Thursday, October 31, 2019

12 More Famous Unsolved Holllywood Deaths

It is Halloween, and I had every intention this month of doing another mini-series devoted to something spooky (and film-connected), but alas time got away from me and I will probably pocket the idea until next year.  But I don't want to leave you hanging, so I'm going to be talking about something else sinister, and conclude a trilogy of articles we started way back in April: our look at some of the most famous of unsolved Hollywood murders.

If you're behind please check out the first two installments in this series here and here, as they're definitely up your alley if you're interested in either Hollywood or true crime (or both!).  I could arguably continue this series indefinitely, as there's countless crimes in the Los Angeles area that would have connections to the movies, but I feel a trilogy is the best way to sum this up.  Starting to look at whom or what I might include in a fourth article, I realized we were getting more just into local crimes, rather than finding a proper Hollywood connection, and as this is a film blog rather than one associated with crime articles exclusively, I figured it would be appropriate to finish this series in three acts.

Since this is our finale on Hollywood homicides, we're going to get to eight crimes that I think are lesser-known, but fascinating.  They involve an Oscar-winning actress who (might) have had some connection with her husband's death, an Oscar-winning actor who (might) have killed a comedy pioneer, and the strange death of an Oscar-winning actor who (might) have been killed on the orders of a dictator; we'll also look at a death of a famous adult film star who almost certainly wasn't murdered, but whose whereabouts (and questions around whether she's alive or dead) are too bizarre not to discuss.  And since this is the final installment in our series, I'm going to acquiesce and include in the article four of Hollywood's most famous deaths, all of whom have inspired conspiracy theories for years, and we'll discuss why I don't entirely buy them (even if the deaths might have some intriguing unanswered questions).  As I mentioned in our past installments, this obviously involves some heavy subject matter, so if you're light-of-heart I suggest you read at your own risk.

Nick Adams

The Hollywood Connection: Adams was a bit player in Hollywood that stayed on the periphery of fame while never become as iconic as some of his costars.  Among his best-known work is The Rebel, an ABC western that ran for two seasons & Twilight of Honor, where he plays an alleged killer obsessed with Joey Heatherton.  Twilight won him an Oscar nomination, but Adams is best remembered today for his friendships with (and rumored romances with) two 1950's superstars: James Dean & Elvis Presley.
The Murder(?): On February 7, 1968, Adams was found dead by his attorney Ervin Roeder at his home in Beverly Hills.  Well-known coroner Thomas Noguchi (he'd also perform the autopsies on Marilyn Monroe, Sharon Tate, & Natalie Wood) performed the autopsy, and said Adams died of "accident/suicide/unknown" due to excessive amounts of sedatives and drugs in Adams's system.
Why It's Unsolved: Occam's razor dictates that Adams killed himself or accidentally overdosed on drugs.  This seems to be what Noguchi discovered in his medical reports, and is backed up by actress Susan Strasberg (who saw Adams the night he died) who said he was despondent over his failing career and marriage.  However, rumors persist to this day that Adams death was more nefarious.  There was gossip at the time that Adams was going to write a tell-all (his career was going nowhere, so a tell-all would have been a source of cash for a work-strapped actor), and considering his potential romantic entanglements with people like Presley & Dean (never mind any other better-kept secrets), there would have been a considerable amount of sway to keep his knowledge of Hollywood's closeted community a secret...potentially at all costs.


Arthur Farnsworth

The Hollywood Connection: Farnsworth himself had no connection to Hollywood-he had been just a normal New Hampshire innkeeper before his death.  However his wife happened to be one of the most famous women in the world when they married: screen legend & two-time Oscar winner Bette Davis.  Farnsworth was Davis's second husband, and her only marriage that didn't end in divorce, though it may have ended in something more nefarious: murder.
The Murder(?): Farnsworth died on August 25, 1943.  Initial reports at the time were that he had died of a brain hemorrhage, possibly as a result of falling on the sidewalk on Hollywood Boulevard.  However, after Farnsworth died, Davis was questioned by police about whether or not an accident had occurred earlier involving Farnsworth.
Why It's Unsolved: Despite initial media accounts at the time (including in the LA Times), stating that Farnsworth died as a result of falling on the sidewalk on Hollywood Boulevard, it's probable that Farnsworth died as a result of an accident he'd sustained a few weeks earlier, when he had fallen down a flight of stairs in the couple's New Hampshire home.  Davis at the time claimed that Farnsworth had fallen when he rushed too quickly to answer the phone, but there are some who believe that Davis and Farnsworth had been fighting at the time, and that Davis during the fight had pushed Farnsworth down the stairs, ultimately leading to his death.  It does seem odd, especially considering initial reports about the Hollywood Boulevard incident (where Davis was not in attendance) that Davis was questioned by police investigators at all in the inquest of Farnsworth's death if they had assumed it was simply a brain hemorrhage caused by an accident.  It's worth noting that 16 years later Joan Crawford, Davis's longtime rival, also had a husband (Alfred Steele) who may have died as a result of being pushed down a flight of stairs, though those allegations from from her daughter Christina Crawford, whose stories about her mother have varied through the years, and as a result have a question of credibility.

Sean Flynn

The Hollywood Connection: Flynn briefly worked as an actor and singer in the early 1960's.  He had a small role in Where the Boys Are opposite George Hamilton, and made a number of films in Europe, most notably The Son of Captain Blood, a sequel to a film his father, actor Errol Flynn, made into a smash hit for Warner Brothers in the mid-1930's.
The Murder(?): By the late 1960's, Flynn's acting career was going nowhere, and it seemed like his passion was more for photojournalism than entertainment anyway.  He was gaining fame as a war correspondent in both Vietnam and Israel.  On April 6, 1970, Flynn and CBS News photojournalist Dana Stone were headed out on intel that the Viet Cong were manning a checkpoint on Highway 1.  The two were never seen again.
Why It's Unsolved: Flynn and Stone were likely two of 25 journalists that were captured during the initial invasion of Cambodia by Richard Nixon in 1970; but according to people who were there that day like AP correspondent Jeff Williams, there's even some speculation over whether or not they were even captured.  Several of the 25 journalists were executed by the Khmer Rouge, but there has never been any evidence as to whether or not Flynn & Stone were killed, arguably the most well-known figures to disappear at the time (but by no means the only ones).  Journalist Tim Page, who was Flynn's roommate (and the inspiration for Dennis Hopper's character in Apocalypse Now!) is still searching for Flynn's remains, with frequent and constant trips to Cambodia.  In 2010, a body was found, but members of the Flynn family (including Sean's sister Rory) were tested and the DNA was not a match, so it's still not known what happened to Sean Flynn, how he was killed, or even if he's dead at all.

Ted Healy

The Hollywood Connection: Healy enjoyed a long career as a comedian and vaudeville performer, but he is best remembered for creating the Three Stooges.  He starred with them in the film Soup to Nuts, but after a contract dispute, Healy abandoned the comedy group, and signed a contract for MGM, where he worked alongside Spencer Tracy, Robert Young, and Peter Lorre before his death.
The Murder: On December 21, 1937, Healy died while out celebrating the birth of his son, the only child he'd ever have.  Official reports at the time were that he died of acute nephritis, triggered by his chronic alcoholism, but a lot of questions surround Healy's death and the events that happened immediately before he died, enough so that over 70 years after his passing, some still wonder if he was the victim of something more sinister.
Why It's Unsolved: According to reports at the time, Healy had been in a fight the night of his death, and had injuries on his face, including a cut near his right eye.  Reports were that Healy had been in a fight with some men at the Trocadero, then a well-known Los Angeles night club.  These reports were initially that Healy had fought with three anonymous younger men, but later reports indicated far more famous individuals had fought with Healy: Oscar-winning actor Wallace Beery, producer Albert Broccoli, and Broccoli's cousin, another film producer Pat DiCicco (whom you may remember for his connection to another well-known unsolved Hollywood crime, the death of actress Thelma Todd).  Enough questions surrounded Healy's death that his personal physician refused to sign the death certificate, and if you believe Hollywood lore, MGM fixer Eddie Mannix covered up the incident (Beery was under a star contract to the studio at the time) to save face for one of their leading men.  While Beery & DiCicco have never confessed to seeing Healy that evening, Broccoli has-he admitted to being at the Trocadero, and that he fought with Healy but denied it being particularly aggressive.  If Healy's death was in fact triggered by the fight, rather than his chronic alcoholism, it's entirely possible one of these three men were responsible for his death.


Christa Helm

The Hollywood Connection: Helm was a bit player in Hollywood, making guest spots on shows like Starsky & Hutch and Wonder Woman.  However, her offscreen life reads like a who's who of Hollywood elite; among her paramours were Mick Jagger and Warren Beatty, as well as famous (non-movie star figures) like the Shah of Iran.
The Murder: Helm died on February 12, 1977 at the age of just 27.  She had been stabbed and bludgeoned to death outside of her agent's home in West Hollywood.  Actor Jon Gries, then just 19, lived nearby, and later described hearing a noise coming from near where Helm was being murdered similar to "a screaming baby or a cat being killed," but frightened, he didn't call the police or go to investigate.
Why It's Unsolved: At the time, the press were more enamored with the connections between Helm and another Hollywood murder, that of Sal Mineo exactly one year prior to Helm's (at the time, Mineo's murder was still unsolved).  However, the press soon lost interest in the Mineo angle, and focus then turned onto the most salacious & mysterious aspect of Christa Helm's death: her sex diary.  Helm, who as we already stated had a number of famous lovers, had kept a sex diary and a collection of sex tapes that were not found after her death.  Police have alleged that Tony Sirico (the actor who played Paulie Walnuts on The Sopranos), then a small-time criminal, was hired by someone to remove the tapes, either to protect Helm or to protect someone who would be implicated in the diaries/videos.  Suspects in the killing range from Sirico to Helm's agent Sandy Smith to drug dealer Rudy Mazella (with whom Helm was allegedly involved romantically) to another lover, backup singer Patti Collins (DNA evidence under Helm's fingernails from the night of the murder came from a woman) to even Lionel Williams, the man who murdered Sal Mineo (it seems that initial rumors that Williams was arrested at the time of Helm's murder were inaccurate, and so the alibi that is allotted to him on some articles about Helm's death isn't real), but no one has ever conclusively proven who killed Christa Helm, despite decades of investigation.

Bruce Lee

The Hollywood Connection: Lee is noted as a major star of martial arts films of the 1970's, including the landmark Enter the Dragon.  In Hollywood, he didn't make his mark before his death, though he did have a role on the ABC comic book series The Green Hornet as Kato.
The Murder(?): Lee died on July 20, 1973, officially of a cerebral edema at the age of only 32.  He had had dinner earlier that evening with actor George Lazenby, and after dinner Lee had complained of a headache.  He was given a painkiller (Equagesic), and according to doctor's later, had something of an allergic reaction to the drug, causing the cerebral edema, which killed him.
Why It's Unsolved: On the facts, this is how Lee died.  Just a few months earlier he'd suffered another cerebral edema while on the set of Enter the Dragon, and so there was clearly a medical history here that would indicate this was an unfortunate accident involving a man who already had health problems.  But in the decades since, rumors have persisted that Lee was murdered, though the culprit depends on whom you ask.  Some think that his business partner Raymond Chow did it (Chow did see Lee the day he died, for what it's worth), while other think it was actress Betty Ging Pei, with many positing that Lee was having an affair with her.  Others have blamed gangs like the Chinese Triads, upset that Lee was sharing long-held martial arts secrets.  These all seem fanciful to me, particularly since Lee clearly had a medical history that would support his tragic death at such a young age.  But it's impossible to read about Lee, particularly after the equally tragic death of his son Brandon on the film set of The Crow, without someone bringing up his death as "mysterious," so I include this because no list of "unusual" Hollywood deaths would be complete without Bruce Lee.


Jenny Maxwell

The Hollywood Connection: Maxwell is best-remembered today for her small but memorable role in the Elvis Presley musical Blue Hawaii.  She also starred with Jimmy Stewart in Take Her, She's Mine, and had guest appearances on Father Knows Best, The Twilight Zone, and The Joey Bishop Show.  Maxwell's celebrity never took off, and she retired from the movies in 1963, essentially become a "trophy wife" to the much older Ervin Roeder, a wealthy attorney.
The Murder: On the afternoon of June 10, 1981, Maxwell and Roeder were shot in their Beverly Hills condo.  Police at the time assumed it was a botched robbery, with the young actress dead at the age of only 39.
Why It's Unsolved: Little is known about the crime, probably because there's not much evidence to indicate that Maxwell or Roeder were specifically targeted by someone they know.  Most people assumed that the murders were part of an apparent robbery, but that's speculation-based on newspaper reports of the time and according to articles afterward, there doesn't appear to be any indication that anything was actually taken from the home.  What is worth noting, in the confines of this article, is that Roeder also had another very famous client at one point, Nick Adams, so both men ended up dying in unusual circumstances.

Marilyn Monroe

The Hollywood Connection: Forgetting the fact that she starred in films like All About Eve, Bus Stop, Some Like It Hot, and The Misfits, Monroe essentially is Hollywood at this point, her visage being on everything from slot machines to doormats.  More than pretty much any other star, she encompasses a type of glamour that is synonymous with the Golden Era.
The Murder(?): Monroe died on August 4, 1962, at her Brentwood mansion.  She was found dead by her housekeeper Eunice Murray and psychiatrist Ralph Greenson the following die, and the coroner's report eventually stated that she had died of acute barbiturate poisoning, with the coroner ruling her death a suicide.
Why It's Unsolved: Marilyn Monroe probably committed suicide.  It's the most likely scenario, and considering the troubled life the starlet had led, one with a good deal of credibility.  But Monroe was SO famous, it's hard for anyone to imagine her taking her own life, and so it's worth noting that conspiracy theories abound about her death, so since we're closing out this series about Hollywood True Crime, I couldn't ignore the most famous "what happened?" death in Hollywood history.  The most common conspiracies center around Monroe's relationships with John & Robert Kennedy, who were President and Attorney General, respectively, when Monroe died, and legend has it that both had a sexual relationship with Monroe at some point.  Allegations that Bobby Kennedy in particular either used his connections at the CIA/FBI to have Monroe assassinated, or that someone murdered Monroe to get to the Kennedy Brothers have been rumored for decades, being shared by everyone from Norman Mailer to British journalist Anthony Summers.  While there is enough smoke there to assume that an affair with at least one Kennedy brother probably occurred, the legend of Monroe potentially being murdered (a fate that would eventually befall both brothers) continues to persist nearly sixty years after her death.


Haing Ngor

The Hollywood Connection: A former doctor who survived for years in Cambodian prison camps, Ngor made his film debut portraying journalist Dith Pran in 1984's The Killing Fields, which won him the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, with him beating longtime thespians like John Malkovich and Ralph Richardson for the trophy.
The Murder: Ngor was shot to death on February 25, 1996, in Los Angeles near his home in Chinatown.  According to prosecutors, three men held him at gunpoint and after he gave them his gold Rolex, they murdered him because he wouldn't give them a locket which held a photo of his deceased wife.
Why It's Unsolved: In some ways, it's not-unlike every other crime on this list, we actually have a conviction and know who killed Haing Ngor, as the three men who shot him (Tak Sun Tan, Jason Chan, & Indra Lim) were convicted and are currently serving their sentences for his murder.  However, there are enough strange questions around Ngor's death to include him on an "unsolved" list, namely as to why he might have been murdered seemingly at random.  For starters, Ngor still had nearly $3000 on him after his death, making a robbery by the three men seem at the very least very poorly executed.  Ngor also didn't typically have the locket visible (he usually wore it under his clothes), so how did the men, who claimed they didn't know who he was, know that he would be wearing it & demand he give it to them?  Some have speculated that Ngor was killed on Pol Pot's orders for his involvement in the film The Killing Fields, a theory posited by former Khmer Rouge leader (and, it should be remembered, war criminal) Kang Kek Iew.  It seems a stretch that Pol Pot, who was still alive when Ngor died and was still ordering executions (in 1997 he ordered the murders of his associate and his entire family), might want to kill a man who had been in a movie critical of him twelve years prior, but considering the questions surrounding Ngor's death, it's worth wondering.

Nicole Brown Simpson & Ronald Goldman

The Hollywood Connection: As if I need to tell you this, but it's not Nicole Brown Simpson or Ronald Goldman who had the connection to Hollywood, but instead Brown Simpson's ex-husband OJ, who would go from being a Heisman Trophy winner to star Buffalo Bills running-back to one of the more successful athlete-actor crossover stars, appearing in movies/television as varied as The Towering Inferno, Roots, Capricorn One, and The Naked Gun franchise.
The Murder: On June 12, 1994, Brown Simpson and Goldman were stabbed to death outside of her home in Brentwood.  Both individuals had been stabbed repeatedly, with Brown Simpson nearly decapitated from the homicide, and Goldman's cut shoes indicating he had tried (but failed) to overcome his assailant.  Over 25 years later, no one has ever been convicted of their deaths, and the case remains officially unsolved.
Why It's Unsolved: I avoided talking about Marilyn Monroe, Bruce Lee, and Johnny Stompanato because I feel that the most-likely answer to these questions is that they're solved, with the former two having died tragically but not as the result of homicide, and the latter dying in an act of self-defense.  Nicole Brown Simpson & Ron Goldman, though, were definitely murdered, but I have kept their murders out of previous installments because this is a case (if you lived through it) you know by heart.  In many ways this was the birth-place of the 24-hour news cycle as something to be mocked, constant discussions of the crimes dominating cable news in a harbinger of things to come.  For those who have lived under a rock or are under thirty, the question of what happened to these two boils down to if you believe OJ Simpson murdered his ex-wife and her friend (and potential lover).  Simpson was headed to Chicago the night of the crime, but his limousine driver claimed that he couldn't get ahold of Simpson right away, and that while he was waiting for the football player Simpson's Ford Bronco had moved (thus affording Simpson opportunity to commit the crimes).  Simpson had a history of abuse toward his ex-wife, and had claimed that he'd "thought about killing her" in the past, but he was not convicted after an extensive trial (I could devote an article this length just to the Simpson case, but you can find a hundred books on it if you wish to learn more).  Jurors on the trial claimed afterward that they thought Simpson had been involved in the murders, but that the prosecution had failed in making their case.  Public perception in the years since has favored the idea that Simpson got away with his wife's murder, particularly after the release of the book If I Did It, where Simpson posited how he might have killed his ex-wife, but double jeopardy is in place even if he did kill the two individuals.  Simpson would go on to be charged with armed robbery, serving a ten-year sentence, and would continue to maintain his innocence, as would a number of others (the most common alternate theory being that Brown Simpson & Goldman were connected to a drug trafficking crime that also was connected to the death of Michael Nigg, whose murder we looked at in Part 2 of this series).  Whatever your beliefs, the deaths of Brown Simpson & Goldman stand as one of the most discussed crimes in Hollywood history, and remain (officially) unsolved.


Johnny Stompanato

The Hollywood Connection: Stompanato had very little himself to do with Hollywood, as he was a former Marine who was part of Mickey Cohen's crime syndicate when he died.  However, in 1957, Stompanato began a relationship with one of the biggest stars in Hollywood, Lana Turner.  Turner, at this point in her career, had been a major player in Hollywood for 15 years, having starred in movies such as The Postman Always Rings Twice, The Bad and the Beautiful, and Peyton Place.
The Murder: Leading up to the night of the Academy Awards in 1958, Stompanato's behavior toward Turner had turned extremely violent, with him choking her.  At the Oscar ceremony (where Turner was nominated for Best Actress for her work in Peyton Place), Turner decided to take her daughter Cheryl Crane instead of Stompanato, which caused him to be angry when she returned, and he beat her again.  Eight days later, on April 4, 1958, according to reports at the time, Stompanato was again violently attacking Turner, even threatening to slice up the beautiful actress's face with a razor (which would have ended her career), when Crane stabbed Stompanato through the stomach while he was attacking her mother.
Why It's Unsolved: Here's the thing-it's not.  I wrote up-top that four of these stories I wanted to discuss because they were too big to leave out before we concluded our look at unsolved Hollywood crimes, but the Stompanato case came back with Crane being exonerated, a case of justifiable homicide.  This is the most likely scenario, considering Stompanato's history of abusing Turner, and threatening both she and her daughter with violence.  However, there are those who believe that the crime was premeditated, a way for Turner to get Stompanato out of the picture without having him (who was reportedly blackmailing her with nude photos he'd taken without her consent) expose intimate secrets about her life, thus ruining her career.  There are also those who believe that Crane took the fall for her mother, believing that a teenage girl would be more easily exonerated.  If this is indeed the case, the only person who would know is Cheryl Crane, still alive at 76 and recently married to her longtime partner Joyce.  Despite the bad press at the time (with the skeptics claiming Turner "acted" on the stand), her stardom was back at a high point a year later, when the actress would act in the biggest hit of her career, Imitation of Life.


Bambi Woods

The Hollywood Connection: Woods's connection to Hollywood is not because she was a star or even bit player at a Hollywood studio, but because she came to fame during the 1970's heyday of pornography playing in mainstream cinemas.  Woods starred in one of the era's best-remembered films, Debbie Does Dallas, which would go on to become the best-selling pornographic film of all-time.
The Death(?): As stated above, I wanted to profile one Hollywood disappearance/death that has a lot of questions behind it, but almost certainly didn't end in murder-that would be what happened to Bambi Woods.  Woods completely disappeared from the public eye in the mid-1980's, and her fate has never been revealed.
Why It's Unsolved: It's not entirely clear at this point if Woods (who would be 64) is still alive or not.  According to an Australian newspaper entitled The Age Woods died in 1986 from a drug overdose (they did the article to mark a musical version of the movie Debbie Does Dallas being released).  A later documentary from the British Channel 4 claimed that a private investigator had found the actual Woods, and that she was living an ordinary life in Des Moines, Iowa, under a different name where people didn't know her connections to the porn industry, but this was rebutted by internet site Yes But No But Yes that interviewed a woman claiming to be Woods who was not from Iowa, but said the rest of the story was largely true-that she was living under an assumed name.  Suffice it to say, no one has ever come up with conclusive proof of what happened to Woods or if she's even still alive, and the film's director has never revealed what her real name was.  The mystery surrounding her death is amplified by other nefarious aspects of the film (one of Woods's costars, Arcadia Lake, died of a drug overdose, and the film was produced by mob boss Michael Zaffarano), but even by itself-the fate of Bambi Woods is a really odd mystery that has persisted for over thirty years.

Tuesday, October 29, 2019

OVP: The Lighthouse (2019)

Film: The Lighthouse (2019)
Stars: Robert Pattinson, Willem Dafoe
Director: Robert Eggers
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Cinematography)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Sophomore efforts can be a challenge, particularly when your first film was critically-lauded.  Robert Eggers' The VVitch was at once instantly iconic (you can buy "Black Phillip" Funko dolls if you wish to live deliciously) and a mesmerizing film.  It was also the sort of movie that likely stays in your head for years, rumbling around as a truly great idea with a twist ending that shocks the audience.  How, precisely, do you follow up a clear passion project with something equally challenging and provocative?  This has been a question mark for several filmmakers this year, including Ari Aster & Jordan Peele, and today we'll discuss a third notable "horror film" sophomore effort of 2019, The Lighthouse, a film that takes the motif of The VVitch and then continually challenges us as an audience in a way that makes you forget the lessons you learned from Eggers' original picture.

(Spoilers Ahead) This film is an acting duet between Robert Pattinson as Ephraim Winslow and Willem Dafoe as Thomas Wake (they are the only two actors in the picture with speaking parts).  They are tasked with manning a lighthouse deep off the coast of somewhere (presumably North America, but we'll get to this in a second), with Wake as the one in command and Ephraim doing most of the menial chores, never getting to actually man the lighthouse.  What is initially supposed to be a four-week stint turns into a time indeterminate, as no boat shows up to relieve the two men of their duties and they are essentially stranded at sea, their rations depleting, and slowly even their booze, to the point where they mix kerosene with spirits to continue a drunken haze, as they seem to only be able to stand each other while in some state of inebriation.  Eventually secrets start to come out-Ephraim is really Thomas Howard, as Ephraim Winslow was a young man whose death he had declined to prevent, and whose life he then overtook, and it's revealed that despite a friendliness between the two men, Wake has been secretly recommending that Winslow not be paid for his efforts, citing him for insubordination and drunkenness on the job (even though it was Wake who forced Winslow to partake in the alcohol).  The film's closing scenes are of the men violently attacking each other, with Howard killing Wake in pursuit of looking into the light in the lighthouse, and seemingly going mad from what he sees (though it's possible he'd already reached that point by the time he stared into the abyss).  The film ends with Howard dead and naked on a beach, seagulls feasting on his intestines.

There's a lot more to this film I could get into, quite frankly-the film is brimming with plot and detail, which is a fascinating juxtaposition to the bleak and empty island that the lighthouse inhabits.  The film uses a lot of metaphor (other authors have noted the film borrowing from Greek mythology, particularly the legend of Prometheus giving fire to man), and it's hard not to see some of the clear parables about man's fight with one's self.  There is no indication of life off of this lighthouse, and the fact that both men eventually share the same name lends credence to the idea that they are in fact the same person, fighting different sides of themselves.  I personally wonder if this is a case of "they were dead the whole time," with the Lighthouse serving as some version of hell for the real Thomas Howard's inaction to save the real Ephraim Winslow, forever haunted by the false ambitions he held in life (in the form of Thomas Wade).  It's hard to fold in the mermaids, predatory gulls, and tentacled Willem Dafoe into this vision, though, and this might be my biggest problem with The Lighthouse-while it's breathtaking to behold, it's also packed with too many ideas.  This was also a problem with Ari Aster's Midsommar (though weirdly not Jordan Peele's Us, which had a brilliantly clear through line running through its plot), and perhaps it would hold up on repeat viewings, but I feel like some of the illusions were just there to keep us flabbergasted, rather than to aid the film.

The movie is shocking enough when it just comes to the two lead performances, as Dafoe & Pattinson give excellent work in this duet.  The performances are not particularly glamorous (Dafoe's character's flatulence is a recurring theme, as is Pattinson's character's habitual masterbation), with Dafoe sporting an unkempt beard and Pattinson's natural beauty hidden under a veneer of soot and sweat, but they still find a strange eroticism.  It's not clear if the two want to kill each other or just fuck by the end of the film, but it's probably some combination of the two.  Pattinson, derided for so long as just "that guy from Twilight" should shut up pretty much filmgoer who claims he can't act here in the same way Kristen Stewart did in Clouds of Sils Maria, bringing a tortured soul out, though not always needing his humanity.  Dafoe, who has been consistently dazzling his whole career, but particularly the last few years, lends a cartoonish bellow to his character that so easily could have become overacting, but instead is just manic & terrifying.  He gets the flashier role, but it's also going to be the one people remember from The Lighthouse, his haunting glare as he throws out Shakespearean-style soliloquies, casting all (including the audience) into the unforgiving deep.

Monday, October 28, 2019

Kay Hagan (1953-2019)

I was a little boy the last time a challenger beat an incumbent president.  It is perhaps because of this that while I have always been a political nerd, it was in the Senate that I spent most of my geekdom, pouring over Senate results because there were more opportunities for my side to win, more opportunities for the candidates I was cheering for to have that blue checkmark next to their name.  So while I was heartily cheering for Barack Obama in 2008, I remember that election with fondness because the Senate races nearly all swung the Democrats' way, and no candidate felt more like a victory for me than Kay Hagan.

Hagan's race had seemed like a pipe dream.  She had been a random member of the State Senate, a respectable candidate to be sure, but she was running against incumbent Elizabeth Dole, a woman who just ten years earlier seemed like she might become our nation's first female president, and was the wife of one of the most storied figures in the Senate in the late 20th Century.  Dole, however, was beatable, and was caught sleeping late in the Senate race against Hagan, who would prove in her two Senate contests to be a truly gifted politician.  Dole threw a "Hail Mary" pass by calling Hagan, a devout Presbyterian, "godless" and it ended badly for her.  Many think of 2008 as the year Obama carried Kay Hagan to victory, but it might have been more the other way around-Hagan actually won that election by eight points while Obama won it by less than a percentage point.

Outrunning Obama became something of a theme of Hagan's Senate career, and she nearly did it twice.  In 2014, like many of her colleagues, Hagan was hammered for supporting the ACA, and was one of five Democratic Senate incumbents to lose that cycle, but her election was the closest, losing by just 1.5 points despite the Republican Party throwing all they had at her.  Considering her political skill and clear connection with the North Carolina electorate, Hagan was heavily recruited in 2016 to run against her former colleague Richard Burr, but she demurred, perhaps hoping to reclaim the seat she'd won against Dole in 2008.  Her health took a tragic turn late in 2016, and any hopes of a political comeback were extinguished, with her dying just three years later.

Kay Hagan never held any other high office, and so she will forever be remembered as a one-term senator, one who rode in on a blue wave and rode out on a red one.  We oftentimes relegate figures like Hagan to historical footnotes, figures who are named in passing but seldom discussed in congressional history, and you may be wondering why I'm devoting a blog obituary, something we almost never do here (this will only be the sixth in the past two years) to such a figure.

But the reality is that Kay Hagan is perhaps the best example of how the lower case figures of history can make truly seismic impacts.  Hagan's one term was small, but mighty.  She supported Planned Parenthood and the nearly 4 million people who count on the organization each year.  She voted to overturn "Don't Ask Don't Tell" to give gay and lesbian soldiers the right to be who they are.  And of course there's her most lasting legacy, as she was the crucial 60th vote on the Affordable Care Act.  Because of Kay Hagan, millions upon millions of Americans have access to healthcare, and will live longer, healthier, and more open lives.  These votes were not easy-they likely cost her her seat, but Kay Hagan was not someone who did the right thing only when it helped her personally.  She represents the dozens of brave individuals who saw the chance to make the country a better place through expansive health coverage, and decided that even if it meant their seat, it was worth making their constituents' lives better.  I think that's a very proud legacy to leave behind, and one worth celebrating.

Ranting on...Katie Hill's Resignation

Rep. Katie Hill (D-CA)
I am frequently asked in my real life (where I am a bit more demur about talking about politics, but am someone who will discuss it when it's in a conversation) if I'd ever consider running for public office.  My answer is always, emphatically, no.  This wasn't always the case.  I think when I was in high school and maybe a little bit of college & was starting to campaign for different public officeholders that this could be something I'd be interested in, wondering what it'd be like to be that person on the platform rather than the person decked in their buttons, handing out fliers and registering people for volunteer shifts.  But as time went on, I saw what happens to public figures.  Their innermost details, their family's innermost details, are brought out in the most sordid way possible, and they have to stomach intense scrutiny, frequently unfairly.  I look at someone like Hillary Clinton and wonder how she doesn't cry herself to sleep every night, considering the treatment she's gotten through the years as if she's not a human.  I'm a pretty boring person, all things considered (the most exciting thing I did in the past month was get pneumonia and take myself out on a date night at the Cheesecake Factory...for the record those two things were not related), but I wouldn't want to subject myself to that kind of intense scrutiny, and particularly wouldn't want my family to have to endure such discussion.

This is what first went through my head when I was trying to make sense of my feelings about Rep. Katie Hill's, a first-term congresswoman from California, decision to resign this past weekend after allegations that she had an affair with a staffer (and possibly multiple staffers).  Hill confirmed a relationship with a campaign staffer prior to being elected to Congress, which feels on the surface enough to warrant a resignation.  After all, Hill was in a position of power and it was inappropriate to have a relationship with a subordinate, even if it seems to have been consensual (because a relationship with a boss cannot ever be entirely consensual).  Hill's decision appears unprompted by calls from colleagues to step down (meaning no one has to be the "Kirsten Gillibrand" who is blamed for her resignation in the way that Al Franken's resignation turned out), and it likely keeps the seat blue, which is important for any Democrat leery about losing this seat, since Hill had to beat an incumbent to win it in the first place.  Secretary of State Alex Padilla and State Rep. Christy Smith, both Tier 1 recruits, are supposedly exploring the race (Smith in fact entered the race today), and either one would start out as the prohibitive frontrunner, particularly if former Rep. Steve Knight decided not to run.  As someone who donated to Katie Hill last year (which I did), it is of some reassurance that her brief tenure in Congress will not simply revert her seat back to the Republicans, because ultimately any one congressional seat is bigger than any specific person.  That congressman, whether they be Katie Hill or Al Franken or Ruben Kihuen, represent hundreds of thousands of people, and their vote in Congress impacts 300 million people, and possibly 7 billion depending on the bill.  It's always worth remembering that when discussing an individual's rights and "fairness."

But there's more to this, which makes my stomach churn in thinking that Hill is resigning under these exact circumstances.  For starters, most of the focus on Hill's resignation has not been on her affair with a campaign staffer, but aspects of her marriage.  Purportedly (I'm not going to search for them and I'm not going to look, but enough media sites are claiming it's true that I feel I can say this with confidence) her ex-husband has leaked nude photos of her as they go through their divorce.  It's also worth noting that the staffer that Hill has admitted to having an affair with is a woman, and that there seemed to have been a polyamorous aspect to her relationship with her husband.

This feels, quite honestly, like a contributing factor as to why she is resigning, which is wrong.  Hill's sexuality and the specifics of her relationships are none of our business, and not how we should be picking our representatives.  The fact that her husband would supposedly behave in such an immoral way (not to mention illegal way, considering "revenge porn" is against the law in California) makes her having to give up her seat in Congress feel wrong, and the sort of thing I wish wasn't happening.  I don't support Hill having an affair with a staffer, and that's probably enough to warrant a resignation because we should hold our elected officials to high standards (being a member of Congress is a privilege, it's not a right), but since it feels more like she's resigning to save her family embarrassment from her divorce proceedings more than because of the actual affair, I feel gross that this is happening.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
It's particularly appalling because it doesn't feel like both parties treat these sorts of discretions the same way.  Democrats have almost uniformly had members of Congress either resign or retire when faced with a scandal.  In recent years Al Franken, Elizabeth Esty, John Conyers, and Ruben Kihuen all either resigned or retired.  While there have been Republicans who have declined to stay in office in the face of a scandal in recent history (Tim Murphy, Blake Farenthold, Pat Meehan, and Chris Collins all come to mind), it's worth remembering three very specific figures in the GOP still hold powerful seats in DC, and all have committed crimes considerably more damning than Hill's relationship with a staffer.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) is currently under indictment for using campaign finances for personal expenses, as well as for using his campaign funds in connection with five extramarital affairs with lobbyists and congressional aides...he's still in office.  Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN), a physician, had affairs with his patients, pressured his mistress to have an abortion despite publicly being pro-life, and threatened his ex-wife with a gun (and also pressured her to get two abortions)...he's still in office.  And then there's a man who has been accused by his ex-wife of assault, has been accused of sexual harassment, misconduct, or assault by 25 women, would be charged with obstruction of justice according to a former FBI Director were it not for his office, and is currently under investigation for illegally trying to use foreign aid to help his reelection campaign and damage the campaign of one of his likely presidential opponents...and, as I suspect you may know, Donald Trump is still in office.

What Hill did was wrong, but we (and the media) need to take a hard look at ourselves when we punish someone like Hill for what she did, but are willing to look the other way for Hunter, DesJarlais, and Trump.  Is it sexism, or just the expectation that Democrats should have moral higher standards that makes Hill leave office while these men who committed more heinous offenses get to keep power?  I don't have the answer, but I really wish more people would ask the question.

Saturday, October 26, 2019

OVP: Samson and Delilah (1949)

Film: Samson and Delilah (1949)
Stars: Hedy Lamarr, Victor Mature, George Sanders, Angela Lansbury
Director: Cecil B. DeMille
Oscar History: 5 nominations/2 wins (Best Art Direction*, Costume Design*, Special Effects, Cinematography, Score)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2019 Saturdays with the Stars series, we highlight a different actress of Hollywood's Golden Age.  This month, our focus is on Hedy Lamarr-click here to learn more about Ms. Lamarr (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

We will conclude our month-long look at Hedy Lamarr with Samson and Delilah, by-far the biggest movie of her career.  It's hard to understand now for a film that has largely been forgotten decades later, but Samson and Delilah was a huge hit for Paramount.  It became the top-grosser of 1950 (the movie was released in December of 1949), and was for a time the third highest-grossing film ever of the Sound Era (after Gone with the Wind & The Best Years of Our Lives).  It was also something of a zenith for Lamarr's career.  At this point she was 35, a dangerous time for actresses, but particularly for beautiful ones in Classical Hollywood.  She hadn't had a major studio contract for four years, having been dropped by MGM, and had had a series of flops with The Strange Woman and Dishonored Lady after she left the studio.  It's hard to underscore, then, how much Lamarr needed this to resonate with audiences, and it did.  Samson kicked off a new trend of biblical films in Technicolor that would dominate the 1950's, making eventually for the two best-remembered movies in this genre: The Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur.

(Spoilers Ahead) If you're like me and grew up in Sunday School, you don't really need to hear the cliff notes version of the Samson story, but I'll assume for a second here that you didn't.  Samson (Mature) is a noble but poor man who falls in love with a Philistine woman, here named Semadar (Lansbury).  Semadar's sister Delilah (Lamarr) lusts for Samson, and makes plots to eventually get him, but he rejects her, and in a brawl her sister is killed, for which Delilah blames Samson.  Eventually she gets her revenge when the Philistines, wanting to understand the secret of Samson's superhuman strength, promise her mountains of silver if she can stop Samson, and she does.  She seduces him, and in the process learns that his strength is tied up in his long hair, so she cuts it off.  They blind Samson and tie him up to work in a mill, but eventually Delilah helps him escape (this is not in the Bible, as an FYI-Delilah exits Stage Left after she cuts his hair in the source material).  Samson regains his strength one more time from God to be able to pull down the temple onto all of those who have captured & humiliated him, including a repentant Delilah, who cannot bare to be apart from him and so she dies with him even though he begs her to escape.  The film ends with Samson, Delilah, and all of the godless figures who turned their backs on Samson dead, with only the humble Hebrew figures who remained true (including a young Russ Tamblyn) left to remember Samson.

The movie, since it's early in a trend, shares a lot of the hallmarks of the future biblical epics, though it's not quite the template.  There's less focus on religion than you'd think (Samson is devout, but it's more a hallmark later in the film), and it's shorter than Ben-Hur or The Ten Commandments at just over two hours.  However, there's a reason this was a blueprint and a colossal hit-the parts it does well, it does really well.  The costume work, which won Edith Head one of her Oscars, is sublime-Lamarr is radiant in slinky peacock gowns and a constant midriff, every color under-the-sun in use for her Delilah.  The technicolor shimmers, with each actor perfectly lit, and the action sequences are impressively mounted, particularly the scene at the beginning where Victor Mature's stunt double wrestles an actual lion (something that would never happen today, and though it's obvious in closeups that Mature is fighting a puppet of some sort, the scenes with the stunt double are real-there was an actual lion in this scene).  All-in-all, Samson and Delilah looks incredible for a 1940's epic, and the spectacle still holds up some 70 years later.

The acting is hit-or-miss, as is also a hallmark of the biblical epic.  You kind of have to grade on a curve of this genre, which values nobility and hamminess, and if you do you end up enjoying the film a lot more.  George Sanders, who plays the high-ranking Saran of Gaza, was kind of tailor-made for such a genre, his catty tongue perfect for a man you know will fall to his own hubris.  Lansbury is saddled with a throwaway part (as was her lot during this era), and is not really believable as the older sister to Delilah, considering she was 11 years Lamarr's junior when this was filmed.  Victor Mature is kind of dismissible as Samson-he's not a good actor, but he knows how to be strong, and is convincing as a man of a thousand muscles...he's just not a very good actor.

As for our Star of the Month, I thought Lamarr was the best thing about the movie.  Unlike future turns in biblical epics from Virginia Mayo and Anne Baxter, she doesn't let the hokey nature of her character overcome her performance.  Lamarr was never going to be Bette Davis (not in English, anyway), but she shows here someone who completely understands what Delilah is supposed to be-beautiful, cruel, and intoxicating, and she plays that part perfectly.  It seems mean to say someone was born-to-play a villain, but this is the role that shows off all of the gifts that Lamarr has shown in lesser parts throughout the month, and puts them front-and-center.  Delilah would bring her hosannas and attention she hadn't received in a decade, possibly not since Algiers, but sadly for her it wasn't enough to save a downward career spiral.  Within a year she'd be playing in now-forgotten flops again, and though she'd briefly foray into television, she'd be retired entirely from acting within a decade of her (film) career highpoint, though her scientific work would lead her to become an important figure in modern technology into the next century.  Next month we'll take a look at another actress whose career also took her outside of the world of acting, and who spent the 1950's as her own kind of pioneer.

Thursday, October 24, 2019

OVP: Broadcast News (1987)

Film: Broadcast News (1987)
Stars: William Hurt, Albert Brooks, Holly Hunter, Robert Prosky, Lois Chiles, Joan Cusack
Director: James L. Brooks
Oscar History: 7 nominations (Best Picture, Actor-William Hurt, Actress-Holly Hunter, Supporting Actor-Albert Brooks, Original Screenplay, Cinematography, Film Editing)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

The 1980's will probably always be my least favorite decade of cinema.  The most lasting films of the era are in genres I don't gravitate toward (teen comedies, action flicks, biopics), and the decade seems to have become obsessed with its own nostalgia.  Perhaps it's partially this-the worst of modern-day cinema clearly stems from people still not over the 1980's (look at a film like Ready Player One for Exhibit A in such indulgences).  Whatever the reason, when I saw at a recent "Secret Cinema" night that Broadcast News was playing, I was like "well, at least I need to see it for the OVP" rather than getting genuinely excited about what was in store.  That's a pity, because Broadcast News is the 1980's at their very best-adult, funny, ruthless, but still knowing, and weirdly psychic about the future.  Examining the intricacies of a TV newsroom at the cutting edge of the cable revolution, the film shows the way that our lives revolve around work, and the unintended side effects of letting all of our personal lives slide in pursuit of success.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie's main focus is on Jane Craig (Hunter), a woman who, to quote John Mulaney, "is a busy businesswoman who only likes business."  Her entire persona and life are based around her successful work at a DC news station, where she works with her best friend Aaron (Brooks), a man who clearly views her as more-than-a-friend even though she doesn't see him that way.  They are forced to work with Tom (Hurt), a sports reporter who was hired not because he's a talented journalist, but instead because he's handsome & charming, a sign that the news is becoming less about the facts on the page and more about how pretty the people reading the cue cards are.  This upsets Aaron, who wants the news anchor job for himself, and feels he's earned it through years of solid reporting.  Unfortunately for Aaron, not only does his eventual on-air reporting go terribly, but also he starts to lose Jane to Tom, whom she falls in love with despite not really respecting him.  This all takes place in the backdrop of looming layoffs at the company, which means that many of the people that we see in the background (like Cusack's Blair), will lose their jobs, another sign of the impending downsizing of the news industry.  The film ends with Jane realizing that Tom staged himself crying in an interview with a rape victim to make for better television, and this is a bridge too far for her journalistic ethics.  The three meet years later, with Aaron now a father and Tom a considerably more successful news anchor (and Jane largely where she was, loving her career), watching as time has mended their past grievances with each other, but ultimately acted as a separator as they'll never feel a "part" of each other's lives again in the same way.

Like I said above, this film exhibits the best aspects of 1980's cinema, particularly since the characters are flawed, and don't necessarily need to be likable (even though they are).  This movie pretty much put Holly Hunter on the map (it was her first Oscar nomination, and along with Raising Arizona, made her a household name), and there's a reason for that-Hunter is magnificent as Jane.  The neuroticism feels authentic, the way that she stands by her principles, bending them occasionally, but never breaking them-Jane is the sort of figure you imagine is disgusted by today's news, the rare person who will continue working for smaller-and-smaller outlets just to continue to drive journalism's ethics into future generations, however fruitlessly.  Hurt & Brooks are both fun in her support, but it's Hunter who steals this show (real talk-Albert Brooks is way more a third lead than a supporting player here in a very early sign of category fraud so that the two male leads don't have to compete with each other in the top category).  Even in a year like 1987, it's going to be difficult for me to imagine her not making a serious play for the OVP statue come that year.

But the best part of Broadcast News other than Hunter is in fact its script.  The movie is funny, wry, and knowing, and omnipresent in the way that it treats news as simply another scripted television show rather than a public rite.  It's also telling about the way that the people we work with rarely become part of our actual lives.  I loved the bittersweet nature of the ending, where Jane, Aaron, & Tom all meet, old friends but that's it-just ready to discuss old times, but not really connected to each other's lives.  So often in film and television we get the fiction that close friends will be a part of our existences eternally, rather than just passing ships that meant something to us, but aren't there forever.  Jane has the option of making Tom or Aaron a part of her life forever, and chooses (correctly?) not to include them in her future because she doesn't think they fit...and director Brooks doesn't give us a hint that this will change.  Decisions have consequences, and Broadcast News gives us the reality of this when it separates these three people into their own paths.  Broadcast News is a loving film with a cynical bite, but it's at its best when it shows that we rely upon people for a time, and love them, but ultimately only a few (if any) stay with us for long swaths of time.  This is a smart movie, and one of the best the decade has had to offer in my cinematic sojourns.

Wednesday, October 23, 2019

The Souvenir (2019)

Film: The Souvenir (2019)
Stars: Honor Swinton Byrne, Tom Burke, Tilda Swinton
Director: Joanna Hogg
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

It's nearly November, which means it's about that time of year where I see A) a lot of movies in theaters and B) start to scoop up the critical darlings/intriguing pictures that I missed in theaters earlier this year & feel I should be watching before I make any sort of "best of/worst of" lists in January.  At the very top of that list was The Souvenir, a movie that earned absolute raves back in May when it came out, but for reasons I can't entirely remember now, I didn't get around to seeing (it's entirely possible I just felt particularly broke that month, and this only played at the theater where you have to spring for parking).  Whatever the reasons, I recently watched The Souvenir, and wanted to share my experiences with the film, which focuses on the latest progeny of acting royalty taking a whack at their parent's craft.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film centers on Julie (Swinton Byrne), a young film student who is attempting to make a movie about a working-class family in England.  Julie meets a man from the Foreign Office named Anthony (Burke), a seemingly posh guy, and they begin to date.  Eventually Julie starts to understand that Anthony is hardly perfect, as he frequently borrows money from her (which she gets from her wealthy mother, played by the actress's real life mother), and there are hints at infidelity & drug use.  This becomes too much for her, even though she clearly loves him, when he robs her and sells her jewelry to be able to buy heroin.  While they reconnect after he turns sober, this isn't enough, and he regresses back to using drugs, eventually dying from an overdose in a public toilet.  The film strongly implies that Julie will use this difficult chapter of her life in future art.

The film is based off of some of director Joanna Hogg's own experiences at film school, and it shows in the personal nature of the film.  The movie is probably at its best when it's showing the subtlety of class.  This is reflected not just in the ways that Julie treats the subjects of her film, but also in the way that she doesn't need to worry about money in the same way that Anthony does-she has the financial freedom given to her through her parent's fortune to pursue a creative dream, rather than staying in the Foreign Office and trying to find outlets elsewhere (through sex and drugs).  This was fascinating to me-it's rare you see a movie about money not shove the fact that "it's about money" into every lens of the film, wanting to spoon-feed to the audience, and instead just subtly give us a taste of Anthony's frustrations at never having been given the freedoms of his young romantic partner.  The film is smart in not judging these characters-they simply appear as they are, and this classism is one of the glowing side effects we find out as the movie progresses.

I didn't love The Souvenir in the way that other people did.  While I appreciated the subtler aspects, I felt that there are stretches of the movie that feel washed out by simply observing, and aren't as sharp as they could have been.  The film is not long for a modern-day drama (119 minutes), but it felt like trimming about 10-15 minutes off of the top would have tightened the story and still gotten the same point across.  Swinton Byrne doesn't have her mother's instantly iconic screen presence, which is not something you should really hold against her (demanding a 22-year-old actress have the magnetism of Tilda Swinton is an absurd ask of anyone), but I wish I had known more about what she was thinking, as it felt too surface-level, not enough inner-monologue for a movie that's really driven by her own feelings for Anthony.  The movie is well-crafted, and I'm curious to see more from everyone involved (there's a lot of promise there), but other than the conversations about class, I left more intrigued than satisfied.  I want to see what Hogg & Swinton Byrne do with more time & budgets to get their vision across, but am not quite enamored at this juncture.

Tuesday, October 22, 2019

OVP: Ad Astra (2019)

Film: Ad Astra (2019)
Stars: Brad Pitt, Tommy Lee Jones, Ruth Negga, Liv Tyler, Donald Sutherland
Director: James Gray
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Sound Mixing)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

In recent years, we've seen a plethora of space epics that take place closer to home.  Gone are film franchises (well, not gone, but alongside of in this case) like Star Wars and Star Trek, where we are venturing into galaxies unknown, and instead we see movies like Gravity, The Martian, and First Man, films that take place right outside of our front door, and feel within reach.  Ad Astra is another installment in such a trend, but it still manages to take us to worlds' unknown.  A film whose focus is on finding ourselves as we venture into the furthest corners of the solar system, Ad Astra is a gargantuan movie, one that feels like James Gray has crossed paths between the best of Christopher Nolan and the most coherent of Terrence Malick, to come out a provocative case study of one man's obsession with the truth, and another's need to observe the world he's been given.

(Spoilers Ahead) Roy McBride (Pitt) is the son of space legend Clifford McBride (Jones), a hero of the space age who when Roy was young, went off into space to try and find extraterrestrial life, but ultimately was lost, never to return evidence of such an encounter.  Years later, his son has followed into his footsteps, and is convinced by the government that his father is not, in fact, presumed dead, but still alive, at the outskirts of the solar system.  His ship is potentially causing surges back on earth, which are threatening all human life.  Roy must go to Mars to launch communication to his father, in a vain hope to stop him (or let him know that he is still alive and needs to be stopped).  However, Roy decides to go all the way to Neptune to meet his father, in the process becoming part of a solo mission after all of the people onboard attack him on command's orders.  Once he reaches Neptune, he discovers that his father was not a hero, but a man driven mad by loneliness who killed his entire crew, and despite years at the periphery of space, has not given up hope of finding alien life in the universe.  Roy tries to rescue Cliff, but Cliff doesn't want to be rescued and face what he left behind, and admits he never really cared about any of it, including Roy.  Roy lets his father physically and metaphorically go, and stops the surges, with him eventually returning to earth to share his father's data, that there is no other intelligent life in the universe, and reconnects with his estranged wife Eva (Tyler).

This is the basic plot of Ad Astra, but it's a film that's hard to summarize into just simple pieces, as the best moments of Gray's epic are actually just tiny little chapters in the film that show what life is like in a world where Earth, the Moon, and Mars are actually connected, and not just three different rocks orbiting the sun.  The scene where lunar rovers try to kill Roy for simply driving over their share of the moon, seemingly for no other reason than territorial violence, speaks to man's need to constantly control, even in the most remote of places.  And the shocking, bloody sequence with the baboons literally floating around in space, having murdered & overpowered the astronauts of their scientific expedition, is jaw-dropping in its intensity (and scary as hell).  Gray's film is gorgeous, but it also gives us a look at how alien worlds will still be so distant from our own.  The film's central tenet, at least in terms of Tommy Lee Jones's character, is the question of whether life exists beyond our planet; Gray shows here that even if it does, it will still feel out-of-reach and alien, impossible for us to properly connect with it.

The final scenes with Pitt & Jones are probably the best.  Pitt, so good at letting his gorgeous, expressive eyes and face do the talking for him with introverted characters, watches as the man he has modeled his whole life around falls apart before him, his stony visage crumbling as we learn he's a person who couldn't handle failure, or at least the answer "no" to his life's mission.  Jones is only in a small scene, but he's perfectly cast as Cliff, a man who couldn't handle the idea that all of space was just vast & cavernous, not filled with other creatures like himself.  Gray's message with Ad Astra is ultimately one of hope in showing it is Roy, not Cliff, who must continue on after this journey, even though Cliff's is the quest we as humans are obsessed with knowing.  Roy is there to show us that what we have on earth is precious enough that we should protect that even if it means that we don't know the answers of the universe.  It's an optimistic moment for a man who has not allowed himself any sort of emotion; everything you want in life is right here, you just need to allow yourself the vulnerability to find it.  Ad Astra is a gorgeous, sumptuous feast, but it's also about two men's journeys into the unknown, and the strength to come back not knowing the answers to the questions you sought to learn.

Monday, October 21, 2019

Ranting On...Martin Scorsese & Francis Ford Coppola

It's rare in recent months that I've been able to get a proper discussion about something cinematic on this blog.  Oftentimes when controversies hit the movies, it's along the lines of a Joker, where I haven't had a chance to see the movie, and where it feels like people are more reacting prior to seeing the actual film than having an honest discussion after the public has weighed in on the movie.  So color me surprised that the recent comments by film directors Martin Scorsese & Francis Ford Coppola have had enough legs that I'm actually able to have some opinions and discussion about what they said, and how the truth between their fight with the Marvel films is somewhere in-between right-and-wrong.

For those who don't know, Scorsese & Coppola, two of the most important filmmakers of the 1970's (and in Scorsese's case, still a name that commands awards attention every movie he makes), have been lambasting the onslaught of comic book movies in recent years, in particular the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  Scorsese said of the films that they are "not cinema" and "the closest I can think of them, as well made as they are, with actors doing the best they can under the circumstances, is theme parks."  Coppola went further, stating "I don't that anyone gets anything out of seeing the same movie over and over again...Martin was kind when he said it's not cinema.  He didn't say it's despicable, which I say it is."

Naturally, considering these are the most popular things in movie theaters right now, reaction was swift online, condemning Scorsese & Coppola as out-of-touch.  Figures like James Gunn and Natalie Portman have defended the films (both, it's worth noting, after getting sizable checks from the MCU).  And we all get to have an outrage fest that ultimately goes nowhere.  But I wanted to take a look at the context of these two men's thoughts, particularly since I admire them both.  The men who made Taxi Driver and The Godfather and Raging Bull and Apocalypse Now deserve to at least discuss the current state of cinema because in a lot of ways they helped to invent it, so let's chat here.

I think the knee-jerk reaction here is to assume that Scorsese & Coppola are condemning all comic book movies, and while that may be the case (has anyone outright asked them if they liked, say, the Nolan Batman movies?), it doesn't read that way to me-they're condemning the Marvel Cinematic Universe, an argument that's verboten on the internet (unless you want to be surrounded by fanboy criticism until you die), but isn't without merit.  Coppola is right-the films do seemingly repeat themselves ad nauseum.  I'd dispute that they're all "despicable," but if this is a qualitative discussion about the movies themselves, critics do go out of their way to prop these films up, even though they are cumulatively "fine" and only a few installments in the series (specifically Captain America: Winter Soldier and Black Panther) are genuinely rising above and approaching masterful cinema.  Increasingly they are just retreads of the same stories, the same ideas.  Films like Spider-Man: Far From Home are a bore, putting talented actors in the same plots over-and-over-again, without enough differentiation to simply accuse Scorsese & Coppola of genre bias.

So if this is just a debate about whether or not the MCU movies are any good, well, I invite it.  I think as we expand that story and pull it like taffy into a new generation (post the end of the Infinity Wars saga), it's worth asking if we're essentially just creating another uninspired corner of the Disney universe.  Disney's other franchises (the live action remakes, the endless Pixar sequels, the Star Wars trilogy that is basically just the same story as the last two trilogies), are hardly stretching the imagination, and it might be worth some reflection on the talented minds who create these films over whether or not they are making the movies a better place by putting all of their collective celebrity and capital into such disposable content.

But I also can't let Scorsese specifically slide here.  After all, Marty is also helping the deterioration of film with him signing a contract with Netflix, who one could argue is doing more to disrupt the "classic cinematic experience" than even Disney.  Scorsese is not Coppola, who hasn't had a hit since Bram Stoker's Dracula 27 years ago, and honestly could use the added boost of a streaming platform such as Netflix.  Scorsese's movies make tons of money, and even when they don't he still demands cache.  The Wolf of Wall Street and Shutter Island were colossal moneymakers, and Hugo charmed critics and was an Oscar giant.  Marty doesn't need Netflix's money to be able to get into a theater-he can do it on name alone, and casting still notable names like Robert de Niro & Al Pacino in his pictures is just as easily going to get him screens.  Scorsese, is, in fact, one of the few people who can still command attention for a straight drama or a movie that isn't going to franchise; he's one of the only people who can prove that studios shouldn't just bank on tentpoles.

That he is still willing to sell out, then, proves that while Scorsese has a point, he's not necessarily offering up a real solution.  Attacking someone else for cutting down trees while you've got your own buzz saw in hand is kind of hypocritical.  I love these men (their films have brought me endless joy through the years), but it's not just Disney that is trying to stifle the creativity of modern cinema, making it so that a future generation doesn't have movies like The Godfather and Taxi Driver to enjoy.  It's also Netflix, giving movies like Roma and The Irishman a home...but only if you pay them $13 a month for the privilege.  Pretending that there is only one culprit who is making cinema less original and less accessible is disingenuous, and Scorsese & Coppola should know better...even if they might have a point about the Marvel movies.

OVP: Judy (2019)

Film: Judy (2019)
Stars: Renee Zellweger, Finn Wittrock, Rufus Sewell, Michael Gambon
Director: Rupert Goold
Oscar History: 2 nominations/1 win (Best Actress-Renee Zellweger*, Makeup & Hairstyling)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

I actually saw End of the Rainbow with Tracie Bennett, not on Broadway or even the West End, but when it made its American stage debut at the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis (for those who don't know, this blog is situated in Minnesota, which may explain why I occasionally struggle to be on the cutting edge of seeing some of the awards contenders).  I remember being absolutely astounded by the show, but mostly Bennett's raw look at the world of Judy Garland (a Minnesota treasure in her own right).  Garland's life has been told so many times, and been told definitively with Judy Davis & Me and My Shadows, but she brought a raw urgency to Garland's final years, where she was mostly just a shell of the vibrant force that was once a major movie star and a voice of a generation, and had long since lost her battle with pills and booze.  This is the Judy we're given in Rupert Goold's onscreen rendition of End of the Rainbow (renamed Judy cause heaven forbid we get a distinctive film title), which at once gives us a more intimate look into Garland's last stand, and also saddles it with an impossibly sad ending that it can't really recover from.

(Real Life Doesn't Have Spoiler Alerts) Judy Garland (Zellweger) is the mother of three children, the younger of two are living at home with her and the older of them enjoying her own start of fame (and like her mother, the demons that would come with it).  Judy is broke, and in order to make money since she can't get enough cash from American nightclubs (and is uninsurable on a film set thanks to her unprofessional behavior), she goes to London, where a packed out audience is waiting for her.  Judy is having an offscreen romance with her soon-to-be final husband Mickey (Wittrock), but that's as ill-advised as her consistent limit-pushing, using the same pills that once allowed her to work 18-hour days on the MGM lot to simply stay awake.  The movie alternates between her time on the set of The Wizard of Oz, with a creepy LB Mayer obsessed with controlling the "girl next door" and present-day Judy, whose demons are still there from that time in the spotlight.  The film ends on a high note, with Judy getting to have one great closing number of "Over the Rainbow" before the curtain closes (and we know that this comeback will be her last).

The movie is disappointing.  It can't really grab the electricity of the live play, where Bennett was able to give us a different kind of heightened Judy, manic but still bursts of genius coming out from a voice that won't come back.  Here the film is more preoccupied with trying to cover the bases of Judy lore, and almost every time it does so it fails.  At this point Garland's personal life is so famous we don't really need the flashbacks to her hellish time on the MGM lot, in many ways feeling like watching Bruce Wayne's parents die just to establish her current anguish-we know why Judy Garland is sad, we don't need it underlined.  Additionally, her relationship with Mickey Deans is confusing and underwritten-the writers clearly have an opinion on him (and it's not complimentary), but they don't have the guts to go after it, and instead just kind of depict him as a handsome leech.  About the only angle that felt genuinely interesting was an early scene where Garland is chatting with her daughter Liza Minnelli, who in 1969 was about to graduate from "Judy Garland's talented daughter" to a legitimate superstar.  Seeing the jealousy in Garland's eyes as she sees the world being laid bare for her daughter (while she, who has given her life to the entertainment industry, can't even get a job), is a challenging thing I've never seen a Garland biopic, and I kind of wish they'd explored this angle just a little bit further.

But biopics, especially ones based on musical superstars, are rarely about getting out-of-the-box, and instead are simply about a famous actor playing another famous person and singing the jukebox hits.  Zellweger uses her actual voice, a risky move while playing someone who was a considerably stronger singer than she is in real life, but let's face it-Garland in 1969 wasn't really "Judy Garland" anymore so having a less-talented singer take on the vocals isn't a fatal flaw.  Zellweger also resists the urge to imitate Garland's distinctive speaking voice, but in doing so she alienates herself too much from Judy.  I'm the last person to complain about a lack of mimicry in a biopic role (I think it's an overrated virtue), but I left Judy thinking that Zellweger hadn't successfully played a singer who was once the greatest in the world.  There's nothing there in her Judy that makes me bask in even a faded superstar, just an empty, funny celebrity who was brought down by pills.  The glamour, the movie star realness of Judy Garland isn't there even in a dilapidated capacity, and I felt the film & performance was hollow as a result.  You can tell she's trying, and every once-in-a-while she hints at what might be possible, but whether out of an urge to stray away from an impression or because Zellweger (who hasn't had a movie of this demand & pop culture importance in a decade) is out-of-practice, I felt her central work was flat.  Judy is a movie that could have been great, but unlike the real life Garland, it's not brought down by erratic swings-it's just too safe, unable to exhibit even a basic shred of originality.

Sunday, October 20, 2019

The Last Black Man in San Francisco (2019)

Film: The Last Black Man in San Francisco (2019)
Stars: Jimmie Fails, Jonathan Majors, Danny Glover, Tichina Arnold, Mike Epps, Finn Wittrock
Director: Joe Talbot
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

I don't really have an excuse for not having seen The Last Black Man in San Francisco in theaters.  I initially thought it was a documentary, and I was kind of documentaried-out the week that it came out, and by the time I realized it was a narrative film (and was winning raves) it had quickly adiosed from my local theaters.  This is a pity, as I can imagine this was something special on the big screen, the gorgeous house at the center of the film coming to life amid a group of silent, watching faces.  At home, though, I'll state I still found it enthralling.  Last Black Man is not the sort of movie I was expecting, but instead a hopeful film, one aided by a gorgeous score and a stupendous central acting duet.  It's also about what we give up to become ourselves, and might be the most thoughtful film I've seen so far in 2019.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie centers on Jimmie (Fails, in something of a semi-autobiographical role), a man who has had a hard life, at points living in a group home or in a car, who daydreams about moving back to the gorgeous Victorian house that he grew up in, and that his grandfather built.  He, along with his friend Mont (Majors) will sneak past the gate of the house and perform maintenance & fix the property, much to the annoyed chagrin of the current owners.  When the owners are forced out of the house as well (San Francisco real estate, y'all), Jimmie and Mont decide that they are done play-acting and move into the empty home, getting to see what life would be like if they could simply go back to this magical old home.  As reality sets in, we see cracks in their relationship, and in the world around them, and they come to a precipice, particularly Jimmie-does he stay in a city that keeps rejecting him, or does he move on, leaving behind his childhood dreams about this house?

The film sounds conventional in that description, but that's not how it's laid out.  The opening five minutes involve an almost operatic skateboard through the city, with Jimmie & Mont, clearly friends of the closest nature (neither men once mention having sex with a woman among themselves, and one wonders if there is some sort of romantic component to their friendship even if they don't say it out loud...or I might have just been reading into things), on the same skateboard & the camera focused on onlookers, the current faces of a changing city.  The music is a major character in the film, as is the house, with its ornate ceilings and gorgeous side library (if you don't leave enamored with this house, I don't really know how to deal with you).  The film is lensed with precision, so much care given to each frame and sequence, that you know you're in the presence of a future auteur with Joe Talbot.

Honestly-even as the film hits more familiar beats (it's clear that eventually we're going to learn that Jimmie's connection to this house isn't as concrete as he assumes), the creativity of the delivery keeps the film from going down the usual trails.  The film's ending, with Jimmie abandoning Mont, and Mont left to wonder what his life will be without his soulmate, is crushing, but also real-we know that Jimmie needs to leave all of this behind in order to turn into the man he's meant to become, and that includes leaving behind his two great loves, Mont and the house.  The performances are tender & heartfelt, with both Fails and Majors finding a rich back story for their introverted characters, and I left understanding the damaging effects of gentrification in a way that I don't think a thousand New York Times articles could have ever imparted.  Last Black Man in San Francisco is a profound look at love, home, and place, the ways that we connect with the world around us even as it's leaving us (or we're leaving it), and I am in awe of its seamless architecture and grace.