I recently bought the DOCTOR WHO: REVENGE OF THE CYBERMEN dvd. Now while the Doctor Who adventure itself is fairly mediocre and not one of the best, there is a documentary on there which cannot be missed -- even if one isn't a DOCTOR WHO fan! The half-hour documentary is entitled "CHEQUES, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE" and I only wish some poozer would post it on youtube so I could show it to you. This documentary seems to be getting rave reviews; the dvdactive site going so far as to say "This might well be our favourite extra ever to grace a Doctor Who DVD" and blogtorwho calling it the "highlight" of the dvd. And as for myself, I have to admit that I've watched CHEQUES 4 times in a row! The premise of the doco is bring to life Doctor Who fandom video collecting way back in the deep, dark late 1970's and 1980's. The film features interviews with grown-up fans who were kids back then and really gives a feel for what things were like before VCR's were a common household item and DVDs and the internet didn't exist. CHEQUES opens with a scene from 1983 in which three pre-teen boys are surreptitiously approaching a house on what looks like a drugs buy; they ask each other how much money they've got and discuss the man they're going to see hoping he "has the stuff". The knock on the door and a man appears beckoning them to enter. It is then revealed, as the scene shifts to the boys' home, that they have just purchased a pirate Doctor Who video.
****
CHEQUES, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE can be appreciated by everyone of a certain age who grew up in the 60's, 70's or early '80's. And yes, even if you're not a DOCTOR WHO fan because those of us who were also into the horror genre or science fiction or whatever can equally relate to the difficulty we had just FINDING anything concerning our favourite genre. Books on horror films, for example, were very few and far between and fanzines were difficult to get. An issue of FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND or STARLOG on the newstand was pretty much it. Fan conventions were usually distant dreams unattainable. And we had to scan the TV Guide every week to find a rare showing of a beloved horror movie. Because that's the only way we could see it; there was no such thing as home video recording so we were at the mercy of the local TV programmers. VCRs were extremely expensive when they first came out and beyond the reach of most families. The first VCR I ever got was purchased in 1982 and I believe it was something in the neighbourhood of $300 - $400; I had earned the money for it by keeping a ledger of chores such as painting the back porch or backyard fence etc. Each chore was given a "point value" which would then be applied to the price of a VCR. When I had reach the halfway point, my parents sprung for the other half of the price. Also good to remember is that back then a blank videotape was also horribly expensive: a 2 hour tape cost $20 in 1982! So this meant one had to choose long and hard what one would record and what one would tape over because it would be a while before one could save up to buy another blank videotape at those prices.
DOCTOR WHO fans in England had a similar (and possibly more difficult) problem. The BBC never repeated older DOCTOR WHO programmes so once they aired they were gone seemingly forever. CHEQUES, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE does a very good job portraying the angst of kids reading their Target novelizations of past Dr. Who stories and knowing they would never EVER get to see the original programmes. Combine this dilemna with the fact that it became known that the BBC had erased many of the older DOCTOR WHO programmes and they were truly gone forever! The various now-adult interviewees relate their glum resignation to this fate and then their slow inkling in the underground world of DOCTOR WHO fandom that maybe. . .just maybe. . .they could get to see these old shows after all. News began circulating that people were trading videotapes of previously unattainable DOCTOR WHO adventures. Where could they possibly have come from? The BBC certainly weren't rerunning them to be taped off the telly. But no, it was Australia to the rescue; Australian television had been rerunning Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker DOCTOR WHO episodes which had trickled into England among collectors. An hilarious but all-to-familiar example is given as to what a videotape looks like when it has been copied from a copy of a copy sometimes 11 generations or more; the picture shown in CHEQUES is all but unwatchable. And I myself can remember watching videos almost that bad! The documentary further goes on to reveal how some people knew somebody with access to the BBC Archives and then some of the older black & white William Hartnell and Patrick Troughton stories began to venture forth into the pirate video community. Finally, after the Doctor Who 20th anniversary celebration woke the BBC up to the fact that home video might make them some money, they released the first home videotape of DOCTOR WHO -- wouldn't you know it. . .it was REVENGE OF THE CYBERMEN. Auntie Beeb also broke down and finally aired older episodes when they announced the year-end airing of "THE FIVE FACES OF DOCTOR WHO" which would feature a story from each of the (then) five actors who played the Doctor starting with the very first story from 1963 starring William Hartnell. The race to buy home video recorders was then on!
CHEQUES, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE is a wonderful half-hour documentary which really brings alive the spirit and experience of these former childhood DOCTOR WHO nuts and the exquisite pain of searching and waiting for some precious find. The point is made, of course, how easy today's fans have it -- the usual "old folks" grumble -- with the ready availability of practically everything on DVD and the internet. However, these older fans do not begrudge the kids of today and, in fact, assert that they would've much preferred to have the same embarrassment of riches available to them when they were growing up. Of course, they also make the point that there is something to be said for the exquisite yearning and waiting for the publication of the Christmas Doctor Who Annual or the keen anticipation of that underground pirate video arriving through the mail slot. I too would've loved to have today's easy access to all media when I was a kid. But one does feel that perhaps it's now too easy and fans today are missing something which made each find so very, very rare and special. If you have even the slightest interest in DOCTOR WHO, or science fiction, horror or any other fantasy genre then you have just gotta see this documentary on the DOCTOR WHO: REVENGE OF THE CYBERMEN dvd. Put it in your video queue. But not right away. Make yourself wait a little first so you can savour the anticipation!
Happy Thanksgiving Yanks and welcome to the noms. Without further ado I'd like to present in no particular order:
STRONGER WITHEACH TEAR - Mary J. Blige
SOLDIER OF LOVE - Sade
MY ONE AND ONLY THRILL - Melody Gardot
POINTING AT THE SUN - Cheryl Wheeler
THE UNION - Elton John & Leon Russell
BROKEN BELLS - Broken Bells
TOGETHER - The New Pornographers
TRANSFERENCE - Spoon
TRAVELLING LIKE THE LIGHT - V.V. Brown
THE LIVE ANTHOLOGY - Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers
When it first came out, JACKIE BROWN was viewed as something of a letdown after QT had set the world on fire with his Oscar-winning (and Oscar-nominated for Best Picture) PULP FICTION. Personally, I always viewed RESERVOIR DOGS as the better film and the true "ground-breaker" with PULP FICTION merely more of the same. Be that as it may, Tarantino's knowing pop culture references and "homages", his use of sudden, horrific violence, his masterly choice of soundtrack music and his deft dialogue were the talk of the (tinsel)town. Inevitably, very soon after Hollywood bows at your feet, the backlash sets in and the knives come out; Hollywood "insiders" waited with Ides of March-like daggers to see what QT would do next. Seriously, it was a no-win situation. Critics and audiences constantly moan that they want something different but, when they get it, usually trash it because it's "not what they expected from so-and-so". But if Tarantino had given us all PULP FICTION 2 (in spirit if not in name), he would have been pilloried and would've long since disappeared from the movie-making scene. So first, Quentin took a pause -- a good couple years -- and wisely, I think, did give us something different -- and better. David Del Valle, 
It was just starting -- you known, the spectacular opening scene with Pam Grier floating along an airport causeway to the strains of "Across 110th Street". Well, I thought "Oh cool, Jackie Brown's on" and continued channel-surfing. But by the time I zipped through the rest of the 300+ cable channels, I ended up back on JACKIE BROWN and watched it to its conclusion. I can't say the same would happen if I'd come across RESERVOIR DOGS or PULP FICTION.
It is quite wrong to think of JACKIE BROWN as Tarantino's homage to blaxploitation films -- unless you've never seen blaxploitation films. If you had, you'd know right away that JACKIE BROWN is nothing like all the blaxploitation films we know and love. No, this film is Tarantino's homage to Pam Grier herself. He presented this film to her like a supplicant at the altar of Athena. In fact, Grier famously auditioned for PULP FICTION and was turned down by Quentin because he had bigger plans for her and told her to wait -- in much the same (if upside down) way Fritz Lang told Peter Lorre not to make a movie until Lang had something "truly big" for him; 
From the long discussion in which Samuel L. Jackson's Ordell Robbie talks Chris Tucker's Beaumont into the trunk of the car, we know what's going to happen to him (or at least have a strong suspicion). As Hitchcock once explained, it's telling the audience there is a bomb under the chair and then making them sit there and wait for it to go off. However, there's more here than that. Once Beaumont is in the trunk, the camera pulls back to a far shot and the rest of the scene plays out from a distance (to the strains of "Strawberry Letter 23"). Now, I don't know if Jackson himself was in the car driving but the use of time, of pauses and non-pauses, is jewel-like. Jackson shuts the trunk and climbs back into the driver's seat. He turns the key in the ignition, the tape of "Strawberry Letter 23" starts up and the camera pulls away to a "safe distance". The car is driven, not in a straight line, but in a curving arc. Robbie is not nervous, not rushed. He's taking his good old time. The brakes are hit; we see them from our position now behind the car. The "overheard" music from inside the distant car fades out as the car turns. Then the car comes back into our field of view and the music fades back in too. The car turns in and parks now somewhere over there. Robbie emerges (still from a great distance, now), walks around to the back of the car, opens the trunk and fires the gun at the hapless Beaumont. Trunk closes, Robbie gets back in the car and drives off. Really, the scene plays like a song itself. That's just one instance of the multitude of deft touches Tarantino brings to the film. And JACKIE BROWN is full to overflowing of such scenes. 
I first fell in love with Pam Grier sometime in the mid-70's, I guess. Or maybe a tad bit earlier. Probably summertime when I had the run of the neighbourhood. I went to the movie theatre that was in the local mall and got a ticket for whatever was playing. However, I soon lost interest and snuck out of that movie and into the one next door. Lucky me, there was a Pam Grier movie playing. I have no recollection now which one it was (especially since I snuck in after the main titles and missed them) but I'm sure it was probably something like FRIDAY FOSTER or SHEBA, BABY or maybe even the beloved FOXY BROWN. These were the more relaxed 1970's so nobody came along and chucked me out of the theatre for being a 10 year old in a movie which probably featured Pam Grier getting her kit off. But from that moment to this, I've regarded Pam Grier as the bee's knees in the cat's pajamas! So, I was naturally pre-disposed to appreciate exactly what Quentin Tarantino appreciated in Pam Grier and why he wanted to make this movie for her. She was a strong role model who didn't take no stuff but she was also extremely feminine and stunningly beautiful; she had a sense of humour and she had a brain and a conscience. Dream Woman 101. So now, here she was in JACKIE BROWN but she was certainly not COFFY and would not have razor blades in her afro. No, Jackie Brown was a 44 year old flight attendant working for the lowest of the low cheapo airline; she was tired, she was jaded, she had seen life. However, when pushed or cornered the fire in her eye would be revealed -- maybe dimmer from age but still kindled. No, there were not a lot of gunfights and gore in JACKIE BROWN but instead there was a lot of what Tarantino is really known for: dialogue and characterisation. 
As Dave Sim once said, David Byrne was right when he called his group the Talking Heads because there is very little that is more interesting or involving that two people talking to each other. Car chases and fight scenes can get samey and actually dull; the real meat is when characters reveal themselves through dialogue. LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT has nary an explosion but it's much more gripping than, say, IRON MAN 2! No, JACKIE BROWN is certainly not too slow or too long; in fact I'd say it's the perfect length without a single second that drags. And as I've said it's not an homage to blaxploitation films; in fact, it's an exploration of the humanity of the characters in all their faults and foibles, deceits and kindnesses. And it is also, in the performances of Pam Grier and Robert Forster (both giving the best performances of their lives), a very damn well effective meditation on what it's like getting older -- but still harbouring that younger you somewhere deep inside. I always loved the film but perhaps, now that I am the same age as Jackie Brown in the film, I'm beginning to see that angle much more clearly now than when I first saw the film in the late-90's. As for that cast, it's sheer magic. 
Robert Forster gives an incredibly nuanced, moving performance and Pam Grier is almost as great. 
Samuel L. Jackson plays Robbie as a dandy, yes, but he also has a genuine frightening menace which he did not display in PULP FICTION. Robert DeNiro plays the role of a loser wonderfully and its probably the last actual acting he's done in his career. 
Bridget Fonda immerses herself in the self-absorbed, petty surfer girl; her constant badgering of DeNiro during and after the "caper" are stunningly annoying and one can almost understand why DeNiro does what he does. In these three roles, Jackson, DeNiro and Fonda are not afraid to play unlikeable. To their credit. Of course, Ordell Robbie being the most evil character requires Jackson to also bring that immense charm that's needed for the role as well. Michael Keaton is also surprisingly effective as the twitchy but amiable cop. There's really not a dud performance in the film anywhere in the extensive supporting cast from Tiny Lister's bail-bonds "enforcer" to Sid Haig's cameo as a judge (brought in nicely from his many co-starring roles in Pam Grier's 70's films). 
As David Del Valle also points out, JACKIE BROWN is a movie than can be watched over and over and the viewer will get more out of it each time -- sometimes new things one missed the first time around. That's happened with me and that's happened with most others I've talked to about the film (including Pam's old blaxploitation co-star Sid Haig with whom I spoke briefly about the film in 2003 and who felt it was underappreciated). And David Del Valle says that's the very definition of a classic. Who am I to argue? Thankfully, it seems the critics are now finally coming around to our point of view. Thanks, folks. What took you so long?!? And if you, gentle reader, have never seen JACKIE BROWN. . .you owe it to yourself to watch it. And if you haven't seen it for quite some time, you owe it to yourself to watch it again. Go ahead, gang. You're good people. You deserve a treat. As for my ranking of QT's films, here goes:
A job applicant comes in for an interview as a houseman (it's for a hotel, dammit). Things go fine until we come to the question: "Have you ever been convicted of a felony crime". "Well, yes I have," says the applicant whom we will call Herman because that's not his name. "Oh, well thank you for being so honest." Herman says he'll write down on a piece of paper the name of his conviction and explains that he was arrested for being drunk while riding a bicycle. As Herman hands the paper over, this is the crime which he wrote down: "Mister Meaners".
OK, a wonderfully silly but interesting addition to the myth. But now, on to the documentary. Sadly, sadly, sadly, the voice of George Harrison is so obviously NOT him that it fatally undermines any willing suspension of disbelief. I have personally seen countless interviews and documentaries featuring George Harrison; I'm fairly familiar with his voice and this just ain't him. The person doing the George Harrison "impression" is fairly good, I suppose, but he betrays himself by not only speaking in a Liverpudlian accent which waveringly comes and goes but also by using one or two Americanisms that no Englishman would use. Also, I happen to own a mini-cassette recorder almost identical to the one shown in the photo as having arrived in the package. The sound is, well, fairly atrocious and the recorder is only meant for dictation purposes. However, the sound of "George Harrison's voice" on the documentary (which provides narration for the entire movie) is clearly recorded on professional-sounding audio equipment; no amount of "sonic tweaking" could've made the micro-cassette recording sound THIS good! All this really pushes the "documentary" from the realm of "conspiracy theory" clear over the cliff into satire; are we really meant to take this documentary seriously?!? I can't imagine anyone but the most gullible person buying the truth of what's being said. 
