Greatest Transparency Ever

THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER SOLD

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Did you ever wonder what was really going on with Bill Cosby's smile as he held a Coke can in "Leonard Part 6"? Morgan Spurlock's "The Greatest Movie Ever Sold" will give you hints, fashioning itself mostly on the ubiquitous advertising in films, TV, 42nd St, etc. I always thought that the high ratings of "CSI" in its current network, for example, helped keep local news on the same channel alive. Well, it does, but advertising is the real impetus, the nucleus of almost all programming and of just about everything else.  

Morgan Spurlock ("Super Size Me") has come up with a way of using sponsors on his latest film without losing his integrity. He decides to make a film about Morgan trying to get sponsors for the very film you are watching. Coke and Pepsi opt out, apparently because they do not consider documentary films to be on the same wavelength as feature films! He goes to several meetings, presenting his own unique storyboards on how he can get the sponsors shown in his film (he comes up with inventive and funny commercial ideas). POM Wonderful agrees to be used in the film, as well as Solstice Sunglass Boutique, Old Navy, Sheetz (a gas station), Movietickets.com, Merrell shoes, Jet Blue, Ban deodorant, and so on. There are of course stipulations like with any contract: the movie must make 10 million at the box office, sell a half-million downloads and DVDs, and generate 600 million media impressions (The movie as of August 2011 generated 638,476 dollars at the box-office).

So what is the point of "The Greatest Movie Ever Sold?" Merely that it doesn't take much to get sponsors to appear in a film since Spurlock allows full transparency. Advertising is advertising, and if it pays the bills and helps provide a budget for even a documentary, then why not do it. Ads appear everywhere in the United States (including at high schools with limited funds) yet in Sao Paulo, Brazil, advertising has been banned and been termed "visual pollution" (a shock to me since I used to live there back in the late 70's and recall a giant billboard for "Star Wars"). TV commercials are never enough since their brands appear in TV shows in glaringly obvious ways, and sponsors advertise in scrolls while a program plays. The point is that ads are in your face, everywhere you go (Internet has ads in just about any website you visit. Again, it pays the bills). Is there a limit? According to some professors interviewed in the film, yes, there should be a limit. Ads make you want to have a certain product with the belief that it makes you happy. But since it rarely does, then it is not about truth in advertising, it is about the subliminal message.

As snappily funny and sharp as "The Greatest Movie Ever Sold" is, it is also oddly not as transparent about itself. The movie seems to be a critique on sponsors but Spurlock can only go so far since the film itself has sponsors whom he does not want to offend - their products are featured in the film and the sponsors are initially wary of being associated with a controversial filmmaker. I am usually not prone to being affected by ads but this film did make me want to try POM juice. It tastes good and has powerful antioxidants and it is 100% pomegranate juice, so what does that say about me, the consumer? I guess that is partially the point.

Willis adrift in forced whimsy

DISNEY'S THE KID (2000)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Bruce Willis is an admirable and occasional risk-taker, choosing roles that range from comedy to drama to action-adventure vehicles. But maybe an overly cute and highly overdone movie like "Disney's The Kid" is not what I would expect from him or any actor. It is what I call "forced whimsy."

I am a sucker for whimsical fantasies but this one is extremely demanding on my whimsy tolerance meter. Willis is Russell Duritz (see if you can remember that name), a 40-year-old image consultant who has no wife, no family and no dog. Oh, what a shame. He is cold, cynical and only gets three hours of sleep a night. Russell is rude to his overworked assistant (Lily Tomlin, shrewdly cast), calling her at obsessively late night hours to complain about his house's supposedly faulty security system! The reason is because some kid has been in his house. Who is this kid? None other than Russell as a young eight-year-old Rusty (overplayed by Spencer Breslin, and that includes his crying fits).

The question remains: why does the kid chase him in the opening scenes of the film in a cargo plane? No idea, but I went along with the movie's concept. Can Russell really see the kid or is all this in his mind? Paging the Sixth Sense. All I can say is that the movie boils it down to one odd conceit: if the young Russell had taken charge and won in a schoolyard fistfight, he might have grown up to be a well-rounded family man and settled with Emily Mortimer, who plays his on/off again girlfriend. The eight-year-old Rusty calls his future adult self a loser. How dare he?

I will not say I hated "Disney's The Kid" (the title was changed from "The Kid" to "Disney's The Kid" to avoid confusion with the Charlie Chaplin classic) but the movie overplays its hand. The sentimental and highly manipulative music score would make even Steven Spielberg and his composer John Williams cringe. Willis is adrift and looks lost, which may be the idea, but the movie never gives us a chance to see much more than Willis having a facial tic. The kid is all wrong for the film, looking like a mature version of  Jeff Cohen's "Chunk" character from "The Goonies" (Yes, I went there). I appreciate the ideas in the film but I think it could've been a funnier and more complex picture had it focused on the insights into a 40-year-old man's emotional problems that did not exclusively center on a childhood fight and not owning a dog.  

The Academy Awards Best Picture goes to Angelina Jolie's leg!

Angelina Jolie's Leg wins Best Picture

By Jerry Saravia

The 84th Annual Academy Awards had given a host of Oscar wins to "The Artist" and "Hugo" but you wouldn't know it from all the rapt attention given to Angelina Jolie's leg. As she appeared on stage, she extended her emaciated and thinly shaped leg from her black Atelier Versace dress in a provocative pose. The next day, the Internet and the media was all over it and it even inspired its own Twitter account. Why? Because Angelina Jolie is possibly the biggest female movie star in the world and attention on her is paid inordinately. Why did she strike a pose? Nobody truly knows, and nobody should really care. Never mind the fact that a historic win was announced at the Oscars: "The Artist," the first silent film possibly since 1989's "Sidewalks of New York," won Best Picture which is the first time a silent film has won since 1927's "Wings." That should leave room for ample discussion, not the posed leg of a movie star.

The problem is that film analysis and discussion is not given mainstream attention or close scrutiny of any kind on television (hence TV's ill-fated future of "Ebert Presents At the Movies"). Most filmgoers could care less about discussing the merits of "The Artist" or "Hugo," particularly when the nominated films focus on the turn of the 20th century when cinema was still a wonder for the eyes. In many respects, the 84th Annual Academy Awards Show was singularly focused on a world of cinema that no longer exists making it the most attuned to the art form itself in quite some time (make no mistake, it is an art form). Aside from returnee Billy Crystal's hosting duties and occasional wisecracks, the show featured a mock 1939 focus group segment where the focus group (including actors Christopher Guest and Fred Willard as laypeople) give their trivial assessments of "The Wizard of Oz." One even comments that they liked the "flying monkeys." Such triviality also speaks of most actual focus groups who probably know as much about cinema as Pauly Shore does. But the Academy Awards has never been about the art of cinema but about the commerce and the little pat on the back for a job well done furnished with a shiny gold statue.

As the late Gene Siskel once said, maybe when a winner takes the gold, the host or someone in the background could give tidbits on the film itself - something concrete that would inspire intellectual discussion that didn't revolve around dollar signs. That is probably too much to ask for a show that can run almost four hours but then again, what is any of that compared to Angelina Jolie's leg?

A bloodless Cimmerian

CONAN THE BARBARIAN (2011)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

 The original "Conan the Barbarian" with Arnold Schwarzenegger remains something of a dusty, moody sword-and-sorcery masterpiece. It had James Earl Jones as the villainous, serpent-like Thulsa Doom, Arnold flexing his muscles and thrusting his sword with flair at anything or anyone, and the intoxicating Sandahl Bergman as Conan's lover. 2011's revamped and far bloodier "Conan" film has nothing up its sleeve except gore, disembowelments, decapitations, blood spraying from various amputations and anything of the "300" variety.

If nothing else, the opening sequence shows promise. A spectacularly bloody battle scene featuring Conan's father (vividly played with prowess by Ron Perlman) shows the birth of Conan as a Cesarean is performed (in the midst of battle, mind you) on Conan's mother whose last dying breath is to call her son "Conan." Then we get an extended sequence showing Conan as a young and adept warrior in the land of wintery Cimmeria, learning how to forge a metal sword with the use of fire and water. Conan also destroys single-handedly an entire squadron of creatures who look like the descendants from "Lord of the Rings." Conan's father is eventually killed by an evil warlord named Khalar Zym (played by an unrecognizable Stephen Lang) who wishes to obtain the missing piece of the Mask of Acheron in order to resurrect his dead wife, a sorceress, and conquer the land of Hyborea. With the help of his nasty sorceress daughter, Marique (Rose McGowan), Khalar needs a "pure-blooded" woman (a virgin to the rest of you) whom he can sacrifice while he puts the missing Mask piece(s) together. At one point, in Conan's later years as a full-fledged warrior, he captures that one "pure-blooded" woman (there is only one in these lands?) and they, spoiler alert, have sex!!! I wonder if that will make a difference.

The 1982 film is evocative for showing set pieces that seemed at home in its heavy metal quirks: the Wheel of Pain, the Tree of Woe, the palace where Thulsa Doom resides, etc. This 2011 redux is not as interested in locales of such richness - the jagged camerawork and choppy editing do not allow such scenes to breathe. There are flickers of imagination. I do love the opening scenes of Conan's youth, the fight scene with the warriors made of stone that break very easily like fine ceramic pottery but these are minute flashes in a film that runs almost two hours.

Jason Momoa looks like the Conan as interpreted by the pulp writer Robert E. Howard, with his dark mane of hair and occasional flicker of a smirk. I love his one line that defines the pulpy barbarian in all his brutality: "I live, I love, I slay, and I am content." Other than that, I prefer Schwarzenegger's take any day of the week. Arnie brought humor and seemed to dominate the screen with his physique - he made Conan the king of all warriors. As for villains, Stephen Lang is menacing enough but the implied incestuous nature of his relationship with his evil daughter may make some a little uncomfortable.

The biggest fallacy with "Conan the Barbarian" is that it is not much fun. The film thrives on bloody rampage but with little momentum other than making the next swordfight bloodier than the next. There is not much soul, human interest or personality in this film. It is an ultraviolent video game but even video games have more of an edge than this.

(An Interview with Mitchell A. Hallock): A Man of Many Talents

AN INTERVIEW WITH MITCHELL A. HALLOCK: A MAN OF MANY TALENTS By Jerry Saravia So who is Mitchell A. Hallock? He is an author, ran twice for political office, a cartoonist, a pop culture writer, and created COMICONN to name just a few of his talents. His most notable achievement is helping to get the Indycast Podcast off the ground, and he certainly has a love for the iconic character of Indiana Jones.   1.) What first drew you to Indiana Jones and what motivated you to become a fan? "I was already a huge Harrison Ford fan from seeing him in Star Wars in 1977 - he was the coolest dude in the galaxy. When I heard Raiders had him in it -- I honestly didnt recognize him -- and I wasnt a big fan of the 30s serials like Flash Gordon - and thought the "Lost Ark" was some lame Noah's Ark movie --- but boy was I wrong! I became a true convert when I saw Raiders at a sneak preview. I was stunned and couldnt wait to see it again - 14 times that summer. Indiana Jones was not a superhero - he was somebody you could actually grow up to be -- and became a hero for me at 13."  2.) Tell us how the Indycast podcast came together that you started in 2007.  "The ForceCast was covering news on Indiana Jones in 2007, and when the local paper said they would casting for filming at Yale for extras - I ran down there. I even got written up in Entertainment Weekly along with my sons -- but I wasnt chosen -- I started sending in reports from the set for various websites - including TheRaider.net wher I became a staff writer. I thought of doiing a podcast - but auditioned for TheForceCast - but was beaten to it by Ed Dolista from Australia - who was reading my news reports from TheRaider - so I started as the script writer for the show - but had so much news - I started recording segments and sending them in. I was first the Indy product review guy, then covered comics, books, toys, and then started doing interviews at cons. soon after the show expanded and we had guys doing Indy Trivia, polls and music specials. Then started getting to be THE Indyfan source - and appeared in more magazines like Vanity Fair and then did the movie Indyfans and Indiana James." 3.) Mitch, tell us about your background. Judging from your book "Father Vegas," you have been a pop culture writer, a movie extra, cartoonist, artist, marketing director...um, politics, too? "Yes like Indy - I am a man of many talents. Schooled as an illustrator I wanted to be a movie poster artist in the 1980s. Graduated college with degrees in design and became an art director at a direct mail catalog company, where I drew and photographed designs based on comics and of course Indiana Jones. Offered a a job at Marvel (I turned it down - I know stupid me). Did theater, public access TV shows, wrote sketches auditioned for SNL, moved on to be a Creative Director for a computer company, then Marketing Director for a software company - but along the way writing spec scripts for The X-Files, comics and other stuff - if the web was in the early 90s - I'd be famous by now. Appeared in a movie or two and yes ran for public office - one of which I lost the seat on the Town Council by 3 votes! and auditioned for Kevin Smith's Comic Book Men as the 'Indiana Jones expert'." 4.) Ever meet George Lucas? "While I did see him at the set in New Haven on Indy 4 - I have never met him personally. I also saw Spielberg, Ford, Shia and the rest. I have met Harrison Ford and thats a whole other story. I have been invited to Lucasfilm and ILM for a tour last year." 5.) Thoughts on your favorite Indy flick and your least favorite, and should they make a fifth Indy film? "Love them all - dont have a least favorite. but Raiders is my favorite - followed by Last Crusade - as that was the last film I saw with my Dad before he passed away. Yes I want an Indy 5! and a 6 and a 7 and an 8..." 6.) Also, what are your impressions of the upcoming parody of the Indiana Jones flicks entitled "Indiana James"? "I think Indiana James will be great - and not only because I have a cameo in it -- its a Mel Brooks type Indiana Jones film they SHOULD have made years ago -- thank God someone has done it! Cant wait to see the final product."  7.) I also see you are involved in ComicConn as an owner. How did that come about?  "I interviewed for the Marketing Director job for Reed Expo for NY Comic Con for about 13 hours and got passed over. I was ticked and was talking to my pal who owns a comic shop-- he said lets do our own show -- as CT never had a comic con in 25 years... thus ComiCONN was born." 8.) Finally, tell us your plans for the future and future Indycast podcasts  "I just relaunched my marketing consultant business - it was Indy Marketing - now its Big Fedora Marketing. I am working on ComiCONN 2012 for this August in Trumbull, CT. In the midst of starting a tie-in podcast on comics and pop culture and still reporting on Indiana Jones! Amazingly we continue to have more content without Indy 5 news! I have expanded and started covering more interviews with crew and cast from the films - and also talking with folks involved with action movies like my recent talk with the actors in The Avengers. The show is actually still getting new listeners and downloads -- so we will continue to make it up as we go -- just like Indiana Jones would!!"

Detroit is manic and diluted

DOCTOR DETROIT (1983)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

There is always room for a comedic take on mistaken identity, and all the pratfalls and comic possibilities it can offer. "Doctor Detroit" doesn't fit in and doesn't even try to. The movie is spirited technically in terms of Dan Aykroyd's performance, who will do anything for a laugh, but it has no real pizazz otherwise. It is a labored effort that plays it either too straight or not comical enough.

Aykroyd is Clifford Skridlow, a professor of comparative literature, a snoozer of a class. He power walks 6 miles everyday to the Monroe College where he teaches, an institution that is about to be shut due to limited funds. Clifford frequents his favorite restaurant where he meets a classy pimp named Smooth Walker (Howard Hesseman, in an odd bit of casting) who along with his four prostitutes try to coax Clifford into becoming the fictitious Doctor Detroit, the most dangerous man from Michigan. Smooth Walker owes money to Ma (Kate Murtaugh), the most dangerous mob boss in Chicago so in order to get her off his back, he creates Doctor Detroit, a fictitious partner. Everybody's name sound like a liquor label in this movie.

The first two-thirds of "Doctor Detroit" are dull and left me in laughless despair. The problem is the movie has no engine to rev it up. The other problem is Aykroyd plays the role of a dapper professor who has the time of his life with Smooth Walker and the women, but there are no consequences. When he arrives home to his father after a night of binge drinking and one toke too many, he looks as if he just came from a four-hour shift at Denny's. There is no momentum and the whole Chicago nightlife montage lacks purpose. After one threatens to doze off, Clifford is suddenly Doctor Detroit and we wonder why he is going through with it and for whose sake. I had said earlier that I had high hopes for a case of mistaken identity but that is not the case with the plot of the film. Instead, Clifford knows has to be Doctor Detroit and does it as if it is his duty since Smooth Walker skips town. Huh?

The last third of the film has some laughs but there is no tone and no real energy (despite a brief performance by James Brown). Aykroyd gives it all he can give but his whole life of the party act drained me out. This is the first comedy I can remember seeing where it exhausted me from a lack of laughs.

Footnote: Look fast for Glenne Headly as a student in the Comparative Lit. class.

Lynchian work process

DON'T LOOK AT ME (1988)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

David Lynch remains one of the most fascinating, illuminating directors in the history of cinema. One wonders how he came up with such Byzantine puzzles such as "Lost Highway" or "Eraserhead," or sickeningly perverse comments on suburbia such as "Blue Velvet." "Don't Look at Me" will not answer many questions nor should it about Mr. Lynch. Shot back in 1989 in French, it will give everyone an opportunity to witness the creative process behind an artist.

The documentary is directed by Guy Girard who stylizes the film in a Lynchian mode. For example, the opening scene is a conversation with Lynch and Girard at Bob's Big Boy in L.A., shot and framed outside the restaurant as if you were peering through the Venetian blinds. Inspired for sure, not to mention the various industrial sounds and abstract whistles heard on the soundtrack, most often associated with Lynch himself. There are also clips from his work, including "Eraserhead" and "Blue Velvet," which are shown on some television monitor as the camera tracks Lynch dictating a script. The most stupendous moment is seeing Lynch thinking silently about how to continue a scene in the script.

Girard's focus on Lynch is simply avante-garde in his choices for camera set-ups while interviewing the director. In fact, the only time we focus on Lynch's face is when Girard hands him polaroids of some shots from his work. Often, Lynch shows his back to the camera while wearing a fishing hat. Mostly, he refuses to divulge the meaning in his work as he correctly assumes that interpretations should be left to the audience (I certainly don't want him to tell me why the Lady from the Radiator in "Eraserhead" has puffed-up cheeks). So you will not learn much about Lynch in terms of his background or his fixation on the dark side, but you do get glimpses ("Most people do not know what they are doing. They are confused.").

Choice moments include a drive with Lynch and the late Jack Nance (who played Henry in "Eraserhead") to a reservoir used in one of his films, seeing Lynch sculpting and molding naked figurines for some mini-environment, recording the beautiful voice of Julee Cruise for an unspecified project (she sang melodies for many of Lynch's films), and in general seeing Lynch at work, indulging in creative ideas ("I like the shape of an ear. An ear, in a grassy field, with ants crawling on it - there's hardly anything better than that.") Although not as enveloping or cohesive as the other Lynch documentary, "Pretty as a Picture," this is still enthralling and informative for anyone who wants to see the Dark Side of Genius revel in his own obsessions and dreams. Essential for anyone who is a fan.