#biopic television series on this man WHEN! when i say!!! | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

agentnico · 2 years

Text

Being the Ricardos (2021) Review

I wanted to see Spider-Man: No Way Home. Then I got COVID. So instead I had to watch Being the Ricardos on Amazon Prime whilst in isolation. No shame on Aaron Sorkin, I just really wanted to see Spider-Man.

Plot: In 1952, Hollywood power couple Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz face a series of personal and professional crises that threaten their careers, their relationship and their hit TV show.

I like Aaron Sorkin. I like his style of writing, and I like how he takes on more challenging biopic narratives and makes them more approachable and understandable to the casual movie-goer. Whether its the fact he actually managed to make the story behind Facebook interesting or the genius move of sticking Sacha Baron Cohen with an afro in a court-room in The Trial of the Chicago 7, the guy tends to know what he’s doing. So as I was sitting at home in COVID isolation sulking and feeling sad for myself for not being able to go out and see Spider-Man: No Way Home (and yes I won’t get over that!!), I came across Being the Ricardos - the new Aaron Sorkin written and directed film that recently premiered on Amazon Prime. So I thought I might as well give it a bash and watch it, seeing as I have nothing better to do than to stay at home and wait for me to stop being an infectious zombie.

So the film is about the behind the scenes drama of the 50s sitcom show I Love Lucy. For those of you wondering what an old school sitcom is, go check out WandaVision on Disney+ that pays homage to that medium. And yes, I’m gonna give WandaVision a shout out cause that show was amazing and gave Marvel a chance to break free from the formulaic superhero genre, so that should be respected!! Anyway, back to the Ricardos. So the film is about the on-set dispute during the preparation towards filming one of the episodes of I Love Lucy, when it comes to light that the show’s main star Lucille Ball may or may not be a communist, and for those of you who are scratching your heads as to why that was a problem, let’s just say 50s America were really against that political outlook and so being a commie was a big no-no! Especially for a celebrity on a prime network television show! So the film then covers how the studio and crew deal with trying to calm the situation, and as such the movie holds a constant question of will they/won’t they be able to film another episode of I Love Lucy or will they be cancelled and axed immediately due to the drama and controversy. I must say that I didn’t know anything about this true story prior to watching the film, so from that end I was curious to see how the events transpired and to what conclusion.

That being said, the main issue of this film lies in that I tries to capture many small narrative thread lines into one, and as such not giving any of the intertwining stories true justice. So we have the main thread which is the communist controversy, and that should be the main story however it’s only addressed at the beginning of the movie and at the end. Honestly when watching the movie I half forgotten that that was even a thing until its brought back at the end and I was like “oh yes, that’s what the movie was supposed to be about!”. The rest of the film is dedicated to the mystery of has Lucille’s husband and co-star Desi Arnaz cheated on her or not, to then also Lucille’s general career of trying to push herself away from comedy and attempt more serious films and dramas even though 50s Hollywood doesn’t want that from her, to Lucille clashing with the director and writers of their current episode of I Love Lucy and trying to overtake the creative process, to Lucille having abandonment issues from her husband and so trying to persuade the producers of all her filming work to give him pay raises and ensure he’s always cast alongside her so that she doesn’t lose him, and the list goes on. There’s so many little narratives that all on their own can be very interesting, however the movie tries to cram it all into one, and as such we cannot ever get into the meat and grittiness of it all, as such leaving for quite a passive and an unengaging viewing experience. There’s so much going on all at once that I found myself not caring much for any of it, which is a shame, as there is an interesting story in there, it’s just not presented well.

Casting wise everyone seems to be doing a good job. Again, I don’t know anything about the real life personas these actors are playing, so cannot say how true and accurate their portrayals are, but for the movie that I was watching everyone seemed to be doing a good job. Nicole Kidman is unrecognisable behind all the make-up, but she presents Lucille Ball as a strong-willed woman who fights for what she wants yet also being eccentric enough to validate why she’s so beloved as the central comedic piece of I Love Lucy, whilst Javier Bardem gives such a lively, witty and charming turn as Lucille’s husband Desi, and even sings his own songs, and his character reminded me a lot of Hugh Grant’s St Clair Bayfield in Florence Foster Jenkins, where overall the man is so supportive of his wife’s dreams and accomplishments, and in some ways is the driving force to her success, however that is hindered by the fact that he’s also being unfaithful in his marriage. And Bardem does a great job at balancing those traits. Nina Arianda and JK Simmons as Vivian Vance and William Frawley also are worth mentioning as two side actors of I Love Lucy, as they brought a lot of heart and realism to their characters.

Being the Ricardos is an interesting film. There’s a good story in there with solid performances and 50s Hollywood is visually brought to life really well, however it’s also a misfire for someone like Sorkin who usually is able to tell a story in a very concise and direct way, however here it seems his ideas are all over the place and he simply doesn’t know how to put it all together successfully. That being said, for someone who’s disappointed that they aren’t yet able to see the new Spider-Man film, this was a good distraction and a film I did enjoy watching overall, even though it felt like a filmed Wikipedia page.

Overall score: 6/10

11 notes · View notes

guardianreadersofthegalaxy · 3 years

Text

My 2020 film ranking

1. The Personal History Of David Copperfield (AKA ‘The Life of Dev Patel III: Victorian Dev’) – This adaptation of the Dickens classic charts the changing fortunes of its eponymous hero, as well as those of the colourful characters he meets along the way. Armando Ianucci brings his signature naturalistic dialogue to the classic story, plus spot-on colour-blind casting and minus his usual unpleasantness. Particular praise goes to lead actor Dev Patel and to Christopher Willis’s gorgeous soundtrack. And, of course, Charles Dickens.

2. 1917 (AKA ‘George McKay Goes Forth’) – Two British soldiers in the First World War must face the dangers of No Man’s Land to stop a doomed attack and save the lives of sixteen hundred men. There’s nothing quite like an immersive experience. With the help of omnipotent cinematographer Roger Deakins, director Sam Mendes enters the Great Hollywood Long-Take Battle and beats Alfonso Cuaron and Alejandro G. Innaritu at their own game. Credit to Thomas Newman for the pulse-pounding score and Krysty Wilson-Cairns for a screenplay that develops character through action more than dialogue.

3. Parasite (AKA ‘A Sweet, Collaborative Family Project’) – The working class Kim family will do whatever it takes to find lucrative employment with the wealthy Parks, even if it kills them. There’s something of a Shakespearean tragedy to this that I really like. Sympathetic antiheros, dark farcical comedy and a suitably bloody conclusion make this one of Bong Joon-ho’s more coherent pieces of social commentary.

4. Atlantics (AKA ‘What Happens When You Don’t Pay Your Employees’) – Ada’s happiness if threatened when her lover, Souleiman attempts to flee Senegal by boat. This starts out as a slow-paced mood piece, then changes gear halfway through as it becomes a crime film with undertones of soft-horror. It looks gorgeous and sounds even better, with a haunting score and effective use of the natural sound of the sea, wind and other elements.

5. His House (AKA ‘Walls… I Scream’) – A Sudanese couple seek refuge in the UK, but are unable to escape the horror they left behind. It’s a tried and tested horror formula: a strained family unit try to come to terms with shared trauma against the backdrop of an important social issue. But it’s really well executed. The understated tone left me unprepared for the brazenly nightmarish imagery.

6. A Beautiful Day In The Neighbourhood (AKA ‘Man Feelings’) – A troubled journalist is asked to write a profile on wholesome children’s television presenter Fred Rogers. There’s not much to say about this one. A sweet, sometimes surreal, tearjerker about facing up to your trauma and dealing with your emotions. Very nice.

7. Uncut Gems (AKA ‘Camera Enters Sandman’) – A New York jeweller and compulsive gambler takes a series of increasingly dangerous risks. This doesn’t build tension so much as it is tension, throughout. The only drawback is that Adam Sandler’s Howie is so unlikeable that I didn’t care what happened to him, unlike in the Safdie brother’s more morally ambiguous film Good Time. Still, a great ensemble cast and skilled sound mixing make this a uniquely gripping experience.

8. Marriage Story (AKA ‘Divorce Me, You Meaty Oak Tree!’) – A couple fight an increasingly hostile custody battle for their child during their divorce proceedings. This would be an amazing play. Acting and writing are all spot on, evoking the relatable nuances of a fraught relationship as well as illuminating the farcical process of divorce. But the potential that film offers as a medium is underused, besides some nice colour grading.

9. Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom (AKA ‘I Miss Theatres’) – A 1920’s Chicago blues band embark on a tumultuous recording session. This has all the strengths and weaknesses of a play. The spectacle of cinema is done away with in order to spotlight the many dialogues and monologues in a way that feels unnatural for a film. But the source material is excellent and the cast definitely do it justice.

10. Tenet (AKA ‘Taco Cat’) – A mercenary known only as ‘The Protagonist’ gets caught up with time travel, a Russian oligarch and the threat of Armageddon when he joins the mysterious ‘Tenet’ organisation. This is way too long and the endless, inaudible exposition gets dull very quickly but the inventive and heart-racing action sequences more or less make up for that. The male actors all play their roles with charisma while Elizabeth Debicki is left to do the emotional heavy lifting.

11. Dolemite Is My Name (‘AKA And F***ing Up Motherf***ers Is My Game’) – Standup comedian Rudy Ray Moore crafts his comic persona, Dolemite. Though this is a little formulaic in its adherence to the standard biopic structure, it surpasses the likes of ‘Nowhere Boy’, ‘Walk The Line’ or ‘Good Vibrations’ by having a protagonist who isn’t a total arsehole. And if you’re going to recreate the aesthetic of a film genre, Blaxploitation is at least at lot of fun.

12. Jojo Rabbit (AKA ‘Moonreich Kingdom) – An enthusiastic Hitler Youth member reconsiders his beliefs when he discovers a Jewish girl living in his house. If you go into this expecting to see the film that will single-handedly end global fascism, prepare for disappointment. What you really get is a sweet and funny coming of age story in a mildly controversial setting.

13. Saint Maud (AKA ‘I’m Walking On Thumb Tacks Oh-oh’) – A hospice nurse and recent Christian convert, believes she must save the soul of her terminally ill patient. I never say this, but Saint Maud could have been longer. The first seventy minutes go for slow building tension but that leaves the last half hour with not enough time to bring things to a head. The creepy atmosphere is carried by the music and visuals more than the understated performance of the two leads.

14. Uncorked (AKA ‘Billy Sommeliot’) – A young man from Memphis dreams of leaving his parents’ barbeque restaurant to become a sommelier. This just kinda follows the formula of ‘young working class guy wants to do something his parents don’t approve of’. It’s competently made but not really imaginative and wastes the opportunity for some great food porn.

15. Eurovision Song Contest – The Story Of Fire Saga (AKA ‘I Went And Watched ‘Atlantics’ Instead’) – An Icelandic singing duo realise their lifelong dream of competing in the Eurovision Song Contest. If I were a professional critic I would never review a film that I’d stopped watching after 30 minutes. But I’m not, so here it is in last place.

33 notes · View notes

laird-brochtuarach · 4 years

Link

Sam Heughan, on 'Outlander', healthy life at 40 and the independence of Scotland

This 40-year-old Scot (who would say it!) Is much more than the romantic warrior with Outlander's skirt . It has its own distillery, sounds for James Bond and does not cut when it comes to expressing his political ideas. We met him at an abandoned house in New York ... And, of course, things happened.

youtube

Is Sam Heughan (Balmaclellan, Scotland, 1980) the perfect son-in-law? He smiles at Esquire's question, while answering "nooooo". Or maybe yes. "I do not know. I can be what you want, ”he clarifies with a smile after throwing lit matches to the photographer, JUANKR, so that he captures how he plays with the light of the flame. Your PR (public relations, or 'babysitter' of celebrities) asks from the other room in the house if it smells burnt. It is a building that the Army built in 1862 during the American Civil War. Is abandoned. It does not seem that anyone has been killed, but many things must have happened there.

Known for his role as Jamie Fraser in Outlander - the series set between the 18th century and the Second World War that reaches its fifth season at Movistar + -, for now it is clear that Sam is Scottish, Scottish . There is nothing more to visit the website where he markets his whiskey, Sassenach Spirits , to see him with a kilt, boots, turtleneck and leather jacket in an area of the Galloway region. He has asked us to please mention his whiskey, which is drunk as if it were juice in the promotional video. He also wants to review that the biopic of actress Patricia Neal and British writer Roald Dahl has just finished, where she plays Paul Newman, and that March 13 opens in Spain Bloodshot , with Vin Diesel. Also, his name sounds strong for James Bond .

How do you digest the Outlander phenomenon ? Outlander is a long and intense work, but the series is like that. They always keep you very busy. But it's very good because I learn a lot, working on television is a great school. The ideal place to get a good training in this industry.

And how are you doing at this point with Jamie Fraser? I think my character is a good guy, of course. A decent, vulnerable man. Yes, I think he is a fantastic man. I also like it and I have a good time playing bad guys, but I have to say that I get along very well with Fraser. It's been six years together!

You started in the theater world from an early age. At first, I didn't want to be an actor. It is a very difficult world. But then I got hooked. I have done a lot of theater in the UK, in Scotland, and I love it. It is a discipline where you receive from the public an immediate response to your interpretation. It cannot be compared with Outlander or with filming movies. The audiovisual is easier and more fun, although you also learn a lot.

It seems that everything is good for you. Well, I'm competitive, especially in sports and also with myself. I like to see how far I can go and challenge myself. I have an association, My Peak Challenge ('my ultimate challenge'), in which I try to help people. The main idea is to lead a healthy life. We make meal plans, exercise ... Last year I ran two marathons in a month and it was a great challenge. But it's all in the mind, not in the body. It happens the same with this job when you don't get papers. You have to be persistent. I think if you want something and work, you can get it.

Now the big challenge is to save the planet. It's very important. We have to start making changes now, we are late. I love activist Greta Thunberg . We have to follow her.

There are people who think that it is better for celebrities to stay out of politics. Do you agree? I know. When I make a political comment on Twitter or Instagram there are people who tell me to shut up, but I think they are wrong. It is impossible for a human being to have no opinion. Well-known people have the power to spread the message. For example, at the beginning, I was against Scotland becoming independent from the United Kingdom. After documenting myself, I have realized that it is better to separate. After B rexit, I think it is important to continue in the European Union. I think that, for the sake of Europe and the international community, it is better to work together.

I think you like Spain very much. Yes, I like it a lot: Madrid, Barcelona ... The people are very funny and the Spanish food and tapas are delicious. People eat dinner at night and then go out. It's great.

You keep single. How about women? [Raises his eyebrow and laughs]. Well, I haven't divorced yet.

So you do look like the perfect son-in-law. I don't know who I am, who do you want me to be? I like being a good man, although I'm sure that at some point I've pissed off someone. That's the good thing about being an actor, that you can be a lot of people. It's a good job. I want to do many things before I'm late. I turn 40 in April and I want to stay healthy. It is a splendid age to make interesting roles. For actresses, however, not so much, and it seems terrible to me. The thing is changing a bit about it and I'm glad. But also, and I don't want to sound ridiculous, the middle-aged white man has enough problems. For example, we never talk about our feelings. When we are sick, we don't talk about our health either. It would be great if there was a place where everyone could share their concerns. In the end, we all face very similar things.

Well, I'm going to write that you're the perfect son-in-law. Thank you, I am but ... what if I later appear in photographs doing things I shouldn't?

And laughs.

#Sam Heughan #Jamie Fraser #Outlander #my edits

202 notes · View notes

edharrisdaily · 3 years

Text

Ed Harris talks Kodachrome, Westworld and the state of America

Riding high with his killer role in television’s Westworld, Ed Harris continues to bring the flinty characters that have been the hallmark of his career to the stage and the big screen.

Ed Harris has become something of a symbol for the single-minded American man. He’s used his resonant voice and intense blue-eyed gaze to play cowboys and astronauts, soldiers and sheriffs, artists and assassins.

That means he’s worn many hats: a beret as Kristof, the genius reality-television puppetmaster in The Truman Show; helmets – diving ones and space ones – in The Abyss and The Right Stuff respectively. The latter, in which he played Mercury astronaut John Glenn, proved a career breakthrough: a shot of him as Glenn made the cover of Newsweek just as the real Glenn headed into politics.

There have been plenty of Stetsons, too. He wears a big black one as the merciless Man in Black in the television series Westworld. That character could be a distant relative of the black-hatted title character he played in 1987’s Walker, the craziest movie of his career – well, until last year’s Mother! – about the American who appointed himself president of Nicaragua in the 1850s. It lives on in cult infamy.

On the line from New York, Harris laughs at the millinery-oriented overview of his career. “Ha, ha, ha. I just like wearing hats – especially as I don’t have any hair on top of my head.”

In his new film, Kodachrome, he sports a jaunty Panama to play a famous photographer who embarks with his estranged adult son on a road trip from New York to Kansas, to the last laboratory still processing the colour-slide film of the title.

It’s a relatively low-key role for Harris, not least because his prickly character is dying. “It was a great character to play. I had a really good time doing it.”

He is a man who, it must be said, sounds much friendlier than some of the characters he plays. “How are things in New Zealand?” he asks. Good, thanks. How are things in the US? “Good God almighty,” he chuckles. “Pretty pitiful situation, I guess, at the moment, eh? It’s embarrassing.”

At 67, Harris is a man whose career remains on a steady roll. In the past couple of decades, he’s appeared in plenty of big films but also managed to direct two of his own – notably the acclaimed Pollock, a biopic of the abstract artist Jackson Pollock, in which he also played the title role – and spend time treading the boards of Off-Broadway theatres.

When we talk, he and his wife of 35 years, Amy Madigan, are coming to the end of the season of the David Rabe play Good for Otto in New York. They were on stage together in London early last year, too, in Buried Child by the late Sam Shepard, who was also a Right Stuff alumnus. Do husband and wife come as a package?

“We have of late. It’s been really fun, you know.”

Born in New Jersey, Harris was a high-school athlete and football star before he attended Columbia University, and didn’t take up acting until his family shifted to New Mexico. He studied drama at Oklahoma University, then in Los Angeles, where he’s been based ever since.

He met Madigan when they were both cast in the Depression-era film Places in the Heart, starring Sally Field. They’ve since appeared in nine movies together, including Pollock, in which she played art collector Peggy Guggenheim.

The idea for the film was sparked when Harris’ father gave him a copy of a biography of the artist, but it took 10 years for the actor to get it to the screen.

It won him a best-actor Oscar nomination (co-star Marcia Gay Harden lifted the statuette for best supporting actress) and cemented Harris’ reputation as a single-minded tough nut. He famously smashed a chair on set to give Harden’s performance a jolt.

The film took its toll on the Harris-Madigan family finances. “I spent a ton of my own money on that film. You know I didn’t need to, but I had to. So I wouldn’t have changed that for the world.

“I had spent so much time working on developing the script and working on this guy and painting and getting to know people that knew him and getting the rights to his works … I was totally immersed in it. And I didn’t care what I had to do to make the film right.

“I mixed that film twice completely and went to three different composers. I would have done whatever I had to do to get it what I wanted it to be. I didn’t even think about it. I mean, my wife was kind of going ‘Ed, what are you doing?’. But we survived.”

If Pollock was an artistic triumph in step with his challenging stage work, in the movies Harris remains better known as a go-to guy for a voice of authority: in Apollo 13, he was mission controller Gene Kranz (“Failure is not an option”), and he’s played a fair few sheriffs, colonels and generals.

Nasa – the real one – has asked him a few times to perform narration duties on commemorations. He can’t get away from it in the movies, either. When Sandra Bullock’s stranded astronaut calls Houston in Gravity, that’s Harris responding.

“I mean, I am fascinated by space but it’s not something that’s like a major thing in my life.”

Harris’ commanding tones haven’t always been that commanding. “I used to have a really thick Jersey accent when I was going to college,” he says, “and just over the years, you know, part of my craft is to be able to use my voice appropriately for whatever given character.

“And I actually feel really good about the whole vocal stuff in Kodachrome, because it’s lower-register and pretty relaxed.”

The last time he played a dying man on screen – a poet with Aids in The Hours in 2002 – he got the fourth of his four Oscar nominations for it. Playing another one – and another difficult artist – in Kodachrome was harder than it looks.

“He might not be that active but physically it’s really challenging because he’s hurting, he’s aged, he’s frail. His mind is still sharp. Even to play an invalid you have to be in pretty good shape because you have to be able to use your body in a way that allows you do that.”

The film is also a meditation on the cultural change that has come with an increasingly digitised world. So where does Harris, a man who plays a robot-killing cowboy on television, sit on the digital-analogue spectrum?

“I’m a bit of a dinosaur, I’m afraid. You know it’s passing me by big-time. I am decent on the computer and that kind of thing but first of all I really like film films.

“I take a few decent photos I have a great old Leica camera that I actually used in the movie and I’ve taken some pretty good photographs. But I haven’t done much of late. I’ve been toying with the idea of building a little darkroom and getting to shoot some black and white but that’s just in my head at the moment.”

Presumably the photos would go up on the wall chez Harris-Madigan next to the Pollocks he painted in character.

“Well, a couple of friends got some, and one of the things about making that movie was you would shoot what he might be doing on canvas and you see that. But then to save time and canvas they put the camera back on me painting, and I will be painting over stuff that I thought was actually not so bad and just totally f---ing it up. So there wasn’t that much work left that I thought was decent.”

Harris is hoping to direct a psychological thriller based on Kim Zupan’s 2015 book The Ploughmen, about a Montana deputy sheriff and a local serial killer. Until then, Westworld gives him a regular pay cheque and keeps him busy for most of the year. So does figuring out what is going on in the show.

No, he didn’t know the twist about his character – that another regular character in the wild west android theme park was actually the Man in Black too, at a younger age. And that he owns the place. It was all bit of a surprise.

“You never know where they are going to take you. I’ve never worked on something where you find out in episode six something very basic about your character that might have been nice to know in episode one.

“I think they think that it’s going to keep the actors fresh or something. I told them, ‘Well, you know, last year I did 125 performances of Buried Child, and I knew what the script was going to be and what was going to happen with the character, and the 125th performance was just as fresh and alive as the first one. I don’t have a problem understanding and knowing what is going to happen to my character.’ But whatever.”

He’s not complaining. He has steady work in a high-profile show that is kind of a western, a genre he loves. He directed his own very good one, Appaloosa, in 2008. That one featured Viggo Mortensen, Jeremy Irons, Renée Zellweger and no killer robots. In Westworld he’s enjoying being a gun for hire and wearing that hat of his.

“I like putting on my Man in Black outfit. It makes me feel good.”

#ed harris #interview #q

1 note · View note

thecrownnet · 4 years

Link

Josh O’Connor may best be known for this breakthrough role in 2017’s God’s Own Country but the Southampton-born actor has been cultivating a catalog of great film and television performances for years. From The Riot Club and The Program in film and Doctor Who, Peaky Blinders, Ripper Street and The Durrells on TV, O’Connor has built a resume that made him the perfect choice to play the most challenging role of his career, Prince Charles in season three of Netflix’s The Crown. O’Connor play the Prince of Wales at a turning point in the would be king’s life, from the early years of his relationship with Camilla Bowles (the Diana years will show up in season four) to the daunting task of figuring out how to lead the commonwealth when the time comes.

I caught up with two-time BIFA winning actor to talk about God’s Own Country, his role in The Crown, what he likes and doesn’t like about biopics and playing real people and Todd Haynes’ I’m Not There.

I wanted to start by talking with you about God’s Own Country, which quickly became a cornerstone of queer cinema, and I think took off in a way most people weren’t expecting. Can you tell me a little bit the impact working on that film had for you?

It was a kind of monumental moment for me and I think a big moment for queer cinema and insofar as it was kind of a gay love story that we hadn’t seen before, you know, in terms of one that ended with hope and one that told a kind of positive story. It was something maybe we’d seen before, but, it’s rare and people were obviously hungry for that. And so it touched many people and I feel like it’s rare that your project gets to have that effect on people. So it was a kind of, it was a huge moment for me. In terms of kind of career wise also just as a creative, as an actor, I think it was a moment of realization about technique and how I want to work. It built a process, which I still use the basis of now. And so yeah, it was really impactful for me.

I love that. Earlier this year you had Emma., how was it stepping into Mr. Elton’s shoes?

(laughs) It was very different than anything I’ve done before. I’ve never done comedy before. Autumn de Wilde, who is an exceptionally talented director, came in and it was very clear she wanted a kind of Peter Cook-esque Mr Elton and we’ve talked about him having a sort of darker side, which we touch on in the film. I think it was real, I loved it, it was kind of getting to stretch my muscles, my comedic muscles I suppose. And yeah, it was a real treat and it’s a lovely, beautiful ensemble film.

Diving into The Crown, had you watched the first two seasons of the show to help inform you of the style or approach to the series?

Yes, I had. I’d seen the first two and I’m very good friends with Vanessa Kirby who played Margaret so, I initially watched it as a kind of support for my friends, but then absolutely, obviously got hooked and I think the first two series’ are exceptional. Claire Foy is kind of spellbinding, Matt Smith I think is extraordinary as Philip, and often sort of, it’s underplayed how brilliant he was. I absolutely loved it and then be a part of this group of actors who I totally adore and look up to, you know, the likes of Tobias Menzies, to go from Matthew is extraordinary, and Olivia Colman and Helena Bonham Carter, you know, these are all people that I aspire to so it’s been a real treat.

What were the main sources and figuring out who Prince Charles is on a personal level?

Well, I think there were a few things to kind of brought out the personal, but initially when I started with Charles, I spent so much time watching footage of him, or hearing recordings of him from the period. After a while I got to the point where I was like, actually, I don’t know that this has helped. It certainly isn’t helping me get any closer to the character and certainly isn’t getting close to who Charles really is behind closed doors. And so I sort of threw all that out the window. The thing that got me there more than anything was something that Peter Morgan had written, which is I think episode eight of series three. Charles described his life as being like he as being like a character in Dangling Man. He says, the character is a working class blue collar guy from Chicago and he’s waiting to be drafted to go to war and he actually wants to be drafted because it’ll give his life meaning, even though it means that they’ll go to a certain death.

And the idea that Charles, Prince Charles is this young boy who’s actually waiting for his own mother to die in order for his life to take meaning, I just thought that was a kind of, it locked into a sort of tragic narrative of this young boy that is so rare and an extraordinary. So that was the kind of, that was the crux of it.

When you’re playing somebody that is so well known, how do you strike the balance between impression and interpretation and what do you think you brought to Prince Charles?

Yeah, that’s such a good question. It’s a question I don’t know the answer to, yet. The best way to, for me, in my personal view of it as an audience member, is that I never enjoy seeing in any kind of biopic or whenever I see an actor playing a real person, I find it very difficult to watch and actor to do something really exactly like the person.

I don’t know why. I think it becomes too much like an impression. And what I always loved is that there was a great film called I’m Not There, which is about Bob Dylan. And so it was like eight or nine actors playing Dylan at different stages in his life and not just different stages but playing different aspects of his personality. So Cate Blanchett, plays the kind of more recognizable Dylan, which is the sort of public eye Dylan, you had Heath Ledger playing the kind of rock and roll Dylan, you had a young actor [Marcus Carl Franklin] playing the Woody Guthrie influenced Bob Dylan. So you had all these different actors, all totally different and most of them looked nothing like and resembled him in no way. And I remember that was the most powerful representation of Dylan I’ve seen or of anyone I’ve seen and I thought when I’m playing Prince Charles there’s no point in me spending all this time trying to get his voice and trying to look like him and walk like him.

Those things will happen naturally. And I think, you know, it’s good to have little aspects and little notes that people feel safe and comfortable in the knowledge secure that you are playing Prince Charles. But as soon as you can get rid of those, the earlier you can get rid of those, the the more interesting and the more adaptive that character is, the more influential that character can be. And as I say, it’s more interesting seeing Josh play Prince Charles than it is seeing just seeing Prince Charles.

I love that example of I’m Not There. It’s a brilliant movie and it is such a great way to bring an audience into a character without feeling like you’re just watching video footage.

Exactly. Because there’s documentary. We also undersell the brilliant art form that is documentary, which I absolutely adore it. There’s nothing better than watching old footage of Charles. I love it. But it’s not the same. I want to see an actor play and Claire Foy is a great example. I should stop rambling but Claire Foy is a great example of an actress who plays the queen so stupendously everyone in the world sat up right when they watched Claire and Matt Smith in series one and two. And it wasn’t because there was, ‘Oh my God,’ she looked and speaks exactly like the queen at that age. Most of us don’t know what the queen looked like at that age and it sounded like at that age because there wasn’t very much TV. So actually all we’re looking at is an incredible performance of the character. And I think I remember watching Claire and Matt and thinking ‘let’s focus on that.’ Let’s not try and play Prince Charles, let’s try and play the character.

Again, that’s a perfect example that makes perfect sense. There’s a turning point in the series when Charles, as the Prince of Wales, has to learn to speak Welsh. Did you know any Welsh or was this something new for you as well?

I mean, I certainly knew no Welsh. I’d never spoken a word of Welsh in my life a lot. I’d heard the language. One of the most kind of influential or most magical moments from when I was in grammar school was I heard an old recording of Dylan Thomas reading Under Milk Wood and was a beautiful radio play that he wrote and it was and poetical and beautiful and Dylan speaks it in this kind of like raucous Welsh voice. It’s like, mind blowing, and it was a kind of really special moment. So that combined with the fact that I love Wales the country, I felt very great affinity for the Welsh language. But as I said, I had no idea. So it’s very much, it was very much kind of like Charles’ feelings about having to learn it. There were muffs the same as mine and we went through a long process of learning everything. And yeah, I mean it’s great. I still know the speech now, but I don’t know what it means.

Which brings us right to that monumental episode where you have to give the speech for his investiture. Tell me about that sequence, which I think is just extraordinary in this series.

It’s a beautifully written episode. It has so much significance because it’s about Charles stepping up and becoming an adult. To me it was the thing that convinced me to take the role in the first place. I suddenly realized this as a young man who is, in my in recent history, is kind of known as a bit of a wally [British slang for ineffectual or foolish]. He goes around and talks about the environment, which of course we all know he was right. In the 80s and 90s he was considered a bit of a buffoon. And then there’s the Diana years and the thing that got me and took and basically convinced me to take the role was I suddenly realized he’s a lost boy and the investiture episode is him taking that lost boy and going, ‘No, I’m going to own this and I’m going to become a man.’

Jumping off that a bit, what do you think was the most misunderstood thing about Charles from this period of his life?

I think sort of the misunderstood thing of most of the Royal families, is that they had some perfect childhood. I mean, in terms of financially, they probably had a pretty great childhood, but I think terms of relationships to parents, relationships to siblings, they’re just like anyone else. I mean, they’re difficult. They have their ups and their downs. He was a lost boy but a lost boy with the knowledge that he was going to have to at some point lead, be the king, the reign of England, of the Commonwealth of this huge empire and we now know, it’s taken an entire lifetime and he still isn’t the King.

I think that’s the biggest thing that hopefully people have taken. There’s been a great response within people calling out and saying they feel great sorrow for Charles now. So hopefully that’s what they’ll take.

In looking forward to the future of your career, do you have a dream role in mind that you’d like to play?

I don’t know actually. It’s one of these questions that so hard because I’m always surprised when I say something quick and then a script will come through with a totally original role and there’s nothing better than a new script and a role that you’ve never thought of. It grabs me. But I suppose there are plenty of performances I’ve always kind of aspired to like Daniel Day-Lewis has played and those kind of fully formed characters or Tom Hanks. Those are the kinds of roles that you dream of. In terms of theater it’s easy because everyone wants to play Richard II or Hamlet. I’ve always wanted to play Richard II, so one day hopefully I’ll be able to do that. But beyond that, certainly the dream is to keep getting to play new characters and work with great directors.

All seasons of The Crown, including S3 where Josh O’Connor appears, are streaming exclusively on Netflix.

#josh o’connor #prince charles #the crown #god's own country #emma #the crown netflix

21 notes · View notes

arecomicsevengood · 4 years

Text

More Movies I Watched. Should I Just Join Letterboxd?

Is Letterboxd fun? Not really sure if anyone gets anything out of these posts being located here, but also not sure I have any desire to join a website I’m not sure anyone I’m friends with is on, don’t necessarily feel a yearning to be around more people with too many opinions, who are maybe trying to parlay their “expertise” into writing jobs.

Portrait Of A Lady On Fire (2020) dir. Celine Sciamma

I’m going to consider this a 2020 movie as that’s when its wide release was in the States; also, this movie’s great and if considered a 2020 movie is easily the frontrunner for best of the year. Well-shot enough I felt I was in good hands from the very first minutes, which feel vaguely reminiscent of The Piano (which I don’t remember super-well), this movie ends up also have a very intense relationship with music as well. This is a lesbian love story between a woman betrothed to be married to a man she’s never met and the painter who is making her portrait for the approval of said man. The painter is initially working on the portrait secretly, the film’s attention is tuned to the two leads’ furtive glances and studies of one another, the gaze intensely felt, but returned and mutual. Lots of great stuff, real delight taken in faces, the ability to change another’s expression by making them laugh. the power of music, the incommunicable aspects of subjective experience. I watched this director’s other movie, Girlhood, but don’t remember it, and this is a lot better. This is also a lot better than Blue Is The Warmest Color, where the only thing I remember is the long and graphic sex scene. This movie has no such scene. One of these actresses led the walkout when the French film industry gave Roman Polanski an award.

Summer Hours (2008) dir. Oliver Assayas

Just did an IMDB search and found out Assays cowrote a movie with Polanski a few years ago? That sucks. This one’s about an artist’s estate being sold off after a widow dies, as the kids need money. Plenty of nice bits about the subjective value of art and nostalgia. Assayas is not my favorite filmmaker by any means but he’s consistent enough. I guess Personal Shopper is my favorite of his?

Two Friends (1986) dir. Jane Campion

TV movie about two teenagers, told somewhat in reverse order for seemingly arbitrary reasons. Not great.

The Day Shall Come (2020) dir. Chris Morris

Beginning with like a series of “establishing shots” of Miami that eventually get to college kids partying is such a terrible way to begin a movie, really signals a degree of indifference to the language of film in favor of a a product of constant churn of content that “television” once served as shorthand for. Chris Morris comes from TV, of course, so I should know what I’m in for, and British comedy of a subversively-intentioned sort puts it in the wheelhouse of things I pay attention to anyway. That’s not to say I laughed at this thing, but I sort of observed it and its intentions — it never really wants you to be comfortable enough to laugh, and while the posture it takes to its black leads is sympathetic there’s still a feeling of anthropological indifference as part of its satirical thrust. Film comedies are meant to work in a theater because of the contagious properties of laughter, and when you lose that you end up with a thing that, even if I don’t want to subject it to “Hm, this seems kinda racist” thinkpieces that are the worst-case scenario, everything about the movie seems like the best case scenario is a reaction of “I see what you did there.”

Midnight Special (2016) dir. Jeff Nichols

Fits into the tradition of not-a-superhero-movie-but-basically tradition of Scanners and The Fury, but while those are basically the X-Men, this kid, kept from the sunlight because his dad think it will hurt him but really it’s good for him, is basically The Ray, of the 1990s Christopher Priest series I didn’t read consistently but liked a few issues of. The first half of this movie, spent speeding down streets at night, while some weird things happen, involving government agencies and a cult, is considerably better than the payoff, which is the child (a kid from Room and later, Good Boys) is an angel and is going to ascend to heaven. Part of it is so low-key and tense (but in a way where it feels like if it were on mute nothing would appear to be happening) and then the other part of it has these special effects that are fairly corny? So while the whole “indie guy makes a more mainstream movie” thing generates some interest, the idea of what constitutes a mainstream movie at this point in time (while also being a throwback in some ways to eighties Spielberg, or riding an It Follows/Stranger Things wave) means being forgettable.

Atlantic City (1980) dir. Louis Malle

This was a rewatch, which normally I avoid doing, but it turns out I had forgotten basically everything about this movie, besides vague memories of shots of stairwells, the sprawl of its plot, the roaming camera. That, still, is sort of the main thing to take away, because I love how the plot sort of swirls around this apartment building, and the streets of the city, the casino where Susan Sarandon works. She plays a woman whose husband left her for her sister, and they have rolled into the city with a large amount of cocaine. Burt Lancaster plays Sarandon’s neighbor, who lusts after her, but watches after another neighbor in the apartment, an old gangster’s ex-lover. Maybe I would suggest this as a good first Louis Malle movie to watch? Then you could watch Au Revoir Les Enfants, Murmur Of The Heart, Elevator To The Gallows, and My Dinner With Andre, and some of those are maybe better movies but this is arguably the most “accessible” in terms of its relationship to gangster/crime stuff while nonetheless feeling expansive and deeper than that. It relates to Burt Lancaster’s larger career but also has such a depth of feeling it’s not just a film history thing. Wallace Shawn has a cameo as a waiter also, it’s nice to see him.

Cat People (1982) dir. Paul Schrader

This movie’s a rewatch but I remember it being “watchable” but not really good, at least not nearly as good as the original. If memory serves, this has pretty much nothing in common with the original, but there’s a scene in the original that’s very memorable that’s reprised here. There’s a lot of gratuitous nudity in this one, and it even ends with a scene that seems perverse enough it should be memorable- Where Nastassja Kinski’s limbs are tied to a bed in a bit of bondage before she has sex and gets turned into a panther, so she can safely be put into zoo custody, but I didn’t remember at all on account of it feeling more perfunctory than indelible. Also I thought there was a scene where you see a naked man climb out of a cage at the zoo but maybe that’s in another movie too. Remember when Paul Schrader made a facebook post asking whose were the best tits in the history of art?

Affliction (1997) dir. Paul Schrader

When there was a little featurette documentary on Criterion Channel where Alex Ross Perry interviewed Schrader, Schrader cited Affliction as one of his best movies. Takes place in a snowy landscape reminiscent of Fargo and A Simple Plan, the vision of small-town life feels slightly familiar from Twin Peaks too — all of these things feel “nineties” in a way. About the cycle of domestic violence being passed on from fathers to sons. Stars Nick Nolte, with Willem Dafoe as his younger brother, who narrates intermittently. Mary Beth Hurt plays Nolte’s ex-wife, Sissy Spacek plays his current lover. James Coburn plays the abusive father but I kept thinking it was Rip Torn.

Rancho Notorious (1952) dir. Fritz Lang

Another solid Fritz Lang movie, that I believe was a favorite of the French new wave filmmakers? (Who didn’t like his German stuff for some bullshit reason.) This one’s a western. A man’s fiancee gets murdered, and he tries t to track down the guy who did it, in search of revenge. There’s a recurring bit of a song narrating his desire for revenge that’s pretty bad. It turns out there’s a large ranch, run by Marlene Dietrich, where criminals can hide out if they don’t ask questions of one another and give her a share of their haul. He forms alliances, does some crimes, gets his revenge, there’s some great technicolor shots of landscapes, it’s unclear how real his feelings are for Marlene Dietrich or if they’re partly put on to win her affections, I don’t think Dietrich is that appealing personally. The thing that makes this movie cool or interesting (and maybe makes it feel particularly American, but seen from an outsider’s perspective) is this sense of bonhomie that is maybe just a total front for long-standing resentment, with love as a conditional thing.

Slightly French (1949) dir. Douglas Sirk

I found this one pretty watchable. A rough-around-the-edges fairground actress is recruited to play a French ingenue in the press as part of a long play for a director to get his job back with a studio he was fired from after alienating the original lead actress and everyone above him. The director basically only cares about making movies, and is sort of a psychopath, but she falls in love with him. The director’s sister, who warns that she also has no feelings, ends up being paired off with the producer who competes for the star’s affection for a while. Written by a woman, and feels very psychologically insightful and unjudgmental about women’s tendency or willingness to fall in love with people who treat them poorly, and to allow for the movie/genre expectations to respect that choice as the right one.

A Scandal In Paris (1946) dir. Douglas Sirk

Apparently Sirk considered this his best movie. It’s before his melodrama period, and is based on a memoir, so there’s a bit of a biopic quality to it, though it does try to be fairly concise and well-structured. About a criminal who solves a crime he committed in order to become chief of police, ostensibly to become an even bigger criminal who pulls off a huge robbery, who then goes straight instead. The criminal is also a casanova type, who seduces a series of women and makes them fall in love with him and forgive him his crimes. I would probably have liked this movie more if it was a stylized seventies thing and/or liked the actors better.

Story Of A Cheat (1936) dir. Sacha Guitry

This movie’s wild! One of the best credit sequences I’ve ever seen, establishing a pattern that the whole thing will be told mostly via narration, and this narration goes on to tell so much of the story that the visual storytelling almost seems redundant, or illustrative of the text, in a way I’d never seen in a movie. It’s structured as a man writing his memoirs, and is more literal about that structure than we normally see. But then there are parts where his writing gets interrupted and these scenes use dialogue and employ elision to discreetly set up punchlines… Really cool. Criterion’s website says this was an influence on Orson Welles, and maybe they mean F For Fake?

The Immortal Story (1968) dir. Orson Welles

I hadn’t seen this one, despite being an Orson Welles fanatic, I guess because most people would not consider it a feature film, as it’s under an hour long, and made for French television. It’s not great, kind of feels like a long short film. Welles plays an old rich man who hates the existence of fiction so much he tries to make a story that’s basically a Penthouse letter become true, casting Jeanne Moreau in the role of the woman and a much younger man as the dude who has sex with her. Based on a story by Isak Dinesen, which I’m just learning now was the pen name of a woman.

If You Could Only Cook (1935) dir. William Selter

So I kept on watching Jean Arthur movies, binging them before they left Criterion Channel at the end of June. You would expect them to blend together, and maybe they will in time but having just watched this one it’s great. Totally absurd premise becomes legit funny. The master chef from History Is Made At Night here plays an Italian gangster. The two movies would be a pretty solid double feature, as both feature pretty involved, absurd plots, based around love stories, but also featuring this weird comedic element. This one features Jean Arthur as a down-on-her-luck woman who strikes up a conversation with a guy on a park bench, convincing him they should get a job together working as a butler and cook team. He is secretly rich, and gets lessons in being a butler from his butler, and falls in love with her, a week before he is scheduled to get married to a rich woman he doesn’t actually care about. This movie is just over seventy minutes long. I am pretty unfamiliar with the screwball comedy genre and really wonder how they play with a different lead actress.

The More The Merrier (1943) dir. George Stevens

This one’s great too. Super comedic, with sort of intricately choreographed visual gags, but then the romance culminates in a scene that’s wildly horny, bordering on the pornographic despite the absence of any nudity. That’s a seduction shot in close up, where a sort of oblivious and distracted conversation occurs absentmindedly as kisses move from hand to neck. Jean Arthur rents a room to a domineering older dude (Charles Coburn, the guy from The Devil And Miss Jones, who’s funnier here) who then rents half of his room to a man he thinks would be a good for her. Feels like a big part of the comedy in these is people being absolute nightmares who force other people into going along with things they absolutely hate, and as much as I hate the idea of being someone who can’t handle an old comedy because of my modern cultural mores, such scenes are pretty nerve-wracking to me. Still, there’s something to the storytelling in this, how the initial gags build on themselves when it’s just the two of them, then the introduction of the second man sort of continues the sort of jokes that were already being made, how the comedy sort of snowballs but then takes the shape of this very real romance.

The Impatient Years (1944) dir. Irving Cummings

This was originally conceived as a quasi-sequel to The More The Merrier. It is a weird one, with a vaguely comedic premise it takes a pretty emotionally intense first act to set up. The first half hour has these long dialogues filled with tension of people not really being able to communicate. It’s written by a woman and you can really tell, holy shit, it’s closely observed. But the whole premise is fucked! Begins with a court hearing for a divorce. Jean Arthur has been hit by her husband, and her father (Charles Coburn again) who witnessed it says he can’t recommend a divorce, because then the judge would have to give a divorce to all the couples who got married too quick before the man shipped off to war. A flashback structure shows him, freshly home, smoking cigarettes above the crib of the child he’s never seen before and pretty irritable. The father argues the issue is the married couple has forgotten while they’ve fallen in love. Coburn basically sucks too- he’s in all these movies as this railroading paternalistic figure, and apparently was in his real life a white supremacist? And while The Devil And Miss Jones shows him learning to not be a piece of shit, this movie basically takes his side and argues for him being right. The judge agrees with this plan that they should spend four days retracing the steps of when they first met, before he shipped off to work. And it works, they fall back in love in the movie’s second half. But basically Jean Arthur’s whole behavior at the beginning of the movie is predicated on her having the responsibilities of a mother? And the movie just sort of argues that she’s got to learn to be a wife too, and she agrees, pitching it as this sort of romantic thing, but the actual central cause of tension is never resolved. So this movie is flawed and kinda nonsensical, but it’s interesting, partly because the beginning is like Bergman-level brutal before the contortions of a plot push it into this unnatural light comedy shape.

Arizona (1940) dir. Wesley Ruggles

This one has Jean Arthur as the female lead, opposite William Holden, but is more notable for its scope as a Western. A pretty good example of the genre being about society in microcosm, being forged from this conflict between the wild and domestic spheres. Jean Arthur both brings this semi-feminist sense of freedom to all of her roles, and she also built up a body of work of populist politics and class consciousness. This one has her as a rugged individualist frontierswoman, who runs a series of businesses as a way to make more money and accrue wealth, which ends up being a good vehicle, from a storytelling perspective, to increase the scale of action consistently. The villain runs a series of scams/conspiracies to win a profit via dishonest means. This culminates with a wedding where the man leaves his bride immediately afterwards to murder the person who’s been trying to take over her property. Probably the best western I’ve seen where the threat of Native American violence is a major plot point. It does lack the sense of atmosphere and landscape I value in a western, favoring a more storytelling more focused on plot and characters. Ends with a scene where a dude gets married and then immediately leaves to go kill someone waiting in a bar for him. (I should try to track down the George Stevens western Shane, that also features Jean Arthur.)

Whirlpool (1934) dir. Roy William Neill

This isn’t as top shelf as the other Jean Arthur movies but it’s pretty good. A man goes to prison, fakes his own death for the sake of his wife so she’ll move on. Jean Arthur plays the daughter, who meets him once he gets out, but needs to keep him a secret from her mother, who has remarried but would probably wreck her life for the other man’s sake. This is a pretty weird movie, both structurally, and because the father-daughter relationship feels quasi-incestuous: She abandons dates with her fiancee to spend time with her father, etc. The movie handles it semi-innocently, but I guess I had just been hearing about how when things like this happen in real life, and adult children meet their parents for the first time as adults, there often is an irresistible desire between them. So the movie kind of feels like it’s basically about something super-fucked-up but is trying to depict it as innocent, but also just the raw emotion Jean Arthur displays as she cries when they meet for the first time is really intense! She doesn’t even show up until like 1/3 of the way through the movie but she gives it such emotional weight.

Party Wire (1935) dir. Erle Kenton

This movie’s charming and watchable but yeah not one of the better ones. It’s about a pretty interesting thing- In small towns in this era basically cheaper for there to be a telephone line everyone can listen in on. This ends up being a movie about small town gossip and resentment, where the villains are old women with too much time on their hands. It’s also about Jean Arthur being a wildly charming “real” person who wins the heart of a rich man who every woman is after, so while she’s good in the part there’s an element of formula executed better elsewhere. Here she has a father who’s drunk all the time, his alcoholism is a big running gag that gets a little exhausted. Also apparently there’s an app now that’s basically a party wire?

The Whole Town’s Talking (1935) dir. John Ford

Felt pretty ambivalent about this one too, which is more of an Edward G Robinson vehicle. This is meant to be a comedy, but I don’t really think the jokes come off that well, and the sense of reversals feels a little pat. Realized my best friend from high school looks sorta like Edward G Robinson now and worked out a way to remake it starring him. The Robinson version is about a guy who works as a clerk in an office, writes on the side, but learns he is the doppelganger of a killer gangster who just escaped from prison, who’s played by Robinson as well. This leads to his worldly coworker he has a crush on developing an interest in him, but also a lot of cases of mistaken identity with the police, who give him a note saying that while he looks like the person they’re trying to arrest, they’re not the same guy. The gangster then reads about this in the news and breaks into his apartment to get this “passport” from him. The remake I envision plays off of the fact that people are no longer famous for doing crimes enough to attract the attentions of a savvy young woman. But what if it was some dumb Youtube prankster, who is constantly committing crimes, that has the police after him? And then it’s basically the same movie.

Public Hero No. 1 (1935) dir. J. Walter Rubin

More of a heavy-duty crime thing, about the head of a gang busting out of prison, reuniting with his gang to do crimes, not knowing the cellmate he broke out of prison with is an undercover cop. Jean Arthur ends up caught in the middle, falling in love with the cop (not knowing he’s a cop) while being the sister of the criminal she hopes goes straight. She enlivens the movie quite a bit but it’s a familiar enough plot to still come up a little bit short. Would maybe benefit from more atmosphere in the crime bits and less comedy bits about an alcoholic doctor slowing it down.

You Can’t Take It With You (1938), Mr. Smith Goes To Washington (1939) dir. Frank Capra

Watched these for Jean Arthur, though they are classics for being Frank Capra movies, Jimmy Stewart movies, and sort of archetypal in their depiction of sincerity and the opposition of the rich and powerful. So that is to say that while my favorite movies I’ve watched recently have felt genre-less, or like they participate in every genre, these feel far more like you know where they’re going pretty much from the start: In the case of Mr. Smith Goes To Washington that’s partly because of things like there being an episode of The Simpsons that parodies/reuses it.

Mr. Deeds Goes To Town (1936) dir. Frank Capra

Also has Jean Arthur as the female lead, here playing opposite Gary Cooper. When they remade this as an Adam Sandler vehicle, Winona Ryder took the Jean Arthur role. Gary Cooper inherits money, comes to the big city, everyone wants the money, Jean Arthur writes news articles mocking him as a rube while slowly falling in love with his sincerity. In the end his decision to give the money to the poor outrages everyone in power and they try to argue he’s not mentally fit. All these Frank Capra movies are longer than the other Jean Arthur movies, (two hours, as opposed to an hour and a half) and also are not really focused on her, though she’s the best part of them.

Ball Of Fire (1941) dir. Howard Hawks

Billy Wilder cowrites this, and it’s maybe his best comedic script? Lot of good jokes in this, feel like this would’ve blown people away in 1941. Gary Cooper plays a naive nerd grammarian who in the course of realizing he needs cover modern slang for his encyclopedia runs into Barbara Stanwyck, as a gangster’s moll, hilarity ensues, they fall in love, both leads are great, supporting cast is big and funny, Gary Cooper in Mr. Deeds plays a somewhat naive hayseed, the character here is similarly out of his element but it’s because he’s a big nerd, which is a lot funnier. Stanwyck’s world-weariness giving way to affection for a bunch of old people while continuing to use language they don’t understand and sort of run all over them as they fall over here is a great bit. Really well-written, there’s a Billy Wilder movie starring Jean Arthur (A Foreign Affair, from 1948) I haven’t seen but would like to track down. Sort of fascinating preoccupation with gangsters in these movies, but also positing innocence as a virtue, but in a way that runs counter to “virgin/whore” reductionism. I guess a lot of this comes about because it precedes the post-war mass migration of white people to the suburbs? Organized crime was a big part of people’s lives. I hadn’t seen any Howard Hawks movies until recently I think? Unless I saw one of his westerns or screwball comedies in college. He’s good!

The Sniper (1952) dir. Edward Dmytrk

This one’s interesting in terms of feeling very ahead of its time but also like it would never be made now. About a dude whose misogyny causes him to shoot women with a sniper rifle, the same rifle that apparently any ex-soldier would carry. Probably a pretty tough and upsetting watch, as it’s just about a dude being insane, hoping the police arrest him, and him having interactions with women where he very quickly becomes upset when they realize he’s weird, so he follows them with a gun. Director was blacklisted, the only real overt political sentiment is “get perverts and people who assault women serious mental health care after their first offense.”

3 notes · View notes

jgroffdaily · 5 years

Link

Jonathan Groff decides we should take advantage of what might be New York’s last suitable night for al fresco dining in 2019. He sits down at one of a dozen empty tables outside the otherwise packed Hell’s Kitchen bistro and announces, in a tone suggesting more mischief than regret, that he must first make a call.

"Hello," he says, iPhone now at his ear. "Joel Grey?"

Groff is starring in a limited revival of Little Shop of Horrors, and it is a very hot ticket. The Broadway legend on the other end of the line has apparently thrown a Hail Mary in hopes of scoring seats to the night’s sold-out performance. Hamming up this exchange for my amusement, Groff is game to play broker for the Tony and Oscar winner who originated the role of Cabaret’s tuxedoed emcee — and, maybe, anybody else who has his number.

"This is basically my part-time job," says Groff of fielding requests, jotting down credit card information and negotiating pickup times and locations for friends both famous and civilian. "It was the same thing when I was doing Hamilton," he adds of his year playing King George III in Lin-Manuel Miranda’s hip-hop history lesson. "But I was really only onstage for nine minutes during that show, so the tickets were probably full-time."

The 34-year-old actor seems eager to please, not unlike current alter ego Seymour. Little Shop’s nebbish, sweet and ultimately doomed florist nurtures a manipulative plant even as the pet’s homicidal tendencies grow more and more apparent. Those familiar with the campy musical comedy know that it suffers no shortage of blood, but it’s a nursery rhyme compared with Groff’s recent work on truecrime thriller Mindhunter. Playing a curious FBI agent in David Fincher’s Netflix series has perhaps done more for his ascendant profile than anything yet. But two seasons on the drama have meant two nine-month stints in Pittsburgh, filming interrogation scenes with character actors who bear uncanny resemblances to famous serial killers.

So even on a two-show day like this late- October Saturday, the rigors of theater are easy work for Groff. Over a couple of hot toddies, in between humoring three smitten waiters at the restaurant at which he’s been a regular since Little Shop went into previews down the block, the actor appears to be in his element. "Theater is such a communal, familial medium and interactive experience," notes Groff, who says he recognizes faces in the crowd during most performances. "Mindhunter, for me at least, is a very private experience."

Groff plays against type on Mindhunter. Wide-eyed with an almost perpetual grin, his is a mug you wouldn’t be surprised to find in an illustrated Merriam-Webster — cozied up to the entry for "baby face." Much of his previous acting career leaned into this, starting with his breakout. The Pennsylvania native came to New York at 19 and landed the lead in the musical Spring Awakening by the time he was 21. "I was just auditioning for the ensemble of Broadway shows," says Groff. "I hadn’t really developed the taste to appreciate something like Spring Awakening until I was in it."

New York’s "It" Broadway show of the aughts, the rock opera about sexual discovery among 19th century German teenagers earned Groff his first Tony nomination. He spent two years in the production before leaving in 2008, at the same time as friend and co-star Lea Michele, to pursue film and television. The work that immediately followed — Ang Lee’s Taking Woodstock, a recurring spin on Michele’s Fox hit Glee, a supporting role in the second season of Kelsey Grammer’s cult drama Boss, voicework in Disney $1.3 billion smash Frozen (he’ll reprise his role as Kristoff in Frozen 2, out Nov. 22) — got him on the radar for vehicles of his own. When HBO began casting Looking, its 2014 dramedy about a group of gay friends navigating an evolving San Francisco, Groff was soon tapped to front the series.

"He will search for the best version of every scene and will work until everyone drops," says Looking executive producer Andrew Haigh, who cast him as Patrick — boy-nextdoor- ish, like the actor, but privileged and problematically fickle. "He is also wholly unafraid to be vulnerable onscreen."

Looking lasted for only two seasons and a wrap-up movie, and its premature demise allowed Groff to do Hamilton, which he joined while the show was off-Broadway in early 2015, and then made the jump to Broadway. His supporting part as the aforementioned royal — with interstitial lamentations for the seceding Colonies, sung like a lovelorn (and supremely pissed) Davy Jones — earned Groff his second Tony nomination. But Groff wasn’t long for Hamilton, either. He was circling his next TV project, a moody prestige procedural about the early days of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit, based on the 1995 memoir Mindhunter by criminal profiler John E. Douglas.

"I’m not naturally a true-crime person. So reading the book, I was like … 'oh, fuck,' "says Groff of John E. Douglas’ memoir 'Mindhunter.'

Mindhunter, the book and the series, delves into the morbid minutiae of notorious murder cases with an emphasis on interviews between law enforcement and criminals in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Groff was in contention for the role of FBI agent Holden Ford, based loosely on Douglas. First, he had to prove to director and executive producer Fincher — a filmmaker long admired by Groff, who says he has "a boner for his brain" — that a jovial Broadway star most widely known for singing with a reindeer in a Disney cartoon could have the upper hand with serial killers.

It was not Groff’s first audition for Fincher. Seven years earlier, he was in the running to play Napster co-founder Sean Parker in The Social Network. "My agents said, 'You have an audition in L.A. with David and Aaron Sorkin,' " Groff recalls. "If you get it, you start rehearsal the next day, so pack your suitcase for two months. They really like your tape, but they’re also considering Justin Timberlake." The part went to Timberlake.

"I did not feel then — and still don’t — that he had the inherent venality for that role," Fincher says of Groff. "He is as decent and sensitive as anyone I’ve ever met."

If venality is off the table for Groff, darkness is not. And though casting the song-anddance man was a source of curiosity for some in Hollywood before Mindhunter’s 2017 debut, the finished product didn’t elicit any skepticism from critics. Over the first season, Groff’s character goes from eager, milkdrinking company boy to a shell of the man introduced in the first episode. He alarms colleagues with the way he mirrors serial killers, until he has a panic attack after getting a bear hug from a necrophile. The second run, equally well reviewed after its August debut, saw a somewhat recovered Holden sit down with Charles Manson and, for the dramatic fulcrum of the season, investigate the Atlanta child murders of 1979-81.

"It is so impossibly bleak that I don’t think about it while I’m doing it," says Groff, who confesses he finds watching the show more affecting than making it. "All due respect to people who feel like the character is inside of them or whatever, but I don’t have that. I would leave set, listen to Beyoncé, and that was it."

After an hour and a half in his company, Groff reveals himself as a Lucille Ball historian, an avid bike rider, a devout New Yorker and someone who doesn’t seem easily bummed out — except when the conversation turns to success. His excitement over landing Mindhunter, he says, was immediately diluted by a pang of sadness. "Whenever something really great happens, it makes me feel a little bit depressed," he says. "It’s like, this is never going to get better than this moment right now. I’m sitting in David Fincher’s office and he’s giving me this role."

Talk of a third season of Mindhunter is on hold while Fincher focuses on his next feature. But the director did take a recent break from Mank, a biopic on Citizen Kane screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz, to attend Groff’s first Little Shop matinee with wife and fellow Mindhunter executive producer Céan Chaffin. It was a surprise appearance, but only because Groff hadn’t been checking his text messages. "I’m not good at my phone," he admits.

Groff has not looked at his phone since that one call — which, while polite, now has him in danger of running late for curtain. He breaks the bad news of his immediate departure to one particularly adoring waiter, and we walk to the stand where his bike is locked. There, he pulls from his bag a cobalt helmet that could double as Tron cosplay. Bars of blinding LED lights on both its front and back, his headgear tells cabs to get the hell out of the way and signals to everybody else that this is a man who values safety over subtlety.

"Yeah, I do really love riding my bike in the city … I’m just not that hard-core," Groff says of the helmet before encasing his tousle of sandy chestnut hair for the one-block ride to the theater and an expectant Joel Grey. "My mom bought this for me."

#jonathan groff #interview

31 notes · View notes

thisguyatthemovies · 5 years

Text

A beautiful day indeed

Title: “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood”

Release date: Nov. 22, 2019

Starring: Tom Hanks, Matthew Rhys, Susan Kelechi Watson, Chris Cooper, Maryann Plunkett, Enrico Colantoni, Wendy Makkena, Tammy Blanchard, Noah Harpster, Carmen Cusack, Christine Lahti

Directed by: Marielle Heller

Run time: 1 hour, 48 minutes

Rated: PG

What it’s about: A jaded magazine writer is assigned a profile about children’s television personality Fred Rogers, and the two become friends as Rogers helps him see humanity in a more positive light.

How I saw it: How often these days do you sit quietly and ponder your life? How often do you think about the people who have shaped it? How often do you do that for a minute at a time, uninterrupted? How often do you even go 60 seconds without glancing at your phone?

The turning point and most powerful, poignant moment in director Marielle Heller’s serene, soulful look at the enduring influence of children’s television personality Fred Rogers, “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood,” is one minute of silence. And it plays out in real time. Imagine that -- one minute of sitting there, with no one on the screen making a sound and no action taking place. One minute seems like a long time these days, especially in a movie. It could have been an unnerving test of patience. But here, in a movie already more peaceful than anything else you will see in a theater, it not only works, it leaves an impression. It helps transform a nice enough movie into something special.

“A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood” is not just the story of TV’s Mister Rogers. It’s neither biopic nor documentary but a narrative film based on a true story that blends fact and fiction. Fred Rogers (played with perfect charm and energy by Tom Hanks) isn’t even on screen for parts of the film, and he is not the lead character. That would be Matthew Rhys as Lloyd Vogel, a magazine writer and fictional character based on real-life journalist Tom Junod, whose 1998 Esquire article “Can You Say … Hero?” is the basis for the screenplay written by Micah Fizerman-Blue and Noah Harpster.

Just as Junod in real life, Rhys’ Lloyd Vogel is an award-winning journalist with a reputation of angering and alienating his subjects and sources. Vogel, a cynical middle-aged man who is coming to grips with being a new father and also dealing with an unhappy past, is given an assignment he thinks is beneath him – a puff piece, 400-word profile of Fred Rogers that will be part of a “heroes” series. Vogel is not happy about the assignment but accepts it and arranges to meet Rogers in-person at the TV studio in Pittsburgh where Rogers’ show is produced.

It doesn’t take long for Vogel to realize he is the interviewee more than the interviewer. Rogers recognizes a tortured soul when he sees one. In the days before meeting Rogers, Vogel is involved in an altercation with his hard-drinking father, Jerry (Chris Cooper), at his sister’s third wedding, and he still is sporting a black eye when he arrives in Pittsburgh. Rogers seems to recognize that Vogel’s story about the injury being the result of a softball incident is a lie. Vogel’s issues stem from his troubled relationship with his father, who left the family while Lloyd’s mother was dying.

Which brings us to the minute of silence. Vogel and Rogers are sitting in a booth at a busy diner. Vogel still is skeptical about Rogers; he thinks the whole “nice guy” thing might be an act. Rogers senses this, and he asks Vogel to sit in silence with him and think about those who “loved us into being.” So, Vogel does. And then everyone else in the diner does. The moment changes something deep in Vogel. The last 20 seconds or so of the scene is a close-up shot of Rogers just sitting there with a slight, warm smile.

From then on, Vogel gets it. He tries to be a better husband to his wife, Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson), and a better dad. He slowly builds a relationship with his father, who by this time is dying in a hospital bed in his living room. Lloyd Vogel and Rogers become great friends (and that happened in real life with Rogers and Junod). The sudden transformation of Vogel’s attitude because of Rogers’ decency might seem simplistic, and it is. But this is Mister Rogers we are talking about, and that’s just what he did.

Vogel’s journey from selfish and bitter to loving husband/father/son is the stuff of standard-issue redemption drama, and at times that is what “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood” threatens to become. But it is lifted by the performance of Hanks, a nice-guy icon playing a nice-guy icon. He seems as comfortable as a zip-up red sweater in the role. Because of how well-known he is and Rogers was, a concern is not being able to lose sight of it being Hanks playing Rogers. But that lasts about five seconds. Only when we are reminded of the real-life Rogers in a clip during the credits do we remember, “Oh, yeah. That was Tom Hanks.” Hanks is perfect in a scene in which Vogel turns the table on him when the two talk about Rogers’ sons. The moment is a reminder that Rogers was human just like the rest of us.

“A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood” also benefits from moments of surrealness. Part of that is Rogers himself, and his show. The movie is patterned after Rogers’ PBS TV kids’ program, with toy cars, planes and cities indicating travel between scenes. And in the movie’s oddest moment, Vogel imagines himself on the set of the show, at first as his adult self but later as a puppet among show regulars Daniel Striped Tiger, King Friday XIII and Lady Aberlin (Maddie Corman).

Hard as this might be to fathom, some people did not like the real-life Rogers (just as some don’t like Hanks), and they likely won’t see this movie for the same reasons. To hardened souls, “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood,” like Rogers, will seem too fantastical. Too cornball. Too soft. Too lightweight. Too out of touch. Too loving (Rogers and his show were criticized by those who prefer a tough-love approach for teaching children they are special and accepted unconditionally). Those are precisely the kind of people who need to see “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood.”

But if they won’t see it, and if they choose to view the world through a cynic’s eyes, Rogers, were he alive today, would undoubtedly offer an understanding smile and say, “And that’s OK.”

My score: 94 out of 100

Should you see it? Yes, you owe it to yourself to be reminded what kindness and empathy are all about.

#movies #movie review #movie recommendation #a beautiful day in the neighborhood #tom hanks #fred rogers #mister rogers #oscars

13 notes · View notes

moonwest · 5 years

Text

Full Ben Whishaw Interview in Sunday Times Magazine

Ben Whishaw, the voice of Paddington, the millennial Q in the Bond films, the next generation of Mr Banks in Disney’s epic Mary Poppins reboot, is fresh off the plane from LA. He is wearing a navy shirt, dark wool trousers and a fluffy knitted hat over his lush curls. It’s a strange combination of quirkiness and elegance. At the start of the year he won a Golden Globe and a Critics’ Choice award for his captivating portrayal of Norman Scott opposite Hugh Grant’s Jeremy Thorpe in A Very English Scandal. Of course he says he didn’t expect to win, and of course he says it feels great, but when I ask if this recognition from Hollywood means he’ll spend more time out there, he says: “No idea. I don’t feel it’s my world. I just sort of dropped in and it was a lovely thing. I would like to drop in more often. Maybe it opens doors. I guess we’ll see.”

For now, it’s back to the day job. Whishaw, 38, is rehearsing a play called Norma Jeane Baker of Troy, in which he plays a man who likes to dress up as Marilyn Monroe. “We just got the costumes,” he says. “I wear a dress that’s a replica of the one she wore in The Seven Year Itch — the white one where the wind comes up. They’ve also given me the bum, hips and breasts. I don’t think they’re as big as Marilyn’s, but they’re proportionate to my body. It’s a strange thing. I’m not playing Marilyn, I’m playing a man who’s infatuated with her. The play is set in the year she died and he’s in mourning for her. Apparently there was a spate of copycat suicides that year.”

To research the role, Whishaw has been reading a book called Fragments. “It’s bits of Marilyn’s diary, notes on hotel paper, poetry,” he says. “She writes beautifully. Arthur Miller was here with her when they were doing the film The Prince and the Showgirl, and she opened his diary and read about how disappointed he was with her, how embarrassed he was being around his intellectual friends with her. Apparently this was devastating to Marilyn. All these men say how difficult she was. It makes you want to strangle them. But she really was amazing. She had a lot going on, a lot of sadness on her plate, poor darling. To be a star in that star system and those men.”

If she had been born 50 years later, does he think she would have been part of the #MeToo movement? “I’m sure she would have. I’ve been listening to interviews with her. She doesn’t seem afraid of anything.”

Fearless and vulnerable. It’s a contradiction that could possibly describe both of them. “Yes,” he smiles.

Almost 15 years have passed since Whishaw, fresh out of Rada, was acclaimed as one of the best ever Hamlets in the Trevor Nunn production at the Old Vic. His portrayal earned him an Olivier nomination and opened the door to film and television roles. He voiced Michael Bond’s Peruvian stowaway bear in the two recent Paddington films and is lined up for a third, as well as an animated TV series for Nickelodeon. Perhaps his best known role is Q in the Bond films Skyfall (2012) and Spectre (2015). As soon as he’s finished his Marilyn, he will begin shooting the next one, though no one in a Bond movie can tell you in advance what it’s going to be like. “I think they’re probably trying to figure out what to do with the storyline,” he says. “At least I know that my character is the same. Someone did tell me there might be a scene with Q’s cats.”

I immediately want to sort out an audition for my cat Roger Moore.

“Does Roger travel?” he asks. “Could he go to Pinewood? And can he cock an eyebrow?”

Yes, he can. That’s why he’s called Roger Moore.

“I’ll get onto Barbara Broccoli about it,” he says.

Whishaw has created an ever-widening niche for himself — he has made room in film, theatre and television for malleable, sensitive male characters that are sometimes described as androgynous, but what they really are is sexually ambiguous.

“Do you think I’m androgynous? I think I’m quite male-looking. Androgyny is different to non-binary, but I hate all these labels. I get mixed up.”

It’s true, there are many labels; nonetheless Whishaw is a 21st-century man. When you think of those macho actors of the last century, men like Rock Hudson, who revealed he was gay only when he was dying of Aids, it seems so different now.

Whishaw entered a civil partnership with the Australian composer Mark Bradshaw in 2012, but for a long time he did not discuss his private life. He would say things like, “An actor shouldn’t reveal their sexuality because it pigeonholes them.” Once he had come to terms with it himself, however, hiding it became difficult in a different way. “People assume there’s some juicy secret,” he says. “But I don’t agree any more with that statement [about being pigeonholed]. I don’t think it’s the be-all and end-all, and since revealing my sexuality I haven’t had any negative effects.”

Perhaps that’s because he is such a skilful actor, perhaps the pigeonholes aren’t as rigid as they used to be, or perhaps the revelation has actually helped him. He shrugs. He doesn’t mind talking about it now, it’s just he can’t be conclusive.

At one point, Whishaw was lined up to play Freddie Mercury in Bohemian Rhapsody, although he was never given a contract or confirmed officially. Various versions of the biopic had been on the cards for about 10 years. Sacha Baron Cohen was in the frame first of all, then Whishaw, and ultimately Rami Malek. The film has been accused of not being “gay enough”, but, for all the criticism, Malek’s career-defining role won him an Oscar.

We talk about how hard it was for Mercury to admit that he was gay and how he would refer to himself as bisexual. But then perhaps he was. He certainly had sexual relationships with women. “I think it’s very unfair when people say they’re bisexual and they’re accused of being gay really,” Whishaw says. “If we’re honest about these things, perhaps most people are on a spectrum.”

Whatever the risks he took in revealing his sexuality to the public, Whishaw found it much harder coming out to his family. “I’ve gone through a few difficult things,” he says. “There was a moment in my early twenties when I did not feel very good about myself. It was to do with my sexuality and not knowing how to be myself and hating myself. I did know [my sexuality], I just couldn’t tell anyone.”

When he eventually told his parents, they weren’t surprised, but he still struggled. He sought therapy. “It really did help,” he says.

He carries himself with such a sense of otherness that I am surprised to learn he is a twin. “We were born on the same day and we came out of the same place at the same time, but we are totally unalike,” he says. “Perhaps you can see we are related, but we don’t look alike. He’s blond. He came out first and was very pink and chubby. And I was this squashed, dark thing that popped out a few moments after. We were so different, but we were always dressed the same and taken everywhere together, even to things I was not interested in, like football. So I’ve always defined myself by him, but in opposition to him. I like everything different to him. There’s not a single thing we have in common, except we both liked the scary rides if we were taken to a park.”

Don’t twins normally have a kind of supernatural understanding? “No. No understanding, no telepathy. When I told him [about being gay], he wasn’t surprised, of course, but still.”

He notices a black crystal around my neck and I explain that it was given to me by my hypnotherapist.

“I’d like to try hypnotherapy,” he says. For what? “Smoking,” he says. “It’s so frowned upon. You feel ostracised from the world if you smoke. And there’s the hair twiddling thing.” He starts twiddling his hair. “I’ve probably been doing this for the whole interview.” He hasn’t, but apparently it’s been a lifelong habit. “I’ve done it since I was a baby. I don’t know why I do it.”

I recall the title of a Peter Cook anthology: Tragically, I Was an Only Twin. That’s what Whishaw seems like. I can’t imagine him with a brother. “My dad says if my brother and I were one person we would be an amazing, perfect human,” he replies.

It’s often reported that his father works in IT, but that’s not true. “He lives in the countryside and raises chickens behind a farm. He used to be a footballer and he now works in sports with young people. He’s not an IT person at all,” Whishaw laughs. His mother works in cosmetics. They split up when he was a young boy, but he has good relationships with both of them. He talks about them with love.

The last time we met, Whishaw told me he was afraid of meeting people. “I haven’t got over that,” he says. “I love people, but I’m just shy of meeting new people, especially when they’re famous.”

In particular, he was bashful around Meryl Streep, whom he starred alongside in Mary Poppins. “I’m so completely left speechless when I’m in the same room as her. Do you never feel that speechlessness come on you?” he asks sweetly. “Even though she seemed to be the nicest person, I was very timid and shy around her.”

It’s odd how someone so shy can look so confident — smouldering even — on screen.

He walks off in the furry hat that makes him look part man, part mole. It’s certainly a statement. But perhaps the most curious thing about Whishaw is we’ll never entirely know what that statement is.

Norma Jeane Baker of Troy is showing at the Shed’s Bloomberg Building, New York, April 6-May 19; theshed.org

#ben whishaw #norma jeane baker of troy #sunday times magazine

236 notes · View notes

findmyrupertfriend · 4 years

Link

By Alexis Soloski, June 14, 2019

LOS ANGELES — When Rupert Friend stepped out of wardrobe on a recent Wednesday, he wore a filthy checked shirt, baggy tweed pants and boots that looked as if they could have been used as chew toys.

“Basically, we do everything you’re not supposed to do on a leading man,” said J.R. Hawbaker, the costume designer, as she adjusted a button.

David DiGilio, a writer and producer, added: “We said, ‘Don’t let him look good.”

He still looked good.

Mr. Friend, a fan favorite for his work on “Homeland,” was on a shoot for “Strange Angel,” a CBS All Access show that begins streaming June 14. It is inspired by the weird but true tale of Jack Parsons, a handsome rocket engineer in 1930s Los Angeles who joined a sex magic cult known as the Agape Lodge. (L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, was among its guests.)

Mr. Friend plays Ernest Donovan, the next-door neighbor who introduces Jack (played by Jack Reynor) to the cult, “a place where you can be the man you always dreamed of being.”

If you’re looking for a man to lead you astray, you could do worse than Mr. Friend, who specializes in rebels, rakes and hitmen. He’s that rare Hollywood animal, a starring actor who feels genuinely dangerous, onscreen anyway. “I don’t bite,” his character says in “Strange Angel.” Then he does.

Back From the Dead

Earlier that day, Mr. Friend, 36, had bounded into the conference room at the Paramount Pictures lot, near the sheds where “Strange Angel” shoots, wearing clothes that actually fit: a frisky corduroy suit and shining shoes.

He gave the office space a quick once-over (“It looks like you’re interviewing me for a job,” he said) before folding himself into an ergonomic chair and cracking open a mini bottle of water. In person, he is unreserved, often wry. When the motion-sensor lights kept blinking off, he said, with a deadpan, “Very energy efficient.”

So what’s a nice guy like him doing with a bad-boy résumé like his? Blame that face. “The Cro-Magnon” look, he calls it — wide forehead, frostbit eyes, a chin so square it must make mathematicians swoon. Even before he was cast as Peter Quinn, the C.I.A. assassin he played for five seasons on “Homeland,” people would assume he’d come to kill them.

“It stopped them picking fights,” he said.

That face was a brilliant fit for Quinn, introduced in Season 2 as a coldhearted operative with a soft spot for Carrie Mathison, the show’s lead, played by Claire Danes. Alex Gansa, the showrunner for “Homeland,” said that he had cast Mr. Friend, then a relative unknown, because “he had these leading man looks and yet there were deep currents running underneath.”

Quinn was meant to die in Season 5, a victim of sarin gas poisoning. But when he learned that his character would perish, Mr. Friend was asked to draft the not-quite-a-love-letter that Quinn leaves Carrie from his deathbed: “Just think of me as a light on the headlands, a beacon, steering you clear of the rocks.”

“It was so beautifully composed and wonderful,” Mr. Gansa said, that the producers brought Quinn back for Season 6. “In a way he saved himself.”

The Quinn who returned was a damaged man, weakened by a stroke, tormented by his shortcomings. Fans were drawn to Mr. Friend’s mix of reserve and vulnerability, his portrait of a man soldiering on despite serious PTSD.

When Quinn finally met his end, taking a hail of bullets to protect the president-elect, some fans were so incensed that they bought a full-page ad in The Hollywood Reporter, shaming the producers for, among other things, Quinn’s incapacity “for loving and being loved.”

“Strange Angel” is Mr. Friend’s television resurrection, and it’s a series he initially resisted when his agent sent along the synopsis. He had played enough hard men, enough dark hearts. Just because he has a type doesn’t mean he likes it. “I don’t really want to spend five years sacrificing virgins,” he said.

His Cuddly Side

Mr. Friend grew up in a small town in Oxfordshire, England. After finishing high school he played in a band, spent a gap year traveling and then enrolled in drama school, mostly because he thought acting meant he wouldn’t have to do the same thing day after day.

While studying at the Webber Douglas Academy he was cast as Johnny Depp’s lover in “The Libertine,” a biopic about the Earl of Rochester. Then he played the lady-killer in “Pride and Prejudice,” Joe Wright’s adaptation of the Jane Austen romance, starring opposite Keira Knightley.

He and Ms. Knightley dated for several years, though they were careful to avoid mentioning each other in the media. For a long time, Mr. Friend had a contentious relationship with reporters. If you read old interviews, you’ll see he did use to bite. (In a 2008 interview with The Observer, he sits down with the reporter and dismisses the meeting as “so boring.”)

His cynicism extended to his peers. He watched some of his acting colleagues “chase a kind of fame that I wasn’t chasing,” he said. They’d find a type and play it again and again. “And then that was it. Fine. Done. Now I’m going to Malibu. Goodbye,” he said.

Mr. Friend could have easily fallen into that trap himself. In between “Homeland” seasons, he played another assassin, in the action film “Hitman: Agent 47.” The other day he was reading a script, he said, and his wife, the athlete and activist Aimee Mullins, overheard him murmuring, “‘Oh, man. Another troubled character.’ And she was like, ‘They always are.’”

But Mr. Friend is trying to show the world that he’s more than just a dour face. His Twitter and Instagram avatar is a sweet cartoon bear (from the English cartoon Rupert Bear), and many of his posts are love notes to his wife.

After “Homeland,” he took on less predictable roles. In “The Death of Stalin,” a farcical look at Soviet history, he plays Stalin’s punching bag of a son. In Julian Schnabel’s coming “At Eternity’s Gate,” he plays Theo van Gogh, the loving brother of Vincent.

“He’s nothing like he was in ‘Homeland.’” Mr. Schnabel said. “I think he’s a sweetheart.”

In his next movie, Paul Feig’s “A Simple Favor,” a noirish thriller about mommy bloggers, he turned down a lead and instead requested the smaller role of a self-obsessed fashion designer named Dennis Nylon. Mr. Feig said he “was completely shocked because it is kind of this ridiculous part.”

And Mr. Friend can now be found on the Paramount lot, cuddling a goat, crashing a motorcycle, playing the ukulele, doing whatever else “Strange Angel” requires. After reading the scripts on an Antarctic vacation, he discovered that Ernest wasn’t really a dark character after all, or at least not entirely. He was a seeker and a poet, “the kind of guy who asks you for a beer and you know it’s going to end in jail, but you want to go anyway,” he said.

And He Cooks, Too

Later that day, Mr. Friend arrived on location at a three-story, Craftsman-style manor in the West Adams district in central Los Angeles that stands in for the Agape Lodge. (The original lodge was in Hollywood.)

Correction: June 15, 2018

An earlier version of this article misstated the circumstances under which Rupert Friend wrote a letter for his character on “Homeland.” He was asked to draft the letter; he did not insist on it.

#words with friend #newyorktimes.com #rupert friend #interview #strange angel #homeland

4 notes · View notes

mylifeincinema · 5 years

Text

My Week in Reviews: October 12, 2019

Joker (Todd Phillips, 2019)

It's impossible to talk about Todd Phillips' Joker without at the very least acknowledging just how much it was influenced by Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver. Phillips’ film is homage bordering on plagiarism and might’ve failed if not for the fact that it embraces this and runs with it full speed ahead. Replacing a run-of-the-mill nobody with one of pop-culture's most famous villains, Joker manages to dive deeper into its subjects' mental decay, knowing its viewers will endure even the most disturbing and twisted moments in anticipation of a reveal they know is on its way.

Joaquin Phoenix's performance is staggering. He embodies Arthur Fleck with just enough likability for us to feel for him as he’s beaten, betrayed and belittled throughout the film, but enough detached malevolence so that his heinous acts are still nothing less than appalling. Phoenix fills this cracked psyche with just as much sadness, fragility and frustration as he does explosively violent fits of psychopathy, making the entire film feel like a burning fuse leading up to the inevitable moment when the madness shatters through, devouring the last bit of humanity left in there.

The rest of the cast is all but wasted. Incredible character actors like Shea Whigham, Bill Camp and Glenn Fleshler are reduced to fuel for the plot, and the radiant and reliable Zazie Beetz is little more than glorified set dressing. Only Robert De Niro is given any substantial material to work with.

Todd Phillips’ work as writer (with Scott Silver) and director is successful in maintaining a tone of dread throughout, and only ever loses focus on the film’s timely themes when he ignores his limitations. Phillips isn’t quite the visionary director he clearly believes he is, and choices of his – especially throughout the late-second/early-third acts – are distracting in not only their long-winded self-indulgence, but also in their gross distrust of the audience. Phillips and Silver fill the film with a ton of pitch-black humor, as they clearly believe – much like Arthur himself – that Arthur Fleck’s life is indeed a comedy. This works at times, such as the climax, where the dialogue is so painfully awkward and true to the characters and Phillips’ direction shifts tone so rapidly and dizzyingly that the events that occur succeed in completely overwhelming the audience with a paralyzing sense of shock. But mostly, it only takes away from Phoenix’s careful dissection of a villain by painting Joker as an anarchist anti-hero that this decaying vision of Gotham oh-so needs. Despite it often being hard to tell whether Phillips wants to celebrate or condemn Arthur, it’s always clear that he’s trying to understand him… but someone really should’ve told him that a little empathy goes a long way with a character like this.

In short: Joker is a mostly effective, if far too empathetic character-study of the broken, mentally-ill man who becomes Gotham's Clown Prince of Crime. Todd Phillips painfully wants this to be a dark-comedy, even when he understands why it’s absolutely not. Joaquin Phoenix delivers a staggering performance that explores every crack in this man’s shattering psyche. And that laugh!! Also, I know I shouldn’t say it, as this is a completely different performance and downright brilliant on its own merit, but Ledger was better. Finally, Arthur Fleck’s time on Murray Franklin’s couch just might be the best scene of 2019, so far, if only Cliff Booth didn’t murder the shit out of a bunch of hippies with assists from Brandy and Rick Fucking Dalton while tripping balls on LSD back in July. - 7/10

Judy (Rupert Goold, 2019)

Biopics are tough. The best ones don’t overreach by telling its subject’s entire life story.

Judy succeeds when it takes that approach, focusing on her final string of London performances in late-’68. Then it falters in its flashbacks. Not enough to ruin the film, but enough that it’s took me out of the moment several times. They make sense, though, after finding out this film is based on Peter Quilter’s stageplay, End of the Rainbow, and directed by English theatre director, Rupert Goold. On stage, these flashbacks work wonderfully, as they’re perfectly timed for major costume and set changes. On the screen they’re jarring, and only ever slightly effective in adding depth to a tragic legendary figure.

But none of that really matters when you have Renée Zellweger, does it? With a performance as rich as hers, this could’ve been condensed to cover just the final performance, and we still would’ve gotten a complete picture of the tragic, broken, and unbelievably talented woman who was Judy Garland. - 7/10

El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie (Vince Gilligan, 2019)

A completely unnecessary, yet perfectly executed farewell to a beloved character from one of the best all-around television series of all-time. There isn’t much here that doesn’t work perfectly. Gilligan gives us all of the intimate character moments and every ounce of palpable tension we’ve come to expect to accompany them. Aaron Paul slips back into the skin of Jesse Pinkman with such natural ease that it’s hard to imagine it’s been over six years since we’ve last seen him as this character. Extra points for the inclusion of a fantastic, meaty scene for Robert Forster. The last project of his to be released before he passed away. - 8/10

Crawl (Alexandre Aja, 2019)

It’s at its best with its acting as a simple, claustrophobic, hopeless survival creature feature. Some bumps, like thinking we care about the father/daughter relationship and them ignoring the severity of Barry Pepper’s injuries, knock this down from being a perfectly light-weight horror/suspense film. - 6/10

The Art of Self-Defense (Riley Stearns, 2019)

A delightfully absurd, endlessly weird satirical exploration of fear and masculinity and the societal relationship between the two. Some of the funnier moments & quotes of the year so far live within this film, and they’re all delivered with such deadpan perfection. “Seven years ago today, Grandmaster was killed in a tragic hiking accident where he was shot in the face with a gun.” damn near killed me. And its over-the-top representation of its masculine cliches works in dismantling them without ever becoming preachy in the process. - 8.5/10

The Death of Dick Long (Daniel Scheinert, 2019)

A much darker and infinitely more disturbing look into both the societal and familial expectations in regards to masculinity. A bit of a mess throughout, but it still manages to pack quite the punch.

“Death by misadventure.” I’m still both speechless and nauseated. - 5/10

Enjoy!

-Timothy Patrick Boyer.

#film #movies #joker #joaquin phoenix #el camino: a breaking bad movie #aaron paul #breaking bad #judy #crawl #the art of self-defense #the death of dick long #movie reviews #film review #my week in reviews

9 notes · View notes

jazzviewswithcjshearn · 5 years

Text

A detailed look at Stanley Nelson’s Miles Davis documentary: “Birth Of The Cool” (2019)

The following is an in depth review of the New York premiere weekend of Stanley Nelson's Birth of the Cool which I attended on Sunday August 25th, 2019. Where applicable I have added some additional information about Miles' history and career to give context for new fans in the Davis orbit.

Introduction

Miles Davis. All you need to do is say the name and many adjectives are conjured-- restless innovator, genius, temperamental, swagger, fashion icon, tenderness, mentor. All of these themes and then some are explored in famed director Stanley Nelson's fantastic new documentary Birth Of The Cool. For casual music lovers and devotees of Davis' extensive genre breaking career, there is a lot on offer. Initially when the film was announced, following Don Cheadle's creative vision of the trumpeter's retirement period with Miles Ahead in 2015 the thought in my mind as a lifelong Davis fan was what could possibly be covered that I don't already know? The answer is quite a bit. Through combinations of interviews with those who knew him best, musicologists, fellow musicians such as Jimmy Cobb, Herbie Hancock, Ron Carter, Wayne Shorter, Lenny White, Carlos Santana, family friends, and ex wife Frances Taylor Davis, it creates quite an intimate portrait.

By far the most impressive feature of the two hour documentary is the coverage of Miles the man, not as an mythical superhero figure as some documentaries or biopics are wont to do with their subjects. Nelson covers virtually the entire spectrum of his career and life: personal reflections from Davis' joys following Dizzy and Bird to 52nd street, meeting ex wife Frances Taylor, the unbearable suffering of his heroin habit quitting cold turkey, the relapse into drug use to deal with intense physical pain, his thoughts on creation, the freedom of being a black man in Paris, and the disappointment of coming home and seeing the racism again, among other topics. Davis is approachable and endearing to the audiences voiced by actor Carl Lumbly reading portions from both Miles: The Autobiography and interviews from his later years.

The Music and Film Production

Nelson's interspersion of decade specific footage to track the trajectory of the trumpeter's varied career is incredibly clever featuring stock footage, fast cuts of classic films, and significant political events. The use of Wayne's Shorter's “Paraphernalia” from Miles In The Sky (Columbia, 1968) as the director announces the decades through slick headers is striking. It is striking in part because it drives home the point of how the trumpeter was always moving forward. Though he always went forward musically seeking to change with the times and grow, Miles' previous musical breakthroughs from Birth of the Cool (Capitol, 1957 rec. 1949/50) Round Midnight (Columbia, 1956) Kind of Blue (Columbia, 1959) Sketches of Spain (Columbia, 1959) Miles Smiles (Columbia, 1966) On the Corner (Columbia, 1972) The Man With the Horn (Columbia, 1981) and Tutu (Warner Bros, 1986) just to name a few, informed EVERYTHING he did; and that's important to realize for newcomers should they wish to make the deep dive to access his entire catalog. The use of “Agitation” from E.S.P. (Columbia, 1965) as Frances Davis was discussing the domestic violence she experienced, as well as during the recounting of the brutal beating by a drunk police officer outside Birdland shortly after Kind of Blue was issued made the viewer almost feel those incidents. A wonderfully smart choice by Nelson to use selections from Round Midnight, Workin' (Prestige, 1956) Kind of Blue, Sketches of Spain, Bitches Brew and On the Corner at the appropriate moments was masterful and lead a gentleman to remark at the post film Q&A that the film's totality was a composition and the director was on par with a musician.

The reasons for having an actor voice Davis was due to the fact that although Nelson had access to 40 tapes of Davis in conversation with Quincy Troupe for Miles: The Autobiography, the director explained at the post film Q&A that the interviews were recorded on a cheap tape recorder, with quite a lot of background noise, so the tapes were unusable. It was decided to use portions of the autobiography and later interviews to tell Miles' story. His actual voice is heard in the documentary via session reels from Freedom Jazz Dance: The Bootleg Series, Vol. 5 (Columbia/Legacy, 2015) the 50th Anniversary edition of Kind of Blue and there is some gold there. The archival photos and footage are stunning. Davis' friend Corky McCoy had brought two reels of film, and had a 16mm camera for which he took a class at UCLA and provided a lot of source material. The scenes of Miles boxing are phenomenal, and one sees that he had as much passion for the sweet science as he did for music, and cooking. He had a terrific left jab! There were many previously unseen non performance photos that were obtained through photographer estates, and friends that add another deeply personal dimension to things. Also essential to the narrative arc is that contrasting views are presented. Stanley Crouch's frank admission of not getting, liking or understanding the 70's period met by a harsh, but true rebuttal by Carlos Santana is just part and parcel of the documentary's mission to feature everything.

Miles' Humor, Stance as a Civil Rights Activist

Over the course of the film's two hours, there are some hilarious bits of the trumpeter's blunt commentary on life experience, and thoughts on other musicians. For those with a deep knowledge of him, there are no new revelations, but they are quite funny just the same. Miles is heard in session reel audio “I can't play that shit, man!” and even more uproarious in a story relayed by Wayne Shorter of a well known episode, the trumpeter's response to black folk playing the blues out of suffering is classic: “you're a GODDAMN liar!!!” Finally, tenor legend Archie Shepp discussed wanting to sit in with Davis to which he was met with a stone cold “fuck you!!” which brought a unison chuckle from the Film Forum audience.

As funny as his remark was regarding his teacher's naive comment, it boldly demonstrated Miles' commitment to exercising the civil rights of black people, and the pride of being black. In 1957 when Miles Ahead was first issued, Columbia chose a white woman sailing on the cover because they felt that it would show that the trumpeter crossed over to a mainstream (read: white) audience. When Davis saw the cover, he incredulously asked “who is this white bitch on the cover?” The album was promptly reissued with an image of him instead. In 1961, he demanded that Frances Davis be photographed on the cover-- the first in a series of covers featuring black women on the trumpeter's records which for the time period, an incredibly progressive move. Cicely Tyson was featured on the cover of Sorcerer in 1967, another emphatic statement on the beauty of black women. As the film discussed early on, Miles saw his dark complexion symbolic of power, and that is something he exhibited time and time again. Although not covered in the film, the famous February 12, 1964 concert that produced My Funny Valentine and the companion Four and More brought forth a rare passion from the players involved because they had learned Davis had waved the fee for the show as it was an NAACP benefit. Also he had felt strongly about the apartheid in South Africa during the 80's and refused to play there. He was committed to the civil rights of African Americans up until the day he died.

Transition to Superstar in the 80's

As Miles started back on the road to health in the early 80's after the 1972 car wreck that caused him considerable physical pain and causing him to dive back into substance abuse, he emerged a new man in the 80's. He cut Man With The Horn with a new band, diving into the new decade's vision of funk. Along the way he tapped into Caribbean flavored grooves, synth pop, and hip hop. He did interviews (most memorable, his appearances with Bill Boggs and on the Arsenio Hall Show) television shows like Miami Vice, and played a leading role in the film Dingo. Nelson's choice of footage and commentary from musicians during this period show him as positively ebullient, Davis was healthier, painting and cooking, his passions with increased zeal. The footage of the Tutu session, showing the trumpeter's investment in current pop music of the day, and with Prince is quite jubilant.

Touching Moments

There are several touching moments scattered throughout the film that Nelson uses to truly allow the audience to identify with Davis and those who loved and cared about him. Three particularly stood out. The star of the film was without a doubt Frances Davis who had detailed a few stories previously unbeknownst to me. When Miles fell in love with her after seeing her in a production, she was heavily courted by top Hollywood and Broadway actors of the day, with unshakable confidence, and wry humor she professed in the film that as a dancer, her legs were her best asset and that was like with everyone else, won Miles over. Though he had many romantic partners, he and Frances clearly had something that was beyond special. He admitted due to his drug use that he was a bit jealous of the attention she received after being cast in West Side Story and made her quit the show. The emotion she felt when retelling the regret she had when leaving the show, and her career behind was palpable and heartbreaking. She would frequently disappear upstairs in their apartment and gaze longingly at her ballet slippers between bouts of cooking. Lumbly, as Miles intones in his signature rasp how he wished he knew years later that Frances was the best thing to ever happen to him-- a fact he was unaware of when they were together.

The second really touching moment of the film occurs towards the end of Miles' career during the famous 1991 Montreux concert conducted by Quincy Jones where he revisited classic Gil Evans arrangements. There was no musician closer to Davis from 1983-1991 than Wallace Roney. In the film, Roney explains his feelings at Miles indicating he wanted to get the quintet with Wayne Shorter, Herbie Hancock, Ron Carter and Tony Williams back together but also revisit the Gil Evans material, he had the sudden realization Miles had little time left. The rehearsals for the July, 1991 Montreux concert were vigorous, and Davis showed up for only a few. One of the most challenging pieces was “Pan Piper”. Roney, sensing what his mentor and dear friend was feeling physically jumped in to assist. The piece was not rehearsed but called at the concert, and Davis, summoning the strength of his youth plays a remarkable solo, sharing phrases with Roney. At one particularly difficult passage, Roney jumps in, but Miles is also playing the same phrase. Like Muhammad Ali winning the title a third time in the 1978 rematch with Leon Spinks, Davis managed to reach back and heroically play through the tune, as he did the rest of the concert, providing a memorable late career moment.

The third deeply emotional moment is shared by Miles' last partner, friend Jo Gelbard. As the trumpeter was rushed to the hospital, she detailed some of their last moments as Miles was in his bed prior to having a stroke. The moment has a gut wrenching, aching beauty similar to a great solo like on “Blue in Green” or “Time After Time”. She tells of a conversation that she and Miles had where he said “God doesn't punish you, you get everything you want. You just have limited time.” Indeed, a provocative thought on mortality.

Closing Thoughts

Attending the Birth of the Cool New York City premiere weekend was a marvelous experience. While fans can quibble about what was not included, what albums were glossed over, the lack of bands represented, etc the documentary set out what it was supposed to do; present a balanced, comprehensive portrait of Miles Davis the musician, and human being. While it would have been nice to hear from band mates like George Coleman, Keith Jarrett, Airto, Kenny Garrett, Foley, Marilyn Mazur, Benny Rietveld, Jack DeJohnette, Chick Corea or Dave Holland, many of them are featured in the Miles Davis Story (2001) and those interviews can be used as a supplement to this new film. Stanley Nelson treats Davis with respect, and veneration detailing the human experience at each point. The wealth of unseen photos and film footage are a nice bonus for diehard fans, and the well known stories that they all know, will be enlightening to casual and new fans of Davis. The Q&A on the Sunday, August 25th matinee was incredibly insightful, with probing detailed audience questions, with an added treat: The ageless 95 year old drumming pioneer Roy Haynes in the audience! One of the few surviving titans to have played with Charlie Parker. The documentary is on a par with Jaco, Chasing Trane and Bill Frisell: A Portrait.

Rating: 8.5/10

#miles davis #legend #change #blackness #herbie hancock #wayne shorter #john coltrane #tony williams #jazz #music #documentary

13 notes · View notes

guardianreadersofthegalaxy · 4 years

Text

My ranking of all the films I’ve seen January - July 2020 (no spoilers)

1. 1917 (AKA ‘George McKay Goes Forth’) – Two British soldiers in the First World War must face the dangers of No Man’s Land to stop a doomed attack and save the lives of sixteen hundred men. There’s nothing quite like an immersive experience. With the help of omnipotent cinematographer Roger Deakins, director Sam Mendes enters the Great Hollywood Long-Take Battle and beats Alfonso Cuaron and Alejandro G. Innaritu at their own game. Credit to Thomas Newman for the pulse-pounding score and Krysty Wilson-Cairns for a screenplay that develops character through action more than dialogue.

2. The Personal History Of David Copperfield (AKA ‘The Life of Dev Patel III: Victorian Dev’) – This adaptation of the Dickens classic charts the changing fortunes of its eponymous hero, as well as those of the colourful characters he meets along the way. Armando Ianucci brings his signature naturalistic dialogue to the classic story, plus spot-on colour-blind casting and minus his usual unpleasantness. Particular praise goes to lead actor Dev Patel and to Christopher Willis’s gorgeous soundtrack. And, of course, Charles Dickens.

4. Atlantics (AKA ‘What Happens When You Don’t Pay Your Employees’) – Ada’s happiness if threatened when her lover, Souleiman attempts to flee Senegal by boat. This starts out as a slow paced mood piece, then changes gear halfway through as it becomes a crime film with undertones of soft-horror. It looks gorgeous and sounds even better, with a haunting score and effective use of the natural sound of the sea, wind and other elements.

5. A Beautiful Day In The Neighbourhood (AKA ‘Man Feelings’) – A troubled journalist is asked to write a profile on wholesome children’s television presenter Fred Rogers. There’s not much to say about this one. A sweet, sometimes surreal, tearjerker about facing up to your trauma and dealing with your emotions. Very nice.

6. Uncut Gems (AKA ‘Camera Enters Sandman’) – A New York jeweller and compulsive gambler takes a series of increasingly dangerous risks. This doesn’t build tension so much as it is tension, throughout. The only drawback is that Adam Sandler’s Howie is so unlikeable that I didn’t care what happened to him, unlike in the Safdie brother’s more morally ambiguous film Good Time. Still, a great ensemble cast and skilled sound mixing make this a uniquely gripping experience.

7. Marriage Story (AKA ‘Divorce Me, You Meaty Oak Tree!’) – A couple fight an increasingly hostile custody battle for their child during their divorce proceedings. This would be an amazing play. Acting and writing are all spot on, evoking the relatable nuances of a fraught relationship as well as illuminating the farcical process of divorce. But the potential that film offers as a medium is underused, besides some nice colour grading.

8. Dolemite Is My Name (‘AKA And F***ing Up Motherf***ers Is My Game’) – Standup comedian Rudy Ray Moore crafts his comic persona, Dolemite. Though this is a little formulaic in its adherence to the standard biopic structure, it surpasses the likes of ‘Nowhere Boy’, ‘Walk The Line’ or ‘Good Vibrations’ by having a protagonist who isn’t a total arsehole. And if you’re going to recreate the aesthetic of a film genre, Blaxploitation is at least at lot of fun.

9. Jojo Rabbit (AKA ‘Moon-reich Kingdom) – An enthusiastic Hitler Youth member reconsiders his beliefs when he discovers a Jewish girl living in his house. If you go into this expecting to see the film that will single-handedly end global fascism, prepare for disappointment. What you really get is a sweet and funny coming of age story in a mildly controversial setting.

10. Eurovision Song Contest – The Story Of Fire Saga (AKA ‘I Went And Watched ‘Atlantics’ Instead’) – An Icelandic singing duo realise their lifelong dream of competing in the Eurovision Song Contest. If I were a professional critic I would never review a film that I’d stopped watching after 30 minutes. But I’m not, so here it is in last place.

40 notes · View notes

metalandmagi · 5 years

Text

March Media Madness!

Hello and welcome to the post where I talk about all the movies, books, and TV I consumed this month in my seemingly never ending quest to shout my feelings into the void. And oh boy all the winter anime is ending so I feel dead inside.

*puts on sunglasses* Let’s do this.

Movies!

Bohemian Rhapsody: The one about Queen Freddie Mercury. And it’s pretty good. It’s a little weird seeing a biopic of a band with literally no struggles getting into the industry, and I wouldn’t say it does wonders for the negative stereotypes about bisexuals...but who cares because if you’re watching this movie, it’s because you just want to sing along to some Queen songs and see some big hair! 8/10

How to Train Your Dragon- The Hidden World: The third and final installment in the How to Train Your Dragon trilogy, in which Dreamworks pulls a Butterfree on us, but at least we get a happy ending. This franchise holds a special place in my heart for so many reasons, and I’m glad that this one stuck the landing. Each movie has its own specific feeling and message, and they all advance the story in unique ways. Apart from being beautifully animated and hilarious, it also packs the big emotional punch we all were expecting and ends on a satisfying note overall. But it’s still not perfect. The other riders are at their most useless by far, and this is coming from someone who never really minded them before. They’re a lot more irritating if you’ve watched the tv series and can see how they can be useful. And Astrid really only provides emotional support instead of her usual ass-kicking. The villain was...fine...but he didn’t really pack much of a punch. And I really wished they had kept some sort of continuity and embraced the television series (I NEED A DAGUR CAMEO)! But these are mostly small things. If you haven’t given this franchise a try yet, please give it a chance! 9/10

Ralph Breaks the Internet: The poorly named sequel to Wreck It Ralph, in which Ralph and Venelope must travel to the internet to save Sugar Rush and keep the game characters from becoming homeless. It’s a fine follow up, but it definitely doesn’t have the same impact the first one did. There’s a heck of a lot going on in this movie, and it feels like it tried to do too much in terms of plot and character arcs in favor of sacrificing the humor from the first movie. And I really miss Felix and Calhoun. But there are a lot of good things about it too. Everything the Disney princesses do is pure gold, Shank is amazing, and there is a ton of effort put into building the world of the internet. I’m sure it will be pretty dated in a couple years, but it’s not just a quick cash grab full of name dropping and references (even though Disney seems like it wants it to be). It’s still worth checking out. 7.5/10

A Quiet Place: A family must survive in a world where deadly alien monsters that are attracted to sound have invaded the planet. I am the world’s biggest wimp when it comes to scary movies, and even I was interested enough in the premise to want to see this movie. And yes it’s amazing! The performances are all incredibly moving and believable, we get good representation of a Deaf character, the sound design is so creative it should be used in film classes, and it tells a thrilling and heart wrenching family story in only an hour and a half. I think I liked it because the focus wasn’t on the monsters just going around killing people. It’s about a family and what parents will do for their children. People like to say there’s a ton of plot holes, but if you actually think about them for more than five seconds, you’ll see there’s really nothing to pick apart because their decisions all make sense in the end.

My only question is about the cochlear device the daughter (Regan) uses. Was the dad (Lee) trying to make a new cochlear implant? Did Regan already have the internal component implanted in her cochlea? Had she been using one since before the monsters came? Did it break earlier because of the monsters’ connection with electromagnetic waves? Because if not...CIs don’t really work like that. I’m just confused about that situation. But that’s kind of nitpicky when this movie is still amazing. Even if you hate horror movies, I’d highly suggest it simply because of how creative its production is. 9/10

Mary Poppins Returns: It’s exactly what it sounds like...Mary Poppins returns to help the now adult children of the Banks family with the help of Lin Manuel Miranda. It’s fun, but it definitely goes on too long. Though I appreciate Emily Blunt putting her own spin on the character. Odds are if you like the original, you’ll probably like this too. 8/10

Fantastic Beasts- The Crimes of Grindelwald: The second movie in the Harry Potter prequel-verse, where Grindelwald basically becomes wizard Hitler and Newt is more concerned with winning Tina back then saving the world. Okay...this movie is not great. Structurally it’s a mess, the fun is being sucked out of the wizarding world, the characters make decisions that don’t align with previous behavior and make no logical sense, and there really is just the bare bones of a plot. There are also several characters that don’t need to be there and are just thrown in for fanservice (for now anyway). I found myself constantly saying how things don’t work like that and asking why things are happening. But even so, there are still good things about it. Visually it’s...fantastic. Jude Law makes a good young Dumbledore, and even Johnny Depp embodies what I always imagined Grindelwald at the height of his power would be like...I just wish it wasn’t Johnny Depp. I also wish it had more humor, because what was there was funny. It’s really just a transition film, which proves this franchise should never have been five movies, and Rowling should have focused on a Marauders era series or on young Dumbledore and Grindelwald. You just have to form your own opinion. 6.5/10

Maquia- When the Promised Flower Blooms: An immortal girl becomes a teen mom to an orphaned baby after her clan is killed. It’s basically a high fantasy version of Wolf Children. I honestly don’t know what to think about this movie. It does the family relationships so well and really drives home what it means to be a parent. However, its setting really throws me out of the movie because it tries to focus so much on the politics and background of this world without really succeeding. And because it is about a baby growing up, the pacing is so fast it will give you whiplash. But it is beautifully filmed and animated, and I would have bawled my eyes out at the ending if I wasn’t so distracted by how much I didn’t like the other characters and things that were happening at the castle. So...yeah, it’s a well animated, hard hitting movie that will probably mean more to parents overall. I just wish it was a TV series or a trilogy or something other than a two hour film. 7.5/10

Free Solo: A National Geographic documentary covering Alex Honnold, a man who is attempting to climb up the 900 meter side of El Capitan at Yosemite national park...without ropes or safety equipment. Yes, this is an incredible feat and the actual climbing portions are gripping and super intense. But personally, I found who Alex is as a person much more fascinating...and not necessarily in a positive way. Honestly, he can be a jerk. This sounds horrible to say considering he’s a real person and he’s doing something amazing, but seriously watch this movie and tell me this man is not one step away from being a sociopath. It’s completely understandable why he thinks the way he thinks, but it’s not exactly healthy for the other people in his life. I would be just as interested to see a two hour therapy session with him as I was with his climbing. Anyway, if you love gorgeous scenery and butt-clenching thrills with a side of psychologically interesting perspectives, watch this on the biggest screen possible. 8/10

The Matrix: REALITY IS AN ILLUSION, THE UNIVERSE IS A HOLOGRAM, BUY GOLD BYE

Yeah I’d never seen The Matrix, but I really didn’t expect it to be EXACTLY like the Oto arc in Tsubasa Chronicles. It’s too long, Neo’s an incredibly flat protagonist (but I feel like that’s on purpose to serve some sort of self-insert fantasy), and it seems like a YA dystopian fantasy series from 2013...but in an endearing sort of way. And hey it’s got a lot of cool slow motion fighting and neat body horror if you’re into that sort of thing. 7/10

Books!

Dry by Neal and Jarrod Shusterman: What happens when California literally just runs out of water one day? A group of teens go on an apocalyptic field trip to find some of course! I’ve only read one other Neal Shusterman series before, but I’m sensing a pattern of how well Shusterman can propose a theoretical question and then build an entire world around it. And this duo knows how to cover as many bases as possible because every time I ask a question about how something world work, the authors answer it almost immediately. This is a great story with very well written characters, and it even has a small hilarious twist in the end that makes you completely rethink everything about one of the characters. Most importantly it doesn’t follow the Scythe series’ formula of terribly written romance. However...it’s definitely a major bummer. It’s very interesting to think about, and it’s a roller coaster of a story...but the roller coaster only goes down and makes you want to scream all the time. If you like books that make you question human behavior and society, definitely check it out, but get ready to start hoarding all the water you own. 8/10

Jackass!: Okay this one’s a manga, but I’m still counting it. Honestly I don’t even know how to describe the plot...there’s two boys...there’s pantyhose...there’s a fun side character who is openly gay and doesn’t take shit from anyone...there’s introspection about how to deal with developing feelings and realizing you care about someone. It has the most awkward premise ever, but it’s unfairly good I promise. The less you know going in the better. 8.5/10

TV Shows!

The Umbrella Academy: A family of seven children with super powers who were “adopted” by an eccentric billionaire become child superheroes. So naturally, they all grow into jaded adults who are now tasked with saving the world from the inevitable apocalypse. And it’s...amazing. Like, this should be the new Stranger Things amazing. It’s a Netflix original based off the Dark Horse comic series, and it has one of the most binge worthy plots I’ve ever seen. It is capable of pulling off some very weird things because it just leans into it. The setting and aesthetic is very similar to A Series of Unfortunate Events where different time periods seem to collide, and it works pretty well. It has (mostly) likable characters, interesting and/or empathetic villains, great use of music and editing, and Emmy worthy performances. The only thing I don’t like (aside from them killing off a perfectly interesting character for no reason at the beginning of the show) is the romantic relationship between two of the siblings. Because naturally they had to put a romance in it, and it just sort of conforms to the idea of “adopted siblings aren’t related so it’s not weird.” But even they have some great scenes together so I can’t be too annoyed. It’s amazing. Please watch it. 10/10

Ducktales (2017): The reboot of Ducktales, in which the three nephews of Donald Duck go on mysterious adventures with their obscenely wealthy uncle. I’m pretty sure we all know this as the cartoon where Scrooge McDuck swims in his giant pool of money. It took me a long time to get to, but I like it! Webby is an amazing character, and even though the boys can be annoying, at least they all have their own personalities. I just wish Launchpad was a little less...stereotypically clueless. I’ve never seen the original series, so I can’t compare them, but I’d recommend it for everyone who likes Gravity Falls style mysteries and satisfying story arcs. 8.5/10

Carmen Sandiego (2019): The Netflix original animated series that focuses on a master thief who travels the world stealing important artifacts before an evil organization can get to them first...AND HOLY CRAP WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT THIS!? I don’t know anything about the original Carmen Sandiego franchise, but dang this revamp is awesome. Carmen is a great character who banters enough to be a Marvel protagonist, there’s unique animation, some mystery, and its own twists. The side characters may not be for everyone, but I like them...well, most of them. Apparently the purpose of the original franchise was to be educational, so they do sound like they’re reading the Wikipedia page for every new place they visit in the beginning of each episode, but at least the cultural things they mention always come back into play later. If you liked the new She-Ra or shows with great heroines, PLEASE WATCH IT! 9/10

Queer Eye (season 3): The third season of the ridiculous makeover show where five fabulous gay men rocket into people’s lives to boost their self confidence and keep them from living in filth. I hate that I love this show so much. I don’t like things that try to be overly emotional, but dang it, this show will just make you feel happy...and then sad...and then happy again. 10/10

Honorable Mentions

THE LAST SEASON OF STAR VS THE FORCES OF EVIL IS AIRING! Stop sleeping on this gem people!

Netflix finally released the rest of Arrested Development season 5

I started watching Yu Yu Hakusho because it’s a classic and the dub is hilarious.

I also started watching The Librarians. It’s...something that’s for sure.

And I’m currently reading Reign the Earth which is basically Avatar the Last Airbender set all in the desert.

#bohemian rhapsody #the matrix #free solo #maquia: when the promised flower blooms #fantastic beasts #the crimes of grindelwald #mary poppins returns #a quiet place #ralph breaks the internet #how to train your dragon #the hidden world #dry #jackass manga #queer eye #ducktales #the umbrella academy #media madness #long post #carmen sandiego

34 notes · View notes

chiseler · 5 years

Text

Larry Cohen Isn’t Alive

Writer, producer and director Larry Cohen, who died on March 24th at age 77, rightfully earned his spot among the Pantheon of low-budget independent American filmmakers.

Like so many great satirists before him, Cohen had a knack for using a good story, off-beat characters, misdirection, humor, and monsters to disguise some pointed commentary about the most sacred of our sacred cows: childbirth, religion, cops, race, the military, AIDS, health care, and consumerism. And he always did it in a hugely entertaining way, squeezing the very most out of tiny budgets, small, fleet-footed crews, and simple guerilla tactics.

The artist responsible for Q: The Winged Serpent, God Told Me To, and the It’s Alive! films was a maverick, an independent’s independent, who wasn’t afraid to put a wild story on the screen and populate it with oddball characters (that Michael Moriarty would become his standard lead in four films in the ‘80s says something). If Cohen owed a lot to Sam Fuller and Roger Corman, then most indie directors who’ve come along since owe a lot to him, and the evidence is right there in their films.

Even when he was making low-budget monster pictures, Cohen’s films were always character-driven, so when it came to casting even the smallest part he was looking for people with interesting voices, faces, and personalities. He populated his films, in short, with the modern equivalent of Forties character actors. It’s no surprise that he would so often choose to work with like-minded maverick young actors like Moriarty, David Carradine, Karen Black, Sandy Dennis, Candy Clark, even Andy Kaufman. At the same time, though, Cohen also went back to those old films, hiring great character actors like Sam Levine, Broderick Crawford, and Sylvia Sidney. With casts like that together on the screen (many of them there simply because they wanted to work with Cohen) it’s sometimes easy to forget you’re watching a horror movie.

It seems Cohen was born with a little too much energy. Years before getting his degree in film from the City College of New York, he was already selling scripts to television. In the short years following his graduation in ‘63, he was creating shows that would go on to become classics, like Branded and The invaders. Hearing it now, he almost sounds like the kind of guy you’d like to punch.

After ten prolific years as a television writer, Cohen finally made the expected jump into film directing. But Cohen didn’t go to Hollywood to do this, and lord knows he didn’t aim for the mainstream. Although considered a blaxploitation picture today for some reason, Cohen’s directorial debut, 1972’s Bone, begins like a standard home invasion film a la The Desperate Hours or Five Minutes to Live, as would-be burglar Yaphet Kotto takes a wealthy white man and his wife hostage in their palatial home. When he sends the husband out to get money, though, the crime film becomes a social satire about both race relations and the generation gap. The wife begins to fall for her kidnapper, and the husband starts falling for a young hippie chick he meets on the way to the bank. In later films, Cohen would mix and match genres in a way that hadn’t been seen since the W. Lee Wilder wierdies of the Fifties.

His next two films were both fairly straightforward blaxploitation numbers, and both Black Caesar and Hell Up in Harlem would become genre standbys.

It was in 1974 that what is considered Cohen’s golden era would begin. Between ‘74 and the early ‘90s, Cohen was writing and directing the films he wanted to make. They were films that were completely his own, more than a little odd at times, and utterly memorable. For a career that lasted over half a century, having a Golden Era that ran nearly twenty years ain’t too shabby.

Switching from blaxploitation to horror, Cohen made It’s Alive! starring the great John P. Ryan. On the surface it’s a horror film about a killer baby. It’s also a conspiracy film about some nefarious shenanigans at a large pharmaceutical company, and a social commentary about the power of the press to destroy innocent lives. At it’s heart, though, it takes The Bad Seed a step further in exploring our deep fear of children and the screaming bloody horror of that most beautiful of miracles, childbirth.

Using the power of suggestion and some fantastic performances (many of the actors here would become members of Cohen’s stock troupe), coupled with some solid direction, clever cinematography, Rick Baker’s special effects, a Bernard Herrmann score and one of the most effective trailers of the Seventies, this low budget killer baby film caught a lot of people off guard. It was smarter and slicker than anyone would’ve expected given the budget, and was a big hit for Cohen.

After that success he came back two years later with a film that was even stranger, more complex, and much harder to categorize. Trying not to give too much away here for those who haven’t seen it yet, God Told Me To stars Tony Lo Bianco as a New York cop who’s never been sick, feels he has some strange powers, and whose early biography remains a little up in the air. As the film opens, he’s investigating a series of seemingly inexplicable and unrelated rampage killings. A soft spoken gay man climbs atop a building with a high powered rifle and begins shooting. A cop (Andy Kaufman in his big screen debut) shoots up the st. Patrick’s Day parade. A man slaughters his family for no apparent reason. The only explanation any of them can give is that, yes, god told them to. Well, his investigation leads down some strange channels, including stories of an alien abduction, a secret cabal of wealthy executives, and reports of a glowing figure who had contact with all the killers and who may or may not be god incarnate. In short it’s a film that asks the eternal question, “What if Jesus was a Venusian?” It may also be the best film Cohen ever made.

Although the film looks great (and brings together a remarkable cast), it represents a perfect example of the guerilla filmmaking Cohen would come to be known for. All the location shots, from the parade to the subway to the shooting of half a dozen people outside Bloomingdale’s were stolen. Cohen saw where he wanted to shoot, set up his crew, and shot. If he were to try doing that today there would likely be casualties, but because he did it then he captured a portrait of a city long gone.

On the downside, in his excitement to grab shots of actual events as they were happening, one sequence finds Lo Bianco racing from the st. Patrick’s day parade in March and ending up some 70 blocks to the south at the San Gennaro festival on the Lower East Side in September. It was a hell of a run.

The film was picked up by Corman’s distribution company, New World. Before releasing it, they decided that title of his was too long and too complicated, so needed to be changed. They decided to call it The Demon, and changed the font on the poster to match the font used recently on the posters for the incredibly popular The Omen. It didn’t seem to help. Whether it was the title or audiences were merely baffled by the film itself it’s hard to say, but it was a definite step down from the success of It’s Alive. Still, in subsequent years it has become one of the most popular of Cohen’s films, and in terms of influence, well, all you need to do is watch the last few seasons of the X Files to see for yourself if anyone was paying attention.

Following God Told Me To, Cohen took a radical turn in more ways than one. After making three blaxploitation films and two sci-fi horror movies, he took the next logical step down the genre trail by making, yes, a J. Edgar Hoover biopic.

A clear though uncredited influence on the 2011 Leonardo DiCaprio Hoover picture, 1977’s The Private Files of J. Edgar Hoover makes for an intriguing double bill with another AIP film from around roughly the same time, John Milius’ Dillinger. It stars screen legend Broderick Crawford in a brilliant turn as the enigmatic and all-powerful head of the FBI, and co-stars a slew of famed character actors, from Lloyd Nolan and June Havoc to Howard DaSilva and Rip Torn.

Couching the story of Hoover’s life within the frantic scramble across Washington to gain access to his titular secret files after his death, Cohen does something I don’t think anyone was expecting. In spite of Hoover’s reputation as a neurotic, paranoid, cross-dressing monster, Cohen treats him fairly, even sympathetically at times. There’s no real secret about his sexuality here, but it’s never made cartoonish. It’s a portrait of a deeply flawed man and a publicity whore, yes, but one who was trying to do right. Oddly enough the historical figures who get slapped around more than anyone here are the Kennedy brothers, who come off like a couple of smug rich, asshole college boys. Martin Luther King doesn’t get off too easy, either.

It’s an odd man out in Cohen’s filmography, but what the Hoover film proved without a doubt is that he was a director who knew pacing, who knew editing, and who could, even without monsters, turn material like this into a gripping story.

Good as it was, The Private Files wasn’t a big hit either, so Cohen returned to killer babies in ‘78 with It Lives Again. Not interested in simply rehashing the same material, Cohen expanded the original story, broadening the idea of a conspiracy (conspiracies would play a larger and larger role in Cohen’s films), and multiplying the number of killer babies afoot.

As more and more mutant babies are born throughout America, a renegade group of scientists and parents (including John P. Ryan and expecting father Frederic Forrest) criss-crosses the country trying to save the mutants before the government can terminate them with extreme prejudice. The hope is to be able to raise the mutants in a reasonably loving environment, rehabilitating them and making them contributing members of society. Let’s just say their success is limited.

The later ‘70s and early ‘80s were kind of rough for Cohen. His teen horror comedy Full Moon High bombed, and a made-for-TV mystery was ignored. He planned to resurrect Mickey Spillane’s Mike Hammer character in a film version of I, The Jury starring Armand Assante, but after a major studio picked up the project, they promptly fired Cohen.

Knowing he had to get right back on his feet, Cohen had a new independent film in production within a week. He started grabbing some location shots around New York before he had a cast, and started filming before he had any backing. Still, he was able to wrangle together another great (in B film terms) cast, and he had a fantastic story to tell, even if it owed a bit to 1948’s The Flying Serpent. He had some more wonderful characters, he had a monster, and once again all of New York was his playground. Samuel Z. Arkoff, who’d just sold AIP, fronted him a little cash and they were off.

Cohen’s mixing and matching of genres was never more evident than it was in ‘82’s Q The Winged Serpent. It’s a bungled jewel heist/cult murder/police procedural/giant monster picture with Michael Moriarty as an ex-con and failed jazz pianist who’s forced to participate in a heist that goes very, very wrong. He’s a neurotic to begin with, and this doesn’t help. David Carradine, meanwhile (who filmed his first scene before he’d had a chance to read the script or find out who his character was), is a detective investigating a series of murders in which the victims have all been skinned alive. And then there’s that pesky Aztec god who keeps flying around New York plucking people off rooftops and construction sites.

They all eventually do come together inside the cone atop the Chrysler Building (it was actually filmed up there too, even though Cohen and his crew didn’t exactly have permission). Before all these storylines and genres come together, Cohen has us so wrapped up in these individual character’s )and the countless little stories and side characters we encounter along the way) that the monster barely matters, save for providing some of the best aerial shots ever taken of NYC.

It’s a film packed with great small bits, set pieces, and locations. And Moriarty, crazy and pathetic and fucked up as he is, is a gem. In one of the best (and mostly ad libbed) scenes in the film, he attempts to negotiate a deal with city officials and the cops. He knows where the creature’s nest can be found, and wants money and amnesty in exchange for the information. It’s a real tour-de-force of sniveling bravado and desperation.

Cohen had more stories to tell about the making of Q than any of his other films (and he was a man with a lot of stories). The final joke of it all being that Q opened the same day as I, the Jury and made four times as much money.

It occurs to me that any young would-be indie filmmaker would be better served by watching the film and listening to his commentary than anything they’d learn after 3 years of NYU film school. He knew how to work fast and work cheap, yet still come away with a film whose production values matched anything being produced in Hollywood.

Cohen was back on a roll after Q, and even when he wasn’t working on a film himself he was selling scripts that had that unmistakable Larry Cohen feel to them. The William Lustig-directed Maniac Cop and Uncle Sam come to mind as prime examples, though Abel Ferrara dropped the ball, and dropped it hard, on Cohen’s reboot of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. It’s a film I keep trying to like, but just can’t. Cohen’s understanding of character is something Ferrara’s never been able to grasp. It had so much going for it, it should’ve been so good, but Christ it’s just a tedious fucking mess. Okay, I’m starting to ramble.

After making a few straightforward thrillers, Cohen returned to horror and social satire in 1985’s The Stuff. There had been elements of social satire and commentary in his previous films, but usually so well disguised it was easy to miss. Michael Moriarty’s gift for the ad lib and his ability to play crazy and manic so brilliantly allowed Cohen, in their second film together, to slap the satire right there on the surface, plain as day.

When a thick white goo coms bubbling out of the ground at a mining operation in Georgia, one of the miners unwittingly discovers it’s not only delicious—it’s downright irresistible. Before you know it, “The Stuff,” as it’s marketed, has become the most popular dessert item in the country, helped along by a celebrity-laden ad campaign (though many of the celebrities may no longer be recognizable to most audiences) and the small fact that it’s five times as addictive as crack. Yes, it’s mighty good right up to the point when it makes you explode. But no one talks about that.

Moriarty plays an ex-FBI man turned industrial spy who’s been hired by a now-struggling ice cream company to find out what’s in The Stuff. What Begins as a simple bit of industrial espionage quickly becomes much more than that when people start dying, small towns start vanishing, an ex-FDA employee (Danny Aiello in a smart and funny cameo) is killed by his stuff-addicted Doberman, and Moriarty uncovers a sinister, far-reaching conspiracy.

Along the way he’s assisted by Garrett Morris as a Famous Amos clone who’s cookie company was stolen from him, a young boy who realizes there’s something evil going on with The stuff, and Paul Sorvino as an insane and paranoid militia leader/radio show host who’s more than willing to spread the word and lead a commando raid on the stuff factory.

There are nods throughout the film to everything from Dr. Strangelove to White Heat, but the one film that kept coming to mind was Halloween III: Season of the Witch from three years earlier. Both, after all, are horror conspiracy films concerning the potentially diabolical threat posed by marketing and consumerism. The ironic thing there is that when Halloween III came out in ‘82, I assumed given the way the story was structured that it had to be a Cohen film, or at least based on a Cohen script. I was wrong, of course; the film had been written by the equally great Nigel Kneale. So it only made sense that here we got Cohen’s version of a similar storyline. While Halloween III was very sharp and dark, The Stuff reaches for some broad, heavy handed laughs and often falls short. Maybe Cohen figured if you wanted to reach an audience in the Reagan era with a dire warning about rampant consumerism, subtlety would get you nowhere. The film does have a number of moments, though, and I love the fact that the “monster” here is a smooth, white, featureless dessert. I also love the fact that a paranoid Right Wing nutjob saves the day in the end.

Two years after The Stuff, Warner Brothers offered Coen a deal to direct two straight-to-video pictures: a second sequel to It’s Alive, and a sequel to Tobe Hooper’s TV version of Stephen King’s Salem’s Lot. Cohen, anxious to work with Moriarty again and push the story of the mutant babies a little further, signed the contract.

Working fast and cheap as ever (he said all of his films were shot in 18 days), Cohen returned to form with It’s Alive III: Island of the Alive, with one difference. While the previous two films had been stark and ultimately quite grim, with Moriarty aboard Cohen was able to bring out a lot more humor. Mixed more evenly with the violence, the blood, a half-hidden AIDS parable, and Cohen’s trademark strangeness, here it works more effectively than it had in The Stuff or his straight comedies.

This time around, Moriarty is a struggling actor who finally gains fame after he and his wife (Karen Black) become the proud parents of another monster baby. That’s pretty much it for the marriage, but instead of destroying the baby, a judge orders that all the mutant babies be sent to, yes, an island where they can roam free and pose no threat to anyone.

Moriarty’s life, meanwhile, collapses under the constant questions and accusations until he finds himself working in a children’s shoe store. In a delightful set piece, he finally cracks and gives the what-for to all the rotten little brats and their obnoxious parents. There’s just something both terrifying and hilarious about Moriarty when he loses it.

Anyway, he joins a government-sponsored expedition to the island to study the mutants and run a few tests. Along the way, we learn the government has stopped trying to destroy the mutants after deciding instead they represent a new stage of human evolution, quite possibly a form of human who could survive a nuclear war. Moriarty, who loves his child and wants to protect it, tries to warn the babies to stay away from the researchers, which does not endear him to the researchers. No matter, it isn’t long before all the members of the expedition are dead save for Moriarty, who finds himself alone on a boat with four mutant babies. And that’s when things start taking any number of strange turns.

Island of the Alive is also marked by a fantastic opening sequence, in which a woman gives birth in the back of an NYC cab as the cab driver panics about the mess. Or maybe that scene’s just memorable to me because it was shot in an alley behind the building where I used to work.

After the film was wrapped, Cohen packed up his crew and several members of the cast and flew to a small town in Vermont to start shooting the Salem’s Lot sequel, a sequel in name and font alone. Compared with Island of the Alive, A Return to Salems Lot seemed almost an afterthought. Maybe people were just tired after the previous shoot, but the cinematography has all the flat earmarks of a TV film, and the music, usually so rich in a Cohen picture, has been reduced to a cheap, cliched electronic score. Even the actors, apart from Cohen’s usual suspects (like Andrew Duggan), are abrasive at best.

Story’s still good, though. In their fourth and final collaboration, Moriarty is a famed anthropologist whose ex-wife saddles him with his troubled and foul-mouthed teenage son. Not knowing what else to do with the kid, he takes him to Salem’s Lot. Moriarty had visited an aunt there once when he was young, and when she died she left him her (now decrepit) house. It doesn’t take long to figure out the town is home to a colony of vampires.

Cohen’s script plays around quite a bit with the mythology, with the anthropologist being conscripted to write the vampires’ history to set the record straight, but the film is memorable for one reason. Sam Fuller appears for the second half of the film playing, well, Sam Fuller. He’s given a different name of course, and he’s playing a Van Helsing-type vampire hunter, but it’s Sam Fuller all right, as short, gruff, and straightforward as ever, and always chomping on that ever-present cigar. Cohen’s homage to the king of independent filmmakers is the only thing here that lifts the picture above second-tier Cohen fare (which is nevertheless still more interesting than most vampire films made in the last 20 years).

Cohen went on to make another straight thriller and a comedy about witches that turned out to be Bette Davis’ last film before returning to the horror, conspiracies, and New York that always brought out the best in him. It would be the last of the classic Larry Cohen films.

In 1990’s The Ambulance, Eric Roberts plays an enthusiastic young comic book artist working for Marvel (Stan Lee has a few cameos as himself) who sees a young woman on the street and falls immediately and stupidly in love with her. When she collapses to the pavement while they’re talking and an antique ambulance appears out of nowhere to whisk her away, he sets out to find her without even knowing her name.

It sounds like fairly standard romantic comedy material and there’s no denying that’s at play here, but as usual there are a few other genres at work, too, as we learn the drivers of that creepy antique ambulance are making their own victims all over the city. It’s best to leave the story there and not mention the organ harvesting ring, but the film does include James Earl Jones, Eric Braedon, and a grainy, dirty, street level Manhattan that, even circa 1990, still seems so ancient and alive.

Moving into the later ‘90s and 2000s, as films like his were no longer really viable in a marketplace so fixated on formula and empty pointless characters, Cohen concentrated more on his screenplays, but even if the stories had that old Cohen spark and warp, the films that were made from them tended to be sadly conventional. He was behind Phone Booth, Cellular, Messages Deleted, Captivity, and rewrote his own script for the reboot of It’s Alive.

He once made the excellent point that B films tended to have a longer lifespan than A films, because it’s the genre pictures that find a new audience every generation. Kids have no idea who Robert Taylor or Greer Garson are anymore, but they will always know Karloff and Lugosi, because people will always be going back to horror films while the big dramas, so important at the time, will fade away.

Cohen made films that weren’t like anything else (except maybe Halloween III). They weren’t aimed at teenagers and they weren’t slasher pictures. They were intelligent, textured, character-based, and they dealt with adult themes. Plus they had monsters in them.

Cohen’s career, as noted above, spanned some fifty years, and fifty years from now, I can almost guarantee no one will remember Titanic or whatever the hell nonsense won a Best Picture Oscar over the past two decades, but they’ll still be watching God Told Me To.

At the time of his death, Cohen left behind dozens of unproduced screenplays. If anyone had seen fit to toss him the funding to make the films he wanted to make, who knows what else he might have left us?

by Jim Knipfel

#Jim Knipfel #Larry Cohen #The Chiseler #It's Alive #The Ambulance #Bone #god told me to #Karen Black #The Stuff #Michael Moriarty

6 notes · View notes