Also, JJ, I think back on RT when I watched Hitchcock's Rope, we had a disagreement over what I perceived as its homophobia? I gave it a rewatch earlier this year and will concede that you were probably right, assuming I remembered your points correctly.

https://boxd.it/2uf74b

Rock wrote:

Also, JJ, I think back on RT when I watched Hitchcock's Rope, we had a disagreement over what I perceived as its homophobia? I gave it a rewatch earlier this year and will concede that you were probably right, assuming I remembered your points correctly.

https://boxd.it/2uf74b

I remember the discussion.

Funnily enough, I never quite pegged Stewart (for lack of a better term) as "obviously" gay, but I thought the ambiguity added to the atmosphere that I was referring to.  What impressed me, especially for a film of its time, was how uncontroversial the less ambiguous homosexual relationship between Brandon and Philip is among their guests.  (The only one who seems oblivious to this fact is the friend, Douglas.)  This acceptance pushes back against the perception of their homosexuality as being inherently corrupt or evil, and even then Brandon is considerably more evil than Philip, but probably not because he's more gay.

There's also a similar line about the corruption of Norman Bates being a facet of his perceived sexuality (and there's just as many theories on just what that is), but I also think that's way too simplistic a take.  Quite simply, I think that Hitchcock was kink-aware enough to both empathize, sometimes sympathize, while wanting to provoke his audience with a certain amount of titilation.  I haven't seen a lot of proof that he cared very much for the more conservative attitudes toward sexuality.

Nice write-up, I guess you logged that right before I started posting there.  You have a lot of reviews to sift through, and I should do some deep dives in the back catalogue.

Girl 27 (2009)

     Extremely important story that almost went to the grave with those involved. Essential viewing, especially for film historians, Girl 27 reveals in detail how, long before Harvey Weinstein’s reign of terror, Hollywood was already an expansive, fully–functional rape machine. Rape and destroy, condoned enabled and enforced through big studios’ immense influence in every aspect of life, from business to public opinion to every level of local and state government. The documentary reveals an image of Hollywood reminiscent of a plantation structure. They owned everything, they ran everything. Even doctors examining the women were complicit. 

Girl 27 also treats us to a detailed reminder of America's stiflingly conservative culture at that time, when even uttering the word “rape” was taboo, and when victim–blaming was the norm.

     Like many documentarians, David Stenn seems better at filmmaking than at interviewing people about traumatic experiences. In all fairness, however, he apparently only stumbled across this story while doing research for a book on an entirely different topic. So he can be forgiven if he doesn’t seem fully prepared for the dark depths to which this rabbit hole eventually leads him. He’s also the only documentarian I’ve seen to explicitly acknowledge and grapple with the fact that persuading someone to recount their trauma in detail feels cruel and exploitative, no matter how important their story may be. 

     I appreciate when documentaries aren't padded with a lot of footage of irrelevant talking heads, and fortunately most of the individuals interviewed here are directly connected to the story somehow, with a few more providing expert legal opinions or historical contexts. Now, the inclusion of Greta Van Susteren among the latter, I won’t say “gave me pause” or “raised an eyebrow,” but maybe I’ll say it raised one–third of an eyebrow. The available deets surrounding her stint with and departure from F(au)x News paint a fuzzy picture at best. We know she rushed to Roger Ailes’ defense when Fox was revealed to be its own well–oiled sexual harassment–machine, and we know she resigned two months after Roger did. Then there’s the unseemly fact that just last month she signed a contract with Newsmax. All that with an honorary law degree… "It raises questions" is all I'm sayin. Thankfully such questions are ultimately inconsequential for the purposes of the Girl 27 story, though. Greta mostly just lends her storytelling chops, and probably does so from the perspective of someone who has experienced and witnessed more of predatory workplace culture than she’s letting on.

     Incidentally, one of the more harrowing scenes in the 2019 movie Bombshell (a narrative of Fox's own sexual harassment culture and its eventual exposure) seems to have been styled specifically after certain details described by the interviewees of Girl 27.

     Great pains were clearly taken to ensure that Girl 27 would be thoroughly–researched, in tracking down individuals involved, and in providing rich context through newspaper clippings, film footage, expert opinion and paper trails. I would have appreciated a little less time spent with the filmmaker in front of the camera, but it's not as bad as I make that sound. It's clear who the true star and hero of this story is.Girl 27 is pretty much everything a good documentary should be, and it rescues a crucial story from the grave, seemingly in the nick of time.

Last edited by Rampop II (6/04/2022 7:37 pm)

Rock wrote:

Is it worth seeing the theatrical cut or should I seek out the director's cut instead?

The theatrical cut is every bit as awesome as the director's cut. The director's cut just re–inserts some splatter here and there, into what is still a plenty gory movie. IMO there is no reason to pass on the theatrical version to hold out for the director's cut; it's not a situation like Blade Runner (or Alien, yuck) where the director's cut is a significantly different experience. You wouldn't be missing anything in the theatrical cut but a few extra squibs going off here and there. Some prefer the tighter pacing of the theatrical cut. 

Either way, if you're about to see Natural Born Killers for the first time, I'm excited for you. Neither cut will disappoint. The only reason to hold out would be if you're faced with having to watch with commercials. It's definitely the wrong movie for that. 

Deleted scenes also exist and are included as extras on hard copies. They're the kind of deleted scenes that are fun to see as a cinephile, but you can also see why cutting them was the right decision (for pacing, story arc, etc).

Enjoy. It's definitely essential viewing. 

Rock wrote:

JJ, you're a fan a Natural Born Killers, right?

I know you're a fan of Domino.  Let's rewind from that.

I think that NBK may be the prime demonstration of Oliver Stone's contribution to cinema.  Even more than the (then) more acclaimed JFK, which he would admit probably went a bit too far into his own "countermyth", the significant development of this polystyle portrayal of media perception is, and was, a bombshell that may even seem quaint in the aftermath of its influence.  The pop terms, post-modernist, meta-narrative, NBK was already mocking that before it became a cliche of hypercinema in the 21st century.  So it's almost like judging a film like Network for predicting FOX, which seems superobvious decades later.  The cleft between media and perception - the age-old fulcrum of art - is not as provocative in this sense of media psychology now that's it's been accelerated by the internet.  The film may look like amalgamated cable trash today, but cable was a hot flame at the time.  It stank, and Oliver shoved our faces into it.  I think that's the important perspective to consider.

And as for his brand of psychological filmmaking, this is pretty much Stone's essence of raw mean grit.

What did you decide to do about Natural Born Killers, Rock?  Looking forward to hearing about it. 

crumbsroom wrote:

And then I took mushrooms and watched it, thinking that would be wonderful, and everything about it just seemed obvious and lame.  

Funny what psychedelics will unexpectedly do to a beloved movie.  Star Wars on acid: ridiculous. The Shining on mushrooms: profoundly amazing. 

On the other hand they can turn horrible movies into a knee–slapping good time. Freddy's Dead and Cool World are undeniable stinkers, but on acid they were heehee–larrrious! 

crumbsroom wrote:

I will also say, that it was the directors cut that pushed me in the 'zzzzzz' direction. It's amazing that just a little too much when everything is already precariously too much by design, can destroy something. 

I also prefer the theatrical version and felt like the director's cut was overkill, but I figure I can never be free of the bias of having seen (and been blown away by) the theatrical version first.

crumbsroom wrote:

Especially on mushrooms.

I've seen the film on a number of substances (including those), but the best experience happened to be the freshest, opening weekend (with Rampop), and the most potent influence happened to be the very angry crowd reaction.  About a quarter or a third walked out.  I'm not necessarily saying that such a fourth-wall breaking experience should make any film better or worse, but I do have to admit that it made this one feel a lot sweeter.

Jinnistan wrote:

Still waiting for Rock's review.  He's been too busy with Yentl.  (aka, foreign title: Natural Born Kibbitzer)

I'll watch it soon, I swear!

Yentl is great though. Guys, watch Yentl.

I'm not going to lie.  I prefer Color of Money over Yentl.

Good review, and I'm glad that you seemed to have liked it about as well as me.  Yes, Scorsese films are on a bell curve that is typically unkind to his 'very good to great' tier.  But I've never felt this film as being the placeholder work-for-hire as it's so often made out to be.

The movie is not regarded as one of his best and I understand it was seen as something of a sellout assignment. Now, I have two perhaps contradictory responses to this. One is: so what?

There is some context for why he took this film at the time.  King of Comedy was a flop, critically as well as commercially.  This almost certainly led to the demise of the pre-production of his first attempt at Last Temptation of Christ.  Scorsese would say: "Give me anything.  I'll do it.  I've got to work.  I've got to do something."  So he took the low-budget After Hours.  Appropriately enough, the chapter of the book Martin Scorsese: A Journey that covers Hours and Money is called "Survival".  "The trick was to survive."  With Money, part of the trick was to meet the commercial standards of the studio system.  No success, no second shot at Last Temptation.  'Resurrection' is the theme on Marty's mind.  I don't believe that there is any way that Scorsese would set about to do any project that didn't have a personal resonance with him.  Scorsese changed the book and original script, "I didn't believe it".  He wanted to bring Eddie Felson back, he wanted to tap into that lust and obsession, that primal drive that is so electric in The Hustler.  I doubt many people are familiar with the original book.  I've never read it.  Scorsese didn't sell out, he bought the script and proceeded to remake it in his own image.  That incarnation of Eddie Felson on the screen is there because it reflects Marty.  Any other hack-for-hire would have been content to make a nice little love story about a small-time poolhall owner who quietly and modestly makes peace with his long-lost dream.  Marty chose to slam the book with a taxicab door and stab it in the neck with a letter-opener.  "I'm back, baby!"

In contrast, Cruise gets an amusingly high pompadour that feels like a joke Scorsese played on him, although it works for the character.

One of my favorite scenes is early, when Felson offers the backhanded compliment, "Kid, you're in an incredible flake, but that's a gift."  And Vince just stares back at him with that patented Cruise tooth-pie, unable to understand.

One of the best scenes in the movie show astutely how deeply shaken Newman's character is after being conned by a pool hall hustler (an electric Forest Whitaker, threatening to run away with the movie). The tension in his voice is palpable when he asks repeatedly, "Are you a hustler, Amos?"

And Scorsese has a deep appreciation for his actors' star qualities, particularly Newman, who combines his classic Hollywood charm with a sense of fallibility and fraught psychological realism. Probably the greatest thing about Newman's performance is its sense of texture, effortlessly evoking a sense of being at this for too long, and having picked up a certain amount of wisdom but maybe not enough. It's a quality that extends to his wardrobe: Newman is one of the most stylish people to ever grace this planet, and in this movie wears one of the greatest collection of sunglasses I've seen in a movie.

And it's extends even to his voice, simultaneously smooth and gravelly, aged like the whiskey he's been hawking, and Scorsese complements it with the sense of texture he brings to his direction.

Another pet peeve of mine is when people call this film Newman's "complimentary" Oscar win, acknowledging the Academy's notorious habit of trying to correct their past neglect by honoring late-career, and implicitly inferior, work.  Now, I'm not going to pretend that this role is on par with, say, the handful of Newman's absolute best (Hustler, Hud, Cool Hand Luke) but I will go on the record as saying that I think it's on par with The Verdict, the film that most people think this win was a correction for.  Both films, in different ways, capture the senior citizen Newman at his most emotionally distilled presence.  I don't have time for those who ask, "Is this the film he should have won for?"  He should have won them all, folks.  Unlike Eddie, it's not his fault.