Just a Click Away Is Hollywood

Tagline: Nothing says goodbye like a bullet.

When I hear the name Elliott Gould, the word tough-guy doesn't immediately spring to mind. No, I tend to think of his roles in films like MASH, Ocean's Eleven and Capricorn One. So imagine my surprise when I learned that he had played the quintessential detective, Philip Marlowe, in the 1973 film entitled The Long Goodbye. Visions of Bogey started dancing in my head, and I just had to give it a look.

But before we get into the gory details, let's get the obligatory plot synopsis out of the way. The movie takes place in 1970's California, as Philip Marlowe (Gould) scrapes together a living by being the best private dick that money can buy. As the opening credits finish rolling, he runs into his old friend, Terry Lennox (Jim Bouton), and ends up giving him a lift down into Mexico. But as the next day dawns, Philip finds himself harassed by the cops (seems Terry's wife turned up dead) and a local mobster, Marty Augustine (Mark Rydell), who Terry stole a considerable amount of money from. And since Terry's no longer around, everyone seems happy to take out their frustrations on Marlowe. Things get even more complicated when a body presumed to be Terry's turns up in Mexico, and Marlowe takes on a missing persons case involving an alcoholic novelist (Sterling Hayden), his beautiful young wife (Nina Van Pallandt), and a greedy psychiatrist (Henry Gibson).

First off, let me give due credit to director Robert Altman. The idea of taking Philip Marlowe, a thoroughly black-and-white detective, and surrounding him with beach bunnies and sun-worshipping nudists in California is certainly a bold one. But, then again, that's always been Altman's style--working just enough outside of mainstream Hollywood to keep things interesting.

So does it work? Well, the answer's more complicated than you might think. While Goodbye has moments of brilliance, it's often just a middle-of-the-road detective movie. For every well-crafted scene, there seem to be a couple of mediocre ones, and the plot seems to wander a bit from the mid-point on. No doubt, the opening scene with Marlowe and his cat is a thing of brilliance and the standout moment in the film. It establishes what Marlowe is all about and quickly lets the audience know that Goodbye will not be the usual crime movie.

From his bedroom wall, scarred by having matches lazily struck on it, to his mumbling running commentary and unbelievable chain-smoking (he may possibly smoke more cigarettes than any character in cinematic history), I instantly knew that this was going to be a character I would care about. Too bad that it was mostly downhill from there, as the rest of the film fails to live up to the expectations established by the strong opener.

But don't blame it on Elliott Gould. He's a blast from start to finish, playing Marlowe with an unexpected bend-don't-break philosophy. I was expecting a hard-boiled detective with a solid right cross and an itchy trigger-finger. Instead, we get a much more realistic character. He feels pain. He gets scared. Under all his smartass bravado, Gould's Marlowe is just like the rest of us.

Another plus is that he plays Marlowe's thoughts and feelings close to the vest. Noticeably gone are the trite Hollywood moments where the protagonist sits down and spells out his plan for the audience. We don't know what Marlowe is going to do because he doesn't really seem to know either.

And much of the credit for that should go to screenwriter Leigh Brackett, who adapted the Raymond Chandler novel and enabled the script to crackle with crisp dialogue and eccentric characters. Brackett is a veteran of the Chandler mythos, having also co-wrote the script for the 1946 production of The Big Sleep.

The soundtrack also goes a long way towards selling viewers on the fact that Goodbye takes place in its own self-contained universe. And in that universe, only one song exists... The Long Goodbye. Whether characters are listening to the radio, practicing the piano, or simply whistling, that one song keeps coming back to haunt us (albeit with varied arrangements). It's a clever device which I don't ever remember seeing before, so a well-deserved pat on the back to whoever thought it up.

There are also many other reasons to like Goodbye: a solid performance from Sterling Hayden as a Hemingway-like author, the slight-of-stature Henry Gibson playing against type with memorable results, Mark Rydell's Marty Augustine demonstrating to Marlowe what he does to those he doesn't like (and to those he does), an uncredited cameo from a then-unknown Arnold Schwarzenegger, and many more. With all the preceding compliments, it might be easy to mistake Goodbye for a top-flight movie. But just as Marlowe meanders about, so, too, does the bulk of the film.

The subplot with the author and his wife never really seems to entirely come together and often feels forced, and the scenes with Henry Gibson, while well-acted, never really make a whole lot of sense. Maybe the original novel fleshed things out in more detail, but I felt as though something critical was left out of the film version. Some viewers, especially those expecting lots of brawls and gunplay, may be disappointed by the lack of action in the film. Marlowe talks to people, and that's really all he does. Like I said before, this is a different type of detective movie--one where the protagonist reacts instead of acts.

And then there's the ending. I won't go into detail and ruin it for you, but you'll either come away thinking: (a.) It was a brilliant ending which added a new dimension to Marlowe, or (b.) Marlowe's actions were totally out of character and ended the film on a sour note. To be honest, I continue to flip-flop between the two. But for what it's worth, Altman liked the script's ending (which was different from the novel) so much that he had it written into his contract that it could not be changed during the production or editing phases.

A masterpiece of filmmaking or a good idea which was never fully realized? I lean towards the latter, but you need to watch it and decide for yourself. Whatever your conclusions, chances are that you'll find something positive to say about Goodbye. And if you're unfamiliar with the work of Elliott Gould, you might just find that you've discovered a new favorite actor.

Want to talk about movies? Click here.

DVD Review: This movie was pretty good, but it was misleading.

Film

As tribute to their efforts, the film never appears modern and always maintains the desired moody, gothic feel. Even after seeing the film for the umpteenth time, it makes you crack up over and over again and the humor never wears off. The film is never shallow, and generally stays away from really cheap jokes. The film would be nowhere nearly as good without the absolutely splendid acting of its cast, who carry the humor. It is hard to put into words but you have to see the full-bodied acting the cast puts in to this film to appreciate the depth Young Frankenstein has. As a matter of fact, it redefines the term comedy to an extent, because films like Young Frankenstein just arent made anymore these days. I am sure it will be an unforgettable experience, and many of the films marvellous jokes and one-liners will be sticking around your head forever, together with the superb images Mel Brooks is conjuring up in this film.

Movie

Brooks and his cinematographer Gerald Hirschfeld successfully employed a series of traditional movie making techniques in order to match the visual style of the films of the era. It brings together the single pieces of the film and, like glue, ties them firmly together for an involving movie watching experience.

Movies

Young Frankenstein is Mel Brooks and Gene Wilders homage to the classic Universal Frankenstein movies and filmmakers of silent horror movies like Lang, Dreyer and Murnau.

Commentary

The film comes fully dubbed in English, French, and Spanish with optional English subtitles and also contains an exceedingly entertaining and informative commentary track by director Mel Brooks. Every time you want to change to a different language track or the commentary track for that matter you will have to go through the discs main menu, which can become somewhat tedious. The DVD set comes with many extras, and I think the best is the feature-length commentary by director Julie Taymor. There's so much attention to detail that one needs to view this multiple times (and then, yet another time with the commentary) to take in everything. This commentary is lively and fun, as the filmmakers mock the film's plotholes and bloopers yet provide many interesting tidbits on the production. This commentary can only be heard with the Special Edition.

Still, this is a DVD review, not a film review, so I won't go into a full analysis of the film.

The wonder years on DVD review

"Growing up happens in a heartbeat. One day you're in diapers; the next day you're gone. But the memories of childhood stay with you for the long haul"
--- Kevin Arnold

Premiered January 31, 1988
Show Category: Comedy , Drama

Theme Song: "With a Little Help From My Friends" by John Lennon and Paul
McCartney -- performed by Joe Cocker

Each episode "The Wonder Years" embark upon the social issues and historic events of the hippie counterculture and the Vietnam War (1960s and early 1970s) through the eyes of main character Kevin Arnold, who also deals on his way to adulthood with teenage social issues (mainly with his best friend Paul, and on and off girlfriend, Winnie Cooper), family trouble (brother Wayne, his sister Karen, his father Jack, and his mother Norma) and other issues. While the stories unfold, the story is narrated by an older Kevin describing what is happening and what he has learned from his experiences.

So what makes "The Wonder Years" influential? It is influential because
Americans can identify what was happening in Kevin's life. Almost all teenagers can relate to Kevin's personal adventures. Kevin represents the American teenager. Most of us get our first kiss, our driver's license, heart breaks, and experience all these other crucial stages on our journey through childhood into adulthood. These times of our lives really are wonder years, the time when we learn how the world and its people work. ''The wonder years'' shows the world, how feels likes to grow up in America. Indeed, Kevin represents the American teenager that many of us were at one time.

Deciphering the 'Da Vinci Code'

Joseph Cunneen

The Da Vinci Code has finally appeared. (Previews for reviewers and critics weren't available until the day before its May 19 release, making it impossible to meet NCR deadlines, for an earlier issue.) Because the book is so well-known, its faithfulness to the main storyline cannot help but lessen the impact of what remains a well-executed mystery-thriller. With such backdrops as the Louvre, a French chateau, what appears to be Castel Gandolfo, and a number of ancient churches in France and Great Britain, the late-night movements of symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) and Paris police-cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) are entertaining and fast-moving, providing a good substitute for expensive travel this summer.

The movie's opening shots make wonderful use of the figures in the wall paintings that seem to track Sophie's grandfather, the Louvre museum curator, as he runs past them in a vain attempt to save his life. From this beginning on, the understated orchestral score by Hans Zimmer with its unusual number of strings adds weight and tension to Robert and Sophie's attempts to find her grandfather's killer and the reasons for the strange coded messages, all concerning Leonardo da Vinci, traced by the dying victim in his own blood.

Langdon and Sophie cleverly escape the Opus Del police chief, solving puzzles as they move from car to bank truck to plane, but no romantic spark is kindled between them. The performances of Mr. Hanks and Ms. Tautou are limited by the book's thin characterizations and dialogue, but the overall acting is effective. Albert Molina is a credible Bishop Aringarosa, head of Opus Del, and Paul Bettany is memorable as his dedicated tool of a monk, though too much visual attention is given to his self-flagellation. (Such an extreme version of Opus Dei is presented that the organization may gain some sympathy even among liberals.) Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing gives the most fascinating performance, endearing even when he is murderous, with his obsession to reveal the secret of the Holy Graft that all are searching for. As in the book, the end appears to arrive at least twice before it actually occurs, with Langdon kneeling before the supposed sepulcher of Mary Magdalene deep in the lower regions of the Louvre, the holy spot marked by the convergence of opposing triangles of glass and stone high above.

But what is the connection between the triangles, Leonardo da Vinci and Mary Magdalene? And why have voices in the Vatican been so concerned about the effects of the book and the movie? The thrust of Langdon's work is toward a restoration of "the divine feminine," a goal that also seems to have appealed to the over 40 million buyers of Dan Brown's book. Our male-dominated and overly centralized church leadership, however, is not seriously challenged by the film's tamed and twisted version of divine femininity.

The evidence that Mary Magdalene married Jesus and carried his child to France is forcefully delivered by the supremely confident Teabing to a passive Sophie, presumably the only remaining descendant of this union. As they stand before a reproduction of Leonardo's "Last Supper" in his study, he batters the young woman with historical and religious "certainties" about the secret that would destroy the church, while Langdon offers only mild questions. (Langdon does admit to having been brought up Catholic, a detail not present in the book.) Ironically, Sophie as divine feminine looks much like the traditional "woman" in the church, instructed and advised by all-powerful and knowledgeable men.

As for Mary Magdalene, what has happened to the "apostle to the apostles" that biblical scholars, many among them women, have recovered in recent years? Like those scholars, Teabing decries the myth of her as prostitute, but supplants it with one that turns her into wife and mother, carrier of a bloodline that French royalists use to justify their claims. This is a comedown, not an advance, and one that perverts the message of Jesus in the Gospels, who never put family or blood ahead of faith and chosen community.

But Teabing doesn't care much for the Gospels, preferring Gnostic texts like the Gospel of Philip or the second-century Gospel of Mary (Magdalene). Sophie seems stunned by it all, and by the end has become a partial believer. But her grasp of the historic and religious significance of Teabing's message is so slight that it reveals itself only in pleasant jokes about not being able to walk on water.

This Holy Grail is hardly a substitute for the mysterious goal of the medieval crusaders, and the evidence for linking Leonardo da Vinci with such a search is nonexistent. The famous "V" to which Teabing points in Leonardo's "Last Supper" is not a universal symbol of the feminine, nor is the Gospel of Philip evidence for an intimate physical relationship between Jesus and the Magdalene. Though it sometimes uses bridal imagery, Gnostic literature speaks of Jesus as the divine teacher, and not, as Teabing claims, as primarily human. The fragments that exist of the Gospel of Mary give voice to the spiritual vision of the first witness to the Resurrection, not to a love that led to marriage. That is why Peter is jealous of her in this second-century work, which shows stiff-necked authority struggling to maintain control of a divided church by denying both the truth of visions and the right of women to teach. "The Da Vinci Code" points to the right struggle but doesn't understand its significance, providing both false and incompatible evidence for its own unimaginative goals.

Clearly, we don't have to take the content of the film seriously. It's hard to, in any case, since its basic message is crowded into one session at the chateau. Such a rant is better suited to the page than the screen. It's unclear what viewers will make of it, especially the "sensational" claim that Jesus married Mary Magdalene. At the moment, it seems to be spawning video games, a diet book, DVDs and travel guides for the "Da Vinci" tour.

Fortunately the film does not repeat Dan Brown's claim that everything in it is factual: art, documents, history. The larger question both book and movie raise, however, concerns the ignorance of so many Christians regarding their own history and religion.