It is always a curiosity when Hollywood families come together for a project. I love seeing the Estevezes (aka Sheens) appear together -- sure, even in Men at Work. And sometimes the Coppolas do well with one another -- Talia Shire in her brother's Godfather movies, for example. But often it is a bad idea to work with or cast family members. The most obvious case is Sofia Coppola (Shire's niece) being in her father's The Godfather: Part III. Just recently Jake Paltrow received a paltry reception for a movie he made featuring his sister, Gwyneth. Now, another new filmmaker is attempting a similar feat: According to Variety, Bruce Dern will make his directorial debut with Hart's Location, in which he'll appear alongside his ex-wife, Diane Ladd, and his daughter, Laura Dern. Written by Ashley Reed, the film will appropriately be about family estrangement. Laura will star as a woman seeking to regain custody of her son while also attempting to locate her father, who left when she was 3.

It is worth noting that Diane Ladd has been nominated for three Oscars, all for films in which her daughter also appears (Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore; Wild at Heart; Rambling Rose). The last of these even saw a nomination for Laura, as well, marking the first time a mother and daughter were ever recognized by the Academy for the same film. So, for the women, at least, Hart's Location seems to be a great idea. Maybe there's more Oscars in their future. On the other hand, it also seems to have a sort of novelty to it, like the badly-received It Runs in the Family, which featured a lot of the Douglases (Michael, Kirk, Cameron and Diana), in what appeared to exist just for the stunt-casting. Like that movie, Hart's Location also unites a real-life divorced couple (Dern and Ladd parted ways in 1969). Interestingly enough, though, Ladd has already directed her ex-husband, in 1994's little-seen Mrs. Munck. Hopefully Dern can do better in this reversal of roles. As long as he spends more attention on making a good movie rather than on working out his personal issues (he told Daily Variety that the project makes sense for them because it's about the things you wish you'd said to your family members), then I'll be looking forward to it. The film begins shooting in New Orleans in February.

I live a ten minute walk from the Arclight Cinema in Los Angeles, easily one of the best movie theaters in the country. The American Film Institute hosts awesome screenings of new and classic films there weekly, and I try to see as many as I can. Just last week, I enjoyed the new Michael Douglas flick King of California, which was followed by an enlightening talk with the movie's writer and director -- Mike Cahill. Neat, right? But nothing could prepare me for the event that hit my inbox just now. Had I been a cartoon character, my bow tie would have spun around rapidly and smoke would have blasted out of my ears. Readers, if you live in Los Angeles -- KEEP OCTOBER 3RD FREE!

The AFI is celebrating its 40th anniversary with an almost unbelievably cool event. On October 3rd, they will screen eleven classic movies at the Arclight, all at the same time. But what truly sets this event apart are the people they've booked to host the screenings. Check this lineup out, and try to keep your jaw attached to your face: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, presented by Jack Nicholson. Spartacus, presented by Kirk Douglas. The Birds, presented by Tippi Hedren. The Sound of Music, presented by Julie Andrews. Bonnie and Clyde, presented by Warren Beatty. Rocky, presented by Sylvester Stallone. Star Wars, presented by George Lucas (settle down!). When Harry Met Sally, presented by Rob Reiner and Billy Crystal. Beauty and the Beast, presented by Angela Lansbury. The Shawshank Redemption, presented by Morgan Freeman. And Unforgiven, presented by Clint Eastwood. Um...wow. Just wow.

Here is the official site for the event. Tickets go on sale September 19th. which is this Wednesday. Tickets are $25, and include popcorn and soda. The first 100 people to show up for each screening get a 40th Anniversary AFI Book. Dress is "festive attire," all screenings begin at 7PM, and doors are at 5:30. For you non-Angelinos, which screening would you choose if you could go? And if you plan on attending, which one are you going to? I'll be at either Unforgiven or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest for sure. Both movies are in my personal top ten, and where else am I going to be up close and personal with Jack Freaking Nicholson or Clint Freaking Eastwood? This is going to be a tough choice! See you there?

If thoughts are any indication of life, we should probably enjoy Kirk Douglas while we can. While he hasn't done too many films over the last twenty years, he has spent a lot of time writing. Now he's written what he calls his final book - Let's Face It: 90 Years of Living, Loving, and Learning. While Publisher's Weekly describes it as "upbeat," there's a collection of chapters that deal with the "It" Douglas is facing -- "Thinking About Death," "Dealing With Death," "Almost Dying" and "Reading Obituaries." It's just the sort of perk you want to read after a long day of work that's left your muscles and mind exhausted, eh?

But it isn't just his death that swarming his mind in his 90th year. In a Reuters interview, Douglas talks about losing close friend Burt Lancaster and not getting to see him to say goodbye, the helicopter crash in 1991 that spared his life, but killed two young people ("Why was I alive and this young man dead, when his life was just beginning?") and the drug overdose of his 45-year-old son, Eric. According to the ol' Spartacus and Van Gogh, "When you reach 90, you are living on the house's money," and it's what 90-year-olds think about while evaluating how much good they've done in their lives. No wonder many tend to give up at those ages then. At 30, thinking about death everyday is depression, at 90, it's life? But, at least, in all of these finite thoughts and the looming Joe Black, he has a goal for his next birthday: "I'd like to meet Angelina Jolie, if my wife approves." Well, at least he hasn't gotten too weary.

The latest Hollywood actor to play a famous painter is Jared Padalecki, who has been cast as still-living artist Thomas Kinkade (aka "Painter of Light"). Though he probably won't go down in cinematic history like Kirk Douglas as Van Gogh, Jeffrey Wright as Basquiat or (yet to be seen) Al Pacino as Dalí, Padalecki will be supported by a possibly memorable performance from the great Peter O'Toole, who will play the artist Glen Wessler, a mentor to the young Kinkade. He will also have the benefit of playing the artist in a trilogy. After the first movie, The Christmas Cottage, which follows Kinkade as a teen on the verge of deciding to become an artist, there will be two more pics portraying the artist as a young man (unless Lionsgate plans to wait years between movies and use Padalecki a la Jean-Pierre Léaud -- which I doubt).

When the news was out that Lionsgate would make a movie based on Thomas Kinkade's painting The Christmas Cottage, I had thought the artwork was simply serving as inspiration for a fictional holiday movie set in the depicted wintry home (Yawn). Now that I know the movie actually focuses on the life of Kinkade I am no more interested, but it at least makes more sense to me. Living commercial artists, especially those as commercial as Kinkade, aren't very worthy of biopic treatment, but Kinkade is so popular that it could attract a lot of his fans. I must point out, though, that as popular as Gustav Klimt is these days (ever been in a female art student's dorm/apartment?), his recent biopic has not been a big success. So, Lionsgate has to do a good job of getting people in seats for Cottage, particularly if they hope for there to be audiences for its two sequels (which paintings will be used for those titles?).

As Martha noted, director Richard Fleischer died Saturday at age 89. While he directed a number of solid thrillers and action films, the film I remember most is 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, which he directed for Disney in 1954. It's not that I was a big fan of the film, but as a child, I kept encountering it repeatedly in various social situations. The movie must have been one of the few "family films" available cheaply as a 16mm print, because the nearby grade school/church showed it frequently as a weekend activity for kids. Also, I believe the film was shown regularly during a local summer kids' movie series, which we were sent to weekly.

What I remember about 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is that I was jaded enough to find the special effects to be pretty cheesy, especially the big octopus or sea monster or whatever it was. It was the late 1970s/early 1980s when I saw this film, and I was a kid from the Star Wars generation. I also found Kirk Douglas' character Ned Land to be annoying and grating. But even at a young age, I rather liked James Mason as the enigmatic Captain Nemo. He was my favorite part of the film.

I wonder if I would enjoy the film at all now. I didn't realize at the time that the cast included Peter Lorre, Paul Lukas, and allegedly Charles Grodin in an uncredited role. These days, I'm still a fan of James Mason ... but I might consider Nemo a bit of a drama queen, playing his organ during climactic moments at sea, brooding in his beautifully appointed private rooms, and so forth. However, at age 10, or 12, I was a sucker for a British accent and especially a moody genius that no one understood. (Don't even ask about Gene Hackman in the Superman movies.) Have any of you seen 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea lately, in theaters or on DVD, and is it worth another look?

\

It could mean a number of things, right? Perhaps you're stuck in the middle of the woods and people around you are disappearing, while horrifying visions follow your every move. Congrats, you've just lost your sh*t. Oh, or maybe you were accidentally flushed down the toilet and wound up trying to survive in a sewer system. Okay, maybe in that situation, your sh*t would follow you down. But upon arrival, I'm sure you would lose it.

While the term may mean different things to different people, the character's in the following films, at one point or another, probably felt as if they had lost their sh*t. Personally, when I see someone separate a curse word with a *, it often causes me to lose my own sh*t. So, in theory, I've just pissed myself off while writing this post. Hmm, maybe I'll simply blame the FCC.  Welcome to this week's Trailer Park....

The search for meaning is not a search for truth. I've come to this conclusion (which now seems so obvious) while doing research on Vincente Minnelli's 1956 film, Lust for Life, which purports to chronicle the life of Vincent Van Gogh. Of course, we're now old hats at knowing bio-pics very rarely stick to the unadulterated truth. But in 1956? I can't say what audiences thought then. Lust for Life the film was based on Lust for Life the book, by Irving Stone, which became a bestseller in its second edition. I haven't read the book, but my guess is this is an example of small stones casting wide ripples--the compass is off by one degree, but travel eight thousand miles by that compass and you might find yourself living among "indians," not Indians. See how that works?

Fictionalize the life of one great man and set the entire genre of film biography going in the wrong direction. Fans approach these films like they would an ancient, unearthed diary. Vincent Van Gogh in SpectraColor! His secrets revealed! It's just too tempting a scenario for sentimentalists like myself. Admirers and scholars spend years riddling out the hidden meaning behind paint strokes; they flap their hands and push their glasses up their collective noses and say "Ah, yes! The dark colors here, in the background--they symbolize his pain, his heartache!" Because art means so much more when there's an actual living, breathing, tortured soul behind it. And who's more tortured than Van Gogh?

So, why make a film about a real-life tortured soul, only cut out all the really tortured parts? Why gloss over the whores, the absinthe addiction, the permanent midnight? Van Gogh's mania and suicidal tendencies are well known; his agonies are legendary. The fact is, peering into a fictional man's soul is far less fascinating than fictionalizing a real man's soul. As film historian Dr. Drew Casper explains in the DVD commentary track, Lust for Life was made in a time when "consensus and conformity were valued," yet the American male, returning home from war, was "unsure." Casper wagers that much of the success of the film can be attributed to its making this "dialectic [...] its heartbeat." America needed a portrait of its agony, and Hollywood served up an amputated Starry, Starry Night. The details might be off, but emotionally, it was a perfect fit.