Month: October 2023

One of the crazy things happening in Cher-scholarship right now is that as Cher is producing new material and engaging in new activities (charities, appearances, romances, etc.), previous works are still being experienced and re-evaluated. Cher stuff is rolling up and over itself.

Cher Films

From “Why Mask is a Much Better Movie Than You Remember” by Adam Lowes in The HotCorn

“The trend for applauding actors who ‘go ugly’ for a film is a rather reductive form of praise. It’s the true embodiment and total immersion of a character beyond their physical appearance which deserves the plaudits.” Lowes cites Charlize Theron’s characterization of Aileen Wuornos as an example.

He calls Mask a “poignant biopic…very low-key and dramatically unfussy…very much mirroring the no-bullshit approach and grounded attitude of Rocky’s protective mother, Rusty (played to utter perfection by Cher).” The article mostly focuses on Eric Stoltz’s performance as Rocky Dennis and “the character’s day-to-day struggle in being accepted. The masterstroke here, however, is introducing him as a slightly older and confident teenager, at home in his skin and popular at school” yet also a teenager where “all-too relatable moments of teen longing and vulnerability occasionally creep in….Stotlz’s Rocky really is an inspiration.” Lowes talks about the “heart-rending” ending, saying “Mask remains a superior Hollywood weepie….a film which refuses to dwell on suffering and sentiment, and instead embraces optimism and hop in the face of pretty insurmountable odds.”

from “Almost There: Cher in Mask” by Claudio Alves in The Film Experience 

“Over the years, [Cher] has amassed a small but impressive filmography.” Her “bullheaded no-nonsense attitude. …Cher embodies Rusty like a complicated hurricane of abrasive motherhood.”

“One of Mask’s greatest assets is its reluctance to paint the main characters with broad strokes…allowing the shadows of their imperfections to enter the picture….Cher extruding enough radiant movie star charisma to turn the night into day. With a cloud of curly hair that could be alternatively described as a lion’s mane or an oxidized halo, Cher’s Rusty dominates every moment she’s on-screen [that’s Cher pulling focus] while never breaking into the naturalistic spell of the proceedings. Her magnetism feels organic, so tightly woven into the character’s essence, that we can’t discern where movie magic ends and honest humanity begins.”

Alves describes Cher as “brassy and loud, but never strenuously so…Watching her maneuver through the comedic possibilities of the scenes with earthy dryness reminded me of Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich….Cher is careful with her maternal affections and affectations….Mask never indulges in simple one-dimensional emotional tones despite the schmaltzy possibilities inherent to this story of disability and young death. In reality, nobody’s entirely a hero or villain, so neither are Rusty or Rocky. She’s cool as hell and tough as nails. She’s also an addict, capable of neglect, cruelty too.” Alves talks about the mother-son relationship as a “…an undercurrent of perpetual irritation to bubble over.” He says Cher’s “sculptural features and big eyes make for a gorgeous movie mechanism, equally able to project compassion and steeliness, warmth and glacial coldness,” [occasional descriptions of Cher as well]. “Her fury has interesting dimensions as well.” Alves talks about her facial representations of regret, spite, aching vulnerability and adds that While she’s often thought of as a singer first and foremost, Cher’s astoundingly nimble when it comes to playing silent reaction shots. It’s difficult to forget the bittersweet awe” (of the funhouse scene).

“Because of Bagdanovich’s downplayed empathy…Mask rises above a tricky premise and delivers one hell of an emotional wallop…Cher’s asked to perform an overwhelming cocktail of despair and material perseverance…in one show-stopping sequence, Cher goes through the many stages of grief, allowing us to see how her character survives the loss of her son.”

In the comments below the piece, readers talk about the public feud between Cher and Bogdanovich, the March release date hurting the movie. On comment quotes a long Bagdonovich interview where he says Cher was the most difficult person he ever worked with because, her surmised, she doesn’t like men. He speculates this is why she dropped all her surnames. (Cher has always said this was for her kids). Bogdanovich said Cher couldn’t sustain a scene, (Suspect-era criticism as well), but was very good in close-ups. In fact, he shot closeups than in any other picture he made, he says, because “her eyes have the sadness of the world.” Bogdanovich admits he didn’t like her, “She was always looking like someone was cheating her.” After about seven weeks, he claims, they liked each other better. But then he got mad at her again when she sided with the studio over the scene cuts and the music replacements.

Another commenter then retorts that Bagdanovich’s comments say more about him than Cher. Another commentor says “Hmm. Bogdanovich says Cher can’t act? And he cast Cybill Shepherd repeatedly in everything? Methinks he means that Cher is strong minded and has her own opinions…”

Another comments says Bogdanovich “version of events are always interesting, but his blind spot where women are concerned is well documented.” Another comments say “that conversation captures the uphill climb for respect that Cher had to climb” and the person reminds us that “Robert Altman, Norman Jewison and Mike Nichols never had a problem with Cher or dissed her acting ability” Another comment astutely comments that Cher would not have won for Moonstruck without this Oscar snub for Mask. “It gave her momentum.” Another comment says of Witches of Eastwick that “her charisma is amazing—the camera just loves her. I just think actors who have that startling quality always make some people less able to acknowledge their talent.”

Interestingly, Mask was the only Cher-look I tried to emulate, down to creating shoelace necklaces.

“Moonstruck: Cher’s 1987 classic is bizarre, hopelessly romantic and yet somehow entirely plausible” by Helen Sullivan in The Guardian.

Sullivan notes the “unsettlingly charismatic Nicolas Cage” and calls the movie a “glorious contribution to the romantic comedy canon.” She mentions a New-York-history podcast called The Bowery Boys who dedicated an episode to the movie. I’d love to hear this. Whenever anyone is looking for movies that feel like New York City, I always mention After Hours and Moonstruck for me. My neighbors and landlords in Yonkers all had apartments like the Castorninis with the plastic couch covers and the hallway runners. My employers and many of my co-workers at Yonkers Contracting were also all Italian and I used to be able to tell the borough accents apart.

“Like an opera, [the] characters each have specific themes they return to. For Loretta it’s luck—she believes her’s is bad. For Rose Castorini, it’s her believe that men chase women because they fear death.”

Sullivan says the movie contains many tropes of romantic comedies including the makeover scene. She concludes, “what makes it a truly wonderful film is that the lines are so incredibly surprising. Bizarre, deranged even, and yet somehow entirely plausible.” She says the movie is “human, true, funny—and hopelessly, gloriously romantic.”

Cher Music

I came across this I Paralyze review in Ultimate Classic Rock which starts out with the theory that “Cher is one celebrity who seems too big to fail. But in the late 70s and early 80s, she faced a string of musical flops.”

This is a good reminder that the niche-popular Cher of the early 1980s is not the solid worldwide iconic Cher of today. The article lists Cher’s previous 1970s record labels MCA, Warner Bros and Casablanca and says, “all of whom pushed her towards disco material.” This is inaccurate. Only Casablanca did this, as they was primarily a disco label. Interestingly, this article sketches out the pedigree of the musicians and producers:  Steve Lukather (Toto), Howie Epstein (Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers), Desmond Child penning a song, producers David Wolfert and John Farrarr of Olivia Newton John’s then-massive(ly annoying) hit “Physical.” There’s a story about how much I could not stand that “Physical” song that runs straight through a series of random events involving my former sister-in-law Maureen to my eventually finding a Babys record in my brother’s stack of records. Which is ironic because there’s no mention of the covers on this album, one of which is a Babys song.

But anyway, the author Courtney E. Smith speculates the album flopped due to lack of support from Columbia Records, her label of one album (never really a good fit). Smith notes that there was no push to radio, no music video produced and because the album was never pressed to CD officially, the album has become a rarity. She mentions Cher’s lip-sync appearances on Solid Gold and American Bandstand.

She quotes producer Wolfert to say didn’t support “I Paralyze” (US single) or “Rudy” (UK single) as the singles and wanted “Walk with Me” instead. None of those three songs really captured the tone of the times, though. ‘Smith quotes Cher in a 1999 Rolling Stone interview saying her favorite singles of all time were “I Paralyze” and “Save Up All Your Tears” but Cher also said she “hatred the [I Paralyze] album because she “didn’t have anything to contribute, had no control, and hated the whole experience.”

This may also be the biggest reason why the album failed. Smith notes that as the album was released she was already filming the movie Silkwood and wholly focused on her acting projects.

I dug out of a stack of online articles I printed off but never read from about 20 years ago. Some fan compiled the Black Rose reviews (which are no longer online):

from Rock-A-Rama: “If the idea of Cher and Les Dukek making music together has you scratching your head in wonder, then the product of this seemingly unmeldable alliance’ll have you scratching your vinyl to bits as you race to get it off your turntable and out of the house. The first track is the only one that works at all…and Dudek can actually go through an entire song without having the great god of excess willing him into another boring solo.”

Stereo Review calls the album “Not Bad” and says “Cher is a show biz pro, and to stay in business she must adapt to the times.” Her foray into disco is mentioned. Her one album of New Wave Rock is also mentioned. “Black Rose is an attempt to emulate Blondie” [it is??]  and other outfits with feisty-mama lead singers. [wha??] Many of these groups are produced by Mike Chapman or his associates, and sure enough…”  “How long will the fad for foxy-chick neo-punk commercial groups last? Can Cher—our Lady of the Charts [she is??] find true happiness and an occasional Las Vegas booking on this route? No one can say, but—much to my surprise—I find myself rooting for her. I suffered through Cher’s monotone braying during the sixties, but during the seventies she got a little better and today she is no longer awful but quite capable.”

From Billboard: “Guess who’s gotten punked out now?…Cher’s vocals are emotional and full of life on the entire disk. Master guitarist Dudek contributes some sterling guitar playing.”

From People Magazine: “Cher’s quivering, over-mannered vocals…need all the help they can get and she gets more than she deserves. [The players] make this a musically fine album, their finesse however, unwittingly focuses attention on Cher’s shallow talents…Cher sings mostly on pitch and is likably raunchy when she growls. But she indulges—regardless of mood or tempo—the same tendency to pronounce simple words like some Elvis imitator in drag: heavy becomes “hay-vee”; parting becomes “pawting”; temperature is mumbled as “temp’chuhh.” In the word “split” Cher even discovers several entirely new vowels….This album could be vastly improved, rerecorded by the “Group with No Singer.”

(In case anyone has forgotten what mercilessly bad reviews Cher once received on her records.)

“Recording Cher’s “Believe” (1999) from Sound on Sound: This is an early 1999 article on the technical aspects of “Believe,” remarks on the “bizarre vocal processing.”

“For most of last year, it looked as though Celine Dion’s track ‘My Heart Will Go On’ was going to be the best-selling single of 1998 — but this accolade was snatched from the Canadian Queen of AOR at the 11th hour…” The [“Believe”] single spent “seven weeks at the top of the UK charts and…achieved sales of 1.5 million and rising.

The article marks the collaboration of two producers (from Metro Productions from Kingston, Surrey), six songwriters…and talks extensively through the song’s many rewrites, what the “brain crunch of a dance record” is, how producer Mark kept starting over. “This was tricky, because dance music is very specific. To get what I was after I had to think about each sound very carefully…it was really a question of finding, say, a kick drum that didn’t sound like a typical TR909 dance kick drum….wasn’t so cliched…compressed to give them a weird, pumping, smacking sound.”

The author says, “Mark believes one doesn’t need expensive technology in order to make a hit record” but then there’s three long paragraphs explaining in detail all the technology they used.

“Basically it was the destruction of her voice, so I was really nervous about playing it to her.” Although the vocoder effect wat Marks’ idea, the other obvious vocal effect…the ‘telephoney’ quality of Cher’s vocal…came from the lady herself—she’d identified something similar on a Roachford record and asked Mark if he could reproduce it.”

The whole thing took ten days. “Looking back, Mark says the most satisfying part of the project was getting to know Cher who spent six weeks in the studio working on the album…’I thought she might think our setup was a bit small, and that she would turn out to be a bit Hollywood. But she was really great and easy to get on with.” (but Peter Bogdanovich said…??”)

“Cher: Closer to the Truth” review by Kevin Catchpole from PopMatters:

“Cher has always been a polarizing force in terms of musical taste: those who love her often love her unconditionally, and those who hate her, hate her with a passion. She deserves credit for being able to laugh at herself…Not every pop titan who employs this trick has managed to stay savvy using this approach as the years have gone by (see also: Madonna’s trying-too-hard MDNA). And while the stomping, layered “Take It Like a Man” joins a first half of solid made-for-the-club cuts, here she uses, and perhaps abuses, the Antares vocal manipulation… it just feels over-done and it distracts from what are, at the core, still solid disco-ball-spinners done Cher style.”

“Some have called her vocal talents limited, this is only half-true. Having the ability to push your voice all over the scale and indulge in excessive flights of variety is not a talent all by itself (the real talent there is taking that range and using it to create a vocal performance that has depth and expression.) What this means for Cher is she knows what she is capable of, and she makes it into something beautiful. It is a little ragged around the edges at times, but this is the sound of careworn experience, not of a performer too long in the tooth who ought to hang up the microphone.”

“Cher Predicted Her Comeback with the Underrated It’s a Man’s World” from PopMatters:

“A cultural and musical shapeshifter…Cher’s vocals which often can sound like Presley (or at least an impression of Presley) [has made]…a collection of covers (originally recorded by male singers) as well as original pop tunes. …For a singer who thrived on camp bombast and kitsch bravado, the arrangements and vocal performances on the album were surprisingly restrained and subtle. Cher’s strange voice—that androgynous instrument with the stuttering vibrato—is often relaxed and sweet on the album’s wistful ballads…The relative neutrality of Cher’s voice, as well as her adaptability as an artist, means that if the material is solid, she’s a sure fit. It’s that adaptability that has lent Cher that legendary longevity (but it’s also kept Cher from establishing a genuine musical sound or persona – it feels as if Cher ‘sounds’ like whatever current iteration she’s inhabiting at the moment). That is why It’s a Man’s World is such an important entry in her discography because rarely has there been so much attention paid to songcraft on a Cher album.”