A Mighty Wind (2003)

Director: Christopher Guest

Really funny mockumentary from arguably the genre's most accomplished practitioner, Christopher Guest.

A Mighty Wind is a fake, humorous documentary that chronicles the organization and execution of a commemorative reunion of folk musical acts, following the death of an influential producer who had been connected to the performers. Through interviews and Ken Burns-style still photos, bands with names like Mitch and Mickey, The Folksmen, and The New Main Street Singers tell of their own rises to fame during the 1960s, when the form was at its peak and their acts were on top of the popular music world. Not long after their heydays, though, all of the groups broke up, disbanded, or underwent large-scale personnel changes. So they all face the challenge of overcoming past divisions and grudges, in order to put on a reunion performance that isn't an embarrassing farce.

While I haven't seen all of Christopher Guest's documentaries, I've seen and loved his best-known ones for years. This is Spinal Tap and Best in Show are tough to top, in terms of phony documentary comedies. Still, there are others of his that I'd never seen. My wife and I watched the first 15-odd minutes of his scripted comedy For Your Consideration, but it didn't grab us. We jumped over to A Mighty Wind and found exactly what we were looking for. I don't find it quite as good as Spinal Tap or Best in Show, but it's not far behind.

As with most good mockumentaries, moments of awkward-
ness are offset by either silliness or, in the case of A Mighty
Wind, sappy earnestness between some of the musicians.
Here, Levy and O'Hara crank up the cheese as they practice.

I think one's enjoyment of this movie simply comes down to whether you like mockumentaries or not. There's always more than a little improvisation involved here, with the actors all given rough ideas of where a scene needs to end up, but little else in the way of a script. This allows them to more naturally riff and flow with their characters, making everything feel more like an actual, unscripted documentary. In unskilled hands, such an approach can be an unmitigated disaster. Fortunately, though, Christopher Guest and his frequent collaborators are among the grandmasters of improv comedy. The core trio of Guest, Michael McKean, and Harry Shearer have always been together, and they once again make up a musical trio in this movie. Other Guest mainstays fill up the roster: Eugene Levy, Catherine O'Hara, Bob Balaban, Jane Lynch, John Michael Higgins, Parker Posey, and others prove why Guest taps them as often as possible for these projects, as they nail their oddball, disaffected roles with aplomb. I will say that Eugene Levy's take on the quirky, socially inept Mitch Cohen wore on me just a tad, with his strangely high-pitched voice and somewhat forced discomfort, but he still provided laughs. The others were all great, especially the recently-deceased Fred Willard. But viewers who prefer tightly-scripted films may grow frustrated with the "loose" feel of this kind of movie.

The subject matter of folk musicians was a great choice. While the movie exaggerates the scale of folk music's popularity in the 1960s a tad for comedic effect, the fun part of it is making these popular groups exceedingly corny and sappy, even when singing about intensely dark topics (not unlike some very real folk groups of past and present). I'm fairly sure that the actors did a fair bit of their own playing and singing, but whoever did it was pretty great. As funny as the lyrics are, the actual musicianship is solid, which just makes the hokey words and sentiments that much funnier. It's sort of like having a really good "straight man" off of whom the "funny man" comedian gets their laughs.

This was a really enjoyable entry into the mockumentary canon. I only which I'd seen it sooner. 

Idiot Boxing: What We Do in the Shadows, season 2 (2020)

The crew celebrates Nandor's 800-somethingth birthday in
typically foolhardy fashion.

No Spoilers, so read away!

A still funny but slightly lesser sophomore season from the brainchild of Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi.

The show still focuses on a quartet of vampires living in Staten Island, New York. Three of them embody the classic vision of vampires, hailing from the Europe of centuries past and exhibiting an unfailing sense of superiority, despite the fact that they are often hopelessly out of touch with modern times. They are also looked down upon by nearly every other vampire in the vast underworld community of nightwalkers. The fourth - the energy vampire Colin Robinson - may be more in tune with modern times, but is so horribly boring that he's equally derided by his vampiric peers. The big twist at the end of the first season was actually about Guillermo, the semi-pathetic familiar to the especially dim-witted, 800-year old vampire Nandor. Guillermo, long awaiting his master to fulfill his dream and turn him into a vampire, learns that he is a descendent of the renowned vampire-slayer Abraham Van Helsing. This syncs up with the fact that Guillermo had accidentally slain several vampires through the course of the first season, including the powerful and feared (but also completely deranged) "Baron."

This second season follows a similar rhythm to the first. Each mockumentary-style episode is mostly stand-alone, with the overarching story continuing to be Guillermo's attempts to reconcile his still-present desire to become a vampire with the fact that he is a world-class vampire killer. This is a skill that he finds himself using more than he would like, as many other vampire clans are constantly sending assassins after Nandor and the other vampires in their home, due to the belief that it was they, not Guillermo, who killed The Baron. Mostly, though, each episode has its own self-contained focus.

Laszlo squares off against a dangerous rival in a sleepy town
pub in Pennsylvania, where he's been hiding out in the episode
"On the Run." This was my favorite episode of this season.

I thought this season was still quite funny, though not as consistent as the first season. Of the ten episodes, there were a few that I found were noticeably less funny than most entries into this still-young series. Oddly, it was the first three episodes - "Resurrection," "Ghosts," and "Brain Scramblies" - in which I found more gags that were only so-so, mixed in with some really good moments. Once it got to the middle part of the season, things picked up noticeably. "Colin's Promotion" was a good one, in which Colin Robinson works his way up the chain of command at work and sees his energy-siphoning powers grow immensely strong. And "Witches" was a solid entry with plenty of sexual humor - something that is always Laszlo's strong point. My personal favorite, though, was "On the Run," in which Laszlo flees Staten Island, fearing for his (after?)life. The always-over puffed up vampire takes refuge in a small Pennsylvania town, and there are a ton of hilarious moments as he "blends in" with the locals.

Season two also had a bit of a "reveal" at the end of it, which I won't spoil for anyone, and a third season has been confirmed. However, I seem to recall reading that show co-creators Jemaine Clement or Taika Waititi may step away from the show going forward. If that is, indeed, the case, then I hope whoever picks up the reins can keep the show going strong. It's really one of the best comedies that I know of on TV right now, and one could see it remaining so for several more seasons. 

New(ish) Releases: Inherent Vice (2014); What We Do in the Shadows (2015); Get Hard (2015)

Inherent Vice (2014)

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson

The Big Lebowski meets Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. As you may imagine, this works brilliantly at times but is a hazy mess at others.

Inherent Vice bears many hallmarks of the noir film genre: A male detective protagonist. A (quasi) femme fatale. An array of strange and suspicious characters. A nefarious plot which grows complex enough to baffle nearly any viewer. The story was clearly taking from the pages of the earliest noir novelists like Chandler and Hammett, as well as the classic noir film directors such as Raoul Walsh and Billy Wilder.

Where Inherent Vice would seemingly take a different slant on the noir genre is how it makes the private investigator protagonist a semi-burned out stoner, Larry "Doc" Sportello (Joaquin Phoenix). That is, it would be a different slant if the Coen brothers hadn't already done it nearly 20 years ago in The Big Lebowski. Granted, there is far less comedy and far more grasping for some sort of vague profundity in Inherent Vice. Still, it is impossible to watch the parade of comically bizarre and eminently "Los Angeles" characters and not think of the dozens of oddballs whom The Dude encounters while trying to track down Bunny Lebowski. The Dude had Walter, Jackie Treehorn, Maude Lebowski, the German nihilists, and plenty of others. Doc has Michael Wolfmann (Eric Roberts, in a solid performance), Detective "Bigfoot" Bjornsen (Josh Brolin, the same), Jade the hooker, Dr. Blatnoyd, D.D.S., the Nazi skinhead bikers, and plenty of others. Vice is clearly the spiritual successor of The Big Lebowski's tale of "a strange dude among far stranger and scarier people." It does make for a rather fun, trippy, 20th century American odyssey.

I have not read Thomas Pynchon's source novel, though I must assume that it provides the film adaptation's inconsistent, incoherent voice-over narration. Amidst what is sometimes very straightforward slapstick or gumshoe storytelling, the thoughts and observations of the nebulous character Sortilege often seem out of place and pretentious, if not downright ridiculous. The main characters also suffer from this same strange inability to completely flesh themselves out, whether through their actions or dialogue. It is simply quite difficult to get any firm grasp on who or what each person is supposed to be. When you mix in the sometimes-frantic tone, which I associate with Terry Gilliam's wildly uneven adaptation of Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, then there tends to be just a little too much emulation of earlier iconic pieces of work. Honestly, Inherent Vice even has Benicio del Toro in a cameo playing a fast-talking, unhinged lawyer, just like in Fear and Loathing.

All of this said, I will likely watch this movie again in the future, probably after reading Pynchon's novel. The performances are certainly commendable, even hypnotic at times. The movie seems strongest when at its most comical, even if this is also when it wanders too deeply into the territory of being a Lebowski clone. The story also includes enough of the noir hallmark twists and turns to provide amusing mental exercise in simply keeping up with everything. Some of the work pays off, while some left me wondering at the exact purposes of certain parts of the film.

Inherent Vice is another film in the Paul Thomas Anderson catalogue which shows the director's eye for visuals and dedication to crafting something engaging. This recent effort, though, is arguably his least accessible film to date. Those who like a clear, straightforward narrative and tone will probably find this 140-plus minute movie frustrating. Even those who appreciate elements of the film will likely find their patience tried more than a few times.

What We Do in the Shadows (2015)

Directors: Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi

Maybe not quite an instant classic in the Spinal Tap class, but this is a great mockumentary.

Mimicking the tone of "days in the lives of" documentaries, What We Do in the Shadows follows four flatmates in New Zealand who happen to be vampires, ranging in age from around 150 to over 8,000 years old. Though having all of the powers glamorized through popular fiction, the four undead roomies are not immune to many nuisances similar to those experienced by the living, though their problems have very peculiar twists. They bicker about who has to clean the dishes, but they do it while floating in the air and hissing at each other. They try to keep the carpets clean, but mostly from their accidentally hitting a victim's artery and spraying blood all over the apartment. Since they can't cast a reflection in a mirror, they have to draw rough sketches of each other in order to know what they look like. And on it goes.

The movie is hilarious in a variety of ways. Some of the gags and lines are immediately and gut-bustingly funny. Others are far more wry, but they are likely to stay with you and grow funnier the more you think about them. One example is how the vampires, in their attempts to go clubbing, are constantly frustrated by the fact that they must, in keeping with well-known vampire lore, be invited inside. Watching the main trio of powerful creatures get turned away from club after club grew funnier the more I replayed it in my mind. This was just one of dozens of similar gags.

The cast is all but perfect. True to the humor seen in director/star Jemaine Clement's HBO series The Flight of the Conchords, everything is done in complete deadpan. The actors were, to a person, spot on in their absurd matter-of-fact approach to being vampires, meeting vampires, or even being eaten by vampires. A particular standout is co-director Taika Waititi, who plays Viago, the single most amusing and memorable character in the film. Viago was born in 18th century Austria, and is a hilariously chipper "dandy," as his roommate and fellow vampire Vladimir calls him. Waititi plays this undead creature of the night with such hilarious cheerfulness that his performance alone is worth your time.

I have a feeling that this movie will only grow funnier upon repeat viewings, as do the very best mockumentaries.

Get Hard (2015)

Director: Etan Cohen

Enjoying this movie requires two simple things: Be a fan of either Will Ferrell or Kevin Hart, and check your brain in before you watch it. I am, and I did, and I had just enough fun to justify spending 100 minutes with this comedy.

The  movie has problems, to be sure. The script and tone smack of disorganization and overreliance on improv by the highly energetic co-stars. The attempts to use race and racial stereo-typing as sources of humor sometimes fall flat at best, and horribly offensive at worst. Many of the scenarios are far too ridiculous to hold up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny. All the same, it provided just enough of the stupid humor that I was looking for that night.

My main concern going in was that I would find the hyper-active Kevin Hart extremely annoying. Blessedly, he's the far straighter character, resulting in his toning down his energy level enough to remain funny without getting too clownish. Ferrell is the far more ridiculous character here, which has always been his comfort zone. Between his occasionally manic outbursts and deadpan absurdity, he can carry many would-be dud scenes. Granted, there are several scenes so ill-conceived that neither Ferrell nor Hart could breath humor into them.  All the same, I got a good solid laugh every 5 or 10 minutes, which is all I really look for in a movie that clocks a 29% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

The most frustrating thing about movies like Get Hard is that they have far more potential. In the opening scenes, it seems as if we are in for a well-done satire on wealth, privilege, and racial stereotyping. Around 15 minutes in, though, the satire fades and an oddly serious tone takes over. The remaining hour or so continue to zig-zag between complete zaniness and half-baked or misguided attempts at social commentary. If the movie had had a clearer vision of itself and more imagination and courage with the script, it could have been far better. As it was, it ends up in the same barrel as Talladega Nights - an intermittently funny flick that I'll never watch again. 

Film # 59: A Hard Day's Night (1964)

Director: Richard Lester

Initial Release Country: United Kingdom

Times Previously Seen: none

Teaser Summary (No spoilers)

The iconic pop quartet spend a day running from fans, being cheeky, and mixing in several smash hits.

Extended Summary (Spoilers included, not that it matters)

Pop music sensations The Beatles are busy young lads. On one “typical” day, they spend their time charming some fans with their playful puns, avoiding stodgy drags with impish impassivity, or simply driving the teenyboppers wild with their monstrously popular tunes. They bounce from trains to limos to concert halls to night clubs, bringing their playfully subversive charm with them.

Accompanied by Paul McCarthy's rakish granddad and the band's managers, the Fab Four break into song several times, be it in a train car, on the street or in its presumed proper place, a concert hall. After a series of misunderstandings nearly lose their drummer, Ringo Starr, to arrest by the local police, the four arrive at that evening's gig just in time play their set, sooth the panicked stage manager, and send the adolescent girls into absolute rapture.

Lennon & Harrison, dazzling adoring fans by their meer presence.

After all of the screaming, cheering and hoipaloi die down, John, Paul, George and Ringo run off with their managers to board a helicopter and fly away, presumably to the next day's gig and yet another bout of non-stop insanity and hijinx.

Take 1: My Gut Reaction (Done after this first viewing, before any research on the film)

I simply don't get it.

This isn't to imply that there's anything about the movie to “get”. What I mean by that opening line is that I don't get why it's placed on the TIME magazine “100 Great Films” list. A Hard Day's Night is ultimately harmless fun, featuring arguably the most popular band of all time. Still, it showed me nothing that would explain bestowing “great film” status on it.

I suppose full disclosure would be appropriate. I am not a huge Beatles fan. I have nothing against them. I certainly don't dislike them. In fact, I have several albums of their and actually quite like several of their songs. However, I've never felt drawn to them with the religious dedication seen in so many millions of other people. Not even close.

The rabid fandom gets going early and continues through the film and into the 21st century.

I can best describe myself as being a “post drugs” Beatles fan – a person who likes the music they made after they started dabbling in better living through chemistry. Hence, all of the songs I like are from 1965 and after (Revolver, Rubber Soul, and their successors). A Hard Day's Night predated these by a few years and was the apex of The Beatles early, teenybopper heyday (after seeing this film, I might dub The Beatles as the first ever “boy band”, though they grew out of that shortly after). The music was pure bubblegum – catchy, crisp, and lyrically shallow. The movie follows suit, for the most part.

Going into the movie, I didn't really know what to expect. I didn't know if it was a pure documentary or what. The answer was “or what”. A Hard Day's Night was a comical take on the hectic daily life of an incredibly popular “band on the run”. While the four band members play themselves, everything in the film is totally scripted, and it is quite clearly meant to be a lighthearted farce. The boys crack wise, ditch their uptight managers, and generally frustrate any person over the age of 30. The kids obviously loved it.

I, however, am not a starry-eyed 15-year-old British girl (so my girlfriend tells me). Whether my age had anything to do with it, I can't be sure, but I found the movie to be mostly a bore. There are a few one-liners that elicited a chuckle here and there, but the vast majority of the movie was plain dull. The jokes were mostly lame puns and the physical comedy was sadly sophomoric.

McCartney hides from fans by wearing a fake moustache. Just one of many silly jokes I can only guess were aimed at the vaudevillian/8-year old demographic.

One reason I assume people rate this movie highly is the music. The soundtrack is, essentially, the album of the same name. Without doubt, some of the band's most enduring and infectious hits are to be heard and seen performed. If you love that album, you'll no doubt love the movie, just for hearing the songs. As previously explained, though, these are not the Beatles tunes that draw me in. For me, these little musical interludes simply tried my patience.

I do have to say that the movie is shot well. It's in black and white, but the framing is solid and the acting is decent enough. Alas, it takes far more to make a great film. Sure, this one features a pop music group the likes of which may never be seen again, since our modern culture precludes the dominance of any one superstar band or group, but it's still very flat to me.

For people who love The Beatles in general, or just prefer their earlier G-rated vibe, this movie is probably one that you'd like. It wasn't my cup o' tea, sorry to say.

Take 2: Or, Why Film Geeks Love This Movie. (Done after some further research on the film)

A little research has shed a wee touch of light on the enduring praise of A Hard Day's Night.

While the earliest reviews, including this original one from TIME magazine, seem to find the movie far funnier than I did, several more modern reviewers bring up more salient points. As is often the case, Roger Ebert saw the greater picture in this 1996 review of his. Though he also found more humor in the movie than I did, he pays even more attention to the technical merits exhibited by director Richard Lester. Lester's unique blending of various filming styles apparently influenced movies, TV shows, and television commercials for decades to come. I certainly can't argue with this, as the cinematography was a clear standout aspect of the movie.

The other semi-novelty is that A Hard Day's Night was apparently an early stab at the "mockumentary". It certainly doesn't go all the way, as later films such as "The Ruttles" or "Spinal Tap", but one can see how the zaniness is there, though much tamer than those later entries to the genre.

I must that that, even in the more sober reviews, I couldn't help but think that the writer's couldn't shake off a certain amount of nostalgia. I'd probably do the same for any group that provided the primary soundtrack to roughly 15 of my formative years, if such a band existed. Despite this, I have to take the glowing reviews from the Baby Boomers with a tiny grain of salt.

That's a wrap. 59 shows down; 46 to go.

Coming Soon: Band of Outsiders (1964)

A French crime movie, oui? Actually, I've found many a pleasant surprise in watching French crime films, so I look forward to this one. Come back and check out my review, non?

Please be sure to pick up all empties on the way out.