Pepe Le Moko (1937), Julien Duvivier.

Nobody in Algiers can get Paris out of their minds and Pepe is trapped in the Casbah. Gorgeous movie. So this is where Pepe Le Pew comes from!

The Honeymoon Killers (1969), Leonard Kastle.

This movie purported to be a "documentary style," "anti-Bonnie and Clyde" type flick but all I could think was that the filmmakers were so contemptuous of their characters that they couldn't accomplish these goals. And not contemptuous because the two leads were murderers, but because like, can you believe that fat chick actually thought he loved her? Lookit that awful bathing suit hanging off her! Definitely not a fun, campy, proto-Tab Hunter/Divine vibe going on here.

Also makes absurd use of Gustav Mahler which means that this movie has something in common with Rubin & Ed.

The Devil's Candy (1992), Julie Salamon.

In 1990, Brian De Palma attempted to squeeze Tom Wolfe's humongous satirical novel Bonfire of the Vanities into 2 hrs of film. Julie Salamon, who had previously worked as a film critic for the Wall Street Journal, was given full access to the set and all players involved in the production while writing The Devil's Candy. Who knew that this movie would bomb so hard, making her book a classic work documenting how dysfunctional Hollywood can be. Salamon takes a completely objective point of view, giving a complete 360 of the production. Her detached perspective makes it difficult for the reader to assign blame to any one person or point to one main reason for the disaster. Her peek into the eccentric habits of actors and production folks is fascinating, and just adds to the fun of reading what is basically a list of dumb decisions.

Re-Animator, (1985), Stuart Gordon.

There's a special list of movies that my significant other has made particular judgments about. This either ends in us shutting off the DVD player, or him exiting stage left with the comment, "I'll let you finish this one." These aren't really "movies he made me turn off" because obviously I have the power to control a remote, but kind of an endearing list of intolerance for crap. I'd just like to point out that this is a guy who happily watched all of Gymkata.

Here's the first: Re-Animator.

Final comment, "I'll leave you with your sci-fi." Well, I suppose there's an element of sci-fi, but it's more an 1980s ripoff of the HP Lovecraft short story, which was a 1922 ripoff of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Not a bad low-budget production, but definitely conjured up the disturbing memory of being a little kid in the video store and seeing, at eye-level, the video cover art of a bunch of idiots whitewater rafting in a giant yellow raft with tits.

Not the movie I watched, but similar.

Result (for Re-Animator, not - shiver - Up the Creek): Finished this one, it was kinda cute. Yes, there's tits, but it was the 80s. I think the only movie I have ever seen where every character is covered in blood.

Once Upon a Time in the West (1968), Sergio Leone.

In many scenes like this one, set in a Chinese laundry, the camera lingers over an almost dizzying amount of visual detail.

Did Leone really have Jack Elam blow a fly off his face for an entire minute and a half? I think I read Elam poked his eye out with a pencil when he was kid, but I might be wrong about that.

The dubbing of actors' voices is jarring (like in A Fistful of Dollars etc., many of the Italian actors are dubbed here). Or maybe it was just odd. Odd like dressing up a bunch of Italians to look like Irish homesteaders and filming them in the Spanish desert.

I went out and got this one only to see Henry Fonda as a complete badass, and sure enough he's a real soulless piece of beef jerky. An interesting one, but moves at a glacial pace.

Understanding Movies (1999), Louis Giannetti.

Great little survey course textbook on reading film. Makes up for the fact that I was too Protestant to take Film 101 in university. I particularly enjoyed the section where he references himself in the third person, as in "Most college textbooks, such as Gerald Mast's A History of Narrative in Film, and Louis Giannetti [at this point I had to look at the cover to re-check who was writing] attempt to integrate as much as possible from technological, economic, and social film histories, but their main emphasis is on film as art." I always thought a good drinking game would be to take a shot whenever an academic author cites himself.

I'm slightly embarrassed to admit I picked this one up when I heard Roger Ebert recommended it as a classic. I have a few bones to pick with popular pro film critics. I will up front say I love the guy for loving movies and unashamedly admitting his fanboy attitude. However, I think the guy's given too many thumbs up to total crap in recent years and this in my mind raises the question as to the role of film criticism - is he part of the PR machine, or actually providing insightful observations about film? Well, without slamming the guy when he's down (I know he's been ill recently), I'll just say thanks for the great book recommendation.

Trouble in Paradise (1932), Ernest Lubitsch.

A little dessert of a movie. Everyone is sinful and everyone gets off scot free.

Whither Direct-to-Video?

Another post in the form of a question: what is the status of the "Direct to video" production? Nowadays they would probably be termed Direct to DVD (sidebar: does anyone ever use "DVD" adjectivally, because I certainly don't). When I was a kid working in a pre-Rogers store in the strip mall, we got monthly catalogues chock full of these contemporary B's - like Lorenzo Lamas' latest, or ones sure to confuse our customers ("Death Ring looks awesome. Wait- who is Don Swayze?!"). We'd scrutinize every page and invariably these flicks - probably quite a good line of work for innumerable non-A listers and production people - would be solid renters for months. But who goes to the video store anymore? I am a born-again apostle for the local company that sends me DVDs by mail and I know that the next step will obviously be emailing a file or somesuch. Surely aside from longer animated products, like Disney's nth princess story, there must be a place in the world for flicks with compromised production values. I guess I am just wondering, even if they're being produced nowadays, how does anyone find them if we're not browsing the new release shelf anymore? If anyone's reading - seen any "good" direct to - ? productions lately- let me know!

Godfather of Soul: everything must go

This one cropped up this week, and relates to my last post. NYTimes writer Guy Trebay describes what the Christie's auction of James Brown's possessions will do for music history:

"...it is increasingly unlikely that there will be a James Brown museum for writers like Greg Tate and R J Smith, both embarked on biographies of the singer, to visit. And there will be no archive for Spike Lee to consult for a film the director is said to be planning about the Godfather of Soul. There will be no Graceland to contain the clothes and furs and costumes and gold records and awards and record collection and personal photos and handwritten love notes and jail records dispersed at the sale. Perhaps for this reason — and regardless of the jolly media hubbub that attended the sale — a somber aura seemed to hang over the proceedings."

Sad! Apparently the auction didn't even earn as much as expected. Here's the link to the full article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/fashion/20james.html?scp=5&sq=james%20brown&st=cse

20th Century Fox closes its research library

I am no film scholar but have often wondered how accessible research materials documenting film history are. Has the market value of every tangible scrap from tv and film productions atomized previously intact collections? (Check out Profiles in History's latest auction, you can buy Lou Ferrigno's latex nose from the Hulk TV show!) How does this impact film scholarship? In particular, where has the history of the studio era been preserved? Am I over-estimating the importance of keeping records in public (or at least publicly-accessible) institutions?

This link, courtesy Nikki Fink's Deadline Hollywood Daily, brings up the closure of 20th Century Fox's "research library." The terminology in Fox's publicity statement (instead of using "archives," for example) seems to be an attempt to underplay the historic value of the documents.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/fox-to-close-its-film-research-library/