(YouTube) SO THIS IS PARIS is an early sex farce from Ernst Lubitsch, the likes of which he really didn’t deviate from for the most of his career. However, as it is a silent film, it is couched in actions, glances, overt visual symbolism, and little subtext whatsoever, much less the coy and quippy dialogue that Lubitsch would become known for. (Not that he didn’t try to do so via intertitles.)
It’s a fun little film and, while it’s set in Paris, that’s simply an excuse for the characters to get away with more prurient behavior than they would if it’d been SO THIS IS NEW YORK.
One caveat: the film is often speciously claimed as the first silent film to depict a choreographed dance scene, a rather extended club scene concerning a Charleston contest. Given how silent film grew from theater, and given how slapdash the dancing in the scene is, I’m inclined to think that claim is a studio invention. (I’d argue if there was any choreographer there, it was the editor trying to match footage.)
Sadly, said dance number is the only easily available clip you’ll find, apart from YouTube rips of the entire film, and that will have to serve as a trailer:
(VOD) I am a sucker for films that put fragile masculinity on display, and not only does this film have it in spades, but you have Gene Hackman and Al Pacino doing all of the leg work! Long story short: Hackman is a repeat violent offender who randomly meets Pacino, a jokey people-pleaser, on the road. They become ill-suited partners trying to work towards their specific endpoints: Hackman wants to set up a car wash in Minneapolis. Pacino wants to indulge him, but first wants to deliver a lamp to his estranged son. Matters escalate.
SCARECROW was directed by Jerry Schatzberg, who previously helmed an adaptation of THE PANIC IN NEEDLE PARK (the screenplay happened to co-written by Joan Didion), and it was a breakout role for Pacino. With SCARECROW, Pacino brings a vulnerability and heart to his role that he rarely exudes. Hackman is a surprisingly nasty piece of work, steamrolling through scenes, but you can sense far more behind his actions than simply being a vicious bastard.
(TBS/YouTube) I’d love to say that I was a rabid viewer of LATE NIGHT WITH CONAN O’BRIEN as a youth, but I don’t recall routinely tuning in for many late night shows back then.
However, I became more of an avid viewer as I grew older and Conan and his writers’ sensibilities have since informed an enormous part of my comedic taste. From Conan’s classic Simpsons’ ep MARGE VS. THE MONORAIL to Robert Smigel’s absurdity and filth to Andy Richter’s irreverent sidekick quips and on-his-feet reactions, not to mention Jon Glaser, Mike Sweeney, Jessie Gaskell*, Brian Stack, and so many more, penned and performed a treasure trove of smart and extraordinary dumb jokes.
That said, I’ve grown a bit worn out by him as of late. I still watch CONAN regularly, but the relatively recent change to thirty-minute eps excises many of the more surreal high-points of his shows. Worse, he’s been interviewing the same people over-and-over-and-over again for the past two years. I get it: he’s tired of a lot of the celebrity bullshit and he now only wants to talk to folks he has fun with, but the show has become rather routine.
However! Since opting to pull the plug on CONAN, this show has livened up a bit (even if he’s still primarily interviewing his favorite celebrities). A recent favorite moment was when Lisa Kudrow came by to promote the FRIENDS reunion special. Conan has been taping his show in the famous (well, to comedy nerds at least) Largo at the Coronet theater, and the two of them were able to take a walk down memory lane and visit the small stage where the two of met attending improv lessons. It’s surprisingly touching and sweet, and I hope the show leans into that sort of thing as it approaches the finish line.
Mike Sweeney and Jessie Gaskell hosted two seasons of the podcast INSIDE CONAN, which dove into the nitty-gritty of writing and producing the show, and it’s chockfull of delightful insight.
** If you haven’t watched CONAN O’BRIEN CAN’T STOP (2011, Prime/tubi/etc.), it’s a great character profile doc that was filmed around the time of his tour. It’s also a touch depressing.
(HBO MAX/VOD)? I recently rewatched WHEN HARRY MET SALLY with my wife and remarked about how modern rom-coms simply don’t talk about sex. If they do, it’s often bawdy and meant for laughs as opposed to sincerity.
FRIENDS WITH KIDS is very much in the WHEN HARRY MET SALLY mould, as it’s about two friends who platonically love each other: Jason Fryman (Adam Scott, toeing the line between asshole and sweet guy) and Julie Keller (Jennifer Westfeldt, who wrote/directed it, but — based on your age — is probably best known as Pauline on YOUNGER or for appearing in and co-writing the cult classic KISSING JESSICA STEIN*). Neither of them are getting any younger and both want a child, but they’ve seen their friends who have had children flounder in their marriages. Consequently, they decide to have a child and ‘split the cost down the middle’ and pursue separate relationships. They assume it’ll be a win/win.
Despite FRIENDS WITH KIDS being rather overstuffed with abrasive personas — it’s brilliantly cast with folks like: Jon Hamm, Kristen Wiig, Chris O’Dowd, Maya Rudolph, Megan Fox, -and- Kelly Bishop — I ultimately found it winsome solely on the merits of Scott and Westfeldt. Your mileage may vary, of course, as it’s extremely heteronormative, and definitely an affluent white person film, but under all of that is a refreshingly adult take on friendship and romance.
Oh, and it’s rather audacious when it comes to letting time lapse, as it effortlessly hopscotches across months, even years, to cut to the quick regarding how these friends’ relationships change.
It stumbles a bit crossing the finish line, but in a world that’s succumbed to mostly-forgettable Hallmark or Netflix romantic fare — nothing wrong with ‘em, I enjoy those breezy trifles from time to time! — it’s a substantial examination of relationships.
See https://www.autostraddle.com/kissing-jessica-stein-is-a-classic-of-queer-jewish-anxiety/ and http://gomag.com/article/millennial-queer-girl-reviews-kissing-jessica-stein/
(Criterion/VOD) 444 days. That’s how long it had been since I’d been in a theater. I’m finally fully vaccinated, so yesterday I rode the bus for the first time in almost as long to visit the Music Box Theatre to see the only film I could catch there: Haifaa Al-Mansour’s THE PEFECT CANDIDATE. Thanks to the Chicago Transportation Authority, I arrived late. The lobby was empty, apart from one employee who glanced at the ticket on my phone and instructed me to leave on my mask at all times during the film.
I walked into the theater which, under normal conditions, can house over a thousand people. I stumbled through the darkness, trying to seek out my favorite seat, only to find it roped off to enforce proper social distancing. I found the closest seat with some leg space and settled in, trying to catch up with the film.
A few minutes later my eyes had adjusted, and I realized I was the sole person there.
Granted, this was a mid-afternoon screening of a two-year-old feminist Saudi Arabian film (just now receiving a U.S. release), but still. This was the first time I’d ever been the lone viewer for a Music Box screening, much less for a film playing in the main theater. It’s a miracle they’re still operating, but I’m glad they are.
If you aren’t familiar with Haifaa Al-Mansour, she’s often cited as ‘Saudi Arabia’s first female filmmaker’. WADJDA (2012) was her breakthrough film, but she’s also helmed American films such as MARY SHELLEY (2017) and NAPPILY EVER AFTER (2018). THE PERFECT CANDIDATE is the first film of hers I’ve seen, and I’m quite excited to dive into her back-catalog.
THE PERFECT CANDIDATE is about a woman doctor in a small Saudi Arabian town, Maryam, who lives with her father — a recent widow and musician — and her two sisters, and she aspires for more. The street leading to the hospital she works at isn’t paved and is a consistent mess — people are constantly being wheeled through mud — and incoming patients often outright refuse her, even if they require emergency care, solely because she’s a woman.
Due to a confluence of religious, bureaucratic, and patriarchal issues, she’s unable to attend a medical conference in Dubai, which she’d hoped would serve as a way to work her way into a better position, and due to similar religious, bureaucratic, and patriarchal issues, she ends up inadvertently applying to run for election to govern the town.
What follows is a relatively straight-forward, definitely disheartening, activist film that completely hammers home the gender inequality in Saudi Arabia while still being a thoughtful portrait of a family trying to repair themselves after the sudden death of their mother. Al-Mansour inserts a number of deft character touches, such as Maryam’s brand-new car, which she retains the plastic on the seats, but the car’s wheel wells are covered in mud because of the shoddy road. The sister dynamics are especially nuanced, with the younger sister outright rejecting her older sister’s attempts to make a difference, and the older sister being a savvy, confident, semi-supportive entrepreneur working within ‘the system’.
Was this film the one I imagined would be my inaugural post-vaccinated filmgoing experience? No, but I’m glad it was. It represents everything I’ve missed about cinema in the pandemic: the ability to walk blindly into a tale of another space and then leave the theater feeling altered.
(Arrow/tubi) If you live in Chicago, you may have heard that streaming service MUBI has teamed up with local arthouse favorite the Music Box Theatre for an event they’re calling ‘Back on the Big Screen’, which has two themes: the first week of screenings will consist of big screen epics, while the second week is centered around films about the filmgoing experience.
It’s a phenomenal list of films, including RAN, DAYS OF HEAVEN, TOUCH OF EVIL, PLAYTIME, MATINEE, THE TINGLER, SUSPERIA, which will feel like I’m attending a mini-TCM Fest in Chicago. However, I was absolutely shocked that one of the included films is the indie punk cult classic MARY JANE’S NOT A VIRGIN ANYMORE.
MARY JANE’S NOT A VIRGIN ANYMORE is an audaciously raw low-budget film from Sarah Jacobson about being a young woman, about losing one’s virginity and sex, and about working in a low-rent theater. It’s extremely honest, but often flip about it; proper punk. If you had told me last year that a well-funded streaming service would pay to screen this at the Music Box, I would have laughed at your Zoom image, but this is 2021 and I find it glorious that it’s one of the ways folks are trying to entice people back into theaters.
If you live in or around Chicago, the ‘Back on the Big Screen’ schedule is available here.
If you don’t live near Chicago, you can still stream it through one of the services listed above!
(kanopy/Prime) I’d argue that THE LAST BLACK MAN IN SAN FRANCISCO has one of the best opening scenes in the last five, maybe ten years? It’s brilliantly executed: it tells you everything you need to know about the world, the primary characters drawn with so little dialogue, and does it so artfully and succinctly:
Even if the film was just this short scene, I’d still be raving about it. I can’t get enough of Adam Newport-Berra’s visuals or Emile Mosseri’s Michael Nyman-esque score.
However, THE LAST BLACK MAN IN SAN FRANCISCO is far more than its opening. I -love- this film. It intersects with a lot, but the male friendship portrayed here is something rare. It’s also about an infatuation with a house, the history of a building, and the complex history of a city.* It’s also about exploitation, gentrification, modern classism, economic race disparity, the obligations of those who come into a city, and homeownership all dovetailing regarding a space with pre-existing history. It’s dense, but it never overwhelms you. It’s an astounding work, an intimate tale that takes on a larger context.
* If you want to read about the origins of film and San Francisco in one big gulp, I highly suggest THE INVENTOR AND THE TYCOON, which is the story of early photographer Eadweard Muybridge and his railroad tycoon backer Leland Stanford. (Yes, Stanford University is named after him.) I guarantee you that it’s far more interesting and intriguing and ruthless than you’d suspect. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/7965/the-inventor-and-the-tycoon-by-edward-ball/
(Criterion/HBO MAX/VOD) In A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE, Peter Falk is Nick Longhetti, a construction foreman married to Mabel (Gena Rowlands, who was married to Cassavettes until he died in 1989) and they have three young children as well as a litany of family and friends that constantly drop by, barely giving Nick or Mabel a moment of peace. While this would be difficult for any couple, it’s complicated by the fact that Rowlands is incredibly intense woman, and often interacts with people in socially unacceptable ways. Nick describes her as “unusual, not crazy”.
What unfolds is a story of the two of them trying to cope with Mabel’s behavior, Nick’s detachment and frustration, and eventually Mabel’s breakdown. It’s a stunning depiction of a couple, one enriched by Rowlands’ absolutely astounding performance. She completely inhabits the role, bringing to life a character unlike one I’ve ever seen. It’s a nervy, nuanced take on a character that could otherwise come across as cartoonish. Rowlands was nominated for a Best Actress award for her role, but lost to Ellen Burstyn for the also-exceptional ALICE DOESN’T LIVE HERE ANYMORE. (I do prefer Rowlands’ performance, but they’re both great.)
It’s worth noting that Cassavettes never meant for Mabel to be considered ‘crazy’ — his words, not mine — but that she’s “frustrated beyond belief. More than being crazy, I think she’s just socially inept.” He also pulled from his own personal experience and his relationships, which seems obvious given how close everyone involved in this project are. To callback to my write-up regarding PLEASE STAND BY, this is the difference between writing a puzzle box story about someone with a neurological disorder, and writing an intimate tale about coping with people’s very human and divergent idiosyncrasies.
Just one more thing: COLUMBO fans will almost certainly be surprised to hear Falk whistling ‘This Old Man’, which was a tune that Falk turned into a Columbo affectation with the iconic episode -Any Old Port in a Storm-, which pre-dates A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE. Falk just always liked to hum or whistle it.
(Hulu/kanopy/VOD)? Every film nerd I’ve known has their favorite seat. I certainly do: I prefer middle aisle as I have long legs and prefer not to be tightly compacted for ~two hours, and I enjoy a slightly more distanced view of the screen, as opposed to having the screen fully fill my vision.
However, sometimes — especially with film fests — you aren’t going to score your favorite spot. Sometimes you’ll get the worst seat in the house. My wife and I certainly did when we nabbed stand-by tickets for a screening of MELANCHOLIA during the 2011 Chicago International Film Festival.
If you aren’t familiar with MELANCHOLIA, it’s Lars Von Trier’s meditation on depression and, while I run hot-and-cold on von Trier (especially regarding his on-set approach to filmmaking), MELANCHOLIA is certainly one of his more palatable films and features fantastic performances all around, but especially from Kirsten Dunst. It’s also arguably one of the most visually jaw-dropping films from von Trier; there’s a scale and scope and painterly look to MELANCHOLIA that’s absent from the majority of his other works. (One exception might be the psychodrama horror of ANTI-CHRIST.) While it’s absolutely gorgeous, this is a film that was not meant to be viewed in an offset front row seat which, surprise, was what our stand-by tickets garnered us.
You’re left without any distance from the mind-numbing depression and cosmic confrontation. It hammers itself into your head; you have nowhere to run. I’m sure von Trier would smirk if he read this, but it turns the film into something absolutely appropriately overwhelming and suffocating, but a perspective on the film that I would not recommend. Keep with the middle row or watch it at home and keep your distance, or it will mess with you even more than it’s intended to.
(Criterion/VOD) A very specific romantic drama from Michael Powel & Emeric Pressburger, where a willful woman — Joan Webster (Wendy Hiller) — has mapped out from her childhood the exact life she wants: to look lovely, to have fine things, and to have a husband with a title who can provide her with all she wants.
She has a life-plan which she’s followed through on and, frankly, most of us in these current days would envy.
She’s one step away from realizing it: she just needs one boat to see her to her title-bearing beau, and she’ll have seen her plan through. However, she meets Torquil MacNeil (Roger Livesey), a RAF sailor/landowner of a tiny Scottish island meant to shuttle her to her final destination, storms prevent her departure, and her plans start to unravel.
In less-capable hands I KNOW WHERE I’M GOING! could have been a treacly melodrama, but master filmmakers Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger (THE RED SHOES, BLACK NARCISSUS) deliver up an extraordinarily winsome and surprisingly thrilling romance that also acts as a love letter to rural Scotland, not unlike OUTLANDER but with significantly fewer rape scenes. It’s worth noting that, while much of it was shot on location at the Isle of Mull, a significant portion of the film was shot in a British studio due to Livesey’s work schedule, and the fact that the seams don’t show is a testament to cinematographer Erwin Hillier’s skills.
What’s especially intriguing about the film is that there’s none of the push-and-pull and internal questioning that you have with most modern romantic dramas. From the moment Joan meets Torquil, she immediately realizes she’s in trouble, that this man could upend all of her hard work. Granted, it’s never stated outright, but Powell & Pressburger do a fantastic job of conveying it visually.
Unfortunately I was unable to locate a trailer, so this memorable scene will have to suffice: