Ethereal Girl [WHO’S THAT GIRL]

This was the first long review I wrote for the Chicago Reader after I started working there, but its publication was delayed for almost a couple of months until October 30, 1987 because the film was pulled from distribution just before we were going to press.  – J.R.

WHO’S THAT GIRL

** (Worth seeing)

Directed by James Foley

With Madonna, Griffin Dunne, Haviland Morris, John McMartin, and John Mills.

The current spate of recycled movies is only the latest stage in a process that has been in force for almost three decades, ever since the French New Wave launched the idea of a self-devouring cinema. Broadly speaking, the movement started out as esoteric polemical criticism (in print and on-screen) in the 60s, gravitated toward name-dropping and flag-waving testimonials in the 70s, and has finally degenerated in the 80s to an insidious kind of self-censorship that uses the past — and a severely delimited version of it at that — as a kind of stopper to prevent too much of the present from leaking through.

It’s a cynical truism of journalism that any story with 100 percent new information is virtually unusable. In order to provide the reader or spectator with a safety net, most of the story has to be based on old information, even if much of that old news turns out to be out of date or false. At the same time, our casual skepticism about most of what we see has grown to such a degree that, paradoxically, a disbelief in movie plots almost becomes a prerequisite for enjoying them. Our movie past is made to seem comfortable because it suggests familiar territory, a kind of deception we feel safer with because we know in advance that it’s false. And if certain kinds of social commentary are beginning to creep back into commercial movies, they are usually coming in through the back door of nostalgia, as if to protect us from their potential sting    – and perhaps protect themselves from the challenge of directly addressing us.

Who’s That Girl, Madonna’s third feature (which died a quick death in first run two months ago and is only now making a reappearance), has enough giddy nostalgia to sink a battleship — a fact that in this case works as a partial blessing as well as a curse, because a figure like Madonna works almost exclusively on the level of myth. It’s a movie that devours other movies the way that some music videos do, but unlike the latter, it manages a critical update on some of its sources. For starters, the movie is a remake of Howard Hawks’s celebrated 1938 screwball comedy Bringing Up Baby, which was already remade as What’s Up, Doc? by Peter Bogdanovich in 1972. The use of Griffin Dunne as a yuppie hero — yanked out of his tight schedule and complacent surroundings into a darker side of Manhattan by a dangerous female — naturally summons up After Hours, while related aspects of plot and character — including Madonna’s clothes, makeup, and hairdo — remind us of Melanie Griffith and Jeff Daniels in Something Wild. To compound the brew, Madonna has remodeled her persona not only by enlarging her eyebrows, but more generally by borrowing traits from Marilyn Monroe and Mae West (among others), while an early scene shows her ritualistically kissing posters of Elvis Presley (in Jailhouse Rock) and Marlon Brando (in The Wild One) as she leaves her prison cell.

What is one to make of this top-heavy, intertextual smorgasbord? For one thing, the by-now encrusted social values of Bringing Up Baby are neatly inverted to stand the Hawks movie on its head. In the original, the life-affirming zaniness and irresponsibility of Katharine Hepburn, which lures Cary Grant away from a loveless potential marriage and a sedate existence as a bemused paleontologist, is partially predicated on the fact that her character is dripping with wealth, making her sense of fun and freedom an implied privilege of the leisure class. Bogdanovich pushed this implication further in What’s Up, Doc? by making ordinary workers the fall guys in most of the slapstick gags. But Who’s That Girl reverses the pattern by making the heroine a working-class punk thief, and getting nearly all of its best laughs out of ridiculing the pretensions of the rich. From this standpoint, the freakish affectations and inane dialogue of Haviland Morris as Wendy Worthington, Dunne’s superwealthy bride-to-be, are among the movie’s comic inspirations; whether she’s trying desperately to buy her way into a co-op (undeterred by being bound head to foot and held as a hostage) or using Burt Bacharach lyrics as an inspirational text for her wedding ceremony, she’s a dead-on parody of the same upper-class attitudes that Hawks and Bogdanovich tended to embrace uncritically.

As if in response to Pauline Kael’s comparison of Madonna’s first feature, Desperately Seeking Susan, to rotoscope animation, Who’s That Girl opens with a cartoon Madonna breaking through the Warner Brothers logo, and behind the credits, in UPA-style animation, we follow her character, Nikki Finn, through an intricate series of events — the movie revels in Rube Goldberg gag constructions — culminating in her being framed for the murder of her boyfriend and sent to prison. Four years later, in live action, we see her getting paroled, and from her first wisecrack about copping some mascara, she’s no more real than her cartoon self. Dressed in tight, short black skirts and pedal pushers when she’s out on the street, she walks like electrified jello and talks like Betty Boop with adenoids; but when she’s supposed to come on as slow, sultry, and romantic in a lush white evening gown and sleek penthouse, the effect seems forced, as if she’s a little girl trying on grown-up clothes.

Loudon Trott (Griffin Dunne), a yuppie attorney, has just been assigned to deliver a snarling cougar to an eccentric client (John Mills) when Wendy’s father (John McMartin), his boss, asks him to drive Nikki from prison to the nearest bus station, whence she is expected to return to her mother in Philadelphia. (It takes most of the movie to explain why Worthington wants Loudon to perform this task, but ordinary plot coherence isn’t one of the movie’s strong points.) Insisting on driving the Rolls Royce convertible that Loudon has borrowed from his mother, Nikki quickly befriends the cougar, carries Loudon along on a shoplifting spree through a mall, and after a reckless driving spree that temporarily lands Loudon in the hospital (as a ploy for avoiding a traffic violation) continues to Harlem with his credit card, purchasing a gun from a bombed-out fence in order to confront the pimp who helped frame her.

The movie’s press book boasts that four cougars and four Rolls Royces were needed to shoot the madcap chases, and in a way the symmetry seems appropriate: the cat and the car represent the polar opposites in the film’s moral universe. If the cougar replaces Bringing Up Baby’s leopard while the Rolls more or less does duty for Cary Grant’s reconstructed dinosaur skeleton, Nikki Finn, who treats both like playthings, assumes the spiritual function of Katharine Hepburn while jettisoning most of her personality. As a creature of myth as contrived as her name, she can locate herself in a gallery of other star icons and deck herself out with assorted punk accoutrements, but she can’t register as someone with a social background like the other characters in the movie. It’s a given that the movie never shows us her home or mother in Philadelphia; if it did, her mythic aura would be seriously compromised.

The freedom represented by Madonna’s persona has something to do with the freedom of little boys that little girls envy — which helps to explain the Presley and Brando posters (and the fact that she slugs a prison guard as soon as she’s free). This doesn’t exactly square with her powers as a mythic goddess — such as her capacity to tame and train the cougar, which all the other characters lack, or her ability at one point to convince a bus driver to make a U-turn on an expressway — but as Richard Dyer and other critics have noted, stars are able to contain and apparently resolve the sort of contradictions that we never could accept in ordinary actors. (Consider Monroe’s Lorelei Lee in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, equally dumb and conniving.) Nikki’s charisma is based on her talent for suggesting mythic alternatives to Loudon and the other characters, but because many of these alternatives are mutually exclusive — Monroe’s softness, West’s toughness, Betty Boop’s naivety, Brando’s street smarts — they don’t add up to a single character who can plausibly share space, much less a philosophy or a romance, with anyone else on the screen.

Significantly, Madonna’s first appearance in Desperately Seeking Susan shows her alone in a hotel room with a sleeping boyfriend, lying on her back on the floor while taking an instant snapshot of herself. What she shares, in fact, with her gallery of icons is the irresponsible pleasure of narcissism — a carnal delight compared to the more superficial kinds of self-regard displayed by the film’s other characters, which Nikki Finn serves to rebuke. As with the French actress Bulle Ogier, whom Madonna intermittently resembles here in her figure and dreamy expression, her special terrain is the autistic fantasy. And some of this movie’s happiest screwball moments seem to come from the efforts of writers Andrew Smith and Ken Finkleman and director James Foley to reflect aspects of her character in the world that surrounds her, as if to suggest that she dreamed them up: a group of black kids joyously trashing and decorating the Rolls parked in their neighborhood; three separate taxi drivers who tell Loudon that they’ve “had” his fiancee (in the biblical sense) in their cabs; a populated rain forest inside a Manhattan penthouse. Trying to be as recklessly random as its heroine, the movie takes on ideas that tend to be hit or miss, but the direct scores are more gratifying than most because of the manic risk taking involved. Every character, no matter how minor, is treated like a wild card, as if to ensure that Madonna remains the only ace in sight.

Clearly she needs these jerry-built vehicles in order to maintain the coherence of her own jerry-built identity. As a very Catholic Antichrist, in love with theatrical ritual and decoration, she thrives on these surrounding details in much the same way that she uses two dancing boys, with matching cross earrings, to flank and mirror her movements like supporting brothers in her video, Madonna–The Virgin Tour Live. But as adept as Griffin Dunne often is with physical comedy, his role as a social type exiles him into a different movie as soon as the pair become romantically attached. As long as they’re dialectical, antagonistic opponents, they make a volatile team; but the strength and limitation of Madonna as a myth is that she ultimately stands alone.

Published on 30 Oct 1987 in Featured Texts, Featured Texts, by jrosenbaum

No Comments >>

The Good, the Bad, and the Future

I. Good Things About the Chicago Film Festival

1. Quite apart from aesthetic considerations, any film festival that can boast films from 35 countries and encompass 70 years of filmmaking is performing an invaluable cultural service. The xenophobic and antihistorical cast of most pop culture in this country is such that the more the media expand, the narrower our sense of reality generally becomes, and any institution that can allow us glimpses of cultures and eras other than our own is bound to teach us something more than the average TV news broadcast. (The sharp moral distinction that we usually make between news and fiction–designating the first as “serious” and the second as “entertainment”–overlooks the fact that both are usually designed as narrative entertainment, offering consumable, hence disposable, stories with larger-than-life characters.)

2. Out of the 20 films in the festival that I’ve so far managed to see, more than half are eminently worth seeing, and roughly a third qualify as first-rate. If that’s a somewhat lower batting average than either Facets or the Film Center, it’s still a much higher one than what is achieved by the usual run of commercial mainstream releases.

3. Show a foreign film with no recognizable names attached to it and no obvious box-office value as an ordinary release, and few spectators are likely to go to see it. Show the same movie in a film festival, and the attendance rate is likely to go up appreciably. This suggests that film festivals stimulate moviegoing in and of themselves and attract spectators who otherwise might not be as interested–in large measure because of all the publicity and ballyhoo that festivals tend to get, but also because of the festive atmosphere that comes with the package. Unlike the regular and periodic film attendance that existed in this country from the 20s through the 50s, moviegoing today tends to be mainly restricted to special events–and festivals tend to turn otherwise ordinary movies into special events.

4. The Chicago Film Festival claims in its program index to be offering 74 U.S. premieres. Even though this is obviously an exaggerated figure–Melo, for instance, which is included on the list, was shown in Los Angeles several months ago, and was subsequently screened in New York even before the New York Film Festival, which preceded Chicago’s–it still seems plausible that at least half of the films being shown here are receiving their first public screenings in this country. (One film, Bill Forsyth’s Housekeeping, is billed as a world premiere.)

II. Bad Things About the Chicago Film Festival

1. No film festival that I have attended anywhere–including Cannes, Denver, Edinburgh, London, Los Angeles’s Filmex, New York, Paris’s Musidora, Rotterdam, San Francisco, San Sebastian, Santa Barbara, or Venice–seems more chaotic and arbitrary in its overall selections than Chicago (although it must be admitted that Santa Barbara comes close). The sheer awfulness and/or lack of distinction of some of the movies that find their way here seems less a critical aberration than the consequence of an absence of overall critical standards of any kind.

2. Many of the most exciting, interesting, and important things going on in world cinema today aren’t even hinted at in the festival program. Broadly speaking, it seems that festival director Michael Kutza’s main area of expertise is the new German cinema; the two areas in which he seems more deficient–to judge from the offerings of previous years as well as this one–are film history in general and intellectual filmmakers in particular. While the Paramount series this year shows a very promising beginning at broaching cinema’s past, the conspicuous absence of restorations and serious retrospectives–crucial aspects of all the best festivals that I know helps to keep the Chicago festival relatively provincial. And no less disappointing is the continuing neglect of filmmakers as important as Jean-Luc Godard, Jon Jost, Yvonne Rainer, Jacques Rivette, and Raul Ruiz, among many others. A key omission in this year’s lineup is Godard’s King Lear, a film in English that I caught in Toronto which is not only Godard’s most inventive film in years, but also features the best use of Dolby sound I’ve ever heard in a movie. If and when the film ever opens in the U.S., one can safely bet that it will show only in theaters unequipped with Dolby (as was the fate of Godard’s Detective), so the festival could have performed an invaluable service by running it properly–a courtesy that it apparently didn’t receive in either Cannes or Montreal. Similarly, the fact that Raul Ruiz remains the most important and prolific innovative filmmaker currently working in Europe–even though none of his several dozen films has yet received commercial distribution in the U.S.–makes it only more frustrating that the Chicago festival still refuses to acknowledge his existence, even in the most token way.

3. It seems inevitable that in a sports town like Chicago, the local film festival would also be competitive. But the fact remains that the most serious festivals don’t generally bother with judging and awards–even though the feature film jury this year is an unusually distinguished one.

4. One appreciates the sheer logistical difficulties in showing over 130 films at a festival that remains conspicuously underfinanced and understaffed. But the soul of a film festival, rich or poor, is often most evident in the small ways that films and filmmakers are handled, and it is here that the Chicago festival frequently shows signs of negligence. Apart from the many stories one hears about directors and other guests who are flown here only to find themselves stranded, there are problems with prints arriving on time and receiving proper projection when they do, problems with delays, problems with ticket sales (such as patrons turned away when there are still empty seats), problems with information (Blood and Sand is correctly listed as a 1922 film on one side of the schedule, dated 1927 on the other), and a lot of problems regarding titles. And considering the festival’s claim that it shows new films that have not previously made it to Chicago, it is not always scrupulous about doing its homework: the Taiwanese film The Outsiders, included among this year’s selections, already premiered here on the opening night of the recent Lesbian and Gay Film Festival and had a subsequent run at Facets.

III. Hopes and Best Wishes for the Chicago Film Festival.

Most film festivals purport to represent the whole of cinema in some way, but virtually none of them actually do. (The absence of experimental films at most of them, including Chicago’s, is one striking case in point.) The size and pluralism of the Chicago festival continues to be preferable to the absurd limitations of the one in New York, where in recent years all but a few selections already have commercial distributors before they’re even shown. (Part of this situation, to be sure, stems from the New York festival’s prestige and power, and the careful selection process of that festival can’t be overlooked; but the decline in its capacity to show a lot of otherwise unseeable works has deprived it of most of its original function. The recent forced departure of festival director Richard Roud, who spearheaded most of that festival’s most important discoveries, can only be regarded with dismay.) What remains to be done is to invest this pluralism with some critical shape and purpose. As suggested earlier, the adventurous filmgoer looking for something new and different from the usual commercial releases would usually be better off going to either the Film Center or Facets than trying his or her luck at the Chicago Film Festival. But there’s no reason why the latter couldn’t give both of the former a healthy run for their money.

Published on 30 Oct 1987 in Featured Texts, by jrosenbaum

No Comments >>

Onion City Film Festival

As a bracing alternative to the steady diet of straight story films and talking-heads documentaries of the Chicago Film Festival–as well as the hit-or-miss selection that makes random viewing a very high risk venture–the experimental shorts at the fourth annual Onion City Film Festival offer a breath of fresh air. Apart from the intriguing-sounding Chicago-Frankfurt Film Exchange, which is being offered as a separate special event (see listings), two three-hour programs have been put together representing work all across North America, and the overall quality and diversity of talents on display are impressive indeed. Judging from the ten films I’ve seen, comprising about a third of the selections, there are no major breakthroughs, but a lot of interesting and energetic forays. Today Is Sunday, a lovely black-and-white, elliptical seminarrative by Chicago performance artist Jean Sousa, gravitates around a beachside location and is punctuated by suggestive, free-floating intertitles and isolated bursts of music. Chick Strand’s Artificial Paradise, shot over three years in Mexico, interweaves a kaleidoscope of colorful visual and aural textures in dancelike rhythms; Alex Prisadsky’s short and silent Dmitri and Ramona performs a sprightly jig of its own using only printed words. Domenic Angerome’s Continuum does wonderful things with tar, paint, and other aspects of urban street work in striking high-contrast black-and-white photography that evokes the 30s, while Scott Guitteau’s Advanced Civilized Nation makes politically provocative use of found footage. Chel White’s novel The Key of Dreams repeats and mixes the same crisp images and sounds in various combinations to create a Spike Jones syncopation, and Sharon Couzin accompanies the frenetic palpitations of Shells and Rushes with some very strange-sounding Eskimo throat music. Check these programs out for some sensual feasts, including a certain amount of food for thought–scarce quantities these days on the commercial circuits. (Northwestern Univ. Swift Auditorium, 1905 Sheridan Road, Evanston, Friday, October 30, and Saturday, October 31, 8:00, 486-2025 or 869-7664)

Published on 30 Oct 1987 in Featured Texts, by jrosenbaum

No Comments >>

The Tower Of The Seven Hunchbacks

From the Chicago Reader (October 26, 1987). — J.R.

Edgar Neville — an aristocratic Republican filmmaker and writer who was friends with everyone from Lorca and Chaplin to Ortega y Gasset and Lacan — is one of the great undiscovered auteurs of the Spanish cinema. This remarkable turn-of-the-century fantasy, which suggests an eerie encounter between the tales of Borges and the early melodramas of Feuillade and Lang, starts off as a supernatural mystery as the hero (Antonio Casal) is persuaded by a one-eyed ghost to solve the case of his murder. This leads him first to the ghost’s niece (Isabel de Pomes) and eventually to a hidden underground city beneath the old section of Madrid that contains an ancient synagogue and is presided over by hunchbacked counterfeiters. Based on a novel by Emilio Carrere, this hallucinatory fiction ends rather abruptly and never manages to account for all the mysteries it uncovers, but as pure, primal storytelling it is as creepy a spellbinder as one could wish for (1944). (JR)

Published on 26 Oct 1987 in Featured Texts, by admin

No Comments >>

So Many Movies, So Little Time

The 23rd Chicago International Film Festival, running from Monday, October 19, through Sunday, November 8, promises 131 separate programs, not counting repeats. As a newcomer to this event who has attended about a dozen other international film festivals, most of them several years in a row, I can offer at this point only a single, broad generalization about what seems to make Chicago’s relatively pluralistic and amorphous, for better and for worse.

Although film festivals come in all shapes and sizes, one can generally make a loose distinction between the free-for-alls, where anything and everything is likely to turn up (Cannes, London, Los Angeles’s Filmex), and the ones with a more discernible selection process that tend to project a more critical and polemical profile (Toronto, New York, Rotterdam). By reputation and to all appearances, Chicago belongs more in the first category than in the second. What this means in practice is that the shopping spectator has to become his or her own critic while browsing through the festival schedule, rather than trust in either fate or some imagined philosophical unity in director Michael Kutza’s selections.

Practically speaking, with a festival this size, taking some initiative is what everyone has to do anyway. Unless you intend to see half a dozen films a day for nearly three weeks, it becomes necessary to carve out your own piece of the action. You might want to concentrate on the festival’s designated subcategories–Latin American films, Asian films, Italian films, golden oldies from Paramount, contemporary world cinema–but be forewarned that even there the quality of what you see is likely to range from the sublime to the awful. Any festival that elects to show the latest Claude Lelouch as well as the latest Alain Resnais can’t be accused of having any particular ax to grind.

As a partial aid to festivalgoers, we have endeavored to round up as many critical reviews of the movies as possible, commissioned either from writers who have seen the films at other festivals or from reviewers who have more recently attended this festival’s press screenings. (Overall, for the festival’s three weeks, we have drawn on the critical talents of 20 writers from nine cities–Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York, San Francisco, Seattle, Toronto, and Washington–although others may conceivably join the fray before were done.) When we couldn’t get a review, we resorted to a brief description, drawn from the festival’s own blurb if we had nowhere else to turn. Having seen only a handful of the films myself at this point, I can only add my major recommendations–Alain Resnais’ Melo, Leos Carax’s Bad Blood, Ernst Lubitsch’s Trouble in Paradise, Billy Wilder’s Double Indemnity, and Clarence Badger’s It–scheduled for the weeks ahead.

In the meantime, a few basic ground rules: Screenings are at the Biograph, 2433 N. Lincoln, and the Music Box, 3733 N. Southport, except for opening night at the Chicago Theatre, 175 N. State. Tickets can be purchased at the theater box office the day of the screening, starting one hour prior to the first screening, at the Film Festival stores at 1551 N. Wells and 1157 N. State, or by calling 664-3400 (credit cards only). General admission to each program (with some exceptions–see below) is $6.50, $5 for Cinema/Chicago members. Exceptions: (A) All weekday 5 PM screenings are $4 general admission, $3 for Cinema/Chicago members. (B) Opening night is another ball game entirely: the movie cost: $5-$15, and a cool $150 gets you into both the movie and the party.

For further information, call 644-3400 (questions) or 644-5454 (24 hour update/hotline), or listen to radio stations WBBM (78 AM) or WNUA (95.5 FM), or watch WMAQ TV (Channel Five) for updates and coverage. Happy hunting!

Published on 16 Oct 1987 in Featured Texts, by jrosenbaum

No Comments >>