As I watch horror movies this month, and most of next month, in an effort to make sure I have plenty to write about for October, I find Cinema Styles sitting idle while it waits for October to arrive. I don't like it sitting idle but there it is. Of course, I'm rarely not thinking of movies so there's always something to write about, and yesterday, while watching Bob Roberts, I started thinking about things that take me out of a movie. Bob Roberts is a Tim Robbins mockumentary from 1992 about a populist candidate running for the senate in Pennsylvania who spouts the same nonsense populists always have and always will. That might make for an interesting discussion somewhere in the blogosphere but it doesn't really interest me. No, what really struck me was this: Every time Giancarlo Esposito was onscreen I was officially taken out of the movie. You see, Esposito does the impossible; he overacts in a mockumentary (or overacts in a way that's not as entertaining as Fred Willard). Everyone else in the movie talks and acts like a real person in front of a documentary crew but Esposito takes his Character Ticks and Mannerisms Machine and amps it up to around a million. I mean, it's off the fucking scale. As such, every time he showed up my suspension of disbelief ended and I started thinking things like, "I wonder if Robbins was pleased with this performance or hated it and kept struggling with Esposito to tone it down." 
All of this then led me to wonder what else takes me out of movie. Not all, or possibly any of these, would take someone else out of a movie but for me, it happens every time.
1. The price of anything being stated. The exception to this is a period film where the price being stated is there to flesh out the place and time. Now, understand that, for whatever reason, I can watch a movie with 1950's cars and suits and designs and will nonetheless convince myself that it takes place in the present. So when I'm watching North by Northwest and Cary Grant's character is disputing a drunk driving charge and his mother, sick of him arguing about it, says, "Oh pay the two dollar fine," I'm like, "What?! Two dollars!!" Suddenly, the movie feels dated even though I already knew it took place in the "present" of 1959.
2. The year being stated. Again, the exception being a period piece where the exact year being stated is done so to set the scene. But again, for me, all other movies take place in the present, the present of that particular movie. A movie made in 1972 takes place in the present. A movie made now that takes place in 1972 is a period piece. Confused? So am I. So anyway, when I'm watching Vertigo (more Hitchcock) and I hear Kim Novak say she got her license in 1955 I'm surprised, momentarily. "That's like, 55 years ago!"
3. Mentioning another movie in your movie. Especially if I'm watching a crappy or average film and they start talking about a better film I just think how much better it would be to watch that other movie instead. Exceptions to this rule are Woody Allen mentioning the cast of The Godfather to Diane Keaton, a member of the cast of The Godfather, in Annie Hall, a great movie anyway so it doesn't matter. Also, Leslie Nielsen and Priscilla Presley doubled over in laughter as they exit Platoon in The Naked Gun.
4. Celebrity Cameos, especially sports stars. They're usually so bad (see Mickey Mantle, Yogi Berra and Roger Maris in That Touch of Mink) that it serves as a tonic to the wrongheaded notion that actors who "just play themselves" aren't really acting. Oh, yes they are!
5. Saying the title of the movie in big, bold letters. I understand if the title of the movie is someone's name, like Patton or Gloria but when the title's more elaborate I just know it's going to pop up at a poignant moment. It's why, for all its great qualities, They Shoot Horses, Don't They loses me right at the end, just when they really need me to stay connected. But I can't, you see, because I know and you know and everyone ever seeing the movie knows that when they ask Michael Sarrazin why he shot Jane Fonda, he's going to say... oh, you know what he's going to say, and that's the point. Had they titled the film, "Marathon" or "Dance, Dance, Dance" or anything else, then Sarrazin's final line would have immeasurable power but it doesn't because it's right there in the title (Actually, I just watched another movie that does both this and mentions another far superior film but I'm discussing it for a roundtable so I can't bring it up here just yet).
Well, that's it for now. I have plenty more little nit-picky things but won't waste your time listing them all. I'm sure you have several too, things that bother you but no one else. Obviously continuity problems take everyone out of a movie, or anachronisms, but I'm not talking about mistakes (like a plane being spotted in a movie set in 1743) I'm talking about a normal technique, like saying the date or having a cameo or saying the title, that in and of itself isn't wrong or intended to take you out of the movie but does. If you have any, let me know, but don't mention any other, better posts from other blogs that would take you out of this one, because that would just be rude. And all too easy.
38 comments:
I've always thought Esposito was a bit much in "Bob Roberts", but I think that must be what Robbins wanted - Esposito was included in the film's press junket.
One movie moment that fits at least two of your categories comes at the end of the awful, awful film "The Mod Squad" from a few years ago. At the climax, as the heroes are lounging around outside while the police come in and clean up the villains, one of the cops looks at the trio and says something like "What do you think you are, some kind of "Mod Squad"?", both 1) getting the film's dated title into the dialogue, and 2) making a reference to the original tv series.
one of the cops looks at the trio and says something like "What do you think you are, some kind of "Mod Squad"?"...
And you know they put that at the end because they just knew this was going to become a successful film series. Ouch. I've always been slightly impressed that the makers of the awful Bond film, A View to a Kill managed to get Christopher Walken's character to say, "a view to a kill." I mean, who on earth would ever, at any moment in human history, excepting people actually referring to the actual film itself, would ever say "a view to a kill?"
It wasn't part of the dialogue, but in Red Dawn, if you look carefully at a theater marquee, you can see the movie playing is Alexander Nevsky. Based on what I know about Eisenstein and Soviet Cinema, that indicated to me not to take John Milius too seriously.
By the way, Tim Robbins refused to issue a Bob Roberts soundtrack, perhaps for good reason. I had a right wing acquaintance who loved that movie for the politics Roberts espoused.
Peter -- I think that was the precise, stated reason Roberts didn't put out a soundtrack. Not hard to predict. If you go to YouTube and look for "Tomorrow Belongs to Me," the faux-Nazi anthem from Cabaret, you'll find actual Nazi videos. Never mind that the lyrics were by a Jew and that the show and the movie were pretty much the kind of "degenerate art" Mr. Hitler was so dead set against.
Greg -- I'm in a nitpicky mood myself, so just a couple of things.
Not sure I'd call Bob Roberts a populist, more of a conventional pro-corporate far rightwinger, but then it's been a long time since I've seen it. In any case, I think it's safe to say that there have been well-intentioned and not-so-well-intentioned populists on both the right and the left and I wouldn't put, say, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Huey Long, Jim Hightower, Molly Ivins (who never ran for anything, so it's not quite the same) and Ann Richards all in the exact same basket with Roberts (well, Palin, yeah), though I think they probably considered themselves populist. Personally, I considered myself a bit of a left-of-center populist, though not to the point of wanting to resurrect Huey Long or anything. To me the opposite of a populist is a corporatist.
As for uttering the title, my favorite has always been from "The Dirty Dozen," when Richard Jaeckel addresses the group, who have been on strike from washing to protest having to use cold water, as "you dirty dozen." It's really like Jaeckel was trying to use every acting bone in his body to sound natural, but just couldn't manage it.
Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I should add quickly that in my opening comment above, I'm not equating Bob Roberts or the mainstream U.S. farish right to Nazis, just using an example of a song clearly intended as ironic to espouse the cause it was meant to subtly explore and attack.
I knew I shouldn't have used Bob Roberts as an example. Here's my sincere take:
Concerning Bob Roberts, the character, I wouldn't equate him with a particular party, I'd call him populist, just like a Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. Just because populists like them latch on to the right or the Republican party doesn't mean we should actually call them Republicans. All they're doing is trumpeting vague notions of taking back this or that, not really adhering to any brand of fiscal domestic policy.
Then there's the Gore Vidal character, Brickley Paiste (what a great name!). One thing I found funny about the Paiste character was that he gets all paranoically conspiracy minded, which I thought maybe Robbins was doing as a way of saying the left do populism too, only theirs centers around conspiracy. Thing is, though, I've read interviews with Vidal and he actually thinks/thought that way.
Greg: Actually, the full original title for that Bond movie, as well as the Grace Jones / Christopher Walken exchange, was "From a view to a kill" - referring, I assume, to some kind of hunting experience. But you're right, it seems shoehorned and doesn't work as something that someone might realistically say.
Remember: when the title of the film is stated in the film you always applaud.
In NORTH BY NORTHWEST the line is actually "Pay the two dollars" which is a reference to an old comedy routine from back in the day. Looking it up on Google tells me that it can be found in the 1946 ZIEGFELD FOLLIES movie. Someone even says it in TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE so I guess it may have been slightly part of the vernacular way back when. I don't think it's supposed to literally mean the cost of the fine Roger O. Thornhill has to pay.
Indie films are notorious for "title dropping" because so many of them have artsy, cryptic titles that their inexperienced makers believe MUST be explained in order for the movie to work. Blech.
MC, thanks for the clarification. I guess that does make a little more sense now.
In NORTH BY NORTHWEST the line is actually "Pay the two dollars" which is a reference to an old comedy routine from back in the day...
I had no idea that was from an old comedy routine. What exactly is the joke?
stevapalooza, that's exactly right! Indie films are by far the biggest "work the cool title into the film" offenders. One day, I'd like to make a movie with a nonsensical title that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything in the movie and make no attempt to work it in or explain it. Perhaps even just string random words together for the title.
This is from the TCM page on ZIEGFELD FOLLIES which includes a synopsis of the sketch--I've never seen it but a few years ago I got curious after noticing the line turn up in a few places. I think part of the idea is that the phrase "Pay the two dollars" is repeated like a mantra as things get worse and worse.
----------------
Victor Moore wants Edward Arnold to "Pay the Two Dollars" : When a man riding a subway train with his lawyer is fined two dollars for spitting, the lawyer instructs him to refuse to pay the fine. A police officer arrests the lawyer's client, who is later ordered by a judge to pay the fine or serve a jail sentence. The lawyer instructs his client to accept the sentence, and promises to appeal the judge's decision. Twelve days after the client is imprisoned, the lawyer arrives with news that a judge has agreed to hear his appeal. When the client learns that his lawyer has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend him, he begs his lawyer to simply pay the two-dollar fine. Though an appeals court reverses the ruling, the client is sentenced to death for killing two subway passengers who died as a result of an illness spread by his germs. The governor pardons the client, but his life is ruined as a result of his lawyer's actions. Following his release from prison, the client is arrested again on the subway when he spits out his cigar tip.
@Mr. Peel. Haha! Loved the joke!
From now on I'm using "pay the two dollars" whenever anyone is making a mountain out of molehill. It will be my new mantra. Thanks, Mr. Peel!
Phone numbers bother me. Particularly the ones that begin with 555-
Monty, yes, that's one of mine too! I mean, I know you can't give out someone's real number but... why not? Set up a real number with a voice message that plugs the movie or something. Anything but "555..." I hear that and suddenly the fourth wall is gone.
With regards to the awkward stating of the film's title, how about the horrible Stephen King adaptation Hearts in Atlantis? The title actually refers to an entirely different King story than the one that was adapted into the film. It actually concerned some people who played the card game Hearts in a building called the Atlantis. But snce both stories came from the same anthology and the anthology had the Hearts title, they figured out some supremely awkward way for Anthony Hopkins to work the title into the dialogue of the movie.
But snce both stories came from the same anthology and the anthology had the Hearts title, they figured out some supremely awkward way for Anthony Hopkins to work the title into the dialogue of the movie.
You're kidding me. Amazing. I never saw it so I had no idea that the title didn't refer to what was being adapted and that they still worked in "hearts in atlantis" to the dialogue. That should get some kind of prize.
"You Can Count On Me" has a nice moment near the end where Mark Ruffalo and Laura Linney reference the title without saying it. Kind of the reverse to what you had said.
The only time a "555" phone number has ever worked in a movie is in this scene from "The Last Action Hero": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5pyZ5AZQbk
And there the point is how ridiculous that number is.
a-beezy, I always liked You Can Count on Me, a movie that I think says a lot of things without explicitly saying them, one of its strengths. It was also the first time I ever really took notice of Mark Ruffalo, and I've liked him ever since.
Tom, I remember that scene. In fact, it may be the only scene I remember well. And Tom Noonan. I remember Tom Noonan because he's one of the most talented and memorable actors Hollywood has never figured out how to use.
Greg,
Have you ever seen Tom Noonan's What Happened Was? Now that is an incredible movie. At least he figured out how to use himself! :-)
No, I haven't (ashamed to say). It fell off my radar. Worse yet, I just checked and it's not available. Crap.
David Mamet has a whole chapter on this in 'Bambi vs Godzilla'. I most remember him talking about showing people playing instruments. You start thinking 'Wait! Geoffrey Rush can play piano?!'
Ha! Geoffrey Rush did do better than most though. Watching some actors play piano is painful (I play, as well as the drums), to say the least. Half the time they don't have their left hand playing anywhere near the right keys for the chords.
For the record, John Waters awards extra points to any movie that manages to speak its title even once in the dialogue. Extra special bonus points to movies that verbalize it more than once. And somehow, against my better judgment, I kind of agree with him.
I know that Penn and Teller said they always applaud when the title is spoken (and Mr. Peel too, of course). This naturally left them very disappointed with The Big Chill.
THEY SHOOT HORSES, DON'T THEY is both a good title, and a ruinous one. It's the same with Horace McCoy's source novel, for the record, but that doesn't excuse the filmmakers, who were at liberty to change whatever they pleased.
But it's a good title! But as a title, it kills the last line! But I can't think of a better title! And so on. I don't know that Pollack or anyone else was in this bind, but it wouldn't shock me to learn that they were.
Theodore Sturgeon's novel SOME OF YOUR BLOOD suffers from this exact same problem, by the way.
Bill, Roger Ebert wrote, back in 1969 when he first reviewed it, that the title works to make the story more heartbreaking because you know it's coming. I see his point completely and go back and forth on that myself. But knowing it's coming works more for me as a diminishment of its power than the other way around. Either way though, in exactly the indecisive way you feel about it, I agree, it's a great title but one that screws up the final line.
Re: Gore Vidal in "Bob Roberts." As I recall, pretty much everything he'd said in the movie he'd said as himself. The fact of the matter is that Tim Robbin's personal politics are fairly radical, at least by conventional U.S. standards, and were probably even more so back when he made this, though probably not quite as conspiracy-ish as Vidal, who's a wonderful writer who even this bleeding heart thinks goes off the deep end a lot more and more as he ages. He wasn't quite as cranky back then and I don't think he really meant to satirize Vidal's character. At least some of what he was saying was pretty de rigeur among L.A. area lefties -- I recall there be something about the allegations of CIA involvement in the crack epidemic via Latin America -- at the time, myself included (to some degree, I have a wishy-washy streak a mile wide), if I remember right. I remember responding to "Bob Roberts" as less of a comedy and more of an agit-prop laden satirical thriller, almost. Indeed, I'm still not sure whether or not there was anything to some of those allegations or not.
On a completely different topic, I forgot to mention the "pay the two dollars" thing in my first post. I actually saw "Ziegfield Follies" when I was about 12 or so, and I've been confusing people by saying it ever since in situations where people try to avoid small penalties at the risk of huge outlays of time and money. And, yes, I think Victor must repeat the phrase at least five of six times during the short sketch, each time with increasingly desperation.
One that always gets me is the one from "Bananas," which is just some throwaway line about the South American country's chief export and Woody just says "Bananas!"
The whole movie is bananas, but has nothing to do with the fruit.
I've never seen the movie, but does somebody say "Sometimes a great notion..." in the movie named such?
I remember responding to "Bob Roberts" as less of a comedy and more of an agit-prop laden satirical thriller, almost...
Bob, I see it that way too and now wish they had lessened the conspiracy angle (drug-running, diverted housing funds, etc) because it's the emptiness of the ideas that should be the main thing.
As for Gore Vidal, I too think he's a terrific writer that has sadly gone off the deep end. The first time I recall getting angry with him was when I saw him on the Tonight Show in the nineties and he remarked that we should tear the Constitution up and start over. Now, no one challenged this absurd statement and I wish they had. See, if he has a problem with corruption and unfairness and criminal dealings, why tear up the document that specifically safeguards against all of those? Isn't it wiser to fight to enforce the Constitution, not tear it up? It's like saying, "Too many people are murdered. We should tear up laws against murder and start over." I mean, I was kind of stunned by such a collapse of logic.
Later, and regularly, about once every two years, he says "America will be a dictatorship in two years," then it's not and he says it again. So, yeah, I just don't take him seriously at all anymore.
Now, on to the "two dollars" joke: I've got to see the Ziegfield Follies. I saw it years ago but don't remember that at all.
I've never seen the movie, but does somebody say "Sometimes a great notion..." in the movie named such?
I have seen it and, honestly, I can't remember. Sorry.
They Shoot Horses Don't They ...needs a good Frau Blucher horse whinny after he delivers that line...that would a saved the picture ..
I'd settle for a dramatic musical cue with lightning.
Tim Robbins has done a heck of a settlement of this presentation of the film's politics as it really is, twisted and disturbing. The screenplay is full of great talent brutal honesty about the political battle is washington.Robbins make a right-wing politician, perfectly describes the diamonds yuppie businessman willing to do anything to get elected to the us Senate has seen in the film is one of the best films of the decade.
Post a Comment