AND THE WINNER IS...

• Spielberg on Spielberg, the latest original documentary from Turner Classic Movies, will have its world premiere on the network tonight--Monday, July 9, 2007--at 8pm EST. I just watched a screener of the program, which essentially is an extended interview of director Steven Spielberg by Time film critic Richard Schickel in a screening room on the Universal lot, intercut with clips from his most famous films. Consdering Schickel's usual depth, the film is a bit disappointing, and far from the best thing to come out of TCM recently--their Brando special holds that distinction, in my opinion. It is strangely constructed, with films sporadically shown out of order and oddly-titled chapter headings unnecessarily separating them. Worse, it brings very little new information to the table--most of the director's anecdotes and scenes in the film are already familiar to even casual film buffs. And, considering that TCM specializes in championing classic movies--doing a magnificent, heroic job with that, I should add--it seems odd that the network would commission a documentary about a director still very much in the game. One almost gets the sense that Schickel decided on his own to interview Spielberg, and only subsequently took it to TCM in order to find a forum in which showcase it. None of this is to say it is a bad film, only that it leaves something to be desired--a missing piece that perhaps can only be supplied with a greater distance of time from the director's undeniably magnificent films. What it does best, in its opening minutes, is give a sense of Spielberg 'the man'--as opposed to the incomparably talented director--and the great drive and passion that burns beneath his outwardly serene demeanor. That makes it worth a look.
• The latest documentary from maverick filmmaker Michael Moore may be his most widely-appealing yet. Sicko is an extraordinary, gripping, scary film about the origins and workings of the American health care system, the millions it leaves behind, and alternative systems in other nations--England, France, and yes, even Cuba--that serve their populations much more effectively. While Moore's films always stir up controversy, Sicko should not split audiences along party lines, but rather draw the attention of every American to an issue that, in an instant, can surpass terrorism, homeland security, border protection, and any other issue as the most important in their lives. How can a 79 year old man be forced to work full-time as a janitor in order to pay for his wife's medicine? How can a man who accidentally saws off his middle and ring finger be forced to choose which one to have reattached? How can the al Qaeda terrorists being held at Guantanimo Bay receive better health care than the emergency responders who incurred severe respiratory problems responding to the al Qaeda attacks of 9/11? How can this happen in America? Michael Moore is on the case--never allowing himself to overshadow the issue--and has arguably made his best film yet.
• I've been fortunate enough to interview many film people who I greatly admire and enjoy, but I'm having an unusually hard time containing my excitement for a conversation that I have scheduled for Tuesday with Leslie Nielsen, the legendary star of several of the funniest movies of all time, including Airplane! (1980) and The Naked Gun (1988). Surely I can't be serious? I am... and don't call me Shirley. Nielsen, who is now a peppy 81 years old, has been gracious enough to agree to speak with me for my ongoing book project, in which I hope to interest younger people in older movies. Many will be surprised to learn that Nielsen had a very respectable career as a serious actor in films like Forbidden Planet (1956), Ransom! (1956), and The Poseidon Adventure (1972) before the Zucker-Abrams-Zucker spoofs came along and tagged a few decades on to this career. More on this to come following the chat.
• I just realized that I neglected to post my thoughts following the press screening a month ago of potential awards contender La Vie En Rose, a film about the troubled life of iconic French singer Edith Piaf, whose most famous song shares the title of the film. Roger Ebert, the critic I most respect, fell in love with the film and calls it "one of the best bio-pics I've seen. " To me, it's not that simple. I think it is a tremendously flawed bio-pic with one of the best performances I've seen, which makes for a more difficult equation. One could not ask for a better performance as Piaf than the one delivered by the stunningly beautiful French actress Marion Cotillard, who was previously best known for playing Russell Crowe's love interest in the shortlived A Good Year (2006). Hers is the definition of a gutsy undertaking. Piaf, at her best, was less than stunning, and later in her life, when decades of abusing alcohol and drugs to drown away her sorrows caught up with her (along with cancer), she looked frighteningly older than her years. Cotillard has allowed the makeup department to recede her hairline, widen her eyes, and wrinkle her face, but has also taken on much of the physical transformation herself, adopting Piaf's hunched back, grand gestures during performance and, perhaps most vitally to the success of the movie, seamlessly lip-syncs to Piaf's music, which humbly allows the audience to hear the timeless music and lyrics that no actress could imitate. All of this results in a transformation as stunning as any since Charlize Theron in Monster (2003). So what is there not to like? Most of the things that are beyond Cotillard's control. Sitting through this movie is almost like stepping into a boxing ring with your hands tied behind your back--you feel helpless as you take punch after punch to the gut. We are introduced to Piaf as a neglected child, a sympathetic character. Typically, there would be an arc to the rest of the story, both emotionally and structurally. Instead, there is neither. The audience is exposed to two hours of tragedy after tragedy in this woman's life, and not necessarily in chronological order, which only confuses the situation. We barely have time to finish reacting to one tragedy before the next is thrust upon us! True, Piaf's life was tragic, and chaotic, and fast-paced, and over all too soon... but these, alone, do not a good movie make! Perhaps some lives do require the creative liberties that filmmakers are often criticized for taking. Perhaps some lives are not adaptable for the screen at all. That said, it can be nearly impossible to resist dissecting the lives of high-profile people like Piaf, who touched and continue to touch so many other lives. We want to understand the person. But sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and it can be a fruitless endeavor to try to understand a life by focusing on a few of its turning points--"Rosebud," anyone? What we have here is a grand E! True Hollywood Story, the story of someone who came out of nowhere and nothing to touch the hearts of a nation, all the while seeking happiness that would forever elude her. Now for the inevitable question: Can Cotillard's performance--boosted by some good reviews--overcome the film's downer feel, subtitles, and--perhaps its biggest obstacle--early release date, in order to be around during the awards season late in the year? It is a possibility, but I'm guessing no. Cotillard's situation brings to mind Gretchen Mol's candidacy for The Notorious Bettie Page last year--undeniably worthy, but too small and eventually drowned out by the higher-profile performances that take over theaters beginning around October. C'est La Vie, non?
• Finally, I thought I'd pass along an email I received from a friend with a story that raises an interesting question:

"Don't know whether you heard about this, but Denzel Washington and his family visited the troops at Brook Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas (BAMC) the other day. This is where soldiers who have been evacuated from Germany come to be hospitalized in the United States, especially burn victims. There are some buildings there called Fisher Houses. The Fisher House is a hotel where soldiers' families can stay, for little or no charge, while their soldier is staying in the Hospital. BAMC has quite a few of these houses on the base, but as you can imagine they are almost filled most of the time. While Denzel Washington was visiting BAMC, they gave him a tour of one of the Fisher Houses. He asked how much one of them would cost to build. He then took his check book out and wrote a check for the full amount right there on the spot. The soldiers overseas were amazed to hear this story and want to get the word out to the American public, because it warmed their hearts to hear it. The question I have is why do Alec Baldwin, Madonna, Sean Penn, and other Hollywood types make front page news with their trash and Denzel Washington's patriotism doesn't even make page 3 in the Metro section anywhere except the local newspaper in San Antonio?"