Sunday, August 31, 2014
Something wonderful happened today. I don't know if it was simply the selection of the theater, the holiday weekend, or that I've been going to movies at the wrong time. We went to a screening of "Ghostbusters" and there were maybe two dozen people in the screening we were at, but the theater complex, which has 18 screens was packed! It reminded me of twenty years ago when the weekend crowds at the movies would be thick with families and couples and everyone was in line for a ticket, concessions or the bathroom. After reading several stories this week about how miserable the box office was this summer, it was refreshing to see that the movie business did not look like it was dying.
"Ghostbusters" is a movie that I covered extensively just a couple of months ago on my companion site, "30 Years On". For the full scope on the film you can click on any of the links on this page, including the poster below. Please come by and share your thoughts on that site if you can. I will say that the movie was again, great. Bill Murray is a national treasure. Also there are bits and pieces that you might notice on a forty foot screen that you miss on your home theater system. I noticed a second foreshadowing reference to the Stay Puft Marshmallow man that I missed before. There is a fading painted advertisement on the wall of a building that showed up much more clearly in this screening.
I heard people a couple of spots back from us in line to buy tickets, talking about the movie. The woman said she'd rather see a thirty year old film that she knew was good than "Lucy" which she heard was not. I've not seen "Lucy" myself so I will withhold judgement, but I can say that seeing "Ghostbusters" on the big screen was a good choice, and the price was a bargain at our theater, $6. It's going to play for the rest of the week, so you have plenty of chances to see it, don't blow the opportunity. I know it seems like you are paying for a commercial for the new Blu-ray release, but it's the best two hour commercial you will ever see.
Saturday, August 23, 2014
I don't know what I was doing at this movie. It is a teen romance/weepy and it has zero surprises to it. The lead actor is an interesting face without any detectable acting talent. The film plays like a promo for the album by the fictional band that is featured in the story and the soundtrack is full of pop music trying to pass itself off as indie-cool. Some of the dialogue in this sounds like it was directly taken from the young adult book that the film is based on and in this case it is not good. I thought "The Fault in our Stars" earlier this summer was dolorously depressing. This movie lays on the sadness with a trowel that is not subtle at all.
Ultimately, the reason I saw this is that I am a fan of Chloë Grace Moretz . As "Hit Girl" she has been one of my favorite characters in movies in the last ten years. She was great in "Hugo" and last year in "Carrie" she held her own. She is growing into a lovely young woman, and that probably makes me sound like a dirty old man but it's not like that. I think she is talented and I hope she has a successful career. She is very good in this movie but the material does feel far below her. This movie is made for young girls to fantasize and cry over and from what I heard in the theater, it appears to work for them.
A high school girl, who feels awkward and a bit of an outsider, has a loving relationship with her parents, falls for a mysterious guy from the Northwest, and has to make a life or death decision for herself. Take out the sparkling vampires and that is essentially what this movie is. Instead of deciding if she wants to live forever as a blood sucker, she has to choose whether to go into the light and stop living all together. There are so many teen novel cliches in this story that it might have been assembled by a computer program. The boy is an aspiring musician/rock star, she is a cellist thinking of applying to Julliard, her parents are former punk rockers living the middle class life but carrying a torch for the Clash. Oh, and it all takes place in Portland which apparently has not had a sunny day in the last twenty years. Every party is fantastic and nothing is unusual about all of the people at the party breaking out in singing an indie type song that mirrors some of the emotions the central character is going through.
I can't really give away more spoilers than the trailer does. All that she knows is taken away in an instant and she lingers in the hospital as a spirit that has to choose whether the bliss of heaven is more inviting than the burgeoning rock star that pines over her. The few moments that actually did move me are provided by veteran actor Stacey Keach. He was terrific as the unpleasant friend from the old neighborhood last year in "Nebraska". He plays Chloe's Gramps in the movie and he has a pretty emotional scene in the hospital room with her but an even better one in a flashback scene when he brings her back home from her audition for Julliard. His line delivery in the truck was excellent and it was one of the few moments when the movie reaches the kinds of emotions that it is striving for.
Chloë Grace Moretz will go on to better things and this morose music will never assault my ears again. I'm not sure what the young actor in the film will do, to paraphrase the Mom in this movie he'll either get better or disappear.
Daniel Radcliffe is the sad but wiseacre Wallace and Zoe Kazan is the cute as a button but unavailable Chantry in this whimsical romantic comedy adapted from a stage play named "Toothpaste and Cigars". This is a sort of "When Harry Met Sally" for the millennials. The question being, can a man and a woman be friends without the romantic complications? Since this is a romantic comedy the answer is inevitably no, butgetting to that answer is what makes the movie interesting.
The biggest weakness of the movie as a story is also it's biggest strength. The dialogue is laden with quick witted quips, references to poetry and literature and rapid fire verbal exchanges. In real life no one talks this way. Yes, people are funny, but they are not that consistently funny for an entire evening much less the whole of the relationship. It sometimes sounds like an extended sitcom with very clever writers having a great time putting funny words in the mouths of their characters. Listening to it can be charming but it will never pass the smell test when it comes to sincerity and honesty. If you wanted that though, you would just stay at home and have a conversation with your spouse, lover or friends. We go to the movies to be entertained (at least for the most part) and we want the characters to sound interesting as they speak. These characters sound interesting. They say amusing things and say them in interesting ways. There is one quick scene where the two are playing ping pong and the path of the ball and it's velocity is not as sharp or quick as the exchanges between the two leads.
Wallace is one year out of a serious relationship break up that forced him to drop out of medical school. Chantry is in a five year live in relationship with Ben, a man she really does love. They meet at Allan's party, she is his cousin and he was the college room mate. They hit it off immediately and the level of attraction between them is visible on screen. The two actors are awkward, nice looking and they play the uncomfortable moments extremely well. Chantry finally accepts that maybe she and Wallace can be friends and gives him her number. He is more realistic and thinks that it would be wrong to pursue a relationship with her when she is involved with someone else. However, after a second cute meet sequence they toss caution to the wind and decide to be friends. When Wallace comes over to have dinner with her and Ben and her sister Dalia, things go hysterically wrong in one of the most amusing bits of slapstick I've seen this year.
The path the two take for the rest of the movie is pretty standard but it is littered with brilliant conversation. Allan counsels Wallace on his options and the paraphrasing of all the advice is too the point and funny. A secondary relationship between Allan and Nicole, a girl he met at the same party as earlier feels a lot like the Carrie Fisher/Bruno Kirby relationship in "When Harry Met Sally". They want Wallace to get off the stick and go for it with Chantry. Meanwhile, Chantry has to dissuade her girlfriends and sister from pursuing Wallace too strongly. The mixed motives are part of the fun but also part of the cliche. Completely separate from all of this is the living situation Wallace is in, staying in his single sister's house and being something of a male role model for her eight year old son. When Wallace baby sits during his sister's date, he and his nephew do the exact opposite of what she told him to do, that includes watching the great "John Carpenter's: The Thing". Any movie that has that as a reference and also has the balls to use "The Princess Bride" in the way it is used here has something going for it.
All of the actors do a great job and the movie looks nice. There is a soundtrack filled with contemporary music that seems to be standard for modern love stories. There are plenty of laughs and you will discover an actress that is unconventionally pretty and should have big things in store for her. Radcliffe shows that he is not just the boy who lived but can be a romantic lead in the quirky off center way that most romances now take. They have not reinvented the wheel here, they have just managed to make go around one more time quite pleasantly. You probably won't remember much about the movie but you will enjoy the hundred minutes yo spent watching it.
Most films with a dystopian theme follow an action based plot. The list of such films is a long one, from "Planet of the Apes" to "The Hunger Games", the central figures in these stories confront a world that is vastly different than our own and they fight against it in some way. "The Giver" has the same concept but there is a very different plotline and purpose. In "The Hunger Games" the focus is on a competition and most of the second half involves a battle to the death with high amounts of tension. "Logan's Run" is a chase movie that switches the role of the purser to that of the pursued. There are a few action beats in "The Giver" and there is a chase, but all of that takes place near the end of the picture and it is an attempt to resolve the quandary faced by the society, it is not really the reason the picture exists. This story is about an idea. It asks us to consider questions of morality and face the issue of what it means to be free.
Freedom from want, from pain, from loss are all appealing utopian principles. The notion that everyone would be treated equitably and that the inconvenience of life changing decision making would be out of our hands might seem a good one. Who would not want to live in a world where all are treated politely and they have their needs provided for them? The trouble with all utopian visions is that they come at a cost and that cost is likely to be unacceptable when viewed from a different angle. Brenton Thwaites is a young Australian actor who has the lead role in the story. He is Jonas, a newly minted eighteen year old who is given a special job in the community that he lives in. This position is a once in a generation role that requires a great deal of strength to handle. The information that he will be responsible for is critical to the society that he lives in but it is also potentially devastating. Jonas will be trained in his role by a counterpart, an elder of the community who has held the position that he is embarking on. The title role is played by Jeff Bridges.
Between the two actors, there has to be an effective bond to make the emotions of the story resonate. Thwaites is eager and innocent, Bridges is tired and emotionally burned out. When we buy into the concept of the story, it is easy to understand the two roles. The nearly exhausted candle needs to be replaced with a fresher, more sturdy model. The difficulty comes in whether or not we should even keep functioning under this system. As Jonas learns more, sees more and feels more about the world that preceded the community he lives in, he questions the sacrifice that his world has made to have the bucolic existence it enjoys. The pain of discovering his "fathers" true role in the society and the complete lack of moral awareness that Jonas himself now has becomes the trigger for the climax of the film. Before all of this happens however, a long series of possibilities, missed opportunities and dysfunctional living conditions has to be revealed.
Phillipe Noyce is the director of this film. I first knew who he was from the 1989 thriller "Dead Calm". He directed the Harrison Ford versions of the Tom Clancy stories. He has been an effective story teller but not a particularly distinctive visualist. With this movie I think he has stepped outside of his comfort zone and created a strong visual style to accompany the storyline. This movie borrows from "Pleasantville" in a pretty direct way but not in a manner that seems cheap or obvious. The black and white cinematography that dominates the majority of the story is subdued. You might not even realize the film is in black and white until small pieces of color start to intrude. Although it is a Science Fiction story with a fully realized alternative universe, the special effects and set design are also subtle, which makes the film feel more like a story about ideas than an action film.
Meryl Streep is the Chief Elder of the community. She might be seen as the villain but she is simply playing the role her character has in the community. None of the members of the community except fore The Giver and Jonas, have any conception of how the world they live in is twisted. Jonas manages to connect in an emotional way with two friends. Those two friends become important to the plot as they are given the chance to peek behind the communities protective skirts and at least vaguely perceive some of the emptiness that their lives have. Alexander Skarsgard and Katie Holmes are Jonas parents. They have a concerned and supportive attitude toward Jonas but the real emotions that a parent might be expected to have are effectively masked by the role relationship they are expected to play in the community. Even toward the climax, the conflict between Jonas and the world he lives in is not a personalized one but rather one of ideas. The only time the film falls more into the action style conflict cliche is when The Giver and The Elders at the end are participating in a ritual to "release" Jonas romantic interest from the community. The Giver seems to be arguing and resiting in a courtroom style setting, even though that is not the purpose of the scene.
Singer Taylor Swift has a brief role in the film and it provides some context to why The Giver himself feels that a change in the order of things is needed. This is a thought provoking story that was a young adult novel from twenty years ago. The book has been used in thousands of classes since then and the story may seem old hat to the current generation but I never read it and it was refreshing and very inspiring. My expectations for the film were moderate but the execution and the story make this one of the films from the summer that deserve to be remembered past the opening weekend.
Steven Spielberg is rightly credited with being the most effective visualizer of stories working in the last forty years. He took a liability like a non-functioning mechanical shark and managed to create an extremely visceral film out of it. That "Jaws" works is largely a function of his ability to feel how a movie will play to an audience. He took the extra step when making that film, of shooting additional material in the pool of one of his collaborators, to get the audience reaction right. The opening of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is a litany of visual and emotional elements from the Saturday serialized films of the Golden Age, but updated and intensified as only Spielberg has been able to manage. The brutality and honesty of the first half hour of "Saving Private Ryan" is a testament to being able to connect with an audience's emotions in the strongest possible ways. Plenty of horror films have been as graphic and disturbing, but none have carried the power of those horrifying images the way that this World War II film managed to do.
Many have criticized his sentimentality in visual language. "Warhorse" although successful has been savaged by some for the Spielberg palate of color, lighting and cinematography. Had the film been made by someone other than Spielberg, it would be seen as a piece of artistic achievement rather than a three handkerchief cash grab. Some pretty picky elements of "War of the Worlds" earned that film scorn from some, even as it delivers the kind of frenzied panic and fear that audiences had not experienced since "Jaws" thirty years before it. He was hammered again for "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" for letting CGI and Shia LeBeof come between the fans of the series and the story being told. The same creative elements in "Minority Report", at least the visual ones, become a source of strife in other pictures. Like all artists, he cannot please every audience every time. There is one skill that he has managed to use consistently, without the same kind of criticism his visualization of a story sometimes gets. That talent is the directing of actors to excellence on the screen. Some of the finest performances over the last four decades have come from actors working with Steven Spielberg.
It is true that a talented actor can pull the weight of a movie on their shoulders and carry it for the audience, but they can only do that with a supportive director who knows what the story counts on. With young actors or inexperienced film actors, the role of the director is even more important. George Lucas has a great instinct for what looks good on screen. He can tell a story that will pull the audience in most of the time, but he does not seem to have the right touch with actors in the same way that Spielberg does. Martin Scorsese develops a troop of actors to work with and as they tune into him, they become more and more reflective of his sensibility. Robert DeNiro and Leonardo DeCaprio have worked with Scorsese on multiple projects. Spielberg has only one actor that he has featured in more than three films (Unless you are pretending that Crystal Skull does not exist). People may not realize it but Tom Hanks has only been directed by Spielberg three times in a starring part. To get a great performance out of a great actor is still difficult. There are plenty of pairings that did not pan out, but Spielberg manages to get actors in the right frame of mind, to give them the space to do their best work or maybe he just exerts enough control to stifle the actors excesses.
Casting and script are part of the process as well. I don't mean to suggest that Spielberg can magically turn a marginal performer into an Olivier, but he can make sure that the right actor is in the part and that their strengths are played to. A good example is Christopher Walken.
He is perhaps best known as a director of actors for his work with children. The main child performances in "E.T." are the source of this reputation. Henry Thomas is the lead, and he carries the movie, but he could not have done it without the help of a patient director. I recently watched Thomas's next film, "Cloak and Dagger" and while he is a good screen presence, he lacks the depth and naturalness that came from working with a knowledgeable actors director. It had to have helped the kids immensely to have shot the film in continuity so the kids always knew where they were in the story for their performances. Christian Bale delivers an amazing child performance in "Empire of the Sun". Both of these young men are talented performers but it took Bale almost twenty more years to break thorough as a widely recognized acting powerhouse. Both of these films depend on the child performer to carry the picture. Unless you are cast because you are cute, hot or a well known commodity, it is hard to imagine a kid without a strong director being able to hold an audience in their hands.
Spielberg has had the advantage of working with many established stars but it is the first time or novice performers that he has been able to get the most out of. First time stars Oprah Winfrey, Whoopie Goldberg, and journeyman actress Margaret Avery were nominated for the Academy Award in their first major roles. Directors get credit for so many things on the set that they may have little input on but the one thing they have the most control over is the casting and performance of the actors. Sometimes the director does get lucky. In the movie "Lincoln", Spielberg had had his heart set on Liam Neeson for the title role at first, but as time went on, minor differences emerged in how the two saw the character being portrayed. After the project was repeatedly put on hold Nesson bowed out. I have no doubt that he would have given a towering performance but when Daniel Day-Lewis is your fallback casting, and he is driven to make the character come to life, fortune has smiled on you.
Robert Shaw with the character Quint. At least four sets of hands were on the script for the famous monologue, Spielberg knew what words mattered and enhanced the performance with camera work and sound design that makes that moment one of the essential film scenes ever. The second performance is one that is often overlooked, Roy Scheider as Chief Brody is subtle and sometimes heartbreaking. Spielberg knows how long to let some of those moments linger in time. The dinner table scene is a wonderful example of the creativity that can come out when the director and the actor work together.
"...as an adult, filmmaking is all about appreciating the talents of the people you surround yourself with and knowing you could never have made any of these films by yourself.”--Steven Spielberg
Sunday, August 17, 2014
Two reactions are typical when talking about an "Expendables" movie; "Damn is that awesome" or "Damn is that Pathetic". I happen to fall into the former category, so if you fit into the later, you can pretty much skip this, it is not going to fit your world view. Aging action stars plus plenty of shootouts plus bad jokes equals two hours of fun in August as far as I've gone with these flicks. There is not any real artistry, the plots are boiler plate and the outcome is inevitable. These are comfort food for people who miss Bob's Big Boy and Hair Metal. Sometimes there is a nice new element to make the movie interesting and to keep us coming back. This movie has three or four of those elements.
I rarely spend more than a sentence or two describing plot in any of my reviews, I don't like spoilers. With a movie like this, it is even simpler because the plot is so direct. The team must take down a rogue former member who has turned evil arms dealer. That's it. Sure more happens and there are some justifications for jumping into a new set of recruits and bringing the old crew back, but it is straight get the bad guy stuff. What does help is that the bad guy this time is Mel Gibson. With all the baggage he has accumulated in the last few years, he has not been a regular screen presence. That's too bad because he is quite good and charismatic on screen, whether playing a hero or the baddie. The three Expendable movies have been slowly creeping up in the quality of the antagonist. Eric Roberts in the first film was fine but did not get much development. Jean- Claude Van Damme was more successful because his showdown with Stallone is the epic climax of the movie. Gibson gives the movie a sense of credibility it would not otherwise deserve and his dialogues with the team contain the right kind of ominous threat to keep our expectations high.
Also joining the cast and classing up the franchise is Harrison Ford. In the 80s, Stallone and Schwarzenegger were the brawn of action movies. They were the guys who kicked butt. Gibson and Ford were the brains of action movies. Their films had plot twists and sophistication and did not rely on brute strength to get the mission accomplished. Ford shows up as the replacement for Bruce Willis's character in the movie. He treats the script with more seriousness than anyone would think is possible and raises the bar on the believability scale. In the long run it may be a futile effort, but it doesn't end up like it is just stunt casting, even though there is an amusing line about what became of Agent Church.
The unique part of this film is the recruitment of a younger generation of Expendables whose loss Barney will not feel as much. The selection process involves another old friend, Kelsey Grammer. Channeling a rougher version of Frasier Crane, Grammer gets in some funny lines and a little bit of pop psychology to go with all the nonsense. Stealing the show by playing the dangerous buffoon is Antonio Banderas. Having watched "Desperado" just a day ago, I can say his action bonafides are in order. His comedy chops from "Puss in Boots" appear to be in good working shape as well. Four other young actors are tossed in, it would seem with the intention of carrying on the series when it will look too odd to have grandad diving through a window with a Howitzer under his arm. Wesley Snipes is introduced as another former colleague who has been away from the action scene for a while. The main justification for his presence is the joke about what he was doing prison time for in the third world country the team breaks him out of.
I understand that someone might say they were tired of the same old, same old. If you seek creativity and innovation in your action film, move along, there is nothing for you here. Those of us who do not mind a lot of the familiar and enjoy a big chunk of cheese with our weekend fix of adrenaline, will appreciate the continuing adventures of the old timers. Yeah they look a little long in the tooth, but they also look like they could take most of us out in twenty seconds or less. Until they reach my level of physical prowess, I'm still willing to go along for the ride.
Friday, August 15, 2014
Well it was a full evening and although the T.A.M.I. Show was the film for the night, there were several other elements to make this a full night of entertainment and information. The American Cinematheque is presenting a series of films on early Rock and Roll over the course of four nights. This was the presentation scheduled for last night.
In addition to the screening, before the movie, legendary music journalist and historian Harvey Kubernik was going to be in the lobby, signing copies of his latest book on the L.A. music scene. The tome is a sprawling look at the music era in the City of Angels from 1956 to 1972. It is filled with pictures and stories and historical tidbits that should wet the appetite of any Rock fan out there. I was not able to see on the Cinematheque site whether it was going to be available for purchase at the show, so to make sure I did not show up empty handed, I bought one on line a week before the event. I felt a little bad because Larry Edmonds Bookstore was there with several copies for sale and I cheated them out of the chance to get my money. I'd have been happy to support that local institution had I known. There was an advantage to getting the book early however, and that was that I could get through the foreword, written by Tom Petty, and the first couple of chapters before I got a chance to meet Mr. Kubernik. He could not have been nicer and he shared stories with several fans who were lined up to get their books (and even those who did not buy a book).
|Signing my copy even though I bought it on-line|
The biggest pleasure of the evening was getting to visit with my Southern California blogging colleague Michael from "It Rains...You Get Wet". We connected through the defunct "Fogs Movie Reviews" and share some local history between us. I'd met him in person earlier this year at another event at the Egyptian Theater, and it was his Facebook notice that had alerted me to this evenings event. Michael sat with us in the back row and before the movie started we talked about some other musical films that have been in theaters lately. Both of us are enthusiastic about the James Brown biopic, "Get On Up". We also liked the screen version of "Jersey Boys" with certain reservations. I will be contributing to the Blogathon on Steven Spielberg that he is co-hosting on his site along with Aurora of CITIZEN SCREENINGS aka @CitizenScreen and Kellee of OUTSPOKEN & FRECKLED aka @IrishJayhawk66. He asked about the post I was working on, and my daughter Amanda will also be posting something if she can get it done in time. She was with us and chirped in on an interesting subject. Apparently the Alamo Drafthouse is going to open a location here in downtown Los Angeles, and she said it will be directly connected to the subway system, so you won't even have to leave the station to make it to the new venue. It was a congenial halfhour begore the movie started.
The movie was introduced by director John Landis, the man responsible for "Animal House" and "An American Werewolf in London". As a thirteen year old kid, he actually attended the T.A.M.I. concert at the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium. He told a couple of stories about that experience but he was coming back after the movie for a discussion so he kept the intro as short as he could. The movie started and right away you could get a sense of excitement because the volume was up and the audience at the actual concert was screaming like crazy. There was a huge amount of energy being expended by the mostly teen audience in 1964. The show was filmed as if it was being shot for live television using four cameras with the action being directed from a production booth. The concert was shot over two days and all the performers were there for both days of the live action.
The show opens with a bus ride where the performers are cutting up as they make their way to the venue, there is also some street action as the hosts of the show "Jan and Dean" skateboard their way to the auditorium. Chuck Berry is the first performer and he plays it loud and loose. As he is doing his version of his song "Maybellene", "Gerry and the Pacemakers" segue way into their take on the song. Gerry had quite the rakish smile and seemed at times to be flirting with the girls in the audience. Chuck Berry and the Pacemakers traded songs for several moments and were joyfully joined on stage by a band of dancers that were choreographed in a variety of 60s style dance moves. Most of the time the moves seemed enthusiastic and an extension of the performance, once in a while they were obtrusive and distracting. The dancers were featured in many of the performances but not all of them.
Smokey Robinson and the Miracles show up and are closely followed by Marvin Gaye. These two acts demonstrate to everyone what "soul" is, at least in it's romantic sense. It's amazing how great everyone in the show sounded despite all the screaming and the fact that it was live. This was well before the time when artists "sweetened" their vocals with backing tracks or fixed stuff up in post. These were talented singers and they were professionals who all had a different way of entertaining. There were back up singers and band choreography and it looked like they wanted to be there. Marvin had on what looked like a set of short, white tails and he looked snazzy. Most of the show is availible in clips on line and you can easily find them and see what I am talking about. The thing that was most distinct to me last night was how the audience in the theater was responding to the movie. Several performances received applause as if the acts were right in front of us. There wasn't any screaming but there were a lot of murmurs of approval.
John Landis and the director of the T.A.M.I. show itself, Steve Binder, in their talk at the end of the film, both pointed out that at the time, the biggest star of the show was Lesley Gore. Her half dozen songs were a knockout and her voice was clear and strong. Compared to some of the young women who are passing themselves off today as singers, she stands out like a loud, on key note. Her set was the close of the first nights concert and all the acts came out on stage to perform and dance during her last song. It turns out that Binder wanted people to know that he was not simply inserting performances into the show, but that it was a live performance and by having everyone on stage at the same time, the movie audience would know that.
"Jan and Dean" and "the Beach Boys" open the second half of the show with several surfing hits that fit the times. The harmonies for the "beach Boys" were wonderful but the show matked one of the last times that Brian Wilson sang on stage with the band, Wilson subsequently retreated to the studio to do his most creative work. All of the old people like me in the audience knew the stripped shirt look of the band that is featured here and is currently being parodied in cartoon form by hot dogs in Weinerschinzel TV ads. Billie Kramer is up next and he sings a song "Little Children" that has lyrics which today, would be interpreted in a very different way. It is unfortunate that the contemporary meaning will be obscured by the audience's more modern connotative meaning. Mr. Binder said in the talk at the end of the evening, that when he did a DVD commentary for the film, he was asked about whether there were any performances that he was disappointed in. He recorded and it was published on the disc, that he thought Kramer was a little nervous and in danger of being off key at times. He then told us that he got a call from Billy Kramer, who he did not know and that he immediately apologized for his remarks. Later Kramer and his wife spent a day with the Binders and all seems to be forgiven.
Next up come "The Supremes", not to shabby eh? All of the bands seemed to be on that scale, with the exception of "The Barbarians" a newly formed band that had one song in the show. I'd never heard of them before but the drummer seemed to be quite the character with a lot of personality. Apparently he was also missing a hand and had a prosthetic to use while drumming.
Having recently seen "Get on Up", I was familiar with some of the back story on James Brown's performance. Having seen clips on TV is not the same as watching James on the big screen. The audience in our theater was electrified by this fifty year old performance. Everyone laughed at the theatrics and shouted for joy when the Godfather of Soul got up on the good foot and danced. His passionate singing style and showmanship won everybody over and the crowd reaction was loud. No wonder the Stones claimed that the worst move they ever made was following Brown on this show. Mick and the boys were great but while people are singing "Moves Like Jagger", they should see the contrast between the two stars here. Mick was fine but in comparison he looked like he was just streching and did not have the energy to keep the audience going. All the girls in 1964 were still loving it and the band sounded good, so they had nothing to be ashamed of.
|My Girls liked the show too.|
Steve Binder mentioned in the conversation after the film that James Brown would not rehearse the act. He told Binder to simply follow the action and that he would know what to do with the camera then. Fortunately, Binder had the cameramen linger at a couple of spots or they'd have missed some of The Godfather's moves. John Landis is an avuncular host and tried to keep the discussion lively, but it did seem at times as if he was rushing to get to a point that was the next thing to talk about. Sometimes he stepped on the punchline of a story or mis-remebered an event and Binder would correct him. Binder was very generous with his time and had a bucket load of stories to tell. Since he also directed the "Elvis 68 Comeback Special", we were treated to some insider tales there as well. I remembered he had been a guest on the Mark and Brian Radio program several years ago, talking about the Elvis special. We got some dirt on Colonel Parker and diven that this is Elvis Week coming up, it was a little sad. He also discussed a well known incident concerning Petula Clark and Harry Belefonte in her TV Special. Again, there was a lot of backstage juice being spilled on our behalf.
I would strongly urge anyone who is a fan of Rock music to seek out the T.A.M.I. Show and spend a couple of hours with the geniuses of a half century ago. Sometimes the moments will seem quaint and old fashioned but at other times, the singers will kick you in the gut and demand your attention. Concert films that have been shot since this came out have used similar techniques to track the performers. Double exposure and diffused lenses (accomplished with the use of some Vasaline), and a constantly moving backstage performance are all standards of big pop shows these days, and this is where it all seems to have started.They introduced some of the dancers who came out for the show last night and one of the back up singers from the Blossoms. It was a pretty great experience and I consider myself lucky to have been there.