Deep Freeze

by

It was reported yesterday that a 64-year-old Florida woman has been charged with failing to report her mother’s death.

The charge was filed more than two months after the mother’s body was found in a freezer in the home they shared. The accused told investigators she bought the deep freezer and put her mother’s body in it so she could keep receiving her disability payments.

In short, real life has mirrored the plots of two interesting films.

One, Andrew Dosunmu‘s Where Is Kyra? (’17), a funereal drama about a middle-aged woman (Michelle Pfeiffer) who not only doesn’t report her mother’s death but pretends to be her mother (i.e., dressing up like her, wearing a wig) so she can pick up those disability checks.

And two, Richard Linklater‘s Bernie (’11), about the 1996 murder of 81-year-old millionairess Marjorie Nugent (Shirley MacLaine) in Carthage, Texas, by her 39-year-old companion, Bernhardt “Bernie” Tiede (Jack Black). After killing Nugent Tiede hid her body in a large freezer inside their home.

Where Is Kyra? opened more than four years ago, and I’ll bet less than 10% of HE regulars have seen it. If that.

HE assessment of Where Is Kyra?, posted on 4.2.18: I’ve been saying all along that Where is Kyra? is “grade A within its realm” and that Michelle Pfeiffer‘s performance is quite the tour de force, but it’s the kind of film that will empty your soul and drain you of any will to live.

I’m not disagreeing with Village Voice critic Bilge Ebiri, whose article, “Michelle Pfeiffer Gives the Performance of Her Life in Where Is Kyra?“, teems with high praise. I’m saying “yeah, it’s very well made but don’t see it if you’re the type that occasionally thinks about suicide because it’ll push you into the abyss.”

I mentioned this impression to Ebiri this morning, and he replied “good…a movie that can convey the exhaustion and desperation of poverty to that degree is essential, and rare.” Yeah, it conveys that, all right, but I know if I consider this kind of creative deliverance to be “essential.”

Read more

Nobody Has A Perfect Marriage

by

After debuting at SXSW last March, Ethan Hawke‘s The Last Movie Stars, a six-part doc about the lives and careers of Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward, will begin streaming on HBO Max on 7.21.

I watched the first episode last March, and it’s clear that the focus is on what a wonderful, cooler-than-cool, super-glorious relationship Paul and Joanne had. They first met in ’53 or thereabouts, got married in 1958 and stayed together for 50 years. Paul died on 9.26.08.

To me the relentlessly celebrated mythology of Paul and Joanne’s marriage has always felt a tiny bit bothersome. As in less than trustworthy.

No marriage is easy or perfect or without issues. A workable, tolerable marriage is almost always the result of very hard work — all kinds of soul-barings, renegotiations and reappraisals at the kitchen table. Which is why portrayals of the Newman-Woodward marriage never seemed quite real to me.

Did they in fact have a strong and healthy marriage? All the accounts say yes, but to me the only thing that makes their history recognizably human (which is to say flawed) is the affair that Paul had with journalist Nancy Bacon in ’68 and ’69. An account of the affair was included in Shawn Levy‘s “Paul Newman: A Life” (2009).

If Ethan’s miniseries goes there, fine. But if he avoids it, he’s a sidestepper.

Friendo who knows the Newman-Woodward story and has dealt with the Newman family: “I haven’t watched the doc, but I’m sure it’s authorized, and as the surviving Newmans don’t care for anything remotely negative being said about their patriarch, I’m confident that it will avoid all unpleasant or even circumspect episodes/behaviors.

“[That said], I do believe that it was a truly golden relationship, built on mutual respect, amusement, tolerance, even passion. So, yeah, too good to be true, but also — for the most part — true.”

And you know what? For the sin of mentioning the 18-month Bacon episode I’m going to be attacked. Because people want to believe what they want to believe.

Read more

How SCOTUS Could Help Trump Steal ’24 Election

by

“It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear,” posted on 6.30.22 by Slate‘s Richard Hasen: “The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Moore v. Harper, an independent state legislature (ISL) theory case from North Carolina. This case has the potential to fundamentally rework the relationship between state legislatures and state courts in protecting voting rights in federal elections. It also could provide the path for election subversion in congressional and presidential elections.”

Cato,org’s Andy Craig, posted on 7.6.22: “Last month the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case next term that could upend election law in the United States. In Moore v. Harper, the court agreed to hear an argument known as the independent state legislature (ISL) theory. This case has the potential to have a wide‐ranging impact and many election law experts are sounding the alarm.”

“The Legal Trick That Could Undermine the 2024 Election—If the Supreme Court Doesn’t Shut It Down“, written by University of Illinois law professor Vikram D. Amar and posted on 6.30.22:

“While the Supreme Court of the United States has rejected Independent State Legislature theory by majority opinion as recently as 2015, four current Supreme Court justices have voiced interest in adopting some version of the doctrine. At the end of its June 2022 term, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on the question, Moore v. Harper, in the following term.”

Disbelief Isn’t Entertaining

by

I disengaged from the Ghost Protocol Burj Khalifa scene almost immediately.

Tom Cruise‘s right-hand grip glove stopped working after 90 seconds of use, he fell 15 or 20 feet but stopped the fall with one grip-glove (the left one), used a firehouse to run down the outside of the bulding and then, toward the end, rappelled along the outside of the building and then leapt toward the open, glass-free window panel. Bullshit. I was so overwhelmed by skepticism that I couldn’t enjoy it.

But Matt Damon’s telling of the “safety guy” story to Conan O’Brien, which I only just listened to this morning…this is entertaining. Why? Because it reveals a certain kind of character trait — hardcore and perfectionist and focused only on the prize — in a funny way.

Jaws ’22

by

I love it when sea lions show trashy, texting humans who’s boss and make them run for cover. This La Jolla territorial rampage was probably about protecting pups. “Danyourd” tweeted yesterday that the small cove in question is “was built as a safe area for kids to swim. Seals showed up in the 1980s and have overrun and polluted it.”

Millennial Czech Swingers

by

I’m halfway through Tomasz Winski‘s Borders of Love, which recently debuted at the Karlovy Vary Film Festival. We all understand how things eventually go when a couple tries an open relationship. Somebody abuses the rules in some way, shape or form and trust goes out the window. I’ve seen Ingmar Bergman‘s Scenes From A Marriage (’73), of course — similar territory. At the very least the newbie is moderately interesting.

This From An “Elvis” Fan…

by

Herewith an amusingly mixed, damning-with-faint-praise review of Elvis, posted yesterday by Presley biographer and HE’s former Entertainment Weekly colleague at Pat H. Broeske:

“Yours Truly finally caught up with the new Elvis film, and it was definitely worth the price of admission! Serious eye candy!” HE comment: What does that mean, “serious eye candy”? Is there an un-serious form of eye candy…a less-than-fully-committed kind?

“Now, speaking as an Elvis biographer (1997’s ‘Down at the End of Lonely Street,’ co-written with Peter Harry Brown), this screen rendition is a very, very authorized take on Elvis. There is absolutely nothing in this movie that can upset the powers-that-be within the Elvis industry/Graceland.

“But if it’s a sanitized account of the King and his career — and that’s the only way this movie was going to get access to all that Elvis music, etc. — it’s also fabulously produced and earnestly performed.

“[Director] Baz Luhrmann (of the overwrought Moulin Rouge and The Great Gatsby) takes oodles of creative license as he charts Presley’s rise, his 1960s stagnancy, his phenomenal 1968 TV special (one of the greatest showbiz comebacks ever), and his Vegas years.

“It all happens in flamboyant, sometimes mind-boggling fashion (a Luhrmann trademark), with Austin Butler as Elvis and Tom Hanks as manager Col. Tom Parker.

“Along the way the film dodges minefields, as in significant people and events in the superstar’s life. Several women with whom he was seriously involved, who aren’t popular with certain members of the Presley clan, don’t warrant so much as a howdy-do. And except for meeting the beautiful young Priscilla in Germany, Elvis’s military time gets short shrift while in real life, that’s when he seriously started popping pills.

“Also, the film downplays the Memphis Mafia — and the fact that several of its members betrayed Elvis with a hurtful tell-all, published just weeks prior to his death.

“Nor does Elvis get into E’s weight-related issues (there’s not even a snippet of him scarfing down one of those peanut butter and fried banana sandwiches). His use/abuse of prescription meds is also minimized. And so on.

“But if this isn’t a warts-and-all screen bio, it does hit the high notes of E’s career, and at the end of the day (and by the time the multitudinous credits have rolled), it serves to remind filmgoers of what made Elvis so special. It also introduces younger viewers to those qualities. And it’s certainly a showcase for Luhrmann’s hyperventilating screen style.

“Come Oscar time, this film will be in contention for numerous technical categories. and possibly for Hanks’s performance.” [HE: No niomination for Butler?] But in the meantime with everyone all shook up, Elvis will continue to entice.”

Read more

If They Don’t Like It, Tough

by

Eff the hinterlanders who may not be able to deal with a felonious and traitorous ex-President being charged with serious crimes. If they respond to his arrest and indictment with violence and weapons and whatnot, good — round ’em up, cuff ’em and put ’em in jail. We live in a Democracy built upon laws and legislation, and no one is above it. Trump is a sociopath who fully deserves whatever punishment may be coming his way.

Charlie Rose Misgivings

by

Friendo: How has our world been made better by the erasure of Charlie Rose?

HE: Rose, as you well know, is serving a term of indefinite banishment for having been a creepy lech with women who worked for him. He’s been #MeToo’ed and guillotined and is for all practical purposes a dead man, and that’s that.

Friendo: I know but my question is ‘how has our world been made better without him’?

HE: It’s not better. Not by my sights. I loved his show for years. But anyone who says that openly will have the woke Stasi on their ass.

Friendo: We have these gaping holes in our culture now. It’s grotesque that we are living this way. Rose’s show was so soothing and elevating and necessary and seemingly irreplaceable, and it’s not like he died.

HE: We’re living in a totalitarian system of sorts — a tyranny of sensitive Millennial Stalinists determined to make things safer by way of terror. Rose didn’t die, of course, but he’s “dead” all the same. I loved his interviews with smart filmmakers. He could be a bit of a dick in person — a curt, dismissive type if you weren’t famous enough for his tastes.

Friendo: I guess but I feel like with all of this nonsense I’m being punished. I have to live in a world without Charlie Rose. I have to live in a world without movies produced by Scott Rudin. I have to live in a world without great comedy all because of little cry babies who throw a fit and everybody responds like indulgent parents.

HE: Cry babies by way of the East German secret police.

Buttigieg in ’24, Not Biden

by

President Joe Biden is in excellent physical shape (he works out, rides a bike) and mentally spry, but most voters want someone younger. Joe will be just shy of 82 after the ’24 election and if he’s re-elected he’ll be 86 when he finishes his second term. That’s too old. I really, really want Pete Buttigieg to run in his place in ’24. I realize that Pete would face an uphill situation as far as BIPOC voters are concerned, but the reality has to be faced — if Biden’s opponent is Ron DeSantis or Glenn Youngkin or Liz Cheney, he will most likely lose. Pete would be a far better Democratic candidate at this stage of the game. Listen to him — he’s got it.

Read more