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.
  

Podcast With Katey. Oscar Rule Change

Hey people. Katey Rich, who you'll remember from those old vodcasts and podcasts right here (that's us to the left when we were talking up Inglourious Basterds) has been making waves with her podcast/vodcast series "Kino Katey." I'm a guest star for the first time there to talk about the Oscar changes. Listen in!

She's also doing this fab new series "Virgin Territory" where she watches a classic she's never seen before and talks it up with a friend who loves it, the latest being Apocalypse Now.

Kino Katey. Oscar Rule Changes

Unsung Heroes: The Archer of 'Robin Hood'

Michael C. from Serious Film here. As a rule, I don't indulge in nostalgic, "They don't make 'em like they used to" wallowing. I don't see the point. There was quality then and there is quality now. That having been said, it doesn't mean I can't geek out over one of the shining examples of classic Hollywood, which I will now do.

Watching The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) directed by Michael Curtiz and William Keighley it is hard not to feel a twinge of longing for the studio system, Hayes Code and all. It was firing on all cylinders with this production and, man, is it glorious to behold. Everything is bold and colorful and exciting. It can go toe-to-toe with Singin’ in the Rain for pure joy of filmmaking on display. 

As a nine-year-old viewer it was enough to inspire lifelong devotion. More than anything I think I responded to the reality of the film. Not realism, of course. This is a Movie-Movie if ever there was one. I mean the tactile reality of the things physically happening on the set. This is what we are losing with CGI. When something isn't faked it reaches a viewer (especially a young one) in a powerful way. In this movie we have Errol Flynn’s athleticism - swinging on vines and scaling walls - the impossibly cool sword fighting. And the arrows. Above all the arrows.

Howard Hill (archer) with Errol Flynn (movie star)

No movie does archery like The Adventures of Robin Hood. Which brings us to the hero of this episode, one Mr. Howard Hill, archer. If the arrows here have an impact lacking in other movies there is a good reason for that. Howard Hill was actually shooting people with real arrows.

I’ll say that again.

For a bonus $150 stunt men would throw on a steel plate and some padding and Hill would shoot them with real arrows fired at actual lethal speed. They could get away with this because Hill simply never missed. Seriously, he has to be seen to be believed. You can look for yourself on the DVD extra features where he is shown in archival footage splitting twine from fifty paces. He even worked with the sound team shooting his own specially designed arrows past microphones to create that instantly recognizable high-pitched “whoosh” sound that arrows make in this movie and no other.

Now, if I had to decide whether it’s right for stuntmen to risk getting shot with arrows by anyone, no matter how skilled, I would have to be a killjoy and say no. But since the arrows in question all flew over 70 years ago, I feel at liberty to point out that this method is really, really cool. Not only does it come across brilliantly on camera, but it spares us all the tricks the director would have needed to get around fake arrows - the kind of minor slight of hand that viewers let slide but nevertheless take us out of the movie a tiny bit each time.

Legend has it Hill personally performed the unforgettable stunt of splitting the arrow in one take. I saw an episode of Mythbusters where they declared this an impossible feat for a variety of reasons. Call me naïve and protective of my favorite childhood movie but I’m not convinced. I would prefer Mythbusters amending their verdict to “Busted for anyone who is not Howard Hill.” 

previously on Unsung Heroes: Glengarry Glen Ross, Zodiac, Oldboy, The Iron Giant, Hedwig and the Angry Inch...