|
Post by ptcaffey on Sept 29, 2006 16:50:45 GMT -5
Elsewhere, our colleagues have identified, respectively, "Lost in Translation," "Groundhog Day" and "Glengarry Glen Ross" as "personal worst movies of all time." This is intriguing given the fact that each of these titles is, in fact, one of the more enjoyable, above average films of the last twenty-five years. How do relatively good movies come to be regarded as "the worst of all time"?
I think the answer is pretty plain. Contemporary filmgoers are not seeing a sufficient number of truly rotten films. "Lost in Translation," a sweet tone poem about dislocation (and an Oscar winner), is not truly rotten; nor is "Groundhog Day," a existential fantasy and minor classic. "Glengarry Glen Ross" has its imperfections, but its acting is first rate and its source material, David Mamet's terrific play, was a Pulitzer winner.
So what, you ask, is truly rotten?
Exhibit A is "Siesta," directed by Mary Lambert (1987). Lambert got her start directing videoes for Madonna, and "Siesta," described by the New York Times as "excitingly bad," was her big break. Unfortunately for her, it broke back. I saw it and still have no idea what it was about; Ellen Barkin wanders around Spain, looking dazed; that's it. Lambert's career, of course, was ruined. She has pushed on valiantly, however, honing to completion such diamonds as "Dragstrip Girl" (1994) and "Halloweentown II: Kalabar's Revenge" (2001).
Lambert wasn't always a total loser. One of Lambert's strokes of good luck was to be fired from the production of "Under the Cherry Moon" (1986), a musical starring Prince, with music by Prince, and directed by--after Mary's firing--Prince. Prince has directed nothing since. Thank heavens. That's our Exhibit B.
Exhibit C, is Stephen King's sole outing as director, 1986's "Maximum Overdrive." This film has been described thusly: "A group of people in a desolate Truck Stop are held hostage by a gang of homicidal 18-wheelers. The frightened people set out to defeat the killer machines...or be killed by them." I'll admit there is an eerie prescience to King's "You're either with the homicidal 18-wheelers, or you're against them" plotline; however, in the end, not even Martin Sheen's son, Emilio Estevez, can save this doomed picture. King never directed another movie and was himself struck by a homicidal vehicle in a famous accident years later--a heavy-handed irony that would have been right at home in one of King's novels.
Exhibit D is Emilio Estevez. An entire wing in the canons of "bad cinema" could be devoted to Emilio, but I'll exult only the worst, 1986's "Wisdom." Seeking to become the Breakfast Club's generation's Orson Welles, Estevez wrote, directed and starred in this vanity project, which also starred his then girlfriend, Demi Moore. The plot: "Unable to find work after a past felony, graduate John Wisdom and his girlfriend (Moore) embark on a cross-country bank-robbing spree in order to aid American farmers." Ailing American farmers was a big theme in the 1980's, and Estevez's film, with its advocacy of the destruction of loan documents, did nothing practical to help them. Estevez went on to direct "Men at Work" about garbage men, co-starring his brother Charlie Sheen, and "Rated X" about the porn industry, co-starring his brother Charlie Sheen. Garbage, porn, Sheen. You get the idea. Estevez's latest project, a Love Boat-like ensemble piece set at the Ambassador Hotel on the night Bobby Kennedy was shot there looms with potentiality as the worst of the worst of Estevez.
The movies I've described are really, truly bad. Each, in its way, is the atomic clock of abysmal. By now, "Groundhog Day" is looking pretty darn magnificent. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by liriodendron on Sept 29, 2006 16:59:16 GMT -5
Given the price of movies these days, not to mention the cost of babysitters for those who must hire them while they are at the movies, I would think that the subset of "Really Bad Movies That One Has Actually Seen" would tend to be on the small side. I don't tend to fork over the dough for a ticket (and popcorn!) unless I am fairly confident that I will enjoy a film and if I rent or borrow it on video and it truly stinks, I will either turn it off or fall asleep.
Besides, this crowd has pretty darn good taste, if you ask me. Even fairly decent films might be considered downright mediocre when placed side by side with real gems.
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Sept 29, 2006 17:17:15 GMT -5
I liked Ground Hog's Day. It is about redemption, about getting it right in the end no matter how many tries it takes. Lost in Translation was a colossol bore. Bill Murray played Bill Murray and wondered why he didn't get an Oscar. I'd say men liked it because a curvy young thing ran around in her translucent skivies the whole time, but my husband even got bored with that. But, you may have a point, PT, I may have missed the even worse movies and that is intentional. Life is short and there is only so much vicarious living I care to do. I try to screen what I see before I see it and was sorely disappointed with Lost because it was hyped as an artsy film that would appeal to someone looking for more and, in my opinion, it was less. It would have been an interesting short. All you needed to see you saw in the first five minutes.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Sept 29, 2006 17:23:49 GMT -5
Groundhog Day is one of my all-time favorite movies. Its concept is absolutely brilliant, and to me it's a movie that gets better and better with each viewing. I'm sure I've seen it at least 20 times, maybe more.
I also loved Lost in Translation, and was moved in a number of different ways by it. The performances were spectacular, the chemistry between Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson absolutely wonderful.
I was the one who listed Glengarry Glenn Ross among the worst movies of all time. I could not feel any affection, sympathy, or identification with any of the characters, and I HATED having obscenities screamed at me for a couple of hours. It was depressing. It wasn't the swearing, per se. The Commitments is filled with the "F-word" and it's one of the most endearing, enjoyable movies I've seen -- another that I've watched over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Sept 29, 2006 19:21:46 GMT -5
So many bad movies, so little time. Add "The Black Dahlia" to that. "The Gods Must Be Crazy" was lauded and re-lauded. I walked out after about 20 minutes. I think the only other movie I ever walked out on was something with Dudley Moore in which both of his mistresses and/or wives were giving birth at the same time. In a secluded cabin, on a dark and stormy night, we sort of watched something with Queen Latiffah and Steve Martin which surely was the nadir of movie making. (MY husband is chiming in here.) "Starsky and Hutch" was god-awful, he says. (I told him not to go.) "Something about Mary" How could anyone laugh at that mess? We could go on, but we will stop at that.
|
|
|
Post by carolion on Sept 29, 2006 23:59:32 GMT -5
Well I don't remember the worsts. Except I do remember horrifying my family when we all went to a movie together and during the previews Clint Eastwood, bigger than life, spit a mouthful of beer into a woman's face, and I said out loud (for the kids in the audience who might think this was something grownups should do because a movie star was doing it) I said, "This is stupid."
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Sept 30, 2006 0:38:11 GMT -5
Groundhog's Day was like a nightmare for me. :-0
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Sept 30, 2006 6:34:20 GMT -5
Is anyone else here addicted to really BAAADD movies - just for their entertainment value? Like low-budget science fiction films?
|
|
|
Post by liriodendron on Sept 30, 2006 11:01:14 GMT -5
Are we talking Mystery Science Theater bad?
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Sept 30, 2006 11:20:34 GMT -5
Oh, yeah! I remember one where the door (or hatch) of the Space Ship almost fell off when the alien (Leonard Nimoy's first ever role) climbed through it. You could see the curtain as a ship "wall". It was great.
I get a kick out of TV preachers, too (but that's another thread). When I lived in Dallas, we had a fan club for the most entertaining (read "weirdest") ones to hit the air - and what they offered for love gifts. 'Twas a hoot. (Maybe those guys are aliens.) ;D
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Sept 30, 2006 16:19:36 GMT -5
'' I'd say men liked [Lost in Translation] because a curvy young thing ran around in her translucent skivies the whole time..."
Well, I think the film is special, and it has nothing to do with curves and skivies. Two lost souls make a connection in a foreign land; I found that touching. My favorite moment occurs outside the nightclub where Scarlett J. puts her head on Bill Murray's shoulder. Slander men no more!
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Sept 30, 2006 16:36:20 GMT -5
PT, I wonder if you mind talking (writing) a little bit about Glengarry Glenn Ross for me. I've been giving it some thought and would like to understand why it is considered a good movie, and why the play won the Pulitzer. What did I fail to see behind all the profane despair?
|
|
|
Post by SeattleDan on Sept 30, 2006 19:26:27 GMT -5
I'm not PT, I only play him on TV.
But my brief take on "Glengarry..." is twofold. I looked at like in some of it's themes, Mamet was updating "Death of a Salesman". That it may have souless has to do with it's subject matter...how do you inject soul into this kind of profession.
And the acting from every quarter was amazing. I don't think I've ever seen an ensemble tour de force. Jack Lemmon, Al Pacino, Ed Harris, who am I forgetting? All of them just terrific.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Oct 1, 2006 5:27:29 GMT -5
BL: Well, I think that Mamet's most significant movies and plays examine the rites of masculinity in our culture, with a particular emphasis on hyper-masculine subcultures: real estate sales ("Glengarry Glenn Ross"), con men ("House of Games"), criminals ("American Buffalo"), cops ("Homicide"), and the military ("Spartan," "The Unit"). Again and again, Mamet is asking, What makes a man? To get at this question, he puts his characters through loops so that their roles (as salesmen, cops, soldiers, etc.) come into conflict with their principles, resulting in crises of faith. Each character is given a choice, as the salesmen in GGR are given a choice: sell, or die. Or cheat. What makes a man? His job? His traditional role as breadwinner? His position in the pack of wolves? Or the values he will die for?
For these subcultures, the profanity is part of a specialized language--half jargon, half obscenity--that serves to define who is in the group and who is not. The language is a mark, an identifier--and a weapon. As quickly as it can be used to include and to forge a bond between men, it can also be utilized to cut someone out. To imagine a setting where salesmen, cops and soldiers do not swear is to imagine another world, not our own.
Of course, Mamet stylizes this language into his own thing, a quasi-poetical form, as artificial in its way as iambic pentameter. But when it works, it really works. And it really works in Glengarry Glenn Ross: "I am talking here about a PIECE OF LAND!"
As for despair, yes, there is despair. It's a jungle. The good does not always triumph. The only sure thing, pal, is we're all goners. But given this bleak landscape, how should one choose to act? What makes a man?
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Oct 1, 2006 7:26:55 GMT -5
Danno and PT, thank you both for taking the time to comment on GGR for me. You have both pointed out some of the reasons for its acclaim. Perhaps I should move it from my list of "worst" movies to my list of "movies so depressing and painful they can only be watched once" (which includes some outstanding movies). Your analysis, PT, almost makes me want to give it another try, but I think I'd rather keep Atticus Finch in mind when I consider what makes a man. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Oct 1, 2006 11:26:57 GMT -5
I didn't say all men. The implication was most, but I suppose you're right, PT. I'm quite confident that if everything stayed the same, except Kathy Bates was cast in the role of Charlotte, most of the men who said they liked the movie would like it just the same. The drastic age difference with the sexual overtones put me off.
With regard to what women want, Lisa Kogan writes in the October edition of Ophrah, "We want all rock stars over 60 years of age (I'm talking to you, Rod Stewart, Mick Jagger, Paul McCartney) to date women over 60. Gentlemen, the day will come when you'll be needing a hip replacement. And -- mark me -- the moment your little friend can't be there for you because she's got Gymboree, my aunt Selma will seem like a slice of heaven."
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Oct 1, 2006 20:14:13 GMT -5
RE: MAMET
"Your analysis, PT, almost makes me want to give it another try, but I think I'd rather keep Atticus Finch in mind when I consider what makes a man."
Of course, Atticus tries to save an innocent man from death and fails. That's somewhat depressing and painful, too--don't you think? Mamet also wrote the sceenplay adaptation of "The Verdict," starring Paul Newman. Newman plays a very un-Finch-like lawyer; he's a washed-up drunk, fighting his last battle--a real bum, not an as-seen-through-the-eyes-of-a-child idealized version of a man. Even so, he does manage to find redemption. It's really a remarkable performance. If you haven't seen it, do check it out.
RE: LOST IN TRANSLATION
I see this movie as a kind of love story, but it's not a sexualized one. After one look at Bill Murray's character, it's clear that he would never do that. He has the opportunity, perhaps, but he doesn't take it. That's not the kind of man he is.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Oct 1, 2006 21:27:34 GMT -5
Mamet wrote something else that I saw -- I think I bought it, too, but my movies are packed away upstairs right now and I'm not going to go look. Something with Jeremy Northam as a lawyer, about a boy in a boarding school or something similar. I can't remember the name of it right now. I think it was Mamet's only PG rated movie.
Are you recommending that I give GGR another viewing?
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Oct 2, 2006 7:39:15 GMT -5
re: Lost in Translation.
What kind of man was he? Bored and boring. Nothing in the film led me to believe he was the kind of man who would have taken any interest in Charlotte had she been Kathy Bates. Or perhaps he would have used her, sexually and with disdain.
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Oct 2, 2006 8:05:28 GMT -5
I will make every effort to miss any movie featuring: Adam Sandler (although Punch Drunk Love and Wedding Singer were good.) Burt Reynolds Ben Stiller Anything based on an SNL skit Any pop singer explosions hip-hop Kevin Costner (here again, an exception for the movie he made with Joan Allen)
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Oct 2, 2006 9:28:21 GMT -5
Convinced that PT teaches film or at least some sort of American culture survey course, I hesitate to offer a candidate. But I noticed "The Green Mile" was showing on some cable channel the other night and was revisited by horror and revulsion. Every single thing about it - culminating , of course, in a man being barbecued - was dreadful. Oops. Poor Tom Hanks's urinary infection was a poignant movie first.
|
|
|
Post by sisterbeer on Oct 2, 2006 15:44:28 GMT -5
I thought Jane Fonda in Agnes of God was pretty awful. Watching her act is painful. I get distracted from the story by her self-conscious agonizing.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Oct 2, 2006 18:44:13 GMT -5
re: Lost in Translation. What kind of man was he? Bored and boring. Nothing in the film led me to believe he was the kind of man who would have taken any interest in Charlotte had she been Kathy Bates. Or perhaps he would have used her, sexually and with disdain. Yet Charlotte found him interesting, and likeable. And he didn't use her. The person he treated sexually and with disdain was the vapid lounge singer. I found both "Bob" and "Charlotte" to be completely bereft of human connection when they met. His wife was sending him faxes and Fed Ex boxes of carpet swatches. She had no idea who he was or what he was thinking about. Her husband was finding it interesting to talk to actresses who thought "B.O." was a good conversation topic. Everything either one of them had to say to people in their lives was lost in translation. Her phone conversation with her friend (or was it her sister?) I know that's an obvious statement, but I just think their connection went far beyond sex and sexual attraction into a place more like knowledge. I loved that they finally were able to sleep, together, fully clothed. That they didn't have sex. There was a lot of talk when Lost in Translation came out that Sofia Coppola had based it on her marriage to Spike Jonze. You probably heard that.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Oct 2, 2006 18:45:04 GMT -5
In any case, everyone I've ever talked to about Lost in Translation either loved it or hated it.
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Oct 2, 2006 19:48:04 GMT -5
That's true. The viewer reviews were hot or cold and not much in between. Here's one I liked: "I started watching the movie with five other people. By the end of the movie, I was the only one left on the couch."
Art is in the eye of the beholder but I thought it self-indulgent. Who isn't lost in translation. The film didn't have to be set in Tokyo -- those two would be adrift anywhere. I wouldn't say we saw any connection -- that would require a spark and some dialogue worth listening to. One wasn't sure if they didn't have sex because it would be unethical or because it would require too much energy. How about a sequel which entails throwing some real-life problems at those two?
|
|
|
Post by carolion on Oct 2, 2006 21:26:29 GMT -5
Have you never been in a true-love relationship which could not be worked-out sexually, then - not because of ethics, but because the relationship was meant to become a soul-friendship deal, a sort of spiritual parent-child or maybe monk/nun thing? Those are amazing relationships. Bookie, you know what I'm talking about, eh? Actually, a lot of us here do sort of verge on that quality of relationship fairly often. If we sexualized it, it would be bo-ring. But holding the sexual tension and walking through the other doorway of soul friendship - that can be really interesting.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Oct 2, 2006 21:50:51 GMT -5
The reviews for "Lost in Translation" were almost universally positive. Websites which compile such reviews report positive reviews in 89% and 95% of cases, respectively. Still, it's possible for someone not to like the movie, and I wouldn't try to argue someone out of their immediate response to it. I would just say, however, that my immediate response was different. Sofia Coppola, who wrote and directed the movie, did not write and direct a movie about a male fantasy wherein an older man gets it on with a young hottie. That's not this movie. What kind of man was Bob? He was someone who had drifted away from his family emotionally; he feared that he had wasted his life; he had superficial success but he was filled with regrets. Depression, spiritual malaise, hopelessness--that's his plight. I wouldn't minimize it because who isn't lost in translation? Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by carolion on Oct 2, 2006 22:03:14 GMT -5
PT, I appreciate your take. I also have great admiration for Sofia Coppola's depth of understanding and light but profound touch with things we all struggle with and often have no words for.
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Oct 3, 2006 2:46:31 GMT -5
Not that I pay much attention to anyone else's opinion in forming my own, it seemed at a glance that it got 8 out of 10 favorable critics reviews (it would seem hard to buck that trend if you ran in that crowd), but the people's reviews, the stuff written by the man on the street, were more evenly split and none neutral. One lover wrote: "Perhaps it is a movie you have to see more than once for it to settle in . . ." My response was physical. No way in friking hell. I fully appreciate that love between any two people is not a carbon copy of any other love and does not have to reach a sexual conclusion to be called love, but I never cared what happened to those two narcicisstic characters, who, for all we know, were born that way. They are so detached that one wishes more than a little adversity would fall on them to wake them out of their self-induced comas and this from someone who would love for Hollywood to wean itself off the need for plot driven films and focus a few on relationships. Just interesting ones, please.
And if hottiness had nothing to do with the film, tell me it would have worked for 8 out of 10 Hollywood critics had Kathy Bates been cast as Charlotte.
In the end, it's not like your vote for president in which what you choose will affect me.
I saw a good play this past weekend. "Trying." I'm going to try to get a copy to read as there were several good lines. One about loneliness in a marriage and another about the measure of the man being the distance he travels from his birth place to his ending place, not the status he is born into. I don't remember any lines from Lost. The one that might have been interesting, the one whispered at the end, we don't get to hear. That's okay. I probably wouldn't have gotten why it made her smile anyway.
The rain has stopped. Sydney and I are going back to bed. Isn't there another film we could discuss? Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Jackass II?
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Oct 3, 2006 3:42:12 GMT -5
"J*: And if hottiness had nothing to do with the film, tell me it would have worked for 8 out of 10 Hollywood critics had Kathy Bates been cast as Charlotte."
The critics to which I referred come from all across the country, not just Hollywood. But, yes, it would have worked. It already has. In 1971's "Harold and Maude," two lost souls find each other, if only fleetingly. Harold is 23. Maude is 75. Hottiness, conventionally conceived, has nothing to do with the considerable charms of the picture, although Ruth Gordon is adorable in it.
With respect to casting Kathy Bates in "Lost in Translation," would it have worked? Bates is a gifted actress. I can't see any reason why casting her, at age 22, in the role of Charlotte would not have worked. It's the age and relative inexperience of the character that matter most.
Next, you may ask, but what if a youthful Kathy Bates had been horribly disfigured; then would it have worked?
It did for Lon Chaney. ;-)
|
|