From a 10.28.06 piece about the arrival of Warner Home Video’s Mutiny on the Bounty DVD: “My difficulties with the jokey humor aside, I have to acknowledge this scene between Trevor Howard and Marlon Brando, and pay my respects to the way Brando pauses ever so slightly before and after he says the word ‘fight’. It’s the film’s wittiest moment — the only line that made me laugh out loud.”

I trust everyone understands by now that however Quentin Tarantino‘s The Hateful Eight plays in basic dramatic terms (and I’ve shared my suspicions a couple of times after seeing a version of the script performed last year), Robert Richardson‘s Ultra Panavision 70 lensing (which will deliver an extra-wide 2.76:1 aspect ratio) is going to be pure visual dessert. As Indiewire‘s Bill Desowitz wrote in an 8.28 interview piece with Richardson, Ultra Panavision 70 “provides such unparalleled scope, resolution and beauty that everyone should be using it…it’s remarkable…stunning.” The process hasn’t been seen theatrically since Khartoum (’66), or nearly a half-century.

The thing to do, of course, will be catch it on an extra-large, extra-wide screen (like L.A.s Cinerama Dome). You don’t want to catch The Hateful Eight on a smallish screen, trust me. You want big, big, bigger than big because the a.r. is wide, wide, wider than wide.

Whenever I eat alone in public I’m always checking or posting tweets or reading articles or whatever on the iPhone. (I almost typed “reading a newspaper” but when’s the last time I did that?) One of the reasons I’m always reading is that I’m terrified of being one of those guys who just sits there and stares at his food, just eyeballing it like some hungry gorilla or a baboon under a tree. Guys who never once look up or regard their fellow diners or savor the atmosphere or take out their phone…none of that. Guys who just stare at the grub, examining the steamed mishmash and deciding which clump of broccoli or sliced baked potato or radish or red lettuce leaf to fork into next.

I watched a guy do this a couple of nights ago. “Gotta study this, keep on top of it,” he seemed to be saying to himself, “because I want to eat this right. Because I’ve been waiting for this moment for a couple of hours now and now it’s here, and the food is nice and warm…my bowl of vegetables, my sustenance…mine. And this is all I care about until I’m done.”

I sat there shaking my head and telepathically muttering to this guy, “You look a wild dog eating a baby wildebeest, you know that?” The worst is when these staring-at-their-food guys are out with their wives or girlfriends and they still won’t avert their gaze from their plate. A worldly fellow with a date always chats, looks up frequently, eats small bites, asks questions, considers the architecture, smiles, etc. And if he’s dining stag he always reads something. Presenting a cultivated front is a must.

I tapped this out a couple of hours ago in the comment thread for “Who Needs It?“: “The older Richard Brooks‘ In Cold Blood gets, the more Hollywood-ized it seems. Much of the film has always struck me as an attempt by Brooks (who once sat right next to me in a Manhattan screening room during a showing of his own Wrong Is Right) to almost warm up the characters and make them seem more ingratiating and vulnerable than how they were portrayed in Truman Capote‘s nonfiction novel.

“You can always sense an underlying effort by Brooks and especially by Robert Blake to make you feel sorry for and perhaps even weep for Perry Smith. That guitar, the warm smile, the traumatic childhood. Take away the Clutter murder sequence and at times Blake could almost be Perry of Mayberry. Scott Wilson‘s Dick Hickock seems a little too kindly/folksy also.

“These are real-life characters, remember, who slaughtered a family of four like they were sheep. I realize that neither one on his own would have likely killed that poor family and that their personalities combusted to produce a third lethal personality, but I could never finally reconcile Blake and Wilson’s personal charm and vulnerability with the cold eyes of the real Smith and Hickock (which are used on the poster for the film).

Is there really a crying need for a better Bluray of Richard Brooks‘ In Cold Blood (’67)? I’m presuming that the forthcoming Criterion version, due on 11.17 and rendered in 4K, will yield a more dynamic and detailed capturing of Conrad Hall‘s immaculate black-and-white cinematography, but the previous Bluray has always looked pretty good to me; ditto the high-def version you can stream right now off Amazon. Why then did Criterion decide to take a whack at it? Because peons like me are scratching their heads.

If Ingrid Bergman had the constitution and good fortune of Norman Lloyd she’d be celebrating her 100th birthday today. She stood 5′ 9″, or taller than Humphrey Bogart by a good two inches. Before coming to America to costar in Intermezzo (’39) Bergman had made twelve Swedish films, the first (in which she had a small part) being Munkbrogreven (’35). She wasn’t quite 27 when she costarred in Casablanca (’42). She was right around 30 when she costarred with Cary Grant in Notorious (’46). To think that Bergman was actually denounced on the floor of the U.S. Senate for having fallen in love with Roberto Rossellini while still married to Petter Aron Lindstrom, and that she was more or less ostracized from the U.S. film industry for four or five years as a result. (The ethics and morals among high officials in this country were very odd and twisted back then.) What I didn’t know is that Bergman also cheated on Lindstrom with Gregory Peck during the filming of Spellbound. I’ve seen pretty much every significant Bergman film except for Rossellini’s Stromboli and Victor Fleming‘s Joan of Arc. She’d only just turned 67 when she died from breast cancer on 8.29.82.

Early this morning First Showing‘s Alex Billington tweeted that “this time next week, I’ll be waking up in the mountains getting ready to see some of the best films all year @ the Telluride Film Festival.” I’m excited also, but I can’t share in AB’s cherubic attitude. TFF is a sublime place to see films, for sure, but from a filing standpoint it’s a bear. The hot films don’t really begin showing until after the patron’s picnic (or around Friday at 2:30 pm), and most people have to head back around noontime on Monday so in practical terms it’s really a three-day festival, and if you need Monday morning to file and pack it lasts 2 and 1/2 days.

The following 14 films are presumed (i.e., not confirmed) to be playing TFF within that narrow time frame: Steve Jobs, Suffragette, Black Mass, Spotlight, Son of Saul, Beasts of No Nation, Carol, Amazing Grace, Marguerite, Charlie Kaufman‘s Anomalisa (probably), He Named Me Malala (maybe), Room, Hitchcock/Truffaut. There will probably be another one or two added so let’s call it 15. That means having to see a minimum of three films on Friday, five on Saturday and five on Sunday for a total of 13 — obviously missing one or two. And then maybe one final screening on Monday morning before driving back to Durango. 

If I ignore Carol, Son of Saul and Hitchcock/Truffaut (which I saw in Cannes/Paris) and blow off Room (which I hear has problems) and Anomalisa (which I’m frankly not looking forward to), I’m down to 8, but I still can’t catch all those and tap out 8 seven-paragraph reviews between Friday afternoon and Monday morning. Maybe five or six.

So Telluride, for me, is basically a twitter festival with whatever writing I can squeeze in on the side in the early morning and late at night. Suggestions to Telluride guys: Start the festival on Thursday night as most people arrive that day, and show choice films on Friday morning for those who’d rather not attend the picnic.

I leave an hour before the crack of dawn on Thursday, 9.3. Burbank Airport to Phoenix to Durango plus the usual two-hour drive. Should be in Telluride by 3 or 3:30 pm. Dinner with friends that evening at La Marmotte at 8 pm.

It hit me yesterday that despite a stated intention to sit through the Bluray of Paul Thomas Anderson‘s Inherent Vice so I could read the subtitles, I never did. And I honestly don’t think I ever will. It all came flooding back when I watched the below clip.  I hate this movie, in large part because I can’t stand Joaquin Phoenix‘s performance and appearance — his slurry, muttery speech, puffy face, mandals, muttonchops, infuriating whimsicality, etc. In my book it’s absolutely one of the most detestable performances of all time. And honestly? Phoenix’s pot-bellied performance in Woody Allen‘s Irrational Man is a very close competitor. I was genuinely pleased when his character fell down the elevator chute.

This is a pretty good idea for a thread, come to think. What performances have so driven you up the wall that you briefly considered avoiding this or that actor or actress for the rest of your time on this planet? It sent you into a mood, I mean. I’ll be ready to forgive Phoenix at any time. All he has to do is crawl out of that foxhole he’s been curled up in.

During a Buzzfeed-reported Martian interview that posted on 8.27, Matt Damon said that the saga of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden had ignited creative sparks that led to fifth Bourne film, which he and director Paul Greengrass have now committed to.

“[Paul and I] always looked at the Bourne movies as really about the Bush presidency, and so we kind of had to wait for the world to change,” Damon said. “Without giving too much of it away, it’s Bourne through an austerity-riddled Europe and in a post-Snowden world. It seems like enough has changed, you know? There are all these kinds of arguments about spying and civil liberties and the nature of democracy.”

So it’s about Jason Bourne, the proverbial renengade lone wolf, somehow coming into possession of information that this or that government (probably ours) doesn’t want leaked? No — can’t be that. Too familiar.

I’ll play a game of ping-pong with anyone at a moment’s notice. Except I don’t like to hold the paddle vertically like the Chinese do. Someone told me I should do that a long time ago, and right away I smiled and said “naaah.” I hold my ping-pong paddle more or less like a tennis racket, which is more or less horizontally. I like to lean in and swat or “bunt” at a sidewards angle, and I dearly love my serves and slam shots. Which reminds me: A couple I know have a ping-pong table sitting in their garage, but they haven’t brought it out or invited me over to play in ages. One more joyful opportunity removed from the realm of likelihood.

Anecdote: I was playing once with a soon-to-be ex-girlfriend (or one I’d recently broken up with), and she got annoyed with me about my playing. She said I was channeling unresolved feelings about our relationship and manifesting them in overly aggressive swatting. She really beat me up about that, come to think. She may or may not have had a point, but since then I’ve been careful to temper my slam shots when playing with any woman because I don’t want to see one of those “looks.”

You have to get out and about, and you can’t give in to paranoia. You have to trust in the basic decency of the vast majority of people walking around. I do, at least. If there’s something twitchy in some guy walking down the aisles at Thrifty or CVS you can always sense this on some level so you just have to play it by ear and hope for the best. But deep down there’s a general feeling out there that a significant percentage of wacko types (which society has always had) are ready to go postal at any moment, and the recent shooting in Virginia is the latest of many, many reminders. It’s a very small percentage, thank fate and fortune, and an even smaller micro-percentage in liberal enclaves like West Los Angeles, but there’s nonetheless a tiny sliver of the populace today that is ready to murder strangers or co-workers or children in an elementary school when they reach their breaking point. I really, really don’t remember this malignancy being as noticable or persistent in…I don’t know when it began to seem more ominous. It’s been creeping and spreading outward for decades, but it seems to have gotten worse over the last 10 or 15 years. Post-9/11, post-Obama’s election…something. Obviously I realize that “seems” is not a statistical reality. I agree, in any case, with everything Cenk Uygur says here:

The first two minutes and 46 seconds of David O. Russell‘s The Fighter told me — gave me a signed, notarized guarantee — that it would be really good. The brotherly stuff, the swagger, the neighborhood, the music…you just knew. What other films have grabbed you from the opening with some kind of special-ass design and energy and saying “Are ya feelin’ it? We’re doin’ this right off the bat.” Robert Altman‘s The Player, of course. Mike Nichols‘ The Graduate — Simon + Garfunkle plus the robot on the walkway. Martin Scorsese‘s Mean Streets (guilt, church, cop sirens, “Be My Baby”), Raging Bull, Goodfellas, The Wolf of Wall Street. Others? And what great or really good films have really slow, sleep-inducing beginnings?