 |
|
BBC 1, BBC 2, BBC Snakes
Hello Filmspotting Listener,
From Chicago, this is The Dope Sheet ... I'm Sam Van Hallgren.
The world has Snakes Fever, and the only antidote is more
Filmspotting. Your favorite Yankee movie podcast was invited by the
most respected news source in the world to share their thoughts on
the release of "Snakes on a Plane." A link to
Adam's appearance on BBC Radio Five Live's "Weekend Breakfast"
program this past Saturday morning can be found in the
the Filmspotting Message Boards.
Nothing particularly revelatory, and short, but quite an honor to
be invited on by the BBC. And if you haven't checked our boards out
lately, feel free to jump in. Listener Alex Knesnik is moderating
things and it's halfway resembling an actual online 'community' now
-- whatever that means.
And speaking of respected broadcast organizations, just a
reminder that this week's podcast (Filmspotting #120) is our special
monthly Chicago Public Radio show. We'll have reviews of "Little
Miss Sunshine" and "Snakes on a Plane," plus an interview with
"Brick" writer/director Rian Johnson and this week's Top 5:
Filmspotting University, the five films we'd like every young
filmmaker to see.
We'll review "The Illusionist," as originally planned for this
week, on an upcoming show ... On Friday we'll post our monthly
"bonus" show featuring reviews of "The Lady Eve" and the new comedy
"Accepted."
|
|
|
| |
|
Sam's 'Theory' of Comedy
 Day 2 of our honeymoon in Door County, WI, Carrie and I went out in a
kayak and managed to get the worst sunburns we'd ever had in our
lives. Shins, knees, shoulders, back: scalded. Good times. The
severity of the burn didn't reveal itself until later than night, so
we managed to sneak in a traditional Door County Fish
Boil(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_boil) before suffering the
worst of the symptoms (dizziness, nausea, fitful sleep, searing pain
all over our bodies). We were pretty useless the next day, so the
next night we decided to stay at the bed and breakfast and watch a
couple of DVDs. [Can I add here that I can't say or even hear the
term "B&B" without thinking about the scene at the bed & breakfast in
David O. Russell's "Flirting With Disaster" ... Decrepit old B&B
owner to Ben Stiller and his entourage: "You're not good B&B
people!")].
The B&B had a small DVD library, including a copy of "Blazing
Saddles." I'd brought my own copy of "Anchorman" because, well, just
because. (OK, why DID I bring a copy of Anchorman on my honeymoon?
Everybody now -- you too, Adam: "Afternoon Delight.")
Anyway, here's an excerpt from an e-mail from long-time listener
Stuart Kazanow in Reisterstown, MD:
---
"What makes Adam and Sam laugh? Something you throw in just to
laugh, not worrying about structure or social commentary or whatever.
I know Sam has a soft spot for Will Ferrell films, but that's where
my understanding ends.
Yes, this e-mail is prompted largely by your dissing of one of my
five favorite comedies of all-time ["Bringing Up Baby"]. And yes, I
do understand it is all subjective. I just need to believe you have
funny bones that don't require involvement from the head or heart.
Please once again consider my request for a top five Comedy for
Comedy's-sake list. I'm becoming increasingly afraid that the "film
snob" title may be applying."
---
After the "Bringing Up Baby" debacle brought up all manner of
theories about the subjectivity of comedy (as a way to defend our
intense dislike of a classic film), and after more than one listener
(see above) questioned whether Adam and I enjoyed comedies (!?!?!) or
even liked to be entertained (come on now), I decided it might be a
good idea to have a head-to-head, cage match-style viewing of two
comedies from two different eras. One well-loved comedy firmly
entrenched in the Comedy Pantheon, the other a personal favorite
still awaiting the AFI's seal of approval.
Some of you may remember that #1 on my Top 5 Overrated Movies
list (back on Cinecast #32) was "Mel Brooks movies." This wasn't the
pick that infuriated most people (it was actually my 6-10 that
prompted the most hate mail), but it bothered several people that I
would just lump in a director's entire career into a single slot. At
the time, I think I said, "now ... don't get me wrong ... I think
these movies are fine ... funny even, but maybe not deserving of
their 'classic' status."
I'd seen Blazing Saddles, The Producers and Young Frankenstein
(#6, #11, #13 on AFI's list of the 100 funniest movies of all-time,
respectively) recently enough -- and had been disappointed by them --
that I felt justified. But there was a part of me that thought maybe
I'd been a little hard on Mel Brooks. That maybe I wasn't
remembering just how funny the movies were. And now that I had this
whole new theory about comedy (that it's such a subjective genre that
it's unfair to rank them as you would any other genre) -- and a
terrible sunburn -- I thought it was a good time to re-examine Brooks
and compare one of his classics to a movie that I think is really
funny. And I think it's a particularly fair comparison because both
movies have no ambition beyond making people laugh.
We started with Blazing Saddles. I couldn't even get through the
whole movie. I was bored and uncomfortable (say the N-word one more
time, please, just for me; and yes, I know Richard Pryor co-wrote the
script; that doesn't make it funny). And I wasn't laughing at all.
Carrie made me keep watching until Madeline Kahn showed up. After
her night with Cleavon Little's Sheriff Bart, I had to shut it off.
Somehow it was even worse than I remembered. I didn't even laugh
when Mongo punches the horse.
And then we put in Anchorman. I had it in my head that I'd seen
it recently, but it wasn't actually true. Last spring I had watched
"Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie," the second movie they
assembled from the "Anchorman" footage (which isn't that great and
only occasionally funny). So I actually hadn't seen Anchorman since
seeing it in the theater two summers ago.
I'm pretty sure I didn't stop laughing for a single second. From
Ferrell's "I love scotch ... scotchy, scotch, scotch. Here it goes
down, down into my belly" to Christina Applegate's "there are
literally thousands of other men I should be with instead of you; but
I'm 72 percent that I love you" ... it's all gold to me. Somehow it
was even FUNNIER than I remembered.
And before I try to explain why I think Anchorman is better than
Blazing Saddles, let me just say this for the record: I want to
officially outlaw the ranking of comedies. Creating an "official"
list of the best movies in any genre is a pretty ridiculous (that's
why we do it on Filmspotting every week!), but it's particularly
ridiculous when it comes to comedies.
OK. (Clears throat.)
Why Anchorman Is Better Than Blazing Saddles
[Bart and Jim are wearing KKK outfits to infiltrate the enemy's
lynch mob]
Jim: [spotting Bart's black hands] How many times have I told you
to wash your hands after a weekly cross burning?
[Taggart whips off Bart's hood]
Bart: For my next impression, Jesse Owens.
"Blazing Saddles" is cynical, dated, mean-spirited and offensive,
but that's not why I think "Anchorman" is a better comedy. My big
problem with "Blazing Saddles" is that it's always willing to
sacrifice plot or character -- or reality, for that matter -- for a
joke. It completely resists the satisfaction of becoming attached to
the characters or their relationships. It never stops undermining
the very world it's created. And when that happens, all you've got
is a series of gags and jokes. You may think those gags and jokes
are funny. I didn't. The movie has no heart. It has no affection
for or loyalty to its characters. And so I had no affection for its
characters. I didn't care about them, I didn't like them, and I
didn't think they were funny. And before you make the claim that the
very same thing can be said about "Anchorman," let me say that you're
wrong.
"Anchorman" certainly doesn't take its plot or its characters
very seriously, but the movie never undermines either just for a
laugh. The writers have affection for the characters and the
characters have affection for each other. There's a sincerity to the
relationships that gives the absurdity some context. And for the
most part, a joke is never an end unto itself -- it's almost always
consistent with a character and frequently moves the plot along.
Veronica Corningstone: Excuse me.
Ron Burgundy: What are you doing?
Veronica Corningstone: I need this machine so I can watch a tape
for a story.
Ron Burgundy: I'm using the tape. I'm showing Jeffrey my Emmy
tape. We are watching history.
Veronica Corningstone: Mr. Burgundy, I'm a professional, and I
would like to be able to do my job.
Ron Burgundy: Big deal. I am very professional.
Veronica Corningstone: Mr. Burgundy, you are acting like a baby.
Ron Burgundy: I'm not a baby, I am a man. I am an anchorman.
Veronica Corningstone: You are not a man. You are a big fat joke.
Ron Burgundy: I'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the
Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn. That's what kind of man I am.
You're just a woman with a small brain. With a brain a third the size
of us. It's science.
Veronica Corningstone: I will have you know that I have more
talent and more intelligence in my little finger than you do in your
entire body, sir.
Ron Burgundy: You are a smelly pirate hooker.
Veronica Corningstone: You look like a blueberry.
Ron Burgundy: Why don't you go back to your home on Whore Island?
Veronica Corningstone: Well, you have bad hair.
Ron Burgundy: [insulted] What did you say?
Veronica Corningstone: I said... your hair... looks stupid.
[an A-bomb mushroom cloud is reflected in Ron's eyes; the
knock-down drag-out fight begins]
Thanks (again) to the utter subjectivity of comedy, I will now
step off my soap box having convinced absolutely no one that
"Anchorman" is better than "Blazing Saddles." Thank you for your
time and attention.
|
|
|
| |
|
Van Tastic!
The name change, or how a Hallgren became a Van Hallgren. How
listeners responded:
The Good: "Van Tastic!!!! 'Nuff said." -Dave
The Bad: "Over the last two weeks, you've dedicated sizable
portions of the show to Sam's wedding. I've really enjoyed this
insight into your personal lives - that is, until show #119. Some
might take news of Sam's name change as a touching testament to his
true union with Carrie. I, conversely, will take it as a cautionary
tale of why never to visit Wisconsin, where castration is obviously
still en vogue ... It was fitting that you also reviewed Oliver
Stone's toothless World Trade Center on #119. The only thing missing
was the Top Five Men-Who-Become-Their-Woman's-Bitch films..." -Scott
The Incomprehensible: "Thank you for your antics -- adoption of
your wife's name just made my day! And just when I thought you
couldn't be more ridiculous. I will continue to stay tuned to your
podcasts to listen to you equate the value of your opinions with film
makers who actually produce something, and to hear your ego swell a
little larger each week." -John
The Valid: "I'd like to congratulate you on getting married --
but have some questions about your choice of name ... Hallgren sounds
pretty Scandinavian and isnt "van" a dutch word???" -Jonas, in Sweden
A Modest Proposal: "So now we've gone through two name changes:
Cinecast to Filmspotting, and Sam Hallgren to Sam Van Hallgren. Your
listeners will be able to adjust, but in the interest of avoiding
future controversy, why not go whole hog and merge both of your
identities into one single mega-host. You already sound alike -- this
is the logical next step. I propose: Filmspotting, with your host,
Sadam van Hallgrenaar." -Sandy
OK, so first of all, Jonas is right: Hallgren is Swedish; "Van"
is Dutch (meaning "from"). So unless there's a Dutch town somewhere
in Sweden, the name is very misleading.
Whatever. It's not the first time that an American has
bastardized a name. My legal name is now Sam Van Hallgren (actually,
it's Joseph Samuel Van Hallgren, if you want to get technical), and
for those who are curious to know a little bit more about why I did
it, here's the story.
When Carrie and I first started talking about marriage last fall,
I told her that I personally felt uncomfortable with the idea of her
changing her name. Not because I didn't want her to take my name,
but because I felt like the whole notion of a woman automatically
taking her husband's name was a pretty archaic concept. But we
talked more about it and we decided we really wanted our family
(if/when kids came along) to have the same last name. Mom, Dad, Kids
and Pets. The whole family. Same last name. So Carrie was prepared
to become Carrie Hallgren. And then this Spring we were joking about
combining our names. Just kidding around. Sam and Carrie Halldeest.
Carrie and Sam Deestvanhall. Sam and Carrie Vandehall. Carrie and
Sam Van Hallgren-Deest. Sam and Carrie Van Hallgren. "Wait a
minute," we said. That sounds pretty cool. Sam and Carrie Van
Hallgren. Like "Van Halen" but "Van Hallgren." "Why not?" we asked
ourselves. Carrie gets to keep the "van" handle that she grew up
with, and I get to keep "Hallgren" unsullied.
But then we really had to decide whether or not to go through
with it. The wedding was approaching. Carrie was starting a new job
and needed to know what name to put on business cards. And. It was
really hard for me. Did I really want to change my name? Honestly,
a big part of me didn't want to. And I was nervous about how people
would react. And then it occurred to me: this is exactly what Carrie
was prepared to do. Change the name she had lived with for nearly 30
years. And that's why I decided to do it. Because it was hard to
do. And the first rule of marriage is compromise. And what better
way to embody compromise than to make a compromise of our surnames?
At the end of the day, it was more important for my wife and I (and
our kids) to have the same last name than for me to have the (exact)
same last name as my mom and dad and brother.
And I did, as expected, receive a few hostile e-mails from
listeners about the name change. I certainly don't claim to be more
enlightened than any of our listeners, but why, other than tradition,
is the husband's name superior to the wife's name? It seems a fair
question to me.
[Editor's/Adam's note: Sam left off one more modest proposal.
Since his name still technically includes "Sam" and "Hallgren," why
not just keep it Adam Kempenaar and Sam Hallgren for the show? That
said, Sam quite eloquently explained his reasoning above and I fully
support his decision.]
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
