Being There ***
Hal Ashby, 1979
US
@ Northwest Film Forum

Nice to come back at the end to the only Hal Ashby film I'd seen previously. Certainly the social critique is constant throughout his seventies work, as well as a kind of indirect critique of the rich. Other than The Landlord, he rarely lampoons them directly, but rather suggest subtly ways in which those with money tend either not to deserve or not to understand exactly what their wealth means, most perfectly typified by the scene in Bound for Glory when Woody leaves the rich woman's house after letting her know how he feels about her contribution to society. He also loves an empty-headed protagonist.

From IMDb: "Shirley MacLaine's masturbation scene was shot seventeen times."

The misguided attempt at interpreting the final scene by geeks on the internet (see Wikipedia, for example) reminds me of reactions after watching Mulholland Drive in college. I fail to understand what real reward there is in trying to piece together a puzzling plot that may have had holes at the time of shooting or never even existed in a coherent form, or trying to read further and further into the actions of the characters in order to understand... what exactly? The secret of life is not to be found in such a place, and insisting on closure from a film seems not only unfair, but foolish when there's so much beauty and humor to be appreciated outside of that insane detective work and so little to gain from it.

Note: I later found this quote from Manny Farber in a blog post by Girish.

I don't see how or why anyone should be expected to get the meaning of an event in a movie or a painting. That's a place where criticism goes wrong: it keeps trying for a complete solution. I think the point of criticism is to build up the mystery. And the point is to find movies which have a lot of puzzle in them.

See also: IMDb | Girish's 10 Reasons Why He Likes Manny Farber

Bound for Glory **
Hal Ashby, 1976
US
@ Northwest Film Forum

This was almost certainly the worst projection I've ever witnessed at NW Film Forum. The fact that this seems outrageous merely goes to show that generally the projection is very good, especially for a non-profit cinematheque.

I made a few possibly useful connections during the film. Last December I was appalled by Ann Powers' suggestion that there is a connection between a supposed decrease in political activism and the omnipresent iPod. Then tonight as I was stirred by Hal Ashby and David Carradine's depiction of Woody Guthrie's powerful humanitarian urges in the face of oppression both soft and very hard, I recalled a poster in the MVS house featuring Woody Guthrie's statement on songwriting. (It starts "I hate a song that makes...") and my initial reaction to it, which was that it sounds kind of manipulative and pandering. Against the backdrop of this film, though, it sounds fiercely determined and utterly admirable.

Of course I was reminded of David Foster Wallace's essay, "E Unibus Pluram," which you can probably find somewhere online but I can't right now. Generally it's about how television and the pop culture associated with it has made us all into irony-loving cynics who refuse to appear to be surprised at anything. Mostly he's trying to figure out a way to move forward in a culture that won't accept anything new, because that would require genuine intention and effort, which doesn't sound appropriate any longer. Parts of it are outdated, and it's true in some senses, not in others, but on the whole I think it shows precisely why I can't understand what Woody Guthrie is saying on that poster, that he's speaking in a mode that now sounds outlandish for a popular musician. The question is whether forthright exploration of important social issues is simply impossible via that route, or if perhaps there are other, more subtle but semantically accurate ways of broaching the same topics.

So, if you or someone you know figures out a way to couch advocacy of communitarian/socialist/humanist values in generationally and culturally appropriate terminology, let me know. I'm guessing that might be more useful than telling people not to listen to their iPods.

See also: IMDb

Shampoo **
Hal Ashby, 1975
US
@ Northwest Film Forum

Warren Beatty is awesomely vacant here. He's so completely blank and baffled all the time, even though he's essentially the leading man. Wealth is once again a factor here, since Beatty's character is eventually abandoned because he's not yet a breadwinner. Soundtrack was great.

See also: IMDb

The Last Detail ***
Hal Ashby, 1973
US
@ Northwest Film Forum

Jack Nicholson and Randy Quaid make a terrific odd couple. More digging beneath surfaces, this time manlier men than he's shown elsewhere. The humor is a little bit more desperate and raw, and no wealthy people appear.

See also: IMDb

Harold & Maude **
Hal Ashby, 1971
US
@ Northwest Film Forum

Vivian Pickles' overbearing mother is probably my favorite thing here, although Maude's notoriously shaped statue/sculpture in the middle of her house is right up there. In some ways, particularly the opening scene, this reminded me of The Ruling Class, made around the same time in Britain, but this is certainly a lighter film. The uncle appears to be a castoff from Dr. Strangelove. It was interesting to watch this keeping Rushmore in mind, cf. Jason Schwartzman's comments on Bud Cort as Harold in GOOD Magazine.

See also: IMDb | Piece on Hal Ashby

The Landlord ***
Hal Ashby, 1970
US
@ Northwest Film Forum

I feel like these days when we bother to broach the subjects of race and class we have very well-defined things we're allowed to say and specific ways in which we say them. You can basically presume what you're going to "learn" from an issue movie before you even see it.

While it's also hilarious, this film feels a bit dangerous by today's standards, mostly in terms of content but also in terms of form at some points, maybe because there hadn't been such a long tradition of "well-made" films dealing the integration, at least in which the writer could use actual terminology and not just beat around the bush whilst assuming the audience would be on the same page.

See also: IMDb | J. Hoberman review