Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Sharon Tate: High School Memories


If you read the first intry of my blog here you read about Tim Avedovech, a former classmate of Sharon's, and how he remembered Sharon.

I came in contact with another of Sharon's friends from High School, Michael Ragland. He shared his thoughts and memories with me as well:

Sharon and I ran in the same general crowd. She knew who I was and everyone knew who she was. I don't think we were ever introduced. We just started talking to each other. It was hard for me to believe that Sharon would spend time with someone like me, when she was so beautiful. I quickly learned that Sharon was the nicest and sweetest person I had ever met.

We never "dated" like the word means now, but we did go out together on several occasions. Her parents didn't really approve of me as I was older and really wild in those days. She went out with several guys from time to time until she met Bill Smithers. After that, it was just Bill until she moved to Italy.

A lot of times, there weren't dates, but just a group of us ending up together in the same place and hanging out. There was a place called By's Burgers that served as almost a meeting place for almost everyone in high school. We also all attended dances on Wednesday and (I think) Saturday nights. Sharon usually went to the dances, often with a group of girl friends.

We also partied. Ditch parties were nothing more than parties where everyone would drive to a location and drink beer (sometimes wine for the girls) and have fun. Lots of sex, music and general fun. I never knew of Sharon to indulge in the sex aspect, but a lot of other girls did. Most often it would end up with a lot of couples paired off, frequently steady couples.

I don't recall Sharon drinking a lot. Her parents were very strict with her and she knew that drinking would get her into trouble.

Everyone in school knew Sharon. A lot of girls were jealous of her, but she was so nice that everyone liked her. I never heard her say a bad thing about anyone, nor do anything that would hurt someone. She was aware of her beauty, but if anything, seemed to be a little ashamed of being prettier than the other girls. She did, however, take part in activities based on beauty. She was also popular. I recall her being a homecoming princess and the following year (after I had graduated) I believe she was queen.


This recalling is like a deja vous of what Avedovech said. But Ragland adds a few more details.

As I get in touch with others that knew Sharon I will post them here. Please let me hear your comments? Would love to get some feedback. As you can see from these posts, Sharon was truly a memorable lady.

BTW: My first blog has photos of Sharon, one from ebay and one from the great artist, Kerstien Matondang of Sweden. Please be sure and visit her very artistic site:
http://www.kerstien.se/sharoninart.htm

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Why Should Sharon Tate Be Remembered?









I was asked by an acquaintance recently about why Sharon Tate should be remembered?



Recently, I was casually discussing how the 40Th anniversary of her murder was soon coming up in August and the response was something like "she's just a murder victim of Charles Manson and his gang. She never even made a good film. She didn't do anything monumental to be remembered for. After all, she doesn't even have a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame."

It seems like there are many people who feel the name Sharon Tate leaves a bad taste in their mouths. It's like they think Sharon and Manson are bound and unified eternally since her murder was so well publicized in 1969. And don't ever admit you are a fan of Sharon's because people automatically assume you must have a morbid mind. All they can think about is the press of the time and, I might add, all the false rumors and lies that were spread after her tragic death around the world.

I, personally, will never understand why people focus so much on all the morbid elements? Sharon was a person, a living being, like all of us. She had hopes, and dreams, she wanted a family... Things most of us want.

She also lived quite an interesting life for being just 26 when she was taken from the world. She did so much in such a short time here.

Why should Sharon Tate be remembered? Any of the following could answer that for you:

1) She was one of the most photographed women of the 1960s and was known as one of the most beautiful women in the world.

2) Indeed, her career was cut short, but many of her films such as "Eye of the Devil," "The Fearless Vampire Killers," and "Valley of the Dolls" have acquired a cult audience over time.

3) She was a fashion icon for her time. She had a style all her own. Many still copy it today and most fashion magazines and the Internet show and remind us of that wonderful style.

4) Even Mattel modeled a doll after her in the film "Don't Make Waves", the now famous Malibu Barbie.

That is the short list of why she should be remembered. The quality most treasured in her was that even though she was beautiful, she was able to maintain a personality and kindness that matched it.



My hope is, with this blog, more people will relate to her as a person than just the murder victim of a famous crime.



Although I did not personally know Sharon, I recently connected with a person who had. His name is Tim Avedovech. He knew Sharon when she and her family lived in Washington. Here is what he had to say:




Sharon was a very sweet and wonderful person. She was in some of my classes at Chief Joseph Junior High School, and also in my Typing and I think Biology class as a Sophomore at Richland High School.

She was beautiful from day one, not only physically, but as a person. I was the nerd type, shy, and not very athletic. Yet I did get around and was friends with almost everyone. The reason I remember Sharon so well, besides her own natural beauty, was that as a person, she was superb. She never let the fact that I was not the most popular person stop her from being sociable, friendly, and would treat me as well as anyone else with whom she contacted. She was a wonderful person, and very genuine. I also remember her as being somewhat shy and reserved herself. In the classes that we shared, she was not outspoken, rude, or anything like that. She was respectful and I was very proud to know that she was truly just one of us. Not that we were anything that special, but as a group, I felt we were unified, and as a school of high schoolers, we were “good kids” in my mind. We were energetic, had high hopes and dreams, were getting a good education, and as beautiful as she was, she was right there with the rest of us looking forward to whatever the future would hold.

I transferred from Richland High School half-way through my Sophomore year to Bellevue High School in the Seattle area. I was not happy about that. I had to leave the kids I had grown up with, from the very beginning. I knew every kid because my life started in Richland, and I was proud to be from Richland. Moving to Bellevue was a huge shock as the kids were so different, and I missed the closeness we had in Richland as a unified group, a group of many kids including Sharon who were just “good” kids moving on into the future, doing the best we could, with the knowledge we had at that time in life. When I compared the kids at Bellevue, I realized that all of us in Richland were perhaps a little more country, or even naive, but our hearts were as good as gold, and we were smart. We had a great education, with great teachers, and the kids like Sharon and so many others made our school the “best” in my mind. The softness, respectful nature that Sharon had made her stand out as a true “beauty” because she not only had it in the “beauty” department, she was equally or greater in charm and personality. The fact that someone as popular as she was would take the time to talk to me as well as anyone else, made her stand out as truly a superb, remarkable woman who had tremendous and unlimited insight to the core of those around her, and she respected those around her. She was truly a giving and loving person. I of course will never forget her because she was not only beautiful, she was open and not afraid to give of herself to help other people, to give them a little attention that meant far more than could ever be measured quantitatively.

Later when she was taken so unfairly from us, the anger in my heart blistered my soul as nothing else ever could. I had to stop and wonder what life was really all about, and how could something like this happen. It took me a long time to get over her passing. Her unselfish giving of herself to those around her and to those who loved her, made her something that few other people can ever attain. Even today I feel sadness thinking about how giving she was, and how unfairly she was taken from us. I will never get over it entirely. Just won’t happen.

As for myself, as shy and nerdy as I was, underneath, I felt that if someone like Sharon could take some time from her own busy schedule to talk to me, to be friends to some degree, to acknowledge my existence as meek as it was, then I felt I could move on and become who I wanted to be. I graduated from Bellevue High School, but not without having re-visited Richland many times during the following two years to be with my friends. After Bellevue, I attended the University of Washington to become a dentist, then specialized at UCLA in Advanced Prosthodontics, and then extended my specialty to Implant Prosthodontics at the Medical College of Georgia. No matter where I’ve been, or what I’ve been doing, I always remember Sharon occasionally as that beautiful girl who wasn’t afraid to give me some attention during our brief time from 1955 to 1960.

There will never be another Sharon Tate. I hope that somehow, the memory of what she represented and gave to the world in her brief life will always be present for the world to know. She deserves that. Even today.



Mr. Avedovech sums up what most of us (people who actually knew Sharon and what her fans) actually feel about her. My hope is that this blog will change other people's minds and will open up another way of thinking about Sharon and how special she truly was and still is.

Monday, July 20, 2009

Just Absurd: Bruno


Three years ago in the comedy smash Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, Sacha Baron Cohen engaged in a naked wrestling match with a much fatter and possibly hairier opponent in which the only thing obscuring our view of Cohen’s penis was a (conspicuously long) digital black box. This time around, in Bruno, Cohen leaves less to the imagination, at one point allowing “his” (or a stand-in’s) penis to be captured in a well-lit close-up of goofy genital gymnastics – an exhibition of flaccid foolishness in which to “look Cohen in the eye” would mean to stare harder. But when I tell you that Cohen exposes himself in his follow-up to Borat, I’m not referring to bouts of nudity. Instead I’m referring to the way that Cohen unzips his fly, drops his pants and reveals his true intentions as a filmmaker and performance artist. Lauded by many in the aftermath of Borat as a brilliant satirist and daring social commentator, Cohen proves to be nothing of the sort. Though Bruno, like Borat, includes moments of satire and social commentary, Cohen’s motives are simpler and less brave. His one and only mission is to shock us into laughter.

To his credit, he frequently does just that. Cohen’s brilliantly absurd antics might not be as noble as his supporters have suggested, but the penis isn’t the only area of the human anatomy with which Cohen is familiar. He’s also an expert of the funny bone. They say you can’t debate humor, but to absolutely refuse to laugh at Cohen is to be a slave to good taste, and there’s some irony in that because one of the things Cohen does with near perfect precision is to create comedy out of Americans’ strict adherence to politeness and compassion. In Borat that meant trying the patience of a car salesman, a driving instructor, a culture coach, a TV news personality, a group of feminists and an etiquette teacher, etcetera, by saying and doing things that no right-minded American would say or do. In Bruno it means tormenting a fortuneteller, a group of Southern hunters and some mid-coitus swingers, among others. In each of those cases, the ability of Cohen’s marks to remain unduly cool in the face of social taboo, outright disrespect or general annoyance, and the ability of Cohen to keep them teetering on that edge of exasperation, is as astonishing as it is hilarious. In Cohen’s best moments he is working without a net, risking entire scenes and sometimes even his entire shtick by daring to provoke his onscreen and offscreen marks (the audience) right up to the breaking point.

That Cohen sometimes goes too far is inevitable. Going too far is a recurring theme in comedy. Without crossing the line of acceptability, you never learn where the line is, nor do you ever create the chance for the line to be erased and redrawn. Without subsequent entertainers pushing the envelope, Don Rickles would still be considered edgy. That said, it could be that Cohen is paving the way for a new brand of no-feelings-spared comedy in which we learn to forget the ugliness of the slaughterhouse in order to enjoy without reservation the juicy comedy burger that the assembly line produces. It’s more likely, however, that Cohen, like Andrew Dice Clay or Tom Green before him, will cease to be relevant once the comedy pack catches up with him or once he pushes the audience so far out of its comfort zone that it refuses to follow him. One thing’s for sure, a future comedian will one day make Cohen’s antics as unshocking as those of quintessential shock-jock Howard Stern. But for now, Cohen may have reached his limit. The moment he decided to wave his schlong on camera (and just wait until you see that in Blu-ray!), Cohen announced that he had reached the Pacific Ocean of his creative vision. There is no more New World for him to explore. The fertile ground lies behind him, and in this case there’s no going back. (As the swingers scene proves, the black boxes of MPAA censorship actually increase the humor. Yet once you’ve bared all, you can’t reinvent yourself as a tease.)

That’s the trouble with creating an act based on shock value. At some point we begin to expect the unexpected, and then that portion of the thrill is gone. Bruno, for all its outlandishness, doesn’t throw off our equilibrium the way Borat did. It can’t. But there are methods of Cohen’s comedy that are somewhat timeless. Undoubtedly the most brilliant moment of the picture occurs when Cohen’s titular Bruno, a hugely over-the-top homosexual celebrity wannabe from Austria, sits around a campsite with three red state (and perhaps even redneck) hunters. Having already tormented them with his outlandishly gay shenanigans – even though, per the plot, Bruno is pretending to be heterosexual – Bruno looks up at the night sky and declares that the stars make him think of all the men in the world. What follows is maybe 10 seconds of fantastically awkward silence in which the hunters refuse to make eye contact with anyone and Bruno flashes his gaze around at his companions, a cat-who-ate-the-canary smile momentarily slipping across Cohen’s face, marking the only time he seems to break character. What’s funny about this scene has nothing to do with satire or social politics. What’s funny is feeling – and it’s truly visceral – the hunters’ bewilderment. Trapped in a situation in which there is no established course of social etiquette, they have no choice but to quietly endure. And so that’s what they do.

No one gets hurt in that scene, nor is anyone actually in danger of getting hurt, and that makes it about as universally funny as Bruno gets. This film isn’t set up for innocent laughs the way that Borat is because Cohen’s star characters work in different ways. Borat, above all else, is a naïve foreigner. To all those who encounter him in the film, even those who are offended by him, his behavior is perceived as being without malice. Bruno, on the other hand, while also foreign, isn’t such an ignoramus. In fact there’s at least one situation in which Bruno is decidedly smarter than the people he’s talking to – a scene in which only Bruno seems to know that there are two Rs in Darfur. No, in contrast to Borat, Bruno first and foremost is an annoyance. He offends not because he’s foreign, eccentric or homosexual but because he’s irritating. By changing the nature of the character, Cohen alters the nature of the response. While the truly naïve are granted almost endless patience, the jerk is afforded only limited tolerance. That’s why Bruno’s worst scene, a confrontation with one-time presidential hopeful Ron Paul, falls flat. See, there is a proper response when encountered with an unwanted (and, within the context of the scene, entirely unprofessional) sexual advance, and when Paul provides that proper response there is no reason for laughter (beyond giggles of discomfort, I suppose). The scene feels like nothing but a violation, because that’s all that it is. (A lackluster punchline related to RuPaul doesn’t help.)

Cohen’s ambushing of Paul and his dick-swinging display earlier in the picture smack of desperation, and the only people who will take pleasure in that sensation are those who believe Cohen is heartless, predatory, even a (comedy) terrorist. The thing is, while Bruno does undermine the notion that Cohen is doing anything short of striving for laughs by any means necessary, it hardly validates the accusation that Cohen’s brand of performance art is notably hateful. No one with half a brain could interpret Borat as an accurate representation of Kazakh culture, for example, nor could they see Bruno as representative of the homosexual population; we know that just by looking at him, the same way we know that Superman isn’t representative of Caucasian men. To call out Cohen for turning Average Joe into a punchline is to ignore the numerous other comedians who prey upon marks. (Heck, G-rated Jay Leno’s most famous bit, "Jaywalking," uses almost identical tactics to create laughs at the expense of the Less Than Average American.) To claim that Cohen is especially vicious is to ignore that his stunts make his character the butt of the joke more often than not. And beyond all of that, to suggest that what Cohen is doing is so significantly groundbreaking is to give him far too much credit. And that’s been the problem with discussions of Cohen all along.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Subtle as a Rock: The Stoning of Soraya M.


Based on a best-selling novel about an all too true story, The Stoning of Soraya M. lives up to its title, and down to it. Indeed, the film concludes as promised, with the ghastly and drawn-out execution of a beautiful brown skinned woman who is dressed in white, bound with rope, buried waist-deep in the ground and then reduced to a bloody pulp, one stone at a time. It’s a gruesome experience; the execution “scene” (more like an act) is as visceral as anything of its ilk, trumping the notorious scourging sequence from 2004’s The Passion of the Christ. Like that film, Soraya M. has a performance from Jim Caviezel, a John Debney score and a dusty Middle Eastern setting, but beyond these peripheral accoutrements it has less in common with Mel Gibson’s flawed though arresting martyrdom flick than with something out of the Saw franchise. Director Cyrus Nowrasteh, who adapted the screenplay with his wife Betsy Giffen Nowrasteh, may have avoided crafting a piece of so-called “torture porn,” but this picture has such tunnel vision for its grotesque conclusion that, like the Saw movies, it is reduced to the vulgarity of its horrors.

Soraya M. unfolds with the single-mindedness of a lioness on the hunt. Its aim, best case scenario, is to demonstrate the helplessness of women in radical Islamic societies, and to that end it treats Mozhan Marno’s titular Soraya like a crash test dummy. Every single moment of this film points directly toward its inevitable conclusion – there is no subtlety, no nuance, no depth, no suspense, no character development. Soraya is less a martyr than a prop. She is wronged, then wronged again and then wronged some more, until it becomes clear that her life itself is cruel and unusual punishment for a crime she never committed. By those terms, Soraya’s eventual death sentence might have seemed merciful if not for its brutality, and thus Nowrasteh paints himself into a corner. Soraya’s execution drags out well over 15 minutes – perhaps closer to 25, depending on when you start counting – in order that the true crime of this story proves more unsettling than the victim’s previous punishment. Nowrasteh’s hope, it seems, is that each stone, each scream of anguish and each geyser of blood erupting from Soraya’s forehead will fan the flames of anger in our belly, inspiring us to be crusaders against injustice. Alas, long before the village children scatter across the streets to gather the primitive weaponry that will bring this story toward its prolonged conclusion, we have been battered already.

Soraya M. is more didactic than 2004’s Crash, yet it’s not as artful or even as intellectual. If you find the characters from Paul Haggis’ controversial Best Picture winner to be too archetypal, wait until you get a load of this crew. Soraya, conveniently the most beautiful person on screen, is the model of dignity and purity; not just innocent, but almost saintly. Her husband, Ali (Navid Negahban), who hatches a plot that will lead to a wrongful (and fatal) adultery charge, is so cartoonishly sinister that he should have traded in his beard in favor of Snidely Whiplash’s mustache. Opposed to him is Soraya’s aunt, Zahara, who spends the entire movie defiantly speaking the truth to deaf ears, grandstanding with feminist spunk and righteousness until she becomes the Iranian version of Dixie Carter’s character on Designing Women. Zahara is played by Shohreh Aghdashloo, who picked up an Academy Award nomination for 2003’s House of Sand and Fog, and here she seems intent on making every scene, nay, every gesture (from a minor adjustment of her headscarf to a melodramatic and ill-advised Scarlett O’Hara pledge to the heavens) worthy of insertion into an Oscar night clip reel. It’s exhausting.

Yet even more disturbing than these main characters are the minor ones. Beyond Caviezel, as journalist Freidoune Sahebjam, who appears in unnecessary bookend scenes, there are three supporting players of note: Ali Pourtash plays the devious town mullah, a wolf in noble clothing, who helps Ali carry out his plot; Parviz Sayyad is the sad and dimwitted Hashem, who gets coerced into accusing Soraya of adultery; and David Diaan is Ebrahim, the supposedly thoughtful town councilman who asks God to send him a sign if Soraya’s death sentence is unjust and then thinks nothing of it when – just before the first stone is thrown – a circus troupe rolls into the stoning square. Seriously. These three men, along with Negahban’s Ali, make up the lynch mob that executes Soraya without hesitation while the rest of the town gathers round, pumps their fists in the air and chants “Allahu Akbar!” To take the film at face value is to assume that the Muslim world is filled with criminals, imbeciles and bloodthirsty monsters, with a few innocent women tossed in.

Of course, we shouldn’t take such films at face value, but that’s the trouble with Soraya M. It assumes its audience is knowledgeable enough to put these depictions of Islamic extremism into context (a risky assumption in this country) while at the same time it highlights every injustice suffered by Soraya in all caps, as if its audience is ignorant or slow. When Soraya is accused of adultery, for example, Ebrahim explains that a man doesn’t need to provide evidence to support his case whereas a woman bears the burden of proof if accusing a man of the same crime. Ostensibly, Ebrahim is educating Soraya about her rights, but he might as well break the fourth wall and speak directly to the audience; the Nowrastehs’ intent is that transparent. Thus, the film lets down both the educated and the uninformed. The educated get talked down to. The uninformed leave believing that this episode from 1986 reflects the entire Islamic world today. Everybody loses. If the purpose of this film was to alert the Western world to the brutality of Islamic extremism, they could have stopped at the title.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Maturing Nicely: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix


[Reviews of current flicks coming soon. Meantime, with the latest Harry Potter film packing the multiplexes and a certain blogger still unpacking from a refreshing computer-free vacation, The Cooler offers the following review, written upon the film’s release in the author’s pre-blog era.]

It’s one thing to grow old, but it’s another thing to grow up. The latest Harry Potter film is the second in the series to receive a PG-13 ranking (up from PG) but it’s the first one to feel truly teenaged. In Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, we’re past the days when buying school supplies (wands, owls, etc.) was cause for excitement, and when success in gym class made for schoolyard heroes (bye-bye Quidditch). Now at Hogwarts, school itself takes a backseat to typical teenage preoccupations: hormones, gossip and the realization that some teachers are simply full of crap.

It’s a natural evolution for a series that is growing in step with its characters. The thematic shift creates a loss, I suppose, for the 8-year-old who is ready to discover the saga at a time when the material has become too dark and edgy (comparatively, at least) for that younger audience. But that’s what DVDs are for. A bigger downfall would be to stunt the characters’ maturation in an effort to hang on to the golly-gee jolliness that, let’s be honest, even the most cheerful of us grow out of (or at least grow tired of) at some point. After years of spinning gleefully on the Mad Hatter’s Tea Cups, Harry and friends are itching for the more frightful Matterhorn. And who are we to hold them back?

Besides, Order of the Phoenix shows that Harry and chums Ron and Hermione are aging quite nicely. Nabbing Daniel Radcliffe to play sweet, innocent Harry was a slam dunk before Sorcerer’s Stone got the series under way in 2001, but who could have predicted that Radcliffe would be an even better fit for the teenage magical wonder? His English skin tones, slight stature and those trademark round glasses continue to keep him the boyish 98-pound-everyman. But over the years he’s developed a strong jaw, broad shoulders and a look of determination that screams “The Chosen One.” This is a hero we can rally behind.

And in Order of the Phoenix, that’s precisely what happens. But not without conflict. Over the course of the first hour Harry is attacked by Dementors, threatened with expulsion for performing magic off school grounds, accused of spreading false rumors about the return of “He Who Shall Not Be Named” and challenged by a new teacher who wants to see Hogwarts run like a Nazi state. Oh, and he’s haunted by nightmares of his face-to-noseless-face meeting with Lord Voldemort from the end of The Goblet of Fire. It ain’t easy being Harry, and he’s got the anguish to prove it.

Yet even though the transitory essence of adolescence is usually highlighted by awkwardness, the Harry Potter series has never seemed so sure of itself. Five movies into an eventual seven-film saga, Order of the Phoenix has every reason to bore us. Spell-casting? Seen it. Quidditch? Seen it far too often. Sorting hat? Please, that’s so 2001! The previous Harry Potter chapter, Goblet of Fire, got a well-timed mid-series boost from the debut of Voldemort, but that leaves Order of the Phoenix like a rookie comedian trying to follow the headliner. With Voldemort out of the bag and the inevitable climactic clash still two films away, this movie has to step carefully. Stay too far removed from Voldemort and all of Harry’s obstacles will feel like trifles by comparison. Give us too much Voldemort and the finale will be doomed to feel like the same-old, same-old.

Impressively, you’d never detect that Order of the Phoenix is under such strain. Nor would you guess that screenwriter Michael Goldenberg managed to squeeze J.K. Rowling’s sprawling 870 page novel into the shortest Harry Potter film yet: 138 minutes. Devotees of Rowling’s books will spot all the changes and omissions, but Order of the Phoenix stands up remarkably well for those of us who know Harry only in celluloid form. The story is lean and focused, investing much of its time on Dolores Umbridge’s efforts to take over Hogwarts and get Harry to shut up about Voldemort, yet it manages to keep the larger plot moving, too.

In a strange way, Rowling may have done this film a service by nearing the 900-page mark. Coming from a story so vast that it had no hope of being condensed as a whole, Order of the Phoenix was forced to streamline. From the very beginning, the biggest fault of these Harry Potter films has been their allegiance to Rowling’s written word. In their worst moments, Harry Potter movies feel like photo albums of adventures rather than adventures themselves. Often, characters or situations will produce instant, knowing reactions from readers in the audience while the rest of us are left to feel like outsiders. It’s obvious, for example, that Hagrid is a highlight of the books, but in movie form he’s yet to endear himself. In Order of the Phoenix, Hagrid’s part is so small that it should have been excised completely.

But that would have incited a riot. As it is, Ron and Hermione take distant back seats in this film, and we learn woefully little about the witchy Bellatrix Lestrange, who provides for a delightfully ghastly Helena Bonham Carter little more than a cameo. Meanwhile, I never could figure out why possession of the crystal ball of proclamation by either Harry or Voldemort would change the nature of its decree. But, hey, you can’t have everything. Order of the Phoenix is a pleasure because of all that remains, mostly some terrific acting. There’s the surprising Radcliffe, the delightfully dependable Ralph Fiennes (as Voldemort) and Alan Rickman (as the scene-stealing Severus Snape), plus the getting-better-too Emma Watson (a still spunky Hermione) and Rupert Grint (a more confident Ron).

But the performance to note is that of Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge. Staunton, you might remember, dazzled with her 2004 performance in Vera Drake, but as unforgettable as that heartbreaking turn was I spent the entirety of this picture failing to attach the actress to the character in front of me. Umbridge is scheming, cruel and possibly downright evil. But she’s unwaveringly pleasant, too. It’s a juicy character, and Staunton clearly relishes the role without chewing the scenery. You might call that good acting. Perhaps you could call it magic.

Monday, July 6, 2009

The Conversations: Errol Morris


I am happy to announce that the sixth edition of The Conversations series is live at The House Next Door. In this installment, Ed Howard and I discuss the eight documentary feature films of Errol Morris: Gates of Heaven (1978), Vernon, Florida (1981), The Thin Blue Line (1988), A Brief History of Time (1991), Fast, Cheap & Out of Control (1997), Mr. Death (1999), The Fog of War (2003) and Standard Operating Procedure (2008). If you read our previous discussion of Werner Herzog, which included considerable debate about documentary filmmaking, you might view this as an appropriate segue – or another tedious slog through the “nonfiction” genre. Hopefully the former.

As always, Ed and I hope that our conversation at The House Next Door is the starting point for a larger discussion. So please check it out and add to the conversation by leaving comments at The House Next Door.

Previous Editions of The Conversations:

David Fincher (January 2009)
Mulholland Dr. (February 2009)
Overlooked - Part I: Undertow (March 2009)
Overlooked - Part II: Solaris (March 2009)
Star Trek (May 2009)
Werner Herzog (May 2009)

Saturday, July 4, 2009

Notebook: Poop, Puke & Pop


A Familiar Odor
I haven’t seen Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and I won’t. Life is too short, and after suffering through the 144-minute original it seems backwards that the Transformers franchise should get to take “revenge” on me. But amidst a busy schedule that has me too far behind on blogging, I have carved out some time in recent weeks to read several reviews. For the most part, reactions to Transformers 2 haven’t been pretty. I’ve seen it called “a literal tsunami of shit” made by “an asshole” or “a jerk of the most obnoxious and insecure order,” and I’ve seen director Michael Bay slammed as a “fucking tool.” Having only enjoyed The Rock among Bay’s films, I can’t say I disagree with the general spirit of those assessments (I might have expressed my displeasure differently), but at the same time I’m puzzled by the timing of this eruption of anti-Bay vitriol.

Could Revenge of the Fallen be that much different than the original? Where was this anger in 2007? For example, here is Roger Ebert on Revenge of the Fallen: “The battle scenes are bewildering. A Bot makes no visual sense anyway, but two or three tangled up together create an incomprehensible confusion. I find it amusing that creatures that can unfold out of a Camaro and stand four stories high do most of their fighting with...fists. Like I say, dumber than a box of staples.” And now here is Ebert on 2007’s Transformers: “How can a pickup truck contain enough mass to unfold into a towering machine? I say if Ringling Brothers can get 15 clowns into a Volkswagen, anything is possible.”

I’m not here to pick on Ebert, but I fail to understand why the original was considered “goofy fun with a lot of stuff that blows up real good,” and yet Revenge of the Fallen is something else. Really? Here’s Ebert again: “The mechanical battle goes on and on and on and on, with robots banging into each other and crashing into buildings, and buildings falling into the street, and the military firing, and jets sweeping overhead, and Megatron and the good hero, Optimus Prime, duking it out, and the soundtrack sawing away at thrilling music, and enough is enough. Just because CGI makes such endless sequences possible doesn't make them necessary. They should be choreographed to reflect a strategy and not simply reflect shapeless, random violence.” That’s a good slam of Revenge of the Fallen, right? Wrong! It’s a passage from Ebert’s three-star review of Transformers.

The point is this: Revenge of the Fallen isn’t new crap; it’s the same old crap. How did people not see this coming? Out to prove that he doesn’t like everything, Peter Travers of Rolling Stone suggests that “Transformers 2 has a shot at the title Worst Movie of the Decade.” Fair enough, so long as Transformers 1 is in the running, too. After all, I agree with Travers that “when Hasbro invented those Transformers toys, the intention was for kids to use their imagination about what those bots would morph into” and that “Bay crushes that imagination with his own crude interpretations that seem untouched by human hands and spirit.” But Bay’s crime against imagination didn’t begin with the sequel.

Personally, I’m more of the mind of Anthony Lane, who called 2007’s Transformers Bay’s “first truly honest work of art” because the director “summoned the courage to admit that he has an exclusive crush on machines.” For better or usually worse, Bay makes one kind of movie, and he’s box office gold. I suspect that both Transformers films share the same thrills (excessive CGI and explosions, mindless entertainment and Megan Fox in skimpy outfits) and have the same turnoffs (excessive CGI and explosions and mindless entertainment). If Transformers 2 is trash, so was the original.

As I noted in my own 2007 review of Transformers, which is hardly worth reprinting in full, Bay’s CGI spectacular subverts the famous “More than meets the eye” marketing tagline for the Hasbro toys: “With Bay’s Transformers there’s what meets the eye and nothing else. Unless you count the noise that meets the ear, which is good enough for a splitting headache lasting well over three hours.” I wasn’t being figurative.



Misadventures in Moviegoing
Last weekend, Hokahey of Little Worlds was in town for his annual visit to our nation’s capital. As usual, we looked for opportunities to go to the movies, and, as usual, Hokahey managed to arrive on a weekend when there wasn’t much worth seeing. (Last year it was The Happening, for example.) And so it was that on the Friday of his visit we decided to take in Year One, because neither of us had seen it, and Hokahey likes Jack Black and I like Michael Cera and we were both in need of foolish entertainment.

As soon as the movie started, I detected a problem: alternately, the sound was coming through all of the speakers or only one speaker in the front left corner of the theater. Mindless comedy doesn’t work well when you’re straining to hear it – there’s a reason your local comedy club does its best to rupture your eardrums – but I could have settled for the one-speaker version. It was the sound coming in and out that was disorienting. So, after about 10 minutes, I appointed myself The Guy Who Would Need to Leave the Theater to Complain. And so I did. Of course Year One just had to be playing at the theater farthest from the lobby, so I walked quickly, made my complaint and turned around to head back.

On my way back, I saw a guy in his early 30s go stumbling across the hall. He looked disoriented and had his hand up to his mouth. We locked eyes for a moment and he gave me a look that said, “Help! I need to vomit, and I can’t vomit here, but I can’t make it to the bathroom, what should I do?” Being the jerk that I am, I pretended I didn’t notice this look of desperation and instead averted my eyes and tried to walk past him. Before I could slip by, however, homeboy bent over and tossed his cookies all over the floor in the middle of the hallway. (Dude! How about aiming for the trashcan!) At this moment, a motherly woman appeared and asked the cookie tosser if he was OK, thus saving me the responsibility of doing the same. Eyes straight ahead, I walked by the puke and headed back toward Year One, but not without turning my head to see which movie the puker had stumbled out of: The Proposal. Need I say more?



Remembering the King of Pop
I had no profound reaction to Michael Jackson’s death June 25. Immediately it struck me another tragic episode in a largely tragic life. Thus, Jackson’s passing seemed to be fitting and perhaps also a blessing; I just can’t imagine that he loved his life anymore, if he ever did. Over the past week I’ve read some remembrances of Jackson, but even those have failed to move me in any significant way, even though Jackson was one of the most influential musicians and pop icons of my childhood, even though Thriller was one of the first cassettes I ever owned (purchased on the same day as Van Halen’s 1984), even though I remember kids in the neighborhood waiting for scheduled airings of the epic “Thriller” video and even though I was still mesmerized by Jackson in his Bad stage, and bought his Dangerous album in high school and was enthused to buy his HIStory double-album in college, both for its new tunes and for its nostalgic qualities. It didn’t take Jackson dying to get me to appreciate his music or to remember that “Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin’” never fails to put me in a good mood.

But in the days since Jackson’s death, as I have wrestled with how to remember a man whose music never ceased to be inviting but whose personal life was as tempting as poison ivy, I have been unable to shake two thoughts:

The first is that our reactions to and jokes about Jackson’s alleged sexual misconduct might say more about us than about Jackson. Here’s what I mean: A year ago, at an exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery, I saw a photo taken at the infamous Neverland estate that showed Jackson standing beneath two huge painted statues of children wearing boy scout-type uniforms, their outstretched arms creating an arch over the door to Jackson’s bedroom. The photo struck me as creepy in every way, and without ever thinking about it I added it to the circumstantial evidence file against Jackson. But a few days later, I thought about the photo again and had second thoughts. After all, what did it really show? Not evidence of a crime, certainly. Instead, the photo merely provided further evidence of how Jackson obliviously defied social norms. But often our social norms are nothing to be proud of. (Ahem, have you seen how well Transformers 2 is doing at the box office?)

Our society tends to be uncomfortable with effeminate males and adults who cling to childhood pleasures. Jackson was both. But that doesn't make him a pedophile. Sure, it’s unusual that Jackson liked to invite children into his bed – as in, “not usual” by our societal standards. And perhaps rightfully so. But, just for a moment, compare your mental picture of Jackson sitting in a bed surrounded by children to the image of, say, Julie Andrews sitting in a bed surrounded by children. Different feeling, isn't it?

I’m not here to say Jackson was innocent of his alleged crimes (though he was never convicted in a court, it should be noted). Instead I’m here to suggest that many of us, certainly including me, were often guilty of convicting Jackson in the court of public opinion simply because it was easier to exile him than to try to understand him.

Then again, my second post-death thought about Jackson goes like this: While Jackson’s reclusiveness was one of his many oddities that made him difficult to get close to, it was also his saving grace. To see his ghastly appearance in recent years was to be thankful that he wasn’t doing the late night talk show circuit. On the whole, considering his status as a global icon, Jackson had remarkable control of his image and remained out of the public eye, particularly in his later years as he seemed to grow increasingly peculiar. And so with tabloids obsessing over Britney and Paris, Brad and Angelina, it’s easier for us to remember Jackson as he was, back when he was a somewhat public public-figure, back when he seemed more like a colorful original than a deformed monster. Who was Jackson really? I doubt anyone knows.


Etcetera
I think the concept of pointing out plot holes in a movie about transforming robots is hilarious in and of itself. Nonetheless, this is a fun link. … Blogging buddy Ed Howard has created a site dedicated to listing blogathons and other such online fests. If you’re planning to host an event, be sure to add it to The Film Blog Calendar.