Category: Film (Page 14 of 15)

There are rumors this week that Cher may star in a new movie called Burlesque with pop star Christina Aguilera. (This reminds me strangely of that rumor of the early part of this decade about Cher in a movie with Britney Spears). But anyway, this one is about "a singer from the boonies who comes to L.A. and performs in a sultry nightclub run by Sin City vamp expert" who may or may not end up being Cher.

I actually like the sound of this rumor…it would be nice to see something raw and edgy again.

Another Cher comedy. Oh goody. With the Jackass dude Johnny Knoxville. Oh boy. And it’s called Drop Out. Sounds swell. Well, at least the writer is one of the former writers from The Family Guy – it may just be alright. But then again early Family Guy was pretty unfunny.

I’m worried again.

To read more:
http://www.joez.org/cher-acts-again/

http://screencrave.com/2009-01-21/cher-and-johnny-knoxville-cast-in-blitts-drop-out/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jan/19/cher-johnny-knoxville

The week before Halloween I went to Lucha Vavoom downtown at the awesome Mayan Theater.

By the way, I love Halloween in LA, so many awesome things to do from the fabulously scary mazes on Queen Mary or at Knotts Scary Farm, to the West Hollywood Parade to the Hollywood Forever Cemetery's Day of the Dead: so many creative LA-types (from Hollywood on one side and the Latino art community on the other) creating really inspired altars, costumes and mazes.

Anyway, on my way to Lucha Vavoom, I was listening to NPR and John Updike was on talking about his sequel to his book Witches of Eastwick. The new book is called The Widows of Eastwick, which confused me because I thought the gals were already widows in the first book, having killed their first husbands. In the movie, they were simply divorced, a lot less dangerous – their witchery was almost accidental.

Updike talked about being asked to be a consultant on the movie and deciding not to be, not even attending any premiers. He saw the movie only once, alone with his wife in Danbury, Massachusetts, after it was released. His wife whispered to him during the movie that he should get his name taken off of the credits. He laughed and said he didn't think it was that bad. But he was embarrassed about the rewrites, that the actors were wonderful (Cher was "lovely as always") but that Jack Nicholson didn't really have enough to do, especially at the end of the movie.

The show's host asked Updike about the new novel and Updike said that the little town of Eastwick becomes more of a character unto itself in the next book, and Updike explains his love for New England, its "brininess and antiquity" which was different from his Pennsylvania landscape growing up.

Updike admitted that Witches of Eastwick was his attempt to appease the feminist criticism of his earlier books but that this effort failed. Feminists didn't like WOE. Making his female protagonists witches does seem misguided if you want to appease feminists, but I think Updike was heartfelt in his attempt. Just clueless about why depicting women as tricksters and borderline malevolent in fact ties in to negative female stereotypes instead of being sympathetic to modern women.

Updike humorously depicts the "half-baked suburban witchcraft" of his witches with the materials of boxes of Cascade to make magic circles.

A caller asked about the short story "Pigeon Feathers." Updike said this was "a heartfelt" personal story about growing up and coming to terms with religion. I read this story in a reading group once and loved it. It is an example of some amazing and skilled American writing.

Another caller asks about his story "The Christian Roommates" a true account of Updike's experiences with his roommates at Harvard I'd like to read.

Cher's big WOE speech: http://www.blinkbox.com/Movies/1241/Witches-of-Eastwick?Scene=12474

First things news: Cher is back! Reports say she had an upper respiratory illness but she's back on stage this week. Also, JimmyDean and I have been having a lively political conversations on the election post. And…I’m working hard on a long post about Sonny & Cher’s Italian and French singles from a CD Cher scholar Peter sent me. Hopefully, that post will be coming shortly.

In the meantime, my Jack-Nicholson-fan friend sent me this interview of Cher, Susan Sarandon and Michelle Pfeiffer circa Witches. I love it when celebrity obsessions collide.

The first thing I thought was that it's odd to see Cher share an interview again. And after all these years I still can figure out Cher and Sarandon’s relationship: indifferent, bad, good? At the time, I remember rumors about how things got off to a rocky start when Cher switched from the part of Jane to Alex. But then I can easily see how these two personalities would clash, although they share similar views and might possibly have bonded under the pressure of the severe sexist-pig behavior they suffered at the hands of their director, George Miller. Cher and Pfeiffer did get along well and hung out…as this clip tells, they went to see Ruthless People together…without Saranadon.

Cher's body language is noticeably cold as she sits next to Sarandon and she never makes eye contact with Sarandon until they all start talking about Sarandon's having to learn to play tennis and a musical instrument. Suddenly, Cher warms up. However, Cher does mention being up all night the night before making the Cher (1987) album so maybe she's just tired.

I loved the behind the scenes information Pfeiffer adds about how they had to spend three days in the pool for that scene at Daryl Van Horne's mansion and how it was difficult to corral all those tow-headed kids of Sukie's.

This interview is also representative of Cher’s nicknaming tendencies. Jack Nicholson is Johnny,  Susan becomes Sue. I forgot what she called Michelle…I think it was Misha. Here's the conversation I had with my friend about it:

Can this Jimmy Carter reporter make them all sound any dumber??  I am not usually bothered hearing gals called 'Girl' – remember my previous conversation about Riot Grrrls. However, when this guy says 'girl,' it sounds like little girls not kick-ass grrrls. And it's annoying.

Is it worth noting that  they all have their legs spread out in an open formation? Is this Freudian? Are they still pissed at Miller and asserting themselves subconsciously?

And who would use that God awful couch for interviews?