1996
-directed by Brian Henson
The fourth Muppet sequel played a central part in the birth of this quest (although "sequel" feels like a not-entirely accurate term, as the only through line in the films is the characters). When i picked up this dvd, i had never seen it, and it is a reflection of the old muppetaversionintuition that it then sat unwatched for years.
And it was indeed, pretty darn bad. Not "i hate it" bad, but...resolutely, indisputably flat, depressingly forced, a shadow of the magic that once was.
With the exception of one scene, but we'll get back to that later.
One actually feels sorry for Kermit, watching this film. You can see in his eyes, in his body language, that he only did this for the money. I'm joking, i guess...i know it's ridiculous to imbue a glorified sock puppet with human characteristics. But good god, you tell me that frog isn't sleepwalking through this turkey! You make a clip collage of actors doing "paycheck" movies (Deniro in ROCKY AND BULLWINKLE, Julia or Hopper in those video game movies, Affleck in PAYCHECK), splice in Kermit's scenes, and it will all feel quite natural. Admittedly, he nearly came alive during the climactic scene. But generally, the feeling of "that's not Kermit" was all too alive and well. The human actors did their best. Henson went back to having "name" actors in supporting roles. Billy Connolly is nearly very funny, Jennifer Saunders is nearly funny, and it's hard to imagine an actor giving a more game performance than Tim Curry, as Long John Silver. He's believable, he's...well, i struggle to say more, because what he ultimately is, is void of any "zowie" quotient. I don't think any of the actors could have given more than they did, though. Well...perhaps Kevin Bishop as Jim Hawkins. Through little fault of his own, his character is the weakest link in the film. Was he perhaps a little too old? It's funny, in the film commentary Henson tries to compliment Bishop, but it comes out as maudlin and hysterically left-handed. He says that Bishop was actually the first "Jim" they auditioned, and they then proceeded to see thousands of other actors before coming back to him. It was meant to come across as "silly us, we had it right with the very first one", but instead sounds like a desperate search to find someone, anyone better than this guy. Part of it is his singing voice, it's too high. Which, one discovers, was exactly the problem. Production of a movie as complex as this takes a long time, and by the time they got to primary filming, it was a year after casting, and Kevin's pubescent voice was cracking. So the singing vocals they had to use were his rehearsal vocals from the year before. The end effect was just the feeling of something being off.
But i do not lay the fault for this film's failure at Kevin's feet, bless him. The feeling of flatness extended far beyond. And i don't wish to crucify anyone - the average viewer has no conception of how MIND-BOGGLINGLY complicated it is to create something like Muppet magic, especially on a scale as ambitious as this. There are a million and three factors that go into just one single moment. The other Muppet performances were also pretty uninspiring. A forced Fozzie, Rizzo with a still-too-big part, Gonzo unfortunately yoked to Rizzo, Piggy rather adrift (an apt metaphor), and i'm now resigned to Rowlf being gone forever. Most notably painful were Statler and Waldorf. These two had been the best of the original Muppet world, and here it felt like the director had pulled some uninterested actors off the street, played one old clip for them, and then said "action". On the positive side, Sam the Eagle as Mr. Arrow was...pretty cool. And Sweetums had one nice moment.
And...
There was one scene, one character, that was so off-the-charts funny and perfect that for a moment, you were time-lifted back to a childhood dreamland. How this one scene, surrounded by a sea of haplessness, could exist...i know not, but it happened. Blind Pew. A new Muppet character (but not entirely new, for fans of the original show). He has only one scene, but he grabs that moment, and...words fail me, it's that wonderful. Jerry Nelson, the original voice of Robin and The Count and others, reaches into the universe of magic and we are once again reminded what a beautiful, amazing place this world can be. Blind Pew lifts this film one star rating above what it would otherwise have been.
And googily moogily, i never imagined i would use this reference, but the merit is too startling to ignore. I give you Blind Pew, recipient of the 1996 Cave Girl Award.
There's little else to say. Forgettable music sure didn't help the cause. Strangely, i discovered that there is one very entertaining way to view this movie: with the director's commentary on. Brian gives a wonderful window into the Muppet world.
2 stars.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Thursday, April 3, 2008
cave girl award
Ewwwffh...
That's my review of CAVE GIRL, a 1985 comedy. Or travesty, rather. The writing is putridly, insipidly juvenile. I found this film reading an Amazon.com review which called it "stupid, but charming" (they were halfway right). Taken with a desire for a slice of 80s camp, and more to the point, curious to see a beautiful blonde bathing cave girl...
Why did i even watch this longer than ninety seconds? I could actually only stomach the second half in fast forward. I mean, it was just...it was sooooo...i don't even know whether the acting was as bad as the writing. It probably was, but the writing was so bad that it could have swallowed up any number of promising acting careers. One could only feel a deep sense of shame that people actually had to say these lines aloud. The only possible reason to watch the film, the naked cave girl frivolity, was quite underwhelming as well. I recommend this film to no one, i repeat NO ONE. So why am i committing minutes of my life to writing about it? Because there was an amazing performance buried underneath the awfulness. The lead actress, Cynthia Thompson, whose career started and ended in the 80s. What a terrible shame. She's one of the fortunate actors not forced to speak English, except for that which she parrots back to our time traveling high school geek hero (who is thirty, like all the other high schoolers). It doesn't hit you at first, but at a certain point her performance reaches out and gobsmacks you. She is just so unaffected and silly in the scenes where he tries to teach her English. Fed the most retch-inducing lines in the world, she somehow radiates pure endearment and funniness. Every other actor was just reading lines. It's hard to realize any of this with your stomach churning, but Cynthia, if you're still out there (her IMDB site didn't reveal much), bless you for all you did. We shall invent a new award based on your work: transcendant performance in an unwatchable film. The Cave Girl Award.
And it strikes me now, the only reason i would ever have any human watch this film. For i reaffirm, i am in NO WAY attempting to entice anyone into watching this. If you ever do meet someone who has voluntarily watched it, i want you to peer very deep and long into their soul. But...if i were teaching acting students who had professional aspirations, i would make them watch it from beginning to end, then ask them how badly they want this profession. Are they prepared to do a film of this caliber, to put food on the table? I would then make each of them say the worst line of the film, with 100% commitment.
Thank you, Cynthia. You deserved a million times better.
That's my review of CAVE GIRL, a 1985 comedy. Or travesty, rather. The writing is putridly, insipidly juvenile. I found this film reading an Amazon.com review which called it "stupid, but charming" (they were halfway right). Taken with a desire for a slice of 80s camp, and more to the point, curious to see a beautiful blonde bathing cave girl...
Why did i even watch this longer than ninety seconds? I could actually only stomach the second half in fast forward. I mean, it was just...it was sooooo...i don't even know whether the acting was as bad as the writing. It probably was, but the writing was so bad that it could have swallowed up any number of promising acting careers. One could only feel a deep sense of shame that people actually had to say these lines aloud. The only possible reason to watch the film, the naked cave girl frivolity, was quite underwhelming as well. I recommend this film to no one, i repeat NO ONE. So why am i committing minutes of my life to writing about it? Because there was an amazing performance buried underneath the awfulness. The lead actress, Cynthia Thompson, whose career started and ended in the 80s. What a terrible shame. She's one of the fortunate actors not forced to speak English, except for that which she parrots back to our time traveling high school geek hero (who is thirty, like all the other high schoolers). It doesn't hit you at first, but at a certain point her performance reaches out and gobsmacks you. She is just so unaffected and silly in the scenes where he tries to teach her English. Fed the most retch-inducing lines in the world, she somehow radiates pure endearment and funniness. Every other actor was just reading lines. It's hard to realize any of this with your stomach churning, but Cynthia, if you're still out there (her IMDB site didn't reveal much), bless you for all you did. We shall invent a new award based on your work: transcendant performance in an unwatchable film. The Cave Girl Award.
And it strikes me now, the only reason i would ever have any human watch this film. For i reaffirm, i am in NO WAY attempting to entice anyone into watching this. If you ever do meet someone who has voluntarily watched it, i want you to peer very deep and long into their soul. But...if i were teaching acting students who had professional aspirations, i would make them watch it from beginning to end, then ask them how badly they want this profession. Are they prepared to do a film of this caliber, to put food on the table? I would then make each of them say the worst line of the film, with 100% commitment.
Thank you, Cynthia. You deserved a million times better.
too busy being fabulous?!?
I don't fucking believe it. I was in the grocery store today, and the Eagles song "Busy Being Fabulous" played over the PA system. I can only assume this means that this is the second single from their new album, LONG ROAD OUT OF EDEN.
Are you kidding me with that?
What the fuck, that's one of the lamest cuts on the album. What the hell is wrong with these people? Are you telling me that the Eagles don't have the cred yet to pick their own singles? Because i will not believe that they chose that song themselves. Good god no. It's a pretty good album. Could have been fantastic if they'd made it a single, not a double. But lord, am i the only sane person in the world? There are two fantastic cuts, the title track and "What Do I Do with My Heart". Those are the singles. A moron would...well, okay, obviously a moron wouldn't perceive it, but WHY have they put a moron in charge of selecting singles? The first single, "How Long", was a pretty mung-brained choice too. It's not a bad song, but it's at best the fourth or fifth single. Grumble grumble...
Are you kidding me with that?
What the fuck, that's one of the lamest cuts on the album. What the hell is wrong with these people? Are you telling me that the Eagles don't have the cred yet to pick their own singles? Because i will not believe that they chose that song themselves. Good god no. It's a pretty good album. Could have been fantastic if they'd made it a single, not a double. But lord, am i the only sane person in the world? There are two fantastic cuts, the title track and "What Do I Do with My Heart". Those are the singles. A moron would...well, okay, obviously a moron wouldn't perceive it, but WHY have they put a moron in charge of selecting singles? The first single, "How Long", was a pretty mung-brained choice too. It's not a bad song, but it's at best the fourth or fifth single. Grumble grumble...
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
"The Muppet Christmas Carol"
1992
-directed by Brian Henson
I approached this with equal parts excitement and dread.
Excitement because Paul Williams' music was returning to the Muppet universe, and to a lesser extent because Michael Caine could conceivably pull off a great Scrooge.
Dread because this was the first Muppet film without Jim. It's not entirely pessimistic to wonder whether all Muppet creation should have stopped, on that summer day that he died. Or at least anything involving characters he himself had brought to life. I wonder what sort of discussions were held by those directing the Muppet universe, in that year of 1990? Was there agreement on the right way to continue his work? Because what came out in the years since has been at best lacking, and at worst cringeworthy. I suppose i'm thinking mostly of whomever had to become the "new" Kermit. It may have been just one fellow, Steve Whitmire to this day. I remember the first time i heard the new Kermit, and inside there was this feeling of "oh no no no". It was almost as painful as that childhood day when they foisted a different Ronald McDonald on us, a moment that probably ranks as the single greatest moment of disillusionment in my life. I actually heard Jim's real voice in an interview for the first time yesterday. Great googily, that man sounded like Kermit! I've not followed Muppet creations closely as an adult, but occasional exposures seemed, at best...a touch sad. Because that wasn't really Kermit. I mean, it's not all gloom and doom...i do know that KERMIT UNPIGGED is kind of a pretty great album.
Anyway...
The movie began, my dread probably outweighing excitement.
And a strange thing happened.
Ten minutes went by before i remembered that Jim was gone. Ten minutes before i remembered that this was not his voice at all. Ten minutes. Astonishing. Ten minutes of laughter and smiles, a little wave of which continued throughout the movie.
Director Brian Henson made interesting choices, and amazingly seemed more prepared to helm his first feature film than either Jim or Frank had been. Instead of relying on a group of known actors to play supporting roles as had been done previously, Caine was the only name actor. And it worked. Lead roles were given to new muppets, particularly the ghosts. And while none of them resonated with all the old magic, they worked fine, and indeed i wondered whether having "old" muppets play all the supporting parts might not have felt a little dusty. Caine himself was a big part of why the movie worked. There were a couple of his scenes i wish they'd shot another take of, but generally he turned in a performance that will be remembered as one of his best. The music wasn't up to William's work for the original, but was definitely a cut above the previous sequels. I had originally been angry at Disney for its recent editing, in particular for taking out the song "When Love Is Gone". Some felt it revealed the shabbier aspects of the Disney worldview to leave out an authentic but sad song. For once though, i can't fault Disney. That song is pretty flat, and i wouldn't have missed it. Rowlf was again conspicuously a non-presence, but it says something about how well this movie works that i even wished for some replacement performer to try to bring him to life. The hero of the movie, the award for best performance goes to...Beaker! What joy. After he'd been virtually a non-presence in the previous sequels, his scenes here are the greatest treasure of the film.
3 stars.
-directed by Brian Henson
I approached this with equal parts excitement and dread.
Excitement because Paul Williams' music was returning to the Muppet universe, and to a lesser extent because Michael Caine could conceivably pull off a great Scrooge.
Dread because this was the first Muppet film without Jim. It's not entirely pessimistic to wonder whether all Muppet creation should have stopped, on that summer day that he died. Or at least anything involving characters he himself had brought to life. I wonder what sort of discussions were held by those directing the Muppet universe, in that year of 1990? Was there agreement on the right way to continue his work? Because what came out in the years since has been at best lacking, and at worst cringeworthy. I suppose i'm thinking mostly of whomever had to become the "new" Kermit. It may have been just one fellow, Steve Whitmire to this day. I remember the first time i heard the new Kermit, and inside there was this feeling of "oh no no no". It was almost as painful as that childhood day when they foisted a different Ronald McDonald on us, a moment that probably ranks as the single greatest moment of disillusionment in my life. I actually heard Jim's real voice in an interview for the first time yesterday. Great googily, that man sounded like Kermit! I've not followed Muppet creations closely as an adult, but occasional exposures seemed, at best...a touch sad. Because that wasn't really Kermit. I mean, it's not all gloom and doom...i do know that KERMIT UNPIGGED is kind of a pretty great album.
Anyway...
The movie began, my dread probably outweighing excitement.
And a strange thing happened.
Ten minutes went by before i remembered that Jim was gone. Ten minutes before i remembered that this was not his voice at all. Ten minutes. Astonishing. Ten minutes of laughter and smiles, a little wave of which continued throughout the movie.
Director Brian Henson made interesting choices, and amazingly seemed more prepared to helm his first feature film than either Jim or Frank had been. Instead of relying on a group of known actors to play supporting roles as had been done previously, Caine was the only name actor. And it worked. Lead roles were given to new muppets, particularly the ghosts. And while none of them resonated with all the old magic, they worked fine, and indeed i wondered whether having "old" muppets play all the supporting parts might not have felt a little dusty. Caine himself was a big part of why the movie worked. There were a couple of his scenes i wish they'd shot another take of, but generally he turned in a performance that will be remembered as one of his best. The music wasn't up to William's work for the original, but was definitely a cut above the previous sequels. I had originally been angry at Disney for its recent editing, in particular for taking out the song "When Love Is Gone". Some felt it revealed the shabbier aspects of the Disney worldview to leave out an authentic but sad song. For once though, i can't fault Disney. That song is pretty flat, and i wouldn't have missed it. Rowlf was again conspicuously a non-presence, but it says something about how well this movie works that i even wished for some replacement performer to try to bring him to life. The hero of the movie, the award for best performance goes to...Beaker! What joy. After he'd been virtually a non-presence in the previous sequels, his scenes here are the greatest treasure of the film.
3 stars.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
honest man
I could have had your love had i been a liar too
and an honest man stands in the rain
Poetry aside...
Why is it safe to say "you're the first tall person i've been attracted to"?
Why is it safe, even playful, to say "you're the first old person i've been attracted to"?
Or the first thin person? The first young/short/bald/bearded/tattooed/female/male/skinny/happy/rich person? Basically safe, all of them?
Why, it can even be titillating to say, "you're the first white/yellow/black person i've been attracted to". Okay, i suppose "yellow" is not really safe to say. And okay, saying "you're the first male person i've been attracted to" could conceivably be unsafe.
But why, why, WHY is it safe to say those other things, but unsafe to say "you're the first overweight person i've been attracted to"?
Why is that? Even using PC language, why is it not safe?
I could have had your love had i been a liar too
and an honest man stands in the rain
and an honest man stands in the rain
Poetry aside...
Why is it safe to say "you're the first tall person i've been attracted to"?
Why is it safe, even playful, to say "you're the first old person i've been attracted to"?
Or the first thin person? The first young/short/bald/bearded/tattooed/female/male/skinny/happy/rich person? Basically safe, all of them?
Why, it can even be titillating to say, "you're the first white/yellow/black person i've been attracted to". Okay, i suppose "yellow" is not really safe to say. And okay, saying "you're the first male person i've been attracted to" could conceivably be unsafe.
But why, why, WHY is it safe to say those other things, but unsafe to say "you're the first overweight person i've been attracted to"?
Why is that? Even using PC language, why is it not safe?
I could have had your love had i been a liar too
and an honest man stands in the rain
Saturday, March 29, 2008
starry night
My favorite painting ever is by Van Gogh.
It's the only painting i have a framed print of.
A large part of the reason the painting is special to me is because of its prominence in the song "Vincent", by Don McLean. That song is one of the most beloved of my little life, in part because i see just a tiny bit of myself in Vincent. I think many do.
Wednesday afternoon, i saw the actual painting for the first time in my life.
Unexpectedly.
Which, i suppose, is the best way for that sort of thing to happen.
I had no idea the painting was even in New York. My mother and sister came to town for the day, and we went to the Museum of Modern Art. I had never gone before. And on the first floor we went to, i was innocently walking along, and then...well, the floor didn't drop out, but almost. A part of me still doesn't believe that it was real. My favorite view of it was when i knelt and looked up. The living textures were so beautiful.
I was taken by Rousseau's "Dream". And the work of Dali. Surprisingly, i was quite moved by the work of Pollock, when the other works on that floor left me flat. And most conspicuously, the thirty-foot water lilies by Monet. My jaw dropped as i took it in, the way it shimmered with a depth that seemed impossible.
The art wasn't behind protective glass walls, and for that i am quietly and deeply grateful to the good curators. I was also unsettled, though. As the afternoon went on, and i realized how many of the world's most famous paintings were in this building, something felt wrong. It seemed to embody the uglier aspects of our country, the self-importance and greed, that so much of the world's greatest art is not on display in the artists' native lands.
But it was a very beautiful day to be alive. We ended it with a Cinnabon and my first trip to the top of Rockefeller Center, which was in some ways more satisfying than the Empire State, in that you may go to the very toppermost part.
I love my mother and sister very much.
It's the only painting i have a framed print of.
A large part of the reason the painting is special to me is because of its prominence in the song "Vincent", by Don McLean. That song is one of the most beloved of my little life, in part because i see just a tiny bit of myself in Vincent. I think many do.
Wednesday afternoon, i saw the actual painting for the first time in my life.
Unexpectedly.
Which, i suppose, is the best way for that sort of thing to happen.
I had no idea the painting was even in New York. My mother and sister came to town for the day, and we went to the Museum of Modern Art. I had never gone before. And on the first floor we went to, i was innocently walking along, and then...well, the floor didn't drop out, but almost. A part of me still doesn't believe that it was real. My favorite view of it was when i knelt and looked up. The living textures were so beautiful.
I was taken by Rousseau's "Dream". And the work of Dali. Surprisingly, i was quite moved by the work of Pollock, when the other works on that floor left me flat. And most conspicuously, the thirty-foot water lilies by Monet. My jaw dropped as i took it in, the way it shimmered with a depth that seemed impossible.
The art wasn't behind protective glass walls, and for that i am quietly and deeply grateful to the good curators. I was also unsettled, though. As the afternoon went on, and i realized how many of the world's most famous paintings were in this building, something felt wrong. It seemed to embody the uglier aspects of our country, the self-importance and greed, that so much of the world's greatest art is not on display in the artists' native lands.
But it was a very beautiful day to be alive. We ended it with a Cinnabon and my first trip to the top of Rockefeller Center, which was in some ways more satisfying than the Empire State, in that you may go to the very toppermost part.
I love my mother and sister very much.
Monday, March 24, 2008
my only secret
I want to share my only secret with you. In sharing it, it won't be entirely a secret, but that's fun too.
I've been sexually attracted to someone i'm related to.
Now this is not the height of scandal, as this woman and i could be legally married in some states. But it is the sort of thing that is taboo, and revelations of such feelings, or of an actual liaison, can be very destructive to the fabric of a family. So let me say, if anyone from my father's side of the family is reading, the person in question is on my mother's side. And if anyone from my mother's side of the family is reading, the person in question is on my father's side. Isn't that nice?
I share this secret because i suspect that a large percentage of people have felt some kind of similar attraction in their lives. Some have acted on these feelings, though of course a far greater percentage swallow those feelings. Some even live their lives twisted forever by a little pocket of silent guilt. One of my actors told me once that he and his sister had been miserable for years, unable to act upon their attraction. How many of you could hear that, and not be judgemental? I was deeply humbled by his trust in me.
These feelings, in me or anyone, are in no way shameful or unhealthy. They are part of being human, and a mature society will not make people feel ashamed of biological responses. Every society must have mores. They glue a society together.
But we as a species have to do much better in terms of compassionate understanding.
We'll get there.
In the meantime, go hug somebody.
I've been sexually attracted to someone i'm related to.
Now this is not the height of scandal, as this woman and i could be legally married in some states. But it is the sort of thing that is taboo, and revelations of such feelings, or of an actual liaison, can be very destructive to the fabric of a family. So let me say, if anyone from my father's side of the family is reading, the person in question is on my mother's side. And if anyone from my mother's side of the family is reading, the person in question is on my father's side. Isn't that nice?
I share this secret because i suspect that a large percentage of people have felt some kind of similar attraction in their lives. Some have acted on these feelings, though of course a far greater percentage swallow those feelings. Some even live their lives twisted forever by a little pocket of silent guilt. One of my actors told me once that he and his sister had been miserable for years, unable to act upon their attraction. How many of you could hear that, and not be judgemental? I was deeply humbled by his trust in me.
These feelings, in me or anyone, are in no way shameful or unhealthy. They are part of being human, and a mature society will not make people feel ashamed of biological responses. Every society must have mores. They glue a society together.
But we as a species have to do much better in terms of compassionate understanding.
We'll get there.
In the meantime, go hug somebody.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)