Let’s get metaphysical
Welles and Jaglom
“We’re not filmmakers. We’re just a ragbag bunch of people doing something that is technologically already almost passé. It’s a great problem of movies is that they’re always old-fashioned. It takes too long to make a movie. By the time your idea’s on the screen, it’s already dead.”
The first choice for my contribution to The Oldest Established Really Important Film Club was Agnès Varda’s Les Cent et une nuits de Simon Cinéma. After all, one smugly surmised, any cinephile worth their salt must have a copy of that chestnut in their collection, right? But then reality hit: Agnès’s valentine to the movies was far too delicate for the club’s critical deconstruction, if not the occasional hammering in the comments section: I’d be sending a lamb to the slaughter. Instead I needed something meaningful but tough, emotional yet durable, engaging, raw and, yes my friends, controversial. I needed Henry Jaglom.
It didn’t bother me that some or perhaps most of the club members might make it through all of ten minutes of any Jaglom picture before hitting the eject button. After all, isn’t that part of his controversy? A bitter ‘pill’ both literally and figuratively, Henry reminds us of too many horrible things: that he’s a sloppy filmmaker; he’s aggressive and annoying; his films broach insurmountable subjects and feelings; he’s relentlessly argumentative and too often cruel. Still, I persevered, for despite all these shortcomings, I once gave serious thought to writing a book about Jaglom. Therefore, my club selection, Someone to Love (1987), provides, at the very least, the opportunity to see Orson Welles in his last good appearance — “the best thing [he] ever did after F for Fake,” as I wrote in a review on my website. Beyond that, proceed at your own risk.
I saw my first Jaglom picture, Tracks (1976), more than thirty years ago. It left me bored and unimpressed. Rough, slipshod, it seemed to lay bare a hefty stack of issues without proper evaluation or necessity. In time that film would grow on me (its qualities are subtle), but only after more of his work became available. As I went through the films, I imagined his to be a cross between the styles of Woody Allen and Eric Rohmer. Like Rohmer, he thrives in the ambiguities which test romantic relationships. Like Allen, there’s the misogynistic tendency to regard women as blank slates awaiting a male ‘teacher’ for guidance. To his credit, Jaglom’s female characters aren’t nearly as stranded as Allen’s; Diane Keaton’s Annie Hall, Mariel Hemingway in Manhattan and Barbara Hershey in Hannah and Her Sisters are tragic figures whose self-worth withers under the tutelage of supercilious, egocentric men. Jaglom may reduce a few of his female characters to tears, but they’re strong and intelligent enough to spot an asshole from a mile away.
Jaglom’s setup is a deviation of the wake or shivah, a gathering of disparate narcissists mourning someone or something about to pass. In Always (1985) it’s the demise of Jaglom’s own marriage — and he got his ex-wife, Patrice Townsend, to play herself; in New Year’s Day (1989) a trio of sisterly women prepare to split up as their apartment lease expires; Last Summer in the Hamptons (1995) unravels over the final days on an old family estate; and Going Shopping (2005) is in a boutique about to close its doors. In each, the characters are dogged by instability and confusion, grappling with change and identity, attitudes and lives modified through a systematic loss of innocence.
Kathryn Harrold under interrogation in Someone to Love
Someone to Love sequesters its group in an old theater, the Mayfair in Santa Monica, slated for the wrecking ball. There are twenty-five or thirty people/characters here (as in most Jaglom, the lines blur between actors and their roles), all unattached on Valentine’s Day, grappling for answers under the grilling of the director. Henry the director plays ‘Danny’ the director in a clever tactic to deflect responsibility for transforming these people into quivering bowls of jelly. The questions are laid out cold and candid: How does it feel being single on the day for lovers? How has the Women’s Movement affected male-female relationships? How do you live alone happily or comfortably in a culture favoring couples? Can there be contentment in loneliness? As Jaglom shoves the camera in front of his baffled flock, we watch a few plunge into naked despair.
There’s Oja Kodar (as Yelena), Orson Welles’s partner and collaborator, galled by Jaglom’s temerity — “Who do you think you are, asking me such personal questions?” (That’s Monte Hellman hitting on her in the restaurant scene.) There’s Kathryn Harrold, the actress from TV and movies essentially playing herself, dismayed by the intellectual rape and fleeing soon after she arrives. Singers Stephen Bishop (as ‘Blue’) and Ronee Blakely wander about: is this a movie or a party-cum-psychodrama? Indeed, Welles himself sits bewildered by the noodling chitchat of this thinly veiled counseling session, asking “This is a movie, isn’t it?”
Well, technically, yes, it is. Like John Cassavetes, there’s the sensation of ‘scripted improvisation’ crossing over into the real thing. But Jaglom and Cassavetes differ sharply when it comes to definitions of truth and honesty. The people (dare we call them characters?) in Cassavetes appear stuck in performance even when struck by epiphany. In Jaglom, those protective masks are ripped away to expose vulnerability. Professional actors or the director’s family and friends scurry to placate the ubiquitous camera, their armor of bullshit folding under deer-in-the-headlights expressions and jittery admissions of loneliness.
There’s the absurd yammering between Jaglom’s bohemian Danny Sapir and Michael Emil’s Mickey, Danny’s corporate-minded brother. (Jaglom and Emil are brothers, and this jackhammer bickering feels genuine.) There’s Sally Kellerman as Edith Helm, an actress weathering a freak-out for the camera that may or may not be an actual reaction to Danny’s or Jaglom’s hounding. There’s cabaret singer Andrea Marcovicci as Helen Eugene — one imagines Jaglom brainstorming over these character names — Danny’s noncommittal girlfriend caught unawares in a tender moment cleverly orchestrated for the roving cinematographer, a scene worth watching with the revelatory Jaglom/Marcovicci DVD commentary. About to implode, Helen (or Andrea) summarizes the zeitgeist succinctly: “Who do I have to fuck to get out of this movie?”
Who indeed. Watching Someone to Love again for this month’s film club, I tried looking at it from the perspective of someone in their twenties or thirties. Could they comprehend the narcissism of their parents’ generation, an age group Orson chastises for “constantly looking at itself in the mirror”? Would the picture’s references to female-male role reversals and the Women’s Movement have any relevance to today’s twenty- and thirty-somethings who’ve been conditioned by the media over the last decade with that rather annoying and severely myopic mantra, “Family Is Everything”? In these departments, the film is anachronistic, a time capsule; Jaglom and his guests the privileged children of Camelot, their ticking biological clocks zeroing in on middle age. Forty years ago their generation was fiercely critical of family, apple pie, motherhood and the flag, instead favoring art, culture, individuality, lofty pursuits and careers, a mindset directly at odds with today.
“I think that my generation is the first one that has not managed to create the illusion for themselves, in their own lifetime, that they are not alone,” Danny says to Welles. One can only wonder how thoroughly he’s combed through recorded history. Danny yearns for the white picket fence, for passion and intimacy with one woman to last a lifetime… on his terms. Like the Carl Boehm character in Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom, he’s obsessed with the recorded image and its implied substance. Welles eventually shrugs off the dream — “We’re born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Only through our love and friendship can we create the illusion for the moment that we’re not alone” — and debunks the entire project as something of a wild goose chase, “the dilemma of a deeply sentimental man.” Welles was no dummy.
Members and non-members of The Oldest Established Really Important Film Club are invited to submit their comments below.
Available from Amazon
— Orson Welles in Someone to Love
It didn’t bother me that some or perhaps most of the club members might make it through all of ten minutes of any Jaglom picture before hitting the eject button. After all, isn’t that part of his controversy? A bitter ‘pill’ both literally and figuratively, Henry reminds us of too many horrible things: that he’s a sloppy filmmaker; he’s aggressive and annoying; his films broach insurmountable subjects and feelings; he’s relentlessly argumentative and too often cruel. Still, I persevered, for despite all these shortcomings, I once gave serious thought to writing a book about Jaglom. Therefore, my club selection, Someone to Love (1987), provides, at the very least, the opportunity to see Orson Welles in his last good appearance — “the best thing [he] ever did after F for Fake,” as I wrote in a review on my website. Beyond that, proceed at your own risk.
I saw my first Jaglom picture, Tracks (1976), more than thirty years ago. It left me bored and unimpressed. Rough, slipshod, it seemed to lay bare a hefty stack of issues without proper evaluation or necessity. In time that film would grow on me (its qualities are subtle), but only after more of his work became available. As I went through the films, I imagined his to be a cross between the styles of Woody Allen and Eric Rohmer. Like Rohmer, he thrives in the ambiguities which test romantic relationships. Like Allen, there’s the misogynistic tendency to regard women as blank slates awaiting a male ‘teacher’ for guidance. To his credit, Jaglom’s female characters aren’t nearly as stranded as Allen’s; Diane Keaton’s Annie Hall, Mariel Hemingway in Manhattan and Barbara Hershey in Hannah and Her Sisters are tragic figures whose self-worth withers under the tutelage of supercilious, egocentric men. Jaglom may reduce a few of his female characters to tears, but they’re strong and intelligent enough to spot an asshole from a mile away.
Jaglom’s setup is a deviation of the wake or shivah, a gathering of disparate narcissists mourning someone or something about to pass. In Always (1985) it’s the demise of Jaglom’s own marriage — and he got his ex-wife, Patrice Townsend, to play herself; in New Year’s Day (1989) a trio of sisterly women prepare to split up as their apartment lease expires; Last Summer in the Hamptons (1995) unravels over the final days on an old family estate; and Going Shopping (2005) is in a boutique about to close its doors. In each, the characters are dogged by instability and confusion, grappling with change and identity, attitudes and lives modified through a systematic loss of innocence.
Kathryn Harrold under interrogation in Someone to Love
Someone to Love sequesters its group in an old theater, the Mayfair in Santa Monica, slated for the wrecking ball. There are twenty-five or thirty people/characters here (as in most Jaglom, the lines blur between actors and their roles), all unattached on Valentine’s Day, grappling for answers under the grilling of the director. Henry the director plays ‘Danny’ the director in a clever tactic to deflect responsibility for transforming these people into quivering bowls of jelly. The questions are laid out cold and candid: How does it feel being single on the day for lovers? How has the Women’s Movement affected male-female relationships? How do you live alone happily or comfortably in a culture favoring couples? Can there be contentment in loneliness? As Jaglom shoves the camera in front of his baffled flock, we watch a few plunge into naked despair.
There’s Oja Kodar (as Yelena), Orson Welles’s partner and collaborator, galled by Jaglom’s temerity — “Who do you think you are, asking me such personal questions?” (That’s Monte Hellman hitting on her in the restaurant scene.) There’s Kathryn Harrold, the actress from TV and movies essentially playing herself, dismayed by the intellectual rape and fleeing soon after she arrives. Singers Stephen Bishop (as ‘Blue’) and Ronee Blakely wander about: is this a movie or a party-cum-psychodrama? Indeed, Welles himself sits bewildered by the noodling chitchat of this thinly veiled counseling session, asking “This is a movie, isn’t it?”
Well, technically, yes, it is. Like John Cassavetes, there’s the sensation of ‘scripted improvisation’ crossing over into the real thing. But Jaglom and Cassavetes differ sharply when it comes to definitions of truth and honesty. The people (dare we call them characters?) in Cassavetes appear stuck in performance even when struck by epiphany. In Jaglom, those protective masks are ripped away to expose vulnerability. Professional actors or the director’s family and friends scurry to placate the ubiquitous camera, their armor of bullshit folding under deer-in-the-headlights expressions and jittery admissions of loneliness.
There’s the absurd yammering between Jaglom’s bohemian Danny Sapir and Michael Emil’s Mickey, Danny’s corporate-minded brother. (Jaglom and Emil are brothers, and this jackhammer bickering feels genuine.) There’s Sally Kellerman as Edith Helm, an actress weathering a freak-out for the camera that may or may not be an actual reaction to Danny’s or Jaglom’s hounding. There’s cabaret singer Andrea Marcovicci as Helen Eugene — one imagines Jaglom brainstorming over these character names — Danny’s noncommittal girlfriend caught unawares in a tender moment cleverly orchestrated for the roving cinematographer, a scene worth watching with the revelatory Jaglom/Marcovicci DVD commentary. About to implode, Helen (or Andrea) summarizes the zeitgeist succinctly: “Who do I have to fuck to get out of this movie?”
Welles and Jaglom wax philosophical
Who indeed. Watching Someone to Love again for this month’s film club, I tried looking at it from the perspective of someone in their twenties or thirties. Could they comprehend the narcissism of their parents’ generation, an age group Orson chastises for “constantly looking at itself in the mirror”? Would the picture’s references to female-male role reversals and the Women’s Movement have any relevance to today’s twenty- and thirty-somethings who’ve been conditioned by the media over the last decade with that rather annoying and severely myopic mantra, “Family Is Everything”? In these departments, the film is anachronistic, a time capsule; Jaglom and his guests the privileged children of Camelot, their ticking biological clocks zeroing in on middle age. Forty years ago their generation was fiercely critical of family, apple pie, motherhood and the flag, instead favoring art, culture, individuality, lofty pursuits and careers, a mindset directly at odds with today.
“I think that my generation is the first one that has not managed to create the illusion for themselves, in their own lifetime, that they are not alone,” Danny says to Welles. One can only wonder how thoroughly he’s combed through recorded history. Danny yearns for the white picket fence, for passion and intimacy with one woman to last a lifetime… on his terms. Like the Carl Boehm character in Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom, he’s obsessed with the recorded image and its implied substance. Welles eventually shrugs off the dream — “We’re born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Only through our love and friendship can we create the illusion for the moment that we’re not alone” — and debunks the entire project as something of a wild goose chase, “the dilemma of a deeply sentimental man.” Welles was no dummy.
Available from Amazon
Labels: Henry Jaglom, Orson Welles
posted by Ray Young at
7:40 AM
195 Comments:
Flickhead -
First of all, superb assessment of the film. (You got this posted so early that I was able to get here and add my two cents before heading out to my day of meetings.)
I have to admit, from the little I've seen of Jaglom's work (a couple of later films with Victoria Foyt), I've not been a fan. Like the ones I'd seen before, "Someone to Love" played like a Woody Allen comedy with the punchlines and the irony removed. But in the spirit of TOERIFC, I really tried to dial back my dislike of Jaglom and see the film through fresh eyes.
A few things I liked:
Maracovicci, especially her mid-point musical interlude, singing the title song. Lovely.
Jaglom's brother was kind of endearing even though he talked endlessly and in circles. I though it ironic that, early on, he dismisses the exercise as "pretentious and self-indulgent," yet he enters right into the spirit of it and examines his own romantic shortcomings and yearnings in pretty excruciating detail.
I also loved that Ronnee Blakely showed up, if only briefly. There just hasn't been enough of her in films since "Nashville."
My knee-jerk reaction to Welles was that he was a bit of a pompous gasbag and one of the last people I'd go to for relationship advice, and yet, while reading over the quotes from Welles in your post, I have to admit he makes the most sense of anyone involved.
One other random observation: it's interesting that the subject of this film is the search for love and intimacy, but not one moment of it feels truly intimate or romantic to me. Everyone talks the subject to death, but no one really knows demonstrates much capacity for intimacy. I kept thinking, "Tell me less, show me more." Which, of course, is the point here. But, for me, not terribly interesting to watch for long.
Be back tonight, at which point I'm sure there will have been some wonderful debate and discussion.
Sorry my thoughts are so disjointed and rambling at the moment.
And again, very fine post and a very good choice.
Pat, when it comes to Jaglom, one of my joys is hearing or reading comments like yours. Your assessment of Michael Emil (Jag's brother) is right on target.
Years ago when I began watching Jag's films, Emil baffled me to no end. Now I find him quite endearing -- though I'd hate to be stuck in a room with him.
"...it's interesting that the subject of this film is the search for love and intimacy, but not one moment of it feels truly intimate or romantic to me."
WHAM! That's a keeper!
That's a great summation, Flickhead, of a film that bored and aggravated me by turns. You namecheck pretty much all the references that I thought of while watching the film -- Woody, Rohmer, Cassavetes, I'd throw in Jules Feiffer -- but Jaglom comes off pretty badly in comparison to any of them. He's like Woody without the humor, Rohmer without the subtlety, Cassavetes without the emotional depth, Feiffer without the satirical wit. My main problem with it is what Pat is getting at: there's so much talk but so little real feeling, so little nuance. Jaglom seems to be desperately striving for the kind of fly-on-the-wall realism that Cassavetes perfected, but without anything interesting to put in front of the camera, it's just so much empty artifice.
And not even a well-constructed artifice: Jaglom strikes me as a particularly inept filmmaker, especially in the rough, jagged editing. It was distracting.
I did welcome Welles' late appearance, and it struck me that in his booming voice, he was saying everything that I'd been wanting to scream at the screen right along, skewering the solipsism and self-obsession of these whiny people.
Okay. First of all, I had no idea this was starting so early. Did anyone else?
Second of all...well, where to begin? Flickhead, I was prepared to come in here with guns politely blazing, but you're own write-up was tempered with enough well-observed accounting of the film's shortcomings that you've dampened my fury a bit.
But I still hated this movie, as you knew many of us would. I'm with Emil: "silly, self-absorbed, pretentious nonsense." Pat, you say it's ironic that he eventually enters into the spirit of the thing, but didn't he do that only because Jaglom required it for the film? Why are we assuming that he actually changed his outlook of his own free will?
I thought Marcovicci gave a very good performance, but she should have shitcanned Jaglom. Why in the world did she go back to him? The film is so...in love with Jaglom. Jaglom adores himself. He clearly sees himself as a great artist -- who is nevertheless wry -- struggling with the great emotional issues. He presents his own flaws only as a means to glory in them, in a "That's our Danny!" (or Henry) kind of way. If that makes any sense. It does to me, anyway.
Meanwhile, Welles...I liked him, of course, and he's the only person in the film I'd want to actually know. Because he's Orson Welles. But for me the moment when Jaglom showed his true colors is when Welles said to Danny/Henry: "You make films like no one else I know, certainly they're nothing like mine." And the camera cuts to Jaglom, with his obnoxious hat, nodding, saying "Mmm-hmm." Like, "That's so true, how interesting. Go on." God, I wanted to punch him right then and there.
Oh, and Kathryn Harrold? When she left, I'd have been right behind her, if I hadn't already preceded her out the door.
Thanks for recommending this film, Flickhead. I had never heard of it or the director.
I did have lots of mixed feelings while watching Someone to Love. At first, the film struck me as sentimental and self-indulgent, with echoes of 8 1/2 and All That Jazz in its metacinematic touches (although I liked learning later that we get to see the film crew at work, and often the film kept me off-balance with its flashes of humor). Sally Kellerman struck me as histrionic, especially when she cried or took off her makeup, and it is hard for me to watch a bunch of baby boomers get all touchy-feely about loneliness. But I very much liked the end of the film, in part because Orson Welles returned, and said interesting things about slavery. Jaglom is enormously generous to Welles at the end, and it ultimately makes for a fitting tribute to a cinematic legend just before his death.
BTW, my son described the film as the weirdest thing he has seen all year. I'm not sure how this movie would work with a generation raised on reality TV shows.
Amazingly good essay, Ray. Bravo!
I hung with this film because I was as curious as Jaglom about what people would say, how they would react, and whether we were going to get a full-on encounter group or party chatter. That it ended up being a meet-up surprises me not in the least, that Jaglom never gets any answers he can use, likewise. Was it just a ploy for Danny to get his girl back? Frankly, Helen was a complete zero in my book, and I couldn't stand her wishy-washy feelings that made absolutely no sense in context (though I understand how she might want to keep Danny from invading her space and digging the hooks in - he's obviously a user).
Having lived what these characters lived, and now living quite the opposite, this was a time capsule of my life. It felt very nostalgic to me from that sense, but also, my god, what bullshit we used to spout, how self-important we all were. How confused Jaglom is about women. Welles' scenes were the best by far, but even he gets way out there with his talk about slavery. I thought he made a good point, but like most of the people in this, the point ended up as nonsense because, I think, Jaglom pushed and made more of an idea than was there.
I liked this film, but eventually wanted the party to end. It just wasn't much fun after a while.
Hey, you started early. Oh well. Is Jaglom going to show up today and surprise us with some insight? I remember hearing that might be a possibility. I'd love it if he did but until then some thoughts on your review and the movie.
First, excellent write-up and it hit on several points I already wanted to make anyway concerning the narcissistic nature of the setting and proceedings (in the movie and possibly here as well, although I hope the Flickhead blog isn't being demolished by wrecking ball anytime soon).
Second, let me be honest: I couldn't stand the character of Danny. While I am sure Jaglom has mixed himself up with the character much like Woody Allen I am unaware of where the reality begins and ends so rather than say I hated Jaglom I should confine my dislike to his character Danny. The line you quoted, “I think that my generation is the first one that has not managed to create the illusion for themselves, in their own lifetime, that they are not alone,” made me groan and roll my eyes as I have done watching many a baby boomer pronounce in a documentary how they were the first to do this or that, or when speaking with my boomer buddies who make like pronouncements. From the Lost, Great, X and Millenial Generations before and after them I have never met members of a generation so confident in the belief that they were the first to experience so many things in life honestly and are not embarrassed to utter aloud such a blatant and absurd falsehood. Jesus, just read Shakespeare. Trust me Danny, people understood their lonliness and didn't delude themselves about it centuries before you came along. That's ego. Huge ego. It's why the generation earned nicknames like "The 'Me' Generation."
It is this insufferable self-importance that seems to define the character of Danny and as such the movie plays as a fascinating piece, a diary of a narcissist. I reacted quite wincingly to Danny and would never, ever like to spend time in his company but the movie itself I found to be a rather interesting look into the mind of the self-obsessed.
Now, understand, that doesn't mean I liked it. I found it intriguing and a worthwhile study but to say outright it was a successful effort it would have to be a lot less self-conscious.
I wonder (and if Jaglom shows up he can answer this for me): At the end when Danny tells Welles he doesn't think the movie works, is that just brazen false modesty, waiting to hear someone disagree and say, "Oh no, you've created something quite special here." It seemed like it. Maybe that's a problem I had as well. Despite the improv sense of realism, Danny felt phony to me through and through.
But his brother, Michael Emil? Loved him! Favorite character in the movie, bar none. I'd watch a movie that followed him around.
Anyway, I'll wait for some more replies before delving into this further, as I have a lot more to say.
FilmDr, your son's reaction may have been close to that of a young woman to whom I showed Jaglom's Eating. The woman had serious problems with food, as we'd later discover was anorexia. She hated the film and said it was too weird (it's structured in the same manner as Someone to Love), but yet she found it enlightening and compelling.
Meanwhile, Welles...I liked him, of course, and he's the only person in the film I'd want to actually know. Because he's Orson Welles. But for me the moment when Jaglom showed his true colors is when Welles said to Danny/Henry: "You make films like no one else I know, certainly they're nothing like mine." And the camera cuts to Jaglom, with his obnoxious hat, nodding, saying "Mmm-hmm." Like, "That's so true, how interesting. Go on." God, I wanted to punch him right then and there.
Bill - Thank you.
"Having lived what these characters lived, and now living quite the opposite, this was a time capsule of my life. It felt very nostalgic to me from that sense, but also, my god, what bullshit we used to spout, how self-important we all were."
Marilyn, that's why I've seen this film several times -- along with everything else Jaglom has done. In the excellent documentary Who is Henry Jaglom, the filmmakers admit that they'd watch any given Jaglom film one day and think it was trash; they'd watch the same film a week later and think it was brilliant. I have the same reaction. I'd hoped my choice for the club would inspire more people to check out Jaglom's other films. I disliked Jaglom at first, but in time I began recognizing his qualities. But I'll be the first to admit that this one experience may turn off a lot of otherwise open-minded people from investigating his other films.
"...it's just so much empty artifice."
Ed, at one time I would have agreed, but not so much today. The film addresses the art and environment of bullshit (or, in my experience, everyday reality); I think that makes him far more of a realist than most other filmmakers.
Jaglom might be here?? Er, um...I changed my mind. I like your hat.
Bill and Greg: I checked our club "rules" and I found nothing that states we're required to start at a certain time.
I didn't like Emil very much because he's such a nebbish. Listening to him discuss his problems with shyness with Dave Frishberg, I wanted to say, "shyness is not your problem." You're a philistine nebbish.
Every generation has its problems. Yes, we were the Me Generation. The current group, of which Barack Obama is king, thinks they can do anything without evidence of any talent or track record. For all the Me-ness of the my generation, we knew how to work to get what we wanted. I admire Jaglom's effort in making this mess of a film. He wasn't afraid to lay bare the contradictions and b.s. in fact, courted it. It's not as self-indulgent a film as it may seem - more like one that examines, not loneliness, but the product of self-indulgence that afflicted my generation.
"Jesus, just read Shakespeare."
Greg, I love when Welles tells Jaglom about Hamlet.
I'm holding off on contacting Jaglom -- why invite the guy into a nest of snipers?
Let's see how the discussion goes...
What? Contact him now, I need to ask him a few things.
"Despite the improv sense of realism, Danny felt phony to me through and through."
Greg, David Thomson has said "Jaglom isn't a good enough actor to play Henry Jaglom," and I think he was onto something.
(Want real annoying Jaglom? Try Venice/Venice.)
"But his brother, Michael Emil? Loved him! Favorite character in the movie, bar none. I'd watch a movie that followed him around."
Greg, you might try Jaglom's Sitting Ducks. It's Michael Emil and Zack Norman nearly doing slapstick. (Henry stays behind the camera for most of that picture.)
Invite him. I'll take his side.
Every generation has its problems.
No, just yours. I'm kidding! You do realize I'm pretty much in the same generation right so I'm not trying to bust anyone's chops. If you go back to my original comment you'll see I used it as a jumping off point for Danny's ego. Not trying to say anyone born from the forties to the sixties is in that same boat. But the Boomers have had more attention lavished on them then any other and Danny personifies all the bad cliches about the generation. That's the main thing I'm trying to say.
"It's not as self-indulgent a film as it may seem - more like one that examines, not loneliness, but the product of self-indulgence that afflicted my generation."
Excellent, Marilyn. I don't believe Someone to Love as a film is consciously self-indulgent, but more a reflection of its maker's narcissism.
What's up with these wimps who can't add a Varda film to their cinematic diet?
I haven't seen Someone to Love since it's theatrical release, and haven't been following Jaglom's career too closely in quite a while. I imagine, though, that he may undergo a new re-evaluation with A Safe Place scheduled for DVD release. I did see that in a special private screening after it had come and gone theatrically. The film makes an interesting comparison with what Jaglom would do later with fewer financial resources but greater artistic freedom.
Was Jaglom making a reference to Chuck Barris of The Gong Show when he wore that hat? It looked mighty familiar.
Oh God... I'll write Henry now... I know I'm gonna regret this... with any luck he'll be away from his computer...
I'm holding off on contacting Jaglom -- why invite the guy into a nest of snipers?...
You knew the film would get some pretty strong negative reactions, right?
I'm with Marilyn - I thought Emil was, if it's possible, even more annoying than Jaglom himself. There's only so much complaining I can take, and worse still, these characters seemed to think that their complaints were unique, that they were somehow special because of their problems.
But I don't want to give the impression that I have nothing nice to say about this film. There's admittedly not much positive I can say, but there are moments of insight and intelligence in there that make me think that Jaglom does have something interesting to say, if he can pull his head out of his own ass or look away from his mirror long enough to say it. Danny's speech about the biological function of loneliness -- intended to drive us towards each other much as hunger makes us eat -- was the kind of fresh, interesting material that I wish this film was comprised of. Every now and then there were moments like that where I found myself nodding my head and getting engaged, hoping a good idea would be pursued further. Jaglom seldom follows up on his best ideas, though, quickly returning to the endless torrent of whining that comprises the film's primary thrust.
Peter, Jaglom reworked themes from A Safe Place in Hollywood Dreams (2006), starring his new "discovery" Tanna Frederick. I believe he revived A Safe Place as a play in LA not long ago.
But Ed, I just think a funny well-written movie could be made around Emil's character. Some of the funniest movies are about sourpusses when written well. I mean, look at Walter Matthau's career, or Woody Allen.
I have to leave for a short time. I'll be back, and I'll read every last comment if it kills me (which it won't, I'm just being self-indulgent).
I have to leave for a short time. I'll be back, and I'll read every last comment if it kills me (which it won't, I'm just being self-indulgent).
But Ed, I just think a funny well-written movie could be made around Emil's character. Some of the funniest movies are about sourpusses when written well.
Sure, but in this movie, with this dialogue, he's just annoying and unfunny. Jaglom is no Woody Allen.
Danny's speech about the biological function of loneliness -- intended to drive us towards each other much as hunger makes us eat -- was the kind of fresh, interesting material that I wish this film was comprised of...
That's true. I liked that as well.
And I don't get all the hate for Emil. He may have been a complainer, but he was an entertaining one. And plus I agreed with him. Plus, he wasn't so self-absorbed, and he was a little sad, too. I felt far more sympathy for him than anyone else.
Oh, I also liked the guy asking Kellerman if they should have some "big sex" later, and how he reacted when that line didn't pan out. That was actually a nice, revealing moment.
Testing, testing, one, two, three.
Hah?
Oh, and Jaglom REALLY looks like Terry Gilliam. At least back then he did. Anyone else think that?
Any comment I make over four lines in length is not posting. This Sucks.
Here is my comment broken down into sections so it will post:
PART ONE - And I should also say I very much liked Oja Kodar but I don't for a second believe she would have been interested in Danny. That's his ego again, imagining all the woman are interested only in him.
PART TWO - You know, every TOERIFC discussion has to have some suggestion that it is all a dream or hallucination. It's become a TOERIFC cliche so let me be the first to suggest it here.
Greg, I made it so anyone can post. Have you tried logging off and back on, or restarting?
PART THREE - This movie might make for an interesting viewing if interpreted as all taking place in the mind of Danny as he masturbates after being booted out of the apartment in the first scene.
I don't think I'm the only one because the long comments have clearly stopped. It only publishes a limited number of sentences. I'm sure it's Blogger, not anything you've done.
THIS IS A TEST. I'm repeating Pat's first comment to see if it reproduces:
Flickhead -
First of all, superb assessment of the film. (You got this posted so early that I was able to get here and add my two cents before heading out to my day of meetings.)
I have to admit, from the little I've seen of Jaglom's work (a couple of later films with Victoria Foyt), I've not been a fan. Like the ones I'd seen before, "Someone to Love" played like a Woody Allen comedy with the punchlines and the irony removed. But in the spirit of TOERIFC, I really tried to dial back my dislike of Jaglom and see the film through fresh eyes.
A few things I liked:
Maracovicci, especially her mid-point musical interlude, singing the title song. Lovely.
Jaglom's brother was kind of endearing even though he talked endlessly and in circles. I though it ironic that, early on, he dismisses the exercise as "pretentious and self-indulgent," yet he enters right into the spirit of it and examines his own romantic shortcomings and yearnings in pretty excruciating detail.
I also loved that Ronnee Blakely showed up, if only briefly. There just hasn't been enough of her in films since "Nashville."
My knee-jerk reaction to Welles was that he was a bit of a pompous gasbag and one of the last people I'd go to for relationship advice, and yet, while reading over the quotes from Welles in your post, I have to admit he makes the most sense of anyone involved.
One other random observation: it's interesting that the subject of this film is the search for love and intimacy, but not one moment of it feels truly intimate or romantic to me. Everyone talks the subject to death, but no one really knows demonstrates much capacity for intimacy. I kept thinking, "Tell me less, show me more." Which, of course, is the point here. But, for me, not terribly interesting to watch for long.
Be back tonight, at which point I'm sure there will have been some wonderful debate and discussion.
Sorry my thoughts are so disjointed and rambling at the moment.
And again, very fine post and a very good choice.
Yes: no problem.
Also, I'm curious about the structure that went into setting up this film. I wasn't joking when I said I'd like to ask Jaglom a few questions. First would be, were the characters told certain scenarios. Like Kodar for instance, was she told, "You will fall for Danny. Play with that," or did she develop that plot point herself? How much leeway was given to the actors? How much was structured? Does Jaglom see this as a self-obsessed period piece now as well or does he believe it to be a succesful examination of lonliness?
Yes, Flickhead, I just did a test too on my photo blog and it seems to be corrected now. Whew. Pat will be thrilled to know her comment was posted a second time.
"I wasn't joking when I said I'd like to ask Jaglom a few questions."
I sent him an email; let's wait and see if he drops in.
Perhaps the comments have stopped because I selcted a movie that most everyone else seems to hate. It's funny: when I see Someone to Love I find so much to identify with or to take issue with; but apparently I'm in the minority.
Hey, what the fuck do I know?
I didn't listen to much of the commentary track, but at the beginning, Maracovicci says that there was only one line that was written down, but Jaglom said that wasn't true, and that about half the film was scripted. I have to think everyone had a scenario, and at least a few lines Jaglom wanted them to say, after which, I suppose, they were free to do what they wanted. Just speculating.
To bring in a different note, I don't know if anyone here has seen Mike Nichols' Carnal Knowledge, but I couldn't help but think of that film throughout this one, and more generally the work of writer/cartoonist/playwright Jules Feiffer, who wrote the script for the Nichols film. Like Jaglom, Feiffer is interested in the way relationships between men and women are affected by self-absorption and changes in societal norms. This is apparent in Carnal Knowledge and maybe even more so in Feiffer's weekly Village Voice comic strips. It's perhaps unfair to Jaglom, but I couldn't watch this movie without thinking how much fun Feiffer would have with a similar situation and characters, how much biting wit and insight he'd bring to a project like this. Even in his short three-or-four-panel comics, his characters seem to have more depth and life to them than Jaglom's caricatures.
I don't know why, but Jaglom seems to invite comparisons and references to other filmmakers. Throughout the film I kept thinking of Feiffer and Woody and Rohmer and measuring Jaglom against them. This is something I usually try to avoid -- I prefer to appreciate a film on its own merits -- but it seemed like a natural response here. Maybe because of Jaglom's own obnoxious comparison of himself to Welles and his namechecking of Cassavetes?
Bill, the scene of Henry dancing with Andrea, sharing intimate chat and then asking the cinematographer "did you get that?" was scripted. Only those three knew the scene was scripted and rehearsed; Jaglom apparently wanted to see what kind of reaction it would elicit from the others.
According to Dennis Hopper, Jaglom wrote a fully detailed and rather lengthy script for Tracks. Whether or not he does this on every film, I'm not sure.
Perhaps the comments have stopped because I selcted a movie that most everyone else seems to hate.
Not a chance. If you don't believe this, Bill can back me up, but on my TIN DRUM post I only got 10 comments for around the first hour and a half. You're already around 50. And they'll only keep coming.
Bill - I should listen to the track. I'm at home today anyway, since I got FUCKING LAID OFF yesterday and today they're doing a training seminar for a new program to be used in the Fall so uh, no need for me to be there.
Ed, I loved CARNAL KNOWLEDGE when I saw it but it's been years. I think Jaglom invites comparison because his style is so jagged a million different ways of shooting a particular scene may come to mind for the viewer and they will then think of how this or that filmmaker might have done it differently.
Ed, I think one reason I've seen Someone to Love so often is its lack of biting wit. Carnal Knowledge is a good film, and Feiffer's strips were usually excellent. But Jaglom's film for me is more honest. Have Feiffer or Nichols ever pulled down their proverbial pants in the manner Jaglom has? Not to my knowledge. And as I touched on in my review, I think Cassavetes is often excessively forced and demanding -- he's making movies. Jaglom is making something else altogether.
"...on my TIN DRUM post I only got 10 comments for around the first hour and a half. You're already around 50. And they'll only keep coming."
Yeah, but half of these are mine!
Jaglom apparently wanted to see what kind of reaction it would elicit from the others...
Hm. Did the camera spend much time on anyone other than the two of them? I don't remember a lot of reaction shots there, but I could be wrong.
Yeah, but half of these are mine!...
Half of them are ALWAYS the host's! The host has to keep things rolling! That's why being the host sucks!
"...I'm at home today anyway, since I got FUCKING LAID OFF yesterday and today they're doing a training seminar for a new program to be used in the Fall so uh, no need for me to be there."
Ouch! I'm sure no words exist to console you... as I wrote to you earlier, I'm very sorry to hear this.
Bill, no, there weren't reaction shots edited in, mostly her running up the aisle and Jag looking at the camera. But you can feel the tension in the scene, from him subjecting her to that "test."
Hello, everyone. I'll be back with more substance -- ha! -- in a bit, after I've read everybody's comments. But, Ray, it was a great choice for a club selection, I've never seen a Jaglom. I spent the first few minutes -- with that impossibly inept opening with his brother -- with my fingers hovering over the eject button.
But I was drawn in, and ended up enjoying it quite a bit, despite the sloppy technique. It was enjoyable to watch Welles be his usual, pompous self, and to be reminded of what a great thinker he was.
More comments after I've digested everybody elses.
I'm sitting in a doctor's waiting room - the hubby's getting a cortisone shot.
I was very interested in the perspective on the women's movement. This is something I've been reading a lot about lately, how the second wavers like myself are giving way to a third wave that will concern itself with cultural shifts, perception - not the unsexy ideas of work equality. I think it's very evident in this film how much confusion there was over the cultural piece of women's liberation, how now this is exactly what the movement needs. We are talking about an enormous shift in thinking, worrying about feminized men and masculinized women. Trying to put that genie back in the bottle and this new generation playing freely with gender confusion, welcoming homo, bi-, trans- as possible alternatives for everyone.
"The host has to keep things rolling! That's why being the host sucks!"
Well, this host has to take a break. The cat's litter boxes are stinking up the place, and I really should get in a jog before it starts raining.
I'll be back in about an hour. By that time Henry will probably be putting out a hit on me.
Ray - Don't you think this is exactly the kind of discussion he'd love? It's like a sequel to this movie.
Flickhead, thanks again.
Marilyn, hope Shane's okay. I thought about you throughout this movie since it was so interested in the Women's Liberation Movement. I think a film like this should be made around every 10 years (not necessarily by Jaglom of course) because it is such a cringingly awkward time capsule, where we don't want to look but can't quite look away. The woman's lib stuff seemed so dated but my main question was, "What does Marilyn think about Jaglom and Welles' views on it?"
Wow. Well, 53 comments and it's only 9:25 CST, but I'll get in my opening thoughts way down here anyways...
Flickhead-
Thanks for the choice. Prior to Someone To Love I'd only seen Tracks (liked) and New Years Day (didn't), and after seeing Someone to Love, I'm going to rent more.
What I liked about STL was that it reads to me like a stunt/experiment of Henry/Danny's to get to the final point where Helen/Andrea says she will "leave a toothbrush at his apartment". "Kill the lights", he says after she says "ok?". End movie (save for more Orson wisdom). I found that to be a big joke... a long, painful, emotional way for Danny/Henry to get Helen/Andrea to bend and make one small step towards staying the night.
But then he left Mickey twisting in the diner with another married woman! Poor bald bastard. Independent filmmaking, indeed.
I find it interesting that you call Jaglom "aggressive and annoying" because - at least in STL - he comes off as kind of sheepish in his aggression. As Welles says, men are more timid now because of the woman's revolution.
Marilyn said: "Don't you think this is exactly the kind of discussion he'd love? It's like a sequel to this movie."
That's what I thought! From my original comment:
...concerning the narcissistic nature of the setting and proceedings (in the movie and possibly here as well...)
These discussions are a Jaglom movie!
Before I go:
Rick, welcome! I'm glad you were drawn in.
Marilyn:
"We are talking about an enormous shift in thinking, worrying about feminized men and masculinized women."
As Welles tells Danny: "Put on your apron and shut up!"
Well, that's my story. Mrs. Me has a fulltime career; I work parttime and do all the domestic stuff. I've learned how to cook, balance a checkbook and cut corners. The place is spotless (save for those litter boxes) and the bills are paid.
Of course, it's a thankless job, but it's the little things that make a house a home.
Anyone for brownies?
"Prior to Someone To Love I'd only seen Tracks (liked) and New Years Day (didn't), and after seeing Someone to Love, I'm going to rent more."
Fox: THANK YOU. I'd hoped someone would venture into more Jaglom.
But Jaglom's film for me is more honest. Have Feiffer or Nichols ever pulled down their proverbial pants in the manner Jaglom has? Not to my knowledge. And as I touched on in my review, I think Cassavetes is often excessively forced and demanding -- he's making movies. Jaglom is making something else altogether.
See, I don't get that at all. What is Jaglom making if not a movie? This film is so self-conscious, so contrived, that it certainly doesn't feel especially "honest" or direct. It's as "forced" as anything Cassavetes made. I was always aware that Jaglom was making a movie -- hell, he makes sure that no one can ever forget it. I think, despite the artifice of Cassavetes and Feiffer, I get way more insight into the behavior of real people from them than from Jaglom's attempts to approximate unscripted reality.
I'll definitely look at some more Jaglom when I'm in the mood for a trip back to my intellectualized phase.
I think your role "reversal" is exactly what the women in this film were interested in to a certain degree. The old saw is that a career woman needs a wife. Well, certainly domestic servitude is something nobody of any sex wants, but the expectation that women will remain domestics - the unpaid labor Welles talks about - was certainly what these women rebelled against. They were, generally, happy on their own, not bothered the way Danny was with loneliness. How can you be lonely when you finally have a chance to be yourself? But Danny forced them to recognize the pain of the men around them - women's lib was, above everything, a painful thing for everyone involved. Tearing apart the traditional notion of family to renegotiate something that would honor the personhood of everyone is wrenching. I spent a year in constant conflict with my mother renegotiating our relationship. But it was worth it. We have to do this hard work.
Ed, for me, I think what it may come down to is that I've never encountered the kinds of people you find in a Cassavetes film -- at least none who remain on that level of intensity. Whereas I've spent plenty of time with the kinds you see in Jaglom's films.
Cassavetes's characters are often driven by instinct; Jaglom's fly by the seat of their pants -- which is closer to the reality I know of.
I'd love some brownies! Could you also make me a PB & J with the crusts cut off? Thanks.
Fox, I didn't personally see Danny as sheepish at all. Where is he sheepish in this? He is insistent, persistent and inconsiderate. In the early scene in his brother's apartment (I'm at home and just re-watched it) he asks how his brother is doing. His brother says, "Well you know, I keep myself in reasonably good health..." when Danny cuts him off with, "I don't care about that..."
I understand that he means, "I want to know how you are emotionally, not physically," although the physical often informs the emotional, but he could have be less dismissive about it. That's what I see in Danny in this film. He wants to know what you think and feel but will cut you off the second he discovers it's not what he wants you to think and feel.
Bill said:
But for me the moment when Jaglom showed his true colors is when Welles said to Danny/Henry: "You make films like no one else I know, certainly they're nothing like mine." And the camera cuts to Jaglom, with his obnoxious hat, nodding, saying "Mmm-hmm." Like, "That's so true, how interesting. Go on." God, I wanted to punch him right then and there....
I hadn't thought about Jaglom's reaction being that way, mainly b/c I didn't feel the same arrogance from him that Ed & Bill did, but Bill's comment still made me laught nonetheless. Especially since you tossed in a jab at his "obnoxious hat". Hee hee. Thanks, Bill.
Since we're speaking of accessories, did anyone notice that those pink/red glasses that Stephen Bishop was wearing also made their way to Danny's face and that dude in the blue sweater's face?? Gulp... well... this made me consider the "is this a dream" scenario that we often discuss in TOERIFC discussions. Dream?!? When?!? How?!? Well, maybe when Henry first sits down on the stage after he and Mickey visit it for the first time. Afterall, that's where he ends up at the end when the lights go down.
OK, I'm not saying that was the case, it just popped in my head so I'm throwing it out. But think about the glasses, and the fact that the address of the theater was 214 Santa Monica BLVD, as in 2/14, as in Valentine's Day.
P.S. Greg, I'm sorry to hear about your layoff. Sincerely. My good thoughts go out to you.
"...certainly domestic servitude is something nobody of any sex wants"
Marilyn, I'd take it over a 9-to-5 career any day of the week. There's no pay, but at least no one's stabbing me in the back or trying to fuck me over. I don't wake up hating myself any longer. I look around my house and love living here. Back when I had a career, I saw everything with a price tag on it, and the house (and the mortgage) felt like prison.
Given the option, I'd never go back to that. I'd love to draw a real salary again, but it just isn't worth it.
"...did anyone notice that those pink/red glasses that Stephen Bishop was wearing..."
So I didn't imagine that...
Fox, I didn't personally see Danny as sheepish at all. Where is he sheepish in this? He is insistent, persistent and inconsiderate. In the early scene in his brother's apartment (I'm at home and just re-watched it) he asks how his brother is doing. His brother says, "Well you know, I keep myself in reasonably good health..." when Danny cuts him off with, "I don't care about that..."
I understand that he means, "I want to know how you are emotionally, not physically," although the physical often informs the emotional, but he could have be less dismissive about it. That's what I see in Danny in this film. He wants to know what you think and feel but will cut you off the second he discovers it's not what he wants you to think and feel....
Greg-
Fair points. Though I think that convinces me more of his arrogance than his aggressiveness. I mean, it's his brother, and siblings can be rough (as in the scene where Danny is eating the apple while Mickey is eating the donut and they are yelling at each other).
But I'm trying to think of a point where he was aggressive with anyone else. Perhaps a bit with Helen ("yes or no?... quickly!", upon asking her again about staying over), but to the audience - the people he isn't so intimate with - he seems pretty flexible. Still, you make good points, and I should back off my saying that he didn't come off as aggressive, because he definitely does.
And for the record, I DO think Henry/Danny is arrogant, just not as much as others here think he is.
FOX - I mentioned the dream thing back in the comments. Here it is so you don't have to search for it.
"You know, every TOERIFC discussion has to have some suggestion that it is all a dream or hallucination. It's become a TOERIFC cliche so let me be the first to suggest it here. This movie might make for an interesting viewing if interpreted as all taking place in the mind of Danny as he masturbates after being booted out of the apartment in the first scene."
Ray, I understand that, and as someone who is ready to nest again, my home takes on a new feeling for me. I was referring more to someone confined to domestic responsibilities, confined through social roles, learned helplessness. I'm an uneasy fit in the work world, but at least I insisted on finding out for myself what I could do, what I liked or didn't like about it. My mother was born to work, and she was miserable as a housewife. Of course, she was a secretary, even though had she been born later, she'd probably have had her own company. That's the kind of waste that should make everyone angry.
This film is so self-conscious, so contrived, that it certainly doesn't feel especially "honest" or direct....
Ed-
But don't you think Jaglom is aware of those "self-conscious" and "contrived" aspects? I think that's what ultimately makes this film kind of a big joke to me. Not "joke" in a negative sense, but in a sense that everything that played out before us was just to get Helen's toothbrush. For me, the end alleviated a lot of the self-seriousness of what preceded it.
Also. When Orson Welles' laughed, he looked like a Muppet or a big Animatronic animal. Weirdness.
Greg-
Thanks for the cut & paste, but damn you for beating me to it!!!
BTW... I am making my way through everyone's comments, but it's A LOT so early in the morning! So, forgive me if I hit already explored territory.
Oh, and Greg, I'm gonna go ahead and say now that the entirety of Black Book is a dream. HA! I said it first!
OK... back to Someone to Love...
Also. When Orson Welles' laughed, he looked like a Muppet or a big Animatronic animal. Weirdness.
Nothing else anywhere in this comment thread will beat that insight. Orson as animatron.
Fox, what if someone picks The Wizard of Oz for TOERIFC one of these days? Then what will we do?
Flickhead, usually our little chat-fests have started later, that's why some of us were taken by surprise when it was so early.
I didn't dislike Danny as much as Greg or Bill, sure he was arrogant, but who among us isn't?
Who I really hated was his brother. Every scene with him seemed forces and unnatural. And whoever said Kellerman (who I've adored in MASH, etc) was strident. Was it her fault? Jaglom's? Who knows. Maybe if he shows up, we'll find out.
Fox, I don't think it's a joke so much as that Jaglom doesn't care if it is self-conscious or not. As you say, he certainly knows it's self-conscious -- he's obviously watched a movie or two -- just as he his film-making is sloppy, that his edits are awkward, etc. But does he care?
And should we? For me, squarely in the boomer category, it is nostalgic. I spent half the time trying to figure out who that 70s or 80s actor/actress was. These were the kinds of things dealt with and talked about at many a party in those days.
Do I detect some generational differences in how the film went over?
Greg, if somebody picks the wizard of oz, we will spend the whole time trying to argue why it WASN'T a dream. We are a contrary lot.
But don't you think Jaglom is aware of those "self-conscious" and "contrived" aspects?
I'm sure he's aware of it; the whole movie is about making movies and being self-conscious and egotistical, and it's all a big metafictional loop. Like it's a movie about solipsism, made by a solipsist who knows he's a solipsist and who likes to talk about being a solipsist and how it prevents him from connecting to other people. Although when I put it like that it almost sounds kind of interesting. Mainly, though, what Jaglom has to say just seems so limited, constricted to his own very narrow, shallow concerns about himself.
Like you say, the whole movie boils down to a very elaborate contrivance to cause an exceedingly minor shift in the relationship between these two people -- neither of whom ever progresses beyond the very limited characterizations that Jaglom develops here. Danny is an egotist, Helen is afraid of commitment. By the end, she makes a very slight, nearly insignificant gesture towards possible future commitment. If it's a joke, it's a rather unfunny one.
the whole movie boils down to a very elaborate contrivance to cause an exceedingly minor shift in the relationship between these two people ...
But of course, that wasn't the reason for the movie, it was the excuse. Or, it was the slight framework that Jaglom used to hang his semi-improved stuff upon.
By "semi-improved" I meant semi-improvisational, not partially improved.
I think in its inelegant way, Someone to Love is a humorous take on how difficult it is for a man and a woman to negotiate their relationship, particularly post-second-wave feminism. This is actually a very contemporary film in that it uses the medium of film to elicit personal confessions, and influence those confessions. How different is it from "The Real World" and all the reality TV shows that followed it. For that matter, those that preceded it, like "Queen for a Day," which trafficked in humility with lovely parting gifts.
Not for nothing: the track "The International (End Credits)" in my Tuneage spot at the top of the right column was selected specifically for this discussion. Reread my post or these comments with that music playing (with some volume -- hope you've got good speakers) and it may take on a whole new dimension.
Marilyn, I like that assessment ... By contemporary do you mean in it's aim, not necessarily its product? By aim I mean what it is trying to do and how it goes about it. On the other hand, he product, its concerns and etc., feels so "80s" to me.
Fox, what if someone picks The Wizard of Oz for TOERIFC one of these days? Then what will we do?...
Greg-
As a good TOERIFCian, I will respect the choice and watch it and comment... but it would be a tough one for me indeed.
I kept thinking of Welles' as a big grizzly bear, like the one that used to play in the Showbiz Pizza rock band.
Rick - I think its aim and technique. The product (ie, subject under discussion) is still relevant, but the conversation has progressed since this movie was made. What I especially like about it is something I see in Carlos Saura's films (a really unusual thing in a dance film, especially) - you see the cameramen and soundmen in the film, you see the artifice, and you are aware that a camera is also recording those cameras. The mechanics of making the film emphasize the self-reflexive nature of Jaglom's project. Also the artistry.
I kept thinking of Welles' as a big grizzly bear, like the one that used to play in the Showbiz Pizza rock band. ...
A big, inflated, self-important grizzly bear. Of course, he's probably earned the right.
I found his laughter to be forced and phony, but what he said thought-provoking.
Do you think Welles was in the theatre? The seat he was in had a plain red cover, while the rest of them were patterned. Is that what theatres normally did to distinguish the good from the cheap seats? I don't recall having seen that before.
I didn't dislike Danny as much as Greg or Bill, sure he was arrogant, but who among us isn't?
I'm not. In fact, I take pride in how non-arrogant I am. Immense pride. Women find that pride sexy. Also, most people are attracted to my looks, wit, intellect and talent. But mainly, I think most people like that I'm not arrogant.
Rick - I think there are some generational differences here to be sure. I was born either at the tail-end of the baby boom or the very, very beginning of Gen-X depending who you talk to and I found it to be a time-capsule movie to be sure and one I didn't connect to as much as Ray or Marilyn (who I think I annoyed with my initial comment and have attempted to explain it and atone for it since but she keeps ignoring me so again - I didn't mean any offense, really. I know each generation has its bad points).
I was a part of the seventies/early eighties coming of age group, not the sixties/early seventies one so I grew up with Boomers as friends and mentors alike but by the eighties was tired of the whole sixties/boomer vibe and I think seeing this brought back some of that distaste. It was hard to separate yourself from them because there were so damn many of them and by the eighties controlled the discussion. In response, Gen-X became apathetic and skeptical, or so the labels say, but it's a label I've never minded. I'll take skepticism any day over the overly optimistic viewpoint of today's generation. I keep thinking, "You're in for a rude awakening," but then, I'm a cynic anyway.
But all that is just to say, yes, I do think there is a generational divide on this movie.
Marilyn, I've kind of lost count: are we in the third-wave feminism by now? Were Welle's comments vis a vis women trying to have everything -- i.e., career and satisfying home life, when men couldn't do it -- at all relevant to the conversation today?
Marilyn, I too wondered if Welles' shots weren't done at another time and place and inserted into the film later.
Mainly, though, what Jaglom has to say just seems so limited, constricted to his own very narrow, shallow concerns about himself....
Ed-
I agree with that. Mid-way through the movie. I thought to myself, "I hope this guy doesn't think he's being profound, because this just seems like a discussion people have in a collegiate sociology class." But then I felt that Jaglom was aware that he was on already explored territory. At least, that was my impression. I didn't listen to any commentary and I've read very little about Jaglom as a person.
I will say that I think Jaglom used Welles' opening salvo (the one Flickhead posted at the top) as a kind of pre-emptive excuse for himself and his film:
We’re not filmmakers. We’re just a ragbag bunch of people doing something that is technologically already almost passé....
That seems kind of stupidly cynical, a way for Jaglom to perhaps excuse some of the technical talents that he doesn't share with some of his contemporaries.
Marilyn & Rick: I agree that it's a contemporary film in relation to what's now passing for entertainment on prime-time TV -- shows in which participants discuss their "thought process."
But the role of the male has changed dramatically since in 80s. We've been castrated on so many levels -- mentally, sexually, economically... The centuries-old role of "provider" is obsolete, leaving us stranded with no game plan.
Marilyn and Greg, I don't think he was in the theater at all ... but it may be because the sound-design and editing were so sloppy.
But then I felt that Jaglom was aware that he was on already explored territory.
But Fox: was it explored territory when the film was made? I can remember having these conversations, usually on the losing end, a lot in the 80s.
Yes, we're in the third wave, and it is actually a distinction worth making. Social movements do have progress markers.
As for Welles comments, I think he was reacting to the marketing of "having it all." I think as the women in the film demonstrated, women didn't want to have it all. Some felt the biological clock, others were doing things sequentially, not simultaneously. Life is an accumulation to me; I'm pretty opposed to the life multitasking that this generation takes for granted. It feels like big business has made a virtue of making people do seven jobs for the price of one. I'm not buying it.
Greg, did you say something?
"We’re not filmmakers. We’re just a ragbag bunch of people doing something that is technologically already almost passé...."
"That seems kind of stupidly cynical, a way for Jaglom to perhaps excuse some of the technical talents that he doesn't share with some of his contemporaries."
Welles says it, not Jaglom; and I believe he's referring to the work of filmmaking itself, the impossibility of retaining the freshness and stimulation of his ideas months and months into filming and postproduction.
Ray - I find it disturbing that you think changing your gender role is castration. Gender roles do have to change for balance to return. The goddess and god used to stand as equals. If anything, we're trying to return true masculinity to the world, one that doesn't cut one half off from itself.
Marilyn-
On the artifice...
I also thought of Persona and Contempt in the way we see the camera crew.
I thought Jaglom did go a little too far with that idea when we see the film roll run out on our screens, but, that's just me.
"We’re not filmmakers. We’re just a ragbag bunch of people doing something that is technologically already almost passé...."
I took it to mean at face-value, technologically, pulling a piece of film down on sprockets across a bright light was invented 100 years before this movie was made.
Marilyn, I wasn't clear. (I'm not quick enough for these comments.) I don't feel changing my gender role is castration. I do feel that demands imposed by others -- ones which I give into by choice -- are a form of castration. The god is no longer a god if he's under the thumb of creditors, boxed into a position he hates, and sees no way to personal enrichment.
I'm starting to feel like a spectator here, and I guess that's because I felt no connection to this movie outside of Welles and, maybe, the first ten minutes (with a few moments here and there, scattered throughout). But I don't think it's a generational thing, which Flickhead brought up about 180 comments ago. As one of the, I believe, younger people here, I can assure you that there are plenty of people in my generation who are every bit as self-absorbed and boring as the people in Someone to Love, but I wouldn't want to watch a movie about them, either. And they've made a few, I'm told.
Anyway. Carry on, everybody.
But Fox: was it explored territory when the film was made?...
Rick-
Good question. And I can't answer that. To me, the ponderings in STL seem like universal questions that everyone eventually faces, but I'm also a child of the 80's and may not be considering the times that came before me.
I liked the film, so I don't think it dates itself poorly with its discussion of post-marriage middle-aged loneliness, it just felt kind of ... I don't know ... not as profound as it wants to be.
OR, maybe since it is such a self-involved film it isn't concerned with being profound and just wants to help the director find answers or "glimpses of it" for his own good.
Do you think Welles was in the theatre? The seat he was in had a plain red cover, while the rest of them were patterned. Is that what theatres normally did to distinguish the good from the cheap seats? I don't recall having seen that before.
Anytime Jaglom had two people talking to each other or watching one another, I wasn't convinced they were in the same building, let alone the same room. His sense of space is horrible. He had a lot of scenes where one character was supposedly reacting to something happening elsewhere in the room, but when he'd cut I'd have no sense of where this person was supposed to be in relation to what s/he was reacting to. The filmmaking is beyond sloppy, it's utterly amateurish.
the scene of Henry dancing with Andrea, sharing intimate chat and then asking the cinematographer "did you get that?" was scripted. Only those three knew the scene was scripted and rehearsed; Jaglom apparently wanted to see what kind of reaction it would elicit from the others.
I didn't have the benefit of the commentary on my dvd, I wish I had known this part was scripted because it felt more real to me than the rest of the film.
I almost didn't watch this film, not because of any prior Jaglom knowledge as this was my first time with him, but the Netflix description said this was a romantic comedy which I usually avoid, comedies not being my genre of choice. And I couldn't understand why a romantic comedy had been picked for TOERIFC. But now I get why it was picked it and I'm glad I watched it.
I completely agree with the assessment of Jaglom being selfish and narcissistic and am offended that he felt the need to manipulate and upset so many people just to get a toothbrush. Way too needy and self-important for me, I would have told him to take a hike. But on the other hand I found myself fascinated by what he was doing and applauding him in making the film he wanted to make without any apparent regard for pleasing his audience. I enjoyed the film as an exercise in self-indulgence.
I wanted to hug Orson Welles. And I would like to know how much Sally Kellerman improvised.
Also, I think Rick brought up an interesting point when he mentioned generational differences. I was 18 when this film came out and would have been too young to be concerned with any of Jaglom's issues had I seen the film then. Were people really this angsty back then?
Flickhead, excellent piece. You really should write that book about Jaglom. You have a better handle on him than most writers have on any filmmaker.
-NP
Agreed, Ed. Kellerman's got her make-up, got it off. Why does she remove it in the first place? Why does she not remove her eye make-up? Motivation, let alone coherent shooting and editing, were lacking. But then, this isn't a conventional film. It cobbles together improvisation with traditional scenes. What a nightmare it must have been to edit. The fact that Jaglom put together what I consider a fairly decent film (that overstays its welcome, however) is kind of a minor miracle.
Yeah, those reaction shots...they seemed to be taken randomly from anywhere else in the scene -- which happens a lot, I know -- but they seem to record no obvious reaction. It's like they're there just to remind the audience who is being talked to. Or talked at.
Hi, Kassy. Yes, we really were like this. Talk, talk, talk. It was the national pastime.
Ray,
The god is no longer a god if he's under the thumb of creditors, boxed into a position he hates, and sees no way to personal enrichment.
It has ever been thus, for men and women and especially children, who are the most powerless of us all. I thought it was so interesting how little these people talked about kids (one of the women commented on it, but made the experience sound so disgusting that it's hard to believe she did anything but buy the biological alarm clock propaganda at the time). Our generation has been rotten to children; it's the thing I'm most ashamed of for Boomers.
Marilyn, the current crop of parents in their twenties and thirties seem to be making up for the past. Now everything is about The Children. There are no longer 'mothers,' now we have 'moms'... Sarah Palin runs for VP and burps her toddler onstage for the world to see she's a good Mom... adult men have abandoned trousers and shoes for bluejeans and sneakers... SUVs come fully loaded with DVD players so we can all watch the latest from Pixar on our trip to oblivion... McDonald's is no longer a hamburger joint but a "restaurant"... jeez, this is getting depressing...
"Rick - I think there are some generational differences here to be sure. I was born either at the tail-end of the baby boom or the very, very beginning of Gen-X depending who you talk to and I found it to be a time-capsule movie to be sure and one I didn't connect to as much as Ray or Marilyn.
I was a part of the seventies/early eighties coming of age group, not the sixties/early seventies one so I grew up with Boomers as friends and mentors alike but by the eighties was tired of the whole sixties/boomer vibe and I think seeing this brought back some of that distaste. It was hard to separate yourself from them because there were so damn many of them and by the eighties controlled the discussion."
I agree with Greg about the way the film brings out one's generational bias, since I share many of his points above. I felt a little rude in retrospect-- thinking back on my earlier point about "watching a bunch of baby boomers get all touchy-feely about loneliness." I sometimes get annoyed about the automatic impulse that filmmakers have to vilify older people to help cater to the 16 year old target audience, but it's interesting how easily I slip into similar talk myself.
At any rate, this TOERIFC discussion has been very illuminating, especially in relation to gender roles.
Sarah Palin runs for VP and burps her toddler onstage for the world to see she's a good Mom...
I'm just glad the Obamas have kept their kids under wraps so far.
Sorry...but come on, now.
Greg, did you say something?
No, just cowering and wimpering as usual.
Now everything is about The Children.
Ray, that started with Dr. Spock and I must say the great generation folks in my life (including relatives and yes, even my own parents) haven't been the most nurturing folks in the world. In that respect, I disagree with Marilyn. I think the Boomers were a lot better with their kids than the generation before but still I see your point.
It gets worse with each generation as the balance between being a nurturer and a disciplinarian becomes more and more tilted to the left.
Sarah Palin runs for VP and burps her toddler onstage for the world to see she's a good Mom...
I'm just glad the Obamas have kept their kids under wraps so far.
Sorry...but come on, now.
All politicians use their kids. Whether Ray intended it politically or not, for me, Palin was the first candidate since Soccer Moms became an entity in the nineties to be on a major ticket. Even though technically she was a Hockey Mom. That's what I see. Back when Geraldine Ferraro was on a major ticket it wasn't soccer moms but she still made that insufferable Pepsi commercial with her kids.
Please forgive the intrusion on my part, but for whatever it's worth, that's a superb article.
I don't think I was clear. What I was saying was that I saw Palin as exploiting the Hockey Mom routine for effect just as any other politician finds a way to exploit their family while saying deliciously and transparently contradictory things like, "keep my kids out of this."
Greg - But Flickhead said Palin "burped" her kids onstage, as though the Obamas didn't do the same. It's the same as it ever was, but Palin (who I'm not terribly fond of, despite my political leanings) gets singled out every time.
Bill, I wasn't singling out Sarah to be "political" ... I was using her as a reference point.
Greg, the Dr. Spock parents at least gave the impression of being grown-ups.
Geraldine Ferraro is of the generation when they had Mothers.
Sarah and Michelle are of the generation in which we have Moms.
...and for what it's worth, I'm not a Republican but I'd love to get my Freak On with Sarah.
Tom -- very glad you dropped in.
Thank you!
Bill, I wasn't singling out Sarah to be "political" ... I was using her as a reference point...
Okay, then I'll let it go.
and for what it's worth, I'm not a Republican but I'd love to get my Freak On with Sarah...
I'm told you can do so vicariously through certain pornographic videos.
That doesn't sound terribly Christian to me.
Ironically, it was the Clintons who had to be asked if they even had a child. They really did keep her under wraps (or possibly out of the way).
Wow...quite the discussion. I'm coming to this way late...I guess living on the West Coast DOES have its disadvantages.
First I just want to say that this is a brilliant essay on a film that I really struggled on trying to find more than a few words to say about. I'm with the majority here on who Jaglom is trying to emulate, and like them I think he fails miserably.
The film did suck me in though, and even though I was tempted to fast forward a lot of it, I stuck it out, and throughout the self-indulgent masturbatory Jaglom interrogations I was amused by Welles' scenes....which do indeed seem like they are from another movie.
I may have been able to get past all of the quibbles I have with the film had it been constructed in a competent way. I'm with Ed all the way here as I think he sums it up perfectly:
Anytime Jaglom had two people talking to each other or watching one another, I wasn't convinced they were in the same building, let alone the same room. His sense of space is horrible. He had a lot of scenes where one character was supposedly reacting to something happening elsewhere in the room, but when he'd cut I'd have no sense of where this person was supposed to be in relation to what s/he was reacting to. The filmmaking is beyond sloppy, it's utterly amateurish.
It's so true. I had a hard time knowing where I was in the film, and it just made for a disorienting experience that after a while wore thin and I pretty much just hung around to see when Welles would pop up again. And part of me wonders if Jaglom knew that about his film, which may explain why he so willy-nilly splices in Welles' scenes.
I've never had the patience for these kinds of films to begin with (films that are all-too-light on aesthetics) so I knew I was going to have an uphill climb to begin with, but nothing prepared me for how much I would loathe Jagom's characters. The film reminded me of Waking Life in that sense: it's neat for those who made the film, but really, I could go to any coffee shop and eavesdrop on pseudo-intellectual conversation, I don't need to spend two hours of my life watching it on purpose.
One thing that did kind of pique my interest was Welles' comments at the end when he talks about the collapse of the community /family/clan. It made me think he was talking about the art of filmmaking, since this comment comes after his acknowledgment that Jalgom makes different pictures than he did. I took it as Welles saying that the filmmaking process is definitely changing; now a man can just go out with a few people and camera, hit the streets and start filming...I don't know, I could be way off on that.
Anyway, great discussion. I'm off for a bit but I'll be back later to add more thoughts should I have any. Oh, and from now on I'm setting my alarm for 4am so I can be ready for things! Haha.
Great essay, here, and you make a fine case for the film. It just didn't work for me.
That doesn't sound terribly Christian to me...
Thankfully, she wasn't involved.
I know Pat's going to hate me for this, but I really didn't like Marcovicci's song. She was a real flavor of the year for a while - a sensation among the New York intelligensia - but she sounded like the poor man's Carly Simon to me, too tricked up, not much soul.
The final scene was especially ego-inflating for the Danny character (sorry to get back to the movie - I promise I'll say something political later). All the women return and flock around Danny because they just love that scoundrel so much! All the men have apparently left but none of the women have and Danny is there to show us how understanding of women he is by talking about feminism with another man.
I must say, the ending was the worst part for me.
but she sounded like the poor man's Carly Simon to me...
Wait a minute. I was under the impression that Carly Simon was a poor man's somebody herself.
Really, Greg? I didn't see it that way at all. I know he wanted to role around in their firmament so to speak, be the cock of the walk. But remember, they are all friends of his, and they do like him. I've been in situations where all the women decide to play cute with a guy, and it's sweet and a lot of fun. I thought it was a very endearing moment, myself. Even Helen, who still isn't really happy with him, got caught up in it.
The final scene was especially ego-inflating for the Danny character (sorry to get back to the movie - I promise I'll say something political later). All the women return and flock around Danny because they just love that scoundrel so much! All the men have apparently left but none of the women have and Danny is there to show us how understanding of women he is by talking about feminism with another man...
Yeah. Especially the way Danny kicks his feet up and lays his head (and that obnoxious hat!!) on his lady's lap. He's all "check me out Orson!" with that smile of his. I think Orson wanted to go up there and join him but he was stuck in between the row of seats and couldn't stand up.
Is she, Greg? I quite like Carly Simon. But maybe the poor man's Carol King...?
Carly Simon is the poor man's Carole King.
Dammit Marilyn!!!!!!!
I must say, the ending was the worst part for me...
Me too, and for the same reasons. The way he's just lounging on the stage while all the women are laughing about him -- as if to say, "That Danny! He's got his issues, but he's one in a million, that guy!" Drove me up the wall.
But remember, they are all friends of his, and they do like him. I've been in situations where all the women decide to play cute with a guy, and it's sweet and a lot of fun.
I saw that too, I just found it, as presented here, really smarmy.
Anyway, can you get your friends together and do that with me? Or Bill if I'm not available? We'll even where the silly hat.
That should be "wear" obviously.
BTW... I didn't like any of the songs, music in the film. I don't know how to describe it, but "New York intelligensia"-pop seems like the way to go.
I don't drink red wine and lean on pianos, so maybe I just don't get it.
I like Carly Simon too but I'd put her on the same playing field with Linda Rondstadt. Carole King is definitely the high water mark to reach.
I don't drink red wine and lean on pianos...
Do you know how perfect that line is for an online profile? Fox, add it to your Blogger profile now.
And what Bill said is another good description of how I felt about the ending.
Even Helen, who still isn't really happy with him, got caught up in it...
But that sounds like the movie should be seen as some sort of documentary. It's not. It's a work of fiction, however blurry Jaglom may want the lines to seem. He said half the film was scripted, and that whole sequence felt as though it was one of the most scripted and contrived moments in the whole movie. And it was contrived to make Danny this wonderful center, and I just couldn't stand it.
I love Ronstadt, too. And I thought as I watched that scene with the red wine, "Gee, I wish we had some red wine in the house!"
Greg, maybe you didn't like the scene because you already didn't like Danny. I didn't have that reaction to him at all. I didn't like Helen, and I wanted to shave her sweater. Gosh those fashions were hideous-squared.
BTW, I just got word that I'm a candidate to be on "Check, Please!" our local restaurant review show! President Obama was on it when he was just a state senator.
And what Bill said is another good description of how I felt about the ending....
Yeah, it is a bit funny that only Danny ends up there with the ladies, especially since many of them expressed interest in some of the other men. I kinda had the hots for the the Spanish woman and I kept asking myself why she wanted Danny so bad?!? Oh, and way to go, Stephen Bishop, on screwing up that flirty moment with Sally Kellerman by saying "so can we have major sex tonight?". He's quickly reduced to going back to playing with his Speak 'N Spell. No wonder he's single.
What did y'all make of the scene where Sally Kellerman takes her make-up off in a fit of anger seemingly aimed at Danny?
I didn't like Helen, and I wanted to shave her sweater....
Haha! You guys are cracking me up today.
I also found Helen's "crying moment" to be insincere.
She was Yugoslavian, Fox.
I'd mentioned Sally's makeup scene in my review. I think she was genuinely pissed off at Henry/Danny. And when Marcovicci tells her she should play Garbo, Sally looks like she's about to throw up.
Oh, and way to go, Stephen Bishop, on screwing up that flirty moment with Sally Kellerman by saying "so can we have major sex tonight?".
That seemed ripped off from Tootsie, when Michael as Dorothy talks with Jessica Lange's character about all the artifice that goes on between men and women and why can't they just say that they want to have sex. When he tries the exact line on her as Michael, she clocks him.
You know, Ray, she actually looked like Garbo in that scene. I was, "yeah, she should." I didn't see it for the putdown it was.
I think Sally shares Garbo's eyes.
Meanwhile, if anyone wants to come over tonight, I've got about ten other Jaglom movies on DVD we can watch.
Fox, the Yugoslavian woman was Welles' partner, Oja Kodar. I thought she was one of the best things about the movie.
Marilyn, I have to see that if you're on it! Also, since I am at home I popped in the DVD and went to the stage scene. One, the sweater! That's all I can think now, is shaving the sweater. Two, I still hate the scene. They're all smiling and punching him as he lays down with his head in Helen's lap and boy does it seem smarmy and contrived to me. Just my take.
Fox, I didn't buy that scene with Kellerman at all. I'm not even sure what it was about. It's pretty much out of left field and edited in randomly. As such, it had no impact on me but to feel like a scene from another planet in the middle of the movie.
She was Yugoslavian, Fox....
Oops! My bad. I hope I didn't offend any of you Slavs.
Anyway... I found he very erotic.
Flickhead-
That's interesting take you have on Kellerman's "throw-up" glance. I thought she seemed kind of honored. I don't know. But here's a chance for me to throw in that I liked Jaglom's cut-away splicing and editing. I know it was ripped-on earlier in the comments, but I found it engaging. It compelled me to be a more active viewer.
Meanwhile, if anyone wants to come over tonight, I've got about ten other Jaglom movies on DVD we can watch....
Bill & Ed are coordinating a carpool right now.
Marilyn - Bishop performed the theme song for Tootsie (IT MIGHT BE YOU) so maybe the come on line was an inside joke.
Can you swing by and pick me up. Where does Ray live anyway?
I actually could come over. I think I'm only about an hour and a half drive away. But I won't be so don't worry Ray, you don't have to clean up tonight.
Interesting, Greg! Maybe.
I'm ten miles from Chambersburg. We can grill up some squirrel burgers from the local Mennonite farm and put on some kettle korn.
One film worth Netflixing: Who Is Henry Jaglom?, a documentary that covers a lot of what's been discussed here.
geez, you all are getting mighty cozy. When I left, it was all about the film. Now I see you and Greg and Marilyn are about to have a threesome.
I see some new tagline:
"TOERIFC: where Friends Come to, You Know, Hook Up."
They have squirrels in Chambersburg?
Not to stray too far from the movie but to build on the Mennonite comment by Ray, the Amish markets throughout Maryland and Pennsylvania have the best damn meat, pound for pound, that money can buy.
Ray, I was in Gettysburg a couple of weekends ago. Drove up from visiting my daughter in Williamsburg VA; my mother, who flew in from Seattle, just had to see the battlefield. What a fun trip that was.
I'll be happy to carpool anyone to a location as far away from Flickhead's stack of Jaglom DVDs as it's possible to get...
And by the way, I sip red wine and lean on pianos all the time, and I still hated all the music in this film. It didn't strike me as "New York intelligentsia" at all, mainly because I usually think of music like that being more arty and spiky, rather than maudlin out-of-key singer/songwriter nonsense. To me, "New York intelligentsia" is John Zorn, not a poor man's version of something that's pretty poor to begin with...
At the risk of not sounding like I lean on pianos or sip red wine, who the hell is John Zorn? Any relation to Jim Zorn, former QB of the Seahawks?
I'll be happy to carpool anyone to a location as far away from Flickhead's stack of Jaglom DVDs as it's possible to get...
Ouch!
John Zorn is a free jazz saxophonist and composer who pretty much screams New York intelligentsia to me (and to most actual NY intelligentsia, I'd imagine).
He's quite good, too.
Not a big fan of free jazz ... not enough structure. Too much like my life.
Well, Flickhead, a rousing discussion and another TOERIFC success. I assume this will get up to around or past the 200 comment mark by tonight or tomorrow but if not it was still another great discussion. Thanks for choosing a film whose cover box I saw a million times over in video stores in the eighties and nineties, was always curious, but never picked up. Now I've seen it and I'm glad.
And it occurs to me that The True Meaning of Pictures and Boudu Saved from Drowning are the only two so far that I think everyone liked. We had a great discussion about the central photographer figure in The True Meaning of Pictures but I think we all liked the documentary as I recall. Maybe Ed's pick will get everyone back in agreement but seeing as it's Paul Verhoeven, I doubt it.
This by the way is the sixth TOERIFC post making it the half-year anniversary of this club. To everyone who has contributed and commented, thanks so much! I've got some more e-mail requests I have to add to the roster but everyone should know that slots for TOERIFC picks and write-ups are filled almost to 2011 at this point. Pretty impressive everyone. Thanks again.
Thanks, Greg. The Verhoeven film should spark some controversy. On the one hand it's an excellent film narrative; on the other hand it's hopelessly wrong-headed.
"...slots for TOERIFC picks and write-ups are filled almost to 2011 at this point."
I don't get to choose another film until then?
No, no you're in the TOERIFC Ten remember? Everyone else goes in between our picks. My next pick is either going to be PETE'S DRAGON or THE APPLE DUMPLING GANG. Haven't decided yet.
Oh, that's right: I'm a Big TOE. When's my next month?
Flickhead - No opinions on Black Book until next month!!
Speaking of the box for Someone to Love: It has that odd critic's blurb that says "...A Whole Wonderful Movie Unto Itself!"
What are they referring to? I assume they're talking about a specific section of the movie (the Welles section, maybe? The beginning, before the big gathering, which I actually kinda liked?), but pulling it out of context is really awkward.
Anyway, despite what I thought of the film, this was a great write-up.
Terribly wrongheaded? I smell a fight already. I love Black Book.
That's enough, you guys!
No talking about Black Book until July 20!
Anyway, nice job with this discussion, Flickhead, I may have hated the film but I greatly enjoyed your writeup and the subsequent conversation here. I must say I'm really happy that TOERIFC is pushing me towards some movies that I otherwise never would have seen. I'd never even heard of this film or Jaglom before this discussion, and now for better or worse I feel like I've learned a lot about him.
Speaking of pullquotes, a lot of you could take Kevin's line above, "The film did suck me in though" and prune it down to "The film did suck."
No more on Verhoeven, Marilyn. I love Black Book, too.
Jeez, Ed, you hated Someone to Love? I hadn't noticed...
Fine discussion and write-up, Flickhead. I second what Ed said, only I liked it, generally. I just wish Jag had showed up. Maybe he still will.
As of this afternoon, Jag hasn't replied to my email. Since the morning crew of this discussion is headed for the exit, let me offer these words from Jag in his interview in Who is Henry Jaglom?:
“If you try to be liked, you end up doing neither this nor that, because you’re doing something for people to like you. If you want to be known for who you are, and gotten for what you really are in life—and then, therefore, cared for, as we all want to be cared for as opposed to being liked, but cared for for what we are—then you can’t do anything to make it happen, because if you try to make yourself liked and it ‘works,’ it’s not you being liked, it’s your act.
“If you make a film to be liked, it’s not your film anymore that’s being liked, it’s what you did to get liked. If you are, in your personal life, uncompromising, you will be uncompromising in your creative life. I don’t know how you can be uncompromising as an artist if you are ‘full of it’ as a person.”
Got it?
My next pick is either going to be PETE'S DRAGON or THE APPLE DUMPLING GANG. Haven't decided yet....
I'm changing my August pick to The Serpent's Egg (Take 2: A new perspective!).
Just like his film. A mess, but I get it, and I really kind of like it. Except, if you don't compromise in your personal life, you will be lonely - a lot. We're not talking compromising basic principles, of course, but rather being respectful of others in one's behavior.
I may have to quote the most comprehensible part of this when I talk to my informal business "partner" about a more formal arrangement. I'm not really looking forward to that. Do you know anyone looking for a film blog that is uncompromising about reviewing non-cineplex movies
Got it?...
I think so. He's saying that movies are good for liking, right?
Do you know anyone looking for a film blog that is uncompromising about reviewing non-cineplex movies
What do you mean? Are you shopping "Ferdy on Film" around?
I'd love to write more but unfortunately I'm busy finishing my seven part review of Black Book that's going to run on Cinema Styles all next week.
Bill, I think you and I saw and thought of the exact same things with the movie and, it turns out, the cover box. That quote baffled me. It IS a movie so of course it's "movie unto itself." Any movie on Earth EVER MADE could use that quote.
Anyway, back to Black Book review.
I may have to quote the most comprehensible part of this when I talk to my informal business "partner" about a more formal arrangement.
Is Rod causing problems? Do you need me to fly Down Under and straighten him out?
Nope, it's not Rod. He's awesome. It's Beachwood Steve Rhodes. We had a difference of opinion about the myopia of news junkie readers who don't like it when people read celebrity news instead of the important stuff they read, but can't be bothered to get a little culture by reading Ferdy. Steve told me I can't expect them to care about an 80-year-old movie, which completely ignores that I and my (more than he has) readers do and that we review a lot of new films, too. Yes, Rick, I am looking to monetize Ferdy somehow; I'm at an age when if I find myself out of work, it might not be so easy to find something else. And Rod is poorer than a church mouse.
Anyway, back to Black Book review....
And Greg, please don't forget the LIVE Blogcast debate & discussion you and I will be having about Black Book starting next Monday and running every Monday until July 13th.
P.S. I went ahead and booked Verhouven and Arnold Schwarzennager to join us on two of those days.
Thanks.
I'm actually going to do a podcast on The Good Earth for Natsukashi next week. An Asian actor named Rodney Kagemusha will also be interviewed regarding depictions of Asians in early cinema.
Look forward to it Ray, it should be great! Ed, you should listen in. You might get some ideas for your review.
Marilyn, I hate when someone disses older or lesser known more recent films. I have had more than a few people actually ask me why I don't write about movies people care about. It grates on the nerves.
Is Rod causing problems? Do you need me to fly Down Under and straighten him out?...
Nope, it's not Rod. He's awesome....
Marilyn-
That's so kind of you to give Blago a second chance!
What a coincidence, Greg, you're doing your podcast on the same day as my forthcoming Ed Wood blogathon!
You guys better cut it out or I'm gonna change my selection to a Merzbow music video collection or something.
Fox - It's only because Patti is doing so well on that reality show they wouldn't let him do because they were afraid he'd jump bail.
Marilyn-
You know what's funny, is that I caught a portion of that show and actually found myself having sympathy for her. I don't know, maybe she is clean and that sympathy is warranted, but I totally felt myself getting sucked in b/c she came off as a nice lady. (Not saying she IS, just that I fell into that emotion for her).
She'll going down next year unless she flips on Rod. They've got all kinds of stuff on her.
Ed Wood Blogathon? [laughs nervously] Okay, I'll stop.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home