AMERICA LOST AND FOUND: THE BBS STORY Blu Ray Review Part 1

If I had to choose a favourite era of American Film it would have to be the late sixties through the seventies. It was of course, a time of transition for movies and America as a whole. Confused and out of touch film executives found themselves with no choice but to put their faith in a new generation of artists if they hoped to remain viable. This gave birth to new contemporary cinema inspired by the great auteurs of Europe to be both personally and politically radical. For a brief time, the director was king and the mandate was to create great art, not just great box-office (although that was and always will be a factor).

Amongst this new found talent were producer Bert Schneider and producer/director Bob Rafelson who joined with the more experienced Steve Blauner in 1968 to form BBS productions. Rafelson and Schneider had scored with "The Monkees" TV show and it was this success that provided the momentum for them to form their own company. Over the next few years BBS would produce only seven films and the folks at Criterion have been ambitious enough to collect them all into one remarkable box-set. The films range from iconic classics to dated curiosities but all are worth at least a viewing.

The title of this post is a bit misleading. The set, which I purchased on Blu Ray, includes many worthwhile extras and I will be mentioning a few of them but overall this will be a discussion of the films, not the discs.

So without further rambling, The BBS Story.

HEAD   (1968)

In what must have seemed a no-brainer the first film Rafelson/Schneider produced was a vehicle for The Monkees that Rafelson would direct as his first feature film. Rafelson wrote the script with an actor friend of his who'd been kicking around Hollywood for a while with little success named Jack Nicholson. For those who might not know, The Monkees were an ersatz pop band created for a TV show intended to cash in on The Beatles and their success in such film as "A Hard Day's Night" and "Help". The members were Mike Nesmith, Davy Jones, Peter Tork and Micky Dolenz, all likable young men and the show was surprisingly fun and creative and quite popular. The studio bosses must have been very happy at the prospect of a fun, frothy romp aimed at the lucrative youth market, particularly teenage girls. How shocked they must have been!

What they received was a genuinely subversive piece of free form psychedelia in which the members of The Monkees mocked themselves and their prefabricated celebrity in a series of stream of consciousness sketches. These included movie parody, commercial satire and fourth wall breaking non-sequiters tied together with some surprisingly strong music. Bizarre cameos include, Annette Funicello, Sonny Liston, wild man character actor Timothy Carey, blink-and-you'll-miss-them shots of Jack Nicholson and Dennis Hopper and Hollywood veteran Victor Mature as a kind of tanned, greasy haired god figure.

Needless to say, the film baffled studio execs and alienated it's intended audience. It exists today as a cult film and a genuine relic of it's era. So is it still worth watching? I would give it a qualified yes. As I stated before, it is an act of subversion and a much more radical piece of film than ever could have been expected of a Monkees vehicle. The members of the band equate themselves well, gleefully torpedoing their squeaky clean carefully marketed images and the songs, while dated, are quite listenable, written by the likes of Carole King and Harry Nilsson. The problem is it's not funny. This sort of loose collection of satirical and absurdist scenes would succeed wonderfully for artists as diverse as Luis Bunuel and the members of Monty Python but here it falls flat. The overall tone of "Head" is bitter and pretentious with no real joy or anarchic revelry.

An interesting cultural artifact with several reasons to recommend it "Head" is too inconsistent to be called a success. However, it did establish Bob Rafelson and Bert Schneider as fearless young talent with a taste for pushing the boundaries of American film both thematically and aesthetically. Their next film would change everything.

EASY RIDER  (1969)

Well you've all heard of "Easy Rider". It's one of the most important and influential films ever made. It's success led the way for a new cinema in America, a radical and politically committed cinema that spoke to a generation that old Hollywood could not and would not even try to understand. It mainstreamed methods and techniques inspired by the European art cinema of the day. It was a brave, original work of art that challenged and blew away all pre-conceieved notions of what a hit film had to be.
Why then, have I never been able to completely embrace it?

First things first. "Easy Rider" starred and was conceived by Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper. They wrote the screenplay with some assistance from the great Terry Southern (who provided the title) and Hopper directed. It told the story of Wyatt (also known as Captain America) and Billy, a couple of bikers who, after making a big drug score, take a  road trip across the southwestern united states on their tricked out motorcycles. Along the way they have positive encounters with simple working people, hippies, artists and various other counterculture figures along with experiencing violent hatred and prejudice from small town bigots and rednecks.

The film was originally intended as a project for Roger Corman's AIP, where both actors had already scored some success with biker or drug films intended for the drive-in circuit. When Corman passed (one of the few times his commercial instincts failed him) it was snatched up by BBC who would produce with Columbia Pictures distributing. It was produced for a budget of around 400 thousand dollars and grossed in it's first run almost 20 million.

There is much to admire about "Easy Rider". The cinematography by Laszlo Kovacs is stunning. Virtuoso camera operation (often from a moving vehicle) combined with flawless composition gives the film a suitably iconic look and feel. The soundtrack is full of great songs by the likes of Steppenwolf, The Byrds, Jimi Hendrix and Bob Dylan all utilized for maximum effect. It's perhaps the first mainstream film to directly portray the American counterculture of the time and at least try to understand where it was coming from. The acting is mostly hit and miss (more about that later) but it does contain at least one great star making performance from Jack Nicholson as small town lawyer George Hanson, who joins our heroes on the road. This is the birth of the Nicholson we all know and should love, sly, funny, charismatic, eccentric and perceptive. I think I'm right in saying that he's the character that most who watch the film can most successfully identify with. I know when I watch "Easy Rider" he's aways the part of the film I enjoy the most.
Getting back to my earlier question though, why don't I like this film all that much?

Here's the thing, I think I've stated pretty clearly what's good about the film and why it's important. None of this however, changes the fact that this is a haphazardly conceived film that dates very badly. The screenplay, such as it is, was largely improvised by the actors while stoned and it sounds like it, being often tedious and nonsensical, especially when they're trying to be profound. Neither main character is particularly interesting, Fonda says almost nothing while Hopper chatters continually somehow managing to say even less. The fact that the bikers are unashamedly portrayed as drug dealers is kind of brave on one level but plays into conservative stereotypes that link the counterculture inextricably with drug culture. The few female characters are vapid and readily available for casual sex confirming yet another negative stereotype, the "easy" hippie chick. The film makes a big deal about Fonda's character throwing away his watch symbolising their freedom even from time itself, but the Hopper character is constantly harping on the fact that they only have a few days to get to New Orleans fro Mardi Gars. Once they get to Mardi Gras we have to endure an unwatchable "acid trip" scene that's dull, pretentious and laughable at the same time. Lastly and most importantly, other than a disdain for the crudest forms of prejudice, this film has, despite it's reputation, zero political content. That needn't be a problem but this film was clearly meant to be a political statement of some kind. Beyond, "rednecks suck and hippies are incompetent" I have no idea what that could be.

Okay, perhaps I'm being too harsh. The fact is, the runaway success of "Easy Rider" was instrumental in ushering in this period of cinema I love so much. For that, at least, I will always be grateful and appreciative of Fonda, Hopper and BBS's achievement.

Next: BBS has it's first masterpiece, plus two minorpieces.

THOR, MUTHUF*CKA!

The book shown above was published in 1976 when I was _ years old and was my favourite comic book for a long time. I'm sure I must have read and reread it until the cover fell off and well afterwards. It was one of a series of huge over-sized re-print volumes marvel released at the time (I had an F.F. one as well) so the splash pages were way bigger than my head, all the better to enjoy the genius of Jack Kirby. If you've never experienced the work of the King in his prime you're really missing out. The bold graphics pop with detail and pulse with an energy unmatched before and rarely equalled after. I'm talking about pages like this:

or this:

See what I mean?
Anyway, the point I'm taking the long way to get around to is this. If I thought for a moment that Kenneth Branagh's "Thor" film was going to come anywhere near the epic epicness (that's a word if I say it is) of these comic book pages, I would have been much more excited these past few months.
Well, now I've seen the film, 3D and all,  and I'm happy to say that it may not quite be Kirby but it manages to come a lot closer than I would have thought.

The early scenes of "Thor" will be the real test to separate the long term from the casual fan. To his credit Branagh, his designers and his special effects team have actually managed to create a world combining sparkling  mythical grandeur with the over the top pop-kitsch sensibility of a golden age marvel comic.You will either find this all incredibly silly or kind of thrilling. I chose to channel my younger self who so loved that above mentioned comic book and be thrilled by the silliness of it all. If you're able to do the same, you should enjoy "Thor".

The film's story is pretty rudimentary and suffers from what I call "origin-itus". It's mostly set up with not as much pay off as I would have liked. However, it does echo Stan Lee's original concept. Thor the Asgardian god of thunder is sent to earth (or "Midgard") to learn humility and inadvertently becomes a super-hero. Along the way he falls for a human woman (Natalie Portman) encounters S.H.I.E.L.D. agents and has to deal with the treachery of his brother Loki. Despite being plot and exposition heavy it moves at a good pace and certainly delivers on a summer blockbuster level.

The cast is very good. Chris Hemsworth is a terrific hero, as good at fish out of water comedy as heroics, Anthony Hopkins is a fine Odin, although he's not exactly tested by the role and Tom Hiddleston is very strong as Loki, arguably the most interesting character in the film, a villain with complex motives for his actions. On the human side Stellan Skarsgaard, Kat Dennings and Natalie Portman are all good in, again, non-demanding roles. I know a lot of this sounds like faint praise but they are all very likable. If the film gets a sequel, it would be nice to see the characters developed further.

So I admit that "Thor" is not a home run like the first "Iron Man" or the second "Spider-Man" film but it should please fans of the character (like me) and entertain summer audiences. I wasn't blown away, but I did smile throughout, and that'll do.

Oh, one more thing. DO NOT SEE "THOR" IN 3D!! It's a conversion so it frequently looks flat and (ironically) two-dimensional. Also, some of the best action sequences take place in a dimly lit environment, which would have been okay except that they are made even more dim by those damn glasses. I cannot emphasize this enough. Do not support bad 3D!

Thanks.

Kill your own f*cking television! Vol. 1

I admit it, I watch too much television. As a society we watch too much television. Television has, in many ways, had a pernicious influence on the way we live, what we believe and even how we think. That being said, do you realize how much really great work is being produced for TV these days? We're in a golden age of storytelling the like of which has not been seen since the early days of live broadcasting.

Of course you wouldn't guess it looking at the antiquated rating system currently dominated by mediocre sitcoms, boring police procedurals and so-called "reality" shows. It's this crap (combined with the shallow circus tactics of 24 hour cable news) that still makes it easy for lazy cultural commentators to smugly dismiss television as a vapid wasteland for non-thinkers. Well, if you think that, you're not paying attention, and haven't been for some time.

The cable boom has produced, since the late nineties up to the present, a meteoric rise in the quality of scripted programming that has even had an effect on the networks, forcing them to at least occasionally, take a chance on something risky. HBO would be the primary leader with shows like "Six Feet Under", "Deadwood", the magnificent "The Wire" and of course "The Sopranos", each one innovative, challenging and original in it's own way and in the case of "The Sopranos" a genuine cultural phenomenon. Of course, other cable networks took the hint with shows like "The Shield" (FX) or"Battlestar Galactica" (Sci-Fi) and even the networks produced some quality innovative programming like "Arrested Development" (Fox) or (whatever you think of it) "Lost" (ABC).

The good news is, the trend continues, and what I want to do with this series of posts is celebrate what I think are some of the best shows currently in production. Some of them are already very popular and don't really need any help from me, but I'd like to talk about them anyway. Originally,  I was going to write one big mega-post covering all my favourites but instead, I'm only going to take them on one at a time, the better to focus my energies. Hopefully this will be a regular feature of this blog. Anyway, the first show I want to discuss is:

TREME

Complex, angry, heartbreaking and beautiful there is nothing else like "Treme" anywhere on tv or, sadly, in the movies. Producer David Simon had a hard act to follow with "The Wire" and along with co-creator Eric Overmeyer I think he's come up with a more than worthy successor. Like "The Wire" this is a multi-character and storyline drama that attempts to paint a portrait of an entire city. On "The Wire" it was Baltimore on "Treme" it is post-Katrina New Orleans, a city and a culture almost eradicated by a combination of natural disaster, governmental incompetence and national indifference.

Although, similar in structure to "The Wire", "Treme" lacks the central crime procedural element, focusing instead on the character's relationships to the city itself and their efforts to rebuild their lives. To portray this, the producers have assembled one of the best casts in the history of the medium. There's Khandi Alexander as bar owner Ladonna, torn between the city she loves and her new family in Baton Rouge, "Wire" veteran and New Orleans native Wendell Pierce as her ex-husband Antione a talented but at best semi-employed musician,  Oscar winner Melissa Leo as Toni, a lawyer at odds with New Orleans authority, John Goodman as her husband Creighton a college professor raging against government indifference, Kim Dickens as Jeannette, a struggling chef, Steve Zahn as Davis, her sometimes boyfriend, a part-time musician/ex DJ equal parts charming and deeply irritating, Michiel Huisman and Luicia Micarelli as street musicians Sonny and Annie (the least interesting characters on the show I'm afraid), Rob Brown as Delmond, a successful jazz trumpeter drawn back to his hometown despite his best efforts and another "Wire" vet Clarke Peters as his father "Big Chief" Albert Lambreaux the leader of a tribe of Mardi Gras Indians determined to maintain that tradition at all costs.

If any character is the symbolic heart of the series it's Albert Lambreaux, a proud, severe and stubborn man struggling to preserve the culture that defines him. Mardi Gras Indians, if you don't know, are groups (tribes) of African Americans (until recently entirely men) who dress up and parade in elaborate costumes inspired by, and in tribute to, the historical connection between Native Americans and escaped slaves. Actually as you can see from this picture of Clarke Peters in full costume, elaborate is an understatement.

The reason this seemingly strange tradition is so vitally important to this man is never articulated verbally but is apparent nonetheless in the palpable sense of history and community he and his tribe possess. It is precisely this sense of history and particularly community that defines this series as a whole. Whereas "The Wire" was primarily concerned with crime and politics, "Treme" is all about the culture.

There is more than enough sadness and pain to go around in "Treme", and it is often heartbreaking, but never depressing because alongside all the suffering is an equal amount of pride, defiance and pure unadulterated joy. No TV show known to me is as alive as "Treme" as it dives into all the aspects of New Orleans culture that make it unlike any other city in the U.S., or the world for that matter. It's all there, the food, the crumbling but still beautiful architecture, the racial diversity, the breathtaking Mardi Gras Indians and most especially the music. Traditional and modern Jazz, Cajun  & Creole, Country, Blues, Brass Band and a uniquely New Orleans form of Hip Hop known as Bounce all are all thrillingly presented (and mostly recorded live) and make "Treme" the most spectacularly musical show on TV. This alone is enough for a highest recommendation.

I will say, if you decide to give "Treme" a try be prepared to give it at least three episodes. This is a show more concerned with character and setting than plot. The story is there but it emerges gradually, like a novel or a classic Robert Altman film. If you have the patience for it, this is the most rewarding series currently being produced for American television, and that's saying a lot.

Well I hope that inspires somebody out there to give "Treme" a look.
I think the next show in this series of posts will either be FX's "Louie" or the new "Doctor Who". Until then, kill your own fucking television!
I need mine to watch "Treme".

Mom

I lost my Mother very suddenly. I was awoken early on a Sunday morning (sick as a dog with stomach flu) with news of her heart attack and by the time I went to sleep that night she was gone. I wasn't able to say"good bye" or "I love you" or to tell her any of the things I wanted to that day. It didn't seem real and it still doesn't.

When my 14 year old cat died I could cry freely and then move on, that was just a pet. In the days following my Mother's passing, I shed tears but fewer than I would have thought. There was too much to do, too many other people to deal with and besides I never wanted to move on. I still don't.

I'm not talking about some morbid denial of the facts, I'm talking about something positive and sustaining. My Mother remains a real presence in my life and will until the day I die. My life and how I live it are expressions of my upbringing. How could they not be? I'm trying to avoid platitudes here, but I am the man I am today because I grew up never doubting for a moment that I was loved.

It's easy, and entirely appropriate, to say "I Love You" on Mother's Day and I certainly would if I could. In retrospect, however, the thing I wish I'd said more often is "Thank You".  To any of you out there who still have the opportunity to say this, do so today.
For that matter, say it as often as you can.

Thank you Mom.