|
« April 2007 | Main | June 2007 » May 28, 2007Charles Nelson Reilly, R.I.P.May 27, 2007Bowie & Marianne Faithfull: "I've Got You Babe"
And, when I got home, I found this on YouTube, from a 1973 "Midnight Special." A belated happy 60th to The Artist Formerly Known as Ziggy -- and an early 61st birthday greeting to Lucy Jordan! May 24, 20075-25-77: A Geek OdysseyMost of this is true. The rest is even truer. "To everybody else, movies are something to do when you're tired of living real life. To you, real life is something to do when you're tired of watching movies." In James Bridges' "September 30, 1955" (1978), Richard Thomas (then best-known as John-Boy Walton on TV) played an Arkansas college student devastated by the death of his idol James Dean on the title date. In Patrick Read Johnson's "5-25-77," John Francis Daley (best-known as the great Sam Weir in "Freaks & Geeks") plays, basically, Patrick Read Johnson, who visited his idol Steven Spielberg on his spring break in 1977 (while Spielberg was finishing up "Close Encounters"). As the story goes, Johnson got to see an early screening of "Star Wars" (which opened on the title date 30 years ago) while there were still dogfight scenes from old WW II movies in place of the spaceships, and proclaimed himself the world's #1 "Star Wars" Fan. In his semi-autobiographical movie -- "from the producers of 'Star Wars' and 'American Graffiti'" (Fred Roos and Gary Kurtz) -- Johnson tells a version of his own story, about growing up in a small Midwestern town and trying to make it to a showing of "Star Wars" on the first day of its release. Teaser trailer here -- at least for the time being. (BTW, Anybody else remember with fondness the episode of "That '70s Show" in which Topher Grace and pals were smitten with "Star Wars" mania? It captured the now-bittersweet utopian euphoria the movie inspired at the time.) ![]() And here? Twitch had some sympathetic ruminations about "5-25-77" and the "Star Wars" phenomenon last year that I'd like to share with you on the 30th anniversary of that Portentous Day: I've learned the hard way that there is a basic generational gap involved with "Star Wars" fans. There is the current crop for whom the prequel trilogy was their first exposure, and then there are the rest of us. 3-D, QT & "DP"![]() QT: Back in flack mode. Dave Kehr points out errors in the New York Times story about the future of 3-D by Sharon Waxman (the Judy Miller of showbiz reporting), which Kehr describes as "riddled with errors and misperceptions, to the point where it is actively misleading." Not the first time for Waxman, and it won't be the last. (I had to stop reading her "Rebels on the Backlot" book because it was likewise riddled with factual errors and such gross misunderstandings of how the movie business works that it led her to draw preposterous conclusions about what she witnessed or was told.) There's a classic line in the Waxman article from Springsteen/"Titanic" producer Jon Landau: “The screen has always been an emotional barrier for audiences. Good 3-D makes the screen go away. It disappears, and you’re looking at a window into a world.” Yeah, that damned screen. If only it weren't there to present an emotional barrier for us. (Maybe if we removed it -- and the back wall of the theater -- the projector could just show the movie into 3-D "reality" and allow us to really feel the emotions the movie is trying to convey!) It's like the way those blasted audio speakers get in the way of our emotional involvement in recorded music. Gotta get past that... DK also refers us to a hilariously profane (i.e., Tarantinoesque) account of the "Death Proof" press conference in Cannes by Rob Nelson of the Minneapolis/St. Paul City Pages. Excerpt: Not that I don't appreciate the privilege of seeing a longer "Death Proof"—I positively adored it at 87 minutes on the bottom-half of the ill-fated "Grindhouse" double bill. But whoever encouraged the Cannes Film Festival to advertise its new cut at "2h07" (i.e., 127 minutes)—director Quentin Tarantino, perhaps, or (more likely) the Weinstein Co.'s Stuntman Harv—is practically begging for a long ride on the fuckin' roof of the white Dodge Challenger, sans straps. I mean, the goddamn thing is no fuckin' longer than 113 tops—I fuckin' timed it—but that didn't stop Stuntman Harv from bum-rushing the Death Proof press conference yesterday to say that "you're missing the essence of Tarantino" at 87 (pffff...), and that the new cut, when it's released internationally, "will dwarf Grindhouse—trust me." Fuck, man. Does anyone, even Tarantino, trust Harvey Weinstein at this point? Bad Waitress (Or, the Wit and Wisdom of Mr. Pink)"I don't tip because society says I gotta. I tip when somebody deserves a tip. When somebody really puts forth an effort, they deserve a little something extra. But this tipping automatically, that shit's for the birds. As far as I'm concerned, they're just doin' their job.... The words 'too busy' shouldn't be in a waitress's vocabulary." Sunday night I had dinner with some friends at an Italian joint called Mi Piace in Pasadena, where we encountered Bad Waitress. (Yes, you may use that as the name of your next band or movie if you like.) You've probably met her yourself: She knows nothing about the food -- what's in it, how it's prepared -- or the drinks (like what the bar scotch is), or what constitutes a martini (olives are the default; a lemon twist makes the drink into something else that is not a "martini," and should be a special request). OK, that last one is really the bartender's fault, but she was so clueless I didn't even bother to say anything. I just drank the thing, and it was fine. But, you see, that's what passive-aggressive workers do to customers: They attempt to make us feel guilty for expecting the minimally acceptable service we're supposedly paying for when we spend money in a public establishment. As is the habit these days, Bad Waitress made herself scarce for most of the evening, and was nowhere to be found when it was time -- and long past time -- to pay the bill. Perhaps because we were a party of eight (we'd made reservations), she figured she didn't have to do anything because, as the fine print on the menu explained, her tip was automatically added to the check. But Bad Waitress didn't deserve a gratuity -- even though one was required. I guess we just have to chalk that up to the cost of eating in this mildly upscale joint. (I have an idea: How about if they put taxes and tip amounts alongside the prices of each dish on the menu, so you can see your total price for that particular item? Kind of like the tax and shipping calculators used on shopping sites like Pricegrabber.com?) Anyway, that's what got me to thinking about Mr. Pink... I have many friends who have worked in the food service industry (and still do), and yet I agree with Mr. Pink that a tip should be given as an expression of appreciation for a job well done -- and nothing else. Bad service is epidemic, and perhaps bad tippers are, too. Maybe there's a correlation there, though I couldn't say which is the chicken (free range) and which is the egg (cage-free, scrambled). And I don't understand why we deem some workers worthy of tips (taxi drivers, doormen, pizza deliverers, baristas, barbers, hotel/motel housekeepers) and others unworthy (cooks, garage mechanics, movie concessions and ticket sellers, dental hygienists, customer service people at Home Depot...). I know I tend to leave a higher percentage tip at little mom-and-pop places and dives (my preferred haunts) than in overpriced trendy places (which I nearly always avoid) where I know the wait staff is raking in hundreds or thousands a night in tips anyway. But the last time I checked, eating out is not a charitable activity -- at least not for people who work for a living. Mr. Pink is right. We shouldn't tip because we feel social (or economic) pressure to do so. Now, I feel bad that people are working for low wages, even in some pretty fancy joints. And those people should not be underpaid. What really makes me feel bad, though, is knowing that by tipping I am supporting a system of coerced noblesse oblige that allows businesses to underpay their workers and deprive them of benefits. Customers are expected to pick up their moral and financial slack in the name of de-facto charity -- a system I find corrupt and insulting to both workers and patrons. This is not unlike the significant numbers of Wal-Mart workers who are so grossly underpaid that they have to go on public assistance of some kind (food stamps, etc.) to make ends meet -- so that taxpayers are subsidizing the largest retailer in the world, allowing them to continue to shaft their own workers while we as a society keep giving them money to keep getting away with it. We think the money is going directly to the workers who need it to buy food and pay the rent, but in reality it's underwriting the company's costs of doing business at the expense of their employees. And that's wrong. Any for-profit company that needs to rely on public charity to stay in business shouldn't be in business. Somebody else will come along who can compete in the real free marketplace. In the immortal words of Mr. Pink: "When I worked for minimum wage, I wasn't lucky enough to have a job that society deemed tipworthy.... [Working at McDonald's is hard, too] but you don't feel the need to tip them. They're servin' ya food, you should tip 'em. But no, society says tip these guys over here, but not those guys over there. That's bullshit...." May 23, 2007How "Star Wars" changed the world (as we knew it)I have another new essay at MSN Movies now, on How Star Wars Changed the World. Yes, it was 30 years ago today (well, Friday, May 25, to be specific) that the Death Star blew Alderaan into space dust, contributing to galactic warming and allergy problems throughout the GFFA. An excerpt: What "Star Wars" did best was combine corny stock characters and "Amazing Stories" plotlines with state-of-the-art Industrial Light and Magic visual effects and Dolby (later replaced with Lucas's patented THX) Surround sound. No more rockets made out of cardboard toilet-paper tubes with sparklers stuck in the rear for thrusters. Mix that with a wisecracking, almost postmodern sense of humor (more gung-ho earnest than the arch self-awareness William Goldman pumped into the Western in "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" eight years earlier) and an old-fashioned Hollywood military-symphonic score by John Williams, and you have a rousing, roller-coaster space adventure for children of all ages, as the marketers like to say. To see "Star Wars" in 1977 was to experience a moment in pop culture that seemed universal. This may have been the last such unifying landmark for the boomer generation -- with the Beatles at one end and "Star Wars" at the other.Read the whole article here. Coming Soon: A piece about other movies that "changed everything" -- from a few years before "Star Wars" ("Nashville," "Jaws") to "The Phantom Menace," the movie that (for many, including me) was so dull and misconceived that it tarnished the luster of the "Star Wars" mythology forever, by reducing it to something purely technical and mundane. (It began with a crawl about the taxation of trade routes and a blockade of shipping to the tiny planet of Naboo, fer cripes sake! As the opening was paraphrased -- and demolished -- on "The Simpsons": "It is a time of uncertainty: The empire's ambiguous tariff statutes mandate close reexamination of galactic export quotas. Interim Princess Agoomba has co-chaired a subcommittee to draft amendments to existing trade policies.") Whaddaya think? How did "Star Wars" change your world, and why? What other movies changed everything? What did they change -- and how? 30th Anniversary Poll: What's your favorite Star War(s)?![]() Closed 6/11/07 (Kar-) Wai, Oh Why?It's confession time again here at Scanners: I've never gotten into Wong Kar-Wai (aka -wai, aka -Wei). I watched about half of "Chungking Express" and it seemed like better-than-average Tony Scott, but that didn't particularly interest me. (I guess I was hoping for something more like the hilariously deadpan first segment of Jim Jarmusch's "Mystery Train," which is what various descriptions had led me to expect.) So, while humming Peggy Lee ("Is That All There Is?"), I turned it off and vowed to give it another shot at some future date. Never happened. And I wanted to see "2046" (despite my, er, reservations), but when I found out it was a semi-sequel, I felt like I should first see its predecessor, "In the Mood For Love" and (although I have both saved on my TiVo -- in HD, no less) I've never gotten 'round to either. Now my friend (and MSN Movies Editor) Dave McCoy, who's disliked more Wong than I've even seen (but likes "In the Mood for Love"), writes about the shade-sporting hypester's English-language "Blueberry Nights" from Cannes. This would have been ideal for the Contrarianism Blog-a-Thon: I'll admit it: I don't get Wong Kar-Wai. I don't get his movies, I don't get his silly dark glasses that everyone else finds chic and cool, and I especially don't get the universal adoration heaped upon him. It's one of those things I know I should probably appreciate more. Like Björk. Or Thomas Pynchon. Or golf. Or brussels sprouts.A few notes: 1) Brussels sprouts are my favorite green vegetable. Steamed with butter, garlic and a little lime juice. I'm telling you... 2) Although Dave is perfectly correct to characterize lead actress Norah Jones as "the pleasant singer whose CD is found in every soccer mom's gas-guzzling SUV" (and, yes, she's probably been the subject of as much fashionably middlebrow hype as the Great Wong), she has achieved one moment of sublimity, a year or two before her rather bland debut album. Listen to her sing Roxy Music's "More Than This" on Charlie Hunter's "Songs From the Analog Playground." It's heaven. 3) Read the whole piece, with Dave's specific observations about "Blueberry Nights" (is that a wine spritzer?), and please feel free to rise to Wong's defense with your comments. 4) My advice: Beware of films bearing Natalie Portman, the Julia Ormond of the 00's. Or at least approach them with trepidation. (OK, I did think she was good in "Closer." So good I forgot it was her.) 5) Anybody feel similarly about other much-ballyhooed contemporary sacred cows (and Cannes winners) like, say, Abbas Kiarostami, or Lars von Trier, or Theo Angelopoulos, or Quentin Tarantino, or... ? May 15, 2007British film Philistines![]() No they didn't. Did they? Oh, those ignorant Brits! The Guardian recently published the results of its public poll for the "40 Greatest Foreign [sic] Films of All Time." Of course, we love these silly consensus games because they offer such a terrific opportunity to express outrage. Like this fellow, who denounces his limey countrymen (and -women) for their cretinous taste in a letter to the editor: Your list of the top 40 greatest foreign films, voted for by readers (Films and music, May 11), serves only to expose the paucity of foreign-language films in the UK, together with a chronic loss of knowledge or appreciation of cinema history. What we get is a hotchpotch of well-worn classics and recent international hits of dubious merit. Your film writers chide the voters too gently. There is only one silent film ("Battleship Potemkin"): no "Napoleon," "Metropolis," "Passion of Joan of Arc" or "The Last Laugh. " Only one other title from before 1945 (Renoir's "Régle du Jeu)"; and no room for Dreyer, Lang, Murnau, Gance, Vertov, Mizoguchi, Rossellini, Antonioni or Visconti (where is "The Leopard"?). Then to find Roberto Benigni's inane and offensive "Life is Beautiful" included is the final insult.Yikes! Those Brits should be barred from the cinema! Why, if USA Today were to conduct such a poll, the results would be... probably very similar. (But how do you tell what language the actors are speaking in a silent film when the intertitles have been swapped out? Best Films Not Lip-Read in English?) I have a better idea. Let's do a poll of the 40 best films of all time that were not made in any of the Romance Languages. Or how about the best films of all time in which nobody speaks Welsh. That ought to be comparably enlightening... May 14, 2007A contrarian music video... mostly about movies and music -- and with a shout-out to Scanners in the middle! The band is lo-fi is sci-fi, the song is "The Script You Wrote is Terrible" (great line: "The script you wrote is terrible/But I like you anyway"), and the video is clever and funny and magnificently deadpan (as is the one for "March to the Sky"). It would make a good Opening Shot contribution. After all, it's just one shot. I love the way it starts, with a white screen -- and just a little piece of black (the edge of the white background) in the upper left corner. Perfect. "Hi-fi" version here. Thanks to Mike for passing this along. May 8, 2007A Fan's NotesI don't usually do this (and have no intention of making a habit of it), but I wanted to share a couple of appreciations of Roger Ebert, on the occasion of his first public appearance (at his Overlooked Film Festival, aka Ebertfest) since complications from surgery last July. I know Roger doesn't want me to turn this or RogerEbert.com into a big bouquet of flowers for him -- but let's just take a moment to celebrate his return to public life (and more reviewing!). Over the last ten months or so, many have written, in public and private, about what Roger and his writing have meant to them, and two recent notes struck me as especially eloquent. The first is from Ted Pigeon, whose blog The Cinematic Art is a favorite of mine. (Check out his piece about critics and blockbusters, too.) Ted begins by observing: Like so many young film lovers, I first discovered my love of film criticism through Roger's engaging and intelligent movie reviews. His work showed me that film criticism is important, that it can be the source of great feeling and knowledge of cinema, and that criticism is essential to the advancement of cinema as an art form. It is a necesary companion to the experience of watching films for those who care deeply about films.The other piece was e-mailed to me by Peter Noble-Kuchera of Bloomington, Indiana, who recently attended Ebertfest. With Peter's permission, I'm publishing his entire article after the jump. This paragraph really resonated with me: To know Ebert by his TV show is not to know him at all. You have to read him. He was the first film critic to be awarded the Pulitzer Prize, and one of only three ever to have been so acknowledged. He is the only American critic to review virtually every film in major release. His essays, while without the crabby flashiness of Pauline Kael’s, are marked by the groundedness of a Midwesterner, exacting writing, deep insights, and more than that, deep compassion. More than any critic, Ebert seems to understand that the movies are made by people who, with all their flaws, were trying to make a good film. He is a tireless champion of small movies of worth, and no critic has done more to leverage his influence in order to bring those films to the attention of America.As I've said many times before, it wasn't until I started reading (hundreds, thousands) of Roger's reviews when I was the editor of the Microsoft Cinemania CD-ROM movie encyclopedia in the mid-1990s that I came to appreciate what terrific critic and writer the man really is. I feel more strongly than ever about that after three and a half years as the founding editor of RogerEbert.com. He's so very much more than the sum of this thumbs. The rest of Peter's report (lightly edited) below... Ebertfest: A Fan's Notes by Peter Noble-Kuchera -30- May 7, 2007Where I've beenMy father died unexpectedly the first week of April, three days before I was scheduled to leave for the Conference on World Affairs. The day before I left, my dog Frances surreptitiously ate two containers of dog treats in my parents' garage and nearly exploded, but after an emergency trip to the vet she's now OK (and seven pounds lighter). At my mom's insistence I went to Boulder (with "Chinatown") and then we had the reception for my dad at their house (there was no funeral or memorial service -- he didn't want 'em) when I got back. Two days after that, it was off to Ebertfest, where I was greatly heartened to see Roger Ebert in such high spirits. So, that's what's been going on. Hope to get back to posting regularly now... Flowers from a gigolo![]() Rob Schneider (right) in "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo." A note from Roger Ebert: A beautiful bouquet of flowers was delivered to the house the other day. A handwritten note paid compliments to my work and wished me a speedy recovery. Who was it from? A friend? A colleague? An old classmate? The card was signed, “Your Least Favorite Movie Star, Rob Schneider.” Saints preserve us. It will help to establish a context if I mention that my review of Schneider’s latest film, “Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo,” contained three words which provided me with the title of my new book: “Your Movie Sucks.” Charles Has a Licking ProblemFrances and Edith have idiosyncratic licking problems, too. (Frances obsessively licks a hot spot on her foot and Edith obsessively licks Frances's face.) DISCLAIMER FROM DREWTOOTHPASTE (author of video): "The licking is not a serious medical problem. Charles is under regular veterinary care, and was not harmed during the making of the video. He is just a weird dog." In other words, Charles does not do this all the time. Evidently he is stimulated by the sight of something (tasty treats?) outside the frame. May 4, 2007"We can't stop the dancing chicken!": Ebertfest photos #2![]() View image David Bordwell (who needs no introduction to readers of Scanners), Michael Barker of Sony Pictures Classics, and Werner Herzog discuss Herzog's "Stroszek." "Stupidity is the devil. Look in the eye of a chicken and you'll know. It's the most horrifying, cannibalistic, and nightmarish creature in this world." I could listen to Werner Herzog talk all night. And I have. (See this transcript from Ebertfest 2005, for example.) Watching the marvelous "Stroszek" (I think of it as Herzog's Fassbinder movie), with Werner, as everyone calls him, seated in the audience two rows behind me, the famous dancing chicken at the end reminded of the quote above. ("Stroszek" has one of the great final lines in movies: "We have a 10-80 out here, a truck on fire, we have a man on the lift. We are unable to find the switch to turn the lift off and we can't stop the dancing chicken. Send an electrician. We're standing by..." Those of us who are not waiting for Godot are indeed waiting for the electrician, or someone like him...) ![]() View image The vibe you get from this picture perfectly captures what Ebertfest feels like. Here, David Bordwell shows off his midnight-hour chocolate-banana shake at the Steak 'n Shake (yes, there's only one apostrophe in that). Somehow, when he began drinking it, he got the banana and the chocolate to stay separate on either side of the plastic straw, too. These are the things that make life worth living. (You see, the chocolate represents the movies and the banana represents the people and Roger is the glass and Chaz is the whipped cream and cherry on top and...) Later I asked Herzog if he had changed his mind about chickens, dancing or otherwise. "I only like eating them," he said. In response, I naturally quoted a great exchange from "Chinatown": Noah Cross (John Huston), peering at a fish on J.J. Gittes's plate: I hope you don't mind. I believe they should be served with the head. ![]() View image Writer Anna Thomas ("El Norte") interviews Prof. Samba Gadjigo (director of "The Making of Moolade"), actress Fatoumata Coulibaly, and actress/activist Marcia McBroom-Small ("Beyond the Valley of the Dolls") for "Moolade." I also asked Herzog if he'd seen Michael Winterbottom's fantastic bio-comedy about the Manchester music scene, "24 Hour Party People" (perhaps second only to "The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada" among my favorite films of the new millennium -- and the one I've enjoyed re-watching the most), in which the lead singer of Joy Division commits suicide with the last scene of "Stroszek" playing on television in the background. Herzog said he'd heard about it, but hadn't seen the movie. Well, he has something to look forward to. ![]() View image Filmmaker Eric Byler ("charlotte sometimes") and actor Scott Wilson ("Come Early Morning") -- both Eberfest vets. If you'd like to listen to part of the discussion between Herzog, David Bordwell and Michael Barker (a low-fi MP3 recording made on my Treo 680 -- have I mentioned how much I love my Treo 680, the life-changing "TiVo" of handheld gadgets?), click here. It was remarkable to see how the Angry Young Herzog I remember from the '70s and '80s (in Seattle and especially Telluride) has evolved into such a congenial elder statesman. As his friend Paul Cox (who cast Herzog to play the father in "Man of Flowers," a film he described as being about "male loneliness") lamented technology (Cox is irrationally terrified of computers and cell phones), and proclaimed the imminent end of mankind's time on Earth, Herzog was more genial and philosophical. Yes, he said, it may be our turn to become extinct, like many species before us, but that's no reason to be "gloomy" in the time we have left: "Let's keep making films and treasuring friendships and drinking beers." (When Cox, who spoke of women almost as if they were another species -- claiming they were "closer to the soil" in a way that made them sound almost bovine -- said that he couldn't think of any films about "female loneliness," Kristin Thompson came up with three masterpieces off the top of her head: Krzysztof Kieslowski's "Three Colors: Blue," Chantal Akerman's "Jeanne Dielman," and Carl Theodor Dreyer's "Gertrud.") OK, now a few more pictures from Ebertfest 2007, after the jump... ![]() View image Moderator and festival blogger Lisa Rosman joins Eric Byler, Joey Lauren Adams and Scott Wilson to talk about Adams' directorial debut, "Come Early Morning." P.S. As for the dancing chicken, Herzog told the audience he doesn't know what it means, but that's not the point. You have to decide what it means to you, in the context of the film. ![]() View image Michael Barker of Sony Pictures Classics delivers a rousing introduction for one of Roger Ebert's favorite films, Federico Fellini's "La Dolce Vita." ![]() View image Kim Voynar of Cinematical visits Roger in his comfy recliner at the back of the Virginia Theater. ![]() View image Even dwarves started small: David Bordwell, Michael Barker and Werner Herzog are dwarfed by the mammoth curtain and cavernous (but warm and inviting) interior of the Virgina Theater. May 3, 2007Red eye in the sky![]() My review of "Red Road" at RogerEbert.com: Vertigo, they say, is not really a fear of falling; it's a fear of jumping. The gap between the subject and the ground creates such strong psychological conflict in the afflicted that the temptation to eliminate it by leaping into the void is overpowering, and dizziness sets in.Continued at RogerEbert.com... May 2, 2007An insult every 6.8 seconds...I realized as I was posting this that I'd assigned it two categories: "TV" and "Journalism." Well, I haven't associated those two terms for years -- with the exception of "Frontline," last week's definitive and indispensable "Bill Moyers' Journal" ("Buying the War," which you can watch/explore here), "The Daily Show," "The Colbert Report" and the occasional "60 Minutes." An Indiana University School of Journalism analysis reminded me of what passes for "journalism" on TV these days -- particularly on the Fox Skews Channel. The study finds that Fox comedian Bill O'Reilly uses an insult on the average of once every 6.8 seconds during the "Talking Points Memo" segment of his TV show. (I, on the other hand, use a mere 1.5 insults per sentence when writing about O'Reilly.) From a summary of the report, "Villains, Victims and the Virtuous in Bill O'Reilly's 'No Spin Zone'" -- which offers a hilarious chart tracking O'Reilly's use of various propaganda devices and rhetorical fallacies: Bill O'Reilly may proclaim at the beginning of his program that viewers are entering the "No Spin Zone," but a new study by Indiana University media researchers found that the Fox News personality consistently paints certain people and groups as villains and others as victims to present the world, as he sees it, through political rhetoric.Oddly, this precis does not mention one of O'Reilly's favorite methods, the Straw Man argument in which he presents a preposterous argument, attributes it to someone else, and then shoots it down, as in: Democrats hate America and want the US to be ruled by Islamofascists -- or would, if they actually believed in God or Yaweh or Allah! That's just wrong! High rollers and lowlifes![]() View image James Bond (Daniel Craig) in "Casino Royale." With every move he makes, another chance he takes. Odds are... What accounts for the movies' fascination with gambling? That's a question I mull over in a survey of pictures (from "Gilda" to "Barry Lyndon" to "Casino" to "California Split" to "The Cooler") about the addictive alchemy of luck, chance, fate and skill at MSN Movies. Making a movie is itself a grand gamble. You never know how it's going to turn out, and the results have as much to do with circumstance as they do with talent or craftsmanship. An excerpt from "High Rollers": Gambling does not rank among the "seven deadly sins." It doesn't have to. Just about all the capital vices can be found in the psyche of the gambler, and not just in the usual suspects, greed and envy. There's also plenty of room for gluttony (overindulgence, addiction, substance abuse); wrath (rage, vindictiveness); sloth (indifference, jadedness, existential apathy); lust (licentiousness, dissolution); and, the deadliest of all sins: pride (hubris, arrogance, usually expressed in the form of cheating, or a misplaced belief in a dubious "system" designed to beat the odds).Continue reading at MSN Movies... May 1, 2007My Ebertfest 2007 photo blog #1![]() View image Director and longtime Ebert favorite Werner Herzog ("Stroszek") visits with Roger before the noon Sunday screening of "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls." An experience like Ebertfest 2007 is beyond my capacity to convey in words -- and I'm not just talking about the movies. At one point I asked Roger if he was having as much fun as I was. He wrote on his pad: "The time of my life!" Sitting in his recliner in the back row of the Virginia Theatre in Champaign, IL, (his customary spot -- but this time with cushier accommodations and more legroom) he sure looked like he was having a blast. The rest of us had a fine time, too, as I hope you will see from these photos I took... ![]() View image Chaz Ebert introduces her husband to the opening night crowd from the stage of the Virginia Theatre. ![]() View image Roger with "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" star Marcia McBroom-Small (Petronella, aka "Pet"). ![]() View image The crowd is in the house and all is quiet outside, just before "La Dolce Vita" hit the screen Friday night. ![]() View image Ebertfest '07 begins with a bang -- on the front page of the Chicago Sun-Times. Enlarge to see Roger's note about Chaz's opening remarks -- which kicked off with the the immortal line from "BVD": "It's my happening and it freaks me out!" ![]() View image To give you an idea of the scale of the Virginia Theatre, here's festival director Nate Kohn, actor Alan Rickman and blogger David Poland on stage after "Perfume: The Story of a Murderer." The 'Scope movies -- "Gattaca," "La Dolce Vita," "Perfume" and "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" (in a newly struck print) -- looked especially ravishing on this screen, with the expert projection of James Bond and Steve Kraus. ![]() View image Festival director Nate Kohn, University of Illinois President Joseph White, Webster, and Mary White at the reception at the president's house. ![]() View image What an audience! David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson, third row, house right. No, they're not blushing. That curtain is RED. ![]() View image Roger and Chaz prepare to let the laptop version of HAL 9000 do the speaking for Roger before the matinee of "Holes." ![]() View image Big and beautiful: For most of the filmmakers who attend Ebertfest, this is the single biggest audience with whom they'll ever see their movie. It's an overwhelming experience. ![]() View image The Champaign-Urbana Symphony Orchestra (or select members thereof) under the direction of Steve Larsen, perform Joseph Turin's 1986 score for Raoul Walsh's 1928 "Sadie Thompson," starring Gloria Swanson and Walsh himself. The 97-minute score is written for 18 musicians: two flutes (piccolo double), oboe, two clarinets (bass clarinet double), two bassoons, two horns, two trumpets, two trombones, two celli, string bass, piano, and percussion. ![]() View image David Bordwell, Chicago Tribune critic Michael Phillips, Kristin Thompson, conductor Steve Larson and composer Joseph Turrin on stage after "Sadie Thompson" (introduced by her distant cousin Kristin). Note the thumb statuettes on the floor. These are the new models, cast from Roger Ebert's hand and made of the same material, and by the same company, as the Oscar statuettes. SearchCategories
"There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear."
-- Daniel Dennett
Archives
Recent Posts
|