
The House Next Door
Archive: April, 2006
Sad, Sad News
by Alan Sepinwall on April 28th, 2006 at 7:10 am in The House
Hi, this is Alan Sepinwall, posting in Matt's place for reasons you'll understand in a minute. He's asked that I keep the lights on here while he's away, and since I can't pretend to be as smart about the cinema as him, I'm going to be relying on suggestions from you in the comments about things to post.
Anyway, I have some very bad news to share: Matt's wife Jennifer Dawson died suddenly Thursday evening. This is Matt's account of what happened, which he's not up to writing about himself for obvious reasons:
Sometime between 4:30 and 5 p.m., she was home with their kids, Hannah, 8, and James, 2. Hannah was playing downstairs, James was watching a show on Noggin, and Jennifer was online looking up information for the family's next trip to Disney World. Around a quarter to 5, Hannah came upstairs to ask Jennifer a question and found her lying on the floor in the office. She wasn't moving or breathing. Hannah tried to wake her up—yelling at her, slapping her in the face, pushing her—but nothing worked, so she ran upstairs to the apartment of Matt's brother Richard. Richard came down, called 911 and began performing CPR for 15-20 minutes while waiting for the ambulance. He got no response, nor did the paramedics when they arrived, and Jennifer was taken to Long Island College Hospital in Brooklyn, where she was pronounced dead of causes unknown. (For now, the chart lists "cardio-pulmonary" as cause of death, which, as the doctor put it, "That's a fancy way of saying we don't have a fucking clue.") Jennifer was 35, in good health, didn't drink, smoke or take drugs, so there will be a medical examination to find out what happened.
While all this was going on, Matt was standing at the Washington St. bus stop by the Ledger newsroom, waiting to begin the long journey home. Richard called him and told him that Jennifer had fainted and that he should get home ASAP. As Matt traveled by bus, then PATH, then subway train, he kept calling for updates, but there weren't any. Finally, when he arrived in Brooklyn, Richard told him to come to the hospital, where they broke the bad news.
Jennifer didn't want a burial or a funeral, so she's going to be cremated, and once Matt figures out where to scatter the ashes, there will be a memorial service, probably a few weeks from now. When I have more details, I'll let you know. In lieu of flowers, he asked for donations to be made to the Red Cross, which was one of Jennifer's favorite charities.
Matt isn't doing well, as you can imagine, but as he put it, "We're very pragmatic people, emotionally at least, the two of us were. I'm not in any sort of mindset where I'm thinking about large mystical issues or the grieving process or blah blah blah. Right now I'm looking through the schedule and seeing what bills were paid when; a lot of the practical things were on her, and now they fall to me."
James is too young to understand what's happened (when he saw his mother on the floor, he started making a snoring sound, his way of saying, "Mommy's sleeping"), and Matt says Hannah is holding up okay: "Obviously, we're all devastated, but Hannah is her mother's daughter and is very tough."
If you want to send cards, the address is 343 State Street, Brooklyn, NY 11217. Matt's also on e-mail a lot, either his work address (mseitz@starledger.com) or his home one (reeling@aol.com).
Feel free to forward this news to anyone you think would want to know.
The 9/11 show
by Matt Zoller Seitz on April 27th, 2006 at 1:31 pm in Film

By Matt Zoller Seitz
Originally published in NYPress, April 26-May 2.
__________________________________
The plane is going down. The engines are buckling and whining. Passengers are screaming. The ground is rushing up.
I'm describing the events of United Flight 93, the fourth plane hijacked on 9/11, the one driven into the ground in Shanksville, Pa., after its passengers fought back against their terrorist captors. I'm also describing "United 93," the blockbuster docudrama based on that incident which enters wide release this Friday.
If you read that opening depiction again, it sounds like an account of another thrilling experience altogether—a theme park ride. Unfortunately, it's this last experience that "United 93" most resembles—but not because of any one misstep made by director Paul Greengrass or his cast.
The unofficial graffiti tag of 9/11 was "We Will Never Forget," yet this film, which is dedicated to the memory of all who died, is ironically designed to make you erase everything but the 100 most emotionally intense minutes of 9/11. Given all this, it seems no surprise that Greengrass' last film, "The Bourne Supremacy," was a blockbuster action sequel about a government-trained killer with amnesia. This new movie is a different kind of amnesiac agent: It's propaganda produced by, and for, the malleable center of the American psyche, a place where political leanings are built from Tinker Toys.
The film's tone, which ranges from somber to harrowing, never strays outside the emotional bandwidth of a memorial service. There's not any single egregious creative misstep, but all these factors combine together to form some wild rollercoaster experience of the psyche.
The film's triumphs are wholly visceral, and so is its PR campaign. At a press screening last week, it reduced a roomful of hardened critics to tears. Some of them went straight to their offices afterward and filed rave reviews, and I can't say I blame them. Writing about the movie so soon after watching it must have been the critics' equivalent of having to fill out an accident report after being pulled from a wreck. You can't really say anything except, "That was intense," and, "I'm glad it's over"—the same things you would say as you're stumbling into the crowd after the most hellish amusement park attraction of all-time. Of course it's intense: It squeezes your heart in its fist, awakens your sense-memories of 9/11 and your dark imaginings of United Flight 93's last moments while sending you home without a scratch.
Anyone who denies its power is lying. But anyone who justifies that power on aesthetic grounds is perpetrating a greater lie.
To read the rest of the article, click here.
Some links, for now
by Matt Zoller Seitz on April 26th, 2006 at 6:28 am in Links for the Day

Pop culture blogathons took off this year, starting with the "Showgirls" orgy Jan. 11. Since then, we've seen Internet-wide, single-topic essays on Robert Altman, Code Unknown, Abel Ferrara and, most recently, Angie Dickinson.
And so it goes. Film Experience is coordinating a Michelle Pfeiffer blogathon tomorrow (April 28).
Quiet Bubble is calling for a Hayao Miyazaki blogathon May 12-14. Girish is calling for a blogathon on avant-garde cinema, with pieces going online August 2. For details, click on the highlighted links. Closer to home, Edward Copeland on Film is heading into the final leg of his poll of the the Best Best Picture winners of all time. No, that's not a typo—he wants you to submit a ballot with your choice of the ten Best Picture winners that you consider most deserving of that title. The rationale for each pick is entirely up to you; just rank the titles in order, with (1) being the best, and email it to eddiesworst@yahoo.com before midnight on Saturday.
My own ballot is below:

1. "The Godfather." (1971) This was a tough one; I do think "Godfather II" is a richer, subtler and in some ways more daring work, but it would not have existed without the original, so I have to give the edge to the movie that came first. It's as close to a completely satisfying film as I've ever seen. It's sweeping and suspenseful, the character arcs are cleanly defined and there's enough intrigue to keep viewers riveted even if they're not aware of the huge debt director Francis Coppola owes to Luchino Visconti's "The Leopard" and other movies he freely raided for inspiration. This comes closer to being both art and entertainment than all but a handful of Best Picture winners, and frankly, 35 years down the road, it has dated a lot better than many of its rivals.
2. "The Godfather, Part II." (1974) The equal of the original in every way, but an altogether darker, more demanding movie, about the main character's systematic and self-willed moral disintegration. In Part I, Michael breathes new life into the Corleone enterprise; in Part II, he gives his soul to it.
The flashbacks to Don Vito's rise in Little Italy at the turn of the century complicate our sympathies for Michael further still. Vito's jump into criminality was willed, too, but at least had components of ethnic pride, community affection and social striving; Michael, a philosophical rich kid who could have escaped the life if he'd wanted, is more self-aware than Vito, more conscious of alternatives to the life, and therefore, in some fundamental way, more open to condemnation for all the blood he spilled, including his own brother's. The caretaker of the family business preserves the business by destroying the family.

3. "Lawrence of Arabia." (1962)
Yes, the main character is a bit vague even for an iconic enigma, the psychoanalytic approach to characterization hasn't worn that well, and there may be, in the end, a bit less to the movie than meets the eye. But my God, it's a beautiful film, shot in beautiful terrain, starring two beautiful men, Peter O'Toole and Omar Sharif; the small screen truly does not do it justice. David Lean's masterpiece is such a strirring example of commercial narrative filmmaking technique that it's easy to forget some of its best-remembered sequences (including Lawrence's rescue ride into the sandstorm and Ali Ibn el Hussein's entrance, one of the greatest in movie history) are so radically conceived that they verge on the experimental.
4. "Schindler's List." (1993) It sometimes overexplains and succumbs to unecessary mawkishness. But like "Lawrence" (a movie Steven Spielberg re-watches prior to each new project) it's a intricately constructed, morally complex work that taps wellsprings of grief and anger Spielberg had rarely accessed before. Like the "Godfather" films, it offers more proof that spectacle and art needn't be mutally exclusive. Less remarked upon is how grimly funny it is; some of the situations are blackly absurd, in a Kubrick/Bunuel vein. This seems altogether appropriate considering it's a portrait of a whole civilization gone homicidally mad.
5. "The Best Years of Our Lives." (1946) More than a valentine to returning servicemen, this William Wyler classic is arguably one of Hollywood's first and only epic domestic melodramas, a film that depicts men and women at every layer of their society (a small town) struggling to rebuild their lives in the aftermath of war.
6. "On the Waterfront." (1954) Truth be told, Marlon Brando's lead performance as ex-boxer-turned-layabout-dockworker Terry Malloy has held up better than the work of his peers (except costar Eva Marie Saint, who's just right). And the movie's problematic for a lot of reasons, including the too-obvious Christ imagery and the sense that this is, in the end, a veiled explanation of why director Elia Kazan named names before the House Un-American Activities Committee. But these flaws are overshadowed by Terry's moral struggle, romantic aspirations and emotional growth, Kazan's gritty yet poetic use of real locations, Budd Schulberg's Damon-Runyon-with-brass-knuckles dialogue, Leonard Bernstein's score, and Boris Kaufman's photography, which audaciously invokes both documentaries and film noir. I've seen "Waterfront" probably 50 times, more than any other film on the Best Picture list. There are better movies, but few that mean as much to me.
7. "Gone With the Wind." (1939) With each passing year, it becomes less politically correct to admit liking this movie. The slave characters were more complex than others seen up to that point, yet still stereotypical, and the unabashed nostalgia for antebellum culture sticks in the craw. But contemporary attitudes are a poor yardstick for judging artistic merit. Scene for scene, minute for minute, line for line, this is 1930s Hollywood at its aesthetic and technical peak. Few American films, before or since, are as gorgeous.
8. "Casablanca." (1943) I mean, come on.
9. "All About Eve." (1950) More a verbal than visual pleasure, but the words have fire and music, and so do the performances. It was made to be quoted.
10. "Amadeus." (1984) Like the "Godfather" films, it comes pretty close to being all things to all people. If you start watching it at any point, you tend to stay until the end. And in its portrait of cagey mediocrity outsmarting and destroying genius, it's inadvertently the best explanation of Oscar politics that the industry has ever come up with.
Post your own picks, observations and refutations below, if you wish. But don't forget to email your ballot to Eddie at eddiesworst@yahoo.com, since that's the whole point of this exercise.
The Sopranos Mondays: Season 6, Ep. 7, "Luxury Lounge"
by Matt Zoller Seitz on April 24th, 2006 at 3:49 pm in Television

If the first six episodes of this season felt like a voyage into unexplored territory, Sunday night's "Sopranos" episode felt like a return to familiar stomping grounds—specifically those stretches of Season Two and Three when you felt pretty sure that David Chase and his writers were trying to run out the clock a bit while they figured out how to stage the mandatory season-ending string of whammies.
Written by Matthew Weiner and directed by Danny Leiner, this episode, titled "Luxury Lounge," wasn't unwatchable. It had unifying emotional threads, specifically envy and its twin, resentment. Diverse groupings of social strivers directed those feelings toward higher-ups on the food chain (aspiring Hollywood player Chris Moltisanti flying to L.A. to bag Ben Kingsley and becoming obsessed with the swag handed out to the sorts of people he dreams of emulating; failing restaurant owner Artie Bucco resenting Tony Soprano and the freelancing mob goons who were robbing him in a credit card scam) while the powerful expressed indifference or condescension toward those beneath (Kingsley's wary rebuffs to Hollywood parasites; Tony realizing the depth of Artie's despair too late to halt its consequences). All in all, though, the hour still felt slack and formulaic. (Admittedly that may seem an odd complaint, considering that last week's episode, "Live Free or Die," struck many viewers as meandering and uneventful—but I thought it was the year's second most suspenseful episode, after "Join the Club.")
Yes, the episode moved season-long arcs a few steps forward. Tony subcontracted Johnny Sack's hit-by-proxy to a couple of triggermen from the Old Country. Chris tried and failed to sign Ben Kingsley to star in his digital horror flick, fell off the wagon, spiraled into swag-envy and mugged guest star Lauren Bacall for her goodie bag. While Chris made an ass of himself on the left coast, his Jersey crew ran wild, ruining Artie's business, violently exacerbating tensions between Artie and Benny Fazio and ultimately leading Tony to rebuke Chris for his lack of focus. There were further hints that the Arabs, one of many clients in the credit-card scam, will prove important later, perhaps as a tool to entrap Chris into becoming an informer. (Years ago, I predicted that Chris' story would end with him becoming a postmodern cousin of Henry Hill in "Goodfellas," perhaps retroactively establishing him as the series' invisible storyteller—but for now, I can only wonder.)
Still, these plot points weren't so much integrated into the episode as jabbed in like tent stakes, and the script seemed to have been written by somebody wearing work gloves. This was definitely an episode
where you could say it wasn't the characters who were cloddishly transparent, but the show itself. Chris has always been a dunderhead who can't keep his trap shut, but his flattery of Bacall ("You were great in 'The Haves and Have-Nots'") was a badness twofer, a fumble-fingered summing-up of the episode's themes and a gag so lame it almost made you feel sorry for a character who deserves no sympathy (which, I concede, may have been the point). I also winced at red-hot immigrant hostess Martina rebuffing Artie with, "You stare at me like food." Her follow-up image, of laughing at Artie while screwing Benny atop a pile of stolen money, was more potent, if equally obvious.
Poor Artie got stuck with the lion's (or mouse's) share of clunkers—a real shame considering the caliber of John Ventimiglia's performance. He was exquisitely desperate, Willy Loman by way of "Big Night" (a film indelicately referenced in the pre-credits, back-to-square-one cooking montage—scored, naturally, to 'old country' music). He and coastar James Gandolfini saved that pro forma Bada Bing scene between Artie and Tony, where Artie indicated a gyrating stripper and told Tony, "You could fuck her" and then went on to establish that Artie couldn't, because he's the responsible one. But on this show, the actors shouldn't be asked to perform salvage work. This isn't "Six Feet Under," where subtext equals text—or at least, it doesn't have to be that way. The same point could have been made with silent expressions, or with a more oblique bit of dialogue. There were too many lines like that--particularly, "We lead the world in computerized data collection!", which sounds like Todd Solondz after a lobotomy.
My Star-Ledger colleague Alan Sepinwall was fonder of this episode than I was, and found Artie's scenes especially effective. "'Luxury Lounge' had the same starting point as 'Everybody Hurts,' one of the low points of the already-low Season Four," he wrote. "Artie gets a crush on the sexy new Vesuvio hostess, she winds up costing him a lot of money and he tries to play tough guy to get revenge. But where 'Everybody Hurts' wallowed in what an ineffectual joke Artie was, 'Luxury Lounge' worked because it took Tony's oldest friend seriously. For the first time since the season one finale (which got referenced both with Artie's hunting rifle and Tony's story about Vesuvio being his port in that storm), Artie wasn't just the clown good for nothing but making antipasto. He was the honest man in the dirty town, the guy who struggles trying to do things the right way while his pal Tony is rolling in crooked cash. Artie's no saint, as evidenced by his yearning for Martina and then the way he dogged her when he realized she was with Benny. But in that scene in bed with Charmaine and the one at the Bing with Tony, you saw a man who had gone past midlife crisis (remember the earring?) and into existential despair."
I'll give Ventimiglia his due. He's a versatile, often sly actor—rent "Trees Lounge" or "On the Run" if you don't believe it—and he managed to sell (or at least rescue) every scene he did. He has a soulfulness that this show rarely taps because of its vested interest in portraying Artie as Tony's schmucked-up, law-abiding doppleganger (a role ceded to Ventimiglia's pal and frequent collaborator, "Trees Lounge"
director Steve Buscemi, throughout the first half of Season Five). In some images, your heart just couldn't help but go out to him: depressed and smoking at the Bada Bing; backing away in mute shock after Tony told him to shut up and cook; addressing a freshly-shot rabbit carcass with a faux-street-tough "Motherfucker!" He was credibly frightening when thrashing Benny, then joyous-yet-pathetic executing a karate move afterward. (Am I remembering wrong, or did the episode "Test Dream" confirm that in high school, Artie was the dangerous one, and Tony the tag-along hero-worshiper?) Still, improving on "Everybody Hurts" doesn't strike me as the best use of the show's time or Ventimiglia's, especially considering that the six-hour run-up was more ambitious and focused, and much less obvious.
Moving on to product placement, I know the high-toned Home Shopping Network blather was "ironic" and germaine to the episode's themes. But it was still painful, because if the brand names are real, there's no such thing as a satire on advertising. Really, now—"Survivor" and "The Apprentice" get creamed for this kind of thing. From Oris watches to Cingular phones, every product featured in "Luxury Lounge" got one, sometimes two closeups, plus a worshipful verbal description that sounded like ad copy. Unfortunately, this has been the "Sopranos" norm since the opening of Season Two, when Home Depot was name-checked as a great place to buy body disposal supplies and Coke products started showing up on every dinner table. HBO insists it gets no money from product placement, that the merchandise is given to the show in hopes of exposure.
But considering all the self-conscious, ass-kissy, take-you-out-of-the-moment dialogue that goes along with the goodies, "free" doesn't really mean free. And Kingsley's public-service-announcement statement that Hollywood goodies are an obscenity, and he only accepts them for charitable purposes, seemed less like a condemnation than an excuse for whorishness. (Was that Ben Kingsley talking, or "Ben Kingsley"? And either way, why didn't I believe him?) Like Steven Spielberg, whose "Minority Report" featured product placement out the wazoo and justified it with a scene that humorously criticized high-tech selling techniques, the "Sopranos" gang has found a way to sell out while seeming to be above that sort of thing.
Am I being too hard on the episode? Almost certainly. But it couldn't help but suffer in comparison with the preceding six. "Luxury Lounge" wasn't quite a stand-alone like "Pine Barrens" or "College," nor was it a carefully sanded piece in a larger dramatic puzzle; it fell somewhere in between, and that neither/nor quality highlighted irritations that a stronger episode would have minimized. After six brisk laps, this was a leisurely stroll. The downtime gave you plenty of opportunities to think about the show's irritating tendencies, which surely wasn't the intent. Even the mugging of Lauren Bacall—which was admittedly both shocking and grimly funny, given the show's subtheme of starfucking-as-manifestation-of-social-envy—left a sour aftertaste. Notwithstanding certain obvious exceptions—Hal Holbrook's great guest shot this season, for instance—it's telling that both people and products wrangle their way on to "The Sopranos" so that they can be mocked and abused. Frank Sinatra, Jr., whose dad publicly (and hypocritically) groused about being associated with the mob, did a "Sopranos" guest shot, and now Bacall, the epitome of class, shows up and gets punched in the face. That's entertainment.
Paul Greengrass's United 93
by Ed Gonzalez on April 23rd, 2006 at 12:46 am in Film

Had I seen United 93 prior to coming up with the main page's poll question last week it might have read differently: "Are New Yorkers ready for United 93?" In this week's Entertainment Weekly, Lisa Schwarzbaum says that we don't need to see this film but then states we stand to benefit from recognizing in it "that there's no difference between those who died and us, in fear and in courage." Why, then, an A-minus for something we don't need to see? Equally confounding, how can we adopt this message Schwarzbaum speaks of without actually seeing the film? Schwarzbaum sends out all sorts of mixed messages in her review, which is swollen with sweeping statements about how "we" deal with and resolve tragedy. But her confusion is in keeping with what is a very confusing work of art, the most suspect, difficult-to-dismiss film I've seen since The Passion of the Christ. The other day, Matt Zoller Seitz likened United 93 to an adaptation of The Accused that showcases only the gang-rape sequence. I thought of it more as a Universal Studios theme park ride—a machine optimally designed to make one feel as miserable as humanly possible. (I'm serious when I say it wouldn't be entirely out of line to present audiences with barf bags going into the theater.) Though Seitz's correlation explains how the film simulates what might have happened aboard United 93 on September 11, 2001 with little in the way of context (just the occasional bits of conjecture—which, when they don't constitute bones thrown at people on both sides of the political divide, reaffirm affecting but easy truths about our common humanity), it doesn't account for the fact that no two people cope with tragedy the same way. Just as a woman would respond to The Accused: The All-Rape Edition a lot differently than a man would, anyone who eyewitnessed the events of 9/11 or lost friends and family on that day has dealt with this tragedy—and will cope with this film—a little differently than others across the country (and the world). Do we need to see this? I can't answer that for you, these women, this boy, or anyone for that matter who did or didn't see this or this happen in person or on television. Given how little United 93 illuminates, all I can say is that I didn't need to.
The Rajkumar effect
by Matt Zoller Seitz on April 22nd, 2006 at 4:57 pm in Politics

Former NYPress editor Alexander Zaitchik wrote a compelling feature for Spiked about the death of beloved movie star Rajkumar, which turned Bangalore, high-tech capital of India, into a literal mob scene.
"For two days in April," Zaitchik writes, "Bangalore looked like Baghdad. Following the death by heart attack of the south Indian film icon known as Rajkumar, grieving fans shut down the nation's knowledge capital. Bangalore's streets, usually imagined as paved with hi-tech gold, were on 12 and 13 April turned into a stage for tear gas, gunfire, burning cars and bloody street clashes between police and 60,000 of Rajkumar's supporters. The final body count: eight, including a young policeman killed and strung up by outraged fans attempting to gain entry into their hero's funeral. To a bemused world, this fiery convulsion triggered by the death of an old actor was just another example of Indians' idiosyncratic, borderline-religious love for their movie stars. This was also the local view in some quarters. According to an editorial in the the Hindustan Times, the state of Karnakatka had 'completely lost its mind.'"
For the complete article, click here. Another good Zaitchik feature from April: His Reason Online article on how Bruce Lee became a symbol of peace in the Balkans.—MZS
5 for the day: haiku
by Odienator on April 22nd, 2006 at 10:06 am in Film
By Odienator.
As the OLDienator prepares to attend his 20 year high school reunion, he would like to nostalgically return you to the days of your high school English classes. Remember when the English teacher came to class one day, spouting weird Japanese words through a Cheshire Cat smile that seemed more sadistic than usual? Something about haiku, and how you were going to read 15 million of them and interpret every single one? You may remember saying afterward that if you ever saw another haiku, you might commit hari-kari.
Well, put that sword down! Haiku can be fun.
For the uninitiated, a haiku is an unrhymed three line poem in a 5-7-5 meter. The first line has five syllables, the second has seven, and the third has five. For example:
At The House Next Door
"The New World" is so worshipped!
But I fart in church.
Here are five haiku about movies, movie characters, and celebrities. They come with one caveat: If you read them, you have to respond in kind. After all, this is virtual nostalgia English class. You knew there'd be homework.
An offer they made
that he couldn't refuse: Why
Brando did "The Score."
You were a woman
Until you dropped your knickers.
Oh well. Since I'm here...
3.
White Men Can't Jump, and
According to "Footloose," they
cannot dance either.
4.
A new jack singer
Is outacted by a cat.
Welcome to "Glitter."
5.
BrAngelina and
TomKat? Go back 40 years
And you'll find LizArd!
Queenly Helen
by Matt Zoller Seitz on April 21st, 2006 at 7:25 am in Television
"It is rare to find such beauty gifted with the power of self-expression." That's Queen Elizabeth I, the title character of HBO's miniseries "Elizabeth I," talking to a handsome and charming young earl. But the compliment could have been paid to the program's star, Helen Mirren, whose performance in the title role is an unqualified triumph. This two-part English-U.S. co-production (Saturday and Monday at 8 p.m. on HBO) is directed by Tom Hooper ("Prime Suspect 6") and written by Nigel Williams ("Bertie and Elizabeth"). It follows Elizabeth I (1533-1603) during the second half of her reign, when she crushed conspirators and went to war against Spain while her own advisers pressured her to do things she didn't want to do—like getting married, for instance.
To read the rest of the Star-Ledger review click here.
From the short stack: "Durgnat on Film"
by Matt Zoller Seitz on April 20th, 2006 at 11:57 am in Film

This month's "From the Short Stack" collection is "Durgnat on Film," by Raymond Durgnat (1939-2002), the Swiss-born English critic who also wrote "Luis Bunuel" (1967), "Jean Renoir" (1975) and "Films and Feelings" (1967). I first read "Durgnat on Film" as an undergraduate and still revisit that dog-eared copy. I liked him right off because he was as stimulating as any other theorist on the reading list but much more fun. He described the interplay of form and content with pizzazz. His eye was so sharp and his prose so lucid whatever the subject, he could be counted on to deliver the last word.
Analyzing Orson Welles' "The Trial," he wrote, "Using in some sequences an incessantly roaming camera, in others a flurry of quick cuts, Welles makes all space fidget." Fritz Lang's American films "...have an American appearance, but are just as 'visual' as his German. He is a master of so arranging his characters in space that a kind of nameless, fatalistic suspense palpitates between them." In the work of Sergei Eisenstein and Carl Theodor Dreyer, "...we feel not that the actor dominates the image, but that the actor is a part of a visual composition—that he has practically been hammered and planed into shape." Durgnat was also a master of the comic 180. He backloaded academic sentences with quotable one-liners, a neat trick that made the reader more likely to remember the fact preceding the joke. ("Neorealism died, briefly, around 1953, killed partly by audiences' dislike of its drabness, partly by government dislike for its picture of an Italy where people were poor and it rained all the time.")
His writing on science fiction captures the genre's surface pleasures and lauds its potential for pop myth without excusing its juvenile tendencies. He grasped its kinship to satire and fable and described it with affection. In "The Wedding of Poetry and Pulp--Can They Live Happily Ever After and Have Many Beautiful Children?", Durgnat wrote, "Whether a film whisks us to the twenty-first century,
or to Atlantis in its prime, the spectators remain, alas, in the pedestrian here and now. As bizarre as the robes, the decor, the technological contraptions, may be, they refer back to the structures of our musee imaginaire, our lives, our unconscious, our society. It would be oddly hard for most of us to adjust to the sight of a space-hero dressed according to a time when narrow, drooping shoulders were considered smart (though they were, less than a hundred years ago). It's hard to understand certain assumptions of the Samoans, the Balinese or the Americans, and all but impossible to empathize into the perceptions and drives of, say, a boa constrictor. How much more difficult then is it to identify with the notions of, say, the immortal twelve-sensed telepathic polymorphoids whose natural habitat is the ammonia clouds of Galaxy X7?"
In the films of W.C. Fields, wrote Durgnat, "The homely and the exotic weirdly coexist. Fields hears a police car radio describing a wanted man as having
'apple cheeks, cauliflower ears and mutton-chop whiskers (shades of Arcimboldo); or he buys shares in a beefsteak mine; or, as a bank dick, he dons a disguise which consists mainly of a length of string running from the bridge of his nose to behind his ear. These improbabilities are presented so as to be quietly mulled over, rather than developed, and have a strange halfheartedness which is itself a joke, and rather a sad one. Fields' humor, instead of falling between the two stools of fantasy and satire, wobbles uneasily, and intriguingly, upon the edge of both. He seems to be taking a subdued revenge on the real world by substituting for it a fantasy one. Yet he's also too weary to develop the fantasy. It's as if he introduces, into the familiar atmosphere, little 'air-bubbles' of fantasy, which swell, and slowly subside, leaving a sour nostalgia behind."
In "Architecture in, and of, the Movies," Durgnat wrote of how movies could double as both architectural and social criticism. He cited Michelangelo Antonioni's "La Notte" as
a film which demonstrated how "...architects' Utopianism can shade over into what feels like totalitarianism...One can still talk to people in the [London City Council] Architects' Department who want open-plan apartments imposed on people for whom one of the nicest things about quitting their overcrowded old slums would have been an orgy of privacy. There's no easy answer to such clashes of taste, involving so many factors. In Antonioni's 'La Notte,' a man is dying in a cancer clinic, whose sleek, lavish lines are, somehow, an outrage—that is, an architectural metaphor for the way in which our optimistic, utilitarian rationalism smoothes over human pain, therefore emotion, therefore communication. In this context, its elegance, like the charm with which Plato invests his totalitarian visions, is as sinister as a title like, 'The Ministry of Peace.'"
"Earlier than most writers on the cinema," wrote Kevin Gough-Yates in a May 24, 2002 Guardian obituary, "Durgnat recognised that audience participation and involvement was as much a part of the creative process as anything that emerged from the director's own view or personality. He was equally contemptuous of semiology, structuralism and the post-structuralism of the 1970s, although, in reaction, he intensified his own approach, and added more complicated qualification to his work. Even his earliest writings from the 1960s remain fresh today, whereas the meretricious writings of others that spun off from theory are now almost unread."
That last part is, well, critical. Durgnat's core strength was his refusal to be seduced by intellectual fashion. In print he made a point of questioning received wisdom, whether it came from Cahiers du Cinema, Sight and Sound, The New Yorker or anywhere else. His own writing is fashioned in opposition to the groupthink he railed against. He learned from everybody but worshiped nobody. His patchwork magnificence as a critic matches his description of cinema as aesthetic Frankenstein's monster in "The Mongrel Muse." "Ever since the cinema began, aestheticians have sought to define 'pure' cinema, the 'essence' of cinema. In vain. The cinema's only 'purity' is the way in which it combines diverse elements into its own 'impure' whole. Its 'essence' is that it makes them interact, that it integrates other art forms, that it exists 'between' and 'across' their boundaries. It is cruder and inferior to every other art form on that art form's 'home ground.' But it repairs its deficiencies, and acquires its own dignity, by being a mixture."
Some links, for now
by Matt Zoller Seitz on April 17th, 2006 at 11:11 pm in Links for the Day

The ReverseShot gang is gearing up for their 2006 film festival "ReverseShot Presents," which runs April 22-30 at the Makor Theater in NYC. The schedule suggests a shoestring variant of Roger Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival—a chance to bang the drum on behalf of unseen or underappreciated movies.
The fest opens April 22 with a Rob Zombie double feature—"House of 1,000 Corpses" and "The Devil's Rejects" [see above] with a special appearance by Zombie repertory company member and George Romero favorite Ken Foree).
Other titles include Hou Hsiao-hsien's "Millennium Mambo" (April 26), Claire Denis' "The Intruder" (April 27) and a New York premiere of the superb documentary "A Lion in the House" (April 30, pictured). (Since I'm throwing some linkage ReverseShot's way, I'll also throw a dart: robbiefreeling, though you may well be right about the worthlessness of James Marsh and Milo Addica's "The King," which I have not yet seen, you are wrong to snidely dismiss Jonathan Glazer's "Birth," which Addica cowrote. For pro-"Birth" arguments, complete with examples and stuff, click here, and better yet, here.)
Meanwhile, across the river, The Brooklyn Underground Film Festival runs April 19-23 at the Brooklyn Lyceum. The fest opens Wednesday, April 19, with Spanish filmmaker Adan Aliaga's "My Grandmother's House" [pictured] and also features Heather Courtney's immigration documentary "Letters from the Other Side" (April 20, 8 p.m.) and Jeremy Mack's "High Score" (April 22, 8:45 p.m.), a profile of Portland videogame master Bill Carlton.
Say it again:
Angie Dickinson.
So entranced...can't form complete sentences...to describe...Angie Dickinson Blog-a-thon. Can only tell you...to visit...Flickhead. Or Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule. Read essays. Then scroll down. For links. Angie....
Belatedly, please check out girish's essay on rarely-screened video documentaries by the Dardenne brothers, particularly the comments thread. Donning his professor hat (I've never met blogger Girish Shambu, but for some reason I picture him wearing a dashiki) he asks for commenters to explore the distinction between "form" and "style," and the result is fun even if it settles nothing. (For more on the Dardennes, see the Film Journey entry by Shambu's colleague, Doug Cummings.)
My esteemed colleague Edward Copeland, who recently spearheaded a poll of the worst Best Picture Oscar winners of all time, is soliciting ballots for a poll of the best Best Picture winners. All you have to do is write your list of the 10 finest Best Picture winners in order, with 1 being the best, and email it to eddiesworst@yahoo.com. For Copeland's own ballot, click here. Along similar lines, South Dakota Dark is running a poll to determine TV's best and worst shows. Send your top five (and if so inclined, your bottom five) to ambiguousdog@hotmail.com. Deadline is May 1.
David Thomson's Independent column on Jeff Bridges offers his usual mix of insightful observations and gaseous bullshit. Among the former: Thomson notes that Bridges "...never owns up to his habit of making 'non-hits.'
It's not exactly that they're flops: only a few have fallen that far, hardly more than a dozen. Maybe 15. No, it's rather that he prefers to make offbeat pictures, ones against the grain - difficult, doubting pictures, ones that are quietly attached to an archaic principle: that, once upon a time, movies were determined by the pain of grown men and women soaked in years of sadness and experience, and fairly sure that a similar crowd of pained people existed, to be referred to as 'the audience.'"
Over at Movie City News, Ray Pride references Manohla Dargis, James Wolcott, Jonathan Rosenbaum and Godfrey Cheshire (via the The House Next Door) in a free-associative, pot-stirring essay on the future of cinema. And finally, I kept meaning to revisit the comments section of my "Days of Heaven/The New World" post, where Andrew and "Anonymous" were mixing it up over issues of cultural colonialism and representation, and post a longer response to some of Andrew's concerns. But frankly, Anonymous made many of the same points I would have made—though admittedly a hell of a lot more combatively than I would have made them—and the argument was so fascinating that I selfishly decided to hang back at ringside and admire their form. This is one of my favorite comments exchanges yet.
The Sopranos Mondays: Season 6, Ep. 6, "Live Free or Die"
by Matt Zoller Seitz on April 17th, 2006 at 1:22 pm in Television

In the comments section of Odienator's recent article on parting shots, House regular Wagstaff speculated that "if [a] movie has a philosophy, then that philosophy is most directly expressed in the final shot." I countered that if you considered the first and last shot of any halfway decent movie, "you get a snapshot of the filmmaker's worldview so accurate that nothing in between can deny it. Sort of polygraph-by-cinema." If you subject Sunday night's "Sopranos" episode to the polygraph test, the statement seems crystal-clear, and consistent with every episode that's aired during this exceptional season: it was about the difficulty of envisioning a life different from the one you're living—and the greater difficulty, even impossibility, of making it happen.
The hour opened with a wide shot of the still-recovering Tony Soprano shambling around the backyard of his palatial McMansion in his bathrobe and having his reading interrupted by the grinding whine of a defective ventilation unit. He walked over to the unit, futzed with it, ripped off the top and hurled it away in disgust, then resumed reading. Moments later, the grinding noise returned, and rather than attack the problem again, Tony ignored it.
The episode's finale showed forcibly-outed mobster Vito, who'd fled to a small town in New Hampshire that seemed to be filled with handsome young bourgeois gay men (my brother Richard remarked, "He could be dead already; maybe this is heaven"), strolling down main street and then ducking into an antiques shop. When he asked the clerk about a particular vase, the clerk complimented Vito's taste. "You're a natural," he said. As the clerk walked away, director Tim Van Patten's camera dollied in slowly on Vito as he continued to regard the vase. What made this shot so potent was Vito's unselfconsciousness. For the first time in his history on the series, he seemed completely at ease. (Actor Joseph Gannascoli, who's seemed out of his depth in other episodes, underplayed this and other moments exquisitely).
Those two shots are gateway images that invite us to reflect on everything we've seen this season. In a sense, Tony's story and Vito's story are the same story. They're about men who want to change (or escape) the lives they have, and become different people—or the men they always should have been.
Tony's near-death by gunshot shook him up and caused him to adopt a live-and-let-live approach to mob management. After his discharge from the hospital, he cheerfully released a paramedic from having to repay money he'd been accused of filching from Tony's wallet. Then agreed to Phil Leotardo's hard bargain to stay employed by the waste management company. This week, Tony ran afoul of his crew by greeting news of Vito's closet homosexuality with a shrug. "I got a second chance," he said of Vito. "Why shouldn't he?"
And a more poignant response to his crew: "You gonna take care of his kids after he's gone?" Notwithstanding his calculated public beatdown of his new driver last week, he does seem softer and more reflective than we've ever seen him. Lying in bed with Carmela, the vertical scar on his exposed belly suggested a C-section; could we really be privy to the gradual birth of a New Tony? (This arc echoes saloon owner/powerbroker Al Swearengen's brush with death in Season Two of "Deadwood," which announced the birth and maturation of a more socially constructive yet still hardassed Al.)
The defective ventilation unit illuminated Tony's present problem and his larger arc. Vito's exposure tossed a wrench into the gangster machinery, and Tony can't just ignore that grinding sound. His hamfisted jabs at enlightened thinking ("It's 2006! There's pillow biters in the Special Forces!") don't work on this bunch, which views homosexuality as a much graver sin than, say, killing a guy and scattering his body parts across Ocean County. Sooner or later Tony will have to (1) give the order to kill Vito, (2) stand by helplessly while someone else freelances the deed, or (3) take a stand and pay the price.
More significantly, though, that opening reminds us of Tony's failure to recognize the root cause of his psychic distress: he's a murderous criminal. Every reform-minded move up to now has been cosmetic, the equivalent of tearing the top off the air conditioning unit, tossing it away and going back to his reading. Even therapy hasn't really attacked the heart of the matter. As Sean Burns pointed out, it often seems that Melfi's therapy is not making Tony a better man, but a better gangster. His dead mother isn't the problem, he is.
Vito, meanwhile, appears to be enjoying his own version of the rustic yuppie life that Eugene Pontecorvo was denied when he escaped his mob-ligations by hanging himself. As Vito wandered around that small New Hampshire town, he seemed more relaxed—more himself—than we've ever seen him. The masterful slow-build sequence depicting his flight included eerie shots of Vito trudging through torrential rain after his car
broke down (abandoning the vehicle we'd seen him in during his various mob errands). Drenched in water and barely protected by a thin poncho membrane, the infant-doughy thug was reborn at a bed-and-breakfast, courtesy of an innkeeper who refused to take a fistful of thank-you cash. For all she knew, he was just some traveller trying to get out of the rain. Vito awoke the next morning in an elegant four-poster bed, framed in a low-angled master shot that faintly reminded me of astronaut Dave Bowman's evolutionary stint in the white room at the end of "2001."
It's surely no accident that Vito's stopover in Norman Rockwell country echoed Tony's sojourn in Coma Land, right up to his climactic arrival at a welcoming home. (Vito, unlike Tony, dared to step inside.) I also doubt it's an accident that this episode saw Carmela chew out her pop for looting and dismantling the new house she was building for herself and Tony. (Her dad countered that the house was a lost cause because she was supposed to wrangle the proper government permits to build with inferior material, and didn't do it; in other words, she neglected a problem that threatened a long-term dream, and now she has to accept the consequences.) This season is all about new beginnings (or reconstructions) and how they are thwarted by a variety of forces, from luck and bad judgement to social conditioning and genetics.
This was another tight, strong episode; except for a pro forma "Lost in Yonkers" quip by Chris and an unconscionably lame conversation between Meadow and Finn that sounded like it was ghostwritten by the "Six Feet Under" gang, every scene and line stood on its own while simultaneously strengthening this season's serious and compelling themes. I was going to end by observing that the episode's title, "Live Free or Die," had the wrong conjunction, that it should have been "and." But then I woke up this morning and read my colleague Alan Sepinwall's Star-Ledger wrapup and saw he'd already made that connection and many more. This "Sopranos" column is less thorough than the others in part because Alan already said a lot of what I wanted to say, so rather than ramble on, I'll just invite you to click here.
Cinema, dead and alive: an interview with Godfrey Cheshire, Part 2
by Jeremiah Kipp on April 14th, 2006 at 11:12 pm in Film, Interviews

The following is the second half of a two-part interview with Godfrey Cheshire [below] by House Next Door contributor Jeremiah Kipp. Part One focused on Cheshire's influential two-part New York Press article "The Death of Film/The Decay of Cinema", and explored how Cheshire's predictions had or had not come true. This installment focuses on nonfiction film, the hazards of independent distribution, and Cheshire's own filmmaking debut, a documentary titled "Moving Midway" [pictured above].
___________________________________________________

JK: Do you think that the Death of Film, and the major changes in the world, have been an impetus for documentaries to gain the level of attention and prominence that they have? The death of film leads to the emergence of video, and the proliferation of video has allowed a lot more documentaries to be made.
GC: The technology of low-budget filmmaking through video has allowed more people to make documentaries. It has made the whole food chain of documentary production, exhibition and distribution much more cost effective and easier for people in terms of making the films and getting viewer access to them. That has definitely stimulated things. Also, documentaries allow people to engage with what's happening with the world, as I said before. Documentaries in many cases aren't being produced by TV networks, which are doing the same sort of thing but very much under the corporate mandate. People understand that. You're able to presume that what's represented will be an independent viewpoint. In most cases, it's a liberal or progressive viewpoint, but the key thing is that it is individual. A lot of that is in reaction to how corporate the media has become, especially television media, because whether or not Edward R. Murrow was the great hero that George Clooney would like us to believe, there was a greater chance for a strong individual point-of-view in the [news and nonfiction programs] of decades past.
The corporate mandate has soured people on recent TV, and they distrust the coverage of such things as the War in Iraq [seen in such theatrical documentaries as "Occupation Dreamland," right]. TV has tried to make up some lost ground with its Hurricane Katrina coverage, which has been the answer to Iraq. Michael Moore or Barbara Kopple or any individual documentary maker and can go out with relatively little money, make something, and get it in front of people that is heretical to any corporate party line. This is why movies are going to retain a certain cultural importance for a long time to come—specifically because of this.
But the rise of documentaries is related to the decline of European auteurs, and the failure of significant American auteurs to arise from and remain in the independent world in very significant numbers. If you look at the whole Sundance phenomenon, there was such promise there, but while you've got a few interesting directors coming up, most of them just go on to the majors or whatever. In the past, people would go to the independent theaters and art theaters for foreign films, and specifically the great tradition of European films. That has dried up.
JK: Two Americans we might consider as auteurs are Michael Almereyda and Hal Hartley. However, these guys can't satisfy the bottom line for distributors, so they have switched to video. Almereyda did two documentaries on video while his feature film "Happy Here and Now" [above] couldn't find a distributor, and after Hal Hartley got critically and financially slammed for "No Such Thing" he made a digital movie for practically nothing. Video allows them to take to the streets as it were and make something when they aren't receiving any financing. Is video keeping a certain kind of auteur alive?
GC: Video is allowing beginning artists as well as established artists who have been marginalized commercially to keep going. There is usefulness to it there. But it's not like it's going to make a higher grade of artistic product within the whole Sundance phenomenon or the independent phenomenon. It's probably going to end up diluting it. But the question for critics and consumers becomes, "How do you filter out all the junk and find something that has meaning for you?" We're seeing this whole system of gatekeepers changing very rapidly, with a Wellspring getting swallowed up by a Weinstein Company—which doesn't have the artistic impetus it may have had in the early 1990s.
We're seeing individual critics undermined in terms of the number of outlets to write in, what their outlets will allow them to cover, how much [space] they get, and that's in some ways being altered by the blogosphere and things like that. We're still in a stage where we have art film distributors, for example, that go to the foreign festivals and still put out some foreign films, but I'm afraid that's on its last legs. It's been in such decline since I wrote that article in 1999 that it wouldn't be surprising if a few years from now you could only see foreign films on DVD. Maybe some would open in New York or Los Angeles just to get the advertising, but we really aren't far away from that.
JK: You still write film reviews for The Independent Weekly but have started branching off into other areas.
GC: I have three film projects that I am involved with right now, so I am in the process of jumping the fence between film criticism and filmmaking. This is something I did not know I would do a few years ago. I was happily occupied with being a film critic in the 1990s, but when I parted company with New York Press at the end of 2000, I thought about where I'd like to go from here. I imagined the best scenario, saying what if I got the best job in the world, writing for a magazine that paid me tons of money and I could write whatever I wanted to—is that where I would like to be in 10 years? I realized no, that's not, because it's not a new horizon or a new opportunity. When I thought it all through, I realized the area of challenge and opportunity that I would like to try at this point in my life, if I was ever going to do it, was filmmaking. But it's funny to verbalize it like that, because I didn't make the decision to make films. It was going on in my subconscious. These film projects came along and said, "You need to do me now." It wasn't like I went out looking for them. Those projects were there. It was something I hadn't done, very different and very demanding, and if I accomplished it I would feel like I have done something.
JK: Can you describe the film projects?
GC: Two of the films involve me as a screenwriter, and are based on historical subjects. One has to do with the Middle East, and the other has to do with American political history. But the project that is furthest along is a documentary I am making about my family's plantation in North Carolina.
This plantation, where I spent a lot of time growing up as a kid, had a very strong hold on my imagination. My cousin, who is a little older than me, inherited it a few years ago and announced that he was going to take all the buildings from where they stood since they were built in the 1840s and move them to a new location. The reason was that the city of Raleigh was encroaching on the buildings so drastically that it was not pleasant to live there, like the bucolic country we had when we were kids. That decision on his part sparked a lot of controversy within my family, and those conflicted feelings are present in the film.
But it's not just about moving the plantation. It also considers what plantations really were in history versus the mythology that was created through popular culture—especially the movies. "The Birth of a Nation" was supposedly based in part on our family. I also delved into our family's relationships to the descendents of our slaves. I have met a professor of African-American studies at NYU whose name is Robert Hinton, who said he said his grandfather was born a slave on our plantation. He's a great guy, we've had a really good time, and we're looking at the plantation through the lens of race and the effects that it has on American culture down to right now.
JK: What is your role in the documentary?
GC: I'm writer, director and producer, along with two other producers. It's a big project. I discovered that ultimately this would all depend on my abilities as a writer. As you can imagine, it's very different than my life, routine and work practice as a journalist.
JK: Does your documentary take an objective or subjective approach?
GC: It's very first person. I have sort of half-joked that it is my Ross McElwee film. But in fact, North Carolina is interesting because it has this whole tradition of first person documentaries, including filmmakers like McElwee, Macky Alston and Tim Kirkman. I feel like I am fitting in with that tradition in my own way.
JK: Are you in the film?
GC: That's a tricky question. I went into the film without thinking about that at all. But I had to be on camera while having conversations with my cousins, for example, since it wouldn't make sense to be off camera all the time. When I put together a trailer I told people, "I don't want to be on camera," but they said I was a good character and should include myself more.
That was strange, looking at my family and myself as characters in a movie. It's difficult to be objective. But leaving me aside, I've had to turn a lot of the material over to my editor because he can see it through the third person very naturally. I have to get into that same mode of thinking to see these people on the screen no matter if they are my family or my life. I have to look at the film as a construct, as almost a fiction, even though it is implicitly trying to deal with history versus fiction.
JK: I assume this is shot on video.
GC: Yes, it is. There is a fine irony for you. Me, the great defender of film and celluloid—but there was no other way, practically, to do it. When they moved the plantation last summer, we shot over several days with seven camera crews. The footage looks spectacular, and to do that amount of shooting on film would have been impossible.
JK: Would you be interested in directing narrative films next?
GC: People have often asked me if I want to direct dramatic movies. It's not really a goal, or something I feel drawn towards. I feel much more natural in the role of writer, first of all, and secondly a producer putting all the pieces together. I would be perfectly happy doing just those two things. But if a project comes along where I think I would be better at directing than someone else, that's how that would happen.
JK: While you were making this film about your family and where you're from, did you have any epiphanies? Have you learned more about where you are right now by looking back at where you've come from?
GC: Maybe it's a little like psychotherapy or something, but it is more cultural psychotherapy than individual psychotherapy. It has made me think about race, for one thing. You're constantly thinking about that if you're an American, especially a southerner who comes from this past of plantation owners, and at the same time you see how much race is so much a part of American political life in the smallest and most intimate ways.
This doesn't mean I'm converting to anyone's orthodoxy. No northern academic who writes a p.c. book about the South's political sins is going to tell me how I should relate to my past. But as I said it does open my eyes to the reality of history versus the convenient myths about history that people live by, and all children live by.
It has me thinking about imagination, and how we all operate according to imaginary constructs, and how those things are very necessary and enriching while at the same time being negative. I suppose rather than one or two epiphanies, I've had a gradual feeling of unfolding and realization, and some of it has been very emotional. I have no idea where I'm going to come out, since I'm still on the voyage.
We've shot about 85% of the film now, and I'm going to be doing intensive editing here in the next three months. I hope to have a rough cut by the summer, then we'll examine what we've got and decide where to go from there.
___________________________________________________
Thanks to John LaRocca for the photo illustration of Cheshire.
5 for the day: parting shots
by Odienator on April 14th, 2006 at 8:53 am in Film
By Odienator.
Today's 5 for the day pays tribute to that which comes just before the closing credits, the parting shot. Parting shots can be images that remain onscreen as the closing credits roll. Or they can be images that appear just before the screen goes black (or flashes the words "The End" or "Fin" or "Get the Hell Out"). They can also be a visual accompaniment or response to dialogue. But you won't find "Nobody's perfect" or "Shut up and deal" or "It's the stuff that dreams are made of" on this list, because I'm focusing on cappers that are mainly visual.
Here's a brief example: suppose you're watching a movie about Oscar Wilde. Wilde says on his deathbed, "Either the wallpaper goes, or I go." The next shot fades in, and it's of an empty bed in the room. The wallpaper is still there; Wilde is not. Fade out, movie ends, critics boo, and the screen gets bombarded with Sno-Caps. This list would probably focus on the wallpaper shot, and would mention Wilde's last line in passing, if at all.
The first item on my list is my favorite parting shot, and my favorite New York City movie from its era. The others are presented in no particular order. Spoiler alerts are in effect.
1. "The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3." (1974) You may not have heard of this film from the hardboiled detective/police officer phase of Walter Matthau's career, but a certain American director with a penchant for cinematic five-fingered discounts certainly has. Four criminals (Hector Elizondo, Earl Hindman, Martin Balsam, Robert Shaw) decide to pull a million-dollar heist by hijacking the 1:23pm #6 train and holding its passengers for ransom until the city of New York pays up. They refer to each other as Mr. Green, Mr. Gray, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Blue. The movie intercuts scenes of the hijackers with sequences from within the train, where a slew of Noo Yawk semi-stereotypes utter colorful, entertaining, and not exactly necessary dialogue. The Noo Yawkers argue, panic, and, once the train starts barreling out of control, band together as only Strangers on a Noo Yawk Train can. The kidnappers are icy, competent and suave, and one of them (Balsam) sneezes a lot. Meanwhile, a detective nicknamed Z (or Zed, for fans of QT) interacts with them and tries to figure out how they expect to get away with such a feat, considering everyone knows where the 6 train goes. For most of the film Matthau, as Z, only hears the voices of Mssrs. Blue, Gray, Brown, and, in the case of Mr. Green, his horrifically odd sneezes. "Gesundheit," says Matthau repeatedly in that unmistakable voice of his.
Z never sees the faces of the criminals until he meets them, and after dealing with three of them (one of whom deals with himself in a literally shocking manner), Matthau goes to the apartment of the last man standing, Mr. Green. As the suspenseful scene draws to a close, Matthau, satisfied that his lead came up empty, leaves the apartment. We see the door close, then we cut to Mr. Green, who sneezes. "Gesundheit," says Matthau from behind the closed door...
...which then opens on a glorious, knowing closeup of Matthau's face.
Freeze frame, roll credits. If this had been a bad 80's movie, the soundtrack would have kicked up some Bob Seger: "Shakedown, breakdown, you're busted!"
2. "The Last Picture Show." (1971) On separate occasions, I got to meet Larry McMurtry and Peter Bogdanovich, and on neither occasion was I bold enough to fully express how much this movie meant to me—and why I'll never watch it again. It's the most depressing movie I've ever seen. Bogdanovich creates a 1950's movie with 1971's freedom of expression; it is brutally honest in emotion and sexuality, and stifling in its hopelessness.
The movie theater in the town of Anarene, which we see functioning in the film's opening pan, is a symbol of hope, a means of escape from the dreary lives of its citizens, citizens who pass the time getting involved in manipulative and costly sexual machinations just so they can feel some connection to humankind.
When theater owner Sam the Lion (Ben Johnson) dies, it removes the only character who seems to have come to some terms with his past regrets; in effect, the town's figurehead, father figure and historical tie has disappeared. Eventually, the theater plays the titular feature, and when Bogdanovich comes full circle in the pan that ends this film, it rests on the theater which, like the life of its owner, has now gone dark. The last shot is like Nick's green light of hope being extinguished at the end of "The Great Gatsby."
3. "He Got Game." (1998) Spike Lee has never met a cryptic ending he didn't like, but he topped himself with "He Got Game." Denzel Washington plays mean and nasty, in preparation for his turn in "Training Day," and former Milwaukee Buck Ray Allen plays his symbolically-named son, Jesus. This Jesus' passion is basketball, and Denzel's Jake has been improbably furloughed from prison to convince him to go to the governor's alma mater. Whether Jesus goes there or not is up to you to discover, but Jake winds up going back to jail. Once returned, Jake picks up a basketball and, as Aaron Copland plays on the soundtrack, throws it as far as he can. The camera follows the basketball as it leaves the prison and lands in front of Jesus, miles away, on a playground. The movie ends with a high-angled shot of Jesus looking up at a hoop in wonderment. "What the fuck just happened?" asked the woman seated behind me. I wanted to kiss her.
4. "The Shawshank Redemption." (1994) The WGA released a list of the top 101 screenplays a few weeks ago, and this film was ranked #22. It's my favorite screen adaptation of a novel, and the movie ends with the same words author Stephen King ends his novella. Before Morgan Freeman became the spokesperson/narrator for human-destroying tripods and penguins on punany pilgrimage, he mused about his hopes for the future outside of Shawshank penitentiary. "I hope to make it across the border," narrates Freeman. "I hope to see my friend and shake his hand. I hope the Pacific is as beautiful as it has been in my dreams."
As Freeman speaks, director Frank Darabont fades to the Pacific, which is a very dreamy blue indeed. Then he fades to Freeman, walking on the beach alongside it. As Freeman approaches his aforementioned friend, Tim Robbins, Darabont cuts to Robbins looking up from his boat work to see Freeman, then cuts to Freeman acknowledging his recognition. Freeman walks into a close-up, smiling, then Darabont cuts back to Robbins jumping down from the boat to greet him.
I expected a reunion filled with a close-up of the two actors spouting mushy dialogue, and the film certainly had earned that. But the next and final image is a long shot that pulls back from some perch high above the scene on the beach. The dreamy Pacific takes up two-thirds of the screen, threatening to take up more as the camera continues to back away from this extremely personal moment. We can barely make out the two characters as they walk toward each other and hug. What I love about this shot is that it underplays the ending, allowing me to be moved by a simple majesty that no amount of dialogue, however brilliant, would allow. As I left the theater, I thought about what Red and Andy would have said to each other and why, like Sofia Coppola would later do in "Lost in Translation," the film kept those words appropriately private.
5. "Blazing Saddles." (1974) "'Scuse me while I whip this out!" "Blazing Saddles" is Mel Brooks' best movie, a savagely funny take on Westerns and racism that suddenly turns postmodern as the characters in the film interact with "real life" going on at the Warner Brothers lot. Like Porky Pig in "You Oughta Be In Pictures," the freed movie characters wreak havoc. Hedy Lamarr, I mean "Hedley" Lamarr, foreshadows the film's final image when, after running off the Warners lot, he flags down a taxi and says, "Drive me off of this picture." He is pursued by our hero, Black Bart (Cleavon Little), to the premiere of "Blazing Saddles" at Grumann's Chinese Theater. After vanquishing Mr. Lamarr, Black Bart and the Waco Kid (Gene Wilder) settle down to watch the end of the movie from which they just escaped.
After saying his goodbyes to the townsfolk, Black Bart encounters Jim, the Waco Kid sitting outside. Ever the attendant to detail, Brooks shows Jim holding the bucket of popcorn we saw him eating at Grumann's. "Where ya headed, cowboy?" he asks Bart. "Nowhere special," Bart replies, "I always wanted to go there," says Jim. "Let's go," Bart suggests. As in numerous Westerns before this, our heroes then ride off into the sunset, and as the absurd theme song reaches its crescendo, the camera follows them riding screen left; the shot seems to go on forever. Then, without warning, a '70's style limousine appears from the left side of the frame. Both Bart and Jim trade their 1874 horses for a set of 1974 wheels and ride off into the sunset in style.
Player piano
by Matt Zoller Seitz on April 13th, 2006 at 9:47 am in Film

The following is a piece about the similarities between two Terrence Malick films, "Days of Heaven" and "The New World." A condensed version of this piece also appears in the current issue of NYPress.
___________________________________________________
DAYS OF HEAVEN
Directed by Terrence Malick
At Film Forum starting April 14
Despite its complexity and open-hearted spirit, Terrence Malick's "The New World" became one of the most divisive studio movies in recent memory. Even some of the filmmakers' admirers rejected it as opaque, choppy, unstructured, too sentimental in depicting its central love triangle, and too enamored with nature photography and Transcendental sentiments. To read some of the pans by critics who'd previously backed Malick, you'd have thought he'd started throwing lovely pictures and poetic narration onscreen and hoping something stuck.
Thanks to what The Village Voice's J. Hoberman called the cult of "The New World," critical consensus is already shifting in Malick's favor. Film Forum's repertory screening of Malick's 1978 masterpiece "Days of Heaven" should push that process along. Some detractors cite "Heaven" as an honorable example of Malick's talent and dismiss the "The New World" as a devolution. But a close viewing confirms that that "The New World" is in many ways an enlargement of "Days of Heaven" that revisits its situations, themes and filmmaking vocabulary from a fresh vantage point.
Both films are built around migrations/immigrations—England to America and back in "The New World," Chicago to the Texas Panhandle to an unspecified small town in "Days." Both movies anchor otherwise free-floating narratives to a couple of spectacular music-and-image driven montages—the Wagner-scored arrivals in "The New World," the acoustic guitar-scored train and boat journeys in "Days."
And both are period pieces about doomed love triangles. In "The New World," the lovers are John Smith, Pocahantas and Pocahantas' eventual husband, John Rolfe. In Days of Heaven, the triangle consists of furtive lovers Abby (Brooke Adams) and Bill (Richard Gere)—who pose as brother and sister and flee Chicago after the hot tempered Bill accidentally kills his foreman during an argument—and a rich but sickly young wheat farmer (Sam Shepard) whom Abby marries so that she, Bill and Bill's kid sister (Linda Manz) can inherit his property after he dies.
In both movies the female romantic lead becomes the movie's de facto protagonist. Both Pocahantas and Abby are torn between rugged social outcasts to whom they're physically attracted, and more genteel, powerful men they latch onto for survival's sake. Over time, both women grow to love their new mates (though without the fire they showed in their prior relationships). Most significantly, Pocahantas and Abby trade one culture and social strata for another. By film's end they've truly become different people, so seemingly at ease in their new worlds that the audience can't pinpoint any obvious turning point. (And both women turn cartwheels when they're happy!)
The filmmaker's aesthetic is a rebuke to commercial filmmaking conventions that were practically set in stone from the early days of sound. Malick's goal is to deny us the usual anchor points, to make the experience of watching his films as much a blur of emotion as our own memories or dreams, and to suggest that the world is not really driven by individual will, as both drama and Western social myths suggest; that we may be less actors than acted-upon; that instead of individuals driving a narrative, perhaps narrative (a story in fiction, or historical events in the real world) drives individuals. Malick's filmmaking turns this philosophy into rhapsody. Where most mainstream cinema unthinkingly swears allegiance to theater and the novel—forms that prize self-contained, conversation-driven scenes with clearly-marked beginnings, middles and ends—Malick makes music with pictures, deploying situations, lines and symbolically charged moments as motifs in an immense, interconnected whole. Other filmmakers work this way—Wong Kar-Wai is arguably the most assured contemporary example—but none of them do it in America, with studio money.
Malick keeps us at arms' length from his people, the better to illustrate the notion that there's more to life than what individuals can see. He does this not just through unreliable voice-over narrators—Manz in "Days," multiple voices in "The New World"—but by visually diminishing his characters through panoramic wide shots and frequent cutaways to landscapes, flora and fauna. Disregarding the 180-degree rule and often shrugging off spatial logic, Malick cuts not for continuity of action but continuity of feeling. (To give just one example, during the tragic foot chase by the river, the music, voices and sound effects are continuous but the action jumps all over the place.) Both films are comprised of pure montage and little else.
Specific filmmaking choices that "New World" detractors have described as vexing new additions to Malick's vocabulary are used all through "Days of Heaven." In both films, Malick often cuts into a pan or dolly shot after it's begun and cuts away before it's finished, and unbalances the viewer by lingering on some shots for longer than you might expect while cutting away from others at the split-second that their beauty has begun to sink in. In both "Days" and "The New World," Malick rarely shows us the beginning or end of a conversation. Sometimes we don't even know what, exactly, the characters are discussing, because in both films, it often doesn't matter. What matters are gestures, expressions, symbolically charged images (a crystal goblet on the bottom of a riverbed, locusts scuttling across the surfaces of a kitchen), and most of all, the ironic contrast between individual desires and nature's indifference to humankind.
The key to understanding Malick's intent can be found in a camera move that begins the denouement of "Days," picking up after the riverbank sequence. We see the keyboard of a player piano in closeup as it pounds out a song to give our heroine and other girls in a ballet studio something to dance to; then the camera dollies back to a medium wide shot, as if to confirm that no human force is producing that music. This haunting, humble image illuminates Malick's films, all four of which depict individuals struggling (often vainly) to understand and influence mysterious cosmic forces—time, mortality, the elements, history—that are too vast to fully comprehend. The piano plays itself.



















Recent Comments:
The Conversations: Michael Haneke
by Ed Howard
Links for the Day: The Yankee Comandante, Dunces Maybe Finds Its Ignatius, Michael Haneke on Amour, The Great Gatsby Trailer, & More
by shootthecritic
February House Composer Gabriel Kahane and Book Writer Seth Bockley Talk Communal Music
by David Ehrenstein
A Movie a Day, Day 83: Andrei Rublev
by murtazaali
Critical Distance: The Artist
by DRush76