Essentials: Blazing Saddles

Bad taste? Who says?

Year: 1974 (USA)
Genre: Comedy/Western Comedy
Directed: Mel Brooks
Stars: Cleavon Little, Gene Wilder, Harvey Korman, Madeline Kahn, Slim Pickens, Mel Brooks, Alex Karras
Production: Warner Bros.






My introduction to the wacky world of Mel Brooks came from the admittedly mediocre medieval parody Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993). Its funny for the most part, but those in my generation who are adamant supporters of the merry romp probably haven’t seen it since they were knee high. Today the movie is as aged as a pair of hand-me-down gym socks. Though I suppose for children of the 70’s Up in Smoke (1978) probably existed before there was “bad taste”.



Blazing Saddles (1974) lives beyond the realm of bad taste and mediocrity. While aiming to please a mass audience and appeal to baser senses, Mel Brooks created a timeless classic that is masterful in its execution of politically incorrect irreverence. A western parody of epic proportions. A wondrous side splitting comedy…I may be getting ahead of myself.

For those who are not familiar with Mel Brooks and his perilous mix of high-brow and low-brow comedy, Blazing Saddles concerns the troubles of the western town of Rockridge. The people are being forced out by a politically connected bad guy (Harvey Korman), looking to cash in on the railroad craze. Requesting a new sheriff from the corrupt governor, the townspeople are surprised and angered by the appearance of Bart (Cleavon Little), a black man willing to take the job.

In addition to being famous as the mainstream introduction to the fart joke, Blazing Saddles is also noted or its frank and often hilarious treatment of racism. The N-word is uttered over thirty times over the course of a 90 minute movie, and the attitude towards African-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Native-Americans and the Irish is over-the-top bigotry on the part of the townspeople.

Thankfully we're moved beyond that kind of racism…right?

Cleavon Little plays Bart as a bright, savvy and appealing young man who is constantly at odds with the narrow-minded townsfolk and greedy villains. His only friend is a former gunslinger turned career alcoholic, The Waco Kid (Gene Wilder). Working together they devise several schemes to foil plans for a monopolized take-over of the local economy, all while slowly gaining trust with the people.

The fourth wall is broken several times over the course of the movie, one time near the end has been recorded in the annals of film history as the most outrageous Hollywood spoof of the seventies. It reminds me of an interview with John Cleese of Monty Python fame who divulged that the troupe could never find a good way to end their skits so they just smash-cut to the next scene. Mel Brooks obviously didn’t want to end his movie in a cliché way so he ended it with a similar tact only with much more mayhem.

The Pythons know a thing or two about breaking the 4th wall

As I have grown to love and appreciate westerns I have grown to appreciate Blazing Saddles more and more. There are subtle references to Shane (1953), The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948), Stagecoach (1939) and of course Destry Rides Again (1939) all of which are syncopated and propped up against references to Count Basie and Cole Porter. John Wayne was even approached to play a small role in the film but he refused saying it was too vulgar; he then told Brooks “...but I’ll be the first to see it.”

Those of the younger fold were probably introduced to Mel Brooks through Dracula: Dead and Loving It (1995); that’s if they have been introduced to his genius at all. I try not to be a golden age thinker but I can’t help but feel sad for those likely to miss out. From The Producers (1967) to Broadway‘s The Producers, Mel Brooks is no doubt one of the funniest, most original writers, directors and performers to ever exist. If you have not been introduced to his works check them out before its too late.

Final Grade: A

Essentials: Citizen Kane

Year: 1941 (USA)
Genre: Drama/Film a clef
Directed: Orson Welles
Stars: Orson Welles, Joseph Cotton, Dorothy Comingore, Agnes Moorehead, Ruth Warrick, Everett Sloane, Ray Collins
Production: RKO Radio Pictures







What can be said about Citizen Kane (1941) that hasn't already been said? Sights and Sounds magazine came out with its decennium list of best films ever and for 50 years gave Citizen Kane top prize. Last year Citizen Kane was relegated to the number two spot by the Alfred Hitchcock classic Vertigo (1958). Previously anyone worth their stuff would have to admit that Kane is at least among the best movies to ever exist. So to spell it out, even with some light bruising, Orson Welles's freshman feature has some high expectations to overcome.

I won't justify the critics by writing a manifesto on its artistic value. There are too many essays out there already who have done that in the past seventy years. Besides with, despite my enthusiasm for film and film history, I am by no means an expert. Therefore my "academic" justifications would seem disingenuous and misleading. Instead I will be introspective and give you my person reasons why Citizen Kane is, to me, #81 on my illustrious list of top 100 films and therefore one of the best movies ever committed to celluloid.

My interest in Citizen Kane peaked when I was in my late teens. This is when I started to take film seriously for its social and artistic value. Citizen Kane has appeared on multiple lists of important movies and therefore I was simultaneously intrigued and intimidated by the thought of watching it. After all the works of Federico Fellini and Robert Altman are for the most part plebeian to me despite being universally acclaimed. I have no serious means to justify my reasons for disliking Altman or Fellini so if I was not a fan of Welles I was clearly an unlearned philistine.

Clearly I'm the philistine

Strangely enough I was compelled to watch Citizen Kane only after watching Reefer Madness: the Movie Musical (2005). The Showtime original feature made veiled references to William Randolph Hearst; the larger than life newspaper tycoon who became the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane. I knew that Kane didn't exactly glorify the man so the scales were tipped and I rented it.

The first five minutes of the movie I had to remind myself I was watching something made in 1941. The use of shadows, mirrors and the assortment of camera techniques could easily fit into a modern Hollywood thriller. Cinematographer Gregg Toland used deep-focus camera techniques to fixate on both Charles Foster Kane and the space in which he inhabits. The technique was used extensively during the last act to create a sense of eerie emptiness, whereby Kane's world was enveloping him.

Ever have one of those days?

Deep-focus cinematography is just one of the many reasons Citizen Kane is from a technical standpoint near perfect. The story switches back and fourth between flashbacks, told from a myriad of different people. Their opinions effect the overall impression the audience gets of Kane and as a result, we cannot truly believe everything they say. Kane is seen as warm and brash in one flashback, then seen as cold and distant in another. What results is a movie whose central character leaves you with more questions than answers.

This was Hearst's plan B

I suppose the movie's enigmatic tone is what interests me the most about the film; along with its brazen political underpinnings. It was pretty clear upon release that Citizen Kane was a film a clef, and William Randolph Hearst who wasn't exactly pleased by its release. He accused Orson Welles of being a communist and according to legend Hearst arranged for a naked woman to jump into Orson Welles's arms when he entered his hotel room in New York. There would also be a photographer in the room to take a picture that would be used to discredit him. Welles stayed away from his hotel room that night so its unknown whether this is true.

What was true was Hearst may have sunk the film. It was a financial dud for RKO films and it would only go on to win a single Oscar for best screenplay. Welles would go on to direct a hand-full of American films before settling in France, however his autonomy was compromised. He would never have complete artistic control for a major studio financed film again. This is not to say his other American films; The Lady from Shanghai (1947), Touch of Evil (1958), and The Stranger (1946) weren't excellent. But if Welles had more freedom to do what he wanted, he might have had more than just Citizen Kane and The Trial (1962) to brag about.

While I could go on and on about the brilliance of Citizen Kane, the best way I can summarize it is to say that among the list of movies accredited as "the best ever," Citizen Kane is among the least overrated. The plot is great, the story structure is great, the artistry is great; everything about it is great. The best? Well that's ultimately up to you.

Final Grade: A

Poultrygeist: Night of the Chicken Dead

Choke that chicken!

Year: 2006 (USA)
Genre: Horror Comedy/Musical Comedy
Directed: Lloyd Kaufman
Stars: Jason Yachanin, Kate Graham, Allyson Sereboff, Robin L. Watkins, Joshua Olatunde, Caleb Emerson, Rose Ghavami, Khalid Rivera
Production: Troma Entertainment



From the studio that brought you Tromeo and Juliet, The Toxic Avenger (1984), and Class of Nuke'Em High (1986) comes Poultrygeist: Night of the Chicken Dead (2006), their latest campy gross-out-fest that will send you on one crazy ride. Allow me to describe the first five minutes:

Couple Arbie (Jason Yachanin) and Wendy (Kate Graham) enjoy their time together getting jiggy with it at the local Tromahawk Indian Burial Ground, and are enjoying a final tryst before Wendy goes off to college. They start to make passionate love on the grounds when suddenly a gaggle of zombie hands reach out of the ground and start to massage their bodies. They don't notice, even when one of their hands pokes into Arbie's rectum and snaps a finger off. They are eventually scared away by a man masturbating in the bushes who picks up his underwear and continues choking the chicken. A zombie arm reaches up from the depths, penetrates his anus, reaches up out of his mouth, grabs the underwear and pulls it all down. After that things get even more absurd and gross.

Shall we continue?

Wendy promises to stay true to the unambitious Arbie but as the very next cut shows, a few semesters in college has turned her into a protesting hippie liberal lesbian who marches against the opening of a fried chicken chain built over the same Indian burial ground. Out of spite, Arbie lands a job at the Chicken Bunker where strange things are occurring. Soon the whole restaurant is overrun by chicken zombies out for revenge. Oh and did I mention it's also a musical?

Kinda like Black Swan

In the tradition of Roger Corman, Lloyd Kaufman's modern musical-horror-comedy is a bare-knuckle exploitation schlock-fest. With buckets of blood and low-tech special effects this film possesses a low budget spirit that only Kaufman can muster. The dialogue in this movie is very nail-on-the-head type stuff and the satire is far from subtle. With character names like Arbie, Wendy, Denny, Carl Jr. and Paco Bell, it's obvious what this movie is poking fun at.

2010 to Present

Fast food however isn't the only sacred cow getting skewered in this musical as each character also fulfills a cliche (socially or cinematically) as to poke fun at nearly everything under the sun. Rose Ghavami, who is covered in a burqa for most of the film, exaggerates her eye movements to the point of eye-popping silliness as an insulting Muslim stereotype. Caleb Emerson's Carl Jr. keeps things interesting when he's on screen as an unsanitary hillbilly and Robin Watkins effectively hams it up as Chicken Bunker's evil capital-minded proprietor General Lee Roy.

Second best movie about explosive diarrhea

For those of us with a sick sense of humor this movie is absolutely hilarious for its "so-bad-it's-good" quality. I love this film. It makes no pretensions on what it sets out to do and it really wears its heart in its sleeve. That being said, I cannot recommend this movie to ANYONE! Not a soul. It's one of those movies I believe is geared towards me and me alone. Anyone interested in the single best movie involving explosive diarrhea won't be disappointed.If not, go watch The Proposal (2009) or something.

Final Grade: A

Essentials: Witness for the Prosecution

Grade A #1!!!

Year: 1957 (USA)
Genre: Drama/Courtroom Drama
Directed: Billy Wilder
Stars: Charles Laughton, Marlene Dietrich, Tyrone Power, Elsa Lanchester, John Williams, Henry Daniell, Norma Varden, Una O'Connor
Production: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

Many people contend that the idea of enumerating your favorite movies (or favorite anything for that matter) is a foolhardy proposition. Things change after all, depending on your mood, interests, range of experiences etc. After all when I started organizing and curating my favorite DVDs my all time favorite was BASEketball (1998). I was also fifteen-years-old. Still, even when I was a teenager I still enjoyed the works of director Billy Wilder; I still do. Whether its Sabrina (1954), Sunset Blvd. (1950) or Ace in the Hole (1951), his dedication to quality is only eclipsed by his incredible versatility. In a career spanning just shy of fifty years, Wilder has done every genre under the sun from film noir to romantic comedy.

He was also kind of a pimp

In Witness for the Prosecution (1957), Billy Wilder takes a stab at the courtroom drama genre taking inspiration from the work of the esteemed Agatha Christie. Charles Laughton plays British barrister Sir Wilfred Robards a trial lawyer who recently suffered a serious heart attack. Told by his doctors to take it easy, Sir Wilfred’s interests are peeked by a murder case brought forward by a friend. His decision to take the case is aided by the promise of cigars, brandy and a murder trial where things may not be what they seem. Tyrone Power costars as defendant Leonard Vole and Marlene Dietrich brings down the house as his wife aka the witness for the prosecution.

Our leading man everybody!

Charles Laughton made quite an illustrious career for himself back in the day. Especially for someone who was never considered leading man material because if his unconventional appearance and girth. Not only was he an accomplished, award winning actor of the screen he was also an adept stage actor and director, starring in London and New York Shakespeare productions of MacBeth, Measure for Measure and A Midsummer Night’s Dream.


Laughton makes Witness for the Prosecution work. Period. Without him and his consistently wily, quick witted sense of humor, the movie’s pacing would have relegated Wilder’s masterpiece to Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) light. Laughton’s chemistry with his overbearing nurse (played by real life wife Elsa Lanchester) provide brevity to the melodrama surrounding the case.

The melodrama however comes in spades with Marlene Dietrich playing the defendants icy German wife. Dietrich is a vision of valkyrie beauty who presents herself as an untouchable beauty yet coils like a cobra every time she’s under pressure. There is much under the surface of her character and while the last five minutes of the movie betrays her sensibilities, there is no one else who could have played the role with better aloofness and malice.

or awoofness and mawice

 As the credits role in Witness for the Prosecution, an telecaster announces no one should ruin the surprises and twists in the story for the sake of their friends. In that spirit I won’t ruin anything for you. That being said the plot twists are rather Byzantine as they are unveiled to the audience and Sir Wilfred. It's not that the final reveals are unrealistic; its that they're not coaxed or prodded out but rather fall out of the movie like the truth out of a toddler.

I just shaved the dog!

The works of Billy Wilder will make one more appearance on this list and even then the triptych I have chosen don't accurately portray the depth of his talent. He’s one of my favorite directors and one of the most talented individuals of Hollywood’s golden age. He worked with the likes of Humphrey Bogart, Jack Lemmon, Kirk Douglas, Marilyn Monroe, Barbara Stanwyck, and of course Charles Laughton and Marlene Dietrich. If he were alive today he probably would have reinvented himself in the style of the blockbuster style. A Billy Wilder action-shot-em-up; now wouldn’t that be the cat’s meow.

Final Grade: A

Teachers

The ditto machine aka what we used before copiers

Year: 1984 (USA)
Genre: Satire/High School Movie
Directed: Arthur Hiller
Stars: Nick Nolte, JoBeth Williams, Judd Hirsch, Ralph Macchio, Allen Garfield, Richard Mulligan, Laura Dern, Crispin Glover, Morgan Freeman
Production: United Artists

I caught Teachers (1984) one night while channel surfing through Showtime. It was already five minutes in but imagine my surprise when I saw the image of a dignified educator lunging at an old man by a ditto machine, blue ink spraying all over both and the astonished crowd. When the woman is finally retrained and thrown out of the office, vice principal Rubell (Judd Hirsch) smarmily remarks “she’s the school psychologist”.

Thus the precipitating events of this corrosively funny satire begin. We’re introduced to Mr. Jurel (Nick Nolte), a cynical yet avuncular history teacher who goes through the motions at work if he manages to show up at all. He has the respect of the kids and the administration (who is under scrutiny for graduating an illiterate student) tolerates him. When asked to fill in for the burnt out psychologist, Jurel slowly starts to reveal his idealism, hidden underneath so much snark and sour. His main sources of inspiration are student and spirited troublemaker Eddie Pilikian (Ralph Macchio) and Lisa Hammond (JoBeth Williams), a lawyer/former student who leads the legal charge against the school district.

Karate Kid cant red good!

Hospitals have improved slightly since 1971

Director Arthur Hiller wanted to repeat the critical and box office success of the Oscar nominated The Hospital (1971) with Teachers. Both movies focus on highly regarded institutions who have been atrophying and deserved a good kick in the pants. Additionally both are incredibly dark and feature some promising drama from their leads. Unfortunately Teachers wasn’t such a hit critically as the sudden shifts in plotting and mood made it too hard to gage. For a drama these issues could be glossed over but in a comedy, specifically a black comedy, such crimes are unforgivable.

I love this movie because it presents some of the most systemic problems that exist in an urban public school, albeit exaggerated and askew. There are dreadful teachers whose crimes in this film range from being unable to control their pupils to instigating sexual relations with them. The principal is an no-nothing nitwit who’s ignorance about the day-to-day operations of the school may be his saving grace and the competent educators are actively trying to obfuscate the truth behind the school’s low performance.

Today Delaware tomorrow the world!

Out of the many loose treads that the story weaves, the story of Herbert (Robert Mulligan) is by far the most entertaining. Jurel provides dimensions, Rubell caters the lunacy, but Herbert provides the pure joy and inspiration of being a teacher. He’s also certifiable; an outpatient from the local mental hospital who likes to play dress-up in his history class. Even so, his classroom becomes one of the few bright spots in the darkened corridors of the school. Educators should be so lucky to have the gravitas and temerity of Herbert aka Mr. Van Ark.

Its the muggles! The fucking MUGGLES!!!

Teachers isn’t the movie that convinced me to become an educator and life long learner. There is no such movie. But Teachers is the movie that convinced me that you have to be a little crazy to be an educationalist. There is a quiet dignity to dedicate your life to children and young adults. Not everyone is cut out to raise and instruct one child let alone a classroom full of pupils. It is for this reason, and the very real issues partially exposed in Teachers that our educators are to be treated with respect. After all, they’re nuts!

Final Grade: A

Essentials: Salt of the Earth

CGI? What the hell does that mean?

Year: 1954 (USA)
Genre: Drama/Family Drama/Message Movie
Directed: Herbert J. Biberman
Stars: Rosaura Revueltas, Juan Chacon, Will Geer, Clinton Jencks, Virginia Jencks, Henrietta Williams, Angela Sanchez
Production: Independent Production Company

Whenever I watch an older movie I always try to realize that they were conceived during a specific period in time; within a continuum that overlaps with history if you will. As a result, the directing, acting, special effects and social attitudes of a specific era can live on in celluloid and seem hokey or even offensive today. Its not always easy to realize this; I can't help but giggle when I witness the special effects of the 1940's in The Thief of Bagdad (1940), but in the case of Salt of the Earth (1954), Herbert J. Biberman's masterpiece still remains ahead of its time.

The story, based on true events, takes place in a small mining town in New Mexico. The Quintero family live in a small hobble with no running water and a tightening budget. As the patriarch (Juan Chacon) slaves away underground, Esperanza his wife (Rosaura Revueltas) anxiously awaits the birth of yet another child. After a workplace accident (facilitated by a questionable company policy), the miners walk off the job. What starts out as a small, organic labor strike soon turns into an engrossing drama about racial and gender politics.

Whoever votes to take Two and a Half Men off the air say "Aye!"

Everything is told from the point-of-view of Esperanza who over the course of the film becomes more deeply involved with the labor union. Her, along with a few key organizers help unite the splintered groups; men and women, Mexican and white miners. This of course is done with the stern disapproval of her husband and many of the men in town.

Behind grainy resolution and shoddy camerawork lies unbridled confidence both behind and in-front of the camera. Rosaura Revueltas's voice-over evokes immediate sympathy to the character and her sun-kissed natural beauty shines a bright light in some of the darker moments. Juan Chacon in his first and only film performance also does a fine job. He may not have the acting chops of a seasoned veteran but he nevertheless has a commanding stage presence that is not easily taught. The real treat however is Herbert J. Biberman's direction which brings to mind the best of Jean Renoir's American films but with a touch of Godard. In one intense scene, he smash-cuts between two pivotal moments creating a palpable tension that sent my heart fluttering.

At the height of the Red Scare, this unabashedly pro-union film became a source of much controversy when it was released, comprising of many progressive and blacklisted actors, writers and producers. Produced on a minimal budget, the film was only exhibited once before being blackballed for over a decade finally finding an audience within the burgeoning counterculture of the late 1960's. In today's social and political climate Salt of the Earth remains as salient as ever. fizzled-out movements like Occupy Wall Street could learn a lesson from Esperanza. We all could.

Final Grade: A

Essentials: Trading Places

How come you never see black cats in top hats?

Year: 1983 (USA)
Genre: Comedy/Satire/Screwball Comedy
Directed: John Landis
Stars: Eddie Murphy, Dan Aykroyd, Jamie Lee Curtis, Ralph Bellamy, Don Ameche, Denholm Elliott
Production: Paramount Pictures

The original title for the Eddie Murphy helmed comedy masterpiece Trading Places (1983) was Black and White. Those who have never seen Trading Places could get pretty good idea of what the source of conflict is; well kinda. For while Trading Places does focus a lot of time and humor on race, the large satirical jabs are focused on the subject of class. Of course in 1983 class was intrinsically tied to race where as today it’s a modicum less so.

Let us start at the beginning; Louis Winthorpe (Dan Aykroyd) is a pompous Wall Street commodities investor working diligently for Duke and Duke Investing Co. The Duke brothers (Ralph Bellamy & Don Ameche) are wealthy but bored, argumentative curmudgeons who decide they want to weight in on the nature versus nurture debate. They devise a plan to elevate a shifty conman Billy Ray (Eddie Murphy) to a position of power while simultaneously knocking down Winthorpe to the level of a commoner just to see how things turn out.

Not ready for primetime indeed

It’s a fascinating if grotesque experiment with some pretty hilarious results. The whole thing is made all the more believable by the acting chops of Eddie Murphy, Dan Aykroyd and Jamie Lee Curtis, all three of which were considered largely un-bankable. Eddie Murphy was considered too green, Curtis too “scream,” and Aykroyd funny, but not ready for primetime. Director John Landis however had faith in his actors who each bring something new and exciting to the table. We should all be so thankful for his uncompromising vision.

The script is as sharp as it was 30 years ago, in fact much more cutting given the current revulsion towards bankers and Wall Street. After Don Ameche and Ralph Bellamy explaining to Eddie Murphy the nuts and bolts of what they do, he remarks “It sounds like you all are a bunch of bookies.” To which one Duke looks to the other and says “he’s ready.”

A true riches to rags story

The movie climaxes at the New York World Trade Center where our two heroes face off against our villains in arguably one of the most unique ways in cinematic history. While it is true that seeing people screwed over and left paupers isn’t necessarily uncommon via movies, seeing it on the trading floor over the course of what seems like ten minutes is a stroke of genius. It highlights the ludicrous nature of commodities brokering and trading in general, and yet you can’t help but being in awe of the chaos.

It’s more interesting still when you consider that despite some superficial artistic license, the whole ending is actually quite realistic. Or at least it was back in the 80’s. Today commodities futures have “circuit breakers” which prevent brokers from selling short and selling exponentially during down markets. Additionally, as of 2010, the misappropriation of government information for financial gain has been made illegal thanks to the Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act. Section 136 of said act is informally known as “The Eddie Murphy Rule” in reference to Trading Places.

It became harder to be an asshole only after this happened...

All timeliness aside, Trading Places is still a fascinating and funny film which glides across controversial issues like race and class to create something truly new and exciting. All players had something to prove with this film, and they all succeed gloriously. Speaking of glorious, those who have seen Trading Places on TV don’t know what they’re missing. AMC has gone a long way in quality but it still censors the good stuff.

Final Grade: A

Star Trek

Year: 2009 (USA)
Genre: Sci-Fi Action/Space Adventure
Directed: J.J. Abrams
Stars: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Eric Bana, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Winona Ryder, Leonard Nimoy
Production: Paramount Pictures

Moment of honesty, I was never a Star Trek (1966-1969) fan growing up. In fact, when my brothers watched Next Generation in the living room I often walked out to play with my Matchbox Cars. I found the whole enterprise boring and later, when I wasn’t completely lacking taste, I never sat down to watch any of the various series or movies. Ask me which I would prefer, I was solidly in the Star Wars (1977-2005) camp.

My introduction to Star Trek in all its glory didn’t really start until I saw the teaser trailer for the 2009 movie. The teaser was simple; just a few close shots of the infamous Enterprise being built with heroic music swelling in the background. The whole thing felt like the beginnings of something colossal and I was actually a little excited for a movie whose expanded universe I knew little about. Once I actually saw the likes of Captain Kirk and Commander Spock on the big screen, my mind was absolutely torn asunder by the awesome ride that was Star Trek (2009).

The movie begins with a microcosm of what’s to come; a universal anomaly, a spacecraft being blown to smithereens, high octane action and drama. The first five minutes has more emotional weight than most movie franchises, and it only goes up from there. We are introduced to the ensemble who all have their moments but the main story arcs concern Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto).

We see snippets of both their youths. Kirk grows up an intelligent, suave but angry young man who is coaxed by Admiral Pike (Bruce Greenwood) to join Starfleet. Meanwhile Spock grows up the product of two worlds; having a prominent Vulcan father and a human mother. He’s teased in his youth for this very reason and thus becomes about as rebellious as a Vulcan can be by joining Starfleet. There the two meet and don’t quite get along. They do however have a common enemy, Nero (Eric Bana) quixotically entitled “the last Romulan Emperor”.

By the halfway mark Nero has taken loved ones from both protagonists and committed one horrible act of genocide. Despite this, the film accurately captures the zeitgeist of the original series. It’s a hopeful film about people at the pinnacle of human and alien understanding trying to gain even better insights into the universe. A film about explorers who go where no man has gone before and stop evil from grabbing hold in the cosmos.

See, I know this because after watching Star Trek, I went back to the well to not only see the original cast in the show but the movies as well. In addition I went and watched a few episodes of Next Generation and even became friends with George Takei on Facebook. There is a reason why Star Trek is one of the longest running franchises in history and its not just fan boy love.

It’s because each generation has left its mark on the franchise while staying true to Gene Roddenberry’s spirit. The newest Star Trek crew are clever, energetic, and youthful. The Enterprise ship has the look and feel of an Apple Store with an external dampener, and the movie has slightly more pomp and circumstance than the films before it.

Kill the wabbit! Kill the wabbit!

Or after it; Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013) while action-packed, wasn’t nearly as original or interesting. It certainly doesn’t approach the gold standard of Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan (1982). Nor does it reach the stars quite like the 2009 reboot. Here’s to hoping J.J. Abrams has a few more tricks up his sleeve.

Its funny how we can be introduced to new things; or rather old things we previously had no interest in. I was introduced to Wagner through the Bugs Bunny short What’s Opera Doc? (1957). Who knew that Elmer Fudd singing a parody of the opening passage from Act Three of Die Walkure would be so enduring and cultivate an interest in opera. Star Trek is similar in my mind. It may not be the real McCoy, and to many it’s not the best version of Star Trek’s reality. But to me it’s the gatekeeper to a brave new world.

The real McCoy

Final Grade: A

Essentials: South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut

Childhood ruined...

Year: 1999 (USA)
Genre: Animated Comedy/Satire
Directed: Trey Parker & Matt Stone
Stars: Trey Parker, Matt Stone, Mary Kay Bergman, Isaac Hayes, Brent Spiner, Minnie Driver, Dave Foley, George Clooney, Eric Idle
Production: Paramount Pictures

When people think cartoons they automatically draw memories from their youth; bright colors, fantastic heroes and lovely princesses. Boy and girls of a certain age love the magical kingdom of Disney and the sly humor of Warner Bros. Saturday morning cartoons. Today, with the advent of computer digital imagery cartoons have risen to a whole new level of experience for the young. But we all have to grow up someday I guess.

That is unless of course you are a fan of Comedy Central’s savage satirical cartoon show South Park (1997-Present). Drawn in a crude, cardboard style and centered around three foul-mouthed boys from a Colorado mountain town, South Park brought a level of edginess to the animated arts not seen since The Simpsons (1989-Present). The level of South Park’s accomplishments is even more impressive when you consider all the episodes are written by two men, college friends Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

A few years after their runaway success the duo decided they wanted to green-light a feature length movie focusing on the four boys and the chaotic town they call home. What resulted was arguably one of the funniest animated-musical-comedies to come out in the latter part of the 20th century.

South Park knows little about low-comedy

The story of South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut begins with the four boys being refused at the movie theater for wanting to watch a rated-R movie. The stars of the movie are a pair of Canadian comics, Terrance and Phillip, who traffic in the lowest of low comedy. So naturally the boys don’t want to watch a watered down TV version a year after the fact. They manage to sneak into the Bijou and are exposed to the movie which sets the parents off on a crusade against the entire nation of Canada. The boys Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Cartman (All voiced by Parker and Stone) must then put a stop to things before everything spirals out of control and Hell itself engulfs them all.

The world in which the boys inhabit is full of hyperbole, anarchic bedlam, and catchy, brilliantly written musical numbers. Avid aficionados of classic musicals, Trey Parker and Matt Stone wanted to convey that affection at a time when musicals weren’t in vogue. The heads of Paramount Pictures were not 100% on board with the decision yet still slated South Park for a June release.

Weeks after opening night, reports of underage teens sneaking into the film began to circulate causing a bit of controversy for the film. The MPAA originally slapped an NC-17 rating on the Guinness Book of World Record holder for most curse words in an animated film. That decision was later rescinded but didn’t put parents’ minds at ease. There were minor protests here and there but overall the film was a rousing success, garnering praise from critics and an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Song.

Parker and Stone would later go on to pen a Tony Award winning musical The Book of Mormon and create an impressive marionette-themed action satire called Team America: World Police (2004) which also collected accolades and controversy. This is in addition to reaching new heights with the Emmy Award winning South Park for fourteen more years. Not bad for two foulmouthed kids from Colorado who never grew up.

Not bad at all

Final Grade: A

Essentials: Laura

...and Jimmy Stewart also made porn

Year: 1944 (USA)
Genre: Drama/Film Noir/Mystery
Directed: Otto Preminger
Stars: Dana Andrews, Gene Tierney, Clifton Webb, Vincent Price, Judith Anderson
Production: 20th Century Fox

What is film noir? Film critics and snobs (like myself) throw that phrase around like it some kind of well-known, easily defined, internal feature of film history. Those who are casually familiar with film know who were in them; Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Vera Miles, some even know a director name or two. But Humphrey Bogart was also in westerns and Alfred Hitchcock also made comedies and film noir is still a catch-all for black-and-white mysteries with darker themes and brooding main men.

Is Otto Preminger’s Laura (1944) a film noir? On it’s surface it certainly is. The yarn starts with a police detective prying into a murder, there are multiple plot twists and a seductive woman in the center of it all. Yet through it all the murder means very little when it comes to the theme and point of  which while subversive are never as dark as Chinatown (1974) or as macabre as The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934).

So you're sayin' I really could save 15% or more on car insurance

Nor does Laura feature a hardboiled detective with a ruddy past or a fatal phobia;
Dana Andrews plays his lieutenant McPherson without a sense of urgency or malice. He’s a flatfoot doing his duty and whose only drive stems from a infatuation with the assumed deceased. Likewise Gene Tierney’s seductress Laura isn’t much of a vamp or naif; stock characters almost necessary for the film noir fold. She’s more of an unwitting victim in a inundation of intrigue.

He also suffers from shrinkage

The main objective of the plot swirls about the two main leads yet it is the supporting characters that are memorable. Clifton Webb was nominated for an Oscar as New York columnist and unconscionable snob Waldo Lydecker. Lydecker plays multiple roles in Laura’s drama playing the narrator, comic relief, the audiences’ thoughts and the seething, bitter sidekick to the lieutenant, at least for the first part of the movie.

Lydecker is also a suspect in the murder case along with society wastrel Shelby Carpenter (Vincent Price); fiancée to the distraught Laura. Price was 33 at the time of the film’s release and under contract with 20th Century Fox; well before he found his mellifluous niche as the sophisticated bad guy. In Laura however, Price plays a dolt who looks like the cat who ate the canary.

Laura was also released before this happened

They, along with socialite Ann Treadwell (Judith Anderson), live in their own reality, made murky by the circumstances of murder. Not because either of the three are the assassins, but because the homicide becomes an excuse to expose their dirty laundry in front of high society and the NYPD. One is embarrassed, another is accustomed to public shaming and the third relishes it.

Its never important

So is Laura still, strictly speaking a film noir? I would say no. While the element of murder is there, the atmosphere lacks the abhorrent juiciness, the principle characters lack anti-hero qualities and the mystery isn’t all that important. Laura is much better categorized as a tense, interesting, witty and insightful murder mystery which exposes deeper meanings about love and obsession. The main characters are almost immediately overshadowed by the supporting cast and the murder holds little emotional weight.

The novel of the same name by Vera Caspary is considered in many circles to be a pre-feminist story as it favorably presents a woman with a healthy professional and sexual life. While much of that was downplayed in the film, much of it shows through. So while it may still be considered film noir by some, at least it makes it less of a boy’s club.

Final Grade: A