Stooges Eternal - A Quick Musing

Can something be both timeless and dated?  One would seem to contradict the other, right?  I started wondering this whilst watching a bunch of Three Stooges shorts lately (friendly advice by the way: when you are going through a shitty time watch the Three Stooges).  See, the original Three Stooges shorts ran all the way from the 30s to the 50s and a lot of the stuff in there is going to be obviously dated.  Beyond the obvious superficial differences between then and now (the cars, the fashions, the politics, no television in the thirties, etc)  there are some things that are almost alien to the modern viewer.  Many viewers today for example would wonder what the hell an "icebox" is and why Curly would have to haul a huge block of ice up three flights of steps to deliver it to one.  

I know what an icebox is because I study history and it is actually one of the easier ones to figure out... even I however had to look up what a letterpress is (definition: Three Stooges torture implement).

But you know what?  Even with all of the dated pop culture references and facets of everyday life no longer in existence - which fascinate me, actually, as a student of history - the Three Stooges are still timeless.  Not just because physical comedy itself is timeless but because of the themes and common human experiences inherent in the Stooges' scenarios.  The Stooges as doctors will always be funny and a little bit sad, because unfortunately incompetent physicians will always exist.  

There will always be courts and trials so the Three Stooges goofing off in a murder trial and wrecking a court room will always be funny.  The Stooges wrecking a snooty rich person's house will always be funny as long as there are rich people who look down on us proles... and it gets even funnier every time the economy takes a downturn.  Speaking of which, the Stooges as homeless and/or down-on-their-luck guys will always be relevant because so many of us are either or both of those things.  There will always be love, greed, hate and laughter. 

We don't get to solve our problems by poking a dude in the eyes or completely demolishing someone's house, so we will always look up to the Stooges as well as down on them.  Wish fulfillment is always timeless.  Oh, and until the day we invent water pills and laser toilets, the Stooges being plumbers will be really relevant... and really, really funny.

So the answer to my query is yes, something can be both dated and timeless.  The Three Stooges, The Odyssey, Jimi Hendrix, Star Trek... actually combining all those would make the most awesome show in existence.  Someone needs to do a Homeric, Jimi Hendrix scored Stooge Trek.

Now There's Something You Don't See Everyday....

It's funny when you are finally able to fulfill a childhood desire after you grow up, even the (in the grand scheme of things) small ones.  As a child, my favorite-ist movie in the whole world was Ghostbusters.  It's still one of my favorites, actually, and when I heard that it was back in theatres for Labor Day weekend I nearly had a heart attack.  Of course I went and saw it.

And you know what?

It's still awesome.  In some ways even more so.  You'd think that seeing a movie hundreds of times on home video ever since you were a kid would lessen the impact of subsequently watching that movie on the big screen but nope.  On the big screen the film has an even bigger impact - I can understand now how some film snobs would consider home viewing a dumbing down of cinema as an art form... although I doubt that film snobs would consider Ghostbusters art.  Although I would hope that they would agree that it is awesome (in both the literal and slang senses of the word).

Speaking of awesome:  I just wish my dates went like this...

...never mind, no I don't.

I was even surprised while watching this Lovecraftian Comedy Classic on the silver screen how it still holds up in the special effects 30 years later.  In fact, it holds up more than later CGI-filled blockbusters.  Hell, I enjoyed Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings movies but the FX always felt too fake to me - I could tell that it was all a computer image programmed by an army of nerds.  The old movie effects to me look real - real physical objects constructed by an army of nerds.

Also, I like the fact that cinematography in Ghostbusters isn't ADD like modern blockbusters.  It doesn't feel as self-consciously slick as modern blockbusters either (although the decade it was made in was responsible for starting that trend).

Another artifact from this decade: everyone smokes!

Well, it's in theatres until Thursday.  Then you'll probably have to wait another 20 or 30 years for it to hit the cineplexes again - assuming we are still watching movies by then.

And hopefully not in 3-D,
although this would make for a *wicked* 3-D shot.

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow

Well, here we are, at the end of September, and thus at the end of Shakespearetember.  This project hasn't exactly gone as planned, what with getting the hang of my new 8-5 job and budgeting my time and everything. Hopefully in the future I can take some more time during the week to write out more comprehensive reviews rather than trying to bash out reviews over the weekend when I have fifty other things to get done at home now that I can no longer do them during the week.  What pains me is that I haven't been able to write more in this of all months, since I have been doing Shakespeare movies... and of all of the subjects that I have written about on this site the Bard deserves more than what I have been giving him.  Well, if I do another Shakespeare month next year I will definitely try to do him more justice.  Anywho, let's get to our last Shakespeare review for the month (and, alack, it will be another short one for the aforementioned reasons) and partake in

Film, 1935

Directors:  Max Reinhardt and William Dieterle

Story

Theseus, the Duke of Athens is marrying Hippolyta, the Queen of the Amazons (which sounds like a bitchin' name for a rock band, by the way) amidst much Athenian joy and revelry (and presumably much throwing up).  But what's important is that a couple of young lovers, a couple of young not-quite-lovers and a troupe of amateur actors have gone into the woods about a mile outside of town.  This is important because while there they will be mixed up in a marital war between Oberon and Titania, the King and Queen of the Fairies. Also, they will be massively fucked with by the most annoying fairy of them all, Prick–er, I mean Puck.

Review

As I have said, this will be short.  I loved this movie.  The acting was good; all of the principle roles are done well and conveyed the humor in Shakespeare's play.  James Cagney in particular stands out as Bottom, both before and after assification.  Yes, Mickey Rooney is annoying as shit, but you know what, he is supposed to be.  It's Puck.  The little bastard pranks other people for his own amusement.  If they made this movie today they would probably get some irritating modern celebrity douchebag to play the part.  One can also see why the nineteen year-old Olivia de Havilland went on to fame and fortune later on (this was her first movie).

What I like the most about A Midsummer Night's Dream though is the production.  First, they use the incidental music composed by Mendelssohn, which is awesome – I can't imagine any Hollywood production doing this nowadays.  Second, the sets and imagery are fantastic, and I mean that in both the colloquial and the original sense of the word.  The screenshots I provide in this review do not do this film justice.  You have to see this film to truly behold its dreamlike wonder.  The black-and-white only adds to the charm.

To sum up, see this.  It's fun, it's funny, it's easy to comprehend (something not all Shakespeare movies can do) and it is truly wondrous.

Screenshots

All I have to say about that getup is... wow.

Are we sure this isn't one of Cagney's gangster movies?

I don't know, looks like a perfectly normal forest to me....

Oh. 

Oberon, the King of Bling.

"Screw you guys, I'm goin' home."

"...and that's why the Chicago Cubs will never win
another World Series.  What?  Was that statement
too shocking for you?"

Titania wakes up next to an ass.  I bet most of you ladies
can relate, am I right? 

I leave you with the most disturbing screenshot of all.

Bow Chicka Wow Wow

This week on Shakespeartember, we look at an effort from the foremost cinematic Shakespeare interpreter since Laurence Olivier.  And since I reviewed a historic tragedy last time, let's switch gears a bit today and do a comedy.  Without further ado...

Film, 1993

Director: Kenneth Branagh

Story

Much apparently is made about nothing.  Whilst everyone in Messina, Italy conspires to bring the eternally warring Beatrice and Benedick together, the evil Iago-lite, um, I mean Don John conspires to split asunder newly engaged Hero and Claudio.  Why?  Because he's named after a portable toilet, I guess.  Because this is a Shakespeare comedy, everything turns out all right in the end and no one dies a tragic, bloody death.

Review

Kenneth Branagh is an innovate, inventive director and actor of Shakespeare.  Shortly after establishing the opening shot of Messina, thus giving the audience some scenery porn

Branagh proceeds to give us some actual porn

as Emma Thompson and Kate Beckinsale start fondling each other in the shower.  Lesbian debauchery follows, and Branagh ups the stakes by supplying both a scene of Robert Sean Leonard being violated from behind

and Keanu Reeves' Don John receiving a homoerotic massage.

But Branagh doesn't stop there.  He then shows his artistic bravery and insight by showing a full-blown orgy, giving us a vision of Shakespeare that will prove both provocative and timeless.

Nah, just kidding.  Branagh doesn't really give us a porno version of Much Ado About Nothing, although that would be... interesting (especially considering that the word "nothing" was slang in Shakespeare's day for women's genitals).

The only reason I did this review this way was because I really have nothing to say about the film and needed to fill up space.  Nothing is great and you should see it.  I saw this movie about fifteen years ago in Eighth Grade English class and loved it then, and I love it now.  It overflows with life and color and joy and mirth.  It has good acting, good photography and it's just a really good way to spend two hours of your time.

See it.

The only thing I can really think of that keeps it from being perfect is the inclusion of Keanu Reeves ("And verily, I doth say unto thee: whoa") as the villain, although thankfully he doesn't get much screen time.

Oh, and I could have done without the creepy masks being suddenly shoved into my face during the party scene.

Aaaaagghhhh!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGH!!!!!!

Bah Humbug... What The Hell Is A Humbug, Anyway?

Christmas movies suck.  I said this in my first Halloween movie post and it's still true.  When you have a movie centered around one day of the year it's kind of hard to have it be relevant the other 364 days, right?  Only Halloween and Valentine's Day have movies from two preexisting genres and don't need films dedicated solely to them.

So is there any hope for movies with a Christmasy theme?  Sure, I guess.  For one, Jesus Movies, since Christmas was originally a holiday celebrating his birthday some two thousand odd years ago (it has since mutated into something almost unrecognizable from it's original intent).  But Biblical Epics can be watched year round so I guess they don't count as Christmas movies per se.

The other option is a film connected only vaguely with Christmas, say with the whole holiday season as nothing more than a setting and backdrop.  A film like the one I'm going to do a really tiny movie review on today.  Why tiny?  'Cause I'm full of turkey and cookies and feeling bombed out.  So brace yourself for a mini mini review of

This just might be my favorite holiday movie – even though it's not even that great of a flick – because it's not really a "holiday movie" at all.  It's really a comedy movie that just happens to take place around Christmas.  Oh, and we do get to see Dan Aykroyd in a sleazy Santa outfit but that's about it.  It's about two men – one rich, one poor – played by the aforementioned Aykroyd and Eddie Murphy who involuntarily switch social places due to a bet by two malevolent millionaires over nature vs nurture.

   
The setup is intriguing, the story is good and the comedy when it works is gold.  Eddie Murphy makes a great early impression with some great delivery ("Motherfucker? Moi?") and some great chemistry with Aykroyd who is also great here (I have always held that Dan Aykroyd was the greatest actor of the original SNL cast if not the greatest comedian, more on that below).  Jamie Lee Curtis and Denholm Elliot also make good turns in supporting roles and the villains are also played very ably by Don Ameche and Ralph Bellamy.

The film succeeds in spite of, and not because of director John Landis, whose direction is merely competant but never compelling.  There are a few moments in the movie that I admit would be better with some better editing or pacing.  It's strange that Landis is famous for being a comedy director (in addition to, you know, being an irresponsible, homicidal fuckhead) when his movies are funny because of the efforts of other people, not him.  Animal House, his one true gift to cinema succeeds solely because of the manic energy and awesome performance of John Belushi (who was the pure funniest of the original SNL cast even if he was not as nuanced and agile a comedian as Aykroyd).  His other good (but not great) movies The Blues Brothers, Coming To America and this one succeed only because of the talents of the writers and the three performers already mentioned – Aykroyd, Belushi and Murphy.

Well, I hope you enjoyed this mini mini review.  Sleep beckons and it's been the end of an eventful day.  Don't let the preceding paragraph fool you... Trading Places is a pretty good, funny comedy flick and I recommend it highly.  I will try to post something next week for New Year's but I make no promises.


Nighty night.

Hey, I'm Writin' Here!

It has been a long time since my last post.  I’ve been focusing on looking for a job after quitting my crappy retail job (which in retrospect was a stupid, stupid move), and then my grandmother died at the end of last month. She was my favorite grandparent, and my very good friend to boot. She was the one I could go to and vent at whenever life got me down – she was there to talk to me and sympathize with me, listen to and gently criticize me. She was never judgmental or condescending or unkind. She could be really stubborn though – and I think she had an unhealthy addiction to QVC (I shudder to think about what would have happened had she been let loose on Amazon; thankfully she was never interested in learning about computers). The weird thing about her death is that I have been pretty calm about it all. I didn’t cry when I found out that she was dead and I only came close to tears once during the funeral; the only time I cried my eyes out was when I visited her in the hospital and saw her near the end, barely conscious and hooked up to a ventilator. Maybe I was forlorn to see her in such a state; maybe I could sense her impending death and let my grief out then. I don’t know. I do know that she wasn’t very happy for a few years leading up to her death because it got so difficult and painful to move around and do stuff sometimes(she could not and did not drive, so I got to drive her around some). So maybe I’m not so torn up now that she’s dead because I know that she’s not in pain anymore. Or maybe I’m just numb and the momentousness of her passing hasn’t hit me yet. I don’t know. I do know that my life is going to be very different from now on. I’m going to miss my Nana. So why do I bring this up now when I said in my first post on this site that I wouldn’t write about Real Life in a fluffy blog about movies? Well, in addition to needing the opportunity to get some things off my chest (therapy is expensive), I thought I would do a blog post today (after such a long time) in memory of my recently departed Nana. You see, today I’m going to review her favorite movie.  Here’s to you, Nana, because in your honor today on the Pharonic Fantasy Theatre I’m going to review

Film, 1969

Director: John Schlesinger

You know, it’s funny. Whenever I tell people that this was my grandmother’s favorite movie of all time, they look at me with a funny expression and say, “Oh, my God. Really?” I guess they figure it weird that someone with no predilection towards such things would pick an X rated film as her favorite. Well, first of all I don’t think she was as straitlaced as others thought she was and secondly, Midnight Cowboy isn’t even really an X movie; it’s really an R movie that got rated X unfairly back when it was released. In fact, it got re-rated only a few years later and now says “R” on the back of the DVD box. So there.

In truth, there’s very little material in this film that is truly X worthy. There’s no full frontal nudity or graphic violence (if you want that in a mainstream X-Rated movie, go watch A Clockwork Orange). I would guess that Midnight Cowboy probably got slapped with an X originally because it actually dared to portray homosexual characters in a *gasp* somewhat sympathetic light. The plight of gays in the sixties is actually portrayed very sympathetically here. Most of the supporting homosexual characters in the film are in the closet and very self-loathing. There wasn’t the same degree of tolerance for homosexuals back in 1969 as there is today, and that’s saying something as gays are still discriminated against even in this day and age. John Schlesinger, the Director was actually gay so that might explain a lot of the content of this movie (not just the homosexuality itself but the overall story of two outcasts living outside of normal society). Apparently having a compassionate view towards homosexuals or even just not portraying them as harmful, predatory monsters back in the sixties was too much for the film ratings board.

Oh, yeah and there’s drug use (hey, it’s the 60s).

Every 60s movie is required by Federal Law to have at least one tripping scene.

Oh, a quick diversionary note before I proceed any further: I’m not going to do a standard review with plot synopsis, pictures section, etc. For this little review/essay I’m going to assume that you’ve seen the movie and therefore must warn SPOILERS AHOY!

Okay, back to my rambling.

I can see what my grandmother liked in this movie. It’s a dark but very funny look at a very unorthodox friendship between two very different men. Joe Buck is a *very* naïve but very charismatic and handsome Texan “cowboy” who moves to New York City

while Rico “Ratso” Rizzo is a grimy and crippled conman who is sleazy and dishonest but a hell of a lot smarter than Joe.

Together they manage to survive with little money at the bottom rung of society’s ladder in a city that doesn’t care. Each has his own dream: Joe wants make a living whoring himself to rich, lonely women while Rico wants to move to Florida to …hang out? I don’t know. The goals of the main characters in this movie are vague and rather fantastical, which is one of the points of the whole thing.

And… shit. I realize that I just basically gave a plot synopsis when I said I wouldn’t. Oh well. I lied. I deliberately lied to you. Get over it. Moving on.

"My God, I'm in Black and White.  How did that happen?"

Yes, their goals are rather far-fetched and flimsy. Joe’s whole dream is to be a prostitute – what the hell? Who *chooses* a life like that? “Well, let’s see – looking at all of my job skills and taking into consideration where I am in my life right now and where I want to be, I think I’ll pursue a career in whoring.” Although I guess he does say at various points in the film that “loving” is all he’s ever been good at so…? Rico’s dream is purely hedonistic and lazy: hang out in the Florida sunshine all day and not work. In the end Rico refuses to see a doctor about the ailment afflicting him through the whole picture and dies on the bus on the way down to Florida – his stubborn pursuit of his shallow dream is what kills him. Joe in contrast gives up his goal of “hustling” while stuffing his cowboy outfit in the garbage during a rest stop in Florida and looks to get an honest job; he lives to the end of the movie. So maybe there’s a lesson here about pursuing goals here, eh? Don’t stubbornly pursue hollow dreams. It’ll kill you.

I remember Nana telling me that what she liked the most about Midnight Cowboy was the friendship between the two leads. “Some people see Dustin Hoffman as just exploiting Jon Voight but I saw him as his friend who was trying to help him.” Well, yes and no, Nana. Rico does con Joe in the beginning and uses his talents for his own ends, but Joe needs him for his skills just as much. It is a symbiotic relationship, and one that turns into genuine friendship.

I know it sounds funny, but the relationship between these two characters actually reminds me of the relationship between the two leads from The Producers (made the previous year, in fact). In that movie, Zero Mostel’s washed up Broadway producer character convinces Gene Wilder’s timid accountant character to launch a scheme: produce a sure flop of a musical to make a shitload of money (since then there would be no profits from the sales to give back to the backers. Just watch the movie to see what I mean, it’s hilarious). In the end, Gene Wilder gives a speech about how his relationship with Mostel’s conman has given him actual confidence and his first true friend. The end of Midnight Cowboy kind of reminded me of this – Joe ends up a better person because of his relationship with Rico (although at a horrible price). So I guess you can really say that Midnight Cowboy is the serious version of The Producers.

"I'm telling you, Springtime For Hitler just might work!"

Yes, I just went there.

Well, I’m going to stop now before I ramble to much more. Watching this movie clued me into what kind of person my Nana was. The fact that her favorite movie ever was about the close friendship between two people and the fact that she saw good in that friendship that others would dismiss as exploitative shows me that she was at heart an optimistic woman who saw good in most people.

I’m sorry I wasn’t that coherent. I guess I’ve been sort of knocked off my stride. This probably isn’t the best tribute I could give to my Nana, but oh well. It’s what I have on my mind at the moment and that’s what’s going down   Next time I will hopefully be in a better state of mind and do something a little more upbeat.

Pictured: Something Not Upbeat.

Tonight's Dinner: Canned Tomatoes

Today, something a little different.  And that doesn’t just mean “no anime.”  I know that this is primarily a review blog about movies (and TV shows, and direct-to-video, and….) with a focus on actual content, but today will be different.  Today I will be posting an entry that is both a rant and a helpful guide to movies about deadly mutant produce, for today I take on the DVD release for one of my all-time favorite comedy films:

25th Anniversary DVD Review And Warning

I hate it when movie directors revisit their old films and “improve” them (see: Star Wars) with new SFX and soundtracks.  I hate it even more when they make these new versions the only ones commercially available on home video (again: Star Wars – and non-anamorphic laserdisc transfers don’t count, Lucasfilm).  As it turns out, George Lucas is not the only director to do this – even old low budget cult films are getting this treatment.  Hence, the Attack of the Killer Tomatoes 25^th Anniversary DVD.

The movie itself is great – in fact, it has been one of my favorites since I was a kid.  I’m not going to go into it too much as I a)have little time and b)this post is for people who have already seen the movie already and are wondering whether to pick up the DVD or not.  And my answer to question B is: no, do not pick up the DVD, even though the picture quality is so much better.

The problem I have with this DVD is that it contains the aforementioned “new” version of Killer Tomatoes, and only the new version.  Sometimes when directors redo old movies they only change an effect here and a sound there; nothing that huge (although still annoying).  For Killer Tomatoes they have gone back and added so much stuff and taken out so much stuff that I spent my first time watching this DVD spotting all of the changes made from the original theatrical cut that I had watched on VHS over and over for so many years.  I am not going to list every single change (that would take hours) but I will try to hit the highlights (or lowlights, as the case may be):

-You can tell right away that something is up when ominous music is played over the opening scroll (it was silent originally).  Also, the opening credits now have splat sounds played as tomatoes hit the camera.

-There are numerous background overdubs added to the movie.  Sometimes it’s really insipid – for example, someone will be being eaten off-camera and a person will be dubbed also offscreen saying something like, “Oh my god!  He’s being eaten by a tomato!”  Because otherwise the audience would have no idea what was going on, right?  The worst example is the scene right after the big battle between the Army and the rampaging fruits in San Diego when Mason Dixon walks dejectedly through the neighborhoods surveying the damage.  The new version adds a monologue/news report about the fall of humanity and bad hygiene.  The original had nothing but sad music playing, parodying old war movies; it was hilarious because it played it so straight.   

Yeah. Mason, I don't know where that monologue is coming from either.

-Also, some lines have been redubbed or edited and no longer have the same punch.  The best example is the radio spot segment at Mindmaker.  (“When you’re feeling sad and blue, tomatoes end it all for you!”).  By placing that ditty (which has also been rerecorded and thus sounds less funny) in the middle of the promos being played instead of at the end, the punchline (“Pretty classy, huh?” “With a capital K.”) loses its effectiveness.

-In a similar vein, some of the films jokes are punctuated with insert shots that do nothing but interrupt the flow of the comedy and remind you that they were inserted much later.  The most egregious example I can think of is the part in the beginning when the Japanese scientist knocks a picture of the USS Arizona off the wall.  In the original it just gets knocked onto the floor and you hear a crashing sound.  In the redo you see an insert where it lands in a fishtank.  Trying to improve on jokes twenty-five years after the fact is pretty lame, guys.   

In addition a close-up insert is included near the end to inform the audience what it should already know about the relationship between the tomatoes and “Puberty Love.”   

No! With all of the foreshadowing I never would have guessed that it was "Puberty Love!"

Oh, and a close-up is also provided of the “Puberty Love” sheet music so that you know exactly what Mason is holding in his hands as he faces down the giant tomato at the climax.  This actually would have been more helpful on the old VHS where you couldn’t see what he was holding too well but it’s completely redundant in the DVD version seeing as how you can see (thanks to the clarity of the picture) exactly what he’s holding.

You can tell that it's sheet music, right?

Well, the filmmakers think you're an idiot, so here it is, anyway.

-The shot of the giant tomato chasing the lady with the shopping cart has been framed differently so that now you can’t see the wheels underneath that it’s riding on.  Come on guys, this is a low budget b-movie spoof… why bother going back to fix the FX?  The cheapness is part of its charm!

-Some lines and even whole jokes are removed.  The conversation between the President and Press Secretary about Air Force One (“Broken? The whole plane broken?” “Well, sir, you remember where the Washington Monument–”) and Air Force Two (“Hasn’t he returned that YET?”) has been deleted, for example.

-Whole scenes have been removed.  Some are small throwaway scenes and aren’t that big a deal.  Some are sorely missed.  The biggest is the dressing down of the reporter Lois by her newspaper boss (“You didn’t get the story… you ARE the story!”).   

The next biggest is the scene at the receptionists desk where it is remarked upon that plants respond to music (FORESHADOWING ALERT!).   

This is how I hit on secretaries all the time.

These exclusions puzzle me.

The only upside to the 25^th Anniversary disc is that the video quality is (as already mentioned) great compared to the old VHS.  I haven’t seen the Collector’s Edition, but I think it’s just this disc plus a bonus disc of special features (this DVD release has only one special feature: the trailer).  So the only way we’ll ever get the original theatrical cut of Attack of the Killer Tomatoes on DVD is if someone like Criterion rereleases it.




And now, just because I can - and because I find this picture utterly friggin' hilarious - let's end this post with this: