Jul 24, 2010

Must we have a conversation about race?

Why does all the conversation about race on the TV seem to consist of everyone agreeing that a conversation abut race would be a good thing? Why don't they just get on with it instead of wasting time telling what a good thing it would be to have one? Why does everything have to be so meta? It's almost as if the cable news media, having made the mistake of rushing to judgment on the Sherrod story were determined to make amends by boring us to death with their endless pontification on its meaning — or rather, what it's meaning might be if we ever got around to having a conversation about it.

Jul 23, 2010

Why the critics are getting Inception wrong

After chastising my fellow bloggers for overrating Inception, I am now in the uncomfortable position of having to pivot and blast away in the opposite direction. I was reckoning without the sheer ass-backwards perversity of the nation's film critics, all of whom seem to have got it into their heads that the only way to correct too much praise is to condemn just as loudly, in the opposite direction. That's not judgment: that's just a din. As Allen Barra notes in The Daily Beast today:—
After a pre-opening wave rave, mostly from the West Coast and the trade papers (particularly Variety’s Justin Chang, who was delighted with the film’s “playful” homages to artists such as Magritte and M.C. Escher), the film hit a critical stonewall. And not just with old farts like Rex Reed, who wrote in The New York Observer that “Nolan is an elegant Hollywood hack from London whose movies are a colossal waste of time, money, and IQ points,” thus maintaining a perfect record of failing to grasp every innovative filmmaker since Robert Altman, but also with The New York Times’ A.O Scott, who felt that Inception “trades in crafty puzzles rather than profound mysteries”—unlike, he thought, Stanley Kubrick’s 2001, A Space Odyssey..... The terminally crabby Armond White of the New York Press dismisses all Nolan fans as “Nolanoids”.... “No one short of a NASA systems analyst will be able to articulate the plot,” griped John Anderson in The Wall Street Journal.... Inception, A.O. Scott wrote, “may suggest the limits not only of this very talented director but also of his chosen art form at this moment in history."
Wake up, people. Inception remains a little too emotionally parched to get a full masterpiece grade but it is easily the most distinctive film of the yea; the product of a muscular act of the imagination; a handsome piece of magic which pushes the outer boundaries of allowable complexity while keeping pace with it's audience's ignorance — a much harder and more worthwhile achievement than mere cleverness. It doesn't disappear up it's own schincter. This self-discipline is the main reason it's different from the Matrix. People who signed off on that film were inviting the purgatory of Reloaded and Revolutions upon them, their slack discipline implicit, lurking, from the beginning. I don't get that with Nolan's film. Like Pixar, it's smarts are user-friendly, its solipsism oddly sociable. It's a boffin who knows how to work the room.

Jul 22, 2010

QUOTE OF THE DAY: Bill Murray

"I worked all day and kept going, "That's the line? Well, I can't say that." And you sit there and go, What can I say that will make this funny? And make it make sense? And I worked. I was exhausted, soaked with sweat, and the lines got worse and worse. And I said, "Okay, you better show me the whole rest of the movie, so we can see what we're dealing with." So I sat down and watched the whole thing, and I kept saying, "Who did this? What the [heck] was Coen thinking?" And then they explained it to me: It wasn't written by that Joel Coen." — Bill Murray explaining that he did Garfield: The Movie because he thought it was written by Joel Coen

Jul 20, 2010

It's official: pop culture makes you smarter

"For better or worse, movies dominate the American entertainment scene. As a result, the movies play an influential role in determining what we learn and how we think. 21st century life seems to suggest a trend toward the movie screen and away from books. Consequently, cinematic characters will increasingly shape values and aspirations, and plots will foster cognitive complexity and strengths (or not) in a manner previously owned by literature, news and, of course, real-world figures. The more we ensconce ourselves in technological bubbles, the more film will fulfill this prophecy." — Jeremy Clyman, Psychology Today

Jul 18, 2010

LATE REVIEW: Let The Right One In

I'm over a year late on this so won't write a full review, but I saw Tomas Alfredson's Let The Right One In last night on Netflix and found it ineffably strange and stirring — everything the Twilight movies want to be and aren't. A vampire movie set in Stockholm — but of course! — it comes dusted with Bergmanesque melancholy, yet never forgets to transfix: the sight of little Eva clinging to her adult victims while sucking the life out of them, will, I suspect, stay with me long after most of the movies from 2009 have faded from view. A-

The state of internet film criticism: part 2

One of my favorite web writers, Nick Davis, takes issue with my recent post on the state of blogospheric — blogospherical? — film criticism. In it I'd tried to articular my disappointment with the stuff I was reading on the internet. What I most crave are voices that sound like your friends dissecting the film in the parking lot afterwards: sparky, conversational, unvarnished. What I get is a whole load of aspiring Eberts, aping the language of film criticism — "mise-en-scene," "limning" "pitch perfect" etc — without the judgment. Nick responds,
Is mise-en-scène really so hard a term to understand, or such an irrelevant term to film criticism worthy of the name? It strikes me as one thing to be rankled by hyperbole, clichés, groupthink, and lots of the other trends that flatten and homogenize so many film reviews, which seems to be your overarching beef. But to ridicule writers for using even the most essential terms related to the art they are critiquing? And in an age where more and more film programs and wider and wider access to them and more and more exposure to "insider" commentary means that many, many more than "six people" know what mise-en-scène is? Seems churlish, and inconsistent with your other gripes.

Despite the long tradition of hiring paid film critics even at major publications with no real background in film or film studies, I'd think one would want to encourage more film criticism that can actually articulate the aspects of a movie that provoked a critical reaction, rather than implying that simply writing from emotion is enough to constitute a "review." I wouldn't want to read music criticism that wasn't allowed to talk about melodic lines, or book criticism that couldn't talk about voice or syntax, or theater criticism that couldn't talk about blocking or alienation. Surely it's not an insult but a credit to a general readership, maybe even an obligation, to write arts criticism that bespeaks and presumes at least a rudimentary grasp of the arts in question. And if some essential terms require a bit of explaining from time to time, then critics ought to offer portals into that understanding, rather than making sure that no one reading a review—including some of the people writing those reviews—ever has to deal with anything except intuitive responses and non-specific comments about huge, undifferentiated categories like "writing" and "acting."
My problem with "mise-en-scene" is not that it means nothing, but that different writers mean different things by it. It means everything. So every time I see it used, I have to dig around in the the writer's back-catalogue to find out which definition we're going to be abiding by today — actually let's be frank, I don't do that, I simply move on. It's too much work for too little pay-off (they generally mean art direction). And I'm someone who's been writing and reading about film for over 20 years. Try my relatives. At root, this sounds like a difference of opinion about how professionalised film criticism should be. Nick invokes the example of literary and music criticism. And it's true: most of the audiences for either of those could be expected to know a fair bit of the professional vocabulary. But cinema is unique — a popular medium, it is the one form that has no need whatsoever of the academy*. This is a plus, not a minus. It means it is still alive. And I think that should be celebrated in language that is similarly vital. "Meaning follows usage," as my old linguistics professor never tired of telling me. Words with well-defined meanings flourish; those that don't die on the vine. If "mise-en-scene" truly is such an essential tool for divvying up cinematic achievement, how come it has signally failed to take off with the wider public? How come I haven't heard it spoken in the foyer of a cinema, not once?

*It goes without saying that Davis himself is one of the few academics who can write about cinema with verve, humor and conviction. He appears to be taking umbrage on behalf of writers far less gifted than himself. I think I know what he means by mise-n-scene. I think.

You know, the problem with you Mel is...

David Brooks has figured out Mel Gibson's problem:
"His self-love is his most precious possession. It is the holy center of all that is sacred and right. He is hypersensitive about anybody who might splatter or disregard his greatness. If someone treats him slightingly, he perceives that as a deliberate and heinous attack. If someone threatens his reputation, he regards this as an act of blasphemy. He feels justified in punishing the attacker for this moral outrage. And because he plays by different rules, and because so much is at stake, he can be uninhibited in response. Everyone gets angry when they feel their self-worth is threatened, but for the narcissist, revenge is a holy cause and a moral obligation, demanding overwhelming force."
The only problem with this is: who does this not describe? I guess the religious phraseology is Brooks way of marking Gibson out from the rest of the pack by linking him with his films. But put any of our worst moments under the microscope and you'd end up with something similar (I had a similar visitation of holy rage just the other weekend when a huge truck blew on its horn for ten minutes right outside our living room. I walked down the middle of the road towards the truck, waving my arms for him to stop, asked he roll down his window and enjoyed a spirited exchange of philosophies on the subject of urban noise pollution. A similar scene is, I believe, enacted two-thirds of the way through Gibson's landmark film Mad Max II: The Road Warrior). On the other hand, Brooks column fails to mention the one thing this behaviour does point toward: alcohol. Gibson is now moving back to Australia, which is great news for the aspiring Aussie screenwriter who will write Gibson's comeback vehicle with Mel as a disgraced racing driver, coaxed out of retirement on his hog farm in Canberra when his daughter is kidnapped by post-apocalyptic desperadoes and forced to re-enter the Thunderdome once more.

Jul 17, 2010

THE BEST OF: Robert Duvall

Duvall is the Ancient Mariner of American acting — an almost Biblical severity of feature, a haggard fixity of gaze, a glitter of mischief behind his eyes. Barrel-chested, ramrod straight, walking on the balls of his feet, he appears to have gotten lighter, not heavier, with age. He's 80 now and it's difficult to think of an actor who has remained as compelling — he's got the gnarly vitality of one of those old Southern dogs who gets hit by lightning three times and lived to tell the tale. He'd make a great Ahab, or Lear, but rarely plays above his pay grade: he's got a self-effacing kinship with working people that translates into a spartan, bone-dry acting style. He formed an oasis of quiet counsel in The Godfather. He was spookily invulnerable as Colonel Kilgore in Apocalypse Now, looking for great surf in the middle of a battlefield, bare-chested while everyone ducks for cover around him. It's one of the greatest bit parts in the history of movies and maybe the greatest hawk ever committed to the screen. Coppola was smart to cut against the grain of his own politics: Kilgore contradicts and complicates the film. Duvall won an Oscar for Tender Mercies, but the movie is flim-flam; the only other film to match him was The Apostle, which he directed himself, and which has one of the best opening 20 mins of any movie in the nineties, seguing from administering last rites to someone in a car-wreck to going after Farrah Fawcett with a baseball bat. Most movies would have been happy to leave it there, with our certainty of the man's hypocrisy — another Elmer Gantry. But Duvall digs deeper and finds another layer of charisma, beneath the brutality. It's a wonderful, triple-decker sandwich of a part, almost geological. One could move quite smoothly from the greatness of his performance to a discussion of rock formation, root growth, tidal wash.
1. The Apostle
2. Apocalypse Now
3. The Godfather
4. Tender Mercies
5. A Civil Action

Do your dreams look like this?

Do your dreams look like a Bond film turning itself inside out? Mine tend to be more mundane Mike Leighish affairs, with occasional touches of Bunuel: nothing that couldn't be shot over a single weekend with a Super 8 and lots of cups of tea. The most technologically advanced I ever get are flying dreams but even they're nothing a little the ol blue screen, circa-1979-Superman, couldn't handle. I have never, however, dreamed of anything that needed the involvement of Industrial Light and Magic or any other cutting-edge cgi whizzes. Maybe that is because I am a boring old fart, although I suspect when Christopher Nolan means "dreams" he means "directorial wet-dreams." There's a difference.

FALL MOVIES 2010: PREVIEW






Images from: Somewhere, Legend of the Guardians, Get Low, Jack Goes Boating, Let Me In, The Town

This blog doesn't do much Oscar prognostication but I will note one thing: at this point last year we had our Best Film. That is I don't think so this year. I think we've seen our best supporting actress, if they've the smarts to play Annette Bening in that category. Toy Story 3 will take best Animated Feature. And Inception will pick up a bunch of technical awards — editing, cinematography, maybe score, but Best Film? The Coens have had their moment in the sun, otherwise True Grit would be a strong contender. The Social Network looks dull: teenagers locked in copyright battle. Affleck's The Town could be something special. Mallick's lousy for Oscars. Morning Glory could be good for Harrison Ford as supporting actor. Toy Story 3, The Kids Are All Right, Everything You've Got, and The King's Speech are all contenders, but I am trained like a gun dog on just one film at the moment: Love and Other Drugs, which I think could give us actress, film and director.
July 23
- Salt
Noyce, Jolie
July 30
- Get Low (limited)
, Duvall, Murray
September 1
- The American
Corbijn, Clooney
Sept 11th
- Black Swan premieres at the Venice Film Festival
September 17
- The Town Hall, Hamm, Affleck
September 22
- You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger
September 24
- Buried (limited; wide: Oct. 8)
- Howl (limited) Franco
- Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
October 1
- Never Let Me Go (limited)
- The Social Network Sorkin, Fincher
October 22
- The Company Men Affleck, Jones
- Hereafter

November 12
- Morning Glory McAdams, Ford, Keaton
November 24
- Love and Other Drugs Zwick, Hathaway
November 26
- The King's Speech
November TBA

- The Tree of Life
Pitt, Mallick
December 10

- The Fighter Russell, Wahlberg
December 17
- Everything You've Got
Brooks
- Tron Legacy
December 22
- Somewhere (NY, LA)
December 25
- True Grit Portis
December 29
- Another Year (limited) Leigh
December 31

- Blue Valentine Williams, Gosling
January 14
- The Green Hornet

Pearls before swine?

Perturbed by the blogger/critic rift over Inception, Sasha Stone has an interesting post digging upthe critical reception meted out to various landmark films over the years. Here's Bosley Crowther on Psycho:—

There is not an abundance of subtlety or the lately familiar Hitchcock bent toward significant and colorful scenery in this obviously low-budget job. With a minimum of complication, it gets off to a black-and-white start with the arrival of a fugitive girl with a stolen bankroll right at an eerie motel. The consequence in his denouement falls quite flat for us. But the acting is fair. Mr. Perkins and Miss Leigh perform with verve, and Vera Miles, John Gavin, and Martin Balsam do well enough in other roles.

Pearls before swine? It seems to me a perfectly accurate description of Psycho's faults. And here is Renata Adler review of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

And yet the uncompromising slowness of [2001: A Space Odyssey] makes it hard to sit through without talking—and people on all sides when I saw it were talking almost throughout the film. Very annoying. With all its attention to detail—a kind of reveling in its own I.Q.—the movie acknowledged no obligation to validate its conclusion for those, me for example, who are not science-fiction buffs. By the end, three unreconciled plot lines—the slabs, Dullea’s aging, the period bedroom—are simply left there like a Rorschach, with murky implications of theology. This is a long step outside the convention, some extra scripts seem required, and the all-purpose answer, “relativity,” does not really serve unless it can be verbalized.

Again: spot on. Stone's examples are instructive — but not in the way he intends.
what makes a critic different from a blogger now isn’t necessarily their opinion, or their “professional eye.” What makes them different is their being held to a higher standard by the outlet they work for, and their being edited and kept in check. Their writing is just flat out better than most of us self-starters who have kept ourselves going on our own passion for film and the passion of our readers.
Thia is right but it's only half the truth: film critics are not just the guys in possession of the fancier prose styles. It comes down to a question of judgment — and that's not to be mistaken for who's right and who's wrong. But who pays more scrupulouse attention to the ambivalence of their own reaction, in all its spotty, imperfect glory. The blogger/critic dust-up over Inception illustrates the divide between those who for whom love of a film means nothing less than full-throated devotion, coupled with a blindness to all its flaws — a kind of creeping politesse that insists on nary a bad word be said of the great and the good. The kind of writer for whome the words "genius" and "masterpiece" silence all internal debate. And those whose admiration for a film or filmmaker comes striated with a sense of its imperfections, who see no contradiction between loving a film and finding fault with it — the faults peg their admiration higher. The blogosphere seems sometimes to forget this. They mistake reverence for respect. They're strangely pious. Again: where are the outlaws?

Jul 16, 2010

Whatever happened to the box-office bomb?

"It used to be one of the more raucous spectator sports in America — watching Hollywood gather together some of the finest talents in the land, throw barrowfuls of money at them, lock them in a sound stage and not let them out until they had made the biggest, proudest, costliest turkeys yet devised by human hand. Bonfire of the Vanities. Waterworld. Last Action Hero. Cutthroat Island. Their names were legend. They bestrode the world like colossi, their charred, rusting bulks a testament to the reach of man’s hubris, the folly of human dreams, and the price of bottle water at Spagos. They were so famous, people wrote books about them; we pored over every directorial temper tantrum and movie-star sulk like fish inspecting a shipwreck, looking for signs of the times, auguries of things to come, or else just a cheap shot of schadenfreude, although frequently it would be the bombs themselves that had the last laugh. Their notoriety was so great, their shadow so long, that eventually they subject to the same revisionism that envelops anything that sticks around in the culture for long enough. Recent critical opinion has it that Heaven’s Gate is not a bad film, just a ruinously costly one, and even Ishtar has its defenders — ironic, coquettish types who wink at you from behind their Yashmaghs. What’s happened to those films — the megabombs, the nuclear flops?" — from my piece for Slate about the disappearance of the box office bomb

Jul 12, 2010

Quote of the day: Bill O Reilly interviews Palin

BO: Alright, so no amnesty. But what do you do with these folks? Do you make them register with the federal government? Do you tell them they have 60 days to get out of here before we put you in jail? What do you do with them?

SP: Do … do we make them register with the federal government?

BO: Yeah, so we know who they are, where they are.

SP: Yes! We do!

Oh the joy of biopics

"The film immerses itself in tactile scenes of the painter at work, and from the textured compositions and limpid light to the swirling, nonlinear structure, it seems to draw direct and productive inspiration from Munch’s blossoming Expressionism. Perhaps this is the most profound pleasure a biopic can offer: the sense of one artist being moved by another." — Dennis Lim, The New York Times
The sense of one artist being moved by another. The reason I dislike biopics, in a nutshell. Why would I want an encounter with a work that consists entirely of another man's reaction to altogether different work of art (which I cannot currently have access to)? It's like trying to stroke a cat through bubble-wrap. Why can't the thing I'm watching now be the artistic achievement? Try it with any other profession and you'll see what I mean. "Well he didn't fix the sink but the sense I got of the plumber being moved by the previous plumber's work was profound...."

Jul 7, 2010

Thar she blows! Bloggers crush on Inception

"Inception is a movie so vibrant, so alive, so relentlessly original that it can be forgiven its transgressions in an instant. It's an entertainment with vivid, profound ideas." -- In Contention's Kris Tapley

"Christopher Nolan’s mind-bending, soul-churning masterpiece.... Like Stanley Kubrick, Woody Allen, David Cronenberg and David Lynch... with Inception we have a film and a filmmaker that has broken new ground and very nearly reinvented the form." -- Awards Daily's Sasha Stone.

"Inception is a masterpiece... a movie that, at times, feels like a miracle." -- CHUD's Devin Faraci.

"Understand, a single viewing is hardly enough to come to terms with the film." -- TheWrap's Steve Pond.

"A Kubrickian masterpiece with heart, Inception delivers and then some, thanks to clever original screenwriting and exhilarating mise-en-scene." -- Indiewire's Anne Thompson.

"An epic piece of entertainment that ultimately feels so simple precisely because of all of its complexity." -- Cinematical's Todd Gilchrist.

"Nolan is becoming merciless in his ability to engage both intellectually and emotionally. As a result, Inception flattened me, and even now, more than a week after my first viewing of it, I find myself turning over images and ideas from the film almost constantly." -- Hitfix's Drew McWeeny.

"In terms of sheer originality, ambition and achievement, Inception is the movie of the summer, the movie of the year and the movie of our dreams... Inception charts a new course for motion pictures." -- Boxoffice's Pete Hammond.

So. A masterpiece. A miracle. A dish and a dream boat. Like Woody Allen at his most macabre, crossed with David Cronenberg at his most winsome. Or Kubrick with heart. Emotionally flattening. Commandingly clever. Relentlessly original. Merciless. Complex. Simple... It's hard to pick a winner from that small army of idolaters. Sasha Stone gets major points for a startling composite-image of David Cronenberg and Woody Allen — a pair I never thought I'd find in the same sentence let alone packed into one mortal frame. (Kvetching about exploding heads? Slapstick in a kitchen involving half-man, half-lobster?) Anne Thompson gets points for using a term (mise-en-scene) only six people understand, all six of them differently. The reviews powered by the hottest humbug thermals, though, are the ones crediting Nolan with charting a new course for cinema. Really? I'm reminded of that comment T S Eliot made about the average Englishman speaking perfectly natural English in the pub; but ask him to compose a letter to his bank and the result is the kind of strangled self-conscious locution that has never left human lips. The problem with the internet's democratisation of film criticism is not that heathens have stormed the ivory tower — if only— but the opposite: everyone tries to sound exactly like a critic. Drop in on any of the blogs and you'll hear the same semi-masticated munge of by-the-numbers put-downs ("so many holes you could drive a bus through it"), cod connoisseurship ("not his most nuanced performance") and obfuscatory jargon ("impressive mise-en-scene"). They're lousy with pontification. I keep waiting for the web's Jack Abbots to burst up through the ranks and blow the lid off the whole stuffy game; instead they all want sound like Roger Ebert. They ape the language of criticism, but forget to pack the judgment.

If it happened, it's not propaganda

“Public confidence is being eroded, with people doubting the ability of our services to protect us and questioning the rules under which they operate,” he said. “And terrorists and extremists are able to exploit these allegations for their own propaganda.”— David Cameron, House of Commons

Jul 6, 2010

Back to the Future, twenty-five years on

"New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael had a problem with Back to the Future. She found many things to admire, tagging it a “likeable screwball comedy,” and praising Zemeckis and Gale’s “wit in devising intricate structures that keep blowing fuses.” But the fact remained. “I’m not crazy about movies with kids as the heroes.” She must have had a tough time of it in that summer, for 1985 was the year E.T. finally showed up in Hollywood’s bloodstream; having been broken down into its constituent enzymes, just as Jaws had, and now showing up everywhere in the form of suddenly-sprouted magical forests, and kids riding BMX bikes, and cherubic alien visitors. And not just Spielberg-productions like The Goonies, or The Explorers. Mad Max III; Beyond Thunderdome also boasted a small squadron of “lost children”, while in Pale Rider, Clint Eastwood encounters a little girl who finds a friend in the heavens. The day Dirty Harry starts pram-sitting, you know something is up. “When the causes of the decline of Western civilisation are finally writ,” wrote Variety, “Hollywood will surely have to answer why it turned one of man’s most significant art forms over to the gratification of high-schoolers.”
There’s no getting around this one. Back to the Future really is a movie about a teenager, and not just that, but a movie about a teenager who travels back to the fifties — the very birthplace of the breed — in order to visit the condition on his parents, too. If you are looking for a movie which perfectly symbolises the state of arrested development which is American cinema, Back to the Future is your movie: an episode of Leave It To Beaver as scripted by Feydeau, a teen sex farce with no sex, a family comedy that contemplates incest, and as sturdy a disquisition on man’s place in the webbings of his fate as any movie with Huey Lewis on the soundtrack has ever quite managed to be. The moment you realised just how fully Back to the Future was going to distinguish itself from all the other Spielbuggies zooming around that year is relatively easy to pinpoint: it is the point at which Marty McFly, having seen Doc Brown gunned down by Libyans, and flown back to 1985 in the DeLorean suddenly finds it completely useless, there being no plutonium in 1955 with which to power it. It is hard to overstate the importance of this quietly devastating piece of news. In film after film, in 1985, teenagers were using their science class to invent magical devices that granted them their every wish — to travel through time, whizz through space, secure a face-to-face meeting with Kelly le Brock — but here was Zemeckis’s biggest effects gizmo, his time-machine, suddenly rendered as useful as an orange-press. “Back to the Future has this reputation for being this big special effects movie, but in fact there are only about 30 special effects in it,” says Zemeckis, “and they’re mostly lightning. But because of the nature of the story, everyone thought it was loaded with effects.” Today, nobody bats an eyelid when the Wachowski brothers allow Trinity to download whatever helicoptering skills she needs to extricate herself from a jam in the Matrix movies — a quite astonishing cheat — but once Marty has been whisked back to 1965, all he has to get him back are his own powers of ingenuity and the quarter in his pocket, which he naturally uses to phone a friend.
It is the first of many such drop-ins on Doc Brown in the series, which — appropriately enough for a movie written by two men who locked themselves together in a room for three years — has a terrific feel for affable, loose-fitting male camraderie. The series’ take on romantic attachment is a snatch of pure comic-book — the affections of Marty’s mother zing from person to person like a ping-pong ball, while Marty’s girlfriend, Jennifer, spends much of the second movie asleep — but no matter what historical era Marty finds himself in, or what manner of fix, he can always put in a call to the guy with the perma-stare and the afghan-in-a-wind-tunnel hair. Christopher Lloyd’s performance gets even better when you find out what a pussycat the guy was: he would turn up for rehearsals, not say a word to anyone, and then, the moment the cameras rolled, explode into a mad fizz of limbs and pseudoscientific exposition — all the braininess of the script coming to a boil, and running over into affectionate self-satire. The Doc is a direct descent of that “gentle lunatic” Charles Goodyear, pawning his possessions in pursuit of odorless rubber, and all the other amateur inventors, toiling away in the backyards of America to bring better ball-point pens to the nation. “Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door” said Ralph Waldo Emerson, and there are few better mousetraps than Back to the Future, as great a tribute to old-fashioned American ingenuity as could be imagined — a very different thing from mere cleverness. All of Zemeckis and Gale’s previous films were as fiendishly clever as Back to the Future, giving their characters the runaround like rats in a maze, but this was the first of theirs to invite their protagonists in on the joke, for Marty is both pinball and player, and even has his own Wizard. “There’s nothing you can’t do if you don’t set your mind to it,” he tells his father — much the same conclusion that Sarah Connor came to at the end of The Terminator — “There’s no fate but what we make”, in her rather tone-deaf rhyme. “God a person could go crazy thinking about all this,” says Sarah Conner at the end, and for the most part she eschews thinking too hard about it, instead choosing the more sensible course of driving away from the it, at speed, in a hot-wired car. Together, though, the two films form a small but distinct sub-genre. All around them, in movies like Working Girl, Flashdance, and Top Gun, characters were chasing their dreams, making it count, getting involved wioth small ghost-collection start-ups other such eighties activities; but The Terminator and Back to the Future were the only movies whose protagonists chased their tomorrows to quite so literal a degree — time-travel-movie as self-improvement-manual.

This is probably not what H. G. Wells had in mind when he wrote The Time Machine; what he had in mind was something a little sterner, with a distinct rap of the lectern to it. Well’s novel was basically a whither-Western-civilization lecture, whipping through historical periods like a slide show to demonstrate just how quickly and remorselessly Western Civilisation was going the way of the dodo. The notion that our lives are stuck fast in preordained grooves is, however, a curiously European hang-up, at its heaviest over Russia but still discernible in the fog that clung to Wells’s London, and it has never exported that well to America; needless to say, it is entirely absent from the brash, acrylic surfaces of Back To The Future, which strips time travel of its world-historical duties, and instead drops it into the gleaming chassis of a teen sex farce. Wells delivered a dire warning, which flattened his narrative into placard; Zemeckis gives us a pep talk, with Marty playing his fate like a craps game. Zemeckis was at one point to have made a biopic of Houdini, which makes sense, for few modern directors’ names so cry out for the prefix “the Fabulous and Amazing” to be attached to it, but like most directorial hobby horses, probably best left unridden, for there is no higher tribute to the art of escapology than Back to the Future, which piles up difficulty around its hero like coils of rope, and then sits back to watch him wriggle free. "

— reprinted from my book Blockbuster: How Hollywood Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Summer (2004)

Jul 5, 2010

My most played tracks of 2010 so far

According to my iTunes play-count — which never lies — here, apparently, are my top twenty tracks of 2010 so far:—
1. Rude Boy (Low Sunday Radio edit), Rihanna (27)
2. U Smile, Justin Bieber (26)
3. Lewis Takes Off His Shirt, Owen Pallett (20)
4. Who Knows, Who Cares, Local Natives (19)
5. Telephone, Pomplamoose (16)
6. Cape Cod Kwassa Kwassa, Peter Gabriel (15)
7. White Sky, Vampire Weekend (15)
8. The End, Laura Jensen (15)
9. Albatross, Sambassadeur (15)
10. Denise, Clem Snide (14)
11. Bob Lillikoi, Jonsi (14)
12. Flume, Peter Gabriel (13)
13. Grow, Delorean (12)
14. Surrounded by Your Friends, Hurray for Earth (12)
15. Heard it on the Radio, The Bird and the Bee (11)
16. On My Way Back Home, Band of Horses (10)
17. Rich Girl, The Bird and the Bee (10)
18. Don't Stop Dancing, Kaskade and EDX (10)
19. Love is a Dirty Word, Jason Collett (9)
20. When You Give Your Heart, Laura Veirs (9)

Happy July 4th from Archibald Leach

Jul 4, 2010

Janelle Monae: electrifying herself

"Janelle Monae is small — she stands 5’ 5”, maybe 5’7” if you include her trademark pouf — but everything about her is big. Her dress sense is Paisley Park by way of The Cotton Club: spats, drainpipe trousers, ruffed white shirt, her hair piled high above her forehead, so that when she makes an ‘o’ shape with her mouth, she seems almost to form a single giant exclamation point. She’s a cartoon version of herself — a Tex Avery version of a soul-funk diva. Performing live, she spins and gyrates across the stage like a rag doll channelling the greats: one minute shadow-boxing like Muhammad Ali, at another doing the old James Brown So-Electrifying-I-Gave-Myself-A-Shock routine. At one point, she even contrives a sort of one-legged moonwalk, wiggling her way across the stage, like Michael Jackson with a dash of Steve Martin. Finally, there is the piece de la resistance: a stage dive into the audience, flipping like a fish on a griddle, being returning her safely to the stage. Monae is currently opening for Erykah Badu on her current North America tour, although if what I saw at New York’s Roseland ballroom the other week was any guide, her act is an opener in length only. Monae is an opening act the same way Joan Crawford was a supporting actress." — from my interview with Janelle Monae in The Sunday Times

Jul 2, 2010

I love this cover

Haven't been able to take my eyes off it. The way the mauve-pink color scheme picks out the colors of her dress and lipstick. The cover line. It's all very satisfying. I'm not even much of a Jolie fan. I can't think of a person I would least like to make small talk with, although Rich Cohen does a manful job.

Jul 1, 2010

REVIEW: Twilight: Eclipse (dir. Slade)

Twilight: Eclipse begins with an offer of marriage in a field of bluebells very similar to the one in Jane Campion’s Bright Star. “Marry me,” says Edward (Robert Pattinson), “I cant. I have to be back by four.” As reasons to refuse your hand in marriage, this is not good, but Edward takes it on the beautifully cleft chin. He is a vampire, after all, and knows a thing or two about ambivalence, having spent the best part of the previous two movies going back and forth as to whether he should plunge his teeth into the neck of his beloved Bella, thus uniting them in eternal damnation. Now he’s back, even paler than before, as if in severe need of a top-up, but still refusing to take a bite, like a rockstar in recovery. “Its too dangerous,” he says. The Twilight Series may be the only vampire saga in film history where the vampires fear the virgins. This leaves the door open to the werewolf Jacob (Taylor Lautner), a caramel-colored hunk with a habit of showing up with no shirt, his thumbs in his pockets, to a surge of alt rock on the soundtrack. “Doesn’t he own a shirt?” snipes Edward, and it’s the first sign that the director, David Slade, intends to inject some fun back into the proceedings after the dire second film, in which Edward absconded from the action in a fit of high mindedness, Bella fell into a terrific mope and it took Lautner an eternity to reveal his abs. Lesson learned: at one point in the new movie he even appears shirtless on a mountain top, in a snowstorm, like a cross between Friedrich Nietzsche and a Chippendale. The plot turns on a vicious vampire army gathering in Seattle — my how that place took a turn for the worse after Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan left town! These guys are instantly recognizable by their yellow contact lenses, deathly pallor and the kind of truly ghastly hairdo it takes a team of ten highly paid Hollywood stylists to put together. They mean business. Or as someone helpfully points out, “Something terrible is coming and we must all be ready” — presumably a paraphrase of the line used by everyone’s agents upon receipt of the script, which contains enough howlers to keep a pack of werewolves occupied for a month, including “I was just a puppet and she was pulling the strings” and — my favorite — “It doesn’t have to be goodbye.” Rumor had it that Twilight: Eclipse was the best of the bunch. Sad to say, that honor still belongs to the first film, with its unimprovable and entirely straight-faced contrast between the forces of eternal darkness and the rigors of high school. Nothing in this film quite matches that, although the moment near the beginning when Bella is grounded by her father for hanging out with the undead, comes close. For the most part it's back to the boring old forest, where that much-vaunted vampire army turn up for a replay of the hoedown that brought the second film to a climax. “Bunch of vampires trying to kill me,” shrugs Bella. “Same old, same old,” says Jacob. If there is an area where the third film scores highly, it is the cunning and persistence with which the plot seeks to tip Bella into Jacob’s arms. At one point, she and her two suitors await the forces of darkness in a freezing tent, with Edward unable to comfort the shivering Bella, it is warm-blooded Jacob who gets to snuggle. “Face it,” Jacob tells Edward, over Bella’s sleeping form. “I’m hotter than you” — a line which prompted the audience I was with to utter a collective whoop that would have stopped a herd of Pamplona bulls. If I were Pattinson’s agent I would get on this, like, tomorrow. That Jacob steals the show has nothing to do with Lautner, who has the charisma levels of a small potato, but the script, which keeps fencing Edward off from the action, both on the battlefield and off. He even turns down Bella when she comes on too strong in the bedroom, insisting they wait until they are married. “I’m old-fashioned that way,” he says. Count Dracula would be biting his knuckles in frustration over this kid. Stewart, meanwhile, looks put-out and moody, as she does through most of the series. If she is to have a career beyond these films, she is going to have to leave some of the sullenness behind, but the camera loves her, no question. It’s easy to knock the Twilight series, with their taste for cheesy special effects and teenage hyper-ventilation, but one has to honor the honest adoration coursing through their system — just your average old-fashioned romantic-masochistic teen-dream rapture. Only with sharper teeth. C+

So Glad I Don't Have To See*: The Last Airbender

"An astute industry analyst of my acquaintance, who is 9 and an admirer of the Nickelodeon animated series on which the movie is based, offered a two-word diagnosis of its commercial prospects on the way out of the theater: “They’re screwed.” — A. O. Scott's review of The Last Airbender, NYT
The name alone makes me laugh every time I hear it: Airbender. Why would anyone call a movie that? Especially a movie about a bald child. I'm relieved, though. The same way I'm relieved when a drunk hits bottom, or a child finally yanks that wobbly tooth. At last. The misery is over. So more delusion, no more false optimism, no more big-headedness, no more bluster, no more "I've-figured-out-Spielberg's-Secret". Finito.

And yet I couldn't disagree more with this:

Vulture: Have you read the reviews for The Last Airbender?
M. Night Shyamalan: No, I haven't.
Vulture: Well, are you aware of the reviews?
Shyamalan: No, actually.
Vulture: Well, for the most part, critics have not been kind. Are you just ignoring them? Will you read them this weekend? Have you just not had time?
Shyamalan: Are you saying that in general they didn't dig it?
Vulture: In general, no.
What is the point? Besides the thrill of being rude and the bragging rights that follow? Yuck. An appalling interaction.

*An occasional column about movies that me happy not to be a critic anymore, conceived partly in response to the complaint "but you haven't even
seen it." Exactly.