Friday, 30 March 2001

WEEKEND PREVIEW

It’s a hard weekend to figure.  You might have seen all the Oscar movies.  Baseball hasn’t started.  XFL sucks.  The video release of both Girlfight and Charlie’s Angels comes this weekend, so I guess you can indulge your sense of girlpower, depending on what you think that means.  (Teenaged boys need not answer that one by e-mail - learn to type with both hands, please.) 

Oh, yeah, three new releases.  You know, the kind of releases that tend to drag down the reputation of the real critics who happen to like the films - it happens - because of the amazingly goofy company they keep in the ads.   I have squirmed out of seeing Tomcats or Someone Like You, though I can vouch for the sad miss that is The Tailor of Panama.

For the record, the Big List O’ Quotes is NOT the same as the old Quote Whore Scoreboard.  Part of why I changed the format was to allow the listings to be objective so that you could make the call for yourself. 

So, for instance, when Peter Travers leads the way for Someone Like You and The Tailor of Panama and Blow (sneaking this weekend), if he ever has the audacity to say that this year isn’t one of the great years ever for movies, you will know that he is willing to sell out his readership for the glory of self-promotion.  If ...   (For my ten bucks, Memento and The Dish have been the only two 2001 English-language releases worthy of revisiting)

Tomcats is the worst offender. My question is, why even bother with quotes when all you can come up with is MTV, Eyada.com, Westwood One Radio (Bill Bregoli, you can’t hide!) and of course, Steve "Stop calling me a quote whore" Iervolino, who has suggested that he deserves to be taken seriously as a critic? 

Spy Kids does a lot better, with Roger Ebert’s 3.5 star review pull, Owen "You don’t like it! I LOVE it!" Gliberman from Entertainment Weekly, Leah Rozen from People and Andrew Johnston from US Weekly.  Of course, then they feel compelled to headline Steve Oldfield, put Rosie O’Donnell in the second slot and Fred Topel, who was the only one willing to use the word “Matrix” in a quote, I guess. 

The Tailor of Panama gets the two thumb treatment, which gives them some breathing room.  I guess I understand, in that three full months into the year, Tailor would still make my Top Five ... but it still isn’t very good.  Anyway, they add Leah Rozen, Thelma Adams, the rarely quoted outside of NYC J. Hoberman of The Village Voice, Bonnie Churchill - her name always looks good there, and of course, Mr. Travers.

The thing with all of these movies, it seems, is that you kind of know what you are in for.  There are always people to love any film.  And then there are the rest.  I am very curious to see Tomcats to see just how strange the first-ever Revolution movie an be.  I hope Richard Rodreiguez shows great style with Spy Kids.  And I wish that John Boorman, one of my favorite all-time directors, had some better advice going into The Tailor of Panama.  I say, pay matinee prices and you will probably feel okay about your choice this weekend.  Or go see Traffic again.

THE GOOD:  Speaking of Traffic, on Thursday, I went to see Traffik.  No, that’s not a typo.  Traffik is the British TV drama that ran here on Masterpiece Theater in 1989 and was the basis for the Oscar-winning Gaghan script for the movie that won Soderbergh the Oscar for directing.   And indeed, the tele-film fits the purest definition of "good."

The experience of watching the first three hours (all I saw) was a little surreal.  Here you have a TV movie that looks like almost every other U.K. TV movie - gritty, interesting, but never too stylish.  Excellent actors all around.  Their story takes place in Europe and it is fascinating to watch and see how the continental internationalism of that country plays out versus the Mexican border of Traffic.  Likewise, each story is a little different, yet very much the same.  The Oscar-winning Benicio Del Toro character seems to have evolved from a poppy farmer, forced out of business by the drug crackdown, who manages to become part of a major drug dealer’s world.  In Traffic, he’s a cop, somewhat dirty, who gets into bed with a general ... yet, the tale of power between the two men is very similar.  The subtleties of the Catherine Zeta-Jones character in Traffic versus the Lindsay Duncan character in Traffik are also cool to see, though the Zeta-Jones character may have changed more after her pregnancy - the specific sexuality of the character may have been flattened out - which kind of brings me to my next point.

Next time you think that Steven Soderbergh is "an art house guy," smack yourself in the head.  What watching Traffik reminded me of is that Soderbergh is one of the great Hollywood filmmakers of all time.  He is to complexity what Steven Spielberg is to The Big Show.  The real difference between the two films is Soderbergh’s very commercial touch.  Every character is sharper and more compelling.  The story, complicated though it is, is far cleaner.  When "The Good Looking Drug Dealer Whose Family Thinks Is A Businessman" gets arrested, the wife and kids trail behind as he is taken away in both films.  But what is straight storytelling in Traffik is opera under Soderbergh’s eye as his handheld camera captures every ounce of CZ-J’s intensity and fear in the moment.  The great shot in Traffic, where Erika Christensen inhales the smoke and sits back, rolling her head all the way back and showing us her whacked out eyes ... same shot is in Traffik .. but Julia Ormond never opens her eyes enough to see.  Soderbergh reaches beyond words with the glazed over eyes of Christensen, he is a painter.  And even the members of the audience who don’t think they like art films understand in an instance where this child is.  

I highly recommend that anyone who really loves Traffic see Traffik.  And I am also all for supporting the Museum of Television & Radio, where it is currently showing on a regular basis.  But if you happen to live in Los Angeles, you can catch the whole thing, in real time or tape, split into two parts, this Saturday and next, starting at 9pm.  Also, in Boston, WGBH 44 is running the whole thing this Saturday, starting at 6pm (all times local).

THE BAD:  I was hoping that the quiet surrounding The Tailor of Panama was just typical lack-of-enthusiasm for John Boorman’s more difficult projects,  His last film was The General, acclaimed by critics and undervalued by audiences, who missed something quite extraordinary.  I am a big fan of Where The Heart Is, Boorman’s near-miss family comedy about values and expression and acceptance.  Point Blank, Deliverance, Excalibur, The Emerald Forest and Hope & Glory will all live forever, along with The General, as classic films.  That a .333 batting average of classics. 

So how did Boorman miss the boat on The Tailor of Panama?  Good question.  My guess is that the subtleties of his work (theme of the day) were more than the studio was willing to embrace.  By the third act of The Tailor of Panama, it is clear that this is meant to be a dark, dark comedy of the Ealing school.  Pierce Brosnan is the spy who just wants to keep getting his perks.  Geoffrey Rush is the man who knew too little, but who has everyone convinced he knows too much.  Jamie Lee Curtis is… or should have been… the woman in the middle, likely cast for playing a similar role in True Lies and clearly having the chops for comedy.  Boorman has assembled some terrific actors, from Catherine McCormack to Jon Polito to Dylan Baker and on… and pretty much wasted them.  Only Brendan Gleeson gets through this cleanly, playing Mickie Abraxas in near unrecognizable fashion. 

I believe that The Tailor of Panama could be improved 60 percent by a re-cut and change of music, emphasizing what the movie is, a black comedy, instead of what the studio is comfortable selling, Pierce Brosnan in a somewhat sophisticated (See: Geoffrey Rush) Bond movie.  In my heart of hearts, I know that Boorman has that cut somewhere in mind (or on tape).  But instead, what is in theaters will leave most people, I believe, scratching their heads and wondering what the movie they just saw was really all about.  And that’s s damned shame.  This film and The Mexican already stand out as the two great missed opportunities of 2001.

THE UGLY:  If you want a ringside seat inside the entertainment section of a newsroom, check out Gabriel Snyder’s Off The Record column in this week’s New York Observer.  He chronicles the battle between Jonathan Foreman and Lou Lumenick for the heart and soul of the New York Post’s readers.  

My take on it is that Foreman, who takes himself far more seriously than Lumenick, is fighting furiously to defend "his" turf .  Lumenick just trudges along and works hard ... as you would expect a guy who was from "real" news to do.  Lou is one of those guys who shows grace in the face of being called a quote whore.  So, it was funny to me when they brought up his inclusion in Timothy Gray’s occasional Variety blurb piece as a source of peevishness.  I’m sure it doesn’t make him happy, but my experience with Lou has been that he got in touch and made his feelings known and acted like a man .. even if my lack of animus seems to confuse him a bit .. quote whores are people too.  Anyway, you get to have your very own opinion after reading the piece.

BIG LIST O’ QUOTES:  Look for the updated list on Monday.

READER OF THE DAY:  JH on Pearl Harbor:  "That POV of the bomb is for one thing: To get more folks into the theater.   We all know that Mr. Bay is neither sedate nor subtle, he is a showman.  I'm sure that he and Disney have their eyes on the Memorial Day record, and they'll do just about whatever they can to give themselves the best possible shot at making it.  I don't think you have to worry about emotion being there... it'll be there in droves... rather, it's the amount and type that should be of concern.

For me, the really pathetic part is that, just like Armageddon, I'll probably, willingly, fall into Mr. Bay's trap... but that's OK.  I like cheese.  High-quality chese, at any rate."

And this from Buffalo Bri:  "You have to see the new professional-done documentary on the official

Star Wars  website (starwars.com). It talks about the new digital camera and shows both sides of the issue, very truthfully and you being a filmmaker/writer, you'll enjoy it more. Now, if you can’t log in and see it,

tell me, I will set up my ftp daemon and you can ftp it from me, its 37 mb quicktime 4 movie. I am not talking about the Ahmed Best On Locations shorts, but a new longer documentary, I have a cable modem, but of course you are in LA. hmm, might be interesting the transfer rate, but get it from someone. Lucasfilm actually interviews the a few cinematographers to get their take on the issue. well done."

Finally, from Not The Oscar Winner:  "Can we PLEASE leave behind the Oscars??  And maybe find some good writing while we're at it?  Wednesday’s ROTD takes the far too simplistic route of blaming our celebrity-glorifying media.  For what?  The problem of celebrities with big egos or over-emphasized Oscars?  Who cares?  The problem is the coverage sucks.

If you have good writing, yes your priorities might be a bit screwy but at least you'll be doing your job and the public well-informed--we can talk about social ills another day.  I loved -Harper's Bazaar- in its Liz Tilberis heydey because it covered fashion and, wait a minute, it was well-written! (sometimes)

Why the coverage sucks is complex, and yes part of the blame is the publicist / star system culture that waters shit down, but not all.  I'm so not awake enough to finish this analysis, and I'm sure someone's already done it better already.

But anyway, writing not being up to par includes you, mister.  Your post-Oscar "Ranting & Raving" was a nice because it actually flowed and, you know, was interesting.  Plus I was hoping it would signal the end of the suckiness that is Oscar.  Clearly not.

Bring back the News by the Numbers!!!  At least the choppiness was built into the system there.  Plus it occasionally brought our your wit! Dig up the dirt on the strike!!  What's the inside story there?  Or is it so

boring and silly that it doesn't even deserve it?  Tell us that then!

Is it me or did Angelina Jolie put on weight?  Is it me or does she look amazing with that weight?  Furthermore, let's talk about this generation of women in Hollywood... Angie, Drew, Kate Winslet, Chloe Sevigny, just to name a few... how amazing is that?"

E ME:  I’ve been writing the same basic thing about the strike for months ,,,the union in-fighting will force the issue.  Though world yesterday is that the DGA may be more flexible on possessory credit, but that’s not the main thing.  The unions have to decide how much the producers can afford and divvy it up amongst themselves and present it to the producers and all this will be over.  If they could act in concert, there would be no strike.  But that isn’t happening.  And why would the producers, who have been overspending for months already in prep for a strike, do three separate deals .. that’s dumb.  The WGA strike will make the SAG deadline the real deadline for solving this. 

Bu what do YOU think?