Criss-Cross-Dressers Movie #4: Victor/Victoria

Apologies for the delay, folks.  Today's film is Blake Edwards' gender-bending musical Victor/Victoria.  Which is interesting for a few reasons, not least of which is that it's a remake.  In this day and age it's easy for film nerds like me and others to hop on the internet and vent our spleens about the evils of remakes.  And yet we have movies like Carpenter's The Thing and today's film to prove us wrong.  Another reason this movie's interesting is because it's a 1982 film talking frankly and positively about homosexuals and homosexual cohabitation.  It's almost depressing how hard homosexuals have to fight for their rights given the fact that culture has long been having this discussion.  It's also interesting to ME specifically because it's a perfect example of what I find missing in many contemporary comedies.  But I'll get to that in a moment.  Here's the plot breakdown (warning, this is a long one):

In 1930's Paris, soprano singer Victoria (Julie Andrews) is unable to find work. She bombs an audition at Chez Lui, a tawdry night club where aging gay diva Toddy (Robert Preston) works. The same evening Toddy starts a fight at Chez Lui with his soon-to-be ex-lover and is subsequently fired. Later that night, Victoria runs into Toddy at a Paris restaurant where she is scheming to plant a cockroach in her food in order to get her meal for free. The plan goes awry after the cockroach escapes, starting a riot in the restaurant which Victoria and Toddy use to escape into the rain-drenched Paris night. They spend the night at Toddy's apartment fighting colds and discussing how they got into their situations.  The next day, Victoria dresses in Toddy's ex-boyfriend's clothes to return to her hotel and retrieve her belongings. However, Toddy's ex shows up to pick up his clothes and when he insults Toddy, Victoria breaks his nose and shouts at him. After seeing Victoria act like a man and dressed in man's clothing, Toddy hits upon a plan to help both her and himself earn a living: Victoria will pretend to be a man pretending to be a woman, and get a job as a female impersonator in a nightclub. In order to enhance the ruse, Toddy will pretend to be her gay lover.  Soon Victoria's new persona, "Count Victor", becomes the toast of Paris. As money and fame start to turn their lives around, an additional complication arises. King Marchand (James Garner), a gangster, finds himself at first attracted to Victoria -- enraging his tiresome girlfriend, moll Norma (Lesley Ann Warren) -- until the end of the performance, when Victoria "reveals" herself as "Victor", to King's dismay and Moll's delight. Later that night at the hotel, King and Norma get into a fight and he ends up sending her home to Chicago where she cries in great detail to King's boss about how King Marchand left her for a man. Marchand starts to investigate Victor, sure that he could never fall for another man, but in the end King declares that he does not care and kisses Victoria, who comes clean. King's burly bodyguard Squash (Alex Karras) discovers King and Victoria in bed together and assumes that his boss is gay, which allows Squash to reveal his own homosexuality.  Victoria realizes that she must come to terms with what she really wants out of life: to be true to herself by giving up her career and fame in Paris to be with the man who loves her and whom she loves, or to continue with her duplicitous profession and risk losing Marchand.  Meanwhile, the owner of the Chez Lui club attempts to expose Victor as a fraud, suspecting "him" of being the soprano whom he rejected from his club earlier.  A detective is hired to expose Victor.  Across the ocean in Chicago, Norma tells King's gangster partner that he's gone gay, prompting the gangster to fly to Paris.  While the pressures mount from outside, King faces his own insecurities as he keeps Victoria's secret at the cost of everyone believing him gay.  Victoria finally removes King's tension by giving up her act and allowing Toddy to play Victor, which defeats the Chez Lui owner and King's gangster partner, who sees that the act is not what he was told.

I want to get my complaints out of the way because I have a lot of praise to heap on this movie.  But it's not perfect.  Like many Blake Edwards movies, Victor/Victoria suffers from Too Much Fun syndrome.  Basically the audience (and undoubtedly the filmmaker) is having such a good time with the charming, funny characters and the charming, funny action that the plot suffers a LOT of wandering and weakness.  There is no satisfactory ending to the plotlines of this movie.  Conflicts are created and dealt with either far too easily (because they take away from the fun) or not at all (that ending.... woof....).  Many of these conflicts are introduced late in the second act to boot.  I enjoyed the hell out of the movie, but now that it's over I realize that I still have about a dozen unanswered questions and that kinda makes me mad at Blake Edwards.  Fun is fun, but you don't have to break narrative structure to have a good time.  As well, King is an odd choice of love interest.  He's handsome and charming, certainly, but he's also a gangster, gruff, and at least initially something of a homophobe.  I ended up liking him well enough by the end, but Victoria falls for him almost right away and I just didn't get it.

Now for the praise.  I'm gonna start by going into a tiny bit of a rant.  The humor in Victor/Victoria is somewhat farcical, somewhat slapstick, and largely verbal.  It's a damn witty movie.  And watching it I realized that I really miss wit in comedies.  Contemporary comedies are so geared towards the extreme that we've lost touch with smarter verbal humor.  Contemporary humor leans to the crass and absurd.  Which is fine in limited doses, like anything.  But that's ALL we get from mainstream comedy.  That or weak romantic comedies.  Or Sandler movies, if you can call those "comedy".  If there's anyone out there reading this blog who can think of a top grossing comedy in the last year (or 5, or 10) that could be considered "witty", by all means correct me.  Victor/Victoria is gut-busting hilarious and it does that in a way that's classy.  The movie doesn't shy away from sexual humor or vulgarity when it's funny, but neither does it rely on that low humor for every chuckle.  And while there are touches of the absurd here and there, this is no Tim & Eric staring at the screen in fake pimple makeup while Avid effects swirl in the background for ten minutes.  It's balanced and witty and I laughed my ass off without feeling like I'd just given the finger to somebody or sat through Blake Edwards' oblique self in-joke (ie: everything I hate about Tim & Eric).

Humor aside, this film works because these are compelling characters who you want to watch every second.  Toddy (or Gay Centauri as I thought of him a few times) walks the line of stereotype Queen precisely because he's so aware of that line.  One gets the impression that he acts overtly gay because he just likes the act.  He's a charmer and a rascal and brilliant with a one-liner comeback.  My favorite characters in comedies are the characters with whip-smart comebacks.  (Which is why I will forever and always have a huge crush on Kat Stratford in 10 Things I Hate About You).  Who couldn't relate to Victoria's financial woes?  Her resolution to just go for it with the cockroach scheme and then later the Victor scheme is winning.  This isn't a girl who weeps about her problems and lets them get the best of her.  She has the necessary cry and then leaps into action.  Like Toddy, Victoria's got some real zinger one-liners.  The relationship between the two characters is greater even than the sum of their parts.  Watching Victoria and Toddy play off each other in the comedy scenes AND in the quieter personal moments tugged at my heartstrings, which are easily tugged when it comes to male-female friendships.  My best friend is a woman and there's something.... I dunno, different, about having a close friendship with a woman.  Even if that relationship wasn't resonant with me personally it would still be a lot of fun to watch.  Garner as King is interesting, though I took a while to warm up to him.  Eventually you feel for the guy.  He truly does give it his best shot with keeping Victoria's secret at the expense of his own masculine reputation.  King could have ratted her out at any point but he didn't.  I wasn't pleased by his overtly macho ways of dealing with his discomfort, but I understood and gave the guy a pass.  The pleasant surprise came in the form of Squash, whose revelation of homosexuality was played somewhat for laughs but was also played for a genuine bit of drama.  Squash makes some really insightful comments about homosexuality and the need for some men to overcompensate.  And once he has allowed himself to be out, Squash wastes no time in sharing that aspect of his personality with his boss.  He could have backslid once he found out about Victoria, but Squash maintains his courage.  For his part, King was confused but admirably accepting of Squash's admission.  As with Victoria and Toddy, King and Squash make a great duo that is better than the sum of its parts.  There seems to be genuine warmth between the two men.

As always, here are the mid-movie thoughts:

- Ah, "Blake Edwards". I feel confident that I'll enjoy this one.

- Director of photog Dick Bush. Dick. Bush. Wow. That poor kid.

- Ah, good old Sugardaddy queens.

- hahaha... the old fat guy eating is so over the top and hilarious

- The creep hotel manager is awesome! Man, I have a feeling I'm going to really enjoy these ridiculous people.

- I just realized that Robert Preston is Centauri from Last Starfighter. I'm sure when people saw Last Starfighter they were like, "Holy shit, it's Robert Preston!" Me, I'm like, "Holy shit, it's Centauri!"

- hahahaha... this fucking waiter is AMAZING! Jesus, every scene has something funny in it...

- In a contemporary comedy we would have been IN the chaos instead of outside of it, which is much more effective.  Contemporary comedies (and action movies, come to think of it) suffer the mistaken impression that we need to be inside every action that occurs in the plot.  Sometimes it's more effective to witness the action from a distance.

- I like that the movie is building slow. It's just developing these characters, hovering near the plot.

- The advantage of a period drag movie is that the notion hadn't become so widespread. I didn't buy it in Connie & Carla that people would be suckered by the ruse because everyone's hip to drag. But in the early half of the 20th century people didn't know nearly as much and thus wouldn't be so quick to suspect. - Also, this movie is smart enough to CUT HER FREAKING HAIR!!!  And bind her damn boobs!!!  See, Connie & Carla could really have taken a lesson from this movie.  Choose actresses who can sell the man part (sorry, Nia and Toni both have decent racks) and cut their freaking hair.

- The magician balancing gag is fantastic!

- Oh wow, John Rhys-Davies?  "Sala, when did you get a nightclub?"

- Jesus, again, this is SO MUCH BETTER than Connie & Carla. Garner's character is doing a great job at disbelieving, which acts for the audience, but since we know he's a douche we're less inclined to care about the fact that it's really not that believable.

- Leslie Ann Warren as Norma is pretty hilarious, too. A little aggravating, but funny.

- Is Garner gonna be a sourpuss the whole movie?  Jesus, dude, crack a smile.

- The soap in the mouth is hilarious. And the King-Squash reaction is just as great.

- I could do with a few less of the crowd reaction shots from Rhys-Davies and Preston.

- Dammit, she's clearly got cleavage. They should've addressed that.  One thing that Connie & Carla does right is deal with the whole "our performance breasts are fake" issue.

- King is a douche. Why are we supposed to care if he ends up with Victoria?

- hahaha... nice, the wave gag pays off!

- "terrified heterosexuals". Amen, sister!

- The "You and Me" number is so damn charming...

- I can't tell if King knows and that's why he's so smugly smiling or if he's just playing charmed by the relationship between Preston and Andrews.

- Ah, the movie answered that question. And it's a wonderful answer.

- Squash is a great out of nowhere heroic character.

- There's a half hour left in this movie and I have no idea where it's headed. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed it, but I also feel like this last half hour is going to be awfully messy and not that good.

- The two of them at the boxing match and opera is awfully sitcom-y.

- Oh shit! That hammer to the thumb gag looked unintentionally gruesome.

- Wait, what???  That doesn't resolve anything! What the hell kind of ending is that?  Ugh, dammit Blake Edwards, you did it to me again!

Did the movie satisfy the theme?  Yep.  I'd say this was a much smarter way to deal with the whole plot device of woman-as-man-as-woman than the aforementioned Vardalos disaster.

Overall, I would highly recommend this movie to anyone looking for a good old-fashioned farce.  It's witty, it's hilarious, and the characters are damn engaging.  It's also a pretty good musical, though the numbers are limited to actual staged numbers only.  I'd even say if you don't like musicals or farce but you DO like The Last Starfighter, there's something fascinating about watching Centauri as an old queen.  Just be prepared to kinda hate the ending and not feel all that satisfied about the conflict.  It's a hell of a lot of fun, it just could have benefited from a plot-conscious rewrite.

Okay, so I'm behind by two movies and a "Theme explanation" blog.  I'll get at least one of those done by the end of the weekend, if not two.  Seeya then!

Criss-Cross-Dressers Movie #3: Connie & Carla

Oh man.  Someone spare me from tired cliches.  Between this movie and the last my brain feels like something the cat dragged in.

HOLY SHIT, THE CLICHES HAVE INVADED MY BLOG!!!!!!

At this point I'm sure someone has a snide remark about the fact that I sometimes speak or write in cliches myself.  Please do let me know in the comments.  (Okay, so I really just want comments on my blog.  Sue me.)

Anyway, Connie & Carla isn't an inherently bad movie.  It has some fun moments and if you're in the mood for a gal-pal comedy you could do worse.  But it's spectacularly UNspectacular, which is a shame considering the talent on tap.

Here's the plot rundown (my own this time, as none of the websites I usually go to for these is terribly informative):

Connie and Carla (Nia Vardalos and Toni Collette) are two waitresses who have long dreamed of being a dinner-theater showtunes act.  Since their childhood together they've performed odd quick-change stage shows for tiny audiences.  In Chicago, the girls accidentally witness a mobster-related shooting and go on the lam to protect themselves.  They end up in Los Angeles (the joke being that L.A. "has no culture" and thus would be the last place mobsters would try to find the two theatre-loving gals).  After a failed couple of stereotypical L.A. jobs, Connie and Carla stumble upon a drag bar run by Ian Gomez (of "Drew Carey Show" and "Norm" fame).  Gomez is looking to add a new act to the current dismal run of drag performers, so Connie and Carla dress up as men in drag and perform live.  Which is a big hit as most drag queens perform lip sync.  Connie and Carla then must maintain their secret identities as real women while also trying to make it big without getting caught by the mob.  AND Connie develops a crush on fellow drag queen Robert's estranged brother Jeff (David Duchovny), further complicating things and potentially exposing their identities.  The show gets bigger, Jeff tries to accept brother Robert's lifestyle, the mobsters travel all over trying to find them, and hijinks generally ensue.  And musical numbers.  LOTS and LOTS of musical numbers.  Eventually Connie and Carla's well-meaning but blundering boyfriends conveniently find work with the mobsters who are looking for the pair, and the mobsters overhear the boys talking about their missing gals and a stray phone call from L.A.  The mobsters send the boys to L.A. and have them followed.  The boys see Connie and Carla on local TV and notify the mobsters.  On the night that Ian Gomez opens his brand-new dinner theater with Connie and Carla as the opening number (complete with their hero Debbie Reynolds as a guest), the mobsters find Connie and Carla.  Chaos leads to the mobsters getting caught eventually by the police thanks to the interference of the fellow drag queens and club owner Gomez.  And Vardalos is able to reveal to Duchovny that she's actually a woman, making it okay for him to have been attracted to her.

Woof.  Okay, a couple of things right off the bat.  This is very much a gender-bent Some Like it Hot but with about 1/10th the charm.  Also, this movie smashes you over the head with its theme, which unfortunately is one of the most over-used themes in American film: "Be yourself."  I'm sick to death of American characters struggling to "be yourself" or learning "to thine own self be true" or whatever other way you want to put it.  You know what?  Be someone else!  How about a movie that says, "Be someone you aren't because the person you are is an obnoxious, self-congratulatory jerk."  I'm just done with that theme.  At least as written by people like Nia Vardalos, who knows how to write a decent joke but naught else.  Also, this movie is about an hour of story and 40+ minutes of a stage show.  Which I guess is fine if you want to watch Nia Vardalos sing with Toni Collette.  Personally, it made the movie feel like a ridiculous vanity project.  An impression not aided at all by the fact that Connie is the romantic lead, the stronger of the two women, and pretty much the cat's pajamas.  I'll be interested to see if Larry Crowne benefits at all from the fact that Vardalos is NOT playing the female lead of her own script. 

And!!!! Like Kinky Boots before it, Connie & Carla focuses on the least interesting characters.  You know who I wanted this movie to be about?  Not Robert, though his relationship with brother Jeff would be more interesting and definitely worth developing.  In fact, that relationship was the strongest and most compelling in the film.  No, I want to see a movie about the Ian Gomez character.  He doesn't play as flamboyantly gay as the drag queen characters, but clearly he must either BE gay or have some emotional attachment to a gay person if he continues to throw himself into his club the way he does.  And Gomez underplays him perfectly.  I've noticed this about him generally over the years.  He's a really effective character actor.

So is there anything I did like about the movie?  Yes.  As mentioned, the relationship between Robert and Jeff (Duchovny) is played really well.  It feels genuine.  Where most comedies would have Jeff accept his brother with little effort, this movie makes Jeff uncomfortable with Robert's drag persona and lifestyle.  He has to get used to it, which is not something you'd ordinarily see with this kind of film.  It's kind of strange, really, that Vardalos made this relationship SO compelling.  Did she not realize that it would be more compelling than the friendship between Connie and Carla?  Or did she assume that she and Collette were just so fab that nothing could possibly take our attention away?  In any case, I thought the slow acceptance on Jeff's part was done well.  And Duchovny took that minor relationship development into a greater height by playing against his charm.  He allowed it to be a flaw in the character.

I also thought the musical numbers were funny and a lot of fun.  Or most of them, anyway.  The first show we see Connie and Carla perform in an airport bar is pretty hilarious, especially the quick-change costumes.  Assuming for the moment that Vardalos and Collette actually sang their parts (it would be a little silly otherwise), they have damn good voices.  I don't know a lot about musical theater.  I wish I knew more, but I don't.  But what I've seen I've liked, and what I like is powerful voice.  I definitely got that sense watching the musical numbers.  (I also take weird perverse amusement in the fact that Princess Leia's mom looks in better shape than the Princess herself these days).

Still, overall I was enormously disappointed by this film.  I enjoyed My Big, Fat Greek Wedding but even then felt like Vardalos was a bit overrated.  This film confirms my suspicion.  She's funny when she tries, but she writes her leads too perfect (in an empowered "imperfect" way) for me to not view her work as largely self-aggrandizing.

Here, as always, are the mid-movie thoughts:

- I wonder who modeled for the Spyglass Entertainment logo....

- Oof, child actors aren't always that great. Especially when you're forcing them to act like kids would never act.

- I hope they tell us where these characters got their passion for showtunes.

- These New York accents are Jon Stewart bad.

- The dialogue is kinda stage-y. It's fun, but not entirely buyable.

- Kinda awesome that the movie wastes NO TIME getting the girls in trouble. Though it's hard to imagine they can keep up this pace for just under 2 hours.

- Okay, regarding the line, "Come on Thelma." Once again, for those of you who want to be screenwriters, take a lesson from Mystery Science Theater 3000: "Never mention a great movie in your crappy movie." Not a prejudgment on this film, just a bit of wisdom. Don't invite comparisons as they can bias your audience.

- Easy joke at L.A.'s expense.

- Nice coke joke.

- Uh.... really? They got an apartment in West Hollywood with... what money? What credit?

- Nice! Greg Grunberg! Go Oceanic 815 pilot!!!! (Yes, more Lost. Deal with it.)

- The movie is just rocketing past all these complications... kinda TOO fast.

- hahaha... conveniently loud exposition being tossed around in this bar.

- Ian Gomez? Awesome!

- Uh, where's the piano player? Does the club HAVE a piano player? Wouldn't he give away the fact that they were singing live? Kinda doesn't make sense.

- Wouldn't they have to do some kind of check to *prevent* women from trying out?

- Connie and Carla really should have to dress like GUYS at some point.

- Oof, could Vardalos have written more cliche flamboyant gays?

- Ugh. So much referring to Debbie Reynolds. If she doesn't show up in a cameo I'll eat my non-existent hat.

- What the shit was that scene? Duchovny didn't talk at all? Why not?

- So... why did Robert bring Duchovny to Connie and Carla's place?

- Jesus Christ, why aren't their fellow drag queens suspicious??? Are they stupid?

- I also really dig that the Russian guy is getting into musicals now.

- hahaha... Duchovny looks at his watch. Yeah, buddy, I feel ya.

- Ugh. This whole "running into Duchovny" thing is awful.

- So Duchovny acts disgusted, like a homophobe, and we're supposed to still want Connie to get together with him?

- Wow, what a shitty coincidence that the boyfriends are working for the mobsters.

- Toni Collette has hilariously awesomely HUGE eyes.

- Who lives in Los Angeles and thinks that drag queens are freaks? Only the most insanely conservative people, and this styling white girl is very likely NOT a conservative.

- "We can't disappoint everyone!" and get shot? This is stupid.

- Ugh. And here it is, the obligatory Debbie Reynolds cameo. No hat-eating for me.

- Wow, this ending is awful. So forced.

- Wait, so Duchovny's attracted to what he thinks is a man in drag, then finds out is a woman, and his reaction isn't incredible confusion? And now it's okay that he almost puked when he thought she was a he? Bullshit, movie.

Did the movie fit the theme?  Yeah, pretty much.  I mean, it's all about women dressing as guys who dress as women.  So sure, it fits.  I only wish it had been about the GUYS WHO DRESS AS WOMEN.

I say unless you really like the leads (Vardalos, Collette, and/or Duchovny) and/or are really into gal-pal flicks featuring loads of showtunes, skip this one.

Criss-Cross-Dressers Movie #2: Kinky Boots

I'm going to point you in the direction of the following link, which is a British comedy sketch that I think brilliantly sums up my feelings about this week's film.

http://youtu.be/CUyK_J_W4BI

Look, I'm all for underdog stories and as the child of a blue-collar family I'm always happy to see stories about industrialization's slow decline.  But this movie is cliche after cliche, largely because it focuses so much on the least interesting of the two potential protagonist choices.  If you play it safe that way, you have to rely on a lot of tried-and-true story elements.  Which is a damn shame as there's potential here for something better.

Here's the rundown on the plot.  Again, because I'm behind this month I'm basing my plot rundown on an existing summary (this one available on imdb):

Price & Sons, located in Northampton, England, is a fourth generation owned and operated family business specializing in quality shoes for men. The heir apparent to the company, Charlie Price, is moving to London with his fiancée Nicola to get as far away from the company and the close-mindedness of Northampton as possible. Charlie's plans change when his father suddenly dies. Charlie ceases his London move to take over in his father's stead.  Charlie learns that the primary contract on which the company had been working has long expired - something that his father Harold hid from everyone - meaning that there is no work and little prospect for work with their current line of shoes. Charlie lays off several of his employees against his personal wishes. Meanwhile, Nicola wants Charlie to sell the business to a property developer who wants to convert the factory into upscale condos. But one of Charlie's laid off employees, a young woman named Lauren, suggests he change the business model and create another line of shoes in a niche market. Upon a chance meeting with a relatively large drag queen named Lola (the awesome Chiwetel Ejiofor), Charlie comes up with the idea of specializing in fashionable boots made for the generally larger heft of drag queens. There are many obstacles to converting the business to this new model, including meshing fashionable design with the required functionality of the boots and talking a relatively conservative town and business into supporting this change. With Lola's assistance, these changes are both advanced and hindered. Don, one of the factory's key workers, is threatened by Lola (real name Simon) and proceeds to make things difficult until Lola allows him to win an arm-wrestling match that could have made Don look foolish.  Charlie believes that to make the company truly successful in this new model, he has to show the boots during the Milan fashion season using the target market, drag queens, as the models. Showing in Milan takes money which Charlie doesn't have until he mortgages his house.  Nicola is furious and cheats on Charlie, which causes Charlie to lash out at Lola prior to Milan.  In Milan, Charlie calls Lola to apologize but it's too late: Charlie is without his models.  In a desperate moment, Charlie walks out on the runway in a pair of his factory's boots.  He stumbles and falls in the high heels but luckily Lola and her fellow drag queens have shown up to Milan to surprise him.  As the movie ends, we hear Charlie's voicemail to Lola, which is very touching and apologetic.  Lola says her goodbyes to her drag bar in London and joins the Northampton factory, now renamed from Price & Sons to Kinky Boots.

I wanted to like this movie.  A lot.  The opening scene with the young Simon (soon to be Lola) dancing in a pair of high heels to his father's disapproval set up the expectation that this movie was going to be about Simon/Lola.  But no.  Then we cut to Charlie and his dad and for the majority of the film the story belongs to them.  Or to Charlie at least, and the idea of dealing with paternal expectations.  Both Charlie and Simon/Lola deal with this father-son dynamic.  The problem, of course, is that a man being coerced into taking over a dying business in which he has no personal interest is FAR AND AWAY less interesting than a man dealing with his father's disapproval at his gender identification.  There were so many scenes that touched on Simon/Lola's difficulties but went nowhere.  At one point in the movie Simon (he's dressed as a man at this point) confesses to Charlie that he was trained to be a boxer.  And he was apparently pretty damn good.  See, THAT's the movie I want to see.  Okay, that movie was done in Beautiful Boxer, but how many people have seen that?  Compared to the number of people who have seen The Full Monty, Calendar Girls, Saving Grace, etc.?  We've all seen the British industrial underdog movie.  We haven't all seen the British heavyweight boxer who really wants to be a woman.  Compared to the drama inherent in Lola's life, Charlie's life seems pretty run-of-the-mill, if you'll pardon the joke.  Lola is by far the more interesting protagonist and it was a mistake to concentrate on Charlie instead.

The biggest problem, though, comes in what Mitchell and Webb refer to in the sketch I linked above.  This movie is one ridiculous cliche after the other.  I can't count the number of times I rolled my eyes at the predictable, heavy-handed moments of drama and tension in this film.  Or the tired old jokes.  Pretty much every moment announces itself and goes through the motions.  The crazy, kinda hilarious thing is that some of these cliche moments are completely unmotivated.  Charlie discovering Nicola cheating is handled by one of the worst examples of forced coincidence you'll ever see.  Charlie getting mad at Lola for showing up to a dinner in a dress is ridiculous.  Yes, the plot required that Charlie and Lola be at odds so that she can run in during the third act to make the last minute save.  But there's no reason for Charlie to be upset by Lola wearing a dress.  That's what Lola has done the entire time Charlie has known her.  In fact, I was impressed by the character's LACK of reaction to Lola's drag show the first time he stumbles across it.  It's like the movie has to make Charlie a homophobe in that moment, not because the character IS a homophobe, but because the cliche requires that the two characters be at odds.  Those are just a few examples of how awful the cliches are in the movie and how much they affect it.  It's not just a cliche that's bad (many of the best movies deal in a cliche or three), it's a cliche that drags down everything around it.

Which isn't to say that Kinky Boots is entirely a bad film.  Chiwetel Ejiofor is frigging fantastic as both drag queen Lola and conflicted Simon.  He plays like a slightly rougher version of RuPaul.  While the Golden Globes are pretty much a joke, they *did* do something right by nominating Ejiofor for an award.  You get the ferocity of the Lola character and the connection that she has to Simon's troubled past.  You get the fondness for outsiders and the vulnerability mixed with toughness.  Again, I really wish this movie had been about Lola/Simon, and that's in no small part because Ejiofor is so damn effective.  Honorable mention goes to Nick Frost for playing against type (or the type that we commonly associate with him currently) as a macho dickhead.  Frost has that "big lad" look to him but it's mostly played for comedy these days.  It was interesting to see that aspect of his physicality played for menace (even if it was a menace undercut with humor).  I also thought Sarah-Jane Potts as Lauren did a great job of inhabiting a cliche character (the pretty local factory girl).  I bought that Lauren would have sufficient moxie to help keep the operation running.  Potts gave Lauren a cheerful but pragmatic disposition that the character might not otherwise have displayed.

It might also be worth mentioning that the musical numbers done by Lola and her fellow dragsters were quite fun.  I especially enjoyed the catwalk number, which was a medley of These Boots were Made for Walkin and a song I didn't recognize but involved boots in some way.  The choreography was fun and effective and that catwalk number did a great job of acting as a fun moment AND as a way to sell the boots.  I don't know if that event happened in real life, but I kinda wish it had because that would definitely sell boots to drag queens.  Or anyone who just really likes sexy boots.  (Incidentally, I don't know anything about shoe fashion, but I do know that I LOVED these boots.  Lola says that the boots should make you think of sex.  "Kinky" boots definitely work for me.)

Here are the usual mid-movie thoughts I jotted down:

- Wow, lots of freaking ads on this DVD.
- The Miramax logo makes me want to visit NYC.
- Oh man, that was Chiwetel's character as the little boy dancing in high heels, wasn't it? Pretty sure I'm gonna dig that character.
- Kinda neat to see the mechanics that go into shoes.
- Seriously, ice-cream guy? He came around my neighborhood at the EXACT moment in the movie when Charlie finds out his dad's dead.  I guess that's what I get for watching a movie in the living room with the front door open.
- I know this is about shoes, but holy shit, could we ease up on the shoes already?
- Yeesh, these British "rags to riches"/factory life stories all start off the same, eh? "I believe in my town/dad/product/etc."
- If Charlie doesn't get involved with the factory girl I'll be dipped in shit. (Ed.-he does.  no shit-dipping required)
- He's the son of a shoemaker. How did this wannabe rich girl get involved with him in the first place?
- Chiwetel makes a good drag queen.
- I'd be interested to read the true story as this movie feels very much like one of those "inspired by/not at all true to life" movies where conflict is created apropos of nothing.
- Ugh... the sexual tension between Charlie and Lauren is terrible and so damn predictable.
- hahaha... Charlie needs her to do internet research?  Really? "The interwebs scares me."
- Okay, Chiwetel makes a FANTASTIC drag queen. In the factory, he pretty much passes. If I didn't know he was a man, I might not even realize it.
- Ugh, the boot on the button is ridiculous. Bad ridiculous, not fun ridiculous.
- "This is Northampton! It's not SoHo!" ugh... Man, there are so many cliche lines in this.
- So what are these people doing if their contract is up? Do they make other specialty men's shoes? I'm just confused about the particulars.
- Jesus, right down to the wacky old woman who doesn't care that she's a he. Could this movie be any more of a frigging cliche?
- But Charlie knows that's a lie, right? If his father intended to sell the factory, why didn't he? What difference does it make to the agent if it's the son and not the father? That makes no sense to me.  Did his father want a higher price?  I'm so confused about this.
- Letting Don win was a cliche, but at least it played genuine. The actors did a good job with making it feel like a real moment.
- Why are the workers mad at Charlie for accurate criticisms? ARE the stitches crooked?
- Do they really need the button since Charlie is yelling? Seems unnecessary. An open window could've achieved the same purpose.
- I like that the Frost character "changes his mind" about Charlie and not Lola. Again, every time this movie plays a beat that's NOT cliche it's good.
- Ah fuck, seriously? Charlie ended up at the same restaurant as Nicola? Frigging forced.
- Why did he take it out on Lola? I get that Charlie's upset, but Lola's not even close to the target.
- "Does he look sexy?" "He does to me, George." GAG ME
- I don't like the "last minute save" thing in movies where the character who has been wronged by the protag decides to look past it as the "bigger person". It doesn't ring true. Bastardry should be repaid in full.
- Wait, so Charlie apologized in a voicemail? We should have heard that voicemail as it happened to motivate the last minute save. There's no benefit to holding that information back.  We already know that Charlie's show will go well, what's the difference if it's Lola in a last minute surprise?

Does the movie address the theme?  Sort of.  Lola is the cross-dresser and is an integral character, but certainly not the primary protagonist.  The movie is mostly about Charlie and his hang-ups when it should have been about Lola/Simon.  I know: broken record.  Sorry, I was just annoyed at this.

In the end, I don't think Kinky Boots is worth your time.  There are far better movies about cross-dressers around that don't waste your time on the British underdog bullshit.  I suppose if you really like Chiwetel it's worth a look.  I personally really enjoy the man's work and was happy to sit through what was an otherwise sub-par movie, but I won't be repeating this experience.

Until next time, when we have Connie & Carla to watch!

Criss-Cross-Dressers Movie #1: Dressed to Kill

First up on the docket for this month's theme is Brian De Palma's Dressed to Kill.  I want to start by apologizing to anyone who actually reads this blog.  I'm behind by about two weeks.  This is due to a bit of very detailed and very unpaid editorial/story notes work I did for a friend and a bit of less detailed but paid story notes work I did for a new freelance client.  Yes, that's right, I'm not just a narrative elitist windbag anymore: I'm a professional narrative elitist windbag.

Anyway, what to say about Dressed to Kill?  Oh, I know: holy batshit insane!  I enjoyed this Psycho homage right up until the point at which the plot did an about-face, much like its inspiration.  Then, man... then shit got weird and really, really awful.

I'm gonna copy and paste from the Wikipedia plot synopsis and add my own editorial notes where I feel necessary.  I've diligently avoided doing this for the prior blog entries as I feel this should be wholly MY review of the film.  But I'm playing a little catch-up and besides, most of you probably just read this for my comments and not for the synopsis anyway.  Here goes:

Kate (Angie Dickinson) is a sexually frustrated aging housewife (and MILF) in therapy with psychiatrist Dr. Elliott (Michael Caine). During an appointment, Kate attempts to seduce him, but Elliott rejects her advances. Kate goes to the Metropolitan Museum to meet her mother, but instead has an unexpected flirtation with a mysterious stranger. Kate and the stranger "stalk" each other through the museum until they finally wind up outside, where Kate joins him in a taxi. They immediately begin to have sex in the cab, and continue at his apartment. Hours later, Kate awakens and decides to discreetly leave while the man is asleep. Kate leaves the apartment but on the way out realizes that she has left her wedding ring on the stranger's nightstand, and she returns to retrieve it. The elevator doors open on the figure of a tall, blonde woman in dark sunglasses wielding a straight razor. Kate is slashed to death in the elevator.  (and now the Psycho plot change).  A high-priced call girl, Liz (crazy hot Nancy Allen), happens upon the body and catches a glimpse of the killer, therefore becoming both the prime suspect and the killer's next target. Elliott receives a bizarre answering machine message from "Bobbi", a transgendered person he is treating. Bobbi taunts the psychiatrist for breaking off their therapy sessions, apparently because Elliott refuses to sign the necessary papers for Bobbi to get a sex change operation. Elliott, discovering that his straight razor is missing (and thereby giving the jaded modern audience all the proof it needs to confirm what we already suspect), visits Bobbi's new doctor and tries to convince him that Bobbi is a danger to herself and others. The police, notably represented by Dennis Franz in full moustache awesomeness, are less than willing to believe Liz's story, so she joins forces with Kate's revenge-minded son Peter (Christine's Keith Gordon) to find the killer. Peter is an inventor, and uses a series of homemade listening devices and time-lapse cameras to track patients from Elliott's office. They catch Bobbi on camera, and soon Liz is being stalked by a tall blonde figure in sunglasses.  Several attempts are made on Liz's life. One, in the subway, is thwarted by Peter, who sprays Bobbi with homemade mace. Liz and Peter scheme to get inside Elliott's office to look at his appointment book and learn Bobbi's real name. Liz baits the therapist by stripping to lingerie and coming on to him, distracting him long enough to make a brief exit and leaf through his appointment book. When she returns, it is Bobbi rather than Dr. Elliott who confronts her; they are the same person (shocking NOBODY). Elliott/Bobbi is shot and wounded by a female police officer who looks like Bobbi: she is the tall blonde figure who was trailing Liz under orders from Dennis Franz's moustache. Elliott is arrested by the police and placed in an insane asylum. It is explained by a psychiatrist that Elliott wanted to be a woman, but his "male" side would not allow him to go through with the operation. Whenever a woman sexually aroused Elliott, it was "Bobbi", who represented the female side of the doctor's personality, who became threatened. In a final sequence, Elliott escapes from the asylum and slashes Liz's throat in a bloody act of vengeance. She wakes up screaming, realizing that it was just a dream as Peter runs to her bed to comfort her.

Like Psycho, we have here a narrative that gives us an incredibly compelling (and sexy) female protagonist (so we think) whose murder (sorry if you haven't seen Psycho, but... well... seriously?) throws us off as we enter Act II.  De Palma, as much as he might sometimes wish it were so, is no Hitchcock.  Or rather, De Palma's writers are no Hitchcock's writers.  While there's much to admire in Dressed to Kill, there's a lot more to deride.  But lest you think I'm just a Debbie Downer here, I'll talk about the good.

First, as a young man whose primary visual association with Nancy Allen is Robocop, let me just say this: wow, Nancy Allen.  You were freaking HOT.  I'm sorry I mostly missed your risque work because... hommina hommina woog woog (tongue falls out of mouth and eyes rocket out of their sockets a la animated wolf).  In fact, I found it kind of hilarious that the Keith Gordon character wasn't ogling her in every scene.  I know if I saved hooker Nancy Allen from a lunatic, I'd be cashing in the favor ASAP.  But I digress...  Actually, I thought Angie Dickinson was pretty damn hot herself.  And she did a fantastic job of getting across that sense of a formerly desired woman who finds herself a little older but still possessed of a powerful libido.  She also shared a scene with Keith Gordon as her son that felt particularly real.  There was a dynamic going on in that scene that felt true to me as a son.  It reminded me of that time in my life when I was trying to move out on my own and leave the nest behind.  There's often a dual sadness and pride on hand when mothers let their sons go.  Any child, really, but I know I personally experienced this with my own mother.  It's very much a shame when the narrative takes the turn it does because I was awfully invested in Kate.  I think De Palma missed the point of the Janet Leigh death in Psycho because in Norman Hitchcock had a fiendishly watchable anti-hero/villain.  Not so much Dr. Elliott.  Anyway, Dickinson is in top form in this film.

Speaking of which, the best sequence in this film, and the only sequence that I think justifies this as a film to study, happens when Dickinson is stalking the guy in the museum.  This sequence is 10-15 minutes long and completely without dialogue.  NONE.  Everything going on in this sequence is non-verbal and Dickinson just absolutely steals the movie here.  It's clever and sexy and mysterious and... man, that is some great filmmaking right there.  The range of emotions and reactions from Dickinson and the guy playing the object of her lust is impressively vast, the patience of the long takes and push-ins is effortless, the blocking is like watching modern dance.  Frankly this sequence belongs in a MUCH better movie.  Giving this scene to the Kate character is a big mistake on De Palma's part, since poor Liz and Peter are given nothing remotely this interesting to do in the rest of the film.

So why didn't I like this?  First of all, if you don't realize that (gasp!) Dr. Elliott is the killer in question, then you have never seen a thriller.  You especially aren't under the age of 60.  The last movie that even remotely shocked the audience in its revelation of the villain's identity was Fight Club, and even then the shock had more to do with practical questions like Who was he punching in the parking lot? than anything story-related.  (If you haven't seen Fight Club, again, seriously?)

Second, we really feel downgraded when the story kills off Kate in favor of the constantly-pouting proto-nerd Peter (Keith Gordon always looks like he just smelled a fart) and the beautiful but rather blank Liz.  It's not Nancy Allen's fault.  Liz just isn't given much to work with, character-wise.  That she stumbled across a murder is unfortunate and we sorta sympathize with her.  But compared to the passionate but ignored Kate, whose chutzpah in stalking this total stranger delights us, Liz is blah.  I wasn't entirely joking, either, when I said that Peter's lack of sexual interest in Liz threw me off.  I thought for sure that Peter would clumsily attempt to seduce Liz (or vice versa for some REAL tension!) but mostly Peter sat around looking like Man, I swear someone just farted.  I get that the kid is grieving for his mother and he wants revenge, but... c'mon.  Nancy Allen nearly nude?  The alliteration of that sentence alone gives me a boner.

Inappropriate?

The less said about Michael Caine's ridiculous performance the better.  He's a solid actor and he did the best he could, I suspect, but it's like De Palma told him, "You've got this terrible secret hidden inside you, so repress EVERYTHING.  Every human emotion, repress it."  Hey, maybe it was Dr. Elliott who farted.  He certainly looked like he was holding back a rat-cracker the whole time.  (Incidentally, the term "cracked a rat" is one of my favorite expressions for a fart/poo).  See?  See what my review devolves into when you make me watch movies like Dressed to Kill?

Holy lord, and how about that denoument?  The tail end of the third act, which turns out to be a dream sequence?  Okay, it IS a dream sequence, so I guess the balls-out goofiness can be forgiven a little.  But until we realize that, this is one of the worst things you will ever watch a talented actor like Michael Caine put himself through.  It's gibbering insanity, and not because the scene takes place in an asylum.  No, it's the worst kind of over-the-top scene, chock full of childish symbolism (get it?  sexy nurse!  it's like a fetish!) and terrible pacing (why does the dream killer just stand around for five minutes?).  And in the end, even when we realize it's a dream, what f'ing PURPOSE DOES IT SERVE???  All it really shows us is that Liz is likely now traumatized by her experience.  Well.... duh!  If you witnessed some woman's dying moments at the hands of a lunatic with a straight razor, then that lunatic tried to kill YOU, you'd be pretty traumatized.  Of course.  No shit.  Thanks for the clue, Sherlock.

Per usual, here are some mid-movie thoughts:

- Dennis Franz? Uh oh, do I have to see his butt?

- Wow, fantastic opening shot, tells us everything we need to know about Kate.

- That's the kid from Christine, right? Yeah, yes it is. Cool.

- Wow, Dickinson is killing it. Her face is just fantastic. It's a study in non-verbal acting.

- hahaha... so much tension and it's just a woman looking for her glove.

- Ooh, who picked up her other glove? Mysterious...

- Women's clothes are f'n complicated.

- Not fond of the "memory in frame next to character's head as footage from prior scene". It calls attention to itself and the movie. She couldn't have had that perspective.

- hahaha... the little girl is a creep.

- What the FUCK???? This is some Psycho shit! I thought for sure Angie Dickinson was the protag!

- If Caine isn't the killer I'll be dipped in shit.

- hahahah... holy shit, Franz hasn't changed at all! He just swelled.

- I dig the nerd son Peter horning into the interrogation.

- Damn, nice framing. De Palma is def a student of Hitch.

- Is Peter doing a Numb3rs thing?

- I don't like split-screen. Nope. Not at all. It can be useful and this is visually interesting, but it's also hugely distracting.

- hahaha... nice job, dick taxi guy.

- I'd read that Nancy Allen did quite a bit of risque work, but never paid it much attention because of Robocop. Well, I may check out her other stuff now. Cuz she's crazy hot here.

- That subway defense scene was a little awkward.

- The Nerd and the Hooker, this season on CBS!

- Jesus, look at the 'stache on Franz.

- How is this kid not trying to get laid by Allen every second?

- Caine is good at acting "off".

- Damn, Nancy Allen. That body... woof...

- Right now, Caine is going to change into the Bobbi outfit. An admirable effort at misdirection, but I'm too familiar with film twists.

- What's the point of this wrap-up?

- What the fuck is this? Why are we still with Liz and Peter?

- This whole Liz and Peter "hanging together" thing is weird. She's acting like they spent the whole movie together when they only had a few scenes.

- What is this Michael Caine murdering the nurse scene? So freaking bizarre. (later) Was it part of Liz's nightmare or did he really murder someone and escape?

Did the movie live up to the theme?  Yep.  Elliott was a cross-dresser.  And his desire to be female is what caused Kate to get slashed and Liz chased.  When I was cutting and pasting the synopsis I noticed that De Palma got yelled at by transgender activists for promoting a negative idea of the community.  Come on, people, this movie promotes a negative idea of storytelling.  Dr. Elliott isn't a bad trans, he's a bad character, period.  If anyone thought that this was an accurate representation of anything at all they should be locked up in an asylum with... well, with cross-dressing murderer Michael Caine.

In the end, I can't really recommend this movie to people.  I watched it on Netflix streaming, so it might be worth satisfying your curiosity if you like the occasional bad movie.  Actually, I recommend that people watch the first act, right up until Kate bites it.  The rest isn't really worth your time.  Well, okay, maybe you can scan to the scene in Elliott's office when Nancy Allen is trying to seduce him.  That's a good scene for lascivious reasons.  Otherwise, skip this stinker and watch De Palma's equally batshit insane, but far superior, Raising Cain.

Theme the Third: Criss-Cross-Dressers!!!

That was the theme written on the slip of paper.  I assume by the subsequent conversation that I had with Mr. X that these are all movies involving cross-dressing and that the "criss" part was just some stray wordplay.  In the event that one of these movies in fact features the 90s child rapping prodigies known as Criss Cross OR features characters engaged in the "backwards pants" fashion style forwarded by the aforementioned kiddies, I ask that you sign my asylum papers swiftly.

I love the idea of this month's theme, but I also approach it with some trepidation.  Because I have seen a startlingly large number of movies that prominently feature cross-dressing.  This is mostly due to my love for sketch comedy, and one of the basic tenets of sketch comedy (comedy in general, really) is that Dudes in Dresses are Hilarious.  My two favorite sketch comedy troupes are Monty Python and The Kids in the Hall, and if you've ever seen those troupes then you know about Dudes in Dresses.

It does go deeper than laughs, however.  I sought out both To Wong Foo and its progenitor, Priscilla Queen of the Desert.  I wanted desperately to like Flawless despite the director's frequent hackery.  I was disappointed in Stephen Rea's initial reaction of disgust in The Crying Game .  What it comes down to is that I find cross-gender identification FASCINATING.  One of the best (and most criminally dropped) storylines of Showtime's "The L Word" was the transition of female Moira to male Max.  Instead we got more Jenny Schechter nonsense and Shane's incessant inability to commit despite multiple seasons during which we watched the character DEVELOP into the kind of person who COULD COMMIT.  Or the stupid gambling addiction and prison sex of an otherwise fun character.  Grrrr.... goddamit, L Word, why couldn't you just be awesome the whole time?  Why couldn't Shane have ended up with Carmen, or ended up adopting her little brother?  Who gave a shit about Jenny's writing career or her movie?  Why did we spend any time at all on the cheating Angus?  Why was Max shoved off into a narrative corner once he got a job?  Ugh, L Word, you were so awesome sometimes and so goddamn stupid other times!

.....  Sorry.  Got off-topic.  Anyway, as I was saying, I find something fascinating about cross-gender identification.  Most real life stories about the subject break my heart.  There's so much confusion and social ostracization involved in cross-gender identification, even moreso than homo or bisexuality.  Indeed, it's the tendency for homosexuals to act in stereotypically cross-gender ways that gains them the most negative attention.  I'm not saying that gender confusion is the entire basis for homophobia, but it covers a LOT of that ground.  And just as I'm infuriated by anyone's inability to accept homosexuality, I'm infuriated by anyone's inability to accept cross-gender identification.  The fact that anyone takes someone else's sense of self as a personal affront to their own sense of self is ludicrous in the extreme.  And I'm aware that me being affronted by gender-and-sex-traditionalists is itself ludicrous.  But the difference is you'll never see me dragging one of those assholes behind my pickup truck until he's dead.

Incidentally, I think the Dil character in The Crying Game is very alluring.  Nong Toom, whose story was portrayed in the film Beautiful Boxer, is a beautiful post-op former ladyboy (indeed MANY ladyboy beauty contest winners are stunners).  And I've perused transgendered profiles on dating sites a few times.  Not sure there's a point to me saying all that besides taking personal amusement in confession, but there you go.

Anyway, first up in our Criss-Cross-Dressers theme?  Brian De Palma's Dressed to Kill

Blind People Movie #4: The Tale of Zatoichi

When I picked this month's theme out of the hat, I had secretly hoped that Mr. X would deliver a Zatoichi film to my hands.  I've heard of the series before, in the context of both Lone Wolf & Cub and the 80s Rutger Hauer film Blind Fury.  I knew that Blind Fury was actually an American remake of a Zatoichi film, and I've always been interested in seeing the source material but never got around to it.  Well now I have.  And the movie didn't disappoint.  According to the DVD case, Zatoichi featured in 27 films and 100 television episodes.  It's easy to see why: Ichi (as he's nicknamed in this first film) is an enigmatic, charismatic Catalyst Hero.  He enters a story like a force of nature, affecting everything around him but essentially remaining the same.  The basic plot is as follows:

Blind ex-masseur Zatoichi enters the compound of yakuza boss Iioka at the boss' request.  Iioka believes that rival boss Sasagawa is preparing for a gang war and knows that Sasagawa has hired his own samurai, Hitake, to help bolster his smaller army of gangsters.  Ichi meets Iioka's gangsters, who upon first meeting try to con Ichi out of his money but are conned in turn by the wise blind man.  Gangster Tate, who almost kills Ichi to get back the gang's money, is put in charge of Ichi.  Tate's sister Tane is married to Seisuke, Iioka's second-in-command and a violent jerk.  Tane has left Seisuke and desperately wants to escape him completely.  Tate has his own drama as he has impregnated a local girl and doesn't want to accept responsibility.  Ichi overhears these little intrigues, sometimes counseling and sometimes keeping his mouth shut.  Ichi also arranges to meet Hitake to take the measure of the man and finds that he's the only honorable man around.  Unfortunately, Hitake has tuberculosis and has little reason to live.  As Ichi attempts to get out of fighting in Iioka's war for the sake of his own sense of honor and Hitake begins to seriously suffer the ravages of his disease, Sasagawa plots to get Hitake involved in the fight.  Tate's pregnant girl is found floating dead in the river and Seisuke threatens Tane's life.  Tate claims ignorance of the pregnant girl's demise and Tane begs Ichi, who is kind in a way that her husband is not, to take her away.  On the day of the battle, Sasagawa tells Hitake that he's going to use a rifle to remove the threat of Ichi.  Hitake refuses to allow Ichi such an ignoble death and vows to fight.  Ichi is told about Hitake and refuses to allow Hitake to take his own life so foolishly.  Sasagawa's men put up a decent fight, particularly as Hitake cuts down Iioka's goons easily.  Both sides momentarily cease fighting as Ichi meets Hitake on a bridge for a final showdown.  Ichi asks Hitake to cease the fighting and care for his health, but Hitake cares only for their impending fight.  Ichi agrees and the two men clash.  Hitake is fatally pierced and dies leaning against Ichi's back.  Ichi takes Hitake's body back to the temple and insures that the fallen samurai will receive a noble burial.  Ichi tells Iioka that his men have died needlessly and that he, as their boss, should be ashamed.  Ichi leaves his sword-cane, which is too connected with Hitake's death for him to bear, with Hitake's body and heads out of town.  On his way out, Tate takes a chance for infamy and tries to sneak-attack Ichi, but Ichi dodges the blow and knocks Tate into the same river where his pregnant victim drowned.  We watch Ichi walk through the woods along the main road, careful to avoid Tane and maintain his solitary, lonely existence.

I know when I first talked about this blog that I wasn't going to focus much on the technical stuff.  Well, that's hard to do when the film is a classic Japanese samurai film.  There's something about the cinematography of this region in this time period that is absolutely stunning.  The quality of the image, from lighting and framing to camera movement and mis-en-scene, is among the best ever put to film.  This isn't to say that all Japenese samurai films from the 50s and 60s are beautiful because they aren't.  But the work of Kurosawa certainly is, and director Misumi clearly also has a grasp of poetic image-making.  The DVD transfer in the first few minutes was pretty crap, which made me angry.  But eventually the transfer evened out, leaving me with a gorgeous film.  In particular, I was impressed by the long takes and camera movement.  These visual elements are so important to a film in the martial arts genre.  Combatants are so focused on the discipline and fluidity of movement, it only makes sense for the image to be equally focused.  This is even more important for a Zatoichi film as quick-cutting would feel out of place for the sightless protagonist.  We as the audience must be able to take in as much information as possible with as few distractions as possible, like Ichi himself.

The character of Zatoichi lives on in 26 sequels and a television show, so it's no surprise that he's a protagonist worth following.  Like many of the protagonists in this month's theme, Ichi struggles for self-respect in the face of his handicap.  People dismiss him out of hand and often don't even realize that he's present.  Ichi's also fascinating because he's so much an enigma.  He hides his status as a great swordsman, he doesn't talk about how he was blinded, he never expresses a desire for himself.  Ichi is a humble man who accepts that he has a certain reputation and just tries to get by without people taking advantage of him.  Humility and mystery are dual pulls on an audience.  We want to know more about this man, but he clearly doesn't think he's that interesting.  It's a hilarious tease if you know anything about storytelling, and it's incredibly effective.  Ichi also benefits from being surrounded by scumbags.  Because of his condition and his prior work as a masseur (considered by Japanese culture of the time to be a lowly position - Google it!), Ichi lives among the low, which puts him in contact with the criminal element.  Ichi may have to work for yakuza, but he maintains a personal code and expects other yakuza to live by one as well.  Bad guys being bad guys, of course the majority of Ichi's peers are honorless.  Tate murders the girl he knocked up, Iioka doesn't give a shit about anyone but himself, and the other thugs would rob and kill a blind man.  The only other character in the film with any honor is Hatake, which makes his status as antagonist complex and engrossing, like the best antagonists in film.

It's worth noting, as I did earlier, that Zatoichi is a Catalyst Hero.  He doesn't change throughout the course of the story.  You see this more outside of mainstream American film, which tends to favor a protagonist who arcs.  Australia seems to favor the Catalyst Hero, particularly the Anti-Hero, which certainly also applies to Zatoichi.  As something of an American cinema traditionalist, I find Zatoichi appealing but not as personally engrossing as the standard American arcing protagonist.  Your mileage may vary depending on your own feelings about heroes.  Especially action/adventure heroes.  Zatoichi is a fuzzy character for me in particular because he's so much a mystery.  I can appreciate that he has a personal code and tries to live honorably.  I really like that he spends much of his time trying to show people how prejudiced they are against the handicapped.  But I kinda wish I knew more about the guy, particularly what he WANTS.  His personality is sufficiently intriguing to get me through the movie, but if there's any weakness to be found here it's that you aren't given a whole lot to work with from a character-attachment POV.  I'll take guys like Riggs or John McClane over Zatoichi or The Man with No Name any day.  Even though I like all four characters.

As usual, here are some random thoughts I jotted throughout my viewing:

- Janus films, eh? Good sign.
- Box says "fully restored image". Really? This transfer looks like shit.
- hahaha... idiots. Don't they know when they're being conned? I love hired goons in films. So stupid.
- Great, funny stuff with Iioka. Way to make the douche who was going to kill Ichi his slave.
- Are the governor's mistress' teeth black? What the fuck? (Note: A little internet research tells me that this was a custom among married women and that the dye actually helps preserve teeth.)
- Is Ichi hitting on Hitake? "come here often?"... hahaha
- I like the casualness of Ichi's admission to being a gangster.
- This is kind of an awesome scene, this meeting between hired swords. Modern films like Heat understand how powerful it is to keep the protagonist and antagonist apart until it's dramatically compelling to get them together, prior to the climax.
- So refreshing to see a swordfight movie with silent scabbards! American/Western expectations of sound (the ssshhhingggg sound) are so wrong-headed.
- Samurai movies are so good at push-ins and pull-outs. Is it the genre or the cameramen?
- Slicing the candle in two? Bad. Ass.
- hahaha... Ichi's head wrap makes him look like a Russian grandma
- Oh my god.  The tension between Hitake and Ichi is so... homoerotic...
- (at random shot of Ichi between bamboo shoots) Man, look at that framing!
- I wonder if the writers/producers of The Incredible Hulk watched samurai films. There's definitely a similarity.
- This scene between Ichi and Tane is 1000% more sensual than anything in Daredevil, which tried 1000X harder to be all sexy.
- Rutger Hauer was a fantastic choice to play the American version of Ichi. He has that same world-weary sense of humor, that feeling that he's constantly, every second wryly amused.  Kind of a shame that Blind Fury is the only U.S. attempt to adapt Zatoichi.  (Note: it's not, according to a quick Google search.  I'm a dummy.  But it IS the only one that I've seen, if you don't count Book of Eli, and I don't.  Oh, spoiler alert.  Shut up, it's not that big a twist, trust me.  You won't care.)
- Oh man, that is some awesome conflict set-up right there. Manipulating Ichi and Hitake both to fight each other...
- It seems to me like a lot of these samurai movie battles are a matter of one guy who actually takes time to concentrate and hit his target.  The goons spaz out too easy and just end up shaking their swords and screaming a lot.
- The anticipation for the face-off between Ichi and Hitake is KILLER!  That moment, before they strike?  Man, so awesome.
- Watching Ichi's face as Hitake dies at his back is f'ing fantastic. Great acting.
- Awesome shot of Ichi walking with Tane in the background on the main road.

Did the movie live up to the theme?  Eh, more or less.  Ichi spends a lot of the movie proving how little a handicap being blind is, but then again he has samurai movie super-powers.  It's my complaint about Daredevil as a character.  Sure, he's blind, but he never really seems to be affected by that blindness.  Ichi stumbles a bit, but the guy cuts a candle in half, length-wise, including the wick.  Sorry, but that's not compensating for a disability, that's fucking MAGIC.  It's cool, but it doesn't really, truly address the subject of blindness.

So there we have it.  The Tale of Zatoichi.  I'd definitely recommend the movie to anyone who's into samurai films.  Straight-up action fans may not want to bother as there isn't a whole lot of actual action involved.  The swordfights are mostly quick affairs.  Film fans who love quality cinematography should DEFINITELY check this out.  And anyone who's interested in Catalyst Heroes should also give the movie a view.  Probably not a movie I'd watch over and over (I'm too much a fan of bigger, bloodier action) but a movie I'd put on for someone who is getting their feet wet in the art of cinema.

See you guys next week for Theme the Third: Cross-Dressers!  It'll be interesting to see what movies Mr. X picks up for me as I've seen a LOT of cross-dressing films.  ALSO:  check here soon for a bonus review of Blind Fury.  I'm not counting it as the standard Film Themantics review because I've already seen it AND I picked the movie myself.  But it's been a long time since I last saw the movie and I don't really remember much of it.  It should be fun, especially in light of today's film.

Blind People Movie #3: A Patch of Blue

Apologies for the lateness of this post, folks.  Doing Blindness a few days late has thrown me off.  I'm going to try getting the next one up shortly after this one.


While Legionnaire may have been the most pleasant surprise thus far of the Film Themantics films, A Patch of Blue is by far my favorite.  I can't tell you how much I fell in love with these characters!  The disheartening thing about sequels and remakes is that they're so infrequently a by-product of such wonderfully compelling origin material.  If ever a movie could be remade and updated for modern sensibilities (recast Poitier's role as an Arab American and BANG we're off!), this is it.  And this is definitely a film that begs the question, "What happened next?"  Which is really the hallmark of great, compelling drama.  But once again I'm getting ahead of myself.  The basic plot:

Blind Selina (Golden Globe winner Elizabeth Hartman) has been sheltered her whole life by her abusive mother Roseanne and her drunken grandfather Old Pa.  Selina almost never leaves the tiny, shabby apartment that she shares with her mother and grandfather, but one day she decides to take her work (stringing together bead necklaces) to a nearby park.  A neighbor took her on a walk there recently and Selina has decided that she'd like to go again.  At the park, Selina discovers the joy of sitting under a tree but panics when a caterpillar crawls into her shirt.  Passerby Gordon (Poitier) stops to help Selina out with the caterpillar and the two strike up a conversation.  Selina's shy of strangers but Gordon's a very friendly guy.  Gordon accidentally knocks over Selina's box of beads and stays behind to help her clean them up.  Slowly the movie develops the friendship between Selina and Gordon, who meet several times in the park.  Gordon teaches Selina several techniques to manage her blindness, amazed that nobody has taught her this before now.  For her part, Selina is an engaging and delightful student, taking joy in each new discovery.  Unfortunately Roseanne senses that something is afoot with her daughter and makes efforts to prevent Selina's park meetings.  Old Pa isn't much help, leaving Selina alone in the park until well after dark.  Eventually Gordon brings Selina to his apartment, where she reveals two startling facts: 1) she used to have a friend named Pearl but Roseanne forbade their friendship upon learning that Pearl was black and 2) she was raped by a gentleman caller of Roseanne's.  The heartbreaking stories strengthen Gordon's resolve to help Selina become independent.  Selina begins to fall in love with Gordon, whose own feelings are uncertain and challenged by Gordon's classicist brother Mark.  Roseanne spies the pair from afar one afternoon and treats Selina horribly when she returns home.  The following day Roseanne tells Selina that they're going to move in with a friend of Roseanne's to start a "business", which the movie strongly hints is an underground brothel.  Desperate, Selina strikes out on her own to find Gordon.  Gordon and Selina come together in the park and he tells her that he's enrolled her in a school for the blind.  Relieved that she can escape Roseanne but saddened that she will have to leave Gordon behind, Selina accepts the offer.  Roseanne finds the couple in the park and causes a huge scene.  To Roseanne's surprise, everyone in the park sees her bigotry and abuse for what they are and shield the couple from Roseanne's further abuse.  That night, Selina and Gordon wait for the bus that will take her away.  Selina tells Gordon that she loves him and wants to be married to him.  Gordon begins to tell her that he's black, but Selina beats him to it and tells him that she knows.  Gordon is struck that Selina still loves him, but the bus arrives to take her to the school.  They part, Gordon vowing to see her at the school but leaving the audience wondering if that will actually happen once Selina begins to live for herself.

As I said, A Patch of Blue is my favorite of the films I've watched thus far for this blog.  The story is a simple romantic drama whose complications are enormous but entirely relatable.  And the characters are absolutely lovely.  I think if you don't fall in love with either or both of the leads, you have a heart of stone.  It would be easy to see Selina as a pitiful victim if it weren't for her spirit, her indominatable will.  It's truly rewarding to see her realize, thanks to Gordon, that her guardians have been completely abusing her and that she doesn't have to rely on others for everything.  Again, it would be easy to see Selina as ONLY a victim and thus less dramatically compelling, but the movie makes it very clear that she was only victimized out of ignorance.  And for as much as she's been infantilized by her guardians and her condition, Selina clearly has a young woman's desires.  Not just sexual desires, but freedom and autonomy.  I can't imagine having to face the kind of life Selina faced, and the fact that she's such a kind-hearted, big-spirited girl despite her crummy life makes her absolutely lovable to me.  Then there's Gordon.  Characters like Gordon give me hope for the world and hope for myself.  It's possible to be kind to others and want better for them without having ulterior motives.  One of the great tensions in this film is the fact that Gordon wants Selina to have a better life and he feels like Selina getting involved with him would just make things worse for her.  He makes the argument to his brother, and later to Selina, that he wants her to be her own person before he even begins to think about what he feels for her.  THAT, my friends, is chivalry.  THAT is the way that a real man should act.  My ideal for masculine behavior is 100% exhibited by Sidney Poitier in this film.  Gordon is kind, he's suave in a goofy but charming manner, he's concerned with bettering others before himself... he's everything that I would like to be as a male of the species.  I completely fell in love with these characters, and every time their friendship/relationship was threatened I got incredibly worked up.  Shelley Winters does a fantastic job of playing the abusive mother, but she really earned my hatred because of the way writer-director Guy Green (and source material writer Elizabeth Kata) wrote the romantic leads.  I loved these characters so much I want to see what happened to them.  Did Selina learn how to be independent at the school for the blind?  Did she learn a trade?  Did Gordon visit her?  Did she make blind friends and begin to distance herself from Gordon?  Even the saddest possibilities would be thrilling to me as long as I got to spend more time with these two characters.  I wanted them to be real people, a real couple that I could hang out with and befriend.  THAT's how much I loved these characters.

This isn't to say that the film is only good because of the character work.  It's also a very "clean" story with a clear protagonist, a clear antagonist, clear desires, and clear obstacles.  Nothing in the story is obfuscated by the director's artistic "vision" or by some ham-fisted metaphor.  All of the tension is real/organic and obstacles arise naturally from one scene to the next as a result of actions taken in the prior scene.  And those tensions become greater and greater, raising the stakes until the climactic confrontation in the park.  From a structural writing POV, this is damn near perfect.  As well, though Selina is a slightly "Cinderella" character and her isolation is hard to fathom in the age of overprotective parents and equally overprotective society, the situation in the film feels real.  It's all too easy to imagine that a blind girl could be treated the way that Selina is treated, particularly in a large city.  It's also worth mentioning the technical elements of the film.  In particular, there's a poetry to the way that the film is shot and scored, giving the proceedings a romantic edge that serves to heighten the burgeoning love Selina has for her independence and for Gordon.  It's subtle, but present, which is the way these things should be done.  You should notice the technical flourishes when they serve the means of the story, not when they attempt to be ends of themselves.  The visual poetry isn't a surprise considering that, according to the DVD case, Green received an Oscar for cinematography on 1946's Great Expectations.

I wanted to talk briefly about an interesting reaction I had watching the film.  I found myself a great deal more shaken by the neglect and abuse that Selina suffers in A Patch of Blue than I did by the rapes in Blindness.  I thought about this for a while and I believe that because A Patch of Blue is focused more on character development and realism, I cared more about what happened to Selina.  In Blindness, the rapes felt like the visualization/realization of a message/belief about human behavior and thus I was left relatively unaffected on an emotional level.  It's strange to say, but the rapes in that film felt far more abstract and intellectualized than the neglect and abuse in this film, which I felt more personally.

As usual, here are some random thoughts I had while watching:

- Music by Jerry Goldsmith. Holy shit, that dude has been around FOREVER!
- So acting like an out-and-out bitch got Winters an Oscar? She might as well twirl a moustache.
- hahahaha... Selina is doing that thing to Gordon that I hate: when you're trying to walk away from someone and they just keep calling you back. Finish your damn thought, Selina!
- Oh man, this is kinda heart-breaking. This poor girl hasn't been told ANYTHING?
- Fantastic job of making her so sympathetic. Give your protagonist HUGE hurdles right away and you engender sympathy right away.
- There is something crazy fascinating and great about watching someone getting empowered.
- Is the dog named Scumdog??? Weird.
- Poitier is a charming motherfucker.
- Oh geez, and he's singing now. I LOVE THESE TWO!!!!!
- Holy fuck!!! The movie just dropped a huge rape-bomb on me. Jeez, that hurt.
- Oh man... you just know that music box is gonna get tossed against a wall when Roseanne finds it. (10 seconds later) OH! Smart girl! Bury that treasure!
- Evil bitch Roseanne!!! Man, I don't know if being a shitty person is hard acting work, but if it is then Winters earned that Oscar.
- hahahaha... wow, Selina getting pissed and cursing is kinda awesome.
- Nice! Class prejudice from Mark. There's some great interplay going on with Mark and Gordon.
- Ah dammit, Selina's gonna run into Roseanne, I just know it. RUN, girl, RUN!!!!
- This movie is damn amazing. That Selina's grinning in the middle of getting run down because she realizes that Gordon is black and has been too afraid to tell her is just fabulous. That grin in general, the satisfied "fuck you, mom, I love him anyway" grin, is priceless.
- Don't you dare ruin this park moment, Roseanne, you horrible witch.
- This is a beautiful movie.

Regarding the theme, I think this movie did a good job of being relevant.  It really shows you how difficult those initial steps into independence can be for a blind person.  It also forwards the notion that blindness is a condition that CAN be overcome with willpower, a positive attitude, and some training.  I still wouldn't want to be blind, but if I had to be, this movie makes me feel like it'd be okay.

So there you have it.  Absolutely see this movie at your earliest convience, if you're in the mood for something dramatic and/or romantic.

I'll be back in another day or two for the final Blind People movie.