HE filing from 8:30 am to 12:30 pm. Left for Sonoma and parts surrounding around 1 pm. A brutal drive through clogged East Bay traffic…80 (Oakland Bay bridge) to 580 to 101, etc. Tatyana did some wine tasting ** at the Artesa Winery, which is located amid the usual greenish brown vineyard hills; the main structure overlooks everything in the region and even allows you to see San Francisco in the distance. Then over to Sonoma (I haven’t attended the Sonoma Film Festival for a good six or seven years) and the usual roaming around. Then over to Petaluma, down the 101 and back to the city.
Couple this with the outraged pushback that followed the snubbing of Little Women by the Golden Globes as well as SAG and you have one of the most impassioned and sustained arguments for Oscar justice in award-season history, and the most ardent since…what, the foreign language committee snubbing of Four Months, Three Weeks, Two Days?
Maslin’s 12.21 tweet identified what she saw as a basic attitude blockage on the part of dudes towards Gerwig’s film. Which had manifested, she said, in a refusal or reluctance to see it, based on insect antennae vibrations they’d been picking up.
On the same day “El Friendo” sent a response to Maslin, attempting to explain that the insect antennae readings are based upon something real, and that guys are not the problem but the film is. Here it is again:
“So I’m the problem if I don’t include Little Women on my best-of-the-year list, per Maslin. Because I’m a guy?
“Per Maslin, I am not allowed to say the performances were fine but the William S. Burroughs cut-up approach to the narrative, and the decision to lay wall-to-wall music over every scene to make up for the emotional dissonance of the fractured narrative didn’t work for me.
“Yes, I’m to blame for not approving of and/or not being thrilled by these creative decisions. Because I’m a guy.
“Little Women flat-ass doesn’t work mostly because Amy Pascal indulged Greta Gerwig in a stupid idea. Had the exact same movie been produced at Disney, they would have said ‘No William Burroughs bullshit; and maybe even dialed the stupid music score mouthwash back from drowning every fucking scene.”
Question: What’s the one thing you must never, ever say to a filmmaker? Answer: “I didn’t much care for your film…sorry.”
I’ve confessed this to a very small number of directors and screenwriters over the years, and each and every time their response has been a kind of silence that conveys “I don’t know you any more” or “you don’t exist”.
All they know is, you’ve just told them that a beloved child that they’ve sired and nurtured for months or years and then fed and disciplined and raised as best they could…all they know is that you think their child is ugly or maladjusted or a beast of some kind.
They would much rather have you lie or half-lie to them and tell them half-truths and emphasize any positive thing you can think of or invent. They don’t want anything straight from the shoulder. At all.
So why after all these decades have I continued to occasionally level with this or that filmmaker from time to time? Because I respect them, and I can’t bear the idea of lying to them. So I tell them what I think in the gentlest and most diplomatic terms I can come up with, and their response is always “why didn’t you lie to me, asshole?”
(l. to r.) Directors Roundtable guys Noah Baumbach, Greta Gerwig, Fernando Meirelles, Martin Scorsese, Lulu Wang, Todd Phillips.
A couple of months ago I sent a letter to a filmmaker I greatly respect. I wasn’t a huge fan of the new film, and rather than tap-dance around the truth I thought it would be respectful to lay it on the kitchen table in plain but gentle terms.
“No one has been a bigger, more devoted fan of your uniquely self-owned work and creations than myself,” I said, listing three or four films that I’ve quite admired.
“It is therefore with a heavy heart and nothing but remorse that I must share my subdued reaction to [film title]. I’m sad to say that it’s a tradition-breaker. I’m very sorry. I appreciate what your strategy was, and I felt your personality in it, and I loved [this or that portion]…I can only say or rationalize that this kind of thing happens now and then to the best of filmmakers and the most robust of talents.
I concluded with “onward and upward…new challenges, new hills to capture, new dreams to explore, etc.”
I never got a response, but I was told by a go-between that my letter wasn’t appreciated.
In response to this Joker director Todd Phillips says, “That’s the worst.” And Gerwig replies, “It wasn’t for me. Go fuck yourselves!” And everybody has a good laugh.
Every honest critic and comment-threader has said he/she was aware of CG de-aging manipulation in the early stages of The Irishman, but that they gradually forgot about it. Or accepted it the way we all accept performances in which an actor wears a wig (Jack Nicholson in Prizzi’s Honor) or a fake nose (Nicole Kidman in The Hours) or what-have-you.
I don’t know how many millions were spent on Irishman CG but honestly? On my 15″ Macbook Air the iFake version looks better. It’s a lower resolution version and it screams CG finessing, of course, but given what it is, it looks better.
What kind of money do you suspect that the iFake guy spent compared to what Scorsese and Netflix spent? When I first heard of the intention to de-age De Niro, I was expecting to see a version of his Vito Corleone from The Godfather, Part II. I didn’t, of course. The iFake versions look like CG, of course, but DeNiro and Pacino look younger, smoother, etc. If I was willing to accept the uncanny valley thing that Scorsese delivered, how much more difficult would be to accept the iFake version?
Youtube comment (Mr. Coatsworth): “This looks really good for freeware, but it won’t hold up on a cinema screen or 4K television. I saw The Irishman in the theater and, while there were moments where the CGI on De Niro and Pesci was obvious, Al Pacino never looked the least bit fake, in my opinion. It was amazing. Your Al Pacino de-aging looks very obviously like the face is just pasted in. All in all yours look very blurry, but of course for the amount of time and money you spent, excellent work!”
Die Hard is a two-word movie title, and you should probably post a period after typing “PERIODT.” Always tweet carefully, cautiously. Give it a once-over before posting.
Director Tom Hooper hadn’t fully finished Cats when it was time to duplicate prints, so he completed the job a few days later. And now Universal is sending out DCPs and satellite feeds of the corrected version (i.e., one in which Judi Dench has cat paws instead of human hands) to theatres.
“An unheard-of move for a finished film already in release,” THR‘s Pamela McClintockderisively snorted. But if you were in Hooper’s shoes wouldn’t you do the same?
I stayed awake throughout last week’s all-media screening of Cats, and I didn’t notice Dench’s naked hand, much less her wedding ring. Or maybe I noticed it and shrugged it off. (HE in 12th row at Chinese plex: “Dench has a human hand…aahh, whatevs.”)
Many films haven’t really been finished (at least in the minds of their directors) until after their commercial opening. Steven Spielberg‘s Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Oliver Stone‘s Alexander, etc.
I’ve told this story two or three times, but sometime in the late winter or early spring of ’83 I flew from New York to Los Angeles for a job interview, and during the visit I went out to Universal studios to poke around. I wound up climbing a chain-link fence and walking onto a sound stage where, lo and behold, Scarface was being shot. The huge set contained a portion of Tony Montana‘s Miami mansion — the upstairs office, the red-carpeted foyer and staircase, a portion of the white-painted exterior with royal palm trees outside.
Hanging on a wall near the base of the staircase was a fairly large (at least six or seven feet tall) oil portrait of Al Pacino‘s Tony and Michelle Pfeiffer‘s Elvira Hancock. I’m no authority on oil portraits, but it looked like an absolutely first-rate effort. Someone had taken the time to make it look like a serious artist (one who knew from color and shadow and subtle gradations) had worked on it. In the film the painting is seen for maybe 1.5 seconds, if that.
I’ve long wondered what happened to this grand portrait. Did Brian DePalma or [the late] producer Marty Bregman make off with it? Online you can buy cheap knockoff versions with bullet holes, but the real thing was quite impressive.
Signed, sealed, delivered, done — Jennifer Hudson as Aretha Franklin for Best Actress. Unless, you know, Respect (United Artists, 10.9) turns out to be on the same level as Kasi Lemmons‘ Harriet and is more or less dismissed. But if it turns out to be even half-decent, Hudson is a lock — Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles all over again.
Directed by Liesl Tommy, Respect will presumably include a depiction of how the recording of “I’ve Never Loved A Man” came together at Alabama’s Muscle Shoals recording studio. The savior was session man Spooner Oldham, who came up with the Wurlitzer riff that made that song work from the get-go.
If Respect doesn’t have this scene, forget it. The episode was passed along in Magnolia Pictures’ Muscle Shoals, a 2013 documentary.
“For the Republicans who have fallen in line with him…I don’t understand that. It’s a disgrace. It’s beyond a disgrace. Shame on them. Shame on all of them. They’ve lost, to me, all reason. They have an obligation and a duty to stand up to this guy…”
“I know I live in New York and I’m living in a certain world. It’s not out there in the Midwest and other parts of the country. But there’s right and there’s wrong. I know when I see what’s being done, that’s wrong. And those people are supposed to represent us and they are supposed to know and stand up for what’s right in the country and they’re not doing that.”
“[Kevin] McCarthy, Lindsey Graham. Shame on them. What are their families, what are their grandkids — if they have any, I don’t know — but it’s it’s it’s awful.” — Robert De Niro, excerpted from episode 4 of “Rumble with Michael Moore.” The good stuff starts around the 6:30 mark.
De Niro: “The only thing [Trump has] done, the only contribution I see that he’s given to this country and the world is that he’s taught us that we can never allow it to happen again.”
HE to De Niro: In all honesty, if fair-minded humanists and Democrats want to make sure that a Trump-like figure never happens again, never again nominate an elite, well-honeyed, insulated, baggy-eyed, obviously non-charismatic person like Hillary Clinton to be president. Trump wasn’t elected because he seemed like such a wonderful guy — he was elected in part because the bumblefucks hated Hillary.
I recently bought Criterion’s Tunes of GloryBluray. I felt such holiday excitement as I popped it in, sitting on an ottoman with a cup of warm cider and anticipating some kind of luscious, old-school color bath, and in my favorite aspect ratio of 1.66:1…perfect!
Naturally I expected a “bump” of some kind — some kind of visual upgrade that would make this 1960 Ronald Neame film look like dessert. This is what Blurays are supposed to deliver, after all — versions of well-known films that look a little better than ever before, like they came straight from the lab, all fresh and gleaming. If Neame was somehow sitting beside me I would want him to exclaim, “My God, it’s never looked so good…heaven!”
Alas, the Criterion guys don’t necessarily believe in bumps. They deliver them frequently, but not always. Sometimes they get into one of their pissy moods and decide to throw a change-up.
Within five or ten minutes of watching their Tunes of Glory Bluray, I knew I’d been burned.
Sometimes Arthur Ibbetson‘s cinematography would look sufficient or, as some say, “good enough”; at other times it looked vaguely washed out and in one or two portions almost absurdly grainy. And it certainly lacked any semblance of what I would call sharpness.
Most of the time I felt as if I was watching a 16mm print bring projected onto somebody’s living room wall.
If you want to adopt a go-along attitude you could say it looks fine for the most part. There’s nothing “wrong” with the appearance of this 59 year-old British film except for the fact that it looks completelyunexceptional and therefore hugelydisappointing.
From Gary Tooze’s recently posted DVD Beaver review: “It shifts quite dramatically from the weak SD but never looks crisp or glossy, maintaining the film’s grit and grain textures to the significantly higher degree offered by the HD resolution. There is an inherent softness and lackofdepth that can give the perception of losing detail — it looks far more film-like in motion. I do see that it is slightly cropped on both side edges of the frame as compared to the old DVD. Overall the digital presentation gains significantly on the 4K restored Bluray.”
HE response: It’s fine but underwhelming…be honest! A first-rate transfer that will put you to sleep.
Criterion’s Tunes of Glory Bluray was restored in 2018 by The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences Film Archive and The Film Foundation in collaboration with Janus Films and The Museum of Modern Art. Restoration funding provided by George Lucas Family Foundation. The 35mm Eastman Color original camera negative and 35mm optical track positive are the sources of this digital restoration. 4K Scanning and Image Restoration by FotoKem Audio Restoration by Audio Mechanics.
Everyone is hot to see The Many Saints of Newark (Warner Bros., 9.25.20), otherwise known as the Sopranos prequel. It won’t open for another nine months, but it’s been research-screened a couple of times. It’s no run-of-the-mill crime drama, and I’m guessing it’ll play at one or more of the three major fall film festivals (Venice, Telluride, Toronto) of 2020. The Toronto gathering ends on 9.20 — Many Saints opens five days later.
