Tom Cruise Has Magic Hair

Today Tom Cruise released the first picture of himself in character as "Stacee Jaxx" for the musical comedy ROCK OF AGES (2012) which is based on this Broadway hit. I'm sure some blogs will say this looks ridiculous but it's supposed to. The show is a broad comedy! The weird part is that his storyline revolves around a journalist trying to expose him. Wasn't that a subplot in Magnolia... or was that just Frank TJ Mackey's paranoia talking? I haven't seen that movie in forever.

In addition to Tom's magic sperm, which seems to unlock greatness in actresses as soon as they reject it, he has always had magic hair. No matter what style it's in for a film, no matter if its buzzcut military or yuppie floppy, or long and lanky, or rock-star wispy it always looks crazy perfect. It always ends up looking like that's the way his hair was always meant to be. Barring Interview With a Vampire but that was a wig. (Oh god please tell me that was a wig. Otherwise even magic has its limits)

Rock of Ages opens in June 2012. And what that boils down to is this: One more year until we get to see Catherine Zeta Jones singing and dancing again. Yes! The cast list also includes Alec Baldwin, Mary J Blige, Julianne Hough, Paul Giamatti, Russell Brand, Bryan Cranston and Malin Akerman.

P.S. this tattoo is made of LOL.  I sincerely hope that the costume designer -- not yet named on IMDb -- is on point for this movie. It could be a joyously funny movie if the details are great.

From the Set to the Runway: Hepburn, Dunaway... Malick?

This week I had the pleasure of attending a lecture at the Morgan Library and Museum. I can't recall the last time I went to a lecture so I felt very Schlegel Sisters from Howard's End (1992). The things people used to do for entertainment!

The lecture was actually more of a threeway discussion. The museum paired influential fashion historian Valerie Steele with famed designer Anna Sui (who turns out to be a movie buff) and Oscar nominated costume designer Deborah Nadoolman (Coming to America) whose credits include 80s hits like Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Three Amigos! (remember that one?) and even the "Thriller" music video! So herewith the tidbits I felt you'd enjoy most from the event.

Some actresses are not just movie stars, but fashion icons.

Faye Dunaway & Audrey Hepburn
The general gist of the event was in delineating what separates fashion from costume design and how costume design can but doesn't necessarily become fashion. Nadoolman suggests that it's a matter of "transference" and what's required is usually both a popular film and a character within the film that people want to be like in some way. That combination creates icons and icons influence fashion. Whether or not that happens, she argued, has little to do with good costuming which is about creating characters. For instance, Nadoolman said that one could argue that Audrey Hepburn's wardrobe in Breakfast at Tiffany's is actually bad costume design even though they're sensational dresses. What kind of a down and out call girl can afford those looks? Audrey Hepburn's before and after Paris looks in Sabrina were also discussed and it was interesting to hear Nadoolman tsk-tsking over Edith Head's oft misleading but admittedly savvy way with self-promotion. She designed Audrey's poor girl looks but the post Parisian fashions were not hers though of course Head was glad to accept another Oscar on behalf of them.

And yes that recent Black Swan controversy (Rodarte vs. Amy Westcott) was cited when they were discussing this.

Terrence Malick Inspires Fasion. Come again?
Anna Sui told the audience that behind every one of her collections, there is a movie. Sometimes it's not the principle influence but there are always movie images that inspire her. She referenced many films that have directly inspired whole lines including, recently, Goya's Ghost and one that I wasn't familiar with at all called Beau Brummell (1954) -- has anyone seen that?

Days of Heaven inspired an Anna Sui collection

She also talked about Terrence Malick's Days of Heaven (1978). Sui is a huge fan of the film but she finds it so tragic that when she was designing a particular collection and using the film as her chief inspiration, she watched it countless times but only with the sound off! She used material like rubberized wheat (?) and overdyed all the textiles to get that ethereal twilight Days of Heaven feel.

The Body. The Torso. The Face.
When asked to address the differences between designing for stage, film and television, Nadoolman explained that it's all a question of scale and volume. In theater you're designing for the body "you're painting with a large brush". In film you're concentrating on the waist up. For television it's all about the close-up.

Interestingly two women in the crowd who designed for theater took umbrage at the notion that they didn't have to worry about the fine detailing since their clothes are seen only from a distance.

Marie Antoinette
The three fashionistas on stage really got into the discussion of Sofia Coppola's misunderstood 2006 film. Nadoolman told a great story about three-time Oscar winning costume designer Milena Canonero calling her in a panic from France...

We're doing Marie Antoinette and Kirsten Dunst has refused to wear wigs. How do you do Marie Antoinette without wigs?!?

Most costume design, Nadoolman stated, is not truly period accurate even if it appears to be. There are usually conscious choices made to change up period fashions, usually to make the characters more beautiful to modern audiences or to please a specific star or because the director is going for a specific mood or palette. Real gowns from Marie Antoinette's day, for example, were made of heavier upholstery-like material but Sofia's instructions to Canonero were that she wanted the actresses to "float" so light tissue tafetta was used. As for the color and the floating effect, her instructions were as follows:

I would like them to be like a plate of meringues."

It worked. Yum yum.

Cinema de Gym: 'There's Something About Mary'

Kurt here with the third installment of Cinema de Gym, the new series in which I mix film with fitness by chiming in on the movies that play at my local health club. The cinematic portions of my gym visits come near the end of the hour, when lifting segues into cardio. Since the day's movie plays on a continuous loop, I never know what, exactly, I'm in for, but I seem to have knack for being just in time for the “money scenes,” if you will.

On the day that Swimfan was playing, I slipped in just as Jesse Bradford was being tricked into having chlorinated psycho sex with Erika Christensen, and recently, when the movie du jour was There's Something About Mary, you know I climbed up onto that elliptical just as Ben Stiller's zippered balls were ready for their close-up.

Even after 13 years, I'm baffled by There's Something About Mary, a movie that, for me, is the '90s equivalent of The Hangover – a massively popular, jump-on-the-laugh-wagon comedy success that's only minimally funny. I can vividly remember allowing myself to be convinced of the film's hilarity, when in fact I only truly laughed at scenes with Magda, the randy, sun-burnt neighbor. Isn't that funny? The communal mentality of giving mediocre comedy a pass just because so many other people have inexplicably decided it's hysterical? I know better now than to fall for such things, but so many other people don't, including the chorus of sweaty men surrounding me in the gym's dark theater room, all of them laughing and looking at each other with validation-seeking eyes like, “Don't we just love this franks-and-beans bit?!”

Stiller zips up

Whereas The Hangover appeals to the layman's thrill of drinking to forget and then straining to remember, Mary, of course, thrives on sheer shock value. Many would probably call it a pioneer of the censor-pushing sight gag. But without WTF moments like Stiller's we-got-a-bleeder wardrobe malfunction or Cameron Diaz's spunky hair gel incident, what are we left with? A creepy, predominantly mean-spirited affair that essentially endorses stalking? An inane comedy for rude, sweaty gym rats that dares to call itself a love story? That delightful “Build Me Up, Buttercup” coda notwithstanding, there's something about all of it that just doesn't add up, and one last belly laugh from a dude tickled by Mary's “retarded” brother was all I needed to cut off my cardio session early.

Conclusions?

1. Scan the room thoroughly before entering a screening of There's Something About Mary.
2. Diaz, if you think about it, was launched to superstardom while being made a lust object, punch line and sperm receptacle all at once.
3. The “shocking” moments of Mary haven't aged any better than neighbor Magda's weathered, leathered skin.
4. My gym has got to get some new programmers!

What say you, TFE readers? Smitten with Mary? Looking forward to Bad Teacher?

Green Lantern: Slightly Enjoyable, Enormously Dumb.

Imagine that you had the power to will anything into existence. Let your imagination run wild. What would it be?

Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) is given this infinite gift in the new superhero flick Green Lantern. This power emanates from a ring which is charged by the title object which is given to--- Stop. Stop. You don't need this exposition. Should you choose to see the picture, the complicated history of the lantern will all be explained to you in a lengthy prologue. Once Hal Jordan has entered his own movie, this lengthy prologue will be explained to him again since he wasn't there for it. He in turn will tell this crazy-ass story to his only two friends since they weren't there when he heard it. (If at any point, nature should call, feel free to answer. They'll repeat it for you.)

So what does Hal do with this incredibly infinite gift? He creates fists, fighter jets, race tracks, swords, shields... the basic playthings of little boys. Hal Jordan isn't exactly gifted in the imagination department...

 Read the full review at Towleroad.

P.S. Honestly, I could have spilled 1000 more words. There is so much worth mocking. I didn't even space for The Watchers, or Mark Strong as Sinestro or how ridiculously overplayed and schematic the "daddy issues" were. And yet... I can't say it was painful to sit through exactly but for its just mystifyingly silliness... and I love the Green Lantern (one of my favs as a kid). As Katey said to me in the screening "Why did they do that to Angela Bassett's hair?" Oh, the unsolvable mysteries of Sector 2814!

Best Shot: "Peggy Sue Got Married" ... Her Second 25th Anniversary

Hit Me With Your Best Shot is a series where we look at favorite images and choose a "best shot" from a pre-selected movie. The moments that most define a film, elevate it, or merely gives us the most visual pleasure. "Best" is a fluid adjective. TWO WEEKS FROM NOW (June 29th) we'll be discussing Luchino Vischonti's Rocco And His Brothers (1960). Won't you join us? It's supposed to be awesome.

Francis Ford Coppola's PEGGY SUE GOT MARRIED (1986).

It's all in the transitions with Peggy Sue Got Married. And with Peggy Sue (Kathleen Turner), who begins the picture distraught over her impending divorce and ends the picture by rejecting that new future (divorce) and for the recent past (troubled marriage). In the present tense, she's attending a high school reunion (a celebration of the past) while worrying about her future. And soon, after collapsing on the reunion's stage, she's thrust back into her own past... but aware that she shouldn't be there and viewing her past from the vantage point of the future. She's always out of time.

Note the way Coppola frames her at key moments, like this one above, where he separates her from things she is very much a part of, like this 25th High School Reunion. (I figured the movie's 25th anniversary year was a good time to revisit it and I'm so glad I did.)

In the lead up to the most magical and compelling shot in the film, she returns to her childhood home and considers knocking as the door drifts open of its own accord. Again we see the heroine separated visually from the main setting of the story, but in both cases she's about to enter into the present, whichever present that is, but she's doing so very tentatively. She either doesn't want to be there or she does but happens to be terrified. It's hard to live in the present but it's even harder when that present is the past.

The best shot in the film comes very early when Peggy Sue enters her childhood bedroom. Coppola moves the camera around the room and accelerates in a dizzying circle until we're back with the middle aged woman as she rediscovers her adolescence. There are no edits (THANK YOU!) as Peggy repeats the circling, rediscovering the room she grew up in. She seems utterly bewitched by the simplest things like a shoe on the carpet, her record player, a wee book. The room is lit so softly and superbly by the late cinematographer Jordan Cronenwerth and he was deservingly Oscar nominated for this picture! [Trivia note: His son Jeff was nominated just last year in the same category for The Social Network]. When Peggy finishes her tour, we've seen Kathleen Turner go from hypnotic trance to simple joy to confusion and then back to terrified, still not at peace with her time travelling.

WHAT is going on."

This fluctuation of mood in the space of one scene, is in perfect synch with the spotty brilliance of the movie which finds funny, sad, silly and mysterious ways to dig into the crazy moodswings of those hormonally charged teenage years while simultaneously commenting on middle aged "it's all behind me" panic. You could say the same of many time travel or body switching movies, but Coppola's vision is more adult than much of this peculiar subgenre. The movie is quite funny but it's also shot through with despair. Even the finale, a "happy ending" has a strange undertow of defeatist compromise, despite the fantastical happenings proceeding it. Even if you can go home again, you can't reboot your life; you have to make peace with it.

Peggy Sue peaked early. And so it is with Peggy Sue Got Married which is wonderfully compelling in the first third, less so in the second, and sputters and collapses at the finale. In a way the movie's primary weakness is absolutely fitting. It showed such promise during its youth! Does the movie's minor reputation reflect merely that it's an older person's film -- people Peggy Sue's age, who had the most to gain from its high school in the late 50s nostalgia would be hitting 70 about now -- or is it simply a result of its own shortcomings?

Arguably the movie is only a minor footnote now, but I still love it. If it's remembered it's mostly within the context of Coppola's career and family trivia (his daughter Sofia, her accomplished filmmaking career way ahead of her plays Peggy Sue's younger sister and his nephew Nicolas Cage gets the male lead) or as the  for the peak of Kathleen Turner's short-lived mega stardom. It had a disappointing Oscar run. Turner's wonderfully playful work, which is complicated but looks easy (that's Oscar death!) is still a real beauty of a star turn 25 years later. The final image that really stung on this revisit, is not a single shot but two of them, fused in a slow melancholy dissolve.

Peggy Sue has just broken up with her boyfriend again in an attempt to save them both from their 25 years-later divorce. She sits tired and despondent, lights a cigarette and we dissolve to the next scene. The beautiful thing is that it looks just like a memory: Soulful, colorful, lively... but half-imagined.

Check out these other Peggy Sue articles!

• Movies Kick Ass "Reverse Dorothy"
• The Entertainment Junkie "one woman's hall of mirrors" -- this is a really interesting take celebrating my least favorite scenes. It's making me rethink them!
• Film Actually loves the film's quotability. It does have great lines. And hair. And teeth. And eyes.
• Missemmamm really loves Peggy Sue and shared her favorite moments
• Awwww, the Movies Peggy's wild night.