Five Discussions for the Day

1. Is Kevin Smith in dire need of help from the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy dudes?

2. J.T. Street penned a rockin' piece on Gloria Steinem. Check it out and chime in.

3. Jackass: Number Two opens today. What does this say, if anything, about our culture?

4. Jackie Chan has admitted to once starring in a porn flick. Is it noteworthy that one of his co-stars in the film was Sammo Hung? Or that the author of the article is named Winny Wang? (You can't make this stuff up, folks.)

5. Church's, Popeye's or KFC?

The Lynching of Steve Balderson

It's a strange world, isn't it? The recent vitriol spewed at Steve Balderson’s Firecracker resulted in opportunity: The chance to interview Steve Balderson, extended to me by Balderson himself.

My critique [click here to read it] more or less accused Steve of ripping off David Lynch, having no original vision, and of basically creating one of the worst independent films I’d seen in years.

The insistence that Firecracker was merely a pieced together jigsaw work of Lynch’s canon was central to everything I wrote, and the first half of the interview stems from that assumption/assertion.

Lest you think this is some puff piece or an apology, I told Steve the only way this could work is if I approached it from the same place as before – as someone who intensely disliked his film. He agreed, and without further buildup…

Ross Ruediger: Let's get the elephant (man?) out of the room right off the bat, Steve. In your first e-mail to me, you said "I haven't seen most of David Lynch's work. I saw 20 minutes of Blue Velvet when I was at CalArts because I had to dissect a scene for my professor." So what of Lynch's work have you seen?


Steve Balderson: I’ve seen Lost Highway and The Straight Story all the way through. I’ve seen bits of his other work, but not enough to have a complete grasp of what they’re about.

RR: Which 20 minutes of Blue Velvet did you see?

SB: It was more than a decade ago when I dissected Blue Velvet. The scene was the first moment Jeffrey and Sandy meet. I really loved the symbolism of Sandy appearing out of the blackness, glowing as if she were an angel. I always loved that. I liked learning about the motion of the backwards steadicam, the POV shots of the trees, the street, their dialogue. It’s a very simple sequence and one that I imagine is very good to show young film students. Instead of simply showing the characters standing still and talking, motion was the trick. As long as the camera is moving, we, the audience, feel a sense of going someplace, so we have calmness. When it stands still we begin to have anxiety. Understanding this effect and being able to apply it when you want to create calm or anxiety are good tools for any filmmaker.

RR: You said you'd envisioned a cameo for David Lynch early on in the scripting process, but cut the character before filming. Why would you be interested in using someone like Lynch at all if you weren't a fan of or familiar with most of his work?

SB: Because I could foresee people comparing our work. I’m going through a similar thing now. For instance, I’m putting together a screwball comedy starring, among others, Mink Stole. I love that woman and think she’s divine (no pun intended)! The character she is playing is based on my Aunt, who looks and behaves just like her! Never mind it has nothing to do with John Waters. But I know precisely what certain critics will say, so the idea has come to me to see about a role for John Waters. It just sort of shuts some people up. But, again, for every person who shuts up there will be another who hollers. So I’m not going to deliberately put John Waters in my movie unless he’s right for it.

RR: Since the release of Firecracker, why haven't you been driven to check out more of Lynch's work, given that your film has been so frequently compared (both positively and negatively) to his films?

SB: I watch a lot of films made from the 1930s through the 1960s, but very rarely will I watch a film made in the last fifty years. I’d rather experience a song, go to a museum or watch educational programs on television. I am curious about many things, but when someone says my movie reminds them of another film, I don’t desire to go out and watch that film. I am fully aware of my vision and have total clarity when it comes down to understanding my perspective on any given subject. I have no desire to see how I measure up with other people. I think a lot of people who are insecure with their perception will compare themselves to what other people are doing. The secret is to look inside oneself for the answers, not turn to text books, churches, governments, family or neighbors.

Some will say it’s important to take constructive criticism and to consider what someone else is saying. While I agree it teaches me much about how that person views the world, it doesn’t do anything for me as a filmmaker. You see, if I were to take into account how someone else sees my movie, and what I “could do better” – what’s that person is really saying is “here are the things you can do which will enable me to appreciate your work.” But that would mean I put my vision aside and focus on choices that will please him. By doing so, I’ve denied my own perspective of something and thus will alienate viewers who would have otherwise appreciated what I did originally.

In a broader scope, this is the problem with the world today. We are taught at a very young age to pick something apart and to describe what we would do instead. Or, how would we create something from our points of view. But if we enable that way of thinking, we are also enabling something in ourselves, which gives us self-doubt and fuels the act of second-guessing. Because we’ll always be aware that someone else would do it differently. I think that’s part of the problem. Too often people get used to letting other people think for them.

It is true that no matter what you do there will be a percentage of people who dislike it, hate you, and hate anything you do. If we understand that, we can, instead, focus on being true to our own ideas, without any outside input, and make the work as we see it. There will always be a percentage of people who love what you do and appreciate it no matter what it is. For every person who adores something there will be another who dislikes it.

RR: So obviously you’ve got definite opinions on criticism as an art form.

SB: If they are going to continue teaching Film Criticism, or Art Criticism, in schools, the professors owe it to human kind to also teach respect for what it is we’re looking at. Yes, we can do it this way or that way, but the fact remains we’re missing the work if we’re constantly thinking about how we’d change it. Instead of wanting to change something, we might try to learn about what it is. I did not design and build Fallingwater. I can make the choice to waste my time talking to you about how I’d have done it my way, or I can instead use that time to understand why it was made the way it was made. Maybe I’ll learn something new along the way.

If everyone understood this truth, there would be no conflict – no war. If the Muslims understood that their way wasn't the right way and only way, they would respect that the Jews had their own set of beliefs. And, likewise. But both parties must come to the understanding. If just one party believes it, they will get killed by the other. This can be explained further as art is concerned (to the artist who wants to please the audience): if you please the Muslims, the Jews hate you; if you please the Jews, the Muslims hate you. So what can you do? = Be true to yourself. That's all any of us have.

So instead of watching other people’s movies, or taking anyone else’s perspective into consideration, I’d rather just close my eyes and learn more about my own.

RR: What led you to cast an experienced actress like Karen Black in two major roles, but cast someone like Mike Patton who has no acting experience in two of the other major roles (especially when you had the opportunity to use someone like Dennis Hopper)? I understand that a big part of your vision was the double casting, and that Hopper wasn't right for David, but it seems as if it was a huge gamble to take on someone who hadn't proven himself as an actor.

SB: Any person who can take direction and project emotion can act. It’s as simple as that. Anyone who has ever performed on stage does this all the time. Musicians make fine actors. While some people might think Patton stinks, he did exactly what I wanted him to do. He wasn’t the one making the decisions. For every person who hates his performance there is a person who loves it. I got an email last week from one person who is so in love with Mike’s performance as Frank that he has tattooed his entire back with images of Frank from the film. The guy sent me several shots so I could incorporate them into our new documentary. You’d be amazed!

I picked Mike because he was the right one aesthetically and suited my vision in movement, voice and manner perfectly. There’s a myth in this business that celebrities will help you finance your movie. That isn’t true. Yes, they may help solidify a decent distributor, but that’s about it. Dennis was in the cast for more than a year. When I realized his name wasn’t going to bring us the financing, the only thing left to consider was whether he worked artistically. And, because I couldn’t do the dual roles with Dennis, he had to go.

RR: On the subject of filmic duality, what did you think of Lost Highway?

SB: I went to the premiere of Lost Highway and at the time I remember saying that it was fantastic. I loved the atmosphere of it. I haven’t seen it since, and didn’t do any dissection of it, so I can’t comment on specifics, but I appreciated it very much.

RR: I think you’re really missing out by not watching Blue Velvet, especially if you liked what you saw. There’s a pivotal scene between Dennis Hopper and Isabella Rossellini that Kyle MacLachlan observes through a slotted closet door that is eerily similar to the big scene in Firecracker between David, Sandra and Jimmy – and the ending of your scene is also very similar (in concept) to a exised sequence from Blue Velvet. But then again, if your sensibilities are so close to Lynch’s, do you think maybe you’d ultimately be bored by his work?

SB: I don’t think I’d be bored by his work, or anyone’s for that matter. Perhaps one day I’ll watch David’s other movies and appreciate them, too. But on the other hand, I do a great disservice to myself as an artist by watching other people’s movies—especially ones made by people with similar sensibilities. Inadvertently, when any artist takes in the work of another artist, there will be, even if you are aware to never compare yourself, a slightly unconscious reaction to compare what you are doing to what they are doing. I think that is counterproductive. For instance, say I’m inspired by a surrealist piece of art where there’s a man wearing a giant stuffed-animal costume. Let’s say I wanted to incorporate that idea into my movie. Well, some might say I stole the idea from Donnie Darko, which features a person dressed in a stuffed-animal costume. Or, others might suggest I’m trying to be David Lynch because he did the same thing with Naomi Watts dressed in a bunny outfit.


By focusing on things like that, people will fail to recognize what it is that I’ve done. Never mind I’ve never seen the David Lynch scene with Naomi Watts. Never mind that my inspiration had nothing to do with Donnie Darko. What I think would be more interesting is if one would ask the question: What drives an artist to arrive at a similar conclusion? Where did the choice originate to put someone in a stuffed-animal costume? By answering that question, and appreciating what is on screen all in and of itself, the viewer will get more out of it. The person who constantly focuses on West Side Story being nothing more than Romeo and Juliet will miss something and limit themselves from certain experiences in life. If they make the choice to do that, so be it. I don’t have to limit my experiences just because they are.

I encourage all young filmmakers to stop watching other people’s movies—at least until they’ve made a few of their own. It’s a good way to remain true to one’s own perspective. This goes for any artist. If you’re a filmmaker: read a book or go to a museum, or listen to music. If you’re a musician: watch a movie or go to a museum, or read something. If you’re a painter: go on a trip to a place you’ve never been. Perhaps this is difficult for some people to imagine – especially aspiring filmmakers – but there came a time for me to move past being a spectator into being a creator.

RR: I am not the only person who’s made the Lynch comparisons, although I may be one of the few who was so belligerent with my accusations. There must have been some kind of filmic influence on Firecracker, Steve.

SB: In Firecracker my primary inspiration comes from The Wizard of Oz. For a dreamer and artistic person who grew up in Kansas, you can’t get more personal than that story. There are two worlds in the film with the same actors playing roles in each. One place is shot in black and white and the other in vivid color. One has geometrical simplicity and the other is irregular and misshapen. One world has a kid who is feeling trapped and in the other the kid experiences freedom (though the characters and situations in that place mirror the ones back home).

Again, one can spend all ones time comparing things in life (and, trust me, everything can be found in anything that preceded before it, everyplace else: Firecracker is a direct descendant of The Wizard of Oz, which is a direct descendant of Alice in Wonderland, which, in turn, is a direct descendent of certain dream-like stories Reverend Charles Dodgson, a.k.a. Lewis Carroll, recalled from the Bible.); or one can appreciate what is there, enhance living and continue forward...

Is it noteworthy that Part One of my interview with Steve ends where the Yellow Brick Road begins?

David Lynch has often cited The Wizard of Oz as being a huge influence on his work – indeed, he even loosely remade the film as 1990’s Wild At Heart. (My simplistic interpretation? Nicolas Cage’s Sailor = Dorothy, Laura Dern’s Lula = The Ruby Slippers & Diane Ladd’s Marietta = The Wicked Witch of the West; take that formula into account and numerous other parallels fall into place.)

What is perhaps even more noteworthy, per my original critique, is that not only is Wild at Heart one of the Lynch works I didn’t explicitly see in Firecracker, but it also happens to be my least favorite work of Lynch’s career (yes…I prefer Dune; David, if you're reading - my sincerest apologies). Readers are free to decipher what that may or may not mean.

I have for years asserted that the The Wizard of Oz is the single most influential film ever made; not the best, not the most important, mind you - but the most influential. I’m seeing less of that these days. Due to DVD and VHS releases, the film isn't treated as the same sort of “event” it was when I was a kid, and therefore isn’t imprinting itself on young minds as it once did (although works inspired by it must surely be, so there's probably some sort of trickle-down effect at work where Oz's influence is concerned).

Going into this interview I believed it would be difficult for Steve to show that he hadn’t plundered Lynch’s work in order to create Firecracker (which isn’t to imply he was under any obligation to do so). While his words “prove” nothing whereas that’s concerned, he has provided a very compelling case for his defense, and as a result I’ve been left in a position that only allows me to take him at face value and believe what he says.

Next Tuesday my Lynch-nuttiness takes a back seat when the Morgue will publish Part Two, "There's No Place Like Home" (click here to read it). Steve will reveal Firecracker’s true budget, his feelings on being a filmmaker in the small town of Wamego, Kansas, why he opted not to score the film with Mike Patton's music, and his reaction to being confronted by my utter aversion to his movie.

A Doctor in the House

My Doctor Who articles are going to hit another level starting on the 29th (Sci Fi's debut date for Season Two). The pieces will be showcased at The House Next Door, and they'll be presented as a joint effort with Matt's blog (although they'll still be published here at the Morgue).

Today the House unveiled a lengthy primer piece that I wrote for the uninitiated. Check it out and ready yourself for Season Two of Who.

Towering Boorishness

My snarky $9.11 entry was posted prematurely as this week’s events have given me a pause for reflection concerning that piece.

I’m notoriously non-partisan when it comes to politics, although if one put a gun to my head - which is about what it would take - I’d say I favor the Democrats (and I’ll soil neither party by whipping out the ol’ “lesser of two evils” cliché). But this week the Dems really shot themselves in the foot by taking their characteristic whininess to toweringly boorish new levels, making them look worse than they have in a good long while. And certainly if you've been outside for so long, it's always a good idea to reenter the building looking like a bunch of spoiled mama's boys.

I’m speaking of the furor surrounding the ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11 and the near embargo the Dems vocally placed on the film prior to it even airing. Congrats, kiddos – you’ve finally succeeded by fighting fire with fire, and in doing so you’ve scored yet another goal for that great ol’ American pastime: Censorship. While ABC may not have backed down, you certainly fussed and bitched and moaned enough to get them to cut the “offensive” scenes. But there is a price to pay for your success. You’ve again allowed the Republicans to outclass and upstage you – the scenes in Part Two of the mini that discuss the Bush administration funding the Taliban were oddly in place on the Monday night broadcast, and they in fact aired mere minutes prior to Georgey Boy’s commercial interruption.

The Path to 9/11 was not only an indictment of both the Clinton administration and the Bush era that followed, but also an indictment of the American people, and their willingness to allow tawdry issues like blowjobs, cigars and semen-stained dresses to consume the political landscape. We will blame this President and that politician and that terrorist for the atrocities of 9/11/2001, but are we such victims that we cannot take any of the burdens on our own shoulders? Did we not as a country let minutiae rule the roost at a time when perhaps we should have been concentrating on bigger issues? Indeed, if the movie's assertion is that Clinton was distracted because he was having his balls nailed to wall by the 'Pubs, then perhaps the film isn't as anti-Clinton as so many seem to claim.

The movie presents a point of view – now it may not be a POV with which you agree or will allow yourself to see, but that’s irrelevant. Last time I checked, this country was all about the freedom of speech, and the content of this movie was nothing special in that regard. We had our United 93 and we had our World Trade Center – two movies that decided to not take points of view, and therefore generated no controversy. Isn’t it time we have a filmic point of view on this issue? Well of course it is, and people have had non-filmic POVs all along – but how dare Hollywood step in and try to offer up something that sparks debate and gets people thinking and talking? We live in a TV nation folks – The Path to 9/11 is the more remarkable film of the three because it dared to question and posit and address issues and say things that even Oliver Stone was afraid to address and say. That makes it important, not a lie. It’s a film, kids – film is deceptive by its very nature and about presenting points of view in order to achieve a bigger goal. Even so-called "documentaries" require that the filmmaker adopt some kind of POV - they certainly don't edit themselves.

So there we were, the day before the fifth anniversary of that horrible day, and my better half, Jeanne - whose deadline for her review (a positive one) of the movie was a week and a half prior to its airing and several days before Clinton's cronies began their silly censorship campaign – starts getting deluged with dozens of e-mails from scads of whiny Dems telling her she’s ignorant, towing the Conservative party line and that she should for all intents and purposes have her license to critique revoked. And none of them had even seen the movie. They blindly followed, once again allowing tawdry issues to take precedence. So we’ve learned nothing I guess, and it seems that another atrocity could be perpetrated against our country whilst people complain - because clearly the contents of a docudrama are the most important issues du jour. You can read Jeanne’s saga here, here and here – and read them in that order, too.

If you happen to be one of the San Antonians (or from wherever you people came) who spent Sunday and Monday, the 10th & 11th, e-mailing Jeanne - a TV critic - and/or e-mailing and calling her bosses and editors, then I really want you think long and hard about what exactly 9/11 means to you based on those actions. My guess is that the families of the victims and the victims themselves were not first and foremost on your mind. And for the record, a friend of Jeanne's, Dora Menchaca, was on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon.

And to those of you who still insist that the movie was “only sent to conservative bloggers and people like Rush Limbaugh”, I’ve got news for you. Jeanne is neither and she had numerous copies of the film sent to her over the past 6 weeks. Indeed, the movie’s been on the TV radar since the middle of this summer – why did you wait so long to make your little fuss? You claim that the Clinton administration was denied copies of this film. BULL. SHIT. All one of those cronies would need to have done was contact any of the hundreds of the nation’s TV critics and they could easily have scored a copy. I guarantee you that a single call placed to Jeanne would have resulted in her gladly sending a copy their way, just to be able to print a reaction, if for no other reason. What could possibly have been more of a journalistic coup for a TV critic? But no such calls were ever made to her, making any such request, nor did ABC ever send out a memo forbidding critics from sharing the materials with politicos of either persuasion.

So why am I sorry for using the 9/11 graphic novel as a means to bag on Borders? Because I now feel that despite Borders’ crass marketing ploy, the creators of the comic did not deserve my scorn and that I pulled a real Democratic maneuver by using one issue to fight another. And perhaps the point of the graphic novel itself is not all that far removed from the miniseries. My apologies – from here on out, this apology will link to the previous entry.

And in the event my words have left a bitter aftertaste in your mouth, the Morgue highly recommends you check out these words o' wisdom by the mighty J.T. Street.

You Need a Bit of, Oooohhhh...

A musical about emotional and sexual dysfunction, bogus psychiatry and the pitfalls of fame and fashion – all set within a Big Brother-like TV studio? No, it’s not a new reality series following the antics of Mr. and Mrs. Cruise, but the sequel (of sorts) to The Rocky Horror Picture Show called Shock Treatment…and it’s finally available on DVD. However its creators and fans all seem to insist on one thing in regards to the film's relationship to its cross-dressing older brother: It is not a “sequel” or a “prequel”…but an “equal”. It’s an assertion I will not argue.

I hadn’t seen the movie from start to finish in at least 10 years, and what’s most shocking is how well Treatment has aged; it was made in '81 and the DVD release marks its 25th Anniversary. I’ve never heaped scorn on the movie the way many seem to, but I’m also not sure I’ve ever found myself loving it as much as since giving it a spin over the weekend (and again last night with my kid).

Originally titled The Brad and Janet Show, Shock Treatment went through numerous revisions before ending up as it is today. At one point it was to be a direct sequel, featuring the return of Dr. Frank, who was somehow resurrected and stalking a pregnant-with-his-child Janet Majors in Denton, U.S.A. When that idea was scrapped and Frank written out of the script, it edged closer to the current version, although it was still intended to take place in Denton and revolve around Brad and Janet. Denton, Texas was in fact heavily scouted for location filming and only a SAG strike forced the radical reinvention of the script into what it eventually became – a prescient skewering of reality TV set entirely within the confines of labyrinthine television studio, located somewhere within the heart of Denton itself.

The story revolves around a much different (and now married) Brad and Janet than seen in Rocky. For starters, two different actors play the couple: The lovely Jessica Harper (Phantom of the Paradise, Suspiria) takes over for Susan Sarandon (who allegedly wanted a cool mill to reprise the character – money the film didn’t have in its budget), and Cliff De Young fills in for Barry Bostwick (who was simply unavailable at the time). One might wonder how the film would have played had Sarandon and Bostwick both returned, but once you move past that, Harper and De Young make for more than adequate replacements. Certainly they’ve both got far better singing voices than their predecessors, a fact that’s rather important for a musical. (Personally, I find Harper to be considerably more sexy and fun than Sarandon and would love to have seen her play Janet in the original.)

The couple seem burdened by the events from the previous film – almost as if nothing’s been the same since that fateful night (although this is unspoken; indeed, there is nary a mention of their encounter with the Transsexuals from Transylvania). Brad is in the dumps – an unresponsive, deadened soul, blindly following his wife and almost asking “How High?” whenever she says, “Jump!” Janet’s been reduced to engaging in near passive-aggressive type behavior. She’s lost any and all confidence she may have discovered at the end of the last film and seems bored with her life and new union.

All this changes when they end up on a bizarre TV show called “Marriage Maze”, hosted by Bert Schnick (Barry Humphries, better known as Dame Edna [ironically sans cross-dressing]). Here, Brad is labeled an “emotional cripple” and sentenced to rehabilitation on yet another reality show, “Dentonvale”, hosted by Drs. Cosmo and Nation McKinley (Richard O’Brien and Patricia Quinn, reprising their incestuous brother-sister act from the previous film). Behind all the madness is Farley Flavors (also played by De Young), Dentonvale’s slick commercial sponsor, who harbors ulterior motives and a hidden past connected to Brad. Also onboard from the previous film are Charles Gray (The Criminologist) as Judge Oliver Wright, Nell Campbell (Columbia) as Nurse Ansalong (looking far sexier than she ever did in Rocky) and Jeremy Newson - the only Rocky actor/character reprisal - as Ralph Hapschatt. And keep an eye out for Rik Mayall (The Young Ones), Christopher Malcolm (The Empire Strikes Back, Absolutely Fabulous) and comedienne Ruby Wax while you’re at it.

Getting into the finer details of the plot would not so much spoil the movie, as possibly put you to sleep. Like its predecessor, what really makes Shock Treatment sail are Richard O’Brien’s catchy songs linking the absurd plot pieces…and the tunes are really, really good – arguably superior to Rocky Horror’s. No less than Sal Piro (President of the Rocky Horror fan club) admits to listening to Shock’s soundtrack with far more frequency than Rocky’s. YouTube’s got videos for most of the songs, although the sound quality doesn’t compare to the DVD release. Check out “Bitchin’ in the Kitchen”, “Little Black Dress”, “Lullaby”, “Look What I Did to My Id”, and the crowning achievement, the title tune “Shock Treatment”, a song I’d easily put up against “The Time Warp” any day.

The songs are lyrically far more complex and dark than Rocky’s innocent little ditties, which is as they should be. Whereas Rocky was a celebration of the sexual freedom and liberation of the ‘70s, Shock Treatment is a nasty little indictment of the equally unique excesses of the sterile ‘80s. What’s particularly noteworthy are the films' contrasting endings: Rocky Horror, for all its good times and great oldies, ended on a note of bleak finality; Shock Treatment, dark though it may be, finishes with our superheroes finding new lives, outlooks and senses of self. Through Shock Treatment, Brad and Janet at last discover the "home of happiness" that so eluded them in Rocky Horror, and if that film ever meant anything to you, you owe it to yourself to see these characters end up in places they very much deserve.

The new DVD is a swank little piece of work, marred only by a couple flaws. The sound oddly dips down for about 30 seconds during the final chorus of the film’s opening number, “Denton U.S.A”. Those who owned the film on videotape will notice that O'Brien's solo reprise of the title song – which plays over the end credits - fades out when the credits end; the VHS release allowed it to finish over a black screen, even when the credits were over with. But these complaints are minor as the rest of the sound and visuals are stronger than they've ever been. Supplementary features include two informative documentaries, two trailers for the film (domestic & international) and a commentary track hosted by Shock Treatment fan club Presidents Mad Man Mike and Bill Brennan – two guys who clearly know far more on the subject than I could ever hope to and treat the material with a shocking amount of respect and insight.

The movie is available as a standalone disc or - for those of you who never got around to picking up Rocky Horror on DVD - in a special [science fiction] double feature three-disc set that’s quite the bargain given the amount of material you get for your buck. Perhaps you need to pad out that Amazon order to get some free shipping? The Shock Treatment soundtrack will be a necessity once you view the movie.

Shock Treatment’s Current Status? Insanely Underrated.

$9.11

The above imagery greeted me in my e-mail box, courtesy of our good friends at Borders. If you too are on the Borders mailing list, surely you got the same thing. 9/11 is commemorated on the Borders weekly "Shortlist". Niiiiiiice...and in comic book--ahem, sorry..."graphic novel" form, no less: The 9/11 Report - A Graphic Adaptation.

According to the Boredoms listing:

Using every skill and storytelling method Jacobson and Colón have learned over the decades, they have produced the most accessible [easy to read and lots of colorful] pictures version of the 9/11 Report. Jacobson's text frequently [i.e. only sometimes] follows word for word the original report, faithfully captures its investigative thoroughness [in cartoon fashion], and covers its entire scope [as only panels can deliver], even including the Commission's final report card [which was a C- by the way]. Colón's stunning artwork powerfully conveys the facts, insights, and urgency of the original [keep an eye out for Waldo]. Published on the fifth anniversary [for maximum effect] of the terrorist attacks on the United States, an event that has left no aspect of American foreign or domestic policy untouched [by manipulative hands], The 9/11 Report puts at every American's fingertips [wash hands before reading!] the most defining event of the century [the season finale of American Idol aside].

Oh man...I know I'm being brutal here, but when you put yourself out there (much like I'm doing right now)...

About the Author: Sid Jacobson was the managing editor and editor in chief for Harvey Comics, where he created Richie Rich, and executive editor at Marvel Comics.

The artist, Ernie Colón, has worked at Harvey, Marvel, and DC Comics. At DC, he oversaw the production of Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, Blackhawk, and the Flash; at Marvel, Spider-Man.

So let me get this straight - 9/11 is being brought to me by the guys who gave depth to Richie Rich and Diana Prince?

What might Borders offer (at a discount) next week I wonder? Perhaps a Desert Storm Little Golden Book? Or maybe a JonBenet Ramsey Colorforms Gift Set? How about a Lynndie England Choose Your Own Adventure novel?

If you got the same e-mail as I, then you also know the comic book wasn't the only 9/11-related merchandise Borders was pimping...

...but I don't have the energy to give them further publicity.

Speaking of benchmarks...according to Blogger this was the Morgue's 100th entry. Thanks muchos for hanging in there, despite entries like this one.

Update! Read the apology for this piece by clicking here.

Wickered Obsession

Let’s cut to the obvious chase: Wicker Park looks like a really bad movie. The DVD cover is, like The Weather Man, yet another great example of bad marketing. The movie isn’t particularly sexy nor is it a thriller. It's dangerous from an emotional standpoint, but not in sexy or thrilling ways. (This leads me to believe that “In Touch Weekly” was either misquoted or they’re out of touch.)

Wicker Park isn’t a bad movie, but it appears toxic by default. It does, after all, star Josh Hartnett, and his presence is by no means a guarantee of quality (although his track record is fairly sound all things considered). It co-stars Matthew Lillard (Shaggy from the Scooby Doo “movies”), an actor whom I used to consider toxic. I’ve chilled on that opinion, maybe even due to he of all things Shagadelic – it cannot be a simple task to so perfectly recreate a cartoon character in the flesh, especially when the material so blatantly sucks (then again…what can one expect from movies based on a mumbling, talking dog?).

Wicker Park was released almost exactly two years ago, during the dreaded early-September timeframe when there's a lot of crap at the cinema (go check your current movie listings). I saw it when I was doing radio movie reviews, and the pickins were slim (the only other choice that Friday was the Mel Gibson-produced Paparazzi). Aside from bad marketing, Wicker Park’s got a few other things in common with The Weather Man:

1) It takes place in Chicago and is mostly set during winter.
2) One of its stars, Diane Kruger, was in National Treasure with Nic Cage.
3) Like The Weather Man, Wicker Park also has nothing to do with Cage’s most recent film, The Wicker Man.

Ok, so it’s got more in common with my Weather Man review than The Weather Man itself…six degrees is feeling mighty chilly, isn’t it? Forgive the obvious padding: Wicker Park is all about the surprise twists and going into too much detail wouldn't give you as much reason to check it out.

It's about obsession – not a stunningly original concept…but again, go back to the Weather Man review and check out the Roger Ebert quote about halfway down. Wicker Park succeeds in that it completely avoids the standard clichéd trappings of violent repercussions stemming from obsession. Nor does it ever threaten violence, which when dealing with the concept, is something of a rarity (the trailer even sold it as a Single White Female/Fatal Attraction type of film, which it isn't).

Hartnett, who sometimes looks like a young Anthony Perkins, plays Matthew, a successful businessman, who - - - wait a minute…allow me to go somewhere else, as this could get revealing. I cannot know whether Morgue readers have ever felt intense obsession for another - I have, and a couple different times, too. I've never gotten violent with anyone, although it may have appeared I was on the verge…that Scorpio intensity is a helluva thing. When my ex and I parted ways years ago, the emotions I displayed at the time could easily have been viewed as obsessive, and indeed, they probably were. I did some stalking, made dozens of painfully pathetic phone calls, wrote letter after letter - I put more pen to paper with thoughts of the relationship than I'd ever done in the collective years prior. I thought of her just now because she had an Anthony Perkins obsession (ahem…"fixation" - clearly I am not one to judge).

Obsession is both an ugly and a beautiful thing: Ugly to the obsessee, but beautiful to the obsessor. When you’re smack in the middle of it - despite all logic and reason - what you’re doing is the only thing that makes any sense. You pour so much passion and thought into it that you can’t see any other way to go about things. It’s only years later that you look back and think, “Now who was that sick fuck, again? ‘Cause I don’t see him/her today.” Yet existing in that state makes you feel so damn alive, and an obsessive is a hell of lot more interesting to observe than a passive. (After all, that's why you visit the Morgue, right?)

There are two different types of obsessions displayed in Wicker Park, and I was down with 'em both. They’re obsessions I understand – and wager others would, too, because they don’t require resorting to boiling rabbits and wielding cutlery for fulfillment. Somewhere around the halfway mark, due to Rose Byrne, Wicker Park seduced me. She’s an actress of whom I was unaware at the time, but these days keep an eye out for. Her character, Alex, is the fourth and most pivotal. Because she was unknown to me (and probably still is to most) her casting was ideal, as the story requires that Alex exist on its fringe. She has a scene near the end that’s crucial to emotionally bringing the entire affair together in one fell swoop. If you’ve ever experienced obsession as I have, you’ll understand Alex in a way that makes you love her more than the other three characters. Hartnett's Matthew understands her, too - and as well he should.

For a period of time after seeing Wicker Park, I became obsessed with Rose Byrne herself. And brave readers will now fill the talkback with their own sordid, pathetic tales of obsession.

FYI: Wicker Park is a remake of the 1996 French film The Apartment, a movie I haven't seen, but wish I had...because '96 is coincidentally the very year I went all psycho-obsessive. The Apartment has nothing to do with the Billy Wilder film of the same name, Nicolas Cage or The Wicker Man.

Weather You Like Him or Not

Since last night, we’ve been having some unexpected weather shifts here in S.A. - nice rain last night & today and the temp is dropping this week as well. I say unexpected because summer typically (painfully?) runs throughout the month of September in South Texas. In general, it might as well still be August when the calendar switches months…a fact making this week pretty sweet.

This probably has nothing to do with The Weather Man, but it seemed like a mildly appropriate intro regardless. I bothered to see the movie twice during its theatrical run (something of an anomaly for this type of film whereas I’m concerned) and I finally picked it up on DVD this weekend and gave it a third spin.

Nicolas Cage is as frustrating an actor to follow as any working today. Sometimes he guides us to glorious places we didn’t know he was capable of (Adaptation); sometimes we go places with him that weren’t worth the journey (National Treasure); and sometimes he leaves us wondering why we were taken there in the first place (Matchstick Men). The Weather Man - depending on your tastes - could be any of the above three… but for me it squarely falls into Adaptation territory.

The film was wildly mismarketed upon its theatrical release; to imply that I’d have known how to market it successfully would be just as off. Sometimes the inability for studios to market their fare is actually the sign of a good movie and the best films are difficult to sum up in a 2 and a half-minute trailer. That cannot be truer than in the case of The Weather Man (which, by the way, has nothing to do with Cage’s latest movie, The Wicker Man).

Cage plays David Spritz, a Chicago weatherman…but not a meteorologist. He’s begrudgingly separated from his wife Noreen (Hope Davis), has two kids, 12-year old Shelly (Gemmenne de la Peña) and 15-year old Mike (Nicholas Hoult) and a Pulitzer Prize-winning father, Robert (Michael Caine), who’s dying of lymphoma with only a few months to live. Because of all the above factors, Dave’s life is in a bizarre state of flux. It’d be too easy to label what he’s going through a mid-life crisis. Maybe it’s more of a painful mid-life awakening?

He wants to be seen as a success by his father. When someone throws a Wendy’s Frosty at Dave, Robert quizzically wonders why this would happen and states, “But David…you just read the weather.” He wants to be seen by Noreen as someone with whom things need to be worked out, never minding that she’s already got a new boyfriend and already seems much happier. We’re shown two very different flashbacks to their past. In one, Dave fails the simplest of Noreen’s requests: “Don’t forget the tartar sauce!” In the other, he fails the simplest of trust exercises in couple's therapy by reading words of Noreen’s that he was told not to. He also wants to be seen by his kids as a hero, due mostly to his feelings about Robert and Noreen.

And Dave spends most of the film trying to breach the numerous gaps, whilst also trying to secure a million dollar a year job in New York on “Hello America with Bryant Gumbel”. The movie, undeniably a cohesive work, consists of a weave of moments of aching heartbreak and gut busting hilarity (<------ Sounds like I wanna be quoted on the one-sheet, doesn't it?). The bits and pieces add up to form a bigger idea. The idea itself isn't always original, but the moments certainly are. As Roger Ebert says, "It's not what a movie's about, but how it's about it".

The Frosty is only one of numerous foods thrown at Dave Spritz. In a moment of clarity, after totaling the items flung his way, Dave realizes that it’s always fast food. He ponders, “Food that people would rather throw away than eat…that’s what I am - fast food”. Indeed, The Weather Man is fast food, only it’s been put through a blender and turned into something more appetizing. There are recognizable brand names like Arby’s and McDonald’s littered throughout the film, but never in a way that adds up to what we’d normally think of as product placement; you certainly don’t come away from it wanting to head to McDonald's for a Hot Apple Pie. There’s stuff going on here that doesn’t belong in a studio movie like this, and maybe that’s a big reason why it's so easy to adore.

Gore Verbinski directed it after the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie, but before tackling the other two. If Verbinski’s got the clout to make this kind of stuff in between the big moneymaking bonanzas, then more power to him. It’s a trend he should continue. If he was able to pull this off after Pirates, I can only imagine the sort of big budget subversive fare he could unleash after the success of Dead Man’s Chest (at the time of writing, the film is closing in on a billion dollar worldwide take). His direction is spot on, but a huge part of the film's success is also due to Steve Conrad's pitch perfect script.

In addition to Cage’s flawless performance, also noteworthy is Caine’s Robert. We’re supposed to see him through Dave’s eyes as a cold man, but often we see him through our own, and he isn’t always as Dave sees him - and we begin hoping Dave sees those parts before Robert dies.

The most surprising performance, however, comes from Gemmenne de la Peña, an actress whom I predict much greatness from in the future. After Cage, she probably has the most screen time and most of it’s with Cage. They pull off a touching, funny and sometimes even dark father/daughter double act - a huge part of which is rooted in the phrase “cameltoe”, a name Shelly’s often called at school, but doesn’t seem to understand why. When David finally confronts her on the issue, her explanation is so weirdly heartwarming you almost hate yourself for having spent so much time laughing at the ongoing gag.

Coming Soon - Little Children

Even if my friend Jackie wasn't one of the stars of the upcoming Todd Field film Little Children, I'm pretty sure I'd still be excited about it; the fact that he is makes the anticipation twice as nice. Field directed the superb In the Bedroom a few years back and Kubrick-heads will remember his turn in Eyes Wide Shut as Nick Nightingale (whom I believe is now back home banging Mrs. Nick).

What I presume to be the teaser trailer is here on YouTube, or you can check it out here on the movie's official site. The site is a weirdly haunting and yet simplistic experience. It's refreshing to wade through a film site without battling pop-ups and the loads of other crap with which studios tend to burden these sorts of advertisements. Both the site and trailer tell nothing about the movie...and yet they also seem to say plenty.

Lastly, and the item that spurred this quick entry, is this review from David Poland. Can the movie be this good? Please tell me it can and will be.

TV on DVD - What's the Best???

Updated!

The Onion A.V. Club recently named what they considered to be THE prime cuts of TV on DVD by singling out the best seasons of given shows available. Granted, this sort of stuff is all about the opinion, but I was a bit flabbergasted by some of their choices. I was less annoyed by their omissions mostly because I'm aware that my fixations are rarely in line with what "normal" people would choose.

For starters - and the choice with which I took greatest issue - was The Shield: Season Three. What!?!? I consider myself a Shield devotee, although I admittedly missed Season Five (which the A.V. Club - as well as many I know - says just freakin' rocks). But even taking that out of the equation, how the hell did they come up with Season Three as the pinnacle? It was easily the weakest, sprawling, aimless season of the series. Call me a traditionalist, but Season One still ranks as the show's high point, with even Season Two coming in at a close second (heck, even Season Four - the Glenn Close season - was superior if only for going in unexpected directions). Don't get me wrong...Season Three's got some great moments - most notably the madness Aceveda's forced to endure - but somewhere around the time Dutchboy strangled a cat just to see what it was like to kill something, I realized the show had lost some focus.

Edward Copeland often champions The Sopranos: Season Three and the A.V. Club seconds his motion. I dove into The Sopranos head on by viewing the first three seasons of Tony's antics back to back on DVD. By the time I hit Season Three, maybe I'd grown weary. My feeling at the time was that as a whole it wasn't as good as the first two, despite some great moments such as Melfi's rape (which the A.V. Club does indeed single out) as well as the classic "Pine Barrens" episode in which Christopher and Paulie get lost in the woods . Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. I'd need to sit down and devour the whole damn epic over again to know for certain. The A.V. Club does give props to Season One as a runner-up. I still feel as if I'm one of a handful of people totally digging on recent Sopranos. Season Five was so deceptively great that I didn't even realize how good it was 'til it was over. The recently screened first half of Season Six rocked my world if only because it dished up slices of The Sopranos we probably never expected or even wanted to see. Much of my opinion of the series is likely due to me not being a die-hard fan...for me it's mostly a series of "the moment". To be sure, Season Four must be the weakest of the lot.

Arrested Development: Season Two. I do adore AD, and again, I've not yet seen Season Three. I've viewed both of the previous seasons on DVD and intend to do the same with the third, which hits DVD this Tuesday. But between the first two, Season One comes up the tighter. In all fairness to those wacky Onion folk, they do single out "Good Grief!" as S2's highpoint - which it was. Who in a certain age bracket is not instantly swayed by the music of Vince Guaraldi? (Ahem...Chuck?)

M*A*S*H: Season Nine. Um, M*A*S*H without Henry Blake, Trapper John, Frank Burns and Klinger in a dress isn't my M*A*S*H. The only thing that makes latter M*A*S*H watchable is David Ogden Stiers. That is all.

The rest of the A.V. Club's choices are mostly series of which I've not seen nearly enough to comment on. Once upon a time I was an X-Files nut, but that dimmed somewhere around the middle of S2 when the series suddenly became this pop culture phenom and I stopped watching. Maybe S3 is the best, I don't know. Never even seen a single episode of NewsRadio or The Gilmore Girls. I am curious...any classic Trek fans out there? Is S2 better than S1? I've wanted to buy one of the TOS boxes for some time, and had been veering toward S1...but if S2 is the better of two, I'd like to know.

"So Mr. High and Mighty Morgue...what are your picks?" ...I thought you'd never ask...

First and foremost, Nip/Tuck: Season Two. I gushed about it only last week and won't do so again...but just this past Saturday I indulged in a five episode marathon from the middle of S2, and I knew as I addictively kept spinning discs that I could stand by those words. I love Nip/Tuck so much that, even though I didn't like it, I still want the Season Three DVD set (which, alongside Arrested Development: Season Three, hits shelves on Tuesday) . That's some sick fanboy devotion, yes it is.

Farscape: Season Three. There are a few Morgue attendants to whom this choice will come as no surprise. I love Farscape, but in particular I worship its third season. It's a near perfect, almost self-contained science fiction epic (each episode is like a chapter in a book) that hits so many action peaks and emotional valleys that it's something of a shame the series didn't just end with episode 3.22, "A Dog with Two Bones". The cast, the writers, the directors, the effects artists, the set designers - everyone involved with the creation of Farscape - were at the top of their game. Unfortunately, ADV Films, which releases Farscape on DVD, charges a whopping $150 retail for the Season Three set! Fortunately, ADV recently began releasing these mini-sets called "Starburst Editions", which actually contain numerous extras not present on the original releases. Purchase the three separate Collections of "Farscape: Starburst Edition Season 3", which retail for $24.95 apiece, and you get the whole season for half the boxset price. (Everything written above applies to the other three seasons as well, although ADV is still in the process of releasing the Season Four sets.)

Update! RE: Farscape Starburst Editions. Anyone who owns or is considering purchasing the Starburst sets should read this news from TV Shows on DVD.

Doctor Who: The Complete First Series. The remake, the reimagining, the continuation...whatever you wanna call it - this, alongside Battlestar Galactica: Season One, is essential new millenium sci-fi.

Aside from Star Trek, conspicuously absent from the Onion list were older TV series, which leads me to...

Soap: Season One. All four seasons of Soap are now on DVD, and with each successive purchase, I've felt less and less enthused. But Season One remains a classic sitcom comedy goldmine. If you're a fan of Arrested Development, you owe it to yourself to at least check out the first season of the series which likely inspired it. It ends on a cliffhanger, so you'll likely be drawn to Season Two...but take it from me - just stop before moving on to Season Three, OK?

Land of the Lost: Season One. The low-budget Saturday morning adventures of Marshall, Will & Holly - trapped in a dimension of dinosaurs, Pakuni and Sleestak - aren't for everyone...but if you're somewhere between 32ish and 40, this is a major blast from your '70s past that won't disappoint.

Twin Peaks: Season One. Technically it's incomplete as it doesn't contain the 90-minute Pilot Movie...and sure, it's only seven episodes long. These factors matter not. The first season, abbreviated though it may be, is one of, if not THE highlight of TV history (rivaled only by The Prisoner). And the "Previously On" tagged onto Episode One does a decent enough job of recapping so that you can easily immerse yourself into the material presented. If you're lost, you're weak and have no imagination. Supposedly Season Two will hit DVD later this year (maybe even with the Pilot). Who knows? Who cares? Season One is the shit.

Jeez...I could list half a dozen more, but I won't. At this point, I'm mostly interested in your picks. Abduct the comments section...please...

Rued Recommendations

Drop into Scanners and check out Jim Emerson's outstanding piece entitled "The Death of Film Criticism has been Greatly Exaggerated (Part One)". It's not only thought-provoking, but wittier than a sack of hungry ferrets. Assuming Part One feeds yer gerbil, go ahead and ingest "Nobody Knows Criticism (Part Two)".

Matt Zoller Seitz wants people to know about his indie film Home, which is now available on DVD. Come to think of it - having seen the film myself - so do I, which is why I'm posting the link.

Many are anticipating the release of Brian DePalma's The Black Dahlia, and Dennis Cozzalio's amassing some DePalma love over at Sergio Leone, including a piece on Mission to Mars by That Little Round-Headed Boy. DePalma's never been a big favorite of mine, but the older I get and the more opinions I read, the more I fear I'm just simply wrong.

The mighty Rick Reynolds has upped the Happiness ante by vowing to post weekly video podcasts every Monday in lieu of wordy words. Yay for the YouTube generation! The first two episodes, Bubzac & Meditate on This, can be downloaded directly onto your harddrive, viewed on YouTube, or subscribed to via iTunes (Rick really wants to make this easy for you). All options prove you can indeed get something for nothing in this life. Pertinent info is provided at The Church of Rick (currently masquerading as The Happiness Project).

Check out Jeanne's review of The Ron Clark Story, starring Matthew Perry, which recently played on TNT. It gets another play this Saturday at 11 PM (CST). Between Perry's performance in this flick and his upcoming regular role on Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, I gotta give credit due when it's due: this guy - whom I used to loathe - has reinvented himself into someone I actually enjoy watching.

And for those of you who just want to look at pictures, check out the latest from my good friend Koda.

The Doctors are In

Season Four of FX’s melodramatic black comedy Nip/Tuck begins on Sept. 5th. Disappointed with Season Three, and specifically by the finale, which included the revelation of the identity of the infamous Carver? Long-term disciples of the antics of Doctors McNamara & Troy (Dylan Walsh & Julian McMahon) felt betrayed, violated and used. We were all Ryan Murphy’s surgical tools, were we not? And yet we anxiously await S4, right? Of course we do. However drastically Nip/Tuck may have derailed, we'll give it another chance…as well we should.

Prior to the S3 train wreck, Murphy and Co. delivered two stellar seasons of some of the best high-concept television seen in years (and given the high quality of a lot of TV these days, that's saying something). When Nip/Tuck is “on”, nothing else is even remotely as satisfying. Not The Sopranos, not the recently laid-to-rest Six Feet Under – heck, not even the other Doctor who I gush about (no, not House).

Season One laid an ideal foundation which Season Two proceeded to bust into chunks by pulling everything and everyone apart, fracturing an already imperfect “family” into half a dozen splintered pieces. It’s not with any exaggeration that I say S2 of Nip/Tuck is one of the most slickly scripted, acted and filmed seasons of any TV show, ever. It was in fact so faultless that the S3 dip in quality was largely unsurprising. Even before it started, it was difficult to fathom that S2 could be topped, and certainly not by the season following it. Although it behooved the creators to give it a whirl, let’s face it: A show as edgy and daring as Nip/Tuck was destined to misfire sooner or later.

Like most viewers, I got sucked into the “Who’s the Carver?” zeitgeist – much of which was due to the expert seeding of the affair in the latter half of S2. Indeed, part of the fizzling of the storyline was due to it presiding over nearly half of the series. It built up to a “Who Shot J.R.?” level of suspense[1] . (Mildly noteworthy, though presumably unrelated, is Larry Hagman’s upcoming recurring presence.) The production team can’t really be blamed for riding the Carver gravy train and last year's finale delivered not only Nip/Tuck’s, but also FX’s biggest ratings ever with 5.7 million viewers. So while dramatically it may not have been sound, from a business standpoint someone had the right idea. Suffering through the Carver nonsense may have been painful, but it probably guaranteed us a few more years of the series.

I’ve not yet revisited S3, although I’ve gone back and viewed the last 30 or so minutes of the finale several times. It would be uncool to reveal the Carver’s identity to anyone who hasn’t seen it (so I won't), however I would like to posit a theory: S3 may very well work better if you know who the Carver is going into it. You’ll be spared the maddening moments of the finale in which you’re beating yourself up for spending too much time and thought on theories involving everyone but the obvious. Mind you, this theory doesn’t include S2's Carver buildup – that stuff works great not knowing a damn thing. But if you’re viewing Nip/Tuck on DVD, consider possibly spoiling yourself before spinning S3.

Some of Nip/Tuck’s strengths:

1) How rapidly it unfolds. What the show accomplishes in a single episode takes most series three installments to unveil; while a Nip/Tuck season may only be 13 episodes, by the time it ends it feels as if you’ve experienced 22.

2) What they’re able to get away with. For a series with commercial backing, it pushes more boundaries than anything on either HBO or Showtime. There’s something to be said for having just a few restrictions to work around and it makes for a creative atmosphere; you don’t always have to "see" a pair of tits to see a pair of tits. I often lovingly refer to it as “the most amoral show on TV”. [Note to the Parents Television Council: Just give up, OK? Or better yet…don’t. You folks give this show more publicity than FX can afford to.]

3) Murphy’s apparent ongoing mission to give jobs to actors whom nobody else seems to know what to do with. Joan Rivers, Alec Baldwin, Anne Heche, Jill Clayburgh, Kathy Baker, Julie Warner, Brittany Snow, Patti D’Arbanville, Geoffrey Lewis, J. E. Freeman & Brian Kerwin are just some of the familiar faces who’ve benefited from Murphy’s eye for utilizing underused talent. S4 looks to be taking the famous guest shots even further; in addition to Hagman, Catherine Deneuve, Richard Chamberlain, Melissa Gilbert, Kathleen Turner and Brooke Shields are only some of the names that you can - yet wouldn't - expect to see.

4) The plastic surgeries - as outrageous as they may often appear - are based at least in part on real-life cases.

5) Engaging storytelling and compelling characters, both of which keep you coming back week after week. Much of what makes the show work is rooted in a “What can they possibly do next?” mentality. It’s easy to focus on the frequent unpredictability of McMahon’s Dr. Troy, but the rest of the characters are just as wildly difficult to decipher. When a main character not named Troy fucks a RealDoll on the floor, one can safely say we’ve ventured far outside the boundaries of “been there, done that”.

[1] I vividly recall the J.R. phenom from back in the day, but I’ve got no memory whatsoever of the public’s reaction to the Kristin Shepard reveal, something I can only attribute to it being perceived of as anticlimactic...and perhaps in these cases, isn’t it always? [Note to Ryan Murphy – once you’re done with Hagman, consider looking up Mary Crosby for a guest shot.]

The Absent-Minded Waiter

Classic short film starring Steve Martin, Buck Henry & Teri Garr.

Steel Yourself

Hot on the heels of Walter Becker & Donald Fagen's open letter to Luke Wilson, which was actually all about his brother Owen, comes a brand new open letter from those wacky Steely Dan guys.

This time around those zany nutjobs are appealing to writer/director Wes Anderson. They seem to think they can assist him in moving to a higher creative plane.

It's interesting to see Becker & Fagen so openly embracing the Internets, and using all both of them to speak to the world. These letters are pretty entertaining, and they clearly put much thought into them. Other than that, I'm rather perplexed by all of this. Maybe someone who is a bigger Steely Dan fan than I (I've got three or four of their CDs - Aja was always my favorite), can explain to me what all of this is about.

Personally, I'd like to see an open letter from Steely Dan to Mel Gibson, but maybe that's asking too much. Even better, the Dan need to start doing this regularly. They're one of those bands who, over the years, have proven that they've still "got it", so maybe they've earned the artistic right to say whatever the hell they wanna say.

Five Discussions for the Day

1. Snakes on a Plane opens this week. How might the word "finally" apply to its release? Discuss.

2. If you witnessed Boy George cleaning up garbage and had the opportunity to say something to him, what would you say? Discuss.

3. Meatloaf is dying to play a Doctor Who villain. Discuss.

4. There are an insane amount of TV series that have been released on DVD. The Love Boat is not one of them. Discuss.

5. Cole slaw. Is it still relevant? Discuss.

A Steve Balderson Tragedy

How often do you visit the Morgue and find me trashing a movie? Almost never. Even rarer is the spectacle of me trashing an independent film. Indie films already have so much working against them it’s miraculous they even get made in the first place, which earns my automatic respect.

So it pains me to trash Steve Balderson’s Firecracker, a movie I saw at the Dobie in Austin last November, that’s now available on DVD. 20 minutes into Firecracker I came to a realization: Nothing that happens throughout the rest of this is going to get me to like it. Take that as you will throughout the remainder of this critique. The film lost me at hello.

On the other hand, this piece required far more effort than simply saying “It was a bad movie” and forgetting about it altogether. Perhaps my words are testament to Balderson’s work and maybe someday, in a particularly self-destructive mood, I’ll revisit Firecracker and see it in a different, more positive light. Roger Ebert gave it a whopping 3 & ½ stars, which I can only attribute to the notion that he was drunk, high or asleep as he viewed it (I wish I'd been any of the three during my viewing).

I appreciate deviations from the norm, and certainly that cannot be truer than in the realm of film where so much of the same is frequently displayed. There’s no question Firecracker deviates from the norm…unless you consider David Lynch films the norm, as do I. If so, you’ve already seen Firecracker in the various norms of Blue Velvet, The Elephant Man, Lost Highway, Twin Peaks, etc. I’m uncomfortable using a phrase like “rip-off” and yet it’s equally difficult to use the word “homage”. Firecracker bears heavy relation to Lynch’s ongoing oeuvre. It does not appear to contain anything original or anything that belongs to itself.

RE: Ebert’s review (click here to read it). Roger dislikes the bulk of Lynch’s work and I can’t reconcile his distaste for David with his praise of Firecracker. I love Ebert. I love Lynch. (Reconcile that, Ruediger!) Ebert’s portrait of the film is the movie I wanted to see but didn’t. Stranger still is the massive amount of positive press the film has received from other critics; Balderson is a salesman worthy of Dobbs himself.

If I met Balderson - without having any knowledge of his film - I’d likely get along with the guy like a house on fire. We’d have oodles of topics to geek out over together. After seeing Firecracker, however, this imagined meeting would consist of me squirming with unease, and Balderson wondering why I’ve got ants in my pants. No decent person I know enjoys telling a filmmaker face-to-face that their film sucked.

Firecracker tries to tell two intertwined stories.

The first involves a dysfunctional family: Mother Eleanor (Karen Black), eldest son David (Mike Patton, of Faith No More fame), younger son Jimmy (Jak Kendall) and a father whose name either wasn’t mentioned or I didn’t pick up on. The actor who plays him has a thankless role, as all he's required to do is be old and oblivious (sorta like the dad on Strangers with Candy but with slightly more movement). Eleanor meekly attempts to keep her boys from squabbling with a ho-hum, predictably Midwestern “the less said, maybe it’ll just go away” attitude. David is a world-class, violent asshole prick. Jimmy is a sensitive wannabe pianist. David doesn’t appreciate Jimmy...come to think of it neither did I, but more on that later.

The second story involves a traveling carnival and the freaks who inhabit it. The Enigma plays a key role, which comes across as pedantic as it reads. The show's main attraction is Sandra, a damaged singer (also played by Black). In charge of the weirdness is Frank, a nasty carnival barker (also played by Patton), who dresses like P.T. Barnum, but not on acid. So two of the four main characters are played by the same actors, which given the material isn’t intrinsically a terrible idea.

The storylines converge when both David & Jimmy develop very different obsessions with Sandra and the obsessions come to a head about 30 minutes into the picture. In all fairness I will not reveal precisely what happens.

There is a murder. There is an investigation. There is heartbreak. There is pain. There is betrayal. There is faith (no more?). None of these concepts are portrayed even remotely effectively as the picture languidly wants to hum along.

There are precisely three great performances in Firecracker...

1) Susan Traylor’s Ed, the cop investigating the murder. She is sexy without needing to be and true to the material without trying to be. If there’s any glue holding Firecracker together it’s Susan Traylor and she’s one of the few that darts between the two storylines. What’s unfortunate is the role requires her to show no emotion, thus giving the viewer no real hook. Ed is present only to investigate and in some ways is a narrator of sorts, but it isn’t a role a story like this can be built around (unlike Dale Cooper of Twin Peaks). Hope that Traylor gets plenty of work out of this. She’s an actress of whom we need to see more.

2) Mike Patton’s David. As atrociously horrendous as Patton’s performance as Frank is, he’s a godsend as David. Think Keanu Reeves in The Gift and you sorta get the idea.

3) Kathleen Wilhoite. You may not know her by name, but you’ve seen her in a dozen different things. Her screen time amounts to no more than five minutes, but she somehow grasps that the entire execution of Firecracker is laughable, and she’s inexplicably allowed to play it as such. Her big scene is with Traylor, so it perhaps goes without saying that it was the only scene that worked for me.

Indeed, the only possible redemption to be found in Firecracker is exemplified by Wilhoite’s performance. If the film is intended to be a black comedy, then maybe it’s brilliant. But the audience I saw it with viewed it as a serious drama, and I stifled guffaws on more than two handfuls of occasions so as not to potentially offend anyone around me.

The bad performances are countless - so countless that I will not count them. I will, however, single one out: Jak Kendall’s Jimmy. Jimmy should be the audience identification figure. He’s front and center for most of the film, and like Ed he’s one of the few that moves between the two storylines. But there’s absolutely nothing in his performance to make me give a toss about the kid. He seems doomed and I didn’t mind or care. I should’ve wanted the best for him as I did and do with Jeffrey Beaumont. He whines and pines and at one point an unspeakable act is committed against him and I didn't feel a drop of emotion.

Then there’s the matter of Karen Black. I LOVE old Karen Black movies...Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, The Day of the Locust, Nashville & Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean to name but a few. Unfortunately neither of her characters is incredible and neither is dire. Sadly I never once got past the fact that she was acting. She didn’t move me, and that’s precisely what both Eleanor and Sandra need to do in order to help this picture work.

David Lynch didn’t become “DAVID LYNCH” overnight. He did it over years of trying different things and applying varied techniques and both blossoming and failing as an artist. For every perfect Blue Velvet there’s a fractured Dune. For every triumph, there’s a misstep. One cannot ape Lynch’s canon via pressing "blend" and expect success. It simply doesn’t work that way. Nor can one hide behind the veil of “artistic integrity” and believe that whatever shit is flung at the wall will stick. As filmmakers, we need our iconic heroes for inspiration - but we do not need to be them.

There may be a great movie somewhere inside of Firecracker, but it wasn’t onscreen for me to see. I believe Steve Balderson could still have a great movie (or two or three) inside of him, but he needs to find his own voice. He needs to explore issues that matter to him, rather than rehash ideas that speak to him. His flair for the visual cannot be disputed, but it’s not enough to carry this concept.

It’s also possible that someone who’s never seen a David Lynch movie wouldn’t view it as I did and in fact may find it a work of originality and genius. Am I trying to tell people to avoid Firecracker? Not necessarily. If you are a wannabe filmmaker with grandiose, artsy aspirations, and you care to take my thoughts in context, this film could be invaluable. It’s a virtual “How-Not-To” of indie filmmaking; an exercise in excess that illustrates the great divide between a simplistic, flawed screenplay and an obnoxious, overwrought finished product.

Read my followup interview with Steve Balderson by clicking here!

Five Great Movies You May Not Have Seen…But Should

In the summertime, when the weather is hot
You can see a bunch of crap, or maybe not.

Have you become increasingly bored with what’s playing at your local cinema? Or maybe you’re dissatisfied with the New Release shelf at the video store? A Netflix subscription with an empty queue perhaps? With that in mind, here’s a subjective list of Five Great Movies You May Not Have Seen…But Should (in order of release, not greatness) – and they’re all available on DVD.

The Beguiled (1971) ‘71 was quite a year for Clint Eastwood. Play Misty for Me, his directorial debut, hit screens in November and a month later Harry Callaghan was unleashed for the first time. But that year also saw the release of one of the most unusual and lesser known flicks in Clint’s long career.

The Beguiled, set during the Civil War, introduces Corporal John McBurney (Eastwood), a wounded Union soldier who happens upon an all-girls school in the South headed by Martha Farnsworth (Geraldine Page). She decides rather than turn him over to Confederate forces, to take him in under the guise of recuperation.

One thing Farnsworth doesn’t count on is McBurney being as horny for female flesh as every woman & girl in the school is for the attentions of a man. It doesn’t take long for the recovering Corporal to make a series of escalating wrong moves and suddenly he’s not so coveted anymore. As despicable an anti-hero as Clint plays, you’ll eventually root for him over Page’s nasty bitch of a headmistress.

The Beguiled offers some truly bizarre, dream-like imagery and subtly intricate themes – including an incest angle – and its gobsmacking finale owes more to Edgar Allan Poe than Sergio Leone.

Fingers (1978) Of the films listed here, Fingers may be the only one that is not truly “great”, and yet this early performance by Harvey Keitel elevates it above and beyond the printed screenplay and solidified his ability to carry a film as a leading man.

He plays Jimmy Fingers, a man veering back and forth between two very different lives: an aspiring concert pianist and a thuggish collector of monies due for his ailing, faded mob boss father. Jimmy’s love of music emanates from respect for his deceased mother who also tickled the ivories; his mob ties, which he desperately desires to leave behind, exist only to honor his deluded father’s fantasy that he remains a force with which to be reckoned. Unfortunately for Jimmy, he makes a better Soprano than a Liberace.

Years before Reservoir Dogs, Bad Lieutenant and that other Piano movie, Keitel channeled themes and imagery from those future projects into Fingers. Great moments include a dual seduction/rape of a young Tanya Roberts, the pistol whipping of a pizzeria owner set to “Angel of the Morning”, and a proctology exam that manages yet another spin on the film’s title.

Speaking of The Sopranos, keep an eye out for a youngish Tony Sirico (Paulie Walnuts) as well as Dominic Chianese (Uncle Junior) as a piano mentor. By the way…a fun movie game called “Spot the Soprano” can be built around viewing mob flicks – just pick anything from The Godfather to the present.

Withnail & I (1987) Another movie game revolves around viewing this little gem. Dose on the poison of your choice every time a character onscreen imbibes. There’s a good chance you’ll pass out before the end credits roll. (This game is not recommended for first time viewers.)

Probably the most profound line ever written in regard to Withnail & I describes it as being "as deep as you want it to be or as shallow as you need it to be”. I don’t know who wrote that, but I cannot discuss the film without mentioning it.

Set in the final days of 1969, Withnail traces the antics of two out of work actors living in a filth-laden flat in London. To “escape all this hideousness”, they spend their time in booze and drug-addled hazes. With wits at an end, they head to the countryside for a weekend - never minding that they’re utterly ill equipped to deal with rural living. Aside from a surprise visit from Withnail’s Uncle Monty in the third act, those are the film’s major plot points.

In lieu of an actual plot, Withnail & I offers two stellar leads, the most infinitely quotable dialogue this side of The Big Lebowski, and a situation to which anyone who’s ever been in an insufferable friendship can relate. Richard E. Grant plays Withnail with a ferocious pomposity and Paul McGann breathes life into Marwood (the “I” of the title) as only the yin to Withnail’s yang could be played: quiet, reserved, thoughtful…and ready to explode in the possible moment where Withnail finally pushes him too far.

The film is simply one of the funniest, most perfect comedies ever made. In a time when Wedding Crashers is viewed by the masses as a comedic milestone, Withnail & I is a necessity. And it was executive produced by George Harrison…now go forward and “never attempt anything without the gloves”.

One True Thing (1998) Certainly Meryl Streep is one of the few actresses talented enough to play a woman dying of cancer and still manage to convince that she’s stronger in spirit and attitude than a healthy person could ever hope to be. Carl Franklin, a black man, directs One True Thing. Specific note of his race and sex was made only to illustrate that this may not be the chick flick it appears to be, or fare that can only be understood by the Middle Class white folk who inhabit the story. It isn’t even about a woman dying of cancer. What One True Thing is about, however, is the way we view the people closest to us, and how sometimes who we believe they are aren’t who they are at all.

Ellen Gulden (Renee Zellweger), a ruthless New York journalist, returns home for the holidays and learns her mother Kate (Streep) - whom she regards as a silly traditionalist – is dying. At the request of her writer/professor father George (William Hurt) – whom she blindly adores – Ellen begrudgingly agrees to stay and help care for Kate. George is too “busy” at the college and insists that Ellen put her burgeoning career on hold for the sake of the family. Over time, she learns her mother is not the naïve, vapid woman she’d always assumed, nor is her father the pillar of greatness that she’d always credited him.

Material that could fall under a “Movie of the Week” banner is elevated by an emotionally complex storyline and three incredible performances. Hurt delivers the unexpected, mostly because we’ve come to anticipate his deadpan delivery, but here it morphs into something fresh. Zellweger (post-Jerry Maguire, but pre-Bridget Jones) knocks it out of the ballpark as the film’s center, which is no mean feat when acting opposite a cancer-stricken Streep. And Meryl? Well, need her talents be sold to anyone?

Ravenous (1999) I’ve always wanted to meet the Fox exec who greenlit Ravenous - a period black comedy-horror-western about cannibalism, in which the main character, Capt. John Boyd (Guy Pearce), utters barely a word for the first 20 minutes. Something tells me this person no longer works at Fox…which is a shame, because Ravenous is the sort of risky fare studios fail to produce these days. Come to think of it, Ravenous was an anomaly back in ’99, too.

In the midst of the Mexican-American War, Boyd, having been branded a coward, is sent to Fort Spencer in the remote Sierra Nevadas, where quite literally nothing ever happens. That trend is bucked by the arrival of the mysterious Mr. Colqhoun (Robert Carlyle). Starving and near death, he tells a tale of survival involving Col. Ives – a member of his party who resorted to cannibalizing the rest of the expedition when the food ran out. Knowing much more about the film would spoil its manic twists and turns.

Ravenous is thematically a vampire movie in disguise, and its story echoes Louis and Lestat’s in Interview with the Vampire, only this is arguably a better film. One exceptional aspect is the collaborative score by composer Michael Nyman and indie pop maestro Damon Albarn (of Blur & Gorillaz fame - he even has a commentary track on the DVD!) It’s quirky yet majestic orchestral music that accentuates not only the western setting, but also the film’s wry sense of humor. The film is obviously not for all tastes, but if you’ve read this far and your interest is still piqued, it’s unlikely to disappoint.