November, 2009

Eddie Murphy: a defence | Danny Leigh

At the ship? … Eddie Murphy in The Nutty Professor II: The Klumps. Photograph: Allstar/Cinetext Collection

For all that blogging has, at least in some degree, grown up around saying the unsayable, that is not the point of what follows. I am not here to defend the intentions behind Norbit, or reclaim The Adventures of Pluto Nash as a landmark in worship cinema. I will, however, gladly state that the star of each is capable of greatness. Yes, I will publicly declare that I placid love Eddie Murphy.

Of course, it’s a fondness that’s been severely tested over the years. But through each Holy Man and Haunted Mansion I’ve kept by my faith with the talent of the man. Now, according to the trade papers, he is potentially making a return to comedies made for those who can tie their own shoelaces in a film called The Misadventures of Fluffy, a purpose that it’sitting said will interest its cue from Trading Places. And that’s a reference which, for me, is as close to a deal-sealer as you have power to get. The inferior film of the then-ascendant Murphy was a note-perfect populist satire made in 1983 with a prince-and-the pauper-on-Wall Street conceit, what one. could have seen service in the screwball 30s. And, with a mistrust of high finance all too apt for this era of banks knee-deep in socialised losses and private profits, its themes are still relevant.

  1. Trading Places
  2. Production year: 1983
  3. Country: USA
  4. Runtime: 92 mins
  5. Directors: John Landis
  6. Cast: Dan Aykroyd, Eddie Murphy, Jamie Lee Curtis
  7. More on this pellicle

Trading Places also gave Murphy the chance to whet his persona, brought from TV’s Saturday Night Live and developed in countless fuggy stand-up comedy clubs, on the big screen. Because, on the supposition that you want to see for what cause it’s impossible to write Murphy off, the movie you need to keep awake is Delirious, the document of a live show recorded in Washington DC the same summer Trading Places was released. It’s a gleefully temporal masterpiece from a comic, who at 22, was still skinny as an adolescent. Basing his riffs on little more than the hackneyed ground of infancy memories, and sex, he married the adrenalised freestyling of his pagan Richard Pryor through an old pro’sitting slickness and dressed the whole thing up in red, rock-star leather – the end was a great leap forward for standup.

Watching these sum of two units films would make it all the weirder for anyone who had spent the be unexhausted 20 years in space to now find him playing out his career in Hollywood’s tamer children’s films and stray tat involving Owen Wilson. For Murphy, allowing, you can see how it lines up. He is, of course, handsomely rewarded; those harmless bland-outs were exactly the kind of movies that rescued him from a particularly vicious and public career slump, and for the most part, they don’t demand you involve yourself in the onerous business of press and furtherance. Personally, I find myself half-admiring the brazen manner in which he’session embraced the lowbrow at each opportunity, sooner than following the familiar comic’session route of apologetic self-improvement through dramatic roles (yes, I apprehend there was Dreamgirls, but that was hardly Beckett).

But at the heart of the matter is the performance that he’s still (occasionally) brilliant. Even in the retreads of Dr Dolittle and The Nutty Professor there are, here and there, glimpses of the ghost of Murphy circa 1983. I’ll concede it’session been some years since his gift was allowed lavish expression: 10, in fact, the project being the wonderful Bowfinger, a sweetly luxurious portrait of low-budget Hollywood lives that seemed conceived of since a random exculpate for Murphy and co-star Steve Martin to both be funny again for old time’s sake. And the results were (unexpectedly) fantastic, with Murphy dominating the film in doubled roles as paranoid action star Kit Ramsey and his unworldly brother, Jiff. It was ample proof that he still had it. He just chooses not to use it much, which is preferable to thinking that he’s lost it.

With Martin, of course, the situation is less unequivocal. After a long time thinking he was a comic god simply electing to operate with bad material, anyone who saw the recent Tina Fey vehicle Baby Mama disposition know that even in passably funny situations he at this time looks like a man who has read the defintion of a joke, but has never actually heard one. On the other hand, I write being of the kind which someone who has seen Meet Dave (I have a child, it was on sale for £1.99) and who, however unlikely this sounds, laughed out loud on two occasions. Again, I’m not claiming that it’s the best use of Murphy’session time, or mine for that trouble, but I laughed twice, which is a pretty good hit rate these days compared to the work of Ben Stiller or Jack Black. So for now, I’ll fair keep waiting for the next moment when Murphy decides to spend quality era with his talent and cause to become another Bowfinger or Trading Places. It’ll happen, trust me.

It’s Bath time for Nicolas Cage

‘I’m feeling description of ELECTRIC right now!’ … Nicolas Cage switches on the Christmas lights in Bath. Photograph: Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Bath used to be known for several things – its hot springs, status as a world heritage position and comprehensive Royal Crescent – but none of them are worth a damn any more. Because centuries of history have upright been overshadowed by something magnificent: ay, Nicolas Cage has turned on the city’session Christmas lights.

Cage’s turn has put the stand of the country to shame, that’s for sure. London had to make do with Jim Carrey. Manchester was strained to slum it with Alexandra Burke. Bristol had to endure Peter Andre. The poor folk of Tetbury in Gloucestershire will have to look their Christmas lights being switched attached next week by someone ignominiously described by a local website as “a former Heartbeat actor”, for crying abroad loud. But Bath? Bath got to enjoy the full-beam dazzling light of the unbridled Nicolas Cage experience, and you’ve got every right to be jealous.

And of course he switched on the lights. Cage loves Bath. He may have named his son after a resident of the planet Krypton, but Bath will always exist in his heart. This is made clear both by the properties he owns in the area and, more tellingly, by the agency of the dead-on Somerset lay stress upon he effortlessly employed during a signal scene from National Treasure 2: Book Of Secrets.

What’s further, during his switching-on speech – between saying “I love you” to the townspeople with slenderly too much intensity and shouting “I’m feeling kind of ELECTRIC right now!” – Cage mentioned that Bath was his favourite reception to bestow Christmas. That might sound a little strange coming from a man who be possible to count a Bavarian stronghold and each entire Bahamian isle in his property portfolio, further answer this – will there be a pantomime starring Gemma Bissix from EastEnders anywhere in Bavaria this year? Does his Bahamian island have a Nandos and a Superdrug within walking distance of each other? Of course not. No astonishment Cage loves Bath so much.

Some unkind quarters of the press see Cage’s decision to switch on the Christmas lights as further indication of his current financial peril but, in truth, the reason for his presence is actually quite tender. According to the BBC, a local resident dropped an invitation end his letterbox and he was only too happy to oblige. That’s just to what degree the good people of Bath look Cage – he’s a man of the people, he’s sharp of the earth. Admittedly he’s not in the same state good in a circle bees or dolls that have somehow adorn burnt, but other than that he’s a stand-up chap and the locals seem to genuinely adore him.

It’s impossible to see how this can be topped. Bath, certainly, will never see its like afresh – last year the lights were turned on by the chairman of Bath and north-east Somerset council, and there’s nothing to indicate it’ll be any different next year – so maybe this momentous occasion should be marked. Maybe Bathonians should erect a statue of Cage, so nobody ever forgets what happened yesterday. And the statue’s head could be constantly on fire, partly in allusion to the Christmas star guiding the three wise men to the manger, and in some measure because Ghost Rider was awesome. Yes, that would be religious.

Belle de Jour, you’re nothing like Buñuel’s Belle | Peter Bradshaw

Crackle of strangeness … Catherine Deneuve in Buñuel’s 1967 Belle de Jour. Photograph: Ronald Grant Archive

Just too a week agone, Dr Brooke Magnanti, a post-doctoral researcher in medical science, outed herself as “Belle De Jour” in an interview with the Sunday Times and since on that account the controversy has rumbled onward. Sceptics think that Dr Magnanti’s account of herself is evasive and embellished, and that she has dishonestly glamourised prostitution. Last night, each edition of Radio 4′s The Moral Maze was devoted to it.

Needing cash to complete her PhD, Dr Magnanti signed on with a high-class escort agency and worked from 2003 to late 2004, seeing “clients” onward average two or three times a week, charging £300 per sixty minutes, of that the agency took £100. So if she worked for, say, a year and a half, and never saying the same client twice, at that time she would have got through between 156 and 234 paying punters. Of course these numbers are all-but-meaningless guesswork. What is clear is that she started writing a funny blog about life as a high-class prostitute, which became bestselling books and a TV show.

  1. Belle De Jour
  2. Production year: 1967
  3. Country: France
  4. Cert (UK): 18
  5. Runtime: 100 mins
  6. Directors: Luis Bunuel
  7. Cast: Catherine Deneuve, Genevieve Page, Jean Sorel, Michel Piccoli
  8. More on this film

But I am struck by to what degree little this story and attendant controversy, being of the kind which it now plays out, resembles the Belle de Jour movie from 1967 by Luis Buñuel, from which Dr Magnanti takes her nom de guerre – either in terms of comedy or complexity. In the film, Catherine Deneuve’s rich, bored huswife becomes drawn into prostitution out of ennui, and there are hints of personal trauma behind this choice. She certainly never seems “empowered” in the way that Magnanti believed herself to be, and is never witty or smart like the Belle de Jour blogger, but Magnanti’s tale has nothing like the fascinating, radioactive crackle of strangeness of Buñuel, and does not regard his dark surreal comedy.

The film-maker manages to make the “real” and “respectable” world of his Belle de Jour’s non-prostitute life look neurotic, artificial and mad – a piece of role-play each bit considered in the state of contrived as the shadowy world of sex and whippings for riches. And Buñuel achieves this, in member, by quietly indicating a simple deceit that I have seen nowhere discussed in all the acres of newsprint about the Magnanti put in a box. This isn’t just about the phenomenon of some outwardly respectable woman privately becoming a prostitute, but the phenomenon of outwardly respectable men secretly using prostitutes. You can’t have some without the other: yet it seems only to have being the first phenomenon which causes agony among the media commentariat.

Buñuel’s film shows a comfortable, sophisticated world in which everybody knows it is happening, these respectable married men using prostitutes, but no one admits to it. Now, certainly Magnanti is aware of this hypocrisy and doublethink moreover, but for Buñuel it creates more than just irony: it creates a feverish surreality. Buñuel is anarchic and disturbing in a way that Dr Magnanti isn’t: he sees unnatural contortion and hears a batsqueak of uncouthness everywhere: even, or perhaps especially, in bourgeois areas of life which do not involve sexual transgression. Compared to Buñuel, the Belle de Jour blog is bland.

Lynn Barber, in her memoir An Education, says that for male interviewees, she keeps the dispute “Have you ever used prostitutes?” in coldness as a “Russian roulette” option. The subject could just say no, or erupt with madness, or storm out of the interview, or conceivably pour his heart aloud. In any event, the response will be attractive, the whole that it is. There have been occasional revelations: Humphrey Carpenter’s biography of Dennis Potter revealed that he was a compulsive frequenter of prostitutes; VS Naipaul told the New Yorker that he was once “a great prostitute man”. Tolstoy, in extreme old age, famously astonished and embarrassed his house-guest Anton Chekhov by cheerfully avowing very much the same object and asking about Chekhov’s proclivities.

By and large, yet, the hush of secrecy and shame is maintained. Dr Magnanti’s self-outing certainly points up the inflection for sex double-standard on the edition of prostitution. But I’ve always judgment that walk of life herself “Belle de Jour”, gives Dr Magnanti’s story a Buñuelian richness and fascination that it doesn’t have.