An actual email a friend of mine received this week:
"Hey everyone,
Quick email to let you know that my beloved assistant, Francine, is leaving me to do bigger and better things – like taking an awesome job at #$%* in digital media. So, I’m looking for someone to replace her. If you know of anyone please send her the resume – I need someone who’s going to give minimum 1 year commitment, can work really long hours, read scripts at night and weekends, run an office, admin duties as well as creative, and have some knowledge of writers, directors, producers and more importantly agency assistant contacts. Francine will do the preliminary interviews for me. Please be warned this is not a cake job – Francine can explain how exhausting the reading can get as well as assisting two execs.
Thanks,
Pietro"
Hmmmm...and let me read between the lines here--the pay is shit, right?
Sounds perfect!!!
I just really want to work in Hollywood!
With all the stars!
_
Monday, July 7, 2008
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Gotta Love A Crazy Bitch
So, Leona Helmsley, who married her way into a multi-billion-dollar real estate empire only to become one of the most infamous bitches of our time (figure that out...), is still causing trouble almost a year after her death.
The woman notorious for her assertion "we don't pay taxes--only the little people pay taxes," as well as for her subsequent 19-month stint in prison on charges of tax evasion, not only left $12 million to her dog, Trouble (pictured above), but also, it turns out, left the bulk of her $5-8 billion estate to a charitable trust that is required to spend that money on dogs.
In a mission statement attached to her will, Helmsley laid out her goals for the vast fortune she would leave behind.
"The first goal was to help indigent people, the second to provide for the care and welfare of dogs. A year later...she deleted the first goal." (courtesy nytimes.com)Very wise--I don't care what anybody says, dogs are more important than humans. The indigent people of the world thank you, Ms. Helmsley, wherever you are (lying lifeless in a limestone mausoleum on 3/4 of an acre in Sleepy Hollow Cemetery, Westchester, New York, which is to be acid-washed once a year, according to her will).
Now, all this stupid bullshit aside, I find it interesting that one's last wishes, which seem in this case to be very clearly stated, can still be legally altered.
A judge in New York has already reduced Trouble's inheritance from $12 million to $2 million. The same judge has also given $10 million dollars to two grandchildren deliberately left nothing in the will. Talks are already underway as to how best circumvent Helmsley's mission statement, in order to spend money on projects unrelated to dogs.
As much as I agree that the money could go to much better causes--such as indigent people, education, conservation--the fact of the matter is that this was not her choice. Her choice was to spend the money on dogs. So...why is it even up for discussion? Why is there even a 'case,' as it were? Strange...
I mean, if she wanted to buy $46-worth of scratch-offs for every one of the 172 million estimated pet dogs in the world...who are we to stop her?
Bonus -- My favorite Leona Helmsley story:
"On March 31, 1982, Leona's only child, Jay Panzirer, died of a heart attack. Leona sued her son's estate for money and property that she claimed he had borrowed; Mimi, her son's widow, (who lived in a property Leona owned) received an eviction notice. Mimi later said the legal expenses wiped her out and 'to this day I don't know why they did it.'" (courtesy wikipedia.org)
Mamma Mia!
Gotta love it when a professionally-designed (and heinously ugly) poster for a multi-million-dollar movie* misspells an actress' name.
I didn't have to check imdb.com to see that her name really is ChriStine Baranski.
But I did.
And it is.
And she's scary looking, by the way.
And needs a new P.R. rep...
In other news, Mamma Mia--despite its inherent shittiness--will always have a special place in my heart.
Why? Because when I lived (for a month) at the Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino in beautiful Las Vegas, Nevada, I used to wake up every morning to the pungent smell of burning tobacco and the equally-pungent tunes of the promo for the Mamma Mia musical.
As if being hungover, underslept, and living in Vegas wasn't enough to make me want to jump out the window already...
The musical--based on, and incorporating, the tunes of ABBA, if you can believe it--was playing in a dedicated theater within the hotel and, therefore, one channel on our TV was devoted entirely to playing a promo for it in a continuous, unending, eternal, infinite loop.
My roommate would watch this channel for hours on end, seeing how long he could stand it; his tolerance was at the same time impressive and criminal.
And so, to Chainsaw Chuck Morton in Chicago--I know you been waitin' for this joint to drop for a long minute now, my man. Here you go--eat it up. You don't even wanna know the strings I had to pull to get this milk dud made...
*Believe it or not, this movie somehow cost $65 million to make, according to several websites I checked, including this one. Wow. Were the crew's water bottles made of solid gold?
_
Monday, June 30, 2008
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Logjammin'
"Largest Log Jam in the World---It took 150 lumberjacks, five teams of horses, and one steam engine SIX MONTHS to break up this log jam on the Mississippi River in 1894. Located near Little Falls, Minnesota, the log jam was almost SEVEN MILES LONG, a half-mile wide, and 60 feet thick in most places. It was estimated to contain over 4 billion feet of lumber."
Really makes ya think, don't it?
When was the last time you spent six months doing anything?
And masturbating doesn't count...
-
Further fascinating reading:
-
Further fascinating reading:
"Log jams occurred at places where the water was shallow, or where there were bends in the rivers. The river drivers did their best to keep the logs moving, but with thousands of logs, it was hard to stop a jam once it started.
"Log jams were broken by either using dynamite, or by digging through the pile until they got to the key log. The key log was the one log that was holding the entire jam back. It could be many feet inside a log jam, making it very dangerous to remove.
"Many lumberjacks, sometimes five or six at a time, were killed while removing these jams. Due to the high danger associated with river driving, the river drivers were the most highly skilled, and the most highly respected men in the logging camps.
"They were able to ride the logs through rapids, fast water, even dams built in the rivers (dams were sometimes necessary for the water to be deep enough to transport the logs). Because the river driver's work was the most dangerous in the camp, they were the most highly paid.
"For a days work, they were paid anywhere from seventy-five cents to a dollar."
photo/info courtesy of logrolling.org
_
Thursday, June 26, 2008
I Wonder...
how quiet the theater was when The Love Guru was first screened for Paramount executives, upon completion.
Or did they pipe in a laugh track to avoid embarrassment?
Or did they pipe in a laugh track to avoid embarrassment?
There is Hope After All
Proof Mankind Loves to Hasten its Own Demise:
1. The Love Guru was conceived.
2. The Love Guru was successfully pitched to a studio.
3. The Love Guru was written.
4. The Love Guru was green-lit for production.
5. The Love Guru was cast--with Ben Kingsley & Stephen Colbert, no less.
6. The Love Guru was filmed.
7. The Love Guru was edited.
8. The Love Guru was juiced up with music by George S. Clinton
9. The Love Guru was advertised everywhere--even inside my own ass, I hear.
10. The Love Guru was allowed to premiere on over 3000 screens.
At no point along this two-year-plus journey did anybody find it in their hearts to tell Mike Myers this project is one of the worst they'd ever heard of, much less seen or been a part of.
Instead, everybody kept their head down and their comments to themselves--who are they to second-guess Mr. Austin Powers?
And so, the idiots at Paramount spent $62 million to shoot it, and $9 googolplex billion to promote it. Who knows how many good movies got pushed to the dirt to ensure this turd could fill 10% of all the movie screens in America, land of promise.
To put that into perspective, a friend of mine recently made a feature film and was lucky enough to have it purchased by a distributor--a big deal for a first-time filmmaker.
His movie will premiere on 10 screens. Ten.
So, why is there hope?
Because The Love Guru only made $13,907,130 -- the 50th worst opening ever, for movies playing on more than 3000 screens. Ha! Let's hope he arranged to get all his money on the back end...
Although, assuming an average ticket price of $8.00, it still is troubling to know that 1,738,392 people actually paid to go see it. His family can't be that big...
1. The Love Guru was conceived.
2. The Love Guru was successfully pitched to a studio.
3. The Love Guru was written.
4. The Love Guru was green-lit for production.
5. The Love Guru was cast--with Ben Kingsley & Stephen Colbert, no less.
6. The Love Guru was filmed.
7. The Love Guru was edited.
8. The Love Guru was juiced up with music by George S. Clinton
9. The Love Guru was advertised everywhere--even inside my own ass, I hear.
10. The Love Guru was allowed to premiere on over 3000 screens.
At no point along this two-year-plus journey did anybody find it in their hearts to tell Mike Myers this project is one of the worst they'd ever heard of, much less seen or been a part of.
Instead, everybody kept their head down and their comments to themselves--who are they to second-guess Mr. Austin Powers?And so, the idiots at Paramount spent $62 million to shoot it, and $9 googolplex billion to promote it. Who knows how many good movies got pushed to the dirt to ensure this turd could fill 10% of all the movie screens in America, land of promise.
To put that into perspective, a friend of mine recently made a feature film and was lucky enough to have it purchased by a distributor--a big deal for a first-time filmmaker.
His movie will premiere on 10 screens. Ten.
So, why is there hope?
Because The Love Guru only made $13,907,130 -- the 50th worst opening ever, for movies playing on more than 3000 screens. Ha! Let's hope he arranged to get all his money on the back end...
Although, assuming an average ticket price of $8.00, it still is troubling to know that 1,738,392 people actually paid to go see it. His family can't be that big...
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
What Does It Take to Become a Woman?
In these trying times, which are so trying for everybody but rich people, oil companies, and Norwegians, it is easy to forget how simple life can be sometimes.
For example, ever wonder how a little girl becomes a woman?
Well, chuckle-chuckle, it doesn't happen overnight, I assure you.
In fact, according to scientists, the process takes years. Those lovable little females go through such subtle changes it can sometimes be hard for the layman to notice through that delightful parental beer/white-zinfandel haze.
Yet, at the same time, the journey itself, refined over millennia by a mythical overlord, is deceptively simple and can be broken down into easily-identifiable stages.
Leave it to the Canadians to figure it out!
Age 5-6 ------- Sparks
Oh, look at the babies with their blankets!
Age 7-8 ------- Brownies
So hot right now.
Age 9-11 ------- Guides
This is when most of the pretty girls disappear.
Age 12-14 ----- Pathfinders
Age 15-17+ ---- Rangers
Total loss of fashion sense, bodily coordination, and hope.
Age 18+ ------- Women!
Finally, the life they've always dreamed of!
Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself!
_
For example, ever wonder how a little girl becomes a woman?
Well, chuckle-chuckle, it doesn't happen overnight, I assure you.
In fact, according to scientists, the process takes years. Those lovable little females go through such subtle changes it can sometimes be hard for the layman to notice through that delightful parental beer/white-zinfandel haze.
Yet, at the same time, the journey itself, refined over millennia by a mythical overlord, is deceptively simple and can be broken down into easily-identifiable stages.
Leave it to the Canadians to figure it out!
The Stages of Womanhood
Age 5-6 ------- SparksOh, look at the babies with their blankets!
Age 7-8 ------- BrowniesSo hot right now.
Age 9-11 ------- GuidesThis is when most of the pretty girls disappear.
Age 12-14 ----- PathfindersToo ugly/unfriendly to get any closer, which is fine.
Age 15-17+ ---- RangersTotal loss of fashion sense, bodily coordination, and hope.
Age 18+ ------- Women!Finally, the life they've always dreamed of!
Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself!
_
Speaking of Bobblehead Dolls...
As much as I love him--and that's more than you can ever know, since you cannot even begin to understand the depth of our love--let it be known that Elton John travels with a large rolling road case full of assorted bobblehead dolls he has collected over the years.
When Elton's in town for a show--in this case an elaborate corporate 'birthday event' (he whores himself out at more private events than you would care to know, more than Jeremy Piven even!)--an 'attractive, young male P.A.' is chosen as liason between Elton's traveling crew and the local production team.
One of this sexyman's responsibilities is to arrange Elton's 100+ bobblehead dolls around the television set in his room backstage. This TV must be hooked up to a satellite system that broadcasts Atlanta Braves games, because Elton has for some reason lived in Atlanta for quite some time now, and has become probably the only British baseball fan in the world.
The bobblehead dolls are all to be arranged facing the couch.
Do you think you've been too famous for too long when you begin to need an audience to watch TV?
When Elton's in town for a show--in this case an elaborate corporate 'birthday event' (he whores himself out at more private events than you would care to know, more than Jeremy Piven even!)--an 'attractive, young male P.A.' is chosen as liason between Elton's traveling crew and the local production team.
One of this sexyman's responsibilities is to arrange Elton's 100+ bobblehead dolls around the television set in his room backstage. This TV must be hooked up to a satellite system that broadcasts Atlanta Braves games, because Elton has for some reason lived in Atlanta for quite some time now, and has become probably the only British baseball fan in the world.
The bobblehead dolls are all to be arranged facing the couch.
Do you think you've been too famous for too long when you begin to need an audience to watch TV?
Wink Martindale
This is not about Wink Martindale, the self-proclaimed god of game show hosting, who was so 'good' at it that he hosted 15 different game shows.
[Hint: Good game show hosts host one game show for most of their lives (Bob Barker, Alex Trebeck, Pat Sajak)]
But you try telling his eager, 50+ year-old, walking-Wink-historian manservant that. He'll just smile and give you a Wink bobblehead doll. Which, oddly, I still have sitting in my office right now, unwrapped, so that its value will appreciate handsomely in the coming years, skyrocket upon his imminent death, and eventually afford me a fun-size bag of Peanut M&Ms I can totally forget eating only five seconds after doing so.
Incidentally, according to his own, carefully-controlled-I'm-sure wikipedia entry, the following indescribably-juicy tidbit has leaked, for the moment:
But this is not about Wink Martindale.
Rather, this is just an awkward prelude to the following question:
Why do old men* wink so much?
I know that 97% of the time it's not sexual, so it's not like I'm creeped out by it on that front; it's just weird that they are so out of touch with the world that they think it's cool to wink after every other sentence.
Can't humor stand on its own? Can't the piss just be taken, without the thief needing to so brazenly laying claim? Does every utterance always have to be emphasized? Are they so afraid anybody more than five years younger than them will be unable to work their way through the uncomplicated, indelicate, brick-shithouse innuendos they sling like so much hash?
How do you even respond to a wink? Do you have to wink back? Can you punch the winker in the face? Or is it enough to just solemnly nod, avoiding all eye contact? I'm gonna try that.
Or maybe I'll just avoid old men. That'll be easier.
*When speaking about old men, I, of course, am actually only referring to some old men. But in defense, there sure are a hell of a lot of them.
_
[Hint: Good game show hosts host one game show for most of their lives (Bob Barker, Alex Trebeck, Pat Sajak)]
But you try telling his eager, 50+ year-old, walking-Wink-historian manservant that. He'll just smile and give you a Wink bobblehead doll. Which, oddly, I still have sitting in my office right now, unwrapped, so that its value will appreciate handsomely in the coming years, skyrocket upon his imminent death, and eventually afford me a fun-size bag of Peanut M&Ms I can totally forget eating only five seconds after doing so.
Incidentally, according to his own, carefully-controlled-I'm-sure wikipedia entry, the following indescribably-juicy tidbit has leaked, for the moment:
"The May 25, 2008 'Sag Harbor Study' (a poll taken on New York State's Long Island) compared the social relevance of game show hosts in the 21st century to what many consider the 'golden years' of game shows – 1973 through the early 1980s. Precisely 25% of all respondents given zero category-specific context were unable to identify 'Wink Martindale' as a person of any significance."Wow. I guess you can post anything you want on Wink Martindale's page--after hours (6pm-5am, when everyone who knows Wink is visiting Sleepytown, if you know what I mean).
But this is not about Wink Martindale.
Rather, this is just an awkward prelude to the following question:
Why do old men* wink so much?
I know that 97% of the time it's not sexual, so it's not like I'm creeped out by it on that front; it's just weird that they are so out of touch with the world that they think it's cool to wink after every other sentence.
Can't humor stand on its own? Can't the piss just be taken, without the thief needing to so brazenly laying claim? Does every utterance always have to be emphasized? Are they so afraid anybody more than five years younger than them will be unable to work their way through the uncomplicated, indelicate, brick-shithouse innuendos they sling like so much hash?
How do you even respond to a wink? Do you have to wink back? Can you punch the winker in the face? Or is it enough to just solemnly nod, avoiding all eye contact? I'm gonna try that.
Or maybe I'll just avoid old men. That'll be easier.
*When speaking about old men, I, of course, am actually only referring to some old men. But in defense, there sure are a hell of a lot of them.
_
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Hey, hey, we're the Monkids!
So, I read something in Radar today, in one of the tiny sidebars, that indirectly informed me that a term exists for a monkey who was raised as a child by an infertile human couple, unlikely parents who volunteer for the privilege.
Two Things Pop Into My Head:
1. Who are these people? Who is this desperate for love? Why don't don't they just start swinging or something, and spending their relatively-inordinate free time a bit more wisely?
2. I wonder what would happen if one of these monkids went to high school in suburban Chicago? I wonder if he would 'fit in,' if he'd be good at sports, if the popular girl will want to bang him, if he would even have a challenger for Senior Class President...
Monkey + Kid = Monkid
Two Things Pop Into My Head:1. Who are these people? Who is this desperate for love? Why don't don't they just start swinging or something, and spending their relatively-inordinate free time a bit more wisely?
2. I wonder what would happen if one of these monkids went to high school in suburban Chicago? I wonder if he would 'fit in,' if he'd be good at sports, if the popular girl will want to bang him, if he would even have a challenger for Senior Class President...
Where Were You When It Was This Hot Before?
Goddamn, it's hot outside today.
Has been for days now, maybe even a week.
Do you remember when it was this hot before?
Man, that was wicked.
It got so crazy, I started dating a girl
because she had air conditioning.
She lived over on Hillhurst,
I think.
Where were you?
Has been for days now, maybe even a week.
Do you remember when it was this hot before?
Man, that was wicked.
It got so crazy, I started dating a girl
because she had air conditioning.
She lived over on Hillhurst,
I think.
Where were you?
Friday, June 20, 2008
Can't Wait Til This Trend Hits the Lucrative U.S. 'Unselfconscious Fat Girl' Market
Although these photos are 'allegedly' digitally manipulated for Japanese porno magazines (soft-core, I assume), according to Snopes.com, you know it is only a matter of time before some Joe Francis / Forever 21 wannabe decides to actually create them.
Or will Bebe beat them to the punch?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Nothin' But a Chihuahua and a Dream...
As people across the globe threaten bloody revolt over mere grains of rice and literally eat 'mud cakes' for sustenance, the Hollywood Dream Machine continues to find terribly clever ways to piss money into the ether.Where does $200 million go?
$100 million?
$50 million?
All of these are obscene amounts of money. What's even more obscene is the unpublished, additional obscene amounts of money that are spent after all that money is spent to make the movie--they call it marketing.
A $200 million movie might incur marketing costs of an additional $100 million. The worse the movie is, the more money spent on marketing it. Although even your grandmother knows not to throw good money after bad, studios do not heed this time-tested advice. Do you think anybody thought Speed Racer was good? Trust me--nobody did. But that didn't stop them from blanketing every city in the country with billboards and bus stop advertisements, not to mention trailers on TV. Think that stuff comes cheap?
The latest and greatest example I can offer, from sources that shall remain nameless, involves the Disney movie Beverly Hills Chihuahua.
For those of you that are not 'hip,' I offer the following summary:
Jamie Lee Curtis plays a wealthy woman who lives in Beverly Hills. She owns a pampered chihuahua, voiced by Drew Barrymore. On a vacation to Mexico, this chihuahua gets lost and meets a Mexican chihuahua, voiced by George Lopez.In addition to the predictable onslaught of web/TV trailers, merchandising tie-ins, billboards, etc, the Disney team has been doing some thinking outside the box. How far outside the box? Well, that's for you to judge.
I assume they fall in love.
The plan was to stage a 'Running of the Chihuahuas' on Rodeo Drive.
Get it? Chihuahuas instead of bulls; Beverly Hills instead of Pamplona.
Since chihuahuas are not too bright, don't tend to run around that much, and love to fight each other, the animal trainers--the same ones who worked on the film--advised the production team to train the chihuahuas on a course identical to the one they would eventually run on come event day.
The cost for 50 trained chihuahuas to run a 100ft. course?
$165,000
Add to that amount the money spent to build two identical tracks, crew salaries for production personnel, permits for street closure, lighting/video/sound equipment rental, security, trucking, parking, crew meals, carpeting, fences, banners, bathrooms, etc...and the cost of this promotional event would have easily run up to and beyond $350,000.
All to watch a bunch of chihuahuas run for 45 seconds.
Why?
Why not? It's cute! People will look at the photos online or in some stupid magazine and laugh and think to themselves, "Oh, I gotta take the kids to see that movie..."
So who's to blame?
Who Cares About Basketball?
When there's so much beauty in the world?
Have you spoken to your neighbor recently?
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Eric Rohmer: Under the Microscope
Despite being the co-founder and longtime editor of legendary French cinema mag Cahiers du Cinema and one of the most prolific of the French New Wave directors, very few people have ever heard of Eric Rohmer. In fact, most students of film have never even heard of Eric Rohmer, much less seen one of his movies.
Why is this? Well, I don’t have the answer, but I imagine it has something to do with the fact that his movies are not very cool--they lack the flashy style of a Truffaut or Godard movie, they’re too intellectual, too dialogue-heavy, too plot-light.
In spite of these normally off-putting qualities, if you are a patient viewer who enjoys soaking in the intricacies of the characters and their environment, his movies are very enjoyable to watch. Rohmer’s style is unique and consistent, his topics right out in the open, his characters raw and vulnerable, and his lustful camera lends credence to his characters paralyzed by indecision. Also to his credit, Rohmer’s early works have improved with age, if only because the passage of time has highlighted their timelessness--whereas I cannot say the same for many of those by his New Wave peers.
Rohmer’s films have weathered the years so well because their subject is a simple one--love. Love between a man and a woman, with another woman/man or two thrown in for good measure. His characters almost always must choose between two or three options, the choice never being easy, always involving the defining and redefining of their idea of love. Typically, his characters take slightly too long with this choice, paralyzed by indecision, and fail as a result.
Much great art, especially when it comes to storytelling, is produced by men and women operating outside the normal realm of sociability. Instead of blending in, these artists hungrily observe the lives of others from afar and study the immortalized opinions of the greats who lived before them. Judging from his movies, Eric Rohmer seems to be an intelligent man who thinks about and discusses life more than he lives it (much like Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese); the kind of man who neither shits nor gets off the pot, but instead externally hashes out the implications of every option in depth, with whomever might venture near his proverbial toilet. Rohmer’s intelligence has clearly handicapped him socially, and he seems frustratingly aware of it.
The protagonists of his most celebrated movies--whether young, old, male, female--all appear to be slightly different slices of Eric Rohmer himself. Each is unique, but shares many of the same problems--namely, they are presented with a chance to end their loneliness by pairing up with a woman/man, but are paralyzed when required to choose between two distinct options, and ultimately wind up with neither. To further rub in the humiliation, they often also discover they never had a chance to begin with, and therefore wasted a fat chunk of time discussing and debating an impossibility. Whether the character is vain or completely lacking in self-confidence, we see that their fate is the same when they fail to choose decisively.
Rohmer’s movies are simply shot--there are no complicated camera moves, no daring stylistic choices, no cheesy camera placements, no unconventional editing, etc--and yet powerful, because they allow his characters to move within a space, allow their humanity to breathe. The locations are sumptuous, the actors intriguingly attractive, and we are shown as many dull moments in their lives as exciting ones; essentially, we are allowed to view them as real people--they are relatable. And so we hope for their happiness, and so we forgive them their faults.
One of Rohmer’s trademarks is what I would say is easily the lustiest camera ever--scenes will open on a sexy pair of legs, and a minute later the woman will sit into frame; or, the camera follows a tiny pair of shorts around a room as we hear a conversation; women casually dress and undress in front of the camera and random men onscreen, feeling no need to hide their bodies. Rohmer has obviously created a world he wishes he could live in, but knows only exists in his mind and in his movies. That being said, he is wise to share this fantasy world, with its roots planted firmly in reality--ever the realist, even his fantasies typically have disappointing endings for the characters involved.
For those of you out there who are exhausted by the rampant availability of awful romantic comedies, and the dearth of smart romantic cinema since Woody Allen’s heyday, feel free to dig into the treasure trove that is Eric Rohmer’s oeuvre. Here is a handy guide for the neophyte:
Pauline at the Beach (1983)--Probably my favorite of his films, although I also love La Collectionneuse and Claire’s Knee. Pauline at the Beach seems to be where Rohmer reached his peak and made the most ‘Rohmer’ movie he could make, while at the same time it is his most palatable to the masses--a stunning achievement, considering the nature of his work. The film is packed with fascinating, raw, male and female characters, both young and old, volatile yet naturalistic relationships, a beautiful setting, and an ending that is at once realistic and satisfying.
La Collectionneuse (1967)---His first masterpiece. About a man-eating young woman who has no desire to eat the one man who doesn’t want her to eat him, and how it eventually drives this man insane with desire. As soon as he works his way in, to finally have a shot at her, he suddenly has yet another change of heart and abandons her on the side of the road. She moves on without skipping a beat.
Claire’s Knee (1971)---The most hilarious of all Rohmer’s protagonists--the hair, the beard, the wardrobe, the fact that he only travels by motorboat...he at once fascinates and repels. This wannabe-Romeo fancies himself a ladies man and fails to realize that by the time he decides a woman is worthy of his romantic/lustful attentions, it is too late--she has already seen him for who he really is and brushes him off without second thought, in favor of a much-less intelligent, but much-more confident and attractive man. Funny, because the man gets exactly what he deserves, especially in light of his earlier crowing, but there is also an air of tragedy about it; he garners our sympathy as he tries to maintain his pride in the face of defeat. This is the story of a patently unhappy man who would have no problem with women if he would simply stop thinking so much and avoid immediately placing himself high above the beautiful, intelligent women he meets.
The Aviator’s Wife (1981)----Worst title ever, great movie. Rohmer’s Parisian version of Woody Allen’s Manhattan, or so it seems. Although still sumptuous and full of beautifully lingering shots, this film moves at a much more rapid clip than Rohmer’s earlier work. It seems like he was trying to modernize, to adapt to the marketplace--and it works. It is the story of one man, who loves a woman who takes his love for granted, and meets another, much younger woman who seems a much better match. Once again, choice enters into the mix; should he chase this young woman? Or should he resume his quest to conquer his somewhat-cold existing lover? And what is the deal with her other man? Will she choose the pilot over our hero? A charming dissection of love that turns into somewhat of a detective story. One of the sexiest woman-in-her-underwear-during-a-long-emotional-scene scenes ever committed to celluloid. And for all you ladies out there...there’s a pilot, too!
The Green Ray (aka Summer) (1986)----A pitch-perfect exploration of the trials and tribulations of a beautiful woman who wishes she were ugly, so that men wouldn’t just want her for sex and she could live her life like a normal, sociable human being. A tour-de-force performance by Marie Riviere (who also co-wrote, along with Rohmer), who expands on her complicated character introduced in The Aviators Wife. Although her character has a different name in this one, the two roles have so much in common that it is not hard to view Delphine as Anne two years down the road. Rohmer displays Delphine’s quirks in much the same loving way that Allen displays Annie Hall’s; even though everyone around her thinks she is weird and unnecessarily reclusive, the audience is on her side at every turn. Her biggest problem is that nobody wants to actually listen to what she has to say; they only want to hear themselves speak and deliver long tirades full of useless advice. Delphine is a vegetarian and nature-lover--so much so that ‘nature’ is fully a character in this movie, and the sound design during this character’s biggest scene is particularly stunning. The movie has a wonderful pace to it--a step back from that of The Aviator’s Wife, but perfect for its subject
A Summer’s Tale (1996)---A movie made in 1996 that looks like it is from 1976, a tape recorder the only noticeable inconsistency. The story centers on a young man who juggles three women at a beach resort in northern France. One is unattainable, but toys with him; another wants all of him or none of him; the third truly loves him, but remains his friend in order to see whether or not he will pursue her--luckily for him, all are beautiful. As is the case in a Rohmer movie, Gaspard ends up alone, leaving town to purchase an 8-track recording system to avoid a choice he will regret no matter his decision. It is an interesting, lush 100-minute treatise on romantic indecision, and ranks right up there with Rohmer’s best; a true return to form.
The Marquis of O (1976)----After a shockingly-bad opening, this film recovers well and, in the end, impresses. The hokeyness of this clearly-low-budget period piece is forgotten after the first five or ten minutes and the emotionally-rich story quickly moves to the forefront. Bruno Ganz, whom I loved for his subtle, brilliant performance in The American Friend (Wim Wenders, 1977), was equally as impressive here, in his portrayal of ‘The Count.’ The staid world of the 18th-century aristocracy seems laughable, though certainly faithful to history, and the drama that unfolds within that world is well-painted by Rohmer. My favorite moment? When the Marquis sulks, alone, in her vast, beautiful, many-servant-staffed country estate, and we are supposed to feel sorry for her; yes, her parents threw her out, but, come on--she isn’t exactly out on her ass!
Boyfriends and Girlfriends (1987)----Eric Rohmer as a woman, but adapting the character well to the other gender. She is very smart, lonely, horny, but awkward and reserved. She must choose between two men who are both good-looking, but one of them is a handsome ladies-man she can’t talk to, and the other is an intelligent, athletic gentleman who would make the much better choice--but dates her beautiful, vapid new best friend...
My Night at Maud’s (1970)---A dense intellectual feast, centering mostly on one man’s love for the wisdom of Pascal. Like most Rohmer movies, this one is thin on plot, but this is even more guilty of that than the others. If you don’t like watching people sit in chairs and talk endlessly about their philosophies on life and love, this one is not for you. If you enjoy philosophy and don’t mind a slow, talky film, this one will have you on your knees by the end, shouting, “Just FUCK HER ALREADY!” at your TV--I don’t care how timid you are. Trust me.
Bakery Girl of Monceau (1963)---A short. Somewhat interesting, but not exceptional.
Suzanne’s Career (1963)---Also a short. Slightly more interesting than Bakery Girl, a bit more raw; exposes the ruthlessness men are capable of when chasing women.
Full Moon in Paris (1984)---- Again a whiny female lead who wants things her way, no matter what. Fresh out of design school, she relishes her freedom and is not ready to be embalmed in the suburbs with her older, doting boyfriend. She maintains a pied-a-terre in the city so she can dance all night with her friends and not have to worry about the train schedule back out to bumble. But what to do when men pursue her and she must make a choice? As is the case so frequently in a Rohmer movie, though usually only with the male leads, she winds up alone in the end, due to her inability to make the wise choice at the right time.
Probably my least favorite of Rohmer’s films. The lead, although very appealing physically, was a bit too whiny for my taste. Not only that, but it was too easy to agree with her decision to not spend much time with her boyfriend--he was a brutish bore who smothered her with his love. He didn’t seem to have any good qualities, since even his love for her got chalked up in the negative category.
It was satisfying to see her get what she deserved in the end, and the movie certainly seemed a faithful representation of the slow dissolution of a doomed relationship, but that doesn’t mean it makes for good cinema. A misstep for sure.
Chloe in the Afternoon (aka Love in the Afternoon) (1972)---Aside from a beautiful opening montage of life on the streets in Paris, and a few similar interludes throughout, this is only a good film. After his previous three efforts, as well as the promise of the premise, I found it disappointing. Whereas the failure of his other movies to involve much in the way of a plot, or a satisfying ending, has never bothered me before, this time it did--this time I had trouble believing it. The supporting female characters are fascinating, but I found the lead terribly dull. I would skip this one, unless you’ve already watched his best and are curious about this one.
Nadja in Paris (1964) / A Modern Coed (1966) (shorts) --- Nothing remarkable.
A Good Marriage (1982)-------Disappointing. The female protagonist is wholly unlikable. There is no shred of emotion in the entire movie. Everyone seems to be reading from a script, rather than reacting naturally. It wasn’t very long, but it seemed to drag on forever, and get nowhere. The last minute is the only part of the movie I enjoyed; it seemed to belong to a different movie (although the music was the same as during the opening credits, where it was also out of place, considering the movie). AVOID.
Triple Agent (2004)
The Lady and the Duke (2001)
The Romance of Astrea and Celadon (2007)
Perceval (1978) -- I had this one on my Netflix queue, only to be later informed it is unavailable. Damn! Another period piece, and I’ve read it’s a good one.
Rendezvous in Paris (1995)
A Tale of Winter (1992)
Autumn Tale (1998)
Four Adventures of Reinette and Mirabelle (1987) -- Supposedly not so great, but I’m sure there is something redemptive in at least one of these four tales. Then again, maybe not. Sometimes the chemistry works, sometimes it doesn’t.
The Tree, the Mayor, and the Mediatheque (1993)
_
Why is this? Well, I don’t have the answer, but I imagine it has something to do with the fact that his movies are not very cool--they lack the flashy style of a Truffaut or Godard movie, they’re too intellectual, too dialogue-heavy, too plot-light.
In spite of these normally off-putting qualities, if you are a patient viewer who enjoys soaking in the intricacies of the characters and their environment, his movies are very enjoyable to watch. Rohmer’s style is unique and consistent, his topics right out in the open, his characters raw and vulnerable, and his lustful camera lends credence to his characters paralyzed by indecision. Also to his credit, Rohmer’s early works have improved with age, if only because the passage of time has highlighted their timelessness--whereas I cannot say the same for many of those by his New Wave peers.
Rohmer’s films have weathered the years so well because their subject is a simple one--love. Love between a man and a woman, with another woman/man or two thrown in for good measure. His characters almost always must choose between two or three options, the choice never being easy, always involving the defining and redefining of their idea of love. Typically, his characters take slightly too long with this choice, paralyzed by indecision, and fail as a result.
Much great art, especially when it comes to storytelling, is produced by men and women operating outside the normal realm of sociability. Instead of blending in, these artists hungrily observe the lives of others from afar and study the immortalized opinions of the greats who lived before them. Judging from his movies, Eric Rohmer seems to be an intelligent man who thinks about and discusses life more than he lives it (much like Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese); the kind of man who neither shits nor gets off the pot, but instead externally hashes out the implications of every option in depth, with whomever might venture near his proverbial toilet. Rohmer’s intelligence has clearly handicapped him socially, and he seems frustratingly aware of it.
The protagonists of his most celebrated movies--whether young, old, male, female--all appear to be slightly different slices of Eric Rohmer himself. Each is unique, but shares many of the same problems--namely, they are presented with a chance to end their loneliness by pairing up with a woman/man, but are paralyzed when required to choose between two distinct options, and ultimately wind up with neither. To further rub in the humiliation, they often also discover they never had a chance to begin with, and therefore wasted a fat chunk of time discussing and debating an impossibility. Whether the character is vain or completely lacking in self-confidence, we see that their fate is the same when they fail to choose decisively.
Rohmer’s movies are simply shot--there are no complicated camera moves, no daring stylistic choices, no cheesy camera placements, no unconventional editing, etc--and yet powerful, because they allow his characters to move within a space, allow their humanity to breathe. The locations are sumptuous, the actors intriguingly attractive, and we are shown as many dull moments in their lives as exciting ones; essentially, we are allowed to view them as real people--they are relatable. And so we hope for their happiness, and so we forgive them their faults.
One of Rohmer’s trademarks is what I would say is easily the lustiest camera ever--scenes will open on a sexy pair of legs, and a minute later the woman will sit into frame; or, the camera follows a tiny pair of shorts around a room as we hear a conversation; women casually dress and undress in front of the camera and random men onscreen, feeling no need to hide their bodies. Rohmer has obviously created a world he wishes he could live in, but knows only exists in his mind and in his movies. That being said, he is wise to share this fantasy world, with its roots planted firmly in reality--ever the realist, even his fantasies typically have disappointing endings for the characters involved.For those of you out there who are exhausted by the rampant availability of awful romantic comedies, and the dearth of smart romantic cinema since Woody Allen’s heyday, feel free to dig into the treasure trove that is Eric Rohmer’s oeuvre. Here is a handy guide for the neophyte:
The Litmus Test
Pauline at the Beach (1983)--Probably my favorite of his films, although I also love La Collectionneuse and Claire’s Knee. Pauline at the Beach seems to be where Rohmer reached his peak and made the most ‘Rohmer’ movie he could make, while at the same time it is his most palatable to the masses--a stunning achievement, considering the nature of his work. The film is packed with fascinating, raw, male and female characters, both young and old, volatile yet naturalistic relationships, a beautiful setting, and an ending that is at once realistic and satisfying.
The Greats
La Collectionneuse (1967)---His first masterpiece. About a man-eating young woman who has no desire to eat the one man who doesn’t want her to eat him, and how it eventually drives this man insane with desire. As soon as he works his way in, to finally have a shot at her, he suddenly has yet another change of heart and abandons her on the side of the road. She moves on without skipping a beat.
Claire’s Knee (1971)---The most hilarious of all Rohmer’s protagonists--the hair, the beard, the wardrobe, the fact that he only travels by motorboat...he at once fascinates and repels. This wannabe-Romeo fancies himself a ladies man and fails to realize that by the time he decides a woman is worthy of his romantic/lustful attentions, it is too late--she has already seen him for who he really is and brushes him off without second thought, in favor of a much-less intelligent, but much-more confident and attractive man. Funny, because the man gets exactly what he deserves, especially in light of his earlier crowing, but there is also an air of tragedy about it; he garners our sympathy as he tries to maintain his pride in the face of defeat. This is the story of a patently unhappy man who would have no problem with women if he would simply stop thinking so much and avoid immediately placing himself high above the beautiful, intelligent women he meets.
The Aviator’s Wife (1981)----Worst title ever, great movie. Rohmer’s Parisian version of Woody Allen’s Manhattan, or so it seems. Although still sumptuous and full of beautifully lingering shots, this film moves at a much more rapid clip than Rohmer’s earlier work. It seems like he was trying to modernize, to adapt to the marketplace--and it works. It is the story of one man, who loves a woman who takes his love for granted, and meets another, much younger woman who seems a much better match. Once again, choice enters into the mix; should he chase this young woman? Or should he resume his quest to conquer his somewhat-cold existing lover? And what is the deal with her other man? Will she choose the pilot over our hero? A charming dissection of love that turns into somewhat of a detective story. One of the sexiest woman-in-her-underwear-during-a-long-emotional-scene scenes ever committed to celluloid. And for all you ladies out there...there’s a pilot, too!
The Green Ray (aka Summer) (1986)----A pitch-perfect exploration of the trials and tribulations of a beautiful woman who wishes she were ugly, so that men wouldn’t just want her for sex and she could live her life like a normal, sociable human being. A tour-de-force performance by Marie Riviere (who also co-wrote, along with Rohmer), who expands on her complicated character introduced in The Aviators Wife. Although her character has a different name in this one, the two roles have so much in common that it is not hard to view Delphine as Anne two years down the road. Rohmer displays Delphine’s quirks in much the same loving way that Allen displays Annie Hall’s; even though everyone around her thinks she is weird and unnecessarily reclusive, the audience is on her side at every turn. Her biggest problem is that nobody wants to actually listen to what she has to say; they only want to hear themselves speak and deliver long tirades full of useless advice. Delphine is a vegetarian and nature-lover--so much so that ‘nature’ is fully a character in this movie, and the sound design during this character’s biggest scene is particularly stunning. The movie has a wonderful pace to it--a step back from that of The Aviator’s Wife, but perfect for its subject
The Very-Goods
A Summer’s Tale (1996)---A movie made in 1996 that looks like it is from 1976, a tape recorder the only noticeable inconsistency. The story centers on a young man who juggles three women at a beach resort in northern France. One is unattainable, but toys with him; another wants all of him or none of him; the third truly loves him, but remains his friend in order to see whether or not he will pursue her--luckily for him, all are beautiful. As is the case in a Rohmer movie, Gaspard ends up alone, leaving town to purchase an 8-track recording system to avoid a choice he will regret no matter his decision. It is an interesting, lush 100-minute treatise on romantic indecision, and ranks right up there with Rohmer’s best; a true return to form.
The Marquis of O (1976)----After a shockingly-bad opening, this film recovers well and, in the end, impresses. The hokeyness of this clearly-low-budget period piece is forgotten after the first five or ten minutes and the emotionally-rich story quickly moves to the forefront. Bruno Ganz, whom I loved for his subtle, brilliant performance in The American Friend (Wim Wenders, 1977), was equally as impressive here, in his portrayal of ‘The Count.’ The staid world of the 18th-century aristocracy seems laughable, though certainly faithful to history, and the drama that unfolds within that world is well-painted by Rohmer. My favorite moment? When the Marquis sulks, alone, in her vast, beautiful, many-servant-staffed country estate, and we are supposed to feel sorry for her; yes, her parents threw her out, but, come on--she isn’t exactly out on her ass!
Boyfriends and Girlfriends (1987)----Eric Rohmer as a woman, but adapting the character well to the other gender. She is very smart, lonely, horny, but awkward and reserved. She must choose between two men who are both good-looking, but one of them is a handsome ladies-man she can’t talk to, and the other is an intelligent, athletic gentleman who would make the much better choice--but dates her beautiful, vapid new best friend...
Excellent, But--WARNING--Super Intellectual, Dense & Wordy
My Night at Maud’s (1970)---A dense intellectual feast, centering mostly on one man’s love for the wisdom of Pascal. Like most Rohmer movies, this one is thin on plot, but this is even more guilty of that than the others. If you don’t like watching people sit in chairs and talk endlessly about their philosophies on life and love, this one is not for you. If you enjoy philosophy and don’t mind a slow, talky film, this one will have you on your knees by the end, shouting, “Just FUCK HER ALREADY!” at your TV--I don’t care how timid you are. Trust me.
Skip Unless You’re Curious or a Completist
Bakery Girl of Monceau (1963)---A short. Somewhat interesting, but not exceptional.
Suzanne’s Career (1963)---Also a short. Slightly more interesting than Bakery Girl, a bit more raw; exposes the ruthlessness men are capable of when chasing women.
Full Moon in Paris (1984)---- Again a whiny female lead who wants things her way, no matter what. Fresh out of design school, she relishes her freedom and is not ready to be embalmed in the suburbs with her older, doting boyfriend. She maintains a pied-a-terre in the city so she can dance all night with her friends and not have to worry about the train schedule back out to bumble. But what to do when men pursue her and she must make a choice? As is the case so frequently in a Rohmer movie, though usually only with the male leads, she winds up alone in the end, due to her inability to make the wise choice at the right time.
Probably my least favorite of Rohmer’s films. The lead, although very appealing physically, was a bit too whiny for my taste. Not only that, but it was too easy to agree with her decision to not spend much time with her boyfriend--he was a brutish bore who smothered her with his love. He didn’t seem to have any good qualities, since even his love for her got chalked up in the negative category.
It was satisfying to see her get what she deserved in the end, and the movie certainly seemed a faithful representation of the slow dissolution of a doomed relationship, but that doesn’t mean it makes for good cinema. A misstep for sure.
Chloe in the Afternoon (aka Love in the Afternoon) (1972)---Aside from a beautiful opening montage of life on the streets in Paris, and a few similar interludes throughout, this is only a good film. After his previous three efforts, as well as the promise of the premise, I found it disappointing. Whereas the failure of his other movies to involve much in the way of a plot, or a satisfying ending, has never bothered me before, this time it did--this time I had trouble believing it. The supporting female characters are fascinating, but I found the lead terribly dull. I would skip this one, unless you’ve already watched his best and are curious about this one.
Nadja in Paris (1964) / A Modern Coed (1966) (shorts) --- Nothing remarkable.
A Good Marriage (1982)-------Disappointing. The female protagonist is wholly unlikable. There is no shred of emotion in the entire movie. Everyone seems to be reading from a script, rather than reacting naturally. It wasn’t very long, but it seemed to drag on forever, and get nowhere. The last minute is the only part of the movie I enjoyed; it seemed to belong to a different movie (although the music was the same as during the opening credits, where it was also out of place, considering the movie). AVOID.
Didn’t Bother to See, Probably Never Will,
You Should Do the Same
You Should Do the Same
Triple Agent (2004)
The Lady and the Duke (2001)
The Romance of Astrea and Celadon (2007)
Sadly Unavailable on DVD
Perceval (1978) -- I had this one on my Netflix queue, only to be later informed it is unavailable. Damn! Another period piece, and I’ve read it’s a good one.
Rendezvous in Paris (1995)
A Tale of Winter (1992)
Autumn Tale (1998)
Four Adventures of Reinette and Mirabelle (1987) -- Supposedly not so great, but I’m sure there is something redemptive in at least one of these four tales. Then again, maybe not. Sometimes the chemistry works, sometimes it doesn’t.
Unavailable on DVD, Probably for the Best
The Tree, the Mayor, and the Mediatheque (1993)
_
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Child Pornography
According to the New York Times today, three leading internet-access providers (Verizon, Sprint, TimeWarner) are promising to block access to Internet bulletin boards and Web sites nationwide that disseminate child pornography. Starting sometime in the relatively near future.
This wasn't already the case? Really?
Well, who am I to judge; I should take solace in the fact that at least these socially responsible corporations are finally taking action on their own to combat this problem, instead of waiting for it be forced upon them. Oh, wait--
This wasn't already the case? Really?
Well, who am I to judge; I should take solace in the fact that at least these socially responsible corporations are finally taking action on their own to combat this problem, instead of waiting for it be forced upon them. Oh, wait--
"The agreements resulted from an eight-month investigation and sting operation in which undercover agents from Mr. Cuomo’s office, posing as subscribers, complained to Internet providers that they were allowing child pornography to proliferate online, despite customer service agreements that discouraged such activity. Verizon, for example, warns its users that they risk losing their service if they transmit or disseminate sexually exploitative images of children."After the companies ignored the investigators’ complaints, the attorney general’s office surfaced, threatening charges of fraud and deceptive business practices. The companies agreed to cooperate and began weeks of negotiations."
How heroic...we had to go undercover and then threaten them. I mean, who wears the pants in this country? How does that old ditty go?
"I pledge allegiance, to the corporation..."
Just Another Day in Los Angeles
Guess which person in the photo above had the following conversation with an attractive young female friend of mine working an event at Bar Nineteen12 at the Beverly Hills Hotel:"Excuse me--can I ask you a question?"
"Yes, can I help you with something?"
[Grabs her wrist]
"Do you dance the way you move?"
"No."
If you guessed Leisure Suit Larry--the octogenarian swinger (above center & below)--you are correct! Can you believe it? I can! What's he got to lose? His bad plugs? Hey-Oh!
By the way, if you thought Leisure Suit Larry was dead--think again, and watch this awful trailer announcing another title in the forgettable series, set for a 2008 release.In other news, in trendy offices all across Hollywood and West Hollywood, Chicken-Less Nuggets are all the rage for breakfast this week. You heard it here first, folks! Eggs and toast have officially gone the way of the Dodo.
Stay tuned for more news as it breaks...
Monday, June 9, 2008
It's NBA Playoffs, Baby!
And I couldn't care less!
Meanwhile, in the hotly-contested Lakers-Celtics series, the basketball world's abuzz with news of Phil Jackson's recent weight gain.
Don't point that finger at me, buddy! It's your own fault!
Granted, I haven't seen him on television since...when did Michael Jordan retire?
But, regardless, the question on everybody's lips is this:
How does a vegetarian Buddhist living in Los Angeles grow that many chins?
(btw, Lakers suck)
Meanwhile, in the hotly-contested Lakers-Celtics series, the basketball world's abuzz with news of Phil Jackson's recent weight gain.
Don't point that finger at me, buddy! It's your own fault!Granted, I haven't seen him on television since...when did Michael Jordan retire?
But, regardless, the question on everybody's lips is this:
How does a vegetarian Buddhist living in Los Angeles grow that many chins?
(btw, Lakers suck)
Monday, June 2, 2008
Which Thoroughbred Would YOU Rather Have a Beer With?
With the 141st Belmont Stakes fast approaching--and Big Brown’s victory as assured as it gets (anything can happen, but the odds are not good), I think it’s time to ask the most important question--which thoroughbred would you rather have a beer with? [I can't get this underline to go away, so deal with it-Ed]
Big Brown, the tender-hooved 2-7 favorite at this Saturday's Belmont Stakes? Big Brown is the cornerstone of the first-ever Equine Hedge Fund, the horse everybody loves to hate, but an undefeated Triple-Crown contender who will probably get you a $600 tax rebate down the line.
Behindatthebar, the sickly racing artist who, like Edvard Munch and Kafka before him, still has a fighting chance to achieve greatness, provided he doesn't choke on his own tongue?
Casino Drive? Probably the only horse racing in America these days that is NOT on steroids, since he hails from Japan, where they don't do that shit. Does his Far-Eastern cultural heritage intrigue or repel you?
Denis of Cork? He's no Big Brown but he's certainly a Super Cutie...
Or maybe Eight Belles is more your speed? The conversation will be a little one-sided, since Eight Belles was killed on the track after finishing second to Big Brown at the Kentucky Derby this year--but maybe you're more into long, boring monologues anyway, like most people are. Perhaps you can tell him all about why a horse with two broken ankles is better off dead.
Big Brown, the tender-hooved 2-7 favorite at this Saturday's Belmont Stakes? Big Brown is the cornerstone of the first-ever Equine Hedge Fund, the horse everybody loves to hate, but an undefeated Triple-Crown contender who will probably get you a $600 tax rebate down the line.
Behindatthebar, the sickly racing artist who, like Edvard Munch and Kafka before him, still has a fighting chance to achieve greatness, provided he doesn't choke on his own tongue?
Casino Drive? Probably the only horse racing in America these days that is NOT on steroids, since he hails from Japan, where they don't do that shit. Does his Far-Eastern cultural heritage intrigue or repel you?
Denis of Cork? He's no Big Brown but he's certainly a Super Cutie...
Or maybe Eight Belles is more your speed? The conversation will be a little one-sided, since Eight Belles was killed on the track after finishing second to Big Brown at the Kentucky Derby this year--but maybe you're more into long, boring monologues anyway, like most people are. Perhaps you can tell him all about why a horse with two broken ankles is better off dead.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
If Iraq is Our Vietnam...
Then I look forward to a renaissance of '70s auteur cinema.I'm happy to lead the charge--anybody have a couple million dollars laying around?
I promise I'll make a good movie!
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Fruit Machines Are For Wankers...
Stumbled upon the following funny item while reading up on the history of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on wikipedia.org:
"Following the 1945 defection of Soviet cipher clerk, Igor Gouzenko and his revelations of espionage, the RCMP Security Service implemented measures to screen out 'subversive' elements from the public sector. What began as a perceived need to create a bulwark against communism had, by the 1950s, been extended to homosexuality because homosexual acts were illegal, considered a sign of “character weakness,” and because the KGB could use it to blackmail civil servants into revealing state secrets.
"Scores of people were fired as part of this campaign, which included the development of a 'fruit machine.' This machine was based on the premise that changes in pupil dilation when viewing beefcake photos of nude men would scientifically determine whether or not a test subject was gay.
"After four years, the machine failed to produce results, and the program was discontinued."
I now ask the Canadian Government the following questions:
1. Really?
2. Really?
3. Four years?
4. How do you know it 'failed to produce results?' Did the machine say the man wasn't gay, but then he demanded to give you a blow job? Or did the machine keep saying you were gay and it was, therefore, 'wrong?'
5. Where can I get one of these fruit machines? I'd love to continue the research, for the sake of science.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Prairie Dogs Are So Hot Right Now
The latest de rigeur accessory among Hollywood's fashionable elite?Prairie dogs.
Don't have one yet? Didn't think so---they don't sell 'em at Wal-Mart, chump!
Before everybody else in the subdivision beats you to the punch, y'all best be gettin' yoselves to Rodeo, bitches, where the exclusive Swiss boutique La Maison des Chiens de Prairie will be more than happy to hook you up with your very own cuddly critter, or two, or three--for a mere $17,000 a pop.*
Don't like the 'do on your little 'dog? Not to worry--La Salon des Chiens de Prairie, in the rear of the shop, offers cuts, dies, shaves, mani/pedis, and, of course, Brazilians.
What more could a poor little prairie dog ask for?
If pooper scoopers are not your thing, but you still want to get in on the craze, then try the world of fine art on for size:
"Prairie Dog Rapture" by Anthony Falbo*Note: The City of Beverly Hills would like to remind you to dispose of your dead prairie dogs properly--please notify the city's Dead Prairie Dog Collection Service and place the dead prairie dog by your garbage can, in the appropriate green plastic 'dead prairie dog bag' (available at your local pharmacy/grocery store).
In other scary photo news (this one real), check it out:
OMG! LOL!! Cutest Couple Ever!!!Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Who Keeps Letting Roland Emmerich Make Shitty Movies?
For your consideration:Universal Soldier (1992) --- 'The Muscles from Brussels' as a flexible, muscled, French robot trying to act...and failing. Dolph Lundgren tried almost the same thing--except his robot was Swedish; he also failed.
Stargate (1994) --- This one was actually pretty good. He must have had a ghost writer/director. Or maybe James Spader hypnotized me or something. James Spader is the single greatest human being in the history of mankind, by the way.
Independence Day (1996) --- Atrocious. Except for Liv Tyler, who will always be my one true love, even though we must forever remain 500ft apart... Wait--that was Armageddon. Are they the same movie? Should be...
Godzilla (1998) --- Unapologetic shite.
The Patriot (2000) --- Mel Gibson as Braveheart...but in America! Who knew the vaunted British military was actually defeated by one 5'8" Australian racist! It was! I swear!
[sidenote: did you know Mel Gibson is actually American? Moved to Australia when he was 12...]
The Day After Tomorrow (2004) --- Only turned a profit because foreign audiences loved the poster--the Statue of Liberty crumbling into the ocean. They were disappointed by the lack of a point, the cardboard characters, and by the fact that America was not crushed into rubble and salted.
10,000 BC (2008AD) --- Did not even cover its production budget with domestic receipts. Once you add in marketing costs...yikes. And you wonder why there's no money left to make good movies? American military forces abroad were able to force enough customers into theaters for this clunker to clear $173 million in foreign receipts, but still...who should we be making movies for? Americans or terrorists?*
*please note all foreigners are terrorists. It's not my fault. They are.
Trade Marks of Roland Emmerich Films, according to imdb.com:
- Often features an object crashing into the camera.
- Often features a zoom-in shot of a villain's eyes widening when the villain meets his demise
- All of his major films have featured a couple kissing in front of a luminous background
- Often features the number "44" somewhere in his films in reference to his movie Moon 44
- Movies frequently feature a scene with rain.
- Large-scale disaster films.
- Often uses a shot of a teacup and saucer rattling wildly to demonstrate a strong vibration
Wondering what's next on his slate? Heck! I know I am!
2012 (2009) --- The end of the world is nigh, but don't fear--everyman John Cusack, a part-time limo driver and writer, will probably save the day in some farcical manner.
Fantastic Voyage (2010) --- Two-hit wonder Coolio dusts off his ride for one last spin around the block--to save the world!
Was it, counterintuitively, the staggering losses of 10,000BC that prompted his latest two deals? Do they not blame the director when a movie fails, only when it succeeds?
"Ah, it was the writer's fault this time."
Well, Roland Emmerich also wrote 10,000BC and 2012 (and Godzilla and Independence Day and Stargate).
"Um, it wasn't marketed properly."
You mean ensuring everybody in the solar system was aware this movie was coming out somehow confused your target demographic? What was your target demographic? Cavemen who stare in wonder at flickering lights, impressed by computer-generated saber-toothed tigers?
"No comment. Please join us again next year for the same movie--but with lovable John Cusack!"
Proof yet again that once your foot is all the way in the door--no matter how it might have gotten there--it is impossible for it to be removed. Think the Wachowski Brothers (well, actually now they are brother and sister, technically, if the rumors are true) will ever live down the stink-bomb that is Speed Racer?
I do! They have hundreds of millions of dollars! They made The Matrix! They can do whatever they want, no matter how shitty the concept/execution! Get ready for more embarrassing failures at a multiplex near you--on all eight screens!
Meanwhile, Woody Allen has to go to England to get a movie made...
[Speed Racer---Production Budget= $120 million; Marketing Budget= $4 trillion; Global Box Office Receipts after 18 days in Release= $67 million]
[Match Point---Production Budget- $15 million; Marketing Budget= $5; Global Box Office Receipts=$85million]
Interesting factoid found in my exhaustive research for this seminal article---
Roland Emmerich is supposedly referred to as "Das Spielbergle aus Sindelfingen" in his native Germany. Translation? "Little Spielberg from Sindelfingen." Do you think it's mere coincidence that they both suck? Do you think it's mere coincidence that each has warranted a blog entry on consecutive days, despite the fact that I hadn't written one in three weeks? Do you think it's mere coincidence they both use toothpaste? Or, will you finally believe in the legend of the Curse of Das Spielbergle?
And so, for all you millionaires out there, perk up those hairy old ears--your money is better invested in the stock market (or Woody Allen), even in these dire times, than in Roland Emmerich.
Yet, shadowy figures keep arrogantly betting on him, giving him bigger and bigger budgets, and blaming audiences when they lose, and in the process, willfully aiding and abetting the dumbing down of our culture.
Insanity.
Oh, wait--silly me--I forgot to answer the question! It's been so long...
And the answer to the question is:
The person who keeps letting Roland Emmerich make shitty movies is...Roland Emmerich! (Well, at least in part--you also have to blame the distributors who pony up advance capital in exchange for exclusive rights, as well as the gullible, Diet-Coke-swilling public.)
Emmerich and his partner, Dean Devlin, have produced all of his movies through their own company--Centropolis Entertainment, founded in 1985. I think they raise funds through some kind of pyramid scheme, but, as of press time, this could not be confirmed--OR denied...
Monday, May 26, 2008
Steven Spielberg Should Be Crucified
Why?
That's why.
I know it's a bit harsh, in light of all the good he has done in the past (Jaws, E.T, Indiana Jones I & III, producing Goonies, Back to the Future, and Gremlins), but he's let his previous success get to his head and still thinks he should be behind the wheel in Hollywood.
Don't people retire anymore, once they cease to be relevant?
Clearly Spielberg won't let us alone until he kicks the bucket and hands one of his sons the reigns to the empire that is Amblin Entertainment; it is for this reason I think he needs to be taught a lesson--Pilot-style.
Oh, what do you think should happen?
We tickle him until he says he's sorry?
I'M sorry, but that just won't cut it.
He doesn't deserve that kind of leniency.
Not after:
- Hook (1991)----Ugh.
- Jurassic Park (1993)---a great book, a pretty hokey adaptation (example: of course he has to make the girl the smart kid, for no reason, but then doesn't follow through and she becomes a screaming damsel in distress, as opposed to a truly strong female character)
- Schindler's List (1993) --Not that great, people. The cinematography is enjoyable, as always, but that credit goes to Janusz Kaminski, not the Berg. Story-wise, script-wise, directing-wise? Pretty hokey and boring. Just because it involves the Holocaust does not mean it is Oscar-worthy.
- Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World (1997) ---did we need to go back?
- Amistad (1997) ---not even sure what to say about this one...
- Saving Private Ryan (1998) ---awful; the first installment of the Tom Hanks/Steven Spielberg Shitbox Trilogy. Realistic, expensive special effects in the opening D-Day scene; that's about the only thing worth watching. You want to see a GREAT fictionalized movie about WWII? Try watching one by a talented director who actually LIVED THROUGH IT--Paul Verhoeven's Black Book.
- A.I: Artificial Intelligence (2001) ---Not necessarily a great project, but I do not doubt Kubrick would have pulled it off; how much more glaring can the gap between a great director and a populist director be?
- Minority Report (2002) ---so many glaring improbabilities, within the world he created. Example: Everybody is looking for Tom Cruise, every retinal scanner in the city is searching for him, finding him...to the point where he pays somebody to REMOVE HIS EYEBALLS. Then he takes those eyeballs and uses them to access to the most secure facility in the city, the hall of super-secret records, or whatever. You mean to tell me they didn't lock out his access? Really? Or could Steven just not figure out any other way he could get Tom in there, and he didn't think anybody would notice or care, because his audience is dumb and just wants the good guy to win? And that's just ONE inconsistency...
- Catch Me If You Can (2002) ---please. A great real-life story made totally boring, mostly by stretching the truth to increase the role of the pursuing investigator, so that it would be worth Mr. Hanks' time. It wasn't. Everybody on the crew should have stayed in bed those 3 months.
- The Terminal (2004) ---Yet again, another true-life story that could have made a great movie. But instead, Spielberg casted Tom Hanks to play an Iranian man stuck in DeGaulle for decades. Of course, Spielberg moved it to JFK, made him from a fictionalized country, never mentioned the real-life story, and felt obliged to add in a love interest--Catherine Zeta Jones. Yeah. The real story just wasn't interesting enough--it's so much better when you add in a completely-unrealistic romance with a sexy woman.
- War of the Worlds (2005)---Tom Cruise tried desperately to prove his masculinity in the opening scenes. Let's see...he's a single father down on his luck who drives around a sexy muscle car and helps the neighborhood auto mechanic when the guy just can't figure out what's wrong with the car he's fixing... And then shit happens and he's stuck with his kids, trying to help them stay alive, and it's tough, lemme tell ya. But things aren't so tough for most people, evidently. His wife's entire family, including grandparents, somehow make their way safely to Boston and are chillin' at a brownstone in the tony Beacon Hill neighborhood--which is somehow untouched by disaster, as if aliens respect rich people too much to go after them.
- Jurassic Park 4 (2009)-----he didn't have the heart to direct the 3rd one, but he did executive produce it... I bet this one is gonna be killer. Let me guess: bigger better dinosaurs...a precocious child or two...aliens that look like E.T...soft furry animals that make for great licensing items...and a 2hr-long piece of crap.
[Side note: Can't wait for his Lincoln movie...Liam Neeson as Abraham Lincoln, Sally Field as Mary Todd Lincoln, Harrison Ford as Vice President Johnson...and let me make a suggestion for John Wilkes Booth--Shia LeBoeuf. Hey, why not? It's not like it will matter how good this movie is--it's a Spielberg joint, dawg, we gotsta go see it!!!]
Oh, brother. I'm so tired of bitching. He isn't even worth the breath, this Spielberg, and yet I expend it. One last pass:
Is it any wonder that two of the three richest men in Hollywood (Geffen is safe...for now...) are both guilty of ruining their own legacies by not only returning to them for no reason, but also for proceeding to sully them beyond believe? And, let me tell you, both Lucas and Spielberg's heavy hands were visible on this one. I blame Lucas for the prairie dogs and monkeys, I blame Spielberg for everything else.
In closing, go to hell, Steven Spielberg. You have done more to ruin movies than you ever did to help them. I hope you realize that some day.
Question of the Week:
It took 18 years to get a script everybody agreed on and THIS was it? THIS was the one that everybody loved? What were the other ones? Various people's excrement smeared on 3-hole-punched toilet paper? Fuck you.
That's why.I know it's a bit harsh, in light of all the good he has done in the past (Jaws, E.T, Indiana Jones I & III, producing Goonies, Back to the Future, and Gremlins), but he's let his previous success get to his head and still thinks he should be behind the wheel in Hollywood.
Don't people retire anymore, once they cease to be relevant?
Clearly Spielberg won't let us alone until he kicks the bucket and hands one of his sons the reigns to the empire that is Amblin Entertainment; it is for this reason I think he needs to be taught a lesson--Pilot-style.
Oh, what do you think should happen?
We tickle him until he says he's sorry?
I'M sorry, but that just won't cut it.
He doesn't deserve that kind of leniency.
Not after:
- Hook (1991)----Ugh.
- Jurassic Park (1993)---a great book, a pretty hokey adaptation (example: of course he has to make the girl the smart kid, for no reason, but then doesn't follow through and she becomes a screaming damsel in distress, as opposed to a truly strong female character)
- Schindler's List (1993) --Not that great, people. The cinematography is enjoyable, as always, but that credit goes to Janusz Kaminski, not the Berg. Story-wise, script-wise, directing-wise? Pretty hokey and boring. Just because it involves the Holocaust does not mean it is Oscar-worthy.
- Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World (1997) ---did we need to go back?
- Amistad (1997) ---not even sure what to say about this one...
- Saving Private Ryan (1998) ---awful; the first installment of the Tom Hanks/Steven Spielberg Shitbox Trilogy. Realistic, expensive special effects in the opening D-Day scene; that's about the only thing worth watching. You want to see a GREAT fictionalized movie about WWII? Try watching one by a talented director who actually LIVED THROUGH IT--Paul Verhoeven's Black Book.
- A.I: Artificial Intelligence (2001) ---Not necessarily a great project, but I do not doubt Kubrick would have pulled it off; how much more glaring can the gap between a great director and a populist director be?
- Minority Report (2002) ---so many glaring improbabilities, within the world he created. Example: Everybody is looking for Tom Cruise, every retinal scanner in the city is searching for him, finding him...to the point where he pays somebody to REMOVE HIS EYEBALLS. Then he takes those eyeballs and uses them to access to the most secure facility in the city, the hall of super-secret records, or whatever. You mean to tell me they didn't lock out his access? Really? Or could Steven just not figure out any other way he could get Tom in there, and he didn't think anybody would notice or care, because his audience is dumb and just wants the good guy to win? And that's just ONE inconsistency...
- Catch Me If You Can (2002) ---please. A great real-life story made totally boring, mostly by stretching the truth to increase the role of the pursuing investigator, so that it would be worth Mr. Hanks' time. It wasn't. Everybody on the crew should have stayed in bed those 3 months.
- The Terminal (2004) ---Yet again, another true-life story that could have made a great movie. But instead, Spielberg casted Tom Hanks to play an Iranian man stuck in DeGaulle for decades. Of course, Spielberg moved it to JFK, made him from a fictionalized country, never mentioned the real-life story, and felt obliged to add in a love interest--Catherine Zeta Jones. Yeah. The real story just wasn't interesting enough--it's so much better when you add in a completely-unrealistic romance with a sexy woman.
- War of the Worlds (2005)---Tom Cruise tried desperately to prove his masculinity in the opening scenes. Let's see...he's a single father down on his luck who drives around a sexy muscle car and helps the neighborhood auto mechanic when the guy just can't figure out what's wrong with the car he's fixing... And then shit happens and he's stuck with his kids, trying to help them stay alive, and it's tough, lemme tell ya. But things aren't so tough for most people, evidently. His wife's entire family, including grandparents, somehow make their way safely to Boston and are chillin' at a brownstone in the tony Beacon Hill neighborhood--which is somehow untouched by disaster, as if aliens respect rich people too much to go after them.
- Jurassic Park 4 (2009)-----he didn't have the heart to direct the 3rd one, but he did executive produce it... I bet this one is gonna be killer. Let me guess: bigger better dinosaurs...a precocious child or two...aliens that look like E.T...soft furry animals that make for great licensing items...and a 2hr-long piece of crap.
[Side note: Can't wait for his Lincoln movie...Liam Neeson as Abraham Lincoln, Sally Field as Mary Todd Lincoln, Harrison Ford as Vice President Johnson...and let me make a suggestion for John Wilkes Booth--Shia LeBoeuf. Hey, why not? It's not like it will matter how good this movie is--it's a Spielberg joint, dawg, we gotsta go see it!!!]
Oh, brother. I'm so tired of bitching. He isn't even worth the breath, this Spielberg, and yet I expend it. One last pass:
Is it any wonder that two of the three richest men in Hollywood (Geffen is safe...for now...) are both guilty of ruining their own legacies by not only returning to them for no reason, but also for proceeding to sully them beyond believe? And, let me tell you, both Lucas and Spielberg's heavy hands were visible on this one. I blame Lucas for the prairie dogs and monkeys, I blame Spielberg for everything else.
In closing, go to hell, Steven Spielberg. You have done more to ruin movies than you ever did to help them. I hope you realize that some day.
Question of the Week:
It took 18 years to get a script everybody agreed on and THIS was it? THIS was the one that everybody loved? What were the other ones? Various people's excrement smeared on 3-hole-punched toilet paper? Fuck you.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Saw 'Iron Man' today
and I loved it!
Robert Downey, Jr, was perfect for the part, the character was well-written, the story was tight, the humor was spot-on, the action and sex were well-sprinkled-in, the politics were right, and director Jon Favreau helmed the mission with surprising aplomb.
Pure and simple, this movie was fun from start to finish. Fun during the action sequences, fun during the character moments, fun during the comic relief, fun during the torture sequences. Well, maybe not fun...but certainly gripping--yet without a heavy touch.
Rather than be a burden to the action, like in most movies of its kind, the plot not only served the action beautifully, but rocketed forward with the sort of unchecked swagger only Robert Downey, Jr, could keep up with.
Downey was at once fantastic and believable, a walking caricature of a boy-genius-cum-playboy, whose resourcefulness and daring always wins the day. So what if he also likes to party and bed bevies of beautiful women? He earns it. Downey's Tony Stark is the epitome of a man's man, a hard-partying lovechild of Batman and MacGyver, and the packed, vocal crowd at the theater I saw the movie in loved every second of it.
Jon Favreau, a man I love to hate much more than most people, even though Swingers was pretty well-written, really surprised me today. Why? Because in the process of making this movie, he made a lot of great decisions. The dripping masculinity was equal parts arrogant and self-deprecating; I laughed a lot, even when the comedy dropped to pseudo-Tim Allen levels; the two hour runtime flew by, the pace unrelenting; the conventions of the genre were delivered creatively, giving me what I needed, yet doing so in unexpected ways, with well-practiced ease; Robert Downey, Jr, and Gwyneth Paltrow were fantastic, and part of that credit must go to the director guiding their performances.
The fact that the leading weapons manufacturer in the United States, Downey's Tony Stark, realizes his company is hurting the world at least as much as it is helping it, and decides to do something about it, is especially timely in the waning days of Bush/Cheney rule. Clear skies are nigh, the dark cloud is about to move on, and hope once again fills the hearts of men. What better time could there be to release Iron Man?
Iron Man was the best action movie I've seen in a long time--probably since Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins in 2005--and I do believe it is right up there with, if beneath, Richard Donner's Superman in the pantheon of comic book movies, but it was not without problems.
Jeff Bridges, although convincing and likable at the outset, grew into a disappointingly simplistic, shallow villain. I think it's safe to blame the writing of his character for that and I'm sure he would agree, seeing as it showed in his uninspired performance during his biggest scenes. Luckily, Bridges is not on-screen too much, and Downey is allowed more space to roam around and crow, master of the henyard.
While Terrence Howard's performance/role was serviceable, unremarkable; I cannot say the same for that of Gywneth Paltrow. The chemistry between Downey and Paltrow, who plays his faithful assistant, is palpable. Pepper Potts is a sexy, capable, loving, loyal amalgam of Bruce Wayne's Alfred and Austin Powers' Vanessa Kensington (and let us not forget to credit Get Smart's Agent 99) and Paltrow hits the role out of the park, imbuing her performance with the perfect blend of playfulness, humor, and emotion, and uttering at least two of the more memorable lines from the film.
"...and sometimes I take out the trash."In short, Iron Man was a real crowd pleaser and, for once, I didn't mind joining that crowd--it's no wonder the movie made over $100 million this weekend.
"I'll have a vodka martini...with a lot of olives. Like at least three olives."
The viewers are there, Hollywood. You just need to make good movies if you want people to go out and throw their money at you. Stop blaming the internet, pirating, extravagant home theaters, and a lagging economy; just make more movies like Iron Man. And The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, which I saw for the second time the other night and, for the second time, loved. Promise me you'll rent it, because I know none of you saw it.
Oh, and one more thing--stick around for the end of the credits for Iron Man. There's a nice little treat for you if you do.
[For those of you unfamiliar with the work of Robert Downey, Sr, you should definitely check out Putney Swope (1969), a brilliant satire of the advertising industry that he wrote, directed, and produced. He also voiced the main character, Putney Swope.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
