Adventures in Netflix #2-Gabriel Ricard
Adventures in Netflix #2
By Gabriel Ricard
Well, we’re back. Which means that either this is actually going to work, or the sheer power of my low-budget ego has compelled me to continue this column with the hope that someone besides my mother will enjoy it.
For the sake of my ego, we’re going with the first choice.
Nothing to complain about this month, so let’s just run down the line, throw our hands up in the air, and hope like hell that we catch something that’s worth watching.
Fay Grim (2007)
Directed by: Hal Hartley
Starring: Parker Posey, Jeff Goldblum, James Urbaniak
As someone who counts writer/director Hal Hartley’s brilliant Henry Fool as one of his top-five favorite films of all time, the announcement of its sequel, Fay Grim, took on something of an Episode I vibe for me. I’m not going to lie. I had extremely high expectations for this movie. Not only because it’s a sequel to a favorite, but because it’s another work from the mind of one of film’s most underrated and under appreciated names. The fact that this movie almost completely failed to meet the unreasonable hopes I had for it is just the start of the problem. The story’s pretty far removed from the events of 1998’s Henry Fool, but that’s not inherently a bad thing. I have no problem with revisiting Parker Posey as Fay Grim, watching as she heads off to Paris to retrieve her supposedly dead (Henry Fool) husband’s notebooks, which may or may not contain information that could threaten the security of the Unites States. I knew the basic plot going in, and I was more or less fine with it. Even the performances are in pretty good shape, especially Parker Posey in the title role, Liam Aiken as Henry and Fay’s son, James Urbaniak returning to the wonderful character of Simon Grim, Jeff Goldblum as a CIA agent with ties to Henry, and, of course, the vastly talented Thomas Jay Ryan as Henry himself. Everyone seems to be having a good time, and everyone turns in some good work. The problem, in the end, comes down to the execution of the plot and the motivation of the characters. As you might expect, there’s a lot going on in this movie. A strange, almost desperate combination of spy movie clichés, Hartley’s trademark approach to filmmaking, and the world of Henry Fool as we left it in 1998. It occasionally comes together and gives us a good scene. But for the most part, it doesn’t work and only creates a feeling of frustration in the face of pointless twists and further delving into characters like Henry that we didn’t want or need to begin with. Hartley better have a third film in mind, if he expects us to believe everything he throws at us from start to finish. Almost everything Hartley tries in the movie comes off as either tacked on, pointless, confusing, or all of the above. Hartley’s greatest talent as a writer and director is his ability to roll with the offbeat or to breath fresh life into a stale idea. There’s no question in my mind that he’s trying that here. You could make a good argument that he’s taking on too much at once, but he tries to juggle everything all the same. He occasionally succeeds, but it’s not enough to keep the movie afloat. The movie ends on a note that solves very little, and we’re left with a movie that will stand as one of three things, depending on what you were after. If you’re a Hartley fan, it’s a mixed bag that can go either way, if you’re just a filmgoer, it’s probably going to be the same, and if you’re a Hartley fan who loved Henry Fool, you’re in for a pretty big disappointment.
Scarecrow (1973)
Directed by: Jerry Schatzberg
Starring: Al Pacino, Gene Hackman, Dorothy Tristan
This movie more or less failed in 1973, and I can kind of see why. Plot-wise, there’s not a whole lot about it that really stands out. You’ve got Gene Hackman as a tough ex-con and Al Pacino as a likable loser, and you’ve got them meeting up at random and deciding to hitchhike across the country together to start a car wash business. It’s an early-70’s character study. Even now, that doesn’t sound very thrilling. But it’s worth your time. Believe me when I tell you that. On the strength of Al Pacino and Gene Hackman alone, this is one of the great, underrated gems of the 70’s that proves without question the power and range these two possess as actors. Like The French Connection in 1971 and The Godfather in 1972, Scarecrow is a lookat two guys who were at the top of their game in the early 70’s. Their individual performances are perfect from start to finish, and their chemistry together is hard to ignore. Any problems with an uninspired plot will quickly vanish, and by the end, I’m willing to believe that you’ll be wondering why these two didn’t work together more often. Couple it with a great script and some strong, well-paced direction from Schatzberg, and you’ve got a pretty damn shot at a great couple of hours on your hands. If you’ve never seen this, dig up a copy as soon as you possibly can.
10 Items or Less (2007)
Directed by: Brad Silberling
Starring: Morgan Freeman, Paz Vega, Jonah Hill
You may not know the name Brad Silberling, but there’s a good chance that you know his work (Casper, A Series of Unfortunate Events, City of Angels). And if you’ve enjoyed any of those films, there’s a decent enough chance that you’ll like this one as well. What makes the movie fascinating though is how it maintains interest through its entire eighty minute run, in spite of its lack of any real point. Morgan Freeman plays a Hollywood actor slumming it in an independent movie, whose research on his character brings him to a small grocery store. There, he meets a check-out girl (Vega) and spends the rest of his day following her around, giving her advice, and engaging in the sort of bonding you’d expect out of something like this. And of course, by the end of it, he learns a little bit about himself. That’s pretty much the story from start to finish. There’s no real surprises, no conflict to speak of, and the movie never once breaks out of the leisurely pace it establishes from the first scene. So, why bother? There’s nothing about this movie that stands out, and if you miss it, you’re really not losing anything serious. But if you do watch it, you’re likely to walk away feeling as though you just had a really nice conversation with a complete stranger. Nothing exciting, nothing breakthrough. Just nice. It’s as simple as that. Freeman’s enthusiasm almost sells this movie on its own. It doesn’t take a lot of insight to see that he’s having a really good time essentially playing himself, bouncing some great dialogue and chemistry off of the beautiful, talented Paz Vega, who will hopefully continue to grace our presence in future films. It’s these two that make up essentially the only thing about this movie that even sort of stands out. The key thing here seems to be just having a good time, and to that end, the movie works as well as it could ever hope. I suppose the most impressive thing about this movie is how it pulls off the challenge of being light and easy to digest while somehow managing to not treat you like an idiot.
The Long Goodbye (1973)
Directed by: Robert Altman
Starring: Elliot Gould, Nina Van Pallandt, Sterling Hayden
It must have been an interesting sell in 1973. Take Raymond Chandler’s legendary gumshoe Phillip Marlowe and throw him into the 70’s. As hard as I try, I really can’t think of anyone who could’ve pulled off this nearly impossible concept as well as Altman did. The legendary filmmaker made a career out of going against expectations and turning offbeat ideas into brilliant films, and this one is no different. Gould is Oscar-worthy in his take on a character that’s also had the honor of being played by Humphrey Bogart. That’s not an easy guy to live up to, but Gould pulls off what is easily my favorite performance of his long, consistently impressive career. He gives Marlowe more of a lovable loser vibe than Bogart’s tough guy persona. In The Long Goodbye, Gould’s Marlowe is well in over his head, with almost no choice but to simply wander through the surreal landscape of his life and adventures and simply come out alive on the other side. It’s the kind of performance that makes a career, and through the entire film, Gould is never anything less than mesmerizing. The rest of the cast is fine, with a good Hemmingway esque performance from Sterling Hayden, and some good troublesome female work from Nina Van Pandt. They’re fine, but in the end, this is Marlowe’s story and Gould’s movie. And it’s made even better by Altman’s understanding of the material and the subject. Sure, there’s a plot, but Altman is clearly putting it on the back burner, giving us just enough to have something basic to go on. The story itself is not meant to be our concern beyond the face that there’s enough story to move things from point A. to point B. Altman wants our attention on Marlowe most of all, a living anachronism who has no business in any time but his own. He wants us to see the difference a couple of decades can make in style, personality, and attitude. And possibly more than that, he wants to break down Marlowe to just another confused soul trying to make sense of the relentless, confusing madness that makes up the repetitive tune of everyday life. And in all those regards, Altman and Gould succeed brilliantly. Essential viewing for fans of either man’s work.
The Drew Carey Show: The Complete First Season (1995)
Directed by: Various
Starring: Drew Carey, Christa Miller, Ryan Stiles
One of the minor mysteries of the last few years of my life has been trying to figure out why The Drew Carey Show, at its best one of the funniest sitcoms of the 90’s, was consistently failing to make its way over to DVD. Especially when shows like The Waltons have been available on the format since pretty much day one. But now, I can finally quit my bitching and settle in for a personal favorite. This isn’t the best season of the show, but since we’re (hopefully) going to see the entire series, this is a good and obvious place to start. The story is pretty standard sitcom stuff. Drew Carey plays a loser trapped in a perpetual nightmare of a corporate gig at a major Cleveland department store. Between his horrible job and lack of success with women and pretty much every other facet of life, the only thing our hero finds solace in are his friends, the wonderful ensemble of Christa Miller, Ryan Stiles, and Diedrich Bader. Sounds kind of standard, I know, but it works to near-perfection all the same. That’s definitely due to the comedic talents of the cast, especially Kathy Kinney as Mimi, Drew’s perpetual nemesis. Without their talent, this would’ve just been another bad sitcom. But because of them, the show holds up as well today as it did over a decade ago. This first season may stumble a little as it tries to find its voice, but there are still great lines, moments, and scenes. And if you’re at all like me on this, you know that the first season is a hell of a lot better than no season at all. The special features could be a little better, but at this point, I’m just happy that this show is finally getting some due on DVD.
Next time, I’ll reveal the very secret, very sinister reason why this column is better than anything those other jackasses are writing on Netflix.
Copyright C 2007 Gabriel Ricard