'When the Garden Was Eden', Knickerbockers' pride

When the Garden Was Eden

Young folk, you probably don't know, but before Patrick Ewing, John Starks and Allan Houston there was life at Madison Square Garden. In fact, there were glory days, during the early 70s, when the Knicks were not only the most exciting team on the league, but also the most iconic and fascinating, as the roster was an incredible mix of personalities and attitudes. The most significant sports epitome of a transcendent, tumultuous period in America. That's what you're going to see at 'When the Garden Was Eden', an absorbing basketball documentary... that goes way beyond the rim, way beyond the game. 

Vietnam, a boiling racial unrest in the streets, the Watergate scandal... America was in serious turmoil... and so were the New York Knicks, a mediocre squad that clearly hadn't connected with the city and their people. As a matter of fact, with the exception of the ever-winning Celtics led by Auerbach and the Lakers, the NBA was still light years away from being the global league that is today. It's pretty interesting how director (more known as an actor) Michael Rapaport takes his time to show how small was the dimension of pro-basketball back then. And how and why that was about to change. Forever.

The story has the strength and the ingredients of a powerful novel (now I'm very curious about the book by Harvey Araton on which the documentary is based) and Rapaport, aside of collecting the opinions of almost all of the surviving players from those years, is wise enough to keep adding elements to his narration, creating a wonderful puzzle. One where facts, statistics and crucial games & moments are secondary compared. The main focus are the leading characters of the documentary. The people who became the Knicks team. A director's choice that makes the film fascinating, even for non-basketball lovers.

As a consequence, 'When the Garden Was Eden' turns out to be a wonderful oddity in this usually constrained territory of sports documentary. We are not invited to see a parade of epic plays of most talented guys (Willis Reed performance at the first Knicks NBA finals would be the exception), but how a team of very diverse people, with extremely different backgrounds, was built, and the sum of the parts worked together to bring the only championship years of the New York Knicks, making the Finals in three out of four seasons from 1970 to 1973, winning two titles (70 and 73) and changed the relation of the city with basketball, since then (and I hope forever) a basketball town, and propelled the media attention to the best of sports.

The work of assembling such a team makes Red Holzman one of the best coaches ever in my eyes because, as I'm saying, it's not just about choosing the right players, but also gathering and align them in the same direction (passing, defense, no stars, teamwork), despite being such an odd collection of personalities. Bill Bradley, a college star from Princeton that after retiring from basket would start a career in politics, two legends from the Jim Crow South, Willis Reed and Walt Frazier, Dave DeBusschere, a blue-collar guy from Detroit, two in principle "me first" guards from inner-city, Earl "the Pearl" Monroe and Dick Barnett, plus Phil "Action" Jackson from Montana. Then add the extraordinary personality of Jerry Lucas (my goodness, he deserves a film on his own) and you have such a melting pot. Egos, politics, money issues, class and social facts. Rapaport is not afraid to ask the questions, and players are keen to tell us everything. It's mesmerizing. How could it possibly work? The answer isn't clear to me. But it did. They embraced the differences and used the magnificent coalition of talents to became a unique team. Inspiring. Easy to understand the Knickerbockers' pride after watching this movie.

My only complaint (minor, very minor) is how quick the film ends. I understand the team didn't go further than seven years overall (quite a lengthy period in sports), and truth to be told, there's something incredibly intriguing in the way such a winning team vanished (some answers at the film are striking), and how the majority of the players moved to another business, but I would have loved a bit more of detail in that area, because some of the characters were so interesting (Bill Bradley on politics, Jerry Lucas, and of course Phil Jackson, to name just three) and can't help but having feeling there are some things left untold. It's one of those rare films that deserved a longer running time. Because, as I said before, 'When the Garden Was Eden' is not just about sport. It's about people, and how people, despite their differences, can come together.

SCORE: 7,5

"Begin Again", feel-good hit of the summer

Begin Again

It's great that films like 'Begin Again' see the light of day. A film about making, feeling and enjoying the music. A movie about creating songs (songs where lyrics are meaningful and real instruments are played, where asses, stupidity, amount of provocative tweets &/or dresses doesn't matter at all) with enough charms and vividness to keep you smiling after the credits roll on.

Having said that, 'Begin Again' cannot compete with the sense of freshness, rawness and romanticism of the director's previous and celebrated work, 'Once', and some of the tricks that build the development of the film are so hard to believe it all relies on the spectator's shoulders. If you "buy" the story, you'll certainly enjoy 'Begin Again'. If not, it might annoy you from time to time. I encourage you to not get obsessed with verisimilitude and realism. Lower your guard in that sense.

Writer-director John Carney has created a comedy with hints of drama and heartbreaks where possibility and opportunity have the form of a three minute pop song. It's basically a contemporary, flesh and bones tale. Gretta (played with grace by Keira Knightley) and her boyfriend Dave (Adam Levine from the obnoxious Maroon 5, and yes folks, sadly enough, he sings on the movie) are not only a perfect couple but also a major creative force, landing in New York while stardom is knocking on their doors... aka a major label deal. But fame brings also the more common (along with drugs and booze) trouble and Gretta is left on her own... with her tunes. And that's when Dan (as usual, Mark Ruffalo on a solid performance), a fallen angel of a record-label executive appears, also abandoned, in terms of family & in terms of music industry. It jumps from scene to scene in brush strokes, making clear that Carney just needs an excuse, an emotional setting where he can locate his unusual music recording story. The movie really begins when Dan imagines how he could produce the aching, acoustic song a devastated Gretta is performing on an East Village venue. It's also the first of several uplifting moments on the film.

It's kind of a last chance for both. For Gretta is either trying to follow this desperate man into his attempt to record her songs or leaving the States (and maybe music?). For Dan, it's either completely sink or swim. As a feel-good movie, 'Begin Again' takes the obvious directions except in one area where Carney surprises the spectator not going for what it would have been the blandest, romantic choice. Instead, he focus just in music and New York City, the other starring of 'Begin Again' (with all my respect to my dear Catherine Keener and some other secondary roles). The idea of a "live and alive" album Gretta & Dan are aiming to record is refreshing (impossible too) and offers joyful renditions of songs played behind a summery, shiny, exuberant city. It's hard to resist, so haunting you'll forget the lame scenes/debates on music industry or Mr. Levine singing. It's the power of music in a mind-blowing environment.

SCORE: 6,75/10

"Just Kids", the bipolar memories of Patti Smith

Just Kids- Patti Smith

I had really high expectation with this one. The spectacular reviews, (National Book Award included) and my appreciation for the author (she's Michael Stipe's muse and close friend, and although I'm just an occasional fan of her music, she's a legend that I would love to see live). Guess I was hoping for a memorable book, something in between Dylan's "Chronicles" and Mark Oliver Everett's "Things the Grandchildren Should Now". Unfortunately, all I can say is that "Just Kids" has been a disappointment.

There's a bipolarity on "Just Kids". As an autobiography of the beginnings of a rock icon might not be ground shaking, but it does has a lot of strength and points of interests. Mainly because it reveals a young, vulnerable Patti Smith coming to New York to fight for her dreams, but really looking to find herself, on a time when she didn't know what she wanted to be. That, together with the incredibly intense and really intimate depiction of her relationship with Robert Mapplethorpe, would made the book a must read without a doubt. Friend, shelter, colleague, artist partner, lover... Patti Smith allows the reader to adventure into her most intimate feelings, not afraid of showing none of them were yet fully formed as individuals when they met, needing each other to grew up together, as artists and persons. That honesty goes beyond any labelling, its pure, like Smith and Mapplethorpe's relation. That's really rare to find.  Impossible to have a better title than "Just Kids".

Judging by the previous paragraph, I realise "Just Kids" had the potential of being one of the best music biographies I've ever read. But it is not. And sadly, the only responsible is Patti Smith alone. I'm afraid to write that, but I believe this is a case of... seriously flat, poor writing. Unending name dropping, with anecdotes that doesn't add much to the story except showing how many "important people" she met back then, and a constant self-laudatory "artistry" that becomes seriously annoying because is never connected with the real, flesh and bones world. She transforms her reality, a starving young, confused but ambitious couple in a cliche: the starving, tortured artists.

That's why I wrote before the book seems to be bipolar. All the insight, honesty and interest on the Mapplethorpe-Smith relation, with some other few moments (mostly when she recalls or goes back home) disappears or are seriously ruined by the cliches among which she builds her image (and Mapplethorpe) of unique artists. The fact I consider Patti Smith a genuine, remarkable artist only makes it more painful. To make it more clear: repeating endlessly how much you love Rimbaud doesn't make you an artist. Or describing with full detail every single piece of clothing you wore. That's superficial and, at least for me, irritating.

Intense and remarkable at times, but also frustrating and shallow. A two-sided, failed memories as a whole.

SCORE: 5,5/10

"Martin Dressler", building the fake empire

Martin Dressler: The Tale of an American Dreamer 
Steven Millhauser

Very hard book to rate. It made think of many other references, in particular to movies like "There Will Be Blood" (the raise of America), "Synecdoche, New York" (these actors at the end), of books like "The Tenants of Moonbloom" and in a very particular note, on a very good friend of mine, and one of my all-time favourite songs, The National's "Fake Empire" (obvious reasons). The problem is that, while I enjoyed watching/reading/hearing these works, I cannot say the same about "Martin Dressler".

My biggest "issue" with the book is how it is written. Steven Millhauser prose (at least in this novel) is focused in descriptions, where his pen becomes exuberant and profuse. Something that very few exceptions aside, I find annoying. Worse, there's the feeling descriptions keep increasing while you read, there's a sense of accumulation, which exhausted me. I don't need that never-ending catalogue of objects.

Which in all honesty, is a quite unfair comment to the book, because that obsession for the details reflected in the exhaustive descriptions are quite in order to show us the nature of Martin Dressler, the main character of the novel. Martin is a very peculiar character. He is like a child that seems capable of succeeding in everything that he desires... to the point of being obsessed.. until he gets it... and then he needs a new obsession. I can see Millhauser sees Martin not only as a very interesting character, but also as a metaphor of the times he lived (the end of 19th-century and the start of the new one) and a prophetic voice of the capitalist self-made man in America. The one that was capable of creating and living the American Dream.

Millhauser writes about Martin's success in an almost magical way. He clearly has the intention of creating a fable, but the lack of realism in the "superficial story" to me was a bit tricky, or better said, discouraging. Is that ambition? Is he a pioneer? An enterpreneur? Or a silly kid that gets easily bored? While I don't think a clear answer is needed, as keeping the mistery could be even more interesting than resolving it, in my opinion "Martin Dressler" doesn't make the "trip" addictive for the reader, as I believe the book works better on a philosophical level.

Another clear example, at least to me, is the apparition of his "emotional live" while he keeps getting richer. On a symbolic level is a pretty suggesting combination, deconstruction of what can someone find attractive in a women (there's three of them here) with the addition of the typical sexual awakening (whorehouse classic scene) and being seduced while he is married. Sure, Caroline, Margaret and Emmeline all represent different sides of woman of that times. But again, on what regards to the development of the story, their role is very boring and poorly resolved (the "shooting" chapter in particular).

I don't want to be too hard with "Martin Dressler" as I can easily see the amount of incentives this book might have for many readers. Its stimulating, conceptually very rich and profuse in imagery (loved the dichotomy of going underground while at the same time aspiring to go higher with their hotels). Sure, Martin works great as a paradigm of capitalism, but sorry again, that interpretation also works for the book itself. Its a paradigm of ambition, in terms of structure, style and scope. Like capitalism, this book is a voracious monster that finally ends swallowing itself.

SCORE: 4,5/10

"Synecdoche, New York", biggest paranoia ever filmed

Synecdoche, New York

Another example of a movie released years ago (the film is from 2008), that never make to Spain, due to the singular "criteria" of distributors and cinema owners of this country. But they can keep accusing everyone of piracy... End of the rant.

Is kind of surprising, but in a very positive way, that in a time were cinema is only interested in selling tickets with unnecessary remakes, bloody awful pirates and superhero movies, there's still a chance for a film like "Synecdoche, New York". A very personal view of an author, Charlie Kaufman. The man behing the scripts of some of the most risky and brave films from the last decade, like "Adaption" or "Being John Malkovich". And co-responsible, with Michael Gondry, of one of the best films ever, "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind".

"Synecdoche" is Kaufman's debut as director, and also his most ambitious film, in terms of conception and ideas. It builds on recurrent subject themes of his previous work, but mostly, and being a film about creating art, is easy to link it particularly with "Adaptation". But its a, staggering, XXXXXL version of that film. It might be the biggest paranoia ever filmed.

It also equals the level of pessimism of "Eternal Sunshine", maybe even goes further. Caden Cotard's (Philip Seymour Hoffman) extreme hyponcondria won't make you laugh, it is crude, and his struggle is condemned well in advance with paranoia. Humour, if any, only masks weaknesses or adds a feeling of surrealism to the lightest consequences of the monumental synecdoche that his impossible play is. Because the movie is about a play. The most realistic, and poignant, play ever made, about life and its obstacles. A play that intends to be a perfect copy of Cotard's tragic life, and the people that surrounds it.

"Synecdoche" is not an easy film, far from it. It demands patience to the spectator, and some sort of special stomach, because the majority of people that are going to expose their lives in front of our eyes, are damaged. As a film it has flaws, biggest ones in my opinion being the slow start, hard to get attracted to start, and a slight feeling of pretentiousness. But if you give a bit of credit to Kaufman, the challenge of watching the film turns into an absorbing and moving experience.

Some credit should also be given to the cast. What an stellar one! Hoffman, again, is perfect on his tortured role, and you will feel compelled by his mistakes and pains as the movie develops. At the end, Cotard's life is being showed in all honesty. And it is as imperfect as human. And surrounding him, a special credit has to be given to Samantha Morton (Hazel), the always excellent Catherine Keener (Adele) and the equally great Michelle Williams (Claire). They are essential to explain Cotard's life. And his play. And they sustain the film.

"Synecdoche" is a failed masterpiece that tries to find an answer to existence. It attempts to achieve levels of profundity unparalleled in cinema. Conclusion? Mine is that at the end, existence is what we make of it, because we have the starring role in the play that is our life. It is an exclusive role, and no one else will play it. So we better learn how to play well. Because the world, our stage, won't wait for us. It might not be the perfect film, but the risk and brave attempt of Kaufman has to be loudly praised.

SCORE: 7,25/10

Things to do in New York

On a snowy N.Y.C. What a beautiful morning.

(You can download the song together with another tune, "Orange Sunday" at The Walkmen's website, don't miss it)