jefu Reviews

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

An Incandiferous Spectacular Spectacular!

[10/10 · 17 November 2002]

First, my summary :

"Moulin Rouge!" is a brilliant surrealist assemblage/collage, grand music, beautiful cinematography. Deserves to be considered one of the great movies ever.

And now the nitty gritty bitties :

The first time I saw this, I enjoyed it.

The second time I didn't like it as much. "So so at best" was my thought.

Then one day while I was doing something else, I put it on as background and suddenly found myself paying attention. (Probably worth noting at this point that I've only seen it on TV - it takes a rare film to drag me into a theatre - but this is one film I'd love to see in a theatre.) Time to look it up in IMDB and read the comments and other information carefully. "Wow, a lot of people really like this, and a lot of people really HATE it."

I made a point to watch it again the next evening, put the sound through the stereo, turn the volume up a bit, turn lights down. Often enough when I do this, about five minutes into the film I get bored and go off to do something else. Not with "Moulin Rouge!" - I was hooked.

Since then I've seen it several times and every time I watch it, I find more to like - a bit more to dislike as well - but the stuff to like is by far the larger part.

The plot is hackneyed, the pacing uneven, the editing at times intrusive.

On the other hand ...

Think Max Ernst ("Une Semaine de Bonte'"), Salvadore Dali, even Picasso. Think Lewis Carroll, Reymond Queneau, James Joyce. And most especially, remember opera.

"Moulin Rouge!" is a surrealist collage, a mix of dreamscape and reality. Its an impressionist cityscape built almost of pointilliste scale cinematic (and audio) Legos -- symbols, allusions, quotes, archetypes, a dash of postmodern sensibility. Its an operatic (spectacular!) spectacular with its own leitmotifs, and as (often enough) in opera, its not the story that matters most.

Luhrmann presides over the production with vision and discipline. What sometimes looks like a mess on first viewing reveals itself (usually -- there are some exceptions) on closer consideration to be a very deliberately constructed stew -- filled with detail and allusion. Musically, we often hear the shortsighted say "None of the music is original" -- but why should that be a bad thing? By using music we know, Luhrmann gets to play off our associations of one piece against another, of music against performer, and of music against visual. Think Zidler doing "Like a Virgin", or the Paris toffs with "Teen Spirit".

You can almost imagine Luhrmann taking a favored collection of films (and cartoons), music and other bits of cultural detritus and cutting it all up and heaping it up, then taking out bits as he comes to them and putting them all together into a whole. Luhrmann's vision combines a very carefully planned visual style, an equally carefully planned musical score, some wondrous choreography, an oddly wonderful sense of humour and, well, lots more. He builds from these pieces a whole that is brilliant, coherent, compelling, funny and wholly his own.

And to top it off, its a whole pile of fun.

Watch for the allusions - the moon from the Lumiere brothers is the most obvious from film, but there are many more. I think you could do a final exam for a film course by showing a ten minute segment from this film (almost at random) and asking students to note down all the films referred to.

And watch for the stuff that just flashes by. I don't have a DVD player, but am tempted to get one almost this movie alone -- there are several things I'd like to look at very slowly to see if what I think is happening is really happening.

A final note - "The Roxanne Tango". Gosh. Wow. Speechless.

Zorns Lemma (1970)

strange, seriously strange, beautiful, seriously beautiful

[10/10 · 14 May 2002]

I saw this in (I think) 1972 - several times (in a class, in an experimental film showing, and once more in conjunction with the class). I was originally interested because of the name "Zorn's Lemma" - which turns out to be equivalent to the mathematical "Axiom of Choice" - and as a math major the axiom of choice fascinated me (still does).

I don't know what I expected, but it wasn't what I saw - and yet what I saw was somehow compelling, beautiful and unforgettable.

Don't expect a plot (in the usual sense anyway), spectacular photography, or instant gratification. And don't give up on it too soon.

Do expect a beautiful, challenging, contemplative hour of film on the nature of film, of reading and writing, and of structure.

I wish I could find a copy of it now.

Beautiful Thing (1996)

a wonderful love story - just happens to be two boys

[4 May 2002]

Minor spoilers

This film deserves to be seen by all families of gay teens, by all gay teens, by all who remember being gay while teens, by all other teens, by all who are or who have been in love when young, by homophobes and by most anyone else.

It is a story of young love, of being different in adolescence and of that oddly process called "Coming Out" which is terrifying and freeing process at once.

As it starts we see Jamie (Glen Berry) fleeing from after school soccer,and being labelled "Hugh Janus" (Huge Anus) - a reference to his presumed role as a homosexual, by other boys. His next door neighbor (male and the same age) Ste goes along (though with an odd look) with the harrassment. On his way home he he passes the black girl Leah (Tameka Empson) with little comment. When Jamie arrives home, his mother Sandra (Linda Henry) gives him a hard time for having skipped soccer practice.

The stage is set, the main characters introduced, and the story underway in the first sequence in which Jamie walks home from school.

The main plot concerns the developing love affair between Jamie and Ste. Jamie has realized that he is gay, but has told nobody. He is clearly taken with Ste. Ste's sexuality is unknown, but seems likely to be heterosexual and he behaves as such. Over the course of the film we find Ste, who starts by joining his peers (perhaps reluctantly) in the harrassment of Jamie, slowly and fearfully revealing that he does love Jamie and is probably himself gay.

Unlike many other films about coming out, this film has some very strong subplots - Ste is being beaten by his father and older brother. Jamie's mother is attached to Tony - he's odd, but clearly cares about her and is (strangely enough) portrayed as one of the most caring people in the movie. She is also working as a barmaid who as an opportunity for a much better position as the proprietor (??) of a pub of her own. Leah is obsessed with Mama Cass - and is clearly having serious trouble coping with her life.

The main subplots concern discordance between people and their environment - Jamie's homosexuality is a problem between him and his mother (and his school peers). Ste's family clearly (and rightfully) terrifies him - not in general, but in every moment he is around them. Sandra has troubles with Jamie whom she clearly loves deeply but also seems generally unhappy. Leah is prone to the kind of adolescent actions that are designed to attract attention (playing her music overly loud, asking to be hit over the head to change her voice and the like) - this affects both her mother and those living around her.

Tony is an odd character in all this. His place at the onset is that of Sandra's boyfriend and they seem nicely settled together. He works hard to save Leah from one of her more extreme acts. His reaction to Jamie's coming out is supportive, but only because he seems to think that its the "Right Thing".

Some of the plots are resolved - Jamie comes out to his mother - though it takes some pressure from his mother who already knows - to do so. This scene is likely to be one of the most powerful scenes in the film for anyone who had difficulty coming out to parents or family. Sandra gets the new position (though it means she and Jamie will have to move away from the housing (council housing??) where the film is set). Ste and Jamie end up in love. Sandra breaks up with Tony (and with such symbolism!).

Some are not - Ste's continuing relationship with his father and brother is left open as is his future with Jamie who will move with his mother. Leah's difficulties are completely unresolved.

Cinematically, the film is tightly filmed. Little time is wasted in extraneous shots - the film is not so much about place as about people. Indeed, in a few places, the geography of the locations is not easy to work out. For the most part shots of the characters are from reasonable distances (balancing psycological distance and identification) - indeed in retrospect its hard to think of many shots that are not in the range of 5 to 15 feet (or so) from the characters in them. This makes the movie feel like you're participating rather than observing from a distance.

The Mamas and the Papas music is featured in the soundtrack and points up Leah's obsession. The tone of their music is in deep contrast to Leah's agitation. This contrast emphasizes Leah's position as a crucial character, somehow stuck in her own permanent anomie as the others find ways to reduce theirs.

Don't think this is an intellectual film - much of it is quite emotional - dealing with the kinds of issues each of us copes with - and often seem insurmountable during adolescence. And then it ends - leaving anyone who has learned to care about any of the characters quite overwhelmed.

In the final scene, all the major characters (Jamie, Ste, Sandra and Leah) come together in a overwhelming setpiece finish. It is quiet - only the Mamas and the Papas music remains. It is a surprise, completely unrealistic, and wonderfully romantic. It will leave anyone who has been at all emotionally involved with the rest of the film with a satisfying feeling of completion and that sad/glad romantic satisfaction that few films manage.

Nash Bridges (1996– )

great characters rescue a standard crime drama

[29 April 2002]

Nash Bridges is a more or less routine crime/police drama series, the usual suspects, the usual plots and so on. Its nowhere near as good as the original "Spenser" series, nor as flashy as "Miami Vice".

What rescues this series from mediocrity is the cast. Don Johnson - as Nash Bridges - is just ok as the Infinitely Wise and Wonderful cop who Solves Every Case in the last five minutes of the show. The one human touch to Bridges is his oddly busy but not overly successful love life.

What makes this show fun, and very worth watching is the supporting cast - in particular Cheech Marin (playing Joe Dominguez) as the sidekick. But unlike many sidekicks, he is a real character - played for humour, it is true, but not just one dimensional. It may not sound right to say that Johnson and Marin have "chemistry" on screen, but they very definitely do. This adds a nice quirky touch when they are repeatedly taken for a gay couple (in odd situations) by a gay man.

Toss in a few more excellent supporting actors - especially Jeff Perry as Harvey Leek, a detective and James Gammon as Bridges father (though the continuity on his Alzheimers is seriously missed) and the show really starts to work.

The finishing touches are added in by some continuing plot elements - Mr Woody the racehorse somehow acquired by Domingues and Bridges father, Dominguez' marriage to Inger - a swedish woman - is romantic and successful - but with both sides seeing the others problems. Leek's fascination with the Grateful Dead. Angel the Angel. The ghostly disco music in the police station (which is in a boat that was evidently used for raves). Dominguez' schemes for making money.

The show manages to maintain a sense that the people involved had fun, and dont take it too seriously. One fun episode paired Don Johnson with his partner in Miami vice (Philip Michael Thomas) and Cheech Marin with his ex-comedy partner (Tommy Chong) and a wonderful scene takes place in a marijuana buyers club - playing off the "Cheech and Chong" drug themes.

In another episode, Dominguez directs traffic in grand style on Halloween to the sound of the Village People song "YMCA" (all the funnier if you've seen people dancing to the song and making the letters "Y", "M", "C" "A" as they dance).

If you want serious crime drama - go for something else - if you want a relaxed, easy to watch show with the requisite Car Chases, Guns and Nasties and with fun characters, tongue in cheek humour and a cast that rarely lets you down, this is made to order.

Walker, Texas Ranger (1993–2001)

requires a "willing suspension of sheer incredulity"

[16 April 2002]

Walker, Texas Ranger is not only a bad show, but its silly and often enough downright stupid.

We all know the plot - Good Guy (?) Ranger Walker gets involved with a crime - usually involving Bad Guys so horrendously evil that we're supposed to automatically like what Walker does. And, of course, in the last few minutes Walker saves everything with a few karate chops and kicks. (Often ignoring guns near at hand.)

Why is this so much worse than other shows that follow about the same general form?

To begin with, Chuck Norris is a terrible actor - one or two facial expressions, about as much intonation in his voice as Jack Webb at his most absurd.

Then, he surrounds himself with wooden actors, that by their very poverty of talent make him actually almost look good.

And it looks more like the kind of police brutality that made Amadou Diallow famous - so thats a bit of an exaggeration. But its easy to see how Norris's fondness for beating people up is probably the same kind of thing that leads to police brutality cases in real life. Worse yet, Norris is clearly a bit of an exhibitionist this way - he loves to be SEEN beating people up and defining himself as the ultimate arbiter of the law and as an equally ultimate judge of morality.

And... Clarence Gilyard as Ranger Trivette gets to play Norris' sidekick, and is treated as the very worse kind of sidekick - there as a foil to Norris, and as a source of what I think the writers will see as humourous lines. But unlike (say) Cheech Marin in "Nash Bridges" Trivette is not allowd to much more than be such a foil - and very often he is treated as just another person to show on screen.

Finally, the law and even just reasonable behavior are completely ignored. Walker is apparently sufficiently above legal restraints that he does essentially what he wants - even if it is something that would incur his righteous wrath when someone else did it. (Even the theme song echoes this sentiment.)

The show has one redeeming feature - if you want to know how not to act, if you want to know how not to write for the screen, if you want to know how to break laws and still feel like you're always right, this is the show for you - otherwise it would make a good foundation for a drinking game - or MST2K type audience commentary.

People Like Us (1999–2001)

funny and painful at once

[9/10 · 13 August 2001]

When I first saw this it took me a few minutes to catch on to the fact that it was not a real documentary - it looks and sounds like a real documentary if you don't pay attention, but when you do pay attention, the humour is pervasive and brilliant.

Humor is often associated with a darker side - cruelty, pain, sadness. Some of the funniest movies, books and tv shows are those that intermix these well. American TV doesn't seem to explore this side very much, but British TV comedy does and some of the best of british sitcoms are those that do this deeply - Basil Fawlty wouldn't be anywhere near as funny if he were just Bill Cosby. "The League of Gentlemen" goes quite a ways in this direction - far enough to squick some watchers. "People Like Us" is nothing like that extreme, but much of the humour is based on situations that (if they were happening to us) would probably not be considered "good days".

"People Like Us" takes the form of a documentary TV show (named "people like us") with "Roy Mallard" following "people like us" around in their jobs and interviewing them. We never really see Roy, but we hear his questions and comments. So far, it looks like many documentaries. And if you only watch

casually, it continues to look that way. But if you look and listen more closely, it becomes far more interesting. And very funny.

Part of the humour comes from Roy's commentary, which is wonderfully deadpan, but which often includes odd mistakes and misstatements. If you don't listen, you'll miss them - as often the various portions of the sentence make complete sense ("Although since the beginning of the twentieth century the number of people attending church regularly has fallen by twice that amount over the same period of time...") Part of the humour comes from the people he's interviewing. In some cases these people are hurting - they're on the verge of failure, or even beyond. In other cases things just go wrong. A bank manager forgets the password for his safe, a real estate agent gets lost. Roy walks off with a childs toy. Minor events and given minor consideration with no fanfare - but often very, very funny. (In American sitcoms, there'd be a laugh track, and sometimes this kind of incident would be the basis for a full episode.)

Interestingly, after a couple of episodes, it begins to seem that the title "People Like Us" is really true for Roy. The people featured are the ones that seem most like him in some ways. We never see Roy and don't hear much about him, but we do discover he is married and that this show for him is perhaps a step down from the farm report. And in some ways this show is a serious dissection of Roy, seen only in how other people are interacting with him.

Its hard to describe this program and how funny it can really be. Best thing to do is watch it and see for yourself.

America 2-Night (1978)

everyone's favorite talk show

[8/10 · 27 June 2001]

After "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman", we got "Fernwood 2Nite" - a talk show set in Fernwood, then "Forever Fernwood" and finally "America 2Nite". Barth Gimble (Martin Mull) has moved from Fernwood to Hollywood and is now doing a "national" talk show - but he's not lost Jerry Hubbard (Fred Willard) or Happy Kyne and the Mirthmakers.

Nor has he managed to escape his past or his guests or the incredible tackiness that permeates everything on his TV shows. And, while I sometimes might want to escape - I'm usually stuck, laughing and waiting for the next oddity to come along. But, like most good comedy, the humor is based on human foibles.

It is best experienced as it was produced - as a series tv show, that gives the oddities of Barth and Jerry time to simmer in your brain a bit so that the next time you see them you're ready (or not) for whats going to happen.

Sadly, it seems to have disappeared completely - I just saw a couple of episodes that ended up on the end of video tapes of something else, and was reminded of how good it was and of how well Martin Mull and Fred Willard worked together. They really fit well in the roles and made their characters more than the caricatures they could have been.

Watch these and the next time late night tv has you yawning you can imaging Barth and Jerry instead and it will bring a grin (just like Happy Kyne's).

A Nero Wolfe Mystery: Champagne for One: Part 1 (2001) Season 1, Episode 2

Good renditions of Nero Wolfe

[9 June 2001]

This series of A&E productions is turning out quite nicely. As a long time Nero Wolfe reader, I must say that Timothy Hutton as Archie Goodwin and Maury Chaikin as Nero Wolfe would probably make Rex Stout quite happy. Archie is appropriately flippant and Wolfe nicely curmudgeonly and they seem to have a nice rapport as actors.

The plots are (as Stout's plots are) busy and crowded with characters and intrigue. But it was never for the plots that I read Rex Stout - it was for Archie and Wolfe, the people around them, and the scent of dated Manhattan that permeates the novels. And this series catches those people, and that atmosphere very well indeed. The series also has its own odd humour - not unlike the novels, but with more up-to-date sensibilities.

And Timothy Hutton's direction works very well - he's not so fond of himself that he is the only character on screen - he treats the cast well, giving each member their due. (But most especially Chaykin who, it must be said, is a Nero Wolfe par excellence.) This series gives us better looks at most of the actors, and especially their faces, than almost anything else on television. Much credit is also due to the cinematographer who makes this tv production take on the color values of the early technicolor, giving a nice period feel. And colors are everywhere - sometimes startlingly so.

The scenes are nicely paced and the images carefully framed. This probably sounds awfully technical - but when something is not done this well, I usually don't notice it - it just seems normal. But for some reason I've been noticing how these are put together and it looks very good indeed (and happily enough not intrusively so). I'm rather hoping Hutton uses this series to hone his skills as a director and goes on to do the same kind of thing on the big screen.

This is a quiet series with little action and mostly interior shots, but for fans of dialog and character and mysteries of various sorts, it must be highly recommended. For fans of Nero Wolfe, it is a must.

Love Among the Ruins (1975 TV Movie)

Great actors, director, story, but made for tv so its unknown

[10/10 · 18 May 2001]

Katharine Hepburn and Laurence Olivier both put in great performances in this quiet, bittersweet romantic comedy. The writing is wonderful and the direction sublime. Olivier, in particular, as a lawyer (Sir Arthur Manville-Jones) defending a long lost love Jessica (Hepburn) in a "breach of promise" case, comes to life in a way that is far too rare on film. He is each of us remembering that one person we can never forget - and now he has the chance to reconnect with her.

But the ways of love are never smooth and Jessica's involvement with (and subsequent rejection of) a younger man who clearly is interested in her money (and played with precise sliminess by Leigh Lawson) now has her entangled in a court case and probably not in as strong a position as she (or Sir Arthur) would like.

To complicate matters, Sir Arthur is still in love and reminds her of how they met these long years ago. Jessica's memory may not be so good, but Sir Arthur is determined to do all possible to save her from the slimey young man.

The film centers around three kinds of scenes: almost all are focussed on Olivier. In some Sir Arthur remembers his earlier time with Jessica and plots his performance in court - with his clerk and others. In these we see Sir Arthur and the feelings he still has for Jessica and his hope that maybe you can go back again.

In other scenes the focus is on Jessica and Sir Arthur, his memories, her current situation, his plans for the trial. Sir Arthur's feelings are sometimes concealed (though not always well) while Jessica (once an actress) is better at masquerading.

Finally, there are the courtroom scenes in which Olivier transcends both Olivier and Sir Arthur and shows us a barrister putting on a performance in the court that is entirely different from all we have seen Sir Arthur do before.

But Jessica is also putting on a performance, and when the depth of this performance and the deliberateness of her deceit are revealed, you suddenly have a second chance to see who Jessica is and was and maybe who she will be.

There have been a number of great filmed love stories (and Hepburn is no stranger to them), but this is a bit different - its about young love - between two people who are far from young. Its about hope and how things work out sometimes. Its funny and sad - often at the same time. It may not be a great film - but its a very good one indeed, well worth watching and rewatching.

But since it was made for TV it seems to have been destined to be quietly ignored - this is a shame as it is far better than most of the stuff thats endlessly recycled on cable.

Paris, Texas (1984)

quiet, understated and hauntingly brilliant

[10/10 · 3 March 2001]

When this film reached cable I saw a couple of minutes of it, expecting to walk out the door as I had things to do that day. Two hours plus later I had missed getting to things I had to do and I was both emotionally and mentally dazed. I did not see it again until today (March, 2001) but despite a gap of probably twelve years I've never forgotten it - and scenes from the film, bits of the story came back to me over and over again.

Its a slow paced film and for that reason will probably lose many viewers - but it is very carefully constructed on many levels and has lots to say about the human condition. The audio with Ry Cooder's music to back it up is quiet and matches the mood perfectly.

The visual construction is subtle, often very flat - bright desert, muted twilights, lots of darkness. Its the antithesis of the usual Hollywood flash - but its also clear that the director knew exactly what he was doing - and even more - that his ideas were good. And I wont spoil the fun by pointing out the complexity of the motifs used.

The script addresses emotional issues directly - but almost imperceptibly.

And the crowning touch on it all is Harry Dean Stanton's performance - which almost does not appear to be a performance. I've not been able to see him in anything else without remembering this character.

It will probably never be a popular film - but I would rate it in my top 10 - maybe my top five. Its a movie that requires an investment in attention and thought and that will pay it back many times over.

If your taste runs toward exploding helicopters and lots of noise, do yourself a favor and skip this, you'll probably hate it. But if you want more out of a movie - this is a great one.

What's Up, Doc? (1972)

Funny and well worth repeated viewings

[20 February 2000]

This film is very funny and stays so even after repeated viewings. The plot is silly, but it doesn't matter - the film is not about plot, so much as its about how this oddball bunch of characters interact - and the situations and dialog carry the film along effortlessly. Streisand and O'Neil are wonderful - surprisingly so. A much underseen and underappreciated film.