Friday, September 27, 2013

THE WHOLE HISTORY OF MY LIFE (The Pink Smoke) & PINNLAND EMPIRE RETURNS TO THE NEW YORK FILM FESTIVAL...

Hello all!

When you have a chance, head over to The Pink Smoke to see my first installment in "The Whole History Of My Life" series. 




And in October I'll be covering new films from Claire Denis (Bastards), Jim Jarmusch (Only Lovers Left Alive) & Alexander Payne (Nebraska) at this years' New York Film Festival followed by another appearance on the Inside The Phoenix podcast to discuss what I saw...

(Top to Bottom: Bastards, Only Lovers Left Alive & Nebraska)

Monday, September 23, 2013

THE TORONTO VAULT VOL.3: THE SKIN I LIVE IN


I'm not a diehard Pedro Almodovar fan but I do recognize that he is an important figure in modern cinema and, like I mentioned in my recent write-up on The Paperboy, he has a pretty unique visual style and that counts for something (when I think of his work, the term; "NEON-noir" comes to mind). But my issue with Almodovar's work is that in the last ten years or so, his films have become SO formulaic that I can practically predict half of whats going to happen in the story along with half of the characters we're going to see - the overly feminine gay male caricature, the transgender character, the religious figure (nun or priest or both) and the ridiculously handsome straight male lead. And at some point in his films, someone will be raped, the music will be overly dramatic, the colors in his films will be extra bright (we get it, Pedro - you like pink, orange & red) and half of the story will be told out of chronological order. I'm not the only person whose called Almodovar out on his recent predictability. Ever since Bad Education through Broken Embraces, there's been endless reviews that have complained about the very same thing.
At first glance, one would think Almodovar took these criticisms in to consideration with The Skin I Live In - there are no transgender characters this time around (...or so we think), for the first time in a while we get a gay female character instead of strictly gay men and Almodovar went back to working with his old collaborator; Antonio Banderas, after over two decades.

But in reality, The Skin I Live In is a middle finger in disguise from Almodovar to people like me and others who've complained about him in recent years. 
He still recycles the same themes & elements but this time around he made it work and managed to make one of his best films since Talk To Her (almost 10 years ago). Not that The Skin I Live In is a game-changer (although it did make the top 10 in the honorable mention category of my 2011 wrap-up) but its still a major improvement from what he's been doing. 


I'm not even offended by the middle finger Pedro Almodovar gave to all the critics. Its reminiscent of his early work (which, on some level, were carbon copies of John Waters' early films, but still...). It's a cliche statement, and it almost makes me cringe writing this but, Almodovar's early work was very "punk rock" and anti-establishment when compared to other classic Spanish filmmakers from the late 70's/early 80's. Instead of dealing with the impact Franco had on Spain in the same poetic/artsy way as Carlos Suara (Cria Cuervos) & Victor Erice (The Spirit Of The Beehive & The South), Pedro Almodovar pretty much jumped on a chair, pulled his dick out and slapped it against the camera lens as if to say; "There's gay people in Spain, we listen to loud noisy music, we dye our hair green and have free will!" As far as Spanish cinema goes, I prefer the work of Erice & Suara over Almodovar but I still respect him for not trying to be another slow "artsy" Spanish filmmaker. The Skin I Live In is FAR more mature than Labrynth Of Passion (1982) or Pepi, Luci & Bom (1980) but his approach is still the same - "Fuck you. I'll make what I want." 


In The Skin I Live In, Antonio Banderas plays "Robert Ledgard" - a radical plastic surgeon whose invented a new type of artificial skin (imagine stockings for the whole body) specialized for burn victims. The inspiration for Ledgard's invention came from his wife who was badly burned in a car accident years ago leaving her almost unrecognizable (she eventually committed suicide after seeing her deformed face). In addition to his wife, Robert's teen daughter, who was mentally unstable, also killed herself after she was sexually assaulted. The death of Robert's wife & daughter, which both took place over the span of a few years, has caused him to go quietly insane. I say "quietly insane" because to the outside world he seems fine but behind closed doors he's losing his grip on reality and is working on a disturbing experiment that we slowly see unfold through the course of the film.
***SPOILER ALERT (skip ahead to the next paragraph if you haven't seen this and are planning too)*** 
As it turns out, Robert has been keeping a beautiful woman ("Vera") captive in his mansion and experimenting on her. But as the story unfolds we discover this woman was once a young man ("Vicente"). And not just any man. This was the same man who sexually assaulted his daughter which ultimately triggered her suicide. As a form of revenge Robert kidnapped and performed various surgeries on Vicente in an effort to transform him in to a woman (anatomy and all). However, during the transformation, Robert falls in love with his creation (he kinda made him/her look a little too beautiful) and forms a romantic relationship with the newly transformed Vera whose now suffering from a bit of Stockholm syndrome. 
Although two different actors play the part (Elena Anaya for Vera & Jan Cornet for Vicente) Almodovar cleverly cast Cornet for the part of Vicente because his body frame is a tad bit small for an average man which makes the male to female transformation angle more believable (midway in to the film I found myself noticing how tiny he is but when its revealed that he's to be transformed in to a woman, it all made sense). 

There's some underrated imagery in The Skin I Live In. Almodovar even throws in a Bergman/Persona reference...


I understand the revenge aspect of the story but once Almodovar throws in the love angel I get completely thrown off. One minute you want revenge on the person who raped your daughter and triggered her suicide then you end up falling in love with the very same person later on? I get that Vicente has been completely changed in to someone else but I thought this element of the story was a little strange.  
Upon my initial (and only) viewing of The Skin I Live In, I wasn't sure if I liked this or not. It felt like an odd mixture of The Bride Of Frankenstein & Oldboy with a touch of Hitchcock. But over time I grew to appreciate it very much. The Skin I Live In is surprisingly darker than I thought it would be and Antonio Banderas' over the top acting, which is sometimes difficult to take seriously, fits perfectly with the tone of the film. It's as if he drew upon Dr. Mabuse, Caligari & Nick Cavanaugh (Boxing Helana) for inspiration.
For something directed by such a big name, The Skin I Live In certainly came and went pretty quickly in the U.S. I wrote about this from memory (I saw it over two years ago) so I guess that says something about the small impact it had on me. Almodovar seems to be returning to form with his latest film (I'm So Excited) which makes The Skin I Live In stand out more among his recent body of work. I'm always hesitant to say this when it comes to recent work of important modern filmmakers but The Skin I Live In may be one of Almosovar's best.

Monday, September 16, 2013

"Oh, Her...Whatsername?": A BLOG ABOUT THE FEMALE CHARACTER ACTOR


Edie McClurg in Ferris Bueller's Day Off
I recently discovered the excellent podcast; Film Spotting, which dedicates quite a bit of its content/cinema talk to movie lists. On a recent film spotting episode co-hosts; Adam Kempenar & Josh Larsen got in to their lists on great character actors or actors with memorable faces but forgettable names (Steven Tobolowsky, James Cromwell, M Emmett Walsh, etc). To my surprise they DID mention one or two female character actors but I was still disappointed that they didn't mention any of the actresses I consider to be in that iconic/all-star line-up of modern female character actors. Names like; Graze Zabriskie (a regular of Gus Van Sant & David Lynch) & Frances Bay (another David Lynch regular or, for those who don't know Lynch's work that well, Adam Sandler's grandmother in Happy Gilmore) or even Loretta Divine & Lupe Ontiveros who could be considered more as type-cast actresses (I mean for christ's sake, the word "maid" automatically pops up next to Lupe Ontiveros' name when you google search it. No, seriously it does). But for all intents & purposes of this write-up I'll consider them straight-up character actresses.


Loretta Devine in Urban Legends: Final Cut
It's easy for supporting women to go unnoticed in cinema. It's a common thing in real life so why wouldn't it happen in the movies? Prominent film directors in popular cinema ARE mostly white males and unfortunately their Achilles heel comes in to play when its time to develop a character that isn't a white male. Furthermore, and I know this is gonna sound corny & cliche, but society still has a lot of complicated issues when it comes to how women are portrayed on film so unfortunately its easier to label a female actress as simply typecast instead of calling her a character actor. 
Adam & Josh's conversation on their podcast got me to think about all the  high profile female-less character actor lists on IMDB, rotten tomatoes, entertainment weekly, mubi.com, etc and I felt compelled to give my 2 cents on the lack of recognition for the female character actor. I also just recently watched Ferris Bueller's Day Off which features one of the true varsity letterwomen; Edie McClurg (Back To School, Planes Trains & Automobiles, She's Having A Baby).

Now, Edie McClurg, Lupe Ontiveros & Loretta Devine are kinda like; "female characters actors: 101". What about all the unsung/underrated ones out there? 
How is it that actors like Willem Dafoe & Philip Seymour Hoffman are wrongfully labeled as great character actors and always seem to find a spot on some reputable "greatest character actors" lists over the likes of O-Lan Jones (the odd receptionist from How I Got In To College & the flirty waitress at the beginning of Natural Born Killers) or Grace Zabriskie?

Grace Zabriskie in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me
Its no mystery that the world of the character actor is a male dominated field (h
onestly, if you asked me to do a top 25 list of great female character actors I'd be struggling after 10 or 15 names) and its heightened mostly because the greatest character actors are the likes of; JT Walsh, Ronny Cox, Michael Ironside, Warren Oates, William Forsythe, Ted Levine and other unique, often times menacing men who sometimes outshine and overshadow the leading men/A-list actors they share the screen with. Those men are downright intimidating. Imagine you're a woman in a room full of loud men shouting over each other trying to get a word in. Not to sound sexist but its not the easiest task for a woman to find her voice in that setting no matter how tough or resilient she may be. Instead, prominent character actresses have been subtly injected in to our psyche since childhood as "the mom", "the receptionist", "the seductress", etc. 
Whats so interesting is that film commentary, film criticism & movie list making is another male dominated field and a lot of these great character actresses have appeared in films geared towards mostly little boys & men, yet the very same men, who dominate film criticism to a certain extent, fail to ever mention the women they essentially grew up watching. Take Mary Ellen Trainor for example - she was the mother in two of the greatest "rag tag group of kids on a mission" movies of all time: The Goonies & Monster Squad. Do you realize what an honor that is? Stop and think about that for a second. Shes like the Dennis Rodman of female character actors (for those that don't get the comparison, Dennis Rodman was a staple in two of the most dominating modern basketball teams of all time; The Detroit Pistons & The Chicago Bulls). Lets also not forget her role as the stressed-out police psychiatrist in the Lethal Weapon movies. With all the male film critics and commentators out there who grew up watching Goonies, Monster Squad & Lethal Weapon its strange that this bug-eyed/worried mom prototype never gets a shout out on any of the greatest character actors lists (not to say females don't love Goonies & Monster Squad, but you get what I mean...)


Mary Ellen Trainor in Goonies

Speaking of female character actors in male dominated films, who could forget this mouth in The Warriors...

Lynne Thigpen's mouth in The Warriors
Like a lot of great character actors, Lynne Thigpen is another one of those; "Oh that actress...whats her name?" actors. She's usually cast as the bitchy/stern/annoying/condescending woman most famously portrayed in Lean On Me. I cant think of too many performances that made me HATE the character so much that I also hated the actor playing the role as well. Be honest - we all wanted this woman to die in Lean On Me, or at the very least severally hurt.

What makes these character actressss just as special as anyone else for me personally is that they followed me from childhood (The Wizard) in to my transitional period of film discovery (Donnie Darko) in to the big ambiguous world of cinema that I love today (Safe). Take Beth Grant for example - She's proven that no matter what the plot or setting, there's always room for the bible thumping, god fearing, extremely judgy, sometimes frantic, tight faced, preachy southern woman. Obviously, the reason she goes over so well as an actress is because, like most character actors, she's given to us in small doses throughout a film (like Donnie Darko) or just has one or two memorable scenes in an entire film (like her roles in Safe or No Country For Old Men). 
This is what made people like JT Walsh, the quintessential character actor, so great. Although he had heavy/prominent supporting roles in films like Red Rock West, Pleasantville & Needful Things, his best performances, in my opinion, were in films like House Of Games or The Grifters where he was only featured in one extended scene/sequence yet he left such a lasting impression.
(this clip below also features the great character actor; Charles Napier)




This is partially why I hesitate to include Loretta Devine among the list of great character actresses as shes featured a little too prominently in films. Shes the kind of actress who should be taken in small doses. But putting my personal opinions aside, like her ties with Tyler Perry, she's still one of the great modern character actresses and was just as much a part of my childhood cinema (Class Act) as any of the other actresses mentioned in this write-up.

Beth Grant in Donnie Darko
Actresses like Beth Grant & Grace Zabriskie also have the power to make awful movies watchable which is another common trait among great character actors. Would you have really sat through all of To Wong Tong Fu, Thanks For Everything; Julie Newmar had it not been for Beth Grant's presence? What about The Passion Of Darkly Noon? That's seriously one of the worst movies ever made yet I've seen it numerous times because of Grace Zabriskie. Naturally I'm a bit biased towards Grace given her connection to the world of David Lynch but all that aside she is quite an amazing actress. Part of me almost wants to call her a versatile/chameleon-like actress instead of just a character actor. Grace Zabriskie's existence is a little more important than most because unlike other prominent character actresses, she almost never plays "the secretary" or other typical roles like that. Instead she plays roles like the creepy hitwoman in Wild At Heart, the creepy next door neighbor in Inland Empire or the female "John" in My Own Private Idaho. And when she does take on roles like "the mom" (like on Twin Peaks or Drugstore Cowboy) she plays them so differently.
I witnessed her screen power first hand for nights in a row in 2006 at the New York Film Festival screening of Inland Empire. The moment her character was introduced, the audience was completely captivated by her for the next 7+ minutes (even when half the audience didn't even know what they were watching). Edginess is something almost exclusively associated with male actors yet Grace Zabriskie breaks that notion. You never know if she's gonna chase after you with a knife or have a nervous breakdown.




I'm aware this write-up isn't some revelation. I'm sure if you go to IMDB or do a google search you'll come across a decent greatest character actresses list or two but I'm sure those lists aren't very thorough. 

...

Ok, I just did a quick search myself and the first few lists I'm finding are listing Patrician Clarkson & Viola Davis as character actors so nevermind. Maybe there actually aren't any decent lists out there. 
Not to sound too arrogant but how many of you reading this (besides possibly John Cribbs & Chris Funderberg) looked at any of the actresses I've mentioned in this write-up as character actors? Names like Beth Grant, Grace Zabriskie and a few others should be mentioned alongside the likes of JT Walsh, Harry Dean Stanton & Ronny Cox.



Friday, September 6, 2013

BATTLE IN HEAVEN


Although Carlos Reygadas' sophomore feature fits in just fine with the rest of his filmography, it’s still probably the most brutal & explosive thing he's done minus the last 10 minutes of Post Tenebras Lux where we see a man rip his own head off, followed by a scene of blood falling from the sky. Battle In Heaven is an excellent mixture of beauty (the camera work and the lead actress) & grittiness (unsimulated sex & blowjobs involving traditionally unattractive people and a brutal murder involving a machete). This was also his least Tarkovsky-influenced work which proved he could make a film without having to emulate and/or tip his hat to his idol like he does so often. If anything, Battle In Heaven is more of an homage to Bresson - besides the monotone performances from the non-professional actors (a key element in Bresson's cinema) Reygadas makes a direct reference to Bressons' Une Femme Douche in one scene...


Sophomore features can be quite important for an emerging filmmaker in the position Carlos Reygadas was in after the release of his first film (Japon). There's this pressure to deliver an equally great work. Japon was somewhat of a success in the art house world and I imagine people were expecting something just as great with his next feature. Battle In Heaven was released in the intimidating year of 2005 where veterans like Michael Haneke (Cache), Terrence Malick (The New World), Gus Van Sant (Last Days) and Jim Jarmusch (Broken Flowers) all released some of their best work. 2005 also saw other important and/or modern day heavyweights like The Dardenne Brothers (The Child), David Cronenberg (A History Of Violence) and Lars Von Treir (Manderlay) release highly anticipated works that turned out to be just "ok", underwhelming or disappointing. 
Like any Reygadas film, Battle In Heaven divided audiences. It’s one of those films people either passionately love or violently hate (I personally know folks on both sides of the fence). Nevertheless, Battle In Heaven still ended up on plenty Top 10 lists at the end of 2005 and some even consider it to be one of the best films of the last decade. I give Carlos Reygadas a lot of respect because he didn’t play it safe with his second feature. It would have been a lot easier to follow up Japon with a film like Silent Light (his third feature), which is still radical in its own way but not in the same explosive & gritty way as Battle In Heaven. Reygadas took a lot of risks with this film. Somehow he manages to make the most tasteless sounding scenarios seem intriguing & watchable. Battle In Heaven is almost intentionally alienating & off-putting and I love that...


Its [Battle In Heaven] my problem child, and therefore the film of mine I love the most - Carlos Reygadas

In Battle In Heaven we follow "Marcos" - A personal driver for a rich diplomat's daughter ("Anna"). Even though she doesn't need to, Anna works on the side as a "madame" or prostitute (its unclear) in a somewhat upscale brothel. Besides his job as a driver, Marcos is involved in a few other side hustles like; selling novelty items on the subway, picking berries on a farm and...kidnapping. As it turns out, Marcos and his wife were involved in the kidnapping of a baby for a ransom. And to make things worse, the baby died while in their custody and they have to figure out what to do (none of this info is a spoiler. you learn this early on). When pressure starts to build up inside of Marcos he feels the need to get things off his chest and he confides in Anna (whom Marcos is also in love with). Although Anna doesn’t tell anyone, she still advises him that the right thing to do is to confess and turn himself in.
For the rest of the film Marcos struggles internally with what to do and looks to a higher power for some kind of an answer.

The relationship between the two main characters is complex. Marcos sees Anna as somewhat of an angel, while Anna kind of pities Marcos and looks down on him. Marcos is sexually attracted to Anna, while Anna is not attracted to Marcos at all (even though she does have sex with him at one point). Anna seems more curious & intrigued by Marcos. The care that they have for one another is a bit imbalanced but at the end of the day Anna does genuinely care for him.

If you’re familiar with Reygadas’ work then you know he has quite a bit of Mexican pride (the presence of the Mexican flag is pretty heavy throughout this film). However, Battle In Heaven is one of the few cases where he expresses some criticism towards his homeland (at least that's what I see). Class & money are an underlying issue in Battle In Heaven and quite a few questions arise from this film – Is Carlos Reygadas trying to show sympathy for Marcos? Is he trying to say that if the economic & social state in Mexico wasn’t as corrupt & imbalanced that Marcos wouldn’t have to work three jobs and eventually resort to kidnapping just to get money?
It’s clear Reygadas gets off on posing questions and developing scenarios that will have people talking, debating & arguing for a long time.


Besides Reygadas’ talent for making tasteless things look...tasteful, he also has a talent for throwing religion in to his work without shoving it down our throats like Abel Ferrara or Terrence Malick. Reygadas doesn’t even show religion in the most subtle way either. There are many religious elements in Battle In Heaven like crosses, churches and we see Marcos giving himself up to god in the end. The last half hour of Battle In Heaven is pretty much all about god, faith, evangelism & redemption. The religioun factor in Battle In Heaven brings up even more questions - when you confess/own up to a crime (no matter how awful it is) and give yourself to god (for those that believe in God) does that absolve you of your sins? Can anyone really be “saved”? Battle In Heaven fits right alongside the cinema of Hal Hartley (specifically Unbelievable Truth, Trust, Simple Men, Amateur & Henry Fool) as well as the cinema of Bruno Dumont (L’Humanite, Hors Satan & Hadweijch). All of these films deal with a lot of the same themes (redemption, forgiveness, religion, god, the struggle between what's right & wrong, etc) and the main characters in all of these films share the same qualities (mysterious loners with a spotty past who have all committed some kind of crime but are kind of likeable and have redeemable qualities) 


As much as I love Battle In Heaven there's a few parts that I haven’t fully worked out in my head - the opening & closing scenes where Anna is giving Marcos a blowjob (is that supposed to represent “Heaven” for Marcos?), the scene where Marcos is masturbating with no emotion on his face while watching a soccer game on TV (I don’t really understand that one). 

It’s obvious this film is told from Marcos' point of view but Carlos Reygadas takes it one step further in certain scenes by literally putting us inside Marcos' head and we see the world through his eyes like we did in Enter The Void or parts of Being John Malkovich. In one scene two girls walk up to the camera and speak directly to us/Marcos. In another scene we see Anna's true beauty through Marcos' eyes as she walks down the street in front of him and, just like the little girls in the previous scene, she address the camera directly as if she's talking to us/Marcos. These moments felt like a precursor to his latest film (Post Tenebras Lux) which is seen mostly through a distorted first person perspective. 
Reygadas’ body of work has a cohesiveness & connection unlike most filmmakers working today. Along with Lucrecia Martel (La Cienaga, The Headless Woman) he’s probably the most important figure in Latin-American cinema at the moment (even if there is a hint of upper-class elitism in his work from time to time).


Wednesday, September 4, 2013

A FEW WORDS ON FRUITVALE STATION...


In the mid/late 80's there was a string of films made about the atrocities that were going on in South Africa at the time (Cry Freedom, A Dry White Season, Mandela, etc) that my father would avoid because he couldn’t stomach all the scenes of Africans being beaten & murdered. At the time I use to think he was being dramatic when he'd leave the room whenever one of those movies would come on cable but now that I'm older I get where he was coming from with the release of Fruitvale Station. The silent generation had Rosewood (and countless other lynchings), Baby Boomers had Emmitt Till (and, like Rosewood, a ton of other cases just like it), Generation X had Rodney King and Generation Y, my generation, had Oscar Grant & Trayvon Martin. Given that the release of Fruitvale Station coincided with the Trayvon Martin aftermath, I wasn't in the right mindset to rush out and see this as there were some pretty fresh wounds that weren't healed yet with George Zimmerman being found not guilty. Say what you want about how you knew Zimmerman was gonna get off but I honestly thought SOME kind of justice would be served.

My initial reason for not wanting to see Fruitvale Station is because I already saw the real video from many different points of view on the internet. Why see a drawn out movie version of something when I already saw the real thing? All that's gonna do is piss me of again regardless if the film is good or not. Actually it would have pissed me off twice as much if Fruitvale Station was bad, which it isn’t. Fruitvale Station is hardly bad but it’s far from great. It’s certainly powerful but in an uneven kind of way. 
Even now I almost don’t wanna write about this film because I have a criticism of it (which I'll get in to shortly) and I honestly fear (some) people can’t disassociate Oscar Grant, the real person, from the movie and will think I'm criticizing him. 
Another reason I didn’t wanna write about this film has to do with my own insecurities partially due to the expectations some people may have on a guy like me (on three occasions, before I actually saw Fruitvale Station, I was asked what I thought about it instead of being asked if I'd seen it in the same way customers at the video store I use to work at would automatically ask me what I thought about the latest Tyler Perry release or whatever film that happened to be out at the time that co-starred Cedric The Entertainer and/or Anthony Anderson). It's in the same vein as that assumption, made equally by both black people & white people, that Spike Lee is automatically my favorite director because I'm black and he's black. I genuinely don’t wanna be the black guy who writes about "black movies". Why do you think I avoid writing about Spike Lee so much on here? Because in a way, it’s expected of me. 
But at the end of the day I can’t let that stuff stop me from watching & writing about a film that everyone is talking about on a site that a descent amount of people read...


I feared Fruitvale Station would fall victim to portraying the protagonist out to be some kind of realistic/believable saint out of fear of judgment from ignorant fox news watching, Rush Limbaugh listening, Ted Nugent loving conservatives who went out of their way to make Oscar Grant out to be a good for nothing thug (which is their way of saying he got what he deserved). As I assumed, the majority of Fruitvale Station fell in to that trap. Conservatives, racists and other Oscar Grant detractors aren't gonna be swayed by this film. All you needed to do was watch the coverage on Fox news leading up to the release of Fruitvale Station to see they already judged/hated it before they saw it so why indirectly cater to them and essentially try to prove something to that crowd? 
I'm not saying Director Ryan Coogler did this intentionally but its written all over the tone of the film.

In the first hour of Fruitvale Station Grant, played by Chronicle co-star Michael B. Jordan, helps a dog off the street that’s been hit by a car, gets his grandmother to give cooking lessons to woman over the phone, decides he's gonna stop selling drugs and dumps $1,000 dollars worth of weed in to the ocean to prove to himself he really means it. Coogler still makes it a point to show Grant's faults & short comings in life - he cheated on his girlfriend, he lies & has a temper but at the end of the day that stuff is overshadowed by all the good stuff he does in a matter of a few hours. I don’t know if those events happened or not because I wasn’t there but in all honesty, it didn’t really fascinate me. What fascinates me is how someone could be face down, handcuffed, surrounded by three cops and still get shot (only to have the cop who shot Grant get out of prison after 11 months). Apparently the BART cop who shot Oscar Grant mistook his real gun for his taser gun. It's scary to think that there's trusted officers of the law in existence who mistake a taser gun for a real gun (and I personally don’t care what kind of pressure he/she may be under. There's training for that as far as I'm concerned).

Understand that part of my criticism comes from personal preference. I understand the choice to focus on the last 24 hours of Grant's life. Generally speaking, we all fall in to that groove of a daily routine and usually take 24 hour periods for granted. The last thing we expect is to get murdered. So narrowing the subject's life down to his final day where he does a bunch of small yet meaningful acts makes sense when I take a step back and look at the film from a far.

But at the same time, Oscar Grant coulda laid around for the last 24 hours of his life and scratched his nuts for all I care. He was still executed (accidentally or not) and the whole world saw it on the Internet yet no real justice was served. Not to take anything from Jordan & Octavia Spencer, who were both great, and call me cliche, but Fruitvale Station would have possibly been a more effective documentary. 

Oscar Grant's murder may have been the first injustice of that magnitude to be "embraced" & spread through social media.
Ironically, the same people who screamed about justice for Oscar Grant on MySpace & Facebook could have cared less the day of his murderers sentencing as they were more enthralled by Lebron James' decision to go play for the Miami Heat which was happening at the exact same time...

But no matter how flawed I may think it is, Fruitvale Station is still getting tons of praise and positive feedback which is a great thing no matter what. The film's heart is in the right place (which is an understatement) and the last 30 minutes is very effective/powerful. The last third of the film is what really intrigued me. Had Fruitvale Station only been the last 30 minutes it would have been an almost flawless short. I appreciate that a film like Fruitvale Station is getting so much attention & praise (or was even given the green light to be made!) with a cast made up of unknowns, traditionally supporting players (Kevin Durand & Octavia Spencer) and young/up & coming actors like; Michael B. Jordan & Melanie Diaz (thankfully Anthony Mackie & Rosario Dawson, who are both great, are in their mid-30's now and couldn’t be predictably cast in this). 
I also find comfort in the fact that the director of this film is a young male of color around the same age that Oscar Grant would have been if he was alive today.

Friday, August 30, 2013

MY LIFE IN AN AMBUSH OF GHOSTS (SPECIAL GUEST WRITER: NATHANIEL DRAKE CARLSON)

Thanks to Netflix, multi-region DVD's & Youtube uploads, movies are becoming less & less rare these days but Everett Lewis' 1993 film; An Ambush Of Ghosts still holds the mystique of being one of the few truly rare modern films in existence. I've never seen this but luckily Nathaniel Drake Carlson, who contributed to PINNLAND EMPIRE at the beginning of the year, is one of the few people who has.

Enjoy...


Everett Lewis's 1993 film An Ambush of Ghosts is a genuine lost masterpiece, though in this case "lost" for reasons simply having to do with distributor resistance. I was fortunate enough to see the film at a rare public screening in 2001 on the campus of USC with both director Lewis and his cinematographer, Judy Irola, in attendance. It remains to date the pinnacle moment of a long personal journey for me of uncovering and seeking out the film itself.

My initial awareness of it came shortly after the January '93 Sundance premiere. As a great fan of the British classical synth group In the Nursery I discovered their soundtrack to Ambush later that year and was utterly captivated by its dark majesty.The album also includes dialogue extracts which just served to further heighten my restless anticipation. But nothing ever came of that. The film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival to acclaim and then effectively disappeared, almost never to be heard of again and without even the consolation of a video release anywhere.


Ambush was likely ahead of its time and too singular an achievement for the independent film marketplace of 1993. It preceded the wave of other stylish visions of goth darkness like Seven, Requiem for a Dream, Donnie Darko and even The Crow. In many respects though its closest tonal equivalent seems to me to be the bracing and anguished contemporary fairy tales of Philip Ridley. Ambush concerns a troubled teenager named George (Stephen Dorff) living in a suburb of Los Angeles. A decade prior he witnessed the accidental killing of his younger brother by their mother, Irene (Geneviève Bujold). He was hit by her car when he ran behind her while he played catch with George. In the time since, mom has gone slowly mad, often driving her husband to use sedatives and restraints to appease her. George, meanwhile, finds another teen boy hiding in the family shed. Evidently Christian has also killed someone by accident, a rival during a fight at the local high school. However, his story is contradicted by vibrant, blood red flashbacks which present another reality altogether. George attempts to act as an intermediary but finds his situation complicated as he develops feelings for Christian's girlfriend, Denise. The film ends with the reality of everything we have seen called into question.

The narrative itself is compelling but it's the formal elements and how they translate that text which are the source of the film's accomplishment. Irola (who won the cinematography award at Sundance for Ambush) describes the style she and Lewis crafted as "painterly", specifically derived from the look of such artists as Caravaggio and Vermeer but also inspired by the films of Dreyer and Antonioni. Notable as well is the fact that the cast, though largely filled with unknowns at the time, features the likes of Anne Heche, David Arquette and, most significantly, Dorff as George. Variety singled out Dorff's performance for praise and Detour magazine referred to it as the strongest male performance at Sundance that year. Producer Robert Shulevitz told me that it wasn't all acclaim, however. At Sundance the audience was given cards to rate the film on a numerical basis between 0 and 5. As indication of the polarized responses to come, Ambush received a lot of 6's and 0's. Later, the film sold out a six hundred seat theater at the Seattle Film Festival on the basis of a blurb in the programme announcing the cast alone. By the end of its 90 minute running time two-thirds of the audience had walked out. If nothing else, An Ambush of Ghosts was never to be met with indifference.


Shulevitz describes how several distributors attempted to handle the film but found its tone far too authentically raw and painful to manage a sale. One distributor even wanted to completely eliminate the first ten minutes (a sequence of highly stylized and intensely personal torment which Lewis describes as a "mnemonic melody of the past madness" and says was the most cut and recut sequence in the picture). Others balked at the stunningly dark sequences. Video distribution even became a problem when it came clear that the dark palette of the film was outside the legal limits of color contrast allowed for most US TV sets. So then both style and substance have served as stumbling blocks but Lewis acknowledges that was always going to be a problem. He notes that rather than simply regurgitate yet another variant on the conventionally familiar dysfunctional family genre a decision was made during production to take a far more strenuous route--to replicate through the composition and form of the film the mental state of a disturbed, even insane individual.

Ambush uses the dysfunctional family/adolescent angst genre simply as a starting point for an exploration of the real suffering so often glossed over by films of this type. Its focus is laser like in precision and just as intensely invasive. The structure and tone contribute to a sense of dislocation while making a case for the appropriate use of an operatic style to access and convey authentic emotional states. Instead of a gradual development toward specific emotional heights Ambush immediately presents a scenario of totalizing trauma but one that has receded internally and can thus be represented in grandly formalist terms. George and Irene reel in their own separate universes of absolute, enveloping despair. Much of the opening is meant to establish that this is not going to be a naturalistic presentation of grief but rather only about one aspect suspended and maintained indefinitely and with no way out (we see too that the restoration of the family home, in process at the time of the accident, is equally suspended). Both characters share some sense of guilt, the notion that they could have or should have done something differently, but they are each too far gone to share the burden or to commiserate as a way of alleviating the pain. So they are condemned to private hell. The notion of a decade having passed like this only adds to the sense of devastation.

The infamous first ten minutes depict how this plays out. We see what we at first believe to be legitimate home video footage of the incident, only gradually realizing that no one would have actually recorded this. It represents how we maintain our memories: in bleeding and blurring still frames of significance. We see Bujold in her dead son's room, still preserved like a shrine, wailing on his bed. We see her lie in the gravel of the driveway behind the car in the same spot and position taken by her lost child when he was taken from her, by her. Later we see her being sedated and restrained in bed with shackles to quell her hysteria. This is enacted by the ineffectual father figure played with a sublime understated grace by Bruce Davison. The father has scarcely any role here because he does not share the same direct experience of the pain associated with this tragedy and thus must be confined forever to the periphery. But everyone is equally confined and isolated.


Dorff, for his part, remains locked in medium close-up for these opening minutes, barely distinguishable through a lattice work of shadow. He talks to his dead brother, crying out for him, for his own void to be filled. The intensive focus of these early scenes makes the sequence seem to last even longer than it does and yet, somehow, also to last virtually no time at all, such is its hypnotic effectiveness. Certainly though there was something uniquely thrilling about witnessing just this sequence alone, something of such clear and undeniably uncompromising conviction.

Once the tone proper has been established the film begins after brief opening credits. The main thrust of the narrative revolves around George's discovery of the young man named Christian (Alan Boyce) hiding in the family garage after accidentally killing another student in a fist fight. Christian befriends George, mostly as a means to an end, and enlists him to act as an intermediary between himself and his girlfriend Denise (Anne Heche).

It is here, in this seemingly arbitrary plot development, where An Ambush of Ghosts truly takes off. The film implies the connection between George and Christian, both of whom are accidental murderers. But there are further disturbing intimations that Christian may have been more cognizant of his actions then he lets on, perhaps even more then he may consciously know.

There is, for instance, an early scene--brilliantly played--in which Christian attempts to convince George of his relative innocence, that things just got out of hand. But intercut throughout are the red tinted flashbacks to what we can only imagine is a more objective truth: Christian's brutal attack, viciously assaulting the other boy on the hood of a car in an empty parking lot. Is Christian a liar trying to save himself? Is he blocking out the incident or is he far more calculating than that, far more deviously dangerous? Or, perhaps, is his guilt really a projection of George's own perception of himself, of his concerns about complicity with his brother's death? The implications are vast, made all the more painful because they are never elaborated upon. We simply cannot know.

The depth of what is accomplished within this simple set-up can't be overstated. George believes Christian when he says that he came to him because he feels he can confide in George. Dorff's character is so emotionally stunted that he grasps at even this transparent manipulation as sincere because he so desperately needs to believe it. He goes on to form an unhealthy attachment to Christian and later to Denise. As older girls sometimes do with younger boys who are clearly awkward around them, she flagrantly flirts with George in an attempt to disarm him. He, of course, takes it as the real thing.

There is an incredible, elaborate funeral sequence for the murdered boy, almost entirely without dialogue but a showcase for virtuosic moving camera work, evocative scoring by In the Nursery and heightened though nuanced performances. George holds Denise but it is evident in the gesture and the inflection of the body language that he is not comforting her--he is at his own brother's funeral and he is comforting himself.


As the picture winds down Christian prepares to turn himself in, reasoning that it is the only thing he can do. George can not deal with the prospect of abandonment yet again. While embracing Christian farewell he plunges one of his mother's sedative needles into Christian's arm, proceeds to strip him down to the waist and shackle him to the wall with his mother's wrist restraints. The scene is played at a furious, high pitched level, mostly in theatrical long shot similar to some of Greenaway's tableau set pieces, lit Vermeer like with pools of light in surrounding darkness. The movie even goes so far as to include a scene in which Christian awakens, toys with the idea of escaping, then reflects back on George's pleas for him to stay and basically decides to do so, remaining George's prisoner in the shed. But is he a prisoner of love, desire or just desperate need? An Ambush of Ghosts leaves these kind of questions tantalizingly open, suggesting that the answer could very well be all of the above.

Dorff manages to carry his character so far into psychosis as to pass beyond heightened caricature and back into a newly consecrated harrowing reality. It's a penetratingly authentic performance even in the midst of the gorgeously overwrought spectacle of the film itself. His job is almost impossible in its difficulty as he must be weak and indecisive and yet selfish, ravenously insecure and needy, victimizer as well as victim, often all at the same time.

An Ambush of Ghosts ends with a sequence in which George finally goes completely over the edge losing whatever grip he had left on his tenuously held stability. And we see that via an altered version of the opening home video style flashbacks, this time with George at eighteen. Here he can alter the history of the event that destroyed his family's peace. He can rush to rescue his brother and salvage his mother's sanity. The ending is "happy" in the same way as that of Gilliam's Brazil. Our hero can finally attain some measure of peace but at what cost, at what necessary retreat from reality? The other questions it provokes are similar as well: is a happy ending always illusory? Does it have to be? Is this even an ending? Whatever the answers to these questions, it is, strictly speaking, a genuine catharsis as climax. In the case of An Ambush of Ghosts there is the additional issue as to how much of what we have seen functions solely as a projection of George's fractured psyche. There is the possibility, too, that it may be a case of subjectifying all experience as in Eyes Wide Shut.

Any summary of Ambush, however detailed, can only approximate its overwhelming sensory impact. It is a rare work of an ultra refined cinematic aesthetic, one which somehow manages to sustain for its entire duration an operatic pitch made up from what is dreamlike and what is all too painfully, recognizably real. Its unrelenting intensity can be exhausting, especially when translated through Everett Lewis's rigorous compositions, but that is also the source of its uniquely profound effect. As the director himself has said, most films are heavily mediated experiences intent on prioritizing what elements surface in each scene but in Ambush all the elements of every scene go hell-for-leather. There is no prioritizing. The experience of the film is a virtual assault upon the senses.

In the body of Lewis' work, which continues to expand and increase, Ambush stands out for its extreme formalism. Many of his films since (like 1996's Skin & Bone and 2002's Luster) have almost been a repudiation of that approach to filmmaking. They are marked by a much looser, free form quality that gives the impression of a more natural, even spontaneous, capturing of events. It should be noted too that they are also all concerned with a treatment of pronounced gay themes. This is something that may be said to have existed in more nascent form in his first features (1990's The Natural History of Parking Lots as well as Ambush) but becomes prominent afterwards. I like that aspect of those early films, though; the way in which the element of homoeroticism is simply not overtly acknowledged but rather infused into the text, allowing for a more subtle range of expression and acting as only one angle of interpretation among many. While there is much to be admired about Lewis's developing style and his other films, that should not and cannot obscure the specific nature of the accomplishment of Ambush. With any luck his continuing and increasing cinematic relevance will prompt an interest in his back catalogue as well. There always remains hope that somehow whatever it is that has acted to impede the official release of the film will someday be removed. One can only hope. And, of course, spread the word.

Friday, August 23, 2013

LEE DANIELS' THE PAPERBOY...


I'm not a fan of Lee Daniels. At all. The trailer for his latest film; The Butler, enraged me and made me laugh out loud at the same time. Forest Whitaker is one of my all time favorite actors so it saddens me to see him in a role that looks so beneath him (like almost everything else hes done in the last 7 years). Yes, I'm judging a film I haven't seen (and never will) but I know enough from that god awful trailer that I want no part of what The Butler is selling (sorry, but when you've seen as many movies as I have you earn the right to judge a book...err, movie, by its cover every once in a while just like every other human being does from time to time). Do we honestly need yet ANOTHER movie like this? Contrary to what mainstream cinema would have you believe, there's actually a lifetimes worth of original stories concerning black people that has yet to be explored on the big screen beyond stories of servitutde (no matter what kind of uplifting/drivin' miss daisy spin Lee Daniels tries to pull with The Butler).
But at the same time, the movie looks like such obvious Oscar bait that all you can do is laugh at it.
The emotions that Daniels' work brings out of me is mostly negative but at least he gets my blood pumping...or boiling I should say. That counts for something. There's filmmakers I LOVE that I couldn’t care less about these days or bring myself to write more than a few sentences on (Gus Van Sant, Steven Soderbergh, Spike Lee, etc) so Lee Daniels should really be humbled I'm taking the time to write about something that concerns him.

Criticizing & trashing a guy like Tyler Perry is pretty pointless nowadays. His films are awful but his core fans will remain his core fans for life so what’s the point of wasting time breaking down why I hate his work? The world of Tyler Perry is pretty separate from mine and I hope it stays that way. But Lee Daniels is a name that’s breaking in to my world/film scene and I'm not very comfortable with that. Like Tyler Perry, Daniels' films show a predictable/one-sided view of black people that I feel has been explored enough in cinema at this point. What’s worse is that people are just eating his stuff up and praising him. I remember back in 2009 at the NY Film Festival all anyone could talk about was Precious while works like The White Ribbon (probably one of Haneke's best) & White Material (a much better film concerning black people on a global scale) were getting less attention.

But The Paperboy (2012), the story of a journalist (Matthew McConaughey) and his brother (Zac Efron) trying to solve a murder that an innocent, although bad, man (John Cusack) has been wrongly convicted of, is Lee Daniels' ONE fascinating film that I cant stop thinking about. I'm man enough to admit that I feel stupid for passing this up at Toronto last year. I'm sure I would have had the same reaction that I did when I saw this for the first time a few months ago (anger, confusion & fascination) but it would have at least stimulated my mind unlike the large majority of disappointing stuff I saw at the festival last year. I certainly don’t love this film unconditionally but at the same time I cannot fully dismiss it. On one hand, this film is made up of elements that I'm either indifferent towards (John Cusack's presence) or downright don’t like (Nicole Kidman's post-op face & Macy Gray's voice). Then on the other hand, The Paperboy is also made up of things I DO like: the new "re-born" Matthew McConaughey (who owes a lot of his cinematic "rebirth" to this film), complex characters that you cant either root for or against and the kind of trashy noir-ish atmosphere found in a Jim Thompson novel (The Paperboy is definitely a distant cousin of The Killer Inside Me). Like his contemporary; Nicholas Winding Refn, Lee Daniels draws inspiration from various cinematic sources with this one. Imagine a young John Waters fresh off of making Pink Flamingos & Female Trouble setting out to make an Oscar contender under the control of a studio, influenced by William Friedken's Cruising and Carl Franklin's One False Move and you kinda got The Paperboy.

I don’t mean to make a comparison between Daniels & Waters just because they’re both gay, American, male, directors but at the same time there is a sense of style that modern gay male filmmakers have over a lot of modern straight filmmakers (with the exception Michael Mann who has style over just about everyone). I can’t put a word or phrase to it but if you're familiar with Todd Haynes, Tom Kalin, Pedro Almodovar, John Waters, early 90's era-Gus Van Sant, John-Cameron Mitchell, Greg Araki, Xavier Dolan and a few more openly gay modern directors, I think you all get that particular uncategorizeable cinematic style I'm talking about. Lee Daniels certainly isn’t on the same level as some of the aforementioned filmmakers but he has earned his spot among them with The Paperboy. Actually, The Paperboy has many connections with the cinema of some of the gay directors I just named. Besides the fact that Daniels deals with hidden/repressed homosexuality in The Paperboy like Todd Haynes did with Poison, Velvet Goldmine & Far From Heaven or Kalin did with Swoon or John Cameron Mitchell did with Hedwig & The Angry Inch, my issues with The Paperboy are very similar to my issues with Haynes' Far From Heaven (lets also not forget that Paperboy co-star Zac Efron starred in a John Waters re-make and Nicole Kidman's performance is very reminiscent of her performance in Gus Van Sant's To Die For)...

*SPOILER ALERT*

If you read my review on Far From Heaven you'll see that I was a little conflicted by Todd Haynes, who is openly gay, creating such a shitty, cowardly, GAY character in the form of Dennis Quaid. Yes, in a perfect world anyone should be able to create any type of character they want, but with such discrimination and misguided hatred towards gay people in society, I just felt that Quaid's character (a cheating, abusive husband) didn’t help the cause. But that’s my own personal point of view. I'm sure Haynes felt he knew what he was doing. Lets also not forget that Far From Heaven is the greatest acting Dennis Quaid has ever done in his life. With The Paperboy, by the end of the film Daniels makes every prominent black male character out to be some disturbed, dark, sadistic homosexual. Once again, Lee Daniels does NOT carry the weight of all black & gay people on his shoulders when he makes a film. He can make whatever he wants and craft any kind of character he wants. Don't get me wrong, just about every character in The Paperboy is messed up in some way but its on another level with the black male characters. In one scene, Matthew McConaughey, who has been keeping his homosexuality a secret up until this moment, gets tied-up, beaten & raped by a group of black men he tries to hook up with. A few minutes later, David Oyelowo, McConaughey's journalist "sidekick", reveals to Zack Efron that he's also gay (and also not British as we were lead to believe) in a very sinister way like its some dark dirty thing. Neither of these moments sat well with me and to this day they make me uncomfortable. I'm not uncomfortable with the homosexuality either. I'm uncomfortable that whenever something homosexual is revealed in the film it’s associated with violence, shadiness & aggression concerning black men. What’s even more strange is that all this came from the vision of a gay, black male (Daniels). To take this a step further, Matthew McConaughey's character is clearly a self-hating homosexual. He likes to be beaten, cut & abused while having sex and doesn't even tell his brother, whom hes very close too, about his sexual orientation. Actually, when McConaughey's character reaches his demise (he gets his throat slit by Cusack), he seems to find joy in the pain. Are there, or were there, strands of the same self-hatred in Lee Daniels? It’s so strange for someone (Daniels) that’s part of such a specific (often discriminated) demographic (gay black man) to paint characters that are part of that same specific demographic in such a sinister way. If anyone reading this has seen the film please let me know if I'm reading to deep in to something or if I'm WAY off in my analysis.



To call this film "trashy" is an understatement. But that’s not exactly an insult. Lee Daniels has to know this film is somewhat trashy. He seems to embrace it in the same way John Waters embraces the trashiness in his work. Not to say there aren’t some serious & complex issues in this film (repressed homosexuality, murder, rape & deep-seeded family drama) but at the same time, there's scenes involving Nicole Kidman peeing on Zac Efron, John Cusack jacking off while Nicole Kidman teases him from across the room and Efron is half naked or at least shirtless in half of the film in a way that makes you go "...hmmmm". Lets also not forget this film is set in the deep, swampy south so everyone is sweaty & greasy looking which adds to the overall trashiness.

With the exception of Nicole Kidman, who plays John Cusack's wife and Zac Efron's love interest, Daniels does a pretty good job of creating that retro/1970's feel. Yes, he falls in to that trap filmmakers sometimes fall in to by giving the male supporting characters sideburns (what other way could a filmmaker convey to the audience that the film is set in the 70's without sideburns?) but besides that, the music, wardrobe and atmosphere is pretty authentic.
McConaughey's performance was the BEST part of this film for me. I honestly didnt expect The Paperboy to take the dark and somewhat sad turn it did towards the end. I didnt even think much of his character until the last 30-40 minutes then I did a 180 (so did the film in a sense) and he became the most interesting person in the whole story. I dont know if this is his greatest performance but its definitely up there with the best work he's done in his career so far.
Ever since seeing Zac Efron in Linklater's Me & Orson Welles I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in any film geared towards adults over the age of 25. His overall performance in this isn't anything great (some moments are a little bad) but he plays angry very well in this and he certainly doesn't ruin the movie like I'm sure a lot people would have assumed.
What's interesting about John Cusack's performance is that I couldn't really see anyone else playing his part yet for some reason I didn't really get anything out the performance he gave. This was his opportunity to hit a homerun supporting performance (his character is in the entire film but only in a few scenes that are spread throughout) and it just felt a little flat.


Even though its kinda like the "black sheep" of the family, The Paperboy is part of this new un-even/problematic/overrated yet interesting group of films that explores the south in either a poetic/Malickian style (Aint Them Bodies Saints, Beasts Of The Southern Wild, Ballast, etc) or in a mysterious backwoods kind of way (Mud, Take Shelter, Shotgun Stories, etc). Personally, I'm only a fan of Ain't Them Bodies Saint & Ballast out of all those films, but they still make up a scene/movement that deserves to be mentioned.

The Paperboy makes me wanna see The Butler even less than I already wanted too which I didn’t think could be possible. Beyond the repressed homosexuality and murderer there's some race issues in The Paperboy too. There's one scene where Zac Efron loses his cool and calls David Oyelowo's character a nigger and throughout the film Daniels subtly shows the degrading & unglamorous side of being a maid (specifically through Macy Gray's character whose unique, one of a kind mannerisms are put to good use in this film). Instead of hacky & embarassing moments of racism there's some sly moments that show racism and the power dynamic between black people and white people in the south back in the day. It bothers me that Daniels is following up his exploration in to the shitty side of being a servant in The Paperboy with a film that appears to show the "up" side or respectable side of being a servant with The Butler. Once again, I haven’t seen The Butler (and I won’t) but you and I both know that the trailer for that film shows enough.

Clearly I have a lot of negative/conflicting stuff to say about the The Paperboy but I wouldn’t have taken the time to write so much about it if there weren't some redeemable qualities. If I had to rate this I'd give it a 2 outta 5 stars for the first half and a 4 outta 5 stars for the last half. I seriously recommend this to everyone (Lee Daniels fan or not) because I could really talk about this one for a while. So on some level this film IS kind of a success...

Friday, August 16, 2013

AN INTERVIEW WITH LELIA GOLDONI


The absolute highlight of the John Cassavetes retrospective last month at BAM was Lelia Goldoni's surprise Q&A after the screening of Shadows. Of all the Q&A's I've been to in my lifetime so far I've never seen someone so eager to answer questions and talk about a film they've been associated with for such a long time (just last month I attended a screening of Only God Forgives, also at BAM, where director Nicholas Winding Refn already seemed tired of answering questions about a film that's only a few months old). But Shadows is such an important film and continues to find new audiences every few years so there's always something new to talk about.

Lelia Goldoni was kind enough to take the time out to answer some questions regarding not only Shadows and her relationship with all things Cassavetes, but her work with Martin Scorsese as well as her relationships with other various actors & filmmakers. 

Anyone who reads this site should know that Cassavetes is a PINNLAND EMPIRE favorite, so this interview is quite special to me. 

Enjoy...


PINNLAND EMPIRE: I find it great that after five decades you still seem so energetic and eager to discuss ShadowsDo you ever have moments where you get tired or jaded talking about your experience making that film?

LELIA GOLDONI: No I have never gotten tired or bored. And your question made me wonder "why", so here is what I came up with - One factor is that after 50 years I am still here! And a new audience is present to get something out of it. The times have changed so much of what were the issues in the old days. So in many ways it seems new to me as well as the audience.


PE: Filmmaker Shirley Clarke loaned some camera equipment to John Cassavetes so he could make Shadows - Did you ever meet her or have any kind of a relationship with her? Did she ever hang around or help out during the filming of Shadows?


LG: No, I did not meet her at the time. We met about 20 years ago and talked & gossiped about everyone. It was great.


Lelia Goldoni in Shadows (1959)

PE: At the Shadows screening at BAM you talked about the difficulties you faced getting cast in films due to issues of racial ambiguity & discrimination (casting agents didn't know if you were white or a really light skin black person). Do you know if this is something your Shadows co-star; Ben Caruthers faced as well?

LG: In 1963 I went to England and the English thought I was lying [about her ethnicity]. But they thought it was kinky. I worked a lot of TV movie plays. I left England in 1973 and came back to LA.

Ben & I got married before the film was released and he got a couple of jobs in TV in LA. There was no question about his ethnicity. We got divorced around the time the film was re-released so I did not hear about any problems he may have had. 


PE: Does it surprise you that even still today your ethnicity is a topic of discussion? If one were to Google search your name on the Internet, “ethnicity” is one of the keywords that comes up with your name...
(FYI - Lelia Goldoni is Italian-American)

LG: I just looked up my name and ethnicity but did not take the time away from finishing this to read on. Wow...


PE: What was your experience like working with a young Martin Scorsese on Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore? 

LG: Like all women in Marty's films I only worked with him one time. He seemed very tense but loved what he was doing.


PE: Since John Cassavetes was a mentor to Martin and you were one of Cassavetes' most notable actors, did Martin look out for you and take extra care of you during the filming of Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore?


LG: For years I thought he did not like my work but I finally saw that no female ever worked for him a second time.


Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (1974)

PE: Between Ellen Burstyn's performance & Diane Ladd's performance - do you feel Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore is an unsung film for strong/independent women?
I only ask this question because I rarely ever here this movie brought up on the subject of strong female roles in cinema.


LG: I thought it was a wonderful script and have been otherwise occupied to have noticed what you say. I am surprised that the film did not get more attention in the era that you are speaking of. But it was acknowledged as a terrific piece of work for Ellen, Diane and even me. I was nominated for a BAFTA for best supporting actress along with Diane. She won - bigger part.


PE: Given that you co-starred in a film like Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, do you ever get annoyed or frustrated when Martin Scorsese is only acknowledged, by the general public, for his mafia and gangster-related films?
(This doesn't happen as much anymore today but it’s still a generalization/stigma that he faces)


LG: He kept making them [mafia movies]. So you have to look at him for the choice. I don't think he was forced in to those films.

Martin Scorsese & John Cassavetes

PE: The Day Of The Locust, another film you appeared in, has a very strange feel and shows a darker side of Los Angeles during the 1920's. Did you read the book to prepare for your role in that film? 

LG: I read the book in high school. It was on the "NO NO NO" list, and I could not remember Mary Dove [the character Goldoni portrays in the film] 
While reading the book in preparation I found out why - She is only mentioned one time without any real information.
Working on the film I made some very good friends; Waldo Salt, Bill Atherton and I knew Schlesinger (the director) & Donald Sutherland from London.
Sutherland and I worked in a TV production of Rose Tattoo. I played the daughter and he played a traveling salesman. 


PE: Do you have any interesting stories while making The Day Of The Locust?


LG: There are lots of interesting stories but I am not comfortable talking about them.


PE: Another thing you talked about at the BAM Q&A was your love for New York City and your joy being back here – Can you tell the readers what projects you’re involved in now that you're in NYC?


LG: New York is the world. Every corner of this planet is in New York and we pretty much all get along. Taking buses and subways I have conversations with all the people. I just mentioned, in a way, that we are in an invitational party having cocktails and talking about the world, its conditions, what could be done and who we are.
I have spent the last year meeting people and seeing how the town operates. It is soooo different from LA. Thank God. 
So the project that is looming, with the fascinating company; Hoi Paloi and its director Alec Duffy, is three short Beckett plays and I am working with an actress and writer to restructure the play; Who's Looking After The Baby.


PE: What are the last 5 films you've seen?


LG: Margin Call - Loved it. Argo - Loved Alan Arkin & John Goodman. Liked the film. Silver Linings Playbook - I liked it a lot. De Niro was very good. Lincoln & Les Miserables.
I've been going to the theater more to get a feel for what it is like here in New York. A Canadian director asked me to do a film when the script is finished. So I think I'll be working again...


PE: Are there any current filmmakers or actors working right now that you’re a big fan of?

LG: Stanley Tucci - I think he is a really great actor. He brings something out of the individual's inner life with every role he plays. He doesn't need costumes to make it happen. His role as the child rapist [The Lovely Bones] was shattering work. I wanted him dead. He makes you forget it is fiction.


Seymour Cassel, Minnie & Moskowitz 

PE: Finally, without embarrassing him too much, do you have any cool/funny stories about Seymour Cassel? 

LG: He is an extraordinary person. His outgoing appearance is gruff and aggressive but he is a person who has a heart of gold. He has suggested that producers use me in films and I got a couple of small jobs. I needed money for my medical insurance so those roles always help. Underneath his foul language is a giant heart of gold. My story is too small to define him.

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...