Today’s emotional testimony from Isaac Baruch, Johnny Depp’s friend and neighbor, was quite something. Persuasive, I mean. Not conclusively but Baruch’s words got to me. It made me think of Jordan Ruimy’s article about the Depp-Heard libel trial (“Johnny Depp: Innocent #MeToo Victim?“).
Speaking as one who had a vodka-and-lemonade problem in the ‘90s and then an off-and-on wine dependency in the aughts, I think people change when booze gets hold of them during stressful times. Dark stuff comes out. And if you’re in conflict with the wrong kind of person under the influence of alcohol, it can trigger you. With some people alcohol can be a terrible influencer.
A few days ago I heard about a 3.31 Orange County research screening for Peter Farrelly‘s The Greatest Beer Run Ever (Apple +). I heard nothing about how it played. The screening indicates, of course, that the film will open later this year, probably in the fall.
I’ve read Donohue and Molloy’s book, and it’s quite the episodic journey — an apolitical adventure about the Vietnam War and being in harm’s way with Donohue, the lead protagonist (Zac Efron), somehow making his way through all the dangers and red tape and whatnot.
The book reads like a kind of working-class love story — a saga about 20something guys who were serving (or had served) in the Vietnam War during the mid to late ’60s…a time when many in the antiwar left were professing hate or contempt for soldiers for bringing all kinds of horror to the lives of Vietnamese citizens (i.e., My Lai).
If Farrelly’s film follows the tone and attitude of the book, The Greatest Beer Run Ever will not — repeat, not — bear much resemblance to Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, Coming Home, Da 5 Bloods or any other high-profile Vietnam flick that comes to mind.
When I think of the Vietnam War, I think of the furies swirling around and howling in the ears of those bigwigs who sent 58,000 men to their deaths. The book certainly isn’t channelling any kind of guilt-trip narrative. It stays with Donohue’s perspective start to finish, and doesn’t really deal with the war in any kind of Oliver Stone sense. It’s about the perspective of soldiers who were just trying to survive, and who probably felt little if any allegiance for U.S military objectives at the time.
Set in 1967 and early ’68, the book is Donohue’s first-hand account (he was 26 at the time) of having decided to use his ex-Marine and merchant seaman credentials to get over to Vietnam and somehow track down his buddies and tell them they’re loved by the gang back home and bring them a case of two of beer as tokens of same.
Donohue’s message in a nutshell: “Don’t let the antiwar left get you down, bruhs. We know you’re living through hell but we want you to know that we care about you, and here’s a brewski to prove it.”
Every three or four years I post the mesmerizing single-shot finale from Michelangelo Antonioni‘s The Passenger — six minutes and thirty-six seconds, slow and deliberate and about as fascinating as this kind of “one-er” has ever been.
I keep posting it because someone who’s never heard of this film might be inspired to watch it. And yet I honestly suspect that your typical Millennial or Zoomer would not have the patience to stick with this 1975 release. Plus it’s a lot less catchy and diverting than Blow-Up, which most Antonioni novices respect and appreciate once they finally sit down with it.
The Passenger is a little tough to watch, and is certainly not a grabber. You have to commit yourself to the whole thing start to finish or it won’t work. It represents a good kind of narrative slowness…thenutritiouskind.
I’ve always regarded The Passenger as a despairing mood-trip thing…end-of-the-road nihilism for people of taste. Like Michel Franco‘s Sundown, it’s a “fuck it” film that stays with you.
An hour ago I happened upon “The Passenger: One Epic Shot,” an ASC 8.24.20 article by David E. Williams. The subtitle reads “How a cinematographic challenge became a sublime piece of production virtuosity in the hands of [dp] Luciano Tovoli.”
The article contains a great shot of the ceiling-mounted camera rig that allowed the shot to happen.
I was all set to attend last Monday’s all-media screening of Mark Wahlberg and Rosalind Ross‘s Father Stu (Sony, 4.13). I was concerned last May (almost a full year ago) when I saw those photos of a fat Wahlberg in a crew cut. (I wrote a riff about them titled “Leapin Lizards!“.) Then I thought a bit about religious inspirational aspect, which doesn’t sit well with mystical types like myself. Especially when it’s coming from conservative types. Then I realized Stu’s story is partly about coping with a degenerative muscle disease.
I wound up missing the screening because of a car issue, but I might have found an excuse to miss it anyway. Not to mention the 44% Rotten Tomatoes score.
Yes, part of the reason Father Stu isn’t doing well with critics is because of the right-wing Catholicism associations, and probably because of Mel Gibson costarring. Critics don’t want to be friendly to rightwing faith movies. I understand that. Then again I don’t like rightwing Catholic faith movies either.
Devoted admirers of John FordTheManWhoShotLibertyValance (‘62) have long acknowledged that the weakest feature is the casting of the 53-year-old James Stewart and the 54 year-old John Wayne as Ransom Stoddard and Tom Doniphon, characters who are (or should be) at least 20 if not 25 years younger. No one disputes this.
You can “accept” Stewart and Wayne, as I have all along, but there’s no believing them as youngish fellows (late 20s, early 30s) in the prime of their lives.
Would you theoretically be interested in streaming a digitally de-aged Liberty Valance in which Stewart (born in 1909) looks like he did in, say, DestryRidesAgain (‘39) or CallNorthside777 (‘48)? And Wayne (born in ‘07) looks like he did in Stagecoach (‘39) or in the first 25 minutes of Red River (shot in ‘46)?
Purists (Ford biographer Joseph McBride comes to mind) would be horrified at such a prospect, but I for one would be fascinated. I would love to see digital artists take a crack at this.
Sidenote: McBride and Howard Hawks biographer Todd McCarthy need to explain why the last name of Lee Marvin’s Liberty Valance character is pronounced VAHLance while the last name of John Ireland’s Cherry Valance in Red River is pronounced VuhLANCE. I’ll wager that no one in the history of film criticism has ever contemplated, much less addressed, this question.
Persuasively de-aging Stewart for the “young idealistic attorney in early Shinbone” sections of the film would definitely help The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (‘62).
Stewart’s young “Rance” is supposed to be in his late 20s or very early 30s at the oldest. Stewart was 53 when Valance was filmed in mid to late ‘61. The viewer is obliged to go along with actors (John Wayne was 54 during filming**) who are 20 to 25 years too old for their roles, but there’s no “buying” this. So yes, convincing, state-of-the-art digital de-aging of these two would help somewhat.
** Wayne’s Tom Doniphon is supposed to be no older than his mid 30s — young enough to be courting and wooing the 32-year-old Vera Miles & building their marital home. With his bulky physique and creased saddlebag features, Wayne looks old enough (not a day younger than his actual biological age) to be Miles’ father.
Secondsidenote: The snow-white wig worn by Stewart’s 25-years-later version of Stoddard, a U.S. Senator in his mid to late 50s, makes him look like an actor wearing a white wig. Think of how much more convincing it would’ve been if Stewart, who had been gradually balding since the late ’40s or early ’50s, had simply not worn a wig at all.
.