Year: 2006

  • Double Feature

    smokes.gif

    IT’S A WONDERFUL MENACE

    “Slither”, 2006. Written and directed by James Gunn. Starring Michael Rooker, Nathan Fillion, Elizabeth Banks, Gregg Henry, Tania Shaulnier, Brenda James, Don Thompson, and a boatload of b-movie mainstays.

    Now playing at local theaters and hopefully at every small town screen in America.

    There’s a reason why space aliens so often land in a hick towns. Having come from one of these dunderheaded hamlets, I can say with authority that the thought of battling with some kind of slimy creature was inspiring. For you folks who grew up in the cities, you’re missing out on the visceral thrill of these films. Movies with spaceships or meteors that crash into earth make you think that those woods around your house–which in reality hide nothing more than beercan-choked deer blinds, used condoms, and old tires–might in fact harbor a beast that’ll keep you awake at night. Which is better than falling asleep to David Letterman again.

    Slither is a part of this grand tradition, and I’m glad for it. I saw it with a loud and boisterous crowd and it reminded me of my moviegoing days from long ago. Back in the day, I used to waste many a Friday night at Mt. Pleasant’s Ward Theater with some schlock horror film. My friends and I would talk back to the screen, loudly and frequently. That’s one of the great joys of the movies–being able to voice your displeasure at a movie that suggests, say, that a young woman would willingly tiptoe down the rickety steps of a dark basement that is crawling with flies and smelling so putrid it makes her gag. That’s worth barking at, with a good chuckle.

    Slither has sprung, like the grotesque worms of the title, from the mind of one James Gunn, who is a product of the somewhat infamous Troma factory, the studio (if you can call it that) that produced buckets of cheap horror videos. Those films were awful, but Gunn–who wrote the very entertaining Dawn of the Dead remake–learned something along the way. For Slither is a b-movie masterpiece, a freak show so good it could have come straight from old Coney Island. It’s that scary, that awful, that hideous, and that much fun.

    The facts: A meteorite drops out of the sky one balmy autumn evening, plopping into the woods behind the hard luck town of Wheelsy. This is your typical small town, as I remember mine, and well rendered: bored folks, wealthy folks in their McMansions, oversexed folks who are looking for a quick screw, tired cops, and some bums and losers who look like they wish Diane Arbus were still around to snap their picture. Cheap bars and strip malls, ugly high schools and boarded up old stores. Michael Rooker plays one of the town’s wealthy studs who is rejected one evening from a little love by his social-climbing, though loyal, wife (Elizabeth Banks). Frustrated, he heads out into the woods with a girl he met later in a bar, finds the aforementioned meteorite, and gapes at a slug-like creature crawling on the forest floor. Which, of course, attacks him, shooting a slimy pin into his gut which turns him into a monster. As time progresses, he gets worse, grunting “meat” over and over, satiating this desire by disemboweling cats and dogs and cows and deer. And humans, of course.

    Things get progressively worse. Amazingly worse. People are eaten, filled to bursting with millions of gelatinous worms, attacked by said worms in bathtubs and churches, split in half by tentacles, burrowed into, feasted upon by the undead, and absorbed buck-naked into what looks like a cross between Jabba the Hutt and a giant squid. Among other horrible fates. Slither gives a nod to just about every cheap horror film ever made and between my wife and I we caught references to: Jaws, Beauty and the Beast, King Kong, every undead film in history, Cronenberg’s Fly and Rabid, the remake of The Thing, maybe A Streetcar Named Desire (the beast shouting “Starla!”), and–I can’t believe I remember this–John Carpenter’s unbelievably stupid Prince of Darkness. That one, for those not in the know, was the one in which Satan possessed people by spitting gunk into their gaping mouths. Which occurs in Slither with abundance.

    I’m certain there’s more: if you see this film, let me know what I missed.

    Slither is an outrageously gory and well-executed thriller, which made me jump and flinch throughout. Auteur Gunn knows how to take his influences and hang them on a solid plot with goofy but likeable characters, and while it’s a stretch to call a film with so many references original, it’s certainly as fresh as a newly killed cat. Like many of the great cheapies, Slither is full of odd conversations between b-movie stalwarts like the inimitable Rooker, future b-man Nathan Fillion (of Firefly fame), overcooked ham Gregg Henry, and Banks, doing her damndest to become the new Adrienne Barbeau.

    Slither will no doubt vanish in a month, nothing more than a dim memory from an evening of screams for kids and adults from Hicksville to Omaha. See it now while you can, in a rural, one-screen theater, with a long drive home past darkened cornfields and ominous woods.

    TOOTHLESS IN WASHINGTON

    “Thank You For Smoking”, 2006. Written and directed by Jason Reitman. Starring Aaron Eckhart, Cameron Bright, Maria Bello, Sam Elliot, Adam Brody, Katie Holmes, Rob Lowe, William H. Macy, Robert Duvall, and the underrated J. K. Simmons.

    Now showing at the Uptown Theatre.

    My father is a rabble-rousing, former hippie liberal, my father-in-law an extreme right-winger, a lover of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. I have no doubt that if I could get these two to shut up for two hours and hauled both of them to see Thank You For Smoking, neither man would be offended at what they saw. Bored, perhaps, but not offended.

    God save us if the best we can do for satire in America is this made-for-tv movie. Without its simpleminded swearing, this thing belongs on Fox with a nod and a wink and a bevy of reviewers claiming it’s the greatest satire since they threw the last shovelful of dirt on Paddy Chayefsky. Is it so much to ask that your irony have some bite to it? Thank You For Smoking, for its heavy lineup of top notch actors, succeeds only in being a tedious string of one liners that were edgy, maybe, in 1996. Note to Director Jason Reitman (and maybe novelist Christopher Buckley): jokes about Birkenstocks were stale in the 80s, for God’s sake.

    Thank You For Smoking features a cast of some of the finest character and supporting actors we’ve got, from William H. Macy, the underrated J. K. Simmons, the underused Maria Bello (obscenely wasted), the perfectly slimy Rob Lowe and relative newcomer Adam Brody, not to mention Sam Elliot and Robert Duvall, for the love of Christ. The movie is ostensibly about spin, which makes me think that it might be fascinating just to see how this damn film got made, and how much of this magical spin was used to convince everyone to hop on board. The barely-beating heart of the film is lobbyist Aaron Eckhart’s relationship with his son, Cameron Bright. This plot, thin as it is, would have been much more powerful if the son were narrating the thing, giving us a clearer view of this conflicted man from a more neutral standpoint. This didn’t happen and the story is an unholy mess, with little subplots that come and go and details that seem to be forgotten. I wonder what the movie would have been like in better hands. Reitman might have promise, though he would have to fall from his father’s tree and roll a good city block–pop Ivan Reitman’s got to be the worst comic director in history if it weren’t for Blake Edwards.

    Sadly, almost every actor has one decent scene to strut his or her stuff, independent of the plot, which makes the movie seem like a very professional high school forensics tournament. Duvall was so good at describing a mint julep I wanted to run out and grab one. J. K. Simmons does his usual bluster, which I love; Sam Elliot is great as a dying Marlboro man; and Rob Lowe and Adam Brody are creepy, doing their high-powered agent schtick, with Lowe an unsleeping powerbroker who wears a giant kimono.

    All of which makes me want to run to the seance table and call Chayefsky back to the old Underwood. It’s not enough for a filmmaker to toss these scenes at us, joke after joke. We need to see how characters respond to these existential laughs. It doesn’t help that Thank You For Smoking’s humor seems ten years old and lacks even the muted guffaws of a poor week at The Onion, but it’s got no characters anyone can relate to. Had old Paddy lived long enough to write Thank You, we might have had something with guts and character, and even quite a few heavy and uncomfortable laughs.

    smokes.gif

  • Out-Takes: The Ups and Downs of Being Untouchable

    Tom Friedman was in town this week to speak at Macalester College, which turned out to be his stump speech for his best-seller The World Is Flat. It’s a good speech that nicely summarizes his arguments, and it’s clear that he’s given this lecture quite a lot– which sort of supports Chris Lehmann’s view, expressed to me in this story, that Friedman is sort of the punditocracy’s equivalent of a motivational speaker.

    These days, anyone who writes a book with business applications–especially one with a pro-globalization business message neatly broken up into memorable little talking points (the “Ten Great Flatteners” the “Three Convergences,” that kind of thing)–will invariably hit the lecture circuit to spread the new gospel. Friedman’s message, though, more than most is a very cogent short history of the 21st century, as his book is aptly subtitled, from the end of the Cold War to the rise of the Web. He believes we’re at a historical “inflection point” not dissimilar from the genesis of the Gutenberg press, and the evidence is compelling, even if it is rather mundane (for example, worldwide standardization of work-flow protocols, thanks to Microsoft’s global monopoly–the latter point mine more than Friedman’s).

    What I wanted to say here, though, is that when I recently interviewed Friedman, I wanted to ask him if he felt that his own job could be outsourced or offshored or whatever. For the sake of argument, he notes in his book that lots of journalism–particulary run-of-the-mill financial market reporting and number-crunching, for example–is already being outsourced by, say, Reuters to financial analysts in Bangalore. But ultimately the answer is that Friedman, as a Great Explainer, is–to use his term–untouchable.

    The best evidence for that is that the Times put their star columnist behind the TimesSelect firewall. But how did he feel about that? “Well, it was not an idea I originated. It’s not something I’m crazy about, but it’s something I believe was necessary that we try. In the newspaper business we’re caught between two platforms. One built on dead trees and one built on bits and bytes. And we’re in transition. And I felt that my newspaper was justified in taking this and conducting this experiment to see what would happen.”

    His boss, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., told me that the jury is still out on TimesSelect, and Friedman is kind of a bellwether. “It is a bet,” Sulzberger said. “But it’s a bet on the value of judgement, the value of insight, the value of experience. I remember calling [Friedman] and talking to him about this. He said, ‘Arthur, I gotta tell you, it’s going to cut my audience way back, but we’ve got to do it.’ In fact all of our columnists came to that place.”

    Friedman confirmed that point with me. “I suffer a lot,” he said, “because I’ve got a lot of readers online around the world. So, it’s not my preferred call, but I understand it, and I respect my paper’s need and desire to do it. I just went to Mumbai, my ticket was $8,000. Someone’s got to pay for that. And if newspapers are free, I won’t be going to Mumbai for too much longer.”

    Indeed, one of the challenges of writing a good, current piece on Friedman that includes the views of his readers–particularly others in media who might follow the columnist’s work, and have something to say about it–is the impact of TimesSelect. Almost everyone I interviewed about Friedman confessed that they hadn’t really kept current with his column in the last six months, because they only read the Times online, and they have not coughed up for TimesSelect.

    But someone’s coughing up. Sulzberger told me that, “If you were to take the number of people who have signed up for TimesSelect, it is the third largest paper we own, after the Times and the Boston Globe. Now many of those are people who are home subscribers to the paper. But many of these people pay for it uniquely, and if you were to take just them, they are our fourth largest paper, behind the International Herald Tribune.”

    Despite recent stories about Sulzberger being a man who is swimming in his suit–well, you know, not quite filling his position as regally as his father Punch did–I found him very smart and very eloquent on the subject of the Times as a media proposition. When I pressed him to admit that the newspaper was the company’s core competence and flagship, he quickly disagreed. “No, journalism is our core competence, across boundaries. We have to be able to translate our journalism from print into television and into the web, and we’re working on that. And the stuff that Tom has done [on the Times-Discovery channel] has been just wonderful.” That would seem to contradict recent reports about the Times-Discovery Channel partnership, and probably bodes well for same. Though everyone seems to agree that the cable station isn’t high-profile enough, or capturing the viewers it deserves, I personally find Friedman’s television documentaries very compelling, and in a league with Frontline, though perhaps with a higher “Aw, shucks” factor, thanks to Friedman’s Minnesota roots.

  • Hunters, We Hunt

    Be my Venus, baby.
    v_spectators.jpg

    On the cultural docket for this weekend: happy hour with my running club (a less-organized variation of the Hash House Harriers, we, too, are a drinking club with a running problem), watching Singing In The Rain with my two best friends (yes), and, with any luck, dragging my mother and my, ahem, boyfriend to see Frank Theater‘s production of Venus. Neither mother nor boyfriend is a seasoned theatergoer. My mom’s most exotic performing arts experience is probably Cosi Fan Tutte. And, well, as for the boyfriend, let’s just say that his favorite house in town is The Brave New Workshop. (For the record: I enjoy The Brave New Workshop very much as well. Especially Caleb McEwen, who I regard as a genius!)

    In any case, I’m not sure that Venus’ big, round rump will be an amusement for the mother, but I’m pretty sure it will be for the boyfriend. (I predict how difficult it will be for him to “be in his body” and respond naturally to Venus’ anatomy–especially if he’s seated next to mom!) Oh, but did I mention that this play is quite sad?

    I’m so glad Frank is having this love affair with Parks! All that cursing! All that pissed-off, third-wave feminist angst! I spoon it all up! Their productions of The America Play and Fucking A are both theater experiences that burned into my memory. Especially catchy was, in A, the hunters who haunted around singing their cute, lil’ hunters’ creed. As I remember it: “Hunters / We hunt / But we don’t eat what we catch / Because that would be a little much / Dontcha think?” (It was, of course, camped-up somewhat Minnesota-style.)

  • Who Can Blame Her

    rome-restaurant_4.jpg

    Reuters recently reported that a mysterious woman has perfected the dine-and-dash in many of Rome’s best restaurants. The alleged “gourmet food junkie” has been known to dine fabulously on fine wines and exquisite fare, simply to find when the bill arrives (ooops) her wallet has been left in another purse. Revealed only as DN of nearby Viterbo, the “mooch artist” has been dealt with accordingly: she has been banned from Rome for five years.

    Not arrested, banned. Not made to pay restitution or scrub pots and pans, just banned. And maybe that is the ultimate punishment for a food-lover, not only taking the good stuff away, but keeping it just out of reach.

    Not surprisingly, Roman police have reported that despite the ban, our daring and naughty DN continues to sneak into Rome. Who could have predicted that one?

    It’s just not in the nature of Italians to deny anyone food. I think the waiters secretly hope she turns up at their table. What will this hungry woman want? Will she have an appetite for pungent cheese with honey and figs or will she just order a simple ravioli with dusky truffles. There’s no doubt that every bite will be savored, every moment a mark on her memory of this amazing meal. They’ll pour her a glass of prosecco while she watches the sunset, their hearts secretly proud that she chose them for her potentially last meal in Rome.

  • Swearing Allegiance

    dick.jpg
    As soon as I get my teeth back in I’m gonna tell you all what you can do with your pansy anti-war act

    The papers and TV are all abuzz today with the startling revelation that cussing (as we used to call it where I grew up) is becoming more and more pervasive.

    I became aware of that when my son, who was then three years old, came home from day care one day and greeted me with “Fuck you, Daddy” while I was just innocently sitting there reading the newspaper.

    Luckily, I was able to overcome my initial surprise and ignore it. He soon repeated it, “Fuck YOU, Daddy.” I ignored it again.

    He tried again, with different emphasis, “FUCK you, Daddy.” I ignored him again.

    He didn’t repeat it again within my earshot until we got into an argument about 16 years later.

    He’s not a stranger to it though. When he was a Senate intern he got to witness Dick Cheney’s famous suggestion to Senator Pat Leahy that he “Go fuck yourself.”

    I guess if one can talk like that on the floor of the “World’s Foremost Deliberative Body,” one shouldn’t be surprised at what the boy learned at day care.

    I long for the day when I can meet Mr. Cheney in person. I don’t think I’ll have quite as much restraint as my son and Senator Leahy displayed.

  • The Bumper Sticker

    C-Stripe_300x200.gif
    C stands for Look Out!

    I’ve been searching for the perfect bumper sticker for the Prius. I love driving that car every time I pass a gas station, and hate it every time I try to pass some idiot in the left lane on 169.

    The car needs definition.

    I bought a sticker in Spain last summer that has a black “C” on a red and yellow striped background. The C stands for Catalunya, which is the area of Spain around Barcelona where the driving climate is definitely not for the timid.

    Catalunya, besides being the region of Barcelona, is also home to some of the most breathtaking vistas in Europe, which can best be apppreciated from behind the wheel of a BMW 5 series as you are jerking it around Pyrenees mountain roads as fast as you can go…or until your children in the back seat vomit, whichever is more fun.

    I haven’t put the Catalunya sticker on the car yet, though, because, frankly, it’s too damn subtle.

    It came to me yesterday when I was at “the range.” The only possible sticker for the Prius that makes any sense is an NRA membership sticker.

    Does anyone know how to get one without actually joining the NRA? If not, I suppose I could go with “My other car is a Ford F350”.

    You either get it or you don’t.

  • The Melancholy of Anatomy

    By the way… If you happen to have a literary tattoo–you know, some sort of text excerpt from a favorite poem or book–you must get in touch without further ado! I’m looking for lettered tattoos that reference the greats… And I promise not to critique your taste in literature. Or your biceps for that matter. (No butt tattoos, please.)

  • Click-Through Fatigue II

    Another nice episode of “Future Tense” this morning, following up on this obsessing issue of online advertising. A study just out from Nielsen Norman has found that online advertising “works” about 0.01 percent of the time–in other words, hardly ever. What did the study consider “working”? Apparently, they found a way to measure the amount of attention a browser would spend looking at online ads, and they defined success as “fixating,” i.e. more or less having the eyeballs captured. At least that’s what I gathered from the brief report. Obviously, you’d want to take a close look at the methodology here, and consider the opaque link between “fixation” and cognition, but I’m hardly the person to lightly toss around a faux scientific lexicon. (I leave that up to the advertising community.) Aside from that huge caveat, which could impeach the whole argument, this raises more questions than it answers.

    First, how would this compare to print? This is a crucial question in the larger conundrum of convincing advertisers to migrate from print onto the web, which everyone agrees would be a good idea–other than most ad buyers today, of course. Are disply ads in print qualitatively different than
    display ads online? I suppose its possible–we certainly believe that reading on paper is a nicer experience than reading on screen. But the experience depends on what, exactly, you’re reading. The news, the lottery numbers, anal sex jokes at Wonkette–these all work fine onscreen. But a novel? A short story? A long piece of investigative journalism? Definitely prefer paper to pixels. Perhaps the same is true of advertising. Maybe paper just has tactile advantages that will never be displaced by computer screens.

    Then again, we are still stuck in the stone age of online journalism (chicken an egg problem–if we had more online ads, we’d invest more in, say, wiki-style vlogging as a form of journalism) where the model is still print. Print works better on paper. Video and audio don’t. But right now, we’re merely shoveling the print product–narrative journalism–onto the web, along with advertising that is also built in a print paradigm, though, of course, using moving pictures and sound more and more–usually to startling and annoying effect, given the otherwise implaccable silence of most people’s online experience.

    Given all of that, I think there are some really obvious ways around this “fixation” issue. First, there have been interstitial and interupting ads for many years now–think of Salon’s daily pass approach that allows you to read premium content only after a mandatory viewing of a full page ad. That’s what I’d call forcible fixation, and I think it works. Also, less obtrusively, you’ll see more and more text-oriented sites interrupt their body copy with ads–like on this particular page. That forces the issue a little bit too. Basically, the takeaway here is that readers have undoubtedly gotten used to the standard templates of adspace and editspace on webpages. You have your postage stamp ads to the right, your banner ads across top and bottom, and everywhere else is editorial copy. This makes it very easy indeed to ignore adspace entirely.

    Finally, a great truism of all advertising–in fact all editorial, too–is that good ones work, bad ones don’t. It is very difficult to draw generic conclusions across a spectrum of content that ranges from the painfully banal to the glriously quirky. Now, you could argue that 0.01 percent is proof beyond doubt that all online adverising fails. But you might just as easily conclude that 99.99 percent of it sucks, or is merely repurposed from a better medium–paper.

  • Anybody who roll like that gotta have backup dancers!

    dance.jpg

    Is it just me, or does all the great work by living, breathing playwrights get produced in March, April, and May? It’s just me, of course… I’ve seen plenty’a great, new works at other times of the year; I very much enjoyed Alan Berks’ new play at Gremlin Theatre just this past February, for example. But here’s the thing: I saw the most amazing show a few weeks back. I can’t stop talking about it because in is the antithesis of everything that goads me about American theater. Point of Revue at Mixed Blood Theatre packed ten little play-lets into a two-hour show for the ADHD sect. Many of you have already endured my raving about that production, so I’ll leave it at that. But, you should go see it!

    Here’s something the show brought to mind: The fact that many contemporary theater companies are turning their backs on good, solid playwriting. Now, of course, the written word is not central to the vision of every theater company. Many think of themselves as having a more “visual aesthetic”–you know the ones. But even among these companies, there ought to a responsible person who knows the difference between adjective and adverb. Another pet peeve: over-funded playwrights who pen saccharine sweet and/or predictably PC scripts!

    I also saw Mefistofele at Jeune Lune this past weekend. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should come clean about the fact that I worked at Jeune Lune for three years in and about the time of my mid-twenties. And I worked there because I loved their work. Still do, pretty much. I can’t get enough of all that low-tech trickery and flash. It seems to me that an empty theater is to Dominique Serrand what a blank canvas is to your average painter… But I didn’t much care for Mefistofele. I have generally loved Jeune Lune’s operas. (Figaro was the exception. But I worked there when that show was going on so I couldn’t tell anybody. Ah… La liberte! La liberte!) But the thing about Mefistofele is that there just isn’t much to hook your ear on. I’m no expert on opera but the libretto seems, well, anti-lyrical. The pictures were pretty as hell, though. Worth seeing just for that.

  • Some Other Yesterday, Some Other Tomorrow

    I wonder where you were going in such a hurry when I passed you walking on the opposite side of the street yesterday?

    You always did have that purposeful look about you. Even as a little girl you seemed like you were in a hurry to get somewhere.

    I knew how important it was for you to be on time. When you had no particular place to go you still kept to some tight and mysterious internal schedule. It was as if you feared being late for a vague appointment or assignation that was loaded with hypothetical possibility. I suspected that your constant movement was driven by the certainty that somewhere –someplace other than wherever you happened to find yourself– something was happening that you couldn’t bear to miss.

    But what am I saying? I never understood what was going on in that pretty head of yours.

    I sure did find you fascinating, though. There was always something happening in and behind your lovely eyes, and there were an awful lot of nights when I laid awake trying to imagine what you might be thinking. Every once in awhile I’d get a little glimpse –or, rather, you’d give me a glimpse; you’d choose to reveal something.

    Those moments felt like offerings to me, and I used to collect them and try to piece together a portrait of who you might really be. Sometimes it felt like I was getting close, but then you’d give me some new fragment that didn’t fit. And you never did stop moving, which made it hard to keep you in focus for any length of time.

    I had places to go myself eventually, of course. No place special, really, when all was said and done. My destination was ultimately the sort of bland constellation of compromises that is most people’s destination.

    I can’t decide if you were lucky or not, but you were one of those people for whom all would never be said and done. You’d say so yourself, in fact, and I can still hear you say it: Never.

    Never, never, you’d say.

    Never, never, never.

    porch mural.jpg