Ruminations on the Weekend of Sinatra’s 100th Birthday

Ruminations on the Weekend of Sinatra’s 100th Birthday

Ruminations on the Weekend of Sinatra’s 100th Birthday:

It took me a while to "get" Sinatra. He wasn't part of my generation, he was of my parent's generation. I grew up with rock 'n' roll and Sinatra was not rock 'n' roll. In the 60s and 70s, when my musical idols were skinny, druggy, long-haired hippies, Sinatra was a bloated, boozy, balding mystery.

I've posted before how my father once called the teenaged me into the family room when Sinatra was doing a concert (the Main Event from MSG?). My father said, Cameron, if you want to know what class is, look at this.

I didn't get it.

My mother liked Sinatra when she was young, but she was never a bobby-soxer, and never thought he had the greatest voice(!). By fine-vocalist standards, he didn't have the clear tones of an opera singer, so I know what she meant. My mother also disliked the Cult of Sinatra. Idolatry makes her uncomfortable. I understand that too.

As a teenager, I'd look at the 1970's Sinatra and scratch my head, wondering what I was missing. To my credit I like to think that's my usual reaction, not to dismiss things I don't understand, but to try to see what other people see, then decide if a thing is for me.

I remained open minded - but perplexed - by Sinatra into my 20s. He was still getting air play then, but these were his later, more grandiose, somewhat bloated songs like "My Way" and "New York, New York.” (Interestingly, Sinatra was never a huge fan of "My Way." The braggadocio didn't appeal to him. But he knew it would be big, and he must have known the lyric fit his image.) Those were the songs I heard when I was younger, and they didn’t make me a fan.

In high school I got into theater and acting, and spent a summer in summer-stock as an apprentice at 16, so I became familiar with some of the great musical theater compositions. I learned what it meant to convey the lyrics, the meaning of a song. I soon became interested in music other than rock and pop. I remember liking some classical symphonic music because it could be full of drama and power, and jazz began to intrigue me.

In the Air Force I met and became good friends with a guy named Pete Cosmos who’d dropped out of college before his final semester - he was studying music - and joined the Air Force (I never fully understood that). He was a fantastic jazz guitarist and I learned a lot about jazz and music from him. Pete loved singers and raved about Tony Bennett and Frank Sinatra. He would talk about how they were true musicians.

Huh?

Clearly there was something I was missing.

One day when I was home on leave - or maybe I'd already moved back to finish college - I pulled one of my father's Sinatra albums out of his collection and put it on. It was either the twofer "Swing Easy!/Songs for Young Lovers" or the timeless and brilliant "Songs for Swingin' Lovers," both recorded for Capitol Records in the early 50s. Nelson Riddle contributed arrangements to both.

I remember listening to the record and thinking, "Holy shit, how come I never heard this before? This is FANTASTIC!" I wanted to tell all my friends about this amazing music I'd just discovered… which was over 30 years old.

I was hooked.

At the time it was the music that got me, the arrangements and the tunes and Sinatra’s phrasing and rhythmic sense, rather than his way with a lyric. I’d play the songs over and over and still couldn't sing along with them, couldn’t hit Sinatra's beats, couldn't duplicate when he'd come in or how long he'd hold a note. What I heard was so effortlessly natural it seemed like the only correct way to sing, but when I'd try to sing along, I realized how musically original and inventive that phrasing was. That's a real musician, someone who understands how to use the musical and rhythmic aspects of his voice to support what the melody is doing, what the arrangement and band are doing.

It didn't take long to understand the power of Sinatra's interpretations too, his ability to communicate a song so directly you thought he was confessing his inner-most self to you. He SPOKE to you. There are Sinatra recordings I find difficult to listen to because they sound so intimate, so personal, it’s like I’m eavesdropping. One of the greats for me along those lines is “It Was A Very Good Year.” Somehow Sinatra takes someone else’s lyric and convinces you he’s talking about his most personal memories. You believe he’s singing about himself.

How does he do that?

If Sinatra's later recordings are less inspiring, it's partly because the songs began to let him down. Popular music changed and the old songwriters began to disappear. Modern music wasn't the same lyrically, and fewer and fewer told the stories Sinatra was born to tell.

For me, Sinatra was an interpretive singer above all else. That was his greatness and his brilliance, it was the art which no one has ever bettered. The other aspects of his career never quite reached the same heights (for me). He could be a great actor, as "From Here to Eternity" and others - "The Man With a Golden Arm" and “The Manchurian Candidate" - show, but he was never going to be a “great" actor. He was too impatient and I don't think he was born with the soul of the best actors. I also didn't care for his TV appearances, the specials that mixed singing with humor and comedy sketches. Sinatra didn’t have a real talent for comedy. His humor had too much hostility, too many sharp edges, an undercurrent of meanness. He never seemed fully comfortable on TV... unless he was singing. When he sang, he became something special.

When I saw him perform live (the only time) at the end of his career, there was an electricity, a magnetism, a magic in the house I'd never experienced before or since. The performance, for all his later-day limitations, was something magical and great. He didn’t sing for long, maybe an hour, but it was the most bang for the buck I've ever had. From the moment he stepped out on the stage, you felt it, this sense of greatness. I can't describe it but I felt it, and I remember it vividly to this day. This may sound strange, but it was an honor to be in that audience.

I've been married three times. The first time stupidly, in the Air Force, and I moved out after two months. The second time I was 30 and it too was a struggle. I tried to make it work, but after seven years I again left. I've been married to Melanie Hanlon for almost six years (I finally got it right) and my one regret is I saw Sinatra with my 2nd wife instead of with Melanie; it's a memory I so wish I could share with her.

There’s no question Sinatra had his faults. We idolize our heroes, but they’re not Gods, they’re people, and people come flawed. It’s been said he was overly sensitive and felt things too deeply, and that may have lead to him lashing out at people. Being overly sensitive means feeling like you’re being attacked when you’re not, and maybe reacting with hostility in self-defense; that's not justified. There’s no question Sinatra often drank too much and, like many people, he could get mean when he was drunk, sometimes violently so. And there’s no question he was attracted to the wrong people and admired bullies with power, the mafia. All these things are true.

But what makes someone great is when they rise above their limitations and reveal an art that transcends. In a way, having limitations makes their achievements all the more remarkable. I can recognize Sinatra’s faults and I don’t think I would have liked the man very much, but I also recognize the brilliance of his talent, and I’m in awe of it. He showed us what it is to fully inhabit a song and deliver the lyrics with truth, with life, and not with stylized, pretty artifice.

There’s truth in Sinatra’s recordings.

Happy 100th, Francis. Thanks for the great and timeless music.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Sinatra

The Martian - 2015 Film

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martian_(film)




I saw an early screening of Ridley Scott's "The Martian" last night courtesy of the New York Times Film Club and absolutely loved it. This is the best movie I've seen in a while. I recently read the book it's based on (the genesis and publication of which is a story in itself) and loved that too. It was one of the few books I've read where I was disappointed it ended.

The movie sticks close to the book sans a few obstacles, no doubt to keep the running time manageable (it clocks in at 2:21). It stars Matt Damon who's on screen alone for much of the movie (he documents his activities via a video log so we hear him describe the things he’s attempting and the causes of his mishaps), but it never gets old because of the charisma of his character.

The story is, Damon is part of a Mars team living on the surface collecting rock and soil samples to bring back to earth. There's a sort of mother ship orbiting the red planet and when the mission is over, the crew will depart in a rocket called the MAV and rendezvous with the Hermes for their return trip. When a fierce storm arises, they're forced to end the mission early. As they make their way to the MAV, Damon is impaled by an antenna flying away in the storm and presumed dead. The crew leaves him behind.

Of course, Damon is still alive. His bio-sensors were broken so it looked to the crew monitoring him like he died. The antenna which pierced his suit and impaled him created a hole through which his oxygen escaped, but his blood loss sealed the hole and protected him. He wakes up alone on Mars.

What follows is a classic survival and find-your-way-home story, and it's riveting. With each crisis, we watch Damon solve problems through science and engineering (“I'm gonna’ have to science the shit out of this”). When he realizes he'll run out of food, he finds a way to generate water and grow potatoes (from potatoes in the crew’s food supplies) in one of the small habitations. His use of fertilizer is funny, ingenious, and it would really work. He's without communication with Earth for the beginning of the movie (remember the broken antenna?), then solves that problem in a brilliant way and regains contact. What's great about this movie is the action is believable. By avoiding pseudo-science, the movie emphasizes the real human struggle and ingenuity of the character.

We follow Damon through successes and failures as he struggles to stay alive long enough for a future mission to pick him up. It's in 3D and is one of the best uses of the technology I've seen, it’s subtle and effective. The vistas of Mars are wonderful to look at, and the 3D enhances the action without ever getting in the way of it. It was also easy to adjust to and follow. Often 3D is distracting and hard to focus on. Not here. If you see this one (and you should), try for a 3D screening.

There are mild flaws in the movie – more of the book’s obstacles would have been effective, and at times you doubt real astronauts would do some of the things they do here (crawling along the outside of a ship in space un-tethered) – but these truly are minor quibbles in a fantastic film.

Melanie wasn't able to go with me to this one, but I'll happily see it again just so I can take her to it.

The Beatles' "Help!"

This will be a Beatles post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help!_(album)

People talk about The Beatles’ artistic growth with 1965’s “Rubber Soul” and, to me the better album, 1966’s “Revolver.” That’s when they moved away from the “I Want To Hold Your Hand” songs into music and lyrics a bit more thoughtful, a bit more mature.

But no one ever considers the album that remains one of my favorites, the one preceding “Rubber Soul,” the “Help!” album.

“Help!” was released in 1965, the same year as “Rubber Soul,” and I hear a lot of the same elements in both records. Maybe “Help!” is overlooked because it’s “just” a “soundtrack” album? Maybe to some people that means it doesn’t count?

If so, you need to re-evaluate.

“Help!” is a wonderful transitional album. It’s The Beatles moving away from the pop/rock hits that established them, into more personal songs. John Lennon admitted this, saying the song “Help!” was an autobiographical expression of his state of mind. But just look at the lineup on this album and tell me it’s an inconsequential album:

• The Night Before
• You've Got to Hide Your Love Away
• Another Girl
• You're Going to Lose That Girl
• Ticket to Ride
• I've Just Seen a Face
• Yesterday

How is it possible people dismiss this album?

Maybe it's because the US release of the album had a Side A of Beatles songs, and a Side B of instrumental tracks from the movie. But the UK version of "Help!" is the one to get, all Beatles tracks. (The current US release now matches the original UK release.)

The first few Beatles albums were great, but they were great in youth, energy, immaculate organic rock and roll, and enthusiasm. The fourth one doesn’t do much for me, “Beatles For Sale.” Some disagree. My friend Todd Fredericks comes to mind. He has a fantastic-sounding early pressing of this. But musically the album seems like a lull to me, a weary obligation during an overworked period.

After “Beatles For Sale” the band seems to have rested up for a bit, then filmed and recorded “Help!”

I read an article yesterday or the day before criticizing “Help!” This is my answer to that writer, whoever he is (I forget where I read it). "Help!" is an essential Beatles album, and remains one of my personal favorites.

Jimmy's Hall - 2015 Film

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy%27s_Hall

Melanie and I saw "Jimmy's Hall" last night at the Angelika and we didn't think much of it, which seems to put us in the minority. We found it unrealized and vague.

The film is about Jimmy who returns to Ireland in the early 1930s after being in New York for ten years. During the first 20 minutes of the film we learn he left because of controversy over a sort of public meeting hall he helped fix up. When he returns the locals convince him to get the hall back in shape because they have no place to socialize and have fun.

The conservatives in the town and the Catholic church especially hate Jimmy for it because they're threatened for some reason by it. They call him and the people that hang out in the hall communists, even though the hall is for the most part just a place to socialize, dance, play and listen to music, and learn things. The figure of Jimmy is not especially political and you wonder what the fuss is all about. True, it was a different time, but the movie seems to be missing things to explain the aversion everyone has.

As usual the Catholic church is depicted as cruel and power-mongering, but to what point? The whole movie left me scratching my head, thinking, "So?" Clearly others disagree and seem to enjoy the movie, but I can't really recommend it. I liked the actor Barry Ward in the lead, even though his character like all the rest isn't very fleshed out. The movie has a lot going for it - great look, interesting time period and location, interesting subject matter - but it doesn't really come together.

"Lambert & Stamp" Documentary

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lambert_and_stamp/

We saw the documentary “Lambert & Stamp” the other night about the first managers of The Who. Amazing movie. It resonates.

The movie is about The Who’s first great management team, two guys who shaped them and helped them become the band they became. If George Martin was the fifth Beatle, Chris Stamp and Kit Lambert were the fifth and sixth Whos.

This is such an enjoyable film. Great early footage of The Who - while they were still calling themselves The High Numbers - and candid interviews describing the efforts that went into making the band successful. It’s about collaborative relationships, and about Mod England in the early 60s. Great early footage in Cinéma Vérité style, with informative modern interviews to flesh out the story. Fantastic.
Perfect? No. As documentaries go, this one does confuse at times. You're not always sure who people are and how they relate to the bigger picture. Irish Jack is a good example. We see footage of him dancing at an early Who appearance - or High Numbers appearance I think - then in present day reading from what appears to be a memoir he wrote about the band and the era. But who is he exactly? We're not told. Other characters drift in and out without much explanation, and that is at times bewildering.

But as Spencer Tracey once said of Katherine Hepburn (in "Pat and Mike"), "Not much meat on her, but what there is, is cherce."

That's this flick. Check 'er out.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lambert_and_stamp/

St. Vincent

Watched "St. Vincent" the other day via Netflix. Blu-ray disc rental; yes, I still do that, because Netflix streaming SUCKS!

Good movie. Great Murray, but I love him in everything anyway. Funny, at times LOL funny, but also moving. Thin? Yes. Predictable? Sorta. But engaging and watchable. 

Movie Thoughts: Imitation Game, American Sniper, Foxcatcher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imitation_Game

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Sniper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxcatcher

Melanie and I saw three good movies recently, “The Imitation Game,” “American Sniper,” and “Foxcatcher.” All three are worth seeing and they’re all up for Academy Awards.

It’s interesting how half of this year’s eight Best Picture nominees are based on true stories: “Selma” about Martin Luther King Jr., “The Theory of Everything” about the physicist Stephen Hawking and his wife Jane Wilde, “The Imitation Game” about the scientist Alan Turing, and “American Sniper” about the most lethal sniper in American history, Chris Kyle. “Foxcatcher,” up for a Best Director award (not Best Picture), is also a true story about John du Pont’s efforts to coach an Olympic wrestling team in the 1980s.

The first movie we saw was “The Imitation Game” (thanks Kacie) which stars Benedict Cumberbatch (still the greatest name ever in the history of ever). Cumberbatch plays Alan Turing, the British mathematician and cryptanalyst who cracks the “unbreakable” codes of Germany’s WWII Enigma machine by inventing what is considered to be the first computer. I agree with Kacie’s assessment that though very good, the movie is fairly conventional in structure and narrative flow. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s surprising how the older I get the more challenging I like my movies to be. “Birdman” is a good example of that, a movie that mixes reality with fantasy… or does it?

“The Imitation Game” cuts back and forth between the “present day” of the 50s, and the 1940s when Turing gets involved with the Army and works on breaking Germany’s code. Adding to the tension is Turing’s homosexuality which in Britain at the time was a crime and had to be kept hidden. The movie does a good job of slowly revealing this other side to Turing’s life.

Cumberbatch is great in this. He doesn’t have typical movie-star leading-man looks, which might be why he’s so effective in off-beat roles. I first noticed him in the BBC series “Sherlock” where he plays a modern-day Sherlock Holmes as social misfit. He’s been in a few big movies since then including “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy,” Steven Spielberg’s "War Horse," and "Star Trek Into Darkness" (Khhhhhhhaaaaaan!). He was also in last year’s “August: Osage County” where he’s convincing as the dim-witted Little Charles. He has a broad range and it’s great to see him as the lead, his first I think in a movie. Keira Knightley is also very good as a fellow cryptographer and something of a love interest; she received a Best Supporting Actress nomination. The movie has received eight Oscar nominations in all.

I would have liked a bit more about how Turing’s computer works in that vacuum-tubed era, and exactly what the algorithm does to crack the code. We get a sketchy overview, but no details. Yes, this is a movie, not a computer science lecture, but I would have liked a bit more. Maybe some of the science is still classified? I don’t think the British even admitted to having broken the Enigma code for 50 years, so maybe there are some things the movie isn’t allowed to show us?

But the movie does a great job making something that could have been mind-numbingly boring into an exciting thriller. There’s a lot of effective tension, obviously in the race against time to break the code, but also in the character’s relationships, and in the clash between Turing and the regimented mind-set of the military, which has a hard time with anyone or anything that isn’t strictly by the book. Turing was a national hero who was on the one hand celebrated for being different (brilliant mind) but also persecuted for being different (gay). The movie may not be a cinematic revelation - A.O. Scott of the New York Times said it’s a highly conventional movie about a profoundly unusual man - but it’s very well done and well worth seeing. Great performances and a solid production.

Our local theater, City Cinemas 1, 2 & 3 on 3rd between 59th & 60th, used to be a bit of a shithole. It never bothered me too much, but one of the three rooms especially was pretty rundown, to the point where Melanie would rather take public transportation to another theater than walk to this one. Recently they closed for “renovations” and I was afraid it was shutting down. (Since we’ve lived here, three theaters within walking distance have closed.) But no, they reopened a couple of weeks ago… with higher ticket prices. They used to charge $14 or $14.50 per movie and now they’re up to I think $17 or $17.50. Still, out of curiosity, we decided to see our next movie there.

Wow. City Cinemas is now my favorite movie theater.

Well, second favorite. My favorite favorite is Nitehawk Cinema in Williamsburg Brooklyn (http://www.nitehawkcinema.com/). “Nitehawk offers audiences an unparalleled cinematic experience by combining exemplary first-run and repertory film programming along with tableside food and beverage service in all theaters. Complementing our staple menu items of gourmet concessions, local beers, and handcrafted cocktails, Nitehawk’s team creates specialty dishes and drinks inspired by our films.” Food and drinks during the movie; this is my kind of theater. Too bad it’s not in our neighborhood.

City Cinemas now has wide reclining seats with roomy arm rests and comfortable leather or faux-leather upholstery. There’s plenty of aisle room in front of you so even when you’re fully reclined, people can still get through your row. No more “excuse me, pardon me, sorry didn’t mean to step on you, coming through, sorry, thanks, oops! I’ll take my foot out of your popcorn, pardon me, excuse me.” The only danger in City Cinemas now is staying awake in your comfy chair during the quieter scenes. What a great way to see a movie. The extra room means fewer seats per theater, so that’s partly why the tickets prices are higher, but I guess you also must pay a little more for the luxury of being in movie theater first class.

On the positive side, City Cinemas is now offering matinee prices before noon, something you don’t see a lot of in the city. We took advantage of that Monday (we were both off) and caught the 10:45 showing of “American Sniper.”

There’s some controversy surrounding “American Sniper” because of claims Chris Kyle (the subject of the movie) made in his autobiography which were later proven to be untrue. From what I understand, Kyle said he punched-out Jesse Ventura once for saying disparaging things about the Seals and the USA. Ventura sued Kyle (later his widow after Kyle died) for defamation and unjust enrichment and won.

Nothing is said about this in the movie, but so what? The movie is about Kyle’s experiences in war and an examination of the toll that took on his marriage, and no one seems to be contesting any of that, so who cares? This is a Hollywood movie and it’s a good one.

Like “The Imitation Game,” “American Sniper” also has a conventional structure. That format works here because it’s a good old fashioned war movie and the conventional structure is appropriate and comforting. Bradley Cooper is the lead and he bulked up noticeably for the role. It’s a performance unlike anything I’ve seen him give before. I tend to think of him still as a bit of a comic actor, the guy from the Hangover movies, and even in last year’s “Silver Linings Playbook” he had a manic comic-y edge. But here he’s convincing in a purely dramatic part playing an alpha-male gung-ho military dude from Texas. He’s been nominated for a Best Actor Oscar and the movie has been nominated for Best Picture along with screenplay, editing, and two sound awards.

I worked as an avionics technician when I was in the Air Force (avionics refers to electronic equipment on airplanes), but in basic training I qualified as a marksman and got my ribbon on my first try (yes, really). “American Sniper” does a great job of showing what good marksmanship is all about. You’re right there with Cooper as he lines up his target, steadies himself, and controls his breathing to get off a good shot.

This is a thrilling, exciting, vibrant, youthful movie, made by a young guy in his… 80s? 84 to be exact. The young director is Clint Eastwood and at this stage in his career, it’s great to see him hit another high. This movie is at times edge-of-your seat gripping, and ultimately tragic. It’s a patriotic movie done at a time when you don’t see many of those. I saw a reviewer’s blurb somewhere that compared it to a Western and that’s not a bad analogy.

If Kyle seems a bit two-dimensional at times, it might be because the real Kyle never questioned the conviction of his basic, maybe simplistic beliefs. This is a great movie and worth checking out. Apparently it has the biggest January opening weekend of any movie in history. I’m a little surprised by that, but maybe it’s the kind of pro-USA movie people want right now. It’s patriotic without being corny, and that’s tough to pull off. It’s also un-politically correct, but I guess war’s like that.

Last night we saw “Foxcatcher” starring Steve Carell as John du Pont, Channing Tatum as Olympic gold medal winner Mark Schultz, and Mark Ruffalo as Mark’s older brother Dave Schultz who was also a gold medal winner. This one’s up for Academy Awards for Best Actor (Steve Carell), Best Supporting Actor (Mark Ruffalo), director, screenplay, and makeup & hair. If it had gotten a Best Picture nod I wouldn’t have been surprised, it’s that good.

I’m glad it has a nomination for makeup and hairstyling. A lot of times that award only goes to special effects movies, science fiction and fantasy things like the Lord of the Rings films. Steve Carell is almost unrecognizable as John du Pont. He has a prosthetic nose, gnarly fake teeth, and a horrible haircut that completely transform him. But it’s also his acting. He tilts his head back literally looking down his nose at people and transforms his expressions and physicality in a way I didn’t know he was capable of. All the leads are amazing in their physicality. Mark Ruffalo and Channing Tatum affect a wrestler’s ape-like, torso-forward way of moving which makes them good wrestlers but unsteady-looking walkers. Tatum’s face also looks different. Is he wearing some kind of dental prosthetic to give him a jaw-jutting appearance? Or is he just thrusting his jaw forward like Billy Bob Thornton in “Sling Blade?” Whatever, it’s a great detail.

“Foxcatcher” is about John du Pont’s attempt to put together and coach a winning Olympic wrestling team. He’s the heir to the du Pont fortune and is shown as being severely damaged in spite of – or because of – his enormous wealth and privileged lifestyle. But it’s not just him who’s suffering, the brothers are also damaged and fighting their own demons. These are real, flawed people, and their interactions have a palpable undercurrent of tension. Fortunately little attempt has been made to glamorize these people, to pretty them up for the biopic. We see how alone and sad the former Olympian Mark Schultz is in his poverty, and how alone and sad du Pont is in his wealth.

I like how the movie doesn’t feel the need to explain everything. In the beginning we see Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo in a gym practicing wrestling moves. Who are they? Trainer and athlete? Friends? Do they know each other? We watch as things get more intense until blood is drawn. You expect some kind of emotional blowup after that, but instead the characters shrug it off and resume their workout without exchanging a single word. Over time you realize they’re brothers, but the movie lets you figure that out from watching them interact, it trusts your intelligence. Throughout things are not explained, they’re shown, and there’s a real power to that. We learn what the story is and who the characters are by observing them, not by being told.

There’s an engaging, at times uncomfortable intimacy between the characters in many of the scenes. The actors are left to play out their exchanges with no forced or artificial gimmicks or distractions, no sudden surprises, no quick cutting to liven things up. The scenes are stark and brutal with a limited score using silence to underline the raw intensity of the character’s awkwardness. There’s nothing for you to hide behind and it’s thrilling to watch. Some might find these moments boring, but to me they’re brilliant. The feeling of the character’s emotions is palpable. It’s hard to show anything more captivating than expert actors working with convincing material under a nuanced director who understands the drama of real people and real exchanges. In many ways this is an actor’s movie.

There’s a moment where one character slaps another across the face and I saw the audience jump. Doesn’t that sound strange? A simple slap, not even a punch, makes the audience jump? But the tension is so prevalent throughout, when you see a sudden release of it, you almost feel it, and it’s as startling as the head of a corpse that floats out from the bottom of a boat in “Jaws.” Sudden moments of violence appear several times then quickly disappear, and it’s unbelievably effective. (Effective? Affective? I still don’t know which word is right…)

I’ve never thought much of Channing Tatum’s abilities before, but after seeing this performance, I’ll be paying more attention. Hard to imagine anyone doing more with the part than he does. He fully inhabits the character, what a great performance. All three of the leads are fantastic here. Another movie I can easily recommend.

So there you go, three movies, three winners. I might like “Foxcatcher” the most, maybe because it’s the freshest in my mind. But it’s also a bit more unexpected and original than the other two. And what great performances, especially the ensemble work, amazing exchanges. Good stuff.

"Interstellar" Movie Review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_(film)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/interstellar-has-gorgeous-posters-ever-734367

Melanie and I saw “Interstellar” last night. Way back when it was first coming out I was interested because it’s a Christopher Nolan film (director) and written by him and his brother Jonathan Nolan. I’m a big fan of Nolan’s, starting with 2000’s “Memento” which he also co-wrote with his brother. Nolan also directed the three most recent Batman movies and cowrote two of those with his brother as well.

I obviously took my time seeing “Interstellar.” The initial attention it got when it opened in November seemed to fade quickly as other newer movies got buzz. “Interstellar” got moved to my must-see-but-maybe-not-just-yet list. By the time we saw it last night, I’d completely forgotten it was a Christopher Nolan movie!

I didn’t read much beforehand so didn’t know much about the storyline going into it. That’s how I like seeing a movie, without too much information or pre-conceived ideas. It wasn’t until the movie was over I realized it was Christopher Nolan’s; I don’t think there are any titles in the beginning so most or all of the credits are held to the end.

The story concerns a future earth heading toward catastrophe because of an out-of-control blight which is ruining crops and turning the planet into a dustbowl. McConaughey plays Cooper, the single father of a young teenage son Tom and a pre-teen daughter Murphy. Cooper’s a farmer now, but before that he was an engineer and a pilot (the future earth needs farmers more than engineers).

Murphy notices strange things happening in an upstairs room. In ways I won’t give away, these events lead them to the super-secret remnants of NASA. The man in charge is Professor John Brand played by Michael Cain. He tells Cooper about a worm hole discovered near Saturn that seems to lead to a galaxy where there are other inhabitable planets within reach. But they need good pilots and, knowing of Cooper’s background (was Cooper also a part of NASA? I wasn’t clear on that), they recruit him on the spot. Cooper agrees, and the next day(?) he blasts off. That’s one of the problems I have with the movie. They didn’t know Cooper would find them, but now that he has, they immediately send him off into space without any training.

What?

Oh but wait, right, this is a movie.

Cooper is part of a crew of four which includes Anne Hathaway as Amelia Brand, professor Brand’s daughter. With them are two robot slabs named TARS (voiced by Bill Irwin) and CASE (voiced by Josh Stewart). The robots have movable panels allowing them to walk and, when necessary, cartwheel. Their ship meets up with an orbiting station - a kind of deep-space mobile home - which they ride to Saturn.

They crew has two potential missions. Plan A is to find an inhabitable planet the earth’s population can migrate to. The hitch is no one knows how to get everyone there yet. Back at NASA, professor Brand promises to have that part worked out before an inhabitable planet is found. Plan B – it wasn’t quite clear to me when Plan B might need to be implemented - is to seed a planet with human DNA. When? If an inhabitable planet can’t be found? Or if an inhabitable planet is found but the earth’s population can’t get there? At any rate, a method has been developed to allow babies to hatch and grow up without adult parents. These seem to be time-released babies and new ones will be hatched periodically. By the time the first babies become young adults, they’ll engage in behavior that will no doubt result in more babies. (I assume condoms and birth control pills are not included with whatever provisions they’d be supplied with.)

The limitless and epic beauty of outer space is visually dramatic here, very well done. There’s time dilation and black holes and relativity and a fifth dimension (this is the dawning of the age of Aquarius). There are tidal waves and ice clouds (Holy Hoth, Batman!) and dust storms. There’s a lot of movie in this movie.

I like “Interstellar,” it’s very good, impressive, but it’s also a little disappointing. It doesn’t achieve the greatness it strives for. In some places a lot of attention seems to be paid to getting the science right, but in others places the laws of physics are completely ignored and replaced by pure fantasy because that works better for the plot. That’s OK I guess, it is a movie, but it’s a strange mixture.

Other elements of the story don’t add up. We learn Professor Brand isn’t all he presents himself to be, but the reveal doesn’t tell us why he behaved as he initially did. There’s a nice bookend scene near the end mirroring an earlier scene where Murphy discovers the mysterious things happening in an upstairs room, but when we learn what causes these things, it doesn’t make sense why they’re done. This may sound vague, but I can’t say too much without spoilers. Suffice to say in addition to the worm holes and the black holes, there are plot holes.

I don’t care much for Matthew McConaughey’s performance here. He has an affected understated droll, flat and monosyllabic, which makes him come off as an actor who’s a bit full of himself. I saw the acting instead of the character. McConaughey is on a hot streak after doing “Dallas Buyers Club,” and it seems to me he’s a little cocky in this performance. Not bad, just not as committed as he can be. Maybe it was the part, but I think it’s up to an actor to create dimension in a character if it’s not on the page. A good actor finds things in between the lines, motivations and intentions of his own to inform the person he or she is playing. I didn’t see much of that here. Yes, maybe the director told him not to do these things, but I can’t imagine Nolan telling McConaughey to flatten out his delivery. Anne Hathaway and Jessica Chastain are very good, as is Michael Cain in the kind of smaller but memorable part he specializes in now.

I like what the movie strives for. This is an epic film and you get a lot in it. It’s going for big things, big ideas, and balances that effectively with human intimacy and emotion. That’s nice to see. It has the cosmic and the personal and examines the unknowable vastness of the universe and of love, and it mostly does a good job with both.

The cinematography and special effects are great too. A lot of the effects are “real” as opposed to CGI; solid props are used and real projections are seen through the windows of the spaceships. That gives the movie a more organic, believable feel. What CGI there is integrates well with the rest of the movie and doesn’t stand out or detract.

Sometimes the movie stretches a bit - the scene in the fifth dimension is visually stunning, but it made me wince – but mostly it delivers what you want from a big movie. Nolan’s movies are sometimes big on idea and not fully successful on execution; this is a big example of that. But though I had hoped for more, I did like it. It could be shorter for sure, but I guess that would make it less of an epic. Or would it? Doesn’t any work improve through tightening and careful editing? Would that rob this movie of its epic-ness? Maybe not. I think you could shorten this by 30 minutes or more and have a better film.

One side complaint. We saw this at the AMC Loews Kips Bay 15 theater at 2nd and 32nd, in theater five I think. It was a smallish room and we were in the second to last row. We looked slightly down on the screen and during the commercials it looked a little dim and soft, kind of standard def instead of hi def. I figured that was because the ads were in lower resolution, but the coming attractions were the same and so was the feature. Disappointing, especially with a movie as visual as this one. The projection should have been better.

Another side complaint. What the fuck with seeing a movie in public anymore? Just as the movie started a young couple walked in and sat down in front of us a bit to the left. The woman had a cell phone with a bright screen and continued scrolling through it while the movie played. In a deep loud voice - I love having a stage voice in my actor bag - I said calmly but loud enough for the whole theater to hear, “Could you turn off your phone please?” My thinking is, if you say something loud in a crowd of strangers, the person you’re talking to will realize you’re not afraid to make a scene and will react with politeness instead of belligerence. Plus, I was behind her and she couldn’t see me, so that must have been at least a LITTLE intimidating. She paused for the briefest of moments, then put her phone away and kept it off for the rest of the movie. The other advantage of letting everyone else hear you is, they’ll hopefully think twice before using their own phones. One day for sure this is going to backfire on me; I promise to post what happens when it does.

I give this whole movie-going experience a 1.5 out of four stars. I’d give the movie three out of four stars, but because so much effort was put into it, and because it strives for more than most movies do – and because many of it worked very well – I’ll give it 3.5 out of four stars. And half a black hole.

"Fury" Movie Review

Starring Brad Pitt. I remember when it was in the theaters, and it looked interesting, but I didn't see it and suddenly it seemed to be gone. It's getting some pre-Oscar attention so Melanie and I rented it.

Enjoyable flick. A fun night-at-the-movies picture. Entertaining, thrilling, and it makes excitement out of something that sounds boring: a tank crew. A WWII tank crew. Tank fighting. Wow.....

You won't believe it, but the most thrilling, gripping movies I saw in 2014 are "Whiplash" about a kid drumming, and this one, "Fury."

I don't think "Fury" is a "great" movie, but it's a great movie. Entertaining. Edge-of-your-seat in parts. It takes an unusual premise and makes something emotional from it. It demonstrates how any good movie has to be about the people - the characters - as much as about the events. Put bland people in an action movie and you'll yawn: Oh, it's just about the special effects. Put exciting, grounded characters - good actors - in a non-adventure, and you'll connect with the story, the movie. Yes, a generalization, but a true one.

"Fury" gets them both right, great characters and actors in an interesting story. I was surprised by it. I enjoyed it. I was surprised at how much Melanie enjoyed it too.

"Nightcrawler" Movie Review

Melanie and I saw the movie “Nightcrawler” tonight care of a screener loaned to us by a friend who shall remain nameless, whose name is…. Oops. (I know, Oops is a very unusual name, but I’m not the father, so don’t blame me.)

Good flick. Very good Jake Gyllenhaal. Brave turn for him, playing such a skeevy character. The movie does a good job translating the pulpy crime-loving crime photographer of the 1930s and 40s Weegee into the modern internet age. Gyllenhaal does repulsive well; who knew?

I like this one as a comment on media and our appetite for gore. It’s an effective modern film noir which, my friend Todd will be pleased to hear, is in color. The movie transplants a Lower East Side character into modern day LA, and it works. It lags in parts, but the whole of it is a thrilling ride and worth checking out.

The Wikipedia entry on Weegee:

Weegee was the pseudonym of Arthur Fellig (June 12, 1899 – December 26, 1968), a photographer and photojournalist, known for his stark black and white street photography. Weegee worked in Manhattan, New York City's Lower East Side as a press photographer during the 1930s and '40s, and he developed his signature style by following the city's emergency services and documenting their activity. Much of his work depicted unflinchingly realistic scenes of urban life, crime, injury and death. Weegee published photographic books and also worked in cinema, initially making his own short films and later collaborating with film directors such as Jack Donohue and Stanley Kubrick.

Weegee was born Ascher (Usher) Fellig in Złoczów (now Zolochiv, Ukraine), near Lemberg, Austrian Galicia. His name was changed to Arthur when he emigrated with his family to live in New York in 1909. There he took numerous odd jobs, including working as an itinerant photographer and as an assistant to a commercial photographer. In 1924 he was hired as a dark-room technician by Acme Newspictures (later United Press International Photos). He left, however, in 1935 to become a freelance photographer. Describing his beginnings, Weegee stated:

In my particular case I didn't wait 'til somebody gave me a job or something, I went and created a job for myself—freelance photographer. And what I did, anybody else can do. What I did simply was this: I went down to Manhattan Police Headquarters and for two years I worked without a police card or any kind of credentials. When a story came over a police teletype, I would go to it. The idea was I sold the pictures to the newspapers. And naturally, I picked a story that meant something.

He worked at night and competed with the police to be first at the scene of a crime, selling his photographs to tabloids and photographic agencies. His photographs, centered around Manhattan police headquarters, were soon published by the Herald Tribune, World-Telegram, Daily News, New York Post, New York Journal American, Sun, and others.

In 1957, after developing diabetes, he moved in with Wilma Wilcox, a Quaker social worker whom he had known since the 1940s, and who cared for him and then cared for his work. He traveled extensively in Europe until 1968, working for the Daily Mirror and on a variety of photography, film, lecture, and book projects. On December 26, 1968, Weegee died in New York at the age of 69.

Fellig earned his nickname, a phonetic rendering of Ouija, because of his frequent, seemingly prescient arrivals at scenes only minutes after crimes, fires or other emergencies were reported to authorities. He is variously said to have named himself Weegee or to have been named by either the staff at Acme Newspictures or by a police officer.

Another version claims that the nickname originates from his work as a darkroom assistant, also known as a "squeegee" boy.

Most of his notable photographs were taken with very basic press photographer equipment and methods of the era, a 4x5 Speed Graphic camera preset at f/16 at 1/200 of a second, with flashbulbs and a set focus distance of ten feet.[8] He was a self-taught photographer with no formal photographic training. Weegee developed his photographs in a homemade darkroom in the rear of his car. This provided an instantaneous result to his work that emphasized the nature of the tabloid industry and gave the images a "hot off the press" feeling. While Fellig would shoot a variety of subjects and individuals, he also had a sense of what sold best: Names make news. There's a fight between a drunken couple on Third Avenue or Ninth Avenue in Hell's Kitchen, nobody cares. It's just a barroom brawl. But if society has a fight in a Cadillac on Park Avenue and their names are in the Social Register, this makes news and the papers are interested in that.

Late 1930s to mid-1940s
In 1938, Fellig was the only New York newspaper reporter with a permit to have a portable police-band shortwave radio. He maintained a complete darkroom in the trunk of his car, to expedite getting his free-lance product to the newspapers. Weegee worked mostly at nightclubs; he listened closely to broadcasts and often beat authorities to the scene.

In 1943 five of his photographs were acquired by the Museum of Modern Art. These works were included in their exhibition entitled, Action Photography. He was later included in "50 Photographs by 50 Photographers", another MoMA show organized by photographer Edward Steichen, and he lectured at the New School for Social Research. Advertising and editorial assignments for magazines followed, including Life and beginning in 1945, Vogue.

Naked City (1945) was his first book of photographs. Film producer Mark Hellinger bought the rights to the title from Weegee. In 1948, Weegee's aesthetic formed the foundation for Hellinger's film The Naked City. It was based on a gritty 1948 story written by Malvin Wald about the investigation into a model's murder in New York. Wald was nominated for an Academy Award for his screenplay, co-written with McCarthy-era blacklisted screenwriter, Albert Maltz. Later the title was used again for a naturalistic television police drama series, and in the 1980s, it was adopted by a band, Naked City, led by the New York experimental musician John Zorn.

1950s and 1960s
Weegee experimented with 16mm filmmaking himself beginning in 1941 and worked in the Hollywood industry from 1946 to the early 1960s, as an actor and a consultant. He was an uncredited special effects consultant and credited still photographer for Stanley Kubrick's 1964 film Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. His accent was one of the influences for the accent of the title character in the film, played by Peter Sellers.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Weegee experimented with panoramic photographs, photo distortions and photography through prisms. Using a plastic lens, he made a famous photograph of Marilyn Monroe in which her face is grotesquely distorted yet still recognizable. For the 1950 movie The Yellow Cab Man, Weegee contributed a sequence in which automobile traffic is wildly distorted. He is credited for this as "Luigi" in the film's opening credits. He also traveled widely in Europe in the 1960s, where he photographed nude subjects. In London he befriended pornographer Harrison Marks and the model Pamela Green whom he photographed.

In 1966, two years before his death, Weegee starred as himself in a "Nudie Cutie" exploitation film, intended to be a pseudo-documentary of his life. Called The 'Imp'probable Mr. Wee Gee, it saw Fellig apparently falling in love with a shop window dummy, which he then traces to London, before finally ending up in Paris, all the while pursuing or photographing various women.

Legacy
Weegee can be seen as the American counterpart to Brassaï, who photographed Paris street scenes at night. Weegee's themes of nudists, circus performers, freaks and street people were later taken up and developed by Diane Arbus in the early 1960s.

In 1980 Weegee's widow, Wilma Wilcox, Sidney Kaplan, Aaron Rose and Larry Silver formed The Weegee Portfolio Incorporated to create an exclusive collection of photographic prints made from Weegee’s original negatives. As a bequest, Wilma Wilcox donated the entire Weegee archive - 16,000 photographs and 7,000 negatives to the International Center of Photography in New York. This 1993 gift and transfer of copyright, became the source for several exhibitions and books include "Weegee's World" edited Miles Barth (1997) and "Unknown Weegee" edited by Cynthia Young (2006). The first and largest exhibition was the 329-image "Weegee's World: Life, Death and the Human Drama," brought forth in 1997. It was followed in 2002 by "Weegee's Trick Photography," a show of distorted or otherwise caricatured images, and four years later by "Unknown Weegee," a survey that emphasized his more benign, post-tabloid photographs. In 2012 ICP opened another Weegee exhibition titled, "Murder is my Business". Also in 2012, exhibition called "Weegee: The Naked City", opened at Multimedia Art Museum, Moscow. In 2013 Weegee's autobiography, originally published in 1961 as Weegee by Weegee and long out of print, was retitled as Weegee: The Autobiography and republished.