Conference bookie::movies

580.0. "Eversmile New Jersey" by SMAUG::LEHMKUHL (H, V ii 216) Mon Jun 27 1994 16:30

Recently in _The Times_ an exceedingly annoying woman
who regularly masquerades as a film and book critic
panned "Romeo is Bleeding".  She then proceeded to 
turn the review into an attack on Gary Oldman.  In the
course of her carry-on she held up Danel Day-Lewis
as a paragon of filmic virtue who "clearly" would 
never compromise his standards by making a terrible
film just to pay the rent.

Now I like Oldman and Day-Lewis equally.  They are 
both extremely talented actors, accomplished on stage
and film.  I do NOT like Julie Burchill and as a rule
will not read her columns.  In this case I was reading
the erudite, polite, and very sensible rebuttal 
written by Gary Oldman, and found myself immediately
aligned on his side of the debate.  He quite rightly
pointed out that no decent actor deliberately accepts
a role in a film that he or she knows is garbage 
[excepting of course Michael Caine, Sir Anthony Hopkins,
Dame Maggie Smith, and Laurence, Lord Olivier - dcl.].

As a result I felt obliged to confirm that Day-Lewis,
like Oldman, had more than once found himself in 
a film that he'd rather not have on his CV.

So, drawing a veil over the rather poor "Stars and Bars",
I withdrew "Eversmile New Jersey" from the video 
library.  It is the "incomprehensible, bizarre 
cr**" referred to in 579.0.  Day-Lewis had, indeed, 
chosen rent over artistic integrity on this occasion.
Either that or he saw something in the script that
never made it to the screen.

Irish dentist from New Jersey travels the byways of
South and Central America on his motorcycle (with 
dental sidecar), carrying the gospel of preventive
dentristy to the orally challenged.  He gives out 
free toothbrushes from the Eversmile Company of NJ.
He dispenses free transplants, extractions, cleanings,
etc.  He goes after the bacteria, doesn't sit in an
office waiting for the patients with problems to come
to him.

The "deep stuff" that had to be going on under the 
terrible script and appalling acting had something to
do with Northern Ireland, organized religion, and
artistic integrity (!!), but it eluded me.  Even 
DD-L was hard to watch.  I just wanted it to end so
I could read the credits and find out who on earth
was responsible for this mess.

Other than Day-Lewis, there is no one I'd ever 
seen before associated with this film, which was 
made in Peru.  

Aside from the subject matter (traveling dentistry),
this was painful to watch.  It is NOT a comedy, no
matter what your video guide or store shelving system
tells you.  It's ... nothing.  It's not funny, sad,
dramatic, mysterious, beautiful, horrifying (not 
deliberately), or interesting.

This film is �1989, the same year as Day-Lewis' 
Oscar-winning performance in Jim Sheridan's "My 
Left Foot".  I'll bet it was made BEFORE "My Left 
Foot" :-).

dcl

    Sometimes and actor needs to do one movie in order to get the part that
    they *really* want....a package deal type of thing.  So it may not be
    totally up to the actor what they play in.  I realize its not as bad as
    it was during the "golden age" of Hollywood when actors were indentured
    servents but there are still times when a writer/director/actor whoever
    needs to fulfill an obligation or do a favor before they can be in or
    direct a movie they really truly want and have faith in.
    
    Jt

Actually, that's why I wanted to see the credits
of this disaster.  To find some hint to the decision
to take the job.  There was no visible connection
to a major TV or film product company, nor to a known
producer, writer, or director (well, known to me, at
any rate).

I have no doubt that there were compelling reasons
for Daniel Day-Lewis to take "Eversmile New Jersey".
From his reputation I suspect that they were artistic,
rather than fiscal.  Maybe it was a favor to the 
leading lady (a lover?).  Nevertheless, the film is 
a stinker.  So Ms. Burchill's argument that actors 
like Gary Oldman should emulate _Day-Lewis_ and never 
settle for less than the best is Rubbish.

There are lots of reasons to take a film role when you
aren't Harrison Ford yet (a fine actor, the ultimate 
movie star, and one who makes very few bad choices 
as well). Staying in work, any work, so long as it
is paid and visible is one of them.

Michael Caine will take anything put in front of him,
so long as the money is right.  And he's good enough 
that for every 10 "Blue Ice" there's one "Hannah and 
Her Sisters" to remind the industry that he's an actor 
as well as a hack.  Hopkins has done much the same.

Olivier was seriously ticked off that he had a life 
peerage but was having trouble paying for his kids' 
schooling.  When they worked together on "Sleuth",
Caine taught him the facts of life.

dcl

 The point Julie Burchill was making was that actors do not need to "sell out"
 by moving to America in order to make good films. She'd also just been 
 reviewing 4 Marriages and a Funeral and was sounding off about how great the
 Brits are etc. 

 I find her very irritating - she's controversial for the sake of it, and her
 whole reputation is built on that. Did anyone see the piece she wrote on 
 Jacqueline Kennedy? Ouch!

Yes, I rather liked that one, in a perverse, Republican
sort of way.  But I never read her stuff! :-)

RE:               <<< Note 580.0 by SMAUG::LEHMKUHL "H, V ii 216" >>>

>Recently in _The Times_ an exceedingly annoying woman

Which "Times" do you mean?

Brian

_The Times_.  London.  Not _The New York Times_, 
or other Timeses.