Entangled on Sunset Boulevard

I’ve been meaning to rewatch Sunset Boulevard for literally years.  What with watching The Emperor’s New Groove recently (I’m convinced Yzma is based on Norma Desmond from Sunset Boulevard) and the beginning of Readers Imbibing Peril, now seemed like the time!

You see, Sunset Boulevard is very possibly the creepiest movie I’ve ever seen.  Not the scariest, not the most horrifying, but the creepiest–with all the old subtlety and art of the 1940s classics.  It’s not Hitchcock, but it feels like it could have been.

The movie opens with the main character, Joe (William Holden), floating dead in a swimming pool.  And that’s not the creepy part!  We immediately flash back in time, with Joe as the voice-over narrator.  We learn about his life as a struggling Hollywood writer, dreaming of success but unable to make his car payments.  By chance and circumstance, he meets Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson), star of the silent film era–and she has never forgotten it.  She’s obsessed with her own stardom, and adamantly refuses to believe that her time has passed.  She lives in an insanely-over-the-top mausoleum of a mansion, alone except for her butler, Max, who is equally unbalanced.  Norma draws Joe into her web, and try as he might, he cannot find his way out again…

To quote The Emperor’s New Groove, Norma is pretty much “scary beyond all reason.”  Unlike Yzma, she’s not actually an unattractive woman–but she has these crazy eyes and dramatic hand movements and wildly creepy smile.  And she is SO emotional and SO desperately clinging to her past–and, as the movie goes on, to Joe.  It would be easy to write off Norma as simply insane, but the movie gives us little moments of sympathy and insight for her.  It’s not a movie about a madwoman–it’s a movie about a woman driven mad by fame, and the need to always be the perfect star she was on the screen.

At one point Joe’s narration remarks, “You know, a dozen press agents working overtime can do terrible things to the human spirit.”  I don’t think he means that negative press destroyed Norma.  I think he means the positive press.  The legend, the star persona, simply became overwhelming.  It’s a message that’s still immensely relevant; glance at the entertainment magazines some time for star after star self-destructing in magnificent ways.

Even though he narrates, I have less to say about Joe’s character.  He strikes me as essentially an Everyman, one with enough insight to tell us about the far more complicated Norma.  He does have his own story about failing to achieve Hollywood success, but I feel like the movie is really less about him than it is about how he gets caught by Norma.

I mentioned the subtlety of old movies–and the creepiness of this one.  There are some, shall we say, less subtle creepy elements.  Near the beginning, Norma is holding a funeral for her pet monkey, and Max the butler occasionally bangs away on an old pipe organ.  However, I found that what really gives the movie its creepiness is the more subtle things.  It’s Norma’s crazy eyes, or her huge empty house, overflowing with pictures of herself.

One of my favorite moments is so tiny and so quick that if you blink, you could miss it.  At one point, Joe tries to leave Norma’s house and escape back into the larger world.  As he goes out the front door, his watch chain catches on the handle, and he has to stop to untangle it.  And sure enough, Norma draws him back again…

I mentioned that the movie opens with Joe floating dead in a pool, which certainly seems like the most spoilerific of openings.  And yet, even though I know that’s how this ends–even when I’ve seen the movie before–somehow it draws me in so much moment by moment that I can’t really remember that that’s where it must be going.  I know it intellectually, but I can’t feel it.

Believe it or not, Andrew Lloyd Webber made a musical version of Sunset Boulevard (but then, I don’t know how anyone would read Leroux’s Phantom and think of doing a musical).  I’m desperately curious, mostly because of the song “As If We Never Said Goodbye.”  It makes me suspect there’s an even more sympathetic portrayal of Norma, and I really wonder how it’s handled–but alas, no filmed version, and I don’t know of anywhere it’s playing…

Until I can track down the musical, I’ll just have to recommend the movie to you–for all its subtle underplays and clever creepiness.  Norma, in her own cracked way, insists a few times that dialogue was unnecessary in the silent films because they expressed everything with their faces.  The funny thing is, she’s kind of right–most of this movie is expressed in the eyes.  Though there are some wonderful lines of dialogue too.  For instance, when Joe remarks that she used to be big, she fires back, “I AM big.  It’s the pictures that got small.”

Then, of course, there’s the famous last line…  “All right, Mr. DeMille–I’m ready for my close-up.”  And oh, how wonderfully terrifying it is, as she looks deep into the eyes of “those wonderful people out there in the dark.”

Other reviews:
The Ace Black Blog
Derek Winnert
Blogcritics
Anyone else?

Buy it here: Sunset Boulevard

Feel the Power…and Beware the Groove

I recently re-watched an old favorite Disney cartoon that I thought would be fun to share: The Emperor’s New Groove, a wildly funny and absurd romp of a movie.

Emperor Kuzco devotes himself constantly to fulfilling his own every whim, with utter disregard for anyone around him.  One of his whims includes a new summer home (“My birthday present to me!”).  This is bad news for Pacha, whose ancestral village will have to be destroyed to make way for the Emperor’s new indulgence.  Kuzco makes a serious tactical error, however, when he decides to fire Royal Advisor Yzma.  She vows to kill him and, with the inept help of side-kick Kronk, accidentally turns him into a llama instead.  Forced to rely on Pacha for help, Kuzco has to find, well…a new groove.

The plot is absurd enough, but what really makes this movie fun are the wonderful characters and the hilarious dialogue.  Yzma is a seriously cracked villain, and so very funny in her wild speeches, hideous costumes and insane melodrama.  Check out this scene here as she plots destruction; it’s pretty much all quotable.  Trust me, I know this from experience. 🙂  I’m also convinced that Yzma is based on Norma Desmond from Sunset Boulevard.  Unfortunately, no one I know has seen Sunset Boulevard, so I can’t get a second opinion on that!

Kronk is a wonderful sidekick with a big heart, really big shoulders, and not enough brainpower to be evil.  He loves small furry animals and cooking, has a Shoulder-Angel and a Shoulder-Devil who confuse him, and he’s been known to formulate his own soundtrack.

Pacha is pretty much the nicest guy ever, with a really awesome family.  His wife, Chicha, is one of my favorite Disney women.  She’s smart, she’s capable, and she’s definitely the fiercer of the two in this partnership–while wearing a dress and taking care of her two kids–and did I mention she’s pregnant?  How often do you see a pregnant animated character?  Or, for that matter, a happily married Disney couple?  I love that Chicha is not a princess, or an action hero, or a fairy.  She’s just a really great, normal woman.  We need more of them in movies.

Kuzco is our narrator through the movie, and he’s goes on a believable arc of self-growth.  I particularly like the moment when narrator-Kuzco argues with in-the-action-Kuzco.  It’s an important turning point.  It’s not much of a spoiler to say that Kuzco grows from hilariously self-centered to a much more likable guy.

So we have fun characters, there are llama jokes, there’s also a very entertaining chattering squirrel…and there’s a nice message about consideration for others.  Though mostly the movie is about the funny lines.  This is definitely one of those movies where I’m going to wind up by saying–if you haven’t seen it, watch it!

Buy it here: The Emperor’s New Groove

Cinderella, As Told By the Kitchen Boy

File:Happilyneverafter1 large.gifDo you remember that Last Unicorn review a while back?  Well, when I watched the movie, the DVD also featured a trailer for Happily N’ever After—and for a rarity, a DVD trailer actually inspired me to watch something!  HNA had actually been in my Netflix queue for quite a long while, but finally seeing the trailer convinced me to actually order the disk…and it was as fun as the trailer promised.

An animated movie from Lionsgate, it reminds me a bit of Once Upon a Time mashed up with Tangled.  In a magic land where every fairy tale is playing out, Cinderella’s wicked stepmother gets control of the magic, and of the scales that control the happy or sad endings.  Pretty soon everything is going awry for Ella, who hopes that the Prince can save the day for her.  Unfortunately, what she doesn’t realize is that the Prince is unbelievably dense (and constantly consults a book to tell him the proper action to take).  Fortunately, Ella also has a friend named Rick, dishwasher and all-around flunky at the palace—and quite reminiscent of Eugene in Tangled.

This is not a deep movie, but it’s a lot of fun, from the cute Rick to the incredibly funny prince.  There are also representatives from several fairy tales, like the seven dwarfs.  I always enjoy twists on fairy tales, especially when ordinary people get to be heroic.  Rick is a great every-man hero, and the prince is hysterically funny in his earnest efforts (and failures) to do the heroic thing.

I also love that Rick is a long-time friend of Ella, who has been harboring a long-time crush–rather than having her love interest be a guy she danced with once.  The romance on Ella’s side comes together rather neatly, but I’m willing to assume she always had feelings for Rick, and she just hadn’t quite put it together.

One piece of advice, if you get the DVD, watch the alternate ending–it ties things up a bit more, and I think I liked it better than the actual ending.

https://i0.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/03/Happily_N%27Ever_After_2_-_Snow_White_Another_Bite_at_the_Apple_Coverart.pngAfter enjoying Happily N’Ever After, I went on to the sequel.  Unfortunately, as often happens with direct-to-video animated sequels, it doesn’t live up to the original–both in depth and in how downhill the animation goes.  Almost entirely new characters, this one focuses on Snow White, an irresponsible teenager who has to learn about kindness and true beauty when her father’s horrible fiancee starts creating trouble.  This has a nice message, which comes across as simplistic in the extreme.  It probably would be fine for a younger audience, but it didn’t strike me as likely to transcend and be fun for adults too.

Part of the issue is that the movie takes on a different tone, trying to bring in more modernity to the fairy tale world.  I was enjoying the idea of Snow White as a party-loving, make-up-using teenager for about two minutes…until she uses a magic cell phone to call her girlfriends, who answer with “Holla!”  And then continue saying it every third sentence…

On the plus side, there’s one really nice moment with Snow’s love interest, Sir Peter, who seems to be a genuinely compassionate, intelligent, interesting character (except that he looks disconcertingly like Rick!)  He actually rejects Snow White at a party when he realizes how shallow she is, and asks a different girl to dance.  Cartoons talk about beauty-within all the time, while making sure their kind-hearted heroines are also beautiful and have gorgeous dresses.  It was good to see a hero who really took a stand on the subject.

If you’re a fairy tale fan, the first Happily N’Ever After is a fun and clever movie.  The second one, you can probably give a pass!

Thirty-Seven Plays in Ninety-Seven Minutes

Reduced ShakespeareI’ve lost track of how many times I’ve seen The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (Abridged).  I’ve seen it live twice, and the DVD more times than I can tell you.  I was introduced to this brilliant production by my quite brilliant high school Shakespeare teacher–and it’s a lot of fun when you can then quote the production in Shakespeare class and the teacher gets the joke too!

The players of the Reduced Shakespeare Company declare that they “descend among [us] on a mission from God and the literary muse to spread the holy word of the Bard to the masses.” And they do–with high hilarity besides.  They do not spread literary, scholarly, or particularly deep or analytical Shakespeare to the masses, but an audience member with no familiarity with Shakespeare will leave with a working knowledge of the plot of Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet, a rougher idea of Othello, Macbeth, and Titus Andronicus, some exposure to Shakespeare’s language, and—most important I’d say—a clear and lasting impression that Shakespeare can be interesting and fun!

Complete Works presents all thirty-seven plays in ninety-seven minutes (or so their tagline says).  Three actors play every part, and they do a credible impression of making it all up as they go along.  Props fly, lines are spouted accurately or in parody, the audience is invited to participate (as Ophelia’s psyche), and all in all, Shakespeare becomes a hysterically funny, high-impact sport.  I could give you a long review about pros and cons and ups and downs…but honestly, it’s just bloody funny, and the best review may simply be to tell you some of the hilarious moments.

The Comedies wind up condensed down into one play, while the Histories are turned into a football match, tossing the crown about the stage.  More attention is given to the tragedies–because it turned out they were funnier.  Titus Andronicus appears as a cooking show.  Macbeth is performed with extreme rolling of Rs.  Romeo and Juliet features a lot of Shakespeare’s lines, though also a surprising amount of pantomimed-vomit.  After a brief confusion involving plastic boats and the correct meaning of “moor,” Othello is presented in rap (“About a punk named Iago, who made himself a menace, ’cause he didn’t like Othello, the Moor of Venice.”)

Act Two is entirely devoted to Hamlet, going almost scene-by-scene.  They cut out Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and the pirates, but otherwise you get the complete plot, and there are even a few more serious moments.  There’s an amazing performance of the “What a piece of work is man” speech, and the final deaths are affecting.  Although, of course, there’s also a sock puppet play-within-the-play, a literal sock playing the ghostly king, and the aforementioned audience participation as Ophelia’s psyche.  Among other things…

Reduced Shakespeare’s Complete Works provides an evening of great fun for anyone.  Those who know Shakespeare well will pick up on a number of relatively subtle jokes and those who don’t know Shakespeare will leave knowing a good deal more than they did before, and with plenty of encouragement to seek out even more.  Either way, no one who watches the Complete Works will ever read Shakespeare in quite the same way again.  See it live or get the DVD–it’s not to be missed!

Actors’ website: http://www.reducedshakespeare.com/

The Lone Ranger (and Tonto)

I feel like I’ve been waiting for The Lone Ranger for years.  And considering both the filming and the release date were delayed at least once each, that may not be an unreasonable estimate!  I finally saw the movie on the Fourth of July and happily, it was worth the wait.

The-Lone-Ranger-Movie-Wallpaper1

Johnny Depp as Tonto is the most obvious reason I was excited by this movie, but there’s more to it than that.  I’m a rather passionate fan of Pirates of the Caribbean, and this was made by pretty much all the same people.  It’s a Disney movie produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, directed by Gore Verbinski, written by Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, with a soundtrack by Hans Zimmer and, of course, Johnny Depp in a wild and weird role.  Plus Lone Ranger has Helena Bonham Carter and the quite attractive Armie Hammer thrown in for good measure.

Lone Ranger is not Pirates of the Caribbean (what is?) but it’s a similarly fun ride, and some of those parallels most definitely show.  They stole some fight choreography out of Pirates, there are similar character arcs, and there are over-the-top, improbable (well, probably impossible) action sequences.

The movie is an origin story for the Lone Ranger, Texas vigilante in the Old West.  John Reed is the sole survivor of a massacre of Rangers.  Rescued by renegade Comanche Tonto, who has his own reasons for hunting the outlaws at fault, the two join forces to seek justice.  There follows a tangle of searches for information, hunts, missteps and near misses, and reveals of backstory and conspiracies.  It’s all really a vehicle for funny moments and insane action sequences (like galloping a horse along the top of a moving train…to the William Tell Overture, of course).

the-lone-ranger-2013-depp-as-tontoTonto seems to have received a lot more attention in the lead-up to the movie than the Lone Ranger–partially because it’s Johnny Depp, and partially because of the controversy around portraying a Native American character.  To me, Tonto felt much less like any attempt to make a racial comment and much more like another in a long line of wacky and weird Depp characters.  Depp’s Tonto is plainly unbalanced.  He’s also the comedic center of the story, and easily the show-stealer of the whole movie.  Trading with dead men, talking to horses or scattering cracked corn everywhere he goes, he’s endlessly entertaining.  The bird on his head is not just a fashion statement but something he frequently interacts with (and it turns out to have a surprisingly dramatic backstory).

Tonto is effectively played for laughs, although in some ways I feel like they never quite nailed down his character.  To paraphrase Captain Jack, it’s funny how often madness and genius coincide.  While Jack usually comes across as genius (if twitchy and eccentric genius), with Tonto it’s more often madness.  It’s much harder to tell which side of the line he falls on, and the movie fell off a few times trying to walk on it.  I was hoping for something to ultimately reveal whether his, um, unusual way of looking at the world really is valid, or really is madness…and it never quite came.

Even though the Lone Ranger was the title character and arguably the impetus to the plot, he fulfilled a Will Turner-type role in the movie, as the handsome friend to the eccentric show-stealer.  He undergoes a similar arc too, from the uptight, straight-laced fish out of water, to finding confidence and competence under the rather shaky mentorship of Depp’s character.  I’m not sure why he’s quite so incapable of coping with the Wild West, considering he’s a native son of the frontier town, but he comes back from years away as the intellectual cityite with no real understanding.  And it is quite hilariously funny when he accuses the Madame of the brothel of breaking numerous health codes, including having a suspicious jar of pickles on the bar…

This was mostly a man’s movie, but Helena Bonham Carter does do a very entertaining turn as said-Madame, typically eccentric as well.  There’s also a love interest, who has her moments although she’s no Elizabeth Swann, and is definitely secondary to the quest for vengeance.

THE LONE RANGERRepresenting the animal contingent, Silver is a truly weird horse.  Tonto takes him to be a spirit animal, and he’s certainly an, erm, independent spirit.  The horse gets a lot of laughs, and it’s fun just to have the faithful steed as an actual character with his own quirks.

I enjoyed this hugely, but my biggest criticism of the movie is the level of violence.  It’s not graphic, but it is obvious and frequently brutal.  One of the opening sequences features a group of outlaws taking a train, and the casual shooting of anyone in their way is shocking in its callousness.  The death of walk-on characters (or redshirts) is a usual convention in this kind of story, but there was something about this that felt a notch higher in violence.  The massacre of the Rangers is also pretty horrific, and while the facts of the scene are plot-necessary, the details could easily have been toned down.  John’s brother doesn’t just die; he dies in a horrible way, and while it’s below the edge of the screen, there’s still no question about what happens.  There are also shots lingering on each of the dead bodies of the Rangers.

The second half of the movie is in some ways better on that front.  The action sequences become less brutal, bigger and more absurd, transcending to the level of cartoon.  Without any element of reality, they become less disturbing–although that’s problematic in its own way, on the level of desensitization.  On a similar note, as is also typical in this type of movie, the Lone Ranger and Tonto both take enough falls and general pummeling to be dead several times over.  I’ll accept the absurd falls, and the crazy stunts–but it does bother me that there are quite a few moments where the violence level felt gratuitous.  This has been marketed as (and for the most part is) a family-friendly, comedy-adventure, and it’s disappointing that they couldn’t rein back the violence to a more appropriate level.

I’ve seen the objection to the violence made elsewhere too, and hopefully Disney will listen (I’m not that hopeful, but it’s possible).  If this movie does well at the Box Office, I’ve no doubt they’ll have the opportunity to try again.  The movie is complete in itself, but it has every marking of the first of a series…and if Johnny Depp signs up again, you can bet I’ll go see it.

Movie site: http://disney.go.com/the-lone-ranger/