Grindhouse: A Fun-Filled, Blood-Spattered Extravaganza or a Self-Indulgent Soiree?

Since the new Quentin Tarantino/Robert Rodriguez collabo "Grindhouse" is being released next week, I thought it'd be a perfect time to discuss the film. For those who don't know, "Grindhouse" is a 3 hour long (yup, you read that right, 3 frickin' hours!) exploitation movie homage with 2 full-length blood-spattered flicks back-to-back. Rodgriguez's piece is the zombie infested "Planet Terror," while Tarantino's half is the slasher-driven "Death Proof," starring Kurt Russell. Now, I must admit I have mixed feelings about the film, especialy Tarantino's half. While Rodriguez has spent his whole career trying to perfect his bombastic, over the top style, Tarantino started his career as one of the most promising, visionary writer-directors of all time. "Pulp Fiction" and "Reservoir Dogs" are still considered 2 of the finest films ever made, and while his third movie "Jackie Brown" isn't usually viewed as a classic, it's definitely close to the former two films in terms of quality. That leads us to the little ditty "Kill Bill," slashed into two films by the Weinstein brothers. I am not a fan of "Kill Bill," or as I like to call it, "Overkill Bill." While it's obvious that Tarantino still has an overwhelming enthusiasm for the kung-fu and western flicks he grew up on, the whole epic has always seemed amazingly shallow to me. Amazing since Tarantino's previous film "Jackie Brown" was an introspective nearly three-hour talkfest about growing old. While the film adopted the cool, hip swagger of a 1970s blaxploitation film, that was merely the backbone. What made "Jackie Brown" truly come alive was its natural, realistic, identifiable characters. "Kill Bill" by contrast features cardboard characters that wouldn't be out of place in a saturday morning cartoon. Try to imagine, say, Robert Forster as Max Cherry of "Jackie Brown" in the "Kill Bill" universe, and it becomes clear how painfully artificial that world is. The "Grindhouse" trailers seem to continue Tarantino's style over substance approach he attempted in "Kill Bill." What makes this new chapter in Tarantino's career so disappointing is that the man is so damn good at dialogue; that gift doesn't really come out when his films are endless action sequences, with most of the dialogue merely serving as exposition.

My central question concerning "Grindhouse" is why make an exploitation movie homage? The original movies were such perfect artifacts of their time. In addition to the fact that Tarantino basically covered this ground so thoroughly in "Kill Bill," it's not nearly as much fun trying to watch someone duplicate the 60's/70's shamelessness of the originals, when you can just as easily view the real thing. One element that does have me interested is the fact that several directors (among them Rob Zombie and Eli Roth) are contributing fake trailers to "Grindhouse," recreating the over-top-style of the trailers from the 60's and 70's. This idea intrigues me because most of the 70's trailers are usually much better than the films themselves. I would much rather see "Grindhouse" be , say twelve 4 or 5 minute long exploitation trailer homages, than 2 complete films in the same vein back to back. Of course, all of these points concerning the film are merely speculation since it's not released until April 6th. Who knows? Maybe "Grindhouse" will become a future classic, or maybe it'll be "Overkill Bill: Part Tres..."



One of the "fake trailers" from the film that I mentioned above was just posted on the internet...It's pretty funny and it captures the 80's slasher movie craze well. Just wish Eli Roth's "Thanksgiving" was really being released as a full-length movie this November. Tsk...tsk

Being There: A Forgotten Classic

Hey everybody, Film Fanatic here with the introduction of a new, frequently updated column called "Forgotten Classics," reviews of underrated movies that deserve a second viewing.

The first "forgotten classic" is Hal Ashby's 1979 masterpiece "Being There," one of the most profoundly intelligent, subtly hilarious comedies of all time. Despite the fact that the film recevied almost unanimous rave reviews, and several Oscar Nomations upon its original release, it unfortunately has slipped under the radar in recent years.

The film stars Peter Sellers, in one of his last and greatest performances, as Chance--a mentally deficient gardner and avid television watcher. When the owner of the mansion where he takes residence dies, Chance must finally make his mark on the harsh real world. The only problem is that Chance has never taken a step outside of the house, and everything he knows about the world he's learned from television. After attempting (and failing) to make sense of the world around him (such as a group of young hoodlums pulling a knife on the delusional Chance, who then frantically clicks his remote control, desperate to change the channel), he gets accidentally hit by a car. The owner is Eve (Shirley Maclaine), the wife of dying billionaire Benjaim Rand. The first misinterpretation Chance experiences occurs when Eve mistakess him stating his name, "Chance the Gardner," as the distinguished sounding "Chauncey Gardiner." He also notes on his first car ride, "this is like television, only you can see much further." As Chance recuperates at the Rand mansion, he forms a quick connection with old Ben, who views him as a confidante, and believes him to be a lonely, soft-spoken businessman like himself. Despite the fact that Chauncey speaks in simple, basic langugae most of which deals with gardening, those around him mistake him for making profound profundities and metaphors, due to his careful enunciation and impeccable wardrobe. While this sounds like a one-joke premise, it takes only a few minutes before the viewer realizes that with its slow, methodical pace and timeless witty, understated sense of humor, "Being There" is no dumb, broad comedy. It is later revealed that Ben is in fact an advisor to the US President (Jack Warden), who pays a visit to Ben when Chance is present. Chance speaks his mind about literally the "changing seasons," but the two men misunderstand his simple observation, and think he's discussing the ever-changing nature of the economy. The President appears on national TV talking about what he believes to be a gardening metaphor, and Chance becomes a political celebrity!

"Being There" is more relevant now than it was upon its original release. Our culture has become even more TV-obsessed since the 1970's, and with all the specialized channels that have risen since that time, it's not hard to imagine a real-life man who could gain all his knowledge of the world from the boob tube. Chance is a blank slate, who becomes famous by people misinterpreting his simple statments to being more meaningful than they really are; everyone's projecting on to Chance what they want to hear. People are always searching for someone or something that gives them hope and reveal to them why life is important (another one of the film's subtexts is religion). In the film, it just so happens to be in the vessel of a mentally retarded gardener. The film is also politically relevant as well. Chance's ambiguous garden metaphors are not that disimiilar from the vague statements concerning the Iraq war spoken by our current president.

The performances of the film are flawless. Peter Sellers has the trickiest role to play; one false move by making the character broad or over-the-top would have ruined the film. Sellers is extremely low-key throughout, consistently using the same monotone voice, and displaying the simple, warmhearted smile that the Rands fall in love with. By the end of the move, the audience too genuinely cares about Chance. The other great performance belongs to Melvyn Douglas as Ben Rand, who received an Oscar for his role. Instead of playing the slowly dying billionaire as a self-pitying"woe is me" cliche, Douglas brings a wise, tough, low-key approach to Ben. Over the course of the film, thanks to Chance's pleasant, relaxed demeanor, Ben learns to accept his impending death. He tells his doctor that Chance has made "the thought of dying much easier."

The most talked element of "Being There" is the unexpected, fantastical ending. It brings to light numerous questions of who Chance really is: a Christ figure? An alien put on Earth for some grand purpose? The possibilites are endless. It's a perfect, melancholy ending to a beautiful film.

Perhaps the most bittersweet aspect of watching "Being There" is the fact that all of the principals involved in the film died within 12 years after the release of the picture. The 54-year-old Sellars died less than a year after the movie came out in 1979, and the 80-year-old Douglas, a year later. The visionary director, Hal Ashby, succumbed to cancer in 1988 at the age of 59, and the novelist and screenwriter of the film, Jerzy Kosinski, committed suicide at the age of 57 in 1991. Recognizing that "Being There" is the last great film from these men, makes it even more special. It is truly a film that will live on for ages; the kind that future generations of movie lovers will delight in interpretating it's numerous meanings. "Being There" is an endlessly fascinating film, one of the best comedy dramas of all time. Or to personally, sum up the way I feel about the film , I think I'll use Chance's simple, oft-repeated phrase: "I Like to Watch."

The beautiful, thought-provoking final moments of "Being There," one of the best film endings of all time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-jmXo_Sgc8

When Movie Directors Attack...

Hey everybody, Film Fanatic here. So you've just wandered across this blog and are wondering why exactly you should keep reading. Well, if you're as big a movie fan as myself, look no further than "Movie Madness;" your one stop shop for the latest movie news, independent film reviews, and everything else involving the wonderful world of Hollyweird. Although I love all kinds of movies, this blog will generally focus on independent films, which I feel most passionate about. I also love discussing movies with others, so don't hesitate to drop me a line and let me know if you agree with yours truly!
For my first posting, I'd like to discuss the "I Heart Huckabee's" behind the scenes video that's been creating controversy recently. Ya know, the one on Youtube with director David O. Russell and Lily Tomlin about to bite each others head's off? I really liked Russell's first three films, "Spanking the Monkey," "Three Kings," and especially "Flirting with Disaster," one of the most under appreciated and funniest comedies ever, so it was quite a shock to see him acting like a deranged lunatic in front of the cast and crew. I had heard of his problems with George Clooney on the set of "Three Kings" (they apparently almost got in a fistfight), but actually viewing his outrageous behavior myself made it hard for me to imagine how anyone would want to work with the guy. Of course, it's possible he was just having a bad day when the video was filmed (I feel sorry for the poor soul who filmed all this, and is probably getting screamed at by Russell as we speak), but still, I can't imagine any sane director actually condoning his behavior (throwing papers around and cursing like a madman at Ms. Tomlin).
If you watch the short behind the scenes pre-production footage on the special features of the "Three Kings" DVD, Russell comes off as a generally nice, down to earth guy so to see him unleash his darker side in the video makes it even more unsettling to watch. Viewing the video made me wonder how many other directors get like this during their most frustrated and volatile moments during filming. Sure, someone filmed Russell doing this, but who knows how many other well-established and regarded directors have had their over-the-top temper tantrums? More than would be willing to admit to it, I bet. Well, at least watching this confirmed to me why "I Heart Huckabees" was so lacking in quality; everyone was too afraid to tell Russell how incomprehensible the movie was!