by Wagstaff
“All baseball pictures are about redemption of some sort” - Odienator
During these hot days of summer, a man will look for relief in baseball and beer, and no movie delivers baseball and beer better than The Bad News Bears. That’s the real beer of director Michael Ritchie's 1976 original I’m talking about, not the nonalcoholic equivalent served up in last year's remake. Bears is one of the finest American films of the 70s, and watching the remake only adds to my appreciation of its glory. Richard Linklater’s version follows the first one closely, yet still manages to go wrong at every turn – it even muffs some baseball fundamentals, like how to field a grounder down on one knee. The original never commits such errors. It is funny, tight and triumphant, and it clocks in at a brisk 102 minutes. Here then are nine reasons – enough to field a team – that make The Bad News Bears endlessly watchable 30 years later. Play ball:
1. Walter Matthau - Matthau gives one of his finest performances as Coach Morris Buttermaker, the boozy ex-minor league pitcher who’s had too many losses in life. He says he once struck out Ted Williams, “...1947, Vero Beach, Florida… spring training, around March 15.” But now Buttermaker could use a good win, and when the win comes tantalizingly close, he quickly degenerates into a man no better than his nemesis, Roy Turner (Vic Morrow), coach of the Yankees. Buttermaker's realization that he’s gone too far is a wonderful moment of dugout drama; the camera lingers on the bloodshot eyes set in Matthau’s bulldog face, as the reality of his actions sinks in. It is a “there and back again” moment, and in this remarkably subtle movie it serves as a major character arc.
Billy Bob Thornton’s coach, on the other hand, is more of a bad boy than a loser. He’s a sexy ladies man who dresses… well, like Billy Bob Thornton out for a hip night in Hollywood. Linklater's Bears makes Buttermaker an ex-major league who now works as an exterminator. I don’t know why – extermination is an active job that makes decent money. The 70s Buttermaker was a pool cleaner, a low rent job you can get drunk and still muddle through. Plus, Matthau's a less affected curmudgeon; who else could sell a line like, “Now get back to the stands before I shave off half your mustache and shove it up your left nostril”?
2. Michael Ritchie - Ritchie is one of those directors I keep in my private collection of favorites -- an unsung master whose inventive but appropriate camera angles and invisible editing are evident even in crap like The Island. Back in 1976, he was coming off a string of successes -- Downhill Racer, Prime Cut, and The Candidate. He was the kind of director that creates a reality and then positions himself around that reality and transforms it into art. His easygoing subtlety makes Linklater, a subtle director himself, look clumsy. It takes Linklater three or four shots to achieve effects that Ritchie -- working with cinematographer John A. Alonzo and regular editor Richard A. Harris -- manages in one laconic take. On top of that, Ritchie's film is a definitive sketch of California in the 70’s, from its opening crane shot of sprinklers watering a baseball diamond to its parting long shot of our underdogs celebrating their championship loss with beer on a field flanked by an American flag.
3. Tatum O’Neal - If I didn’t realize that I had a crush on O’Neal when I was seven, I should have. Now, watching her 30 years later my affection is as strong as ever. Amanda Whurlitzer is the perfect tomboy -- watch her throw curveballs from the mound -- and a total doll, too. Anxious to leave her tomboy days behind and jump into womanhood, Amanda wears espadrilles and runs her own business – selling star maps to tourists. The remake’s Amanda is a mushy nonentity; she sells clothes with other people. Ritchie's Amanda had spunk back when the nation’s skyrocketing divorce rate was fresh news. Linklater's remake compounds this offense by omitting touches that deepened the character. Gone is that lovely shot following Amanda leaving the dugout after Buttermaker throws beer on her, telling her that if he wanted her company he would’ve looked her up, he “wouldn’t have waited two goddamn years.” She walks across the field and the camera swirls around to catch her face in closeup, Bizet’s beautiful music playing, her warm tears shining; it's a defining moment, merging realism and lyrical grace.
4. Jackie Earle Haley - Before he was Breaking Away and Losing It, Haley was bad news in the best way. As live-wire bad boy Kelly Leak, the actor is funny, sensitive, and tough as hell, sporting a premature wisdom that seems to have been beaten into him. He's a total badass who catches Amanda’s fastball with his bare hand. The image of Kelly riding his motorcycle along a fence on opening day while chatting up a teenage girl in a white T-shirt and impossibly short cutoffs encapsulates most of my nostalgia for the 70’s. In Linklater's version, Leak -- played by Jeffrey Davies -- is a mushy nonentity who doesn’t even smoke or ride a Harley; if the filmmakers were trying to go the teen idol route, they failed; their Leak wouldn’t earn a tiny photo in the back pages of Tigerbeat. Haley's incarnation of Leak has a layered charisma; the actor is so astute that he can convey Kelly’s shattered vulnerability, and the tough facade that hides it, with a single look. One wonders what his home life must have been like, or if he even had one. “I got a Harley-Davidson," he says, then adds hopefully, "does that turn you on? Harley-Davidson?”
5. The Kids - Seldom have kids been so natural on screen. They talk over each other, curse and fight, yet they still seem like kids, not miniature adults. Ritchie renders all his characters in quick, memorable strokes. There is Engelberg the fat catcher who bites into his candy bar for sustenance (“Couldn’t you have at least unwrapped it first?”); Ogilvie the statistician who, with the possible exception of Lupus, is the worst player in the league; Rudi Stein, the geeky wannabe pitcher on puberty’s cusp; Tanner Boyle, the preternaturally wiry scrapper whose cause is usually righteous (Tanner in the remake looks like an overstuffed Hanson); and Timmy Lupus, whose timidity and reluctance to get off the bench is heartwrenching, which makes his spectacular catch of a fly ball feel triumphant. (In the remake, Timmy doesn’t catch the fly ; an unconvincing CGI
ball bounces out of his glove, to be caught by an additional character I refuse to mention.) Then there's Miguel Agilar, whose diminutive stature translates into a nonexistent strike zone, and Ahmad Abdul-Rahim, the lone black player who is so hard on himself after the Bear’s first pummeling that he strips down to his underwear and climbs a tree. There’s even one kid actor who is the grandson of Gummo Marx. Can you guess which one? (I’ll give you a hint: he has curly blonde hair and hardly speaks.) In the remake, nearly every casting decision rings untrue, and as an ensemble, their energy could not be more awkward. Linklater's facility for drawing out naturalistic performances is usually impressive, though this time he may have pushed too hard. Gary Cavagnaro, who played the original Engelberg, said in an interview that, “Everyone talks about the way we were able to ‘act’. The reality was, we were a bunch of kids who were told ‘pretend that your parents are not there and act like you would normally under that circumstance’. We were all just being ourselves.”
6. Vic Morrow - Testosterone-fueled Coach Roy Turner of the Yankees is a fine antagonist for Buttermaker. He is the Great Santini of coaches, but while Morrow’s performance is often scary, it's never less than human.Though he’s an asshole, he’s more of an antagonist than a villain. Turner doesn’t want to talk about winning during a pep talk, but about losing, and how you have to live with it for the rest of your life. When he walks out to the mound and slaps his son down for trying to bean a batter, his anger flares at realization that anyone dared defy his authority; but there’s also genuine concern about the injury that might have happened. The remake re-conceives Turner as a comic weasel; luckily, Greg Kinnear makes the best of a bad situation and ends up coming off better than his costars.
7. Bill Lancaster - Burt Lancaster’s son got two screenplays produced -- this one and John Carpenter’s 1982 remake of The Thing. That’s only two times at the plate, but he batted a thousand. It’s been said that Lancaster based Buttermaker on his father and Amanda on himself. I don’t know about that, but his script catches the tension between adults, who often try to live their unfulfilled aspirations through their children, and the kids who just want to play ball. Lancaster doesn’t go for any emotional home runs, just a line drive up the middle. Only two characters verge on caricature, Cleveland and Councilman Whitewood, but all in all, they don’t seem much more cartoony than some real people I know. Linklater gave Lancaster a screen credit for his original story, but unfortunately, credited screenwriters Glenn Ficarra and John Requa needlessly mangle many of his finer accomplishments. They cherry-pick a brief line about class-action lawsuits and embellish the scene with many more of the same; they alter good scenes with changes that miss the entire point -- such switching an after-game celebration from a Pizza Hut to a German restaurant; they even try to explain the victory-in-defeat ending as if the first movie was over our heads. And in one interview, the writers freely admitted to knowing almost nothing about baseball; talk about a fact worth keeping to yourself.
8. Jerry Fielding - Rewatching Bears, I was delighted to learn that Jerry Fielding was responsible for the inspired raid on George Bizet’s opera Carmen that’s used for the score. While scoring several of Sam Peckinpah’s best pictures -- The Wild Bunch, Straw Dogs, Junior Bonner -- Fielding took a full-blown orchestra and made it sound subdued and ironic; he also scored a lot of television, including some of the most famous episodes of Star Trek (including the surreal western riff “Spectre of the Gun”). His excavation of Carmen provides each ballgame with its own dynamic of humor, suspense, and drama, and best of all, he knows when to keep silent; his work here might qualify as the best use of classical music in a Hollywood movie since 2001. The remake excises most of Fielding's choices, and what it keeps it misuses.
9. It’s so quintessentially American - When I saw The Bad News Bears for the first time, I was younger than the kids who played the Bears. Those kids had a special allure because I lived in Japan and I wanted to know what was happening in America. A couple years later I moved to California and played little league ball myself, and everything was just as it was portrayed – the team chants, the Pizza Hut parties, the suicide soft drinks. It’s such an American story, and the movie captures so well that peculiar American attitude -- an ingrained identification with the underdog that is patriotic and “fuck you” at the same time. It tapped a spirit that flowed on through National Lampoon’s Animal House and Bill Murray’s American Mutt speech from Stripes. For a truly American experience, find a copy of The Bad News Bears this summer and watch it. It will deliver on moms and baseball. The only thing missing will be the apple pie, but Pizza Hut works just as well.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Appreciation: The Bad News Bears
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Nice tribute Wagstaff! Name-dropping is lame, but I'm forwarding this to Jackie Haley, as we are pals. I don't know how well-known this is, but he's got not one but two roles in major pix later this year: Steven Zaillian's ALL THE KING'S MEN & Todd Field's LITTLE CHILDREN. (I'm especially looking forward to the latter.)
I never liked the BNB movies as a kid because I was a total geek who didn't play sports, but I've grown to appreciate the first two as an adult. The third one is weak - but it's ironic that you grew up in Japan and the Bears eventually made their way over there.
I've still not seen Linklater's remake, and your words certainly aren't inspiring me to do so. It was weird when it was announced that he was making it, as I vividly recall coming out of SCHOOL OF ROCK and saying "That was basically the BNB with music instead of baseball." (Which is not to imply I was bagging on SOR, because I'm quite fond of it.)
Wow! Did I somehow curse this talkback? (I'm pretty sure I didn't everything there is to be said about the BEARS.)
A couple of your points really jump out, Wagstaff. One is the portrait of Leak, who's basically a juvenile delinquent; such a character would never be permitted today in a movie aimed at general audiences (and in the remake, it wasn't). The other is the remake's need to explain the "victory in defeat" ending to modern audiences. The original "Bad News Bears" wasn't a work of staggering complexity, but it did assume that the vieweres were able to hold contradictory thoughts in their heads at the same time; that depicting unpleasant or socially unacceptable behavior was not the same as endorsing it; and that it's not necessary to have the characters' wildest dreams come true in order for the ending to be considered happy. Put the two films side-by-side and you can actually see Hollywood, and America, becoming less sophisticated.
Also, the Yankees coach is allowed some complexity as well; modern mainstream Hollywood films shy away from that, I guess because they're terrified that viewers might get confused.
Arrgghhh! Matt!!!
Your words are making me want to go rent the remake just so I can have an informed opinion.
(How dare you?)
Regardless, I have to wonder - if a person showed both the original and the remake to the average pre-teen boy (or girl?) today, which would they likely prefer? Are the actions & dialogue of the kids in the original too "forbidden" for today's kids to appreciate - or might they be considered more honest?
Anyone, thoughts?
I am going to have to watch the original again--I don't remember sensing complexity in the Vic Morrow character. I remember wanting to slap him upside the head, though. My thought then was that this was his character from "King Creole" and "The Blackboard Jungle" grown middle-aged. Assuming he lived to maturity, of course....
It's somewhat ironic - Jack Warden just passed away and he played Buttermaker in the BNB TV series.
The problem with the Bad New Bears remake is that it's fundamentaly a sour, nasty little movie. They got the tone all wrong...(As Harry Knowles said: "In the new film – I dare say there is far more cussing – but instead of cute – it comes across as excessive and mean. These kids aren’t wielding the words with an innocent glee of… HOLY SHIT, I CAN SAY SHIT! – but the cruel meanness of, I’M GONNA SMASH YOUR FUCKING FACE YOU ASSHOLE. And there’s a big difference there.")
The kids in original = lovable hell-raising dorks.
The kids in the remake = repugnant mean-spirited little trolls.
Not only can you see America becoming less sophisticated, you can see it becoming more vitriolic.
Ross says: "I have to wonder - if a person showed both the original and the remake to the average pre-teen boy (or girl?) today, which would they likely prefer?"
Depends on which one you showed first, and what kind of kid you showed it to. But speaking as a former kid myself, I tend to think they'd like whichever one they felt was less suitable for children. At least that's the way I always thought about it; but maybe I had a delinquent mentality.
Ross, you can name-drop Jackie Haley anytime around here.
Anonymous, I don't want to oversell Vic Morrow's complexity. He doesn't have any Hamlet-like moments of introspection. It's just that he's not a cartoon asshole, but a believably real asshole.
I watched the original 3 times before I wrote this, and then I watched the remake. Maybe that's why the drop off in quality was so startling. I remain tempted to do a point by point comparison. Take the first scene introducing Buttermaker and Kelly Leak, Matthau in the original pulls up in his car, grabs a beer, poors some out, adds some whiskey to it sloppily, and then takes a sip like he means it, like an alcoholic. Next he fumbles for a cigar and Kelly Leak materializes to light it for him. Matthau seems foggy and myopic, and he says "thank you" to Kelly, just pleased in a minor way to have his cigar lit.
In the remake, Billy Bob reaches the same way for a nonalcoholic beer, poors even more of it out, adds the hard stuff???, and then nonsmoking Kelly Leak walks by and says "Got any of those for me?" and leaves. Billy Bob then calls him a punk or something and to scram. It's the same scene introducing the same two characters, but everything is different.
I gotta clear up this matter about the beer in the remake. Maybe somebody can help me because I don't have the remake to check it. The beer the team celebrates with at the end is definitely nonalcoholic. In the rest of the movie, however, the beer Billy Bob drinks is a composite brand with a funny name I can't remember. When someone asks about his beer swilling he says it's nonalcoholic. My spouse says only the gullible, like me, would think he wasn't lying.
In the Matthau version, he drinks easily recognizable brands that change in every scene.
The kids in original = lovable hell-raising dorks.
The kids in the remake = repugnant mean-spirited little trolls.
I thought the kids in both versions were a bunch of little bastards. The difference: the little bastards in the original were far more realistic and well-acted little bastards.
Criticizing the new version because the kids don't smoke and Billy Bob drinks "non-alcoholic" beer is like criticizing the original Postman Always Rings Twice vs. the 1981 version because there's less fucking. You can't give a kid a cigarette in a movie today because the anti-tobacco people will scream that it promotes smoking, which is bullshit. I love Bette Davis--grew up on her movies--but in almost 40 years, I've smoked half of one cigarette.
And Billy Bob has to toss in the line about non-alcoholic as a way to sneak in the fact that a drunk is coaching kids. It's not 1976 anymore, and unfortunately, as Matt said, the country is less sophisticated. I assume they wanted the PG-13, and having kids smoking like chimneys is an R. But that's an entirely different discussion.
I remember the level of controversy surrounding the first movie's use of kids and profanity. The new film's snarkier tone is designed to make parents feel better in this new, politically correct universe. "My kids would NEVER be like this!" They're more believable in the original version because both kids and their parents could see some identification back then, and embrace it. The truth scares the fuck out of people today. They'd rather be deluded, and I think Linklatter's version reflect that. The fact that the screenplay omits the original's most controversial and most memorable line of dialogue is Exhibit A.
I didn't see a reason for a remake, but it was done and I didn't find it as objectionable as everyone else. The original is far better, but it's also, like the remake, a representation of its time.
And to answer an earlier question: I don't think kids would want to see EITHER version of this movie.
Matt writes: ..but it did assume that the vieweres were able to hold contradictory thoughts in their heads at the same time; that depicting unpleasant or socially unacceptable behavior was not the same as endorsing it;
This can be seen in the nonjudgmental attitude the movie has towards Buttermaker's drinking. On the one hand it is a source of humor -he passes out on the mound. On the other hand they never hide how sad and pathetic it is. The entire movie is that way. It isn't at all clear if there are any lessons learned or if any change of heart is gonna stick. When Amanda says "Hey Buttermaker, maybe next year you can teach me how to hit." He says "You bet." It's good to hear it, but he might just be saying it in a brief moment of euphoria.
Matt,
Whatever happened to Michael Ritchie? I mean, he made BNB, Semi-Touch, Smile, Prime Cut...then Fletch (a movie I am fond of, but one which is more a vehicle for Chevy Chase than anything else), Diggstown, The Golden Child, Cops and Robbersons, and, of course, Wildcats. Anyone who complains about the BNB remake should view the original BNB and Wildcats side by side, to see how Ritchie himself was able to nail every sports cliche just a decade after making the original.
From everything I read around the time of his passing, Ritchie was a well-adjusted family man, and unlike, say, Hal Ashby, he didn't really suffer any personal decline or tribulation, nor did he fall out of favor in Hollywood for any particular reason. He just made some less interesting films in the second half of his career, at least until _The Positively True Adventures of the Alleged Texas Cheerleader Murdering Mom_, which seemed much more akin to something like _Smile_ than _The Scout_. I do not begrudge the man what seems to have been a productive career and a happy home life, but since no biography exist to my knowledge, I have always wondered how he saw his relation to Hollywood, whether he saw any continuity break between his 70's and 80's films, and if, maybe, he was just around the corner from pulling at Altman and entering a lauded third act in his career. Ritchie's run in the 70's was, pound for pound, not so far from Altman's -- his highs may not have been as high as Altman's, but his lows weren't as low, either.
Anyway, it's just something I've been really curious about, and I thought you might know.
Anon
"I thought the kids in both versions were a bunch of little bastards."
Agreed...but at least the kids in the original were FUN little bastards.
"The truth scares the fuck out of people today."
Nah, I think the truth primarily scares the fuck out of people who finance movies. Audiences genuinely want to see realistic behavior (in fact, I'd argue they're starving for it).
"When Amanda says "Hey Buttermaker, maybe next year you can teach me how to hit." He says "You bet." It's good to hear it, but he might just be saying it in a brief moment of euphoria."
Even as a kid, I knew that Buttermaker never meant it. To me that scene is about Amanda accepting Buttermaker for who he is and resigning herself to the fact that he would always be fairly shoddy father figure. That relationship was the toughest thing in the original and if there's nothing like it in the remake it has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with kissing the audiences ass.
While realizing it wasn’t a patch on the original, I didn’t much mind Linklater’s remake when I caught it; but Wagstaff’s side-by-side comparisons make clear what a drop-off in quality it represents. Ritchie’s BAD NEWS BEARS wasn’t just infectious summer fun—though it was good enough at that to charm even John Simon. It gets exactly right the melancholy defeatism and stomach-heaving anxiety that make up so much of childhood, but isn’t maudlin enough to overlook the bratty solipsism that fills up the rest. It’s an American movie, so of course that brattiness becomes a virtue by the end, Tanner’s kiss-off to the hypocritically congratulatory Yankees (inspired choice for the bad guys team) about the best ending line to a comedy this side of SOME LIKE IT HOT.
And O’Neal and Haley are about the most accurate teen couple the movies have given us, so beautifully desperate and terrified behind their brazen provocations. In the summer of ’76 my 7-year-old heart was guiltily torn in two directions, until I decided there was no reason I couldn’t marry both O’Neal and Jodie Foster.
Ross: “if a person showed both the original and the remake to the average pre-teen boy (or girl?) today, which would they likely prefer?”
Matt: “But speaking as a former kid myself, I tend to think they'd like whichever one they felt was less suitable for children.”
Spot-on.
Odienator: “It's not 1976 anymore, and unfortunately, as Matt said, the country is less sophisticated.“
While I agree the remake dumbs down things, I agree equally with Mrs. Wagstaff that everyone is clearly meant to understand the line about non-alcoholic beer is a lie. Which, in fairness, makes this an example of treating the audience as more sophisticated, not less.
Anon: “Whatever happened to Michael Ritchie?”
Nothing much, in my opinion. He’s a favorite of mine as well, but his presence among the ‘70s Movie Brats strikes me as more coincidence of timing than commonality of purpose. Ritchie’s output mostly speaks of a chipper professional with a fine editing sense, a fondness for irascible individualists, and a flair for satire that never looses its humanism. Enough to be considered an artist, sure, but hardly a rebel wannabe with a chip on his shoulder, a fire in his belly, and a sheaf of self-translated Cahiers articles under his arm, you know?
But it was the Decade of the Director, after all, so some of his ‘70s films became mistaken as emblematic of the times even though they could have been released virtually unchanged a few decades earlier (THE CANDIDATE especially). And when his peers stumbled through the new studio regimes in the ‘80s, Ritchie was seen as doing so as well, even though his movies remained well-made (THE ISLAND) (no, honest, I’m going with THE ISLAND for my example), admirably offbeat (THE SURVIVORS), fond but skeptical of American institutions (THE SCOUT), and clear, well-earned fun (DIGGSTOWN may be my favorite Ritchie film). There were mediocrities along the way, sure, crests and valleys, but never a real period where he was lost in the wilderness.
Long story short, he wasn’t that great then or that bad later, just admirably talented and humane pretty much all the way to the end.
In all this justified celebration of a perpetually underrated director, I had to put in a good word for "The Positively True Adventures of the (Alleged) Texas Cheerleader-Murdering Mom," an HBO film starring Holly Hunter in the title role, with oustanding backup by Beau Bridges and a sharp script by Jane Anderson. Back when I was at the Dallas Observer, I put it on my list of the best movies of 1993, and I still think it's one of Ritchie's two or three best. An astonishing hall-of-mirrors film that is aware of its own fictional nature throughout, and interweaves real news footage, re-creations and some wonderful Brechtian gags that actually work. It's worth seeing just for the closing credits song, "Why Does There Always Have to be a Song At the End?" -- a final gag worthy of Altman at his most prankish.
I really need to see "The Positively True Adventures of the (Alleged) Texas Cheerleader-Murdering Mom" now. What a title!
I’m afraid I can’t help with the mystery of Michael Ritchie’s decline. I didn’t do any book research before writing this post, but I did google around a bit and didn’t find much. I searched in vain for even a single interview. It was much easier to learn about Jerry Fielding. My best guess echoes what’s already been said here – that Ritchie never fit under that 70’s auteur umbrella in the first place.
I never thought the kids in either version were horrible brats, but maybe that’s just me; I find toddlers much scarier.
As to which version kids would rather watch today – I haven’t a clue. All I know is that I saw the first one at seven and it made perfect sense; I saw the remake at 37 and thought it was confusing.
I agree that movies can’t help but reflect the era in which they’re made, and to be fair, any remake has its work cut out for it, but I did think if anyone could have pulled it off it would be Linklater. Sort of like I don’t know if this Dirty Dozen remake is a good idea, but Tarantino feels like a good fit if it’s still in the works. On the remake’s audio commentary, Linklater and the new screenwriters said that the original got away with a lot and pushed limits (something I never really thought until now) and so in updating it they tried to push things in their own way. I don’t really see how they did this aside from bringing in a sexual element – the Bears are sponsored be a strip club and Billy Bob takes them to Hooters instead of Pizza Hut and they all sing “Cocaine.” Still, it all seemed pretty safe to me.
And finally, since this dead horse is mine I’ll beat on it some more. Walter Matthau has two angry outbursts that are quite effective. The first is after the team has decided to quit – all of them except Tanner Boyle who when asked says “Crud no, I wanna play ball.” They’ve all taken a vote and Buttermaker throws some equipment against the dugout wall and yells “Goddamnit! I’m the only vote that counts around here. Now get your asses out there!” The second outburst is the one I already mentioned when he throws some beer on Amanda. Both of these moments are soft-pedaled in the remake. My guess is that because the new coach is an edgy bad boy instead of a loser, these moments might have come across as more frightening coming from Billy Bob’s Buttermaker. That’s when parents would be yanking their kids away from this guy.
Also, at the end of the remake Amanda kisses Kelly Leak, whereas there’s really no romance in the original. Amanda loses a bet with Kelly at air hockey and she has to go to a Rolling Stones concert with him, but that’s it.
One thing that I always enjoy is the Bears' refusal to gush when the opposing team tries to salute their effort at the end of the original, remaining defiant to the end. A nice contrast to that awful ending to The Karate Kid when the "bad" karate guys offer Daniel the trophy because he's such a good guy.
Anybody here see Ritchie's long-shelved The Fantasticks? I'm still picking bits of it out of my skull some six years later; which is to say I loved it--one of the great circumstantial swan songs.
Excellent appreciation. I loved the original, haven't seen the remake and don't plan to.
That bit about Jerry Fielding was interesting. I'd (based on nothing but my own supposition) always thought that Walter Matthau had something to do with the use of Carmen. Miles Kendig, Matthau's character in Hopscotch (another movie I loved), was a big opera buff. I assumed it was a Matthau touch. Probably just a coincidence.
Post a Comment