Mood Lardo

• email this story
• read comments (34)
• post a comment
• 
  
  

On one level this Chapter 27 one-sheet is fairly off-putting. Who wants to spend a whole movie with the creepy fat guy who killed John Lennon? (Who, by the way, is portrayed in the film by a guy with too-dark hair, which I found hugely annoying.) It also suggests an extra-intense commitment by the marketers for Peace Arch, the film's distributor. They must know what this one-sheet is saying to people. Hardcore, man.

comment #1

btwnproductions says ...

If you liked THE ASSASSINATION OF RICHARD NIXON, you'll love CHAPTER 27...CHAPTER 11's more the thing where boxoffice is concerned...

comment #2

actionman says ...

Holy shit he got plump!

comment #3

corey3rd says ...

I'm taking my wife to see this film so the entire time I can go, "Look, honey -Jordan Catolano is fatter than me! Star of Fightclub? More like star of Celebrity Fit Club! Cookie Dough! Cookie Dough!"

comment #4

scooterzz says ...

that is one really bad one-sheet.....although it might make an interesting double with 'walk hard'......

comment #5

Mr. Blood Vessel says ...

it's funny.
the writer/director probably thought it would make a deep movie to get inside this guy's head.
when this is exactly why he did it in the first place.

comment #6

CinemaPhreek says ...

Yet according to Wells, if they had only paired him up with a hot woman (see posting for Mann's PUBLIC ENEMIES & Wells giving the pass to Beatty/Dunaway) it would be fine.

Ah, back to priceless HE - who cares if the film is any good, it will HAVE TO blow because Leto's hair is wrong. Hair you care about, yet "tough shit" about spoilers?

Priorities backwards much?

comment #7

lazespud says ...

Jesus, he's actually fatter than chapman. I hope for his sake the movie's great because I always feel bad when an actor changes themselves physically for a part and the movie turns out to be shite (like Christian Bale in the the Machinist)...

comment #8

T. Holly says ...

I love this one sheet, tres moderne like Chuck Close. No your kid can't paint that, because modern art rocks and your kid paints like a four year old.

comment #9

Edward Havens says ...

Havens to Wells: Have you noticed you are about the only person giving this film any press? With all due respect... why do you keep talking about it if you wish it would just go away?

comment #10

frankbooth says ...

Chapman had dark hair. Here's a pic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_David_Chapman

Are you're sure you're not thinking of John Hinckley, Jr., who is dirty blond? It's pretty easy to mix these clowns up.

comment #11

scooterzz says ...

this poster makes me want back everything i have ever spent on jordan catolano....and spent, in this case, has nothing to do with cash......it's just fuguly.....

comment #12

Nick Plowman says ...

I think this film will be great, I think people who underestimate Lindsay Lohan might get a surprise, and Leto looks like he was really taking the role seriously. I am just glad it is finally up for release in my country! It took forever.

comment #13

Sarcastig says ...

I don't get the release campaign for this film. I mean, I live in the Netherlands, and apparently it's already gone Direct-to-DVD here. Not just that, but I saw it in the "3 for 25" discount bin.

comment #14

Josh Massey says ...

Back in his teaching days, my dad had Mark David Chapman in his high school history class.

Apparently Chapman was absent for the "don't kill rock stars" lesson.

comment #15

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Frank Booth: I referred to the guy who plays (or stands in for) John Lennon. Lennon had light brown hair; the guy the filmmakers chose has dark brown or blackish hair. This could have been fixed so easily, and the director either didn't know or couldn't be bothered.

comment #16

DavidF says ...

In those old Beatle pics Lennon's hair looks dark but I recall it looking lighter in the NYC years. It's not a huge deal.

My beef is that Yoko Ono's wish was that no one ever mention the name of her husband's assassin since infamy was just what he wanted. I've always respected that and don't think there is any need for such a film.

I know people gripe if they think a film is trying to "understand" or "explain" someone like Hitler but those are people who caused damage on a different scale and they didn't do their horrible things to achieve fame. This chubby dude did and every time you bring him up or dwell on him you play into his hands.

comment #17

Arizona Joe says ...

Hair is important. It's a big error and distracting to get the hair wrong, especially with such a public figure.

Maybe the director developed his ideas from B&W photos. Hey,that's an idear - make the movie in B&W so the audience will focus more on the meaning and history.

This story is depressing on several levels. Politics and liberalism would look differently if John Lennon were alive. I don't think we'd be in Iraq if he were alive.

comment #18

Jay T. says ...

Man, you know it's a horrible poster when it makes you want to see the film even less...

comment #19

frankbooth says ...

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought the "who" referred to "creepy fat guy." My mistake.

Getting John Lennon's hair wrong IS a problem, especially since it would have been so easy to fix. This kind of detail is often distracting for me during biopics. I spend the first fifteen minutes trying to forget what the person being depicted looked like as I try to accept the actor in the role. And the more famous the actor is, the harder it is.

Does anyone else think that motion-capture will get to the point where performers will act out these roles employing digital stand-ins, Gollum-style? I'm as ambivalent about CGI as anyone, but if they're going to use it -- and they will -- they may as well do it in a way that makes sense.

I've probably said this before but I'd bet that Zemeckis will the first to attempt this.

comment #20

Craptastic says ...

Leto wins the Matthew Sweet look-alike contest by a landslide

comment #21

frankbooth says ...

Holy crap, 'tastic! I was confused by your post at first, until I found a recent pic of Sweet. When did he get a taste for hog jowls?

Wearing them, I mean.

comment #22

Spicer says ...

Didn't Leto have a bunch of health problems as a result of putting on all that weight for the film?

comment #23

MilkMan says ...

When I was 19 I was the drummer in a band called Mark David Chapstick.

I am endlessly fascinated by the psychology of people like Chapman and Hinckley and Bremer. They do it to be noticed, of course, but there is something else going on, something that only makes sense to them, something they can't explain. There is a black hole in the center of their mind. The reason Taxi Driver is still so resonant is because Schrader got about as close to getting a hold on what that black hole looks like without it permanently changing him for the worse. I know he was going through his own personal nightmare when he wrote Taxi Driver. I've been waiting for a long time for another movie to tackle this kind of personality. Maybe they are socio-singularities, but still, there are enough of them to warrant artistic documentation. Chapter 27 is not that movie.

The only way to tell the story of Mark David is to adapt Catcher in the Rye for the screen, and just replace Holden with Chapman. Same exact story with Chapman having assumed the character of Holden. I know that will never happen, or not at least until Salinger dies, but Chapman was living inside of that book. He made it literal and so should someone making a movie on him.

comment #24

Edward Havens says ...

God spare us any cinematic adaptation of Catcher in the Rye.

comment #25

jim emerson says ...

The hair. The thing that bothered you about this movie was the hair?

comment #26

D.Z. says ...

DavidF: "I know people gripe if they think a film is trying to "understand" or "explain" someone like Hitler but those are people who caused damage on a different scale"

I think killing a symbol of the peace movement's done quite enough damage in its own right.

Milkman: "I know that will never happen, or not at least until Salinger dies, but Chapman was living inside of that book."

I think that has to do with the subliminal messages Salinger learned to insert into certain volumes during his CIA days.

comment #27

Mgmax says ...

You know, I was actually a teenager in the 70s, and much as we all loved the Beatles, John Lennon wasn't a "symbol of the peace movement", he was "a semi-retired, incredibly wealthy rocker with a very expensive herd of cows." Yes, he'd done that whole bed-in thing 10 or 15 years before, but he'd spent the 70s dropping out of sight mostly, occasionally turning up in immigration court or with a tampon on his forehead or something. This idea that he was central to the culture circa 1980 (separate from the Beatles, that is), or widely looked to as the voice of this or that, is simply not so-- and lest we forget, a lot of people thought his new album was more treacly I-love-Yoko MOR stuff. Springsteen was hot, the Bee Gees were hotter, Jim Morrison was hot sexy and dead, Dylan was doing his Christian thing, but Lennon was basically J.D. Salinger. We shouldn't let Yoko's after-the-fact marketing of Lennon as a beloved apostle of peace obscure the reality.

comment #28

scooterzz says ...

mgmax -- your timetable's a little off.... i believe the bed sit-in was '69..... in '72 when he and yoko co-hosted 'the mike douglas show' he was pretty much considered the ambassador of peace even by mainstream america....he died in '80 which started a landslide of lennon awarenes that lasted for two or three years....and somewhere in there(late '70's ?) he was nationally known for his debauchery in l.a. with pal harry nilson (it was a bit more than just a 'tampon on his head)........
i honestly don't rememmber a time after 1964 when lennon wasn't acknowledged as 'central to the culture' (i think two books have been published this year).......jus' sayin'

comment #29

MilkMan says ...

DZ thinks he's being sarcastic about the whole Salinger-CIA connection.

comment #30

Mgmax says ...

"your timetable's a little off.... i believe the bed sit-in was '69."

Last I checked, 11 fell within "ten or fifteen."

Otherwise, you seem to be making my point for me. Yes, so in '72 he was an ambassador of peace (performance art comedians division) although I think the idea that he was the leading figure of such in America is a gross exaggeration-- all kinds of other people from the Berrigans to Joan Baez were more central and prominent (not to mention serious). And after the war ended, nobody was a peace ambassador and plenty of other people were more prominent and newsworthy. Yes, being a Beatle means you're an A list celebrity forever, but the idea that after five years of self-chosen life out of the public eye he had this vast following looking to him for guidance, let alone that had he lived he would have prevented the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, is silly exaggeration, promulgated by Ms. Ono herself to increase his (and her) importance.

I mean, it's not like he co-hosted Carson for a week.

comment #31

scooterzz says ...

You know, I was actually a teenager in the 70s, and much as we all loved the Beatles, John Lennon wasn't a "symbol of the peace movement", he was "a semi-retired, incredibly wealthy rocker with a very expensive herd of cows"

you know, i was actually a teenager in the 60s. and you kids just don't get it........

comment #32

D.Z. says ...

Milkman: "DZ thinks he's being sarcastic about the whole Salinger-CIA connection."

I wish, but it's hard not to think that way when you have to pad a biography about for a high school paper like I did in the mid 90s. This was on a fucking typewriter, and before Wikipedia, so you can understand what a bitch it was for me at the time. BTW, Seymour Glass has psychic powers and has had three past lives.

comment #33

D.Z. says ...

*about him*

comment #34

D.Z. says ...

psychic powers=precognitive powers

Post a Comment