“Not everybody gets corrupted. You have to have a little faith in people.”
Remember, submit all guesses to famouslastwords@nerve.com no later than Wednesday at 11:59 PM. Good luck!
Sunday, May 25, 2008
A skill every cinephile should master
It happens to every movie lover. You'll be somewhere- a party, a family gathering, or what have you- and eventually a friend will tell remark that you're "really into movies." Sometimes the other person will nod his head in acknowledgement, but this doesn't happen often. More likely, you'll get one of two questions- either "what kind of movies do you like?" or "seen anything good lately?" Personally, I hate the first question- too damn vague for my tastes- and tend to fall back on my stock joke in that situation, "good ones!" Good thing that most people will ask the latter question.
But one thing not enough people will bear in mind when asked if they've seen anything good lately is that it's not simply an idle question. If someone is going to ask you this question, it's because they're looking for something good for themselves, and they're asking you in a form that sounds less self-serving than "can you recommend something good for me?" But of course, this is exactly what they're asking for, and this is your time to shine. One of the great pleasures for most movie lovers is turning others on to something great, so take this opportunity to use your knowledge for good. Some tips:
1. Know the person's tastes. This can be tricky if you've just met the person, so start out by mentioning recent blockbusters. Tell him you saw Iron Man, and compare it to other comic book movies you've enjoyed. Reference mostly obvious ones- Batman, Spider-Man, X-Men- and then throw in a Hellboy or something along those lines as a test. You'll generally be able to tell if a title is new to the other person by his expression. Then based on his reaction to the ones he hasn't seen, figure out which he seems most interested in and go from there.
2. When in doubt, pick something recent. Like it or not, most people are more comfortable with newer movies. If nothing else, they're easier to find at your local Blockbuster or in the vending machines that are starting to pop up all over the place. But if you know the person's tastes, don't simply fall back on the obvious stuff. Everyone has heard of No Country for Old Men and The Departed, so there's no reason to throw those out there. So pick something he might not otherwise have considered- something that doesn't really jump off the shelf at the video store the way the more hyped titles do. For a time, my favorite movie to recommend was The Prestige, because it wasn't a huge hit, but there's plenty of good stuff to satisfy the Saturday night renter- a good story, fine acting, lush production values, twists a-plenty, and so on. Best of all, it leaves people with plenty to talk about when it's over, and thus will provide a ready topic of conversation the next time you run into this person.
3. When it comes to older movies, choose wisely. One of the biggest differences between cinephiles and casual moviegoers is knowledge of directors. Oh sure, everyone knows Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg, but mention Douglas Sirk or F.W. Murnau and you'll most likely get a blank stare in return. So when you recommend a classic, do so with an eye to two factors- recognizable stars, and familiar genres. Most people don't have a wide base of knowledge when it comes to movies, but often they'll be enthusiasts of particular genres, and as such will have stars whose work they enjoy. Is the person into testosterone-packed "guy movies"? Go with something like Once Upon a Time in the West, which contains tough guy favorite Charles Bronson, the supremely evil Henry Fonda, and the not incidental charms of Claudia Cardinale. Have some standard answers for various genres- if someone asks you for something funny, The Lady Eve; if you're recommend something for a family, The Court Jester or even The Iron Giant. You get the idea.
4. Resist the urge to blow people's hair back with your knowledge. This can be difficult at times. You want to tell people about the new Roberto Rossellini box set. Hell, I once made the mistake of praising Hirokazu Kore-eda's Maborosi to my dad, who doesn't know Kore-eda from Corey Feldman. This, my friend, is how you lose people. Most people are resistant to subtitles, and have a low tolerance for artsy fare. When you're recommending movies, remember that the person asking you is doing so as a consumer. They want to be gently led to something they'll enjoy, not given the hard sell. As I said before, when recommending a movie, choose wisely. It means the difference between being a person's go-to guy for recommendations and being that guy with the weirdo tastes. Take it from me, being in the latter category isn't nearly as cool as it sounds.
Inspired by Esquire's recent list The 75 Skills Every Man Should Master, with a tip of the hat to Adam Ross and James Frazier.
But one thing not enough people will bear in mind when asked if they've seen anything good lately is that it's not simply an idle question. If someone is going to ask you this question, it's because they're looking for something good for themselves, and they're asking you in a form that sounds less self-serving than "can you recommend something good for me?" But of course, this is exactly what they're asking for, and this is your time to shine. One of the great pleasures for most movie lovers is turning others on to something great, so take this opportunity to use your knowledge for good. Some tips:
1. Know the person's tastes. This can be tricky if you've just met the person, so start out by mentioning recent blockbusters. Tell him you saw Iron Man, and compare it to other comic book movies you've enjoyed. Reference mostly obvious ones- Batman, Spider-Man, X-Men- and then throw in a Hellboy or something along those lines as a test. You'll generally be able to tell if a title is new to the other person by his expression. Then based on his reaction to the ones he hasn't seen, figure out which he seems most interested in and go from there.
2. When in doubt, pick something recent. Like it or not, most people are more comfortable with newer movies. If nothing else, they're easier to find at your local Blockbuster or in the vending machines that are starting to pop up all over the place. But if you know the person's tastes, don't simply fall back on the obvious stuff. Everyone has heard of No Country for Old Men and The Departed, so there's no reason to throw those out there. So pick something he might not otherwise have considered- something that doesn't really jump off the shelf at the video store the way the more hyped titles do. For a time, my favorite movie to recommend was The Prestige, because it wasn't a huge hit, but there's plenty of good stuff to satisfy the Saturday night renter- a good story, fine acting, lush production values, twists a-plenty, and so on. Best of all, it leaves people with plenty to talk about when it's over, and thus will provide a ready topic of conversation the next time you run into this person.
3. When it comes to older movies, choose wisely. One of the biggest differences between cinephiles and casual moviegoers is knowledge of directors. Oh sure, everyone knows Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg, but mention Douglas Sirk or F.W. Murnau and you'll most likely get a blank stare in return. So when you recommend a classic, do so with an eye to two factors- recognizable stars, and familiar genres. Most people don't have a wide base of knowledge when it comes to movies, but often they'll be enthusiasts of particular genres, and as such will have stars whose work they enjoy. Is the person into testosterone-packed "guy movies"? Go with something like Once Upon a Time in the West, which contains tough guy favorite Charles Bronson, the supremely evil Henry Fonda, and the not incidental charms of Claudia Cardinale. Have some standard answers for various genres- if someone asks you for something funny, The Lady Eve; if you're recommend something for a family, The Court Jester or even The Iron Giant. You get the idea.
4. Resist the urge to blow people's hair back with your knowledge. This can be difficult at times. You want to tell people about the new Roberto Rossellini box set. Hell, I once made the mistake of praising Hirokazu Kore-eda's Maborosi to my dad, who doesn't know Kore-eda from Corey Feldman. This, my friend, is how you lose people. Most people are resistant to subtitles, and have a low tolerance for artsy fare. When you're recommending movies, remember that the person asking you is doing so as a consumer. They want to be gently led to something they'll enjoy, not given the hard sell. As I said before, when recommending a movie, choose wisely. It means the difference between being a person's go-to guy for recommendations and being that guy with the weirdo tastes. Take it from me, being in the latter category isn't nearly as cool as it sounds.
Inspired by Esquire's recent list The 75 Skills Every Man Should Master, with a tip of the hat to Adam Ross and James Frazier.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Good news for everyone who's sick of the James Taylor video
Morning, folks! Did you miss me? I’m sure you’ve all wondered what I’ve been up to lately that was more important than posting here. Truth is, I haven’t been myself lately. I couldn’t put my finger on what was wrong until yesterday, when I remembered that I hadn’t bought a DVD in over a month. Obviously, that really isn’t like me, so I promptly remedied the situation by running out and purchasing this:
I know- it’s not the kind of thing I usually go for. But there was actually a reason for this purchase. I’m not a huge fan of it myself, but it was a gift for my girlfriend and her son.
Yup. As Albert Brooks said in Broadcast News, “How do you like that? I buried the lead.”
Yes, recently I’ve found myself in a wonderful relationship with a lovely woman named Angela. It’s been too damn long since I’ve been this happy, either with myself or someone else. So I hope you’ll forgive me for being delinquent in my duties on this blog. Between Angela and work and Screengrab and Angela’s son and keeping up with new movies and Angela, something’s got to give. But I’m great, in case you’ve been worried. Pretty damn great, actually.
Moving on to other DVD news that you probably already knew about, here are the newly-announced Criterions for August:
I know- it’s not the kind of thing I usually go for. But there was actually a reason for this purchase. I’m not a huge fan of it myself, but it was a gift for my girlfriend and her son.
Yup. As Albert Brooks said in Broadcast News, “How do you like that? I buried the lead.”
Yes, recently I’ve found myself in a wonderful relationship with a lovely woman named Angela. It’s been too damn long since I’ve been this happy, either with myself or someone else. So I hope you’ll forgive me for being delinquent in my duties on this blog. Between Angela and work and Screengrab and Angela’s son and keeping up with new movies and Angela, something’s got to give. But I’m great, in case you’ve been worried. Pretty damn great, actually.
Moving on to other DVD news that you probably already knew about, here are the newly-announced Criterions for August:
First off is a new pressing of Salo, for the benefit of those of us who missed the three-hour window for it the first time around and couldn’t make it to the local indie video store before some punk decided to steal their copy. Not that I’m bitter or anything.
Continuing Criterion’s commitment to the Archers, here’s probably the best-known Powell/Pressburger film I haven’t yet seen. I love these guys (though certainly not as much as Donna) so I’m stoked to get a chance to finally see this one.
This one’s new to me, but I’m sure I’ll rent it. Hell, since it’s Criterion I’ll give it a spin on general principle.
This may be the most intriguing of all the August releases. I wasn’t a big fan of the movie, but it should be worth the price simply for the dazzling array of announced narration tracks- Isabella Rossellini, Crispin Glover, Eli Wallach, Laurie Anderson, and more.
Finally, the best Criterion-related news I’ve gotten lately is this month’s animated riddle. A month after I wished Max Ophüls would finally get some Criterion love, I found this in my e-Mail:
Ask and ye shall receive in my opinion. Now maybe they can get around to releasing some high-quality versions of Jacques Rivette films. Hint, hint.
That’s all there is for now. I’ll do my best to keep this regularly updated in the future, but I make no promises. Please try to understand.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
YouTubed Nostalgia Trip: James Taylor on Sesame Street
A few days ago on Twitter, longtime SLH bud Kent Beeson linked to a video of James Taylor performing on Sesame Street. He said he didn't remember it, but I sure did. It was actually one of my favorite episodes when I was little, not least because I was already familiar with Taylor because my mom listened to him. Now with the magic of YouTube I was able to see parts of the episode for the first time in a quarter of a century. Here's JT and friends performing "Jelly Man Kelly."
Two things stick out. First off, the tuba is a nice touch- gives it a whimsical and benign feel that a more conventional bassline might not have, and makes the music much more listenable whenever the kids are singing. But secondly, and more importantly, Taylor has a darn good rapport with the kids. He actually interacts with them, directing them to sing when the song reaches its refrain, then gently shushing them when it's time for the verses. It's easy to imagine the career he might have had as a children's entertainer had the recording-artist thing not worked out, and you definitely can't say that of all the guest stars on Sesame Street.
Two things stick out. First off, the tuba is a nice touch- gives it a whimsical and benign feel that a more conventional bassline might not have, and makes the music much more listenable whenever the kids are singing. But secondly, and more importantly, Taylor has a darn good rapport with the kids. He actually interacts with them, directing them to sing when the song reaches its refrain, then gently shushing them when it's time for the verses. It's easy to imagine the career he might have had as a children's entertainer had the recording-artist thing not worked out, and you definitely can't say that of all the guest stars on Sesame Street.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
"Yes, of course they're serious."
Over the past few days, I've observed with some amusement the online reaction to Steven Soderbergh's recently-announced project The Girlfriend Experience. Much of the reaction I've noticed has centered around the proposed casting of an as-yet-unnamed adult film star in the principal role. But some of the interesting talk has focused on the idea of surrogate girlfriends. According to Wikipedia, the "girlfriend experience" is a service provided by some prostitutes which entails treating the client as though she's his girlfriend, rather than a mercenary screw.
However, if someone is looking for the zest of a relationship but is too guilt-ridden/paranoid/cheap to hire an accommodating escort, there are other options. Of these, the one that provides the most oddness for your fake-dating dollar is a site I stumbled upon when reading the comments on Glenn Kenny's blog, called Imaginary Girlfriend. Go ahead, take a look, and try not to chuckle.
My first reaction to this discovery was disbelief. They couldn't be serious, could they? This whole thing smelled vaguely like an abandoned Jared Hess movie, or one of those harebrained ideas I would have thought up in my college days while intoxicated, like orange-juice-flavored toothpaste, or video rental by mail. Who would ever believe you could reliably and cheaply send movies through the US Mail and expect them to be returned? That's just crazy talk.
But no, Imaginary Girlfriend is for real. Heck, it even says so on the FAQ page. But rather than a downmarket version of GFE or even your very own Bianca, this is something much more mundane. Basically, you pay for girls to leave you romantic phone messages and send you love letters, e-Mail, photos and gifts so you can pretend to be in a long-distance relationship.
Yes, really.
As someone who has been in more than one long-distance relationship (a sad reality of many people's college years- or mine, anyway), I can attest to the fact that they really aren't much fun. They're all idealization and no proximity, which is okay for a short period of time but quickly grows interminable. The trouble is that sooner or later idealization is a pale substitute for real romance. Sure, people can profess their feelings to each other over the telephone or via e-Mail, but you lose out on the many wonderful small things you get from an up-close-and-personal relationship. It's more than just sex- it's watching her dozing on the couch while you're watching TV together or trying out a new recipe some evening just for the hell of it. No letter or phone message, no matter how poetic or candid, can compare to such things.
But then, is Imaginary Girlfriend really meant to give its customers the fun of a real long-distance relationship? Let's look at the FAQ page, shall we? Under the quesiton, "why would I want an Imaginary Girlfriend?", it states:
"There are many reasons. Some guys are tired of being told by friends and family to get a girlfriend."
So basically, we're talking about long-distance hetero beard duty. Moving on...
"Maybe you would like to make someone else jealous when they see how enamored your new girlfriend is by you."
Yes, until he turns to his own girlfriend, standing right the hell next to him, and makes googly eyes at her. Hard to compete with that.
"Perhaps you are wondering what it's like to have a long distance girlfriend?"
See above. It's hard enough for real, so why invite it?
"These are all good reasons, and it really depends on your situation. Having an Imaginary Girlfriend can be a lot of fun. What guy (or girl) wouldn't enjoy being showered with personal love letters and affection of an Imaginary Girlfriend? Having an Imaginary Girlfriend can be a great confidence booster!"
It's this last part that blows my mind. Sure, you get to walk and talk like you're in a relationship, but it's not real and you know it. You can re-read those letters all you want, but that won't make the sentiments in them any more real. And you don't even get any intimacy out of the deal- a few measly missives, maybe some perfumed panties, but no actual contact with the woman in question. What a confidence booster! Especially when one of your more longstanding friends actually thinks a little bit about your "relationship" and decides that something isn't quite right. Like- oh I don't know- the fact that you never really seem to have met the woman who allegedly loves you so much.
My single status has been well-documented on this blog, but this sounds desperate even to me. How arrested does your development really have to be for Imaginary Girlfriend to be acceptable by your standards? Seems to me the only thing a customer can get out of this is the ability to front like he has a girlfriend. And to me, that's one of the least of the pleasures one can derive from a relationship. Maybe it's cool when you're in middle school to brag about your relationships, but not so much when you're an adult. It's just not how it's done nowadays. And that some men still think it is- enough to sign on with Imaginary Girlfriend- just shows how out of touch they really are.
On the Imaginary Girlfriend site, there's a warning: "Anyone who has difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy should NOT use this service." Funny, because that's just about the only sort of person I can imagine getting any enjoyment out of it.
However, if someone is looking for the zest of a relationship but is too guilt-ridden/paranoid/cheap to hire an accommodating escort, there are other options. Of these, the one that provides the most oddness for your fake-dating dollar is a site I stumbled upon when reading the comments on Glenn Kenny's blog, called Imaginary Girlfriend. Go ahead, take a look, and try not to chuckle.
My first reaction to this discovery was disbelief. They couldn't be serious, could they? This whole thing smelled vaguely like an abandoned Jared Hess movie, or one of those harebrained ideas I would have thought up in my college days while intoxicated, like orange-juice-flavored toothpaste, or video rental by mail. Who would ever believe you could reliably and cheaply send movies through the US Mail and expect them to be returned? That's just crazy talk.
But no, Imaginary Girlfriend is for real. Heck, it even says so on the FAQ page. But rather than a downmarket version of GFE or even your very own Bianca, this is something much more mundane. Basically, you pay for girls to leave you romantic phone messages and send you love letters, e-Mail, photos and gifts so you can pretend to be in a long-distance relationship.
Yes, really.
As someone who has been in more than one long-distance relationship (a sad reality of many people's college years- or mine, anyway), I can attest to the fact that they really aren't much fun. They're all idealization and no proximity, which is okay for a short period of time but quickly grows interminable. The trouble is that sooner or later idealization is a pale substitute for real romance. Sure, people can profess their feelings to each other over the telephone or via e-Mail, but you lose out on the many wonderful small things you get from an up-close-and-personal relationship. It's more than just sex- it's watching her dozing on the couch while you're watching TV together or trying out a new recipe some evening just for the hell of it. No letter or phone message, no matter how poetic or candid, can compare to such things.
But then, is Imaginary Girlfriend really meant to give its customers the fun of a real long-distance relationship? Let's look at the FAQ page, shall we? Under the quesiton, "why would I want an Imaginary Girlfriend?", it states:
"There are many reasons. Some guys are tired of being told by friends and family to get a girlfriend."
So basically, we're talking about long-distance hetero beard duty. Moving on...
"Maybe you would like to make someone else jealous when they see how enamored your new girlfriend is by you."
Yes, until he turns to his own girlfriend, standing right the hell next to him, and makes googly eyes at her. Hard to compete with that.
"Perhaps you are wondering what it's like to have a long distance girlfriend?"
See above. It's hard enough for real, so why invite it?
"These are all good reasons, and it really depends on your situation. Having an Imaginary Girlfriend can be a lot of fun. What guy (or girl) wouldn't enjoy being showered with personal love letters and affection of an Imaginary Girlfriend? Having an Imaginary Girlfriend can be a great confidence booster!"
It's this last part that blows my mind. Sure, you get to walk and talk like you're in a relationship, but it's not real and you know it. You can re-read those letters all you want, but that won't make the sentiments in them any more real. And you don't even get any intimacy out of the deal- a few measly missives, maybe some perfumed panties, but no actual contact with the woman in question. What a confidence booster! Especially when one of your more longstanding friends actually thinks a little bit about your "relationship" and decides that something isn't quite right. Like- oh I don't know- the fact that you never really seem to have met the woman who allegedly loves you so much.
My single status has been well-documented on this blog, but this sounds desperate even to me. How arrested does your development really have to be for Imaginary Girlfriend to be acceptable by your standards? Seems to me the only thing a customer can get out of this is the ability to front like he has a girlfriend. And to me, that's one of the least of the pleasures one can derive from a relationship. Maybe it's cool when you're in middle school to brag about your relationships, but not so much when you're an adult. It's just not how it's done nowadays. And that some men still think it is- enough to sign on with Imaginary Girlfriend- just shows how out of touch they really are.
On the Imaginary Girlfriend site, there's a warning: "Anyone who has difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy should NOT use this service." Funny, because that's just about the only sort of person I can imagine getting any enjoyment out of it.
Note on new reviews
Hey guys. Sorry for the lack of content lately, but I've been pretty occupied with my Screengrab writing, which leaves me little time or energy to update this too often. In addition, I've begun writing short reviews for the newsletter at my day job. It's going to be interesting, since I'll have to pitch them to a somewhat less film-nerdy crowd. For the time being, I'll link to amended versions of these reviews in the sidebar. I say "amended versions" because I hope to add some more depth and thematic stuff for you guys (you're welcome). Generally, the rule of thumb will be that the first paragraph will be the work piece, and everything else will be just for you. Although I'm sure you'll be able to tell the difference.
Anyway, enjoy.
Anyway, enjoy.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Criterion Watch: The Return
Why the hell not, right? Who needs reasons when you've got Criterion? Plenty of good stuff on the way, including the DVDs that were just announced for July.
I'd have to say that Dreyer's Vampyr is the highlight for the new bunch. I realize there's already a DVD floating around, but the quality is kind of crappy and the extras are practically nonexistent. So now thanks to Criterion I'll have a worthy DVD of this to place alongside the other Dreyer classics in my collection.
I love the Tati I've seen, but for some reason I have yet to see his late-period film Trafic. This release means I have no excuse anymore.
Likewise, I haven't seen Jutra's Mon Oncle Antoine. But if it's good enough for Criterion, it's good enough for me.
And I would be remiss to overlook the new pressing of Kurosawa's masterful thriller High and Low. If nothing else, the new cover art...
... pretty much kicks the crap out of the original.
And speaking of cover art, Criterion's graphic designers are pretty much miracle workers. Check out what they've cooked up for the June's release of Paul Schrader's sublime Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters...
... and its companion piece, Mishima's own Patriotism.
Just... wow. Eye-popping stuff, especially the Schrader.
Finally, any thoughts on what the latest Criterion Newsletter hint might be?
They've already boxed Rohmer's Six Moral Tales, so it won't be that. I was stumped for a while, but an IMDb search revealed that Roberto Rossellini has made films about all three of the thinkers the hippo mentions, as well as- wait for it- Augustine of Hippo. So I'm thinking there will be a box set of Rossellini's historical films on the way.
Frankly, this is good news, and not simply for the obvious reasons. I've seen three Rossellini films to date- Open City, Voyage to Italy, and The Flowers of St. Francis. But while I respect his work, I have yet to find a movie of his that I can wholeheartedly embrace. It's an odd thing- the more I look the more acclaim I see for him, but I feel like I'm sort of on the outside looking in in this respect. Perhaps these later films will allow me to finally get with the program.
So what other acclaimed auteurs are in the pipeline for Criterion? I still think Max Ophüls would be an awesome fit, and most of his work is woefully unavailable on Region 1 DVD. A Criterion Letter From An Unknown Woman would be something I could definitely get behind.
I'd have to say that Dreyer's Vampyr is the highlight for the new bunch. I realize there's already a DVD floating around, but the quality is kind of crappy and the extras are practically nonexistent. So now thanks to Criterion I'll have a worthy DVD of this to place alongside the other Dreyer classics in my collection.
I love the Tati I've seen, but for some reason I have yet to see his late-period film Trafic. This release means I have no excuse anymore.
Likewise, I haven't seen Jutra's Mon Oncle Antoine. But if it's good enough for Criterion, it's good enough for me.
And I would be remiss to overlook the new pressing of Kurosawa's masterful thriller High and Low. If nothing else, the new cover art...
... pretty much kicks the crap out of the original.
And speaking of cover art, Criterion's graphic designers are pretty much miracle workers. Check out what they've cooked up for the June's release of Paul Schrader's sublime Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters...... and its companion piece, Mishima's own Patriotism.
Just... wow. Eye-popping stuff, especially the Schrader.
Finally, any thoughts on what the latest Criterion Newsletter hint might be?
They've already boxed Rohmer's Six Moral Tales, so it won't be that. I was stumped for a while, but an IMDb search revealed that Roberto Rossellini has made films about all three of the thinkers the hippo mentions, as well as- wait for it- Augustine of Hippo. So I'm thinking there will be a box set of Rossellini's historical films on the way.
Frankly, this is good news, and not simply for the obvious reasons. I've seen three Rossellini films to date- Open City, Voyage to Italy, and The Flowers of St. Francis. But while I respect his work, I have yet to find a movie of his that I can wholeheartedly embrace. It's an odd thing- the more I look the more acclaim I see for him, but I feel like I'm sort of on the outside looking in in this respect. Perhaps these later films will allow me to finally get with the program.
So what other acclaimed auteurs are in the pipeline for Criterion? I still think Max Ophüls would be an awesome fit, and most of his work is woefully unavailable on Region 1 DVD. A Criterion Letter From An Unknown Woman would be something I could definitely get behind.
Friday, April 18, 2008
"Now that he knows who I really am, he respects me."
Note: As promised oh so long ago, here's my review of Jérome Boivin's BAXTER. I've also posted this over at The Screengrab, but the person who requested the review- the one and only Victor- is unable to access that site, so I'm posting it here for his benefit. Also, here are the links to the other requested reviews:
Jason Alley- Les Revenants (2004, Robin Campillo)
Steven Carlson- Les Anges du Péché (1943, Robert Bresson)
From the time we’re young, we’re told that dogs are “man’s best friend.” Indeed, the popular image of dogs is as friendly, playful creatures who love us unconditionally. It gives us comfort to believe this, but things are more complicated than this simplistic image would suggest. Far from being blindly loyal companions, dogs tend to react to their surroundings, especially the sounds, smells and behaviors of those nearby. How far of a stretch is it to imagine dogs actually thinking?
The plot of Baxter finds its canine protagonist cycling through a trio of different owners, each of whom treats him differently. Baxter’s first owner is the elderly widow Madeleine, who is frightened of him and keeps him around primarily to have another living creature in the house. After her death, he’s adopted by a young couple who shower him with love and affection until they have a baby of their own. Finally, Baxter ends up with Charles, a teenaged sadist who disciplines him. One of the central ideas of Baxter is the way he responds to each owner’s treatment. As a dog, he is never explicitly told his purpose in life, so he has to figure it out as he goes. This is fine by him- as he says in voiceover, “I thought I had a lot to learn from humans.”
One of the reasons why Baxter works is the casting of its lead “actor.” Most dogs in cinema fall into three distinct categories: cute, noble, or malevolent. Baxter doesn’t really fit into any of these classifications. With his small stature, beady eyes, and pointy ears, Baxter is shifty-looking, but not especially scary. In addition, he doesn’t make a great deal of noise unless he’s provoked. There’s something thoughtful about Baxter, which makes him ideal for a film whose tagline is “beware the dog who thinks.”
In the course of the film, we hear Baxter’s thoughts in detail, in voiceover. Interestingly, they sound like the kinds of thoughts an actual dog might have. Many of them focus on smells, especially as they relate to the people around him. It’s in Baxter’s nature to react to smells, whether it’s the fear of Madeleine (“I’m uneasy when people are scared,” he says) or the love bestowed on him by the young woman. Throughout the film, the sense of smell comes to symbolize deep-seated instincts, an idea that’s made most explicit when he meets a female spaniel in heat whose smell he can’t resist, try as he might. To his shame, Baxter discovers that smell brings out “unnatural thoughts”- which of course are the most natural thoughts in the world.
By contrast, Baxter also believes he has a higher purpose for himself, even if he can’t figure out what it is. The old woman doesn’t help him in this regard- she mostly keeps him cooped up in her home as her own life falls into disarray. He flowers under the attention of the young couple- love brings out the goodness in him- but this love turns to jealousy when they have a baby. It’s not until he meets the boy that he’s truly in his element- Charles is a harsh master, but Baxter finds comfort in servitude, and respite from his “unnatural thoughts.” He calls his relationship with Charles “the greatest pleasure I ever had. He commands, I obey.”
One of the most interesting touches of Baxter is the way Boivin shows us the lives of his characters independent of Baxter. Much of the film is seen through Baxter’s small black eyes, but occasionally we are given insights into his owners that he couldn’t possibly know. Early in the film, Madeleine tells a friend, “growing old is a matter of dignity,” a statement that takes on irony after she becomes a shut-in and refuses to see anyone. By contrasting the lives the characters lead with Baxter’s impressions of them, we see the difference between his point of view and the traditional human perspective.
Consider Baxter’s behavior after the young woman gets pregnant. The first change he senses is her smell- “now it’s like smelling two people.” He refers to her pregnancy as “sickness,” and remarks at how her husband treats her differently now, no longer making love to her in the evening. After the baby is born, he can’t understand their love for “the creature”, stating “I’ve never seen anything so weak and mindless.” Only later does he experience this for himself, after the spaniel gives birth to puppies who smell like him.
It’s in the final third of film, in which Baxter meets Charles, “a human who’s just like me,” that Baxter takes on a new level of fascination. Once Baxter has discovered his function- to obey- there is conflict between his instincts and what he perceives as his higher purpose. After his “shameful” experience with the spaniel, Baxter finds he has to regain the boy’s respect through a show of strength, which he accomplishes by killing another dog. Yet Baxter will not let himself kill mindlessly. “I killed when the situation was unbearable of when I felt threatened,” he says, but the boy doesn’t understand. At the film’s climax, Baxter finds himself in a spot that places
his function at war with his “unnatural thoughts,” and unfortunately for him, he decides to serve that higher calling. It’s then that he learns his final lesson, “never be obedient.”
The recent Lionsgate DVD release of Baxter positions the film as a conventional killer-dog thriller. However, Cujo this isn’t. There’s something philosophical about the film that makes deeply troubling in a way most films of this sort don’t even try to be. Boivin’s view of human nature isn’t an especially hopeful one- even the film’s most loving characters are seen more as exceptions than the norm. In light of the suffering we see, Baxter’s point of view becomes perfectly understandable. If nothing else, it gives me pause to wonder what The Girls think of me.
Jason Alley- Les Revenants (2004, Robin Campillo)
Steven Carlson- Les Anges du Péché (1943, Robert Bresson)
From the time we’re young, we’re told that dogs are “man’s best friend.” Indeed, the popular image of dogs is as friendly, playful creatures who love us unconditionally. It gives us comfort to believe this, but things are more complicated than this simplistic image would suggest. Far from being blindly loyal companions, dogs tend to react to their surroundings, especially the sounds, smells and behaviors of those nearby. How far of a stretch is it to imagine dogs actually thinking?
The plot of Baxter finds its canine protagonist cycling through a trio of different owners, each of whom treats him differently. Baxter’s first owner is the elderly widow Madeleine, who is frightened of him and keeps him around primarily to have another living creature in the house. After her death, he’s adopted by a young couple who shower him with love and affection until they have a baby of their own. Finally, Baxter ends up with Charles, a teenaged sadist who disciplines him. One of the central ideas of Baxter is the way he responds to each owner’s treatment. As a dog, he is never explicitly told his purpose in life, so he has to figure it out as he goes. This is fine by him- as he says in voiceover, “I thought I had a lot to learn from humans.”
One of the reasons why Baxter works is the casting of its lead “actor.” Most dogs in cinema fall into three distinct categories: cute, noble, or malevolent. Baxter doesn’t really fit into any of these classifications. With his small stature, beady eyes, and pointy ears, Baxter is shifty-looking, but not especially scary. In addition, he doesn’t make a great deal of noise unless he’s provoked. There’s something thoughtful about Baxter, which makes him ideal for a film whose tagline is “beware the dog who thinks.”
In the course of the film, we hear Baxter’s thoughts in detail, in voiceover. Interestingly, they sound like the kinds of thoughts an actual dog might have. Many of them focus on smells, especially as they relate to the people around him. It’s in Baxter’s nature to react to smells, whether it’s the fear of Madeleine (“I’m uneasy when people are scared,” he says) or the love bestowed on him by the young woman. Throughout the film, the sense of smell comes to symbolize deep-seated instincts, an idea that’s made most explicit when he meets a female spaniel in heat whose smell he can’t resist, try as he might. To his shame, Baxter discovers that smell brings out “unnatural thoughts”- which of course are the most natural thoughts in the world.
By contrast, Baxter also believes he has a higher purpose for himself, even if he can’t figure out what it is. The old woman doesn’t help him in this regard- she mostly keeps him cooped up in her home as her own life falls into disarray. He flowers under the attention of the young couple- love brings out the goodness in him- but this love turns to jealousy when they have a baby. It’s not until he meets the boy that he’s truly in his element- Charles is a harsh master, but Baxter finds comfort in servitude, and respite from his “unnatural thoughts.” He calls his relationship with Charles “the greatest pleasure I ever had. He commands, I obey.”
One of the most interesting touches of Baxter is the way Boivin shows us the lives of his characters independent of Baxter. Much of the film is seen through Baxter’s small black eyes, but occasionally we are given insights into his owners that he couldn’t possibly know. Early in the film, Madeleine tells a friend, “growing old is a matter of dignity,” a statement that takes on irony after she becomes a shut-in and refuses to see anyone. By contrasting the lives the characters lead with Baxter’s impressions of them, we see the difference between his point of view and the traditional human perspective.
Consider Baxter’s behavior after the young woman gets pregnant. The first change he senses is her smell- “now it’s like smelling two people.” He refers to her pregnancy as “sickness,” and remarks at how her husband treats her differently now, no longer making love to her in the evening. After the baby is born, he can’t understand their love for “the creature”, stating “I’ve never seen anything so weak and mindless.” Only later does he experience this for himself, after the spaniel gives birth to puppies who smell like him.
It’s in the final third of film, in which Baxter meets Charles, “a human who’s just like me,” that Baxter takes on a new level of fascination. Once Baxter has discovered his function- to obey- there is conflict between his instincts and what he perceives as his higher purpose. After his “shameful” experience with the spaniel, Baxter finds he has to regain the boy’s respect through a show of strength, which he accomplishes by killing another dog. Yet Baxter will not let himself kill mindlessly. “I killed when the situation was unbearable of when I felt threatened,” he says, but the boy doesn’t understand. At the film’s climax, Baxter finds himself in a spot that places
his function at war with his “unnatural thoughts,” and unfortunately for him, he decides to serve that higher calling. It’s then that he learns his final lesson, “never be obedient.”The recent Lionsgate DVD release of Baxter positions the film as a conventional killer-dog thriller. However, Cujo this isn’t. There’s something philosophical about the film that makes deeply troubling in a way most films of this sort don’t even try to be. Boivin’s view of human nature isn’t an especially hopeful one- even the film’s most loving characters are seen more as exceptions than the norm. In light of the suffering we see, Baxter’s point of view becomes perfectly understandable. If nothing else, it gives me pause to wonder what The Girls think of me.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
The Movies of My Life #4
I don’t know how many of you know this, but before I embarked on my journey through cinema, my great love was music. In my younger days, I excelled in many subjects at school, but none brought me the same pleasure as music. As an awkward, skinny kid who couldn’t play sports worth a damn, music gave me something I could both enjoy and do well. I took as many opportunities as possible, playing in both the concert band and jazz band at school, as well as singing in my church choir before joining the chorale at school once I had another period free. But the source of my love for music was the dozen years I took of piano lessons, between the ages of five and seventeen years.
My mother, happy as a clam that she’d instilled some culture in her older son, did everything she could to encourage me. Not being a musician herself, there wasn’t much concrete instruction she could give me, but she fostered a good environment for me in other ways. She would take me to local performances and concerts whenever possible, and she often played classical music at home. Sometimes, I’d glimpse her sitting in the next room, listening quietly while I practiced. And for years, she would buy me a small bust of a composer for my birthday, one whose base contained a music box.
At the time, I knew little about composers that I couldn’t have learned from the music boxes. To me, they were just famous dead guys who wrote music. This all changed for me in fourth or fifth grade when she first showed me Milos Forman’s Amadeus. To see the life of Mozart come alive onscreen was an eye-opening experience for me. All that music I knew, and the man who wrote it, all in one movie! If Back to the Future was my favorite movie growing up, Amadeus ran a close second.
At the time, given my hunger for music, I’m sure I would have enjoyed a biography of just about any composer. But for me, Amadeus was the right movie at the right time for more reasons than that. Most of my impressions of the great composers- and the great men in general- were the ossified images from the history books. In my mind, they were noble men with strong profiles, whose lives were so full accomplishing great deeds that there was no time left to do what normal people did. Amadeus was different. In the film’s early scenes- the ones that made the biggest impression on me- he was the genius as a spoiled, goofy, flatulent brat who mostly got away with his behavior because he was so unmistakably brilliant.
Needless to say, I wanted to be Mozart, even if by that time I was already behind schedule. And I honestly thought I could be. After all, that’s what they always told us- you can be whatever or whoever you want to be, as long as you try. And try I did, practicing as much as possible and learning all I could, getting good enough that I was the final performer in my elementary school’s annual talent show for three years straight, from fourth through sixth grade. Yes sir, I was on my way.
Of course, I wasn’t. As my mother sometimes said whenever my head got too big, I was a big fish in a little pond. For all but a select few, the point eventually comes where our talent has taken us as far as it will go. After a while, my best ceased to be good enough, and it was around that time that my attention turned to other interests like playing in the band. Interests that were somewhat more social- and which, not incidentally didn’t necessarily require upwards of thirty minutes of individual practice every day.
In the ensuing years, I’ve stopped performing music altogether. Instrumental music came first once high school was over, and the vocal once I graduated from college. Yet my love for music itself remains. Having spent many years learning music for myself, I now content myself with appreciating other people’s music. I’m better equipped to admire truly great composers, and to my mind, Mozart may have been the greatest of all. His greatest music is full of awe-inspiring intricacy and technical proficiency, yet is blessed with melodies so simply, transcendently beautiful that even a child can hear their greatness. More than two centuries after his death, his work hasn’t aged a day.
Yet as the years pass, I find myself drawn more and more to the character of Salieri than to my former role model Mozart. When we’re young we’re told we can do anything, but life soon teaches almost everyone otherwise. This can be a painful revelation, especially for those who honestly believe they’re destined for greatness. To be good, but just not quite good enough, is difficult for people to accept. Take it from someone who struggled with the idea for years.
Unlike Salieri, I haven’t risen to a high level of achievement in my field of choice. But in nearly all my endeavors in recent years, I’ve struggled to maintain a foothold while seeing others who seem far less deserving pass me by. The great irony of Salieri’s career as a musician is that he followed the rules and lived a clean, focused life in order to serve his art, only to discover that history rewards brilliance rather than diligence. I can relate to this as well- most people are forced to obey the rules, but the ones who truly soar are those who don’t need the rules.
There's a joke to the effect of, “if everyone’s kid is so brilliant, why are there so many mediocre adults?” Of course, it’s easy to be talented when you’re a child- after all, it’s not like you have much else to do. But one can’t live one’s adult life in a vacuum. It’s a messy, chaotic world, one that funnels even the most intelligent among us into relatively conventional lifestyles. Many are called to greatness, but few, it seems are chosen. When we’re young, we feel like we own the world, but although we grow, the world seems to grow even more, and part of being an adult is accepting how small- yet important- our place is in it. In the great machine, I’m just a cog, and there’s no sin in that. As Salieri says at the end of Amadeus, “mediocrities everywhere, I absolve you all!” Every time I revisit the film, I find a little more comfort in that.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Spotlight: My 10 favorite Mr Show sketches
A propos of absolutely nothing, here are ten of my favorite sketches from the greatest sketch comedy show of the past twenty years, complete with video. I've listed the sketches in chronological order:
Season 2, Episode 1: "Thrilling Miracles"
In its first season, Mr. Show was clearly still finding its way. There were some choice bits, but almost no out-and-out classics. But in the second season, the show came out swinging. The premiere's highlight was the extended "Thrilling Miracles" sketch, which begins as an innocuous infomercial about the new "Super-Pan" and gets increasingly more bizarre as it goes on- "the pan kisses you! Kiss the pan!"
Season 2, Episode 4: "Van Hammersly, Champion Billiard Player"
Clueless celebrities provided endless comedic fodder for the Mr. Show gang. Here, Bob Odenkirk plays a cheeseball billiards champ hawking a line of educational videos and toss off one of my all-time favorite Mr. Show lines: "That's when Lincoln said, 'don't diss my homies!'"
Season 3, Episode 2: "Cock Ring Warehouse"
I believe it was Molière who stated that the phrase "cock ring" is never not funny. In perhaps the best commercial spoof in Mr. Show's entire run, this sketch squeezes more laughs out of a minute than most current episodes of Saturday Night Live get from an entire show. Dig the cut-rate commercial aesthetic!
Season 3, Episode 2: "The Bob LaMonta Story"
Whenever I hear people complaining about the historical inaccuracies of an Oscar-bait biopic, all I can think of is this brilliant spoof of same. Strangely enough, the exaggerated "retarded" performances of Bob Odenkirk and Jill Talley are somehow more convincing than Juliette Lewis in The Other Sister.
Season 3, Episode 3: "The Altered State of Druggachusettes"
If I had to pick an all-time favorite episode in Mr. Show history, it would probably be this one, which featured such memorable bits as "Ventriloquist Wars" and the indelible image of "Choo Choo, the Hurkey Jurkey Dancer." But the show was never more on its game than it was here, in what was pretty much the last word in Sid and Marty Kroft parodies.
Season 3, Episode 5: "Swear to God"
Normally, swearing holy men ranks just below swearing grannies on the list of lazy comedic tropes, but leave it to Bob Odenkirk to pull it off perfectly. What really sells it is Bob's performance, tearing into his sermon without a trace of a wink, and being all the funnier for it. In the age of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is Winton Dupree really that far removed from reality?
Season 3, Episode 7: "The Great Philouza"
You've got to love a show that devotes a full eight minutes to parodying Amadeus. At least, I do. Once again, the humor works largely through juxaposition- by taking the Amadeus template and adding innocuous marching band music and Gay Nineties fashions, the sketch is pretty priceless.
Season 3, Episode 10: "Titannica"
Of all the surreal images conjured up by Mr. Show, the most indelible was young Adam Jimmy, the metal fan who was hospitalized after a most gruesome suicide attempt. It's hard to say which is funnier- the sketch's twisted punchline, or Brian Posehn's monosyllabic work as the band's lead singer.
Season 4, Episode 2: "The Toenapper"
During its fourth and final season, Mr. Show began to get more inconsistent, but they still cranked out the occasional gem. I've always had a soft spot for this, a bit about the world's most inept kidnapper that keeps escalating in hilarity. The highlight of the series' last truly great episode.
Season 4, Episode 10: "Josh Fenderman"
The best sketch of Mr. Show final episode was also something of an anomaly in that series headliners Bob and David were almost completely absent. No matter- it's great stuff all the same, perfectly spoofing the already-familiar "True Hollywood Story" format for some big laughs. And who doesn't love Josh's stupid little dance?
Did I forget one of your favorites? Sound off in the comments.
Season 2, Episode 1: "Thrilling Miracles"
In its first season, Mr. Show was clearly still finding its way. There were some choice bits, but almost no out-and-out classics. But in the second season, the show came out swinging. The premiere's highlight was the extended "Thrilling Miracles" sketch, which begins as an innocuous infomercial about the new "Super-Pan" and gets increasingly more bizarre as it goes on- "the pan kisses you! Kiss the pan!"
Season 2, Episode 4: "Van Hammersly, Champion Billiard Player"
Clueless celebrities provided endless comedic fodder for the Mr. Show gang. Here, Bob Odenkirk plays a cheeseball billiards champ hawking a line of educational videos and toss off one of my all-time favorite Mr. Show lines: "That's when Lincoln said, 'don't diss my homies!'"
Season 3, Episode 2: "Cock Ring Warehouse"
I believe it was Molière who stated that the phrase "cock ring" is never not funny. In perhaps the best commercial spoof in Mr. Show's entire run, this sketch squeezes more laughs out of a minute than most current episodes of Saturday Night Live get from an entire show. Dig the cut-rate commercial aesthetic!
Season 3, Episode 2: "The Bob LaMonta Story"
Whenever I hear people complaining about the historical inaccuracies of an Oscar-bait biopic, all I can think of is this brilliant spoof of same. Strangely enough, the exaggerated "retarded" performances of Bob Odenkirk and Jill Talley are somehow more convincing than Juliette Lewis in The Other Sister.
Season 3, Episode 3: "The Altered State of Druggachusettes"
If I had to pick an all-time favorite episode in Mr. Show history, it would probably be this one, which featured such memorable bits as "Ventriloquist Wars" and the indelible image of "Choo Choo, the Hurkey Jurkey Dancer." But the show was never more on its game than it was here, in what was pretty much the last word in Sid and Marty Kroft parodies.
Season 3, Episode 5: "Swear to God"
Normally, swearing holy men ranks just below swearing grannies on the list of lazy comedic tropes, but leave it to Bob Odenkirk to pull it off perfectly. What really sells it is Bob's performance, tearing into his sermon without a trace of a wink, and being all the funnier for it. In the age of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is Winton Dupree really that far removed from reality?
Season 3, Episode 7: "The Great Philouza"
You've got to love a show that devotes a full eight minutes to parodying Amadeus. At least, I do. Once again, the humor works largely through juxaposition- by taking the Amadeus template and adding innocuous marching band music and Gay Nineties fashions, the sketch is pretty priceless.
Season 3, Episode 10: "Titannica"
Of all the surreal images conjured up by Mr. Show, the most indelible was young Adam Jimmy, the metal fan who was hospitalized after a most gruesome suicide attempt. It's hard to say which is funnier- the sketch's twisted punchline, or Brian Posehn's monosyllabic work as the band's lead singer.
Season 4, Episode 2: "The Toenapper"
During its fourth and final season, Mr. Show began to get more inconsistent, but they still cranked out the occasional gem. I've always had a soft spot for this, a bit about the world's most inept kidnapper that keeps escalating in hilarity. The highlight of the series' last truly great episode.
Season 4, Episode 10: "Josh Fenderman"
The best sketch of Mr. Show final episode was also something of an anomaly in that series headliners Bob and David were almost completely absent. No matter- it's great stuff all the same, perfectly spoofing the already-familiar "True Hollywood Story" format for some big laughs. And who doesn't love Josh's stupid little dance?
Did I forget one of your favorites? Sound off in the comments.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Famous Last Words- Round 2, Week 12
OK folks, final week of the game, following a paltry turnout for last week's admittedly tough quote from Nosferatu the Vampyre. Let's see if you all can't go out on a positive note for the round. I honestly hope you can, because if not this could end up going into sudden-death overtime, and I haven't come up with how that'll work yet. Anyway, the quote:
“Oh, you don’t know how good it is to hear my family laughing again. You know, for a while there I was really worried.”
So if you know it, don't be shy- submit your guess to this e-Mail address no later than 11:59 Eastern on Wednesday. Good luck, and check back next week to see if a winner has been determined.
“Oh, you don’t know how good it is to hear my family laughing again. You know, for a while there I was really worried.”
So if you know it, don't be shy- submit your guess to this e-Mail address no later than 11:59 Eastern on Wednesday. Good luck, and check back next week to see if a winner has been determined.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Saturday, March 22, 2008
A Belated Introduction, in List Form
Ever since I started writing for The Screengrab a little over a year ago, I've struggled to maintain a balance between my contributions there and the pieces I post here. At first, most of my energies were devoted to proving myself to my former editor Bilge Ebiri and the Screengrab readers, so my posting here went on the back burner. However, since the beginning of this year, things have begun to swing the other way.
Ironically, I think a lot of this has to do with the larger number of posts I'm expected to write for Screengrab nowadays. You'd think that the increased productivity would leave little room for my own blog, but you would be mistaken. Strange thing- now that I'm being asked to write more, I'm unable to post with the sort of depth and passion I once did when I wasn't contributing nearly as much. Sure, I still write some longer posts, but it's hard to stay inspired when I have to meet a quota of 10 per week. There's also the issue of sticking to the Screengrab format, which is fairly loose, but at the same time I can't just post any little thing. Pretty much everything I post over there has to be apropos of something or other, whether it's part of a regular feature or connected to a recent release or news item. I'm not complaining, mind you- I especially love the increased visibility I get from Screengrab- but it's something that weighs heavily on my mind at times.
I have no such concerns over here. I'm running the show, so I can post as I see fit. I may not write as much for this blog, but that frees me to write about things I feel passionate about, rather than simply to make money. More and more, I find that for all the work I do on Screengrab, I'm proudest of my contributions here, because they're much closer to my own sensibility, unmediated by someone else's format.
So for those relative newcomers who are curious as to what I'm all about as a writer, here's a list of five Screengrab pieces I've written since I joined the staff, and five posts from this blog from the same period, all of which I feel a special affection for in some way or other. I've listed them in rough order of preference, on the basis of how proud I am of them. Enjoy.
For Screengrab:
1. "A Stroll Through Jim Henson's Legacy" (19 March 2007)- I wrote this in response to a touring Henson retrospective that came to the Wexner Center last spring. My friend Chris, an assistant film/video curator at the Wex, informed me later that he forwarded the piece to the Henson Foundation, where it was well-received. But the real reason I'm particularly fond of my Henson piece is because it finally allowed me to connect with my mother through my writing. My mother has never been a big movie buff, but she's always loved the Muppets, and I was happy to finally have a chance to write something she would enjoy.
2. "Forgotten Films: Privilege (1967, Peter Watkins)" (2 April 2007)- I wrote this piece a little more than a month after I joined the Screengrab team, and nearly a year later, I believe it's still the piece that's gotten the most attention from the movie blogosphere. In a way, the Privilege piece is a microcosm of what draws me to write about film- the opportunity to view unique and special works and then commend other moviegoers to see them as well. If they can, that is, although a Privilege DVD is supposedly in the works.
3. "The Movie Moment: Cries and Whispers" (3 August 2007)- the month or so after Bilge stepped down from the Screengrab editor spot and Peter Smith took over was a tense time for me. I was worried about how I would fit into the new guy's vision of the site (which was somewhat more populist), and one of the big changes for me was that I had to sweat word counts for the first time. In particular, my first few Movie Moment pieces after the regime change bears the marks of heavy editing, both on my part and Peter's. It wasn't until this piece, which doubled as a remembrance of one of my filmmaking idols, that I was able to find my groove again. I think the fact that it was Bergman allowed me to focus my writing in a way I couldn't have done with filmmakers to whom I wasn't so close. The result, I think, was a fitting tribute to a major figure in my moviegoing life.
4. "The Movie Moment: La Belle Noiseuse" (26 April 2007)- I've sometimes made the joke that "writing would be so much better if I didn't have to actually write." On the one hand, it comes off as a non sequitur a la Yogi Berra, but there's a grain of truth to it. I love to create, but the actual writing can be difficult and even torturous, like trying to squeeze toothpaste from an empty tube. One major exception for me was my Movie Moment piece on this Rivette masterwork. I sometimes tie myself in knots just trying to think of a suitable subject for my Movie Moment pieces, but this time it just dawned on me while I was watching the film. As the scene transpired, I reached for my pen and a sheet of paper and wrote down exactly one note (the line "you get stuck inside of what you’re searching for") then let the piece brew in my head as the film kept going. Then I went home and wrote the piece in roughly 45 minutes, which for me is unheard of. If only it always went this smoothly, I could maybe even finish my screenplay.
5. "The Most Unnecessary Sequels of All Time: Alien Resurrection" (21 June 2007)- I've always had a hard time writing funny. So while I always try to contribute to Screengrab's weekly lists, I tend to fear that my contributions are a little too light on the comedy to fit in with the others. However, I've been able to sneak in the occasional bon mot amid the film-nerdy stuff, and my favorite is still my piece on the gratuitousness and overall suckitude of the fourth Alien film. Now, I'm not usually one to laugh at my own jokes, but I still can't believe I came up with this line: "If Alien³ was beating a dead horse, then Alien: Resurrection was like molding the pulverized horse meat back into a pretty horsey shape, then beating it some more."
For Silly Hats Only:
1. "The Quiet Man in the Easy Chair" (2 Feb 2008)- I normally confine my writing to film-related subjects, but the death of my grandfather was too important not to mention, and I'm happy that I was able to do so in this forum. Thanks again to everyone for their kind sentiments.
2. Muriel Awards 2007 (Feb 2008)- Cheating here, but what the hell. The first year of the Muriels was a blast, but this year was when I felt the Muriels really made their mark. Rather than just a group of people voting for movies they liked and occasionally writing something about them, it became a full-on multi-blog collaboration, and this was Muriels Central. My gratitude to everyone who was able to participate this year, be it as a voter, a writer, or simply plugging the awards on your own sites. I'm already looking forward to next year's Muriels.
3. "The Movies of My Life #3" (22 March 2008)- Too soon? Maybe by some people's standards, but I think that this piece, occasioned by a viewing of 2001 after Arthur C. Clarke's death, is the closest I've come yet to summing up what I really value about Web-based film writing. More than anything I've written here thusfar, I think this post strikes the perfect balance between the personal and the film-nerdy, a goal to which I frequently aspire here but almost never achieve.
4. "gravida (2007, Lucas McNelly)" (8 August 2007)- Even with my Screengrab writing, I'm a little stunned when others refer to me as an honest-to-goodness critic. So I was both taken aback and extremely honored when Lucas, a first-year Muriels voter, asked me to write a review of his latest short film. As someone who struggled for years without success to get a short film project off the ground, I have respect for anyone who is able to see his vision through despite a highly competitive and often hostile environment. That the short turned out to be really damn good only helped matters- Lucas is the sort of filmmaker I would want to spotlight even if I didn't know him, and now that gravida is slowly gaining a fan base, I'm proud to have been involved with the film from a fairly early phase.
5. "Cinema Is a Bird, or Something" (24 April 2008)- As I said before, writing can be a struggle for me, and often I find that I'm too busy hunting for just the right words to be especially self-conscious about my own thinking and/or writing processes. It took a somewhat awkward Q&A with filmmaker Ernie Gehr to help me really nail down my own feelings, first in my mind and then on the page. Enjoy it folks, because it will probably the closest I'll ever get to penning my own statement of purpose as a movie lover.
Ironically, I think a lot of this has to do with the larger number of posts I'm expected to write for Screengrab nowadays. You'd think that the increased productivity would leave little room for my own blog, but you would be mistaken. Strange thing- now that I'm being asked to write more, I'm unable to post with the sort of depth and passion I once did when I wasn't contributing nearly as much. Sure, I still write some longer posts, but it's hard to stay inspired when I have to meet a quota of 10 per week. There's also the issue of sticking to the Screengrab format, which is fairly loose, but at the same time I can't just post any little thing. Pretty much everything I post over there has to be apropos of something or other, whether it's part of a regular feature or connected to a recent release or news item. I'm not complaining, mind you- I especially love the increased visibility I get from Screengrab- but it's something that weighs heavily on my mind at times.
I have no such concerns over here. I'm running the show, so I can post as I see fit. I may not write as much for this blog, but that frees me to write about things I feel passionate about, rather than simply to make money. More and more, I find that for all the work I do on Screengrab, I'm proudest of my contributions here, because they're much closer to my own sensibility, unmediated by someone else's format.
So for those relative newcomers who are curious as to what I'm all about as a writer, here's a list of five Screengrab pieces I've written since I joined the staff, and five posts from this blog from the same period, all of which I feel a special affection for in some way or other. I've listed them in rough order of preference, on the basis of how proud I am of them. Enjoy.
For Screengrab:
1. "A Stroll Through Jim Henson's Legacy" (19 March 2007)- I wrote this in response to a touring Henson retrospective that came to the Wexner Center last spring. My friend Chris, an assistant film/video curator at the Wex, informed me later that he forwarded the piece to the Henson Foundation, where it was well-received. But the real reason I'm particularly fond of my Henson piece is because it finally allowed me to connect with my mother through my writing. My mother has never been a big movie buff, but she's always loved the Muppets, and I was happy to finally have a chance to write something she would enjoy.
2. "Forgotten Films: Privilege (1967, Peter Watkins)" (2 April 2007)- I wrote this piece a little more than a month after I joined the Screengrab team, and nearly a year later, I believe it's still the piece that's gotten the most attention from the movie blogosphere. In a way, the Privilege piece is a microcosm of what draws me to write about film- the opportunity to view unique and special works and then commend other moviegoers to see them as well. If they can, that is, although a Privilege DVD is supposedly in the works.
3. "The Movie Moment: Cries and Whispers" (3 August 2007)- the month or so after Bilge stepped down from the Screengrab editor spot and Peter Smith took over was a tense time for me. I was worried about how I would fit into the new guy's vision of the site (which was somewhat more populist), and one of the big changes for me was that I had to sweat word counts for the first time. In particular, my first few Movie Moment pieces after the regime change bears the marks of heavy editing, both on my part and Peter's. It wasn't until this piece, which doubled as a remembrance of one of my filmmaking idols, that I was able to find my groove again. I think the fact that it was Bergman allowed me to focus my writing in a way I couldn't have done with filmmakers to whom I wasn't so close. The result, I think, was a fitting tribute to a major figure in my moviegoing life.
4. "The Movie Moment: La Belle Noiseuse" (26 April 2007)- I've sometimes made the joke that "writing would be so much better if I didn't have to actually write." On the one hand, it comes off as a non sequitur a la Yogi Berra, but there's a grain of truth to it. I love to create, but the actual writing can be difficult and even torturous, like trying to squeeze toothpaste from an empty tube. One major exception for me was my Movie Moment piece on this Rivette masterwork. I sometimes tie myself in knots just trying to think of a suitable subject for my Movie Moment pieces, but this time it just dawned on me while I was watching the film. As the scene transpired, I reached for my pen and a sheet of paper and wrote down exactly one note (the line "you get stuck inside of what you’re searching for") then let the piece brew in my head as the film kept going. Then I went home and wrote the piece in roughly 45 minutes, which for me is unheard of. If only it always went this smoothly, I could maybe even finish my screenplay.
5. "The Most Unnecessary Sequels of All Time: Alien Resurrection" (21 June 2007)- I've always had a hard time writing funny. So while I always try to contribute to Screengrab's weekly lists, I tend to fear that my contributions are a little too light on the comedy to fit in with the others. However, I've been able to sneak in the occasional bon mot amid the film-nerdy stuff, and my favorite is still my piece on the gratuitousness and overall suckitude of the fourth Alien film. Now, I'm not usually one to laugh at my own jokes, but I still can't believe I came up with this line: "If Alien³ was beating a dead horse, then Alien: Resurrection was like molding the pulverized horse meat back into a pretty horsey shape, then beating it some more."
For Silly Hats Only:
1. "The Quiet Man in the Easy Chair" (2 Feb 2008)- I normally confine my writing to film-related subjects, but the death of my grandfather was too important not to mention, and I'm happy that I was able to do so in this forum. Thanks again to everyone for their kind sentiments.
2. Muriel Awards 2007 (Feb 2008)- Cheating here, but what the hell. The first year of the Muriels was a blast, but this year was when I felt the Muriels really made their mark. Rather than just a group of people voting for movies they liked and occasionally writing something about them, it became a full-on multi-blog collaboration, and this was Muriels Central. My gratitude to everyone who was able to participate this year, be it as a voter, a writer, or simply plugging the awards on your own sites. I'm already looking forward to next year's Muriels.
3. "The Movies of My Life #3" (22 March 2008)- Too soon? Maybe by some people's standards, but I think that this piece, occasioned by a viewing of 2001 after Arthur C. Clarke's death, is the closest I've come yet to summing up what I really value about Web-based film writing. More than anything I've written here thusfar, I think this post strikes the perfect balance between the personal and the film-nerdy, a goal to which I frequently aspire here but almost never achieve.
4. "gravida (2007, Lucas McNelly)" (8 August 2007)- Even with my Screengrab writing, I'm a little stunned when others refer to me as an honest-to-goodness critic. So I was both taken aback and extremely honored when Lucas, a first-year Muriels voter, asked me to write a review of his latest short film. As someone who struggled for years without success to get a short film project off the ground, I have respect for anyone who is able to see his vision through despite a highly competitive and often hostile environment. That the short turned out to be really damn good only helped matters- Lucas is the sort of filmmaker I would want to spotlight even if I didn't know him, and now that gravida is slowly gaining a fan base, I'm proud to have been involved with the film from a fairly early phase.
5. "Cinema Is a Bird, or Something" (24 April 2008)- As I said before, writing can be a struggle for me, and often I find that I'm too busy hunting for just the right words to be especially self-conscious about my own thinking and/or writing processes. It took a somewhat awkward Q&A with filmmaker Ernie Gehr to help me really nail down my own feelings, first in my mind and then on the page. Enjoy it folks, because it will probably the closest I'll ever get to penning my own statement of purpose as a movie lover.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
