25 years with Bernie Madoff and she never suspected? Bunk. At the very least she had intuitions, gut feelings, hairs on the back of her neck, little devils and angels whispering in her ears.
In an attempt to dodge a death sentence, attorneys for Aurora theatre shooter James Holmes are reportedly offering a guilty plea in exchange for life imprisonment. But why would prosecutors accept this? I’m no Judge Roy Bean but don’t most of us agree that exceptionally heinous killers ought to pay the ultimate price so that society feels that some kind of justice has been served?
If anyone deserves to be smoked it’s Holmes so I don’t get it. What’s the problem with going for the death penalty? Are prosecutors afraid he’ll get some kind of lesser sentence by claiming insanity? What kind of a system allows a fiend like this free room and board for the next 50-odd years as punishment for mass murder? Shoot him. Or better yet, chain him to a theatre seat and make him watch ten flicks in a row, knowing that during one of the screenings two or three guys will come in suddenly and blow him away with rifle fire. Or give him the guillotine. Or throw him into an alligator pit. But no coddling. Be severe and unforgiving.
Last night I saw Morgan Neville‘s Twenty Feet From Stardom for the second time, and got off on it just as much as I did at Sundance. It has highs, tears, sadnesses, ecstasies, golden oldies and unsuppressable emotional currents. But this portrait of insufficiently heralded backup singers throws a lot of faces, names, careers and personal histories into your lap. The film needs a one-stop-shopping, easy-reference website that tells you who everyone is but right now it only has a Facebook page and a Twitter handle.
The leading lights in 20 Feet From Stardom (l. to r.) Darlene Love, Tata Vega, Merry Clayton, Judith Hill, Lisa Fischer.
The doc focuses on six women — Darlene Love, Lisa Fischer, Merry Clayton, Judith Hill, Claudia Lennear and Tata Vega.
Just hang on to these six names, reference their faces above and their personal websites or Wiki pages — Love, Fischer, Clayton, Hill, Lennear (who mainly teaches for a living these days) and Vega.
From my 1.18.13 mini-riff: “Pic is a snappy, joyful, deeply emotional doc about the career agonies and ecstasies of soul-angel backup singers.
“These ladies have belted out every backup ‘ooh, yayuh-yaaaay!’ and ‘ooh-wah’ and ‘babaaay!’ you’ve ever heard, and — this is the main point of the film — have much more in their quiver. They’re all as rippin’ and soulful as any Aretha Franklin or Mariah Carey or whomever, but none has ever built a strong solo career.
“This is the melancholy that runs through Twenty Feet From Stardom, but Neville has crafted a killer tribute and brought back the spotlight. This is live-wire stuff, an audience film, a winner.
“Twenty Feet takes you back to every Motown and Phil Spector tune that ever mattered, to this and that Joe Cocker song, to David Bowie‘s ‘Young Americans’ (‘Aahhhhllll night!’) and especially to Clayton’s legendary solo on the Rolling Stones‘ “Gimme Shelter”…knockout stuff! The talking heads include Bruce Springsteen, Bette Midler and Mick Jagger.”
I loved re-watching Andrew Dominik‘s Killing Me Softly on Bluray last week (for me that brilliant ending is almost the entire ball game), and I also kind of loved that Dominik was not especially gregarious during our phoner. By this I mean he wasn’t the least bit affected. He apparently doesn’t like interviews and after a fashion was simply being copping to this.
I was shocked by that unusually harsh Cinemascore grade that Killing Me Softly got when it opened last December. It deserved at least a little more love than it got, which amounted to $15,026,056 domestic and $35,583,240 worldwide.
And I apologize for either forgetting or being ignorant about Dominik’s possible next project, a Marilyn Monroe biopic “starting at age 7 and ending with her death,” as he put it. It would be an adaptation of Joyce Carol Oates‘ Blonde, a script for which Dominik began writing in 2009 without locking down the rights.
Here, again, is our brief phoner.
At the end of the day I don’t think it’s very healthy or attractive to go around writing people off or downgrading them for certain behaviors or style choices. But I’ve mentioned a few. Anyone who giggles like a 13 year-old girl in a theatre lobby or a parking garage after watching a really good film. People who repeatedly laugh like hyenas in bars or cafes, shrieking with hideous gaiety. Anyone who wears gold-toe socks. Gay guys who insist on entertaining their neighbors at 7:30 am with repeated playings of “Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go.”
Now I feel obliged to mention a new one, although I need to make clear it’s not much of an issue. It’s a very minor thing at best, but people who stand with their feet spread outwards at angles of 35 or 45 degrees as opposed to roughly parallel, and who also walk or run this way have always vaguely bothered me. I’ve heard the term “duck feet” to describe this but maybe that’s an incorrect term. I know that outward-angled feet have always indicated that the owner is a bit of a yokel. I see someone standing in this fashion and it’s same thing as visiting their home and spotting an old car mounted on cinder blocks in the back yard.
Either way it’s no biggie and hardly worth mentioning. I’m only bringing it up because I’ve never brought it up in my life, under any circumstance. But as God as my witness I can distinctly remember having a problem with people who stand like this when I was eight or nine. So I’ve been carrying it around for decades.
I’d like to tick off five or six famous names who stand or walk like this, but only Tom Cruise comes to mind. Watch his legs and feet when he runs in Collateral. But again, it’s not a problem. Just a minor mood mosquito.
Richie Aprile was shot by Janice Soprano in “The Knight in White Satin Armour,” which aired on 4.2.00 as the twelfth show in the 2nd season — almost 11 years ago. Time sure flies along, doesn’t it? I dearly love the way Janice’s younger brother enters very cautiously, like an animal approaching sleeping prey, and then strokes his chin when he realizes what’s happened.
I swear to God this series made me feel so at home, like I was sitting in a suburban New Jersey diner somewhere with friends on a Friday evening or Saturday morning. It made me feel wise and comfortable and secure while fully reminding me in each episode of all the plagues and anxieties.
I understand and accept that you can’t call up and order great dramas like takeout. Profound art has no pre-set conditions and timetables. There’s no dependability — it happens when it happens and when it’s in the mood. (And when it’s not, like when David Chase made Not Fade Away, too effin’ bad.) It’s entirely possible there won’t be another bull’s-eye series quite like The Sopranos ever again. And that’s fine. The Next Big Thing will have its own flavor and rhyme and attitude. But I still miss The Sopranos from time to time. The heart grows fonder.
It ended almost six years ago, in June 2007.
The author of War of the Worlds, of course, is/was H.G. Wells. But way back in 1953 some wall-painter or poster-maker got the idea that his name was H.G. Well. Then the manager looked up and said one of two things: (a) “Lookin’ good!” or (b) “Jesus, some idiot got the name wrong. But you know what? I’m not paying some union guy to go up to the roof with a scaffold and then lower himself down and charge me a full daily rate just to change a single letter and the position of an apostrophe. Eff that.”
I have to admit that the destruction effects here are pretty good, especially that jaggedy shot of the U.S. Capitol dome collapsing in flames. At the very least this looks like a much grander, pricier and more eye-popping film than Olympus Has Fallen, you bet.
It’s been reported by NY Post critic/columnist Lou Lumenick as well as HighDef Digest that Warner Home Video will release that Shane Bluray that I’ve been complaining about on Tuesday, June 4th. Regretfully, the aspect ratio will be 1.66 and not 1.37, which is how this 1953 George Stevens classic was shot and meant to be seen. The decision to ignore this fact and present a reconstituted Shane is a very bad thing, and there should be a hue and cry about it, dammit.
I don’t care how expertly WHV’s Shane Bluray has been mastered for 1.66. It will present a version with missing gun belts and dog legs cut off and missing boots and slightly lowered skylines. It’s wrong and WHV knows it.
If WHV wants to release Shane at 1.66 for commercial purposes, fine, but for decency’s sake and particularly out of respect for the vision of George Stevens and his dp Loyal Griggs they need to make the 1.37 version available via Warner Archives.
There is absolutely no basis for any debate on this. I am 100% correct and that’s that. Again — read what I wrote before. And then read the two discussions about this matter on Home Theatre Forum — discussion #1 and discussion #2. Shane was shot in 1.37 and should be at least concurrently presented on Bluray at that aspect ratio along with the 1.66 version.
Respected archivist Bob Furmanek has written on HTF that Shane “was clearly composed for 1.37:1. I prefer to see it in that ratio. I feel that is how it should be seen.”
Restoration guru Robert Harris says on HTF that “while I would love to also see the film in 1.37, the 1.66 has been formatted on a shot-by-shot basis, as opposed to locking in at a 1.66 center and running. George Stevens, Jr., whom I trust implicitly, has approved. He was not only on set for the shoot in 1951, but also, rumor has it, knew the director reasonably well. Hopefully, a dual format release can occur, as the data would have been completed both ways.”
From my HTF post: “George Stevens and dp Loyal Griggs shot Shane at 1.37 — that is a stone fact. Between July and October of 1951. Before anyone had ever heard of or even conceptualized 1.66. It was never intended to be seen at 1.66 by its makers, period.
“Has George Stevens, Jr. done an impeccable job of making the 1.66 Bluray version look as good as possible by balancing the visual elements and not chopping heads off and whatnot? Almost certainly, I’m told. But did his father and Loyal Griggs compose for 1.66? No, they did not.
“The 1.66 theatrical release of Shane in April 1953 was a studio mandate. We’ve got to look bigger and broader than TV. Get on board or else. The industry was up in arms against TV. A huge Battle Cry. Wider and bigger, wider and bigger.
“Do you suppose that the 1953-era Paramount studio chiefs went to Stevens and said, ‘Whaddaya think, George? Is it okay with you & your dp if we whack the tops and bottoms off the film that you guys shot? We won’t do it if you say no.’
“Seriously — what was Stevens going to say or do? Be Patrick Henry and fall on his sword while crying 1.37 or death? He was a political animal like all studio directors, trying to swim and stay afloat and stay viable.
“How in the world can anyone be against urging WHV to present the film as it was framed and shot to Bluray viewers? How could it possibly be a problem to urge a concurrent release via Warner Archives of the real Shane (i.e., the 1.37 version)? George Stevens, Jr. told me a while back that he prepared a highdef/Bluray version of same. It’s there to be issued. How could this possibly be a problem for anyone who cares about this film?
“As the Bluray has no doubt been pressed and duplicated and locked down by now, I’m going to send a letter out tomorrow to every person of any importance in the Bluray/home video/archive & restoration community, asking that they sign a letter urging Warner Home Video to issue a concurrent 1.37 Shane Bluray via Warner Archives.
“Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, the heads of the American Cinematheque, AFI, BFI, Robert Harris, Bob Furmanek, Scott Foundas, Todd McCarthy, Robert Osborne and the people behind the TCM Classic Film Festival, Tom Luddy, Gary Meyer, all the restoration guys in the community, Home Theatre Forum, Digital Bits, Highdef Digest, the Film Foundation…everyone of note who could or would care about seeing a Bluray of George Stevens’ film as it was actually framed and shot in 1951.
“And not some bizarre studio-slice version that did not and never will represent what Stevens and Griggs captured on the set. You can cut the pie ten or fifteen different ways and it still comes down to that rock-solid fact.”
HTF commenter Pete Apruzzese: “I hear is going to reframe Maltese Falcon for a new 1.85 version since the film played that way during reissues. I’m sure he’ll honor his father’s vision and that HTF will support his decision. Time to change the HTF mission statement — if a relative of the director does the change to the aspect ratio, then it’s okay.”
A HTF contributor who calls himself Eastmancolor has written the following:
“I’ve seen Shane many times over the years, not only on VHS, laserdisc and DVD, but also on 16mm and 35mm film. Even in previous 35mm screening held here in Los Angeles, I’ve never seen the film shown in a 1.66 aspect ratio. Never.
“As has been discussed, the only reason the film was ever shown in 1.66 was to satisfy the marketing department at Paramount in 1953. And except for screenings around that time (and only in certain venues) was the film ever shown publicly in that ratio?
“The film all of us know and love has primarily been shown in 1.37. That’s also how the original creators of the film wanted it shown.
“1.37 should be a no-brainer.
“The argument for modifying the film to a 1.66 ratio is more to satisfy the folks who want every inch (or almost every inch) of their 16×9 hi-def television screens filled. It’s this same lunacy that’s ruined the presentation of many CinemaScope ratio films. Warner Bros especially loves to take both their new and old scope films and modify them to 1.78, ruining the original screen compositions. Try watching East of Eden on Netlix or Amazon streaming. After the widescreen opening credits at 2.55 they zoom in to 1.78, thus making the film about as unwatchable as those old 1.33 pan and scan jobs from decades earlier.
“Now they want to modify Shane, only cropping off the top and bottom instead of the sides.
“The whole point of of letterboxing in the past has been to preserve the original intent of the filmmakers. This upcoming pillarboxing of Shane goes against what the filmmakers intended. It was only what the pencil pushers in the front office at Paramount intended in 1953. I would no more think of purchasing a 1.66 version of Shane than I would a 2.1 version of Gone With The Wind, but that’s how that film was released to theaters in the 1960’s.
“At the very least, both a 1.37 and the 1.66 presentations of Shane should be offered on the Bluray. The studios love to give us newer films with a Bluray, DVD and Digital copy in the same package. Having two presentations of Shane shouldn’t be too difficult.”
I wonder what kind of language system is being used in the filming of George Clooney‘s Monuments Men as the World War II-era film has German, French and American characters. Will everyone speak English with differing native accents as the characters did in John Frankenheimer‘s The Train (’64) and Edward Dymytryk‘s The Young Lions (’58), or will the character speak their native language with subtitles? Or will the character ignore accents as they did in Bryan Singer‘s Valkyrie? Phony and illogical as it always sounds, I suspect that most audiences prefer the “speaking English with accents” approach.
George Clooney, Matt Damon during yesterday’s filming of Monuments Men in Berlin.
On 3.19 it was observed by HE commenter “CP” that perhaps George Clooney should have thought twice about wearing a moustache in the currently-rolling Monuments Men as the last two films in which he wore one, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and Men Who Stare at Goats, were box-office stiffs. Honestly? I’m not much of a fan of Clooney moustaches myself. But I’m guessing that Monuments will be an exception as Clooney needed to separate himself from his usual appearance in this 1940s wartime film, and I think audience will get and accept that.
It’s been a while since I’ve read a good saucy showbiz tale with a kind of villain (Today host Matt Lauer) at the center of it plus two or three Shylocks and a victim (former co-host Ann Curry) and lots of robust acidic flavor. This describes Joe Hagan’s story about Curry’s removal and how Lauer…okay, how he didn’t exactly orchestrate it but how he sure as shit nudged it along and certainly did nothing to stop it or save Curry.
Best passage: “If Lauer is guilty in the hosticide of Ann Curry (he’s certainly not innocent), he’s far from the only guilty party. For all the smiles, TV hosts often get offed for all sorts of reasons. As Hyman Roth said in Godfather 2: This is the business they’ve chosen.”
Second best passage: “Blamed in the press for his co-host’s offing, Lauer has watched helplessly as his reputation gets battered week after week. When Chelsea Handler joked to him on Today earlier this month, ‘You have a worse reputation than I do,’ Lauer’s smile sharpened into something that wouldn’t make it past airport security.”
Early passage: “If Matt Lauer doesn’t want to be seen with sharp knives, it’s because last summer his co-host Ann Curry was discovered with one in her back. She was swiftly replaced by a younger, more genial woman, Savannah Guthrie. Ever since, Lauer has been the prime suspect in Curry’s virtual demise.
“Five million viewers, the majority of them women, would not soon forget how Curry, the intrepid female correspondent and emotionally vivid anchor, spent her last appearance on the Today show couch openly weeping, devastated at having to leave after only a year. The image of Matt Lauer trying to comfort her—and of Curry turning away from his attempted kiss—has become a kind of monument to the real Matt Lauer, forensic evidence of his guilt.
“The truest truism of morning-TV shows is that they are like families, or aspire to be—it’s a matter of practiced artifice, faked from the first minute to the last. But reality can’t always be kept out of the picture.
“On Curry’s final day, Lauer realized the scene was catastrophic even as cameras rolled. ‘I think we all knew it at that moment,’ says Lauer during an interview with his current co-hosts, Al Roker, Natalie Morales, and Guthrie. ‘And it just seemed like something…there was nothing we could do as it was happening, and we all felt bad about it.’
“What followed was the implosion of the most profitable franchise in network television. After sixteen years as the No. 1 morning show in America, Today was worth nearly half a billion dollars a year in advertising revenue to NBC, the bedrock of its business. In the aftermath of the Curry debacle, the show lost half a million viewers and ceded first place in the ratings war to ABC’s Good Morning America, losing millions of dollars overnight.”
Hagan is a solid, exacting reporter and an excellent prosemeister.
<div style="background:#fff;padding:7px;"><a href="https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/category/reviews/"><img src=
"https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/reviews.jpg"></a></div>
- Really Nice Ride
To my great surprise and delight, Christy Hall‘s Daddio, which I was remiss in not seeing during last year’s Telluride...
More » - Live-Blogging “Bad Boys: Ride or Die”
7:45 pm: Okay, the initial light-hearted section (repartee, wedding, hospital, afterlife Joey Pants, healthy diet) was enjoyable, but Jesus, when...
More » - One of the Better Apes Franchise Flicks
It took me a full month to see Wes Ball and Josh Friedman‘s Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes...
More »
<div style="background:#fff;padding:7px;"><a href="https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/category/classic/"><img src="https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/heclassic-1-e1492633312403.jpg"></div>
- The Pull of Exceptional History
The Kamala surge is, I believe, mainly about two things — (a) people feeling lit up or joyful about being...
More » - If I Was Costner, I’d Probably Throw In The Towel
Unless Part Two of Kevin Costner‘s Horizon (Warner Bros., 8.16) somehow improves upon the sluggish initial installment and delivers something...
More » - Delicious, Demonic Otto Gross
For me, A Dangerous Method (2011) is David Cronenberg‘s tastiest and wickedest film — intense, sexually upfront and occasionally arousing...
More »