The Immigrant Bores...Weinstein Company was Right

Marion Cotillard as the down-on-her-luck immigrant in limbo, Eva.

Never thought I'd utter those words. Harvey Weinstein still strikes fear in the heart of everyone who's ever worked in Hollywood, or fucking heard of the movies. But here's the thing. With Jeremy Renner's new film Kill the Messenger (2014) coming out, he's been talking into a lot of microphones about how the release of his previous film; The Immigrant was 'frustrating' because the Weinstein company kept it on the down low, despite it making the rounds at Cannes, and other reputable film festivals with critics actually comparing it to the work of Elia Kazan...was it though?

The three principles all have new movies, big ones, slated to be released this year. Marion Cotillard has the gritty emotional drama Two Days, One Night (2014) which had its US Premiere at the New York Film Festival about a woman who is at risk of being fired from her job if her co-workers unanimously decide on a raise, the ever-confusing but undeniably talented Joaquin Phoenix has the long-awaited and highly-anticipated Paul Thomas Anderson epic Inherent Vice (2014) based on the incendiary Thomas Pynchon novel, while Renner has the aforementioned Kill the Messenger (2014) which looks halfway decent and is marketed as Renner's best performance since The Hurt Locker (2010) ...we'll see. 

Jeremy Renner as Orlando the Magician who steals Eva's heart and does a lot of Houdini-esue illusions. Really reminds me of a Turn-of-the-Century GOB Bluth...magic DOES exist!

I just hope that The Immigrant was a misnomer in all of their careers because it was more dull than paint drying. It had a very interesting premise; a young Polish woman who's sister gets stuck on Ellis Island during the Great Migration at the turn of the century so she turns to a life of prostitution on Manhattan's Lower East Side in order to raise money to have her sister released so they could start a new life in the land of the free. Joaquin plays her pimp/father figure/predatory but lovable mentor and Renner plays his cousin who's a low-level magician with a kind heart and a boner for Eva (Cotillard). 

For actors of this caliber, all of which have been nominated for Academy Awards, (Cotillard won for La Vie en Rose) I was not expecting such subdued, banal performances. It's as if the Absinthe the characters drink throughout the film was real and they were always 10 feet under water. 

A lot of this film is two talking heads being stressed about things and talking about money. We get it. Maybe throw us some existential crisis about the irony of the American dream...or is that too advanced?

With a low budget as this film had, there is opportunity to make it dreamlike, surreal, and whimsical, but what we have a case of here is more on production design not enough on performance and story. The story is highly predictable, and rather pathetic. Poor Marion who has always played strong women who have had to overcome unsurmountable odds totally fails in her weepy, pity party performance. And Joaquin can barely talk. Maybe he was trying to channel Brando, but literally, I had to watch this with subtitles. Renner actually gives the most heartfelt performance there is but that's really really not saying much. I totally understand why the Weinstein Company's decision to give this understated watered-down version of Kazan's America, America (1963) a limited release because they didn't want to deal with the inevitable drop in returns because it is a snoozefest, despite having really excellent material to work with. It's now streaming on Netflix Instant, and people involved should be thankful for that. Watch it if you must. If you have to take a nap half way through, that's totally understandable. Trailer below:

Sleeping Beauty; A Real Snoozefest

Classy whoredom.

I finally watched the Jane Campion produced Sleeping Beauty (2011) by first time director Julia Leigh and it was rather interesting if it wasn't so goddamn boring. I've been following this film for a while because it seemed bizarre, sexual, and Jane Campion had something to do with it, but it's the same old whore story, with a really sick twist. With that indie-film flare where people spend a lot of their time just walking without anything playing in the background, just to provide 'exposition' or as i like to call it 'time filler', Sleeping Beauty began to scare me after the first few scenes, kind of like the what the hell did I just get myself into scare. And yeah it turned out to be like Eyes Wide Shut (1999) on Xanax.
Lucy (Emily Browning) is a struggling student who supplements her income by being a guinea pig for a medical school and performing messy blow jobs for drunk Aussies in putrid upscale bars. One day she answers an ad in whatever Australia's version of The Pennysaver is (highly likely) for a strange kind of prostitution gig. It's of course very classy and the meticulously to match the insatiable appetite of their older and wealthy (probably) old money perverted clientele. There are weird dinner parties where all the men enjoy wine being poured to them by girls in bondage lengerie; just basically everything I once hoped and dreamed for myself, just kidding...or am I?

Lucy gets inspected for scars and moles. Yeah, I'd be annoyed too.

But what Lucy's particularly good at is sleeping. Let me explain. She drinks a special concoction that her pimp, a very classy older woman with a ridiculous Jean Paul-Gaultier in the 80's wardrobe and hairdo makes for her which I assume has a serious amount of tranquilizer in it, and that knocks her out. Then the Kubrick influence is prevalent again because we always cut to her in a room that I swear was designed after the dying room of Dr. David Bowman in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1969). She's lying there motionless in a dreamless sleep (hopefully) As an older naked man is able to do what ever he wants with her, except no penetration. One time an angry bastard puts his cigarette out in her ear, but you know, she's a whore so kind of goes with the territory, this happens for about 40 minutes of the film repeating itself and I'm praying I fall asleep myself and a young hot gentleman comes over and does stuff to me, instead of these old hairy somewhat aggressive and somewhat Uncle Fester meets Albert Brooks kind of men, but anyway I finally finished watching and there is a twist at the end, which almost makes this movie bearable but not really.

Cuddling but no fucking. It's a golden rule.

 It's a poor Freshman effort and you're better off skipping it. It's like an Ozon movie gone wrong. If it was directed by a Frenchie it probably would have been eons better. Now if you'll excuse me I have to watch something else that has been staring at me in my queue for ages; Whore's Glory (2012), wish me luck. 

Trailer below

Harmony Korine vs. Sofia Copolla

Emma Watson stars as the 'ring leader' in The Bling Ring (2013)

With Spring Breakers (2013) on top of the box office charts in its first week of release, and The Bling Ring (2013) slated to be Sofia Copolla's most interesting film yet in a sea of non-interesting bullshit fluff, one has to compare the two considering the subject matters are extremely similar thematically. 

Both concern bright young things with 'a talent for living' who are not shall we say well-off but not necessarily starving either and go on crime sprees if for no better reason than that they're bored. 

In Spring Breakers, the motivation is to find sufficient funds to keep the beer flowing and the bikinis off for an endless spring break that leads to violence and murder, while in The Bling Ring, a bunch of spoiled brats from Beverly Hills decide to rob other rich peoples homes if for nothing more than attention, which they got. They even made a show about it which aired on E! called 'Pretty Wild'. Needless to say, it didn't do so well. 

Beautiful still from Spring Breakers (2013)

The motivation of crime for crime's sake stretches way back to the times of the infamous Leopold and Loeb case where two rich lovers decided to kill a young boy believing themselves to be personifications of the Nietzscheian 'Superman', killers without consequence, those who do the crime without ever considering of doing the time, just to see if they could get away with it, and more often than not, they can't. 

In both films the characters are hipstery brats that have nothing better to do with time, and we love to hate their careless abandon but also embrace it as we live vicariously through them for a little under 2 hours. 

The members of the so-called Bling Ring and co-starring skinny jeans.

Both of these themes run parallel in the stories of both films, so the question becomes who will be the more outrageous. Clearly, my money's on Korine. I love the man, and if you've ever watched any of his films he's one step away from pure Vincent Gallo-esque outrageousnous.

Sofia on the other hand, has always been close but no cigar. Her films almost have a point, and then they don't. It's just about sad and lonely people in a world that doesn't understand them and....snore. 

But I have to give her at least some credit, after watching the trailer for The Bling Ring, I was almost impressed. The Sleigh Bells playing in the background was also helpful, and it looks rather accurate if it's actually based on the facts which her prior film Marie Antoinette (2005) was certainly not. 

Haromony Korine, one of our generation's greatest auteurs.

Therefore we have to think of these films as a series in the portfolio of auteurs, and for Korine, this definitely fits in with his repertoire. Drugs, sex, violence, and everything bizarre have always been the corner stone of his content, and what he's able to do with it so brashly and apologetically is nothing short of art. If The Bling Ring (2013) is to be taken seriously, and looks like it's going to be, it's going to have some serious shoes to fill. The film needs to be sardonic, contemptible, fanatical, and tawdry, all in the best way imaginable. It needs to be filthy like Korine, or it will be just as forgettable as all her other endeavors, so I guess Sofia, I wish you luck. You'll need it.

Official trailer for The Bling Ring (2013)

Official trailer for Spring Breakers (2013)

An excerpt from 'Pretty Wild' the show about the girls who started the bling ring, featuring ring leader Alexis Neiers.

All the Ladies Love Corcoran: Copper Premieres on BBC America Finally.

There's a lot of sex on this show. It's as simple as that.

BBC America has always had to compete with The States in terms of risque programming. Let's face it, next to shows like Mad Men (2007 - ), Hung (2009 - 2011), Queer as Folk (2000 - 2005), and reality fluff like Strange Sex and Jersey Shore, The BBC might as well be filmed in a convent. But they hit a home run last night with a Hell on Wheels type show about the reformation period in the United States called Copper (2012 - ). Cast with mostly unknowns...and Franka Potente from The Bourne Films and Run Lola Run (1999) fame, this is quite a gritty period drama. Most of it takes place in a brothel, so that should give you some sense of what goes down, no pun intended. A tough-as-nails reformed cop with a heart of gold who is brought from Ireland to keep peace in the Five Points struggles to maintain his integrity while having lots and lots of period corset sex with his madame girlfriend. 

I had no idea prostitutes had showers in their brothels back in the 1860's.

Also, I just have to add, I love how prostitutes from the 1800's are always portrayed as cleaner than say a contemporary prostitute...ok that sounded wrong; modern-day prostitute. Contemporary prostitute sounds like part of a master's thesis, moving on! 

But seriously, I'm sure they didn't have quite as many teeth as Franka Potente, and she still somehow manages to look like she just came straight to set from a Beverly Hills spa, ready to whore it up with the tortured, filthy, but sexy as balls Irishman. Yeah where's that set, sign me up, I'll bring the coffee, I'll gofur, I don't care. 

Corcoran's weapon of choice.

It looks like BBC America has finally started to catch up sex-wise and riding that psychotic horse to its burning stable (bad analogy, I know) but I was thinking 'burning loins' and that's where that came from. Again, off track. 

In the pilot we learn, that Copper (a.k.a Kevin Corcoran) played by super-super-super hot actor Tom Weston-Jones (who? I know, I don't know either) has a past. He's in the big apple (not sure they called it that in 1860 but whateves) searching for the man who killed his wife and daughter, or something like that, I was REALLY distracted by all the sex. Therefore, he's got this soft spot, you know, when a little girl gets brutally murdered and her corpse defiled...yes that kind of thing is on the show too. I realized I might not be selling this all that well any more, but I will say this, it's aesthetically pleasing and has plenty of potential, and it's only been one episode. So if BBC America is on your cable box, then perhaps you can start getting your jollies from a channel other than AMC. Hope you like it!

Below, the promo.

My Favorite Whores. Adding to Musto's List

In light of Michael Musto's blog post on September 1st for The Voice titled 'The Best Screen Hookers' which you can read here: 

The Best Screen Hookers in Cinema History
I'd like to add some that I think also deserve a place in fabulous cinematic sluthood.
Here's my list.

Constance Towers as Kelly in The Naked Kiss (Sam Fuller, 1964)

Elizabeth Berkeley as Nomi Malone in Showgirls (Paul Verhoeven, 1995)

Jennifer Jason-Leigh as Tralala in Last Exit to Brooklyn (Uli Edel, 1989)

Greta Garbo as Mata Hari in Mata Hari (George Fitzmaurice, 1931) 

Elizabeth Shue as Sera in Leaving Las Vegas (Mike Figgis, 1995) 

Ona Munson as Belle Watling in Gone With The Wind (Victor Fleming, 1939) 

Eartha Kitt as Anna Lucasta in Anna Lucasta (Arnold Laven, 1958)

Sasha Grey as Chelsea in The Girlfriend Experience (Stephen Soderbergh, 2007)

Kim Basinger as Lynne Bracken in L.A. Confidential (Curtis Hanson, 1997)

Eddra Gale as La Saraghina in 8 1/2 (Federico Fellini, 1963) 

Gena Rowlands as Jeannie Rapp in Faces (John Cassavetes, 1968)

Chicago vs. Moulin Rouge! No Sex in the Whorehouse

The choreography of Chicago is both suggestive and playful, adding the element of deviance that the plot requires. 

Musicals can be arguably considered a lost art in this day and age. When Rob Marshall was starting pre-production on Chicago (2002), he said that he felt it fundamentally problematic to convince a contemporary audience that people naturally and randomly break into song, hence why all of the musical numbers of that film take place in Roxie Hart's (Renee Zellweger) mind. The other big musical event of that year (well of the earlier year but close enough) was Moulin Rouge! (2001) (and yes there's an unnecessary exclamation point in that title). But back to the matter at hand. Considering these two films were made so close together, and were both a resurgence of cinematic musical culture, not to mention both nominated for a butt load of Academy Awards including Best Picture; Chicago won, Moulin Rouge! didn't, comparing them over a box of chardonnay became everyone's favorite conversation. Just as there are Elvis people and Beatles people, there are Chicago people and Moulin Rouge! people. In my opinion, people weren't taking sides considering the theatricality and quality of the musical numbers, but of the racy aspects of both. One involves a whorehouse, the other a sexy, sexy prison and very revealing underclothes. Deviant women is the content of both. And I think it's beyond who's hotter Catherine Zeta-Jones or Nicole Kidman (in my opinion, its not a question...Caty). But who was better at portraying a vagrant and unapologetic vixen. That is really the best way to measure the deviant quality in either film. 

Nicole Kidman is doing what she does best; playing the ice queen. Even if she ends up falling in love with a poor poet and sacrificing everything for him, you always feel that if you touched her she would crack like very fine porcelain. Considering this, it's difficult to see her in a sexual context. You can dress her up like a turn of the century fancy whore all you want, she's still going to seem like the bitchy older sister. 

reminiscent of a doll I used to own

On the other hand, Renee isn't that great as a seductress either. She's so emaciated that she is too androgynous to be considering a bona fide seductress. She has man-shoulders, and no rack to speak of, and her squish face is a little too overdone in the film. If you look closely, you'll notice that you can't really see her eyes underneath all of that heavy makeup; it's like someone drew two horizontal lines on either side of her nose with a thick sharpie. 

Caty-Z is undeniably the sex pot of Chicago (this is not counting Queen Latifah who is a pretty feisty firecracker herself). She's got a 'real' body, and her costumes are perfectly fitted as if they were directly sewn unto her. She has the dark eyes, cute 1920's bob haircut, supple lips, full boobs, the works. She's a one woman show, and she manages to give sex without smut, while Kidman can't even match the former. 

Also, let's take a look at the setting. I'm sorry but the Moulin Rouge seems like the least appealing whorehouse imaginable. The working girls are all either too thin or too old, and just nasty. It's the bad kind of smut where you would be thinking; 'well I'm horny, but i'd rather go home and jerk it by candle light.' 

As you're watching Chicago, first you're infuriated at how inaccurate the costumes are for the period (then again the same can be said for Moulin Rouge!), but then you're thinking, I should commit a crime so that I can go to prison and these amazing seductresses can dance around me every night...with scarves. 

Basically the premise is almost identical, and very Mulveyian. It is the story of women who are unapologetic for their 'deviant' behavior. Because of this, they are forced to suffer and in the end find some kind of redemption. And then there's glitter, fishnet stockings, elephant trunks, and acrobats...and of course musical numbers. 

Let's in the end judge both by this element. They are musicals after all, and in that genre, the plot is not particularly relevant. Because of this, I'll cast my vote proudly for Chicago. Rob Marshall is a seasoned choreographer and does brilliant execution. He made a stage play work for cinematic language and that is the key to a good musical. He reinvents categorically theater concepts so that they function by cinematic principles. Baz Luhrmann does what he does best; peppers in as much quirky and stylized visuals as possible so that the viewer is distracted by the complete lack of plot and density of the characters. Moulin Rouge! definitely does not work as a musical, quite honestly I'm not sure what to call it. It would make for an amusing music video but that's about it. And as for deviance, let's just say that it's completely ironic how a movie about a whorehouse can be so incredibly non-sexual and more or less just bland.