Jul 112011
Check out John Lennon‘s introduction of ELO‘s “Showdown” from some radio broadcast, I presume. Audio only. Nice commentary and analysis, John!
Your thoughts on John Boorman‘s Zardoz vs Ken Russell‘s Tommy are also welcome!
Check out John Lennon‘s introduction of ELO‘s “Showdown” from some radio broadcast, I presume. Audio only. Nice commentary and analysis, John!
Your thoughts on John Boorman‘s Zardoz vs Ken Russell‘s Tommy are also welcome!
He hits the nail right on the head, although listening to John Lennon talk about ELO is like hearing Shakespeare analyze The Da Vinci Code.
What was it EPG said — that Lennon had been admiring Christopher Cross’ “Sailing” when he was writing and recording trackssss for “Double Fantasy”? That was one of the most depressing things I’d read in a loooong time.
Sorry, I don’t know where else to comment on this, but I just noticed the poll: Zardoz or Tommy? Since I have never seen Zardoz and merely assume it is unwatchably bad I cannot vote for it since I have seen Tommy and know it is unwatchably bad. So, score one for Mr. Ken Russell. Also, Boorman made at least a couple decent movies whereas Russell has not. It is telling that his best work seems to be adaptations of D.H. Lawrence novels: they deserve each other.
Actually, before I vote, it occurs to me: what am I voting for? The one I’d rather watch or the one I’d sooner die than watch? What’s at stake here?
Russell did make the extremely fun and definitely worth watching “Lair Of the White Worm.”
I can’t agree, I thought it was crappy.
I just watched Zardoz on the Fox movie channel a few weeks ago. I couldn’t turn away but I voted for Tommy.
Just choose one, man. Does it really matter why? (Well, it may…)
I watched Zardoz for the fourth time last night then had the tremendous fortune to flip channels and stumble across the final scene in Tommy, when everyone puts on their deaf, dumb, and blind gear and play pinball before quickly turning on their messiah and smashing pinball machines. Oh, the humanity! I’ve seen Tommy, both in full and in part, a good 25 times. I first saw it as a kid, in the theater, and found it fascinating in a fairly sincere way. Since then I watch it just stunned at Daltrey’s enthusiastic commitment to such a ridiculous piece of film-making.
After four viewings of Zardoz in the last couple of years, on the other hand, I’m not seeing the requisite enthusiasm for acting in an outrageously bad turd from Sean Connery. Sure, he commits to the ponytail, the moustache, the mankini, and the thigh-high boots, but it doesn’t seem like he’s having fun. It doesn’t even seem like he’s looking forward to taking a roll in the hay with any of the similarly built, plain-Jane women of the future, each of them threatening to fall out of their loose-fitting halter tops, if only their cups were close to full.
Unlike Tommy, which boasts a strong supporting cast of established actors brazenly hamming their way through the film industry’s version of community service to expunge some embarrassing industry slight, Connery’s supporting cast is a non-factor. Even that skinny actress with the piercing eyes who always seems like she’s going to pay off if you stick with any of her movies long enough shies away from giving herself over to the role. Major turd! Compare Connery’s performance with John Travolta’s in the final scene of Staying Alive for contast. Travolta completely commits to his role. He walks through the shit with his head held high and his chest thrust forward.
I don’t want to influence the voting, but my more corn-studded of two turds vote goes to Tommy.
“that skinny actress with the piercing eyes”–gotta be Charlotte Rampling. I think I would have known that even if I didn’t half remember she was in it. Who else could it be?
I’ve never seen that movie but I was considering voting for it based on Ms Rampling’s presence.
Is there a RTH Glossary term for the opposite of a Wilson Choice?
Yes, that’s whose name I couldn’t remember. Thanks. cdm, I urge you to be wise in placing your vote. Consider her acting in Zardoz, which I’m telling you is disappointing, with Ann-Margaret’s crazed baked bean bath in Tommy, which I’m sure you have assessed at one time or another, before placing your vote.
Maybe a Full Nelson?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fgNunUORMWA/TNMdGj3zbnI/AAAAAAAABkA/D7bLdU9EOlQ/s1600/nelson002.jpg
I’ve never seen Zardoz, but I voted for it because I hate Tommy.
Charlotte Rampling was quite good in Stardust Memories and a more recent film of hers entitled Swimming Pool. I miss dbuskirk, who could often weigh in knowledgeably on virtually any film ever.
Swimming Pool? Ludivine Sagnier!
If that’s true….
dbuskirk weighed in on Zardoz on my Facebook page, in which he claimed that he “loved” it (fair enough, because lord knows I’ve loved my share of turds for reasons understandable only to myself) and that, puzzlingly, “lots of fun ideas run through the whole film.” I’d give him hell for his idea of “fun,” but then he recommended I check out another sci-fi-drug-induced turd called ZPG, with Oliver Reed and Geraldine Chaplin, another thin ’70s woman I enjoy seeing in small roles. buskirk knows full well my appreciation for Oliver Reed, so well played, my friend!
Man, I would have suggested COP OUT, but in extreme circumstances that just may do the trick!
Stardust Memories is a great little movie and she was fine in it, yes. Swimming Pool has some fantastic Acting by the young costar, but I thought the whole cheeseball “bad girl” aspect of the movie was given a free pass thanks to the young woman’s tremendous topless scenes and the fact that people were speaking French. It was basically a hotter Poison Ivy or some cheeseball movie like that minus the French dialog, no?
Give him hell for his idea of “ideas,” too, while you’re at it.
ZPG I had never heard of. If the trailer is any indicator (and I think it probably is sufficient) I think I’ll pass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLVrtfQ6Udk
Oh my god, the scene at the 34-second mark seals the deal for me. I’ve GOT to see this movie!
dbuskirk deserves Mad Props for introducing RTH to the wonderment that is the trailer to An American Hippie in Israel.
“World — you’re so full of shit!”
True dat, Oats. dbuskirk is possibly most capable of turning me onto shit than anyone currently missing from the Halls of Rock. Another recently MIA fave, General Slocum, also possesses Mad skillz in this area. Somehow they have a knack for perfectly placing their obscuro would-be turd in a perfect light, like placing that severe longshot number in just the right sequence for a mix tape you’re putting together for a “Mikey” like E. Pluribus Gergely.
That’s how I know I don’t live in the future, I haven’t been issued my jumpsuit yet.
Oh, and where’s my feckin bubble car?!
Maybe he admired sailing and not the song.
Tommy is kid stuff compared to Ken Russell’s other Daltrey-fest – the utterly twisted and bizarre Lisztomania.
Shut your ass!
I’ve not seen Poison Ivy.
It’s not as good, unless you’re into ’80s big hair. Plus, I don’t think the rich family Ivy stayed with had a swimming pool.
This is scary: I just asked Mr. Royale if he had heard of ZPG, and he shot back, “Oh, you mean Zero Population Growth?” He has seen both Zardoz and Tommy, and gives the consolation “prize” to Zardoz since he doesn’t really care for Tommy.
He also said that Zardoz is a derivation of Wizard of Oz.
Whither the Fogerty Syndrome.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/john-fogerty-open-to-creedence-clearwater-revival-reunion-20110711
Baked beans be damned, I voted for Zardoz. I really enjoy that movie, although it only ever seems to start on TV after midnight.
As far as supporting actors, how can you not make mention of the guy who seems like a 1965 blond Paul McCartney? Doesn’t the movie make you hungry for a loaf of french bread?
Tabernacle! Tabernacle!
The idea that Ken Russell never made a single watchable film is patently absurd. The Billion Dollar Brain, Women In Love, The Music Lovers, The Devils, The Boy Friend, Savage Messiah, Mahler – these are all examples of top notch film making and storytelling, and much of his later, in many cases decidedly more eccentric work, like Tommy, Lisztomania, Altered States, Crimes of Passion, Gothic, Salome’s Last Dance, The Lair of the White Worm, The Rainbow, Whore, and Lady Chatterly (which was done as a British TV miniseries), ALL have something to offer (even the ones that really aren’t successful have a singular creative style and at least a few memorable sequences – I’m thinking Tommy & Lisztomania).
One may not be able to get past, or even like, his often over the top style, but to say every one of his films is “unwatchable” (as in, “incompetent” & “without worth”) is doing him an incredible disservice, and is a plainly ignorant statement. You want to talk unwatchable? Try a Michael Bay flick – ANY Michael Bay flick.
Having said that, I voted for Zardoz. Between the two, it entertains me for more of its running time, even if it is silly, bottom of the barrel Boorman.
Mod, if you’re looking for obscure titles, I could provide you with plenty – I guess I’ve held back in most sidebar discussions of film because I wasn’t coming here for that, but I guess I was just being too blinkered in my idea of what this joint is all about.
Bobby B, maybe so: but all of those that I have seen (I think that is limited to Women in Love, The Devils, Tommy, parts of Lisztomania, Altered States, Gothic, Lair of the White Worm, The Rainbow) ran the gamut from pretentiously unbearable to unwatchably dreadful. (The Devils! I’ve always wondered how much acid it takes before that seems interesting?) As I recall, Women in Love may be the best of a bad lot, and my distaste for it may stem in part from my distaste for Lawrence; but, again, I think they deserve each other. Michael Bay is in a whole other category of unwatchability. I guess, at the end of the day, Russell at least gets credit for trying to do something thought-provoking (and failing, failing badly in most cases, I think) rather than churning alleged out mass-appeal dreck.
If nothing else, someone (Soderburgh?) should make a documentary about Russell’s life and career, which i think are fascinating, even if you don’t really care for his style. I watched a BBC thing on The Devils on YouTube once. Compelling stuff.
“Unwatchable” means “incompetent” only in the sense that Russell became incompetent (after Women in Love) at making a movie I’m willing to sit through.
Fair enough, we can’t all like the same things, but when something is termed “unwatchable”, to me that does mean technically incompetent, and in a not entertaining way. I do really like all the films I mentioned in the first grouping, especially The Devils (and I’ve never been on drugs while viewing it), and thought Altered States, Crimes of Passion, The Lair of the White Worm (a later period fave) and Whore were all very entertaining and in most cases, really funny – and I don’t mean unintentionally (except for the dialog in Altered States, maybe) – I don’t think he gets enough credit or recognition for the humor in his films – especially when it’s aimed at religion. He isn’t a favorite director of mine by any means, but I still think he has done some good work.
I generally find Russell’s films terrible, but they are strangely “watchable.” To me he’s like the bad side of Kubrick.
He does lean toward the histrionic side of things, which I think works really well in certain films – and I probably think that about more of them than do many people – generally due to my viewing his style as consciously being used for a type of comedic effect (& I could very well be wrong about his intent, but that’s what I get out of the work he’s done that I do like). Other times the films come off as simply noisy & half-baked, which is how I think he’s generally seen. Even when it isn’t working, though, I still find them watchable, at times “strangely” so, as you put it.