32nd Telluride Film Festival 9/2-5/05
“We consider our theatres to be sacred spaces.”
It’s time once again for the greatest film festival to not take place in Austin. This is the big one, baby. The Telluride Film Festival. I gotta tell ya, every year I love this town more and more. If ever there was a place that I could move to that wasn’t Austin, it would be Telluride. (I’m sure the locals LOVE hearing that. Just like we Austinites LOVE to hear that more people want to move here.)
Either way, this is a great festival. And, even if the movies aren’t as good as they used to be, it’s still a lot of fun. (And, to be honest, the movies are still great. It’s just that once you’ve seen one movie about Iranian women gaining new freedoms, it’s hard to think that you haven’t seen them all. And that seemed to be what ALL of the smaller movies were about this year.)
But the big news of the festival (besides the movies and celebrities running around) was The Palm. That’s the new theatre that took over for The Max this year. It’s still the biggest theatre in Telluride, but it’s a few seats shy of The Max. It’s also an actual theatre. The screen is flown in on a fly system instead of being built from the ground up inside of a gym. The seats are permanent (and some are at really weird angles) and there’s a balcony! No more lugging heavy quartets of seats through the school and placing them very carefully throughout the gym! This is a state of the art REAL theatre!
And, just to keep up with history, there are bits and pieces of the old theatres around. There is a sign from the lobby of The Max, a banner from The Strand (that was before my time AND before The Max’s time) and a giant sign for Vespucci Pictures. (That’s the name given to the production crew of the festival.)
And here’s the strange thing for a Texas boy to notice: The Palm theatre is named after a guy named Michael D. Palm. That, in itself, isn’t so weird. What’s weird is that Mr. Palm was a gay man. Even THAT isn’t all that weird. What’s REALLY weird is that this is a publicly funded school that named it’s facility after an openly gay man who worked for gay rights and died of AIDS. That just would not happen in Texas. Not even in a mostly progressive town like Austin. No, no. There would be so many people protesting it that they would finally just scrap the project all together, wait 10 years and then try to build the thing again under a different name. It’s amazing to me that a small town in a state that, just a few years ago, passed a law that was pretty discriminatory against gays (remember the whole Barbra Streisand thing?) would name a school facility (even a theatre) after a gay man. That’s pretty cool. If only the whole country could be as open minded.
And with that revelation comes the rather unofficial theme of this year’s festival: Gay.
For the first time ever that I know of, there was in fact a movie about gay cowboys at a film festival in a small mountain town. Since I didn’t actually get to see Brokeback Mountain, I can’t tell you if there was any pudding being eaten.
I actually only saw two movies with lead gay characters in them. Here’s the big one:
Directed by: Bennett Miller
Written by: Dan Futterman
Based on book by: Gerald Clarke
Truman Capote (Phillip Seymour Hoffman in an amazing performance) is synonymous with witty writing. His books pretty much define the late 50s and early 60s. With Breakfast At Tiffany’s he created one of the most indelible characters of the mid-century with Holly Golightly.
But in 1966 he decided to write a book about the murder of a small Kansas farm family. He read an article about the murders and immediately told his publisher, William Shawn (Bob Balaban), that he wanted to write a novel about the crime. But first he had to talk to the people involved.
Truman and his childhood friend Nelle Harper Lee (Catherine Keener in her best performance ever) go to Kansas and interview the friend of the teenage girl who was killed and Sheriff Alvin Dewey (Chris Cooper) to get as much information as they can. But it’s not until the killers are caught that Truman gets really involved.
Perry Smith (Clifton Collins, Jr.) and Richard Hickock (Mark Pellegrino) were caught in 1960. Finally, in 1966, Capote completed and published In Cold Blood. Why did it take him so long? This movie (and the book it’s based on written by Gerald Clarke) fills in the gap left by Truman’s emotional turmoil at having met Perry Smith and, basically, formed a very strange almost father-like attraction to him. He saw in Perry the Truman that could have been if he had chosen a different life for himself. He cared about Perry, but at the same time had to use him in order to get his book written. And that tortured Truman. It tortured the hell out of him.
In fact, it tortured him so much that it ends up being very hard to figure out just how you feel about the character. He’s an asshole opportunist who wants to help his subject. This makes Truman Capote one of the most complex characters to come out of Hollywood in a long, long time. Is he finding them new lawyers just so that he can keep them alive long enough to get information out of them? Or does he really want to try to get them off?
The movie is very good, but it’s Hoffman who takes the prize here. His portrayal of Capote is sympathetic and beautiful. He’s a hard man who almost can’t handle being hard. He’s also incredibly fey and gay, but he keeps it at a level that is not annoying once you get used to it. (This is something that an actor in another movie at the festival could have learned from.) This is probably the best performance of the year. I can’t imagine anyone else doing anything better. Absolutely amazing.
And Catherine Keener, who has a bad habit of over playing things all the time, kept herself under control as the future writer of To Kill A Mockingbird. She was better than ever here.
I would also not be surprised if Collins got some accolades for his sensitive portrayal of a could be killer who is still surprised by what happened.
Capote is definitely one of the best films I saw at the festival this year. Check it out when it comes to a theatre near you.
Directed by: Neil Jordan
Written by: Neil Jordan/Pat McCabe
Based on book by: Pat McCabe
This one, however, was NOT one of the best films. And it’s really a shame because it’s directed by Neil Jordan, who can be a great director, and stars Cillian Murphy, who is on his way to becoming a pretty good actor. It also stars Liam Neeson, Brendan Gleeson and Jordan regulars Stephen Rea and Ian Hart.
Patrick “Kitten” Brady (Murphy) grew up in a small Irish town. He always knew that he was different from the other kids, so as soon as he was able he ran to London and became the transvestite that everyone knew that he had in him.
Along the way he met up with a rock singer (Bono chum and collaborator Gavin Friday), a magician (Rea) and, of course, members of the IRA. He is constantly looking for his real mother even though there’s not much chance of ever finding her in a city the size of London. Besides, the priest back home (Neeson) doesn’t seem to want him to find her.
And this is the problem with this movie: this is ALL we know about Kitten. (Oh, and he laughs when he gets the shit kicked out of him. Which is aggravating not only to the people beating him up, but to the audience because it’s a pretty annoying laugh.) Kitten is a very “on the surface” character. There really isn’t a whole lot of depth to him/her. And I couldn’t really figure out if it was because of the screenplay by Jordan, the book by Pat McCabe or Murphy’s acting. Or maybe it was all three.
The last is actually a pretty big possibility because at first I thought that Cillian was doing really well with what little he was given. Then I started to realize just how annoying this character was and how, if he was only portrayed as being a little less fey, he would have been sympathetic. But, as it was, I was glad when he got beat up because it shut him up for a little while.
That’s not to say that the movie was all bad. For the first half hour it was actually a lot of fun. Kitten’s childhood was funny and the young actor playing him was pretty adept at balancing the nature of a future transvestite and the boyish mischief of knowing what you want and not really being able to get it.
Oh, and the music was, for the most part, great. I’m not so into disco, but the glam rock stuff was awesome. Of course, it’s hard to do a movie about transvestites in the late 60s and early 70s without using “Children Of The Revolution” by T. Rex. Love the song, but it’s starting to get a bit overused.
If you’re a fan of Jordan or Murphy, I guess you have to see this. Otherwise, it’s really kind of not worth it. Even then it may annoy you enough to where you don’t really like Cillian too much anymore.
But there is a pretty good Crying Game joke in there. Almost worth it. Wait. No it’s not. Nevermind.
Ok. Let me say this first: Mickey Rooney is NOT gay. That’s not why I’m putting him near the top here. BUT he did make a lot of movies with Judy Garland. And I saw one of them, but I’ll get to that in a minute.
First off, let’s talk about Mickey himself.
After telling people that I saw Mickey Rooney at the festival I usually got one of two responses. First was, “I thought he was dead!” The other response I got was, “Oh! I loved him in Sin City!” How sad that no one thinks about this guy anymore. He’s 85 years old. He’s made 360 movies. He’s about the only person still alive who made silent films. He remembers EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY. And, amazingly enough, he still acts like he’s about 12 years old.
He’s also extremely funny. He and Peter Bogdonovich talked during his tribute about everything from his silent film days (he only made a few and he was VERY young) to the state of television today. (“I don’t know Martha Stewart, but I hear she has a new tv show coming soon called ‘Why?’”) He almost ended up turning the interview back on Boggy and asked him just about every question that was asked of him. The guy was amazing. And I’m ashamed to say that, up until this festival, the only movie I had ever seen with him was The Black Stallion. Oh, and there was The Fox And The Hound. Does that count? And I barely count Breakfast At Tiffany’s. Although it’s a great movie, his part was just embarrassing.
They showed clips of a lot of his films, but they didn’t even scratch the surface. Babes On Broadway, Bill, Boys Town (a movie that follows him to this day—he is still a representative of Boys and Girls Towns all over America), The Comedian. All movies that I need to see. (They showed The Comedian and I missed it. Dammit.)
He had stories about every movie, too. He remembered working with Don Siegel on Baby Face Nelson before Don went on to do Dirty Harry. He talked about how Lionel Barrymore played Judge Hardy in the very first Andy Hardy movie, A Family Affair in 1937.
And through it all I kept thinking of how dead-on Dana Carvey’s impression of Mickey was on SNL all those years ago. A bit over the top, but not too much.
Directed by: Busby Berkeley
Written by: Fred F. Finklehoffe/Elaine Ryan
After the tribute we were told that one of the TBAs the next day was going to be Babes On Broadway, one of Mickey’s most famous collaborations with Judy Garland. Awesome! I’ll finally get to see a classic Mickey Rooney film!
But the real treat was that Mickey watched it with us. He introduced the film and talked about Judy and couple of the other actors in the film. Ray McDonald was apparently one of the greatest dancers ever and Richard Quine went on to be a director extraordinaire. He also went on about how music today is unintelligible and how the movie we were about to see had songs. That you could understand the lyrics to. And that you could sing along with. Dramatic pauses everywhere.
But I can’t begrudge Mickey for being so dramatic. He’s awesome and he’s had an amazing career. He’s earned a few Shatner-like pauses.
The movie itself is a fun little bit of fluff from 1941 that includes a lot of over the top Busby Berkeley song and dance numbers that, while not the master’s best, were still pretty memorable. The only really bad number was the one that Judy sang for the English exchange students, “Chin Up, Cheerio, Carry On”. And that was mainly bad because of the super-cheesy shots of the kids crying stoically. Even before that they were talking to their parents over a loud speaker back in London in really bad British accents and trying to use “new” American phrases. Sad.
But the movie and the actors had a LOT of life in them. I’m not a fan of Judy Garland, but I could almost see the appeal in this movie. And she and Mickey together were a lot of fun. The show that they do at the old theatre (they’re trying to raise money for the kids that Judy helps out with to go to “the country,” wherever that is, along with getting Mickey and his buddies an audition with a big producer) is hilarious. Especially the bit with Mickey in drag doing a Carmen Miranda dance.
Then came the discomfort. The end of the movie comes with a big minstrel show. Yes. Judy Garland in black face. Her eyes are huge already. With her face painted black they look like her entire face was eyes.
Watching something like this at home alone is one thing. I can watch it and see it from the perspective of time. This is something that, unfortunately, was done in the late 30s and early 40s. In fact, it was probably done all the way up to the early 50s. It was just another way of entertaining people. It was wrong and racist, but most of the folks doing it didn’t necessarily see it that way. Mickey Rooney is not a racist. Neither was Judy Garland. But they did a number in black face. Ok. I can handle that. Different times, different culture.
Watching with a group in a theatre, though, is a very uncomfortable prospect. Suddenly you’ve got a bunch of people who may not be able to see it from this perspective. Suddenly you start thinking, “What if Spike Lee is in this joint?” Everyone starts to squirm a bit. If there is laughter it’s VERY nervous laughter. It’s a little harder to deal with even with a festival audience that is a little more cultured than your typical Michael Bay audience.
But, as I’ve said before, I don’t think it’s a good idea to ban these kinds of movies. It’s certainly a terrible idea to destroy them. If we can’t learn from history, what can we learn from? This is a fun movie with an unfortunate end. It’s ok to watch this kind of thing with your kids. But just discuss the ending with them. Let them know that it’s wrong to do this sort of thing, but people didn’t realize it back then. Don’t let the indiscretion of a few people 60 years ago ruin your enjoyment of a good flick.
That’s about it from the gay side of things. (Again, MICKEY ROONEY IS NOT GAY! It’s the Judy Garland connection here.) As I said, I didn’t get to see Brokeback Mountain, but I heard that it was pretty good and definitely beautifully shot. I’ll have to wait to see it. I’ll bring my own pudding.
So, no more gay stuff that I saw, but there certainly was no shortage of the ever popular tortured artist effect. Along with Capote there were these next two flicks.
Directed by: James Mangold
Written by: Gill Dennis/James Mangold
Based on books by: Johnny Cash/Patrick Carr (uncredited)
Johnny Cash (VERY well played by Joaquin Phoenix) was not always the legend that we know him as now. Once he was just a guy who wanted to be a country singer.
Check that. He was once a guy in love who wanted to be a country singer.
The object of his affection from the time he was about 10 years old was June Carter (Reese Witherspoon), the second youngest of The Carter Family, a country/bluegrass/folk singing family that took the country by storm throughout the 30s and 40s. (Their influence is still felt in all of those genres and more.)
Johnny and June grew up, married other people, and, amazingly, ended up touring with the rest of the Sun Records crew. (This movie has some of the best portrayals of Elvis, Roy Orbison, Jerry Lee Lewis, Carl Perkins and the rest I have ever seen.) And, after June’s two marriages, Johnny’s marriage and three or four kids…well, you know how Johnny and June ended up.
But it wasn’t an easy fight. Johnny became addicted to amphetamines and almost killed himself with them a few times. He got to be so annoying to June (walking all the way from his apartment with Waylon Jennings (played by Waylon’s son, Shooter) to her place across town, constantly proposing to her, etc) that she finally decided that she and her family had to help him kick his habit and get him to live his life and be the amazing star that she knew he could be.
Tough love has never been tougher.
The story has been told before, of course, but that’s ok. This is Johnny we’re talking about. And he approved every bit of this movie, including the casting. In fact, it’s been said that Johnny and June both chose Joaquin and Reese to play them. Joaquin is really showing that he’s one of the best actors of his generation. He looks and sounds just like Johnny at times. He sang all of his own songs and did such an amazing job that there were times that I thought that they had switched to a real recording of Johnny singing. (There’s at least one time, when he’s wearing sunglasses, that Joaquin looks just like River, too. I’ve never thought that they looked too much alike, but this kind of showed that they did.)
Reese, who also did her own singing, may not have looked too much like June, but she was pretty amazing, too. Anyone who thought that she could only do silly romantic comedies has forgotten that she started out in tender dramas like The Man In The Moon. She’s strong, vulnerable and funny sometimes all at the same time. (June was, after all, a comedian, too.)
Robert Patrick is also quite good as Johnny’s nearly indifferent father.
James Mangold and Gill Dennis’ script (based on Johnny’s autobiographies The Man In Black and Cash: An Autobiography) showed Johnny as an almost tragic hero who pulls himself out of hell with a LOT of help from June. And Mangold’s direction keeps the pace going without sacrificing character or story.
I loved this movie. I think it was probably my favorite of the festival, actually. And that’s not just because I’m a fan of Johnny. It’s actually a genuinely great film and it gives us a good perspective on the beginnings of the legend of Johnny Cash.
I have one quibble with the facts of the film: Didn’t Johnny see his brother, Jack’s, accident take place? That’s what I had always heard. Maybe it’s more dramatic to have him off fishing instead of where he could actually help him. I dunno.
NO DIRECTION HOME: BOB DYLAN (2005)
Directed by: Martin Scorsese
Now, from one legend to a legend that was heavily inspired by the first.
Bob Dylan is one of the biggest names in rock music. Even in the late 70s and throughout the 80s when he was putting out pretty subpar albums, no one ever wrote him off for being done. As he’s come back throughout the 90s to today we’ve seen an American original grow older gracefully and have a renaissance of artistic resonance.
But how did the man who became Dylan get his start? Well, that’s what Martin Scorsese set out to tell us with this new documentary. In nearly four hours he shows us pretty much ever aspect of Bob’s early life up through the motorcycle accident in 1966 that sidetracked his career for about a year.
With interviews with Dylan and some of his closest cohorts of the time (including Joan Beaz, Al Kooper (who looks like a wasted Tim Robbins) and Allen Ginsberg) we get a better portrait of the man and the myth than any documentary has ever dared to give us before. Even D.A. Pennebaker’s amazing Don’t Look Back (which lent some footage to this film) didn’t give us such a well-rounded portrayal. It’s a great film that any fan of Dylan or music should make themselves sit down and watch. It’s being released on DVD soon. They will see Dylan deny that he is a spokesman of a generation, a folk singer or a poet. (He’s a song and dance man.) They will see him embrace his audience and then do everything he can to piss them off. (“Play it fuckin’ loud!”) And they will see what made him learn to love folk music in the first place.
One question I have: since Dylan is planning a trilogy of autobiographies and there’s so much more ground to cover than what this film covers, is Marty planning two more docs? That would be pretty awesome. I would love to see what he has to say about his Christian years and the dark years of Blood On The Tracks, Desire and divorce. And then end it all up with his big comeback with Oh Mercy in 1989 and the Oscar win for “Things Have Changed” in 2001.
This is definitely one that I’m buying as soon as I see it. And the soundtrack is out now as Bootleg Series #7. Can’t wait to pick that up. There’s a lot of unreleased stuff including different versions of songs like “It Takes A Lot To Laugh, It Takes A Train To Cry,” live versions and demos.
EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED (2005)
Directed by: Liev Schreiber
Written by: Liev Schreiber
Based on book by: Jonathan Safran Foer
This one isn’t so much about a tortured artist as it is about a tortured young man. But the narrator does fancy himself a writer, so there ya go.
Jonathan (Elijah Wood) is a collector. He collects things that his family leaves behind. His wall is full of these things preserved in Ziploc baggies under a giant family tree. He wants to make sure that his family is remembered and this is the only way he knows how to do it. Yeah, it seems crazy, but that’s just him. He’s an extremely anal nerd who likes everything to be in order.
But now that his grandmother has died he is searching for the woman who saved his beloved grandfather’s life back before World War II. He travels to the Ukraine where his grandfather was hiding from the Nazis and meets up with a wannabe gangsta translator, Alex (Eugene Hutz, front man for punk band Gogol Bordello), who really only speaks very broken English, and his grandfather (Boris Leskin) who thinks that he’s blind, but he drives very well.
Along the way, of course, all three learn a little bit about themselves and their roots.
The movie starts off as a pretty brilliant almost surreal comedy and ends up being a very touching and thought-provoking drama about young men and their relationships with the past, especially their grandfathers. It’s not a perfect film (many had a problem with the tonal shift—I didn’t—and Jonathan’s fear of dogs kind of disappears pretty easily for being such a deep-seated fear), but it is a very good film and one of my favorites of the festival. The performances (especially Elijah’s, who looks like he could have been perfect as Clark Kent) were great and, even if the movie hadn’t been all that good, it would be worth checking out just for that alone.
Making his writing and directing debut, Liev Schreiber isn’t necessarily flashy (except for the constant white-outs, which got a little annoying—but everything is illuminated!), but he’s certainly sensitive to the material and knows what he’s doing. It’s a very good debut film. And it makes me want to read Jonathan Safran Foer’s novel.
Although, it’s hard to hear about rings these days when Elijah is involved these days.
Now, let’s move on to the two Asian films I saw.
THE PRESIDENT’S LAST BANG (2005)
Directed by: Sang-soo Im
Written by: Sang-soo Im
President Park Chun-hee (Jae-ho Song) was a tyrant. He killed people for no good reason, crushed opponents and, basically, made himself into a villain for future S. Korean filmmakers. But he also loved Japanese music and had a soft spot in his heart for women who sang those Japanese songs.
But that didn’t make him any less of a target of assassination plots. Not even from his own officials.
The President’s Last Bang is the story of the last days of his life. They were filled with the things he loved: violence and singing Japanese women. They were also filled with the ineptitude of his own bodyguards and army. (“We couldn’t find any bullets!”) It’s funny ‘cause it’s true!
This is the kind of story that Tarantino would make with Oliver Stone. In fact, Park’s assassination in 1979 shook the country like JFK’s assassination shook our country in 1963. And director Im Sang-soo was sued by Park’s son for defamation of character! They forced him to excise four minutes of documentary footage so that audiences wouldn’t be confused into thinking that this was not a fiction film.
It’s a really strange, funny, violent film with a lot of great political intrigue thrown in. The only problem I had with it was that it was kind of hard to follow at times. I’m sorry, but even other Asians have said it: all of these guys kind of look alike. It’s hard to keep up with who’s who and what’s going on. And I watch a lot of Asian films, so for me to be confused by something like that is really something special.
Directed by: Hsiao-hsien Hou
Written by: T’ien-wen Chu/Hsiao-hsien Hou
Unfortunately, Three Times was not as good as The President’s Last Bang. In fact, it wasn’t even as good as Breakfast On Pluto.
It’s a nearly experimental film about three different love affairs in three different time periods. Each is acted by the same two actors (Chen Chang, and my main draw, Shu Qi) and none of them have a lot of dialogue. The second one, taking place in 1911, was actually shot as a silent film complete with title cards. Strangely, it has the most dialogue.
The first segment takes place in 1966 and involves a young man who is going off to the army and the girl at the hotel he is staying at who falls for him. When she goes to another hotel in another town, he goes to find her…so that he can play pool in front of her again for about 15 minutes.
The 1911 segment is about a couple who get to know each other better over the course of the film. Or something like that. I think at this point I was figuring out the rhythm of the film and realizing that I was in for a long, slow two hours. I missed a few title cards because I couldn’t keep my eyes open, not even to watch Shu.
The final segment (2005) was about artists and drugs. That’s about all I got out of it. It made no sense at all and was probably the worst of the bunch.
None of the stories really seem to go anywhere and the characters are about as interesting as watching a particularly slow bug crawling across a white floor.
Here’s the hell of this movie: I love Shu Qi. I could watch her reading the phone book. And she was actually very good in all three roles. In fact, it could be the best acting she’s ever done because it showed that she has a range. All three characters are very different. But watching this movie is like watching her reading the New York phone book to herself. And its entire plot has been stripped away. And the room she’s in is dark, so you can’t even watch the pretty paint dry around her.
The first segment, as I said, had 15 minute pool games. And these were shot in one take with only half of the table visible. The other half of the screen was a wall. So actors would disappear for minutes at a time and then you would hear the balls knock around. And Shu would giggle her cute little Asian girl giggle. AND THAT WAS IT!!! I’m all for movies with very little dialogue. Solaris was awesome. Kubrick was a master. But this is ridiculous.
And this is supposed to be Taiwanese director Hsiao-hsien Hou’s most accessible work. Wow. It makes me want to run out to the video store and look for his movies just so I can avoid them.
It also didn’t help that Shu was supposed to be at the festival and never showed up. DAMMIT!!!
CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHER WOMEN (2005)
not rated because I didn’t see all of it
Directed by: Hans Canosa
Written by: Gabrielle Zevin
Now for a slightly more successful experiment.
A man and a woman (Aaron Eckhart and Helena Bonham Carter) meet at a wedding. They talk and decide to go back to her hotel room for a night of the old in-out, in-out. As they talk we learn more about their pasts and their current lives.
What makes this so interesting from a filmmaking standpoint is that it’s all shot what director Hans Canosa calls “dual frame.” It’s actually split screens that were shot simultaneously so that we always get the reaction of the other actor to whatever is being said to them at the moment it’s said. It must have really been like acting in a play on this set.
The screens don’t always show Aaron and Helena, though. Sometimes they show their memories of their younger selves (Nora Zehetner and Erik Eidem) or even other people at the reception. Sometimes it can be a little disorienting, especially when they look like they’re further apart than they actually are. But this sort of relationship is always a little disorienting, so it works in the film’s favor.
The performances were all very good, if nothing spectacular. The two younger actors look enough like their older counterparts (especially the beautiful Nora) that you could almost believe that they were actually younger Aaron and Helena. (Although I find it hard to believe that Aaron was ever as buff as Erik.)
Unfortunately, I was unable to see the final half hour of the movie because I had to work. (DAMMIT!!) But I do plan on finishing the movie when it comes out. It was enough fun to make me want to keep watching. I might wait until video, but I do plan on finishing it. I’ll try to let you know when I do.
And now, for the final festival film that I need to review. It wasn’t my last film, but it’s the last one for today.
Directed by: Stuart Gordon
Written by: David Mamet
Based on play by: David Mamet
Imagine a world where David Mamet wrote Taxi Driver. Now, take Travis Bickle out of the film and put Jerry Lundegaard in there. Now you’re starting to get the idea behind Edmond.
Edmond (William H. Macy) is a loser. His wife (Mamet’s wife, Rebecca Pidgeon) is a selfish bitch who wants nothing more than everything and his job is a dead-end. When he goes to a fortuneteller every card turns up bad. It’s time for him to change his life. So he leaves his wife and walks out into the mean streets of New York to find his way again. He runs into a man (Joe Mantegna) who has a pretty racist view of the world. But, to Edmond, it almost makes sense. Then he goes to hookers (Bai Ling, Mena Suvari and Denise Richards), but he’s too stingy to pay for their wares. In fact, his stinginess keeps him from a lot of pleasures of NYC.
Then he meets a young waitress, Glenna (Julia Stiles). She’s beautiful, young and attracted to him. Things only get worse for Edmond from there.
As Edmond becomes more fucked up and his worldview gets even more twisted, his world gets darker and darker. We just know that something is going to explode, and we think it’s probably going to be Edmond himself.
The craziest thing about this film is that it’s directed by Stuart Gordon, director of such awesome cult films as Re-Animator, From Beyond and Dagon. And this is, in fact, a David Mamet play. Not too high on the violence quotient, usually.
But Edmond does get violent. In fact, Gordon gets to spatter Macy with blood in one scene.
In a way, though, this kind of fits Gordon’s body of work. It’s certainly off-center. It’s also darkly comic, disturbing and shows a world that revels in it’s darkly comic disturbance. What more could Gordon want?! Besides, Gordon and Mamet have been friends for a long time. In fact, I think I remember him saying that he directed the first production of Sexual Perversity In Chicago, which made Mamet the playwriting behemoth that he is today.
It’s also a lot of fun to see Gordon and Mamet regulars co-mingle in one film. You’ve got Pidgeon, Macy and Mantegna on Mamet’s side and Jeffrey Combs, George Wendt, Mantegna and Debi Mazar on Gordon’s. And this still has Mamet’s rhythm to it. It really doesn’t matter who directs a film, if Mamet wrote it (especially as a play), you can tell.
The performances were all very good in that Mamet way, but Macy was pretty incredible. It’s hard for him to be bad, I know, but I thought he was really good here. He has a knack for playing losers.
Some people really didn’t like this movie at all. I know it’s not for all tastes, but I really liked it a lot. Not perfect by any means, but it’s a lot of fun in a really weird sort of way.
As we were walking away from the theatre I talked to Gordon and told him how much I’ve loved his films over the years. He says that he’s working on a fourth Re-Animator movie called House Of Re-Animator. It’s going to take place in the White House. That’s perfect. I can’t wait.
So that’s it for Telluride this year. I saw less movies than ever, but it was still a lot of fun. I left my little box canyon town on Tuesday afternoon and I already can’t wait for next year!
