David Lynch Friday #0 – The Intro

My first experience with David Lynch was watching Dune as a child. I loved it. Now, I know that isn’t exactly the popular opinion with that film but it certainly mesmerized me. I also recall my parents watching The Elephant Man and then Blue Velvet. I specifically remember Blue Velvet because my mother thought it was crazy in a good way and my father thought the exact opposite — not at all his type of movie. Next was Twin Peaks. I was about ten years old when Twin Peaks came out. My mother was excited and I was already a huge fan of detective stories. To me, a new show from the guy who did Dune, starring the guy from Dune, and it was sort of a detective story? Yes please.

As I grew older, Lynch faded from me for a bit. I began my true obsession with his work when I was in high school. This was the jump off and I never looked back. I’ve devoured his work ever since and have loved it all, even when I hated it. There was only one film of his that I missed completely, The Straight Story. Disney Plus rectified that for me and now my only blank spot is Inland Empire. For the record, I’ve watched it, just not all the way through. I have a blu-ray waiting for me and I’ve revisited the Rabbits in the years since. I’m looking forward to it now.

This is what I cherish about Lynch’s work — it is uncompromising. Even when Twin Peaks returned, there were moments that drove me up the wall but I have learned to trust Lynch’s process and have found rewards at every turn. He is my favorite. He’s been my favorite for a long time and only recently challenged for the title by Sofia Coppola. We’ll see how this all holds upon this new revisiting of his oeuvre. Typically, I would focus solely on feature films but Twin Peaks in it’s entirety will be thrown in here because it is my absolute, number one, favorite thing ever. I will also be breaking the timeline and holding Twin Peaks for the very end. There is a chance that week will see my largest post ever. I always have a ton of thoughts on Twin Peaks and there is not a day that goes by without me thinking about the show.

Here we go. The David Lynch project will begin with Eraserhead next Friday. Until then, love each other.

Sofia Coppola Friday #8 – The Recap

It’s the end of the line. I’m sad to let these films go for now but the beauty of art is that it’s never fully gone. Art exists all around us and even within us. Great art stays somewhere deep inside for us to draw from whenever we want or need. This project I’m embarking on with some of my favorite filmmakers has been even more rewarding than I initially thought. I’m learning things about myself that were previously hidden or unobserved. Growth is always a good thing.

With that said, let’s recap what we’ve learned from Sofia Coppola’s films.

First, she is a filmmaker who always has something to say. She makes you do the work but her message is ultimately always clear. Her films are never stagnant — they don’t just exist, they live. She is frequently inspired by depicting the reality of celebrity and tabloid culture. This makes a ton of sense considering she grew up in one of the most famous Hollywood families our generation has ever seen. Coppola is also consumed with dissecting the pitfalls of love and lust and the need to be loved. She also knows that love and obsession are completely different — this is a distinction a portion of our population routinely fails to make.

Sofia Coppola is a confident filmmaker. In fact, she’s one of the most confident filmmakers working today. Everything in her films always works in concert in order to present her specific vision. Her work is so real. How does she accomplish this? First, her dialog is always great and perfectly matched to what each film requires. This is no easy fete. She has to match her writing to the film’s tone and subject matter while also delivering something unique to not only each character but the actors portraying those characters. This is the secret sauce for a screenwriter and most aren’t nearly this good. It’s part of what makes Quentin Tarantino’s scripts so amazing. People jump to obvious conclusions about how “cool” it is and they try and mimic that. Hollywood then becomes inundated by bad imitators. No, the great ones, (and Sofia Coppola is definitely one of the great ones) match their writing with what is required and only what is required. This brings me to another aspect of why her films are so universally great: her ability to cast to the role. I will argue that this is actually a super power. Last, her needle dropping is on point. I spoke about this a few weeks ago and it bears repeating: she makes the best use of pop songs in her films. That’s it, nobody else does it better.

Now, what I’m most excited to get to is a realization I made as I rewatched her first six films. Sofia Coppola has created a trilogy of sister films. For the record, all of her films have aspects that either resemble or build upon previous work but there is more. First, On The Rocks is the odd one out. Being her newest film, it has yet to find it’s sibling. We’ll just have to see what Coppola cooks up for us in the future before revisiting. As for the other six, they break up like this:

The Virgin Suicides and The Beguiled are a perfect pair. Coppola revisits material dominated by men. TVS is based on a book written by a man and The Beguiled is a remake of a film starring Clint Eastwood. Coppola takes these stories and either reframed them around the women involved or alters the focus so we concentrate on the women and their own daily lives. Both films are about young women living under strict rules while blossoming into adults. They are curious and sheltered but possess ferocious spirits. They will leave their mark upon the world.

Lost In Translation and Somewhere go hand in hand. Both films center around men who are at sea. Both men are world famous actors but at different points in their careers. In some ways, Somewhere feels like it could be a prequel to LIT in relation to their respective main characters. Both films are unafraid to explore the ennui fame can bring with it and the trappings it holds. They also each center around a hotel that serves as a sort of prison for its inhabitants. The characters are constantly searching for a way break out and run free and that metaphor cuts deep.

Marie Antoinette and The Bling Ring belong together. These two films are Coppola’s most celebrity obsessed. Both are based on true events and real life people. Both are stories of celebrity and tabloid and excess and depression. These two films get under our skin more each time we revisit them. She digs deeper into motives of why these people would choose to either do these things or live this way. They both also deal with the youth revolting against norms and then suffering the consequences set upon them by the populace.

This brings me to the end of this particular section of my project. What have I learned? Where my first filmmaker I studied, Terry Gilliam, unearthed new observations that make me think less of him as a human being, Sofia Coppola has only grown in my estimation. She is my favorite Coppola. I said what I said. Not only that but she has climbed the mountain and reached the summit. Sofia Coppola now stands shoulder to shoulder with David Lynch as my favorite filmmakers. I can’t choose right now. Perhaps we will have to do David Lynch next.

Now to the rankings:

7 – The Bling Ring
6 – The Beguiled
5 – On The Rocks
4 – Marie Antoinette
3 – Somewhere
2 – The Virgin Suicides
1 – Lost In Translation

Next week, we’ll lay the groundwork for the next chapter in this project. Until then, love each other.

Sofia Coppola Friday #7 – On The Rocks

I am a sucker for a New York film. I grew up about an hour north of the city. Some of my family grew up in Hell’s Kitchen, some in Queens, some are on Long Island, some in Sleepy Hollow, you get the point. New York is in my blood and my heart. As a kid, I was always excited to go to the city. That never changed. I remember going on school trips to the Museum of Natural History and sneaking out to go record shopping — haggling with the dude at Bleecker Bob’s, going to Kim’s video off of St. Marks and my Holy Grail, Generation Records on Thompson. When I met the woman who I would eventually trick into marrying me, she was living on West 80th. Goddamn I loved that apartment. I remember her introducing me to Big Nick’s and then Vinny’s, where the greatest calzones on the planet reside. Going down to Chinatown to eat at Shanghai Joe’s was always a favorite and for the record, the Chinatown location is the best of the three (we’ve eaten at all of them). It’s set back in an alley and if you’re not there when they open, you may not get the soup dumplings you so crave. There is no English on that menu and the staff is rude in the best possible New York way. I fucking love that place. And don’t get me started on Halal Guys — the greatest 30 minute wait in line you’ll ever have. That food is the greatest fucking thing on planet Earth. Seriously, it’s so good you won’t make it twenty feet before sitting anywhere you can find and digging in, even if it’s snowing (I know this because I’ve seen me do it). I know I’m talking at length about food but that’s because eating is what we always did. When you’re in New York, you’re always on your way to doing something and eating is always a part of that something. New York is always alive, the sidewalks vibrate and breathe, steam rises and random shit fits break out amongst total strangers. And I love and miss it so much.

I haven’t even talked about the Italian restaurant we always ate at, Coppola’s. It’s funny because Coppola’s is what set off this trip down memory lane. The first time I went there I thought it was owned by Francis Ford Coppola. I was an idiot but there it is.

Anyway, the reason I bring all of this up is that Sofia Coppola’s newest film, On The Rocks, is set in New York. It’s her first film set in the greatest city in the world and good goddamn did she shoot the ever loving shit out of this film. It just FEELS like New York. I can smell it and I love it and it brings memories flooding in like a dam broke.

And finally, we’re ready to fully dig in to Sofia Coppola’s seventh feature film, On The Rocks. I’m not going to quite dig into spoilers because this film is so new. I want people to experience this film fresh, like I did. With that said, we will still get into the themes Coppola explores.

On The Rocks is the story of Laura (Rashida Jones) and her dad Felix (Bill Murray). She’s stuck in life and fearing that her husband (Marlon Wayans) has fallen out of love with her to the point that he’s cheating on her. Felix is a wealthy art dealer and a bit of a cad. He loves his daughter and perhaps he loves everything in life a bit too much. He cheated on Laura’s mother and then left. He’s a womanizer and heavy drinker — always up for a party. Laura leans on her father and he takes this opportunity to embroil her in a caper to catch Laura’s husband Dean in an affair.

From the start, we are all the way in Laura’s shoes. We feel her paranoia and how she begins looking at everyone sideways. Her trust in Dean is eroding and so we do not trust Dean. More than this, we feel the loneliness Laura is experiencing. She’s surrounded by millions of people but the one she wants is never around. She suffers paralysis with her work and is overwhelmed with the task of raising two children by herself. Coppola adds two nice touches to cement Laura’s uncomfortable stasis: making boxed macaroni and cheese in a Le Crouset and then that fucking Roomba just banging away on every possible surface. I love these subtle touches.

At her breaking point, her father calls and then shows up. Now it’s Felix time and man does he rule. Bill Murray is the only actor who could play this role and Rashida Jones is the perfect foil for his antics. They come across as a real life father and daughter. Again, perhaps Coppola’s greatest strength is her ability to cast to the role. Their dialog is so crisp and rat-a-tat-tat on point yet natural. One of the “big” scenes of the film is when Felix convinces Laura to tail Dean to a business dinner. Felix, in a near broke down convertible, with caviar and champagne as a snack, is ridiculously hilarious in this sequence. Murray turns into a teenage boy before our eyes as he runs red lights, cuts people off, speeds, bottoms out, and does it all while cackling. They eventually get pulled over by the police and well, that scene ends up being even funnier. In fact, this is easily Coppola’s funniest film. It resembles a madcap road trip film as much as it does a mediation on married life. It’s great at the former but the latter is where the film truly shines.

Felix and Dean share a scene at the door to their building that gave me goosebumps. It’s a father and a husband, who size each other up and let one another know something about the other without actually giving up much ground. Like I said, goosebumps. It’s here where we begin to understand Felix a little better. He’s not just being a protective father. Felix sees some of himself in Dean. Felix is beginning to reckon with his past failures. He doesn’t know how to change but he knows that his lifestyle has consequences for others. The film takes us down to Mexico near the end and Felix again unfurls a bit more. He confesses to Laura why he did what he did and it’s proof that in life and love there are no easy answers. He knows he’s wrong but he’s finally being honest about why he did what he did. It’s wonderfully naked. For her part, Laura does not allow Felix off the hook. She gives him his medicine. He’s earned it and even though he may not like it, he knows it’s deserved. It’s tough for us because Felix is so likable. Maybe he reminds us of people in our own lives. Telling someone you love that you’re angry or disappointed or even disgusted by their actions doesn’t mean you don’t love them — it’s the opposite. Love requires honesty. Again, there are no easy answers.

This is what Coppola is pointing out to us above all else. The film is about relationships and the give and take they require. Relationships cannot be a one-way street. Marriage cannot exist without work. Love cannot work without trust.

Another great film from Sofia Coppola — one I will be rewatching over and again. Next week, our wrap-up. Until then, love each other.

Sofia Coppola Friday #3 – Marie Antoinette

“Holy shit! Was that a monkey?” – me while watching Marie Antoinette

Have I properly expressed my love and adoration of Sofia Coppola yet? I love this project because great art opens doors. If you’re willing to engage in self-reflection, you can learn a lot about yourself and the world around you. I was struck, several times throughout the runtime, by revelations. I make notes when consuming various forms of art and media and afterward, I graze my notes and begin the process of asking myself questions about why certain things stand out to me — why I interpret things the way that I do.

Watching Marie Antoinette hit me in different ways than when I first saw the film, fourteen years ago. I like it a helluva lot more now than I did then, placing it firmly in my “I love this film” category. What hit me the hardest, watching Kirsten Dunst expertly play this historical figure trying to navigate a world of excess, inconvenience, and rigid adherence to ridiculous custom, is about the fragile nature of our personal identity. I don’t think anyone ever knows who they truly are. We are constantly searching for it. If not, we’re giving up on the mysteries of life, instead settling into a depression by realizing who we are not. Great art helps us decipher the type of artist we want to be and for the record, everyone is some kind of artist. It’s in there somewhere, in each of us, we just need that spark to light the way.

So, how does Coppola manage to pull these musings from us? She employs several tactics to get her point across. This, her third film, shows incredible self-confidence and it makes our journey easier. First, Coppola uses pop music to set a tone in her films better than anyone. Yes, she’s better than QT, better than Wes Anderson, and better than Martin Scorsese. Using pop songs in a film set just before the French Revolution in the 18th century sounds like an anachronistic gimmick but Coppola’s choices are deliberate and perfect. They add a layer to every scene — evoking the despair and ennui of isolation and then the wild debauchery of youth gone wild. Next, the production and costume design are sublime. Coppola even leaves in modern fashion flourishes to further embellish this tale. She then uses subtle camera movements and expert scene blocking to provide us a specific feeling toward her work. The cinematography and shot composition combine to make the film resemble an oil painting come to life. She does more with this later as it all reverses and she literally tells a portion of the story through actual oil paintings. It’s an incredible reverse technique and when that pin drops, it injects the viewer with an extra dose of dopamine. It’s akin to the film becoming a silent film and then changing back — simply awesome. Early on, her storytelling is extremely visual, sparse dialog allowing the music, score, and camera to tell the story. The dialog increases and it’s full of gossip, back-biting, and royal fuckery creating an atmosphere that is gloriously bitchy.

What I’m getting at is that Coppola found a way to un-stuff the period piece.

The film spends most of it’s first half chronicling Marie Antoinette’s isolation inside this royal family. She’s different and everyone knows it. She doesn’t fully understand their ridiculous customs and finds herself surrounded by vapid enemies all searching for a crack in her armor. Everyone wants what she has and her standing is on precarious ground. MA feels this pressure but through sheer will, she begins to bend the royals to her will. The shot of her signature on the marriage certificate is incredible. Where everything else is done with precision, her signature is messy and crooked, ending with a splotch of misplaced ink. She is the dominate force here and everyone else will have to catch up. In fact, I could make the argument that she is us. Nothing makes sense to her in this new life and while she will adapt to a degree, she will fight to maintain her own identity. It all comes to a head when she convinces everyone to sneak out of the royal palace in order to attend a masked ball. The scene is amazing — reminiscent of the Lisbon sisters at homecoming and Bob and Charlotte’s big night out in Tokyo. These kids are breaking free of the rigid confines of their societal and royal obligations. Their lack of adherence to the rules, put simply, rules.

We could try and tackle the actors in their specific roles but Dunst blows everyone else off the screen. She owns every single frame of this film. The only other actor who even comes close to matching her electricity on screen is Rose Byrne. She is pure spunk as MA’s number one co-conspirator.

Instead of specific performances, everyone works in concert to create a vibe. This is what Coppola wants here above all else — put the viewer in the story. As the story progresses we become unable to tell the difference between everyday life and pageantry. It’s something that wears people out and drags them down. Nothing is ever quite like the first time. It’s here where Coppola’s ultimate intent becomes clear. Sure, she is telling an expert story about a woman attempting to break free of the shackles placed upon her by a male dominated society but it’s also about celebrity and tabloid. We can draw direct parallels between 18th century French royal society and that of Hollywood today. We are obsessed by the magnitude of their charisma and hang on their every whim while also reveling in their downfall. It sucks but it’s also a symptom of our frail relationship with our own egos. Coppola even finds time for the famous “let them eat cake” line with a clear rebuke to its attribution to MA. She never said it. In fact, MA was blamed by the poor and downtrodden for many things that were not her fault. Just like today, it’s easy for us to overlook the true villains, instead focusing on others.

By the end of the film, MA is forced to flee her home. The final image is one of her bedroom, now destroyed by rioters. It’s an interesting choice in that the decor at its peak is so ornate and gaudy, it doesn’t look all that different once destroyed. This is life full circle. A girl comes to France alone, wills the country to view her in her own way, creates a tight circle of vibrant friends, and watches it all fade away like old laundry until she is alone again. If you watch closely, you’ll see the use of color in increasing intensity until it fades to more subdued tones. Our birth. Our life. Our death. The only thing we can control is who we strive to be.

Next week, Somewhere. Until then, love each other.

Sofia Coppola Friday #2 – Lost In Translation

Lost in Translation. This is a film I recently ranked as the third best film of its respective decade. Sometimes, depending on my mood, it is absolutely number one. It is a masterpiece but first, a story.

It was late September of 2003 and temperatures were cooling off in the evenings as my wife and I loved. To this very day, autumn is still our favorite time of year. We were in the city for a couple days to celebrate her birthday. My wife had recently given up her apartment in the city in order to move about an hour north and marry me. This sacrifice on her part has never been lost on me and we would continue to make frequent trips back to the city. This particular weekend, I had secured tickets to see Wicked on broadway (even more lucky to see the show when Idina Menzel was still Elphaba). We had purchased a bottle of Veuve Clicquot to celebrate and after a satisfying dinner and wonderful broadway show, we felt this evening still held more treasure. Going into the weekend, we knew that Sofia Coppola’s new film had recently opened in New York and it was already on the docket. I had seen The Virgin Suicides and was a fan of Coppola thus far and we both considered Bill Murray our favorite actor (still true for both of us) — a can’t miss proposition. The decision was made to catch the late show at Lincoln Square but what to do with the champagne? My wife made a quick, executive decision as she grabbed two empty coke bottles, rinsed them out, filled them with the champagne and then hid them in her purse. Off we went. I still think of this night often, the two of us, still young and recently married, sitting alone in that balcony watching absolute magic on screen. The entire night was something out of a storybook and I still consider it one of the very best nights of my life.

What we understood about that night and subsequently, the many nights that would follow, is that none of them last — not the great ones, the merely good ones, or even the bad ones. We’re left with the memories that help shape the future we’ve yet to see. It’s up to us to hold on to the special moments without dwelling and use them as fuel to propel us forward.

Onward to the film.

Coppola opens on Charlotte in bed, alone without being alone. This sets an early tone for the story she is going to tell us. We quickly move on to Bob, arriving in Tokyo, jet lagged and being jettisoned through the neon lit streets and on to the hotel. Murray’s face is telling us his story without a word. We see the exhaustion, both mental and emotional. He is a man at sea and the lights catch him off guard for a moment before he allows them in to further confound himself. It strikes the viewer within moments that there was no other actor on this planet that could have portrayed Bob with the precision of Murray. Bob is awash in a never ending sea of neon while being so desperate for rest. Coppola adds in ethereal synth-infused pop songs, at once dreary and peppy, further complicating matters. Music plays such an important role in this film by providing peeks inside the characters in certain moments. I love filmmakers who have a firm grasp over how music relates to our moods and daily lives. Sofia Coppola is one of these filmmakers and she infuses her films with music that feels like it came from the page of a diary. The film carries on switching between Bob’s and Charlotte’s independent lives. Thus far, we’re seeing separate stories from two different people who are both searching for their place in this world. What connects them to us is they both suffer from a near paralyzing bout of loneliness. Bob is at the end of his career and wishing to feel needed or wanted again. Charlotte has yet to begin her career and she’s restless while waiting for her husband to take an interest in her that could come close to matching his interest in his own work.

The film builds on these feelings while infusing everything with little bits of humor. There are so many minor annoyances experienced by Bob, adding to his insomnia. He’s also the butt of nearly every early joke as he struggles to understand this new language and culture. His commercial shoots both go hilariously off the rails. The hotel concierge mistakes his request for a masseuse to mean a prostitute. The jacket clips on the back of his tuxedo which we see he’s still wearing while trying to look cool at the bar. Bob’s futile exercise attempt that nearly kills him and leads him to walk with a limp for the next few scenes. This provides levity for us because Charlotte’s story is one emotional hit after the other. Her husband is obsessed with everyone and everything else other than her. It hurts us to watch him act like a fool in front of a vapid actress and then admonish Charlotte for pointing out how stupid it all is. This leads to an awesome, cathartic moment where Bob and Charlotte first officially meet at the hotel bar. They both don’t belong there and they both not only know it but recognize it in each other. They are kindred spirits. This scene is perfection, right down to the opening conversation Bob is having with the bartender only to realize the guy hasn’t really been listening this entire time. From here, the film takes off like a rocket ship.

Both of these characters want to be wanted or, even better, needed. Bob is constantly reminded that he may be casually wanted by his wife but he is certainly not needed. Charlotte gets the same treatment, albeit a bit more cruelly ignorant, by her husband. She is calling out to him in a desperate attempt to save their relationship but he is too busy being wrapped up in his own shit to notice. Coppola lets these scenes breathe and infuses every single scene with wonderful, cutting dialog. Everyone is saying a million things at once. This is easily one of the best scripts of the past two decades — a simply marvelous feat. Finally, Bob and Charlotte break free of the hotel and their shackles to enjoy a night out in Tokyo with friends. This is when the neon and bustle of Tokyo becomes obvious and appealing. Their restlessness flakes away like beach sand on a windy day. They are alive again, we feel it as much as they do. It’s a flawless sequence. The evening ends in a karaoke bar where again, the music comes to the forefront as their choices are telling stories to each other. They’re coming clean and baring their souls. In particular, the scene where Bob and Charlotte are sitting outside of the karaoke room and sharing a cigarette is my favorite scene in the entire film. It contains a perfect shot that gives away the entire film in mere seconds. Exquisite.

This brings me to the title, Lost in Translation. It holds so many meanings. There are the obvious choices of language and culture. Bob has so many encounters with locals who either don’t understand him or him them. The culture is a shock to both of them. But the title refers to so much more than that. Both Bob and Charlotte are seeking understanding from the people they hold dearest. Their respective break downs in communication are sad and all too typical. Still, they try and they find that understanding in each other.

And the point Coppola is helping us arrive at is that living in the moment is life at its purest. We get these perfect moments — perfect mini lives. We will always have them. They don’t erase. They are there, always, in the lights and sounds and signs — in the smell of a city street, of tar, of fried food. Life carries us away but it is these moments that tether us to each other and this world. Embrace it all.

Next week, Marie Antoinette. Until then, love each other.

The King of Staten Island – Apatow’s Love Letter To The Precarious Nature Of Life

Judd Apatow is responsible for many of my favorite comedies. Before we get to it, I have a story. In the wake of Freaks and Geeks, Apatow made another tv show: Undeclared. In one episode, the group of students plays a prank and duct tapes someone inside of a phone booth. This tickled me to no end. So much so, that I concocted a similar plan to carry out with my brother and two of our friends. Unfortunately, there were no longer any phone booths in our town so the plan had to be adjusted. What I came up with was to wait at a local diner and when someone parked in the back and then entered the diner, we would duct tape their car shut. We tested the plan out on another car in a different parking lot. Two people up top and two people laying on the ground, passing the roll of tape between each of us — this way the duct tape would wrap from roof to undercarriage. We executed the plan to perfection — nearly.

We unwittingly chose the car belonging to the daughter of the chief of police.

Long story short: my plan accidentally got my brother arrested.

On to the task at hand.

Apatow’ s latest effort is, The King of Staten Island. The film is partly inspired by star Pete Davidson’s real life. First off, Davidson is great in this film. He has an odd charm. I don’t know how else to put that because it’s indescribable. Davidson has something unique on screen where he can equally make you groan while still rooting for him. This is also due in part to a terrific and realistic script. One thing that is universal in Apatow films is how natural his characters talk to and act around each other. His films are shaggy and maybe run too long in spots for some viewers. This has never been the case for me. I’ve mentioned this countless times here but it bears repeating: character over plot. There is no discernible plot in this film other than if Pete’s character will ever properly deal with the trauma of his father’s death and actually grow up. There is no real resolution because his journey is our journey and our journey is never finished until the day we die. Instead, Apatow loads the film with scenes of friends and acquaintances just shooting the shit and I am here for all of it. The scene’s with the friends are countered with more serious ones involving the family. Everyone is still dealing with not only their own shit but everyone else’s shit as well. Everything feels so natural. I love the ebb and flow in the tone.

Eventually, Pete’s mother, played wonderfully by Marisa Tomei, wants to try and move on with her life. She begins to date a neighbor played by Bill Burr. Pete immediately hates him for obvious infantile reasons but goes apoplectic when he finds out that Burr is a firefighter. This kicks the biggest plot point of the film and focuses the story for a bit. We can feel how personal this all is for Pete in real life. After all, his father was a firefighter who died on September 11, 2001. In the film, his father also perished in a fire and Pete cannot fathom why his mother would want to potentially go through that again. There is also an incredible conversation about why firefighters would have children and potentially scar them for life when they tragically died. The film cuts deep when it wants to. This is also when we meet Steve Buscemi as a firefighter in the same house as Bill Burr. Now, I didn’t know that Buscemi was a firefighter in real life before becoming an actor. On top of that, he went back to work after September 11th in order to help with the rescue efforts — amazing and heroic. In the film, Buscemi steals it all in only a handful of scenes. His sincerity rings loud and echoes throughout our hearts and minds.

The film still reserves plenty of time for idiotic antics and weird asides. There is a scene featuring Action Bronson, a real life rapper, as he stops by the firehouse looking for help. The entire crew is on a call and only Pete is there sweeping the floors. Bronson has been shot or stabbed or something — he is hilariously vague about what happened to him. It all almost feels like an SNL sketch or something ripped from another film. This is what I love about Apatow: if it works, it goes in. The scene is odd and misplaced on the surface but actually provides much needed levity from the more serious subject matter the film begins to delve into. Apatow is an expert at this. As serious as Burr’s character is on the surface, Burr plays him with a maniacal grace that provides gut busting laughs. It’s a thing that permeates every moment of the film.

This is what I appreciate most about Apatow’s work — it’s real. He views life like a bodega shelf — there’s a little bit of everything taking up space. It may be dusty. It may be expired. But it may just be exactly what you’re looking for.

Next week I was planning on doing a piece on season three of Westworld but the truth is I don’t have much to say about it other than I didn’t like season three of Westworld. There it is. Print the review. Instead, I think I’ll write about an awesome horror movie, The Color Out Of Space. Until then, love each other.

Gilliam Friday #12 – The Wrap-Up

We find ourselves at the end of the Terry Gilliam project — twelve straight weeks of the madman’s work. We began with his Monty Python efforts and ended with his finally finished dream project, The Man Who Killed Don Quixote. What a ride. I was reminded of films I loved, found new love for films I originally struggled with, and some old loves now fell flat. Throughout this project, I was reminded that from a visual standpoint, Gilliam stands alone. His films are each unique in their own way and even more when compared to where cinema was in general when each of those films released.

But seriously, what did I learn from all of this?

Let us begin with Gilliam as a visual artist. Every single film he has ever crafted has been visually stunning. He is a true auteur, unafraid of any subject matter and uncompromising in his vision. He forces the viewer to buy in. Whatever you gain from viewing his work will always come on his terms. This is something that will shut down some viewers and keep them away. The flip side to this ideal is that those who buy in willingly, typically come away astonished. I also learned that Gilliam hates bureaucracy — hates it. Most of his films have a subtext dealing with the annoyance of red tape and failed governance. He is also an artist obsessed with paranoia and juxtaposition. You will find this on a constant basis in his films with the palettes he uses and his deep focus camera shots. Everything in his films is heightened in order to hold the viewer’s supreme focus while still keeping them off balance.

One other thing we must get to right away is that I now wonder if Gilliam has a problem with women. It cannot be overstated that his comments earlier this year about how tired he is that white men get blamed for everything, is extremely troubling. He has also thrown support behind Harvey Weinstein which is blatantly wrong-headed. I don’t sanction or agree with any of this — hard pass for me. With that said, I wonder where this stems from? And that’s the craziest aspect of all of this: Gilliam the person is still largely a mystery. We can infer all of these things we’ve already discussed but he has still managed to keep us all at bay — protecting his innermost desires to the end. I both like and dislike how he views the world. He paints in his films with a childlike wonder. Gilliam shows us worlds that are like electric carnivals used as a mask for societal rot and despair. He also shows heart here, especially with how he depicts the homeless in many of his films — the unfortunates are ignored and trampled by the powerful. This is in stark contrast to his depiction of women in most of his films. The truth is, as I’ve gone film to film, the women are mostly seen as annoying, trouble, or both. Many times they are devices to serve the plot. His visual talent is so extraordinary that I think these themes become overshadowed but they are there if you look hard enough. Two films stand out to me where this was not the case: The Fisher King and Twelve Monkeys. They also happen to be two films that Gilliam did not write. This definitely begs for further discussion.

The final thing we’ll discuss today is how Gilliam’s career is split into three sections (and hopefully an upcoming fourth). His early work is where he found his feet. Working as a member of the Python troupe allowed him creative freedom. It’s the least populated portion of his career. He followed this up with a thirteen year prime where he dealt masterful film after masterful film. This is an insane run from a filmmaker uninterested in making typical studio fare. Brazil, The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen, The Fisher King, Twelve Monkeys, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Any filmmaker would kill to make one of these films. Gilliam made them all…in a row.

Of course, with the highs come the lows. Gilliam’s disastrous attempt to make his dream project, The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, derailed his career. He then entered a ten year funk where he still hit some high notes but his films felt more disjointed and angry — lacking the intrepid energy from his earlier work. He began to regain his footing with The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus and again, tragedy struck that film multiple times.

Terry Gilliam finally got the proverbial monkey off his back when his dream was finally realized. The Man Who Killed Don Quixote showed me that the madman still has the goods to be a true auteur. We will see if he has the stuff to give us some more to chew on.

I’ll leave you with this, a ranking of his solo films. This means that I’m not counting the python work. Worst to first, here we go:

The Brothers Grimm

The Zero Theorem

Jabberwocky

Time Bandits

Tideland

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

The Man Who Killed Don Quixote

The Adventures of Baron Munchausen

Brazil

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

Twelve Monkeys

The Fisher King

And that is a wrap. I had fun revisiting these films and filmmaker I have adored nearly my entire life. I found it enlightening and not always in a good way. I now look at Gilliam a little differently because of his depiction of women on film — something I was either not able to see while younger or just willfully ignorant of until now. I guess I learned some things about myself as well — things I still need to work on. I’m willing to do the work.

Next up on the docket is another of my faves, Sofia Coppola. I’ll outline the project next week and then dive into The Virgin Suicides on Friday, September 18th. Until then, love each other.

Gilliam Friday #11 – The Man Who Killed Don Quixote

Finally, the monkey is off his back. After decades of struggle, heartbreak and misfortune, Gilliam finally achieved catharsis in getting his magnum opus onto the big screen. To some, The Man Who Killed Don Quixote may seem like just another film, a weird film, but still just a film. To those of us who have followed Gilliam’s career, this film being released is everything. Before we get any further into the film itself, let’s chronicle the entire production just to gain some perspective on this journey.

Gilliam began work on the film in 1989. This was shortly after the financial debacle of The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen. Hollywood didn’t really have a good sense of how to deal with Gilliam as an artist. He began writing Quixote while taking on directing jobs for two films he didn’t write: The Fisher King and Twelve Monkeys. It took Gilliam nine years (and a third straight success with Fear and Loathing) in order to secure funding for his Don Quixote project. Soon after, he secured the services of Johnny Depp as his star and they began the shoot in 2000. The production did not last long. Flooding, illness, and other monetary (not to mention insurance) issues ended production of the film. Gilliam would try and resurrect his project several times to no avail. Eventually, Depp had to drop out and many of the sets were completely destroyed. This hammered several nails into the film’s coffin. While they were filming, Gilliam began shooting behind the scenes footage for a “making of” supplement to the film. This became the documentary, Lost In La Mancha, and was released in 2002. It stood as a chronicle of disaster.

The troubled, disastrous production of, The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, plagued Gilliam for the latter part of his career. From the distracted job he did with The Brothers Grimm, to some serious dark material in Tideland and Doctor Parnassus, the filmmaker was trying to shake himself from a depression.

Well, he finally did it.

The Man Who Killed Don Quixote finally hit screens and it is largely a triumph. Gilliam still has the goods and really really really knows how to cast. He stepped in a golden pile of shit by casting Adam Driver and Jonathan Pryce together as his leads. They are perfectly balanced in opposition. Pryce is no stranger to Gilliam and he digs into his role as a man who believes himself to be the famed adventurer. Adam Driver, is a wonderful counterbalance as the young filmmaker who’s spent the last several years trying to find his true self. Gilliam has altered his film to better fit the dark period this new vision was born from. Quixote is a film at once about the folly of youth and the regret of old age. We can sense the freedom of spirit that Gilliam rediscovered in finally getting his pet project completed. The production design is exquisite and the script is better than ever. I couldn’t imagine any other actors than Driver and Pryce in this film now — call it kismet. I love the idea put forth of a story about two men, one old and one young, whose lives never amounted to what they once hoped for themselves. Quixote is chock full of second guessing, calling men out on their views of the world, silly fight scenes, musical numbers, and ultimately immense heart. This is Gilliam laying it all out and reclaiming his position as one of film’s unique auteurs. I hope he gets to make more films, at least one more, before he hangs it up. He deserves a victory lap and one last dance now that he is free from his albatross.

Bravo Mr. Gilliam, bravo.

Next week, the wrap-up. Until then, love each other.

My Blue Heaven and Goodfellas are Siblings, Who Knew?

Well, I button-hooked ya, didn’t I? My intention was to write about The King Of Staten Island this week but some interesting news came my way and I switched things up at the last minute.

The year was 1990 and two mob movies came out within a month of each other. Those movies were: Goodfellas and My Blue Heaven. I saw them both as a kid and loved them both. In the spirit of honesty, My Blue Heaven is a movie that has largely fallen by the wayside for me in the decades since its release but the other day, I stumbled upon a story about its release which led me to a rewatch and an idea for this post.

The story is this: Goodfellas is the true story of Henry Hill, a mobster who turned on his friends and associates in exchange for immunity. He then went into witness protection. My Blue Heaven is also about Henry Hill though they changed the name in the film and the events are fictionalized for comedy.

I never knew this and just you wait because the story gets better.

Henry Hill, while in witness protection began meeting with a writer in order to tell his life story. That writer was Nicholas Pilleggi and over the span of a few months, he got to know Hill and began writing his story. The book was called, Wiseguy, and when Martin Scorsese got ahold of it, there was no denying him a chance to put that story up on the screen. We know it as Goodfellas.

But we are not done.

While interviewing Hill, Pilleggi’s wife began conceiving an idea all her own. Her name was Nora Ephron and she was a screenwriter. She took her husband’s experiences with Hill and wrote a comedic take on everything which became the movie, My Blue Heaven. The same studio optioned both of the movies and released them one month apart. I find this all marvelously interesting. We could even look at My Blue Heaven as a quasi-sequel to Goodfellas.

So, onto the movie. How does it hold up?

It is still a wonderful film, all these years later.

The production of the film got off to a rocky start because they couldn’t lock down a cast. Steve Martin was originally hired to play the FBI agent Coopersmith with Arnold Schwarzenegger slated for the role of the mobster Vinnie, er Tod. Schwarzenegger dropped out in order to star in Kindergarten Cop which left a huge hole in the production. Steve Martin stepped up and suggested he could switch roles and play Vinnie. Rick Moranis was soon hired to play Coopersmith and the rest is history.

Starting with the cast of this film, we are in for a treat. Steve Martin is a treasure and was always a big part of my life growing up. From SNL to films like The Jerk, Three Amigos, Dirty Rotten Socundrels, Planes, Trains and Automobiles, Parenthood, etc. Martin was a mainstay in our house. The same could be said of Rick Moranis. There was SCTV, Ghostbusters, Honey I shrunk The kids, Spaceballs, Little Shop Of Horrors, etc. so yeah, no-brainer. Joan Cusack is also wonderful in this film, another 80s star who found her way into many of our favorite movies. Last but not least is Bill Irwin. He steals this movie for me. His dancing is super humanly hilarious and put a permanent smile on my face. In the last few years, watching Legion, Irwin’s character became my favorite and I had a hard time figuring out why I instantly connected with him. I remember now. His performance in My Blue Heaven is spectacular.

The movie is exactly my kind of movie as it’s not interested in plot at all. Instead it sets scenes for these characters to use and shed a little light on who they are. Not to sound like a broken record but I ALWAYS prefer character over plot. Steve Martin is so brilliant as Vinny, perfectly capturing the larger-than-life persona in one of his silliest performances. Rick Moranis, for his part is one of the greatest ever at conveying awkwardness. You can’t help but root for him in every role he’s ever played. I miss him dearly. Hollywood misses him dearly. I’m holding out hope that he’ll eventually return to acting and continue spreading his brand of joy to the world. Speaking of joy, My Blue Heaven is chock full of it. You’ll know if you’re in or not within the first five minutes and if you are, the smile will never leave your face. The jokes are stellar and multi-layered, sometimes you’ll find yourself laughing at a joke told a few minutes prior. The script is tight and the dialog fantastic. Martin is an impeccable asshole and plays Vinnie like a quasi-sequel to his character from The Jerk. Again, he is a treasure. The production design is vibrant and full of life. The shot composition adds to every moment — I swear I could sense the weather in every scene. I don’t think the film gets enough credit for how incredible the entire production conveys multiple things at one time — supreme talent on display here.

What started as an exercise on a story told from two different perspectives became a wonderful examination on what breathes excitement and life into our lives. This is a story about people and what a wonderful story it is.

Next week, Staten Island gets its due, I promise. Until then, love each other.

Gilliam Friday #9 – The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus

We can’t dig in to the next film on the list without, again, beating the Quixote drum. I now see just how much Gilliam was reeling from the destroyed project that consumed him for nearly a decade. He had previously tried to shake himself loose from his rut by taking on two projects so close together that they were released in the same year. The first, Brothers Grimm, was unfocused and messy. The second, Tideland, was the darkest material Gilliam had tackled. It felt more like an exorcism than a full fledged film. Now, four years later, I found him still trying to work through the pain of his failed magnum opus.

What should also be noted is how the production of The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus ran into trouble at every turn. First there was the death of actor Heath Ledger during principal photography, then upon completion, a producer died, and then during post production, Gilliam himself was hit by a car. This film still getting made and released is a small miracle in and of itself.

Onto the reason we’re together today, the 2009 film, The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus.

It tells the story of an aging conman/magician/mystical person named Doctor Parnassus who is really more of a gambler. He is constantly engaging in bets with the devil, losing those bets and doubling down to try and dig himself out of a hole. At first, he won and was granted immortality. He quickly realized that immortality was not all he thought it to be and made a new deal to be granted youth so he could be with the woman he loved. The payment was that if he ever had a child, at the age of sixteen, that child would become property of the devil. The film begins only a few short days before Parnassus’ daughter’s sixteenth birthday.

Parnassus, his daughter, and two assistants have been relegated to performing in their own traveling sideshow where they attempt to trick people into passing through their magic mirror. Once inside the mirror, the person is now inside of Parnassus’ imagination. Of course, what they see and experience is also partly dictated by their own imagination. It’s here that they will then be given a choice between two locations — one represents Parnassus’ theory on life while the other represents the devil. Parnassus struggles to find people who don’t succumb to the devil’s promises and thus is digging himself even deeper.

One night, they happen upon a hanging man beneath a London bridge and rescue the man. He’s played by Heath Ledger and has no memory of his previous life. The film really takes off from here as Ledger joins the troupe as a thank you for saving him. He is wonderful in this film — a natural con artist full of exuberance, wit and charm. With Tony’s help, Parnassus begins to gain the upper hand with the devil and just may be able to pull off one last wager and save the soul of his daughter.

Up to this point in the film, there are a few things to note. First, the imagination on display is second to none. Gilliam is fully in his wheelhouse. The monks’ snow covered temple, for example, is extraordinary. Again, Gilliam is giving us a vision only he could give, warts and all. Like many of his previous films, it takes a little while for the tone to settle and gel but we get there — Gilliam, like many auteurs, forces you to buy in to his vision and leave your own shit at the door. The material again is on the darker side. Many of the scenes and dialog and actions toward the daughter, Valentina, are problematic. She’s only sixteen and this does lead to some uncomfortable moments. Gilliam knew this and framed it around the devil’s wishes to soften, or at least explain, the questionable antics. There’s also a moment of blackface in the film which has no business being there. There is simply no excuse for it. It was done to serve a joke but the punchline is not worth a second of the journey taken to get there. So, the film is definitely an imperfect film.

Now, as I’m watching, I’m still digging the film because it’s really about the world each of us holds inside our mind. It’s around the halfway point where LEdger’s character, Tony, first enters the mirror. The result propels the second half of the film ever higher than its setup. It’s also where we first get a glimpse of the genius idea Gilliam had to get the film finished despite his lead actor’s death. He gathered a few of Ledger’s friends to play the late actor’s role. Tony goes into the mirror on three separate occasions and the mirror world inside Parnassus’ mind changes Tony’s face. The first time this happens, Ledger transforms into Johnny Depp. This is the shortest of changes and also the least effective. I love Depp. He’s one of my all time favorites and was brilliant in Fear and Loathing. Here, he plays Tony with a smirk and a wink. It’s more brooding and a little off from Ledger’s take. The second time Tony enters, he transforms into Jude Law. This is the best alternate version of Tony. Where Depp did his own thing, Law matches Ledger’s tone and nervous energy. It’s a damn near perfect match. It’s also our longest look inside the mirror world. I remember thinking that Gilliam should’ve been the one to make a live film version of Alice in Wonderland. He’s always been in love with Lewis Carroll and has paid homage to the writer on countless occasions. You could make the case that this film is his version of Alice in Wonderland. It’s equal parts whimsy, moral fable, and nasty legend. The final time Tony enters the mirror, he transforms into Colin Farrell. This is where we finally see Tony for the bastard he truly is and Farrell is good, not great. The problem here is that Colin Farrell has too kind a face. It’s just hard to buy in that he sucks as a human being. He manages to pull it off but barely.

The entire film is wonderfully absurd but it also begs the question of whether Gilliam has problems with women. Here, Valentina is constantly objectified as a sixteen year old and serves mostly as a plot device. Her plight propels the narrative forward but she doesn’t really hold any other weight. This is what holds me back just a bit from the film. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a very good film but some tweaks to the script could’ve landed Gilliam firmly back on his feet. The more I searched my feelings on this film, I came to realize that Valentina and Parnassus specifically are stand-ins for The Man Who Killed Don Quixote and Gilliam himself. This story is really about an old man questioning his choices and loyalties on the eve of losing what he cherishes most.

The film is visually extraordinary and brimming with ideas — perhaps too many ideas. It’s dark, daunting, and proves Gilliam’s tenacity as a filmmaker. It won’t win any converts but it shows an artist willing to try and dig himself out of a hole that has consumed him for over a decade.

Next week, The Zero Theroem. Until then, love each other.