|
|
|
  
|
Classic Movie of the Week OnM - June 14, 2002 ******* Maddy: Where do you live? Margret: Mostly in my head. *******
Solitude stands by the window / She turns her head as I walk in the room
Solitude stands in the doorway / And I'm struck once again by her black silhouette
And she says I've come to set a twisted thing straight
I turn to the crowd as they're watching / They're sitting all together in the dark in the warm
Solitude stands in the doorway / And I'm struck once again by her black silhouette ............ Suzanne Vega ******* A couple of disclaimers before I start. I realize this is not Citizen Kane. Ah, Citizen Kane is in black & white and it's about a bald guy, so I realize they're not one and the same; however during the creative process one tends to feel as though one is making Citizen Kane (and) because of the difficulty involved you have to get yourself into the mindset where everything you're doing is incredibly important and (a work of) genius. So if I discuss this as if it were the greatest work of fiction in the history of America it's because I sort of have to feel that way, and because every decision you make as an artist is important to you at the time and has meaning even if it doesn't add up to a famous black & white movie about a bald guy. ............ Joss Whedon, from the DVD commentary track for the BtVS episode Innocence ******* Earlier this week, I was engaged in doing what I imagine quite a few Buffy fans were doing, which was sitting back (or forward, as need be) and enjoying the newly released DVD collection of BtVS, Season 2. Being a hopeless commentary trollop, I naturally gravitated towards those eps in the set that had them, and eventually came to Joss' thoughts on his ep Innocence. Snarky, self-deprecating and insightful as per usual, the meister and I eventually arrive at the point near the end of the show where Buffy, faced with the opportunity to stake Angel(us), decides instead to 'kick him in the goolies' as Joss so eloquently phrased the action. Now ya know, this angry feminist/testicle mashing thang is a persistently annoying and unpleasant TV/movie cliche, and only Joss's general brilliance allows him to get away with it. Hell, this whole BtVS shebang could be a cliche, it fer sure has the potential, but noooo, somehow time and again the banal is aptly subverted and even elevated beyond the apex of cleverness, kinda the way John Belushi could use that single silly stretched-out word that I just copped from his oeuvre over and over again, and make it funny each and every time. Lesser mortals generally fare much less well. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't try. If you don't at least try to gain some skills, talents, or at least a sense of style, and thereby risk failure, you never improve. You may even be fortunate enough to gain yourself an empathetic muse or a mentor, someone whom you respect, someone who is willing to teach you what they know, or at least the learnable parts of it. Sometimes you learn something simple and practical, like a job skill, and you get a promotion or a better paying job as a result. At other times you get to learn a life skill, a commodity that is often very hard to assign a price to (or even just pay for), but in terms of greater value received works for you big-time in the long run. One of the seeming 'givens' in the Jossverse is that enlightenment doesn't come without gaining a personal appreciation of pain and loss, and the director of this week's Classic Movie would seem to agree with that, as it would appear does the author of the novel that the film was based upon. Now, I haven't read the novel, which could be either a good or a bad thing, but whatever it's merits or demerits, I did very much enjoy watching Foxfire by director Annette Haywood-Carter, based on the novel by well-known writer Joyce Carol Oates. Foxfire appears at first glance to be a standard teen-age coming-of-age story, only with the usual band of soon-to-be-brothers-in-arms replaced with a band of sisters-in-arms. The battle being fought here is one framed in both internal and external terms, which naturally makes for a far more interesting story. While films such as this have plentiful precedent of the masculine side of the chromosomal fence, the feminine viewpoint is traditionally far less honored, and Haywood-Carter and her able cast seek to restore a little gender equity to the genre in this undertaking. The basic elements of the plot are like so: A 'stranger' comes to town; dark, brooding, attractive, mysterious-- and female. The stranger, one Margret Sadovsky, who goes by the ironic nick 'Legs', enters Portland, Oregon and with some inexplicable manner or kind of implied divine guidance makes her way to a high school in which several female students are about to have their lives changed irrevocably 'Legs' appearance. Margret/Legs is played by a young Angelina Jolie, nearly unknown at the time, but more recently visible and just as feisty in her Lara Croft: Tomb Raider role. The other four main protagonists of Foxfire-- Maddy (Hedy Burress), Rita (Jenny Lewis), Goldie (Jenny Shimizu) and Violet (Sarah Rosenberg)-- are in biology class, where frogs are being dissected, or more accurately vivisected if appearances are to be believed. Rita, an obviously shy and introverted girl, is unable to apply scalpel to amphibian, and is brought nearly to tears as the teacher slyly berates and threatens her for her supposed 'weakness'. Rita is just about to give in when Legs, who sauntered into the classroom just minutes before (and acting completely like she belonged there) gets up, frees the captive frog, and then follows it out the window. The teacher is outraged, and threatens to have Legs punished, only to hear her sarcastic rejoinder that 'I'm not a student here' as she coolly departs the scene. Frustrated and bitter at his sudden loss of authority in front of the entire class, the teacher assigns Rita the detention instead. It's clear that he needs to cut the heart out of something, and Rita happens to be the closest lesser being at hand. The story now takes a much darker turn as we learn that the biology teacher has a reputation for using his detention assignments to fondle or otherwise sexually harass the young women he fancies. While seemingly common knowledge among the school's female student population, no one seems willing to attempt the risky procedure of challenging the status quo-- at least until Margret shows up. Meeting up with Rita, Maddy, Violet and Goldie in the lavatory, Legs urges the other girls to stand up for themselves in no uncertain terms. They seem reluctant, and for good reason-- it's their word against his, and he's a teacher, they're just students. Rita leaves the lav and goes to her scheduled detention with the biology teacher. The sleazeball starts to make his move on Rita when Legs, Maddy and the others burst in on the scene, and threaten to expose what's going on. When he declines to be intimidated, the girls promptly gang up and pummel him, although not particularly viciously, inflicting just enough damage to get his attention. Simultaneously terrified and exhilarated at their 'conquest', the girls run away, in shock and disbelief at what they just did. There are consequences for their actions, which actually is a theme that runs throughout Foxfire. This in and of itself is kind of refreshing, since all too many 'teen movies' seem to emphasize the hedonistic partaking of the party ethic at the expense of the people who are ultimately paying for the party. Granted, most adult figures in this drama tend to be cut out on the cardboardy side, especially the male constituency, but I'm willing to cut it some slack in that area since this is a tale told by the young, and it certainly might be viewed as accurate as far as their perceptions are concerned. The first consequence takes place the next day, when the girls are called into the principal's office, and shortly thereafter find themselves on suspension for several weeks. One of the interesting thoughts that occurred to me as I watched this short but telling scene unfold was whether or not the principal was angrier at the attack on the biology teacher, or by the snarky laughter engendered in the girls by his idiotic 'what are you, some kind of gang that likes to run with the foxes?' remark. Whatever the case, the 'foxes' are now free to run about for a while (how come you always punish kids who hate school by making them leave it?), and run they do. Various and sundry feminist-themed hijinks follow, but hijinks that naturally have a redeeming purpose, said purpose mainly encompassing the goal of learning to appreciate the new mother/sister figure's spiritual independence. Margret's 'leadership' qualities do seem to embody some kind of feminist ideal, although the writer takes care not to depict Legs as a perfect individual. As strong and independent minded as she is, Legs has her own raw nerves that don't bear much prodding, and she walks a thin line between rashness and deliberation that only Maddy seems to be able to clearly discern, and appreciate realistically. The film, in fact, is as much about the relationship between Legs and Maddy as it is about any general concepts of female independence, and this brings up the question of whether it is possible to have independence without accepting a degree-- or possibly several whole latitudes-- of loneliness. The high points of the movie for me were those scenes that contrasted the closeness of this group of friends with the undercurrent of the certainty that sometime, someday, they would have to go their separate ways. The entire lengthy sequence where the young women have Legs tattoo them with the 'foxfire' symbol while gathered together in an abandoned house, surrounded by candlelight, is one of those cinematic moments that people either tend to find obtrusively schmaltzy or else filled with a heart-felt poignancy beyond words. In this instance, I tend towards the latter sentiment, since in the dark of the theater I prefer to leave my age-begotten cynicism behind for just a few hours and try to remember what it was like to still be young and be alive and open in the moment. Those moments come, and they go, and they never come again. In so many cases, those moments can shape us for the remainder of our lives, or serve as a spiritual anchor to make us recall that life has some purpose, even when that purpose becomes harder and harder to wrench free from the inexorable pull of the gravity of existence. The final scene of the film is inevitable, sad and exhilarating, and the ever-so-slow pullback of the camera from Maddy, retreating into the 'larger world' around her, presents a perfect visual metaphor for the journey that lies ahead, and for all of us who attempt to embrace the possibilities. I do recommend that you embrace this film, or at least give it's possibilities a chance. It may not be a feminist Citizen Kane, but it is a pretty fair rendering of a flower in a flame.
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum, OnM
******* Technical love tattoos, standing in the slant of the late afternoon: Foxfire is available on DVD, which was also the format for the review copy. This film was released in 1996, and is not to be confused with the Foxfire released in 1955 and directed by Joseph Pevney. Running time of the feature is 1 hour and 42 minutes, and the original theatrical aspect ratio was 2.35:1, so viewing the DVD version is highly recommended if at all possible to preserve the widescreen mode. (The DVD video is anamorphically mastered if you are lucky enough to own a widescreen TV). Writing credits go to Joyce Carol Oates for the novel on which the screenplay was based, and to Elizabeth White for said screenplay. The executive producer of the film was Mike Figgis. Cinematography was by Newton Thomas Sigel, with film editing by Louise Innes. Production Design was by John Myhre, with art direction by Alan Locke and set decoration by Marthe Pineau. Costume Design was by Laura Goldsmith. Original music was by Michael Colombier, and the theatrical sound mix was standard Dolby Surround. Cast overview:
Hedy Burress .... Madeline 'Maddy' Wirtz ******* An Important Announcement for My Loyal Fans ( all 7 or 8 of them ): Effective with this week's column, Classic Movie of the Week will be moving to Saturday nights, with the posting time remaining the standard 10:00 PM to 1:00 AM EST. It is my hope that this change will accomplish several positive results, my reasoning for which is as follows: 1. My work schedule over the last several months has made it increasingly difficult for me to find the spare time to do the kind of column I would like to turn out. While things have eased up a bit in the last few weeks, this may be just a temporary respite. I work until 8:00 PM on Friday evenings, so if I have not been able to have the column mostly completed before then, I am often simply too tired to think clearly and come up with something worth reading. Rather than continue to regularly post delay notices on Friday nights, I'll just move things back a day. 2. The original idea with posting on Friday night was to give readers a chance to seek out and possibly rent the films under review for viewing that weekend. I have been increasingly aware that this may be too short a notice for many of you, and so it should not make any real difference if there is another day's wait. These scribblings of mine are available for a least a reasonable while in the current ATPo archives, and all past columns will soon be available on the Existential Scoobies website, with the generous assistance of The Second Evil, Liq, and others who are so kindly laboring on my behalf (and a big thumbs up to you all!) Comments are always welcome, no matter how old the CMotW. You may respond either on the board, or e-mail me at objectsinmirror@mindspring.com. 3. I am still very interested in 'Guest Hosted' CMotW's. The ones that I posted back in March and April were not only providing some tempus fidgeting relief to yours truly, they turned out-- as I expected-- to further showcase the excellent writing talents of the various contributors and provide a different cinematic perspective from my own. Anyone who is interested, please contact me at the e-mail address above, and I'll provide the guidelines and what-fors you need to know. The pressure to directly relate the weekly flick to a current Buffy or Angel ep is off in the summer months, so there is a lot of flexibility possible. So if the muse comes, e-beep me! One other announcement: Congratulations to Masquerade on the Second Anniversary of the ATPo Discussion Board, and as I like to do every so often, I wish to acknowledge her kindness for giving me the space to indulge my movie habit here, and so enable me to use the 'language of cinema' to elaborate on the philosophy of the Buffyverse, and even the Realverse that's always tangent to it. Thanks, Masq! :-)
******* Miscellaneous: Here's an interesting quote from a fellow you may have heard of who's in the movie business: They came up with this analytical toilet that would catch and evaluate what went down and automatically adjust your diet. I couldn't find a place for that. ............ Steven Spielberg, on a proposed script idea from a team of futurists assembled for the upcoming (film) Minority Report ( Quote provided by The DVD Journal -- http://www.dvdjournal.com/ ) ******* The Question(s) of the Week: According to my research, Foxfire, which is based on the novel by Joyce Carol Oates, has undergone significant modernization to change the setting from the '50s to the '90s. My question relates to those of you who have both read the book, and seen this filmed version of it. Do you think the movie treatment of the book was well done? Did the modernization hurt or help the film? If you think that the movie could have been done better, how would you have changed it? Post 'em if you've got 'em, and try to keep ahead of the archive monster. Don't be afraid to start a new thread if the column disappears into the archives, I realize that you might not get the chance to see this movie right at this moment. Hopefully with the new night of publication for your movie man, things will stay around a mite longer. In any event, take care, and I'll see you next week!
*******
|
