Links of the living dead

Last month was a rough one for two of my favorite film bloggers, Page and Brandie, but I believe they'll get through it. Admittedly, I don't know them that well, but they both strike me as having the ability to overcome the adversity that life has thrown at them. Do yourself a favor and check out their blogs; let 'em know you're out there.

This past weekend finally felt like summer for real after a cold and dreary spring, and I loved it! I spent both days out and about in the city, mostly Greenwich Village, and I even broke out the shorts for the first time all year. You might have heard that here in NYC, we've just started a brand new bike sharing program, and so far it looks like it's caught on pretty quickly. It's a huge change, and there are always gonna be some people afraid of the implications of that change, but in the long run, I firmly believe it'll benefit everybody.

Warm weather means it's time to start planning outdoor movies. Last night, I was looking at the schedules for the traditional outdoor movie sites in the five boroughs, and there are some particularly sweet selections this year, including a handful of classic movies I've never seen before, so I'm quite excited about it all.

Before the end of the day, I'll have the Sally Kellerman pics from last month's MASH screening up on the WSW Facebook page. Yes, they're late, I know.

From around the film blogosphere:

Courtney uses The Fast and the Furious franchise to examine where Hollywood stands on diversity. I really wish I were more interested in this franchise than I actually am, because Courtney's absolutely right; it does appear that Hollywood treats the F&F movies like a fluke instead of trying to learn from it. Still, it's hard for me personally to care about them with dramatic voids like Vin Diesel and the Rock in it, among others. If I was twelve again, it might be different, but most of the time, I look for a little more in my movies than fast cars and... fast cars. Still, F&F does deserve props for completely defying conventional wisdom on how to make an action movie franchise.

In anticipation of her blogathon in his honor next month, Monstergirl gives you the 411 on director William Castle.

The Lady Eve spotlights Rosemary's Baby and New York's famous Dakota building.

Brian does a good analysis of Steven Soderbergh's recent state-of-cinema speech.

Here's a story from the fine blog Silent Volume about an unusual screening of an early 20s film.

Two different pieces about the digital revolution: how digital movies are projected, and how smaller theaters are adjusting to the change.

The modern Hollywood screenwriter rarely gets to write what he wants to write.

Stories We Tell

Stories We Tell
seen @ Brooklyn Academy of Music, Brooklyn, NY
5.30.13

Reality television and daytime talk shows have made paternity cases into something tawdry and sensationalist. For me, at least, it's especially embarrassing when it involves black people. In recent months in my neighborhood, ads have gone up for a service that provides DNA testing. There's an image of a baby with the legend, "Who's your daddy?" Yes, it is extremely ghetto.

I've probably said it here before, but in case I haven't: too many people who don't know how to be parents are having babies, and a lot of them are just plain stupid - and yet, choosing to not have children is frowned upon. Huh?

Granted, however, it's difficult not to judge. I have a friend (no dummy by any stretch) who had three children with a woman who was absolutely wrong for him. They were wrong for each other, really; my friend was suffering from bipolar disorder at the time. When he first told me about this, I specifically remember fighting the urge to say something like, "What the hell were you doing having kids?" And yet, not only did he get his act together, he managed to raise his kids right. Having met two of them, I can attest to the fact that they're healthy, happy and sane, not to mention very talented artistically. Someone like my friend, however, is a rarity.

This brings us to Sarah Polley and Stories We Tell. First of all, I have to give some massive props to Polley as an actor-turned-director. Maybe it's because she's an indie girl and a foreigner to boot that she doesn't get as much attention as she should, but she's quietly built up an impressive string of quality films, from Away From Her to Take This Waltz (another film about marital infidelity) and now this. 

Stories is about Polley's theater-actor parents and the mystery of whether or not Sarah is their biological child. The emphasis is largely on her late mother Diane who, along with younger versions of the family, are depicted in flashback scenes by actors. Meanwhile, the real-life, present-day versions, through interviews by Sarah, recreate the events that led to her discovery of the truth. In a somewhat meta twist, Sarah's father Michael not only narrates the story, but we actually see them in a recording studio as he narrates and she listens. (We even see Michael re-read a few lines of the narrative at Sarah's request.)

One of the main issues of the film concerns who has the right to tell these stories and how. Diane Polley is dead and, it is argued in the film, only she knows the full story behind Sarah's true parentage. This may be true, but as the film makes clear, this family drama has impacted not only Sarah's life, but others within the family, and even if they may not have had all the facts or were not directly involved, to exclude, or at the very least, minimize them, would be wrong. 

At the same time, however, I don't necessarily think that Polley's version of the story needs to be the definitive one or should even be seen as such. I think it was her father who says something along the lines of how this story will be shaped by the decisions she makes in the editing room on what to keep and what to leave out, and how to present it - and this is true. Another version of the story could shed new light on the story, or provide new information - and isn't this the crux every storyteller faces, regardless of the medium? Gone With the Wind from the slaves' point of view would be a very different tale, for example. In the right hands, that could be a story worth telling.

Diane and Michael's was a love that waned, and that's always sad. The impression the movie gives is that she believed he couldn't love her the way she wanted, which led her to go astray, but at least one of Sarah's siblings is able to find forgiveness for Diane. Again, it's hard for me to be able to judge, which is why I probably shouldn't. The picture painted of Diane is of a life-of-the-party type who was deeply invested in her stage career, moreso than Michael. According to the movie, she married him thinking he was a different kind of person than he actually was, and this on the heels of a prior failed marriage. Could they have made it work out? Was it worth trying? I dunno... and this goes back to the notion that only she can tell the whole truth behind the story of Sarah's parentage.

There's a lot to think about in Stories. It's much more than the sharing of a family secret.

'Man of Steel' must escape Reeve's shadow

Christopher Reeve

Ruth recently wrote a marvelous and deeply personal post about what Superman means to her, which you absolutely must read. Yesterday, I was chatting with an old friend about movies in general and we spent a few minutes on the upcoming Superman flick Man of Steel (another movie title that's missing the 'the'), so I've had the big blue Boy Scout on my mind recently. Ruth's love for Superman is partly based in the concept of the character, but I think it's safe to say that a large part of that love is also the result of Christopher Reeve's iconic portrayal over the course of four movies. 

This is entirely understandable and perfectly natural. Reeve had the looks, but more importantly, under Richard Donner's able direction, he was the embodiment of not only the selfless champion of all that's good and right, but he nailed the dual identity aspect between Supes and Clark Kent so well that one could almost believe that a pair of glasses was indeed enough of a disguise. Reeve and Donner's vision of the Man of Steel has been the standard-bearer for superhero films in general for many years and it has inspired millions of moviegoers just like Ruth. It certainly inspired me. 

Dean Cain
(w/Teri Hatcher)

Subsequent live-action incarnations of the character, however, have had a hard time living up to Reeve's portrayal. The 90s TV show Lois and Clark is fondly remembered by some, but lacked the grandeur of the movies, favoring a more soap opera-like approach. The successive TV show, Smallville, had more of a sense of grandeur and scope, but the fact that it was conceived as Clark Kent before he actually dons the blue tights makes it inherently on a level below the movies. (Plus, some would argue, it lasted far too long.) And the 2006 film Superman Returns was criticized for, among other things, paying too much homage to the Reeve/Donner template. The cartoon incarnations of Superman, in both Superman: The Animated Series and Justice League probably come closest to establishing its own identity. If Man of Steel is to be not only a box office success, but a lasting, memorable experience, perhaps this is where it should take its cue from.

Brandon Routh

The potential is there. Producer Christopher Nolan redefined Batman for the 21st century after almost a decade of the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher films, injecting the franchise with a grittier, real-world feel that gave his Batman trilogy the feel of crime drama, comparable to the films of Michael Mann or Martin Scorsese. Combined with the sensibilities of director Zack Snyder, whose visual pizzazz in films like 300 and Watchmen is a far cry from the comparatively traditional look of Donner, Man of Steel is bound to have a different visual identity, and if this trailer is any indication, I'd say that's a safe bet indeed.

Henry Cavill

The big test, though, will be with the star. Henry Cavill has been in a few other things, but nothing on this scale. How will he pull off the dual identity aspect? What will his chemistry with Amy Adams (as Lois Lane) be like? Will his fight scenes be convincing? The trick will be staying true to the spirit of Superman without overtly evoking Reeve. Unlike Brandon Routh in Superman Returns, Cavill doesn't bear a resemblance to Reeve, on screen or off, which is encouraging. As much as I, and millions of others worldwide, love and revere the memory of Reeve, Cavill's performance as Superman needs to be something not only new, but compelling enough to stand on its own, and that's what I'll be looking for in this new movie.

There have been enough superhero films ever since Reeve and Donner's milestone to fend off a dozen alien invasions and an entire battalion of super-villains, but Superman remains the one character in the genre that all others look up to, and for generations, Reeve's version has been the defining portrayal of that character... but that needs to change. Hopefully Cavill's incarnation, as realized by Nolan and Snyder, will provide that change.

Thoughts?

------------------
Related:
Superman
Man of Steel
Batman
The Dark Knight Rises

Ronny Howard and the Golden Age of television

The Children in Film Blogathon is an event examining the great child stars of film and television, hosted by Comet Over Hollywood. For a complete list of participating blogs, visit the website.

Today Ron Howard is known as an Academy-Award-winning director, responsible for such huge critical and commercial hits as A Beautiful Mind, Apollo 13 and Splash, among many others. Long before that, however, Howard achieved fame as a television actor, in a career that stretches all the way back to his early childhood, at the dawn of the television era.

Naturally, I remember growing up watching him on Happy Days, the lead-off program on one of the all-time great prime time television lineups, which included Laverne & Shirley, Three's Company and Too Close For Comfort. I was too young to appreciate the nostalgia factor of Happy Days; like most kids, I watched it for the Fonz. Still, Howard was an integral part of the show, too - and the path that led him there was a long and prolific one. 

Born in 1954 as the son of two actors, Rance and Jean Howard, Ron and the family moved to Hollywood from Oklahoma in 1958, and at the age of five, Ron scored his first credited film role, in the Deborah Kerr/Yul Brynner Cold War drama The Journey, billed as "Ronny Howard" (he has also been credited as "Ronnie" during his childhood). A number of small television appearances followed, including shows like Dennis the Menace, The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis, and The Twilight Zone.

Howard w/Andy Griffith in 'The Andy Griffith Show'

In 1960, Howard would appear on Danny Thomas' sitcom Make Room For Daddy (aka The Danny Thomas Show) in an episode set in a rural North Carolina town called Mayberry. He played Opie Taylor, son of Mayberry's sheriff, Andy Taylor, played by rising star Andy Griffith. Griffith had already made a name for himself through various comedic appearances in variety shows, as well as a dramatic role in the Elia Kazan film A Face in the Crowd, and this episode of Daddy was looked upon as a possible vehicle for a spin-off TV series starring Griffith...

... which is exactly what happened. The Andy Griffith Show debuted that fall, featuring Griffith as Sheriff Taylor and Howard as his son. In an essay about the show, my pal Ivan describes Howard's role:

In Griffith’s debut episode, we’re re-introduced to Taylor, a widower who’s just married off his longtime housekeeper to her fiancé — a situation that does not sit well with his young son Opie (Ron Howard), who’s even more chagrined to learn that Andy’s “Aunt Bee” (Frances Bavier) will be replacing her as head of the household. Aunt Bee tries everything to ingratiate herself with Opie but he rebuffs her at every turn — it is only as the episode comes to a close that the boy changes his mind and begs his father to make her stay, concerned that she’ll be venturing out into the world without being able to function without him. 

Child actor Howard had played Griffith’s son in the Danny Thomas Show pilot and did such an incredible job that he continued on for the full series. In a world where sitcoms often featured children a little too precocious for their own good, Opie was a breath of fresh air. He was decent to the core, but every now and then he get into mischief and wander off the path before his stern but kindly father would steer him back on the straight and narrow.

Griffith lasted for eight seasons and 209 episodes, filmed at Desilu Studios, and it would go down as one of the finest sitcoms in television history. Howard would go on to briefly reprise his role of Opie thrice, in the Griffith spin-offs Mayberry RFD and Gomer Pyle USMC, and again in the 1986 TV movie Return to Mayberry.

Howard (second from left) in
'The Smith Family' w/Henry Fonda

As he got older, Howard continued to make appearances in other shows in addition to Griffith, and the list reads like a compilation of the greatest 60s TV shows: Route 66, Dr. Kildare, The Fugitive, The Big Valley and I Spy, among others. He also made a few more movies, such as The Music Man.

In 1971, when Howard was 17, he appeared in another, shorter-lived series called The Smith Family, starring cinematic legend Henry Fonda at the tail end of a long career. He played a cop, and Howard was one of his sons. The show only lasted two seasons, and little has been written about it.

Howard in 'Love American Style'

In 1972, Howard appeared in a ABC anthology show called Love American Style, in a episode called "Love in the Happy Days," about 50s teenagers. It was a failed sitcom concept by producer Gary Marshall that was re-packaged for this show, and due in part to the success of the musical Grease, 50s nostalgia was suddenly in. When George Lucas' film American Grafitti, also featuring Howard, hit big a year later, ABC went back to Marshall's pilot and turned it into a series in 1974, called simply Happy Days. Howard's role as Richie Cunningham lasted throughout the series' eleven-year run and led to bigger and better things... but that's another story.

Ron's younger brother Clint has also had a long career in Hollywood that began in childhood. He appeared in several episodes of Griffith, as well as other notable 60s shows as The Fugitive, Bonanza, Please Don't Eat the Daisies and Star Trek. In 1967 he was a regular on the series Gentle Ben, as Dennis Weaver's son, and he'd go on to appear in other shows and movies, including many of those directed by Ron.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)

Do they even still show movies on free television anymore? I mean, besides traditional holiday-themed stuff. I realize that there are now dozens of ways to see movies today, once upon a time, the "Movie of the Week" on any one of the Big Three networks was a big deal. In my house, it was practically a family tradition. I'm pretty sure I've written here before about the Betamax VCR we used to have (SHUT UP) and all the TV movies I recorded - most of them movies that played theatrically, along with original made-for-TV deals.

I remember watching most of the MOTWs on ABC. This would be the late-70s-to-early-80s. Of course, I gravitated more towards sci-fi/fantasy, horror and animation than anything else, although I'd also watch those epic mini-series too. Remember those? They were always trumpeted as a big deal, so I'd watch them, even if I didn't completely understand everything going on. Basically, if TV said it was Big and Epic and Important, chances are I'd watch it (maybe in a future post I'll go into more detail about it), but MOTWs - theatrical movies debuting on the small screen - were the Biggest of the Big Deals for me, especially on ABC.

I'm pretty sure I first saw the Invasion of the Body Snatchers remake as an ABC MOTW, and if I recall correctly, they might've shown it more than once. I'm certain I saw it more than once as a kid, because it's one of those films that left an impression on me for sure. Strange how as kids, we come back again and again to the things that scare us. I mean, I'm pretty sure this gave me a few nightmares; wondering whether or not it would be safe to go to sleep without becoming a soulless pod person. I mean, damn, everything about this version - the music, the atmosphere, the action - is ramped up to knock you off your rocker and keep you that way, and even today, I doubt I'd be able to sit comfortably through it. And a big reason why is probably because I saw it at such a young and impressionable age.

It goes without saying that I saw this version before the original, therefore I couldn't compare the two at the time. A major difference that I notice now is that the frenetic, paranoiac vibe of the 50s version is replaced with something more akin to a cult: join us and feel good about everything. It's too bad this wasn't released during the first half of the 70s, when Jonestown and the Manson family were fresher in people's minds.

I couldn't pinpoint exactly why I responded to it the way I did back then. I mean, obviously, it was creepy and legitimately scary, but it's possible that if I saw it in the early 80s (which is quite possible), well, there may have been a context for my response to it. The early 80s was about the time when I first developed doubt about some of the received wisdom from my parents regarding matters of faith. No, I don't wanna go into specifics; not now, anyway. Let's just say that this was when I first discovered the gap between theory and practice when it comes sharing one's beliefs with the rest of the world. The result made me afraid of accepting what I was told, because it would mean I'd be Different... kinda like a pod person.

The way this just appears for no damn reason simply adds to
the scariness of this movie. Even now I have trouble looking at it!

I wouldn't have understood the term "blind faith" back then, but examples of it were all around me. Take the Cold War: why were we (America) so superior to them (Russia)? And if so, was bombing each other to kingdom come really an inevitability? Again, it's not like I thought to raise the question back then; I just accepted it as The Way Things Are - until sixth grade, at least, when I had an awesome social studies teacher who talked about the Cold War in practical terms that we could understand.

These were the things going on in my life back in the early 80s. I didn't consciously associate them with the Body Snatchers movie, of course - my mind simply didn't work that way then - but it's possible that the movie may have subconsciously exacerbated my fears and provided a framework for them, which I wouldn't have even realized until much later in life, and that may have been another reason why it scared me like it did. But when you get right down to it, my fear of this film can easily be summed up in one image:

Am I right or am I right?

A couple of other things: this film is probably the first time I've ever seen Leonard Nimoy, who certainly knows a thing or two about playing cold, emotionless beings. In Search Of was going strong on television around this time, and the following year he'd put the pointy ears back on again, so this was a good time for him.

I wouldn't say this remake is better than the original, because the original is pretty neat too. I'd say it's different and leave it at that. They both reflect the times they were made in so nicely, and that may be why subsequent remakes have failed. Plus, the Kevin McCarthy cameo in the beginning was a great way to pass the baton, so to speak, so that these two films can and should be considered together.

---------------------
This was to have been my post for the Terrorthon, which Page and I postponed out of respect to those who died in the recent acts of mass violence in America. We hadn't set a new date to this point, but Page, an Oklahoma City resident, probably has much more important things on her mind than movies right now. So Page, I just wanna say thanks for letting me be a partner in what would've been a real cool blogathon. You're in my thoughts. Be careful out there.

Sounder

Sounder
seen on TV @ TCM
5.18.13

One of the earliest memories I have of my life is hanging out at my grandmother's house in Florida. I was probably around two or so. She had a dog - I don't recall what kind - and it was in all likelihood the first dog I remember encountering. I didn't take very well to it for whatever reason. Maybe it tried to lick my face; maybe it barked a little too loudly for me; maybe this big hairy creature just freaked me the hell out in general. Regardless, two-year-old me panicked and ran away. I doubt I ran far, though; my parents found me before too long...

...but the damage was done. I grew up with a perhaps-irrational, but nonetheless-real paranoia of dogs. If I saw one coming down the street, I'd cross to the other side. I could not get within arms length of one, regardless of size, and it reached the point where I wondered if I needed psychiatric help.

I didn't, though. It literally was as easy as deciding that I was tired of living this way, and making a conscious decision to not be afraid of them anymore. Wasn't easy, and it took some time, but I somehow built up the inner strength to be calm(er) around them. Living in New York, one sees people walking dogs all the damn time! It was either get over my fear or move to Montana or someplace like that - so it's not like I had a choice in the matter.

Funny thing is, many of my friends, both in and out of the five boroughs, are cat people. I imagine it's easier to keep cats as pets than dogs. For instance, Vija had two different cats for many years, and she's even cat-sit for other people. She was very fond of her cats, and since she lives in a great big loft, they always had plenty of room to roam. Andi has a cat now, but she's also a huge dog-lover like you wouldn't believe. I can't go anywhere with her without her stopping to ogle over someone's dog on the street. It's kind of endearing, actually.

Reid has a dog that I've actually become comfortable around. I've only been to his apartment two or three times, but every time I've been there, I've been amazed at how relaxed I get around his fluffy blond dog (please don't ask me what types of dogs and cats these are; I couldn't begin to tell you). He told me once that his dog was trained as some type of caretaker dog for his father, so that might explain it, but I see this sort of thing as progress. I couldn't have done it when I was sixteen.

Sometimes I regret not having a dog as a pet growing up. I think I could've done a halfway decent job with one: I lived in a very suburban part of Queens, in a two-family home very close to a park, with neighborhood friends. If I recall correctly, our landlord didn't allow pets, so it wouldn't have happened regardless, but I might've gotten over my phobia of dogs a lot sooner if I had learned how to be around one on a daily basis. I'll never know. (They don't allow pets where I live now, either.)

I'm not quite sure why Sounder is named for the dog in the story; he's not that pivotal to the plot. Nor does he do any Lassie-like feats of heroism, which I kinda expected when I watched this. Still, it's a very sweet movie, the kind that doesn't get played enough on TV anymore. Watch it with your kids if you have any.

M*A*S*H

M*A*S*H
seen @ Landmark Loews Jersey Theater, Jersey City, NJ
5.3.13

I've known about Robert Altman for a long time, but I never really studied him or his films in any great depth. I've seen M*A*S*H and The Player a bunch of times, but sadly, I've yet to see Nashville. One of these days... Still, I always figured I knew what defined his films: huge, ensemble casts, lots of actorly improvisation, and overlapping dialogue. It wasn't until I saw M*A*S*H on the big screen for the first time earlier this month, however, that I truly understood what made him such a stand-out director during the 70s.

Peter Biskind's "New Hollywood" book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls describes how Altman butted heads with 20th Century Fox on the film. The studio continued to begrudge the new wave of filmmakers who made cheaper movies faster, and at least in the case of M*A*S*H, raunchier:

[Producers Richard Zanuck and David Brown] were looking at the dailies the same time they were watching the rushes from Patton. It was a long way from George C. Scott to [Elliot] Gould and [Donald] Sutherland. M*A*S*H was the anti-Patton. Zanuck and Brown sat in the back of the screening room, looked at each other, and groaned. They were appalled by the fuzzy focus, the raw language, the nudity, and the rivers of gore that flowed through the operating room sequences. "It was the first time you saw guys during an operation covered with blood saying, 'Nurse, get your tits out of the way,'" says [Altman's agent George] Litto. It was the first major studio movie in which "fuck" was used.

 All the times I had seen the movie had been on video, so when I saw it on the big screen, it was like seeing it for the first time. Suddenly, I could truly see the blood and guts and it was a bit of a shock. I was conscious of Altman's decision to present the reality of war, something that's easy to forget when you see it on TV, which was how the Vietnam war was experienced for millions of Americans at the time. (M*A*S*H is set during the Korean war, but it was seen as a commentary on Vietnam.)

M*A*S*H was adapted for the screen by the formerly blacklisted writer Ring Lardner Jr., who also co-wrote such films as Woman of the Year and Laura. He actually was a member of the Communist Party, unlike many individuals pursued by HUAC in the 50s who weren't, and as a result he was imprisoned for a year and fined, plus, he couldn't get work in Hollywood under his own name for years. Still, once M*A*S*H became a hit, Altman took more than his fair share of credit for the screenplay on account of his improvisational approach. In the end, though, Lardner ended up winning the Oscar for his script.

I remember occasionally watching the long-running spin-off TV series as a kid, though I suspect most of the humor was way over my head. As a result, the final episode wasn't as big a deal for me as it was for the rest of the country.

Co-star Sally Kellerman appeared at the screening at the Loews Jersey City, and she still looks great. She was there to promote her autobiography, and in an on-stage conversation after the film with Loews regular Foster Hirsch, she talked about her career, including how she tried to balance a singing career with her acting, which unfortunately led to her passing up some plum roles in the 70s. She mentioned how some people thought her role of Hot Lips was demeaning, but she disagreed because she got to do all kinds of stuff as  the character, like get laid, sit in on poker games with the guys, and be a football cheerleader, which she loved.

Later this week I'll post pictures from the screening on my WSW Facebook page.