The Continued Use of an Old Movie Palace

Last night, I went to the Winter Program for my daughter’s school over at the Copernicus Center on Lawrence near Milwaukee in Chicago. What a sumptuous auditorium that place is! I had no idea. It was formerly the Gateway Theater, the first movie palace built in Chicago for talking pictures, so the acoustics were very good and it felt very comfortable and intimate. Apparently the auditorium is busy almost every night, probably because of the dearth of midsized auditoriums on the North side. It also shows the vitality of the Polish community here. The lobby was beautifully redone and had a barmaid slinging Swarski Beer and Polish merlot.

And of course, the interior was tastefully done. Minimalist, even. With sparkling lights in the ceiling to simulate stars. (The only thing the Music Box Theater has over these guys is their cloud machine for the ceilng.)

Interior of the Copernicus Center, from their websiteGoing to the movies isn’t an event anymore. With Netflix and streaming videos, and smartphones playing movies, people can barely drag themselves out of their mancaves to enjoy the cinematic arts. But it’s gratifying to see a place like the Copernicus Center operating, because it gives a glimpse into a bygone era.

For a gallery of pictures of old, mostly empty or torn down Chicago movie places, click here. Bigger isn’t always better, obviously.

Having a Blast at the Movies

As our planned Saturday excursion fell through, due to the ridiculously warm weather in Chicago (I don’t like or desire 50 degree days in February — they’re just plain ugly), I took the family and my nephews to see “Coraline” in 3D. We decided to go to the 4:00 show, just in case the flick was too intense for the kids under 10. It was a very good movie, although a seat closer to the middle of the theater would’ve been nicer, to take advantage of the 3D to the utmost. The show was a sellout, the place packed with families and young adults on dates. I still can’t get used to seeing movies in the daytime, even when the weather is miserable or I’m trapped in another city with nothing to do. But whatever. I know it’s a rather quaint notion that a matinee should make you feel guilty. It’s also old-fashioned to think that you should filter a child’s intake of movies to match their maturity level, as all the parents who bring their toddlers to slasher movies will attest. Such a fuddy-duddy I am!

But the trailers! Ah, me, if a kid (or any other sane person) can sit through the movie trailers on the big screen and not feel assaulted, then let him or her watch whatever’s playing. Zombie Nazi porn starring Paris Hilton, for all I care. If you can make it through the trailers relatively pain-free, your synapses have been fused to such a degree that you should be sent into space to fight for our species’ survival, like in “Alien II.” You can take it, you’re an interplanetary Marine.

We were shown one trailer on Saturday for a new animated movie called “9”. Presented by legendary Tim Burton and visionary filmmaker Timur Bekmambetov (which means I guess, that the film will have three endings, all unsatisfying, and all involving balletic explosion sequences), “9” is some post-apocalyptic thingie about a homunculus created by a scientst to carry on the human “spirit” in the desolate landscape. If you like your trailers to give you vertigo, then I’m sure you’ll love the movie. But the sound! The volume had to be cranked up to at least 80 decibels! My shirt was vibrating from the noise!

Sure, ol’ Grandpa Finn Garner does have his hearing problems, and he got them from, all together now kids……excessive noise!

But that excessive noise was experienced in punk bars and at Ramones concerts, places we all knew would be loud. By the ripe old age of 19, I had permanent damage and a ringtone in my ears that makes the world sound like bacon frying in a pan. It sucks, but I did it to myself.

On the other hand, one wouldn’t expect a movie trailer to leave one bleeding from one’s ears — perhaps one should just stick with the TV from now on.

The Benefits of Slow TV Watching

Last Saturday night, I settled in to watch a very old-school horror movie, all by myself. “Son of Frankenstein” is not fancy in its storytelling, or even very coherent. Somehow the monster had been struck by lightning and fell into a coma, yet while in that coma Igor had sent the monster off to murder the burgomeisters who’d condemned him to the gallows. Now the son of the original doctor revives the monster, filled with excitement yet horrified by what he’s done. The police chief, who’s arm had been wrenched out of his body as a child by the monster, suspects the doctor but protects him from the mob. In the end, in a presaging of the end of “Terminator 2”, the monster is pushed into an 800-degree liquid sulphur pit and burned alive.

Yeah, how can anything go wrong when your laboratory is built over the bubbling miasma of an 800-degree liquid sulphur pit?

So, not as creepy as the original, and not as stylized and surprising as “Bride of Frankenstein.” But Boris Karloff gets to wear the fur vest later made popular by Sonny Bono, and many scenes inspired terrific material in Mel Brooks’ “Young Frankenstein”. More like a Transylvanian pot roast than a fancy meal, yet, it satisfies. Every Halloween, I promise myself to watch an old Universal horror film, for old times’ sake–where would Halloween be without those characters? Sometimes the kids will join me, but this year the movie scared my 10-year-old, and my 13-year-old was too busy with parties.

Watching old, mediocre horror movies is not just an exercise in nostalgia (though don’t knock that–it’s the only exercise I get). There’s something enjoyable about watching bad movies with outlandish sets and dialog, something ephemeral yet instructive. In the age of Netflix and cable TV and Tivo, we could watch quality programming any time we flip on the boob tube. Yet we don’t. We save and watch episodes of America’s Top Model and Jim Belushi sitcoms and everything the vast wasteland offers. Perhaps it’s a fear that too much quality can kill a person, or at least turn him into an NPR host.

I watch old movies looking for surprises, like strange interior architecture (lots of suspended staircases in “Son of Frankenstein”, for some reason), stilted dialog, and actors who may have been given all of 30 seconds of screen time in their lives. I also use them to slow myself down, to get away from clips and fast-forwards and every other time convenience that has speeded up our lives so much. (Why does it feel that we are saving time yet always short of it? Is it another manifestation of human greed? Can you ever have enough time, especially when the time you save is spent on learning new ways to save time?) It used to be that entertainment on television was limited and started and stopped at certain times. Now that offerings are “on-demand” more and more, there’s a certain pressure to suck more of it up.

A familiar scenario: It’s 11:30 and I should be in bed, but I’ve saved “Seven Samurai”, “The Hustler” and a bunch of NatGeo specials on Tivo. I ask myself, “Shouldn’t I watch at least some of each of them, just as a signal that I’ll get to them eventually?” And an unsatisfying hour is spent managing the TV workload, depriving me of the sleep I need the next day. Shouldn’t entertainment be relaxing and not an exercise in multitasking and time-wrangling? Maybe I like mediocre movies just for the fact that, if I don’t make it to the end, I don’t have to feel guilty about not finishing it.

Movies Are Better than Ever (Whoopee..)

The summer movie season relies heavily on fights, crashes and explosions. And sometimes those on the screen are more interesting than the ones in the box office rankings. But only by a little. I think there should be a name for the summer schadenfreude I feel when a big budget movie, starring vegetable-brained celebrities, written by desperate masochistic scribblers, directed by bombastic tinpot dictators, and marketed and distributed by human leeches, goes up in flames at the cineplex. Maybe it’s because I’m a writer and feel the script is the most important part of a movie, but when a $150 million project tanks, I feel as cozy warm as Winnie-the-Pooh.

“Sex and the City.” “Speed Racer.” “Get Smart.” “The Incredible Hulk.” Any of these will cost you money that could be better spent on three delicious beers, one expensive martini, or a pugwash from a crack ho. Where would you rather spend your hard earned $10?

Now, I’m not against whiz-bang flicks. I saw “Iron Man” a couple weeks ago and loved it. They got everything right in that flick.

Tonight the latest entry in the “Indiana Jones” series comes out, 17 years after the last. (Should there be a statute of limitations on a sequel, after which time there should be no implied connection with the originals?) Everyone’s getting all giggly about this one, but I could care less. There’s something repulsive about the idea of Harrison Ford doing this same old schtick again. With his graying, Alfalfa Schweitzer haircut, maybe a remake of “Deliverance” would be more appropriate. As he lunges across the hood of a speeding truck in the trailer (obligatory age joke), he looks like a pensioner at the early bird special diving across the buffet for the last piece of Jell-O.

Did you know the Indiana Jones fedora, bull whip and leather jacket are on display in the Smithsonian? What is there that is groundbreaking or historically important about a big-budget remake of 1940s pulp movies? I read Harrison Ford in the paper saying at Cannes that with this movie, he’d like to help the audience enjoy pure escapist entertainment again. Thanks, Harr, but I don’t think we’ve lost that skill. What’s next, ConAgra reassuring us that it’s okay to like French fries again? America, rest easy–some things you never lose.

And really, must we care that George Lucas and Steven Spielberg want to revisit this hollow idea? Must their perpetual pre-adolescence be the subject of so much attention? They’re skilled filmmakers, certainly, and have nothing else to prove. So quit proving that money trumps everything. Spielberg’s movies, especially the popular ones, always make me feel dirty, like someone’s been pushing all my buttons with fingers covered in coconut oil movie theater “butter”. The earlier Indy movies were only okay in my book. What finally turned me off was the beating heart ripped out of the man in “Temple of Doom.” Part of the charm of the old serials was their fakery, their hamminess. Spielberg, of course, makes everything in a film look beautiful and realistic. So, a beautifully photographed beating heart, or dozens of beautifully massacred soldiers (I don’t care if they are Nazis), or child slavery, or the Nazi chopped up in the propeller, leave me numb and nauseous.

Maybe it’s a generational thing. People ten years younger than me go bananas over Indy and Star Wars because the movies blew their 12-year-old minds. When I was a young teen, the best movies were the complex, experimental kind, not the one that ran the fastest. “MASH”, “Chinatown”, “Taxi Driver”, were all engaging. For escapist fun, our choices were “Cannonball Run,” “Smoky and the Bandit”, et al–movies starring TV actors, directed by journeymen hacks. Which is as it should be. To have someone with Spielberg’s talent remaking Indiana Jones is like Emeril making a meatloaf, or Philip Roth redoing Mike Hammer.

Quit it, just quit it. You’re ruining pop culture for me.

Amazing

This household has been socked with a one-two punch of chest colds and winter ennui, so last night, the kids watched “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” eating carry-out Thai, and after they went to bed, my ever-lovin’ wife and I watched the Oscars. We were aided by the TIVO, of course, which let us fast-forward through all the musical numbers and the long walks to the microphone (which surprisingly add 19 minutes to the whole broadcast).

Why we’d bother to watch, I don’t know. We just don’t go out to the movies anymore unless a supervillain is endangering the earth somehow. I think the last best picture I saw in the theater might have been “Annie Hall.” And the faces and names get more obscure every year. But it pays to keep up with the pop culture, if only to be able to talk in short-hand about things.

Something I noticed last night, besides how absolutely fabulous a life in Hollywood must be (note to self: time to head west and sleep on an acquaintance’s couch for a year or two), was how many winners described their experience as “amazing.”

“This has just been an amazing experience.” At first I thought, how amazing have the past 15 seconds been since your name was announced? Were your legs asleep and you are glad to stretch them? But I quickly realized that the person was likely talking about the past few weeks since the nominations were announced. In light of that, the word “amazing” must mean:

It’s great you people have finally recognized me for the mega-talent I’ve been telling you I am.

It’s fun to get phone calls from people who want to hire me, and agents who want to steal me.

It’s enjoyable to get calls from old boyfriends who are looking for tickets to the red carpet, so I can tell them to eat shit and die.

It’s nice to get baskets and baskets of free swag from companies dumb enough to send it to me.

It certainly beats pretending to be glad that someone else won.

It’s amazing while the attention lasts, because most assuredly, it won’t.

Heavy Eskimo Petting for Valentine’s Day

For all you lovers, here’s a lobby card promoting the steamy silent picture “”Frozen Justice.” Check out the pair of noses here!!

I found this among a great collection of lobby cards on the Vanity Fair website. They were taken from a private collection of a screenwriter named Leonard Schrader, the brother of Paul Schrader and writer of such films as “Mishima” and “Kiss of the Spider Woman”. If you have any passing interest in graphic design, you must visit it. You’ll be amazed at some of the designs they used to promote movies, most of which you’ve probably never heard of.

Looking at these piques my curiosity in the same way that watching old melodramas does. I try and imagine what it was like to live in a small town in Ohio and go to the movies about glamorous people in Manhattan or LA. Back in a period before WWII, when people very rarely traveled outside of their close geographic area, did these images feel tantalizing or bizarre? Did the art deco apartments filled with tuxedoed men and gowned women incite envy or repudiation or wonder or despair or disgust? When radio and an occasional movie was many Americans’ only link to someplace outside of their immediate county, were the messages strong enough to make people dissatisfied with their lives?

Today we practically swim in media (in the future, some god-awful technology will probably allow us to do it literally), whose sole purpose is to distract us from our daily lives, which honestly are a helluva lot easier than those led in the Roaring 20s and the Depression. In the past, a movie was a treat you enjoyed at the end of a week; now it’s something you can watch on your phone while waiting for a bus, or on YouTube when you’re wasting time at work. Has our relationship with these “treats” changed the way we feel about our lives, our friends and family, our purpose in life? I’d say yes, but I can’t articulate how. I need a screenwriter to feed me some snappy dialog.

A Marxist Indoctrination

Had a very busy, typically Christmas-season kind of weekend. Hope you did too. Decorating, skating, sledding, shopping, party-going, and a glorious service of “Lessons and Carols” downtown at church, where I got to watch my progeny make use of their talents to the greater glory. I’ll admit I was a little misty-eyed at the end of the service, although that might be traced back to the hearty dinner I enjoyed of a pizza slice and a Manhattan.

But more than fun and games were on the menu. With my two young nephews in the house for a sleepover, I felt the need — no, the compulsion — to raise their cultural awareness and overall quality of character. I’m like John Dewey that way. So I made them sit down and watch “A Night at the Opera.”

Oh, they were hesitant at first. They know better than to believe Uncle Jim when he tells them that something will make them better people. But once we all made it to the contract scene (“The party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part”), they were fast within my clutches.

Just as you can tell a lot about a person if his favorite kind of movie is a Western (and I’m not being sexist there–among fans of the Western movie, I can’t think of any I’ve met who weren’t men or didn’t wish they were), you can split Marx Brothers fans into two camps depending on their favorite film.

Many people stand by “Duck Soup” as the quintessential Marx movie, and they may have a point. It’s hilarious, chaotic, acerbic. It’s reportedly most true to their vaudeville routines. It has Zeppo, but that shouldn’t be held against it (it was his last picture, and he became his brothers’ agent after that). It’s also slapdash, weirdly paced, and as a movie, frankly unsatisfying. To me, it’s the “fanboy favorite” among Marx Bros. fans, the one that lets people get on their nerd horse and pontificate about it being “pure”. (Like anyone is alive today who can compare their vaudeville routines with their pictures.)

For my money, “A Night at the Opera” is a much funnier and more enjoyable movie. Producer Irving Thalberg insisted on many changes in this picture, including a strong script, a love interest, a point in the plot when everyone’s fortunes are scraping bottom, and identifiable villains for the boys to attack. Purists may scoff at its slickness, but it made a lot of money, and Groucho himself told Dick Cavett on his show that it, along with “A Day at the Races”, were the best movies they’d ever made. When you think about it, if Thalberg hadn’t made his pitch to Chico at a bridge game about the movie, their film careers may have become even more spotty, or ceased altogether. The world might have had only five Marx Brothers movies–pure or not–if “A Night at the Opera” hadn’t been made, but instead we have 13, of varying quality but fun nevertheless. In the worst case scenario, they might have faded into obscurity like the Ritz Brothers or Weber & Fields, and never made it to the 1950s and television.

I like nothing better than wallowing in an old B&W movie (if Turner Classic Movies wasn’t offered by my cable company, I’d be bitching a lot more every month when paying the bill), and this is one of the best. And for better and worse, it exposed me to opera, though I still yearn for someone to lean over from the balcony and growl “Boogie, boogie, boogie” during “Il Travatore”. Otto and Henk, as well as my own kids, wallowed with me. And for the months ahead, our conversations will be peppered with phrases like “And two hard-boiled eggs”, “He’s got insomnia, he’s trying to sleep it off” and “Well, watermelons are out of season.” And I will feel good about the future of our country.

Occupational Movie Spoilers

You know how sometimes you go to a movie with someone who has a certain occupational specialty, and that person cannot enjoy the movie because of the huge gaffes spotted by his trained eye? The worst situation is going to a scifi flick with an engineer, who will happily show off his knowledge by telling you (and everyone within earshot) that X couldn’t have happened because it violated the scientific principles of Y and Z, and besides, the torque and stress on the lateral support couldn’t blah blah blah. This can happen when you bring a lawyer, a doctor, or even a fishmonger to the movies.

(Of course, one example of some gaffes that EVERYONE in the country should’ve gotten was that romantic presidential comedy Dave, starring Kevin Kline, in which the president (Kline) has a stroke and so the evil chief of staff recruits a doppelganger (also Kline, but more rakish and friendly) to fill in for him. And somehow, this faux president was able to pass legislation on his own, without any mention of Congress or the courts. Sort of a benign dictator, although still rakish and friendly, so I guess it was okay. What a steamer that was.)

But that’s a long way around the fact that I saw Spider-Man 3 last weekend, and spotted two ridiculous errors regarding Kirsten Dunst and her acting career. So, I guess I’m going to be one of those insufferable know-it-alls.

1. First, after a disastrous opening night, Mary Jane is replaced in her B’way musical the very next day. She even finds out by showing up at the theater to discover a new actress doing her number! Oh, the pathos! In reality, if this were a B’way show, Mary Jane would’ve had a solid contract that would’ve guaranteed her X number of performances if the show was being staged, and if she were replaced, she’d be paid a big severance penalty. Nobody’s ever heard of Actor’s Equity??

2. And during her performance in said musical, the camera zooms in on Mary Jane up the center aisle of the theater. Trouble is, there aren’t any center aisles in theaters, of any kind, movie or legit. Think about it. Those are where the good and expensive seats are. Additionally, I can’t remember a single NY theater I’ve ever been to that has had any kind of aisle at all, let alone a 12-foot-wide freeway down the middle (though I could be wrong on this point).

And on another subject: If the Sandman cries, like he does at the end of this movie, shouldn’t parts of his face wash off or something?

Other than that, 2 webs way up!