photo manipulation & text by nacrowe
GENE WILDER is one of the most BELOVED COMEDIC ACTORS of his or any other generation, due in no small part to the AUTHENTIC HUMANITY he imparted on his CHARACTERS. to me he represents an often OVERLOOKED ASPECT of MASCULINITY that is secure in showcasing EMPATHY and COMPASSION unto others and acknowledging the UNDERLYING VULNERABILITY that in essence defines the COLLECTIVE HUMAN CONDITION we all share. REMEMBERING GENE WILDER (HEALTH POINT, 2023) is a recent lovingly created documentary about his life from FRIENDS, PEERS and LOVED ONES still affected by his MEMORY almost a decade after his passing in 2016 from COMPLICATIONS associated with LATE-STAGE ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE (a DIAGNOSIS he kept HIDDEN from his FANS out of LOVE and not wanting to impart any further MELANCHOLY on the world).
and that core PEOPLE-PLEASING TRAIT is the through-line of both his CHARACTERS and his LIFE as argued in this film. after his MOTHER returned home from the hospital after recovering from a HEART ATTACK, a PHYSICIAN told a YOUNG JEROME SILBERMAN (WILDER's given birth name) not to argue with his MOTHER as such may literally kill her. from then on WILDER internalized his EMOTIONS and developed a certain COMPASSIONATE GENTLENESS and AFFECTIONATE QUALITY throughout his LIFE. in the theater he could stretch out and showcase a FULL-RANGE of EMOTIONS, but offstage his CARING NATURE defined him. enough anyway that his LATE CO-STAR on a BROADWAY, ANNE BANCROFT, suggested him as PERFECT for a PART being written by her THEN-BOYFRIEND MEL BROOKS that would later materialize in the LEGENDARY BLACK COMEDY THE PRODUCERS (EMBASSY, 1968). the rest is history. i dont believe this film is a HAGIOGRAPHY of WILDER, but it definitely has an in memoriam feel to it rather some HARD-HITTING EXPOSE on his LIFE and CAREER. take for instance his WORKING RELATIONSHIP with BROOKS, which produced some TRANSCENDENT COMEDIES for the ages in the AFOREMENTIONED THE PRODUCERS as well as BLAZING SADDLES (WARNER BROS, 1974) and YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN (20TH CENTURY-FOX, 1974). according to WRITER PATRICK MCMILLIGAN in his EXTENSIVE MEL BROOKS: FUNNY MAN (HARPER, 2019) BIOGRAPHY, WILDER felt that BROOKS had taken PUBLIC CREDIT for what was essentially his SCRIPT and chose never to work with him thereafter, effectively ending their WORKING RELATIONSHIP. that WHOLE TOPIC is never broached or even suggested in REMEMBERING GENE WILDER, which makes sense given its AFFECTIONATE, NOSTALGIC and decidedly ROSE-TINTED TONE. normally i would see such as a DETRIMENT to the QUALITY or OBJECTIVITY of the film, but given the PERSPECTIVE of this film, it is DIFFICULT to fault such an OMISSION. WILDER himself seemed to possess a certain NAIVE AUTHENTICITY that gave him the ability to tap into a CHILDLIKE AMORALITY both in his CHARACTERS and in his interviews that affected his audience and rendered such MISGIVINGS as holistically relatively UNIMPORTANT in the long arc of LIFE. my favorite part of this film are the TESTIMONIALS by CO-STARS who speak of his COMPASSION and GENEROSITY as an ACTOR, giving them CREATIVE SUPPORT and SPACE in what is normally quite a BRUTAL and INTENSE BUSINESS where MARQUEE STAR PERFORMERS are pampered and normally have little to no TIME or MIND-SPACE for the needs of others. WILDER apparently treated his CO-WORKERS, regardless of their title, role or function, as EQUALS, or at least such was attested in this documentary by FORMER CHILD ACTOR PETER OSTRUM who played CHARLIE BUCKET in WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY (PARAMOUNT, 1971) and BURTON GILLIAM who played LYLE of TAGGART'S OUTLAWS in BLAZING SADDLES among others. OSTRUM, the PRODUCT of a WELL-REGARDED regional theatre program in CLEVELAND, was adjusting to the new TECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS of filmmaking and attests that WILDER was nothing if not SUPPORTIVE and exceedingly PATIENT with him to the point that he looks back at such, his only film, decades later as a POSITIVE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCE. as is widely known, such is sadly not the case with most CHILD ACTORS. the film likewise talks about the TRAGEDY surrounding his PERSONAL LIFE, first with his flowering if not COMPLICATED RELATIONSHIP with third WIFE GILDA RADNER that was cut short by her all-too BRIEF BATTLE that culminated with her DEATH from OVARIAN CANCER at 42 and later his own TERMINAL BOUT with ALZHEIMER'S after finding LOVE and HAPPINESS again with fourth WIFE KAREN BOYER. what is presented is a LIFE brimming with the TRUE SURVIVALIST's capacity to choose and embrace CONNECTION and INTIMACY even after taking absolutely DEVASTATING PERSONAL LOSSES while soberly acknowledging whole-heartedly the DUAL NATURE of being ALIVE and PRESENT. i can remember witnessing an EMOTIONALLY MOVING later life 2005 appearance on THE LATE SHOW WITH CONAN O'BRIEN promoting his UPCOMING memoir KISS ME LIKE A STRANGER: MY SEARCH FOR LOVE AND ART (ST. MARTIN'S GRIFFITH, 2006), where despite looking OLDER and noticeably FRAIL, WILDER appeared UNFAZED about his VANITY and reacted with COMPASSION and SENSITIVITY to a YOUNG O'BRIEN and provided EARNEST WISDOM on a living a FULL LIFE WELL-LIVED sans jokes with a sense of GENUINE HUMILITY. when at one point he even held O'BRIEN's hand, you could sense how genuinely moved the COMIC HOST was at the EMPATHETIC GESTURE. usually the FORMAT itself is less about establishing a sense of CONNECTION and more about presenting a PUBLIC FRONT or PERSONA in order to promote CORPORATE CONSUMERIST ENDS. this was something RARE and DIFFERENT entirely. and to me that is the WILDER i take in as an ADMIRER from afar. he seemed more like a BODDHISTAVA, more concerned with the plight of others than a COMEDY GENIUS for the ages. and to that end he represents a DIFFERENT, more ENLIGHTENED kind of MASCULINITY then the SHALLOW, VAIN boasting and EMPTY BOMBAST of today's TOXIC and thoroughly INSECURE variety. his is one defined by concern for others, COMPASSION, COMMUNITY-BUILDING, and the INTENTION of making us collectively laugh as a TEMPORARY RESPITE from the ENDURING PAIN OF LIVING. that is GENE WILDER i take with me.
0 Comments
photo manipulation & text by nacrowe
as a film minor in college, i came to learn and explore EXPLOITATION FILMS via DIRECTORS from the 1960s and 70s like RUSS MEYER (FASER PUSSYCAT! KILL! KILL!), JOHN WATERS (PINK FLAMINGOS, FEMALE TROUBLE) and JACK HILL (COFFY, FOXY BROWN, SPIDER BABY) among others. i paid particular attention to most every genre with the exception of one: HORROR. which is probably why i was a late bloomer to the FOUNDATIONAL cinematic work of WILLIAM CASTLE and his REVOLUTIONARY MARKETING and GIMMICK-LADEN PROMOTIONAL EFFORTS in support of such throughout the 1950s and 60s. more MASTER PROMOTIONAL MANIPULATOR and CARNIVAL-BARKING SALESMAN than FILM AUTEUR, the life of CASTLE is lovingly recounted and contextualized by his peers, coworkers, followers and family in the recent documentary SPINE TINGLER! THE WILLIAM CASTLE STORY (AUTOMAT, 2007).
for those that are UNFAMILIAR with the term, EXPLOITATION FILMS were B-MOVIE MOTION PICTURES brazenly devised in order to take advantage of an ongoing trend or current event with often SENSATIONALIZED PLOTS and absolutely SHAMELESS use of GIMMICKRY. back in the day films were often showcased as DOUBLE FEATURES, with the FEATURE FILM being the big-actor, WELL-PRODUCED MARQUEE FILM and the B-MOVIE a more EXPLOITATIVE, CHEAPER, often LESS SOPHISTICATED film shown as an opener. there are so many sub-genres of such that have arisen since the 1950s that include everything form SEXPLOITATION, BLAXPLOITATION, SURFER FILMS, BIKER MOVIES, THRILLERS, WOMEN-PRISON-FILMS and so on. although not widely considered as such these days due to their perennial popularity, HORROR FILMS is itself an EXPLOITATION sub-genre. their HOOK or GIMMICK is that they are going after a demographic that specifically seeks the experience of being FRIGHTENED. and CASTLE, much like ALFRED HITCHCOCK (whose FILMS are often tagged with the more ESTEEMED title of SUSPENSE), recognized such early on in the game. it should be noted that the EXPLOITATION tag is not a DEROGATORY epithet by an stretch of the imagination, as JOHN WATERS even explains in the FILM, as all FILMS are in essence EXPLOITATIVE in some regard. CASTLE was born in NEW YORK CITY but became an OPHAN during his adolescence, which undoubtedly affected his sense of IDENTITY for the rest of his life, especially with regards to the DEVASTATING potential for loss with regards to success and family. his need for attention, validation and glamour found him interested in THEATER and he fought and crawled his way into working on BROADWAY as a STAGE MANAGER where he became a peer of ORSON WELLES. through the WELLES connection he was given a venue outside of the city where he put on a play he devised for a recently arrived GERMAN actress. this actress was called back to GERMANY shortly before WWII and CASTLE manipulated the PRESS twice to PROMOTE his production. the first was that he told them (falsely) that he wrote a letter to ADOLF HITLER stating that he would not allow his star to return home and the second was that he told the PRESS that he would not stop production in the face of recent NAZI graffiti plastered all over the front of the THEATER (apparently done by CASTLE himself). the PROPAGANDANDIZED PUBLICITY drew ENORMOUS crowds to the largely LACKLUSTER production. this ability to manipulate the PRESS was CASTLE's ace in the hole as a PRODUCER and served him well throughout his later FILM CAREER and is a major part of his continued LEGACY. upon arrival in LOS ANGELES, CASTLE worked under the wing of the universally REVILED, FEARED and RESPECTED head of COLUMBIA PICTURES, HARRY COHN. he worked his way up to B-MOVIE DIRECTOR where he specialized in making ON-BUDGET, ON-SCHEDULE FILMS of DUBIOUS quality that made MONEY. such a BANKABLE reputation as an EFFICIENT OPERATOR is not a negative in the least, but is what you want in a B-MOVIE DIRECTORS from the studio's perspective. under the STUDIO SYSTEM, proven DIRECTORS that could flourish given LIMITED BUDGETS worked their way up to making FEATURES. CASTLE was so good at it that he basically stayed at that level. during this period he found and bought the rights to a PROPERTY he thought would help him transition to FEATURES, a MYSTERY PULP novel by RAYMOND SHERWOOD KING entitled IF I DIE BEFORE I WAKE (ACE BOOKS, 1938). unfortunately COHN optioned it from CASTLE and made it the next RITA HAYWORTH-fronted WELLES project THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI (COLUMBIA, 1947), now very much considered a FILM NOIR classic. eventually he left the studio and went INDEPENDENT and made a two LEGENDARY HORROR FILMS, MACABRE (WILLIAM CASTLE PRODUCTIONS, 1958) and HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL (WILLIAM CASTLE PRODUCTIONS, 1959) that garnered him fame and FINANCIAL SUCCESS before COLUMBIA PICTURES came back and backed his work thereafter. the reason this COLLABORATIVE arrangement with COLUMBIA PICTURES worked was that as PRODUCER, SCREENWRITER and DIRECTOR of his own FILMS, CASTLE controlled his productions and made everything on a SHOESTRING BUDGET and devised a series of GIMMICKY promotional campaigns aimed at kids that reaped in a FINANCIAL WINDFALL. these GIMMICKS included buzzers on seats (THE TINGLER), INSURANCE POLICIES collectible upon DEATH by next of kin from FRIGHT in THEATER (MACABRE), INFLATABLE SKELETONS flying in on wires across MOVIE SCREENS (HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL), MONEY-BACK GUARANTEES and so on. it was a DIFFERENT era in the 1950s that basically ended with the collective loss of national innocence when JFK was ASSASSINATED in 1963. shit got real then and CASTLE did other things to DIMINISHING RETURNS throughout the 60s. in the late 1960s he found another PROPERTY that he bought the rights to that he hoped to utilize as a potential VEHICLE for another attempt to transition to FEATURES as a DIRECTOR but was again conned by PARAMOUNT PICTURES this time into relinquishing ROSEMARY'S BABY (PARAMOUNT, 1968) to ROMAN POLANSKI where he stayed on as a PRODUCER. this was basically his last hurrah as the 1970s found SLASHER B-MOVIES come into fashion that were more EXPLICIT and BRUTAL in nature to his decidedly OUTMODED HORROR FILMS of the 1950s and early 1960s. his CINEMATIC LEGACY is one of innovation in terms of bridging the fourth wall with his audience and providing a SHOWMAN's GOOD-NATURED human touch to his productions. both JOHN WATERS and ROGER CORMAN participated in this documentary and attest to the power of such PROMOTIONAL TACTICS in their own work. the TRAGEDY of it all is that CASTLE had a deep need to prove himself worthy of LOVE and AFFECTION and those GIMMICKS were utilized long after his name became recognized on the MARQUEE and were unneeded. the potential for the loss of such ADORATION by his audience and his family alike was the REAL FEAR that drove and defined his life. the documentary is a testament that such worry was UNWARRANTED given the ENDURING APPEAL and influence of his FILMS on a whole swath of FILM IRECTORS raised on EXPLOITATION FILMS from throughout the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s of which his name is undoubtedly at the vanguard of. that CASTLE DIED not knowing such LOVE and AFFECTION existed on his behalf is much SCARIER than any haunted house or VOLATILE axe-wielding psychopath. photo manipulation & text by nacrowe
ive never been able to get a read on JULIAN SCHNABEL. even before watching the recent JULIAN SCHNABEL: A PRIVATE PORTRAIT (BUENA ONDA, 2017) RETROSPECTIVE DOCUMENTARY that serves as a PERSONAL narrative regarding his CREATIVE OUTPUT, as well as the MEANINGFUL relationships he amassed along the way, i knew him through his UNCONVENTIONAL and highly PERSONAL FILMS. namely BASQUIAT (MIRAMAX, 1996), BEFORE NIGHT FALLS (FINE LINE, 2000) and THE DIVINE BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY (MIRAMAX, 2007). each being its own UNIQUE CINEMATIC UNIVERSE unto themselves with the through line being his ability to defy audience expectations and invariably impress upon them a highly AFFECTING FOCUS on MOOD and the EMOTIONAL INTERIORITY of his character's PSYCHE. i have walked out all three of his movies with an ELEVATED sense of my own PERCEPTUAL EXPERIENCE as a human and how such affects my relationships and sense of SELF.
but that could all just be me projecting unto his WORK. which i believe might be the point of any TRUE ARTIST. although still INDECIPHERABLE, this documentary showcases a REFLECTIVE PROCESS with his WORK that finds him EVER-AWARE and even HYPER-VIGILANT for new opportunities and avenues of EXPRESSION, whether such be 'mistake' on CANVAS or in the EMOTIONAL pull of a CINEMATIC SCENE. everything is mined for its emotive potential in service of ITSELF. this ability to both improvise as a COMPOSITIONAL COMPONENT to his FILMS is partly what draws such TALENT and ADMIRATION from actors such as WILLEM DAFOE and AL PACINO, both participants in this FILM. arguably the moment in the FILM where these threads of EXPRESSION (MUSIC, ART and CINEMA) come together is in MULTI-MEDIA PRODUCTION surrounding LOU REED's late-career PERFORMANCE of his MUCH-HERALDED but famously DEBAUCHED BERLIN (RCA, 1973) album. what REED does with WORDS and MELODY, EVER-SHIFTING around his catalogue to his latest ARTISTIC PREDILECTIONS irrespective of audience expectation is essentially the model of SCHNABEL on CANVAS and CELLULOID. for me that moment was more INSIGHTFUL and MEANINGFUL than past FAMILY memories of NEW YORK and TEXAS, where he grew up. the SPONTANEOUS act of CREATION and being completely FEARLESS about such is what makes this FILM COMPELLING, if not entirely MYSTIFYING and OPAQUE. im still not sure entirely what i make of SCHNABEL or what i learned given this FILM, but at least it makes me aware of how perplexing the PROCESS of ARTISTIC GENERATION actually is since it comes from a place of INCREDIBLE INTENT, FOCUS and EMOTIONAL VULNERABILITY. such a state i'll likely never fully appreciate. JULIAN SCHNABEL: A PRIVATE PORTRAIT is an EVER-INTRIGUING FILM that i will no doubt revisit in the future. photo manipulation & text by nacrowe
INDEPENDENT FILM PRODUCER / DIRECTOR ROGER CORMAN is a SINGULAR HOLLYWOOD legend whose INDUSTRY influence and cultural impact is difficult to sum up neatly, but that is exactly what the recent hour-long documentary ROGER CORMAN: THE POPE OF POP CINEMA (CALIFORNIA PROD, 2021) does.
in a sense, its SUCCINCT overview of his career mirrors that of the FRUGAL no-nonsense aesthetics of his moving pictures, which are often HIGH ON CONCEPT and LOW ON PRODUCTION VALUE. given that he funded his own pictures, CORMAN was incentivized to cut cost where he could, allowing for more films to be created and thus opportunities for profit. his talent pool was often YOUNG and CHEAP and subjects covered exploited the YOUTH CULTURE of the day with MONSTER, SCI-FI, HORROR and SKIN PICTURES. such efforts have rendered CORMAN very much one of the core ORIGINATORS of EXPLOITATION FILMS writ large. his BUSINESS MODEL also allowed for the initial directing opportunities (again, because they were CHEAP) for the likes of such later CELEBRATED talents as PETER BOGDANOVICH (THE LAST PICTURE SHOW), MARTIN SCORSESE (MEAN STREETS, RAGING BULL, GOODFELLAS), RON HOWARD (A BEAUTIFUL MIND, APOLLO 13), FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA (THE GODFATHER, APOCALYPSE NOW), JAMES CAMERON (AVATAR, TITANIC), JONATHAN DEMME (THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS), JOE DANTE (GREMLINS) and JOHN SAYLES (PASSION FISH, LONE STAR). behind the camera, much of his staff were WOMEN, an ANOMALY in HOLLYWOOD where employment skewed WHITE, MALE and OLD. this is INTERESTING given the SEXPLOITATION FILMS CORMAN produced in contrast to the more MUTED, MAINSTREAM fair out of the studio system during the late 1960s and especially throughout the 1970s. the EXTREME THRIFTINESS of CORMAN is stuff of HOLLYWOOD LEGEND, but seemingly his lasting contribution to AMERICAN CULTURE is the entrepreneurial mythology surrounding the individual with an INNOVATIVE idea in AMERICA has the potential to disrupt an INDUSTRY. his example paved a new lane in the movie business for others to mimic and exploit in later generations, but in today's late stage CAPITALIST ENVIRONMENT it all feels a bit like an ANACHRONISM from a bygone era. today's DIGITIZED and soon to be artificial intelligence-enabled MARKETPLACE has seemingly cornered the market opportunities for new entries who would be swallowed whole or drowned in their infancy before making a bid for economic relevance. my thought is not so much about CORMAN and his innovations, but on what that sort of ICONOCLASTIC FIGURE would be like in today's digital media and highly interactive MARKET LANDSCAPE. truth is i dont know. but at least this film got me thinking about it. photo manipulation & text by nacrowe
my introduction to the CINEMATIC work of KEVIN SMITH is intertwined with my family's relocation from SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA to NEW JERSEY in the mid-90s. during that period we were only stateside for the summer months as we were living abroad in NIGERIA at the time as part of my parent's work, but found ourselves every year at a distant relative's JERSEY SHORE home in a SUBURBAN town called MIDDLETOWN just off EXIT 114 on the GARDEN STATE PARKWAY. we've more or less been based in the same general area ever since, despite several stints abroad. it was our adopted base and has become our home.
SMITH, much like BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN (or to a much lesser extent BON JOVI) is a prominent part of the cultural fabric of that community, as he grew up in HIGHLANDS and famously worked at the QUICK STOP in nearby LEONARDO by the naval base (both part of MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP), before pursuing the most IMPROBABLE of FILM CAREERS. the retrospective CLERK (1091 PICTURES, 2021) documentary follows SMITH's career trajectory and examines how successes and failures effected his sense of IDENTITY. in essence, he learned along the way that he personified a certain AMERICAN archetype revolving around supposed NERDISH pursuits (i.e. comic books, STAR WARS, hockey?) that endeared him to a surprisingly abundant yet dormant national community of likeminded SELF-IDENTIFIED DORKS. this career pivot towards online fan forums (long before social media), touring speaking engagements and later podcasting made him more immediately available and on INTIMATE terms with his audience. yes, he is a noted SCREENWRITER and FILMMAKER with an identifiably specific, working-class ethos and voice to his work, but he has now made a second career of professionally being, in essence, KEVIN SMITH. his fans have basically been riding shotgun with him for years now, supporting his privately distributed INDIE FILMS and learning about his gains (new projects) and setbacks (including a recent HEART ATTACK that led him to go vegan and lose weight). recently i watched a retrospective documentary on QUENTIN TARANTINO, in which there is mention of a statement he made after learning about the MASSIVE court case against former MIRAMAX / THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY chairman and elite producer HARVEY WEINSTEIN. he noted that he knew enough to know something and did nothing end stop. it was an ANEMIC response that really made TARANTINO look TERRIBLE and surprisingly IMPOTENT. SMITH, likewise, had many of his more WELL-KNOWN and critically REVERED films distributed through MIRAMAX over the years. learning about the WEINSTEIN allegations shocked him to his core, enough to immediately vow to donate all future residual earnings from those films to the nonprofit WOMEN IN FILM, an advocacy group for GENDER EQUALITY in the FILM INDUSTRY. which is pretty incredible. im just continually relieved that someone from my area has gone on to create great work on such a massive scale while still remaining part of the local JERSEY SHORE community. its just something about MONMOUTH COUNTY where sightings of FAMOUS residents like DEBORAH HARRY (LINCROFT), BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN (COLTS NECK), BON JOVI (RUMSON) and KEVIN SMITH (RED BANK) are met with shrugs. they are just regular people getting on with their lives in peace. success for some is something to aspire to, but these people seemingly didnt lose themselves along the way and remained available and local. i respect them for that and im glad they are from my area. photo manipulation & text by nacrowe
any retrospective documentary on the career of FAMED DIRECTOR QUENTIN TARANTINO in a post-HARVEY WEINSTEIN era is fraught to begin with. its this IMPENETRABLY DARK and SEEDY UNDERBELLY of the HOLLYWOOD infrastructure, that always existed, that effectively trades on SEXUAL ABUSE and ASYMMETRICAL POWER dynamics. TARANTINO was able to make UNCOMPROMISING motion pictures in part because he had WEINSTEIN and his CORROSIVE power maneuvers as his ultimate backer and imprimatur.
needless to say, it is more than DIFFICULT to look away from that LEGACY. but the recent QT8: THE FIRST EIGHT (WOOD ENTERTAINMENT, 2019) documentary attempts to do just that, focusing on the AUTEUR approach and uncompromising vision to the humanity of his characters that made TARANTINO a first name WRITER / DIRECTOR of the same ESTEEMED echelon as MARTIN SCORSESE, ORSON WELLES, BILLY WILDER, INGMAR BERGMAN, JOHN HUSTON, PRESTON STURGES, JEAN-LUC GODARD, FEDERICO FELLINI and FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA that all came before him. attesting to such include various members of his longtime production staff and NOTABLE actors ranging from SAMUEL L JACKSON, MICHAEL MADSEN, TIM ROTH, ZOE BELL, CHRISTOPH WALTZ and KURT RUSSELL to JENNIFER JASON LEIGH, ELI ROTH, ROBERT FORSTER and LUCY LIU among others. much is made about his ability to write AUTHENTICALLY and IMAGINATIVELY from multiple perspectives with little to no filter for modern accountings of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS or the MERCURIAL whims of GOOD TASTE. his focus and objective is fidelity to the script, the characters and the choices of actors in bringing said narratives to fruition. being the WRITER and the DIRECTOR, arguably the most INTRIGUING aspect of his scripts is his portrayal of both RACIALLY and GENDER DIVERSE characters. women feature as power brokers throughout his films, most notably JACKIE BROWN (MIRAMAX, 1997) and the KILL BILL (MIRAMAX, 2003-04) series, without much attention necessarily being attributed to such. almost as if this was a natural occurrence in his CINEMATIC UNIVERSE which is arguably the most ENLIGHTENED manner to do such. direct actions rather than FEEBLE, WELL-INTENTIONED sentiments and words about gender and RACIAL EQUALITY. same could be said about his portrayal of BLACK PEOPLE in his films. much has been said about his use of INFLAMMATORY language regarding RACE in his films, such decisions make him CONTROVERSIAL. its an INTERESTING dialogue that is continuing unabated to the present and i will admit i am unsure of where i stand on such. all i can say is that having them not employ such HARSH and UNFORGIVING language in the intense CINEMATIC SCENARIOS depicted by TARANTINO in his films would seemingly come off HALF-HEARTED and ROLLED BACK. just my opinion but i can see the validity of the other side of that argument shared by the likes of SPIKE LEE most famously. all that being said, these first eight films in his FILMOGRAPHY will forever have the stain of WEINSTEIN on them as the audience is empowered to know the IMPOSSIBLE professional choices presented to key TARANTINO collaborators such as UMA THURMAN, ROSE MCGOWAN, ROSANNA ARQUETTE and DARYL HANNAH. either play ball with a PREDATOR or get blacklisted and watch your career drift away (dont believe me, just read any interview with SEAN YOUNG). UNFORTUNATELY for a film that was seemingly constructed to counteract the prevailing popular narrative of TARANTINO as the material beneficiary (over decades) of a professional relationship with a SERIAL SEXUAL PREDATOR whom he knew was SEXUALLY EXPLOITING his FEMALE CAST and STAFF, such is the real LEGACY of his work. he should have shielded and protected his co-workers. fought back. did something. if this film really wants to talk LEGACY, his LEGACY will be one of SILENCE when it mattered most in real life. when he had leverage to execute change in a CORRUPT hierarchy of men. his MORAL FAILURE was in real life, not some fantasy world of his own creation. such is his ACTUAL LEGACY. photo & text by nacrowe
there is so much to be impressed by with the life and career trajectory of legendary screenwriter / director BILLY WILDER whose singular filmography includes the likes of SOME LIKE IT HOT (UNITED ARTISTS, 1959), DOUBLE INDEMNITY (PARAMOUNT, 1944), THE APARTMENT (UNITED ARTISTS, 1960), STALAG 17 (PARAMOUNT, 1953), SABRINA (PARAMOUNT, 1954), ACE IN THE HOLE (PARAMOUNT, 1951), THE LOST WEEKEND (PARAMOUNT, 1945), THE SEVEN YEAR ITCH (20TH CENTURY FOX, 1955) and SUNSET BOULEVARD (PARAMOUNT, 1950). towering of his achievements in my opinion was his preternatural capacity as an GERMAN-speaking AUSTRIAN emigre to pick up on the cultural nuances and subtle inflections of the AMERICAN DIALECT and seamlessly spit them back out at us, all within a decade of arriving on stateside shores in the early 1930s.
in his definitive biography ON SUNSET BOULEVARD: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF BILLY WILDER (HYPERION, 1998), film scholar ED SIKOV very much digs into the creative and linguistic marvel that was WILDER, especially with his early run of hard-nosed films that take together made a sober, unblinking assessment of AMERICAN culture and society in the post-WWII period. it really is quite the achievement considering he was essentially passing judgement on his new home when he was still very much an OUTSIDER. and it is that unique mix of unmatched talent (of which he put to use beforehand when collaborating with the likes of GERMAN directors ERNST LUBITSCH and ROBERT WIENE) which allowed him write and direct with authority, as well as his status as an IMMIGRANT that makes his films so unique. he is in essence able to assess our culture so accurately in part because of his OUTSIDER status. i read ON SUNSET BOULEVARD and several other books on WILDER (and FILM NOIR in general) back in my undergraduate years as part of a senior thesis on his early cycle of noir films which included DOUBLE INDEMNITY, THE LOST WEEKEND, SUNSET BOULEVARD and ACE IN THE HOLE. in my opinion, ACE IN THE HOLE is his masterpiece as it caustically and unflinchingly calls out a then-nascent media culture that sought to exploit human suffering by creating media events that would garner media exposure and thus profits. it is a prescient film that is beyond relevant to today and has not lost its edge in the last 70s years. it was also a commercial flop and the last film he made with any sort of imbedded conceit or claim about AMERICAN culture and society writ large. it was the last film he made that had any real stakes. as someone who after completing this undergrad project went on to teach overseas for several years, experiencing cultures as an outsider, it was the example of WILDER that i largely took to heart. i believe that when AMERICANS move overseas they feel an understandable need to impart judgement on their new unfamiliar surroundings. my thought was always to gather as much information as possible and engage with the local community. only after gaining their trust and understanding would i ever voice an opinion on states of affairs. i choose to believe that WILDER did not assimilate like he did without a genuine sense of innate curiosity and wonder about his new home. its very much an expanding of one's consciousness as anything else. the example of WILDER showed that such a seamless ASSIMILATION could be done and at the very least, my experience as a newcomer is valid and gives me a unique PERSPECTIVE. not the only perspective, but a unique one. photo manipulation by nacrowe
film director DAVID LYNCH is renowned for his ability to control tone and atmosphere to such an esteem that his surname is now an adjective for such. he is a modern director of the first order but what some in the public fail to grasp is how is career, much like JULIAN SCHNABEL a generation later, is rooted in painting.
THE ART LIFE (DUCK DIVER FILMS, 2016) is a documentary that follows a dual narrative of both LYNCH's telling of his upbringing and connection to art while showcasing him creating a new work on canvas at his studio in the HOLLYWOOD HILLS. it is almost as though the experience of creation in painting is conflatable with that of exploring a unique psychological perspective of uncertain space and time as seen through a camera's eye. what i gained most about his upbringing was that in spite of its idyllic nature with two loving parents that treated each other well, there was always that unspecified fear of losing that love and affection. in fact, despite his father's fair judgement and loving temperament, any harsh words that resulted from disobedience came down arguably harsher in that environment. KEITH RICHARDS once wrote that his vision of hell was being invisible to those he loved. the threat of distance from his family is a common thread that influenced his character as well as his art. also reminds of the buddha's tenet that suffering is rooted in desire. they are intertwined, as even idyllic situations are rooted in suffering as we attempt to prolong and maintain them. the fear of loss of happiness is suffering in and of itself. that dualism resonates with me when considering his films as well as his paintings and visual film art. this theme of family is also carried out as we see LYNCH's young child painting side-by-side with him. unencumbered by expectations, the toddler is just enjoying his company and playing with colors on the canvas. you get the sense that this type of boundless joy and seeming amorality towards expectation is something LYNCH strives for. the goal is not a concept or a point, but rather the transmission of an experience, which also describes the experience of consuming one of his films, especially ERASERHEAD (AMERICAN FILM INSTITUTE, 1977). i have watched that film dozens of times yet i don't know what it is about, nor am i watching it to decode it. i watch it in order to enter that world. an alternate time and space. intriguing film. probably worth viewing if you can suspend expectations of what is usually presented in a traditional documentary. this film is an expressionist take on the individual and his paintings, not a treatise on his films. again, beyond intriguing and worth multiple viewings. photo manipulations by nacrowe
DUNKIRK (WARNER BROS, 2017) is a film very close to my heart.
i should start by mentioning that during WII my great-uncle CHARLES CALIENDI worked for the DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT COMPANY and played a major part in designing and testing the MOSQUITO fighter plane for the war effort. he was a very sweet, funny man and i still miss him dearly. in my mind this film is a love letter to all those who fought and died in WWII, with special focus on the efforts of the ROYAL AIR FORCE and common sea merchants who braved incredible odds and paid a high personal cost to bring their countrymen safely home during the BATTLE OF DUNKIRK. the film itself focuses on harrowing experiences of the ALLIED forces as they were marooned in the coastal FRENCH coastal town of DUNKIRK awaiting evacuation. as they waited along the beach they were picked off and bombed at will by the NAZI LUFTWAFFE. where this film excels is its ability to position the audience in the psychological and emotion headspace of the main protagonists: common soldiers stuck on the beachhead at DUNKIRK, RAF pilots and brave sea merchants doing their solemn duty. this is done through a masterclass of visual storytelling, with absolute minimal exposition. this film is really a story to be experienced rather than read as a piece of history.
in particular, there are numerous scenes of random wanton violence. what is truly shocking is the silence shortly thereafter. again, the psychological space that compels the characters, as well as the audience, to piece together meaning from that which is unsparingly violent and wholly unpredictable. in essence we move forward but that silence lingers. director CHRISTOPHER NOLAN is well-known for his ability to tease out the inner psychology of his characters, despite given genre expectations as seen in his filmography that includes INTERSTELLAR (SCI-FI), INCEPTION (SCI-FI) his DARK KNIGHT trilogy (SUPERHERO) and MEMENTO (NOIR/THRILLER). in my estimation, his war film DUNKIRK is his finest effort yet. i highly recommend it for anyone interested in the power of filmmaking. photo manipulation by nacrowe
seriously, who doesn't love PAM GRIER?
in my opinion the BLAXPLOITATION films she starred during the 1970s (FOXY BROWN, SHEBA BABY) showcase the real american nightmare, empowered sexually liberated minority women who take charge and buck the power structures that hold their community back, structural racism and drug lords be damned. my favorite of these films is director JACK HILL's genre-defining masterwork COFFY (AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL, 1973), which carries an almost LADY SNOWBLOOD-esque revenge plot as GRIER's protagonist seeks to kill a drug kingpin for allowing heroin to ruin her neighborhood and kill her younger sister. she does this by going deep undercover as a working girl and establishing relationships with all the inside players before making her move. GRIER is a tour-de-force whose character displays an emotional trajectory that allows the audience to understand her pain and how such governs her means of devouring her competitors through seduction. like a righteous femme fatale only in a very different political, cultural and racial context. i find this film endlessly fascinating for its scope at addressing a contemporary societal ill when such was ignored or demonized in the wider WHITE media and political classes. i think QUENTIN TARANTINO must have felt similarly when he cast GRIER in JACKIE BROWN (MIRAMAX, 1997) over 20 years later in an update of her character of sorts. again, GRIER hasn't missed a step, only this time its corruption on a higher political level. COFFY is worth your time. it is absolutely required viewing for anyone interested in cinema, period. photo manipulation by nacrowe
what was originally intended as behind-the-scenes footage to be utilized as extra content for their upcoming release transitioned into a seminal documentary about the dissolution of a band in real-time, something that has not been documented before or since to my knowledge.
controversial at the time of its release among METAL fans, the documentary SOME KIND OF MONSTER (THIRD EYE, 2004) by directors JOE BERLINGER and BRUCE SINOFSKY (BROTHER's KEEPER, PARADISE LOST trilogy) has proven in retrospect to be arguably their highest achievement (other than those perfect string of legendary CLIFF BURTON albums in the 1980s). i say this because there is a lot of posturing and machismo bullshit in METAL. it is by far the aspect of the genre i dislike the most and for years METALLICA were the pied pipers of this toxic brand of masculinity. that was until their second bassist JASON NEWSTED departed in order to claim the freedom of pursuing other projects. this was the first domino in a series of internal debate and reconsiderations that led to group therapy and lead singer/rhythm guitarist JAMES HETFIELD's admittance into rehab for alcoholism. again, given their history with these issues it was a brave move. original lead guitarist DAVE MUSTAINE of MEGADETH fame was booted out for his behavior when intoxicated. he wasn't afforded a second opportunity. to interview him and put all the cards on the table in such a public manner really altered the culture in my opinion. none more so than the issue of therapy. METALLICA was mocked extensively for going in to group therapy as such was perceived (moronically) as being weak, passive and not metal. if anything this was a power move that took incredible courage. i look back now at a seminal band like PANTERA who had internal struggles that were never dealt with out of a sense of toxic masculinity and they broke up out of spite with one another. they battled each other in the press and ultimately cowered to their corners with their respective enablers and hangers-on, never addressing anything in person, man-to-man. in my mind stepping up and speaking your truth and probably more importantly, the act of listening would have been more METAL. but what do i know? i feel as our culture becomes ever more coarse and driven by wedge issues that seek to divide us, here is an example of a group of men looking each other in the eye dealing with their internal issues directly with begrudging respect. taking control of their behavior. being adults. thats what this film represents to me. too bad the album ST. ANGER sucked. photo manipulation by nacrowe
its funny, when my brother and i were both attending high school in KUWAIT roughly 20 years ago our middle eastern peers were largely naive about AMERICAN culture and pretty much anything that wasn't related to that isolated oil-rich hellhole. my brother had a binder that carried a printed out picture of JOHN TURTURRO's epic bowling nemesis from the THE BIG LEWBOWSKI (WORKING TITLE, 1998) and his KUWAITI classmates would ask him who that was. he'd cooly reply "that's Jesus" to which they'd inquire confusedly "THAT's JESUS?!"
THE COEN BROTHERS are masters of playing with genre expectations and THE BIG LEWBOWSKI is a great example of them experimenting with the cinematic form of NOIR films and their ROMAN NOIR literary antecedent. NOIR films were largely created in a post-WWII climate where the world order was being rebuilt and the role of men was being challenged and rethought along economic, cultural and social considerations. the literary analogue to this genre predates WWII. usually there is a single male who throughout the film is fighting a series of outside forces that include government agencies (of the secretive variety), the media and (of course) women. women in particular are depicted as agents of destruction, i.e. femme fatales, who use their sexuality to attempt to derail our hero from his goal. of course its bullshit, but its a construction that is dear to a genre that at its heart is questioning what identifies masculinity when their hegemonic influence is questioned in a patriarchal society. what makes THE BIG LEWBOWSKI so interesting is that instead of a determined, idealized male protagonist that rises to the occasion to supersede these overwhelming forces, we are instead given JEFF "THE DUDE" LEBOWSKI, an aging inept stoner with no will to effect change on the world other than his commitments to his bowling league and listening to CREEDENCE CLEARWATER REVIVAL. he is the personification of ineffective masculinity, yet he is the protagonist that meanders his way through a convoluted plot of outside forces that he inept to deal with any reasonable capacity. that is the core of its humor and humanity. i think i identified with that character not for his slacker-ness but his being thrown into crazy situations, much like i had at that point survived NIGERIA and boarding school. LEBOWSKI throughout the film is manipulated by more sophisticated and devious counterparts, including another high-achieving JEFFREY LEBOWSKI who is nonetheless crippled and cuckolded by his barely legal porn star wife. even his doppelgänger or mirrored-self is compromised. much like his inability to effect change, the film also just kind of ends where it begins, and endless loop of inadequacy and mediocrity. a film that never really ends or begins. no character development. no lessons learned. great film well worth watching on repeat. i have since i was a teenager. photo manipulation by nacrowe
i am a total fanboy of DIVINE and JOHN WATERS.
i mean really. if you check out any of their trashy EXPLOITATION filmography from the 1970s, movies like PINK FLAMINGOS (DREAMLAND, 1972) and DESPERATE LIVING (DREAMLAND, 1977) or even more obscure earlier fare like MULTIPLE MANIACS (DREAMLAND, 1970) and MONDO TRASHO (DREAMLAND, 1969) you will not be disappointed. my favorite out of the bunch is FEMALE TROUBLE (DREAMLAND, 1974) which depicts the life of a BALTIMORE teenager seeking attention throughout her life and ultimately commits murder for the sole motivation of becoming notorious. for me this film is a bitter take on TABLOID culture in much the same way as BILLY WILDER's ACE IN THE HOLE (PARAMOUNT, 1951) eviscerated yellow journalism a generation before. WATERS saw the future of the AMERICAN SOUL and the lowest common denominator in cultural terms as the concept of infamy being a goal in and of itself predates today's online social media culture where people are famous for being famous and being "on brand." DIVINE is psychotic as all hell in this film and the DREAMLAND cast, as always, keep the film grounded in its debased underbelly like a more deranged and conked-out alternate versions of ANDY WARHOL's superstars. the look, the acting, the humor and the caustic message about the nature of the media and the vacuous nature of seeking fame in this film is all textbook JOHN WATERS and is why FEMALE TROUBLE has been a touchstone of my movie-viewing habits since my teen years. this film is required viewing in my opinion. photo manipulation by nacrowe
in an age of CANCEL CULTURE and ideological purity tests that border on the insane, i think it is as crucial a time as ever to revisit the figure of legendary film director ELIA KAZAN and his complicated legacy during the HOUSE UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE hearings of the 1950s. for those unfamiliar with MCCARTHYISM, there was a wave of fear, much like our own current frenzied political climate, in the immediate post-WWII period related to our global rivalry with the SOVIETS dubbed the COLD WAR. there was always the threat of violence and massive attacks of the nuclear variety but ultimately it never got hot (i.e. conventional military conflict).
this state of affairs found the UNITED STATES turn in on itself and attempt to weed out anyone of note in major industries (politics, entertainment, journalism, etc.) who may have ever dabbled or supported socialist causes. it should be noted that in the immediate aftermath of the THE GREAT DEPRESSION in the 1930s, anyone with half a brain questioned the long-term viability of MARKET CAPITALISM. this purity test famously heralded by WISCONSIN senator EUGENE MCCARTHY (who not ironically shared a counsel, ROY COHN, with DONALD TRUMP) was highly destructive to AMERICAN ideals of freedom and jurisprudence and resulted in ten JEWISH career professionals (screenwriters, directors, producers) known as the HOLLYWOOD TEN being BLACKLISTED and publicly vilified due to hearsay and innuendo. many film historians believe the SOCIALIST-bating histrionics was just a public smokescreen to ostracize JEWS in positions of influence, which marks this as a very dark period in our history. KAZAN is famous for being a deft film director who specialized in character-driven narratives that touched on the struggles of working people (A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, ON THE WATERFRONT, EAST OF EDEN). his career dovetailed with the rise of METHOD ACTING and benefited from his collaborations with screen legends such as MARLON BRANDO and JAMES DEAN. basically he is a director of the highest order and his films are admired, studied and dissected by aspiring and working directors and random film junkies (like me) to date. he also dabbled in socialist circles in the 30s and was even a member of the communist party in NYC very briefly during that period. now the names of members of were already known to the HUAC committee, but he was pressured to name names. and unfortunately he did. to this day he is a controversial figure for crossing that line and even during his acceptance of an award at the OSCARS over 50 years later, actors still turned their back in full view of the cameras. its a touchy subject and one that will forever be. we like to think that people will make good choices in the face of tyranny and injustice, even at the expense to one's own self. fellow immigrant director BILLY WILDER (DOUBLE INDEMNITY, SUNSET BOULEVARD, SOME LIKE IT HOT) did such. he told HUAC to stuff themselves and he rightfully celebrated for such, but i think realistically the world is imperfect and people make imperfect decisions in imperfect situations. did KAZAN deserve to be a pariah the rest of his life in the HOLLYWOOD community? i don't know, but i tend to side with empathy. the people i find no empathy for are those that deliberately foster a divisive climate based on self-serving considerations such as power, which is definitely the case with MCCARTHY, COHN, TRUMP and all of his sycophants. perhaps a day will come when the waves of hatred will subside and our national wounds will have healed, but these people will still deserve our scorn and not those that got caught up in the hailstorm against their will. just saying. photo manipulation by nacrowe
for me, FEDERICO FELLINI's film JULIET OF THE SPIRITS (RIZZOLI FILM/FRANCORIZ PRODUCTION, 1965) is one of the best cinematic examinations of that feeling of being inadequate. i could be wrong, but each time i watch it i am only further confirmed in my belief that for all of this film's absolutely luscious use of color (the first FELLINI film to utilize such) and the sumptuous NINO ROTA score creating a dream-like otherworldly paradise filled with beautiful people and lavish garden parties, this film at its core is about loneliness and estrangement.
all of that carnival-like imagery and sound design is used to highlight how estranged the main character, played by FELLINI's frequent collaborator (and wife) GIULLIETTA MASINI, is from her philandering husband. it is a very unique device that is commonly utilized in MUSICALS whereby the set design, cinematography, dialogue and character behavior is meant to showcase the singular perspective of a character, not a representation of "reality." i am assuming in JULIET OF THE SPIRITS that all of the above is meant to convey the husband's charmed perspective of an idyllic, romantic idyll that his wife is only a minor character in. it is his fantasy and she comes across as a willing participant that doesn't quite fit. again, it feels like a film on its face about inadequacy. but MASINI's character comes off grounded, stable and the epitome of a loyal partner. the husband is anything but. perhaps this is all a metaphor for the real-life partnership of MASINI and FELLINI, as his mistress was his love of cinema and filmmaking. he role being a stabilizing force and collaborator in his artistic visions. if that is the case it is one of the most honest and deeply romantic films i know of. if anything it is the inadequacy of the director/husband to truly appreciate his wife that is on display here perhaps. this film is worth viewing for the visuals and soundtrack alone. full disclosure: this is my personal favorite FELLINI film but virtually any of his films are worth checking out, especially 8 1/2, AMACORD, LA DOLCE VITA, SATYRICON or LA STRADA. could not recommend his work any more passionately for anyone interested in film. photo manipulation by nacrowe
CHARLIE CHAPLIN seems to get all the shine.
much of it deservedly so, especially given the transcendent greatness of films like MODERN TIMES and THE GREAT DICTATOR with which he used to levy criticism at capitalism and fascism at the height of his powers. it one thing to be supremely gifted and something completely different to take big risks and potentially bite the hand that feeds by critiquing your new country as an immigrant (see SPOTLIGHT on BILLY WILDER). all that being said, watching BUSTER KEATON is akin to listening to LEADBELLY or HOWLIN' WOLF recording. at first you are mesmerized by the power of the art and then it hits you eventually how primitive the means of production where when this was made. in a sense it becomes that much more authentic and pure in its intention, although you eventually come to realize to them this was just what you did. one take. one microphone. same with watching KEATON who wrote and directed his film which often display staggering set-pieces with stunts and acrobatics that are still thrilling and mesmerizing. when you see him throwing multiple logs from a moving train to display other logs lying on the tracks, that was actually him doing that. whenever i feel like i've seen it all i tend to look back, way back to the early days of cinema (HAROLD LLOYD, GEORGES MÉLIÈS, JOSEF VON STERNBERG, ERICH VON STROHEIM) because there you really get a sense of the creative abandonment and potential they say in their craft. the rules hadn't been set yet. and that's a nice place to be creatively for any artist. photo manipulation by nacrowe
at the heart of RIDLEY SCOTT's transcendent DYSTOPIAN film BLADE RUNNER (THE LADD COMPANY, 1982) is the question of what defines our humanity? what actually makes us human? loosely based on PHILIP K. DICK's novel DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP? (DOUBLEDAY, 1968), this film follows a bounty hunter in a future dystopia where technology has advanced to the point that mass produced androids called replicants are used for their labor. equipped with a conscious and prefabricated memories, some of these subjects have circumvented their end dates, thus necessitating a bounty hunter (known here as a blade runner) to find and kill them.
i could go on about the revolutionary special effects and set pieces that define the look of this film, but it is my opinion that what really makes this film a touchstone for future generations are the concerns it brings up. in our modern day with modern genetics and CRISPR technology that allow us to modify the human genome to our will, it is important to consider what will be lost in the process. are we defined by our creator? are we pre-designated to serve a certain function or are we free actors allowed to explore our agency? what makes this film inspires is that there is an open question of whether HARRISON FORD's character (who is a blade runner) is himself a replicant. is the enforcer even in charge of his own will or is he too just serving the purpose of another higher entity. when i look to the future all i see is BLADE RUNNER. this film did not foresee the internet, but i nonetheless it did see a future where information is a tool of power and identity. and that is something i see today that reduce us all to consumers that can be defined with an algorithm based on our spending habits, social media posts and spending habits. we are already defined by our reciepts in this new economy but the downsides insofar have been pretty mild to benign in nature on a personal level. i think that'll change and our agency will be in question once techniques are used to influence our decision-making, whether economically or politically. we are only in the beginning stages. once it is in full bloom we will all be replicants in a sense. we will all be created by our environment into information consumers with a purpose we don't even envision. that to me is the legacy of BLADE RUNNER. an absolutely can't miss, must-watch film. photo manipulation by nacrowe
so back in the early 2000s i'm at RUTGERS and somewhere along the way i ended up writing a series of film reviews for their student newspaper THE DAILY TARGUM. i loved the rush of seeing your stuff in print and still have copies of somewhere in my parents basement. it was a pretty sweet deal since i normally chose limited-run films that only showed at NYC landmarks like the ANGELIKA FILM CENTER and the FILM FORUM and the newspaper covered travel and admission costs. i essentially got free trips to the city. what a great time i had. at some point i moved up from reviews to features and ultimately only got to do two of them. one was an interview with animator NICK PARK for a WALLACE & GROMIT film (which i will probably write about a some future point). the other was a phone interview with TIM ROBBINS. and that dude was a dick. this is the story of that conversation. studios usually seek out college newspapers as they service directly the much desired target demographic of college students. such is why their PR firms gave us access to their directors, actors, etc as a means of promotion. at the time ROBBINS was promoting some theater project of which i will not specify (as i still do not want to give his project any, albeit delayed by decades, publicity) that he had directed and filmed from multiple angles as part of some "punk rock opera" or whatever forced, lame term he devised at the time. what i participated in was a group phone interview among several other college writers from NYU, COLUMBIA and HARVARD. the way this works is that the order of questioning is derived by the order you call in to the interview. now here is where it got interesting. ROBBINS' film had no distribution. normally the paper would be sent a promotional copy or be given tickets to a screening. not here with this project, i was going in blind. turns out, so was everyone else. somehwere i have a lost tape of this interview and i should attempt to locate it, because in there i have ROBBINS condescendingly dismissing my question along with everyone else's. at some point he asked why he was even talking to us. the HARVARD writer adroitly asked questions based on a recent NY TIMES' review and that really set ROBBINS' off, asking the writer if she knew the writer personally. which was odd. i remember leaving the interview dejected thinking "damn, i just got yelled at by an ACADEMY AWARD winner, this is the low point of my college career." after sharing the interview tape with my editors this quickly turned to "wow, i just got yelled at by an ACADEMY AWARD winner, this is the high point of my college career." i wrote a piece that took him to task for being a prick and not giving us the materials we needed to ask him informed questions, but ultimately i didn't want to give him any publicity. do i hold a grudge against the guy? not really. maybe he was having a bad day. i just thought he came off particularly arrogant and completely devoid of any compassion to a bunch of lowly college writers looking to potentially promote his project. you would think communicating to us his passion for this personal film would be the objective, but no, putting us in our place for not appreciating his craft seemed a better use of his time. i don't care that i agree with his politics. dude was a dick. photo manipulation by nacrowe
so i attended NORTHFIELD MOUNT HERMON. its a private boarding school in GILL, MASSACHUSETTS and when i attended it had two campuses and a student population nearing 2,000. in the years since its cut both the number of campuses and student population in half and is part of the exclusive EIGHT SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION, a self-contained IVY LEAGUE-like association of northeastern prep schools that includes CHOATE, PHILIPS EXETER, PHILIPS ANDOVER and the like.
i was there for two years and without doubt those two years changed me. academically it challenged me in a way nothing before or since has, including college and grad school. it also exposed me to the rotting core of white privilege and intergenerational power and wealth. i attended classes with the sons and daughters of film directors, national politicians, authors, lawyers, CEOs, drug kingpins (no joke) and foreign dictators. it was heady stuff and still is. whenever i see TRUMP speak it reminds me of half a dozen assholes i went to high school with who honestly didn't give a shit because they knew they were made for the rest of their lives. here's an example of that ridiculousness that this place was, and no doubt still is. i was in my freshman english class and a classmate got a call on his mobile phone and let the teacher know he had to take it. i distinctly remember him saying "i'm sorry, i have to take this. its my mom, in space." he literally walked outside looked up and spoke with his mother who was orbiting overhead above NEW ENGLAND apparently and was being patched in via HOUSTON. just crazy. but that was the norm. here is another less cheerful example. an upperclassman in my dorm sophomore year was caught selling opiates on campus, but wasn't expelled since his CEO father was giving a speech in a few days about making ethical judgements in business via a speech on the buddhist eight-fold path tenet of right occupation. you can't make this stuff up. and to make it sting of hypocrisy that much more, the fallout ended up being a few scholarship students from the inner-city being dismissed. when WES ANDERSON's film RUSHMORE (TOUCHSTONE PICTURES, 1998) came out midway through my freshman year it was a revelation because it didn't feel that far removed from my experience, minus the creepy love triangle. there was even a junior that got christened for his bad grades and participation in seemingly everything. by far the best thing about the film was the BILL MURRAY's epic chapel speech near the beginning of the film where he told the poor kids to "take dead aim on the rich boys, get them in the crosshairs and take them down." this was pre-COLUMBINE, but when that played in my dorm half the students would stare down each other. watching it now makes me shudder. my time at NORTHFIELD MOUNT HERMON wasn't ideal, i was bullied harshly with knowing supervisors that turned the other way and "let boys be boys," but at the same time it prepared me for the reality of the world. a world where the rich stay rich and fuck everyone else. no wonder i joined the PEACE CORPS. photo manipulation by nacrowe
i first watched CLINT EASTWOOD'S first WESTERN directorial effort HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER (MALPASO COMPANY, 1973) in a film class during undergrad at RUTGERS and i remember it garnering an immediate reaction on my classmates. if i recall correctly, it pissed off more than half the audience. it is a gloriously un-PC film.
the film deals with an unnamed stranger strolling into a frontier town and basically decimating it after encountering its loutish, corrupt inhabitants, only to walk away alone at the films end. in the script he is named GABRIEL and one can assume that he is meant to be God's wrath smiting down this sin-filled SODOM-like town and burning it to the ground, but this is never stated in the actual film. for me this film is an enigma because EASTWOOD's character is so vicious yet you root for him, he by definition is the moral center of the film despite his own deplorable actions. case in point: in the first 10 minutes of screen time this unnamed character murders 3 townsfolk in cold blood and rapes a prostitute and yet somehow you still root for him. its awful. you can't even call this character an anti-hero, he's just a terrible person inflicting pain on other despicable people. for me i'm conflicted and perplexed by this film, which is probably why i have rewatched it several times attempting to figure it out. is it a commentary on the VIETNAM WAR or PROTEST MOVEMENTS then taking place? is he saying that brute force justifies all actions? i really don't know. i just don't understand how a character can be that awful and still hold moral authority in a film. just on a technical narrative side, that is a neat trick. what such violence is attempting to convey to the viewer? i still don't know but am interested in finding out. |
NICHOLAS ARCHIVES
November 2024
CATEGORIES
All
|