May 4th, 2012

Almost everything written about Rivette’s prolix tale of magic, mischief, female bonding, and met-narrative focuses on its seeming impossibility—a three-hour odyssey that’s both irresistibly watchable and theoretically rigorous. But “quirky epic” encapsulates the problem, or the brilliance, of the film in a single phrase. Quirk is intimate, personal, and often coded as feminine; epics are sweeping, totalizing and, sure, male. Quirk is enjoyable, epics are edifying. Celine and Julie Go Boating doesn’t dwell on these apparent contrasts. Instead, as with so many things French around this time, it dissolves or reverses these binaries. It becomes all those things at once: the quirky epic. What it leaves us with, though, isn’t a grumpy mess, but a glorious, mysterious sense of relief that sticks with you well past viewing.

Read the rest of my piece at Capital New York

March 11th, 2012

Mercedes McCambridge and friends.

August 28th, 2011

Dear Miranda July

SPOILER ALERT: I hate myself for doing this, because I really did like The Future, and I know that this was kind of the point of the whole film. But would it have been so hard to murder off those people at the end instead of that adorable metaphysical talking cat?

Best,
Shoals

August 20th, 2011

Fernando Arrabal’s Viva la Muerte is really good, but I don’t necessarily think you should see it. The intro, above, is a lot of fun. Here’s the trailer, and an outrageously gory sequence that’s actually closer to what the film is all about. Hang out with it at the Grand Illusion this weekend if you live in Seattle.

August 5th, 2011

Patricia Neal, LIFE. Didn’t this magazine used to come to every family’s home?

August 4th, 2011
Bethlehem Shoals: I have tried at least ten times to write about They Live By Night and can never manage a single sentence.Eric Marsh: I realized about one-third of the way through that I have, indeed, seen Altman’s Thieves Like Us, but only in bits and pieces on TV, and was marveling at how great Cathy O’Donnell is (that is, better than Duvall, duh) and how much I prefer Ray’s subtle, expressionistic style with the material, rather than Altman’s somewhat vulgar (zooms + flat, dull lighting) approach.BS: Thieves Like Us really upset me. I’m intensely pro-Altman, and if it weren’t They Live By Night transposed. I kind of liked the use of zooms and wan lighting to convey ardor and boredom at the same time, and as a means of skirting malaise without knowing, or wanting, to commit to it. But seeing those characters, and that story, depicted that way—especially when They Live By Night is so luminous and heart-wrenching—was just a drag. It was like dining with an old friend who has decided that all the time we spent together had been a distraction from some totally boring true life’s goal.EM: One thing that stuck with me, though I might be hard pressed to remember a specific example, is how certain words or actions seem to repeat themselves in the film—which gives it this sort of eerie sense of deja vu as its weaving certain elements in and out, adding to an overall sense of continuity (in story) that I found to be just damn good filmmaking.BS: I really liked when Ebert tweeted that Tree of Life was “a prayer”, until I saw the movie and realized how literal that was. But the recurrence of language and gestures in They Live By Night does have an incantatory, hypnotic, effect. This is how emotion gain momentum, and how a love story that the audience buys because of faith and chemistry, manifests itself as something vaguely mystical. These are things we share.EM: The end is a real fucking tearjerker and I’m sure you know that, but just wanted to bring that up because it’s just so damn moving, for real. Which is impressive, since I kind of think that Farley Granger/Bowie is walking a real thin line between being insufferably self-centered and whiney a lot of the time, and yet, the film manages to steer away from that when it needs to most. I’m not sure why I’m having this impulse to talk about actors, either, since they’re generally the least of my concerns (critically), and yet They Live by Night almost (definitely?) demands it.BS: It is funny to think of the two performances in isolation. I don’t think I ever have before. He feeds off of her, and given how hard she starts out, there’s something to him—however annoying and soft-macho he may be—that opens her up.EM: There’s definitely a certain sensitivity in Granger’s performance that’s just so vulnerable and earnest, even when misguided (which is more of a writing thing), that makes Keechie’s love completely believable and truthful. Funny that you use the term ‘soft-macho’ since, after seeing Bitter Victory, it became a whole lot clearer that Ray himself made a habit of tearing down the macho-posturing of men. Rosenbaum thinks Ray’s bisexuality might have had an effect on this, as well as his own uncontrollable personal failings.BS: Cathy O’Donnell in that movie is just perfect to me in every way. She almost embodies love, or love-object, or partner in love.There are times when he seems in awe of her, or unsure how to respond, but he’s as responsible for their bond as she is. He just, in typical dude fashion, doesn’t get that. And yes, doesn’t really get himself. Whereas her character, at every point in the film, is more self-aware and just generally more clued in. Related: He is totally cause-and-effect, and his plot arc is built like that. She’s got faith, which leads to more ambiguity.EM: The best thing about his awe of her is that it’s the audience’s awe as well—the film, I think, delivers on its promise of their bond, giving equal weight and importance to each side, making the audience feel it. Speaking from a strictly male perspective, how can one NOT become enamored with O’Donnell as the near-perfect embodiment of love/love-object/etc? When a film is able to inject such strongly vicarious feelings, something is just fucking working.Why is it, do you think, that you can’t write about it?BS: I think I am in love with it.

Bethlehem Shoals: I have tried at least ten times to write about They Live By Night and can never manage a single sentence.

Eric Marsh: I realized about one-third of the way through that I have, indeed, seen Altman’s Thieves Like Us, but only in bits and pieces on TV, and was marveling at how great Cathy O’Donnell is (that is, better than Duvall, duh) and how much I prefer Ray’s subtle, expressionistic style with the material, rather than Altman’s somewhat vulgar (zooms + flat, dull lighting) approach.

BS: Thieves Like Us really upset me. I’m intensely pro-Altman, and if it weren’t They Live By Night transposed. I kind of liked the use of zooms and wan lighting to convey ardor and boredom at the same time, and as a means of skirting malaise without knowing, or wanting, to commit to it. But seeing those characters, and that story, depicted that way—especially when They Live By Night is so luminous and heart-wrenching—was just a drag. It was like dining with an old friend who has decided that all the time we spent together had been a distraction from some totally boring true life’s goal.

EM: One thing that stuck with me, though I might be hard pressed to remember a specific example, is how certain words or actions seem to repeat themselves in the film—which gives it this sort of eerie sense of deja vu as its weaving certain elements in and out, adding to an overall sense of continuity (in story) that I found to be just damn good filmmaking.

BS: I really liked when Ebert tweeted that Tree of Life was “a prayer”, until I saw the movie and realized how literal that was. But the recurrence of language and gestures in They Live By Night does have an incantatory, hypnotic, effect. This is how emotion gain momentum, and how a love story that the audience buys because of faith and chemistry, manifests itself as something vaguely mystical. These are things we share.

EM: The end is a real fucking tearjerker and I’m sure you know that, but just wanted to bring that up because it’s just so damn moving, for real. Which is impressive, since I kind of think that Farley Granger/Bowie is walking a real thin line between being insufferably self-centered and whiney a lot of the time, and yet, the film manages to steer away from that when it needs to most. I’m not sure why I’m having this impulse to talk about actors, either, since they’re generally the least of my concerns (critically), and yet They Live by Night almost (definitely?) demands it.

BS: It is funny to think of the two performances in isolation. I don’t think I ever have before. He feeds off of her, and given how hard she starts out, there’s something to him—however annoying and soft-macho he may be—that opens her up.

EM: There’s definitely a certain sensitivity in Granger’s performance that’s just so vulnerable and earnest, even when misguided (which is more of a writing thing), that makes Keechie’s love completely believable and truthful. Funny that you use the term ‘soft-macho’ since, after seeing Bitter Victory, it became a whole lot clearer that Ray himself made a habit of tearing down the macho-posturing of men. Rosenbaum thinks Ray’s bisexuality might have had an effect on this, as well as his own uncontrollable personal failings.

BS: Cathy O’Donnell in that movie is just perfect to me in every way. She almost embodies love, or love-object, or partner in love.There are times when he seems in awe of her, or unsure how to respond, but he’s as responsible for their bond as she is. He just, in typical dude fashion, doesn’t get that. And yes, doesn’t really get himself. Whereas her character, at every point in the film, is more self-aware and just generally more clued in. Related: He is totally cause-and-effect, and his plot arc is built like that. She’s got faith, which leads to more ambiguity.

EM: The best thing about his awe of her is that it’s the audience’s awe as well—the film, I think, delivers on its promise of their bond, giving equal weight and importance to each side, making the audience feel it. Speaking from a strictly male perspective, how can one NOT become enamored with O’Donnell as the near-perfect embodiment of love/love-object/etc? When a film is able to inject such strongly vicarious feelings, something is just fucking working.

Why is it, do you think, that you can’t write about it?

BS: I think I am in love with it.

July 25th, 2011

Serious Masterpiece Contemporary spoilers lurk ahead, among others things: I watched the second Zen last night; the provocatively titled “Cabal” was, indeed, about a vast criminal conspiracy, until it wasn’t, until it was again at the very end, to such a degree that much of “Cabal” ends up feeling like a well-meaning misdirection. I was to understand that these things are very possible in Italian society. Absolute corruption, the mob, or the Church could have their hands in the pot, or these imagined actors could be mobilized in the name of farce or low-class criminal prank. That’s the black humor and daily irony of Roman life which, we are to gather, is why the uber-stylish, over-sexed (even the hospitals stink of it), and frequently weightless Zen is nevertheless biting social commentary. Alas, it’s hard for the viewer to appreciate this hybrid state when the the ups and downs of the plot, the piques and deflations that would give it shape, lack assurance.

I bought Truffaut’s Hitchcock last week. Then I brought to the lake, which was a terrible idea. I’m glad, though, that I had it on the brain as I tried my hardest to really get into Zen. Hitchcock was the Selznick-proclaimed “Master of Suspense”; Truffaut viewed suspense as both elusive and essential, hence his frequently punchy defense of Hitchcock as a Serious Artist. If suspect is the act of loading up audience expectations—not unreasonably so, of course—then managing its transition out of the imagination is just as important as stirring up questions and dread.

Hitchcock understood this balancing act. He also practically invented the conversion rate of mystery to pay-out. Zen, as with so many shows structured as mysteries, fell flat once we start to find out what really happened. I’m not suggesting that any whiff of super-conspiracy must lead us directly to said plot (reviving it at the last moment is fair ineffectual). More that, if all that atmosphere and near-cosmic uncertainty is brought into play, the stakes have been raised, and the reveal is likely going to be a letdown. The resolution isn’t the proverbial “who did it?” but that first, decisive step away from the hypothetical and into what actually happened. For there to be continuity, it has to maintain the same weight, the same degree of substance and depth. Silly language, I know, but I can’t figure out quite how to explain it. In Zen, learning that it was all a hoax was like the bottom dropping out of the plot. The same story could have been done in a way that made this section really sting.

That’s why everybody loves Wallander and the new BBC Sherlock Holmes. Luther, character-driven to the point of self-obsession, cheats and yet it too works the formula quote capably. Granted, none of these series attempt the same kind of loopy inversions that, in theory, Zen depends on. But none of them are strangers to plot twists, cruelty, or truly nasty ironies. There is always more, and less, than initially expected. This is Hitchcock in a nutshell; from what I understand, it’s what pissed off anyone who bothered to stick with The Killing. In the defense of Zen, it’s not easy. Then again, that’s why a genre like mystery can be either light viewing or a walloping reminder of just why it has stuck around, a part of our psychology that we can’t shake loose.

July 25th, 2011

Rango and Expectation

seanfennessey:

Rango is inessential. It’s a matter of expectations tumbling around. Listmaking possibilities. Questions pressuring you. Do I need to see an animated lizard voiced by Johnny Depp reenact Sergio Leone’s masterpieces in a movie that has no target demographic? A Greek chorus of mariachi owls—seriously—are the first thing you’ll see when you decide that Yes, life is short and the information deluge is winnowing away at my soul, but maybe I want to watch an animated lizard voiced by Johnny Depp reenact Sergio Leone’s masterpieces in a movie that has no target demographic. The owls introduce the setting and quickly become the hackiest part of this movie. Rango then begins in meta: “What our hero needs is an ironic unexpected event that propels him into conflict,” he says, while play-acting in the terrarium that is his home. That line also happens to be the dictum of modern screenwriting. So begins an experience that seems to be deeply aware of movies and their tricks, fakeouts, and fill-ins.

The deus ex machina—when the glass case-bound unnamed lizard is thrown from the back seat of a car on the move through the sky, only to come crashing down in the middle of a highway, landing and then gliding along on a jagged piece of glass—is a breathtaking sequence set to what I think is “O Mio Babbino Caro.” Pretty early on, it’s clear: This is not Cars 2. Standing arch-backed in the hot sun, for maybe the first time in his life, the lizard’s skin molts and flakes off. He’s vulnerable.

Dirt.

The lizard with no name assumes Rango after stumbling into a local town’s dreary saloon. He reads “Hecho en Durango” on a glass of cactus juice. He shortens it, and is born. Then conflict ensues, all over. Dire conflict. In fact there is violence and visceral danger—a slithering, automatic rifle-equipped snake posing as Lee Van Cleef assaults townsfolk and a corrupt mayor threatens to send the entire town into a waterless madness. That snake also claims to be “from Hell” without irony or a wink. Rango, on the other hand, is a cowardly cipher, a classic Dorothy dropped into an unknown world. Johnny Depp—who is enduring an odd and uncommon hateable moment in culture right now—is wonderful as Rango.

Along with Depp, there’s some amazingly tactile voice work: Isla Fischer as the love interest, Ned Beatty (doubling up on villain duty after tackling Lots-o-Huggin’ Bear in last year’s Toy Story 3), Alfred Molina, Ray Winstone, Stephen Root, Harry Dean Stanton (!), and Timothy Olyphant as The Spirit of the West AKA Olyphant’s best Clint Eastwood impression, after two variations on the same in “Deadwood” and “Justified.”

Here are the overt visual and storytelling references I picked up on while watching Rango.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

High Noon

Once Upon A Time in the West

Chinatown

Pulp Fiction

Star Wars

True Grit (The original and the remake)

Unforgiven

The Searchers

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

L.A. Confidential

Apocalypse Now 

There are almost certainly more. Maybe dozens more. This is all an exercise—screenwriter John Logan and director Gore Verbinski’s homage to 50 years of cinema, especially Westerns, but it’s also a confusing experience. Easily the most gorgeously rendered example of CGI animation I have watched, and one of the more complex and unusual stories—why do lizards and owls and turkeys and armadillos and other species live together in a broken down 1850s mining town in a decrepit dust bowl that also exists simultaneous to modern human life? Or is the lonely, inconsequential life Rango was leading the truth and the fantasy that unfolds just that—a heat-induced mirage of heroism? We’re never lead to believe that notion but it’s totally feasible. And while we’re asking the big questions, why are boars the horses of the town, and why can’t they talk, despite the fact that all other characters are animals that talk? These aren’t unreasonable questions to ask, though if you’re 11 years old and asking them, the filmmakers have probably failed. I am not 11, so I ask. Throughout I also found myself asking “Who is this movie for?” It’s meta-textual, or referential, depending on your take on how aware it is of its purpose. No child could grasp the callouts, and yet I’ll never know what it’s like to experience the movie not knowing. It’s not unlike any Quentin Tarantino movie, which is often a conveyor belt succession of visual and aural references masked as inspiration or vice versa. Narratively, Rango is so indebted to Chinatown it’s sort of laughable. And yet, who cares.  Water, water, water is the root of life it keeps banging on. A town needs water. People drown, ironically, amidst a strangling draught. The powers that be are controlling it for felicitous purposes. Our hero is a ne’re-do-well thrust into extraordinary circumstances. But I accept all of those things—the references, the structure, the aping—for simple reasons.

Visually, Rango is unmatched. The animation is majestic, vast, specific, detailed. When people talk about modern animation, depth and texture come up often. There’s a telling credit at the end of the movie: Cinematography Consultant: Roger Deakins. Believability is an afterthought in animation—the subjects, like, say, talking fish or bugs or toys or ogres or superheroes, do not exist in any way we can understand. It’s an extra-reality. Pixar makes us feel but it doesn’t necessarily make us believe. Even if we love Woody and Buzz and Nemo and WALL-E, we never think they’re more than a construct. But in Rango’s universe, especially the town called Dirt, we melt into everything. It’s not that its just immersive storytellingthough it often is—it’s that there’s a tangible layer of grit and grime on everything. It almost smells. Things that digital  artists slave over—hair, for example—are visible. But so are the age lines in a craggy turtle’s neck. And the corroded nose of a mole, all puss-filled and rash-infected. There’s agitation and discomfort. Nothing is symmetrical or clean. No one feels safe or trustworthy. Like in the real world.  The bad guys become good guys, the worse guys become harmless. True, the hero fails and learns a lesson and prevails, ultimately, as in all these stories. But the way there is deeply weird and sloppy.

There are Dadaist stretches here—dream sequences, sky-splashed paintings, and visions of God, or god, depending on how you feel about Timothy Olyphant. There’s a cleavage-bearing female toad-whore. The female lead, also a lizard who goes by Beans, occasionally lapses into a frozen state, unable to move, speak or think—she calls it “a defense mechanism.” A spell. Rango does the same to us in spurts—a thrilling battle sequence in which gophers ride flying bats while firing machine guns at scampering amphibians set to “Ride of the Valkyries” springs to mind.

Imagine the pitch meeting at Paramount on this? “There’s a lizard, and he’s a coward, but then he’s a sheriff, and then a fraud, and there’s bats and rats and cats and splats, and also Harry Dean Stanton is totally on board!” This is Paramount’s first digitally animated feature created in-house, so, on second thought, that pitch might have actually worked. Rango cost $135 million to produce and has grossed $242 million at the box office worldwide. I also just spent $19.99 on the Blu-Ray, so maybe add that to the ledger.

“I’m actually one of the few men with a maiden name,” Rango says at one point, talking gibberish as a manner of looking for things to say to a female with whom he is smitten. This is a ridiculous statement, even for a talking lizard in a Hawaiian shirt, and yet, it seems not unreasonable in this state. You could say this movie is trippy or unreal or better experienced on drugs. And if there was some intent there, then Verbinski, who ushered this thing into the universe, has entered a Sid and Marty Krofft/Ralph Bakshi/Jim Henson pantheon of some kind. Which, considering this is the person who brought the Pirates of the Caribbean series to the world, is sort of amazing. But it still belongs. Up there with The Dark Crystal and The NeverEnding Story and Gremlins and “H.R. Pufnstuf” and “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” and other children’s fare that makes both more and less sense to adults. And not always in that hip, snappy dialogue way. Sure, it has that, too, but it’s meant to be more than Robin Williams impersonating Jack Nicholson as a genie in Aladdin. It’s about wonder, to conjure a cliché.

Rango almost certainly will, and definitely should, break Pixar’s streak of four consecutive Academy Award for Animated Feature wins. Cars 2 is dribble and spit compared to this thing. But it’s probably bigger than that, too. I had no expectation for this. Now it’s all I want.

Everybody smart always told me to see this, even though it wasn’t 3D. Now I think I finally understand why. I should trust my friends.

Reblogged from Split Infinitives
July 22nd, 2011
Reblogged from Shlock Corridor