52 Pick-Up # 37 – I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House (2016)

Oh, thank goodness, it actually feels like fall now.

I say this both for its own sake and also for the fact it's made the fact this month's draws have skewed towards a pre-game for spooky season feel even more appropriate.

But, before we go into that, as per custom, welcome back to 52 Pick-Up. This is now week 37 of a year long bid to keep up writing and going through the cinematic to do list with 52 first time movie watches, some chosen at random, some with a weighted thematic angle, and offering a write up of general first impressions.

Continuing last week's foray into more horror titles, this week I'm also getting the chance to address a gap in the work of a director who has been getting my attention more and more the past few years. I get why Osgood Perkins isn't a director who really clicks with everyone, but overall I have been appreciative of his style and voice in everything I've seen so far.

And in finally going back to check out I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House? Let me start by saying 'Oh, Goddammit, Netflix.'

Okay, I should elaborate. I'm not saying that to condemn this movie's existence. I wouldn't say this became my favorite from him, but there's enough in here that I appreciate, even as I'm still mulling over some of it. The reason I'm blaming the streaming company that was the distributor for this movie is because the very nature of their platform really feels like it undercut what is the strongest piece of this movie.

Alas, I'm getting all off format here. Stick a pin in that. We'll do the pitch and then I'll get back on it.

In the most general terms, I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House concerns Lily (Rita Wilson), a hospice nurse assigned to care for Iris (Paula Prentiss) an aging horror writer in the advanced stages of dementia. Iris lives in a quiet, remote house that Lily finds to be unsettling for the sense that there may be more than herself and Iris in residence – a feeling only added to after a discussion with the manager of Iris's estate (Bob Balaban.) Lily soon finds herself drawn more into both the life of her patient as well as the larger circumstances of her patient's work and house.

That may be the most neutral way I can put the last part. Admittedly, I do that less to avoid a glaring spoiler, particularly as part of the revelation of this movie is set up in the opening narration, and more to avoid turning the pitch into a drawn out rundown of half of the movie.

I'll be coming back to that soon, but first, I did set this up before, so back to my grievance point.

There's a number of things I could say I liked about this. If it came to a single thing I would single out though? It's the atmosphere. This certainly isn't isolated for Perkins – in fact, a good general sense of atmosphere has been a strong suit of his going back to The Blackcoat's Daughter. Even by his standard, however, this is a strong flex of his abilities. 

Which comes to why I'm annoyed with Netflix in this case: as a horror movie goes, this is a very quiet film. It's a haunted house film, but not in the style of things that pop and go 'Boo!' but more in the case of a quieter sort of haunting. In this case, it's one the movie establishes in its opening narration. This describes the dead not as figures of malevolence or purpose, but simply those who haven't quite been able to let go of the spot of their death. Unable to completely leave the spot, trying for one last look that is no longer there, the simply linger. Linger, and with time, rot. Again, there is a quiet to this that is equal parts sad and chilling in how it's presented. It also makes how the haunting is presented in this in many cases as moments of stillness, watching the dead slowly fade into view rather than pop in and vanish quickly. It's an effective slow burn, but one I found myself watching and thinking 'This could have played so well in a theater.'

Don't get me wrong, I'm still glad to have watched this in any format. But this also isn't the first movie Netflix got distribution rights for, and with that went straight to streaming, that I found myself watching and thinking 'This could have looked so much better with a big screen option.'

I know that's not the movie's fault, but it is something I had to get out there, because again, this movie has a great sense of atmosphere and it's frustrating that streaming seems to undercut that.

In general, like I said above, I feel like this is one I'm going to be mulling over more. In particular with the idea the movie starts from as stated above, the idea of the dead not as forces tethered by any sort of fate or grand gesture but simply lingering. Sometimes seen by the living, but often not, over time, slowly succumbing to a sort of rot born of their inability to let go.

It's a heady idea that the movie makes some interesting exploration on, and one where the more I think on it, the more I wish I'd allowed myself more than a week for. But then, that's the whole point of this project – go for what you feel in the short term. Maybe some of these will get revisited in some future project, maybe they won't. For now, I'm just gonna get through the 52.

In closing for now, I'll just say if you've liked what you've seen from Perkins before this, I'd say it's worth giving a try. There's a quieter more personal touch to it (the movie even opens with a dedication to his father, and was initially born from an idea inspired by him) and it's an interesting mode to see Perkins in.

Now, as I come into the back of September, we have two more entries to go before the month is up. Suffice it to say, there will be no points awarded to anyone who's figured out by now how I'll be weighting next month's picks. I say this now as the remaining two are dipping a bit out of spooky season pre-gaming.

A bit, but not completely.

Next week, I continue with a dovetail of this week in directors I'm playing catch-up on with another gap I had for Denis Villeneuve. It's not quite leaving horror entirely, but we're at least staying in the ballpark with his doppleganger movie Enemy.

Till then.

52 Pick-Up # 36 – The House With Laughing Windows (1976)

Ah, 70s giallo and small town horror. Two great tastes that taste great together!

Welcome back to 52 Pick-Up. It is now September in my year long journey to go through 52 first time watch movies and writing responses for them to keep consistent, and over half a year later, I'm back to the wonderful world of giallo after saying I needed to make more stops here following The Bird with the Crystal Plumage.

This time, I got a film that may not have the colorful flare of a Dario Argento, but it makes up for it with an engaging, grimy, mean spirited little mystery that keeps engaging both with the trail of breadcrumbs left as clues and the bodies it leaves in its wake.

The House with Laughing Windows focuses on Stefano (Lino Cappolicchio), a man hired to a remote village in Italy to restore a fresco within the local church painted by a local artist. As he slowly works at the painting, revealed to be a rather striking vision of a martyred saint, Stefano starts to learn more from the locals about the town as well as the reputation of the artist, Legnani. What he starts to piece together presents a disturbing legacy of cruelty and murder that even extends to the piece he has been tasked with restoring.

I know the last time I wrote about giallo, I talked about the way the mysteries are set up and paid off, particularly being impressed with the fact BwtCP presented itself in a way where there was sufficient mystery, but also everything was paid off in a satisfying manner. I don't know if I can say HwLW pulls it off quite as smoothly, but I will say the final reveal, while a bit startling in execution, still sticks the landing for having all the pieces there before hand. It reaches, but never exceeds itself, so the ending still works with enough of a “oh crap” feeling rather than “wait WHAT?”

I don't want to say too much for the ending, as it is worth the journey. Plus, as a mystery movie, it feels like it'd be a spectacularly poor move to give away where it is all going. About the most I will say is, I was pleasantly surprised with the nature of the payoff. It isn't completely bleak, but there is a dark enough note that even if things are brought to light, there is still a chance this won't be a happy ending for our hero. It's darkly ambiguous in a way I respect as not the kind of note a lot of filmmakers would want to end on, with many giving in to the impulse to provide that closure.

There is one other thing I do want to shout out in this movie alongside its story, weird as this might sound. The village this all takes place in is a big part of what stuck out for me in this movie. Like I was saying above, so much of this movie is built around the idea of this remote village harboring a dark past that an outsider is now in danger of digging up. In a country like Italy, in the 1970s, this is already a pretty potent idea as it is. Then you take the particular location they filmed everything and it adds that much more to the look and feel of this remote village where all the bodies, figurative and literal, are buried. In its own way, the village is as much as character in this sinister cover up as the villagers who dwell within it are.

Once again, this has confirmed for me that I really need to look for more giallo going forward. I know this and BwtCP are considered on the higher end, so quality may vary from here, but hey, if anything, that has me more excited to see some of the other strange directions this could go down.

But, that's for another time. Maybe sooner, maybe later. We shall see.

Until then, September rolls on, and the October pre-gaming of horror continues next time. In this case, taking care of a loose end from a director I'm much more versed in at this time with Osgood Perkins's I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House.

Till then.

52 Pick-Up # 35 – American Splendor (2003)

Movies like this make me glad I've been trying to minimize what I know about some of these movies going in. Not that I haven't had my share of pleasant surprises in general, but in this case, I really liked how this swerved from what I was expecting.

With that said, welcome back to 52 Pick-Up. For those just tuning in, first up, let me say enjoy the eight months of backlog. Second, let me explain this is an informal challenge to myself to keep writing throughout the year by picking 52 movies for a first time watch and writing my initial impression/reaction here. Often these are chosen at random, with the occasional placing of my thumb on the scale for thematic relevance.

That was not what happened for this week, but I just felt like I should be putting that in the general rundown, especially as the thumb WILL be coming into play again soon.

But, that's for another time. This week, meanwhile, I'm going back to another one of my gaps from the aughts, and one I'm glad I did finally correct. So, on with American Splendor.

As a movie, American Splendor kind of threads between a couple of categories. It's one part biopic, one part adaptation (the source material itself somewhat autobiographical), one part documentary. In all three cases, the focuses is on independent comics writer Harvey Pekar (appearing as himself at times while being played by Paul Giamatti at other times), recounting his entry into comics, his marriage, and his later battle with cancer.

Yeah, that description doesn't sound like much just written out. Then you see the movie and what it does with that.

One of the biggest strengths of the movie, as I somewhat hinted at above, lies in how it's executed. Rather than filling the beats of a more traditional biopic, American Splendor intercuts the past recreations with, at the time, present day discussions with the real Harvey Pekar. In some cases, it's discussing what was just shown, others, it's setting up what's coming. Despite this, Pekar isn't treated as a narrator as much as he's getting the opportunity to personally weigh in on what we've seen or are about to see. Further, Pekar isn't alone in these sections. He is often accompanied by either his wife/collaborator Joyce Brabner (portrayed in the flashbacks by Hope Davis) or co-worker Toby Radloff (played in flashbacks by Judah Friedlander.)

The incorporation of these scenes works for the movie on a few levels. For one, it brings an interesting element of nuance to this that a straight biopic would be a bit more hard-pressed to achieve. There are points where it's clear there's some difference of opinion between Pekar and his colleagues, most notably Brabner at times, and the fact the movie never tries to shy away from showing that from the actual people is a welcome detail to include. Additionally, it adds more of a sense of a creative voice to the movie. Given the subject of the movie, Pekar himself making his name in comics by taking vignettes of his life and the people around him and recreating them in comics, the idea of having the actual Pekar running alongside filmed re-enactments of details of his life feels like a suitable way to translate his work (adapting both American Splendor and Our Cancer Year.)

Alongside those major stylistic elements, it also has the advantage of helping one really appreciate the casting for this movie. Paul Giamatti is always a welcome presence as a rule, but he is in top form here as Pekar, and it's genuinely surprising that his performance went largely ignored come awards season that year. Besides being good all its own, being able to see him alongside the real Pekar really lets one see how well he did justice to the man without just making a very spot-on impression. Likewise, Davis and Friedlander are both inspired choices for Brabner and Radloff. The latter was especially surprising for me – as someone who mainly knows Friedlander from his work on 30 Rock, I was genuinely struck by how thoroughly he disappears into his portrayal of Radloff and how spot on it is with the older version of the man we see in the interview sections.

I will admit at this point, going into this movie, I didn't know too much about Pekar or his writing. From that perspective, this made an incredibly engaging introduction to the man and has got me interested in seeking out some of his work. 

I feel a little bad keeping this one brief, but it's also a movie where, like I said, a lot of its appeal lies in seeing just how it was done. This is worth seeking out as a truly novel take on a biopic befitting its uniquely prickly subject.

So hopefully this has inspired some of you to go looking. This is one I'd recommend taking for a spin.

With that said, it's time to wrap up this week and start packing my bags. Partly because, as I said several months back, Camp John Waters draws near. The other reason is next week, I'm back to Italian movies for another visit to the wonderful world of giallo with 1976's The House With the Laughing Windows.

Till then.

52 Pick-Up # 34 – Sound of Metal (2019)

Welcome back once again as August comes to a photo finish for 52 Pick-Up.

The timing wasn't how I would have wanted it, but I can't pretend the lineup wasn't strong at least. With that in mind, I can't say we're closing out the month with a happy ending, but it's at least going to be a little more upbeat than last entry would have been.

This is another that has been on my list that also falls under 'escaped my Oscar to do list' the year it came out. In hindsight, I'm still surprised I put this one off this long, particularly as Riz Ahmed has been one of those actors I've been interested in the career arc for since Nightcrawler, and it's great to see him get a lead role like this and carry it as well as he does.

But, I get ahead of myself. Let's go for the pitch, shall we?

Sound of Metal follows Ahmed as Ruben, a drummer performing as part of a metal act with his girlfriend, Lou (Olivia Cooke.) The couple are touring as Ruben notices he's having troubles with his hearing. On performing some tests, it is confirmed this is not a temporary condition. In fact, his doctors advise him to avoid loud noises in order to preserve the hearing he still has while he works out his next plans. For Ruben, the solution is in the form of cochlear implants that can aid with his hearing, but are outside of his ability to afford. As he tries to maintain his life as it was before the loss, and starts showing signs of relapsing behavior to former addictions, Lou becomes worried and gets him in touch with a shelter specifically for deaf addicts. There, a reluctant Ruben is introduced to Joe (Paul Raci) a gruff, but empathetic veteran who runs the shelter and wants to help Ruben learn to adjust to the changes in his life, even if Ruben is still determined to get back to his old life.

That last part is one of the things that really got me on this watch. The way this movie presents Ruben and how he's processing what he's going through isn't a clean, feel good journey. He frequently butts up against what is becoming an increasing inevitability, often leading to less than admirable actions. Despite this, the movie doesn't actively paint him as a bad guy any more than it presents him as saintly. It's a very flawed, human look at how people can process something as big as the idea of 'your body is changing in a way that will alter how you live your life from this day forward.' Conversely, the movie is also very sympathetic in how it presents those around Ruben. Both Lou and Joe are presented as people who the movie makes clear genuinely do care about Ruben's well-being, even if they don't share his drive for getting the implants. 

Additionally, the implants are another area where the movie presents a welcome nuance. We see how early on Ruben's life is built around sound and his music, so we get why he doesn't want to give up on hearing. At the same time, the movie, through Joe and his shelter, does help show that a changed life isn't the same thing as a ruined or lost life. Even as Ruben still pursues the implants, at times doing things that make him a more checkered protagonist, we see him living around both the recovering addicts and deaf children (who Ruben learns ASL alongside) and seeing that they are still living full, regular lives.

In coming to this off of In the Bedroom, there was the half in jest question of if this was going to be a mood lift or a similar downer. The answer in this case is – a little of both. Ultimately, the movie comes to a better place by the end, and that final scene is one I can tell is going to stay with me in a good way, but it is also a very bittersweet movie in a number of ways. For as messy as Ruben's journey is at times, and the mistakes he makes, ultimately he ends the movie in a positive place after some of rough patches he took getting there. It sounds odd to put into words, but there is something refreshing about seeing a movie approach this from that nuanced area where you can sympathize both with wanting to hear and also with recognizing it's okay to come to terms with this change.

Also, before I finish this, I do have to say one more thing – VERY well earned Oscar win for the sound design on this. Seeing the movie adjusting the sound to reflect how Ruben is hearing things at points, to further underscore how this is effecting him, is a great aspect to this movie both as an idea and in its execution, and I'm pleased to see it got acknowledged. Best Sound can be a real weird category some years where, to borrow a statement have heard from others, it can be less a case of 'best' and more a case of 'most.' With this in mind, this is one where I'm glad the craft was recognized and how much the movie is enhanced sometimes by the choice of when not to use sound as much as when to use it.

Yeah, not quite part of my main point, but I did want to give the shout out. Seriously, the movie is all around a strong entry in terms of script, performances, and direction, but the sound really does some spectacular work adding to those elements. 

If you missed this one when it came out, I'd recommend seeking it out.

And with that, I'm back on track as September rolls in.

So, next week I'm kicking off a new month with a long overdue entry, both as a movie and for a lead performer I'm surprised I have not had come up here yet. Until next time with 2003's American Splendor.

Till then

52 Pick-Up #33 – In the Bedroom (2001)

Welcome back to 52 Pick-Up in the middle of a Dog Days of Summer wrap-up before resuming the weekly rollout again in September.

Ah, end of summer. A magical time as the season starts to change, things start to cool and people are getting their last vacations and hurrahs in before fall starts and it's back to business.

And what has the shuffle chosen for this period in the season?

Oh.

Oh dear.

I mean, this is damn good, but tonally oh dear.

If there's one thing I have learned from this project for future use it's maybe seeing about trying to curate these pools a bit per time of year. Still try to keep them big enough for proper chance, but at least try and focus generally.

Okay, total disclosure – I will be doing a weighted month coming up, but there's no real points for guessing which month or in what way cause it'll be pretty obvious when it gets here.

ANYWAY, larger arc of the month aside, this is one of those that's been on my to do list for a long time. Like I said last time, I missed this at the time as I was, I will admit, not as good with keeping up with a lot of the awards circuit releases in the early aughts. From there, it occasionally flitted its way back up to the surface as a 'I should get to that' before fully locking itself back on there a few years back with the release of Tár and reviewing Todd Field's short, but impressive directorial list.

With that as a point of reference, and a loose idea of this movie's inciting incident, I went in actively trying to know as little as possible. With that in mind, it was hard not to get at least some expectations given the nature of the story.

I say this purely to add that I was pleasantly surprised when this movie actually eluded and/or exceeded my expectations on several levels. One of which is the main point I'll be going with for this.

But, before I get into that, let's start with the pitch.

In the Bedroom follows the Fowlers, a family in Maine consisting of Matt (Tom Wilkinson), Ruth (Sissy Spacek), and their adult son Frank (Nick Stahl.) Nick is back home for the summer following college and gearing up for grad school. This path, however, is left in doubt as Frank has fallen hard for for Natalie (Marisa Tomei), an older, divorced woman with two kids and a husband who isn't ready to let things go. The family is torn on how to feel on this as both Ruth and Matt discuss if this is just a phase or if they need to put their foot down. Unfortunately, as they discuss this, Natalie's ex begins becoming more violent, finally culminating in a confrontation with Frank that leaves the younger man dead.

This is all in roughly the first act of the movie, by the way, so don't worry about that as spoiler. It's the inciting incident more than anything and the bulk of the movie is more dedicated to the family processing everything that happened and how they choose to process and act on their grief.

Like I said above, I was very pleasantly surprised by this movie against what I was expecting. I had overall good expectations, but again, this actually went beyond what I was hoping for, in large part on the basis of the execution.

Between this and Tár, one thing I find myself appreciating in Field's work as a director is the sense of restraint in how things are presented. This is a story that deals with a number of emotionally heavy subjects, and especially given this was a film that became a major acting contender with the Oscars that year, it's hard not to expect the archetypal 'big' performances the Academy often goes for. Instead, this movie, and its leads, are built around a very emotionally restrained approach. 

Even before tragedy strikes, both Matt and Ruth are reluctant to be up front with Frank about their misgivings about his relationship and where they see it going. For Ruth, this leads to being very guarded and cut off, while Matt keeps being reluctantly indulgent in Frank, assuming this will all work itself out. When everything finally goes wrong, both are unclear how to approach one another over what happened. Even the moment when they finally come to a confrontation is not presented as a screaming match or a big blow out – in fact, there's even some acknowledgment that they can't seem to have the big blow out moment and that this is something of a frustration. That it's presented instead as two people who, even in grief and anger, feel they have to somehow hold back makes it feel even more powerful. What is two people pouring their hearts out about the pain they've internalized still has to be held back in how they express it just by their very natures.

The restraint also plays into the overall direction of the movie. Beyond the performances, the way the movie handles several of its major action beats is very controlled. Frank's two encounters with Natalie's ex-husband, for example, rely on what is unseen. The first of these we only see in the aftermath, care of the bruises Frank has from the confrontation. Their subsequent moment we only get in voices from another room, the emotional heft of the scene in Tomei's fear and then anguish as she hears it all play out.

These combined degrees of restraint are each effective on their own. Combined, they lead to a genuinely chilling payoff in the movie's final act. I won't go into too much detail on this here, tempted as I am. What I will say is there is no grand twist to come from this. There isn't any single revelation that completely upends the movie. There is some degree of uncertainty to which path it is going down, but it is not an ending that is made or broken by the reveal. But even with that said, it's still more effective if you don't know the way and just let the movie lead you their at its own slow, careful pace, steeping in the uncertainty of what is coming and how it gets there.

That uncertainty is also one of the feelings that resonates the most when the movie ends. Again, there is no big shock to be had here. When everything unfolds, it makes sense and feels reasonable as a course of events, but in the end, it doesn't feel neat or convenient. There's a lot that feels unresolved or unclear.

This is by design. This isn't a subject one can wrap up and put away. The audience, like Matt and Ruth, are going to be left to process just what happened after what should be a 'the end' moment. The story is over, but the feeling remains.

Hell, I feel like this is gonna be one of the first time watches from this that is gonna stick with me longer than most, and I am glad that it got drawn for this.

With that, the end of August is coming up fast and I've got one more on deck to go.

This will likely be a less haunting watch, but also connected as an Oscar nominee. I'll be jumping ahead a decade and change for 2019's Sound of Metal.

Till then.

52 Pick-Up # 32 – Mandabi (1968)

Back already?
 

Sorry. Had to. Like I said before, this is on me.

Anyway, welcome back to 52 Pick-Up as I work on getting caught up for the month of August now that things are winding down for the season.

Like I said last time, thanks to the will of shuffle, we're going in a different direction from last week. A different time, a different place, a different language.

But, the quality remains good, if slightly less feel good compared to last time. That's colonialism for you.

As promised before, this time I'm coming back to the films of Ousmane Sembène for the first time since watching Black Girl for the first time several years back. This time, in his follow up movie, he takes a bit more of a comedic tone, but his view of colonization is no less favorable in Mandabi.

In going into the pitch for this, I'll start with a quick note – the title of this movie translates to 'The Money Order.' The titular order being received by one Ibrahima (Makhourédia Guèye), a proud patriarch to two wives and seven children. The order comes from his his nephew working abroad, sending 25,000 francs he has earned to be divided among the family. Things are looking up for Ibrahima and his clan – until he goes to cash it and finds he's being declined because he lacks valid identification (and to add complications to getting one, he is illiterate). What follows is a bureaucratic labyrinth as Ibrahima tries to get all his paperwork in order so he can get the money order cashed before too much time passes and the money goes back to his nephew. All the while dealing with various debts being either called in or accumulating as he tries to get this all sorted out and settled up.

Why yes, this DID feel more than a little sadly familiar over half a century and half a world away, but that wasn't really the intent of the movie, so I will defer there.

There's a number of things this movie is commenting on, but in particular the way Sembène frames postcolonial Senegal here was the one that really hit me. Like last entry, this gave me something of a compare and contrast feeling, but in this case it was to Sembène's earlier movie, Black Girl. The similarity is, admittedly, more in the broad strokes already stated, this is definitely commenting on the impact of how colonialism has effected Senegal and the people there. The big differences come in how it's presented here.

For starters, Ibrahima is a different sort of focus compared to Diouana. Where she is taken out of her element and on the short end of the power dynamics, Ibrahima comes into this in more of a position of relative power. He even seems aware of this himself, as a recurring element of his character is in how he postures and adjusts his robes. This is a man who's used to calling the shots within his walk of life, and even moreso with the prospect of the financial windfall to come. Despite having more going for him, Ibrahima isn't any luckier when the dust settles. Diouana is left isolated and ultimately crushed by a world that is uncaring and unfamiliar. Ibrahima, meanwhile, watches as the world he's been so confident in is ultimately twisted against him as he finds himself repeatedly being out done by pencil pushers, debt collectors, and ultimately his own nephew (not the same nephew as before).

In Ibrahima's case, it's hard not to see the influence of France's colonization in his misery. Yes, it technically provided the initial good fortune as it was his nephew working in France that saved up the money, but it's also their systems that we see bogging everything down in bureaucracy at every turn. It's their influence we see in moments like Ibrahima watching government workers discussing the merits of living on credit bolstered by other credit. It's even that colonial influence in the form of nephew Mbaye, dressed in stylish European attire, who ultimately swindles his uncle.

By the end, I was still feeling the compare and contrast, particularly in the ways both of these movies, whether expressly or just as a result of how they're presented, seem to be targeting part of their message specifically at the colonial element of the audience. In the case of Black Girl, it came across as more explicitly damning – a reminder that some money or an apology can't undo lives destroyed by careless or outright malicious intentions of colonial power. In the case of Mandabi, it reads less as a 'this isn't something you can magically wipe away' and more presenting this morass of bureaucracy, debt hustling, usury and straight up 'everyone for themselves' betrayal and seeming to ask 'This is the civilizing you're so proud to have done?'

I have to admit, I'm still wondering how much of that particular tone was intentional and how much was me reading in more here based on my one prior encounter with Sembène. In the meantime, as I turn this over, it's giving me more incentive to keep an eye out for more of his movies. So far he's two for two and I am intrigued to see more.

But, that will have to be for another time. The days roll on and I've got two more titles left to close out August, which means another week of catch up before I'm back to the regular schedule.

So, I hope you all have a good weekend, and I'll be back here early next week with a movie that's been among the gaps I've been filling from before I really went out of the way to check out the Oscar heavies ahead of the big night. In this case, Todd Field's In the Bedroom.

Till then.

52 Pick-Up # 31 – Velvet Goldmine (1998)

Welcome back to 52 Pick Up.

First up, I'd like to extend an apology for the delay on this one. This summer has had some unexpectedly busy spikes off and on, particularly as planning with family went and it wound up catching up with me.

With that said, consider this the start of a catch up run of multiple entries in short succession to get back up to speed.

So, without further ado...

I had considered a number of tasteful ways to start this entry up.

Considered, and then realized I couldn't not do this instead - 

Well, Uncharted Waters is over. It's been a good run. But though the John Waters films may be done in this project, their spirit lives on in other filmmakers' ambition, creativity, and in cases such as today's full frontal nudity.

I know, that's not the primary point for this movie. In fact, there's a lot to recommend in this movie in general. This is just one where I had to make some joking acknowledgment of this, given how several people, including my wife who referred to herself as a 'pervert gremlin teenager' (her words) came to this movie – the promise of being part of Ewan McGregor's early cinematic reputation for dropping trou.

I'm sure there's a weirder way to set up that this week's entry is for Todd Haynes's Velvet Goldmine, but damned if I know it.

But, as I said before, this is a movie that has a lot more going for it beyond the notable celebrity nudity, though if that's your thing, yes, it is here. For my part, as someone who had known Haynes before this for his Sirk-coded Far From Heaven and 2023's May December, the idea of him taking on the glam rock era had me intrigued. It also has me realizing I need to see more of his movies, but that's for another time.

For today, let's get to the pitch.

The movie starts us with an introduction to the very theatrical (and yes, very David Bowie-coded) glam rock artist Brian Slade (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) an artist on a meteoric rise that culminated one night at a fateful concert where he predicted he would be assassinated. From there, the movie jumps in time and perspective to the 1980s and journalist Arthur (Christian Bale), a man who was among those following the glam movement Slade was part of – so much so that he witnessed the notorious concert in the prologue, where the attack was revealed to be a staged publicity stunt that effectively destroyed Slade's career. Years later, Arthur has been given an assignment to try and find out just what happened to the embattled singer following his disappearance from public life. What follows is a movie very much in a vein akin to Citizen Kane, as Arthur learns more of the story of the real Slade from the singer's ex-wife (Toni Collette) and his manager (Michael Feast.)

In terms of what stuck out for me, the Kane comparison was a big point – less so for the parts that are similar as the areas where Haynes differs and how that works to this movie's benefit. Both start, as established above, in a similar area – a fictional figure of fame overtly inspired by a real life individual (in this movie's case, Haynes takes from a number of artists for inspiration for Slade, but Bowie is easily one of the biggest, additionally Ewan McGregor is playing a role who is an amalgamation of Iggy Pop and Lou Reed) and hang a mystery over them that drives the story. Said protagonist slowly pieces together the famous person's life from those who knew the person directly, peeling back the celebrity story for the complicated, messy figure underneath. From this point, Haynes makes two particular deviations from what Welles did before (and I should give a heads-up, one of these will get into a spoiler, I will mark accordingly.)

The most pronounced split in this case comes in the form of the investigative figure, Arthur. In the case of Kane, the reporter is ultimately a framing figure. He's the one tasked with solving the mystery of Rosebud, but the story itself starts and ends with Charles Foster Kane. The reporter is there to get people talking about the man beyond the newsreels. In the case of Velvet Goldmine, Haynes makes this story as much about Arthur as it is about Slade. In fact, the movie even starts from the premise of their journeys being intertwined in the decision to introduce us to Arthur on the night of the fateful concert that sent Slade into self-imposed exile. As Arthur digs into the story, we are also treated to flashbacks into his own life and how his own interest in Slade led him to the concert that changed it all. In particular, we see how the advent of the glam rock scene became a sexual awakening for Arthur, eventually leading to him leaving his past behind and finding himself through the music. That their connection comes to a head on the fateful night that destroyed Slade's career even adding to it in a way as a sort of 'rising and falling' contrast. Granted, one can't quite call Arthur's trajectory a rise on the level of Slade's, but as he comes more into his own, it still works. Especially for the part that comes next.

Because, like many of my generation, my brain is wired for
The Simpsons quotes:
"He's not dead!"
"No, but his career is."

Okay, here's something I haven't had to do in a while, but like I said above, there was a bit of a spoiler point. I had considered how to write around this, but there was no way to really do it without becoming maddeningly vague, so I'm just gonna go for it. For those who've seen the movie or don't mind the spoilers, read on. For those who haven't and are interested but don't want the spoiler, just scroll down till you see...well, I can't show you McGregor letting it hang out, but I can at least give you the lead-in. Then you can tag back in.

Okay?

Okay.

So, going on the idea of the compare and contrast with Arthur and Slade, there is one particular detail that really stuck out to me, even more so as I wrote this out. This is referring to the movie's final reveal – Arthur discovers that, following his exile in disgrace, Slade returned to the music scene with a new name and face – as a conservative pop idol by the name of Tommy Stone. This in itself is already one Hell of a reveal just as far as Slade's story goes, both for the question of if this complete 180 was simply the one way he could come back without any suspicion or, much more likely, the question of how much of the Brian Slade figure was a case of a chameleon adjusting himself to the needs of his art and career and Tommy Stone is just the latest cynical development of this. It's an interesting question, particularly with regards to Arthur and the one figure in particular who links him to Slade more than anyone else – McGregor's Curt Wild. Playing off the question of Slade's authenticity, Wild serves as another sort of counter figure – a man incredibly at peace with who he is and what he does and, as pertains to this, who he loves.

Both Slade and Arthur have life changing encounters with Wild. While Slade's is the longer relationship, it's also the more erratic, with the breakup marking the beginning of the end of his career career. By comparison, Arthur only has one night with Wild, but it is presented as not a flashy affair, but a moment of genuine emotional connection as well as physical – Wild makes Arthur feel seen, validated on a whole other level than he did as a fan of Slade, and even though they only have that one encounter, it further lends to the idea of this chapter in Arthur's life being where he truly discovers himself.

Again, going back to the rise and fall, it is interesting how Wild inadvertently helps usher the destruction of one personality in one man and then helps the other come into his own. It also helps add to the ending for me in the light of the Tommy Stone revelation. Yes, the implication is that Slade sold out the ideals that he helped to define in the 70s in exchange for getting back into the limelight. At the same time, this doesn't make a bitter or cynical end for Arthur, because even as Slade the person is compromised, it doesn't diminish the impact his music had on Arthur and helping him figure himself out.

Okay, everyone back in.

Saying I was pleasantly surprised by this is an understatement. Like I said above, I came into this for the glam rock and overall good past experiences with Todd Haynes movies. Even with that bar, I really was taken with how what this movie did, particularly with the ideas of the art, the artist, and how both can influence people. There's a lot to unpack here, and I feel like I'll be coming back to this one down the line, and I'm glad I gave it a shot.

I'm also adding some other Haynes titles that I'd been putting off on this list as well, so let's see if any of them come up in the months ahead.

But, like I said up top, it's time for the end of summer catch up as I intend to get everything up to speed in time for September, so other next title is coming up fast on the heels of this.

We're taking a major shift next time in era, themes, and language here. I'm coming back to a director I first crossed paths with during an earlier write-up run here a few years back. Part of me would be tempted to leave that as a hint, but I feel like the turnaround is too short and, frankly, it would be breaking format here, so let's just say it.

I'll be back here real soon with Ousmane Sembène's 1968 follow-up to Black Girl, Mandabi.

Till then