Rich and Famous (1981)

Richard Brody, in the 16 December 2013 issue of The New Yorker, wrote an essay on the films of George Cukor. I watched A star is born, but could not abide watching it all (his own greatest artistic achievement and also that of Judy Garland, its star.). I watched Rich and Famous, and did finish it.

Brody: An esteemed raconteur, Cukor started to write his autobiography, but his lifelong reticence got in the way, and he made his last film, “Rich and Famous” (1981), as if to explain: it’s a deceptively chirpy comedy starring Candice Bergen as a young society matron in Malibu who launches her literary career—and destroys her private life—by writing a tell-all novel.

 MRQE.com offers this synopsis: Two women find their friendship tested when one rises from obscurity to success in this glossy remake of Old Acquaintance. Liz Hamilton (Jacqueline Bisset) and Merry Noel (Candice Bergen) are close friends who met while they were freshmen at Smith College in the 1950s. Liz has become a highly respected novelist, while Merry wed Doug Blake (David Selby) and raised a family. While Merry is happy, she can't help but envy Liz for her glamorous career as an author. Merry decides to write a novel of her own, and with Liz's help, the book soon finds a publisher. While Merry's trashy potboiler earns few positive reviews, it's a massive best-seller, and Merry's fame and wealth soon outstrips that of Liz, leading to jealousy between the old friends and problems in Merry's marriage. Rich and Famous was the final picture directed by Hollywood legend George Cukor; the guest list at the party sequences include such literary and cinematic notables as Christopher Isherwood, Ray Bradbury, Paul Morrissey, and Roger Vadim

I wondered what Ebert thought of it. It contains scenes that make you want to squirm because of their awkwardness and awfulness, and yet you don't want to look away and you're not bored. The movie has the courage to go to extremes, and some of those extremes may not be art but are certainly unforgettable.
The movie forges ahead through tempestuous fights and tearful reconciliations, while Bergen's alcoholic ex-husband makes a pass at Bisset, and Bergen tries to bribe all of New York to win the book prize. I was not (and am not) sure what this movie was trying to tell me about the two characters -- perhaps that if you stay in touch with someone for twenty years, you can be absolutely sure that at the end of that time you still will be in touch.
Insights into human nature don't seem to be the point of the movie, anyway. It's a slick, trashy, entertaining melodrama, with too many dumb scenes to qualify as successful. A film critic for one of the national newsweeklies said, in reviewing this film, that he has a friend who has a rule: He only attends movies that are in color and are about rich people. I deplore the attitude behind that statement, but in a crazy way, I absolutely understand it.

More than once, during shouting matches, I thought it would do well as a stage play.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops's review: Rich and Famous -- Screen version of the John Van Druten play about two very different women (Candice Bergen and Jacqueline Bisset), both writers, who preserve a friendship for more than two decades despite the strains caused by emulation and jealousy. Directed by George Cukor, the glossy soap opera pays more attention to its glamorous locations than to the human dimension of its story. The sole redeeming feature is good acting by the principals. General air of vapid amorality and two graphic sexual sequences. (O) (R) ( 1981 )
O: morally offensive

Vincent Canby's review in the Times: SOMEWHERE inside ''Rich and Famous,'' George Cukor's splashy, elongated new comedy, there is the material for a possibly brilliant two-character one-act play.

The Sessions

I forst saw a blub review of this film by David Denby in the 19 Nov 12 issue of NYer by David Denby (Easily the most highly sanctified movie about sex ever made. John Hawkes plays a fortyish man in the nineteen-sixties, a polio victim who lives mostly in an iron lung. He’s never had sex, and he’s desperately horny. After talking it over with his priest (a morose William H. Macy), he hires a sex surrogate, played by a brisk, frequently naked Helen Hunt (looking great, for the record, at forty-nine). Hawkes is inventive and charming, and the writer and director Ben Lewin makes him ruefully funny; the actor is easy to take. The filmmakers know that their therapeutic approach to lust is a bit creepy, and they try to joke their way out of it. They don’t succeed: the sex scenes and the long discussions with the priest—an unhappy voyeur—are all a bit queasy, yet you can’t laugh. The movie is so clammily sensitive and tame that it stifles any strong response. Based on the life and journalism of the late poet Mark O’Brien.)

I did not find Macy morose; on the contrary, he showed a range of emotions, including gloom. He played a priest who, despite his misgivings, talked with a parishioner about sex outside of marriage. As a friend.

Roger Ebert begins his 3.5 stars review: At a time when sex is as common in the movies as automobiles, his need and his attempt to fulfill it requires an awesome dedication. The film is a reminder of how unique sexual intimacy is, and even how ennobling.

And he ends it: "The Sessions" isn't really about sex at all. It is about two people who can be of comfort to each other, and about the kindness that forms between them. This film rebukes and corrects countless brainless and cheap sex scenes in other movies. It's a reminder that we must be kind to one another.

Stephen Holden in the NY Times also liked it: Arriving in a culture steeped in titillation, prurience and pornographic imagery, “The Sessions” is a pleasant shock: a touching, profoundly sex-positive film that equates sex with intimacy, tenderness and emotional connection instead of performance, competition and conquest. There are moments between the client and his surrogate that are so intensely personal that your first instinct may be to avert your eyes. But the actors’ lighthearted rapport allows you to rejoice unashamedly in their characters’ pleasure.

Ides of March

I first saw note of this film in the 26 Sept 2011 "Movies - Fall Preview" column in the New Yorker. IMDb has the plot summary as "An idealistic staffer for a new presidential candidate gets a crash course on dirty politics during his stint on the campaign trail." Critics in Rotten Tomatoes give it 85%, the public a lesser 73%. Its summary: The Ides of March takes place during the frantic last days before a heavily contested Ohio presidential primary, when an up-and-coming campaign press secretary (Ryan Gosling) finds himself involved in a political scandal that threatens to upend his candidate's shot at the presidency.

With heartthrobs George Clooney and Ryan Gosling, one might expect that the movie did well at the box office, but its $41 million take is not, in relative terms, very good. Why? The subject matter? Perhaps.

Ironically, one ends up feeling both skeptical and cynical about this movie that wants to have it both ways but, instead, ends up just as deeply cynical and flawed as its characters and the system it seeks to expose.
January 13, 2012 Full Review
This critis has it about right. Anthony Lane in the New Yorker also demurs from singing its praises: The result, slimy with unfeasible plotting, will gratify those who sniff out all politics as a conspiratorial murk. On the other hand, viewers who treasure Clooney, both as actor and director, for the deftness of his comic touch, or who remain alert to the grinding farce of the electoral machine, may prove harder to woo.

I agree. It seemed too cynical, too pat, and lacked spark.

What do women want (to read)?

The Wall Street Journal (March 14, page D1) has an interesting article about what women read when there is no lurid cover on the book to embarrass them.

Electronic readers, and the reading privacy they provide, are fueling a boom in sales of sexy romance novels, or "romantica," as the genre is called in the book industry.
As with romance novels, romantica features an old-fashioned love story and pop-culture references like those found in "chick lit." Plus, there is sex—a lot of it. Yet unlike traditional erotica, romantica always includes what's known as "HEA"—"happily ever after."
Kindles, iPads and Nooks "are the ultimate brown paper wrapper," says Brenda Knight, associate publisher at Cleis Press, of Berkeley, Calif., a publisher of erotica since 1980.
Mainstream publishers are launching digital-only erotic labels to feed demand. At the end of the month, HarperCollins UK will launch Mischief Books, with the tag line "private pleasures with a hand-held device."

Read more about it at:Books Women Read When No One Can See the Cover