Out of Focus

I’ve mentioned it once or twice — OK, ad nauseum — but my current job (which I love even though it’s only temporary) has totally cut into my free time and by extension my movie-watching. As the weeks continue, the work days get longer and and by the end (if there is an end) I’m just too tired to do anything. This past week, though, I was determined to get to Film Forum to see the current revival of Carol Reed’s The Third Man with Orson Welles in his iconic role of Harry Lime. I’ve seen it before, but only once, years ago, and on video. When Film Forum (or the Walter Reade, for that matter) shows a new (or even new-ish) print of virtually any member of the cinematic canon, I try to make sure I get to it. And if for some reason you’re saying, “Why should I care about a 55 year old movie I’ve never heard of, well keep in mind that the cinetrix tried to point you in the right direction all the way from Boston. And if you want to actually learn something (although the fact that you’re reading me would most likely be evidence to the contrary), you should check out the essay “Three By Carol Reed” at A Girl and a Gun. It’s long, but it’s well worth your time.

I mention all this because I just could not get to Film Forum this week. I tried to go every night, but I simply had too much work. I was planning on getting there on Thursday for the final day of screenings which would not have been easy, when suddenly I received a reprieve: Film Forum has extended the run another week. I’m definitely going to be on Houston near Varick at some point this weekend, and I encourage you (at least those of you in NYC) to get down there before it closes next Thursday. You won’t be sorry, and if you’re answer to the “favorite movie” question happened to resemble any of the contestants on American Idol, maybe this will give you something else to think about.

You know what I forgot to mention about Quentin Tarantino in the previous post about his appearance on American Idol? I think the guy was so into his I’m hipper than thou persona on the show that he must have pre-written every single one of his critiques. I was reminded during the results show tonight of his choice comments such as “Two words: Power House,” and … aww hell, I deleted the damn thing, so I don’t have the quote, but I’m having these horrible memories of his Jennifer Hudson knocking out Whitney Houston analogy. It was all just too pat.

Anyway, I’m not here to recap AI, but in case you were actually surprised by my lack of critiquing the actual singing, all you really need to do is go check-out the much better job done by KarenPlusOne. She pretty much nails how everyone did (tape-delayed) Wednesday night, and if you don’t read her yet anyway … what’s wrong with you?

It was so very very wrong. The chin almost decapitated Ryan Seacrest as Quentin Tarantino embarrassed himself last night on American Idol more than in any of his acting performances, and that’s a pretty major achievement. After an edited segment so reverential it must have been smoking hot in the tape deck thanks to its recent evacuation from QT’s ass, the only ego big enough to actually leave a shadow over Simon Cowell’s sat down at the judges table. To his credit, eventually Tarantino settled into the roll as judge and didn’t simply laud platitudes at all the contestants, but at first, he made Paula seem like the bitch with nothing good to say.

The saddest thing about this episode actually wasn’t the fact that Tarantino’s egomaniacal filmgeek wannabe hipster persona continuously reared its ugly head, punctuated usually by an “aw-right?” at the end of every phrase (giving me flashbacks to the “Mmmkay” school counselor from South Park). Even more disturbing was seeing him try to impress the 16-year-old female contestants on whom he has obvious crushes. But as a cinefile, I was actually far more upset by what resulted from this movie-themed show.

Continue reading “SEACREST … OUT! AND TAKE QT WITH YOU (OR, THE MISEDUCATION OF AI CONTESTANTS)”

I knew better, but I really hoped that once Easter had passed and The Passion … had resurrected itself (I’m sure plenty of people are using that metaphor) to reclaim the top box office spot in its continuing campaign to bring peace and love to the world (right?), it would start to go away. Diminishing returns and all that. Mel out of the news. Summer blockbusters on their way. You know … all that.

But today The Hollywood Reporter asks the question “Will ‘The Passion of the Christ’ play in primetime?” TV networks regularly go through bidding wars to claim the rights to broadcast major blockbusters, but The Passion … is taking this activity a few steps further. First, the distributor Newmarket Films does not have any prearranged output agreements with any of the pay cable services which usually get the first window to broadcast. That means HBO, Showtime and Starz Encore will be competing against each other for the rights to this one film.

More importantly, though, Mel’s company Icon Productions is demanding that whoever broadcasts the film “must run (it) in its entirety and that even some of the more graphic scenes of beatings cannot be edited down.” In fact, I read somewhere else that Icon really wants a broadcast network to air the 2-hour gorefest (my word, not theirs) in its entirety with no commercial interruptions. (To be fair, NBC got a single sponsor for a Schindler’s List broadcast in the past couple years and aired the film straight through, and I believe at least mostly unedited.)

I have a problem with another element of this potential broadcast, however. Nowhere in the Hollywood Reporter story (via Yahoo! and Reuters) does it mention any network concerns over broadcast standards, the extreme graphic violence and any reason why such a broadcast over the public airwaves on a major network would not cause an FCC violation. In fact, the only comment made in this story regarding concern over the content of the film is solely related to its commercial prospects: “That makes it a tough sell for the broadcast networks, which would undoubtedly have a hard time lining up advertisers for the controversial film even if edits were made.”

Continue reading “WHAT’S A HUNK OF FLESH BETWEEN FRIENDS”

Yeah, I totally stole this from Lindsay Lindsayism, but it is one of the funniest things I’ve seen in quite some time. Out of Focus PORNOLIZED. Just go there and then reread my Tarantino post below. It’s well worth it. (Safe for work … as long as it’s not take-your-kid-to-work day.)

I would also suggest checking-out GOP.com pornolized. And just to be evenhanded about these things: Democrats.org pornolized. And lastly, while TMFTML has done a more creative and ingenious job lampooning LA’s unofficial blogger “queen” Tiffany A. Stone, I still had fun with her site Breakfast at Tiffany’s pornolized too.

(Strangely enough, I can’t tell if actually pornolizing TMFTML changes it much at all. Not that I expected it to with his literary contributions such as “graveside bukkake.”)

I’ve often marveled at the cult of celebrity that sometimes surrounds a limited few filmmakers. I don’t just mean directors about whom the vast majority of the public knows (Spielberg, Coppola, Scorsese, Stone) or even more recent filmmakers who moviegoers can also identify by name and maybe by face (Spike Jonze, Michel Gondry, Peter Jackson, Sofia Coppola). Audiences will, in fact, go to these directors’ movies just because it carries the credit, “A (blank) film.” Hell, that’s obviously true even for the worst major director out there, Michael Bay. And these filmmakers “enjoy” the lifestyle that comes with notoriety and success: they attend all the big parties, they appear in gossip pages, EW and US Weekly, and they carry a certain degree of celebrity. But they are still thought of for the films they make rather than the celebrations of their personas.

In the last 15 years, I can think of two filmmakers, however, whose celebration of themselves has transcended their notoriety for filmmaking. (I don’t include Woody Allen because his tabloid newsmaking aside, he’s essentially a recluse.) The first is Spike Lee. Whether it’s because of his Mars Blackmon character (which became more famous in Air Jordan commercials than the film it inhabited), or his courtside seats at Knicks games and newsmaking fights with Reggie Miller, or whatever controversy linked to his films he chooses to inflame, I’d venture to say more people know about Spike Lee and his activities off the set than actually go see any of his films. 25th Hour, a pretty major release with some name stars grossed only about $13-Million in the US. His previous feature, Bamboozled, grossed just over $2-Million. In fact, while many of Spike’s movies have made money due to their relatively low budgets and ultimate video and pay-TV packaging, they notoriously don’t gross big numbers. Malcolm X (with a little over $48-Million in the US) is the only Spike Lee “joint” to gross over $30-Million in its initial theatrical run.

Spike at least has been relatively prolific in his work, churning out some sort of film every year. Recently, he has concentrated much more on documentaries and a few television projects. And while Spike may occasionally get caught-up in his own celebrity, he doesn’t hold a candle to Quentin Tarantino! Today Cinecultist asks, “How is it that Quentin Tarantino’s head hasn’t become so big in the last 10 years of critical adulation that its just exploded?” She then presents several quotes from the deluge of recent Tarantino news (due to this weekend’s Kill Bill Vol. 2 release) that represent the worst of “QT’s pretensions.” And I couldn’t agree more.

Seriously, why does Tarantino think he’s so damn important? I’m not begrudging the publicity blitz. Nor am I trying to negate his obvious talents in the realm of filmmaking; nor his vast knowledge regarding popular and pop culture cinema. But why must we constantly be inundated with Tarantino. Even when he disappears from filmmaking, he doesn’t disappear. Did anyone actually ever tell him he could act? And is he actually a draw? I can’t believe QT brought one extra viewer to any of his appearances on Alias. His performance in the god-awful Destiny Turns on the Radio gave that film status as one of my all-time most hated. And the only reason he didn’t completely ruin From Dusk ‘Til Dawn is because there were vampires and Robert Rodriguez was directing.

Why the hell is he a guest judge on American Idol? In fact, it’s a good thing that the President’s press conference tonight will postpone our having to suffer through Tarantino’s AI critiques until tomorrow, and maybe with it being on tape, the producers will bless us by cutting away from him quicker than had we been subjected to him live. I would love to hear QT talk about his use of music in his films, but I have no interest in seeing him talk nice to a bunch of wannabe prefab pop stars. (In fact, could you imagine some sort of panel on music in the movies featuring Tarantino and Scorsese? The kinetic hyperactive energy between the two would be amazing! And combustible.) Is he going to tone himself down too? Or are they going to let him be surly? I imagine that’s Cowell’s private realm, and QT will have to be on the qt. But what’s the point of him appearing on the show anyway? Is it to get all those 15-year-old girls to go see the spurting blood, missing limbs and extreme-fighting of Kill Bill?

Really … I’m confused about this, so someone please fill me in. If his name is not credited with “A film by …” does anyone anywhere ever care about Quentin Tarantino and what he’s doing? Especially when he’s acting or making guest appearances? Fine, let him program “My Trio” and Samurai Action-Fest Vol. 2 on IFC (reportedly airing this Thursday 4/15 according to Cynopsis but I can’t find any info on the IFC site), but seriously Quentin, the rest of the time, leave us alone. Go ahead and hypnotize Mira into dating you again. Or keep stalking Uma. Most importantly, just keep making your films. I don’t love everything about all of them, but I always know I’ll see something that is at least fresh and interesting. In fact, maybe if you focused solely on filmmaking, you could even get rid of some of the self-indulgent crap that makes its way into them, and every moment would be important and meaningful rather than the frequent, “Ooh, doesn’t that look cool” sequences that pervaded Kill Bill Vol. 1. (And I liked it … I’m just saying ….) Meanwhile, I’ll be there this weekend to check out the blood and guts and gore, although I’m sure it will now seem tame since I’ve already seen Mel’s Christ child.

Over on the great Pamie.com blog, Pamie’s east-coast male co-blogger Dan posted a little ditty about movies he finds overrated and how he hates the disapproving looks and comments he receives from friends who can’t understand why he doesn’t enjoy what they found to be a masterpiece.

I would tend to disagree with Dan on the choices in his list (especially Adaptation, and he seems to be gunning for Eternal Sunshine …), but I’m a big defender of being able to criticize films with exaggeration. For instance, I love to say that anyone who likes Buffalo 66 needs a frontal lobotomy; or that just because Lost Highway (which I hated) comes first and Mulholland Drive (which I loved) resembles it in many ways, doesn’t mean that the former is superior to the latter. It’s not. I realize some people agree with me, and some people don’t, and obviously (or maybe not so much to some) the very nature of my having an opinion means that I think I’m right and someone else is wrong. I find both Buffalo 66 and Lost Highway to be masturbatory, overly self-indulgent examples of filmmakers orgasming onscreen in an effort to show how indie, artsy, creative, original and cool they are. In the case of Lynch, it was a misstep. In the case of Gallo, it’s his personality.

Anyway, it seems that many of Pamie and Dan’s readers (and I consider myself an avid fan of their blog and Pamie’s journal entries) get very defensive and protective, which is nice. I posted some comments to Dan’s post and whole shitstorm seems to have erupted, albeit a brief one. I don’t want to take up more of Pamie’s comment section, and there isn’t really anything more for me to say anyway, but if it brought you here and you still have something to say to me … be my guest. Besides, it is an interesting discussion and examination about how varied opinions can be over something as obscure as “quality.”

And by the way, since few seemed to actually understand my point over there, I’ll briefly (HA!) restate it here. I was not arguing against Dan’s opinions about the “overrated” movies he listed, regardless of how much I may disagree with him. I was primarily commenting on how his post was basically treating the opinions of those people who do “overrate” the film with the same disregard that so offends him when he is underwhelmed by a film others love.

And just to prove that I don’t have some weird fixation and ragging on Dan, you should all check-out his America’s Next Top Model recaps at Television Without Pity. They’re almost as good as the show.

According to this morning’s Cynopsis’ email newsletter (6th item), Peter Bogdanovich’s next “film” will be Hustle. What is Hustle you ask? It seems to be the story of Pete Rose’s gambling life according to Major League Baseball. Oh, and I guess he might shoot it on film, but it’s actually a TV movie made for (sigh) ESPN.

Peter, what happened to you? I’m not even going to get into the issue of whether or not Hustle deserves to be a movie. I think it will probably be fairly boring, but it’s natural material for ESPN as they continue to find a way to develop more original programming. But back to you, Peter: Why can’t you get a good job or make a good movie anymore? You were such a brilliant young filmmaker in the 70s, albeit occasionally uneven. The Last Picture Show and Paper Moon are essential viewing for anyone looking at that decade of film history. What’s Up Doc? is definitely a guilty pleasure. And even though they may be flawed, Nickelodeon, Saint Jack and They All Laughed each have their moments (not to mention some great performances). You even had a big commercial success with Mask. So then what happened?

Continue reading “MAYBE HE SHOULD STOP WEARING THE ASCOT”

Wednesdays from 10:00-11:30 PM on Comedy Central might just be the funniest 90 minutes of television. Ever. Starting with the revitalized South Park and ending with the consistently brilliant The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, those two half-hours alone present some of the best satire and criticism presented anywhere. But I must admit that until recently I was completely oblivious to the 30-minutes of pure, unadulterated, daring and almost always laugh-out-loud-even-when-I’m-sitting-alone-in-my-apartment comedy that emanates from the mind of Dave Chappelle on the wickedly funny Chappelle’s Show.

I am not overstating this. I’m not sure how I missed watching this series for so long. It’s not like I was unaware of Chappelle. With his acting, stand-up and frequent appearances on The Howard Stern Show, I knew that he had some sort of regular program on Comedy Central, but I had never watched it. Then suddenly a friend at the “new job” started talking about it and told me I had to watch.

Tonight’s episode was a perfect example of how creative and imaginative Chappelle is with this show. Generally, the episodes involve Chappelle doing bits of stand-up as introduction to a variety of sketches. Tonight, Chappelle was missing from the regular opening, replaced by Wayne Brady (for whom I have renewed respect after his performance making fun of his own image tonight). The opening song and title had been changed to “Wayne Brady’s Show,” and Brady explains that he’s taken over the show. It was now his and Dave was gone. Since Chappelle’s departure was abrupt, they have some old sketches to burn off, so he introduces a bit with Chappelle playing a homeless crack addict competing on Fear Factor.

After the commercial, though, sketches and “reality” merge as we see Dave watching Brady on TV. He returns to the studio and takes out some producers backstage before confronting Brady in front of the audience. They then flashback to two months before on a night where Brady and Chappelle were just “hanging out together,” where “hanging out” basically means Brady takes Chappelle hostage on an all-night crime spree. I won’t recap it for you; find the episode and watch it. Look out for Brady’s confrontation with a cop: I nearly started crying.

You don’t need to wait until next Wednesday or even frantically search your program guide to see what I’m talking about. This Saturday night from 9 PM to 2 AM, Comedy Central is airing a marathon of 10 straight episodes. Set those DiVos, TiVos, VCRs or just stay home for a change. Unlike SNL, even when a Chappelle sketch falls a bit flat, there’s still a really funny premise there. If you’re not watching, give Chappelle’s Show a chance. You won’t be sorry.

I’m still somewhat time-challenged this week, but I wanted to pass along a bit of important news. Remember way back when, in days of yore, when this blog was just starting? That’s right, just about a month ago. And I posted a little blurb about the upcoming 3rd Annual Tribeca Film Festival and how you could see the program online? But I was actually wrong. Oh wait … no? Don’t remember? Ah … well … moving on.

Well, now I’m not! Wrong that is. Head on over to tribecafilmfestival.org to find out everything you need to know about this year’s goings-on in downtown Manhattan from May 1-9. The web site is live and the program guide is now online. There’s a great huge program of films to choose from and a lot of other events (including several really interesting panels and another incarnation of the Family Festival) as well. Additionally, they’re doing the outdoor “drive-in theater” screenings again on Pier 25, and “we the people” can help decide one of the films via the online poll happening right now via the web site.

But most importantly, head down to Tribeca that first week of May, bring Mom for Mother’s Day weekend, and help the TFF continue to grow. This year should be the best one yet. You know, third time being a charm and all.