New York Theatre Previews and Reviews. or, Jews and Moores, Cookies and Bread

Hello, friends. Lately I have had theatre on my mind. Part of that is because I’m still deep in rehearsals for “Max Understood” for the New York Musical Festival. It’s the first professional production I’ve ever worked on in New York, and it has been quite the experience. I still plan on giving you a detailed account of the whole ordeal, just as soon as I change the names of all those involved. In the meantime, it would seem that the fall theatre season has begun in New York, and I’m generally unimpressed by this season’s lineup.

There seems to be a lot of “Bye Bye, Birdie” and “Finian’s Rainbow” coming our way. Those are two musicals that I have no desire to see, nor do I suspect anyone else desires to see either. Oh wait. Did I say “Bye Bye Birdie?” Nevermind. Tourists, idiots, tweens, and Stamos fans (see idiots), will have that covered. I smell a hit, Roundabout.

Likewise, in the world of straight drama there is a slough of revivals that I’m struggling to get excited for. Top of that list is David Mamet’s “Oleanna” with Bill Pullman and Julia Stiles. One of Mamet’s weaker plays, I can’t imagine how this small and dated piece will play in a big Broadway house. This is a production that was recently mounted in LA, where it received mixed to negative reviews. Also on Broadway, one of the most exciting stage directors working today, David Cromer (Our Town, Bug, Adding Machine) is directing alternating revivals in rep of “Brighton Beach Memoirs” and “Broadway Bound.” As revolutionary and abstract as Cromer can get, I just don’t know how you can make these traditional Neil Simon plays feel fresh or new in any way.

We also have another production of “Hamlet” coming our way, I believe our third major New York production in as many years. This one stars Jude Law, so that should ensure a crowded theatre, but even though I hear it’s quite good, if not great, I just feel like I’ve seen so many Hamlets in the last few years that I don’t think I can sit through another, no matter how good or dreamy.

The play I’m looking forward to the most is “Superior Donuts” by Tracy Lettes. After the shockingly huge success of “August: Osasge County,” a new Lettes play was destined to get a much buzzed about run, but any fan of his previous plays “Killer Joe” and “Bug” knows that Lettes doesn’t go to the same place twice. I have no idea what to expect from “Superior Donuts” and that’s what makes me so excited.

I’m also quite eager to see the revival of “Ragtime,” which was the first play I ever saw on “Broadway.” E.L. Doctorow’s book is one of my favorites and it has successfully been adapted twice, as a film and as a musical. Aside from some stellar performances and a perfect score, I had some problems with the original Broadway production of the play. It was a little too large in scale with some lackluster direction. However the play itself is quite beautiful and powerful and I’m hoping this new production improves on the original.

Further downtown, The Public Theater will be doing a new play written and directed by Richard Foreman, and starring Willem Dafoe. Richard Foreman is one of the strangest, scariest, and most brilliant directors of all time. There’s very little middle ground when it comes to his plays. You either love them or hate them. Designed to be experiences of sensory overload, some of his trademarks include bright lights shining in the eyes of the audience, loud crashes, glass and tight strings separating the audience and the actors, and plays containing almost no dialogue, except for the occasional repeated phrase such as “Let’s all join… the misfit club!” He has been putting on plays for over thirty years in the attic of the St. Marks Church. While he has worked in large venues many times before, this will be the first epic piece of his I’ll see and I can’t wait to see what he comes up with, even if it becomes an exercise in trying to keep in awkward laughter, so as not to get an angry scowl from Foreman, who always runs the sound and lights for his show from the audience. Wild, scary stuff.

So there are some productions that we have to look forward to and others that we have to dread. This week I kicked off my own theatre season by seeing two new productions. One of them was one of the most anticipated and hottest tickets in town. The other I think you can see in exchange for a pack of gum. Seriously, they’re papering the house.

OTHELLO

“Othello” is the last collaboration between The Public Theater and LAByrinth, who have been producing together for the past three years. Some of their productions, such as “The Last Days of Judas Iscariot” and “A View From 151^st Street” have been triumphs. Others, such as “Guinea Pig Solo” and “The Little Flower of East Orange” have fallen under the “interesting failures” umbrella. Running at over four hours, “Othello” is long enough to land into both categories.

Director Peter Sellars has brought us a stark, scaled down, naked “Othello.” Using a cast of only eight people and having them perform on a nearly bare stage, (save for one major set piece, but more on that later), it can seem like a lot of empty space is surrounding the actors, which is accentuated by the massive stage at the NYU Skirball Center. This probably would have been perfect in one of the smaller spaces at the Public Theater, but with Academy Award winner Philip Seymour Hoffman playing Iago, you know the show is certain to be a hot ticket so why not sell as many as possible?

In order to fill that large space with sound, microphones are used to enhance the actors’ voices. When the mics work, the surround sound can be very off-putting. With some healthy projection, unaltered voices could easily fill the massive theatre, but that wouldn’t allow for all the whispers and soft voices, so beloved of some of these actors.

The usually superb John Ortiz takes quite a while to truly establish his Othello. Though he rarely leaves the stage, he spends so much of the first hour of the play cuddling up with Desdemona in his underwear, that it takes a bit too long for him to feel like Othello, rather than just Desdemona’s boyfriend. It doesn’t help that Othello’s lengthy monologue about how he wooed Desdemona is delivered entirely to his cell phone, complete with fuzzy phone voice. But once Othello makes his journey to Cyprus, both he and Ortiz begin to command authority.

Hoffman’s Iago is quite a unique creation. Never have I seen an actor so resistant to all the laughs that Iago can so easily pull out of the audience. Hoffman’s Iago is not the snidely evil guy, with a crooked half-grin and a curled up lip that we’re used to. Hoffman plays him as an angry, frustrated, incredibly depressed man, who can’t even discuss his hatred of the Moore without breaking down into tears. He’s more thankful than ever for the lucky breaks he gets, since we’re not sure that he’ll be able to have the ability to complete his plan without them. The scene in which he musters the courage to finally plant the seeds of jealousy into Othello’s ear is the most thrilling moment of the show, because we’re seduced not just by the fear of his plan succeeding, but by the notion that Iago’s lack of nerve could allow it to fail. Watching these two actors play against each other for that scene is a thrilling experience and even those well versed in the play will be curious as to what will happen next.

However there’s one character who always seems to know what will happen next, and that’s Desdemona. If Hoffman’s Iago lacks confidence, Jessica Chastain’s Desdemona has it in spades. Chastain seems so calm and centered at all times, it almost feels like she knows the end of the story, knows and has accepted her fate, and I never fully understood what this added to her character, aside from making her less interesting. This approach continues through the very last scene, which is a fairly disappointing climax due to Desdemona’s apparent indifference to her own impending death.

Liza Colon-Zayas is effective as Emilia, playing her as subservient and miserable, but a potentially interesting take on her relationship with Othello is given too brief a moment to really pack the punch it wants to. The smaller roles are doubled up in sometimes bizarre ways, with Bianca also taking a beating, and attempted rape, from Cassio, in the Montano role. But with so much dialogue suggesting conflicting emotions and actions, the conceit doesn’t really work. Much better is Gaius Charles, (Smash from “Friday Night Lights!”) in the usually thankless role of The Duke. He rules with such grace and charm, and the flag pin he wears seems to confirm, that he easily passes as a young Obama.

The most distracting thing in the whole play though, is also its coolest contrivance. The sole set piece on the stage is a giant bed for the lovers to lie on, made of 45 television screens, which produce various images throughout the play. The real benefit of this, (aside from the potential to watch “City Slickers 2: The Legend of Curly’s Gold” 45 times, all at once), is the ability to enhance the lighting design of the play by matching the mood and actions of the story with complimenting images and colors. This had the potential of being really overused and distracting, but instead it’s underused and distracting. More often than not, one can’t really tell what images the screens are actually showing, and you find yourself squinting and trying to solve what looks like a Magic Eye puzzle. Just to make it clear, I did have quite a good seat, and all I could really make out on those screens was a candle flame and some kind of building(?).

Even with all its problems, and its four hour running time, “Othello” never felt boring to me. Ortiz and Hoffman are mesmerizing together, and are able to drive up the intensity whenever they’re on stage. When they’re not on stage, I was still captivated by this wonderful play, which doesn’t seem to sacrifice a single word in this otherwise scaled back production. I wish I could say that this production was as perfect as the play itself. It’s not, but it is a fascinating attempt. I urge everyone to see “Othello.” If you’re only able to catch it here, at The Public Theater, then take what you can get, but hope for something a bit better next time.

THE RETRIBUTIONISTS

For all of you out there who found “Inglourious Basterds” to be too entertaining, exciting, and fun, then you might enjoy “The Retributionists.” It tells the “true” story, of a group of Jewish fighters, who after World War II, attempted to kill thousands of Nazi prisoners in Nuremberg prison by poisoning their bread with arsenic. While that sounds like a fun tale of intrigue, worthy of an eye-patched Tom Cruise, I assure you that there is very little joy to be found here, though plenty of unintentional laughs.

Poisoning Nazis already seems complicated enough, but the majority of the story centers on a love tri… uh, or would it be a squa… hmmmm. Make that a love pentagon. A boring love pentagon. Sigh. Ok. I’m going to try to summarize the plot. Bear with me here.

During the war, Anika, Dov, and Dinchka were living in the forest, holding big guns, and having the occasional bout of three-way sex. They were kind of like that Jewish resistance group of Ewoks from that movie “Defiance,” only I don’t remember Daniel Craig and Jamie Belle ever getting it on just to stay warm. Anyways, when Anika wasn’t bedding Dov and Dinchka, she was also sleeping with Jascha, a fellow soldier with an accent straight of a “Rocky” movie. Everybody loves that girl! After the war, she recruits Jascha to infiltrate Nuremberg’s bakery to poison the bread, and if he is successful, she promises she will marry him, though she is also engaged to Dov. Alright. That’s enough of that.

While this real life situation was probably deadly serious, it’s treated with a light touch in this play. While justice and revenge is brought up from time to time, most of the characters seem to be motivated purely by the desire to fuck and eat cookies. Oh. Real cookies, in case you were wondering. Sex is frequently used as a negotiating tactic, and we end up hearing lines such as “I want to make you pregnant, tonight, on this train into Germany.”

Once the action shifts to the bakery, the tone of the play suddenly invokes that of a sitcom, with a very Lavern and Shirley-esque couple of wisecracking ladies. At this most pivotal and heavy moment in the plan, it just makes the play all the more difficult to take seriously. The tension was too much for the audience to take, and during the final scene they couldn’t hold back anymore, as bottled up laughs finally began to erupt out of them, as the playwright, Daniel Goldfarb, unleashed some basic dramatic irony, worthy of an episode of an episode of “The Suite Life of Zack and Cody.”

As awful as “The Retributionists” is, and it certainly is one of the worst plays I’ve ever seen, I still found many things in it to hold my attention. For example, there is a character who is missing a few fingers, and I must admit that I stared at his glove for several minutes, wondering just how the actor had taped down his digits. I hope nobody said anything important while I was doing that. My mind was also racing after I heard this exchange: “’…back when I still had my fingers.’ ‘You’re still hung up on that?’” How long does it take to get over the forcible loss of ones fingers? At least I can’t accuse this play of not making me think.

-Johnny Pomatto

Need Some Netflix Suggestions? Try the Best Films of 2008!

Well the Oscar season has officially begun. I saw "The Informant!" over the weekend and it was one of the absolute best films I've seen this year. A very welcomed sign, because while there have been some truly great films released this year, including "Up," "Inglourious Basterds," "In the Loop," "Humpday," and "The Hurt Locker,"it seems like it has been a slightly weaker year so far than usual. The months between January and May (never a prime time for great releases anyways) barely housed a single film I enjoyed, let alone one worthy of a best of the year list. But there is much coming out this fall to get excited about, and while I hope to write up detailed reviews of some of them in the future, I thought in the meantime I would repost my Best Films list from last year, just to give you an idea of how strong last year was and what this year has to measure up against. So check out this list. Nearly all these films are now available on DVD and if you're looking for a great film to watch, you can't go wrong with any of them. Enjoy.


1. Wall-E -One day, Pixar will make a film about a puddle of mud. We will all see it, and it will be excellent. Andrew Stanton’s ode to life was the most joyously poignant and beautiful film of the year. Pixar films often accomplish this, but rarely do they start in and use such a bleak, depressing backdrop. Rarely have there been funnier physical comedy, or a more touching love story, than the one that these wordless, metal objects created.



2. Man on Wire -I was more moved by this film than I was by any post 9/11 tribute to the Twin Towers. The fact that nobody in the film ever acknowledges the future of these towers in the film only makes it all the more powerful. This documentary was more thrilling than any heist movie and was a satisfying and recognizable portrayal of the idea of obsession with a dream.



3. Happy-Go-Lucky -Mike Leigh’s story of optimism seemed to get shrugged off as too flighty and light by many, but Sally Hawkins’ Poppy isn’t just an excuse to giggle. Poppy may look on the bright side of life, but she doesn’t shy away from dealing with the pain and sadness she encounters. Just watch the scene with Poppy and the homeless man to see why Hawkins deserves an Oscar for her performance. Her scenes with the wonderful Eddie Marsan are hilarious and heartbreaking. And think about it. How often do you see a film featuring numerous scenes between a man and a woman, without ever acknowledging the possibility of the two characters becoming romantically involved?



4. The Wrestler -It’s not over hyped. Mickey Rourke deserves an Oscar for this career defining performance. Darren Aronofsky, usually a director who will take a small scene and fill it with digital effects and complexities, has made a small, simple film that is unrecognizable from his other films. Taking a profession that is all performance and stripping it of all its luster left a film that was starkly simple, real, and sad, but never boring.



5. In Bruges -Considering that playwright Martin McDonagh is notorious for not creating a loose end unless it’s neatly tied up, this film didn’t have a single moment that was expected or routine. A perfect blend of humor, tragedy, violence, and beauty. McDonagh’s dialogue crackles in every scene and the performances by Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, and Ralph Fiennes are in complete harmony with it and one another. Here’s hoping McDonagh has a long film career ahead of him.



6. Synecdoche, New York -Charlie Kaufman’s film of mirrors is so complex and bizarre that you could probably ask five people what it was about and get five answers. What makes it a great film is that they’d all be right. The perfect ensemble, led by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, seems to be game for anything, so even some of the more questionable plot points in the film come across as thought out, decisive, and fully committed to the world that Kaufman has created.



7. Frost/Nixon -A phenomenal adaptation of a play that already felt like a tight, brisk film. Peter Morgan’s writing is enough for the film and historical meeting to speak for itself, but it is backed by Ron Howards concise direction and true knowledge of television and the era, and also the terrific performances by Frank Langella and (the constantly overlooked) Michael Sheen. This film is so entertaining and gripping, it almost makes you forget about its importance and real life significance. Almost.



8. A Christmas Tale -This lovely French film couldn’t have less to do with Christmas, but nothing like a holiday to bring a family together to examine all their relationships and inner emotions. The beauty of this typically familiar story is that every scene that you expect to see in film takes place off-camera. What we’re left with is all the seemingly insignificant moments that are actually what best displays the characters’ true feelings and motivations. Superb performances from Catherine Deneuve, Anne Consigny, and Mathieu Almaric.



9. Milk -This might have just been another typical serviceable but standard biopic, if it were not helped by the powerhouse performances (led by a never better Sean Penn), the smart and simple direction by Gus Van Zant, and the sheer power of the subject matter, that because of the recent election climate, never felt more topical or relevant. I had no idea who Harvey Milk was until my senior year of high school. Hopefully, because of this film, people won’t have to wait so long to know who he was and what he stood for.



10. The Dark Knight -Yes. It’s a little too long. It’s not perfect. But I couldn’t possibly leave off what might just be the greatest super hero film ever made. Batman and his plight have never had a bleaker or darker setting and struggle. Christopher Nolan wisely took this heroic character completely outside of the fantasy world and set him in the real world. We could finally see what our world might be like with a true hero in it, and its brilliance is that it shows more problems caused by his presence than actual success. Many ethical questions were raised by the film, and Nolan had the balls to not present easy answers to them. And of course I must mention Heath Ledger, who not only redefined the character of The Joker, but also redefined the notion of a villain altogether.



Honorable Mention: The Bank Job, Burn After Reading, Encounters at the End of the World, Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson, Gran Torino, My Winnipeg, Rachel Getting Married, Waltz With Bashir.



Special Award For Summer Movies: Some of the best films of the year were released on over 3,000 screens and intended for the summer masses. Iron Man, Pineapple Express, Tropic Thunder, Hellboy II: The Golden Army, Kung Fu Panda, and yes, even Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull were a refreshing change of pace from the usual giant change of pace from the usual giant robot garbage we’ve been subjected to in recent previous summers. These films didn’t quite make my list, but any of them easily could have.





This next list of films also didn’t quite make my top ten, but they are all great films that you may not have heard of. I consider it my duty to make you aware. You can’t go wrong with any of them.



Bigger, Stronger, Faster -Chris Bell’s fantastically entertaining documentary managed to take an issue that I didn’t really care one way or another about (steroid use) and captivate me for every minute of it.



Four Months, Three Weeks, Two Days -From Romania, which is becoming the new film capital of Europe, this intense, stark, depressing look at a woman’s limited options when she has an unwanted pregnancy is difficult to watch but truly excellent.



The Hammer -One of my favorite comedies of year barely even got a release. Adam Carolla drew from his own life to create a deeply personal, independent, romantic comedy about a loser getting one last chance to chase his dream of becoming a boxer. Like “The Wrestler,” but much funnier. One of the most quotable films of the year with some of the funniest one-liners I’ve heard in some time.



My Winnipeg -One of my absolute favorite films of the year. Guy Maddin’s beautiful, funny film is part documentary, part love letter, part Freudean nightmare. His use of black and white imagery is like watching a modern silent film, and his use of music brings to mind a night at the ballet.



The Promotion -A nice, simple comedy that takes what would ordinarily be an absurd, cartoon-like premise, but treats it in a realistic way with characters reacting irrationally, but in a manner people actually would in that situation.



Sangre De Mi Sangre -This film was so under the radar, even I didn’t know it had been released. This film won the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance in 2007, under the better title “Padre Nuestro.” It’s a fantastic cat and mouse story of a Mexican immigrant in New York looking for his father, and the criminal who steals the boy’s identity, and his father as well. Deserves to find an audience on video.



Snow Angels -David Gordon Green’s stunningly beautiful film deals with horrible tragedy, but manages to be sweet, even uplifting, as we see the people around the events reacting to them by trying to find love of their own. Nobody seemed to see this. That’s the real tragedy.



Son of Rambow -This fantastic family film was released on the same day as “Iron Man,” so it also got lost in the shuffle. I love this delightful, innocent fable about kids making their own movie. Captures a time when a PG movie wasn’t stupid or condescending.

Speed Racer -An absolute mess of a film. I only include it here because it’s not as bad as people say. Too long, confusing, and ridiculous at over 2 hours, but a lot of fun nonetheless. Had it been a brisk 80 minutes there would be little to hate here… other than Emile Hirsch.



Tell No One -Probably the best thriller I saw all year. So many twists and turns that it’s impossible to predict them all. Keeps you guessing until the very end.



Timecrimes -The first feature by Nacho Vigalondo was not as groundbreaking or original as I had heard, but still a fun, low budget sci-fi film nonetheless. After seeing Nacho’s short films, I still eagerly anticipate to see what he can do with feature films.



Towelhead -This overlooked film was sometimes a bit heavy handed and over the top. Can life really be this horrible for a teenage girl? But it is absolutely worth seeing for the performances of Peter Macdissi and Aaron Eckhart.







And now… The Worst Films of the Year. Now this is only based on what I’ve seen. I try not to subject myself to bad films. Had I seen everything, I’m sure the honor would go to “Meet the Spartans” or “Disaster Movie.” These were my least favorite films of the year.



1. Mama Mia -A horribly made film by a first time director (Phyllida Lloyd) who had no idea what she was doing. Everything went wrong here. The lighting, the choreography, the ADR, the continuity. Every time the camera started to move I prayed for Lloyd’s career. This kind of thing usually isn’t my cup of tea, but I saw the play and didn’t totally hate it. It worked for what it was. This was just a failure in every way. Lloyd hoped that by making it look like everyone on screen was having so much fun that, in turn, the audience would have fun as well. You know you’re in trouble when Meryl Streep interrupts the end credits to ask “Do you want it? One more song?” and then proceeds to sing regardless of what the audience screams back.



2. The Love Guru -This might have been funny twenty years ago. Mike Meyers’ sense of humor is so dated that he can’t get a single laugh from his core audience who has done a lot of growing up since Austin Powers.



3. My Blueberry Nights -Even arty films can be garbage. Wong Kar Wai’s English language debut looks stunningly beautiful. If only his actors (and I use the term loosely when talking about Nora Jones), never actually opened their mouths. This film got more laughs than “The Love Guru.” But this wasn’t supposed to be a comedy.



4. Cloverfiend -This wasn’t a bad idea for a movie. It just fails in execution. A handheld camera may have added realism, but nothing else. If this had been made by a film student for $2000, I could forgive it. This was made by a major studio. To see a better example of this kind of film, check out “The Host.”



5. Bottle Shock -This film about Napa Valley wines versus the French was written by four screenwriters. You can tell that each one took a different part of the film to write and then they were all put together without any care for if the stories worked together. They didn’t.



6. The Other Boleyn Girl -A period piece with no beauty, script, or decent performances. Trying to turn Henry VIII’s life into a soap opera would be better suited for… well apparently not for TV either.



7. Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist -Did you hate “Juno?” You’ll love it after you see this garbage. If this talented, young cast were playing their own ages, it might have worked better. But I’ve never met a teenager who was anything like any of these kids. I know I took it too seriously, but this film doesn’t even work as a fantasy.



8. The Wackness -Most of what I said in the entry above applies here as well. I love Ben Kingsly, but just because you have him smoking pot and hanging out with a teenager, doesn’t mean you have enough for a whole movie.



9. Australia -Making a romantic epic shouldn’t be hard. Simple love story against a beautiful backdrop. If Hugh and Nicole had just done that you might have had a movie. Instead we got something about cattle suppliers competing with each other and constant references to “The Wizard of Oz.” This movie tried to be funny when it should have been serious, and tried to be serious when it should have been over.



10. Wanted -Not a horrible film, but a horribly stupid film. If so many friends of mine didn’t like it I could forgive it. However… a magic loom, people? A MAGIC LOOM? And calm down, people. This isn’t the first time Morgan Freeman has said “fuck.” This was successful so expect a sequel. Unfortunately the film killed off every character who was halfway interesting. Now we’re stuck with James McAvoy.

(Editor's Note: I had not yet seen "Sex and the City" and "The Reader" when I originally made up this list. Both films would be very high on my "worst" list.)




-Johnny Pomatto

9/9/09: May God Have Mercy On Us All

What a fantastic day this has been! September 9^th, 2009! Don’t you know what that is, people? 9/9/09! THAT’S ALL NINES! Oh. Except for that zero in there. But you’re missing the point. Exciting things are happening on this day. Events worthy of a Nostradamus prediction. Like, uh… well for one thing, “The Beatles Rock Band” came out today! That’s going to be pretty cool! And are you ready for this? A new movie opened today too. Care to guess what it’s called? “9!” That’s right, people. A movie called “9” on 9/9/09! What are the odds?

What is with the number nine? Does it look good on a marquee or something? This year we are having no fewer than four movies with 9 in the title. The musical “Nine,” the animated apocalyptic film “9,” the fantastic sci-fi film “District 9,” and even an independent claymated film from Australia called “$9.99.” That one gives you three 9’s for the price of one! The movies “9” and “Nine” alone are sure to cause at least a bit of confusion later on. I picture a group of screaming eight year olds complaining that they wanted to see an exciting adventure cartoon and instead they have to listen to Nicole Kidman sing. Hell, that might make ME scream and complain too.

I just don’t remember this much hubbub last year on 8/8/08. What’s that, good friend in my living room as I type this? What did you say? Oh. According to my friend Matt and others in the Internet community, 8/8/08 WAS a big deal last year. As was 7/7/07. Apparently they are considered lucky days and are popular for weddings and good days to do a lot gambling on.

So what is my point? Bah. I don’t know. I was really reaching here. I thought it could stretch this into a longer article. So my apologies, friends. I haven’t updated much of anything on this site or others in the last few weeks. I’ve been very busy working tech on a show for the New York Musical Festival (NYMF. Cute, right?). It’s called “Max Understood” and I have many stories to tell about it. But those will have to be saved for another day. In the meantime, enjoy the remaining hours of 9/9/09, with a classic segment from Schoolhouse Rock. Goodnight, friends.

-Johnny Pomatto

Avatar: It's Not Easy Being Blue

In the last several months (or has it been years), I’ve heard so many descriptions of what to expect from James Cameron’s first film in over a decade: “Avatar.” My friends with inside knowledge on the project have tried to describe the story to me, but nothing has stuck in my memory. When James Cameron spoke about the film for twenty minutes at this year’s E3, I found myself even more confused at the end of his presentation than I was before he started. However, after seeing last night’s 3D IMAX presentation of 16 minutes of the film, I finally feel like I know what the movie is about. “Oh. I get it. The humans want to blend in with the alien tribe so they take on their form through avatar bodies and they slowly integrate into their culture, learning that they’re not so different after all! Right? Right?” Still not quite sure.

I don’t think that “Avatar” looks unlike anything we’ve ever seen before, at least in terms of technical wizardry and story. I don’t even know if it will be the best science fiction film we’ve seen in years, especially since I just bestowed that honor on “District 9” but a week ago. I will, however, give it credit for having a style and visuals that look unique and different from most science fiction films I’ve seen. I love the setting of the jungle planet, filled with vegetation and creatures that look familiar to ones found on earth, but with subtle twists to make them seem fantastical, yet almost believable. In the several scenes featured in the presentation yesterday, most involved confrontations with rhino-like charging beasts, vicious reptilian snarling dogs, and spectacular flying creatures that require taming before they can be mounted. If nothing else, “Avatar” should be a fun creature-feature, not unlike “Jurassic Park” or “King Kong.”

But speaking of those creatures, I’ve heard a lot of complaints that the film looks like it has too much CGI. I think it’s a fair complaint, though I must admit that the footage and animation looked very sharp and impressive in 3D IMAX. I would actually take the complaint a little farther, though I’m not sure yet if it really bothers me. It occurred to me after watching the footage yesterday, that once the humans adopt their avatar forms, they too become CGI creatures, and then are dropped down into the mostly animated jungles and surrounded by animated beasts. At that point, does the film then become simply an animated film? I’m sure the actors were motion captured for their roles, but I certainly hope the film doesn’t end up looking like just another “The Polar Express” or “Beowulf.”

I’m still quite excited by most of what I saw. The live action footage of Stephen Lang talking to his cadets had a B movie quality to it, not unlike the training scenes of “Starship Troopers.” The jungles and creatures used a color palate not often found in film, such as pinks, purples, blues, and greens, all with a kind of shiny, metallic tint. The 3D was very impressive, though one scene was so fast paced I could barely tell what was going on, what with all the trees and branches in the foreground. The story might be a bit too “Dances With Wolves,” but Cameron might also be aware of that and could be keeping it in check. There is, after all, a reference to that film in the footage I saw, when someone suggests that the lead avatar try to dance with one of the giant creatures that looks poised to kill him. It does still concern me a bit that the story might be more familiar and less original than we have prepared ourselves to expect. Even the central conceit of humans using avatar bodies has been borrowed by at least two other films coming out this fall, “Gamer” and “Surrogate.” I’m sure “Avatar” will be far better than both those films, but I hope we don’t have to look too hard to find what is still original and groundbreaking about this film.

What was the fan reaction? I suppose there was some moderately enthusiastic applause from about half the audience. I even raised my fist in the air and shouted “YEAH!” though I don’t think that was entirely sincere. The couple I was with was so split over it that they started fighting, with one of them getting so upset over his girlfriend being unimpressed that he threatened not to see the film with her come December. It was all very George and Martha in “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” I’m still keeping my expectations and skepticism in check, though the fact that James Cameron is so excited for this film gets me excited too and I can’t wait to see what he’s been cooking in his brain for the last twelve years. I watched “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” last week for the first time in a long time and I was astonished at how great it still was and how many details I remembered after all these years. “Avatar” may not be the classic that film was, but when I stuck my ticket to the December 18^th midnight show on to my refrigerator, I got a very anxious feeling. Something is coming. Just a few months away. Could be big. Don’t know what’s going to happen, but I’ve still got some time to get ready for it.

-Johnny Pomatto

Ernest Goes To Jail. What Was His Crime? Being Too Lovable.

There was an all too brief time when Jim Varney’s Ernest P. Worrell was a cultural icon. At first he was limited to State Fair appearances and car dealership commercials, but somewhere along the way, he became the star of four successful theatrical films, and later, five direct to video follow-ups. I’ve taken to regularly asking my friends which is their favorite Ernest movie. I get a lot of “Ernest Goes To Camp,” and a few misguided bastards who defend “Saves Christmas” and “Scared Stupid. But very rarely do I hear people mention what is far and away Varney’s greatest film.

“Ernest Goes To Jail” is the most classically influenced Ernest film to date. His role of a night janitor in a bank harkens back to memories of W.C. Fields in "The Bank Dick." The bank itself offers an exciting set piece and the opening scene in which Ernest becomes electromagnetic is inventive and exciting, as Ernest is attacked by filing cabinets, staplers, and safety deposit boxes. It is a completely original scene, not featured in a film before or since. The film also includes another wonderfully hilarious sequence in which Ernest starts to chew on a pen, only to have it explode, covering his mouth and face in black ink.

So far, so good, but how is sweet, simple-minded Ernest going to get to jail? We keep seeing ominous scenes of a prisoner known only as Mr. Nash. We always just see him from behind. Who is this mysterious stranger and what could he possibly have to do with the A story? It isn't until Ernest is hilariously and proudly serving his civic duty on a jury when we learn that Ernest is the exact double of Mr. Nash. That's right. In a move that can only be described as Shakespearean, Jim Varney plays a dual role!

Now it would have been easy for him to play a really funny villain, but he doesn't. Mr. Nash is an evil, murdering, hardened criminal. A nice stretch for Varney. This adds a real sense of suspense and danger once Nash is out and disguised as Ernest. In his attempts to rob the bank that Ernest works for, we never know if he's going to kill one of Ernest's friends Chuck and Bobby, (the hilarious and expressive team of Gailard Sartain and Bill Byrge, reprising their roles from most of Ernest’s other films), or even rape his potential girlfriend. It is the Mr. Nash scenes that confirm this to be Varney's greatest and most layered performance.

The set piece of the prison is also delightfully surreal. It's not the least bit realistic but rather is washed in nightmarish colors of purples, pinks, and greens. Ernest’s prison uniform magically becomes an inmate-green version of his signature costume. The prison guards are dressed in cartoony broad shouldered uniforms. Every scene in the prison feels more like a dream sequence that Ernest might wake up from at any minute… but of course he never does.

Most of the humor is derived from Ernest's many escape attempts, including one in which he dresses up as his famous alter-ego, Auntie Nelda. It is also in jail where seemingly just for fun, he stands in front of the mirror and does a spot on James Mason impression. Now people write off Ernest as a character geared towards children and rednecks, but clearly Mr. Varney's cultural horizons expand far beyond that, plucking out an impression of an actor that most children have never even heard of. In fact, you won’t find a single child in the whole film. How refreshing that we are able to watch adults do stupid comedy, without having children present to announce to the audience that this is indeed a family comedy. This notion would already be completely abandoned by the time “Ernest Scared Stupid” came around, with Ernest and a bunch of kids working together to stop a troll. At that point, he was just paving the way for his Saturday morning variety show.

This still is a movie for kids, though it does go into truly dark territory at the end when Mr. Nash, (though really Ernest), is sentenced to death by the electric chair. These are high stakes, people. The threat is real here, and the danger is thrilling to the point that we actually see Ernest sitting down in the chair, about to die. Of course he does not, but the switch is pulled, with the executioner showing little remorse in his eagerness to kill our beloved, redneck icon. Due to his magnetized state from the beginning of the film, the electricity doesn't kill Ernest, but rather turns him into Ernest P. Worell: Electro-Man, giving him the power to shoot lighting from his hands. If the film was starting to lose anyone, this is the point where it wins us back.

Ernest goes on a rampage and successfully escapes from prison just in time to attempt to stop Nash from robbing the bank and blowing up his girlfriend. However the electric powers fade away, but new powers arise. Suddenly he is given the ability to be weightless and Ernest begins to bounce around in zero gravity. Between this and the Electro-Man scenes, this is the first introduction of magical-realism in the Ernest universe. It’s like Calderon’s “Life is a Dream” with toilet-plunger jokes.

After a spectacular finale of Ernest fighting Nash and flying around the bank, he flies the bomb high into the air and seemingly explodes. As everyone is mourning Ernest's death and hailing him as a hero, Ernest falls down to earth and utters the immortal phrase, "I came, I saw, I got blowed up." Truer words were never spoken. Most films would have some sort of a coda or an epilogue. Not this one. Funny line, face-first fall, and roll credits. Any more of a wrap up would just be filler, but we do get the nice moral lesson a little earlier when Ernest gives his cellmate friend a chance to escape and he refuses. The probable violent offender (and likely racist) states that he belongs in prison and that at the end of the day, prison is a pretty nice place for a guy like him.

This would be the last truly great Ernest movie, though the direct to video "Ernest Rides Again" comes close. After that it would all be visits to Africa and chance encounters with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Sure, his adventure at camp is pretty good, but I think you'll now agree that this film truly pushed boundaries, at least as much as an Ernest movie can. "Know what I mean?"

-Johnny Pomatto

Who Could Be "Revolt"ed By This "Youth?"

America seems to be cooling to the hilarious young man that is Michael Cera. On "Arrested Development" he seemed to reinvent the very notion of the awkward teen. But after seeing variations on the same character in "Juno," "Superbad," and the unbearable "Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist," people know what to expect and they're starting to tire of it. I'm a bit on the fence though. I would love to see Cera play George Michael once again for an "Arrested Development" movie, and then maybe see him channel the character once more for a good indie comedy just to say goodbye. In the meantime, I look forward to him playing a different set of roles, as I see a lot of potential and range in him. I would love to see Cera play an unlikable asshole. I'm very excited to see how he fares as the title role in Edgar Wright's "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World." Cera has a film coming out this fall called "Youth in Revolt." I knew absolutely nothing about this film, nor its tone. A friend of mine saw this a few weeks ago. He wrote up a review and submitted to Aint It Cool News. They never posted it however, so he sent it my way and after reading it, I thought I'd post it here for you all to read as well. I don't think I'm violating any rules or embargoes by putting this online. I'm even protecting my friend's identity. Hope you all enjoy.

-Pomatto

Youth In Reviolt

I’ve just had the privilege of seeing what was introduced as “one of the first” screenings of the upcoming romantic comedy Youth in Revolt, which is evidently due for an October release. The film, starring Michael Cera, features a veritable “star studded cast,” including supporting performances by Jean Smart, Steve Buscemi, Fred Willard, Ray Liotta and Zack Galifianakis. Miguel Arteta directed, which surprised me, since I didn’t think he would have the gall to make any new films after The Good Girl (2002), which, I must admit, I saw once when I was sick with the flu.

The film is a sort of mixed bag. We have the typical story of a youth attempting to transition into adulthood, though of course he finds no easier recourse for achieving this apart from getting laid. He meets a girl, falls in love and becomes intent on romance. The film follows his growth into the character he thinks will best woo the object of his affections.

Michael Cera plays this impossible, youthful – and virginal – aesthete called Nick Twisp who is marooned with a dysfunctional family in Berkeley/Oakland. After his mother’s boyfriend gyps a group of naval officers, the motley crew embarks on a claymated journey to a trailer in the woods, where he meets the equally snobbish Sheeni (Portia Doubleday), who more or less shares his lonely despair, and quickly falls in love. The two share a passion for literary culture, but Sheeni, with her posters of JP Belmondo, fantasizes about an eventual French lover – though she is dating some d-bag named Trent.

To meet her romantic ideal of a manly man, Nick creates for himself a second personality: Francois Dillinger, a pastiche of a French tough-guy anti-hero, chain-smoking, snappily dressed and of few words, most of them obscene. Francois, assuming the sort of Tyler Durden role, encourages Nick to act out in order to get the girl. The film follows Nick/Francois on the path to wooing Sheeni.

It was nice to see a romantic comedy aim for something so absurd and capitalize on the (often awkward) personae of its actors. The humor is quirky and generally on the mark, though there was often a lot of laughter at moments that I did not think were intended to be funny, as well as moments where the audience was expected to laugh and there was nary a chuckle. Some standout scenes include the first introduction of Francois to Nick’s mother, Francois and Nick wreaking havoc in Berkeley and – most potent of all – the impeccable sequence wherein Nick attempts to fake his own death.

However, there are several elements of the film which stumble or flat-out fail. Firstly, Ms. Doubleday’s performance is simply awful, though this is no indication of her acting ability as much as it is a symptom of the mostly unlikable character she is portraying. Unlike Nick, Sheeni’s snobbish demeanor feels coquettish, unfair and annoying; at one point she chides Nick for being a virgin, but has herself only had one sexual experience. While Nick’s interest in literature seems deep-seeded and meaningful to his character, her love for French culture feels affected and false, serving no character development.

The supporting cast, though impressive, is similarly, almost startlingly, misused. Jean Smart plays a whorish, white trash mom who lives on the child support payments from ex-husband Steve Buscemi and the kindness of her boyfriends, played by Zack G and Ray Liotta. Smart has enough screen time to make her character work well enough, but the remaining supporting cast appears only briefly and often meaninglessly (though both Fred Willard and Justin Long drawing huge laughs in their respective short screen times).

It’s also impossible to review this film without making mention of a scene involving psychedelic mushrooms. This sequence, while book-ended by two very funny gags (courtesy of Francois, as well as the helpful sexual advice of thankfully underused side-character Lefty), sort of struggles along, causing dim-witted fits of laughter among only the most dim-witted of audience members at the simple presence of psychedelic mushrooms.

Finally, there is the point of Michael Cera. On one hand, with Nick, he plays the same character we have come to expect – a gawky, nerdish type. Francois, however, is an interesting case; we don’t really ever feel that he is supposed to be a completely independent character from Nick, but we get the impression that he is the character Nick imagines Sheeni wants. So it is still Michael Cera playing his gawky, nerdish type, only this time there is a subtle shift in the performance worth noticing. This is probably not enough to distract anyone critical or bored with a typical Cera performance, but it was slightly refreshing to this viewer.

The film screened tonight was a work print, which was, as anyone who has attended an advanced screening can attest, introduced as an unfinished version. However, it seemed to me to be pretty much complete, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the final cut of the film. In a brief group afterward, I learned that there potentially exists a different version of the ending, which I can only hope does not see the light of day. Though there are a few dragging moments, the ending of the film provides a perfect cap to the previous events of the 110-ish minute runtime, pulling us back into reality.

It will be interesting to see how this film is marketed in the coming months; I imagine it might make a really good trailer, but find difficulty in TV spots, due to its slightly weird plot devices. The film, which is absolutely deserving of an R-rating, might be too light for older audiences, but too sophisticated or intellectual for the young’ns. Overall, despite its occasionally darker depiction of teenage angst, Youth in Revoltis recommended to fans of lighter-fare comedies or fans of Michael Cera.

-Proust

"Watchmen" Is On DVD, And Yet The World Still Turns

After waiting for so many years, Alan Moore’s “Watchmen” was finally made into a feature film. You remember, right? Came out last February? It was a really big deal for about a week and a half? Sigh. This is the problem. We were finally granted a “Watchmen” film, but the world doesn’t feel any different. I went opening weekend. I enjoyed it, for the most part. But I didn’t go a second or third or fourth time, and I didn’t tell my friends that they absolutely had to see it. It’s modest box office numbers would suggest that nobody did. For now, the movie simply exists. It was made, it wasn’t bad, but nothing is changed. I would love to write up more of my detailed thoughts on the film, but the trouble is, I really don’t remember enough about what I thought. I remember thinking the opening credits were inspired, and I was genuinely thrilled by seeing Doctor Manhattan and Rorschach brought to life on screen. But I also remember some really oddly directed sequences, such as the prison break. I remember often thinking “Really? That was Malin Ackerman’s best take for that line reading?” Now that the film is on DVD, I plan to revisit it at some point, in order to refresh my memory, and hopefully have the film grow on me.

In the meantime, I thought I would celebrate this DVD release day by posting a video that I did, (with Jesse Hicks, Alessandro Minoli, and Will Weinand), to celebrate the release of the, then, highly anticipated film. We all went to the midnight showing at the AMC Lincoln Square Theatre in New York. Our goal was to ask some humorous questions of some die hard fanatics. Things didn’t go quite as well as I had hoped. First of all, I had written some silly exchanges under the pretense that there would be many people dressed up in the costume of their favorite characters. At New York Comic-Con, I must have seen twenty Rorschachs, but I didn’t see one at the screening. This put a damper on, what I thought was quite a funny routine I planned to do.

My Lost Rorschach Scene

Johnny: In the film, fan-favorite Rorschach is played by 70’s teen movie star Jackie Earl Haley. This is certain to become an iconic role for him, and he gets most of the best lines.

Rorschach: (In the deep, gruff, gravelly voice) “The world will look up and shout ‘Save us!’ …And I’ll whisper ‘No.’”

Johnny: Exactly. But Jackie Earl Haley is remembered for so many other great roles. I was curious to see if Rorschach would seem just as terrifying and threatening when saying lines from some of Mr. Haley’s other classic films. If you, please… (Cue Rorschach, scary close up.)

Rorschach: (Still using scary, gruff voice) “I’m sorry… but I’m afraid I have some Bad News… Bears.” (After the line, put up a still of Jackie Earl Haley in “The Bad News Bears.” Include a title card and a “ding” sound effect. Trust me, “dings” make just about everything funnier.)

Johnny: Oooooo. I have chills. I would not want to play against you in little league. Can we have another?

Rorschach: “I should break your arm for that… but I think I’d rather be… Breaking Away.” (Still from “Breaking Away.” Title card. Ding.)

Johnny: Ah yes. One of my personal favorites. And finally…

Rorschach: “Could you tell me where I might be able to find some… Little Children?” (Still from “Little Children.” Title card. Ding, or perhaps, since this one is a little inappropriate, a buzzer.)

Johnny: (Noticeably uncomfortable) Uh… yeah. That was kind of creepy. Borderline inappropriate. I think we’re done here. Thanks for your time. (End Scene)

See? Comedy gold. Sadly, we only found one costumed individual, and for the most part, not many people were terribly enthusiastic about the film. Still, it was a fun night and I made some lasting friendships. I hope you enjoy my IFC Watchmen video, more than America enjoyed the actual movie. Until next time, friends.

-Johnny Pomatto

The Hurt Locker: More Boom For Your Buck.

I’m not surprised by the success of “Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen.” What does surprise me is how many people seemed to enjoy it. One of my close, anonymous friends defended it by saying, “Sometimes I just like a movie filled with explosions.” Of course you do. I do too sometimes. But do we really have to settle for the lowest common denominator to get them? Yesterday I saw Kathryn Bigelow’s “The Hurt Locker,” and for a summer action film, you could not do better.

In a summer that has included “quality” popcorn flicks like “Wolverine” and “Terminator: Salvation,” we really haven’t had many great summer films that are geared towards adults and set in reality. Every film seems to be about super heroes, robots, time travel, and museum exhibits coming to life. Forgive me now while I act like a crotchety, old man. Back in the 90’s, we had mindless action films that still had a mind. Some would argue in defense of Bigelow’s “Point Break,” but since I just had a fight with a friend last week over the stupidity of that film, let me add another example, Jan de Bont’s “Speed.” Both films blew up things real good, but they were also contemporary action films about real people, or at least as real as Keanu Reeves can get.

“Speed” in particular had one or two memorable explosions, but most the film featured tense situations on the bus, exciting high-speed chases, and crackling dialogue while the characters waited for a solution to the predicament they were in. Ah yes, the waiting. That’s what has been lost in the summer action game. Hollywood is so afraid of boring the audience (never mind the fact that many of these films are an excruciating two and half hours plus) that they barely let five minutes go by without an action set piece or giant explosion. Dialogue and character development come second, but only if we’re lucky.

“The Hurt Locker” has everything that we used to crave in summer action films, and more. There is plenty of action, shoot-outs, and explosions, but perhaps the fact that it is being reserved primarily for the art house crowds, and not being given the 4,000 screen treatment that a giant robot movie would get, is due to the fact that this is ultimately a war movie. There hasn’t been a successful film to come out of the unpopular Iraq war. The bad films can be really bad, and the few good ones can still seem like an unpleasant and preachy chore to sit through. I had this fear going in to “The Hurt Locker,” which may be why I waited for the second week of its release to go. Did I really want to watch bomb squad soldiers die in Iraq when I could just go see “Up” for the third time?

“The Hurt Locker” opens with an intense, eight-minute scene, in which the audience can feel impending doom. A malfunctioning robot wheel causes a bomb to be manually dismantled. The staff sergeant nervously jokes as he puts on his protective suit, while his team carefully watches the dozens of onlookers in windows above the street. Any one of them could have a cell phone that will set off the bomb. A man runs up to a soldier and distracts him by asking where he’s from. A taxi drives recklessly into the street. I watched this scene as if I was on the street with these soldiers. I kept squirming to get comfortable, with my stomach tied in knots, knowing full well that the bomb could go off at any moment. I was relieved when the sequence was over, but I was also concerned for my enjoyment of the film. I didn’t know if I could take another two hours of feeling like that. Maybe I would have been better off at “Transformers 2,” where I at least would know that Michael Bay would keep the explosions coming so often that they would start to feel routine and never surprise me.

Fortunately for me, my stomach remained unknotted for the rest of the film, and I felt more entertained than uneasy. I didn’t expect “The Hurt Locker” to be so fascinating, relatable, and most of all, funny. The incredible and mostly unknown Jeremy Renner plays a Staff Sergeant so cocky and fearless that he often reminds us of a fictional super hero type. But this isn’t a bad thing. The war setting is always surrounding the characters, but we have a lot of fun living the adventure with them. The tension is constantly building, but it gives us a chance to breathe, and patiently wait with the characters, as they suffer through thrilling monotony, such as when they look through their sniper scope on a window for hours, just on the off chance that there’s one more shooter hiding inside.

“The Hurt Locker” is probably the best live action film I have seen this year. Most of my “artist friends” are going to see it, and they were always going to see it, with or without my recommendation. I’m not speaking to them. I’m speaking to the rest of you: the people who just want a nice distraction in the summer. Some stage and spectacle, with the occasional explosion. I want you to know that not all the summer action films are boring exercises in masturBAYtion. Likewise, not all the art house films out there are black and white meditations on Francis Ford Coppola’s daddy issues. There is an alternative, people. This is the kind of film that USED to qualify as a summer movie. I really hope that “The Hurt Locker” becomes a sleeper hit of the summer, and ends up playing nationwide soon. Given the fact that its per-screen average last week was 14 thousand dollars, while “Transformer 2’s” was only 10 thousand, I think there’s a pretty good chance of that happening.

-Johnny Pomatto