Short, But Smart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                     "Ways To Disappear," by Idra Novey, is also a first novel.  It is also proof that brief does not mean lightweight, for within its 258 pages a litany of topics is covered--financial plight, the price of genius, a mystery search for a missing person, and the way words, and how they are perceived form how we think, conceptually.

                                        All this starts when Brazil's foremost authoress, Beatriz Yagoda, vanishes, by climbing into a tree, clutching a suitcase--and vanishing?  Where to?  It becomes the job of her children, Raquel and Marcus, and Emma, her literary translator, to find out.  The journey they embark on reveals facets of an author they thought they knew, as a writer, friend, or mother.

                                        I have been on some kind of reading jag, darlings, and have been lucky enough to make some good discoveries.  Novey's debut is impressively original.  I wonder where she will go from here.

                                        Beatriz Yagoda is a great character.  I, for one, would love more stories about her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



                               

Tangy, But Not Tartt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                      Ever since Donna Tartt published her masterwork, "The Secret History," there have been numerous attempts to rework it.  I guess writers were desperate for Donna's success.

                                      "If We Were Villains," by M. L. Rio (also a first novel!!!!!!!!) is a redo that works.  Instead of a posh college, a dramatic conservatory, not unlike Oberlin or Julliard, but centering exclusively on Shakespeare, is the setting.  The inner group is a septet of senior students--Richard, Alexander, Oliver, James, Meredith, Fillipia, and Wren.   During the year, this group. who spout Shakespeare as easily as I do movie quotes, are torn apart, when one of them is murdered.

                                       Like Tartt, it is done as a flashback.  Shakespeare references stand in for classical ones.  This novel is the print equivalent of the 1973 Vincent Price film. "Theater Of Blood."  It may not be campy, but reading this novel is a wonderful way to get students interested in Shakespeare.

                                     All similarities to Tartt end here.  The novel is divided into acts, like a play, and each section has a beginning, middle and end.  The outcome, which I was certain I saw coming, completely stumped me.  I will not spoil anything here, but the psychodynamics that  motivate how things turn out are such a sad and surprising twist, I was left gasping.  I will say this--my generosity does not extend as far as what is recorded here.

                                      The novel does not really get going, until beyond the halfway point.  This is frustrating while reading, but when done, the pace is understandable, as so much of gleaning the outcome depends on the exposition that sets it up.

                                        To read, or not to read--that is the question.  There is no question that M.L. Rio's "If We Were Villains" should be read!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                         It may discourage aspiring actors from taking up the craft!

                                         Then, again, it may do just the opposite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This Rat HAD To Be Imported, From New York!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                          Plenty has been written on this blog already about "What Ever Happened To Baby Jane?," I am really not sure what I can add, but I will try.

                            On May 10, Film Forum ran a special, one day screening, to commemorate the 40th Anniversary of Joan Crawford's death.  Which also happens to be the anniversary when, back in 1966, I had open heart surgery, at New York Hospital, Cornell Medical Center.

                            When it came time for the rat scene, I had to wonder.  While shooting this, they needed a decent sized rat.  I know Jane tells Blanche they have rats in the cellar, but those are puny, Los Angeles rats.  In order for the scene to be truly impressive, Aldrich knew the one place to get enormous rats could only be New York City--where some are even two legged!

                              I have no doubt this rat came from Manhattan!  I would have hated to work props on this film!!!!!!!!!!!

                              The other thing I wondered about was--what kind of an audience flocks to a showing of "What Ever Happened To Baby Jane?" in the middle of the afternoon?????  I had my suspicions, and it turned out I was right.

                               There were two sane people in the audience--my friend, Chris, and myself.  There was also a young Asian couple, in their early twenties.  The girl had obviously seen "Feud--Bette And Joan," but had never seen this film, and you can be sure the boy friend had not.  Wonder what they thought?

                                 Otherwise, my prediction was right--a bunch of Victor Buono or serial killer wannabes, who live with their mother.  There was also one homeless guy; it amazes me, with what Film Forum now charges he was able to scrape up the cash to get in.

                                   The audience was almost as scary as the film.   But not quite.

                                   My new favorite line--"Maybe so.  But Julie's parents have lived here a long time, I GUESS she should know!"

                                  Too bad B.D. knew nothing about acting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Girls, You Have GOT To See "A Dollar, A Dream!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

                             I thought I had seen all the truly great "Cold Case" episodes.  But, to my astonishment, some are still hidden to me.  One I recently discovered was "A Dollar, A Dream," which was shot ten years ago, in 2007, and featured a young Jennifer Lawrence in the role of Abby Bradford (not to be confused with the Bradfords, of "Eight Is Enough").  I confess I initially watched this just to see if Lawrence could act.  I never believed she could.  But, in this, she proves me wrong; given good material, she can act.  Too bad she does not get to do it often.

                             The episode, turned out to be so unrelentingly heartbreaking I had to watch it twice, not only to process it, but to discover that Vincent Hopper, played, in a brilliant performance, by Holmes Osbourne, whom I was ready to nail up as one of this show's most despicable perps is, himself, a victim, too.

                                "Cold Case" has referenced many renowned works of literature and film into the fabric of its stories.  I don't know if the writers of "A Dollar, A Dream," consciously or not, had "Les Miserables" in mind, but I quickly saw, in Paula Malcomson's performance as Marlene Bradford, whose goodness, vulnerability, and love for her daughters, drove her to things she did not want to acknowledge, a modern day version of Fantine.  In fact, this title should have been called "A Dollar A Dream" aka "Marlene, The Modern Fantine."

                                  The actual title comes from an old commercial about winning the lottery.  "All you need is a dollar and a dream."  Which was enough to drive millions to play.   But what if it is not a game?  What if it is all you have?  What if you are desperate?

                                   Marlene Bradford was facing all that, back in September of 1999.  Her husband died of cancer, at a relatively young age; Marlene, at the time, was 35.  She had no family of her own, just two girls, Abby, 9, but soon to be 10, and Natalie, who was 14.

                                    The father's illness finished them.  They lost a loved one, and, as Marlene had only a year of college and no job skills, they lost everything they had.  They were reduced to living out of their car, the only possession, save a few clothes and household items, they managed to keep.  Marlene worked shifts at a 24 hour market, getting the girls bathed when they had the opportunity.

                                       One evening, Vincent Hopper, a homeless man who, apparently had been on the streets longer, tells Marlene of a park she can use as a habitat for their situation.  She thanks him, and he, in turn, offers to split a lottery ticket with her.  Both hold out for sunnier times, but it becomes clear to Marlene this is not to be, and that Vincent is nursing fantasies of his own.  Where Marlene is trying to protect and preserve some dignity for she and her daughters in this deplorable situation, Vincent is just grasping on to a reality long lost to him, as he has been homeless longer than he realizes, his wife does not want him, and his son has grown up, and moved on.

                                         I wish this show had examined Vincent's back story, to see how he came to be where he was, and why his wife and son abandoned him.  Marlene had no one, but Vincent did.

                                          The day of the murder is Abby's 10th birthday.  The day before, Marlene and Natalie discover they have a winning ticket--but only for $25.  Enough to buy Abby a birthday cake, and pay Vincent his half of the "finder's fee."  But when Marlene goes to do this, it is apparent homelessness has done a number on Vincent, mentally, because he cannot understand that the winning is only $25--that is $12.50 each--and not a million.  When Marlene tries to make him understand reality, he becomes belligerent and violent.  Seizing Marlene's gun from the car, after destroying Abby's birthday cake, feeling she is withholding close to a million dollars from him, he shoots Marlene, killing her, then tosses she and the car into a nearby lake.

                                            Abby and Natalie are then separated for eight years, by the foster care system.  Abby is adopted right away; Natalie struggles.

                                            In a subplot, Natalie runs off.  Her mother finds her on the porch swing of the house which they once owned--with a "Foreclosure" sign on it.  During this scene, when the mother and daughter comfort each other, saying their famous mantra--"We are the Bradford girls.  We stay together. We move on, with what we've got," I broke down.

                                             This episode dramatizes my worst fear.  In reference to my "Dinner" post, it gives the face of humanity to the homeless, which is why it should be seen by all.  When the girls are reunited, and see the ghost of Marlene, we know "Fantine" has come through.

                                               Marlene was a courageous woman.  Even Vincent, in a more lucid moment, says she did not deserve what happened to her.

                                                But, then, neither does anyone.

                                             

Fag Hag! Bitch! Mother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                   Mavis Breen is all of the above.  She is also the winner of this weeks's Raving Queen Bitch Of The Week Award!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   And there are several reasons I just LOVE her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                       I should add that Mavis is fictional.  She was featured in the "Cold Case" episode, "Greed."  It also used an "aka" in the title, called "Greed Is Good."  I wonder if this was the first time "Cold Case" used "aka" in a title?  It would not be the last!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                     The episode was a riff on the Michael Douglas film, "Wall Street."  But here, there was a gay component.

                                       William Burnmiller plays Charles Danville, a real corporate stockbroker scum--you know the type, girls!!!!!!!!!--who is one great big closet case!!!!!!!!!  In THIS business?  It is enough to ruin a career, if found out!  Even today; don't deny it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                         Into Burnmiller's world comes a young man named Kip Crowley.  Mavis was a good time gal, who got around, so there were lots of hubbies and stepdads, but Mavis loved her little boy.  Kip is played by T.J. Thyne in 1985, and John Kassir  in 2004.

                                          Kip wants into Charles' world.  The man takes him in, and basically mentors him.  Nothing wrong there.   But Kip crosses a line, developing gay, romantic feelings for Charles.  Surprisingly, they were returned.  Only, what Kip did not know was that Charles was also sleeping with his mother, Mavis!  Shades of Sophocles!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                            Eventually, Kip finds out what a scumbag Charles is.  He screws Mavis physically, and financially, in a Ponzi scheme that causes her to lose her money.  Kip finds out, confronts Charles, and asks for help for his mother.  But the scum only laughs in the kid's face, scornfully telling him to go back to the sticks, as he can't cut it in the finance world, and that their relationship was just a fling, anyway!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                             Distraught, Kip goes home to Momma, and spills the beans!  Repulsed she has been sleeping with her son's lover, and that he has spurned her son, whom she loves above all else, Mavis tracks Charles down, and shoots him in cold blood!

                                             I say, "Good for you, Mavis!"  Like a fierce mother lioness, protecting her cub!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                             And guess who Mavis is played by, dolls?  The Mavis of 2004 is portrayed by......Patricia McCormack, aka Patty McCormack, aka Rhoda Penmark, stage and screen, in "The Bad Seed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"  How delicious!!!!!!!!!!!!!  What casting brilliance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                             I have to hand it to Mavis for being such a bitch!  She loved her son, no matter what!  She defended his honor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                              She was quite a mom, darlings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A Not Altogether Satisfying Meal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                           My expectations for "The Dinner" were high, but not met.

                           It has many good points.  An A-list cast of top notch actors doing fine work, and, in the case of Steve Coogan, work of award caliber.  It has a visual ambience more stunning than "My Dinner  With Andre."  You get to know what the entire meal is, and , best of all, you don't have to look at Wallace Shawn for two hours.

                             Nevertheless, viewing this film is a frustrating experience.  It starts with the credits flashing onto the screen at the speed of a glaucoma test, so that it is barely possible to read them.  Added to this, screenwriter Oren Moverman  (who is also the director) has constructed a sort of darker "God Of Carnage"--more on that, later.  Such a work, let alone a thriller, depends on dialogue and details, but Moverman overloads with overlapping, as though trying to channel Robert Altman.  Now, Moverman's direction is better than his writing, but the thing is--I could always understand an Altman soundtrack; my quick, analytical mind could always pick out the dialectical fragments, and process them.  Such is not the case here.

                              This is not especially important, as the story is fairly straightforward.  Four couples--Paul and Claire (Steve Coogan and Laura Linney) gather with Stan and Katelyn (Richard Gere and Rebecca Hall) for the dinner of the title.  Because Gere and Coogan  are brothers, both couples are named Lohman.  The brothers have issues; Stan is a self-serving politician, and Paul is an academic with genetic mental health issues.  They have gathered at a high end restaurant to discuss a crime which each one's son, together, committed.

                               For those who do not want anything spoiled, I suggest you stop reading here.  Because, in order to go further, I have to discuss matters at hand.

                                 "The Dinner" is a tale of moral ambivalence.  It poses a litmus test to the couples, and the audience, and I found my outcome more satisfying than the film's.

                                    Their two boys, both typical teens, are out for an evening of hanging out, and drugging, when they come upon an automatic teller booth.  They go inside, and, at first, I thought they were going to hack into someone's account, which would have been bad enough, only what they do is actually worse.  Once inside, they find a sleeping homeless woman, there for shelter and comfort.  She is not bothering anyone.  Those of us, like myself, have had this experience many times over.

                                      But, instead of ignoring her--which is what in reality one does in most cases, unless threatened--the boys verbally abuse her, beat and kick her to death, and set she, and the booth, on fire!

                                        Because the scenes are constructed like the divisions within a dinner menu, the narrative unfolds back and forth over time, with the parents berating themselves, their children, and lastly voicing a fierce determination to protect these kids, no matter what.  Where "God Of Carnage" turned the adults into comic replicas of their children, "The Dinner" transforms the Lohmans into the monsters their boys are, so  it was apparent, at least to me, where the boys' monstrosities stemmed from.

                                          The irony is that it is Stan (Gere), the politician planning to run for governor,  and who has the most to lose, who comes closest to possessing a moral compass.  It is he who insists the boys must own up to what they did, and he is willing to go the authorities, sacrificing his career, and everything.   Until wife Katelyn manipulates him into keeping things quiet, for there days.

                                            Everyone goes haywire--Claire is self-righteously defensive, much like her character in "Mystic River," Paul comes close to killing the other boy, and Katelyn just wants to gloss things over.  She is the prettiest, so why not?

                                             The movie ends abruptly, and inconclusively.  If you feel angry--as I did--that the boys might get away with it, carry this story three days forward.  What happens after then?
Will Stan go to the authorities? My hope is he will, but he probably doesn't.  However, with the boys being teens, uncontrollable and impulsive, someone will brag, someone will hear--and someone will eventually talk.

                                               I mean, should these children be protected?  Yes--from society and themselves--by locking them away in prison.  To hell with their youth; they sacrificed that once they verbally abused that woman.  Who just happens to be a human being.  I am telling you, the film does get under the skin.  It made my blood boil.

                                                I suppose it is made to get viewers thinking.  It does, but I wanted a more straightforward ending.

                                                 Maybe that is the one each viewer ends up giving to him/her self.

                                                 "The Dinner" may be high end, darlings, but you come away from this meal, feeling hungry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thrilling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                           I am on some kind of reading jag, darlings!  Maybe, in the face of losing a childhood friend, I feel the need to do as much as I can before departing this world!  Not that I plan to--oh, no!  Too many people to love who love me back, and much to do.

                                            But....on to "Quick Sand."  This is a legal thriller, written in the first person of the defendant on trial.  Marie, a high school girl, survives a Columbine-like massacre in her Swedish high school--but is she responsible???????????????

                                               Who did the shooting?  Why?  And, most importantly, for me, what about Amanda, her best friend?  All these questions and tackled in the novel.  Most are answered, but the mystery surrounding Amanda remains, for me, still ambivalent.

                                                 I had heard Sweden was leading in the crime novel genre, now I believe it.  Fast paced, beautifully  written, it outdoes most American writers in this genre, any day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                                  And it provides another demonstration that high school is not a fun time for anyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!