May 9-11, 2008

A decent weekend for movies.

Wet Hot American Summer -

This was a very strange film, but not in the way you may think. It's a comedy, a campy comedy about campy camp movies. It was all very cute and very funny. I laughed. A lot. But it was weird in that the film kept switching styles. It modulated between fairly straightforward situational comedy to almost Zucker brothers absurdity comedy. I kind of wish it had stuck with just one style. It kept me off balance. Perhaps some people would like that though.

Janeane Garafolo was very funny, a lot of other unknown actors were also very funny. The SNL people in it were ok. Christopher Meloni as Gene the camp cook was fucking hilarious. He alone was worth the price of admission.

Other than that, not much to say. It's funny, it's campy, it's enjoyable, and that's about it. Wow, what a crappy review.

Grade: B-

Grays Anatomy -

I like Niel Diamond. My mother loves Niel Diamond, I was raised on Niel Diamond, I like Niel Diamond. One of my favorite quotes I don't even know where it came from, though I'm led to believe it was spoken by Bill Murray in some context. It goes "there are two types of people in this world. Those who like Niel Diamond, and those who don't." Logistically speaking, this is fairly silly, as any thing can be divided up in a binary fashion like that. But it's better to think of it more colloquially. Niel Diamond is a defining person. A person that defines the type of person you are. Who am I? I'm the kind of guy that likes Niel Diamond. That alone will probably tell you a lot about who I am.

Spalding Gray is the same way.

I had seen part of some Spalding Gray monologue on television at one point, I think it was from Swimming to Cambodia, and it seemed interesting to me. I suspected at that point that I was the kind of person that would like Spalding Gray.

Spalding Gray films, as far as I can tell, all follow the same formula and they are all odd. They are monologues. Spalding Gray in front of the camera telling a story. The backgrounds may change, there may be clips of footage of other people, but the meat of it is Spalding Gray telling a story. The man of Spalding Gray was odd as well. This wasn't an actor, though he acted. He wasn't an author, though he wrote and published. He was a storyteller. A guy that told stories. He had unique perspectives on life, sundry educations, a cookbook of neuroses and no real goddamn reason to be successful in media other than he told stories. Essentially, watching Spalding Gray is like listening to a friend tell you about his day. There is a sequence of factual information, but that is only half the story. The other half is the commentary from the person about their events. Their reactions, opinions and feelings about what happened. Chances are that this person is your friend because you like the way they contextualize their story. It's the reactions, opinions and feelings about the story jiving with your own that makes them your friend.

Whether or not you will like Grays Anatomy or any Spalding Gray film is directly relevant to whether you would like Spalding Gray the person. Me, I'm a Spalding Gray person. I like educated references combined with the vulgarity, almost a Dennis Miller-esque fashion but without the irreverence. But I don't expect everyone to. Just like I don't expect everyone to like Niel Diamond.

This was my first Spalding Gray film I've seen in full, and I probably should've picked a different one. See, the entire basis of the film is Spalding Gray dealing with a problem with his left eye. The beginning of the film starts with 10 minutes of interviews with people that describe the horrible and horrific accidents they have had with their eyes. I am EXTREMELY sensitive about my eyes. I can't wear contacts because I can't touch my own eye. The mere thought of trying to touch my eye makes them water. In fact, they are watering right now as I right this, I am not kidding. The first 10 minutes of the film nearly killed me, as people were describing how inch long slivers of metal were pulled from their eye. I was cringing in my chair and hiding my face. But that's a personal psychosis.

Grade: B

Slaughterhouse 5 -

I've never read the book. I think I just heard Coyote scream all the way from Baltimore. Yes, I haven't read the book. I haven't read much of Vonnegut at all. Only Cat's Cradle, which was the singular most depressing book I've ever read.

The makers of this film (George Roy Hill, et al.) meant well. I think they tried to capture the essence of the book. But I'm guessing they did a poor job of it. I think there is a lot more depth in the book, about the desperation of common existence, the frailty of humanity, the necessity for escapism and other themes dealt with lightly in the film. The filmmakers tried hard. But it's helpful to know where this film places in film history. It was released in 1972. The late 60's to early 70's were the Horse Latitudes in cinematic history. The film industry was in the dumps. Antitrust legislation had destroyed the big studios, so the golden age was over, and television held the greater interest of the country. Not that good films didn't get made in that time, but overall, it was much harder. Production values were rock bottom, which is why most of the films from that era look like shit. They are grainy, poorly colored, poorly made. The music, sets, special effects, all were done as cheaply as possible. And often times the films added unnecessary elements to drum up attendance. Aka boobs. There are breasts in this film, and they are nice breasts, but they weren't necessary. I'm not complaining, I'm just saying.

If you have ever seen the film version of Fahrenheit 451, this is pretty much the same thing. Taking a fairly popular if not underground story, making a film of it and trying to cover up the low production values with artsiness. In particular, rapid and pointless cutting and over the top sound tricks. Silence is a big part of these films, mostly because I believe they couldn't afford to get them properly scored.

The film itself isn't bad. The acting is decent. The direction is ok. But on the whole, this film serves only one purpose for me and that's to get me interested in the book which I would bet is the far superior experience.

Grade: B-