A Little Bloodsoaked, Pop Culture-Based, Green Bag

RESERVOIR DOGS (1992)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

When I first saw Quentin Tarantino's debut "Reservoir Dogs," I found it to be a gory heist film, a sort of latter-day Scorsese take on modern-day hoods minus any real moral complexity. Times have changed since 1992 and "Reservoir Dogs" is still gory but it bursts forth with such energy and vitality that it would be wrong to dismiss it a second time. I think what I missed the first time was the black humor and the strong personalities of its characters. The violence, as brief and abrupt as it is, is so strong and vivid that it can almost demolish anything else. But what I had missed was Tarantino's evident talent in his own screenplay.

The opening sequence is already a classic. The setting is a diner as a group of robbers sit around the table and ruminate on subjects like Madonna's "Like a Virgin," tipping, and rock and roll songs ("The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia" is briefly discussed). In retrospect, none of this has anything to do with the rest of the film. What it does is set up a mood and establish its characters. Following that sequence is a title sequence where the robbers walk in slow-motion as "Little Green Bag" plays on the soundtrack. Then the film shifts in time and place to a bungled robbery where Mr. White (Harvey Keitel) is in a getaway car as Mr. Orange (Tim Roth) screams in agonizing pain after getting shot in the belly. They are off to a meeting place, a warehouse where coffins are stored! They meet with the obnoxious Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi), a lanky mess of a robber with a goatee and an attitude like a junkyard dog (as does everyone else in the movie). There is much talk about whether or not to take Mr. Orange to a hospital or wait for the big boss, Joe (Lawrence Tierney), and tell him that the robbery was a possible set-up.

Then we confront the Lee Marvin fan, Mr. Blue (Michael Madsen), a trigger-happy, obscenely violent criminal who feels that shooting the hostages one by one was justified since they might have initiated the alarm. This man is suave but also a cruel, mean psychopath with no misgivings about slicing a cop's ear while listening to "Stuck in the Middle With You" (a nod to the violent ballet dance of "A Clockwork Orange" complete with "Singin' In The Rain" being sung by Alex, the prototypical antihero of the 1970's). This controversial scene is so disgusting that it caused major walkouts, particularly among women. But Tarantino, who has been criticized for showing gratuitous violence, knows when to cut away, pardon the pun, and how much to show on screen. His scenes of violence are quick and effective, precisely because they occur too fast. It is the brutality inherent in the violence that gets to people.

And I have not yet discussed Tarantino's screenplay - it is quite wonderful and it shares a particular speech style where everyone tries to interrupt each other and go off on tangents. Basically, one can think of it as Mamet-speak but the energy level is different, more stylized. Consider a near-perfect sequence where we discover Mr. Orange's true identity and the story he tells to the group about a marijuana deal. Mr. Orange describes in detail how he had a carry-on bag with marijuana in the bathroom where the cops (and a loud dog) watch him as he stands by the urinal. In this scene, Tarantino defies logic and narrative construction by having Mr. Orange tell his tale, speaking the words as he stares at the cops, as if he was in a situation that never actually occurred. It is by far the most memorable sequence in the film. Sometimes, characters indulge in conversations that have nothing to do with the story at all. For example, one scene has Nice Guy Eddie (Chris Penn) tell the story of a Pam Grier-type waitress who, well, you have to hear to believe it. The characters discuss movies and TV and songs and other people's lives the way people in real life do. But when it is time for some business related to the robbery, they get in character.

One aspect I noticed about "Reservoir Dogs" is that this is a man's world. Women hardly figure in the film, they are only discussed as objects or as criminals (like the Mr. White story of a female robber named Alabama). These guys discuss and joke about explicit sexual acts to each other. At one point, Mr. Blue, fresh from being released from prison, fools around with Nice Guy Eddie, who tells Blue that his sexual acts with black men messed up his mind. The end of the film has Mr. White comforting the dying Mr. Orange, calmly caressing his head as if they were lovers. There is a curious homosexual subtext, or we can just see it as men who act macho by discussing having sex with each other. I'll go with the latter.

"Reservoir Dogs" is fast, furious, nasty and extremely entertaining. It placed Tarantino on the map, just prior to his crime epic "Pulp Fiction" a couple of years later. My one criticism is that his characters are shallow and lack much depth. Still, since no one in the film knows much about each other then perhaps that was the point.

Stan's the Cinematic Man

BRAKHAGE (1998)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Viewed back in 1998)

"Brakhage" is a hypnotic, reverential documentary on one of the most experimental, purely filmic filmmakers in history. Having seen some of the short films he made including "Window Water Baby Moving," "Creation," "Dog Star Man," and others, I was surprised to find a gentle, caring man of ill health who nevertheless spoke in common sense terms about his films, and their inherent meanings. His films are purely images, either scratched, painted, or using several superimpositions, or all the above. Some are more like home movies, as is one where there are hauntingly beautiful clips of his children in slow-motion, and the images are often cut from color images to negative images.

"Brakhage" shows several clips of the man himself, and insightful commentary on his children and how they felt when they were photographed most of their lives, and how his ex-wife struggled with his idiosyncratic moods regarding his mental processes of counting, I assume, the number of frames in each of his films while editing. Brakhage also makes vivid comments on why his films have no sound, declaring that film art lost its purity when sound was introduced in the late 20's. 

Many will feel that Stan Brakhage makes beautiful use of images, and his rhythmic patterns of editing, 
at times jarring to the naked eye, are well-constructed yet what else is there? Is this man saying 
anything specific in his layered style of imagery? Perhaps, perhaps not. That is entirely up to 
the viewer to decide. I love Brakhage's works because they are purely visual, and nothing more 
which is not to say they are insubstantial or lacking in content. To pick an example, I would say that 
the controversial "Window Water Baby Moving" is one of the finest, most educational films ever 
made on childbirth though it is not for the squeamish.  

The documentary itself uses jarring, screeching sound effects that are not essential in capturing 
the man and his work, especially if most of it is silent. Also, it would have been nice to hear from 
people who perhaps developed an antipathy towards his works...some members of the audience 
screening I attended certainly did. Nevertheless, this is an exemplary, insightful documentary by 
director Jim Shedden guaranteed to fascinate and provoke many. A must-see, and one of the finest 
films of 1999.                

Deprogram the Homelanders

SPLIT IMAGE (1982)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

 

If a suburban kid is an amazing athlete and is subjugated into the world of a religious cult, can he find his way back home or is he ushered into a new way of thinking about oneself? That is part of the story of 1982's forgotten "Split Image," an intriguing and thought-provoking film by director Ted Kotcheff that dares to ask if "normal American life" is corrupting our souls, our identity.

Michael O'Keefe is Danny Stetson, a college athlete whose goal is to be in the Olympics. He has two loving parents (Brian Dennehy and Elizabeth Ashley) who want only the best for him. One day, Danny runs into a beautiful girl named Rebecca (Karen Allen, who bears a sunshine smile that could melt any man's heart) who has a staring match with him. They talk. He is sarcastic with her and hopes for sex, and she only wants to get to know him. She is a delicate flower and he obviously is willing to go wherever she goes. After a brief scuffle involving a supposed kidnapping of a university student, Danny and Rebecca and friends head off for a weekend getaway to Homeland, a commune for young people. In all actuality, it is a religious cult commune, a place where everyone loves everybody. There is no violence, they all eat organic foods that they grow, they build their own houses and there is no real privacy either. If Danny tries to masturbate while she sleeps, he is stopped by someone who says, "Don't be a prostitute!" If he tries to urinate in a bathroom, he is followed by two women (eh, that may not be so bad). When Danny has a group meeting, he tries to understand why there is no discussion of "social problems."

Peter Fonda is Neil Kirklander, the leader of Homeland, who doesn't exploit the kids ("This is not a Communist country!") and wants everyone to be loved, to be free of the ills and greed of the world and to find meaning.  Kirklander proclaims that the parents of each young member is "dead" and changes the members' names in a fiery ceremony where all vestiges and personal items are burned to a crisp. Thus Danny's brief weekend stay with Rebecca is becoming permanent - he is suckered in and changes his name to "Joshua."

Most of "Split Image" is compelling and powerful but it is the transition of Danny into Joshua that has me split (no pun intended). Danny is an individual who may have found his true calling as an athlete, and who questions everything with deep sarcasm. It is hard to believe he would have stayed at Homeland longer than two seconds, let alone several months. The sermons by Kirklander are spiritual yet empty, and Danny knows it. The screenplay by Robert Kaufman and Robert Mark Kamen never quite establishes the "Jekyll and Hyde" transition where Danny turns into Joshua. In one scene, he attempts to escape Homeland and is almost killed when he jumps off a cliff into a river. Neil tells Danny he can go if he wishes, but he will go back to being lost. The irony may be that Danny is lost anyway.

"Split Image" doesn't show Homeland to be an evil place - that would be too easy. The truth is that such a place that encourages love to others is not a bad ideal to have - our own American society since this film's release in 1982 doesn't encourage us to love one another.  But the film never probes deeper questions into Kirklander himself, a man who is at peace and lives in his own house which he shares with no one. All members of Homeland share the same sleeping quarters. But who is Kirklander really, and why is a chain-smoking deprogrammer (the electric James Woods) needed to deprogram these kids in a place that is truly not threatening at all since all they do is promote "love." You can love yourself but save some love for others. The "self" matters less.

"Split Image" was financed by the now defunct Polygram Pictures and distributed by the bankrupt Orion Pictures. Clearly neither had much faith in the film since it was released in 129 screens and was quickly dispatched to home video and cable. It is a shame because, despite faults with the screenplay's depiction of two main characters, the film does ask tough questions about our place in a world where greed and capitalism take over any semblance of "love." Danny and Rebecca eventually find they are in love and lust with each other, two aspects of human relationships that are somehow outlawed in Homeland's cult. Even the deprogrammer can't truly bring Danny back from Joshua dreamland, and he knows it. Danny has been changed, he has been split. The most probing question the film asks is: if you escape from Homeland, what are you escaping to?

Alexander's doors of perception need expanding

ALEXANDER (2004)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Alexander" is a bloated, beautiful, muddled mess of an epic. There are images and performances of searing power, and there is just enough melodrama to make fans of lavish epics puke.

Blonde-haired Alexander the Great (Colin Farrell) was one of the greatest of all conquerors, a visionary whose initial principal focus was to conquer Persia. Yep, he conquers and fight the Persians in the battle of Gaugamela but his sights go elsewhere - he wants the entire Persian empire. He intends on conquering every land leading to India in a journey and several battles that end up dividing his troops and losing many lives for the sake of...well, nothing. Almost everyone turns against Alexander and conspire to kill him by poisoning him.

Alexander's father is the one-eyed Philip of Macedonia (Val Kilmer), a drunk who had strong aspirations to overtake the Persians but was also killed. Most of the blame is attributed to Alexander's seductive mother, Queen Olympias (Angelina Jolie), who has an affinity for snakes and claims Alexander's real father is Zeus (Huh?) It is clear from the start that Olympias hates Philip and wants Alexander to be king, but to what end? Political ambition or just pure hatred of Philip? Seems like those scenes were on the cutting room floor, like most of the movie.

Oliver Stone throws everything into this epic except the kitchen sink. There are battle scenes with war elephants tearing apart crowds of soldiers, hundreds of arrows fired into the air (a cliché by now), and an eagle eye's perspective of these widescreen battles. Some blood and gore here and there, though relatively restrained judging from the blood-soaked standards set by "Gladiator."

The performances run hot and cold. Angelina Jolie easily gives the best performance, reigning in her almost Transylvanian accent and her seductive presence ten fold (you almost expect her to bare fangs at some point). Colin Farrell screams and hollers, but he never truly inhabits the character. I hate to say it but Farrell humanizes the character so much that he comes off as more wimpy than a commanding, persuasive conqueror. Anthony Hopkins as the narrator Ptolemy seems ready to keel over, whereas Christopher Plummer handles his Aristotle role with exceptional clarity. Other actors such as Rosario Dawson, who is criminally wasted as Roxane, Alexander's Persian wife, and Jared Leto as Alexander's close friend, Hephaistion are thrust into the film's jumbled, flashback-driven narrative without much conviction or need. Vangelis's beautiful score alleviates some of the film's faults and lack of cohesion but not by much.

I appreciate what Oliver Stone has attempted here - an intellectual epic far removed from the cartoonish theatrics of "Gladiator" or "Troy." Some scenes are awesomely staged, but just as many are flat and monotonous. Stone hasn't placed much faith on the character of Alexander or his bisexuality - he is more spirited and engaged with Angelina's Olympias character than anyone else in the entire movie. Whether it was studio intervention or not, Stone doesn't make this the risky venture we expect from him, and that is a shame.

Triple Dog Dare you to laugh and cry

A CHRISTMAS STORY (1983)

A reminiscence by Jerry Saravia

 I first saw the late Bob Clark's "A Christmas Story" in theaters in late November 1983. I remember it was cold and snowing outside the theater in Queens, New York. I got excited about seeing the film from a clip I saw on the Siskel and Ebert show and thought I should check it out. I was entranced by the film from the first frame to last because it took me to a world that seemed so innocent, so sweet, so childlike and so warm and embracing. I had seen the film a few more times since, recalling how my high school peers commented on the leg lamp and laughed (the film got a new life after its debut on video and cable). But no one really discussed the sweetness and lightness of the film, the sureness in its mixture of laughs and memories of being a kid and wishing for the one truly remarkable Christmas gift.

 

The film is chock of full of memorable lines and evocative scenes - everyone knows what they are and it would be counterproductive to list them (you can't miss the film on Christmas since it runs for 24-hours on TBS). Most memorable to me would be seeing Darren McGavin's collected sigh and slight merriment at seeing his son, Ralphie (Peter Billingsley) get the gift he most craves, that darn Red Ryder BB gun. Or when Ralphie lets out that four-letter word (the Queen Mother of dirty words) he ain't supposed to utter - we have all been through that. Or Ralphie's hilarious daydream about receiving an A+++++ on his paper from his teacher Miss Shields (Tedde Moore). And I can't get over Scott Schwartz's Flick who gets his tongue stuck on an icy pole - it is at once funny, spirited in its crassness and realism, and emotional enough to make you cry at the same time. It is that kind of movie and one owes a huge debt to the late, remarkable Jean Shepherd, who not only voiced the narration of an older Ralphie but who also wrote the stories and co-wrote the screenplay. Melinda Dillon as the loving yet no-nonsense mother is just the icing on the cake.

What "A Christmas Story" does for me is it takes me back to an era almost alien to me and yet so familiar, and it reminds one of the jollies, the festiveness, the idiosyncrasies and the love of a family trying to celebrate a time of the year that brings everyone together. What is comforting about the film is that it assumes this family loves each other throughout the year, regardless of the foibles, the troubles with the Bumpusses and their numerous dogs, the unworkable furnace, Ralphie's young brother unable to eat his mashed potatoes, or Dad's delight in having a leg lamp seen by the whole neighborhood. The film works as a warm cup of hot chocolate served and layered with nostalgia, and cuts deeper with Ralphie's wild imaginations and some slightly mean, unsavory characters (like the store Santa or Zack Ward's sneaky and devilish Farkus) who are never depicted as too unlikable. The movie serves as a memory of a time long gone but it also reminds us to cherish the future as much as the past. So if you have Christmas dinner at a Chinese restaurant because Mom's turkey was ruined, not all is lost when it is a family that sticks together like glue. I don't know how else to put it except to say that "A Christmas Story" is not just a Christmas movie, it is Christmas.

The Brilliant and Unfinished works of Orson Welles

ORSON WELLES: THE ONE-MAN BAND (1995)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

There are directors who never get noticed, and there are those who have one major hit only to have a slew of flops follow them. Then there are directors who have one major masterpiece and a host of films that follow, never quite matching the brilliance of their initial masterwork. Orson Welles falls in this category, though I have found that "Touch of Evil," "The Trial" and "F For Fake" are brilliant films that arguably surpass his most famous film, "Citizen Kane." This wonderful documentary, "Orson Welles: The One-Man Band," traces Welles' last twenty years of his life where he desperately tried to find financing to complete his films only to be turned down again and again.

Most people think that there was not much to Welles beyond "Citizen Kane" and some other studio efforts, not to mention his slew of acting jobs left and right. After "Chimes at Midnight" and "F For Fake," it is assumed that Welles was a has-been who had acted in any and every film, narrating documentaries, and performing in wine commercials. He was a genius who was no longer the shining star of the past. This is, of course, not true at all. Welles was very busy and never got dismayed from lack of funds. He would finance some of his projects with money he obtained from acting. According to his partner and collaborator, Oja Kodar, Welles would travel everywhere with his 16mm camera and an editing table. He was filled with ideas and wanted to explore them all.

Some of his projects include the unfinished Hollywood satire, "The Other Side of the Wind," "The Merchant of Venice," "The Deep" and "The Dreamers." In some cases, the incomplete status of some of these films was a result of either poor business entanglements or financiers who feared Welles's lack of wanting to finish anything, thus based on his reputation. In the case of "Other Side of the Wind," a relative of the Shah of Iran helped to finance the project and then pulled out holding the footage of Welles's 3 hour opus hostage. "The Merchant of Venice" was to be made for television and the film was actually completed but the negative was stolen! "The Deep" is based on a novel by Charles Williams III, which later became the basis for "Dead Calm" starring Nicole Kidman. Film was almost completed until the main lead, Laurence Harvey, died. "The Dreamers" was a project that began in the early 1980's and was shot in his own L.A. home, but financing was harder to come by at that point. A "King Lear" project was planned but no one was interested.

Some other footage shown is interesting though whether the films themselves were ever completed remains a mystery. A short clip about tailors measuring Welles's girth is good for a few laughs. An even funnier clip is shown of Welles playing a lord of the manor interviewed by a bearded Welles! There is also a seven-minute long trailer for "F For Fake" that makes most trailers today look positively unimaginative in comparison. Powerful film fragments of Welles performing a one-man take of "Moby Dick" sans makeup or costuming show what a grand, majestic actor he was, and what an enthralling voice he had! There is also a clip from "Swinging London" which shows typical Welles impersonations of a Chinese ticket-taker, a housewife, a police inspector and a one-man band player.

Oja Kodar

Oja Kodar held all these fragments and incompleted films in a storage room until one day she decided to release them as part of this documentary. What we witness is a fallen giant who had gone from a Hollywood director to an independent film artist who never got the financing he so desired and deserved (his last Hollywood film as a director was 1958's "Touch of Evil"). Director Vassili Silovic, however, fails to make us understand why Welles had so much trouble. One possible reason is that Welles languished for an eternity making his films. According to author Joseph McBride's book on Welles, "The Other Side of the Wind" was a project that lasted from 1970 to 1976. In this film, there is a scene where Welles is interviewed by a college class. He tells them that his dormant project from the 50's, "Don Quixote," will be finished in his own time, just like an author works on an unfinished novel. But why was the negative of "Merchant of Venice" stolen? Did Welles perhaps forget to pay the lab bill, as did Ed Wood with "Bride of the Monster"? Or was he overextending his finances? And how does one explain "F For Fake" and "Filming Othello," both from the 70's and both of them completed?

The main treat of "Orson Welles: The One-Man Band" is watching what the master was up to in that 20-year stretch. Clips from "Other Side of the Wind" prove to be extraordinary and way ahead of its time. One scene shows John Huston as a film director greeted by the press and there are dozens of fast cuts and jump cuts from different angles that anticipate MTV by more than a decade! Another clip shown from "Wind" is a sex scene in a car with Oja Kodar that is as erotic as anything I've ever seen. Curiously, clips from "The Deep" are shown minus a soundtrack. We only hear Welles's booming voice explaining the action that is occurring on screen. There are also clips of his magic shows with the Muppets, his crowd-pleasing acceptance of his Lifetime Achievement Award from the very industry that shunned him, and so much more.

"One-Man Band" is plain evidence of a man who had unfulfilled his legacy of a legendary film director - for his detractors, this film will prove to be quite illuminating. It is sad and upsetting to watch what might have been. I heartily recommend Frank Brady's book, "Citizen Welles," which covers Welles's whole career, including his last few years where he could not get financial help from Steven Spielberg nor procure a Hollywood star like Jack Nicholson for his completed screenplay, "The Big Brass Ring." It will serve to amplify the sadness of a man who remained obsessive and forthright, determined to keep making films at any cost.

Lee slams Tarantino's 'Django'

Spike Lee and Quentin Tarantino: A war with words

By Jerry Saravia

Filmmaker Spike Lee has done it again - he has attacked filmmaker Quentin Tarantino over his controversial new film, "Django Unchained," a "southern" (not a western) about slavery - a controversial subject that hardly elicits any cinematic interest in Hollywood. Lee has called out on the film and states the following: "I cant speak on it cause I'm not gonna see it," Lee said in an interview with VIBETV. "All I'm going to say is that it's disrespectful to my ancestors. That's just me...I'm not speaking on behalf of anybody else." On twitter he further stated "American Slavery Was Not A Sergio Leone Spaghetti Western.It Was A Holocaust.My Ancestors Are Slaves.Stolen From Africa.I Will Honor Them."

Lee had previously berated Tarantino for the 39 or more uses of that dreaded N-word in 1997's "Jackie Brown." Here is the interesting factor: back in 1996, I had the pleasure of attending a Spike Lee talk at Trenton State College (now renamed the College of New Jersey) and he mentioned Tarantino's brief role as a filmmaker in Lee's "Girl 6." Lee said that Quentin wanted to make the N-word a less potent word, a word that could be said without causing a riot. To sum up, Lee certified that after talking to the "Pulp Fiction" filmmaker, Tarantino would no longer be using that racial epithet in his films. Clearly Tarantino did not listen and the word was not only used repeatedly within the first half-hour of "Jackie Brown," it has apparently been used ad nauseam in "Django Unchained."

My issue with Spike Lee is that you can't call a movie disrespectful, regardless of subject matter, unless you have seen it. And you certainly can't call it a Sergio Leone version of slavery if you only heard about it through the critics. From the reviews I've read, it sounds like it has some rough and savage scenes of slaves beaten to a pulp, either by slave masters or fighting among themselves. Perhaps the issue Spike has is that a white Italian filmmaker is using slavery as a subject in revenge fantasy mode (just like Tarantino had in using Nazis for the revisionist "Inglorious Basterds"). Or maybe he wished a black filmmaker had taken charge of the material (Lee had expressed opposition to Steven Spielberg as the choice for adapting Alice Walker's "Color Purple," and had expressed dismay over Norman Jewison's name floating around to direct "Malcom X" which of course Lee directed instead). There is also a curious statement made by Lee to "Django" star Jamie Foxx that could be construed as a blessing for having worked on "Django" where Lee said, "It looks like y'all are getting it." (This is stated in the new issue of "Vibe" magaze with three of the film's stars on the front cover).

I can't say if Spike Lee would ever tackle slavery on screen but my gut feeling is no. I just think that such a film like "Django Unchained" would merit a viewing first before decrying it. It's not like we are talking about a new sequel to "Deuce Bigelow." For better or worse, a new Tarantino film demands our attention. If Lee used to watch the execrable "Temptation Island" on TV a few years back, I think he can make time for Tarantino's new film and then tell us what he really thinks.