Showing posts with label Guinevere Turner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guinevere Turner. Show all posts

March 31, 2024

The Watermelon Woman.

Review #2194: The Watermelon Woman.

Cast: 
Cheryl Dunye (Cheryl), Guinevere Turner (Diana), Valarie Walker (Tamara), Lisa Marie Bronson (Fae "The Watermelon Woman" Richards), Cheryl Clarke (June Walker), Irene Dunye (Herself), Brian Freeman (Lee Edwards), Ira Jeffries (Shirley Hamilton), with Alexandra Juhasz (Martha Page), and appearances by Camille Paglia, David Rakoff and Sarah Schulman. Written and Directed by Cheryl Dunye.

Review: 
“I did the research, I did look in Black film history, and found nothing but homophobia and omission. I did look at queer film history, I read Vito Russo, and found no mention of race. So I hope that my film spurs these younger people to think about their identities within the context of representation in the media.”

The important thing to know is that this is a film made by someone with plenty of experience behind the camera when it comes to it being their debut feature. Born in Liberia but raised in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Cherly Dunye actually had an early interest in political theory when studying in college. She had studied at Michigan State University before realizing that her purpose wasn't in that field, going back near home to Temple University. What she saw around her (the mid-1980s, specifically citing Wilson Goode as a "Black mayor who dropped a bomb on a group of people" [May 13, 1985]) that time was the idea of using media as a tool. Her first video in that regard came with meeting a poet named Sapphire, with whom she mixed her reading of "Wild Thing" with images filmed by Dunye that served as her senior thesis. With her idea of art and politics as one that can co-exist in the same world, she soon studied (and graduated from) Rutgers University's Mason Gross School of Art before soon starting to make her own films, ones later dubbed as "Dunyementaries" that mixed fact and fiction that related to her experiences as a black lesbian filmmaker. The basis for what became this film started in 1993 when Dunye was trying to do research for Black film history when it came to women for early films, which saw a number of times where the cast members were not mentioned by name. The resulting film was one funded by a variety of sources, such as an endowment from the National Endowment for the Arts alongside fundraising. When it came time to purchasing the use of archives to use for the film, the costs were too much to use, so Dunye used a different idea in collaboration with photographer Zoe Leonard to stage several old photos, several of which were sold off at auction to help raise funds. The fake film within a film in "Plantation Memories", was directed by Douglas McKeown while he and Dunye wrote for it. She had various inspirations when it came to being a filmmaker that engaged with who she was and what she wanted to express, and it probably makes sense that the film's title is a play on Melvin Van Peebles' Watermelon Man (1970). Watermelon Woman was a fair hit on the festival circuit, one that attracted attention for a particular scene that inflamed the general person that thinks offensive stuff is getting shown (one that had funding from the NEA, so I mean whiny politicians).

For the most part, Dunye has directed on a regular basis since then, whether for television such as HBO's Stranger Inside (2001), which she collaborated with actual female inmates for the story or finding out the lack of compatibility in studio fare with My Baby's Daddy (2004), short features, or for general television dramas. What one sees for 90 minutes is a mix of old-looking footage to go with grainy videotape and just usual film to make for an experience that plays with form and how one tries to tell a story that hasn't always been told to a wider audience. The women that existed in that era as presences to see on camera in Butterfly McQueen, Hattie McDaniel and Louise Beavers are represented within what you see here in the pursuit of trying to reclaim what had been shuttered to the sidelines or forgotten completely. That footage accomplishes the goal required in allowing the viewer to look upon it as both creation and history that isn't silly facade. It just so happens to also be a movie of self-discovery in the nature of realizing what really matters when it comes to what one thinks they are. Dunye makes a compelling presence to watch discover the nature of what means the most in the web of hang-ups of fact and fiction. The scenes spent with her and Walker are just as interesting as the ones spent with her and Turner when it comes to examining the hang-ups and hypocrisies that arise with them just as much as you see around your own circle of friends.  One is basically watching three different films play out: the film in the film (fictional to us), the film of trying to document that to people who don't know who the subject was, and the film of trying to cope with the unraveling that comes in finding who they are in the lesbian space and as a filmmaker (one scene that comes and go on is when she is trying to look at something in the street with her camera and is accosted by cops that think she was a guy mugger, consider how the scene just ends). The doors that open up are as interesting as they are complicated. There are a few moments spent interviewing actual figures of culture (gay or otherwise), whether that is Camille Paglia expounding about film theory and arguing about the "mammy role" or Sarah Schulman playing an archivist with particularly touchiness to letting people actually take photos of archival footage left in a box that make for humor when it comes to perceived allies. As a film that yearns to tell its own type of story for representation that doesn't slam itself in the muck of overindulgence while having plenty of imagination to let the audience explore for themselves what is important in the realm of history and storytelling, this is a pretty good effort to get the match rolling for others to follow in Dunye's footsteps.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

March 11, 2023

American Psycho.

Review #1984: American Psycho.

Cast
Christian Bale (Patrick Bateman), Justin Theroux (Timothy Bryce), Josh Lucas (Craig McDermott), Bill Sage (David Van Patten), Chloë Sevigny (Jean), Reese Witherspoon (Evelyn Williams), Samantha Mathis (Courtney Rawlinson), Matt Ross (Luis Carruthers), Jared Leto (Paul Allen), Willem Dafoe (Donald Kimball), Cara Seymour (Christie), and Guinevere Turner (Elizabeth) Directed by Mary Harron.

Review
"What occurred to me is that just enough time had passed to make a period film about the ’80s, and say things about the ’80s, and bring out the satire. And that was interesting to me."

As a director, Mary Harron has aimed to make above all else movies with meaningful things to say beyond just the label of feminism. Born in Bracebridge, Ontario in Canada to an actor/comedian in Don Harron, although the divorce and re-marriage in her family led to her living between Toronto and Los Angeles and later England. Her parents liked to take her to films they wanted to see that were generally art films (i.e. not exactly suitable for children), with her early large influences being Alfred Hitchcock. Later studies at places such as the National Film Theatre and she studied English at St. Anne's College, Oxford University before moving to the States in New York to become a journalist. She wrote and created a magazine for what became the punk scene in the city before later becoming a drama critic in later years. In the 1990s, her interest in the life of Valerie Solanas spurred her into wanting to do a documentary (since she was working as a producer on a program dedicated to American pop culture at the time). In turn, this idea was suggested to become a film, which resulted in the 1996 film I Shot Andy Warhol. In total, Harron has directed seven films in over two decades, with the most recent being Dalíland (2022). The movie is based on the 1991 novel of the same name by Bret Easton Ellis. The original book generated controversy because of its portrayal of violence toward women (as a whole the book is far more visceral in its descriptions by its unreliable narrator in Patrick Bateman of murder along with emotional psychotic breakdowns). Ellis has described the main character of Bateman as being "crazy the same way I was", although he has only admitted this in recent years (he initially stated during the release of the novel that his father was the inspiration while also later calling the book "a criticism of male values that were around me", one that he found easy to observe as a gay man). Ellis had called the book "unfilmable", but Edward R. Pressman bought the rights to film the book in 1992 and persisted for eight years. Numerous names were considered to direct such as Stuart Gordon and David Cronenberg (with Ellis even writing a draft), but Harron accepted an offer to do the film in 1996 under the condition that she could write her own draft. She brought Guinevere Turner on to help write the script while also trying to find the right Bateman (for her part, Turner found the book horrifying alongside really funny while also believing the right spin could make for a "really subversive, feminist movie"). By 1998, Harron thought she found her ideal actor with Christian Bale (at the time mostly known for Empire of the Sun (1987), when he was 13), because she felt he was the only who understood the role as being (in their words) "an alien who landed in the unabashedly capitalist New York of the '80s" when he found the script quite amusing. However, Lions Gate Films tried for a time to recruit Leonardo DiCaprio to star in the film (which Harron vehemently disagreed with), complete with Oliver Stone taking over as director. Thankfully, disagreements between the two led to the return of Harron and Bale, albeit with a small budget of roughly $7 million.

The movie was indeed a modest success at the time of its release in 2000, albeit with a polarized response by some due to the level of violence. Actually, looking back, it is almost as amusing to consider the perception of the film back then as it is to actually look at the film now and share a laugh as the effective satire it ultimately is. It is the work of somebody who may or may not be guilty of murder slipping by in a world focused entirely on lifestyle above all that examines misogyny and masculinity with an awareness and timing that is brilliant to sift through for 100 minutes. Undeniably, the movie is all on Bale and his performance. His method of performance involves plenty of rhythm to go with clarity and control that brings out plenty in isolation and alienation beyond the winning smile shown in a man that in his words is "simply not there". He has the outward charm of someone like Tom Cruise (intentionally done) that is both unsettling and captivating, one who seems to sell every scene he is in (present in all but one) as one of numerous people that we see within the mask they seem to wear (why else does the axe sequence seem to linger on half of his face covered in blood) It is evident that his method preparation paid off for an effective performance that is the perfect act of a warped man in a warped time that shows the vanity of man through people who are never seen working in any scene. The others can only help but drift in the ideal manner when wrapped in the gloss of the 1980s, such as the restaurant trio of Theroux, Lucas, and Sage, or with Witherspoon and her confidence that goes like oil on water when paired against Bale. Sevigny is probably the most sane person in the general web of things, at least because she is in it slightly more than Dafoe and his blend of investigative query/baiting. There are a handful of interesting moments to note (at least ones that have not become Internet memes), ones that show Bale gliding through his environment in the most entertaining of alienated ways, such as him casually admitting his crimes in conversation or him doing a strut right before the axe death with "Hip to be Square" playing.

Ellis described the book as one that he didn't think needed to be turned into a film, since he felt that the ambiguity of the novel would be turned into something "infinitely less interesting" with a medium of film that seemingly demands answers (incidentally, the book later inspired a 2013 musical). The novel leaves it to one's interpretation about what was real and not real, while Turner and Harron's script was intended to show a real effort to have things be real for the main character but at some point "sort of perceiving things differently, but they're really happening." The ending is deliberately meant to confound one over just what really happened (personally, I assume a chunk really happened because watching a movie about murders being shown only to be told they aren't real is dumb as hell). Ellis has been quoted numerous times as to finding the film either as "fine" without being entirely necessary or as one that is "in some ways a complicated movie for me. But overall I like it." As a whole, American Psycho is a worthwhile use of your time for those who are interested in seeing a film that belongs to more than one genre and thus is not instantly easy to peg in one assumption. It is a lean and mean satire with elements of horror that will sift in your head and not escape any time soon after it is finished, which makes for a pretty good time. It is the kind of really good film that may even grow on you further, which probably says a good deal about how far the film's stature has grown in two decades.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Beau Travail.