Critical Thinking: Caddyshack (1980)

Critical Thinking is a column where I review something I've just watched (usually something I like). No other reason. It doesn't really need a name but I gave it one anyway, since it's different from Cheap Thrills, and I hear things on blogs should have names.

In 2008, Harold Ramis directed Year One, an agonizingly unfunny road picture awkwardly set in a mixture of the Stone Age and also the Roman Empire, which features an all-star cast of comedians in small bits but instead gets constantly sidetracked on horribly unfunny detours, like Oliver Platt's disgustingly over-the-top character (I forget who or what the character was, but I don't want to look it up, either). It's a terrible movie with the occasional, brief bit of brightness from one of many great people that are in it, but as a whole it never has any momentum or focus.

In that way, it's just like Caddyshack.

Don't get me wrong. Year One is way, way worse (and nobody eats a piece of shit in Caddyshack, like Jack Black does in Year One). Still, having just watched the brand new Blu-Ray of Caddyshack (my second time seeing the film), I still have a hard time understanding why the film is considered a comedy classic.

The primary problem with Caddyshack is that it gathers four actors who all bring very specific personalities to the table. Chevy Chase is his usual sarcastic self, quietly mocking everyone to their face. Ted Knight goes incredibly over the top, utilizing every muscle in his face to transition between extreme expressions of emotion. Rodney Dangerfield does classic gag schtick with his entire body, like a Looney Tunes cartoon got in a car accident with a nightclub stand-up act.

Then there's Bill Murray, who, as much as I love him -- and I really do -- gives a painfully broad performance as Carl Spackler, a demented, hobo-like groundskeeper with a weird speech impediment. I can't imagine any other comedian in the world could give the performance that Murray gives in this movie and have people think it wasn't awful, but as far as I can tell, Spackler is one of Murray's most enduring and famous roles.

Maybe one of these people could've carried a movie. I might've even liked Carl if Carl was the only person the film was concerned with. Squashing the four of them into a single movie with even more characters is a different story. Ramis, who was directing for the first time on Caddyshack, seems entirely unconcerned that his stars are all dropping in from different planets, and whenever more than one of them is in a room together, the movie loses its comedic footing, which is made all the more disappointing because, man, I want to see a really funny scene with Bill Murray and Chevy Chase acting opposite each other. The moment they're in the same room, my heart took a leap. The men who gave the world Peter Venkman and Irwin Fletcher, on screen at the same time! It's like the comedy version of Heat! (The pair's off-screen rivalry only adds to the tension.) Sadly, the scene is a misfire in my book. I was more enthralled by the big reunion in The Expendables just recently, and I hated that movie.

Adding insult to injury, none of these characters strike me as particularly well-written. Chase has a dearth of great lines, and when Chase does his usual bit and doesn't have good lines, he basically comes off like a smarmy asshole. Every once in awhile, he has a good joke (the "no steering wheel" pantomime is great), but he seems adrift and unengaged, like he's wandering through the movie as opposed to starring in it. Dangerfield is hit and miss, as not all of his routines translate as well as they could to the big screen, and Knight gets one note to play over and over. Murray's lines are probably better than the others, but the lisp or whatever he's doing just ruins them for me. Bill's brother Brian Doyle-Murray gets better lines as caddy management ("Pick up that blood!").

Caddyshack does have two saving graces. Well, maybe two and a half. The first two are Michael O'Keefe and Cindy Morgan, who are both charming and engaging as supposed hero Danny Noonan and the sexy Lacey Underall. Morgan doesn't have to do much but stand around and look beautiful, which she does with ease, but Morgan deepens the impression with a playful, bemused attitude that makes her almost impossibly endearing. O'Keefe makes for an appealing main character, but the movie sidelines him too often to invest much in his story, which is a shame; I think Caddyshack might be more deserving of its acclaim if there were more of O'Keefe and his conflict in the film (co-screenwriters Ramis, Doug Kenney and Doyle-Murray don't introduce any tangible stakes until the last 20 minutes). As for "half", Ramis' direction works wonders in the scenes where the actors aren't the primary focus: the impromptu swimming ballet and subsequent "doody" scene are worth a chuckle, and the golf course exploding at the end of the movie would have been the perfect end to a better movie. Alas, Caddyshack is not that movie: pretty much any other comedy from the 1980's starring any one of these guys is funnier and better constructed than this "shot-in-the-dark" mush.

The Blu-Ray comes with a lengthy episode of "Bio" on Caddyshack, but it's also a disappointment. Since it was produced for television, it has the aggravating habit of recapping for every intro and outro before unspoken commercial breaks, and if you pared this ep down to the real meat and potatoes, it'd easily lose 30 minutes of painfully repetitive narration. What's left is somewhat intriguing but not particularly fresh or in-depth, especially given that Dangerfield and Knight have both passed on, and neither Chase or Murray deemed it worthy to appear for new on-camera interviews. Even Brian Doyle-Murray had better things to do, although yet another Murray brother, John Murray, pops up frequently. The Blu-Ray's only other extra (no commentary?) is the shorter doc produced for the DVD, called "The 19th Hole". The PQ and AQ are both solid, although not quite as impressive as some other '80s films I've seen.

Critical Thinking: In Bruges (2008)

Critical Thinking is a column where I review something I've just watched (usually something I like). No other reason. It doesn't really need a name but I gave it one anyway, since it's different from Cheap Thrills, and I hear things on blogs should have names.

David Mamet once said that a film's developments should be both "surprising and inevitable". This strikes me as the perfect summation of good entertainment, and few movies embody this advice as clearly as Martin McDonagh's In Bruges, which I am revisiting thanks to its long-overdue debut on Blu-Ray here in the United States.

The setup: a pair of hitmen named Ken (Brendan Gleeson) and Ray (Colin Farrell) have just arrived in the Belgian city of Bruges (roughly pronounced "brooj"), on orders from their employer, Harry (Ralph Fiennes), following a botched job. Ken is perfectly pleased to look at all of the medieval architecture; Ray would rather kill himself. "Do you think this is good? Goin' around in a boat, looking at stuff?" he demands of his partner. Ken does. "Ray, you're about the worst tourist in the whole world."

Innocuously hidden within the first ten or fifteen minutes is a prime example of Mamet's theory. In case the reader hasn't already seen In Bruges, I won't go into too much detail, but Ken goes to the city's biggest tourist attraction: a giant tower in the center of the city. Unable to get rid of his coins (ten cents short), he pays in cash and heads to the top, where he spots Ray down below, only minutes away from getting into a fight with a group of overweight Americans. The relevant information is not only organically buried in scenes that are interesting and funny in and of themselves, but even the most forward-thinking viewer will find that when the scene's major callback occurs, McDonagh has already devised a way to subvert the audience's expectations.

Ray is depressed over the events that sent he and Ken to Bruges in the first place, and Farrell's performance is surprisingly emotional, and not just sadness. Ray is a man who is all surface and no center, without any room on the inside for feelings. He wears them all with childlike earnestness on his rubbery face, veering from delighted to grumpy at the drop of a hat. In particular, he is delighted by the luminous Chloë (a sweet and sexy Clémence Poésy), a drug dealer offering her services to crew on the film shooting in Bruges, and Jimmy (Jordan Prentice), a little person playing an ever-changing role in the film's elaborate, pretentious dream sequence. Ken, meanwhile, is placed in a position of action, and has a quiet internal debate about what decision would be best for everyone. Ken is both noble and a realist, two qualities that work against each other.

Many of the people I've shown the film to have labeled it a downer, but I feel that's failing to see the forest for the trees. It is more about the attitude with which the characters deal with the events of the film than it is the events themselves, and Ray particularly sets the tone. The last lines of dialogue can be interpreted as sad and distant, especially taken in with the music and idea of what's happened, but viewers who listen carefully should see the humor in it, particularly if they're an optimist. The film's comedy is also quite goofy. Ken snapping at Ray's refusal to go see an exhibit ("It's only Jesus Christ's blood! Of course you don't fuckin' hafta!"), Jimmy and his ludicrous prophecy about a "war between the blacks and the whites", and Ray's almost existential hatred of everything about Bruges and what it stands for are all a wonderful counterpoint to the film's artful cinematography and picturesque setting. And that's all before Fiennes' character actually appears on screen. His Harry is a misanthropic, bomb-like force of nature whom Ken accurately sums up as an eternal cunt. "I mean no disrespect, but you're a cunt. You're a cunt now, and you've always been a cunt. And the only thing that's going to change is that you're going to be an even bigger cunt," he says, straight to the man's face. Harry does not disagree.

I missed the movie in theaters thanks to Focus Features' misguided ad campaign that tried to cram McDonagh's darkly witty farce into the same crowd-pleasing package as Guy Ritchie's rollicking Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels or Snatch. McDonagh's style is generally much more naturalistic, with his only real "movie-esque" flourishes coming at the end, including an absolutely perfect sequence set to Luke Kelly's "On Raglan Road", and a climax so logical it practically seems like reflex rather than writing, yet so nutty you can't believe you're actually seeing it; in other words, a vivid illustration of Mamet's advice in action.

The Blu-Ray is a disappointment. The A/V quality is fine and a visible step up from the DVD in all regards, but there are actually extras missing from the SD-DVD. Since I don't believe I've gone back in time to the birth of the format, there's really no excuse for this, particularly when I was hoping Universal might see fit to track down McDonagh for a commentary in light of the film's Oscar nod for Best Original Screenplay, and perhaps throw in "Six Shooter", his Academy Award-winning short film that also stars Gleeson. Clearly, my sights were set too high.

[In Bruges on IMDb]

Downloads and Blu-Ray

This was first posted on the film ick Fightback on January 5th, 2008. Since film ick itself is currently offline and The Fightback only has three posts -- all by me -- I'm going to repost it here for the sake of preservation.

This is something I posted on another website in response to a) the suggestion that Blu-Ray will never be more than a niche format and b) the suggestion that digital downloads are the forseeable future.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say that laserdisc didn't catch on, well, not only was technology, that exponential mover and shaker, exponentially more expensive back in the mid-'90s, but as we invent more gadgets and doo-dads your average Joe ends up with more technology in his house (computer, HDTV, DVR, DVD player, surround sound, iPod, digital camera, game system, projection screen, hi-def DVD, Sirius/XM/satellite, On Demand, whatever) than he did 15 years ago. Not to mention the fact that a laserdisc was the size of a vinyl -- time has shown that people like their technology conveniently sized.

With the digital signal change in February 2008 I think people are just looking to upgrade. Neighbor Bob goes over to Neighbor Dan's house and sees his brand new 50" crystal-clear LCD or plasma screen hooked up to DTS 6.1 and he runs out and gets one. Plus, both Joe and Bob's 20-something kids are twice as techno-savvy and they don't even need to see their neighbor's display to know they want an HDTV. Even if you don't have waves of people snapping these up yet, people know what they are, and if a TV breaks these days, why go for the diminishing selection of $200 25" tube TVs when you could drop $200 more and get something much nicer?

And if HDTV is the way of the future, then Blu-Ray is the next step. People buy an HDTV and they grab the TiVo and start watching the HD channels and then, lucky them, it turns out the game system the kids want is also an hi-def DVD player, and that's all it takes.

Now, sure, I don't see Blu-Ray stomping or even thumping on the SD-DVD behemoth. But to think that this format couldn't easily be ten times as big as it is now by the end of 2009, much less 2015, is ridiculous.

The thing about downloading is that the majority of the people who currently download movies just watch them once and delete them, not to mention the fact that they're probably pirates and want stuff for free. Sure, digital downloads could easily erase, say, the video-rental market in the forseeable future, but try to imagine a world where the Best Buys and Circuit Citys of the world don't carry physical media -- it just doesn't seem possible, and until we're in flying cars I don't think it's a real risk. If Blu-Ray, an easy-to-understand next-gen format that's basically like what we have and love but better, is not going to top SD-DVD, then how can we possibly suggest that digital downloading, a somewhat foreign non-format that easily alienates or disinterests potential users will somehow dwarf both SD-DVD and Blu-Ray, not to mention material media in general?

Paramount and HD-DVD

This was first posted on the film ick Fightback on August 21st, 2007. Since film ick itself is currently offline and The Fightback only has three posts -- all by me -- I'm going to repost it here for the sake of preservation.

It's been widely reported that Paramount has joined the HD-DVD camp and I am almost gobsmacked by what a poor choice this is. On AICN someone from Paramount suggests that Blu-Ray is only "allegedly" winning the format war, mere weeks after sales of 300 skewed Blu-Ray by a great margin.

The most baffling thing about the decision is that there appears to be no upside for anyone. Blu-Ray customers who want Paramount movies will not switch to HD, they will merely be frustrated by the unavailable movies and will probably buy them in standard definition. Paramount doesn't exactly have a boatload of super blockbusters on slate aside from Transformers, and it sounds like the title may not end up exclusive after all (after hearing that Spielberg supports BR, I was prepared for this announcement and suspect there might be at least a couple more of them). Paramount may have netted in the range of $150 million to jump the Blu-Ray ship, but even if HD-DVD stays afloat, Paramount will probably end up losing a considerable portion of their revenue if nobody buys their HD titles (since it looks like they'll be able to get the good ones on BR and stuff like "Blades of Glory" isn't going to benefit from hi-def). Meanwhile, HD-DVD will sink further because they just blew a massive amount of cash on a deal with gaping holes in it. On top of all that, I'm sure word will spread that Spielberg is a Blu-Ray supporter and that might cause at least a handful of hardcore fans to adopt. And, of course, if HD-DVD fails during the Christmas season Paramount is just going to look really, really stupid.

Paramount suggests that the format is cheaper for consumers and is therefore better. This is ridiculous, although it has some ground in reality as I have heard several people state that they've gone for HD over Blu-Ray simply because HD players are cheaper. By Christmas, however, I expect PS3s to go on sale and Blu-Ray players to drop, and even if Blu-Ray fails to crush the competition, assuming their sales hold up that's still approximately a 70/30 margin in favor of Blu-Ray. It is again, puzzling that Paramount chose to make this decision now when in a mere four months we'll have a great idea of where the format war is going (not that we don't already).

In any case, I expect something big to happen very soon. It seems like people are beginning to sound off on the format war, as both Universal and Microsoft have made controversial statements to suggest they're keeping it alive for no reason. It would be particularly impressive (and probably deadly to HD-DVD) if Blu-Ray used a similar cash bid to buy Universal's format neutrality -- surely they see the negativity getting thrown at Paramount for making this decision (not to mention Universal owns at least a couple of Spielbergs), this is their opportunity to look like the good guy by finally buying their way out of being the last man standing.

UPDATE
So it seems that Michael Bay has retracted his statement about wanting Transfomers to go format neutral. We'll see. Again, this is based on the silly assumption that the cheaper player is undoubtedly what's best for the consumer. You can buy a lot of cheap standard-def DVD players at any old Wal-Mart, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

A few other notes worth making: Bill Hunt of The Digital Bits has lots to say here and here (both posts). Most intriguing are his suggestions about why Microsoft has jumped into the game, and the way Paramount staffers feel about this decision.

From forums I've surfed I hear a lot of negativity towards Hunt and The Bits about their decision to support Blu-Ray. Perhaps they're seen as one-sided. I do happen to agree with them, but if HD-DVD is willing to make a good play towards being competitive, then so be it. I don't think this Paramount deal is it, however. I'd also like to stress that I don't think the format war will be over after Christmas 2007, but I think it will be the writing on the wall. Certainly Paramount and Universal will continue to support and produce HD-DVDs for at least a couple years to come but should Sony move a million PS3s and Blu-Rays this Christmas and Toshiba and Microsoft sell a mere 20,000 units each, then it will be hard to argue that those numbers aren't indicative.

I'd also like to add that I work in retail and I don't think losing Transformers as an HD-DVD will mean a lot to consumers anyway. People will complain but in general I expect (as they often do) they will simply settle with the SD-DVD -- my point remains that no single title, no matter how big, is likely to sway someone into dropping down $300 to get a new technology (especially since you also need a hi-def television).