2009 SEATTLE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL FEATURE!
Un-rated
90 minutes
Cowboy Films

***

Welcome to the Nut House. Our guide, known simply as N, is a career outpatient nutter, living off British government-provided “Mad Money” and a happy hour cocktail of anti-psychotic medications. A bit of a loner, she’s clearly comfortable with the life she’s carved out. It’s not until she meets a new, reluctant patient named Poppy Shakespeare that she starts to question her routine and the policies at Dorothy Fish Day Hospital.

N begins by telling us, “It weren’t my fault, what happened to Poppy,” so straight away we know something bad is going to happen to the vivacious woman who is brought to the Dorothy Fish against her will. Poppy claims she took a test as part of a job interview and the next thing she knew, she was in the loony bin. She certainly seems sane enough. But then again, we’re seeing this entire tale through the eyes of a potentially unreliable narrator. After all, N is a mental patient, even if she is working the system.

Poppy and N strike up an unlikely friendship after N is assigned to show Poppy the ropes. In the process of helping Poppy prove her sanity, they uncover a tragic Catch 22. In order to hire a mental health lawyer to prove she’s not crazy, Poppy must receive Mad Money. In order to receive Mad Money, she must prove she is crazy. N must teach Poppy a skill that she’s perfected for years – how to act loony. Even without N’s forewarning, we know this can’t end well.

It may be called “Poppy Shakespeare,” but this is really N’s story. She doesn’t talk much about her past, but that’s probably because there isn’t much to tell. She goes to meetings, grabs her drugs, and goes on her merry way. She doesn’t have to work. She doesn’t have much of a social life. It’s the same thing every day. Once a year, in order to stay in the program, she must really pour on the crazy for a panel assessment. She’s a professional. But when Poppy’s attempts to prove her sanity start to take a real toll on her mental state, everything changes for N. Our protagonist starts to realize just how crazy she’s not. Tragically, N’s tutelage is a bit too effective for Poppy’s own good.

“Poppy” takes a cue from early Mike Leigh films, depicting the dark side of London with muted tones and apocalyptic speeches. The colors are especially engaging when they contrast with occasional brightness, such as N’s pallid, makeup-free face against her signature red coat. Poppy starts out so vibrant, strong and sweet that you become as smitten with her as N. It’s heartbreaking when things don’t go according to plan.

The supporting cast of crazies does dip into the realm of cliché. They seem to be trying too hard and their paranoid rants are fairly tedious. I couldn’t help but gloss over during the scenes they dominated. Then again, maybe that’s the point. After so many years dealing with those people, perhaps N has begun to tune them out as well. It’s difficult to know what the real story is when you’re seeing things through the eyes of a mental patient.

On the whole, the film is emotional, weird, and occasionally beautiful. It’s painful watching these two women attempt to navigate a system that seems more interested in statistics than in the people it was designed to help. It’s not a groundbreaking film by any means and it doesn’t quite hit all its marks, but you’d have to be mental not to find something to like about “Poppy Shakespeare.”

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

June 22, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

2009 SEATTLE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL FEATURE!
Un-rated
89 minutes
Film Polski

**

Forgiveness is hard for some people. It’s especially hard for Joanna, an entomology professor and the daughter of a famous Polish politician from the 50’s. After celebrating her 40th wedding anniversary with her husband, Jan, she finds an unlabeled VHS tape in a pile of gifts. On it is a news program alleging that when they met, Jan was actually a secret agent for the Polish secret service and that their marriage was a sham designed to uncover possible communist ties. There is no indication of who brought the tape or why. But that doesn’t stop Joanna from being immediately suspicious of her husband. Of course he denies it. And even if it were true, it’s clear that he has truly loved her for quite some time. As he aptly puts it, “Who, if not you, knows what sort of man I am?” But she doesn’t listen. She is consumed with mistrust and anger. Her emotions propel her into a deep depression. She becomes extremely cruel, not letting him touch or even talk to her. She locks herself in her office where she eats and sleeps, doing everything in her power to avoid him while she attempts to obtain proof of his guilt.

Joanna completely unravels as a result of this supposed betrayal. Jan is understandably frustrated. He tries absolutely everything in his power to reason with her. But she won’t have it. And it’s awful to watch. You’re never sure when she plans to stop being a bitch and leave him, believe him or forgive him. She takes a leave of absence from her job. She waters plants in the dark. She loses a taste for food and can only eat cereal. She basically goes mental and her poor husband can do nothing but watch it happen. He makes one final attempt at reaching her by calling in their daughter to talk some sense into her. The daughter tells Joanna that her father was the only one who was ever there for her. He couldn’t have been a fraud because he was the better parent. She listens stone-faced and then throws up to get away from the intervention.

The themes of the Polish film “Scratch” are certainly interesting – the notion that one’s entire life could have been a lie, consumption by unsubstantiated suspicion, past indiscretions coming back to haunt you – but Joanna is so awful to Jan from the first second she suspects him that it’s incredibly hard to feel sorry for her, whether or not he is guilty. The film moves very slowly with scene after scene of slamming doors and one-sided conversations. You’re constantly wondering where this story is going and it’s a little boring waiting for it to get there. The ending arrives abruptly with no real resolution.

There’s nothing enjoyable about this film. No jokes. No tender moments. No reason to care about the woman who takes up the majority of the celluloid. We never get a chance to become emotionally invested. If Joanna had been developed as nice at first or if we’d seen more of them as a happy couple maybe we could see this as an otherwise good person stripped of her rationality through grief. But the scene with the daughter implies that she was always this self-absorbed and distant. So why should we care what happens to her? Let her be alone with her cereal and her bugs.

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

June 17, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

2009 SEATTLE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL FEATURE!
un-rated
83 minutes

****

In case you may have forgotten, human beings can do really awful things to each other. Most of the time, the people behaving badly are adults who should know better. Sometimes, these people are even parents. And sometimes the victims are children. Just because we know these things can happen, it doesn’t make it any easier to take. And it certainly doesn’t make it easy to watch films like “talhotblond.”

“talhotblond,” which screened at this year’s Seattle International Film Festival, is a documentary about a cyber love triangle between a middle-aged man named Tom (handle: marinesniper) an 18-year-old girl named Jessi (handle: talhotblond) and his 22-year-old factory coworker named Brian (handle: beefcake). Tom insists that it started innocently enough. He was a former Marine. Bored and in a marital rut, Tom began chatting online with Jessi. When she told him he was in a room for teens, he panicked and told her he was 18. The lie quickly snowballed and soon, he’d created an elaborate alter-ego. He was Tommy, a young Marine in boot camp who was about to be shipped off to Iraq. Their chatting turned sexual and their “relationship” escalated to the point where Jessi actually believed Tommy would marry her. The tide turned when Tom’s wife found a pair of Jessi’s underpants that she’d mailed to him. Tom was forced to come clean. Jessi then became involved (also via the internet) with Brian, Tom’s more age-appropriate co-worker. Jealously and anger erupted for both Tom and Jessi. And then one day, Brian was found dead, shot by a sniper rifle in the factory parking lot.

Whilst watching “talhotblond,” I could not help recalling a story I read last year about a little girl who hung herself in her closet because she was devastated by the derogatory messages she was receiving via MySpace from a classmate. These messages suggested, among other things, that everyone hated this little girl and that the world would be better without her. It turned out the person writing these messages was not her classmate after all, but her classmate’s mother.

For some people, it’s easy to convince themselves that damaging behavior won’t actually hurt anyone or that they have good reason to be doing bad things. Tom says that he tried to end the relationship several times but Jessi always re-instigated it. Even after she knew he was a creepy old man. He claims he was helpless to her wiles. He makes excuses about how he got in the situation in the first place. He was bored, lonely and impotent. He was in the shit. He never intended it to go so far. But most of the time, even if it doesn’t end in death, a relationship with a teenage girl will never end well. Because of the nature of the internet, it was so easy for Tom to lie to Jessi. But he never once contemplated the notion that it’s just as easy for other people. The outcome of these lies wouldn’t have been so tragic if they’d just hurt the people telling them. Unfortunately, the people hurt most were the ones who’d only ever been themselves.

The tale of “talhotblond” is extremely devastating its own. But the film’s structure, narrated by an actor playing Brian from beyond the grave, sucks the audience further into the story. There is also a great deal of text montage, showing excerpts from the actual instant message conversations that took place between the 3 key players. The amount of natural foreshadowing in these conversations is staggering. Interviews with a philosophical detective working on the case and a shockingly matter-of-fact Tom keep the viewer riveted to the bitter, bomb-dropping end.

But what echoes in my ears doubles as the moral of the story. The aforementioned detective philosopher says this whole situation, as well as most frivolous and stupid crimes, could have been avoided if people only followed this very basic advice: “Be nice. Don’t lie.”

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

June 16, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

2009 SEATTLE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL FEATURE!
Un-rated
89 minutes
Ambush Entertainment

***

My stance on the films of Matthew Broderick has long been a controversial one. I particularly dislike the much beloved “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” (There, I said it!) So I was all set to rip apart “Wonderful World.” And then an amazing thing happened. I didn’t hate it.

“Wonderful World” tells the story of Ben Singer, a former children’s musician and divorced dad who isn’t shy about sharing his opinions with everyone who crosses his path. His views are usually perceived as pessimistic but, honestly, a lot of what he says is just telling it like it is, a practice that most adults have trained themselves not to do.

I find Ferris Bueller insufferable because he shows no remorse for his selfishness getting everyone around him in trouble. More ridiculously, the community at large views him as a sort of hero. In “Wonderful World,” Ben is also somewhat selfish, but at least he’s called on it and eventually makes an effort to change. His depression-fueled brand of honesty becomes a problem when he tells off his neighbor, an SUV-driving yuppie who complains that, because of Ben’s car, he has to make five inconvenient wheel turns to get out of his compact space. The neighbor takes out his revenge by having Ben’s car towed, just as Ben needs it to rush his diabetic roommate, Ibu, to the hospital. Ben’s depression worsens as his roommate slips into a coma, Ben loses his job, and he is unable to sugarcoat things for his 11-year-old daughter. As a result of her dad’s downer ways, she no longer wants to spend her court-appointed weekends with him. Eventually, Ben realizes that his attitude is driving people away and preventing him from success. Something must change.

Ben’s attitude starts to shift when he meets Khadi, the beautiful Senegalese sister of his roommate who stays with him while Ibu is in the hospital. Ben teaches Khadi that if you understand “The Bottom Line,” the idea that every situation has a total value which makes you decide whether or not to do something, that you understand America. By way of example, it’s what insurance adjusters to every day. In contrast, she teaches him that magic is everywhere and that “thoughts are things.” Inevitably, their situation turns romantic. It’s a sweet relationship and just what Ben needs to find his way.

But here’s why “Wonderful World” is only a three star film: Many of Ben’s complaints are totally valid. His neighbor was the one who chose to own an SUV in an urban setting. The boss who fires him is a prick. “The Bottom Line” is the slogan for Capitalist America and it’s one of the main reasons why bad things happen to good people.

So while I agree Ben has room for emotional growth, he shouldn’t have to be happy all the time or change completely. And he has every right to call certain people on their bullshit. Someone has to do it. I only wish Ben Singer could have met Ferris Bueller.

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

June 3, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

2009 SEATTLE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL FEATURE!
Un-rated
79 minutes
Santiago Films

3 Stars

In 1968, a group of people started a utopian community. They used a poster entitled “Common Sense” to recruit. It claimed that “Love is the answer and we are all one.” That notion would be all well and good if “Love” weren’t the name of the group’s leader, a Jesus figure to whom they were required to give full power of attorney after they donated all their worldly possessions.

The members adopted the last name “Israel” (the chosen people) and received a virtuous first name like “Truth” or “Patience.” As an initiation, they’d have to undergo a week-long fast, the first three days of which also forbade water. They had to perform hard labor during this time. The only book they were allowed access to was the Bible. They also took a vow of celibacy. Unless they were young, pretty women, and then they got to have sex with Love. If this sounds an awful lot like a textbook case of “cult” to you, well, that’s because it was. “It Takes a Cult,” a documentary about the Seattle Love cult, was shot by Eric Johannsen, a boy who spent his early years living on their compound in Arlington, WA with his biological parents…and 300 other people.

Cults make for an inherently interesting story. In terms of access, it would seem that a kid who grew up on the inside, but has since joined ordinary society, would make a reliable and revealing film about the subject. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out that way. It’s easy to make judgments, but the film leaves nearly all the judgment up to the audience. Because of that, it seems like no one learned anything from situation. The way they talk about brainwashing is so nonchalant. One member says, “My brain needed to be washed.” Yikes. And whenever someone starts banning books, it’s clearly no longer a good place to be. Everyone glosses over the fact that some kids were abused and locked in closets as punishment. It sure seems unlikely that these things didn’t do any permanent damage to the members.

The Love cult fell apart in 1983 when the other members wrote a letter to Love Israel complaining about his abuses of power. He tore up the letter and that was the end of the compound. But the remaining 30 members still believe in the core values and have been attempting to reboot the system ever since. The audience for the screening I attended was full of Israels. The post-screening Q and A revealed that they were all pretty happy with the final cut. I find this very telling about the film’s tone.

The film is full of archival footage from the early days at the Arlington compound. There was plenty of dancing, singing, working, and playing – like it was Woodstock everyday. Most of the time, “It Takes a Cult” feels like an infomercial for the Love family. And you know, I even agree with some of the founding principles. I believe we’re all connected. Not spiritually, but as humans. We should treat each other with the same respect we’d treat ourselves. We should keep our minds open.

However, these ideas (and any idea) become dangerous when you give one person absolute power. I’m not saying the filmmaker was deliberately hiding something. But it does seem like a documentary about a literal cult – where brainwashing and book burning happened, where the leader stole people’s money and lavished himself while the rest of the members worked for him, while young women gave themselves to him and older women took care of his children – should have been a little more provocative.

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

June 2, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: 2 Comments

2009 SEATTLE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL FEATURE!
Rated PG-13
88 minutes
Paper Heart Productions

4 and 1/2 stars

Charlyne Yi doesn’t believe in love. But it’s not because of past heartbreak. It’s because she’s never felt it before. So she embarks on a project with her best friend, Nick, to meet real couples and hear their stories – all in an attempt to define love and determine whether or not it truly exists or if some people are doomed to remain unloved.

Part documentary, part improvisational narrative, “Paper Heart” is an atypical yet authentic romantic comedy
for people who normally find such things insufferable. For the record, I am one of those people. And “Paper Heart” charmed the jaded pants off of me.

Charlyne and Nick travel around the country interviewing anyone and everyone about love and relationships. They meet young couples and couples married 50 years. They talk to Elvis impersonators at Vegas wedding chapels and academics at universities. Meanwhile, Charlyne tries to make sense of (and resist) her budding relationship with actor Michael Cera. They both play alternate universe versions of themselves, which makes for a pretty bizarre, and totally compelling, love story.

Plus, Charlyne is not your typical leading lady. In fact, she’s a character we rarely see in any film, let alone a rom-com; the boyish woman-child. She’s not one of those fake, sexpot tomboys (i.e. Megan Fox) who wear dirty jeans and pigtails but still know how to give a smoldering sidelong glance. Charlyne is the genuine article; a girl who loves video games and fireworks, doesn’t bathe much and wouldn’t have the slightest idea what to do with an eyelash curler. She has huge glasses and a Pee Wee Herman laugh. You get the impression that you could have a great time hanging out with her and she would never ever try to steal your boyfriend.

But she starts the film as a somewhat tragic figure. She’s never had any romantic feelings toward anyone and it’s led her to believe that true love is a myth. She claims that this doesn’t bother her. That she’s mainly curious about love from an academic standpoint. However, it’s clear that the real issue is that she’s never opened herself up to anyone for fear of getting hurt. As a result, her reluctant romance with Cera is as bungling as it is cute.

The true documentary vignettes are just as enjoyable as the driving plot line. They employ puppets and two-dimensional backdrops to illustrate some of the stories that couples tell her about their courtship. Many of the interview locations are quirky and amusing such as a biker bar and a room full of mounted animal heads. These interviews also serve to mirror and foreshadow the fictional story. A romance novelist tells Charlyne that the formula for a love story is always “Romance – conflict – resolution.” It all fits together so perfectly that it’s necessary to remind yourself you aren’t actually watching Yi and Cera fall in love.

Actually, they do a little of the reminding for you. Some of the most hilarious parts involve purposeful breakage of the fourth wall. After their first date, there is an awkward goodbye at Charlyne’s car and then Michael asks “Should I give back my microphone now?” When Charlyne and Michael kiss for the first time, the camera pans around to reveal reaction shots from the crew.

There are also several really sweet moments that let the audience know Charlyne might not be as immune to love as she thinks. The song she writes for Michael (but isn’t sure if she’s going to give to him) is totally heart-rending. At that point, she’s pretty much the only one who can’t see what’s happening. The question is whether or not she will recognize it in time.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, Cera once again does his “Michael Cera thing.” Personally, I love his “thing” but know it’s not for everyone, and I agree that it doesn’t always work contextually. But trust me, here it really works.

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

May 30, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

1990
Un-rated
95 minutes
Cult Epics

2 stars

The gritty art film is a bit of a dying art form. Perhaps it’s because it’s so cheap to make a digital film with clear picture and audible dialog these days that no one has the patience for films like “Kiss Napoleon Goodbye”. Fortunately for fans of old school art house, they’re granted new life on DVDs distributed by Cult Epics. So now you can sit in a dark room with your introspective friends and struggle to hear fuzzy audio without even owning a projector or VCR.

“Kiss Napoleon Goodbye” was written by underground spoken word artist Lydia Lunch and directed by someone called Babeth. Lunch also stars along with Don Bajema and Henry Rollins in the story of a married couple (Lunch and Bajema) who move to a castle in the Dutch countryside in an attempt to rekindle their strained marriage. Their attempt is thwarted when the wife invites her ex (Rollins) to visit and is entirely incapable of keeping her hands off of him. I guess we don’t have to wonder why those two kids can’t seem to work it out.

The subplot, if you can call it that, revolves around the ghosts of other people who have lived in this castle, including Napoleon, his mistress, a guy who likes to drill holes in his head, and some bunnies. The spirits of former inhabitants mingle with the current ones to exemplify parallels in their lives. At least I think that’s what it all means. Or maybe it’s a precursor to Keanu and Sandra’s “The Lake House.”

So is it good? Well, that all depends on what you like. It looks great. I love that soft, orange film look (budgetary as it may have been) and the castle (which actually was home to Napoleon at one point) is gorgeous. Lydia Lunch is fairly sexy and spends a good deal of time wearing next to nothing and boning everyone within arm’s reach. But the dialog is cliché and the acting wooden. You know a movie is in trouble when Henry Rollins comes off as the best actor of the bunch. Of course, I missed at least a third of the dialog anyway. I had to turn the volume up to ungodly levels and be careful not to chew or breathe in order to catch what was being said. Usually, I regretted the effort. Though, I suppose that’s part of the point. In the bonus documentary, “Lydia Lunch: Paradoxia & a Predator’s Diary,” Lunch talks about how appalled she was by the budget of “Titanic” and how that money could have gone to feed the world. So spending money to remaster her film would have gone against her principles.

The special features include the aforementioned Lunch doc plus a performance of one her spoken word pieces entitled “It’s a Man’s World.” These are great features if you can really get “Napoleon” and are into anarchic feminist rants. But they are pretty tedious otherwise. Listening to Lunch speak is like having someone read you their diary. Personally, I find her more palatable when she’s in her underwear and making out with Henry Rollins.

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

May 25, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

1978
Un-rated
105 minutes
Criterion Collection

3 Stars

My knowledge of Japanese Ghost cinema is relatively limited. It mostly consists of films about killer cell phones and creepy little girls, which were instantly remade in America starring blonde leads. But I assume “Empire of Passion” is regarded with veneration or else they wouldn’t have bothered to release a Criterion DVD. So are all the Japanese classics this insane? Or is it just the ghost stories?

“Empire of Passion” is a cautionary tale about what happens when you fall in love with your rapist. Seki is a lonely housewife living in the 19th-century Japanese countryside. She is mother to two children and wife to Gisaburo, the town rickshaw driver. Seki passes the time by eating pastries with a younger man named Toyoji. One day, Toyoji finds Seki napping with her young son, and decides that because he can see down her kimono, she’s asking for it. Cue the first of many, many rape scenes!

After a while, Seki starts to fall for her overbearing rapist boyfriend (maybe it’s the moustache) and he convinces her that the key to their happiness is killing her husband. They concoct a very convincing story about how he’s just gone to Tokyo to work. People buy it for a while, and aren’t even upset that the only rickshaw driver in town has moved away. Unfortunately for our wholesome couple, Gisaburo’s ghost turns up three years later to haunt, well, everyone. He shows up in dreams, he shows up in Seki’s living room and he taunts Toyoji. It’s not so much the guilt as it is the idea of getting caught that eventually leads to Seki and Toyoji’s undoing. It plays out like a fairy tale but instead of a prince and princess, we have a rapist and a wet blanket as leads.

Not that “Empire of Passion” isn’t entertaining. It’s a messed up country love story with Hitchcockian flair, Shakespeare morality, and a Lynchian mentally challenged character thrown in for good measure. I was riveted throughout. It’s just not the most accessible of worlds. Seki is a pathetic sack who is constantly sobbing. She cries when she’s raped and she cries when she’s not being raped enough. She isn’t the slightest bit cool when the town policeman comes to question her. She’s a terrible mother and not just because she helped murder her baby daddy. Her daughter tells her she’s running away from home because her dad’s ghost shared some interesting information with her. Seki’s response is all “OK! See you! [SOB!!]”

Toyoji is evil enough to rape and kill, but not diabolical enough to even try to get away with it. I don’t have a lot of experience hiding bodies, but I do know one thing. You probably shouldn’t make daily visits to the well in which you’ve stashed said body and fill it with leaves. It might draw just the tiniest bit of attention to the grave.

The last third of the movie is mostly Gisaburo’s ghost silently haunting his murderers and Toyoji and Seki taking turns freaking out about whether or not he’s ratted them out. Visually, it’s interesting, but because Toyoji and Seki are so unsympathetic, it gets a little tedious. Frankly, I was left wishing for a few more rape scenes.

The DVD features a beautiful restored, HD digital transfer full of rich colors as well as interviews with the actors, production staff and a video essay explaining why this murder/rapefest is an important film.

Originally posted from FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

May 20, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

2009 SEATTLE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL SELECTION!
Un-rated
86 minutes
Montivagus Productions

3 stars

Ventriloquism is a strange art form. It’s part acting, part puppetry, part stand-up comedy. It’s vaudevillian in nature and therefore it feels old-fashioned. Yet contemporary ventriloquism is alive and well. The documentary “I’m No Dummy” explores the world of ventriloquism, both past and present, in an engaging enough way that you are sucked into the film, even if you are never sold on the act itself.

Now, I admit that I can be a bit of a Grumpy Guss. I hate magicians. If they were really magic that would be one thing, but the slight-of-hand doesn’t impress me. I’m not afraid of clowns, but I find them annoying and not the least bit funny. (Krusty the Clown is an exception. Do satires count?) Ventriloquism had always seemed to me akin to those professions. But I must confess that “I’m No Dummy” changed my mind. I’m not going to run right out to buy a doll and practice singing whilst drinking water, but there is definitely some art happening here and some of it is downright impressive.

“I’m No Dummy” begins by defining the subject and giving it some context. The filmmakers interview several working ventriloquists (and, of course, their dummies) and ask them to define “ventriloquism”. The answers range from the technical (“a monologue perceived as a dialogue”) to the existential (“different sides of a personality”). It’s clear they’ve all thought a lot about this. No one entered into this world lightly and they are in it for the long haul. In fact, all of them began their careers as children. One of them was an only child. One had polio and spent a lot of time in bed. One suffered from acute dyslexia and admits he took to it because he wasn’t good at much else. It’s a goldmine for rudimentary psychoanalysis.

And some of it is also pretty neat. I’m still not sold on the stand-up aspect. I like my stand-up a little more raw and/or political. But when they go into the history of it and show the early masters, it does get a little mind-blowing what some of these people can do. Senor Wences, one of the more famous “vents,” created his signature head-in-the-box “’salright – ‘salright” bit by accident when his figure’s head became detached from its body in transit. Paul Winchell performed an amazing act wherein he sang a duet with his gypsy dummy…that was playing the tambourine. He was doing the work of at least 3 men all by himself. He also hosted a children’s show and was extremely popular in his day. These days, his legend is overshadowed by Miley Cyrus.

Other early fellows profiled include Jimmy Nelson and Edgar Bergen. The filmmakers also interview and profile enthusiast W.S. Berger, who spent his life collecting ventriloquist memorabilia. He called himself a Ventriloquarian. Seemingly obscure or no, each of the hundreds of dummies in his collection once had a life in showbiz. One contemporary ventriloquist named Jeff Dunham pulls in 4000 people to one show. And some of them are teenagers.

The film concludes with theories about the future of ventriloquism. Some say it can be kept going through innovation and transcending the genre. Some say it’s a dying art. But one person suggests that art never dies. I guess that’s true because I’m off to go watch some old-timey entertainment on youtube.

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

May 11, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: 3 Comments