come anticipate "i heart huckabees" with me

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox_searchlight/i_heart_huckabees/

-- @d@ml (nordicskilla@hotmail.com), February

What has Lily Tomlin done lately, anyway? She was so good in Flirting with Disaster, too.

(I'm the only person here who thinks that this is funny. Just move along to the next post.)

It's weird, it came out at exactly the same time as Big, and I think I had to choose which one I wanted my parents to take me to.

....or not.

OTM. Edelstein's Slate review was very similar to Denby's review that I linked above -- both seem to suggest that it's a highly ambitious, incredibly weird, would-be masterpiece if only it hadn't gone awry somewhere along the line, and it falls hard simply because it shoots so high.

everything else was good.

maybe this arises from the fact that the movie DOES attempt to provide a pretty clear answer to the problem--im not sure any answer would be ultimately satisfying.

IHH was fantastic - my favorite film of the year, and one of the best comedies of the decade.

Of course, it helps if you have a deep background in the oppositonal but _not_ contradictory dual ways of looking at the "world," in Eastern philopshy whether it's TS: Hindu Advaita "One Substance," (- and no, the Blanket analogy is not new, but others use the Ocean more often) vs. Zen Buddhist "shunya," or simply a matter of extreme ends of the same cosmological pole, of Realitty being illusory.

Adding in the social satire aginst an evil, ubiquitous Target-like store (Huckabees) and the vicious black comedic elements re: the perniciousness of Hollywood lookism (but Watts was a bit too surface and lacking in the required ironic bite) as simple icing on top, and you get perhaps the most ambitious American film in YEARS...but I'm almost certain the Valley girls sitting in the row ahead of us hated it as much as we thought they did, as their constant leaning back and forth in the incessant "now i'm going to slouch THIS MOVIE IS BORING WHAT ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT NOTHINGNESS??" cycles indicated

panspermia (cointoss50@yahoo.com)

Date: 6 October 2004
Summary: Great Movie for Thinking Adolescents
Look at the IMDb User Ratings by Age. I looked and found exactly what I expected: the Over-45 group panned the movie, and it increased in popularity as the age of the reviewer declined.

It's wacky and philosophical, but with the depth of a college freshman bull session. So if you're still at the age where it's *exciting* to have thoughts like "What if we're all really just characters in someone else's dream," then this is a great movie for you.

OTOH, if you're a totally non-thinking adolescent, then there aren't enough chase scenes or gross jokes. Or you would be put off by its unconventionality.

I'd have liked this movie when I was 17. But I'm over 45.

I almost LIKE the fact that half the brain-dead reviewers didn't like it though - after all DOGVILLE also got panned by half the American Critic Brigade,...both of these films scored a 51 or 52 on metacritic. It almost validates the films MORE for me, considering the state of Ebertism these days.... but it's a shame that some writers that I really admire, like Ms. Zacharek and Mr. Edelstein wrote it off. For what it was trying to do f incorporating only the most complex philosophical concepts into a comedic narrative (and civilizationally foreign and alien ones at that - Mr. Russell also discuss why he prefers easterrn phil to Western), I think it aimed really high and hit the mark more often than not.

uh

Well...not that complex. I liked this movie a great deal, and I have lots of admiration for Russell. But it's not like the actual ideas underlying the narrative are all that deep. It was a Cliff's Notes version of a freshman existentialism class (I know this because I took a freshman existentialism class). Which is still plenty philosophical by American cinematic standards, and maybe all the philosophy you could really load onto a screwball comedy.

But yeah, the critical response to this baffles me, acting like it's from another planet or something. Like Woody Allen didn't explore all this territory for laughs all the way through the '70s.

In the movie, Russell is kind of pitting cartoon Sartreism vs. cartoon Zen, and he distorts both of them -- Sartre's not really as fatalistic as Isabelle Huppert's character makes out, and Zen is nowhere near as touchy-feely as the Tomlin-Hoffman characters make it seem (everything being connected is postulated as a value-neutral concept -- it's just the way things are -- not as some kind of hopeful redemption).

However, can we _pleeease_ end the use of "college freshman" as a belittling adjective or even pejorative whenever we want to dismiss something with pretensions of profundity as being amateurish, please?! Talk about overkill; that IMDB post was quite representative in its trite dismissals, since nearly every negative review of this film on there has to inject the phrase in there, almost by default. Are we forgetting that one genius-girl on Oprah was already conducting symphonies by the time she was a college freshman at the age of 15 or something ?

Ned I'm going to see that film dangerously soon myself, so I dunno what you mean

_SPOILER ALERT_ Perhaps more resonant than the almost facetious, philosophical playing around, but the way IHH is yet another serious dig at American consumer culture, following a tradition of films from the late 90s that have also mined this particular vein of dissatisfaction, from "American Beauty" to "Fight Club" (okay, maybe post 9/11 all that self-criticism sharply ended ? and no, I don't think "Lost in Translation" qualifiied as some I believe tried to include it in this genre). The film's handling of its own thesis question, "when am I NOT myself," was somewhat answered in the Jude Law character's eventual revelations: his job, his status, his wife, his house, his personality/celebrity-story, none of these truly defined his identity, which was both built with and around the spoils of American consumption. An admirable feat of Russell's writing however was to tie this satirical bent into trendy environmentalism: whereas "Fight Club" 's Ikea is an avaricious corporate entity, demanding evrything in Jack's apt be purchased from its stylized shelves, Russell's Target-like Huckabees is even more insiduous since it simuntaneously co-opts the socially aware, save-the-marsh movement, turning it into a parody of itself and reminding us that the corporate interest in such matters usually turn out to be nothing more than a hollow, self-congratulatory pat on the back for increased publicity and little else. Schwartman may have "started the coalition" but he can't even get into its meetings any longer; Law was the championing face of it, but when his image changed due to an identity crisis, he is no longer welcome to the publicity-event that he helped materialize. Russell is admirably vicious here, and more often than not seems to hit all his subtle Targets when most others wouldn't even dare (one of the best scenes being the dinner table exchange at "the African's" adopted house, where Wahlberg finally gets to assert that Post 9/11 a firefighter =! "hero").

I was just teasing! As in 'what is the current film most opposite to this one, from the sound of it.'

One of the funniest moments in the Q&A (aside from the constant dissing of the obnoxious mod) was when after this one guy raised his hand and went on this hyperbolic tirade of how THIS MOVIE IS PHENOMENAL IT''S GOING TO CHANGE SOCIETY FOREVER, Russell got up off the stage, said he wants to sit on the guy's lap, went up to him in the audience and after giving him a free dvd said he should be working for him at 20th Cent Fox. He then just sat in the audience and refused to go back upto the stage since the moderator was just so annoying, and fielded his questions from there.

Mark Wahlberg was fucking awesome.

I can't wait to get the DVD.

BUT, the commercial Naomi Watts makes after having her breakdown when she wears the bonnet and lays on the floor face-down was probably the funniest scene I've seen in a movie in a long, long time.

OK. But what if we actually took a freshman existentialism class? Which I actually loved -- it was a good class -- but my point was that there was nothing raised in the movie that in any way went "deeper" than the level of discussion in that class.

And yeah, I loved Naomi Watts. I somehow manage to keep getting surprised by her. She and Wahlberg were actually my favorites in the movie.

I disliked the crowded scenes most of all - the Save the Forest meetings and the Christian-family dinner were way too shrill (but the latter had redeeming qualities). I wish Russell didn't beat you over the head with the YOU TWO WORK TOGETHER!!! stuff, maybe just one shot near the end of the three standing together.

Even though I liked it a lot, I can't help but feel that it was too disjointed and unfocused. The time frames throughout make no sense, the alterations in Naomi Watts character are off (who decides to be 'pretty' again, shows up at the meeting where Jude Law pukes, then is in a peasant dress at the burning home almost immediately). I bet a four-hour director's cut would kick some serious ass, but he should have streamlined it a little for the 100-minute cut.

crazy pills!

it is funny!

razor-sharp insight.

I didn't expect much, but it was a funny movie and jason schwartzman was a lot less annoying than he could've been and MARK WAHLBERG SHOULD'VE BEEN IN EVERY SCENE, FUCK. jude law's american accent drove me fucking batshit though.

i don't like shoehorning russell in with the kaufman/anderson camp because, well, i hate them. He misses his mark frequently, but he is an exquisitely good writer of dialogue, without most of the self-hating or treacly baggage of kaufman & anderson.

i heart huckabees = good
eulogy = bad
ray romano = best part
rip torn = what are you doing with yourself?

there, that oughta do it.

still think rushmore is (by far) the best so far.
Tenenbaums left me cold, I was very excited but really disappointed and I cannot understand any of the love for Bottle Rocket. Bored to tears throughout (can't remember if i even finished it)

I loved it. Love love loved it. I didn't expect I would, had very low hopes in fact. I should have been reassured by how good I remember 'Three Kings' being. Though of course (... well...) I'm not at all sure what any of it meant or at all what it means. It put me in mind of an idea I came across recently in an interview with Richard Rorty. "Indeed, Rorty cautions that while the desire to craft a new final vocabulary which redescribes the world apart from the language games one inherited is a central activity of ironist self-creation, it is also one which is largely irrelevant to public life." Which is kinda modified off-the-peg epistemology, as I understand it, and so was a large part of Huckabees, but that's not the interesting part! because it's the boring part! It's maybe an old idea now (1989) but a while normally has to elapse for them to take: "nothing can serve as a criticism of a final vocabulary save another such vocabulary; there is no answer to a re-description save a re-re-description." Which is the fancypants philosopher's way of saying iterations in critical vocabulary are needed to take us closer to some ideal or take us off the path leading to a wonky ideal onto a new path. (Dude hates a Marxist.) Which is again all fancyschmancy lawyer talk maybe (well it's where I learned it) and probably goes nowhere to explaining exactly why I loved it, but maybe this does - .

I've found recently that things which can effect in me a certain state-of-mind, a heightened sensitivity, a generalised intensity of feeling and appreciation, are the things I most covet. On the bus home I read that silly old poem of Yeats' about the falconer and the falcon and found it was absolutely terrifying. I mean, yeah I knew before it was scary but this time it actually quickened my breath! Also, things (films, books, paintings, people) which affect an uncertain blanket happiness and ability to empathise (I have a low, low empathy quotient usually) I'm being drawn to; it may be pure fetish, or some amiable nostalgia for me younger selves' ability for understanding (not pity), empathy (not sympathy) but I grasp it all the same, simultaneously wary.

When i say "I was prepared to hate it" (and it is an awful sentiment!) it's hardly unexpected and i mean that with films like "Huckabees" being bracketed with your "Tenenbaums" et al you have certain expectations. I can't think of any other reason for "tenenbaums" to exist other than to make people feel pleased with themselves for the wrong reason. It's depressing.

Also here's something that made me laugh recently - its the closing sentences of the Barthelme story "The Party" (about a man at a party!)

"Is it really so important to know that this movie is fine, and that one terrible, and to talk intelligently about the difference? Wonderful elegance! No good at all!"

Strong words, Jerry! Really? i mean, really, THE worst film? In FIVE years? C'mon, it's kinda fun, no?

"Passive aggressive"..."Aggressive aggressive"...Hoffman & Tomlin on top form, Schwartzman the rudderless hub, Wahlberg beating the shit out of anything he's touched before...the body-bag...stupid mud sex...pseudo-philosophy pointing out the Real Truth that it's all bunk anyway..."Fuckabees!"...

this had the obvious kaufman involution and the anderson cuteness, but the humour was harsher, to my mind funnier than anderson if not kaufman. there's always the tug of the real -- oil wars, corporate land-rape -- here which you don't get so much in the others.

i thought the uplifting ending must have been some kind of joke too, coming out of nowhere the way it did. i felt cheated. i did!

i find it to be as accessible as any of the other ways (camus, sartre, voltaire, kafka, whatever) by which someone young (12-17) might have a really good time entering the world of those kinds of philosophical ideas.

the fact that it mixed in so much slapstick, and had this incredible levity to it only made it that much more fantastic to me. the only movie i liked more than this in '04 was "Birth"... now there's a film that polarizes audiences...

anyway, i probably would have liked it if it had made me laugh, which it didn't, apart from the mud sex, and the family dinner scene.

x-post

But it was done in such a cack-handed, being-sincere-but-only-kidding, mock-emotional way. Irony is so overrated.

I thought the film was incredibly uninvolving and thus seriously irritating and to compare it to the work of Charlie Kaufman is way off the mark. CK's work, such as 'Adaptation', says a million times more about the human condition than nonsense like Huckabees, which shouts its 'philosophical' credentials at you and proceeds to say very little at all.

Why not? Kaufman doesn't resort to that 'only-kidding' irony that I saw throughout Huckabees. I don't even know if irony is the right word. Schoolboyish might be more apt, in its approach to its weightier themes.

another thing - I laughed the first time at Hoffman and Tomlin appearing in the bushes, but it quickly got very tiresome. the unfunniest, most unengaging comedy I've seen in a long time.

the philosophy was weak, but everything else was great
Indeed, although I wonder if the philosophy was intentional to make it echo/mirror those of "counter-culture" Palahniuk-adoring bourgeois American teenagers. It reminds me of so many things my supposedly/assumed to be more (for want of a more appropriate word and not meant in mockery) "intellectual" peers (the sort who feel that Garden State and Fight Club have changed their life) would espouse and in that aspect it made me cringe a bit because I recognised people I know in some of the characters, although that realization amuses me without question.

This doesn't surprise me at all. "Why does this movie continue to exist" was the main philosophical problem I had during most of its running time. The answer came back again and again: "Mark Wahlberg." He was like James Dean in Giant, dropped into the movie from another planet where they have good acting.

I actually thought the movie was great, and held its tone, right until the first scene with Dustin Hoffman, which I think comes about 10 minutes in.

also, can I again, talk about the commercial with Watts wearing the bonnett when she lays on the floor? the film is worth it for this scene alone.

(* - except I don't read threads about films I haven't yet seen and it wasn't my choice to rent it).

I am strongly PRO, btw. Aggressively so.

DOR is clearly bananas, judging by that September NY Times piece: grabbing the actors' asses and genitals, calling Lily Tomlin a cunt on the set, etc.

Vic, last Oct:

>whereas "Fight Club" 's Ikea is an avaricious corporate entity, demanding evrything in Jack's apt be purchased from its stylized shelves, Russell's Target-like Huckabees is even more insiduous since it simuntaneously co-opts the socially aware, save-the-marsh movement, turning it into a parody of itself...<

But the ultimate danger in FC is Tyler Durden, who after he liberates the "Ikea Boys" offers them nothing but a different kind of imprisonment (in a shitty house, no less).

>apparently wahlberg is some kind of jesus-freak.<

Or maybe just a Christian, if you don't wanna be a dick.

I still think this is a great film, despite not seeing it again since that screening

Generally OK to good - not terrific but not a waste of time either. If anything, it seemed like a pastiche of early 70s Apparently Deep And Meaningful ensemble movies that shotgun-blast crackpop philosophy at you in the hopes that something will connect. Everyone OTM with Walberg, "Word!" and the lunch scene, but I suspect that a second viewing would be annoying as hell.

LOS ANGELES

DAVID O. RUSSELL had developed something of a reputation. The screenwriter and director of "Flirting With Disaster" and "Three Kings" had become known for smart, wildly original movies, and for attracting top actors despite relatively modest budgets. But he was also known for alienating some of those actors while shooting (most notoriously when he and George Clooney ended up in a fistfight on the set of "Three Kings.") For his next movie, "I [heart] Huckabees," Mr. Russell was determined to chart a happier course.

This seemed fitting, since one of the movie's themes would be the very possibility of human happiness. Billed as an "existential comedy," "Huckabees," which had its debut at the Toronto International Film Festival last week and opens on Oct. 1, may be one of the oddest Hollywood releases in recent memory: a jumbled, antic exploration of existential and Buddhist philosophy that also involves tree-hugging, African immigrants and Shania Twain.

The shoot, Mr. Russell decided, wouldn't be a typical Hollywood affair. It would be an intimate, personal experience for a handful of actors otherwise accustomed to populating magazine covers and award ceremonies. Both the movie and the set would be extensions of Mr. Russell's own uncensored, often unpredictable personality, and an opportunity for him to explore profound spiritual questions that have preoccupied him for years. (Indeed, the original idea for the movie was based on Buddhist theories Mr. Russell first learned in college from Robert Thurman, Uma Thurman's father.) "The whole thing is an existential meditation," Mr. Russell explained in one of several interviews through the making of the film. But the experience turned out to be no blissed-out meditation session. To get the performances he was after, Mr. Russell did all he could to raise the level of tension on set, unapologetically goading, shocking and teasing his actors. Sometimes these techniques prompted reactions that were less than photogenic. And in perhaps the most un-Hollywood move of all, Mr. Russell allowed a reporter to watch.

April, 2003: The Headlock

From the beginning, Mr. Russell knew exactly what he wanted to create with "I [heart] Huckabees." The trouble was, few others were able to grasp what that was. Many who read the script said they could not understand it, and several studios -- Sony, Paramount, Warner Brothers, Fox, all led by people who say they are fans of Mr. Russell's -- turned it down. (Later, some of the actors who went on to star in the film said that the script had never made sense to them; they simply trusted Mr. Russell's vision). But now the seasoned producer Scott Rudin has joined the project, the mini-studio Fox Searchlight has signed on and a British financier named Michael Kuhn has agreed to finance it for $18 million. So the movie is, at last, in preproduction.

Better yet, some of the biggest actors are involved. Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow have signed on to play eager-to-succeed employees at a department store chain called Huckabees. Mark Wahlberg will play a firefighter traumatized by 9/11, while Jason Schwartzman will be a frustrated young environmental activist. Each of these characters suffers from some form of spiritual malaise and will hire Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin, a pair of "existential detectives," to investigate. Isabelle Huppert will play the detectives' glamorous French nemesis, a mysterious force for chaos who equates life with pain and suffering.

Except that the cast is falling apart. Gwyneth Paltrow drops out because, Mr. Russell says, she still hasn't dealt with the death of her father. Nicole Kidman expresses interest, but can't get out of "The Stepford Wives." Jennifer Aniston becomes and then unbecomes a possibility. Naomi Watts, Mr. Russell's original choice, frees herself from scheduling problems and after some brief drama -- she and Ms. Kidman are close friends -- is finally cast.

And then Jude Law quits (the explanation Mr. Russell hears is that he needs to make a big-budget movie because of an impending divorce settlement; Mr. Law's representatives deny that money was a factor). Mr. Russell is devastated: instead of doing his movie, Mr. Law has decided to take a role offered by Christopher Nolan ("Memento").

At a Hollywood party, Mr. Russell, a lean, muscular 46-year-old with dark, lanky hair, runs into Mr. Nolan and -- in full view of the party guests -- puts him in a headlock. Wrapping his arm around Mr. Nolan's neck, Mr. Russell demands that his fellow director show artistic solidarity and give up his star in order to save "Huckabees." (In the meantime, Mr. Russell has met with Jim Carrey as a possible replacement.) The next day Mr. Law calls Mr. Russell from a boat while crossing the Atlantic and discusses his "Huckabees" role at length, never mentioning Mr. Nolan or his project. The headlock story makes the rounds in Hollywood.

July 9, 2003: Almost Naked Lunch

Filming has begun, and on a suburban street in the Woodland Hills section of the San Fernando Valley the "Huckabees" operation has taken over a simple split-level house with rounded shrubs in the front. A tent has been set up in the front yard for video monitors and director's chairs.

But Mr. Russell is almost never in the usual director's position behind the monitor. Giddy and childlike, he rolls on the ground, dances, does push-ups and shouts at the actors with a megaphone. "I never want it to end," he whispers. Mr. Russell starts the day wearing a suit, but it's slowly coming off: first the jacket, then the shirt. Also, he keeps rubbing his body up against the women and men on the set -- actors, friends, visitors.

Perhaps Mr. Russell is trying to free his actors to be as outrageous or ridiculous as he is. The script will require the actors to risk embarrassing themselves thoroughly: Isabelle Huppert is to perform a sex scene while covered in mud, Mark Wahlberg must repeatedly punch himself in the face, Jude Law will vomit into his own hands and Naomi Watts will essentially be driven crazy by her own physical beauty.

The scene at hand is a climactic moment in Mr. Law's character's breakdown, requiring the actor to cry and tear at his clothes. After several takes in which Mr. Law says the lines he has memorized, Mr. Russell is now yelling at him with new lines, even as the camera rolls. Mr. Law, exhausted, finally ad-libs a string of expletives, shrieking and beating his fists into the grass. "I am lost in the wilderness!" he cries. In character (or maybe not), Mr. Hoffman and Ms. Tomlin look on in pained sympathy.

Mr. Russell shouts: "Eeeeee! Eeeee! Keep rolling!"

Mr. Hoffman: "We're rolling. What's 'Eeeeee'?" There is no response, but Mr. Law keeps emoting.

On the next take, Mr. Russell lies on the ground, just behind Lily Tomlin, but out of view of the camera. Perhaps he's trying to add to her feeling of unease in the scene. "Most likely he was looking up my skirt," she deadpans while watching the playback a few minutes later.

It seems impossible that a film set could feel any less formal -- but come lunchtime, it does. Mr. Russell sheds the rest of his clothing, leaving only his boxers, and starts to exercise -- first jumping rope, then sparring with his personal trainer, right on the sidewalk of the suburban street. Many of the actors and crew join in. They, however, keep their clothes on.

July 24, 2003: The Car Trip

It is a hot, tense day in a dried-up marsh near Los Angeles International Airport. The shoot is nearing its end. Mr. Hoffman, Ms. Tomlin, Ms. Huppert, Mr. Wahlberg and Ms. Watts (devoid of make-up and wearing an Amish bonnet) are all crowded into an old Chevrolet for the critical scene in which they will articulate the movie's themes: how everything in the universe is connected, and how sadness is an inevitable part of life. In an essential bit of back story, Ms. Huppert will explain how she became a pessimist because of a failed love triangle with Ms. Tomlin and Mr. Hoffman.

The actors do take after take in the crowded car, with Mr. Russell, as is his habit, constantly throwing new lines at them from a few feet away. The dialogue is poignant and bizarre at the same time, and the scene culminates with Mr. Hoffman and Ms. Tomlin weeping simultaneously and loudly.
While the cameras roll, Mr. Russell berates the actors: "Where's the [expletive] reaction?" he swears at Mr. Hoffman.

The actors look tired. As he has throughout the shoot, Mr. Russell is touching them -- a lot, and sometimes in private places. At one point, Mr. Wahlberg grabs the director's megaphone, shouting: "This man just grabbed my genitals! It is my first man-on-man contact!" At other times, the director whispers into the actresses' ears -- lewdly, they later say -- before a take.

So far, the actors have been remarkably tolerant of Mr. Russell's mischief. As Ms. Huppert later observed in a phone interview, the actors knew Mr. Russell was intentionally trying to destabilize them for the sake of their performances. "He is fascinating, completely brilliant, intelligent and very annoying sometimes, too," she said. They also know he has created superb films from chaotic-seeming sets before. Besides, he's the director and the writer; now that they've cast their lot with him, they really don't have a choice.

But on what is meant to be the last take of the day, Ms. Tomlin, who recently ended an exhausting run of her one-woman play, collapses into Mr. Hoffman's arms crying and doesn't stop. As he embraces her, the wails grow louder and louder, and finally it becomes clear that she is not in character. After long moments, Ms. Tomlin breaks the tension by shouting at Mr. Hoffman: "You're driving a hairpin into my head!" Everyone collapses in laughter and the take is trashed.

But the drama is not over. The car scene takes several more hours to shoot, and as the sun fades, the accumulated tension erupts. Ms. Tomlin begins shouting at Mr. Russell: she is unhappy with the way she looks. She wants to try the scene a different way. She taunts him with a few expletives and curses at the other actors too. Their patience worn, the other actors laugh at her outburst.

Later, unfolding himself from the back seat of the Chevrolet, Mark Wahlberg jokes that his next project will be a nice, easy action film.

July 31, 2003: Candid Camera

The production has moved from the dried-up swamp to the set of the detectives' office. It is hot and cramped, and the hour is getting late. To pass the time while a shot is set up, Mr. Russell treats the crew to a description of a baby passing through the birth canal.

And then Ms. Tomlin is berating Mr. Russell again.

This time, the director turns on her angrily, calling her the crudest word imaginable, in front of the actors and crew. He shrieks: "I wrote this role for you! I fought for you!" Mr. Russell ends his tirade by sweeping his arm across a nearby table cluttered with production paraphernalia. He storms off the set and back on again, continually shouting. Then he locks himself in his office, refusing to return. After an uncomfortable, set-wide pause, Ms. Tomlin goes in to apologize, and Mr. Russell returns to the shoot.

Unbeknownst to both of them, a member of the crew has videotaped his tirade. The recording makes its way around the Hollywood talent agencies. Asked about the incident later, Mr. Russell says: "Sure, I wish I hadn't done that. But Lily and I are fine." For her part, Ms. Tomlin admits that both she and Mr. Russell lost control. "It's not a practice on his part or my part," she says. "I'd rather have someone human and available and raw and open. Don't give me someone cold, or cut off, or someone who considers themselves dignified."

This must be the Zen part.

Sept. 4, 2003: Roller-Coaster Party

The shoot finished earlier in the day, at 3:15 a.m. -- miraculously on schedule and on budget. For the wrap party on the Santa Monica Pier, the "Huckabees" production has taken over an amusement park along the Pacific, where Dustin Hoffman is chatting with his old pal, the producer Robert Evans, flanked by a couple of towering women whose assets spill out of their halter tops.

Mr. Russell is wandering around the pier in a grey suit and blue pinstripe shirt, unbuttoned, with a blinking red heart-necklace slung around his neck. Everyone else is playing arcade games and riding the roller coaster under a gentle black September sky. But the director seems to be in a kind of dazed dream state, and has been that way for about a week, he says. Usually, he says, ending a film brings a mixture of sadness and relief, but this time it's only sadness. He seems to be mourning the end of the free-wheeling universe of the "Huckabees" set; now he has to retreat to the solitude of an editing room to figure out exactly what his movie is. "I told you," he tells a visitor, as if wondering how one could forget something he'd said in passing two months earlier. "This was the happiest experience of my life."

But there are murmurings of confusion as to how the movie will turn out, even among actors who trust Mr. Russell. "I hope he has all the pieces," observes Talia Shire, leaving the party with her son, Jason Schwartzman.

July 26, 2004: Reality Check

It is a balmy night on the lot of Twentieth Century Fox and the Little Fox theater is packed with leading members of the cast, some crew, several agents, friends. Dustin Hoffman and his wife and children and their friends have come; so has a still golden-haired Jude Law and his parents. The theater hums with anticipation: it is Mr. Russell's first film in five years; he's locked himself in the editing room for an unusually long time; and though almost no one has yet seen the film, it is already being mentioned as a nominee for a best picture Oscar.

A half-hour late, Mr. Russell walks to the front of the theater wearing a blue suit, a red and white striped shirt and sneakers. Compared to the manic exuberance he displayed on set, he seems relatively subdued. "Wake up, it's a comedy," he announces, even though his audience of insiders presumably knows as much. "We're going to have an amphetamine mist," he tells the crowd, playing with a strand of hair.

No one -- even those involved with the film -- knows quite what to expect from it. What they see is a movie that is, well, dense. Emotionally dense, and intellectually so; jammed with ideas both profound and prosaic, thick with rapid-fire dialogue about human beings and the use of petroleum. But it's not quite the movie they shot. A few major scenes -- like the one in the car, which was supposed to explain the entire movie -- have been cut. As people file out of the theater, trying to find the words to describe the movie, executives from Fox Searchlight eagerly cull reactions. Does the movie play? Do the pieces fit? But it's hard to gauge the mood. Several audience members say they can't even decide if they liked the film or not.

Claudia Lewis, a production executive who has been a staunch proponent of the film, is hopeful and nervous. "We are working on some original marketing ideas," she says. She and her colleagues know that this movie is not an easy sell.

It's not clear if Mr. Russell is picking up on the uncertainty in the air. A few days later, he sends a euphoric e-mail message about the screening. His words are rhapsodic and earnest; he seems to be channeling the same energy with which he directed the movie: "It was such a swell night. Such good vibes in the air. I especially liked those who said the film affected them like a trippy reality drug."

In fact, for a moment, Mr. Russell seems as if he's never left the set.

man this sucks

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/07/industry_roundup_57.html

watched this last night, sooo 2004 ("gas guzzlers," limp critque of materialism/consumerism, referring to 9/11 as "that September thing," twee existentialism, "african guy" character played for 'lol random' laughs), hadn't seen it since it opened, and yeah the best part is the cast. richard jenkins not credited for some reason? i read this whole thread just now, really interesting to see how culture moves and opinions change, because this is absolutely something that 2018 ilx would hate on mercilessly. some of the replies upthread are just insane. but it's a fine movie supported almost entirely by the cast (naomi watts is so great, i saw her character as a riff on her dual identity in Mulholland Dr., and we get to see both sides here too, the wide-eyed optimism and the uncouth rage). mark wahlberg was v funny but it's baffling to read upthread about how he was, like, "the best actor ever." jon brion's score is the best. "knock yourself out" is a real earworm.

everything I said is still otm except lol @ "can't wait for the DVD!"

not sure ilx wd hate on this more than the hit-seeking crap DOR has turned out since

it reeks of faux-deep, "DO YOU SEE??" type stuff that was all over the place in the late 90s and early 00s: american beauty, fight club, garden state, eternal sunshine (the only good movie among those four).

and yeah morbs, i was thinking of David O. Russell's total about face after I Heart Huckabees. iirc the next movie he made was The Fighter six years later. i guess he took the "better to succeed at something easy" route embodied in this movie by Jude Law's character (who was great btw, frequently hilarious, very good American accent). The Fighter, Silver Linings Playbook, American Hustle, Joy... all awful. though SLP is particularly bad, definitely one of the worst of the decade.

flappy i think Fight Club and IHH are much funnier than you give them credit for

the fighter was an ok movie imo.

the only thing i remember about this movie is wahlberg's, very funny, role

I am curious to see this again, given how much I liked it...chriiiiiist, thirteen years ago? Really?! But, yeah, it seems like it could wind up being more precious and 'wise' than I have tolerance for in my dotage.

But seriously: thirteen years? That's bullshit, man.

they are funny, morbs. but so dated and unfortunately weighed down by what they wrought. the breathless praise for the movie upthread is a good example. IHH is a fine movie - insightful? the best comedy of the 00s? please

it reeks of faux-deep, "DO YOU SEE??" type stuff that was all over the place in the late 90s and early 00s

if you don't see how this movie is dripping with complete disdain for the faux-deep "DO YOU SEE?" shit then I can't help you

yeah this movie is annoying, idgi

xp lots of people upthread can't be helped either. and i don't think it ever makes that disdain clear, plus Russell was genuinely interested in all that existential detective bullshit. i don't think there's a disdain at all for the entry level philosophical concepts and positions represented by Tomlin/Hoffman and Huppert, quite the opposite. if anything it has a disdain for its own audience, but the joke went over almost everybody's head. and even if that were the case, it's not nearly as biting as it should be. it would slot well in a double bill with Garden State and not be read as a parody at all.

i barely made it through the movie when it came out. it was like Garden State for "adults". i remember Shania Twain was a so random celeb.

having disdain doesn't count for much imo. lampshading as insight is one of the 21st century's most tiring cliches

OK haters

So sad that DOR wound up being another Payne, dropping one or two stone classics early on and subsequently coasting on one cinematic wet fart after another.

This movie is the best and I was thinking about it this morning because of the thread about people you always see.

The Fighter is also fantastic.

The one with the art thieves was good too but I can't remember what it was called.

I will put this on the list of movies I once owned and somehow just...don't seem to own anymore and now need to rebuy.

almost always, fuck "dated"

OH WE ARE GENIUSES IN THE PRESENT

kma

yeah but "can't wait to buy the DVD!" seriously that guy, he probably still has a massive CD collection lying around somewhere

A younger infinity, who was also a stereotypical ilx user, loved this movie

I’d wager it’s too clever for its own good now

def not a future accusation against MARVEL

I liked this movie, I even own the DVD! Haven't watched it in years probably.

this was an amusing movie that absolutely did not take itself seriously.

the ignatius rock of ignorance (Dr Morbius) at 8:05 27 Apr 18

almost always, fuck "dated"

OH WE ARE GENIUSES IN THE PRESENT

kma

this is a quality take that i am enjoying.

feel like i’ve never agreed with morbs more

good movie, good cast, impressively sustained hysterical pitch, slapstick goodish if arch. prefer it to flirting w disaster tbh but i was 17 when it came out. the russell movie i'd expect to see classed with the middlebrow set of '99 is the much do-you-seeier one that actually came out in '99-- but three kings is p good too tbh.

(sry flappy you listed movies from different years but because you said american beauty and fight club i confused it with an old complaint of alfred's)

this and garden state and eternal sunshine are similar in all being about sad npr listeners from the period immediately following seth cohen repping for death cab but run either of the others first in a double feature and when you got to garden state you'd immediately be like, well this sucks. if anything it's eternal sunshine i'm leery of recommending now, because i worry the opening half-hour of jim carrey moping around agencylessly will cause people to bail before his behavior is explained, but it is a more successful movie than this one, i guess. less fun to watch tho surely.

(well i say "explained" but that's over-weighting the fantasy apparatus of the plot i guess-- what he really is at the beginning is depressed. it's rough tho.)

(carrey+winslet on the train a pretty much exact analogue for braff+portman at the hospital and tho u can write some of the difference up to structural cleverness, like the part where he doesn't know huckleberry hound, i think you have to write most of it up to casting)

anyway what huckabees is instead of (just) depressed is anxious-- this stood out and still does I think.

almost always, fuck "dated"

OH WE ARE GENIUSES IN THE PRESENT

kma

i think it's applicable (in the sense that what was once played for 'lol random' laughs is now cringeworthy) to the 'african guy' subplot in IHH. i didn't mean to suggest that references to gas guzzlers take anything away from the movie. and i liked IHH, more than i did in 2004, but i think the "WHOAAA" tone of a lot of the posts upthread are very much of their time. that's the most valuable and interesting aspect of ilx imo - i knew while i was watching IHH that i could probably find a thread on it from when it came out and read candid & informal commentary on it vs. just reading reviews or something. but it's a fine movie, and yes definitely better than Garden State. IHH has 'african guy' but it doesn't approach Garden State levels of holy shit what the fuck were they thinking. for some reason i haven't seen Eternal Sunshine since it came out, and will rewatch it soon, because in my memory that one was in a totally different league than IHH & Garden State. but that could just be my love for Synecdoche shading my memory.