A song R.E.M. composed for Milos Forman’s Andy Kaufman-biopic “Man on the Moon” in 1999. A beautiful song about death and dying. 14 years later, it still packs quite the emotional punch without being sappy or melodramatic.
Z Channel was a Los Angeles-based cable-TV movie channel that was active during the 1970s and 1980s. What made Z Channel different from HBO, Showtime, and other popular movie channels at the time was their eclectic programming and willingness to show films no one else was showing on television, cable or otherwise. The programmer, a man by the name of Jerry Harvey, was a hardcore cinephile and was diligent about tracking down the most obscure cinematic gems. His intelligence, intensity, and diligence impressed (and sometimes annoyed) a lot of filmmakers, studio executives, and other creative types in Hollywood.
Z Channel was incredibly popular with the creative community in Hollywood. Harvey was so well-respected, he was able to get the rights to show Woody Allen’s “Annie Hall” during the 1977 Oscar season (while it was still in many theaters) which arguably led to its multiple Oscar nominations and wins. He also championed Oliver Stone’s “Salvador,” which also led to its critical resurgence and subsequent Oscar nominations in 1986. However, Harvey’s most important legacy was the promotion of the so-called “director’s cut” and “letterboxing,” which preserved the widescreen composition of films for viewing on non-widescreen TVs. In 1983, he showed the original director’s cut version of Michael Cimino’s “Heaven’s Gate,” a film many considered a notorious flop, but a film that Harvey felt was a great film undermined by studio tinkering and the director’s own insecurity after the original director’s cut was severely criticized. This led to premiering Bernardo Bertolucci’s 5 1/2 hour European (and in America, X-rated) director’s cut of his classic “1900,” as well as the European cut of Luchino Visconti’s masterpiece “The Leopard.”
Despite the professional respect he won by many in the creative community, Harvey was a very, very troubled man. He eventually shot and killed his second wife, before committing suicide in 1988.
“Z Channel: A Magnificent Obsession” is a great documentary not only about Z Channel and the early days of cable TV, but of Harvey himself. It was directed by John Cassevetes’ daughter Alexandra Cassevetes and contains interviews with Quentin Tarantino, Robert Altman, Paul Verhoeven, Vilmos Zsigmond, Henry Jaglom, Jacqueline Bisset, Alexander Payne, Jim Jarmusch, Theresa Russell, James Woods, Penelope Spheeris and many, many other directors, screenwriters, and actors who testify about the importance and influence of Z Channel.
While a lot of it is sad, the documentary is an orgy for film buffs, with lots of great clips and interviews. This is one of my desert island films.
“Ordinary People” winning the Best Picture Oscar over “Raging Bull” in 1980 is considered one of the biggest cinematic crimes of all time by many. I’m not one of those people. “Raging Bull” is, indeed, the better film, but “Ordinary People” is a really good movie and much better than its reputation would have you believe. (Funny, but no one complains that “Coal Miner’s Daughter” got robbed that year … which is one of THE best biopics of all time … but I digress).
“Ordinary People” is often dismissed as the type of middlebrow melodrama that philistines give points to because it displays such “good taste.” That’s not entirely unfair, but “Ordinary People” has a lot of virtues. It contains a great script by Alvin Sargent, admirable (albeit non-flashy) directing by Redford, and best of all, solid acting performances by Donald Sutherland (arguably his best performance … and one that is severely underrated), Mary Tyler Moore, Judd Hirsch, Elizabeth McGovern (who is receiving a well-deserved career resurgence on “Downton Abbey,”) … and Timothy Hutton.
Timothy Hutton won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor that year for this film, but he’s actually the lead. He should have been a contender for Best Actor, but considering his competition that year included Robert DeNiro for “Raging Bull,” Peter O’Toole for “The Stuntman,” John Hurt for “The Elephant Man,” and Robert Duvall for “The Great Santini,” putting Hutton in the Supporting Actor category was probably a shrewder move. His character is the center of the film and Hutton’s extremely rich performance is the emotional core.
Hutton’s performance is so raw, so wounded, so ferocious, it’s one of the best performances I’ve ever seen by any actor. It is the equivalent of James Dean’s performance in “Rebel Without a Cause,” only without the method actor baggage that Dean brings to “Rebel.” It’s an incredibly intense performance that’s neither mannered or pretentious. As much as I love Sean Penn, many of his performances ultimately seem like acting. Hutton’s portrayal of a teenager trying to come to grips with his brother’s death, his own suicide attempt (due to guilt over his brother’s death), and the fact that his mother may not love him seems heartbreakingly real.
Hutton seemed poised to become one of the best and most successful actors of his generation. But fate had a different idea in mind. What’s sad is that Hutton didn’t piss away his talent with bad choices or bad movies … at least not in the beginning. With the exception of “Taps” (which was a hit), none of his follow-up performances achieved the popular or critical success of “Ordinary People.” And all of these follow-up performances were perfectly admirable choices: “Taps,” Sidney Lumet’s “Daniel,” John Schlesinger’s “The Falcon and the Snowman,” and Fred Schepisi’s “Iceman.” All of these films were among the best, if not underrated films, of the first half of the 1980s. This was an era before young actors were seeking out their “franchise” to bank $100 million before they got relegated to character roles. Hutton has stayed employed over the years and it’s always a joy to see him on screen. But Hutton should have had the career Sean Penn had (though please note, I am in no way saying Penn doesn’t richly deserve the great success he’s obtained). If anyone deserves a Robert Downey Jr.-style comeback, it’s Hutton. He’s the real deal.
It’s taken me several months to catch up with Quentin Tarantino’s “Django Unchained,” but I finally watched it a couple of days ago. My quick response about this film is that I thought it was great, easily of Tarantino’s best films. There are some spoilers below, so if you haven’t seen it and/or don’t want to know what happens, you should probably stop reading. I just can’t talk about this film and my reaction to it without revealing things that happen.
I had a much different reaction to it than I normally would to the usual Tarantino film. With the exception of “Death Proof” (which I liked but didn’t love), Tarantino’s films usually leave me breathless and giddy by the end of them. I remember seeing “Inglourious Basterds” late one night in 2009 and not being able to get to sleep for at least three hours after because I was so wired. However, at the end of “Django Unchained,” I felt shattered and wrung out.
Like “Kill Bill” and “Inglourious Basterds,” “Django Unchained” is a brilliant revenge thriller that takes a while to set up, but the lengthy and compelling set-up explodes in the most astonishing of ways. Yet “Django Unchained” was a lot different and it took me a few days to fully comprehend why I felt the way I did.
Like most Tarantino films, there is a lot of dark humor and humorous violence in “Django Unchained.” But there’s also a lot of horrific violence (the scenes depicting the torture and murder of slaves) as well as much of the dialogue (discussing how subhuman the slaves are by the slaveowners) that’s hard to shake. Please note that this isn’t a criticism of the film. Slavery was an ugly, nasty period of American history and to his credit, Tarantino depicts this part of the story in a non-humorous, non-ironic way.
The movie that it most reminded me of was Sam Peckinpah’s “Straw Dogs.” “Straw Dogs” is a violent revenge film, but it doesn’t play out in the ways you expect or even want a revenge melodrama to take place. Yes, there is a violent revenge taken out against people deserving of it. But it’s done based on a misunderstanding and not for the reasons for why it should be carried out. Setting the story up this way is Peckinpah calling the audience out on their blood lust and making them pay dearly for it.
Yes, I was extremely happy when Jamie Foxx’s Django enacts revenge on a lot of evil people who deserve it. But the set up surrounding it was so terrible to watch, I felt drained and didn’t want to talk to anyone for a long time after it was over. I don’t know if this was Tarantino’s intent, but I would argue that it was. The scenes depicting the torture and murder of slaves are so upsetting, that watching Django enact his revenge doesn’t have the same lift it would have had these scenes not been shown. The revenge violence is less entertaining than sad, even though you don’t feel sorry for the people being blown away. The fact that this is THE most violent and bloody of all of Tarantino’s films overall may be part of a bigger, deeper point.
I believe Tarantino is trying to make the audience come to terms with its own savagery. Because when you laugh ironically at someone’s violent death in a film, it requires a certain amount of dehumanization. Dramatically, I’m not saying this is either good or bad. Nor am I condemning anyone for loving Tarantino’s films. I love Tarantino’s films immensely. But to deny that dehumanization is taking place when you enjoy them, is looking at the films dishonestly. And the juxtaposition the dehumanization of slaves by many of the characters in “Django Unchained” with the dehumanization an audience feels when they enjoy watching someone die onscreen in a graphic way is a painfully meta-textual way of proving a point … and to come to a complex emotional truth about the nature of violent art.
Or maybe not … History may prove me wrong, but I would be willing to bet that “Django Unchained” will be a transitional film in Tarantino’s oeuvre. It will be interesting to see what Tarantino does next and whether he continues viewing the subject of violence in an increasingly complex manner. In any case, “Django Unchained” is an incredibly deep and heavy film in every sense of the word.
Arguably the best … and darkest … of the high-octane Joel Silver-produced action films from the period between 1982 and 1993 (and that includes “Die Hard” and “Lethal Weapon,” which Black also wrote), “The Last Boy Scout” is a film noir on steroids. Yes, it has Bruce Willis and Damon Wayans. Yes, it has lots of over-the-top violence and rat-a-tat dialogue. But … Willis and Wayans play SEVERELY flawed characters. Willis is a former celebrated Secret Service agent who lost his job, is drowning in booze and low self-esteem, and has a wife who throws her affair with his best friend in his face. Wayans is a former professional football player whose promising career was ruined by drug problems. As you can predict, both characters are thrown together by chance to solve the murder of Wayans’ stripper girlfriend (an early role by future-Oscar winner Halle Berry) and their efforts may lead to a shot at redemption … maybe. Unlike nowadays, you don’t get the sense there’s been a complete redemption of either character, but you do get the sense that things will go better.
The best scene in the film is featured here. Unfortunately, it doesn’t include the next minute of the scene which makes the previous two minutes even funnier, but what’s here is damn good:
As much as Quentin Tarantino is celebrated for his mix of humor and darkness, Shane Black is sometimes unfairly underrated for doing a similar thing. Black is one of the most financially successful screenwriters of all time (“Boy Scout”‘s script set a then-record of a $1.75 million sale to a studio), but because Black didn’t start off in the art-film world, some people have condemned him as a hack. To those who think this, you really should read Black’s original script, which is way darker than the resulting film:
http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Last-Boy-Scout,-The.html
Much of the original script made it into the final film, but the last third is WAY different, is much more violent and dark (including a snuff film subplot), and had the original script been shot as is, would have rated an NC-99. If you’re a fan of Shane Black’s (or even Tarantino), it’s well worth reading. And of course, the film Scott made after “The Last Boy Scout” was Tarantino’s “True Romance.” But, that’s another story …
Ted Kotcheff is one of the most underrated directors of the past several decades. He doesn’t have a particular recognizable style like Martin Scorsese or a Robert Altman. Oftentimes, he makes a mediocre or bad film for every good film he does. But Kotcheff has made some damn good movies. And a VERY diverse list of good films: “Wake in Fright,” “The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz,” the original “First Blood,” “Uncommon Valor” (the FIRST … and BEST … of the Vietnam POW rescue films), “Weekend at Bernie’s” and his best film, “North Dallas Forty.”
“North Dallas Forty” is based on a novel written by former Dallas Cowboy Peter Gent and is thought to be a thinly-disguised version of events from when he was on the team. Because many of the players are grossly immature, the film is often very raunchy and funny. This scene between Nick Nolte’s wide receiver Phil Elliott and Mac Davis’s quarterback Seth Maxwell (allegedly based on former Cowboy Don Meredith) is probably the best example of this. However, the language is very rough and not safe for work:
But the film is also incredibly sad. The film shows how much pain the players endure, oftentimes inflicting permanent damage on themselves to stay in the game and taking narcotics (with the encouragement of the heartless coaches and management) to push past the pain to keep playing.
Nolte arguably gives his finest performance as an aging player whose increasing use of painkillers to stay competitive is taking a serious toll on his body. The opening scene (which I can’t find on YouTube) where Elliott struggles to get out of bed is particularly harrowing to watch. Also terrific is Davis, G.D. Spradlin as the cold-blooded coach B.A. Strother (patterned on Cowboys coach Tom Landry), Charles Durning as the heartless Coach Johnson, Bo Svenson as the dim-witted and tough Joe Bob Priddy, and former Oakland Raider John Matuszak as O.W. Shadduck. Shadduck actually has one of the best scenes in the film where he gets into a verbal and physical altercation with Coach Johnson after a particularly rough game. Some very rough language here, but a damn good scene:
An excellent, almost sadly forgotten masterpiece from the 1970s and one of the best sports movies ever made.
From the White House Correspondent’s dinner … THE Oscar contender for 2013!
Oh … my … God! Ostensibly, a modern film noir erotic suspense thriller, “Wild Things” is one of the most deliriously nasty and hysterically funny films ever made. If you aren’t laughing your ass off throughout this movie, you either have no sense of humor or are dead.
Before “Wild Things,” director John McNaughton was best known for the intense classic “Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer” and the critically acclaimed, but under-appreciated thriller “Normal Life” (discussed earlier on Dave’s Strange World). However, “Wild Things” wound up becoming McNaughton’s most popular and best-known film. While “Basic Instinct” is the magna carta of erotic thrillers, “Wild Things” is its disreputable punk rock cousin, pissing all over whatever “class” “Instinct” had.
Recounting the plot is pointless. Mainly because there are double, triple, quadruple, quintuple … ad nauseum crosses with added red herrings that extend even into the credits. The fact that a new (and frequent) plot twist completely changes the meaning of everything you saw before it is part of the fun.
To call “Wild Things” sleazy is damning it with faint praise. Of course it’s sleazy … but trust me, it takes a lot of talent to make something this disreputable so much fun. The performances by Kevin Bacon, Matt Dillon, Denise Richards, Neve Campbell, and Bill Murray are pitch perfect for the insanity you’ll experience while watching it. As much as I love “Color of Night” for its bats–t craziness, “Wild Things” delivers everything “Color of Night” has in a much cooler, confident manner. If you’ve never seen it, you’re in for a major, major treat. Like a bad (but still enjoyable) one-night-stand, you’ll hate yourself the next day … but only to a certain extent.
One of the most disturbing films ever made, Gaspar Noe’s “Irreversible” contains a classic movie trope (rape and then revenge for the rape), but completely undermines it by telling the story in reverse. Instead of seeing a horrible crime and its aftermath, you see the aftermath first … then the trauma … the events leading up the trauma … and then life when the trauma would not even be conceivable for its characters. The decision to show this sequence of events in reverse is positively devastating. While this film contains scenes of near-unwatchable graphic violence and sexual brutality, the film’s final scene … which is a peaceful scene set in a park with the lead female protagonist … is arguably, the most painful to watch … mainly because we know what’s ahead and it’s unbearable to watch someone who has no idea what physical and psychic devastation lays ahead for them.
“Irreversible” was the most notorious film of the 2002 Cannes Film Festival, prompting walk-outs and severe denunciations. I can completely understand this, because the film is one of the most brutalizing cinematic experiences you’ll ever see. But it’s not only thematically ballsy, but artistically so. This is a great, great film, but not a film that you’d want to watch more than once. I would not find fault with anyone who would refuse to watch this on principle. Even if you think you have a strong stomach, “Irreversible” will go beyond what you think you can handle. But don’t let the severe subject matter dissuade you from thinking this is a great film. It is a devastating masterpiece, but please proceed with extreme caution. This is an NC-17 film that makes “Showgirls” look like “E.T.” I’m not kidding at all in saying this. The film stars internationally renowned actors Monica Belluci and Victor Cassel.
First a disclaimer. The film “Bully” being discussed here is not the critically acclaimed documentary released in 2012, but a docudrama released in 2001. With that out of the way …
Like most of Larry Clark’s films, “Bully” is a hard film to recommend to people, let alone admit that you liked or admired it. If you know what I’m talking about, then you know Clark tends to let his camera linger a little too long on things that would prompt most rational people to call the police.
“Bully” is no exception. Like Clark’s earlier, better-known, and arguably more notorious debut film “Kids,” “Bully” is a disturbing look at young people with no values, no moral compass, and, if truth be told, no brains. The kids of Clark’s films aren’t misunderstood lost souls battling adults who don’t understand them or who live in an environment that will never let them get ahead. In “Bully,” the kids are comfortably middle-class, but aside from working minimum wage jobs in strip malls, don’t appear to have any ambition other than getting high or getting laid.
“Bully” is a tale about the murder of a real-life teenage bully and rapist named Bobby. There’s no doubt that Bobby is a loathsome individual. However, what makes the film “Bully” so interesting is how the plot to murder him by the people he abused is planned, executed, and then concluded. It doesn’t take a criminologist to conclude that most violent crime is committed by people who are not that smart. Clark’s film is one of the most vivid portrayals of extremely stupid people carrying out a heinous act and then practically giving themselves away. It’s not a matter of someone snitching, but with all the insanely dumb things that are done before, during, and after the act, you’re actually shocked that their plot isn’t found out earlier.
Please believe me when I say that “Bully” is one of the most disturbing films you’ll ever see. It’s the only film I’ve ever seen that made me want to shower afterwards … with the help of a wire brush and Comet cleanser. The movie hit home for me in a lot of ways, mainly because the Florida setting and aimlessness of the characters reminded me a lot of the people I knew in the beach community where I grew up. However, as graphic and as sickening as the unrated film often is (its NC-17 rating was surrendered), you may think on first glance that this is just another Clark perv-fest. (The notorious “crotch cam” shot doesn’t help dispel this notion). However, not only is “Bully” based on a true story and fairly accurate (at least as far as the events as portrayed in the Jim Schutze true crime book of the same name are concerned) but that, if anything, Clark showed “restraint” in making his film, because the real version of events are even more disturbing and harrowing that what’s depicted here.
The film contains some brilliant performances, especially by Brad Renfro as Marty, Bobby’s best friend, biggest victim, and someone Bobby has a homoerotic fixation on; Leo Fitzpatrick as the moronic suburban “hitman” hired by the crew; Rachel Miner as Marty’s girlfriend Lisa, who is raped (and may be pregnant) by Bobby; Bijou Phillips as Ali, Bobby’s sometime girlfriend and rape victim; and last, but certainly not least, Nick Stahl as Bobby, the loathsome bully of the film and victim of doltish mob justice.
“Bully” in my opinion, is not only Clark’s masterpiece, but one of the best true crime films ever made.
Please note that the trailer attached here is not safe for work.
Dave's Strange World 