Thursday, May 22, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Vertiginous
Alfred Hitchcock's "Vertigo" premiered exactly 50 years ago yesterday at a theater in, where else, San Francisco.
I can't decide whether, considering the movie, that sounds like a lot or a little, but it's still a landmark.
The movie, too, is a landmark.
I don't enjoy it.
I don't like the handstands the script has to do to rook us into the central grift; I find Kim Novak's post-"suicide" eyebrows (bizarre, oversized boomerangs of facial hair) off-putting; and I can't stand Jimmy Stewart's habit of using his entire face to kiss.
I think Hitchcock is much more on his game when he's trying to entertain, and despite the suspense-driven plot, "Vertigo" is much more about dark obsessions than a thrilling story.
But once you've seen it, it's hard to get out of your head and that's the genius of it.
It turns up in weird places.
I'm convinced that the main theme to "Lost" -- Michael Giacchino's short sketch of a melody as apparently played on a rusty swing-set -- is a quiet nod to Bernard Herrmann's "Vertigo" theme.
And in the first draft of my last script, I had about 15 direct references to films. During the rewrite process I trimmed all of them out except for one -- a reference to "Vertigo," which in the end basically proved uncuttable, although I really don't know why.
That's just the way the movie works. It's hard to discard. I'll take "North by Northwest," "Rope," "Lifeboat," "The Birds," "Psycho," "Rear Window," even "Marnie" over "Vertigo" any day ... basically any Hitchcock other than "Family Plot," "The Trouble with Harry" and "Topaz." But part of that is because -- bottom line -- "Vertigo" kind of gives me the creeps, the genuine not-necessarily-exciting creeps. That's part of what makes it an amazing little entity.
I can't decide whether, considering the movie, that sounds like a lot or a little, but it's still a landmark.
The movie, too, is a landmark.
I don't enjoy it.
I don't like the handstands the script has to do to rook us into the central grift; I find Kim Novak's post-"suicide" eyebrows (bizarre, oversized boomerangs of facial hair) off-putting; and I can't stand Jimmy Stewart's habit of using his entire face to kiss.
I think Hitchcock is much more on his game when he's trying to entertain, and despite the suspense-driven plot, "Vertigo" is much more about dark obsessions than a thrilling story.
But once you've seen it, it's hard to get out of your head and that's the genius of it.
It turns up in weird places.
I'm convinced that the main theme to "Lost" -- Michael Giacchino's short sketch of a melody as apparently played on a rusty swing-set -- is a quiet nod to Bernard Herrmann's "Vertigo" theme.
And in the first draft of my last script, I had about 15 direct references to films. During the rewrite process I trimmed all of them out except for one -- a reference to "Vertigo," which in the end basically proved uncuttable, although I really don't know why.
That's just the way the movie works. It's hard to discard. I'll take "North by Northwest," "Rope," "Lifeboat," "The Birds," "Psycho," "Rear Window," even "Marnie" over "Vertigo" any day ... basically any Hitchcock other than "Family Plot," "The Trouble with Harry" and "Topaz." But part of that is because -- bottom line -- "Vertigo" kind of gives me the creeps, the genuine not-necessarily-exciting creeps. That's part of what makes it an amazing little entity.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Your questions about time travel answered here
Though not a fan of most sci-fi/fantasy movies, I do have a weakness for stories about time travel.
As a teen, I obsessed over the quandaries and permutations of "Back to the Future" ("Twin Pine Mall" becomes "Lone Pine Mall"; the physical-temporal problems of Marty existing in two places at once; the notion that Chuck Berry got the inspiration for rock-and-roll over the phone from his cousin, Marvin, who in turn got it from a white boy, who in turn got it from Eddie Van Halen).
And since then, my affection for futures altered by going from the present to the past has only increased. I'll see just about anything related -- "The Lake House," "Bill and Ted," "Kate & Leopold."
So it was with sadness and disappointment that, a few years back, I watched the TT film "Primer" and couldn't make heads or tails of it.
I could, occasionally, see the head through the murk. But then that was gone and I found myself catching a quick glimpse of the tail. I got the basics (I thought), but I wanted it all. I knew it could be visualized, but visualizing "it" is somewhat akin to sketching an Escher on a bumpy table in your mind. So I gave up, albeit with an ice cream headache.
Recently (alas, inspired by the Onion A.V. Club's tribute to "Primer") I went back and tried to figure it all out. I watched the movie again. Watched it with the director commentary. Watched a lot of it with the cast/crew commentary. Did some reading on the internet. And after a while I started to figure it out, at least the parts that are supposed to be figured out (some parts aren't, I now realize).
Then I made a mistake. I looked to Wikipedia, which offered a handy explanatory chart that, once I'd read and absorbed it, immediately led me right back to square one on the whole figuring-it-out plane ....
As a teen, I obsessed over the quandaries and permutations of "Back to the Future" ("Twin Pine Mall" becomes "Lone Pine Mall"; the physical-temporal problems of Marty existing in two places at once; the notion that Chuck Berry got the inspiration for rock-and-roll over the phone from his cousin, Marvin, who in turn got it from a white boy, who in turn got it from Eddie Van Halen).
And since then, my affection for futures altered by going from the present to the past has only increased. I'll see just about anything related -- "The Lake House," "Bill and Ted," "Kate & Leopold."
So it was with sadness and disappointment that, a few years back, I watched the TT film "Primer" and couldn't make heads or tails of it.
I could, occasionally, see the head through the murk. But then that was gone and I found myself catching a quick glimpse of the tail. I got the basics (I thought), but I wanted it all. I knew it could be visualized, but visualizing "it" is somewhat akin to sketching an Escher on a bumpy table in your mind. So I gave up, albeit with an ice cream headache.
Recently (alas, inspired by the Onion A.V. Club's tribute to "Primer") I went back and tried to figure it all out. I watched the movie again. Watched it with the director commentary. Watched a lot of it with the cast/crew commentary. Did some reading on the internet. And after a while I started to figure it out, at least the parts that are supposed to be figured out (some parts aren't, I now realize).
Then I made a mistake. I looked to Wikipedia, which offered a handy explanatory chart that, once I'd read and absorbed it, immediately led me right back to square one on the whole figuring-it-out plane ....
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Sunday, May 4, 2008
K.O. Computer
I love Portishead. I wore out "Dummy" when it first hit ... jesus ... almost fifteen years ago.
And it's been, what, 10 years since their last official album but it's finally out.
The new one is similar but different. Having it on headphones is kind of like being stuck inside of a big, elaborate machine that's malfunctioning badly, albeit in moderately funky ways.
No song proves that analogy better than "Machine Gun," the first single. I'm not wild about the song -- I prefer the more typical stuff like "Nylon Smile," "Hunter" and "Deep Water" -- but I think it's pretty hilarious that "Machine Gun"'s the first single. What the hell radio station is going to play that? Cool ones, I guess, but not many and probably not during the day. Untrained ears are liable to suspect the CD is skipping ....
And it's been, what, 10 years since their last official album but it's finally out.
The new one is similar but different. Having it on headphones is kind of like being stuck inside of a big, elaborate machine that's malfunctioning badly, albeit in moderately funky ways.
No song proves that analogy better than "Machine Gun," the first single. I'm not wild about the song -- I prefer the more typical stuff like "Nylon Smile," "Hunter" and "Deep Water" -- but I think it's pretty hilarious that "Machine Gun"'s the first single. What the hell radio station is going to play that? Cool ones, I guess, but not many and probably not during the day. Untrained ears are liable to suspect the CD is skipping ....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
