Jeffrey Wells

“We’re supposed to hate Jaws now?” He was responding to “Did These Chinatown Viewers Understand?” And I replied by summarizing Peter Biskind’s “Easy Riders, Raging Bulls” as follows:

The huge primal successes of Jaws (6.20.75) and Star Wars (5.20.77) slowly bland-ified the moody, anti-establishment ‘70s thing that had permeated Hollywood…the New Experimental Anti-Conventional Hollywood Party Era that began with Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate and The President’s Analyst (all released in ‘67).

Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, the directing maestros behind Jaws and Star Wars, pretty much killed the cool kidz party by injecting (a) a win-really-big greed jackpot virus into the Hollywood bloodstream and (b) a strain of thematic infantilization into movies in general.

These guys didn’t didn’t suck the creative oxygen out of the room deliberately or maliciously, but the massive success of their historic blockbusters gradually introduced the idea of “high concept” and suppressed the commercial intrigue factor among industry folk and audiences alike for adult movies like Night Moves, The Conversation, The Outfit, The French Connection, Z, Easy Rider, Mean Streets, Rosemary’s Baby, Raging Bull, Scarecrow, Get Carter, The Day of the Jackal, Dog Day Afternoon, Godfather I & II, That’ll Be The Day, Stardust, Sunday Bloody Sunday, Chinatown, The Hospital, Network, Prince of the City, The Ruling Class, Quadrophenia, The Last American Hero, Performance, Don’t Look Now, etc.

The French title is Coup de Chance, pronounced coo-duh-chonce. (Thanks to Jordan Ruimy.)

Michelle Yeoh has no problem with Da Rizeborough (aka “Reezy”).

But I’m not feeling or finding it, and I’m unhappy about this. I was dreaming about a fresh fix when I allowed myself to believe that a 2.15 Andrea Riseborough appearance at the Santa Barbara Film Festival was all but inevitable. But then, according to popular theory, Danielle Deadwyler’s reps put the kibbosh on that. I guess the DD juice is over. I should just accept it.

The 2023 edition of the Santa Barbara Film Festival, which is HE’s favorite award-season, chill-by-the-sea, full-pleasure gathering of fans and sophistos, kicks off tomorrow night (2.8). And as usual, SBIFF is offering all the right tributes and guests — Cate Blanchett, Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, Brendan Fraser, Angela Bassett, etc.

And I love the lineup for this year’s Virtuosos panel — Austin Butler, Kerry Condon, Danielle Deadwyler, Stephanie Hsu, Jeremy Pope, Ke Huy Quan, Jeremy Strong.

Thw only curious thing is the absence of To Leslie‘s Andrea Riseborough on Virtuosos night. With all the recent hoo-hah after she scored a surprise Best Actress nomination, I naturally assumed Riseborough would be added to the Virtuoso panel. But there’s been no SBIFF annøuncement about her so far, and I’m wondering why.

Could it be that Team Riseborough was offered the slot and chickened out? No need for concern on this front as regular Virtuosos host Dave Karger would certanly softball the interview. (Classic-era Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes, he’s never been.) Risebourough would surely look and sound good, and reap a total win-win.

“Riseborough Convulsions,” posted on 1.27.23: “If Hollywood Elsewhere had Roger Durling‘s job as director of the Santa Barbara Int’l Film Festival, right now I’d be doing everything I could to add Andrea Riseborough to the SBIFF Virtuosos panel. She has to be included…no debate!”

2.8 Afterthought: Riseborough’s Best Actress nomination is quite the splendid career moment, so unless she’s shooting in Africa or Southeast Asia (or, God forbid, is coping with a health issue) it seems against the basic nature of an acclaimed actor to say “thanks for the tribute offer but no thanks.” The best actors are about the work, of course, but what is a career or a life if you don’t take a bow or two and graciously acknowledge the acclaim of your peers? Historically speaking sidestepping the Santa Barbara award-season spotlight simply isn’t done.

If it’s a Disney-owned franchise flick, you know the odds of it blowing chunks or at least falling short of expectations are fairly high. Add to this (a) the cool-black-dude diverse factor (Jonathan Majors!) and (b) reports of oppressively complex multiverse dialogue that you have to wade through or otherwise struggle with, and you’re sorta kinda left with a “later” response to Ant–Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (Disney, 2.17).

I got my Connecticut plates last October. (Or was it early November?). I told myself I’d put them on in a day or two. It takes two or three minutes but for various strange, complex reasons I kept putting it off. I finally put them on today.

I’m posting this to remind HE’s The Last Of Us fans that there are many, many “meh” responders like me out there, and that a good percentage of us regard the idea of watching a 50ish bear get an offscreen blowjob from a slender, gray-haired 50ish bear with acute discomfort, to put it mildly.

Response to “Sylvain BL”: You’ve said that judging a limited series after watching three episodes is like judging a feature film after watching just 15 minutes’ worth. Well, let me tell you something: If a film is working and grooving and doing it right, I don’t need 15 minutes to comprehend this. I can tell this almost immediately, and certainly within 5 minutes.

Ask anyone who’s done script-reading for an agency or production company — a smart reader can spot a stinker within three or four pages. And if a script is going to be good, you’ll also know it almost immediately. It’s also known, of course, that well-written scripts can go off the rails in the second or third acts, which is why script-readers are unfortunately obliged to read scripts all the way through. But 98% or 99% of the time, if a script blows during the first five pages, it’ll never recover. And if a limited series doesn’t seem to be doing it quite right during the first three episodes, the odds of the series pulling a rabbit out of a hat starting with episode #4 or #5 are very low.

Profuse apologies for my not posting our latest Substack chat earlier today, but don’t let that stop you.

That’s all I’m getting from this feckin’ ad…”Look at us! We’re living the high life! In a bubble!”

Pamela Anderson has arguably undermined the #MeToo movement by recently doubling down on her 2017 Harvey Weinstein-related remarks about women needing to toughen up, face facts and take responsibility for their behavior in dicey situations.