Common sense issues undermine John Krasinki‘s original A Quiet Place (’18), of course. The most glaring, for me, is the decision by Evelyn and Lee Abbott (Emily Blunt, Krasinski) to have a baby, which of course is tantamount to suicide in the “be silent or die” realm in which they’re trapped.

According to Variety‘s Peter Debruge, such issues continue to nag in A Quiet Place, Part II (Paramount, 3.28):

“Instead of addressing the gaping plot holes — why has no one else figured out the aliens’ weakness (they can’t handle tinny, high-pitched sounds generated by cochlear implants), or why these creatures have such scary teeth if they don’t stop to eat anything — the new film wagers if you’re on board for the ride, logic shouldn’t matter.

“But it does make a difference, and anyone bothered by the way Krasinski has already ignored such glaring inconsistencies as the monsters’ ability to hear small noises from far away, but not breathing or heartbeats mere inches from their ears, will drive themselves crazy this time around.

“As the helmer’s canvas widens, it becomes even harder to overlook the obvious (like the decision to transport a baby through open spaces), amounting to a cunningly executed thriller that will leave half the audience wondering, ‘Why didn’t they just do that in the first place?'”

I wrote the following article in ’97 for the L.A. Times Syndicate, and re-posted it in October ’04 — two months after launching Hollywood Elsewhere:

Say what you will about Bliss, Lance Young’s film about love and sexuality that earned a 50% RT rating. But that housefly-on-the-fan shot is awesome.

“Young marrieds Craig Sheffer and Sheryl Lee are lying in bed and mulling over their troubled sex life. Lee’s psychological history is at the nub. One of her problems is a bug phobia — always scrubbing under the sink, hunting around for creepy-crawlies. Anyway, the camera rises up from their bed, climbing higher and higher until it comes to an overhead propeller fan. And we suddenly notice a fly sitting on one of the blades.

How did Young get the little bugger to just sit there, waiting for his big moment?

Answer: The fly had been placed in a freezer for five minutes just before Young yelled “action!”, and was thus too frozen to make any moves. And even if he wasn’t all but frozen stiff he would’ve failed, due to a thread of tungsten wire — thinner than a human hair — tied to the fly’s midsection.

The person who arranged all this was “fly wrangler” Anne Gordon, whose company, Annie’s Animal Actors, was hired by the Bliss shoot in Vancouver.

The Bliss fly is actually a flesh fly — the kind that feeds on meat, and is about two or three times larger than your average house fly. Gordon bought 100 to the set on shooting day but only used “about a dozen” to get the shot.

A different chilled fly was used for each take, she says, because it would be cruel — not to mention impractical — for the same fly to be sent back to the freezer after each shot. The optimum time to shoot a chilled fly is four minutes after the ice chest, she says. They’re usually warmed up and able to fly around after seven minutes.

Another way to get a fly to sit still is to “cover him with a special mixture of milk and honey,” says Mark Dumas of the Vancouver-based Creative Animal Talent. “That way it’ll stay there a while and groom itself.”

The overhead ceiling fan shot was “tough,” says Gordon, and not just because of fly-prep issues. She says she felt a bit awkward looking down at a couple doing a love scene all day. “They’re down in the bed doing their thing and I’m up on the ladder,” she says. “They hardly had anything on.”

Tom Wolfe, seven or eight years ago (starting at:17): “I’ve never been tempted to write a memoir. I really honestly believe what George Orwell said, which was that the memoir, the autobiography, is the worst form of fiction ever devised. Because people are willing to confess to anything colorful or exciting [in their lives]…they murdered somebody or they smoked a lot of dope…it could be almost anything.

“Except for the humiliations. They will never write about the humiliations, which, Orwell said, make up 75% of life. I couldn’t agree more with that.”

Wolfe is right — the best autobiographies are those in which the author doesn’t cut himself/herself the slightest break. Which is why my forthcoming, work-in-progress memoir (I probably won’t call it Last Honest Asshole but the title is catchy) will rank highly as I’ve never shirked from talking about rejection, melancholy moods, sullenness and feelings of existential downerism and depression — these states of mind have been tugging at my spirit since I was six. The problem of course, is that most people don’t want to read about guys who scowl and feel shitty about things. And so editors are always telling writers to keep things lively, and that means good, well-told stories, etc.

This is one reason why I shut down after an hour’s worth of party chatter. Because you’re obliged to be “on” all the time, and nobody wants to hear anything but funny stories, pithy insights and amusing anecdotes.

The brilliant, amusingly twitchy and fickle-minded Charles Grodin, 86, has passed on. In my heart and mind Grodin was a mythical actor of the highest neurotic order, and lo and behold he died at his residence in my high-school home town of Wilton, Connecticut.

Knowing he was a Wilton guy somehow adds to my understanding of him. He lived on Chestnut Hill Road…know it well.

I interviewed Grodin once or twice in the ’90s or early aughts…easy guy to converse with. (All my life I’ve gotten along famously with super-smart neurotic Jews, being an honorary neurotic Jew myself.) We also chatted blithely at a couple of N.Y. Film Festival parties in the late ’70s or early ’80s…I forget the particulars.

For me Grodin was defined by five key performances, and his first pop-through didn’t happen until age 32 or 33 when he played Dr. Hill, that kindly, low-key Manhattan obstetrician (John Cassevetes referred to him as “Charlie Nobody”) who betrayed Mia Farrow in Roman Polanski‘s Rosemary’s Baby (’68).

The next milestone was his creepily vacant performance as Captain “Aarfy” Aardvark in Mike Nichols Catch-22 (’70), closely followed by his career-defining role as a mentally deranged sporting-goods salesman named Lenny in Elaine May‘s The Heartbreak Kid (’72). The next highlight was his performance as Tony Abbott, the blithe executive assistant to Warren Beatty‘s “Leo Farnsworth” in Heaven Can Wait (’78). The final keeper was his deadpan mob accountant, “Duke” Madukas, in Midnight Run (’88), made when Grodin was 52 or thereabouts.

Grodin is also fondly remembered for his roles in Real Life (’79), Seems Like Old Times (’80), Ishtar (’87) and Dave (’93). Not to mention his many appearance on Late Night with David Letterman (the angry schtick with his lawyer) and The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson.

It was only a week ago when I ran that appreciation of his confrontation scene with Eddie Albert in The Heartbreak Kid, and a couple months ago when I riffed on that great father-daughter scene he shared with Robert DeNiro, Danielle DuClos and Wendy Phillips in Midnight Run.

Grodin’s N.Y. Times obit mentions Beethoven as one of his most beloved films — it is? I never want to see Beethoven again in my life…ever! I barely even remember Grodin’s performance, to be perfectly honest. Okay, he was infuriated and horrified by the big galumphy Saint Bernard…whatever.

I’ve never seen an urban car chase sequence like this before…not once! Talk about getting your socks blown off by sheer William Friedkin-level originality.

Directed by Cate Shortland and naturally starring Scarlett Johansson, Black Widow opens on 7.9.21. Costarring Florence Pugh, David Harbour, O-T Fagbenle (who?), William Hurt, Ray Winstone and Rachel Weisz.

Spoilers: The first half of Episode #5 of Mare of Easttown (“Illusions”) felt spotty and weird, but the second half was great, especially the bang-up Silence of the Lambs finale.

Text to friend as I watched: “So episode 5 is Room? The creepy captor takes turns with two female captives? Good God.

[Community wake scene] So the old, white-haired, overweight widow stands up and announces to the mourners that way back when he had an affair with Mare’s mom, Helen (Jean Smart)? What kind of idiot does such a thing? Let sleeping dogs lie.

“[Later] Mare has been suspended for planting evidence, but she goes on a dinner date with Det. Zabel (Colin Peters), her professional partner? Kind of a dumb-ass thing to do, no?

“This is not a great episode.

“Wait, take it back — excellent ending! Totally borrowed from the climactic handgun confrontation between Agent Starling and Buffalo Bill — creepy villain living in grubby man-cave environment, nearby captive female hostage[s] pleading for rescue, wounded Mare at a disadvantage, bad guy goes down in a hail of bullets.”

Three or four days ago N.Y. Times critic A.O. Scott posted a piece called “What I Learned About Democracy From the Movies,” and subtitled “Seven films that paint a portrait of America in all its contradictions, inconsistencies and outright delusions.”

Scott singles out Martin Scorsese‘s The Wolf of Wall Street for sending the kind of conflicting message that Hollywood has long excelled at.

“There are those who insist that Wolf is a ferocious indictment of the money culture, or at least of the shallow scammers who treat the serious business of capitalism like a casino. And there are others who can’t stop ogling the drugs, the cars, the boats and Margot Robbie, even if the spectacle makes us feel a little squeamish.

“Everyone is right! Disapproval of excessive wealth and unchecked avarice is Hollywood gospel. See Citizen Kane, It’s A Wonderful Life, Wall Street and the Godfather movies. But see the same movies for contrary evidence. Wealth onscreen is beautiful, exciting, erotic.”

I’ve never forgotten LexG saying at the time that he liked The Wolf of Wall Street “for the wrong reasons.”

On 12.13.13 I said the same thing that Scott wrote. The piece was called “Druggy Wolf of Wall Street is New Scarface”:

“I saw Martin Scorsese‘s The Wolf of Wall Street (Paramount, 12.25) for the second time last night, and it felt just as wild and manic as it did the first time. (And without an ounce of fat — it’s very tightly constructed.)

“And yet it’s a highly moral film…mostly. Scorsese, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill and all the rest are never really ‘in the room’ with these depraved Stratton Oakmont brokers. They’re obviously juiced with the spirit of play-acting and pumping the film up and revving their engines, but each and every scene has an invisible subtitle that says ‘do you see get what kind of sick diseased fucks these guys were?…do you understand that Jordan Belfort‘s exploits redefined the term ‘asshole’ for all time?’

“Why, then, did I say that Wolf is ‘mostly’ moral? Because it also revels in the bacchanalian exploits of Belfort and his crew. It broadly satirizes Roman-orgy behavior while winking at it. (Or half-winking.) Unlike the Queens-residing goombahs in Goodfellas, whom he obviously feels a mixed affection for, Scorsese clearly doesn’t like or relate to the Stratton Oakmont guys. But the 71 year-old director also knows first-hand how enjoyable drug-abuse can be for cocky Type-A personalities in groups, and he conveys this in spades.

From World of Reel‘s Jordan Ruimy: “[Herewith] a chart of the most likely films to make it to Cannes official competition in July. There have been a lot of pieces from the trades speculating inaccurately about some films. I’d rather be on the cautious side. Yes, last-minute changes by Fremaux and his selection committee can happen in the blink of an eye. However, as we speak, these are the titles with the best shot as of 5.17.21 (HE = exceptional HE interest):

Serious Contenders:

“The French Dispatch” (Wes Anderson) / HE
“Annette” (Leos Carax) / HE
“Ahed’s Knee” (Nadav Lapid)
“Memoria” (Apichatpong Weerasethakul)
“Benedetta” (Paul Verhoeven) / HE
“Tromperie” (Arnaud Desplechin) / HE
“Tres Piani” (Nanni Moretti)
“Where is Anne Frank?” (Ari Folman)
“A Hero” (Asghar Farhadi) / HE
“Triangle of Sadness” (Ruben Östlund)
“Bergman Island” (Mia Hansen-Love) / HE
“Flag Day” (Sean Penn) /
“Nobody’s Hero” (Alain Guiraudie)
“Drive My Car” (Ryûsuke Hamaguchi)
“Petrov’s Flu” (Kirill Serebrennikov)
“Decision To Leave” (Park Chan-wook) / HE
“Another World” (Stephane Brizé)
“Paris, 13th District” (Jacques Audiard) / HE
“Titane” (Julia Ducournau) / HE
“The Tragedy of Macbeth” (Joel Coen) / HE
“In Front of Your Face” (Hong San-soo) / HE

World of Reel‘s Jordan Ruimy, who’s previously posted good info about various Cannes Film Festival tremors, is reporting that Joel Coen’s The Tragedy of Macbeth, a black-and-white smarthouse drama costarring Frances McDormand and Denzel Washington, has been screened for Cannes honcho Thierry Fremaux.

Ruimy: “Whether it actually makes it to Cannes is a whole ‘nother story since Apple TV, which recently bought the rights to the film, may want to wait it out for the fall festivals.”

HE retort: Although the Apple deal was announced just a few days ago (5.12), negotiations with Apple had certainly been ongoing and perhaps had been finalized for a while before this. The idea of debuting the film at July’s Cannes festival couldn’t have been a secret to anyone involved. Why show it to Fremaux if interested parties weren’t open to the idea?

Here’s a 4.13.20 summary of a 30-minute video interview given by Joel Coen and Frances McDormand about The Tragedy of Macbeth. The piece is from The Film Stage‘s Jordan Raup.

I’ve been a huge fan of Polanski’s Macbeth for nearly all my moviegoing life.

If only Ruth Bader Ginsburg had stepped down in ’14 or ’15 and thereby allowed President Obama to nominate Merrick Garland (or someone similar) to fill her Supreme Court seat, we wouldn’t be in this mess. But she didn’t and here we are with Amy Coney Barrett sitting in Ginsburg’s chair, and Roe v. Wade, it appears, is about to be…well, not exactly struck down but diminished.

As I understand it, Roe v. Wade, which became law in 1973, said that states can’t outlaw abortions for any fetuses before they reach “fetal viability“, or roughly 23 or 24 weeks into a pregnancy.

Jesus, really? Roe says no abortions can be refused until after the fifth month and closer to five and a half? I somehow never quite absorbed this. If a woman decides against having a child, shouldn’t she have it aborted within a few weeks and certainly no later than two or three months, tops? Who waits five months to terminate a pregnancy? That’s fucked.

From “Supreme Court to Hear Abortion Case Challenging Roe v. Wade,” by Adam Liptak:

“The new case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392, concerns a law enacted by the Republican-dominated Mississippi legislature that banned abortions if ‘the probable gestational age of the unborn human’ was determined to be more than 15 weeks.

“The statute included narrow exceptions for medical emergencies or ‘a severe fetal abnormality.’

“Lower courts said the law was plainly unconstitutional under Roe, which forbids states from banning abortions before fetal viability.

“Mississippi’s sole abortion clinic sued, saying the law ran afoul of Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that affirmed Roe’s core holding.”

As I understand it, if the Supreme Court upholds Mississippi’s contested abortion law, the new reality would be that all abortions have to happen within 15 weeks. Honestly? That doesn’t sound all that crazy to me. A woman’s right to choose is assured — they’d simply have to abort no later than three and a half (nearly four) months into the pregnancy.

It became common knowledge a week ago that Bennifer or BLo (pronounced “Bee-Low”) is back on. Great…the most over-covered celebrity couple of the early aughts (’02 to ’04) has returned like Banquo’s ghost. Okay, fine…if they’re happy, they’re happy. I just don’t want to hear about them doing anything or going anywhere or attending anything or fighting…none of that.

There’s just one quoted remark from a People “source” that bothers me: “[Jennifer] spent several days with Ben out of town. They have a strong connection. It’s all been quick and intense, but Jennifer is happy.”

Shouldn’t it read “and Jennifer is happy”? If you’ve been with an ex-boyfriend for several days, you’ve done so because you’re both feeling the current and it’s all good and foretold…right? And if the connection is strong, it follows that it’s been “quick and intense” since the reunion only kicked off a couple of weeks ago…yes? So why would anyone say “but” — or despite all this — “Jennifer is happy”?

In short, the People “source” is suggesting that BLo 2.0 seems a little too hormonal and whirlwind for her taste, but Jennifer is nonetheless happy riding this bronco steed.

To go by a 5.16 N.Y. Times story about allegedly “questionable behavior” on the part of Bill Gates, it doesn’t sound as if the Microsoft honcho, while disloyal to his wife and apparently capable of behaving “badly”, was any kind of incorrigible, salivating sex hound.

The 5.16 story by Emily Flitter and Matthew Goldstein alleges that on at least two occasions Gates hit on (i.e., asked for dates with) a couple of women who technically worked for him, but apparently he wasn’t all that persistent about it. Gates didn’t score on either occasion.

It’s also been alleged that 14 or 15 years ago Gates emailed a female Microsoft employee whom he’d taken a shine to and suggested that they might share dinner. The story also reports that Gates “sought to initiate an intimate relationship with a company employee in the year 2000”….holy shit, 21 years ago!

Plus he palled around a bit with Jeffrey Epstein.

Unless the Epstein connection builds into something, the N.Y. Times seems to believe that mildly hitting on employees and mildly striking out is inherently harassment because Gates was the big boss. It seems as if the Times wants to bag him because SUPER RICH WHITE GUY.

Gates spokeswoman Bridgitt Arnold: “It is extremely disappointing that there have been so many untruths published about the cause, the circumstances and the timeline of Bill Gates’s divorce. Your characterization of his meetings with Epstein and others about philanthropy is inaccurate, including who participated. Similarly, any claim that Gates spoke of his marriage or Melinda in a disparaging manner is false. The claim of mistreatment of employees is also false. The rumors and speculation surrounding Gates’s divorce are becoming increasingly absurd, and it’s unfortunate that people who have little to no knowledge of the situation are being characterized as ‘sources.’”