This week we discuss Glengarry Glen Ross, Evil Dead, Heartburn (again), Holy Motors (again), The Prestige, National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, Paris Texas, and briefly talk about Spring Breakers, Frost/Nixon, Gainsbourg: A Heroic Life, and Blue Velvet. If you'd like to join in on next week's discussion, then please watch Cabin in the Woods within the next two weeks and email us your thoughts.
click here to stream
click here to download
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn Mamet's political orientation - while Mamet didn't come out explicitly as a conservative until the 2008 election, it would be a mistake to term his prior work "liberal" (at least in the contemporary American sense - classical liberal, maybe). "Spartan" (2004), for example, had a strong streak of Tom Clancy military-heroics worship. And "Oleanna" (1992/1994), while not anti-liberal per se, certainly expressed a discomfort with political correctness that would put him very much at odds with current American "progressive" opinion. "Edmond" (1982/2005) leaves a lot of ambiguity as to whether he's condemning or praising the main characters racism and general misanthropy.
ReplyDelete"Glengarry Glen Ross" is probably Mamet's most "leftist" work, and there's definitely an strong implied critique of the capitalist ethos there. On the other hand, the critique is not so overt as to prevent companies in the sales business from actually using the movie as a morale-building/training film! Admittedly, that's a superficial take on it, but I've seen a ton of internet comments that seem to show the viewer got no other message from the film than "Always be Closing!"
As to the plot detail that Williamson has been deliberately feeding Shelley bad leads - including the Nyborgs, who's nutiness and inability to pay Williamson already had a memo on. That's a detail I didn't pick up on at first, but caught on repeated viewings. It's kind of a plot hole, because when Williamson reveals that he knew the Nyborgs were unable to pay, Shelley doesn't even question why Williamson had handed him that lead in the first place. This duplicity is actually explained in an early version of the play's screenplay - Williamson and Roma are in cahoots, and Roma has been getting the best leads all along. Any friendliness that Roma showed toward Shelley was as much an act as his friendliness toward Lingk. That plot point was dropped from later performances and the movie (with Roma's affection toward Shelley and even toward Aaronow treated as more genuine), and we're left to assume Williamson's undermining is an extension of his "I don't like you" attitude toward Shelley. (Also the scene where Roma first meets Lingk in the Chinese restaurant is not actually in the original play, which only has the longer restuant scene with the two, and how Roma first meets Lingk (as a lead versus a chance meeting) is never stated.)
On a different topic, "Last Temptation" (1988) and "Cape Fear" (1992) were definitely not back to back movies - "Goodfellas" (1990) came between the two. If there was any Scorcese film that could be said to be the "commercial" compliment to "Last Temptation", that would be "The Color of Money" (1986), though you could also pair that one with "After Hours" (1985).
One other point - you mention the director, James Foley, in the context of "who the hell was that and how did he get to direct this?" Not a generally well-known director, but at the time, he was fresh from a critically-acclaimed (but initial box-office bombed, a pattern followed by "Glengarry") 1990 neo-noir adaptation of Jim Thompson's "After Dark My Sweet". Well worth a viewing if you've never seen it. The critical success of "After Dark" and his earlier "At Close Range" (1986) that likely got him the gig. Since then, he hasn't really had any followup in terms of notable films, though more recently he's had the director's spot on about 1/3 of the "House of Cards" episodes.
Delete