Showing posts with label 2000s. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2000s. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 28, 2018

Volume 18 - Inside Llewyn Davis and the Fractured Folk Tale

It's been a long time since the ol' Double Feature Picture show had something new for y'all, and I'd love to tell you I have a super exciting and cool reason for that. The truth of the matter is, well, this time of year always makes me cranky and reminds me of death. And when I'm not thinking about my real world work - which, thankfully(?), takes up a lot of my time, that's what I've been thinking about lately. And no, it's not the cool kind of death, like we see in Friday the 13th movies or other films of their ilk. It's the kind of death and sadness that's inevitably coming for us all and ready to send our lives into turmoil at any given moment.

So, that's a cool story, right?  Sorry, I don't want to think about it either. It's just who I am.

The good thing about movies is that there's a movie for every feeling, and one day while I was angry at how cold and dreary and threatening the world around me was I started to think about a movie where the lead character feels the same way. It's one of my favorite movies of the last decade, and I was inspired to stop being stuck in my own head and to talk about it here.  It took me a while to make sense of everything, and I can't promise what follows will make sense or be fun to read, but I hope you'll take a trip into this film's world with me and see where this double feature ends up. It might not be a fun trip, but life isn't always a fun trip either.

Inside Llewyn Davis
2013, Directed by Joel & Ethan Coen

We meet Llewyn Davis, played by Oscar Isaac, on a night where he's playing folk music in a dark New York City club. The year is 1961, the song is "Hang Me, Oh Hang Me" - a pretty depressing tune that asks just what the title implies - and the singer's body language is enough to make us assume he's either half asleep or entirely defeated. The venue is dark enough that we can't see the faces of the small crowd gathered around him, and if you weren't looking closely you might assume he's playing to a bunch of mannequins. Llewyn is doing the best he can, he just doesn't seem to be connecting to his audience. The night ends on a worse note for Llewyn, with a man he doesn't know confronting him in the alley behind the bar and, for reasons we don't yet understand, handing the emotionally distraught singer a physical beating. 

It would be nice to think that this is just a bad night in the life of the man, who we can already tell is very good at what he does, but the rest of Joel & Ethan Coen's film confirms a simple truth - life is not going very well for Llewyn Davis. He's homeless, the woman he's closest to (Carey Mulligan) has moved on and become vicious toward him, and the winter that fills the world around him seems cruel and unyielding. We learn early in the week we spend with Llewyn that he was once part of a successful folk duo and that his partner has died, with Llewyn later revealing in a moment of frustration that this partner committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge. We don't meet his band mate, only hearing others talk about "Mikey" in the past tense to Llewyn, and as we watch Llewyn stumble through a series of failures at times we lose focus on this part of his story.
Another thing that is repeatedly lost throughout the story is a cat. Llewyn, after spending the night on a couch at his friends' apartment, accidentally releases their pet cat into the city as he closes the locked door apartment door behind them. The cat becomes Llewyn's off-and-on traveling companion throughout the film, even riding along with him as he hitches a ride to Chicago to meet a producer that might be able to give him a paying gig. The ride to Chicago - shared with a rude jazz musician (Coen favorite John Goodman) and his gruff valet (Garrett Hedlund) - tests Llewyn's patience greatly. Llewyn goes from being quiet and disinterested early in the trip to lashing out in anger when pushed too far, and at this point in the film we've grown accustomed to seeing him react to stressors and questions in an abrupt, angry manner. We build up sympathy for the performer and the man as he moves from place to place, but what follows at the end of his trip is the film's most heartbreaking scene.

Llewyn gets a chance to meet with club owner & potential manager Bud Grossman (F. Murray Abraham), and is dejected to find that the man he's interviewing with did not receive the copy of his album, which shares its title with the film, that his agent sent ahead of him. Grossman decides that he will still give Llewyn a chance to perform for him - finally, the film gives Llewyn a break! - directly instructing him to "play something from Inside Llewyn Davis."

We know where Llewyn is mentally at this point. He's been insulted, beaten, and defeated for several days, and we can tell by his relationships with others that this is not a new trend. We've seen him lash out, we've seen him assume other people aren't as good as him, and we've seen him make mistakes - like turning down the chance at royalties on a comedy tune ("Please Mr. Kennedy," on which Isaac teams with co-stars Justin Timberlake and Adam Driver for the film's most humorous scene) because he needed cash in the moment. It's clear that Llewyn is committed to what he's doing, and it's obvious that he's really good at what he does. The issue, again, is that he's not connecting with anyone right now. 
Llewyn pulls out his guitar in the quiet club, sits down in front of Mr. Grossman, and plays and sings his heart out. The song he chooses is "The Death of Queen Jane," a variation of an old English ballad, and - as you might have guessed from the title - it's not the most uplifting choice. The song tells a fictionalized account of a Queen who begs for help to save her child during a difficult labor and, after being rebuked by her nurses and her King, dies during childbirth. Llewyn performs beautifully; we can hear the pain he's been through in every note. He belts out the final notes with his guitar silent, letting all of the emotion that's been trapped inside him, and waits a long moment for the first impression that he's made on Grossman.

Finally, the listener speaks.

"I don't see a lot of money here."

Anyone who's had a job interview knows that macabre tales about death aren't usually the best first impression, and it might be easy for viewers to wonder why the heck Llewyn would make that choice. But for Llewyn, this song is personal. He feels like he can't get help, he feels like the world is closing in on him, and he knows that if something doesn't change soon he's going to be gone and the music is going to be all he leaves behind. He's too proud for any of that. Llewyn and Grossman have a brief conversation, in which Llewyn is given a series of suggestions about doing more to connect with people including "stay out of the sun" and, most crushingly, getting back together with his partner. Llewyn is too far gone to tell Mr. Grossman why that's not an option at this point, he simply thanks him for his time and moves on. He's just given a beautiful performance that he put all of his energy into, he doesn't have the strength to talk about it anymore.

Despite everything that has gone wrong in his life and career, Llewyn continues to walk toward his next opportunity. The viewer might wonder if Llewyn still believes life has any value after a series of misfortunes and that's where his costar - the cat - comes back into play. No matter what is going on and how distant he seems from everyone else in his world, he keeps looking out for the cat that continues to get away from him. This simple act - trying to get the cat home safely - tells us a lot about where Llewyn is at. He wants to make things right and to be accepted, he just keeps getting knocked down as he tries.

Llewyn's first musical performance in the film makes him appear to be already worn out, and his performance for Bud Grossman pushes him closer to defeat. But when we get to his final performance of the film, an expanded version of the opening scene, we know more about the man.
After a full week of defeat and failure, we understand how little he has to show for his effort. The Coens frame the performance differently this time around and offer us a close up of the singer's face after the final note, so we see him wipe his nose and can see that his eyes are holding back tears. We've known for a while that the music is all he has, but here we can really see how much it means to him. He gets the same muted applause we saw in the opening scene as he jokes "You've probably heard that one before; 'cause it was never new and it never gets old and it's a folk song."
Then we see the part of his performance that was omitted from the opening scene. Llewyn turns back to the microphone and adds "Alright, one more before I go."

The song that follows, "Fare Thee Well," is one we partially heard earlier in the film; one that was abruptly cut short by another of his frustrated outbursts. His cat owning friends, the Gorfeins, ask him to play for them at dinner - Mrs. Gorfein even rebukes Llewyn's initial refusal by saying "I thought singing was a joyous expression of the soul?" - and the dejected singer does his best to belt out the tune before Mrs. Gorfein chimes in singing Mike's part, sending Llewyn over the edge. It's the angriest we see Llewyn throughout the film, and it's the moment we most understand how frustrated he is.

Now, safe from interruption on stage, Llewyn hurls himself into another performance of the song. While most of his performances in the film have been beautiful, this is the one that soars. What he's doing is far from being a joyous expression of the soul, what he's doing is a release of all the depression and loss that have been trapped inside. In this moment, Llewyn is done letting the troubles of the world, including the grief he feels after losing his partner, affect him. He is lost in the song, and his voice soars. I get goosebumps every time I watch Isaac perform this scene - which includes at least a dozen viewings of the scene in the last week - because it's a beautiful picture of a man who knows life is not going to take it easy on him; a man who is expressing himself and escaping the world in the only way he can.

Llewyn's moment might be short-lived - the performer that begins to sing after he leaves the stage appears to be a young Bob Dylan, singing a similarly themed song entitled "Fare The Well" - but it's impossible to miss how much being able to perform this song meant to Llewyn as a form of release. What follows is the second half of the opening scene, including the beating in the alley, but even in that moment we see Lllewyn differently than we did the first time around.

Llewyn isn't directly confronting his feelings about the world, but he's dealing with things the way he can. The people in Llewyn's life often think he's lost, and we can understand their reactions to seeing part of his life and part of his career. But we've spent the whole week with Llewyn Davis, and we can see things more clearly than we could during his first performance. We see that he's fighting to live through whatever the world throws at him, and that it's his music that's helping him deal with all the grief and loss in his life.

In short, we see that the heart of a survivor lives inside Llewyn Davis.

(One last note - I freakin' love this cat. Isaac gives one of my favorite performances ever here. And the cat, in true cat fashion, just looks at him like "Fuck you, I'm stealing all these scenes." And he does. You go, cat.)
I obviously wanted to say a lot about Inside Llewyn Davis (if you've read this far you must be sick of it by now), and when it became time to pick a double feature partner my mood changed quite a bit. Like Llewyn choosing "The Death of Queen Jane," the first impression I'm offering for this double feature might come off as a little morbid for some people.
  • We'll start with the obvious here - music is the heart of this movie. 
  • Considering the mood I've been in, the first instinct I had was to make this double feature about grief and loss. I thought about discussing a lot of my favorite dramatic films that make me feel the same emotions that Inside Llewyn Davis does.
  • But then I stopped and thought about how I felt while writing about Inside Llewyn Davis. And that's when I started to realize that while I was already feeling down about life - I was also working myself into a deeper emotional frenzy by focusing entirely on the topic of grief and loss. And that's when I started to realize that I couldn't keep going in that direction and create a double feature that I - let alone anyone else - would really enjoy watching if I didn't shake things up a little.
Based on those simple factors, I did what the proverbs told me to do and checked myself before I wrecked myself. Well, Llewyn wrecked me a little - but it was a good wrecking. Still, it's a wrecking that needs to be medicated - and we all know what more traditional proverbs say is the best medicine.

A Mighty Wind
2003, Directed by Christopher Guest

A Mighty Wind is another film about folk music that's set in New York City in the wake of a death in the folk music world, and if that makes it sound like an ideal companion for Inside Llewyn Davis to you....you should know that that's where the similarities basically end.

The third mockumentary from star/writer/director/all-around genius Christopher Guest follows three folk music groups as they reunite for a concert to honor the promoter that brought them all to fame. If you were to consider this the same folk music universe that Llewyn lived in, it has been more than forty years since his attempts to make it big and, considering these three bands, you'd probably assume he didn't make it.  If you took the film seriously you might also probably think that's a good thing for Llewyn. But that's ok - because you really shouldn't take this film seriously.

So, I'm telling you not to think about A Mighty Wind the same way as Inside Llewyn Davis. Why, then, in the name of common sense, am I telling you to double feature this with that film? I'll allow two better men than me to describe my reasoning.

Frankenstein's monster once said:

"Life, although it may only be an accumulation of anguish, is dear to me, and I will defend it."

I think Llewyn would agree with the big green monster on this point, though I doubt he would be willing to say it. (Again, he's too proud.) Llewyn is a man who is lost, but he doesn't give up. I've already made this point, but I need to repeat it, because it's the thing that keeps his film from being a total downer. That's good. But it might not be enough.
The second wise man I'd like to consult is Rod Kimble, the eponymous hero of the 2007 classic Hot Rod. He had a similar, but slightly different, take on life:

"Life is pain...and we've got to scrape the joy out of it every chance we get."

Like Llewyn, the characters in A Mighty Wind have been down and out. All three groups reached fame and lost it, and are now only back in the spotlight for a one-night only tribute concert. The Folksmen (Guest, Michael McKean, and Harry Shearer - reuniting in a band that's not quite Spinal Tap) were best known for one catchy song - "Eat at Joe's" - about a restaurant, and haven't made much of an impact on the folk scene since. They were replaced in the folk spotlight by The Main Street Singers, now reunited as The "New" Main Street Singers, whose aggressive cheerfulness makes them feel like a musical edition of The Brady Bunch. These two bands are informal rivals - they're not bitter against each other, they just don't exist on the same wavelength - and the difference between them is one of the film's most subtle jokes until it comes to a head during the concert.

The third group we meet is a duo, Mitch and Mickey (Eugene Levy and Catherine O'Hara), whose hit single "There's a Kiss at the End of the Rainbow" took over the music world as a symbol of true love. It's a sincerely great song (it even earned an Oscar nomination for Best Original Song that year), but unfortunately the performers had a severe falling out in the years that followed their success. Now, back together for one night, we get the treat of O'Hara's Mickey trying to pretend everything's fine while Levy presents Mitch as a man who's been through consistent emotional turmoil since the break up.  His performance is one of my favorite in comedy cinema, and the story arc that follows Mitch and Mickey is what pushes A Mighty Wind over the top as my favorite of Guest's comedies. (To be fair, it's a close race. Tomorrow I might say Waiting for Guffman is my favorite. The man is too good at what he does.)

Mickey is the closest comparison to Llewyn Davis that we find in this film, because he too is completely defeated by the world and seems to have lost connection with everyone around him. But again - that's where the comparisons stop. Because A Mighty Wind is not a film about the anguish of life, A Mighty Wind is a film that provides the joy we need to scrape out of life. It's a comedic tale about a lot of people that are down on their luck, presented primarily as a whimsical comedy with a few heartfelt moments where love and humanity triumph over pain. 

I was caught up in my own grief and sadness when I started writing this double feature, and that really helped me to appreciate Inside Llewyn Davis more. I watched it three times preparing this double feature and though it's always been a favorite it became almost medicinal this month. It means the world to me, and I love the reminders about life it provides. But it's also good to remember that life can make us laugh, that life can make us happy, and that life can provide us with love. And that's what A Mighty Wind, the second tale of defeated folk musicians we're talking about today, has to offer. 
I haven't said enough about A Mighty Wind, other than that I love it dearly for its heart and it's humor, but I also feel like saying how much heart and humor it has is enough to explain why it belongs in this double feature. It's important to understand loss and sadness, but it can't be the only thing we're focused on. That's no way to get through the day. We need people that make us smile and make us feel joy too. 

Maybe this double feature won't work for you, but it's the double feature I needed this month. Spending time with Llewyn Davis and Mitch & Mickey did a lot to remind me what I need to do to face the world. It got some good tunes stuck in my head, made me think about some great performances, and - like Frankenstein's monster and Rod Kimble - reminded me that life has some good in it. Sometimes that's exactly what we need.

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Volume 11 - Rope and the Privilege of Murder

When you're having an Alfred Hitchcock Month!, as we currently are, there are certain topics you have to bring up. Women, suspense, mystery, and humor are certainly among them. But, in most situations, you can't talk about Hitchcock without talking about murder. I haven't done the math on this topic, but I think it's entirely possible that all of Alfred Hitchcock's films have some kind of murder going on, even if sometimes it's a murder of crows. (We'll get to that one of these weeks, I promise.)

While more than a handful of Hitchcock's films are built around a murder, there's one particular Hitchcock film that stands out because the entire film is devoted to a bunch of people, in one room, where a murder has just happened. It's not a mystery who did the killing, and why the murder happened is spelled out pretty neatly for us early on. If you're thinking that this doesn't seem like the formula for a Hitchcock thriller, you're right. And that's one reason why the film we're about to talk about stands out as one of the director's most interesting projects.

HOW THIS WORKS
Step 1) I pick a movie.
Step 2) I tell you about the movie.
Step 3) I tell you what we're looking for in a double feature movie.
Step 4) Another movie!
Step 5) Victory!

Rope
1948, Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

If Hitchcock's films were a line of toys, Rope is one of the ones that would have been sent to the island of misfit toys. It has a lot of the things we often expect from his films - murder, intrigue, a marvelous James Stewart performance - but it's certainly his most contained film. I don't mean that in regard to its themes, I mean that the action is literally contained in one room. Even Rear Window spends more time outside than this one does, and that's the movie where Mr. Stewart is confined to a wheelchair.

Rope opens in a dark New York City apartment with the murder of David Kentley, strangled to death with a length of rope by two of his college classmates, Brandon and Phillip. The two killers aren't the type of characters you'd expect to find as the killers in an Alfred Hitchcock film, they're simply two Harvard educated guys who thought murder could be an art. They're also obviously gay lovers, though the film never mentions this, which is one more reason Rope felt like such an outlier when it was released in 1948. Several theaters banned the film, not because of the murder, but because of the implied homosexuality.

Brandon and Phillip become the focal point of the film from the first frame, and they're two of Hitchcock's most vibrant characters, but for very different reasons. Brandon, played by John Dall, is smug and confident, laughing off the murder because it was so perfect.
"Nobody commits a murder just for the experiment of committing it. Nobody except us."

Brandon's glee is countered by Phillip, played by Farley Granger, who immediately regrets the couple's decision and begins to assume the worst. Phillip has a good reason to be concerned, because the second part of their plan involves hosting a dinner that night, in the apartment, with David's body resting as peacefully as possible in the chest from which dinner will be served. The guests for this dinner party include David's parents, David's girlfriend, another classmate, and Rupert Cadell (Stewart), the headmaster from school who gave Brandon the idea that murder could be justified in the right situation.

If this one-setting dinner party sounds like a stage play, that's because it originally was. And Hitchcock, eager to experiment while making his first color film, worked meticulously to frame the film as a play. Running at almost real time - there's a little bit of speeding up time during the evening to keep the film at a crisp 80 minutes - Hitchcock managed to shoot the film in a series of 4-10 minute takes, concealing the cuts as well as possible to make it appear that the camera never stops rolling inside the apartment.

Much like the camera, the conversation at the dinner party never seems to stop either. Brandon and Phillip allow their guests some time to talk about simple things, like books and movies - including a humorous sequence where Stewart attempts to talk about movie stars like James Mason and Cary Grant with the two female guests - but eventually the topic of murder finds its way into the conversation.
It's at this moment that Stewart gets to shine as only he can, preaching the idea that murder should be used for personal gain by certain enlightened individuals as the other guests in the room wonder if they should laugh at his idea or fear him. Brandon, still riding the high of finally testing this theory, leaps at the opportunity to guide the discussion, and his back and forth with Rupert leads the conversation to a rather abrupt end when David's father - who still expects his son to show up at this party - becomes shocked by the implications of it.


"Who is to decide if a human being is inferior, and therefore a suitable victim for murder?"

Brandon backs away from saying too much at this point, but he continues to push the envelope as the night goes on, particularly when he brings the rope that was used as a murder weapon back into the film. The viewer knows that he's taunting the guests and especially focused on Rupert, who he obviously respects and may even have feelings for (the original play implies that Rupert also had homosexual relations with one of the killers, but this is muted in the film). Brandon is kind of an ancestor to those overly talkative villains we're used to seeing in super hero and James Bond films, seemingly wanting not only to get away with a crime but have his crime understood by the people who could stop him. Dall shines as he does this, and Hitchcock's choice to pair him and Stewart against Granger's crescendo into drunken anger throughout the evening creates a intriguing game of cat and mouse as we watch to see if Brandon and Phillip's perfect plan will go off as they intended.
It's sad that the controversy that was most notable about the film upon release was its homosexual overtones, because the philosophical debate about murder and where it can rank on the scale of right and wrong is really the most interesting thing about Rope. There aren't a lot of films - especially films from the 1940s - that are willing to sit on the screen and debate whether or not murder is a good idea or not. It wasn't a comfortable topic then - Stewart even said after the fact that he wished he hadn't made the film - but today it still feels like one of the most fresh topics in any Hitchcock film. The script handles the debate expertly - even though it clearly guides us to understand the wrong in Brandon and Phillip's action - and Stewart's work in the final sequence is among the best he ever did. If you know anything about James Stewart (I think he's the greatest actor that's ever lived, but that's a debate for another day), that's a big accomplishment.

The problem with Rope - that's a very good problem to have - is that it's that misfit in both Hitchcock's filmography and in cinematic history. There are not enough films like this; films that are willing to challenge the viewer to think differently about macabre topics. Which made finding a double feature partner for Rope one of the more difficult decisions I've made since I started the Double Feature Picture Show. Here are a few of the things I considered:
  • Murder is the centerpiece of Rope, and murder needs to be a topic of debate in the film we're pairing it with. But we don't want a movie that's just about murder for the sake of murder, we need something that focuses on not just why the murder is happening but why the murder matters in the film's world.
  • As I've already said, Rope makes it pretty clear that we shouldn't sympathize with its killers, even though poor Phillip really does seem like he knows from minute one that he's made a huge mistake. Despite that, Rope still tries to keep us thinking about whether or not the murder could be justified. That's a theme that not a lot of movies are willing to attempt, so I want something that follows that lead.
  • I thought long and hard about the real time(ish) and one-setting aspects of Rope, but they don't really work with a lot of films. I love the technical gimmicks at the center of Rope, but I'm willing to abandon them in favor of a film that manages to convey some of the same themes.
  • The idea of murder as an "art" that only the gifted should be able to perform is a common theme in a lot of movies - especially when it comes to serial killers and sociopaths - but it's the romantic attachment to that art that Brandon shows throughout Rope that really sells this film's approach toward justified murder.
And it's that last point, where I started thinking about characters in film who murdered because they believed they had the right to do so, that led me to a film that's very different than Rope, but very committed to the same idea that some murders...well, they just have to happen.

Frailty
2001, Directed by Bill Paxton

Rope took us into the minds of two murderers, one giddy about the opportunity he has been given and one repentful. Frailty, the 2001 directorial debut by legendary character actor Bill Paxton, also gives us multiple murderers who have varying levels of commitment to the actions they are a part of. Like Rope, the motivation for these actions is clearly vocalized by one character, but the reasons for killing, the amount of killing, and the actions of the killer are all handled very differently in this religion-based horror feature.

Matthew McConaughey - in that awkward phase between his early career success and his rise to Oscar status in the 2010s - stars alongside Paxton, playing the adult version of Fenton Meiks, a man who walks into an FBI office late one night to tell an FBI agent (Powers Boothe, an acceptable substitute for the late James Stewart) the story of how his father and recently-deceased brother lived as "The God's Hand Killer" in a rural part of Texas. 

As a cold and beaten down Fenton relays his tale to the agent, we spend most of the film in flashbacks to his childhood, where Fenton and his brother Adam watch their father (Paxton) change from a simple life as a mechanic to a motivated serial killer who wants his boys to help with a series of murders. Why on earth does this man decide he needs to kill a list of people who he's never met? 

Because he was chosen by God to dispose of people who aren't people. They're demons.
Dad (his name is never spoken by his children, so that's all we have to go with) spends a lot of the movie explaining what is going on to his sons, and most of the film' s drama comes as young Fenton (Matt O'Leary) struggles with the fact that his father and younger brother (Jeremy Sumpter) believe that they are serving God by murdering people they've never met before. The two child actors do a fine job and carry most of the film, while Paxton manages to make Dad a brutal man who is surprisingly tender and straightforward with his sons.

Things start to get weird as Frailty goes on, because some of Dad's predictions are incredibly accurate. Adult Fenton explains this away to the FBI agent by saying "Sometimes, the truth defies reason," and that's about the best explanation we can get for why the father and sons seem to be able to carry out kidnappings and murders with little to no resistance. Dad and the young Adam are convinced that God is protecting the family and sending them everything they need to complete their crimes - including a now iconic axe with the name Otis carved into it - and one of the coolest things about Frailty is how it manages to sell this concept to the viewer.
Rope was a film about two killers with very little room for error, but Frailty flips that concept on its edge as everything just seems to go right for these killers. It's ridiculous to think that what this father is telling his sons is true, but Paxton and screenwriter Brent Hanley (who has, shockingly, never written another feature) do a wonderful job of keeping us guessing as the film goes on. I might have said too much about the plot already - seeing this with no knowledge of what it was about back when it played in theaters is still one of the great shockers of my cinematic life - but even if you haven't seen it and you're starting to make guesses about the film as I write this, I'm willing to bet you'll probably be wrong.

Frailty and Rope are both movies that are best experienced by open minded viewers who know little about them and are ready to get philosophical. This means that I've possibly made viewing them less enjoyable by talking as much as I have so far - way to go, Michael - but I'm pretty excited by just how unique this pair of films are together. One film is about murder that's justified by intellect or class, and the other is about murder that's justified by dedication and belief. You could even re-title them as Liberal Murder Story and Conservative Murder Story, as these are obviously killers on two different ends of the spectrum in American society.

In Rope, Brandon explains away his indifference toward his action by saying "Good and evil, right and wrong were invented for the ordinary, average man - the inferior man - because he needs them." He might as well have been talking directly about Dad from Frailty, because there's no reason this man kills anyone without his belief in good and evil. This isn't a shock - religion has probably been the cause of more deaths than anything else - but it does perfectly explain the difference between why he's killing and why Dad is killing.
While introducing an episode of his own show, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, The Master of Suspense once quipped "I think everyone enjoys a nice murder...provided he is not the victim." That's a nice way of reminding us that murder is going to happen and if you're on the receiving end it doesn't matter if a killer is Harvard educated or an auto mechanic. Both of these films spend very little time humanizing their victims - but we're not here to enjoy their work anyway. These are two films about getting away with murder and why murder can happen for reasons you might not expect. Hitchcock made enough money selling murder that he could confidently remind us that murder is a completely nonpartisan affair, and I think he'd appreciate the opposing approaches to killing that exist in these two films.

So, if you're ever feeling particularly morbid and want to sit down and see some people from different walks of life commit murders for some unique reasons, this might just be the double feature for you. I hope you don't get too morbid and too inspired by them, but if you do - just know that I also wouldn't enjoy being the victim.

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Volume 6 - Marty and the Struggle to Believe in True Love

Last week we talked about having faith in aliens or God or the devil, so this week we're gonna talk about another topic some people don't believe in: true love. There are some people who found true love, and I'm so proud of them for it, but there are also a lot of people who are struggling with it. And I get it.  I understand how easy it's to give up on the existence of true love - If Chris Pratt and Anna Faris can't make it work forever then how the hell can anyone else? - and I understand more than most how difficult it is to keep the faith in love. But I don't care. Tonight, we're gonna try to believe in it.

The thing that nobody tells you about love when you're growing up is that if you don't end up finding it, you also don't end up learning how to do it. I guess you learn things from people like Cary Grant or John Cusack in the movies, but sometimes those people don't give the best advice for the real world. Especially if you're not as good looking as Cary Grant or as tenaciously romantic as John Cusack or if you just have any of the other problems that us humans are susceptible to. If you're like me, you might run into these problems, stumble through a few attempts, get dispirited, and then just build your own little world and miss the opportunities that are right in front of your face because you're too scared to do it again.

Building your own little world works for some people, so why would they continue to believe in true love when failure is so damaging? I'm not sure, but I think there are reasons to believe. Thankfully for those who don't want to hear much more about my failures - that last paragraph got a bit too personal, Michael - there are a couple of movies I was thinking about this week that help me remember that there's still a chance for people to find love, even if they never learned how. They just gotta believe.

This one goes out to the lonely lovers out there, wherever you are...

HOW THIS WORKS
Step 1) I pick a movie.
Step 2) I tell you about the movie.
Step 3) I tell you what we're looking for in a double feature movie.
Step 4) Another movie!
Step 5) Victory!

Marty
1955, Directed by Delbert Mann

When it comes to down on their luck folks looking for love, it's possible that no one on film has ever ended up luckier than Marty. A brisk 90 minute romance starring Ernest Borgnine doesn't sound like the kind of film that would win best picture at the Academy Awards, especially in the middle of the 1950s. Yet, in a year where Nicholas Ray and Alfred Hitchcock and Douglas Sirk and Billy Wilder were making films, it won not only Best Picture but also Best Actor, Best Director (Delbert Mann, remaking his own TV play as his feature debut), and Best Screenplay (Paddy Chayefsky). 

Why on Earth would audiences and critics flock to this little movie? Because they believe in true love, and that's what Marty is selling.

Borgnine stars as Marty Piletti, a 34 year old self-described "kind of a stocky guy" working in a New York City butcher shop and living with his mother. He's the only one of his siblings that isn't married yet. We know this right away, because every character Marty meets at the butcher's counter wants to know when he's getting married.

Marty is not immune to this. Marty wants to get married too. But he also feels like he's been passed over forever, and he's had enough of it. When his mother starts asking about why he's not going out looking for a girl on a Saturday night, Marty lets out a fantastic tirade.

"Sooner or later, there comes a point in a man's life when he gotta face some facts, and one fact I gotta face is that whatever it is that women like, I ain't got it. I chased enough girls in my life. I went to enough dances. I got hurt enough. I don't wanna get hurt no more. I just called a girl just now, and I got a real brush-off, boy. I figured I was past the point of being hurt, but that hurt. Some stupid woman who I didn't even wanna call up. She gave me the brush. I don't wanna go to the Stardust Ballroom because all that ever happened to me there was girls made me feel like I was a bug. I got feelings, you know. I had enough pain. No, thank you."

Marty then goes to the Stardust Ballroom. No one makes him go, he goes on his own accord. Why? Because he's a believer.
Waiting for him at that ballroom is a young woman named Clara. He doesn't know it, and neither does she. She shows up to the ballroom having been set up on a double date with the kind of guy who makes people like Marty and I think that most men should be shot out of a cannon into the ocean. This guy apparently only has one Saturday off every three weeks, and he expected his friend to set him up with something "better." In fact, he offers Marty five dollars to help him walk out on Clara. Marty, because he's amazing, is upset and rebukes this offer. The other guy, who doesn't deserve to even have a name, doesn't care and walks out on Clara anyway.

There's no specific explanation given for why Marty ends up consoling Clara and asking her to dance, and that's one of the more beautiful things about the film. We already know that Marty is guided by his heart, we don't need him to explain it. We knew the intentions of the other guy (who I hope is slowly roasting over a flame somewhere) and we know Marty's mindset, so we aren't surprised at all when he takes the chance to do what's right.

What follows is, in the simplest terms, adorable. Marty starts to smile as they dance. He asks her to go get something to eat. As they walk, he talks. He talks a lot. He talks way too much. He talks about his whole life. He realizes he's talking too much, shouting "I can't stop talking! Isn't this stupid!?" and before Clara can get a word in he adds "You got a real nice face, you know? It's a real nice face." Marty's gone. There's no going back for him. He's fallen for Clara hard.
For the rest of the night, it's a whole new world for both of them. Clara is clearly enamored with Marty, who suddenly seems so alive and vibrant. She smiles from ear to ear as he tells stories about his time in the war and consoles him as he tells of some of the worst times in his life. He lets her talk about her life and clearly is attracted to her, and it seems like things are going to be just right for both of them immediately. But things don't stay perfect all the time, as both share their doubts and fears. The most frightening moment is when the night almost ends because Marty asks for a kiss and Clara isn't quite ready yet. Marty lashes out angrily, and while he's not right to do so, it's easy to see why he does.

After years and years of looking for an answer, he's got one in front of him. The mistake Marty makes is looking for an immediate magic answer, because he's been told so many times and felt inside himself so many times that he can't miss any more opportunities. This is one of the cardinal mistakes that lonely people make, and Clara is totally justified in her response to him. I'm thankful that Chayefsky and Mann are better at handling what comes next as filmmakers than I am, because we got real close to this being one of those missed chances for them. 
Marty, the film, only rides the roller coaster of new love for a couple of days in the life of Marty and Clara, but it sure does a wonderful job of hitting all the ups and downs on that ride. For someone like me, who's only visited the outskirts of true love, that's a lot of fun to see. It leaves me with hope. Now I gotta find another hopeful film to go with it. Here's what I'm looking for
  • Marty works partially because Borgnine doesn't look like a romantic Hollywood leading man. Borgnine was 38 years old and had a reputation for playing "heavies" during his short time in Hollywood before this film. We want another film with a lead who we wouldn't necessarily expect to be the star of a Hollywood romance.
  • There are a lot of obstacles that Marty faces, and one that sticks out to me is how he's a guy working an average job in a big city. The big city aspect really helps sell the drama of his quest for love to a small town guy like me, because he's facing a lot of competition and the window of opportunity for finding love seems that much smaller.
  • Because of these obstacles, Marty feels like his time is running out. We need another movie where our fool in love is facing that kind of pressure.
  • Like the guy in the opening, Marty doesn't really know what he's doing. He doesn't have the experience, and the advice he's been getting isn't always the best. So when he does get the chance to make an expression, he stumbles over his words and almost pushes things too far in desperation. Maybe I'm just rooting for the home team - aka, ME - here, but I want another film where things get a little awkward and mistakes are overcome.
It took more than 50 years of cinema for me to find a movie that meshes so well with these things about Marty, and the result isn't perfect. Then again, neither is the path to true love.

Stranger Than Fiction
2006, Directed by Marc Forster

Marty Pilleti is a man who assumes his time to find true love is running out. Harold Crick, the character at the center of Stranger Than Fiction, played by 38 year old comedian Will Ferrell, is literally told that his time is running out. It's literal because the person who tells him this is an author (Emma Thompson) who's narrating inside his head. I'm not being one of those teenagers who doesn't know what the word literal means, I promise.

Like Marty, Harold is a creature of habit. An IRS agent who lives alone in Chicago, Harold is obsessed with numbers and time. That makes it incredibly jarring when he starts to hear the voice of a narrator in his head on what would otherwise be an ordinary Wednesday, and provides a lot of confusion for Harold. Then, one day while he's winding his watch, the narrator says something -

"Little did he know that this simple, seemingly innocuous event, would result in his imminent death."

- that obviously isn't what anyone wants to hear from a narrator inside their head.

The narrator has been right so far, so Harold does a bunch of things that a lot of us would do at the thought of death. He lashes out. He visits a doctor. He starts to learn to play guitar. He obviously starts to struggle to keep up with his day to day life. That's not necessarily a bad thing, because he's also suddenly not afraid to live his life. He stops counting his steps and meticulously tying his tie the same way. He starts to consider what's really important.
Harold ends up at the office of a literature professor (Dustin Hoffman, who has a lot of fun talking about golems and other literary beings) who tries to help him make sense out his narrator. Along the way Hoffman's character insists that Harold could do anything he wants with the life he has left, offering "You could just eat nothing but pancakes if you wanted" as an example. But Harold doesn't want that. He wants to live. 

He also wants to love.

Harold's chance comes in the form of a bakery owner he's auditing, a rebellious young woman named Ana (Maggie Gyllenhaal). She obviously doesn't like him from the start, which sets up more of a traditional movie romance than Marty's. But that makes sense, because Harold is trapped in a fictional work and trying to figure out who his third person omniscient narrator is and what kind of story his story is. 
Harold isn't as outgoing as Marty when he starts to become interested in Ana. He shows a quick wit and a willingness to banter with her, but he's still defined by the rules and routines of his life. After a long day of work he has to be forced to sit down and eat a cookie she baked, and he thanks her for this before realizing he can't take a gift from someone he's auditing. Only after an argument does he make the connection that she was trying to do something nice for him, and that he blew it. He makes it more awkward by vocalizing these realizations to her, but he also shows how badly he's upset by his own mistake.

Harold doesn't know what he's doing, but he's motivated. As we learn more about the relationship between Harold and his narrator his romantic life loses the spotlight to his actual life, but without the things he learns from his interactions with Ana we wouldn't have such a fulfilling journey with him. Harold wants whatever life he has left to be a complete one, so when he starts playing guitar for Ana and singing (singing with his eyes closed, which is the true sign of a romantic in love) Wreckless Eric's 'Whole Wide World' - which should definitely be the theme song of this double feature - we know that he's become a true believer.

The imperfections present in Marty Piletti and Harold Crick, two men in search of love who aren't above fits of lust and ogling and stumbling over their words, are obvious. It's the size of their hearts and their willingness to fight for true love in spite of these mistakes that really makes this double feature work for me. Neither film ends with anything certain in these relationships, but both leave us believing there's a chance that these characters have found their way.

There are people out there like Marty and Harold, who feel like they've had enough pain or who hide their pain by paying more attention to the minute details of their life. I can say this definitively because I'm one of them. Believing true love is out there hurts sometimes, and a couple of borderline fantasy films about middle aged guys who stumble into love might not be enough to make some of those lonely folks forget how much it hurts to try and find love and how crippling failure can be the next time you feel something about someone. It takes a lot more work for a real person to find love than it does for these guys in the movies - that's just one of the sad truths of life, folks - but if the movies can at least provide a little hope that keeps your belief alive, that's something.

If you're out there and you're tired and hurt and ready to give up on love - check out a double feature like this one. Marty and Harold's stories work for me, but you can probably find your own inspiration among the movies you love. Luckily for you, there are plenty of romantic stories out there.

The only way you're ever going to find love is if you believe in it first. I hope the movies can help you keep that belief alive.

Thursday, July 27, 2017

Volume 4 - Night of the Living Dead and the Legacy of George A. Romero

It's been just under two weeks since horror fans around the world lost one of our heroes, George A. Romero. Like many I know, I was hit incredibly hard by this news. The creator of the modern zombie, Romero seemed truly larger than life, and that creature's pop culture stamina made it seem like George would just always be there for us.

The other reason losing George Romero hit me so hard is that, despite his place as one of the pioneers of the genre, he seemed like he was one of us. A true independent filmmaker, Romero made raw, unique, and personal films that felt like they were specifically formed for horror fans. It's like that line Dan Aykroyd repeats in Tommy Boy - "I make car parts for the American working man, because that's what I am, and that's who I care about." - only Romero made horror films and I truly believed that he'd mean it if he said that about his films.

It took me a while to get over the news that Romero had passed. I cried that afternoon, but I also couldn't help but feeling grateful that I had the chance to learn about the horror genre from this man, grateful to be a little blip in the horror loving world at the same time he was out there representing all of us and making us proud. And, for me, everything I loved and will always love about George Romero begins with his debut feature, which changed the genre forever.

HOW THIS WORKS
Step 1) I pick a movie.
Step 2) I tell you about the movie.
Step 3) I tell you what we're looking for in a double feature movie.
Step 4) Another movie!
Step 5) Victory!

Night of the Living Dead
1968, Directed by George A. Romero

Night of the Living Dead and I have a history that makes me laugh when I think about it today. I was into "scary" stories and movies from the time I was a toddler, and my parents were very receptive to me seeing films from the horror genre at a young age. But there was one movie on our VHS shelf that I was told was absolutely off limits: Night of the Living Dead. 

I was a surprisingly compliant child, so I settled for The Blob and The Phantom of the Opera and The Creature from the Black Lagoon and enjoyed myself. As I got in to my early teens I was allowed to watch things like Fright Night or A Nightmare on Elm Street sequels. But I still didn't watch Night of the Living Dead until I was probably 15 or 16 years old. You might think it ridiculous, but on the bright afternoon when I plugged the tape into our basement's VCR I understood why my parents didn't let me see this movie. 

I grew up in a farmhouse in a secluded area outside a blue-collar town, not unlike the one where most of the events of Night of the Living Dead take place. When I saw Night of the Living Dead it did something that most of those other horror films I had already seen couldn't do: it felt like something that could happen in my world. The people were real, the setting was real, even the graveyard was real. I didn't know to think about it at the time, but later I realized that this was the first true independent horror film I'd ever seen. Even though it wasn't trying to make me jump and it wasn't as violent or in-your-face as many of the newer horror films I'd seen, it got under my skin and made me feel a true sense of dread. 

I left my first viewing of the film knowing two things: 

1) I wasn't safe anywhere.
2) I needed to see more movies by this director. 

Fast forward 20 or so years, and I'm watching it again. It's been one week since I found out George Romero died, and I've got a DVD commentary featuring Romero - along with actors/crewmates Karl Hardman, Marilyn Eastman, and Russell Streiner - playing over the movie. And even though I've seen the film dozens of times and read countless tales of the production and even listened to this same commentary before, I'm floored. 

Listening to Romero and his friends talk about the work they did on this film 30 plus years ago is a reminder of everything I love about the film, but also a wake up call about just how much went right and wrong during production. This team had to be amazing to put it all together. Romero tells stories about accidents on set and talks about the mistakes they made and the apologies they had to give. He shares so many stories about the people who helped make the film happen and the process of writing the film, down to talking about how the personalities of the people on set influenced the film's message. I'm hearing all this, and I'm wishing I was as committed to anything as this man was to getting this film made. The conversation pulls back the curtain on just how difficult it is to make even the smallest movie, and yet Romero just has this quiet confidence as he relays stories of how he and his crew - Romero never takes sole credit for anything in the discussion, which is adorable - never backed down and put it all together. He never mentions the fact that he ended up making a no-budget horror film that basically defines the genre, and he doesn't need to because his hard work and the hard work of his crew bleeds off the screen. 

As I listened to that conversation, I felt the same kind of awe that I felt the first time I saw Night of the Living Dead. Then I started to think about how Romero came back and did the same thing over and over again, for more than 40 years, and along that road managed to create so many other films that horror fans like me can look at with the same sense of wonder. It makes me want to live my life with the same drive and passion that George Romero had, because I know if I do that I will die a happy man.
This hasn't been much of a commentary on the film itself, partially because ever since that afternoon in the '90s it has been impossible for me to imagine the world without Night of the Living Dead. If you haven't seen it, my best advice is to open your mind, let it wash over you, and think about how much love the people who were making it had to have for their little film. If you can do that and it doesn't end up infecting your heart and mind, you might be a zombie already.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Normally this is the point where I talk about what I'm looking for in a double feature, but another great thing about Romero and Night of the Living Dead is that they mean something special and unique to so many people in the horror community. So when I decided I was going to pay tribute to the man by featuring it in a double feature, I wanted to know what other people were thinking. I asked my Twitter followers what kind of double feature they would pick, and the responses did not let me down.














First off, you all are wonderful. I love everything about that list, from The Blob to Caddyshack 2. We've got independent horror films from the same era, modern studio hits, concert films, more of Romero's classics, and more. You could teach a course on film based around people's double feature picks to go with Night of the Living Dead if you wanted to, and these are the people you need to have help with the lesson plans if you do.

This leaves me with a lot to live up to. I'm not gonna promise you'll love my choice - it's one of the more divisive horror films in recent memory - but if you don't the good news is that these fine folks have your back too.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the things I was looking for when I made my pick.

  • The thing that struck me first about Night of the Living Dead was how the secluded setting. It's a movie that takes place in a very small area, but you can feel that this is not a secluded incident, and that this event is a lot bigger than what we see. It takes a lot of work to make one set seem like the center of the end of humanity, but Romero did it so well that he laid the foundation for other filmmakers to bring the same tone to their films.
  • Night of the Living Dead is a movie with few real characters, and it does a lot of its best work by building tension between them. But it also has a couple of characters - namely the melodramatic young couple, Tom and Judy - who just seem to be trapped in the middle of everything and who are trying to go on with their life. There's something about their relationship, as cheesy as it is, that has always been a neat romantic centerpiece to the zombie apocalypse for me. I wanted to find a movie that amplifies that feeling
  • I keep saying that Night of the Living Dead influenced other films, but also it provided a structure that other filmmakers can use as a jumping off point. I wanted to pair Night with another film in the same vein, but I wanted to pick something with a different mindset. There are plenty of films that imitated Night of the Living Dead, I'm looking for something that brings its own mystery to the framework Romero provided. 
  • I wanted a zombie film. It's an easy condition, but Romero is responsible for all the zombies we've seen since. It only seems right to bring a version of them back for this one.
After considering all of that, I settled down with one of my favorite horror films of the past decade...

Pontypool
2008, Directed by Bruce McDonald

Among the many thrills of Night of the Living Dead are the scenes where we see news reporters on TV trying to explain what the heck is going on and why the dead seem to be coming back to life. We never get a real answer from them, and perhaps the most relevant piece of information that comes from the TV set in the besieged house is when Sherrif Kosana utters an exasperated and now famous response to a reporter's question. 

"Yeah, they're dead. They're all messed up."

Romero knew this was one of the great mysteries of his film, and that's probably why he chose to start Dawn of the Dead, his first sequel to Night, inside a news room that had been trying to make sense out of the living dead. We never get an answer from those reporters either, but I always wonder what it would have looked like if the people sharing the news had a direct line to the outbreak. What would the zombie apocalypse have sounded like if it was broadcast live?

That's the question that Pontypool aims to answer.

Pontypool follows a morning in the life of Grant Mazzy, a displaced shock radio DJ doing the morning radio show in a small Canadian town that shares its name with the movie. He's played by veteran character actor Stephen McHattie, who gives one of the best lead performances in horror here. Mazzy gets a report of mob brutality from a correspondent and he's forced to try to decipher what's going on while staying on-air as the reports of brutality become more and more bizarre. McHattie, working with a chip on his shoulder and a wild-eyed energy, seems to be having the time of his life bringing this character to the screen, and the enthusiasm he shows reminds me a little bit of the confident tone Romero had while making his film. There are a lot of questions about the film as a whole, but the man at the center of it is certainly doing everything he can to outwork all of them.
Pontypool does not leave the explanation of the outbreak to our imagination, and that is either one of its strengths or weaknesses depending on your interpretation of the film. I'm not sure I'm smart enough to get it - and I've seen the film 3 or 4 times - but I really appreciate how these filmmakers created their own take on how a zombie outbreak could occur. It's unique as hell, and I've been told by wiser people that it makes sense. I'm comfortable taking their word for it, because even without understanding everything about it I find myself grinning and bracing for surprises every time I see it.

This film has its mind in a much different place than that of Night of the Living Dead did, but the bones of the film are the same. It's a flipped perspective - one film has people at the center of the outbreak looking outward for answers, the other has the person who's supposed to have the answers getting information directly from the outbreak - but the sense of dread is still there, and it still feels like the world is ending everywhere around this small town.
And that's what's so amazing about George Romero and Night of the Living Dead. This is a film with an entirely different idea than Night of the Living Dead, but there's no way it exists if Romero hadn't pushed through all the challenges to get that little film into theaters back in 1968. There's no way many of the films the fine people of Twitter picked happen without it, either. Night of the Living Dead changed our perception of what horror could be, and opened up the door for films like Pontypool to come into existence. The work he did on Night of the Living Dead made the work director Bruce McDonald, McHattie, and everyone else who made Pontypool easier, because the kind of film they wanted to make didn't exist before Night of the Living Dead.

George Romero just wanted to make one movie when he made Night of the Living Dead happen. But people like Romero, who do what they love and fight through any of the challenges that try to stop them, are the kind of people that end up changing the world. That's one more reason it hurts so much to write these words and think about what the horror universe lost last week. Romero's passion was so great that it became larger than any film he made. He had an impact on every horror fan out there. 

There's no right or wrong way to pay tribute to someone, but this is the way I wanted to look back this week. Try it out if you're a fan of Night of the Living Dead, or find your own way to pay tribute if you miss him too. I never met George, but I know the two words he wrote next to most of the autographs he gave are what he would want us to do to honor him.

"Stay scared."