Behind the Candelabra is an Impressive feat of Honesty in Representing Liberace and Scott, and the Development

Behind the Candelabra (4 1/2 out of 5 Stars)

Directed by: Steven Soderbergh (Traffic, Erin Brockovich, Contagion)

Written by: Richard LaGravenese (The Fisher King, The Bridges of Madison County)

Starring: Michael Douglas, Matt Damon, Dan Aykroyd, Rob Lowe, and Scott Bakula

On a yearly basis HBO rolls out a film, which is a landmark event not only for the network, but makes an impact on the landscape of television.  From Angels in America to Band of Brothers, Recount, Mildred Pierce, and last year's film Game Change.  These are only a few television films, which have changed the perception of television film concept.  In the past many television movie/miniseries were a little hooky, and melodramatic.  The films/miniseries listed are some of the best television of all time.  Behind the Candelabra, competed at the Cannes Film Festival.  HBO has once again pushed the boundaries and made a great film.

Candelabra focuses on not just Liberace (Michael Douglas), but two men, the other being his male lover/boyfriend/partner Scott Thorson (Matt Damon).  The film chronicles the six year relationship of these men through the ups and downs of the late 70s early 80s.  Candelabra is more than a biopic of these two men, but rather a tale in love, morality, and a journey as director Steven Soderbergh says "down the rabbit hole" into high priced fame and fortune.

Soderbergh is is the perfect director to take people "down the rabbit hole" he has knack for character driven stories, which do not hold anything back.  Most recently his films Contagion, Side Effects, and even Magic Mike do a great job exploring the nature of characters within their specific situations.  In this case you have two men, Liberace who has been deemed this massively talented entertainer, and has built an empire out of this in Las Vegas.  Then you have Scott who finds himself entranced by the man, and everything he has to offer. 

Part of the credit is due to screen writer LaGravenese.  LaGravenese interestingly enough had a very eclectic screen writing background ranging from The Fisher King to this year's Beautiful Creatures.  LaGravenese uses the book written by Scott Thorson which slants things against the man who tinkled the ivories.  As you see by the end of the film, and Scott is thrown out and given nothing for his time in sun, but this Soderbergh/ LaGravenese version explores the context of both men.  Liberace had a penchant for younger men (the real Scott was 18 when they met), and his fetishizing of youth comes across as manipulative, especially when he forces Scott to get plastic surgery to look more like him.  On the other hand Soderbergh and  LaGravenese explore the other side of the coin with Scotty.  Scotty never says "no" does not walk away even when loses things valuable to him from his past.  Scott is a representation of the materialistic younger boy who is transported to a world he had never experienced.

Part of the strength within the added context is the layered performances from Damon and Douglas.  Damon's Scott goes from the quiet young farm boy, the manipulative disco queen, with a snap.  Watching him lose himself as he is sucked into the world, while also becoming this other person is one of the most interesting character studies on film.  Few films have explored the birth of this gay materialism with such forthright frankness and honesty.  Damon had this characteristic while exploring Tom Ripley back in 1999, but his acting chops have grown, and this role proves he can dance with the big boys.

Douglas's Liberace is also an incredible accomplishment.  Douglas never takes things over the top, never mimics; he owns the role.  While I was more fascinated by Damon's role and his acting, Douglas clearly is a master at portraying the confidence, and vulnerability within Liberace.  Part of the strengths to the way this role is portrayed provide this indelible larger than life image.  Liberace was not only a man of talent, but adored by many; he had an image to live down, or up to, however you want to understand him.  Douglas gets lost in the role, and never lets you forget every moment of the characters joy and misery; he captures each action perfectly.

Recently Steven Soderbergh gave a speech about the downturn of film, and the way the human drama is no longer relevant the way it was in older films.  Soderbergh's speech has elements I agree with, and ones in which I disagree with.  Film/television etc have evolved (just look at the influence of Hulu, and Netflix).  People are consuming media in different formats.  Behind the Candelabra works on HBO, because of the willingness to provide freedom of expression, and not having the make the film more mainstream audience friendly to turn a profit.  Soderbergh's film will be remembered as great mainly because it was an impressive (well shot) feat of honesty that is an impressive character study.  Soderbergh has his own style, and it works so well with this film because its not a "gay film" but an character study, which helps you to have better understanding of people, and their era.

Magic Mike has abs on the Outside and a Hallow Personality on the Inside

Magic Mike (2 out 5 Stars)

Directed by Steven Soderbergh (Traffic, Erin Brockovich, Ocean's Eleven)

Written by Reid Carolin

Starring: Channing Tatum, Alex Pettyfer, and Matthew McConaughey

It's opening night and there is a theatre full of mostly straight women, a good amount of gay men, and a handful of straight men that were dragged by their girlfriends sitting in the theatre waiting for this highly anticipated movie.  As the movie started the women in the audience were giggly and awkward as the men started stripping or were taking their clothes off.  This made it seem as though they had never seen a film that exploited male sexuality at such a level, the thing is that they probably have not (but more on that later).  The giggling and chatter died down after a few minutes, and the "plot" started.

The film centers around two men Mike or as he is called on the stage "Magic Mike" (Channing Tatum) and Adam or "The Kid" when he gets on stage.  Mike is an entrepreneur; he wants to do whatever he can to make money so that he create his own business and make furniture.  Mike has has a construction business where he tiles roofs, a few other things, and of course he strips.  Mike meets Adam when he answers an ad on craigslist, don't get too excited it's not not from the men seeking men section, but in the section where people are looking for work.  Adam's naivete leads him into Mike's world of stripping, and Dallas (Matthew McConaughey) gives him a chance at the stage as "The Kid."

Before analyze this film too deeply, there are moments that make this film fun, and Channing Tatum is the most charming leading man of the year; he will have three films that make over 100 million this year.  Tatum has had a meteoric rise this year, and all of his prove that he has charisma, hell the sequel to G.I. Joe film had to be reshot because they initially killed him off, but realized that was a huge mistake. The man can dance too!  I loved watching him twirl, gave me goosebumps. The other men were hot too, but was it worth the hype? No.

People have been talking up this film mainly because of the looks of the men involved and hoping to see a little more of them.  No one talked about the story, and what the film would be about, nor did many people care.  The problem with focusing on the exterior is that this was yes the showed a lot of ass, and there was a lot of gyrating on stage, but nothing that could not be seen in a skinemax film.  In fact they show more but because these men are "famous" people cared more.  I think the interesting thing with this is that rarely do films focus on men's sexuality from this lens.  We often watch films objectify women, but we never get to see this happen.  I enjoyed that there was a role reversal, and I hope this film makes a lot of money, mainly because I want Hollywood to realize even more that there is power in marketing films to a female audience.  The film capitalizes on women, and gay men hoping to see more than they would on the internet.

The problem with Magic Mike is that it has abs on the outside and a hallow personality on the inside.  The film is all style and no substance.  If I wanted to see a movie about beautiful men who get naked I would watch porn, the men are beautiful, I do not have to pay to see them, and they do not last as long. I will admit I know I did not go to see this movie for substance, and I know most of the people I saw the film with went with little to expectations regarding the story.  We go what we asked for.  While the film focuses on the main two strippers, and Dallas (to some extent) the other men Joe Manganiello, Matthew Bomer, Adam Rodriguez, and Kevin Nash are left to play insignificant background players, who are only there as window dressing.

The big question on the table is does the story or substance matter?  Steven Soderbergh tried to make this film more than a joke, and while he made it a fun ride on the stripper pole I do not know what he wanted the audience to take away.  The main message of the film seemed to be do not let success get to your head, but there was no pay off to the message.  Even the ending seemed to prove leave things in a state of limbo.  The film tries to be more than just naked men stripping, and with some great editing that adds to the film there is an attempt to be more than just a quick shiny object to distract from the summer heat, but the film fizzled.

I expected more, I wanted to something from the film.  The movie did not have to be about the substance, but even the dancing left me feeling like one of the films purposes, sexual desire/fantasy or even arrousal for some never happened.  If the film was going to be about the sex make it about that, or if the film was going to try and weave in a strong story then try that, but the film tried to be too much and never found the footing it needed to be something more than an empty thong.

Academy Awards Best Picture Revisited: Erin Brockovich (2000)

Well just a few short days after I wrote about a Best Picture nominee 2001, it's time to write about the
year 2000 the week before the Academy Awards take place. While I did not go as far back as I wanted, it was fun to re-visit the 2000s and the films that were nominated for Best Picture, and the films that should have been nominated for the prize, or won.

There were years when I would say the Academy did pretty well like 2007, 2009, 2010.  Ironically two of those years there were more than 5 nominees so it makes sense that most of the quality films were included.  There were also years the Academy just had brain farts and left off brilliant films like in 2008 when they nominated the boring film The Reader over The Dark Knight, or 2004 when they nominated the over rated bio-pic Ray over my favorite film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.  There may be a few here in 2000 as well, or well three.

When I was looking at the first year of this decade i realized I only owned one of the five films nominated for Best Picture, Erin Brockovich.  This says two things to me.  The first this says is that this year was filled with weak Best Picture nominees, and the second is that I probably own the films I think should have been nominated.  The first statement in partially true, and the second statement is true.  Erin Brockovich was directed by a double nominee for Best Director that year, Steven Soderbergh.

Steven Soderbergh was a king of the indie scene in the mid 80's/early 90's.  His most acclaimed film during this time period was the film was the 1989 film sex, lies, and videotape.  Videotape was an audacious look at the world of sex, voyeurism, and fetish, and was one of the best films of that year.  Soderbergh's next big film did not come until about ten years later in 1998, and it was called Out of Sight.  Sight was the first pairing with Clooney and Soderbergh.  Soderbergh and Clooney would go on to work with each other in the Ocean's movies.  2000 has and will be known as the year of Soderbergh; he accomplished a tremendous feat, he was nominated for Best Director for two different films in one year.  The first film was Erinc Brockovich, and the second his vastly superior Traffic.  Soderbergh ended up not splitting the votes and won for Traffic.  After 2000 Soderbergh has not been nominated for the trophy again.  While Soderbergh saw financial success with the three Ocean's films his films have received poor to middling reception since.  I am most excited for the film he has coming out this summer about a bunch of male strippers called Magic Mike.

Back to 2000 though and year of some big hits and misses.  The Best Picture nominees for this year were Chocolat, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Erin Brockovich, Gladiator, and Traffic.  While I enjoy and respect Erin Brockovich, the story of the women who helps a town put together a law suit against big bad corporate America, I would not have nominated it for Best Picture that year.  The film is solid, and Roberts gives one of the performances of her career.  After watching this film this morning I can say with good authority that Julia Roberts and Albert Finney have amazing chemistry and provide two of the best acting performances for the year.  Roberts is not just playing herself as she often does; she actually has some acting chops in this film.  Finney is just plain great as he usually is in everything he does.

Of the the other nominees the two that belong here without question are Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, and Traffic.  These two films are film are some of the best work I have seen.  Chocolat had America and Hollywood with its charm, but charm fades, and this movie fades away to become one of the many forgettable Best Picture nominees.  While I respect many things about Gladiator, I must say this film (which won Best Picture) felt the same as many other prior Best Picture winners, including Ben-Hur, and Braveheart. So what was the Academy missing?

Cameron Crowe's Almost Famous is a sharp poignant, witty tale about a young boy who wants to be a writer, loves music and goes on tour with a band for Rolling Stone.  Crowe used his own life experiences to create the characters, which shows that there is so much heart.  2000 was the year of the movies about drugs.  Darren Aronofsky's film Requiem for a Dream is a dark talk about use and abuse of a variety of different drugs from diet pills to cocaine.  This film is one of the most haunting films I have ever seen.  Requiem garnered a nomination for its star Ellen Burstyn, but was snubbed across the board for its dark tone.  What gets the fifth spot?    There is Curtis Hanson's Wonderboys, about drug addict college professor.  Kenneth Lonnergan's You Can Count on Me, which is about a dysfunctional brother and sister.  Mike Leigh's Topsy-Turvy about a failed play by Gilbert and Sullivan.  Then there is always the great mockumentary Best in Show by Christopher Guest, which makes fun of the world of dog shows.  Of this list I would have to pick Wonderboys.

My 2000 Best Picture nominations would be as follows:
Almost Famous, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Requiem for a Dream, Traffic, and Wonderboys

While I love Erin Brockovich and the message behind the film, it would not have made it into my top five of the year.  With one week until the Academy Awards I will be retiring this until next year when I will look at the Best Actress category.  In one week we will be adding a new winner to the Best Picture crowd, and we will see how The Artist stands the test of time.