I haven't laughed this hard at anything on the internet since Afro-Ninja

Find it at 15 Minute Lunch.

5 Things

Tracy tagged me with this a while ago.

List 5 things that certain people (who are not deserving of being your friend anyway) may consider to be "totally lame," but you are, despite the possible stigma, totally proud of. Own it. Then tag 5 people to do the same.

1) Part of the reason I don't get a lot of sleep is because I think looking tired is cool. A friend/coworker told me the other day that I looked like I had returned from an alcohol fueled binge in Sierra Leone. Compliment? Check.

2) I am proud of my Netflix queue. Recently, I had He-Man and the Masters of the Unvierse, Battlestar Galactica (2000's), and Ingmar Bergman's Fanny and Alexander at home.

3) My DVD collection is alphabetized...by director.

4) When I am in a store and things are out of order on the shelves, I am always tempted to correct this. I sometimes follow through.

5) When I was young, and we're talking elementary school here, I would daydream about being married. My daydreams changed a little bit with the onset of puberty, but that desire was still there.

I'm going to tag Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Johannes Brahms, Tom Cruise, and Mickey Mouse.

Tom Cruise vs. Philip Seymour Hoffman

11/21/07
by Scott Cupper

OK. So this isn’t really a title fight. In fact I won’t crown either one of these actors victorious. Which is probably shocking to some. Isn’t it apparent who would win? We are talking about acting, right?

Indeed we are talking about acting, and if it comes right down to it, yes, Philip Seymour Hoffman is the better actor. OK, I guess I did just crown a winner. But I’m exploring something here.

When it comes to actors, there probably aren’t two more disparate in the public mind. Philip Seymour Hoffman is often viewed as the paragon of actors: someone able to disappear into a role. Each time we see him in a movie, he is not much, if at all, like he was in his previous role. Tom, on the other hand, is criticized for being the same in every role. What I want to explore is this: Does it matter that Tom Cruise is the “same” in every role?

There’s a moment in the movie Magnolia that I love. Yes, I love Magnolia from beginning to end, so to those who know me, that probably sounds kind of…meaningless. Be that as it may, if you are to ask me what my top seven moments in Magnolia are, Jason Robards’s monologue would be at the top, but a bit of acting by Tom Cruise is right up there. He plays Frank T. J. Mackey, founder of a self-help conference that promises men the ability to get in any woman’s pants they wish. When we meet Frank, he’s onstage at one of these conferences, backlit, Richard Strauss’s Also sprach Zaranthustra playing (familiarly known as the theme from 2001: A Space Odyssey). It’s a performance. He wears a shirt that’s too tight, pumps his chest, threads his speech with derogatory terms for women. He is what he preaches. During a break, he’s interviewed by a woman who probes a bit too deep for his comfort. When he comes back to the conference, he’s barely holding it together. He starts to talk to the men again and goes off on these tangents, one of them about women, how men are programmed to worship them. And in the middle of this monologue, he whispers the word “Woman.”

I can’t describe how it affects me every single time. It’s surprising. It’s odd. Frank’s been screaming at us since he appeared on screen and suddenly we barely hear him. And this word, this reading of this word, springs from everything that we know about this character. It is perhaps the most revealing thing Frank says.

And it all came from Tom Cruise.

You can’t write in the script:

MACKEY
(whispers)
Woman.

Well, you can, but you’re not going to get what Tom did. You could line up a thousand different actors and they couldn’t have arrived at that reading. It came from the actor, from the situation, from a set of circumstances so specific, that it can’t ever be recreated. If there is more footage of that scene, I’m sure it doesn’t read the same, yet each time I watch the movie, that moment hits me.

We get distracted by the chameleons of the trade. People like Phil, like Dustin Hoffman, like Daniel Day-Lewis, they come with all these trappings: accents, dress, movements, walks. I take nothing away from them. Daniel Day-Lewis is the best actor working now and may be the best actor ever, but what makes him so brilliant is not how he immerses himself in a role. It’s how this immersion affects his understanding of the character that affects his performance that affects us. If his performance as Hawkeye in The Last of the Mohicans was based solely on how he, Daniel Day-Lewis, learned to track animals, the women I know would not swoon when I mention the movie. All they can think about is him underneath the waterfall telling Madeline Stowe that he will find her.

Here’s a drastic example. Imagine Philip Seymour Hoffman showing up as Truman Capote in Along Came Polly. There’s no other way to describe this except wrong. Hoffman’s performance as Capote has no reason being anywhere but in Capote. Phil understands this, so he adapts to his roles. Tom understands that he is not as good at adapting to roles, so he chooses roles that don’t force him to adapt. But this does not make his performances lesser than Phil’s

Acting is creating truth in imaginary circumstances. That’s all, and by this standard, in my opinion, in both of the films that Tom and Phil are in together (Magnolia, Mission: Impossible III) they are equals.

The problem for Tom is we see his films. He releases one, we see it, he releases another one in a few years’ time, we see it, and he hasn’t changed. This doesn’t foster objectivity. Cary Grant never won an Oscar. I tell people this and they react as if it’s a travesty, and it is, but when he was working, the same thing happened. People saw his movies year after year and never saw him change. So they dismissed him. But history is the great thresher. It lets bad movies fall away and the good ones rise to the top. So we see Cary Grant now in His Girl Friday and Notorious and Bringing Up Baby and Philadelphia Story and we can’t believe he never won.

You know why James Dean is as revered as he is? He made three films and all of them have lasted. That’s all we’ve got to work with, three artifacts.

I’ve used Tom Cruise to make a point, not to turn you on to Tom Cruise. I don’t think he’s flawless. I don’t think he’s very good in The Last Samurai. I don’t buy the change to hero. Something strikes me as false about it. But more often than not, I think he’s very good if not excellent. So if you’re around me and criticize Tom or another actor for being the same in every role, just be forewarned, I’m going to ask for more.

NOTE: I first had this conversation with my former roommate and still friend Marisa. You can read her thoughts here.

Hey Chicagoans, check this out

Not only does NYC's public transportation run better, apparently the entire state cares about it. Read here.

Remarkable, huh?

Got it

As I was leaving work yesterday, my phone rang. They were calling to let me know that I'd gotten the part.

Wa-hoo!

I'm stoked. I'm going to get paid and I felt I really nailed the part which he essentially confirmed, so this should be fun.

More details to follow.

Thanks, everyone, for all of your support and encouragement.

Oh this just pisses me right off

I found this on IMDb. I never thought about smoking a pipe. Probably because I'm aware that Cookie Monster is not human so what did I care if he did? How is it kids are often smarter than adults?

Read on.

Scott


Early 'Sesame Street' Deemed Unfit for Today's Kids

DVDs of early seasons of Sesame Street bear a warning to parents that they may not be appropriate for small children, the New York Times observed today (Monday). Carol-Lynn Parente, executive producer of Sesame Street noted that in the early days of the show, a regular feature was a parody of Masterpiece Theater, featuring Alistair Cookie, played by Cookie Monster, who appeared with a pipe. "That modeled the wrong behavior," Parente observed. Oscar the Grouch appeared too grouchy. "We might not be able to create a character like Oscar now," she said. The Times also noted that in the DVDs (Volumes 1 and 2) Cookie Monster can be seen "in his former inglorious incarnation: a blue, googly-eyed cookievore with a signature gobble ('om nom nom nom')."

Lucero

Went to a concert recently. Hadn't been to one in a while.

The band was great. Lucero. A friend turned me on to them. I don't know what you'd call them. Southern rock funneled through punk? Vice versa? I listen to them and it's immediately summer and the window's down in the car. They make me want to hit the road without a clue of where I'm headed. They played for about 2 hours. Their encore consisted of them looking at each other and wondering what songs they knew to play. At one point, they started playing until they realized they had played it before.

It was the most rock star concert I've been to. Copious amounts of alcohol both on stage and off. Tattoos galore. Good music. Yes, I suppose there were things missing. There was no disdain for the audience, no destruction, no nudity. Well, I take no nudity back. There was a random girl who walked on from backstage and made donuts with her tummy for the benefit of the lead guitarist. And then there was the smashed couple. They were fun to watch. The girl made like she was going to take her shirt off for the benefit of her man who looked too drunk to know what was going on.

I'd forgotten just how drunk people can be. There was one dude who was probably 6'5'' who loved the band and since he was drunk and that tall, could go anywhere and profess it. It was fun to track his progress through the crowd. He looked like he was wading in the shallow end. There was also an all-out brawl. It took 5 guys to separate the two.

Two other bands played that night. The first was fine. They played country/rockabilly (?). They were a little too unaffected by it all. All their songs sounded about the same, which could be worse since it's a good style, but come on. What annoyed me most was the rhythm guitarist. He would sing backing vocals but wasn't harmonizing. This kind of music needs that.

I was a little apprehensive when the second band trickled on stage: a keyboardist who had enough facial hair to make a wookie feel inadequate, he wore a beret; a girl with a bari sax; a fairly normal if linebackerish drummer; a guy in a dark pinstripe suit with a red tie and net hat with "DANGER" handwritten across, crazy, curly hair sticking out. Their appearance screamed irony and pretension. I saw Chuck Prophet open for The Old 97's and he annoyed me all to heck. I was prepared for the same: an act like they didn't enjoy being onstage that would comment on the rock and roll lifestyle.

Imagine my surprise when they opened with "Valentine" (not the Old 97's song), a song they had played with regularity on XRT about a year ago. I didn't remember who sang it before, but I will now: Bobby Bare, Jr. From the chorus, I gather it's a song about a guy who killed his Valentine. It's catchy. But most importantly, they played it without irony. Their whole set, too. It was strange. Cognitive dissonance. But they were good. Great songs, consummate musicians, but most importantly for me, they were enjoying themselves.

I can't stand when bands pretend or are truly not enjoying themselves. You're playing rock music in front of adoring fans. You're providing a vicarious experience. Don't rob us of that.

Anyway two good bands that understand. Check 'em out. Lucero comes around to Chicago every November

No Country for Old Men

****
11/17/07
by Scott Cupper

Sheriff Tom Bell…………...Tommy Lee Jones
Llewellyn Moss…………….Josh Brolin
Anton Chigurh……………...Javier Bardem
Carla Jean Moss……………Kelly MacDonald
Carson Well………………..Woody Harrelson
Wendell..…………………...Garret Dillahunt

Written & Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen
Based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy

Rated R
Runtime: 2 hrs. 2 min.


Here is a movie that makes you lean forward and listen. As the opening credits rolled in silence, my ears were drawn to the sound of people digging in their popcorn bags. The movie does not come and get you, it draws you in. This makes the chase aspect of the movie more effective. So much of the suspense hinges on what is heard and not seen. You become attuned to listening to beeps and phones ringing and things scraping against one another and boots treading the floor. When I walked out of the theater, I heard the sound of my feet hitting the sidewalk.

The importance of sound is established in an early sequence that introduces Llewellyn Moss. Josh Brolin’s portrayal of Llewellyn is that of a simple man for whom bad impulses are still too familiar and good ones too new. We follow him across the Texas countryside as he tracks a deer he has shot. Blood on the ground leads him in a new direction. When he arrives at the carnage of a shootout where he finds heroin, he correctly guesses that there must be money. He finds it in a bag by the dead man who ran away with it. Llewellyn takes it. There is no dialogue except when Llewellyn meets a man who asks for agua. The only other words spoken are whatever Llewellyn deems worthy of uttering to himself. The crunch of his boots on the rocky ground, the straps on his binoculars and gun, the wind howling, these are his only accompaniment. We become as aware of what Llewellyn sees and hears as he is.

The man sent to retrieve the money, Anton Chigurh, has already been introduced and killed two people. One with an air tank that has a hose attached, a device we learn later is used to kill cattle. It’s also very useful for blowing locks off doors. Javier Bardem plays Anton. He is a terrifying figure, a man for whom killing is simply an act, perhaps even a sexual one. With his goofy smile, strange haircut, dark polyester clothing and voice that sounds like it got swallowed on the way up, we might think Chigurh stands outside the movie, an embodiment of death, if the havoc he wreaks wasn’t so devastating.

The cat and mouse chase between these two is so good because they are evenly matched. Both are men driven by their own codes of honor, Llewellyn’s more recognizable, involving a love for his wife Carla Jean he finds easier to express in action than kind words. They are also matched in intelligence. Initially, it seems far-fetched that Llewellyn is able to survive when facing Chigurh’s almost supernatural abilities until we learn Llewellyn is a Vietnam vet. Each man plots his next move, adapting and improvising as their plans fail or succeed.

Caught in the middle is Sheriff Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones). What seems like a typical Tommy Lee Jones role of a man driven by obsession quietly isn’t. The movie begins with his voice over shots of Texas landscapes, telling a story about a teenage murderer he caught who said he’d been looking for someone to kill. Bell wonders what the old-timers would have done with the world he lives in nowadays. The question he’s really asking is, “What am I supposed to do?”

He seems more interested in answering this question than solving the crime. He avoids DEA agents who keep calling and asking him to come down to check out the sight of the shootout. His deputy is more likely to find him at the diner than at the office. He makes some attempts at investigating, but it’s never quite enough. He can’t figure out what weapon Chigurh is using, but when he mentions it in a story he tells Carla Jean and doesn’t make the connection, we realize he’s out of his depth. Or isn’t interested in getting in too deep.

No Country for Old Men has suffered the same criticism leveled at Michael Clayton. It’s effective but is there anything more? Yes. No character in the movie meets an end that we expect. The movie is interested in questions of fate and destiny. Perhaps this is why Chigurh is so different: he sees himself as fate. In one of the best scenes of the movie, he flips a coin and asks a gas station attendant to call it. Everyone involved understands that the man is calling his life. But even Chigurh, who seems to feel beyond the reach of fate, has this game cleverly turned on him by Carla Jean.

It’s happened that I’ve seen a couple of movies recently that have successfully addressed problems another movie was guilty of. Lars and the Real Girl answered problems that The Darjeeling Limited had. Now No Country for Old Men answers the problems found in American Gangster. The Coen brothers trust the story they are telling and don’t feel the need to move things along at a pace that isn’t necessary. The slowness of some scenes is agonizing, but that agony is part of the scene. The Coen brothers are master filmmakers. Their recent movies have been entertaining if not successful at every point. They never lose their footing here.

Dallas

I have the theme to Dallas stuck in my head. Don't know how. But it's there. Firmly lodged. Probably right in between the cure for cancer and the best script anyone ever wrote. Can't get to either of 'em, however, because the Dallas theme is in the way.

And supposedly, if I finish it, I could get it out of my head, but who the hell knows how it ends? Does it even have an end?

All day!

This sucks.

Big Day

I've been getting up at 5 a.m. to write for an hour. So that's when my day began yesterday. I've got a schedule I'm following. We'll see how it goes. That's not what this is about.

This is about an e-mail I looked at yesterday around 6 a.m. informing me that I had a callback that night. I haven't auditioned for anything. My friend Carol was invited as well, so I'm guessing that they saw Spacky. Anyway, the e-mail mentioned paying for the run of the show.

I have never been paid to act, and as much as I love what I do and as much as I feel that people like what they see when I'm onstage, it would be incredibly validating to get a lone dollar for treading the boards as they don't say anywhere anymore.

But nothing is simple. I was supposed to be presenting Wit last night, the show I will be directing in the spring at my church, to the church elders. Wit will run the last two weekends in April, with rehearsals beginning the end of February. The show I auditioned for runs from beginning of February to the beginning of March.

As Tracy and I discussed yesterday, when things are this close together, they happen at the same time in my mind. I don't know why, but scheduling is impossible. So the next time you try and schedule something with me and it looks like I had a mini-stroke, it's just me trying to figure out if anything happens close to it and if this proximity would cause them to aggregate.

The morning was spent in phone calls: calling the auditioner, calling my producer for the show I'm directing, calling a friend for wisdom, recalling everyone when the information changed. This stresses me out to no end. I hate making phone calls. As you can see, I'm not a business person.

Finally, I realized I could make it work. I could take the audition, do the show if I got it, and then direct.

Since it was a callback, I only had to do a coldread. Which is awesome. I actually have fun at coldread auditions. Monologues freak me the [bleep-boop] out. But with coldreads, you just have to make a choice, go on stage, and show it to them. So I did. They laughed.

I feel good about it. Great, actually. I was reading for Billy, and they only saw each of us once. No switching around to read with different people. No, "Can you do it again but like you're a tiger?" In my mind, this means they saw what they wanted from someone. I got it, or I didn't.

Either way, I got pizza afterward. Usually I get a beer, but man was it an exhausting day.

Rehearsals start in November, so I'll know soon. Keep checking back.

American Gangster

***1/2

11/15/07
by Scott Cupper

Frank Lucas……………….Denzel Washington
Richie Roberts…………….Russell Crowe
Josh Brolin………………...Detective Trupo
Huey Lucas………………..Chiwetel Ejiofor
Mama Lucas………………Ruby Dee
Laurie Roberts…………….Carl Gugino
Eva………………………...Lymari Nadal
Dominic Cattano…………..Armand Assante
Nicky Barnes……………...Cuba Gooding, Jr.

Directed by Ridley Scott
Written by Steven Zaillian
Based on the article by Mark Jacobson

Rated R
Runtime: 2 hrs. 37 mins.


Much of the thrill of American Gangster is watching it answer the question “How?” How did Frank Lucas, a black, low-level gangster, become the most powerful man in New York City, the mafia answering to him? How was Richie Roberts, a cop who could get nothing right in life, able to bring him down?

Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington) begins as an aide to Bumpy Johnson, the ruler of Harlem. Frank is a calculating man, doing Bumpy’s dirty work to be close to him. In an early scene, Bumpy is handing out turkeys on Thanksgiving. Bumpy waves Frank up, but he is content to stand in the back and observe. Later in the movie, we see Frank handing out turkeys.

This calculation serves Frank well. When Bumpy dies, the reins are not handed to Frank. He had no power before, none is granted him. He has to take it. The Vietnam War provides his means. A news report on TV about drug use in Vietnam leads to Frank’s revelation. The drugs are more pure. If he gets them from the source, they will be better and cheaper. The drug’s success is immediate. He brands the drug, calling it Blue Magic. In one of the movie’s many excellent scenes and supporting performances, Frank has to explain this concept to a buyer, played by Cuba Gooding, Jr., who is cutting it.

The purity of the drugs is not something the junkies are used to and a lot are OD’ing. The slew of deaths raises the interest of the cops, particularly Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe). Russell Crowe is a rarity in Hollywood: a leading man who is a character actor. The public persona of Crowe is that of a gruff, in-control guy, but he manages to make us believe in his characters, even when they are out of their depth as Richie is. Throughout most of the movie, Richie is learning how to be in control because most of his life isn’t. He has no stable relationships and his ex-wife (Carla Gugino) is trying to prevent him from seeing their son. He can’t do the policework he loves because his fellow officers ostracized him after he found $1,000,000 in a car he was tailing and turned it in. He had to. His honesty is the only thing he has to hold on to and it compels him. The feds take note of his interest in the drug case and his reputation and offer him the chance to lead a drug taskforce.

And so the pieces are set in place. These stories are inherently fascinating, but I sensed that the filmmakers didn’t trust them or us, the audience. The movie begins at such a quick pace and maintains it for so long that it almost outstrips these stories. People have complained that it is too long. That only happens when you don’t use the time effectively. Ebert is fond of saying that no good movie is too long and no bad movie is too short. It’s true. Here’s a movie that might have felt shorter if it had been longer and taken its time. However, when the stories and pace finally synch, it is masterful.

While the movie is trying to run away with itself, the performances by the leads anchor us. I’ve already mentioned Russell Crowe, but Denzel Washington is just as good. Denzel is a leading man, infusing each of his characters with his intelligence and likability. He is no less an actor, however, and when these two finally meet, their scenes are electric. Both are able to bring all of the history of these characters to this scene and play every nuance.

Steven Zaillian’s script contains a number of excellent scenes like this one that feel like mini plays. Even a clichéd relationship like Richie and his ex-wife’s resonates. All the actors are up to the challenge. Denzel and Chiwetel Ejiofor as Frank’s younger brother Huey have a scene about the outfit Huey is wearing that is as good as anything DeNiro and Pesci did in Casino. Ruby Dee is Frank’s mother. For most of the movie, it seems she is there for name recognition only until a scene where she confronts Frank. It is fierce and I hope people remember her when it comes time for nominations. All I could think watching it was, “She’s still got it.” And Josh Brolin as a crooked cop has the best reaction shot of the year.

Even with all of these wonderful scenes, they aren’t enough. While American Gangster understands the family component that is vital to organized crime movies, it doesn’t trust how far it can involve us. With Nicholas Pileggi (writer of Goodfellas and Casino) on board as a producer and these movies as fine examples, and with The Godfather: Part II demonstrating that a movie can leave a storyline for more than 2 minutes at a time and hold our interest, this movie could have been much more. Steven Zaillian’s script may be to blame for the pace issues, but it’s Ridley Scott’s job as director to see this and fix it. It’s incredibly frustrating that he didn’t. With most Ridley Scott movies, I feel like he just missed making a good movie. Here, he just misses making a great movie, which is all the more heartbreaking.

Blade Runner: The Final Cut

***

11/11/07
by Scott Cupper

Rick Deckard…………………Harrison Ford
Roy Batty……………………..Rutger Hauer
Rachael……………………….Sean Young
Pris……………………………Daryl Hannah
J.F. Sebastian…………………William Sanderson
Zhora………………………….Joanna Cassidy
Bryant…………………………M. Emmet Walsh
Gaff…………………………...Edward James Olmos
Elden Tyrell…………………..Joe Turkel

Directed by Ridley Scott
Written by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples
Based on the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick

Rated R
Runtime: 1 hr. 57 min.


My first viewing of Blade Runner took place in 2001 or 2002. A friend discovered I had never seen it and lent it to me. When I returned it and told him that I thought it was fine, he was a little surprised at my ho-hum response. I was too. I had expected to like it, but something about it left me cold. I refrained from writing it off, however, since so many people hold it in such high regard. I wanted to see it again before I cast judgment. So I was excited when the opportunity presented itself to revisit the movie on the big screen. I have to say, though, that I left the theater with the same, cold feeling.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that few movies have had as great an impact on filmmaking. Blade Runner’s dystopian vision of the future, overrun with grime and pollution in all its forms, is still affecting movies more than 20 years after its first release in 1982. Any film set in the future pays homage whether it adheres to the template Blade Runner created or ignores it. This influence even stretches beyond sci-fi. A friend mentioned The Narrows, the island that houses Arkham Asylum, from Batman Begins. If you’ve seen the movie, I think you’d agree. But what about the other elements of Blade Runner?

I don’t want to leave anyone behind who may not have seen the movie, so let me catch you up. Blade Runner is set in Los Angeles in 2019. The story hinges on androids called replicants that resemble humans so closely, only a series of tests can determine whether they are human or not. Replicants were created by the Tyrell Corporation for slave labor on other planets that have been colonized (collectively known as Off-World). A group of replicants became unhappy with this arrangement and revolted, killing humans in the process. This resulted in the banishment of all replicants from earth. The Blade Runners of the title hunt replicants and retire (kill) any found on earth.

Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is just such a Blade Runner. Here’s where I might describe some of his circumstances to give you an idea of him as a character, but there aren’t any. When we meet him, he’s being asked to return to the force. A group of rogue replicants has found their way to earth. No clue as to why he left or was asked to leave. It’s a testament to Harrison Ford that we care about Deckard at all and makes you wish he had challenged himself in his roles a bit more. Ford lends Deckard his “gee whiz” attitude with the cynical edge. The kind that makes Deckard drink a lot and alone, often at his piano that is covered with black and white photographs of people. His family? We don’t know.

The leader of the replicants Deckard is hunting are led by Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer). It’s a performance that made my friend question why he hasn’t gotten better parts. I concur. Roy Batty appears at first to be completely evil, but we learn his violence has a purpose. When replicants were created, their inventors correctly theorized that they would develop emotions, so all replicants were given a 4-year life span. Batty is looking for the fountain of youth. Or at least a life.

This makes Batty the more interesting character, or would if the movie weren’t slavishly devoted to its genre conventions. Batty spends so much of the movie being villainous that it never gets around to exploring his drive until it’s too late. The whole movie has this tendency to focus on the wrong part of a storyline. The noir elements are glazed over. Deckard’s search for the replicants lacks focus and urgency. The clues are not only weak but also convenient. But then it’s decided that a femme fatale is needed, so Rachael (Sean Young), a new version of replicant, is introduced. Which presents some interesting questions, or would if she stuck around after the movie asked them. The editing is similarly misguided, often cutting abruptly which creates a jarring experience.

I’ve been presented with various theories in an attempt to reconcile all of this (Deckard as a replicant; the editing as subjective, representing the sensory equivalent of how the young replicants view the world). While each is able to tie up some ends, some are always loose.

So I’ve pretty much bashed the movie for most of the review but given it three stars. Part of it is its influence, but honestly, it’s not a horrible movie. I’ll probably end up watching it again. It’s the movie’s potential for greatness that is so aggravating. It’s like director Ridley Scott got frustrated with a Rubik’s cube when a few more twists would have solved it.

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead

****

11/9/07
by Scott Cupper

Andy………………….Philip Seymour Hoffman
Hank………………….Ethan Hawke
Charles……………….Albert Finney
Nanette………………..Rosemary Harris
Bobby………….……. Bryan F. O’Byrne
Dex…………………...Michael Shannon

Directed by Sidney Lumet
Written by Kelly Masterson

Rated R
Runtime: 1 hr. 57 min.


Here’s a Rube Goldberg Movie that works. You remember Rube Goldberg, right? He was the cartoonist who drew complex contraptions to perform simple things like getting olives out of a jar. There are a number of movies that I label this way: House of Sand and Fog, A Simple Plan, In the Bedroom, and most recently, The Brave One. These movies all take their average, everyday characters and move them toward an outlandish, often violent, conclusion. I like some of these, others not so much, but none do I feel really work. I always felt that the script was a contraption that the characters were being forced to use. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead lets the characters create the contraption and observes as they use it.

Characters are often pawns, but these characters live and breathe. They make choices that are irrational. They reveal themselves with their words and movements. Their past is as tangible an element as the present. It’s this attention to the past that is a large part of the movie’s success. In the grand scheme of things, we knew little about Jodie Foster’s character in The Brave One. In Before the Devil… we feel that each character has been dealt their part and we’re here to watch them as they reach the inexorable conclusion.

Why do I suspect a playwright when I witness this care for character in a movie? And why am I correct? Screenwriter Kelly Masterson is a playwright. This is his only produced screenplay and I found no evidence that he has more coming. I imagine that will change. Much has been written about what a movie and what a play can accomplish, but none of it convinces me that such a dichotomy exists. Certainly not Sidney Lumet’s career which is sprinkled with play adaptations (12 Angry Men anyone?).

So when am I going to get around to talking about the movie? It’s difficult. There is so much to mention about the movie that it’s easy not to deal with any specifics, particularly when I don’t want to reveal, well, anything. But to give an idea: Andy (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and Hank (Ethan Hawke) are brothers, both in need of money. Though the movie jumps around in time, the plot is fairly straightforward. Andy and Hank hatch a plan to rob their parents’ jewelry store. They know the layout, the people involved, it should be easy and safe. Naturally, everything goes awry.

It may feel like I’ve revealed too much. I haven’t. A bank robbery in another movie would be the climax. It is nothing more than a catalyst here and is almost incidental. It’s when we meet Albert Finney as the father that we realize this isn’t a heist movie at all. It’s a family drama.

The performances in this movie are nothing short of amazing but I don’t want to go into detail. The joy of the movie comes from discovering who these people are, the dynamics of their relationships and how these elements propel them. Let it suffice to say that any and all of the leads deserve whatever award nominations they receive.

I was surprised that the performances elicited some chortles from the audience at parts that were clearly not meant to be humorous. I believe that the rawness of the performances made them uncomfortable. An actor friend of mine told me a story about a non-actor he knew who decided he would take a small role in a production. A bit into the rehearsal process, he confessed to my friend that he had thought that acting was getting up and saying things in a cool way, but he found it to be a lot more than that. It’s a lesson these audience members could stand to learn. There is nothing cool about these characters. They are ugly people in ugly situations doing ugly things. The actors are perfect.

There’s a voyeuristic thrill to Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead. Writer Kelly Masterson has tied these characters into a Gordian Knot and shown Sidney Lumet the end which he relishes pulling slowly. When you begin with a robbery, it’s hard to believe there’s anywhere to go, but Mr. Masterson shows us that the bottom is a lot deeper than we think. It is a gruesome journey, but I dare you to look away.

Sharks and a Priest

Mr. Vaughn, what we are dealing with here is a perfect engine, an eating machine. It's really a miracle of evolution. All this machine does is swim and eat and make little sharks, and that's all. -- Hooper from Jaws

I love sharks. For a good third of my life I wanted to be a marine biologist and study them. They are fearsomely perfect. They move so effortlessly, their streamlined bodies almost seem to separate the water, their tails need move little to propel them. And then an awe-inspiring display of violence. The force with which a shark attacks is nearly as terrifying as the mouth that opens to show row upon row of teeth and an abyss.

This is how I feel about the New England Patriots. They devour opposing football teams. They are incredible to behold. A lot of people are down on them. The Colts-Pats match up was being touted as a battle between good and evil. Well, I've got to say, when evil looks so damn good, who cares? I want 'em to go 16-0 and win the Super Bowl. All this much to the chagrin of Tracy, my girlfriend. The game this past weekend was a strain on our relationship. I just wanted to see a good game. Bonus, the Pats won. She wanted the Colts to win, and more specifically, the Pats to lose.

The Pats have been called soulless. There is a certain detachment about them. They don't seem to enjoy winning, but perhaps this is part of their secret to success. Living in Chicago, there's a lot of talk about our team needing to be fired up. Many bemoan the loss of Mike Brown for the season, the emotional leader of the team. What if we didn't worry about that? What if we just went out and decided we needed to win? Because being fired up isn't always going to be there. It's not something you can rely on. It's something we actors talk about a lot. Sometimes, you're going to go out on stage and you're not going to feel it. Well, you need to anyway.

I get this sense from the Patriots. Like a shark that decides it needs food, the Patriots were down in the fourth to the Colts and attacked. There was a need for touchdowns and they got them. No fire. No whooping. A simple need and 11 men went out onto the field and went to work. It's the same thing I saw from Vince Young in the Rose Bowl when he scored the touchdown to put the Texans in striking distance of USC. The crowd was ecstatic. He didn't celebrate. There was still work to be done.

Now, don't get me wrong, I like a good story like the rest of you. Have you been keeping an eye on Priest Holmes? This is pretty incredible.

In 2005, Priest Holmes, running back for the Kansas City Chiefs, was involved in a helmet-to-helmet collision that injured his spine. He was never paralyzed, but the injury was severe enough that he did not play last season and it was a question whether he would ever play again.

Then, shortly before training camp begins this year, 2007, he lets the Chiefs know he wants to play. Why? He had a dream.

I believe in visions. But it's not something that happens very often, so I was skeptical. I haven't had a vision. But I came across this article on ESPN.com. There's something about the way the journalist Elizabeth Merrill captures Priest that made me think. His humility, his devotion to his kids, his disregard for the money, his perseverance. Something. And in my head I thought, "Maybe."

There's a pretty simple way to test a vision: sit back and watch. So I have been. Read the titles of these articles. They tell a story. If Priest was going to play, there were a lot of obstacles. But one by one, circumstances kept changing and the obstacles kept evaporating. Until we arrive at this Sunday. Larry Johnson probably won't play. So it's up to a rookie and Priest. I'll be keeping an eye on this game.

Lars and the Real Girl

****

11/2/07
by Scott Cupper

Lars……………………….Ryan Gosling
Gus………………………..Paul Schneider
Karin……………………...Emily Mortimer
Kelli Garner………………Margo
Dagmar……………………Patricia Clarkson

Directed by Craig Gillespie
Written by Nancy Oliver

Rated PG-13
Runtime: 1 hr. 46 min.


After having seen The Darjeeling Limited, Lars and the Real Girl was a breath of fresh air. Darjeeling is laden with the cynicism that has invaded our culture. It wants to cut through this, but never quite succeeds. Lars circumvents this by being without cynicism. It has no ambivalence about its characters. It loves them unconditionally as do we. It has been criticized for being unrealistic. I’ll admit, cynicism is inescapable in the world we live in, but should that stop us from imagining a world with it?

Lars (Ryan Gosling) is alone. By circumstance, by choice? Both. Lars lives in the garage adjacent to the family house where his brother now lives, but his sister-in-law has to tackle and pin him to get him to come over for dinner. And forget romance. When a woman at church hands him a flower and tells him to give it to a nice girl, he launches it into the woods when the next girl he sees says hi.

His sister-in-law, Karin (Emily Mortimer) thinks he needs help. His brother Gus (Paul Schneider) thinks he doesn’t because Lars says he doesn’t and that’s good enough for him. As it usually turns out, the woman is a bit better judge of this sort.

Lars goes into work one morning and his cubicle partner asks him to check out something on his computer. Lars immediately averts his eyes and asks if it’s porn again. Well, kind of. Anatomically correct dolls. A few days later, Lars gets a call from Karin telling him a large box arrived for him. That night, he invites himself over for dinner to his brother’s house with a guest. Gus and Karin are thrilled until they meet Bianca, one of the dolls from the website. Lars informs them that they met on the internet and she’s returned from Russia where she was doing missions work.

This could be a broad comedy, mining every moment for all the humor there is and isn’t, but that would just turn it into a 1½-hour SNL sketch and we all know the success they have with 5 minutes. Writer Nancy Oliver doesn’t ignore the humor, but it’s clear she’s interested in much more. There’s nothing sexual about Lars’s relationship with Bianca. As the family doctor tells Gus and Karin, Lars needs the doll and will until he doesn’t.

Patricia Clarkson plays Dagmar, the family doctor. She encourages Gus and Karin to go along with the doll. Naturally, they’ll have to get the town do the same. The trepidation with which Lars and the town approach each other is the heart of the movie. Roger Ebert has said something along the lines that it’s not bad things happening to people that moves him, but people doing good. Lars and the Real Girl is full of people doing good. They adopt Bianca as a newcomer to town, even letting her borrow clothes and styling her hair. I particularly like when Lars goes to a party at a coworker’s house. What could be unbearably awkward becomes a time when everyone involved learns of what they are capable of being.

Lars is on a journey of his own. Dagmar begins therapy sessions with him under the pretense of passing time while Bianca receives treatments. Lars is a fly, ready to take flight at the slightest gesture toward him. But watch the way Ms. Clarkson eats her sandwich. It epitomizes her performance. She doesn’t force anything, creating a safe atmosphere that is actually anything but.

Gosling’s performance as Lars is at the crux of the success of this movie. Lars’s mannerisms and costumes are all Gosling’s, but it’s his commitment to the role that really sets it apart. Lars treats this doll as if she is real, arguing with her and even falling in love with her. If we felt Gosling was winking at us at any point, the movie would crumble at the more emotional moments, exactly when we most need to believe, but he doesn’t.

Emily Mortimer and Paul Schneider are both excellent and create a real screen couple. Ms. Mortimer may be familiar from Match Point but my guess is this movie will introduce a lot of people to Paul Schneider. He is equally excellent in a small movie you may have missed called All the Real Girls. If you have missed it, I would suggest you rectify that. Many actors force themselves on us but Mr. Schneider simply exists on screen. It’s his very comfort that makes him compelling. It’s not a showy performance and will probably be ignored come awards season, but watch the scene when Gus confesses what he feels may have been his part in creating Lars’s current condition. This is one of the best performances of the year.

I don’t know if I’ve done Lars and the Real Girl justice. I’ve tried to pull back the quirk just enough to show you what’s underneath. All I can hope is that you’ll go see the movie.