Ronhamprod

Rudy (1993)
Dir: David Anspaugh
Stars: Sean Astin, Charles S. Dutton, Ned Beatty, Robert Prosky, Jon Favreau – and “Vincent” Vaughn (is that… really?!?)

*** Special Note: if you’ve never seen this film, please don’t Google it or watch the preview… You’ll thank us later. For those of us who have seen it (probably several times), are we alone in our disdain of the poster on IMDB, or the image displayed on the DVD cover?? It seems like a real disservice to the audience who hasn’t seen the film… Would love to know your thoughts on that sentiment! ***

For those of you who know me, you know that on many Saturdays from September to early December, I’m probably out of pocket for much of the day. I always intend to limit my viewing, to watch only the “big game” that day. I’m referring to the one that’s been hyped all week – the LSU/Alabama or Oklahoma/Texas or #1 vs. #4 kind of match ups. However, in my excitement, I usually begin my viewing much, much earlier… I live in L.A., and our games start at 9am out here. And before you know it, I’ve blown the morning watching Northwestern/Purdue go to overtime, or taken in Oregon State upsetting USC – or some other unscheduled College Football craziness that invariably occurs before the “big game”… And that’s right, I capitalized College Football. I’m a sports fan, but I easily place College Football at the top of my favorites list.

The 1993 film Rudy depicts why I have such an affinity for the sport. Oftentimes, the drama that unfolds on the field is equal to or far short of the drama that preceded the game. The film is about an undersized Indiana boy, who dreams of running out of the tunnel and onto the hallowed ground of the Fighting Irish’s field. He announces to his family as a boy that he’s going to Notre Dame. And further, he’s going to play football there. Now, I understand the reaction of the boy’s father, played dutifully by Ned Beatty: his head droops downward until his chin rests on his chest. He’s only trying to protect his son from disappointment because he knows A) Rudy is NOT the best student – in fact he struggles… and B), Rudy is a teeny tiny little man. He has neither the body frame nor the brains to be a Notre Dame football player.

And that’s really what the movie is about, the perseverance of Daniel “Rudy” Ruettiger as he strives towards his goal while his family, his girlfriend and most of his friends consistently advise him against pursuing this “dream of his”… I think we all see [insert hero here] when we’re young, and we want to be like that. At least for a while. At least until we find out exactly what it’ll take to do [insert whatever the hero does here]. For me it was James Bond. I really thought that’s what spies did. Then I read a LeCarre novel, and… I decided not to be a spy.

Regardless, part of the joy of Rudy is watching Sean Astin in the title role as he constantly works out… as he asks questions of the priests at Notre Dame, “How do I get to go to school here?” and “Am I praying enough – is that the problem? Because I can pray more!” Rudy even gets a job working on the hallowed ground of the field where he meets Fortune, a grounds keeper who mentors Rudy played by Charles S. Dutton. One of the best scenes in the film is between Fortune and Rudy when we find out about Fortune’s history with the football program. In fact, the film is sprinkled with quality scenes between those trying to help Rudy reach his goals – and those trying to squash his dream. To the filmmakers’ credit, these scenes are evenly sprinkled throughout – just the right amount of “don’t do it, kid!” messaging to Rudy contrasted with, “whatever you do, don’t quit, man!”

You often hear people leaving the theater say, “I liked this movie… I wanted to root for this guy!” That’s really Rudy in a concise sentence. You can’t help but grin at the kid as he gets on a stool in the locker room and starts to imitate one of the team’s old coaches’ legendary speeches, which he memorized from listening to it on a record player as a kid. You nod to yourself as you see Rudy running around the stadium, keeping himself in peak condition as he anticipates a positive letter from the Notre Dame admissions office. You may tear up as he receives those letters.

The ultimate compliment to the film and its director, David Anspaugh – who I’m sure gets just as much credit for directing another great sports film, Hoosiers – is this… Personally, I can’t stand Notre Dame football. I won’t disclose the specific reasons here other than to say I’ve always been a fan of the underdog. The point is this – when I was confessing earlier to just how much of the College game I watch throughout the fall, I will consistently carve out time on Saturdays to watch Notre Dame – and always cheer for their opponent, unless somehow the Irish are playing a team I need to lose for some reason. So, think of the kind of movie this must be, where I’m rooting for the title character and the program he so desperately wants to be a part of, despite the fact I can’t stand that same entity!

Watch Rudy. If it’s for the first time, I wish I was there to experience it with you. If it’s a repeat, you’ll be glad you saw it again – particularly as a warm up to College Football, which starts this Thursday, September 3 on ESPN. Enjoy the games this fall!

Fine. You need one more reason, don’t you? OK, sure! We here at ronhamprod.com are always happy to oblige. Look at the picture to the left. That’s right. A young, unknown actor at the time named “Vincent” Vaughn has a nice little supporting role in the film. Now, you really need to watch Rudy.

P.S. – I’m not one to point out the “flubs” in movies… I think it’s a miracle that excellent movies like Rudy ever get made – so who cares if there’s a mistake or two?? But, during my latest viewing, I saw something that I think other College Football Fans will appreciate. It’s less of a mistake and more of something that makes you grin as a College Football Fan… In the climactic scene of the final game, as the Irish are ready to take the field for the kickoff… I swear, one of the extras in the stands is brazenly displaying his “Boston College” flag. See it for yourself – that cracked me up.

IMDB – IMDB Link to Rudy

Apologies, but no trailer for you this time. If you really want it, you can find it… We watched it and felt it let on too much for first time viewers.

Z Channel: A Magnificent Obsession
Dir: Xan Cassavetes

I recently heard about this documentary title through a friend.  She and I worked together at my previous job, and had had discussions surrounding film on and off at company social events while I was there.  As you might have guessed by now, movies tend to come up in conversation when I have a drink or two.  Crazy thought, I know… but true!

Anyhow, I come to find out that this pal of mine was an associate producer on Z Channel: A Magnificent Obsession.  Not only that – she attended Cannes back in 2004 to showcase the film!  How cool!  So, I went onto Amazon, found this title for a few dollars and had a watch this week.

I don’t know about you, but when I think of documentaries, I think of an afternoon at the museum.  Or maybe attending live theater – or the ballet.  I have to be in the mood.  But as soon as the picture starts, I’m always glad I decided to watch.  Z Channel was no exception – particularly for a film maniac like myself!  It’s like this film was made for me.  For everyone, though, I think we can agree that this is a very adept presentation of an important slice of film history.  Bear with me here, but having watched this film, I think several products that we take for granted today were kind of born out of Z Channel.

The film covers the first pay cable station in the country, which launched inselected neighborhoods in Los Angeles back in 1974.  Reception to local TV stations was really difficult for some residences in the hills and canyons around town, so cable TV provided a reliable alternative for a few dollars a month.  Z Channel was one of those networks you could add to the subscription.  It offered a variety of cinema including not only box office hits, but also lesser known world cinema titles.   Under-appreciated titles from well known producers and directors and a bizarre, eclectic and diverse mix of “midnight movies” characterized this outlet’s offerings.

So, there are film buff movies, and then there are film buff commentaries… and this film is both.  It was an absolute treat to watch the odyssey of Z Channel, which was in a way, the precursor to the way we watch TV.  In fact, you might say it opened new distribution models for theatrical films which hadn’t gotten a fair shake at the box office.  There’s an entire sequence within this doc, which describes how movies likeThe Wild Bunch, Heaven’s Gate and Once Upon a Time in America were released widely in a very abbreviated capacity.  In other words, Sam Peckinpah, director of The Wild Bunch, turned in a copy of the film that was close to three hours.  It was – and remains – the right of the studio who financed the film (in this example, Warner Bros), to shave it down to something closer to two hours.  But, the programmers at Z Channel felt that audiences might not understand the film as well as they would the longer original!

So, Z Channel became one of those bastions for film buffs, cinema students and movie geeks – not to mention established moviemakers like Robert Altman, Michael Cimino and other heavyweights from the 70s and 80s.  At its core was the network programmer, Jerry Harvey.  What the film makes you appreciate about Jerry’s character was his insistence on seeking out films that everyone should see.  Even if it was from his own unique perspective, I have to admit… I agreed with many of the titles mentioned in Z Channel’s catalog – as in, “Hell YEAH everyone should see that!”

For example, If a film failed at the box office, but had an alternative cut, Jerrywould seek out the reel and air both cuts!  In fact, you might say that Mr. Harvey executed the first “director’s cut,” which is a DVD “extra” we’ve become very used to.  He also was partially responsible for James Woods’ nomination for the Oliver Stone directed feature, Salvador.  This picture was another example of a film with a legitimate story that didn’t find an audience in its brief theatrical run… but Jerry thought it was incredible!  So, he aired it on Z Channel several times – and Woods ended up subsequently receiving an Oscar nomination for his performance.  Again, we’re used to a world where Academy “screeners” are sent and members choose based on the films sent to them… but I think we can agree that Mr. Harvey was ahead of his time in his apparent thinking, “If we air it… they will come.  This film will find it’s audience…”

The film was a treat for me not only because of its interesting subject matter, but also its fun-tactic interviews.  I mean, there’s Alexander Payne, wearing his Z Channel shirt, which he received after he wrote into the station a letter of strongly worded feedback long ago.  There’s Mr. Tarantino, ranting and raving about a foreign film I’d never heard of.  There’s Mr. Altman, quietly explaining the importance of having an outlet where the film community can watch and learn from an eclectic mix of titles…

So, while this title may be difficult to find, it’s worth a purchase on Amazon if you’re a film fan!  There were surprises and some especially tragic elements to the Z Channel story that I hadn’t expected… but in the end, I watched this documentary on the edge of my seat.  While I don’t predict that kind of engagement for all of you, I still say this is well worth a watch!

Note: I don’t own any of the images within this post.

Fargo (1996)
*** Burke Favorite ***
Dir: The Coen Brothers
Stars: Frances McDormand,  Steve Buscemi, William H. Macy, Harve Presnell & Peter Stormare

I don’t mind the very beginning, in which a superimposed message tells the audience that this film is “a true story”.  I think “true story” depends on your definition, doesn’t it?  I think that most folks, when you put the two words, “true story” together, they assume it’s based on some tale that actually happened historically or in real life.  In the case of Fargo, I think the lovable Coen Brothers simply meant that this is a very truthful story.  Its events happen to take place in 1987, in Minnesota.  It’s a story full of truth is another way to put it.  But, what’s this truth I’m referring to?  Glad you asked!  I think instead of “story,” you could very well have put “crime.”  Because Fargo really is all about “true crime.”  Most movies involving guns and criminals and murder and ransom and the like have sexy looking actors involved.  There might be exotic locations and incredible chase sequences, heists and shootouts.  But maybe that’s why those movies seem “less true,” entertaining though they may be!  See, to me, Fargo is an incredibly realistic film.  That’s what makes it so scary to me – regardless of whether these events happened, or not.

Before we go any further, I should mention what the film’s about: a botched ransom job.  That’s essentially it, isn’t it?  I mean, you could say it’s about one man’s selfish behavior that leads to the deaths of seven people, six of which are innocent.  That’s another way of putting it.  Or that it’s a cautionary tale about how to handle your in-laws.  There’s a lot of ways of describing what Fargo is about – and many of them are true.

The criminals in Fargo aren’t sexy.  At all.  Nor are the heroes for that matter – but the criminals argue over the stupidest things ever: one guy, who hasn’t said a word in four hours of driving, suddenly announces he wants “pancakes house.”  What’re you, four?  What’s the next request – for blanky and a juice?   Anyway, his partner immediately disagrees, saying they just had pancakes for breakfast!  He asks why can’t they have a steak and maybe the company of a prostitute for dinner?  Later in the film, the ultimate demise of one of the guilty parties results from an argument that he didn’t even need to win (see note 1).  To me, that’s the kind of thing real criminals argue about.  They don’t throw down over what you called their mom or girlfriend as often as they argue about things pancakes.  Again, “true” story!  Another element of realism to these criminals is that they underestimate each other.  I’m thinking not only of the moment when one guy (who’s been particularly quiet so far) murders a highway patrol officer, but also about Shep Proudfoot’s handling of his associate, Carl.

Even the action isn’t sexy.  Think of the kidnapping scene.  Poor Mrs. Lundegaard is at home, enjoying her morning talk show and working on her mending, when this jack wagon in a ski mask marches right up on her deck.  She just can’t believe it.  Think about that!  Do you remember that scene?  Mrs. Lundegaard just stares at this villain in disbelief as he cups his hands over his eyes and puts his hands on the glass to get a better look at the inside of the house.  If only she HAD believed what was going on, she might have saved herself.  But too late – he winds up, smashes the window with his crowbar and a scene of textbook black comedy ensues.  And here’s the un-funniest part: the guy that arranged all this mayhem is her husband, Jerry.

Why would her own husband do such a thing?  Well, it seems that he’s in some kind of trouble that requires him to gather lots and lots of money and very, very quickly.  That’s all the information we’re ever provided, isn’t it?  That Jerry needs so much money, not even the 10% finder’s fee on a $750,000 deal will cover it for him.  So, he decides to hatch a kidnapping plan that will require his own wife to be the hostage.  If you were to ask me which characters, in all the films I’ve seen, would qualify to be listed in a “top ten all time villains” listing, I’d have to say Jerry Lundergaard would fit in there undoubtedly.  Why?  I mean, he’s in there with Darth and Hannibal and the rest of them – how would I possibly find room for this guy?  Because I feel like I know him.  I feel like I’ve ridden the elevator with him at the office, stood behind him on the escalator at the baseball game, maybe even had a brief chat with him at the bar.  Truth is, we all know people like Jerry, don’t we?

Which brings me to the Mikey Yanagita scene.  When I first sat the movie in the theater years ago, I thought that scene seemed a bit out of place.  Why were we spending time with this guy when there was such an interesting investigation going on?  Sure, you could argue that even virtuous married women like Marge Gunderson like to be reminded they’ve still got it.  But having watched the movie many times by now, I think I know what’s going on here, finally.  We’ve talked about the violence that results from Jerry’s kidnapping scheme, right?  Well, I think we can agree that at a very base level, lies are the problem here.  As discussed, we never know what Jerry’s motivation really was – all we know is he needs lots and lots of moo-lah.  Well, Mikey Yanagita needs something too: some loving, a little attention, a little human contact.  And how far is he willing to get it?  He’s willing to lie to poor Marge, that’s how far.  He’s willing to make her believe that someone they both knew in high school not only married him, but died, too!

Here’s where the brilliance of the Coen Brothers’ storytelling technique is revealed.  How do they reveal this fact to us?  Does Mikey break down in the restaurant and confess to Marge?  Nope.  Is there a dramatic montage of Marge investingating on her own, looking at old yearbooks and maybe even some resources from her job as a law encorement officer?  Nuh huh.  Instead, Joel and Ethan (sorry for the familiarity, fellas) shoot Marge as she’s packing her bags in her hotel room.  As she folds, she chats with an old pal of hers from high school over the telephone.  It’s this pal – who is never even given screen time, by the way – who advises Marge over the phone that Mikey Yanagita is kind of a sick puppy, who not only was never married to the lady he said he married, but also, he stalked her!

In summary, I think I can bullet point the reasons this film is such a classic, and well deserving of its spot on the AFI top 100 American films ever made – oh, wait… it’s not on the list!  Well here are some reasons to reconsider…

Not One Wasted Moment: seriously, if you were to remove a scene, which one would it be??  Even scenes like the police officer talking to Mr. Mohra about the interaction he had with Carl at the bar are… well, truthful!

Textbook “Black Comedy”: this is a line that is so hard to walk along it’s nearly invisible.  And yet, there are scenes that might make you laugh when you really have no business laughing: think of Peter Stormare’s sick character, Gaear Grimsrud, as he applies ointment to his cut during the kidnapping scene when he notices someone may be in the shower.

Truthful Mise-en-scene: please excuse the use of the d-bag film school term, but I can see how many filmmakers aspire to achieve this kind of tone.  It’s incredibly difficulty to pull off, but through all of the tools filmmakers have at their disposal – from music to editing, acting to cinematography – they created a one of a kind film experience, which overflows with truthful narrative.

Note 1: For those of you who have seen the film, I’m referring to the scene in which Buscemi is arguing with Stormare over splitting the cost of the car!  The guy has a million dollars waiting for him in a case – carefully buried near a fence and marked with an ice scraper, mind you – and he’s going to argue with Stormare over a few thousand dollars…  And then he gets axed to death.  Again, the stupidity of these criminals is almost overwhelming – at least in how far they get before they die or are apprehended.

Editor’s Note (Editor? I like the sound of that!): below, please find our first guest blog from ronhamprod fan, Drew Marksity.  If anyone else would like to take a stab at an entry for us, we’d be more than happy to read your material!  I think DM does a find job of covering “Wolf”, which, as I’m sure you’re aware, is now available for home viewing.  We hope you enjoy this entry as much as we did – thanks again for your comments, Drew!

*****************************************************

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Dir:  Martin Scorsese
Stars:  Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Margot Robbie

There is something about The Wolf of Wall Street that’s hard to figure out, that’s difficult to define or categorize.  Let’s be frank that the film is too long.  However, it is also very entertaining.  It has a lot of visual beauty, outstanding acting, and great music.  But the question is:  what were director Martin Scorsese and writer Terence Winter really trying to do with this film?

Let’s start with what we can say for sure.  First, the story itself is compelling.  Americans love to see rich people having fun, even if they’re bad guys.  And if they’re bad, we can also look forward to their downfall!  Wolf delivers in this respect, even though the plot is almost more of a skeleton of a plot, as addressed further below.

Second, in terms of theme, I think it’s purposely stated at the beginning of the film, almost to get it out of the way.  The mentor to main character Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) is Mark Hanna (Matthew McConaughey).  In a single scene, Hanna tells Belfort not to care about the investors, the clients.  Never let them cash out their earnings; convince them to buy more stocks; they’ll do it because they’re greedy; and as a result only the brokers ever make actual, real money (commissions and fees).  More importantly, he demonstrates that Wall Street guys should do anything to keep themselves going and to get pleasure, in his case martinis, cocaine, hookers, and workday masturbation!   The importance of this scene is that it’s as if the filmmakers wanted have McConaughey’s character simply tell the audience the type of characters we will be dealing with, instead of having to actually develop them.  That way, they could get right to the drug use, sex, and general hilarity which make up the main fabric of the film.

Next, we are carried quickly through some pesky plot advancement:  establishing Jordan Belfort’s sales prowess, his discovery of “penny stock” sales in which brokers receive 50% commission (instead of the normal 3%), and the assembling of a team starting with Belfort’s right hand man Donnie Azoff (Jonah Hill).  Then the actual plot slows down abruptly.  Frankly, not a whole lot happens after the first half hour and before the last half hour.  The characters just party.  Jonah Hill is hilarious.  Supporting cast members like Kenneth Choi steal individual scenes.  There are many more comedic scenes than dramatic scenes, but it’s as if Scorsese cannot quite fully commit to a comedy.

The film avoids detail or much time spent on the particulars of Belfort’s system and the various things that his brokerage firm did to bend – and then break – the rules.  The firm starts selling blue chip stocks along with their penny stocks, they start handling IPOs, but all is treated quickly, keeping the bulk of the time on funny interactions between – and the hedonism of – the characters.  Even the inevitable depiction of moving vast amounts of cash to Switzerland is primarily an opportunity for more comic  scenes.  The film decidedly refuses to portray detail about the investigation by the FBI agent in pursuit (Kyle Chandler), a character who is not developed.  Any spare moment is used to show the lifestyle of these young, wildly successful early 90s stockbrokers.

The comedy covers the full gamut.  There’s a scene where Belfort takes Quaaludes all day in order to fall asleep for a plane trip.  He and Donnie Azoff are pulling on their friend’s toupee; they’re aggressively hitting on the flight attendants; it’s out of control and hilarious.  The actors draw us in, the mood reminiscent of the scene in Goodfellas when Joe Pesci’s character has a whole restaurant laughing.  These are not people we like, but we still love laughing with them.  Another memorable scene is where Belfort’s father (Rob Reiner) walks into the office where Belfort and his friends try not to laugh and attempt to justify some outrageous expenses.  This scene is reminiscent of comedies like Old School or even Anchorman.  Then there’s the very lengthy sequence in which Belfort and Danny ingest an older, more powerful type of Quaalude.  Resulting escapades include an incredibly creative and amusing scene of Belfort low-crawling out of a country club and down a flight of stairs.  That scene finds its siblings in true drinking/drug films such as Van Wilder or Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle.

So the question is:  did Scorsese and Winter start out with a Wall Street drama and decide to turn it into a comedy?  Or, was it written as a comedy to begin with? Regardless, they should have chosen a genre.  If it was supposed to be a true comedy, then we don’t need several scenes.  Cut the one on the yacht where Belfort obtusely tries to bribe the FBI agent.  Cut out all but one of Belfort’s long speeches to his ambitious stock broker troops (listen for a newly developed yell/growl by DiCaprio which smacks of Departed co-star Jack Nicholson).  Take out the long “I’m-leaving-no-I-change-my-mind” speech, during which Belfort takes the opportunity to recount his own chivalrous assistance to a newly-hired female broker who went on to became a top seller in the firm.  Leave out the suspense as to whether Belfort will rat out his friends at the end.  Cut the fights and dramatic sex between Belfort and wife; we don’t care what happens there if this is a comedy.

On the other hand, if the film was supposed to be a true drama, then other scenes could have been axed.  There are too many full, extended scenes of debauchery.  One on the yacht, one at the office, one in the beach house:  that would have been sufficient.   And, we wouldn’t need so many extended scenes with slow-motion close-ups of Quaaludes.  We know the characters use drugs; we don’t need to see them snorting cocaine off of every flat surface in New York, along with every female body part.  Scorsese apparently loves his drug scenes as much as Vince Gilligan and his merry band of directors loved their methamphetamine-cooking sequences in Breaking Bad.  Also, unless the film was meant not only to be a comedy but specifically to be a college-style comedy like Animal House or Road Trip, then there are too many sex scenes.  It’s hard for a red-blooded American male to complain about seeing the beautiful new actress Margot Robbie and a host of other beauties in skin-tight clothes or no clothes at all, but there’s just too much of it. 

Ultimately, the filmmakers failed to pick a single genre, and the result is a three hour movie that tries to do too much.  Maybe they originally intended to make a drama, but as they filmed they had so much fun and ended up with so many funny scenes that they just could not cut them out.  Despite an overall negative feeling as I left the theater, what’s weird is that I still know I’ll watch it again.  Jonah Hill and DiCaprio are laughing so hard and so often; it was clearly a good time, and the result is entertaining.  Years from now, my friends and I will probably quote particular lines, just as we do lines from Goodfellas and The Departed.  And in a couple decades, when I’m flipping cable channels, if I catch The Wolf of Wall Street in the first hour, I’ll probably get hooked and watch it once again.

And now, a billboard that was visible on Sunset Blvd. earlier this year:

The Ninth Configuration (1980)
A.K.A. – Twinkle, Twinkle, “Killer” Kane
Dir: William Peter Blatty
Stars: Stacy Keach, Scott Wilson, Jason Miller, Ed Flanders and Robert Loggia

Fat City (1972)
Dir: John Huston
Stars: Stacy Keach, Jeff Bridges, Susan Tyrrell and Nicholas Colasanto

For those of you who don’t know, I live in Los Angeles – and frankly, living in this town has its benefits as a self-described film nerd.  I was looking forward to seeing one of the many new films in theaters over the weekend of 10/25.  As I browsed Fandango (or was it Yahoo movies…), I was distracted by a little double feature offering that caught my eye, which was playing at a theater just three miles west of where I live.  If you’re unfamiliar with the Aero Theater, let me advise that as a guy who lives, eats, sleeps and breathes movies, it’s like a cathedral.  So many classic films have played there, and the staff does a great job of playing double features, and sandwiching a nice Q&A with stars of the films as the “meat of the sandwich”, if you will.  In fact, Friday, October 25 is a perfect example of its typical offerings: at 730pm, they were showing The Ninth Configuration, which would have a Q&A session following with the star, Stacy Keach!  Then, as if this treat wasn’t enough, they were screening John Huston’s Fat City, which is an obscure little boxing picture I’d been wanting to see for years – ever since I read one of Huston’s biographies.

How do I even start with The Ninth Configuration?  I mean, it sounds like a Ludlum novel, doesn’t it?  But in fact, it’s the work of William Peter Blatty: if that name sounds familiar, it’s because he wrote The Exorcist.  During the aforementioned Q&A session, Mr. Keach mentioned that Blatty was very interested in faith driven drama, and that The Exorcist was the extreme of evil he was looking for in a story – but Configuration was meant to explore our crises of faith, almost an opposite of The Exorcist.  The story of this 1980 film – which he wrote, produced and directed – concerns a U.S. military psychiatric hospital.  Essentially, Keach’s character, Colonel Vincent Kane is brought in to ascertain which – if any – of the patients have been faking their psychosis to evade battle.

If it sounds intriguing and like high drama to you, let me warn you – this film most definitely qualifies as a “midnight movie” (see our entry on Zardoz for another great example).  Let me give some support to this statement: first off, the damned film has two titles, which will always help a movie towards achieving cult status.  The gent who recommended this title to me (thanks again, AC!)  sent me this link as a teaser – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZCcjzOeXlM  What’s fascinating to me is that this presentation is completely different from the 35mm that played at the Aero! The version I saw opened with a launch of a rocket with some pretty intense voice over and sound effects – and then “Twinkle Twinkle “Killer” Kane” was displayed as the film’s title.  And I’m glad the host, who introduced the film (very old school), mentioned the fact that “this print has a reddish hue to it, I think you’ll notice.”  Yeah, like the whole film was dipped in strawberry jam, chief.

Second, Configuration has that scene where you find yourself leaning forward, your hands firmly placed on either side of your face, eyes wide and head slightly shaking side to side as you say to yourself, “what the HELL is going on here??”  The scene in Configuration that I’m referring to is in the second act, when Keach’s character has decided to let the patients have full reign over their fantasies: in other words, the patients are literally running the asylum.  Imagine a hallway with Keach stepping in on the left side of the screen in a nazi Gestapo uniform, talking to Ed Flanders’ doctor character over the course of all of this: there goes Robert Loggia’s character (entering on the right and exiting on the left) flying through frame on a jet-pack.  Here comes Moses Gunn wearing a Superman costume, but with a prominent “N” on his chest in place of the usual “S”.  And, of course, there goes a bunch of guys dressed up like female nurses pursuing Loggia’s character.  I mean, it’s bizarre, confusing and damned funny all at the same time.

And yet, this description is not to convince you that the film is without substance!  Quite the contrary, the discussion between Keach’s Kane and Scott Wilson as Cutshaw is why the film was nominated for writing awards: we all have questions of faith and different ways of expressing those frustrations and confusions.  That’s where Configuration is provocative – it makes you wonder how many times you’ve come across as a crazy person when trying to explain what you believe.  In the end, despite all of the cult status surrounding the film and the scenes that qualify Configuration as “midnight movie,” I really enjoyed myself.  I love these titles with a compelling theme, a veteran storyteller at the helm and particularly all these character actors stuffed into one feature.  I’ve said in other posts that one of the marks of a good film is how often you think of it the next day – and I’ve thought about this one numerous times in the weeks since.

Moving on to Fat City, I remember thinking to myself how this title is a true independent film, despite its heavyweight director and incredible cast.  There is a level of genuine feel that Huston achieves from the film’s sets to the locations surrounding Stockton, CA, to its genuine supporting cast.  You’ve got Keach, starring as Tully, a has-been boxer who has had his share of defeat in and out of the ring.  He spends most of his days picking vegetables in the fields surrounding the town, fantasizing about “starting to run again,” then blowing the money he’s earned in the fields on beer and liquor.  There’s a terribly young Jeff Bridges co-starring as Ernie, an inexperienced fighter who’s convinced by his would-be mentors that he has the makings of being the next Rocky Marciano.  And just to round out this troupe of seemingly real-life, border-line-poverty-ridden caricatures is Susan Tyrrell as Oma.  What a job she does….

Tully meets Oma in his favorite bar one afternoon after picking onions, I think it was: she’s sitting there looking kind of sexy, and also kind of like a train wreck.  Her hair’s all askew, she’s on her fifth beer and her third “cream sherry” – I didn’t even know there was such a thing – and it takes us about two thirds into her discussion with Tully before we realize that fellow sitting next to her, named Earl, is actually with her.  For me, Tyrrell’s performance was one of the reasons I loved this title – there’s nothing this actress did with her character to try and convince you to root for her.  That’s a brave choice to make!

Circling back to Tully, I think it’s important to clarify that this is a boxing picture in that you’ve got the main character who insists he’s going to get back into shape.  With Bridges, you’ve got the young version of Tully – who may or may not end up like him, which is an element that makes Fat City so interesting to watch.  Another character that makes this title a very rich cake indeed is Nicholas Colasanto as the boxing manager, Ruben.  This guy acts as if he’s Don King and he talks in a way that convinces you what he’s saying should be included in the Gospel: but yet, he works out of a beat-to-hell gym and smokes his cigars and is always selling someone on something.  The conflict between him and Tully – whether it was over the $20 Tully owed him, or what happened in Panama long ago – was palpable and totally genuine in a way many movies today don’t quite capture.  As a final note, the “big fight at the end” in Fat City is one of the best I’ve ever seen on film, and the fact that Tully’s opponent was a real life boxer explains part of the man’s performance: watch the film if you get a chance, and notice how he enters the film, and leaves it.

Did I have fun at the double feature at the Aero?  Oh, yeah…

Quick Commentary – sometimes the Fanboys run you, and other times you run the Fanboys…

I think the first time I heard about this legendary story called Fifty Shades of Grey had to of been at the end of last Fall.  I won’t elaborate on the circumstances, but let’s put it this way: the conversation I had with the lady who brought it to my attention peaked my interest to the point I had to look into this set of novels.  Once I found that the story was not for me (I distinctly remember two words describing the series – “Mom porn”), I kind of forgot about it.  However, I read the trades pretty regularly, so I was aware that a fairly new director had been tasked to helm the project – and I vaguely remember some backlash about that.  Then, last week at the office, I overheard some ladies talking about the casting and how they weren’t very familiar with this “Dakota lady.”  Again, I forgot about it.  I mean, Ridley Scott’s new film is coming out this October – which do you think is a priority for me?

Then, as I attempted to enjoy my Chipotle chicken burrito this afternoon, I read the trades and happened upon this story –

http://popwatch.ew.com/2013/09/05/matt-bomer-responds-fifty-shades-of-grey/

Which led me to read this link here –

https://www.change.org/petitions/we-want-matt-bomer-and-alexis-bledel-as-christian-grey-and-anastasia-steele-on-50-shades

I’ll give you a moment to digest these links: particularly the second one.  (Deep breath.)

OK, and we’re back.  Let me get into this by asking a question of the author of this change.org post: do you think the names that scroll at the end of films are just made up, and the industry runs them because it’s a movie tradition?  How exactly do you think films get made?  Seriously, how do they transition from an author’s computer to your local cineplex?  I can tell you how they should continue to make this transition: without your help.  The bottom line is the producers of the film paid for the rights to the book, they hired the director they wanted, and subsequently they’ve cast those actors that they feel give their project the best opportunity for success.  Simply because you disagree with their casting choices does not – at least, in my opinion – warrant this kind of post.

Mr. Bomer and Ms. Bledel are the perfect cast for these characters, huh?  Perhaps in your mind as you read the book, sure.  Let me use myself as an example: a few years ago, I read several of the Ian Fleming penned James Bond books.  I don’t mind admitting I thought of Clive Owen as Bond as I read them.  But, did I throw a fit or start a campaign to oust Daniel Craig when he was cast?  No, sir!  No, I say: I simply rubbed my chin, scrunched my face and said to myself, “Well, we’ll see…”  The end.  And for the record, Casino Royale is one of the best Bonds ever (but that’s for another post).

All of that said, the point I’m making is this: I am absolutely floored that over 66,000 people – SO FAR – have signed this Change.org petition.  I can think of an infinite number of alternative ways for these fans to spend their time.  Why not catch up on your other reading?  Ever read War & Peace?  Because that’ll take a month of your time, brother.  How about volunteering – have you ever taken the time?  Because Change.org has literally thousands of other petitions for you to sign that – again, in my opinion – are a wee bit more worth while.  I wonder if any number of these 66,000 petitioners also called 911 in Connecticut a few weeks back when their cable was out?  Did you see that story??  Because the local law enforcement had to post a message on Facebook to the effect of, “Yeah, um, people?  Your cable being out is not an emergency…”  I suppose that’s the thought I really want to extend to you, dear reader: Ben Affleck being cast as Batman does not constitute an emergency.  Nor does the casting of Fifty Shades of Grey.  No one appreciates passion and enthusiasm towards film more than I – but there is indeed a limit…

My final thought is this: if you and your 66,000 plus supporters really feel that motivated to re-cast this story and make the film yourselves, why don’t you do so?  As your post says, “WE CAN DO ANYTHING GUYS, ANYTHING” (incidentally, that’s another question I had – why are you shouting?  Try: Caps Lock – Off)

I think I’m on to something here for your – let’s “crowd-produce” a film and see how that works out.  Have all of those supports donate around $1,515.00 each, which will bring you to the $100 million budget required to make the film – that’s step one.  That shouldn’t take long or be difficult in any way.  Then, reach out to Mr. Bomer and Ms. Bledel’s people and advise them that you’ll need them for four to five months sometime soon.  Shouldn’t be hard either, right?  I mean, money talks!  You’ll probably have to produce the film overseas, and have the script re-written.  But again, with your multi-million dollar budget provided by these 66,000 fans, none of that should be hard.  Oh!  And be sure to credit the screenwriter with, “Loosely based on pre-existing material.”  That way, you will have an easier time distributing the film once the crowd-directed-produced picture in your head is complete: I mean, you have plenty of contacts in theatrical distribution, right?  Even if not, who cares?  You’ll have the darling little movie with the perfect cast that’s in your head to watch any time you want forever and ever.  And that’s worth a Change.org petition any ol’ day of the week, Sparky.

Oh, my good heavens: while I’ve been drafting this, the number of signatures has gone from 66,000 to over 67,000.  I’m off to do some push ups.

Side by Side (2012)
Dir: Christopher Kenneally
Narrator/Interviewer: Keanu Reeves

I don’t know about you, but in my observation, professionals of any background tend to make it look easy.  Did ya watch The Masters last year?  Bubba Watson made it look perfectly simple to chip from a pile of mulch onto a green 80 yards away – with spectators on either side of him a mere three yards away. Back in the day when I would catch the pros like Courier, Sampras and Chang at the ATP tournament in Cincinnati every August, I would ask myself, “What exactly is wrong with you, Burke??  Why can’t you prep for the backhand on each and every shot like these guys?!?”  And switching gears to medicine, when I see my skin doc and he sees something suspicious… well, it’s only a matter of me laying down and him talking some college football or basketball to take my mind off that tool in his hand and – SWISH – that little old mole is no more.  Pardon me – perhaps a bit TMI?

Which is all a prelude to say how easy all those film-makers make it look…  I mean, who do you think those names that scroll for minutes on end at the end of movies belong to?  Do you think they’re made up?  “Come on,” you may think, “there’s no way that many people were required to make that 90 minute steaming pile I just wasted $12 bucks on!!” And sometimes you’d be right in your frustration.  But what about the other times, when you feel absolutely satisfied at having felt what you paid to feel – scared to death if you watched a horror film, or a little teary-eyed over one of those recent, drippy romantic dramas, or thrilled in a super-hero movie?  That’s where this lovely documentary made last year, Side by Side comes in: it discusses how the very images you’re seeing have changed.

In short, there has been a digital revolution in the last 10-15 years that is covered in intricate detail in Side by Side as Keanu Reeves interviews some of the industry’s top directors, cinematographers and studio execs. You may not be aware of this, but “film” isn’t produced on actual hard-copy film that often any more.  This documentary does a phenomenal job of hearing from both sides of the argument; that is whether digital photography is better or worse for “cinema” than shooting on traditional, analog film.  To some, it might be a bit depressing to hear Martin Scorsese say that he may never shoot on film again.  To others, like George Lucas, digital photography is the best thing that ever happened to the industry because of the flexibility it offers in production, the myriad of options it offers in post-production for special effects and perhaps most of all, it’s fractional cost compared to film.

Again, to film purists, there are certain elements of shooting on film stock that will never be comparable to the digital image.  For those of you who don’t know, film used to be exposed by light in a camera, and there was a physical reaction in which the image was “burned” onto the film.   In fact, there’s a sequence in this movie that does a tremendous job of explaining the physical process.  Regardless, in most of today’s movies, images are digitally translated into “1” and “0” and then able to be transferred to a computer program for editing and layering with all kinds of visual and audio effects.

For me, as a film fanatic, it was fascinating listening to Christopher Nolan tout the benefits of physical film (he even dropped a comment about film preservation) before they cut to James Cameron discuss how he envisioned Avatar as a 3D film from the very beginning, and had to wait for the technology to develop.  While Side by Side is a good documentary by definition (because it effectively educates us and presents both sides of the argument) I have to admit that it’s a real treat for film buffs.  And regardless of where you stand on film vs digital, or your level of interest in film, it’s kind of neat to be able to say you witnessed the transition from physical film to digital images – and barely noticed!  Seriously, watch the movie and look out for those sequences in which they compare the digital image to comparable film stock versions…

The Employer (2013)
Dir: Frank Merle
Stars: Malcolm McDowell, David Dastmalchian, Michael DeLorenzo and Paige Howard

The Employer is a modern day suspense/thriller about a shadowy corporation with a unique way of having potential job candidates compete for a job – basically, after an interview with the big boss, the candidates are kidnapped, put in a room and advised that whoever’s left alive will get the job.  While this film may sound like a little bit of Saw mixed with a dash of Swimming with Sharks or even a pinch of Glengarry Glenross, it definitely has its surprises.  The film, while imperfect, has unique, identifiable characters, which kept me guessing as to the outcome of the story.

My first question is this – how good is Malcolm McDowell?  The guy has been in over 120 films and he just keeps getting better!  As the title character, McDowell plays the role as you might expect a veteran star would: he’s funny in this scene, terrifying in that scene, coddling one of the job applicants in a flashback and absolutely tearing them to shreds with his delivery of the dialogue in a third act scene…  Personally, I felt like his character (officially credited as “the Employer”) had some contradictions – not to mention that some of the exposition in the second act could easily have been replaced with more scenes of the Employer chatting business with other parties.  But regardless, his performance was one of the film’s real strong points, complete with his fountain pen and hand sanitizer props.

Concerning McDowell’s “maestro” abilities, let me put it this way: in acting classes, there is an exercise where Actor A has a line and Actor B has a line, and until they’re stopped by the moderator, they simply repeat the lines to each other – and react accordingly.  It’s a listening exercise and forces the actors to spend more time listening, digesting and reacting to their partner’s line than thinking about how they’ll say their own line.  Well, in The Employer, there are several scenes in which the Employer asks each of the candidates questions – and usually, they were questions we had heard before!  But that’s where McDowell is impressive – each scene felt unique because he was chatting with a different candidate, with his/her own motivations, strengths and weaknesses.

On that note, a positive element to this movie was its unique mix of characters actually locked in the room together.  We’ve got James Harris (David Dastmalchian) as the least qualified applicant, a timid and proud fellow who’s been out of work for six months.  There’s the enormous Mike Drake (Matthew Willig), a bodybuilder who seems to have one of the best morals of the group.  Mike seems to be a polar opposite of Keith Caverns (Michael DeLorenzo – anyone else watch Head of the Class back in the day?), who seems motivated to aggravate and annoy everyone in the room for some reason!  There are two ladies, as well: Billie (Katerina Mikhailenko), a model type with some provocative high heels and a sassy attitude, and Sandra Turner (Paige Howard) who seems to be the most qualified for the job based on her business experience and cutthroat actions revealed in her flashbacks.

Even though the film takes you in some fairly obvious directions at times – Turner seems to partner up with Harris, Drake and Caverns are at each other’s throat – I was pleasantly surprised with some of the reveals and flashbacks in Act Three.  That said, the viewer has to hang in there with this title for an ending that is as interesting as the film’s premise.

Just so you’re aware:
The Employer makes its worldwide distribution premiere “On Demand” June 7, 2013: Comcast, Cox, TimeWarner Cable, Brighthouse, AT&T U-verse, Verizon FiOs, Charter cable, and more! Computer and device users also gain access on June 7, 2013 via Amazon Instant Video, Apple iTunes, Xbox Live, and Sony PlayStation.  The DVD release is set for July 2, 2013 at WalMart and Amazon.com.