Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From the Lab. It's been a little while since I knocked one out that dealt with multiple topics, but I'm not in the mood to break this all up. Somehow this is all tied up together. All I know is, this is what's on my mind as the sun comes up on this late September Wednesday.
CAN I GET A WITNESS?!
Good morning, Hollywood. It's a big day for the business. Right now, in Washington, the Senate Commerce Commitee is going to grill representatives from the major studios about the way the industry markets its product to children. I'm surprised by how hard it's been to find much coverage of the events going on. Brooks Boliek at The Hollywood Reporter has been doing a damn fine job. His reportage has raised some issues that bear discussion as the hearing themselves unfold.
I'm not going to rant and rave at you at length about my background here. Harry's brought up his own childhood, and what he saw, and when he saw it, and I had a really different experience than him. I saw some crazy things young, and they scared the silly shit out of me. I love those experiences now in hindsight, but I wouldn't necessarily do the same to a child of the same age. I'm all for media education. I'm also for parents making responsible choices in viewing for themselves and their kids. I'll be honest... I'm as scared of a grownup who watches DAWSON'S CREEK as I am of a child who watches THE EXORCIST. I'm a big advocate of the idea of labelling a film by content so that parents can make informed choices. I see nothing wrong with a poster having a small box in the corner that reads N/V/SC/AL, telling a parent to expect nudity, violence, sexual content, and adult language. That's much more valuable than the all-purpose "R" that the MPAA currently uses.
And what am I opposed to? I'm opposed to the economic censorship of the current system, where the only truly adult rating is stigmatized and without any commercial feasability whatsoever. I'm opposed to someone outside the industry having a say in what is allowed to be shown or discussed in American cinema. I'm opposed to any measures taken that equate the entertainment industry with the tobacco industry. Movies don't cause cancer. Movies don't kill every single habitual user eventually. There's no way to equate the two things.
So what is happening today? What is at stake today? Right now, there's a sort of all-star group of executives who are appearing to discuss the report that was released recently by the Federal Trade Commission that blamed the industry for marketing adult material to children in an unfair and excessive manner. Okay. There is some merit to that conversation. I don't think there's anything wrong with networks relegating advertising for adult films to adult hours. When I'm watching THE X-FILES or ANGEL, I don't really want to see ads for POKEMON 2000, and I really don't think the "blow job in a hot tub" ads for THE KLUMPS belonged anywhere near kid's programming recently. A little common sense about scheduling won't hurt the networks. If anything, it will give a certain cache to the ad time for adults. It'll make that X-FILES ad time even more attractive.
Common sense, however, might be seen as too little too late by the Commerce Committee, who are reportedly still upset about last week's scheduled meeting which was almost completely ignored by the industry. This week, everyone took the summons seriously, and THR lists Walt Disney Co. president Robert Iger, Paramount Motion Picture Group vice chairman Rob Friedman, MGM chief operating officer Chris McGurk, Warner Bros. president and chief operating officer Alan Horn, Sony Pictures Entertainment president and chief operating officer Mel Harris, Fox Filmed Entertainment Group chairman Jim Gianopulous, Universal Pictures chairman Stacey Snider and DreamWorks production co-head Walter Parkes as being the witnesses in attendance today. That's a powerful list, people who will represent this business well. There's been quite a bit made of the fact that Jack Valenti was not invited to the hearings, but I think that's a good thing. I've heard Valenti's shtick a million times by now, and so have you, and so has everyone. He's like Don King at this point, this shouting cartoon version of the lobbyist he once was. He opens his mouth to start pimping the MPAA and all I hear is the WAH WAH WAH of Charlie Brown's teacher. I don't believe in him for a moment. These other witnesses... these are the people that are actually doing it, that are making these choices about what gets made, what doesn't, how to sell these films, and they are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the vast majority of what we call entertainment in this country. If anyone is going to speak frankly about these issues, it should be them.
The studio execs have been busily working these last few weeks to put together a set of proposals about how to exert stronger control over their marketing practices and also how to better educate parents about the content of these products. We're in an election year here, so I don't believe for a second this committee is looking for a practical solution. They want to make an example of these people, of this business. They want to blame us, because if they have someone they can point a finger at, then it means that theoretically there should be some way to just make it all better. There's got to be some magic reset button that will fix the American family and that will suddenly wipe out our insanely high violent crime rate and that will miraculously educate all our children to their maxium potential. And maybe if we scapegoat entertainment this week, all of that will happen. And maybe $1000 bills will rain from the sky and there will be lollipops and unicorns and we'll all eat pancakes with God and then see EPISODE II and it'll be goooooood. Right.
The bottom line is, they've already approved legislature to prevent children from seeing violent fare on television. They're passing laws about this shit. And people aren't getting up in arms. We're just taking it, letting them do it. It's one thing to let them roast our balls for some cheap votes before an election. It's another thing to enact permanent legislature. There's talk of even more extreme sanctions being passed. John McCain isn't going to be happy until he's the guy who's okaying every last thing before it's "okay" for public consumption. Forget about Gore. Forget about Lieberman. Those guys are just talking. It's the Commerce Committee that poses a real and immediate threat to basic expression.
Whatever happens today, it's going to be important, and I hope you're all as interested as I am in the outcome. It affects anyone who loves film or television or music. We take the current consumer system for granted, and we have access to a remarkable array of movies and albums and games. That won't always be the case unless we protect our right to these things. The people who produce them and the people who purchase them have the same stake in this. Here's hoping the execs in Washington stand strong today. Their goal is clear: retain control of their own industry through increased responsibility without sacrificing any of their own freedom. If they're serious about reform of how these things are marketed, then why not go all the way and allow the NC-17 to be economically viable? If you're going to enforce the R, then enforce the NC-17 as well, and book it just like anything else. Only advertise those films at certain times. As long as the system is fair, everyone wins.
But then again... who said the system is fair... right?
Stay tuned on this one, kids.
HEBJU? WHAT THE HELL'S A HEBJU?
Hey, Washington... you want wholesome? You want something that's suitable for all? You want something with a lesson in it that's important for the whole family? Well, be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it in the shape of Frank Darabont's next project THE BIJOU, a script that does indeed pack an important lesson or two in its whip-quick 118 pages. A few of those lessons might just backfire on you, though, since THE BIJOU deals in part with the action of the HUAC during the '50s.
I hate mentioning that first, though, because it makes it sound like it's going to be a "serious film", and I'd call THE BIJOU a comedy overall. A gentle human comedy, though, not a broad slapstick thing. It's a film with an enormous heart. Darabont's said that "if Capra's films were a genre, then this is my Capra film," and that certainly does justice to the tone of the screenplay, written originally by Michael Sloane, then revised by Darabont as he prepares to direct the film. Set in 1951, the film is the story of Peter Appleton, set to be played by Jim Carrey. Peter is a screenwriter who has finally broken through. His first film, SAND PIRATES OF THE SAHARA, has just opened, he's in love with the film's lead actress, a beauty named Sandra, and he's living his dreams. Everything is perfect until Peter is served with a summons by the HUAC. Overnight, his whole world changes. Peter is advised by his lawyer to name names, to admit to things, to roll over. Peter is destroyed by the way the town seems to tie itself in knots to turn its back on him, and he gets in his car one night, drunk, determined to go somewhere and start over.
One car accident, bumped head, and case of mistaken identity/amnesia later, Peter's been taken in by the town of Lawson, California, population 275. The town was devastated by WWII, and there's signs of loss everywhere. Local Harry Trimble (set to be played by Martin Landau) sees Peter and believes him to be his long-lost son Luke, who was MIA on the Eastern front. Harry takes Peter in, and a series of events is set in motion that brings life back to the town of Lawson, even as it teaches Peter an unexpected lesson about who he actually is.
Tell you the truth. This isn't cutting-edge stuff. And you know what? Good. I don't really need my Capra tributes to be cutting edge, thanks. I just need them to possess the same decency, the same sense of knowing observation about human behavior, and the same ability to paint comic portraits that were somehow wry and warm at once. Darabont's got the goods with this one, and his supporting cast is being filled out by David Ogden Stiers as Doc Stanton, Bob Balaban as HUAC Majority Counsel Elvin Clyde (a wonderful portrait of a man who uses politics to bully others for gain), and Jeff DeMunn as the mayor of the town. I'm dying to see who Frank gets for Adele, the female lead of the film, and how he fills out such roles as Old Tim, Irene, Sheriff Eldridge, Bob Leffert, Mabel, and the rest. It's a great cast of characters, easy to fall in love with.
And what, pray tell, is a HEBJU? Well, it's actually HE B J U, the sign on the marquee of the dilapidated theater that Luke and Harry ran before Luke left for the war. It's fallen out of use and into disrepair, but Luke's return gives Harry the excuse to fix the theater up, to open it again, and to restore the sign so it reads THE BIJOU. And it's in writing about The Bijou and its roles in the community that Frank and Michael Sloane reveal themselves completely. It's beautiful stuff. There's a moment when Harry is taking Peter around the theater, trying to make him remember what it meant to Luke. He begins to talk about how the Bijou was a palace once, and how that experience was important. You can almost smell the popcorn as Harry talks to the man he believes is his son.
"Maybe you had problems and worries out there, but once you came through those doors, they didn't matter anymore. And you know why?"
He takes him into the main auditorium and points up at the screen. I get goosebumps at the thought of Landau and Carrey in this moment.
"Chaplin. That's why. And Keaton. And Lloyd. Garbo. Gable and Lombard. Jimmy Stewart, Jimmy Cagney, Bogart and Bacall, Fred and Ginger. They were gods, and they lived up there. That was Olympus."
And sometimes, in the hands of filmmakers like Darabont, it still is.
CROUCHING TIGER, BEAUTIFUL MOVIE
Ang Lee comes pretty close to touching the divine in his new film, the much-praised CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON, and I was fortunate enough to see it on the big screen the other night. I've been offered about five chances to see a VCD version of this film from overseas, but I wanted to wait and see it in a theater. I've avoided all trailers, all major stories, and I went into it wanting to have as pure an experience as possible, free of hype.
In the end, I think it's a wondrous work of visual art, a perfect compliment to the rest of Ang Lee's filmography. This is a story of romances that cannot be played out against a society that conspires to keep love repressed. Like SENSE & SENSIBILITY or EAT DRINK MAN WOMAN or THE ICE STORM, this is a story of people who can't say what they feel, and the things it costs them to stay silent. In this world, when people act out emotionally, it's through these almost hallucinatory bursts of wire fu. I don't think I would call this the best kung-fu film ever made, mainly because I don't think I would call this a kung fu film. It's a drama for the most part, an epic romance with a historical backdrop. The film takes a really unexpected left turn in the middle of its brisk 119 minutes in a subplot involving Jen (Zhang Ziyi in a star-making performance) and her true love Lo (Chang Chen), but it's that elasticity of convention that made me fall head over heels for the picture.
The performances in the film are wonderful across the board. I can't say enough good about Chow Yun-Fat, starring as legendary warrior Li Mu Bai, who has aged with a grace almost unknown to movie stars. During his major fight sequences here, he's unflappable, but it's in the dramatic stuff that he is truly affecting. Michelle Yeoh is the same way. I love the scene in which she dismisses all her servants and closes herself into a courtyard with the thief of the Green Destiny sword. It's a brilliantly choreographed fight. More than that, though... it's a declaration of love and devotion by Yeoh's Shu Lien, and everything she does, every move, speaks volumes about how much she treasures Li Mu Bai. There's one quiet moment between them in a white room near the film's 2/3 mark that just broke my heart. It's a beautiful spot, lush green outside the window, and they're sharing afternoon tea. Their hands touch, and Li Mu Bai takes her hand, sets it against his cheek, and fixes her with an intense look as he says, "Nothing you touch has permanence." There's a sense that time is running out, and the struggle to do something about that is the most terrifying thing he faces in the film.
That's not to say that the film is a letdown in the fight sequences. Far from it. Yuen Woo-Ping weaves real magic with the way he choreographs these whirling dervishes. Gravity means nothing as they sprint across rooftops and up walls and through the trees. A single girl demolishes an entire two-story restaurant without breaking a sweat. There are swordfights that are just jawdropping. And The Jade Fox (Cheng Pei-Pei) and her disciple both wreak havoc with surprising skill. Peter Pau's photography is stunning. As much as I love his older work like THE BRIDE WITH WHITE HAIR and THE KILLER, I have to say he's progressed to the point where he is a sculptor with light. There's no way to overestimate the impact of the score by Tan Dun (with solo performance work by Yo Yo Ma). All of it comes together in a way that is magic.
But I don't want to overhype it to you. I don't know that I can. It's not THE MATRIX. This isn't some crazed action film that will kick your ass. It's more delicate, more lasting than that. The ending hit me in the same place that the brilliant BREAKING THE WAVES did. The blissful face of Zhang Ziyi will haunt me between now and December, when this film is finally going to roll out in America. I need to see this again, and I need to see it often. Your own reaction is going to depend on how open you are to something that shakes all genre, that manages to take flight and create something that falls between meditation and poem, even as it delivers a kinetic kick all its own. Sony's got a unique challenge on their hands here. I can't wait to see how they rise to the occasion. Until then...
"Moriarty" out.
