hit counter html code

A Cricpmist Story

My son Sam (6) has a gesture that’s difficult to describe. It’s a head-shake, a guffaw and an eye-roll that indicate “okay Dad, whatever you say.” He uses it when I’ve spoken something that sounds completely outlandish to him, but he can’t figure out why I’ve told him such a fish story. For the sake of moving forward, I’m going to call this gesture The Sheesh.

For instance, this gem from the other day:

DAD: Today is the Winter Solstice, it’s the shortest day of the year, and the longest night. Did you notice how early the sun went down today? It’s because it’s the Winter Solstice. Today the sun went down earlier than yesterday, by just a couple of minutes, and tomorrow it will go down a little later, by just a couple of minutes. And those minutes will build up and up until we get to the Summer Solstice, which is the day that has the most daytime and the least night-time.

SAM: Is there a Spring Solstice?

DAD: No, but there’s a Vernal Equinox and an Autumn Equinox, and those are the two days in the year when the daytime and the nighttime are exactly the same length.

SAM: (The Sheesh)

_____

(Sam brings home a document he’s written at school. Dad reads it. It contains the word “CRICPMIST.”)

DAD: What’s this word?

SAM: Christmas!

DAD: Ah. And the second “c,” that’s like a French “c,” I get it.

SAM: Right, and there’s a “p” in it. Like a “crisp mist.”

DAD: Right. Right. I like it. Like a crisp mist, that’s great.

SAM: Isn’t that how you spell it?

DAD: Er, well let’s work through this for a second. (pause) Has anyone ever told you about the story of Jesus?

(Sam looks confused)

DAD: Okay, that’s fine. Here’s the deal: about 2000 years ago, this baby was born, named Jesus. And the idea was that this Jesus kid was the Only Son of God. And this Only Son of God thing, people called it “The Christ.”

(Dad writes down the word “Christ” on the back of an envelope)

DAD: And later, churches, you know when people go to church and they pray and sing songs and stuff, that’s called a “mass.”

(Dad writes down the word “mass” next to the word “Christ.”)

DAD: So people who thought that this Jesus kid was the Only Son of God, they would have a special celebration on this day called “Christ Mass,” and eventually that just got shortened to “Christmas.”  I’ll tell you though, I would feel a whole heck of a lot better celebrating a crisp mist than I would celebrating the birth of the Only Son of God.  That sounds like my idea of a real holiday.

SAM: So, seriously, what does God look like?

DAD: What does God look like? Well dude, I’ve heard a lot of different ideas about what God looks like, and I honestly haven’t heard any better ideas than “God looks like Mace Windu.”

SAM: Yeah, but really, what does he really look like.

DAD: Well dude, nobody knows what God looks like. The important thing you have to know is that no matter what anybody says, nobody anywhere has any idea what God looks like. If someone says they know, they’re lying to you. Now then, since the idea is that God created the entire universe, one could say that God looks like everything, and maybe looks like nothing.

SAM: But what does that mean “God looks like everything?” You mean God looks like a plug, and a pen, and a radiator?

DAD: That’s exactly what it means,dude, it means that God looks like a plug and a pen and a radiator. But don’t forget, you’re leaving out a lot of stuff, like trees and the sky and the ocean and fish and stuff. In fact, there’s a story in the Bible where God shows himself to a guy, and you know what he looks like?

SAM: What.

DAD: A bush.

SAM: (laughing out loud) “A bush!”

DAD: It’s true!

SAM: So, like, I could tell a story about God talking to me and God could look like a lamp.

DAD: You could absolutely tell a story about God talking to you and God could look like a lamp.

SAM: (does The Sheesh.)

_____

In any case, Merry Cricpmist from What Does The Protagonist Want.


hit counter html code


Coen Bros: The Man Who Wasn’t There

UPDATE: You know, I almost forgot — The Man Who Wasn’t There was shot on color stock which was then desaturated to achieve some of the most lustrous black-and-white photography in cinema history.  However, because of the demands of the marketplace, in some markets the movie was released in color.  For those who wonder what The Man Who Wasn’t There looks like in color, the answer can be found here.
_____

So I’m reading the new biography of Charles Schulz. Schulz, like Bob Dylan and the Coen Bros, was from Minnesota. Like Dylan and the Coen Bros, Schulz consistently, throughout his life, downplayed the cultural significance of his work. Bob Dylan says “I’m just a song and dance man,” the Coens say “O Brother is a simple hick comedy,” and Charles Schulz, to the end of his days, rued the smallness of his ambition, bemoaning the fact that he spent fifty years doing nothing more than drawing a simple comic strip.

Just as Dylan and the Coens have, occasionally, seen fit to acknowledge that yeah, they’re pretty proud of some of their work, Schulz, when pressed, would reveal that he thought of himself as a serious artist doing better work than any of his contemporaries in his field (which, in fact, he was).

Dylan, it is well known, is obsessed with identity and masks, and the Coens have proven to be impenetrable in their interviews. Schulz, as well, said that he wore his unassuming looks as a kind of mask — he always knew he was better than anyone around him, but craved invisibility, anonymity, lest anyone take too much notice of him.

(And then there’s Prince, another Minnesota oddball, who seems to not have gotten the memo about Minnesotans being reserved and self-effacing.)

So: Minnesota, self-effacement, inner pride. Where does this combination come from? It must be something in the water of those 10,000 lakes. But there’s a little bit more. Schulz was taught, from an early age, that the worst thing a man can do is call attention to himself — not out of propriety, but out of self-preservation. He was taught by his father the “Tallest Poppy” philosophy of political rule, wherein the tallest poppies of a community get their blooms cut off by the powers that be. To borrow a WWI image, the man who sticks his head out of the trench is the man who gets his head blown off. Knowledge of this philosophy is useful in politics, notes Schulz’s biographer, but it is equally useful in barbering.

Schulz’s father, and Charlie Brown’s, as every schoolchild knows, was a barber.

Schulz haunts The Man Who Wasn’t There. The movie is set in Santa Rosa, CA, where Schulz eventually made his permanent home, and set in the late 1940s, when Schulz was developing his comic strip, and was made in 2000, right after Schulz’s death. It takes place in a context of postwar anomie and uncertainty, a mine-ridden landscape of paranoia, depression and sublimated, frustrated desire, just as Peanuts does. Schulz, like Ed Crane (the movie’s protagonist), harbors a bleak, pessimistic grudge against the bulk of humanity, one he keeps well hidden. Like Peanuts, the movie occasionally bursts the bounds of its form and becomes weird, philosophical and unapologetically poetic. It also features, of all things, a young pianist who plays Beethoven. Maybe this is all coincidence, maybe not, maybe it’s, as I say, something in the water of Minnesota, but if there were a character in The Man Who Wasn’t There who owns a beagle I would probably jump out of my skin.

If Ed Crane, “the barber,” is Charles Schulz’s father, that would make his wife’s unborn child Schulz himself, a child never given a chance to live in a world too filled with sadness to give him love. Thing is, Schulz would probably recognize that judgment as a sober assessment of his life.

(It might also make the unborn child “the man who wasn’t there,” since he was not allowed to live.)

In any case, enough of that.

THE LITTLE MAN: In this, the least-ironic of all Coen movies (until recently, that is), Ed Crane is a barber who wants to become a dry cleaner. He’s not a three-time loser after a bag of money, or a brilliant young man with a vision, or a desperate man one step ahead of the law. He’s an ordinary man with a perfectly drab ambition. Yet even this tiny little hope for a better life ends up destroying his world, ruining the lives of everyone he knows.

Why does Ed Crane want to become a dry cleaner? As in most Coen movies, it is shown that the ordinary working man is little more than a sheep whose life is spent being prepared for slaughter by the greater forces of capital. “I’m the barber,” says Ed, in a tone of voice that implies that “the barber” is synonymous with “nobody” (Freddie Riedenschneider echoes this sentiment at another point in the movie).

In the Coen world, there simply is no such thing as an honest living. Anyone with money is a fraud, a criminal or insane. Big Dave Brewster seems to be rich, but he’s not, he’s living on his wife’s money. Freddie Riedenschneider has money, but he’s a lawyer, and a fraud on top of it. And they all bow down the The Bank, the institution that patiently stands by, a pillar of the community, waiting for misfortune to strike its citizens so it can accept the assets handed over to it in times of crisis.

So Ed wants to become a dry cleaner because, in his mind, it’s a way to get his head above the rat race. The man he’s investing with, Creighton Tolliver, even assures him that he won’t have to do any work to make money off the business — the perfect American dream, having just enough capital to start a business that someone else will run, while you sit idly by, collecting money from the suckers. He wants to get his head up above the rat race, but, as we see, those who stick their heads up, the tallest poppies, get their heads blown off. That’s how harsh the worldview of The Man Who Wasn’t There is: even a barber who wishes only to become a dry-cleaner is guilty of hubris, and must be destroyed by the powers-that-be.

Where is there hope in The Man Who Wasn’t There? Ed seeks value in Art, the intangible something that seems to suggest that beauty and balance and the sublime are possible — and he is told, forcefully, to seek value elsewhere. Walter Abundas, Ed’s lawyer friend, seeks solace in the study of genealogy — he finds comfort in roots, in people long dead. And that’s about all Man offers in terms of hope. Big Dave eats and smokes and brags and embezzles, Doris drinks and smokes and reads magazines, her brother Frank doesn’t seem to have brain in his head, Freddie Riedenschneider lies and eats, and Creighton Tolliver wants only to start a business. (It turns out, against all odds, that Tolliver is not a fraud — he’s just one more guy who stuck his head up and got it shot off.)

(It’s also worth noting that classical music, which symbolizes “Art” for this movie, is also used as a force of crass capitalism, as Freddie Riedenschneider is seen preparing for his court appearance in the “Turandot Suite” of his hotel and stuffing his face at a restaurant called Da Vinci’s — so much for art supplying life with beauty and meaning.)

There is also a tender, convincing love story at the center of The Man Who Wasn’t There. Ed is married to Doris, although he can’t really think of a good reason why, and decides to exploit his marriage for capital gain. The results of his attempt are disastrous, but as the movie goes on, we see Ed, in his own quiet way, finally fall in love with his wife. There is no love scene more sweet and honestly felt in the Coen cannon than the one where Ed confesses the murder of Big Dave to Freddie Riedenschneider and the two of them trade sad, loving glances across the table, as though Doris is finally seeing Ed for the first time and liking what she sees. If Doris could speak in that scene, I think she would say something like “Ed, I never knew — if you had told me you were capable of blackmail and murder, I think I could have loved you.”

Because the one thing that Ed and Doris share is their contempt for humanity. Doris is capable of expressing hers, Ed is not. Doris can get drunk and curse out her family, or tell a pesky salesman to fuck off, or laugh in the face of a murder accusation. Ed is capable of little besides a tiny nod of his head, but his dread and hatred of people is palpable.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT: The police in The Man Who Wasn’t There are interesting. They are not thugs, brutes or clowns, as they are in other Coen movies. What they are are, to a man, self-loathing. They gripe about pulling shit detail, they get depressed about having to break bad news, they mope and drink and sigh and curse.

If the noirs of Chandler and Cain took place against the backdrop of World War II, with the detectives representing stand-ins for American soldiers, the noir of Man has a specifically postwar bent, with those same soldiers feeling guilty and ashamed of the actions they were required to take against the enemy. The Japanese theater of the war is explicitly invoked several times in Man, as well as Nagasaki. To a large extent, the euphoria of America’s victory in WWII gave way quickly to a sense of guilt and dishonor, since we knew that, on some level, we had cheated to win and, in the process, had ushered into the world a horror a thousand times worse than a sneak attack on a military base in Hawaii.

(Strangely, Barton Fink takes place at the time of Pearl Harbor, in Los Angeles no less, but alludes only to the Germans and Italians — conversely, Man talks only about the war against Japan and does not mention Germany or Italy at all [unless you count the Italians Doris is related to].)

(And, for the record, Charles Schulz fought in WWII, but in Europe, not the Pacific.)

The anxiety the US felt about the atom age became expressed in tales of UFO sightings, a fact Man expresses with great comic skill and no small amount of poetry. In a way, you could say that Man is about 1949 — it’s almost as though the Coens decided on a date, then looked at an almanac of “things prevalent in 1949,” then wrote a plot based on that list. Postwar anxiety — check, dry-cleaning — check, UFO fever — check, the rise of men’s magazines — check, the postwar boom in classical music — check.

HAIR: Ed worries a lot about hair. What is it, where does it come from, why does it grow, how does it relate to the possibility of a soul? In a brilliant move of philosophical jiu-jitsu, Ed reasons that, if hair keeps growing after the body dies, “the soul” is the thing that keeps it growing, and when the soul dies, then the hair stops. Otherwise, why would it keep growing? Of course, he answers his own question, in another scene, while thinking about dry-cleaning: “chemicals,” he intones, and the single word wraps up the totality of mid-20th-century discomfort — where are we going, what have we done, what does anything mean any more?

(As a side note, let me mention that Ed shaves Doris’s leg as he plans the scheme that will end in her death — likewise, his leg is shaved by a prison employee as he goes to the electric chair.)

THE MELTING POT: Race is always important in a Coen movie, yet in Man the issue becomes cloudy. Ed seems pretty WASPy, that seems clear enough, but he’s married to Doris, who is played by Frances McDormand, who is not Italian, yet she is the sister of Frank, who is played by Michael Badalucco, who very much is Italian, and Doris even goes out of her way to insult her family as “wops.” Is she supposed to be Italian, or adopted, or what? Likewise, Big Dave is played by the manifestly Italian James Gandofini, yet his name is Dave Brewster, which indicates that perhaps he has changed it, as many Italians did in the US, the better to improve their circumstances, to get their heads out of the rat race. In contrast, “Guzzi,” the long-dead originator of the barber shop where Ed and Frank work, is an example of the Italian immigrant who didn’t change his name, and thus was “the barber,” relegated to a lifetime of anonymous irrelevance. Likewise, Creighton Tolliver is played by the unabashedly Italian Jon Polito, another example of an immigrant seeking a higher station in life through a change of names. Likewise, the “Frenchman” who teaches piano in San Francisco is played by Adam Alexi-Malle, who is Spanish, Italian and Sienese — but not French. Freddie Riedenschneider, for his part, is a typical Coenesque Jew, and is played by Lebanese actor (and fellow Midwesterner) Tony Shaloub.

FAVORITE MOMENT: Freddie Riedenschneider cannot be sure of the name of the man who devised the Uncertainty Principle. He also totally misrepresents it — which is fine, since his interpretation matches most laypersons understanding of the concept.

_____

The Man Who Wasn’t There is one of the Coens’ most straightforward, honest and heartfelt movies — no wonder it bombed. They stuck their heads up and got them blown off.

What they’ve done, in a way, is expose the subtext of noir — if noir was about wartime stress and postwar anxiety dressed up in the language of lies and betrayals, then Man states those themes explicitly. Freddie Riedenschneider points to Ed and calls him “Modern Man,” and I honestly think the Coens, with that speech, indulge in a rare moment of hand-tipping. I think they really mean for Ed to be a symbol of Modern Man, and they are very serious about his quiet search for beauty and meaning in a hollow world of talkers.


hit counter html code

It doesn’t matter how many times I see this poster, every single time I see it I think “What the hell is Elvis Costello doing in a movie with Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts? And why is he wearing that mustache?!”

hit counter html code

Movie Night With Urbaniak: Heaven’s Gate (part 2)

“So. Now I can say I’ve seen Heaven’s Gate,” quoth

  as the credits roll.

Which is about all there is to say. I have no profound insights to add to viewing the second half of Michael Cimino’s legendary disaster. (You may read my comments on Part I here.)

The second half moves a good deal more quickly than the first, largely because its narrative is substantially more compressed, but it is no more dramatically coherent. There’s very little sense of “this happened, then this happened, and because of that, this happened” — it’s more like a series of discrete events presented in pageant form with very little to connect them dramatically. Some of the staging of these events is thoughtful and impressive, and some is not. But more importantly, not enough of it has any dramatic weight.

Example: a group of immigrants gather at the skating rink to discuss the invasion of their county by an army of hired assassins. They argue, in different languages, for a long time. Motions are presented and heatedly debated. Oratorical heroes are made and prominent citizens are shouted down. What are they saying? We don’t know — there are no subtitles. But more problematically, we’ve never met any of these people before and have no particular emotional attachment to them. It wouldn’t matter if we could understand what they are shouting if we had any idea what any of them stood for. It’s like we just walked into the middle of the movie, even though we’ve been watching closely from the beginning. There is a good deal of shouting and pushing and kissing and hugging and beating of breasts, then they all get on their horses and ride somewhere. Where are they going? We don’t know. Oh, it turns out they’re riding to where the assassins are camped out. Okay. And there’s a massive shootout. Some assassins are killed, others are not. Some immigrants are killed, others are not. None of it means anything because we don’t know who any of these people are. There doesn’t seem to be any dramatic thrust to any of the choices the director has made — the story doesn’t go anywhere.

Kris Kristofferson is the sheriff (or not — it’s unclear). He’s in love with a prostitute, who’s in love with an assassin, whose job it is to kill her. Good setup. A little melodramatic, but eminently workable. What happens in this fraught tangle of misspent love? Well, the prostitute gets raped by some cattlemen, which makes the assassin switch sides, which makes the cattlemen put their invasion on hold to go after the renegade assassin. That’s right, three hours into the movie, the cattlemen put their invasion on hold to go after a renegade assassin. The leader of the cattlemen has set the narrative into motion by forming this army of gunmen, and now, three hours later, now that the time has come for him to put his army of gunmen into action, he says “Well, wait a minute, hold your horses, what about that renegade assassin?

Has the assassin vowed to lead the immigrants in an armed resistance? No. Has he personally sworn to kill the leader of the cattlemen? No. With history and three hours of squandered narrative bearing down on him, the leader of the cattlemen decides to take a little detour on his way to destiny. The assassin and some other guys who happen to be in the cabin at the time are killed by the cattlemen. So, faced with an interesting dramatic problem regarding an unsolvable lover’s knot, the writer/director chooses to ignore his romantic plot altogether and have the characters go do something else. (For the record, the prostitute says good-bye to the sheriff and rides to be with the assassin, happens upon the shooting, barely escapes with her life, then races to town with the news of the imminent invasion — oh wait, no, that’s not what happens, no, she races to town and finds that the town already knows about the imminent invasion. Which means she didn’t have to race to town after all, because the shouting immigrants already have a plan. Let’s face it, three and a half hours into the movie, the main characters all kind of kick back and relax while a bunch of people we’ve never met before get on with blowing the shit out of each other.

Kristofferson is given the classic Western moment of the gunman who, brokenhearted, turns his back on the problem at hand and fixes to light out for the territories. Except he doesn’t. He says he’s fixin’ to, but instead he hangs around town. Then, later, unannounced and without preamble, he wanders back into the narrative and is suddenly seen acting as the leader of the immigrant forces, giving them ace military tips that, er, that get lots of immigrants massacred (okay, maybe those tips weren’t so ace after all). As I say, each of these events is presented as an individual event seemingly unconnected to anything that has happened before or since.

John Hurt, bless his heart, fares worst. He doesn’t even seem to know what he’s doing there. He drinks, he looks guilty, he barks out this or that exhortation, then dies unceremoniously in a shootout. He dominated the first 23 minutes of the movie (the scenes at Harvard) and he’s supposed to be the protagonist’s best friend, but his character and death are rendered meaningless.

As with the first half, much of the photography is stunningly beautiful, or would be if the transfer were any good, which it is, alas, not.


hit counter html code

Kids these days

(The TV room, afternoon. Kit (4) is watching The Fairly Oddparents. A commercial is playing.)

KIT: Stupid remote! Stupid! Dad! Da–ad!

(Dad enters.)

DAD: What’s up?
KIT: I can’t get the remote to work!
DAD: Let me see it.

(He takes the remote. It works fine.)

DAD: It works fine.
KIT: I mean it won’t work on this TV show! I can’t get it to start over, or skip the commercials, or pause when I need the bathroom!
DAD: Oh, well that’s because this is live TV. Here, see, when you press the “pause” button, the little box comes on in the corner that says “LIVE TV?” That’s what that means, it means that this is being broadcast right now, it’s not a recording, you can’t pause it or make it go back.
KIT: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! I HATE LIVE TV!


hit counter html code

I am pleased to announce…

…that for the first time in my experience, I was forced to cut down my votes for Best Screenplay to ten. In the past, I’ve always had to strain to find five original screenplays and five adapted screenplays worthy of nomination, often voting for the works of friends or writers I admire, even when I thought the actual script wasn’t very good. But this year I actually had to go through the list twice and painfully un-check three or four scripts from each category I would have gladly voted for in order to limit my votes to five apiece.

Naturally, I was limited to movies I have already seen. Sorry, Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem. Next time send a screener.


hit counter html code

Republicans have been getting a lot of stick lately for their so-called crimes. I mean, sure, they steal elections, gut the constitution they were sworn to uphold, start costly, unnecessary wars that throw nations into tumult, squander our nation’s reputation and kill hundreds of thousands of people in order to enrich themselves, loot the treasury, place bonehead incompetents in high positions of power and influence, shoot men in the face then demand they apologize, cackle at the destruction of American cities, flout the Geneva Convention, politicize religion, children and anything else they think will benefit them, hypocritically pass anti-gay legislation while acting as closet gays, disregard the Bill of Rights in order to erode whatever civil liberties they think will gain them more power, but at least no one can say that a Republican would torture a stray dog, hang it by its neck over a tree limb, slit its throat and then stone it to death.

What’s that you say?

Oh. Never mind.

Shocker headline: Garfield made funny!

Some people have discovered a method for doing what has been thought to be impossible fordecades: making Garfield funny. It involves an ingenious, apparently foolproof method of simply removing all of Garfield’s thought balloons. 

It’s kind of amazing how well this works.  It takes a strip that has always been flat, tasteless and embarrassing and fills it with tension, sadness and mordant humor.  It’s easy, fun and much less time-consuming than placing the panels in a random order.


hit counter html code

« Previous PageNext Page »