(Spring Breakdown, a very strange film [at least, as far as studio-financed comedies go] that premiered at Sundance earlier this year, comes out on DVD today. This is a slightly edited version of a piece I published during that festival.)
Variety’s Todd McCarthy received mixedreviews for his Sundance 2009 wrap-up piece, in which he lumped together the festival’s two biggest narrative hits, Push and An Education, as part of a trend of films espousing values “emblematic” of “the start of the Obama age.” I’m not sure our recently elected president has much to do with the themes of films that no doubt were conceived years before he clinched the nomination (especially these two films, both of which were based on long pre-existing texts), but I did notice that this year’s crop of Sundance titles seemed more interested in reflecting the times than some of their solipsistic Amerindie ancestors. I saw more films at this festival that tried, earnestly or satirically, to grapple with the state of the union’s troubled-but-hopeful psyche, than I’ve seen in any single ten day stretch in my professional life.
Even better, I saw this concern with The State of Things seep into films as disparate as the tacky, raunchy Rachel Dratch/Amy Poehler comedy Spring Breakdown, and Deborah Stratman’s extremely classy, short feature-length experimental documentary feature O’er the Land –– two films which, on paper, couldn’t be more different, and yet are both heavily invested in notions of fin de siècle Americana and the peculiar ways in which Americans take advantage of our bottomless freedom. Dense, sometimes silent, always visually complex, and presented with neither binding narration nor immediately evident narrative, Land is probably the purest cinema experience I had at Sundance this year. Bizarrely, while Stratman’s film has continued to play the festival circuit, Spring Breakdown’s Sundance screenings may be the the only theatrical exposure that the studio-produced comedy is going to see.
Variety’s Todd McCarthy received mixedreviews for his Sundance 2009 wrap-up piece, in which he lumped together the festival’s two biggest narrative hits, Push and An Education, as part of a trend of films espousing values “emblematic” of “the start of the Obama age.” I’m not sure our recently elected president has much to do with the themes of films that no doubt were conceived years before he clinched the nomination (especially these two films, both of which were based on long pre-existing texts), but I did notice that this year’s crop of Sundance titles seemed more interested in reflecting the times than some of their solipsistic Amerindie ancestors. I saw more films at this festival that tried, earnestly or satirically, to grapple with the state of the union’s troubled-but-hopeful psyche, than I’ve seen in any single ten day stretch in my professional life.
Even better, I saw this concern with The State of Things seep into films as disparate as the tacky, raunchy Rachel Dratch/Amy Poehler comedy Spring Breakdown, and Deborah Stratman’s extremely classy, short feature-length experimental documentary feature O’er the Land –– two films which, on paper, couldn’t be more different, and yet are both heavily invested in notions of fin de siècle Americana and the peculiar ways in which Americans take advantage of our bottomless freedom. Dense, sometimes silent, always visually complex, and presented with neither binding narration nor immediately evident narrative, Land is probably the purest cinema experience I had at Sundance this year. I’d like to give Stratman’s film another look before writing about it in more depth, but as I expect it to show up in at least one upcoming festival, I’ll have a shot. Bizarrely, it’s the studio-produced comedy that I may not soon have another chance to consider, or even see.
The Cannes Film Festival will show a classic Warner Brothers film every night of the fest, including I am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang and Dirty Harry, as part of a tribute to the studio’s 85th anniversary. Also on tap: film critic Richard Schickel’s doc, You Must Remember This: The Warner Bros. Story.
John Waters is making a Christmas movie! And it’s gonna star Johnny Knoxville and Parker Posey! The film was reportedly once setup at New Line; this Hollywood Reporter story implies that it was abandoned during that company’s mom and dad took its keys away, and that ThinkFilm “is said to be in talks to come aboard.”
On Tuesday, Variety negatively reviewed the new Broadway musical Glory Days, pejoratively likening it to a certain “digital revolution”-enabled movie movement that has “democratized the filmmaking process, opening the floodgates for kids straight out of school with no life experience and no stories to tell to start making navel-gazing movies.” Today, the trade reports that Glory Days has ended its run after one show.
Hmm, maybe the programming execs at FOX have souls after all: they’ve mercifully taken The Return of Jezebel James, a disastrous waste of Parker Posey masquerading as a sitcom, off their schedule after just three episodes. At BigScreenLittleScreen, Ted Zee describes how a scene from the second episode (he’s obviously more dedicated to the Save Parker cause than me, because I couldn’t get past the pilot) pretty much sums up the whole situation: “you’re relieved that it’s over, because it’s not funny, and you feel embarrassed for everyone involved.” Unfortunately, video evidence of the crime inexplicably lives on at Hulu, thus ensuring that this blight on Posey’s resume won’t fade as quickly as it should.
When we first saw clips of Parker Posey’s stab at sitcom stardom, the long-delayed FOX offering The Return of Jezebel James, we were skeptical that the sometime high school hazer and incestuous Jackie O impersonator would be able to make the transition to laugh track anchor without diluting her own charms, or worse, becoming really, really annoying. Based on the first two episodes, which are already available for watching and embedding via Hulu (see the pilot above), both of our fears were valid––Posey’s total inability to grasp sitcom comic timing is a big problem, and her flailing attempts to do so strip her of all likeability. It’s such a sad thing to see such a strong actress in a debacle like this, especially just one year after making a really good film which, in a fair and just world, would have sat at the top of her resume until she could get cast in something even better.
But there are sadder things about Jezebel James to discuss…
Remember way back in June, when clips of that Fox sitcom starring Parker Posey hit YouTube? Yeah, that’s not going so well. According to Variety, although The Return of Jezebel James is still on Fox’s midseason schedule (meaning it’ll premiere alongside American Idol and 24 in early 2008), the network has cut their order of episodes in half. Fox is basically like, “It’s cool, we love the show, we’ve just got SO MUCH QUALITY PROGRAMMING planned that we’re only gonna have room for 7 episodes!” The realists at The Culture Czar suspect it has something to do with the fact that the show is “only so-so funny,” and I’m with them.
It’s not quite 8:00 AM, but I have a candidate for Quote of the Day. From Michael Atkinson’s review of Broken English, newly released on DVD, at IFC News:
Posey-triumph and single-chick indie miracle that it is, Broken English may also be the most eloquent portrait of its subject demographic ever made, despite changing two-thirds of the way through into a slightly ditzy French-movie version of itself and robbing a little, in the end, from Linklater’s Before Sunset. While Sex in the City reruns are merely the idiot’s guide to lonely-girl anesthetization, Cassavetes’s feature-film debut is the true gem.
Whatever you think of Zoe Cassavetes’ film, it’s definitely had an interesting media life. Largely overlooked at Sundance, generally shrugged-over in its theatrical release, reclaimed late in the game by a handful of bloggers (including me) and now, finally, earning glowing reviews at the end of its media cycle. If theatrical distribution is now essentially a commercial for home entertainment sales (and I’m fairly sure Magnolia, English’s distributor, believes it is), than this is perhaps the best reception a film could ask for: the longer Broken English sits in the culture, the more positive attention it attracts. It’s a “sleeper” on a long-tail timeline.
An artist takes on the remake of a canonical film by opening up the creation to the YouTube generation. Interviewing artist Perry Bard who is calling for people everywhere to shoot pieces of their lives to remake Dziga Verdov’s Man with a Movie Camera (1929) shot by shot. Also, Karina Longworth gets personal about Broken English (2007) starring Parker Posey, Gena Rowlands and directed by Zoe Casssavetes. We also discuss The Gleaners and I (2000).
Just when I thought I had a grasp of what kind of movies are sure to get a sequel or two, and which ones won’t, all my assumptions are being turned upside down. Spider Man? Sure. Pirates? Of course. But a sequel to An Inconvenient Truth? And one for Hal Hartly’s Henry Fool (which, incidentally is one of my favorite films)? Go figure.
Yes, it appears to be true. We’re going to be treated to a sequel of an informative (if slightly slow) documentary about global warming, and another for a high quality film with very little action and rather unpleasant characters. For An Inconvenient Truth Part 2 (I know, it gets your heart beating faster, doesn’t it?), director Davis Guggenheim is scheduled to meet with Paramount next week, so it’s too soon for details. (Will the original film’s star, Al Gore, agree to a sequel? The suspense…)
For the Henry Fool sequel, Hartly made Fay Grim, which picks up seven years later and focuses on the Parker Posey character by the same name. Somehow, Hartly manages to take a movie based entirely in a Queens neighborhood, and move its sequel to Paris, where the CIA also plays a role. Not your typical sequel (but I can’t wait to see it–check out the trailer at Spout).
So do these new developments tell us anything about the future of the sequel? Probably not. Some of the best documentary sequels (although most people don’t call them that) have been around for a while–director Michael Apted’s Up Series (28 Up, 35 Up, etc.), which he began filming in 1963. (Apted began chronicling the lives of 14 seven year olds that year, following up with “sequels” every seven years after.) It’s a brilliant series, but it hasn’t shifted the way most studios think about doing sequels. Neither did Smoke or its sequel (of sorts) Blue in the Face, another example of an atypical movie sequel set. No, it seems the decision to make your average sequel is generally all about what made a lot of money the first time around and might have enough buzz surrounding it to sustain another go. Wouldn’t it be great if the decision to create a sequel was based on the story, and whether it was worthy of another go?
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
The Cannes Film Festival will show 
It’s not quite 8:00 AM, but I have a candidate for Quote of the Day. From Michael Atkinson’s review of 
An artist takes on the remake of a canonical film by opening up the creation to the 
