The Woman Who Loves Giraffes - Quad Cinema

When I first saw the title to this wonderful documentary, The Woman Who Loves Giraffes, I thought to myself that it had to be about Pat - and how could it have been filmed right under my nose with me utterly clueless about all those goings on?!

But at the film's premiere tonight at the Quad Cinema I discovered that there was a woman who loved giraffes a bit more than Pat.  That Anne Innis Dagg's incredibly story has finally gotten told is great news.  Not only is about a pioneering young woman's post-college quest to explore her love (giraffes), but it follows her to the post-Ph.d college tenure battles that wrongly denied her bid for tenure at not one, but 3 schools. 

Out of apparent defeat we often see positive life altering change.  In Anne's case she published what became the standard text on giraffes, continually updated and in use today.  And, after years of toil in relative obscurity, she finally received the professional recognition she is so deserving of. 

GO SEE IT!

Pat (and that other giraffe loving woman) ;D

"wordplay" documentary review

last night i watched "wordplay," a 2006 documentary on crossword puzzles and the people devoted to them. i a word - the pun may be intended - it was great.  i say this with obvious bias since i'm a crossword puzzle enthusiast.  on a train, or anywhere waiting, if i'm not reading a book, i'll be trying to work out a crossword.  it's funny that "wordplay" should have aired on thursday night, because the friday ny times crossword puzzle is typically bailing out point on with the times.  i'm solid monday and tuesday.  wednesday it's tough - and by thursday it's gotten to be a stretch with the clues.

so as i write this morning, i'm staring at a ny times puzzle that 90% incomplete - and i can only marvel at the contestants profiled in "wordplay" who manage to dispatch the weekend puzzles in mere minutes.  it's was amazing to watch these people at work.  the film itself centered on will shortz, the ny times crossword editor, and the american crossword puzzle tournament that he originated in 1979.  the second part of the documentary focused exclusively on the 2005 tournament held in stamford, connecticut.

it's may be difficult for the non-crossword puzzle junkie to believe, but the two day contest was exciting - from the pre-race socializing straight through to the amazing finish (it even included a saturday night "talent show").  the film profiled five participants, each of whom was a serious contender to take the championship.  what made this all the more fascinating were the excellent use of graphics - which literally brought the crosswords to life as the participants filled in the boxes.

the first half was equally as interesting - especially getting to see crossword "constructor" merl reagle at work putting together a puzzle.  it's essentially a reverse process - he comes up with a theme and then selects the main answers before working them into the grid.  once the major words have been placed, it's a matter of filling in the remaining boxes with the secondary answers.  the puzzle's difficulty is measured relative to how  tough (or tricky) the clues given are made.  the same puzzle (i.e. words) could be reworked with more difficult clues and the entire character would change.

one eye-opening example was the post-1996 election puzzle that incorporated the following alternatives: "clinton elected" or "bob dole elected" - with the 7 letter clinton or bobdole used when the election outcome was determined.  the filmmakers use of graphics to visualize the process - and interviews both with clinton amd dole - made this a great look behind the scenes (so to speak).  also surprising, interviews with assorted puzzle enthusiasts - including the (then) yankee, mike mussina, the indigo girls (both), and a very animated jon stewart - to name a few.

if you like crosswords - put this on your netflix queue!

the girl with the dragon tattoo: movie review

i'd been looking forward to the remake of the girl with the dragon tattoo ever since daniel craig was cast in the role of mikael blomkvist last year.  while craig was an inspired choice, i must admit that i was skeptical when rooney mara was cast as  lisbeth salander.  but rooney made the character her own and it worked beautifully (a term some might find ironic to describe a edgy gothic lisbeth).  it isn't often that a remake can stand on its own, but in nutshell, david fincher's adaption is worth the effort.  fincher's take is generally faithful to the 2009 swedish original.  but anyone who hasn't read stieg larsson's millennium trilogy or seen the original film, will not have a problem settling into the atmospherics of the graphic thriller.

it's the hollywood production values - read glossiness - that really set fincher's version apart from niels arden oplev's film.  the subtitles may have been a factor because listening to the story transpire in english is a lot easier than reading it.  i hate such generalizations but here, with so many plot details lurking in the storyline, i found it more enjoyable the second time around.  with respect to the story, i laid out the narrative in more detail in my review of the original film. i'd rather focus on a couple of interesting changes this time around. the main twist is the eventual meeting between blomkvist and lisbeth - which arrive more than an hour into the film.

in the original, lisbeth continued to hack (pry) into blomkvist's life, post-libel conviction.  she triggers the eventual meeting by sending him an email that explains the references - the story's major clue - found at the back of harriet vanger's diary.  in the remake, blomkvist's daughter tossed off an offhand remark that led mikael to realize the significance of the numbers.  armed with that clue, he then tracks down lisbeth to enlist her aid in his research.  character-wise, this paints their relationship in a completely different light.  in the remake, lisbeth had no continuing interest in blomkvist once she turned in the dossier to her employer.

moreover, while their meeting took place in similar circumstances (an unannounced arrival at her apartment after she had just spent the night with a girl she met at a club), craig exhibited an almost bond-like insouciance when he barged in, demanded the friend leave, and they had breakfast together!  over the take-out breakfast he had brought along, and insisted she eat, he related the harriet vanger mystery and the sought lisbeth's help in researching it.  in the original, blomkvist barged in threatening her with prosecution for continuing to spy on him - and settled for a cup of old, cold coffee!

that was the most significant twist in story line.  there were minor ones too, but they really didn't change the story (london versus the australian outback as one such example) - just the tone. does leading the life of an investment banker over that of an archaeologist add glitz?  why make that change?  similarly, while the lisbeth's financial re-engineering was implied in the original, it was achieved explicitly - dare we say underwritten - with mikael's funds in the remake.

there were only two things i didn't care for in this version.  the first was the opening credit sequence - done over a fantastic cover of led zeppelin! - which involved some of the most disgusting (imho) images of rubber fetish extremes imaginable.  it seemed like a nightmarish cross between a james bond opening credit sequence and outright sadomasochism.  call me a prude, but i found that utterly repulsive - and the memory still leaves a dank taste.  the second was the contrived emotion lisbeth felt for blomkvist at the end - and the equally ridiculous denouement in the final scenes.  contrast that to the scene in the swedish version of a country club prison where blomkvist was doing his jail time - now that ending worked.

all in all i enjoyed the remake - and look forward to the next two instalments

"marathon boy" premiere on hbo: movie review

i watched the premiere of marathon boy on hbo last night and must say i was viscerally repulsed by the entire saga. i'm into just about anything connected with running - people, places, races.  i'll dig into anything on this subject; and do it with glee. but to witness a real life hobbsian choice - a life as a beggar in an indian slum, or the grueling regime of a long distance runner foisted upon a 3 year old boy was truly upsetting business.  in reality, budhia had no choice at all.

because of the family's extreme poverty, budhia was sold by his mother to a traveling salesman for 800 rupee (roughly $16).  it was quickly revealed to be an abusive situation.  enter biranchi das, a judo instructor and orphanage director, who paid back the salesman and took budhia into his care (with the approval of budhia's mother).  but budhia was no angel himself, fully equipped with a raw, foul mouth out of which spouted expletives!  it was, in fact, a result of his foul mouthn that his talent for running became apparent.

as a punishment for cursing, biranchi had budhia run circles around the courtyard.  he expected budhia to stop at some point, from just plain exhaustion.  when he returned to the orphanage hours later, budhia was still at it, still running loops of the courtyard - no worse for the wear.  that apocryphal beginning set the stage for his "training" and a series of half marathon, leading to full marathons and, ultimately, his collapse at a 40 mile ultramarathon.

the documentary then intertwines two parallel story lines - budhia's actual running and races coupled with the growing notoriety his feats engender and the efforts of the the local child services agency to stop what it perceives as his exploitation (for better or worse) at the hands of biranchi.  the filmmaker takes strictly hands off approach to moralizing - one way or the other.  there is no effort to show this story through western eyes.  biranchi has many supporters in his battle against the bureaucrats of child services!

this come to a head when he is formally charged with child abuse.  by this time budhia is now 5 years old and has run many, many race miles.  there followed one dramatic scene where the authorities, after having already prohibited him from entering any more races, physically restrained budhia from a 300 mile walk!  the story quickly spins out on a tangent when, shockingly, biranchi is murdered - which had no connection to budhia and running! by that point budhia had been returned to his mother - and eventually became a ward of the state (which would, in turn, enroll him in a prestigious academy).

the dilemma, if it can be described as such because leaving the slums, abject poverty, and a life spent begging for existence - is no choice when weighed against any alternative.  biranchi, regardless of the training he put budhia through and the races he was made to run - saved him from the horrors he faced in his very real life (including redeeming him from someone who had already purchased him!).  was budhia exploited - maybe so.  but that alternative was preferable.

it's a very unsettling and disturbing story.  running ultimately was the hook that pulled budhia out of the darkest abyss - but it's not really a story about running.

"blank city" movie review

"blank city" is fascinating time capsule of the quasi-bankrupt 1970'a new york city. the documentary focuses on the lower east side filmmakers who, with only super 8 (and later 16mm) handheld cameras, took to the streets and filmed practically anything in a quest to make movies - and, for the most part, they succeeded. the first half of "blank city" documents the emergence of what ulimately became known as the "no wave." the second, much darker half, recounts the self-labeled "cinema of transgression."

it's a testament to some wily urban guerilla tactics that some these films even got made - such as petty theft of film (or things to sell and then buy the film) and a late night building break-in to access a location. the latter exploit, the location for a scene for "rome 78" was visited with a real estate broker who believed he was "showing" the property. during the walk-through the windows were, surreptiously, unlocked. the cast and crew returned late at night, via the windows, set up shop, filmed, and exited via the window when they were done!

editing took on a similar edgy quality. with an incredibly tight budget, the filmmakers managed to secure an editing studio for the pricely sum of $40 - but for only one day. the solution, copious quantities of speed and a 24 hour marathon editing session. it worked, they got the feature lenght film in the can, and thereafter it went up a screen! most of the oral histories recounted by the interviewees focused on this sort of backstory - they did whatever it took to get something filmed and screened.

the "no wave" movement had its birth in the punk rock scene. the overlap of music and film making was pretty dramatic. while there was a gratuitous shots of patti smith and then the ramones in the opening minutes of the film, debbie harry, pre-blondie, was the one shown acting it up in the underground films. there plenty of clips from the vintage clubs, cbgb's, the peppermint lounge, and the mudd club, to mention a few.

the thread that glues together the rare film clips is the string of excellent oral histories. what the documentary lacks in a linear narrative is more than compensated for by the story telling. in image after image of what could easily be a bombed out war zone - but in actuality is the lower east side - there is an overarching positive vibe that permeates what they're doing. especially interesting are steve buscemi's recollections - the totally street character of his performances (including have them call up to his apartment window when ready for his scenes)!

i can't say the same for the last third of the film, the self-described "cinema of transgression." the vibe went from upbeat to creepy almost as soon as nick zedd's soi disant movement was introduced. in what i'd charitably call proto-slasher films, the content was supposedly intended to shock and offend - which it easily managed. john waters commentary was actually on target - if you weren't offended, you probably found those images hilarious (think all the way back to "pink flamingos")!

all in all, put "blank city" on your radar to check out. it opens at the ifc center next week (april 6). while it's played the film festival circuit to great reviews since 2009, it hasn't had widespread release. if you're a new yorker with memories of the "good old day" - don't pass it up.

"hood to coast" movie review

last night, on the eve of our latest snowstorm, i went to see the one time theatrical release of the "hood to coast" documentary in white plains. i watched it with emmy and bill, in a remarkably empty theatre - most folks it seemed, wisely heeded the warnings of oncoming snow. in stark contrast to the packed theatre for the "spirit of the marathon" screening a few years ago (at the same theatre, coincidentally) - there may have been a total of 12 people, including us, in the audience. despite the tiny crowd, the film was worth going to see.

i hadn't heard of this film before last week. i hadn't even heard of the hood to coast relay for that matter. but it's a good bet that i'll be in the audience for any movie about running, or running-related adventures. the hood to coast relay, as i quickly learned, is billed as the "mother" of all relays - 1000 twelve person relay teams (12,000 runners), covering the 197 miles from mt. hood to the oregon coast. a race with that many participants, that kicks off on a mountain, and end at the shores of the pacific ocean is impressive - in and of itself.

the documentary followed four teams as they undertook the 2008 edition of the relay. the team selection process yielded "dead jocks in a box," "heart n' sole," "r. bowe," and "thunder and liakaning." the mix included a masters team of formerly competitive runners, a team of co-workers that had a training plan focused on beer and incredibly low mileage, a heart attack survivor from the 2007 relay, and the family and friends of a runner who died at the tragically young age of 30 - and left behind a very pregnant wife.

the back story of each team was laid out against the preparations for the relay. the progress of the each team, and how it coped with its individual issues, was interwoven with the actual race. the filmmakers used panoramic helicopter shots to capture the breathtaking vistas, pre- and post-race interviews, handheld footage of the runners on the course (or in the vans), and animations to clarify various race logistics, to put together the story. each team added to the overall impact of the film.

the relay itself consists of 36 legs of various distances and difficulty. each team member is expected to run 3 legs. kathy ryan, 67 at the time, had a near fatal heart attack as she started her 3rd leg of the 2007 edition. we see her as she discussed her race plans with her doctor. he immediately said, as he looked at the first leg of the race (which, we are told, is considered one of the most physically grueling of the relay) "i don't know what you're smoking, but you absolutely can't run this one!" and, without this being a spoiler, who should we see lined up to run the first leg for her team - none other than kathy ryan!

"dead jocks in a box" were animated by a slightly different objective - they want to finish among the top six teams in their age group to get a guaranteed spot in the 2009 edition. that would insure one of their teammates, who had run all the hood to coast relays since the first one in 1982 (when only 8 teams participated), gets to continue his streak. only one other runner has run in every hood to coast - and he was on a different team. these guys run hard, and don't want the aging process to slow them down (too much).

my favorite team, "thunder and laikaning" provided the comic relief - and proved that the relay isn't just for the "typical" runner. and, within that team, rachel larson and her hilarious approach to the race was my favorite runner on the screen! team r. bowe tugged at the heartstrings because the memory of ryan bowe's untimely death was still fresh. the team consisted of his family and friends. the relay (which ryan had participated in and was on a team to run again) was their way to honor his memory.

i don't know if "hood to coast" will find its way into theatres again - but when it's released on dvd, put it on your netflix queue! better yet, put together a viewing party with your running buddies. this is a film that should be watched in the company of fellow runners :D

"the girl who kicked the hornet's nest" ("luftslottet som sprängdes") movie review

"the girl who kicked the hornet's nest" ("luftslottet som sprängdes"), the third and final instalment of stieg larsson's millennium trilogy, clocked in just shy of two and a half hours - 148 minutes to be exact. for a film where the principal actor's actual spoken dialog can be measured in a handful of minutes, it dragged on much too long. seriously, lisbeth salander, confined to a hospital bed and then a jail cell, for the first half of the film barely utters a spoken word. the action is moved along, thankfully, by her erstwhile "partner" in all the dirty business, mikael blomquist.

maybe that first take on the final instalment is too harsh? perhaps. but if it had come in 30 minutes lighter i'd probably have a more positive view. even when lisbeth finally "opens up" - to answer questions in her defense at her trial for the attempted murder of her father - her words are overshadowed by the visual impact of a punk/goth outfit she slipped into (together with a gelled mohawk). it was doubly distracting because, up until that point, lisbeth had only worn drab hospital/prison garb. she may be true to her inner self with this presentation, but was it wise packaging for the trial?

as for the trial, the nominal centerpiece of this instalment, it's fascinating to watch (in the first film she teamed up with blomquist to solve a mystery and exposed a conspiracy; in the second film she was framed for a trio of murders by her unspeakably evil father). it's not the sort of courtroom trail we've become accustomed to seeing in in the united states. from an american perspective, lisbeth's "trial" has in common with pre-trial discovery than a formal courtroom adjudication. as for the outcome - i doubt this is a spoiler - lisbeth is vindicated.

the film could have easily, and effectively, have concluded at that point. instead, she spends the remaining screen time tidying up a couple of loose ends. the most ludicrous, and gratuitous, moment is lisbeth's confrontation with her sociopath half-brother. rather than inflict the coup de grace, lisbeth dials for some unexpected assistance - which, in itself, neatly ties up one more loose end. but with all the effort to wrap up the disparate elements, the most unsatisfying - albeit believable - moment is lisbeth and mikael's hello and farewell.

it makes one (or at least me) dial back to the first film and wonder out loud how they ever became physically (i wouldn't stretch it to romantically) involved. still, mikael's feelings for her are the glue that string together the three films. is he in love with her? is he searching for justice? or is he seeking to expose the evil that men do across the pages of millennium, with lisbeth as the vehicle for that end? probably all of the above.

so while the film ran too long for my taste - and needlessly tied up loose ends - "the girl who kicked the hornet's nest" is worth seeing (especially if you've already seen the first two). but after spending 7+ hours with "the girl," over three films - i'm glad the american version of the millennium trilogy won't be out for a while yet :O

allen ginsberg's "howl" movie review

On Sunday night Pat and I went to see a screening of Allen Ginsberg’s poem “Howl” at the Jacob Burns Film Center. The film was followed by a question and answer session with the co-directors, Robert Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman, conducted by Janet Maslin of the New York Times. I had looked forward to seeing “Howl” since it premiered at the at the Sundance Film Festival last January.

But, to fast forward to the Q & A, the very first question Maslin posed to Epstein and Friedman was simply (and I paraphrase), “what did sort of film was it?” It’s neither a documentary nor a dramatization. The film has practically no original dialog because the entire script is constructed from the text of the poem, interviews given by Ginsberg, and the trial transcript. Their answer was a rather coy, “it’s a poetic event.”

I’d buy that - simply because you can’t pigeon-hole a film that’s part animation, part poetry reading, and part dramatization. By way of back story, Epstein and Friedman were brought in by the Ginsberg Estate in 2002 to dramatize the poem and the subsequent obscenity trial in time for the celebration of its 50th anniversary - 2007! Along the way the project took on an added dimension when they decided to animate the poem itself - and secured the unique talent of Erik Drooker for those sequences. Drooker worked with Ginberg more than a decade earlier to produce a volume of “illustrated” poems (which included parts of “Howl”). As an aside, Drooker’s mom was in the audience Sunday night.

Getting back to the film, James Franco is spot on as the 29 year old Allen Ginsberg. It opens with Ginsberg (these sequences were filmed in black and white) at infamous Six Gallery reading that introduced “Howl” to as yet unsuspecting America. The reading quickly morphed into the first animation sequence. From that point on, the film jumps to and from the reading, the animation, the trial, and an interview Ginsberg gives to an unseen reporter. The animation, which was done entirely in Thailand, is a phallically graphic Fantasia-like experience. As a stand alone interpretation of “Howl,” it would be an interesting to sit through in its entirety.

The interview Ginsberg gives to the unseen reporter is meant to be one that Ginsberg gave to Time Magazine in Rome (which has subsequently been lost to time). Ginsberg was never at the trial, not even in the United States, when these events unfolded. He was actually in Tangiers - and was flown to Rome by Time Magazine for the interview. Lawrence Ferlinghetti, who was actually the defendant in the obscenity trial, told Ginsberg he wasn’t needed (nor relevant) for the trial. But Ginsberg did correspond with him about the progress of the trial.

Jake Erlich, one of the pre-eminent first amendment lawyers of that generation (and played here by Jon Hamm) defended Ferlinghetti at the trial. The district attorney was played by David Straitham and the judge was played Bob Balaban. While the outcome wasn’t as foregone as many people might imagine today (thanks to hindsight), the film makers took some liberties with the recreation that made it seem much closer than what actually transpired. The prosecution was only able to muster two witnesses to testify. Both (played by Mary Louise Parker and Jeff Daniels) were shown.

The defense, on the other hand, had nine witnesses testify (and could easily have doubled that total). But the Epstein and Friedman opted to show only one (capably played by Treat Williams). Nor did the film dramatize any of the attendant publicity that followed the course of the trial (aside from an occasional photo of a newspaper clipping). Even more remarkable, principal actors in the events didn’t get any lines - most notably Ferlinghetti (who sat at the witness table and uttered not a word throughout the proceedings)! In a similar vein, when Kerouac and Cassady were portrayed - neither one spoke a word of dialog. What’s up with that? While the film is about all about “Howl” - each of the aforementioned had plenty to say about the poem and Ginsberg himself!

That said, this is a must watch film for any fan of the beat generation. Franco, himself, is a huge fan of the beats and brought that knowledge and interest to the role. He was the first actor hired for the project and spent months researching the young Allen Ginsberg while the rest of the cast took shape. Interestingly, the last actor cast was Jon Hamm - perhaps the one with the most period experience from his “Mad Men” character Don Draper. As Epstein and Friedman related it, he was hired on Friday and was on the set Monday morning shooting his scenes!

Don’t pass up seeing this film on the big screen :D

"farewell (l'affaire farewell)" movie review

Pat and I went to see “Farewell (L’Affaire Farewell),” an espionage thriller based loosely on a true story, on Labor Day. “Farewell” was released in July - and eerily coincided with the deportation of 10 Russian spies that had recently been rounded up by the FBI. Was that life imitating art (at least as the discovery that spy ring mirrored themes from “Farewell”)? The story is set in 1981, with cold war spy networks in full bloom. The difference with this film, an almost anti-spy espionage picture, is the protagonists are amateurs.

The KGB officer, colonel Grigoriev, vets raw intelligence before it continues on its travels through the varied Soviet bureaucracies. Later in the film we learn the bulk of Soviet spying is actually industrial espionage. It was cheaper to steal trade secrets and processes than invest in the time consuming (and expensive) research and development. Interestingly, the material passed on by Grigoriev was information the Russians had learned about the allies (and the marginal notes made by the Russian analysts regarding its value).

Grigoriev passes the information (which culminates with the piece de resistance, the “x list” detailing the names of Russian agents around the world), to a mid-level French engineer, Pierre Froment. The twist, which insulated him from suspicion, was his private sector job. Froment was not a spy. More fascinating, still, is the French themselves kept this conduit secret from the external French spies (their CIA) and ran the operation - code named “Farewell” - via the internal security apparatus (their FBI).

The ostensible reason for this subterfuge was that the external service was riddled with Soviet spies! The Soviets, according to the French explanation, didn’t bother to infiltrate the domestic service because there weren’t any worthwhile secrets to steal! Eventually, the documents turned over by Grigoriev land on the desk of Francois Mitterand himself - who, in turn, shares this gold mine of intelligence with Ronald Reagan, in person. While the French refuse to divulge their sources, the American’s eventually learn the identities of the two principals.

In between the start of the information hand-off and the ultimate pay-off with the “x-list” is the slow destruction of Grigoriev’s and Froment’s personal lives from the toll of the lies and duplicity. Froment, with a borderline hysterical wife, continues the “spying” despite flat out telling his wife that he won’t do it any longer (to protect family - living deep in the Russian state). Grigoriev, for some unknown reason, takes a mistress - and in what can only be described as a “fatal attraction” moment - arrives back at his apartment and had the front door opened by
the mistress (his wife, clueless, in the background).

It’s his rebellious son that catches the mistress grabbing a kiss from Grigoriev while the his wife searches for a book on dog training!? The son, a huge fan of Queen, comes to loath his father as a result of this discovery. Grigoriev, who took no money for his traitorous deeds, opted for little things instead - French champagne, brandy, books of poetry, a walkman (which he referred to as a “johnny walkman”), queen cassette tapes (which he called “keen”)... and so on. His payoff was the psychic satisfaction that he was hastening an new Soviet Union for the next generation (specifically his son).

I won’t reveal the outcome - but I will say the “fatal attraction” moment was easily one the most suspenseful of the film. This isn’t your “Bourne Identity” style thriller, but rather a more cerebral “The Lives of Others” cold war drama. If you like “The Spy Who Came in from the Cold” - Le Carre's world of espionage - then this film is for you. I enjoyed it - in no small part because it was set in the early 1980's, and also the Moscow locations were beautiful. It’s a well put together film, well worth catching on the big screen.

"terribly happy" ("frygtelig lykkelig") movie review

The ironically titled “Terribly Happy” (“Frygtelig Lykkelig”) is a taut Danish psychological thriller that doesn’t take itself too seriously, despite the bleak landscape it plays out against. This modern film noir is more like a subversive black comedy - a sinister take on Simon Pegg’s “Hot Fuzz.” Robert, a Copenhagen police officer, is exiled to the desolate outback town, Skarrild, to atone for his crimes (which include domestic violence and a nervous breakdown).

Robert, played by Jakob Cedergren (and bears a striking similarity to Hugh Laurie), is decidedly out of place - and the townsfolk are hardly interested in helping him fit in. While there is no overt hostility, he makes no friends at the bar (the center of the town’s social activity) and further sets himself apart by refusing the bartender’s just opened bottle of beer and asking for a soda. But he doesn’t want to fit in. He wants to get out!

Without further ado, Robert is immediately drawn into the drama of the town’s most difficult family - the Buels. Ingelise (Lene Maria Christensen) is the femme fatale/battered wife of Jorgen (Kim Bodina), the town bully/wife beater. But is Ingelise really a battered wife or is she just playing for attention. She quickly, and brazenly, flirts with Robert (who, we are reminded by his frequent calls home - is married and has a young daughter).

But despite the set-up for an ill-fated love triangle (Robert succumbs to Ingelise; Ingelise goes back to Jorgen; Jorgen resumes the beatings), events quickly spiral out of control - and include some interesting plot twists. More interestingly is that the trio’s activities (in all their various plot permutations) do not go unnoticed by the villagers! What makes this film work is how expertly a townie steps into the action - at the opportune moment.

The town is situated adjacent to a expansive bog. The film opened with a voice over description of a local fable about a cow that vanished in the bog - only to be recovered from the bog with two heads (one of which was human), and the bad luck that befell the town thereafter. The bog has a reoccurring role as the story unfolds.

In one of the more surrealistic elements of what sometimes seems like a nightmarish series of vignettes, instead of a physical fight - or duel, to play out the western motif - Robert and Jorgen “duke it out” with a drinking contest. The relationship between these two men (and their respective interactions with the town) is the focus of a good chunk of the second half of the film.

Finally, without giving away the resolution, the film's end is worthy of Sartre’s “No Exit” and Garcin's memorable realization, “Hell is other people.”

"the big chill"

i stayed up late monday night to watch "the big chill" - it was actually tuesday morning since the movie ended well after midnight. i first saw this film as a senior in college - and shortly thereafter the soundtrack went on to become ubiquitous on campus, on fm radio, and later post-college album collections. even now, listening to motown brings back fond memories of this film, which i've seen many times over the last 25+ years!

it's pretty funny to watch jeff goldblum these days on law & order: criminal intent and think back to his smarmy, yet lovable, reporter for people magazine (who could get you a table at elaine's). this was long before he broke through on the remake of "the fly," was an expert on chaos in "jurassic park," or broke alien code in "independence day." a long time has passed since 1983!

same could be said for glenn close's sarah - the most grounded of the bunch. she softened her image from the year earlier - when she played jenny in "the world according to garp" (one of my favorite movies, by the way). only to whipsaw from sarah to a psychotic femme fatale in "fatal attraction" in 1987. some characters are hard to forget.

back to the film, which wasn't the first "reunion" film so to speak (that would go to "return of the secacus seven" a few years earlier). but it would inspire the "thirtysomething" t.v. series a few years later. a bunch of thirtysomething - see how natural that term sounds after all that usage - college friends arrive for the funeral of their mutual friend. after the service they collectively find themselves staying for a long weekend.

the film is an extended meditation on how they inter (or re-) act with each other 15 or so years removed from heyday of their college lives. there are a lot of good moments (and some cliches as well). for the most part the ensemble cast plays it straight. what stands out is the relatively conflict-free weekend they have.

the most anger illicited appears when kevin kline gets pissed at william hurt when he's escorted back with police escort (running a red light and having a bad attitude), when tom berenger gets pissed at hurt for bad-mouthing the deceased memory ("alex died for most of us a long time ago"), or jo beth williams storming away from berenger (when he advises her not to leave her husband for him).

aside from those scenes, it's all so very laid back - the 60's invade the 1980's. a lot of marijuana is smoked, lines of cocaine snorted (thanks to the drug dealing william hurt), and wine drunk (thanks to the hosts). the drug stuff seems like edgy behavior from the vantage point of 2010 - but it was business as usual in the 1980's.

sadly, the film doesn't have much of a payoff when the weekend ends. the story lines are neatly stitched back together and everyone returns to the "real" world. but maybe that is the point - you don't need to justify hanging out with old friends. they were there for a funeral (and that permeated the conversations). but wouldn't they have been just as relaxed with each other (albeit different conversations) at a wedding?

"the art of the steal" documentary

i missed this incredible documentary, "the art of the steal," when it was in limited release in new york city. but thanks to netflix (on demand) i finally had a chance to see it - and it was worth the wait. but a bit of back story is in order. the film documents how a handful of powerful interests (primarily politicians and large foundations) conspired gain control of a valuable art collection (conservatively described as the most valuable art collections in the world) and physically relocate it to downtown philadephia in direct contravention of the govening documents of the foundation.

the barnes foundation, which houses the private collection assembled by albert barnes, in was purposely located in suburban philadelphia. barnes, a self-made millionaire with a fragile ego, was an art collector ahead of his time. when he established the foundation in 1923, the critics savaged his taste, his selections, his eclectic presentation of the works - every facet of his style and philosphy. barnes was stunned at the viciousness and swore his collection would never find its way back to philadephia.

when barnes died in 1951 his last will and testament stipulated that the collection remain where it was currently housed to keep it away from the philadephia elites he so despised. for almost 40 years, until the death of the last trustee personally selected by barnes, the collection was safe from the outside world. but, one of the first changes brought about by the new foundation trustees was sending the collection on a world tour - as a traveling exhibit - with its final stop at the dreaded (to albert barnes) philadelphia museum of art!

things quickly devolved from there - and culminated with a judicial decision approving the permanent relocation of the art collection to down philadelphia. a finale that no doubt had dr. barnes spinning in his grave at the injustice of ignoring his explicit directive. but even with such a one sided documentary it's difficult to muster any sympathy for barnes. the brief sketch of the man revealed someone who - to put it as charitably as possible - was a nasty old curmudgeon.

as an attorney who specializes in trusts and estates matters, i especially enjoyed the legal maneuvering that was employed (aided, no doubt, by equal parts political influence) to accomplish the "steal." but, had the documentary be a bit less partisan, there would have be some room to present the (legitimate) arguments in favor of relocating the collection. while public policy considerations were significant, it shouldn't be ignored that neighbors of the barnes foundation may have kicked off the transfer the collection with their collective "not in our back yard" stance over the addition a parking lot to ease traffic congestion!

while the title implies the collection was stolen, and in a sense it may have been, there were too many legitimate considerations for such a glib moniker. that said, put "the art of the steal" on your netflix queue. and if you're planning a trip to philadelphia... well make sure to watch it before visiting the collection :D

"the girl who played with fire" ("flickan som lekte med elden") movie review

I caught the “Girl Who Played with Fire” ("Flickan Som Lekte Med Elden") last week, before we drove up to Vermont. It’s the second installment of Stieg Larrson’s posthumously published “Millennium” trilogy. Noomi Rapace and Michael Nyquist reprise their roles as Lisbeth Salander and Mikael Blomkvist from "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo." In fact, all three books of the “Millennium” trilogy were filmed in one year, with the same principal actors. The third instalment, “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest” is scheduled for an October release.

“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” was a brutally violent film, and the level of violence did not abated in “The Girl Who Played with Fire.” With scenes of a who girl dragged into a barn followed by a man who then powers up a chain saw, a girl shot and then buried alive, and flashbacks to the brutal rape in “Dragon Tattoo,” the sequel may contain even more violence! Certainly Lisbeth’s path through this movie is no less violent than what she endured in the first.

“The Girl Who Played with Fire” fills in the details of Lisbeth’s past for those who watched the first film. Interestingly, the fire motif picked up from the first film (the flashback where Lisbeth douses her abusive father and lights a match to him) and carried over to the cyborg-like evil henchman’s torching of the barn to, supposedly, dispose of two inconvenient bodies.

While this character feels no pain as a result of a genetic mutation, he doesn’t lapse into a comic cut-out of a clownish James Bond bad guy from the 60's or 70's (think Jaws, without the smile). He does the dirty work with clinical detachment and ruthlessness. His connection to the action is murkier than it appears, and the big reveal at the finish certainly opens some eyes.

The plot revolved around the murder of an investigative reporter and his wife, who both uncover a human traffic network and Blomkvist’s Millennium magazine is about to publish all the gory details. They’re killed before the expose is published - and Lisbeth is framed for the murders. This frame-up, while improbable, is essential and brings her back into the sleuthing business - to save herself. As she tries to find the real murderer, her past becomes part of the present day story.

Interestingly, while Blomkvist is certain of her innocence - and sets off to prove it - they don’t meet up until late in the film. Given the evidence the police have against her (including an inconvenient fingerprint), his unwavering belief that she couldn't have murdered them may have more to do with their physical relationship from “Dragon Tattoo” than any objective set of facts in the current film.

The trilogy will be remade in the U.S. - with Daniel Craig signed to play Blomkvist. The open question is what actress can play Lisbeth? Noomi Rapace inhabits the role so completely that's it's difficult to image another woman in the part. In the meantime, if you haven't seen "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo," watch that one first. Then go see the "Girl Who Played with Fire."

a movie ("the girl who played with fire") and some drop bags

it's been a relatively busy week, especially with summer session II kicking off yesterday, so i decided to catch a mid-day movie. i went to see "the girl who played with fire" - the follow up to "the girl with the dragon tattoo" and the second instalment of stieg larsson's "millennium" trilogy. in some ways, it was actually better than the first one! i'll write up a review of it next week.

when i got home, priority one was planning the drop bags for the vermont 100 mile endurance run this weekend (otherwise i would have written the movie review). as a certified procrastinator, i got as far as laying out all the essentials. the actual packing will, as usual, take place hours before i get in the car. in some ways, there's a lot less to consider taking along because the weather forecast is for hot, humid conditions all weekend.

regardless of the weather, looking forward to having a lot of fun (in the context of running, walking, slogging, crawling, to get through 100 hilly miles of vermont roads and trails). like last year, rob is coming up on saturday to pace me for the last 30 miles. so many returning (and new) faces expected this weekend that it may double as an ultrarunning reunion!

stay tuned :D

"bukowski: born into this" movie review

After I watched “Barfly” last week, I was moved to add “Bukowski: Born Into This” to my Netflix queue. It arrived in yesterday’s mail and I watched it last night. Charles Bukowski is not an easy character to like - and his work (poetry or prose) is equally hit or miss for most people. But the 2004 John Dullaghan documentary is well worth the time (running just under 2 hours), regardless of your personal view of Bukowski. In fact, the decidedly upbeat take (there are no critics in this film) puts his helter-skelter life into a chronological span and makes Bukowski into an almost forgone creation of a horrible childhood and his beat early lives.

Charles Bukowski is difficult to put into a neat literary cubby hole (dive bar, seedy hotel, better choices). For a man of prodigious literary output, he never broke into the world of mainstream academia (or publishing, for that matter). The Bukowski of this film comes across as equal parts Henry Miller, Jack Kerouac, and Hunter S. Thompson. And, lurking in the background is Herbert Huncke - the proto beat. Huncke was a petty criminal, alcoholic, and junkie. He’s the guy, from whom Kerouac first heard the term “beat.”

Late in his life, and after repeated pleas from Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg, and William Burroughs, Huncke started to write (albeit sporadically). He eventually penned his autobiography, “Guilty of Everything,” that cataloged his wayward escapades. Bukowski shares many parallels with Huncke (who died in 1996, two years after Bukowski, at 81). Bukoswki also followed in the footsteps of Henry Miller - who quit his job at Western Union to strike out as a writer. Miller’s penniless decade (the 1920s) produced his first novel, “Moloch, or, This Gentile World” (published posthumously) which chronicled his horrible years at Western Union.

To quit his dead end job at the post office, Bukowski was offered a stipend of $100 per month from his future publisher, John Martin. Shortly afterward, Black Sparrow Press (created just to publish Bukowski) released “Post Office,” Bukowski’s first novel - and a thinly disguised autobiographical piece of his years at slaving away at the mail sorting operations of the post office. It was John Martin’s unwavering faith in Bukowski that paved the way for him to become a full time writer - unencumbered by a day to day job!

Bukowski himself, in a fantastic piece, related how important it was for him to keep an “ember” of his writing alive deep inside of himself - regardless of the drudgery of any job he might be working to stay alive! That way, if he ever got published (and this was during a period where his mailbox was constantly filled with rejection slips), he could fan that ember back into a flame. For a guy who prided himself on ruthlessly striping metaphors out of his writings - that was a classic! Bukowski wrote every day - publication (and getting paid for it) was the gravy.

As his fame increased during the early 1970s, from readings, publications, and a weekly column (“Notes of a Dirty Old Man”) in an underground newspaper, his writing took on even more life is art spin. “Women” followed his debauched ride through the legions of groupies that sought him out. “Hollywood” followed on the heels of the filming of “Barfly” - in which he had a tiny cameo. “Barfly”/”Hollywood” could have been life imitating art, imitating life - since Bukowski penned the screenplay for the movie!

I was fascinated by his take on the film - and it wasn’t a positive one. He thought Mickey Rourke was a “showoff” in the role of Chinaski (Bukowski). In a remarkable vignette, Bukowski actually “read” the lines that he thought Rourke had overacted! He (Bukowski) would never had shouted upon entering a bar - if anything, an understated growl would have been enough. Had he lived long enough, Bukowski would probably have loved Matt Dillon’s lower key take on Chinaski in “Factotum.”

Check out this documentary. “Bukowski: Born into This” won’t disappoint.

"barfly" movie review

last night "barfly," starring mickey rourke and fay dunaway, was on t.v. - a rare showing! it's been a few years since i've seen it; and even longer since i first watched it in a theatre (1986)! it's about a brief slice of charles bukowski's life. more often seen (on sundance and via netflix) is "factotum" - yet another take on bukowski life, made almost 20 years after "barfly," that stars matt dillon. while "factotum" was based on bukowski's short novel of the same name, "barfly" was written specifically for the screen by bukowski. in brief, bukowski was an infamous skid row denizen, and just happened to be a poet and author (and alcoholic).

"barfly" is great film and has stood the test of time. mickey rourke completely inhabits the bukowksi character, "henry chinaski," in both body and soul. it's hard not to compare rourke's chinaski with matt dillon's version in "factotum." both give great performances, with dillon taking on a longer arc of chinaski's life in his film. "barfly," in contrast, takes place over a few days of an older chinaski's life. while chinaski is the singular barfly of the title, fay dunaway as "wanda" is dead on as his fellow bar room patron/bedroom partner.

bukowski wrote some great dialog for the film. the opening exchange between wanda and chinaski as they sit on bar stools immediatley grabs you. wanda asks he "hates people?" chinanski, pausing for effect, says, "no but i feel better when they're not around." while chinaski looks like an alcoholic, looks like he belongs on that bar stool, wanda looks out of place there. make no mistake, she's an alcoholic as well, but appears to be a much more well-heeled one (just down on her luck at the moment). their edgy relationship is undermined when a literary magazine editor shows up (after employing a private detective to locate chinaski).

"tully" played by alice krige, manages to pay chinaski $500 for a story of his she plans to publish. however unlikely, she also brings chinaski home, gets him into bed (after she willingly gets drunk), and offers him the use of her guest house to write "in peace." chinaski accepts the booze and the one night stand, but skips out because he "can't breath in a high class." while the attraction to chinaki is iffy business, tully's despair at his rejection is downright implausible. but, as chinaski is buying rounds for his fellow barflies at the "golden horn," tully tracks him down again.

since he's there with wanda - and she's already smelt tully's perfume on chinaski when he stumbled home late that morning - the inevitable battle royale between these two women is set. before the violence actually unfolded, chinaski remarked that each of them only knew him briefly, and that "this is surreal" truly captured the moment! wanda vanquishes tully and all is well again. which in turn means that chinaski is about to head into the back alley for his penultimate fight with the bartender (frank stallone). the film ends as the door closed on the bar and the characters went about their ordinary lives again.

"barfly" isn't available on netflix, but if it come on, don't pass it up. in the mean while, put "factotum" in your queue - it's also a fantastic film!

"boogie man: the lee atwater story" dvd release

"boogie man: the lee atwater story" had a 40-city theatrical release in 2008. i reviewed the documentary after it was shown in new york city. the following year, it was shown on pbs as part of the frontline series. yesterday, the directors cut version was released on dvd. bonus material includes deleted scenes and additional interviews (plus and msnbc interview with the director).

i watched the bonus material first. in fact, i watched the entire dvd before pulling up my old review to see if my impressions had changed in almost two years. i still think "boogie man" is a must watch for any political junkie. atwater was one of the most important political operatives during the last quarter of the 20th century. atwater was a major force during the politcal campaigns of the reagan/bush years. if you didn't live through these years, this documentary is a great primer.

my intitial take on the documentary still holds true - there were too many important people in lee atwater's life that did not appear in the film to make this a comprehensive look at the man. that said, the cast of character assembled to tell the tale did an admirable job presenting the good and bad of the atwater story. some of the most enjoyable interviewees were with eric alterman, tucker askew, roger stone, and mary matalin. alterman, both on screen and in the deleted scenes, comes off especially sincere (since he and atwater were on opposite sides of the political spectrum).

the most unwatchable interviewee was howard fineman. his ugly remark that, 'life has a way of getting even with you in the end" was so grossly inappropriate and mean spirited that i almost turned off the dvd! it's so pathetically facile to fall back on lame cliches like that one - but to utter it out loud (and for the record) ... shame on you howard fineman. atwater himself alluded to sun tzu's "art of war" - getting inside the head of your enemy, when he said, "now cancer used it on me." a far more nobly expressed sentiment.

all in all, atwater's impact echoed far beyond his death in 1991. his protege, karl rove, was instrumental in the political career (in texas and nationally) of george w. bush. and, politics aside, it was fun to see the musical ("blues") side of atwater's life given some coverage. last but not least, you gotta love all those 1980's running scenes :D

"the girl with the dragon tattoo" (“man som hatar kvinnor”) movie review

Yesterday Pat and I went to see “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” (“Man Som Hatar Kvinnor”), a dark, violent thriller. The film’s icy winter landscapes added to the sense of escapism from the rogue heat-wave that had rolled into town for the weekend! The film is the first of Stieg Larsson’s posthumously published “Millennium Trilogy.”

The first thing I noticed was the contrast between the original title (of the book and film), “Men Who Hate Women” and “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” It seems that misogyny isn’t that big a draw. Also, women are demoted to girls (one girl in fact - who did have tattoos - and body piercing) in the translation. The title change was inappropriate as the story unfolded.

The girl in question, is Lisbeth Salander, played by Noomi Rapace. Lisbeth is an unsmiling, brooding goth; decidedly anti-social, tightly wound and a computer hacker. We learn of Lisbeth’s background via fiery flashbacks. She was abused at the hands of her father. But aside from flashbacks, Lisbeth refused to open up to Mikael Blomkvist, her unlikely partner in researching the mysterious disappearance of a 16 year old teenager in 1966. Their relationship was conveniently formed when Mikael banged on Lisbeth’s apartment door.

Mikael, an investigative reporter for “Millennium” magazine, opened the film by losing a libel case brought against him by an angry industrialist. The six months of freedom Mikael has before reporting to prison is contracted for by Henrik Vanger, yet another industrialist. Vanger hires Mikael to investigate the disappearance of his niece, Harriet (under the guise of doing a family history). Before he was hired, Vanger has Mikael's background vetted by the firm that employs Lisbeth. Her summary, to Vanger, was that Mikael was framed in the libel case.

Lisbeth continued to hack into Mikael’s files long after her assignment concluded. She stumbled upon the meaning of a series of mysterious names and numbers written in the back of Harriet’s diary that Mikael was trying to decode. On impulse, she emailed her discovery to Mikael and he, in turn, tracked her down. He found Lisbeth, asleep with a girlfriend and reluctant to let him in to her apartment. But it was a false reluctance because, as he pointed out, why would an expert hacker leave such an easy trail back to herself - one even he could follow.

But, Mikael isn’t a novice investigator. We see him deep in the photo archives of the local paper to obtain negatives from the day Harriet disappeared from the island. In a scene that echoed John Travolta’s assembly of a flip book of photos and sound in “Blow Out,” Mikael created a short, motion based clip of Harriet and showed it to Vanger. It's the newest evidence in years! The island is populated with multiple generations of Vangers - each a suspect. From that point on, the connections and coincidences become more and more far fetched - and bring in Nazism, serial killing, mutilation, religious fanaticism to mention just a few.

Surprising, given the circumstances, Lisbeth crawled into bed with Mikael the first night on the island. For someone who had been raped and brutalized by her "guardian" just days earlier, that scene pushed the envelope of credibility. My major issue with the film, in fact, is the repeatedly gratuitous and senseless violence. The violence against Lisbeth did not further the investigative story line. Prior to the her rape, Lisbeth was brutally beaten by a gang of street hoods (and lost her computer in the process). After she was rape, Lisbeth returned to the scene and exacted an equally gruesome revenge on her tormentor.

If the film had retained the original title, all the violence against Lisbeth may have illuminated the "men who hate women." When the mystery is finally solved, the true hideousness of the serial killings, once again, was perpetrated by monsters who hate women! Without spoiling the finale, Harriet herself was ultimately beset by monsters who hated women. And, in the most incredulous finish of all, Lisbeth molts out of her goth character and into something so out of unbelievable, as to be jaw-dropping!

If "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" is remade in America, it’s a good bet that the scenes of violence and brutality will be attenuated. The film's long running time, 251 minutes, could have been reduced substantially, without any impact on the main story line, simply by editing out the most of the violence against Lisbeth. Or keep in the violence and restore the original title! The second installment of the trilogy, “The Girl Who Played with Fire,” is already slated for release this summer.

happy birthday charlie chaplin!

charlie chaplin, born on april 16, 1889, is 121 years old in heaven today! chaplin died in switzerland in 1977 - he was 88 years old and the world's greatest comic genius. but comedy and film making aside, chaplin was an incredibly controversial political figure here in the united states- at least during the very cold war years of the late 40's and 50's.

his leftist politics were so anathema to the u.s. government that he was denied reentry to the united states in 1952 - after traveling to england for the premier of limelight. in 1953 chaplin vowed that he would never return to the united states! a vow that lasted until 1972, when he briefly returned the state to collect a special oscar at the academy awards. his appearance set a record for the longest standing ovation ever given a performer (5 minutes) in the academy's history!

three years later, in 1975, he was finally knighted by the queen. chaplin was first proposed for knighthood in 1931 - and again in 1956. but the british foreign office vetoed the proposal because of his communist sympathies and (im)moral behavior (his pair of marriage to 16 year old girls). sir charlie chaplin had by then become a living legend - and father of 8 children with his wife oona (the daughter of playwright eugene o'neill).

politics (and morals) aside, chapin was a great performer. his immortal character, the little tramp, has become a worldwide cultural icon. his comedies aren't just classics, but great films - in and of themselves! i'm huge fan of his work. over the years i've read many a chaplin biography. most recently, last year i read stephen weissman's "chaplin: a life" - an interesting psychological take on the impact of chaplin's impoverished childhood on his films.

last, but not least, despite loving his classic tramp comedies... my all time favorite chaplin film is undoubtedly the dark comedy, "monsieur verdoux" - narrowly edging out "the gold rush" for that honor :D

happy birthday in heaven sir charlie chaplin!

"when you're strange: a film about the doors" movie review

"when you're strange: a film about the doors" opened in limited release at the angelica here in new york city today. it premiered at the sundance film festival last year to generally excellent reviews. since the premiere, the initial voice over, done by (writer/director) tom dicillo himself, was replaced by a narration performed by johnny depp! it's a fascinating film, composed entirely of archival film clips (mainly from concert and studio performances).

one highlight is the rarely (if ever) seen footage from jim morrison's experimental film, "hwy: an american pastoral," that was shot in 1969. it's the glue that brings together the multitude of film clips assembled by dicillio. the completed documentary exists in a time warp that encapsulates the rise and fall of the doors. if the film has one weakness, it's the inclusion of one too many stock images of the 1960's. how many times to we need to see images of the "turbulent" times - especially when they're at the expense of additional footage of the doors!

but overall what dicillo accomplished with his take on the band is well worth watching (if not a must watch for fans). the gritty verite of "when you're strange" is a startling contrast from oliver stones's slick dramatization "the doors." while val kilmer did morrison justice, there really is only one jim morrison. watching morrison perform, watching him self-destruct on screen, is powerful stuff. that said, the film takes a much broader look at the rest of the band members. it's not (as one might expect) just about jim!

aside from the "hwy" footage, one real nugent in this film is the "wild child" studio sessions. the behind the scenes look at the evolution of the song, the work of the band in putting it together makes a powerful impression on how serious these guys were about the music. that aspect doesn't come off in the concert footage - which mainly devolved into jim's efforts to rile up the audience. in that vein, the footage from the miami show that led to morrison's prosecution (and conviction) on lewdiness charges is pretty harsh stuff.

miami, which itself followed the the images from the equally disastrous hartford concert where jim taunted the police (after one had maced him backstage) until they stopped the show, included a particularly nasty screed where jim repeatedly insulted the audience. despite the apparent bottoming out of their touring plans (all the shows were eventually cancelled), the doors managed to regroup and a year later managed to release "l.a. woman" and once again top the american charts.

but the band's resurrection was short-lived. within six months morrison would be found dead in paris bathtub - from a heroin overdose. but the film doesn't dwell on the particulars of his death. instead, we get a matter of fact portrait - in line with the other rock stars that preceded him (notably hendrix and joplin). there wasn't any moralizing about his self-destruction and the end of the band. in this respect, one could say "when you're strange" focused on the highs and lows of the band and bypassed the explanations.

interestingly, i just finished john desmore's "riders on the storm" only two months ago - so the doors saga (via desmore's point of view) was fresh in my mind as i watched the film. all three surviving band members worked with dicillo in varying degrees (at a minimum, they looked at his work in progress and agreed to his interview requests). all in all, except for some of the lame 60's stock footage - it's a good documentary, and a story well told by dicillo.