mondays with buster
from The Scarecrow (1920)

the rest-of-summer round-up

Some brief thoughts about the movies I have seen during the latter half of the summer.

HANCOCK

Great premise, poor execution. The film doesn't want to alienate viewers who think Will Smith's ears are cute (read "the general public"), so it avoids confronting superhero conventions or the psychology of its main character with the depth it would require to be satisfying. It's kind of a shame that Hancock missed the mark because now that the 2008 summer season, with its deluge of comic book movies, is over, the moment for Hancock's timely themes has passed.


HELLBOY II: THE GOLDEN ARMY

I'm struggling to recall whether I liked this film or not, which suggests that it was not particularly memorable. Honestly, though, I had the same response to Hellboy numero uno. Both installments pass the time without making me wish I was elsewhere, knitting or something, and offer minor delights, mostly visual. Every review of the Golden Army that I have read speculates that director Guillermo del Toro either had leftover creatures from his previous film, Pan's Labyrinth, and/or had recently spent some time in the Mos Eisley Cantina. Had I bothered to review Hellboy II at the time, I would have likely blurted out similar quips. The creature designs, though, remain quite faithful to the style of Hellboy artist Mike Mignola, too. So, yes, there's optical splendor that probably works best on the big screen, but my overall indifference towards the film makes it difficult to recommend.


THE DARK KNIGHT

You know what The Dark Knight needs? More buzz. Really, though, what am I going to add to a discussion of the film that hasn't already been said? I belong to the camp that thinks The Dark Knight is not quite as wonderful as it has been raved to be, but most of my quibbles are minor. The first time I saw the movie, I spent the initial forty minutes wondering what was so great about the film, but then it kicked into gear and wowed me like it did so many other viewers. I left the theater with the same kind of buzz I felt after seeing The Empire Strikes Back so many years ago. I saw The Dark Knight again in IMAX, and was not as bored during the opening scenes, but I recognized that there are a number of sequences that seem to be over before they're finished. What happens at Bruce Wayne's dinner party after the Batman jumps out the window, for instance? Heath Ledger: very good. Christian Bale: deserves more recognition for how good he is, also.


TROPIC THUNDER

For better or worse, Judd Apatow, Seth Rogen, and their cadre of regulars have set the bar for contemporary comedy with their series of successful R-rated flicks (in which nothing is sacred, except maybe pot). In comparison to movies like Superbad and Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Tropic Thunder has an air of gentility that belies its attempts to skewer its targets with significant audacity. The film opens with some clever gags, including the parody advertisements and trailers that introduce the main characters. In general, though, the jokes are kind of lame.

The semi-controversial retard material is less shocking than protesters made it out to be, and whatever shock-value was intended in the casting of Tom Cruise to play studio exec, Les Grossman-- oh my god, he's so playing against type-- is undermined by the fact that Tom Cruise really stinks. If the humor was as outrageous as it needed to be, it might be easier to accept the ridiculous plot: actors who think that they're filming in the jungle, guerrilla style, end up doing battle with an Asian drug cartel. As it stands, however, this movie offers no incentive for me to suspend any degree of disbelief.

If Tropic Thunder is valuable in one regard, it would be its contribution towards catapulting Robert Downey, Jr. to A-List fame. Along with his recognition for Iron Man, Downey's performance in this film has been appropriately lauded as one of this summer's highlights. I think we can look forward to seeing him in future projects that are not as easily summed up as:

Dennis Cozzalio keeps me occupied for fifteen hours with his latest quiz for hard core cinephiles at Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule. Here are my answers to:

Dennis Cozzalio keeps me occupied for fifteen hours with his latest quiz for hard core cinephiles at Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule. Here are my answers to:

DR. ZACHARY SMITH'S LOST IN THE SPACE AT THE END OF SUMMER MOVIE QUIZ

1) Your favorite musical moment in a movie

Whenever someone asks me what my "favorite" anything in a movie category is, I immediately come up with a list of at least 25 answers. I am willing to commit to a favorite movie musical, as I am inordinately fond of An American in Paris, but a musical moment? Here's a smattering of moments that immediately jumped into my head: Movin' Right Along from The Muppet Movie; the last supper scene (Suicide is Painless) in M*A*S*H; Deadfall's symphonic heist; the Hooray for Captain Spalding number in Woody Allen's Everyone Says I Love You; Rick's customers rallying behind Le Marseillaise in Casablanca; the Flying Trapeze song from It Happened One Night; and oh-so-many more... (I haven't even addressed musical scores)

2) Ray Milland or Dana Andrews

Gotta say, neither actor is particularly compelling to me. Looking over their filmographies at imdb, I can confess to only having seen one of each performer's movies (The Lost Weekend and Laura, respectively). My response to both was ho-hum. I like the name Ray Milland, though. It rolls off the tongue nicely: Ray Milland. I'm gonna go with Ray Milland (born Reginald Alfred Truscott-Jones).

3) Favorite Sidney Lumet movie

I'm going to go ahead and classify Network as a Paddy Chayefsky movie so that I can throw this bone to The Verdict. Lumet, Newman, Rampling, Warden, Mamet, Mandel, and a sophisticated plot that puts most legal dramas to shame. The world needs more movies about alcoholic ambulance chasers, too.

4) Biggest surprise of the just-past summer movie season

Nicky Katt is in The Dark Knight.

5) Gene Tierney or Rita Hayworth

Rita Hayworth, but I have a poster of Tim Robbins hanging on my cell wall.

6) What’s the last movie you saw on DVD? In theaters?

The last movie I saw on DVD was Prom Night (2008), because internet piracy makes movie watching so affordable that I no longer have to be discerning about what I choose to see.

The last movie I saw in the theater was Tropic Thunder. It was retarded.

7) Irwin Allen’s finest hour?

The Poseidon Adventure.

8) What were the films where you would rather see the movie promised by the poster than the one that was actually made?

'nuff said

9) Chow Yun-Fat or Tony Leung

I really enjoy watching Chow Yun-Fat shoot people in the early John Woo films, but Tony Leung blows me away as an actor. At his best, so far, I think in Kar Wai's In the Mood for Love. The man has a face that can make your soul cry.

10) Most pretentious movie ever

pretentious adjective 1 making an excessive claim to great merit, importance, fashionableness, etc. esp. without cause. 2 ostentatious, showy. (Canadian Oxford Dictionary)

You would think that some artsy foreign film would jump to mind, but a couple of mainstream movies tie at the top of my list:

Gladiator: a picture that wants you to believe that it is an historical epic in the vein of Braveheart or Lawrence of Arabia, but is actually just a sports film. In fact, it's not even Rocky... It's like ancient WWF.

Forrest Gump: a picture that wants you to believe that it is an insightful human drama that examines ideological perseverance in the face of political and personal adversity, but is actually emotionally manipulative, sentimental pap.

11) Favorite Russ Meyer movie

I'm not much of a Meyer fan, so I'll resort to the the title I like best, which is Wild Gals of the Naked West. I watched this flick on TV a few months ago, begging the question, what was I doing awake at 3:30 in the morning?

12) Name the movie that you feel best reflects yourself, a movie you would recommend to an acquaintance that most accurately says, “This is me.”

Cabin Boy. No, wait! That was an answer from your previous quiz... different question... I am uncomfortable with the idea of trying to describe my personality in relation to the content of a single movie, let alone someone else's art. It's a reductive and arrogant task. So I called my ex-girlfriend to ask which movie reflects me most accurately, and she said "Deconstructing Harry."


13) Marlene Dietrich or Greta Garbo

Wow. Both icons, both incredibly talented, both strikingly beautiful in such interesting ways. This question is more fascinating than the mundane case of Milland v. Andrews, but much more difficult to answer because the two actresses are so great. Because I hate to be uncommitted, I will give a slight edge to Greta, whose performance in the famous "Garbo Laughs" scene in Ninotchka had such an impact on me when I studied the films of Ernst Lubitsch. But I reserve the right to change my mind at any time without reason or accountability.



14) Best movie snack? Most vile movie snack?

Who decided that popcorn was the movie snack of choice. Yeah, I just love to hear those kernels squeaking between your teeth while I'm trying to watch a picture. Throw in those crackly candy packages and nachos?!? You might as well leave your cell phone on, 'cause the theater is beginning to sound like a STOMP! production. My vote is that we allow only pudding.

15) Current movie star who would be most comfortable in the classic Hollywood studio system

Jeremy Northam. While watching the film Cypher, I was struck with the thought that he could easily slip into a number of Cary Grant's roles.

16) Fitzcarraldo—yes or no?

Yes, but not without having first seen Herzog's 1999 documentary, My Best Friend.

17) Your assignment is to book the ultimate triple bill to inaugurate your own revival theater. What three movies will we see on opening night?

Steamboat Bill, Jr.
The 400 Blows
The Muppet Movie


18) What’s the name of your theater? (The all-time greatest answer to this question was once provided by Larry Aydlette, whose repertory cinema, the Demarest, is, I hope, still packing them in…)

Hmmm... The all-time greatest answer beats anything I could come up with. Is Aydlette looking to franchise?

19) Favorite Leo McCarey movie

The Awful Truth... no, Duck Soup. Or maybe The Awful Truth? (Stop, I'm both right!)

20) Most impressive debut performance by an actor/actress.

I don't know because I haven't seen them all, but recently I'd have to say that those kids in The Kite Runner were really quite good.

21) Biggest disappointment of the just-past summer movie season

Learning that Bill Maher's Religulous would not be released until the fall.

22) Michelle Yeoh or Maggie Cheung

Maggie Cheung. Every bit as good as Tony Leung in In the Mood for Love.

23) 2008 inductee into the Academy of the Overrated

Iron Man

24) 2008 inductee into the Academy of the Underrated

In Bruges (more underexposed than underrated)

25) Fritz the Cat—yes or no?

No to Ralph Bakshi in general. But yes to Robert Crumb.

26) Trevor Howard or Richard Todd

Too arcane. I wouldn't be able to pick either one out of a lineup.

27) Antonioni once said, “I began taking liberties a long time ago; now it is standard practice for most directors to ignore the rules.” What filmmaker working today most fruitfully ignores the rules? What does ignoring the rules of cinema mean in 2008?

If one adopts the attitude that everything has been done, then breaking the rules simply means chiding the unions, in which case Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez are our most prominent rebels.

I still believe, however, that there are narrative and stylistic frontiers yet to be explored. A fruitful rule breaker in 2008 is someone who proves that you can work against expectations and still connect with the audience on an emotional and/or cerebral level.

Some contemporary rule breakers:
Michael Haneke
Charlie Kaufman/Spike Jonze
Michel Gondry
Steven Soderbergh
Julian Schnabel
the Coen brothers
Thomas McCarthy

28) Favorite William Castle movie

I'm going with House on Haunted Hill because I have seen it.

29) Favorite ethnographically oriented movie

The Gods Must be Crazy (I am so not as racist as this answer would suggest).


30) What’s the movie coming up in 2008 you’re most looking forward to? Why?

Religulous. The world is in desperate need of perspective when it comes to religion, and Bill Maher has perspective in spades. Real Time doesn't air here, so I've been jonesing for a hit of Maher since Politically Incorrect was canceled.

Also, Bangkok Dangerous because I'm a sucker for hit-man movies.

31) What deceased director would you want to resurrect in order that she/he might make one more film?

Oooh. Toughie. I would love to see a modern day political thriller from Alan Pakula, but comedy has been on the decline for nearly two decades now, so I think I would have to resurrect either Ernst Lubitsch or Preston Sturges.

32) What director would you like to see, if not literally entombed, then at least go silent creatively?

Ron Howard. Lets cremate his lousy films while we're at it.

33) Your first movie star crush

Yes. I have admitted to this before: the very first poster I hung on my wall for reasons of crushiness was of Brooke Shields. I have no idea where it came from; in fact, I'm fairly certain I had never seen her in a movie previous to decorating my room with her visage. To be honest, though, I still kind of dig her.

mondays with buster

review: death at a funeral

dir. Frank Oz, 2007

In real life, it is difficult to get laughs at a funeral; in the movies, it's somewhat easy. Chaos set against the backdrop of a typically somber event is a fairly common base for a comedy writer's recipe. Consider, though, that onions, carrots, and celery are common to many soups. It is the additional ingredients, both familiar and unfamiliar, that determine how tasty the final dish will be.

Death at a Funeral has an air of predictability because it works within the comic formula of presenting its audience with a number of "uh-oh" moments. We know that trouble is ahead when a character, on his way to the funeral, takes a pill that he thinks is Valium but is, in fact, a narcotic hallucinogen: "Uh-oh!!!" What takes us by surprise, if a film's ingredients are fresh, is the manner in which these "uh-oh" scenarios play out. Alan Tudyk, for instance, gives a rather broad performance as the LSD-dosed character, but his elastic physicality and priceless facial expressions elicit more hysterics than one might expect from a somewhat conventional series of gags.

Even more outrageous is the thread involving actor Peter Dinklage , whose character work is always compelling enough to ensure that his diminutive stature is never exploited for cheap laughs. Dinklage is quickly establishing himself both as one of cinema's greatest treasures and as one of my all-time favourite performers. He doesn't disappoint in this role as a stranger to the family whose relationship with the deceased threatens to disrupt the solemn funeral proceedings if divulged.

Save for the two aforementioned actors, the cast of Death at a Funeral is predominantly British, and the script was inked by two English blokes, as well. Some of the dark humour reflects the film's place of origin, but it is not so steeped in the UK sensibility as to seem foreign to some North American viewers (a la Monty Python, for instance). Director Frank Oz is, of course USA born, and has a fair amount of experience in the field of making quirky but accessible comedies. While some of his movies (Dirty, Rotten Scoundrels, What About Bob?) are certainly better than others (HouseSitter, and blech The Stepford Wives), he has successfully flavoured this little picture with all the right spices.

what you might like: The film opens with a great gag that really sets the tone of the picture. After that, it seems for a while as if everything is a bit too familiar. Stick with it, though. As Death at a Funeral approaches its climax, it provides some of the most laugh-out-loud material you are likely to have encountered in some time. (I suggest watching it with others... The laughter is contagious).

what you might not like: There's no accounting for taste. I know that a small contingent of viewers will find the content and language offensive. If you tend to err conservatively, you may want to avoid this picture (although, I imagine one would have to be pretty uptight to not succumb to its offbeat charms).

what you might consider: Now that it is widely available on DVD, Death at a Funeral is easy to find and worthy of your rental dollars. It deserves some word-of-mouth recommendations, and I think you will find yourself eager to share the guffaws.


links to imdb:
Death at a Funeral
Frank Oz
Peter Dinklage

Mondays with Buster

Sherlock Jr. (1924)
part one




links:
part two
part three
part four
part five
part six
part seven
part eight

the not-top ten project
a series of posts in which an amateur film critic discusses ten movies he loves, in no particular order, that may or may not be his favorites.

entry #2: Father Goose

Catherine Freneau: [Eckland has sucked the "poison" from Catherine's "snakebite"] Tell me, I would like to know - what did my blood taste like? Walter Eckland: Delicious. Now come on.
Catherine Freneau: No, no, no, I'm serious. What did it taste like?
Walter Eckland: Well how would I know? I'm not a vampire,
Catherine Freneau: Um, was it salty?
Walter Eckland: Mmm, a little salty, yes.
Catherine Freneau: Too salty?
Walter Eckland: No, it was just right.
Catherine Freneau: Oh, no! You thought it was too salty, I can tell! You didn't like it!
[she seems on the verge of crying]
Walter Eckland: I liked it!
Catherine Freneau: Oh, really?
Walter Eckland: Uh-huh, I liked it!
Catherine Freneau: You're not just saying that?
Walter Eckland: Great blood!

It is merely coincidence that the first two entries in my not-top ten project happen to be family films (after all, these titles are brought to you in no particular order). Like The Muppet Movie, though, Father Goose (dir. Ralph Nelson, 1964) is not strictly a "family film," as the term is thought of by many to be synonymous with "kiddie-fare." In fact, while the content of numerous older movies tends to come across as chaste by modern standards, Father Goose has elements that may be perceived as being less suitable for children by (some) contemporary viewers than they were by audiences forty-some-odd years ago. That the film won the 1964 Oscar for Best Original Screenplay is enough to suggest that Father Goose is more sophisticated than the average kids' movie, and the fact that it has fallen into relative obscurity is indicative of the type of film that this project aims to celebrate and draw your attention toward.

To say that the plot is quirky may be a mild understatement: During WWII, a boozy scavenger, Walter Eckland (Cary Grant), is coerced into monitoring enemy aircraft from a small island in the South Pacific. He answers a distress call from a nearby outpost, and a reluctant rescue mission saddles him with unwanted company in the form of a prissy French schoolmarm (Leslie Caron) and the seven young girls whom she tutors. The disciplined lifestyle that this teacher espouses interferes with Walter's primary aim, which is to find and drink numerous bottles of whiskey that have been hidden around the island.

The premise is absurd, but the script is so cohesive that one cannot help but suspend disbelief and accept cinematic plausibility. Recent comedies like The Love Guru and You Don't Mess With the Zohan have proved that a wacky concept alone does not guarantee perpetual laughter or feature length interest from an audience. Too many filmmakers, these days, seem to think that they can extend a five minute sketch into a two hour extravaganza. Whereas these newer movies attempt to shock us with intermittent penis jokes and gags where we see fish clenched between the cheeks of bare bottoms-- simple gross-out humour-- Father Goose implores us to react to legitimately funny situations that are directly related to the story.

In the four and a half years that I have owned my DVD copy of Father Goose, it has been on loan to friends and colleagues more than it has been in my possession. I am particularly fond of lending this film to people who swear that they don't like "old movies." Rather than present them with a bona fide classic like Casablanca or Citizen Kane-- films they may feel as if they are supposed to like-- it is more fun to surprise them with this lesser known picture. The cover photo on the DVD (pictured here) is not particularly enticing; many people I know have been repelled from believing that the film might be, in any way, interesting... All the more pleasurable for me when they do finally watch and enjoy it. In one instance, a friend of mine put Father Goose on and, within ten minutes, her entire family had gathered around the TV and they all watched together. The success rate of my little lending experiment is, thus far, 100%. I'm proud of this statistic because I feel as if, in a way, I discovered this hidden gem, and that sharing my enthusiasm for the film with others will earn Father Goose some deserved recognition.

Of course, I have no interest in issuing a smug "I told you so" to reluctant viewers who find that they are, in fact, subject to the allure of an old-timey picture. The infectious charm of Cary Grant and Leslie Caron's performances, after all, is not a difficult sell. And there is an unexpected edge to the film's humour in scenes where Eckland interacts with the children that will likely appeal to fans of modern comedies that elicit laughter by means of politically incorrect scenarios and the celebration of social taboos.

Many of our favourite movies, books, musicians, etc. do make us feel as if we have some level of proprietary interest, that they are rare commodities, known only to a select few, and we are part of an exclusive group who happen to be in-the-know. Ultimately, though, we take as much pleasure in sharing these works with those closest to us and discovering that they are equally blown away, than we do from reveling in that special feeling of "ownership." Such is my relationship with Father Goose. So I urge you to seek out a copy, even if it means borrowing mine; perhaps you will be the next ardent fan who feels compelled to pass it along to others.

links to imdb.com:
Father Goose
The Muppet Movie

links to purchase:
Father Goose
The Muppet Movie

review: cassandra's dream
dir. Woody Allen, 2007

Just over a decade ago, "The Beatles Anthology" was released on CD in the form of three two-disc volumes. Reviews were, by and large, positive. Unsurprising, I guess. Can you really pan The Beatles? What struck me as interesting, though, was the fact that many critics had the where-with-all to admit that these albums are not necessarily "must-have" items; the Anthology, it has often been noted, along with the earlier "Live at the BBC" compilation, is more likely to be of interest to die hard Beatles fans who long to hear every scratch and pop, every unused take, every variation on a song, and a whole lot of studio chatter, than it will be to the (comparatively) casual listener.

With the notable exception of 2005's Match Point, a similar critique is useful in reviewing the films that Woody Allen has released over the past decade. Allen has long been a polarizing figure in cinema-- a broad sector of film-goers hate his work, few are ambivalent, and those who like him, like him a lot. But even hardcore fans would be hard pressed to convince themselves that recent titles like The Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Melinda and Melinda, and Scoop are anywhere near as satisfying or relevant as the thirty-some-odd films that precede them. As one of these fans, however, I find that I am perpetually drawn to Allen's films regardless of how minor, mediocre, and/or odious they may be (relative to his canonical high points). I think this has something to do with the fact that the writer/director's most disappointing misfires reveal more about his working process than some of his masterpieces.

For instance, his comedies of late seem to be thrust into production before their screenplays are fully fleshed. Lines of dialogue that appear to be leading towards classic Allenesque punchlines tend to peter out as if the intended jokes were missing from the typewritten page, and the actors were too intimidated to improvise. One almost gets the sense that Woody has a drawer filled with outlines, "Idea for a comedy...", and early drafts that he can turn to when writer's block threatens to disrupt his yet unbroken track record of releasing (at least) one movie every year. It's possible that an avid fan will derive some pleasure from watching these skeleton films to discern what trade mark elements are missing when compared to Allen's more accomplished works, and ultimately develop a deeper appreciation for his process and style. Others are likely to feel as if they have simply wasted their time watching a crummy picture.

Cassandra's Dream, on the other hand, is neither a misfire, nor does it reek of incompleteness. Still, I think it is an Allen film that will appeal almost exclusively to Allen fans. This dramatic story of two brothers, Ian (Ewan McGregor) and Terry (Colin Farrell), wrestling with the moral consequences of a violent crime they have committed does not stray far from the themes that Woody Allen has explored in previous films such as Crimes and Misdemeanors and Match Point. The latter was quite successful in breaking through to audiences who were never much keen on Allen's oeuvre, but are these viewers willing to watch a movie that explores the same material with minor variations? I'm not convinced that a similarly wide demographic will be interested in Cassandra's Dream, but I do believe that this film will satisfy Woody Allen aficionados who are drawn to the filmmaker's penchant for revisiting grand questions of scruples and attempting to formulate answers.

Just because I think that Cassandra's Dream is more likely to resonate with Woody Allen fans who are interested in seeing how his exploration of familiar themes will play out within slightly different circumstances does not mean that I would discourage newcomers or (those rare) on-the-fencers to seek out this film and give it a look-see. It is a cohesive and sophisticated movie that has the potential to entertain and provoke thought, a combination that is far too rare in films these days. It is, however, a film that benefits from a certain amount of foresight from its viewers:

What you might like: There are some great performances in this film... and not just great "Woody Allen" performances (i.e. John Cusack in Bullets Over Broadway or Edward Norton in Everyone Says I Love You). Colin Farrell reminds us that he is not the vacuous Hollywood star that films like Daredevil and Miami Vice have made him out to be, and Ewan McGregor sheds his Jedi robes to reveal that he is much more comfortable in a psychologically driven role than in front of a green screen. Their combined charisma goes a long way towards ensuring that we are emotionally invested in the characters' interests when the film takes its dark turn. And the story is compelling enough to warrant our investment in Ian and Terry's fates.

What you might not like: It is not unusual for those who dislike Allen's work to attribute some of their negative feelings towards his nuanced dialogue. Cassandra's Dream is very much a writer's piece, and it is fair to assume that some viewers will find the rhythm and repetition of the line readings off-putting. Also, depending upon one's threshold for slower paced films, this character study may come across as a bit of a gloomy bore.

What you might consider: This film isn't really crying out for attention from those who would sympathize with these criticisms. Like any filmmaker, Woody Allen probably yearns for his work to reach the largest possible audience, but he doesn't often compromise his artistic integrity in pursuit of mass appeal. A film like Cassandra's Dream might resonate the most with an exclusive group of Allen anthologists who are familiar with the larger context of the auteur's work; but, like an alternate take of a Beatles' song, this film remains a solid (if slightly unpolished) piece of work with chords that may entice some new fans, as well.


links to imdb:
Woody Allen
Cassandra's Dream

links to purchase:
Match Point
Crimes and Misdemeanors

a little more hope

"Family Guy" may be less a show than it is a reward for pop culture junkies who have accumulated a great deal of useless knowledge, but it should be noted that this animated series often references arcane source material with high regard and intellect.

Creator Seth MacFarlane has a peculiar affinity for the song and dance antics of vaudeville and the cinema it inspired. The demise of yuksters Vern and Johnny (pictured below), shot down by Stewie in Season 5, Episode 4, may indicate that a fair number of viewers were perplexed by McFarlane's frequent homages to vaudeville. This is only conjecture, but I can't shake the feeling that negative audience feedback on internet message boards may have influenced the writers' decision to retire these obscure gags.

On the other hand, the three "Road" episodes, which playfully recreate the formula of the old Hope & Crosby pictures, seem to have struck a chord with viewers. It helps that these episodes feature Brian and Stewie, whose chemistry is popular with fans, but the exactness with which MacFarlane and his writers translate material from the original "Road" movies suggests that the formula still works in a contemporary context.





It's not particularly surprising that the sensibility of these films from the 1940's and 50's continues to appeal; the humor in the Bob Hope/Bing Crosby pictures, like that of the "Family Guy" program, is irreverent and self aware. Of course, "Family Guy" is often as crass as it is sophisticated, but this also serves to make the "Road" gags work. When Brian and Stewie dance around the censors in their musical numbers (just as their cinematic counterparts did all those years ago), they also sidestep our expectations because we know that they are just as likely to follow through with a dirty joke.

It may be worth investigating whether or not audiences are backwards compatible. That is to say, would contemporary viewers who enjoy "Family Guy" be entertained by the Hope & Crosby films, or would they find the humor too benign and the references too outdated? (Perhaps an informal study and a future post will follow). For the time being, I am content in knowing that at least one forum remains, in these (post)modern times, for this rare brand of madcap comedy.

i bought hope for $11.99 (cdn + tax)

... And he's worth every penny.


Oh sure, I like expensive things, but I can afford cheapy discount items, and thanks to some archaic copyright laws, there is no shortage of value priced DVD collections, largely comprised of films that have fallen into the public domain, to be found in stores. You, yourself, have likely passed by an aisle display and seen covers such as the one below, retailing for under ten dollars.


Now, to a certain extent, you get what you pay for. I have several sets produced by St. Clair Vision (including Classic Film Noir), and the quality of the discs is so poor that most DVD players have trouble reading them. On several occasions I have been half way through a movie when it suddenly digitizes, freezes, and will not restart regardless of how I tamper with the disc and/or the machine.


Also, no matter how much one loves a bargain, the average consumer probably harbors little interest in these old fashioned films. To the consumer's credit, it is often the case that only a few of the titles included in any given set are worth the time it takes to watch them.


Still, for all the rough, it is inevitable that one will stumble upon a few diamonds. Assuming that you can get them to play from beginning to end, pictures like "D.O.A."; "The Strange Love of Martha Ivers"; and "Detour" should provide you with a quantity of B-grade entertainment that exceeds the price of admission. It was with this in mind that I decided to take a chance on the affordably priced "Legends of Hollywood Bob Hope" collection: ten films on five DVDs for $11.99.


This nicely packaged set is not distributed by the dreaded St. Clair Vision people, but by a company called BCI Eclipse that seems to have put an extra few pennies into basic materials in order to ensure that the discs actually function. And while not every film in this compilation is a gem, it does provide a fairly comprehensive overview of Hope's big screen career, and includes a number of, what I consider to be, his best pictures.


Previous to buying this set, I had seen most, if not all, of the Hope/Crosby "Road" movies (two of which-- "Road to Rio" and "Road to Bali"-- are part of the package) and found them to be quite charming overall. I frequently lament the fact that vaudevillian style entertainment is no longer common within popular cinema and television. The "Road" pictures revel in the spirit of a sometimes hokey brand of comedy, and, in particular, the duo's musical numbers highlight the irreverence that makes this erstwhile genre so enjoyable. To be honest, though, in spite of the chemistry between Bob and Bing, I always found Hope to be more compelling to watch than his partner, Crosby.


So it was a joy to finally delve into some of Bob Hope's solo projects: "My Favorite Brunette"; "The Great Lover"; and "Paris Holiday". Though the names of his characters change, Hope's persona remains much the same throughout all of these pictures, and the plots of the films are always superfluous to the punchy one-liners. But the formula works: put Bob in an outrageous situation and watch him be a cad, a coward, an anxious lover, a hero, a victim, a ladies man, and a commentator, all in a single scene.


Other movies included in this package (like "Son of Paleface" and "The Private Navy of Sgt. O'Farrell) are considerably less delightful. These later works employ many of the same comedy devices, but the writing is far weaker and, at times, Hope appears to be justifiably disinterested in the material. Even his trademark direct address to the camera/audience cannot excuse the lameness of the events taking place on screen-- and nothing can excuse the broad racial stereotypes that are meant to serve as humor in these films.


In the category of good-but-not-great, "The Seven Little Foys," inspired by the true story of a family of vaudeville performers, offers a rare glimpse of Hope in a quazi-dramatic role, and for the purposes of the film, he competently fits the bill. There are certainly better movies from the era (circa 1955), but I think contemporary audiences would be surprised at how engaging and emotionally moving this story really is.


I have yet to watch the remaining two films in the compilation, "The Lemon Drop Kid" and the much maligned "How to Commit Marriage." By all accounts, it looks like I'm in for one decent picture and one that's a total stinker. For the money, though, I can't complain.

johnny depp in Tim Burton films

wanted: The Big Sleep and Sin City

In order to truly enjoy the new film, Wanted, one must check one's logic at the theater door. I mean, c'mon... A world where the names of baddies who are fated to die are delivered to a secret society of assassins via loom? Let's hope that the powers-that-be don't slip a stitch. Just because this film demands an obscene level of suspension of disbelief, however, doesn't mean that viewers should turn their brains off altogether.

That I enjoyed this film in no way forgives the fact that it revels in some fairly dubious morality. I think it would be difficult to justify my appreciation of Wanted if I was not consciously aware of the ideological elements that I find so objectionable. (In order to refrain from divulging any information that may constitute spoilers, allow me to limit my summarization for the time being and say that the movie celebrates misogynistic fantasies, rationalizes amoral [and sometimes immoral] violence, and masks the ambiguous value system its protagonist develops by suggesting that he is on a path of self growth.)

At the risk of sounding pompous, Wanted has been touted and marketed as mindless summer entertainment, and it is bound to appeal to a largely mindless audience. I'm not saying that the majority of the film's viewers lack the ability to discern from right and wrong, fiction and fact, or that they will adopt the movie's values into their everyday lives. To think, however, that the celebration of ideals such as Wanted presents does nothing to shape a spectator's notion of what traits are to be admired in a movie and/or its "hero" would be a mistake. Just look at these excerpts from fan reviews posted on imdb.com:

In all honesty, this movie is symbolizes what all action movies should be. Fun, HOT, testosterone-fueled... PLUS you get to see that sweet little bum bum of Angelina Jolie's! What's not to love about this movie? ... It starts off with James McAvoy playing Wesley Gibson as a bumbling nobody walking through his daily existence as someone who doesn't know the core of who he is. By the end of the film, he is a violent, magnetic presence that you can't take your eyes off. You'll truly understand why he is "The Man".


Off the chain look for an unexpected twist at the end. I didn't quite understand it but, was very good movie watching. Grab that bag of popcorn and soda in the other hand and enjoy ... An action picture that shows ingenuity in inventing new ways to attack, defend, ambush and annihilate. Wanted slams the pedal to the metal and never slows down.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, while the film scored a 7.6 out of 10 from imdb visitors who rated it, there are at least as many negative written reviews about Wanted as there are positive, and even the fans who enjoyed the film are, by and large, quite insightful in their commentary. One must grant, however, that most people who would be inspired to take the time to write a comment for the website have a vested interest in film analysis to begin with. I can't help but think that if you interviewed the audience as a theatrical screening lets out, you would get a lot of responses to the movie that are similar to the ones above.

In fact, I am reminded of a university tutorial I taught a few years ago in which the class was studying Howard Hawks' 1946 film noir, The Big Sleep. One of the goals for the hour was to examine sexist attitudes in the film, and my students were surprisingly reluctant to do so. When I asked them what they thought of the lead character, private eye Philip Marlowe, a young gent shouted out, "Dude, Marlowe's pimpin'" (in the most complimentary sense of the term). I was shocked, again, to see how many of my female students smiled and nodded in agreement.

The class was in no way opposed to examining the aesthetics of the film, but its ideology was decidedly off limits, as if discovering something objectionable in the fabric of the movie would destroy its entertainment value. Bear in mind that this is an introductory course for film majors, students who have committed to spending the next four years of their lives analyzing cinema. They were convinced that Marlow embodied every aspect that a movie hero should, and were able to brush off the fact that he slaps a few women around as a sign of the time in which the picture was made.

And it is true that such behavior would not fly as easily in a contemporary film, but they refused to see that these blatant images are not the only examples of outdated morality in The Big Sleep, or that the fact that they so easily accepted the character of Philip Marlowe as a typical on-screen hero illustrates that many of the film's values and ideals are still present in the movies we watch today. Ultimately, we all need to understand that enjoying a film as entertainment and recognizing its ideological flaws are not mutually exclusive.

The difference, I would say, between a movie like The Big Sleep and one such as Wanted is that the content of the former is largely influenced by the ethics of the time in which it was made while the latter, more often than not, means to entertain by way of hedonistic excess. This is not an admirable agenda, but I find it hard to dismiss the movie for this reason any more than I would poo-poo the early James Bond films. I don't admire Bond for being a womanizing brute, but neither do I deny the fact that his cinematic persona is the source of great amusement.

Wanted has been compared to films like The Matrix and Fight Club, and aptly so, since it owes a great deal of visual style and story content to both. But the feeling I got from watching the movie was more akin to my experience with Robert Rodriguez & Frank Miller's Sin City. The visuals are stunning, and they subsume me the way only a comic book or video game can. The plot line (or lines) is (or are) both extreme and engaging. The film establishes a consistent mood and an enticing story world. And yet, the subject matter is often appalling.

It's not the violence or sexuality that I find offensive, but rather the way in which the film tries to misdirect us into believing that it is somehow progressive. For instance, I take particular issue with the segment entitled "The Big Fat Kill," in which we are supposed to imagine that the female prostitutes who occupy the Old Town region of Basin City are strong women who rule the turf and administer their own brand of justice: "The ladies are the law here. Beautiful and merciless. If you've got the cash and you play by the rules, they'll make all your dreams come true. But if you cross them, you're a corpse."

Forget, for a moment, that the only powers these women wield are their bodies and their guns, and consider that, in spite of the authority they are said to maintain, when the chips fall they need a man (Clive Owen) to save the day. Oh... and, best case scenario? If he saves the day, they get to continue being prostitutes!!! Wanted attempts to manipulate us in much the same way, presenting Angelina Jolie as an expert assassin who is, initially, far more capable than our protagonist. But the scene in which she reveals her ornate tattoos and supple buttocks to James McAvoy should alert us to the fact that her primary role in the film is to be sexy.

It is difficult, in a way, to begrudge a spectator for having a superficial reaction to a film when that film encourages just such a reaction. In the end, however, I believe that it is our responsibility as an audience to seek out and support films that are more ideologically sound, and to establish dialogues about the movies that aren't. I would hate to live in a world where an excessive, hedonistic, amoral extravaganza like Wanted couldn't be made, but I would be less tempted to live in world where its ethics are accepted, let alone championed.

notes:

The tagline for The Big Sleep is: " The type of man she hated . . . was the type she wanted!"

The day that my students and I discussed The Big Sleep was only the second class of the semester. As the year progressed, they proved themselves to be superb film analysts, and I wish them all the greatest success as they continue their education.