Lost in the Movies: March 2022

Requiem for a Dream (LOST IN THE MOVIES podcast #39 - bonus)



This season, I'm publishing podcasts on three different directors - two films each on the usual episode-per-month structure (in January and February, not knowing she was about to receive her first Best Director Oscar, I covered Jane Campion with The Piano and Holy Smoke!). However, March has an extra Wednesday and I have an extra Darren Aronofsky episode in my patron archive, so I decided to offer Requiem for a Dream as a public bonus after Pi earlier this month. The review in this podcast was originally recorded four years ago, and even back then it was absorbed with the passage of time, as I reflect on the film's place in the turn-of-the-millennium zeitgeist as Gen X cinema and culture reached its apotheosis. This DVD was on many older millennials' shelves two decades ago but this enthusiasm has always contained backlash; Requiem's reputation can a bit fraught. Despite the film's bravura style and intense performances (indeed perhaps because of their overbearing power), some viewers find its focus reductive and one-note - is this just a glorified anti-drug "scared straight" promo? While this reading may flatten the movie's rich texture and compelling characterizations, it's worth noting that even the literal packaging of Requiem emphasizes this perspective, with liner notes incorporating Harry Knowles' cringey, embarrassing, hyped-up review and Aronofsky's own more thoughtful reflection on addiction as the narrative's protagonist. But is the film really telling us a story of people who were led astray, rather than lost to begin with? Near the end of this episode, I humor the possibility of a wider social context - hopefully fueling further discussion (as always, if you have your own thoughts, please send them my way and I'll incorporate them into a later episode).


Subscribe, rate, and review on Apple Podcasts
You can also listen on Pinecast and Spotify
(and most places podcasts are found)


LINKS

(video w/ Requiem for a Dream theme)

Requiem for a Dream was featured in my 32 Days of Movies video clip series

I selected Requiem for a Dream for Favorite Actress (Ellen Burstyn), Supporting Actress (Jennifer Connelly), Original Score (Clint Mansell), Editing (Jay Rabonwitz), Ensemble, Scene (Winter - climax) & ranked 4th overall for 2000 in my "alternate Oscars"


MY RECENT WORK

New on other podcasts



New on YouTube



New on Patreon
(for $5/month)


(for $1/month)









New on the site





TWIN PEAKS CONVERSATIONS #8 w/ TV Milestones - Twin Peaks authors Julie Grossman & Will Scheibel (YouTube & extended PATREON)


Although the book Twin Peaks was published as part of the "TV Milestones" series in 2020, its authors Julie Grossman and Will Scheibel have a deep background and interest in the study of cinema. Alongside discussions of Peaks' early nineties production history at ABC and the context of soap opera and other television formats, their focus incorporates Fire Walk With Me (of course) - but also the impact of big screen genres like melodrama and particularly noir. In our freewheeling podcast discussion, we dwell on topics like noir motifs, the "white knight" detective, and the concept of the femme fatale, exploring how all of these apply to the work of David Lynch and Mark Frost (up to and including season three, which they were among the first to analyze in book form). How does The Return carve out space for unusual female characters like Diane, Audrey, and Sarah? What were Cooper's mistakes, in both seasons two and three? Is "Judy" the ultimate femme fatale? Like Laura's Ghost and Twin Peaks Unwrapped, this was a book I received way back around the start of the pandemic (and the renewal of Journey Through Twin Peaks), and kept postponing until I knew I could schedule a conversation with its authors. So it was a pleasure to finally dig into the work, both on my own and with them.

PART 1 on YouTube
(premieres at 8pm on Monday, March 28 -
*re-scheduled due to the Oscars)


Some of the above questions were addressed only in the patron exclusive part, an additional fifty minutes after the public half hour; in particular, the noir aspect of our conversation gets to shine in this back-more-than-half....

Listen to...
(link will be active at 8pm on Monday, March 28 -
*re-scheduled due to the Oscars)



Listen to my coverage of Twin Peaks' connections to noir films Laura & Sunset Boulevard

Read Barb Miller's comment on Cooper & Annie in my alt.tv.twin-peaks round-up
(scroll down to 6/14/91)



Peyton Place as TWIN PEAKS CINEMA #11 (podcast)



Closing out the three-month season of "Small Town Blues", Peyton Place may seem like a break from the previous two entries. Of course, just last month, I said the same thing about Our Town! Granted, Peyton Place shares a darker, subversive streak with Kings Row that the more innocent ensemble of Our Town avoids - and while Kings Row is set in the Midwest, Peyton Place could be just a few towns over from Our Town in New Hampshire. For the most part, though, Peyton Place is the odd one out. Both Kings Row and Our Town were directed by Sam Wood, in black-and-white, almost back-to-back in the early forties, whereas Peyton Place belongs to the widescreen, Technicolor era of sweeping melodramas in the late fifties (as such, it feels a bit closer in mood and aesthetic to Twin Peaks). Kings Row and Our Town are set in the quaint turn-of-the-century days long before World War I, while Peyton Place evokes a far more recent history for its audience, unfolding just before and during World War II. Like those other two films, Peyton Place crossed mediums, not just from novel to cinema but eventually as one of the most popular soap operas of all time and a direct precedent to Peaks; in fact, when David Lynch's and Mark Frost's mutual agent suggested the project, he introduced the concept as "Blue Velvet meets Peyton Place." As I discovered in this re-viewing, Peyton Place already has a bit of Blue Velvet about it - while lacking the Lynch film's surrealism and mystery plotting, it also depicts a cozy small town with a sleazy underbelly, and was viewed as quite subversive in its own time. One of the most striking and disturbing elements that connects Peyton Place to Twin Peaks - a quasi-incestuous abuse haunting one of the characters - is also shared with Kings Row (albeit more obliquely, given the censorship of that time). This is a connection cemented by casting, as the author Lindsay Hallam has pointed out to me in the past. Hope Lange, the troubled young woman in Peyton Place, would go on to play a mother in Blue Velvet; in Peyton Place, her own mother is played by Betty Field...who played a similar victim in Kings Row.



Subscribe, rate, and review on Apple Podcasts
You can also listen on Pinecast and Spotify
(and most places podcasts are found)


March 2022 Patreon podcast - LOST IN THE MOVIES #89 - Film/TV Capsules & Political Reflections (Don't Look Up, war in Ukraine, state of the left, many podcast recommendations, The Hunt, Olympic documentaries, generational youth zeitgeists w/ Mazzy Star & the Super Bowl, The Civil War or Who Do We Think We Are documentary on Reconstruction legacy, The Three Stooges, Disney & disturbing fairy tales, surrealist shorts, Alone in the Wilderness, Rick Steves' The Holy Land, Hill Street Blues final season, Carter/Biden, the conservative mood, a political pause, The Wolf of Wall Street archive reading & more)


After many months - a year in the case of podcast recommendations - I've finally caught up with most of the "bonus sections" I planned to record last fall (aside from listener feedback, which will be featured next month). Film/TV capsules include an eclectic, grab bag mix of shorts, documentaries, shows, and events; how could I, with my generational obsessions, avoid talking about this year's Super Bowl halftime show and commercials? This part is headlined by several minutes (not a full review, but one of the longer capsules) discussing Don't Look Up, a film whose dire, if absurdist, political themes match the spirit of this episode overall. Then I split the podcast recommendations into five different mini-parts that can be used simply as a collection of links to explore or listened to if you want to hear my thoughts on some of these subjects (as always, the longer topics - the ones featured for a minute or more in my rundown - are listed in the show notes). Finally, in time to mark the grim anniversary of Super Tuesday two years ago, I uploaded my latest - and probably last, for a while - political reflections on the country's current, if mercurial, political status (or stasis), the discouraging rut that the left seems to be in, and, of course, the recent invasion of Ukraine by Russia which further complicates what we might have thought we understood. This podcast is a mix of celebration - a lot of these audiovisual pieces were fun to dig into - and catharsis, because if the status quo of politics doesn't offer much hope, it's a relief to get those frustrations off my chest (and not in the antagonistic, chopped-up form of Twitter). Besides, as I note at the end, any time things are this uncertain that means there's still a chance for some sort of change.

Lost in the Movies patron episode #89...

Mad Men - "Person to Person" (season 7, episode 14)


Welcome to my viewing diary for Mad Men. Every Monday I will review another episode until the series finale. I have never seen this series before so there will be NO spoilers.

Story (aired on May 17, 2015/written & directed by Matthew Weiner): The finale of Mad Men begins with a natural landscape and a close-up of Don Draper, and it concludes the same way. But these symmetrical bookends couldn't be more different. The opening vista captures the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah, a dry, parched desert most notable for lacking any obvious signs of life. When we see Don's face, surrounded by his Chevy muscle dragster, he's covered by a helmet and thick goggles (inside of a shell which is inside of a shell). And he is racing outward - "moving forward" - happy for the moment but with the implication that he must maintain motion to stay so. The final image features an idyllic, grassy hillside in Manzia, near Rome, but the scenery is overwhelmed by a crowd of people, men and women, all young but drawn from every corner of the globe, singing joyfully as the camera swoops overhead. This verdant location is teeming with human life. And the calm close-up of Don which triggers this vision stands in stark contrast with our introduction to the speed demon, who is facing inward this time rather than outward (the camera movement even accentuates this inner push in marked contrast to the past six episodes, which all ended with more distanced shots of Don, often accompanied by a backtracking dolly). Don smiles in both shots, but the joy here is relaxed, not intense. His eyes are gently shut rather than staring straight ahead, but otherwise his body language is completely open rather than closed in, surrounded by meditators on the cliffs of Big Sur, basking in the sun, waves rolling behind him, even the collar of his white shirt popped open as he leaves his body unguarded against the penetrating flow of "Ommmmmmm....."

Are these first and last visions of liberation to be weighed and judged against one another? Is one more lasting or profound than the other? And why does the series end not with Don's ambiguous inner revelation but with the infamous 1971 Coca-Cola "hilltop" TV commercial and its catchy jingle ("I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony..."), implicitly the end result of our hero's Esalen epiphany?

Don's arc is central to the episode but not totally unique. In fact all six of the series' most consistent protagonists are featured throughout "Person to Person", with Don's morning meditation the capper to a montage depicting each of their end-states. (I'd say "their end-states for now", but then the series appears quite determined to place a definitive narrative frame around what we see - welcome as an occasional eighties, nineties, even twenty-first century check-in would be over the decades to come.) Unlike Don, the others all end up sharing their last screen space, but Joan at least - who is buzzing around her home office with her child's babysitter Maureen (Amy Ferguson) as her only companion - has, like Don, found satisfaction in a form of solitude. Her newfound business will keep her in contact with others - she may even end up partnering with Peggy, two women with their names on the door of a commercial production company (although Peggy leans toward staying at McCann when the episode ends, there's plenty of time for her to change her mind). And Roger intervenes in his and Joan's final, warm scene together to ensure that Kevin will be his heir. There's a support network around her to be sure, but Joan once said she'd rather die hoping for love than accept an arrangement. She hasn't found love yet when the curtain closes. Richard, who made his peace with her family but can't can't abide the escalation of her busy work life, walks off when she chooses the ringing phone over him. Was this love she rejected, or merely its own sort of arrangement, sacrificing career for romance rather than vice versa?

Roger's major plot development has to do with Joan (changing his will), even though his future is with Marie. That tempestuous relationship may or may not go the distance; they bicker in bed when Roger laughably "forbids" her from seeing, let alone sleeping with, her mopey soon-to-be ex-husband, but it's precisely this equally matched immaturity-in-maturity energy that suits them. Joan initially assumes that Roger has chased another youthful short-skirted underling to the altar, but this time he may have truly met his match, or as Joan puts it, "I guess someone finally got their timing right." His delivery of the revelation is priceless: "Nah, I met her through Megan Draper. She's old enough to be her mother." (pause) "Actually, she is her mother." If Roger is mostly tying up loose ends, the other major character whom Joan intersects with has a more substantial storyline. Granted, Peggy's professional climax either arrived in the previous episode (with the one-two punch of her Sterling Cooper skates and McCann swagger) or remains on the horizon ("Harris Olson...you need two names to make it sound real"). And for the entire series, Peggy's arc has been all about the professional, with her sad succession of disappointing boyfriends playing a decidedly second fiddle. Until now: what's left for Peggy is to discover that the one she's meant for has been in front of her all along - or at least for the four seasons since Stan showed up and sparked their undeniable chemistry.

Not, of course, before the two screwballs in question exchange a few more insults: Stan shoots down her ambitions to start a new business ("stop looking over your shoulder at what other people have"), while Peggy sneers at his complacency ("spoken like a failure"). It's Don who brings them together again; when he calls Peggy in desperation and hangs up, she reaches out to Stan in a panic. Over the phone, he reassures her and offers sound advice: "You've got to let him go. It doesn't mean that you stop caring about him." Peggy apologizes, Stan confesses that he mostly just doesn't want to see her go, and then everything finally spills out. They drive each other crazy in more ways than one, and when she reveals to him - and herself - that she loves him too (after only responding "What?" several times, with delightful incredulity, to his initial declarations) he disappears from the other side of the line...and jogs right into her office for an embrace. This is the episode's great crowd-pleasing moment and a beautiful swan song for the character of the most (perhaps surprising) importance next to the more obvious cable drama lead Don. It makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Of course Peggy would find personal, romantic fulfillment in the very place that always kept her from finding it anywhere else. Maybe she really can have it all.

Interestingly, the other central player Peggy shares the screen with in "Person to Person" besides Joan and (sort of) Don is Pete. These two were linked from the beginning and there's a well-earned sweetness to Pete's farewell to Peggy - in which he offers her a cactus that's supposed to represent Kansas and tells her "Keep it up, and you'll be a creative director by 1980". Probably the true apex of their distanced but deep relationship was the moment in "Time & Life", which I didn't even find space to write about yet, when Pete is shaken by the sight of a little girl hugging Peggy and invites her into his office to tell her that SC&P is going under. Here, he's mostly just making an appearance before jetting off to the Promised Land, his big moment wrapped up in the previous episode. Others at, or formerly of, the office also get to wave goodbye; Ken is the one who offers Joan her path into commercial filmmaking, Harry pompously parades offscreen in a very early seventies fur-collared coat, and a cheerful Meredith accepts Roger's dismissal - given that her boss never returned - by hoping Don is in a better place. "He's not dead," an exasperated Roger asserts. "Stop saying that!" But Meredith has the impossible-to-beat rejoinder: "There are a lot of better places than here."

Don may not be dead, but death plays a large role in what drives him back to California for one last fling with his desperate dreams. A routine phone call with Sally finally reveals what Betty demanded her daughter withhold. Phoning his ex-wife to talk to her for what both tearfully know will be the last time, Don can't do a thing for her, or for himself. He certainly can't save her, but he can't even convince her that she should trust him to raise their children; she's made arrangements for the boys to reside with her brother's family because she wants them to be in a two-parent household (even Henry gets the cold shoulder here). "I want to keep things as normal as possible," she informs him. "And you not being here is part of that." Even their final words to one another are loving lies. "I'll talk to you soon," he tells her. "OK," she chokes out before hanging up. This is Betty's only real scene in the finale (a later scene in the Francis household shows Sally arriving home from school but Betty is already bedridden, and Bobby knows why). All that's left is the closing moment with Sally washing dishes as the dying woman smokes her last cigarettes at the kitchen table.

When Don shows up at Stephanie's doorstep in Los Angeles, he really has nowhere left to turn. It was a visit with Betty that sent him down the exit away from New York to begin with, and this chat is the final rocket boost he needs to fling him all the way to the end of the line. Washed out of his leadership position at the agency he helped found, dumped by his second wife after a long, numbing wind-down at his moment of greatest professional vulnerability, bluntly if still fondly warned off from returning to the bedrock of his original nuclear family- almost all of the official Don Draper ties have been severed. The Whitman curse has fully poisoned the Draper redemption, and will continue to do so when "niece" Stephanie (who puts that relationship back into quotation marks) invites him to a yogic self-realization retreat up north. Distressed by other members of a group therapy session who judge her for abandoning her child, Stephanie in turn rejects Don's attempts to comfort her. "You're not my family, what's the matter with you?" she sputters. When he delivers his usual pep talk - the one he gave Peggy, the one he gave Lane, the one he gives himself all the time - she looks astonished. "You can put this behind you," he insists. "It'll get easier if you move forward." All she has to do is observe the messenger to know this message is wrong. When Stephanie leaves in the middle of the night, stranding him on the precipice of a final breakdown, he finally calls long-distance to Peggy. The phone booth is a one-way confessional: he can spill his shame, but she cannot provide absolution. Who can?

Invited back inside the circle of the sad, Don listens - either raw or numb, it's hard to tell the difference sometimes - as seminar participants share their pain. One man, Leonard, a nondescript, balding fortysomething with a light blue sweater and a plain face unvarnished with pretense or pride, takes his turn. He speaks for three minutes before he is weeping so hard that he cannot finish, and then Don stands up, crosses the circle, falls to his knees and hugs the stranger in an embrace as enveloping as any he's offered - to himself as well as the recipient. This is what Leonard says:
"My name's Leonard and, uh, I don't know if there's anything that complicated about me. Which is why I should be happier I guess. ... Well, [what you said about 'should' to Daniel] is good for him. He's interesting. I've never been interesting to anybody. I, uh, I work in an office. People walk right by me. I know they don't see me. And I go home, and I watch my wife and my kids. They don't look up when I sit down. ... I don't know. It's like no one cares that I'm gone. They should love me. I mean, maybe they do, but I don't even know what it is. You spend your whole life thinking you're not getting it, people aren't giving it to you. Then you realize they're trying and you don't even know what it is. I had a dream I was on a shelf in the refrigerator. Someone closes the door and the light goes off. And I know everyone's out there eating. And then they open the door and you see them smiling and they're happy to see you but maybe they don't look right at you. And maybe they don't pick you. And then the door closes again. The light goes off."
My Response:

Pi (LOST IN THE MOVIES podcast #38)



Over the past couple months, I explored two works by Jane Campion on this podcast; as spring shifts to summer, I'll be turning my attention to three films by another director - Darren Aronofsky. His debut film Pi, in 1998, marks a moment - around the same time as Rushmore, Magnolia, Memento, and The Virgin Suicides - when a new crop of Gen X directors moved beyond the indie template of snappy dialogue-heavy talkfests and an ironic, self-conscious hipster/geek sensibility established by Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarantino a few years earlier (although obviously Tarantino incorporated his fair share of visual and narrative flourishes into the mix). That scope would widen and the mood would deepen around the turn of the millennium. Aronofsky's feature debut Pi, co-written with the film's star Sean Gullette - who has gone on to direct other numerically-obsessed works himself, has a claustrophobic approach to character and cinematography alongside cosmic thematic ambitions. The story of a brilliant recluse, whose number-crunching efforts to "crack the code" of the stock market brings him into contact with a mystical cult, the film drapes itself in a monochrome aesthetic featuring high-contrast black-and-white film stock and old-school computer monitor graphics, both relics of a bygone era. Adding to the film's eerie resonance, I originally watched and reviewed Pi back in 2018 on a day full of coincidental connections, which I discuss in the episode. I'm also including some feedback I received about the film's heady aura and connections to other "mysterious fiction." If you have additional thoughts on any Aronofsky works, please leave a comment here or elsewhere and I'll share it on the next podcast, on the director's follow-up...


Subscribe, rate, and review on Apple Podcasts
You can also listen on Pinecast and Spotify
(and most places podcasts are found)


LINKS - MY RECENT WORK



Cross-posts for patron podcasts in January & February



Search This Blog