Jeff and Tatiana in a brief discussion about Ridley Scott‘s House of Gucci (11.24, UA Releasing). A presumably sophisticated (and possibly darkly satiric) nest of vipers melodrama + a serving of Northern Italian wealth porn. Based on Sara Gay Forden‘s “The House of Gucci: A Sensational Story of Murder, Madness, Glamour, and Greed.” Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Jared Leto, Jeremy Irons, Jack Huston, Salma Hayek, Al Pacino, etc.
slider
“But It’s, Like, So Stressful…”
the #dontlookup teaser for anyone that missed (sorry for the quality) pic.twitter.com/gSaYCmaUeK
— ☁️ (@caladanarrakis) August 1, 2021
Lost The Mojo, Let You Down
Tweeted two days ago by @GrahamB47 (with grammar improved by HE): “Name a director whom you went all in for at first but whom you’ve since moved past, either because they dropped the ball or your relationship to their work changed. NOT for ‘being a creep/criminal’ reasons.”
HE answer: Terrence Malick, hands down. And if I may interject the opposite, there’s one director who not only didn’t let me down but delivered one of his greatest-ever films at age 85 or thereabouts — Roman Polanski.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Officer_and_a_Spy_(film)
Jordan Ruimy: Oliver Stone, James Cameron, M. Night Shyamalan, Terry Gilliam, Tim Burton.

Eyeglasses Shouldn’t Overwhelm
Instead they should gracefully complement or enhance. Bill Maher‘s new glasses (dark, thickish frames) are too domineering. They don’t work with his features — the glasses say “look at us first, and then Bill’s face.” One look and you’re thinking “uptight, stuffed-shirt, resident zoologist glasses.” Like the ones Cary Grant wore in Bringing Up Baby.
If you want thickish, distinctive frames you should go with cool colors — solid blue or red. And maybe go with adjustable amber- or gray-tinted lenses. Black frames, trust me, are too “Gig Young in the late ’50s.” They make Maher look bookish, and they add five or ten years.


Sandbag Cosh
About a decade ago I was friendly with a Southern conservative woman who never went anywhere without her loaded Glock. Always in her handbag or the glove compartment of her car. She loved how it made her feel — safe, protected — but was she actually ready to kill someone who might try to rob her or worse?
Imagine waking up each morning and thinking “this might be the day when some bad guy will try something and I’ll have no choice but to shoot his lights out.” Imagine carrying that idea in your head all the time.
Leaving aside the idea of homeowners keeping a loaded weapon in their bedroom closet to protect their families from whatever (which I understand), I suspect that pistol-packing conservatives are more turned on by the idea of “carrying” than anything else. Packing heat makes them feel like a secret Dirty Harry, and this feeling somehow completes them on some emotional level. Guns, I believe, have become a totem — a symbol of potency or a willingness to stand their ground should push ever come to shove. A gun makes an owner feel like a member of some kind of steady-as-she-goes, right-thinking fraternity..
How many weaponized righties are actually ready and willing to shoot a bad guy? Very few, I’m guessing, and probably fewer than that. For most of them the notion that they might use it, that they could if their hand was forced with no way out, is what soothes or satisfies.
I’ve been shoved from time to time, but I haven’t been in an actual fist fight since my late teens, and the odds of getting into any kind of altercation these days are close to nonexistent. I don’t drink or even “go out”, for one thing, and I can’t recall the last time I visited a Patrick Swayze tough-guy bar. Plus you never know how hair-trigger crazy a would-be opponent is, especially in these crazy times. Plus I wouldn’t want to risk getting my fingers snapped or swollen, as this would hinder my daily writing. Plus I’m not in good enough shape these days to fight anyone more than 15 or 20 seconds.
But I like the idea (and I mean the “idea”) of carrying a sandbag cosh. The kind, you know, that Tim Roth carried around in Stephen Frears‘ The Hit. As a totem, mind — a weapon I’d almost certainly never use but could theoretically use if, say, some kind of brute threat were to manifest. So yes, I’ll admit it — I like the idea of carrying one of these guys around. And it’s a far less crazy notion that carrying a loaded pistol.
Will I go so far as to actually buy one of these things? I’m mulling this over as we speak.


Read The Oppenheim
I’ve had this feeling all along that Pablo Larrain‘s Jackie, which is just about five years old now, somehow underserved the mystique of the great JFK mourning weekend (11.22.63 to 11.25.63). I was seriously impressed by Noah Oppenheim’s 2010 screenplay, which was originally going to be directed by Darren Aronofsky with Rachel Weisz playing Jackie Kennedy. Oppenheim told the story of what happened that weekend and pretty much how it went down a beat-for-beat, conversation-by-conversation basis,
At the time it seemed brash and brilliant for director Pablo Larrain, who took over the project sometime in ’15, to forsake the historical and sidestep that mass memory and not deliver a rote recap of what Mrs. Kennedy, only 34 at the time, went through that weekend, but to make a kind of art film — to give her portrait a kind of anxious, fevered, interior feeling.
Which is why I wrote that Jackie really is “the only docudrama about the Kennedy tragedy that can be truly called an art film…it feels somewhat removed from the way that the events of that weekend looked and felt a half-century ago…intimate, half-dreamlike and cerebral, but at the same time a persuasive and fascinating portrait of what Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy (Natalie Portman) went through between the lunch-hour murder of her husband in Dallas and his burial at Arlington National Cemetery three days later.
But after re-watching Jackie a couple of weeks ago I went back and re-read a draft of Oppenheim’s script, which is a whole different bird than Larrain’s film. Pablo cut out a lot of characters and a lot of interplay and a general sense of “this is how it happened” realism, and focused almost entirely on Jackie’s interior saga.
And honestly? I discovered that I liked Oppenheim’s version of the tale a little more than Pablo’s.
The script is more of a realistic ensemble piece whereas Larrain’s film is about what it was like to be in Jackie’s head. I respect Larrain’s approach, mind, but I felt closer to the realm of Oppenheim’s script. I believed in the dialogue more. The interview scenes between Theodore H. White (played by Billy Crudup in the film) and Jackie felt, yes, more familiar but at the same time more realistic, more filled-in. I just felt closer to it. I knew this realm, these people.
Am I expressing a plebian viewpoint? Yes, I am. I’m saying I slightly prefer apparent realism, familiarity and emotion to Larrain’s arthouse aesthetic.
Obvious Best Actor Nom for Will Smith
Great achievement in almost any field is always about the forsaking of easy, casual pleasures, and is always the result of fire in the belly, serious devotion, relentless discipline, hardcore thinking, early to bed and early to rise, etc. And if you don’t have those rigors in your own mind and system, you damn well need someone who (a) cares, (b) believes in you and (c) will crack the whip.
King Richard (Warner Bros., 11.19) is the fact-based story of how Richard Williams pushed and shaped his daughters, Venus and Serena Williams, into becoming tennis superstars. The trailer for suggests straight, focused naturalism, which is what everyone wants anyway.
You know Smith will be Best Actor nominated — locked.
The director is Reinaldo Marcus Green (Monsters and Men, Joe Bell). The script is by Zach Baylin.

