November 24, 2004

And so it is…
just like you said it would be
Conqu'rin's easy on me
most of the time
And so it is…
the so long story
No love, no glory
No Gods up in the sky

I can't take my eye off of you
I can't take my eye off you
I can't take my eye off of you
I can't take my eye off you
I can't take my eye off you
I can't take my eye...

Of course, many of you will recognize this bastardized Damien Rice song as Phillip's paternal love song to his son Alexander in the Oliver Stone film of the same title.

I hardly know where to start with the discussion of Alexander. There are so many interesting elements… so much that all of those millions of dollars bought… so many actors who gave their all to the six month shoot… so many actors who cashed a paycheck for meaningless cameos… so many leaps of logic… so many accents… so many kinds of eye make-up…

There is something just so discomforting about walking out of a movie where you can see the sweat on every frame and being forced to say, "What the hell was that about?!"

Some people think that Alexander is about a boy trying to escape his mother, willing to run to the end of the world to do it, conquering all the way. Others seems to feel that it is about repressed homosexuality, creating so much pressure that he would do anything to look macho and hetero… even conquering the world. And yet others say that the film is a metaphor for Oliver Stone's own existence, loaded down by the weight of arrogance and exhaustion but swinging away without restraint.

The details didn't really bother me. Angelina Jolie's accent was as daring as her streaked ancient hair and what the heck… really. Alexander loves a man most of all, but the sex scene of length and girth is the one with the girl… cruelty to animals…

I have to admit… Anthony Hopkins trussed up in Yoda headgear, spewing exposition like a homeless man off his meds screaming his life story outside of the Pik-n-Save is beyond my level of tolerance. The story makes no sense, the least they could have done was to let us suffer our confusion in peace without some ancient accented fop confusing us even further by trying to clarify.

The most obvious reality of the film, from the outside, is that it is loaded to the gills with really beautiful people. As a marketing person who can key into what a film was meant to be even when the director lost their way, this is the one flashing light of hope that Alexander has. And somehow, Ollie missed the joke utterly. Yes, there was a history lesson to offer, but as Oliver assembles this team of hyper-handsome men and women, someone really should have figured out that this movie needed to be about that beauty in a real way.

Speaking of beautiful men and women…

Question from Richard Corliss: "Why can't there be a dozen, a hundred, films like Closer?"

Answer: Because no one would be going to the movies any more!

The problem with Closer is not that it is too rough a ride for Academy viewers or anyone else… it is because it is far too sexless to be of any interest at all. I'm not talking about filmic content of actual sex, nudity or moments of prurient amusement. I'm talking about a movie that is constantly talking about sex but in which none the players, who claim to be in the throes of sexual passion, ever seem to be sexual or sexy in any way.

Closer is a dirty movie for shoppers, not buyers.

And oh, what a long, long way it is from Mike Nichols' earlier explorations of human sexuality. The alcohol impotence of both George and Martha in Who's Afraid of Virginal Wolfe?... Anne Bancroft undressing in The Graduate… everything about Carnal Knowledge, from Ball Busters on Parade to Nicholson turning cold to Ann-Margret to Cynthia O'Neal's hard-charging ice queen to Garfunkel & the very young Carol Kane to Rita Moreno holding Nicholson's manhood in her hand, literally and figuratively… the scotch and stick tip muscular sex of Working Girl… Carrie Fisher trying to regain control of her whole being in Postcards From The Edge… Travolta/Clinton's carnal need for everything, from food to sex in Primary Colors…

This is a guy who really got sex. But Nichols seemed to utterly lose track of things with What Planet Are You From?, perhaps the least sexy sex comedy of all time. If Alfie has no sexual tension because the idea of Jude Law getting laid is all too simple, What Planet was the opposite, Garry Shandling so impossible implausible as an attraction to women - without his wit - that if the movie wasn't about that, it was impossible to stay interested.

And here, with Closer, a movie about terminally unsatisfiable people who think they are so clever that they'd be worth watching for two hours. BZZT!

I could watch the Natalie Portman character in movie after movie, a post-Gen X Bridget Jones, gorgeous enough to be a very high-end stripper and smart enough not to be. A person who seems to be offering everything, but who consciously hides a little, is very interesting. Does she know what she wants? Is she really searching? Is she too smart for her own good?

What she has, unlike all the other characters, is self-awareness.

A movie can survive a lack of self-awareness by some of its players. It is almost a necessity for drama. But when awareness is achieved, most people want a payoff of some significance.

The payoff in Closer is that nothing real has changed for any of the characters. Nothing. They have gone through the multi-year journey of this film and learned nothing… except for facts… as in lies, damned lies and facts. (Yes, it's a variation from the traditional "statistics.")

I do think that Clive Owen gives a terrific performance here and deserves award consideration for what he has done with his character. But even he, the most emotionally available and overt of the group, fails to grow in the process of the film… in fact, I would say he regresses.

So why are Richard Corliss and his like raving about this film? Because provocation makes the strongest thread in the emperor's new clothes. This is a movie that allows the audience to be in complete control of their emotions, free to admire the images on the wall. And, sometimes, that is enough for me. But man, do those pretty pictures have to be Pretty. There is more emotion in one Maplethorpe flower than in all of this film. There is more unforgettable wit in any one Elvis Costello song. There is more to remember in the Damien Rice song than in the movie.

"Seeing Closer, teetering from empathy with to disapproval of each of its characters, a moviegoer has to wonder, Where's the good and bad sex in movies? Why can't directors locate where we live, how we love and lie to each other, and get closer to it?"

Good question. I hope that the deservingly legendary Mr. Nichols will get closer to it again quite soon. He is clearly capable of it… Angels in America went right to the bone.

Can't take my eyes off my watch….

READER OF THE DAY: NOT HILTON writes: "Clint Eastwood is, for me, the only director/actor who can put himself into one of his own movies and not have the movie suffer from it. Most actor/directors have what I call the "Kevin Costner problem", which is that they block a scene as follows: "Start on the full shot of ME. Cut to the close-up of ME and hold on it until we dissolve to the scene where I make love to the cute young thing that's my co-star and then cut to the scene of ME kicking the bad guy's ass".

Eastwood creates an entire visual milieu in each of his movies, even the weaker ones, and as you pointed out, he always provides more than enough color to his supporting players. Think of all those Geoffrey Lewis turns in his 70's and 80's work ... the generousness with which he doles out close-ups to his co-stars. And that pace, which some classify as slow, really serves to let you take in the atmosphere of what he's creating.

I am looking forward to Million Dollar Baby, as I look forward to all of his pictures. The fact that Warners' is putting this out smack dab in the middle of awards season tells me that they see something in this film that people will savor."

And BAT OUT OF SHELL writes: "David, when I wrote you the other day about the dearth of Alexander reviews being made available to the public to read on websites, in magzines and papers, you didn't respond to the basic questions I was asking, which was about possible pressure being exerted on film journalists and film websites such as Rotten Tomatos and Meta critic to either hold off printing the negative reviews, or killing them alltogether.

I'm sure your reply about it being too late to pull the film now, is correct. It's what you didn't say that still interests me.

I am still having trouble finding reviews, although I have read negative comments by Rolling Stone, the Hollywood Reporter, Newsweek... etc... but those are not being included in the compilations, and in a couple of cases, have disappeared from the websites.

One example from today... I googled for some reviews and found a negative one up on the Oregon Statesman Journal site early this morning. Within a hour, it had been removed completely from the webpage and replaced with yet another informational puff information piece on the film. Not one other article on the page had been changed. The review is gone.

Even you, normally not bowing to pressure, have only used promotional pieces about Alexander at The Hot Button. Have you succumbed to pressure from the producers? Is it the carrot and the stick? If you keep negative pieces about Alexander off THB, are you being rewarded with access or threatened with exclusion? I don't normally buy into conspiracy stories, but I'm sure getting a whiff of behind the scene arm twisting being applied in many places. Well, Oliver Stone is certainly no stranger to conspiracy theories, is he?

Why isn't Kirk Hunnicutt's negative review counted in the total at Rotten Tomatoes? Or Peter Travers? etc? I found THR review linked on the second page, without even a snippet of it's content... but not included in the total. At the moment, only a few reviews, from the more obscure sources are included in the Rotten total, as if including the big guns was not being allowed.

I hope I'm wrong, and this isn't ham fisted manipulation of the web press.

I'm not critical about your using interviews, set pictures, background information about the filming, etc. I enjoy that material. But how about some honest news? I don't mean about controversial homosexual elements in the film either. I think that's serving the publicity machine.

This is all very interesting... maybe it's happened with other films, but I just didn't notice."

E-ME: I can't speak for Rotten Tomatoes, but as for myself, I was just being fair. I saw the film at a junket screening a few weeks ago, but the film was not being released until today. My rule of thumb is to lay off of films that I know I am going to kick in the groin until release or until reviews start pouring in, as the Time review of Closer represents. For me, my interest in beating down a movie that is already dying is not fun anymore. There was time when it was... but I like to think I grew past that.

No... Oliver has become "Poor Oliver" in most conversations after this film. He is not exerting pressure. I'm sure Warners asked people to hold reviews until release. But there are more than a couple of December releases that I saw over a month ago that I still haven't written about. All bad things in time, my dear.