Outside The Frame

Food for thought

Peter Keough — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:30:00 GMT

It seems like a strange idea for a fast food restaurant to sponsor a documentary pointing out the evils of the American food industry, but I'm sure the people at Chipotle know what they're doing by offering free screenings of Robert Kenner's's "Food, Inc." at the Kendall Square Cinema on July 15 and the Coolidge Corner Theatre on July 16. And if you're like me, any movie that causes you to lose your appetite brings to mind Marco Ferreri's "La Grande Bouffe" (1973) in which three middle aged men relentlessly and graphically eat themselves to death.

Perhaps you're not familiar with Ferreri: when God made Michelangelo Antonioni, Pier Paolo Pasolini and Federico Fellini all the pieces he had left over he used to make this fearless and transgressive master of bad taste. So here's your chance to catch up: July 10-13 the Brattle Theatre will be screening Ferreri's rarely seen and truly sui generis tour de force "Dillinger is Dead" (1969). No, it's not an early version of Michael Mann's "Public Enemies," but fans of that movie might be fascinated by the inserted snippets of archival footage of Dillinger and his victims. Instead it is a surreal parable of civilization and its discontents as Glauco, an industrial designer of gas masks played by Michel Piccoli (he's also in "La Grande Bouffe"), returns home after being lectured at length by a colleague about Marcuse's theories of alienation. There he finds his gorgeous wife (Anita Pallenberg with three lines of dialogue, all dubbed into Italian) nearly passed out in bed and his dinner cold. So he decides to cook something for himself.

Ah, the food connection. But not so fast. Things take an unexpected turn when, while looking for some ingredient in an overstuffed closet, he finds a rusty revolver wrapped in a 1934 newspaper with headlines about Dillinger's demise.

Many absurdist non-sequiturs follow, including Glauco marinating the gun in olive oil and painting it red with white polka dots. By the time he acts out scenes from home movies and joins the maid Sabina in bed with a watermelon, you begin to suspect that what Chekhov said about loaded guns might eventually come into play.

Ferreri's tone remains affectless throughout, underscoring the weirdness of the material, and Piccoli comes off as simplemindedly bemused, as if suffering from a head injury that has turned him into a childish but inventive sadist.

Wacky as "Dillinger is Dead" may be, in its own metaphorical way it's as devastating as a critique of capitalist excess as "Food, Inc."

Interview with Kathryn Bigelow, part 2

Peter Keough — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 23:05:00 GMT

Now that I've shaken off all the fireworks I can correct all the typos in the last posting and put up the second half of this interview.

PK: Do you find it ironic this film came out (June 26 in NY and other locations) the same week the troops withdrew from Iraqi cities?

KB: I do find it ironic. When the studio set the release date back in January for now I think the withdrawal date was set for August. I don't think they could have anticipated it.

PK: Do you think because of this it will avoid the fate of other films about the Iraq War?

KB: This is really the first film about the Iraq War. The others have not been about combat. If you were to go into Blockbuster and were looking for "Coming Home" it would be under "Drama." If you were looking for "Apocalypse Now" it would be under "War." So would "The Hurt Locker." That's my scientific categorization.

PK: Is this the "Apocalypse Now" of Iraq?

KB: Our references are more "Battle of Algiers" or "Best Years of Our Lives." But what I do think "Hurt Locker" does and "Apocalypse Now" did for that conflict is that it unpacks the abstract and makes it concrete and tactile. It does take you there. Even though that was a much more well-observed conflict I mean there were photographers and reporter

PK: But they stopped doing that...

KB: They stopped doing that. For obvious reasons I suppose. But this conflict has been fairly abstract for the general public. I know when Mark [Boal, the screenwriter] was over there for his embed he came across maybe two or three other journalists. It was a multitude of reasons but mostly it was because it was just too dangerous. Certainly in 2004.

PK: These other films about Iraq also are political, unlike yours.

KB: If it's possible to make something non-partisan, unpacking the abstraction then you'd have a more informed opinion. We're filmmakers. It's not that the soldiers on the ground don't have diverse geopoliticsal perspectives. At the end of the day you're a bomb tech and walking down the street you're wondering if you're going to survive.

PK: And you're loving it. Or this guy is, anyway.

KB: That recklessness married to a profound skill set welded with a great authority may just be the combination that keeps him and his team alive.

PK: And then there's the pleasure of doing what you do best. As a filmmaker you identify with that.

KB: I suppose it is a bit like that, I mean production is a bit like the kind of a skill set that you wield with authority combined with a kind of, I suppose, maybe not a recklessness but a bit of bravado, in that there's no playbook. It's all prototypical.

PK: This reminds me of Hitchcock's bomb theory. I think it's another difference between your film and "Transformers" and films like that. He distinguishes between surprise and suspense. Surprise is when a bomb goes off suddenly but suspense is when you're watching people sitting at a table like this and underneath the table is a bomb and you know it's supposed to go off at a certain time.

KB: So you're ahead of the character. So surprise is when you and the character are in sync with one another, and suspense is like "Notorious" where you know that the key is down there and you know if they can -- right, you're ahead of the character.

PK: So your movie is more about suspense. You know the bomb is there and you're wondering when or if it's going to explode...

KB: And the suspense is so pervasive.

PK: So you have a retrospective coming up at the Harvard Film Archive?

KB: Yeah, we're doing "Hurt Locker" tonight. I'm not sure what films they have been playing but I know they've been playing a few or they're upcoming or-

PK: They're showing all of your features, from "The Loveless" to "The Hurt Locker." This isn't the first retrospective you've had, is it? I think you had one in '87 when you only had two movies.

KB: Yeah I had one in '87 and actually there was one in Los Angeles just recently for "Hurt Locker" that kind of culminated in our ad hoc premiere.

PK: So do you become reflective when you have-

KB: I don't think I'm old enough for a retrospective though, I keep telling people.

PK: But you were in '87.

KB: I was old enough then, yes, exactly. I'm moving in reverse.

PK: But they could have included some of your artwork too; or did they?

KB: No, they didn't. They didn't. That's interesting.

PK: Didn't you have a short film where there was like two guys whaling on each other while somebody read critical theory texts?

KB: "The Set-Up"-yeah.

PK: Is that your aesthetic in a nutshell?

KB: I don't know if you've seen Amy Taubin's piece on "The Hurt Locker" in "Film Comment." only bring it up because it's hard for me to kind of stand outside whatever these pieces are, these films are, and look at some kind of, the connective tissue from an analytical mind. I guess I try to but maybe, anyway, she does all [that] and, and speaks a lot about "The Set-Up' and it's relation to...

PK: "Hurt Locker."

KB: Yeah kind of pulling it all full circle. It's very interesting.

PK: Also, naming the character William James...?

KB: The pragmatist philosopher.

PK: The author of "The Varieties of Religious Experience;" is that who he's based on? This is William James in Iraq?

KB: Well, you know, he's gotta be somewhere, right?

PK: One thing I noticed in the movie is that the character doesn't really start getting in trouble until he goes beyond that range-that 300 meters, and wants to find out who the perpetrators are or the people that are watching him. So he's breaking through the fourth wall to find the person that's watching him and that engages him in more danger than just doing the bomb.

KB: What's exciting as a filmmaker is the kind of careful callibration of the effects of war on this individual. And you know, first you think this is a man who is unmoved by anything. If you're standing over a daisy chain of six or seven 155s, how can you possibly be disturbed by anything, basically? And yet you realize in fact that the attritional effects of war are taking place.

PK: He goes home and demonstrates with the jack-in-the-box to his infant son how all thrills are illusory.

KB: Well he's self-aware and I think, he's kind of giving himself the permission to embrace what he, what truly gives his life meaning, and a kind of sense of purpose and at the same you're able I think hopefully as a viewer is to understandcourage and heroism, the price of heroism, you know, it all comes at a cost. And yet what he does every day is save thousands and thousands and thousands of little boys?

PK: Jeremy Renner, by the way, as William James. He was terrific. You saw him first in "Dahmer?"

KB: I think, you know, it's the new, new wave of talent.

PK: On the other hand, Harrison Ford with a Russian accent [in "K-19"] didn't really work for me.

KB: Well, you know...Jeremy Renner is, I think he's the real deal.

PK: Was working with Ford part of the reason why you didn't want to go and use a star again...

KB: Well, I wanted to keep the faces unfamiliar so you wouldn't have any anticipation or expectation on who's going to live or die based on their...

PK: Spoilers!

KB: Spoilers, exactly. I mean, you know, if it's Tom Cruise he can't die. Just there's that old adage.

PK: Or Janet Leigh.

KB: Well that.

PK: I'm giving that one away, too

An interview with Kathryn Bigelow

Peter Keough — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:07:00 GMT

Happy Fourth of July, all. On this holiday celebrated with fireworks perhaps it is appropriate to talk about those heroes who put their lives on the line to prevent things from exploding. Kathryn Bigelow's "The Hurt Locker" tells the story of the demolition experts in Iraq whose dangerous duty involves defusing the lethal improvised explosive devices (IEDs) set by insurgents and which have been responsible for a frightening death toll, both military and civilian.

Plus, it's the best film so far this year. But don't let that dissuade you. True, "Transformers" opened with about $200 million last weekend and "The Hurt Locker," which was released in only 4 theaters, made somewhat less (it will be expanding to more screens and cities on July 10, including Boston). But it did score about 91 on Metacritic. Which would you choose? A good question for Bigelow, no doubt, but when I spoke to her Friday, she seemed to have something else on her mind, as you will see.

PK: How are you today?

KB: Fine. Other than the plane was hit twice in midair by lightning. Did you ever have that happen?

PK: Not that I've been aware of.

KB: Oh, you would be! It was like a bullwhip snapped the whole plane. Bam! It was very intense. So I'm very happy to see you.

PK: What an adrenaline rush. That's probably as close as you'll get to defusing a 155 [an artillery shell used in IEDs].

KB: Let me knock on wood.

PK: The second time was probably already boring.

KB: Just old hat.

PK: After the screening of "The Hurt Locker" another critic said that this makes Michael Bay look like a wimp. What is the key to making a powerful action movie?

KB: Emotional investment with the characters. Smart stories. If you're not emotionally engaged cinematic prowess can't invent what is not there. And then there are so many other factors so I don't want to be reductive. Like keeping the audience oriented, making sure the geography is very clear. Especially in a movie like "The Hurt Locker" where the audience's relation to an improvised explosive device is the key to your understanding of what a bomb tech does on a daily basis in Baghdad in 2004. And so I'd say emotional engagement with carefully crafted characters and a great script.

PK: So, no Autobots.

KB: No tricks. You put the camera low and you dutch the angle and you hit the side of the magazine when you turn the camera over. But if the intrinsic investment is not there, you can't invent it out of whole cloth.

PK: And easy on the rapid fire editing so people can follow what's going on?

KB: And geography. So people can be oriented geographically. If you're creating excitement purely from an editorial standpoint it has to be intrinsic to the story and the subject; it doesn't come from form, it comes from content.

PK: Intensity and clarity.

KB: Exactly. And the intensity comes from, one hopes anyway. emotional investment in the characters. You are worried for them or you break down the fourth wall and become them.

PK: Was the point-of-view camera something you started using after "Strange Days?"

KB: I did some p.o.v. in "Near Dark" and I think... it's a really successful tool if the story needs it and demands it. Total immersion and experiential cinema -- I know I've talked about it in other interviews -- where film and literature, not that literature can't be experiential, it is more reflective. But film is experiential. It can transport you to the desert basin of Baghdad in 2004 and put you up close and personal.

PK: Kind of like the SQUIDS [Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices, which record and replay personal experiences] in "Strange Days?"

KB: Kind of like that, but it's more literal. In the case of "The Hurt Locker" it's looking at a day in the life of a bomb tech in Baghdad in 2004 through the soldier's eyes in a boots on the ground way where you are there alongside these individuals who have the most dangerous job in the world. And you're walking toward what most people in the planet would run from. In the EOD [Explosive Ordinance Disposal, the units assigned to defuse IEDS] parlance they call it "the lonely walk." Because you're by yourself.

PK: With the big suit.

KB: Right.

PK: It's kind of like "High Noon."

KB: I know. I saw that when we were shooting it. I kind of imagined it in the script stage but getting to the location, we were in the middle east, and the nature of the light, the reflective surfaces of the sand, just creating this kind of classic palette and then this guy in the suit. The solo nature of the job.

PK: Is there a little bit of "The Wild Bunch" going on there too? The slow motion explosion for example.

KB: All of this came from Mark Boal.

PK: He's not here.

KB: No, he had to go to Florida with somebody.

PK: He had a bad feeling about the flight.

KB: He said if anyone is going to deal with lightning, it's going to be her. Anyway, he was on a journalistic embed in 2004 and 10, 12, 15 times a day they'd go to these coordinates that the ground troops had called in because of a suspicious rubble pile or a pair of wires or an empty garbage bag and.. they're not all 155s but they're fairly heavy ordinance. When they are detonated or tragically, accidentall go off there's something called overpressure. That's what those shots are meant to indicate. Before the particulate matter is expended it's the gas that precedes the shrapnel. It travels at some ungodly speed. And that completely implodes any air pocket in your body.

PK: Ouch.

KB: That's what he means by, within 25 meters you're in the kill zone. The point of no return. Nobody can help you. These guys are like surgeons. Frighteningly intelligent. You have to have scored high on your IQ tests. [Only then are you] invited to the EOD. You need to have phenomenal motor skills and dexterity. You're able to make decisions under extreme multitude of decisions under extreme pressure so it really self-selects. It takes a special kind of person to make that lonely walk.

PK: Are they addicted to adrenaline or do they have a death wish?

KB: It isn't meant to stand as a generalization and I wouldn't want to think of all of it as a death wish but I think they are incredibly courageous. If you've read read Chris Hedges book "War is Force that Gives us Meaning" he...

PK: Did you read it before or after you decided to make the movie?

KB: Before. And Mark read it before his embed. James is not any particular individual, but a kind of composite and fictionalization. I think between James and Sanborn and Eldredge you get a nice myriad of personalities.

PK: You get a lot of that good angel/ bad angel motif in a lot of your movies.

KB: That's true. I hadn't thought of that. That's why we need people like you. People to analyze. Not the gesticulators. Isn't that what the French critics say about American critics? "You gesticulate We analyze."

PK: We blurb.

KB: Thankfully. So, anyway, Hedges talks about the allure of war. And, mind you, this is an all volunteer military. It's a situation fairly unique to this conflict. So what Hedges tries to attack is that for some individuals combat provides an allure and attraction. It can provide that. Whether that attraction or allure, I don't know, intensifies your survival skills or not it certainly does with someone like James who has a kind of reckless swagger...

PK: He's intuitive

KB: I think of him as an artist. Every IED , they are all prototypical. Not one is like another. And you have about 45 seconds to...

PK: The red wire or the blue wire...

KB: Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. It would be so much easier. But to make life or death decisions. If you're on the ground too long -- first of all you're by yourself. You've got a 200-300 meter cordoned-off area. The guy in the balcony might be calling in your coordinates for a sniper or just hanging out his laundry. But you don't want to be exposed too long. And he's like a surgeon with this ability to analyze this prototypical wiring or pressure plate or secondary or single or double or triple initiating device. But if you make a mistake -- it's not the patient who dies, you die.

PK: As the French critics would say, it's the ultimate deconstruction paradigm.

KB: Taking deconstruction to atomization. What would Lacan say about that?

PK: Deconstruct the artifice or it will deconstruct you.

KB: There's your lede.

NEXT: Beyond deconstructionism.

Gandalf-Jackson-Iran connection

Peter Keough — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:21:00 GMT

Say what you will about the guys running Iran, but they are indeed media savvy. How do you get thousands of people off the streets and into the house and put an end to all these pesky demonstrations? Why, you broadcast the most popular trilogy of all time on the TV. According to this anonymous posting from someone in Tehran in "Salon," one of the state television stations is offering marathon showings of "The Lord of the Rings."

But Frodo and company have nothing on Jacko when it comes to drowning out news or interest in the gruesome onslaught of oppression. And certainly poor Neda, the young demonstrator who bled to death on YouTube and has become a rallying point for Iranians disputing the election, has been completely overshadowed by Michael Jackson's sudden demise. On Google for the last 24 hours Jackson's hits outnumber Neda's 47,900,000 to 378,000. The activity almost crashed the whole damn internet.

And not just the internet has fallen victim to the Jackson tsunami. As Jonathan Rosenbaum points out in his blog, Jackson's demise has pretty much short-circuited history, at least for the time being. Iran who?

Ever the conspiracy theorists looking to implicate the Great Satan, some Iranian spokespeople have suggested that the CIA was involved in bumping off Neda. If I were of a paranoid turn of mind (which I am), I'd have to ask myself, who would benefit most from bumping off Jackson?

Obscure Michael Jackson homages

Peter Keough — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:09:00 GMT

Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett and now Michael Jackson. In one week it's like an entire issue of "National Enquirer" has been wiped out.

I was never a big fan of Jackson's music, but I certainly respected his impact on Pop Culture. How could you not? Not only are there an overwhelming number of references in the mainstream media, but he makes appearances in the most obscure independent and foreign movies.

For example, Harmony Korine's "Mister Lonely," which came out last year and stars Diego Luna as an incompetent Michael Jackson impersonator. He finds refuge in an isolated community of other bad celebrity impersonators and, well, it sounds a lot more amusing than it is, though Werner Herzog is quite entertaining as a deranged priest in a wildly disconnected subplot.

Further afield in Estonia, there is Veiko Õunpuu's "Autumn Ball" (2007), in which, apropos of nothing, a bellman in a cheap Tallinn hotel breaks into a nearly silent version of Jackson's "Beat It," and is ignored. This film is one of the more hilarious black comedies I've seen in recent years and maybe the impetus of Jackson's death might give it wider distribution, but I doubt it.

And heading to Moravia, there is Bohdan Sláma's "Wild Bees" (2001), which takes place in a backward village where one of the benighted characters earns scorn as he tries to perfect his Moonwalk.

Then there's a Chinese movie in which a character wears a single glove in homage to the King of Pop, but I can't remember the title.

So, as you can see, Jacko will be missed, but only if you bury yourself in a bomb shelter for the next week or two and avoid any and all media contact.

Casting the first stone

Peter Keough — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:34:00 GMT

The distributors of "The Stoning of Soraya M," according to the "Hollywood Reporter," face a delicate opportunity as the release of the film coincides with the ongoing turmoil in Iran over the disputed election. The film is based on the true story of the 1986 stoning death of an Iranian woman accused of adultery by her husband who wanted to get rid of her for a new wife. "Anyone watching TV can see this is about a certain kind of religious fascism that was present 20 years ago and is present now," said producer Stephen McEveety about the film's relevance to today's situation. "If you Google the subject, you'll see stonings going on today."

Another story you might come up with is that of Neda, the young woman shot to death by police during demonstrations against Ahmadinejad in Tehran. No doubt inflammatory images like that have increased the recent interest in "Soraya," which, according to the IMDB, by over 1,000%. But is it ethical or tasteful to exploit such a horrific events to promote an entertainment?

Who am I kidding? Shortly after writing the above I got an e-mail from the film's publicist that begins: "Why is this film so important and relevant? Let's connect the dots . . . In March 2009 the Iranian regime condemns and bans our movie - now the parliament plans to end some punishments."

Well, with that kind of post hoc/ergo propter hoc reasoning, perhaps we can also attribute the election fraud and the violent crackdown on demonstrators to "Soraya" also?

Okay, I haven't seen the movie myself. However in Brett Michel's review, which will come out this week, he gives it one star and concludes: "Poorly written (with his wife Betsy) and directed by Cyrus Nowrasteh, it's as black-and-white as his scripts for the TV movies 'The Path to 9/11' and 'The Day Reagan Was Shot.'" Based on that I would suspect that the film encourages a kind of demonizing approach to the situation, with clearcut good guys and bad guys and therefore demanding an immediate unambiguous response. The kind of approach, in other words, that has worked so well for us as foreign policy in the past and is still being urged by these clowns.

Meanwhile, one film I did see was Majid Majidi's "Song of the Sparrows," which opened June 5. It depicts Iranians as diverse, complex and non-stereotypical human beings. It also sheds some light on the conflict between the traditional, mostly rural culture and the urban more modern perspective that seems to underlie a lot of the current strife. This film might enlighten people about what's going on over there. But unlike "Soraya" it won't be cashing in on the crisis because it was pulled from the theater after a one week run.

"At the Death House Door"

Peter Keough — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:40:00 GMT

What with the crashing economy, the North Koreans having a nutty and Iran melting down - to name just a few of the crises spinning at the moment - the status of the death penalty would seem to be near the bottom of President Obama's list of priorities. Nonetheless, he'll have no choice but to take a stand on the issue pretty soon, since the cases of six federal death row inmates will probably see their stays of executions expire in the next few months.

Then Obama, who has the authority to pardon them or not, will have to decide whether they live or die.

"The death penalty in the abstract is one thing," says Dianne Rust-Tierney of the National Coalition Against the Death Penalty to "Politico." "The reality of the death penalty and all of its nasty details is a very different thing."

Perhaps the president might want to prep himself for this decision by watching Steve James and Peter Gilbert's ("Hoop Dreams") wrenching, sublimely restrained and expertly crafted documentary, "At the Death House Door," which will be released by Facets Video tomorrow. It concerns, in part, the strange career of Rev. Carroll Pickett, who served as the Death Row chaplain at the Huntsville, Texas prison, ushering condemned prisoners through the last 12 hours of their lives.

Pickett's first experience at the prison traumatized him. In 1974, inmates took several civilian workers hostage. Among them were two of his parishioners. He watched them get gunned down in a bloody shootout.

In 1982, six years after the Supreme Court had reinstated the death penalty, Huntsville Prison was in the business of executing people. Pickett, then the prison chaplain and a compelling force for good who had already changed the lives of many prisoners through his ministry and his choir, was enlisted into the "Lethal Injection Team" as the person who would accompany the condemned through his (or her; one victim was a woman) last day, offering them comfort and consolation and, as the warden put it, "seduce" their emotions so they wouldn't "fight" when they had to walk that last 8 feet to be strapped to a gurney and put to death.

Given the murders of his parishioners in 1974, Pickett initially, if abstractly - had no problem with the death penalty. His leather-tough Texas dad used to say "hang them fast and hang them high." But he discovered, as Rust-Tierney noted above, that the reality is different. He was so shaken by the experience that he made a tape recording of his feelings and impressions after each execution. Thirteen years and 95 executions later, including that of one man, Carlos DeLuna, whom he was certain was innocent, Pickett was no longer in favor of capital punishment. Anyone who watches this film will be hard-pressed to support it, either.

Be assured that the film is no screed, but a subtle and complex interweaving of themes and narratives - including the investigative crusade of two "Chicago Tribune" reporters seeking to posthumously establish DeLuna's innocence ("that's what newspapers are for," says one, reminding us what the big deal about print journalism was all about). At the heart of the film is the unforgettable, calmly tragic and utterly compassionate Pickett and his briefcase full of shattering recorded memories.

Iran losing direction?

Peter Keough — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:54:00 GMT

What with the increasingly tense protests against the disputed election of Mahmoud Ahmedenijad, not to mention the ongoing threat of their nuclear program, the state of filmmaking is not the first thing people think about when the subject of Iran is raised. Nonetheless, I think it's germane, and so does Vadim Rizov at GreenCine.com, who describes how the leading Iranian auteurs such as Mohsen Makhmalbaf, Abbas Kiarostami, Majid Majidi and Panahi have been stifled or sent into artistic exile by the current regime, which in the meantime has turned the film industry into a dumbed down spewer of reactionary palaver, a regime which, he writes, is " one of the most ridiculously efficient propaganda machines on the planet, one that's shattered a vibrant film culture in under ten years."

That may well be the case, but I found the selections in the annual "Boston Festival Of Films From Iran" showing at the Museum of Fine Arts last November pretty provocative. They seemed forthright on such issues as feminism, tolerance and individual freedom -- especially when compared to such Hollywood box office offerings as "The Hangover" and "Land of the Lost." Whether these films got much exposure in Iran I don't know (though it seems at least one, Dariush Mehrjui's "Santoori: The Music Man," was banned) and most of the high profile directors were not represented. An exception being Majidi with his "Song of the Sparrows," which has since been released here commercially and, though a little on the sentimental side, is certainly more insightful into human relations and the iniquities of society than, say "Away We Go."

And what of those other major directors Rizov mentioned? Well Kiarostami, whom Rizov said was "off doing art installation-type dares to the audience," was interviewed recently by the Guardian. Asked whether he planned to vote in the (then) upcoming Iranian election he said, "I won't vote for a republic again. But if any candidate declared himself as a responsible power for life, I might well vote for them - I'd even go barefoot to vote. I can't vote for someone who, once they're elected, spends two years reinforcing his position, and the next two years preparing for the next vote. More than the Islamic republic, I want to question the republic itself. Nowadays you can win a four-year mandate with the promise of a kilo of oranges. People have to be educated to be politically mature and independent." No big booster of democracy he, nor did he sound particularly worried about his own circumstances whatever the outcome of the election.

Makhmalbaf, on the other hand, who as a zealous youth was arrested resisting the Shah back in 70s, is a little more of an activist. He is a supporter of Mir Hossein Mousavi, the opposition candidate who claims to have defeated Mahmoud Ahmedenijad, and together with Paris-based Iranian filmmaker Marjane Satrapi ("Persepolis "), has gone public to denounce Ahmedinijad. "What happened is not an electoral fraud, but a coup d'etat," he said. Apparently he and Satrapi believe that there comes a time when making history is more important than making movies.

"The Thief and the Cobbler:" stolen and repaired

Peter Keough — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:51:00 GMT

The deserved success of "Up" and other Pixar CGI epics unfortunately overshadows the visual glories of animated films made the old fashioned way, laboriously by hand. Films like "Pinocchio," "Dumbo," "Snow White." And "Aladdin?" Well maybe not so much "Aladdin," if only because it was in part responsible for deep sixing one of the most ambitious and dazzling feats of animation ever attempted, Richard Williams's "The Thief and the Cobbler."

In 1989 Warners gave a green light to Williams, who has won three Osars including one for "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" (1988) to finish the picture, which he had already been working on mostly at his own expense for decades. But in 1991 Disney decided to make "Aladdin," which drew on much of the same story "Thief." So Warners pulled the plug on the project. They passed the 90% of it that had been finished to another director who eviscerated and dumbed it down and then they sold it to Disney's Miramax division who redubbed it into a farcical parody.

It's the "Greed" of animation. And like the people who restored that lacerated masterpiece, 29-year-old starving animator Garrett Gilchrist painstakingly retrieved all the surviving footage of "Thief" and put together a remarkable (though unofficial) fan restoration.

Former "Phoenix" contributor Steven Drachman was kind enough to arrange to get me a screener, and I was impressed to put it mildly. Even on the small screen the eclectic, protean, inexhaustibly inventive imagery dazzles. The story, which is set in a Persian-like fairytale land and is about a cute young Cobbler named Tack who catches the eye of both an evil Vizier named ZigZag (voiced by Vincent Price) and the lethargic King's beautiful daughter Yum-Yum and must help save the Kingdom from an evil warlord named One Eye, calls to mind not just "Aladdin" but also elements of "Lord of the Rings." The visuals, however, tap into the history of art and media for the past thousand or so years, a kaleidoscope that ranges from Indian miniature paintings to Looneytunes, with forays into MC Escher, Op Art, Van Gogh, Arabic geometric design, German Expressionism, Symbolist painting, Rube Goldberg, "Yellow Submarine" and many more than I can identify. All combining into an integral, original vision that is not only gorgeous but also laugh-out-loud hilarious. The concluding confrontation between the good, the bad and the ugly makes Peter Jackson's Tolkeinesque showdowns look like Wrestlemania.

It seems to me that Warners and Disney missed out on a good thing. You don't have to. The restored version (not the crappy Disney hatchet job) is available on YouTube and is downloadable and pops up occasionally at film festivals. Also, Williams himself is alive and kicking; maybe he could someday finish his own version, that is, if Disney deigns to relinquish the rights and open the vault. We can dream, can't we?

There is a web campaign to make this dream come true, and for further information about the film, its availability, and the campaign for an official restoration can be obtained from Gilchrist himself at Gilchristgarrett at gmail.com

Paradise Fall Guys

Peter Keough — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:02:00 GMT

Are there no undivorced dads in the movies any more? And do they all end up going to some imaginary realm to find with their inner child and so be able to reconnect with their children? My theory: these movies are written, produced and directed by divorced Hollywood dads who are overworked and are trying to find with their inner child if not to reconnect with their inner child than at least to dredge up some material the kids in the audience (or their parents might) like and thus earn enough to make child support payments.

What brought this to mind was a screening of "Imagine That" in which Eddie Murphy plays a Wall Street whiz who's losing his edge until he notices that his daughter (the adorable newcomer Yara Shahidi) has imaginary playmates who have inside information on hot investment commodities. My first response was, have we come this? Kids' imaginations taken over by stock futures? At any rate, this skill interests Murphy in his child's inner world (he had been a workaholic coldly ignoring her up to then) and the resulting scenes of them bonding are some of the best work Murphy has done in years. Funny! Heartwarming! And an insight into why Wall Street recently took such a disastrous turn.

Another film following this pattern is "Night at the Museum: The Battle of the Smithsonian," which I didn't see. But I did see the original and from what I heard this is much the same, but worse. In the first one, once again a divorced dad with work problems, a museum security guard played by Ben Stiller, bonds with his estranged son when an invisible, magical world springs to life (I guess in the sequel they pretty much dump the kid and it's the imaginary world itself that Stiller's character is neglecting) which father and son can both share. Hey, it's easier just playing video games. But inevitably dad's work and family problems are both solved, and Stiller's reputation takes another hit.

That's two movies on this theme, and as we all know it takes at least three examples to make for a trend. So how about "Up"? Wait, you say, Carl, the hero of "Up," is not a divorced single dad, he's a childless widower. True, I reply, but his sidekick Russell is the son of a divorced dad. Russell consequently has father issues and begrudgingly Carl takes on the role of surrogate pop and when the pair sail to Paradise Falls (a play on words, perhaps? Paradise falling? Like in the Bible, sort of?) they bond and Russell finds a new dad and Carl finds his inner child. (And note "The Wizard of Oz" resemblance, with a flying house, no less).

All of this cogitating is giving me a headache, which reminds me of "The Hangover." True, there is no divorced dad in this raunchy comedy about a quartet of knuckleheads who head to Vegas for a bachelor party. The only dad is the finagling Phil, and his wife and kids barely make a cameo. The other guys aren't even married, yet. But let's stretch the paradigm a bit. Though there are no children to speak of (some show up in the middle of the film armed with taser guns in a scene I'm still scratching my head over), but there sure are some childish adults. There's Doug, the meek chump for whom the party is taking place, who disappears for most of the movie. There's Stu, who's treated like a child by his emasculating, basilisk of a fiancée. And there's the loose cannon Alan who, it is suggested, might be a child molester. At any rate, they all journey to the imaginary, magical Paradise of Las Vegas where they avoid arrest, raise hell, lose their memories, and get in touch with their inner, if depraved child, preparing them presumably for a future of being respectable, conforming, breeding adults.

So let's move on from the Land of the Losers to "The Land of the Lost." Here a team of lunkheads (one a woman for the purposes of crude sexual humor) led by Will Farrell (Can you think of a film in which he's played a father? I can't either) who have regressed far beyond childishness to infantilism travel to another dimension, a desert studded with the detritus of pop culture. It's inhabited by dinosaurs, giant bugs, big piles of poop and intoxicating sugary drinks. In short, a kids' paradise as dreamed up by Hollywood marketing people and the countless toy, sweets, video game and crapola manufacturers that also prey on children. And there they act like idiots in a Neverland of inanity forever.

It's the Peter Pan myth as opposed to "The Wizard of Oz." In the latter the protagonist (an adolescent girl, significantly) journeys to a magical realm and learns there's no place like home. In short, she learns adult responsibility while retaining some of childhood's innocence and imagination. But "The Land of the Lost" offers neither maturity nor innocence, but rather the kind of stunted growth and benighted intelligence that makes for the ideal consumer.

Hype-o-critical

Peter Keough — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:42:00 GMT

Well, I guess that clinches it: film criticism, at least in print journalism, is dead.

So say no less than the head marketers of MGM/UA and Universal studios, as quoted in a recent New York Times article (by way of Jeffrey Wells's "Hollywood Elsewhere" website). And, as we all know, the purpose of film criticism is to sell the product of major studios.

According to the "Times," Mike Vollman, president of marketing for MGM and United Artists, "said that he will probably rely more on quotes from blogs than from ‘Time' magazine and ‘The Los Angeles Times' when he promotes ‘Fame,' a remake of the 1980 musical, and a comedy called ‘Hot Tub Time Machine.' ‘The reality, and I'm sorry to tell you this, is that younger moviegoers are more likely to be influenced by a blog than by a newspaper critic,' he said."

Well Mike, if you have trouble getting a good quote from the bloggers for "Hot Tub Time Machine," you might give David Manning a call.

Adds Michael Moses, executive vice president of national publicity for Universal, "some of the best film writing and most substantive reviews are found online. Those sources are as legitimate as any other."

The last I looked, by the way, Universal's "Land of the Lost" didn't have any blurbs at all (I was disappointed I didn't see "A pot of ersatz dinosaur piss!" -- Peter Keough, "The Boston Phoenix," on any of the ads), either from print sources or bloggers. It apparently didn't do so great, barely eking out $19 million at the box office. One reason? According to "The Hollywood Reporter:" "It likely was hoping for a certain review-reading constituency... a 28% Rotten Tomatoes score... [doesn't] really do it."

Regardless, a lot of people went to see it.The bottom line for marketing people like Moses and Vollman is that if they pump in $50 million or so in ads and promos and other propaganda it will steamroll noncomprehending dupes into theaters to watch crap. So it doesn't really matter what anyone else says, regardless of the medium. Maybe after they waste their $10 to be subjected to such punishment as "Land of the Lost," some of these dupes might think twice about ignoring the advice offered by professional movie critics.

Russian revisionism

Peter Keough — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:35:00 GMT

Truth, they say, is the first casualty in war. Sometimes it's also the last.

Some seventy years after the Soviets and the Nazis signed a treaty agreeing to invade Poland and split the country between them, Colonel Sergei Kovalyov, a Russian historian, recently published an article which appeared on the official website for the Russian Ministry of Defense entitled "Fictions and Falsifications in Evaluating the USSR's Role On the Eve of World War II" in which he explains how the war as all Poland's fault.

Good point. No doubt the the estimated 20,000 Polish army officers captured by the Soviets during the war and subsequently massacred have only themselves to blame. After all, they stuck their necks in front of their killers' guns, didn't they?

Well, you can believe that or you can believe Andrzej Wajda, whose shattering film "Katyn" (that's the name of the forest where thousands of the slaughtered were found in a mass grave), tells a different story. But then again, Wajda is hardly an objective source, since his father was among those slain.

Wajda also happens to be one of the world's greatest living directors. The films he's made include "Kanal" (1957), "Ashes and Diamonds" (1958) and "Man of Iron" (1981), which are not only great movies but are also courageous historical documents.

If you missed "Katyn" during its run last week at the Brattle Theatre, you'll get another chance. They'll be screening it again this summer so keep an eye on their schedule. It's also available on DVD.

Best/Worst Blow Jobs in a Non-pornographic Film (reprise)

Peter Keough — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 00:26:00 GMT

Not to beat the issue to death, but the credit cookie mentioned below reminded me of a posting I did three years ago, which seems to have vanished into electronic oblivion. So I'll resurrect it here. It was about [SPOILER!] "Best/Worst Blow-Jobs in a Non-Pornographic Film," an award I thought at the time I might bestow on Carlos Reygadas's "Battle in Heaven,"

which was on my top ten list in 2005 and not just because it opened with a five minute scene of the sad sack protagonist looking perfectly miserable as he's serviced by some babe. I knew the film would never get an Oscar, so I pitched this as a possible award category. As you will see if you happen to catch "The Hangover," that film could be in the running too. But it would face stiff competition from the following:

1) The dialectical oralism of Marco Bellocchio's "Devil in the Flesh," (1986) in which Maruschka Detmers services Federico Pitzalis while telling him the story of how Lenin snuck into St. Petersburg to start the Russian Revolution.

2) Michael Winterbottom's "Nine Songs" (2005) I can't remember the specifics, but they do everything else in the film, so I'm sure it happened and wasn't very good.

3) Hal Ashby's "Shampoo" (1975) , in which Warren Beatty gets a wash and rinse under a table.

4) George Roy Hill's "The World According to Garp" (1982), in which oral sex in a moving vehicle proves hard to swallow.

5) Any film by Catherine Breillat.

6) Vincent Gallo demonstrating that he's a head case with the help of Chloe Sevigny in "The Brown Bunny" (2004).

7) The biting irony of the original "The Last House on the Left"(1975).

I'm sure there are more. If so, keep them coming.

Extra credit

Peter Keough — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:11:00 GMT

NOW I remember what I wanted to ask Ed Helms about "The Hangover" when the two-minute warning from the publicist put me in panic mode. True, he said that all the "deleted" photosof the boy's lost night in Vegas - shown in a montage over the credits in the end - were posed. But were they simulated? In particular one involving Zach Galifianakis and a woman old enough to be his mother. I did a double take when I saw it, not sure if I could believe my eyes, as did the Culture Vulture on the "New York" magazine website.

These shock images might be just one more in the ongoing trend (at least since "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" in 1986) of "post-credit cookies" (though this is during not post) of studio movies that withhold a final payoff shot or scene until the very end of the credits (a recent example: "X-men Origins: Wolverine"). How else get people to hang around when the credit sequence can be almost as long as the movie itself? True, there are diehard cinephiles who stick it out, perhaps to show their respect, like fans at a baseball game listening to the national anthem (and I wonder how many of them would remain standing if the anthem was played at the end of the game?).

At any rate, as the Vulture also pointed out, it suggests that the bean-counting censors at the MPAA don't watch movies through to the last frame before slapping a rating on it ("The Hangover" got an "R").Unless they are shown a version without the credits.

Ed Helms interview, part 2

Peter Keough — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:24:00 GMT

A lot can happen in two minutes. Especially if you talk really fast. Plenty of time to slip in a gratuitous question about misogyny.

PK: Alright. So you went back in forth actually from "The Office" to...

EH: Yeah. Five days a week in Vegas and two days a week in "The Office." I worked like 45 days in a row.

PK: Since we only have two minutes, I'll give you three topics, Mike Tyson; tiger; and getting tasered in the nuts.

EH: I didn't get tasered in the nuts.

PK: I know, but the Bradley Cooper character did. By a school girl. Tasered in the nuts by a school girl. I mean, that seems wrong.

EH: OK. Well, so, Mike Tyson was amazing because no one quite knew what to expect, and then he showed up and he was like the funniest guy in the movie.

PK: Did you see "Black and White," the one he did with Downey?

EH: Uh, no.

PK: The Toback movie.

EH: I remember hearing about that, that he actually punched Downey in that. Have not seen that, but he was pretty amazing. A lot of times when non-actors show up on a movie set they're really self-conscious and they hold back, but as you can see in that Phil Collins moment he just dove in and sold it 100 percent. It turns out he was a huge fan of "Old School." So as soon as he said that, it was clear he trusted Todd Phillips, and he, you know, I think he liked Zach, Bradley and I, because we're pretty easy-going guys, so. It was just a fun, crazy couple of days with him.

PK: Did he show you some punches?

EH: What's that?

PK: Did he show you some punches?

EH: No, but the best part is when he's doing the punch on Zach, Todd kept coming in and being like, "he needs to be more like this. Your fist needs to be up" or whatever, and Mike was just like, "You teachin' me how to box?" It was pretty good.

PK: But then he had some good directing tips I imagine, Tyson.

EH: Yeah, yeah, of course. He stepped in and gave Todd a lot of advice.

PK: Any tips on dealing with a tiger?

EH: Yeah: don't do it. Avoid it. Avoid tigers. Yeah, we spent way too much time with that tiger. The whole time in the back of your head is this little voice being like, "Get out! Leave! There's a tiger here! This is stupid! This is like profoundly stupid what you're doing right now."

PK: Nobody was hurt though.

EH: Thank god nobody was hurt, but, I mean, one look at that tiger and...

PK: It's a real tiger.

EH: It's a real tiger, we're really close, and for hours we're shooting with this thing. And I still feel like we sort of got away with something.

PK: They're very quick too, aren't they? The tigers.

EH: Oh yeah, yeah.

PK: And just, in terms of, I mean, did you have a big litter box for it?

EH: I never saw that tiger take a shit, so I don't know. That'd be pretty funny, though.

PK: There's a lot of like, really cruel, sadistic moments in this film that people laugh at. Do you think sadism is an essential part of comedy?

EH: Yeah, if it's not physical sadism it's mental or emotional. I think that people in some sort of pain is oftentimes the core of a comedic moment, whether it's big or small. I mean some of the greatest slapstick is just the most violent stuff you've ever seen. Even if you go back to Looney Tunes, like Wile.E Coyote and The Road Runner? That stuff is so insanely violent. But it's hysterical.

PK: "Three Stooges."

EH: "Three Stooges," of course. It's just abuse. And if you contextualize it properly it's hysterical.

PK: There's also the element of masochism in your character, especially when he puts up with Melissa. What's the story there? Did you make up a back story of how he got into her clutches?

EH: No, you know I didn't think about it too hard. I think Stu is a bit of an archetype in that respect, just a henpecked husband, and Rachel Harris portrayed the girlfriend so amazingly, as just this evil, power hungry, awful girlfriend. So it just made her a fun dynamic, because Stu is in total denial that anything's wrong.

PK: Do you think that the character, Melissa, as the most evil character in the movie, underscores a sort of misogynistic streak in the movie?

EH: Um, I don't know. I think it's not hard to find a lot of reason to be offended by this movie, and hopefully just all of it together, you can sort of see it in a silly context. But I guess you kind of have to hit some raw spots to go for some chuckles. I don't think that was anyone's intention, to create any kind of tone in that respect, but hopefully it...I don't know.

PK: You haven't seen a completed cut of it, or you've seen various cuts?

EH: I have, I mean, I know I've seen the last one. I just get it confused with earlier ones.

PK: Have you seen it with audiences?

EH: I've only seen the last few minutes with an actual audience.

PK: And do you think it appeals both to men and women or is it really kind of a guys' film?

EH: I'm getting like incredible feedback from both genders, and I hope it appeals to everyone. I think there's some moments in this movie where I think any responsible mom would check out -- for example when we leave the baby in the car -- but again, it's just one of those things. It's one thing in a long list of very stupid decisions by our main characters, and hopefully in the overall context it's something that we can laugh at. But yeah these are very stupid characters who make stupid decisions and pay a price for it.

PK: But they live to tell about it.

EH: But they live to tell about it, and I think that they learn some lessons in the process too.

PK: And they delete the pictures. "Hangover 2:" Is that going to be the back story? I read that that's almost in the works now.

EH: Yeah, I think that's being talked about, but it just depends on how this movie does, obviously. But, is there a story, is that what you're asking?

PK: Yeah.

EH: I have no idea. I don't know what we...I mean, I think we'd have to take it to outer space to heighten what we did.

PK: I thought there was a little, with the Heather Graham character, there was like a little, you were going to go back to have lunch with her or something.

EH: Yeah, but that's honestly...

PK: It's too mild.

EH: That's so boring, I mean that's sort of a nice, pleasant thing. That's like the romantic comedy spin-off. I think if it's going to follow in sort of the same tone as "Hangover" it has to just blow it out and get even more insane somehow.

PK: She is a prostitute, mind you.

EH: That's true, but she's ...quite a heart of gold, so.

PK: Re-enactors, Civil War re-enactors. You're working on that movie?

EH: Yeah, very excited, it's a big back-to-the-future comedy.

PK: And you're writing it.

EH: Yep, writing it this summer. Steve Carell's company is producing it.

PK: Looks like fun. Are you Confederate or Union?

EH: Uh, well, both... you know what, we'll let that story tell itself when it comes out.

PK: Have you done research?

EH: Yeah, I've been to a few reenactments, and it's such a fun culture, It's such a fun hobby. I grew up in the south so I have an affinity for Civil War nostalgia, so.

PK: Yeah, a lot of battle fields down there.

EH: A lot of battle fields down there.

PK: Well, I'm going to be dragged away from here if I don't stop, so I really appreciate your time.