FRED Entertainment

June 26, 2007

Nocturnal Admissions: DVD Review – This is Tom Jones: Rock ‘n’ Roll Legends

Filed under: Columns,Nocturnal Admissions — UncaScroogeMcD @ 12:06 am

nocturnalheader5.gif

OK, admit it. You love Tom Jones. How could you not? He is the “stage author” of at least five hit songs (“It’s Not Unusual” [1965], “What’s New Pussycat?” [1965], “The Green, Green Grass of Home” [1966], “Delilah” [1968], “She’s A Lady” [1971]), and his stage act is a blend of power balladry, sexual braggadocio, and good natured “I can’t believe this is happening to me” wonderment. If the self-mockery comes ultimately from Elvis, the forceful voice is wholly his own. Like many singers he was a force for only a short window of time, but the songs were so perfect, or he was so perfect for them, that he was able to dine out on them for decades. If the Wales-born coal miner’s son has an American equivalent it is Johnny Rivers, whose creative bulb burned brightly for a brief time with numerous late 1960s covers of ’50s hits, along with tunes such as “Poor Side of Town” and “Secret Agent Man,” but who then fell out of fashion or favor while yet still being able to have a career touring.

Jones is probably someone you need to see live. He is one of those rare performers whose voice outmatches the physical source. You can’t believe that a sound that powerful is coming out of a human being. But it is not a crude, inflexible instrument. As the new box set, This is Tom Jones, shows, the man, who had been singing since he was three years old, could belt out “What’s New Pussycat?” but also old standards such as “Danny Boy” and modern quiet numbers such as “I’ll Never Fall in Love Again.” Though by the time he began appearing in his own show Jones had been somewhat desexualized and turned into a Vegas style showman, This is Tom Jones‘s array of guests show that Jones could hold his own with Janis Joplin, Joe Cocker, and even Little Richard.

Despite his jokey-serious sexual swagger, Jones can’t help enjoying himself and his good luck, and while bejeweled and decked out like a ’50s crooner he has the virtue of sincerity. You can tell as he claps along and watches his guests that he really likes them. And they appreciated him. According to the box’s liner notes, Joplin normally hated doing television but consented to appear on his show because she liked his voice, a high compliment coming from a fellow power belter.

Tom Jones Box

This is Tom Jones (Time Life, Tuesday, June 26, 2007, three discs, $39.95) offers eight episodes of the variety show, which aired on ABC on starting Fridays from early 1969 through 1971. Guests that appear on the selected shows include Mary Hopkin, The Who, Burt Bacharach, Glen Campbell, Janis Joplin, Joe Cocker, Stevie Wonder, The Moody Blues, and Aretha Franklin (according to the Wikipedia, Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young were originally going to appear on the set, but due to rights issues, were replaced by Little Richard, which, as stated above, only serves to highlight Jones’s range better). Comedy acts include an early Richard Pryor appearance (which starts out awkward but gains speed), Peter Sellers, Anne Bancroft, Bob Hope, and the comedy troupes The Ace Trucking Company and the Committee, each troupe filled with now-familiar faces.

Tom Jones and Joe Cocker

As with other compilations, such as those of the Dick Cavett Show, half the joy of the set is the guest stars who often perform with more commitment than you’d expect. The Who really tear into “Pinball Wizard,” with the busy, brilliant Keith Moon in the background “mooning” the band itself by singing along with the song. Janis Joplin is also fully committed, and Jones acquits himself well in a later “duet” with her, if that term can be used for two vocal cannons aimed at each other. And I have to admit that when Jones joined Joe Cocker for “Delta Lady” I felt chills of appreciation and nostalgia. As shown on the show, they could have kept riffing on the song forever, and eventually time constraints lead a fade out. It was considered something of a joke back in the 1990s when Art of Noise tapped Jones for collaboration but as usual he surprised people who had forgotten that Jones’s singing roots were in R&B, soul, and blues ballads and that he was up to date with current songwriting. Other performers are Burt Bacharach (who, when he sings, does so into his chest cavity), and Glen Campbell, whose ephemeral appearance doesn’t even constitute a full song.

The other half of joy comes from Jones’s persona itself. The “concert” section of the show, which constituted the final portion of each episode and recreated Jones’s stage act (and which usually began with him waiting “backstage” with a “bird” in silhouette until announced, kissing her before grabbing a microphone [so that he would bounce onto the stage with a partial erection?]), shows the full range of his vocal ability, and Jones is one of the few singers who can do African-American music convincingly. He is also a fantastic dancer, and nerds who practice their moves in the bedroom mirror would do well to cut a few moves from Jones’s playbook.

Seeing Jones’s easeful screen presence – remarkable given that he had only broken into the business a few years earlier – I began to wonder why he didn’t make more of a go of it as a movie actor, the way his predecessors such as Sinatra (and by the way Jones does a terrific version of “Angel Eyes” on the disc) or his later friend Elvis did. With his swagger and gold chains and dashing appearance in a tux, Jones would have been terrific in any number of British crime dramas, and I can easily visualize him as the gangster in The Long Good Friday, or even as James Bond. I am guessing that the deal is that Jones wasn’t much interested in performing for a camera. He needs the juice of an audience. He hasn’t even recorded all that many records, relatively speaking. However, he has a real jones about being on stage, and his career has been almost wholly live performances since the 1980s.

The transfers are taken from original source materials but nothing was done to spruce them up, so they tend to be rather soft looking, and one episode only survives in a black and white version. It can be said for the English 2.0 mono audio track that it is audible.

Tom Jones extra

The extras are much more successful, however. Jones introduces most of the shows with an amusing anecdote and its airdate. Disc one contains three items. First, a short ABC commercial for the premiere that also cites the now forgotten The Generation Gap and Let’s Make a Deal game show the same night. Next, there’s one of those faked TV interviews, where the answers are shipped to local affiliates with the anchor reading from a list of questions (as also seen, for example, on the Dr. Strangelove extras). On this occasion, the noon time anchor for KATU-TV in my home town of Portland, Oregon, got the questions mixed up. Finally for disc one there is a new video interview with Jones in which he tells the story behind how he came to sing Burt Bacharach’s him to “What’s New, Pussycat?,” something he alludes to in one of the episodes. There are no supplements on disc two, but disc three offers a 30 minute video interview with Jones (shot on February 11, 2007), in which he discusses his own musical roots and the birth of the show. Finally, there is a 12-page illustrated insert with further information on each episode included.

QSE News: 6/26/2007

Filed under: Columns,News — UncaScroogeMcD @ 12:04 am

quickstopnews.jpg

line1.gif

Here are today’s top entertainment headlines:

  • qsnews.jpgTroubled actor Tom Sizemore has been sentenced to 16 months in jail for violating his probation on a prior drug arrest.  Sizemore, best known for his roles in Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down, was arrested again last month on suspicion of possessing meth.  It is expected that while Sizemore is in jail, he will continue to act in such films as Dropping the Soap: Holing the New Guy and Tom Sizemore Becomes a Prison Bitch.
  • Singer Christina Aguilera is ready to make her film debut. According to the singer, she is actively reviewing scripts to find the right fit for her. Those closest to her reveal that she is looking for a totally unique script where a woman finds herself through either a road trip with her girlfriends or friends who encourage her to follow her dreams of singing.
  • It has been announced that Germany has banned the filming of the new movie Valkyrie because of the Scientology beliefs of the film’s star, Tom Cruise.  In a statement released to the press by the German Defense Ministry, officials have said that no filming will take place in Germany as long as Cruise is attached to star.  We here at QSE News applaud Germany for taking a stand against Mr. Cruise but warn them that Lord Xenu sees all and he will totally [EXPLETIVE DELETED] up your country. If you guys thought 1945 was bad… What? Too soon?

line1.gif

That’s all for today’s news, stay tuned to this channel for all the news that matters least but you still care about.

(Compiled by J. Allen)

##

Quick Stop Thingamabobs: 6/26/2007

Filed under: Columns,Thingamabobs — UncaScroogeMcD @ 12:02 am

thingamabobs.jpg

The web. It’s a big place, full of plenty of distractions ““ some funny, some informative, some ludicrous, some disturbing, some inane, some profound. Each and every weekday, we present links to a few of our favorite finds”¦

————————————————

  • A cereal called Twinkles… In color… (Thingamabob)

Have a THINGAMABOB? Send it in!

##

June 25, 2007

SModcast 17

Filed under: SModcast — UncaScroogeMcD @ 1:08 pm

newhead2.jpg

SModcast is the meandering palaver of a pair of dudes whose voices are so dull, they don’t deserve to be on the radio (and, hence, aren’t). Kevin Smith and Scott Mosier are SModcast.

The best thing about SModcast? It don’t cost nothing.

line.gif

SModcast 17: Doctor Poo –

In which our heroes accept the fact that they listen to “the oldies”, reminisce about a non-dry “Strike Back” set, figure out how they got west, toy with the notion of buying their childhood home, prematurely bury Ed McMahon, pull a multi-person Matt Hooper, and wrap up with a lot of scat-chat.

[CONTENT WARNING] SModcast features harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Listener discretion is advised.

DOWNLOAD: (right click to save)
SModcast 17 (MP3 format) – 36.32 MB

[display_podcast]

SUBSCRIBE
Subscribe to this Podcast via iTunes
Subscribe to this Podcast via FeedBurner

Wanna add your two cents? Spend it here, in the SModcast mailbag.

line.gif

CLICK HERE FOR THE SMODCAST ARCHIVES

line.gif

##

Monkey Talk with Paul Dini: Stuffed Animal Stand-Up with Rashy #2

Filed under: Monkey Talk,Quickcasts,Video — UncaScroogeMcD @ 12:10 am

monkeytalkheader.jpg

-By Paul Dini & Rashy

Paul Dini’s “Monkey Talk” (co-hosted by his irrepressible sock monkey son, Rashy) returns with Rashy’s continued attempts to break into the dog-eat-dog world of Stuffed Animal Stand-Up. Be sure to check out Rashy’s official site at LittleRashy.com…

monkeytalk2007-06-12.jpg

DOWNLOAD:
Large
(560 x 420 – QuickTime – 9.23 MB)
Small (320 x 240 – QuickTime – 4.02 MB)

##

Comics in Context #182: The Red And The Black

Filed under: Columns,Comics in Context — admin @ 12:08 am

comicsincontext4.jpg

cic2007-06-18-1.jpgWriting this column nearly every week, I continually notice things that relate to installments I’ve already written, or to ones I’m planning to write.

For example, in the June 20 issue of The New York Times, columnist Thomas J. Friedman wrote about the masked members of Hamas, and about how masks can be both empowering and intimidating. Friedman also included a quotation by Oscar Wilde about masks that I found applicable to secret identities in the superhero genre. Here’s a longer version of Wilde’s characteristically paradoxical observation: “Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth”. Hence the Batman is more “real” than Bruce Wayne, and through their costumed personas, Clark Kent and Peter Parker can express aspects of their personalities that are concealed in their everyday lives.

This week I also watched Fritz Lang’s RKO film While the City Sleeps (1956) on Turner Classic Movies. The villain is a serial killer (played by Drew Barrymore’s dad) who turns out to be a fan of “so-called comic books,” a phrase used in the movie twice. It is one thing to be informed by books and documentaries about the attacks on comic books in the 1950s (see “Comics in Context” #95, 180). It is quite another to be ambushed unexpectedly with a slander against comics readers while watching a movie from that period. In the same year that DC Comics editor Julius Schwartz launched comics’ Silver Age, RKO Radio Pictures was instructing the moviegoing public that reading crime comics could turn you into a serial killer.

This seems a wee bit hypocritical of RKO and Mr. Lang. It is explained in the film that “comic books” are bad because they show readers how to commit crimes. The movie repeatedly demonstrates how one can surreptitiously adjust the “button lock” on an apartment door in order to break into the apartment later and kill the lady who lives there.

It’s also ironic that Fritz Lang, the director of this anti-comics movie, was the pioneer of the supervillain (as defined by Dr. Peter Coogan) in cinema (see “Comics in Context” #165) and his most celebrated film, Metropolis (1927), apparently inspired the name of Superman’s home city. (And would the name of Superboy‘s leading lady have been devised by combining the names of Fritz Lang and 1940s movie star Lana Turner?)

It turns out that Paul Dini was right (see “Comics in Context” #180): Boomerang has stopped showing even the pre-1948 Warner Brothers animated cartoons that the network’s parent Turner Broadcasting bought years ago, and has replaced its nightly Looney Tunes show with an MGM cartoon anthology. In the past I’ve praised Turner Classic Movies’ Cartoon Alley, which showcases classic Hollywood cartoons, including pre-1948 Warners shorts. I see from TCM’s online schedules that Cartoon Alley will cease at the end of July. Is this ominous?

Perhaps not. Recently on the Internet radio program Stu’s Show, animation historian Jerry Beck indicated that the classic Warners cartoons vanished from Boomerang because negotiations are afoot to show them Somewhere Else. But where?

In the season finale of NBC’s 30 Rock, Tina Fey’s character, Liz, has a cell phone that rings to the tune of the “Ride of the Valkyries.” Hearing this, another character, Phoebe, asks Liz if she likes Wagner. Liz says no, it’s a reference to Bugs Bunny, whereupon she and her friend Jenna merrily start chanting “Kill the wabbit!” I wonder, since the classic Warners cartoons are no longer on TV every day, if in twenty years a sitcom would portray two thirtysomething women knowing who Bugs Bunny is, much less quoting a specific Bugs Bunny cartoon (Chuck Jones’s 1957 What’s Opera, Doc?; see “Comics in Context” #102). At least these cartoons have been coming out on DVD, enabling parents to introduce them to their kids.

I am pleased that, after running the first two seasons of the animated Justice League series on a seemingly endless loop, Boomerang has finally begun showing its superior continuation, Justice League Unlimited. I hadn’t seen any of the “Cadmus” arc episodes before, in which the American government regards the Justice League as a possible menace. The episode I saw several days ago, “The Doomsday Sanction,” lived up to the arc’s high reputation. I was surprised and especially impressed by its conclusion, in which Batman agrees that the League could become a threat to the world, thus echoing the Batman of Kingdom Come and his counterpart, Nighthawk, in Mark Gruenwald’s Squadron Supreme (see “Comics in Context” #150), all of them wary of even well-intentioned individuals possessing near-absolute power.

This week I also realized I had forgotten to mention one of the celebrities I sighted at the premiere for Spider-Man 3 in Astoria, Queens (see “Comics in Context” #181): Micky Dolenz, who first came to fame in the same decade that Spider-Man did, the 1960s, as a member of the Monkees. (You can find pictures of Dolenz at the premiere at www.gettyimages.com). I suppose this supports J. Michael Straczynski’s theory in his run writing Amazing Spider-Man that Spider-Man keeps attracting other characters with animal totems.

The premiere was on Monday, April 30, as part of both the Tribeca Film Festival and “Spider-Man Week in New York,” as officially declared by New York Mayor (and possible presidential candidate) Michael Bloomberg. I resumed attending “Spider-Man Week” activities on Saturday.

The New York Public Library’s Humanities and Social Sciences Library (the famed building on 42nd Street and Fifth Avenue, guarded by the iconic lion statues) was displaying what was billed as “The Ultimate Spider-Man Comic Collection.” (No, there were no copies of Marvel’s Ultimate Spider-Man on exhibit.) The building is visible in the first Spider-Man movie, when Uncle Ben drops Peter off in front of the library, but I was still surprised that the library was participating in this big public relations spectacular promoting Spider-Man 3.

It was even more of a surprise because back in the mid-1990s I did research into the number of American libraries that collected comic books, and there were relatively few, with only a few noteworthy collections such as those at Ohio State and Michigan State Universities. Back then the New York Public Library’s website conceded it had a few boxes of old comics, but otherwise discouraged people from researching comics there. Matters have radically changed at America’s libraries over the following years.

In the McGraw Rotunda, a few flights up and outside the main reading room stood a few glass cases holding seventeen vintage Spider-Man comic books, primarily copies of those written by Stan Lee during the Silver Age of the 1960s: Amazing Spider-Man Vol. 1 #32 (January, 1966) was the earliest, and Amazing Spider-Man Annual #21 (1987), featuring the wedding of Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson, was the most recent. You could easily see many of these comics in the dealer’s room in a large convention. I own copies of many of these comics. I again found myself reflecting that since nowadays museums and libraries display original printed comic books, why, I could turn my own comics collection into a museum exhibit! Moreover, the labels I’d write for my books would be more informative and analytical than the ones that the New York Public Library provided, which were content to credit the writer and artist, summarize the story, and quote some dialogue. As for literary or artistic analysis, there was none. In short, the New York Library’s exhibit was far from “ultimate.” I also found myself wishing that the people crowded around these glass cases knew about my Stan Lee retrospective exhibit down at the Museum of Comic and Cartoon Art, which is far more enlightening about the cultural import of Marvel in the 1960s, if I do say so myself (www.moccany.org).

My visit to the Library and perusal of the “Ultimate” exhibit took maybe fifteen minutes tops, much of which was consumed going up and down staircases. But upon exiting the Library, I entered a nearby discount DVD store, where I found and bought The Jean Renoir Collector’s Edition, an inexpensive three-disc collection of seven of the great director’s lesser-known films. So, visiting the Library hadn’t been a waste of time, after all.

Then I headed up to the American Museum of Natural History, which was contributing to “Spider-Man Week” with an exhibit called “Spiders: Alive!“ in what the museum now calls its “Grand Gallery” (it’s well designed, but hardly grand) on the first floor. On Tuesday the Beat, who always knows about such matters in advance, saw “Spiders: Alive!” when Tobey Maguire, Spidey himself, was making a personal appearance there. When I got there on Saturday afternoon, I had to content myself with the exhibit itself consisting of a row of glass cases holding rather large tarantulas. One of them was called the “Goliath birdeater tarantula,” which should give you some idea of its size.

A lengthy wall text asserted, among other things, that in endowing Spider-Man with the ability to shoot webbing, Spider-Man’s creators “must” have been inspired by a relatively little known kind of spider that can cast its webbing over a victim. Couldn’t the museum have contacted Stan Lee and asked him?
I rather think that if Stan Lee and Steve Ditko had been aware of this particular species of spider, Lee would have mentioned it in an interview, or even in “Secrets of Spider-Man” in the first Amazing Spider-Man Annual (1964).

Just because a scholar can find a real-world analogue to something in a creative writer’s work doesn’t mean that the writer “must” have been aware of the connection. Frank Miller put a scientist named Beaker in Elektra: Assassin. Years ago, I asked him if he named Elektra‘s Beaker after Dr. Bunsen Honeydew’s assistant Beaker on The Muppet Show: Miller replied he had never heard of the Muppet Beaker.

Unfortunately, as comics attract more interest from mainstream culture, we are probably going to see more of these unfounded scholarly assumptions.

For the magazine of Britain’s Tate art museums, academic John Carlin, co-curator of the “Masters of American Comics” exhibition, wrote a mostly excellent essay about members of the high art canon whose work foreshadows that of twentieth century comics artists. Like Alan Moore, artist Bryan Talbot, and myself (see “Comics in Context” #72), Carlin has noticed the similarities between the godlike and heroic figures drawn by the British artist William Blake (1757-1827) and those of contemporary comics. Ignoring Joe Simon’s and Stan Lee’s roles as co-creators, Carlin writes that “Echoes of his [Blake’s] flattened muscular style reverberate throughout the comic’s heroic phase, particularly by artists such as Jack Kirby (1917-1994), creator of Captain America, The Hulk, X-Men and the overall look of Marvel Comics. . . .Kirby used techniques pioneered by Blake to create a realistic sense of epic action through the combination of muscular figures with exaggerated patterned backgrounds. . . .” Was Kirby aware of Blake’s work? If so, it hasn’t yet been revealed in print, to my knowledge. Read that passage carefully, and you’ll see that Carlin is saying that Kirby and Blake used the same “techniques,” and not necessarily that Kirby was aware that Blake had used them. But someone could easily misread this to draw the latter conclusion. Carlin also misses a major (if probably coincidental) similarity between Blake and Kirby: each created his own mythology of fictional deities and heroes.

On the other hand, Danny Fingeroth recently pointed out to me that the full name of the Sub-Mariner’s creator Bill Everett was William Blake Everett. It turns out he was William Blake’s descendant, so perhaps Blake influenced the creation of one of Marvel’s first superheroes. (See this).

Going through “Spiders: Alive!” likewise took no more than ten to fifteen minutes, much of which was spent waiting for people in front of each glass case to move aside so I could get a look. The big spiders were interesting for a short look, but not worth the long trip into Manhattan.

However, just off the Grand Gallery was the newly opened Spitzer Hall of Human Origins, a handsomely designed new exhibit of fossils of mankind’s prehistoric ancestors, which I visited for the first time. (Over the decades since I first visited the museum, this is the third version of this gallery, which was once devoted to human biology, but it is by the far the best.) Up on the fourth floor I visited for the first time the museum’s newly opened and restored Audubon Gallery, which retains the look of a museum hall from the 1930s. John James Audubon is famous as a painter of birds, but the gallery displayed his lesser known but remarkable portraits of North American mammals, and as an X-Men enthusiast, I was delighted to see a stuffed wolverine, mounted as if roaring at the visitors. So the trip to the Museum had been well worth it, after all.

I intended the high point of this particular Saturday to be my viewing Spider-Man 3 itself, which I saw at Manhattan’s enormous Ziegfeld Theatre, and this time I was not disappointed. Director Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man movies are by far the best of the early 21st century wave of superhero genre movies. Richard Donner’s Superman movies (including the excellent new Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut on DVD) and Tim Burton’s first Batman film give the Raimi Spider-Man movies heavy competition for the honor of the best live action movie based on superheroes that originated in comics. I’m tempted to name The Incredibles, an animated film which is not based on a comics series, as the most successful realization of the superhero genre in a feature film (see “Comics in Context” #62). But the Raimi Spider-Man has now maintained its high level of achievement for three films in a row, whereas Warners’ 1980s Superman and 1990s Batman live action film series plummeted into uninspired camp by their third installments.

Much as I loved the first two Spider-Man films, I had trepidations before seeing the third. Sam Raimi is clearly a devotee of the Spider-Man comics of the 1960s, when Stan Lee, Steve Ditko and John Romita., Sr. defined the character, his world, and the series’ themes. Perhaps Raimi is an enthusiast for the superhero comics of the Silver Age, the years from 1956 to 1970, in general. To me Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 were standard bearers for what I have dubbed the neo-Silver movement in the genre, the effort to resurrect the heroic, inspiring, entertaining spirit of the Silver Age comics while updating it for a 21st century audience. But Spider-Man 3 was said to feature Venom, one of the iconic figures of the darker comics of the 1990s, when the genre, to my mind, was losing its way. With Spider-Man 3, it looked as if the movie series might be taking a leap from the Silver Age into the era of the Grim and the Gritty.

For readers who do not already know, in the comics Venom ultimately derives from the new black costume that Spider-Man acquired on an alien planet in the landmark 1984-1985 crossover series Marvel Super Heroes: Secret Wars. Whether or not the Powers That Be originally intended the black costume to replace Spider-Man’s traditional red and blue one permanently, I have no idea But it certainly seemed that way at the time, boosting sales of Amazing Spider-Man #252, in which it first appeared, as surely they had intended. The black costume was nevertheless a mistake: not only was it less interesting than Steve Ditko’s original design, but the wisecracking, web-slinging Spider-Man should be represented by brighter colors than a somber black. It was yet another instance in which the discerning superheroes aficionado had to wait patiently for the Rubber Band Theory of Cartoon Art (see “Comics in Context” #75) to take effect. Eventually, Spider-Man got his original costume design back.

The black costume was revealed to be a sentient alien creature which bonded to its host and was taking mental control of Peter Parker as he slept, though it did not affect his personality when he was awake. Parker finally rid himself of the alien symbiote, and eventually reassumed his red and blue costume whenever he went into action as Spider-Man. Hating Parker for rejecting it, the symbiote bonded with disgruntled reporter Eddie Brock, who also hated Parker, forming the menace called Venom.

Visually Venom was a new variation on that archetypal figure, the superhero’s evil twin. But in the comics Venom was more massive than Spider-Man, with the steroid-style musculature seen on so many superhero genre characters in the 1990s. Venom also had a long, lascivious tongue, and students of the subtext of the cover for Heroes for Hire #13 (see “Comics in Context” #179) should be able to work out what that means. Venom also used to fantasize about not only killing Spider-Man and other victims, but also devouring them. In short, Venom was an utterly repulsive villain, and such was the mindset of tens of thousands of Marvel readers in the 1990s that they therefore embraced him as a hero. Apparently readers identified with this vicious, insane, musclebound cannibal. (Would I want to associate with readers like this? I don’t think so.) Venom starred in one miniseries after another, and since Venom had become a hero of sorts, Marvel felt obliged to create a new, even nastier version of the character, Carnage, whose human host was a serial killer. Now, you may think that it was harmless for Venom to talk about cannibalism, since he didn’t actually practice it. But in retrospect we can see that Venom set the stage for The Ultimates‘ version of the Hulk, who really does eat his enemies.

So you can see why I was not happy that Venom had found his way into Sam Raimi’s movie trilogy. It turns out that this wasn’t Raimi’s idea, either. According to Raimi’s interview at Comic Book Resources, he and his brother Ivan had already concocted a story for the third movie with the Sandman as the main villain. “When we were done, Avi Arad, my partner and president of Marvel at the time, came to me and said “˜Sam, you’re not paying attention to the fans enough.. . .You’ve made two movies now with your favorite villains and now you’re about to make another one with your favorite villains. The fans love Venom. He is the fan-favorite. All Spider-Man readers love Venom. Even though you came from ’70s Spider-Man, this is what the kids are thinking about. . . .'” Raimi told the Hall H crowd last year that “I had been objecting to the lack of humanity [in Venom].” But Arad and Alvin Sargent, a screenwriter on Spider-Man 2 and 3, educated Raimi in Venom lore, with the result that “‘”¦ in studying him I gained an appreciation for him,’ said Raimi. “˜Venom has always been a character that the fans love”¦ that’s why he’s in here'”.

I’m a Spider-Man fan, and I don’t love Venom, and I believe I have company in this respect. Moreover, Venom debuted in Amazing Spider-Man #299 (April, 1988) and his heyday was in the 1990s, when most of his miniseries were published. Raimi has reported that he did see e-mails from fans who wanted Venom to have a big role in the movie. But although the character is still around in the comics, I notice that a 2000 attempt to relaunch him in a regular series lasted only eighteen issues. Venom is really a creature of the period of the comics speculator boom, which now seems long ago. In contrast, Raimi’s choices for the villains of the first two Spider-Man movies, the original Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus, both Lee-Ditko creations, retain their hold on comics fans’ imaginations after over forty years.

Spider-Man 3 ends up with three major villains–the Sandman, presumably to satisfy Raimi’s fondness for the Lee-Ditko characters; Harry Osborn as “the New Goblin,” continuing Harry’s character arc from the first two movies (and echoing the 1970s Spider-Man comics, in which Harry succeeded his father as the Green Goblin); and Venom, whose presence keeps Avi Arad happy. Some reviewers thought this was too many villains for a single film, but I think that the screenplay makes them all fit, giving a part of satisfactory size to each. Then again, I’m not an admirer of Brock/Venom, and I can see that his fans might think that he got insufficient time and development onscreen: Eddie doesn’t become Venom until the film’s final act.

But had Arad not pushed Raimi to include Venom, Spider-Man 3 would have been a very different movie. The black costume–the symbiote–drives the plot. Peter Parker in the black costume plays a much more significant role in the story than Eddie Brock in the black costume does. Arguably Spider-Man 3 actually has four villains, and the foremost of these is Spider-Man himself in the black costume.

One of the principal themes of the superhero genre is the duality of the human personality. This duality can take the form of the division between the conventional introvert who blends into society (Clark Kent, Peter Parker) and his other identity, the heroic individualist who stands out from the society he protects (Superman, Spider-Man). Often the duality is that of the “good” and “evil” or violent sides within the same individual, as exemplified by characters like the Hulk and Two-Face. In other cases, a superhero’s “evil twin” or counterpart represents the hero’s own dark, evil or violent side. Thus, Venom, as noted above, is metaphorically Spider-Man’s “evil twin.”

Raimi makes the “evil twin” connection visually stronger by depicting his Venom without the exaggerated, gargantuan physique, making him look the same size as Spider-Man. (Though Raimi retains Venom’s sharp teeth, he omits Venom’s serpentine tongue and cannibalistic tendencies, probably out of good taste.) Moreover, Raimi cast Topher Grace, an actor who somewhat resembles Tobey Maguire, as Eddie Brock, further reinforcing the “evil twin” visual imagery. Did any of you see Maguire’s appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman on May 1 to promote Spider-Man 3? Initially Grace came out, pretending to be Maguire, until the real Maguire appeared, feigning anger, and supplanted him in Letterman’s guest chair. Whether or not they consciously intended it, the gag reinforced the “evil twin” imagery of the film.

For the middle section of Spider-Man 3, however, Spider-Man becomes his own evil twin when he dons the black costume. The black costume gives Raimi an opportunity that the Spider-Man comics writers did not take back in the 1980s: the sentient costume affects Peter Parker’s mind, drawing out the darker side of his personality.

This “Dark Spider-Man” storyline fits into Marvel tradition: it does not just resemble X-Men‘s “Dark Phoenix Saga” from the 1980s, which was adapted into X-Men: The Last Stand (see “Comics in Context” #134-135), but also Stan Lee and Jack Kirby’s own work from the Silver Age of the 1960s. The duality of Bruce Banner and the Hulk provide an obvious example. But I think especially of the two Lee-Kirby Fantastic Four storylines in which Ben Grimm, the Thing, temporarily went “bad” after his mind was tampered with (first by the Wizard in issues #41-43, and then by the Mad Thinker in #68-71).

The “Dark Spider-Man” storyline can also be seen as an extrapolation of an aspect of Stan Lee and Steve Ditko’s Spider-Man origin tale in Amazing Fantasy #15 (1962) that Raimi had omitted in adapting it in his first Spider-Man movie. In the movie when Peter Parker first encounters the Burglar (who will later be identified as the killer of Peter’s Uncle Ben), Peter has just been cheated out of the money due him from a wrestling promoter. After the Burglar robs the promoter, Peter lets him escape, as a petty act of vengeance against the promoter. In Lee and Ditko’s origin story, Spider-Man’s motivation for refusing to halt the Burglar is quite different. Having become a show business sensation in his masked identity, the formerly introverted, humble Peter Parker has let Spider-Man’s newfound fame go to his head. The egotistical Spider-Man simply can’t be bothered to (minimally) risk his neck by using his powers to try to stop a mundane robbery. In Lee and Ditko’s compact origin tale, this phase of Spider-Man’s personality lasts only a few pages: the murder of Uncle Ben, and the subsequent discovery that the same Burglar he let escape had killed him, shocks Peter out of his moral complacency. In Marvel’s What If. . .? Vol. 1 #46 (August,1984), Peter B. Gillis wrote a remarkable story, “What If Spider-Man’s Uncle Ben Had Lived?”, in which the swell-headed Spider-Man stays in show biz and evolves into a full-fledged, archetypal Hollywood asshole.

In effect, Raimi uses Spider-Man 3 to go back and explore the effects of fame’s temptations on Peter Parker. Raimi told one interviewer that “in this story, Peter Parker falls victim to his own pride. He starts to believe all the press clippings about himself, that he’s really this hero and someone great”. It’s interesting that Raimi characterizes Peter’s Achilles heel as pride. Pride was the sin that brought about the fall of Lucifer; overweening pride, or hubris, is the characteristic flaw of the protagonists of classical Greek tragedy.

In part because Spider-Man is now acclaimed as a hero in New York City (which rarely happens in the comics), Peter doesn’t sufficiently empathize with his girlfriend Mary Jane over the sudden downturn in her career. At first Peter seems touchingly overwhelmed at watching the enthusiastic crowds gathering for the city’s celebration of Spider-Man, hosted by Gwen Stacy, but once he’s in costume, he gets carried away by the occasion, letting Gwen kiss him as he hangs upside down, shocking Mary Jane, who considers that to be “their” kiss (from the first movie). At this point Raimi’s Peter/Spider-Man is not as self-centered as Lee and Ditko’s Spider-Man was at the midpoint of his origin story, but he’s lost perspective enough to be oblivious to the serious damage he is wreaking on his relationship with Mary Jane.

The black costume’s psychological effect intensifies these egotistical tendencies in Peter/Spider-Man: it loosens his moral inhibitions, and reduces his empathy towards others, so much that in a subterranean battle with the Sandman, Spider-Man actually tries to kill him. The dialogue makes this explicit. Of course, the Sandman, whose body has been converted to a sand-like substance, is virtually indestructible, so Spider-Man’s effort is in vain. Nonetheless, I was surprised that the movie allowed Spider-Man to go that far: he would have succeeded in killing almost anyone else in the same situation. Raimi seems surprised, too, telling an interviewer that “I didn’t like watching Spider-Man go bad. It was unpleasant and I kept worrying, “˜Gee, do I really have to do this to show how rageful and vengeful he is? Do we really have to show how pride can destroy you?’ But, my brother kept telling me, “˜Yes, because he’s going to find himself again.'”.

Recently I rewatched portions of Ethan and Joel Coen’s The Hudsucker Proxy (1994), which they co-write with Sam Raimi. Set in the late 1950s, its protagonist is Norvell Barnes, an innocent young man (and something of a fool) who becomes the head of a major company and unexpectedly becomes a great success, thanks to his invention, the wildly popular hula hoop. Barnes gets carried away with his power and success, unwittingly distancing himself from the woman who loves him. Graduate students of the future, here is the link between Raimi the screenwriter of The Hudsucker Proxy and Sam Raimi the auteur of Spider-Man 3! And although Danny Fingeroth has cautioned me against quoting Wikipedia, I feel I should mention that its entry on The Hudsucker Proxy observes that “A scene in the Sam Raimi directed film Spider-Man in which Norman Osborn (Willem Dafoe) addresses his board members is shot in an almost identical fashion to a similar scene in The Hudsucker Proxy and even reuses the same dialogue from the film: “˜Costs are down, revenues are up, and our stock has never been higher.'”

After Peter angrily strikes Mary Jane (which drew a gasp from the audience when I saw the movie), the damage he has been doing to their relationship takes a physical form. Like his recognition of the captured Burglar in the Lee-Ditko origin story, this shocks Peter out of his previous pattern of behavior. In a church, Peter literally tears the black costume from his body, as church bells sound. This scene echoes a sequence from the original black costume storyline in the comics, in which the sound of church bells weakens the symbiote. In the movie, however, since the black costume represents Spider-Man’s own “dark side,” the church bells sequence comes off more as a metaphorical exorcism of evil.

But it’s only a partial exorcism. The evil that was within Peter Parker now takes physical form as something outside him when the black costume attaches itself to his rival and semi-lookalike Eddie Brock, becoming Venom. (I suppose that you could say that in the movie, Peter in the black costume was the first Venom, and Brock in black is the second.) Peter’s internal struggle against his dark side, which ended with his rearing off the costume, is succeeded by an external struggle against his dark side, as metaphorically incarnated by Brock as Venom. Separated from Peter, the “dark side” embodied by Venom is now free of his conscience. Brock, the symbiote’s new host, is portrayed throughout the film as having a shallower personality than Parker. This makes Brock less interesting and developed as a character, but it fits his role in the movie. Whether as Venom or as his normal human self, the movie’s Brock is less a person than a representation of Peter Parker without his strong moral sense.

Since Peter, in the black costume, wreaked emotional harm on Mary Jane and finally physically struck her, it makes sense that his dark side, now represented by Brock/Venom, endangers her very life. Ultimately, using the church bells’ sounds again, Spider-Man performs a further “exorcism,” this time utterly destroying Venom, who is literally blown into nothingness.

In the comics of the late 1980s and early 1990s, Venom became a hero of sorts, reflecting the depressed moral standards of the Grim and Gritty era. In contrast, Spider-Man 3 introduces Venom in order to exorcise him. Peter Parker descends into the hell within his own psyche, represented by the black costume, only to reemerge and win redemption. That potential for redemption is what keeps Spider-Man 3 firmly in the neo-Silver movement, just like the previous two Spider-films.

In the previously quoted interview, Raimi states that he and his brother Ivan, who collaborated on Spider-Man 3‘s story, wanted their protagonist to learn that “he himself might have some sin within him and that other human beings, the ones he calls criminals, have some humanity within them”. In Spider-Man 3 the black costume brings out the “sin” within Peter Parker.

But why would this be a new discovery for Peter? In the comics Peter Parker has recognized the “sin” within himself since the end of Amazing Fantasy #15, as I shall explain next time.

ADVERTISEMENTS FOR MYSELF

I will be appearing at the Big Apple Con (www.bigapplecon.com) at Manhattan’s Penn Plaza Pavilion on Saturday, June 23, where I will be interviewing comics writer/artist Walter Simonson (Thor, Elric, Hawkgirl, Fantastic Four and more) and possibly artist Paul Gulacy (Master of Kung Fu, Catwoman, Sabre, Squadron Supreme, and others). Big Apple attendees will be able to take a shuttle bus down to the annual MoCCA Art Fest (www.moccany.org) at the Puck Building. Fest attendees, in turn, can walk two blocks to MOCCA itself, where the Fest’s panels will be held, and can look in on the exhibit I co-curated there, “Stan Lee: A Retrospective.” (I will probably drop in there myself!)

–Copyright 2007 Peter Sanderson

Noctural Admissions: 2007 Season TV Roundup – The Hoarse Whisperers

Filed under: Columns,Nocturnal Admissions — UncaScroogeMcD @ 12:06 am

nocturnalheader5.gif

In late April, Alec Baldwin stunned both his fans and the followers of Tina Fey’s show 30 Rock when he announced to audiences on The View that, in the words of the USA Today headline, “I want off this show.”

The reasons for his distraction are now famous: an excoriating audiotape of a telephone message he left his daughter after a missed ‘phone call, all part of an ongoing custody battle between Baldwin and his ex-wife, Kim Basinger. Basically Baldwin, pled with NBC executives to release him from his contract.

Baldwin

To their credit, NBC’s honchos, as quoted in USA Today, said, “Alec Baldwin remains an important part of 30 Rock. We look forward to having him continue his role in the show,” sensibly ignoring the troubled actor, who also that week quit his agency, Creative Artists Management, which also represented his wife, Kim Basinger (Baldwin rejoined CAA just this week, late May).

But it’s not just for the sake of 30 Rock that fans rejoiced at the idea of Baldwin’s continual presence on the show. Baldwin is a member of a small, select group of actors who have but one thing in common. They all speak in a low, hushed, tone, all the better to attract attention to themselves within the hubbub of the moving image frame. We like to call them The Hoarse Whisperers.

Olmos

There are more Hoarse Whisperers than you suspect. If Baldwin is the granddaddy of the technique, its Pied Piper and its Pope, he has numerous followers and acolytes. Another key practitioner of this oral tradition is Edward James Olmos, who must drive the sound technicians on the set of Battlestar Galactica mad with his low rumblings, so similar to the constant roar of the Galactica itself. Another nominee is Anthony LaPaglia on Without a Trace. LaPaglia low tones may be sparked by the fact that he is really Australian (like seemingly everyone else on this New York-set show), and a growly, gravelly tone masks his struggle with the American accent.

Sutherland

But perhaps the king of the Hoarse Whisperers is Kiefer Sutherland in 24. His sonorous tones never rise above the level of a kat’s purr, even when he is applying electrodes to the testicles to his girlfriend’s brother on the off chance he knows something about terrorism.

More of an honorary Hoarse Whisper is David Caruso in CSI: Miami. Caruso is more of a low talker than a whisperer, or at least his whispering isn’t particularly hoarse. Caruso keeps his voice low because it lends his noble character gravitas and moral superiority. Michael Chiklis, on The Shield, is also of this school, the whispering elevated to a higher level by a lethal growl. James Spader on Boston Legal goes in and out of hoarse whispering. He can yell in a court room when he needs to, but for the most part, he likes to sit back, his oval face impassive, and hoarsely intone his lines – which, if they could be transcribed to a musical scale or a graph would resemble a swan’s neck, starting high and high pitched before cascading down to a punchline. Also in this league is Patrick Warburton on Rules of Engagement. The former Puddy on Seinfeld only occasionally lowers the register to a whisper, preferring for the most part to adopt a Slow Talkers of America pace. Warburton, who had the brilliance to realize that, looking like a cartoon character, he should only play such, carries to technique to his vocal instrument, which has also enhanced characters in shows such as The Tick and The Venture Brothers.

The phenomenon of the television Hoarse Whisperer mirrors a more dire trend in movies. There, older actors of some repute such as Paul Newman, Clint Eastwood and Al Pacino have been using faulty instruments in recent years, their voices curiously shredded (curiously because normally actors train their voices to last). These rasping actors have effectively cut down on their range thanks to these changes in their vocal cords. Even Clint Eastwood, whose career was staked on a lack of range, has had trouble uttering the simplest lines lately, thanks to the impediment of his scratchy throat. And Eastwood was the king of all Hoarse Whisperers since way back in the 1960s and the series of monosyllabic spaghetti westerns he made for Sergio Leone. Fortunately, his heir on big screen hoarse whispering, Sam Elliott, has evinced little difficulty in speech despite his own doddering age.

But the small screen is the proper venue for a Hoarse Whisperer. There, the practitioners of this near-silent art can plume new depths of hoarseness and quietude, in tones so low the viewer feels inclined to lean forward desperately in their Barcaloungers (that, or turn on the subtitles).

Alec and Will

Another great Hoarse Whisperer is Canadian comedian Will Arnett, late of Arrested Development, who adds an arch aggression to his low hum. An apotheosis of sorts, a croaking chorus of Hoarse Whisperers, was achieved in the April 5 episode of 30 Rock when Arnett showed up as Jack Donaghy’s corporate nemesis, Devon Banks, the Vice President of West Coast News, Web Content, and Theme Park Talent Relations, whom Jack thinks is gunning for his job. At a key moment toward the end of the show, where Jack and Devon face off on the set of The Girly Show, Tina Fey’s Liz Lemmon, acknowledging the existence of the Hoarse Whisperers, says, “Wow, if this turns into a showdown, you guys could settle it with a [switching to a coarse whisper] ‘talking like this’ contest.” At last! Someone within the media has finally stated the obvious! Ah, a very satisfying movement for students of the Hoarse Whisperers.

QSE News: 6/25/2007

Filed under: Columns,News — UncaScroogeMcD @ 12:04 am

quickstopnews.jpg

line1.gif

Here are today’s top entertainment headlines:

  • qsnews.jpgEvan Almighty debuted in the number one spot at this weekend’s box office. The film, which stars comedian Steve Carrell, pulled in $32.1 million. The film did not do as well as expected despite warnings from Christian leaders that if people do not see the film, they would go to hell.
  • Rapper 50 Cent is back in court but this time, it’s for child support. Marquise Jackson, the mother of Cent’s 10-year-old son is asking for more child support. Cent said that while he wouldn’t offer Jackson any more money, he would give her “a cap in her ass.”
  • Organizers for the Live Earth concert series have canceled the planned performance in Istanbul, Turkey.  The show was to be part of an eight site concert happening in different cities all over the world and featuring such artists as Snoop Dogg and Shakira.  According to insiders, the show was canceled due to confusion surrounding the location.  Istanbul was Constantinople, now it’s Istanbul not Constantinople, been a long time gone, why did Constantinople get the works?  That’s nobody’s business but the Turks.

line1.gif

That’s all for today’s news, stay tuned to this channel for all the news that matters least but you still care about.

(Compiled by J. Allen)

##

Quick Stop Thingamabobs: 6/25/2007

Filed under: Columns,Thingamabobs — UncaScroogeMcD @ 12:02 am

thingamabobs.jpg

The web. It’s a big place, full of plenty of distractions ““ some funny, some informative, some ludicrous, some disturbing, some inane, some profound. Each and every weekday, we present links to a few of our favorite finds”¦

————————————————

  • Jackie Gleason on LSD… Damn you, Otto Preminger!!… (Thingamabob)

Have a THINGAMABOB? Send it in!

##

June 22, 2007

Interview: Bill Corbett

Filed under: Interviews — UncaScroogeMcD @ 5:14 am

corbett-011.jpg

-by Ken Plume

corbett-02.jpgWhen not plying his skills as an acclaimed playwright, Bill Corbett has been known to manipulate a gold robot and walk around, pasty-faced, with his brain in a glass dish.

Okay, so the pasty-facedness of the previous statement actually applies to the character of The Observer that Bill played for 3 seasons during Mystery Science Theater 3000‘s run on the Sci-Fi Channel. As if that weren’t enough, in addition to his writing duties for the series (and his roll as the pasty-faced Observer – BOY was he pasty!), he also took over from Trace Beaulieu as the voice and puppeteer of Crow T. Robot.

His post-MST life has seen him continue to write plays, but he’s also re-teamed with fellow Satellite of Love refugees Mike Nelson and Kevin Murphy as the B-movie quipping Film Crew, plus he’s been a frequent guest-riffer on Mike Nelson & Legend Films’ RiffTrax commentaries (you can check out their full catalog here).

Thanks to the miracle of modern technology, I was able to communicate via telephone with Bill, who was firmly entrenched in his Midwestern stronghold.

line.gif

KEN PLUME: So, did you get a chance to look at some of our other interview disasters?

BILL CORBETT: I did, yeah. Wow. What were you thinking? They’re very nice and they’re very thorough.

KP: Hopefully nothing was enough to scare you off of this…

CORBETT: No, it’s just more… you know, I get worried that my life is just not as interesting as these dudes.

KP: Yeah, but the good thing is that most of what you tell me could be lies and I’d never know the difference.

CORBETT: Beauty.

KP: So, about your time in the RAF…

CORBETT: Damn Gerries! We have them on the run!

KP: We go back as far as we can… It’s either we start with that, or I can just ask you – Pinter, Miller, Simon and you, cage match, who wins?

CORBETT: (laughs) I think Pinter does. He’s an angry old limey at this point. He’s loaded for bear.

KP: Is that who you pick as your tag team partner?

CORBETT: Who are the other choices?

KP: Miller and Simon.

CORBETT: Miller and Simon. Well, Miller’s dead, so he might be a little tough, but I guess I could throw Miller at somebody. Simon, I don’t know. He married Marsha Mason at one point, so he might be pretty used to rumbling.

KP: The calluses alone should mean that he’d be able to stay in the fight for much longer than you expect.

CORBETT: Swinging Arthur Miller at us, yeah.

KP: You never really thought about this. This could happen.

CORBETT: Thank God I do interviews so I can think of the right hypotheticals for my life! (laughing)

KP: If there really were literary cage matches, imagine who it might bring to literature? You might finally capture the youth that have been disenchanted by reading.

corbett-03.jpgCORBETT: I do think that WWE wrestler Mankind…

KP: Mick Foley…

CORBETT: Mick Foley is now a respected New York Times’ bestseller. He’s writing tender paeans to childhood.

KP: Having read both of his books, they’re actually remarkably well written – to give the man some kind of props…

CORBETT: Well, I live in a state where the governor was one of those guys, so I believe anything at this point.

KP: In Minnesota, anything could happen. You could have an ex-SNL pundit as your senator…

CORBETT: It’s quite amazing.

KP: And don’t forget that’ll make the state film Stuart Saves his Family.

CORBETT: I tell you, we’re the new California here. It’s where crackpot ideas get a dry run.

KP: Well, you have to have some kind of California in the middle, don’t you?

CORBETT: It’s true.

KP: I think there’s a per state rule, you can only have a buffer of three or four states before you have to hit an oddball.

CORBETT: Yeah, that’s true, and the Dakotas aren’t going to pick up the challenge anytime soon.

KP: Really, it’s for eccentrics who don’t like the coasts.

CORBETT: Well, this state will tell you that we have more coastline than California. It’s an actual bragging point, I think, of the tourist board. If you actually just took all the lakes and stretched them out like a big rubber band into a line…

KP: Yeah, but for a landlocked area of the country, that strikes me as the equivalent of a fat man saying he’s big boned.

CORBETT: Yeah, I think that’s dead on. The lakes are wonderful, but…

KP: It’s not the coast.

CORBETT: No, come now.

KP: It’s not the Riviera of the Midwest.

CORBETT: Where are you?

KP: I’m in North Carolina, on the coast.

CORBETT: An actual coast.

KP: One with an ocean. Not just something where they say, “Well, it has the same systems and waves as an ocean…”

CORBETT: Well, water meets land at some point.

KP: Yeah, “We have the world’s largest miniature ocean.”

CORBETT: Parceled out in ten thousand little droplets.

KP: Isn’t the Midwest where the euphemism was born?

CORBETT: What euphemism?

KP: Just euphemisms in general.

CORBETT: Yeah, probably. Wow, that’s heavy.

KP: What brought a native of New York, Brooklyn if I remember correctly…

CORBETT: Yeah.

KP: … to the Midwest?

CORBETT: Well, in 1990 I came out here after grad school. I was invited to do a playwriting fellowship out here through a place called the Playwright Center – which makes sense for a playwriting fellowship. It’s a place that kind of gave out money and grants to writers if they would basically hang around for a year and teach a few classes. I had no better offer since. And I was sort of aware of it as a place that had kind of launched August Wilson, the playwright. But I’d never been to the Midwest before. I really only planned on staying a year.

KP: At that time, how did you view the idea of the Midwest, as a New Yorker?

CORBETT: My idea of the Midwest was Ohio. And I thought, “Well, it’s all kind of…” it was a bit of New York snobbery – or idiocy, depending on your point of view – where I really thought, “Oh, you can get anywhere in the Midwest from a couple of miles away.” And Ohio, because my parents had moved out there to Columbus some years before, even though I didn’t go with them, so that to me was the Midwest. There was a vast, vast expanse beyond that and below that and above that.

KP: So it’s not just WKRP.

CORBETT: No. (laughs) I was curious. I was aware of Minneapolis as a great cultural scene… a music scene, like The Replacements and Prince, of course, and all that. And I knew that it had some great theater here. The Guthrie theater, famously one of the best and biggest theaters in the country. And a bunch of other stuff. So I was anxious to spend a year out here, but we’re a little over a year now.

KP: It’s stretched a bit longer than you thought…

CORBETT: Quite a bit. For the first couple of years I was sort of doing double citizenship between New York and here. But I just kept getting work here and I kept enjoying it. The winters are the classic thing that people complain about here, but I don’t even mind that. Until February. I like a little bit of bracing cold and some seasons, but it just goes on too darn long.

KP: You would think that you would miss some of the cultural aspects of New York.

CORBETT: Yeah, I do, but I have to say I lived there until I was 26 years old. I get back there enough and I usually tend to cram a lot of my little cultural joneses in one trip. These days I’m missing it because my wife and I have a young kid and another on the way, so I’m anticipating that the traveling isn’t going to be as frequent.

KP: Not unless they start wondering who their dad is.

CORBETT: Right, right.

KP: “Who is that guy?” As your wife puts them to bed with RiffTrax playing in their ears.

CORBETT: Oh, that would make them so twisted.

KP: It’s better than seeing half the work you did on MST…

CORBETT: That’s true. “That guy with the white, hideous…”

KP: “That ghostly demon is my dad.”

CORBETT: “God help you.”

KP: You’ve left them quite a legacy.

CORBETT: I know.

KP: At least with the new project, with the Film Crew, they’ll be able to at least know your face…

CORBETT: Yes.

KP: Unadorned by makeup…

CORBETT: Hopefully they’ll concentrate more on RiffTrax…

KP: Oh no, they’ll get exposed to the rest. That’s what classmates are for. How early did you begin to get a sense that writing was a creative expression that you gravitated towards?

CORBETT: Pretty early, I guess. I had a couple of good teachers along the way in grade school. I remember one who had us writing little skits and things, and they were really a blast to do. I would actually do the homework, which was kind of a minor miracle. I remember one thing he had us do was write a skit involving dialects. He was teaching us regional dialects. All these little kids in Brooklyn trying to put on Southern accents. He would give us creative writing topics. I realized I liked it then, and I never stopped liking it.

KP: What would be the first piece of writing that you can actively remember?

corbett-04.jpgCORBETT: Gosh, let me think. It was probably a total rip off of something else, because I think it’s only last year that I finally started writing anything remotely original that wasn’t influenced heavily…

KP: Usually writers don’t admit that until they’re in their 60s or 70s.

CORBETT: Yeah. The first piece of writing was probably a skit in Mr. Scotto’s class where I think I had Archie Bunker meeting some southern guy, little TV brained kid that I was, and that was the extent of it. And they could barely understand each other because of their dialects.

KP: That’s exactly the kind of character that you’d hope a grade school kid would latch onto.

CORBETT: Yes, exactly. A bigoted New Yorker. That was pretty much everybody who lived on my block. The Irish Catholic version of Archie Bunker.

KP: So you were essentially a pint-sized Norman Lear.

CORBETT: Yeah.

KP: But it’s good that you were already thinking of social issues at such a young age.

CORBETT: I don’t know that I was. I just thought he was funny because he called people “meathead” and “dingbat”. That’s all I knew.

KP: Words you use to this day.

CORBETT: Oh yeah.

KP: What kind of writing style developed during that period?

CORBETT: I think all through my young ‘un days, for some reason I gravitated towards dialogue – plays, for lack of a better word. Anything that can be acted out. So I was getting interested in theater and theatricality at the same time. I had written a few plays, and whatever was available.

KP: Did the acting appeal to you as much as the writing?

CORBETT: It did, actually. I was a… I hesitate to call it a serious actor, but for a while I did a fair amount of it. I just think that when it comes down to it I don’t really have the stomach for an actor’s life, for a performer’s life. I love doing things that are handed to me. I deeply detest having to audition and prepare monologues and things like that. Maybe some combination of laziness and who knows what… inferiority complex. Probably laziness, when it comes right down to it. That can explain a lot about me.

KP: How have you reacted to rejection over the years?

CORBETT: I don’t really bristle at it and stamp my feet. It’s more that I shrug and get kind of an Eyeore, “Oh, what’s the point.” And when it comes to acting it’s a real tough road, psychologically. It’s great if you’re doing well for a while. It just feels like you’re on top of the world… So I hear… But boy, even people who’ve had a measure of success… and I know a lot of actors, and some of them are really smart people… and it’s tough. I did a lot of stage acting at school. I acted in the Guthrie Theater Company for a while as just a plain old member of the company doing Shakespeare and everything. It’s a lot of fun if you can get into a company and have a season of four or five plays. I have to say that, beyond just the feeling of powerlessness of getting the jobs, I’m also like a lot of actors – I don’t want to do what I don’t want to do. That’s not an option sometimes. If I don’t like the part or I don’t think it’s fun enough, I just want to walk away – and that’s not the old team spirit.

KP: Not really… Where everyone’s going, “Where’s Bill?”

CORBETT: Yeah… “He’s supposed to come in with a spear, and he’s not here.” No, you’ve got to be a good soldier.

KP: But it’s got to be the best thing in the world to be cast as your understudy.

CORBETT: I actually did some understudy work at the Guthrie when I first got there. I had, at some point, 20 smallish Shakespeare parts that I was supposed to have ready to go. I went up a few times onstage when somebody got sick, and it’s terrifying. It’s the most terrifying thing in the world. And if you can get through it without killing somebody and actually blurting out a line or two, you get such credit from the stage manager. I managed to.

KP: It’s good to know that, with you, death is always an option.

CORBETT: They should know that.

KP: “You never know when Bill’s just gonna lose it…”

CORBETT: The funny part is, at one point I was in Henry IV. I was understudying this very minor character, but he’s a crazy Scotsman who helps attack Henry IV‘s army. The fight choreographer gave him an axe and a broad sword, and I had to do this part, because the guy was sick. They run you through the fight choreography at the beginning and they say, “We’ll go at half speed or go at quarter speed.” I was just terrified I was going to take off the choregorapher’s head. And it just looked like I was doing it through Elmer’s glue or something.

KP: You were exaggeratedly cautious…

CORBETT: Yeah. What a warrior!

KP: “Slowly he strikes.”

CORBETT: That’s deliberation!

KP: What would you say has been the acting part that you’ve been most comfortable in, or had the most enjoyment from?

CORBETT: I don’t know. I did a lot of crazy experimental stuff in grad school. I was there for playwriting and screenwriting, but I wound up acting a lot. It was fun to act in them. Whether it was fun to see them or not is a whole other matter.

KP: That’s not your concern.

CORBETT: Right, it’s not my problem, it’s the director’s. Like those old German expressionists. Back in the late 80s or early 90s I just liked being in stuff that was kind of crazy and extreme.

KP: Was it just your experimental nature, or the fact that you’re presenting something that audiences had no idea how to deal with it?

CORBETT: Probably the latter. And I like to try to make it somewhat emotionally coherent for them. But I don’t know, once you’ve done that for a while it loses its sting a little bit. It loses its appeal, to me at least. Then I was more into wanting to make people laugh. It’s really the most satisfying reaction you can get, and actually it’s the most palpable outside of getting a tomato thrown at you. I did some cabaret type stand-up and characters. It’s been done a lot now. Doing lots of character and solo shows. But I had my little flirtation with it.

KP: What was the material that you would present?

CORBETT: One of them was, I worked two summers as a door man on the Upper East Side, and then was promoted to concierge at one point. I did a bunch of characters in the lobby, for example. Because some of the doormen I worked with were really quite fascinating characters. One guy was a soldier of fortune who was just as polite as could be.

KP: Just fell on hard times?

CORBETT: Yeah, (laughs) I guess. Yeah, soldier of not so much fortune. Soldier of minimum wage.

KP: But I guess every mission must be a spectacular adventure for him.

CORBETT: I think he just went on them so he could bend people’s ear in the lobby. He was very polite to the people in the building. And this was a pretty snooty building. Keith Richards lived there, and a bunch of people from the UN, ambassadors, lived there. So he would be very deferential, because you could get pretty good tips at Christmas. Then afterwards he would just say the foulest things about people.

KP: Is he thinking, “Oh, I could snap his neck like a twig…”?

CORBETT: Oh, he wasn’t even thinking it, he was saying it! “I could rig a light bulb so that when he turned it on…”

KP: Did you ever dare him to show you this light bulb?

CORBETT: I should have. He’s probably rotting in a jail right now.

KP: Call him on it. “You’re not a soldier of fortune, you’re a doorman.”

CORBETT: “You’re not even a very good doorman. Your technique is lousy!”

KP: What would be the oddest request you got during this period as a doorman?

CORBETT: I think, as expensive New York apartments went, it was pretty tame.

KP: You never had to dispose of a body.

CORBETT: Oh god no! (laughs) To my great disappointment, no.

KP: Keith never asked you to take delivery of a package…

CORBETT: I never worked there long enough to get anything that smelled like Peruvian marching powder. I would have known, believe me.

KP: Or his father…

CORBETT: I tell you, Keith was a very incoherent man. That may surprise you. I wouldn’t have known what he was saying to me.

KP: Was he at least polite in his incoherence?

CORBETT: Yeah. His wife was very nice. I forget her name…

KP: So does he.

CORBETT: A model… yeah, right! (laughs) Good one, good one. (does Keith) “Yeah that… err… lady over there…” He seemed like he just had his blood transfused every day.

KP: Just sort of gliding through life…

CORBETT: Well, he’s about to hit the big screen in Pirates of the Caribbean.

KP: Yes, his big screen debut as himself…

CORBETT: Keithmania is about it reignite itself.

KP: That’s not the only thing that’s ignited itself.

CORBETT: (laughs)

KP: What period were you working this job? In your early 20s?

CORBETT: The doorman’s job was right before I went to go back to school, which was in the late 80s.

KP: So you were what, 21, 22?

CORBETT: No, mid 20s. I’m 46 now. I’m an old codger.

KP: No, there are people who are far older than you.

CORBETT: (laughs) So I hear. I don’t believe them.

KP: Look at that old man, Kevin.

CORBETT: That’s true. But he’s got a timeless quality. I don’t.

KP: Yes, he does have a timeless quality And the beard.

CORBETT: He has a great beard, that man.

KP: A true midwestern beard. You should envy his beard.

CORBETT: I’ve tried a beard. I had a beard for a while. I usually get a little fringe around the chin.

KP: So nowhere near the lumberjack quality that Kevin has…

CORBETT: No, not lumberjack, it’s more like weak Amish quality. They probably wouldn’t even let me into their club…

KP: So very much an Irish beard…

CORBETT: I guess so. I never thought of it that way.

KP: A nice, wispy, elfin quality to it.

CORBETT: (laughs) Leprechaunian.

KP: Is that a word? It is now.

CORBETT: It is now. It’s yours.

KP: Had you ever acted in one of your own plays?

CORBETT: Yeah, I did quite a bit of that in grad school. I did some kind of off-off-off-Broadway in New York, basically in the Hudson River. I’ve done a little bit here, like the Minnesota Fringe, and a couple of other theaters here in Minneapolis.

KP: Have you ever put something up that you’ve written and thought, just from an actor’s perspective, “I really need to change this…”?

CORBETT: Oh yeah. It’s tough to do both things well at once, and I’m not sure that I have. But that didn’t stop the raging ego! More seriously, I would say that since I’ve gotten a little older and wiser I make sure that if I do that – and I really haven’t done that in a while, and I don’t plan to do that again probably anytime soon – I have to have a director or somebody who can call me on the bullshit. I’ve never really gone out there with a three hour BILL! BILL! BILL!: The Show.

KP: It’d be a great marquee.

CORBETT: Yeah, “Bill Bill Bill what?” I like to work with other actors. It’s just too lonely up there. I did a little bit of standup, the tiniest little bit in New York, and it never really appealed to me. Probably because I wasn’t very good.

KP: When you say a little bit…

CORBETT: I’m talking about a handful of times. I got this bee in my bonnet that I wanted to give it a try when I was really young, like 20 years old, and I tried a few…

KP: So this would be during the early part of the comedy boom.

CORBETT: I guess so. That’s probably why I was suckered into it. Everyone was doing it. And I think more to the point there were a whole bunch of comedy clubs popping up all over the place and they were just rallying people in for open mic nights. I think I had an alright act. I have zero technique, though, and I didn’t know my way around a microphone. The guy who was hosting the first open mic I went to was a tall, stretchy guy, probably like six four or five, and my main first act was battling with the microphone and trying to get it down to my level. I gave up at some point and just sort of stepped on my tippy toes and did my act into it. My friend who was in the audience said the effect was, like, you would hear every fourth or fifth word really loudly and then it would go pretty much silent.

KP: You could have made it your own prop comedy moment.

CORBETT: Yeah, or I could have made it sort of anti-comedy.

KP: Is it something that you felt, if circumstances had been slightly different, you could have made a stronger go at?

CORBETT: I’m guessing if I was interested enough, I’m egotistical enough to believe that if I really went for it I would have gotten better at it. Because I have an okay sense of humor. It’s really more about the nerves and standing up there. I don’t really suffer from stage fright. I don’t have the good sense to. I don’t know whether I would have been a good comedian, but I probably could have chugged along for a while until somebody noticed and told me to go away. I just really didn’t have the interest after those first couple of experiences, I guess. I also tended to write a little too thick. I didn’t really know how to get to the joke, and that’s a very bad thing.

KP: So, essentially, you were presenting plays to them.

CORBETT: Yeah, that’s one way of looking at it. It was all set up and very little punch line. (laughs) Premise, premise, premise, premise, premise, premise, bit!

KP: You could have been the premise guy.

CORBETT: The premise guy!

KP: What has been the worst reaction to criticism you’ve had over the years? What stung you the most?

CORBETT: Let me think… When I first started writing plays and having them produced, it takes a while to get the thick skin you really need if your work is going to be reviewed regularly. I think the first time I got a not-so-good review it just felt like a punch in the solar plexus.

KP: Do you remember that review?

CORBETT: I remember sending it to friends of mine saying basically, “Is this true?” And them basically saying, “Deal with it.” (laughs) “Get over it!”

KP: In retrospect, do you feel the assessment was true of the material at that time?

CORBETT: Yes, it was. And it wasn’t even that unkind. I’ve had much more brutal reviews since then. That’s the way it is with criticism. If you’re going to invest in the good you have to allow for the bad, as well. And it’s probably best to ignore most of any of it and just go along with your work. I’ve gotten a good education from critics over the years, because even though it stings for a second, if you can string it together with past reviews you do sort of sense a pattern. You can write off anybody you want, and if someone is just grinding an axe you think is unfair it’s your right to dismiss it. But I do think that it’s made me a little sharper about storytelling. Because a lot of the times I got the reaction of, “Seems to be wandering as a story. It’s got some good lines and characters but the story goes nowhere.” Eventually that hopefully sinks in.

KP: What would you say is your Achilles heel as a writer?

CORBETT: My Achilles heel as I writer… I think it’s changed over the years. I think at present it’s… hmm. Damn you, sir! Damn you and you making me reflect on myself!

KP: That’s what these things are for…

CORBETT: Yeah, truly. I’d say right now my Achilles heel – which I share with, I think, a lot of writers – is telling a good story… still the toughest thing, without it becoming too much of a cliché. Finding a good spin on something. Because I do feel like there’s a lot of great dialogue writers out there. There’s a lot of funny people. But telling a story with it seeming just a little bit original is a difficult one.

KP: Do you think in this pop culture saturated age it’s harder to avoid clichés?

CORBETT: Yeah, I do. I think it’s hard to avoid clichés. It also depends on the medium. It’s really, really hard to avoid – for stage and film, especially when you’re working with producers or… and I’m not talking about anybody in particular, but the culture of Hollywood is that they are screaming for you to give them clichés. But then they’ll be the first people to say, “That’s a cliché.” “I know! You asked for it!” In theater the problem, to my mind right now, is more that… the way theater is now it’s always on the cusp of irrelevance because it’s hard to produce. Just the economics of it don’t work in this country for reasons that are… smarter people than me are trying to figure out. It seems that theater now leads with theme and topic and usually it’s a political or social something or other. Which I like writing about, but I lead more with humor and a humorous treatment of something that seems kind of sensitive or political or social is not always appreciated.

KP: It seems to be a rarity in theater, comparatively, people writing humorous or just out-and-out comedies for presentation.

CORBETT: You sort of leap across this great chasm and then you have the world of Neil Simon. He’s got real talents, and he was apparently a great wrestler, too. Then you leap into this whole world of lite, L-I-T-E – of Broadway musicals and all that. I don’t cotton much to that, either, although who knows, I might if I gave it a try. So I don’t know, theater’s a tough thing to do in this day and age and it’s why it’s not all I do. Probably if things had been a little more satisfying only with that, say 15 years ago, I’d be doing only that.

KP: It seems it has a similarity to the world of independent film, where it’s very rare that you see an independent comedy. You’ll see a coming of age story or a deadly serious drama, but to have a small, intimate comedy is a rarity.

CORBETT: I think you’re right there. Yeah. Comedy tends to be bigger and splashier and dumber. I am all for that on some level, but I do like to keep myself interested and I like to miniaturize and be a little bit more out on the edge here and there. That’s not where I want to live all the time, necessarily.

KP: Do you think it’s more difficult to write comedy than to be serious?

CORBETT: To me no, it isn’t. But I do think that failing in comedy is just such a more obvious failure. (laughs) It’s a subjective reaction, of course, what’s funny and what isn’t. But boy, in that live experience, if something isn’t getting laughs, that just means it’s not funny and it means you failed, whereas an awed silence sounds a lot like an awed boredom.

KP: Do you think it’s easy to fake drama? Like the fake orgasm of theater?

CORBETT: (laughs) Oh, King Lear! I think it shouldn’t be easy to fake drama, but this is maybe where I’m doing the airing of the grievances here, theatrical grievances. I do think it’s too easy to fake it, in theater, at least in this day and age, if you have an important theme that you kind of corral into your play, or if you have an important scene that you treat. And that’s pretty much my problem with theater right now, at least as it exists in the US. It’s not that interesting to me to see a play about something that I could read an essay about, and probably be better informed.

KP: If you’re sitting in another person’s production, and are bored to tears, do you feel that the uninteresting writing is often passed off as a serious literary exercise that should be taken seriously, and not critiqued as an incomprehensible maudlin mess because of how much leeway is given to dramatic presentations?

CORBETT: If I follow what your saying… that was a long sentence, my friend…

KP: I’ve got a flow chart I can send over to you.

CORBETT: (laughs) But I think I get what you’re saying. Yeah, I have felt that way at times, but lest I just sound like a bitter old pill, I’d say that there’s stuff that knocks me off my feet at times, and there are writers that are so very good that I just know that I’m not capable of doing what they do. Especially when there’s a poetic or lyrical dimension. That’s not my strong suit. That may well be my Achilles heel.

KP: How would you describe a poetical or lyrical dimension to something?

CORBETT: Elevated language, language that takes you… there’s a lot of ways of looking at that. There’s Shakespeare, of course, but there’s also George Bernard Shaw and his elevated, very incredibly clever dialectical style. But even David Mamet and his kind of tough guy, fuck you dialogue actually achieves a kind of poetry there.

KP: Would you say it’s a transcendent point that’s difficult to achieve?

CORBETT: Yeah. I think that’s a real skill, and probably not my strong suit.

corbett-05.jpgKP: What do you feel has come close to that, that you’ve written?

CORBETT: Probably nothing… well, I’m sure nothing most people have ever heard of. I wrote a play called Motorcade that I actually performed in myself a bunch of times. For me and another actor, whoever that other actor happened to be. I just didn’t want to be up there alone. I get lonely! It was about a small town in Ohio that was a steel town that was kind of dying out, and set in the 70s and Gerald Ford was coming through the town. It was kind of a cracked comedy on one level, but I do think as close as I’ve come to a poetic sense here. Even in the story structure being a little more freeform and jazz like. Usually I’m a little more conventional. It was fun. I may do it again.

KP: Would you say that was a more or less difficult piece to write than your average piece?

CORBETT: It was… good question. It felt like it was a challenge at the time, but it was one I really enjoyed. Sometimes you just have to do what you think you’re going to enjoy, and if you stop engaging in it, it starts to feel like you’re grinding a gear. Just stop, because it’s probably not going to be very good.

KP: How often would you say that you’ve abandoned a piece?

CORBETT: Oh, I do it all the time. As I’ve gotten a little more experienced I abandon them earlier because I have a better gut check, I think, about whether this is going anywhere, whether I feel any excitement about it. Especially if something is a play or something that’s just on spec – like, no one is paying me to do it or asking me to do it. You might as well do what excites you and gives you a little bit of joy and is challenging in the right way. Because if not, it’s just drudgery.

KP: Are there any pieces that you’ve abandoned but keep coming back to?

CORBETT: Probably not at this point. There was a pretty conscious clearing out, like, two years ago – I just decided to list all my projects and either consign them to the drawer and give up the ghost on them, or see what else is there. The one or two that I decided to pursue, I’m pursuing.

KP: How big would you say your ghost pile is?

CORBETT: Oh, vast. Most of them are ones that I knew were kind of over a while back. I think they were just kind of journeyman efforts in writing… Learning how to write and just a necessary apprenticeship, even if nobody ever sees it.

KP: What do you think has been the easiest piece for you to write?

corbett-11.jpgCORBETT: I’ve written in a whole bunch of different worlds and genres now. I guess I could say that it’s easy, on some level, to work with Kevin and Mike and write a script with them. Because we just kind of know the feeling that we’re going for, we know the type of humor that we all enjoy. It’s exciting to write thinking that we’re all going to get together and top each other and all that. So there’s a real enjoyment to that. But as far as an individual piece, probably the play that has been most successful is called The Big Slam, which has gotten around the U.S. a lot. It came pretty easy. I was working with a really great director when I did it. She was excellent at guiding me to the best instincts of it.

KP: How do you feel – as a writer and as someone who would perform these widely distributed plays when you were in high school – that your productions are now becoming some of those go-to productions for high schools and students?

CORBETT: I don’t think that’s true of me. I think I have one piece that I wrote with a writing partner called Hate Mail which was a pretty silly piece that I wrote in correspondence with a writer named Kira Obolensky. Mike Nelson actually did the premier of it as an actor. He and Mo Collins, who was a Mad TV person eventually. That has a surprising sort of subsequent life in high schools and colleges and all that. Sometimes I cringe a little, because it’s a little naughty in places and I think, “Hmm, do I want a 16 year old saying that?” Not really! Not if it’s my 16 year old!

KP: It’s your own Vagina Monologues.

CORBETT: (laughs) Bill Corbett’s Vagina Monologues.

KP: That could be lucrative for ya!

CORBETT: I tell ya…”Who even knew that Bill Corbett had a…”

KP: I’m not even gonna touch that…

CORBETT: Please don’t…

KP: But Mike did play the female part…

CORBETT: (laughs) Yes, I’m very big into the world of cross-gender casting…

KP: Looking back, what do you think has been the most difficult thing for you to write that you never felt would work but in the end it turned itself around?

CORBETT: I wrote – and it’s only been produced a few times – a play called The Book of Time. It was a really weird meditative piece that slipped in and out of time, oddly enough, and it was about this old woman who used to be kind of a political lefty in the 30s, and her daughter’s coming to visit her. It was stuff I had no business knowing anything about, and really didn’t. It was kind of a researched piece and it took a while to make the people real and have them be real personalities, and make the slipping out of time structure work a little bit. But in the end I thought it did pretty well. It was sort of a little jewel box piece and just was done in a few theaters here and there. Not the kind of thing that you make a ton of dough on. (laughs) Actors like doing it. That’s sometimes the greatest compliment or feeling is when actors really enjoy doing something.

KP: Are you someone who enjoys working outside their comfort zone?

CORBETT: I don’t know where my comfort zone is at this point. I’d say the answer to that is probably that it’s easy to get bored. I think boredom is just the enemy of creativity. I always like to be stretching myself in one way or another. It’s not always going to a further edge of aesthetic craziness. My most recent… (laughs) experience of the last couple of years have been writing a commercial screenplay, and trying to work within that world and see if I can live with myself, and see if I can survive, keep getting the job back, without feeling like I’m doing something awful.

KP: Have you succeeded in that so far?

CORBETT: So far. I’m going at the end of the week to be on set for a while, to watch them film it. I’ll get back to you after that.

KP: Do you have the fear that, in a year’s time, Mike’s going to call you up and say, “I’m thinking of doing Starship Dave on the next RiffTrax.”

CORBETT: I think it would be great, actually. I really do. I think it would be a whole other level of… it would be like the Russian doll, finding new levels out of it. If I could rank out my own writing it would be just delightful.

KP: Yeah, some kind of meta nesting exercise. Maybe it’s time to do a RiffTrax of one of your plays.

CORBETT: Oh, man. A RiffTrax of one of my plays. I don’t know how that would be done.

KP: Just being you, Mike & Kevin sitting in a theater. Can you imagine such a thing?

CORBETT: That would be kind of fun, actually, except I would pity the poor actors who had to put up with us idiots in the front row. It’s kind of great not to feel precious about old stuff that I’ve written. I don’t know about RiffTrax, but if someone did it I wouldn’t hesitate for a second.

KP: Is there anything you’ve written that you wish would just disappear?

CORBETT: (laughs) Well yeah, a lot of stuff has disappeared, so it took care of itself. Nothing made such a great mark. Luckily it rose to its level of quality and went away.

KP: So that’s the stuff that you pawn off on that other Bill Corbett…

CORBETT: Yes. An impossible man.

KP: When exactly did the connections with the guys at Best Brains start to happen?

CORBETT: It started to happen probably in the mid to early 90s. I just started to become pals with a few of them. I’m trying to think exactly how it happened. I got to know Mike and Bridget (Jones) and Mary Jo (Pehl) first, and I think it was mostly through… there’s kind of a tight theater and comedy scene here in Minneapolis. I was writing comic plays. I was teaching some classes, and Mary Jo took a playwriting class of mine, and so did Paul Chaplin.

KP: What kind of students were they?

CORBETT: They totally brown-nosed me. No, they were great. Boy, but some of the other critters in the class.

KP: Now we have to spend a little time on this class…

CORBETT: It wasn’t at the same time. I didn’t have Mary Jo and Paul in the same class.

KP: The two of them would have been problem students.

CORBETT: They would have been fighting in the back, throwing erasers at each other.

KP: With a class like that, there’s really nowhere to send students like that.

CORBETT: No, (laughs) It’s basically adult ed, so you have to either hit them with a mallet or they have to stay.

KP: Knowing that they paid their money…

CORBETT: Yes, pretty much.

KP: Do you almost get the sense, in teaching a course like that, that you’re half dealing with students and half dealing with customers?

CORBETT: Yes. I’ve had some really great students, and then I’ve had students that really should have been in therapy, not in my class.

KP: Do you think that’s what they were treating the class as?

CORBETT: Yeah, kind of. Not to put too fine a point on it, but there were people who had some deep invested need to be a writer. They were finally doing it, and it was just so tremulous. Some of them had their one opus about their life that they’d been saving up, and I’m sad for them, but I was scared to criticize them. Genuinely scared on one level.

KP: Just for fear they would snap?

CORBETT: Yeah. “HOW DARE YOU CRITICIZE MY PAIN!” “I’m just saying that act was a little slow!” “MY FATHER IS YOU!!”

KP: So you didn’t leave anyone huddled in the fetal position in the corner is what you’re saying…

CORBETT: No, that was me huddled in the fetal position. That would have been me. “Make the bad go away!”

KP: For that sort of thing, did you ever feel a difficulty being as intensely critical as you felt you should have been as an instructor to make them better writers?

CORBETT: I don’t see that there’s any point, especially with beginning writers, to being intensely critical. A lot of people just need some gentle encouragement of what they’re doing right, and a very gentle approach to what they might do to improve it. I don’t see the point in the boot camp approach. It usually doesn’t keep people writing. There’s no need for it.

KP: Did you enjoy teaching?

CORBETT: Yeah, I enjoyed teaching, and I still do enjoy it. I haven’t done much in a while. This last fall I did kind of a thing for the Minneapolis children’s theater company here because I like to teach kids. It was semi-volunteer. I got paid a little bit. It mostly gets me out of the room, out of the writing room. I like teaching high school aged kids and college kids a lot. Adults maybe not as much at times, because like I said…

KP: Do you think they have too much baggage?

CORBETT: Too much baggage, yeah. But I do like teaching. I’ve taught college. It’s a little bit of a trap for a writer. I know that’s a cliché, too, because there are plenty of people who do and teach. But I’m a lazy person, so doing and teaching well is sort of out of the question.

KP: At that point, having Mary Jo and Paul in the classes and knowing Mike and Bridget, what was the initial entre into, “Hey, would you like to do some writing for us?”

CORBETT: I think I’m sort of social friends with Bridget and Mike and Mary Jo. My ex-wife, who was a stand-up comedian with some of those guys, was already friends with Bridget and Mike to some degree. So at one point I went with her to a Best Brains party before I even really knew of Mystery Science Theater. It was a couple of years before I worked there, and I was just this guy wandering the hall and wondering what this crazy thing was. I didn’t have cable, I didn’t know about the show. I really didn’t have a clue. But as I got to know those guys a little bit, there was just one point where I watched a Turkey Day marathon with some other friends and I just loved it so much that at one point I worked up the nerve to ask Mike if he needed any help with writing. At that point they actually did. The process was that you were sort of informally auditioning. You would just sort of hang around the writing room and blurt out with them for a while with more established writers.

KP: Do you remember what your first blurt was?

CORBETT: It was probably a fart joke. Comprised about 90% of my work since then, so it stands to reason.

KP: It’s good that you had a hook.

CORBETT: (laughs) Yeah, really! Because no one was taking care of that whole brand of humor.

KP: Until you came along, it was this verboten territory that they feared to tread…

CORBETT: I know… It was all literary references…

KP: And you brought the power of lowbrow…

CORBETT: (laughing) The power of lowbrow! Don’t underestimate me! I really don’t really remember my first comment. I remember the first movie I wrote on was Angel’s Revenge in season six. It was basically about this bunch of hicks who… it was kind of a Charlie’s Angels. Trace was still around and Frank was still around, and I just was kind of writing. I wrote on a few shows at the end of season six, and then season seven was this really stripped down version of MST where… I don’t know the business of it totally, but I think they were just getting through and seeing if they could squeeze out a few more shows with Comedy Central.

KP: Did you feel that change was in the air?

CORBETT: Well, I was never there long enough to know the changes. I was aware that Frank was leaving in the last show, which was disappointing. Frank is just a hilarious character to write for, I mean a hilarious guy. In season seven they just went with a stripped down staff, so I didn’t write for them at all. And I moved to LA at that time and decided to start trying my best in the biz, and then I got a call from Mike at some point asking if I wanted to come and write on season eight. “Well, I’m out in LA and trying to write for TV, but hey – you’re TV, and you’re back in Minneapolis.” So I went back there and then started season eight on Sci-Fi.

KP: What was your initial take on Mike, when you first met him?

CORBETT: Just a very nice, sweet guy. Very funny. Kind of low key. That’s pretty much how he still is… (laughs)

KP: So your first impression of Mike was the impression that you’ve kept to this day.

CORBETT: Yeah. I’ve learned, of course, that he’s incredibly funny, and that his humor has a real dark side to it. For this big all-American looking guy he’s got a real dark side to his humor. But god, he’s one of the funniest people I’ve ever met.

KP: Yeah, he tends to pass off his dark side onto other people.

CORBETT: Yeah, (laughs) like me.

KP: Assigning those dark side quips to anyone else but him so he can maintain his squeaky-clean reputation.

CORBETT: Hey, I’ll take a bullet for him.

KP: The sixth season was them at the end of a very long, solid, comfortable run…

CORBETT: Yeah.

KP: At least toward the beginning of that, that they were loved and respected by the network.

CORBETT: Oh yeah. Those were, in some ways, the end of the real fat days where I think they had just this incredibly generous contract, if I remember it. I came with the lean years.

KP: Within the room setting, the writing session, what was your impression of… let’s start with Frank. What was your impression of the kinds of things that he would say in the room?

CORBETT: Well, it needs to be said that really… I’m talking like literally three shows toward the end of six that I got to overlap with some of those guys. I never overlapped with Joel until he came back to do his…

KP: His guest appearance…

CORBETT: Yeah. Well, I was pretty star struck, really, because I had seen the show, and to me Trace and Frank were like a classic comedy duo. I was pretty star struck. And they were all such nice guys that eventually I would have gotten over it, I think, if I had worked there a bit longer. But I’m not sure that I ever got over that for Frank and Trace, at least. They were gone by the time I got back.

KP: So your initial impression…

CORBETT: My initial impression was that everybody was pretty goddamn funny. And with Frank, he had… there was something… as I recall, I was aware that he was a fellow New Yorker, even though he was a Manhattan boy, and I was more bridge and tunnel trash. He had kind of a snideness and a sarcasm that I liked. And he was also really game. I remember that somebody wrote a skit for one of those shows at the end of six where he’s playing Auntie McFrank or something, and he was the owner of a bed & breakfast. I hope I’m not making this up.

KP: No, no. He looked very similar to Jonathan Winters.

CORBETT: (laughs) Yes, yes, very much so. And as I recall – and if I’m making this up, I’m sorry Frank, if you ever read this – but I think he just accepted it without batting an eye. It’s like, “Oh sure, I’ll be Auntie McFrank. Sure, that’s what I do.” Whereas someone like me might have gone, “Oh, do I really want to be in a dress?”

KP: This from a guy who wore a nurse’s uniform for half a season.

CORBETT: Yeah, I got over that pretty quick. After you worked at Best Brains for awhile, you realized you had to abandon your vanity. You’re going to have funny stuff put on you…

KP: Whereas Kevin seemed to revel in it.

CORBETT: Well, you didn’t know his private life. Mike and I realized at one point that we actually worked actively to get Kevin in a dress whenever we can in our skits. I think he finally caught on. He’s just a big, burly, barrel-chested guy with a beard. Put him in a cocktail dress.

KP: Though I have to admit, in seeing Mike’s various turns, particularly his turn as Janeway in the final season seven episode, that Mike seemed to enjoy it a little too much…

CORBETT: Boy, I don’t know. That was scary. He had her down pat. A slight Katherine Hepburn quality there. He had it!

KP: That stern intensity.

CORBETT: Exactly.

KP: I think he probably would have wanted to live that life a little bit longer. So what was your impression of… I’ve often heard – and in talking to Trace I’ve also found it to be true – that he seems to be quite soft-spoken, but when he does say something, it tends to be quite a cutting remark.

CORBETT: Well, I begin with the caveat that we’re talking like two or three shows. I want to say that those guys were in production or post-production on the movie, which I’m pretty sure is one of the reasons I was hired. They had a television show to take care of. It was all the same guys making the movie and the television show, and I think they were just a little bit burned out. They needed a couple more people collaborating with them. Yeah, Trace – very sweet, very soft-spoken guy, but I remember laughing out loud at a few things he said. He’s a precision guy. Unlike me, in the law of averages I blurt out ten things and one of them just seems to be ready. Mike’s kind of like that, too. Probably in pure tonnage of jokes he wouldn’t be up there with some of the rest of us, but it was always pretty spot on. Wait and pounce! (laughs)

KP: Belying that nice Midwestern aura that you would think he would have…

CORBETT: I know. It’s like… well, I was like the sunny Brooklyn guy. I really don’t think anyone would describe me that way.

KP: Who would be the most verbose in the room?

CORBETT: Oh, I’m right up there.

KP: Second to you.

CORBETT: Second to me… well, I think probably myself, Paul and Kevin. This is just from recall of six or seven years ago. Maybe Mary Jo, too, tended to just dump a lot out there and be willing to kind of use it as… the way the writing worked in the room a lot, as I’m sure other people have told you, is sometimes you just kind of… you went with a bad joke just to get it out there, and then you’re kind of serving it up, and then someone like Mike or Trace or whoever – even, god forbid, me – would come along and just make it a better joke. You’re kind of like suggesting an area for the joke and then someone improves on it. So that was a real function, too.

corbett-06.jpgKP: So you blurt out the first draft and it’s quickly revised…

CORBETT: Yeah, there were all levels… the first draft or second draft of any Mystery Science Theater script was all blurty anyway. And in the end it would just be a big bunch of lines and time codes, and then Mary Jo and Paul and I would winnow it down and do what we called “line assigning”, which was just making sure that each character got a line here and there and choosing the jokes and making them better. But even after that there’d be a couple of other levels of work.

KP: In that process I’m assuming that some consideration will be taken into, “Well, this seems more like a Mike line or a Tom line…”

CORBETT: Surprisingly little, I have to say. I say that even as I was the only one writing at that point who was assigning to myself. It was really more just like a round robin, with a few exceptions. If I knew that there was a song, I would usually give it to Kevin because he’s got a great voice. If it was an imitation that Mike did particularly well, you give it to him, of course.

KP: So how did you get all the angry rants?

CORBETT: (laughs) I don’t know! I really don’t! They were regular lines and they just sounded like an angry rant!

KP: One of the people pointed out that the major difference between your Crow and Trace’s Crow was that yours was very angry.

CORBETT: Well… it could very well be.

KP: Do you think you worked out any demons with the puppet?

CORBETT: I was advised by my hypnotist to work through my demons with my puppet. I think that’s very helpful.

KP: Do you still do that?

CORBETT: I don’t. I don’t have a Crow, I just have a tiny little mockup Crow that Patrick Bransteg did for… I think it was when we did the Gumby short, and he had to make a little miniature Crow and a little miniature Tom. I have him, so I make him talk and rant and yell about taxes and stuff.

KP: Do you ever miss the character?

CORBETT: Oh sure. The bots were so much fun because they were just these tabula rasas, you know? They could be as smart and funny as you want, and they could unlearn it all the next episode, and no one ever questioned it. It’s kinda a rule of comedy, and it’s true of The Simpsons, too, but the more cartoony the characters are, the less real logic there has to be to them. Maybe that’s… it could just be a quality of my voice. I do think that there was a little more collective anger in the Sci-Fi scripts if I compare to some of the early Comedy Centrals. Which was funny because we were all getting along just dandy in the room at that time. I don’t know why that is.

KP: Do you think there was a level of hatred after so many years of viewing these horrible films that you took the gloves off…

CORBETT: I don’t know. I can’t claim I had that excuse. (laughs)

KP: You could say, if you watch the early seasons, that a lot of it was informed by Joel’s sensibility, which was much more easygoing and, I would say, almost an affectionate approach to these corny films.

CORBETT: Mm-hmm.

KP: And that period with Mike towards the latter part of the Comedy Central-era seemed to be informed largely by that, but it tended to get a little bit sharper in its humor.

CORBETT: That would make a lot of sense to me. Not having been there for the Joel years. People have asked me about the angry Crow before, and I kinda shrug. I was mostly just trying not to mess up. Trying not to destroy the character. It started probably with a little bit too much of an imitation of Trace, and then Kevin and Mike just said, “Don’t worry about that. Relax a little bit and make it your own.” It could just be a quality of my voice combined with the writing that it changed a little bit, collectively, in the Sci-Fi era. Who knows.

KP: Do you ever feel weird to be in the situation that you’re suddenly living “The Two Darrens, The Two Fred Flintstones”?

CORBETT: (laughs) I’ve gotten over that. I think, really, classic Mystery Science Theater Crow is Trace. He was there before me, he invented the character, he was great. If I could keep the show going a couple more years and not totally sabotage it, that’s enough for me.

KP: Well, you certainly didn’t sabotage it.

CORBETT: Well shucks, thanks.

KP: So your initial call from Mike was to come back out and write for season eight, right?

CORBETT: Yeah.

KP: So you had no idea at that point that Trace was leaving.

CORBETT: I think they did know that, but as I recall it was all happening pretty quickly because they were getting used to the new network.

KP: You were at the convention when the official announcement came.

CORBETT: Right. And I think at that point I do remember that I didn’t know… I mean, I was just going to be the new writer at that point. I think what was going on – and I wasn’t privy to much of this – but I think Mike and Kevin and Jim and everyone were just getting used to what Sci-Fi expected to be different and not, and all that. I think they had a real question to deal with, like, “What are we going to do now that Trace is going?” At that convention, Trace did get a send-off, as I recall.

KP: I saw video of what seemed like a rather awkward panel with you all on it, and you’re seated down at the very end, kind of a silent with that “What am I doing here?” kind of look on your face…

CORBETT: Glowering. Disturbing presence. Well, I didn’t have much to say at that point! I’d worked on a couple of shows in season six as a writer, and it was nice of them to ask me up there as a writer, but on some level, really, yeah, it wasn’t my show at that point.

KP: But, of course, all the conjecture started happening at that point that you were the replacement, but you at that point didn’t know that you were the replacement?

CORBETT: No, I really didn’t. Because I think that still under consideration was the question, “Do you keep the character of Crow at all? Is it too awkward and is it kind of disrespectful, and frankly would it be unpopular to keep Crow going without Trace?” I think that was a good question.

KP: At what point was it presented to you as, “This is what we’re thinking…”?

CORBETT: When they started auditioning people. Because they did audition people, including me. Local actors, mostly.

KP: Were you privy to any of the other people that came in and auditioned?

CORBETT: I knew some of them. I didn’t get to see their auditions. That would have been interesting. I can only conjecture that being on the inside didn’t hurt, because they kind of knew my sense of humor by then, and frankly they didn’t have to cut another paycheck to anybody. (laughs) I do remember that I was just pathetic with the puppet in the audition. And for the first couple of shows. So they weren’t going by puppetry skills, god knows.

KP: Did they give you some material from an old show, or did they give you some newly written piece to try?

CORBETT: I think it was from an old show. Maybe even part of the movie. I forget.

KP: What was the difficulty when you first held the puppet?

CORBETT: It’s an awkward little bugger. I don’t think in those terms now because I got so used to it, but kind of top heavy. Heavier than I thought.

KP: Comparatively, it seems, Kevin had it easy.

CORBETT: Yeah, Servo’s a little bit of an easier puppet. Smaller, a little more usable. It doesn’t have quite as many moving parts. Less prone to breaking. Crow was sort of a Rube Goldberg-like construction. When he broke, he could really break. If you’ve ever seen a Poopie Tape, he was alawyas waiting to exploe! (laughs)

KP: I can just imagine you down in the hole waiting for what piece would come raining down on you.

CORBETT: Oh, boy. There was those eyes. Those dreaded eyes! Yeah, but, you know, it was strange to audition. I thought they were going to hire an actor – and I would have been fine if I hadn’t gotten it, but boy, it really was great fun eventually.

KP: Did you feel good coming out of the audition?

CORBETT: No, I didn’t, because I just thought my puppetry was horrible, and I assumed that they would see better. I don’t know how they could see worse! (laughs)

KP: So how long after that audition did they give you the news? And who gave you the news?

CORBETT: Real soon, because they… as is so often the case with Best Brains, I think it was such a difficult decision that nobody wanted to make it. But then when they absolutely had to, they had to and then it went really quick. It was like, “Alright, you got the part. Here, take Crow home for the weekend, we’re going to start filming Monday.” It was almost that quick. So I was on my kitchen counter trying to make Crow work, scaring the crap out of my dog..

KP: Laying down on the floor?

CORBETT: Yeah. So I was really, really unprepared for the first couple of shows. And I say that not as an excuse – it’s just pretty obvious if you look at the first few shows.

KP: Did you get any words of encouragement from Kevin, who had to go through the same thing years before?

CORBETT: Oh, yeah. I mean, everyone was great and I got nothing but pats on the back. But still, looking back, it showed what it showed, and I was used to seeing Trace move the puppet around from my experience on the show, and I knew that was not what it looked like.

KP: Did it look like you gave Crow a stroke?

CORBETT: Yeah, that’s absolutely what it looked like. It looked like this thing that used to have such life and verve, suddenly it was this hunk of matter.

KP: I’m sure you’ve heard about Kevin’s “I Hate Tom Servo’s New Voice” banner…

CORBETT: Oh yes. He kept it up in his office all those years. I think it crossed the top of his wall.

KP: But you never got one of those.

CORBETT: I got a self-conscious parody of it from somebody who said, “Just to make you feel welcome…” You know, if I ever got… I’m sure there were people who were pissed and disappointed. I think Best Brains was very gentle on me in shielding me from that stuff, and I didn’t seek it out particularly, either.

KP: Did you ever talk to Trace at all?

CORBETT: Not much, really. Because when he left for California, he was gone, and he was busy.

KP: Have you talked to him since?

CORBETT: I haven’t. I really haven’t talked to him since the convention.

KP: So, in a bare-knuckle fight…

CORBETT: He’d take me. He’s got the reach.

KP: And the manipulation skills.

CORBETT: (laughs) Right. “My nose! You’re making it do very funny things!”

KP: You have a very similar vocal quality to Trace, so it wasn’t as jarring as if some basso profundo guy came in…

CORBETT: Right. I think that Mike and Kevin and Jim were aware of that even if I wasn’t. That helped me, no question about it.

KP: I can tell you, without a doubt, you did not destroy the show.

CORBETT: Oh, thank you. It haunts me to this day.

KP: (laughs) Yes, I’m sure it does…

CORBETT: No, it really doesn’t, because I think it’s… I still think the core of the show… Trace was incredibly missed, I think especially as Dr. F. Actually, both characters, but that’s one you couldn’t replace with just a voice. But the core of the show being the movie segment, really the writing was hopefully as sharp and that was not as hard for me as the host segments, because you’re just kind of sitting there with a guy doing the Shadowrama.

KP: You look at that Shadowrama setup and it looks profoundly uncomfortable to sit and shoot…

CORBETT: It wasn’t the coziest! (laughs) But it really wasn’t that horrible. Kevin and I were just in these….

KP: It looks like by that time you had nice ergonomic chairs to sit in. You look at the earlier stuff and it looks like they’re sitting in beach chairs.

CORBETT: (laughs) No, it was just like… they were plenty comfortable, actually. There were just some awkward moments trying to keep my head out of the shot and move Crow around a little bit just to give him some life. Trying not to be seen. “How not to be seen!”

KP: Some of the rough cuts of some of your episodes have leaked out.

CORBETT: Oh, really?

KP: Some of the rough cuts of the shadow segment, so the banter between you all is still intact.

CORBETT: Oh, really…

KP: Yes, there’s a lot of interesting moments.

CORBETT: Where does one find it?

KP: It’s on the internet.

CORBETT: Oh dear god.

KP: I guess there was a mistake, if I understand correctly, when they had the big sell-off, the auction at the offices – not the eBay auction – that they accidentally sold off what they thought was a box of blank tapes…

CORBETT: (laughs)

KP: … which happened to have all these rough cuts on them.

CORBETT: Wow. How incriminating.

KP: The wonderful thing is that the last episode’s on there. So it’s got you guys talking back and forth about the cancellation.

CORBETT: Oh boy…

KP: And being all, “Boy, yeah, I guess everything went to hell since they cancelled us. We really must have gone downhill.”

CORBETT: That’s hilarious!

KP: And there’s a couple of breakdowns. One episode had a 20 minute breakdown of the footage, so it’s you guys… I forget what song you all were ripping on. Oh, “Owner of a Lonely Heart.”

CORBETT: Oh Jesus.

KP: There’s an entire 10 minute segment of you guys doing that and riffing on it. Doing “Homer of the Odyssey, much better than Homer of the Iliad…”

CORBETT: We would get collective Tourette’s Syndrome frequently there. The poor people who worked with us. We could beat something into the ground. It really was odd at times, but we had a lot of fun.

KP: I love the glee that you, and particularly Kevin, showed when I guess whoever… who would be the one who was cueing up the film for you?

CORBETT: Peter (Rudrud).

KP: He threw on “Owner of a Lonely Heart”…

CORBETT: Oh yeah! (laughs)

KP: … and you guys just went giddy.

CORBETT: There was one point I think we realized… most of America probably doesn’t enjoy sort of obscure riffings on 80s music the way we do. We may want to watch it… As we wrote our seventh skit based on an 80s song! (laughs) The hyper-literal parsing of an 80s song… (laughs)

KP: The other thing that was quite disturbing is you guys riffing on… I guess you had just seen, but hadn’t recorded yet or written fully yet, the short about a world without springs, Spring Fever…

CORBETT: Yeah, we beat that into the ground. Coilie. (whistles)

KP: And you guys coming up with riffs that are increasingly more… let’s say “poo-related”…

CORBETT: Yes. That was the nature of all things.

KP: Mike came up with the phrase – and this was while you guys were messing around – “I’m going to go blow some mud.”

CORBETT: (laughs)

KP: Which, to your credit, both you and Kevin were disgusted by.

CORBETT: We were not! We must have been aware a camera was on.

KP: This is just you guys venting…

CORBETT: Hilarious.

KP: You going to Mike, “I’ve never heard that, and that’s just completely disgusting, sir.”

CORBETT: Bear in mind who’s talking there. If I’ve never heard of it, it’s really beyond the pale.

KP: Definitely one gets the sense of the camaraderie the three of you developed over the course of those seasons.

CORBETT: It was great fun. It really was. What’s not to like about it?

KP: And also, you got the chance to play another role within the series.

CORBETT: Yes.

KP: How different was it shooting the “mads” segments?

CORBETT: Well, we did them on different days, as you probably know. They each tended to be events in themselves. It was a little less claustrophobic. I wasn’t down in the hole there, in the trenches with Kevin.

KP: Did you ever feel, if there was ever an emergency, no one would help you out of the hole?

CORBETT: (laughs) It could happen a few times. No, it was all fun, it really was. Different challenges for different sequences. I actually had to memorize Brain Guy’s stuff, whereas with Crow I could kinda tape a script up on the bottom and just concentrate on not breaking the puppet.

KP: Was it a surprise that you were going to be featured in the other segments?

CORBETT: Yeah, it was. It seemed as random – and maybe it’s just my mind is random so I don’t remember these key events as sharply as I should – but it just seemed like it drifted into the idea, “Yeah, we should probably have one of the observers be another character. I don’t know. Bill you want to do it?”

KP: And your response was?

CORBETT: “Yeah, I guess so. I don’t know.”

KP: “Only if I get to wear a nurse’s uniform at some point.”

CORBETT: Well, it’s in my contract as a writer. “If I’m going to do this I must wear a hideous nurse’s costume at some point.”

KP: Nothing seemed to match the enthusiasm that Kevin seemed to have.

CORBETT: No, he’s without peer when it comes for his enthusiasm for dresses.

KP: I don’t know if you’ve ever seen his KTMA watermelon drop footage.

CORBETT: (laughs) No, I haven’t.

KP: You know what the watermelon drop is?

CORBETT: I know it’s like Letterman and all that.

KP: I guess KTMA, being a station with no money, and Jim and Kevin desperate to get their own stuff off the ground – this would have been ’87, ’88 – they both decided that their New Year’s ritual would be to drop a watermelon off the top of the building. Their version of the ball dropping. So they built up this mythology that it was 25 years old, an annual tradition. So he hosted it as a reporter named Bob Bagadonuts, who was straight out of the SCTV school.

CORBETT: Melonville.

KP: Exactly. It is pure SCTV Melonville, with fake commercials and news segments and build up to the melon drops. A couple of tapes exist of him as Bob Bagadonuts.

CORBETT: That’s hilarious. He’s an incredibly multi-talented guy, and I think if he had just decided to become a performer or just an actor or even just a singer he’d be very successful. But he’s got that level of talent in a whole bunch of different areas. Renaissance man.

corbett-07.jpg

KP: Going through that period, how would you describe those years on the show, if you were to describe the arc of it?

CORBETT: I’d say from nervousness and a bit of fear at first, to fun and joy. It really was a lot of show.

KP: What show or period did you feel you hit your groove?

CORBETT: I don’t know that I ever did.

KP: Well, there must have been a period when you stopped being a deer in the headlights.

CORBETT: Yeah. I think it was probably midway through season eight where I just start to feel like, “All right, Crow’s alive again. He’s recovered from his stroke. I’m having fun.” It was more gradual, just being in the writing room for a while and writing enough sketches and doing enough movies, just relaxed into it. It’s all about silliness. It was all about inspired, hopefully somewhat clever, intelligent silliness on that show. And to realize that it’s not curing world hunger or anything like that, it’s just puppets and laughs. I used to really look forward to going to work. Now I sit at home and write, and I like that too, once I’m coffeed up.

KP: Do you miss the camaraderie?

CORBETT: Yeah, I do. I get it now and again with Mike and Kevin, and I write with other people here and there. I’m busy being a dad these days, too, so it would be a little harder to do that now.

KP: If I understand it correctly, one of the unique things about the way they established the office is that you were on a daily schedule… You left at 6:00 like an office job, right?

CORBETT: Yeah, and I don’t think that ever was a matter of regimentation, it just that tended to be most people’s preference there.

KP: My understanding is that during the first season, it wasn’t like that. And it sort of got to a crisis point, and then Joel and Jim went off to sort of like a business therapy thing, and one of the things that came out of that was like, “You know what, we’re going to make this a regular work day and our lives are not about this.”

CORBETT: Well, you know what, that’s entirely possible. I’m surprisingly ignorant about a lot of that stuff. I got the benefit of it, though! I kind of walked into a very sane workplace.

KP: Did you get the feeling that it was a very sane way to do that sort of thing?

CORBETT: Yeah, I did. Because first of all, the system was a pretty well-oiled machine by the time I got there. They basically knew how much time they needed for each kind of stretch of work. And you know there were exceptions to the… (laughs) really, as much as we say it was a nine to five or nine to six job, I do recall that during the time I was there poor Patrick Bransteg and Beez McKeever often were working a lot more hours.

KP: You eventually drove her out of the country…

CORBETT: I know, the poor thing. They worked so hard. They really should have been like five or six people doing what they did. And they worked so hard and did such amazing work… so that was a little… they probably had the hardest job on some level, in terms of just man hours.

KP: While you, the egalitarian aristocratic artiste…

CORBETT: I know, it was a little awful…

KP: Leave the poor plebes behind to toil away…

CORBETT: (laughs) I know. “Build my set! I’m going.” I think it was particularly brutal in the first part of season eight. The strange negotiations with Sci-Fi channel were “Well, how do you make this more sci fi?” and they liked the idea of Mary Jo and company going to different planets. But it was really unsustainable. I don’t know if you’ve ever been to the Best Brains set…

KP: No, but I understand it was one of the most economical uses of spaces one could ever see.

CORBETT: Yeah. I’ve since seen other television studios and I realize that’s a little more… I mean, everything looks bigger… that kind of compression is pretty typical. But it really was a small, all self-contained space. And these guys had to make a new world of it every couple of weeks, with new costumes and often new characters. So the first part of season eight was just brutal on everybody, but especially Patrick and Beez, I think.

KP: Did you ever say, “You can all have a free day. Go see the sun, little ones…”?

CORBETT: I said that, but my word didn’t mean anything. “You’re a big talk, Bill, but you have no authority here.”

corbett-09.jpgKP: I’m curious regarding Joel’s guest appearance. I was wondering what that was like, and the sort of vibe that was around the office knowing that he was coming back.

CORBETT: It was pretty cool, because… I think it was something that a lot of us were, you know, thinking would be a neat thing someday. But had pretty much put to bed any possibility that would happen. I liked the fact that it sort of connected the later years of the show to the founding fathers a little more. I wish we could have had more time to write it and Frank and Joel could have been there a little longer. But again, they were pretty busy out in L.A., and we squeezed them into a pretty short session. The fun of having them there I hope translated to the screen, but with more time it probably would have been better.

KP: How did you feel interacting with them?

CORBETT: Fine. I didn’t have a lot… it was kind of fun to have both of the meat puppets, Joel and Mike, up there at once. It was a little crowded up there. It was cool. And Frank, I didn’t have much to do with. We were just in the one sketch together. But it was a lot of fun to have them hang around and hear about the old days a little bit.

KP: What did you hear about the old days?

CORBETT: That it was a meaningless nightmare of suffering. Woody Allen. I don’t know, I was just kind of listening to the other guys catch up. They all knew each other a little better.

KP: How would you feel if someone organized or funded a return to MST, but they said, “We want Trace back as Crow…”?

CORBETT: Like an eccentric millionaire, and he brings us to an island in the South Pacific for a martial arts tournament and then MST? If they had some guy I’d never heard of who I didn’t think was very talented, that might miff me. But if it’s Trace, he’s the original, so I could hardly take offense. I might feel personal disappointment to not be included if it seemed like a fun project.

KP: What if they said you could still be Brain Guy and write – would that be a consolation?

CORBETT: I don’t know. We’re into hyper-hypothetical now. If they paid me a million dollars a year I could get over it! (laughs)

KP: The way pop culture is now, anything’s possible… Someone could say, “We’re going to do a 20th anniversary thing…”

CORBETT: Well, I think Trace has first dibs on Crow at any time. But I don’t know. I certainly feel awkward being the pale, effeminate alien with his brain in a dish. (laughs) Lucky me!

KP: We know you saved that costume.

CORBETT: I’m sitting in it right now. A brain and everything. (laughs)

KP: There’s been talk of Trace doing a RiffTrax, which I’m assuming is a completely different kind of thing as far as how that vibe would be, since it’s just you guys sitting down and putting those together.

CORBETT: Yeah. And really, I’ve only been peripherally and sort of guest star involved here and there with RiffTrax. I’ve been busy with other stuff, and with a young kid and all that. I love doing the live shows. Thankfully we have a few of those coming up. And I hope to keep doing those. I think RiffTrax is trying to find its place right now, seeing if this model will work over the long haul.

KP: What is the writing process like for RiffTrax?

CORBETT: It’s been a little more segmented. In the movies I’ve done, I only did two movies with Mike solo, and I did a few with Mike and Kevin. And we usually just split the script up and write half of it or write a third of it, and then we mash it together during rehearsal and consider each line. So it’s essentially the same process, just a little bit more solo work and not as many levels of peer review. Just not enough time…

KP: So you’re saying that more fart jokes get in…

CORBETT: Well yeah, that’s the good part.

KP: Although I have to admit, it seems like there’s been a lot of anger from the Bill Corbett character in the RiffTrax…

CORBETT: Really? What’s wrong with that guy?

corbett-10.jpgKP: I’m thinking in particular there’s a nice healthy rant in Battlefield Earth that they had to talk you down from. How much of that is you playing into the pre-established expectations? There’s got to be a point where you’re sitting down with a film that Mike’s chosen, going, “You know, I actually kinda like this movie.”

CORBETT: It hasn’t happened yet. (laughs)

KP: Kevin professed to liking the first Lord of the Rings film.

CORBETT: I think Mike and Kevin both really like the Lord of the Rings film. I think that was a challenge in riffing something that they like.

KP: Do you think it’s a difference, going from writing really positively dreadful movies for MST to movies that aren’t nearly the level of incompetence? Although I’ll admit there’s nothing but incompetence in something like Battlefield Earth. It just looks shinier.

CORBETT: Yeah.

KP: And has more Dutch angles.

CORBETT: Oh dear god, that was vertigo inducing. I think riffing is pretty malleable, so you can do stuff that is almost a good movie, that has good qualities to it, and you can do stuff that’s dreadful. And some people like watching the Plan 9 from Outer Space or the Manos stuff more, and I think some people like to tackle something that is maybe technically slick like Top Gun, which was just sort of ridiculous at the core. And I don’t know which one I like writing better. Mixing it up is fine by me. I don’t think that I’ve ever done a movie I genuinely liked a lot. If I had done the first Lord of the Rings with those guys it would have been a bit of a challenge, because I’m a fan of that movie.

KP: Are there any films that, for you, are untouchable?

CORBETT: No, not untouchable, just things that I wouldn’t bother trying because I don’t think I would be funny doing them.

KP: Would you tell Mike, “I’ve got to pass on this…” ?

CORBETT: No, I think we’re pretty simpatico in terms of what… the range of stuff we think is horrible… (laughs)

KP: What is a film that, if they were to present, you’d go, “Are you crazy?”

CORBETT: Hmm. Schindler’s List. Or Hotel Rwanda, or something like that. Trying to make something out of… a good movie about a harrowing and real situation would seem to go even beyond my skills…

KP: So, the Holocaust is off limits.

CORBETT: That’s big of me, isn’t it?

KP: It’s really not RiffTraxable.

CORBETT: That’s interesting. I’m sure there are others too. I’ve never seen Life Is Beautiful, so I don’t know. I mean, if it was like The Day the Clown Cried – Jerry Lewis… you know, that legendary movie that I think is in a vault somewhere, which is basically the same premise I think as Life Is Beautiful, then that might be worth looking into. I remember we actually had a little bit in X Men…

KP: The concentration camp scene at the beginning…

CORBETT: Yeah, it’s the concentration camp scene, and Mike wrote something for it that I thought worked pretty well, where I thought we were going to see this shiny superhero movie and suddenly we’re at Dachau, and I’m complaining. It sort of depends on where you focus your humor, and at that moment, you know I’m complaining to him for choosing the movie – then it’s a different sense of humor.

KP: Instead of critiquing the scene or riffing off the scene itself.

CORBETT: Precisely.

KP: (laughing) So it comes down to a skill in doing these things…

CORBETT: (laughing) Imagine that…

KP: I never would have thought.

CORBETT: I don’t know that it’s an infinitely flexible skill, you can just do anything. But I think we… there are times we wanted to try. A lot of people didn’t like this and I can understand why, but when we did Hamlet in season nine or ten, first of all it was a pretty dreadful, dreary version of Hamlet, but that was what we were trying. It’s just like, “Let’s do the best thing ever in terms of drama, Hamlet.” But it was undercut a lot by the fact that it was this dreary German television version.

KP: So some things are unriffable because they’re just so horrible in tone.

CORBETT: Yeah. It’s a whole bunch of different points of entry and I don’t know… you know, if we sat here and talked about them I might become conscious of our approaches. A little more conscious. I’m not sure that I am totally until we get there. It’s like, “How do you solve this problem?”

KP: Like Maria.

CORBETT: (laughs) That’s one I’d like to do.

KP: As MST was drawing to a close, when was the writing on the wall that Sci-Fi had lost interest in the show?

CORBETT: Ironically enough, it was when they seemed to gain a lot of interest in micromanaging our writing.

KP: When they started asking for scripts…

CORBETT: Yeah, it was a little weird. After years of not having much script problem at all – and even the first part of Sci-Fi, I think, some standards & practices person would look through and make sure we didn’t get too naughty, and then we even learned to preempt those and just not go there in the first place. But suddenly we were on the phone to, like, these two people at Sci-Fi who didn’t seem to have enough to do. They would keep us in these meetings discussing, “Guys, could you just maybe tweak that joke?” It’s like, “Are you kidding? These guys have been doing this for a decade and you’re 22 years old.” But I think it was more… I would confess to being spectacularly clueless about a lot of what was going on in terms of the business, even in Best Brains…

KP: Somewhat intentionally so?

CORBETT: Yeah, somewhat intentionally so, because it… you know, it didn’t do me any good to know some of that stuff, and I didn’t know what to make of it anyway. And certainly at Sci-Fi and USA channels. When a little corporate movement happens it just ripples down, and I think that’s ultimately what engulfed us. I think it wasn’t a bad time to leave anyway, frankly. It would have been nice to have a couple more seasons for me, because I felt like I had just gotten there a few years ago. But clearly there was a pretty healthy body of work.

KP: Did you feel a sense from the others that it felt like a good point to put it aside?

CORBETT: Yeah. Everyone was a little sad, but I also think there was a little feeling of, like, it was a good time to rest for some of the guys who’d been at it for the better part of a decade. So yeah, it wasn’t a happy occasion, but I think every season you’re kind of on borrowed time, anyway. So when we finally learned, we had gotten enough hints about it already.

KP: So what did you walk away with? Everyone took something…

CORBETT: A pencil.

KP: Just a pencil?

CORBETT: No, I walked away with… not much. I mean, because they were being earmarked for eBay. In fact, I went away from the office for a week and was going to come back, and… I can’t remember exactly why, but I came back just to get my final couple of boxes there. Because I think I was moving at the same time, in a masterpiece of great timing. Losing a job and moving at the same time. So I left a couple things in the office and when I came back this little couch that I had actually trucked in there had a tag on it for eBay. (laughs) “This is too much!”

KP: I have visions of Jim (Mallon) walking around with stickers and a marker.

CORBETT: Well yeah, if I’d been in the corner I would have had one on my forehead. I got a couple little things from Patrick, like some drawings that he did and some artwork. And it’s really nice. I wouldn’t mind having a Crow, but those are pretty precious.

KP: I’m sure you read my interview with Trace and saw his thoughts on having a Crow in the house…

CORBETT: Yeah, I thought that was funny. He does have big expressive eyes, Crow, and they do tend to follow you no matter where you are in the room.

KP: I’ll get you a velvet painting of Crow where the eyes follow you…

CORBETT: (laughs) That would be great.

KP: Now that I’ve said it and it’s going to be in print, I will bet you that some fan will do it for you.

CORBETT: Well, thank you in advance, fan.

corbett-08.jpg

KP: Was Timmy Big Hands the first post-cancellation project?

CORBETT: Yeah, during those heady days of the internet boom. Yeah, that was a funny time, because we rented this office, Kevin and Mike and I, and we were just kind of hanging around, thinking of stuff to do, and we just started amusing each other with little bits of writing and graphics and all that, and then it became a website.

KP: Whose idea was it to do the website?

CORBETT: I think Paul (Chaplain) was big in pushing it. He said he had the finances of the internets figured out. He didn’t, because nobody did! We had a lot of fun – it’s just the financial model of it was unsustainable. And we actually didn’t do bad, as it goes. We made a little bit of money, but we were spending as much just kind of keeping ourselves going.

KP: Was it just an intense desire to keep the group together doing something?

CORBETT: I think that’s what it was, more than anything.

KP: Sort of separation anxiety?

CORBETT: (laughs) Yeah. It’s like my dog when I leave for work.

KP: Who was suffering the most empty nest syndrome of you guys?

CORBETT: Oh, I don’t know if it was any one of us more than the other. And we took a lot of time off after the last show and we had a summer, and we hung around with our family. We didn’t want to seem to desperate…

KP: Someone must have cried.

CORBETT: Okay it was me! You bastard!

KP: I knew I’d break you!

CORBETT: I’m just a soft touch! (laughing)

KP: When Timmy Big Hands went away, at what point did the Film Crew come up as a seemingly more valid alternative to that?

CORBETT: I think it was… well, it’s been a while now, and we’ve kind of gone our merry ways at times and just kind of come back together again.

KP: You really can’t get away from each other is what it comes down to.

CORBETT: I know, it’s sad. I think the thing we did after Timmy Big Hands was pitched some shows out in California. And we got plenty of meetings but nothing ever really came of it. We all hate pitching shows. It’s a total…

KP: If you could describe the worst type of executive, the worst meeting that you had, what would you say was the most disastrous…

CORBETT: Well, here’s the thing – at least in our meetings, I don’t think we ever met anyone who wasn’t pleasant to us and wasn’t at least, on the outside, welcoming. But you just get… every now and then you’d just be like, “Oh, the life has gone from that person’s eyes and they’re no longer listening.” I’ve run into more people in Hollywood who are more the cliché – just these soulless automatons. But for the most part, if people wanted to hear something from the MST guys, they at least have heard of us and got us a little bit. But it was just watching an executive try to hammer it into something that he or she understood that was always distressing.

KP: Do you ever wish you had puppets with you at that point?

CORBETT: (laughs) Yeah, we could cast other people as ourselves to go in there. I think we always went in with a little bit of a… it wasn’t really a chip on our shoulders, but it was like, “Eh, we’ll try this only so far and so much, but…”

KP: Do you think you still latched on to that sort of Midwestern distance from Hollywood?

CORBETT: I suppose.

KP: It seemed like a point of pride amongst most of the guys that, “We didn’t have to do this in Hollywood or New York, we did it outside the system…”

CORBETT: We did it outside the system working for USA Network.

KP: Isn’t that always what happens with people who say they’re working in an anti-establishment art movement? Everyone needs a patron…

CORBETT: Well, yes. That’s the truth of the matter, is that it was always within the system, just on the fringes of the system. It wasn’t like… being really outside the system was the KTMA days.

KP: Yeah, but even that…

CORBETT: That was *a* system. *The* system, maybe not.

KP: You were still being paid by the man…

CORBETT: Yeah.

KP: Otherwise it would have been cable access.

CORBETT: Yeah. And eventually porn. Such is the way of all cable access. Porn or religion.

KP: I can see you doing Brain Guy porn.

CORBETT: Stop it! (laughing)

KP: The Shout Factory project seems almost borderline MST…

CORBETT: We just talked to the people at… it was originally at Rhino, which releases all the MST tapes, and we produced them through them. They just kind of signed up and went on board. But at some point the lawyers – or marketers, probably more accurately – just decided it wasn’t the direction they were comfortable going. But a bunch of former Rhino people started Shout Factory, and they took it over there.

KP: The concept seems closer to doing proxy MST…

CORBETT: Yeah, it’s closer.

KP: Even the Film Crew has a conceit whereby they’re forced to watch these films…

CORBETT: Yeah, it’s a pretty thin rule, though. We just wanted to… as low concept as MST was, this had to be even lower.

KP: Were there any worries of the specter of Jim Mallon descending on the project?

CORBETT: Well, there was more than a worry. And I can’t get into it too much, but that’s ultimately why it’s Shout Factory.

KP: So there was a concern that was dealt with.

CORBETT: There was a concern that was dealt with, as they say in the Jersey mob.

KP: There’s an on-camera host component to Film Crew…

CORBETT: Right.

KP: Someone made the comment that they had trouble getting into RiffTrax as opposed to MST because they felt like you could sort of distance the comments made when they were coming through characters like Crow, Tom and Mike, who were being forced to watch these movies by a mad scientist, as opposed to real people.

CORBETT: That’s an interesting point.

KP: That detachment, they felt, made it seem less mean-spirited… That it seemed more hurtful and sort of vindictive when it was actually coming from real people, even though you are playing slight characters of yourselves in RiffTrax…

CORBETT: Yeah, when we’re guys in our 40s jumping around like fools.

KP: But it’s still Kevin Murphy, Bill Corbett and Mike Nelson making these comments and making them, particularly with RiffTrax, of their own accord. Whereas you could always say that no matter how hurtful MST would get, it’s characters being forced to watch these films…

CORBETT: Yeah. I think those are interesting observations. All I can do – and I like working on this stuff – is be aware of it and question what that means.

KP: Have you ever made a comment that you thought afterwards, “Gosh, I really went after them with knives sharpened… was I too brutal?”

CORBETT: You mean in RiffTrax?

KP: In RiffTrax or even MST.

CORBETT: There are a few in there. I do think it’s possible to just be purely mean without being particularly funny. And I think that’s really worth avoiding. The best MST really rode that pretty well. And never sunk into pure meanness for too long. And I think when we were at our weakest, we were just in that kind of too nasty a gear for too long.

KP: Do you feel that you normally would catch those kind of things on the rewrite process, and say, “Let’s change this to something that’s funny instead of hurtful?”

CORBETT: Well, it’s live and learn to some degree. Sometimes you don’t realize you’re being hurtful until two years later. And with RiffTrax that’s a whole new thing and I really don’t have a great body of experience with it yet. The process is faster so you do have to watch it, probably. There aren’t as many levels of review to catch stuff like that. You have to write it a little more carefully to begin with, I’d say.

KP: You’re obviously dealing with a far higher level of power as far as the creators and producers…

CORBETT: That too.

KP: Particularly since you’re dipping your toes more fully into Hollywood. With RiffTrax, it’s “Bill Corbett” saying these things…

CORBETT: I know, it could happen. I could have one side of my career fighting the other.

KP: All of a sudden you run into Ben Affleck at a party and…

CORBETT: I know… “Hey, dick! You think I’m going to do your next movie, dick?” You accept that. And I kind of feel like, look, if I’m going to work with people who are absolutely offended by that, then so be it. And it’s incumbent on me not just to be a jerk when doing these movie commentaries, either. But you watch Jon Stewart, and he jokes and rips on all kinds of people who come on his show later, and to some degree they have to pay him tribute just to hawk their books and all that, and no one’s ever going to have to pay me tribute. But I guess the feeling is I’ll work with the people who are a good fit with me, and that’ll take care of itself, to some degree.

KP: If you had your druthers as far as a film you’d like to choose, are there any in particular that you wish you could tackle?

CORBETT: Well, this goes back to my childhood. I was a fan of the Billy Jack series. It’s a funny little portrait of myself as a boy that I really liked that. So I would kind of like to go back to those and just see if those would be riffable. I know that they got really outlandish and absurd by the third in the series or so. The Trial of Billy Jack.

KP: That’s when they brought the monkey in.

CORBETT: (laughs) I remember thinking he was so cool when I was a kid. It’s like, “He’s a half breed Indian and he doesn’t want to fight anybody, but man they make him! And then he does it with karate! For peace!” There’s one that I’ve never seen called Billy Jack Goes to Washington which is a take on Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, which I understand is really bizarro.

KP: How could you miss that?

CORBETT: Because I think it was just released very limited, in very limited quantities.

KP: Yeah, but in this day and age, everything’s available.

CORBETT: That’s true, everything’s available. The great part of that whole premise is that you have to believe that a guy who has slaughtered with his bare hands dozens of characters by the time he gets to that movie, and shot as many more, is tapped to go to the Senate. (laughs)

KP: How implausible is that, really? I want to see the collection Billy Jack: A Look Back. If they could treat it that serious, then that’s something that needs to be seen.

CORBETT: Yeah. Anything that’s self-important is usually a pretty good start for our little treatment.

KP: How are you feeling so far about the progress of Starship Dave?

CORBETT: Pretty good. It was rough for a while there. It never started out as anything but kind of a silly commercial script, hopefully done with some modicum of dignity. And we’re sort of geared towards kids, although that’s just come and gone here and there. The challenge is working in Hollywood. I’m not going to say everybody we worked with there was venal and horrible, because mostly people were pleasant and kissed our asses up and down about the script, but it’s just such committee work. There’s so many people, especially when it’s a big budget movie like this. There’s so many people who want their input in there because there’s millions of dollars about to be spent, and some of it is good, some of it is awful. Writers are not that powerful in movies. They are more in TV. My partner is a guy who has worked mostly in TV and he was a little shocked just being the low guy on the totem pole. And yeah, you do reach absurdities and you reach the cliché stuff that you see in all the movies about Hollywood. All the satire. But that being said, we did get our shot at the last draft of it before it was filmed.

KP: That’s a rarity.

CORBETT: It is a rarity. We kind of survived the process. I may be deluded. I’d be the first to admit that I’ve lost the forest for the trees here.

KP: But you’re not Barton Fink yet.

CORBETT: No. (laughs) It doesn’t have that Barton Fink feeling.

KP: Do you ever see yourself making the move out to California?

CORBETT: I’ve lived there for chunks at a time, and I actually lived there last year for a while when I was working on Starship Dave.

KP: But on a more permanent basis…

CORBETT: On a more permanent basis, not right now. We moved back because my wife and I learned we were having another kid, and her parents live here and it’s just so easy. And we wanted to buy a house. So I spent a lot of time flying there and back again, and that’s the trade-off we made. I like it there. I like visiting. I didn’t love living there, but it’s mostly because life with young kids and really no family in the area. It’s just a lot easier.

KP: Mike was always adamant, Bridget more so, about never leaving Minnesota…

CORBETT: I know, how about that, huh?

KP: That was a shock…

CORBETT: The sick part is we, within like the same week or two, basically we left messages with each other, and mine was, “Coming back to Minnesota Mike,” and his was, “We’re about to move to San Diego.” So we were really ships that passed in the night, unfortunately.

KP: How do you view the San Diego area?

CORBETT: I knew it a little bit before doing some stuff with Mike out there. I’ve always kind of liked it. I knew the more downtown parts. Mike lives and works a little more in the suburbs, and it’s very nice. The Pacific Ocean is beautiful. It’s pleasant.

KP: So never say never?

CORBETT: Never say never. But do say probably not soon, since we just bought the house and my wife will strangle me if we move again any time within the next two years.

KP: I don’t know, stranger things have happened.

CORBETT: Oh yeah. Many strange things have happened.

KP: Although I never see Kevin leaving his cabin in the woods.

CORBETT: (lauhging) He doesn’t have a cabin in the woods!

KP: That nice idyllic location that he has…

CORBETT: Oh yeah. Have you ever been there?

KP: No, I’ve just heard stories about it through Kevin and Mike…

CORBETT: It’s a lovely house, yeah.

KP: That it’s the kind of place where you can tell he’s never leaving.

CORBETT: But he and his wife travel so much, and they don’t have children, and they are good and experienced travelers and they really know how to get a good deal. So they expatriate to Mexico for like two or three weeks at a time, and you can’t get in touch with them. So they really know how to balance it.

KP: You know who’s in Minnesota now? Now would be your time to meet him…

CORBETT: Trace.

KP: Meet up with him and discuss all the horrible time you’ve had with this interviewer named Ken Plume…

CORBETT: (laughs)

KP: I guess he bought a house on the river, next to Jeff Stonehouse…

CORBETT: That’s what I heard from Stoney. That’s great.

KP: Hey, there’s a fishing cabin with your name on it…

CORBETT: The walleyes are bitin’!

corbett-12.jpg

##

Nocturnal Admissions: Book Review – Reclaiming History

Filed under: Columns,Nocturnal Admissions — UncaScroogeMcD @ 1:58 am

nocturnalheader5.gif

If at first it seems unlikely that Vincent Bugliosi’s new book on the JFK assassination, Reclaiming History (W. W. Norton, 1632 pages [yes, 1632 pages], plus CD, $49.95, ISBN 978-0393045253), otherwise known as the Norton Anthology of Conspiracy Theories Debunked, is an unlikely subject for a movie column, note that Mr. Bugliosi has included a chapter – if a section of a book that is itself book length can be called merely a chapter – that is devoted solely to Oliver Stone’s JFK and its perceived sins against history and truth about the national nightmare that occurred on Elm Street in 1963. Also, Bugliosi plans a TV documentary about the contents of the book.

Reclaiing History cover

I haven’t read the whole book yet, mostly the JFK chapter (and I suspect that an early reviewer of the book writing in a national monthly also only read this chapter, as most of the lines quoted come from it), plus some random sections read while poking around in the rest of the book, but I suspect that the JFK chapter gives a good example of Mr. Bugliosi’s strategy throughout Reclaiming History. What he has created is four books in one, and if Norton weren’t such a refined firm, I’d suggest that when the book goes paperback that they plug it on the cover with the words, “Four Books in One: Four Days in November! The Life of Lee Harvey Oswald! Stone’s JFK! All Conspiracy Theories Debunked.

It is true that conspiracy theories are easy to weave regarding the JFK case. For example, reading Bugliosi’s book, I was reminded of the fact that on the floor below Oswald at the Book Depository, there were several African American co-workers, hanging out the window and watching the procession. Now, what if they did it, rather than Oswald? Then, what if the assassination of Martin Luther King was a revenge on African-Americans by the government that couldn’t do anything about the real JFK killers because it would have started a race riot. Then, later that year, African-Americans struck back by killing RFK (a black security guard is charged in some conspiracy books with shooting RFK in the kitchen). This is all nonsense, of course. Why would African-Americans kill Kennedy, the closet thing they had ever had to an ally in the White House? But there. I’ve put it out there. How long will it be before a book based on it comes out?

I’m loathed to contradict Mr. Bugliosi. In most other ways I am a fan. He is the author of the best true crime book, Helter Skelter, so superior to Truman Capote’s “nonfiction novel” In Cold Blood. His book on the Simpson trial is an endlessly fascinating read, if for no other reason than the peek it offers about what goes through a good prosecutor’s mind. He is a fine writer, and Reclaiming History is a sterling example of good, solid, impassioned American rhetoric (though he acknowledges some assistance). The footnotes (and the footnotes within footnotes) are as interesting, and more detailed, than the book itself, and there are further notes on the CD. Over 20 years in the making, and sparked by a Showtime-sponsored 1986 mock trial that Mr. Bugliosi appeared in as a prosecutor opposite Gerry Spence as Oswald’s defense lawyer, Reclaiming History is the perfect book to crawl into a warm bed with on a long cold winter night – or at least it would if you didn’t feel like you were dragging a piece of luggage instead of a book into bed with you.

But let’s look more closely at his JFK chapter, which occupies pages 1347 through 1436. First Mr. Bugliosi begins with a summary of the Garrison case against Clay Shaw. As he might to a jury, Mr. Bugliosi paints Shaw as a literate, modest, New Orleans booster. Opponents to Shaw, such as Garrison, Perry Russo, or David Ferry are all painted in prosecutorial terms, in heavily biased thumbnail portraits using words like “cartoonish.” In fact, my main criticism of the book is that instead of weighing and sifting facts before coming to a reasoned conclusion, Bugliosi went into it with his mind made up, seeing everything through the Warren Report’s eyes, tilting his arguments toward the accounts that happen to support his bias. When that fails, he makes a plea to the reader’s (i.e., the juror’s) common sense, with rhetorical questions such as “Does that seem plausible to you?”

Stone's JFK

Bugliosi then goes on to “dismantle” Stone’s film via 32 specific points or inaccuracies: 1 That in real life, Garrison wasn’t the saint the movie portrays; 2 Stone’s Rose Cherami episode is full of errors and exaggerations; 3 Stone presents Oswald as a right winger posing as a Marxist because he is an undercover agent, for which, Bugliosi says, there is no evidence (and when Bugliosi says this, he means there is no evidence presented in the Warren Report or the later House Committee hearing); 4 Stone drops all evidence of Oswald’s culpability in the assassination (such as being seen carrying a rifle sized package into the Book Depository); 5 Stone offers biased Dealey Plaza witnesses; 6 Stone “lies” about the number of Tippit witnesses; 7 Dealey Plaza witness Bowers’s testimony is more inconsistent over time than the movie allows; 8 Julia Mercer and “¦ 9 Jean Hill are not credible witnesses; 10 Senator Russell Long’s statement about the FBI’s inability to replicate Oswald’s shooting pattern is “a lie”; 11 There were no foliage “¦ 12 nor tree obstructions at Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting; 13 Despite what Stone says, Oswald was rated a sharpshooter by the Marines; 14 The bolt action of Oswald’s rifle is only slow if you use a telescopic sight; 15 Contra Stone, there weren’t three teams of shooters in Dealey Plaza; 16 Connally was not seated directly in front of Kennedy; 17 There is no evidence that the magic bullet was planted; 18 The Umbrella Man was not a spotter; 19 No warning was teletyped to the FBI days before the event; 20 Dean Andrews was a poor witness; 21 There is no evidence that Shaw and Ferrie knew each other; 22 There is no evidence that Ferrie died of anything but natural causes; 23 Jack Martin was not a credible witness; 24 There is no evidence that Guy Bannister was involved in the assassination; 25 Beverly Oliver is not a credible witness to any Oswald-Ruby sightings; 26 The film distorts what Ruby said to Earl Warren; 27 Stone’s composite character Willie O’Keefe disguises flaws in Perry Russo’s testimony that Stone didn’t want to acknowledge; 28 The character X didn’t exist and in the film gives a distorted account of Kennedy administration history; 29 The New Zealand newspaper report is not as outlandish as Stone and X make it seem; 30 Bugliosi maintains that the Washington, D. C. phone lines did not go dead for an hour; 31 Stone is inconsistent about who Oswald was working for; 32 Stone wants the viewer not only to believe that Oswald was innocent, but to feel sorry for him.

What this litany of errors fails to acknowledge is that Stone himself often inserts counter arguments against his own thesis, such as when Garrison’s wife complains that Garrison is only going after Shaw because he is gay. Nor does Bugliosi take on all of Stone’s charges, only some of them (at least in this chapter). And he doesn’t do nuance well. He has a straight arrow cop type attitude toward human psychology that denies ambiguity of motivation or that people can remember different, new things at different times. If it is not on the record and under oath, he doesn’t want to hear about it. Moreover, he lambasts Stone for suggesting that Shaw was a CIA agent without any proof, and then goes on to admit in a footnote that, well, yeah, he did report to the more or less informal domestic service division, where prominent Americans who had gone abroad would report back interesting intel.

What it may come down to in this chapter is that Bugliosi doesn’t understand movies much. He frets over the virtual crime of blending documentary footage with recreated moments, as if the audience can’t tell the difference or grasp that there is a higher purpose involved. He thinks that Joe Pesci has “marquee value.” In his unwillingness to concede even one point to the conspiratologists he fails to clarify simple if always vexing points, such as, Was Oswald a good shot or not, and what does the sharpshooter ranking really mean in the Marines?

Still, Bugliosi has marshaled several file cabinets worth of facts and figures, enough to keep the conspirotologists busy composing refutations for the next decade, or at least until 2013, the 50th anniversary of the assassination. If it is not yet the definitive book on the JFK assassination, it’s only because his prosecutorial tone prevents some readers from fully trusting him.

Trailer Park: 1 Year Later at Quick Stop Entertainment

Filed under: Columns,Trailer Park — admin @ 1:47 am

By Christopher Stipp

Archives? Right Here”¦

About a year ago I was in this space, introducing myself all over again to a batch of readers both new and old. There was a time between when Movie Poop Shoot.com ceased to be and when Quick Stop Entertainment.com took its place. It was an odd time, scraping one site entirely to make way for a new one, but I just went with it, thinking that there just had to be better things around the proverbial corner.

I couldn’t have been more right.

It wasn’t that Movie Poop Shoot needed to be torn down to bring up Quick Stop in its place because I can’t be more proud or happy about the kind of work that was churned out on a daily basis. I can’t speak for my own writing but I know that of the authors there who had a weekly presence I felt a sense of innate satisfaction that was once a joke in a movie had metamorphosed into an Internet juggernaut that challenged everyone’s sensibilities and assumptions about what you were going to get when you visited a site with the word “poop” in it; to be perfectly honest there was that issue to contend with on any given day.

My world of part-time movie trailer critiquing took a sharp left turn when I thought that broadening the column’s purview could yield some interesting fruit if I took a unique angle on the interview process. When I started out doing it I wasn’t interested in the people out to promote things that were about to hit within the week, I was more interested in those who were in the process of creating, getting some kind of insight into why someone’s movie was going to be good. So, I dipped my toe in it and found I could do it. All modesty aside, it’s still up for debate whether I’m any good at it. The point is, though, I’ve always wanted to keep this column evolving and when Quick Stop started a year ago I really made a concerted effort to try and enhance what I brought to the table. I hustled, I called, I made appointments, I endured the weekly ignoring by publicists (and unless you’re one of the one’s who’ve actually returned an e-mail or phone call, you’re all rotten little people who’ve got no grip on being human and are all suffering from a lack of sexual satisfaction in your personal lives) and agents alike, no person was above giving me the Heisman.

Herr EIC, Ken Plume, has been an instrumental key in making these problems a little less than mere quibbles. He’s had an enormous amount of experience in the cold shoulder business and has been a rock when I’ve needed to be convinced that flying to LA and strapping C4 to some flunky’s face was not an acceptable response to being told we’re just not the right kind of outlet for an actor to appear on and then have them pop up elsewhere on a shitageously inferior site.

That’s the other thing, too.

Ken has been grand about instilling a sense of purpose in what I’ve done in this space. I know what happens here will never change the world in any meaningful way, that because I run interviews with people who have projects none of you will ever watch I should still do it anyway because of what it could mean later on and I know, without any kind of doubt, he’s been right about thinking that it’s their loss as well when all I get is static on the other end of the line. For a good example of how we dealt with Fox and everyone else who let me know that they were going to be in desperate need of publicity when BORAT was getting its geek premiere last July at Comic-Con. I mean, to put this in greater perspective, I was one of the first to ever give this movie a resoundingly positive review months before its release but it was all for naught when lamer heads prevailed and Fox ordered a press blackout of sorts, Rolling Stone did an excellent piece on Sacha Cohen when the great comedic wave was crashing all around the public sphere, and we did what anyone else who were jilted would do: we did our own thing without their help. 10 Quick Questions was born out of this and it’s, perhaps, one of the greatest interviews I never had the chance to do. Since then we’ve grown the format a little bit more here and there but I still love the piece on the whole and I’m sure you would agree after you read this:

KEN PLUME: Do you have any comment at all about Bruno, an individual who has just scored a 42 million dollar paycheck from Universal, is going to be developing a movie based on a show that looks suspiciously close to what you do?

BORAT:

borat-02.jpg

KEN PLUME: And, a follow-up, how do you feel about Austrians in general?

BORAT:

borat-02.jpg

KEN PLUME: Your English is remarkably polished for a man that comes from a country where formal education doesn’t seem to be a priority. How did you get a grip on the basic Anglo particulars of the world outside of a totalitarian regime?

BORAT:

borat-02.jpg

KEN PLUME: Some people have leveled some pretty serious allegations that your quest across America has shown a lot of your subjects to be poor representations of Americans in general and that you purposely selected targets to get the greatest comedic reaction. How do respond to that?

BORAT:

borat-02.jpg

KEN PLUME: Looking at the movie now what do you think is the starkest realization you can make about what this film represents?

BORAT:

borat-02.jpg

KEN PLUME: What was like trying to convince Larry Charles to go along with you on this journey of yours and was there any hesitation on his part to get involved in this production?

BORAT:

borat-02.jpg

KEN PLUME: What kind of frustrations did you have to overcome in order to be able shoot the kind of film you wanted with the money you had and was there any give-and-take with managing your needs with the needs of the studio?

BORAT:

borat-02.jpg

KEN PLUME: Why do you think people, even I, are having a visceral reaction to this film’s material in general?

BORAT:

borat-02.jpg

KEN PLUME: I am amazed by the groundswell of interest this movie has garnered as the film’s release date has come closer but do you think that your job, as an artist, is to simply reflect what you see or was there a germ in your mind about what you suspected you’d find when you plotted this film’s progression from pre-production to post?

BORAT:

borat-02.jpg

KEN PLUME: Kazakhstan is situated right above Uzbekistan, the site for one of the bloodiest anti-government protests in Central Asia, hundreds of innocent people literally mowed down by government forces as the nation’s dictator, Islam Karimov, gave the directive to do so. Uzbekistan is enjoying the benefits of working with the United States by allowing detainees to be “interrogated” and “questioned,” and no doubt tortured, on Uzbek soil. Do you think Kazakhstan has the huevos to step up, do what’s right, one-up those Uzbekian lightweights and show them what oppression really means?

BORAT:

borat-02.jpg

##We’d like to thank Fox Online Publicity for all of their help in setting up this interview.

##

Just unmitigated magic right there, kids. Never let it be said I don’t have it in me to take the piss out of a situation every now and then.

As well, there are some legitimate interviews who have really helped make this first year at Quick Stop worth all the effort I put into it on a weekly basis. Two people, actually, come to my mind as those who embody the essence of the conversational style in which I conduct my interviews: Darren Aronofsky and Andy Dick. The two couldn’t be more diametrically different from one another but if you were to look at the substance of each interview you could see that the thing I desperately try to do with every interview is keep it conversational. No, I don’t care about finding out gossipy bullshit. No, I don’t really care to know their stance on human rights in China. No, I could care less about what any individual does with their money. What matters, though, and this is key, is I start every interview with a genuine interest in the person and in the work itself. From there, I have a sheet of notes and pointers but everything is based by the sentence that has come before it. There’s nothing worse, and I am guilty of it, than shoehorning your question into a conversation. It should float to the surface naturally, on its own, and if you’ve done your work beforehand there are ways of making sure it slides in without a bump in speech.

From Andy Dick, then, there was a comment I made about the way in which his comedy comes off in general and of what people have come to ask of the man who, publicly, has been seen as a live wire:

CS: And people expect a certain kind of “Dickness,” if I may say so, and”¦

DICK: Yeah! They expect a certain vulgarity, a certain clowny goofiness but, to be honest with you, my roots are in grounded subtlety. My comedy roots really, believe it or not, are in grounded, subtle, almost sweet, and precious, comedy moments that are very real. Like Bob Newhart, Shelley Berman, Mike Nichols and Elaine May. I was trained at Second City and ImprovOlympic where the motto is, “Truth in Comedy.” The comedy there was very grounded in reality.

I was just recording an episode of the Simpsons yesterday, playing myself. They said to me”¦I just have one line”¦and I just basically am Andy Dick trying to fit into the Blue Collar Comedy Tour and my line is, “Oh, I’m blue collar, I’m totally blue collar, my dad owns a shovel.” And I did it just like that. Really quiet. And they went, “Um, ok. Bigger! You can’t be too big in a cartoon.” And I’m like, “Ok. I’m blue collar. I’m TOTALLY blue collar, my dad owns a SHOVEL!”

They’re like, “Really Andy Dick it up! Andy Dick it up! Bigger!”

“I’M BLUE COLLAR. I’M TOTALLY BLUE COLLAR, MY DAD OWNS A SHOVEL!”

And they’re like, “We love it.” What happens is the media, the people, the producers, the directors, the industry, the town, the audience, pushes you, pushes you, pushes you to be bigger, bigger, bigger. It’s up to the actor or the artist to say, “You know what? This is all you’re getting. Because this is how I want to be. This is how I want the character to be. This is all you’re getting.”

And that’s why, a lot of the times, the big actors are so great”¦they’re so subtle. But sometimes it’s just because being big or being excitable is not in their repertoire. They’re just too cool for school. But, other times, it’s because they’re great actors and they’re making a conscious choice to keep it real and keep it subtle. Once “the guys upstairs” see that you can do the big stuff they don’t want you to be subtle. They just want you to be big, loud and goofy.

I was watching Robin Williams last night on Leno. He started off funny and manic and he got more and more manic until, by the end, he was screaming so much and so loud that he popped his throat. You could hear that he hurt his vocal chords.

CS: God”¦

DICK: That’s what happens. The audience laughs at your manic-ness and they’re going to stop laughing unless you up the ante and go even more crazy and that’s a trap we fall into as comedians. We’re so desperate to get that laugh that we’ll just keep screaming louder, dancing harder and faster until we’re sweating and panting with blisters on our feet and vocal chords. Yeah, it’s a problem that I have.

###

This interview has always stayed with me because I cannot look at the man and not think back to when he told me this about what other people in power want from him. He has to do it because it pays the bills but it’s just unbelievingly frank and open talk like this that makes all the transcribing of audio after the interview is done, worthwhile. I may not catch these things on the fly but uncovering these gems are a blessing when you get them.

So, too, then with the crowning achievement this past year with one of the best, and again, no superlative bullcrap aside, written, acted and directed movies in the past decade. Only given fifteen minutes from Darren, where nearly a year before I was laughed off the phone when he made the rounds to tell people how the editing was going, and I tried to be one of the sites to get some phone time with the man as the words “poop shoot” surely sunk my chances of that happening, when the film finally came out I still hang my writing hat on those little minutes. To hear Darren speak about his work so casually, to not have any front of being the kind of auteur that could probably afford to do so, you start to admire the guy’s sheer tenacity as an individual, as a person, to stay with a project long after he could have easily given it up with nary any person denying that he every right to do so. He’s just a person who wanted to do something and he’s a person who believes in the idea that death is something a lot of people in the western world would just care not to deal with. His comments about what the movie, at its core, means just sum up why it is that I am one of the luckiest people to be here writing for this site:

STIPP: Do you think”¦myself I have two daughters, and it wasn’t until I had them when I started to feel pings of my own mortality. I’m scared to do a lot of things and I think I have a problem with death. As you were working on this did you find that, as a society, we have a problem with death? With talking about it, accepting it?

ARONOFSKY: I think we’ve completely hidden it”¦Ignore it and face it with complete hubris even though it’s going to win. Eventually it wins over everyone.

We just completely deny it.

That was the interesting thing”¦When me and Rachel and Hugh would go to these hospices we would meet these caretakers and doctors and they would all say something astounding which was a lot of these young people when they got closer to death”¦something amazing started to happen to them; something similar [to what happens] to Izzie in the sense that they started to see something infinite in the finite reality in front of them but they had no vocabulary to talk about it. They had no way of explaining of what was going on because there’s just no education, and there’s no spiritual support structure in the west to help us with it.

So, as they’re going down this path the ironic thing is that the families, who are healthy, are so indoctrinated into western medicine and science are like, “You’ve got to fight. You’ve got to keep fighting. You’ve got to fight.”

Even when, at a certain point, there is no more of a fight. It’s over.

And that’s the line that’s really hard; it’s when it’s ok to let go because, ultimately, it IS ok to let go because eventually we’re all going to die. But a lot of these people, a lot of these families, become really really tough and what happens, the tragedy of it all, that the person who’s dying actually dies in a much more lonely place because they can’t at all communicate with their families. And THAT, to me was the tragedy. That informed the whole plot of the film.

In THE FOUNTAIN you have Izzie who is actually approaching some type of understanding and trying to reach her husband who is just doing the typical, normal response of like, “No, I’m going to solve this problem. I’m going to fix it and you’ve got to keep fighting.”

So, I think in the west right now we’re completely cut off from having any type of tool or any way of understanding that what makes us human and what makes us alive is that we will die and mortality is actually a part of our humanity”¦and that dying can actually be a part of our spiritual path.

[Darren smiles]

How about that? Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

###

Darren was just affable in ways that defy common US Weekly logic but make perfect sense in this realm here: we’re all just people. Some celebutards would have you believe it is all about the money and the glitz and the horrible stories about how wonderful it was to work with this or that person. At the core of it all, none of that matters but what can matter is how one person’s art, diffused through their personality, means something to them.

I toil in these things called interviews and I’m happy that I have one of the best gigs going as a reviewer of movie trailers but it’s every one of you out there who point and click that make it worthwhile and it’s the support of Ken Plume and everything that he’s done this year to try and make this a place worth visiting every day that just keep me coming back every week, regardless of how much I am positive there is no one reading this column judging by the lack of reader mail, to bring you my thoughts on the matter.

So, Happy 1st Anniversary, Quick Stop. May the publicists be friendlier this year, may the interview subjects be more plentiful and may God help me to try and land that one person from the thing from that film that’s opening next week which may or may not end up being huge…

Noctural Admissions: Movie Review – A Mightly Heart and Evening

Filed under: Columns,Nocturnal Admissions — UncaScroogeMcD @ 1:42 am

nocturnalheader5.gif

Oscar Wilde once wrote that only a reader with a heart of stone could refrain from laughing at the death of Dickens’s Little Nell.

At a critics’ screening of Evening, the critics showed themselves not to have hearts of stone. They laughed in unison when Glenn Close burst into wrenching weeping over the death of a relative.

And this was the second crying jag in as many weeks to elicit laughter. Just seven days earlier I laughed out loud at the caterwauling of A Mighty Heart‘s Angelina Jolie over the death of her character’s husband, a shrill high pitched aria not unlike a fire drill or a bomb siren. The film should be called A Mighty Wind, for that and other reasons.

Posters

Easily vying for the title of worst films of the year so far, these two releases are illustrative of certain corners that writers write themselves into. A Mighty Heart is a root a kidnapping tale. In other words, the bulk of the film is dedicated to people standing around waiting for the phone to ring with ransom instructions, all saying the same thing that they have said in innumerable previous kidnapping films. Evening is a death bed movie, perhaps even more boring of a genre. Even worse, it is a dying-person-remembers-the-past movie, so the narrative alternates between the depressing present and the cause of that depression, the past. This sort of thing has only be done well once, by Alain Resnais, in Providence, one of the greatest films ever made, part of the reason for its greatness is that the “memories” are all “false” (in fact, the dying guy is writing a novel in his head).

Mighty Heart chart

A Mighty Heart is, of course, the tale of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl and his kidnapping in Karachi after being set up for an interview that turns out to be faked (one of the many holes in the film is that it fails to explain just why Pearl was so hot to do this interview, his “last,” dramatically conveniently enough, before leaving). The movie versions of the Pearls are horrible; Pearl is a preening elite who has made his love for his wife something of a life’s work; and Ms Pearl is a bossy, unpleasant person. Director Michael Winterbottom, who is something of a British Oliver Stone, is prone to covering hot spots, but here, as usual, and like Stone, his set ups are transparent. For example, an FBI agent is set up as a bureaucratic baddie. Just as Ms. Pearl says to the increasing number of officials crowding into her house that she hopes they can all share information, the FBI agent gets a call on her cellular and, saying that she has to take the call, demands that the room be cleared. Really? She couldn’t just step outside? Well, no, because that would violate Winterbottom’s bias. Later, a TV reporter (and all TV reporters are shallow, while only print journalists have dignity of profession) asks (rightly in my mind, since people are curious about such things), if Ms. Pearl has seen the tape of her husband’s execution. She gets all huffy and irate, demanding to know how he could ask such a question. I don’t know, but I am sure the incident is made up. In any case, Ms. Pearl said on Fresh Air this week that she indeed had seen the tape, and gave a good reason for doing so. But it serves Winterbottom’s ends to show her indignant.

Mighty Heart raid

Winterbottom also strives for a Soberbergh style effect from such films as Traffic. The camera roves realistically through crowded streets, and there are jump cuts. The film’s whole affect is one of listening in on events. But what the viewer needs is clarity and guidance, especially with such a complicated tale.

Vanessa Redgrave

Evening is a chick flick but from a source that I had also assumed was high art. It is based on a novel by Susan Minot, another east coast elite who has published five or six books. Not having read any of them, I assumed that she was a respected literary novelist. The translation of the book to the film suggests that, perhaps stripped of the prose, she is not that far in effect from Jennifer Weiner. While Vanessa Redgrave is dying from some undisclosed disease, her two daughters (Toni Collette, Natasha Richardson), giving watch, are bickering with each other. Wholly unrelated in every way, a parallel story occurs, the tale of some important transition in Redgrave’s life, the wedding day of her then best friend (Mamie Gummer), as offered up in flashbacks presumably running through the dying woman’s mind. In this tale, which takes place in some spotless, unlived-in past among social elites, the young Redgrave, played by Claire Danes. While there for the wedding, Danes quasi falls in love with the male hunk everyone is in love with (a doctor, played by Patrick Wilson), and out of love with the bride’s sexually confused brother (Hugh Dancy). When Dancy drunkenly kisses Wilson’s character, I said, perhaps too loud, Yes, of course, naturally (the film is co-produced by Minot and fellow novelist Michael Cunningham; the trailer is very misleading when it says that the film is “from the author of The Hours, though the statement is technically true).

Evening Danes

The film is directed lifelessly by Lajos Koltai, a cinematographer of long standing and some repute. But from the first 12 seconds, with its tinkling seesaw piano score and tiny white whispering credits against a black background (this is serious art, you see), I was bored. The “philosophy” of the film is also ultimately rather passimisitc, and probably not what chick flick fans want. Streep’s character more or less says at the end that life is shit and then you die (the trailer only quotes her as saying, “We are mysterious creatures, aren’t we,” sure to entice chick flick viewers with flattery) If the flashback track of the film is slightly less boring, it is because something at least almost happens (some drunken speeches, a fatal car accident), even if it is among people we care little about. But, like A Mighty Heart, at least Evening is good for one mighty belly laugh.

Weekend Shopping Guide 6/22/07: Take Over The World

Filed under: Shopping Guides — UncaScroogeMcD @ 1:13 am

weekendshopping.jpg

The weekend’s here. You’ve just been paid, and it’s burning a hole in your pocket. What’s a pop culture geek to do? In hopes of steering you in the right direction to blow some of that hard-earned cash, it’s time for the Quick Stop Weekend Shopping Guide – your spotlight on the things you didn’t even know you wanted…

Put another notch in the post, as Pinky & The Brain wraps up its DVD release with the third and final volume (Warner Bros., Not Rated, DVD-$44.98 SRP) of attempts at world domination. The 4-disc set features the final 22 episodes, plus a featurette focusing on the show’s fans hosted by Pink & The Brain themselves, Rob Paulsen and Maurice LaMarche. At the same time, make sure you snag the penultimate 3rd volume of Animaniacs (Warner Bros., Not Rated, DVD-$44.98 SRP), which brings us 25 episodes closer to the toon trio’s wacky finale. The 5-disc set also contains a featurette on the art of the show, as well as a tribute to composer Richard Stone.

blankguide.gif

Double your fun at the expense of the less-than-professional officers of the Reno Sheriff’s Department with the one-two punch of the complete 4th season of Reno 911! (Paramount, Not Rated, DVD-$26.99 SRP) and the big screen Reno 911!: Miami (Fox, Not Rated, DVD-$29.99 SRP). The 4th season set features all 14 episodes, audio commentaries, officer profiles, and an extended scene. Meanwhile, Miami sports a trio of audio commentaries (two of which are in character), extended scenes, PSAs, footage from the premiere, and more.

blankguide.gif

When he’s at his best, David E. Kelley is responsible for some damn fine, often quirky, often funny, and genuinely human dramas. Two of those notches in the “excellent” column are making their DVD debut – the complete first season of Picket Fences (Fox, Not Rated, DVD-$59.98 SRP) and the first volume of episodes from The Practice (Fox, Not Rated, DVD-$39.98 SRP). The 6-disc Picket Fences set contains all 22 episodes, plus a retrospective featurette with interviews from Kelley and the cast. The Practice set contains the first 13 episodes of the show’s inaugural season, as well as a retrospective featurette.

blankguide.gif

The 80’s really were the age of John Lithgow. The World According To Garp, Buckaroo Banzai, Footloose, 2010, Harry And The Hendersons – the decade was literally littered with Lithgow cinema. One of the most memorable cable staples had to be The Manhattan Project (Lionsgate, Rated PG-13, DVD-$19.98 SRP), which featured the wonderfully 80’s story of a bratty, genius teen rebelling against his mother’s nuclear physicist boyfriend (Lithgow) by building a nuclear bomb for his science competition project by stealing plutonium from her boyfriend’s lab during a daring nighttime raid involving a remote controlled truck, swapping said plutonium with Prell shampoo mixed with aluminum foil. Whew! And now, this classic is a special edition DVD, with an audio commentary, a trio of retrospective featurettes, a trivia track, and the original theatrical trailer.

blankguide.gif

Raymond Burr’s legendary (and not yet hefty) lawyer returns in the first volume of episodes from the second season of Perry Mason (Paramount, Not Rated, DVD-$38.99 SRP). The 4-disc set features 15 episodes, but not a single bonus feature in sight. Justice is not only blind, but cheap.

blankguide.gif

Jim Broadbent turns in another memorable performance as Frank Aungier Pakenham, the 7th Earl of Longford, in Longford (HBO, Not Rated, DVD-$26.98 SRP) – the true story of the respected Earl’s attempts to fight for release and rehabilitation of the convicted child killer Myra Hindley (Samantha Morton), and the consequences his altruistic campaigning had on his reputation. Bonus features include a featurette about the actual “Moors Murders” and an audio commentary.

blankguide.gif

Watching Lindsay Anderson’s If… (Criterion, Not Rated, DVD-$39.95 SRP), it’s hard not to imagine Stanley Kubrick viewing Malcolm McDowell’s intense performance as violent, anarchic boarding school student Mick Travis – central to this electric portrait of the odd, Draconian pecking order that permeates those famed Brit school institutions – and not making the decision there and then that McDowell would be perfect for his not-yet-produced A Clockwork Orange. This new 2-disc edition of If… features an audio commentary with film critic & historian David Robinson and McDowell, a TV special spotlighting the film, a video interview with actor Graham Crowden, the documentary Thursday’s Children, and a behind-the-scenes booklet.

blankguide.gif

John McClane is about to blast back on the big screen, which is why now is the time to make sure you have the new Die Hard Collection set (Fox, Rated R, DVD-$39.98 SRP), featuring the special editions of the first 3 films, plus a bonus 4th disc containing a brand new retrospective documentary and a preview of Live Free Or Die Hard.

blankguide.gif

All good things must come to an end, and that applies two-fold to the third and final season of Deadwood (HBO, Not Rated, DVD-$99.98 SRP), as both an incredible series and the lawless, frontier era of the town itself come to an end. The 6-disc set features all 12 episodes, plus a quartet of audio commentaries, a historical featurette, a spotlight on the relationship of Swerengen & Bullock, and a photo gallery of the historical Deadwood.

blankguide.gif

Long before you needed to wash his mouth out with soap due to his expletive-soaked performance in Deadwood, Ian McShane starred as antiques dealer and part-time detective Lovejoy (BBC, Not Rated, DVD-$49.98 SRP). The 80’s were truly a golden age of moonlighting detectives who obviously couldn’t find a safer hobby. The 3-disc set features all 10 first season episodes, plus an interview with McShane.

blankguide.gif

Also hitting shelves is the first volume of the penultimate third season of Irwin Allen’s Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea (Fox, Not Rated, DVD-$39.98 SRP). The 3-disc set features 13 episodes, plus a David Hedison interview. But why oh why does Fox insist on continuing to release some of their TV product on accursed double-sided discs?

blankguide.gif

Before “Hoo-has” became his acting style, there was a much more nuanced Al in days past. Case in point is a pair of newly-released catalogue titles, The Panic In Needle Park (Fox, Rated PG, DVD-$14.98 SRP) and Author! Author! (Fox, Rated PG, DVD-$14.98 SRP). This is not to say that he’s incapable of good work in recent times, as a trio of overlooked flicks in the Pacino: An Actor’s Vision collection (Fox, Not Rated, DVD-$34.99 SRP) will attest, featuring Chinese Coffee, The Local Stigmatic, and Looking For Richard. The set also contains a bonus disc with the documentary Babbleonia, Pacino’s self-produced retrospective of his own career.

blankguide.gif

It may be unassuming and saccharine, but there is a nice simplicity to Miss Potter (Genius, Rated PG, DVD-$28.95 SRP), which stars Renee Zellweger as the titular author of the children’s classic The Tale of Peter Rabbit. The story revolves around the romance of the sheltered Beatrix and her publisher, played by Ewan McGregor. Bonus features include an audio commentary, behind-the-scenes featurettes, a music video, and the theatrical trailer.

blankguide.gif

Continuing the well-established legacy of the Disney Double-Dip, here comes a new special edition of The Many Adventures Of Winnie The Pooh (Walt Disney, Rated G, DVD-$29.99 SRP). At least it is nicely remastered, and bonus materials include a making-of featurette and the classic short A Day For Eeyore.

blankguide.gif

Atlantic Records 60: The House That Ahmet Built (Rhino, Not Rated, DVD-$19.98 SRP) is literally a rarity, performance, and interview-filled documentary about the founding and legacy of Atlantic Records and its founder, Ahmet Ertegun. It’s a wonderful trip down memory lane, and the music on show – including Ray Charles, Aretha Franklin, Ben E. King, Eric Clapton, and more – proves what an amazing legacy it is.

blankguide.gif

No dry museum tour, Simon Schama’s Power Of Art (BBC, Not Rated, DVD-$49.98 SRP) is an electrifying journey into the creative process, venturing back to the events, politics, environment, and personality that big banged out eight iconic pieces of art. The 3-disc set features audio commentaries and a interview with Schama.

blankguide.gif

And let’s wrap things up this week with a pair of pieces from Gentle Giant‘s line of Star Wars animated-style maquettes. While the C-3PO and Jawa statue (which stands appox. 8″) is a regular edition available directly from Gentle Giant and is limited to an edition size of 4500 ($80), Yoda and R2-D2 is this year’s convention exclusive, with an edition size of 2500 ($80).

weekendpicks20070622-17.jpg

weekendpicks20070622-18.jpg

So there you have it… my humble suggestions for what to watch, listen to, play with, or waste money on this coming weekend. See ya next week…

-Ken Plume

##

QSE News: 6/22/2007

Filed under: Columns,News — UncaScroogeMcD @ 12:30 am

quickstopnews.jpg

line1.gif

Here are today’s top entertainment headlines:

  • qsnews.jpgWriter/Director Wes Craven is suing his neighbor, comedian Pauly Shore, for damages to Craven’s house and property.  In the lawsuit, Craven claims that Shore’s remodel of his home weakened the ground causing a landslide that damaged Craven’s property.  Craven is demanding that Shore pay for all repairs to his home and land, as well as money for “mental anguish,” which Craven claims he suffered after accidentally watching part of Jury Duty.
  • Comedian Jimmy Kimmel was rushed to the hospital on Wednesday night to have an emergency appendectomy.  The host of Jimmy Kimmel Live is said to be doing well after the surgery and he hopes to return to his show next week.  Representatives for Kimmel are stressing that the injury was in fact an appendectomy and was not the result Kimmel’s girlfriend, Sarah Silverman, “accidentally” stabbing the host with her belted-on wiener.

line1.gif

That’s all for today’s news, stay tuned to this channel for all the news that matters least but you still care about.

(Compiled by J. Allen)

##

Quick Stop Thingamabobs: 6/22/2007

Filed under: Columns,Thingamabobs — UncaScroogeMcD @ 12:09 am

thingamabobs.jpg

The web. It’s a big place, full of plenty of distractions ““ some funny, some informative, some ludicrous, some disturbing, some inane, some profound. Each and every weekday, we present links to a few of our favorite finds”¦

————————————————

  • It’s Bat-Friday here at Bat-Quick Stop, so let’s kick things off with the Bat-theme to Batman… (Thingamabob)
  • “Hey Joker, a batarang surprise!”… (Thingamabob)
  • And we wrap up in class with the opening to Batman: The Animated Series… (Thingamabob)

Have a THINGAMABOB? Send it in!

##

June 21, 2007

Game On! 6-20-2007: Where The Hell Have I Been?

Filed under: Game On! — admin @ 12:44 am

gameon.jpg

So, where the hell have I been?

Well, quite simply, I’ve been sick. And while sick, I’ve really not had much energy to play games, let alone write and report on them. Hence the month gap between columns, and even more importantly, the reason behind May’s missing video podcast. But fret not dear readers, I’m back at full health, and full of vim and vigor, ready to bring you news and reviews for you gaming needs here at QuickStopEntertainment.com.

And yes”¦there’s a new podcast on the way too”¦

So, let’s just get right down to it with some news from the world of gaming:

First up, and most exciting for me, Konami has just announced CONTRA 4, due out later this year for the Nintendo DS. Here’s the official word from the source:

Contra 4 takes place two years after the events of Contra III: The Alien Wars. After saving earth from invasion by Red Falcon, Bill Rizer and Lance Bean are confronted with a new extraterrestrial menace: the terrifying Black Viper. Joined by hard-boiled mercenaries Mad Dog and Scorpion, the warriors must once again wage war against an entire army of invaders.

Refining the 2D side-scrolling genre the series established 20 years ago, Contra 4 delivers pure action at a fever pitch as players jump, shoot, and dodge oncoming hazards. Utilizing a new dual screen presentation, the action spans both screens of the Nintendo DS, giving players the opportunity to battle across expansive environments in which death can come from any direction. The use of both screens for the game’s core action also allows for massive boss battles as players try to seek and destroy the weak points of sky-high enemies. A first for the series, Contra 4 introduces a grappling hook accessory that lets players grab onto elements of the environment directly above them. Whether using it to avoid oncoming dangers or attack from a strategic vantage point, the grappling hook allows for new combat situations and dramatic set pieces that underscore the game’s adrenaline-soaked pedigree.

I, for one, am THRILLED about this news, as the Contra series is one of my all time favorites. In other news, Midway today announced that JOHN WOO PRESENTS: STRANGLEHOLD, the video game sequel to his film HARD BOILED, will receive a collector’s edition on Xbox 360, in addition to the previously announced PS3 version. For the PS3 version, the Blu-Ray game disc will also feature the film HARD BOILED directly on the same disc”¦not only marking the first game/movie hybrid on the format, but also the first time the film will be released on Blu-Ray as well. For the Xbox 360 version, sadly, fans won’t get the original film, but they will get a cool bonus disc featuring:

* Poetry In Slow Motion – Behind-the-scenes documentary on Midway bringing the style of John Woo to video games.
* Extended Cinematic Sequences – Extended scenes which didn’t make it into the final game.
* MTV Studio Visit – Follow MTV visit with the game team during crunch time.
* The Vision of Stranglehold – See the progression from concept art to final game.
* The Sound of Stranglehold – An insiders look at sounds design.

A bonus disc full of featurettes may not be as exciting as a full-length film, but for those of you interested in the inner-workings of how the game is made, this may be your choice over the other option.

As is popular with movie releases, game companies release game tie-ins for the blockbuster features, in hopes of some of that crossover revenue. The HARRY POTTER series does well for EA, but this year, with all the new consoles out there, EA is hitting all of them with a game based on the new film, THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX. So much so, in fact, that EA is offering fans a chance to win a version of the game on the Nintendo Wii. To enter, find the Harry Potter promotion in the main flash box on the EA.com homepage, and click “Sign up” to enter your information. Simple enough. The game itself is due in stores next week, and I should hopefully have a review of at least the Wii version for you folks (where gamers can use the Wii-mote as, yes, a magic wand.)

Now, seeing as I was sick, I didn’t get much chance to go out and get games to review. Thanks to downloads, however, that wasn’t much of a problem. Xbox Live Arcade provided me with two awesome games over the past few weeks that kept me playing through the pain.

First, MAD TRACKS, by D3 Publishing, takes the classic kart racing dynamic, applies it to penny racers, and adds an element new to the genre: spring powered motors. As you race, your rubber band bound spring winds down. If it’ wound down all the way, you racer slow, and ever crawls to a halt while waiting to wind up again. This allows for strategy when racing, forcing players to lay off the throttle at certain points, and not just blast through areas.

Of course, the tracks aren’t typical either. You go from standard table top racers (these are toy cars after all) to separate challenges involving knocking billiard balls into holes, and various battle arenas. There are 15 challenges in all, with over thirty available later, through two separate expansion downloads. With typical power ups such as oil slicks and rocket launchers, plus newer fun like freeze rays and EMP blasts, as well as 4 player split screen and Xbox Live play, this is one racer that offers more than just”¦well”¦racing.

The courses are fun and diverse, and the dynamic of keeping your spring motor under surveillance during heated battles or photo finish races adds a certain amount of strategy to what would normally be just your typical “hit the gas, win the day” type of races. The graphics are sharp and colorful, and really emphasize that these are small-scale toys in big real size worlds. The variety of the challenges is nice too, so there’s always something cool to tackle. It’s not the greatest game ever made, but it’s serves it’s fun purpose, and what’s more important than that?

With classic gaming in mind, once again the Xbox Live Arcade service has offered and oldy but goody. However, instead of just re-releasing the title with slightly updated character models, the developers at Ubisoft has gone one step further with their release of PRINCE OF PERSIA CLASSIC. Here’s they’ve completely remade the classic SNES game, but with graphics that replicate the look of the newer POP games, most closely, those of THE SANDS OF TIME.

But the graphics aren’t the only thing to get an overhaul. Gameplay has been drastically improved, to make the game a bit more accessible for modern audiences. I for one could never even make it halfway through the originals’ first stage, and here, the jump physics and animations have been improved, and accidental deaths have been brought to a minimum. The fighting has been refined too, as parrying blows is essential for success. Essentially, the whole game has been completely overhauled, while still staying true to the main focus of the original, which is escaping the prison, and rescuing the princess.

After all, isn’t that the fun of games anyway? Well, it is here anyway, and I couldn’t be happier. POP CLASSIC is old school gameplay with new school graphics and presentation. You’ll still die a lot, but you at least won’t be blaming it on stumble jump animation or poor control. This time, it’s just dumb mistakes on your part.

That said, I think we’re finished with this return to the column. The podcast is getting finished up, and since we missed May’s, will probably be presented in two parts to cover all the stuff from last month and this month. We’ll see you next time.

Quick Stop Thingamabobs: 6/21/2007

Filed under: Columns,Thingamabobs — UncaScroogeMcD @ 12:36 am

thingamabobs.jpg

The web. It’s a big place, full of plenty of distractions ““ some funny, some informative, some ludicrous, some disturbing, some inane, some profound. Each and every weekday, we present links to a few of our favorite finds”¦

————————————————

  • A groping course from the officers of Reno 911!… (Thingamabob)
  • A look at the new George of the Jungle cartoon… (Thingamabob)

Have a THINGAMABOB? Send it in!

##

QSE News: 6/21/2007

Filed under: Columns,News — UncaScroogeMcD @ 12:35 am

quickstopnews.jpg

line1.gif

Here are today’s top entertainment headlines:

  • qsnews.jpgActor John Travolta has stated publicly that he thinks psychiatry and psychotropic drugs are dangerous. Travolta continued to say that psychotropic drugs are behind many of the school shootings in recent years. Psychiatrists across the country have expressed ambivalence to Travolta’s remarks because “Who the hell in their right mind would pay attention to THAT guy?”
  • Marc Forster has been tapped to direct the next installment of the popular James Bond film franchise.  Forster, who directed the films Monster’s Ball and Finding Neverland, will be making his first attempt at an “action” film.  While details of the plot are being kept under wraps, it has been announced that the two leading female characters will be named Eddie Allotacock and Harriet Vajay.

line1.gif

That’s all for today’s news, stay tuned to this channel for all the news that matters least but you still care about.

(Compiled by J. Allen)

##

June 20, 2007

Nocturnal Admissions: TV Review, The Sopranos

Filed under: Columns,Nocturnal Admissions — UncaScroogeMcD @ 3:35 am

nocturnalheader5.gif

Among the hubbub of excitement attendant upon the airing of the final episode of The Sopranos – the black-garbed mourning, the vexed questions about the final show’s last seconds, the online forum feeding frenzies, and the pundit throat-clearing – there was one element that received curiously little attention. The show’s penultimate episode brought to near-resolution one of the many themes and subplots that gripped the nation over the program’s nine years, 86 episodes, and (officially, anyway) six seasons, and the response was, well, baffling. Culturally speaking, that is.

This refers, of course, to the A. J. Issue. Readers will recall that Anthony junior was always a problem child. Throughout the years he went from lazy butterball to sullen back-talking teen to failed lover and stepfather to, finally, suicidal leftie protester with a special interest in the injustice of the war in Iraq. You could always rely on A.J. to do, say, or think the most selfish thing possible at any given moment. On popular Sopranos forums such as Television Without Pity, special hatred was reserved for this spoiled scion of hoodlums. It was Tony Soprano taking out a hit on Dr. Spock.

The Sopranos is a show whose fans pour over it like a fortuneteller over tealeaves, and no facial expression, cultural allusion, or throwaway remark goes unnoticed and subsequently analyzed ad infinitum. Not that A. J.’s boorish behavior was ever that subtle.

Tony talking

Nationwide A. J. hate reached its apotheosis in the next to last episode of The Sopranos, which aired on June 3. At one point Tony goes into A. J.’s bedroom, where he is lying in bed while his “just friends” girlfriend Rhiannon (Emily Wickersham) is doing a search about political matters on the computer. After kicking out Rhiannon, Tony reveals that “Uncle Bobby’s dead.” Instead of being willing to help his family in a life-or-death time of need, A. J. throws attitude. “This is really depressing to me,” he complains. “I was already having so much trouble maintaining.” This proves too much for Tony who abruptly drags the youth out of bed, wrecking a telephone and a CD player along the way, and throws him into the closet, where he leaves A. J. a quivering, weeping wreck, giving his son but a few minutes to get packed and prepared to leave.

Fans were ecstatic. The nation seemed to rise as one in joyous approval of Tony’s rage. Characteristic of most posters was the contributor who wrote, “Finally somebody had enough of that whiny piece of garbage! I got up and cheered when Tony dragged that punk across the floor and told him to pack a bag. DUDE, your whole damn family is under attack and your uncle just got killed and you’re worried about your depression levels? “¦ Please don’t anyone ever suggest AJ could go into mob life. I would be surprised if this kid could survive anything.”

Tony kid

But a silent minority may have found this reaction rather extreme and wholly inconsistent with some earlier real world explosions of rage at spoiled youth and its parenting. Wasn’t it just two months earlier that the nation was up in arms over Alec Baldwin calling his daughter Ireland a “rude, thoughtless little pig”? The 30 Rock actor is engaged in a custody dispute with his ex-wife Kim Basinger, and was angry at his daughter for missing one of their regularly schedule cross-country telephone conversations. Telling Ireland in a phone message that she doesn’t have “the brains or the decency as a human,” he warns her that he is going to fly to the west coast and “straighten” her out. Baldwin’s words, leaked to the Internet gossip site The TMZ , inspired raw national disapproval of the actor for what TMZ among many others sarcastically called “incredible parenting skills.” Yet little Ireland’s iPods and Uggs didn’t go flying across the room as her father grabbed her by the ponytail and thrashed her. In fact, we don’t know what he did, if anything.

In addition, moralists have no problem rooting for the public humiliation of other wild children of the media. When Lindsay Lohan started pulling a Monroe on the set of Georgia Rule last summer, producer James G. Robinson sent her an excoriating letter that somehow found its way to the media. In part, Robinson, head of Morgan Creek, wrote in the letter, printed in full on The Smoking Gun, that Lohan’s behavior was “discourteous, irresponsible and unprofessional,” and that Lohan “acted like a spoiled child” and “alienated many of your co-workers and endangered the quality” of the film. Again, the public warmed to the public spanking the 70-year-old executive administered to the then-20-year-old starlet.

Tony angry

OK, so what’s the difference? Why does Tony Soprano, a fictional gangster who has killed numerous characters over the years, get a pass, while Baldwin, an esteemed actor going through an uncomfortably public brawl with an ex-wife, is excoriated by pundits and platitudinists who in reality know little about the nature of his marriage, his parenting, or his problems?

Well, for one thing, viewers feel that they “know” Tony and A. J. and the others whom they touch. This is testimony to Sopranos creator David Chase and the various writers he has employed over the years (Chase and Matthew Weiner wrote the A. J. episode), who created viewer intimacy with characters unique in its intensity. The Sopranos, often acting as a sort of thermometer inserted into the body politic, captured the ambivalence that America may feel about its offspring. A rooting interest in A. J.’s comeuppance not only held the show together, among many other threads, but tapped into otherwise unbidden parental frustrations. (Also, another factor that makes a difference is that Ireland is a female, and America seems to recoil, publicly anyway, from daughter mistreatment of any kind.)

Tony closet

In The Sopranos, television did what television does best (when allowed to). It created a whole world around a group of fictional characters whose problems and reactions to them were achingly real and clumsy. Though set in the tense morally compromised world of crime, The Sopranos dealt with issues that many modern American families face, from spoiled children to marital woes to income decreases to therapeutic intervention. In fact, the Sopranos weren’t all that different in spirit from the Loud family, subject of a 1973 reality television series on PBS. What the Louds, not to mention the Bunkers, were to 1970s America, the Sopranos were to Americans at the turn of a dire century. It will be interesting to see what, if any, television show in the future captures the hours and the times with the same intensity and intimacy.

By the way, don’t worry about any real lasting harm to A. J. from Tony’s hands-on perorations. When last seen, A. J. was in the movie business, driving too fast through the Jersey streets in his new BMW and picking up his high school aged fashion model girlfriend.

QSE News: 6/20/2007

Filed under: Columns,News — UncaScroogeMcD @ 3:33 am

quickstopnews.jpg

line1.gif

Here are today’s top entertainment headlines:

  • qsnews.jpgActress Keri Russell has given birth to her first child. A boy, River Russell Deary, was born on June 9 in a New York City hospital. Although it is still early, many of Russell’s family and friends have said “the baby is already a better actor than his mom and looks waaaayyy cuter with short hair.”

line1.gif

That’s all for today’s news, stay tuned to this channel for all the news that matters least but you still care about.

(Compiled by J. Allen)

##

Quick Stop Thingamabobs: 6/20/2007

Filed under: Columns,Thingamabobs — UncaScroogeMcD @ 3:30 am

thingamabobs.jpg

The web. It’s a big place, full of plenty of distractions ““ some funny, some informative, some ludicrous, some disturbing, some inane, some profound. Each and every weekday, we present links to a few of our favorite finds”¦

————————————————

  • A rare bit of The Tonight Show, Part 1… (Thingamabob)
  • A little piece on Rocky & Bullwinkle… (Thingamabob)

Have a THINGAMABOB? Send it in!

##

June 19, 2007

Nocturnal Admissions: TV Review, three Laws and Order

Filed under: Columns,Nocturnal Admissions — UncaScroogeMcD @ 4:46 am

nocturnalheader5.gif

Readers will recall my column from a few times back about the weird coincidence of Rules of Engagement and How I Met Your Mother airing episodes with the same plot on the same. Yes, it would be helpful if more shows did that, but they don’t “¦ or do they?

A quick bit of research reveals that, yes, this Amazing Coincidence has happened again, just this season. Each entrant in the Law and Order franchise, the shows that rip their stories from the headlines and then disclaim this truth in an opening title card, has aired an episode based on the case of Ted Haggard, the former evangelical preacher attached to the New Life Church, who was caught up in a meth and gay sex scandal. The original Law and Order aired “Church” on February 9th; Law and Order: Criminal Intent aired “Brother’s Keeper: on February 20th; and Law and Order: Special Victims Unit aired “Sin” on March 27th. Each of them is a variation on the Haggard case.

All these programs are produced by Dick Wolf, who must be quite a busy fellow not to notice what was happening, but do any of the writers talk to each other? How could such a coincidence occur, especially after the first one aired? Are bizarre cases really that short in supply? Aren’t the writers in competition with each other? Do their childish hands all reach out in unison for the same tabloid tales hot off the presses, with Wolf, like an exasperated parent, appeasing them by saying, “OK, OK, you can all have a piece of this one”? There is probably a similar competition over there at CBS among its CSI folk.

The original Law and Order is a show with such a seemingly strong premise that it can withstand multiple cast changes over its, thus far, 17 years on NBC. Based unofficially on a short-lived early 1960s ABC show called Arrest and Trial, its bifurcated narrative strategy (first the crime, then the trial) unburdens its cast members of excessive weekly labors. The eight-year-old Law and Order: Special Victims Unit was an early spin off, a straightforward policier incorporating a cast member from the cultish but cancelled Homicide: Life on the Streets. The six-season-old Law and Order: Criminal Intent is still another variation on the L&O template. While still maintaining the franchise’s essential characteristics – a quasi-realism born of its New York settings, and its hatred of defense lawyers – CI began as a modernization of Sherlock Holmes, in which a puzzle-solving brainiac is observed in his deductions by a more meat and potatoes minded companion.

All the L&O Haggards are varied and each illuminates its franchise’s differing approaches to crime stories. Law and Order‘s Haggard is played by franchise regular Anson Mount. SVU‘s is played by former sitcom star Tim Daly. And in a bit of novelty casting, Tom Arnold plays the CI Haggard. The CI treatment also incorporates broad elements of a 2006 conflict between Haggard and University of Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins. SVU and CI play up the male escort website angle, while Law and Order and CI place some of the characters in the world of acting.

Mount on Law and Order

Law and Order‘s version walks us (usually literally, given the show’s signature if unlikely walk-and-talk police interviews) through the murder of a gay actor, who turns out to have been a consort of Mount’s reverend Sterling. After some wasted public dollars on a wrong suspect, Assistant DA McCoy (Sam Waterston) finally figures out that the murder is someone close to Sterling, out to protect the church as a whole. In Law and Order there is usually some kind of legal crux and in this case it’s the sanctity of confession, but given the case’s eventual outcome, this amounts to a red herring, which the series in its dotage now all too often resorts to.

Daly on SVU

Arguably the most popular of the three, SVU, as befits its premise, concentrates on “the children.” The episode’s Reverend Curtis of New Souls Church has 10 kids; some of them go to Iraq to fight, while some of them work out their theatrical inclinations by working on a Satan’s House; and in the end, the Reverend was nobly seeking only to protect his own child. There is a legal crux when the pesky 5th and 14th amendments get in the way of a righteous bust, but after a few complex red herrings and flourishes of misdirection, the killer turns out to be yet another congregation official forsaking the law for a higher purpose. Unlike in the other two franchises, in SVU‘s the Haggard representative happens not to be gay.

Arnold on Criminal Intent

Sadly, the Haggard case underscores some of the increasing flaws in the baby of the family, CI. The show’s first three seasons were excellent, and each mystery, prefaced by a clue-ridden teaser, was surprisingly clever, the show’s Holmes, Major Case Squad detective Robert Goren (played by a tic-infested Vincent D’Onofrio), eventually disentangling the real mystery buried beneath the surface puzzles. Now the show feels at sea, and has imported two new detectives to alternate with Goren and his partner Alex Eames (Kathryn Erbe), thrusting the show’s plots closer to the black and white morality of the crime half of Law and Order itself. And it can’t resist a soap opera subplot with Goren’s ongoing burden of a schizoid mother and a homeless brother.

As with the Mother – Rules coincidence, the three L&Os’ exploitation of the Haggard case highlights subtle and not so subtle differences among the shows. The original Law and Order is about the quirks of the law. SVU trades in a higher irony and in the intersection of criminal law and everyday morality. The colder CI, having forsaken the sublime puzzles of its earlier years, falls more into the fold of the original series. SVU, as befits its title, shows the most sympathy for the victims, and even the victimizers, which may account for its higher ratings. It also has the most twists, which used to be the prerogative of CI. Law and Order‘s account of the case is the most formulaic within both traditional television and the laws and orders of the franchise itself.

Toy Box: Hasbro Marvel Legends Series 2

Filed under: Columns,Toy Box — admin @ 4:44 am

toybox.jpg

toybox_061907_8.jpg

When Hasbro first obtained the Marvel license, one of the issues that plenty of folks were hoping would be corrected by them was distribution. Toybiz did a mighty fine job on Marvel Legends, but it seemed to be a complete crap shoot as to when – and often, if – your store would ever get them in. One chain might get them in weeks before another, and worse, one area of the country could see them months before another. That was just downright annoying, and Hasbro managed to avoid any of those issues with their first wave of ML figures.Unfortunately, with wave 2 it seems that they are swimming in the same pool of distribution muck as was Toybiz. I finally…FINALLY…found a full set of these after other parts of the country have been happily playing along with them for months now. Prior to this, I had one sighting of one of the eight figures at a local Wal-mart, and that was weeks ago. The third wave is actually due to hit anytime, but I won’t be holding my breathe to see them any time soon.

toybox_061907_1a.jpg

Hasbro Marvel Legends Series 2 – She-Hulk, Xorn, X3 Juggernaut and Ultimate Wolverine

toybox_061907_1d.jpg

There are eight figures in total in this second wave. I’ll be covering four here today (She Hulk, Xorn, Ultimate Wolverine and Juggernaut), with the other four being covered tonight at my other site, MROTW. Those four would include Thor, X3 Jean Gray, Yellowjacket and Quicksilver. Collect all eight and you can put together the Build A Figure (BAF) of the Blob.

toybox_061907_1c.jpg

These are now hitting Target’s in pretty decent quantities, but it’s still very hit or miss which stores have them. At ten bucks a pop, you’ll be dropping a wad of cash to get all the pieces to the fat guy, and I’m not sure any BAF is worth eighty bucks.

toybox_061907_1b.jpg

Packaging – ***1/2
I know some folks have hated the new packages, but I’m still a fan. There’s a ton of personalization here, with plenty of character specific graphics on the front of each. The bubble/cardback design is so sturdy it’s practicallly a clamshell, yet you can rip into it without a knife. Yea, they’re still a bit oversized and a bitch for any MOCers to store, but generally speaking, I like the direction.

toybox_061907_2.jpg

Sculpting – Xorn ***1/2; She Hulk, Ultimate Wolverine, Juggernaut ***
The majority of the sculpts are solid, but the paint work doesn’t support many of them. That’s too bad, since folks can get a bad impression of the sculpt work from a quick glance.

toybox_061907_3a.jpg

Juggs is a perfect example. I think the head sculpt is actually quite good, but it’s very hard to see under the awful eyebrows and hair. It appears that they managed to pull off the actual actor’s likeness, certainly as well as they did with series 1 Beast, but it’s tough to tell. He’s sculpted in the smaller scale of the X-men movie lines (at just under 7 inches tall he might seem to big, but remember, he was huge in the movie), and has some pretty interesting unique hand sculpts.

toybox_061907_3b.jpg

The Wolverine almost has the constipated look, but they managed to get away from it a bit by going with some seriously snarling eyes and eyebrows. I really like the expression, which is unusual for something so extreme, but with the awful paint work again it’s hard to be sure how good the sculpt really is. His scale is in line with other recent Wolverines, making him smaller than the regular figures, but he’s not quite as tiny as some recent versions, standing about 6 inches tall. The sculpted claws look good, although they suffer from the usual plastic warping.

toybox_061907_3c.jpg

She Hulk has a beautiful face sculpt, showing that you can make pretty female ML figures, but she’s got a bit of the NECA hair going on. It looks worse in close ups though than it does in person, and has some good detail for this scale. Again, they’ve done some nice sculpting on the hands, and she’s at a good height for posing with the rest of the series at about 7 1/4 inches tall.

toybox_061907_3d.jpg

Last but not least in anyway is Xorn. He’s my fav of the bunch in this category, with some very nice detail work on the helmet, underlying face, and even the chain/chest. Again, there’s some paint issues, but at least on this figure I could see past most of them to find the underlying quality of the sculpt. His hands have unique poses too, which is a huge plus. None of these figures have simple fist or open hand poses that are just reused. Instead, they all have interesting and different poses, unique to their characters. Xorn stands just a hair over 6 inches tall, falling into the middle range of figures.

Paint – Xorn, She Hulk ***; Ultimate Wolverine **; Juggernaut *1/2
Ah yes, the paint. With the first wave, the big complaint with the paint was largely with what was NOT painted. The shiny, cast-in-the-color plastics used for large areas tended to be cheap looking. Unfortunately, the paint ops that we do get this time around are often poorly executed.

Of the set, my She Hulk and Xorn had the fewest issues. There’s still a bit of slop here and there, and the dry brushing they added to She Hulk’s hair may or may not have been such a terrific idea. But the eyes, lips, hairlines and other small details are relatively clean. This isn’t the kind of work that would stand up next to good specialty market toys, but it’s reasonable when compared to most other mass market stuff.

Xorn’s Magneto face isn’t quite as nice as the rest of him though, with the color cast plastic skin looking a bit too shiny and cheap. I don’t expect most folks to pose him without the helmet though, since it makes up so much of his personality. It’s also extremely well painted, with a nice dark wash used to bring out the sculpting details and very clean lines around the eyes.

toybox_061907_4.jpg

Ah, but then we get Wolverine and Juggernaut. Juggs has two eyebrows the size of snakes, writhing over his eye sockets. Add to that the expression of surprise in which they’ve been painted, and you have a recipe for ruining any sculpt underneath. Ah, but his bad paint job doesn’t end there. Take off the helmet and you get Hasbro’s attempt at his uber short buzz cut. It appears as though they’ve dipped his bald pate in crap. Literally. And they didn’t even take the time to do it evenly.

Move down to his torso, and you get some awful work on the chest, arm and belly hair. Again, it looks more like dirt than hair, and given the choice, I’d vote to skip it altogether on this figure.

Wolverine’s only saving grace is actually his arm hair. This is something that is normally poorly done, and you can look no further than the aforementioned Juggs for proof. But I really like how they handled the very small lines of hair on his arms, and it confuses me as to why they could do this, but couldn’t handle Jugg’s eyebrows.

Unfortunately, Wolverine’s face paint drags the figure back down again. The hair line isn’t just uneven, I have a whole side edge that’s missing paint! The eyes, brows and teeth are all sloppy, and he’s certainly not a ten buck figure with this kind of work.

To add to all the issues with the small details across the line, there’s still the issue of the casting the plastic in the color of choice. On Xorn and She Hulk this works out better than it does on Wolverine and Juggernaut, and I think that’s because the color that works the worst in this type of casting is normal skin tone. Since those two figures don’t have any (I’m pretending you’re leaving Xorn’s helmet on), they end up looking better.

Articulation – Xorn, Ultimate Wolverine ***; She Hulk **1/2; Juggernaut **
Marvel Legends have always set some sort of standard – good and bad – when it comes to articulation. If you hate articulation in your ‘action’ figures, then these aren’t for you. But if you like to see what can be done in this scale with a great design, you’re looking in the right place.

toybox_061907_5a.jpg

All of these figures have very similar articulation – ball jointed shoulders and hips, double jointed knees, pin and post elbows, pin and swivle ankles, pin wrists, cut waist, clicky chest, and even a psuedo ball jointed neck. I say psuedo, because these are the standard ML necks that have a pin, so that the head can tilt forward and backward along with turning. However, unlike a true ball joint, there’s no tilt. I’ll point out any additions or reductions in this sort of standard set up as I mention each figure.

Once again, Juggernaut was the biggest disappointment in this area He’s got all those joints, no problem, and in fact adds cut calves to the picture, but I had one Hell of a time getting any sort of reasonable poses. The legs and hips were the biggest issue, and even with the ball joints they simply wouldn’t move into reasonable places. You can have all the articulation in the world, but if you have trouble just finding a pose that can keep the figure standing, that’s not good. And while he adds the cut leg articulation, he has only pin elbows with no peg inserted into the bicep.

toybox_061907_5b.jpg

Wolverine didn’t have nearly the same issues with posing. He loses the joint on the arm side of the shoulder ball (clearly for aesthetic reasons), but has the peg and pin elbow to allow the lower arm to turn. There’s no swivel to the ankle, and because of the design of the boots it operates only as a cut joint.

toybox_061907_5c.jpg

She Hulk has some serious issues with her leg articulation as well, although eventually I was able to get them to work in a few poses. The arms and hands were much better at posing, but she loses the arm side joint at the shoulder ball, the cut waist, and even the rocker aspect of the ankle. Her hair pretty much completely removes the usefulness of the neck joint, but that’s not particularly uncommon. Still, she’s one of the least articulated Marvel Legends so far.

toybox_061907_5d.jpg

Finally, there’s Xorn. Like Wolverine, he poses pretty well, but there was still more effort involved in getting the leg joints in just the right place to keep him standing and make him look interesting. He adds a cut joint at the calves, along with double jointed elbows.

The articulation is a huge selling point for this line of figures, and I do believe that Hasbro has improved the quality of the joints themselves. They stick less, and are far less likely to rip or break under tension. Still, the joints have to actually work for them to be much of any real use, and quite a few of these figures have real issues when it comes to finding multiple great looking poses.

Accessories – Ultimate Wolverine, Juggernaut, Xorn **1/2; She Hulk **
For most of these figures, there’s really only one accessory – their piece of the Blob. This BAF is much smaller than past BAF’s at just 8 1/2 inches tall (compare that to Sentinal’s height of 15 inches!), but he’s still pretty damn cool once you get him all together.

toybox_061907_6.jpg

Of course, that’s the trick. You’ll need to spend eighty bucks plus tax and/or shipping to get him, so that’s mighty expensive for a figure. On top of that, if you’re not interested in building the Blob, than what accessories are here are useless to you.

Once you get past the basic Blob parts, there are a couple more accessories. Juggernaut and Xorn both have removable helmets, so I’m boosting they’re score slightly because of it. Wolverine also gets a slight boost here, because he gets both large halves of the torso, making up in plastic what he lacks in amount.

Fun Factor – ***
Okay, they aren’t so perfect for collectors, but kids will still find these great fun. That is if they actually know who any of them are. I supposed that the Movie Juggs has potential, but considering that he’s the lamest of these four, it’s certainly wasted potential.

Value – *1/2
Ten bucks? What did I pay ten bucks for? A basic mass produced action figure with really one accessory – a chunk of the blob. And considering how much smaller this BAF is then BAF’s of waves gone by, I gotta say that we’re getting charged at least two bucks, maybe three, too much. Unless you spend eighty bucks, the accessory is completely worthless to you, so for the person just looking for a couple of these guys, they’re getting seriously pinched.

Things to Watch Out For –
Paint of course. Some of the joints were stuck, but they are sturdy enough that freeing them up shouldn’t raise too much of a risk.

toybox_061907_8.jpg

Overall – Xorn ***; She Hulk, Ultimate Wolverine **1/2; Juggernaut **
Of this set, Xorn was the only one I thought really stood out. I don’t mind adding him to the line up, and for such a B (or C or D) character, he really was a nice surprise. I’m not thrilled with the head underneath the mask, but I’ll only be displaying him that way anyhoo.

She Hulk is going to be well liked by lots of folks, at least until they take her out of the package. I finally did find a pose I like, but the articulation really made her a tough poser. Still, it’s not like we’ve been treated to any better versions of her in this scale.

If your a huge Wolverine fan, grab this Ultimate version. He’s nothing to be staying up late and writing long letters home over, but the sculpt and articulation are solid. If you can find one with a reasonable paint job, all the better for you.

And Juggernaut? Unless you absolutely have to get all the X3 figures you can lay your hands on, skip him. Bad paint and worse articulation annoyed the Hell out of me. Who really liked this character design all that much anyway?

But if you want the Blob – and there are good reasons to want the Blob – then you’ll just have to stomach buying the full set and find something to do with the ones that are bad (Juggs) or merely uninteresting (see the other review for a good example). As with series 1, the very best figure in the full bunch is the one you have to buy all of them to get.

toybox_061907_7.jpg

Where to Buy –
As I said earlier, your best bet right now is the local Target store.

Related Links –
I’ve had more than a few ML reviews:

– Let’s start with the reviews of series 1, first at MROTW and then here at QSE.

– you’ll want to check out my review of the other four figures at MROTW.

– Hasbro has also released several of the 12″ Marvel Legends Icons, including Punisher and Doom, and my favorite, Thor.
And if you still pine for the days Toybiz –

– in the 12″ Icons line, there’s Spider-man and Beast, Wolverine and Venom.

– The Face Offs series 1 (with Hulk/Leader in one review and the other two sets in another) and series 2 both had guest reviews.

– there’s the guest review of the Fearsome Foes of Spider-man boxed set, Urban Legends box set, X-men Legends boxed set, and the Fantastic Four boxed set, along with my review of the Monsters boxed set.

– The previous Sentinel BAF was guest reviewed.

– then there’s the various series reviews, including the Wal-mart series, series 13, series 12, series 9 (including Galactus), series 8 Captain Marvel and Doc Ock, series 7 Vision, series 6 Juggernaut, Wolverine and Deadpool, series 5 Blade, Nick Fury, Sabertooth and Colossus, along with series 5 Red Skull, Silver Surfer and Mr. Fantastic, series 4 Goliath, Punisher, Beast, Gambit, and Elektra, series 3 Daredevil and then the rest of the series, series 2 Thing and Namor, and finally, from three and a half years ago, the series 1 review.

Nocturnal Admissions: DVD Review If ….

Filed under: Columns,Nocturnal Admissions — UncaScroogeMcD @ 4:41 am

nocturnalheader5.gif

If title

Lindsay Anderson’s If “¦ marks that transition in British cinema from the ash-stained drinking glasses and filthy bathrooms of the so-called Kitchen Sink movies of the late 1950s, thru to the mid 1960s, to the more surrealistic 1970s, with its drugs and hippies. Like Performance, it is a benchmark, so far ahead of its time that it is almost rendered old fashioned upon contemporaneous viewing. Anderson’s previous film, This Sporting Life the most sunken of Kitchen Sink movies, bleak, black and white, and starring Richard Harris at his most simian. Subsequent Anderson films, O Lucky Man and Britannia Hospital are much more Bunuelian, nearly to the point of incomprehension. But If “¦, smack in the middle, has a foot in each camp. Indeed, about half the film is in black and white rather than color. The Criterion Collection’s two disc edition of If “¦, which hits the street on June 19th for $39.95, in a stunning transfer (with beautiful photography by Miroslav Ondrícek), gives the viewer ample opportunity to acquaint or re-familiarize himself with this key film, which bubbles with rebellion, resistance, and repression.

Anderson

Anderson is one of those rarities, like Truffaut, Peter Bogdanovich and Bertrand Tavernier, a critic turned director. But of course, while writing his criticism (mostly on John Ford), Anderson, just like his comrades, didn’t view himself as a critic per se, but rather as a filmmaker ab ovo. Anderson had full careers equally as a documentarian and as a stage director. Though based on a script by David Sherwin, If “¦ does also include reflections of Anderson himself, Scottish and, as we now know, gay, and thus doubly at odds with prevailing British society.

McDowell

The narrative concerns Mick Travis (Malcolm McDowell), unwilling resident of an elite boys school. He has two fellow nonconformist friends, Johnny (David Wood), and the gay Wallace (Richard Warwick), whose conversations often turn to death and decay. The film examines the rigidity of the class system in the school, is frank about the levels of homosexuality present, and is contemptuous of authority, against which the three boys, along with a truck stop girl (Christine Noonan) they meet, rebel, in a series of fantasy sequences.

Shooting

This aspect of the film remains the most controversial, but for different reasons in different era. Then, to embrace revolution, even if by the end of a gun, was to welcome change. Today, post-Columbine, the sequence is unsettling to those who don’t perhaps understand or who have repressed memories of the sort of rage that high school or school in general engender in most people. Without endorsing the actions of school assassins, or knowing the direct motivations, one can certainly understand the almost inexpressible anger that educational institutions traffic in, indeed use as a form of control. Though some may find it difficult to cheer when the Headmaster is shot in the head, for those who still husband anger at what they endured in school it is a moment of great liberation, though not without its own form of sadness.

If girl

The disc is packed with supplements. Malcolm McDowell’s audio commentary, which he shares with Anderson expert David Robinson, is priceless. McDowell describes first meeting Anderson (Robinson notes in his parallel track that Anderson fell in love with all his leading actors, including MM), notes that he had a huge crush on Noonan, and that he went into the editing room with Anderson’s blessing to remove stray shots of his penis from the nude wrestling scene. McDowell also reveals that Anderson helped him figure out how to play Alex in A Clockwork Orange, pointing out a moment in If “¦ (which occurs at 1:13:24) and telling McDowell, “Play it like that.”

Cast and Crew

Kicking off disc two is an episode of a Scottish TV show fronted by Kristy Wark, Cast and Crew (42:04), which reunited filmmakers over significant movies. Aired in 2003, this one gathered If “¦ DP Ondricek, editor Ian Rakoff, director’s assistant Stephen Frears, producer Michael Medwin, and screenwriter Sherwin. McDowell appears in a separate interview. Sherwin reveals, among other things, that the script was originally called Crusaders.

Thursdays Child

In addition, there is also a new video interview (14:36) with actor Graham Crowden, who played the equally rebellious, if beaten down, History Master, and there is Thursday’s Children (22:08), the Oscar winning short film by Anderson and Guy Brenton, made in 1954, about a school for deaf children, narrated by Richard Burton. Apparently Oscar’s history of favoring children and the disabled stretches back to the dawn of time.

Supplementally speaking, all that’s missing from the disc is Is That All There Is?, a final program that Anderson made about himself in the twilight of his career. Perhaps it will appear on some forthcoming Lindsay Anderson disc from Criterion. Home, Whales of August, a version of Look Back in Anger, and Britannia Hospital have all been released on DVD already, leaving as available potential Criterion’s This Sporting Life, The White Bus, O Lucky Man!, and In Celebration.

If box

Inside the box is a 32-page insert featuring cast and crew, transfer info, and chapter titles, plus an essay by David Ehrenstein, diary excerpts by writer Sherwin, and interview excerpts with Anderson. There is also a 12-page promotional pamphlet, advertising Criterion’s Technicolor films.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress