Author: UncaScroogeMcD

  • DVD Late Show: Rockin’ Retro Horrors

    dvdlateshow.jpg

    July 04, 2006

    Rapid advancements in high-definition digital filmmaking technology have made it a lot easier (or cheaper, anyway) for aspiring filmmakers to actually shoot full-length features that look like movies and not just home videos. Luckily, not only are some of these filmmakers talented, but as devoted fans of the schlocky B-movies of the past, they appear determined to keep the tradition alive with ambitious exploitation efforts that echo the cheesy movies they grew up with.

    In the last couple of weeks, two such “retro” DVDs have shown up in my mailbox. And, while neither one knocks it completely out of the park, each has its charms.

    It takes a lot of cajones to put your name into the title of your movie. Still, while William Winckler may have a hell of an ego, his heart’s in the right place.

    dvdlateshow-july4-frank.jpg

    WILLIAM WINCKLER’S FRANKENSTEIN VS. THE CREATURE FROM BLOOD COVE (2005) is a fun and funny attempt to craft a U-I or AIP-styled monster mash for a modern audience, and while it stumbles occasionally, it’s still pretty damned entertaining.

    Three mad scientists (Larry Butler, Alison Lees-Taylor, and Rich Knight) create an amphibious monster with the intention of using it to assassinate terrorist leaders (“In the war on terror, the ultimate terror wins.”). But when it escapes from the lead scientist’s seaside home/laboratory and flees into the ocean, their leader is undeterred. If they’ve lost one monster, they’ll simply get another one. So he and his colleagues set out for “Shellvania” (somewhere East of Transylvania) to dig up the original Frankenstein Monster (former wrestler Lawrence Furbish). They find the brute pretty easily, and after a brief encounter with a wandering werewolf, they haul the carcass back to California.

    Meanwhile, a photographer for a girlie mag (played by writer/producer/director Winckler ““ I guess if you do all that, it’s okay to put your name in the movie’s title) and his crew are shooting a nude model on the beach at Blood Cove when they’re attacked by the scientists’ original creature. They take shelter at the Doctor’s house, but soon find themselves prisoners of the scientists and unwilling witnesses to the ultimate battle between Monster and Creature.

    Shot entirely in black & white on digital video, with a cool musical score by Mel Lewis that frequently incorporates the familiar strains of “Swan Lake” (in a melodic nod to Universal horror classics like DRACULA and THE MUMMY), FRANKENSTEIN VS. THE CREATURE is played pretty straight. There’s a lot of humor ““ some intentional, and some derived from the corny script ““ but it’s not an outright comedy spoof.

    Winckler, frankly, isn’t a very visual director. As we watched the movie, my wife and I kept coming up with ways that various scenes and even specific shots could have been improved (without costing a cent more). For example, while the monster make-ups and creature suits by Rich Knight are quite nicely designed, Winckler rarely shoots them effectively. Everything is too brightly lit and the movie lacks “atmosphere.”

    But ““ while the acting in the film tends to be either wooden or hammy, it’s appropriate to the genre and it works. Knight’s monsters are pretty cool. The various cult actor cameos are cute. And while Winckler’s filmmaking isn’t particularly stylish, he’s certainly ambitious. In one movie, he’s got an amphibious manfish, the Frankenstein Monster, the ghost of Victor Frankenstein, a werewolf, a trio of mad scientists, and a Ron Jeremy cameo. You gotta admire that!

    For the most part, FRANKENSTEIN VS. THE CREATURE a fairly successful attempt to recreate the monster flicks of the late Forties and early Fifties. In fact, the only way this movie differs from those he’s paying homage to (exempting the modern settting, of course) is in the area of nudity. There are three T&A scenes in the film that, while fairly tasteful, go further than any of those old creature features would have gone. It didn’t bother me particularly ““ we all know how much I love naked girls ““ but it might be a problem for purists, parents or prudes.

    The unrated DVD (available from Amazon and other online retailers) includes not only a full-frame presentation of the feature, but a plethora of bonus material as well. Aside from the audio commentary track by Winckler and Director of Photography Matthias Schubert, there’s a blooper reel, audition tapes, deleted scenes, a trailer, and two “Making Of” documentaries, one focusing on the movie’s composer. There’s also a brief clip of the Frankenstein Monster getting a lap dance from porn star Selena Silver at the flick’s strip club location. It’s cute, and would have made a great “Easter Egg,” if the disc’s producers had thought of it.

    My only complaint about the disc (and it’s a very minor one) is that the main menu is slow to load and the type is small and difficult to read on my TV screen. Maybe if they had put the special features on their own sub-menu, it would have been easier to read and navigate.

    Ultimately, for fans of the genre, it’s worth picking up. I’d like to see Winckler and other filmmakers keep doing these kinds of retro B-films, and I think his efforts are worth supporting.

    dvdlateshow-july4-stomp.jpg

    And, among the “other filmmakers doing these kinds of retro B-films,” we can include director Jay Wade Edwards. His low budget fright flick STOMP! SHOUT! SCREAM! (2006) is a delightful homage to/entry in the beach party/monster subgenre of Sixties drive-in fare, packed with rock & roll, bouffant hairdos, bikinis, and cheesy monsters (well, one, anyway).

    Set in 1966, STOMP! SHOUT! SCREAM! chronicles the misadventures of an all girl garage rock band, The Violas, (Claire Bronson, Mary Kraft, Cynthia Evans) whose car breaks down in a small Southern beach community. Short on cash, the girls agree to play at the young garage owner’s (Travis Young) party in exchange for the necessary repairs. Little do the girls know, however, that a murderous Florida Skunk Ape has made its way to this quiet island community and is racking up a respectable body count. Will the hirsute hominid crash the beach party? But, more importantly, will The Violas’ lovely lead woman, Theodora, find true love with the handsome University biologist (Jonathan Michael Green, in a dead-on performance) or the charming mechanic?

    While maybe a bit too talky and short on actual on-camera Skunk Ape action (the creature is played by a guy in a Halloween gorilla suit), STOMP! features surprisingly strong acting, slick camera work and lighting, authentic-looking production design and costumes, a clever animated title sequence, and a kickin’ soundtrack made up of some great, original Sixties-styled rock & roll songs by Catfight, The Woggles, The Penetrators and several other garage bands.

    The movie could definitely use a little more action, a few more establishing shots and a slightly brisker pace overall, but it’s a genuinely funny flick with plenty of coolness, a bit more polished than FRANKENSTEIN VS. THE CREATURE FROM BLOOD COVE, and is well worth checking out.

    The unrated (though no worse than a PG) DVD includes a solid non-anamorphic 1.66:1 widescreen transfer, an amusing, informative group commentary with director Edwards and various cast & crew, over an hour of behind-the-scenes vignettes, deleted scenes and raw footage, as well as a teaser trailer and still gallery. Even the DVD menus are stylishly designed. No chapter breaks, though, and that’s annoying.

    If you’re interested in picking it up, the producers are selling the DVD directly from their website at www.stompshoutscream.com.

    Recommended.

    Short column this week as I try to get my work schedule re-organized (time management is not really one of my skills). I will probably be doing shorter columns from now on, and making a real effort to get them posted more frequently.

    Next time”¦I’m not sure. Maybe I’ll finally get a chance to watch all those MASTERS OF HORROR discs I’ve been promising to review. You never know.

  • Nocturnal Admissions: Leonard Cohen: I’m Your Man

     

    nocturnalheader1.gif

    It’s a given these days that Leonard Cohen is one of our great rock poets. Writer Larry “Ratso” Sloman classifies him with Bob Dylan and Kinky Friedman as key Jewish rock artists of the 20th century. And as one of my colleagues said after a screening of Leonard Cohen: I’m Your Man, Cohen’s album Songs of Leonard Cohen, must certainly be a seminal record of the 1960s, comparable to Highway 61 Revisited, Led Zeppelin 4, London Calling, and Trout Mask Replica. 

    lenposterBut like many a cultural star, such as Jack Kerouac or David Lynch, Cohen is not much like what his fans take him to be. Far from the scruffy, hedonistic rocker or folkie, Cohen has always been a well-coifed, sartorially splendid specimen whose garb was at odds with the brooding sex-and-religion-obsessed songs he sang, or spoke-sang to be more accurate, the songs themselves born of his play with language as well as a deep depression he struggled with from the age of nine, when his father died (a trust fund financed Cohen’s artistic career). The depression lifted only when he submitted himself to the strict monk’s life of the Mount Baldy Zen Center but it reigned in his mental climate despite the fact of his liaisons with such beauties as Marianne Jensen, Suzanne Elrod, Rebecca De Mornay, and Anjani Thomas (he even banged Janis Joplin, and then wrote a song about it, “Chelsea Hotel No. 2”).

    Still, Cohen wasn’t really a Dylan because he wasn’t given to experimentation or even change, and he wasn’t a Friedman because he wasn’t a rock and roller. He was more like a male Laura Nyro, his songs meant to be listened alone in a darkened bedroom as you gently rock back and forth on the bed with your eyes closed.

    Ultimately, Cohen may be a musician’s musician and a writer’s writer, an avatar to be followed and a maker of lyrics of admirable but unique complexity. Thus rock musicians go nuts over him, and Cohen has enjoyed numerous tribute albums over the years, including 1991’s I’m Your Fan with the likes of R.E.M. and the Pixies, and 1995’s Tower of Song, featuring Sting, Elton John, and Willie Nelson.

    Perhaps some day Cohen will get the documentary cum rock concert movie celebration he deserves, but Leonard Cohen: I’m Your Man is not it. This is a flaccid, dull, insufficiently informative film that has too many borderline pop stars pretending to love the songs and not enough of Cohen himself.

     

    lenlen

    The film comes in two parts that are shuffled together. The first part is excerpts from a series of interviews with Cohen, with comments by others on him. Cohen looking, if you’ll forgive me, like handsome Dustin Hoffman, speaks to someone off camera while in extreme close-up, close enough to expose the broken vessels in his nose, and director Lian Lunson sees fit to “play” with the image like a Stan Brakhage gone mad, with digital impositions and a general shakiness. Still, Cohen speaks in a clear, well-practiced voice, making charmingly self-deprecating remarks, such as that “I had the title poet, and maybe I was one for a while. Also the title singer was kindly accorded me, even though I could barely carry a tune.” 

     

    lenu2

    As a transitional device, Lunson also imposes a double exposure of what look like red lights or a curtain, which only makes sense at the end of the film, when the 74-year-old Cohen is finally granted leave to sing on his own behalf. Unfortunately he does so with U2. Bono and The Edge are getting to be like Spike Lee, who is hauled out as a talking head in every documentary about race, as if he is the sole spokesman for a people. As exemplars of a caring, political rock music, the U2 boys are the instant experts on all things musical. But since they admitted in (the utterly boring) Rattle and Hum that they knew little about music, these assignments must require a great deal of cramming with the Rolling Stone Album Guide to bring them up to speed before the camera rolls. 

     

    lenantony

     

    The second part of the film is a concert, titled “Came So Far For Beauty,” and staged at the Sydney Opera House in January, 2005 by producer Hal Willner, who may or may not understand the subject of his tribute. The performers include Rufus Wainwright (a painfully sloppy performer), his mom and aunt, Kate and Anna McGarrigle (folkies far from Cohen’s style, but like him raised in Montreal), Martha Wainwright, his sister, Nick Cave (in an adopted Cohenish suit and growl), Beth Orton, Antony (of Antony and the Johnsons) doing “If It Be Your Will”, Teddy Thompson (son of Richard), Jarvis Cocker (son of Joe), and Julie Christensen and Perla Batalla.

    lenmartha

    Most of these performers are appallingly bad, with no feel for the songs. Or it may be that producer Willner has no feel for the songs, despite his exclamations over them at the start of the movie. Only Antony, a sort of a gay Joe Cocker, with body twitches out of rhythm with the beat, evinces even the least bit of feeling for the words behind the songs. Wainwright Soeur also has weird body language, with a kind of leaning down onto a mike that is positioned low on the stage. Jarvis, despite his heritage, is the normal one.

    Watching Thompson sing the Cohen song, “Tonight Will Be Fine,” made me feel like my parents. Why does he have to scrunch his face? Is he in pain? Why doesn’t he sell the song, like a Frankie or a Perry or a Wayne? And what’s with the hair? But badly done rock and roll can do that to you, take you outside the Dionysian celebration, and make you feel old and alienated. That Cohen isn’t really a rock and roller in the first place should have been obvious to the singers and producers involved in this show.

     

  • Clerks 2 InAction Short #2

    clerksinaction.jpg

    The countdown is on to the premiere of Clerks 2 (July 21st, natch) and we’ve got a special series of cyber-nuggets to keep you amped, featuring the plastic alter-egos of everyone’s favorite cast of characters (including a certain writer/director who shall remain nameless).

    EPISODE #2: “Break Up To Make Up” – A tale of love lost, regrets, and a boom box.

    Download here:

    clerksinactionepisode02.jpg

    CHECK OUT EPISODE #1: Click Here

    Clerks 2 InAction is brought to you by Kevin Smith, Jeff Anderson, Brian O’Halloran, Ken Plume, and Zak Knutson & Joey Figueroa of Chop Shop Entertainment. Want to make Randal and Dante obey your every whim? Click here.

  • Interview: Russell T. Davies

    -By Ken Plume

    doctorwho-20060703-01.jpgWhen most creative people view the re-launch of a venerable franchise as a 1,2,3 process of simply wiping out what came before and starting from scratch, it takes a delicate hand – and an often harrowing leap of faith – to decide to revitalize a franchise while still keeping its previous continuity intact.

    It’s rare that such an endeavor proves successful, but just such a creative miracle was achieved by Russell T. Davies, executive producer the rejuvenated Doctor Who.

    Re-launched last year on the BBC to critical praise and fan approval, the Doctor’s adventures pulled in huge audiences of both old and new fans of all ages, proving that you don’t always have to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

    Starring Christopher Eccleston as the time traveling Doctor (the ninth in a line that’s included the legendary Tom Baker, Jon Pertwee, Patrick Troughton, Sylvester McCoy, Colin Baker, Peter Davison, William Hartnell, and Paul McGann) and Billie Piper as faithful and feisty companion Rose Tyler, it’s amazing how well it all pulled together.

    The first series just wrapped up its debut airing on the Sci-Fi Channel here in the US, while the second series reaches its conclusion this weekend in the UK. You can pick up the complete first series on DVD this week from BBC Home Video, which is loaded with commentaries, documentaries, and more.

    Quick Stop got a chance to chat with Russell Davies about Who past, present, and future.

    ——————————————————————–

    KEN PLUME: Going back a couple of years, if you were to describe the goals you wanted to accomplish going into the new version of Doctor Who, what would those goals be?

    doctorwho-20060703-02.jpgRUSSELL T. DAVIES: Well, the main goal, which we achieved, was to – and it’s different in this country than to your country – but to create a science fiction show for a prime time terrestrial slot… which I think is true of America, as well.  A lot of stuff gets into sort of niche channeling and slots for subscription markets – which are very, very popular in their own right – but I think that’s in danger of taking science fiction out of the mainstream and almost sort of preaching to the converted.  So right from the start we knew we were given *the* prime time slot on British television, which is a Saturday night.  I don’t think Saturday night is such a big battleground in America.

    KP: In fact, I think it’s a dead night in America.

    DAVIES: You watch! They’ll revive it soon!  I give you three years, and it’ll become a battleground as they fill… that’s what broadcasters do – they fill every available slot, so it won’t stay like that for long, I’ll say. So we knew that we were up against the British version of the slots that go to X Factor, Pop Idol – they’re the big huge slots.  That’s where we play our version of American Idol.  That’s where we play all our big entertainment shows and things like that.  But I was determined to make a science fiction show that wasn’t niche.  That got a whole new generation of people watching.  That got audiences that don’t watch science fiction to tune in – ’cause you could sort of more or less guarantee that that standard science fiction demographic would turn in.

    KP: Right, that base level…

    DAVIES: Yes, bless them. I thought the faithful few would be there, anyway.  And that worked.  That was what we set out to do, and we’ve got always got these aims and ambitions that very rarely work but that one did! (laughing)

    KP: So, basically, you were looking for an Ant & Dec killer.

    DAVIES: Yeah, well… no, we went up against Ant & Dec.  What was absolutely lovely was that they kept their audience. We got a bigger audience, but we didn’t actually rob any of the audience of Ant & Dec.

    KP: So you created an audience.

    DAVIES: I think television is healthy when channels all supplement each other and are not stealing from each other.

    KP: That’s definitely not how TV has worked for the past couple of decades.

    DAVIES: (laughing) No, exactly.

    KP: It’s good to know that you actually brought an audience in who wouldn’t otherwise have been watching that evening.

    DAVIES: Yes.  ‘Cause otherwise, you know, niche viewing gets smaller and smaller and smaller and more adult and more and more exclusive, and no program should be like that, I think.  No program whatsoever.

    KP: Which is not to say that the Doctor couldn’t every once in a while give away a car…

    DAVIES: Give away a car! (laughing) Well, on the BBC – no advertising.  No ad breaks. None at all.

    KP: Well, it’d just have to be a generic car.

    DAVIES: (laughing) Exactly!

    KP:  Give away the Who-mobile or something.

    DAVIES: (laughing) You do know your stuff!

     

    doctorwho-20060703-03.jpg

    KP: On a personal level, what did you want to accomplish, story-wise? 

    DAVIES: Well, story-wise I was always absolutely determined that it was the same story. That it was the same doctor and the same Tardis having the same adventures.  I didn’t want it to be a reboot.  I wanted it to be a very a continuation of the 40 year history of a great institution.  You know if you do something like Robin Hood or Sherlock Holmes you tend to do it from scratch.  It’s what you do very well with Superman. You reboot it and start it from scratch every decade or so.

    KP: That’s because we have no sense of history…

    DAVIES: Yes, well, I thought that was impossible with the Doctor because he always… even within the show’s previous history, you always change his face so often. So whoever we cast as the Doctor would be seen as the ninth Doctor by the newspapers and by the media.  No matter what we did it would be impossible for us to say this is the first Doctor.  And plus, I love that old show and I wanted to continue it rather than write over it.  So very subtly I wanted to do that without hitting people over the head with lots of continuity or baggage and stuff like that, and again we pulled that off as well.  You know, because it wouldn’t be very welcoming for a new audience otherwise.  And you’ve got to remember that in this country, Doctor Who was partly loved but partly had a terrible reputation.  I love the old show, but its memory – it was remembered as a program that was cheap and somewhat silly and somewhat lightweight and a bit of a sort of kid’s run around, and I wanted to make it proper drama and give it proper standards, proper production standards and proper heart, and just welcome everyone in that way. So it was hard work to salvage the program’s reputation.

    doctorwho-20060703-04.jpgKP: Well, the UK has Tom Baker, and we have William Shatner.

    DAVIES: (laughing)! Do you think we’re better off?

    KP: You know what, I’d like to see the two of them go head-to-head for an interview program.

    DAVIES: I’d like to see the two of them kissing.  (laughing)!

    KP: You know what?  You need to produce When William Shatner met Tom Baker

    DAVIES: Can you imagine?  That would be brilliant! (laughing)!

    KP: “One came from the US, one from the UK. They met. They fell in love…”

    DAVIES: (laughing) It’s a classic boy meets boy story.

    KP: I think you’re sold on this…

    DAVIES: (laughing)!

    KP: Forget Torchwood – here’s your spin-off.

    DAVIES: Exactly.

    KP: What was the biggest pitfall you saw in the re-launch?  The thing that you were desperate to try and avoid that you actually saw as a valid thing that could happen, despite all your best intentions?

    DAVIES: I think the… whoo, there’s many, many pitfalls to avoid.  It’s a very careful balancing act with Doctor Who, which is to not make it look silly.  I think a lot of people just consider science fiction to be silly, and sort of all monsters running around. But at the same time – at exactly the same time – to keep Doctor Who‘s absolutely unique sense of humor.  Because I think that is a unique property.  There’s no point in replicating other shows… Shows like Stargate are excellent, but they have a very macho, military, hard-ass feel to them.  And Doctor Who is more charming and more witty and more eccentric.  So it’s to keep that lightness without being seen as a send-up, and it’s a very difficult balance act.  We have very good writers and a production team who pulled that off, really.

    KP: The fascinating thing is you also made a show that is watchable by children and families.

    DAVIES: Yes, absolutely.  Very much inspired by – I’m a very big fan of those modern cinema family blockbusters like Toy Story and Shrek. and stuff like that, and Harry Potter even.  I knew that families would gather ’round our stuff the way they gather around those.  I thought if we could make every episode that big each week, that much of an event each week, with the backing of a great big BBC publicity machine behind us as well, that there is a great family audience out there.  They were plainly and clearly going to the cinema.  I go ’round my friends’ houses and mum and dad would sit there with the kids and we’d watch Finding Nemo.  And everyone in the room would love it.  So that audience was clearly up for grabs, and had been completely neglected in the UK, and programs like that weren’t being made since Doctor Who. There’s 37 million of them coming along, because we proved that it can be done.

    KP: Which is not to say that you haven’t tried to do it over the years.

    DAVIES: Oh absolutely.  I’ve tried, and plenty of these new shows coming along will try and fail, bless them, but it’s exciting.  As a result of Doctor Who, there’s a new version of Robin Hood coming along by the BBC, which I’m really looking forward to.  I think that’s very exciting. I’ll be sitting watching that…

    KP: It’s interesting that you have, over the course of your career… and I say this having just watched the Unscripted documentary, that this is definitely a genre that you’ve tried to resuscitate over the years.

    DAVIES: Yes, I suppose so.  I mean, really I just keep moving genres all the time. When it was first announced that I was doing it, every tabloid newspaper announced that a gay man was going to do children’s programming…

    KP: Obviously people who didn’t know the production history of Doctor Who

    DAVIES: Yeah, exactly. But there were plenty of headlines saying “Doctor Queer” and stuff like that, and the entire press lined up to sort of say that a gay man couldn’t possibly do this – and, as ever, I proved them wrong. Hurray!

    KP: I thought it was quite ludicrous just how far the press went in trying to make that an issue.

    DAVIES: Oh, I’m used to it.  I’m used to it, and not one of them’s ever stopped me yet.

    KP: The proof is in the pudding.

    DAVIES: Absolutely, yes.

     

    doctorwho-20060703-05.jpg

    KP: The new Who has become a template. Over here in the US, there’s been a lot of failed relaunch attempts of various old shows… 

    DAVIES: Oh yes, it’s a potentially deadly battleground.  There were plenty of people saying we were doomed to fail.  But I knew… because I loved the old show.  I still love the old show, and I knew how good it could be.  I never doubted that it could work.  But that’s no guarantee that you will actually make it work, because it’s much more complicated than that.  Everyone sets out to make a successful program, everyone wants everyone to watch – very few of them get through.  So we tried and somehow everything was in the right place this time.

    KP: It really shows when you sit down and watch the program, that it’s coming from a position and a point of love and respect for the concept.

    DAVIES: Yes, we truly have a team where everyone is dedicated to it.  It’s quite extraordinary, actually, and it is a British cultural thing.  There’s a genuine love of it, and there were hundreds of people on that show. You know what a film set is like, and it’s like they’re all putting in extra hours, extra bit of work – the design team particularly, especially the computer graphics people, are people who grew up with Doctor Who, who grew up loving science fiction, and it’s genuinely loved by the people making it.  And by its executives. The support we get from the head of drama is quite extraordinary.  She loves it.  She absolutely loves it.  So we’re in a very, very lucky position and we all know that.

    KP: Was there any reticence on their part when you came to them saying, “I want to do a continuation, not a wholesale revamp of this…”?

    DAVIES: No, they got me in, and again – I know I’m very, very lucky. They trusted me completely.  They didn’t get me in to give me 27 rules. They got me in to tell them how to bring it back.

    KP: Was it known from the very beginning that the season would end with a regeneration?

    DAVIES: Yes. It was always a possibility, and we discussed that right from the start.  Things could have changed and we kept everything fluid as we went along, but yeah, things happened as we planned them.

    KP: Was it always your intention that David (Tennant) would be the replacement?

    DAVIES: No, we didn’t know that until we were casting properly.  I mean, fortunately Julie Gardner, who’s the other executive producer, and I had just worked with David – while we were making Doctor Who – on a production of Casanova, which was the first time we’d ever met him or knew him.  I remember right at the beginning of Doctor Who his name was mentioned, and none of us knew who he was. (laughing) Gotta be honest, bless him! He wouldn’t mind me saying that!  So while we were doing Doctor Who, we worked with him at the same time and just loved him.  Plus it saved us having to do a great big casting call, because that would have been a nightmare, I think.  We were able to do it very quietly and very discreetly, so it was very, very lucky.

    KP: So really, after 20 years, you made his career…

    DAVIES: (laughing)!  Don’t say that!

    KP: No Harry Potter if it wasn’t for you…

    DAVIES: (laughing) Exactly…

     

    doctorwho-20060703-06.jpg

    KP:  Going into it, was it a transition that you were worried about, that, “Hey, we’ve got a winning formula, how is this going to affect it?”… 

    DAVIES: Yes, sure… you always worry about everything. You worry about every new episode, to be honest, because the thing about Doctor Who is it’s very different every week, so every week you’re sitting there thinking, “Will people like this one?”  But we have to do it.  We’re confident.  We have to hope that it would work.  And the fact that it has has been brilliant.  But you never know.  You just try and do the best, really.

    KP: It’s amazing – from someone who knew Doctor Who and knew the mythos but wasn’t fully invested in it over the years, to go into this with a knowing but fresh eye and be swept up in it… You really pulled it off for me. You’ve been able to carry on and reintroduce concepts with a spin, but have it still be valid – it continues to impress me, when I’ve seen so many other series crash and burn.

    DAVIES: Yes, it’s easily done.  We keep a very close eye on it.  The nice thing is that after the success of the first year, not one of us relaxes.  We thought there would be time to relax, but we really haven’t.  And obviously the episode going out this week, coming on Saturday, you must download it as soon as it’s available. It’s astonishing. It’s absolutely lovely.

    KP: Well, the preview alone already has me energized.  I really did enjoy last week’s episode.

    DAVIES: Lovely, wasn’t it?  That’s what I mean by Doctor Who‘s charm. It’s a very charming episode, that one.

    KP: I keep hoping you have some kind of American episode that doesn’t involve some crazy industrialist… 

    DAVIES: (laughing)!

    KP: You know, we’re not all mad…

    DAVIES: We’ve got Captain Jack.  He’s American. He’s gorgeous. Bisexual. Fantastic.

    KP: Yes, but we haven’t seen him for six episodes…

    DAVIES: But we’re building a whole show around him. Don’t worry. We hope to sell that to the States as well, with a bit of luck.

    KP: I’m sure eventually we’ll find out he’s from Canada.

    DAVIES: (laughing)!  He’s not, though.  Bless him.

    KP: Speaking of Torchwood, is that still slated to come out next year?

    DAVIES: I think it’s going out at the end of this year, actually. I lose track of things like that, but no, it should go out on… yes it is.  Ah, October, end of October, something like that.  I think that’s the plan.

    KP: Oh, excellent.

    DAVIES: Yes, but it’s on target for that.  Of course they always shift things and change their minds and move things around, so that’s beyond my authority, but we’re on schedule for that, anyway.

    KP: And honestly, since you’ve toyed around with people so much, do you have any intention whatsoever of bringing Liz Sladen back?

    DAVIES: Oh bless her, I don’t know.  I mean, that was a beautiful one-off episode, but I don’t think you’d spoil it if she met the doctor again somehow, I think.

    KP: Or if she was involved in a potential spin-off show you’re working on…

    DAVIES: If we have time. If we have the living time to do that…

    KP: It’ll run for years, come on….

    DAVIES: (laughing)!

    doctorwho-20060703-07.jpgKP: So now you’ve reintroduced the Daleks rather spectacularly…

    DAVIES: Yes.

    KP: You reintroduced the Cybermen rather spectacularly… That really only leaves on other villainous cornerstone…

    DAVIES: Oh, which one’s that then?  Oh, the Master?

    KP: The Master.

    DAVIES: Oh right, no there’s a few. There’s Ice Warriors…

    KP: But as far as the ones everyone remembers…

    DAVIES: I’m not too keen on the Master, myself.  I remember when I was a kid he was probably my least favorite villain.  So I think I do believe in bringing back all the great icons of the series, but I think that if we’re gonna bring him back, we need to think very carefully about how to do it because he can be a bit of a moustache twirler sometimes – and that’s exactly what you want, but…

    KP: I have to admit I was a bit disappointed when I saw “School Reunion,” because I thought, “You know, Tony Head would have been great as the Master, in the way he played that role”…

    DAVIES: What a lovely man.  What an absolute delight to work with, that man.  I’ve admired him from afar.  Watched everything every single episode of Buffy all those years, but you don’t know what the man’s gonna be like until he actually arrives. He’s charming.  Absolutely gorgeous.

    KP: I did a six hour interview with him a few years back.

    DAVIES: Did you? He’s lovely, isn’t he?  Very clever, very witty, very wise.

    KP: And amazing the stories he’ll tell when he’s giving an interview at the pub.

    DAVIES: (laughing) I think I had a couple of them but maybe not as many as you.  Lovely man.  That’s one of the lovely things about working on this show, is getting to meet people like that. 

    KP: Of course, who knows, in Doctor Who anyone can return in any form.

    DAVIES: Absolutely. He was very popular. There are no plans, I must admit. There are no plans to bring him back, but he was wonderful.

    KP: And Stephen Fry’s episode has been moved back to the next series?

    DAVIES: Yes, the next series. Filming on series three starts in four and a half week’s time.

    KP: Well, that’s good to know you’re starting on another series.

    DAVIES: Yes. Oh, brilliant, yes. We’re very happy.

    KP: Any hints as far as what can be expected for the third series?

    DAVIES: No, it’s too early to start hinting about that, really. 

    KP: Any ideas of where you want to go?

    DAVIES: Oh yeah, it’s all storylined.  We’ve got about seven scripts underway and… more, probably… Eight scripts underway, actually.  So it’s all laid out and patterned and I know exactly what’s… I can tell you the ending of series three right now, but I’m not going to.

    KP: But, I’m so nice…

    DAVIES: (laughing)!  You could be sitting there naked in a bucket for all I know!

    KP: Is that how you’re envisioning me?

    DAVIES: (laughing)! It helps with the vocal piece!

    KP: Whatever makes it easy.  It seems, with a 13 episode run, that there’s so much you want to do that things get a bit rushed towards the end.

    DAVIES: Yeah, do you think?

    KP: The last season, the Bad Wolf reveal didn’t strike me as wholly satisfying.

    DAVIES: Well, that’s tough, Ken.

    KP: I’m not saying it in an accusatory fashion…

    DAVIES: No, I have to say, we loved it.

    KP: Do you feel straight-jacketed in any way about, “I wish we had a little more time to tell story…”?

    DAVIES: No, no… absolutely not, no.  It’s enough doing these episodes as it is.

    KP: So you can’t ever envision doing a 26 episode series?

    DAVIES: Oh no, thank you. Blimey.  No, we just wouldn’t have time to… admittedly wouldn’t have time.  The performing hours are very different over here. It’s like, I know things like Buffy and all those big shows, Angel – I know you do 22, 24 episodes a year, but your filming hours are extraordinary.  In fact, you will film 16 hours a day to get it shot because you have different union rules and rules about overtime and stuff like that.  We don’t. It’s an 11 hour filming day over here and that’s the end, and you do not film beyond that.  So we literally don’t have the scope to film like the Americans do. It’s illegal over here.

    KP: Which leads to you not having the burnout rate we do…

    DAVIES: No, I suppose so.  Well, I wouldn’t know, ’cause there’s no chance to burn out like that.  You literally cannot do it! (laughing)

    KP: Can you ever envision doing an American show?

    DAVIES: Oh, I suppose so, yes.  I mean, I had a fair bit of contact with that lovely team that did the version of Queer as Folk for Showtime, Ron Cowan, and it was a very exciting seeing them work and seeing the writer’s room and that sort of stuff.  So it’s attractive, yes.

    KP: But not something that you foresee for the immediate future.

    DAVIES: No, no I’m too busy.  I’m 43 years old, and it’d be a little bit like starting from scratch, you know? You bang on the door of American studios and they’d say, “Who the hell are you?” I’m getting a little bit old in the tooth to start from scratch.

    KP: But you can’t tell me that they’re not banging on the door to get you.

    DAVIES: No, they’re not actually.  None of them do.

    KP: From what I’ve heard it’s doing very well on the Sci-Fi Channel…

    DAVIES: That’s what they say.  I hope so, yes. It’s an unusual little show for Sci-Fi, and they’ve been very nice to us.  They’ve been very lovely to work with, actually, so I hope it works for them, because they deserve payback for the faith they’ve given us.

    KP: It was faith they gave after realizing that they made a mistake not picking you up in the first place.

    DAVIES: (laughing) I don’t know what happened there.

    KP: Don’t worry – I’m not making you say that, I’m saying that.  There must be other projects besides the Doctor Who universe you want to do…

    DAVIES: Oh, there are.  There’s a few things on hold for the moment.  I won’t do this forever, but at the same time it’s such a big set up.  We just moved to a brand new dedicated studio for Doctor Who and Torchwood, which is massive and huge and providing an awful lot of employment in South Wales, so it’s not a project I’m about to walk out of quickly.  Partly because I love it, and I think on British television I won’t have the chance to write anything like this stuff again.  But partly because of this huge investment in South Wales.  You know, South Wales is not a big television-making capital.  But we’re making it so with these programs, and work creates work.  We get other programs to follow us here, and that’s happening already.  So it’s not something to walk out on quickly. But at the end of the day, there’s a million shows that I want to write that wouldn’t fit into Doctor Who‘s brief or Doctor Who‘s universe at all. So like everyone, I’ll move on in the end.

    KP: At what point would you realize it was time to move on?

    DAVIES: I suppose really when I feel like I’m missing out on other work, to be honest.  When I see my peers writing stuff in 9:00 slots and 10:00 slots that I envy.  Because I absolutely love the Doctor Who world, but there’s certain things you simply cannot write in it.  And neither should you.  You shouldn’t impose it on Doctor Who.  So I could literally, when I get itchy feet – not at the moment – but there are various things lined up and they’re simply waiting.  I have people saying, “Well, just come back to us in a couple years when you’re ready.”  So I’ll let that filter down.  I’m literally enjoying it too much. Literally, we just finished episode 9 at the moment.  Episode 8 goes out on Saturday. I’ve just come from the meetings on the dub of episode nine, and I could not be more happy with the piece of work. I just think it’s absolutely stunning. But when you come out of something buzzing like that, you think, “Well, why look for work elsewhere?”  This is lovely.

    KP: Well, you’ve done a fantastic job so far, against all odds…

    DAVIES: Bless you, sir.

     

    doctorwho-20060703-08.jpg

    KP: And one geeky question that I’m being forced to ask you… 

    DAVIES: (laughing)!  There’s someone else in the bucket with you, isn’t there?

    KP: Yes, there’s someone else in the bucket.  It’s a rather large bucket, actually…

    DAVIES: Hurray!

    KP: They’re like that in America…

    DAVIES: (laughing)

    KP: One of the other staples of the past Doctor Who run was the occasion to run into previous doctors…

    DAVIES: Yes.  I’m not too keen on that, I’ve got to say, because… I mean, if the perfect idea came along… I always tend to find that you’re watching the actors, not the Doctor.  I sort of think everything that happens to the Doctor and Rose should feel like something that you can correspond with yourself.  You know, when they’re in danger, when there’s fear, when there’s great love between them – you can feel that as an audience.  Meeting a different version of yourself doesn’t correspond in any sort of human equation.  You’re sitting there thinking, “Well, that’s never gonna happen to me.”  So it’s the one area where I tend to find it becomes a television show in inverted commas when they do that. I think it’s a little bit self-aware.

    KP: And considering the aging factor of some of the actors…

    DAVIES: Well, there is that, as well.

    KP: Is there a potential, though, for them to play other roles?

    DAVIES: I’m not too keen on that.  None of us has ever suggested that, because again, it becomes terribly self aware then.

    KP: I noticed how quickly you shuttled off K-9.

    DAVIES: Ah.  No, I love K-9.  I love it. It’s gorgeous.

    KP: At least you gave licensees the ability to make new K-9 products.

    DAVIES: (laughing) I’ve got one!

    KP: Well I don’t want to keep you. I know you have a lot more to do today.

    DAVIES: Bless you, Ken.

    KP: I appreciate it, and I look forward to speaking with you in the future.  And remember, no more bad Americans!

    DAVIES: (laughing) Okay!
     

  • Spook’d #84: Extreme Lair Makeover – A Needy Case

    by Jeffery Stevenson and Seth Damoose with colors by Anthony Lee

    Larger sized comic

    Spook'd #84: Extreme Lair Makeover - A Needy Case

    To see Spook’d host Alastor’s blogging silliness and more fun Spook’d stuff,visit the Spook’d Web site!

    Check out the preview to…

    E-MAIL WRITER | ABOUT JEFF | ABOUT SETH | SPOOK’D BLOG | SPOOK’D FORUM | ARCHIVES

    Disclaimer: All material in Spook’d is fictitious and intended solely for the purpose of entertainment. Names are fabricated and any similarity to real people or places is purely coincidental except in those cases where public figures are being satirized.

  • Rabbit & Cat Adventures #1: The Rabbit-ing

    Rabbit & Cat Adventures Header
    Rabbit & Cat Adventures #1 (2006-07-04) Thumbnail

    We promise next week’s comic won’t be as weird.

    Becky and I also work on another comic called Combustible Orange that has been running for nearly 3 and a half years. I also worked on Movie Poop Shoot’s Action Datsun.

    We’ll be debuting a new book, some t-shirts and minicomics at this year’s San Diego Comic Con at Booth #1034 near the other webcomics. Please come down and say hi! Don’t let your distant Viewaskew relatives get lonely. There will be free sketches and if you want us to sign something, we’ll do it. But no one has really ever asked us to do that before. The only time that has happened was when someone quite famous asked me to do that. It was awkward. But come see us!

     

  • Nocturnal Admissions: The Omen, The Hills Have Eyes

     

    nocturnalheader.gif

    Sometime in the early 1970s, Harvey Bernhard met Robert L. Munger for lunch. They were an odd pair. Bernhard was a recent transplant from Las Vegas, where he had mounted innovative stage shows. Mugger was an L.A. based advertising man who was also a born again Christian. The topic of the lunch, as is so often in Los Angeles, was a pitch. How the Christian Munger came to pitch his idea to the presumably Jewish Bernhard remains something of a mystery, but presumably they were friends who had encountered each other at some point in their equally illustrious careers. Mugger may have been a neophyte, but the pitch he aired excited the otherwise stolid Bernhard, who abruptly left the meeting, made some plot outline notes on a napkin, and eventually approached Richard Seltzer to fashion a screenplay from those fevered notes. 

    How Munger knew Bernhard, or Bernhard knew Seltzer, is unknown, as is so much else about the early history of The Omen, for that is the film that resulted from Munger’s pitch.

    omentitle

    Not that it was an easy path to movie fame. Initially titled Antichrist, the script was rejected, according to legend (and there is a lot of legend circulating around The Omen, some of it, apparently, true) rejected by every studio in town, including Fox. Finally, on the eve of the project’s destruction, the script came to Richard Donner via an agent friend. Donner, an experienced TV pro, was seeking entry into the illustrious realm of movie directing. Stories conflict, but Donner was about to have dinner with Alan Ladd, Jr., then head of production at Fox, and having sat and read the script in one enthralled sitting, took the opportunity of the dinner to re-pitch the film, which this time, Ladd accepted. Mutatis mutandis, the film went into production quickly thereafter, with Donner enjoining Seltzer to make significant changes in the text (including a couple more title changes, to The Birthmark, and then The Omen). Seltzer’s main mandate was to remove all evidence of hocus pocus, cloven feet, red tails, and other impedimenta of Satan tales since time immemorial, or at least Dante, all the way up to Rosemary’s Baby.

    omenscare

    Donner wanted a “clean” text, one that could be interpreted in numerous ways, not unlike The Exorcist, its obvious progenitor. Is Damien really the spawn of woman and wolf? Or is diplomat Robert Thorn (Gregory Peck) really crazy, in an escalatingly nutty trap with his wife Katherine (Lee Remick). Donner must have been right, as his film made some $28 million dollars upon initial release from a $2+ million dollar budget, spawning two sequels, a TV movie, a short-lived TV series, and a recent remake. The Omen it appears, is the franchise that Fox turns to in tough times, or whenever the date June 6 Something6 pops up in the calendar.

    omenboxThe recent special edition The Omen (Fox Home Entertainment, No. 29 in its Collector’s Edition series, 1978, 111 minutes, color, R, 2.35:1 enhanced, two single sided dual layered discs, Dolby Digital Mono, Dolby Digital 5.1 in English, Spanish, and French, with English and Spanish subtitles, animated musical menu with 36-chapter scene selection, 6-page insert with chapter titles, trivia, pix, dual DVD keep case, $26.96, released on Tuesday, June 20, 2006; supersedes a DVD published in September 2000) disc’s celebratants, such as Wes Craven, recall how topnotch the film was. However, I recall that Omen was rather mocked by reviewers. Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times wrote “The Omen takes all of this terribly seriously, as befits the genre that gave us Rosemary’s Baby and The Exorcist. What Jesus was to the 1950s movie epic, the devil is to the 1970s, and so all of this material is approached with the greatest solemnity, not only in the performances but also in the photography, the music and the very looks on people’s faces.” and Bill Kelley in Cinefantastique (Vol. 7, No. 3) perhaps put it best when he noted that it was a “flabby series of mechanical vignettes.” Some, like Kelley, thought that the sequel, directed by actor-turned-director Don Taylor, was better, which no doubt had to be bitterness and gall to Donner whose insight had established the future franchise’s credentials.

    The jocular Donner mentions just about everything else but that in the wealth of chat that he serves up on this set. Donner appears in three or four featurettes and no less than two audio commentary tracks, the first with editor Stuart Baird, the second with writer-director Brian Helgeland, clearly a big fan of the director.

    But that is not unusual in Hollywood. Civilians may not realize how esteemed a figure Donner is among his peers and other filmmakers. I recall interviewing Doug Liman during the time he was promoting Swingers back in 1996. Since he was hired on to direct something written and starring someone else, like John G. Avildsen on Rocky, I was wondering how he came up with visual ideas. He cited Donner. When the swingers are driving to Vegas, Liman had to figure out whether to shoot them in a car pulled on a trailer, or from a lead car. Turning to the opening scene of Lethal Weapon II he got his answer (use another car). Directors of Brian DePalma’s generation turn to Hitchcock for answers to their technical problems. Of Liman’s generation, they turn to Donner.

    Given so much air time, Donner does tend to repeat himself. But then, like most directors would, he’s probably been saying the same 15 things about The Omen since 1977. Donner also provides an introduction to this collector’s edition, and in two other featurettes, “Curse or Coincidence,” he pops up to pooh-pooh the “curse of the film, which Bernherd likes to promote, as well as in “Jerry Goldsmith Discusses The Omen Score,” which gives a fairly detailed account of the music of the film, for which it won an Oscarâ„¢. The first disc also has the trailer, and trailers for five or six other Fox films.

    omendeleted

    Disc two commences with another intro by Donner, and proceeds to two lengthy documentaries: “666: The Omen Revealed” and “The Omen Legacy,” which goes into detail about the sequels and off shoots, and a healthy photo gallery. There is one deleted scene, which concerns the guardian dog attacking Peck as he arrives at the church with Damien for the kill. This comes with an optional yak track by Donner and Helgeland, in which Donner asserts his reasons for cutting it. There is also a “Screenwriter’s Notebook,” and “An Appreciation: Wes Craven on The Omen.

    Personally, I find it puzzling that Craven thinks that The Omen is so good, but Craven, who pops again, of course, on the disc for the unrated version of Alexandre Aja and Gregory Levasseur’s The Hills Have Eyes, suggests that after Last House on the Left, he didn’t want to make a another horror film. It may be that Craven didn’t even see Last House as a horror film, perhaps more of a political commentary. It’s possible that the great tragedy of Craven’s creative life is that he is associated with a genre that he doesn’t care all that much about and is viewed as an expert on. The Omen came out a year after the first The Hills Have Eyes, long before Craven was not much more than a cult director among a few thousand horror geeks, but it seems to me that the first Hills is much superior to the first Omen.

    hillsdaughter

    The new Hills of course is based on Craven’s film, which Craven both wrote and directed. It’s about the 10th ’70s horror remake in the past three years and there are more to come. Bur surprisingly, like most of those remakes, it is better than the original, at least on a technical level.

    That’s to be expected on one level, since technological and filmmaking skills have improved in 30 years, and anyway, The Hills Have Eyes was a low budget endeavor to begin with. The first one cost $250 thousand, the new one probably cost 50 times more (though it was shot in Morocco, doing an excellent stand in for New Mexico). But on another level, this version, which is produced by Craven and his company, seems more thought out in its particulars. It plays up the nuclear connection in more detail, and brings more complexity to the characters.hillsrapeAs is well known, The Hills Have Eyes tells of the Carter family, driving across country on vacation. It’s a large extended family. There is the patriarch, former cop Big Bob Carter (Ted Levine), and his wife, Ethel (Kathleen Quinlan). They have three children and two dogs, which are a matched pair of guard dogs. The kids are Lynn (Vinessa Shaw of a memorable scene in Eyes Wide Shut), married to cellular phone shop owner (and liberal democrat) Doug Bukowski (Aaron Stanford), daughter Brenda (Emilie de Ravin, of Lost, and here lost again), and Bobby (Dan Byrd), the youngest, and the one who most takes after Big Bob. The two Bobs get a lot of mileage from teasing Doug for his politics and pacifism. Doug and Lynn have a baby. The new version hews closely to the original. Out in the New Mexico desert, the family finds itself stranded far from help. Dad goes one way, back to the gas station they just stopped at, Doug the other direction, which leads him to the crater of an A-Bomb test, now used as the dumping ground of a family of mutants, who stalk the family, kill the dad, rape one daughter and kill another, and steal the baby. The surviving family members plot their rescue and revenge.

    hillsdaughterax

    The new HHE is better shot and better acted than the original. But possibly under the influence of Craven, Aja and Levasseur, who made High Tension, expand some of the ideas found in the original. Here, there is much more tension within the family (just as the characters in Scorsese’s version of Cape Fear are compromised much more than its anodyne source). Doug is downtrodden by the teasing. Brenda is bored. Ethel and Bob are at odds, partially for religious reasons. It is she who insists that they pray before breaking up to hunt for help.

    Also, motivation for action is more carefully worked out. In this new one, the gas station operator (Tom Bower), who is also the grandfather of the diseased mutant family, intentionally sends the Carters down the wrong road, because Lynn happened to see the haul of booty that the mutant family has acquired from numerous other now dead families. In contrast, however, there is less motivation for Ruby (Laura Ortiz) who in the original was trying to escape her crazy family. Here it is Brenda who seeks escape, while Ruby is a cipher. The mirroring of the two families, which made Hills 1 so interesting and richly textured despite its drive-in origins, would have been enhanced in Hills 2 if both daughters were brought up to speed thematically.

    Back in the 1970s, critics such as Robin Wood pointed out how horror films of the time, such as Hills Have Eyes, Night of the Living Dead, The Omen and others, with their emphasis on sexual repression, cannibalism, and the “terrible house” which serves as a locus for the morbid rituals of grotesque horror, seemed to be symptomatic of the American family as a social institution in crisis, of a collective nightmare from which Americans could not awaken. It was easy to infer that the foundation of society was rattled by social protest, the divisions brought on by the Vietnam war and the civil rights movement, though these films rarely explicitly referred to this social tremors. What Aja and Levasseur have done in this remake is to make explicit what was only implied in the first.”You made us this way “¦ we’re this way because of you,” complains one of the more disabled mutants in the movie. The mutant family lives in the prefab houses used on atomic test sites (the third cinematic use of these setting I can think of, the other two being Mann’s show Crime Story, and the end of Kalifornia). The crater of a bomb test is its auto wrecking yard, where the cars of the families they’ve attacked are deposited. The credit sequence and some dialogue make it clear that the Carter family, standing in for America, has brought this disaster onto itself, that the mutant family is the natural result of reckless imperialism. You couldn’t get an image less subtle than Doug ramming a pole with an American flag on it into the skull of the mutant who just tried to kill him, the flag another reminder of the policies that, in its name, caused the nuclear mutations.

    The first film was really just about violence. It ended with a freeze frame of the Doug character in mid blow as he continues to smash in the skull of the mutant who took his baby. He was a normal, civilized American male reduced to the level of an animal by the animals who attacked him. The story and its conclusion were the product, it appears, of Craven, a free thinking hippie type and academic, pondering how he might behave in extreme situations. The new The Hills Have Eyes stretches out the climax with uplifting music and a reunion scene in which the survivors hug in a heartfelt (or grotesque, depending on how you view it) mirroring of Ethel’s group prayer, which at that time everyone resisted participating in. The Hills Have Eyes being ultimately a Craven film, it can’t resist the suggestion in the final image that the family is still being stalked. However, this image can be interpreted as a sign of the general American malevolence that the Carters have to beware of, not an immediate threat, or a hint at a sequel (though there was a sequel to HHE, famous for its over-reliance on “flashback” footage to the first film, as various survivors from the first, including the pet dog, remember the past). I’m not sure how much further a sequel to this one could go in terms of political commentary, but it would be hard to beat purely on the level of suspense.

    Aja and Levasseur have complained about certain cuts made in the film to meet MPAA requirements, and made it clear that the DVD edition would be their version. The new Hills is 108 minutes long, compared to the theater’s 107 minute length, and the new material appears to come in the rape of xx and the final gunning down of the surviving bad family leader.

    hillsboxThe unrated The Hills Have Eyes (Fox Home Entertainment, 2006, 108 minutes, color, NR, 2.35:1 enhanced, one single sided dual layered disc, Dolby Digital 2.0, Dolby Digital 5.1 in English and Spanish, with English and Spanish subtitles, animated musical menu, keep case, $29.95, released on Tuesday, June 20, 2006; published simultaneously with the R rated version) comes on an excellent disc with a great transfer and sound. There are two audio commentary tracks, the first with director Aja, art director and co-screenwriter Levasseur, and producer Marianne Maddalena, who are all very cozy with each other. The second track is from Craven and producer Peter Locke, who also starred in the first one. They mostly talk about doing the first one, so this would make an excellent voice over accompaniment to the first film. In addition, there is the 50-minute “Surviving the Hills: Making of The Hills Have Eyes, a better than average making of, plus seven “Production Diaries, with a play all option, which shows among other things how certain stunts were accomplished from conception to filming. Finally, there is the music video, “Leave the Broken Hearts,” by the Finalists.

     

     

  • Interview: Amy Sedaris & Paul Dinello

    -By Ken Plume 

    strangers-20060630-01.jpgI pity those that have yet to discover the comedic genius of the late, lamented Strangers with Candy. Created by Paul Dinello, Amy Sedaris, and Stephen Colbert, Strangers was a gloriously bent skewering of the afterschool specials that browbeat my entire generation with poorly acted morality plays and treacly lessons learned. The series revolved around the “loser and abuser” Jerri Blank (Amy Sedaris), a middle-aged high school student just trying to make it through life.

    Jerri Blank and the twisted world of Flatpoint High makes its big screen debut this week (you can find out when it’s coming to your town by clicking here), and we got a chance to hook up an impromptu phone line to a vacationing Amy Sedaris and Paul Dinello.

    Unfortunately, Stephen Colbert was simply far too important to talk to us, instead sending a small fruit basket and a note marked “Please watch the Colbert Report on Comedy Central. Love, Steven”. The fact that his name was misspelled on the card leads me to believe that it was an intern who sent the basket, completely ruining the sentiment and making the pineapple taste oh so bitter.

    Still, Amy and Paul were kind enough to give us their time, even if it meant taking away from their restful holiday – which may or may not have been a lie meant to make an interviewer believe they weren’t in fact sitting in a room doing a slew of press interviews.

    ————————————————————-

    KEN PLUME: Hello, can you hear me fine?

    PAUL DINELLO: Yeah. Hold on a second, I’m gonna sit closer to Amy’s head.

    KP: Sure.

    DINELLO: Okay, go ahead.

    AMY SEDARIS: Hello?

    KP: Hello?

    SEDARIS: Sorry if it’s a little choppy.

    KP: Not a problem. Can you hear me fine?

    SEDARIS: Yes.

    DINELLO: We’re on a fishing excursion.

    KP: Well that’s good. I hope that the fishing’s good.

    DINELLO: Yeah. We’re fishing for mackerel.

    KP: Is this the time of year for that?

    DINELLO: Probably not, since we haven’t caught anything.

    KP: I’m sorry to interrupt such a good fishing trip and what I’m sure is a nice beautiful day.

    SEDARIS: Actually, it’s gorgeous here.

    KP: I should hurry up and get this out of the way so you can get back to hopefully a productive day.

    SEDARIS: Okay.

    DINELLO: Okay.

    KP: If I were to have one question… and first of all it’s a pleasure speaking with you both finally… what was the biggest difficulty you had in adapting a TV show that was tailor made to parody the conventions of the very much TV-based Afterschool Specials, into a feature film?

    DINELLO: Ooooh…

    SEDARIS: Seeing Jerri’s ugly face going from a small to a big screen. That’s gonna be kinda scary, tonin’ her down. Um… what was the biggest challenge? What would you say, Paul? The writing structure?

    DINELLO: Finding more of a story. You can get away with a lot more in 22 minutes. You need less of an arc, and you need less character development, because you get out so quickly that they don’t know what hit ’em. With a film, you know, you have to pay more attention to story. Not that we did, but supposedly you should pay more attention to story, and the peaks and valleys of (laughing)… you know, of the tone of the movie.

     

    strangers-20060630-02.jpg

     

    KP: Going back about 2-1/2 years when I spoke with Stephen (Colbert), you were just starting to write the film. He mentioned that it was not a challenge that he was particularly looking forward to, that it would be a difficult thing. Did it prove to be a difficult thing?

    SEDARIS: It’s all about having his three kids, too.

    DINELLO: Yeah, he says that on everything. He’s a coward.

    KP: Yeah, well that explains a lot. That’s why he isn’t doing press today.  

    DINELLO: That’s right. He’s afraid.

    SEDARIS: It’s family day.

    KP: Isn’t every day family day at the Colbert home?

    SEDARIS: Yeah. Except on Monday, I think.

    KP: That’s just his day.

    SEDARIS: Yeah.

    KP: Did it prove to be a difficult thing to try and find that structure that would carry through 90 minutes?

    DINELLO: I mean it, it wasn’t a difficult script to write. We had, I think, at one point 300 pages. We had plenty of ideas. Most of it’s just fear. I guess the biggest challenge was to stay truthful. You like to stay true to the television show, because there’s a lot of core fans. And we liked what we did on the television. Just stay true to that, and then find something new and cinematic to do.

    KP: How soon did the idea of making it a prequel to the series happen?

    DINELLO: Well, you know, we really just started from the beginning almost. Like we had scenes where Jerri was being born and all the way through her old age, so we covered her whole life, and then I just sorta chopped out what I thought would work. It occurred to us that Jerri seems better with a sort of shady past, and not getting too much information about it. I mean like what she references… you know, that party she has…

    SEDARIS: Like the donkey with Ramon – rather than see the actual donkey scene, sometimes it’s better just to be like, well, what does it mean when she’s like, “I hate Florida. I hate Florida.” What happened in Florida? Sometimes it’s just better to hear about it than see it.

    KP: Although I must admit it was quite fun, in an extremely disturbing way, to finally see her in prison.

    DINELLO: Oh good! Well, we actually had a whole… well, it still exists, but there was a whole shot with her living in prison, but then…

    SEDARIS: Tell him why it’s not in the movie…

    DINELLO: No, I mean, the real reason we decided to do a montage with sort of a… a short montage with a nicer introduction than…

    KP: You just wanted to increase screen time for your role, is what you’re saying.  

    SEDARIS: Ha ha ha!

    DINELLO: Right. More Jellineck – less Blank.

    KP: I mean it’s really what the entire show came down to after a while, it was just you and Noblet became the predominant characters.

    SEDARIS: Yes, they did.

    DINELLO: You gotta go with the show’s strengths, and you gotta go with what the people want. People were screaming for more Jellineck and Noblet, and we felt obligated to deliver.

    strangers-20060630-04.jpgQS: Speaking of strengths, it’s amazing the kind of epic performance you can wring out of Greg Hollimon…

    DINELLO: (laughing) Well, it’s a battle, I’ll say.

    KP: Well, anyone watching the behind-the-scenes materials and outtakes on the DVD set will see that it’s not exactly a character that is closest to his normal personality…

    SEDARIS: That’s interesting.

    DINELLO: And he doesn’t have what we could call a uh…uh…

    SEDARIS: Full head of hair.

    DINELLO: A full head of hair, or much of a memory for dialogue.

    SEDARIS: It’s hard to memorize the dialogue.

    DINELLO: And it’s hard to write… but you’re right, it is.

    KP: And yet you gave him no roller skating scenes.

    SEDARIS: I know!

    DINELLO: I know.. in hindsight…

    KP: Which clearly was the one thing that he shone most brightly at during the series.

    SEDARIS: I know…

    DINELLO: Well he does get a little dance time over the credits, and he certainly shines there.

    KP: He shines in ways that a viewer probably wishes he wouldn’t have shone.  

    DINELLO: (laughing)

    SEDARIS: (laughing)

    KP: Amy, Jerri is such a big character to begin with on the small screen. Was there a line you had to find in regards to how big you would be in a feature version of that character?

    SEDARIS: I’m a lot broader even than what you saw, and a lot of the time Paul was sort of pulling me back. You know, I forget sometimes that it’s a big screen. I just want to do the character and I forget sometimes, like, the smallest thing on screen is huge. So I was constantly reminded of that. And I think with the heat conditions it naturally slowed Jerri down a little bit. I had a lot working against me when I was doing the film, so I kinda liked the performance out of Jerri. I feel like I didn’t get a chance, in a way.

    KP: I guess this would be a question for Paul – what was the most egregious breach of Amy acting within the film that you had to tone down?

    SEDARIS: (laughing)

    DINELLO: Well, um….

    KP: See, I’m putting you on the spot now!

    DINELLO: That’s alright. The um… you know, I… it’s not so far over the top. Sometimes it’s a little… well, the scene with Brason in the bedroom was… um, there was some stuff there that couldn’t be used, for various reasons.

    SEDARIS: Oh really?

    KP: And what were those reasons?

    SEDARIS: Yeah, what were those reasons?

    DINELLO: Some didn’t fit totally, and others I was just offended.

    SEDARIS: Oh.

    KP: There was actually stuff that went so far as to offend you (laughing)?  

    DINELLO: No, I’m just kidding. It’s just, tonally, it didn’t seem to fit.

     

    strangers-20060630-03.jpg

     

    KP: When you talk about this bulk of deleted footage, how much would you say was deleted?

    DINELLO: There’s probably an hour of stuff I edited that’s not in the movie.

    KP: Which I’m assuming will eventually make it onto the DVD release…

    DINELLO: If I have anything to do with it, it will.

    SEDARIS: Will the falling down the stairs be on there?

    DINELLO: Yeah.

    SEDARIS: Thank you.

    KP: The falling down stairs?

    SEDARIS: Yeah I did a bit where I threw myself down a flight of stairs, and it was really fun to do, and it got cut out of the film because you could see me trip myself up for the fall. So they cut it.

    DINELLO: But it sure was funny…

    KP: But isn’t that half the fun? Half the fun of the Strangers with Candy world is to see that kind of thing.

    SEDARIS: Yeah, just whatever in the moment, just do it.

    KP: So really, it seems like the bulk of the stuff that Paul cut was the stuff that you had fun with.

    SEDARIS: Yeah. Thank you very much. I agree.

    DINELLO: Well, you’ll direct the next version.

    SEDARIS: (laughing)

    KP: Speaking of the next step, is there anything else planned? You worked together writing Wigfield a few years back.

    DINELLO: We usually try to find projects. One of us will come up with something as an excuse for the three of us to work together, so I’m sure that will happen again.

    KP: Are we eventually going to see an Exit 57 DVD set?

    SEDARIS: Hope not!

    DINELLO: I don’t know who that would please.

    KP: Well, you know, there’s one floating around on the internet right now.  

    SEDARIS: Yeah. I heard about it. I should buy a copy.

    KP: Well, actually, it’s freely downloaded from multiple places.

    SEDARIS: Oooh.

    KP: Which has, I guess, unaired material that would have been in the third season.

    SEDARIS: Really…

    DINELLO: Really?

    KP: There’s like 40 minutes of unaired sketches on it.

    SEDARIS: Wow…

     

    strangers-20060630-05.jpg

      

    KP: Amy, I’ve wondered for years – what does one have to do to buy one of your baked goods?

    SEDARIS: Go to Joe Coffee on Waverly and Washington, and hopefully I’ve delivered them that day. I also sell my cheese balls at Gourmet Garage, and I have a new item coming out in the fall, which is pecan logs.

    KP: Are you selling any of these over the internet?

    SEDARIS: No, I don’t – it’s all direct sales. I don’t deliver. Anything that involves going to the post office, I don’t want anything to do with it.

    KP: So I just have to send our readers down to go pick them up in person.  

    SEDARIS: Yes. To the Gourmet Garage or to Joe Coffee. And you can get a cupcake or a cheese ball.

    PUBLICIST: I think that’s all the time we have.

    KP: See, I went too far.

    SEDARIS: You went too far. He’s mad. He’s asking about pecan logs, man. Where do you live?

    KP: I’m in North Carolina.

    SEDARIS: Where?

    KP: I’m on the east coast just north of Wilmington.

    SEDARIS: You know I’m from Raleigh.

    KP: And you lost your accent.

    SEDARIS: Yeah, I only get it back when it’s late and I’m talking to my little brother, who has a severe Southern accent. But how’s the weather there? Is it still raining?

    KP: Actually it stopped raining yesterday, after Alberto passed through.

    SEDARIS: Oh wow.

    KP: So now, hopefully we don’t get anything more because it’s pretty saturated here.

    SEDARIS: Oh…

    KP: Hopefully you’ll come down to visit. Maybe you guys could actually do a live tour at some point.

    SEDARIS: That would be fun. I’ll be there in August. I’m gonna be in North Carolina in August.

    KP: Just visiting, or coming down for business?

    SEDARIS: Seeing my family.

    KP: Well, I hope you enjoy it. Hopefully the hurricane season will spare us this year.

    SEDARIS: Yeah, hopefully, that’s right. Well, thank you so much.

    KP: It was a real pleasure speaking with you both, and I hope you get that bootleg DVD set before it makes any money.

    SEDARIS: Yeah (laughing), me too.

    KP: I’ll talk to you soon. Thank you much.

    SEDARIS: Bye!

    DINELLO: Bye!

    Check out some YouTube clips from the flick here:

    – “My Name Is Jerry Blank
    – “Go Science Team
    – “This Is Nice… Family
    – “First Day of School
    – “It’s Over

    strangers-20060630-06.jpg

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Weekend Shopping Guide 6/30/06: It’s Clobberin’ Time

    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…

    It’s amazing when the myth of a man overtakes the reality, and it’s unfortunate that the myths held about comic book artist/writer John Byrne so often skew negative – because the reality is far from the grotesque image of an egocentric madman continually perpetuated across the ‘net. In truth, Byrne is one of the most influential artists still working today, whose work has shaped not just one, but three generations of artists and fans (yes, he really has been around that long now). He’s also incredibly articulate and, yes, opinionated about comics as an artform, and comic books as an industry (he also tends to be correct in his assessments). Those views, and his reflections on his career, can be found in the massive interview that accompanies dozens of sketches, pages, and other miscellaneous art spanning Byrne’s 30+ year career that’s collected in the latest volume of Twomorrows’ always must-buy Modern Masters series (Twomorrows, $14.95 SRP). I can’t wait to see their upcoming volumes on Walt Simonson and Mike Wieringo.

    Ya gotta love it when a TV series kicks its DVD release schedule into overdrive, as the often long, lingering wait becomes a rapid-fire completion of a show’s run. Case in point is Roseanne, which mere months after its last release is already streeting the sitcom’s fourth season (Anchor Bay, Not Rated, DVD-$39.98 SRP). A wedding in Vegas, reduced breasts, an alien abduction, birth control, and bowling are just a few of the highlights, including one of the show’s most memorable Halloween outings (Dan & Roseanne’s infamous trick on the neighbors). Bonus features include video commentaries with Roseanne on select episodes, an interview with the domestic goddess, and an interview with Alicia Goranson (Becky) and Michael Fishman (DJ).

    To most, Terry Jones is best known as 1/6 of the Monty Python troupe. To some, though, he’s also earned a reputation as a self-trained historian and presenter of some of the most engaging historical documentaries to come down the pike. In fact, his documentary on the Crusades is a must-see for anyone who wants an accurate portrait of that centuries-long series of conflicts, from not just a religious, but also social perspective. The thing that makes Jones’ documentary work so wonderful is his ability to not only look at history in a new way, but present it as an entertaining tale involving flesh & blood people no different than you or I. His latest project focuses on the millennia of misinformation about the peoples we’ve come to lump together as Barbarians – the savages that destroyed the once mighty Roman empire, center of learning, culture, and history’s societal touchstone. But, of course, that’s all bollocks propaganda, as you’ll discover in both the documentary series and its accompanying book (written with Alan Ereira), Terry Jones’ Barbarians (BBC Books, $29.95 SRP).

    I doubted that Monk would recover from its previous season’s shake-ups, but the ship finally began to right itself in season four (Universal, Not Rated, DVD-$59.98 SRP). It still wasn’t up to the genius of its first season, but I could watch Tony Shalhoub read the phone book backwards, and his OCD detective is still a classic television creation. The 4-disc set features all 16 episodes, plus featurettes on the writing process and how to be a writer for the show.

    As the title so blatantly sets out, 10 Days That Unexpectedly Changed America (History Channel, Not Rated, DVD-$39.95 SRP) collects together a batch of acclaimed directors to detail the 10 often-overlooked events that proved to be pivotal, from something as small as a local rebellion to a few bullets that assassinated a President at a World’s Fair. It’s a fascinating look at the waves of historical causality. The set also contains a behind-the-scenes featurette.

    In 1966, Jackie Gleason decided to being back The Honeymooners – but this time, it was in color. Art Carney returned as Ed Norton, but both Alice and Trixie were recast, there were musical numbers, and the vibe wasn’t quite the same (as you might well imagine). You can get a 9-episode sample via The Color Honeymooners: Collection 1 (MPI, Not Rated, DVD-$39.98 SRP).

    While I found his book on the art of the storyboard to be interesting, my heart really belongs to Don Bluth‘s latest book, The Art of Animation Drawing (DH Press, $14.95 SRP). Maybe it’s because I’m a sucker for the artistry behind hand-drawn animation, or just that The Secret of Nimh still holds a place in said heart. Either way, Bluth’s book is informative, easy-to-understand, and engaging enough to be a useful tool for anyone wishing to dive in and try their hand.

    Yellowbeard (MGM/UA, Rated PG, DVD-$14.94 SRP) is one of those glorious comedic clusterf***s that collapse under a their sheer directionless weight and a desire to throw in everything, plus the kitchen sink (see 1941). A slapstick high seas pirate adventure, it’s largely a Cheech & Chong vehicle – with John Cleese, Eric Idle, Marty Feldman, Graham Chapman, Peter Boyle, and Peter Cook thrown in for good measure. In fact, this was the flick that killed Feldman, as he died during production. So did the film.

    As much as my rational mind tells me to look away from the cultural trainwreck on display, any time I’ve run across an episode of Fear Factor, I simply can not look away from the sad state of societal decay I see before me. It’s ludicrous, often disgusting, and entirely mesmerizing. The 2-disc complete first season set (Universal, Not Rated, DVD-$29.98 SRP) features all 9 episodes, hosted with welcome condescension by Joe Rogan.

    Speaking of Civilisation (BBC, Not Rated, DVD-$79.98 SRP), Sir Kenneth Clark’s globe-trotting epic documentary series – first broadcast in 1969 by the BBC – has also made its way to DVD. With the notion of charting the “history of ideas as illustrated by art and music,” is journey from the fall of the Roman Empire to the (then) present day, examining Europe’s greatest landmarks and charting the development of Western European culture. The 4-disc set also features an interview with Sir David Attenborough about the series, a photo gallery, and a companion booklet.

    Finally figure out all those Mr. French jokes your smug pop culture-savvy friends continue to hurl at you with the complete first season of Family Affair (MPI, Not Rated, DVD-$39.98 SRP), which starred Sebastian Cabot as the English manservant of bachelor architect Bill Davis (Brian Keith), whose loner life is unexpectedly saddled with the three children of his brother and sister-in-law when they die in a plane accident. Soon Davis and French take to the brood, and a family is born. An you can get all those Mr. French references. The 5-disc set features all 30 episodes plus an interview with Kathy Garver.

    Peter Falk’s shuffling, rumpled detective returns in the fifth season of Columbo (Universal, Not Rated, DVD-$39.98 SRP), featuring all 6 telemovies plus a bonus episode of Mrs. Columbo (“Caviar With Everything”).

    The Cult of the Suicide Bomber (Disinformation, Not Rated, DVD-$19.95 SRP) is a riveting documentary examining the origins and evolution of the suicide bomber, hosted by former CIA agent Robert Baer (whose book See No Evil was the basis for Syriana). Reaching back to the very first modern suicide bomber, a 13-year-old martyred in the Iran-Iraq war, it’s a story that we live with daily in today’s Middle East.

    Patricia Routledge’s suburban PI is back in the third & fourth series of Hetty Wainthropp Investigates (Acorn, Not Rated, DVD-$59.99 SRP each). Think of it as a witty, Brit Murder She Wrote and you won’t be far off.

    Dogged by showrunner changes and a mid-stream shift in tone and focus, Commander In Chief (Buena Vista, Not Rated, DVD-$29.99 SRP) – focusing on the administration of President Mackenzie Allen (Geena Davis) – just never captured the audience that it had with a relatively strong debut last season. This 2-disc set collects the first 10 episodes but not a bonus feature in sight.

    I don’t know what it is, but sometimes you can’t help but laugh hysterically at a clearly over-the-top gorefests that have, for some reason, passed into cult status. A trio of those laughably bloody baddies have just hit DVD – Blood Bath, Shockheaded, Funny Man (Subversive Cinema/Heretic, Not Rated, DVD-$19.95 SRP each), which even stars the god of working Brit actors, Christopher Lee. All three flicks feature audio commentaries and behind-the-scenes materials.

    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…

  • Scrubs Blog: Week 29 ““ Summer Talk

     

    scrubsheader.jpg
         

    It may be summer hiatus, but we roll out the first in a series of exclusive episode commentaries to hold you over the long wait for Season 6″¦

    BLOG-COMMENTARY #5: Episode 5×03 – “My Day At The Races” –
    First AD Franklyn Gottbetter and the art department’s John Hill & Tony Jimenez drop an audio commentary for episode 5×03 – just for you. Yeah, you know who “you” is. All you have to do is download the mp3 file below, cue up the episode on your TIVO, VHS, DVD, or computer, then hit play on the commentary (or you can download the free Sharecrow DVD player, which allows you to sync up commentaries on your computer). Hope you dig it”¦

    scrubs-20060630-01.jpg

    DOWNLOAD:
    mp3 Format (19.5 MBs)

     

     

  • Comics in Context #135: The Passive Aggressive Phoenix Saga

    comicsincontext1.jpg

    cic-20060623-011.jpgLast week I began my critique of the movie X-Men: The Last Stand, which is large part an adaptation of Chris Claremont and John Byrne’s “Dark Phoenix Saga.”  I’ve also been comparing and contrasting the movie with Claremont’s own novelization of the film for Del Rey.  And now I come to Jean Grey’s first appearance as Phoenix in the film.

    In the film Scott encounters Jean alive at Alkali Lake, the site of her seeming demise in the previous movie, X2. The filmmakers have Jean remove Scott’s protective glasses, holding back the optic beams, as Claremont and Byrne did in the mesa scene in the comics.  Scott and Jean kiss.  In the novel Claremont presents this as a love scene, a “perfect moment” albeit with an undercurrent of danger.  In the movie the sequence seems ominous rather than ecstatic.

    Then, in the movie, something happens to Scott offscreen.  Wolverine later finds Scott’s glasses at Alkali Lake, but Scott is nowhere to be seen.  When Jean thinks back to what happened, she is deeply disturbed, but the flashes of memory that we are shown still do not reveal Scott’s fate.  But Claremont’s narrator explicitly states in the novel that Scott is dead.

    The implication in the movie, made somewhat clearer in the book, is that Jean/Phoenix’s sexual passion for Scott literally consumed him.  Consider how the filmmakers have transformed Claremont and Byrne’s mesa scene.  In the comics, it was a touching love scene; in the comics it becomes a scene from a horror film.  How many horror films have there been in which the young lovers get killed as soon as they have sex, as if they were being punished?  In the comics version, sex is good; in the movie version, sex is bad. 

    Why kill off Cyclops? An article by Kate Aurthur in the March 14, 2006 New York Times, “As the Plot Thickens, No One Is Safe,” about the deaths  in television series such as 24 demonstrates that the current trend of killing off regular characters isn’t limited to comics with “Crisis” in their title.  Surely the filmmakers would justify Cyclops’ death to show just how dangerous Phoenix is.

    On the other hand, for months it has been rumored that Fox decreed Cyclops’s demise in order to punish actor James Marsden, who played him, for going to work on Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns movie.  Corporate vengeance isn’t a satisfactory explanation for artistic decisions.

    To my mind, the death of Cyclops comes off as a confession of the filmmakers’ creative failures with the character in all three of the X-Men movies. The directors, screenwriters and actor are surely all to blame.

    However popular Wolverine may be with filmgoers and comics readers, Scott and Jean should be the lead characters in any X-Men movies in which they appear. 

    The movies have not presented Cyclops as a strong leader, nor have they captured the tragic aspect of his inability to control his power.  Not only does Cyclops’s problem resemble Rogue’s inability to touch other people, but it even parallels Wolverine’s struggle against his berserker tendencies.  All of them are trying to cope with the monster within them: their own counterparts to Dark Phoenix.

    Certainly the movies have failed to dramatize the love between Scott and Jean.  Anyone who knows these characters only from the movies must wonder why Jean stayed with Scott and resisted the overtures from Wolverine.

    So here the filmmakers have an opportunity to present a real love scene between Scott and Jean, evoking the celebrated mesa scene from the comics, and they failed again.  Whereas in the book Claremont turns the Alkali Lake reunion into a last hurrah for their romance, in the movie it is only a creepy set-up for an offscreen killing.

    And just why is it offscreen?  Is it because if they show Jean destroying Scott onscreen it will be less shocking when she destroys Xavier onscreen later?  Or did the filmmakers want to save on their special effects budget?  I have begun to wonder whether many of Last Stand‘s failings in dramatizing the “Dark Phoenix Saga”  result from simple unwillingness to spend the money.  When Scott arrived at Alkali Lake, I was excited to see the waters churning.  But then we did not get to see Jean rise out of the waters, as she so memorably did in her debut as Phoenix in X-Men #100.  And how come we never get to see the movie Jean surrounded by Phoenix’s symbol, the bird composed of cosmic flame, not even once?  One might have thought the filmmakers would have done it for marketing reasons, if nothing else: think of what that fiery bird would have looked like in a poster or the trailer.

    Actress Halle Berry openly complained about how little she had to do in the first two X-Men movies.  Removing Cyclops, and later Professor X, from the Last Stand plot early on enables Storm and Wolverine to move into the roles of team leaders.  In comics or film, “The Dark Phoenix Saga” runs the risk of being interpreted as arguing that women can’t control their own passions or powers.  Hence, it’s fortunate that Storm, a powerful woman, does successfully assert herself as a leader in Last Stand.  Claremont’s X-Men in the 1970s and 1980s were pioneering feminist works in mainstream comics;  he’s certainly no misogynist.

    As for Wolverine, I’ve seen some comments from viewers who think that he isn’t aggressive enough in Last Stand.  I don’t have a problem with that.  In the comics, especially in the original 1982 Wolverine limited series, Claremont developed the character into someone who could with effort master his inner demons.   Watching the movie, I thought the side of Wolverine’s personality that can be wise, and even fatherly towards younger X-Men like Kitty, came across, and that this was appropriate for the third film in the trilogy.

    I appreciate Claremont’s invocation of the classic science fiction film Forbidden Planet (exactly a half century old this year) with its “monster from the id” as a parallel to his own “Dark Phoenix Saga” later in  Chapter Four (p. 97).

    In both the movie and book Xavier explains to Wolverine and Storm that when Jean was a child he created “psychic barriers”: to prevent her from utilizing her full powers until she could cope with them.  (In the comics Xavier did the same thing to prevent Jean from using the telepathy that had traumatized her as a child.  Eventually he removed those barriers.  The movie Jean is apparently around thirty, and Xavier had not released the barriers, though they were already beginning to collapse in X2.  Would she ever have been ready to master her full powers?) 

    As a result of the psychic barriers, Xavier explains, Jean developed a repressed alternate personality, the Phoenix, which he describes as “A purely instinctual creature, all desire, and joy. . .and rage” (p. 98).

     

    cic-20060630-01.jpg

    In the movie and novel there is no “Phoenix force” either as an external source of cosmic energy or as a sentient entity.  That’s fine with me.  Even in the comics, Phoenix really is a metaphor for Jean’s ultimate potential, and Dark Phoenix is a metaphor for the dark side of her psyche. 

    Dark Phoenix is Jean’s alternate personality, as Mr. Hyde was Dr. Jekyll’s, and the Hulk is Bruce Banner’s.

    I was pleased that in the movie Xavier did not simply define Phoenix as evil, but adopted Claremont’s more complex description.  But why then does the movie never show us the “joy” in Phoenix?  Over at John Byrne’s online forum (www.byrnerobotrics.com), former Marvel editor Glenn Greenberg observed that “We get no sense of how she feels about her newfound strength and power, the joy she must be feeling. She never REVELS in it, as she did in the comic stories.” 

    Back in 1987 several Marvel staffers, freelancers and I went to see the dreadful movie Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.  We were all aghast,  pointing out mistake after mistake. (Superman just carried Mariel Hemingway’s character into outer space!  Shouldn’t she asphyxiate?  Or freeze to death? Or explode in the vacuum?  Why is she still alive?)  I realized back then that any of us were capable of finding the flaws in the script more effectively than the filmmakers, who made a lot more money than we did.  This is still true about superhero movies.  What if Glenn had been able to comment on the screenplay before it was filmed? (Or John? Or Chris?)

    Wolverine is outraged at Xavier’s revelation of having manipulated Jean’s mind. (It’s as if Xavier played Mastermind’s role in this version of “The Dark Phoenix Saga.”) Knowing from personal experience whereof he speaks, Wolverine thunders that “sometimes when you ‘cage the beast,’ the beast gets angry” (p. 99).  Here’s a question that the movie never resolves.  Did Xavier’s well-intentioned effort to suppress Jean’s full powers actually turn her into Dark Phoenix?  Considering the havoc that Jean wreaks as Phoenix in the movie, Wolverine eventually decides Xavier was right, and so did I.

    It’s clever that the screenwriters have Dr. Rao derive the “cure” for mutation from Leech, a mutant boy from the comics whose power is that he negates the powers of other mutants in his proximity.  Some fan comments I’ve read about Last Stand disparage such references to the comics continuity, but I like bits like Leech’s role in the film.  Even though most moviegoers will have never heard of Leech before, the movie uses him well and imaginatively.  Elements taken from the comics aren’t “trivia” if they are given purpose in the film. The scene in which the Beast’s hand reverts to furless human form as he reaches towards Leech is a nice touch, as is the Beast’s reaction, considering the possibility of becoming “normal” himself.

    The government “weaponizes” the “cure” in order to use it against criminal mutants.  Dr. Rao’s presence in the movie makes it clear that the screenwriters derived the “cure” concept from Joss Whedon and John Cassaday’s Astonishing X-Men comics series.  But the “weaponized” cure reminds me of Forge’s neutralizer device from Claremont’s X-Men comics, which the federal government used as a weapon.  Government agent Henry peter Gyrich tried to use it on Rogue but fired it at Storm instead, depriving her of her mutant powers, seemingly permanently. (See Uncanny X-Men #185, from 1984.  Eventually, with Forge’s aid, she regained them.)  Were Last Stand‘s screenwriters aware of this storyline?  

    The imprisoned Mystique’s use of her shapeshifting powers to impersonate the President and an innocent child makes for a visually striking and inventive scene, but it makes no sense.  She’s behind bars in a prison truck.  Of course the guard knows the “resident” and the “little girl” are really her!

    I was impressed by Magneto’s turning his powers against the convoy of prison vehicles.  In the comics Magneto is capable of conjuring an electromagnetic pulse that affects the entire Earth.  The movie Magneto isn’t that powerful, but it’s about time that the films showed him performing such major feats.  Later on he effortlessly shunts automobiles out of his way, and what he does to the Golden Gate Bridge is truly spectacular.

    It doesn’t bother me that the movie uses Jamie Madrox, the Multiple Man, as a villain:  the special effects used to multiply him into numerous figures create just the sense of wonder that special effects should.  It’s a clever stunt to have him multiply himself to impersonate Magneto’s entire mutant army, later on.

    As for the Juggernaut, the movie proves that a real life strongman can’t possibly match one’s expectations for the massive, tank-like figure designed by Jack Kirby in the comics.  Despite occasional blunders by comics writers, the comic book Juggernaut is not a mutant: he derived his powers from magic.  In the comics he’s also Charles Xavier’s stepbrother.  The movie doesn’t mention Juggernaut’s mystical origin, and implies he’s another mutant.  That’s all right with me.  The movie gets something more important right:  the dialogue asserts that once he gets some momentum going, the Juggernaut is unstoppable.  That’s exactly right, despite the fact that comics writers lately seem to think of him as no more than a strongman.

    The movie also doesn’t establish that its Juggernaut is related to Xavier.  And I was taken aback on hearing the movie Juggernaut’s British accent.  But in retrospect, I like it.  Xavier is played by a Brit, Patrick Stewart, and so is the Juggernaut.  Could this be the filmmakers’ way of hinting at a connection between them, even if it’s unstated?  (On the other hand, if the moviemakers cared about such things, why didn’t they have Colossus speak with his Russian accent from the comics?)

    cic-20060630-02a.jpgIn her recent appearance on Late Show with David Letterman, actress Rebecca Romijn vehemently denied the conventional wisdom that she wears only blue body paint as Mystique; she contended that she also wears a lot of prosthetics, and compared her Mystique “costume” to a bikini.  (I still do mental double takes at the fact that Letterman now talks about X-Men characters on network TV.)  Well, in the Last Stand, Mystique is the first mutant to be injected with the “cure,” and the blue body paint and prosthetics disappear.

    I have tried to maintain a dignified approach to sexual matters in “Comics in Context,” but I have noticed of late that certain women who write prominent comics blogs (namely you, Heidi and Colleen), have no qualms about openly lusting over certain male movie actors.  So I am adjusting my policy somewhat. I am happy to declare that Ms. Romijn’s appearance sans blue paint or anything else in Last Stand is one of the movie’s high points.

    Jean/Phoenix regains consciousness at Xavier’s mansion and starts coming on to Wolverine, a. k. a. Logan.  In the book Claremont tells us that “Before this moment, Logan had never known the true meaning and nature of love. . .what he found here. . .was intimacy” (pgs. 128-129).  How about that? Logan must have discovered sex long ago, but here’s a scene in which he psychologically and emotionally loses his virginity.

    It was established long ago in the comics that Wolverine was attracted to Jean, but his crush on her soon gave way to his deep love for Mariko Yashida (in Claremont and Byrne’s Uncanny X-Men #118-119 in 1979).  The idea that Jean reciprocated Wolverine’s feelings is a relatively recent development.  Strangely, in later years Claremont has lately been contributing to this notion, as he does in this novel.  In doing so, he undercuts the love between Scott and Jean, which he wrote so well, especially in the original “Dark Phoenix Saga.”

    For example, in the novel he tells us that “she’d made her commitment to Scott, much as either of them” – Jean and Logan – “might wish differently” (p. 128).  That doesn’t read like a heartfelt commitment, does it?  It suggests that Jean really wants Wolverine, and the only thing that stops her is that she doesn’t want to break her word to Scott.

    Later on, the novel states that “Scott was love, Logan was passion” (p. 228).  And just what do you think that Scott’s powerful, unstoppable, uncontrollable optic beams symbolize, if not his inner passion?

    Still later, Jean fantasizes about wearing a minidress or leather. “Scott, she knew, would have loved the mini. And been tempted by the leather. Logan, she knew, cared nothing for the trappings.  He loved her” (p. 233). Now this is too much.  This is saying that Scott’s love for Jean is merely superficial, maybe just a matter of physical attraction, and that it is Logan who truly loves her. 

    The Scott-Jean-Logan triangle has a precedent in Marvel history.  Remember the Reed Richards-Sue Storm-Namor the Sub-Mariner triangle in the early years of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby’s Fantastic Four? Namor too represented “passion” more openly than did Reed.  But Sue chose “love” and married Reed, and now it is inconceivable that she could have chosen Namor instead.  And if you think that Reed, the seemingly stuffy scientist, lacks passion, reread Lee and Kirby’s Fantastic Four Annual #6, in which his teammates are astonished by his intense emotions in trying to save the lives of Sue and his unborn son.

    There may be a generational shift occurring here, whereby many of today’s comics fans and writers no longer understand or appreciate the classic Stan Lee hero, who in his private life is introverted, brooding, but dedicated to a heroic moral code.  At his online forum, “Dark Phoenix Saga” co-creator John Byrne asserts that “Straight-shooter, decent, even noble Scott Summers has long been out of favor” with both current comics fans and pros because “He’s not ‘cool’ like Wolverine.”  I’m on Byrne’s side here.

    Claremont writes an interesting line when Xavier next encounters Magneto:  Xavier “had considered” his former friend Magneto “his other half, the passion to his intellect” (p. 141).  It’s as if Magneto were Xavier’s own “Dark Phoenix.”

    Claremont insightfully notes that though Jean is “a grown woman, a kind and generous soul, yet on the levels she was reaching” – now that the Phoenix power overwhelms her rationality -  “she was still mainly the child he’d” – Xavier had – “met so many years before” (p. 147).  Claremont is attempting to explain Jean’s mental condition; the movie just makes her seem to be a one-dimensional menace. 

    cic-20060630-03.jpgIn both the comics and the movie, Xavier and Phoenix engage in a psychic duel, in which Xavier attempts to restore the dominance of Jean’s “normal” personality.  In the comics he succeeded, and Claremont makes clear it is because part of Jean wanted him to.  In the movie Jean obliterates Xavier’s body.  Online film critic James Berardinelli considers Xavier’s demise to be “one of the film’s most poignant elements” (http://www.movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/x/x-men3.html).  I think it comes off as a crass shock effect.  The filmmakers don’t seem to care much about Xavier’s demise: Storm’s eulogy for Xavier is followed by a fun-and-games scene of Iceman and Kitty skating on ice he has created.  To his credit, Claremont gives the skating scene a more melancholy tone, showing the two kids’ succeeding only “just a little” in overcoming their “sorrow” (p. 167).

    Just why Jean leaves with Magneto after killing Xavier is a mystery to moviegoers.  Claremont finds an explanation:  “She was trembling, unable to speak, likely not even fully aware of who he was” (p. 156).  Presumably the buried, “good” side of Jean is so appalled at what Dark Phoenix has done that she has retreated into a state of shock.

    But just how long does this walking catatonia last?  From this point on, till the climax of the movie, Dark Phoenix, the most dangerous being in the universe, basically just stands around staring into space.  (I suddenly find myself thinking of the Monty Python episode in which the world tries to find and battle the omnipowerful Mr. Neutron, who is harmlessly having tea at a suburban household.)

    Here’s the moviemakers’ dilemma.  Jean knows full well from past experience that Magneto is a bad guy and should realize that he is just trying to exploit her.  So once she goes into action, if she already annihilated Xavier, she’d probably do the same thing to Magneto.  Dark Phoenix is no man’s pawn; she’s out to satisfy only her own urges.

    Moreover, Dark Phoenix is way more unstoppable even than the Juggernaut.  If she wanted to eliminate the mutant “cure,” no one could stop her from disintegrating Leech, Dr. Rao, a battalion of soldiers, or all of San Francisco.  To do the “Dark Phoenix Saga” right, even if it never leaves Earth, would require a lot more special effects sequences than the moviemakers seemingly wanted to do. 

    So, in effect, halfway through the movie, the filmmakers put “The Dark Phoenix Saga” on hold while they attend to other business. 

    How could they have better justified Dark Phoenix doing nothing for so long?  How many of you know Steve Englehart and Frank Brunner’s classic Dr. Strange storyline involving Sise-Neg, a sorcerer who takes on godlike power (in Marvel Premiere #13 and 14 in 1974)?  Doctor Strange and his sinister rival, Baron Mordo, play Sise-Neg’s good and bad angels, in effect:  Strange attempts to persuade Sise-Neg to use his great powers for good, while Mordo tempts him towards evil.  In the comics Mastermind served as the tempter figure in “The Dark Phoenix Saga.”

    What if Dark Phoenix, in possession of her godlike powers, was uncertain what to do next, and the screenwriters gave Magneto scenes in which he concocted arguments to tempt her to follow his lead?  Ian McKellen is renowned for his portrayal of Shakespeare’s Richard III, who, in one of the play’s most famous scenes, seduces Lady Anne, the widow of a man he murdered.  Imagine scenes in which Magneto played upon Dark Phoenix’s emotions, turning her away from Xavier’s dream, and seducing her to his vision of war on humanity.  Why hire Ian McKellen to play Magneto without giving him a dramatic opportunity like this? But rather than a full-fledged “persuasion scene,” there is merely the brief exchange on pages 172 and 173.  (Think of another film in which the master villain tempts a heroic figure to the “dark side”:  George Lucas’s Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith.  Its temptation scenes aren’t fully convincing, but demonstrate what Last Stand could have done.  See “Comics in Context” #86.)

    On the other hand, McKellen has a wonderful moment when Pyro badmouths “the professor,” and Magneto regally, sternly replies, “The professor was my friend!” (p. 174).

    Sequences that follow demonstrate the various ways in which the mutant metaphor can be interpreted.  Pyro’s attack on a clinic that administers the “cure” for mutation makes me think of the bombings of abortion clinics.  In the novel Claremont establishes that the clinic is in Lower Manhattan, the area of the World Trade Center attacks.  In the post-9/11 world, Magneto’s televised threats to the world evoke Osama bin Laden’s videotaped messages of defiance to the West.

    From my childhood I recall Frank Fontaine’s Crazy Guggenheim telling Jackie Gleason’s Joe the Bartender week after week on Gleason’s TV program, “I was just hangin’ around.  I wasn’t doin’ nothin.’”  This has become the cinematic Dark Phoenix’s goal in life.  When Wolverine, spying on Magneto, is captured by him, Jean continues to stand around, staring into space, not acting like someone who allegedly loves Logan.  In the novel Claremont tries to make sense of this behavior and to generate reader empathy for Jean: after Magneto magnetically hurls Wolverine miles away, “knowing how he” – Logan – “felt. . .about her,” Jean “wept” (p. 211).

    I’m confused.  Has Jean reverted to her normal personality?  Then why didn’t she intervene to help Wolverine?  Why wouldn’t she return to her friends, the X-Men, to seek help?  Is she ashamed to face them, after what she did to Scott and Xavier?

    Claremont seems to be striving to find a reason why Jean would stay with Magneto in the movie.  Earlier Claremont indicated that Dark Phoenix sympathizes with his effort to destroy the “cure” (p. 203). 

    Twenty-five pages later, though, as Jean’s conscience seems to have reawakened, she again appears to know that Magneto is the enemy.   Claremont has Jean fearing that she’d lose control and harm other X-Men if she returned to them.  Hence, “Better, she decided, to be a potential threat to Magneto.  Serve him right if things went wrong” (p. 228).

    I’m not convinced by either argument.  Infatuated with her own powers, the Dark Phoenix of the comics would not care about the causes of what she would consider “lesser” beings.  If Jean’s normal personality is reemerging, then why wouldn’t she just head off to some mountaintop, where she wouldn’t harm anyone, instead of remaining allied with Magneto?  (Do we all remember that Magneto attempted to wipe out the entire human race at the end of the previous movie, X2?)

    Last Stand presents a conundrum.  The movie rarely lets us into Jean/Phoenix’s thoughts, so, apart from a few moments, she comes across as one-dimensionally mad and evil. and fails to arouse much sympathy.

    In the novel, on the other hand,  Claremont delves into Jean’s “normal” personality and succeeds in engaging the reader’s empathy for her, but then it becomes harder to understand why she commits such atrocities as the killing of Xavier and Cyclops.

    This is an important point.  In the comics Claremont and Byrne originally intended that their “Dark Phoenix Saga” would end with Jean being stripped of her mutant powers. Not only would she then be like an ordinary human, but, as Claremont has argued, it would figuratively be like she was blind, having been deprived of her extra sense: her ability to read other people’s thoughts.  But editor in chief Jim Shooter decreed that she had to pay more severely for Dark Phoenix’s crimes, even though Claremont contended that she was innocent by reason of insanity. That’s why in the comics Phoenix ended up taking her own life.

    The movie fails in humanizing Jean, to show how Xavier could regard her as embodying hope (as Claremont puts it on page 228).  But does the novel succeed in making clear how that admirable, heroic Jean could be overwhelmed by the forces of her own subconscious, as the comics had made evident (to me, if not to Shooter)?

    Claremont’s Chapter Nine isn’t an adaptation of the movie:  it consists of scenes that should have been in the movie, but aren’t.

    Jean recalls how Xavier watched over her as a child following their initial meeting.  Claremont reveals who the original X-Men were in the movies’ alternate continuity – Jean, Scott, Storm and Beast – and has Jean fondly remember her friendship with the latter two.  Claremont shows us what went through Jean’s mind as she willingly sacrificed her life to save the other X-Men at the end of X2, and simultaneously felt her Phoenix powers emerging.  He also suggests briefly what it might feel like for Jean’s normal personality to be temporarily surfacing above the flood of Dark Phoenix’s passions:  “Within, though, she trembled like a child quailing in the face of parental rage, so terrorized by the force of the wave of emotions breaking over them that the only outlet is barely coherent tears” (p. 229).

    All of this should make readers, even those who do not know her from the comics, empathize with Jean, and understand the value of the woman who is being submerged beneath Dark Phoenix’s insanity.

     

    cic-20060630-04.jpg

    Jean remembers her vision of “the far greater All that awaited her,”  the godlike potential that her full powers give her, and the narrator tells us “that she had reached that point in fate where she must prove herself able to act on her own” yet she is like a “child” who wants to “run when barely able to stand” (p. 232-233).  Can Jean control her raging subconscious? “I could just be mad,” she gloomily thinks. (p, 233). 

    Then, in one of the high points of the novel, Claremont does what all three X-Men films failed to do:  to dramatize the love between Scott and Jean.  Claremont creates a scene from Scott and Jean’s past, a billiards game that they played, using their powers, on a night in San Francisco, which becomes one of the most intense moments in their romance.  “He was strong and confident, tempered by the wounds and losses he’d suffered in his life, made whole by the love he felt for her.  And she in return had felt an aching need that drove her around the table and into his arms for a kiss she wanted to last forever” (p. 241).

    I told you that Claremont wrote the Scott-Jean romance well!  After this chapter it is even harder for me to take seriously the revisionist idea that Jean loves Wolverine as much as she does Scott.

    Then, Claremont has Jean’s memory of Scott turn into an interaction with him in the present, as if she had been watching a play, and the actor abruptly broke the fourth wall and addressed her directly.  Claremont carefully keeps the explanation ambiguous:  is Jean imagining Scott talking to her, or is he somehow actually there, as a ghost, or perhaps even briefly resurrected by her powers?  Not only does Scott remain steadfast in his love for Jean, but Claremont has the insight to have Scott explicitly compare his uncontrollable eye beams to Jean’s Phoenix powers.  He tells her she has a “choice” and challenges her to control them.  (And though the novel does not mention this, readers may recall that Jean could indeed control Scott’s supposedly uncontrollable optic blasts.  So can she master her own powers?) 

    What a great scene this could have been in the movie!  It would have illuminated the audience’s understanding of Jean’s psychological crisis, it would have dramatically set up her ultimate decision at the film’s climax, and it would have given the actors playing Scott and Jean bravura acting opportunities.  So why isn’t such a scene there? 

    Warren Worthington, Jr., the Angel’s father, has established his labs to produce the “cure” in the old prison on Alcatraz Island off San Francisco.  Magneto employs his powers to wrench the Golden Gate Bridge out of position, so that his mutant army can march right off the bridge onto the island. 

    Now there are certainly easier ways for Magneto to transport his troops.  He could have just had them get aboard the cars on the bridge, and levitated them over.   What we have here, though, is, intentionally or not, an allusion to the September 11, 2001 attacks:  Magneto is another terrorist leader attacking an iconic American structure. Claremont seems to get it:  he dubs the day of Magneto’s attack “M-day,” a nickname like “9/11,” and although he does not mention 9/11, he describes the effect of “M-day” on public consciousness in similar terms (see p. 256).

    Now, keep in mind that whereas in the book Claremont has been letting us see into Jean’s mind, in the movie, she has just been standing around staring into space.  During Magneto’s assault on the Golden Gate Bridge and Alcatraz, I wondered if he was getting fed up with her.  Why recruit her to the cause when she does nothing?  She could have moved the Bridge and taken over the island all by herself, but no. 

    In the book Claremont states that Phoenix aided Magneto in moving the bridge, without even his awareness.  I know that the Magneto of the movies is in his senior years, but as the main villain, he should be allowed full credit for his most spectacular feat!

    I also wish at this point the novel would allow Dark Phoenix to be Dark Phoenix.  The book has Phoenix watch a family of innocent bystanders escape:  “Only when she was positive they were safely on shore did she turn to follow Magneto” (p. 263). Okay, once again:  If Jean’s conscience is in good working order, why in the name of the Phoenix Force is she accompanying Magneto on his mission of murder?  By page 270, Jean “still wasn’t sure” if she was loyal to Magneto or the X-Men.  If she is still as rational as she was in Chapter Nine, if she is willing to let those bystanders get away, why is she so undecided? 

    In the movie, matters are clearer: Phoenix seems to be evil, just rather lazy about it, passively allowing Magneto and his troops to do all the work while she practices her Uatu the Watcher impression.

    I very much like actress Ellen Page’s perky portrayal of Kitty Pryde, though she gets little screen time.  The way that Kitty beats the Juggernaut, by having Leech neutralize his powers, is very clever, even though it depends on either (1) the movie Juggernaut being a mutant, or (2) the movie Leech being able to neutralize powers of any origin. 

    Likewise, I was happy to see that Iceman finally gets to wear an ice sheath all over his body, though it wish he had looked more like the blockier ice covering in the comics:  perhaps it is too hard for CGI to make that look realistic.

    At the showing of Last Stand I attended, the audience applauded when Magneto was injected with the “cure”:  they obviously appreciated the poetic justice that Magneto, who regards mutants as racially superior to humans, was thus “reduced” to being a human himself.  But in retrospect I wonder how appropriate that response was.  I thought of the fate of Shakespeare’s Shylock, who is forced to convert from Judaism to Christianity, allegedly for his own good, a judgment that modern audiences correctly find disturbing.  I wonder if McKellen thought of the same analogy.

    Now, finally, Dark Phoenix goes into action.  In the book, the “cured” Magneto induces her to combat by appealing to her logically:  “Look at me.  Look into their hearts.  This is what they want. For all of us” (p. 311).  Well, then, why should she lash out at the X-Men, who don’t feel that way?  In the movie, if I recall it correctly, Dark Phoenix lashes out when the soldiers defending Alcatraz start firing at her. That makes more sense to me:  that upon being attacked, Jean, without thinking, reacts in anger, thereby going into full Dark Phoenix mode. 

    And now, at last, we have special effects that convincingly depict the overwhelming chaos Phoenix can unleash (but, alas, still no fiery bird effect).

    Stunned by the spectacle, Magneto plaintively asks, “What have I done?”, reminding me of Mastermind in the comics’ “Dark Phoenix Saga,” who also unleashed forces far beyond his control or comprehension. 

    The novel raises the stakes higher than the movie.  Magneto asserts that Dark Phoenix is “Discorporating the planet” (p. 314), thus apparently attempting to do to Earth what she did to Xavier.  But since the novel has shown us Jean willing even to let those bystanders escape, it is hard to understand why she would be suddenly willing to destroy the Earth. 

    Keep in mind that in the comics’ “Dark Phoenix Saga,” even when she was at the height of insanity, Dark Phoenix did not intentionally destroy that inhabited planet:  replenishing her powers by triggering a supernova, she was oblivious to its destruction of the D’Bari’s world.

    Claremont has skillfully probed the mind of the rational Jean in the novel.  what’s missing is a look at how she thinks when her insanity swallows up her conscious mind.  Perhaps then we could understand why she would kill Xavier or try to destroy the Earth. 

    Fans have wondered why the X-Men didn’t try to stop Jean by using the “cure,” or by having Leech neutralize her powers.  Well, since she’s a telepath, she would know those attacks were coming, and defend herself against them.  It might have been a neat bit of business to use the “cure” or Leech on Jean, and then show that Dark Phoenix is so powerful they have no effect on her.

    It would have been even better if Scott were still around, so there could be a dramatic confrontation in which he reminded her of their love for each other and tried to talk her into calming down.  But, no.

    In any case, the traditional climax of tragedy is the protagonist’s death.

    So, instead, Jean’s true personality breaks through her insanity long enough to beg Wolverine to kill her, and he impales her with his claws. And yet again the movie Jean takes a more passive role than her comics counterpart.

    The movie’s divergences cast the brilliance of Claremont and Byrne’s original comics “Dark Phoenix Saga” into sharp relief.  In their version, Xavier manages to exorcise Dark Phoenix from Jean, with her help, in Uncanny X-Men #136.  Hence, for most of the finale of the Saga, in Uncanny X-Men #137, Jean is her normal self.  The readers could reacquaint themselves with her, and empathize with this good woman as doom closed in upon her.   In the final pages, at the height of the battle between the X-Men and the alien Shi’ar to decide her fate, Jean abruptly reverts to Dark Phoenix.  Jean’s normal personality struggles back to the fore, long enough for her to bid farewell to her beloved Scott, and to activate an ancient alien weapon:  she commits suicide rather than revert permanently to the monster that is Dark Phoenix.

    In the comics Jean does not ask someone else to kill her:  she kills herself.  The movie Jean is a pathetic victim, not strong enough to put an end to her own rampage.  The comics Jean is a self-sacrificing heroine.

    Notice that in the book, Claremont confronts Jean with the necessity of making a choice.  But it is in the comics that she more actively, heroically made that choice.

    Following Phoenix’s demise, both the movie and the book come to their conclusion.  But the movie is less successful in wrapping up the “cure” storyline than the book is.  Was the “cure” a good or bad thing?  Claremont’s novel states that Warren Worthington, Jr. shut down the clinics:  that would seem to indicate that Worthington and Claremont agree that the “cure” was bad.

    But what about Rogue?  My impression (and those of others I’ve read) is that in the movie Rogue undergoes the “cure”:  it’s “my choice,” she tells her boyfriend Iceman, as if discussing the abortion issue.  This provides a happy ending for Rogue, since she can now touch Iceman without activating her mutant power to absorb his memories and abilities.  If Rogue’s mutation is regarded as a handicap, this is a good thing.  But if Rogue’s mutation is regarded as her racial identity, matters become more ambiguous.  If a black person wanted to become white (or vice versa), and could do so, should we approve?

    The novelization’s denouement for Rogue seems to me more ambiguous.   Rogue again tells iceman she made her “choice,” but Claremont specifies that while Rogue has bared her arms, she keeps her gloves on, and she takes iceman’s hand in hers.  My reading of this is that Rogue did not undergo the “cure” after all.

    In the movie the Beast becomes the United States Ambassador to the United Nations.  This is an admirable concept:  the United States makes a mutant its representative and spokesman to the world.  Similarly, in real life, the appointment of African-Americans such as Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell to major Cabinet positions has been the United States’ declaration to the world of its commitment to being a multiracial society.

    In the novel, however, the Beast becomes a teacher at Xavier’s school, and this suits his personality and interests better.  Indeed, he should be headmaster, not Storm!  Still, there’s no reason why the beast couldn’t be U. N. ambassador and teach part-time.

    In the novel Claremont details how Magneto has gotten himself a job working aboard a ship captained by one of his characters from the comics, Aleytis Forrester.  But I prefer the pathos of Magneto’s final scene in the film, which suggests that, without his mutant powers, the elderly Magneto has become a sad, lonely old man playing chess by himself in the park.  (I wonder if Magneto’s fate in the movie explains why Marvel de-powered him at the end of the recent House of M comics storyline.)   Watching the movie, I thought that perhaps Magneto imagined Xavier to be his opponent in the chess game, so I was pleased to see that Claremont came to the same conclusion in the novel.

    Just before the credits begin, we see one of Magneto’s metal chess pieces wobble as he reaches for it.  So, despite Marvel’s claims, this is a clear set-up for a possible fourth movie.  It also suggests that, if Rogue was “cured,” that cure won’t last.

    Now, I usually stay through a movie’s closing credits.  (In the case of a Marvel movie, I’m searching for a Kirby credit, for one thing.)   Roughly ninety-five percent of the audience at the showing I attended left during the credits, and the cleaning personnel were already hard at work. But my patience was rewarded when the credits were abruptly followed by a final, unexpected scene.  This scene was apparently so secret that it didn’t even make it into the novelization.

    Dr. Moira MacTaggart is tending to a patient who was born without higher brain functions.  She hears a familiar voice speak to her: “Moira.”  And she says, in surprise, “Charles?”

    Now some people, including movie critic James Berardinelli, were disappointed by Xavier’s resurrection:  he charged that “It doesn’t play fair with the audience, and cheapens one of the film’s most poignant elements,” and warned that “I think most who miss it will have a better overall opinion of the film than those who stick it out.”

    First, I didn’t find Xavier’s earlier demise “poignant” but thought it was a cheap shock effect, so I felt better about the movie once I saw this scene.

    Second, I admired the cleverness with which the movie had set up the possibility of a telepath taking over that patient’s mind in one of its early scenes, right under our noses, and still surprised me.  That is indeed playing fair with the audience.

    In another interview, former Marvel movie mogul Avi Arad said, “I tell you what really pisses me off about this stuff -  is the ignorance to the comics, because. . . Xavier died in the comic. One of the most famous panels in the comic was his funeral.”  Actually, it’s hardly famous, but Xavier did seemingly die (in X-Men #42 in 1968) and come back (in issue 65 in 1970).  “They all die and come back.”

    So Xavier could come back in a fourth X-Men movie, and since he has a new body, he would presumably be played by a different (and presumably less expensive) actor than Patrick Stewart.

    Of course, anyone who knows comic books, or soap operas, for that matter, knows that unless you see the body (and sometimes not even if you do), the character isn’t really dead.  Despite the novel’s assertions that Cyclops is dead, we never see him die in the movie.  So he could come back, possibly in a new body, in a fourth film, as well.

    And as for Phoenix, her very name makes clear that she may not stay dead, any more than she has in the comics.

    So I have hope:  if there are more X-Men movies, maybe future directors and screenwriters will have the chance to do Scott and Jean right,

    ADVERTISEMENTS FOR MYSELF

    My suspicions about the alleged boom in academic interest in the comics medium continue unabated:  only one person signed up for my course, “The Graphic Novel as Literature,” at New York University this summer, so it was canceled – yet again.

    However, my monthly lecture course, “1986: The Year That Changed Comics,” continues at Manhattan’s Museum of Comic and Cartoon Art (www.moccany.org).  At 6:30 PM on Monday, June 26, I will be lecturing on Frank Miller and David Mazzucchelli’s Daredevil: Born Again.  (It’s a follow-up to my June 6 talk about Miller’s Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, which went quite well.)  And it’s free!  Feel free to come!

    This Sunday, July 2, Newsweek‘s radio show will have a segment about superhero movies, including an interview with me.  Consider it a preview of my forthcoming review of Superman Returns for this column.  
     
    Copyright 2006 Peter Sanderson
     

     

  • Nocturnal Admissions

     

    nocturnalheader3.gif

     

    If you’ve been keeping up with the boys in the quarterlies you know that experts in horror film studies have noted the increase in this post- Guantanamo era in torture as a theme in scary flicks. Hostel and Saw are frequently noted as “horror” films that exist to erect lengthy scenes of torture, whereas in older horror films the monster, be he zombie or werewolf or whatever, did what he wanted and left. The modern monster wants to dwell on the pain and enjoy his victims discomfort and screams. Well, it’s not just horror films. Torture – as an endurance test, as a means of eliciting info, as cleansing and ennobling exercise – has infiltrated mainstream pop narrative films as well. 24 is a succession of torture scenes and phone calls. Take a look at The Devil Wears Prada. Is it not in its way a torture movie? So is Annapolis. You may recall Annapolis. as the military film that came out earlier this year that everyone could tell just from the trailer was a remake, unofficial or not, of An Officer and a Gentleman. Actually seeing it makes the resemblance clearer. Guy with little direction in life joins an elite military school. Has run ins with his trainer. Befriends secondary character who has suicidal tendencies. Has confrontation with trainer in tub of water. Guy gets chance to fight with trainer to vent mutual hostility.

    annapolisboxThe guy in this case is Jake Huard (James Franco), who in a variation on the source works in the steelyards across the bay and who is honoring his dead mother by joining the school. Except that he doesn’t seem to really want to join. He’s not a very good student and threatens the success of his bunkmates by his anger and inattention. His indifference to his goal is one of the many mysteries lodged in this ultimately incoherent text. Jake’s trainer is Cole (Tyrese Gibson), a Marine imported for the nonce and an expert boxer, as is Jake to a certain degree (more on this in a second). The love interest is not a townie, but another naval officer, the shiny haired Ali (Jordana Brewster), who looks less like Deborah Winger than a woman from another naval drama, Demi Moore in A Few Good Men.

    There is a fight in Gentleman but it is not the raison d’etre of the film. Here, it turns out, boxing is the real story of the film. It’s not clearly stated, but one officer (Donnie Wahlberg) has apparently recruited Jake solely for his boxing skills (an idea that also harks back to From Here to Eternity). The second half of the film is all about the Brigades, some kind of boxing competition of importance to Annapolis candidates. Along the way, the film neglects nary a cliché of the boxing or any other genre even tangentially related to it.

     

    annapolisdance

    The film’s sole narrative drive is that Jake must punish his body, that his “teachers” must punish his body and mind, and that all the other boys and girls around him must have their minds and bodies punished, throughout the full year that this story comprises (just like The Devil Wears Prada, which is a “year in the life”). The audience is asked to sit there and observe this torture and presumably think that it is good for them, that Jake and his coevals are rendered better sailors and officers (those who aren’t drop out or commit suicide, and we are not asked to shed a tear for them). Torture films occupy the same odd space that violent films and war films occupy, which is that though sometimes these films decry violence and war, in fact war and violence are more “cinematic” in a commercial sense than pacifism and turning the other cheek. 

    annapolislinJustin Lin directed the film. It’s difficult to come up with a review of Annapolis better than Roger Ebert’s, which expresses the deep disappointment of a man who admired the director’s debut (Better Luck Tomorrow) only, from the vantage point of Sundance, to stand agape as said director leaps to sell out as quickly as possible (though apparently Lin has redeemed himself a bit with the third Fast and the Furious film).

    If you expect the disc for Annapolis (Touchstone Home Entertainment, 2006, 103 minutes, color, PG-13, one single sided dual layered disc, 1.85:1 (enhanced), DD 5.1 in English, with English and French subtitles, animated musical menu with 16-chapter scene selection, audio commentary by director Lin, editor, and writer, seven deleted scenes with optional commentary, two making ofs, keep case, $29.95, released on Tuesday, June 27, 2006; also in a full frame version) to clarify some of the inconsistencies, forget about it. On the commentary track, the giddy crowd, which includes credited screenwriter Dave Collard, don’t come near mentioning the Gentleman precedent, and fail to note that the film is inconsistent (the yak track was recorded after the film was locked, but before it was released).

    annapolisdeletedThere are also two brief makings ofs, one of them focusing on the Brigades, the boxing tournament that turns out to be the main thrust of the film. There are seven deleted scenes, one of which is a longer version of the “first day” sequence, and which is better than the one in the movie, but which was truncated because, as they say on the optional commentary, they wanted to focus on Jake, exactly the wrong thing to do, especially since they don’t really do that anyway. Other deleteds show Jake smoking in the rain at his mother’s grave, and at the bedside of his suicidal friend. Editor Fred Raskin joins Lin and writer Collard for a chat over the film in which they sound like they loved working with each other and everyone else so very much. If nothing else, I guess, Annapolis proved that Lin could helm a big studio financed feature, if that’s what he wants to do for the rest of his life. Maybe, though, he’s like the characters in Better Luck Tomorrow, who on the surface are successful by society’s standards but behind the scenes are subversive and anarchic.

    commanderboxThere are two things I thought about while watching Commander in Chief: Part 1, Inaugural Edition (Buena Vista-Touchstone Television, 2005, 427 minutes, color, two single sided dual layered discs, 1.78:1 enhanced, DD 5.1 in English, with English subtitles, static musical menu with 10-chapter scene selection per episode, 10 episodes, keep case, $39.95, released on Tuesday, June 27, 2006). One was, why is this (now-cancelled) show not as good as The West Wing (now also-cancelled). And when did the studios come up with the idea of divvying up TV seasons into half-season chunks, priced at a level that ends up costing you twice what a season of shows went for?

    The forthcoming first season of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, for example, is released by Fox in two big chunks, each one $40 bucks. Thus the first season cost $80 dollars in full, which is about as much as HBO charges for its full seasons, which are, though, usually only 13 hours long. Commander in Chief comes out now with its first 10 episodes (and a cliff hanger) to be followed in September by the second half of the season. Will anyone care more than then than they do now enough to pick up the second part of a cancelled show?

    And why was it cancelled? There is a long story behind that, best summarized by Entertainment Weekly. The program was conceived by Rod Lurie, who fashioned a show about a female president so that he could cast Joan Allen, with whom he had worked on The Contender. ABC bought the pitch, but Allen dropped out. At some point, Gena Davis, who was already batting zero as a TV star, was summoned to give the role of an unelected female president stature. The first eight or nine shows were written and supervised by Lurie, but ABC, which moved the air time around, imposed short hiatuses, yanked Lurie in October, ostensibly because he was too slow for the hectic pace of episodic television, and installed emergency surgeon Steve Bochco (pronounced Botch Co.) to take over. Bochco instantly fired most of Lurie’s team, added new opening credit and music, and changed the direction of the series, away from cold cunning political games and more toward warm and fuzzy family drama. Though Davis won a Golden Globe, Bochco left the show in March, passing it on to a third runner, and ABC cancelled the show in early May of 2006. In the end, the show garnered a mere 6 million viewers, more people than have ever read all of Proust, but a disaster by TV’s math.

     

    commandertitlerod

     

     

    commandertitlesteve

     

    It’s difficult to assign blame, and sometimes things just don’t work, thanks to key wrong decisions early in the procedures. Still, ABC seems to think that hit shows just happen, and happen quickly, but according to background tales concerning both Lost and Desperate Housewives, these were shows that executives had to fight to get aired. Lost could easily have been pulled early and not be given a chance to develop.

    Now, in my heart I want to love Rod Lurie. He is a film critic who transitioned to writing and directing. He should be an avatar, someone we who might have similar aspirations should all emulate. But there is something rather cold and stagy about his three extant works, Deterrence, The Contender, and The Last Castle. He is ambitious; has ideas instead of just feelings about things; and he works well with ensembles. But the coldness of the movies was also present in the series. It seemed to dwell on the tension between the presidentially ambitious Florida house speaker Nathan Templeton (Donald Sutherland) and his cat and mouse game with the new Prez Mackenzie Allen (who is an independent, thus affiliated with neither party), a game that progressed at a snail’s pace.

     

    commandergena

     

    The set under review takes the first 10 shows, the last two of which fall under Bochco’s influence. Sad to say, in its way, but the show was much more feel good and viewer friendly under Bochco’s short regime, which is to say much more appealing to female viewers, more sentimental, and “cleaner” in its through lines. One of Lurie’s mistakes, I believe, was in trying to make Allen an independent. By severing her from one of the two parties, he neutered her and kept the show from getting into the trenches with trenchant political debates, as in The West Wing.

    I also wasn’t particularly fond of the CIC family, the selfish daughter, the straight-laced son who was at first passive and then unconvincingly something of a cheater. Kyle Secor as the “first husband” provided another TV face I was tired of seeing (he was probably hired because he is one of the few actors taller than Davis). But worse, the stories – about disaster relief, VP nominations, cabinet members bailing – just weren’t engaging.

    The set has no extras. For supplemental material, instead do a search on the show’s title at the Entertainment Weekly website.

     

  • The Fred Hembeck Show: Episode 63 – MoCCA Jones

     

    fredhembeckheader.jpg

    A few weeks back, I left my generally cloistered existence and headed down to the Big City – NYC, for those of you keeping score at home – where I attended the first day of the fifth annual MoCCA Art Festival. You can read all about it (as well as gape at nearly fifty on the spot shots we snapped with our handy dandy digital camera) if you follow this link over to the page dedicated to the event on my home site, the cleverly monikered Hembeck.com. For those of you with limited attention spans, a quick recap of the afternoon goes something like this: daughter Julie and I had one heckuva time, thanks primarily to our guide for the day, Jim Salicrup, and our friends Rocco, Kara, and Bill, who accompanied us. But when all was said and done, I belatedly realized there was something I’d inadvertently neglected that day:

    The comic books.

    Everybody had ’em, everybody was hawking ’em. But in case you’re not clear on this point, this was no ordinary comics convention – this was a massive gathering of indy creators (and I’m NOT talking about the current rights holder of Indiana Jones, friends!…). There MAY’VE been a super-hero comic or two somewhere on the premises, but I’m betting you’d have to look pretty darn hard to find it. No, with publishers like Fantagraphics, NBM, and Top Shelf among the more established names, this was definitely NOT the place to catch up on the latest Civil Crisis or what not!

    Fellow Quick Stop columnist – and Big Apple denizen – Peter Sanderson expressed mild surprise at my presence, as he figured me as more of a capes and tights devotee (that’s as far as comics go, I’m assuming – otherwise, I’m busted! Heh…). I realize a lot of folks have that impression, due primarily to the various cartoons I’ve done over the years, and while it’s certainly true that I have a long and abiding affection for the genre, it’s not the ONLY type of funnybooks I enjoy. Ever since I first began scarfing up that initial wave of underground comix back in the late sixties, there’s always been a part of me that craved non-fantasy material done by artists completely unfettered by censorship and (in the traditional sense) commercial concerns. Following the halcyon days of Crumb, Spain, Jaxon, Shelton and so many others, I quickly became enamored by the work of such emerging alternative cartoonists as Peter Bagge, Roberta Gregory, Seth, Joe Matt, the Hernandez Brothers, Chester Brown, to name but a few. Thing was, though, each and every one of those artists drew their characters in their own highly individualistic style – often with an already cartoony bent – making it near impossible for me to transform them over into my own idiosyncratic style (I have the same basic problem with such humor icons as Little Lulu, Dennis the Menace, and, to a lesser extent, Archie and the gang). So, given the choice of having Cartoon Fred interview, say, Bagge’s Studs Kirby or Iron Man, Iron Man always won out. I didn’t have the tough task of drawing a character just the way it’s creator did for it to be at all recognizable, y’see – I only had to replicate a costume on one of my own goofy cartoon bodies to get my point across.

    Plus, let’s face it, there’s a LOT more to mock (however, ahem, playfully) with the costumed crime fighter set than with characters that are either already satirical or else trying to evoke a sense of reality, so that’s primarily what I’ve done over the years. And along the way, understandably, folks – like Peter – may’ve gotten the impression that that’s ALL I liked.

    Nope. Not true.

    However, what IS true is that I haven’t been paying much attention to ANY current releases in recent years, whether they feature garishly garbed guys pounding the crap out of each other or slovenly attired anarchists with attitude. Mostly, I’ve been reading reprints, either of material from my childhood or else some of the choicer stuff that predated it. Y’know, there’s just something almost mystically appealing to me about re-experiencing an old Carmine Infantino Flash story from years gone by on crisp white paper, the radiant colors practically shimmering off the page, the sumptuous aroma of “new book” wafting up noseward following the ritualistic breaking of the protective cellophane!

    So, even though I met a lot of folks at MoCCA that day (mostly courtesy of Jim), in retrospect, I did woefully little to investigate the multitude of offerings available for sale throughout the hall. Fact is, when all was said and done, I only brought home two major works: Drawing Comics Is Easy (Except When It’s Hard) by Denis Kitchen’s seven-year old (!!) daughter, Alexa, and Box Office Poison by Alex Robinson (there was, apparently, nothing by Alex Ross on sale, much less the late Alex Toth…). I was intrigued by both the novelty aspects – and the amazing quality – of young Ms. Kitchen’s book, but another time for that. Today I’m going to be talking about Box Office Poison.

    hembeck-20060629-01.jpg

    Why, out of all the possible books I could’ve bought, did I ultimately decide to focus my attention on Box Office Poison? Well, sometimes size DOES matter…

    Y’see, I’d come across the massive six-hundred page plus volume several times in the past while perusing with mild curiosity – but with absolutely no intention of parting with any cash – the comics and graphic novels section of my local Barnes and Noble. I’d remembered the name Box Office Poison from back in the nineties because I’d come across it seemingly every issue while filling out my monthly Diamond Previews order form – but even though the name intrigued me, I’d skip right past it each and every time. And why not? It was being published by one of those small companies that I’d never ordered anything from, and I didn’t know this Alex Robinson guy from Will Robinson! Maybe it was good, granted, but hey, there was – and is – so much stuff out there, it’s more than a little chancy investing in a complete unknown, sight unseen. I had in fact tried said sampling method several times in the past, purchasing material that, on the face of things had more than a passing resemblance to Box Office Poison, and generally speaking, it was NOT money well spent. So, as the years went on, my willingness to experiment diminished quickly and surely.

    But when I saw a copy of the book on the shelves of Barnes and Noble – now under the aegis of Top Shelf, a well-respected publisher – I couldn’t help but mutter to myself, “Huh – guess this thing must be fairly decent after all” and picked up a copy to page through.

    Like I said, dig that massive size! It was like one of those Marvel Essentials, only on way better paper and with far less spandex. And the artwork looked pretty good too. I’ll admit it – I was tempted, but then I remembered: hey, I’m trying to buy less comics these days, not more! So I put it back down, and wandered away to buy the latest issue of MOJO instead. But the memory lingered, and when Jim Salicrup mentioned that Alex Robinson was over at the Top Shelf table, selling and signing books, I knew what I had to do.

    Jim took me over and introduced me to Alex (Jim knows EVERYONE, y’see), who, it turns out, met me at a convention several decades back. I’d even done a sketch for him and – luckily for me – was on my best behavior (i.e. I didn’t curse him out and cause him to flee from my table in tears)! He even professed to be a fan of mine, and generously gave me a nice discount on the book (even indy comics artists with books in large retail chains can’t quite afford to give away their wares willy nilly, after all…). I asked him which one he’d recommend, and though he personally prefers his latest endeavor, Tricked, we both eventually agreed that it might be better to start out with the book that made him his name, the aforementioned Box Office Poison.

    hembeck-20060629-02.jpg

    After a few more minutes of pleasant small talk, I took my leave, and shoved my latest treasure into Julie’s back-pack (and then lugged the increasingly heavy thing around the rest of the @#$%ing day, but that’s a whole “NOTHER issue!…).

    Thirteen days later, right on the heels of completing the Ant-Man/Giant-Man Marvel Masterworks (Volume 1), in lieu of moving on to the Sgt. Fury Masterworks as I’d originally planned, I decided on a whim to sit down and read this MoCCA memento thingie instead. That may not sound very impressive to you, but at this stage of my life, that’s pretty much analogous with my ten-year old self tearing open the cover of Fantastic Four #34 in the back seat of my parents car only scant moments after ponying up the shekels to buy it!

    Now, please understand something. I’m not a critic, not really. Oh, I’ve tried my hand at the whole analyze and dissect game in the past, but I can’t honestly say I’ve managed to come anywhere near the level established by truly analytical comic book critics like our own Mr. Sanderson. No, I’m mostly a guy who reads (or sees or listens to) something, and then tells you whether he likes it or not, maybe throwing in a few pithy reasons to justify his opinion, but never enough deep thinking to hurt your (or – more importantly – MY) head.

    So, given those low-level qualifications, WHAT, you may wonder, did I think of Box Office Poison?

    I LOVED IT!

    It may not’ve been Maus or Watchmen, but y’know what? I was so enthralled with the thing while I was reading it, it just might just as well’ve been! It took me three nights to get through – the days of wading through six-hundred pages in a single sitting are long gone – but the second night I genuinely regretted the need to put it down, and the third night, well, I vowed I wouldn’t stop until I finished! It’s been a LOONNNG time since I was that motivated to read me a comic, lemme tell ya!

    So, what’s it about (besides “about six-hundred pages” – haw, haw…)? Well, don’t expect a rambling recounting of the book’s plot from me – instead, I’ll give it to you in a nutshell. The story follows a group of city-dwellers in their post-college years, and the two most central to the action are former roommates, Sherman and Ed. Sherman is a frustrated writer working a job he hates in a book store. During the course of this epic, he meets Dorothy, and the ups and downs of their uneven relationship is expertly charted by author Robinson. Ed, on the other hand, is an aspiring comic book artist who longs to work for the mainstream, but instead finds himself hired to be the assistant of an elderly cartoonist – one who just happened to dream up the character Nightstalker decades earlier, a creation that he reaps absolutely no benefits from despite the massive success the property now exhibits in a multitude of media. Ed tries to get some justice – and some much needed bucks – for his cranky mentor from Zoom Comics, and only someone conversant with the actual history of the medium as Alex Robinson apparently is could paint as convincing a portrait of the ins and outs of the funny book field as we witness here.

    hembeck-20060629-03.jpg

    And there’s so very, very much more (a sequence involving a Santa Claus suit brought a lump to my throat, old softie that I am…), but that’s the main thrust of things. The writing is crisp, the dialog convincingly naturalistic. The plot turns are largely surprising, and not at all what one might readily expect. For example, there’s one character that keeps popping up throughout the first half of the book, seemingly unrelated to the main protagonists. When the connection is finally revealed towards the end of the book, it’s done in such a subtle manner as to nonetheless startle the reader (….and how’s THAT for talking around a key surprise without actually giving anything away? It wasn’t easy…)! The author’s rewritten version of comics history is at once, knowing, satirical, and affectionate. Hey, WHO knew cartoonists wore toupees?..

    The artwork is very good. Some of the backgrounds in the opening pages are a little funky, but Robinson soon hits his stride, and plops his cast down into a visually convincing environment. The spotting of blacks, grays, and whites seems balanced just right, and the storytelling is always clear, even on those occasions when it gets a little showy (a sequence building up to an illicit kiss, though inventive, does seem to go on a bit longer than necessary, however). Each character in the large cast, even the minor ones, are unique enough to always be readily identifiable (though I found the rather outsized head of ancient cartoonist Irving Flavor to be disconcerting at times, as it seemed too blatantly out of proportion with the rest of the gang. However it was probably just one of those things – once you commit to the way a character looks when he’s first introduced on page 97, well, you pretty much have to follow through on model all the way to the end.).

    Like I said, this thing was a joy to read. Despite liberal use of the ever popular “f” word – and intermittent glances at our heroes private parts – this is a very warm group of characters, and their story is mostly an uplifting one, if bittersweet at times. Look, I’m not exactly sure where this would place in the pantheon of today’s most celebrated graphic novels – I haven’t read enough of ’em to offer an educated opinion – but I really, really enjoyed the time I spent with this book, and it only makes me all the more anxious to find a copy of Tricked and give that the once over!

    (And y’know, if you’re the sort who looks a little askance at the whole indy movement, and instead feels most comfortable with the fellows in funny outfits, this may well be the perfect book for you to check out, since there’s plenty enough knowing story points concerning the world of mainstream comics to hold your attention! And, along the way, you just might find the REST of the story of interest as well!…)

    So okay, maybe I didn’t give most of the wares offered at MoCCA that day enough of my attention, but in the end, I guess I still somehow wound up buying just the right book! Because Box Office Poison just may prove to be my long overdue gateway back into the world in indy comics!

    Y’know, Dum Dum, Happy Sam, Pinky, Gabe, Dino, Reb and all the rest may just have to wait a bit – there’s a book over on the shelf that my buddy Rocco convinced me to buy a few years back that I still haven’t gotten to. A little something called Blankets. I think maybe I’ll give THAT a read instead…

    Find more of my facile musings over at Hembeck.com, my MySpace page, or contact me directly via this link.

    Copyright 2006 Fred Hembeck

  • Fat Man Pants: Beers and interview = Mattt sounding dumb

    Mattt and Adam

    Wow. Podcasts are hard. I thought they would be easier than this. I need some podcast lube big time. Doing a podcast drunk is a bad idea. But hey, enough of that! Let’s talk about me! And this week’s podcast speaks for itself (because it is an audio file). Will “Wheaton” Wilkins and myself interview director Adam Rifkin (Detroit Rock City, The Dark Backward, The Chase), talk to him about the classic movie of yesterday Dark Backward coming to DVD (that yours truly worked on) as well as stuff that he is working on currently.

    Download this week’s PODCAST HERE!

    Download FAT MAN PANTS!

    This week’s video is a little ditty I cut together starring “OLD FOOL”. Details on “Old Fool” are in the podcast. But basically he is a crazy homeless guy that lives in L.A. who thinks he is a caveman. He is also one of the inspirations of Adam’s new movie. So check that bad boy out here.

    [WARNING – EXPLICIT CONTENT]

    Download OLD FOOL

    Remember me?

    Next week, Will Wilkins and I talk to Commercial Legend Donavan Freberg, who you may remember as the Encyclopedia Britannica kid. Remember him? he had a report due on space. So be sure to tune in for that.

     

     

     

     

  • Brat-halla #134: Norse Force – Ravens From Home

    by Jeffery Stevenson and Seth Damoose with colors by Anthony Lee

    Larger Comic Version

    Brat-halla #134: Norse Force - Ravens From Home - main

    For extras, visit the Brat-halla Web site!

    Check out the preview to the Image comic Jeff writes…

    E-MAIL WRITER | ABOUT JEFF | ABOUT SETH | BRAT-HALLA BLOG | BRAT-HALLA FORUM | ARCHIVES

  • Film Flam Flummox: Clickable Supes

    filmflamflummoxbanner.jpg

    FILM FLAM FLUMMOX
    by Michael Dequina

    June 28, 2006 

     

    The Return of the Pointless Intro Bit

    …in time for the big site relaunch…

    Richard Donner Returns 

    filmflamflummox-june27-supermanreturns.jpgWhen it was announced that Bryan Singer would be tackling the long-in-the-works big screen return of Superman, both film and comic fan alike eagerly anticipated what he would come up with — after all, this is the same filmmaker who was able to make mainstream-accessible, cinematic sense of what is arguably the most complex conventional superhero mythos, that of the X-Men. But those walking into SUPERMAN RETURNS to be uniquely “Bryan Singer’s Superman” will be let down as this is more or less the sequel that 1978 Superman director Richard Donner was never allowed to complete.

    This is, of course, not necessarily a bad thing, as Donner’s film (and, for the most part, the 1980-81 Donner/Richard Lester hybrid sequel Superman II) treated Joe Siegel and Jerry Shuster’s historic creation with the respect due any literary character with such enduring appeal, not with campy condescension just because of its comic book origins. The familiar, lengthy main title sequence scored to the still-stirring John Williams theme announce this film as being firmly in line with those first two films, and so goes the whole of Superman Returns: extremely close to, if not downright aping, the originals. After a five-year absence from earth that began shortly after the events of II, Superman/Kal-El/Clark Kent (Brandon Routh) once again comes crashing down to Earth, specifically at his mother’s (Eva Marie Saint) farm in Smallville. Clark soon returns to Metropolis. the offices of the Daily Planet, and, hence, the world of his true love Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) — but she is now not only engaged to Perry White’s (Frank Langella) nephew Richard (James Marsden, getting far more screen time here than he did in the sadly Singer-less X-Men: The Last Stand), but she also has a young son (Tristan Lake Leabu).

    But those changes sound far more radical on paper than they do in execution, as from beginning to end (there’s even the classic capper of Supes flying above earth), top to bottom, the tone, the style, the look (many of John Barry’s original sets are reflected in Guy Hendrix Dyas’ production design), the feel is Donner through and through. While the attention to consistency is remarkable — writers Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris pepper the script with a number of detailed references to those first two films — one cannot help but wish that Singer took a more distinctive spin on the material. Knowing how creative and imaginative yet intelligent and respectful he has proven to be in the past with comic book material, it’s a bit dismaying to see him for the most part ape Donner, whose most distinctive strength is his anonymous, workmanlike precision.

    That latter description also kind of extends to Routh. He does a completely competent job here, even if it’s quite obvious he probably was cast more for his Christopher Reeve-reminiscent look than anything else. That said, the jury is still out as to if he’ll be a star or any good outside of these films — unlike Singer’s last great find, Hugh Jackman, who in his first scenes in the original 2000 X-Men instantly announced him as a movie star, period, and not merely a star when playing the character. But for now, for the purposes of this re-introduction film, his impeccable Reeve impersonation will do. Bosworth’s Lois is similarly competent though her youthful appearance — even younger than her actual 23 years–makes her somewhat difficult to reconcile with Margot Kidder’s brassier take in the first two films. The one cast member–nay, the one prominent member of the whole team–to bring something fairly freshly his own to the table is Kevin Spacey. While his Lex Luthor does pick up from the madcap vein of Gene Hackman’s original portrayal, he brings some of his own darker edges to the part. For the first time in a major Superman feature, Luthor is both amusingly wacky and a believably sinister threat to the Man of Steel. The Hackman versus Spacey comparison can be summed up thusly: Hackman uses a Kryptonite block, but Spacey wields a Kryptonite shiv.

    The film as a whole could have used a little more of that type of ferocious instinct, as in terms of an adventure Returns pulls out its action showstopper very early–too early–with a spectacular jet plane rescue (a sequence that should be especially phenomenal on IMAX 3-D) and then coasts its way toward its fairly low-key whisper of a conclusion. What goes on between is never boring — and how could it be, what with the state-of-the-art effects; lavish set and production design (no mystery where the money in the megabucks budget went here); Spacey’s hamming and sniping with sidekick Parker Posey; and the kick of seeing the Man of Steel simply do his Super-thing using his heat vision, cooling breath, and superhuman strength — but just when you clamor for Supes and Singer to deliver a rush of blockbuster excitement, they instead settle for being merely entertaining. While that is enough to make Superman Returns an agreeable summertime diversion, it cannot help but be a bit of a let down given not so much the studio-manufactured hype (though that does count) but the anticipation by fans over the years.

     

    Another Reason to Channel Surf

    filmflamflummox-june23-click.jpgIt’s only fitting that, in my first column at the newly rechristened Quick Stop, that I would review an Adam Sandler picture, as my second Movie Poop Shoot column featured a review of Mr. Deeds. Four years may have passed since then, but as CLICK shows nothing has much changed at all in the Happy Madison camp–and for those like myself who are immune to the Sandler Kool-Aid, that’s not necessarily a good thing.In fact, many of the same problems I had with Deeds are actually brought into sharper relief in Click, which finds Sandler’s workaholic family man coming into possession of a remote control that is universal in the most literal sense: the device allows him to pause, rewind, fast forward, even picture-in-picture his life. This paves the way for the expected juvenalia along the lines of what is shown in the advertising — slow-mo’ing the bountiful, bouncing breasts on a comely jogger; pausing to move a rude kid’s catching arm so he could get hit in the face with a ball — as well as unrelated, grotesque crudeness such as his family dog’s incessant urge to hump an oversized plush duck toy. As is what has become the Sandler norm, such crudeness co-exists with schmaltz, as his put-upon wife (a wasted Kate Beckinsale, spending most of the film wearing sleepwear short-shorts) and his parents (Henry Winkler and Julie Kavner) constantly nag him about the importance of family over work.

    And so one braces oneself for the inevitable sap-soaked conclusion, but no amount of preparation can steel one enough for the rather flabbergasting turn the film takes in its final third.  Director Frank Coraci’s “movie” (as the credits pointedly state, as opposed to “film”) ventures far beyond the expected touchy-feely hugs-‘n-healing into a mass of old age makeup and balls-out, would-be Oscar clip emoting by the erstwhile Waterboy himself.  I doubt even the most devout Sandler devotees would call him a terribly rangy actor, and the maudlin muck of the final stretch would be a challenge to sell with a seasoned dramatic actor, let alone someone who has never possessed any sort of emotional pulse on screen like Sandler.  While I’ve never been a fan of his particular brand of humor, if the alternative is suffering through him struggle mightily to convey angst over lost moments with his dad is, bring on the “comical” outbursts of violence, tiresome “You can do it!” callbacks, and Rob Schneider cameos.
    Waist Deep in Pretension

    filmflamflummox-june23-waistdeep.jpgTo director/co-writer Vondie Curtis Hall’s credit, he wastes no time throwing reformed con O2 (Tyrese Gibson) WAIST DEEP (sorry, couldn’t resist) into a precarious situation: his young son (H. Hunter Hall, the director’s son, inheriting none of his father’s–or, for that matter, mother Kasi Lemmons’–acting talent) is taken from him in a big, energetically staged daylight street chase/shootout.  The stage is thus set for a gritty, hard action thriller with a capable lead (given that Wesley Snipes has now been consigned to direct-to-video oblivion, there’s an open door for Gibson) and a sexy, spunky female cohort (Meagan Good’s Coco, who joins O2 on a bank robbing spree to pay off the kidnappers)–and whenever Hall shifts into action gear with various fights and chases, the movie is an engaging, if not terribly original, watch.
    However, Hall seems less concerned with the action beats than a rather heavy-handed anti-violence message, which first manifests as some already less-than-subtle background news references to Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa cracking down on crime but eventually build to some sledgehammer speeches and rally scenes.  Every now and again the message comes through effectively: the juxtaposition of O2’s slacker cousin (Larenz Tate, who really deserves another crack at a lead role) being beaten at the same site as one of these rallies, the unaware crowd busy listening to a speech to notice; and a scene in which O2 and Coco lay bare the tragedy and pain in their pasts makes a much more effective and memorable anti-violence statement than any of the blatant dialogue speechifying.  But those are the exceptions rather than the rule, and the frustration grows as the whole “escape from the hood for a better and safer life” theme takes more and more precedence over the admittedly formulaic but far more effectively done action aspects (the resolution with the main bad guy, played in surprisingly limited screen time by The Game, is so abrupt as if to be a mere afterthought)–but even the good will generated by those elements and the appealing turns by Gibson and Good is all but wiped away by a wholly expected but no less cheeseball coda.

    At the Video Store

    Before a personal return to form in Waist Deep, Tyrese Gibson was last seen awkwardly filling the part of a tough-as-nails Navy training officer making the academy a living hell for one determined upstart (James Franco, who had an awful January between this and Tristan & Isolde) in ANNAPOLIS (Touchstone Home Entertainment).  But then his unconvincing performance is but one of things that go awry in the first of director Justin Lin’s twin 2006 catastrophes (The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Driftbeing the other), a corny and contrived boxing movie in military dress.  The disc includes commentary by Lin, deleted scenes, and some behind-the-scenes featurettes.

    Vin Diesel’s god-awful hairpiece is the most amusing thing about the fact-based bore FIND ME GUILTY (20th Century Fox Home Entertainment), which misses the boat as far as the real story worth telling: not that an obnoxious mafia thug (Diesel, hamming it up with a ridiculously overwrought accent) defends himself in a criminal trial but that said trial ultimately becomes the longest in U.S. history.  With the accent and (unfortunate) wig, this was obviously meant to be the vehicle to prove Diesel’s chops once and for all, but director Sidney Lumet does him nor the overlong film any favors by too often resorting to desperate courtroom yuk-yuk hijinks; this My Goombah Vinny is nowhere in the league of My Cousin Vinny. The DVD includes trailers and a “Conversations with Sidney Lumet” featurette.

    While I was one of the few reviewers to find redeeming qualities in Darren Grant’s screen version of Tyler Perry’s play Diary of Mad Black Woman, the same cannot be said of  the adaptation of MADEA’S FAMILY REUNION (Lionsgate Home Entertainment), which now finds the screenwriter-star-multimillionaire also behind the camera and showing that his true directorial calling is on the live stage, not in film.  Try as they might, Blair Underwood and talented new faces Rochelle Aytes and Lisa Arindell Anderson (as a pair of sisters with man trouble) cannot sell Perry’s messy plotting and meandering direction, bringing into sharp relief the rather admirable job Grant pulled off in giving the previous film a certain sense of focus and emotional and narrative coherence.  The special edition DVD, available in separate full screen and widescreen versions, features commentary by Perry, deleted scenes, and numerous behind-the-scenes featurettes.

    Imagine your most routine, autopilot Hollywood rom-com and substitute the male character with another woman, and you get IMAGINE ME & YOU (20th Century Fox Home Entertainment).  Appealing turns by Piper Perabo and Lena Headey as the sapphic love interests and Matthew Goode (when will this guy get a decent Hollywood role?) as Perabo’s unsuspecting hubby deserve better than writer-director Ol Parker’s painfully predictable paces; all that’s missing from the contrived stuck-in-a-traffic-jam finale is the dreaded slow clap.  The disc includes commentary by Parker, deleted scenes, and a Q&A with Parker and the cast.

    That said, that film is far easier to sit through than the inexplicable smash FAILURE TO LAUNCH (Paramount Home Entertainment), which features Matthew McConaughey and Sarah Jessica Parker at their most charmless as, respectively, a womanizer who still lives with his parents (Kathy Bates and Terry Bradshaw) and the woman hired to get him to move out.  If the running gag that has McConaughey constantly attacked by animals because his lifestyle is “against nature” isn’t enough to make one wince, the traumatizing sight of a pasty, flabby Bradshaw in the buff most certainly is.  The DVD, available in separate full screen and widescreen versions, includes a number of making-of/behind-the-scenes documentary featurettes.

    Writer-director Kurt Wimmer more or less disowned the PG-13 theatrical cut of his sci-fi actioner ULTRAVIOLET (Sony Pictures Home Entertainment), but it’s difficult to imagine any amount of added action and violence making this visually striking but emptyheaded tale of a futuristic “blood war” any more coherent–or lines such as “Oh, it’s on!” any less laughable.  The unrated, extended director’s cut edition (the theatrical version is available in a separate release) includes commentary by star Milla Jovovich–but, tellingly, still nothing from Wimmer–and a making-of featurette.

    Next Time…

    …more reviews, including Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest.  As always, for additional reviews and more, check out (the soon-to-be-updated) TheMovieReport.com .

  • Clerks 2 InAction Short #1

    clerksinaction.jpg

    The countdown is on to the premiere of Clerks 2 (July 21st, natch) and we’ve got a special series of cyber-nuggets to keep you amped, featuring the plastic alter-egos of everyone’s favorite cast of characters (including a certain writer/director who shall remain nameless).

    EPISODE #1: “You’ll Believe a Clerk Can Fly” – Randal & Dante ponder what flick moviegoers will be seeing this summer.

    Download here:

    clerksinactionepisode01.jpg

    Clerks 2 InAction is brought to you by Kevin Smith, Jeff Anderson, Brian O’Halloran, Ken Plume, and Zak Knutson & Joey Figueroa of Chop Shop Entertainment. Want to make Randal and Dante obey your every whim? Click here.

  • Party Favors: Philadelphia Freedom

     

    partyfavors.jpg

      

    PHILADELPHIA – I’d rather be hanging at W.C. Fields’ grave.

    It’s easy to see why these folks booed Santa Claus. Who knew that Rocky actually glamoured up this city?  It was so damn hot and nasty and it wasn’t even June. Forget crime rates since we got mugged by the weather.

    At one point during the visit to the City of Brotherly Love, my posse sought out Pat’s famous Cheese Steaks in South Philly. Can I point out that this has to be the most hell hole neighborhood that I’ve been in? Driving down the main drag, it was hard to contemplate how someone could grow up in such a jungle of asphalt and slammed together row houses. There was no protection from the elements. And with cars parked on both sides of the one way streets, I felt very little protection from running into door handles. Plus 25 year old guys kept zipping around on low rider bicycles. I wanted to skip the steak and escape to I-95 South without causing a body count. It’s like a city that begs to be a disaster zone.

    Luckily most of my time was spent way outside the city at a lush private Quaker high school. The kids today have 80s haircuts for those of us who were sensible during those years and didn’t look like extras in an Oingo Boingo video.  The strange part was seeing a kid wearing a Richard Hell t-shirt. Was this kid even born when Richard teamed up with Sonic Youth for the Dim Stars project? I didn’t have time to ask him if he had “Blank Generation” in his iPod cause he was entertaining a young lady on his lap. I guess the t-shirt worked. All I ever got from wearing a Richard Hell t-shirt was scabies.

    Since it was reunion weekend at the posh school, I ended up running into George Segal. He was there to celebrate his 55th anniversary along with his wonderful wife, Sonia. The actor, who accidentally appeared in Eyes Wide Shut (there’s a TV showing Blume in Love) and spent quite a few season playing Jack Gallo on Just Shoot Me, seemed like a nice enough guy. I think he was confused that there was a video crew interviewing other people in his class, but not him.  I didn’t want to pester him too much so I didn’t have a chance to say that after watching Jim Carey’s Fun With Dick and Jane that George is still “Dick” in my book.

    One night we ate at a quaint restaurant called “White Dog” near that Ivy League Penn place. We had a fun time giving business to the waitress. We informed her that down South, you could never have that name on a restaurant. She didn’t know what “White Dog” meant. Also they had something on the menu called “St. Peter’s Fish.” We informed the waitress that since St. Peter was a “Fisher of men” this entree was in fact Human meat! Oh the funny things you can say when you’re out of towners.

    After spending time in South Philly, I can understand why Santa gets booed in that town – because he didn’t take them away in his sleigh to escape the steaming hell hole that surrounds them.  Maybe it’s not that bad. But I’m not going back anytime soon for a second chance.

    DINE OUT

    The one amazing thing about being in the Tri-State area is eating at real diners and not corporate sit downs. We ended up at the Golden Eagle in Bristol. These people covered the plate. Even breakfast required a doggy bag.

    THE BUSINESS OF THE FAMILY

    If you listen really carefully, you’ll hear the a new season of Family Business is running on Showtime.  It’s the fourth go around for Seymore Butts, Cousin Stevie, and the gang, but for some odd reason Showtime isn’t promoting the living daylights out of one of their crown jewels.  HBO always plugs an upcoming season like mad. Plus they rerun all the old episodes to juice up the audience for the new shows. But none of that happened for Family Business. I caught like one promo at an odd hour. Thank goodness I have Showtime OnDemand since they put them on at such odd hours. Family Business is in my Top 10 Shows on TV.

    The first thing going around the internet that was instead of the normal 10 episodes, Family Business was going to get clipped down to 8. But can you really trust things written on the internet? I get to write on the world wide web so who knows who else is typing away. So I wrote the only man who could give me a real answer – and has his email on the web: Seymore (Adam). He responded by writing “there will be 10 episodes this season… to make 40 total in the series.” So don’t stop recording the show after the 8th episode.

    I also asked if he knew he was having a “crossover” reality pay channel moment when he had Isabella Soprano “working” on his show. It was an after hours delight to get a visit from the star of HBO’s Cathouse series. Adam typed that he “had no idea about isabella but i think i’m shooting her again soon.”

    So there you go kids, Isabella Soprano “America’s Sweet Whore” might be in another Seymore Butts epic. Hopefully this time she’ll agree to push her talents to appeal to Seymore’s hardcore fans.

    So far this season has been a strange one in that we see that Seymore is growing comfortable with his life. His new house is a lush sanctuary from those sterile Hollywood Hills joints. He’s got a woman that doesn’t want to fool around with others… off camera. His son is growing up and asking those adult questions. I enjoy seeing the juggling act between porn god and family man. And what’s even weirder is finally seeing his son’s mom, who in the early seasons couldn’t even be mentioned by name. Turns out she’s getting back into the adult business so I guess she doesn’t mind the attention now.

    For those thinking that maybe the subject matter of Family Business makes the suits at Showtime a little queasy (a man balancing raising his son while make hardcore videos), make note that their prize series Weeds is about a mother balancing raising a family and selling pot. Showtime will go into overdrive to pimp Mary Louise Parker’s new adventures on the channel. It’s a shame they don’t have a crossover episode of Family Business with Mary Louise Parker.

    So catch the final episodes of this season’s Family Business and if you somehow missed the first few episodes, find a friend with Tivo, taste and a DVD-R.

    MY NEW SHOW

    When is Fox going to sign me up to be a judge on So You Think You Can Lapdance?

    WHERE THE HELL IS CHELSEA?

    I do like the Chelsea Handler Show. I’m kinda happy she’s on E! cause this show would get butchered on the WB. She has such a joy to her blunt humor. She’s like Sarah Silverman without the Jimmy Kimmel baggage. I’ve stopped thinking about Sarah while masturbating because it’s hard not to think of Jimmy hiding in the closet. Just not worth the effort. Thank goodness Chelsea hasn’t hitched her wagon to the Kimmel beast. And she has a book out, My Horizontal Life: A Collection of One-Night Stands. I’m wondering if I’m in the book since it seems to have been written during my “hazy years?”

    She would be my dream panelist on the new Match Game. She’s our new Brett Somers. But where is the second coming of Charles Nelson Riley?

    DOLLS UP

    I’m in bliss with Fox’s 2-DVD Cinema Classic Collection of Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. A few years back some punk was whining that Criterion should put this title out, and I responded, “What could Criterion do for the movie that Fox couldn’t if it’s passionate about the film?” Well, there’s a lot of love spread over these two DVDs. The first disc has the movie, and it glistens. Russ Meyer’s got some nice flesh in this film about a Josie and the Pussycats with a libido. The audio is great. I’m eager to borrow a pal’s video projector so we can watch this mega-size. The second DVD is filled with new documentaries about the making of the film. Everyone has a great story about how Russ loved large breasts. Plus there’s a trailer that features Russ taking the poster photo of all the gals on a round bed.

    They have gone beyond the beyond to make this the best DVD you’ll buy this month. Now I have to go watch the wisdom of the Z Man. Cause it’s my happening and it’s freaking me out!

    OPRAH QUESTION

    Recently, Oprah had this TV special where she paid tribute to legends that inspired her. She gave each legend diamond earrings on air. Which is a sweet present, but here’s my question: Did these women have to pay the same taxes that the guests who received the “free cars” were nailed by? Did the legends have to cough up several thousand dollars before they could walk off with their jewels?

    Or does Oprah have a different set of standards. She’ll pay the tax for her friends, but total strangers that she uses for freebie publicity are fair game for Uncle Sam.

    And if it’s so untrue that Oprah never threw Tommy Hilfiger off her show, why in the near decade since that rumor spread has she never invited him to be a guest? Will he not kiss her ring like the head of Hermes? If she doesn’t have a problem with Tommy, why is he banned from Harpo studios?

    ANGEL COIF

    Have you noticed that Criss Angel on Mindfreak has changed his hair so instead of looking like a roadie for Extreme, he’s now wearing a Nikki Sixx do from the Motley Crue reunion? I’m liking the new tricks. But I still want him to make my parking tickets disappear.

    SAY IT IN FRENCH

    While I’m not willing to go into details, Big Momma’s House 2 shouldn’t be watched in English. After about 30 minutes of enduring a film that tried way too hard to heat marketing beats, I swapped the audio track over to French and somehow the film became a work of comic genius. As Martin Lawrence goofed around as a fat old woman, the movie improved. It seemed like a Francis Weber flick from the 80s. It all made sense in French – the small child that had to jump off stuff, the young daughter’s cheerleading squad that goes from chaos to Bring It On, and the older daughter learning how to open up. None of this made any sense in English. But all of this and the stupid plot about tracking down a computer program was crystal clear with the illusion that Martin Lawrence is the hottest comic talent in Paris.

    The strangest thing is that after watching Big Momma’s House in French, my first reaction is Disney can remake this with Eddie Murphy if they can straighten out all the French kinks.

    And what is up with the recent spate off black men dressing up as overweight old black women? Between this and that Madea’s Family Reunion with Tyler Perry – or is it Tyler Perry’s Medea’s Family Reunion? – when are we going to have a crossover movie with a zombie dressed up as a fat old black woman?

    SNAP TO IT

    Why is Kate Moss pimping cameras on TV? Am I wrong in thinking that if it wasn’t for a sleek camera, she wouldn’t have had all her problems? No camera means no tabloid cover showing her sniffing a thick line of coke off the CD jewel case. And she wouldn’t have lost millions when she got dumped on various campaigns.

    What’s next? Paris Hilton pushing a night vision video camera? Robert Blake hawking Olive Garden? O.J. Simpson doing Ford Bronco jokes on Pay-Per-View? Oh wait, that’s already happened. Remember when people had shame?  When someone would commit  a felony and after paying for their crime, they’d move to an island in the Pacific and build a new life?

    SUMMER HIT?

    Will there be a real song (or even songs) of the Summer of 2006? Will there be a record released in the next three months?

    WHEN BOOBIES RULED THE CINEMA

    Thanks to Brett Meisner (The Rock N’ Roll Bad Boy), I found myself watching a trio of flicks from Crown International. They were third on the indie releasing circuit in the 70s behind AIP and Roger Corman’s New World. And while none of these films (The Van, Malibu Beach and My Tutor) would win an Oscar, they reminded me of what’s missing from the cinema of today – barely motivated nudity. When was the last time you saw a film and said, “Damn! That was a lot of boobies on the screen!” The only film I know of that has made me say that was Hostel. But even with all the lovely topless action – we then had to watch a lot of gore.

    I wonder what has reduced the level of breasts in America cinema. Have the folks in Hollywood become a pack of prudes? Or do they know that if we want to see nudity, we’d rather rent a porn video? 

    Private Resort comes out on DVD and not only does it have a lot of Mam-action, we also get to see Johnny Depp and Rob Morrow’s asses from 20 years ago. I’m not into guy’s asses, but Depp does give everyone a good look. It’s the perfect gift for anyone who wants to see the pirate’s booty. And for the guys, there’s lots of breasts to fill in the plot holes. It’s the perfect date film.

    Of the three Crown films – My Tutor was the best, and it was made by George Bowers – who directed Private Resort. He’s now an editor slicing away on the remake of Walking Tall and From Hell. What a strange career. I guess once the boobies went away, directing wasn’t that fun for George.

    HOCKEY MOVES

    When the NHL got their contract with OLN for their games, I thought they’d screwed themselves. What’s the point of not being on ESPN or Fox? Well the point is that OLN actually cares about carrying the games. They didn’t treat hockey as an obligation to carry. And while it’s not lucrative, it at least allows the NHL to grow its fan base without having to match the ratings of NFL games or the Poker World Series. Plus it’s nice that OLN ran Youngblood 15 times in a week. That movie’s soundtrack was the first cutout CD I ever found at a Camelot Music mall shop.

    The local Suncoast shut down at the mall so our indoor shopping mecca doesn’t contain a record or video store. Where can a kid go to pay suggested retail price on a record?

    BREAK’N

    Why exactly does everything on TV take a commercial break at the same time? I’m trying to bounce between a network show and sports games and they’re both running ads. I don’t think it’s a coincidence.

    THAT MARLO

    The first season of That Girl is out and I’m in bliss. It’s been a while since I’ve heard Marlo Thomas whine “Donald!” Also didn’t hurt that the folks at Shout! Factory priced it so I could nab it cheap. The weird thing was seeing the original opening that doesn’t have the theme song sung, the kite or the winking mannequin. The things you learn when you’re enjoying a guilty pleasure.

    Also, the complete collection of The Bugaloos show reminds me of back when Saturday morning fun was made by people who were doing lots of drugs and not merely reading dictates from marketing. I’ve got a crush on Joy Bugaloo now. Something about an English waif with wings and antenna.

  • Spook’d #83: Amazing Finish

    by Jeffery Stevenson and Seth Damoose with colors by Anthony Lee

    Larger sized comic

    Spook'd #83: Amazing Finish

    To see Spook’d host Alastor’s blogging silliness and more fun Spook’d stuff,visit the Spook’d Web site!

    Check out the preview to…

    E-MAIL WRITER | ABOUT JEFF | ABOUT SETH | SPOOK’D BLOG | SPOOK’D FORUM | ARCHIVES

    Disclaimer: All material in Spook’d is fictitious and intended solely for the purpose of entertainment. Names are fabricated and any similarity to real people or places is purely coincidental except in those cases where public figures are being satirized.

  • Quickcast Commentary: The Venture Bros.

    ventureheader.jpg

    venture-20060623-01.jpg

    If you’ve purchased your copy of the complete first season of [adult swim]’s The Venture Bros. on DVD (and if not, what are you waiting for?), you’re aware that only about half the episodes have audio commentary from the two guys behind the show, Astrobase Go‘s own Jackson Publick and Doc Hammer.

    As a special gift to you, our Quick Stop readers, Jackson & Doc have sent over a “lost” audio commentary that didn’t make it on to the set, for episode 1×03 ““ “Home Insecurity”. The commentary was dropped for space issues on the set, as well as a minor technical glitch in the sound.

    We’ve done our best to clean things up, because (as anyone who’s heard the commentaries that did make it on to the set will attest) those Astrobase Go guys are hi-larious. I mean, they’re incredibly f***ing funny, particularly in this track (in which you’ll hear a multitude of formative childhood traumas revealed).

    All you have to do is download the mp3 below, load up your copy of “Home Insecurity,” and you’ve got your very own Venture Bros. Quickcast commentary… And don’t forget to catch the premiere of Season 2 this Sunday at 10:30pm on [adult swim]…

    DOWNLOAD:
    “Venture Bros. Lost Commentary – 1×03 – Home Insecurity”
    venture-20060623-02.jpg

  • Scrubs Blog: Week 28 ““ Hellos & Goodbyes

    scrubsheader2.jpg

    Before we get to this week’s entry, let me mention that you should be sure to check back each week for more Scrubs goodies, even during the summer hiatus”¦

    VIDEO BLOG #55: “My Goodbyes” ““
    The cast and crew bid a fond farewell and show their appreciation of all the fan support on Season 5’s last day of shooting.

    scrubs-20060623-01.jpg

    Download/Watch Scrubs Video Blog #55:

    • Large (560 x 420 – QuickTime – 56.41 MB)
    • Small (320 x 240 – QuickTime – 24.43 MB)


  • Weekend Shopping Guide 6/23/06: Push the Button, Frank

    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…

    It’s been a few weeks of backed-up reviews as we prepped for the launch of Quick Stop, so this edition of our weekly shopping guide is going to be a somewhat massive affair, as we catch up. Trust me – future installments, while jam-packed, won’t be nearly as huge. But enough jibber-jabber – let’s get this show on the road…

    If pressed to name only one show as my absolute, bar none, unequivocal favorite sitcom of all time, it would have to be NewsRadio. Across a too-short 5 season run, I can’t name a single bad episode, and even those that fell below the high bar it set for itself still outstripped other shows. The penultimate fourth season (Sony, Not Rated, DVD-$39.95 SRP) cranks up the already surreal nature of the comedy, including Jimmy James’s fake balloon trip (and the bad English to Japanese to English translation of his memoirs, Super Karate Monkey Death Car), Lisa becoming the new boss, Joe’s fighting brothers, Bill’s chaw phase, Dave’s a cappella group (Chock Full of Notes), Matthew’s run-in with a coffee pot smashing Hamburglar, and the departure of Catherine. This was also the last season featuring Phil Hartman, as his untimely death occurred during the show’s summer hiatus. In fact, the season ends on a note eerily similar to the poignant John Belushi SNL short film wherein an elderly Belushi recounted the deaths of his fellow castmates and his comparatively long life. The final episode that Phil Hartman filmed was another of the show’s “fantasy” outings, this time positing what it would be like if the staff of WNYX was actually the crew of a seagoing vessel in the early 20th century on a course for disaster, the Titanic. Bookended with Phil “hosting” the episode, the final segment reveals that the entire crew has perished save for Hartman’s Bill MacNeal and Andy Dick’s Matthew. You’ll be missed, Phil, but I can think of no better body of work to act as a tribute to a great performer. Bonus materials include audio commentaries (still too few), another “One Man NewsRadio,” and a gag reel.

    weekendpicks20060623-02.jpgWhile the bulk of the adult swim line-up has failed to fire me with the same thrill I got from when the block first launched all those years ago, there is one show that has proven an exception to my apathy, and established itself as one of the funniest comedies – animated or otherwise – I’ve ever taken a shine to. That show is The Venture Bros. (Warner Bros., Not Rated, DVD-$29.98 SRP), a brilliant pastiche of pulp, comic book, and adventure clichés, all wrapped up in a beautifully executed premise that owes as much to Doc Savage and Boys Own Adventures as it does to the Hanna-Barbera classic Jonny Quest. If you’ve yet to experience the surreal adventures of brothers Hank & Dean, their father Dr. Venture, and bodyguard Brock Samson, then you’re missing out on one of the good ones. The 2-disc set features all 13 episodes, the original pilot, the Christmas special, audio commentaries (from creator Jackson Publick and co-writer Doc Hammer) on select episodes, deleted scenes, a behind-the-scenes look at the live action VB movie, and more. Don’t forget that the second season premieres on June 25.

    weekendpicks20060623-03.jpgEverybody has a favorite band or musician for which they’ll crusade to all they encounter, encouraging the unenlightened to sample what they feel is true musical genius. It’s even more important when those favorite artists are profoundly underappreciated. For me, that’s Harry Nilsson – an unbelievably gifted singer/songwriter hailed by the Beatles as their “favorite group.” Even if the name is not immediately familiar, a few of his songs have attained legendary status, including “One,” “Coconut,” and his definitive covers of “Without You” and “Everybody’s Talkin’.” All this prelude is to heartily encourage that you pick up a pair of new fully remastered Nilsson albums – Son of Schmilsson and A Little Touch of Schmilsson In The Night (RCA/Legacy, $11.98 SRP each). Trust me on this. Both albums are also loaded with rare bonus tracks, and excellent liner notes from Nilsson fan Curtis Armstrong… Yes, *that* Curtis Armstrong. And while you’re at it, be sure to snag a copy of the perfect primer, Everybody’s Talkin’: The Very Best of Harry Nilsson (RCA/Legacy, $11.98 SRP).

    weekendpicks20060623-04.jpgAdmittedly, a large degree of what drew me in to the first season of Deadwood, when I ran across an episode by chance, was the shock value of what I beheld. Not just the language, mind you, but also the vivid characters in the Old West setting, reinventing a genre in the same way The Sopranos dusted off the mob drama. The second season (HBO, Not Rated, DVD-$99.98 SRP) takes the diminished shock value of any show’s sophomore season and makes it integral to the plotline, as the lawless Black Hills camp begins the anarchic, and ultimately bloody, process of becoming a legitimate town ruled by laws beyond those of will and gun. The 6-disc set features all 12 episodes, plus commentaries, a behind-the-scenes look at the finale, a historical featurette on the real Deadwood, and a photo gallery.

    weekendpicks20060623-05.jpgI’m not recommending Jay Edwards’ fun 60’s beach blanket bingo horror pastiche Stomp! Shout! Scream! (Stomp Shout Scream, LLC, Not Rated, DVD-$21.95 SRP) just because I’m thanked in the credits… though, admittedly, it doesn’t hurt. No, I recommend it because Edwards (a producer on Aqua Teen Hunger Force and a CN alum going back to Space Ghost) has crafted a fun little flick that revels in its schlock-influenced tableau. The disc features commentary, over an hour of behind-the-scenes featurettes, deleted scenes, raw footage, a trailer, and more.

    weekendpicks20060623-06.jpgJust about every aspect of the Walt Disney Company’s history has been examined, but one glaring exception has finally be rectified with Mouse Tracks: The Story of Walt Disney Records (University Press of Mississippi, $25.00 SRP), an exhaustively researched history by Tim Hollis and Greg Ehrbar. From the label’s inception and rocky start in the mid-50’s through a rollercoaster of highs, lows, and classic albums for both kids and adults, it’s a must-have reference.

    weekendpicks20060623-07.jpgWarners’ commitment to releasing some true gems from out of their vaults continues with the second volume of The Bette Davis Collection (Warner Bros., Not Rated, DVD-$59.98 SRP), featuring Jezebel, What Ever Happened to Baby Jane, Old Acquaintance, Marked Woman, and The Man Who Came To Dinner (as well as the documentary Stardust: The Bette Davis Story). All 5 flicks contain audio commentaries, featurettes, trailers, vintage shorts, and classic cartoons. No one does catalogue like Warners.

    weekendpicks20060623-08.jpgWhile a third DVD release may be inconceivable to some, that’s exactly what the latest 2-disc special edition of The Princess Bride (MGM/UA, Rated PG, DVD-$24.96 SRP) is, but after a trio of tries, they’ve finally gotten it right. Fully remastered and looking pretty damn spiffy, with bonus feature mixing the materials found on the last special edition with a new batch of extras – it’s got an audio commentary with director Rob Reiner, a commentary with writer William Goldman, “As You Wish: The Story of The Princess Bride” documentary, a historical analysis of the Dread Pirate Roberts, Cary Elwes’ home movies, a make-up featurette, “Love Is Like a Storybook Story” featurette, a vintage making-of featurette, and a photo gallery.

    weekendpicks20060623-09.jpgThe man who made “Inconceivable!” such an iconic catchphrase has got a brilliant release of his own worth snagging. Wallace Shawn’s one-man-show The Fever (Shout! Factory, $11.98 SRP) is a tour-de-force, and should be in your CD player. Now.

    weekendpicks20060623-10.jpgJust in time for the big screen outing of 46-year-old high schooler Jeri Blank, fans finally get the 6-disc, complete series set of Strangers With Candy (Paramount, Not Rated, DVD-$54.99 SRP) that we should have gotten in the first place. In addition to the bonus materials featured in the original individual releases, this new compendium includes additional audio commentaries, deleted scenes, 2 never-before-seen director’s cuts, on-set interviews with the characters, a blooper reel, a slide presentation from Noblet and Jellineck’s tropical “research” trip, and more. Can somebody tell me why this show was cancelled?

    weekendpicks20060623-11.jpgWhile some kids got swept up in the worlds of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, I fell head over heels for Lloyd Alexander’s tales from the kingdom of Prydain, focusing mainly on the adventures and maturation of a young pig-keeper named Taran and his kingly destiny. Where the Rings trilogy concerns itself with being an encyclopedia of Middle-Earth, the Prydain Chronicles were exactly the kind of rousing, character-driven adventures that would transport a young reader to another world. The 5 books in the series (The Book of Three, The Black Cauldron, The Castle of Llyr, Taran Wanderer, The High King) and the prequel (The Foundling and Other Tales of Prydain) have been re-released (Henry Holt, $5.99 SRP each), and I can’t praise them highly enough. It’s unfortunate that, to this day, the on big screen adaptation of this series remains Disney’s unfortunate take on The Black Cauldron. It’s high time that was rectified with a proper treatment – but until then, having the books back in print will suffice.

    (more…)

  • Addicted To Bad: Paid Up

    addictedtobad.jpg

    Every other week, Addicted to Bad rummages through Hollywood’s junk drawer, looking for the worst of the worst. This week, Patrick administers his inner child a firm spanking with PAY IT FORWARD, starring Kevin Spacey and Helen Hunt, who really should have known better…

    PayItForwardPosterEveryone remembers the teacher who changed their life. For me, it was Ms. O’Connell, a kind and generous geography teacher who not only taught me the principle exports of Mongolia and Yemen, but also the utter necessity of questioning authority. Her message to us was, “You only accept the rules of this patriarchal, elitist society if you choose to.” She never actually came out and said as much, but you could tell she meant it by her sincere dedication to low-cut tops and her complete unwillingness to wear a bra.

    I understand, however, that many students aren’t lucky enough to have teachers who care enough to inspire their pubescent students through partially exposed cleavage. Although it’s hardly fair to blame the teachers themselves: Without exception, every state legislature in the union regularly declares it more important to supply our schools with items like “books,” “chalk,” and “metal detectors” instead of push-up bras and v-necks. Is it any wonder that our educational system is failing?

    Which means that even fictional teachers like PAY IT FORWARD’s Mr. Simonet (played by Kevin Spacey under six metric tons of latex burn makeup), having no sweater puppies of his own to speak of, must resort to inspiring his students through bribery, otherwise known as “extra credit assignments.” Inevitably, of course, some overachieving snotbag is going to game the system and get 82 million extra credit points, thus throwing the curve for the rest of the class. And now, because Mommy potty trained him too early and his Daddy didn’t hug him enough, little Billy gets to sit out the final and the rest of the class gets a D-.

    Spacey_PIFSimonet’s assignment challenges his students to come up with a plan to change the world and put it into action, which everyone in the class wisely ignores, save snotbag Haley Joel Osment, who presumably has lots of spare time now that he only sees dead people on alternate weekends and holidays. Not ten minutes after the bell, Haley has adopted a friendly homeless heroin addict, played by Jim Caviezel, whose research for his role apparently uncovered lots of addicts who eat bags of Oreos and then don’t brush.

    When Haley’s mom (played by Helen Hunt, looking like she tried to do her hair and makeup in a wind tunnel) catches on to the assignment after she finds all her cookies are gone and one of the addict’s drawings is on the fridge, she is understandably upset. Taking time off from her busy schedule of working at one of those PG-13 strip clubs where the men don’t seem to mind that the women never quite get around to taking off any clothes, she storms down to the school and demands that Mr. Simonet stop encouraging his students to adopt random street people. At the very least, could he advise them to be a little pickier about dental hygiene? The two of them argue furiously, thus assuring us that they will have sex before the third act, in accordance with internationally recognized Movie Law.

    Haley’s first attempt at extra credit foiled, he decides that the best way to ensure his grade is to get his teacher laid, possibly the best way to assure an A ever devised. Or maybe he just saw the previous scene’s fight and realized that it was pointless to resist the inevitable. Either way, he schemes like a “Scooby-Doo” villain to get the pair together, even going so far as to pull the old “fake apology note from the other person” gag from that episode where Fred and Daphne got in an argument and weren’t speaking. Lo and behold, the plan works even on non-cartoons, and the two go at it like horny badgers. Pretty soon, Haley’s sure-fire, albeit creepy, way to get A’s (AKA “Hooking Teachers Up With Your Mom”), which he codenames “Pay It Forward,” spreads through schools like wildfire. Teachers are getting laid right and left. Grade point averages are at historic highs. Wars end, tax revenues skyrocket from all the birth control and “gold star” sticker sales, and the world enters a new renaissance. Who knew?

    Osment_JumpUnfortunately, though, Haley’s not around to enjoy it all, because he was fatally wounded in a knife fight. Whoops! Apparently the filmmakers wanted to remind the audience that helping your mom score has a downside. Not since Bobby walked out of the shower on “Dallas” has Hollywood tried so hard to harsh the audience’s buzz. I’m surprised more films haven’t borrowed the technique:

    BATMAN: Whew. Sure was tough beating the Joker. Guess I’ll go get a burger. [Gets hit by a bus.]

    I predict that by 2010, all movies will end this way. Just you watch.

    So, two hours later, where are we? Haley’s dead, and his mom still has awful hair, and Mr. Simonet has to put up with every C student in the school trying to set him up with their mom. Pay it forward, indeed. You know, all of this could have been avoided if Spacey had just worn a halter top like I suggested in the first place.

  • Melonpool Quickcast #1: Santa Monica Kids

    melonpool.gif

    -By Steve Troop

    Based on Steve Troop’s classic webcomic of the same name, the Melonpool Quickcast features puppet versions of Troop’s alien cast, who are desperately trying to make heads or tails out of Earth culture.

    In the first installment, Mayberry interviews several experts on the subject: 3-to-5 year-olds in Santa Monica, CA.


    melonpool-20060623-01.jpg

    Melonpool Quickcast #1: Santa Monica Kids:

    • Large (560 x 420 – QuickTime – 29MB)
    • Small (320 x 240 – QuickTime – 12MB)
    • YouTube


  • Comics in Context #134: Cineplex-Men

    comicsincontext.jpg

     

    cic-20060623-01.jpgWelcome, readers new and old, to “Comics in Context” at its new home here at Kevin Smith’s Quick Stop Entertainment. This week’s topic is X-Men: The Last Stand, both the new movie and its novelization. 

    But first, for the benefit of newcomers, allow me to explain what “Comics in Context” is about, who I am, and how this column came to be. 

    “Comics in Context” is a weekly series of critical essays on comics, cartoon art, and related subjects. When the column moved to Quick Stop Entertainment, so did its vast archive, now comprising one hundred and thirty-three past installments. You’ll find extended critiques of comic book series both recent, such as Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Strikes Again (in “Comics in Context” #30, 31, and 34) and classic, like Alan Moore’s V for Vendetta (#126-131). I’ve also written extensively about comic strips (as in #66 and 71). 

    From the column’s beginnings, I’ve written about film and television adaptations of comics, from Ang Lee’s Hulk (#2) through this week’s X-Men: The Last Stand. 

    I’ll also write about works in other media that have been adapted into comics, or have been influenced by comics, such as Star Wars (#86). 

    I also cover animation, ranging from early Disney hand-animated shorts to Pixar feature films, as you’ll see in upcoming weeks. The recent advances in blending computer animation and live action bring films such as Peter Jackson’s King Kong (#121) into this column’s territory. 

    I do extensive reports on major comics conventions (San Diego in #5-10 and #94-99, New York in #123-125) and on comics industry memorial services for major figures of the artform (Julius Schwartz in #32 and Will Eisner in #80-81). 

    Following the increasing mainstream interest in the artform, I also review gallery and museum shows about comics and cartoon art (such as the Museum of Modern Art’s Pixar exhibit in #120). I’ll even review theater works with connections to cartoon art (such as Disney’s Tarzan on Broadway in #133) and novels (without pictures) by authors who made their name in comics (such as Neil Gaiman’s Anansi Boys in #105-108). 

    In every case my goal is to write serious criticism while making it accessible and, I hope, entertaining, to more casual readers. 

    I believe my background makes me uniquely qualified to do just that. I’ve earned three Ivy League degrees in English literature, but I’ve also been writing about comics ever since becoming a regular contributor to the letter columns of editor Julius Schwartz’s Silver Age DC comics. Since then I’ve worked for fanzines (such as Amazing Heroes and Mark Gruenwald’s legendary Omniverse), become one of the main writers for DC’s Who’s Who and the original versions of The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, and even became Marvel’s first and only archivist. I’ve collaborated on documentaries about comics, including Constantine Valhouli’s Sex, Lies and Superheroes, and taught “Comics as Literature” as New York University. I’m now a reviewer and reporter on comics for Publishers Weekly‘s online newsletter Comics Week and an advisor to New York City’s Museum of Comic and Cartoon Art. I’m also an author and contributing writer to several books about comics, most notably Marvel Universe for the leading art book publisher Harry N. Abrams. 

    Yet three years ago my career was at a low point: like many other comics professionals from the Baby Boom generation, I was no longer getting work from Marvel or DC. In publicizing his documentary about comics, Constantine Valhouli had made contact with Ken Plume, who was then an editor at IGN FilmForce. Constantine persuaded me that what I needed was a “forum,” from which I could make my views on the comics medium known, and Ken offered me just that, in the form of a weekly online column. So “Comics in Context” started in July 2003, three years ago next month. 

    Comics criticism is my artform, and every creative artist needs patrons who believe in the worth of what they are doing. Ken has been my loyal, constantly supportive patron. When he decided to take his new position here at Quick Stop, he asked me if I would come along. My immediate response was yes. 

    It was time for a change, anyway. Last year IGN shifted “Comics in Context” from IGN FilmForce to its new site, IGN Comics, and eventually the Powers That Be (above Ken’s head) started tampering with my column’s titles and complaining about some of my topics. I had long wondered what IGN stood for. Now I know: I’m Gone Now. I’m hopeful that the old installments in the archive will now regain their correct titles. 

    I recommend that you also check out the work of several of my colleagues from IGN who have also resettled on this new website. 

    There’s Ken, of course, who is an excellent interviewer with an enviable ability to put his subjects at ease and draw out revelations they’d be less likely to give mainstream media interviewers. 

    Then there’s “The Fred Hembeck Show,” starring the court jester of American comic books, who provides a unique blend of nostalgic affection for classic comics, critical insight, and wit. His weekly “show” never fails to entertain, and, as he would urge, you should also visit his website, www.hembeck.com. From time to time I find myself attempting to fathom the mysteries of Fred’s obsessions, such as his undying crush on 1960s Disney diva Hayley Mills (Would The Parent Trap be Two-Face’s favorite movie?) and his near-worship of a certain absorbent animated icon. Join Fearless Fred as he makes his journey from the world of SpongeBob to his new home in the kingdom of Silent Bob! 

    Those of you with broadband (unlike myself) should also sample Quick Stop’s video show “Monkey Talk,” masterminded by award-winning animation writer Paul Dini (an old friend I’ve known for decades) and his wife, sultry sorceress Misty Lee (whom I’ve never met but whose legend precedes her). 

    In future weeks I’ll be writing about Pixar’s Cars and Walt Disney’s 1930s Silly Symphonies; Doctor Who and The Wild Wild West; the new movie Superman Returns; The Eternals, both the original Jack Kirby series and the new Neil Gaiman version; and the landmark museum exhibition “Masters of American Comics.” 

    As for this week’s topic, those of you who have not yet seen X-Men: The Last Stand are hereby given a spoiler warning. In order to critique any work properly, I usually need to talk about major plot elements, including the ending. 

     

    cic-20060623-02.jpg

     

    Marvel and Twentieth Century Fox, which produced X-Men: The Last Stand, were unusually secretive about its story. I had to write about the film in the third edition of DK’s X-Men: The Ultimate Guide, yet Marvel would not tell me or DK anything about the film, and would not even release publicity stills that we needed for illustrations until close to our deadline. As it turned out, certain major plot elements, notably the deaths of Cyclops and Professor X, were reported on the Internet long ago. 

    The previous X-Men movie, X2: X-Men United, strongly hinted that its director, Bryan Singer intended to tackle perhaps the greatest of all X-Men stories, Chris Claremont and John Byrne’s “Dark Phoenix Saga” (from Uncanny X-Men #129-137, from 1980), in the third film. 

    X2 ended with Jean Grey heroically sacrificing her life (or so it appeared) in an oncoming deluge in order to save the other X-Men, and a strange, birdlike form – presumably the sign of the Phoenix – appeared on the water’s surface afterwards. 

    But when Singer agreed to direct Superman Returns for Warners, Fox fired him, and replace him first with director Matthew Vaughn, who dropped out and was replaced by Brett Ratner. With Singer gone, what about his set-up for “The Dark Phoenix Saga”? 

    Avi Arad, who until recently was CEO of Marvel Studios, told Empire Online that “It should never be this one story. The main characters are more important than Jean Grey. . .This is a bigger story. Everybody’s expecting Dark Phoenix, but Dark Phoenix would never be the main show. She’ll be one of the characters, that’s it. There are a lot of stories to tell.” 

    Since when is Jean Grey not one of “the main characters” of the X-Men? She is one of the original members of this team of superhuman mutants, as it first appeared in X-Men #1 back in 1963. Chris Claremont, the writer of “The Dark Phoenix Saga,” was the appropriate choice to write Del Rey’s novelization of the film. In that novel, Claremont rightly calls Jean the “heart” of the X-Men. That is what made “The Dark Phoenix Saga” that rarity of the superhuman genre: a genuine tragedy. 

    In case there are any readers who do not know, in the comics Jean Grey (Marvel Girl) and her teammate Scott Summers (Cyclops) were the romantic leads of Marvel’s X-Men comics series. Like so many heroes co-created by Stan Lee in the early 1960s, Scott and Jean’s love for one another was initially unspoken: unable to control the powerful energy beams from his eyes, Scott felt cut off from the possibility of romance. (This is not very different from Rogue’s dilemma in both the X-Men comics and movies: she cannot touch anyone she loves without rendering them comatose.) Although they finally admitted their feelings for one another, circumstances separated Scott and Jean from time to time, including the arrival of the “new” X-Men when the series was revived in the mid-1970s. 

    In X-Men #100 (in 1976), during a mission in space, Jean heroically volunteered to pilot the escape craft taking the X-Men back to Earth, even though she was thereby exposed to intense radiation from a solar storm. The escape craft crash-landed in a bay, but Jean had not died: instead she rose from the waters, declaring herself to be the Phoenix. 

    She had apparently activated her unsuspected full potential, and, as we would soon learn. could now wield enough power to save the universe from destruction, as she did in issue 109. 

    Jean was linked with the “Phoenix Force,” cosmic energies that could manifested themselves around her in the form of a fiery bird. This was a force with great potential for creation or for destruction. 

    (Later retconning by Kurt Busiek and John Byrne established that Phoenix was not the real Jean, but was the sentient Phoenix Force, which had duplicated Jean’s body and consciousness. Still later, Claremont established that Phoenix bore a portion of the real Jean’s consciousness, which returned to Jean after Dark Phoenix’s demise: hence Dark Phoenix was partly Jean. The original intent of the “Dark Phoenix Saga” was that Jean was Phoenix, and for simplicity’s sake, that is how I am interpreting the story here.) 

    During another twist of fate, during which Jean thought Scott was dead, she underwent temptation by the devilish mutant Mastermind, who projected illusions into her mind that she had led a decadent life in an earlier incarnation in the 18th century. Claremont and Byrne were doing something revolutionary here, showing that even as pure and loving a heroine as Jean Grey had a dark side within her subconscious. 

    Reunited, Scott and Jean finally consummated their love in a memorable scene that Claremont and Byrne set on a desert mesa, in which Jean used the power of Phoenix to block Scott’s optic beams, thereby performing a miracle that made their sexual union possible at last. Though Claremont and Byrne got the point across through implication, and showed nothing explicit, this too was a revolutionary move for the mainstream comics of that period. 

    As a result of Mastermind’s psychic brainwashing, Jean soon became the malevolent Black Queen of the Inner Circle of the Hellfire Club, the X-Men’s enemies. But Mastermind, like Dr. Frankenstein, had unleashed a monster that he could not control: Jean broke free of his mental control, but his meddling with her mind turned her into the insane Dark Phoenix, a threat both to the X-Men and to the universe. The duality of human nature, of course, is one of the principal themes of the superhero genre. 

    Through psychic combat, the X-Men’s mentor, Professor Charles Xavier, succeeded in inducing Jean to revert to her normal personality. But the X-Men’s alien allies, the Shi’ar, demanded her destruction lest she threaten the universe once more. The X-Men engaged in a trial by combat to save Jean’s life. Reunited, Jean and Scott battled alongside each other. But Jean’s Dark Phoenix persona resurfaced, and in a brief moment of sanity, Jean committed suicide, before the horrified Scott’s eyes, to prevent herself from reverting permanently to Dark Phoenix. 

    Here lies the tragedy: that this young woman, who normally exemplified love, courage and heroism, who had proved capable of becoming a goddess in human form, was doomed by a fatal flaw in her psyche and by the evil within the world around her. The Phoenix Saga ended in issue 137 as it had really begun in #100: Jean’s ultimate act of love for Scott and her friends was to destroy herself. 

    There is no “bigger story” in the X-Men comics canon than this. Indeed, it rivals Stan Lee and Jack Kirby’s Galactus trilogy (Fantastic Four #48-50, from 1966) as one of the greatest of all Marvel storylines. 

    Since Jean is called Phoenix, it should be no surprise that Marvel later resurrected her. The longrunning story of Scott and Jean’s troubled romance even found a happy ending with their joyous wedding in X-Men (second series) #30 (1994). 

     

    cic-20060623-03.jpg

     

    21st century Marvel has since destroyed this love story by having Scott act totally out of character and embark on an affair with Emma Frost, the Hellfire Club’s White Queen, of all people. Eventually, I hope, this too will pass, and wiser heads will reinstate the Scott-Jean romance, which, like Jean herself, is the heart of the series. 

    We can now see that X-Men: The Last Stand basically consists of two major, interlocking plotlines: Magneto’s attack on the human race, provoked by the creation of a “cure” for mutation, and the Dark Phoenix Saga. “Dark Phoenix” is considerably more important to the film than Avi Arad had suggested. Yet perhaps his insistence on minimizing its importance suggests why the treatment of Dark Phoenix goes awry in the film. 

    I did not have high expectations for the Last Stand movie, so I was surprised that I enjoyed it as much as I did. In large measure that’s because the writers, Simon Kinburg and Zak Penn, draw more fully on the imaginative richness of the X-Men comics canon than the previous films did. That doesn’t mean that Last Stand doesn’t have serious problems. 

    There are X-Men comics readers who dislike the movies because of the changes they make to the comics continuity. I expect movies and television shows to create their own variant continuity. This can be done well, as in the case of the 1990s Batman animated series. It doesn’t bother me that in the movies Angel is not one of the original X-Men, or that the movie Magneto is not still in his physical prime like the comics Magneto. 

    I did not expect Last Stand to send Dark Phoenix into outer space to destroy the planet of the D’Bari (the “asparagus people”) or to bring in the Shi’ar, or to stage the climax on the moon, as the comics did. John Byrne has an unlimited special effects budget; movies do not, so I expected that Last Stand would have to rework the Dark Phoenix Saga to keep it earthbound. 

    What is more important is that film and TV adaptations should be faithful to the characterizations and themes of the comics. This is where Last Stand goes astray in the case of Dark Phoenix. What the filmmakers should realize is that by failing to fully comprehend what makes the “Dark Phoenix Saga” work in the comics, they ruined dramatic opportunities that would have made Last Stand a stronger, deeper, better movie. 

    Here’s the first problem: do people who only know the X-Men from the movies even care about Jean? In the comics “The Dark Phoenix Saga” drew upon the readers’ warm feelings towards the character, not only from Claremont’s previous stories but, for longtime readers, from Stan Lee’s and Roy Thomas’s X-Men tales from the 1960s. In his review of Last Stand in New York Magazine (May 29, 2006), film critic David Edelstein refers to “Xavier’s dull assistant Jean (Famke Janssen), who sacrificed herself for her colleagues at the end of X2. . . .” He’s right. Despite that act of heroism, the previous two X-Men movies did not inspire fondness for Jean. 

    I was quite pleased with the opening scene of Last Stand, set twenty years ago. Here were Xavier and Magneto, when they were friends and colleagues, visiting John and Elaine Grey to recruit their prepubescent daughter Jean, into Xavier’s school for mutants. However the filmmakers managed to make actors Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen, who portray Xavier and Magneto, look twenty years younger, it was remarkable. I was happy to see that the screenwriters had here drawn upon Chris Claremont’s X-Men stories. It was Claremont who established in Uncanny X-Men #161 (1982) that Xavier and Magneto had been friends decades ago, and that Xavier had first met Jean when she was a child, to help her cope with her newly emerged psionic abilities, in Bizarre Adventures #27 (1981). 

    During this sequence, not only does X-Men co-creator Stan Lee make his expected Hitchcockian cameo (as “Waterhose Man,” according to the credits), but so does Chris Claremont, as “Lawnmower Man” (without apologies to Stephen King). Considering that Claremont is the most important author in X-Men history next to Lee, having written and molded the characters since 1975, this is a gesture that is both welcome and long overdue. 

    Of course, it would be even better if he got some onscreen acknowledgment of having written the stories that inspired much of the movie, and even a cut of the profits, but since he wrote them as work for hire, such is not to be. According to the Los Angeles Business Journal Frank Miller is “conservatively estimated to have made more than $10 million” so far from the Sin City movies, based on comics he wrote, drew, and owns. (See here) It makes you think, doesn’t it? 

    Moreover, whereas the Hulk and Fantastic Four movies rightly bear a credit that they are based on comics by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, I saw X-Men co-creator Kirby’s name nowhere on Last Stand. And so it goes. 

    But what is Jean like in this opening sequence? She’s angry and dangerous, glowering at the guests, and levitating all the cars in the neighborhood (and Claremont’s lawnmower) in a display of power. (Has she done this sort of thing before? If so, why haven’t all the neighbors headed for the hills?) Remember Superbaby? Meet Li’l Dark Phoenix: Red Skelton’s Mean Widdle Kid with a sex change and cosmic powers. She reminds me of those sinister, super-powered children in movies like The Omen and Village of the Damned. So why should we like her? 

    Claremont’s novelization provides a different perspective. I like a great deal about the novelization. Claremont delves further into the emotions and psychology of the characters and fills out their backgrounds, aligning the movie’s story more closely with the established comics continuity. Claremont even supplies many little grace notes that should please faithful readers of X-Men comics. In the novel he supplies Rogue and Moira MacTaggart with the accents – deep Southern United States and Scots, respectively – they lack in the movie. Claremont works in references and sometimes even appearances by X-Men characters unseen in the film, such as Forge and Bishop. The movie doesn’t give its President a name, so Claremont christens him President David Cockrum, in a commendable salute to the artist who co-created the X-Men Colossus, Nightcrawler, and Storm. Claremont and Cockrum also jointly devised Jean’s Phoenix persona. It’s fun to see Claremont dub an unnamed mutant in the film “Weezie,” the nickname of former X-Men editor Louise Simonson. 

    I also enjoy Claremont’s clever shout outs to some of the actors in the film. Though the comics have never given the Beast a sibling, Claremont tells us, “He enjoyed fine wines with his brother, the Jungian psychiatrist” (p. 55) a sly reference to Kelsey Grammer’s most famous role as Dr. Frasier Crane and his brother Niles, played by David Hyde Pierce. Towards the book’s end Claremont even engages in a touch of metafiction, informing us that a movie has been made about the mutant battle in San Francisco, “with one of Britain’s finest Shakespearean actors, a knight no less, tapped to play the role of Magneto,” a nod to McKellen (p. 334). 

    Much more importantly, though he faithfully recounts Xavier and Magneto’s visit to the Greys, Claremont begins the novelization with a different scene, closely based on his description of how Jean’s powers first emerged in that Bizarre Adventures tale. In the comics, Jean’s telepathic powers awakened in her childhood when her best friend, Annie, was mortally injured in an automobile accident. (Oddly, in the comics Annie’s last name is Richardson, but in the novel it is Malcolm. The novel also manages to misspell Magneto’s last name consistently: it should be “Lehnsherr.”) Jean telepathically experienced Annie’s emotions as she died in her arms; as the novel states, Jean “collapsed into what was later described as a fugue state brought on by extreme trauma” (p. 8). 

    Now this Jean is a little girl who deserves our sympathy, having been psychologically shattered by a dreadful experience. How many other origins in the superhero genre involve a child confronted with mortality through the sudden loss of a loved one? The death of Annie is metaphorically the death of the innocence of Jean’s childhood. Significantly, Claremont refers to their “shared lives,” as if recognizing that symbolically they are one (p. 6). 

    Returning to this scene he first chronicled a quarter century ago, Claremont adds intriguing new touches. Jean angrily refuses to accept that Annie is dying: “The passion surprised them both, a fierce rage that outlined Jean, just for a moment, in a corona of fire, like a star casting forth a solar flare.” This is the birth of Phoenix, linked to the surge of passion. 

    There is also the suggestion that the Phoenix represents the potential of the human spirit. Jean psychically perceives herself and Annie as “a pair of galaxies, islands of breathtaking light and color, all by themselves against the backdrop of infinity” (p.5). Then the Phoenix power, released within Jean, becomes “an absolute of light. Against such a display, Annie was too small to even quantify” (p. 6). Unable to cope, the child Jean feels “cast into a maelstrom” (p. 6). 

    That image, of being cast into a maelstrom, perfectly suits even the adult Jean, her sanity overwhelmed by dark passions surging from her subconscious in the comics’ version of “The Dark Phoenix Saga.” If only the movie had conveyed that this is what its Jean was also experiencing, her behavior might have awakened stronger audience empathy. 

    Following the Jean flashback, the movie segues to a sequence of the X-Men in combat at a time identified by onscreen titles as “in the not too distant future.” I find that I am not the only person who was put in mind of Claremont and Byrne’s other greatest X-Men story, the “Days of Future Past,” set in a dystopian future (Uncanny X-Men #141-142, from 1981), and indeed, the head of one of the giant mutant-hunting Sentinel robots, severed by Wolverine, drops into view. By this time I had guessed that this was the “Danger Room,” the X-Men’s hologram-generating practice room, at long last making it into one of the X-Men movies. Am I the only one who, upon seeing that “not too distant future” caption, thought of the theme song for Mystery Science Theater 3000? 

    It was also fun to see Colossus throwing Wolverine in their “fastball special” maneuver, familiar from the comics. I suppose that now moviegoers will think that Last Stand is copying the way Aragorn tosses the dwarf Gimli into battle in Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002). Was Jackson intentionally copying Colossus and Wolverine? If so, Jackson got the point of the maneuver: that Colossus is so much bigger than the short but powerful Wolverine. On seeing the first X-Men movie I was astonished at how much Hugh Jackman, in wig and makeup, facially resembled the comics Wolverine, one of the relatively few heroes in superhero comics with a distinctive face, and I like his performance in the role. I suppose it was too much to hope for that the filmmakers would cast someone who was 5’3″ in a leading role like Wolverine. (When I see Jackman doing musical comedy on television, he is utterly unrecognizable as Wolverine!) 

    It’s not clear how much time has elapsed in the world of the X-Men films since the second and third movies, though a new President has taken office. It doesn’t bother me that Scott is still unable to recover from the death of Jean: remember, in the comics, he left the team afterwards. In the novel Claremont makes clear that Scott is suffering from clinical depression. 

    I like Claremont’s extended description of Xavier’s mansion and its history at the start of Chapter Three. (I wish he had worked all of this out back when I was co-writing the Marvel Universe Handbooks!) I’ve also grown to like the building used as Xavier’s school in the movies. It may not have the familiar cupola from the comics, but I like the ivy-covered walls, as if the Xavier school represented the Ivy League for mutants. 

     

    cic-20060623-04.jpg

     

    There follows a scene about Rogue and her inability to touch people without triggering her absorption power. The movie Rogue may have the same power and problem as her comics counterpart, and even the same white streak in her hair, but she’s not the same person. Imagine if the movies had given us the sassy, feisty Southern woman that Rogue is in the comics. What a great part that would be for an actress! (Watching The Incredibles again recently, I realized that Holly Hunter’s vocal characterization for Elastigirl could work for Rogue.) But, as we shall see, the X-Men movies are a study in missed opportunities. 

    That even applies a little to Kelsey Grammer’s performance as Dr., Henry McCoy, the Beast. I think this was brilliant casting: Grammer’s sonorous voice, and refined, dignified manner perfectly make clear the contrast between McCoy’s high intellect and his bestial physical appearance. 

    The Beast makeup works perfectly, in sharp contrast to the Thing suit in last summer’s Fantastic Four movie. I was happy to see the Beast make his entrance characteristically hanging upside down, and, doubtless thanks to special effects, he moved convincingly in the battle scenes. I even liked hearing Grammer utter the Beast’s trademark (and nonsensical) exclamation “Oh my stars and garters!” from the comics. 

    So what’s the missed opportunity? In the comics the Beast can be funny! Why cast Kelsey Grammer, a superb comedy actor, in the role if the filmmakers don’t give him the Beast’s characteristic witticisms to speak? 

    Then the film introduces us to Bolivar Trask, but this Trask isn’t the fanatical anti-mutant scientist who created the Sentinels, but a military man, who barely makes an impression as a character in the movie. Why use the name of Bolivar Trask but not the real character? 

    Marvel has been claiming that this is the final X-Men movie, yet Last Stand ends with scenes that clearly set up the next one, and considering how much money Last Stand is making (the second largest opening day box office in history, and the biggest Friday opening ever), it’s hard to imagine that Marvel and Fox will resist the temptation to do X4. So what if they decide to use the Sentinels (such a natural in the age of CGI) for that movie? 

    Shouldn’t they have saved the name “Bolivar Trask” for their inventor? 

    This reminds me of one of the strange coincidences of 1960s pop culture. In X-Men there were Bolivar Trask, who debuted in 1965, and his son Larry, who conducted “witch hunts” against the mutants in society. And the 1960s television series Dark Shadows had its own Trask family, literal witchhunters, the first of whom debuted in 1967. Was this mere accident, or was someone on the Shadows staff a Marvel fan? 

    In the movie and novel, McCoy refers to the “mutant community.” In the X-Men comics of the 1960s (except for the original Mesmero storyline) there appeared to be very few superhuman mutants on Earth. It was Grant Morrison, during his stint writing the New X-Men comic a few years ago, who made it clear that mutants constituted a sizable minority of Earth’s population. Claremont embraces this idea, and, indeed, later on in the novel he even establishes that a sequence in the film takes place in “Mutie Town,” the mutant “ghetto” in Manhattan from the District X comics. 

    Ironically, Marvel has recently reversed course in the comics, whittling down the number of superhuman mutants to roughly two hundred as a result of the House of M limited series. I see the point that the number of mutants in the Marvel Universe had gotten out of hand: having too many superpowered beings in the population would make Marvel-Earth overly different from the real world of its readers. 

    Still, one of the basic premises of X-Men is that a new race is evolving that may supplant “normal” humans, a prospect some (like Bolivar Trask) fear and others (like Magneto) welcome. If there are no more than a few hundred mutants within Earth’s population of several billion, what’s the problem? 

    It is revealed in the film that Dr. Kavita Rao, sponsored by Warren Worthington Jr. (the father of the winged mutant Angel), has developed a “cure” for mutation, which suppresses the functioning of the “x”-gene. The elder Worthington regards mutation as a disease. Joss Whedon and John Cassaday introduced both Dr. Rao and the cure in the initial storyline of their Astonishing X-Men comics series (see “Comics in Context” #42 and 43). Mr. Whedon has just gotten a lesson in how work for hire functions in comics. 

    Look at how movie critics have reacted to the cure. Manohla Dargis of The New York Times declares that “The story this time partly turns on a new cure for the mutant gene, which pushes the series’ gay metaphor without developing it in any interesting way,” and likens the winged Angel to “seraphic visions of Angels in America,” Tony Kushner’s epic theater work about the gay experience in the United States. Other reviewers made similar comments. But limiting the metaphor of mutation in X-Men to a single meaning is shallow thinking. 

    Doubtless Bryan Singer, who is openly gay, recognized that mutation can serve as a “gay metaphor.” But much of the brilliance of the X-Men concept is that mutants can be a metaphor for any minority group. After all, the series was created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, both straight, in the early 1960s. If they were aware of the metaphorical aspect of X-Men, they were more likely thinking of the black civil rights movement of the time, or of their own Jewish-American heritage. 

     

    cic-20060623-05.jpg

     

    Roger Ebert realizes that the mutant metaphor can’t be restricted to any one minority: in his Last Stand review he wrote that “There are so many parallels here with current political and social issues that to list them is to define the next presidential campaign. . . . I thought of abortion, gun control, stem cell research, the ‘gay gene’ and the Minutemen. ‘Curing’ mutants is obviously a form of genetic engineering and stirs thoughts of ‘cures’ for many other conditions humans are born with, which could be loosely defined as anything that prevents you from being just like George or Georgette Clooney.” 

    In Tom DeFalco’s new interview book, Comics Creators on X-Men, Claremont reveals that he identifies with the X-Men’s outsider status because he remembers what it was like being a British-born child growing up in a strange country – the United States. Hence mutants can even represent the sense of alienation felt by a minority of one. 

    When the first X-Men movie came out, the comparison of Xavier and Magneto to Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, respectively, was much commented upon: in that film Magneto even repeats Malcolm X’s famous line, “By any means necessary.” Notice that in Last Stand, the President, taking extreme action to suppress mutant rebels, uses that same phrase. 

    In the film and novel Magneto displays the number tattooed on his wrist, making evident that anti-mutant bigotry can also symbolize anti-Semitism. In the novelization Claremont has the Beast delve more fully into that comparison. 

    Claremont also has Storm make a speech to Rogue that reminds me of Pixar’s The Incredibles, in which the “supers” represent people who are forced to suppress their talents and individuality in the name of fitting into a dull, conformist society (see “Comics in Context” #62). Storm says, “there’s nothing to cure. You might as well cure Mozart of writing music, or da Vinci of the ability to make machines, or Edison, or Archimedes, or Shakespeare” (p. 78). 

    I’m far from finished on the subject of X-Men: The Last Stand, and my critique will continue next week. 

    ADVERTISEMENTS FOR MYSELF  

    I’ve lifted the name of this section from the title of a book by Norman Mailer. It seems appropriate for my plugs for my other current projects. I have two new books out: DK’s X-Men: The Ultimate Guide – The Third Edition, which I wrote and have updated for 2006, and The Art of X-Men: The Last Stand: From Concept to Feature Film, to which I contributed an essay on the X-Men’s history in the comics. 

    Moreover, Marvel has just published Volume Two of its Essentials reprinting of The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, Deluxe Edition, from the mid-1980s. I wrote, expanded and updated more entries than anyone else for the Deluxe edition, under the editorship of the late Mark Gruenwald. I am amazed that this is the fifth book this year which I either wrote entirely or contributed to writing. And there are still more to come! 

    I’ve also been interviewed once again by the BBC, as you can see on their website. 

    You can also find recent articles I’ve written for Publishers Weekly‘s Comics Week here and here. And they’re free! 

    This weekend (June 24 and 25) I will be interviewing comics artists Frank Brunner and Jerry Ordway at the Big Apple Con at the Penn Plaza Pavilion in Manhattan. 

    My suspicions about the alleged boom in academic interest in the comics medium continue unabated: only one person signed up for my course, “The Graphic Novel as Literature,” at New York University this summer, so it was canceled – yet again. 

    However, my monthly lecture course, “1986: The Year That Changed Comics,” continues at Manhattan’s Museum of Comic and Cartoon Art. 

    At 6:30 PM on Monday, June 26, I will be lecturing on Frank Miller and David Mazzucchelli’s Daredevil: Born Again. (It’s a follow-up to my June 6 talk about Miller’s Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, which went quite well.) And it too is free! Feel free to come! 

    Copyright 2006 Peter Sanderson

     

    Â