THE BITTER BUDDHA is a documentary that tells the story of comedian Eddie Pepitone's failure to have become a successful comedian by age 52. Understandably, he's bitter; it's the nectar of his humor. The "Buddha" part is less obvious. If it was intended to mock his improved outlook after achieving sobriety, I'm not laughing. Maybe this is a clue why comedic success has eluded him.< That's not entirely fair for me to say. He is actually very funny, albeit inconsistently. He's addicted to tweeting, here's my favorite featured in the movie: "Whenever someone yells 'can I get a woot woot?' I like to yell 'only if you promise to read a book in your lifetime."< There are many talented artists who fail to achieve material success, and it is a very sad and all too common circumstance. One tries to control luck, contain their bewilderment and confusion as less talented people speed right past them. If these factors seem discouraging,imagine the impact of having the story of your failure as the subject of a film that features comments from your more successful peers praising your talent as they contemplate why you haven't been able to achieve what they have. Gee, if only they could put in a good word for you
Dana Gould, a (rather) successful comedian comments: "I wouldn't say he walks the talk so much as he trudges the trudge." With friends like these
.. I couldn't discern the intention of this movie. If it's meant to be a launching pad for his comedy career, it's disingenuous. It feels like a showcase (a performance intended for an industry audience, usually not as good as a show for a general audience). If it's meant to depict the unfortunate realization of unrecognized talent, it feels mean spirited. Despite this criticism, I am comfortable recommending the film, as Mr. Pepitone is genuinely funny, but I add the caveat that it will be most enjoyed by comedy fans and those who know the entertainment business rather than civilians who have had no exposure to what happens behind the scenes while they're laughing.
Reviews
8 Reviews
Joplin, Missouri
(2012)
The Opposite of Katrina
10 November 2012
Joplin native Chip Gubera's documentary JOPLIN MISSOURI: A TORNADO STORY is a comprehensive, informative account of the devastation wrought on his hometown by a natural disaster and its subsequent recovery. On May 21, 2011 the deadliest tornado ever recorded struck Joplin, an F5 in which wind gusts exceeded 200 mph. In fact, it was not a single tornado, but a multi-vortex tornado created by two converging storms. As local meteorologist Jeremiah Cook explained, this meant that the half mile wide tornado had several "fingers," each an individual tornado, and the rains were so heavy one could not see them before they struck. Narrator George Noory's jovial voice and the monotone recollections of survivors belie the overwhelming scope of the devastation. Fortunately, director Gubera uses footage from weather satellite photos, security cameras, and police vehicle audio and video recordings to convey the immense power of the storm and the apocalyptic destruction it wrought. Before the rain has stopped falling, the citizens of Joplin begin to come together to account for their neighbors and rebuild their town. Assimilating all the details of how this is accomplished, one begins to realize this disaster could easily be called the "Anti-Katrina". Missouri state and federal programs contribute funds and facilitate applications for programs like SBA loans. National retailers set up temporary stores and assign some employees to help with cleaning up neighborhoods; local businesses keep their employees on their payrolls, despite lacking inventory or even a location. Church groups anonymously show up to help clean neighborhoods, asking nothing in return and refrain from proselytizing. Insurance agencies proactively file claims for their clients who may be too shell-shocked or depressed to meet deadlines. Donations from charities, celebrities, and countries as far away as, and as surprising as, the United Arab Emirates flow in. Everything was not perfect; Joplin did attract looters and shady contractors. However, it becomes clear that the sense of community coalesced by the disaster was certainly the greater force. Bail bondsmen will not do business with arrested looters. The question of why this disaster was so effectively handled compared to Katrina is overtly hinted at, even though it is beyond the scope of this film. However, it does linger in the background and highlights the lack of diversity in the community. Fortunately, this movie creates a record of the disaster that cannot be had through news updates as it is unfolding. A complete picture is only possible with the passage of time that can allow for a full physical assessment of the devastation and the space survivors need to even begin to process their experience.
Casting By
(2012)
A Valentine to Marion Dougherty
10 November 2012
CASTING BY is a surprisingly entertaining documentary. Its title is somewhat misleading as it's doesn't really explain the occupation of casting directors, rather it is a valentine to Marion Dougherty, the woman who coined the term as she carved out a unique role when she began working in the entertainment business. Ironically, she wanted to be an actress herself, but didn't pursue a career, believing it would be too difficult. Fortunately, an entry level position at NBC producing live plays sponsored by Kraft proved a better fit for her theatrical instincts. As she was living in New York City, she had ample opportunity and desire to go to the theater where she discovered the talent whom she cast. The film has a treasure trove of footage of the first roles given to future stars, the most entertaining one is a 22 year-old Warren Beatty imitating fellow Lee Stasberg graduate Marlon Brando. Fortunately, Ms Dougherty, who was not an acting teacher, remanded him that "The Method" did not mean "The Mumble."
The cavalcade of stars whose careers she launched is astonishing, but equally important is the serendipitous era in which she achieved prominence. The cinema of the 1970s was groundbreaking in that talent was allowed to trump looks, and the collapse of the studio movie-making machine allowed risqué movies like "Midnight Cowboy," "Panic in Needle Park," and "Taxi Driver" to be made.
Marion Dougherty's LA counterpart, Lynn Stalmaster, is profiled as another example of a casting director. But based in LA, the criteria and talent pool meant that his accomplishments are complementary to hers, but not comparable.
The movie is enjoyable, fast-paced and certain to be enjoyed by cinephiles, but should not be viewed as a representation of the profession of casting directors.
This writer has first-hand knowledge of the acting industry in Los Angeles. The majority of casting directors do not have anywhere near the authority of those interviewed in the movie. While it is a more difficult proposition for an LA-based casting director to go to the theater to discover talent, few make the effort nor have any appreciation for the actor's craft. Crassly, some actually teach acting classes and charge fees for aspiring actors to meet them.
Just as in the modeling world, there are the Victoria's Secret models at the top and an exploitative ugly underbelly that are not depicted together, so it is in the casting business. There's a documentary to be made there, but this movie is not it. It is about the cream that has justifiably risen to the top and gifted us with some of the greatest actors we may ever see.
The cavalcade of stars whose careers she launched is astonishing, but equally important is the serendipitous era in which she achieved prominence. The cinema of the 1970s was groundbreaking in that talent was allowed to trump looks, and the collapse of the studio movie-making machine allowed risqué movies like "Midnight Cowboy," "Panic in Needle Park," and "Taxi Driver" to be made.
Marion Dougherty's LA counterpart, Lynn Stalmaster, is profiled as another example of a casting director. But based in LA, the criteria and talent pool meant that his accomplishments are complementary to hers, but not comparable.
The movie is enjoyable, fast-paced and certain to be enjoyed by cinephiles, but should not be viewed as a representation of the profession of casting directors.
This writer has first-hand knowledge of the acting industry in Los Angeles. The majority of casting directors do not have anywhere near the authority of those interviewed in the movie. While it is a more difficult proposition for an LA-based casting director to go to the theater to discover talent, few make the effort nor have any appreciation for the actor's craft. Crassly, some actually teach acting classes and charge fees for aspiring actors to meet them.
Just as in the modeling world, there are the Victoria's Secret models at the top and an exploitative ugly underbelly that are not depicted together, so it is in the casting business. There's a documentary to be made there, but this movie is not it. It is about the cream that has justifiably risen to the top and gifted us with some of the greatest actors we may ever see.
How to Survive a Plague
(2012)
How To Survive A Plague Tells How To Achieve Real Change
18 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is an excellent, engrossing, and necessary document to an important period of history.
Living in New York City in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I was familiar with ACT-UP. At least I thought I was.
ACT-UP is the acronym for the Aids Coalition To Unleash Power, an organization founded by gay activists to pressure the powers that be to help them fight the deadly disease ravaging their community. Their accomplishments have benefited every citizen of the United States, gay and straight, and they deserve our recognition and gratitude.
After watching this movie, I felt old and sad. Old because I remember how frightening AIDS was. I remember learning of the deaths of artists I had just discovered, like the fashion designer Patrick Kelly and disco diva Sylvester. I remember exactly where I was when I heard Freddie Mercury had died. Having dated some "confused" guys, I remember the dread of getting tested. I remember when AIDS meant certain death.
For gays to be fighting for the right to marry today almost seems to be a luxury. The footage opening the movie seems quaint today: people in acid-washed, mommy-cut jeans being arrested as they shout "Health care is a right!" Who did these people think they were?
Director David France: "We didn't know from week to week who was going to make it. That was a literal fact. There's no hyperbole there. It's one thing to try and tell somebody that, but what this archive of footage allowed me to do was to show it and allow the audience to wonder from frame to frame who would live and who would die."
They challenged the FDA and changed the drug approval procedure. They challenged pharmaceutical companies and got them to lower their prices as well as speed up their research process. They created a blueprint for how to make a difference in the world.
It's important to remember that they accomplished all of this without the internet, social media, or cell phones. They accomplished this with Republican presidents. They accomplished this despite the societal acceptance prejudice against homosexuals.
The people profiled who became the core members of ACT UP had nothing in common save the fear of death. Of particular note:
Larry Kramer might be the only one with any name recognition. His 1987 New York Times op-ed piece is credited for the founding of ACT UP. His appearances and interviews in the movie are the most eloquent, as one would expect from a playwright.
Peter Staley was a bond trader who tested positive for HIV two years after moving to New York. He was given a flyer for an ACT UP protest but had not planned to attend until his boss said "Everyone with AIDS deserves to die because they take it up the butt." His knowledge of corporate culture informed ACT UP's successful demonstrations against pharmaceutical companies and federal bureaucracies.
Iris Long was a straight housewife from Queens who felt compelled to share what she'd learned from her twenty years of working in drug development. She taught ACT UP the protocols of every aspect of drug creation allowing them to take on the establishment with authority. Ultimately, her contributions were more valuable than any other member.
Bob Rafsky was a PR director who came out at age 40. The movie includes a gripping scene of him confronting candidate Bill Clinton during the 1992 presidential campaign.
The movie's director, David France, insists he's not a movie director. That is very humble of him; much of the footage in this film was shot by people who succumbed to the plague (they are given screen credit). France is a journalist whose career has been spent covering the disease. Realizing that the disease was discovered at the same time camcorders hit the market gave him the idea to make this movie. The story of ACT UP emerged from the over 700 hours of footage he found.
Along with last year's documentary We Were Here, the time has come for the story of AIDS to be told, lest it be forgotten. Many of those on the front lines have had the trauma affect their memories. As was observed in Holocaust survivors, beyond a specific date, no one could remember what happened.
That date was 1996 when the Protease Inhibitor Crixivan was approved. By December of that year, AIDS deaths in New York City had gone down by 50%. Had Presidents Reagan and Bush committed more funding to AIDS, that drug would have appeared sooner and many lives could have been saved. Bush's own AIDS commission criticized his lack of commitment in June, 1992.
France said that year " ...AIDS became a non-story. Newspapers stopped writing about it. It was over."
Today, HIV is a manageable condition rather than a death sentence.
Despite its subject matter, this is not a propogand-doc. France doesn't ignore the infighting that threatened ACT-UP's existence; in fact Larry Kramer is critical of the movie for not including more of these details. I'm sad he's not happy with the movie. The movie includes footage of him angrily berating those infighters. "Plague!!!" he exclaims in exasperation. " It is a plague that is not going to go away. It is only going to get worse," he said in 2011.
His choice to interview the pharmaceutical scientists is an inspired one. It is a reminder that drug companies are not the enemy. ACT UP proved that the real route to change is to work within the existing systems, not to destroy them.
Living in New York City in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I was familiar with ACT-UP. At least I thought I was.
ACT-UP is the acronym for the Aids Coalition To Unleash Power, an organization founded by gay activists to pressure the powers that be to help them fight the deadly disease ravaging their community. Their accomplishments have benefited every citizen of the United States, gay and straight, and they deserve our recognition and gratitude.
After watching this movie, I felt old and sad. Old because I remember how frightening AIDS was. I remember learning of the deaths of artists I had just discovered, like the fashion designer Patrick Kelly and disco diva Sylvester. I remember exactly where I was when I heard Freddie Mercury had died. Having dated some "confused" guys, I remember the dread of getting tested. I remember when AIDS meant certain death.
For gays to be fighting for the right to marry today almost seems to be a luxury. The footage opening the movie seems quaint today: people in acid-washed, mommy-cut jeans being arrested as they shout "Health care is a right!" Who did these people think they were?
Director David France: "We didn't know from week to week who was going to make it. That was a literal fact. There's no hyperbole there. It's one thing to try and tell somebody that, but what this archive of footage allowed me to do was to show it and allow the audience to wonder from frame to frame who would live and who would die."
They challenged the FDA and changed the drug approval procedure. They challenged pharmaceutical companies and got them to lower their prices as well as speed up their research process. They created a blueprint for how to make a difference in the world.
It's important to remember that they accomplished all of this without the internet, social media, or cell phones. They accomplished this with Republican presidents. They accomplished this despite the societal acceptance prejudice against homosexuals.
The people profiled who became the core members of ACT UP had nothing in common save the fear of death. Of particular note:
Larry Kramer might be the only one with any name recognition. His 1987 New York Times op-ed piece is credited for the founding of ACT UP. His appearances and interviews in the movie are the most eloquent, as one would expect from a playwright.
Peter Staley was a bond trader who tested positive for HIV two years after moving to New York. He was given a flyer for an ACT UP protest but had not planned to attend until his boss said "Everyone with AIDS deserves to die because they take it up the butt." His knowledge of corporate culture informed ACT UP's successful demonstrations against pharmaceutical companies and federal bureaucracies.
Iris Long was a straight housewife from Queens who felt compelled to share what she'd learned from her twenty years of working in drug development. She taught ACT UP the protocols of every aspect of drug creation allowing them to take on the establishment with authority. Ultimately, her contributions were more valuable than any other member.
Bob Rafsky was a PR director who came out at age 40. The movie includes a gripping scene of him confronting candidate Bill Clinton during the 1992 presidential campaign.
The movie's director, David France, insists he's not a movie director. That is very humble of him; much of the footage in this film was shot by people who succumbed to the plague (they are given screen credit). France is a journalist whose career has been spent covering the disease. Realizing that the disease was discovered at the same time camcorders hit the market gave him the idea to make this movie. The story of ACT UP emerged from the over 700 hours of footage he found.
Along with last year's documentary We Were Here, the time has come for the story of AIDS to be told, lest it be forgotten. Many of those on the front lines have had the trauma affect their memories. As was observed in Holocaust survivors, beyond a specific date, no one could remember what happened.
That date was 1996 when the Protease Inhibitor Crixivan was approved. By December of that year, AIDS deaths in New York City had gone down by 50%. Had Presidents Reagan and Bush committed more funding to AIDS, that drug would have appeared sooner and many lives could have been saved. Bush's own AIDS commission criticized his lack of commitment in June, 1992.
France said that year " ...AIDS became a non-story. Newspapers stopped writing about it. It was over."
Today, HIV is a manageable condition rather than a death sentence.
Despite its subject matter, this is not a propogand-doc. France doesn't ignore the infighting that threatened ACT-UP's existence; in fact Larry Kramer is critical of the movie for not including more of these details. I'm sad he's not happy with the movie. The movie includes footage of him angrily berating those infighters. "Plague!!!" he exclaims in exasperation. " It is a plague that is not going to go away. It is only going to get worse," he said in 2011.
His choice to interview the pharmaceutical scientists is an inspired one. It is a reminder that drug companies are not the enemy. ACT UP proved that the real route to change is to work within the existing systems, not to destroy them.
The Intouchables
(2011)
Disco Lives!
13 October 2012
While not receiving as much praise as I had hoped, a quick coup d'oeil of critiques concede its appeal, despite a few exceptions, who shall heretofore be referred to as les détesteurs (haters).
I'd like to thank les détesteurs for validating the purpose of this site. "High Concept" doesn't automatically mean "this movie sucks," it just seems that way because we've been served dreck. So we think looking to Europe, particularly France, led by les détesteurs and expecting to be served "high art" will replace those IQ points lost by domestic offerings. The real snobs are the ones who scoff at France revealing her quotidian side- you know, the masses that in actuality pay to see the high concept dreck that we serve them. Now, is that juste? Is that American?
It was an Englishman that coined the phrase "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery; we were not ashamed to flatter him or his country by imitating (appropriating) their language. I suggest we allow ourselves to be flattered at their appropriation of our culture. Refusing would only further confirm their suspicions of how uptight we are, beginning with the R rating.
The story concerns a stereotypical white guy: uptight, hyper-rich, insufferable man of privilege who happens to be a paraplegic (François Cluzet). As is normal in such a circumstance, he requires constant care. The movie begins with him interviewing prospects, note to les détesteurs: He's does not attend a slave auction. Among the candidates is a stereotypical black guy: tall, muscular, bald, lives in the projects, in trouble with the law, ill at ease with the finer things in life (Omar Sy). Détesteurs: Did you notice that he's really black, like "direct from Africa black?" Your casting's way off.
If you can't suss out the story from here, you probably haven't seen "Trading Places," "Driving Miss Daisy," "48 Hours," etc. Those were all good, entertaining movies based on the same "cliché." The critics' log line would be "Black Man helps White Man become Better Person."
However, I would bet that you won't be able to predict everything- it is indeed a French movie so some ambiguity is required. For those with psychic cinematic gifts who do guess everything, so what? Predictability is not a bad thing; being predictably bad is a bad thing. The movies mentioned in the previous paragraph were all both predictable and enjoyable.
Instead of calling Omar Sy's character an "Uncle Tom" ensuring a Google legacy forever linking him with that slur, wouldn't it be great if instead, this film launched him as an international superstar? It's certainly time for a new face, especially a non-white, non-Anglo one. While I think Jean Dujardin will have a successful international career, I don't think Jamel Debouzze or Gad Elmelah (two established comedic stars in France trying to cross over) have the same comic talent or charisma, and his English is better. Before I rest my case, let me remind you of the most recent Francophone superstar: Jean Claude Van Damme.
Finally, I would like to explain the cryptic title. François Cluzot has been a critically acclaimed actor for many years and hopefully is recognizable to French movie fans. Omar Sy became famous in France on sketch comedy TV shows, like his compatriot, first-ever-French Best Actor Oscar winner Jean Dujardin.
But, the real star of this movie is us, the U.S., the United States. Not our bi-racial kumbaya movies. Not our appropriated high concepts and clichés.
The element(s) that bonds these two men is music, a specific genre of music born in America from an American group that epitomizes that genre like no other and eradicates any overtones of racism.
The recent tragic deaths of two of Disco's greatest artists, Donna Summer and Robin Gibb, retrained my perspective. Anyone who was lucky enough to be alive when Disco dominated everything also remembers the death knells that chimed deafeningly as it was killing itself through overexposure. For a brief time, admitting you liked it was an invitation for ridicule.
Now, let me ask: have you ever, let alone recently, been to a wedding, a bar mitzvah, a club where anyone requested Quarterflash, The Alan Parsons Project, or The Little River Band? It was they who vanquished Disco.
As we all know, Disco didn't die. Its call to dance has always been an affirmation of life.
So, for a life-affirming, feel good movie, it's only right to credit Disco as the true star.
I'd like to thank les détesteurs for validating the purpose of this site. "High Concept" doesn't automatically mean "this movie sucks," it just seems that way because we've been served dreck. So we think looking to Europe, particularly France, led by les détesteurs and expecting to be served "high art" will replace those IQ points lost by domestic offerings. The real snobs are the ones who scoff at France revealing her quotidian side- you know, the masses that in actuality pay to see the high concept dreck that we serve them. Now, is that juste? Is that American?
It was an Englishman that coined the phrase "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery; we were not ashamed to flatter him or his country by imitating (appropriating) their language. I suggest we allow ourselves to be flattered at their appropriation of our culture. Refusing would only further confirm their suspicions of how uptight we are, beginning with the R rating.
The story concerns a stereotypical white guy: uptight, hyper-rich, insufferable man of privilege who happens to be a paraplegic (François Cluzet). As is normal in such a circumstance, he requires constant care. The movie begins with him interviewing prospects, note to les détesteurs: He's does not attend a slave auction. Among the candidates is a stereotypical black guy: tall, muscular, bald, lives in the projects, in trouble with the law, ill at ease with the finer things in life (Omar Sy). Détesteurs: Did you notice that he's really black, like "direct from Africa black?" Your casting's way off.
If you can't suss out the story from here, you probably haven't seen "Trading Places," "Driving Miss Daisy," "48 Hours," etc. Those were all good, entertaining movies based on the same "cliché." The critics' log line would be "Black Man helps White Man become Better Person."
However, I would bet that you won't be able to predict everything- it is indeed a French movie so some ambiguity is required. For those with psychic cinematic gifts who do guess everything, so what? Predictability is not a bad thing; being predictably bad is a bad thing. The movies mentioned in the previous paragraph were all both predictable and enjoyable.
Instead of calling Omar Sy's character an "Uncle Tom" ensuring a Google legacy forever linking him with that slur, wouldn't it be great if instead, this film launched him as an international superstar? It's certainly time for a new face, especially a non-white, non-Anglo one. While I think Jean Dujardin will have a successful international career, I don't think Jamel Debouzze or Gad Elmelah (two established comedic stars in France trying to cross over) have the same comic talent or charisma, and his English is better. Before I rest my case, let me remind you of the most recent Francophone superstar: Jean Claude Van Damme.
Finally, I would like to explain the cryptic title. François Cluzot has been a critically acclaimed actor for many years and hopefully is recognizable to French movie fans. Omar Sy became famous in France on sketch comedy TV shows, like his compatriot, first-ever-French Best Actor Oscar winner Jean Dujardin.
But, the real star of this movie is us, the U.S., the United States. Not our bi-racial kumbaya movies. Not our appropriated high concepts and clichés.
The element(s) that bonds these two men is music, a specific genre of music born in America from an American group that epitomizes that genre like no other and eradicates any overtones of racism.
The recent tragic deaths of two of Disco's greatest artists, Donna Summer and Robin Gibb, retrained my perspective. Anyone who was lucky enough to be alive when Disco dominated everything also remembers the death knells that chimed deafeningly as it was killing itself through overexposure. For a brief time, admitting you liked it was an invitation for ridicule.
Now, let me ask: have you ever, let alone recently, been to a wedding, a bar mitzvah, a club where anyone requested Quarterflash, The Alan Parsons Project, or The Little River Band? It was they who vanquished Disco.
As we all know, Disco didn't die. Its call to dance has always been an affirmation of life.
So, for a life-affirming, feel good movie, it's only right to credit Disco as the true star.
Argo
(2012)
Go See Argo!
13 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Argo is the best movie of the year- (so far).
Even though I knew the ending, I was still on the edge of my seat in suspense. That's how good it is.
It was inevitable that a CIA operation about making a movie would become a movie itself. In the wrong hands, it could have been as bad as the fictional sci-fi movie "Argo" that was the cover for the clandestine operation.
Not only does Affleck have the directing chops, I think his achievement is partly due to his age. I am very close in age to Mr. Affleck, and I remember watching the Iranian hostage crisis unfold nightly on the news. I didn't understand the history or politics that caused it (Affleck opens the film with an animated history lesson to bring everyone up to speed), but I remember its impact: the yellow ribbons, the daily count on the evening news, and the nightly updates from Ted Koppel that would become the newsmagazine "Nightline."
Importantly, I remember how the world worked then: everything was on paper, documents were created by typewriters, phones had cords, TVs had only a few channels that had to be manually changed. In short, I remember the world that could pull off this operation.
This world existed in an era when science fiction movies still dominated the entertainment arena, three years after Star Wars had opened. Every television and movie producer were hellbent on replicating that movie's success. Thus, prime time television (in addition to movies) had a disproportionate share of sci-fi imitators: Battlestar Gallactica, Buck Rogers, even Star Wars produced a Christmas special that starred Bea Arthur and Art Carney in 1978. I'm not kidding. In addition, many established shows like The Muppet Show, Fantasy Island, and the numerous variety shows jumped on the bandwagon. Although most of these productions were inferior, kids like myself and Mr. Affleck watched them anyway, and they were a formative aspect of our childhood.
I think this context is important to note: it makes the prospect of a making a science fiction movie in Iran not seem stupid or improbable. As it happens, the idea was credible to the Iranians as they were actively encouraging international business and were hungry for US dollars according to Joshuah Bearman who wrote about the operation in Wired in 2007.
Affleck nails the characters and physical details (the end credits display side by side the images of the real people and places next to those from the film. I dare you not to be impressed). His real-life character Tony Mendez said "it was just like being there again."
While I was at the edge of my seat, I was wondering in the back of my mind how much dramatic license Affleck took. How faithful is it to the real story? This movie snob had to find out.
The answer is: enough.
The famous screenwriter William Goldman advised other screenwriters not to write real stories; real stories are never as believable as fiction.
Affleck does his mentor proud. His deviations from the truth do not detract from the story at all. His changes intensify the drama, assist the pacing, and streamline the storytelling.
Spoiler ALERT: If you want to see the movie without knowing too many details, stop reading HERE.
Bryan Cranston's and Alan Arkin's character are composites of several people. The staged reading at the Beverly Hilton never happened, it's an opportunity for Affleck to laugh at Hollywood's expense. It doesn't detract at all from the movie and hopefully gives him closure on Gigli.
Affleck is very kind to the Canadians; it turns out many of the "bad" bad ideas were actually theirs. Mendez had three children not one, but the one in the film is named Ian in memory of Mendez' late son and to whom the film is dedicated. He is shown in the photos on Affleck's nightstand.
Affleck's inspiration is depicted as occurring as he's watching Planet of the Apes with his son. It is not made clear in the movie, but John Chambers, the make-up artist he contacts in Hollywood, actually won an Oscar for make-up for that 1969 film.
The trapped Americans did not all stay at the Canadian Ambassador's residence, only some of the group were housed there, and they had several temporary hideouts in between. They left the American Embassy in a heavy downpour that is not recreated in the movie.
The group's tense visit to a crowded bazaar never really happened. And, as I suspected, the police cars on the runway were fiction as well.
During the closing credits, it is painful to learn Jimmy Carter could not brag about the success of this operation when a subsequent attempt failed tragically and contributed to his losing the presidency.
As a celebrity, Affleck has been very politically active, but shows a similar restraint by not making a political statement with this movie. He very efficiently tells an intriguing story. However, any informed audience member will be hard-pressed not to compare the events of this film with the current tensions that exist between the U.S and Iran that date back to the time depicted.
Before you bemoan an era gone by, where nations could could cooperate on covert operations such as this, you might be interested to learn that several hours before the movie's premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival, the Canadian government closed its embassy in Tehran, ordered all Iranian diplomats to leave Canada, and ceased all relations between Canada and Tehran.
lemoviesnob.com
Even though I knew the ending, I was still on the edge of my seat in suspense. That's how good it is.
It was inevitable that a CIA operation about making a movie would become a movie itself. In the wrong hands, it could have been as bad as the fictional sci-fi movie "Argo" that was the cover for the clandestine operation.
Not only does Affleck have the directing chops, I think his achievement is partly due to his age. I am very close in age to Mr. Affleck, and I remember watching the Iranian hostage crisis unfold nightly on the news. I didn't understand the history or politics that caused it (Affleck opens the film with an animated history lesson to bring everyone up to speed), but I remember its impact: the yellow ribbons, the daily count on the evening news, and the nightly updates from Ted Koppel that would become the newsmagazine "Nightline."
Importantly, I remember how the world worked then: everything was on paper, documents were created by typewriters, phones had cords, TVs had only a few channels that had to be manually changed. In short, I remember the world that could pull off this operation.
This world existed in an era when science fiction movies still dominated the entertainment arena, three years after Star Wars had opened. Every television and movie producer were hellbent on replicating that movie's success. Thus, prime time television (in addition to movies) had a disproportionate share of sci-fi imitators: Battlestar Gallactica, Buck Rogers, even Star Wars produced a Christmas special that starred Bea Arthur and Art Carney in 1978. I'm not kidding. In addition, many established shows like The Muppet Show, Fantasy Island, and the numerous variety shows jumped on the bandwagon. Although most of these productions were inferior, kids like myself and Mr. Affleck watched them anyway, and they were a formative aspect of our childhood.
I think this context is important to note: it makes the prospect of a making a science fiction movie in Iran not seem stupid or improbable. As it happens, the idea was credible to the Iranians as they were actively encouraging international business and were hungry for US dollars according to Joshuah Bearman who wrote about the operation in Wired in 2007.
Affleck nails the characters and physical details (the end credits display side by side the images of the real people and places next to those from the film. I dare you not to be impressed). His real-life character Tony Mendez said "it was just like being there again."
While I was at the edge of my seat, I was wondering in the back of my mind how much dramatic license Affleck took. How faithful is it to the real story? This movie snob had to find out.
The answer is: enough.
The famous screenwriter William Goldman advised other screenwriters not to write real stories; real stories are never as believable as fiction.
Affleck does his mentor proud. His deviations from the truth do not detract from the story at all. His changes intensify the drama, assist the pacing, and streamline the storytelling.
Spoiler ALERT: If you want to see the movie without knowing too many details, stop reading HERE.
Bryan Cranston's and Alan Arkin's character are composites of several people. The staged reading at the Beverly Hilton never happened, it's an opportunity for Affleck to laugh at Hollywood's expense. It doesn't detract at all from the movie and hopefully gives him closure on Gigli.
Affleck is very kind to the Canadians; it turns out many of the "bad" bad ideas were actually theirs. Mendez had three children not one, but the one in the film is named Ian in memory of Mendez' late son and to whom the film is dedicated. He is shown in the photos on Affleck's nightstand.
Affleck's inspiration is depicted as occurring as he's watching Planet of the Apes with his son. It is not made clear in the movie, but John Chambers, the make-up artist he contacts in Hollywood, actually won an Oscar for make-up for that 1969 film.
The trapped Americans did not all stay at the Canadian Ambassador's residence, only some of the group were housed there, and they had several temporary hideouts in between. They left the American Embassy in a heavy downpour that is not recreated in the movie.
The group's tense visit to a crowded bazaar never really happened. And, as I suspected, the police cars on the runway were fiction as well.
During the closing credits, it is painful to learn Jimmy Carter could not brag about the success of this operation when a subsequent attempt failed tragically and contributed to his losing the presidency.
As a celebrity, Affleck has been very politically active, but shows a similar restraint by not making a political statement with this movie. He very efficiently tells an intriguing story. However, any informed audience member will be hard-pressed not to compare the events of this film with the current tensions that exist between the U.S and Iran that date back to the time depicted.
Before you bemoan an era gone by, where nations could could cooperate on covert operations such as this, you might be interested to learn that several hours before the movie's premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival, the Canadian government closed its embassy in Tehran, ordered all Iranian diplomats to leave Canada, and ceased all relations between Canada and Tehran.
lemoviesnob.com
Little White Lies
(2010)
No need to get out your handkerchiefs
11 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Little White Lies (Les Petits Mouchoirs) is a uniquely French ensemble film that thinks it's the Gallic version of The Big Chill. Those who love French films will be entertained, but I couldn't get past one early improbable scene that buttresses one of several plot lines. Tant pis.
The movie follows a group of middle-aged friends who follow through on their vacation plans after one of them, Ludo (Jean Dujardin, who has about as many lines as he did in The Artist), is critically injured in a car crash. Their dilemma is very inconvenient and quickly resolved. They rationalize that a beachside toast to Ludo will have a greater net benefit than keeping vigil in Paris so off they go.
Regular fellow Movie Snobs know I don't write book reports so I'm not going to break down each character and plot point. Suffice it to say that the group of friends are typical Parisian "bobos" (bourgeois and bohemian yuppies). They are wonderfully French in that the clique was formed by individuals rather than external status, which is my experience with Americans. The group is multi-generational; not everyone is at the same stage of relationship, and not everyone has children. The kids, by the way, are not left at home; they are made to feel welcome by all. I wonder if this is why they are better behaved than the brats I encounter at the mall .
Enfin bref.
However, the adults in this movie don't behave all that well. The title refers to all the little moments in life wherein one lies inconsequentially to their friends as each of the main characters do. I think the director Guillaume Canet (husband of co-star Marion Cotillard) wants to encourage a discussion of morality: These characters all lie to their friends to maintain an image they believe they have cultivated with their friends. But this is a tight-knit group, so everyone sees through each other, yet they still lie, even when they are caught. Pourquoi?
I can't answer that because I don't lie to my friends (only family). I don't think my lack of sympathy is due to a cultural gap (almost every show on Bravo shows people lying to each other while being filmed). My reaction though is consistent with the emotional dissonance I felt early on.
Vincent (Benoît Magimel) invites his friend Max (François Cluzet from The Intouchables) to dinner at Max's hotel for a talk. They've been friends for fifteen years, and only recently Vincent has been feeling attracted to Max. Vincent assures Max that he's not gay, who, understandably, is unconvinced. This was not a spontaneous confession one could blame on alcohol. This has been on Vincent's mind for awhile.
Who does this? Homosexuality aside, when someone develops feelings for a friend who is unavailable, don't they tell everyone but that person? What is the object of their affection supposed to do with this information? I have trouble believing that Vincent thought Max would reveal he felt the same way or that their friendship would not be forever changed. Vincent himself is married and believes getting married "too young" is justification for his feelings. Living a lie with another person is not a "little white lie."
The emotional disconnect is echoed in the film's incongruous soundtrack: late 60s American rock that screams "This movie is just like The Big Chill!" I can suspend my cynicism to think the song choices (Janis Joplin, Creedence Clearwater Revival) were blatant grabs for American ticket sales, but I don't think this movie will come close to being the box office hit it was in France in 2010.
The movie follows a group of middle-aged friends who follow through on their vacation plans after one of them, Ludo (Jean Dujardin, who has about as many lines as he did in The Artist), is critically injured in a car crash. Their dilemma is very inconvenient and quickly resolved. They rationalize that a beachside toast to Ludo will have a greater net benefit than keeping vigil in Paris so off they go.
Regular fellow Movie Snobs know I don't write book reports so I'm not going to break down each character and plot point. Suffice it to say that the group of friends are typical Parisian "bobos" (bourgeois and bohemian yuppies). They are wonderfully French in that the clique was formed by individuals rather than external status, which is my experience with Americans. The group is multi-generational; not everyone is at the same stage of relationship, and not everyone has children. The kids, by the way, are not left at home; they are made to feel welcome by all. I wonder if this is why they are better behaved than the brats I encounter at the mall .
Enfin bref.
However, the adults in this movie don't behave all that well. The title refers to all the little moments in life wherein one lies inconsequentially to their friends as each of the main characters do. I think the director Guillaume Canet (husband of co-star Marion Cotillard) wants to encourage a discussion of morality: These characters all lie to their friends to maintain an image they believe they have cultivated with their friends. But this is a tight-knit group, so everyone sees through each other, yet they still lie, even when they are caught. Pourquoi?
I can't answer that because I don't lie to my friends (only family). I don't think my lack of sympathy is due to a cultural gap (almost every show on Bravo shows people lying to each other while being filmed). My reaction though is consistent with the emotional dissonance I felt early on.
Vincent (Benoît Magimel) invites his friend Max (François Cluzet from The Intouchables) to dinner at Max's hotel for a talk. They've been friends for fifteen years, and only recently Vincent has been feeling attracted to Max. Vincent assures Max that he's not gay, who, understandably, is unconvinced. This was not a spontaneous confession one could blame on alcohol. This has been on Vincent's mind for awhile.
Who does this? Homosexuality aside, when someone develops feelings for a friend who is unavailable, don't they tell everyone but that person? What is the object of their affection supposed to do with this information? I have trouble believing that Vincent thought Max would reveal he felt the same way or that their friendship would not be forever changed. Vincent himself is married and believes getting married "too young" is justification for his feelings. Living a lie with another person is not a "little white lie."
The emotional disconnect is echoed in the film's incongruous soundtrack: late 60s American rock that screams "This movie is just like The Big Chill!" I can suspend my cynicism to think the song choices (Janis Joplin, Creedence Clearwater Revival) were blatant grabs for American ticket sales, but I don't think this movie will come close to being the box office hit it was in France in 2010.
The Master
(2012)
The Master is NOT about Scientology, but it IS masterful filmmaking
21 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Spoiler alert: I'm not going to spoil the movie, just the promotional campaign. The buzz leading up to this movie has been suggesting it is a thinly veiled exposé of the founding of Scientology. Not only does that sound like a fascinating movie, it's an act of daring for a director to potentially provoke an organization that besides being entrenched among Hollywood's elite, is known to exact punitive consequences on those who displease them.
This movie is NOT about Scientology. Its theme is MUCH bigger. It's about the conditions of life that allow movements like Scientology to thrive.
Joaquin Phoenix plays a character named Freddy Quell. We meet Freddy as the chapter of his life in the Navy is ending; we hear the announcement of the armistice that ended World War II. Freddy enters a military mental health program that intends to assist his transition back to civilian life. It quickly becomes clear that Freddy's problems are much bigger than the military could hope to handle, and he is released into the world untrained and unprepared. He acts inappropriately in social situations which keeps him from sustaining any kind of lasting relationship, the absence of which is filled with strong drink.
Director Paul Thomas Anderson offers no back story to explain why Freddy's so disturbed, but it's clear his drinking is an attempt to soothe deep, deep wounds, the kind that are inflicted in infancy and childhood and take a lifetime to overcome. Freddy is a walking black hole, the perfect mark for Philip Seymour Hoffman's Lancaster Dodd, a.k.a. The Master, a man not unlike L. Ron Hubbard, who claims not only to understand and know how to treat Freddie, but offers him the best prize of all: the company of other people who will accept him and give him a place where he can belong.
Dodd has his own pathology: he needs lost souls like Freddie to hand over their autonomy to him.
Dodd develops a name for himself on the "seeking-circuit," holding center stage at packed gatherings in Park Avenue duplexes and enjoying extended stays at the Philadelphia mansion of a wealthy East Coast devotee, Helen Sullivan (Laura Dern). Freddy is happy to be his performance monkey as The Master manipulates his emotions as entertainment for his guests. Freddy has a place to stay, food to eat, and has achieved acceptance.
The scene at the Park Avenue duplex is noteworthy. Freddie's inappropriate behavior towards the upper crust hostess is an indication that he has received no real treatment. Dodd publicly hypnotizes a willing matron, something that today seems should occur in private, but was likely a precursor to the group acid trips that would take place only ten years later.
During this scene, Dodd is challenged by John More (Christopher Evan Welch) who challenges Dodd's methods with weak scientific arguments. It plays out rather perfunctorily and is unconvincing. Ironically, More interrupts Dodd as he is performing a hypnosis technique that today is called phobia desensitization, an accepted and effective psychological treatment.
While the timing of the interruption diminishes the scientific counterargument, Dodd appears to earnestly believe in his teachings. Whether or not Hubbard believed his own theology, such earnestness did not exist with him. Many documents and recordings exist that reveal his opprobrious recruitment techniques, his obsessive quest to capture celebrities, and his admitting his goal in creating a religion was to become rich.
Dodd's earnestness doesn't make up for his lack of credentials and irresponsibility of Freddy's "care." Dodd is still a charlatan, and while he seems remotely haunted by this truth, only his son Kyle (Jesse Plemons) voices this opinion in a surprisingly frank moment, fearless of consequences. The truth does not set him free however, and years later, when Dodd has moved abroad to "continue his work" his adult son seems genuinely happy to be a part of the family business. The need to belong is a powerful force, and I think the rewards of positive attention from his father have polluted the soil that made that comment, extinguishing whatever life that seed of truth may have sprouted.
There will always be people will holes in their souls. There will always be people who feed and profit from their pain. They usually go to California, where the sunshine and possibility of becoming a star can delay the onset of the inevitable existential pain.
Paul Thomas Anderson is a treat of a director for a movie snob: no easy answers, ambiguous endings, and performances by master actors at the top of their game, although I think Joaquin Phoenix put too much of his method on display. He could stand to learn from his co-star: if you're a great actor, with a powerful instrument with which to work, you can use restraint in your performance without losing any wattage. There is no moral, no lessons learned, no story lines neatly tied, no indication of potential epilogues for the two leading characters. The story ends. As it should.
This movie is NOT about Scientology. Its theme is MUCH bigger. It's about the conditions of life that allow movements like Scientology to thrive.
Joaquin Phoenix plays a character named Freddy Quell. We meet Freddy as the chapter of his life in the Navy is ending; we hear the announcement of the armistice that ended World War II. Freddy enters a military mental health program that intends to assist his transition back to civilian life. It quickly becomes clear that Freddy's problems are much bigger than the military could hope to handle, and he is released into the world untrained and unprepared. He acts inappropriately in social situations which keeps him from sustaining any kind of lasting relationship, the absence of which is filled with strong drink.
Director Paul Thomas Anderson offers no back story to explain why Freddy's so disturbed, but it's clear his drinking is an attempt to soothe deep, deep wounds, the kind that are inflicted in infancy and childhood and take a lifetime to overcome. Freddy is a walking black hole, the perfect mark for Philip Seymour Hoffman's Lancaster Dodd, a.k.a. The Master, a man not unlike L. Ron Hubbard, who claims not only to understand and know how to treat Freddie, but offers him the best prize of all: the company of other people who will accept him and give him a place where he can belong.
Dodd has his own pathology: he needs lost souls like Freddie to hand over their autonomy to him.
Dodd develops a name for himself on the "seeking-circuit," holding center stage at packed gatherings in Park Avenue duplexes and enjoying extended stays at the Philadelphia mansion of a wealthy East Coast devotee, Helen Sullivan (Laura Dern). Freddy is happy to be his performance monkey as The Master manipulates his emotions as entertainment for his guests. Freddy has a place to stay, food to eat, and has achieved acceptance.
The scene at the Park Avenue duplex is noteworthy. Freddie's inappropriate behavior towards the upper crust hostess is an indication that he has received no real treatment. Dodd publicly hypnotizes a willing matron, something that today seems should occur in private, but was likely a precursor to the group acid trips that would take place only ten years later.
During this scene, Dodd is challenged by John More (Christopher Evan Welch) who challenges Dodd's methods with weak scientific arguments. It plays out rather perfunctorily and is unconvincing. Ironically, More interrupts Dodd as he is performing a hypnosis technique that today is called phobia desensitization, an accepted and effective psychological treatment.
While the timing of the interruption diminishes the scientific counterargument, Dodd appears to earnestly believe in his teachings. Whether or not Hubbard believed his own theology, such earnestness did not exist with him. Many documents and recordings exist that reveal his opprobrious recruitment techniques, his obsessive quest to capture celebrities, and his admitting his goal in creating a religion was to become rich.
Dodd's earnestness doesn't make up for his lack of credentials and irresponsibility of Freddy's "care." Dodd is still a charlatan, and while he seems remotely haunted by this truth, only his son Kyle (Jesse Plemons) voices this opinion in a surprisingly frank moment, fearless of consequences. The truth does not set him free however, and years later, when Dodd has moved abroad to "continue his work" his adult son seems genuinely happy to be a part of the family business. The need to belong is a powerful force, and I think the rewards of positive attention from his father have polluted the soil that made that comment, extinguishing whatever life that seed of truth may have sprouted.
There will always be people will holes in their souls. There will always be people who feed and profit from their pain. They usually go to California, where the sunshine and possibility of becoming a star can delay the onset of the inevitable existential pain.
Paul Thomas Anderson is a treat of a director for a movie snob: no easy answers, ambiguous endings, and performances by master actors at the top of their game, although I think Joaquin Phoenix put too much of his method on display. He could stand to learn from his co-star: if you're a great actor, with a powerful instrument with which to work, you can use restraint in your performance without losing any wattage. There is no moral, no lessons learned, no story lines neatly tied, no indication of potential epilogues for the two leading characters. The story ends. As it should.
Tell Your Friends