Author: James McNally

Mayor Of The Sunset Strip (USA, director George Hickenlooper): Rodney Bingenheimer is short and kind of funny-looking. He also knows just about everyone in the music business, from David Bowie to Cher to Coldplay. This film explores how Rodney’s love affair with the famous took him from groupie to disc jockey at Los Angeles’ famous KROQ. Along the way, he worked as Sonny and Cher’s gopher, acted as Monkee Davy Jones’ stand-in, and opened his own club (Rodney Bingenheimer’s English Disco).

This is the second film I’ve seen this weekend that explores our fascination with fame and the famous. But where I Love Your Work tried (and in my case, failed) to get us to sympathize with the movie star, this film had no trouble getting us on Rodney’s side. After his parents divorced when he was three, Rodney lived with his mother until she pretty much abandoned him as a teenager. His search for a surrogate family took him to Los Angeles in the mid ’60s, where his innocence and small stature made him irresistible to hippie girls.

The scenes which were hardest to watch were of Rodney spreading his beloved mother’s ashes from a boat in England, and of his unrequited love for his “friend” Camille.

The soundtrack is also a great collection of the classic and the downright wacky. I hope his friend Ronald Vaughan’s band “Isadore Ivy: Spaceman-at-Large” is included.

As an added bonus, Rodney was at the screening, and though not comfortable with all parts of the film, he must be applauded for his willingness to let the film show him as he is. The only sad thing is that he’s down to one three-hour shift a week at KROQ, and he’s clearly aware that he’s not as “hot” as he once was. It’s like his family is abandoning him all over again. Sadly, that’s the nature of fame. It’s just not possible to find unconditional love among those hungry for stardom.

(9.5/10)

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (Ireland, directors Kim Bartley and Donnacha O’Briain): Wow. This documentary was absolutely jaw-dropping. The directors travelled to Venezuela to make a profile of President Hugo Chavez, and in the course of their seven month stay, were witnesses to the bizarre 48-hour coup which took place in April 2002.

Chavez, an immensely charismatic leader, draws almost all of his support from among the poor, who make up about 80% of Venezuela’s population. Despite huge oil wealth, Venezuela has always been ruled by a small minority who have kept that wealth in the hands of the few. Chavez is obviously not a popular man among this crowd, nor in the eyes of the Bush administration, who clearly want Venezuela to remain a source of cheap oil, especially now. Chavez planned to shake up the state oil company in order to facilitate his plan to redistribute some of the wealth. This led to predictable protests from the wealthy class, who also happen to own most of the newspapers, television and radio stations in the country. This private media empire had been an unrelenting critic of the Chavez government, even in the face of genuine reforms (for instance, under Chavez, healthcare and education were made free, for the first time in Venezuela’s history!).

I don’t mean to ramble on, but it was incredible how this private media manipulated images in order to further the aims of the coup plotters. After a very tense confrontation between Chavez supporters and opposition supporters, snipers suddenly began firing on the pro-Chavez crowd, killing at least ten. In response, some of those in the crowd who had handguns (about 25% of Venezuelans, according to the film) began firing back in the direction of the sniper fire. The private media actually ran these images and declared that the Chavez supporters had fired on the opposition crowd, killing ten of them. This version of events was fed to the Western media, including CNN, who ran the manipulated footage uncritically. This crisis led directly to several high-ranking military officials calling for Chavez’ resignation, and then surrounding the palace with tanks to force it. All the while, the filmmakers were inside the palace with members of the Chavez government. Chavez refused to resign, but agreed to be taken into custody by the generals after they threatened to bomb the palace. The opposition then shut down the state TV station and broadcast that Chavez had voluntarily stepped down. In reality, he was kidnapped and held hostage on an island, unable to communicate with his ministers or family.

The “interim” government convened the next day, whereupon they dissolved the National Assembly, the Supreme Court, and dismissed the Attorney General and the Ombudsman, effectively abolishing all of Venezuela’s democratic institutions. As word filtered out to the people that Chavez had been imprisoned, and had not resigned, huge crowds began to surround the palace. Emboldened by a crowd numbering into the hundreds of thousands, the palace guards, who had remained loyal to Chavez even while continuing to do their job for the new government, hatched a plan to retake the palace. Within a few hours, they had succeeded, and although many of the coup leaders managed to escape, some were detained in the palace basement. The ministers of Chavez’ government, including the Vice President, all in hiding, were informed and all came back to claim their rightful places again. When it became clear that the rank and file of the military had not deserted Chavez, they went to release him from his island prison and he returned to Caracas in triumph.

The whole thing had taken about 48 hours, and if it hadn’t been for the massive demonstrations in support of Chavez, the coup would have succeeded. The film was an on-the-ground account and made no claims of objectivity, but the fact that so much of the story was altered or simply ignored in North America seems inexcusable.

So, although the filmmakers were simply in the right place at the right time, they also managed to cover a lot of details that were very illuminating. The fear and despair of the Chavez government ministers on the night of the palace siege, their relief and elation when they were reinstated, the protests of the ordinary citizens, and even the fears of the upper classes; all were detailed with great immediacy. A one of a kind film experience.

(9/10)

The Fog Of War (USA, director Errol Morris): This was a very strong documentary focussing on the life of Robert McNamara, the Defence Secretary who served under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. McNamara, now 85 years of age, talks at length about his experiences and the lessons he has learned. His mind still razor-sharp, he admits that he made many mistakes in the “fog of war” and that he was responsible for many thousands of lives being lost. But he doesn’t really admit guilt. He talks about how he made the best decisions he could at the time, and how his advice often went unheeded. He and Johnson eventually disagreed so severely about policy on the Vietnam war that he either resigned or was fired. He says he can’t remember which it was, but that one of his friends always reminds him that of course, he was fired. I never got the feeling that he was trying to justify himself, and yet Morris is such a clever filmmaker that he leaves quite a bit of room to ask questions, even while painting a mostly sympathetic portrait of a very powerful man. A fascinating experience.

(9/10)

I Love Your Work (USA, director Adam Goldberg): Giovanni Ribisi is a movie star living what I hope is a caricature of a movie star’s life (although in Hollywood, there seems to be no such thing as a caricature). He’s becoming paranoid, seeing stalkers everywhere and suspecting his movie-star wife of infidelity (with Elvis Costello, no less). Then he meets a fan who seems so normal, and proceeds to screw up this man’s life, all the while descending into some sort of madness, and flashing back to a time in his life when he seemed to have normalcy and real love. This film is a bit of a mess, actually. Lots of flashbacks and movie stars portraying movie stars portraying movie stars. It got a bit too “meta” at times, and the narrative was muddled. There was also an ambiguity about the whole fame thing, which is not very new, and frankly, hard for an audience to sympathize with.

I love movies and hate the movie business. So, apparently, does Adam Goldberg. So how come I didn’t like this more?

(7/10)

P.S. I’ve always loved Goldberg. He’s always played sort of “sidekick” roles, first on the short-lived TV series Relativity, then on Friends.

P.P.S. Before the screening, I saw Giovanni Ribisi walking down the lineup filming the crowd with his camcorder. In addition to Ribisi and director Adam Goldberg, Franka Potente, Christina Ricci, and Shalom Harlow were also at the screening. Of course, after seeing the caustic way in which fans (and stars) are portrayed in the film, it would be just about impossible to say anything to any of them, even if you could get close.

Nói Albinói (Iceland/UK/Germany/Denmark, director Dagur Kári): Nói is an oddity in a land of oddities. He’s bright, but never in school, and his tiny remote town is boring him to death. All his attempts to escape seem to fail, and then a cruel twist of fate leaves him even more isolated than before. Clearly a bit autobiographical, this first feature contained some clever ’80s kitsch (Rubik’s Cube, MasterMind, ViewMaster) from the director’s own teen years. Though not particularly original, the film was well-made and filled with dark humour and some wonderful images (and not just of the “beautiful Iceland” variety, though it had those, too.) Nói shooting at huge icicles with a shotgun, and later, digging a grave in a snowstorm, were particularly arresting. I’d like to see what Dagur Kári will do next.

(7.5/10)