jjgittes Blog

Under discussion:

Psycho Beach Party  (2000)

I was truly good and excited about the airing of PSYCHO BEACH PARTY (based on Charles Busch's one-man stage show) on Reel 13 on November 1st. I have a lot of good friends in the world of theatre and many of them are big fans of Charles Busch. I had heard great things about this film and the cast alone is enough to warrant excitement – Lauren Ambrose, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"'s Nicholas Brendan, Thomas Gibson and Oscar-nominee Amy Adams seems like a dream team for this sort of an endeavor. Unfortunately, the end result didn't come close to the hype.

The material is pretty much there. I think the failure of PSYCHO BEACH PARTY is a failure of film direction. Firstly, the film is very empty (why is there no one ever on the beach?!?) and while I realize that is a budgetary issue, it is a costly problem, especially when trying to do a parody of this kind. If the film wants to ape Gidget, Frankie and Annette films, surfer movies, slasher movies, The Three Faces of Eve and Joan Crawford simultaneously, it needs the scope to match. I realize the independentness of the film creates limitations, but I know for a fact that there are inexpensive to free ways to fill scenes with background actors or design details that help with the illusion. However, the production team seems to have had their priorities elsewhere.

The Achilles heel of the film, however, is there is no rhythm, no sense of pace and in a broad comedy like this - that is equivalent to a slow, painful death. Most of the jokes fall horribly flat. One-liners spew out quickly enough, but the camera just lingers on the speaker, as if waiting for applause or laughter that just isn't coming. It's like those old cartoons where all you hear are crickets in the audience. Painful.

Fortunately, the cast raises the level of the film a great deal. A much younger Lauren Ambrose is once again magnificent (I have such a talent crush on her) in what ultimately amounts to be a triple-role, utterly believable and hilarious in each phase of her character. Brendan is very charismatic and amusing as usual and Gibson has fun with the conceit that his cooler-than-cool beach bum character rhymes everything he says. Busch himself does his usual cross-dressing act as the local police detective, Captain Monica Stark, but the theatricality of the character and the gimmick don't really connect on the screen. Bad wig and pale skin aside, the character is like an alien in the movie, as if occasionally entering through a portal from the Greenwich Village Halloween parade. I can see it working as a stage convention, but here, it just seems awkward.

Without having seen the stage play, I can't say for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that is the root of all the issues with the film version of PSYCHO BEACH PARTY. Generally speaking, there is naturally a greater suspension of disbelief in the theatre. Unfortunately, film as an artform does not have that luxury. I can see most of my problems with PSYCHO BEACH PARTY working much better on stage. But here, it just gets lost in the translation.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Under discussion:

Things You Can Tell Just by Looking at Her  (2000)

I actually saw NINE LIVES, Rodrigo Garcia's very similar follow-up to this film, a few months ago and so when I saw TTHINGS YOU CAN TELL JUST BY LOOKING AT HER on Reel 13 at the end of October, I was having déjà vu all over again. Both films are an anthology of short films that give us glimpses into the lives of women living and working in Los Angeles. The two films boast many of the same female actors (Glenn Close, Holly Hunter, Kathy Baker, Amy Brenneman) and each film features some terrific performances (and one or two bad ones). Neither film is very upbeat or uplifting as they tend to focus on very sad moments in these women's lives. They are both mostly good and very accomplished and yet, I felt more connected with NINE LIVES. It has occurred to me that the reason for that is possibly that I saw it first even though THINGS YOU CAN TELL was chronologically first. Seeing THINGS YOU CAN TELL felt like rehashing old territory, which I think adversely impacted my viewing experience. Also, the major difference between the two films is that each of the stories in NINE LIVES are filmed in a single shot, with a slow-moving, unobtrusive camera. No cuts in the entire film. This gives NINE LIVES a certain vitality. Conversely, THINGS YOU CAN TELL JUST BY LOOKING AT HER featured beautiful, rich close-ups, but at the same time, felt a little more contrived, crafted. It seemed slightly less real.

As with anything so fragmented, some segments are going to be better than others. Here, the stories featuring Glenn Close ("This is Dr. Keener") and Cameron Diaz ("Love Waits for Kathy") are both very strong and interesting. The tarot card scene featuring Close and Calista Flockhart is a triumph for both actors (and was wisely featured by Reel 13 on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU2RF6Kgowk). Ally McBeal has tainted the minds of viewers into the thinking that Flockhart's not the real deal, but here she proves different. The same goes for Cameron Diaz, whose good looks take attention away from her considerable talent. She has a monologue at the end of the film that is wonderfully executed. Even the consummate theater actor would have to be impressed, particularly by how she makes it work for the camera. Lots of consecutive words tend to fall flat on screen, but Diaz makes the most of her close up and lets her face tell the rest of the story that her words leave out. I think it's something young actors should looking at when studying screen acting.

Another downfall of the anthology structure is the probability of losing momentum and THINGS YOU CAN TELL JUST BY LOOKING AT HER suffers from that, particularly in its latter stages. This is particularly notable during the less successful segments in the film, including Kathy Baker's ("Someone for Rose") and "Goodnight Lilly, Goodnight Christine", which features Calista Flockhart again as a lesbian who has to watch her lover (Valeria Golino) die. I really wanted to like that one – both actors are very strong in it, but, as you can probably imagine, it is simply way too slow and depressing to be effective.

On the whole, there is a lot of craft to the film. Garcia recruited one Emanuel Lubezki (one of the top three working cinematographers, if not the best) to shoot the film and the results are outstanding, particularly the aforementioned close-ups. The duo chose, on several occasions, to give the actors a great deal of headroom on some shots. It's a little distracting and I'm although I'm sure it was purposeful, I'm not clear as to their reasoning. Perhaps they were trying to suggest the influence of the surroundings on their characters or something like that… it's hard to say for sure.

On the whole, Garcia does a good job of planting small mysteries within his little micro-dramas, which manages to keep us mostly interested and engaged. Though, as I suggested, I prefer his follow-up NINE LIVES, I have a great deal of respect for what Garcia is doing and how he directs actors. That is just as true here as it was in that film and I feel like the pros of THINGS YOU CAN TELL JUST BY LOOKING AT HER outweigh the cons. Now, the challenge for Rodrigo Garcia is to take his gifts and segue out of this niche that he's created for himself. That's what it will take for him to go to the next level as a modern filmmaker.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Under discussion:

The Great Escape  (1963)

I have seen THE GREAT ESCAPE dozens of times and it's always fun to watch, which remained to be true when it aired this past October on Reel 13. In spite of how often I'd seen it, I had forgotten that it was based on a true story, which makes it all the more remarkable.

I think the element that most makes THE GREAT ESCAPE work is the level of detail, the great pains that director John Sturges (in his third Reel 13 film this year) takes to display how things work – from how they forge the IDs to how they get the wood to support the tunnel to how they dispose of all the dirt they dig up without arousing suspicion. The more information we have as a viewer, the more engaged we are in the process, as if we were a part of the escape. Initially, it all seems like minutiae, but it adds up. I can't think of a modern film that would take the time to offer such small details. It's unfortunate, too, because it enhances the excitement and interest greatly. Also, for a film that lacks a lot of Sturges' trademark action scenes, it keeps the pace moving and the tone suspenseful.

The film doesn't really require "acting" in the traditional sense from its large all-male cast. For the most part, their characters are composites and as a result, are essentially built around a few basic factoids (i.e. American, pilot, good at scrounging, etc.). This is not a complaint or criticism so much an observation. As I've said, the film works. It's just interesting that it manages to work with mostly two-dimensional characters. They are mostly required to be macho, look cool and offer relevant information for the advancement of the plot. This plays perfectly into the hands of Charisma King Steve McQueen. Other MAGNIFICENT SEVEN alums James Coburn and Charles Bronson amuse themselves by putting on an accent, neither with much success. The latter has a claustrophobia subplot that isn't really effective or interesting. Donald Pleasance is one notable exception as the forger who deals with losing his eyesight. However, perhaps the strongest performance in the film comes from Sir Richard Attenborough as Bartlett or "Big X", the leader of the main escape attempt. While he also has a lot narrative information to convey to the audience, he layers it with the great burden of being a leader of such a dangerous enterprise. Several hundred men rely on him for their freedom and he makes that apparent in Bartlett's face and body language. Similarly, he plays the character as a man who could and would make quick decisions and sacrifices for the good of the mission, regardless of how unpopular they may be. Granted, Attenborough is given the best material in the character of Bartlett, but he doesn't fumble the ball. It's some great work. With that said, it struck me the connection between Big X and a film director. From the way he chose the route, the costumes, the paperwork, but also consulted his men from different "departments", it's as if he were "directing" a film of the escape instead of managing the actual event. (Interestingly enough, Attenborough would go on to be an Oscar-winning film director).

While it would never crack my top fifty films of all-time, THE GREAT ESCAPE is and always was a film I enjoyed thoroughly. Though, in the Sturges' canon, it does not come close to BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK - the masterpiece that I discovered this past April on Reel 13, it is stronger than THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, even though it's more ambitious. As an older and more experienced filmmaker, Sturges meets the challenge of balancing all the elements in THE GREAT ESCAPE e and manages to craft a thrilling adventure story that is and shall remain timeless.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)