Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Bright Lights #71 Now Live!

There are two of my latest long pieces in the new issue of Bright Lights Film Journal (#71) so do check them out:
Dads of Great Aventure: A Guide to Post-Apocalyptic Cinema's Hyper-Parent
"Nervous producers, it seems, feel obligated to insert moral hand-wringing as if we might just use the fantasy of escape to actually escape, like we're too stupid to remember that the world is, like, important. It's almost in defiance of that phony liberal piousness then, perhaps, that writers add these ambiguous subtexts about this proximal hyper-parenting, much the way snarky Broadway wits would subtextually send up Christian moral hypocrisy in their production code-enforced scripts..."
The Last American Ruffalo: Lisa Cholodenko's Lesbian "Homespun" Family Values
"The heat of genuine subversion may be more destructive than positive, but at least it has heat. It has the guts to trash the existing structure rather than just toying with the idea of moving the furniture, then ostracizing the moving company."
I've only begun to read the rest of it, but it looks like one of the best issues ever! Congrats Gary Morris and company on another swell job! His editor's note mentions Bright Lights got a lot of clandestine Wikileaked angry mail from high up politicians, would-be Eberts, armchair punters, and Ford Beebians (I xxxed out words I found offensive, you can read the full editorial here): 
We had no idea that these writers — who were supposed to be in their cubicles reading old issues of Cahiers du cinema and Positif and diligently revising and updating Sarris's American Cinema categories — were in such a tizzy. Their words were indeed mutinous: "Sarris's 'canon' is more like a xxx gun!'" asserted one. "...xxxx....  "xxxx mise-en-scene!" said a third. Neither directors nor actors were spared. "All directors should be at the nearest xxx getting xxxxxx for the real auteur: the screenwriter!" "Bresson is a boring hack! My xxxx xxxxx could give a better performance than Balthazar!" and "Orson Welles isn't a patch on Ford Beebe's xxx!" (For some reason, the writers seemed particularly obsessed with Ford Beebe, auteur of 1940s and '50s programmers like Bomba and the Hidden City and many others.)
Now, this wikileaked mail is rather horrid, reflecting a lack of understanding about just what 'mise-en-scene' truly is. As for Bresson, I agree, and yet Balthazar is an amazing actor, conveying more 'animal' magnetism with a single dumbstruck glance than Mr. Ed ever could with pages of dialogue. And of course I agree about Ford Beebe. Let's never forget he's the man who gave us the awesome and unforgettable Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe serial, as well as Bela Lugosi's PRC triumph, MONSTRE DE NUIT (1942). Also, he has one of the greatest names in show business history.


I like Joseph Aisenberg's trashing/celebrating of Peter Biskind's STAR, the story Warren Beatty. Aisenberg eloquently sums up Biskind's current solidified association as chronicler of the 1970s New Hollywood decadence, what Eddie Muller is to film noir, or David Skal to classic horror, but on a larger attention-grabbing NY Times book list scale. Aisenberg notes Biskind's book as evincing a kind of semi-intellectual gossip hound: "it's all trashy gossip but kind of, sort of about culture." As someone who can't make it past a paragraph of Biskind's Gods and Monsters without getting irked at his politicized sanctimony (I devoured Bulls, though!), I appreciate Joseph's spot-on analysis


I really want to see CONFESSIONS OF AN OPIUM EATER before I delve deeper into Sean Nortz's quote-packed pipeful of chrystaline thoughts and pungent, smoky theories on the film, 'Could You Spare me a Nightmare?' How on earth did it fall off the radar!? Vincent Price!! Nortz notes the film's many trashings in the press, and seems determined to salvage it's reputation, and his cursory overview of Price's career and appeal is vividly rendered:
Price's previous roles — in the now-forgotten comedy Service de Luxe (1938), in a forgettable performance as Sir Walter Raleigh in Michael Curtiz's The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex (1939) and as the as the Duke of Clarence Tower of London (1939) — did not serve to highlight either his talents or his latent spectrality (though the latter saw his first bout of intoxication and his first brush with classic literature: it is loosely based on Richard III. Clarence is the one who drowns in a vat of malmsey). 

Drown in a vat of malmsey... death where is thy sting? (to paraphrase William Claude Field's oration in NEVER GIVE A SUCKER AN EVEN BREAK). And I especially like the phrase 'latent spectrality' - good album name! The images in the review however, indicate this title is gray market only, not unlike the substance it depicts. Earth is all about irony. Down with the Draconian/Reptilian overlords that would stop from smoking our way to freedom!!

Monday, February 14, 2011

Darker than Blood: GANJA AND HESS (1973)

Photobucket
Valentines Day means red hearts and flowers, dinners by candlelight, hands reaching across the table. Like this dubious 'holiday,' horror films are defined by their cliches: damsels in nightgowns holding chandeliers; undead hands reaching from a mound of dirt; stock footage full moons hitting your eye as a distant howl hits your ear; frightened horses..."easy... steady... steady, girl." Such a well trod path ensures we don't get lost. It's as easy as falling off a bike... into a cozy, well-defined abyss.

But if you are an African-American artist making a designated 'black' horror film, your cliche palette is doubly restricted. There is no 'in-between' for a black character in a Hollywood movie, no matter the genre: either shiftless craps-shooting loafers or violent super-sexual pimps on the one side, devout churchgoing disciplined members of the community, judges and police captains, on the other (or oscillating in-between, like Little Joe in Cabin in the Sky). The black man embodies only these extremes. Come the 70s, the split remains, albeit the churchgoing habit altered by a less passively idealist dogma. In black horror, for every rainbow-feathered pimp Blacula bites, you need a monologue by an idealistic young self-educated activist; for every jive-talking voodoo priest you need a noble cop fighting white corruption; for every pusher, a guy handing out outreach pamphlets bemoaning cop complacency. But it's got to be freaky to count as blaxploitation, but it's got to be cognizant of a social message too.

But what about black characters who range far and wide afield from these extremes, who dwell beyond good and evil; who are educated, affluent intellectuals who aren't really interested in wading down in the poverty, except maybe to cull easy prey; who are natural aristocrats that send their sons to Parisian schools to escape America's backwards racism altogether. These characters are perhaps too complicated not to confound knee-jerk bipoloar expectations for a 'black' horror film. To see what it's like when a black character isn't weighed down with this either/or albatross anchor you have to go to abroad.

February is Black History Month, which means on all the news channels the 'message' flows, occasionally, albeit diluted by 'safe' social commentary (i.e. George Washington Carver rather than Angela Davis; Dr. King rather than Malcolm X), which helps at least posit the problem of getting beyond the vibrant strutting stud vs. progressive agitprop paradigm. Nowhere in the mainstream TV's little digressions lurks the question of whether the African-American experience might be represented in a risky, artistic, dangerous, even abstracted manner, or if 'intelligent' blackness need be rendered only through either dignified bourgeois Ms. Daisy blandness or Spike Lee politically astute anger. The question might be asked and answered by black filmmakers, but their more dangerous films are already ignored by a wary white bourgeois public afraid of being harangued and bummed out, who give 12 Years a Slave and Moonlight Best Picture without seeing actually seeing them, yet ignore or decry black films that presume to tell 'other' black tales, where the blackness comes alive in ways white critics aren't comfortable with. In other words, if we (the white audience) are not able to get 'self-back-patting' liberal guilt assuagement through seeing your film, either crying in solidarity or squirming with awareness, we don't know what you want from us. As your movie plays on, we start to get nervous in a way that has nothing to do with education and expansion of horizons. Only a few white critics, the brave and feckless, are turned on rather than scared by seeing blackness truly freed, not just from its centuries of shackles, and economic woes, but its mortality, nationality, and even identity, until we both merge in either flames of a burning city or flames of a unifying field of pure being.

Photobucket
One case in point: GANJA AND HESS (1973) a weird one-off kind of genre-unto-itself horror film that refuses the bipolar limits of the cinematic 'black experience,' refuses even the tropes of casual art or surrealism, instead delving into them all with the tasteful restraint of someone building a whole cinematic language without resorting to ponderousness or didacticism in the process. Its creator, African American playwright/actor Bill Gunn, was given money to make a black horror film modeled after AIP's BLACULA (1972). That film had proven a surprise hit, especially among black audiences. But Blacula was directed by a white man. Producers figured that if they got a black man to make a black vampire movie they'd clean up, and have a truer, grittier, or at least cheaper, film.

But instead of a blacker Blacula, Gunn made a nouvelle vague semi-experimental horror love story that seemed, on casual viewing, to be a choppy, fragmented mess; deceptively framed, with strange sound mixing, and an impossible to follow storyline. BLACULA's appeal of course was in the name. The name was all you needed. Seeing it on a marquee, you knew just what to expect, and it delivered. But no one could possibly expect GANJA AND HESS, for there'd never been anything remotely like it. If you sunk some of your own $$ as a producer into it you might be pretty pissed...

BUT if you stuck with it, watch the whole thing without judgment, you suddenly realize the film is delivering something brand new and unique, beyond any duality of white or black filmmaking. The effect is profound, startling, new, unforgettable...

Most of all it resonates as a true love story, with all the heady rushes and disastrous fall-outs that implies.

Not least of its assets are the title characters: the rich, isolated doctor Hess (Duane Jones) and Ganja (Marlene Clark), the latter very unusual type of strong black woman who manages to assert herself very strongly, without rustling feathers, without being bitchy or unsexy, or moralistic, or judgmental. Watching her move in on Dr. Hess you are seeing a character you've never really seen before in a film (at least I haven't). She and Hess are fully complex, morally ambiguous adults, antithetical and ambivalent. As in the best tragic figures of Shakespeare, they have the guts to admit they don't really care if other people die. They are characters dealing with blackness, as opposed to being representations of blackness

I love Nick Pinkerton's description:
Hired to crank out a Blacula knock-off (with a drug-joke title), Gunn instead wrote a surreal love triangle among black sophisticates, devoid of sex-machine phoniness, and directed it in a muttered, disorienting style, with a strange brew of Afro-Euro symbolism. Duane Jones is Dr. Hess, a gentleman scholar studying a pre-Christian African blood cult; Stop's gorgeous, sloe-eyed Marlene Clark is Ganja, as lively and droll as Hess is lethargic. Gunn himself plays the turbulent artist who infects the doctor. He had a genius for writing monologues, and delivers them with absorbing intensity, especially in his character's schizo suicide dream of playing both murderer and victim, showing Gunn's fascination with the divided self.
When seeking a way to wrap your narrative-expectations around Gunn's "muttered, disorienting style," it helps to have a bit of a grasp of black cinema history. The films, for example, of African American pioneer filmmaker Oscar Micheux were notoriously mismatched and fragmented, as if the audience was handed a stack of coupons, leaflets, half-finished letters, and chapbooks and told to read through them at random and let the complete novel form in their brains. That occasionally it would was either evidence of genius or a viewer's paranoia. For sure, there's that feeling with Gunn's film too; you feel that some shots must be missing. Seemingly disconnected scenes (are whole pages of exposition and explanation in GANJA missing? Was the DVD I saw incomplete?) come together in your mind as you watch it, creating a delayed sink pull drag effect, as if by the time you figure out that something's chasing after you, it's too late to escape. Soon you're dead... but... why, are you still running? Was death waiting for you to catch up to it, or has it already moved on?

Photobucket

George Romero showed brave social put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is casting by having Jones in the lead of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968) and it's perhaps no coincidence that Jones plays the lead in GANJA AND HESS. Like his character in DEAD, Jones' Hess is an intelligent black man with no time or interest in proving it to white people, or hiding it or being subservient for white acceptance, etc. We see Hess's intellectual strength, fatherly tenderness and icy reserve, for example, when he visits his son at boarding school, and the pair have conversation in fluent French, a reminder of the way so many black artists expatriated to Paris in order to escape racism. Even so Hess remains closed-off, aloof, abstracted, not a bad father or a good one, but something like how a genuine intellectual thinker (not a cliche'd dotty Einstein hobbit or megalomaniac, but a reserved, distracted yet immensely perceptive full-grown man) would be, even to himself, even if he tried not to be (and smart enough not to let it get him down). And that may not sound like much, until you realize every black dad in movies is always either a strong perfect lion of a dad like Larry Fishburne in BOYZ IN THE HOOD or a drug-dealing thug like Samuel Jackson in MENACE II SOCIETY. Jones is neither, yet with elements of both-- he is not trying to be 'a dad' or not to be one.

Examples of the still-flowing racism a character like Hess (or artist like Gunn) would endure were all over the papers when GANJA AND HESS opened. It got a lot of aghast walk-outs from both audiences expecting BLACULA 2 and snooty festival curators, at least here in the States. When it was the only American film selected to represent America in the 1973 Cannes Critic's week, Gunn wrote the following letter (excerpted) to the NY Times on May 13, 1973 (following the tepid reviews of his film, including outright admissions by critics of walking out):
Photobucket"If I were white, I would probably be called "fresh and different." If I were European, "Ganja and Hess" might be that little film you must see." Because I am black, I do not even deserve the pride that one American feels for another when he discovers that a fellow countryman's film has been selected as the only American film to be shown during "Critic's Week" at the Cannes Film Festival, May, 1973. Not one white critic from any of the major American newspapers even mentioned it."
Indeed one wonders, would this film be recognized if it were released for the first time even today? Probably not. Now that our culture has grown further distracted by CGI and MTV whiplash editing, it would be impossible for teenagers to stick with the disorienting jaggedness long enough for the hypnotic effect to kick in.  I confess I spent the first ten minutes kind of puttering the living room, keeping an eye on the image to see if the shot ever changed, but not really tuned into it at all. It might actually have been beneficial to do that, it turns out, as my unconscious was tuning in while I was distracted with laundry or whatever I was doing. But would I have lasted that long if I was a film critic seeing this in a screening room on a busy day of deadlines?

On the other hand, Gunn is right: if the film was French, these Times critics would have pissed all over themselves trying to 'discover' it first. I often wonder what Godard movies would play like in France, without subtitles, as subtitles fit so well his post-structural imagery, and so much of his dialogue overlaps or is mixed low making full comprehension impossible without them. They seen sloppy and haphazard anyway, but the subtitles and foreign language give them enough cultural cachet/distance that, as Americans, we don't feel ashamed by him. Gunn's film basically answers my question, and the answer is yes. If GANJA had subtitles and everyone spoke French throughout (instead of only in the boarding school sequence), it would have become a new wave classic. (And that letter proves Gunn himself knew that. too).

But there's a trick to appreciate this film, as I say- you have to let go of having everything spelled out, you have to trust that your unconscious understands the background whispering, the disjointed meanings, even as you scratch your head and think about doing the dishes. Stick with it, let the trance overtake you (the way it might for Jess Franco or Antonioni), and your unconscious will reward you.

Photobucket

The main thing that kept me rooted to the film even during the first 1/4 was the incredible electronically-warped soundtrack: African chants and spirit calls echo throughout the film like an ancient tribe stumbled upon a flanger and a feedback amp and managed to send their chants forward through time. In Gunn's world, the distant past and the future are both relatively unfixed: the past can roar up to grab you and the future is already biting you and draining your blood so it can survive into another day. Gunn uses a growing feedback squall to indicate when our vampire hero starts to jones for a sanguinary hit, making us aware of the link between vampirism and heroin addiction, or alcohol, the way a person who's been waiting for 4PM cocktail hour since he woke up will snap the head off anyone who suggests, at 3:30, they go see a movie instead.

Photobucket

The droning demand for blood and the ghostly presence of African drum on the soundtrack make the ethereal score an audio-mimetic equivalent of the ghosts that haunt Brutus Jones in Eugene O'Neill's play, The Emperor Jones. An early suicide in the film is set to music that gradually echoes into abstract noise as the camera circles around the self-inflicted carnage, creating a dizzying POV sense of a soul suddenly freed of its body, no ears to translate the dissonant sound waves into music.

Is this surreal echoing booming what a tree sounds like if it falls in the woods and there's no one around to hear it? I got a panic attack when a similar effect was done on the song "I can't live (If living is without you)" in Roger Avery's RULES OF ATTRACTION. Watching this scene it was like that panic attack finally blow its own brains out, like a rose from the tip of the crown chakra had been plucked. More than any other 'vampire' film, 'black' film, or even 'white' film, GANJA AND HESS dares to examine sound and vision that lie past the point where there are eyes and ears left to see and hear them. It re-imagines the Bluebeard legend as a chance for forgiveness and admission of true and refreshing ambivalence about life.

Photobucket

What's missing in the film is a serious line of continuity, and that's where Gunn relies on cliche, as we "know" the missing scenes (such as continuity and establishing shots) the way Coltrane assumes we know the melody of "My Favorite Things." Clearly, a mix of budget constraints and artistic control necessitated some of these choices, but they work because they force us to fill in the blanks, like watching a foreign language film without subtitles forces us to notice mise en scene in an abstract composition sense. And then, when Ganja shows up, she's so warmly human and yet so strong that the film kicks into gear; the sound evens out, the roses all but bloom in our heart chakra. We've been straining to get past Hess's alienating persona, so we're sensitized and ready for her sensual assault. I wont spoil it, but about halfway through the film she delivers a long, tearful monologue, lit only by firelight, and the subsequent eruption of happiness and music afterwards is one of the most powerfully cathartic cinematic moments I've had in awhile, and the long single take monologue in dark lighting is what helps catapult it. In short, Gunn uses his limitations and long takes for powerful effect, mixing the agonizing real-time emotional build-ups with ecstatic release.

All the strain pays off.

Photobucket

Looking at this truly unique film as a whole is to return to the question: How can a black artist be true to himself, relevant to the pop cultural landscape, and embrace the darker recesses of his black ancestry all while investigating topics like the difference between our physical senses and dreams, or the way ancestral ghosts chant to us as they travel in the blood rushing through our ear drums. If a black artist be continually burdened with conveying the 'entire' black experience like a fractal in all aspects of his work, then GANJA is a way that this fractal is both circumvented and transfigured into a whole new form. Gunn also addressed this in his response to criticism in the Times:
Photobucket"Another critic wrote - where is the race problem? If he looks closely, he will find it in his own review."
This innate 'extra' requirement for black art is like a lead albatross affixed to every struggling black author or artist, especially when it comes to knee-jerk bourgeois liberal dogma. Interestingly, it's also a problem faced by Dr. Hess in the film, leading him eventually to accept his own disintegration. Knowing the only thing that can hurt him is the shadow of a cross over his heart, Hess decides to get born again down at the local church. Well, sometimes, merely climbing out of a swimming pool can be a true baptism, just like sometimes raggedy scraps of African-American film can come together as galvanizing art, and sometimes that art can be recognized.... by the French. Amen.

 (Special thanks to poet/performance artist Tracie Morris for turning me onto this film and informing sections of this review, and, for being the place I found that cool quote, The Temple of Schlock.')

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Waiting for Katelbach, Dorleac, CUL-DE-SAC


Roman Polanski's awe-inspiring CUL-DE-SAC (1966) is free from the moths and Americans can now fully appreciate the wobbly genius of Catherine Deneuve's sister, Francois Dorleac, and the way this amazing film links the male posturing of KNIFE IN THE WATER with the cold-eyed sexual hysterics of REPULSION, and even connects highbrow small-group isolation studies like WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF, with lowbrow like SPIDER BABY; PERFORMANCE with THE ADDAMS FAMILY; Samuel Beckett's WAITING FOR GODOT x Strindberg's DANCE OF DEATH all under a slinky jazz black and white sky

The plot line is more like a series of events that spiral in and out of tight isolationist control, making 'plot' per se merely something to confuse and bait the viewer: Donald Pleasance is a neurotic retired business owner named George, who's had an apparent mid-life crisis, sold everything to buy an isolated castle fortress (where Sir Walter Scott lived: "Look there's his original quill!") and stock it with his restless, much younger French bride, Teresa (Francois Dorleac). They share an obsessive, weird private headspace, part Mick and Anita in PERFORMANCE, part the Merrye Family in SPIDER BABY (with a sullen blonde pretty boy neighbor who boats over for trysts with Teresa) until a desperate, wounded American criminal, Richard (Lional Stander) breaks in to steal eggs and demand their help in rescuing his gut-shot partner, Albie (the Joyce-ish Jack McGowran).

Though the stage seems set for tense DESPERATE HOURS, KEY LARGO, HE RAN ALL THE WAY, or PETRIFIED FOREST-style tension, Polanski deliberately skews it, pretending like he's about to fall into gangster-noir cliche, then righting himself back up, and winking at us like we were chumps to think he'd ever fall into genre expectations. After dealing with endless unwelcome drop-in guests--including a very rotten child (the closest thing the film has to a true villain) and an aloof Jacquelin Bissett--George finds the relative humanity and grounded 'realness' of Brooklyn-accented yank thug Richard almost a relief. By the end of the night, Richard has bonded, kinda, with both Teresa and George over over homemade vodka and it all begins to seem like a weird metaphor for western-allied relations in WW2 and one of those unhinged lower class invigorating the ennui-ridden jet set kind of thing, ala PERFORMANCE, THE CABLE GUY, RULES OF THE GAME, SWEPT AWAY or even BARTON FINK. The keen observations and brute good-nature of Richard make him less threatening, which only makes his outbursts of violence that much more traumatic and scary.

As with so many of his 60's films, Polanski seems to draw on his experiences as a Jewish child struggling for survival in the Warsaw ghetto during the Nazi occupation; Pleasance his tortured tenure in a Japanese POW camp. Polanski makes use of his first-hand witnessing of true inhumanity to man, and where other directors would speed up and simplify -- good guys vs. bad, winning vs. losing, with Polanski it's all about shifting power and the way reality is fluidly structured by whomever's in charge (the war again, with history written as the Allies see fit). The narrative coheres, Polanski slows down and muddies the water. At which point do hostages become complicit- is it the moment they miss the chance to slit his throat shaving him? Can contact with gangsters help a 'civilized' man finally shed his veneer and start throwing out unwanted guests like a rabid maniac? Mmmmaybe.

With its groovy Ronald Stein-ish score (attributed to Komeda), the CUL DE SAC vibe recalls the uneasy luncheon centerpiece in Russ Meyer's masterpiece, FASTER PUSSYCAT, KILL! KILL! or the arrival of unwanted guests in Jack Hill's 1968 cult classic SPIDER BABY. KNIFE IN THE WATER devotees will recognize themes, as will REPULSION fans, of which of course all cineastes are both. The ease with which Polanski dispenses with a singular point of view or any 'reliable' perspective of reality, removing any indication that any one character is 'right' in the perception of events over any other, no matter how warped, it's pure cinema at its most bluntly witty.

Then there's the tale of two sisters: As opposed to Catherine Deneuve, who allows us to gaze lengthily at her spider-watching-the-fly features in Polanski's REPULSION, her sister Dorleac is always in motion, long lovely Francois Hardy hair in face, dark rings around her eyes hinting at little sleep, less sanity, probably drugs, to the point where it's hard to get a full beam on her features. This is not meant as a critique, merely an observation that puts her in the same warper class as Anita Pallenberg in PERFORMANCE, who also plays a crazy cross-dressing hermit's companion and nutball butterfly of shifting allegiances and facial features. (Check here for my 'many faces of Pallenberg' post)

Though both Dorleac and Pleasance are fine and even have subtle but real rapport, the true stand-out in the film is gangster character actor Lionel Stander. His big pug-ugly mug and gravely voice belie a great charm and its heartwarming to see him get to 'steal' a whole movie. Stander was one of those unlucky victims of the blacklist, which probably explains his presence in so many European films in the 1950's through 70's (such as this one). Luckily he came back to the U.S. once the hysteria died down, and became memorable for his role in the long-lived Hart to Hart TV series.  Huge and menacing but comic and jovial in a salt-of-the-earth fashion, with that awesome gravel truck voice, Stander is heavy as a chunk of lead but light on his feet as a feather, able to go from menacing to sweet and good-natured on 1/19 of a dime. The weariness of a long day and night on the lam, worrying over his partner, and his deep-rooted fear of getting caught, all oscillate back and forth on his mug's face, even as he projects an in-the-moment kineticism that the more intellectual Pleasance lacks (but like Turner in PERFORMANCE, recognizes and longs to absorb).


As the film progresses, Richard develops a fine, borderline respectful rapport/borderline misogynist rapport with the equally mercurial Teresa: she brings him a vodka after his partner dies, but then later a hotfoot while he's napping in the sun ("that's called a bicycle!") and he responds by whipping her with his belt (!) then punching her in the side of the head ("that's called a 'klomp'!) Clearly, such kinky discipline is not something George would ever muster, so, like the love triangle of KNIFE and the real and imagined rapist/suitors that come to call and get dispatched in REPULSION, it becomes very difficult (intentionally one presumes) to chalk out a line between what goes 'too far' in trying to appease the contrary aspects of feminine sexual desire. Women want to be dominated, possessed utterly, ravished, but only when, where and with whom their whim dictates.

Men struggle with this all the time: when does Fabio-style ravishing become sexual assault? Do women really 'need' to get slapped or choked once in awhile or is it just the fantasy, some genetic memory going back thousands of years into the past, grappling the same slippery slope by which Stockholm syndrome helped ensure the survival of her DNA, via her ancient relative becoming wife to the man who's tribe overrode her village and killed her previous husband? Does this all stem (for Polanski) from the Nazis, the way, say, 95% of pedophiles were themselves abused as children? Or is it all just Polanski's deep-seated (as some claim, re: his rape charges) misogyny? Here I defer to Paglia-versed female film critics, like Kim Morgan:
...stuck in the house like a more spirited, extra primal Virgin Suicide sister, (Teresa) engages in childlike activities to amuse herself. She tears around the house barefoot, applies exaggerated eyeliner (or helps her husband with his), messes with rifles and, the best, most hilarious, lights a sleeping Stander's feet on fire with burning pieces of newspaper between his toes ("It's called a bicycle" she taunts). Oh...you just don't do that to Lionel Stander. Or perhaps, you do. Between these two mismatched misfits, it's disarmingly sexy. These characters don't establish things like "safe" words nor do they understand the concept of such a thing, so the perversity, stark beauty, the isolation, the bleakness, the menacing sexuality and the insanity make the whole experience a strangely good time.

In addition to raising chickens for their eggs, Teresa makes her own vodka, and proceeds to get both men drunk later that night and into the morning. This very strong alcohol serves to utterly confound all sense of allegiance and purpose and soon George and Richard are bonding, then fighting again, then rambling off in their own directions. The feeling that this is all happening in real time over the course of a night and into the dawn into afternoon is awesome (the way the red lines are forming on Doloreac's legs seems like she's really being whipped.

Extending and collapsing moment-by-moment experience, Polanski captures some special magic with CUL-DE-SAC. Then again I love films where characters drink and party past sunrise, when the photography is black and white and the music slinky jazz with lots of bass and funky sax. Oh and there's smoking! How retro! Who in 1966 could have imagined that in just 40 years booze, modernist ambiguity, psychosexual sadism, and cigarettes would be considered 'old-timey'?

Wednesday, February 09, 2011

Official Retraction: SCOTT PILGRIM is a Champion!


I'll confess, when I saw those doofus posters for SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD in the subway last summer, I slammed what I thought was another prong of the wuss attack, as Cera and Eisenberg had been in so many films at that point, playing the same nebbishy introvert, that I felt an older brother's compulsion to intervene, to Mickey Rourke-ify. Watching PILGRIM go up against THE EXPENDABLES in its opening weekend, for example I was sure Cera's film would win: 
...isn't it sending a wrong message to the pale hipster dudes coming of age today? That they can be shaking in their ironically rhinestone-studded boots with longing for a hot chick, do nothing about it but stammer and then--when she gets bored of waiting for him to cowboy up, and tries to seduce him herself--skittishly refuse her advances, since she's "ahem" drunk? (As Cera did in the and here I use quotation marks, "SUPERBAD.")  (cont.)
You can tell that I had 'issues' with that scene in SUPERBAD, and with scenes in ADVENTURELAND, ZOMBIELAND, et al, and was taking it out on PILGRIM, based on a poster, and clearly I'm not over my own painful adolescence as a Cera-esque-ectomorph, for whom a dozen gaping wounds still exist trying to date hipster chicks for any length of time in the 90's,  but then an amazing thing happened: PILGRIM nose-dived at the box office. I hadn't expected it. I felt contrite:
 If you read my savage entry last week (it)... had a lot to do with the way you "hate" your little brother for getting better grades, but still would defend him in a fight if he was getting picked on. I thought PILGRIM would win, so I jeered him, but I never kick a kid when he's already down. In fact, I switch sides, bloodying my own nose like Tyler's mirror double in FIGHT CLUB!! (cont)
Now that I finally am done 'waiting for the DVD' (thanks, Netflix!) I rue the day I passed on seeing it in the theater. It would have been so awesome and loud. And not only did it work as a comic book film, it was also the most realistic portrayal of life as a shy-but-womanizing bassist in a local band I've seen, and I should know, as I was a shy-but-womanizing bassist in a local band. I was also a raging drunk/stoner/tripper/smoker--which Cera's Pilgrim is not--but as its set in Toronto, where the drinking age is much more civil, i.e. nonexistent, I guess boozing it up doesn't have the same currency. And now, like Scott Pilgrim, my main drink is... Coke Zero (or Pepsi Max). Cera's squeamishness is no longer offensive since: a) it's clear he's using his shyness as a defense and offense in the heartbreak roundelay of local band singlehood (in small towns if you belong to a 'scene' you see all your exes and exes-to-be at every show, and they always end up talking to each other, and you can't hear what they say because you're onstage and its fucking loud) and b) he's not afraid to kick the other guy's ass with the quickness and c) the music the band plays is actually perfect, spot-on, ass-kicking garage-style punk rock! It's the most realistic 'good' live band music I've ever heard on film, d) the meshing of video game action with band drama and angsty indie romance makes perfect sense, since that's all boys do - game, jam, and angstify, and the fights are better than they've even been in most video game adaptations, like MORTAL KOMBAT (I think) -- So what the hell was I thinking? This movie is awesome!

I'm not the only reformed geek-turned-film critic that's had to admit their deeply personal ambivalence towards SCOTT PILGRIM was all-wrong. Just check out this from Dennis Cazallo:
 My mistake, revealed in a screening of the movie over the holidays, was in assuming that the movie itself didn’t recognize the asshole at its center, that because it played in the world of an indecisive, self-centered and immature man-boy that the movie itself was somehow guilty of the same negative qualities (including a careless cruelty to one of its obviously sweet, perhaps a tad obnoxious central characters) displayed by that man-boy. Upon second viewing it became clear that Wright’s empathy for his directionless hero did not preclude the recognition of his many flaws, or that the imaginative dreamscape in which Scott Pilgrim battles his girlfriend’s seven deadly exes, and his own fear of growing up, was full of sounds and images and sequences that were far more inventive, delightful and resonant than I ever gave them credit for.


PILGRIM "recognizes the asshole at its center," and thank God. Cera actually is quite brilliant at letting us see the calculating--even if he's not conscious of it--manipulator underneath the affectless veneer. We begin to see Pilgrim as a kind of avatar of hipsterdom, controlled from beyond by someone trying to rack up points any way he can, and we realize that hey, this what these innocent-seeming pishers do. As the typewriter tells Bill in NAKED LUNCH, the best agent is one who is unaware he is an agent. His cover cannot be blown.

Isn't it ironic, that so many of us in the film criticism endeavor to be fair-minded as we review things, but can rear back like a startled horse if films get too close to personal issues we'd rather not address. We're always digging for that unknown gem or defending the unfairly maligned: I railed against the general public's rank dismissal of OBSERVE AND REPORT, which on the surface looks like a dumb 'mall cop' comedy, but is actually a darker-than-the-heart-of-darkness TAXI DRIVER-esque portrait of Middle American masculinity (probably Middle American mall cops had the same problem with it I had with PILGRIM, before even seeing it, that is). I've stuck up for TWILIGHT series, which is dismissed as drivel by the bulk of adult critics, but is actually very coherent atmospheric, archetypal filmmaking that uses soapy girl mistiness the way Peckinpah used violence (I also like that it totally ignores my demographic. How novel!) But more outright entertaining than either, frankly, is SCOTT PILGRIM, which manages to be as appealing to girls as to guys and packs endless 'true' i.e. sharply observed and genuinely intelligent detail into its graphic novel structure, and all without ever being obscene -- i.e. no foul-mouthed Jonah Hill type to irk my feminist breeding.

The film itself interestingly addressed and explained to me my own knee-jerk condemnation of it. As a barely competent bassist who was in a regularly gigging band from 1986-1989, for example, I know the terror of seeing an even marginally better bassist open for you onstage. When you're an aspiring local rocker, you go see all the shows you can, just to stare at the frets of your rivals, and PILGRIM's players do this without director Edgar Wright needing to call attention to it.

Or what about the inevitable way a girl you really like and the girl you're halfway broken up with inevitably meet up at one of your shows? Why is God such a dick that way? In my experiences it always ran in threes: past, present and future girlfriends, all sitting at a table jawing away while I shrank as far off in the other corner as I could, which--since you could smoke cigarettes in bars then--made me totally invisible as the fog was thick and the tasty carcinogens floated wild, free, and opaque.Without the smoke screen, Pilgrim has no defense, no wonder he's so nervous!

Here's an example of my Pilgrim days. That's me on the bass at right, please don't judge my Prince Valiant bangs, booze bloat, tinted glasses, off-notes, or slack jaw:



Anyway, there's not much drinking, drugging, and smoking in PILGRIM, which is too bad. But I guess future generations want to live and be healthy, and... what? still be rockers? Hey, anything's possible with CGI, even--another PILGRIM anachronism-- the floors in these hipster pads are spotless clean! Where are the dusty coffee table empties? The filthy clothes piled in every corner? The silkscreen stains on the carpet, stacks of t-shirts, fliers, tangles of cords, drum cases and spilled beer now dried? Truly, I am a man-out-of-time (I recognized few of the many video game noises in the film, but did spot all the 1980 FLASH GORDON references), but from this day forward, I shall endeavor to not curmudgeon on youth's startling new non-depravity. AA amend complete.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...