My Life In Movies Flashes Before My Eyes: Mr. Mom, 1983

I've got a strange gift for remembering things I watched extremely long ago. For example, if I happen to see an episode of a TV show I haven't watched in easily twenty years, I still remember how it ends. I can also identify episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation withing twenty seconds of changing to that channel and no, I don't use the info button. I'm just that good. So, this film I apparently watched a million times because my mom used it as a way to get a nap in.



Mr. Mom is the story of happily married suburban couple Jack and Carolyn. Jack is played by Michael Keaton, who I see in some ways as the everyman of the 1980s and then he was Batman. Carolyn is played by Teri Garr. Jack is an engineer at an auto plant, Carolyn is a stay at home mom. Now, if you've ever seen a movie about anyone who works for an auto manufacturer, you know where this is headed. Jack loses his job and it's Carolyn who finds a job in advertising first, meaning Jack is going to have to stay home and tend to the kids. Now, I know, obvious setup, but this film really is an examination of gender roles and the differing notions of ego for men and women. It's directed by Stan Dragoti, but the script is by John Hughes so of course the story is fantastic in its interconnectedness and the way he sets up the big moments, like the climax.

What I love most is the way that Jack is so freaking clueless when dropped in the world of suburban moms, no idea what to do at the grocery store (frankly, I have no idea how to do anything at the grocery store except buy Coke, hummus, olives, fancy cheese and pasta sauce.) and the correct way to drop off the kids at school, which if you take away nothing else from this film, you should take away north to drop off, south to pick up. It's also funny in addressing Carolyn's adjustment to life at work, as she finds herself cutting her boss' steak. Also, the soap opera sequence in this film is about as good as it gets. Seriously, it sets the bar for fantasy sequences it is so perfect.

This movie seriously reminds me of more recent efforts about the recession like Jason Reitman's Up In The Air and John Wells' The Company Men, the latter of which I think no one saw, but I saw it at the Austin Film Festival and also saw John Wells there and both of those are well worth seeing. Anyway, that was my favorite film of 1983, let me know what you think in the comments section.

My Life In Movies Flashes Before My Eyes: Blade Runner, 1982

So, at the beginning of May Fandango Groovers Movie Blog issued a challenge. Pick your favorite movie for every year since the year you were born. Fandango Groovers A Life In Movies

Sounded like fun, but I didn't quite have time to do it and I had to of course, compile a list. So, here's what I'm going to do. I turn 29 (don't remind me) on September 1. So, throughout the course of this summer, I am going to go through my favorite movies from 1982 to 2011 and give you my impressions of them. Now, this is favorite not the best, which will become very apparent at some points. Sometimes I will pick something that was clearly not the best film of that year, but happens to be my favorite and you will just have to deal with that.

Starting here. 1982. The Falklands War, EPCOT opens, I am born and several weeks later my parents take me to see Pink Floyd: The Wall. If only that explained everything. Some other decent movies also came out this year: E.T., Gandhi and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, which almost made this post, but in the end I decided on this one. But that film is still completely awesome.


Blade Runner is the story of Rick Deckard, played by Harrison Ford, who is a sort of bounty hunter for Replicants, sort of doing a whole film noir thing in a post-apocalyptic Los Angeles. Usually, I'm terrified of post-apocalyptic scenarios but this one is okay because there still appears to be Coca Cola available. Anyway, Harrison is out hunting a group of Replicants that have bizarrely come to Earth because Replicants are illegal on Earth and he has to kill them, but it's not supposed to matter because they're not people. Or are they?

So, he goes to the Tyrell Corporation where he meets Rachel, a Replicant who doesn't know she's a Replicant because they've given her the memory implants of the CEO's niece. So, it's like the Ganger episode of Doctor Who with the Library episode of Doctor Who with maybe a little bit of The Island in there. This starts Harrison questioning everything, whether or not they're people and that's the central question of this film: what makes a human being? This question becomes more profound as we follow the other Replicants on Earth, two of whom are played by Rutger Hauer and Daryl Hannah with alternate terror and heartbreak. It's brilliant. Also, can I just mention, if science fiction has taught us anything it's that building/cloning/lobotomizing people/things and making them your slaves is BAD. Hear me, future generations? BAD!

Now, I just rewatched the theatrical cut which is controversial because it has this annoying voiceover that it doesn't really need. Unless you're an idiot. I don't know, maybe you are, but you'd be unlikely to know you were an idiot... There are at least two other cuts I can think of and you can buy a big DVD box set with all of them, including I don't know how many Ridley Scott director's cuts. This makes you wonder what the hell it all means. Last year at the Austin Film Festival, one of the honorees was one of this film's writers, David Peoples was there and at the awardee panel, another honoree, Robert Rodriguez saved me the embarassment of asking about that when he asked, "Yeah, which version is right? Was he really a Replicant?" To which David Peoples said that this film still isn't finished. Which I kind of like, but I can see how that might be frustrating.

Also, you can actually buy the umbrellas from this movie at Think Geek! I am considering it if it ever rains in Texas again.

Blade Runner Style LED Umbrella

Made Then Remade: Solaris, 1972 and 2002

First, my apologies for the lag between posts. The Austin Film Festival deadline was the other night and I have been trapped in front of my computer writing other stuff. Also, you know, this is a hard movie.


Basically, the story is about Kris Kelvin, a psychiatrist who is summoned to a space station orbiting a planet called Solaris where the crew is going crazy. The crew is going crazy because they see dead people, which Kris discovers after he wakes up to see his wife, Rhea, who killed herself. This freaks him out and complications arise.



I tried to be a good blogger, I really did, I attempted to watch the original Solaris by Soviet director Andrei Tarkovsky. To be fair, I did watch it once in 2002, in anticipation of the remake with George Clooney. Well, watch? Okay, remember this was the days of video and I am a very fast reader and this movie has subtitles. So, once I realized there were going to be long shots of highways and pond water, I hit fast forward and then started reading the subtitles. Good enough. I'm sorry, I just can't. I don't get it. Same problem this time, I just started reading the Think Geek catalog.



Then, I saw the remake. I wouldn't call that film accessible. It was directed by Steven Soderbergh, produced by James Cameron and starred George Clooney and I am not sure any of those guys knew what was going on in it. I spent quite some time trying to figure out what the hell it all meant, read the script, listened to the commentary and nothing. And you know, here's a personal tip, if you get a FREE TICKET for your friend and she has to talk to her boyfriend instead of you on the way to the movie (and on the way back) and then starts rolling her eyes and sighing twenty minutes in, you should really evaluate the amount of time you spend with that person because someday it will make sense. I think you should apply this to anyone you know who has to check in with a significant other every two hours. I feel that's fair.

However, the friends you do want are the ones who will watch this movie with you and try to figure out what it means at your behest. This resulted in one particularly memorable viewing of the film, where alcohol was consumed, (because, yeah, that will help you figure it out) and we basically talked through the whole thing as we tried to utilize our second semester, Junior year, higher education, to try to figure out what this meant. At the end, Ginny came up with about as good a theory as any when she said, "So, the planet is God?" I think that met with the approval of the room and we all had more cookies.

I like to think the film has a meaning, I just don't know what. Basically, the thing could have been a great Doctor Who episode. You know, the Doctor goes to a weird planet and starts seeing a bunch of dead Time Lords who are mad at him. Stuff happens, the universe is at stake, I'm not writing this for you Doctor Who staff. If you would like me to write this for you, please feel free to contact me. The author of the novel says that both films missed the point, it was about encountering something bigger than humanity can conceive, (Yes, Ginny, I guess you're right) and this is the problem. You can't do a remake of a film of a book that apparently the original filmmakers didn't understand. It won't work because no one understands what's going on. Even if you liked it, you still couldn't say what happened: "Uh, George Clooney's wife is dead, but she's not and there's this planet and it's alive? Maybe? It also might be God. WHAT HAPPENED?!"

The most serious problem appears to be Rhea. As in, what is her problem? Why does she want to kill herself? This seems to be a problem that the filmmakers care very little about, she's just some crazy woman. I hate to play the gender bias card, but yes, I am playing it.

The problem is you can't just make a movie that only you understand. I hate to semi-quote Spike Lee, only because he usually says things that piss me off, but film isn't like painting. You can't just make a bunch of canvasses that only you understand, you need other people to get what you were trying to say and I don't, I so clearly don't. I do like Cliff Martinez's soundtrack, though, it's nice to fall asleep to. See, there's only so long you can drag people along without letting them know what's happening or providing some explanation and Solaris far exceeds this time, since it's been about nine years for the newer one. Sorry for the rubbish blog post. I'll do better next time.

So, if you know what's going on or are with the Doctor Who hiring office, let me know what you think in the comments' section.

Future Classic: Toy Story 3 - 2010

In 1995, Toy Story came out and frankly, I thought I was too old to like it. I did anyway because it did what all Pixar films do and that is strike at a truth that we all know to be true. In this particular case, that when we were little we totally thought our toys were alive and did stuff when we left the room. Toy Story 2 was actually an incredible sequel especially for an animated film because we all know those usually turn out to be a bunch of crap. (Shrek 4, anyone?) Toy Story 3 was the first movie of 2010 that I knew I HAD to see.

Story. We find the toys languishing as Andy is nearly grown up and hasn't played with them in years. Andy is going to college and the toys are struggling with what this means for them. They decide to try life at Sunnyside Day Care, against Woody's wishes as he feel ardently that they are Andy's toys and should go wherever Andy wants them to. Here is a clip from some of their tour:



I have to say that the whole Barbie/ken storyline is one of the greatest parts of the film and maybe the most obvious/clever thing ever. Woody decides to go back to Andy and gets sidetracked when he's picked up by a little girl named Bonnie. Life at Sunnyside is not what it's cracked up to be.



I called this when Lotso Huggin' Bear came onscreen. I turned to my brother and said, "This whole thing is going to turn out like Cool Hand Luke." I give you night in the box.



That was Cool Hand Luke obviously and not Toy Story 3, but this is what YouTube makes available to me. I do promise someone does spend a night in the box. Woody gets to know Bonnie and her toys, where we discover all dinosaur toys are tech savvy and Woody gets to experience what it's like to be played with again, which breathes love in him and puts a crack in his stoicism about being Andy's toy. Also, Timothy Dalton gives probably the best performance of his career as a Shakespeare-inclined porcupine toy. Inspired. Yeah, I'm still bitter about his two Bond movies.



Woody makes his way back to Sunnyside where the toys have gone all Lord of the Flies and Buzz has been reset to think yeah, he's a spaceman. The toys try to fix him.



Anyway, the toys have to escape. They make their way home in ways that I don't want to ruin and nearly gave me a heart attack. But they get home, resigned to their fates. Woody overhears Andy and his mom talking. Andy's mom is upset and Andy reassures her that she'll always be with him, even when they're not together. Woody realizes that Andy no longer needs him, that's he is already a part of him that he will carry for the rest of their life and Woody is finally able to let go. We see him scribble something on the box the toys are in and then he joins them.

The note leads Andy to Bonnie's house, where he gives Bonnie the toys. As he does so, he describes each one of them and in doing so, we realize that he is describing parts of himself. No more so is this evident that when he is surprised to discover Woody at the bottom of the box and for a second, we see just a kid who doesn't want to give up his favorite toy. But he does and he and Bonnie play with the toys before he drives off to college.

We see some of the toys' life with Bonnie and get to see the toys at Sunnyside. And finally I stop crying along with everyone else in the theater.

The reason that this movie hits you so hard is that it draws on the nostalgia of childhood, places you don't usually delve into so when you do it's powerful. I would say that most movies depend on flash and new technology and while Toy Story 3 has those it doesn't RELY on them other than to technically get the story across. I was at the Austin Film Festival this past year and one of the decided highlights of the festival was a panel with the screenwriter of this film, Michael Arndt, who also wrote Little Miss Sunshine. He spoke about something which I never heard discussed in film school, which is the philosophical stakes of a story, that in order for your story to succeed it has to be about something other than a flashy, glittering surface. For instance, in this movie it's about what is the role of a toy? Is Lotso right or is Woody? Or does Woody have it wrong?

Anyway, of course we know this movie does not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning Best Picture, but it was still one of my favorites of the year. I still marvel at the emotional effect that it has on people. I know people are starting to sneer at Pixar but that's only because everything they do is so good and when you're good, you're a target. This is the rare case when the last part of a series has left me satisfied, content to leave it where it is, to never want to go back. Hear me, Pixar? Don't revisit this! You'll kill it! Shrek 4, anyone?

Field Trip! The Sweet Smell of Success - 1957

Where have I been? Not that I actually have consistent readers awaiting my every entry with bated breath, but I was at the Austin Film Festival. Which was awesome. One of the events at the festival was a screening of the 1957 film Sweet Smell of Success with an introduction and discussion by Kenneth Turan, the film critic for the Los Angeles Times. So, it was back to the Drafthouse, the site of my Independence Day field trip.



Sweet Smell of Success starts Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis, our decidedly homoerotic friend from Spartacus. Curtis plays a publicity agent called Sidney Falco. Burt Lancaster plays an all powerful newspaper columnist called J.J. Hunsecker. Hunsecker's little sister, Susan, is in love with a jazz musician called Steve Dallas. Seriously, how do these people think they can get by with these names? Doesn't Hunsecker and Falco seem like it should be a buddy cop show? J.J. wants Sidney to break up the romance between Susan and Steve or he's generally going to make Sidney's professional life suck. The film follows Sidney around New York as he wheels and deals to improve his own career and break up the romance. Sidney concocts a plan in which he'll smear Steve and then have J.J. stand up for him only to have Steve to go berserk because he knows J.J. was behind it and then Steve looks like the lunatic. No wonder this guy's name is Dallas because this whole thing pretty much looks like the plot of an episode of Dallas.

Anyway, Sue Ellen hires a private detective to get proof that J.R.-- wait, sorry about that. This whole thing goes down as planned and Steve goes off on J.J. mission accomplished, the lovers are divided. Yet this is not good enough for J.J. because when Steve insulted him, he didn't just insult him, he insulted his readers and thus America. Watch Glenn Beck much, do you, J.J.? So, he does what any man would do in the same situation: he has Sidney plant marijuana on him and has him beaten and arrested by corrupt cops. That's rational, right?

So, Sidney comes to the house and tries to keep Susan from killing herself, who has sort of set him up. Sidney stops her from jumping off the balcony and then Susan sort of lets J.J. think Sidney tried to rape her. She relents in the end and tells the truth, but not really before J.J. is going to set Sidney up to get Dallas-ed by the cops. Susan leaves home to be with Steve and leaves J.J. heartbroken and Sidney just broken.

The thing that everyone commented on in the discussion was the cinematography and how fresh the movie felt. It used actual locations in New York and that in itself lends the film a kind of awesome, "This must be what Mad Men felt like" kind of energy. It sort of had a strange reception history: not being recognized in its own time and later seen as a masterpiece. What struck me about the film was the phenomenon of violence, you didn't see the onscreen physical violence and it reminded me of something Martin Scorsese said about Age of Innocence: that it was the most violent film he'd ever made because people's hearts were being broken. I felt like that was the case here: we don't see Steve and Sidney getting beat down, but we do see people's hearts getting broken by the realities of the world.

By the way, I recommend The Breakfast Club if you're ever at the Drafthouse for the brunch menu.

Questions, comments, concerns? Why don't you post them?