LOLA - Home
For Hicksflicks.com, Friday, Sept. 20, 2019
EDITOR’S NOTE: Over my 40 years of writing about movies for the Deseret News, the subject most often addressed was Hollywood’s penchant for excess. This ‘Hicks on Flicks’ column doesn’t really feel dated so I’ve illustrated it with posters of current flicks, but it was actually published on Oct. 27, 1996, under the headline, ‘Film excesses often detract instead of enhance.’
Hicks on Flicks – Oct. 27, 1996.
OK, it’s true — I’m always complaining about Hollywood being far afield from the average moviegoer in terms of sensitivity. All the swearing, sex, vulgarity and violence we see in movies — and, for that matter, on television — these days has escalated to a ludicrous degree that is nowhere near reality for most of us.
Of course, movies aren’t real. And maybe that’s what Hollywood fails to grasp. Ask filmmakers why they so often go over the top in terms of offensive content and they will say it’s because they feel compelled to reflect modern society. Yeah, right.
Here are some of the arguments I’ve heard from producers and directors over the years:
Children hear cuss words in the schoolyard every day so to make entertainment that kids can identify with movies must have a certain amount of profanity.
Morality isn’t what it used to be and teenagers are clued into sexuality much more than we were at their age, so casual sex — and cavalier discussions of sex — are necessary.
Violence is a part of our everyday lives. Even if we don’t personally experience a violent act, most of us will in some way be touched by violence, whether it’s a relative or neighbor — or even if it’s just someone in a newspaper article — who is the actual victim.
In older movies, when someone was shot, the bullet didn’t even make a bullet hole, much less cause bleeding. Gory, bloody violence is essential to show that gunplay is painful, traumatizing and/or deadly.
Movies are and art form and movie directors are artists — and an artist must express himself in whatever way he feels best suits the material.
To Hollywood these are all sound arguments, justifiable reasons for the excesses that lace so many movies today.
But to most moviegoers they are just more representative of the “but” or “in spite of” factor.
In the olden days (say the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s) moviegoers used to express to friends that they liked a movie and then perhaps add why they liked it. But these days people say they liked a movie and then add something like, “but it was pretty raunchy” or “in spite of the excessive violence” or “but it didn’t need to have so much profanity.”
Movies by the very nature of what they are can’t really be realistic. They may have realistic — or universal — elements that help the audience identify with the story or certain characters. But they aren’t realistic.
In fact, when there is constant profanity or over-the-top gore or graphic sex or lingering nudity, one could argue that it is a flaw in the film because it jolts the audience out of the experience. As a result, we begin thinking about the shocking or startling image we’ve just seen, which disengages us from the story.
Movies are at their best when they sweep us away — not when they assault us.
Julia Roberts has said that she doesn’t do nude scenes because once she takes off her clothes the movie is no longer about the character she’s playing — instead it becomes a documentary about Julia Roberts disrobing.
In a way that applies to all cinematic excesses; such things often ruin the experience instead of enhancing it.
And that brings us to the final point. Sometimes movies are an art form. But it’s hard to pinpoint the artist.
There is the argument that some directors — Hitchcock, Truffaut, Spielberg, Kurosawa, Campion, etc. — exert so much control over their pictures that each film is obviously guided by their vision. And that’s true.
But it’s not a one-man or one-woman show. Movies are very much a collaborative medium and even the best directors — or filmmakers — are at sea without the expert assistance of top-flight screenwriters, cinematographers, actors, musicians, editors, etc.
In the end, what we’re talking about is creativity vs. laziness. It’s the easy way out to use special-effects-enhanced violence, redundant profanity, sophomoric sex jokes or to have the actors simply remove their clothing to get a reaction from the audience.
Say what you will about old black-and-white movies from Hollywood’s so-called “Golden Age” — and I won’t argue about the fact that the acting was stagey, the special effects were primitive, the editing was sloppy and other technical aspects were weak — but those movies knew how to tell stories and how to create characters the audience cared about.
True, they couldn’t include the excesses discussed here, but as a result they came up with wonderfully creative ways of getting the point across.
And more important, they had heart.
Today the movie that emphasizes story and character over razzle-dazzle elements is the exception, not the rule.
And the rare film with heart is quickly embraced by those who are starved for something that will carry them away instead of kicking them in the teeth.
‘DOWNTON’ IS DOWNTOWN
For Hicksflicks.com, Friday, Sept. 20, 2019
The “Downton Abbey” movie opens this weekend, along with a Brad Pitt sci-fi epic and a Sylvester Stallone franchise sequel as counter-programming, along with a horror yarn and some low-budget, independent pictures.
“Downton Abbey” (PG). The British TV series that became a worldwide phenomenon comes to the big screen with most of its sprawling cast of upstairs/downstairs characters intact, led by Hugh Bonneville, Elizabeth McGovern, Michelle Dockery and Maggie Smith. And the reuniting this cast is no small feat. Julian Fellowes, who wrote the entire series, also penned this script, which is set in 1927 as Downton Abbey prepares to host King George and Queen Mary.
“Ad Astra” (PG-13). An astronaut (Brad Pitt) is assigned to travel to the outer edge of the Solar System to unravel a mystery that threatens human survival and involves his missing father (Tommy Lee Jones). With Liv Tyler, Ruth Negga, Donald Sutherland and LisaGay Hamilton.
“Rambo: Last Blood” (R). Sylvester Stallone, who stars and co-wrote the script, brings back his second most famous character (after Rocky) for a fifth film in the franchise (the “Rocky” series has eight films, counting the two “Creed” entries). This time the Green Beret and Vietnam Veteran agrees to travel to Mexico to rescue a friend’s daughter from a drug cartel.
“Haunt” (R). On Halloween night a group of college teens head for a remote “haunted house” that is advertised as “extreme,” but their cynicism and laughter dare muted when they begin to realize that this is a real house of horrors as grisly deaths follow. Written and directed by Bryan Woods and Scott Beck, who co-wrote “A Quiet Place” but instead of that film, think “Saw.”
“Raise Hell: The Life and Times of Molly Ivans” (Not Rated). Before her death 12 years ago at age 62, Molly Ivans was a respected columnist, author and humorist whose newspaper scribblings were pithy, witty, entertaining and could be harsh, which pleased readers but made politicians and other targets wince. This documentary chronicles her life and times. (Exclusively at the Broadway Centre Cinemas.)
“Before You Know It” (Not Rated). This comedy-drama, co-written and directed by Hannah Pearl Utt, who also stars, follows two dysfunctional sisters who learn, under tragic circumstances, that their mother did not die when they were young, as they had been told, but is in fact an actress starring in a TV soap opera. With Jen Tullock, Mandy Patinkin, Alec Baldwin and Judith Light. (Exclusively at the Broadway Centre Cinemas.)
“2019 Sundance Film Festival Shorts Tour” (Not Rated). Seven short films, both live-action and animated, comprise this 97-minute collection of entries in last January’s Sundance Film Festival in those two short-film categories. (Exclusively at the Tower Theater.)
For Hicksflicks.com, Friday, Aug. 16, 2019
EDITOR’S NOTE: Rainer Werner Fassbinder was a singular cinematic figure during the 1970s and into the early 1980s, and he died all too soon, in 1982 at the age of 37 from a drug overdose. A German filmmaker whose works were eccentric but often gripping, he received worldwide acclaim for several films before his biggest international hit, ‘The Marriage of Maria Braun’ in 1979. I reviewed two of his follow-ups, ‘Veronika Voss’ and ‘Lola,’ for the Deseret News and now all three are in a new Criterion Collection Blu-ray set, ‘The BRD Trilogy.’ My review of ‘Lola’ is below, initially published on Jan. 21, 1983. (The ‘Veronika Voss’ review was in this space last week.)
Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s images of post-war Germany are always bleak, but there is an oddly interesting look to “Lola,” with strikingly gauche colors and lights invading every scene, and transitions that seem designed to make scenes run into one another.
That bit of unique camera trickery alone would make this worth recommending, but the performances are equally as striking, particularly by the lead characters, a seemingly incorruptible public official (Armin Mueller-Stahl) and the cabaret singer who leads him astray (Barbara Sukowa).
“Lola” takes place in the late 1950s, during Germany’s post-war reconstruction era and Fassbinder once again paints a rather unflattering portrait of people, invading their dark sides and seeming to suggest that everyone has his/her emotional price.
Rainer Werner Fassbinder
His film’s characters always do and this picture offers no exceptions.
In this case, it is a small town with a corrupt building committee that must contend with a new, stiff-necked building commissioner (Mueller-Stahl).
What the commissioner doesn’t know about the seamier side of this berg is that all the men spend their evenings at the local brothel-cabaret, where his own assistant plays sexy songs and the board members spend their nights with the ladies, er, that is, ladies of the evening.
Meanwhile, Lola takes it as a challenge that all the other men in her life seem to feel the commissioner cannot fall and wouldn’t be interested “in a girl like her.” So she seduces him intellectually, eventually reducing him to ashes.
As should be expected, perhaps, the commissioner, in the end, proves as corruptible as any of the townspeople and eventually trades his integrity for his extremely foolish heart.
The acting is fine all around, particularly the two leads, and the direction is excellent. Fassbinder’s views of humanity were certainly cynical, but there is no denying that he was a first-rate filmmaker whose eye for the camera was one of the best in the business.
The prolific filmmaker died of apparent suicide late last year, and we are still getting the last few of his films here from time to time.
“Lola” is rated R for nudity, sex and profanity, though all three are rather restrained, considering the subject matter.
It’s not Fassbinder at his best, but it is certainly Fassbinder — eccentric, experimental and fascinating in his approach.
Hi. I'm Chris Hicks.
But if you're looking for Chris Hicks the Australian rugby player or the American recording-industry executive or the Major League Baseball player or the author of "Think" or the singer-songwriter or the former basketball player, you're in the wrong place.
I'm Chris Hicks the movie guy from Salt Lake City. If that's who you're looking for, welcome to my website as I enter the 21st century … a little late (May 2013).
This site is all about movies, well mostly, and it's also about me, I guess, but I'll try to keep my ego in check.
My goal, my hope, is that you will be able to browse the pages here and be alerted to or reminded of some great movie you've never heard of or forgotten about. In other words, something that might enhance your movie-watching experience, whether it's by Alfred Hitchcock or Joss Whedon, or stars Audrey Hepburn or Jennifer Lawrence or someone you never heard of. And I've also tried to make it fun.
The bulk of stories and reviews here are gleaned (with permission) from my 40 years of writing about film for the Deseret News, a daily newspaper in Salt Lake City, with side trips here and there to other entertainment forms.
I'm no longer writing for the D-News so this is mostly archival stuff, primarily from the Deseret News but also from my 13 years with KSL Television and Radio, as well as other sundry freelance things I occasionaly come across in my deteriorating hard-copy files.
Hope you enjoy my little site. If you do, tell your friends. If you don't, just say you couldn't find it.
THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION
For Hicksflicks.com, Friday, Sept. 20, 2019
EDITOR’S NOTE: One of the best movies to ever be adapted from a Stephen King story is this non-horror tale of, well, redemption. And for its 25th anniversary, Fathom Events and Turner Classic Movies are giving the film big-screen showings across the country on Sunday, Sept. 22, at 4 and 7 p.m., and at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 24, and Wednesday, Sept. 25, locally in the Union Heights, Sugarhouse and Century 16 Cinemark theaters, as well as the Megaplex Jordan Commons and District multiplexes. My review below was published in the Deseret News on Oct. 7, 1994.
Like "Stand By Me," "The Shawshank Redemption" is adapted from a Stephen King novella that has nothing to do with horror. And like the former film, the latter is one of the best to be adapted from a King story. (It also marks the second Tim Robbins movie of the year with an odd title — anyone remember "The Hudsucker Proxy"?)
"Shawshank" is what might be described as an ethereal prison picture, if that's not an oxymoron.
Robbins stars as Andy Dufresne, a New England banker who is given a life sentence (two, actually) for the murder of his wife and her lover in 1947. Did he do it? He claims to be innocent. But then, so do all the other inmates in the fictional maximum-security Shawshank State Prison in Maine.
The film begins like most movies in this genre, chronicling Andy's crime, his sentencing, his imprisonment and then showing his adjustment to prison life as an innocent among wolves.
Tim Robbins, left, Morgan Freeman, 'The Shawshank Redemption'
But then, the film takes some unexpected twists and turns. Andy isn't like any other prisoner. He's quiet and reflective, he's a reader and chess player, and he keeps to himself. In fact, he doesn't make any acquaintances until he approaches a 30-year veteran and well-known prison procurer (Morgan Freeman, who also gives the film its voice-over narration) for assistance in his rock-carving hobby.
The friendship that develops between Andy and Red is the center of the film, and both actors are in top form — which is considerable. They are the main reason to see the movie (along with a wonderful supporting bit by James Whitmore). But the filmmakers manage to give the prison clichés — and they're all here — some nods and winks and tweaks that are quite unexpected.
After a time, Andy is able to use his accounting skills as a means of getting special privileges — but he doesn't just get them for himself. He seems to be a selfless fellow, parlaying his efforts into developing a useful prison library and making life a bit more tolerable for some of his comrades.
Ultimately, however, we discover that Andy is even more than he seems. And his achievements go off in fascinating directions (though the final shot may seem a bit contrived).
Prison pictures are an overly familiar genre. But at their best — "Cool Hand Luke," "The Birdman of Alcatraz," etc. — they are remarkable character studies. "The Shawshank Redemption" manages to climb into this rank by keeping the story off-center and the twists highly entertaining in unexpected ways.
My main complaint is the film's length. At 2½ hours, it tends to sag a bit and could certainly use some tightening. But that's a small complaint for a movie this satisfying.
"The Shawshank Redemption" is rated R for the expected prison violence (though the worst of it is off camera) and language. There is also a brief sex scene and some nudity.
For Hicksflicks.com, Friday, Sept. 20, 2019
EDITOR’S NOTE: Sharon Stone won an Oscar nomination in 1996 for Martin Scorsese’s ‘Casino’ but truth be told, she’s been best used as window-dressing; she’s never has been much of an actress. And this starring effort only proved the point. Still, it’s been given a Blu-ray upgrade by Kino Lorber, which should please her fans. My review was published on May 3, 1996, in the Deseret News.
Sharon Stone is trying to be taken "seriously" as an actress with her Oscar-nominated role in "Casino" and now as a death-row inmate in "Last Dance."
Affecting an accent that may remind you of Jodie Foster in "Nell," Stone plays Cindy Liggett, who has languished in prison some 12 years for a murder committed when she was a teenager and under the influence of drugs.
But now she is about to be executed in this unidentified Southern state and rookie rebel-without-a-cause attorney Rick Hayes (Rob Morrow, at his most smug) has been assigned to her clemency appeal. And he's happy to make Cindy his cause.
Sharon Stone, left, Rob Morrow, 'Last Dance'
Rick comes to believe the case was mishandled and that justice was not served. Further, he comes to feel Cindy has been rehabilitated, that she's not the same person she was all those years ago.
So, bucking the system, he races the clock to make her case heard, appealing to the governor (Australian actor Jack Thompson, affecting a Southern accent) and trying to find an appeals judge who will hear his pleas.
He also strikes up a tenuous relationship with Cindy, a sort of platonic romance that virtually takes over his life.
Perhaps it's an unfair comparison, but if we had not had "Dead Man Walking" so recently it would be easier to view "Last Dance" as better than it is — the superficial treatment of characters and issues might not be quite so obvious.
But as it is, "Last Dance" simply fails to measure up on any level, especially when it reaches its ridiculous deadline climax, which offers a double-whammy ending that stretches credulity to the breaking point.
Stone isn't too bad, though she has her over-the-top moments, and the supporting cast certainly tries hard — Randy Quaid is best, bringing life to the proceedings whenever he's on screen as Rick's cynical boss.
But screenwriter Ron Koslow ("LIfeguard," "Firstborn," "Into the Night") doesn't bring any depth to his screenplay and director Bruce Beresford hasn't been at his best lately. (Beresford has done some brilliant work with the likes of "Tender Mercies" and "Driving Miss Daisy," but his more recent string of films include the deplorable "A Good Man in Africa" and "Silent Fall.")
"Last Dance" is rated R for violence, gore, profanity, vulgarity and drug abuse.