Somewhat at random, I rewatched “Groundhog Day,” which I haven’t seen since back in the early 90s when it came out. I hadn’t realized that in the intervening years it’s become something of a classic. In fact, there doesn’t seem to be a negative review about it on the Internets (or at least I couldn’t find one after a cursory search.)
So I figured I’d buck the trend. This movie is crap. Yes, the gimmick is clever; Bill Murray’s weatherman Phil relives February 2 in the hick town of Punxsutawney over and over and over and over. At first Phil’s confused; then he’s angry; then he starts to use the gimmick for cheap thrills (one night stands; drunken car chases); then he tries to get into the pants of his coworker Rita (Andie McDowell); then he despairs; then he becomes a better person and gets Andie McDowell anyway and finally he gets out of the time loop. He has suffered and grown as a person. Ta dah.
Except. The acting. It is. Lame. Phil’s journey of spiritual growth is at the center of the film, and Bill Murray…well, spiritual growth is not what he does. What he does is oleaginous and mean. He is good at it. When, in the early scenes, he is supposed to be oleaginous and mean, he is convincing. When, in the later scenes, he is supposed to be sincere and good-hearted — he is still convincingly oleaginous. By the end of the film we are to believe that he has shucked off his ego and his duplicity — and we know he has shucked off his ego because the last 15 minutes of the film is a giant, blatant, wish-fulfillment fantasy in which everyone in town surges around Phil telling him what a wonderful person he is and how much his good deeds have meant to them and Andie McDowell finally pays everything in her checkbook to be able to go snuggle with him and ooh and ah over his ice sculptures (he taught himself with his infinite time). And Bill Murray shuffles through it all with his cocktail singer aw-shucks-I-don’t-really-deserve-this-but-of-course-I-really-do air, smugly accepting the hosannahs of the scriptwriters who have dutifully made him the center of the universe.
Bad as Murray is, though, he is a positive genius compared to Andie McDowell. Granted, the writers hardly bothered to give Rita a character. The film chides Phil for treating her as a list of characteristics to memorize (she likes French poetry and Rocky Road ice cream), but the fact is that there’s not anything else there. Phil at one point declares that she’s the person he knows who is nicest to other people, but we’re never allowed to see that for ourselves. Her “niceness” seems mostly to just mean “blandness” and the smarmiest kind of sententious drivel — she informs Phil sincerely that whenever she makes a toast, she always drinks to world peace. Even considering such wretched material, though, McDowell turns in a wet dish rag of a performance; any emotion more complicated than perkiness or mild confusion seems to be beyond her. Why Phil should devote eternity to winning this sodden nonentity is a mystery only rivaled by the question of why, even after an eternity, she should fall for such a narcissistic gasbag. Murray has more chemistry with the groundhog than he does with her.
I’ve seen “Groundhog Day” compared to “It’s a Wonderful Life” — both use magical alternate realities to teach their protagonists the virtues of old fashioned niceness and small town life. The difference is that Jimmy Stewart can project love, happiness, and, most of all, despair — his dark night of the soul comes across as actually shattering — so much so that it seriously calls into question whether this nice small town isn’t just a plaster stage set over the abyss. “Groundhog Day” never bothers to question its reality this way because, it’s clear, neither the movie nor Murray care whether its real or not. The small town virtues Capra loved are for Harold Ramis just a convenient moral peg on which to hang some gags. The existential despair that Stewart wrestles with is just another non-emotion failing to flicker across Murray’s doughy visage.
“Groundhog Day” is clever, but it’s a hollow kind of cleverness. It’s a film that ultimately doesn’t believe in anything but the mechanical repetition of its own tired rom-com tropes. Bad boy is saved by a good woman, lives happily ever after. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.
———————————
“I may be a bastard, but I’m not a fucking bastard,” George Clooney says before driving off into the sunset at the end of “From Dusk Till Dawn.” That neatly encapsulates the central theme of the movie, which is precisely that Clooney’s outlaw/kidnapper/tough-guy Seth is bad, bad, bad enough to be sexy, but not so bad that he can’t be the star. Most discussions of the film focus on its mid-stream genre break; halfway through or thereabouts it switches from a suspenseful outlaw-on-the-run action/drama to a campy vampire horror gore fest. But if you keep your eye on the Clooney (and that’s where you’re supposed to keep your eye, surely), it looks less like a daring narrative structure and more like a foregone conclusion. In the first half of the film, Seth’s psycho-rapist brother Richie (Quentin Tarantino) serves as the foil to make the only-moderately-homicidal Clooney look reasonable. In the second half, an entire titty-bar full of fanged and clichéd special effects is unleashed to make him look not merely reasonable but heroic.
Rodriguez wants us to think he’s hip and iconoclastic, smart enough to cut contemptuously away from the tough vet telling his gothic Vietnam story, cute enough to name his Mexican bad-ass Sex Machine. But nobody mocks or undercuts George Clooney; he’s the star and Rodriguez fawns over him like an 8-year-old over Han Solo. Salma Hayek singles him out to be her slave, but he puts a stake through her; Juliette Lewis singles him out to be her daddy, but he sends her on home. Though he’s been in prison for years, we never in fact, see him express any concupiscent interest in any woman. Rodriguez, it seems, likes his bad boys virginal.
Overall, if I have to choose, I guess I would rather watch Rodriguez fall for Clooney than McDowell fall for Murray, if only because Rodriguez’s passion seems infinitely more sincere. But really — why does anybody have to fall for any iteration of this? What is the fascination of these fascinatingly flawed fucks, gratuitously flaunting their ingratiating unpleasantness? Why can’t Murray just get stuck in his infinite loop forever because Andie McDowell is just marginally sentient enough to realize that he’s always, always going to remain an asshole? Why can’t some vampire tear off George Clooney’s face as he tries to betray Juliette Lewis and her family because he is, as it turns out, not just a bastard, but a fucking bastard? Doesn’t anyone ever get tired of those same old happy endings where the bad guys always win?
“What he does is oleaginous and mean. He is good at it. When, in the early scenes, he is supposed to be oleaginous and mean, he is convincing. When, in the later scenes, he is supposed to be sincere and good-hearted — he is still convincingly oleaginous.”
I think this is what makes Murray in Lost in Translation work so well. You never quite give up on thinking he’s really just trying to sleep with Scarlett Johansson.
I haven’t seen that one…and probably won’t. I don’t need to see any more Bill Murray movies for a good long time. (Though I still think Caddyshack was worthwhile, damn it.)
Oh I love Lost in Translation. You’d probably hate it. I don’t know.
Oh yeah, he’d hate it if he saw it. Older man lusting after lousy actress +/- Orientalism. Pui! I don’t mind it though and also found Groundhog Day reasonably entertaining. Then again, I’m not particularly demanding when it comes to romantic comedies. From Dusk Till Dawn, on the other hand, is just plain boring.
No, I definitely preferred From Dusk Till Dawn. Especially the first part before the vampires showed up…and there’s the Salma Hayek table dance, which makes up for a certain amount.
“This movie is crap.”
Bullshit! Groundhog Day is great.
You don’t like 39 Steps and Groundhog Day.
… You do like It’s a Wonderful Life and The Thin Man.
Jesus fuck, can’t you at least try to get it right?
I have gotten it right, Tom. It is you, you who are horribly wrong.
To be fair, I don’t love It’s a Wonderful LIfe. But Jimmy Stewart can make pretty much anything worthwhile. (I don’t love the Thin Man either, but it’s pretty good.)
39 Steps is better than Groundhog Day, I think. The first is skillfully made, and has a period charm. Groundhog Day just pisses me off.
It’s fucking great!
… aw fuck.
I’d be hard-pressed to think of a better screen couple than William Powell and Myrna Loy.
“Rodriguez, it seems, likes his bad boys virginal.”
Machete, Planet Terror and the El Mariachi trilogy suggest otherwise.
Haven’t seen those! Was really just referring to Rodriguez in this particular film. Maybe he just likes his bad boy Clooney virginal!
Oh wait; I did see Planet Terror. I just hardly remember it because it was so lame.
Are the Mariachi movies worth seeing, Charles? I keep hoping there’s a Rodriguez movie out there that’s worthwhile…he sort of has flashes of adequacy, but then the two I’ve seen have really been pretty bad….and I know you didn’t like Machete….
From Dusk to Dawn is his best. The best of the trilogy is Desperado (his devoted fans would probably say El Mariachi), which is about as enjoyable as Planet Terror, maybe a little better thanks to no Freddy Rodriguez. My guess is that you wouldn’t like the trilogy. I’m more of a fan than you, but I agree with your sentiment that “he sort of has flashes of adequacy” and never quite delivers.
“Was really just referring to Rodriguez in this particular film.”
I know, just being persnickety.
Yes, GD is just a way to hang some gags on a movie…but they’re pretty good gags. It is a comedy–gags are kind of where it’s at. Monty Python movies are just a skeleton to hang gags on too–again, though, good gags. Bill Murray is funny–when he tries to be anything other than funny, he fails—but since we only watch him to laugh, this isn’t much of a shortcoming. Meatballs, Stripes, Ghostbusters, Caddyshack…these are funny movies–a bit dated, but funny. I even liked What About Bob…another Murray vehicle. His more recent alliances with Wes Anderson are less successful, to my mind, because they try NOT to be just a vehicle for gag-comedy. Murray is a gag comedian. The warm fuzzy conclusion to the movie is just the same failing that all of these kinds of movies have. I’m willing to ignore the last half hour of many comedies, if the first hour make me laugh heavily–GD does so. (Admittedly, Monty Python has better endings–but they’re kind of the exception–and not Hollywood)
Andy MacDowell, however, is plain godawful in every movie she’s ever been in, save, possibly, Sex, Lies, and Videotape. I remember thinking she was pretty good in that when it came out (and that’s where she got her start)–but she’s been so radioactively bad in everything else I’ve seen her in, I’m willing to retroactively condemn her performance in SL and V as well.
McDowell is good in Sex Lies and Videotape because it calls for her to be awkward and emotionally incompetent. Unfortunately, the rest of her roles are standard romantic comedy fair where she’s supposed to be a normal person. Which she can’t really pull off.
Monty Python films are intentionally, aggressively absurdist satires— on religion, politics, genre, etc. Groundhog Day is a feel-good romantic comedy about personal transformation and healing. They both have gags; nonetheless, they’re quite, quite different in many ways that matter.
Stripes and Caddyshack (and Ghostbusters) were more just about the gags, and were therefore better. Groundhog Day has a message and a meaning — part of Murrays transformation into a serious leading man. For other hideous examples of this phenomena, see Martin, Steve and Williams, Robin.
Charles, if From Dusk to Dawn is his best…that suggests that it’s due to Tarantino. I wish Tarantino had directed his own script, actually — I’m not sure how it would have differed, but he pretty much never, even at his least interesting (Kill Bill 2?) dissolves into fangless genre parody. (Sometimes it’s genre parody, but it has fangs.)
I do wonder if those guys love the Airplane movies, though. There’s definitely more than a hint of Naked Gun about the last half of From Dusk Till Dawn (not as good as Naked Gun, but still.)
The Mariachi movies all have their moments. Desperado is probably the best one to just watch as a movie, and though I haven’t seen it in a while, I remember it being a good clean dose of entertainment. El Mariachi is really only for watching to see how well it was made on a $7,000 budget — there are really fun moments, but at its best it’s just extremely competent, and the only people I’ve known who really love it are aspiring amateur filmmakers who clutch it to their bosom as proof that they, too, could make a low-budget film that works that well. Once Upon a Time in Mexico has some fabulous mugging by Johnny Depp but is a pretty bloated exercise in self-satisfaction by the end.
I remember loving Groundhog Day when I saw it, but it’s definitely lived not as a film but as a reference in conversation for the last decade, so I’ll have to dig it out again. The Ned Ryerson bits particularly stand out in memory as a high point in ’90s cinema…
Oh, and I meant to post way back on The 39 Steps post, but yes, The Thin Man is VASTLY superior to The 39 Steps, which I like more than you, but what don’t I?
I bet you don’t like I Spit On Your Grave more than I do. Also probably not the Friday the 13th films. Also probably not The Thing, which you could like a whole, whole lot and still not like as much as I do.
Also possibly not “The September Issue”, which I just watched and really enjoyed.
I could come up with others….
El Mariachi: Isn’t the $7,000 figure fake or part of the PR? I vaguely remember reading somewhere that it was made for much more than that. Pretty insipid movie whatever it cost.
So have you watched Martyrs, Noah?
Haven’t seen Martyrs. Deep Red is sitting at home though…
Oh yeah, Noah, don’t worry, it was rhetorical. I’m not one of those loonies who thinks you genuinely or disingenuously despise everything. Your piece comparing the remake of I Spit on Your Grave to the original is so far the only thing that’s made me want to watch the original…
I have the September Issue sitting around here somewhere to watch, I’ll have to get on that. Martyrs, too…
NG, My understanding is that there was some finishing that went into the film before it was released on video that upped the cost somewhat, but that the vast bulk of the film was made as-is for around $7,000. That is, the film you see cost a little more to put some spit polish on it, but the film that Rodriguez sold (which is what aspiring movie makers care about) cost somewhere between $5-7,000.
I think Rodriguez’s finest moment is probably The Misbehaviors, his segment of Four Rooms.
“Oh yeah, Noah, don’t worry, it was rhetorical. I’m not one of those loonies who thinks you genuinely or disingenuously despise everything.”
So, wait, now you’re saying I’m paranoid? Is that what you’re implying? Huh? Is it?
Suat, I’d never heard of Martyrs. Is it any good? I’m not sure I’m quite on board from the description….
“So, wait, now you’re saying I’m paranoid? Is that what you’re implying? Huh? Is it?”
That’s just what we thought you’d say, Noah. You’re playing right into our hands.
Moo hoo ha ha.
Noah,
“if From Dusk to Dawn is his best…that suggests that it’s due to Tarantino”
I agree.
I also recommend seeing Martyrs. Here’s my take on that one. I’m pretty sure you’d have a critical field day with it, too.
Monty Python is obviously different from Groundhog Day–but the point of Groundhog Day, somewhat similarly, is the concept and the gags (no, it’s nowhere near as good as MP). While there is a plot of a man “growing and developing” etc…this is just the stupid bit that we are free to (and in some ways meant to) ignore. It would be better without it, certainly, but nobody would actually go to Groundhog Day for a worthwhile bildungsroman. For some reason, having this kind of “growth into humanity” in basically dumb comedies has been a trend for awhile now (Judd Apatow as a major culprit)…but if anyone is watching “The Hangover” or similar to see how the characters mature then they are in the wrong theatre. The plot is thrown on just as a means of moving the movie along through beginning, middle, end—it is not the reason to watch it or to glean any enjoyment. Those who like Groundhog Day don’t like it for the reasons you’re poo-pooing it….They like it despite those elements. So, basically you agree with them–but are willing to let the stupid bit ruin the enjoyable elements. This seems foolish to me–but maybe you paradoxically enjoy your lack of enjoyment. Seems possible. Going back under for 6 weeks now.
I only vaguely remember “From Dusk to Dawn,” but I remember being bored for most of the film. It’s a rare feat to take murderers, vampires, and Salma Hayek and then make a boring film.
I’d say Desperado is Rodriguez’s best film – not great by a long shot, but consistently adequate as action films go.
I liked bits and pieces of Sin City, how much of that is due to Rodriguez rather than Frank Miller is anyone’s guess.
Eric, I would much have preferred to enjoy the film. Really. Why would I want to sit through an hour and 40 minutes of crap?
I think the idea that you can separate the gags from the plot (which is not at all just a tacked on ending, but a quite important motivator of the action throughout) is nice, but kind of weak in practice. I mean…you don’t dislike recent rom-coms anyway, do you, Eric?
In any case, critics tend to praise the personal growth aspect, as far as I can tell. There’s lots of talk about the film’s Buddhist connections for example. I don’t know; here, random review found after googling 10 seconds.
That’s saying the bildungsroman is a feature not a bug. I’m sure that’s typical. Few people say, “you know, the whole point of this movie is crap, but there are funny bits — it’s a work of genius!”
And you know, even the funny bits aren’t all that funny. It’s basic theme and variation stuff; and, oh, insurance salesmen are annoying, and killing yourself is funny, and tricking attractive women into screwing you is funny too. Hey…clever!
Richard, Charles, or anyone…has Salma Hayek ever been in a good movie?
I think you could chain together a pretty great clip reel from parts of movies she’s been in, and I like a lot of what she does with her parts, but no, I don’t think she’s ever been in a thoroughly good movie.
I saw Murray’s character in GH not as a guy who learned a valuable lesson, but a jerk who it took ten relative years to learn how to fake it.
it’s odd that you say murray’s only talent is meanness. i think his niche is more stepping outside the movie by being kind of deadpan or weird. like in caddyshack he’s the wacko who in the middle of the whole coming-of-age zany comedy is living in some weird war movie with the gopher. that’s not a great example because there are several similar “wise-guy” roles in that one, but i think murray’s pulled you the farthest from the center of the story. i think the idea is that it would be really weird if you take that and then make it the explicit center of the story but i don’t know if he’s actually up to the task, he’s just seemed morose and pathetic in his more-recent stuff with wes anderson and sophia copola.
anyway, sometimes that can mean mean, but sometimes it could just be goofy or weird (what about bob maybe?) my understanding of groundhogs day is that it’s designed to both be a standard rom-com and to leverage that supposed talent of his to kind of be inside and outside the movie at the same time, isn’t that what the whole “repeat the same day over and over again” idea is about. i guess not just that, since it’s also a banal “personal growth” story as well, but i don’t think it’s the complete failure you do, i guess. i suspect the stuff that would work for me would be the “tricking people” and committing suicide stuff, but actually i shouldn’t guess because i haven’t seen it in like 16 years or since whenever it came out. but it’s not like stuff has to be witty to be really funny, stuff that’s juvenile and mean and stupid can be funny too. i just saw a 1991 movie starring stephen chow where he tricks a dinner date into thinking he’s homosexual and dying from aids and starts spreading his saliva everywhere in public as a practical joke. this could have just been the crappy translation but he also gets the causal stereotype backwards and claims that aids caused him to turn gay, so i guess you could find some wit there or maybe it’s just bizarre and mean. anyway, whether it was the tastelessness or the situation or a bad translation or just the fact that it’s fun to say “tricky brains” it was a pretty hilarious movie. maybe groundhogs day could do with more of that.
ghostbusters is the best though. eldrich shit in manhattan as a comedy.
Jimmy Stewart’s quirky cadence always got on my nerves and with the possible exception of harvey, the movies with him that I liked I liked in spite of that avuncular earnestness he always seems to have. I think we have him to thank for Morgan Freeman and Tom Hanks as well so ugh.
Fully on board with the Thin Man though. What do you think of My Man Godfrey, Noah? How about Loy in Yellowface in the mask of fu manchu? It would make a good double feature with drunken master ii where the bad guys and the good guys get completely switched around, or with Temple of Doom to see how the orientalism does and doesn’t get cleaned up over the course of several decades.
I think Murray is supposed to be goofy in general, yeah. And he’s best as a character actor. When he tries to take more central roles he often comes off as just an egocentric jerk…
The thing about Jimmy Stewart that’s great is that he goes from avuncular hero to insane depressed maniac in a heartbeat. Tom Hanks and Morgan Freeman never do that; they’re always just bland (and in Hanks’ case whiny, which isn’t really Stewart’s thing either.)
I haven’t seen My Man Godfrey or Yellowface…I’ll have to see!
I haven’t seen It’s a Wonderful Life yet so I guess that’s the place to go if I want to give Stewart another chance. Rear Window is probably my favorite thing he’s been in but not because of him. The Yellowface thing is called The Mask of Fu Manchu. Since you’re already interested I won’t say anything else about it. If you can get the double-feature dvd which also has the weird Browning-Lugosi vampire spoof “Mark of the Vampire” that’s recommended as well.
sorry, typing fast always causes me capitalize certain words Randomly.
“Radioactively bad”!!! I might nick that….
“Those who like Groundhog Day don’t like it for the reasons you’re poo-pooing it….They like it despite those elements.”
Wrong. The story and the gag work together. That’s why those of us who like the film like it so much.
——————–
Noah Berlatsky:
The difference is that Jimmy Stewart can project love, happiness, and, most of all, despair — his dark night of the soul comes across as actually shattering — so much so that it seriously calls into question whether this nice small town isn’t just a plaster stage set over the abyss.
——————–
Giving credit where due, that’s some nice writing! The last six words especially tasty.
——————–
Noah Berlatsky:
The small town virtues Capra loved are for Harold Ramis just a convenient moral peg on which to hang some gags.
——————–
Fair enough. Though “Groundhog Day” remains one of my favorite movies – can we at least agree on finding “Lost in Translation” an insanely overrated bit of nothing? – perfectly exemplifying as it does the Buddhist concept that, by living through countless incarnations until we “get it right,” we evolve spiritually.
BTW, as to how long it took Murray’s character to do this:
——————–
Just how many days does Phil Connors spend trapped in the perpetual loop of Groundhog Day?
Okay, so director Harold Ramis has sort of already answered it on the DVD commentary of the film (10 years he reckoned) and then later, in response to several sites online running an article that came to an answer of just 8 years, 8 months, and 16 days, he offered the following (seemingly contradicting his own bloody answer in the process!):
I think the 10-year estimate is too short. It takes at least 10 years to get good at anything, and alloting for the down time and misguided years he spent, it had to be more like 30 or 40 years…
——————–
http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/features/just-how-many-days-does-bill-murray-really-spend-stuck-reliving-groundhog-day.php#ixzz1Cq0CnSLv
——————–
Noah Berlatsky:
The existential despair that Stewart wrestles with is just another non-emotion failing to flicker across Murray’s doughy visage.
———————
Mmmmyeah, Murray is not one-tenth the actor James Stewart was. As to his “oleaginous” persona, there’s something interesting going on with the popularity of such antiheroes. It’s as if, for cynical times, a plain ol’ straight-up heroic and virtuous character was not considered “realistic” or believable.
And so, for instance, you had in the filmed “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” instead of the noble, heroic-looking Kirk Douglas (who would’ve far more accurately embodied the McMurphy of the novel), the devilish-eyebrowed Jack Nicholson, whom you’d be a fool to buy a used car from…
———————-
Noah Berlatsky:
I think Murray is supposed to be goofy in general, yeah. And he’s best as a character actor. When he tries to take more central roles he often comes off as just an egocentric jerk…
———————-
Hm, anyone see his attempt – using his box-office clout – to do a straight-up dramatic starring role in Maugham’s “The Razor’s Edge”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Razor%27s_Edge_%281984_film%29 (Check out the poster; damned if the artist didn’t do a fair job of making Murray look Leading-Man-ish…)
Yet this review shows that Murray brings to the role (played in an earlier version by Tyrone Power!) “his familiar off-handed, wise- guy manner to the tale, as well as a complete indifference to the post- World War I time frame; his performance is both jokey and anachronistic…[with] wisecracking inappropriateness…”
Even more “Groundhog Day”-related, the critic goes on to complain:
————————
Scene by scene he can be charming, if noticeably out of sync with everyone around him. (Mr. Murray plays off the other actors, but he never plays to them.) On the whole, though, he never generates any sense of the character’s evolution, nor does he even appear to have much interest in the spirituality that is Larry’s signal quality. When another man asks, during a card game, his opinions about salvation, Mr. Murray answers ”I believe . . . that you’re saving nines.”
————————
http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9F02E4DF1439F93AA25753C1A962948260
Hey Mike. Yeah, that groundhog day essay about counting the days is what sent me back to the film. It’s a really fun piece; I like it significantly more than the movie.
I like GD more than most of the recent rom-coms I’ve seen, but I haven’t seen many—My moviegoing life stopped, for the most part, in 2004…with my reliable babysitting. I haven’t seen GD in years though (though I think I own it, maybe). I think Sleestak has it right…Murray never really comes across as “transformed”–which is part of what makes the transformation plot palatable. I still disagree with Tom, though—the part of the plot that’s fun and worthwhile is the repetition–the “growth” of Murray is the opposite of that (change is the opposite of repetition) and is someone at odds with what makes the movie “different” from most rom-coms (or other movies).
Wait– I didn’t know you hated 39 Steps, Noah. I just saw it. It really does kind of suck, other than looking beautiful. Groundhog Day is all about moments, I think, like the “I Got You Babe” on the radio. In general though, no real interest in re-viewing.
Hate’s too strong; just thought it was mediocre. The review is here.
The I Got You Babe repetition is maybe the best thing in the movie. Good call.
Mike H. — ” can we at least agree on finding “Lost in Translation” an insanely overrated bit of nothing?”
Yes, it’s wish fulfillment for mopey college girls. “I want to mope in a fancy hotel room somewhere exotic and with a movie star to hold my hand.”
Mike H. again — “Hm, anyone see his attempt – using his box-office clout – to do a straight-up dramatic starring role in Maugham’s ‘The Razor’s Edge’?”
Yes, it was bizarre. There’s a WWI trenches scene where his buddy gets killed and Murray holds him in his arms and gives a speech along the lines of “He was a dirty, stink — I mean really stinky and a disgusting eater — a dirty, stinky disgusting guy and I loved him and he’s dead.”
Eric B. — “the part of the plot that’s fun and worthwhile is the repetition–the ‘growth’ of Murray is the opposite of that (change is the opposite of repetition) ”
Change vs. repetition is a debater’s point. Change can result from repetition, as when someone changes from a bad pianist to a good one by repeating a daily routine at the piano. Or by repeating the same mistakes in life until he realizes that they are mistakes.
Noah — “The existential despair that Stewart wrestles with is just another non-emotion failing to flicker across Murray’s doughy visage.”
Different styles, that’s all. Murray does great things by underacting, Stewart by plunging headlong into a scene.
———————
Noah Berlatsky: The existential despair that Stewart wrestles with is just another non-emotion failing to flicker across Murray’s doughy visage.
——————–
———————
Tom Crippen:
Different styles, that’s all. Murray does great things by underacting, Stewart by plunging headlong into a scene.
———————
But, as the many examples from “The Razor’s Edge” show (where Murray took what should have been honestly dramatic scenes and warped them to fit ““his familiar off-handed, wise-guy manner…jokey and anachronistic…wisecracking” style) it’s not as if Murray even tried to play the “game.”
…Have noticed over the years how poster artwork for kids’ animated movies show the lead character with a smirking, wise-ass expression. For instance, look at the contrast between Dr. Seuss’ utterly sincere, open-faced Horton:
http://mikecasey.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/drseusshorton.jpg
…and the smug “I’m so hip and cool” CGI version:
http://www.impawards.com/2008/posters/horton_hears_a_who.jpg
(At least we can be grateful they didn’t stick sunglasses on him…)
This week, Noah, my wife and I watched Meatballs for the first time. And I blame YOU.
Terrible. Just… terrible in every way. Bill Murray is on fire, but the material is just painful. I guess it’s actually Eric’s fault for mentioning it in the first place, but I will still blame you in my heart.
Also, I think someone could have made a great movie with the raw material of Groundhog day (basic concept, some of the writing, Bill Murray). And instead, we are left with a great concept attached like a tapeworm to a mediocre movie.
Also, I’m glad to hear I’m not the only one who finds Andi McDowell impenetrable.
She’s kind of disappeared, hasn’t she? Has she done anything in the last 5 years or whatever?
Actually, Andie Macdowell is in the not yet released remake of Footloose.
I think that is more than slightly worse than having “kind of disappeared.”
Though maybe better than appearing in local TV ads.
I still see MacDowell in L’Oréal ads all the time on TV. She’s probably the greatest U.S. model of the last quarter-century or so. As for acting, I think her age is a big impediment for work at this point. She’s in her early 50s, and producers usually have the good age-appropriate parts cast before they get down to where she is on the list.
“Greatest” in what sense? Most successful?
I hadn’t realized she was in her 50s!
Yep. She’s been a top model since the early ’80s, and she’s still going strong. MacDowell’s peers, such as Christie Brinkley, have all fallen by the wayside. Sophia Loren is the only other model I can think of with that kind of staying power.
Her acting career was always secondary to the modeling, but she first started getting roles in the early-to-mid-Eighties. I think her first role was as Jane in that revisionist Tarzan that Robert Towne wrote. Christopher Lambert played the lead.
My wife says no. Lauren Hutton has been around longer and is still working…Cindy Crawford is still working (just on cover of Italian Vogue) — not quite as long, but a much bigger name.
I’ve got two posts this week about fashion, oddly enough.
I forgot about Hutton, and I thought Crawford had retired a while back. But even though MacDowell doesn’t quite deserve the superlative I gave her, she’s certainly a major phenomenon in the modeling field. And I think she’s much more enjoyable eye candy than Hutton and Crawford combined. She’s always had a very idiosyncratic look and presence–you can’t mistake her for anyone else.
Writing on fashion? I can’t wait.
Oh, Noah? You should see a mid-’80s film called Street Smart, with Morgan Freeman and Christopher Reeve. Freeman plays the villain, a NYC pimp, and it’s probably the best work he’s ever done. He got domesticated in pretty short order afterward. I think you’ll get a kick out of seeing him in that kind of role. (His being scary-brilliant in it is the icing on the cake.) There are also stand-out supporting performances by Kathy Bates and Andre Gregory, and I’m sure you’ll enjoy watching the scene where Freeman kicks Christopher Reeve’s ass.
Huh. I’d never heard of Street Smart. It sounds pretty interesting.
Cindy Crawford is pretty boring. My interest in McDowell has just been totally spoiled by her movie roles, unfortunately….
Yeah, you’ll also get to see Freeman threaten to gouge out Kathy Baker’s eyes with a pair of scissors. (And it’s Kathy Baker, not Bates. Sorry about that–the thought of Bates playing a streetwalker is pretty frightening.) The ending’s lame, but I think you’ll enjoy it.
The only movies I really remember MacDowell in were sex, lies, and videotape and Four Weddings and a Funeral. Those are the better ones, I believe. I’ve seen her in other things, but she always played “the girl,” and she was fairly easy to ignore.
Apropos of nothing, Andie MacDowell is from a town in South Carolina that has a giant peach painted on its water tower.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/53/144830881_65065aee55_b.jpg
You can make up your own minds whether that actually looks like a peach or, ahem, something else.
Oh. My. Definitely “Something Else.”
Pingback: Juxtaposition Blogathon: Day 3 | Pussy Goes Grrr