Out of Focus

I ALWAYS KNEW STEPHEN BALDWIN WAS AN ATTENTION WHORE, BUT I NEVER THOUGHT HE WAS THIS CRAZY

So here I am, up late (as usual) doing a bunch of catch-up reading and work, and for some reason I haven't changed the channel from MSNBC with their little Scarborough & Reagan "After Hours" show when who would Joe and Ron start interviewing but none other than the most pathetic Baldwin brother, Stephen. I don't get it -- I don't think he's been fired yet from his gig as the new host of Sci-Fi's Scare Tactics, but there he was after midnight standing with the MSNBC onlookers in Herald Square saying, "Fuck you Alec and Billy. You go on with your whole Creative Coalition liberal agenda. I'm with God." Or something to that affect.

It must be little brother syndrome, right? I mean, he stood there being all coy in the stupid way only he could -- stating his allegiance to Bush but refusing to actually say anything but "there's one candidate" rather than his name. Essentially, he's such a Christian now that he wants his President to make every decision based on his faith in the big G. And the scary thing is, I'm just barely paraphrasing. Here, let me quote for you:

Baldwin: If I think about the two possible candidates, I believe that one of these guys has been much more verbal and much more outward about their belief system and the way they believe and their outwardness and their relationship in God. And I'm just somebody that thinks that that's the guy I should vote for. And I should get out there and ... Hey, four-million Christians didn't vote in the last Presidential election that was determined by less than 500,000 votes.

Scarborough: So what do you want John Kerry -- you're not naming names, so let me name names. So what would you want John Kerry to say to you to earn your vote?

Baldwin: Ooh, that's a good one. (Grin & Pause) Ooh, you got me there buddy.

Reagan: (John Kerry) is Catholic. He is Catholic and attends mass most Sundays.

Baldwin: Well that's true. That's true. Well, I'm going to answer that by saying this. If I believed that John Kerry was somebody who shared in the same faith that I do the way I do and absolutely allowed all of his decisions to be led and determined by his faith in God, then I would probably vote for him.

Holy shit, Baldwins. What happened to your brother? He can't blame this nuttiness on Pauly Shore. Is he this desperate to not be known as the dumbass baby Baldwin? Doesn't somebody think an intervention is in order? It's obviously just a cry for help, right? I'm guessing Ron Reagan Jr. thought so. The smiling-look-of-disbelief was on his face as every single word exited Baldwin's yapping trap.

Please Stephen: just head back to your quiet life in Arizona and stop pretending that anybody cares what you think or say. In fact, your brothers aren't even so famous anymore, so that inferiority complex of yours can just go away. Really, we'll forgive you, as soon as you stop saying really stupid-ass shit.

DAMN YOU EBERT! I DON'T WANT ANY OF THE GALLO KOOL-AID

Does anyone know how Greencine Daily does it? Seriously. I mean, it would take me a month to read all the stuff editor David Hudson links to in half-a-week. Does he have a whole room set-up, A Clockwork Orange-style, with little slaves forced to read all these articles projected onto big monitors? Their eyelids propped open, forced to stare at free weeklies from around the country and dry film journals with few, if any, actual pictures? The Greencine scientist hydrating their eyes with little droppers?

Whatever the case, if you don't check out Greencine daily (see what I did there? Oh yeah!), you should. Just today, it brought to my attention Roger Ebert's article from this past Sunday's Sun Times regarding his meeting Vincent Gallo and they're conversation about The Brown Bunny. (And I realize, Ebert isn't exactly obscure.)

Now I've made no secret for my dislike of Gallo's work nor my annoyance with this film. But it would also be wrong to characterize my critique of The Brown Bunny as a complete pan. In fact, as I said in my original comments, I think there's a very interesting short film tucked away at the end, but the subtext of what I saw in Gallo's overall movie was quite disturbing, and annoying, to me.

I've been waiting to hear from Gallo fans (especially those who loved his first film) how they felt about this one. I was particularly interested in reading Ebert's take on the final shorter edit of The Brown Bunny since he was a huge fan of Buffalo '66 before notoriously saying that a video of his colonoscopy would be more entertaining than the Cannes screening he saw of Gallo's latest.

Meanwhile, Uncle Grambo and Karen Cinecultist actually paid money to hear the man speak at two different venues and both came away from their individual experience in awe of his sincerity and personality. Well, I didn't buy it, but I also didn't get a chance to hear him. However, I was really happy to see Ebert transcribe much of his dialogue with Gallo, because I'll admit that even cynical little me could read in his words that very quality which must come across when he speaks to an audience. It doesn't make me like his films any better, but it does help me understand where he (at least thinks) he's coming from.

While Ebert's actual review doesn't pop-up until this Friday, he indicates in the story that he at least enjoys this version of the film, certainly much more than the one he saw at Cannes. It makes me wonder if I would have appreciated it more had I been subjected to the extra 26 minutes of boredom seen at the 2003 film festival. I've been reading various reviews, and as expected, they've run the gamut from biting criticism to reverential praise. But to my mind, the overly positive reviews have still lacked any commentary that explains what about this movie works; or, more importantly to my personal viewpoint, why my reading of his self-aggrandizing isn't as annoying to others as it is to me. I'm not sure how I feel about the venerated J. Hoberman's review in the Village Voice. It's almost as if Hoberman is so struck by what works in the movie (such as the early scene with Daisy's parents) that the rest of the filler doesn't matter. He calls Gallo's "mysterious appeal for women" a curse on "the Vincent" character – the persona at the center of both of Gallo's films. But Hoberman, like Ebert, is also seeing the film for a second time, in a newer, cleaner, shorter version. You cut 26 minutes out of any rough cut, and you're going to have a dramatically different, and 8-out-of-10 times probably better, film. (Of course, I'm generalizing here so back off.) Is the movie really that much better, or is it just that much easier to watch, with an ending that actually works as opposed to one that was tacked on and, according to those who saw it, simply painful.

So Hoberman didn't convince me of much, but Ebert has a comment in his story that intrigued me. Near the end of the article while discussing how Gallo is actually insecure and unhappy about his looks, Ebert writes near the end of his article, "His comment provided me with an insight into his character in The Brown Bunny, a lonely wanderer whose life traverses a great emptiness punctuated by unsuccessful, incomplete or imaginary respites with women." (Emphasis is mine.)

Those three words present a slightly more interesting read of both of Gallo's films, especially this new one. Don't get me wrong; I'm not suddenly jumping on the bandwagon, but taking the entirety, or at least the first hour's journey, of The Brown Bunny as one long daydream, especially when combining it with the film's third act, at least makes a little bit of sense. Looking at his meetings with the three women on the road as "incomplete" rather than conquests that don't match-up with his ideal is also an interesting perspective and one that actually might even justify some of the road scenes, although still not to the overly long degree to which they currently exist.

I still stand behind my original reaction to the film, but I also look forward to reading Ebert's more detailed critique because for the first time in any discussion about the films of Vincent Gallo, he said something that actually makes sense and potentially carries some weight … even if I disagree with it.

THE BUNNY ATTACKS: CUTER AND SWEETER THAN DONNIE DARKO's FRANK BUT FAR MORE DISTURBING

Today is the day when the general public is subjected has the opportunity to see Vincent Gallo's The Brown Bunny. I've already provided my reaction to the film (which I saw about 6 weeks ago, I think) in a few different places, which has been valuable to my hit count since I get plenty of Google searches involving the words "Chloe Sevigny," "Vincent Gallo" and "blow job."

Look, if you loved Gallo's Buffalo 66, chances are you'll like this movie. It has its proponents, although I still have yet to hear or read any reason that goes beyond, "It's art," i.e., What about it makes it so? If you want to waste your time and money on what is basically no more than a big time ego trip that happens to include some graphic, albeit not erotic, oral sex, now's your chance.

If you haven't read my original review, I encourage you to do so now. You'll find it right here: "Like any porno movie, nothing happens, and then there's a blow job". I really do think I gave the film a fair shake, and in fact, my preconceived notions of Gallo -- disliking his work as a director -- in some ways made me "enjoy" the experience of watching his film more, even if I thought most of it was a piece of shit. If you are interested in seeing the film, I tried very hard not to ruin the ending of the film, which is one of the few things I thought was actually somewhat interesting.

You can also check-out Filmbrain's fawning but flawed take, and be sure to read some of the back and forth (including words from yours truly) in the comments which follow his post. I'm sure Filmbrain has more rebuttal for me, but he somehow manages to take long vacations in exotic European locales.

TCM WATCH: WRAPPING THE SUMMER AND THE STARS

Yes, more shilling for my favorite channel, TCM. They really should start paying me for all this free advertising. I'm sure I've given them at least one or two viewers, and that's got to be nearly 1/10 of their entire audience.

I kid ... I joke. We always make fun of the ones we love.

Anyway, it's the home stretch kids, and the rest of the month looks pretty good featuring four of the greatest male movie stars to every grace the silver screen as well as a swimmer. Friday features the always suave Cary Grant, Saturday is all about the strong and stoic Gary Cooper, and Sunday reveals the nobility of Gregory Peck. On Monday, TCM gives us a break from the heavy stuff with a day of popcorn from the 40s and 50s featuring Esther Williams. And on Tuesday you might as well just call in sick (especially if you're in NYC and trying to avoid the RNC) since it's a day filled with truly great Kirk Douglas movies. (Seriously, you could do much worse than spending your day watching Mourning Becomes Electra, Lust For Life, The Bad and the Beautiful, Cast a Giant Shadow, Paths of Glory, The War Wagon, The Way West, Out of the Past and Two Weeks in Another Town.)

Check out the remainder of the month. My "highlights" and suggestions for these days can be found after the jump. If you want to see my complete original post about this month's TCM programming, you can find that here.

IFC UFF WEEK 7: AS THE FINALS APPROACH, THE PRODUCERS MAKE ME HATE THE CONTESTANTS MORE THAN THEM

This is it folks. The last week regional semifinals for IFC's Ultimate Film Fanatic. Next week (thankfully) is the season finale – the finals, and they couldn't come too soon. I noticed that they're starting the process of auditions for a second season already, and I have one request of the producers: call me. Seriously. Not to be on the show. I'd do great in the debate segment, but I'd be a disaster a the "obsession war," (although maybe this blog would now make a good item!), and when you get to real specific trivia stuff, I have a terrible memory for that shit. No, I want to help you guys cast this thing. I want to grill and train these potential contestants so that you don't have anything like what you've had most of this season, this episode in particular. I want to make people do several timed practice debates, give them pointers, and if they don't improve, make that a major criteria for not making the show. I want to ask everyone if one of their "obsession war" items would be any kind of list or record of movies watched, and if they say yes, automatically disqualify them.

The casting of this show was terrible, and none worse than this week. I don't want to blame it on some blanket judgment of people in the "Mountain" region (Colorado, Montana, Idaho, etc.), but I found myself rooting against people rather than for them. Everyone annoyed the hell out of me, and the ultimate winner most of all. He got lucky because although he had slightly more personality than the guys he beat, he's an idiot

Now it seems that more and more UFF contestants keep finding my blog. Between some private emails and more recent comments, it seems that most of the contestants got along (key word being "most"). Anyway, could one of you get IFC to visit? Or Mindless Entertainment? Or Chris Gore? Good. Thanks.

If you want to relive any of the first six episodes, I've made it easy for you:
Week 1: Northeast
Week 2: Southwest
Week 3: Midwest
Week 4: Southeast
Week 5: MidAtlantic
Week 6: West Coast

A POST DAILY SHOW POST

So if you were paying attention yesterday (and to the post directly under this one), you watched The Daily Show last night and saw Jon Stewart's interview with John Kerry. Not that I expected Stewart to become all Chris Matthews on him, but that was really almost too easy. I mean, I know it's a fake news show, and I know on some level Stewart doesn't want it to be more than that, but he basically kept asking about Kerry's opposition, "Don't you hate it that they say this about you?" Or, "Why do you think they do that?" Now I've been a Kerry backer for a long time, actually -- even back when all the Dean craziness was ongoing, but he does have a similar personality problem to Al Gore, and he didn't really help himself tonight. Sure, all of us behind him laugh and giggle at this or that, but if this was an attempt to soften or hip-up his image, did it really do that? He basically spouted a few of his stump speech lines, one of which I'm pretty sure was straight out of his convention speech: "I think the United States of America should never go to war the way this President took us to war. You never go to war because you want to; you go to war because you have to." Yeah, we know. And I totally agree with your sentiment. But by now, we've all heard that line. If you're trying to show you're so easy going and in with the in-crowd, step away from the speech and switch around your lingo. Please.

I do give Kerry credit for partaking in one very small but important bit of political spin, however. Kerry made a point to note that Dubya has one every political debate in which he's participated, beating Ann Richards to become Governor of Texas and then Al Gore in the 2000 elections (even though the argument that Gore lost more than Bush one is a fair one). Bush's campaign has always done its best to lower expectations for him so that when he shows up and isn't a complete bumbling idiot, connecting with those Midwestern and southern voters by utilizing his downhome cornpoke plain-speak, he wins. It looks like Kerry and his campaign will definitely do their part in not allowing Bush's skills to be dismissed in such a way again. It's a smart move.

Meanwhile, in the comments to yesterday's post, it was asked if Bush would go on The Daily Show and if the show would take him. I say absolutely to the latter and absolutely not to the former. At the end of the episode, Stewart announced that the next night's guest, i.e., tonight, would be Ed Gillespie. In case you're unaware, Gillespie is the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, and a major mouthpiece well-versed in spewing talking points. Gillespie's been making the rounds to get the youth vote -- he appeared on MTV's TRL several months ago when the RNC stuck some sort of voter-recruitment mobile in Times Square. He had an absurdly empty conversation with MTV's Sway that I'm sure convinced nobody (at least nobody of voting age) of anything. I'm fairly certain that much of his success is because no matter how much bullshit he spews, he's actually less annoying than the absolutely awful Terry McAuliffe, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. McAuliffe somehow manages to make things I agree with sound like utter crap, and one major positive of a Kerry win would be that inevitably there would be a new DNC Chair.

Regardless, I think The Daily Show is very smart to let the Republicans come on immediately after Kerry to give their own attempt at being hip, youthful and pretend like there's no such thing as spin. I do look forward, however, to watching Stewart hopefully make Gillespie slightly uncomfortable, forcing him to just laugh incessently because he doesn't have any actually good answers to provide. I'm sure that if you've seen any number of talking head shows on the cable news channels this week, Gillespie has been on at least one of them, and you won't hear anything different on The Daily Show. He'll just have a bigger smile on his face and guffaw popping from his belly. Still, I'm sure it will be damn good television.

LIKE YOU NEEDED ANOTHER REASON TO WATCH THE DAILY SHOW

In case you haven't heard, get your DiVos/TiVos/VCRs/whatever ready to at least record tonight's episode of The Daily Show because tonight's guest will be none other than John Kerry. Over at Gothamist Arts, as well as on her own site, Jen Daily Refill correctly mentions the trend Jon Stewart's show is showing towards getting higher profile guests, obviously because Stewart has a relatively small (compared to say Leno or Letterman) but incredibly loyal and growing audience in the 18-35 age group. Personally, I think it's also because people are catching on to the fact that Stewart and his fake news show provide some of the most straightforward analysis of news and politics on any channel. There certainly is less spin on The Daily Show than, say, in Bill O'Reilly's supposed "no-spin zone." While Stewart doesn't hide his personal left-of-center bent, he also doesn't leave the democrats alone. The show will take a jab at Kerry mere seconds after doing so to Bush. And quite simply, Stewart does the best interviews on TV today. He doesn't yell; he seems to pay attention; but he also doesn't let anyone get away with any crap, mildly calling out a political operative with a sly look and grin and a simple, "Now we know better," or, "You don't really believe that, do you?"

He's obviously on Kerry's side, but it will be interesting to see this interview. I don't believe he'll blindly fawn over the democratic nominee, even though I'm sure it won't necessarily be hard-hitting either.

You know what would be great? Instead of the same old tired, programmed debates moderated by the major/cable network news guys, how about one moderated by Stewart? Of course, it would never happen -- neither campaign would agree to such a thing. But just think of the possibilities. Stewart would blow-off the idea; his own public thoughts about his show is that it's just one big joke. But the rest of us know better, and just think of the possibilities.

Definitely don't miss it.

TCM WATCH: STARS STILL SHINING BRIGHT

The "Summer Under the Stars" on TCM is winding down, but the programming continues to be strong. The next three days, in fact, are some of the best of the month, starting with today's look at the career of Charlie Chaplin. You can catch most of Chaplin's "Little Tramp" films tonight from 8 PM-2:30, and if you've never seen any of them, try to watch at least one or two (they're relatively short). If you want to catch a good overview of Chaplin's life, career and talents, try to watch/record Charlie: The Life & Art of Charlie Chaplin today at 4 PM.

Tomorrow's focus is Shirley MacLaine, and if you've never seen her earlier performances, you really are missing out. Thursday features the one of the greats from the golden age, the extremely versatile Claudette Colbert.

All are worth watching. Reprints of my original comments on each day, including highlights of what to watch, can be found after the jump. If you want to see the entire original post about the month, just go here. I'll wrap up the remainder of the month later this week.

MISCELLANEOUS MISCELLANY: IF BROOKE SHIELDS STARRED AS GOD CHASING DOWN THE WARRIORS GANG, WOULD THAT MAKE THE NEW YORK FILM FESTIVAL OR JUST THE WORLD STAR GAZETTE?

I had another super-fabulous movie weekend, making it to Film Forum on Friday for the magnificent-and-you-really-shouldn't-miss-it The Leopard. Later that evening, I sat through Collateral, a movie about which I have a lot to say and am really conflicted. On Saturday I avoided the bulk of the thunderstorm (after receiving a brief drenching while getting in and out of the cab which took my friends and I about 4 blocks) by watching the powerful Maria Full of Grace. And on Sunday, I started by revisiting Before Sunrise and then after enjoying a bit of one of the nicest, most mild August days in New York I can remember, my gf and I went to Chelsea to catch Before Sunset, in my opinion, one of the absolute best movies of the year. I'll discuss Before Sunset in more detail in another post, but if people want to praise an innovative, fresh and original voice in cinema doing things that nobody else is doing, stay away from the egomaniacal hack Vincent Gallo -- who really doesn't do anything fresh and innovative – get more intimately familiar with Richard Linklater and his resume. He's the real deal, constantly pushing his own boundaries, whether it's with mainstream fare like The School of Rock or trippy experimental non-narrative work like Waking Life. He deserves our praise far more than the boring mess that Gallo gives us.

Meanwhile, as usual Monday's not treating me so hot, so here are a few quick bits to tide you over until I can force my brain to spew out something interesting:

• From the "completely unnecessary" files: Ellen DeGeneres plans to star in a remake of Oh, God! Now, I'm actually all for the idea of remaking bad movies rather than good ones – you know, give them a chance to be better – but some stories really don't even merit that treatment, and does anyone really have any interest in seeing DeGeneres try to fill the shoes of George Burns? This whole project comes from the mind of producer Jerry Weintraub who never met a film he wouldn't like to remake or sequelize (it's a word if I say it is), especially if the original was one of his own. He's already planning to subject us to a new Police Academy movie (second item). But seriously, as those who possess far more eloquence than I would say, DeGeneres as God? Durst! No buzz!

• Only slightly less unnecessary is word that the Tony Scott-led remake of The Warriors is moving forward. Terrence Winter has been hired to write the script. He's apparently the third person (sort of – the first was a writing team) to give it a crack. Is that a good choice? Who knows? Scott isn't as good a director as his brother, and the quality of his films tend to be no better or worse than the quality of their scripts. He's been Emmy nominated four times for his work on The Sopranos, but one always has to wonder how much the staff writers really do with uber-writer/producer David Chase overseeing every little element of the show. Winter's other credits are pretty unimpressive: the terrible Eddie Murphy animated series The PJs, and the syndicated series Xena: Warrior Princess, not to mention the truly terrible syndicated modern incarnation of Flipper. But even giving him the benefit of the doubt – every TV writer has to start somewhere – why does anyone have to remake Walter Hill's great film which is such a magnificent product of its time. The Variety story describes the update as "having a heightened reality compare d to the original," while sharing the same basic plot. What the fuck does that mean? As Gothamist rightly notes, "Can you really remake that film for contemporary audiences used to clean subways or safer Coney Island?" But more importantly, why would you want to. If you've never seen The Warriors, go netflix it. You'll see how it influenced Martin Scorsese's conceptualization for Michael Jackson's "Bad" video as well as an interesting comparison between the New Yorks of then and now.

• Taking a brief second to look at the world of Broadway theater, it seems that Brooke Shields will be taking over the lead role in Wonderful Town from Donna Murphy. Now, to be perfectly fair, I haven't seen Wonderful Town, but considering that most reviews and everybody I've spoken to who has seen it says that Murphy's fantastic performance is the only reason to see it, and when you throw in the fact that it's not even a big box office draw, why would the backers even keep the thing running? And with Shields in the lead? It just all seems a bit pointless.

• The New York Film Festival has announced it's full lineup, and all I have to say is, "Film Society: Where the hell is my members priority order form." Holy shit. Is there anything I don't want to see? (IndieWIRE has the full story.) They had previously announced the Cannes screenplay award winning Comme une image a/k/a Look at Me as the opener as well as Alexander Payne's eagerly anticipated Sideways as the closing night film. Plus the latest from the brilliant Pedro Almodóvar, Bad Education, as the centerpiece screening. Now it turns out they're also showing Saraband, what should be the final film from 85-year-old master Ingmar Bergman, who according to Variety's story has "officially announced his retirement." Another cinema icon, Jean-Luc Godard, will be sending his latest film, Notre Musique, and if any of you are curious about the identity of Filmbrain, I'd bet major money you'll be able to find him there. But wait, there's more! Another French New Wave vet, Eric Rohmer, will screen his new film Triple Agent as well. But for some reason, you're not into foreign cinema from a bunch of senior citizens? Whatever. That's stupid, but you're not being left out. There's the always fascinating Mike Leigh's Vera Drake and Chinese genius Zhang Yimou's second straight martial arts epic and follow-up to Hero (which finally opens here this Friday), House of Flying Daggers. And don't worry, there are new American films too such as Todd Solondz's Palindromes and David Gordon Green's Undertow, both of which are absolute can't-wait/must-sees for me. And those are just the big name highlights! There are also special Directors discussions, apparently including one with Almodóvar, and special screening series, one being the entire original Infernal Affairs trilogy (another place where you'll probably find Filmbrain skulking around). Damn you Film Society. I don't have enough money for all of this!

• And finally (OK, so this wasn't so brief), I happened across a site today called The World Star Gazette calls itself an online newspaper that treats blog entries as news stories." Nothing weird or wrong with that. On their Arts & Entertainment page, in the left-hand column about 5 items down, they've chosen one of my posts as one of their stories (although for some reason their blurb links to my blog but not that story's permalink). It was one of my posts about Network from a few weeks back when I was encouraging people to catch it on . My post revolved around the fact that Network, in my opinion one of the best movies of all time, was one of a few films that lost that year's Best Picture Oscar to Rocky, which, regardless of the latter film's merits, was somewhat absurd. From what I can tell, the editors of this online newspaper place all their creative energy into producing supposedly interesting, snarky headlines. The one for my "news story": "Sore Loser Still Mad as Hell About 1978 Oscar Ceremonies." Get it? "Mad as Hell"? Cause, you know, Peter Finch has that famous line, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore." And I guess I'm the "sore loser." Although I have no problems with the 1978 Oscar ceremony. Network lost in the 1977 Oscar ceremony. 1978's ceremony (for the 1977 movie year) was won by Annie Hall, a very deserving movie, especially up against the competition. I mean, aside from Star Wars, I certainly wouldn't have given it to any of the other three films, even though they were each very good. And I don't know that I'm really a "Sore Loser" considering the fact that I, personally, never lost anything and have no relationship to Network, other than the simple fact that I can recognize a truly great and important movie for the ages over a very good, uplifting, inspirational, but certainly not revolutionary film that was at best a big-time crowd pleaser. I really like Rocky, and in many ways it is a great movie, but it definitely doesn't stand up, especially in retrospect, but I'd have to think even in 1976/77, to the utter brilliance that was and is Network.

IFC'S UFF WEEK 6: WOULD YOU BELIEVE I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO BITCH ABOUT (KEY WORD="MUCH")

So I'm getting these Ultimate Film Fanatic commentaries posted later and later, but whatever. Tonight's semifinal is the last regional, and the final finale is next week. Since the show has been consistently annoying in its mediocrity, I'm happy that at least this first series or "tournament" or whatever-you-want-to-call-it is almost over.

With that said, from start to finish, the West Coast regional that aired last Friday was the best episode of the show so far.