Is It Just Me Or Has Sherlock Lost It's Flair?

Sherlock awkward at weddings? Well that's an obvious 'duh'.

Sherlock used to be the most exciting show that damn near ever aired on this or any side of the pond. It made Benedict Cumberbatch a household name, as difficult as that name was to pronounce and launched a revolution in people picking up books again (and no 'The Hunger Games', and 'The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo' don't count) I mean real books by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle who created a character that seemingly lives forever. But now, after it's third season finished, I've noticed that there's a lot different and not in the good way. Cast is still there and all, but it's no longer the Sherlock Holmes show...it's turned into some ubiquitous Dr. John Watson love-special with crime happening in the background and far too many camera tricks to compensate for lack of content. 

Paul McGuigan, the visionary behind re-appropriating Sherlock for a modern audience in a modern setting.

The two genius creators and Sherlock uber-dorks Mark Gatiss (who doubles as Sherlock's brother Mycroft on the show) and Steven Moffat still serve as writers, but now they have copycat directors all trying to be the creative genius that is Paul McGuigan who directed 4 out of 6 episodes of the first two seasons. The four best ones I might add. There was a magic to Paul. He understood that 'appropriation' doesn't have to be a bastardization...a lesson Baz Lhurmann has yet to learn and re-envisioned the cannon of Sherlock Holmes that absolutely worked for a modern audience. Under his direction, the show, as different in aesthetic as it was to the original matertial maintained a level of integrity particularly within the obtuse and superhuman character of Sherlock Holmes.

John Watson's wedding...you know, who cares? It might as well have been something spoken about between the two protagonists in the past tense to save time.

The first episode of the third season was...not bad. It was basically back tracking to the cliffhanger of the last episode of season 2 where Sherlock 'dies' but we all know he doesn't and had to sit twiddling our thumbs for a fucking year and a half waiting for them to finally explain how the FUCK he managed to trick every motherfucker on the planet...including John Watson I might add. So that was fun to watch, a string of reveals, all of them seemingly plausible at first, but then we realize how, I'm not going to give it away but obviously we know Sherlock couldn't die because they had announced the renewal of the show for two more seasons even before that episode aired, and quite honestly it wasn't that important. But from that episode I already knew, they had switched protagonists. And don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with John Watson, he's a cool dude, a bit of an uptight white guy type, but not nearly as interesting, funny, witty, sexy, etc. as Sherlock Holmes, and to be fair, the show as well as the Arthur Conan Doyle cannon are named after him, and don't even include Watson's name in the title. 

Another character that has really stepped into her own this season is Molly Hooper (Louise Brealey) She's really becoming the Peggy to Sherlock's Don Draper. She's been much more involved and more influential in his life and that's actually paid off.

The second episode is of course also based on one of the original stories, but Gatiss and Moffat already exhausted the 'Big 3' (The Woman, the Dog, and the Professor) in the second season, so all that's left is scraps, and what they lack in content they have to improvise in irrelevant stories like John Watson's marriage to Mary...and by that point it's like...whatever. Detective Inspector LeStrade (Rupert Graves) gets an 'emergency text' from Sherlock and what he finds out is that Sherlock is perturbed on how to write a best man speech for the wedding...really? That's all well and good for light comedy, but the wedding itself takes up more than half the episode. 

Here's to Season 3 not sucking as much as it appears to be.

The rest is the actual investigation, which is also a bit dull to say the least. I was not impressed. And granted, I haven't yet seen the third and final episode in the series but all in all I'm not to excited about it. I keep turning it on before I hit the hay and end up falling asleep. I have never fallen asleep on a Sherlock episode, not ever, doesn't matter if I just put in the hardest day of my life, it's usually that engrossing. So perhaps I'm going a bit hard on this series as it is now. Because I expect more from it. To me, it's been the best show not only of its genre, but of anything we've seen in a long time. It was big news when it was announced that McGuigan would not return to direct Season 3, and it shows. Maybe they can redeem themselves with season 4, but we'll have to wait a while to see about that. I really hope they rehire McGuigan and pump life into something that's seemingly dead in the water as it were.

Sexiest Dances on Film (In no Particular Order, But Baby's in the Corner)

Here come the ladies ’bout to give a little show...

- Down in Mexico (Death Proof dir. Quentin Tarantino)

- Show Me How You Burlesque (Burlesque dir. Steven Antin)

- America (West Side Story dir. Robert Wise, Jerome Robbins) 

- Mein Herr (Cabaret dir. Bob Fosse)

- Broadway Melody Segment (Singin' in the Rain dir. Stanley Donen, Gene Kelly)

- Higher Ground (Center Stage dir. Nicholas Hytner)

- Red Light Audition (Fame dir. Alan Parker)

- El Tango de Roxanne (Moulin Rouge! dir. Baz Luhrmann)

- Saraghina's Dance (8 1/2 dir. Federico Fellini)

- Airotica (All That Jazz dir. Bob Fosse)

- Britney Spears' Everytime (Spring Breakers dir. Harmony Korine)

- Tango Scene (Scent of a Woman dir. Martin Brest)

- The Beggar's Waltz (The Band Wagon dir. Vincent Minnelli)

-Big Spender (Sweet Charity dir. Bob Fosse)

I Finally Watched 30 Minutes of Gatsby and That Was Enough For Me

A view from above. One of Baz's (excuse me but actually, it's one of Busby Berkeley signature shots that he invented back in the 30's that Baz ripped off, but you know...) Don't choke on all that glitter.

Baz Luhrmann bless him, seems to believe that we as humans sitting in a darkened theater are so dulled and thick that they need to be assaulted by colors, music, and camera tricks to create such a high level of visual stimulus so that nothing competes. But what he seems to misunderstand is that when there's already an important, nay...iconic story, already articulated, which every movie-goer has by this time read or has had to read or are at least aware of you have to tread lightly and respect the original material. We get all of the parallels, symbolism, and themes attached to the story of Jay Gatsby even if we haven't read F. Scott Fitzgerald's American opus published back in the 20's about the disillusionment of a culture built on fame, money, and decadence, set in the sparkly aura of The Jazz Age.

Not for a minute did I believe this love story. Those two couldn't have had less chemistry if they were first cousins.

Luhrmann probably latched on to certain words and phrases in that first act, like 'decadence' 'collosal vitality' and 'so we beat on' and put them to literal translation. And, compared to his other work, it's like everything else. A lot of show, and a lot of melodrama, but no real performances, and all of the character arcs have to be shoved into our faces as if we don't get what exactly it is each character is going through. Everything serious and violent has to be done in slow motion, and everything glamorous and uplifting has to look like it was just found in David Bowie's closet and shot through a Sepia filter. It's like, step away from the computer, and read the book another time. But, I'm quite honestly not hating on Luhrmann, I think he's really trying but he's tragically misguided. It's like giving a 3 year old a camera, they don't know what the fuck it is or what to do with it. I think he desperately wants to be camp or even cult, but takes himself too seriously to ever achieve that. He's nowhere near as brilliant as someone like Paul Verhoeven who could adapt Gatsby for half this budget and do a better job. So Baz is floating somewhere in between the John Waters/Todd Haynes/Andy Warhol territory and the Ridley Scott/Michael Bay/James Cameron territory...trying to find his own voice and style, but it's just not one that fits into any kind of spectrum or genre, it's (just like his films) a big ol' mess.

Baz is like the George Lucas of his genre when it comes to actors, where he can take intense complex actors and just make them give the most boring two-dimensional performances of their careers.

The only person that I think gives any kind of performance (and you'll probably kill me for this) is actually Jay Gatsby himself; Leonardo DiCaprio. Though every time he said 'old sport' I cringed because he just couldn't get that to sound natural. He looked the part, he played the part, and he is the artifice through which we see the beginning, middle, and end of a golden age. And he plays all of those movements very well. I'll give him that...or rather to the best of his abilities. It's very hard for a performer like Leo to drown in abysmal material.

A still from Moulin Rouge, with the actors' wardrobe photoshopped so it would be appropriated for the right era.

But in the end, we don't watch Baz Luhrmann's films for the performances lets be honest we watch them so our heads will twirl around until our eyes bulg from their sockets and steam comes out our ears like an old Looney Tunes cartoon. Unfortunately Baz in all of his aesthetic genius couldn't grasp that there is an ironic edge to Gatsby, it's actually not about the glitz and glamour, it's about the tragedy of how putrid and unreal all of that is and the awakening to that; it's the death of a dream not the birth of it. The disillusionment of Neverland and acceptance and acquiessance to banal and bland 'real world' life. Sorry if that ruined Gatsby for you, but you should have fucking read it by now. PS. It is such a fucking cop-out to adapt a book with first person narration into a film with first-person narration, like seriously? We need the book read to us by the main character? That's why we...read the book. I want my 13 dollars back.

Subtitle: 'Ok, it's the 20's but pretend like you're at an LA nightclub in the now. Get her a vodka redbull'

Baz saves the last like 2 minutes to kinda pepper in some tragedy but it's conveyed through a teary-eyed, whiny Tobey Maguire trying his best to emote near a green screen, and feels reminiscent of like a child losing his favorite toy more than disillusionment of an entire era, as usual, it's pretty futile and devoid of any substance. And isn't that the ever-present problem with Baz? That he makes films that are all style and no substance? Give me an example to counter that I defy you.  First he had to ruin Shakespeare for all of us, and now he's taken on bringing down Fitzgerald. Who's next Baz? I'd love to see your adaptation of 'Naked Lunch', I just hope the ghost of Burroughs stabs you in the eye. For some reason I have a feeling he's been itching like hell to re-do 'Breakfast at Tiffany's'. Can't wait to hear his bastardized version of Moon River. But for now, let's all sit quietly and wait for his new Kung-Fu epic. Heads are going to roll.

Trailer below (whirlwind of mehhhhhh)

Golden Palmes and Perverts (Cannes 2013)

Last year I wrote about Cannes, I called it Who Will Win the Palme d'Fuck at Cannes this Year? And I thought the prize would be between two of the most non-sexy films in competition that year, Cosmopolis (2012) and On the Road (2012) both featuring Twilight darlings; Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart. Let’s do this again shall we? With more insight, but aside from the actual awards that mean something, to the French anyway, let’s talk about who’s got the sexiest film at the sexiest film festival this side of an unapologetically obsessed-with-sex country.

Still from Inside Llewyn Davis (2013)

Now listen because I’m only going to say this once; BAZ LUHRMANN DOES NOT MAKE SEXY FILMS. For the love of god, if anyone made anything more unsexy he would have cast real life cousins in it. For all of the smoke and mirrors he employs to try to tell stories of love and yearning, lust and tits, I feel nothing below the waste watching his glitzy shitshows. And The Great Gatsby is already feeling like the biggest bastardization of F. Scott Fitzgerald, but above all completely unsexy and unsatisfying. Like that one bad one-night-stand that your friends still don’t let you get over. 

Promo still from Gatsby (vulgar, NOT sexy)

Although I’m excited for films like Soderbergh’s Behind the Candelabra (2013), Alexander Payne’s Nebraska (2013) and Polanski’s LA VÉNUS À LA FOURRURE (2013), I think the two films that will battle it out are going to be sensualist extraordinaire François Ozon’s Jeune et Jolie (2013), and Ethan and Joel Coen’s ode to folk music; Inside Llewyn Davis (2013) starring foreign hotter-than-hot tall, dark, and handsome man slice of heaven Oscar Isaac, co-starring perhaps the most interesting bright young things right now; Justin Timberlake, Garrett Hedlund, and Carey Mulligan. The film also looks pretty dang interesting and wildly sexual considering it takes place during the Beat era where basically anything goes. 

Ozon. Handsome to boot.

But I’m going to give the edge to Ozon.  Not only because he’s a personal favorite of mine, but his films are so incredibly sensual, so detailed in their steaminess, it’s hard to beat when we’re thinking about contemporary sex culture. Also, he’s fucking French. So basically, there ya go.

Still from Juene et Jolie (2013)

 I feel like I’m watching the best high-class porn every time I turn on an Ozon film, because he understands very importantly I might add, that what is NOT SHOWN is more enticing than WHAT IS. This is what make his films such a hallmark of sexuality in cinema, so I’m going to say that though Juene at Jolie (2013) probably won’t win the Palme d’Or, It wins the Palme d’Fuck in my book.

Trailer for Inside Llewyn Davis (2013)

French teaser for Juene et Jolie (2013) 

Trailer for another new Ozon film In the House (2013)

The Great Gatsby Now in 3D and Sensory Overload

Normally I don't do two blog posts in the same day, but since I'm having a pretty stressful one, and since I'm all out of klonopin, as you know, I sometimes blog out of frustration, which is exactly why I blog so frequently.

Anywho, the highly anticipated trailer for professional Australian Baz Luhrmann's shit show The Great Gatsby in 3D got rammed up our asses today, and I just don't know what to make of it.

So let's do a close analysis of the trailer shall we? Because with every Baz Luhrmann film, the trailer is far superior to the film.

First thing's first, we all know Leo DiCaprio is like 20 years too old to play Jay Gatsby, and just like in Moulin Rouge! (2001). They took massive creative liberties in the make-up and costume department, I mean Carey Mulligan looks like a two cent hooker on 42nd street in the 80's. But Baz was always an aesthetic nightmare. I definitely feel the need to smoke copious amounts of meth in order to appreciate one of his films before I pay the price of admission. 

Also, the music. I mean seriously? You have to be anachronistic in everything? Watch the Throne? Oh that's totally appropriate and I get why. Because this is a re-invisioning of the quintessential Jazz Age story for the 21st century, like you don't 're-invision for modern times' in every single film you've ever done. But whatever it's not like it's passe or anything, she wrote with heavy sarcasm. If you really want me to be wowed then give Kanye West and Jay-Z cameos in Gatsby, that would be pretty freakin' awesome.

Now let's just get to it, this is how it should be recast. Mulligan can stay, she looks like a slightly better Mia Farrow when she was that age, so fine. Gatsby is a Gosling role bar none. I mean really. You never considered that? Armie Hammer, there's a better suggestion too. And while we're on The Social Network bandwagon, anything Tobey Maguire can do, Andrew Garfield can do better. I think The Amazing Spiderman (2012) will prove that in due time. Anyway, here's the balls to the wall trailer. I'm not too blown away by it. Also, the title is missing some obsequious punctuation. Like '+' for Romeo + Juliet (1996) or an unnecessary exclamation point like in Moulin Rouge! (2001) (which is apparently meant to be yelled when mentioned verbally), so how about The Great Gatsby ;) It's just asinine enough to work. 

Here's the trailer.