Bottom-feeding in Hollywood

I really am not into conspiracy theories but sometimes I do wonder whether Hollywood is running a secret experiment to see how far (or, perhaps, low would be more appropriate here) they can go before movie viewers notice that they are being made fools of. The recent decline in movie theater attendance may be an indicator that the public is waking up and starting to smell the rat. But then, maybe not – depending on whether there is a similar decline in DVD and VCR rentals.

The films that have been coming out of Hollywood for many months now have been so incredibly bad that one can’t help but wonder: what the bloody hell is going on?? Take for example the “critically acclaimed” comedy (huh?) “The Life Aquatic” with Bill Murray. This film is dull, pointless, and totally unfunny (I smiled at most a couple of times, and never actually laughed…), and yet one that was most likely a lot of fun to make. The film crew traveled to all these beautiful places on the Mediterranean, staying in charming little hotels, eating great seafood, and very leisurely making the film, probably without any sort of script – the dialogs and situations looked like they were improvised, perhaps after a few glasses of wine. Who would not like to “work” like this? Obviously, the assumption must have been, that, no matter how lousy the final product was going to be, it would be released in theaters and on DVD, and maybe even earn some money, at least covering the expenses of this heavenly trip. Give it a handful of big name stars and most people will end up scratching their heads, thinking that perhaps the humor was a tad “sophisticated”, and so they better keep their mouths shut and not complain, lest they be taken for simpletons.

Another example of the same “genre” is the film “Sideways” (also a “comedy”) in which two middle-age guys, highly unsympathetic and not in the least funny (ridiculous, pathetic, yes, but that’s different from “funny”, isn’t it?), travel through California tasting wine, talking about wine, and trying to pick up women. I love humor and I’m quick to laugh, but I don’t remember doing that while watching this movie. I remember doing some cringing, though – feeling embarrassed for the characters.

Again, I imagine the whole crew moving from one picturesque “wine country” town to another, drinking a lot, and having a swell time, while every now and then engaging in some casual, relaxed moviemaking, building the script in late night brainstorming sessions, when no lines are bad and no jokes lame, because we’re all so totally cool, talented, and creative that movies are what happens when we’re simply having fun. Besides, as Michael Moore so eloquently put it, American are likely the dumbest people on the planet (he’s got a point here – after all, so many of them flock to his “documentaries” and “talks”. But then, the supposedly more cultured and intelligent Europeans are nearly kissing the ground he walks on… Go figure) and so enamored with their “celebrities” (i.e. us) that they will eat anything our bowels can produce.

Of course, the simple explanation is that Hollywood just happened to run out of talent and ideas. The fact that they started recycling old cartoons into movies (“X-Men”, “Fantastic Four”, “Spiderman”) seems to confirm that, but I somehow find it hard to believe. After all, there are interesting books still being written, so it’s not like some sort of a brain virus started eating away people’s creativity… It also does not explain the bizarre stuff like “The Aristocrats”. This movie (about to open in theaters, or already opened – I don’t follow) is basically one long, exceptionally vulgar, exceptionally lame joke being told again and again... and again... and again… with some modifications by well known, contemporary American comedians throughout this “film”. This joke is supposedly some sort of an “insider” joke, told by comedians to other comedians while the public isn’t listening. It isn’t hard to guess why they would not want to tell this joke in front of a live audience: nobody would laugh and some people would probably get up to leave. There might even be foodstuff thrown on the scene...

It’s relatively easy to find at least one version of this “joke” on the Internet, so I won’t spoil your “fun” if I tell you what it is about. (Although, if you’re going to actually spend money to see this movie, you are a joke.) A family consisting of a father, a mother, a daughter, and a dog visits a talent agent to pitch their act, which consists of farting, sexual intercourse involving all the characters (yes, the dog and the agent, too), slipping on dog shit, performing fellatio and cunnilingus, etc. (The etc. part is where the different “versions” come in). The “punch line” is this: when the agent asks what this fantastic act is called, the troupe shouts: The Aristocrats!. That’s it. That’s the joke. Are you rolling on the floor, howling with laughter? Me, neither.

Obviously, this is not about the lack of talent – after all, some of these comedians are pretty darn funny in their own acts. It’s really hard to explain this without invoking the idea of some sort of a weird psychological experiment on the unsuspecting public. (Something tells me they did not apply for a permissions to use human subjects. This can potentially be litigated. If you’re a lawyer contemplating a class-action lawsuit, please contact me – I want to be among the plaintiffs.) This is just too crazy to have a benign explanation.

On "The Quiet American"

Last night I watched on DVD the 2002 movie "The Quiet American" (with Michael Caine as Fowler, Brendan Fraser as Pyle), based on a book by Graham Greene (which I hadn't read). My immediate reaction was: "Not bad, but not good, either. Kind of bland, perfectly forgettable little flick." Then, I started to reflect on it a bit and my view gradually changed. To be sure, the first-level plot (two men in love with the same woman) is poorly developed and rather uninteresting. But on the deeper level, when this movie serves as a parable of two different worldviews: the American (youthful, idelistic, blundering, engaged) and the old-European (wise, cynical, decadent, self-absorbed), it becomes really interesting and sharp. It is as if the book it was based upon (which I didn't read) has been written only recently (it hasn't) - it is so astonishingly relevant to the situation we have today. Maybe this is a function of great literature - quite likely - or of the fact, that the history really does repeat itself. Or both.

This movie (and book, apparently) is about Vietnam and American engagement there, but Vietnam could very easily be replaced with Iraq, with just a few changes in the plot. Fowler (the British journalist) personifies the attitude of the old Europe: he wants to float above the events, even as they begin to engulf him. Europe today wants to stay out of "America's" war with islamofascism, even as the bombs are starting to go off in Europe's capitals. That's not "their" war Yes, the bombs and the grenades are going off quite close - "After a while you learn to tell the difference between a grenade and an engin misfire", says the seemingly stoical Fowler to the startled Pyle - but as long as the hotel is comfy and they can sit for hours at a cafe, they can't be bothered.

All Fowler wants is comfortable life, a young, exotic lover, his dose of opium, and money from London. To get this he will bend his moral spine (if he has any left) and lie - to his boss at the newspaper and even to his lover. He doesn't see (well, chooses not to) any difference between the communists, the French colonialists, and the emerging Vietnamese nationalists backed by the Americans. Just like Europe today, which fools itself into appearance of "objectivity" by refusing to draw a distinction between the actions of the insurgents attacking American soldiers and civilians in Iraq, and of the American soldiers themselves. (Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Europeans actually do often appear to be "on the other side"...)

Pyle, on the other hand, wants to take sides, to act. His actions seem to be causing harm in the short run, but he presses on, believing that he sees "the big picture". He is young, naive, and idealistic, and he genuinely wants to make things right: to make Vietnam a better place, to marry Phuong, whom Fowler's selfishness placed on the fringe of the Vietnamese society. (She'll never get to marry a Vietnames man.) Obviously, this is not all pure altruism: Pyle's ultimate goal is to halt the spread of communism, prevent it from destroying Western civilization. Helping Vietnam is a mean to this end, not an end in itself. He also wouldn't be so generous to Phuong, had she been an old, toothless widow... ;-) Can you see the parallels with Iraq? The US genuinely wants to remake the Middle East, starting in Iraq. Not because of some great love for the Iraqis, but because it believes that by doing that, it (the US) will become safer from terrorism and rogue dictators in the future. The Americans really want to install democracy in Iraq and make it a prosperous model for the rest of the region. Can it succeed? I increasingly think that it can't. On the other hand, this idealistic attitude seems closer to me that the European cynicism and the "leave it alone, just show sympathy when something really bad happens" philosophy.

Fowler (end Europe) at times seems more humane than Pyle. He kneels down to give comfort to a terribly injured victim of a bomb attack, while Pyle wants to ensure that the photos of the massacre reach the Western press. He also is shaken by thy carnage, which Pyle sees as "collateral damage". However, Fowler's sympathy for the victims is temporary and superficial. He's happy to return to his comfortable hole of detachment, to his lover, and his opium. Can this be a better portrayal of Europe, which always offers words of sympathy and a trickle of aid, while doing nothing to help elliminate the causes of suffering? As long as the cafes stay open late and you can buy pot cheaply - what is there to get worked up about? There will always be misery around - this is life. And you get to sleep with willing, third world women, without having to mary them. Life's good for us, Europeans, let's keep it this way.

The end of the movie is quite telling, too. Pyle gets stabbed and dies. Fowler didn't kill him, but he knew this might happen and did nothing to prevent it. In fact, this was quite convenient for him, as it allowed him to keep Phuong, who now had no alternative. Was it deliberate? Who knows. It certainly looked this way to me - conscious inaction is, in fact, action. Europe wants America stabbed. She doesn't have the guts to do it with her own hand, so she silently counts on the islamofascists to do it. She won't openly call or pay for it, but she will look the other way when this happens. Europe is quite resentful of American youthful energy and the influence it has on the world. American pop culture and ideals permeate so many aspects of life in so many nations, replacing the European dominance. More people around the world listen to Eminem than to Beethoven today. It drives the European elites nuts.

What I like about this movie is that this clash of worldviews is not painted in broad brushstrokes. In fact, it is quite subtle and it does not seem that whoever wrote the script took sides. Yes, I tend to identify strongly with Pyle, but I can imagine that lots of people would find Fowler's actions and attitude more appealing. I'm afraid that, just like in Vietnam, the resolution of the Iraq crisis will again be ambiguous, and the story will replay itself again some other time, in some other country. (Well, to many people, especially in Europe, the resolution of the war in Vietnam was anything but ambiguous: the imperialist Americans lost, the Vietnamese won. I beg to differ, and so did the thousands of "boat people".)