Peter Bogdanovich on ‘To Catch a Thief’ & The Modern Hollywood Narrative

Criticism, Film — Steve on May 7, 2007 at 9:25 pm

Today, which directors are making films that are consistent with those concerns?

Not as many as I might like, although I hesitate to make sweeping statements, because I don’t see everything. It seems to me that one of problems today is that there’s a lack of film culture. Films are not constructed as well they used to be. There’s a lot of technical expertise on display, but with some exceptions, the storytelling is less effective, and it seems that what used to be thought of as B pictures are now A pictures.  I don’t want to suggest that there’s no value in B pictures, because I love B pictures.

But when you look back on pictures like How Green Was My Valley or The Grapes of Wrath or The Best Years of Our Lives or From Here to Eternity, they’re intelligent, well-constructed, sophisticated movies about people. And at one time, movies like that didn’t just come out in the last couple of months of the year. They came out regularly, a lot of them were modestly scaled, and people went out and saw them and talked about them, and they were made by the major studios. The only people routinely making pictures like that today are the so-called independents.

Look at The Lives of Others. It’s the kind of picture Hollywood used to be able to make. On a basic level it works as a very suspenseful thriller. On the highest level, it works as an indictment of totalitarianism. And on a kind of middle level, it works as a human drama. Hollywood used to make those sorts of pictures all the time—pictures that worked on multiple levels, but were made for a wide audience, not a limited audience.

Is this a permanent condition?

I don’t know, but it’s a pretty depressing situation.

Time Out New York: Hitchcock–eyed

DIE HARD, aka GREATEST AMERICAN ACTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME

Criticism, Film — Steve on May 3, 2007 at 1:10 am

Apparenlty Vanity Fair is reporting in its June issue that Bruce Willis is disappointed that the fourth (and final?) Die Hard movie will be editied as to get a ‘PG-13′ rating rather than a ‘R’ rating. AICN’s Vern has this response:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the movie was called LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD. But from what Vanity Fair is saying here, it sounds more like LIVE FREE OR DIE– WELL, LET’S NOT DIE TOO HARD, THERE ARE CHILDREN PRESENT. Which, in my opinion, is not as good of a title.

If you make this PG-13, you might get your opening weekend, it might be as big as if it was R. On the other hand, people might say “What? A new DIE HARD? Where he’s bald? And the title is funny? And the Macintosh guy is in it? And fucking Silent Bob? And it’s PG-13? I don’t want to see that shit!” Or, “Bruce Willis said it was supposed to be R-rated, and he was really disappointed, I’ll just wait until the real, actual adult version of the movie is available for free, illegal, non-Fox-money-giving download after some pissed off studio employee leaks it.”

Yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker!

Ain’t It Cool News: Vern has some words for you about the pansy-assing of the 4th DIE FLACCID movie.

Bringing back the dead

Criticism, Film — Steve on April 15, 2007 at 10:08 pm

Rodriguez’s film, like most of its kind, is about fear and survival. Tarantino’s gives us death turned to triumph. Planet Terror, you might say, is the Old Testament; Death Proof (what better title?) the New. If the combined elements of cinematic self-reflexiveness and Christian symbolism have always been present in Tarantino’s work, nowhere are they so clear as here. And that’s why the elegiac aspects of Grindhouse end up as something of cheerful illusion. Cinema of the ’70s may be dead, we sense, but through audacious uses of celluloid (not CGI!) like that in Death Proof, cinema itself is endlessly reborn.

And you thought it was mere coincidence that this movie hit theaters at Easter?

Independent Weekly: Grindhouse aims to resurrect movies, not bury them

Cartoons, B movies, & Bad Science Fiction

Criticism, Film — Steve on April 12, 2007 at 10:54 pm

To watch [Aqua Teen Hunger Force] is to give up entirely on linear narrative and just sort of groove on the sudden shifts of pop-cultural reality. ATHF can seem brilliantly deconstructive one moment and stupefyingly boring the next — or to provide a more accurate ratio, it can follow five brilliant seconds with five straight minutes of boredom.

Slate Magazine: Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie reviewed

Nothing Changes

Criticism, Television — Steve on April 12, 2007 at 3:46 pm

Movie snobs (those who look down their noses at TV for not being movies) trumpet commercial narrative cinema’s preference for a forward-moving, goal-directed story in which characters face problems, learn something about themselves and change (usually, but not always, for the better); they contrast this tendency with TV’s open-endedness, its cyclical repetitions, and its addiction to what might be called kinetic stasis — the dramatic equivalent of running in place. And it’s true: Kinetic stasis is TV storytelling’s DNA. On TV, characters do things and have things done to them; they go through dark nights of the soul, or get married or divorced, bury a child, go back to school and drop out, convert to Catholicism or buy a new boat; but in the end, they don’t really change all that much, because if they did, viewers that tuned in each week to be reassured by the sight of familiar characters and situations would get irritated and stop watching, the ratings would fall, the sponsors would pull out, and soon there would be no show. Every now and then comes a show like The Wire and Deadwood, where there’s a continual sense of collective forward motion, and key characters change so drastically that from one season to the next that they truly seem to have become different people. But these exceptions don’t disprove the rule.

Intriguingly, though, some of the most memorable TV shows — usually comedies like The Honeymooners and All in the Family and Everybody Loves Raymond — don’t bother depicting characters that grow and change because they aren’t interested in that process and perhaps, on some level, don’t believe that it happens as often as movies and plays and novels would have us believe. These series would rather show us the many ways in which human beings don’t change — the ways in which they stay consistent, true to form or type, from cradle to grave, despite occasional flurries of effort designed to convince themselves and their loved ones that this is it, they’re really changing, and from now on everything is going to be different.

The Sopranos is the ultimate example of this. It takes the kinetic stasis that’s an incidental quality of other shows and puts it right in the foreground. On some level, The Sopranos is often about characters becoming the thing that their subculture requires them to be, or the thing they were born to be. Anyone who goes against preconditioning, whatever its form, suffers. Eugene Pontecorvo wanted out, was told he couldn’t leave, and hung himself; Vito Spatafore came out of the closet, found the beginnings of a new life, then tried to return home a changed man and got beaten to death in a cheap motel room. Christopher keeps trying and failing to kick drugs, but his real drug is Da Family. He gave up his true love to appease it — a gangster to the core. A.J. can’t really force himself to break away from the family; he gestures toward creating a new life with Blanca and her kids, but under his parents’ roof. (The episode has a good laugh at the expense of A.J.’s identifying with Blanca’s culture when Tony comes home from jail and A.J. says, “in my neighborhood people don’t get out right away.”) Meadow has spent the entire series trying to be something other than a godfather’s daughter (rather comically — the show rarely takes her aspirations seriously) and now seems to have grown closer to her parents than ever before. (When the cops roust Tony in “Soprano Home Movies,” she complains to her mom, “That show of force — was that all about humiliating dad?” Yep — just like the feds hauling Johnny Sack away from his daughter’s wedding.) And Carmela and Tony’s marriage is an affectionate bond that rests on a bedrock of lies, trades and compromises; she’s a mob wife and he’s a mobster, and that’s that.

I can’t help but agree with David Chase’s cynical view. People don’t change.

The House Next Door: Sopranos Mondays: Season 6, Ep. 13, “Soprano Home Movies”

Morals and Principles? Those are for other people.

Criticism, Television — Steve on April 11, 2007 at 10:13 pm

“The Sopranos” isn’t just one of the most stylistically influential dramas in TV history. It’s also the most cynical — a worst-case scenario look at human nature in which the inhabitants of an insular, paranoid, highly materialistic subculture are confronted with the choice between doing the right thing and the convenient thing, and nearly always go with option B. It’s a butt-backwards cautionary tale that asks, “What should one do in order to be a moral person?” and then replies, “Not this.”

Every episode has contained multiple examples of people taking the easy way out. [N]o one is inclined to stand on principle, not because it would cost them too much, but simply because it would cost them.

[The show] may be about gangsters and family life, but it uses those subjects to get at something larger: the materialism and myopia that defines contemporary American life; the “Me first” mentality written in blood.

The Star-Ledger: Me-first at its worst

Devin the Dude

Criticism, Music — Steve on March 30, 2007 at 11:56 pm

In 2002, he released the brilliant Just Tryin’ Ta Live, wherein “to live” essentially meant “to get as high as humanly possible.” It featured the fluttery “Doobie Ashtray,” a masterful lament about the need for weed in times of personal crisis, and the heartache of having your last puffs poached by greedy friends. (Spoiler alert: After a dry-mouthed scramble, order is restored when he finds a quality bag behind his couch.)

Slate Magazine: “The workmanlike charms of Devin the Dude.” By Hua Hsu

© 2007 Steven Andrew Miller | Linnwood’s Notes