The Several Words You Still Can't Say on Television

Lenny Starring: Dustin Hoffman Director: Bob Fossee Similar Films: Totally Bill Hicks, Goodfellas, The People vs. Larry Flynt Adventurous: !!!! (Language, Drug Use, Sexuality) Rating: *** ½ Where you can find it: Adventurous Video Stores, Bongo, 4-Star Video Heaven As a big fan of stand-up, I have always been curious about Lenny Bruce, the dark horse of comedy who injected himself to death. From listening to my George Carlin albums, I gather that Lenny Bruce was the real inspiration behind much of Carlin’s social commentary. And Bill Hicks, whose JFK routine and other dark material function as companion pieces to Lenny’s work, was often compared to Bruce (Brett Butler compared the two, most notably, in the documentary Totally Bill Hicks). After attempting several times in vain to listen to his albums, I stopped trying to understand Lenny’s material. His fast-paced New York accent, mingled with the poor recording instruments of the day, made the first half of his jokes so difficult to hear, that the other half left me hanging in confusion. So I gave up on Lenny Bruce, until I wandered by this film at the video store. Directed by Bob Fosse (Cabaret, All That Jazz), Lenny is a film that any stand-up fan should see. In Lenny, Dustin Hoffman plays Lenny Bruce, one of the most influential stand-up comedians of the 20th century. The film shows Bruce’s rise from doing small-time gigs in New York, to shows at the Copa Cabana, and finally his full transformation to stand-up legend. Lenny Bruce started doing comedy when he was 12 years old, opening for his mother’s own stand-up act. From that point, he developed his skills and eventually became an emcee at the Copa. After meeting and marrying the lovely stripper, Honey (Valerie Perrine), Bruce learned to embrace the underbelly of the profession he was born to rule. Navigating the troubled show business waters, Lenny learned that his voice could be both funny and socially conscious. He achieved this first by leaving the straight-edge scene he had tried to conquer as young man. Over time, Lenny and Honey became heroin addicts, and Honey spent a few years in jail for narcotics possession. In his final years, Lenny was arrested many times for obscenity (his most famous bits were “Tits and Ass” and “Cocksucker”), and used up the money he earned as an underground sensation to pay for the appeals lawyers who fought to keep him out of jail. On August 3, 1966, facing jail time for his various indiscretions, Lenny overdosed on heroin in his Hollywood home. He was 40 years old. As I popped the DVD into my player, my first thought before the film had even begun was: It would be neat to do a documentary style for this, instead of a simple biopic. It would be neat if they interviewed actors playing the characters in his life, the influences and the people who knew his idiosyncrasies the best. I was pleasantly surprised to find that this is exactly the kind of film Fosse decided to make. The main interviewees are his wife Honey, his mother, and his agent. Each of them gives a perspective on what made Lenny Bruce such an influential character. Through his agent, we see Bruce as an irreverent misfit, incapable of being molded in society’s image. Bruce’s agent was perpetually insinuating himself in the comedian’s affairs, at one point attempting to deep-six his love for Honey. Through is mother we see Bruce as a big child, one who was never allowed to properly mature in the ways that others mature. He was a 9th grade dropout, and had lived his entire life in show business. Through his wife, we see the innocence and love of a teenager. Although he and Honey divorced in 1957, Lenny Bruce remained in love with her until his death. Their interactions as husband and wife inspired many of his groundbreaking jokes about cheating, jealousy, and sexual frustration. Together, the three perspectives give us a thorough sketch of the most effusively obscene comic of the 1960’s. Interesting Tidbit: Clarence Thomas played a New York appeals lawyer who first appears near the end of the movie. He can be seen drinking a soda with a hair hanging off of it, as he talks to Lenny in the bathroom. This scene was cited several times in his confirmation hearings, and ultimately led to his approval. To quote Sen. Ted Kennedy, “Anyone who did a film on Lenny Bruce is OK in my book. Now pass tha bone, Strom. Cannonball it. Cannonball it!” Dustin Hoffman was nominated for a Best Actor Oscar in 1974. The film itself received 6 nominations. At first, one might discount the movie as a second-rate picture because it didn’t win any awards. One should remember, however, that in 1974 the nominees included: The Towering Inferno, The Conversation, Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, Chinatown, and The Godfather: Part II. For heaven’s sake, who would expect to get an award against that lineup? I’ll give Dustin Hoffman props for his impression of Lenny. There is one scene toward the end where Hoffman does 5 minutes of uncut Lenny Bruce material, as if he were on heroin. This, in itself, is a real treat. My only criticism of Hoffman’s performance is that his accent wasn’t New York enough. But that can hardly be his fault; he’s a west-coast man. Although Lenny Bruce is considered to be the top comic of his generation, it is not his jokes that he will be remembered for; Lenny makes sure to point that out. More so, Bruce’s legacy remains his tireless fight for first amendment rights. It is stated during and at the end of the film that the things Lenny said in the 60’s are considered normal now. Thankfully, many comedians acknowledge his contribution to freedom of speech. And as a bitter-sweet endnote, New York Governor George Pataki granted Lenny Bruce a posthumous pardon in 2003 for a gig he did in the Big Apple. Pataki considered this "...a declaration of New York's commitment to upholding the [First Amendment]. [Freedom Of Speech] is one of the greatest American liberties, and I hope this pardon serves as a reminder of the precious freedoms we are fighting to preserve as we continue to wage the war on terror.''

Is it Safe, or is it just really, really dry?

Safe Starring: Julianne Moore Director: Todd Haynes Similar Films: Blue Velvet Rating: ** 1/2 Adventurous: !! Where you can find it: Any video store with a pulse Todd Haynes (Velvet Goldmine, Poison) directed this loosely-defined “horror picture of the mind.” Starring Julianne Moore, Safe is the story of Carol White (Moore), a suburban housewife and stepmother whose entire existence is designed to make her man feel good. As her character is slowly developed, we see that Carol is practically non-existent in her social circle, as well as in her family. She works out, attends baby showers, and has a headache every night. She is the stereotypical suburban woman, until one day when she begins to feel vaguely ill. After having a few minor symptoms, Carol visits the doctor where she is quickly dismissed as being over-stressed. As her symptoms worsen, Carol looks for an answer to her worries. She finds that answer in the form of an wellness center for the environmentally ill, located in the New Mexico desert. There she is isolated from her social contacts, family, and every chemical known to man, and is subjected to the demagogic blatherings of wellness guru Peter Dunning (Peter Friedling). By the end of the film, we are not sure if Carol really is really environmentally ill, or instead mentally ill. Having seen Poison in my days as a Starlight Cinema dilettante, having rented Velvet Goldmine from the library, and then seeing Safe available on the shelf of my local video store, I decided that it would be worth the $2.00 to give it a try. After all, Velvet Goldmine was one of the most enjoyable movies I’ve seen in recent memory. Poison was one of the most disturbing films I have ever seen. If Todd Haynes could do for Safe what he did for those two masterpieces, it would sure be a treat. And to some extent, he does. But don’t rent this one if you’re looking for a film that demands your total concentration. The subtlety of Julianne Moore’s performance would make it seem that this is so, that the viewer must give his all to understand such a deep and poignant film. And reading message boards about the film, one is struck with a barrage of comments that sound either like, “this sucks!” or like “you just don’t get it. It’s brilliant!” Either way, I’m not interested in debating this one. It was boring (with one or two exceptions). The subject matter, environmental illness, is an important topic. To know that we Americans put thousands of toxins in our body every day (a tidbit that Carol’s doctor shares with her) is great. In fact, I’d be all for a Public Service Announcement by the likes of Timmy the Toxin (voiced by Tobey McGuire), that could be played 24-7 on the Cartoon Network. But beyond that fact, this film has little to say about the toxic effects of our daily grind. Instead, one gets the feeling that Todd Haynes is trying to make the viewer understand something. That ‘something’ (as I have read on these message boards), is that Safe is a metaphor for homosexuality. No, wait. It’s a metaphor for AIDS. No, again. It’s a metaphor for suburban life. No, once more. It’s a metaphor for every film student on the planet to figure out and put a label on! There is no reason to think to deep into this film, because the characters do not draw us into their struggle. They lead a perfectly dull existence, with money galore and little to show for their cornucopia of resources. The film might more accurately be titled Carol Gets Sick. It’s just that dull. There are a couple of exceptions that sharpen the dull blade of Safe. One is Peter Friedling’s performance as cult/wellness center leader Peter Dunning. He really has you going for a minute or two, when he states that life is good, and positive feelings are the only way to survive in our cruel world. After a while, however, his speeches begin to sound a little ‘off.’ At one point he suggests that his followers stop watching the news to drown out negativity. Although I personally subscribe to this philosophy as well, I don’t know that it is the correct antidote for everyone. And I certainly wouldn’t prescribe it (unless I, too, one day run a multi-million dollar wellness center…then I’ll prescribe every whacked out philosophy in the world. The more we screw up our nation’s rich and suck them dry, the better.) Pretty soon, he has everyone at the center believing that they are the cause of the environmental problems. This may be true, for some of the attendees of his cult. But some members lived close to chemical plants and other unsafe areas, so it is possible that they are genuinely environmentally ill. Another interesting area of the film (though his part is very small) is the freak character who lives inside a world of total fear. He fears walking outside his door, and the viewer only sees him as he struggles along, wearing what looks to be a surreal fencing outfit, outside his hutch. He is the archetype of psychological pain, and every step he took creeped me out. Other than those two points, the film is mediocre. The music sounds like it was stolen from Angelo Badalamenti’s scrap pile. The creepy factors of the film can be compared to David Lynch's work also, though again Safe is more subtle. If you’re gay, have AIDS, or have a particular hatred for suburban wealth (or all three), you might want to rent Safe. But if you’re just as abnormally white-bread as I am, you can skip this one and rent either Poison or Velvet Goldmine. They’re just plain better.

A History of Crap (the filmography of David Cronenberg)

A History of Violence Starring: Viggo Mortenson, Maria Bello, Ed Harris, William Hurt Director: David Cronenberg Similar Films: Anything done by Hitchcock, The Zapruder Film Rating: ** Adventurous: !!! Although many of the reviews on this site can be considered half-baked, wishy-washy, or otherwise hyphenated, I don’t want to mince words here. Director David Cronenberg (Naked Lunch, eXistenZ) has shoveled up piece of first rate horse-sh** in his newest attempt at cheese, A History of Violence. Why or how anyone could leave the theater satisfied after sitting through an hour and a half of plodding dialogue, poor character development, unfulfilled suspense, and incomplete philosophies is beyond me. But I guess this film deserves as much chance as any other Palm D’Or nominee. Viggo Mortenson (Lord of the Rings, Hidalgo) stars as Tom Stall, a small town café owner with a wonderful, loving family (played by two useless brats and Maria Bello of ER semi-fame). Together, they live a perfectly halcyon life in the most boring town ever incorporated in America. When two violent drifters enter his eatery one evening, Tom must dispose of them. His heroics with a gun turn him into a national hero. Because of his new-found fame, Tom is visited by a mobster (Ed Harris) who claims to know him as “Crazy Joey from Philly.” As his wife and children are threatened by this shady character, Tom is forced to deal with his own violent past. There was so much potential here. Based on a graphic novel by John Wagner and Vince Locke, A History of Violence finds its roots in strong visual images and weak dialogue. And the adaptation of those two points is where the film succeeds. The violent imagery that Cronenberg produces is strongly reminiscent of the final frames of the Zapruder film (especially the part where Kennedy's head went back and to the left, back and to the left). I had read that people were leaving the theater in disgust after seeing pieces of skull and brain on the tiled floor of Tom’s café. I merely laughed (hence the two-star rating). Beyond those few gory shots, however, there was little substance in the dialogue or character development available to the Cannes film festival panel that nominated this crap. I think the desire of an artist, like a scientist, is to not accept at face value what most people accept, but to dig deep underneath the surface of things to see where things originate and what goes on there. So that often leads you to scary, negative or forbidden stuff. But I don’t think the desire is only to know what’s negative, it’s to know what is real, and there are so many layers to reality. –David Cronenberg Although the trailer looked good, and the quote above makes it sound downright ineresting, the final cut of this film was hardly worth the money. One of the most underdeveloped areas of this movie is the philosophy behind it. The idea that violence begets violence is a theme that could mean so much to a frightened American population in the age of “Iraqi Freedom”. The whole thrust of the argument, if I understand it correctly, is that Tom was ushered into violence by his mobster family (which, coincidentally, was the defense used this week by John Gotti, Jr.). Because he committed atrocities earlier in his life, Tom must now pay the piper. In killing the two robbers, he has ushered his own son into violence. Unfortunately, it is hard to see the connection between Tom’s action, killing two unredeemable thugs, and his son’s subsequent pounding of a school bully. Moreover it is extremely difficult to believe that his son, who as far as I can tell smokes weed and has little coordination, could beat up the hulking mass of adolescence that he faces. In general, it is hard to make any connection between the family members. Their dialogue is so forced, that you can hardly believe they had spent two minutes together prior to the story. Here’s a snippet of dialogue (paraphrased as accurately as I can): Tom: When I get home, we’ll go make out at a drive-in. Edie: There hasn’t been a drive-in here since the 1970’s. That should be funny. Hell, it should at least get a chuckle…there’s so much you could do with those lines that would improve them. But instead the writer--Josh Olson converted the graphic novel to this drivel--and the director chose to shoot it in such a dry manner, that it’s impossible to laugh. This script should have been given to David Lynch. He would have known what to do with it. What the whole thing called for was cheese, CHEESE, and MORE CHEESE!

One can hardly blame Viggo Mortenson for the way A History of Violence turned out. Some of the lines could have been delivered in such a way that the audience was in on the joke. Instead, Cronenberg seemed to want the crowd to stretch for a laugh. Oh, how I long for the talking orifices of Naked Lunch. This film is not good at anything it attempts. It has little value as an allegory, and even less value as a piece of cinema (though granted the gore is good). I’m shocked that it was nominated for anything at all. Instead of wasting your hard earned money, save it for Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, which is only one month from release.