Showing posts with label Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Show all posts

Sunday, February 02, 2014

Phillip Seymour Hoffman b. 1967- d. today


Learning of his death today I instantly remembered meeting Phillip Seymour Hoffman once, in 1997 or so at the wrap party for Todd Solonz's Happiness (1998), which I had completely forgotten, being rather drunk at the time, and shortly to have my very first celebrity intervention. My crew of willowy lounge hipsters were at a bar in the East Village, Black Star, drinking to our waning health as usual and straining to seem arch and debonair and that the DJ's music wasn't hurting our hangovers from the previous evening, when the wrap party for the Happiness cast materialized like a very odd circus. A stranger lot of odd-looking geeks you couldn't imagine, not in that NYC 'pretty people' hipster bar. The super skinny bespectacled dweeb Solondz, a gigantic Mama Cass of a lady named Camryn Manheim, etc- each of them making the others more freakish considering the rest of us were all the same approx. age, height, rife with hipster elan, charisma, debonair post-debauchery disaffect, etc. One of the odd ducks was Phillip Seymour Hoffman. When we learned was an up and coming movie star, we were left incredulous. This guy? What next? Our circles were the only groups of people there--I think it was a Tuesday--so we gradually spilled into each other, my friends grilling them on their weird movie, and them all awkward except Hoffman, who easily blended into either camp and patiently explained the movie to our mild fascination. He was a regular guy, a shaggy portly ginger with no need to flaunt an ego. That was his part of his strange power - no one expected what he could deliver. After a few hours and drinks, we were all in his power. 


I mention this because the strangeness of it all clearly made an impression; this guy seemed more like a sound tech than an actor, like a technician or scholar of the craft, a character actor rather than a star, so it was no surprise to recognize him holding a boom in Boogie NightsI didn't like his character in that film, he reminded me of a joneser that used to hang on me the way he was hanging on Dirk Diggler, and didn't trust him or even like him onscreen until we rented 1999's Talented Mr. Ripley. When he teases Ripley on the boat, "How's the peepin', Tommy? How's the peepin'?" I finally got it. He stole the shit out of that movie, not easy when Jude Law was already stealing it from Matt Damon before Phillip even showed up. When I revisited Boogie Nights after that I no longer felt threatened as I had originally, feeling like he was trying to drag the hot arc of the film into Carson McCullers territory, compelling us to behold his naked redhead pale shoulders in the same frame as hunky Wahlberg, dewy-eyed Julianne Moore, great 70s dad Burt Reynolds, and voluptuous Heather Graham.

Slowly, surely, he was transcending his awkward endomorphic persona to become a titan of the big screen, a character actor becoming a major star through sheer chops and balls, the way only a few like him had done before. His hospice nurse in Magnolia (1999), eyes foggy with opiate nurturing, lighting Robards' invisible cigarette and helping that great actor confront his mortality (Robards died shortly after filming), was the slump-postured angel of compassion navigating the spastic orbit of a beautiful people dysfunctional family in order to fulfill his patients' final wish. You couldn't help but be awed by the profoundly humble compassion he exhibited. Without narcissism or egotistical grandeur to get in our way, we're all angels: Hoffman made that so clear the movie dissolved into a puddle at his feet.


I still haven't seen Capote, but he was the best thing by a landslide (as rock critic Lester Bangs) in Almost Famous, this time trying to drag that crappy under-drug-fueled film into something like real rock anarchy rather than letting it completely succumb to Crowe's clueless straight-edge pop momma's boy sober dorkiness. And if not for his few outbursts like "Pig FUCK!" and a few great sessions in the dark with the hooch in The Master, that film would have been a bore, for me at least. In short, he was such a titanic force, he could be counted on to steady nearly every roiling vessel of a film, steering shallowness towards the rocks of depth, and from maelstrom depth towards the rough but ready straits of genuine subversion energy. As his film career took off it became kind of off-putting to see him doing so well, knowing he was coming up in a film you were about to see was intimidating, scary, but ultimately gratifying, like getting Tolstoy wrapped up in your McDonalds.


Like so many OD-ed icons, one wonders if the rehab had lowered his tolerance to the dose he was used to; I presume that killed him. Heroin is deadly that way, I hear, like a book where you die if you accidentally open to the wrong page. The year of that wrap party was the year I was struggling with the booze, it was killing me even as I was proclaiming I didn't have an addictive personality. I actually was believing that. My crew and I all felt that way and put out feelers for heroin with boozed-up curiosity. Maybe that's the trouble with being artistic and into drugs, you can usually justify your usage by turning out art while high because it seems like a masterpiece, and it's fun. Making sober art is painful. He was my current age when he died, 46, the same age Kurt Cobain: we were all born 1967, the year of the Summer of Love, a high point in transformative drug culture. LSD and weed flipped the world's script. The 70s began with we kids having open-minded permissive parents, love was all around; we'd been watching the world's beauty dwindle ever since. The watering holes dried up and the thriving insect life died out from DDT. "Just Say No" and 80s greed and AIDS and death polished off the rest of the smiley face buttons. No wonder we're so discontent that we need to either be high or holding tight to our newly won sobriety like a life raft.

Black Star has been closed now for 10 years at least, and whatever bar opened in its space also long closed, I'm sure, to be replace probably by a Chase or Citibank. New York City may yet return to a place where art can thrive, but it will have to do it without this sweet Falstaff-Harry hybrid prince of actors, this exhibit A of the power of spirit and devotion to resonant craft to always trump size, shape, and pigmentation. Cinema didn't even know it needed him, but once it got a taste it needed more and more, and now it will need its own rehab counseling to come to terms with today's great loss.

And it won't get it.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Great Acid Movies #25: PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE (2002)

A mad meditation on color, love, music and maturity, sandwiched between auteur director Paul Thomas Anderson's better received epics MAGNOLIA and THERE WILL BE BLOOD, PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE was perhaps meant to unite Sandler's ticket-huffing demographic with cineaste hipsters; it was maybe a wrong move as both groups stayed away in droves, snuffing the film's chances for box office recognition. But here me now: PUNCH is no boondoggle! It's a gem and all it takes to see the luster is to get over yourself for hating HAPPY GILMORE. I have. And so are you.

Ostensibly exploring the agony of having seven nagging older sisters, the ecstasy of first love in Hawaii, anger management, and coming clean about porn addiction, PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE is really about sound and color and if you can key into it as a purely sensory experience (ala FANTASIA or 2001) then the brilliance, the love and the redemption flow unstoppably all over your pants. Even if you saw it once and didn't like it, I'd say toss your rolled-up expectations in the trash and just sit in it, without expectations, one more time. For though it seems that Anderson is following the same Lynchian framework of ERASERHEAD -- the isolated everyman in a strange landscape of alienating industrial sounds and soul crushing neighbors and bullying relatives --it's more a fable or a light show, or a concert in words. If casual Anderson fans tend to skip over this film in their worshipful canonizing, they miss the heart and soul of the Anderson auteur persona. Unlike his mentor Robert Altman--who can get bogged down in his actors' improv thesping--Anderson is a track-shot formalist at heart and in LOVE the cast may be small but this isn't a HARD EIGHT-style Sundancing chamber piece. It's a candy colored dazzler of lyrsergic intensity and late 1960s optimism still simmering in the deep recesses of even the most repressed dork's heart of hearts.

Anderson guides you, via Barry's shocking blue suit, to experience the movie as pure cinematic color. He even advises in the DVD gatefold:
Get Barry’s suit blue, blue blue. Don’t be shy. Get Barry’s shirt white. Don’t be afraid to let it bloom a bit. Turn up the contrast! Make sure your blacks are black and listen to it loud.
Yeah... he loves long beautifully-constructed tracking shots, and here they take on a poetic abstraction, sometimes quite literally dissolving into the brilliant color morphing video art work of Jeremy Blake. That kind of pure cinematic abstract art is often misunderstood by mallrat American audiences trained by lackluster public school art programs to look balefully on attempts to infuse abstract poetry and surrealism into mainstream movies. Adam Sandler and art are--to the great majority of filmgoers in this country-- at opposite ends of the symbolic day, never to meet. Art is what bores you at afternoon museums while you count the minutes to cocktail hour; Sandler is what you watch way, way after cocktail hour, after dinner, after the parents have gone to bed and your townie friends show up with a case of beer... and probably fucking Slim Jims. 

If they bring some tabs of acid too, though, you'll want PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE to split the difference... Suddenly Adam Sandler sulking through the abstract parts of FANTASIA and it all begins to make perfect... whoa, is that... a... why does he have a harmonium on his desk, man? Far out. 

This is Anderson's tale of Kafka-Lynch 'the normal, cranked' insanity, but it carries the low-key sense of redemption and manly arc circumventing that is Anderson's stock and trade. Like Val Lewton, Anderson has an ability to be patient with his self-centered characters, leading them with unrelenting compassion and firmness unto awakening and transformation. A comparison for the visual style would have to be the Coen Brothers, but the Coens' love is much harsher and deriding. Anderson's love on the other hand is that of an older brother: if there's some need to poke fun and be cruel, it's always with an inevitable beatific and benevolent purpose (forcing the younger sibling to stand up for himself, for example). In that good brother way, he's protective without fighting the little brother's battles. To put it very broadly, Anderson's movies are older brother mentorships, inspiring awareness of love and self-reliance no matter how harsh the brutality, ala Nicholas Ray or Altman, while the Coen Brothers' movies are witty formalist meditations that inspire awareness of existential mortality and the inevitable crunch-crunch of death's jaws, ala Aldrich or Kubrick. Huge difference? You tell me...


That sort of tough love of an older brother for a younger sister or brother is felt especially deeply in PUNCH-DRUNK, which chronicles the "coming out" of one of L.A's more deeply hidden sweet souls. As friendly to this cause as that arc is, it's nonetheless the visual landscape of the film that merits the lysergic connection. The pinks and blues and whites and deep black silhouettes are all the sort of stuff many directors use to hide the flimsy material but in PUNCH-DRUNK's case it is the material; the style shapes and frames and focuses and blurs until we recognize that pure art is the way to shift attention from the banal blinders-on crawl of drab social reality into the liquid present where life is a continually moving, breathing changing force, expressing itself constantly through the air, the stars and the sea and every random song select or spin of the roulette wheel adding you forward into ever more complex and radiant equations. So when you see PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE, even stone-cold sober, you can follow Anderson's breadcrumb trail right into that same candy colored universe of egoless nonjudgmental acceptance. In short, watching this movie gets you toasted on art, love, and a dizzying array of overlapping dialogue by the seven sisters, who make the witches of MACBETH seem like Girls Gone Wild.

The sisters are just one facet of this film which hold massive hidden depth within its seemingly "quirky indie" surface. They all talk simultaneously while saying different relevant things, like a maddening Greek chorus with everyone on the wrong page of the script. There's parts in this film that go by so fast they're easy to miss the first time around: the sparkling modern kitchen and nanny with baby in the house of the conniving sex chat blackmailer "Georgia" is something I want to see again, for example. Her contented, housewife status attests to the success of previous scams she's pulled with the mystically named "Mattress Man" (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) husband. As said the dark father/older brother figure, Hoffman is also worth seeing several times to get all the great, blustery David Mamet-ish expletive/repetitive venom. He's the evil version of Burt Reynolds in BOOGIE NIGHTS or Tom Cruise from MAGNOLIA, grown old and portly. From a lysergi-mythic vantage point, Mattress Man is seen not as a dark father per se, but the one whom appoints himself the villain that must be faced/stood up to in order to "earn" the passage into manhood and marriage. Brevity prevents me from gushing in length about the always revealing Emily Watson, perfectly cast as the patient love interest, eyes sparkling with undisguised love and fascination with violence.

Lastly, what can you say about Sandler in this film, other than he finally finds a role that uses his Nicholas Ray-little-boy-lost rage for good rather than the evil? I'll confess I'm way too highbrow to have seen even a single Sandler movie other than this one (I went to high school with too many boys like him), but after seeing LOVE a second time, I'm seriously considering throwing HAPPY GILMORE or something onto my cue.


You, o snobby reader mine, needn't get that drastic. Just open your heart and forgive Sandler his schnooky SNL trespasses and dig on a big triumph that may have slipped by you one way or another. More importantly, if you've seen it once, you haven't really seen it. Anderson redeemed Mark Wahlberg (BOOGIE NIGHTS) and Tom Cruise (MAGNOLIA), and you're only a hold-out in the waiting room of ignorance if you can't finally come in and admit he's done the same for Sandler. So ignore the "misfire" tags of those critics too hung up on expectations to dig a low-key candy-colored Valentine's Day essential floating through their midst. It's a movie that you can't help but connect to your own life; it helps you remember that you too are capable of true love and redemption. I mean yeah, it's a tripper movie about a total square, man. But dig, he's got cajones. El hombre has the love in his life; he's a man at last; he's encountered the eternal maturation flower of the third eye opening. He's let his spirit fly and crunch at will. It ain't got drugs, but the movie itself is one giant candy tab... just turn up the contrast to savor that blue suit, crank up the volume and Anderson'll take you there... to the Loveland, where redemption comes in bright colored sheets, preferably displayed at eye level in the center aisle... The colors sound electric and the music is so good you need it loud to have really seen it



Read my very special Andrew Sarris blogathon overview on Paul Thomas Anderson here
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...