"Jackpot" is another song that I asked Toby Wilson to record for me.
I first wrote "Jackpot" sometime between 15 and 20 years ago. I also got a really good modern Nashville sounding demo made by County Q Studios in Nashville. In writing this post I am shocked to discover that I never made the County Q recording the subject of a Tunesday. Maybe next week.
"Jackpot" isn't the best-constructed of my songs, but I really like it -- Blair was the primary subject.
I really like Toby's arrangement of this song -- it's simpler than the County Q version, and it feels at home.
I've been thinking that, when it comes time to assemble Toby's recordings, I'll probably ask him to replace his lead vocal with that of someone else he hires for the job. I'll probably do that with a few songs. That way no one song stands out due to having a different vocalist.
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.
Session: The Blood is the Life, Mr. Harker (week 4) Movie: Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) Directed by Werner Herzog
Plot: A vampire moves into town. Horror ensues.
Reaction and Other Folderol:
I have often said that I am skeptical of remakes. They really need to provide something to prove that a remake was needed. Delving into other genres, one of the reasons I wasn't crazy about this year's remake of West Side Story is that it didn't really justify its existence. (I wrote about that here). This, being a remake of the 1922 silent film, Nosferatu (which I wrote about here), had something to prove to me. Of course, having said that, I acknowledge that major advances in movie technology, expanding what is possible to do in a film, can provide the justification. Since the original was made in 1922, well, you can do the math.
I think what I noticed first was that the entirety of this film had an odd dreamlike quality. I can't put my finger on all the elements that contribute to that, but I'll try. The characters are very soft-spoken. In fact, the movie is very quiet. The imagery is often just a little bit odd. For example, in the scene where Harker is saying goodbye to his family, the family occupies one side of the screen while the other side is occupied by the rear half of his horse. It just seems ... weird. And Lucy's white makeup makes her seem unearthly. There are multiple scenes of people walking on the beach, that are just so quiet and still that it seems not to be a movie. The whole movie is very slow-going, but somehow it doesn't get boring; it's fascinating. Harker's trip to Dracula's castle is portrayed as epic journey over mountains, through valleys, along rivers. It seems like an endless trek.
And then we meet Dracula, as portrayed by the ever-creepy Klaus Kinski. Kinski's rat-Dracula is very similar to Orlok from the 1922 film. But with the advantages of sound, better lighting and makeup, he is able to do more with the part. Kinski's lonely Dracula is almost sympathetic; at times he seems more like an addict than a predator, and we pity him.
I absolutely loved Roland Topor's giggly manic portrayal of Renfield; he seemed to be channelling Peter Lorre. But it was kind of interesting to see that in this movie the character of Renfield was different than in the last two movies Keith showed us. In those, Renfield was confined to an asylum, and Harker's boss was a different character. In this, Renfield was Harker's boss, and -- though he clearly had a screw loose -- he's not in an asylum. If I recall correctly, there was no Renfield in the 1922 film.
But that is just one example of how this remake took liberties with the characters. In this, Lucy and Harker are already married, Lucy scarifices herself, and Van Helsing is a bit less courageous in his actions.
As I noted above, a remake needs to justify its existence. Nosferatu the Vampyre delivers.
Ratings
Me: 10
Bob-O: 10 Christina: 10
Dave: 10
Ethan: 10
Sharon: 9
Cats: Yes, there are cats. But not just cats. Kittens! Adorable cuddly kittens.
If I had gone to see Steven Spielberg's West Side Story without knowing that it was a remake, I would have thought it was a perfectly fine film. But that's not what happened. It was a remake. And I went to see it specifically to compare it to the original.
Credit for the idea goes to my old friend, Vinnie. Out of the blue he suggested that we see the original 1961 film (which was in limited release), then follow up with the new remake. I could then write a blogpost comparing the two. So here we are. For the purposes of this writeup, I am going to assume that the reader is familiar with the storyline. I also note that Vinnie helped me with a lot of the thoughts and ideas. I don't remember which seeds he planted or helped develop, so I can't give him specific credit for specific points. Sorry, Vin.
The differences between the two movies is obvious from the start. The original starts with a beautiful aerial pan of Manhattan, showing the skyscrapers in their glory. Spielberg's remake starts with shots of rubble and debris, as we see that the old neighborhood is being torn down -- to be replaced by Lincoln Center. That theme is referenced several times through the movie in what seems like an attempt to give the story gravitas.
Which brings me to one of the most noticeable differences between the two movies: the level of wokeness. In the original film both gangs are portrayed with roughly the same level of sympathy. We see that from the very beginning. Throughout the prologue we see various assemblages of Sharks and Jets confronting each other and backing down -- with the advantage going to whichever gang members find themselves in the temporary majority. But aside from the ethnic differences, there's no real politics involved; both gangs consist of aggressive guys loyal to their own group. In the new film, we start with an act of political aggression by the Jets -- they vandalize a political mural featuring a Puerto Rican flag and quotes from the Puerto Rican independence movement. And throughout the disputes we are shown the Jets as xenophobes fighting what they see as foreigners encroaching on their territory. And they threw in a lot more hefty baggage about the Puerto Rican experience, which distracted from the story.
The character of Doc, the gentle old Jewish shopkeeper who was kind of a neutral party running a no-man's land in the original has been replaced by Valentina, whom we learn is Doc's widow. Doc married a Puerto Rican woman, so she's kind of, sort of, trusted -- but only so far -- by both gangs. This, of course, leads me to wonder why she tried to talk Tony out of his romance with Maria. She could have encouraged it. And, when Anita objected, she could have said "it worked for me and Doc." Then, her singing "There's a Place for Us" at the end of the film (stealing that number from Tony and Maria, to whom it belonged) might have made sense.
On another note, Anybody's, the tomboy in the original, is a transmale in this one. The change doesn't really serve any purpose except, presumably to let Spielberg check a box. But it just smells of pandering to me.
So instead of being content to retell a tragic love story, Spielberg and company decided to tell a political tale. There's certainly room in the world for movies with these stories -- eminent domain and the displacement of the poor, the struggles of Puerto Ricans in the 1950s, and other such topics. But a remake of West Side Story shouldn't be the place for it.
Another noticeable difference between the films is in the dance numbers. The choreography in the remake lacked the artistry of the original. Watching the original, I was amazed at the beauty with which the performers portrayed violence through movement. This was especially true in the overture. The remake featured a much-shortened overture that's just not in the same league as the long version in the original. In many numbers, the remake uses complex filler instead of simple artistry. For example, "Gee, Officer Krupke" is performed in a police station with lots of desks and chairs, and papers flying all over the place. All that extra visual nonsense is simply distracting. "America" is turned into a huge extravaganza, bringing in children and blocking intersections, but the dance itself doesn't manage to capture the right feel.
The characters in this are less likeable than in the original. Riff and Bernardo were both likeable -- despite their manifest flaws -- in the original. In the remake they're much less so -- both are much more angry and hateful. Chino starts out seeming very nerdy but always has a sinister quality to him. Those main characters, as well as Anita and Maria are given more full backstories. In some ways is a plus. Bernardo and Anita become a much more interesting couple, as they debate their future together -- where to live, how many children to have. In fact, they are a much more interesting couple than Tony and Maria. Perhaps someone should make a movie about them. At any rate, there's very little done to give the rest of the Sharks and Jets any distinct personalities. They're kind of like this movie's Munchkins (or Oompa Loompas if you prefer) -- there are a lot of them and they're mostly interchangeable.
There is one thing about the remake that's superior to the original -- skintone. In the original movie there were times that the Puerto Rican characters -- notably Bernardo -- look like white people with dirt smudged on their faces to make them look darker.* The remake, with its Hispanic actors, looks more realistic in that regard. I'm not of the opinion that people should only accept or be given roles that match their ethnicities, but they should look believably like the characters they're playing -- without the obvious addition of face-schmutz.
Because my comments above are largely negative, I need to restate what I said above. The new WSS is a fine movie if you take it on its own. But it's by no means great, and it doesn't measure up to the original. I'm of the opinion that films should be remade only if there's a reason, and they should justify their necessity. There was no good reason for this one, and it failed to justify itself.
____________________________________________
*I acknowledge that this might be in part a byproduct of modern technology. With the film cleaned up and converted to whatever higher-definition is being used, flaws that weren't apparent may be showing up. I never saw the original in its original release, so I can't say for sure.
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.
Session: The Blood is the Life, Mr. Harker (week 3) Movie: Count Dracula (1977) Directed by Philip Saville
Plot: A lawyer travels from London to Transylvania to help Count Dracula buy a new home. And that's when his troubles begin. Horror ensues.
Reaction and Other Folderol:
I didn't expect it, but Louis Jourdan is possibly the best Dracula that cinema has ever produced. Christopher Lee and Bela Lugosi have been great in the role. But none of them approach the suave charm of Jourdan. He is truly the James Bond of Draculas. In addition, Keith tells me that this movie is probably the truest representation of Bram Stoker's original. Truth be told, I wouldn't know, since I never read the novel.
A lot of the movie played with the boundary between erotic and creepy. Largely because of Judi Bowker's portrayal of Mina. She often exudes sexuality, but then there are shots that make her appear underage -- though the character is not intended to actually be a minor.
Jack Shepherd's portrayal of Renfield was really well done. A couple weeks earlier, I really enjoyed Klaus Kinski's mute version of the character. Shepherd has no trouble talking, and in his dialogue does a great job of seeming insane. Not that it matters, but I note that he also seemed oddly like a young Brent Spiner.
The simple but effective special effects -- they used negatives, black and white shots and vivid painting on the screen -- added an interesting psychedelic effect. and the effects in the climactic fight were much better than what we saw in the Christopher Lee movie a couple weeks ago.
On the other hand, I really didn't care for the portrayal of Lucy, and Quincey's fake Texas accent was just awful.
Ratings
Cats: No, there were no cats. But there were wolves and domesticated birds.
I guess I should note that I'm not really a big fan of rap. But I'm not really anti-rap. I am certainly not one to claim that it's not music. That attitude seems closed-minded to me. It's just that rap, for the most part, is not my cup of tea.
That said, I have to like this track, "Mawsh," by Nas Jee. That's because Sharon and Asher appear in the video. Asher is easy to spot. He's the white kid in the gray sweatshirt. In fact, he's even visible in the thumbnail. Sharon is a bit harder to spot; most of the time that she appears her face is obscured by her hair or her hood. But she's the girl in a navy and gray hoodie. Often, she's dancing on the picnic table.
And, truth be told, after watching this a bunch of times (to see my kids in action -- watching them dance is fun), I find this kind of growing on me. If only I had a lyric sheet.
Seriously though...Nas, keep up the creative work.
