Lakes 10 Movie Theater in Hermantown has Closed, But We Still Have Great Theaters in Duluth

This is the beginning of a recent story from the Duluth News-Tribune:

HERMANTOWN — The Lakes Cinema will close after showtimes on Sunday, April 19, according to a statement on the theater's website.

Marcus Theatres, which operates the cinema at 4351 Stebner Road in Hermantown, did not immediately respond to an inquiry from the News Tribune as to why the theater was closing. In an email to loyalty members, the company wrote, "Thank you for your support over the years — we have enjoyed being part of this community."

Though no reasons were spelled out, I was aware that the theater was having trouble. The large parking lots on three sides of the theater had no more than a dozen cars one Sunday afternoon as I drove by last month. What a change from when we boomers were kids. Even drive-ins were full in those days.

I've known for some time that Covid played a role in breaking people out of their movie routines. Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime stepped up their game at the same time that giant flat-panel TVs come significantly down in price. As a result, going out to catch a matinee or evening flick was no longer the default way to see movies. Covid was a gut-punch from which theaters never recovered.

There were other things that happened though as well. Studios have been making fewer mid-budget films and more big "event" films (superheroes, franchises), perhaps in an effort to capitalize on add-on sales from memorabilia and other gimmicks (which I find nauseating). The blockbusters did fill seats, though even there it has been hit and miss much of the time. Small to mid-sized towns can't survive long dry spells between the big time stuff.

Which compounds the problem of rising costs, from heating to taxes to maintaining projection equipment and sound systems.

Then there's the economics of Hollywood itself. Studios make money from streaming, from global releases and the merchandising I mentioned above. Ticket sales at the theaters are no longer as important as they once were.

On the other hand...

Many theaters have adjusted. What Bob Boone has done in restoring the West Theatre and its sibling The Alhambra is nothing short of wonderful. Whereas movie theater economics has threatened many, these asymmetrical twins were ahead of their time by creating a social hub like theaters once had been in the past. In addition to two theaters, the front half of the Alhambra has captured the historic Speakeasy atmosphere of a century ago, a time almost forgotten with live music and atmosphere.

The West is more than a movie house. Since opening it's been a stellar venue for top drawer acts from Peter Yarrow and Judy Collins to Jorma Kaukonen and John McCutcheon...  and so many others--Benny Goodman's Big Band, Gospel Bluegrass, Paula Poundstone the DTAs -- 52 weeks a year, and more!

Opened in 1913, and now it's back

It's not just music. We've also been wowed by magicians, and other acts that have added a little magic to our corner of the world. 

If you feel like the world today is driving you a little close to the edge, grab a Reader, see who's coming to town in the weeks ahead and drop in for a bit of sanity. 

*.* * 

For the record we still have the Zeitgeist downtown, an alternative venue that's got its own cool factor, and the Marcus Theaters by the DECC across from the William S. Irving ore boat.

I just heard a story recently about how the Irving ended up where it is today. A group of community business leaders brought the ship into the slip where it sits, to contribute to our soon to be flourishing tourist trade. It was all part of a grand vision for Canal Park, and it came to pass!

The Lincoln Park area has been the center of attention these past ten years, but it's my personal hope that the Spirit Valley neighborhood gets a similar about of love. And I know a lot of people who are eager to see Downtown thrive again. 

Remarkable Lessons from the Pixar Story: Creativity Inc.

How to Create and Manage a Creative Culture: Lessons from the Pixar Experience

When I first saw the silhouette on the cover of Creativity, Inc. I was stymied. It bore a resemblance to the familiar conductor who appears in Disney's Fantasia, but was not, yet it had a familiar look. It's like that puzzle with the vase and the face, or a number of similar optical illusions. Once you see it, you generally don't un-see. It was Buzz Lightyear, or rather a hybrid of these two iconic images, standing in as symbol for the phenomenal business hybrid of Disney and Pixar.

It was Brent Schlender's Becoming Steve Jobs that cued me in to the role Steve Jobs played in saving Pixar Animation Studios from the ash heap of stories that might have been, keeping the company on life support till all the pieces could be pulled together for the Hollywood supernova called Toy Story. Upon completion of this Jobs career and character development story, I felt impelled to read Ed Catmull's insider account of Pixar. The big achievement there, and the basic storyline in this book, was not Toy Story, or its various other superhits. Rather, Catmull's aim is to share a lifetime of insights about management in general, and managing creative people specifically.

How does a company create a creative culture where excellence flourishes, where ideas actually come to fruition and become earth-shaking events? Catmull shares everything, including all the lessons learned through their various failures, and the miracles that rose from those ashes.

The amazing thing is that despite the various mis-steps, Pixar never had a single film that bombed.

The book's subtitle tells the real story of what made Pixar such a superstar: Overcoming the Unseen Forces That Stand in The Way of True Inspiration. Unseen forces means forces can refer to forces that are invisible, like the ice below the surface that sunk the Titanic, or it can mean forces that are in plain sight, like Poe's Purloined Letter, but we do not see them. Catmull states that the management team had to be perpetually vigilant. What they were vigilant about was very different from most organizations.

At the end of the book Catmull does a summing up of his "Thoughts For Managing A Creative Culture." If you Google that title, you'll find that numerous writers have begun sharing these. Though Ed Catmull's stories make it such a rewarding read, his distilled thoughts at the end are well worth deeper reflection. Here's a small collection of notes from this five page reiteration of the book's themes.

--Give a good idea to a mediocre team, and they will screw it up. Give a mediocre idea to a great team, and they will either fix it or come up with something better. If you get the team right, chances are that they'll get the ideas right.

--It isn’t enough merely to be open to ideas from others. Engaging the collective brainpower of the people you work with is an active, ongoing process. As a manager, you must coax ideas out of your staff and constantly push them to contribute.

--There are many valid reasons why people aren’t candid with one another in a work environment. Your job is to search for those reasons and then address them.

--Likewise, if someone disagrees with you, there is a reason. Our first job is to understand the reasoning behind their conclusions. Further, if there is fear in an organization, there is a reason for it— our job is (a) to find what’s causing it, (b) to understand it, and (c) to try to root it out.

--There is nothing quite as effective, when it comes to shutting down alternative viewpoints, as being convinced you are right.

--In general, people are hesitant to say things that might rock the boat. Braintrust meetings, dailies, postmortems, and Notes Day are all efforts to reinforce the idea that it is okay to express yourself. All are mechanisms of self-assessment that seek to uncover what’s real.

--If there is more truth in the hallways than in meetings, you have a problem.

You can find more of these here or if you go ahead and purchase the book here.

* * * *
Healthy organisms and healthy organizations will grow naturally if given the right nourishment and environment. In the case of institutions, there have been plenty of books written about how they fail. Ed Catmull's insider perspective on Pixar's achievements has applications for all types of organizations. But it would be especially valuable for companies working in creative fields like ad agencies, theater, Hollywood, arts communities, new product development, communications and more.

More can be said, but we'll end with this: Read the book.

“Achieving enormous success while holding fast to the highest artistic standards is a nice trick—and Pixar, with its creative leadership and persistent commitment to innovation, has pulled it off. This book should be required reading for any manager.”
—Charles Duhigg, author of The Power of Habit

Originally published in 2017

Throwback Thursday: Fate and Consequences in 'The Monkey's Paw by W.W. Jacobs

One evening last year my daughter's former English teacher asked if i'd ever read The Monkey's Paw. I forget the trigger event, though it may have been discussing The Nonsense Room, a story from my book Unremembered Histories, short stories with a supernatural twist. I'd read it perhaps half a century ago when I was in school, but remembered nothing about it. After revisiting this story I now recommend it here to you.

The Monkey's Paw is essentially a variation of the traditional genie in a bottle genre in which a person can get three wishes. But it's three wishes from the dark side. Not only do the wishes come true, when they do they have unanticipated shocking consequences. The manner in which the tale is told is what grips you. As with all good stories, the reader plunges forward because he or she is eager to see what will happen next.

It begins on a dark, dreary night as the White family waits for a visitor to their out of the way home.  The father and son are playing chess in the parlor while white-haired Mrs. White sits knitting by the fireplace.

The second paragraph, a single sentence, foreshadows the sum total of the story: "Hark at the wind," said Mr. White, who, having seen a fatal mistake after it was too late, was amiably desirous of preventing his son from seeing it.

Chess provides a great variety of life lessons. Decisions must be made all throughout. Consequences of decisions aren't always readily recognizable. All too often they are made with unnecessary haste and dire consequences.

Thus we are conveyed into the story as the White's visitor arrives, a sergeant-major who has spent 21 years abroad in what the Whites believe to be exotic and adventurous places. As they talk, and splash down a few drinks, the topic turns to a monkey's paw that the visitor had mentioned to Mr. White a few days earlier.

The soldier attempts to divert the conversation, though against his better judgment he acknowledges that there is something magical in the matter. He is actually carrying the thing on him at that very moment, but in an effort to be done with it he throws it on the fire.

Mr. White takes fast action and rescues it. The grim visitor is solemn and says, "Better let it burn."

White's impulsiveness becomes the story's turning point, cementing the family's doom.

Like many such stories there's a moral: don't mess with fate. Stephen King's 1000-page 10/23/63 has essentially the same moral, except in a much more massive form. King's story is about a man who goes back in time in an effort to keep JFK from being assassinated.

Hollywood, of course, loves this kind of magical lore in films, in part because the public's craving for it seems endless. I half wonder if the Robin Williams film Jumanji had some of its ideas stimulated by The Monkey's Paw. Kids find a magical game board and start to play, but soon learn that there are unexpected consequences to each move. Sound familiar? There is even a connection to India and other exotic places here.

If you go back to the beginning of the 20th century you can see lots of fascination with "exotic places," which must have been a portion of this story's original appeal, in addition to the creepiness of its premise. Writers like Jack London and Joseph Conrad, among others, capitalized on this interest in all things foreign.

Meantime, as noted earlier, I encourage you to take a few minutes to read The Monkey's Paw. It's an unusual and very compelling story, and a good read.  

The Decline of America's Culture Industries: The Struggle Between Bureaucracy and Creativity

While I was in Italy  this spring I was surprised to see the pervasiveness of Bob Dylan books, art and music. There was a Dylan Retrospectum (art) in Rome, and books about or by Dylan featured in every bookstore. I struck up a conversation with a craft beer brewer in Parma regarding this observation, and he noted that it's not just Bob Dylan that America has exported, but Pop Culture in general.

This notion of American pop culture as a product being exported led to my noticing an increasing amount of commentary about the widespread dissatisfaction with the products Hollywood has been feeding us over the past decade or more. Here are some thoughts generated by feeding a sentence into ChatGPT, regurgitated in essay form.

In recent years, America's culture industries have faced a formidable challenge, grappling with the effects of decay, monopolization, and increasing bureaucracy. As the pursuit of profit has intensified, creativity has become stifled, leading to a worrying decline in the quality and diversity of cultural productions. 

Let's examine the claim that America's culture industries have been transformed into anti-competitive, risk-averse monopolists, suffocating real creativity under the weight of mind-numbing and politically driven bureaucracy.

The rise of corporate giants within the culture industries (esp. Hollywood, literature, music) has undoubtedly fostered a monopolistic environment. Large media conglomerates have acquired numerous entertainment companies, consolidating their control over various creative outlets, from music and film to television and publishing. This monopolization has led to a lack of competition, as smaller players struggle to compete in an industry dominated by a select few. As a result, fresh and daring ideas are often sidelined in favor of formulaic, mass-appealing content that guarantees a return on investment.

Furthermore, the fear of taking risks has permeated the culture industries. Executives, driven by the pressure to maximize profits, tend to prefer established franchises and sequels, diminishing the opportunities for originality and innovative storytelling. This risk-averse approach stifles the potential for groundbreaking works of art and entertainment that push the boundaries of creativity.

To compound the problem, culture industries have become entangled in layers of bureaucracy. The quest for efficiency and streamlining often results in cumbersome approval processes and decision-making hierarchies that slow down productions and impede the free flow of ideas. 

The weight of bureaucracy also affects the individual creatives, subjecting them to creative restrictions and inhibiting their ability to express themselves fully. The prioritization of market research and focus groups over genuine artistic vision further exacerbates the problem, leading to a homogenization of content and an erosion of creativity.

Moreover, the rising politicization of the culture industries has added another layer of complexity. In an attempt to appeal to specific demographics or avoid controversy, creative decisions are sometimes shaped by political considerations rather than artistic merit. This approach may lead to watered-down narratives, sanitization of historical events, or the avoidance of sensitive issues, ultimately undermining the power of storytelling to address important societal challenges. 

In conclusion, the decay of America's culture industries can be attributed to a combination of anti-competitive monopolistic practices, risk aversion, and the burdensome bureaucracy they have imposed on their productions. Creativity, once the driving force behind cultural innovation, is now suffocating under the weight of profit-driven decision-making and politically motivated constraints. To revitalize the culture industries and foster an environment of genuine creativity, it is crucial to address these issues, encourage healthy competition, and prioritize artistic vision over short-term gains. Only then can American culture industries regain their vibrancy and contribute meaningfully to the enrichment of global artistic expression.

* * * 

Here's the prompt I used to produce the above brief essay:  "As America’s culture industries have decayed into anti-competitive, risk-averse monopolists, they have imposed layers upon layers of mind-numbing and increasingly politicised bureaucracy on their productions that make real creativity all but impossible." I pulled it from a much longer essay titled America's pop-culture armageddon by David Samuel at Unherd.

In short, the more that is at stake, the less people are willing to take risks. And because the giants control the channels of distribution, the most creative, outside-the-box original ideas never see the light of day.  

* * * 

Where things go from here is anyone's guess. What do you think?

Oppenheimer: Random Thoughts Stimulated by This Explosive Film

Here are some thoughts I had this past week pertaining to the release of Oppenheimer, the film.

I once heard the following advice for public speakers: It's better to be ten minutes too short than two minutes too long. If you go too long, even by a little, that will be all that the listeners will remember.

I suspect that this is why many people brace themselves when they hear that a film they want to see is three hours in length. (I kept thinking of Gilligan's Island beforehand--"a three hour tour.") Fortunately, the film's frequently intense pacing and storytelling never gave me a boring moment.

The media was awash with pre-release hype surrounding the release of Barbie and Oppenheimer on the same weekend. I'm sure much of that hype was masterfully generated by Hollywood itself, since neither of these blockbusters was cheap to produce. Some of the excitement surrounding these films may have in part been due to the fact that we were being treated to original work and not sequels to previous "hits." 

I went with three older friends to see the film last Tuesday. All three made a negative comment about the volume/noise level interfering with some of the the dialogue. Two of them also noted they wanted to see it a second time when it comes out on DVD so they can read the captions. In short, like myself, they liked the film, found it powerful and despite the complexity of jumping back and forth in time, gave director Christopher Nolan high marks for this achievement.

It's a story with two threads. First is the manner in which the development of the atomic bomb came together. The second, woven throughout, is the deeper dive into Oppenheimer's private life and the post-war hearings that were conducted in an effort to destroy the credibility and legacy of a scientist who had become Time magazine's Man of the Year. In short, the film jumped back and forth between the investigation of 1953 and the years preceding and leading up to Los Alamos, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

Flashbacks are not an uncommon device in movies or novels. For those who do not have a strong background in literature or film, I can imagine that it may have been easy to get lost. Then again, none of the men I was with had that problem. The 8.7 rating on imdb.com would indicate that most people who saw it this week were not fazed by it. Here'e a review excerpt that underscores the same point:

You'll have to have your wits about you and your brain fully switched on watching Oppenheimer as it could easily get away from a non-attentive viewer. This is intelligent filmmaking which shows its audience great respect. It fires dialogue packed with information at a relentless pace and jumps to very different times in Oppenheimer's life continuously through its 3 hour runtime.

The Communism Theme
(Spoiler Alert) The orchestrated character assassination of Oppenheimer the man took place during the McCarthy era. This context was clearly shown in the film. What has also been clearly shown in many other films is how extensively the Communist party had infiltrated the corridors of power in New York, Washington DC and Hollywood in the 30's.

What I almost never see in films is HOW this ideology became so popular or influential.  

For example, here in the Northland and Canada 10,000 Finns left America and migrated to the Soviet Union to be part of the mythological utopia that was being created there. Why? Because for ten years preceding WWII America's economy was a disaster. During the "Great Depression" unemployment was  as high as 25%. This was perceived as a failure of Capitalism. Marxist communism seemed to be the shining beacon of hope for a time. Communism's shortcomings would only be revealed later, but I think it useful to consider these things in the light of that broader decade of hardship.  (See my review of Mr. Jones.)

* * * 

There were a lot of great lines in the film.  Many of them were explosive statements made in passing. This one by Oppenheimer shows that he'd thought more deeply about the implications of the bomb than others. "They won't fear it until they understand it. And they won't understand it until they've used it. Theory will take you only so far."

Another message expressed in the film that stood out was this: Politics is an ugly business. Exercising great restraint, Nolan crafts a film in keeping with the storyteller's dictum "show, don't tell." 

If the frenetic pace of the film feels overwhelming at times, think of the pressure these scientists were under while racing against the clock to get it done.  

As for the acting: solid to exceptional across the board. There will be Oscar nominations and probably some winners as well. 

In short, it's a film worth seeing, and worth talking about afterwards with friends.

Letter from Ann Druyan and Carl Sagan to Chuck Berry

Nevada Bob Gordon helping Chuck Berry 
strum while doing his famous duckwalk.
(Statue across from Blueberry Hill night 
club where Berry often played.)
 

One of the most memorable scenes in the film Back to the Future --yes, I know there were many, many, many--was when Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) took the stage and played electric guitar with the Black musicians who were performing on prom night. This was the 50s and when he broke into an insanely wild guitar solo, one of the players called his cousin Chuck (Berry) and said, "Hey, you gotta listen to this."  

Meanwhile everyone had stopped dancing and was just staring dumbfounded. Marty pauses to say, "I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet. But your kids are gonna love it."

Thanks to Hollywood, we now know how Chuck Berry found his inspiration. 

In the year following this film the Voyager interstellar spacecraft was sent off to go where no man (or woman) has gone before. On board the Voyager were a variety of items from Earth to export to the stars. One of these was Chuck Berry's Johnny B. Goode.*

Here's the letter that was sent to Mr. Berry from Cornell University.

15 October 1986

Mr. Chuck Berry
c/o Mr. Nick Miranda
12825 Four Winds Farm Drive
St. Louis, MO 63131

When they tell you your music will live forever, you can usually be sure they're exaggerating. But Johnny B. Goode is on the Voyager interstellar records attached to NASA's Voyager spacecraft now two billion miles from Earth and bound for the stars. These records will last a billion years or more.

Happy 60th birthday, with our admiration for the music you have given to this world...

Go Johnny, go.

Ann Druyan

Carl Sagan

Cornell University

Ithaca, NY 

On behalf of the 

Voyager Interstellar 

Record Committee

The abandoned Chuck Berry house at 3137 Whittier in St. Louis

Photos courtesy Gary Firstenberg

"Turning Negatives Into Positives"

*Trivia: I was told that Chuck Berry actually took the riff for Johnny B. Goode from Louis Jordan's "Ain't That Just Like A Woman." Carl Hogan' guitar intro is note-for-note used by Berry years later.

Mr. Smith Goes To Washington Continues To Reward Viewers While Remaining Relevant

THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS

82 years ago this week, the Frank Capra classic Mr. Smith Goes to Washington had its world premiere. For those unfamiliar, Jimmy Stewart plays Jefferson Smith, a naive, idealistic youth leader who is hand-picked to fill a vacancy in the U.S. Senate. It's not long before his idealism collides with the political corruption at home and inside the Beltway. Despite attacks on his character he strives to keep moving forward. In short, it's story of disillusionment and dirty politics. In the end, the good guys win--after all, it's a Frank Capra film--and viewers can feel all warm inside. 

When the movie was released it created quite an uproar inside the Beltway. Politicians were angry at the way they were portrayed as corrupt power brokers devoid of ethics. The public loved it, though, as good triumphs over evil in this tale. Ironically, it was banned by fascist nations in Europe because it showed that Democracy actually works. (Honest, good people can win.)

The film begins with the death of a seated senator from Montana. The party bosses can't agree on a choice to replace him, then settle on a true greenhorn, Jefferson Smith. When Smith arrives in Washington DC he's overwhelmed with awe by its monuments and historical buildings. 

When Senator Smith discovers he's being manipulated, and that a project that would really inspire youth is going to be bulldozed, he's helped by Clarissa Saunders, his Washington insider assistant, to fight back. 

Jean Arthur's role as Saunders adds a nice dimension to the film. Early on she's a cynical Washington insider who recognizes that Smith is out of his depth. At one point she says to a colleague, "I wonder if it isn't a curse to go through life wised up like you and me."  When Smith begins his earnest effort to fight the machinery, she steps up initially because that is her responsibility. His idealism, however, begins to rub off on her.  

The reality is that many in Washington began as idealists who compromised their ideals. One of these is Joe Paine, the sitting senator who selected Smith, but who knuckles under to the "boss" who runs Montana, controls the media and the rest of the machinery that has been assembled for the power brokers. When they set out to destroy Smith personally, Senator Paine hardens himself to stay in line, but it's painful to watch. 

Character Assassination

My copy of this book had a red cover.

In the film we see that when it comes to holding on to power there is no limit to the depths people will go to destroy another person's reputation. It brought to mind a novel that our high school Civics teacher had us read--The Man, by Irving Wallace. The 1964 bestseller was about about Douglass Dilman, a black man who becomes president through a series of coincidental events. The Vice Presidency is vacant because the VP died in office. The President and Speaker of the House are in Germany when a building collapses. Dilman, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, is suddenly in the White House.

What I recall most is the great lengths his enemies go to to assassinate his character. They stage a rape in the White House, and the media runs with it. All the visceral prejudice toward the black male comes to the surface and an attempt at impeachment takes place. 

The book made an impact on me that is with me to this day. It makes me distrustful of the media lackeys and lapdogs who serve as public executioners. It also provided a realistic, albeit jaundiced, portrayal of the corridors of power. You can read more about the novel here.

Highlights

There were several moments in Mr. Smith that struck me. One of these was in the latter part of the film in which political boss Jim Taylor (Edward Arnold) orchestrates a media blackout in Montana so the public hears only their interpretation of events. Smith is an enemy of progress, is unworthy of representing Montana.

We see scenes of protesters with signs and rough men stealing the newspapers from the pro-Smith newsboys. I couldn't help but think of how busloads of people just happened to show up at Trump Tower the day after the election in 2016. The whole thing is presented by the media as impromptu outrage, but clearly the signs were produced well in advance or the paint would not have been dry. It was comical.

(EdNote: This kind of thing goes on from both sides, but it was especially evident that day.)

Another highlight was hearing Senator Paine explaining to Jeff why it is important to play ball with these powerful people, even if they are corrupt. This is clearly the distilled foundation of his self-talk to justify his behavior.

Senator Joseph Paine: I know how you feel, Jeff. Thirty years ago - I had those ideals, too. I was 'you'. I had to make the decision you were asked to make today. And I compromised - yes! So that all these years I could stay in that Senate - and serve the people in a thousand honest ways! You've got to face facts, Jeff. I've served our state well, haven't I? We have the lowest unemployment and the highest federal grants. But, well, I've had to compromise, had to play ball. You can't count on people voting, half the time they don't vote, anyway. That's how states and empires have been built since time began. Don't you understand? Well, Jeff, you can take my word for it, that's how things are. Now I've told you all this because - well, I've grown very fond of you - about like a son - in fact, and I don't want to see you get hurt. Now, when that deficiency bill comes up in the Senate tomorrow, you stay away from it. Don't say a word. Great powers are behind it, and they'll destroy you before you can even get started. For your own sake, Jeff, and for the sake of my friendship with your father, please, don't say a word.

* * * 

It's easy to see why politicians didn't like the film when it came out. It's a little like Todo pulling aside the curtain to show the real "wizard" of Oz. Nevertheless the public loved it, and it is still highly rated to this day by viewers. 

Purportedly the film is based on a novel about a real person who went to Washington from Montana, a Senator Burton Wheeler, who was dragged through the mud for investigating the Warren Harding administration. If you recall your history, the Teapot Dome Scandal took place under his watch.

* * * 

TRIVIA: 1939 was a great year for films. Classics that year included Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz, Son of Frankenstein, Goodbye Mr Chips, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Hound of the Baskervilles, among others. 

Throwback Thursday -- Chinatown: How to Tell a Story in Film

“The exhaustive, labyrinthine narrative is built up like a fortress around this film’s bitter heart.” 

~Jeremy Kipp, Slant Magazine

Chinatown. I never get tired of this film. From the haunting music to the crisp dialogue, fabulous screenplay and Roman Polanski’s masterful direction, this film is a sheer pleasure as a work of tragic art. Here's an excerpt from Kipp's insightful review... 

The dialogue by Robert Towne has become part of the pop lexicon, "Forget it, Jake—it's Chinatown!" a catch phrase for being in over your head, or for hurting the one you were trying to help. One of those classic American movies from the 1970s, when studios were churning out themes instead of properties for theme parks, Chinatown can be enjoyed on multiple levels. It's a first-class detective story about a man killed by drowning in the middle of a Los Angeles drought. On top of that, it's a disturbing parable about the pressure put on the human heart, with private detective Jake Gittes (Jack Nicholson) doggedly pursuing the elusive facts about Evelyn Mulwray (Faye Dunaway) and her deep-seated reasons for hiding the truth from him. "You may think you know what you're dealing with," intones John Huston as the depraved millionaire Noah Cross, "but believe me, you don't." 

Syd Field, author of the book Screenwriting, at one time possibly the Bible for how to write movie scripts, states that if you want to write a superior screen play study Chinatown. 

But it is more than a perfect screenplay. It’s is truly a work of craftsmanship in its execution. Once you have seen it a couple times you no longer have to watch to see what it is about. Now you can begin to dissect it, and appreciate its meticulous attention to detail. I invite you to stop the movie at any spot and notice the images, the camera angles, the lighting, the effects. Every frame is a work of art. 

  

Likewise, listen to the dialogue that accompanies these images. Every single scene not only advances the story, it reveals and conceals the mystery. The characters who appear in this film are developed with quick brush strokes through sequences of encounters, engaging banter and a story line that perpetually moves forward toward its painful conclusion. 

  

Jack/Jake’s bandaged nose for seemingly half the film is an amusing metaphor for his character throughout: a snoop. But it keeps coming back to the screenplay. Listen to this exchange between Dunaway and Nicholson later in the film. It’s rich.

Evelyn Mulwray: Tell me, Mr. Gittes: Does this often happen to you?
Jake Gittes: What's that?
Evelyn Mulwray: Well, I'm judging only on the basis of one afternoon and an evening, but, uh, if this is how you go about your work, I'd say you'd be lucky to, uh, get through a whole day.
Jake Gittes: Actually, this hasn't happened to me for a long time.
Evelyn Mulwray: When was the last time?
Jake Gittes: Why?
Evelyn Mulwray: It's an innocent question.
Jake Gittes: In Chinatown.
Evelyn Mulwray: What were you doing there?
Jake Gittes: Working for the District Attorney.
Evelyn Mulwray: Doing what?
Jake Gittes: As little as possible.
Evelyn Mulwray: The District Attorney gives his men advice like that?
Jake Gittes: They do in Chinatown.

Note the misdirection in this exchange a few minutes later.

Evelyn Mulwray: You really don’t like to talk about the past, do you.
Jake Gittes: I’m tired.

Dunaway then delivers yet another of my favorite lines. A little further Nicholson, continuing his probe, asks one more thing and she demurs.

Jake Gittes: What? It's an innocent question.

Evelyn Mulwray: With you, Mr. Gittes, there are no innocent questions.

Nor are there any wasted opportunities.

There are certainly a lot of great films and not everyone appreciates what this one offers up, but if you have any inclination to make movies, I recommend you study this one. There’s more here than meets the eye.

* * * 

This review above was written in 2009. I've seen the film several times since and am impressed how much story is compressed in such a short space. For example, instead of placing a date on the screen to indicate when this took place, we early in the film see Jack Nicholson reading a newspaper with a headline story about Seabiscuit, the famed racehorse of the Great Depression. Chinatown is a movie worth studying to learn how to tell a story in film.

A Comparison of Sequels: MIB I & II vs. Terminator I & II

I just finished watching MIB and MIB II this past week. Afterwards, I tried to figure out why the first was so engaging and entertaining, and why the latter left me flat. Both feature Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith, doing the usual things they do with deadpan wit. Both had innovative aliens and SFX. Both have given our heroes a task to accomplish or else life on earth as we know it will end. In other words, there is something at stake.

And yet, only the first seemed to really grab me. Why was this? 

It honestly seemed like the actors were bored with their roles in the second story, and if they're not into it why should I be? Could that possibly be?

I'm curious what the producers thought as they screened this when it first came out of the can. Many of the imdb.com reviewers were not kind at all. One called it, "The most forced, joyless comedy ever." Another called it, "Recycled garbage." A third wrote, "At Best, it's just a Lame Sequel to an Awesome Summer Movie."

This review perhaps does the best job of capturing what may have been the film's weakness:

`Originality,' is, almost by definition, a one-time thing. In 1997, the original `Men in Black' struck a nerve with movie audiences by showing that even a big budget blockbuster, heavily loaded down with state-of-the-art, computer-generated special effects, could still manage to seem light on its feet. The makers of that film pulled off this feat of gravitational legerdemain by coming up with a concept and a script overflowing with creativity, wit, imagination and a cachet of `hipness' to go along with its tone of anarchic playfulness.

Well, five years have passed and we now have `Men in Black II' to confirm what most of us suspected all along: that works that rely on `uniqueness' as their prime selling point are rarely ever able to duplicate their success a second time around. 

Nevertheless, with that last thought in mind, what was it that made Terminator 2: Judgment Day so successful then? MIB II got a 6.6 audience rating, whereas Terminator 2, directed by James Cameron (Titanic) received accolades and an 8.5 rating, even higher than the first. 

The Terminator films feature cyborgs who come from the future to kill John Connor, who will be a leader of the resistance in that future era. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the "star power" here in these films, much like Jones and Smith. But this sequel shuffles the deck and deals a different hand. 

First, whereas Schwarzenegger is a deadly, terrifying adversary in the first--and a truly original concept--he comes back in the second with the mission of being John Connor's bodyguard against a new, even more resilient and terrifying cyborg adversary. It's the psychological confusion (for Connor and his mother) that adds a level of intrigue in this story, and the fact that the new enemy is also so seemingly invincible and unique.

It you go back to the beginning of this Terminator series, though, you can't help but notice that The Terminator, also directed by James Cameron, was actually a very low budget film, barely over six million bucks. (Roughly the same as Iron Will, the Disney film shot here in Duluth that many here were extras in.) Worldwide gross for that first Terminator flick was 78 million. Clearly, by the time the sequel was produced, Cameron had established his cred and could be trusted with the 100 million dollar budget to turn this inventive sequel into something even more substantial. Worldwide gross: over a half billion. 

* * *

The Point Is This: The word "Sequel" has unfortunately become a byword meaning "Inferior" when it comes to Hollywood pictures. James Cameron did not succeed here simply by having a bigger budget. MIB II had an ample budget as well. Rather, it was the manner in which he took the original story to a new level, something the MIB team failed to do. 

What do you think?

Woody Allen's Cafe Society... No Sizzle, and No Steak Either, But Some Noteworthy Elements

As most people who follow the career of Woody Allen know, at a certain point in time he veered from producing comedy to making more serious films, though some are spiced with comedic elements. Another way of saying that is that his later films appear to be more reflective than mere entertainments. Case in point: his painfully pointed Match Point. 

Since we're still in the pandemic lockdown regarding our local library, we're unable to enter the building and browse the DVD selections. Therefore, we search using the online browsing app. If you search by movie title, you can find quite a few flicks that are not in the library, and thereby waste a lot of time looking. An alternate way is to search by actor and all the films featuring that actor will get listed. 

I just finished watching Woody Allen's Cafe Society, starring (most prominently) Jesse Eisenberg and Steve Carell. Essentially, it is a movie about love triangles, against a backdrop of high society Hollywood and New York.

Jesse Eisenberg (Bobby) is the central character in this movie about a young man who leaves New York to get an education with his uncle, Phil Stern (Steve Carell) in 1930s Hollywood. Eisenberg struggles with the challenge of being at home in Hollywood, but through his experience meets and falls in love with his uncle's secretary. His uncle, has similarly been smitten, and Penelope choose the richer, successful Hollywood agent. 

As one of the losers on the love triangle (Steve Carell's wife is the other loser) Bobby goes back to New York, and takes on a primary role at his brother's hot nightclub. As it happens, he meets another love of his life, who coincidentally is named Penelope. Their amorous relationship results in her becoming pregnant and ultimately married.

The parallel story of his brother the gangster becomes a vehicle to insert ethical issues into a somewhat less complicated story. Love triangles and infidelity are almost commonplace, so a backstory about a brother who is a thug helps add a dimension.

Noteworthy Elements
There are a number of features in this film that tell you this is a Woody Allen film. Here are just a few.

Love for New York
Woody Allen was born in New York, and his passion for the city of his birth is hard to conceal. Manhattan was an opus of sorts. Here in Cafe Society it is barely concealed.

Philosophical Ponderings
The manner in which Woody Allen weaves theological questions and philosophical digressions into his films is quite intriguing. Over and over again we find characters debating conflicting views on ethical matters. 

Recurring Themes
High society glamour, jazz, Jewishness and gangsters are frequently inserted into Woody Allens films. Rule one to young writers is, "Write about what you know." High society, jazz and Jewishness are all facets of who he is. Where do the gangsters fit into his life experience? It probably doesn't matter, but serves as a method for dissecting some related ethical issues.

Witty Dialogue
As usual the characters have a lot of good lines. For some reason, though things feel emotionally barren. We've met these argumentative Jewish parents in an earlier Woody Allen film or two, so it almost feels like a cliche.

* * * 

There is a sense in which I was reminded of Robert Redford's screen adaptation of A River Runs Through It. In that film it seemed to me that Brad Pitt was chosen to play the role Redford would have played had he been a younger man. Redford also narrated the story. In this case, Woody Allen narrates, and Eisenberg is selected to play the role Allen would have played. In fact, in the early part of the move Bobby even sounded like Woody Allen. I don't think I was imagining it.

My original title for this movie review was going to be Woody Allen's Cafe Society... "Meh." At IMDB.com even the reviewers who liked it didn't go gaga over it. Yes, the exotic quality of high society life is well done, but we have seen that before, too. Hollywood is very much in love with itself, though Allen does have. Bobby and his uncle deliver a few barbs about it all.

Flashback Friday: Goofs

Last night I started watching A River Runs Through It, a film directed by Robert Redford based on a novella by Norman Maclean, who also co-wrote the screenplay. I've read the book several times, and seen the film a few times as well, albeit perhaps 10 or 20 years ago. 

Last night, though, I found myself questioning a couple details as they came up. For example, Norman, the storyteller, says he saw the great boxer John L. Sullivan fight while he was out East. For some reason I thought Sullivan fought around 1900, not 1920. A little after there was a reference Burma Shave, which I had thought took place much later. 

So I decided to check this out, and sure enough I was right and the film got it wrong. Sullivan died in 1918. And when Paul does a Bogart imitation at the speakeasy, well that is too much. I am watching a Bogart film tonight (In a Lonely Place) and though it was shot in 1950 I remember when I was in college we saw Bogart's first big screen film. (I just did a fact check, and yes he was in a small short film in 1928) but this scene in River Runs Through It was 1925, so I doubt he knew yer what Bogie sounded like since it was the silent film era..

All this is lead in to a blog post I wrote 10 years ago this month called Goofs. In that instance I detailed the goof in Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds. Most films have them but I was surprised by the quantity of errata in this early Redford film. Here is a page itemizing what people have observed.

And here's my original blog post from Thanksgiving weekend 2010. 

Goofs

While watching movies I often like to read about the films in greater detail at imdb.com. Internet Movie Data Base is a great resource for getting background information about a film, or other viewers' opinion before you check out a flick. In addition to reviews, you can select actors or actresses and review the span of their entire careers, including future projects they have signed on to. 

 

One section that is fun is the trivia about each film. Another page highlights good lines and dialogue fragments. And in the event you are not a regular user of the site, there is still another section which I find interesting, titled Goofs. 

While I was talking on the phone with my brother yesterday he said they were being attacked by a flock of birds while on the way to the theater. He was jesting, but said it felt like a scene from the movie by Alfred Hitchcock. Based on that trigger, I chose to use The Birds to give an example of the kinds of goofs for this film. 

Revealing mistakes: When Melanie is climbing upstairs we see her shadow on the wall, even though the only light source is the flashlight she is using. 

Continuity: Just before the gas station explosion, gas is shown running into the left rear tire of a red car. The next shot of that car, taken from a little farther back, shows gas running near the tail of the car but the area around the tire itself is completely dry. 

Revealing mistakes: When the children are running from the school while being attacked, the birds attacking them cast no shadows. 

Continuity: After the seagull attacks Melanie on the boat, her hair appears disarranged. The next shot shows her hair neatly arranged again. 

Crew or equipment visible: When Melanie was driving her car to deliver the lovebirds, there's a shot of the front of the car and the camera is reflected in the window.

These are just a few of the dozens of observations people have noted about this film.

If you go through the Hitchcock catalog you will see that the films are rife with goofs. But this is hardly a Hitchcock characteristic. Directors know that they must operate with seemingly countless variables while simultaneously making the story "work" and all within a fixed budget.

What prompted me to write about goofs today was, in part, seeing the quantity of goofs in Cameron Crowe's films. As I investigated further, I discovered his films have neither more nor fewer errors of continuity than his peers. And as numerous as they were, I never noticed one of them in the three films I watched last week. Viewers only care that whatever happens makes sense in the context of the dream. It's when characters themselves act out of character that we have real problems.

For what it's worth.