The Michigan Daily - Wea4e"ca mc. - Thursday. September 14.1995-58 Lee and Scorsese's 'Clockers' is right on time Executive producer Scorsese and director Lee generate excitement for new film By Michael Zilberman Daily Arts Writer This movie is so eagerly expected that its last-minute delay looks a lot like a marketing ploy. After that, the actual opening of"Clockers" is bound to appear somewhat anticlimactic. The much talked-about collaboration be- tween Spike Lee as director and Mar- tin Scorsese as executive producer seemed at once impossible and inevi- table. This is especially true if you take into account theirpersonal friend- ship, mutual admiration and a number of amazing similarities in their re- spective styles and backgrounds. Both Lee and Scorsese emerged from New York City's poor neigh- borhoods to tell the world about largely unknown and/or ignored sides of life. Both broke new stylistic grounds. Both shocked the world with their earlier, angrier productions and then mellowed out a little-as shown by Scorsese's proudly prudish "The Age Of Innocence" and Lee's surpris- ingly tame "Crooklyn." Each tried his hand at producing friends' projects, and not always successfully: Scorsese did "Mad Dog And Glory," and the superior "The Grifters." Lee financed the recent Nick Gomez flick, "New Jer- sey Drive," and the singularly idi- otic "DROP Squad" (a near-fascist fantasy about a special force that seeks African-Americans who for- got their roots and literally beats some sense into them). They respectively bring with them a cast of regulars: Denzel Washing- ton seems to have become to Spike Lee what Robert De Niro is to Scorsese -a somewhat flattering reflection of the author's ego and a carrier of the idea. The constant presence of John Turturro, in just about every Lee movie, is comparable to Joe Pesci who frequents Scorsese's pictures. Both directors obviously have a thing for appearing in their own mov- ies in the most oddball parts. Even more, each has dabbled in music vid- eos - Scorsese directed the famous subway sequence in Michael Jackson's "Bad," and Lee has been behind the camera for a few rap vid- eos. Now Lee borrows staple Scorsese actor Harvey Keitel for the role of a jaded detective in "Clockers." In fact, Scorsese had seriously thought about directing the fihn himself after buy- ing the rights to author Richard Price's best-selling urban tome. His hopes for personally bringing this shocking story to the big screen dwindled, how- ever, when Scorsese committed him- self to direct the Robert de Niro and Sharon Stone drama "Casino" instead. Coinciding with the "Clockers" re- lease this month, the American Mu- seum of the Moving Image is present- ing a full retrospective presentation of Spike Lee's work - an honor he now shares with none other than Mar- tin Scorsese. The presentation serves as a de facto certificate of acceptance into the pantheon of American film- making. Both directors came off New York streets to become students at NYU's prestigious film school and even greater notoriety. But will Lee "The Great Director" manage to maintain Lee "The Young Punk"'s ability to strike a public nerve? After all, controversy has al- ways been a trademark element of Lee's stylized urban melodramas, from his early films like "She's Gotta Have it," to later pictures like "Malcolm X." (Similarly, Scorsese has had his share of negative press resulting from graphically violent se- quences in much talked-about films like "Taxi Driver" and "GoodFellas.") With "Clockers," it looks like some of Lee's old-school anarchy is still there. For starters, there is the choice of complete unknown Mekhi Phifer for the starring role of low life, drug-dealing kingpin "Strike." This newcomer came from straight of the streets of New York and showed up for an open casting call with nothing but a couple of Wal-Mart photo machine snapshots he had developed on the way. The most amazing thing about Spike Lee is his skillful balance between street-conscious credibil- ity and capitalist commercialism. With his recent, semi-autobio- graphical production, "Crooklyn," Lee visibly leaned toward the lat- ter. "Clockers," on the other hand, might represent a step back in the opposite direction. Despite the impressive track records of its creators, there aren't any sure bets about the movie. Nevertheless, there are some things we can be cer- tain of: 1) The film will feature a New Wave-ish title sequence (a Lee staple). 2) An obligatory director's cameo will show up at some point. 3) Keitel and Turturro will, as al- / r Scorsese and Lee, the dream team behind 'Clockers.' ways, provide fine performances. 4) Phifer will become a new name to watch in the entertainment indus- try (the music fan now has hopes to record a rap album). 5) There will be a hot soundtrack (three songs from Seal alone!). And there will most certainly be a huge and arguably pointless contro- versy over something related to the movie (as far as I understand, some- one is already raising hell about the allegedly stolen poster art). But what else would you expect? It's a movie by Lee and Scorsese. And it's more interesting this way. 'Kids' director prefers 0 gnOtt over perkyi ,teenflm By Stephen Hunter The Baltimore Sun Larry Clark is depressed. The di- rector of the colossal kick in the guts known as "Kids" has just seen a movie about teen-age life, and it's got him down. "It was the most depressing film I've seen in some time," he says with a heartfelt sigh. "Everybody was en- joying it but me," he confesses. "I wanted to kill myself." The movie was not "Kids," with its teen sex, drug and alcohol binges, its HIV-positive Lothario stalking virgins on the sidewalks of New York, its casual violence and tribal bonding. No, it was "Clueless," with its cheery optimism, its color-coor- dinated costumes, its ultra-cute Valleyspeak. "It was such b-s-!" he says. Whatever they may accuse Larry Clark of_ kiddie porn, sensational- ism, voyeurism, a molester's fasci- nation with the young - they'll never accuse him of making a movie 'that's b-s-. "I wanted to make a film that was real," he says earnestly. "I wanted to make a movie that kids could go to and feel it was real life. I wanted to make a film that says, 'This is what it feels like to be a kid. This is what it's like to live to have fun above everything else.' Even though it's dark, there's some fun going on. I thought it was funnier than 'Clueless.' " "Kids" is in some way the end of, or the necessary result of, Clark's own obsession with the lives of teen- agers, and not merely because he is the father of three of them. He made his reputation originally as a photographer, having published two seminal books that established his style and his subject matter. The first was "Tulsa," photos from his hometown, where he chronicled the dirty, bleak lives of teen-age losers, dope dealers, violent, white, work- ing-class youth with a passion and anti-cliched clarity that amazed back in 1973. So powerful was his book that Francis Ford Coppola ac- tually came to Tulsa and shot two films about teen-agers there ("The Outsiders" and "Rumblefish") that used Clark's book as a stylistic touchstone. 'Gumby' movie is a bit too plastic A stil from Larry Clark's movie 'Kids.' The second book was more auto- biographical; it was called "Teen- aged Lust," and was built out of photographs and icons (like speed- ing tickets and report cards) from his own self-declared "wild" teen- age years. The one thing he prides himself on in his exploration of thisculture is his willingness to get inside, to see it as kids see it, not as grown-ups see it. "The first thing," he says, "you have to really want to. I didn't want to to make a film about me, but them. I wanted to show what it's like when adults aren't around. Be- lieve me, it changes fast." He began hanging out at Washing- ton Square in New York's Greenwich Village, a hub of footloose teen skate- boarding culture, his "authenticity" vouched for by a kid whom he'd met at a photography seminar. He took roll after roll of photos of his subjects, gradually easing his way into the cul- ture. Clark, 53, even learned to skateboard. "I was just awful at first. But eventu- ally, I became just one of the guys. I really began to see the world from their perspective. But my idea was always to do a real film about teen-agers with real teens as actors. When Hollywood does teens, they're always played by adults in their mid-'20s. It never looks or feels real." He hung out in New York's Wash- ington Square for more than three years, watching and observing and taking pic- tures and gathering mental images of the movie he desperately wanted to make. "I knew exactly how I wanted them to act. I remembered everything; how they laughed, how they moved. I had a real clear vision. I wanted them to talk the way they talked. In fact, I gave Leo Fitzpatrick the (main) role of Telly be- cause I like his voice. That was fantas- tic, I thought, even though I didn't un- derstand a thing he said!" Clark knew the film would be a fic- tional piece, even if it had a documen- tary feel, but he had a problem thinking up a story. After learning how univer- sally the kids despised and ignored the condoms that adults urged on them, though, he came up with the idea of structuring the film around a promiscu- ous teen-ager (Telly) who won't use a condom and is HIV-positive. "It was a 24-hour movie," Clark says. "That way we get to see what the kids do over 24 hours and get a better sense of their lives." He explained his concept to a 19- year-old friend, himselfjust out ofskate- board culture, who wanted to be a screenwriter. Three weeks later the kid, Harmony Korine, returned with a screenplay. "It's his fault, really,"jokes Clark about the controversy that has surrounded the movie. "I just shot the script." Clark tries to avoid valuejudgments in his dramatization, letting the audience make up its own mind. But, pressed, he'll sum up teen culture, 1995. "What's happening now is that ev- erybody knows everything. They have so much information. Everybody has access to drugs. Kids are having sex at such an early age. It's everywhere. It's just different than when we were grow- ing up." And what's next for this truth teller? Baby boomers, watch out. The next one is about - gasp, shudder, parents. By Ted Watts Daily Arts Staff Remember the TV you watched as a kid? How about that of thy parents? Of course you don't. At least not di- rectly. You might very well remem- ber them secondhand, though. Take Gumby, for instance. A good guy. A little nauseous looking with that green face mask thing going on and all, but all in all not a bad guy. And he was on that show called "Gumby." Bet you didn't remember that. It was on origi- nally on the "Howdy Doody Show" in the '50s, gained its own show, was put into syndication, showed up again in the '80s with all new episodes (but the same look, feel and sound) and recently put back on on a little network called Nickelodeon. ArtClokey's little clay boy show, ifnot one of the better written elements of children's television, was at least one of the most visually interesting. With the exception of the occaisional stop motion holiday special (like those Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and Rudolph ones), "Gumby" was the only animated puppet gameintownuntiltheriseofWill Vinton's Claymation studio, concomittant with the success of its dancing California Raisins. Like a green, geometric and enfleshed version of Casper the Friendly Ghost, Gumby was a relatively mindless crea- ture without guile or intelligence. "Hey Pokey, it's not good to hurt people" is a probing to the deepest portion ofGumby's "mind." Still, he was more intelligent than his orange horse Pokey or his other friends, Prickle the yellow dinosaur or Goo the blue girl. Note how easily the characters are de- fined by colors? They are primary tinted plastiscene after all. And about as simple as their palatte, too. They were all essen- tially good characters, with little to really differentiate them besides image and voice. Pokey was a little bit more mopey than the others, often feeling hurt or left out, and Gumby was incrementally more intelligent than the rest, but ultimately the characters weren't all that different from each other. Except the Blockheads, of course. The reddish orange and, not surprisingly. blockheaded twins were the dark element of Gumby's land. Having a different scheme every episode they were in,they're yet another illustration of the other char. acters' ineffectiveness. When you can' keep the evil characters under lock anc key, even after they've nearly destroye you dozens oftimes, youjust aren't that bright. Of course, their complicated schemes, complete with advanced tech- nology, always fail to be successful. Maybe you can view the good charac- ters' lack of intellect as a balance to a tremendous amount of good fortune they have in defeating the Blockheads. And generally without Gumby's par- ents having to intervene. Or maybe you can view the villains as the Communist Bloc-heads. They are reddish after all. But why muddy the waters when it was generally such a simple show? Last Friday (September 8th) there was anew chapter added to the Gumbymythos with "Gumby 1,"also known as "Gumby -The Movie." The movie was primarily made in '88, '89 and '91, but post-pro- duction work was only finished within the last year. The movie remains true to its television predecessor, in large part due to creater Clokey's guidance. The movie was distributed by Arrow Re- leasing instead of a more major com- pany because of potential creative con- flicts. Clokey has been quoted as saying that some companies wanted script changes while one actually wanted Eddie Murphy to be in the movie. While essentially intended for home video re- lease, the movie has made it to the big screen. It is actually fairly disconcerting to see a Gumby as big as or bigger than a real person, but on a movie screen he often is. You can see the details ofGumby and his world much betterthan on the TV screen, which is both impressive and annoying at the same time. Mistakes that would be minor on a television screen are blown up hundreds of times, and so a vibrating bit of Gumby scalp can move from being virtually invisible to apotential percieved lice problemfor the little clay giant. But at the same time, you can appre- ciate the Gumby environment so much more. The books that characters often enter are highly visible and easy to read, and the toy details that are easily missed on the small screen become obvious and enjoyable on the silver. It's almost like watching a documentary on microscopic life that has, forthe benefit of the viewer, been put under the micro- scope and recorded for posterity. They weren't meant to be that big, but it sure is a novelty. The large part of the movie is, unfortu- nately, rather dull. Gumby and his band, the Clayboys, play some really bad '80s fakemetal (like, oh, Loverboy-type stuff), meet a couple ofhappenin' claychicks(in addition to the regular, and rather sugges- tively named, Goo) and fight the Block- heads to save the farms of a bunch of old women who prima facia seem incapable of farming (which, I suppose, gives a pretty good explanation of why they're about to lose their farms.) It's basically a long, drawn out Gumby short. Only in the last quarter of the movie do things really pick up. In a couple of action sequences, Gumby has to fight a curiosly Termina- tor-like robot duplicate of himself. He does so in both a Medeival world and in a futuristic world that parrallels the "Star Wars" movies in ship style, light saber design and the effects of cutting off a largely mechanical man's hand. Good wins and plays some really bad rock. Well, Gumby has certainly re- mained true to himself. Simplistic yet good hearted, his movie incarnation is not shocking. Unfortunately, "Gumby 1"isn't playing at Briarwood or Showcase, and it may not be in any normal theater by tomorrow. Keep checking Fox Village, or maybe the Michigan will call it an art film and run it. Oh well, at least it'll probably be on video soon. And there's still a rumor of a "Gumby 2" being made. All right! CLASSIFIEDS' great scores... Law School Business School Dental School I i. The Scriptorium Seminars THE SCRIPTORIUM: CENTER FOR CHRISTIAN ANTIQUITIES is a non-sectarian research center based upon the Van Kampen Collection of ancient artifacts, manuscripts, and rare printed material. The collection consists primarily of biblical texts in all representative forms and also includes one of the largest cuneiform and papyri holdings in the United States as well as numerous manuscripts and incunabula. The Scriptoriums interdisciplinary seminars are conducted at our Grand Haven facility, on the shores of Lake Michigan; in England at Hampton Court Herefordshire, a fourteenth-century estate; and at its excavation site at Wadi Natrun, Egypt, currently investigating the fourth-century monastery I)4~A~ I ;t~t r~A4L~ ~. 77 v > I