Iceberg Slim: Portrait of a Pimp - 2012

"Iceberg Slim: Portrait of a Pimp" - 2012
Dir. by Jorge Hinojosa - 1 hr. 29 min.


by Clayton Hollifield

When I tried to search for "Iceberg Slim" on IMDB, it automatically took me to the page for "Ice Sculpture Christmas," instead.  Thanks, dorks.  Likewise, no dice on a trailer for this movie.  I guess I'll track down a poster or something, so forgive the lack of visual flair.  I recorded it off of TV, anyways, and just now finally got around to watching it.  I shouldn't have been in such a hurry.

So, who is Iceberg Slim, and why is there a documentary about him?  He's a legendary pimp (the real deal, not a comedy figure), mostly famous because he quit pimping after a few prison stints, and was urged to write about his experiences.  So he did, and sold a pretty large number of books (six million is the quoted number, which is a lot for the dinky publishing house he published through).  His books have famous fans like Chris Rock and Ice-T, thus this effort to share Slim's (aka Robert Beck) story.

Perhaps the question that should have been asked is why should people care about Iceberg Slim?  I suspect the entirety of that answer lies in Beck's books; I have one ("Trick Baby," but haven't read it yet), and I can buy the idea that an author is worth talking about.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of the world hasn't read Slim's works, and I didn't feel like this film got across the appeal of his work in a meaningful way.  Also working against my interest: the story is presented chronologically.  So Iceberg Slim is not presented as an author of important and interesting work, he's presented as a pimp (and let's be clear, that means that he ran prostitutes and took all of the proceeds from their work to pay for his own hair care products and general flyness) who bounces in and out of prison until that becomes too much for him, at which time he attempts to live a straight life.

I mean, that's not super-charming, right?  It's only after Slim reaches a breaking point with his day job as an exterminator that his then wife convinces him to write down some of the crazy stories he's been telling her, which are then organized and published, to some success.  Maybe there's a reason to have a romantic notion of what exactly a pimp is, and since Iceberg Slim is one of the few that people might have actually heard of, maybe it makes sense to introduce him as a pimp rather than an author.  Then again, it made me really not like the guy.  I don't have to like someone personally to enjoy their work,  But including a clip from an interview with Slim, where he's reunited with a former ho, he comes off cluelessly as to what exactly the girls were dealing with.  He asks, innocently enough, what made her go straight, and she tells him that people were assaulting and murdering prostitutes on the streets, and that was reason enough for her to get off the streets.  That doesn't seem to register with Slim at all. 

The best thing about "Iceberg Slim: Portrait of a Pimp" is that it did make me curious about reading some of his work.  What it did not do: make me want to watch this film again.  Pretty much every interviewee in the film stopped one paragraph short of giving some real insight.  They would, routinely, get up to the edge of something interesting, and then we'd move on to something else. 

2 / 5 - TV

To Be Takei - 2014

"To Be Takei" - 2014
Dir. by Jennifer M. Kroot - 1 hr. 34 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

There are a few different kinds of documentaries.  There's the "something interesting happened," the "something interesting happens," the tell-all biography, the hatchet-job biography, and then there's the ones like "To Be Takei," where it's a favorable autobiography, made with the cooperation of those involved.  The main question with films in this genre is whether or not the subject of the film is a worthy one.  If not, you have a puff-piece about someone who basically feels the need to have a puff-piece done about them.  In this case, George Takei has been in the center of a lot of interesting, historically important events, which makes this a celebration of the man.

It's difficult to imagine that you would want to see "To Be Takei" if you didn't have at least a cursory familiarity with him and his life, even if that just meant that you liked him in "Star Trek."  As it turns out, there's been a lot more to his path.  As a very young child, his family was removed from their Los Angeles home and placed in internment camps during World War II.  He knew early on that he wanted to be an actor, which would be a difficult path to travel, as there weren't many Asian actors on TV or in movies at the time.  He was also forced to cover up his sexual orientation for years, until he finally came out later in life, and was a visible face in the fight for gay marriage and equal rights, as well as having actually gotten involved in government, trying to help build public transit in Los Angeles.

"To Be Takei" really is a celebration of all the things that George Takei has accomplished during his life.  This isn't a dirt-dishing kind of movie (other than touching on his sort-of feud with William Shatner), and if you expect much of that, you'll be disappointed.  Probably the most interesting theme of the film is the disconnect between the darkness of his early life (and the discrimination he faced all along the way) and his current public image, which is mostly due to his comedic work and appearances.  When discussion a musical that Takei is part of (on the subject of the internment camps), he brings up the Japanese notion of bearing burdens without losing one's composure (there is a specific word that explains this, which I can't recall at the moment); it's clear that George Takei's entire career has been built around this notion (there's a clip from a Jerry Lewis movie that Takei was in that shows the sort of work that he was allowed to do at the beginning of his career, that serves as an excellent illustration of the point, even if the notion is never explicitly tied to Takei's work).

The biggest asset that "To Be Takei" has is Takei himself.  He's effortlessly funny, his soothing voice a welcome companion for an hour and a half.  There's a peek into his relationship with his husband, Brad, and the little things that they fight over, and, interestingly enough, how many creative people need someone to play the bad guy on their behalf.  It's an odd dynamic, but since a lot of creative work is tied to a person's likability, and it's exceedingly difficult to stay likable and negotiate for the things that one needs out of life, having a hired asshole (my words, not theirs) becomes essential.  Brad slips into that role easily in public, and much of the movie has him operating in that vein.  There are only momentary peeks behind that role, and they're invariably funny when they pop up.

On the whole, "To Be Takei" is a really enjoyable ride.  This is the sort of documentary that you're probably not going to check out if you're not already into the subject, and that's fine.  I didn't feel that the movie fell into hero worship - Takei has accomplished real things during his life that have benefited many people, and he deserves acknowledgment for that.  Beyond that, this is probably a better biography than a book would be; in a book, you'd just be imagining Takei's voice in your head.  Here, you actually get the real deal, with all the charisma and humor that you'd hope for.  So if you're favorably inclined to spending 90 minutes with George Takei, by all means, check out "To Be Takei."  If nothing else, you'll get some good laughs, and probably a couple of things that you'll want to research on Wikipedia when you're done.

3.5 / 5 - Theatre

Jodorowsky's Dune - 2013

"Jodorowsky's Dune" - 2013
Dir. by Frank Pavich - 1 hr. 30 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

In film history, some of the craziest films ever made were made in the late 1960s and 1970s.  That might even be an understatement.  What "Jodorowsky's Dune" is about is a film that was designed to be revolutionary, by a director that no one would trust with this material and the required budget to film it.  That's right, this is a movie about the movie that Hollywood collectively drew the line in front of, a grand "what could have been" that not only shares a wealth of staggeringly inventive concept art, and the storyboards that give a hint at what this version of "Dune" could have looked like, but also does it through the words of Alejandro Jodorowsky, as well as others who were involved in the development of the film.

Straight off, Jodorowsky says that his intent was to make a film that would be like the experience of taking LSD, a film that would radically alter the thought processes of the youth of the world.  After a series of successful cult films (like "El Topo" and "The Holy Mountain"), Jodorowsky decided to get ambitious.  The goal was to adapt "Dune" (well, not really adapt, as Jodorowsky explains - it was definitely going to be his version).  So he tracked down his "warriors," the development team that would turn his ideas into reality.  This included artists like Jean "Moebus" Giraud, Dan O'Bannon, Chris Foss, and H.R. Giger, which is a murderer's row, if you know anything about artists.  Jodorowsky set about lining up his cast, which included people like Salvador Dali, Mick Jagger, and Orson Welles.  And when it was time to move past concept and to start making this a reality...

There is a book featured in this movie, the book that Jodorowsky and his producer, Michel Seydoux, used to pitch this project to Hollywood studios.  This book has complete storyboards by Moebius, concept art by the various artists that contributed.  It's a hefty, thick book.  It's a book that I'd literally punch the Pope in the crotch to spend five minutes flipping through.  There are supposedly only two of them in existence.  I find it hard to believe anyone who would have even mild interest in "Dune," as made by Alejandro Jodorowsky, wouldn't love to see first hand.  But as much as that book is the totem of all of the ideas behind this project, the key to "Jodorowsky's Dune" is the lengthy interviews with Jodorowsky himself.  He's a force of nature, a natural antagonist and a deep thinker.  He's also the guy who said, "Most directors make films with their eyes, I make films with my testicles."  He's a charismatic madman, and one who gets things done.  It's impossible to get the idea of what his version of "Dune" would have been like without spending some cinematic time with him.

There are other people interviewed here, as well.  Unfortunately, Giraud passed away in 2012, and there's nothing from him in any form here.  Dan O'Bannon, who would go on to create "Alien," passed away in 2009, but there is an audio interview and letters that he wrote to his wife included here.  H.R. Giger, the concept artist for "Alien," is interviewed specifically for this film.  Probably the biggest function of these interviews, and O'Bannon's words in particular, is to show that Jodorowsky carried himself pretty much exactly like he claims he did.  The picture that he paints of Jodorowsky jibes with Jodorowsky's persona, and of his fantastic stories about trying to convince various actors to be in the films.  You might think they're all bogus, or slightly inflated, but when you get the other perspectives, it all falls into line.

You might wonder what happened to the one guy that Hollywood deemed to be too far out there; that's one hell of a distinction.  That's a complicated question, and not one that's addressed specifically.  Putting together an ambitious project the likes of which had never been seen before, and then not being able to see it come to fruition can be devastating.  But Jodorowsky didn't stop, even if he didn't continue on making films at a very prolific clip.

"Jodorowsky's Dune" is a fascinating look at a film that was designed to change history.  It was to be a big-budget sci-fi film before "Star Wars," a film about crazy big ideas, executed in the most stunning, flamboyant manner possible.  Instead of that, we get this film, which is not only about trying to create art, but the frustration of trying to create art in something that's a fundamentally capitalist environment.  There's enough in the original ideas, and in the words of Jodorowsky to get across what could have been.  When you look at what some of the people involved in the development of his version of "Dune" did with their careers, it's clear that this work influenced film heavily, even though this project doesn't exist in it's intended fashion.  And Jodorowsky's own perspective is fascinating (and very human).  All of this adds up to a spellbinding movie (even if it's this one, and not "Dune"), a great "what-if" tale, and must-see documentary.

4.5 / 5 - Theatre

Classic Albums: Pink Floyd - the Making of "The Dark Side of the Moon" - 2003

"Classic Albums: Pink Floyd - the Making of 'The Dark Side of the Moon'" - 2003

Dir. by Matthew Longfellow - 49 minutes

Part One

by Clayton Hollifield

I'm not the biggest Pink Floyd fan out there, but I don't mind listening to them every now and then.  So, coming from that perspective, there's not a ton here that would qualify as "must-see."  It's not bad, I certainly do enjoy watching music documentaries, and it's always interesting to watch musicians performing and dissecting their work.  However, this neither veers towards "Behind the Music" territory (any troubles that the band members may have had with one another is either ignored or referred to obliquely), nor does it really get heavily into the recording sessions.

This documentary consists of interviews with some of the band members, and relevant on-lookers (like Rolling Stone editor David Fricke and producer Alan Parsons).  As far as archival footage, there isn't much.  There are clips from a period live performance, and pretty much everything else is photographs with narration.  Particularly in a "making-of" documentary, it's helpful to have a rare or noteworthy piece of footage to use as a hook, but aside from a snippet of the demo version of "Money," I didn't notice anything that would qualify.  Another note - none of the people interviewed are ever on-screen at the same time.  It would have been much more interesting to see the band members discussing the album while whatever interpersonal dynamic exists plays out, instead we have reserved people calmly discussing things from their respective caves (several of the interviews are conducted over a mixing board in recording studios).

This documentary (the title is far too long to keep typing out, forgive my repetition) assumes a basic familiarity with the material (which is fair, considering the importance and popularity of the album), but also commits the fatal flaw of never going through a full version of any of the songs.  I can't stress enough how frustrating that is, it's like being forced to listen to a Girl Talk version of "Dark Side of the Moon" when all you really want to do is relax in whatever manner you're accustomed to, slip on some headphones, and dive into the album itself.

So, I'll end on some positives.  The whole time I was watching the movie, I really just couldn't wait to listen to "Dark Side" again.  It was interesting, if not definitive.  And I like to believe that Alan Parsons likes to get stoned, put on his frilly shirt, and go into the studio to listen to albums, separating the channels on a whim (as it appears he does here).  But there is one moment in the film that made it worthwhile.  While the story veers towards the importance and popularity of the album, David Gilmour wishes that he could have the experience of putting on "The Dark Side of the Moon" and listening to it for the first time with fresh ears.  It's an interesting take, as the band members are the only people who really can't ever have that eye-opening experience.  That's the cost of making a masterpiece, I guess.

3 / 5 - NF Streaming

Behind the Burly Q - 2010

"Behind the Burly Q" - 2010
Dir. by Leslie Zemeckis - 1 hr. 37 min.

Official Trailer

"Behind the Burly Q" works better in the realm of nostalgia than as an informational documentary.  Part of it is the cognitive dissonance of having women who earned a living based on their physical beauty and stage routines constantly shown at uniformly advanced ages (I should say almost uniformly - Lili St. Cyr is represented by an interview she did with Mike Wallace in the black and white days of television) - it's a trip to  see retirement-aged women talking about stripping.  I don't know any way around that either, the only successful way I've seen interviews conducted at a much later date integrated into such a youth-oriented subject matter was in Julien Temple's "The Filth and the Fury," where the interview segments were lit to appear in shadow only, but that would be a bizarre way to approach material that's inherently visual in nature.

So let's get to what's good and what's not so good here.  There are a lot of interviews with a lot of burlesque performers, some of which were conducted not too very long before the performers passed away.  There's also some attention paid to the structure of the performances (contrary to what some might believe, it was a variety show that incorporated a number of different acts, nearly always headlined by the comedians), as well as how the laws differed in different cities, and things of that nature.  In that respect, there's a lot of good information, and most of the people that were interviewed didn't seem to regret their involvement in burlesque.

As for what's more problematic about the movie, some of the women that anyone would have heard of weren't directly involved.  Both Blaze Starr and Lili St. Cyr were represented by archival footage (understandable in St. Cyr's case, as she passed away more than a decade before this movie was made).  I don't know that it would have made a difference, but to someone with a passing interest (or less) in the subject matter, the star power isn't there.  Also, some of the more negative aspects of the business were only touched upon briefly, which is appropriate for the nostalgic romp that this is, but also is an approach that doesn't lend much weight to the subject at hand.

"Behind the Burly Q" is a fairly light, fun look back at a bygone era.  It is not a tell-all, it's not a substitute for late-night Cinemax, it's just an explanation of what average people looked for in entertainment in that era.  So enjoy it for what it is.

3 / 5 - NF Streaming

American Grindhouse - 2010

"American Grindhouse" - 2010
Dir. by Elijah Drenner - 1 hr. 20 min.

Official Trailer

I always enjoy watching documentaries about film history - I've watched a ton of movies, but my actual education in film can be largely attributed to one class I took in my senior year of college (a really good class that started with James Cagney's "The Public Enemy" and wrapped with "Pulp Fiction").  I spent those years of voracious ingestion of history and minutiae pointed squarely at comic books, instead.  So when I get the chance to see a movie that shines a little light on an area of film history I haven't really stumbled across, I jump in it.

"American Grindhouse," as the title indicates, is a documentary on the seedy, murky, filthy, and a little bit sticky history of grindhouse movies in the U.S.A.  It's narrated by Robert Forster, and has interview footage with both directors who were into these kinds of disreputable films (Joe Dante, John Landis, and Allison Anders, to name three), as well as some of those responsible for the films themselves (like Herschell Gordon Lewis and Don Edmonds).

Over the course of this documentary, these non-Hollywood studio productions are variously credited as pre-punk (Allison Anders offers the DIY, fast/cheap/dirty, low-budget nature of these films as being spiritual kin to the punk movement in the 1970's), educational and empowering for women (there was a span of "educational" films, which were sometimes the only means through which women could obtain information about sexual health), a trendsetter for actual Hollywood productions (for the most part, whatever grindhouse movies would do would end up in Hollywood movies in some manner in a matter of years), and as no different than Hollywood productions (a direct comparison of Hitchcock's "Psycho" and Lewis' "Blood Feast"), budget aside.

The commentary is intelligent and enthusiastic throughout, which is a relief.  Probably the best part of this film for me is that it was a way to sample a ton of marginally-known films, and find a few that I wanted to check out in full.  Beware though, for that privilege, you have to sit through a clip of an actual live birth.  I'm not sure those things even out, but it's a good, concise history of grindhouse films.

3.5 / 5 - NF Streaming