What-to-Watch Wednesday - Batman Beyond: The Return of the Joker (2000)
This is the first animated film in my W2W series and the first one not to have a theatrical release. Not that that matters a fig to any of you, but I thought I'd mention it.
Something else you may not know (or care about) is that I try to re-watch the films I recommend in effort to have something fresh and unique to say about them. When I re-watched Batman Beyond: The Return of the Joker, I found nothing new to think or feel about it, other than it remains a solid entertainment fifteen years after its release. And, it stands strong among the multitude of DC Comics animated movies, most of which have been consistent in their high quality.
Like the best adaptations of super-hero comics, RotJ grounds itself in its source material and uses that to spring forward with a compelling story of its own. That in and of itself is what we comic book nerds really want in the film adaptations featuring our beloved characters: connection to the old while bursting towards something new. And, for some reason, Batman and his mythology seems especially capable of maintaining a solid core while allowing for some exciting change.
Batman Beyond is a prime example of this. It started out as a follow-up series to Batman: the Animated Series, set approximately fifty years in the future of the DC Animated Universe as created by Bruce Timm. A new, younger Batman is now protecting Gotham while an elderly Bruce Wayne acts as mentor and guide. The new Batman is Terry McGuinness, and he is less grim, more humorous than his predecessor. He also has a suit equipped with all the latest technological advances one would expect to find on a Batman suit fifty years in the future. It was a fun series that carried on the tradition and standard of quality begun in Batman: TAS.
As a feature length film, RotJ does the nifty trick of fitting in smoothly within the continuity of the series, which was still airing when the movie came out, while presenting a complete, self-contained story so non-fans or casual fans (like me) could appreciate it. The story is indeed about the return of Batman's ultimate arch-nemesis, and that mystery fuels the action, particularly since it had already been established in the series that the Joker was long since dead.
The answer behind the Joker's return is a great reveal and satisfying in how it ties together the past and present of the Batman Beyond continuity. Plus, fans once again get to hear Mark Hamill's legendary portrayal of the Joker alongside Kevin Conroy's wonderful voice characterization of Batman/Bruce Wayne.
But, that is just the icing on the cake of a very well-made animated film that pleases fans of the TV show while being solid entertainment for those who just want to see a good Batman movie. Fans and non-fans alike will enjoy what Batman Beyond: The Return of the Joker has to offer.
(Side note: RotJ has also become just as famous for the many edits it had to undergo in order to get a pass to air on television. The blu-ray disc has both versions, and I think either is acceptable as complete, fully-realized movies, but neither version is suitable for children under the age of ten in my opinion. The unedited version is rated PG-13.)
What is the line between life-fullfilling passion and life-threatening insanity? Can a man be too passionate about his beliefs or way of life? And, what are the consequences when our perceptions don't match reality?
These are the questions Werner Herzog wants us to ponder about Timothy Treadwell, the naturalist and bear enthusiast who spent 13 summers camping in the Katmai National Park and Preserve in Alaska living with and filming the indigenous bear population. Treadwell and his girlfriend, Amie Huguenard, were eventually attacked and killed by one of those bears. The documentary attempts to recount the events in Treadwell's life that led to his unusual lifestyle and death.
For me, the film isn't about any of those questions though. Instead, it paints a portrait of a man who very egotistically disregarded the savage indifference of nature because he romanticized the existence of wild animals. And, he did all this at the expense of authentic human relationships. Grizzly Man is in many ways a tragedy about hubris and its destructive effects.
Through personal interviews and various video clips, Treadwell slowly emerges as someone very arrogant and exceedingly attention-starved. He bemoans his lack of a satisfying love life by spilling his guts to a bear, which seems almost comically indifferent to everything Treadwell says. We learn that he is a failed actor who lied about his background and even affected an Australian accent for a period in his life. And, we learn of his contentious relationship with the park service workers, many of whom felt Treadwell ended up doing more harm than good for the bears he purported to protect.
As a film, Treadwell's story is engrossing as we view clips of the hours and hours of video footage he took of his time out in the wilderness. Some of the images he captures have a grandeur and beauty that can only be found in the wild. But, there are moments, particularly when he interacts with the bears, in which you want to yell at the screen for him to move away or hide. In those moments, we are seeing a man almost delusional in his belief that these creatures are kindred spirits and that he can connect with them on a spiritual level.
So Grizzly Man works mainly as a cautionary tale about the dangers of inappropriate human interaction with nature and wild animals. It shows us a man who was largely disconnected from his fellow human beings and sought love and understanding in a world that could not offer them. Although Treadwell is someone to be pitied, the film wisely doesn't take an overly sympathetic view towards him and, in exchange, it offers us something to ponder about the realities of our own lives.
What-to-Watch Wednesday: Everyone Says I Love You (1996)
"It's Bavarian pasta, it doesn't need sauce. The Italians need sauce. The Italians were weak!" You ever hear a movie line that struck your funny bone in such a way that no matter how many times you hear it, it makes you chuckle? The one I quoted above from Woody Allen's Everyone Says I Love You is such a line, spoken by the German cook of a wealthy Manhattanite family. The line's humor is derived from its historical resonance and the situational irony of a domestic talking back to her employer. But, I don't want to bore you with my dime-store literary analysis. The real joy of Everyone Says I Love You is the whimsy it brings to the characters and their situations. The movie just refuses to take the troubles of these affluent people seriously, and the songs serve to punch up their melodramatic ridiculousness. The songs are the real stars anyway. Allen chose to use old standards rather than brand new material, and the result is a soundtrack you can hum along to while you watch the characters and their situations become more and more absurd. As with many Woody Allen films, there are multiple storylines with characters and plot events weaving in and out of each other. All of the stories in Everyone Says I Love You deal with love and its various foibles. And, occasionally, the characters sing about what they are feeling and experiencing. These moments take the form of boisterous ensemble numbers ("My Baby Just Cares For Me") to intimate moments in which characters seem to be singing privately to themselves ("I'm Through With Love"). For the most part, both the singing and the dancing are characterized by how average they are. Allen shied away from using authentic dancers and singers and instead had good actors just sing and dance as an extension of what is going on with their characters. Many of them could already hold a tune (Alan Alda and Goldie Hawn), but most of them are just good actors with no particular vocal talent (Edward Norton and Julia Roberts). The result is paradoxically charming. Edward Norton's unpolished voice really accentuates his character's goofy love for his fiancee. Julia Roberts' pitch problems introduce a vulnerability to her character as she is being wooed by Woody Allen. To describe this film is risk the idea of turning people away - a musical featuring actors who can't really sing or dance - but, to watch it is to be pulled into a silly world of people sometimes acting foolishly. And, somehow, it all works.
The best satires are thinly veiled reflections of true life events and figures. Anyone who remembers the 1990s will know in an instant that Primary Colors is not only a send-up of Bill and Hillary Clinton but also the political climate of that decade. And, like truly great satires, Primary Colors is funny but offers a biting commentary on very serious subjects.
Directed by the late, great Mike Nichols, Primary Colors is based on the novel of the same name and purports to provide a fictionalized behind-the-scenes account of Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign. John Travolta plays Jack Stanton, a Clinton-esque governor from an unnamed southern state. Emma Thompson plays Susan Stanton, his tough-as-nails wife, who is in many ways smarter and more qualified than her husband for the job of president.
I mention that last bit because Hillary Clinton (the basis for Susan Stanton) has just recently announced her second run for the Democratic presidential nomination. The last time she ran, I remember how many of the criticisms she faced during that campaign were explored nearly ten years earlier in this film while she was still First Lady. Again, the power in good satire is how it holds up a critical mirror to what we are and why we are that way.
As for the movie, one thing I've come to appreciate about it over the years whenever I re-watch it is how we aren't given easy answers about the Stantons. Roger Ebert pointed out in his review of the film that there are never any scenes of the Stantons alone interacting just with each other. Because, really, how could any film seek to understand what a political couple like the Stantons (or the Clintons for that matter) are truly like with each other? How does a wife deal with her husband's infidelities when seemingly larger issues are at stake? What compromises and concessions would the two have had to have made in order to get as far as they did together? Primary Colors implies these things are unknowable unless you are one of the people in the pairing.
What we do get is a glimpse of the effects such a couple has on the people around them. We are introduced to the Stantons through Henry Burton, an idealistic campaign manager and grandson of a Civil Rights leader, who has become disillusioned with his current political work. The Stantons recruit him for their campaign, and Henry begins an emotional tug-of-war of genuine admiration for the Stantons and disgust at the tactics they use to get ahead.
We also meet the strange, sometimes very eccentric staff with whom the Stantons surround themselves. One that stands out is Libby Holden, played with great energy by Kathy Bates. Libby is a staunch supporter of the Stantons and will go to extreme lengths to protect them. Like Henry, she idolizes the Stantons although she appears to be aware but less deterred by their flaws. After one heartbreaking revelation, Libby holds the Stantons accountable for the people they once were and still pretend to be. This scene provides Primary Colors with a rare moment of deep sincerity and pathos.
Also deserving mention is the performance of Larry Hagman as Fred Picker, a former governor who comes on the scene and steals attention and political mojo from Jack Stanton. His scenes provide an emotional weight to the movie and ask the question about what we have the right to expect out of our political leaders. Hagman is truly magnificent in this role, and I've always felt he (as well as the rest of the film) should have gotten more attention during the movie award season.
Be that as it may, the satire and political commentary of Primary Colors hold up nearly twenty years later. Next time you come across it and have an opportunity to watch it, give it a chance.
February through April tends to be a barren wasteland for movie goers as Awards season has come to a close and the industry is gearing up for the Summer Blockbuster season to kick into high gear with the first wave of releases in May. And, movies released in this wasteland period are often completely overlooked by the general public and by the industry a whole. Donnie Brasco is, in many ways, one such movie.
Released on February 28, 1997, Donnie Brasco quickly became a critical success. And, it even can be considered financially successful as it made nearly three-times its budget. However, being released so early in the year meant that it was largely forgotten by the time summer rolled around and was largely ignored by the major movie awards that winter. Had Donnie Brasco been released in the award-baiting season (September - December), it most certainly would have been a serious contender for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Supporting Actor. Unfortunately, that isn't what happened, so Donnie Brasco joins a prestigious and ever-growing list of great movies overlooked by the industry that created them.
Donnie Brasco is based on the undercover investigation of FBI Agent Joe Pistone into the upper echelons of the Bonanno crime family in New York City. Assuming the identity of Donnie Brasco, Pistone infiltrated and gained the trust of the Bonanno family and eventually gathered evidence that brought the family to its knees.
The film, however, is not about the investigation or how Donnie (Johnny Depp) maneuvers as an undercover agent. Instead, the film focuses on the relationship Donnie forges with Lefty Ruggiero, an aging hitman played by Al Pacino. Initially, the relationship is Donnie's way into the family, but it eventually turns into a genuine friendship between the two men with Donnie torn between his duty as a law enforcement official and loyalty to his friend. Tension builds as the investigation draws to a close and Donnie desperately seeks a way to save Lefty from his fate at either the hands of the FBI or his fellow mobsters.
The real power of this movie comes from the finely acted scenes between Pacino and Depp. The two actors deliver performances that are both real and heartbreaking as their friendship looms closer and closer to disaster. In his portrayal of Donnie Brasco, Depp came into his own as a screen actor with this film in finally playing a "normal guy" role while holding his own opposite Pacino. Pacino dials down his usual over-the-top bluster to give a nuanced, sympathetic portrait of a man desperate for friendship and very much in need of being someone's idol. Both are actors at the top of their game, and it is something to behold.
One last note: most critics took notice of Pacino's final scene in the movie. It is a master class in the use of subtle expression and gestures to suggest an inner state of turmoil and regret. There are a multitude of reasons why Lefty leaves the small drawer open before he leaves the room, and Pacino's performance makes you ponder many of them.
When I was in fifth grade, I read an article about Bill Cosby and Keshia Knight Pulliam (aka Rudy Huxtable) in an issue of Jet magazine. In it, Cosby described how he and Pulliam related to each other on the set of The Cosby Show, particularly when filming scenes together. He told a cute story about how Pulliam would correct him on his lines if he didn't say them exactly as written and that her corrections would sometimes ruin takes.
I remember thinking what a funny, even adorable thing that was. And, I think part of me, not being much older than Pulliam at the time, subconsciously appreciated Cosby's patience with her childish antics.
A few years later, when I was about seventeen, Cosby made an appearance on The Oprah Winfrey Show. The Cosby Show by that time had been winding down for a season or two, Rudy was pretty much all grown up, and Cousin Oliver...uh, I mean... Olivia had been introduced on the show, played by Raven-Symone. She was there to replace Pulliam as the young foil to Cosby's Dr. Huxtable.
Symone also appeared on that episode of Oprah. She came out and did some cutesy schtick with Cosby which culminated in Cosby telling Oprah and her audience the exact same story about Symone that he had told Jet about Pulliam a few years earlier. Now, I don't mean to say he mentioned an interaction between Symone and him that was similar to what he and Pulliam experienced years before. No, what he said was nearly identical word for word as though he were retelling a joke but only changing a name and a few details.
Recalling what I read in Jet years before, I remember thinking in all my angsty, teenagery cynicism, "This guy is full of shit."
Of course, it didn't help that, unlike Pulliam, Symone was an "experienced" child actor and had all the affected mannerisms and reactions that term implies. And, it also didn't help that, unlike the Jet article, this interaction was on video where I could see Symone mugging for the camera and Cosby gently coaching her on what to say and when. So, yeah, I couldn't help but think: "Bullshit."
That was the thinking of my oh-so-opinionated seventeen year old self. Subsequent years softened my opinion into an understanding that yes, that story is bullshit, but it was also Bill Cosby cultivating the image he wanted to project to the public to ensure the continued success of his show. Deceptive? Okay. Dishonest? Maybe. But, I'll address that in a moment. Either way, establishing and maintaining a certain image is the game played by celebrities and politicians alike, and it would be foolish to believe Cosby was ever an exception to this. He just did it far more effectively than most.
The Allegations
What connection does this personal observation of mine have to do with the multitude of rape allegations Bill Cosby is currently facing? Nothing, at least not directly. Certainty on what is true and what isn't about these allegations may never be available to the public in any way that could be called satisfying (although I think an argument can be made that the public would never be satisfied regardless of what the truth actually is). And, I feel anyone not personally involved in this matter who is able to have a feeling of absolute certainty one way or the other should seriously consider their own bias before examining the issue.
As it stands, several women have come forward and claimed that Cosby first drugged and then sexually assaulted them. By and large, it appears these women have nothing to gain from making these claims. And, given the statute of limitations on this sort of crime, Cosby will more then likely never face any criminal charges. To date, aside from a reported joke made at a show in Canada, he has remained basically silent about the accusations.
Some say that the sheer number of women coming forward should be convincing enough in a where-there's-smoke-there's-fire logic. And, yes, the fact that all these women are coming forward with essentially the same story and not backing down under scrutiny is very compelling. However, that is the same logic that allowed for twenty people to be put to death in the Salem Witch Trials. In that situation, there was also a group of women hurling accusations, not backing down under scrutiny, and stirring the public into a frenzy. And, in the end, twenty people lost their lives.
Of course, nothing like that is happening to Bill Cosby. He's in no apparent danger of losing his life. I can't even say he is having his career destroyed by the allegations because, really, what career has he had in the last fifteen years or so? The height of his fame was back in the 70s and 80s, and his career has been diminishing in bits and pieces ever since. Regardless, he certainly isn't going to be hurting financially when all of this is said and done.
What has happened is that the carefully crafted public image of him as the quintessential father figure has been torn asunder with relish by the media and a public spurred on by the allegations. It is an image (and the power it provided) that some say protected Cosby from the repercussions of his alleged actions for all these years.
The Image
If that is the case, the question we need to be asking ourselves is this: assuming these allegations are true, why would an image provide someone with enough power to escape the consequences of multiple heinous crimes? After all, we aren't talking about an excess of extramarital affairs, like Tiger Woods or Bill Clinton, that, while being morally repugnant, at least involves willing participants. Cosby, on the other hand, is being accused of serial rape, an act that demands great moral aberration as well as the objectification of another human being. How could a celebrity, even one of Cosby's caliber, do something like that repeatedly for so long and not (at the very least) come under public fire for it in a more timely manner?
Some have said that it is the pervasive ideas and beliefs brought on by an endemic rape culture that objectifies, infantilizes, and finally victimizes women. I would agree with that up to a point. How women are perceived and treated in our society does in fact help someone with enough wealth and power side-step the consequences of sexual assault.
However, that unfortunate fact has been true for a very long time. And, it doesn't explain how so many women could have been abused over the course of several decades with it being kept a secret from the public. After all, Cosby isn't some anonymous weird uncle whose creepiness is an open secret and who people say to avoid. He's BILL COSBY, a beloved public figure, someone who has visited people's homes for decades through our televisions, and who has been a welcome presence there for as long as I can remember.
But, that might just be the answer. Bill Cosby as the funny, lovable father figure is a modern-day icon. And, in today's world, being an icon inevitably means money. A lot of people stood to make a lot of money from Bill Cosby's popularity, particularly in the 80s. And a lot of people stood to lose much had Cosby been exposed.
The Real Problem
So, what should be of real concern to the public? We seem to want to tear Cosby down in some modern-day form of Old West justice where instead of a tree limb and rope, we're using social media and vitriolic language. We do love our righteous indignation and relish every opportunity to point the finger at someone, but is Cosby really the one we as the general public should be tearing apart?
Certainly, the women he allegedly assaulted have cause to speak out against him. Their loved ones would understandably be filled with anger and hatred. But, the average person who has no personal involvement in the matter? How does that individual figure into all this?
The fact is we should be angry, but not at Cosby. Or, not just at Cosby. Assuming the allegations are true, we should be angry at the Hollywood system that allowed this to happen by either turning a blind eye or aiding Cosby in his continued cover up. Because, again assuming these allegations to be true, many people had to have known about it and did nothing to stop it.
This idea first started germinating in my thoughts when a theater friend of mine told me she had heard "fishy" things about Cosby while she was trying to make it as an actress in the 1980s. Apparently, the general message being spread was that young, good-looking actresses should avoid Cosby whenever possible.
Then I saw an interview with Roseanne Barr in which she gave her input on the Cosby scandal. In the interview, she implied that it was about time something like this was made public because most women in the entertainment industry knew someone who had been assaulted. She stopped short of saying assaulted by Cosby, but when pressed by the reporter, she made it clear she meant Cosby.
The reporter also asked Barr a question to which she gave a very thought-provoking answer. When asked why she thought these years-old allegations were just now coming to light, Barr said, "Because nobody gives a damn...until a man says it."
The man Barr referred to is Hannibal Buress, the comedian who made a joke about Cosby's rape history and is credited with causing the explosion of women coming out claiming to have been sexually assaulted by Cosby. Although Barr was speaking about sexism in the industry and blaming it for silencing these women until a man took up their charge, her words do bring out another issue: Bill Cosby is no longer a major power player in Hollywood, so damaging his reputation, his legacy doesn't offer a substantial loss to corporate Hollywood. As Barr says, "nobody gives a damn" now. In other words, nobody stands to lose anything (particularly money) by these horrible things now becoming known.
Except us, that is. Those of us who grew up watching Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids. Who remember Picture Pages as well as The Electric Company. Who have fond memories of laughing with our families while watching The Cosby Show on Thursday nights. We stand to lose a great deal. If these allegations are true, what does that mean for those of us who grew up learning life lessons from Cosby's work? Are those experiences invalidated? Should they be? What now?
I tried watching an episode of The Cosby Show recently on Hulu and couldn't get through it. I just couldn't shake the feeling of how wrong it is to appreciate, much less enjoy, the work of someone who is probably a serial rapist. Yes, I know Cosby has not been charged with anything. Yes, I know that Cliff Huxtable is a work of fiction, separate and distinct from Cosby the man. Yes, I understand that humans are multi-faceted beings, comprised of both noble and evil qualities, and so it is possible for one person to display both the best and worst of what humans are capable.
Ironically, that was going to be the original point of this blog post: that we the American public, in order to salvage our childhood memories, have to separate Cosby's work from Cosby himself, regardless of the truth. The work itself is true and good if not the man himself.
As an adult, I've come to realize and accept the fact that the icons of my childhood were/are fallible human beings, subject to the same vices and failings to which the rest of us succumb. I saw the first crack in Cosby's facade when I watched that episode of Oprah. But, while I have been very successful at separating a person's work from the actual person (I can still appreciate Tiger Woods' golfing skills as well as the successes of Clinton's presidency), I simply cannot reconcile an appreciation of the work of a man who is a rapist.
So, yes, I suppose I do believe the allegations to be true and cannot get beyond that. Although I wholeheartedly believe in "Innocent until proven guilty," that idea really only exists in the courtroom if at all and requires one to be devoid of passion and emotional connection. And, I am emotionally connected to this. I feel angry and betrayed because we were sold an image, and in accepting and buying into that image, we were made unwitting participants in the systematic cover-up of one man's brutal actions. And, make no mistake about it, there was a cover-up, a code of silence - there HAD to be - in order to protect the money-making "legacy" of Cosby's work.
Right now, I don't have any answers on how to reconcile the experiences of my childhood with the ugly truths that are now being exposed. I don't think any of us ever will, at least, not for a long, long time. But, my belief in the phoniness of Hollywood has certainly been reinforced with the horrible knowledge that greed really can outweigh common decency.
To: Scott
From: Steve
Re: You still haven't seen Cloud Atlas
Dude,
We've been best friends for almost fifteen years now. In that time, we have shared some good times and bad times. We've bitched, griped, and complained about the world around us. Joked our way through some legendary conversations(if only in our own minds). And we've advised each other through various trials and tribulations.
With all the interactions we've had as a result of our friendship, chief among them are the exchanges we have due to your stubborn refusal to watch Cloud Atlas even as I espouse again and again just how great a film it truly is. While I say it is a grand epic that ties together six different stories spanning several centuries, you say three hours is way too long to have to watch a movie. While I admire the blatant theatricality of having actors play several different roles as well as the themes and connections it implies, you say it sounds confusing and too many characters makes it hard to follow. And, while I love the back and forth and crisscrossing of stories and timelines, you say you can already feel the headache coming on just thinking about it.
In a sense, you are right. Cloud Atlas is a hard sell to most movie goers. Why watch a film that requires that much time and attention when there is equally worthy yet far more digestible fare out there? To be honest, I have no answer for that. I only know that Cloud Atlas had me from Tom Hanks' opening monologue to the stunning extended montage-style ending. I have watched it several times since I first saw it in the theater, and it just hasn't lost its power to move me. The stories and their characters, the multitude of connections and thematic variations - it all feeds my desire for complexity and richness that I typically only encounter in literary texts.
Each time I watch it, I follow a different thread woven into the story. One time I followed the path of the characters played by Tom Hanks and discovered the story of a soul slowly changing from villain to hero through the power of love. There is also the recurring element of two souls finding each other again and again in different lifetimes, sometimes with a happy ending, sometimes not. And, then you have the mystery of the comet-shaped birthmark. What does it signify? How are those that bear it linked together?
For me, there's a real power in this movie. And, because of that, I get why people resist it or even outright hate it.
True, it's no Josie and the Pussycats, but, then again, what is? Still...dude, at least watch the trailer. :)
