Joe's View

With Joe Meyers, entertainment writer

Archive for August, 2011

‘HotelMotel’: sex therapy and drug running on E. 27th St.

by:

For those of us who have been following The Amoralists for a few years, the announcement that they were going to produce two plays in a Manhattan hotel room didn’t come as that much of a surprise.

The acting troupe and their resident playwright Derek Ahonen have stressed realism and a direct connection with the audience in a series of crazy, wonderful plays since they banded together in 2007, including “The Pied Pipers of the Lower East Side,” “Happy in the Poorhouse” and “Bring Us the Head of Your Daughter.”

As the actors have gotten more in sync with Ahonen’s wild world view — and formed a genuine ensemble by working together again and again — the feeling of intimacy at the Amoralists’ shows has increased.

The plays have become experiences as well dramatic events, so why not go all the way and get a room with these theatrical adventurers?

“HotelMotel” consists of two plays, “Pink Knees on Pale Skin” by Ahonen, and “Animals & Plants” by Adam Rapp, who came into the orbit of The Amoralists when they put on a devastating production of his “Ghosts in the Cottonwoods” at Theatre 80 St. Marks last year.

Each play runs about 90 minutes and they are so different in tone and presentation that it’s a good thing there’s a fairly long break in between them — “Pink Knees” is a black comedy about a very unorthodox sex therapist and “Animals & Plants” drops us into a beat-out rural motel room where two drug runners kill time by talking about things both mundane and cosmic.

It was a risk to present these plays together — on paper, they wouldn’t appear to be a natural fit — but what binds them is the sensational, totally focused acting of The Amoralists company and the way that the writer-directors use the same space for such different purposes.

“Pink Knees” starts off looking like a comedy sketch about one of the hoariest cliches in literature and drama — the therapist who is more screwed up than her patients. As we go deeper into the story, however, Ahonen keeps shifting gears and his mix of screwball comedy and intense dramatic confrontations seems to be the perfect way to approach characters who are at a sexual standstill because of their defenses and role playing.

Dr. Sarah Bauer (played by the awesome Sarah Lemp) seems like a weirdly uptight, bad joke when we first meet her, but then, in classic Ahonen style, the doctor’s crackpot notions start looking like a completely sane way of coping with the mysteries of sexual connection.

“Animals and Plants” is a much more overtly unsettling play than the Ahonen piece, a feeling Rapp accentuates by changing the configuration of the Gershwin room so that the 20 audience members are even closer to the action. Because Rapp deals in mysticism and madness and violence, seeing the play this way is unsettling and scary in a manner that no horror movie could duplicate.

Veteran Amoralists players William Apps and Matthew Pilieci are the two New Yorkers on a drug run to a North Carolina college town which is being shut down by a blizzard.

Dantly and Burris shoot the breeze for much of the running time and the dialogue between the slovenly, near-catatonic Dantly and the hyper-active, meticulously groomed Burris is as funny as it is strange. Dantly hears voices and has visions — which we share through some pretty amazing low-tech stagecraft — and we fear what actions he might take as a result.

Rapp doesn’t write conventional beginning-middle-end plays but he works in a form of heightened realism that is electrifying. If the writer-director ever made an out-and-out horror movie the results might be too frightening to contemplate.

“HotelMotel” delivers two provocative plays — for the price of one — played to the hilt by one of the best acting companies in New York. Tickets are scarce but you should try your best to get to the Gershwin between now and August 29 when The Amoralists will be checking out.

For ticket information, go to www.theamoralists.com

‘Sweet Smell of Success’ gets the Criterion treatment

by:

Art and rep movie houses might be dead or dying in this age of mass releases and multiplexes, but The Criterion Collection makes it possible for you to set up shop in your own home.

Classics foreign and domestic are presented on DVD from the best possible prints and the “extras” always merit that label.

Originally, the video company specialized in universally acknowledged European classics such as “Jules and Jim” and “Eclipse” but in recent years Criterion has focused more on Hollywood titles. Over the past three months, Jonathan Demme’s “Something Wild” and Brian DePalma’s “Blow Out” were added to the ever-growing library.

Recently, one of my favorite films — “Sweet Smell of Success” — received special treatment in the form of a two-disc edition containing the film and a whole host of great supplementary material.

The DVD also comes with a terrific booklet that includes an essay by a perfectly chosen critic — Gary Giddins, who covers both film and jazz and is therefore just about peerless in terms of capturing the movie’s view of the New York City music and nightclub scene of the late 1950s.

The documentaries include “Mackendrick: The Man Who Walked Away” about the director of “Sweet Smell of Success,” Alexander Mackendrick, who shifted from filmmaking to teaching after his remarkable career stalled out in the 1960s.

A new video interview with director James Mangold (of “Walk the Line”) fills us in on Mackendrick’s influence as a teacher (Mangold was a most appreciative student).

“Sweet Smell of Success” was a complete financial bust when it opened in 1957.

People in Hollywood have always tended to be cynical, but they don’t really like cynical movies.

Love and uplift and happy endings have been the rule in Tinsel Town in most eras — with the notable exception of that dark period between (roughly) 1965 and 1975 when the studios lost the hit-making formula for a spell and let outcasts like Robert Altman, Roman Polanski, and Martin Scorsese make names for themselves with a series of downers like “Chinatown” and “Mean Streets.”

“Sweet Smell of Success” is one of the most cynical movies ever made by a Hollywood studio and it came out in the 1950s, so of course it was among the biggest money losers of its decade, despite the presence of two of the era’s top movie stars, Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis.

The movie is about a horrible New York gossip columnist named J.J. Hunsecker (Lancaster) who has the power to make or break show biz people, and the bottom-feeding press agent Sidney Falco (Curtis) who lives or dies by placing items about his clients in the Broadway columns.

Hunsecker and Falco are so venal and so nasty that they turn into black comedy anti-heroes with great appeal to people who see the existential glass as being half empty.

No sooner had “Sweet Smell of Success” flopped than a cult of coffee house smarties, nihilistic college students and show biz insiders began to form.

Apparently, by 1959, young hipsters had the juicy Clifford Odets dialogue memorized and made a sport of using it whenever possible (i.e. “The cat’s in the bag and the bag’s in the river,” “I’d hate to take a bite out of you; you’re a cookie full of arsenic”). Barry Levinson made note of this phenomenon in his 1959 period piece “Diner” with a minor character who only spoke dialogue from the Odets script.

54 years after bombing, “Sweet Smell” is now considered the quintessential New York nightlife movie.

‘Thieves’: why do we love clever criminals so much?

by:

Heist novels and movies seem to fall into one of two categories — the charming rogue variety (i.e. “Topkapi”) or the pitch black, watch-your-back school (“The Grifters”).

Peter Spiegelman has taken a break from his wonderful series of John March financial crime investigation novels to give us the new stand-alone “Thick as Thieves” (Knopf) which puts on the side of the perps in a devilishly complicated scam that could net hundreds of millions.

Spiegelman introduces us to a gang of high-tech thieves — led by the protagonist, ex-CIA man Carr — who are well versed in the world of off-shore banking and the still discrete bookkeeping of the Swiss and other European money launderers.

The author clues us in right at the start that although the “victim” really has it coming to him, this is not going to be a caper comedy or even a romantic heist thriller in the vein of “The Thomas Crown Affair.” Carr has an uneasy feeling about his partners — including the woman in the gang with whom he has been sleeping and talking about “the future” — fueled by his doubts about their last scam gone bad.

Carr was brought into the group by a colorful rogue named Declan who became something of a father figure to our hero before he died in a chase. Some of the money in that job went missing and Carr suspects that at least a few of his partners might have been involved.

“Thick as Thieves” has more twists than that proverbial bowl of pretzels and it gets almost as dark as “The Grifters” where sex and romance and family ties were just two more tools in a super-criminal’s bag of tricks.

Spiegelman keeps the book rooted in a world we can identify with by giving Carr a father — also ex-CIA — who is drifting into Alzheimer’s and keeps calling his son back to Massachusetts as his condition gets worse.

Dad supplies more than just a human element to this chilling crime caper, however, by having almost as many secrets — and hidden agendas — as Carr’s partners in crime.

“Thick as Thieves” disturbs as it entertains because we know Carr won’t get out of this very high stakes mission unscathed — if he gets out at all — but Spiegelman keeps us racing to an ending that packs a double wallop.

‘Civility’: the R-rated depression delight Jean Arthur never made

by:

The other day I wrote about the pleasing convergence of popular and critical success for “Rise of the Planet of the Apes.”

The same thing is happening in the book world with Amor Towles’s first novel “Rules of Civility” (Viking), which was recently published to rapturous reviews and which debuted on The New York Times bestseller list last Sunday.

Towles takes us back to Manhattan in 1938 to follow the adventures of a fantastically witty and resourceful heroine named — ironically — Katherine Kontent.

As I read the book I couldn’t help but see it as the blueprint for one of those great Depression era comedies that starred Jean Arthur as an ambitious reporter or secretary in New York — especially the Preston Sturges-scripted “Easy Living” (below) which was released in 1937.

The book is a wry love letter to all that is unchanging in New York City — particularly the energy the city gets from each new generation of young people who pour into Manhattan to find engaging work and romantic adventure.

Katherine starts in the typing pool of a downtown legal firm, but lands an assistant’s job at a new Conde Nast magazine. She works around the clock and is soon contributing ideas as well as grunt work.

The romance in “Rules of Civility” develops when Katherine and her boardinghouse roommate Eve meet a handsome young banker named Tinker Grey in a nightclub and they quickly become a dating trio.

The two young women show Tinker how they sneak into movie palaces and also take him to downtown nightspots he’s unaware of — such as an atmospheric Russian nightclub the author has invented called Chernoff’s.

Fizzy romantic comedy turns to drama when the trio are in a car accident and Eve is seriously injured. Tinker feels guilty and takes care of her in his deluxe apartment where a love relationship of sorts begins.

Despite the wonderful time machine aspects of the story, “Rules of Civility” never has the musty feel of a historical novel.

The concerns of Katherine and Eve and Tinker have been the concerns of every young person who has ever stepped into the Manhattan ring.

The story and characters are never less than completely engaging, but along the way you get sharp observational paragraphs like this one:

“The brunette in the suit walked past me toward the bathrooms. She gave me the cold unfriendly stare of an old enemy at an unpopular peace. Wasn’t that just perfect, I thought. How little imagination and courage we show in our hatreds. If we earn fifty cents an hour, we admire the rich and pity the poor, and we reserve the full force of our venom for those who make a penny more or a penny less. That’s why there isn’t a revolution every ten years. I stuck out my tongue retroactively and wove toward the door trying to look from behind like a movie star on a train.”

Get yourself a copy of “Rules of Civility” as soon as possible.

Anne Hathaway: embracing the ripe old age of 28

by:

Like almost everyone else who goes to the movies, I think Anne Hathaway is very talented and very easy on the eyes in everything from “The Devil Wears Prada” to “Love and Other Drugs.”

The stunning actress can sing beautifully as well — a gift that was not so noticeable during her Oscar co-hosting chores earlier this year, but very evident almost a decade ago when she charmed City Center audiences at the Encores! presentation of “Carnival.”

If and when she decides to take a break from movies, Hathaway could have Broadway at her feet in whatever show she chooses.

The actress doesn’t appear to be nearly as savvy offscreen (and off-stage) however.

There was that highly publicized relationship with Italian flim flam man Raffaello Follieri who made the actress part of his international jet set for four years until he was jailed three years ago on charges that he ripped off millions by claiming he was in with the Vatican on their real estate dealings.

Yesterday, Hathaway gave the Associated Press one of the most unintenionally funny movie star interviews of the year to date.

“I find the passing of time very liberating,” said the 28-year-old actress (she’ll be 29 in three months).

“I feel more confident every day, well not every single day, but most days I feel better than I did the day before, and that’s a good thing.”

“For every generation where traditional rules don’t apply, you don’t have to have things figured out by 22 and have four kids by the time you’re 30…We have a lot more time to figure out who we are.”

Hathaway says she has no fears of what might become of her Hollywood casting opportunities a few decades down the road, either, pointing to her 62-year-old “The Devil Wears Prada” co-star Meryl Streep as a role model.

“We have pioneers that show us there’s no reason to be afraid, and I just think fear (of aging) is something that we perpetuate. Who needs it?”

Yes, Streep has managed to stay on top through sheer talent and by having the guts to take big chances every step of the way.

But, you do have to wonder what Streep’s peers from 30 years ago — Sigourney Weaver, Jessica Lange, Diane Keaton, Sissy Spacek et al — might have to say about the 28-year-old actress’ pronouncement.

‘Russian Dolls’: how low can reality TV go?

by:

With the budget crunch obviously outweighing real audience-building concerns, the push for cheap reality shows on cable doesn’t appear to be lessening.

Case in point: “Russian Dolls,” which is debuting on Lifetime on Thursday night at 10:30 p.m.

Even by the debased standards of this genre, the show is a tacky dud that squanders a decent opportunity to break new ethnic ground.

The Russian community in Brooklyn is huge and thriving, but the show focuses on the usual “reality” suspects — a collection of not-very-bright narcissists who seem determined to embarrass themselves in front of a national TV audience (although in this case, I think the viewership will start out small and quickly go downhill from there).

I totally understand the need for an occasional TV trash wallow — just the other night I watched “Airport” and “Airport 1975” back to back, so who am I to judge others? — but “Russian Dolls” plays like a Z-grade copy of one of the “Real Housewives” series on Bravo.

You could make a pretty decent documentary on the souring of the American dream by focusing on these greedy, selfish, first- or second-generation Russian women who don’t appear to do anything other than shop and bitch about their family responsibilities.

Much of the first episode is taken up by a really awful woman who keeps complaining about having to attend a talent competition for Brighton Beach grandmothers in which her husband’s mother will perform.

After listening to a ridiculous rant about having to witness her mother-in-law making a spectacle of herself, one of the creep’s girlfriends wisely counsels, “Don’t go,” but then we get another tirade about what the husband will say if she doesn’t go.

Bottom line: granny does a cute little belly dance number and daughter-in-law forces her family to leave before the first prize goes to guess who.

None of the ladies on the show have the TV savvy brio of those “Real Housewives” dames, so “Russian Dolls” turns into home movies of loathsome people you wouldn’t spend more than a few minutes with in “real” life.

‘Apes’ eureka! moment: make a good movie and they will come

by:

It was wonderful to observe the convergence of good reviews, strong grosses and positive audience response to the opening of “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” over the weekend.

It’s nice to see a Hollywood studio get a big-budget franchise picture right for a change.

20th Century Fox is going to make a fortune on the movie, without extra 3D or IMAX tariffs, and without making adult moviegoers feel like they have to revert to their childhood taste and intelligence to enjoy a multiplex blockbuster.

Yes, there is considerable cinema technology on view at “Rise” — the fake apes are so real-looking that they are able to play characters who are on an equal footing with the human actors — but the effects are always at the service of the story.

After the Tim Burton atrocity remake of a few years ago, I figured we were through with variations on the wonderful 1968 science-fiction movie “Planet of the Apes” (below). The picture inspired a few decent sequels, but they all existed in the huge shadow cast by the original.“Rise of the Planet of the Apes” isn’t a sequel or a reboot, but an inspired prequel designed to show us how apes came to dominate the planet in the original story.

I haven’t seen the 1968 movie in quite a while but I’m sure there are several rough joins between the two stories — it seems to me the original attributed the downfall of man to a nuclear holocaust rather than a plague and what was the year of that space launch our anti-hero Charlton Heston took in the opening scene?

What’s really marvelous (and deeply unsettling) about the new movie is that we get to identify with the apes so strongly that we agree with them that there is the need for a change of leadership on planet Earth.

Humans have just gotten too dumb and too self-centered (and too greedy) to remain in charge. The real villain in the movie is a drug company so insanely focused on a new patent-able miracle cure/intelligence booster that they don’t realize it will give apes cultural and military dominance while killing off the consumer market needed to buy a new pill.

I don’t think a movie has presented the end of human civilization with such horror and high comedy since “Dr. Strangelove.”

The Conan vs. Leno TV war book gets a paperback update

by:

There has to be some truth to that old maxim about everyone having two businesses — their own and show business.

The behind-the-scenes information on Hollywood and Broadway used to be confined to the pages of trade papers like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. Now, the problems with a film in production or a Broadway show in previews are covered by the Internet and the mainstream media with as much fervor and attention to detail as we get from political reporting.

We live in an environment where weekend movie grosses are analyzed every Monday by industry executives and “civilians” alike. People seem to care as much about what a movie is earning at the box office as they do about whether or not the film in question is any good.

New York Times writer Bill Carter scored a bestseller more than a decade ago with “The Late Shift” about the fight between Jay Leno and David Letterman to succeed Johnny Carson on “The Tonight Show.” The book was then turned into an above-average made-for-HBO movie.

Carter’s follow-up volume “The War for Late Night” — which was published in hardcover last fall and will appear in paperback with new material next month — is about NBC’s impossible scheme to keep both of its late night stars happy.

Jay Leno picked up where Johnny Carson left off in the 1990s, keeping “The Tonight Show” number one in its time slot despite stiff competition from Letterman. The CBS show was always a distant second, even though lots of critics and younger viewers dissed Leno as a tired square.

NBC took a chance on an unknown — Conan O’Brien — to replace Letterman in the post-“Tonight Show” slot. After a rocky start, O’Brien became a big hit with younger viewers and the network began to worry about two things — that it would lose O’Brien to Fox, and that Fox would program Conan against Leno.

This caused the NBC brass to cook up a strange deal in 2004 under which Leno agreed to vacate his “Tonight Show” job in five years, with O’Brien being guaranteed the job if he stayed in his late night slot for that period.

The deal was bizarre, to say the least, because Leno’s “Tonight Show” was a huge hit and he would only be in his late 50s when he would step aside (Carson was 66 when he retired).

Of course, as we all know, Leno and NBC got cold feet in 2009 and came up with a new five-night-a-week show at 10 p.m. that would launch a few months after Conan took over at 11:30.

Conan’s ratings were not good — Letterman pulled ahead of “The Tonight Show” for the first time in years — and then when the Leno program was launched, it too proved to be a flop.

Carter’s book shows us how panic-stricken NBC executives tried to have their cake and eat it too — put Leno back at 11:35 and start “The Tonight Show” at 12:05 — but O’Brien was crushed, believing that the legendary franchise he inherited was being trashed. He didn’t want any part of a “Tomorrow” show and a huge legal fight was launched.

‘The War for Late Night” is about the battle between “talent” and the business side of television. Carter writes with such a sense of drama and black comedy that the book is a fascinating read even if (like me) you haven’t watched late night talk shows on a regular basis for many years.

Jerry Seinfeld, who was familiar with all sides in this combat, tells Carter that he thinks everyone got hung up on their nostalgia for an “institution” that  disappeared when Johnny Carson retired.

“I don’t really understand why they were so offended,” Seinfeld said of Conan’s “Team Coco.”

“Jay’s show isn’t working; your show isn’t working — how about a new idea? To me, when I (saw) the numbers those two guys were getting, yes, it’s time to sit down at the idea table.”

Seinfeld thought O’Brien was crazy to leave NBC over the planned time shift of “The Tonight Show.”

“I couldn’t believe he walked away. I thought he should just say, ‘Yeah, let me go at midnight. Let me work this differently. Let me hang around.’ Here’s big point number two in show business: Hang around! Just stay there, just be there! The old cliche: 95 percent is just showing up. OK, I’m on at twelve; I’m still showing up. You never leave!”

Page 2 of 3123