In today’s LA Times, I review the new cinematic biography Douglas Fairbanks by Jeffrey Vance with Tony Maietta.

In my years researching early silent film, I’d always skirted around Fairbanks, who seemed just TOO BIG, saddled with the kind of fame that makes most stories flat and untrue. Who is the real George Washington? Who knows?

I think that Vance has done a good job of dodging the oft-told tales of Fairbanks, which he does by focusing on his films. He devotes complete chapters to Fairbanks’ most significant works: “The Mask of Zorro” (1920), “The Three Mustketeers” (1921), “Douglas Fairbanks in Robin Hood” (1922) “The Thief of Bagdad” (1924), “Don Q Son of Zorro” (1925) and “The Black Pirate” (1926), as well as “Douglas Fairbanks as The Gaucho” (1927), “The Iron Mask” (1929) and “The Taming of the Shrew” (1929, with wife Mary Pickford).

But in doing so he left me wanting a little more of what made the great artist tick. Vance makes the case for him as an auteur – yet when, late in the book, contemporaries’ quotes refer to him as a narcissist, I wonder how those things are connected. Was he a great artist creating great art, or a man obsessed with his own image (or simply himself), or some combination?

I watched some of my DVD of The Thief of Bagdad when working on the piece, and it was a reminder that words can’t really come close to what Douglas Fairbanks did. This book will give you some perspective on the realness of the stunts, the enormity of the sets, the dreamlike art deco of the art design — but it can’t ever explain the joy that radiates from Douglas Fairbanks as he leaps and grins.

So… look for some videos of the man in action to show up on Jacket Copy later today.

USA Today had the temerity to approach Cormac McCarthy pre-Oscars, and found he was all smiles.

…while the Kodak Theatre lobby bustled with stars, the famously reclusive author quietly slipped into the theater and sat alone with young son John. Approached tentatively because he is famously averse to interviews, McCarthy proved to be gracious and outgoing. His thoughts about all of this? “What’s there to say — I’m at the Oscars and I’m not even in the film business!” His son nodded enthusiastically. “It should be fun. It should be trippy.”

McCarthy said he was amazed that Hollywood decided to adapt the book with its unconventional ending. “I’m just glad people didn’t run screaming from the theater,” he said, chuckling.

When No Country for Old Men won Best Picture, the camera actually cut to McCarthy as he joined the standing ovation. Three cheers for the show’s directors for acknowledging the literary source of the film.

Now to get them to learn the bobbleheaded woman on the red carpet who just couldn’t figure out what was up with Viggo Mortensen’s new bearded look. He’s filming The Road, lady. It’s from a book. By Cormac McCarthy. Set in a post-apocalyptic world where people walk and walk just to find food, and good razors are exceedingly hard to come by.

I’ve just seen There Will Be Blood, and assertions that it’s based on oilman Edward Doheny are a stretch. Yes, Doheny started out as a miner; yes, he found oil; yes, he had a mustache … and that’s about it. The real Doheny story, if you’re curious, is in the excellent biography Dark Side of Fortune by Margaret Leslie Davis.

But it’s clear that Doheny was on the mind of PT Anderson, or his location scout, at least. The final scenes were filmed in Greystone, the mansion Doheny built for his real-life son and his wife. Now the center of a park owned by the city of Beverly Hills, the mansion is frequently used for filming. When I was there this summer, I saw the recently restored bowling alley and basement bar. Restored — for this movie?

paul dano sat here

Paul Dano sat on those green velvet cushions! And Daniel Day Lewis sprawled on this bowling alley floor!

greystone bowling alley

Which is neither here nor there — well, technically, I guess it’s there — but I bring it up because I love this kind of feedback loop between fiction and reality. A character marginally based on Doheny winds up inside a real house Doheny built, lending the film a verisimilitude, even though it’s not really about Doheny and Doheny never lived in that house at all.

Shortly after beginning my graduate career at Pitt, the place where Michael Chabon was an English major undergrad, I was an extra in the film version of his book Mysteries of Pittsburgh. I was in the crowd in the punk club scene.

If you’ve read Mysteries of Pittsburgh and have a photographic memory, you’ll be saying, Erm, what punk club scene? And you’d be right. There isn’t one in the book, but there is one in the nipped and tucked screen version from Rawson Marshall Thurber. The man behind Dodgeball.

mysteries of pittsburgh sarsgaard, miller, foster

The book, set in Pittsburgh, is about recent college-grad Art who’s forestalling getting on with his life. He becomes friends with the elegant, Gatsby-like Arthur; begins dating Phlox, a quirky thrift store gal with a romantic streak; and hangs out with wealthy, preppy Jane and her Brando-ish, Id-man Cleveland. Phlox and Arthur are the two emotional poles in Art’s life, and he can’t float between them forever. Arthur is so important to the story that his excision from the film version makes me awfully skeptical.

But I’m also curious, curious, curious, and the film is finally playing now at Sundance. So I have gathered these early reviews of the movie The Mysteries of Pittsburgh from the people who got passes, waited in line (mostly bearded, carrying blackberries, according to MTV movies) and stayed for the duration.

IndieWIRE: beautiful, lacking narrative heft.
Hollywood Reporter: “reverential and smart.”
MTV: Rawson Marshall Thurber’s (do you really need all three names, dude?) direction is ham fisted.
LA Times blog The Envelope: “rooted” performances make this, in one executive’s words, “a real director’s movie.”
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: “Pittsburgh looks stunning.”
After Elton: Quite a lot of the queer removed … as for the mystery, it’s a snoozer.
Cinematical: Dodgeball is a much better film than this one.

Nevertheless, I won’t be boycotting.

The Silent Movie Theatre in LA is doing subscriptions, under the new banner of the Cinefamily. Pay $25 a month and go to as many movies as you like; they’ll even give you a free bucket of popcorn. Wednesdays are still for silents, but the rest of the week is all over the place – electronic music with live DJs, Asian horror, and a December series on the “Perverse Puppetry of Jan Svankmajer.” Silents aren’t just for those in their dotage anymore.

Which speaks to this review of Silent Movies: The Birth of Film and the Triumph of Movie Culture. Richard Shickel contends:

Moviegoers have — or had — real feelings for the stars and the narrative conventions that absorbed their attention when they were young and impressionable. But nostalgia is sub-critical and anti-historical — emotional near-beer. To unleash its power, a writer has to have been there, sharing the joys of movies when they first burst upon the screen. That, however, is no longer possible in the case of silent films.

Which would mean that I cannot understand the films of Hitchcock, Truffaut, John Ford. I cannot watch Double Indemnity nor It’s A Mad Mad Mad Mad World nor It! Came from Outer Space. Not if I want to write about them. Because I cannot watch them with childish passion. Except that I bet I can, and I bet those folks who want to see a couple of Australian TV movies and Czech new wave alongside their silent films can watch them with passion, too.

And just for the hell of it, here’s a link to one blogger* learning about Gloria Swanson through a book by Peter Bogdanovich (born 1939, also not, according to Schickel, eligible to write about silent film). The best thing I’ve read about Gloria Swanson, though, she wrote herself — in her candid and unsparing autobiography Swanson on Swanson. It’s wicked cheap on Amazon.

*A random blogger that I went to elementary school with in Rhode Island.

From the October 22 issue of the New Yorker, in which Denby meditates on film idols, but can’t bring himself to discuss the silent period beyond this one paragraph.

Let us not speak of the silent period. The stars are too far from us, too exotic in their jewels, chinchilla, and velvet, their slinky cars as long as boas, their barbaric aura of leopard-skin splendor. They played tramps (Charlie Chaplin), vamps (Theda Bara), sheikhs (Rudolph Valentino), waifs (Lillian Gish), flappers (Clara Bow), pirates and musketeers (Douglas Fairbanks), and other extravagant roles, and silence lent them the mystery of remote beauty. As youthful gods — the working metaphor for them at the time — they married one another or minor royalty and, in Beverly Hills or Bel Air, built enormous houses in innocently promiscuous Greco-Roman-Tuscan-Spanish style. Gathering together around the marbled swimming pools, or on yachts or polo fields, they enjoyed a kind of sanctified public leisure, relaxing and playing for everyone. It was unthinkable that these people should have children. The burned bright and then were extinguished; in the public imagination, they could not reproduce. In Billy Wilder’s Sunset Boulevard, which was made in 1950, the sable past of the silent stars was already an object of amazement.

I am currently surrounded by books — with publication dates ranging from this decade back to the nineteen-teens — about the silent era. And I will speak of it. Denby is dumping out a fat load of hogwash.

He doesn’t want to talk about idol-ness of the silent era because, as far as I can tell, he recalls silent actors as glamorous and playful. Where does he think these images of chinchilla furs and marbled swimming pools came from? (mostly Sunset Blvd, I think, but let’s assume he actually has some knowledge of silent film or its players). Fan mags and newspapers, that’s where. It was during the early years of moviemaking that it became apparent that the people on screen captured the public interest, it was in those years that actors began receiving screen credit, it was at that time that fan magazines like Photoplay launched, it was in those years that the strange cycle of promotion, fame and gossip took hold of the new Hollywood royalty. Denby’s lopsided idea of the people of silent film was formed by exactly the kind of publicity machine he tries to attribute to later times.

But sound technology had exactly nothing to do with the formation of the Hollywood star system, and Denby is either lazy or self-deluded to assume otherwise.

What is his odd idea that silent actors couldn’t breed, like some audio-deprived pack of mules? OK, Valentino died at 31, twice married and without kids. But Douglas Fairbanks had a son, who went into acting himself; surely Denby has heard of Douglas Fairbanks Jr. (Little Caesar, Gunga Din). Clara Bow was said to have declined to write an autobiography so she might protect her two sons from salacious rumors. And Charlie Chaplin had 11 children (8 with his last wife, Oona), including Geraldine, who was excellent in Nashville, when she played, if I’m not mistaken, a BBC reporter covering American celebrity.

“In the sound period,” Denby goes on, “movies became more realistic, more ‘psychological’ and down to earth.” This is ignorant, uninformed, and incorrect, and it’s written by a man whose job is film reviewer.

Denby goes on to discuss a new book — The Star Machine — but I’m putting down the New Yorker to turn back to Two Reels and a Crank, the self-serving, fascinating autobiography of Albert Smith, a founder of the silent movie studio Vitgraph.

Taking a break from my end-of-semester work delgue, I saw Grindhouse last night. If you’re curious about the Robert Rodriguez – Quentin Tarantino double feature, put on your inverse glasses and read this review by A.O. Scott in the NY Times. Because he gets everything exactly, 100% wrong. How can I trust him again?

Tarantino falls into the abyss of his own clever patter — but it’s not clever. And while it is being uttered by hot chicks, it all sounds just like Tarantino. It is almost impossible to listen to. For all the setup, there’s little payoff in his half, “Death Proof.”

Rodriguez, on the other hand, is all payoff, flipping the bird at common sense. How does Rose McGowan pull the trigger of that machine gun leg? Doesn’t matter: watch it go. How does a character who was mangled in the first reel show up in the last, intact? Or why does everyone get totally zombified immediately upon infection, except for one dude who goes half-zombie for ages until he can be especially evil? Doesn’t matter: these leaps happened in B (and C) films unintentionally, and here it fits with the play with form — the melting film, the jump cuts, the missing reel. But even with all this playful deconstruction, there’s a story there; Rose McGowan’s character has an emotional arc that gives “Planet Terror” heart. Not just for eating.

What better way to experience the Oscars(TM) than with a liveblog of stellar authors and slightly inebriated litbloggers? The magic will be happening here, courtesy of the hardest working man in the blog business, Ed Champion.

This year, instead of blogging from the party at the fabulous American Cinematheque and making photo sorties toward the Kodak Theater, I’ll be in Pittsburgh. Possibly pantsless. More on that later.

San Francisco: a Maltese Falcon goes missing.

yvonne decarlo Sure, you knew her as Lili Munster. But Yvonne DeCarlo first was a wickedly good film actress.

Like when she starred opposite Burt Lancaster in Criss Cross, one of my newly-favorite noir films. It has the best ever use of Angel’s Flight, LA’s onetime funicular, in a movie. It shows Bunker Hill the way it was, before it was flattened, before filmmakers had to go all the way to South Africa to come up with a facsimile. It’s got everything, from Tony Curtis in an uncredited role as a dancing partner (he’s good!) to Burt Lancaster in a scruffy, rare-for-40s-film sweatshirt. Oh, and it’s a fantastic heist film, a blackhearted love story. A perfect noir.

Adios, Ms. Decarlo.

© 2010 carolyn kellogg Suffusion WordPress theme by Sayontan Sinha