1. "Hollywood Takes on the Left": A Weekly Standard article from earlier this month. Stephen F. Hayes visits the set of An American Carol and roundtables with the cast and crew. RELATED: The Washington Times (from July) on the "Friends of Abe," which is mentioned in the Standard piece. The trailer for An American Carol is here.
["And Kelsey Grammer plays General George S. Patton, Malone's guide to American history and the mouthpiece of the film's writers. I chatted with Grammer on the set at Warner Brothers studios. "I'm glad some of the bigger guys jumped in--Dennis Hopper, Jon Voight, James Woods." Grammer has been out as a conservative for several years and has publicly mused about running for office. His name comes up periodically when California Republicans are brainstorming about candidates to take on Barbara Boxer or Dianne Feinstein for their Senate seats. It's not hard to see why. He is passionate about the issues that matter most to conservatives and extraordinarily articulate. "The accepted way to speak about America is in the voice that disrespects it. And the voice that's unacceptable is the one that loves America," he says, wearing the uniform of an Army general and sipping from a bottle of pomegranate juice. "How did we get here?" Over the course of two hours, we are joined by several others working on the movie and talk about everything from taxes--"the rich in this country are being criminalized"--to Iraq. "Petraeus has to couch every bit of optimism in some convoluted formulation to avoid the promised rush of disrespect," Grammer says. Eventually, the conversation turns from policy to punditry. Grammer, who is friends with Ann Coulter, says he quoted her once to some of the young people who work for him. "'Ann Coulter,'" he says, recalling their horror and assuming their voice. "'She's the antichrist.' And I said: 'What the f-- do you know about the antichrist? You don't even believe in Christ.'""]
2. "Production Lines": At Sit Down Man, You're a Bloody Tragedy, Owen Hatherley ruminates on the Eurostar/Somers Town team-up.
["Before Somers Town, there was the industrial film unit British Transport Films, whose excellence suggests that a film made entirely to promote the buying of train tickets can be as interesting, if not more, than someone's untrammelled creative vision. Somers Town tries to have it both ways. It certainly doesn't announce itself as A Eurostar Film or anything so vulgar. Nonetheless, it's all pretty obvious. The new terminal is contantly mentioned, and the final scenes in Paris - in glorious technicolour! - lay it on very thick. As an argument for travel, it works very well, and is a rare statement against anti-East European racism (about a third of the film is in Polish), and for a British cosmopolitanism. It's funny, sweet and very slight, and by far the most irritating thing about it is the appalling David Gray/Mike and the Mechanics-esque soundtrack, all soulful heartwarming crooning over the over-signposted 'epiphanies'. Oh for a British film that doesn't aspire to warming the sodding cockles."]
3. Busy publishing day at pigs and battleships, all by Ryan Wu: "A Cornered Animal" (on John McCain's VP pick); "Hitting the Big Shot" (on Barack Obama's DNC acceptance speech); and "Palin and the Tire Gauge" (more on Sarah Palin).
["This sort of Animal House as political campaign is probably the only aspect of McCain's operation that's close in spirit to McCain's appealing 2000 run (there's a wonderful essay by David Foster Wallace in Consider the Lobster that captures the freewheeling, insurgent vibe of the Straight Talk Express; read it and weep at what's become of Mr. Maverick). And this impulsiveness speaks to McCain himself, a man of many virtues but whose disqualifying personal flaw is that he makes decisions on the fly, often as a gut reaction to a provocation. The choice of Sarah Palin, it seems, is another product of McCain's impulsive, reactive decision-making and the thinking of a campaign that's effective in staying afloat primarily by being good at feeding the news media. McCain surely punk'd Obama for a news cycle or two, and he'll succeed in generating some excitement leading up to next week. But for what?"]
4. "No End in Sight on YouTube": Via The Chutry Experiment and Todd Holmes, news that Charles Ferguson's documentary will be available in its entirety on YouTube from September 1st through November 5th.
["One of the more devastating documentaries about the Bush administration was Charles Ferguson’s No End in Sight, which provided a scathing analysis of the Washington insiders who planned the war in Iraq, diagnosing an unbelievable amount of incompetence and hubris in a war that was sold as a “cakewalk.”"]
5. The latest Famous First from Ferdy on Films: THX-1138 by Roderick Heath.
["It’s easy to call THX 1138 an adult film, and the Star Wars films juvenile, but they’re built from the same nuts and bolts of parable. Star Wars was bent on being accessible and thrilling, where THX 1138 is allusive and mysterious. If THX 1138 is ragged in places, it’s also one of the best science fiction films of its time. Its influence is undeniable. Scifi dystopias arrived by the bushel in its wake, but the likes of Soylent Green (1971), Logan’s Run (1974), and Rollerball (1975) lacked its rigor of style and mise-en-scène, and I doubt Mad Max (1979), Blade Runner (1981), or The Matrix (1999) would have happened without its example. Lucas occasionally talks about returning to experimental projects like this. I doubt he will. And it’s a shame."]
Quote of the Day: W.S. Merwin
Image of the Day (click to enlarge): Ms. Palin, it seems, is a VPilf.
Clip of the Day: George and Laura hit it off...
_____________________________________________________
"Links for the Day": Each morning, the House editors post a series of weblinks that we think will spark discussion. Comments encouraged. Suggestions for links are also welcome. Please send to keithuhlich@gmail.com.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Links for the Day (August 30th, 2008)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
20 comments:
--"the rich in this country are being criminalized"--
Grammer doesn't look like he's been missing too many meals.
Re #1: This article represents the new tactic the right has been pulling recently where they play the victim card despite being in control of the White House and dictating the direction of this country into the toilet for 8 years. Oh, poor you!
David Zucker has a right to think whatever he wants and make whatever movie he pleases. I just wish he would stop polluting our cinemas with crappy movies where his version of satire is people getting hit in the head and the nuts.
What the article doesn't mention is the scene where the Moore character is brought to Ground Zero. Regardless of political beliefs, I think anyone who exploits the deaths of so many people for this nonsense should be ashamed of themselves.
And, believe it or not, there are plenty of people who don't take their political cues from Michael Moore and think this country has been making one wrongheaded mistake after another.
It's hilarious how the GOP will bash Hollywood every chance it gets but swoons every time any B-list celebrity shows them some leg.
Is there room in the movie for Bo Derek, or is this a purely sausage party?
Roderick Heath is the author of #5, but thanks for the mention.
Sorry for the error Marilyn and Roderick. I've corrected in the description above.
Re #1: It'd be nice if Grammer, as a conservative, could focus on what he's for, rather than just what he's against. Maybe then he'd understand that it isn't so much Ann Coulter's politics that people are so taken aback by, but the way she presents them as a hate-spewing monster. But I guess that's a subtlety that's beyond him (not that "Kelsey Grammer" and "subtlety" have ever been used in the same sentence).
Some thoughts on Zucker's new film, which sounds like a deliberate attempt to equal the intellectual wit and political commentary of Uwe Boll's Postal:
--Politics aside, there is not a single funny joke cited in that entire article.
--Notice how old school Reagan conservatives like John Milius and Schwarzenegger are'nt among this lot? (James Woods does'nt count, he hangs out with Oliver Stone.)
--How was Jon Voight "duped" into making "Coming Home"? No wonder Jim Haven Voight and Angelina Jolie Voight-Pitt want nothing to do with him any more. (Sudden sad thought of a 55 year old, overweight, even nuttier yet probably still hot Angelina claiming she was duped into acting as a spokesperson for the UN.)
--Where's Vincent Gallo? I mean, along with Voight, Kelsey Grammer and Dennis Hopper you want all the stable, reasonable voices of the new right included, don'tchya?
--Plodding didactism never works, period. Compare this screamingly obvious temper tantrum of a movie with Joe Dante's "Homecoming", which was hardly subtle but at least attempted to tell a story along with it's political points.
--Furthermore, while it's fully possible to make art and artful films from a conservative perspective (Howard Hawks and Don Siegal and Milius are probably the best examples), it also seems like many of the people who define themselves as modern right-wingers (i.e. post 1991 anti-Clinton, Rush Limbaugh / Ann Coulter fans) don't really seem to be able to seperate entertainment from idealogy. They're most comfortable with films, books and even music that only reinforce their beleifs and view anything that even slightly challenges them as personal assaults. Furthermore, I suspect a lot of these people are made vaugly uncomfortable by fiction in whatever media, period. I've often wondered if talk radio and Fox News are so popular on the right because a lot of right wingers just lack the imagination, soulfulness, whatever it is, that allows you to fully enjoy music, serial drama, ect.
--I'm sure this was the point of posting it, but after watching the "W." clip five times and falling in love with Elizabeth Banks, I suspect the liberals still have the edge in political films.
Re: 5
JJ, you forgot to mention Clint Eastwood ;)
Anyway, as a conservative, based on the clips I saw of An American Carol it doesn't look all that funny.
There is a definitive Michael Moore movie to be made and this isn't it.
I think someone should do a documentary style piece chronicling the seldom discussed battle between Moore and Ray Bradbury. Moore, that fat tub of shit, parodied the title of Bradbury's classic Fahrenheit 451 for his own Fahrenheit 911 even though Bradbury BEGGED him not to. Legal, apparently yes. Moral, NO.
Finally JJ, you said: "I've often wondered if talk radio and Fox News are so popular on the right because a lot of right wingers just lack the imagination, soulfulness, whatever it is, that allows you to fully enjoy music, serial drama, ect."
Now THAT's a cheap shot.
The rise of "alternate news media" came about as a result of an unconscious, yet very real, journalistic slant to the Left by the old media. Don't just take my word for it, Peter Jennings said that very thing shortly before his death.
I'm not saying that there was a deliberate effort by the fourth estate to spin the news; it was just the nature of the beast. This dynamic was best epitomized by Dan Rather who once described the NY Times as "middle of the road" editorially.
I'd further add that this slant is no where near as prevalent as it was in the 60's, 70's and 80's largely due to the fact that news consumers have those other choices who's success you incorrectly attribute to the Right's lack of taste.
As an unimaginative, soulfulnessless, unable-to-fully-enjoy/understand-fiction-music-and-serial-drama, right-of-center cretin, I an surprised and happy to see a Weekly Sttndard article linked on HND.
I'm generally of the Samuel Gowldwyn school of movie making ("If you want to send a message, call Western Union."), but if this is funny (haven't watched clips yet), it'll be a thrill for me and my brethren Philistines.
Hey, I DID forget Eastwood! Well, he seems to have drifted pretty far to the center lately. Besides, he's not a Reagan conservative; Christ, he predates Goldwater! He's an Eisenhower man!
I gotta say, I think Micheal Moore did a pretty good job parodying himself at the end of Bowling For Columbine. If I had written a eulogy for Heston I would have noted among his many other accomplishments was demonstrating to Moore what dignity is. Besides, Team America did a fairly good job with Moore already.
I maintain that people who listen to right wing talk radio at work all day and then come home and watch cable news may possibly have a certain affinity for non-fiction and something of a tin ear. How much alternative media do you need?!?
However, I also, upon second thought, recognize that there are a lot of non-documentary forms of entertainment popular with even the most extreme elements of the right. Left Behind novels, for instance. (You want cheap shots, I could bring up The Turner Diaries, but I won't.) I also admit there are plenty of exceptions which may prove the rule. (If Nomi is ever in Cambridge massachusetts I'd be happy to meet her for coffee and discuss this in person. Mmmm.)
So I'll just conclude with what I said before: conservatism and good art are not exclusive to each other, but post-Clinton modern conservatism does'nt exactly seem like an artistic hot zone.
Sincerely sorry if I'm hurting anyone's feelings. I don't want too, and I mean that.
"They're most comfortable with films, books and even music that only reinforce their beleifs and view anything that even slightly challenges them as personal assaults."
-- I challenge you to take a look at the critical reception afforded, say, The Passion of the Christ and consider whether the negative reaction to that film among critical "elites" was the result of their tendency "to view anything that even slightly challenges them as personal assaults." One could argue that, from the perspective of "the industry" and its preoccupations, *that* was the most subversive film to come out of Hollywood in a long time. How was it greeted by those cheerleaders of faux subversion (see American Beauty) in the critical establishment? I'd argue they treated it as a personal assault.
There's plenty of philistinism and political jingoism to go around, is all I'm sayin'. I mean, have we so soon forgotten Lions for Lambs?
-- Henrietta Stackpole
I mean, have we so soon forgotten Lions for Lambs?
God, I hope so.
"I challenge you to take a look at the critical reception afforded, say, The Passion of the Christ and consider whether the negative reaction to that film among critical "elites" was the result of their tendency "to view anything that even slightly challenges them as personal assaults."
To be quite honest, I've never understood this charge by the supporters of the movie. It may be that I find the movie simple-minded and rather unchallenging on the level of presenting its ideas.
I don't know what's so subversive about trying to guilt trip an audience as opposed to telling a compelling story. I have my personal issues with religion, but how could he not have found a compelling story to tell from that source? I found Gibson's approach largely hamfisted and painfully obvious. Even more so than something like "American Beauty".
If anything, perhaps the critics focused too much on the violence (which was their main criticism and still a legitimate point) and should have focused on the poor filmmaking on display. Gibson's films are ones based in repetition of visual ideas and action to the point where it becomes completely numbing, uninvolving and simple-minded. Gibson is Zack Snyder with less special effects.
From what I remember, "The Last Temptation of Christ" received decidedly mixed reviews and there were protesters at theaters. I actually saw it with ushers sticking around at the front of the theater for the first 20 minutes of the movie, just in case.
Why are the many who bring up the alleged demonization of "Passion" not acknowledging that or do we all have short term memories?
This discussion took me back to panel that a saw a few years ago. Jim Jarmusch was there and someone asked him what he thought of "Passion of the Christ." He said he didn't see it because he wasn't into snuff films.
Good point Steve.
Whenever The Passion controversy came up, I DID remind people supportive of Gibson about how the stir over The Last Temptation of Christ basically turned what would have been a mediocre and forgettable effort into a more of a success then it deserved (that's the only reason I paid money to see it).
The theatre I saw LToC in had only ONE protester outside who cited scripture from across the street.
As I Christian, I didn't find anything ALL that offensive in LToC (it was JUST a dream).
However, Scorsese never really makes the case for Christ going BACK on the cross. Judas' temper tantrum at the end doesn't quite cut.
It was ironic that the same people who expressed offense at LToC were so indignant about the barbs thrown at The Passion.
But, like the flip side of one of Judas’ silver coins, it cut both ways.
I would have expected MORE support for Gibson from the same circles that embraced LToC.
The charges of anti-Semitism were unconvincing. Unless the Sanhedrin decides to free Chirst at the end, I'm not sure how you stage a Passion story without casting certain Jews as villains.
However, The Passion fails as badly as LToC (and would probably have been ignored but for the controversy).
It wasn't the violence in The Passion that turned me off. That WAS the title of Gibon's film, after all.
I just found it silly to have actors go through all the trouble of talking in Aramaic to be "authentic," YET do a pedestrian "Stages of the Cross" story replete with all the historic flaws in that account (Christ carrying his entire cross instead of the crossbeam, nails in the hands not the wrists, Mary Magdalene cast as a whore, Pilot sympathetic to Christ and not a disinterested bureaucrat, etc).
But, I digress ;)
GCCR: We definitely differ on our opinions of Last Temptation. I find the filmmaking powerful and it humanized a story that I don't necessarily subscribe to, as I would openly admit.
As you point out the dream that most people took offense at, I would say that if you took that out, Last Temptation was a fairly traditional retelling of the story. I never understood taking offense at something that comes to the same conclusion as your beliefs but takes a different path to get there.
I would also disagree that Last Temptation was any success. It probably made its meager budget back and certainly not on the same level of financial success that Gibson's movie achieved.
Here in New York, there were certainly more protesters, especially opening day at the Ziegfeld. Although they left when the news stopped covering them, as protesters of any type tend to do.
Ironically, I remember looking forward to Gibson's movie when hearing about the protests. It was only when I saw the movie that I realized that, although I could see what would be seen as anti-Semitic, his worst offense, by far, was making such a boring movie.
Perhaps, Jewish organizations thought the Jewish characters were portrayed as one-note villains. Which I would agree with, but, in fairness to Gibson, all the other characters in the movie were one-note as well, especially Jesus. Gibson's simply not a director of subtle characterization or nuance.
This review of Twisted makes some very good points about The Passion of the Christ:
Movie journalists revealed their cultural biases in last week’s attacks on Mel Gibson, but the hysterical denunciations also exposed their dishonest esthetic criteria. One reason we’re regularly assaulted with garish, smutty action films like Twisted is because that’s what is routinely accepted in the culture. It was stunning to see David Denby on The Charlie Rose Show call The Passion of the Christ "a snuff movie," the kind of insensitive comment that would never be applied to, say, Schindler’s List, out of simple cultural respect. Denby breaches that caution–and appears righteous in doing so–because contemporary film culture is dominated by disbelieving skepticism. If there is a lack of piety in Gibson’s film, it has been outmatched by the cynicism of incredulous reviewers–and by the weekly tide of sarcastic, nihilistic, anti-human movies like Twisted.
. . . It’s hard to resist the feeling that more than Gibson’s style is being rejected but his material as well. And that prejudice has made the movie week sickening. Many critics have refused to contemplate exactly what it is Gibson is depicting and therein lies the speciousness of their arguments. (Denby cites "the electric charge of hope and redemption that Jesus Christ brought into the world...[his] heart-stopping eloquence," which reminded me of his disingenuous complaint that Spike Lee didn’t present more of Malcolm X’s "intellectual gaiety.") The Passion of the Christ contains imagery that is, if you will, the most powerful in all of Western culture. Fact is, few modern artists have essayed this imagery except to lampoon it (sometimes it seems that movie culture gets increasingly godless). When Gibson recreates Christ’s torment and crucifixion, he connects to the emotional essence of Christian understanding. These images aren’t simply familiar, Gibson plays them knowingly, effectively–not in the occasional slo-mo, but in the clarifying context he creates.
I didn't mean for my comment to turn into a referendum on Gibson and his movie, though. My point was simply that those on the Right (among whom I include myself) haven't cornered the market either in making very bad "message movies" or in failing to allow their assumptions to be challenged. Philistinism and facile propagandism are equal opportunity afflictions.
-- Henrietta Stackpole
Steve: "I never understood taking offense at something that comes to the same conclusion as your beliefs but takes a different path to get there."
Me neither.
And I'd agree that pound for pound, LToC is superior to Passion. BTW, I didn't mean to suggest that LToC was a mega-million success like Passion. I was just pointing out the irony that LToC got more of an audience only BECAUSE of the actions of the people whining about it.
However, as a viewer (AND even as a Christian) I needed more convincing at the end that Christ must physically go back on the cross than the film supplied.
That idea was the basic dilemma being developed throughout LToC and Scorsese never made a strong enough case to support the triumphant moment when Christ claims that "it is accomplished."
Jesus HAD to get back up on the cross, otherwise the Cigarette Smoking Man would have won and the aliens would have destroyed the earth!
Is Henrietta Stackpole really Armond White? The use of "fact is..." and "nihilistic", and something about the sentence construction and the writer's politics...Ah, never mind.
Post a Comment