Day: September 24, 2019

American Tabloid

by

I was keen to see Mark Landsman‘s Scandalous (Magnolia, 11.15), a seemingly engrossing “deep dive” documentary about the National Enquirer, ten seconds into the trailer.

Favorite Landsman quote: “The real story behind the National Enquirer is like a classic monster movie from the 1950s where initially the creature doesn’t intend to harm anyone, but is soon wreaking havoc on the population. I was fascinated by the men and women who made that havoc happen, and thrilled to have the opportunity to tell the inside story.”

I’ve had the same basic attitude about the National Enquirer for a long time, which is that most of the stuff they publish is rancid upchuck but every now and then (i.e., rarely) they go above and beyond by reporting a credible story with hard facts, photos and other evidence. Like the John Edwards love child thing in 2008. And the Bristol Palin pregnancy story the same year. They’ve always seemed to excel at pants-down stories.

Otherwise I’m so disinterested that I don’t even flip through it during Pavilions checkout waits. The storied tab is primarily know these days for shilling (or “catching and killing”) on behalf of the Trump administration, etc. Believed by the stupidest people in the country, etc. The attempt to blackmail Amazon’s Jeff Bezos was a partisan attempt to serve Trump by undermining the owner of the Washington Post, etc.

The talking heads include Ken Auletta, Carl Bernstein, Iain Calder, Steve Coz, Jerry George, Gigi Goyette, Maggie Haberman and Barbara Sternig.

This Is Just A Test Media produced Scandalous with CNN Films and AGC Studios serving as executive producers. CNN Films will retain North American broadcast rights.

Refuge, Absorption

by

I’n leaving for my 2 pm screening of A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood. I’ll have a little filing time at a Pico Blvd. Starbucks between 4 pm and 6 pm. Then comes a 7 pm encounter with Jojo Rabbit. And on that note…

Compelled By Ethical Necessity

by

Nancy Pelosi‘s longstanding reticence about launching impeachment proceedings against President Trump has always been (and remains) about the certain failure of this effort once it reaches the U.S. Senate, given the Republican majority.

The Ukraine whistleblower matter has changed that thinking. Pelosi is now concluding that House Democrats have no choice but to impeach even though Trump can’t be removed from office. Pelosi’s fear is that Trump will naturally claim total exoneration once the Senate votes against impeachment, and that he’ll use this to boost his standing among the under-educated, less intelligent [read: dumber] sector of the U.S. electorate. Which would improve his chances of re-election.

The key is for Democrats to proclaim over and over that they are compelled out of moral and ethical necessity to bring articles of impeachment against Trump, even though venal Senate Republicans will block Trump’s removal.

The default slogan has to be “we know this can’t succeed, but with an unregenerate immoral animal in the White House, we have no choice but to do this.”

Posted at 3:11 pm eastern in the N.Y. Times: “Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to announce on Tuesday that the House will begin a formal impeachment inquiry of President Trump, Democrats close to her said, taking decisive action in response to startling allegations that the president sought to enlist a foreign power for his own political gain.

“After months of caution, Ms. Pelosi has become convinced that Mr. Trump’s reported actions, and his administration’s refusal to share details about the matter with Congress, left the House no alternative but to move forward with an inquiry that has the potential to reshape his presidency and cleave an already divided nation just a year before he plans to stand for re-election.”

Hustlers and Fools

by

No stones, no gambling, no nothing. I’ve never even flirted with the idea of betting on sports competitions as an ongoing diversion, and the only reason I shelled out for a nice wedding ring two and half years ago was because it was important to Tatyana. Otherwise forget it. Bling ain’t the thing. This aside, Adam Sandler is indisputably insane as a diamond-district broker with a ridiculous gambling addiction. More Gold Derby-ites besides myself and Yahoo’s Kevin Polowy should get behind him.

Beverly Walker’s Jackathon

by

It doesn’t seem like that far back when I attended the first big Academy screening of Prizzi’s Honor. But it happened 34 and 1/3 fucking years ago. Sobered by this realization, I started poking around yesterday, and eventually came across and re-read a fascinating Film Comment interview with Charley Partanna himself. Good reading, on point, nicely refined.

This morning I asked the author, Beverly Walker, whom I’ve known for eons, how it came about. The piece, she said, was derived from six hours of conversation, which happened in three installments. “Three separate interviews?,” I replied. “Wow, the access. Today all you can hope for is 20 minutes in a hotel room. Didn’t Jack’s publicist ask ‘Jeez, Beverly…how many sessions do you need?’ Can you give me a rundown about how and where it all happened?”

Beverly replied in less than an hour, and very tidily at that.

BW: “I had an acquaintanceship with Jack, having been introduced by Pierre Cottrell shortly after I moved to Los Angeles in 1970. Pierre — a producer with Barbet Schroeder of Eric Rohmer’s early films — had known Jack a long time; in fact, Jack had lived with Pierre and his wife, Edith, during a long sojourn in Paris in the ‘60s. Pierre had become a friend of mine during my years at the N.Y. Film Festival.

“This acquaintance with Jack was renewed when I handled NYC release publicity for The King of Marvin Gardens. I liked Jack a lot; I was fascinated by the huge difference between the guy I was around and his public persona. I knew how smart he was — how articulate — and thought he would be a great interview subject. Somewhere along the way, he said he would sit down with me for an interview,
During the filming of Prizzi’s Honor (which I worked on), he confirmed it.

“When shooting was finished, I went to his house on Mulholland on three separate occasions, for at least two hours each time, to talk with him. It was quite easy and informal. The second time, as I recall, he was distressed about losing most of his eyebrows, which were singed when a burner on his stove flared up**. It was scary, and he was in pain. Nonetheless, he carried on.

“Jack never had a publicist or an agent, just a manager. But the appointments were done through an assistant of his, whose name I regret to say I cannot recall, but whom I knew from being around the set on Prizzi’s Honor.

“We — Harlan Jacobson, editor of Film Comment at the time, and myself — had agreed to allow Jack to read the interview before publication. There was concern because Jack had indiscreetly talked so much about drugs and other inflammatory subjects; his position within the industry was a little iffy. I didn’t mind because I had no intention of addressing those subjects. I really wanted to allow him to show this other side of himself, which was largely hidden from the public.

Read more