January 16, 2003

Sorry about the glitch…

Speaking of which, young Jeffrey Wells of moviepoopshoot.com got on the phone with Thelma Schoonmaker on Wednesday and was told in no uncertain terms that the sound of the incoming cannonball in Gangs of New York was not taken from the plane hitting the twin towers on 9/11/01.  

She told him that Eugene Gearty, the film’s sound effects designer, was responsible for the sound in that sequence. 

She told him that he started with the same mortar sounds that were in Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line. 

Then, she told him that they added the sounds of a screaming capuchin monkey to the mortar sounds. 

I revere Thelma Schoonmaker – seriously - but boy does that sound like a misstatement of fact combined with near contempt for the person asking the question.  Mortars and a monkey scream!!!  Mortars and a monkey scream.  Oy.

The effect lasts 7 full seconds from the cannon blast on the ship to the explosion in the Five Corners square.  7 seconds.  And I don’t know what a capuchin monkey sounds like, but unless it sounds a lot like an airplane going overhead as you drive into LAX… that ain’t a mortar and a capuchin monkey. 

One last point… they stop the music and all other noise in those 7 seconds to let us hear the incoming noise.  People look up in the air.  The area fills with a wave of smoke.  People are covered in soot.

I don’t think that Scorsese was exploiting 9/11.  I don’t think that this sequence is light or inappropriate or grotesque.  I think that, unlike The 25^th Hour, there is a real analogy to be found in the end of Gangs of New York and in the change that came in America after 9/11. 

Monkeys and mortars…

IRREVERSIBLE:  Gaspar Noe has created a truly remarkable movie experience in Irreversible.   I’m afraid that it is so singular that my words are only weak testament to the experience of sitting in the dark, experiencing this thing… this unholy shock flick… this masterpiece. 

There is nothing simple about Irreversible.  The film weaves itself backwards through time, from revenge to rape to bad behavior to love to serenity.  But the conceit of going back in time is not as confusing or overly-clever as you might expect.  What the method does is to allow you to reflect on events from a very different perspective, regardless of whether people are “right” or “wrong.” 

In Noe’s world, you can be completely wrong and still be a victim.  You can be completely right and still be a loser.  There is no black.  There is no white.

But is there hope?  Is there joy?  Is there love? 

It’s hard to say what the moral of Noe’s story is.  Fate is cruel to the people in the film.  But would it be any crueler in forward motion? 

There is not a lot that you should know about Irreversible before you see it.  It is very violent.  It is unnervingly scored and the camera work is dark and dense.  The violence is not limited to the more obviously violent sequences.  And it is more emotionally violent than physically violent.  The rape sequence is 8 minutes long and there has never been a more realistic rape that has been as respectful of the victim as this one. 

The discussion of this film should only be had with people who have seen it.  And in some ways, only right after experiencing the film.  Its tag line is, “Time destroys everything.”  And the irony is that this film burns so brightly that you can only hold the emotion for so long.  And it is a film of indulged passion.

SUNDANCE:   Sundance starts tonight.  I’m still trying to figure out when I’m going to make my cameo appearance this year.  But there will be plenty of coverage, from here and there, during the festival at Movie City News. 

The debate over the quality of this festival, this year and of the indie movement in general, is only beginning.  2002 was one of the best years ever for specialty releases by the widest spectrum ever of big-money supporter distributors.  Yet…

IN A SNICKET:  The news that Barry Sonnenfeld has left Lemony Snicket because $100 million wasn’t enough to make the movie is a little scary.  Sonnenfeld was one of the most inventive DPs ever and managed to make remarkable spectacles on a budget until Men in Black changed the playing field for him.  And now, a $100 million isn’t enough? 

Sire, Jim Carrey is probably eating $20 million right off of the top.  But there has to be a way to make a movie for a measly $80 million.  Doesn’t there?

OSCAR COLUMN DAY: It’s 15 Weeks To Oscar Day at MCN.  Take at look at today’s column.

READER OF THE DAY:  THE VIJ writes:  “I think IG-ROO isn't being fair. chicago should go on to be widely touted for the oscars and i bet every dollar of mine that it will a best picture contender. i haven't watched it but i know it is a masterpiece. the broadway version was widely acclaimed and itself was an award winning production. lately musicals have been taken seriously what with it's grand revival last year with moulin rouge. i think musicals are here to rule again just like it did in the 50's and 60's. perhaps richard gere and catherine and queen latifa haven't been acclaimed for their dancing and singing prowess or even acting for that matter but i think they have found their career defining roles. besides the oscars have a sweet spot for musicals so don't be surprised if chicago does win. to that top that up, chicago is based in a period where all these took place. so i dont think it can be considered fluff. i think gangs of new york will also receive its oscar best picture nod but if you look back all these years, you’ll notice that the oscars were never nice to mr. scorcese. he made more brilliant classics in the past like Taxi Driver and GoodFellas and not to forget The Age Of Innocence which are far better than Gangs Of New York but were deliberately overlooked by the accademy. i wouldn't be surprised if martin won but i'm not betting on him.”

BUCKY writes:  “As promised, here are ten (spoiler-laden) reasons I believe you should give "25th Hour" another look, especially since you are normally as big a fan of subtext-rich films as I am. Weigh these, and see what you think:

1. The 9/11 signifiers are not just free-floating touches; this is a film about America on a very deep level, and not necessarily about its "freedoms." Edward Norton's blistering mirror tirade is representative of the prejudices we all keep inside ourselves, living in the "melting pot," but do not take responsibility for. When, at the end of the monologue, he says, "no, fuck you Monty Brogan, etc.," it's him making an active decision not to be a part of the blame culture of the U.S. of A. This is a country that never says, "yeah, we messed up." This country never acknowledges its uneasiness over citizens who are "towel-heads" or "fags." Throughout the movie, Monty is taking responsibility for things that America itself cannot. The Brian Cox monologue that closes the film (which must have affected you on some level...c'mon) is actually an only slightly distorted vision of the American Dream (heterosexual union, nuclear family, grandkids and so forth). Therefore, the film is saying that the American Dream is something that exists only in the head of the older generation who fought for what they believe the country to be, and it's up to the present generation--Monty's--to take responsibility for a country that's not perfect or "the best." Also, as Michael Wilmington mentioned, the three friends represent three different pursuits of the American Dream--Monty's outside the law, Barry Pepper's (Francis) similar to Monty but inside the law, and Philip Hoffman's (Jakob) through liberal idealism. It's also pointed that Monty's and Francis' pursuits involve the exploitation of others--something else very American (and very related to 9/11). Although Lee is a complex artist, one who acknowledges both sides of an issue, so when Monty looks out the car window and sees what he will miss, that's when the issue of "freedom" comes into play. But it cracks me up that some have walked away taking with them that this is Lee's "love letter to NY/US." It's so much more.

2. Okay, I wanted to break up the "America" stuff. It's also, interesting, though, that there are so many symbolic references to competition as a huge part of the American character. There's Francis' talk about the percentile system and competition among bachelors, and there's Anna Paquin (Mary) telling her professor about competition for colleges. Francis about heterosexual union, Mary about societal advancement...hmmm.

3. The movie satirizes masculinity. One of Monty's first lines is "Quien es mas macho? Monty es mas macho!" There are repeated allusions to the cowboy, the primary mythic figure of American masculinity ("you think you're a cowboy?" the Russian thug asks Monty after rescuing the dog; Francis is told not to be a "cowboy" at his job). The characters' homophobia is referenced repeatedly (prison rape...hello), and Jakob's advance of Mary is connected through editing to Francis' calling Naturelle a "spic skank skeezer." Unveiling the American male's rise to the top through the exploitation of women, homophobia, etc, is a central them, and yet...

4. These characters are still very much sympatheic. That is complexity in motion! And this means...

5. When we were debating "Rules of Attraction," you mentioned that you figured out everything about the characters within the first 10 minutes. No one can say that about "25th Hour." For a while, Jakob is basically the "moral voice," condemning Francis' misogyny and so forth. But since this is a movie about flesh-and-blood human beings, he too is fallible. No one could've seen the kiss in the bathroom coming. Similarly, Francis is not just slime; he's human. When he refuses to tell Monty at the club "I'll never see you again," and instead says "we'll open a bar together," or hesitates to ugly Monty up, we see that this person has decency.

6. The acting! There are so many great moments for this cast, like Philip Hoffman being so nervous and awkward at the club (saying the name "kostya" like and old woman might say "rock and roll"), to how Barry Pepper is constantly scoping out womens' asses, being in character in a way that is very subtle and rare.

7. The dialogue! Are there any lines/exchanges that tickled you? "Why do women always cry during sex?" "I happen to be blessed with an extremely large dick." "When you say 'funny you should say that'..." "It was literal" These are great lines, funny, pungent, and this is a movie that has the intelligence to just let people talk.

8. Rodrigo Prieto is very talened d.p. The scene when Monty and Francis talk and are lit by both the blue of the club and the flashing white strobe lights...beautiful.

9. Storytelling, storytelling, storytelling. Lee is underrated in this department (as well as pretty much every department). At the beginning, we hear a dog being beaten. Then a car drives by, pulls over, and people walk out. What does this car, these people, have to do with the dog we heard being beaten? Lee has grabbed us without us realizing it. And, throughout, he weaves between past and present in a loose way that resembles Soderbergh's "Out of Sight"--Monty getting arrested, meeting Naturelle, etc. This is mature adult storytelling, paced very much anti-Bay.

10. Okay, so I'm not a big fan of the "Uncle Nikolai" scene either. But that's just four or so minutes in a great (yes, great) 134-minute film. Nikolai's "when I was in prison" speech is really the only reason this movie isn't even higher on my list. This is a vital work of art that will keep growing upon repeated viewings, a dense, brave, audacious, ALIVE film that has more to say than 10 "Far From Heaven"'s.

I truly believe years from now, we will be talking about what Lee has done here. In other words...please give it another chance.”

DAVID NOTE:  I truly believe, years from now, people will see this thing on TV and wonder why they took it so seriously.  I like the actors, I like the D.P. and I like Spike.  For me, this was the most surface film of his career.  There isn’t a character in this film that I’d want to see again and not a one that I care about at all.  Why?  Because they are shallow and aspire to being more shallow.  Perhaps a double feature with Femme Fa-fucking-tale is in order.  (smirk, smirk)

And Hank’s DVD suggestion of the day:  “I just ran into a great one for the lady who likes Cameron Crowe's films. "Dogfight" has just been released on DVD. With her love of good writing and characters, and her preference for intelligent comedy/romance, I think it's right up her alley.”

E ME: You know how.