WHEN CRAZY DREAMS STRIKE:The blind are leading The Blind.

This time I dreamed that I was directing a production of The Blind at school, even though I'm already in a production of Merchant of Venice now. I had also proposed the show to the Shakespeare on the Green board, even though the show has nothing to do with Shakespeare.

In the dream, we were actually watching a movie version of The Blind in some class, because I had told the prof I was directing it. Then, in the middle of class, one of my actors (I had already cast it somehow) was bored, and took us all outside, where we ended up driving away in somebody's car against my will. He was like "let's go to this thing in the next city!" and I was like "ABSOLUTELY NOT, we are going back to class and watching this movie about The Blind, we are not skipping class!" And then he was like "fine, you goody goody," so we turned around and started going back to class. But by the time we got back, class had ended.

And then I realized that I hadn't actually officially proposed my show to the board, and had somehow auditioned and cast people for it anyway, without letting them know. Since I had forgotten to officially propose, and the deadline had since passed, I had to tell my actors we weren't really gonna do the show. Which was fine with me, cause I was realizing I didn't know anything about The Blind and had no idea how to direct it. Don't ask how I had gotten these actors. Also, one of them was my friend Michael, and he basically told me he didn't think he had time to do it anyway, so everything was alright. But we hoped we weren't gonna get kicked out the class we'd just skipped. Then we were walking down some street, and he told me that he had to pay $8 to have someone do something for him that he totally could've done himself.

In real life, my school is doing a production of The Blind right now - with which I am NOT involved - at the same time as the Shakespeare on the Green shows (including Merchant of Venice, in which I play Gratiano). I directed Michael in Proof in the fall, which I did not have to propose to anyone. The student who tried to drive us to some show in the next city was Daniel Sobol, someone from school who I've met, but don't actually know. And I think the $8 thing comes from when I saw The Namesake the other day at the mall, and lost my parking ticket, and then had to pay $8 for parking instead of $1.25.

Like, whoa.

WHEN CRAZY DREAMS STRIKE: Julianne Moore uses the word "friance."

pronounced: [fry-ence] (rhymes with science)

OK, so my mind does this thing where if I'm sleeping and I know I'm not supposed to be sleeping, I start having REALLY insane and frightening dreams that force me to wake up cause they're so goddamn awful. And just now, I had fallen asleep, cause I'm really tired, even though I KNOW I need to last through the day and get on a normal schedule, instead of falling asleep at like 8 and getting up at like 3am. Anyway, this is why I just had one of those goddawful "what the F*CK is going on right now!?" crazy intense nightmarish dreams.

And this one wasn't actually that bad. I mean, it was REALLY weird, but it wasn't really terrifying, the way most of these kinds of dreams are... until it got to the part where I was talking to Julianne and Bart Freundlich, and Julianne kepting saying the word "friance." In my dream, "friance" seemed to be what you say when you mean to say "science" but you've got some weird and horrific speech impediment or maybe are just really stupid. Like when kids say "pisketti" instead of spaghetti. Ew.

Perhaps some context will help (or maybe it'll just make you more confused... whatever). I was in charge of some kind of big project involving lots of people, where all these rooms and corridors that I remember were usually used for something else had been set up to facilitate this big, coordinated project I was in charge of. I think it involved people filming things. Maybe I was the director on a shoot? Sorry, I just don't know, I'm losing more and more details as I type.

But I think I was in charge of some kind of filming thing that NEEDED to be done in a specific timeframe, or else the thing we were filming would be gone. And Bart and Julianne and others were on my crew or something, in charge of some specific shot (no, she wasn't acting). I remember, they had to like move the camera some kind of way to get a desired effect. And I was telling them, "When you're shooting, think about math and science. Shoot really scientifically," or something.

And then, as if to clarify my intent, Julianne said to Bart and the others, "OK, he's saying we need to use friance, use friance. Come on, you guys, USE FRIANCE."

...

I think that's when I was so scared, I woke up. Just picture Julianne in maximum "look how intense I am" mode, like when she's trying to do light comedy and failing miserably, cause she just comes off overly intense and calculating. Imagine Julianne being REALLY intense about something REALLY important... and then out of her mouth comes the word "friance." It's like when your english professor mispronounces some really easy word, and then keeps doing it over and over again. Do you correct her? All I wanted to do was laugh at her idiocy, but then I thought "no, this is Julianne Moore, you can't laugh, idiot" but then all she kept saying was "friance" this and "friance" that, and I thought "OMG, Julianne Moore's a retard, my world is crumbling."

I was TERRIFIED.

Clearly I have major issues. I think this is right up there with Glenn's dream where he was being chased by Scarlett Johannson in a nun suit, with a knife.

I swear, one of these days, I need to put pen to paper IMMEDIATELY upon waking from one of these dreams, and turn it into a play, or a script, or something. You just can't make this stuff up. At least, not while in a conscious state.

Anyway, Julianne, if you're reading this somewhere... I am SO. SORRY.

But I know you aren't reading, so whatever.

The Namesake: good as a movie; better as a novel.

The Namesake is one of those films that you wish were better than it is. It tries to do too much, when its best moments arise from graceful simplicity. I was expecting a pretty simple family movie with content specific to Indian culture - and also some hubbub about a name - and that's basically what I got. The film concerns a Bengali Indian couple who come to New York and have a son and daughter. The son, named Gogol after his father's favorite author, has his name changed to Nikil before college, and must navigate the travails of being a second-generation immigrant at odds with his heritage. Romance, awkwardness, and much family drama ensue.

First off, let me say that I generally liked the film, but I just couldn't get over some obvious lapses in storytelling. This is yet another case of a likely very good novel (I haven't read the book) being made into a merely "decent" film, and though it was still marginally better than this year's Bridge to Terabithia (another case in point), I must say I was a bit disappointed.

Negatives first:
(SLIGHT SPOILERS WITHIN)

The film took too long to get going. All the stuff that happens in the beginning is much more interesting in retrospect than when we actually see it at the start of the film, and I don't think it was necessary to get into such detail with everything that happened before Gogol was born. Gogol (and Kal Penn's performance) are the audience's entrypoint into the film - it's mostly HIS story - but he doesn't arrive until a good 30 minutes in. I was getting very bored right before Kal Penn's arrival. And while this kind of "dead" opening stretch can work to an extent (for example, the lead-up to Reese Witherspoon's entrance in Walk the Line and the jolt of life that comes with her), I don't think it made sense here. The parents just weren't fleshed out enough in the opening scenes for me to care (or even really know) what was happening, and then those scenes went on far too long.

Also, there were occasional sequences all throughout the film that didn't seem connected, or simply weren't covered in enough depth. The head-shaving interlude, for example. Of course, this may have been less problematic for viewers better versed in Indian culture,
but I think the real culprit here is the fact that the film was based on a novel, and was not sufficiently reimagined for the screen. It's usually obvious when a film was based on a novel, because there are usually sequences that clearly would've worked better in a novel. A novel's rhythms are very different than a film's. There's much more room for certain kinds of details, and much less demand for a specific kind of pacing. That allows novels to work with long, episodic narratives that just don't work as well on film. I think I'd heard at some point that this film was based on a book, but I'd actually forgotten that when I was watching it... at least until a little ways in, when I suddenly thought, "oh right... it is. I'm sure The Namesake was a great book, too, but it seems to have worked better as a book than as a movie.

Finally, there was just a general lack of coherence to the film that bothered me throughout. I realize that's a vague comment, a result of my own inarticulateless, but that doesn't diminish its validity. The acting's all quite good, and the story is strong, but the film just never quite hits a stride. It comes close at times, and is quite enjoyable at times, but it just never seems to know what it wants to be, other than a film of a novel. This is most likely director Nair's fault. I have not seen either of her other high-profile films (the acclaimed Monsoon Wedding or the dismissed Vanity Fair), but this one doesn't give me a high opinion of her as a filmmaker. Though the film works with powerful themes, the execution is pretty pedestrain, as these things go.

Alright, now for the positives:
(AGAIN, SLIGHT SPOILERS)

As I said, the acting is all quite good. The two standouts, for me, were Kal Penn, as Gogol Ganguli, and Irfan Khan as his father Ashoke. One of the many frustrations for me as a viewer was trying to figure out who was the true protagonist, Ashoke or Gogol. The film was advertised as a story about a young man who didn't like his name, but Ashoke is the central character in many ways. One problem is that I think Ashoke's character (and Khan's performance) become much more interesting from the perspective of his son Gogol (who I think is meant to be the true lead). This is why I think the whole first 30 minutes or so were unnecessary, or at least should've been seen in some sort of flashback. As it is, Gogol is absent the first quarter of the film and Ashoke is absent the last quarter, leaving the viewer without a clear thru-line. I think the film would've been very well served in this case if the director had just stuck to the perspective of one character throughout. But anyway... POSITIVES.

Kal Penn is very good as Gogol. When he enters, it's like a new film. Compelling as Khan's performance is, Ashoke still reads as the weary father figure even when he's seen as a young man, which is why Penn's youthful charisma is such a breath of fresh air. The film was given new life when he arrived (duh, he's the lead), and I'm tempted to say he was best in show, though by the end, Khan is revealed as a true standout. I never saw Harold and Kumar, so I didn't really have any idea of who Penn was until now, but he puts in a very good performance, deftly navigating the trajectory from teendom to adulthood, and I think he's got the charisma to be a real star. I'll be watching his career from here on out.

The rest of the actors fill out their roles admirably, and the film is at its best when it just sits back and lets moments of truth happen onscreen. There are plenty of admirable scenes between parents, children, siblings and lovers, and the film sometimes achieves a graceful simplicity in its writing and acting. It was a pleasant surprise to see Brooke Smith (of Silence of the Lambs fame) in a random supporting role as a friend of Ashoke's wife, Ashima. And Gogol's two love interests, one white, on Bengali, were well played and a joy to watch as well.

Unfortunately, they were all saddled with a screenplay that was felt at once too broad and too condensed. Though there were several good scenes, and a strong story arc, there was too much happening and too much ground to cover, and not enough subtlely and cohesion in the script. Certain characters were left peripheral when I wanted to know more about them (like Gogol's sister Sonia), and as previously mentioned, the films does not commit to one clear protagonist among the three main characters (Gogol, Ashoke, and Ashima).

That said, I generally enjoyed the film (and it made me sort of want to read the novel). It offers a bountiful display of beautiful Bengali culture (including some wonderful music and scenery), along with some compelling human drama. Also, one interesting thing I noticed (totally random) is that none of the actors were superhumanly beautiful. Most were good-looking enough, but all looked distinctly like normal people. I found myself simultaneously refreshed and disappointed (is is why we have gorgeous movie stars?). Anyway, the highlight of the whole film for me was the acting by Kal Penn and Irfan Khan, who give beautiful portrayals of a conflicted young adult and a wise immigrant father, respectively. It would've been nice if the whole film had been as good as those two. As it is, it's an unfocused but overall worthwhile drama.

Verdict: "Not a bad film, but obviously a better book. Worth seeing, if you don't care to read it."

(DISCLAMOR: As I said, I have not actually read the book, so my comments about its quality may be way off the mark. I don't really know how good the book is. But that's not the point. The point is that the structure of the film gives away its origins as a novel far too easily, and even if it's better than the source material, that's never a good thing for a film to do. As it is, I'd bet money that the novel is better. It'd never have been made into a film if it weren't good.)

new sidebar action

Just a few helpful hints hints for navigating my new and improved sidebar...

1) The links on things in the screening log generally go to IMDB sites (for films) or other official sites (for theatre, etc.)

2) The links on things in the "what I'm watching next" area also generally go to IMDB sites (these links are later moved to the screening log).

3) The links on things in marathons (Streepathon, Altmanathon, etc.) always go to the corresponding entry in the marathon, where there's trivia, a film review, etc.

4) The links on things in the various grading scale "slots" (if there ARE links) go to my reviews or other extended thoughts on the corresponding films. Sometimes, films are reviewed individually; other times, they're done in groups. If I only put down a few very short thoughts on something, I generally won't link to that. Only fairly substantial ramblings will get links. Long, full reviews (i.e. ones that I'm actually proud of) have their own area on the sidebar, but are also linked in the same way shorter ramblings are (my Dreamgirls review, for example, can be found twice).

Also, films on the scale are from the current film year (still 2006 for me) unless otherwise noted. Sometime soon, probably this summer, I'll switch over to 2007, and that'll be my "current" (heh) film year.

That's about it. Links on book or CD titles usually go to amazon sites, where you can buy them. But I know those'll be less frequently used.

And on that note... PLEASE use the sidebar if you're AT ALL inclined! I've set up a really comprehensive system. Mostly I just do this for my own sanity (er, insanity), but I really hope others take advantage of it, too. Managing the links in one's sidebar is a bitch, yo. I hope it's not a waste of time.

Thanks!

Grading Scale (without grades)

This is the new, official set of categories in which I put all films I see, for recommendation and quality division purposes. Some would call this a grading scale, though I no longer give actual grades, cause I don't believe in them... I just keep track of how much I like/respect each film I see (feel free to call this hedging, because it is). Anyway, on to the scale...

"If you've never seen these, you've never really lived"
(rough equivalent: A+)

Above and beyond a masterpiece; an exceedingly rare breed. Pulls off the trick of being both deeply resonant and consistently entertaining from start to finish (or if not "entertaining," then still utterly engaging... haunting? disturbing?). Totally transporting. Endlessly rewatchable. Thoroughly lovable. Really, I can't even know what will be an A+ until it's settled into my system and the love has had time to bloom. And as it says above, if you've never seen these films, you've never really lived. Your life is incomplete without these treasures.

Examples: Thelma & Louise, Moulin Rouge!, Dancer in the Dark


"These are required viewing"
(rough equivalent: A)

A masterpiece... or, as some say, a classic. Maybe not endlessly rewatchable, but masterful nonetheless. Contains either brilliant comedy or resonant tragedy, but maybe not both at once (that'd be an A+). Feels intimate, yet large in scope. No flaws to speak of, but doesn't keep inviting you back for more the way an A+ does; you just wanna catch those few key moments and then fast-forward through the rest. Or else you DO watch it over and over, but its effect is not as deep as that of an "A+" film. But either way, still a great work of art, and a rarity. As it says above, required viewing for any true film fan.

Examples: Brokeback Mountain, A History of Violence, Mulholland Dr.


"You should really see these"
(rough equivalent: A-)

Terrific. Hugely ambitious without letting the effort show. Has a uniquely cinematic power. Might not feel totally complete, or may be somewhat flawed, but still contains moments of pure cinema. Distinguishable from a B+ in that it feels "near great" instead of merely "very good." It has that special movie magic, and casts a powerful spell. It wows and then sticks with you. As it says above, any film buff should really see these. They may not be perfect, but they're pretty essential.

Examples: Kill Bill: Volume 1, Children of Men, Volver, The Incredibles


"Highly recommended" i.e. "very good"
(rough equivalent: B+)

Top notch cinema. Not as uniquely cinematic or as powerful as an "A" film, but still "better than good." Might have magical moments or elements, but still feels, on the whole, like a "B" film. These are the kinds of films I respect more than love... or else I love them, just not in a "wham! bang! this is a great MOVIE!" kinda way. Top ten list material, but probably not best picture material (unless its a crappy year).

Examples: The Lives of Others, The Squid and the Whale, Junebug


"Moderately recommended" i.e. "good"
(rough equivalent: B)

These are good films. Not great; good. Competently made and entertaining, though not especially rewatchable in most cases. Not really "magical," but there's nothing really wrong with it either (if there is something wrong with it, then there's enough right with it to make up for it). Definitely worthwhile viewing.

Examples: Freaky Friday (2003), Casino Royale, Million Dollar Baby


"Tepidly recommended" i.e. "mostly good"
(rough equivalent: B-)

Generally good, but flawed. Recommended with reservations. Films in this category might drag in spots, feel scattered or unfocused, or just strain credibility in some way. Often I give this grade to dramas that I generally like but find overly sappy or ponderous, or comedies that are funny but sometimes degenerate into dumb attempts at canned laughs. Weaker than a solid "B," but still a good grade.

Examples: Babel, In America, Knocked Up, Scoop


"I have mixed feelings about..."
(rough equivalent: C+)

Generally mediocre, but with some great, highly watchable elements OR just highly unneven, with some things great and some awful. Not good, but not really bad either. Films in this league have as many misfires as direct hits. Frustrating. In any case, they're not what I would call good films... but they're often recommendable anyway. "Fascinating disasters" usually land here, as do other films that I just can't totally get behind but still like enough not to dismiss.

Examples: Dreamgirls, Cold Mountain, Stranger than Fiction


"I can take 'em or leave 'em"
(rough equivalent: C)

Mediocre. Not particularly ambitious or original. You feel all the the heartstrings being pulled, the thrills being engineered, the laughs being set up, the tearducts being worked; even if said techniques are successful, the effort shows. Might contain worthwhile elements, but they're trapped in the overriding tone of mediocrity. Might be enjoyable if you're into this specific genre or performer; not so much if you're not. But these films at least do what they set out to do, i.e. succeed in being mediocre. Sometimes I actually enjoy them a fair amount, but still find them overly derivative and not especially remarkable in any way.

Examples: Something's Gotta Give, The Family Stone, Bridge to Terabithia


"I was mostly annoyed by..."
(rough equivalent: C-)

Not recommended... unless it's REALLY your kinda thing. Decidedly aiming for mediocrity, but not quite successful even at that. This grade often applies to films that dramatize real world events in an inaccurate, tasteless or politically problematic way. Or to films that are pretty to look at and painless to sit through, but (when all's said and done) pretty dumb and pointless. These films may have redeeming qualities, but they still leave a bad taste in the mouth after viewing, and often sour more in the memory. But they often involve good production values, good acting, or at least something mildly engaging. Though they annoyed me, I could see how others might like them.

Examples: A Beautiful Mind, World Trade Center, X-Men: The Last Stand


"Don't bother with these" i.e. "not recommended"
(rough equivalent: D+)

Not worth your time. Just not up to snuff. Didn't manage to engage me in any significant way, despite its best efforts. It might really be trying, too... but to no avail. Just not good filmmaking. Technically incompetent, narratively incoherent, appallingly acted, or perhaps more than one of the above. But it's usually really trying to be good. I feel bad for films like this; I don't exactly hate them, but I don't like them at all either.

Example: A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints


"Avoid these like the plague" i.e. "not recommended AT ALL"
(rough equivalent: D or D-)

Just not a good film at all. Verging on offensive. A chore to sit through. Could be worse, but not by much. Often outright insults the intelligence of the viewer. These films are often made worse by the fact that they could've been good if done right. Sometimes a great premise just dies a horrible death in execution. But then, sometimes the premise was crap to begin with. There are many kinds of bad films. But none are worth your time or money.

Examples: I don't usually see bad films. Nothing is coming to me...


"Find the negatives of these atrocities and burn them"
(rough equivalent: F)

In Nat Rogers' words, F is for: "Find the negatives and burn them." I usually have a problem giving films grades, especially bad ones, but for these films, an F is deserved. I rarely, if ever, find myself watching any films this bad. These are the lowest of the low. Films of this ilk don't even know how bad they are; they actually take themselves seriously, which only makes them that much worse. I have sat through part of Lady in the Water, and I think it belongs here. But alas, I gave up on it before I could be sure.

Take this grading scale for what it's worth. This is how I categorize films. I'm glad I've finally found a system that works for me, without making me feel like a tool. I know I'm basically still giving films grades, but outside of this post (which shall have a link on the sidebar), actual letter grades will not appear. Films are meant to be experienced, not graded. This scale represents my perception of the quality of each cinematic experience.

And yes, I am insane. Very much so.

So I finally saw Transamerica...

So, this movie's basically the definition of uneven. I wasn't expecting to like it very much, but I think I liked more than I thought I would (can you sense that I'm confused and ambivalent?). There was definitely a lot wrong with it, but there was a lot right with it, too. I think it succeeded more as a comedy than as a drama (weird that it ended up drama at the golden globes... I think that was Reese Witherspoon's fault). Did it succeed as a film? Umm... sort of. It's definitely problematic, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it. Actually, the word I think describes it best is... "cute."

Re: Felicity Huffman... well, I'm glad she didn't win the oscar - that was never gonna happen anyway, not over America's Sweetheart in a $100 million grossing biopic - but honestly, I don't think she was half bad. She was maybe 33% bad, and 66% very good. Let me explain:

As a comedic performance, it was very good. As a dramatic performance, it was very good. As a transgender performance... well... it was sketchy. A touch problematic. I don't see why Bree was so uncomfortable in heels, etc. if she was supposed to be more comfortable as a woman than as a man. There was a lot of "ticky" and "fussy" going on, and I didn't think that served the character well. I get that she is conservative and not comfortable with performative behavior, so I see what Huffman and the director were going for, but I think, in execution, not all of it worked. And why did Bree have to be so ugly? Why was her hair and makeup SO bad? Hadn't she been living as a woman for a while by the start of the film? I just didn't think it made sense to have Bree be so incredibly uncomfortable with everything about womanhood, when the whole point of becoming a woman is that you feel MORE comfortable that way.

I was very impressed with a lot of what she did, though, and I see why she was cast here over other actresses, including MtF trans actresses. Basically, it's cause she's good, and is able to pull off this kind of awkward comedy/drama. Note to whom it may concern: it's on record that Huffman was cast in Transamerica BEFORE she began filming "Desperate Housewives". She was not famous at the time, so her starpower and the "famous actress deglamming" hook had nothing to do with it; she was cast on talent and suitability for the role. Whether it was truly best to cast a woman in the role is a divisive issue, but that's not the fault of Huffman, who claims her first reaction upon receiving the role was "I think it should be played by a man." The director says he didn't want to cast a man because he wanted to show that trans women DO in fact look like women, and not like men in dresses... but shouldn't trans women be allowed to show that for themselves, instead of having Felicity Huffman uglied up instead? But I am willing to buy the explanation that Huffman was simply the best actor (male or female) for the role, and much of her work here is excellent.

Also, Kevin Zegers is HOT. And he gave a good performance, to boot. I look forward to seeing more of him in the future (and no, I don't mean it that way... I mean, there's really no more to see... but don't get me wrong... I'd tap that in a second).

So yes, at heart, this is really just a cute little father/son bonding movie that happens to take on some tough issues. Nothing wrong with that. At times, it's contrived, overly broad, or condescending to its audience and characters, but at other times, it's quite funny and/or affecting. I was onboard for most of the film, annoying parts be damned. The supporting performances were all over the map (GOOD: Elizabeth Pena as Bree's therapist, ANNOYING: Fionnula Flanagan as Bree's mother), but the two leads were pretty solid. The script could really have used some work, but I admire the film's concept, and think it's basically a worthwhile piece. Again... the operative word is: "cute."

Best Actress 2008

Just a random note: I am getting VERY worried about the outcome of the 2008 best actress oscar race. Why, you ask? That's silly, you say? Well, yes. Obviously. But I worry because I'm afraid one of these women might have to LOSE... AGAIN:

Streep
Winslet
Streep
Winslet
Streep
Winslet
Streep
Winslet
Streep
Winslet
Streep
Winslet
Streep
Winslet
Streep
Winslet

The good news: My girls Meryl Streep and Kate Winslet both have projects coming up that look like they could win them oscars (Kate's first, Meryl's third... both are equally overdue at this point).

The bad news: It's looking highly likely that both could come out in the same year.

Revolutionary Road, if it actually happens, really looks like THE ONE that could get Winslet noticed. She's already done everything else she can. Biopic? Check. Biggest film of all time? Check. Stuffy period piece? Check. Playing against type? Check. Shameless nudity? Check, and check. She's done everything short of starring in a Holocaust film (like the one in her "Extras" stint), and still she's had no luck. But this new one's really a kicker: reunite with Leo DiCaprio AND be directed by your husband (it's two-in-one) in an uber-oscary film. This one might just do it. If it doesn't, then... well, maybe Kate should just give up the ghost.

Meanwhile, Goddess Meryl has like 10 films in the pipeline, at least two of which look like they could be THE ONE for her... or THE ONES perhaps (two more oscars soon? maybe). Of course, with that many films to get through, who knows how long it'll take her to get to Doubt and Dirty Tricks? But Dirty Tricks is listed as a 2008 release, and Doubt may well land in that year, too.

Revolutionary Road is actually listed as 2009, but that can't be true if they're really filming it this summer. Post-production does NOT take 2 years. My hope is that either:

A) Revolutionary Road pulls a Million Dollar Baby and somehow finds release this December (unlikely), or...

B) Revolutionary Road is released in 2008, and Meryl wins her third oscar in 2009, for either Dirty Tricks or Doubt.

We'll see. But I worry. Ideally, it'd go like this:

2007: Julianne Moore (Savage Grace)
2008: Kate Winslet (Revolutionary Road)
2009: Meryl Streep (Dirty Tricks or Doubt)

...but that'd just be too good to be true... right?

Altmanathon Stop #1: M*A*S*H (1970)

TRIVIA

This was Altman's first major critical and commercial success.

Fifteen other directors passed on the project before Altman took it on.

Stars Donald Sutherland and Elliot Gould approached the producers during filming to try to get Altman fired from the film; Altman claims that if he'd known about this at the time, he would've quit (Sutherland and Gould now admit the error of their ways).

The film's screenwriter Ring Lardner Jr., who won the film's only oscar, was reportedly disappointed in the film and upset by how much the director and cast had improvised and strayed from his script (he accepted his award nonetheless).

Altman is not a fan of the TV show.

AWARDS

1 Oscar (Best Adapted Screenplay)
5 nominations (including Best Picture, Director)

1 Golden Globe (Best Picture: Musical/Comedy)
6 nominations (including Best Director, Screenplay)

WGA award (adapted)
DGA award nomination

2 KCFCC awards (Best Director, Best Supporting Actress)
NSFC award (Best Picture)

5 BAFTA nominations (including Best Picture, Director)


REVIEW

Robert Altman's M*A*S*H was a tricky film to gauge. As I stated earlier, it's often hard for me to determine the worth of older films. Not only do I go in with a preconception of how good they're supposed to be (or how GREAT in some cases), but it's also hard to estimate what a film must've felt like to the critics and the public during the time of its original release. After all, things that were highly original, transgressive, or even revolutionary when first presented might feel dull and commonplace today. The very best films age like a fine wine, getting better or a least maintaining their grace with time, despite their being conceived during a particular period that has long passed. And while I wouldn't count M*A*S*H among those greatest of greats that only improve with age, it is still a very good film indeed, and much about it is timeless.

The story concerns a group of military surgeons on a base during the Korean War. But in truth, "story" is not the operative term here. Like most of Altman's films, the stars are the ensemble acting and the unique, organic tone, and not the story or narrative. There is growth and change in many of the characters, but that growth and change isn't really what the film is about. What the film is about is presenting a familiar situation in a brand new light, thus permitting the audience to grow and change by seeing the world in a new way.

The film reads as a series of vignettes, wherein these military surgeons deal with various crises and situations through humor, play, and a curious kind of camaraderie. Much has been said about the film's evocation of the Vietnam War through its presentation of the Korean War, and it's a credit to the film that one could easily see the Vietnam War (which was at its height during the film's release) in these scenes, despite specific references to their being in Korea. The film brings out the absurdity of any kind of war simply by showing those involved and how they deal with it (i.e. through humor). We see that the only way anyone can survive a long stay in this environment (while remaining sane and productive) is to forget where they really are and what they're doing, and try to have as much fun as they can. It comes off as immature and disrespectful to some, like Sally Kellerman's rigid Margaret O'Houlihan, but war - especially senseless war - is an immature and disrespectful business.

The audience is challenged with a bold perspective right from the first frames, where the beautiful and haunting vocal track "Suicide is Painless" (written by Robert Altman's son) is played over footage of wounded being whisked out of helicopters. Later, the doctors' brash, immature antics are contrasted with messy surgery scenes, where they act like they're repairing cars rather than people. And there's a distinct undertone of satire in even the most serious moments. Altman has stated that the film's success (it made a LOT of money on a very small budget, and went on to be nominated for oscars) was a vindication of both his politics and his filmmaking process, both of which ran the risk of being well ahead of their time.

I'll leave it to you all to discover the various individual scenes and character antics, since there are many, and I'm not even sure I properly appreciated all of them. M*A*S*H is not my favorite Altman. I didn't bond with the various characters the way I have in other films of his, and I don't think all the comedy holds up in 2007. The trademark Altman messiness and overlapping dialogue sometimes just felt like... well... messiness and overlapping dialogue. But the film has its moments of pure cinema, and blended seriousness and satire in a way no war film had yet dared to do. It was a bold statement in 1970 that struck a nerve with the industry and the public, and for that, I give it major props. It also announced the arrival of Altman as a major director, and gave him the opportunity to do all his subsequent films, and for that, I thank it profusely.

I invite everyone to encounter M*A*S*H and engage with it. Though I didn't love it the first time I saw it, it definitely improved on second viewing, and improved more still when I'd read more about it, listened to Altman's commentary, and thought of it in its historical context. M*A*S*H may not hold a place in my all-time favorites list, but it holds a distinctive place in film history, and is thought of by many as a classic. And with that, I won't argue. It's definitely a winner.

Next in the marathon: McCabe & Mrs. Miller

Wow, this is so f*cked up in so many ways.

Alright, this has nothing to do with film, but it does have to do with gay rights, which some people might be into, and it's just one of those real world stories that's so bizarre and unfortunate that it just begs to be shared. Schadenfreude, you know? I mean, what is wrong with Sara Wheeler? Major issues, that one has.

"Technically speaking, the procedure is brain damage..."

"...but it's on a par with a night of heavy drinking... nothing you'll miss."
-Dr. Howard Mierzwiak

So has anyone else been hearing about this?

I'd heard about this topic on the radio a while back, so I decided to do a google search to look for articles. This is but one of many on the subject. I haven't actually read all of this one, but I know there's been a lot of talk about using new memory drugs to treat injured soldiers and other victims of trauma. Though at this point, it's all speculation.

I love the part near the beginning where it implies that fiction writers are not "serious people." Even though they were the ones who first considered the ramifications of this kind of thing.

Anyway, here is yet another reason why Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is great. It turns out it was quite prescient and quite relevant, as well as tremendously moving. Just so many kinds of wonderful. I love it.

Something Wicked this way comes...

Saw Wicked tonight at Miami's new performing arts center (my dad was playing clarinet in the pit).

Big giant theater. We were way in the back (my sister and I). Like, literally in the very back row of a stadium-sized theater. So the experience was not that enjoyable.

This was my first time seeing Wicked, and it's a cute enough show, even pretty inspired at times, but overall, I didn't feel it lived up to the hype. Granted, these were not the Broadway actors, and there were even understudies stepping in for a few key roles, including Elphaba, so I'm sure it was far better on Broadway. Plus we were in the back row, and couldn't even see the actors that were in it. I may have missed some (or maybe all) of the actorly nuance from a mile up in the 5000th row.

Basically, it's the kind of typical Broadway musical material that needs extremely savvy performers to do it justice. Much of the dialogue was broad and shallow, and many of the songs were disposable. In the wrong hands, these kinds of gimmicky, populist musicals descend instantly into kitch. Not that these hands were wrong, per se, just not quite up to the task. I wish I'd seen it with Kristin Chenoweth.

But still, "Defying Gravity" is a great first act closing number, and the Oz tie-ins in the second act were quite amusing (the second act in general was much better). And I suppose the show has a good, humanistic message about how "wickedness" arises, and how things are not always what they seem. So, it's a good show. But I'm glad it didn't win the Tony.

I just saw Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story...

...as part of a mandatory screening for my filmmaking class. YAY!

I was about to ask "could we watch Todd Haynes' Karen Carpenter movie one week?" when my prof announced what we were watching. I should've known it was coming. The department here worships Todd Haynes (its most famous alum).

Anyway, everybody see it if you can. It's kind of magical. You could see what a talent Haynes was even then. Who else would dare to do this? Too bad it's actually illegal to own and show it, cause of that lawsuit. Barbie dolls + the Carpenters' music + anorexia battles = cinematic gold (here it is on google video).


And also, just randomly, I think Mint Chocolate Coated Oreo cookies are the best cookie type known to man. They're like thin mints and oreos combined.

And also, again randomly, why weren't there any comments on my Jennifer Holliday post? I hope it's not cause nobody cares. I personally have watched those clips more times than I can count since posting them. LOVE. that. woman.

Behold... the Goddess of Soul...

...in full diva "anthem" mode:


...in full diva smackdown mode:


...in full diva club gig mode:


...in subdued diva talk show mode:


Post-Dreamgirls movie hooplah, my love for JHoll (aka God) was beginning to wane. And then I found these new clips. The video quality is poor, but the content is sang-gasmic. Jennifer Holliday is so much more than Effie. She IS Effie, but she's also so much more. She comes off as intelligent, eloquent, mature, humble, gracious, and STILL divatastic. I love her so much.

Best. Female. Singer. EVER.

My movie grading scale... and why I don't like it.

Hey, all. (warning: this is a LONG post)

So I've decided to not give films grades anymore. No, I really mean it this time. I'll continue with grades for the Streepathon, and for the list of 2006 films, since I already started quantifying them in that way. But it's getting increasingly frustrating for me to assign films grades, for several reasons.

First of all, I just feel weird giving actual letter grades to works of art that are all attempting and accomplishing different things. Sometimes it's pretty easy to identify a film as "good" (B) or "mediocre" (C) or "highly uneven, but watchable and with some great elements" (that'd be a C+, generally), and it's a fun challenge to try and put a film in a specific category of quality. But much of the time, it just doesn't feel right. The frustration of it is that sometimes I feel grade about giving a film a grade, and then other times (i.e. with other films), the process just seems silly and pointless. And it makes me feel like much more of a film "nerd" than I'd like to be.

Also, I will often have a lukewarm reaction to something I can recognize as very well made (i.e. The Departed), and I feel weird giving it the same grade as something that's clearly not as ambitious, but still just as enjoyable (for me). But at the same time, I feel weird putting it on the same level as the films I really LOVED this year (The Fountain, Marie Antoinette, Volver, Children of Men, and even Little Miss Sunshine, which I adore despite its flaws and its slightness).

Also, since I generally avoid seeing crap, my grading scale is rather frontloaded, but getting an "A" from me is still difficult. So nearly everything I see gets some form of "B"... and giving everything a "B" just seems stupid. Though I guess that's how grading curves work. But again, are films even aiming for grades? Is that really the point? Um, no.

And furthermore, I feel pretty unqualified to give grades to older films. Since I'm less conversant with films from, say, the 50s and 60s and the culture from which they arose, I feel strange pretending to be qualified to judge them in the same way. Plus, without the context of all the other films from that year, I can't even really know how it compared to other films of its time (except of course from its reputation), and hence, I wouldn't know what to give it. I do of course have my own reactions to each film individually, but those are totally subjective, and not really enough to go on. And if I don't particularly LOVE some classic film I'm supposed to love, isn't it somewhat presumptuous giving it a paltry "B"? Plus, knowing a film is an established classic is likely to color my reaction.

Like, for example, I just watched M*A*S*H. And I didn't really love it all that much. And I'm not really sure why. I've at least really really liked all Altman's recent stuff (even The Company), so why don't I love a film regarded by many as his best? It is cause it's old? Is it cause it's about war? I dunno. But I'm sick of trying to force it into some specific grade. I still prefer grades to the "star" system (which I'm just sick of), but they have their own problems.

For the record, here is an explanation of my old grading system:

A+: Above and beyond a masterpiece; an exceedingly rare breed. Pulls off the trick of being both deeply resonant and consistently entertaining from start to finish (or if not "entertaining," then still utterly engaging... haunting? disturbing?). Totally transporting. Endlessly rewatchable. Thoroughly lovable. Really, I can't even know what will be an A+ until it's settled into my system and the love has had time to bloom. Ex: Moulin Rouge!, Dancer in the Dark, Thelma & Louise, The Empire Strikes Back

A: A masterpiece. Maybe not endlessly rewatchable, but a masterpiece nonetheless. Contains either brilliant comedy or resonant tragedy, but maybe not both at once (that'd be an A+). Feels intimate, yet large in scope. No flaws to speak of, but doesn't keep inviting you back for more the way an A+ does; you just wanna catch those few key moments and then fast-forward through the rest. Or else you DO watch it over and over, but its effect is not as deep as that of an "A+" film. But either way, still a great work of art, and a rarity. Ex: Brokeback Mountain, A History of Violence, Mulholland Dr., Tootsie

A-: Terrific. Hugely ambitious without letting the effort show. Has a uniquely cinematic energy. Might not feel totally complete, or may be somewhat flawed, but still contains moments of pure cinema. Distinguishable from a B+ in that it feels like a "near-masterpiece" instead of a "very good film." It has that special movie magic, and casts a powerful spell. It wows and then sticks with you. Ex: Kill Bill: Volume 1, Children of Men, Volver, The Incredibles

B+: Highly recommended, i.e. "very good." Isn't as uniquely cinematic or as powerful as an "A" film, but is still "better than good." Might have magical moments or elements, but still feels, on the whole, like a "B" film. Top ten list material, but probably not best picture material (unless its a crappy year). Ex: Pan's Labyrinth, The Lives of Others, The Squid and the Whale, Junebug

B: Recommended. In a word: "good." Competently made and entertaining, though not especially rewatchable in most cases. Not really "magical," but there's nothing really wrong with it either (if there is something wrong with it, then there's enough right with it to make up for it). Definitely worthwhile viewing. Ex: Casino Royale, Freaky Friday (2003), Million Dollar Baby, Munich

B-: Recommended with reservations. Generally good, but flawed. Films in this category might drag in spots, feel scattered or unfocused, or just strain credibility in some way. Often I give this grade to films that I generally like but find overly sappy or ponderous. Weaker than a solid "B," but still a good grade. ex: In America, The Science of Sleep, Scoop, Babel

C+: Generally mediocre, but with some great, highly watchable elements OR just highly unneven, with some things great and some awful. Films of this grade have as many misfires as direct hits. Frustrating. In any case, they're not really good films... but they're often recommendable anyway. "Fascinating disasters" usually land here. Ex: Dreamgirls, Cold Mountain, Stranger than Fiction

C: Mediocre. Not particularly ambitious or original. You feel all the the heartstrings being pulled, the thrills being engineered, the laughs being set up, the tearducts being worked; even if said techniques are successful, the effort shows. Might contain worthwhile elements, but they're trapped in the overriding tone of mediocrity. Might be enjoyable if you're into this specific genre or performer; not so much if you're not. But these films at least do what they set out to do, i.e. succeed in being mediocre. Ex: Bridge to Terabithia, The Family Stone, Bee Season, Something's Gotta Give

C-: Not recommended... unless it's REALLY your kinda thing. Decidedly aiming for mediocrity, but only partially successful even at that. This grade often applies to films that dramatize real world events in an inaccurate, tasteless or politically problematic way. These films may have redeeming qualities, but they still leave a bad taste in the mouth after viewing, and often sour more in the memory. But they often involve good production values, good acting, or at least something midly engaging. Ex: A Beautiful Mind, World Trade Center

D+: Not recommended. Just not up to snuff. Doesn't manage to engage me in any significant way, despite its best efforts. It might really be trying, too... but to no avail. Just not good filmmaking. Technically incompetent, narratively incoherent, appallingly acted, or perhaps more than one of the above. But it's usually really trying to be good. I feel bad for films like this; I don't exactly hate them, but I don't like them at all either. Ex: A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints

D: Not recommended at all. In a word: "bad." Just not a good film at all. Verging on offensive and/or insulting, but maybe not quite there. A chore to sit through. Ex: I no longer have examples ready, as I don't really seek out bad films... but they're out there, and they're often widely seen (Wild Hogs, anyone?).

D-: A train wreck. Could be worse, but not by much. Often outright insults the intelligence of the viewer. Truly, truly bad. Often made worse by the fact that it could've been good if done right. Ex: any number of bad comedies or action films

F: In Nat's words, F is for: "Find the negatives and burn them." I rarely, if ever, find myself watching any films this bad. These are the lowest of the low. Films of this ilk don't even know how bad they are; they actually take themselves seriously, which only makes them that much worse. I have sat through part of Lady in the Water, and I think it belongs here. But alas, I left before I could be sure.

Phew.

Anyway... writing this all out has helped me respect my grading system more... but I still don't like it. It still doesn't work in all cases, especially for older films. So while I'll still use it for pending 2006 releases (and there are lots) and for the Streepathon, don't expect to see it used in the future. I could change my mind, of course, but... yeah.

In its place, I intend to put each year's films into broad categories like: recommended, highly recommended, not recommended, etc. without attaching a letter grade to each. It just feels more respectful that way, and also more reflective of the fact that it's only my opinion I'm claiming. I don't generally like to diss people's work (as an actor, I know how much that stings), and I also don't want to put things on a pedestal and expect everyone else to agree with me. I can only recommend a film or not. So, yeah.

How do others feel about this? I actually find the subject or grading films fascinating, though I find the actual process annoying. Anybody have any thoughts? Don't be shy.

DVD sale + The Lives of Others

There's an event called "The Big DVD Sale" on amazon right now, with tons of classic films half off, and other, less classic films going for as low as $5. I just caved and bought a LOT of DVDs of old movies (to the tune of $115)... probably not the best idea. But now I will own such classic films as All About Eve, Singin' in the Rain, My Fair Lady, and Casablanca, among others... and all on the cheap. So yay!

Also, I saw The Lives of Others yesterday. Very good film. I must unfortunately admit to having fallen asleep in the middle for a bit, simply because I was tired (this had nothing to do with the quality of the film - I also fell asleep the first time I saw Volver, and I LOVE Volver - though Lives was rather slow and dry, which didn't help). Anyway, I have no real preference between this and Pan's Labyrinth for foreign film. Both are very good; neither is my favorite (I still prefer Volver to both). But I suppose I'm glad Lives won, since Pan's got plenty of attention elsewhere. And though Lives seems to have won based on its being "important," it also seems like the kind of film that will improve in the memory, whereas Pan's is the kind that wows on first viewing, but doesn't really improve with time. So good on AMPAS for their vote.

I really should try and see it again without falling asleep, but I don't know when that'll happen. You know when you suddenly have this overwhelming need to sleep, out of nowhere, right in the middle of a film? And you just CANNOT keep your eyes open, no matter what? I hate that. So frustrating. At first, sleep is such a beautiful relief, but then you wake up and you're like, "shit, I just missed a lot of the movie" and you feel all guilty. Argh. Oh well.

OMG, I read a book: What Was She Thinking? [Notes on a Scandal]

This was REALLY terrific. One of my favorite novels. I'm sure the film won't do it justice, just as Todd Field's Little Children lost much of the book's magic in the transfer (though I'm aching to see Judi's performance).

What really clinches the greatness of this book is the way it's all told through Barbara's "manuscript." What an ingenius device. We know more about Barbara through the way she described herself and others than we ever could have learned through some neutral narrator. And of course, the whole manuscript itself is really a great call for help, a way to attempt to escape her loneliness, which says so much. And I love that there's a twist on the idea of the "unreliable narrator" in that Barbara tries as hard as she can to BE reliable and tell the truth as cleanly as possible; she says as much many times. Her narrative is a plea for intimacy. But ironically, the way she compromises her truths ultimately says more than straight truth would have.

This book really has a lot to say about women, relationships, loneliness and desperation. And it says it SO entertainingly. The prose is allowed to be totally terse and bitchy, and also strangely tender and personal, all in the service of Barbara's character. It's a win/win.

Highly recommended reading. Unfortunately my long-delayed (though recently accelerated) completion of the book caused me to miss the film version while it was here. Sad. I'll probably have to catch it on video. But seriously, everyone read this book. It's SO good.

I will include in the sidebar, from now on, a log of recently read books (fiction, nonfiction, and drama) in hopes that keeping a log here on the blog will prompt me to read more. I like to be held accountable to how I spend my time, and if I see no books on my sidebar at the end of this year, I'll feel like a loser. That should be ample motivation.

Yay, I'm in a play!

Yay for me for being cast in The Merchant of Venice as part of Brown's annual Shakespeare on the Green festival. They put on two or three plays each spring - either Shakespeare or Shakespeare-related in some way - and do them right out on the green for everyone. It's fun. I was in Dead White Males for the festival last year.

I actually know nothing about this play, because I'm a bad theatre student and haven't read it. I haven't even seen the 2004 film version, which seemed like it was not a big deal in the film world. But we're having our first read-through in a week, and by then, I will know what it's all about.

So I finally saw Little Children, and... meh.

About what I was expecting. A decent adaptation, but nothing great. Some strong choices, some misteps. Excellent casting and acting, for the most part. Kate Winslet and Jackie Earle Haley were indeed very good, as were (IMO) Jennifer Connelly, Patrick Wilson, and just about everyone else. Unfortunately the writing and direction never quite come together in a way that lets any of them transcend "very good." Strong acting across the board, but they never quite cohere as an ensemble.

The narration bothered me. It was an interesting choice, and might've worked, but as others have said, it is noncommital and not used to maximum effect. Sometimes it seems intrusive. Then it disappears for long stretches at a time. Occasionally, it feels just right. But only occasionally. And actually, much of the best potential narration from the book is left out, which bothered me.

This film pulled off the odd trick of feeling wildly experimental at some times and frustratingly middling at others. It seems crazy ambitious and then pulls its punches. Frustrating. But every time I started to get really peeved, there'd be another really nice moment that drew me in again. I was only very rarely bored, though I spent much time dissecting, critiquing and being disappointed by some of the film's choices. There were some rather drastic plot changes and omissions that I don't think served it well at all. But nothing truly terrible. Overall, they did a nice job. They just never found a way to make the film as great as the novel... and that's sad, but all too common. There are some great moments here, and some nice acting, it feels more like an experiment than anything. And that's fine. But it was only partially successful. Oh well.

Verdict: "Good, but coulda been better."