The Rorschach Hurrah Picture Show

"The crowd is curious, but well behaved." - Les Nessman, five time winner of the Buckeye Newshawk Award, as well as the recipient of the Silver Sow and the Copper Cobb Awards.

Les pretty much summed up how the Jackie Earle Haley signing went yesterday afternoon at Atomic Comics and Gaming here in San Antonio. I'd like to say I was surprised by how many people showed up, but truthfully I wasn't. While I don't have an accurate head count, there must have been at least 300 people milling in and out of the place over the course of 2 hours, smack in the middle of a Thursday afternoon workday. The place was packed, and it's not as if Atomic is an especially large place. Yes, Watchmen may well have detractors, but its San Antonio fans came out in full force, and the store was selling all manner of merchandise for their Jackification. One fan even presented Jackie with a painting of Rorschach, pictured at right behind my friend Suzanne (click to enlarge). Although I wasn't there to witness that moment, my other half, Jeanne, told me about it later on, as she was in the midst of the fray for about the first hour. Being a print journalist, believe it or not, still has its perks.

I've actually got a lotta love for fans, since, well, I am one...but I haven't done much in the real world of fandom for a number of years, so it's a strange and fascinating place to wander back into. Gone are the days of fandom being exclusively the domain of the socially inept; these days fans live next door to you...they're your lawyer, doctor...or your wife. I wanted to approach the signing not as a buddy of the honoree, but as a fan. I took in my copy of the graphic novel (which, by the way, was given to me by my online Farscape bud Tyler Trafford) and a Rorschach action figure that was given to my kid by his girlfriend, intent on getting Jackie to sign both. Turns out there was a two item limit...Suzanne had four items - and two were for our mutual friend Lee Sparks, who lives in Austin. Lee is Watchmen crazy, and has been, I suspect, since the individual issues were first published. So that Suzanne didn't have to make a choice, I made it for her: I blew off getting either item I brought signed so that Lee could have both of his items inscribed by the Mighty Pen o' Haley. It's probable that this was all splitting hairs, as I seriously doubt Jackie would've turned me down...but that would've defeated the point...which was to be a fan. As far as Jackie goes, I might not get another chance to simply behave like a fan. Honestly not sure if I care whether or not he ever signs my crap. Nothing to do with Haley...I've just got no love for autographs in general. (Although a Tom Baker scribble might actually mean something...)

Jackie's been pretty open with me (and many others in interviews) that he really embraces fan culture, and at this point considers himself to be a huge fan himself. This is one guy who won't be telling groups of Watchmen devotees to "get a life" anytime soon. (No disrespect to The Shat intended - he is, after all, Denny Crane.) It was a grand afternoon, in that respect, as I can't imagine that five years ago Jackie ever considered the notion that he'd someday be looked at as a badass superhero to so many. Perhaps the vestiges of Kelly Leak have finally disappeared, and when, in casual conversation his name is mentioned, it will be linked with the real identity of one Walter Kovacs, rather than the Bad News Bears...not that there's anything wrong with being a Bear, mind you.

Jackie Earle Haley isn't someone who ever expected to get another chance. He is not someone who’s tried to cultivate a look that appeals to the Hollywood machine. He’s not someone who tried to do much of anything other than be Jackie. His flame shone brightly for a short period of time and he’s now been granted another go at it. This almost never happens for a talent of his ilk. Talent - that’s the key word here. The guy is talented. His early work hinted at it, but his new work – much of which has been informed by life - has cemented it. Many people have trod similar stomping grounds, and few have gotten that second chance. If so, then Jackie should inspire those people. He isn’t a John Travolta – someone who’s reinvented variations of himself several times over. There’s the child actor, the huge gap in between, and then…today. Today doesn’t even remotely resemble Kelly Leak. It’s easy to say “resurgence,” but what about “renewal?”

But enough about Jackie. I love him, and hopefully you, as a viewer of his various works, love him too...

This must close with some hard talk of Watchmen. To say the movie has been received with mixed reviews might be lowballing it. I've read more critical pieces of this movie than I have for any movie in years - just to see what folks are saying. The good reviews, of course, put a big ol' grin on my face...but the negative ones, especially the overwhelmingly negative leave me wondering if these people have seen the same movie I have (four times at the time of writing)...or more importantly - what has happened to the audiences of the '70s, who enjoyed being challenged when they went to the movies? Had Watchmen been released 20 years ago, would people be so quick to call bunk?

The superhero movie genre has become so dominant in the past seven or so years. It's also become mostly predictable. As much as I personally disliked The Dark Knight, I'd be foolish to deny that it didn't buck the trend. Yet I adored Iron Man, despite having no investment in the concept. But Watchmen the movie is in a league of its own. It bears almost no resemblance to either of those benchmarks. It doesn't look or feel like anything that's come before it.

Does it work - like the graphic novel in relation to its predecessors - as a sly response to the fare that's surrounded it? I dunno. If I gave more of a fuck about superhero movies maybe I could say. Aside from the first two Spider-Man flix, the rest (yes, even Iron Man) leave me unwilling to return for future dissection. Regardless - love it or hate it - is there anything else like it in the genre? If people aren't enjoying Watchmen, it's because people don't take the genre seriously...or because they take it too seriously. My first reaction to the film was, "Well, that's probably the best movie they could've made based on that source material." After the second viewing, I was in "Oh-My-Fucking-god" mode. If you've only seen it once, I urge you to see it again. Some movies, for better or worse, just work that way. Watchmen is one of them. My bud Taylor, who's 19, and who I convinced to see it with me on viewing #4 , said to me tonight, "When's that coming out on video? Man, the morning after I saw it I realized how much I liked it."

And if you think Malin Akerman fails to deliver then you are clearly a gay man. And I do love gay men...but it's a huge shame you can't dig on the Laurie Jupiter, because she just makes my heart ache in a way Alan Moore completely failed to.

(It has come to my attention that the previous paragraph may be perceived of as offensive at worst, or nonsensical and without merit at best. It probably would've been better had I included a squid.)

Jackie Earle Haley at Atomic Comics

For those of you in San Antonio...

(click jpeg to enlarge)

Watchmen Set Visit

Will the Doomsday Clock strike twelve when Watchmen finally hits theatres on March 6th?

The amount of hype surrounding Watchmen seems almost unprecedented, particularly for an R-rated movie based on source material by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons which, despite years of critical lauds, can still best be described as cultish. As early as last July, the first full-length trailer appeared (attached to The Dark Knight), followed shortly thereafter by a front cover on Entertainment Weekly, which used the film as the centerpiece for a Comic Con story. Warner Brothers has maintained the momentum month after month ever since. But then, of course, there was the lawsuit brought on by Fox, which was followed by a period of uncertainty. Fans held their breath. Would we even get to see Watchmen on the long-promised release date? The suit was eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed sum, as well as a share of theatrical profits, and everyone could breathe easy again. With March right around the corner, the WB publicity machine again kicked into overdrive, and in the last few weeks, it's been almost impossible to be a movie fan of any kind and not be aware that this film is coming soon to a theatre near you.

Read the rest of this piece, which details my visit to the Watchmen set, by clicking here and visiting Bullz-Eye.

"Hurm..."

Teasing Watchmen

Bullz-Eye has published a teaser piece for the Watchmen set visit I attended in January. This is only a tease and I'll be writing much more about the visit later, as we get closer to the release date.

From the article:

If you’ve journeyed out to the cinema and battled crowds to see The Dark Knight, chances are you got to sneak a peek at one of the most hotly anticipated comic book big screen adaptations. Yeah, yeah, I know, everyone seemingly says much the same about every comic book movie. Just as soon as Iron Man comes out -- a movie labeled “Best. Comic Book Movie. Everrrrrrr!” -- The Dark Knight comes along a few months later, and everyone is busy saying the same thing. In fact, I’d imagine there’s a segment of the movie-going public that’s really starting to tire not only of the fawning but the comic book movie trend in general. Surely there’s more to big budget filmmaking than capes, cowls, webheads and weirdos, right?

Enter Watchmen...

Read the rest of the article by clicking here and visiting Bullz-Eye.

Versatility

The Biggest (Non)Secret I've Had to Keep in Ages...

...is that

IS...

Good thing the cat's now officially out of the bag. Now I can ramble on and on about Jackie Earle Haley playing Rorschach in Zack Snyder's upcoming adaptation of Watchmen. Oddly, at the moment, I've got nothing to say except that it rocks.

Jackie Earle Haley on Jimmy Kimmel

I must admit I'm not the biggest Kimmel fan, but he managed to pull one of the most fun interviews out of Jackie I've seen yet.

Pimping Jackie

Two items of business before moving forward...

1. Nightline will profile Jackie Earle Haley on Monday night. Read all about it in Jeanne's column and be sure to tune in. Updated!! Nightline just informed Jeanne the piece has been moved to Tuesday!

2. If you're a San Antonio resident who missed Little Children during its three-week run at the Crossroads Bijou, the good news is it's starting another run today at the AMC Huebner Oaks 24 with showtimes at 11:40 AM, 3:00 PM, 6:40 & 9:50. Not in San Antonio? Check out this map of its showtimes around the country. The movie is powerful regardless of where you see it, but I cannot recommend a big screen viewing highly enough.

Here's a bizarre trailer for Little Children that somehow made its way onto YouTube. It reminds me of the mashup trailers that are all the rage these days, and I kept waiting for "Solsbury Hill" to start playing in the background. Great example of how to misrepresent the tone of a film through marketing, and yet this is the sort of thing would get some butts in seats regardless. If you've seen the movie, what's really cool about this trailer is that it's full of little bits and pieces that didn't make it into the finished film.

Yes, my ongoing quest to pimp Jackie's wares continues...which isn't to imply he needs my help; he's clearly doing just fine on his own. I didn't pimp All the King's Men with this sort of fervor, so Jackie's awards, noms and attention aside, the deal is that I really dig the flick. If there's one thing I love doing here at the Morgue, it's selling stuff I believe in. Add a bud into the mix and I'll work to sell it twice as hard.

Joe Gillis: I didn't know you were planning a comeback.

Norma Desmond: I hate that word. It's a return!

As a friend paying very close attention to the media coverage of Jackie's "return", I sometimes feel frustrated by the repetition of the many interviews & articles I read. This isn't to bag on any of those interviewers and/or writers who've so graciously covered what's happened with him over the past couple months. How else is a person to write about someone like Jackie?

On nearly every occasion I've been in a position to mention his film history to one of the uninitiated, it typically comes down to saying "You know, the guy who rode the motorcycle and smoked cigarettes in the Bad News Bears movies - the bad boy." Sometimes people get it at that point--sometimes not. So yeah, when writers cover Jackie, inevitably stuff like Kelly Leak & Breaking Away and words like "comeback" and "return" should be mentioned, otherwise readers might be lost.

An anecdote: The night Ravenswan premiered here in S.A. - to a packed auditorium of over 300 people - Jackie was amongst the crowd. Before the movie, I did a little trivia competition with the audience and gave away various goodies.

One of my questions was "Local actor, writer and director Jackie Earle Haley had a small but important role in what movie directed by John Schlesinger?" Silence. One person raised a hand: Bad News Bears? Nope. Someone else: Breaking Away? No, Schlesinger didn't direct that either. My memory may be faulty, but I swear somebody answered "Midnight Cowboy", which was at least a good guess, but since Jackie wasn't in it, no dice. After the crowd started looking at me like I was an asshole, I said "The Day of the Locust. Nobody here has seen The Day of the Locust?". Crickets...or maybe locusts...I dunno.

After the screening, and after Jackie bestowed some gracious kudos upon me (he'd seen the rough cut of Ravenswan, which didn't inspire much hope), I mentioned the trivia question. He rolled his eyes and said, "Dude - come on. Nobody was gonna get that one."

I look forward to the day when the Bears flicks aren't the only means to identify Jackie. Another famous child actor named Jackie - Jackie Cooper - worked well into his latter years and he also never escaped his childhood work from the Little Rascals/Our Gang shorts. But I guess "the creepy pedophile from that one movie with Kate Winslet" isn't how one wants to go through life either. (Haven't spoken to him on the issue, so that's only supposition.) There's the case of Ned Beatty, a guy who reputedly hates talking about his debut film, Deliverance -- the one flick for which he's still most well-known. Or maybe Ned just doesn't appreciate strangers coming up and demanding he squeal like a pig? I can understand that. (The fact that both Jackie Cooper and Ned Beatty appeared in the Superman movies only just hit me.) As an actor, I guess no matter when or where you are in your career, you'll always be subjected to someone bringing up your past work. Look no further than Traci Lords for proof of that. Or George Clooney, who cannot escape The Facts of Life or that crappy sitcom from the mid '80s called E/R.

I continue to applaud Jackie for not only his spectacular work in Little Children, but also for pursuing and taking on the role of Ronnie in the first place. It was a huge gamble that easily could've backfired (same goes for Ned Beatty). It's difficult to imagine an actor more solidified in his career agreeing to the risky job of breathing life into such an ambiguous character. It's equally difficult to imagine it working with a more well-known actor.

Sometime between now and Oscar night I'm doing an interview with Jackie that will appear at The House Next Door, but he's got to hightail it back to S.A. in order for me to do it - the guy's been insanely out of pocket over the past couple weeks (as you might imagine). It won't and can't be like most of the other interviews he's given. There's no way it could be as I can't pretend to be even remotely objective. Hopefully it'll be one of those unique pieces that could only come from the belly of the blogger underworld. So stay tuned folks...and there's more 007 in '007 around the corner as well!

Swimming Pools & Movie Stars: Random Thoughts about Little Children

Little Children (finally!) opened at the Crossroads Bijou this weekend; for those of you who don’t live in San Antonio, it’s also on 100 or so other screens across the country. After months of building it up in my head as this probable piece of celluloid perfection (due to numerous factors), and then subsequently worrying that it couldn’t possibly live up to the hype (due to experiencing the "letdown" too many times to count), I discovered a work even more rewarding than I’d imagined or hoped. There isn’t a weak performance or moment on display, and its characters & situations left me with as many questions as they did answers. It’s unsettling material that also frequently had me in stitches, and as the end credits rolled, I was a weeping mess -- I'm still trying to figure out why that was.

Many S.A. Morgue readers know Jackie Earle Haley and many probably also know he’s been racking up awards from various critics organizations, as well as snagging a recent SAG nom for his work in the movie. Viewing Jackie in his other recent role as Sugar Boy in All the King's Men was the type of experience I often encounter when seeing a close friend performing on stage or in a film - regardless of the quality of the performance, I'm always aware that I'm watching someone I know playing a character.

Jackie's Ronnie in Little Children is a different story. Somewhere in the midst of probably his third scene, I found myself unable to wrap my brain around the fact that I've known the figure onscreen for 7 or 8 years. There was not only nothing left of the person with whom I associate, but he somehow ceased to even look like Jackie. Yes, Mr. Haley is more than deserving of the accolades he’s received - and yet he's only one reason to see this film.

Most of the above says more about me than the movie, and I’d have to see it a few more times before attempting any kind of review. The film is better discussed than reviewed anyway, so who knows if or when I’ll even try. Little Children has been compared to Kubrick. Via director Todd Field’s sterile, removed--yet inexplicably non-judgmental--approach, that doesn’t seem an overstatement. Like a Kubrick flick, it has the power to polarize; for each person who loves it, another will loathe it, which certainly indicates a measure of strength. It may even somewhat be the movie that detractors of Eyes Wide Shut have often claimed it should have been – a relevant commentary about the contemporary complexities of marriage (which isn’t to bag on Eyes, a work I dearly love). Oddly (I guess), Field played piano player Nick Nightingale in Kubrick’s swan song.

Despite my enthusiasm for all the attention that not only Jackie, but also Kate Winslet, Patrick Wilson and the film itself have been given, it’s a weirdly noticable oversight that more recognition hasn’t been heaped upon Todd Field. More than any other film I’ve seen in ages, this is clearly the vision of an assured, meticulous director. He’s amassed some awards & nominations for its adapted screenplay (co-written with novelist Tom Perrotta) and the film’s got some “Best Picture” momentum (including a Golden Globe nom) - yet the directing kudos have eluded Field. It’s not that the screenplay isn’t award-worthy, but it’s the type of script that in the hands of someone less capable could easily have ended up feeling like a Lifetime TV movie. Little Children is all about Field’s direction -- how he visually and stylistically chose to interpret the material he helped put to paper. (In fact, it's easy to imagine Field directing the film in his head during the adaptation process.) If the film is hated by a viewer, I don't think it'll be the material that offends - it'll be the way the material's been presented that gets under their skin. Same thing goes for those who love it.

Maybe the oversight will be rectified come Oscar time, but it could end up being one of those bizarre predicaments where the movie’s up for Best Pic, and yet the director fails to be given a nomination. For all I know Field couldn’t care less. Despite four noms, Stanley Kubrick never won an Oscar and he didn’t seem too bothered by it (or at least his work and credibility didn't suffer). Had I the intelligence and insight to make a movie this strong, the ability just to do it would, I believe, be reward enough...which isn't to imply such aspirations have evaporated -- quite the opposite: Little Children is the kind of fare that will inspire a certain breed of filmmaker. It provides reassurance that there's still room in the marketplace for creative complexity and that a movie can still be produced without worrying about how it'll play in Peoria (or indeed anywhere, for that matter).

Field did however just win the "Visionary Award" at the Palm Springs International Film Festival. Maybe an award named as such is the most appropriate for what he's achieved with this film. Anyone who can present the world of mind-numbingly boring suburbanites -- a topic that's been dramatically and comically explored from seemingly every possible angle in recent years -- with such freshness and familiarity, must be a visionary of some kind.

The flawed institution of wedded bliss is only one of Little Children’s numerous topics. It’s best you discover the rest of its world on your own. Find out what this movie means to you, as what it meant to me will likely be irrelevant to your own experience.

Now on Tuesday I must go rent Idiocracy and see my friend Kevin Cacy strut his stuff when Mike Judge's latest hits DVD.

Child Helps Promote Little Children

UPDATED!

This must be one of the most inventive bits of marketing I've ever seen:



Little Children is a flick I've been dying to see for what's now seeming like an eternity, and it's anyone's guess at this point what exactly New Line's doing with it. It opened in October and played on 30 or so screens to decent business, but the studio thus far hasn't expanded it. There's been some talk of a wide release around the New Year, which ultimately would probably be a good time to do it, as it isn't exactly holiday fare. But for those of us who were expecting to see it a couple months ago, it's been a frustrating, tedious wait.

Hey New Line! Why don't you market this film to the people who tune in to Desperate Housewives every week? If you could get just a twentieth of that show's audience to head out to the theatre to see it, you'd have a nice, indie hit on your hands.

Here's a map of the cities/theatres it's still playing in (type your Zip Code in for specifics). If you can, go see this movie. Do it for me, because it isn't playing in San Antonio or even Austin.

UPDATE! Jackie Earle Haley wins Best Supporting Actor from the New York Film Critics Circle for his work in Little Children! Click here to read the story. Way to go, Jackie - it's about time, my friend!