tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-91772114638454653362024-03-13T18:21:51.711-07:00the groundhog day project<p>phase 1: <i>groundhog day</i> every day for a year, every month thereafter
<p>phase 2: other movies, usually for seven days, monthly themes
<p>phase 3: movies every day, maybe repeated, maybe not, monthly themes
<p>phase 4: deconstructing my childhood movie experience one movie at a time
<p>follow me on <i>twitter</i> @robertegblack
</p></p></p></p></p>robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.comBlogger1461125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-73236579104065284592020-08-01T19:36:00.000-07:002020-08-01T19:38:42.817-07:00the stuff that dreams are made ofBen wants a big answer. His story here begins with a dream that leads to the design of a new antenna the leads to the space bubble thing, which leads to the Thunder Road spaceship which leads to the alien vessel and Ben wants it all to mean something. Like, there's got to be a reason he and Wolfgang are bullied, when Trisha over at Charles M. Jones Junior High School is just as much a nerd... but maybe not as much of a geek. A reason why Steve Jackson and his friends are assholes. A reason why Darren's father is the way he is. Why Darren's mom died when he was young. Why movies like <i>War of the Worlds</i> and <i>This Island Earth</i> can lift Ben out of his mundane suburban life. Why he can't manage the confidence to talk to Lori Swenson.
<br />
<br />
Ben is still a child. He's got a crush on Lori but when he gets the opportunity to hover outside her bedroom window, he isn't looking for her to be undressing--as Darren points out, it's too early in the evening for that--but is excited just to see her<br />
<blockquote>
talking on the phone, and she's eating... Boston cream pie. She's got some stuffed animals on her bed, and it looks like Thompson Twins records.</blockquote>
At the junkyard he's excited just to look around.
<br />
And, he's a (sometimes inappropriately) big-picture guy. Woken while sleeping in class, he explains carbon dioxide a little strangely:<br />
<blockquote>
That's what you'd breathe on Mars. They have dust storms for months there, you know. And the temperature's 50 below. And that's what you'd breathe on Mars.</blockquote>
He doesn't think practically. Even the antenna design from his dream, he has no reason to think that it <i>is</i> anything. But, he thinks it anyway. For Ben, things are bigger, always bigger.
<br />
<br />
So, when he and his friends make a spaceship and something pulls it far away into space and it is swallowed by a larger ship, of course he'd expect something big. He expects "the greatest thing ever." <br />
<blockquote>
(Or he'd expect death. He does write out a will.)</blockquote>
Some meaningful revelation that explains everything.
<br />
<br />
But, the aliens Wak and Neek are also just children themselves, joyriding in their father's spaceship and making contact with faraway humans.
<br />
<br />
And, big answers might not be obvious. Like this blog. Watching <a href="https://groundhogdayproject.blogspot.com/2014/07/so-this-will-be-last-time-we-do.html?m=0"><i>Groundhog Day</i></a> all those days in a row, and its big ideas stand out right away, but that doesn't even mean that they register as big ideas. Not immediately. Nor with Ben and Wolfgang and Darren on their space adventure. On the surface, the boys don't get much further than Roy Neary stepping onto that alien vessel at the end of <i>Close Encounters of the Third Kind</i>. They find children, obsessed with Earth fiction. Not that far removed from themselves.
<br />
<br />
But, then again, that's kind of the point. Like watching all these movies, watching <i>Groundhog Day</i>, and so many other movies over four "years" of this blog.<br />
<blockquote>
(It's really been seven years, but there were a couple gaps, since this blog began. Seven years tomorrow.)</blockquote>
Coming back to all these movies--not just in this last section of childhood deconstruction, but all the movies I've watched for this blog... Except for a couple, I always chose movies that I had seen before to make it easier to write about them while they were on. For efficiency, first. But, also, for a nice stream of consciousness approach that removes a need for structure and just lets things happen, lets ideas in, lets ideas out, and it's like Ben when they first get pulled into the alien ship, excited, wide-eyed, and expecting all the answers.
<br />
<br />
I've written many times about when I began this blog, separated, living alone. Darmok on the ocean. And, my master's thesis was called "Blogging to Make Sense of the World". The process here,
<br />
watching,
<br />
writing,
<br />
elucidating
<br />
illuminating
<br />
philosophizing
<br />
ruminating
<br />
turning my own life inside out and doing something like the same to all these movies and I might as well be Wak, cycling through quotes from movies and tv like it's the greatest form of communication--it's the process that is the point. Kira at Bashi. I've written about the difference between a "masculine" quest and a "feminine" one. The former is going out there, heading to a destination in search of a goal. Think <i>The Lord of the Rings</i>. Think <a href="http://groundhogdayproject.blogspot.com/2017/12/nothing-else-has-come-close.html?m=1"><i>Raiders of the Lost Ark</i></a>.
<br />
<br />
Think <i>Explorers</i>.
<br />
<br />
The latter quest is aimed inward. Think <i>Groundhog Day</i>.
<br />
<br />
But, also, think <i>Explorers</i>. Starts with a dream, ends with a dream, and everything in between is a childish fantasy played straight. Ben wants the masculine journey but gets the feminine one. He's looking for big, easy, obvious answers, but finds that far out in space are a couple alien kids just like him, too scared to come all the way to Earth because they've seen our movies in which we kill aliens.
<br />
Ben travels some unknown distance through space to find that he and Wak are a lot alike.
<br />
<br />
And there's disappointment.
<br />
<br />
And, he thinks in the moment that he didn’t find anything valuable.
<br />
<br />
But, finding out that other people have
<br />
interests like yours,
<br />
fears like yours,
<br />
hope and dreams like yours—
<br />
that’s a great thing to realize, especially when you’re young. Realistically, some people are too far gone to try to find common ground a lot of the time. Politics, religion, and so many other things divide us from one another. But, one-on-one, if you can discover that you and someone else—like Ben and Lori sharing their dreams—have something interesting in common, something that can draw you closer, latch onto it, and hope the differences aren’t bigger than the similarities.
<br />
<br />
Sokath, his eyes open.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7SirIvVEQnCzHUlDth_-Evq-trombt7NaEvBZdxXJgA70cqDqSzrVMI69AT9tkAd-IQFEHwdCle0bPju0Ns8GeDIM1-lvgWivvXt-47HI5XMkrA_Rn3GjVvxSTZaIykCBff4KKam3rfbt/s1600/9A138B1A-D631-4D03-89B6-68A80BD41949.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="456" data-original-width="800" height="182" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7SirIvVEQnCzHUlDth_-Evq-trombt7NaEvBZdxXJgA70cqDqSzrVMI69AT9tkAd-IQFEHwdCle0bPju0Ns8GeDIM1-lvgWivvXt-47HI5XMkrA_Rn3GjVvxSTZaIykCBff4KKam3rfbt/s320/9A138B1A-D631-4D03-89B6-68A80BD41949.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
And, regarding <i>Explorers</i> specifically, remember, they never even finished making this movie. The studio gave up on it, and that’s why, for example, the helicopter pilot Charlie’s subplot seems to rise up and then fizzle so quickly. But, that’s also why it ends on such an ambiguous note.
<br />
The three boys, and Lori, are flying through the clouds.
<br />
<br />
If this is a dream, then what happens when we wake up?
<br />
<br />
I don’t know, but I can’t wait to find out.
<br />
<br />
Still, as Wak says,
<br />
<br />
I think it’s time for you guys to get going.
<br />
<br />
Do we have to?
<br />
<br />
And, we’re sorry you hav ego run along so soon.
<br />
<br />
But, tomorrow is the 2nd, and that means, everything happens all over again.
<br />
<br />
The answers might not be obvious. But, if Phil Connors can find them, so can Ben. So can you.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-7908338571049060412020-07-31T19:22:00.001-07:002020-07-31T19:22:25.969-07:00the secrets of the universe<i>Explorers</i> opens with Ben asleep with his TV on (<i>War of the Worlds</i> is on), dreaming about flying over a <i>Tron</i>-ish circuitboard reality. He wakes and frantically draws a piece of his dream. Then he calls up Wolfgang to talk about it.
<br />
<br />
As you do. A good dream. A good movie. You gotta share with someone, gotta talk about it. Or at least I do. This blog is some of the obvious evidence.
<br />
<br />
The Junior High the boys attend here is Charles M. Jones... That is, Chuck Jones, the cartoonist. Not the name of the High School where they filmed, but chosen deliberately. Because the cartoon reference matters. This is a movie about creativity and imagination and I just found out that Wolfgang's house is not far from where I'm writing right now, and I love that.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1DZWQq1eAROEPIi0F_fYNY_oopyztqIy8XUMiS1IcGXqMifoC_15bsXaPY2xFjeWBtraHFsID16yjZ-eWlhDnVUAcnrZp9T1swwqqs9-gMW5w57qeY3GGT-HEfRdEGZEWyeKRSeAkiC31/s1600/D4BB648D-4026-49FA-BCFE-9C3961E83592.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="335" data-original-width="550" height="194" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1DZWQq1eAROEPIi0F_fYNY_oopyztqIy8XUMiS1IcGXqMifoC_15bsXaPY2xFjeWBtraHFsID16yjZ-eWlhDnVUAcnrZp9T1swwqqs9-gMW5w57qeY3GGT-HEfRdEGZEWyeKRSeAkiC31/s320/D4BB648D-4026-49FA-BCFE-9C3961E83592.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>This Island Earth</i> is the next movie we see, after some science fiction magazines and books.
<br />
<br />
But, per the movie later, the island is not isolated. Like the immigrants in yesterday's <i>An American Tail</i>, the aliens in <i>Explorers</i> have knowledge about America, particularly our films, our pop culture. As Janet Maslin puts it in her <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1985/07/12/movies/the-screen-explorers.html">New York Times</a> review, director Joe Dante "includes more than enough of his standard touches [including] skewed scenes of suburbia" and his idea of "the great beyond is already filling up with the detritus of American pop culture". Much like the rest of the world, really.
<br />
<br />
Dante's (or screenwriter Eric Luke's) version of suburbia is fairly stereotypical. The kid with the messed up home life who puts engines together in his spare time teams up with the bullied nerd and his science geek best friend to have some power over their lives, and after getting sidetracked in their adventure in outer space, they can mess with the local bullies and maybe Ben can get the girl he's got a crush on. But in the meantime, it's a little like a Stephen King novel, if he wrote whimsical science fiction.
<br />
<br />
The boys build their spaceship out of suburban trash, and this matters too as far as the ideas the film is playing with. A lost tilt-a-whirl seat, a trash can, a tire, a suitcase, an old tv screen, some doors from clothes washers, and other random parts. The bubble that allows it to fly comes from a dream, and the ship itself comes from the remains of several.
<br />
<br />
And pieces of other movies are here too. From the two old science fiction films we've already seen, to the title of the film interrupted at the drive-in--<i>Star Killer</i>--presumably a reference to <a href="http://groundhogdayproject.blogspot.com/2017/10/your-first-step-into-larger-world.html?m=0">Luke Skywalker</a>'s original surname. And Ben plays with his flashlight like a lightsaber after putting on a gas mask. And the robotic scanner resembles the one outside Jabba's palace in <a href="http://groundhogdayproject.blogspot.com/2018/02/its-trap.html?m=0"><i>Return of the Jedi</i></a>. There's a sled reference to <i>Citizen Kane</i>. A newspaper headline that references the events of <a href="http://groundhogdayproject.blogspot.com/2015/12/and-thats-how-i-found-out-theres-no.html?m=1"><i>Gremlins</i></a>. Another references <i>Twilight Zone: The Movie</i>. The dreamscape looks like <i>Tron</i>. Wolfgang quotes <a href="http://groundhogdayproject.blogspot.com/2015/10/she-went-through-my-soul.html?m=1"><i>Poltergeist</i></a>'s "They're here." Ben quotes <i>Star Trek</i>'s "where no man has gone before." The county where the film takes places I named for a planet in <i>Not of This Earth</i>. Not to mention all the movies and TV shows that Wak and Neek reference in act three.
<br />
<br />
And, I think after all these years, or maybe already when I first saw <i>Explorers</i> on the big screen 34 years ago, my brain is a bit like the aliens' brains in this film, full of movie quotes and references and everything I do or say is influenced by all that. And, the thing is I'm cheating by putting this film on the fixture list because we never even had it on video. But, I saw it on the big screen, we may have rented it to watch it again, and I watched it on cable more than a few times. But, more than that, its visuals and its ideas stuck with me over the years. The amalgamated pop culture on the spaceship mutated into my contention that every movie is every other movie and movies change who you are, and all of the stuff I've ever written in this blog, or said on my podcasts about movies.
<br />
<br />
Movies tell us about the time and place they were made, but they also tell us about ourselves. What kind of stories are we drawn to? What kind of characters attract us? How do we like our endings? Like <a href="http://groundhogdayproject.blogspot.com/2017/04/who-needs-drink.html?m=0">Rob Gordon</a>'s iconic question: "What came first, the music or the misery?" Did I see so many movies over all these years because I loved movies, or do I love movies because I've seen so many over the years? Do I like the movies I like today because of their similarity (and dissimilarity) to ones I saw when I was a child? Did movies make me or did I make them? Not literally, of course. I made none of these movies, but echo back through this blog, all those references to Izod by way of Benesh, how you take a movie into your head and what resonates afterward is <i>your</i> version of the film. And each time you remember it, it changes, it lessens or it swells. It fixes itself inside you, helps hold you up and build you, or it drifts away to be replaced by something else.
<br />
<br />
It isn't just movies, of course. There's books and tv shows and games and sports and so much else. But, if you're reading this blog after all these entries, I figure movies have a special place for you like they do for me
<br />
<br />
All bundled together inside your head.
<br />
<br />
And it's your job to make something useful of it.robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-30438324792168491352020-07-30T19:10:00.001-07:002020-07-30T19:12:49.451-07:00this is america In 2000, Fievel Mousekewitz was named an official icon for UNICEF for "promoting worldwide understanding and friendship among children." However much <a href="https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/an-american-tail-1986">Roger</a> might have dismissed the movie for being too depressing—<br />
<blockquote>
he wrote, among other complaints, "The movie has such vague ethnic grounds... that only a few children will understand or care that the Mousekewitzes are Jewish. And few of those are likely to be entertained by such a tragic, gloomy story.</blockquote>
—the film not only performed well—it was #2 behind <i>Crocodile Dundee</i> its opening weekend and #18 at the box office for all of 1986 (and it didn't come out until November)—but has also endured. A few sequels, a couple video games, a comic book, and some nice retrospective articles years after release.
<br />
<br />
Regarding the latter, for example, Dave Trumbore, who credits <i>An American Tail</i> as the first film he saw in a theater, writes for <a href="https://collider.com/an-american-tail-30th-anniversary-themes-racism-immigration/#mouse-of-minsk">Collider</a>, 21 November 2016:<br />
<blockquote>
What I once regarded as a darkly serious and sometimes silly tale about a young mouse separated from his family on the streets of New York City has matured into a harrowing allegory for our world's enduring evils: racism, the vilification of "the other", and the breaking of the Golden Rule.</blockquote>
I had to wonder yesterday if the cats were the Americans and the mice were the immigrants. Originally, there were not supposed to be any humans in the film at all, but we <i>do</i> see humans, but in the background—the cat and mouse story more like that of an underground society. So, while the mice do seem more distinctly (but not explicitly) varied in their origins—one on the ship to America wears a kilt and Balmoral cap, for example—the cats seem deliberately more monolithic (except for Tiger, of course). But, I think the story plays more interestingly if we look at the humans as the "Americans" and the cats and mice are just different groups of immigrants. And, they have to, as I said yesterday, compete with each other for resources because they don't have the clout to get above scraps. Or they would be human, I guess, to belabor the metaphors a bit.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmc2bitLljIVzZRTmOjS_R419PqNwHE0AyVwHydbf9hR0q2R1IUsVWTHEDaklykVQqBuNHeS83CZR7W8CiZOwl37MatOxWZgPELfYnOUqr1OYS8JxPy3faGqetj0J2PgWouVf9GwEo_LGd/s1600/DCD9792E-998E-4BE2-9F43-C088329307B3.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="288" data-original-width="512" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmc2bitLljIVzZRTmOjS_R419PqNwHE0AyVwHydbf9hR0q2R1IUsVWTHEDaklykVQqBuNHeS83CZR7W8CiZOwl37MatOxWZgPELfYnOUqr1OYS8JxPy3faGqetj0J2PgWouVf9GwEo_LGd/s320/DCD9792E-998E-4BE2-9F43-C088329307B3.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
If we look at them as explicitly different cultural, ethnic, or racial groups, the finale of the cats versus mouse storyline is a little problematic. The Mousekewitzes flee Russia because of an anti-Semitic pogrom (though the film does not explain this—hence Roger's "vague ethnic grounds" referenced above) but the Giant Mouse of Minsk plan is to shove all of the cats off the dock onto a ship bound for Hong Kong? What if that plan doesn't work? Is the next venture more violent? How does the metaphor extend beyond the presented story?
<br />
<br />
In passing I should note that the suitcase in which Warren T. lives has a hat sitting on top of it that looks like a human-sized version of Fievel's own Kasket cap. A specific implication about the possibilities if Fievel doesn't find his way back to his family perhaps. If he rejects them when he does later, and they do not happen along when they do, does Fievel join up with a gang, maybe a specifically Russian one, Russian and Jewish even. Does Fievel become an actual mouse version of Warren T.'s local crime boss? Not an unheard of possibility for an immigrant who finds normal life difficult upon arriving in America.
<br />
<br />
Rebecca Long, <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9kep95/an-american-tail-explores-bleak-immigrant-struggles-that-still-resonate-in-2019">Vice</a>, 21 November 2019:<br />
<blockquote>
[Director Don] Bluth contends that creating an overly romanticized version of the world is a disservice to viewers. "Now shall we manicure this and make it look like everything's wonderful in America... And people are all good to each other? That's certainly not real," he says. Bluth paraphrases a quote he remembers by actress Lillian Gish: "A movie is not an innocent thing... All you directors out there, you're changing the way people think. Be very careful that you tell the truth."</blockquote>
I couldn't find the original Gish line Bluth is paraphrasing, but I understand the sentiment certainly. I mean, I've said all along in this blog that every movie tells you something about the time and place it was made, it tells you about the politics, the gender relations, the values, the haves and have nots, the ins and outs, the ups and downs. Even if it doesn't try to. Even if it doesn't want to. A movie can generally give you a pretty good idea of what its writer(s) or director is trying to say. Take note for instance of where Fievel lands first arriving in America. He lands on Liberty Island, where he meets Henri, an immigrant or maybe just a visitor, but definitely not a native. Henri is quite comfortable in his own skin, and he has a vaguely optimistic philosophy about life which he explains in "Never Say Never". Henri is working on the Statue of Liberty, and just before Fievel's bottle washes up, we hear a chorus singing the familiar final lines to Emma Lazarus' "The New Colossus":<br />
<blockquote>
Give me your tired, your poor, </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, </blockquote>
<blockquote>
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Send these, the homeless, tempest-toast to me, </blockquote>
<blockquote>
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!</blockquote>
And later, when Gussie Mausheimer is rallying the mouse crowd...<br />
<blockquote>
Money is not everything. I know, because I have money and I have everything, but what are they worth without freedom? Why did we come to America? For freedom! Why are they building that statue? What does it stand for? Freedom! So, what do we want? Freedom.</blockquote>
But then it gets a little problematic.<br />
<blockquote>
Freedom from cats. And because this is America, we can do something about them!</blockquote>
Problematic because by turning to violence against the cats, I think the mice kinda missed the point of "A Duo". Though I guess, technically, they didn't hear it. But, we did. And, no, a movie is not innocent. It presents its ideas in (if done well) a digestible form so we take it in, make it a part of ourselves, and become someone new by the time the credits roll. It doesn't have to be a big change, but a good film will offer some change. And, each time you think on it, think on its messages, you might become a little more of what it wanted you to be, or perhaps you might be more reactionary and turn away from it, but still, the film has fueled that change.
<br />
<br />
In the past "year" of blog entries, I have explored movies that were fixtures of my childhood. Movies that, in large ways and small, good ways and bad, helped build me into the me I was later. I've got just one movie left in that deconstruction after <i>An American Tail</i>, and I think I've demonstrated that not only did these movies affect me when I was young, but coming back to them, even to ones I barely remember after years of separation, the me that I am today has to measure and re-measure itself, and every movie is still not innocent, but a potentially powerful influence. And an immigrant tale like this one—if you saw this when you were young and you enjoyed it, and years later you demonize immigrants and even underprivileged natives, you, my friends, are doing it wrong. And, you should back up and give your life some measure as well...
<br />
<br />
We can hope you come out better on a second pass.robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-20777212624477495322020-07-29T20:37:00.000-07:002020-07-29T20:37:31.234-07:00in the family for three generationsI have not watched many kids films for this blog. Even when going through movie fixtures from my childhood, there were a few child-friendly films but few made primarily for kids. Today, though, we've got <i>An American Tail</i> and I do not recall the last time I watched it. Once upon a time I loved this movie and had all the lyrics to all the songs memorized.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXSOpWxGhZZtj2CrdanUXm0GYlS0YGpykNggaNmkJWsJT6sP9PTOj8YpIfwPApib0dbnO_Sn8Hl7rxCen2-woGdybaHZqKErS1Ax_CIsyMI6DgYFLZPxczQjgaR27s4gU8LJn5zfR29PuX/s1600/2346CF98-C7FD-4820-9A14-1635FE79FB79.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="315" data-original-width="526" height="191" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXSOpWxGhZZtj2CrdanUXm0GYlS0YGpykNggaNmkJWsJT6sP9PTOj8YpIfwPApib0dbnO_Sn8Hl7rxCen2-woGdybaHZqKErS1Ax_CIsyMI6DgYFLZPxczQjgaR27s4gU8LJn5zfR29PuX/s320/2346CF98-C7FD-4820-9A14-1635FE79FB79.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
As I wait for the first song, I get sidetracked by the history. After the assassination of Tsar Alexander II, some blamed Jews, and a series of pogroms followed. The Cossacks attack the town of Shostka because there are Jewish families there. The Mousekewitzes are just one.
<br />
<br />
And, oh shit, I had forgotten that "There Are No Cats in America" begins with Papa explaining how his parents were killed.
<br />
<br />
Damn, kids movie.
<br />
<br />
And then other mice tell their sad tales in between joyful choruses. And, already I'm imagining the way a movie like this influenced me when I was just 10 years old. Refugees just looking for a place to live and the movie doesn't tell us who the Cossacks are or why they burn down houses. But, it's pretty clear the Mouskewitzes need somewhere better and maybe we know there <i>are</i> cats here and the streets are <i>not</i> paved with cheese, but immigrants have been dreaming of better lives here since before it was a country, and by 11 I knew that, but I'd also surely heard plenty of anti-immigrant talk from people at school, in church, at home. A movie like this could stand up against that kind of thing.
<br />
<br />
Fievel lands on Liberty Island alone after a storm at sea, and ends up befriended by Henri Le Pigeon, a bird with a nice positive attitude. So Fievel sets out to the New York City proper and gets caught up by Warren T. Rat and stuck in a job he doesn't want.<br />
<blockquote>
(We hear kids reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and it anachronistically includes "under God.")</blockquote>
He escapes, and teams up withTony, a streetwise kid who falls for Bridget, who is out preaching about the unfairness of cats. Then off to Tammany Hall, where Honest John is, of course, corrupt. And, openly drunk.
<br />
<br />
And, I wrote a few weeks back about <a href="https://groundhogdayproject.blogspot.com/2020/07/not-woman.html?m=0">babies</a> in baskets and Fievel sleeps in a large baby basket floating in water the night he and Tanya sing "Somewhere Out There." Fievel, set adrift in that storm, sent into the city by Henri, to work by Warren T., to Tammany Hall by Bridget, he's one more lost child turned hero because despite, or because of, fate throwing so much at him. And, what kind of hero? An immigrant who just wants to be reunited with his family, but also, to be good for those around him. And he inspires the secret weapon they use against the cats.
<br />
<br />
And, his quest becomes a shrunken down version of something epic when he ventures below ground, barely survives an interaction with giant roaches and what I guess is an eel only to learn who the Shakespeare-quoting Warren T. really is.
<br />
<br />
And, then he meets Tiger. And, "A Duo" has my daughter Saer going on about how wholesome this movie is, but it's talking about different groups of immigrants forced to compete with each other for, at best, power, at worst, the freedom to just live how they want. But wrapped up in a cute package. Cute and a little depressing. Even after Fievel helps beat the cats, he's still got more travails ahead. Alone in the rain.
<br />
<br />
Except, in movies, rain is often cleansing, and the story already has mythic overtones. So, after proclaiming that he doesn't need his family anymore, he awakens to the sound of his sister calling his name, and all is well.robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-2958729765510176502020-07-28T20:20:00.002-07:002020-07-28T20:22:45.110-07:00the new working woman<blockquote>
Waiter coded gay.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Fritz a condescending ass pretending he's looking out for JC's interests.</blockquote>
And that's where the sacrifice conversation begins. At the end of the film, JC insists she still doesn't want to make sacrifices, and yet she has already made most of the sacrifices that Fritz is talking about. She has a kid, has a house to look after, has a growing business. I don't remember if we see them, but she's got to have employees. Is she going to talk like Fritz later with her female employees? <br />
<blockquote>
Steven doesn't like JC dreaming about a vacation home and sex with him takes seconds and he calls it incredible when she is clearly not at all satisfied.</blockquote>
Feminism in the 80s still loves capitalism. JC's problem, <i>Baby Boom</i> would have us believe, is not her work ethic, even though 70-80 work hours a week will <i>not</i> fit with having a child. And JC is <i>not</i> satisfied with Vermont.<br />
<blockquote>
Hughes rejects JC ostensibly because she has a child (but really because she brought the kid to their meeting, so maybe he isn't that bad, or ineffective, yet.)</blockquote>
Even before she's got water troubles (the pipes and then the well) the movie doesn't show us much of her settling in.
<br />
<br />
But, I'm getting ahead of the movie now. As I pointed out yesterday, this movie stays in the city for more than half its length, making the Vermont venture a minor element. Which is strange. Because I imagine an ending in which JC doesn't say, "If The Food Chain can put Country Baby on every supermarket shelf in America, so can I." Instead she'd not need to be on every supermarket shelf in America. She's got one orchard, she's already selling her applesauce throughout Vermont...
<br />
<br />
I used to have this argument all the time with a guy I know online, used to work for the SciFi Channel, about tv ratings. The goal was always every show has to be number one in its slot with the right demographic, and that seemed like a ridiculous goal to me. A) It's science fiction, it's not going to be the most popular thing most of the time. Hell, almost never. 2) It's basic cable, so it would never hit the numbers of a network, and networks don't even get the numbers that they used to because there are more and more options for watching television all the time. And D) There is nothing wrong with coming in second, nothing wrong with making just enough profit to pay your employees well, pay your crew, your actors, buy new shows, and live to sci fi another day.<br />
<blockquote>
Everett sees a child in JC's office and (along with Fritz) is not happy about it. But, JC is preoccupied, spills Elizabeth's bottle on him, and is flustered, so maybe we're not supposed to be on JC's side yet, capitalism is winning.</blockquote>
With the interviews of potential nannies, and the first one being irresponsible, and JC panicking at the second, it seems like JC cannot trust other women (or maybe the movie doesn't want her to) anymore than she can trust men.<br />
<blockquote>
The straw that really breaks the camel's back at work is when JC takes a call in a meeting, when all she had to do is step out. Like none of the men there have ever had a call to take during a meeting, have never had any emergency that their wives couldn't take care of (like Fritz claims his does).</blockquote>
It feels like the movie is presenting men who are inadequate--I'm ahead of the film here, but the plumber in town, Boone, even--the presentation of his work estimates play like he's a country rube who doesn't know anything. His yeps and nopes present as if he's an idiot. But he clearly gets the work done. And, at the dance later, he seems to have some musical talent as well. But, at that point JC is more comfortable with Vermont so it's okay if we see another side of him.
<br />
<br />
Even his choice to take JC to Dr. Cooper when she faints is a pretty good move. There is no other Doctor nearby, so he gets her to the vet, because who knows what kind of emergency it is? The problem at Dr. Cooper's is not that he's the wrong kind of doctor but simply that JC doesn't realize it and after freaking out in front of Boone, she continues to spill out her feelings in front of this stranger and it becomes an embarrassment. That he's a veterinarian is just an extra punchline to make their future interactions more (and inappropriately) awkward.<br />
<blockquote>
JC spills her soda at a meeting, and it feels unrealistic to me--I've been in work meetings--that she's the only one without a good solid mug on the table. There would be drinks of all kinds, and probably bagels or donuts or something. The mess being just hers is a cheap move by the movie, except I'm not sure what the move means. Is JC bad at her job? Is her inability to keep up with a younger woman out walking because she's got a stroller an indicator that she is falling behind because of her choices and that is a bad thing? Or is she realizing that she doesn't need to keep up because there are better things in her life now? The movie should be arguing the latter but keeps insisting on the former. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Ken does part of JC's job when she can't get to it, and 1) that's a dick move but also 2) a sign that the film is recalling pushing the idea that JC can no longer hack it. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
But, that's 80s capitalism and Fritz rewards Ken and JC quits. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
And Fritz is an asshole. Doesn't know how many grandkids he has, and he says it like he's made the right choice, work over family.</blockquote>
And, I'm not sure the film really disagrees. In the scene before the well discussion and JC fainting, she talks to a friend over the phone and her tone suggests things aren't going well, but the set decoration and the direction suggest to me otherwise. She's got firewood inside now; we saw her struggling to get firewood outside in the snow earlier. The place is clean. There are baby toys on the floor, sure, but that's normal, and JC is still at the point that she picks them up; she hasn't given up yet. But, the well drying up is too much.<br />
<blockquote>
And then there's Dr. Cooper. Stable. Calm. Immediately offering to listen to JC's problems. Not much later, he also offers to help with her research at the library. Somehow he's the positive male type in the film, but also sort of antithetical to what the film wants, or what we think it wants. JC isn't supposed to need a man, and she wants success with her applesauce. Country Baby is supposed to be ticket back to regular life...</blockquote>
But her regular life is not what she wants. Not anymore. That's the movie this should be. But, 80s feminism wants to reify the need for JC to keep pushing, even as the film wants to reify her need for a man in her life, and it's pushing in different directions and doesn't really work if you think about it. But if JC embraced Vermont, embraced Country Baby as a company that doesn't need to be nationwide to be successful, and could still embrace Dr. Cooper because he's a nice guy...<br />
<blockquote>
If he hadn't basically assaulted her by her truck when she had that flat tire. And, after she had confessed to him she hadn't been with a man in a while. I mean, back the fuck off, Jeff. She isn't interested, and no matter how much immediate dislike is twisted into attraction in every other romantic comedy (not that this was a <i>romantic</i> comedy for the first hour), that trope has got to go, and you need to keep your hands and mouth to yourself.</blockquote>
So, nevermind embracing Dr. Cooper. But, Vermont and economic comfort--that seems nice.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnbc4c5py38AWnVqxhs0QY6KnkCbiWdOXz-bQ81W79OfuOCPmPKgemrl7V1eCyIzX6nK-HKH2bkyvNbmSHq0VisPpzfOwUzDscFJrVlwjwnjBMepnElM9mz3DKDE5qCO0tP37F3MS5fMBb/s1600/3E74CDD6-0CFD-4C89-B6E8-761B84DC31FF.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="496" data-original-width="750" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnbc4c5py38AWnVqxhs0QY6KnkCbiWdOXz-bQ81W79OfuOCPmPKgemrl7V1eCyIzX6nK-HKH2bkyvNbmSHq0VisPpzfOwUzDscFJrVlwjwnjBMepnElM9mz3DKDE5qCO0tP37F3MS5fMBb/s320/3E74CDD6-0CFD-4C89-B6E8-761B84DC31FF.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-25923494614955165202020-07-27T20:58:00.000-07:002020-07-27T21:02:57.777-07:00keeping her a little longerOpening narration:<br />
<blockquote>
53% of the American workforce is female. Three generations of women that turned 1,000 years of tradition on its ear. As little girls they were told to grow up and marry doctors and lawyers. Instead they grew up and became doctors and lawyers. They moved out of the "pink ghetto" and into the executive suite. Sociologists say the new working woman is a phenomenon of our time. Take JC Wiatt, for example. Graduated first in her class at Yale, got her MBA at Harvard. Has a corner office at the corner of 58th and Park. She works five to nine, makes six figures a year, and they call her the Tiger Lady. Married to her job, she lives with an investment banker married to his. They collect African art, co-own their co-op and have separate but equal IRA accounts. One would take it for granted that a woman like this has it all. One must never take anything for granted.</blockquote>
Of course the narrator will not return; it's one of those openings. Plus, you know, the usual big city montage shots before we can get to our story.
<br />
<br />
But, I'm more concerned today with an idea I was trying to research before the film. Because I was sure that housewife turns homemade food item into a business (often with hilarious results, sometimes failure) was surely a thing you'd find on <a href="https://tvtropes.org/">TV Tropes</a>, but even with help, I couldn't prove that it ever happened anywhere but <i>7th Heaven</i>. And <i>Baby Boom</i>, although JC Wiatt has more success with her baby food business than Annie Camden had with her muffins.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I remember this movie more for the Vermont part of it, but nearly an hour in, it's spent more time on the not-as-satirical-as-it-could-be city life with JC juggling becoming a mother with remaining in her job. But there was a whole segment where JC's boyfriend put up with having the baby when I remembering him rejecting her right away. I'd forgotten all about the adoption attempt (although as soon as I saw Mr. And Mrs. White I remembered that they wanted to rename the kid Fern, and I forgot about the nannies, but as soon as I saw Victoria Jackson, I remembered her naked behind the couch with the guy she met in that park that day, and I knew James Spader was going to get the promotion JC was supposed to get but all of this city stuff I was sure happened faster. That the film turned into the escapist Vermont countryside story earlier.
<br />
<br />
Like I was talking about plot points <a href="https://groundhogdayproject.blogspot.com/2020/07/i-dont-know-ill-make-something-up.html?m=1">the other day</a>, and now I'm wondering about this movie's plot points. Getting Elizabeth is the inciting incident, right. Plot Point One--and I forgot to check the timing on this one--was when JC decided to keep her after meeting the Whites. I'm not sure now (as JC is freaking out and scaring the plumber a bit after her well dried up) if Spader got the promotion before or after the Whites wanted to name Elizabeth Fern, but I guess JC finding out she's off the Food Chain account and on the Ferber Dog Food account is Pinch One. Moving to Vermont--that would be the midpoint. Then the movie rushed into too many apples, she's making baby food, but the pipes were corroded and then the well dried up and now she fainted and was taken to the local vet (because the nearest proper doctor was too far away)--<br />
<blockquote>
on TV Tropes, that's <a href="https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OpenHeartDentistry">Open Heart Dentistry</a>, by the way</blockquote>
--and then thinks about burning down her new house because it has no chance of being sold, and in come some yuppies to buy the baby applesauce. Pinch Two... Not quite at 62.5% of the way but close enough.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEid2AJpi1vV1U71QKHVgJscwwU_sJPj-c90IMLnOdBh_FmgY0gdwUIdm1ERHFD1WQQ-A-SLE9ovlw3eeCpM6fMZGqFYGMYTXUPiBZjnKjp6sIl1XZ25X-B0MZNfW2bkUbKZp-uAdCth2VQ0/s1600/2625BFE8-E84E-44A1-B9B2-6A8D74DFEFB7.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="610" data-original-width="1132" height="172" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEid2AJpi1vV1U71QKHVgJscwwU_sJPj-c90IMLnOdBh_FmgY0gdwUIdm1ERHFD1WQQ-A-SLE9ovlw3eeCpM6fMZGqFYGMYTXUPiBZjnKjp6sIl1XZ25X-B0MZNfW2bkUbKZp-uAdCth2VQ0/s320/2625BFE8-E84E-44A1-B9B2-6A8D74DFEFB7.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
An old reference around here, Phil Dyer describes Pinch Two as<br />
<blockquote>
Halfway between the mid-point and the second plot point should be a major plot event that pushes the protagonist in a new direction, usually because of the revelation of new information.</blockquote>
JC sees how the yuppie tourists grab at her applesauce and she's off to the library for some business magazines--looking for updated market information, of course.
<br />
<br />
Then, a flat tire has her interacting with the local vet again, and yada yada yada, they kiss, and with Pinch Two so early, and a roadtrip selling montage underway, I'm not sure what Plot Point Two is going to be. And, now I'm figuring I should have read my copy of Kristin Thompson's <i>Storytelling in the New Hollywood</i> by now, so I could be writing <i>around</i> the three-act structure already, demonstrating that movies don't always follow it very well. Except, they usually hew pretty close to it, just with a second act that plays a little long, and a third act sometimes that is quite short.
<br />
<br />
Plot Point Two is supposed to be:<br />
<blockquote>
the worst thing that could possibly occur in the protagonist's pursuit of his external goal should happen.</blockquote>
We get a montage of packaging and news coverage marking success at an hour twenty-five.<br />
<blockquote>
This usually happens because the antagonist exposed the protagonists' internal flaw for the world to see.</blockquote>
But, JC is at a local dance having a great time and I'm not sure there is an antagonist in this film. At least not a visible one right now. Inevitably, this is leading back to business, back to the city, back to the place she used to work, but no inkling of that yet.<br />
<blockquote>
It should appear at this point that the antagonist has won the battle and that it is now impossible for the protagonist to overcome his internal flaw and achieve his external goal.</blockquote>
And then the protagonist is supposed to return to the real world. The "real world" of the film should be the city, but she can't return there. The "real world" could be business, but she's already back there. Or the "real world" is the nice heteronormative relationship she's starting up with Dr. Cooper, who comes to her house after the dance. And, I guess <i>he</i> could be the antagonist. Or in a way, all <i>he</i>s are the antagonists, or rather we've got bell hooks' "imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy" at it again, and JC Wiatt has to stand up against it.
<br />
<br />
Spends the night with Dr. Cooper, Elizabeth calls him daddy, and phone rings for an opportunity with the Food Chain buying Country Baby. Which circles us back to Dyer's "buildup to resolution":<br />
<blockquote>
The protagonist returns to his ordinary world at this point, but he should now be so changed by everything that he has gone through that he can no longer be satisfied living the way he did before.</blockquote>
And the film makes a nice move in filming JC from behind as she enters the place she used to work. She doesn't belong there anymore, even if she hasn't realized it yet.<br />
<blockquote>
The protagonist will summon all of his internal resources, often following a visit to a mentor or oracle, and make one final heroic push to accomplish his external goal. This is the real point of no return.</blockquote>
Her old boss Fritz is certainly patronizing and condescending at the table, and a little sarcastic laughter suggests that this meeting will not be simple. Which cinematically means it cannot end the way it was supposed to, which means JC has to say no or we wouldn't be watching this meeting happen.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-17763461522929301302020-07-26T22:07:00.000-07:002020-07-26T22:10:23.792-07:00i love to dress up and pretendUnder the opening titles, as Patti LaBelle sings "Something Special" we see different women in different outfits, in blocks that never show the whole person. Parts of women, parts of outfits, earrings, eye makeup, and yesterday (because I had completely forgotten the acting class angle of <i>Outrageous Fortune</i>, I thought for a moment this was going to be about women working in fashion. But no.
<br />
<br />
Cut to theatrical fencing class and Lauren is, to put it mildly, overeager. And we learn that her ambition is to play Hamlet. Cut to dance class. A gay guy who asks her out "to do some serious research" and she turns him down. Cut to Lauren and friend talking about not dating actors. They find the flyer for Korzenowski's workshop. Cut to Lauren outside her parents house in need of money. And I find myself confused because she could just do her own production of <i>Hamlet</i> with the $5000 her father gives her. And, Lauren's idea that Sandy can't go into an audition for the workshop<br />
<blockquote>
without a prepared classical monologue. That means Shaw, Ibsen, Shakespeare.</blockquote>
feels wrong. Like the screenwriter thought the audience would only understand stage acting within an extremely narrow scope. And, I'm reminded of <i>Shakespeare in Love</i> when all the actors audition with the same lines from Marlowe's <i>Doctor Faustus</i>--"Was this the face that launched a thousand ships and burnt the topless towers of Ilium? Sweet Helen, make me immortal with a kiss." But Thomas Kent grabs Shakespeare's attention to by reciting lines that are 1) different and 2) from Shakespeare's own <i>Two Gentlemen of Verona</i>--<br />
<blockquote>
What light is light? If Sylvia be not seen? What joy is joy if Sylvia be not by? Unless it be to think that she is by and feed upon the shadow of perfection. Except, I be by Sylvia in the night. There is no music in the nightingale unless I look on Sylvia in the day. There is no day for me to look upon. She is my essence and I leave to be if I be not--</blockquote>
And, one must wonder in the context of <i>Shakespeare in Love</i> if Shakespeare is enamored because she compliments his writing or because she picked something unique. Is it ego or boredom? Or maybe both.
<br />
<br />
But even Will himself wouldn't hold up <i>Hamlet</i> as the epitome of theater. And he would tell her to find herself some funding--or rather get some more from her father--reserve a theater, run some auctions of her own, and play Hamlet already.
<br />
<br />
And I would say, take an interest in something less obvious.
<br />
<br />
But, as Lauren and Sandy get held up by a kid with a toy gun, I get distracted wondering what was popular in theater in the late 80s and further distracted by what's called "Great Theater Massacre of 1982". In 1973, hotelier John Portman Jr. Set out to build a hotel in Times Square. Three Broadway stages and 2 movie theaters would be demolished. Portman tried to appease his detractors with a promise of a new stage inside the hotel, but there were protests, plans were delayed. Portman backed down. For a while. In 1980, he returned with the support of Mayor Ed Koch. In 1982, enter Joe Papp, producer and director, and the "Save the Theaters" campaign. Broadway/Times Square was to be designated a national historic site. But, the bill to do so didn't pass, theaters were demolished, the hotel went up.
<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, Lauren and Sandy get along like girlfriends for a moment as they hesitate to finally confront Michael, and I get stuck still on Lauren's lines from earlier. Her plan for the audition was "Ophelia's mad speech" which I'm guess she means that "what a noble mind is here o'erthrown" bit in Act III, and I figure if Leslie Dixon wanted to make a female version of a buddy copy sort of movie, maybe she shouldn't hinge it on two women being stuck on a man who lied to them both. Maybe don't aim for feminism by having Lauren want, without any further explanation, to play Hamlet. And, maybe don't have her using a monologue that reinforces the female character's subservience to the male. Obsessing about Hamlet's madness and not her own.<br />
<blockquote>
(I do try to find another Ophelia monologue about madness and find none.)</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcGPZpqyCbIdVb4tdH0rrDbv9NUPPJKrhtuBWSgxyajZbON_Ma9lZlYyk_IxljX8dXRlxzln14CWB0KrgDf4SQQ8n5RLWb_4huGzsEd_ft0beGHYWzEqg5Ky07J75kIBWHERRqUPZoK3cs/s1600/876623B3-D2AC-445E-925E-28C063942302.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="708" data-original-width="1280" height="177" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcGPZpqyCbIdVb4tdH0rrDbv9NUPPJKrhtuBWSgxyajZbON_Ma9lZlYyk_IxljX8dXRlxzln14CWB0KrgDf4SQQ8n5RLWb_4huGzsEd_ft0beGHYWzEqg5Ky07J75kIBWHERRqUPZoK3cs/s320/876623B3-D2AC-445E-925E-28C063942302.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
I mean, the idea works, generally. A couple of women get caught up in a plot far bigger than them (like many an action film, not just buddy cop movies), the men around them, whether villains or supposed heroes, just get in the way, and the women have to get shit done themselves... Until they need help from George Carlin and a truckload of Mexicans. But then Lauren gets to win the final confrontation with Michael by jumping like she did in dance class and everything is just fine. The lying man is gone. He didn't release a toxin that could kill all the vegetation in California. And, Lauren gets to play Hamlet.
<br />
<br />
I'm not sure if it's feminist or not.
<br />
<br />
But, it's a comedy that has the identification of a body hinging on genital size, a lead come after the offer of a blow job, and the final locating of Michael (in a brothel no less) by listening to him climax with a prostitute, and my conservative mother still loved it.
<br />
<br />
Go figure.robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-85585520476354996802020-07-25T21:42:00.000-07:002020-07-25T21:43:24.975-07:00i don’t know, i’ll make something upIt's strange how some movies can be entirely familiar after decades, and some that were familiar once have slinked away out of my head. A few movies ago, I realized that somehow I had conflated <i>Big Business</i> and <i>Outrageous Fortune</i> as one big movie involving, I guess, two pairs of mismatched twins who also share a man and get involved with some sort of organized crime (I still can't quite recall what happens later in this film) and end up in the Mexican desert.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO04tJdYaGDcj-zSyCFW_unL5wLOnWIMmRNnzXrHFE8tN_J-toA8jgUJLjmchSB2As2FGw2mxhG1xjnTc2ztGXgcAqRxHiT9s4IBm2nIi_lFa38PnHkK836IrlJjeZa8H5xUImU4TC5mW_/s1600/C65B1FB0-6D36-42AF-9667-E955602FE35E.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="380" data-original-width="740" height="164" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO04tJdYaGDcj-zSyCFW_unL5wLOnWIMmRNnzXrHFE8tN_J-toA8jgUJLjmchSB2As2FGw2mxhG1xjnTc2ztGXgcAqRxHiT9s4IBm2nIi_lFa38PnHkK836IrlJjeZa8H5xUImU4TC5mW_/s320/C65B1FB0-6D36-42AF-9667-E955602FE35E.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Instead there's a genius acting instructor--Stanislav Korzenowski--and just two women (only one of them played by Bette Midler) who both audition for his workshop. And, I'm reminded of when I went to a Meisner workshop a couple years ago with my friend Christi from D&D, and it was fun but I had issues. For one, how the teacher described the way one plays as a child, becoming the thing you are playing at being, was exactly what I meant when I used the word "pretend" which was a semantic argument he had no time for and I was too distracted for, no matter how much I might like debate, because some of the exercises bugged me in nit picky ways beyond that.
<br />
<br />
Like we had to close our eyes and describe what we heard and they had someone walk out of the back room, right past us, out the front door, leaving it open so we could hear the flow of traffic going by. But, when I said I heard someone walk by, it was, no you didn't, you heard the sound of cloth (someone's pants) brushing by, and I wanted to say how am I allowed to assume it's pants but I can't assume it's a person wearing them, but I keep quiet because I'm there with a friend, and some of the other people there seem nice, and it was a one-time free workshop to see if we wanted to join the Meisner Center for regular classes.
<br />
<br />
And then there was the exercise where we had to count the... I don't know what they're called--the things that hold the ceiling tiles in place. And, we were not to speak until we had a number we would bet our life on. What we should have done then is assume our lives actually depended on it, and <i>pretend</i> that this was a hostage situation or something, because when we took the time to count and the teacher guy challenged us on whether we'd bet our life on the count, I just wanted better instructions, not vague assholery pretending at genius.
<br />
<br />
But then, I check the timecode when Peter Coyote gets blown up (only 23 minutes in) and am reminded instead of an acting workshop of a cinema class at USC many years earlier when I first learned about <i>plot points</i> and <i>I</i> got to be the asshole pretending at genius when we had to identify plot point one in <i>Some Like It Hot</i> an people said it was when Joe and Jerry witness the mob hit, but I stepped up and said, no, it's when they dress as women to get away, because the movie was not about them running from the mob so much as it was about them having to pretend--there's that word again--to be women while hanging out with Sugar Kane Kowalczyk. And, this movie is not about Lauren and Sandy chasing after Michael so much as it is about them having to put up with each other's company along the way. They get into the taxi cab together after discovering that the body in the morgue is not Michael at minute 30, a far more appropriate time for a plot point. Then they head to Lauren's apartment and find two men ransacking the place. Cue main plot.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Finally, a lunchbox with cash in it shows up. I remembered that thing but didn't remember the acting classes that were central to act one. Weird. I guess Shelley Long tossing cash up in the air to gather a crowd was more memorable than some guy trying to act out <i>Hamlet</i> without using any words...
<br />
<br />
Which maybe there's something to acting classes with silly bullshit like that, or counting those thingies between the ceiling tiles, but I guess I just want it spelled out. Give me a situation, a role, whatever, but be specific. You want me to act like my life depends on something, tell me that. Especially, in your free class you're using to convince us to throw a whole lot of cash at your school. Doing math and then being told math wasn't the point and every one of us did it wrong--that ain't much of a selling point.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Some questionable humor by today's standards, but the pace is fairly relentless once Lauren and Sandy team up.
<br />
<br />
Then slows down all over again after they find Michael, lose him again, and end up with the CIA. Turns out Korzenowski is really KGB--which makes sense; genius acting teachers working an extra level of bullshit makes perfect sense--and Michael was CIA but turned. And, I'm not entirely sure how there's still half an hour left of the film when they get Korzenowski at gunpoint.robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-89249865256055850932020-07-24T21:22:00.000-07:002020-07-24T21:22:51.339-07:00change the world, make it betterThe thing about Baby is, she is already is someone who wants to make the world a better place. Maybe despite her parents—it's a little presumptuous to think they aren't all for her plans—she wants to join the Peace Corps. The Peace Corps had only recently begun. The first group of volunteers started training in June 1961. She references monks burning themselves in protest—Thich Quang Duc famously did so June 11 1963. Right before the film starts. And, she "wants to send her leftover pot roast to Southeast Asia" (sort of) and she plans to major in "Economics of Underdeveloped Countries"—<br />
<blockquote>
(I find it odd that Neil tells her that he is "going to Mississippi with a couple of busboys, freedom ride." With a different tone, it could be a sarcastic response to her Peace Corps plan, like he doesn’t buy that a rich Jewish girl like her would deign to do that. Except, the actor playing Neil doesn’t say it that way. He says it like he means it. His reference to busboys could be a racist sort of line, too, and right before they bring the old black guy up on stage as a token performance.)</blockquote>
—and she is reading Gregg's MacPherson's <i>Plight of the Peasant</i> in the car. That book doesn't seem to be real. Which makes it not just a choice behind the scenes, but a very deliberate one.
<br />
<br />
So, it's not that Baby needs to figure out who she is. She just needs to figure out who she isn't. Notably, at the big opening show Baby is brought on stage for the magic act and she is sawed in two. A metaphor for this whole summer. She wants to be the dutiful daughter, but she's already leaning toward something else, and this is the summer that pushes her over that edge.
<br />
<br />
Just look at the costuming. From when Baby arrives at Kellerman's she dresses in clothing that shows more and more skin. Obvious, of course. But, what you probably don't think about is that in the world of the film, Baby brought these clothes with her. Maybe not the leotard-type stuff (maybe she borrowed that, and the pink with white polka dots thing she wears when "Hungry Eyes" begins is probably just her bathing suit), but the denim shorts, the tank tops.
<br />
<br />
It's worth noting, of course, that she also dresses most of the time in white or at least very light colors, and Johnny's outfits are partly or all black. The film wants us to see Baby as an innocent learning something new. But, that isn't quite true. Instead, the movie wants <i>us</i>—<br />
<blockquote>
the kids who saw this movie because our parents got past the title and thought we were getting a basic romance involving dancing and probably regretted taking us afterward</blockquote>
—as innocents ourselves to learn something from the film. Baby is who Baby is, from the start. A couple years earlier, still in high school, she heard Kennedy talking about starting the Peace Corps and she was inspired. Watching events unfolding in Southeast Asia she pays attention, she wants to do something. And, the microcosm is simpler: seeing the plight of Johnny and Penny she wants to help. And she doesn't hesitate to speak up, doesn't hesitate to confront Robbie, and then to get money from her father when Robbie is no help.
<br />
<br />
It's important that Johnny and Penny don't <i>need</i> Baby's help, though. They've got plans for Penny to get an abortion. They've got friends. They seem like people who find a way to get things done. And, when Johnny finds that he locked his keys in his car, he immediately pops the top off a nearby post and breaks his own car window. He is not helpless. Which makes it all the more important that Baby involves her father in helping Penny, and admits in front of him that she spent the night with Johnny to get Johnny off the hook for theft. Johnny is just a commodity at Kellerman's. No one there sees him as a person outside the staff that dance up on the hill. And Baby.
<br />
<br />
And, notably, Johnny makes no effort to use Baby as his alibi, because he is better than that.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUG-L-B18v986IaDZ7ej1KUv2yKBpUSXyONLfh_K-UfrSvFYTcXFDNkTPx7mXVHKt4_y0Tn3jlsxPwdyiYF2ttHiMwN_FPUiP-9zCYcLB4Y3Gv1fMhTRULaUGg1g66JoQBOGXeUjd5cFqP/s1600/6BA2CF1C-C157-45D7-AED0-86D3F6C88947.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="592" data-original-width="1028" height="184" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUG-L-B18v986IaDZ7ej1KUv2yKBpUSXyONLfh_K-UfrSvFYTcXFDNkTPx7mXVHKt4_y0Tn3jlsxPwdyiYF2ttHiMwN_FPUiP-9zCYcLB4Y3Gv1fMhTRULaUGg1g66JoQBOGXeUjd5cFqP/s320/6BA2CF1C-C157-45D7-AED0-86D3F6C88947.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Jason Bellamy, <a href="https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/summer-of-87-dirty-dancing-take-two-oooh-baby-baby/">Slant Magazine</a>, 7 September 2012:<br />
<blockquote>
From the get-go, <i>Dirty Dancing</i> is throbbing with sexuality, yes, but it's hormones are distinctly adolescent. It tapes into a time in our lives when dancing isn't just a stand-in for or a gateway to sex but is a perfectly fulfilling erotic exercise all its own. Seen through Baby's eyes, the movie is dominated not just by experimentation s with adulthood, a common theme at the multiplex, but something much rarer: the discovery of adulthood.</blockquote>
Melissa McEwan, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/16/patrick-swayze-dirty-dancing-feminism">The Guardian</a>, 16 September 2009:<br />
<blockquote>
Under the guise of a teen rom-com dressed in the styles of a period dance flick, Dirty Dancing surreptitiously delivered a subversive counter-narrative to many of the things I was hearing as an adolescent girl poised on the precipice of years that adults around me fervently (and vocally) hoped would not be marked by significant rebellion or any of the foolishness associated with raging hormones.</blockquote>
Kate Gardner, <a href="https://www.themarysue.com/dirty-dancing-feminist-masterpiece/">The Mary Sue</a>, 16 July 2018:<br />
<blockquote>
The film openly tackles the fact that Penny's choice was nearly taken away by legislation, and that she had to turn to less than safe means to get her abortion. It does not shy away from the horrifying reality of her situation, but rather forces audiences to face it head on while luring them in with the promise of a seemingly light movie.</blockquote>
Bree Davies, <a href="https://www.westword.com/arts/adult-eyes-realizing-how-dirty-dirty-dancing-really-is-26-years-after-my-first-viewing-5795804">Westword</a>, 23 April 2013:<br />
<blockquote>
From my memory, all I knew was that <i>Dirty Dancing</i> was about, uh dancing--but in truth, it's. a movie about lying to your parents, back-alley abortions and a romance marred by classist attitudes...
<br />
Beyond the dancing, this movie was about Baby's liberation, her desire to help a fellow woman out of a tricky situation and her will to love who she wanted to love. Baby was a feminist icon.</blockquote>
But...
<br />
<br />
Noo Saro-Wiwa, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/31/dirty-dancing-never-made-today-abortion-religion-class-hollywood">The Guardian</a>, 31 August 2017:<br />
<blockquote>
Baby proves that a sense of entitlement can breed a fearlessness that delivers results...
<br />
Baby's is the ultimate liberal story in which adolescent rebellion takes the moral lead and drives society forward. It dovetails nicely with my belief that indulgence, when pursued responsibly, makes the world go round. Nothing unites us as a species quicker than food, love, music, and dance.</blockquote>
And movies. And romance. Yet <a href="https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dirty-dancing-1987">Roger</a> says, "This might have been a decent movie if it had allowed itself to be about anything." It is very much about something. From Johnny's angle, it is damn the consequences, go after what you want, dance your dance (like Scott Hastings all those decades (or five years) later will do at the Pan Pacifics), and get the girl. That's simple. That's familiar. But, from Baby's angle, there's more going on. If you've got privilege, use it to make other people's lives better, but don't treat them like lesser people who owe you something, just do what's right, make things better, and keep on doing the same every time because it's right, not because it makes you a better person. The adults around Baby—her father and Max Kellerman (and his wife, who I can't even remember if her character has a name), for example—look at Johnny and the rest of the "entertainment staff" like they're nobodies. Baby does better than that. And, if we saw this as kids—I saw it when I was 11–I hope we do better as well.robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-65181191066636967602020-07-23T18:05:00.001-07:002020-07-23T18:31:21.502-07:00willing to stand up for other peopleI want to say coincidence, but I'm guessing there's something more involved than just chance. But, anyway, weird coincidence that <i>Dirty Dancing</i> came out just a month after <i>Adventures in Babysitting</i> and they both* begin with The Ronettes' "Be My Baby".<br />
<blockquote>
(* This isn’t true but for whatever reason “Be My Baby” sounded just like “<a href="https://groundhogdayproject.blogspot.com/2020/06/we-wouldnt-go-to-cops.html?m=1">Then He Kissed Me</a>” in my head and then even as I realized the mistake I was already writing.)</blockquote>
Which at least distracted me momentarily--<br />
<blockquote>
trying to see if there was a producer or someone in the music department that worked on both these films</blockquote>
--from the voiceover narration that lasts all of three sentences. The worst kind of narration, the useless opener because someone involved, probably the director, couldn't think how to establish place and time succinctly.<br />
<blockquote>
That was the summer of 1963, when everybody called me "Baby" and it didn't occur to me to mind. That was before President Kennedy was shot, before the Beatles came, when I couldn't wait to join the Peace Corps, and I thought I'd never find a guy as great as my dad. That was the summer we went to Kellerman's.</blockquote>
That's it. And, within the first ten minutes, we get other indicators of the year, we definitely know the place, and Baby tells a guy on the dance floor that she's going into the Peace Corps.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEs67CvJ03B3lRDSettEiYTboUyCjpcC7fgtLpXoATBMhooW7rSPziT7a7M07HpY5HMTlNBj8e5Hqq3jaWG3CdW9pmmf29vQ5WqA8GoFCQTLvatOLxWYtCIfYPagCfInF7z9jJrh7r-K3o/s1600/8FEB13E4-D943-4760-8FF1-C78A76B0C5E6.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="553" data-original-width="1024" height="172" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEs67CvJ03B3lRDSettEiYTboUyCjpcC7fgtLpXoATBMhooW7rSPziT7a7M07HpY5HMTlNBj8e5Hqq3jaWG3CdW9pmmf29vQ5WqA8GoFCQTLvatOLxWYtCIfYPagCfInF7z9jJrh7r-K3o/s320/8FEB13E4-D943-4760-8FF1-C78A76B0C5E6.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Johnny and Penny make a show of dancing among the crowd, get in trouble, and it seems Baby is a little smitten. Then she wanders and finds her way to the exciting part of the property (where guest aren't supposed to go) and finds Johnny again. And, "Do You Love Me" plays and my mind drifts because I'm sure I've seen someone dancing to that song in a different movie. It takes a moment, then a Google search to confirm (after the <i>Adventures in Babysitting</i> mishap above). <i>Sleepwalkers</i>, Madchen Amick dancing with her earphones on in the movie theater lobby.
<br />
<br />
And, then I realize that Penny is played by Cynthia Rhodes, who I would have seen many times in <a href="https://groundhogdayproject.blogspot.com/2018/03/as-though-were-incredibly-stupid.html?m=1"><i>Staying Alive</i></a> by the time this came out and I have never realized that was the same person. Probably because her hair in the earlier film is so short.
<br />
<br />
And, then Baby finds Penny alone, crying and shaking, and I'm back in this movie instead of drifting toward other ones. The clean-cut, rich, white, summer vacation spot with all the upstairs downstairs drama going on. Class differences. Star-crossed lovers (or there will be). Or, as <a href="https://groundhogdayproject.blogspot.com/2020/06/we-wouldnt-go-to-cops.html?m=1">Roger</a> puts it--because he didn't care for the film:<br />
<blockquote>
Well, you gotta hand it to "Dirty Dancing" for one thing at least. It's got a great title. The title and the ads seem to promise a guided tour into the anarchic practices of untrammeled teenage lust, but the movie turns out to be a tired and relentlessly predictable story of love between kids from different backgrounds.</blockquote>
Like that's a bad thing.
<br />
<br />
I generally appreciate Roger's take, but I don't always agree.
<br />
<br />
And, I find it remarkable that a) Roger barely mentions it and I don't remember any controversy over the abortion part of the story, but I <i>do</i> remember controversy over the dancing.
<br />
<br />
The setup for the plot here is essentially facilitating Penny's abortion.
<br />
<br />
Noo Saro-Wiwa, writing for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/31/dirty-dancing-never-made-today-abortion-religion-class-hollywood">The Guardian</a>, calls the plot "more improbable than sci-fi" not because it's unbelievable as a story but because, she insists, it wouldn't be made today. As she describes the plot:<br />
<blockquote>
Middle-class Jewish teenager gets her parents' blessing after hooking up with a Catholic, working-class, possible statutory rapist at a summer resort? Only in the 1980s could you get away with a storyline like that. And only in the 80s do the lovebirds go on to shatter class divisions by flash-mobbing hotel guests at dinner time.</blockquote>
But, Saro-Wiwa says, the film<br />
<blockquote>
manages to highlight two important truths - first, that youthful indulgence can help solve society's ills, and second, daddy's girl privileges can be harnessed to foster social unity...</blockquote>
I would note that first one more than the second, especially as Robbie offers Baby a copy of Ayn Rand's <i>The Fountainhead</i>, when the character of Baby is great because she very much believes when she sees something is wrong she should do something about it. Johnny makes fun of her the first time, because she got cash from her father, but admits, when she gets her father to take care of Penny after her abortion goes badly, that what Baby did took guts.
<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, Johnny is treated like someone lesser and Baby is only just realizing that some people are treated like that, And that doing what's right doesn't mean you get to win. She stands up for Johnny. He still loses his job.
<br />
<br />
Still, Dr. Houseman learns that it was Robbie who got Penny pregnant, and Johnny returns in time for one last rulebreaking dance number and all is well.robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-63865573099276234822020-07-22T21:28:00.000-07:002020-07-22T21:30:21.549-07:00we will continue to improveJericho "Action" Jackson is a <a href="https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CowboyCop">Cowboy Cop</a> (on <i>TV Tropes</i>). Captain Armbruster is <a href="https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DaChief">Da Chief</a>. Except neither of them really are. See the thing is, however poorly <i>Action Jackson</i> is executed, it seems to be trying to be something more interesting than just another rulebreaking-cop movie.<br />
<blockquote>
He's a loose cannon, but DAMMIT he's the best we have!</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipVfUqxzWzgWohlv1oWYxveHaXWPX9TNhk6zjacmdhp9wd-l_pNTbpeKX7h8dZoEXWub8AE3yh41BeWoiw36by6c6MB118NsYmsiKgJn8nBNiRamDEx308zLBUOL407b3NcpGke_E4Mi4t/s1600/29AD5F0C-598F-4320-A438-A90CD844B4D3.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="848" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipVfUqxzWzgWohlv1oWYxveHaXWPX9TNhk6zjacmdhp9wd-l_pNTbpeKX7h8dZoEXWub8AE3yh41BeWoiw36by6c6MB118NsYmsiKgJn8nBNiRamDEx308zLBUOL407b3NcpGke_E4Mi4t/s320/29AD5F0C-598F-4320-A438-A90CD844B4D3.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
That's the <i>Cowboy Cop</i>. Furthermore:<br />
<blockquote>
Sure, our society may be built upon rules and procedures, but they usually make for bad television. Sometimes you have to bend the rules, rough up the suspects, moon your supervisors and shred the Constitution to get stuff done.</blockquote>
Jackson very much <i>used to</i> be that. As the two officers in that too-long cold open play him up as a bogeyman for criminals:<br />
<blockquote>
Kornblau: Yeah, some say he didn't even have a mother. That some researchers created him to be the first man to walk on the moon without a space suit. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Lack: Mm-hmm. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Kornblau: Others says his mother was molested by Bigfoot, and Jackson is their mutant offspring. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Lack: They bring in Jackson when they want to re-educated some young ne'er-do-well such as yourself, Albert. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Kornblau: Yeah, I remember one kid got re-educated so bad, his testicle climbed back up into his belly. Wouldn't come out. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Lack: They called it medical miracle. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Kornblau: Yeah. Another kid, handcuffed to a chair, gnawed his own hand off like a trapped skunk, or wolverine, or something.</blockquote>
But, when Albert, that purse snatcher from the cold open, tries to make a run for it--inside the police station, mind you--he ends up bumping into and making a mess of Jackson's desk. Jackson stands, says simply "Mellow out", and Albert passes out.<br />
<blockquote>
(Later Albert will happen upon Jackson out with Patrice and immediately run away. But there will be no third time to set a pattern and tie Albert, perhaps, to the climax of the film, which would have at least made the lone opening worth it.</blockquote>
But they are overselling him on purpose. Jackson lost his stripes two years ago. Still, in the present, Captain Armbruster calls him "dedicated". In the present, Jackson is not the rulebreaker anymore. And, despite Jackson having lost his stripes because of Dellaplane, Armbruster still thinks Jackson could represent the department at the Businessman's Association Dinner (or whatever that event is). And, even with one-on-one interaction with Dellaplane, Jackson manages to do okay. He sees the news report about Grantham dying in the yacht explosion and immediately sees something bigger is going on. He's a good cop. He's got a degree from Harvard. He's supposed to be better than a <i>Cowboy Cop</i>. But, for some reason, they gave him a <i>Cowboy Cop</i> backstory and took away his gun and expect him to be more Joe Friday (before act three) than Pep Streebek. Which could work if each beat of the investigation felt more earned, and any of it felt more cohesive.
<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, we don't hear from Armbruster for quite a while. And Jackson continues to "investigate" and behave himself pretty well. I complained yesterday about him backing off Dellaplane when he learns the other guy at the table is the president of the Auto Workers Alliance, but backing off in that moment is a good move for a good detective. Who doesn't have a <i>Da Chief</i> calling him out for all his shit, because there's not much shit to be called out on.
<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Da Chief</i>, by the way:<br />
<blockquote>
This is the eternally put-upon superior of an organization police desperate to. They are always strict and by-the-book but can be comfortably relied upon to give a good Arson, Murder, and Lifesaving-style speech. You can always expect them to say that you have twenty-four hours or demand that you Turn In Your Badge, usually at the top of his formidable voice. They frequently worry that the mayor or district attorney will have his ass (and pension) for whatever destruction the Cowboy Cop caused.</blockquote>
But, for example, after Jackson chases down and jumps on the cab driven by a killer, and causes it to crash, the Captain doesn't already know about it, and doesn't get to yell at him over it because Jackson disappears as the Captain is on the phone finding out. Of course, had Armbruster yelled at him over that chase, it would have been a reasonable response anyway.
<br />
<br />
An actual <i>Cowboy Cop</i> would have had his first interaction with Dellaplane's wife not by chance meeting but having deliberately sought her out to mess with her husband. And he would have done the same to the mistress rather than her just happening to pick him out of a crowd while she sings. And he would deserve his <a href="https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PromotionNotPunishment">Promotion, Not Punishment</a>.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
And I thought I was done with this movie. I mean, I'm pretty sure we don't see the captain again until everything is over. And, Jackson is going to commit some acts of violence but we're into act three now and that's just par for the course. But then he stole a police car (not that bad) and proceeded to endanger Sydney's life (or at least make her think he was endangering it) to get her to agree to help him (definitely bad). And, I don't think he even really needs her help at this point, but I guess they want Vanity to get more screentime.
<br />
<br />
But, worse still, later when Jackson drive's Dellaplane's new car into Dellaplane's mansion, he crashes right into the room where a) he knows Sydney is and b) doesn't know that she isn't right in the path of his car.
<br />
<br />
And, Captain Armbruster arrives at the mansion before Dellaplane's body is even cold and calls Jackson "Lieutenant" because, why not?robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-26747486504072470082020-07-21T20:59:00.000-07:002020-07-21T21:01:38.926-07:00you remind me of an old friendI am breaking with the rules today. Instead of a fixture of my childhood as the movies have been for the last "year" of the blog. When I was figuring out where to stop the childhood deconstruction process, drifting out of my actual, you know, childhood, I discovered a few movies I had inadvertently never put on my list<br />
<blockquote>
(And there are surely others. Still forgotten.)</blockquote>
and figured out which of the ones still ahead on the list <i>needed</i> to be gotten to. Put the list together, decided on a whim to jump ahead to the end and work backward, and, depending on how this movie turns out today--it has a 5.5 on IMDb--(un)fortunately, I asked Sarah for suggestions for 80s movies I might've missed. Not that my deconstruction was entirely about the 80s; I mean I began with 1968's <a href="https://groundhogdayproject.blogspot.com/2017/09/be-held-forevermore-in-limbo.html?m=0"><i>Blackbeard's Ghost</i></a> and worked forward from there<br />
<blockquote>
(mostly in release order, but mistakes <i>were</i> made)</blockquote>
and I made it to 1992/1993's <i>Strictly Ballroom</i> and am working my back to 1985 again to end the deconstruction.
<br />
<br />
Today's film I have maybe only seen start to finish the one time. Probably saw parts of it on cable, and maybe we rented it once. I can't remember. I don't even know the plot. But, Sarah didn't see as many movies as I did in the 80s, certainly didn't see all the action movies I did, but one that she did see is this one, and it left an impact.<br />
<blockquote>
(That being said, Sarah is in the kitchen right now, not in here watching the movie with me. That may have been the smart move.)</blockquote>
The movie is <i>Action Jackson</i>, and it took them 10 minutes to get to the titular character, which is a strange way to go.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7BQ2wosuxXxukLpwPJ7e6MRQMoLdAZj3fVNgw8aDBC-zAH0IxgghkLErIQMo6a_7Wa3B_1q5xG9hOb7Dx09KQlfXLvXO5himQDhsu5wDw_JLZXp4AgRDZ05x5fJo3fKRCeFo2NABNU_dm/s1600/DF44EFAC-A813-46B1-A37A-45A1DA577ED5.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="352" data-original-width="608" height="185" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7BQ2wosuxXxukLpwPJ7e6MRQMoLdAZj3fVNgw8aDBC-zAH0IxgghkLErIQMo6a_7Wa3B_1q5xG9hOb7Dx09KQlfXLvXO5himQDhsu5wDw_JLZXp4AgRDZ05x5fJo3fKRCeFo2NABNU_dm/s320/DF44EFAC-A813-46B1-A37A-45A1DA577ED5.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Oh no. Bill Duke is the police captain. You don't want to put <i>Mandy</i> into my head when I'm already dreading the potential horribleness of this film. I shall try to think of <i>Predator</i> instead.
<br />
<br />
Which I guess Peter Dellaplane (who might be our villain) <i>is</i>; a predator, I mean. Action Jackson just called him a sexual sadist, and apparently Action Jackson almost tore the guy's arm off when arresting him at some point, which cost Action Jackson his lieutenant stripes.
<br />
<br />
And, Peter Dellaplane is played by Coach? INSERT: me laughing because Coach Hayden Fox doesn't feel like the guy to play a sexual sadist.
<br />
<br />
Sharon Stone, on the other hand, showing up here after I've seen her in two Allan Quartermain films and <i>Police Academy 4</i>, but before <i>Above the Law</i>, <i>Total Recall</i>, and especially before <i>Basic Instinct</i>, could play a sexual sadist
<br />
<br />
And, now I've distracted myself from whatever the plot is trying to be. Some guys snuck into some dude's office in the cold open, hid like they were in a horror film instead of a cop movie that feels like someone saw <i>Dirty Harry</i> and <i>Beverly Hills Cop</i><br />
<blockquote>
(<i>Beverly Hills Cop</i> is one movie, for example, that should have made my list but did not make the cut for the end of the deconstruction.)</blockquote>
a few too many times and then saw Apollo go down in <i>Rocky IV</i> and figured Carl Weathers needed a job and there's something going on involving cars, and the police station and the whatever-the-convention-event-was-earlier are both full of smoke like this is a film made in the 70s, and this movie is trying really hard to take itself seriously.
<br />
<br />
Now someone (played by Robert Davi, so I feel like I would have noticed if he was in the first 20 minutes; he wasn't) is threatening to kill himself and Action Jackson is doing a very poor job of talking him down... And that scene ended abruptly. CUT TO: someone singing, and I feel like I should remember who this is. I was going to guess Vanity, but I wasn't sure, so I looked it up. It's Vanity. And, Coach Sadist is her benefactor I guess, but we cut back to Jake Fratelli and Apollo Creed talking about the murders, and I feel like the murders are a side plot, except the film doesn't have a central plot. Also, for spending so long on the purse thief before we even met Action Jackson, that dude seems to matter not a whit now.
<br />
<br />
And, a guy dressed as an APS driver shows up and kills Maniac Cop, and we don't need that kind of imagery right now when we're in lockdown and UPS showing up is a special occasion. But nevermind that scene, Coach Sadist Fox has a needle, and drugs Vanity into unconsciousness. That makes him more of a pervert than a sadist, I would think, but do we need to nitpick <i>Action Jackson</i>?
<br />
<br />
Oh, who am I kidding? Of course we have to nitpick this thing. Like, Action Jackson will openly come at Coach Pervert in a restaurant (confronting him about his plans for the AWA) but hesitates to continue when the president of the AWA happens to be the other guy at the table? What the hell? Come at him stronger, Action Man. You don't have a gun. All you've got is making a scene in public.
<br />
<br />
He's got a nickname and a reputation. Action Johnson should be pushing boundaries all over the place. I mean, who thought making a movie about Dirty Harry when he tries to behave himself was a good idea?
<br />
<br />
In reality, yeah, cops need to calm the fuck down and behave. But, this is still the 80s. Action Creed here should not be spending so much of his time having conversations with suspects or their wives or their mistresses.
<br />
<br />
Also, I must make a correction. Looking at quotes from the movie, because I need a title for today, I realize that Apollo Jackson called Coach Fox a sexual psychopath, not a sexual sadist. Got Coach Fox confused with John Lynch in <i>Killing American Style</i>., I suppose. Because, I guess all these movies blend together a little too much sometimes. Bill Duke might as well be Cameron Mitchell or some other one-note police captain from the 80s...
<br />
<br />
It's like this movie wants to be a little deconstructionist itself. Take the tropes of cop movies and cut past them, but the director has only made episode of <i>The A-Team</i> and the writer hasn't really done shit. So, they do not know how to make the post-modern cop film that I think they are trying to make.
<br />
<br />
But, mostly it's just tedious.robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-34825121610019345792020-07-20T20:29:00.000-07:002020-07-20T20:31:14.550-07:00i’m not one for giving inspirational speechesThere's a thin line between the romantic pressuring we see in romantic comedy and stalker behavior. Riding that line is the premise of a lot of stories, from shows like Netflix's <i>You</i>, which pushes right over the line in its opening scene and keeps pushing, to simple moments like when Charlie says please after Harriet turns down his proposal in <i>So I Married an Axe Murderer</i>. The romantic comedy way is simple: if at first she says no, keep pushing, invade her space, make her realize she can't live without you by defying her to take out a restraining order.
<br />
<br />
Pressed up against the baseball plot here, the romantic comedy plotline between Jake and Lynn can be taken as an extension of the main idea. Their relationship failed a few years back. The Indians' relationship with Cleveland (at least the way Mrs. Phelps sees it) also failed... well, more than a few years back. The problem is that we can see the Indians' players improving (maybe not <i>why</i> they're improving (except specifically in the case of Vaughn) but simply <i>that</i> they're improving) on the field, we can see them winning games. Jake's wooing doesn't improve, and he doesn't really win any games with Lynn. Rather, he demands her phone number to leave her alone, he shows up at her place of work when that phone number turns out to be fake, and he follows her home from work only to find himself at a dinner party at her fiancé's<br />
<blockquote>
(which goes better than one might expect but basically present Jake as a guy still planning a future that he got shut out of when their relationship ended. Like his knees going bad--and I think this is a subplot in the sequel--he has to accept at some point that they won't get any better, and he should accept that he and Lynn might be over. I mean, she is engaged to someone else, and has boxes packed to move in with the guy when Jake ends up finally at her place.)</blockquote>
and then he just kinda lucks out and her fiancé gets written out of the film entirely, Lynn gives into nostalgia and comes to a game and, of course, that means she's all in on getting back together with Jake, cue the sex. Because, romantic comedy wants to paint it easy.
<br />
<br />
As it is, the romantic comedy side doesn't quite gel with the baseball story, either, because the timing is wrong. Lynn is introduced after the tryouts. Imagine Jake runs into Lynn right after he gets back into town, he's not even <i>on</i> the team yet, so he can't claim he's back, he can't claim anything definitive, and maybe he's mature enough or insecure enough to <i>not</i> be the bold asshole he is in the film. And, maybe don't have her engaged to someone else, because then what are we rooting for if we root for Jake to win her over?
<br />
<br />
We want some other guy's life to fall apart?
<br />
<br />
I think we're supposed to think Tom is awful, but he's polite, and he lets the conversation keep going even though he's got to realize, before his dinner party guests do, that Jake is openly talking about having kids with Lynn. He is a speed bump on the way to Lynn, and nothing more. But, imagine:
<br />
<br />
Jake's problem was that he cheated on Lynn. She says of Tom, "I've never found him in bed with a stewardess." And, of Jake: "You don't take anything seriously. Everything's a joke to you." And later in that same scene--the one in the library--"You'll always be the little boy who wouldn't grow up." (And, he still
doesn't by the end of the film. His showing up at Lynn's place is the same bullshit he pulls by showing up at Tom's place. His threatening Dorn is hardly mature.)
<br />
<br />
Jake is introduced in bed with a woman whose face we don't even see. He's hung over, and passed out the wrong direction in his bed, which visually suggests this was probably a one-night stand. It coulda been worse. He's playing in a Mexican league and there's an extra departure scene in the script:
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">TAYLOR approaching his MANAGER. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">MANAGER </span></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Let's go, Taylor. You're up. </span></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">TAYLOR </span></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Fine. Leave your uniform. </span></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">TAYLOR </span></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">But I changed at the motel. </span></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">MANAGER </span> </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Leave your uniform. </span></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">TAYLOR coming out of the stadium, his bats and gloves over his shoulder. He has on his spikes and a pair of boxer shorts.</span></blockquote>
Stripped down is not an improvement on his prior scene, waking up with a sombrero on his face.
<br />
<br />
And he brags about being wanted by stewardesses when Lynn brings it up. His plotline with Lynn should not be about her realizing that moving on was a bad move. He should still be getting women coming up to him in bars like one approaches Vaughn at one point. Then, he has something to give up for Lynn. Instead, he's the old player with the bad knees and a failed relationship and he cannot really fix either of those things. He can just accept them.
<br />
<br />
Which, unfortunately, is more in line with <i>Major League II</i>'s Jake Taylor.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Going for what you want is all well and good as a message, but when what you want has a life of its own, that shit is not up to you and you alone. The push harder approach is not the way to go. And, proclaiming in the locker room that <i>now</i> you should try to win the whole fucking thing is stupid, because what the hell were they trying to do before?robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-82437521067664938982020-07-19T21:09:00.000-07:002020-07-19T21:10:40.524-07:00jesus christ can’t hit a curveballI actually watched <i>Major League</i>--today's movie in my childhood deconstruction's confused final weeks--just last year. As a movies-by-minutes podcaster, I participated in a charity trivia contest, and along with <i>UHF</i>, <i>Major League</i> was the topic one of the rounds. The final round was live at a movies-by-minutes get together in Portland, Oregon in August. This year's event has been cancelled because a pandemic makes such events problematic. This year was going to be in Philadelphia. I don't think I've ever been there.
<br />
<br />
Maybe next year.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKYxYoU0CPVV8bxfdGgqQie0-k4chEYKxkvQn782kSuj8ylZN4g5N1bOO8_k6ICGaRkNqpk6iERmpxsMcRPPnTdjcFh2cfzMacPf-0rEPA8MqTk0VuWv_tRGRQvgij0mi1I4C9lVV1iVeX/s1600/CD8824DD-F5B6-4760-BE8A-C0168014B31F.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="538" data-original-width="962" height="178" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKYxYoU0CPVV8bxfdGgqQie0-k4chEYKxkvQn782kSuj8ylZN4g5N1bOO8_k6ICGaRkNqpk6iERmpxsMcRPPnTdjcFh2cfzMacPf-0rEPA8MqTk0VuWv_tRGRQvgij0mi1I4C9lVV1iVeX/s320/CD8824DD-F5B6-4760-BE8A-C0168014B31F.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Meanwhile, Rachel Phelps wants to move the Cleveland Indians to Miami, so she has called for some very specific recruits for this year's team, slackers, nobodies, has-beans, weirdos.
<br />
<br />
Jake Taylor is hungover in Mexico when he gets the call. His knees are shot. But, he' supposed to be a catcher.
<br />
<br />
Rick Vaughn is in prison when he gets the call.
<br />
<br />
Eddie Harris has to put, among other things, snot on the ball, to pitch how he wants to.
<br />
<br />
Pedro Cerrano is into voodoo, which in a film out of 1989 is its only kind of problem even before we know he also can't hit for shit.
<br />
<br />
Willie Mays Hayes really wants to be there. Also, he's fast but has a problem hitting pop flies.
<br />
Roger Dorn is just full of himself.
<br />
<br />
And, manager Lou Brown is a has been.
<br />
<br />
The thing is, none of them know they are <i>supposed</i> to be losing. So, they take steps to get better.
<br />
Meanwhile, we've got a series of fans and groundskeepers offering their opinions on what's going on every so often, and unlike the raccoons last week in <i>The Great Outdoors</i> this feels like a cohesive part of the film. Probably because fans matter in baseball.
<br />
<br />
What surprised me watching the film now is that Lynn Wells (Jake's former fiancée) is introduced half an hour in. Like an afterthought. But then, Rachel has disappeared for most of that half hour as well. Baseball is mostly a sport for men, especially in pop culture, But, both women drive parts of the story in ways that feel like they deserve more screen time. Rachel will be back later when the team starts winning, of course.
<br />
<br />
Harry Doyle, the announcer, is announced a few minute after Lynn and he's probably a far more memorable part of this film...
<br />
<br />
And, I'm distracted by my lack of interest, generally, in sports films, and specifically, in baseball movies. I mean, something like <i>The Sandlot</i>--that's awesome. But, I'm not one of those guys that gets all emotional about <i>Field of Dreams</i> and, if you read my entries on <i>The Natural</i> (<a href="https://groundhogdayproject.blogspot.com/2018/03/like-watching-sir-lancelot-jousting-sir.html?m=1">1338</a> <a href="https://groundhogdayproject.blogspot.com/2018/04/nothing-like-farm.html?m=0">1339</a>) you'll see that movie is worthy, for me, of the kind of treatment I gave <i>Mandy</i> on my podcast <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mandy-sucks-minute/id1471479433">Mandy Sucks Minute</a>... Which, I hope you can tell from the title that I wasn't very nice to that movie. For the record, there <i>was</i> one minute of the film where I didn't find anything notable to complain about.
<br />
One.
<br />
<br />
I <i>did</i> grow up watching baseball, but mostly because for a good while, we only had one good TV, and on a Friday night--seventh-day adventist cultists that we were--if there was anything being watched it was baseball. I guess God was okay with baseball on the Sabbath. Or, as American Christians, my parents were okay with a little hypocrisy if it supported their immediate interests.
<br />
<br />
I knew players' names in the 80s. I gradually stopped paying attention through the 90s. I think I may have mentioned in this blog before how a couple times in the 90s I went to Dodgers games just because my sisters didn't want to drive, and I brought a book along to read. <i>Star Wars</i> books, actually, as my childhood interest had more content coming in the 90s than it had in the 80s. (For a while in the 90s, I read everything <i>Star Wars</i>.) And, I'd still go for an all beef Dodger Dog at the game, and some peanuts, maybe a chocolate malt. Anything for an excuse to stand in line when not reading, I guess.
<br />
<br />
And, baseball movies are not often much better than baseball games. Shorter, of course. But, other than that time Jeremy had to edit a highlight reel of a baseball game for the first time on <i>Sports Night</i> and he just kept including too much because you needed the drama of the game, I don't know--I just can't care much about a sport where people stand around half the time. I mean, I tried out for varsity baseball in high school, woulda been a pretty good fielder (and hitter) too. But, watching it is not my thing...
<br />
<br />
Yet, I can watch people play <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i> on <i>Critical Role</i> most Thursday nights and that surely is boring AF for most people.
<br />
<br />
Baseball movies <i>should</i> be interesting. Sports movies <i>should</i> be exciting. But, so many repetitive tropes in your average sports film that they are all very much the same. But then, that's a complain about any genre, isn't it? I don't know why sports movies are so low in my interests, really. Or why this particular one still works for me. Maybe it's act two dividing its screentime between Jake's pursuit of Lynn and the Indians' playing getting gradually better. Maybe it's something else. Hal Hinson, reviewing for the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/majorleaguerhinson_a0a8f4.htm">Washington Post</a> calls the movie "shamelessly formulaic" but concedes (then drifts right back into insult):<br />
<blockquote>
At the begin, when it uses Randy Newman's ode to Cleveland ("City of light, city of magic"), the movie has a lovely tone, and briefly, you feel a surge of anticipation, as if the people making it might actually have an original point of view or some feel for the game. All hope is dashed, though, early on, when you realize that they are cannibalizing every other baseball movie. (Newman wrote the music for "The Natural.") This is movie-making by rip-off.</blockquote>
Which all that may sound negative, but maybe it's why, out of all the baseball movies that ever were, this one works for me. It takes the good from the other ones, dips it all in chaos, and has some fun with it.
<br />
<br />
With Jake's creepy stalker behavior as a partial throughline. Which is the kind of thing I should be harping on. Maybe I will go there tomorrow. In the meantime, Jason Daugherity already went off on it in great detail over at <a href="https://www.mandatory.com/culture/1297639-jake-taylor-major-league-creep/amp">Mandatory</a>. My deconstruction time is counting down. I can't cover everything.robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-37341080750007801112020-07-18T20:36:00.000-07:002020-07-18T20:37:10.527-07:00just because the road is rockyOpening shots are of Quigley's cowboy implements. His boot. His bedroll. His saddle. His rope. His belt and cartridges. Plus, his hands, nails short. His knife. His rifle sliding into its case.Spurs going into a bag. His pocket watch. His hat. And <i>then</i> the map. The setup is simple enough. We've got a cowboy on our hands traveling to a faraway land, but the piecemeal shots maybe suggest a deconstruction at play. Reminds me of, at the same time, the gearing up sequence in <i>Rambo: First Blood Part 2</i> and the fictitious magical costuming in <i>Chaplin</i>.
<br />
<br />
One of the first things Quigley does, before he's even off the ship that brought him to Australia, is, on the behalf of an old woman, hit another guy between the legs with his gun. We've got basic masculine cowboy imagery, and then a nice hit to the balls to drive home the idea that... well, either we've got a serious man on our hands here, or we've got something very much else. Next thing he does is save Cora and set up their dynamic for the rest of of the film. He's a cowboy but he isn't dirty, isn't a scoundrel like Marston's men. He's more a gentleman, more like an old-school cinematic cowboy than one from the 80s. (Keep in mind, this movie was supposed to come in the early 80s originally.) He's clean. He takes care of what's his. But also, he rolls his own cigarettes and smokes them.
<br />
<br />
But, about that fight... Quigley of course, puts little effort into it. He uses his leather-wrapped rifle as a club and he does so almost elegantly. More a chivalrous knight than some dusty cowboy. And we could read into his initial chivalry in interesting ways, if we look to Lee Clark Mitchell's <i>Westerns: Making the Man in Fiction and Film</i>:<br />
<blockquote>
Even the Western's classical moment of unleashed violence is descriptively coded as a moment of displaced sexuality; when the prose perspective or camera angle turns to focus on a hand hovering over a gun. This splitting of the body into parts with typical "gear" offers more than a fetishizing displacement of inadmissible homoeroticism desires... The "oscillation" (of aimlessly gazing/not gazing) upon which costuming is based marks a potential for disrupting the body into costumed parts and anticipates the ways that manhood will be emblematic ally stretched, distorted, and slowly rehabilitated.</blockquote>
And, of course <a href="https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/quigley-down-under-1990">Roger</a> calls that shootout at the end of the film as "some kind of dumb test of manhood." But, that is the point, isn't it? The villain--especially Marston, owner of land, owner of people, and he wants to be an American cowboy because he idolizes them--is always going to bring everything around to a challenge of who is the bigger <i>man</i>. It is how he values himself. A real man owns things. A real man tells people what to do. And they do it. Matthew Quigley, on the other hand, has a specific skill set and he uses it to get by. He came to Australia for a job, that job turns out to be murdering natives, he turns it down. This makes him, in the eyes of someone like Marston, not a real man. A real man would get done what needs to be done, which includes conquering the wild land and wild people.
<br />
<br />
And the wild woman. But I will get to her soon.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigCoygImuvUoi2293jQlkQ4IHwVz6yWOpChGhEtMnlNZhT8gk5nINv-5hff5o7JeeguhogYjFDAZn5FfMCGJWfBGu-2-WhaUl7BCKwlpLM8a70YcLzZKupV0V-9TuPW88XzYQMbjGsvxNk/s1600/CBD9A295-5087-44A4-9926-302B18ED7158.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="566" data-original-width="1350" height="134" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigCoygImuvUoi2293jQlkQ4IHwVz6yWOpChGhEtMnlNZhT8gk5nINv-5hff5o7JeeguhogYjFDAZn5FfMCGJWfBGu-2-WhaUl7BCKwlpLM8a70YcLzZKupV0V-9TuPW88XzYQMbjGsvxNk/s320/CBD9A295-5087-44A4-9926-302B18ED7158.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
This image is after the camera is rising for Quigley to finally shoot. He has been framed larger than the other men, and also shot from below. He is being offered visually as something grand and special. Right as he is about to make three remarkable shots in a row with his specially-made rifle. His phallic symbol, with which he acts patiently, deliberately.
<br />
<br />
And, what does Marston do right after? He sets up his chance to gun down the two deserters his men have found on his land, because now it is a dick-measuring contest as it were, and while Quigley might have the longer rifle, Marston takes two lives while Quigley just ruined a bucket. At dinner thereafter, Marston interrogates Quigley about his familiarity with the Colt pistols that Marston wears. He is testing Quigley still and is about to be defied.
<br />
<br />
Mitchell suggests, regarding "the cowboy as an object of desire":<br />
<blockquote>
...the cowboy's job, consisting of moments of excitement embedded in hours of waiting and riding, reflected larger assumptions about masculinity, in terms of constrained violence; during an era of increasing anxiety over constructions of family life, he was conspicuously without family; in openly displaying guns, he appeared radically individual...</blockquote>
The cowboy, especially in cinema, is a vision of idealized American manliness. Quigley is explicitly something else. He defies Marston, sure, he kicks Marston out of his own house, but then he gets his ass handed to him by Marston's men and gets left in the outback to die. In that earlier fight in town, he seems to be beating the three men handily until Cora gets involved and knocks him down. Then, he gets beaten. He gets beaten, but also, he is resilient enough to keep going. He is at once a deconstructionist cowboy figure and a reconstructionist cowboy figure. Mitchell suggests:<br />
<blockquote>
...the Western can be reduced to oppositions between those who stand and those who fall down--between upright men on horseback and those whose supposedly "natural" position is prone. The prone are always revealed in the end to be non-men...</blockquote>
But, Quigley is knocked down repeatedly before he stands up. Of course, Mitchell, citing "Film critics... as if in choir", suggests an interpretation of<br />
<blockquote>
the Western's concentration on the male body as disguised, displaced, inadmissible homosexual pleasure, and that the beatings so often sustained by the hero are to be understood in these term as punishment of the audience for what it cannot allow itself openly to enjoy... In other words, the erotic potential of the male physique can only be embellished when suppressed--a suppression regularly achieved through the open administration of pain.</blockquote>
Marston is knocked down once by Quigley early on, but remains standing until the end.
<br />
<br />
So then we turn to Will Wright's <i>Sixguns & Society</i>, and see that <i>Quigley Down Under</i> fits the "classical" Western plot--<br />
<blockquote>
<ol>
<li>The hero enters a social group.
</li>
<li>The hero is unknown to the society.
</li>
<li>The hero is revealed to have an exceptional ability.
</li>
<li>The society recognizes a difference between themselves and the hero; the hero is given a special status.
</li>
<li>The society does not completely accept the hero.
</li>
<li>There is a conflict of interests between the villains and the society.
</li>
<li>The villains are stronger than the society; the society is weak.
</li>
<li>There is a strong friendship or respect between the hero and a villain.
</li>
<li>The villains threaten the society.
</li>
<li>The hero avoids involvement in the conflict.
</li>
<li>The villains endanger a friend of the hero.
</li>
<li>The hero fights the villains.
</li>
<li>The hero defeats the villains.
</li>
<li>The society is safe.
</li>
<li>The society accepts the hero.
</li>
<li>The hero loses or gives up his special status. (48-9)
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
--except only if "the society" is the Aborigines, which again, upends what the Western is usually telling us.
<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, we have our wild woman, Crazy Cora. She obviously suffers from PTSD and is frequently delusional, but go back to her introductory scene again and what do we have? A troubled woman, on her own far from home, is being claimed as a prostitute. Maybe she has been working as one; we don't know. But, she does not want to go, and then she is pronounced Crazy Cora. And, her madness is framed throughout the film as a defense mechanism above all else. She lost her child, her husband rejected her and sent her away. Now, she vacillates between seeing this new man in her life as an embodiment of the husband she once had and some brand new potential suitor.
<br />
<br />
Magda Romanska describes the "romantic trope of a madwoman" in <a href="http://blog.blo.org/the-romantic-trope-of-madwoman">Boston Lyric Opera</a>'s blog, 30 April 2014. She writes (citing Hamana 1995):<br />
<blockquote>
The obligatory mad scene had its origins in a Renaissance theatrical convention of representing "mad women as erotomaniacs. This is based on masculine assumption that women are more inclined to go mad since they are closer to the irrational by nature, and that young women's madness is, more often than not, caused by sexual frustration of unrequited love.</blockquote>
But, counter that with more modern ideas, and this pronouncement of madness is more like calling out the woman who says "no" as a slut. Cora rejects Marston's men. Thus, she is crazy. She must be crazy. They work for Marston, who is a real man. By extension, they must be real men, or close to it. Quigley makes no such assumptions about her, only looks to her immediate safety, and thus frames himself as, again, not a <i>real man</i> in the usual, western (and Western) sense.
<br />
<br />
But, it's 1990, and we've come through a decade of muscle-bound, manly men fighting lesser men, foreigners mostly. We are in need of a man who is not a real man, as it were. We want someone capable, but he does not need to be particularly dominant. He must win in the end. But, by his wits, by learned skill, not simply by being physically strong. Consider the transition just through 80s action stars from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone to Mel Gibson and Bruce Willis and Jean Claude Van Damme. There is still notable, noticeable musculature, but we expect something more than just brute force. We want more balletic action, we want demonstrations of intelligence, of refined taste, of charm even. Matthew Quigley is the deconstruction of the Western (and western) hero, but also, ultimately, a reconstruction. The film ends, as many a Western might, with our male hero connecting with the female lead, reifying heteronormative behavior even as deliberately, explicitly redefining and recontextualizing the maleness of our hero and the femaleness of his love interest.robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-89415897542378591222020-07-17T20:12:00.004-07:002020-07-17T20:14:09.656-07:00a student of your american west"Crazy" Cora is introduced fighting off two men. Seems their boss has told them they could bring some "white tarts" back with them because they're sick of black women. Meanwhile the titular hero Quigley is on his way to their boss's land for a job he does not know the details of just yet. There is long-distance shooting involved--that's all he knows. Yet he went half way around the world to take the job.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgTqZQMKA2nXZjTUaa50OFGWwtjLtoH-_Ja9fPndmuveL9O_6d1HBUxO6KkPRFCBX3h6lzyj_hs3F98mcWYYaiMPAH6UMKUkpmaMi0I3Hu7xIOheED6oW55U_3vLIQUH94TmZuc0F1fWiW/s1600/93FED37C-A084-4666-8D87-952D262BCBB8.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="292" data-original-width="600" height="155" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgTqZQMKA2nXZjTUaa50OFGWwtjLtoH-_Ja9fPndmuveL9O_6d1HBUxO6KkPRFCBX3h6lzyj_hs3F98mcWYYaiMPAH6UMKUkpmaMi0I3Hu7xIOheED6oW55U_3vLIQUH94TmZuc0F1fWiW/s320/93FED37C-A084-4666-8D87-952D262BCBB8.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Until, of course, Marston tells him what the job actually is. A couple details that matter if you've not seen the film and need to know (rather than going and watching it post haste): 1) Marston has a fascination for the American West and Quigley is visually very much the cowboy of most Westerns, 2) Marston wants Quigley to shoot Aborigines. It's interesting now that the guy who carries the bucket off for Quigley's show-off shot after he arrives at Marston's is apparently called Whitey.
<br />
<br />
It's a movie with a blatantly racist villain, a white savior protagonist (sort of), and a lead female whose PTSD-fueled delusions are played often for laughs. And yet it works. Because Quigley himself immediately turns on Marston, and takes a liking to and looks after Cora, no matter how she presents herself.
<br />
<br />
I check out Roger's <a href="https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/quigley-down-under-1990">review</a> because, you know, that's what I do. I'm googling to find folks calling the film racist, use them as a jumping off point, but I don't find much. I circle round to Roger. But then Roger complains about a part of this film that I think, out of all the films that would fit, this one makes good use of it. Roger's got a thing he calls the Fallacy of the Talking Killer. In his <i>Quigley Down Under</i> review, he defines that as<br />
<blockquote>
the frequent mistake of allowing the bad guy to talk too long. He has his enemy trapped. There's no way out. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
All he has to do is plug him between the eyeballs and order lunch. But no. He talks. And talks. And sets up some kind of dumb test of manhood, which he is sure to fail. Because the climax of such a scene is a foregone conclusion, the F.T.K. almost always results in dead screen time.</blockquote>
Except you know who talks to much? Arrogant, know-it all assholes who think, for example, they can just gun down whomever they want as long as it's on their land. The kind of guy who might offer as an anecdote, "Did you know that your American Indian is a race that has no word for "wheel." No concept of farming. No understanding of land ownership."
<br />
<br />
Which is racist garbage, of course.
<br />
<br />
Been a while since I could pull out <i>Guns, Germs and Steel</i> for this blog. Hell, maybe I never have. I'm not sure. May have to grab <i>Sixguns & Society</i> while I'm off to the bookshelf, because this is a Western and that stuff oughta come up.<br />
<br />
I grab Jared Diamond's book because he's got a bit in there about the wheel (if I can find it), and he might have a better way of explaining than I would. Like the fact that "The earliest wheels were part of of-drawn carts used to transport agricultural produce." Later, he explains:<br />
<blockquote>
While we heels are very useful in modern industrial societies, that has not been so in some other societies. Ancient Native Mexicans invented wheeled vehicles with axles for use as toys, but not for transport. That seems incredible to us, until we reflect that ancient Mexicans lacked domestic animals to hitch to their wheeled vehicles, which therefore offered no advantage over human porters.</blockquote>
<i>Guns, Germs, and Steel</i> is all about how geography influenced the spread of certain crops, influenced the spread of certain domesticable animals, influenced the spread of human civilization. So, not having wheels, or per Marston's extra-racist take not even having a word for "wheel", doesn't really mean anything as far as advancement goes. If you don't have oxen or horses or even llamas, wheeled vehicles are not inherently useful, so you don't invent them, and if you invent them, you scrap them for better options. And, maybe some particular tribe had no word for such a thing as a wheel because in their everyday life, wheels were of no good use.<br />
<blockquote>
(Bob Dekle, "forensic historian" which really he's a lawyer, offers this bullshit on Quora: <br />
<blockquote>
I think many of the answers saying that Native Americans had the wheel because they had wheeled toys misses the point. If you stick axles on disc shaped objects and then use them to roll a toy around, you don't have a functional wheel. Scale up the size and weight of the vehicle to anything useful for transportation, and friction will prevent the contraption from moving...</blockquote>
There's more, but this guy's True Scotsman fallacy over the definition of wheel is kinda sad. Useful for transportation requires far more than an axle, and by pressing on the definition, he has created a situation in which the indigenous cannot possibly qualify. Elliott Marston would be proud, I'm sure.)</blockquote>
Diamond offers four factors that influence acceptance of a new technology: relative economic advantage, social value and prestige, compatibility with vested interests, and ease of observation. Once horses and wagons are in the West (or the Outback), they could be adopted, but only if local tribes need them. The Aborigines in this film, for example, have no use for faster, long-distance travel. So, while they have seen wagons, seen horses, they don't need them because, frankly, they don't have anywhere that they think they need to be quickly, while carrying a whole bunch of belongings.<br />
<blockquote>
(And that's just regarding the wheel line.)</blockquote>
That comes back to the arrogance of men like Marston. Early in the film, Quigley asks, "When do we get to Marston's ranch." The response: "Been on his bloody land for the last two days." Of course, a man with that much land is going to harp on Native Americans having no "understanding of land ownership." Because, it is an easy way to both separate himself from the native and define clearly that separation. Marston also deliberately sets up two British Army deserters so he can shoot them (ostensibly in self-defense) just to show off to his new potential employee Matthew Quigley. Marston is the worst of rich, white men. Defines himself by difference, then uses any difference as evidence of his greatness. And, when he can pay someone else to do the dirty work, he pays someone else to do the dirty work. Because exploitation of not just dark-skinned natives and immigrant convicts but anyone and everyone is how he exists.
<br />
<br />
Of course his men just grab random white women in the streets. They operate under color of Marston's authority, and the rich white man's authority is everything, as long as anyone who can do anything about it does nothing, or worse, joins up in his cause rather than a better one. Is there an inherent white savior narrative to <i>Quigley Down Under</i>? Yes. But, this is a movie from 1990 that was supposed to happen almost a decade earlier with Steve McQueen. In theme, this fits with some of those relighting-Vietnam kind of movies of the early 80s. A bunch of white men from one place fighting another white man from another place over land that isn't theirs, killing in the process people that are not even involved. Marston and his men might as well be Russians. Except, of course, Marston is a part of the British Empire and a wannabe American, and Matthew Quigley is an exception to their bullshit ways.
<br />
<br />
And the overall film is better than its potentially problematic parts.robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-49375302927411475602020-07-16T18:57:00.002-07:002020-07-16T18:57:55.065-07:00victim of circumstanceSomething I didn't know about <i>Tremors</i> was that the filmmakers made an effort to let the audience think a person was doing the killing early on. The graboid POV shots when Rhonda gets in her truck and Old Fred's death scene were added later when the studio decided to advertise the film specifically as a monster movie. In a way, if the studio hadn't jumped in, this could play like a slasher film almost. Except that most of the cast are adults, and most of them are quite capable.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwrIJdDYUZFxzL0nzC2iOxFIYlkrtwEM7G6jfaGgPO9YF9qlgFYJOUAsm-ADfSqyfZ1HeewU-vzmu2CG2jYqor6g2PR46NoB4DbDqXEWJ1eyP24XVkjoL7TD2sZXOLDNkAUcGT-VanMniR/s1600/3093F920-5EF8-4E4C-A32C-6E602870ABA0.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="867" data-original-width="1600" height="173" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwrIJdDYUZFxzL0nzC2iOxFIYlkrtwEM7G6jfaGgPO9YF9qlgFYJOUAsm-ADfSqyfZ1HeewU-vzmu2CG2jYqor6g2PR46NoB4DbDqXEWJ1eyP24XVkjoL7TD2sZXOLDNkAUcGT-VanMniR/s320/3093F920-5EF8-4E4C-A32C-6E602870ABA0.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
I also hadn't really noticed (and learned from IMDb trivia) that aside from two interiors--Walter's store and the Gummers' basement (and inside a couple pickups)--every scene takes place outside, which fits with our leads. They sleep outside, even though they clearly have a trailer; we see them exit it after the septic tank mishap, freshly showered and heading out of town. Whether monster movie or slasher film, or whatever other subgenre of horror you want to call it, this is a not only a daylight horror--which people have gotten really excited about recently, for example, with <i>Midsommar</i>--but also an outdoor horror film, which is unique in there being no particularly obvious refuge.
<br />
<br />
In that way, the film is actually rather primitive in its setup. Ancient monsters awaken in this little valley in California<br />
<blockquote>
(later films in the franchise, not to mention the short-lived television series, suggest Perfection wasn't the first place they woke, and was certainly not the only, but this film as a standalone offers a localized event)</blockquote>
with 14 full-time residents<br />
<blockquote>
(Valentine McKee, Earl Bassett, Walter Chang, Miguel Sanchez, Edgar Deems, Nestor Cunningham, Nancy & Mindy Sterngood, Burt & Heather Gummer, Melvin Plugg & (presumably) Melvin's absentee parents<br />
<blockquote>
(the tiny shack Melvin climbs onto at one point doesn't even have a floor, so I assume he does not live a) there or necessarily b) alone. Except, there doesn't seem to be any house near it. For that matter, I'm not sure where Walter lives either. There are a couple trailers past the water tower that I don't think we ever see up close. And a small house behind Nancy and Mindy's house.)</blockquote>
and Old Fred. </blockquote>
Plus visiting grad student Rhonda LeBeck (wouldn't be in the resident count) and Jim & Megan Wallace (who are still building their house so wouldn't be counted on that sign yet) and the highway workers, and they are isolated from the rest of the world in such a way that the valley might as well be the whole world. And, their limited technology (but for some guns and relatively easily disabled trucks) means they've got to rely on their wits more than anything.
<br />
<br />
In fact, other than Walter--and, of course, Val and Earl--I am not sure what any of the residents of Perfection do for a living. I mean, I guess Old Fred has his sheep. I don't think we learn that Miguel had a ranch until the third film. After the events of the first film, I believe Nancy makes graboid souvenirs, Melvin grows up to deal in local real estate, but everyone else? No idea.
<br />
<br />
And, it just occurred to me after that one graboid kills itself by smashing headfirst into the concrete trench that the townsfolk could have made a run for it by following that trench. But, that's a little like the train problem in <i>Groundhog Day</i>, especially among those who argue (often in the comments on the deleted scenes I put up on YouTube) about whether Phil could have gotten out of town ahead of the blizzard. Because, the thing is with both, that is not the point. Phil struggling to escape is secondary to Phil struggling to live. And, the Perfectionists having to survive, oddly enough, is secondary to having to work together, and especially for Val and Earl to step up and lead them all. This isn't a movie about these townsfolk managing to survive. It is a movie about Val and Earl specifically, with a little Rhonda thrown in. We open on them, we follow them through the early scenes, and their story ends up being like a lot of small town stories (nevermind the monster)--they think they want something bigger and better, until, you know, <i>something</i> happens and they learn to appreciate what they've got.<br />
<blockquote>
(At least in the bounds of this film on its own. The franchise would have them getting famous, Earl heading down to Mexico when graboids show up there, and Val went off to marry Rhonda and is never seen in the franchise again (except in a pilot for a second television series that never got picked up). Taken on its own...)</blockquote>
This film offers something generic in that small town escape plot, but its familiarity also makes it an easy fit for a movie that plays as something very different with the monsters. We have seen characters like Val and Earl many times before, stuck in the small town and needing something else. It is an easy way to introduce leads that are going to be very busy with plot soon after.
<br />
<br />
Same with Val's vocal pronouncement of what the new, female grad student will be like. He's a dreamer just as much as he's a slacker. Except, he's also not quite either. He may still have pictures of women he's been with before--like Tammy Lynn Baxter--but his relationship with Earl, and their various jobs, their usefulness all around the valley, feels like a lived in thing. He only plays a bit like a slacker because he's unhappy about his circumstance. He doesn't understand his own value.
<br />
<br />
So, in that way, I guess this movie has the same plot as <i>Groundhog Day</i>. Except Ned Ryerson is a giant worm with tentacles coming out of his mouth...
<br />
<br />
Which isn't that much of a stretch.robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-63938866844667916662020-07-15T20:02:00.000-07:002020-07-15T20:03:26.030-07:00why do you keep asking me?I go into this viewing of <i>Tremors</i> assuming there will be little to say because it has no flaws. But, then again, I think <i>Back to the Future</i> is one of the best screenplays ever written and I wrote about that thing for like a week.
<br />
<br />
Even starting off with what feels like an obvious matte painting watching it today, and one of our lead characters taking a piss off a cliff. It's a remarkably apt opening shot for the film to come. That cliff will come into play later. And, Val not only being out in the middle of nowhere first thing in the morning (though the light reads more like afternoon) but also taking a piss out in the open tells us a lot about him as a character. Plus the cowboy hat, of course.
<br />
<br />
Earl is introduced asleep in the back of the pickup. And they argue about breakfast, then talk about their schedule in the truck (Earl keeps track, Val wants things easy).
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFwoxOVl4D8y46ZA9-jggUZRmOp4Z7yoiz3RZhjiVl95czr4p0vb8eteNPKMPBxDsl0PcrgbjJ-5DwkrcOLH-wu7LKSnlALCrhseFs4od8Q4KeMctXa3pYcNaAIzUil0r65AM008nIC2YK/s1600/BB359AB8-EDA4-489E-B50B-35C5E6D6FCBB.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFwoxOVl4D8y46ZA9-jggUZRmOp4Z7yoiz3RZhjiVl95czr4p0vb8eteNPKMPBxDsl0PcrgbjJ-5DwkrcOLH-wu7LKSnlALCrhseFs4od8Q4KeMctXa3pYcNaAIzUil0r65AM008nIC2YK/s320/BB359AB8-EDA4-489E-B50B-35C5E6D6FCBB.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Rhonda is introduced as an immediate punchline to what Val wants the new grad student to be--"long blonde hair, big green eyes, world class breasts, ass that won't quit, and legs that go all the way up"--and she's got a floppy hat, oversized shorts, and a big splotch of zinc on her nose to protect against the sun. She's too good for Val's baser urges, but introduced as the punchline just a couple scenes into the film, we know he is going to realize he's a dick who objectifies women and he needs to do better because a smart woman like Rhonda would be a great catch, as it were. But, then I called her a catch, and that's sexist too. Like Val, I need to do better.
<br />
<br />
The movie likes to counter Val, of course. He says they needs to set their sights higher when they're dealing with Nestor's garbage, CUT TO, septic tank duty. Set up Earl and Val to pack up and head out of the valley. Except the plot will keep them from getting anywhere.
<br />
<br />
Handymen in a small-population valley like Perfection is a great choice for leads in a story, of course. They've got access to the rest of the characters. They are mobile. They are inherently rugged. And, when it comes down to it, you know they're going to get shit done.
<br />
<br />
Notably, the film doesn't begin with Val on the Cliff. There's a cold open with Edgar (the guy they find dead on the tower). Then the cliff. And, this is how the script introduces him:
<br />
<div style="font-family: 'Courier New';">
</div>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">This is VALENTINE MCKEE (25). Smart and good looking, Val has nevertheless managed to underachieve brilliantly. He coasts through life, following the path of least resistance--which had brought him to this dubious rustic existence on the edge of civilization.But lately he's beginning to wonder why he hasn't accomplished more.</span></blockquote>
That's a bit more than the physical description you might usually get for a character introduction in a screenplay. And, I was thinking about just such introductions today after talking to my daughter Saer about a screenplay I wrote a couple decades back, and I found a character introduction worthy of Ross Putman's JANE introductions (<a href="https://twitter.com/femscriptintros?s=21">@femscriptintros</a>), where professional script-reader Putman pastes the often simplistic and sexist introductions of lead females in film. Some classics for reference:
<br />
<div style="font-family: 'Courier New';">
</div>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">JANE, 23... If she tried even a little she could be pretty. </span> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">JANE, 54, a stunner even for her age.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">A sexy blonde emerges from the background. Stunning. Definitely a looker. This is JANE.</span></blockquote>
Mine (altered), for comparison--and I was very disappointed in myself when I saw it today.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">On a deck chair is JANE, early thirties, pretty but not beautiful.</span></blockquote>
Color me disappointed all over again, sharing it.
<br />
<br />
But, let us continue with <i>Tremors</i>. Once he's awake, here's Earl's introduction:
<br />
<div style="font-family: 'Courier New';">
</div>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Earl is a good-ol' boy who has lived his life just like Val, drifting from job to job. He knows why he hasn't accomplished anything, and often tries to impart his hard-won wisdom to Val, but the last thing the younger man wants is advice.</span></blockquote>
More than physical. Good sense of character. This is going well. But, now the potentially problematic one... Rhonda.
<br />
<div style="font-family: 'Courier New';">
</div>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Val's eyes do an expert vertical scan: short brown hair, small brown eyes, so-so chest, legs hidden in baggy dungarees. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "courier new";">Laden with a portable computer, notebooks, and some seismograph printouts, she stares at him through tilted glasses.</span></blockquote>
If not for the deliberate counter to Val's pronouncements of what she will be, yeah, this is not a good description to start with, a little too specific, nothing of her character just yet, and painting her only as objectifyingly as Val does. Not the worst introduction, but only because it's making a point. Still, the film finds a way to get Rhonda out of her pants later when she gets caught in barbed wire and a graboid is close. Which leads to Val putting iodine on the cuts on her legs while Earl watches while giving her what the script calls
<br />
<div style="font-family: 'Courier New';">
</div>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">a big Cheshire Cat grin that says "What did I tell you?"</span></blockquote>
Interestingly, that bandaging moment plays better in the film because it happens without dialogue, without even much sound. In the script, there's banter:
<br />
<div style="font-family: 'Courier New';">
</div>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">VAL
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">You paying attention? This oughta hurt like hell. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "courier new";">RHONDA</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "courier new";">It does.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family: 'Courier New';">
She smiles at him. </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family: 'Courier New';">
RHONDA (cont'd)
<br />
So, is that one of your usual jobs, saving people's lives? </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family: 'Courier New';">
VAL
<br />
(embarrassed)
<br />
First time for me. </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family: 'Courier New';">
She gazes at him. He looks away. Over at the bar, Pham holds up a new pair of pants for Rhonda.</div>
</blockquote>
Hell, I think she is the only character to change clothes at all during the film.
<br />
<br />
But, to be fair, I wouldn't say the film objectifies her much between the barbed wire and bandages.
<br />
<br />
And, she also saves Val's life.robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-8106066057615700662020-07-14T20:00:00.000-07:002020-07-14T20:02:41.212-07:00to live with fear is a life half livedI gotta watch <i>Sing Street</i> this week for a podcast, and Fran's outburst here in <i>Strictly Ballroom</i> that was yesterday's (and today's) title reminds me of Raphina's line there: "You can never do anything by half."
<br />
<br />
A basic enough message. You want something, you gotta go for it.
<br />
<br />
What you'd expect from a romantic comedy. Or drama...
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAeC5HZSgQ1wuEBba7TcbKKybtUT-iy12uOAcg78Z3SC-P6OPzEx5_Ab4FIBdS8drHpuK4m-ru0F-9edvbFgQEadyXSJWtGDgbWdaHwpKFgjcwnA0vNBp9pHSjIZ1QOoKba3w6GWQ6eSeL/s1600/BF888A0C-34AC-4F28-BBE0-20F53B28F330.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="563" data-original-width="1000" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAeC5HZSgQ1wuEBba7TcbKKybtUT-iy12uOAcg78Z3SC-P6OPzEx5_Ab4FIBdS8drHpuK4m-ru0F-9edvbFgQEadyXSJWtGDgbWdaHwpKFgjcwnA0vNBp9pHSjIZ1QOoKba3w6GWQ6eSeL/s320/BF888A0C-34AC-4F28-BBE0-20F53B28F330.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
I mean, movies inherently involve some protagonist going after some goal, some dream, some love, some whatever. Messages aren't going to run deep, and sometimes they're obvious, but that doesn't make them lesser. Like, I've written in this blog a few times about <i>About Time</i> and have a currently running podcast about that film and some of the negative reviews about it complain about its central message--to slow down and appreciate the things around you. And, yeah, that's a basic message, but if more of us followed that advice we wouldn't hear that message so much.
<br />
<br />
Like this movie: don't be afraid to express yourself or to go after what you want. Like, no shit. But, how many of express ourselves every time we think to? How many of us go after all our dreams?
<br />
<br />
When I wrote about that <a href="http://groundhogdayproject.blogspot.com/2017/07/never-do-anything-by-half.html?m=0">line</a> from <i>Sing Street</i>--three years ago today--I began with a disclaimer:<br />
<blockquote>
Color me a hypocrite, but I don't follow much, if any, of the advice I'm about to give.</blockquote>
That isn't entirely true, though. I may not have always pushed as hard as I should have to get what I want, but I have managed plenty of things that I wanted in my life. Even now, I've been writing this blog again, I've got my various podcasts, got my life with cats, kids, and wife. I've got movies to watch, board games to play. The larger world has gotten dark of late, darker than usual, but my corner of it is nice. So, yeah, appreciate what you've got. Don't be afraid to express yourself. Don't be afraid to go after what you want...
<br />
<br />
I remember my sister Brooke said once--I think it was on Facebook--after an early blog entry here that leaned into the inspirational, that I had a self-help book in me. I don't know about that, but I'm certainly prone to pulling a film's messaging out and spreading it when I can. Life advice and whatnot. In a podcast episode out today, in fact, I was talking about how you should aim to give something to the world to make it a better place. Doesn't matter if it's big or if it's small, just matters that the change it makes is a positive one. Because, what else is there? Especially, in this 2020 that seems to be taking forever and only gets worse and worse.
<br />
<br />
It's strange, in fact, that recently it's gotten significantly better on a personal level when there is so much still going so badly out in the real world, outside this apartment, this family. A bright spot in a world increasingly troubled.
<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, after watching <i>Strictly Ballroom</i> last night, I also watched <i>Palm Springs</i> a nice new time loop film, another romantic comedy, but with a good measure of cynicism to it. And one film links to another links to another links to another. I go back and watch these films I've seen so many times but not many recently and some parts feel as fresh as if they were brand new, some feel old and familiar and comfortable, and it's a wonderful mix of old and new and young and old, and I feel like I'm twisting a little piece of my world in on itself and discovering that it's bigger and grander than it ever seemed before. And, Scott learns to dance the Paso Doble properly and Fran looks on lovingly and, in the most expensive shot of the film (purportedly), a train passes by Fran's home as they all dance outside, and it's a great moment, but one I might not have thought about much until I learned how it cost a lot to film because they had to specifically hire a train to pass by when they wanted it to, and then I'm thinking about trains, about these things that spend most of their time on the go, that exist in film just to go from place to place, and here a bright little late-night moment is happening in one place as a train passes by, and that's like every day, every life, the world passing by, and sometimes all you can do is hold onto what is yours, or what you want to be yours, and hope for the best because the world out there is just so much bigger than your problems and your dreams, and in this country especially, we take in that idea and turn selfish, and it's sad. Like we can't imagine that holding on to what is ours is not just for ourselves but for those who we love, those who we care about, those who need us or just need someone and we're there because we can be better than selfish.
<br />
<br />
Or something deep and thoughtful and feeling a little trite at the same time like that.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
There's this pained center in the background of <i>Strictly Ballroom</i> that you don't see completely the first time. The mother constantly picking at the husband feels like--and we understand, or think we do, when President Fife tells Scott about his father's dancing history--she's holding something that he did against him. But, that isn't it at all. It's her own guilt at dancing with someone else instead that is eating at her, and sometimes lashing out at someone else is easier than turning on yourself, sometimes you've just got that negative energy and you need somewhere to put it. And Doug lets Shirley treat him like that because he still loves her, no matter what she did a quarter century ago. And, that's nice. When positive can outweigh the negative and you can just hold on, or someone else can keep holding on to you, whether you think you deserve it or not.
<br />
<br />
A cautionary tale for Scott. For me. For you.
<br />
<br />
We tell stories to express ideas. Most of our ideas are not complex. Some of them are just hard. So, we have to keep telling stories, keep expressing the same basic ideas because, whether we're too busy or think we are, or if we're struggling over money or work or school or disease, we choose what's easy, and then some smartasses make fun of movies for saying basic shit like go after your dreams. But, then another smartass will come along and ask, "Who hurt you?" And we can hope that one of those smartasses is driven by a little less cynicism and sarcasm than the other, and maybe it's contagious, and maybe we can all watch a movie and accept that however trite we might think it's message is, some people still need to hear it.
<br />
<br />
Slow down. Appreciate what's around you. Express yourself. Chase after your dreams. Do what you love. Make the world a better place.robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-9739223009826457792020-07-13T20:09:00.000-07:002020-07-13T20:10:29.361-07:00vivir con miedo es como vivir a mediasAnd, I have decided to go backward for the remaining/additional <i>movie life</i> list movies. So, let us jump forward to 1992... -ish. Really, since we saw this movie at the second-run theater with a movie released in April 1993, we're jumping forward to 1993. And, I'm a senior in high school In the theaters, we saw <i>Strictly Ballroom</i> alongside <i>Benny & Joon</i>, but, while <i>Strictly Ballroom</i> made it into our home and got watched a bunch more times by us and by visiting friends, <i>Benny & Joon</i> did not. At least not as much. And, maybe I'm delusional about the whole thing because <i>Strictly Ballroom</i> is not even on our family "movie list" last updated by me 8 June 1999. So, who knows? Either way, I'm watching <i>Strictly Ballroom</i> today as I work my way backward through a few other fixture movies to, you know, encapsulate my childhood, or something.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUjJQQsTOhJBQgisHnh1KbUafTrt76BPOqEiXl0kDhG8V9NTZw5yrjK4OyYGa6evu9y8Eg80ywro7LJjeipL3TWQ4JF5w6mkVw49VBS3K5yoIbn1-lwMWSGhNpa9beOkL57eJpuhcDDK9J/s1600/F150D9C6-BC2D-49E6-8759-66E745BB87E8.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUjJQQsTOhJBQgisHnh1KbUafTrt76BPOqEiXl0kDhG8V9NTZw5yrjK4OyYGa6evu9y8Eg80ywro7LJjeipL3TWQ4JF5w6mkVw49VBS3K5yoIbn1-lwMWSGhNpa9beOkL57eJpuhcDDK9J/s320/F150D9C6-BC2D-49E6-8759-66E745BB87E8.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Baz Luhrmann's first film. Some nobody from Australia. A romance about ballroom dancing. But, we loved it.
<br />
<br />
Scott Hastings pushes the bounds of the competition standards and shows off, and the documentary-style interviews are hilarious. Like it is the biggest tragedy any of them ever saw; the guy in the sequined outfit danced like he was having a good time. The horror.
<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, it occurs to me that a big gap in this blog has been films made in other countries. (And this one even leaves its Spanish often untranslated.) There haven't been many. Barely a few. Hell, I can only think of two offhand filmed outside the US (or Canada)--<i>Mad Max Fury Road</i> and Luhrmann's later film <i>Moulin Rouge!</i> . Oh, I guess there were a few spaghetti westerns in here as well.
<br />
<br />
But nevermind brainstorming all the movies this blog has covered in four years. The fairy tale feel of this one. Liz doesn't want to dance with Scott anymore, wants Ken Railings to come in and says his partner Pam Short broke both her legs and he wants to dance with her, and sure enough, CUT TO an over-the-top-for-a-soap-opera car crash involving Pam, and Ken comes right through the door and wants to dance with Liz. Which leaves Scott with three weeks to the next competition and no partner. And it's lovely. And it's silly.
<br />
<br />
And, like <i>White Nights</i> which I ended up only writing about once, there's some great dancing in this thing. And Luhrmann knows how to shoot it.
<br />
<br />
Insert Fran as the ugly-duckling beginner who wants to dance with Scott. She's been dancing with a girl for 2 years, he's been dancing since he was 6, but he needs someone, she wants him, and of course there's romance looming. But, all the movie has to do is put them in a room by themselves and let them dance. Because, dance done right, and filmed right, is just as good as silly banter you might get in your usual romantic comedy. Better than the banter you get in most, actually. Plus, Fran is a cinematic ugly duckling, which means she's a little plain maybe, but dress her up and remove the glasses and she's now cinematic hot.
<br />
<br />
Give her her own dance steps, her own family side plot, and the conspirators in the big dance organizations easily become the villain, wanting Scott to team up with Tina Sparkle, whose partner is retiring. It's effectively a reverse Cinderella. Like the Prince found Cinderella in her attic, they spent many an evening dancing together, and <i>then</i> her stepsisters are set up to meet him.
<br />
<br />
But, right when he might find himself dancing with a champion, he realizes (but doesn't say, of course, because dancing communicates it better) that he's got feelings for Fran just like she has feelings for him.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
And then I find myself just sitting here watching because it has been a while, and Luhrmann when he doesn't have the budget to go too big, is amazing.
<br />
<br />
It's only now, glancing at trivia on IMDb that I realized why so much of this movie plays so damn well--Luhrmann began the story as an improvised play while he was involved in dance competitions like those in the film, and there was an amateur stage version before there was a film version. That's a lot of testing of character, of plot turns, and all that really needed done was the fancy photography and, I'm betting, some more expensive costumes.robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-19938283351168066142020-07-12T20:18:00.001-07:002020-07-12T22:15:44.527-07:00what i’m doing here with youI don't know why <i>The Great Outdoors</i> starts with "Yakety Yak", but it does. And it reminds me of my recent watching of <i>Stand By Me</i>. A far better film, but they are so different that it's hardly worth comparing. But, comparisons are inevitable when movies come and movies go time and time again. Like, John Candy was was in--what?--two of these childhood fixture movies of mine: <i>Vacation</i> and <i>Splash</i>. He was also in <i>Planes, Trains & Automobiles</i>, which I spent a week on in this blog back in November 2014, except that movies was <i>not</i> a fixture with my family. I'm not even sure we saw it on the big screen. If any Thanksgiving movie made the list, it would be <i>Dutch</i>, which came out in '91 so might be early enough to qualify, or <i>Home for the Holidays</i>, but that didn't come out until '95, far too late for the list, thought we did watch it probably every year for a while there.<br />
<blockquote>
(<i>Dutch</i> and <i>Home for the Holidays</i> also each got a week in that November of Thanksgiving films, 2014, by the way.)</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpOy4ejAwLV8NvLmceJrAbVOX9P6pj9tuOw9SXr4Fe70brcPPZ6V1lLTbmt88g1LwzSvDgFAJx9s2G90l4vQArRNlfHQMDPouIQkcTEUQ-BDWsSHux8wDUXCwfIXdSFoeLlr3C0qzne3Fx/s1600/3EFC9968-23FF-4E0F-9B46-BBE5965006C5.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="682" data-original-width="1200" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpOy4ejAwLV8NvLmceJrAbVOX9P6pj9tuOw9SXr4Fe70brcPPZ6V1lLTbmt88g1LwzSvDgFAJx9s2G90l4vQArRNlfHQMDPouIQkcTEUQ-BDWsSHux8wDUXCwfIXdSFoeLlr3C0qzne3Fx/s320/3EFC9968-23FF-4E0F-9B46-BBE5965006C5.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Then, there's Dan Aykroyd. Seen here recently in <i>Dragnet</i>. Briefly in <i>Temple of Doom</i>. And, in <i>Trading Places</i>. That's just the fixture movies. I also watched <i>Ghostbusters</i> during year one. Also watched <i>Chaplin</i> for this blog. And, I did some thirteen episodes of a podcast that was all about <i>Into the Night</i> (in which Dan Aykroyd has a small part).<br />
<blockquote>
(I don't think I'll be doing another official "recap" episode (click the recap keyword at the bottom of this post if you want to see the previous ones). So, if you want to find any of these entries, my advice is this: Google (and include the quotation marks) "groundhog day project" plus the title of the movie you're looking for (in quotes, as well, if you want to make things easy). Or find me online and I'll get you a direct link because I'm used to navigating this thing. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
I've had a fun time whenever someone or other announces some new <i>movies by minutes</i> podcast; I offer up in a reply on Facebook the link(s) to my entries about that movie. And most of the time, there are plenty of links.)</blockquote>
Stephanie Faracy--<i>Heaven Can Wait</i>.
<br />
<br />
Annette Bening--<i>20th Century Women. </i>And I just did an episode on my podcast <i>Cock & Bull</i> about <i>Ruby Sparks</i>.
<br />
<br />
Even Ian Michael Giatti, who plays the younger brother was in <i>The Rescue</i>, which I didn't watch for this blog, but I definitely mentioned in connection to <i>Iron Eagle</i>.
<br />
<br />
Get out of the family members in the film and the connections still continue.
<br />
<br />
Robert Prosky--<i>The Natural</i>, <i>Outrageous Fortune</i> (which I haven't actually gotten to yet but it's one of my out-of-chronological-order ones coming soon), <i>Mrs. Doubtfire</i>.
<br />
<br />
Nancy Lenehan--<i>Adaptation,</i> Also. she's in so much television that you'd probably recognize her as well. And, my mother was in a quilting group with her back in the late 80s, early 90s. Never met her myself, though.
<br />
<br />
Lewis Arquette--<i>Big Business</i> and <i>Scream 2</i>.
<br />
<br />
Britt Leach--<i>The Last Starfighter</i>, <i>Silent Night, Deadly Night</i>, and <i>Baby Boom</i> (another one that is still coming).
<br />
<br />
Director Howard Deutch--<i>Pretty in Pink</i> and <i>Some Kind of Wonderful</i>.
<br />
<br />
Writer John Hughes is an easy one with a lot of connections in this blog--<i>Mr. Mom</i>, <i>Vacation</i>, <i>Sixteen Candles</i>, <i>The Breakfast Club</i>, <i>European Vacation</i>, <i>Pretty in Pink</i>, <i>Ferris Bueller's Day Off</i>, <i>Some Kind of Wonderful</i>, <i>Planes, Trains & Automobiles</i>, <i>Christmas Vacation</i>, <i>Home Alone</i>, <i>Dutch</i>.
<br />
<br />
This is how it goes with all these old movies, and by 1988, I was already paying attention to stuff like this, noticing names in the credits. Even some not so obvious ones. They didn't work on <i>The Great Outdoors</i>, but the casting team of Jane Jenkins and Janet Hirshenson were familiar names in the opening titles.
<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, I'm saying nothing about <i>The Great Outdoors</i>, like complaining about the fucking raccoons and their useless scenes. Or complaining that the young love storyline never links into the main story. (Also, there is nothing to the older son character that links to him not wanting the bat killed; it's just a passing uselessness.)
<br />
<br />
Still, this movie is far better than the similarly themed <i>Funny Farm</i>, maybe because it doesn't build its plot around its gag and its antics. Rather, it builds its plot--which could use more meat on that backbone--<i>through</i> the antics. Roman keeps injuring or insulting Chet, rarely on purpose. From the lobster tails to the waterskiing to the bat to the ongoing investment thing Roman has going on; it's a building feud that needs a fight but then a dramatic, but peaceful, resolution. As I said yesterday, the stormy night and the bear attack...
<br />
<br />
I almost forgot:
<br />
<br />
Bart the Bear--only <i>12 Monkeys</i> as far as this blog is concerned, but Bart was an animal that we recognized, and that's unique.
<br />
<br />
But back to complaints, because that seems to be my thing. Negativity is just easier to put into words sometimes, I think. Also, these films became familiar to me when I was a kid; of course I will see them differently watching them now.
<br />
<br />
My final complaint: like <i>Funny Farm</i> with the sheep balls things, Chet eating the 96er is just a passing gag, and the cut from the revelation that Chet has to eat the gristle and fat to the lot of them walking out of the restaurant is a cheap out.
<br />
<br />
But let us end on a positive. Roman's admission at the climax of the film is set up by one phone call much earlier, in the same scene where he wonders why his kids don't think better of him. That's good screenwriting.robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-8222310833922432832020-07-11T22:24:00.000-07:002020-07-12T18:58:17.540-07:00just a yarn, spinning for our entertainmentJohn Hughes is involved, you know it’s going to be good on some level.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0WP2Seik5hn-8PBfoXc1lfCpZEfsz-hS7aYUt8YnMMJLAGwTIJP_qFbcbURpOzLW3eJu1BhIPdqMjrhOQNjWT5NQfJxUGrYR2HuSsznUD3ab_PxywDRhZEOfRWD_1YaeoG7jmscXdUy4U/s1600/2102F402-D00A-4AEF-922C-53EC054511C7.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="477" data-original-width="848" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0WP2Seik5hn-8PBfoXc1lfCpZEfsz-hS7aYUt8YnMMJLAGwTIJP_qFbcbURpOzLW3eJu1BhIPdqMjrhOQNjWT5NQfJxUGrYR2HuSsznUD3ab_PxywDRhZEOfRWD_1YaeoG7jmscXdUy4U/s320/2102F402-D00A-4AEF-922C-53EC054511C7.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Still, my obligatory ruining... or rather a quick quote from Hal Hinson, <i>Washington Post</i>, 27 June 1988:<br />
<blockquote>
The gags that spring out of this situation were dreamed up by John Hughes, who wrote the script and acts as the film's executive producer, and they're all lame variations on the theme of nightmare vacations. It's hard to imagine how this theme could have been executed with less invention.</blockquote>
Really, the main weakness of the film is not the gags--they're basic but executed well--but the disconnected structure. The raccoons, really. It feels like something tacked on when the script was too short. And then there's teen romance that never matters to the rest of the film; it just is. It's cute, but it's separate.
<br />
<br />
Anyway, unlike my usual habit of writing this blog during the film, the film is over as I write now around a few scattered notes.
<br />
<br />
Like this early conversation that is our first big moment between Chet (John Candy) and Roman (Dan Aykroyd), sitting out on the deck looking at the lake:<br />
<blockquote>
Chet: Look around you, Roman, for God's sakes, this is beautiful country. Take a good look. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Roman: I'll tell you what I see, if you want to know. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Chet: Yeah, I'm curious. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Roman: The underdeveloped resources of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, a consortium exploiting over a billion dollars in forest products. I see a paper mill and a mining operation, a green belt between lakeside condos and a waste management facility focusing on the newest rage in waste--medical refuse. Infected bandages, body parts, IV tubing, syringes, fluid, blood, radioactive waste--all contained, sunken in the lake and sealed for centuries. I ask you, what do you see? </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Chet: I just see... see trees. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Roman: No one ever accused you of having a grand vision. While the ambitious scramble for wealth and power, the Chets of the world can lay back and casually stroll along life's path.</blockquote>
Roman shows up in his fancy car, barbecued lobster tails, rents a jet boat to skim across the waves instead of relaxing on a pontoon boat. And, having recently gone kayaking in a lake in Utah, I’d say take the pontoon boat, but Roman’s like a child—and as a child I loved the speed boat we might rent like when we were at Lake of the Ozarks. Now, though, I’m older, and slowing down can be great.
<br />
<br />
Like this blog is about to get.., well, maybe not slower but a little out of order...
<br />
<br />
See, this movie life, childhood fixture list was movies that we watched often because we had them on video. Started with 1968’s <i>Blackbeard’s Ghost</i>, and now it is 20 years later and I am 12 years old, loving these 80s comedies at the time, but some don’t hold up as well all these years later.
<br />
<br />
Some do.
<br />
<br />
Beyond the fixtures on VHS, there were plenty of 80s films they left a mark on me. Many have already come up in this blog under different circumstances—action films, romantic comedies, teen films, or what have you. What I have left in this childhood deconstruction is a few movies that should have been on the list but I missed them, a few that wouldn’t qualify for the list because we didn’t have them on video but I loved them, at least one that Sarah suggested, and the last few from the tail end of the list, drifting forward from 1988. The list dwindles quickly, though, because moving forward we get to the point where I start buying some movies for myself, the time where I had my own tv in my room, had a computer. And, going into the 90s instead of just watching the same old video tapes with the family, I started watching more movies by myself, or just me and a couple of my sisters renting something or other from <i>Now Playing</i> or <i>Blockbuster</i>. Among my VHS collection I bought things like the <i>Friday the 13th</i> franchise films, because my family didn't have those. We were a <i>Halloween</i> family.<br />
<br />
And, I had my pre-DVR setup of two cable boxes and three VCRs because through the 90s (especially after '93) I was recording most of the television I watched, plus copying movie after movie off cable. And, somewhere in the mid-90s I started keeping track of movies I saw... No, that isn't right. I started writing down movies I watched in the mid-90s but keeping track kinda started earlier, I think--1992 maybe. When I got my first copy of <i>Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide</i> and proceeded to methodically go through and highlight every film I had seen. When another edition came out the next year, I got that one and did it again. And, the next year, and the next. At some point, I switched over from Maltin to the <i>Golden Retriever Movie Guide</i>. And at some point I stopped buying each new edition, but I kept highlighting. Flash forward and I've got a list on IMDb that I'm still updating, and a more complete list on <a href="https://letterboxd.com/robertegblack/">Letterboxd</a> of the movies I've seen and I note each time I watch a film because I think I can't help it. Movies is life. Life is movies.
<br />
<br />
And, here at the <i>Groundhog Day Project</i>, this deconstruction of my childhood experience with movies only has a handful of films left. And then, well, who knows?
<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, classic third act in <i>The Great Outdoors</i>, as personal issues get solved and a storm rolls in to pull everybody together and endanger a few lives.robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-83631766277903200162020-07-10T21:03:00.001-07:002020-07-10T21:04:29.114-07:00my father doesn’t order me to do anythingAt the emotional climax of the film, Caldwell gets drunk (off very little alcohol) and sits with Maclure on the roof of Maclure's building, and he has a poorly-written but fairly well-executed monologue as part of his conversation with Maclure:
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAlZehfqDdClZW61XG7Co0-YyHOQfK_hGnsMLtgmsAtubCd5hR68EN1CO7q6j9WmyDbGdWDW1YoFu4EvZkeU6p69l7I2coaPadAOqgBY7TuoDmGwZzQ25M6YdtLuodFuG0_-PkaAcJTxpc/s1600/2291C525-5806-4CAE-A5EB-0BF80E33D967.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="582" data-original-width="887" height="209" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAlZehfqDdClZW61XG7Co0-YyHOQfK_hGnsMLtgmsAtubCd5hR68EN1CO7q6j9WmyDbGdWDW1YoFu4EvZkeU6p69l7I2coaPadAOqgBY7TuoDmGwZzQ25M6YdtLuodFuG0_-PkaAcJTxpc/s320/2291C525-5806-4CAE-A5EB-0BF80E33D967.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<blockquote>
Maclure: Sometimes I think it was easier winning that medal than wearing it. Think any of those people over there give a shit about us?</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Caldwell: Do we give a shit about them? That's what matters. You know what I think? I think America is like a big fancy house. And we're the Doberman Pinschers. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Maclure: Doberman Pinschers? </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Caldwell: A guy hears a noise downstairs, he's really happy to have his big ugly dog. But, the next day when he's got his friends coming around, he locks up the dog. Why? 'Cause he's embarrassed. But at night, sure as shit, he unlocks the dog to protect his big fancy house. If some guy comes in and the dog doesn't bite his ass, he's gonna take a rolled-up newspaper and smack him right in the fuckin' mouth. Yeah, it's like that. I'll tell you something else. And, I remember this like it was yesterday. When I was 10, my old man was laid off again, comes home and says, "We're leaving Scotland. We're going to America." And gives me this book by Thomas Jefferson. I read it right through. The next thing, I'm on the deck of this ship. My old man shouts, "Look! There she is!" I could just see over the guard rail. It's the Statue of Liberty. And I look. And that green color on her face... You know, she really is that beautiful. Anyway, that's how I see America. Yeah. And that's why I'm a soldier. We don't have to have thanks from anybody because it's-- That's not important.</blockquote>
Michael Wilmington, <a href="https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-06-10-ca-4865-story.html">Los Angles Times</a>, 10 June 1988, says of this scene,<br />
<blockquote>
...the film makers stage what they probably regard as a touching little scene... A scene where the actors can play with their warmer, shaggier sides. Sean Connery and Jack Warden--a splendid pair, who deserves much better than movies like this--are... Old buddies and Vietnam vets. While Maclure makes droll feints with a whiskey bottle, Caldwell tortuously weaves an inelegant metaphor about America being like a big fancy house and the two of them being like old unappreciated Doberman pinschers. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
The scene is poorly written--relentlessly under-felt and over-calculated--and what make it stand out is the backdrop. Caldwell and Maclure are sitting on a rooftop at night over an urban skyline like a dark fishnet full of neon diamonds--</blockquote>
Gotta cut Wilmington off there because that last sentence was overwrought nonsense that made the monologue seem much better than it is.
<br />
<br />
But, my point today is not about how good or bad the monologue is, but rather how it plays in what I think the movie was supposed to be about. See, the movie went through some rewrites--Larry Ferguson gets the screen credit but apparently was not the original author--and got a new director--purportedly, Tony Scott was attached. I can imagine Tony Scott directing a far more nuanced film than the one we have in <i>The Presidio</i>.
<br />
<br />
The title, I should mention--especially because it may tie into what I'm about to say--comes from the former Spanish fort that in 1988 was still an active military installation of the US Army. In 1989, it was decided that it would stop being such and in 1994, it was transferred to the National Park Service. But, a Spanish fort taken over by US military at the start of the Mexican-American War makes for an interesting titular setting even before we try to look deeper than the film maybe deserves. The name itself comes from the Spanish name for a fortification, or jail, and <i>the</i> Presidio in San Francisco was built in 1776. In 1821, it was a Mexican fortification. From 1846 onward, it was US property. It served as a base for American military engagements in the Pacific, including our invasion of the Philippines during the Spanish-American War.
<br />
<br />
It presides over the bay like Caldwell would want to preside over his family, but his wife has died and his daughter Donna has grown up out from under him and has little interest in doing what he says. As I suggested <a href="https://groundhogdayproject.blogspot.com/2020/07/you-still-dont-get-it-do-you.html?m=0">yesterday</a>, the film seems far more concerned with the personal relationships--including that between Caldwell and Donna. The thing is, with a better script, there might be a stronger thematic connection between Caldwell's past-its-prime military career and his past-its-prime fatherhood. In his rooftop talk with Maclure, he talks about the two of them (and by extension, all of America's military) as guard dogs you lock away when your friends come around, that you punish for acting out at the wrong time, but that you gladly set on an invader or enemy. Caldwell and Maclure fought in Vietnam, and no matter how much American cinema has been <a href="https://groundhogdayproject.blogspot.com/2015/02/by-end-of-vietnam.html?m=0">re-fighting</a> Vietnam for over a decade, in 1988, even that attempt to reconcile our loss there is mostly over. The Cold War is waning but we don't know it's about to be over. Caldwell and Maclure are too old, career military<br />
<blockquote>
(at least in the case of Caldwell; I'm not sure if Maclure's museum job is technically military)</blockquote>
because they are too damn old to do anything else. And, circling around the what should be the main plot, Maclure has been using his connections in Southeast Asia to smuggle diamonds through the Presidio, a sort of post-colonial resource stealing hidden beneath a veneer of capitalism. White men taking whatever they can to profit. And this plays right alongside the very manly (read: patriarchal) dispute of father versus daughter's would-be lover, and it feels so very disconnected because in the film as it exists, it <i>is</i> disconnected. But, it wouldn't have to be with a better script and a better director. (Not that this director is even doing a poor job, necessarily.) Instead, the men smuggling diamonds and the man trying desperately to hold onto his daughter and his military career would all fall under the same thematic umbrella. Keep in mind that Maclure and Caldwell served together in Vietnam (and while in reality Jack Warden is a decade older than Sean Connery, we might suspect they are closer in age in the film). Maclure is retired, working a museum gig where his own Medal of Honor is on display. His role there is like an extension of desperation where Caldwell might find himself soon enough. But, right now, Caldwell can still push his weight around, can still team up with the cop who used to serve under him as an MP. The better version of the story would twist the relationship side of the plot into the smuggling plot line as if both were parts of the same patriarchal urge to control the world and take what one wants, control what one has, because that is what both plot lines are. When Donna shares a scene with Maclure, it's like a remnant of that better film that could have been.
<br />
<br />
In the film that is, I'm not even sure why Caldwell visits the museum when he does--except so that we know who Maclure is later--and even more so, I have no clue why Jay would meet Caldwell at the Presidio Museum. I imagine a scene in which Donna tries to get her father to accept her relationship with Jay and they all have dinner at home, and maybe she invites Maclure as well because he seems like a sort of adopted Uncle, and then the connections between all four of them are more personal, and it would mean something when Jay balks later at finding out that Maclure is involved in the smuggling operation.<br />
<blockquote>
(As it is, when that moment happens, I had forgotten yesterday that Jay was ever even on screen at the same time as Maclure at all or had any reason to know who he was. Which is bad filmmaking. Jay's first instincts about the murder that begins the main plot is that someone military is involved. That one of the final details they discover is the involvement of a retired military man should not be shocking, unless there is a personal element, like Jay knowing that Donna and Maclure are close.)</blockquote>
Ultimately, the biggest thing missing is some sort of motivations for Maclure's involvement.<br />
<blockquote>
(Personal motivation, that is. Which wouldn't matter so much if the larger post-colonial metaphor player better and the smuggling served perhaps as the thanks he thinks he was owed for his part in Vietnam.)</blockquote>
He's retired. He still has a regular gig at the museum. We are offered no reason that he would need the money. His involvement serves only to shock. But, that presumes that we care.robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-53482740034018636282020-07-09T18:33:00.000-07:002020-07-09T18:46:37.357-07:00you still don’t get it, do you?<i>The Presidio</i> begins a little oddly--like the filmmakers didn't know how to do a cold open. Some obligatory San Francisco skyline shots, the Golden Gate Bridge, a military march past a stage<br />
<blockquote>
(with Sean Connery up there because we need to be reminded he's in this movie like we didn't see the trailer and choose to see this in the theater... Or maybe we didn't watch this one until it was on home video; I can't remember. I know we saw <i>Big Business</i> in the theater and that was this same weekend. Given that we went to the second-run Academy Theater a lot in the late 80s, maybe we saw it there. But, my point is, until it's on cable much later, no one is turning this movie on and <i>not</i> knowing that Connery is in it. So, the film would be better served pulling a cold open with the dark foggy night, the MP coming upon a robbery and getting shot, the car chase, instead of wasting time on)</blockquote>
basically a bunch of pointless establishing shots instead of getting to some action first.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7n4-0HL_2U59lIUnqwsTpGJK_F_INcZeKpFA7GUHpnUUIhkUOMO0TzYnI1X9rqbcD_48FY020SGe3F_FSlaoBfJ-e5WWrmPOplteTJA_mk2xS-fAQ4BiVfv2jwTNsRoAJkIDoDg1pCSgq/s1600/464BC11B-7656-4043-901C-E98D4C3A0FCC.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="608" data-original-width="1080" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7n4-0HL_2U59lIUnqwsTpGJK_F_INcZeKpFA7GUHpnUUIhkUOMO0TzYnI1X9rqbcD_48FY020SGe3F_FSlaoBfJ-e5WWrmPOplteTJA_mk2xS-fAQ4BiVfv2jwTNsRoAJkIDoDg1pCSgq/s320/464BC11B-7656-4043-901C-E98D4C3A0FCC.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Speaking of the filmmakers, I am surprised at who is involved. Director Peter Hyams has made a few interesting things before this--<i>Capricorn One</i>, <i>Outland</i>, <i>The Star Chamber</i>, <i>2010</i>, <i>Running Scared</i>. This makes sense. Screenwriter Larry Ferguson, on the other hand, made a volcano film I don't remember, called <i>St. Helens</i>, in '81, then a one-two punch of <i>Highlander</i> in '86 and <i>Beverly Hills Cop II</i> in '87. And, he's got some romantic comedy-level flirting between Jay (Mark Harmon) and Donna (Meg Ryan) in a scene sandwiched between SFPD/Army drama. It feels like a couple different scripts have been forced into one. <a href="https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-presidio-1988">Roger</a> has a nice line about this: "The whole movie has the feeling of a clone, of a film assembled out of spare parts from other movies, out at the cinematic junkyard."
<br />
<br />
I don't recall what I thought of this movie all those years ago, when I first saw it, or we showed it to family friends time and time again, but watching it now, I think the film wants us to care far more about the personal relationships drama--the budding romance between Jay and Donna <i>as well as</i> the triangle between the two of them and her father, Lt. Col. Caldwell (Connery). The romance even gets its own car chase, ending with sex that begins on the trunk of her Corvette, proceeds awkwardly up a lot of stairs, and still has time for a couple shots in his house before cutting to the fireplace. When either of them had time to make a fire, I have no idea, but cutting to the fireplace is a classic movie trope that felt old already when <a href="https://groundhogdayproject.blogspot.com/2015/09/it-all-sounds-like-some-bad-movie.html?m=1"><i>Top Secret!</i></a> made fun of it in '84. But, I guess that makes it one of the spare parts. Just like Jay's introductory scene with the perp getting his hands on another officer's gun and a standoff occurs that has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the film and tells us very little about Jay as a character. He is cool under pressure, I guess, but is really scared underneath. Seems a little like any cop in any movie just about ever to me.
<br />
<br />
Time is arbitrary in the film, though, so it is difficult to gauge just how long Jay and Donna are together, how long he and Caldwell are driving around San Francisco together. Donna tells Maclure (Jack Warden) that she and Jay have been going out a while, when it feels like the movie has covered less than a week and we've only seen the two of them go out once.
<br />
<br />
As with most San Francisco films, geography also feels arbitrary. So, absent time and space, we've got relationships building and an investigation progressing with no markers for either.
<br />
<br />
But, Jay just arbitrarily remembers the water in the plant when the investigation is stuck. So, while there were a few good investigation beats--tracking the gun from the firing range, for example--mostly things just sort of happen...
<br />
<br />
But then, aside from a few great investigation films, I'm sure that's actually the normal way of doing things, just like we're supposed to just believe that Jay and Donna not only get on immediately but have some very intense and/or deep relationship going on in between the scenes we see. Surprisingly, the film does not, as Roger puts it, "do anything obvious [regarding the romance], like putting the girl in danger from the killer, so that Harmon has to rescue her. No, simply use their romance as an unrelated side story, so the action can be interrupted from time to time." And, not only that, their romance leads to arbitrary violence when Jay hits a guy at a military dinner, and we cut to Donna arguing with her father like, again, this is some romantic comedy and Caldwell is just the strict father standing in the way of their relationship. He isn't. And, their romance isn't even the B plot; a B plot generally interacts better with the A plot.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
But, when Caldwell raises his hand and Donna challenges him to hit her, and then he goes off to get drunk and visit his friend Maclure, and she goes over to Jay's place to lament, I'm wondering if I'm wrong about this movie... (And so is Roger.) Maybe it isn't a murder mystery with some relationship elements barely linking into the investigation A plot. Maybe it is a relationship movie with a murder mystery barely linking into the romance A plot. It is as if the disparate pieces of story are distracting the movie away from its own central story, and Ferguson didn't know what he was writing, Hyams didn't know what he was directing, and the studio marketing department didn't know what it was selling.
<br />
<br />
I will reconsider tomorrow.robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9177211463845465336.post-65593440065619925252020-07-08T21:21:00.000-07:002020-07-08T21:22:00.387-07:00out at the next stopThe setup for <i>Big</i> is simple enough: two sets of twins born in the same small-town hospital are mismatched, years later they're played by Bette Midler and Lily Tomlin, each playing two roles. Class differences, a little nature over nurture, some identity confusion, and hilarity ensues.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZEH23GSL8Nf4PDFK1lIF70rmhdAMZK0tOEYpcTwNTCPhyO8XN83tjlV9w7dQSbqzU3goVvbQW63ZX-431z55pFN2P8OxMK_K2OLg3xLgO1amylQDSJZWpFgjBByPxEpikKR74MX39ujRB/s1600/2EAFA2C3-1B4E-4182-8454-08580921EA7F.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZEH23GSL8Nf4PDFK1lIF70rmhdAMZK0tOEYpcTwNTCPhyO8XN83tjlV9w7dQSbqzU3goVvbQW63ZX-431z55pFN2P8OxMK_K2OLg3xLgO1amylQDSJZWpFgjBByPxEpikKR74MX39ujRB/s320/2EAFA2C3-1B4E-4182-8454-08580921EA7F.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
And I must take issue with some of the film's logic right away once we jump to the present. Better Midler is 42 and Lily Tomlin is 48 when this movie comes out. There should be no passing comment about Rose (Tomlin) not being herself today. She is very much herself, Sadie (Midler) just doesn't like it.
<br />
<br />
But then, on the rural side--and about to make things confusing here--Sadie (Midler) seems far better integrated into country life than her rich counterpart... Until, of course, she <i>says</i> "this doesn't strike me as a life" because maybe this movie was made by the same folks who made <a href="https://groundhogdayproject.blogspot.com/2020/07/we-moved-here-for-change-of-heart.html?m=1"><i>Funny Farm</i></a>--it wasn't--and all they know how to do is have character say things instead explicitly rather than their actions or their expressions telling us how they feel.
<br />
<br />
This movie would work better if the main characters were younger.<br />
<blockquote>
(And, for me, it would play better if so much of it weren't obviously filmed in Los Angeles but pretending to be New York City and Jupiter Hollow.)</blockquote>
And it's taking it's time getting to the inevitable mixup in the present. I mean, wrong set of mismatched twins is picked up in the limo, but that's barely amusing. We're just waiting for something bigger, and--
<br />
<br />
Poor Sadie knows the word bidet but doesn't know what one is, while poor Rose knows what it is, and that is confusing, like maybe the Roses are just more attentive and intelligent... Which I guess is consistent with the nature over nurture thing. Or Tomlin's performances are just more nuanced.
<br />
<br />
But then, I'm wondering what the point of this movie is. Like <a href="https://groundhogdayproject.blogspot.com/2020/06/hes-suit.html?m=1"><i>The Secret of My Success</i></a> crossed with <i>Funny Farm</i>, I feel like the writers, however poorly they're executing the characterization, are trying to say something about capitalism and class differences.
<br />
<br />
And, it only occurred to me just now that I had conflated this film somehow with <i>Outrageous Fortune</i> (which should have been on my 'movie life' list for 1987) and I was wondering how this plot was going to be up in the New Mexico desert. How I managed to mix up Lily Tomlin and Shelley Long, I have no idea.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The IMDb trivia for this movie makes a point of connecting its plot to Shakespeare's <i>A Comedy of Errors</i> and this movie could use the energy that comes from a good production of Shakespearean comedy, maybe focus on the farce a little more. This movie is one hour thirty-seven minutes but feels much longer. And from the director of <a href="https://groundhogdayproject.blogspot.com/2015/09/joey-do-you-like-movies-about-gladiators.html?m=1"><i>Airplane!</i></a>, it feels like this movie should have a lot more energy.robert e g blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12055327935875718742noreply@blogger.com0