jjgittes Blog

13 Conversations About One Thing on Reel 13

jjgittes — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:26:47 GMT

A college professor once told me that “cynicism was the death of art”. If that is truly the case, then Thirteen Conversations About One Thing is DOA. There is no joy in Mudville, or in this case, director Jill Sprecher’s vision of modern-day New York City. The film follows four or five different characters in intersecting, depressing short stories that seem to be constructed in the tradition of the Greek morality play (which hardly ever works out well for the protagonists). However, for the most part, moralizing on screen tends to fall flat, particularly with the way Sprecher and her sister Karen execute this in the screenplay, letting the characters all wax poetic on their different theories on the human condition in the 21^st Century. Lots of chatting, let alone overt philosophizing, usually interrupts the momentum of a piece and Thirteen Conversations is no exception. To some degree, the writing is also heavily overwrought – with a handful long monologues that blatantly explain the themes of that particular storyline, instead of letting the audience draw their own conclusions.

The pitfalls within the screenplay are made even more glaring and unfortunate given how strong the craft elements of the film are. The cinematography and framing are very sharp. The film is well lit and staged. The internal scene editing is smart and concise, using close-ups only for optimum impact and only pulling back wide when absolutely necessary. Like a good gambler, Sprecher and her editor seemed to know when to hold them and know when to fold them. Even the soundscape of the film is detailed, which adds an extra, usually ignored layer of meaning of the film.

The ensemble are all good, which isn’t surprising since actors love to gnash their teeth on long, talky, theatrical scenes like the ones presented here. Matthew McConaughey, Alan Arkin, Clea Duvall, John Turturro and Amy Irving play the five protagonists of the film, though Irving’s scenes are more of an after-thought and for the most part are extraneous. Out of everyone, it probably surprises no one that Arkin does the strongest work of the group. His forty years on-camera experience serves him well as, unlike the other actors, he lets his face and body do most of the work instead of the words. As a result, his storyline is the most effective, interesting, evocative and cinematic.

Even strong acting and filmmaking, however, can’t save the film from its own heavy-handedness or its negative outlook. In a way, the film’s pessimism acts as a kind of stylization, but it even further separates the film from verisimilitude. Life can be really shitty at times, but it isn’t as joyless as Thirteen Conversations seems to paint it. The films that feel the most real are the ones that have some semblance of balance between the good and the bad, the high points and the low. Thirteen Conversations About One Thing had a lot going for it – strong plots with potential, good, willing actors, a great sense of craft – but it never manages to be a high-quality, enjoyable or engaging viewing experience. It gets mired in its worldview and its didacticness, which most audiences reject like bad medicine. And so, the film, in spite of all its strong elements, winds up flatlining.

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

Annie Hall on Reel 13

jjgittes — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:26:02 GMT

Quite simply, ANNIE HALL is one of my top ten favorite films of all time, even higher on the list than CASABLANCA, the other Reel 13 film this year to have that honor. It is a perfect, soaring example of “modernism lite” – a cinematic movement that borrowed creative filmmaking ideas from European Art Cinema, but made them more accessible by utilizing them within a traditional Hollywood-type narrative. Modernism lite made its debut stateside in the seventies with the rise of the film school generation. Other examples of this might include AMERICAN GRAFFITI, MEAN STREETS or THE CONVERSATION. ANNIE HALL also started a genre of its own to some degree, which I like to call the “neurotic romantic comedy”, which is mostly typified by the idea that the obstacles for couple in question is really just themselves and their own hang-ups and psychological issues. This is a tradition that filmmakers like Nora Ephron and company would continue many years later with films like WHEN HARRY MET SALLY and SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE. In many ways, it is a truer and more honest representation of relationships as we know them in modern society and the comedy in these films derive from the audience recognizing themselves in the characters and the flaws in their own behavior. This is very different from traditional Hollywood romances in which the characters represented an ideal, something for the audience to admire and aspire to. Granted, none of us are quite as neurotic as Alvy and Annie are (though I may come close). They take the behavior to an extreme, but that only enhances the comedy.

I think the element that is the most special about ANNIE HALL is the way it blends fantasy and reality. Early on, Allen comments that he always had a problem distinguishing the two and the results in the film are glorious. From the scene in which his eight year-old classmates stand to announce what they would grow up to become to when he and his friends would physically watch and then interact with flashbacks, these moments are high points in the film because they manage to not only provide exposition and character information, but they also comment and provide insight on the information in a way that feels very natural, kind of like drinking water to make a pill go down easier. Allen establishes this style from the get go and therefore, the transitions to his imagination never feel jarring. He handles them with a matter-of-factness for the rest of the way, which is fun, fascinating and also keeps the viewer on his or her toes. We are engaged.

Diane Keaton won an Academy Award for her performance as the titular character and deservedly so. Woody Allen, at his most amusing and charismatic, is no slouch either. There has been much criticism over the years that Allen and Keaton merely played themselves, but to me, that holds little weight. While I concur that the characters were based on them, every actor needs to draw from their own experiences when approaching a performance. Here, what Allen and Keaton each do, transcends the advantage they had of living through a similar, real relationship. Their comic timing is masterful while never feeling contrived or sitcom-like. Their chemistry is natural and even though that’s probably due to their off-screen relationship, it’s still a joy to watch on-screen. They manage to make scenes with all those zingers feel honest and real, as if conversations any of us would have in real life. It’s not as easy as they make it look. In my opinion, they used themselves as a starting point, a springboard for crafting the performances that they did, but each of them added to that foundation so that the film would not still be fun and not just a home movie of their love affair.

Of course, the other memorable quality to ANNIE HALL is the script, particularly the dialogue. Allen keeps most of the best quips for himself, but that never feels like too much because many of them are self-deprecating. Not only are the lines witty and well-delivered, but they have a resonance behind them. Many of them come from old jokes that Allen retells, turning them upside down to shake out the hidden meaning. Examples include the famous “I wouldn’t want to belong to a club that would have me as a member” and “I need the eggs”. These moments or lines of dialogue are funny on the surface, but quite poignant underneath, offering insight into the nature of relationships and the characters we are watching while not hitting us over the head and still being interesting and entertaining. That’s a combination that serves the film as a whole and the result is an always surprisingly powerful experience.

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

All the Real Girls on Reel 13

jjgittes — Tue, 12 May 2009 21:41:07 GMT

ALL THE REAL GIRLS is the third and latest David Gordon Green film to air on Reel 13 Indies this year. As good as GEORGE WASHINGTON is, it is also probably the best. ALL THE REAL GIRLS is the most heartfelt of all this films and as a result, the most effective. The plot itself is nothing new – boy meets girl, they fall in love, but can’t be together for various reasons and their struggle to deal with that. However, the application of David Gordon Green’s lyrical style to the redundant narrative elevates it to something special.

The style I speak of is a strong, stark sense of verisimilitude without the device and convention of handheld camera. Characters and situations within the film feel very real even in carefully composed frames, though I would argue that perhaps Green holds on some of the frames a little long, almost defiantly so. Green also does a great job of finding the beauty in every day life around us, both in nature and manmade architecture/design. He features this in a plethora of cutaways and wide shots that help keep the film cinematic without detracting from the naturalism of the performance or the story.

Speaking of performance, one can’t achieve this high a level of verisimilitude on screen without terrific acting and DGG gets just that from most his ensemble. I admit that lead and co-writer Paul Schneider has a few false moments when he is forced to be emotional, but manages to coast on his natural charm for most of the film. Also, a few of the scenes involving Bust-Ass, the Danny McBride character, are highly out of place in the movie. He is fine in the scenes with all guys, but his interactions with the Noel character are forced and the primary drawback of the film. It seems like a failed effort to add levity and comic relief to the film, but it simply doesn’t belong. In spite of those deviations, the rest of the cast is tremendous with Patricia Clarkson doing her usual fine work in a supporting role as well as a surprisingly unheralded Shea Whigham as the best friend caught in the middle. Of course, Zooey Deschanel is the heart of the soul of the film as Noel, the young, sweet object of desire so in love, but also quite troubled. I don’t think it’s a far reach to say that this is the finest performance of her young career. She does a magnificent job presenting a character confused by the strength of her emotions and how to deal with sharing her insecurities and neuroses with another person. Rarely has first love been presented with such heartbreaking truth. I expect the day will come when another filmmaker will challenge Deschanel to tap into the talent so fiercely on display here.

David Gordon Green is a bit of a divisive filmmaker. Critics love him, but most audiences are lukewarm (I discount PINEAPPLE EXPRESS from this discussion, in the determination that it is more of an Apatow film than DGG). Admittedly, the trade off of the poetic qualities of his films is a slower pace. Moments can definitely drag, which is very harmful to films like SNOW ANGELS or UNDERTOW. However, I think ALL THE REAL GIRLS transcends those potential drawbacks due to it’s the universality of its themes and its honest emotions. Also, one has to appreciate the great cinematic qualities of the film – the confident framing, the lush cinematography, the terrific use of sound and dialogue bridges. Perhaps for the only time in Green’s career, he manages to make us fall in love right along with the characters.

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

Laura on Reel 13

jjgittes — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:30:34 GMT

Interestingly enough, LAURA is the oldest film to have aired on Reel 13 this year, coming all the way from 1944. I'm not sure why the Reel 13 programmers have so vigorously avoided the 30's and such gems like BRINGING UP BABY, IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT, MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON, YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU, etc., especially given the strength of the older films they have showed. LAURA, for example, hardly feels dated. It is as evocative and mesmerizing a mystery as it must have been sixty plus years ago. The only thing that might be less effective to a modern audience is the surprise twist that occurs half way through. It was groundbreaking and the talk of the town in its day, but has been ripped off countless times since then. So, it might feel familiar to younger folks watching it today, but the film can hardly be blamed for the effect of subsequent copycats.

All of the elements of Laura are outstanding and work in concert for maximum impact. Otto Preminger, who parlayed the success of LAURA into the opportunity to do edgier films (CARMEN JONES, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN ARM, THE CARDINALl), would probably cringe to hear me say that I still think this is best work. To him, it was a paycheck – his interpretation of Hollywood sugarcoated schlock. However, his instinctual choices add depth to an already well-structured and interesting narrative. He moves his camera fluidly at a time when tracking shots were de-emphasized. He cuts in and out of scenes at just the appropriate times, which helps keep the pace brisk. He moves in and out of the flashbacks with ease and clarity. The blocking is natural and yet still executed nicely for strong, stark camera angles, which is a particular challenge in a mystery, given all of the "suspects" that Preminger needed to manipulate throughout the frames. And of course, he uses the famous "Laura" theme to perfection, sometimes even diegetically, utilizing it as a backdrop to maintain the haunting mood. Preminger is overly reliant on the voiceover to get exposition across, particularly in the first half of the film. As you may know, that is a major pet peeve of mine, but it is somehow less offensive to me in LAURA, especially since they are framed within stories that are being relayed to the investigating detective. It, like the theme, is mostly diegetic and therefore feels more natural and less like the director forcing his hand.

I think another major contributor to the success of Laura is the highly underrated cast. All three of the major players are probably unknown to most modern audiences and although they would each have one or two other accomplishments in their careers, they would never be able to match the bar they set for themselves in this film. As a matter of fact, perhaps the most recognizable member of the cast to many would be Vincent Price in an against-type supporting role as Laura's cad fiancé. Price is perfectly passable in the film, but it is the three charming, charismatic leads that really make the film as engaging as it is. Clifton Webb brings the intelligence to the party in his outright remarkable performance as Waldo Lydecker (he was the only member of the cast to receive an Oscar nomination). Granted, it is a plum role with the best and wittiest dialogue of all the characters. As great as Webb is with the words, it is the combination of vulnerability and menace that he adds to the character that makes the performance so terrific. Dana Andrews brings the muscle as the Detective Mark Macpherson and I mean that in a good way. It's not that he's required to beat anybody up, but his stoic presence is intimidating to many of the other characters. He represents the earth, the practical everyman who doesn't much buy into the machinations of the bourgeoisie. Dana Andrews, who would go on to be president of the Screen Actors Guild, struggled in many of the leading roles he would score after LAURA. However, here, he provides an unusual amount of depth for what would otherwise be stereotypical flatfoot character. Although the shell of his cynicism is hardly ever broken, there is a foreboding sense of longing about him, which makes for a three-dimensional and appealing hero. Gene Tierney as the titular character provides the soul and spirit for the film, with her presence almost literally looming over scenes even when she isn't present. Tierney doesn't appear for most of the early film and is simply talked about by the other characters. One becomes incredulous as to how equally gorgeous and kind, how perfect that they make her out to be. However, once we meet her in the flashbacks, her beauty and poise suddenly make it seem plausible. I can't recall another time when being the unequivocal object of desire of so many characters was so well performed and executed. And Tierney would never have another role like it.

LAURA is that rare film that manages to combine a realistic human drama sensibility with the romanticized narrative akin to the dime store bubble gum novel of the period. On its surface, LAURA is a whodunit and it is effective as such, but it is also a heartfelt romance as well as a psychological drama. Its beauty is in its layers – taut narrative, surprisingly complex characters on highly evocative journeys and an engaging mystery that is emotionally resonant. It's a film that needs to be experienced by film buffs and future filmmakers alike. It's a truly great achievement.

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

Team Picture on Reel 13

jjgittes — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:02:12 GMT

Mumblecore rears its ugly head (and I do mean ugly) once again on Reel 13 with TEAM PICTURE, which proves just how interchangeable the films within this emerging genre tend to be. Just change the city (here, it's Memphis, TN) and the protagonist and then use the same formula – drifting twentysomething deals with a potential romance and a lack of career or direction. While the plight of the aimless does have implicit dramatic tendencies, the trend is getting to be disturbingly repetitive, especially given how TEAM PICTURE takes the aimlessness to an extreme, mirroring the character's meandering with its narrative structure. At least a film like QUIET CITY had an objective – to find the friend that the girl was supposed to meet. TEAM PICTURE, conversely, is as lost as its main character.

As far as that protagonist is concerned, director/star Kentucker Audley (Kentucker?) seems perpetually high (as in, on drugs) and the film seems to hope that we would mistake his quirk for depth. David, as played by Audley, eventually becomes an impossible character to root for. His inability to communicate with people in a normal way or perhaps more importantly, to the audience, is initially interesting, but it evolves into being extremely frustrating. I felt myself giving up on him three-quarters of the way through the sixty-minute main narrative and that is a sign of death for any narrative. Furthermore, I get the sense that Audley, like many of his mumblecore counterparts, is not acting so much as he is playing himself with a different name. In doing so, however, he fails to communicate the dimensions of his character/himself that would give us enough of a window into his psyche that would allow us to care

This leads me to another issue I have with the mumblecore movement that Team Picture epitomizes. While the genre is supposed to more representative of reality than most narrative films, this becomes a stylization in and of itself that many films of the genre take to an unnecessary extreme, which makes them less realistic than they think, just on the other side of the spectrum. In other words, the supposed "realism" is forced. Conversations are rarely as random as they are here and in other films of its kind. The discussions about fingernails and flowers that take place in this movie are just as crafted as regular dialogue, but here with the intention of seemingly like it wasn't as contrived. But, in my mind, they are overcompensating. I'll take a well-shaped scene that advances the narrative any day over a wandering conversation about something uninteresting. Along the same lines, technical snafus like boom shadows and breaking the 180-degree rule aren't cool or rich. It's just sloppy.

I don't even know what to say about the epilogue to TEAM PICTURE, entitled GINGER SAND. After TEAM PICTURE ends suddenly after only an hour, GINGER SAND begins and seems to take place much later, reuniting two of the main characters from the main film, but it also features two characters that Audley doesn't bother to introduce or explain. Once again, he rudely eschews the need for traditional exposition, probably as some form of rebellion against "Hollywood storytelling". The ensuing ten minutes of GINGER SAND has absolutely nothing to do with the story of TEAM PICTURE and gives us no insight as to where David is in his life, what he is doing with his time, etc. All it manages to do is convey that his new relationship isn't working out, even though we just met this new girlfriend and have no sense of their history. So why should we care? And that goes for TEAM PICTURE as well.

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

Lifeboat on Reel 13

jjgittes — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:54:54 GMT

I saw LIFEBOAT for the first time this summer at the outdoor Bryant Park Film Festival and therefore didn’t need to watch it again when it aired on Reel 13 last week. This is not to suggest that it was painful to sit through. On the contrary, it was a revelation. Once again, a talented director takes on the challenge of directing an entire movie in a single location, in this case, a lifeboat drifting in the middle of Atlantic. Similar to Sidney Lumet in 12 ANGRY MEN from October, Hitchcock rises to the challenge and creates a taut, exciting, in-depth, human film. Granted, Hitch was aided by the intrinsic danger that comes along with floating in the Atlantic during WWII. In that sense, there are similarities and connections with Wolfgang Petersen’s 1982 film DAS BOOT, only LIFEBOAT might actually be more tense given that a) they are mostly civilians and b) they are totally exposed.

Actually, the performances in the film don’t help much. Mary Anderson is pretty useless as the young nurse. Hume Cronyn struggles, largely due to the implausible Cockney accent he adopts. William Bendix also would have better days, coming off here as wooden and forced. John Hodiak, as the stud on the boat, has absolutely zero charisma and his anger and bigotry has no layers to it. Tallulah Bankhead is surprisingly one of the more enjoyable performances, though I am skeptical how much “acting” went into it. Her screen persona slips into this character perfectly and does well for the struggle between the classes that develops on the little boat.

However, this is Hitchcock’s movie, driven almost entirely by the intelligent filmmaking. Granted, he had strong source material, working from a story by John Steinbeck, but it is the well-thought-out camera angles, detailed framing and on-point shot-to-shot editing that raise the film to another level. In a very short time frame and with significant shooting limitations, Hitchcock manages to make the boat a microcosm for global relations in the 40’s, deftly dealing with racism, xenophobia, nationalism, imperialism, the realities of war and the aforementioned class issue without beating us over the head on any one issue. In the Hitchcock canon, one often hears about NORTH BY NORTHWEST, PSYCHO, REAR WINDOW and Vertigo. Now, while I don’t suggest that LIFEBOAT is stronger than those masterpieces (it actually might be a little better than PSYCHO, though), it is in that class and though earlier in Hitchcock’s career, it needs to be included in the conversation as one of his finest achievements.

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

Lilies of the Field

jjgittes — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:31:40 GMT

LILIES OF THE FIELD, last week's Reel 13 Classic, is famous for being the film that led the first African-American (Sidney Poitier) to a Best Actor Academy Award. However, as an overall product, it's something of a disappointment. The film is built around the conceit that Homer, Poitier's character, helps out a group of German expatriate nuns with some chores around the house and then can sever seem to leave. However, the manner in which they continually trick, guilt or goad him into staying on quickly becomes tiresome. It's like a handful of bad episodes of "Gilligan's Island" in which some mishap or hijinks prevent our heroes from escaping the island.

One would then assume that Sidney Poitier's Oscar-winning work in the film carries it, but I personally didn't think he was all that great. He doesn't so much create a deep, three-dimensional character as he does rely on his strongest assets – his charm and charisma, those qualities that made him palatable to white audiences of the 50's and 60's. It was, by no means, the best work of his career (THE DEFIANT ONES, TO SIR WITH LOVE, IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT and GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER are all stronger) or even the best leading man work of 1963 (Albert Finney in TOM JONES is one example). I don't even think it was the best performance in the film. Lilia Skala (well before she became famous for FLASHDANCE) does some terrific, nuanced work as Mother Maria. The conflict within her character is significantly more subtle and therefore, in a way, more palpable.

As rich as the black and white cinematography is, the direction of the film is mostly haphazard. The angles are generally uninspired and the blocking for the camera is clunky (I point to several scenes in the nuns' meeting room as examples). The majority of the scenes are slow and ramble on longer than they should and as a result, the film never seems to catch any headwind – no momentum. The second half of the film is much stronger, once the repetitive cat and mouse games with the nuns take a backseat to Homer's determination to build a chapel, but it's too little too late to rescue the film from ultimately being a big ol' bore.

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

America, So Beautiful

jjgittes — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 20:28:31 GMT

From the opening moments of the 70's era AMERICA, SO BEAUTIFUL, the Reel 13 Indie from a couple weeks ago, the disco music envelops me in the mood, embraces me like an old friend that I haven't seen in years and I am somehow immediately hooked in for the ride that is the film. During those early moments, the filmmakers also adopt a seventies era style of filmmaking, particularly during the dance sequences – fisheye lenses, split screens, etc. All this helps to establish the illusion of the period.

Though the flashiness dies down as the film goes on, the direction is confident and strong throughout – consistently good choices in terms of the camera work, design and blocking. If there is a problem with AMERICA, SO BEAUTIFUL, it would be in the screenplay itself with its flat dialogue, meandering narrative and over-the-top approach to its message against prejudice. The film is about Iranian immigrants in Los Angeles during the 1979 hostage crisis, which is a great premise, in theory. Even in practice, the film wisely avoids heavy-handed politics for most of the piece, instead focusing on the characters' desire to survive and assimilate and also the Americanization of the younger generation, which comes into conflict with the traditions of their native culture and their elders. All this stuff is great, but as we move towards the conclusion, the message starts to rear its ugly head and it interrupts the momentum of the story. The one, long night that pretty much dominates the entire second half really sinks the rhythm they had created (there is one unfortunate scene in a diner in which the filmmakers inexplicably abandon any sense of subtlety that they seemed to have had for most of the way) and the climax could have been a lot stronger if they had turned down the amplitude of the speech-giving just a tad. While I understand they felt compelled to show dissatisfaction and disillusionment amongst their Iranian-American protagonists, they needed to be much more subtle about it. Frequently a suggestion is better than a speech. Perhaps the screenwriters felt that their "point" wasn't clear once they got to the end and decided to really hit us over the head, just in case we weren't able to read in between the lines of the first three-quarters of the film. The result for this viewer was that I felt condescended to.

Fortunately, this is ultimately a minor hiccup in an otherwise effective glimpse into the lives of Middle Eastern immigrants. The acting, direction and cinematography are all quite good. Despite a handful of small bumps along the road, the film is balanced, fair, honest, complex and therefore, interesting.

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

King of Hearts on Reel 13

jjgittes — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 22:46:54 GMT

I had never even heard of the 1967 film KING OF HEARTS before its airing on Reel 13 a few weeks ago, even though it has some sort of record for being one of the longest running films in theatrical release of all-time. I couldn't believe my ears shortly after it began to realize that the French film was DUBBED into English. Dubbing, as a practice, has been pretty much universally debunked (and almost mocked) stateside, though I know it is a common practice overseas for some reason. I'm pretty sure even in 1967, dubbing into English was pretty rare and yet here we were. Heck, even the scenes that were actually in English were dubbed into English (I suppose they wanted to match the voices, but it looked ridiculous). I spend a full paragraph on the dubbing because as it happens, I think it was probably the biggest detractor for me when experiencing the film. I never got used to it - it was constantly distracting and quite possibly undermined the director's vision.

As much as Phillipe de Broca could not help the dubbing, he is responsible for the bizarre circus of a movie that KING OF HEARTS became. Alan Bates stars as a Scottish soldier who is sent to rescue a small French town from a bomb during WWII. When he arrives at the town, it has been evacuated, but he doesn't realize that because the inmates of the local asylum have escaped and take over the town. If that's not contrived enough, they decide that Bates is their king and mayhem ensues from there. The comedy is quite broad and the film probably winds up being too silly for its own good, particularly because in all its goofing off, it never manages to be funny (granted, dubbing might have something to do with this). The film occasionally veers into the philosophical and is probably meant to be an allegory, particularly one with an anti-war message (yawn). I think the primary factor that derails the effectiveness of this is the fact that there are no specifics or differences as to the nature of the mental illnesses of the escaped inmates. They are all equally delusional and somehow manage to play nice together in the same, shared fantasy. I found this pretty convenient for the filmmakers and pretty hard to swallow for the audience.

To its credit, there is a lot of detail within the design of the film. The sets and the costumes are quite strong, as the filmmaking team seem to have let their imagination run wild, using the mental patients as an excuse to pull out just about anything. Alan Bates is pleasant and charismatic as literally the sane man in an insane world, but as is true of his character in the movie, he alone is not enough to ground the film or to somehow convert the fever dream of a film into an effective cinematic experience.

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

Psycho Beach Party on Reel 13

jjgittes — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 22:42:44 GMT

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)