The Best Movies About Movies (part 3 of 5)

So far on this wearying series we've covered Boogie Nights, the definitive story of the porn business, and Adaptation, the definitive story of a socially inept writer putting a fictionalized version himself in his screenplay and ending it with an ironic deus ex machina (this is a pretty short list).

With this entry, however, it's time to change it up again. Instead of actors and writers, we'll focus on on a movie about that most loathsome Hollywood character -- the Producer.

The Bad and the Beautiful (1953)

Like this, only in Hollywood. (Ok ok, it's nothing like this. Except sort of)

Based on the lives of a number of real Hollywood people (but especially David O. Selznick), The Bad and the Beautiful is the story of Jonathan Shields, an asshole producer played by Kirk Douglas, tracking his rise to fame as the son of a director who'd been such a prick Douglas had to hire extras to come to his funeral.

Determined to dominate Hollywood, Shields starts by manipulating a low budget producer (Walter Pidgeon) into letting him and a director friend, Fred Amiel (Barry Sullivan), work for him. They work on a number of weird low budget movies (one of which mimmicking the real life Cat People) After a while -- and a few hits -- Amiel decides he's ready to direct his dream project, and Shields goes off to make a deal.

Which he does -- with a big studio and a big budget. The only catch? Shields allows Amiel to be replaced with a more experienced director as long as he still gets to produce.

Urban dictionary: Dick Move.

Next, Shields comes across the alcoholic daughter of an actor he admired, Georgia Lorrison (played by Lana Turner). Shields realizes she has talent, builds up her confidence, and shoehorns her into a movie over everyone's objections. He even lets her fall in love with him because he believes it'll help her performance. But after the movie's a hit she finds Shields with another woman. When she confronts him, he rejects her, telling her he doesn't want anyone having the kind of control a true romance would mean over him.

Next, Shields finds a novel he wants to make into a movie that's been written by James Lee Bartlow (Dick Powell). The only problem? Bartlow's pea-brained high-maintenance Southern Belle wife (Gloria Grahame, who won an Oscar), who constantly distracts Bartlow from his work.

His douchebag instinct kicking in, Shields sends a well known movie star seducer after Bartlow's wife. Once she's gone (Bartlow thinks on vacation), Bartlow finishes his script easily, but when she and the movie star try to run away together, they die in a plane crash. Bartlow is distraught, and in a moment of weakness, Shields confesses his involvement. Bartlow punches Shields out and leaves (leaving behind the script, which turns into a hit).

Anyhow, the movie begins with these three: Amiel, Lorrison, and Bartlow, now at the top of their professions (the movie is told in flashback), while Shields has become bankrupt after directing a movie that ended up a monumental piece of shit and he refused to release it.

Shields wants to make a movie with them. Will they help?

In each case they're asked to reflect on the fact that, though Shields definitely screwed them over, he also made their careers. Without Shields, Amiel would have never gotten a break as a director. Shields brought Lorrison out of alcoholism and into movie stardom. And now that his wife isn't around, Bartlow is producing hit novel after hit novel (his first had taken seven years).

And that's the handle, I think, and what makes it a great movie about the movies. Sure, people get screwed over in Hollywood. And yeah, there are a lot of examples of amoral shit-kicking world-beaters who roll over mere mortals in their path like bugs. But these people have to ask themselves: are they really worse off because Shields was a part of their lives?

After the Pidgeon character makes his final pitch, the three characters sit there and think about it. And their collective answers, and what happens after -- which I won't reveal -- says a lot about that fine balance between business and the personal that the movie business seems to test at all times.

In addition to all that, The Bad and the Beautiful is one of the great portrayals of the kind of personality you need to be a successful producer. Louis B. Mayer, the head of MGM, upon whom Shields is partly based, was widely regarded as -- even more than stars like Spencer Tracy and Greta Garbo -- the best actor at MGM. He cajoled, screamed, cried and fainted -- sometimes in the same conversation -- if that's what it took to get what he wanted.

One famous example involved actor Robert Taylor, who came into Mayer's office early in his career to get a raise. Instead of saying "yes," or even "no," Mayer told Taylor to work hard, respect his elders, and in due time he'd get everything he deserved. Then Mayer hugged Taylor, cried, and showed him to the door. Asked afterwards whether he'd gotten his raise, Taylor said, "no, but I found a father," and proceeded to spend the next 25 years as one of the most underpaid actors on the MGM lot.

The Bad and the Beautiful touches on all of that. Shields takes people into the sphere of his magnetic personality and for as long as he needs them, he's as good and dynamic a friend as you could ask for.

But when he's done with you, he's done. And in that he personifies all of Hollywood. Ask an actress approaching 40 what happens to offers. Ask a director who makes a flop. It's the name of the game.

The Bad and the Beautiful (terrible title and all) is the warning.

The Best Movies About Movies (part 2 of 5)

In my last entry in this series (see below), I discussed Boogie Nights, the story of a porn star's rise and fall.

For entry number 2 (making it, confusingly, fourth place in the rankings), we have something completely different: a movie about the fucked-up process of writing a movie, rather than about what that fucked-up process does to your personality over the long term.

Adaptation

Talking about the plot of Adaptation and the story of how Adaptation got made is sort of a strange exercise, since it's, you know, exactly the same story.

For example:

Adaptation (the story) begins when Charlie Kaufman (the screenwriter) gets a commission to adapt Susan Orlean's book The Orchid Thief into a movie. He struggles neurotically for a while, going through intense periods of self loathing, before finally figuring out how to end it.

Adaptation (the movie) begins when Charlie Kaufman gets a commission to adapt Susan Orlean's book The Orchid Thief into a movie. He struggles neurotically for a while, going through....

You get the idea. The plot of the movie isn't just like the story of it's making. It is the story of it's making. Kaufman received the commission to write the screenplay in 1994 and struggled for years to adapt it into a movie (the movie was finally released in 2002).

He tried at first to write a straight adaptation, but eventually he realized he had failed (in his defense, stealing orchids is a fairly fucking boring idea for a movie), so he decided to write a movie about a guy named Charlie Kaufman trying to adapt a book about stealing orchids into a movie.

Kaufman's explanation?

"I thought it was interesting because that's what I was thinking about. I find I write best when I write what I'm thinking about. What I was thinking about was that I was completely unable to write this script."

Uh, okay.

Now if it sounds like I'm being pithy about the movie, well, that's because this is as loony an idea for a movie as has ever been attempted (including this, which is saying something).

All of this makes it even more remarkable that Adaptation is even watchable, much less a great movie. I mean, can you imagine a less cinematic image than of a man staring at a computer (or typewriter), wracked with self-loathing and indecision?

We can't either.

But somehow Adaptation makes it work, and it's an interesting exercise itself to try and figure out how it does that.

Part of it, I think, is that we respond to the sheer audacity of the concept. Adaptation is one of a kind, and watching it navigating the minefield of it's own making has a kind of thrill. We sort of keep expecting it to go awry, and then finally at the end, when it does (on purpose!), there's a kind of delight in it.

Second is that the movie is just so goddamn well written. Kaufman writes a version of himself who tries so hard but is yet so pitiful and socially inept as to come completely around and be likeable again.

VALERIE (movie producer): Laroche is a fun character, isn't he?

Kaufman nods, flipping through the book, stalling. There's a smiling author photo of Susan Orlean on the inside back cover.

KAUFMAN: And Orlean makes orchids so fascinating. Plus her musings on Florida, orchid hunting. Great, sprawling New Yorker stuff. I'd want to remain true to that, let the movie exist rather than be artificially plot driven.

VALERIE: Okay, great, great. I guess I'm not exactly sure what that means.

KAUFMAN: Oh. Well... I'm not sure exactly yet either. So... y'know, it's...

VALERIE: Oh. Okay. Great. So, um, what --

KAUFMAN: It's just, I don't want to compromise by making it a Hollywood product. An orchid heist movie. Or changing the orchids into poppies and turning it into a movie about drug running. Y'know?

VALERIE: Oh, of course. We agree. Definitely.

KAUFMAN: Or cramming in sex, or car chases, or guns. Or characters learning profound life lessons. Or characters growing or characters changing or characters learning to like each other or characters overcoming obstacles to succeed in the end. Y'know? Movie shit.

Kaufman is sweating like crazy now. Valerie is quiet for a moment.

VALERIE: See, we thought maybe Susan Orlean and Laroche could fall in love during the course of --

KAUFMAN: Alienated journalist writes about passionate backwoods guy and he teaches her to love. I mean, it didn't happen. It wouldn't happen. It's Hollywood.

When you watch the movie again you end up laughing at this scene, because of course all of the "Hollywood shit" Kaufman hates in this scene ends up in the movie.

The question you end up asking yourself after you've seen the movie a few times is this:

Is the character of Donald Kaufman (Charlie's invented by-the-numbers screenwriter brother) and the intentionally cliched ending intended completely as a commentary on trumped up action and cliched endings in general, or did the real Kaufman just find he was completely unable to make a watchable movie out of the material, and designed the meta-movie device and the ending because there was no actual way to end the movie?

I mean, there's a bit of difference between that ending being a thought out, intentional critique of the movie business, and Kaufman coming to the conclusion there's no other goddamn way to end the movie, so here's something that might knock down a few buildings.

Frankly, I've seen the movie a few times, and I still don't know. While writing this blog entry, I did some reading to try and find out, but I could never find a statement that cleared it up. All Kaufman seems willing to say is that he tried adapting the book straight and what became the final draft evolved from months and years of writers block about how to do it.

But despite not having a clear answer, just the fact that Adaptation poses the question is enough to rank it with the best movies about movies ever made. I mean, how many movies give you the opportunity to consider such a freaky thing... or any of the other fascinating questions the movie poses (for instance: is Robert McKee -- featured in the scene below -- really that big of an asshole?)

Probably.

And beyond all of that, when you're sitting there watching it, the movie just works, despite being strung together out of what seems to be little bits of duct tape, laughing and shrugging all the way down to the last frame.

What a movie!

The Best Movies About Movies (part 1 of 5)

I'm not sure exactly where it was along the evolutionary trip that humans developed a powerful attraction to lists, but if I had to guess I'd place it somewhere during our reptilian phase, since it is the reptilian brain where the truly reflexive and involuntary aspects of human behavior are born.

I mean, everybody loves lists.

You. Me. Them. Everybody. Everybody.

The only thing better than a list of things, it seems, is a list of things that's divisible by five (for instance: five things). In the List Making Guidebook, it strongly advocates doing this, even if, say, you're trying to rank the Seven Dwarves (seven is not divisible by five. I think).

Another tenant of the List Making Guidebook? The only downside to making lists -- which is that no one (and we do mean fucking no one) will entirely agree with your picks. And they will (and we do mean fucking will) let you know about it.

So it is with this in mind that I devised this clever little five (!) part series, to be published (if you can really call it that), over the next 10 days.

And what's to be listed, you ask patiently?

Ah, yes. A favorite/speciality of mine: Movies about movies (or meta-movies, if you want to get all douchey about it). This is a fairly unusual genre but one (as a lover of movies) I really, uh... love. I make a point to watch these kinds of movies whenever I can and have watched enough of them I feel qualified enough (or maybe just douchey enough) to attempt a list.

To trim the list into a workable five I had to be sort of stringent about what constituted a movie about the movies (which is why, say, Who Framed Roger Rabbit didn't make the cut, since it uses the movie business principally as a setting rather than a subject). I also had to leave out a couple of pretty good movies that fit my guidelines -- the subject of an "Honorable Mention" post I'll do at the end.

Anyhow, my methodology should be fairly self evident as I go along. And if it isn't, we recommend you direct your complaints to the proper place.

Movie about Movies #5:

Boogie Nights

If you only knew how many captions I've written for this picture.

The story of a fucked up kid blessed with "one special thing" (his wang), Boogie Nights tracks the rise and fall (get it?) of his entry (get it?) into the "golden age of porn" of the 70s.

Starring Mark Wahlberg as Eddie Adams (who eventually changes his name to Dirk Diggler), Boogie Nights is, essentially, a classic tragic story, featuring a rise to fame, the corruption of fame leading to a fall on hard (get it?) times, and a redemptive ending where lessons are learned and relationships mended.

That story -- of a meteoric rise and fall -- is common to movies about movies for reasons that are actually sort of obvious: it's the story of Hollywood.

A few years ago, after all, Diablo Cody won an Oscar for writing Juno. This year, her movie Jennifer's Body took a huge dump at the box office, placing sixth (out of four).

For me, the chief attribute of Boogie Nights is in it's details: the direction, characters, acting, sets and tone are all brilliant. And then there's this sequence -- as hilarious, terrifying and awesome a scene as I've seen in a movie.

The main difference between Boogie Nights' story arc and the normal rise and fall Hollywood story is that Boogie Nights actually ends sort of happily. After nearly getting killed in the above scene, Wahlberg returns to his porn "family," begs for forgiveness and is accepted.

As we'll see by some of the upcoming movies on this list, that's actually somewhat unusual. Movies about movies usually end on a downer for their protagonists. And that's, you know, probably appropriate, since if William Faulkner wasn't exactly right in saying that the problem with American lives is they have no second acts, he's almost entirely right if you confine it strictly to Hollywood.

After all, John Holmes (upon whom the Wahlberg character was based) fell into drug addiction and died of AIDS. He didn't make a comeback. Neither did John Belushi or Chris Farley. We'll see about Diablo Cody (though as a former stripper she'll probably land on her feet. Or her tits).

The redemption of a guy like Robert Downey, Jr. (or, to a less talented extent, Charlie Sheen) is notable in part because it's so unusual. It's so hard to get there getting there in the first place getting back must seem even harder than, uh... even harder than avoiding making dick jokes has been in this post.

But it works in Boogie Night because the characters are drawn so well and so precisely that by the end they're just kind of a fucked up family, loving and protective of each other. When Wahlberg's character "returns," it isn't to glory, but to his adopted family. It's where he belongs. And in it's own twisted way, it seems right.

My friend Matt, plus a few words about Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

This is my friend Matt.

Matt came into town about a week ago to visit my brother and myself, and we've spent the last several days driving all over the state, visiting friends and whooping it up in a very childish manner.

Not pictured: a man trying to throw a baby through this.

All this weirdness has led me to remember movies that chronicle this same kind of demented journey. And of course when you do that one movie rises to the forefront:

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

Despite the fact that I was a journalism major when I arrived on campus for my first day of college, I had still never even heard of Hunter Thompson. And I still hadn't heard of him until I watched this movie (thanks, Ryan).

Anyhow, I loved the movie, and I immediately set out to learn everything there was to learn about Thompson.

Not pictured: his ears, which I snuck into his funeral home and cut off.

So why is Fear and Loathing the best roadtrip/freak out movie ever made? Well, it's right there in the dialogue.

"Our trip was different."

Rather than being a Euro Trip-esque story of a bunch of dimwitted college students getting drunk and falling down, Fear and Loathing turns the run amuck story into a kind of hilarious rebellion thing, played out with wit and anger rather than befuddled stoner-ism.

I mean, sure, as with pretty much all of Thompson's work, it's rooted in a a kind of male fantasy adventure (after all, who wouldn't enjoy tearing up a hotel room, ordering massive amounts of room service and skipping out on the bill if they could?), but it was also mixed with a strong dose of righteous outrage and sadness.

After all, Fear and Loathing the book was designed as part craziness and part love letter. In the book, Thompson and Acosta go on a poorly executed, only semi-conscious search for "the American dream" (they skip over it in the movie). After a conversation with a girl in a fast food joint, they find there was a dentist's office called "The American Dream," but it had burned down a few years ago.

For Thompson, this was a strongly important metaphor. In his mind, the American dream of Berkley and Kennedy had died after Kent State, Chicago '68 and the political assassinations of the late 60s, and the hope of a new permanent psyche had been lost forever.

At it's heart, Fear and Loathing is the story of a guy who's had dreams and seen them burned away. And now that they're gone, he's pissed off and sad about it and ready to wreak havoc as a way to stay occupied. His target: Las Vegas -- American destination spot, fun factory and excess capital. Duke and Gonzo hate everywhere they go in Vegas and destroy everything they see. The only thing treated with tenderness is memories of California in the middle sixties, "the kind of peak that will never come again."

So while most people who watch the movie now probably don't know the background, it's still a relatable story. We all have dreams that fall away. We all go through the various stages of grief after they die. And we all hope we can be liberated from our sadness -- even if only for a little while -- by engaging in a little hilariously anarchic debauchery.

A Few Words About Inglourious Basterds

So last weekend I went out to my local megaplex and watched Inglourious Basterds, the new Tarantino movie.

And I've got to tell you, the movie didn't surprise me one bit. Every plot twist, every nuance. Shit, even most of the dialogue.

I saw it all coming.

Am I a psychic, you ask?

Surprisingly, no. I just... you know. I'd read the script already.

Anyhow, this was a new experience for me. Most of the time I read a script after I've watched the movie. A script, after all, is best described as the blueprint for a movie, and reading one before you've watched the movie is sort of like looking at a set of blueprints before you've seen the building.

But that's what I did with Inglourious Basterds anyway, to see what it was like, to see how different it would be and if my opinion of it would change. I'd heard the final draft of the shooting script had leaked so I secured myself a copy.

Then I sat down a read it, knowing I'd be sacrificing some of the joy of watching the movie for the first time in the process.

So what was it like, you ask patiently, hoping I'll move on to another topic?

Well, the truth is I probably should have picked a different script, because the Inglourious Basterds script, with few exceptions, was exactly like the fucking movie.

With the exception of an extensive beer pong sequence.

That is, of course, without all the typos. The goddamn script was riddled with them. Tarantino is apparently some combination of dyslexic, lazy and a bad speller. For instance: Adolf Hitler is spelled "Adolph Hitler."

At the end of the day, though, my experience of reading it was, like I said, almost exactly like my experience of watching it (sans the music, of course, and the smell of farts). And when you think about it, it makes a lot of sense why.

A Tarantino movie is inevitably talky (and whatever you think about it, Inglourious Basterds is a very talky movie), to the point that many scenes essentially boil down to a few talking heads. The drama is carried out by the situation and the inventiveness of the dialogue (which I can report was nearly line for line), and all of that is in the script.

Thinking back over it, I actually think the movie would have worked just as well as a radio play, since you realize after doing what I did just how few of the scenes were carried primarily by the visuals (like this scene from Pulp Fiction).

And that's fine. Glengarry Glen Ross is non-visual, too, and it's one of my favorite movies.

In the final evaluation, I think it's a useful exercise. But the next time I do this it'll have to be something not quite so talky (that means you, Zach and Miri Make a Porno!)

Oh, and my grade on the movie (since I can tell you were all eagerly awaiting that): 3 stars out of 5.

The movie was only so-so, I thought. The first sequence is amazing and the rest sort of fizzles. The Hans Landa character really stood out in the script and I'm glad he was well played (though I honestly thought he read better).

I'd say it goes in the Death Proof file, though Inglourious Basterds, for all it's gung ho weirdness, wasn't nearly as playful as that movie.

The Worst Movies... Ever

Congratulations, May!

If you know me at all, you take one look at that poster and say, "Joe, why the fuck did you watch that movie?"

And that's a pretty good question. After all, I don't particularly like horror movies. And when I'm not laughing at them, I can't say I think too highly of goth people, either (though to be honest, that's why I'm laughing at them).

So why did I watch this monumental piece of shit? Well, take a look at this picture.

This is Natasha. No really, that's her name. Once upon a time, Natasha and I were roommates, sharing an apartment at one of the worst apartment complexes in Gainesville (which is really saying something).

The story of my time living there with Natasha as my roommate is a incredibly weird, vaguely fucked up affair, but for purposes of this story only one thing really matters.

May is her favorite movie.

Of course, I'd never heard of it, and when she asked me whether I'd like to see this "really awesome movie," I should have said, "uh, no fucking way," but instead I said "sure". And man did I fucking live to regret it.

The Plot

May is the story is a lonely, awkward girl (named May) with a lazy eye whose only friend is a freakishly weird-looking doll named Suzy.

Yeah.

Anyhow, May works at a veterinary hospital and becomes infatuated with a local mechanic named Adam, played by Jeremy Sisto. She's particularly interested in his hands. Strangely, a magical pony does not at any point show up.

May and Adam begin dating, and at some point he shows her a movie he's made for school called "Jack and Jill" about a young couple who go on a picnic only to end up eating each other.

As you can imagine, that makes May's special parts all tingly, and when the movie's over she attacks him, biting his lip to the point of drawing blood. May apologizes, blaming her doll. For some incomprehensible reason, Adam is surprised by this behavior, freaks out and leaves.

At this point, May gives in to a lesbian colleague played by Anna Faris. Sadly, this promising sequence does not particularly go anywhere.

But Wait, it Gets Worse

I won't bore you with too much more of the minutiae of the plot. The basic idea is this: May accidentially kills a cat given to her by the Anna Faris character. Instead of burying it, she keeps in her freezer. When some skater punk comes over, he makes the unforgivably stupid mistake of looking in a freaky person's freezer and finds the cat. He freaks out, and May stabs him in the head with a pair of scissors.

What happens next really deserves to be quoted from the plot summary:

At Polly's house, (May) and Polly carry on a normal conversation about work until May pulls out a couple of scalpels she stole from the animal hospital and puts them in each side of Polly's neck. Polly laughs at her, thinking this is a joke and stating that she knows that May would never hurt her until May actually starts cutting her neck, much to Polly's astonishment, before dying.

Yeah. Anyhow, May keeps killing her friends, believing that if she just takes parts from each of them, she can create some kind of horrific "super friend."

So she kills a friend of hers with long legs and cuts off the legs. She kills Adam and cuts off his hands. And at home, she assembles her, uh, friend, calling her Amy.

And then this happens.

(Once it's) finished, (May) realizes that Amy can't actually see her. So, in a rush of misery, she gouges out her right eye (the lazy one) with the scissors. Crying in pain, she puts in on Amy's head and sobbingly begs for the toy to look at her. Exasperated and in pain, May leans her head against Amy's shoulder. May sees her friend suddenly come to life and touch her face lovingly, with Adam's treasured hands. May smiles, and the credits roll.

So imagine for a second being in my shoes. The movie has just ended, and you look over at your roommate, the person who recommended it, a freakish goth person named Natasha.

This is her favorite movie.

The main character, who she clearly identifies with, just butchered and mutilated a bunch of people.

Oh, and you just spent the last two hours of your life watching an incredibly shitty movie.

Yeah.

I remember just sort of backing away slowly and making a note to lock the door to my room. Natasha and I weren't roommates for much longer. I moved out with three months left on the lease.

Celebrity Birthday of the Day

Happy Birthday, Hal Ashby!

Hal Ashby's story is one of the great (ie tragic) rise and fall stories of Hollywood.

Born in 1929 in Ogden, Utah and raised as a Mormon, Ashby put his fucked up childhood this way:

"I was... the last of four children. Mom and Dad divorced when I was five or six. Dad killed himself when I was 12. I struggled growing up, like others, totally confused. Married and divorced twice before I made it to 21. Hitchhiked to Los Angeles when I was 17. Had about 50 or 60 jobs up to the time I was working as a Multilith operator at good old Republic Studios."

Ashby parlayed his various jobs at Hollywood studios (he started as a printing press operator at Universal) into being a freelance assistant film editor. While doing this, he made friends with an MGM messenger by the name of Jack Nicholson (who he would later direct in The Last Detail).

Talented, driven and weird, Ashby was soon a full-fledged editor, and it only took until his fourth movie to get his big break: editing Norman Jewison's In the Heat of the Night.

It's much more exciting edited together.

He won an Academy Award for editing the movie, and three years later he directed his first film, a Beau Bridges vehicle called The Landlord. The next year he released the tender/creepy story of a romance between an incredibly old woman and a teenager -- one of the great love stories of our time: Harold and Maude.

They bang. They bang hard.

Ashby made a number of noted (code for: I haven't seen them) films after Harold and Maude, including Shampoo, a movie about a hairdresser that stars Warren Beatty (the reason I haven't seen it should be fairly evident).

But before the decade was out, he managed to direct one of my very favorite movies, Being There, starring Peter Sellers in his last major role.

The story of a functionally retarded gardener whose generalized ramblings about plants and the seasons are mistaken for profundity, Being There cracked open the world of politics and celebrity in a hilariously bitter way, prodding us to pay attention to content rather than superficial assumptions about who someone is and how they look. The controversial ending (which I dare not give away), remains one of my favorite moments in the movies, since (in my reading of it) it plays the same trick on the audience that so far been played on everyone else in the movie. It's conceit dares you to look through it, and the implication is that if you don't, then you're no better than the dopes you've been snickering at the rest of the movie.

Sadly, Being There marked the effective end for Ashby. Though he had for most of his life been charitably described as an eccentric, he now began the slow slide into madness. Drugs and obsessive behavior began to take their hold. He refused to eat in front of other people. He began to take so long in the editing room several projects were taken away from him so they could be finished.

By the time he had straightened himself out, he was diagnosed with cancer that quickly spread throughout his body. He died on December 27, 1988.

But he left behind a series of totally unique movies (many of which, especially from his 1971-79 phase, I will surely get around to watching), filled with idiosyncratic characters, intelligent concepts and sly humor.

As a parting video, I present this funny scene from Harold and Maude.

Note: If you haven't seen this movie, this is one of Harold's fake suicides, which he stages to try to get a reaction out of his mother.