The Great Gatsby – “Ol’ Sport!”

The Great Gatsby 

Directed by Baz Luhrmann, 2013

John:  I have read the book at least a half dozen times. It is my favorite. And to be honest I went to this, half-expecting a failure, or nice try, like the Robert Redford/Mia Farrow earlier adaption. This one is spectacular. And even taught me something about the book.

Spanky: Not really surprised, as you were a fan of Luhrmann’s Moulin Rouge, which gave me a headache. Toby Maguire proves an inspired choice as Nick Carroway and he gets us through the preliminary stuff, where Daisy and Gatsby are pretty much mannequins.

John: DiCaprio comes alive in the conflict with Tom Buchanan. I expected that from the book. And Carey Mulligan, as Daisy, is fine. What I didn’t expect was to be emotionally moved by expected lines, such as Gatsby’s introduction against a background of George Gershwin, his comments on the past, the conclusion of the movie (and the book).

Spanky: I agree. Luhrmann has a respect for the original that should be acknowledged. What he does with special effects heightens what is there, makes it cinegraphic, it doesn’t compete or take away from the Fitzgerald classic. On the contrary.

John: In fact there are two things which actually helped me with the book. First, the movie focuses on Gatsby’s obsession with the past―his desire to re-invent it in light of his new wealth. Nick thinks this an unbridled optimism and I have to admit on the surface, I thought it was what the Midwest had over the rich, East Coast―and the reason Nick (as Fitzgerald) goes back to Minnesota in the end. But through the movie I see, Gatsby is being almost as unreasonable as Buchanan. Which leaves us, where? On to “point two.”

Spanky: I have to say, as a dog, “point one” didn’t mean much. Live in the “here and now” people!

John: Luhrmann does change the story to the extent that he has Nick writing a book about this as part of his psychiatric treatment. In the original he is a narrator who appears only as a kind of bookend commentator. So my “second point” is, how does art (writing specifically, but movies too) bring about a catharsis of our feelings. If Caraway’s admiration of Gatsby has led him to seek mental help through writing in rehab, then we need to ask how the story should be accepted, by us, if not on its own terms. That is profound and doesn’t accept easy, one sentence answers. But it is what great art does. It’s what makes this book a classic. It’s what lifts this movie above the realm of entertainment.

GO, GO, GO, GO (4 GOs out of 4)

Spanky: Let me think about this some more, but on the basis of your reaction, I’d advise:

BARK, BARK, BARK (3 BARKs out of 4)

PS When John originally wrote this he was thinking of Gatsby, himself, possibly Nick Caraway, but a few days later he realized that the theme applies to all of  us. Writers really do live twice, once when they experience something, a second time when they write about it. Fitzgerald’s book allows us to internalize, personalize this message. As does the movie. That takes a certain confidence in the reader/viewer. But the payoff is the work becomes theirs, not the writer’s or the director’s. It is the genius of both the book and now the film to direct us toward that, yet let us do it. We become the artist. Or discover that we have been one all along.

The Spanish Prisoner – “Excuse Me!”

The Spanish Prisoner 

David Mamet, director/writer, 1997

John:  This is the second or third time I’ve seen this movie. About three-quarters of the way through it, I think this is one that will out-Hitchcock Hitchcock. Then it goes wrong and I remember why I was disappointed before. Mamet is a great writer and the cast is good, but…

Spanky: I know what you mean, and I think the problem has to do with our expectations which extend beyond the movie.  Steve Marin plays it straight, and we expect him to betray us (hasn’t he already done that “playing it straight.”) But its Mamet’s wife, Rebecca Pidgeon―cast as a naïve, but trusting female confident―who we can’t accept as evil.

John: All of a sudden this is another twist and turn in a movie of twists and turns, but this is one too many. She has been the central character’s, and our, one fixed point in an ever-changing perspective.

Spanky: Part of the problem is I’m sure Mamet didn’t want Pidgeon to be the heroine and Martin and Ben Gazzara, the losers. And he knew he could write clever dialogue to cover the sleight of hand. He does. But emotionally, cleverness is not enough.

John: I love the way he plays off of Chinese tourist stereotypes, but you’re right. The Campbell Scott character (he is the son of George C. Scott, by the way) is our stand-in, not knowing what to believe or who to trust, but Pedgeon seems all that is right in a confusing, greedy world. To throw her out, with the bath, is to throw the movie away too.

GO (1 GO out of 4)

Spanky: If wishing could make something better, I would have been satisfied. John you may not be Mamet, and are certainly not Steve Martin, but for once I agree.

BARK (1 BARK out of 4)

Upstream Color – “God is in the details.”

Upstream Color 

Shane Carruth, director, 2013

John: You watch previews that tell a whole movie in 30 seconds and then comes this feature which lasts an hour and a half that leaves you dumbfounded.

Spanky: My first response to something like this is to stomp out, throw a box of popcorn at the punk taking tickets and swear, unless I get my money back I will never come to this theater again.

John: Like you ever pay to get in! But let me ask our readers, “Do you like worms? What about mutilated pigs?” There are two kinds of confusion. They are: 1) you stay up all night discussing something you saw or read; or 2) the kind you walk away from, like you are suggesting here, Spanky.

The Place Beyond the Pines – “Fathers and Sons”

The Place Beyond the Pines

Derek Cianfrance, director, 2013

John: Like with On the Road I brought a lot with me to the theater. I had just talked with my son in Green Bay and written a poem about my father who died twenty years ago. I wondered, what if anything, was passed on from generation to generation. In a way this strange movie gave me an answer.

Spanky: I know, unlike me, you had motorcycles for many years and also a few tattoos, and  even though three quarters of the way through this movie, I had no idea where it was going, I know what you mean. Ryan Gosling is killed off in the first part of the film, but his role haunts all of it. And the ending is so right.

John:  The third act starts to look like some kind of teen-aged vengance. It slows things down, and then, then we are beyond the pines.

GO, GO, GO, (3 GOs out of 4)

Spanky: I admire a movie that lets you bring your own baggage to it, and yet leave with more to think about. It is demanding of the actors, it is demanding of the audience. But that is what we value, because we have done it.

BARK, BARK, BARK (3 BARKs out of 4)

On The Road – “Bumpy Going”

On The Road

Walter Salles, director, 2012

John: This is a hard one because I am so attached to the book and to the times (a friend and I hitch hiked  to California in the sixties after finishing college). For anyone who lived back then, this is more than a movie we watch, it is one we in which we participate. Or should I say our memories do.

Spanky: The casting is excellent as is the historic recreation, but there doesn’t seem to really be a plot—other than drugs, nudity, writing, sex, discussion and more writing. Sorry I missed the “sixties”, John, but I’ve got this pointless travelogue instead.

John: There was an optimism out there then, feeling that everything belonged to everybody. We were searching for meaning and some of us found it like we have never felt since. But it would be hard to convey that to someone who didn’t live it. Kerouac’s book still does. At least for me. And the movie reminds me of the book.

Spanky: I was glad your wife wasn’t with us. Most women would be hung up on the subservience of women back then. The challenge is for a movie like this to have the impact of the past and somehow convey its equivalent for today’s audiences. That last just didn’t happen for me.

John: I think it does. I agree the movie seems plot less, but toward the end there is a longing for life to be open ended, as exemplified by Dean Moriarity and his father. I liked it that there was a genuine affection among the men, and for writing. That there was a possibility of expressing what couldn’t be expressed.  Jack Kerouac does that. And I thought the movie did it too. For the right audience, I give it Go, Go, Go (3 Go’s out of 4).

Spanky: Two Barks for a good try from me. Bark, Bark (2 Barks out of 4). “On the road?,” I’d rather stay home.

ROGER EBERT – “A MILLION THUMBS UP!”

our Roger Ebert 

John: I grew up in Chicago where this guy started out with Gene Siskel on the local PBS station. Forty years later I was still watching different incarnations of the Ebert formula. In fact I had suggested to a friend that we do the same thing on the web. I said I would even write both parts if he wanted. When that didn’t fly, I did it with my dog instead—SpankyandJohnGoToTheMovies.com.

Sparky: I don’t blame the guy; you even got my name wrong. It’s Sparky, John, Sparky not Spanky!

John: Well I always liked those “Spanky and Our Gang” early shorts. But one way or another we’ve had almost 16,000 viewers from all parts of the globe (Norway, Taiwan, etc). And now we do old movies as well as new releases since many people watch Netflix or other movie options.

Sparky: So getting back to Ebert (if that really was his name), why do you think he was the best known movie critic?

John: People loved the discussion. It wasn’t just Pauline Kael telling us what to think, but two people discussing something they were participants in. It reminded me of college, arguing over Plato and the Existentialists. We felt we were a part of the dialogue—no, the best part of the dialogue. And Siskel and Ebert or Ebert and Roper demonstrated how that could be.

Sparky: So how is that different from today?

John: Now we are consumers, manipulated by the film industry. There’s big money at stake so they aren’t taking any chances. But with Ebert we were…artists, searching for meaning. Finding the memorable. Some people, like Hitchcock and Bergman, had enough confidence in their audiences to let them be players. Now, I don’t know. Roger Ebert’s time, our time, is over. Still it’s hard not to love a man who emblemized something so special.

Spanky: And we do that by keeping his spirit alive in our blog.

John: Four “Barks” out of four, my friend. Four “Barks” out of four.

Columbus Circle – “Round and round.”

Columbus Circle, Director:  George Gallo, 2012

John: Maybe I’ve been watching too much TV and my standards have gone to hell, but I found this (particularly the second half gripping and surprising. I’ll admit the ending seems a bit farfetched, but it is perfect.

The story begins with the murder of an old lady, but focuses on her acrophobic neighbor across the hall. The dynamics are between her and a new couple who move into the dead woman’s apartment. The plot presents different stereotypes and then shows things are not what they seem. I don’t want to give too much away, but I think Hitchcock would be proud of this one.

GO, GO, GO, (3 GOs out of 4)

Spanky: You’ve got to be kidding. You can spot what is going to happen miles away. I did like the ending line, and it was good they could find a role for Beau Bridges. He makes us want to trust him and appearances. Big mistake.

John: But that’s a foreshadowing of the other character reversals. This is a poker game in which the director is playing, not the cards, but the audience.

Spanky: John, I’ve got a great Brooklyn Bridge to sell you. Or maybe a NY condo, cheap.

BARK (1 BARK out of 4)