Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
More readers weighing in finally on the NYC event where I showed the three films. INTERVIEW WITH THE ASSASSIN appears to be the real hit from the evening. When people do write in, that’s what they seem to focus on. Check this first guy out, and be prepared: he digresses in spectacular fashion:
Hey Drew-
You may not remember me since it's been awhile, but we met at the AICN triple feature in NYC and afterwards when a crowd of us went out for drinks. I honestly meant to write a review of INTERVIEW WITH THE ASSASSIN that very night, but I was just too tired, and then my life went insane. (My girlfriend and I both got a wicked case of food poisoning that lasted days, and she had to move but the place she was moving to fell through at the last minute and she had to find another place while I was getting tons of email from the psycho woman she almost moved in with, and a whole pile of other fun things happened. Anyway...) It was great meeting you and the other AICN folks, and I hope you can put on some more shows here!
So here's my much-delayed write-up of that night, plus a couple other scoops I hope you'll find interesting.
I'm not going to bother writing about Ray Manzarek's film LOVE HER MADLY because, well, I basically agree with the guy who wrote in earlier saying it was just a pretentious Skinemax flick without enough skin. Look, Ray Manzarek is cool. Seeing Ray Manzarek was way cool. Ray Manzarek doing a Q&A with an audience I was part of was awesomely way cool. Ray Manzarek's film, unfortunately, was not cool, and seeing it basically sucked. But hell, it was a small price to pay to see Ray himself, because he's just plain cool even when he's pushing crap, and who knows, maybe the future holds better films from him. We can hope, anyway.
For me, the highlight of the evening was INTERVIEW WITH THE ASSASSIN. That film is a minor masterpiece, and I don't say that lightly; I've been disappointed all too often lately. I don't suppose there's a chance in hell of it happening, but Raymond J. Barry should get an Oscar for his performance as the man who just might have been the legendary second gunman who actually killed JFK. It wasn't just amazing acting, it was a pitch-perfect rendition of the sort of I-just-followed-orders-I-wasn't-paid-to-think military man who's all too common in real life. Abundant credit also has to go to Neil Burger, who wrote and directed the movie, for having the ear to capture a guy like that on the page, and for being diligent enough to do the research necessary to write such a realistic role.
But even more than Barry's amazing performance, the neat thing about the movie is that it earns its ambiguous, uncertain ending. THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT was a ripoff, IMO. It promised us everything and in the end delivered just about nothing. But INTERVIEW is based in reality even though the particulars of the story are fictional, and since nobody really knows for sure what happened that day in Dallas, the movie actually would've been weaker if it had come down on one side or the other because we would've known that it was offering false certainty. Instead, we follow the POV character, a journalist who stumbles across what might be the story of the century, right down the rabbit hole because everything he thinks he learns, and everything that happens to him, is perfectly plausible, even as the paranoia ratchets up and up and up until you're just about to burst from the suspense.
Go out and see this movie, and then see it again and then buy the DVD, because it's GREAT.
Now onto RHINOCEROUS EYES.
Madstone Films is an interesting outfit with a very unusual approach to producing films. It functions sort of like a grant program: writer-directors can apply, and if they're accepted, they get a salary, benefits, and full financing for a feature in the $500k-$1.5M range. As I understand it, everyone in the program works together in a collaborative development process, and the filmmakers even get profit-sharing on their features. You can read a little more about it on their site, www.madstonefilms.com.
I've been looking forward to see what would come of the program and the company for quite awhile now, and I was very pleasantly surprised when I found out that the test screening I'd snagged an invite to was for their first feature. Unfortunately, the feature itself wasn't such a pleasant surprise. In fact, it was about 90% awful disappointment leavened by about 10% redeeming (though perhaps unintentional) humor.
Michael Pitt (of BULLY and MURDER BY NUMBERS) plays the lead, Chep, an emotionally stunted fellow who works in a prop rental shop. Apparently Chep was raised as a shut-in by his grandparents, and when they died, the prop shop bought their belongings and got Chep as a bonus. He lives in the shop and never sets foot outside except to go to the same movie every day by himself, and since he's all but incapable of normal human interactions, he sometimes just repeats bits of dialogue from the movie and expects other people to understand and follow suit.
One day the always cute and appealing Paige Turco shows up to offer us some welcome relief from Michael Pitt's endless ticks and mannerisms, and Chep instantly falls in love. She plays Fran, an art director so obsessed with getting perfectly authentic props for the musical she's working on that her subordinates keep quitting to escape the pressure of meeting her outrageous demands, and today she's looking for genuine rhinoceros eyes, no fakes allowed. Believe it or not, the prop shop actually stocks real rhinoceros eyes courtesy of the estate of the late, great Teddy Roosevelt, but unfortunately they're already rented to another film, a porn flick with the not-very-clever name of BETTY BUMCAKES, which has stuck the eyes in a hideous little monkey statue that oversees the sex but really has nothing to do with anything.
Chep promises to get the eyes for her, but instead of just telling the BUMCAKES people that another customer has rented them, he sneaks onto the set and steals them, then gives them to Fran for free. Why? Hell if I know, but this sets the pattern for what story there is: Fran needs an unusual prop that absolutely positively must be authentic, and Chep goes and steals it for her. But wait, things get stranger and stranger during this part of the film, because whenever no one else is around, the props in the shop start assembling themselves into ugly little dolls and talking to Chep via lousy stop-motion animation. Or Chep has hallucinations in which strange and ugly stop-motion prop dolls talk to him. Or something. And each doll is bigger than the last, for whatever reason. I never figured out why any of it was happening, except that Chep was getting nuttier and nuttier, and for reasons that still escape me, the dolls sometimes acted like his missions to steal props for Fran were their idea. So maybe voices were telling him to do it and this was really INTERVIEW WITH THE PROP THIEF. Yeah, that must've been it...
OK, OK, back to reality, or what passes for reality in RHINOCEROS EYES-land. Fran finally needs an authentic severed finger (and who doesn't?) so Chep sneaks into a hospital morgue to chop off a corpse's finger, but he's discovered and has to run before he does the dirty deed. Maybe you can see what's coming. (And maybe if you can see what's coming you're very sick and you should seek immediate psychiatric help.) The biggest stop-motion prop doll yet - a Chep-sized doll, in fact - tells Chep that he's a pathetic loser for failing to get something as simple as a finger, so the doll has decided to replace him. But first, Chep can chop off the doll's finger so that Fran gets a finger and isn't disappointed. So Chep chops and Fran shows up and makes out with the doll while Chep looks on in horror, and then he realizes that he actually chopped off his own finger and that Fran isn't really there and that he just hallucinated the whole thing. And suddenly, Chep's all better. All his insanity was apparently contained in his finger, so when he chopped it off, he cured himself. (You think I'm making this up? Go see the movie when it comes out if you don't believe me -- but don't say I didn't warn you!)
Chep then realizes that Fran is not for him, and that the shy, socially maladroit clerk at the movie theater is really his soul mate.
That's pretty much that, except that I've saved the best for last (OK, the only good part for last) and that's the Tor Johnson Halloween mask. Shortly before the rhinoceros eyes make their stunning screen debut, the prop shop owner drags Chep out to a bar for Halloween and gives him the best Halloween mask the world has ever seen. It's terrifically detailed and conveys some real pathos - it's the Tor Johnson mask Tor Johnson would've worn if he were trying to show the world the sadness and wounded dignity of being Tor Johnson - but the best part is how expressive it is. The Academy should create a new Oscar category for Best Performance By A Halloween Mask In A Supporting Role, and they should just skip the nominations this year and give the award to the Tor Johnson mask right now. That mask is incredible. I shit you not, it's a thing of wonder, and I NEED to find one for myself this Halloween. EVERYONE should wear that mask this year.
It's not just that the mask looks awesome. It's a genuinely great actor all by itself. Chep wears the mask whenever he steals a prop for Fran, and those sequences are sublimely absurd; they deserve a much, much better (and much funnier) movie to live in. People freak out when they see the mask, and the mask reacts to them in ways I couldn't possibly describe. You just have to see it. I can't really say the movie is worth seeing just for the mask sequences, but at the very least it's worth renting whenever it finally comes out on DVD just so you can watch the mask bits. This is a mask that would've been at home in a modern-day Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton movie. It's just that good. Too bad the rest of the movie sucks so bad.
And finally, "Smallville".
There've been a lot of rumors that Smallville will be cancelled after this season so as not to somehow conflict or interfere with the godawful Superman movie WB is planning, but according to Mark Verheiden, the show's supervising producer, that's just not true. He says "and yes, the rumor of Smallville's early demise is just that. A rumor... and totally ridiculous." And just to be absolutely clear, when I asked him if I could quote him on that, he said "On debunking the insane rumor that they're about to cancel SMALLVILLE because of the proposed SUPERMAN movie? Absolutely!" And then later he also said "BTW, to continue down the 'debunking' line, the second episode of season two did better in the ratings than the premiere, actually winning the night in the prime advertising demographic (men 18-34)... meaning SMALLVILLE is now the WB's top rated show and no, cancellation is NOT imminent...".
I know the whole Superman subject has been the cause of all kinds of turmoil over at AICN, so I don't know whether this info fits in anywhere, but here it is, for what it's worth.
Also, on a personal note, while I agree 150% that we have to do anything we can to scuttle this horrible crime-against-nature Superman feautre and replace it with something better, I don't think a boycott of Smallville makes any sense at all. Smallville is actually a Superman story done right, and the more people who support it, the more the studio can get the idea that there's an audience for a quality Superman movie. Besides, the people on the show are doing great work and deserve to be rewarded for it, and they don't have anything to do with the hideous mutant monster fetus that is the current plan for the feature.
Well, that's it for tonight! Take care of yourself out there in Hollywoodland, and if you need a name to credit this report to, you can call me Brother Isaac.
Thanks, man. Very ambitious letter. There’s another reader who just felt like shining a light on Neil burger’s film...
Damn, Mori... I just saw that you posted a rumbling recapping the NYC AICN thingy. You probably don’t need it anymore but here’s a late (better late than never, right?) review for INTERVIEW WITH THE ASSASSIN.
Like Reno Nevada 2000 (who was first to submit a review, if you’re counting), I was at the Moriarty-hosted INTERVIEW WITH THE ASSASSIN screening a few weeks back. I hadn’t planned on writing a review since I honestly couldn’t think of much to say at the time other than "nifty", or "cool" or "I really dug it", but a funny thing happened on the way to work this morning. I was handed an informal survey that asked, amongst other things, "What was the last good film you saw?" And I thought about it. Over the past couple weeks I’d seen some respectable celluloid--Stuff that had stars in them and were helmed by indy auterus and yet I found myself saying out loud (I’m not nuts. Honest. It’s just sometimes I think out loud), "You know what? It’s not the new PT Anderson film or IGBY GOES DOWN or SWEET HOME ALABAMA; the last good thing I saw was that really intense indy flick at the Clearview"
And that’s odd. Yes, even more odd than my talking to myself aloud. Like I said, the film hadn’t made much of a first impression. It got the "It’s a nice little film. I liked it," rating and nothing more. And ordinarily that would be the end of it. Ordinarily, I’d file the film away under ‘interesting diversions’ and forget about it, but the thing is INTERVIEW WITH THE ASSASSIN is not going away. Hell, if anything, over the past month it’s managed to make itself felt even more strongly, which is pretty remarkable once you realize that the movie is a lot like John Frankenheimer’s SECONDS only with a historical context; the historical context being that the individual being interviewed throughout the film—one Walter Ohlinger-- claims to have assassinated JFK; that, in fact, he is the infamous 2nd shooter from the grassy knoll.
I mean, I know how that sounds. Ludicrous. Totally ridiculous. Something Oliver Stone might concoct but first time writer/director Neil Buger’s execution is something else entirely. The documentary style of the film really does wonders, making the film’s main conceit seem far more grounded than it has any right to be. Plus, you know the director is doing something right when he creates a sweaty piece of paranoia that is (apparently) so thought-provoking that it’s sat in the back of a person’s mind more than a month after the fact. However, don’t let me mislead you. The movie is far from being a director’s showcase. A lot of credit must go to the nervy balls-out performance that actor Raymond J. Barry (you may not know the name but you know the face) delivers; the grandeur and sheer conviction he brings to the role of Walter is simply off the charts. Seriously. Barry will actually make you question not just Walter’s sanity but your own for actually believing in the man’s claims. Friends, this is the stuff legends are made of --Okay, that may be hyperbole but I want to stress ‘might’. If you don’t believe me, fine, but see the movie. It’s well worth it especially if you’re a fan of paranoid filmmaking (some fine examples include: THE PARALLAX VIEW, the aforementioned SECONDS, ABRE LOS OJOS and JACOB’S LADDER).
Cheers,
Lost Optimist
Wow. I’m glad this film rang everyone’s bell so much, and I look forward to seeing all of you guys next time I visit New York...
"Moriarty" out.
