It’s time to rectify the 1959 Oscars once and for all. Posthumously, of course, but better late than never. The winners of record will still retain their places in history, of course, but 60 years have passed and new perspectives have emerged, and it’s time to ratify this.
Charlton Heston gave a first-rate performance in Ben-Hur, and rode that film’s political coattails to win a Best Actor Oscar. But who watches that 1959 Biblical epic today to savor Heston’s emoting? The film is admired, justly, for the sea battle and chariot race sequences, for Robert Surtees‘ cinematography, and for the huge expensive sets. But HE has another Best Actor winner in mind.
This morning I re-read an HE review of Joel Edgerton‘s The Gift, which was initially posted on 8.9.15. It has some pretty good stuff in it, particularly about the psychology of Edgerton’s “Gordo the weirdo,” a creep who wants revenge because he endured a traumatic high-school episode that he never recovered from and which caused his life, he feels, to go downhill.
My basic reaction that was that anyone who believes that having a difficult time in high school will doom you to an unhappy, off-center life…well, that person is in love with losing to begin with. High school can be horrible, of course, but it’s just something to get through and escape from. It defines nothing.
Excerpt: The Gift is basically about a wounded psycho-loser (“Gordo the weirdo”) who skillfully insinuates himself into the life of Jason Bateman‘s Simon, a former high-school classmate who’s now a married, well-to-do security company executive, and who’s just moved to Los Angeles with his ultra-delicate dodo-bird wife (Rebecca Hall). And then, bit by bit, Gordo causes increasing paranoia and chaos.
“Simon, it turns out, is a manipulative amoral shitheel who ruined Gordo’s life in high school (or so Gordo believes) with a heartless gay-smear gossip campaign. We’re further informed that Simon is still fucking people over with loose gossip at work so it’s time for the chickens to come home to roost…right?
The basic idea is that if you did something cruel in high school you have to pay for this as an adult by being completely destroyed. ‘You might be done with the past,’ Gordo tells Simon, ‘but the past isn’t done with you.’ I’m sorry but that’s almost 100% bullshit.
“The dawn of every new day tells us to shed our old skins and fears and start anew. Many of us do that. Remnants of past errors or traumas may linger in this or that way (guilt, nightmares, self-destructive habits) but unless you’re a former murderer or child-molester healthy people move on. Sometimes they transcend.
“We’ve all done things we’re sorry for. I’ll never forgive myself for repeatedly whacking a turtle’s shell with a board when I was six or seven and causing the poor thing to bleed. (I thought it was a snapping turtle.) But you have to try to forgive yourself and try and grow into a better person. Unless…you know, you’re Josef Mengele and the only option is a black capsule.
Richard Jewell costar Olivia Wilde hasn’t exactly thrown director Clint Eastwood and screenwriter Billy Ray under the bus for having controversially suggested that Atlanta Journal Constitution reporter Kathy Scruggs exchanged sex for information from an FBI agent. But in a series of tweets she has certainly distanced herself from Eastwood and Ray, basically saying “hey, don’t look at me…I’m just an actor who’s paid to perform lines.”
Wilde tweet: “I cannot speak for the creative decisions made by the filmmakers, as I did not have a say in how the film was ultimately crafted, but it’s important to me that I share my personal take on the matter.”
Variety‘s Pat Saperstein has written that in Richard Jewell, Wilde/Scruggs “is shown sleeping with an FBI agent [played by Jon Hamm], who later gives her information that security guard Richard Jewell a suspect in the bombing at the Summer Olympics.” My recollection is that sex between Wilde/Scruggs and Hamm’s FBI agent is implied but not shown. Wilde says to Hamm “wanna get a room or do you want to go to my car?” or words to that effect.
The N.Y. Times and Twitter are saying that exit polls indicate that Boris Johnson‘s conservatives are headed for a majority. The win will “cement Mr. Johnson’s claim to 10 Downing Street, paving the way for Britain’s exit from the European Union in less than two months.” — N.Y. Times.
British urbans and outlying bumblefucks voted in pubs, churches, schools and other polling stations for their next government in this, the third general election since 2015.
“[The late] Agnes Varda used to say, ‘I’m not a female director. I am a woman, and I’m a director. Please, never pick up a film because it’s directed by a woman. Pick up a film because it’s a good film.” — Cannes Film Festival director Thierry Fremaux to Indiewire‘s Eric Kohn in 4.20.19 interview.
Eliza Hittman‘s Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Always, a teenage abortion drama, will debut at next month’s Sundance Film Festival. Focus Features will open the British-American co-production on 3.13.20. Hittman’s film shouldn’t be confused, however, with Carl Hunter and Frank Cottrell Boyce‘s Sometimes Always Never, a British-produced comedy-drama that opened a year ago. I’m not sure what Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Always alludes to exactly, but Sometimes Always Never, which is about a London tailor, refers to three-button suits.
In her 12.12 N.Y. Times review, Manohla Dargis calls Josh and Benny Safdie‘s Uncut Gems “fun if also wearying and at times annoying.”
I know Manohla to a certain extent and I know what it’s like to to write for the Times, and one of the basic rules is “always project a reasonable and moderate attitude…don’t allow feelings, particularly negative feelings, to overly influence your views or prose.” So when Manohla writes that Gems is “fun”, she’s trying to sound like a good sport and a fair-minded cineaste. Because her primary reaction, trust me, was basically “Jesus H. Christ, give me a fucking break already!” Distill that down into measured Times prose, and it comes out as “Uncut Gems is wearying and at times annoying.”
Posted by yours truly on 9.19.19: “Uncut Gems is a full-barrelled, deep dive into the realm of a manic, crazy-fuck gambler (Adam Sandler), and yes, it ‘feels like being locked inside the pinwheeling brain of a lunatic for more than two hours,” as Peter Debrugewrote. And guess what? It’ll make your head explode and drive you fucking nuts. By the time it’s over you’ll be drooling and jabbering and gasping for air.”
Manohla again: “It’s easier to admire than to love, and I hate the ending, but the Safdies clearly like working your nerves.”
Really, Manohla? I loved the ending! I’m not going to say what happens, but it’s the one thing in the film that made me go “yes!” and “thank God!”
Another Manohla excerpt: “The dusty, enigmatic opener in Uncut Gems drolly echoes the start of The Exorcist (’73), where a priest at an archaeological dig in Iraq unearths the demonic relic that sets off the ensuing horror, the possession and spewing vomit. The magical discovery here is made by two Ethiopian miners, who sneak away from the bedlam to dig out a huge black opal that soon ends up in [Sandler’s] possession, though not for long.”
After reading this I was inspired to re-watch the Exorcist‘s Irag prologue. The craft levels alone — photography, editing, dusty atmosphere — are at least 16 or 17 times better than the opening of Uncut Gems. The simple truth is that early ’70s William Friedkin kicks the pipsqueak, nickle-and-dime asses of both Safdies…forget about it. Sandler and others have affectionately called the Safdies “crazy.” Well, so was Friedkin during his heyday, but he was also a craftsman of a much higher order.
Sometime later today, right? I distinctly remember watching the House Judiciary Committee vote on one or two articles for Nixon’s impeachment. There were three votes, in fact, in late July 1974 — On 7.27, 7.29, and 7.30. The articles were for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress. These were reported to the House of Representatives for a vote, but after the release of the “Smoking Gun” tape Nixon’s Senate support collapsed for the most part, and he resigned on 8.9.74.
Trump’s impeachment will definitely be passed by the House, but Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republican slimeballs have no intention of even holding a Senate trial, much less coming to the obvious conclusion that Trump is an unfit sociopath and needs to be removed. Senate Republicans want to hold “a short impeachment trial early next year that would include no witnesses,” according to a 12.11 Washington Post article by Seung Min Kim, Paul Kane and Rachael Bade, because they believe “it would be better to limit the trial and quickly vote to acquit Trump.”
I’ve asked before if this or that classic film of the ’60s, ’70s or ’80s could be remade today. Most of the time the answer is “no, it probably couldn’t be.” Because the stories are too dated or present-day culture might find the premise unwelcome or out of bounds. And so it may be that John Boorman‘s Deliverance (’72), released 47 and 1/2 years ago, will never be remade. It’s a film that was right…hell, perfect for its time, but would probably not be right for ours. Sometimes it’s better to leave well enough alone.
I’m getting a queasy feeling from this trailer for Emerald Fennell‘s Promising Young Woman (Focus Features, 4.17.20), which will debut at Sundance ’20. Some kind of dry, deadpan satire about…what? A woman (Carey Mulligan) who brings pain into the lives of average schlubs who take an interest in her…something like that? Humiliation? She’s marking off what in the little book? All the guys look and talk like jerks, but why the disproportionate decision to make them all pay for what happened to her in med school? There’s definitely something “off” about this film…something not right.
The N.Y. Times‘ Megan Twohey and Jodi Kantor are reporting that Harvey Weinstein and the board of his bankrupt film studio “have reached a tentative $25 million settlement agreement with dozens of his alleged sexual misconduct victims.”
These are civil cases that have no apparent bearing on Harvey’s still-pending criminal cases, which may or may not fall by the wayside also. Who knows?
The deal “would not require the Hollywood producer to admit wrongdoing or pay anything to his accusers himself, according to lawyers involved in the negotiations.”
“More than 30 actresses and former Weinstein employees, who in lawsuits have accused Mr. Weinstein of offenses ranging from sexual harassment to rape, would share in the payout along with potential claimants who could join in coming months. The deal would bring to an end nearly every such lawsuit against him and his former company.”
Who knows what “more than 30” means but let’s say there are 35 alleged victims/plaintiffs at the end of the day. $25 million divided by 35 = $714,285 per victim.
Times: “The settlement would require court approval and a final signoff by all parties. It would be paid by insurance companies representing the producer’s former studio, the Weinstein Company. Because the business is in bankruptcy proceedings, the women have had to make their claims along with its creditors.
“The payout to the accusers would be part of an overall $47 million settlement intended to close out the company’s obligations, according to a half-dozen lawyers, some of whom spoke about the proposed terms on the condition of anonymity.”
How could a Star Wars devotee — someone who identifies with the rebels and despises the empire — be a Trump supporter? How could anyone imagine that Trump, a thick-fingered vulgarian full of arrogant swagger, be analogized by Stars Wars fans as anything other than a Darth baddie?
And yet there seems to be a fair number of Trump supporters who believe in The Force, and have lately taken offense at Daisy Ridley for saying that “everyone has an issue with Trump — every sane person anyway.”
