James L. Brooks

A subforum to discuss film culture and criticism.
Message
Author
User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: James L. Brooks

#76 Post by therewillbeblus » Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:41 am

Well, I'll be the first (and maybe last) to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the musical version of I'll Do Anything. It's messy and strange, but contains a playful looseness that works most of the time, even when it's raising eyebrows. I haven't seen the commercial release so I'm not sure what footage was added beyond musical numbers, but many of the gags succeed not in spite of, but especially since they come out of left-field discontinuity. Albert Brooks is hysterical as the producer, and visual jokes like him halfway out the window staring down all the subordinates burns itself into the celluloid refusing to cut away against expectations. The satire clicks, but it's the more farcical subtly-absurdist human interactions that retain the hardest laughs that breathe against the peculiar context.

Nolte playing against type as a meek empty vessel of 'human yo-yo' passivity manages to escape the red flags and become the film's key ingredient, as an uncharacteristic sounding board for louder types to engage with and amplify the effects of the interpersonal dissonance, and by extension that between us and the film we expect. Kavner's initial conversation with Nolte, for instance, is full of laughs because of how incongruous her unpredictable list of commonalities between states is with his comfort level or capacity to respond. Nolte's visual presence, only aided by our knowledge of his historical roles, is so ill-fitting that the joke it set before the social escalation takes place. This is also one of Brooks' funniest films, even with a chaotically edited script, and perhaps part of the reason I'm strongly drawn to this is in the layered tones -a staple of Brooks already- but here they are nakedly potent than his more consistently fluid stamp. The daughter's initial meltdown is atypically intense, yet there is an aftertaste of pathos to this extended clueless savagery just as there is in Ullman's odd song in the prior scene (or the reverse effect in the Nolte-parenting-ignorance banter that funnels into the daughter's own self-serious number!)

The songs contain just as mixed vibes as the satire-blended-with-drama bits (i.e. the rapid, puzzling "I've been going to the movies since I was six!" lampoon->Big Dramatic Speech->Problem), and it's often difficult to tell what emotion the scene was going for, though a combination of irony and emotional honesty seems in step with the diverse and nebulous mood(s) of this beast. Even Albert Brooks' early number, a confusing and grating bit, reminded me of the unapologetic on-screen singing in At Long Last Love (cue a series of posts shunning me for mentioning this in the same sentence with that masterpiece) and I appreciated the audacity, and at times sheer perversity and irreverence of this picture, which feels more like The Simpsons' brand of humor and general attitude than Brooks' other projects.

I'm not going to pretend that this isn't sloppy or emotionally erratic, but I love it for the same 'structural' reason I love Desplechin's careless fusion of flavors (though this is far less talented or philosophically/psychologically/spiritually dense, and should be compared in broad disorganizational form only). The daughter's attempt to cheer Nolte up with a song transforms into a weird rap, and then a dropkick of an impulsive negative reaction of shame, and a fatherly response that professes love and curated self-actualization out of nowhere, are all over and done with within seconds. Nolte and Richardson's irregular demonstrations of their affections don't match any clear rhythm or comprehensible chemistry according to cinematic rules of narrative or character, but feels like a pre-Punch Drunk Love piece of bizarre romance (with maybe the weirdest scene of intimacy.. ever? Think The Room) And don't even get me started on Kavner's restaurant scene that is preluded by a perplexing instrumental scan and followed by a satirical punchline that summarizes Brooks' thesis with this film- finding the raw truth through means that couldn't be less real. This is a film that constantly surprised me with a mixture of authenticity, cookie-cutter movie theatrics, and an in-between space of opening up the floodgates to the eccentricities of nonsensical human behavior, that doesn't wait around for its audience to handhold or catch up. I fully expect most people to hate this, but it's so different that I can't help but feel refreshed and grateful for Brooks' bold choice to locate a hybrid of honesty and actualized-artifice that will feel foreign to most, if not all, moviegoers and find new magic in the kind of picture that has long been refurbished from a bone-dry well.
SpoilerShow
I also admired how the film ended with a bit of Broadcast News anticlimax to the core romance, with Nolte looking around to find no Richardson and seeing his daughter as more than enough. I wasn't expecting Brooks to forfeit that pairing, but the final moments draw a pretty mature and humble small gesture between father and daughter, with even the camera taking a gentle backseat. The onion layers peel back to reveal Nolte's process of actively considering his priorities and pondering what fulfillment really means to him, and seeing it in his daughter outside of acute drama. A spiritual connection, if you will.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: James L. Brooks

#77 Post by hearthesilence » Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:32 am

Thanks again to beamish and soundchaser for all of their help!
SpoilerShow
First off, I stumbled on to this L.A. Times article from 1994 while looking for some Prince-related info about the soundtrack. I wonder who this "astonished professional songwriter" may be, but regardless, their reaction feels overblown while reeking of stereotypical Hollywood schadenfreude. In fairness, the article describes several elements that are nowhere to be found in the bootlegged cut, specifically a childbirth scene and a drug subplot which explains why "My Little Pill" is nowhere to be found in the circulating preview cut. These elements may very well be that awful (though again, having heard "My Little Pill," I don't find anything egregiously wrong with the recording - it's a very brief comedic number, and as sung by an actress with a famously distinctive voice, it's exactly what I'd expect, especially when said actress has sung many comedic numbers on the TV show that made her famous).

This was a load of horseshit though: "One track is mysteriously missing from the bootleg tapes: Nick Nolte’s infamous singing debut on his sole number, 'Be My Mirror.' Speculates one source, “He probably spent his entire salary from the movie buying up every single copy of his vocal.” They completely ignore the context to have a bigger laugh at the movie and Nolte. It's the only song performed by Nolte, and he's basically playing a game with his daughter that also serves as an acting lesson for her. It sounds pretty much like any typical father singing a kiddie song to their children as they play together. How awful.

Anyway, the sound mix is definitely rough - I think the music even cuts out awkwardly during Tracy Ullman's number - and there's definitely a ton of ADR that needed to be recorded with some bits of dialogue barely registering on the soundtrack. I bring this up because the instrumental backing on the musical numbers is pretty cheap - it's more suitable for a homemade demo recorded on a Casio than what we see here, so I wonder if there were any plans to re-record it with actual horns and a piano. Accepted on those speculative terms, it didn't become too much of a distraction. (And let me add that Carole King's cameo is wonderful, and it's not even for the song she wrote.)

dom mentioned that he was skeptical about how much better the film could be with the addition of a handful of musical numbers, and he's right to be skeptical. It's indeed better, in some ways substantially so, but not surprisingly my reservations about the theatrical cut are still there. I can't call it a great film, but to me it's become more engaging and far more interesting.

I'm not the biggest James L. Brooks fan, and there's something about the way he mixes drama with comedy and cynicism with sentimentality that feels queasy and even suspicious. Here he develops one idea from Broadcast News even further during a scene where Nolte's daughter has to manufacture crying as the climax of a TV show she's shooting. We're made very aware that it's a fabrication, and it does manage to be humorous and touching because it's a triumphant accomplishment for his daughter who has never acted professionally before. But this leads to a moment afterwards where she hugs Nolte and tells him exactly how she made herself cry, and he's visibly moved by this. All of this is shot and cut with the formulaic close-ups that define such emotional climaxes, and immediately afterwards, it felt like they were trying to have it both ways - to be self-conscious of the manufactured feelings in a Hollywood show and yet to have an audience respond to the same exact manipulation. And I didn't feel like the film pulled off the contradictory impulses of criticizing the ruthless commercial ambitions driving Hollywood while celebrating a few of the core tenets that defined those ambitions as well. Even the small details needed to portray these ideas felt dubious - the choice of remaking Capra's Mr. Deeds, the offhand criticism of Gremlins (an example of a commercial venture that did have real merit as something more), etc.

There's also a sad irony that the most distinctive feature of the movie was gutted out due to test screenings, and it makes all the footage dealing with market research all the more suspicious yet all the more fascinating as well - the jokes made at the market research's expense become more open to interpretation. Perhaps it is cruel that the film was damaged by the same exact process it dramatizes. But what's to be made of Albert Brooks's enthusiasm for the way that whole operation's run, or the élan in how they work through the process? ("I had them bring in two busloads of people from black churches!") Maybe Brooks isn't so skeptical of test screenings and focus groups.

The bootlegged cut has very long stretches that go without music, and the Times article suggests there were at least two more musical sequences, but what remains in the bootlegged cut still makes quite a difference. The movie becomes less bland and generic, and to me, it actually makes a stronger connection to the actors in that world. The theater majors I knew in school were virtually all big musical theater fans, and that's one side of them that felt inseparable from their ambitions and their studies. Years later when I moved to NYC, I caught up with a few who took a shot at Broadway, but by that time, they were done acting and studying law or business. I bring all this up because right in the beginning we're introduced to a troupe of aspiring actors getting their dreams ruthlessly crushed by a theater critic, and seeing them introduced in musical fashion made an instant and strong connection to those people I knew in real life. I think all but one of the big production numbers in the bootlegged cut are performed by characters who are auditioning or rehearsing actors, and it was the same effect there as well.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: James L. Brooks

#78 Post by therewillbeblus » Sat Apr 24, 2021 10:03 pm

I've been watching Taxi for the first time, and it's much more brilliant than I expected. The show does so much with so little, excerpting all the socially-infused challenges from urban idiosyncrasies and diverse familiar trends in behavior that would define Seinfeld's successful stamina (Latka could even be argued as a precedent for Kramer!) but with a solemn edge that has the courage to stand with the comedy and the tones blend perfectly. This is Brooks' stamp, during some of his peak years. I'm still on the first season, which I've heard from practically everyone is the worst, so I imagine there are only greater heavens ahead.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: James L. Brooks

#79 Post by domino harvey » Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:45 pm

Well, if anyone is the precursor for Kramer, it’s Reverend Jim, though you may not be that far along yet. Reverend Jim taking his driving exam (coming up for you in season two, though it’s so well known you may have already seen it/heard about it) is often named as one of the funniest scenes of any sitcom ever, with the important distinction that it really is

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: James L. Brooks

#80 Post by therewillbeblus » Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:53 pm

Oh I’ve definitely seen that and you’re right, as soon as I made my post I watched the ep where he makes his show-entrance as a guest in S1 marrying Latka, knowing full well he becomes a regular in S2, and made that connection. Looking forward to how the show tackles addiction with his character too.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: James L. Brooks

#81 Post by hearthesilence » Sun Apr 25, 2021 12:45 am

I think I mentioned before that old TV shows (not counting the earliest years, when it was mostly great, live theater productions) rarely aged well to me. But I did enjoy Taxi, it's probably one of the best traditional sitcoms I've ever seen. I only saw a handful of episodes after Andy Kaufman had become something of a legend and the Milos Forman biopic was getting a ton of attention. To my surprise, Kaufman was only in one of the episodes. (I hadn't seen the movie yet, but there's a scene where the network finds out one of his demands is to appear in only half of them.) I went in thinking he was going to be a major part of every one, and If anything, Lloyd seemed to fill the role I expected Kaufman too. Regardless, they were all good, especially the Kaufman one - it also had Carol Kane, and the ending was hilarious (I'll just say it involves a divorce). Another one also had a very young Martin Short playing a TV exec - he was very good, but surprisingly, he was a complete straight man for Lloyd as I don't recall Short getting a single joke or gag in the entire episode.

FWIW, I actually had an awkward Tony Danza encounter when I worked at a radio station while I was in school. He was emceeing this public event, and I was sent to interview him. IIRC there was no one else representing a radio station, everyone else was from local TV and maybe newspapers. The publicists handling the event were very nice - they knew I wasn't a seasoned professional and helped out a lot. Everyone was basically waiting for Danza to finish rehearsals so they can talk to him, and when it was time, a publicist came to tell me, so I quickly got up and started putting together my mic and recorder. Suddenly, I heard someone lose their temper - about 30 or 40 feet away, I could see Danza yelling at this small group of TV reporters all bunched together. I looked at the publicist, like "this ain't happening is it?" Then Danza actually storms over to us, more specifically to the publicist, and he's about to go off on what just happened when the guy smoothly deflected everything, pointing at me and telling him "you've got radio too!" Like as soon as Danza looks at me, the publicist takes off and Danza walks over to me and starts airing his grievances - basically one of the TV reporters had been hassling him the entire day about getting an interview, and he kept telling him "I will when I'm done (with rehearsal)" over and over again, and so finally he lets the guy ask the first question, and it's "are you excited to be here?" Danza thought that was so inane that he lost it. This kind of went on for a bit and I just nodded along, but finally I just threw out a question, "So how did you get started in musical theater?" because he seemed to get angrier and angrier, and like immediately he calmed down and was like, "OH...well, back when I was etc etc..." And it was really weird because as I'm recording this, I would glance at the TV reporters, and they were all bunched up and scared shitless. After 2 or 3 questions, they started to move en masse towards us one step at a time, and I guess when they thought it was safe to come over, they suddenly made a run for it and surrounded Danza for questions. At the very end, an intern from one of the stations approached him for an autograph, and he flat out said "NO" and walked away. Honestly, it's not something I'd ask because it doesn't seem professional, but regardless I remember her being openly shocked by his response. I've since run into him twice in NYC, in situations where no one acknowledged who he was, which is probably fine by him.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: James L. Brooks

#82 Post by therewillbeblus » Sun Apr 25, 2021 12:02 pm

Am I the only one who finds Danza to be far and away the weakest actor and character from the main cast (besides Randall Carver, who I know will depart after season 1)? Of course there are a lot of eps left to remedy this initial impression, but so far I’m not on his wavelength.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: James L. Brooks

#83 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon May 10, 2021 10:06 pm

Almost finished with Taxi, and it's the rare show that seems to get better every season (though overall 4 was less consistent than 3's linear escalation of genius reaching the climax in Kaufman's initial "transformation" ep). Although Jim driver's exam is undoubtedly the finest example of lean, witty writing-to-performance magic, the scene in season 5 where Louie and the boss get in a laughing fit over his confession and the subsequent confusion for Reiger is equivalent for a completely different reason: improvisational comic performance given a broad, absurd concept. Also, the episode with Reiger and his dog is one of the most emotionally affecting sitcom eps I've ever seen, in addition to being hilarious. The tonal balance struck there may be the most impressive example of this show's virtues.

I'm realizing that I've seen large chunks of this show before already.. the two aforementioned comic setpieces, the episode with Louie's blind girlfriend getting surgery, and several others leave a distinctive mark from long ago. Every once in a while this happens, but I shudder to think that I may have seen this entire thing half a lifetime ago and simply forgotten.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: James L. Brooks

#84 Post by domino harvey » Sat Aug 14, 2021 10:31 pm

This Yahoo piece on Debra Winger is a ride
And while she remains “loving friends” with her Terms of Endearment mom Shirley MacLaine, she responded to MacLaine writing in her memoir that Winger once farted in her face.

“Well, I have never known Shirley to tell the truth about anything,” said Winger, who noted she never read the book. “If my children heard that story, they would laugh it out of the room since I’m the one that forbids such behavior.”

crawfrog
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2021 5:36 pm

Re: James L. Brooks

#85 Post by crawfrog » Sun Aug 22, 2021 10:23 pm

soundchaser wrote:
Wed Sep 23, 2020 8:41 am
Full version is now up on backchannels, for those with access. I’ve only watched the first few minutes and isolated clips here and there to check for any issues, but I can already say that it’s...weird.
I'm very interested in seeing the full cut of this, is there a way I can watch the copy mentioned here?


Post Reply