|
Midway through the documentary
Searching for Debra Winger, Meg Ryan says to Rosanna
Arquette something to the effect of no matter what, she
cant shake the "cutesy Meg Ryan romantic comedy
image." Arquette, behind the camera, responds, "Thats
because youve never showed your vagina onscreen."
When the audience heard this line, we kind of chuckled,
but one voice let out a guffaw. It was Sharon Stone, down
in the front of the theater, who is both an interview
subject for this documentary about film actresses over
40 and one who has shown her vagina.
It is hard to deny the
thrill of being in a small theater with the likes of the
Arquette sisters, Stone and others. It only added to the
films intimacy and the viewers sense that
we have come to know some of these people over the years.
Arquette got a slew of notable actresses to sit and frankly
discuss their experiences as mothers, wives and actresses
in an industry that isnt always kind to aging women.
Interviews with Jane Fonda, Vanessa Redgrave, Holly Hunter,
Juliana Margulies, Martha Plimpton, Robin Wright Penn,
etc., precede a conversation with Debra Winger, who until
acting in a film her husband Arliss Howard directed last
year, Big Bad Love, had dropped out of the film
industry in disgust. We are fascinated by the movie and
could listen to these women for twice as long as we do.
We have seen many of these actresses interviewed over
the years in polite, often inconsequential ways. Here
they open up as I would have thought impossible given
their often stated desire for their lives to remain private,
particularly when discussing their marriages and children.
Of course, it is difficult to muster sympathy for someone
who says she feels guilty if she isnt acting in
a film but taking care of her family instead. It is the
same old complaint, but it is still true: Those who spend
years working hard to make a lucrative career in show
business come off a bit tacky when they tell the minimum-wagers
that they feel guilty spending too much time with their
family instead of acting in a Hollywood movie. Please,
darling, there is no shortage of actresses that will gladly
take your million dollar paycheck, which you dont
need anyway, while you play with your kids. Lifes
rough, isnt it? However, there is much discussion
of sexism in the industry and the double standards between
the roles that men get well into middle age and those
of women. This is just another example of Hollywoods
narrow-mindedness, and actresses fare better in Europe,
it is pointed out, where older women are revered and respected
and where there are many more interesting and complicated
roles for those age groups. Arquette has put together
some witty, articulate and funny commentaries from some
of the best actresses. We are drawn in because we feel
as if we know them, and we get insights we hadnt
expected.
 |
|
Henri
Behar and Michael Moore
|
Indeed, two of the best
films in Cannes so far are documentaries, this one by
Arquette and Michael Moores Bowling for Columbine.
Moores sad and entertaining film looks at the
gun culture in the United States and compares it to other
nations. Due to the much higher number of shootings in
the United States. compared to other nations that share
our same mass entertainment, he posits that our violence
is somehow innate, that Americans have something in their
cultural DNA that causes them always to be fighting. He
attacks the culture of fear in the nation and puts much
of the blame on the local television news. For proof of
this, he points out that crime has dropped something like
20 percent in the last few years, while the reporting
of it has jumped 600 percent.
At his press conference
Moore spoke of the governments role, using his usual
logical, angry and funny wit to stir the pot:
In an American airport,
there is a list of things you cant bring on
a plane, such as toenail clippers, knitting needles,
crochet hooks, leaf blowers, Rustoleum
a whole
list of nutty things. Dry ice, even. Did I miss the
dry ice terrorist incident? But there are
two things you can bring on a plane: a matchbook and
a butane lighter. Now the one incident we know since
September 11 was a guy who tried to light his shoes
on fire. Its the one thing that almost killed
another 300 people. And I know you can light shoes
on fire, because I was at a Motley Crue concert about
ten years ago and this kid had puked on his own shoes
and there must have been a high alcohol content in
the puke because when he threw a match down, the shoes
caught on fire. Anyway, so the two things you would
think that would be banned on flights are matchbooks
and butane lighters. But no! Why do you need them?
You cant smoke on the plane! I was saying this
at the Washington, D.C., stop on my book tour, and
afterwards a guy comes up and said he was a congressional
aide on Capitol Hill. He said, "Actually, Mike, they
were on the original FAA list. But the tobacco
companies lobbied the Bush administration to have
them removed." The tobacco companies are more important
than our safety. Or is our safety really at stake?
Is it actually a climate they need to create? From
the book 1984 we always talk about Big Brother.
But we forget the other part of the story. The Leader
needed the permanent war in order to keep the people
in a constant state of fear. And the people gave up
their freedoms and liberties because they wanted to
live. All smart right-wing leaders know this. What
better way than use September 11 to string out a war
on terrorism that Bush says will never end? I think
it is a cover and I want my questions answered.
The premiere of the film
was met with a standing ovation that lasted ten minutes.
Both there and at his press conference, Europeans treated
Moore as not just a respected filmmaker but as a "good
American." Here he is treated as an American who has "seen
the light," as if he was just rescued from a cult. An
Italian journalist praised him while asking why there
werent more Americans like him, to which he claimed,
yes, there are millions like me.
***
The audiences
at Cannes are a fickle bunch. If a film does not please
someone, he or she just walks out, usually muttering about
a waste of time, because not only did they see a film
they didnt like, but they most likely missed another
film to do so. When all the seats for a film I had planned
to see were filled, I went across the street to a screening
of Hotel, part of the Cannes market, for those
without distribution deals. This was a mistake. The movie
is from Mike Figgis, and like his previous film Timecode,
it features a group of famous actors who put together
a story and film it with video cameras. Here he continues
occasionally to use quadrants, dividing the screen into
four views of simultaneous action, some within the same
room, allowing the audience to choose where to fix their
gaze.
I have enjoyed most of
the Figgis films I have seen, particularly Leaving
Las Vegas, Internal Affairs and Timecode. Of
his films that I have not seen, Ive read that they
are criticized for being pretentious and obscure. I can
only imagine they dont hold a candle to this festival
of masturbatory dreck. Hotel is an exercise in
indulgence, made even more interesting by its cast of
celebrities who seem to be reveling in its freeform artiness
when really they should be ashamed of themselves. Salma
Hayek, Lucy Lui, Valeria Golino, Burt Reynolds, Julian
Sands, Chiara Mastroianni, Saffron Burrows, David Schwimmer,
John Malkovich (whom I like very much, but admittedly
his style and demeanor fit perfectly in this unengaging,
obscure intellectual hooey). Despite all this, the film
was almost worth sitting through just to see a goateed
David Schwimmer spewing the word "fuck" several times,
like a sitcom star who doesnt get to say it out
loud very often, and snorting like a wild boar not once
but twice.
And I havent even
mentioned the plot. Briefly: a group of actors go to Venice
to do a "Dogma" version of The Duchess of Malfi,
right there in St. Marks Square. This means they
have to deal with tourists walking around in what would
be the 15th century and not change a thing because hey,
this is dogma, and they must abide by its rules. Needless
to say, creating a period piece following the dogma rules
is not an easy task, and clearly Figgis sees the whole
dogma enterprise as a bunch of pretentious rubbish, which
would be fine if his own film didnt take the trophy
for ridiculous filmmaking. There is much talk about art
and acting, with blurry, strobed slow motion effects.
There are betrayals, shootings, lesbian sex that tops
Mulholland Drive (and shot to look suspiciously
like Madonnas Justify My Love video),
as well as hetero-sex with a comatose man. In the
first five minutes, the Malkovich character (inexplicably
having a candlelight dinner with a group of friendsseparated
from them by a jail cell, though still at the same table)
tells a story about his grandfather, who on his deathbed
seemed to think that the answer to everything could be
found in the answer to the riddle, "Whats the difference
between a duck?" Halfway through the film, more than half
the audience had left, mostly those in charge of acquiring
films for distribution companies, and those that remainedgroaning
and laughing on occasionseemed to stay out of morbid
curiosity, simply to be completely informed for later,
whence we go forth and mock. Or maybe to find out the
difference between a duck, which we never do, and should
have known we wouldnt.
 |
On the other side of the
spectrum, there is Paul Thomas Andersons latest
film, Punchdrunk Love, starring Adam Sandler and
Emily Watson. It is the opposite of Anderson's last two
films, Boogie Nights and Magnolia, both
in length and number of characters. Where those are complicated,
this is simple. "I wanted to make a romantic comedy and
particularly wanted to work with Adam and Emily. Those
were the three things. The fourth was to try and make
a 90-minute movie. To try and save everybody a little
bit of time in their day." (Sandler, with his sheepishness
was quite effusive and telling in this role.) At the entertaining
press conference, Sandler was asked if his role in Punchdrunk
Love was like Jim Carreys turn to serious roles.
Sandler said, "I never thought about a departure from
anything. I saw this kids movies and I loved them
and he wanted to work together and I was more than excited
to do it. When we first met we clicked as two guys talking.
He said, 'Lets do something youve never done
before and Ive never done before, and I said
okay." When asked why he chose Sandler, Anderson said,
"He makes me laugh. I love him. I absolutely think he
is the greatest. I love his movies, watching him. He walks
very funny, his head is kind of funny. And his ears are
a little bit funny. I havent seen him naked, but
that might be funny." After the laughter died down, Sandler
replied, "To be absolutely honest with you all, naked
is not so bad." If Punchdrunk Love is a romantic
comedy, it is the most honest one Ive seen, and
the Meg Ryan persona has no place here. This film, which
is romantic and comedic, is so much more. Yes, two people
who dont seem prepared for a relationship find one.
But Anderson doesnt shy away from the loneliness,
rage and violence that are usually reserved for characters
in other movies.
|