Simply: Amy Poehler+Greg Daniels (“The Office”)+Mockumentary Style+Small Town America Satire=Yes. Good
Will "Parks & Recreation" Be Good?
Leave a reply
Monthly Archives: February 2009
Seth Meyers: Criticizing Hypocrisy Done Right
For the past few days, I’ve thought about writing a post in defense of Michael Phelps and the whole “I smoked marijuana once for God’s sakes I’m just a kid scandal.” Instead I’m just going to let Seth Meyers say everything I’ve been thinking. Meyers isn’t always the best actor, but when it comes to delivering punchlines, he does it like no other on “Saturday Night Live” today. His “Really?!?” segment on Weekend Update feels a little half-empty without Amy anymore, but last night, he still managed to deliver the goods. Mainly, by dissing out everyone making a fuss about those photos of Michael Phelps smoking a bong. There wasn’t enough anger toward Elisabeth Hasselback’s tirades against Phelps, but I digress. Meyers’s observations that Kellog, who recently dropped Phelps as a spokesperson, have the characters of a bunch of elves who live in trees and think of new things to put cheese on is like stoner heaven, was genius. But, Meyers deserved a standing ovation for this line:
“If you’re at a party and you see Michael Phelps smoking a bong and you’re first thought isn’t ‘wow I get to party with Michael Phelps’ and instead you take a picture and sell it to a tabloid you should take a long look in the mirror because you’re a dick. I mean really.”
Zing. Why haven’t more people besides “SNL” decided to stand up for Phelps. And if A-Rod testing positive for steroids doesn’t create as much of an uproar as Phelps getting high, than I’m waging war on the media (mainly, Elisabeth Hasselback). Here’s the clip if you missed it:
Movie Review: Frost/Nixon
Everyone knows Richard Nixon for his extreme criminal act. He forever tainted the executive branch. Even every great president that succeeded him can’t clear the fact that a man like Nixon used his power for corrupt purposes. But the one thing people need to focus on more: his smugness. The day Nixon left the White House not a tear of sadness or any remorse seemed to hit his face, just a “I’m getting out of this clean” smile.
Of course, I wasn’t around to actually see this. I could only assume these things from photos taken and videos shot. The only way you could really decode that smug demeanor is by exploring his character and by, well, making a movie. Because that is what movies do best, capture someone’s inner workings and state of mind. All I can say is that what “Frost/Nixon” aimed to do, and succeeded at admirably.
Now, I’m probably going to spend a large portion of this review praising Frank Langella’s portrayal of Nixon and how spot on it was. But before I go onto that, it’s necessary to look at the movie itself, not just the person seen on screen.
As the title suggests, “Frost/Nixon” tells the story of Brit David Frost’s now legendary interview with post-resignation Richard Nixon. Frost is portrayed as Michael Sheen. Frost was not the world’s most highly respected journalist. He was a talk show host and an entertainer. No one knew going into it that Frost would be the man who broke Nixon down. But, he proved everyone wrong, and deserves to be mentioned amongst the hall of fame of journalists just for that.
“Frost/Nixon” itself is based on a play, using pretty much all the same actors the play had. I didn’t see the play so I can’t really compare the two. The only parts of the movie that really seem theatrical are the interviews themselves. Ron Howard decided to shoot the movie more in the style of a documentary rather than total traditional narrative form. He has characters doing interviews in the way future, and reflecting on the events. Unfortunately, having those interviews leaves less for the audience to discuss about Nixon (especially his facial expressions, more about that soon), but they do seem necessary in a movie that is documenting a behind the scenes look at how journalism works. Praise Howard for going beyond just recreation and actually exploring. You can watch the actual interviews to see what Nixon was really like, but you can see the movie if you really want to explore and understand how it all happened.
While watching “Frost/Nixon,” I was reminded of the other great movie about exposing Nixon, “All the President’s Men.” It is apparent that Howard studied that movie deeply. “Frost/Nixon” makes a great use of lighting and shadows to express mood and characters. Take for example the scene where Frost has a telephone conversation with Nixon, one that will set the course of the final interview. Frost, despite being extremely stressed, sits in a nicely lighted room. Nixon on the other hand, is shrouded in shadows, only a small portion of his face is visible. Truly menacing.
What this movie is really about is the fall of Richard Nixon. Had they not gotten a convincing actor to play Nixon, the movie probably wouldn’t have worked. But, they did the right thing and got Frank Langella. Langella gets his voice as close to Nixon’s as any human possibly could. Langella manages to use that voice, as well as his facial expressions, to actually become Nixon. Not at one point did I think I was looking at Frank Langella, but rather that someone had decided to pull a creepy Frankenstein like reincarnation of Nixon. He even walks (with that slightly hunched back) like Nixon.
Mostly Langella uses these characteristics to not just become Nixon, but to dig deeper and figure out his inner workings. You can’t become Nixon, but actors can study their character and just look at their face and find a way to crawl under their skin. It felt like Langella not only got under Nixon’s skin, but walked around in it, too. He captures that very arrogant, “I’m not guilty” vibe that Nixon always gave off. Even after being pressed by hard questions, he walked out with a pure smile as if nothing had happened. It was eerily similar to the recent trials of Rod Blagojevich and some of Bush’s final press conferences.
Langella not only captured his arrogance, but his very complex emotion as well. You could tell Nixon’s defeat after Frost’s final interview not just from his very slight tears, but when he went over and pet a dog’s head, and asked if it was a dachshund. You could see this man suddenly snap out of his feelings of king-like power, and realize his wrongdoing. He had officially become human.
The one scene of Langella’s portrayal of Nixon I will never forget is at one point when he makes some small talk with Frost before the interview begins. He asks, deadpan and without a smile about Frost’s night, “did you do any fornicating?” Langella never once snaps into a smile. This man was serious.
Movies can often transcend the idea of just merely being a piece of entertainment and become an encapsulation of history. The parallels you could find in this movie between Nixon’s resignation and the Frost interviews with the aforementioned Blagojevich impeachment and Bush press conferences, are undeniable. It is with this that “Frost/Nixon” fits the famous saying “those who don’t know history are condemned to repeat it.” “Frost/Nixon” makes its audience aware of its history, and then connects it to the present day. And it will do that, hopefully for generations to come.
Today’s Sign of the Apocalypse: Another Pointless Remake
Last week, I announced plans of a remake to “Bonnie & Clyde” with Hilary Duff. Today, I am sad to announce that a remake is a go for the Paul Newman classic “Slap Shot.” “Slap Shot” was made in 1977, which is apparently too old for Hollywood. So far, the remake carries the writer of “Fun With Dick & Jane” and the director of “21″ and “Be Cool.”
“Slap Shot” is a movie that still remains funny and only remains outdated in the cars that the characters drive. It also happens to be a way better sports comedy (or sports movie, in general) than most that are made today. I doubt anyone could top the originality and brilliant slapstick that made the original “Slap Shot” such a classic.
Also, who could replace the Hanson Brothers (if you say the Jonas Brothers, I will no longer allow you to read this blog)? But most importantly, how can you replace Paul Newman? Newman’s death has shown us all that he was truly one of a kind and no person could ever replace him. But, really? Who do the people behind the “Slap Shot” remake think they can replace Paul Newman with?
Note: Apparently, there was a direct to DVD sequel to “Slap Shot” that starred Stephen Baldwin and Gary Busey. How about getting Busey and the other Baldwin brother (Alec) to star in the remake? It obviously won’t beat Newman and will still make me angry, but at least then audiences could have one big question answered: what happens when you give Gary Busey a hockey stick?
Some more information on the remake: http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/02/slap-shot-remak.html#comments
Movie Review: Paranoid Park
“Milk” wasn’t the only movie Gus Van Sant put out this past year. Early on in 2008, he wrote and directed the little seen “Paranoid Park.” It is a slight masterwork of beautiful cinematography and scattered chronological storytelling.
With “Paranoid Park,” Van Sant returns back to the lush pacific northwest in Portland, Oregon. It centers around skateboarder teenager Alex (Gabe Nevins). Like Harvey Milk, Mike Waters, and Bob from Van Sant’s previous films, Alex lives on the outside edges of society and reality. He scribbles down his current story in a diary. He doesn’t know whether he’ll live another day or be free tomorrow, but all that we and him know is that he accidently killed a man. We just know this but we don’t know how or why. “Paranoid Park” uses Alex’s journal as a guiding voice as it shuffles through the events that lead to this murder and how it effected Alex and everyone around him.
“Paranoid Park” is most like Van Sant’s 1991 masterpiece “My Own Private Idaho.” It has no clear narrative structure and switches between the clear present, and grainy memories. He seems to switch in and out of consciousness and its barely clear whether or not he’s even conscious the whole time. Is the real. Or just some vivid nightmares from the mind of a sleeping teenager?
Unlike Van Sant’s previous films set in Portland, “Paranoid Park” shows a more positive view of the city. It takes place in picturesque suburban neighborhoods rather than the cities junkie infested decaying slums. However, Alex barely stays in this area and would rather be in Paranoid Park, the skate park from which the film takes its name. A place where troubled teens go to escape and a place that would soon lead to a horrific tragedy.
“Paranoid Park” is not the kind of movie for those who like clear conclusions traditional narrative structure. Despite this basic outline, the movie is plotless. And I don’t mean to say that in a negative way. Roger Ebert once noticed that sometimes it’s not what it’s about but how it’s about. I never fully understood that but you can apply it here. The movie is not really about what happens physically as a result of this murder and how it will be resolved but how it affects Alex emotionally and very subtlety scars the lives of everyone he knows. This film is not about overcoming guilt, it’s about how it twists your perception of reality if you hide it too long.
Despite its stunning capturing of the Portland landscape and story that allows you to put the puzzle pieces together for yourself, “Paranoid Park” is not without its many flaws. The story sometimes gets off track and can get a bit meandering at times. It really goes nowhere when there could’ve been much more. But maybe it was supposed to be like that. After all, isn’t that what being a teenager is all about: wandering aimlessly, not knowing where you’re headed next, and just waiting for something big to happen and take you somewhere, anywhere?