September 11, 2003

A Little Monsterous

partyshoes.jpg'80s New York and its downtown party culture carries a certain mystic, especially for those of us who love Gotham but weren't there to experience its gritty creativity. Micheal Alig, the infamous club promoter, is one of the central figures of that scene and the new movie, Party Monster, starring former child uber star Macauley Culkin, Seth Green and Chloe Sevigney, attempts to both paint his larger than life and cut him down to size. Last Saturday CC, CCC and the lovely Chris caught a screening in Chelsea and while we know that toddler in the theater shouldn't have been watching this movie, for the rest of you we're still unsure. CC and CCC sat down over IM to discuss the performances, the costumes and why movies with gay characters really should have more same-sex encounters of a sexual nature. Like more than none.

Karen: so then. Are you a party monster now? Are you a club kid?
Josh: I hope not. Or else I may become a clubbed kid. Heh heh. Clubbed kid.
Karen: I could kind of see you in those big shoes and the flashy make up.
Josh: that was actually my favorite part of the movie (other than Macaulayís butt). Though some things, like the troll outfit, were too ugly. If you're going to dress fabulously, dress fabulously.

Karen: but it was amazing to see Seth Green trying to talk, in a normal voice, with that bright green proboscis.
Josh: yes, and oh so clever to have him be himself while in costume. The mask can only come off when the person is costumed, eh? OMG.
Karen: what was that great line? "If you've got a hump, just throw some glitter on it and go dancing."
Josh: maybe this movie is a giant allegory for the Internet.
Karen: perhaps. Itíd be cool if we could actually think that it could approach being deep enough to be a metaphor. But I fear, it's too salacious and dumb a movie for that.
Josh: at some point, I thought they showed us an actual picture of James St. James or Michael Alig, which I thought was great.
Karen: I just can't really buy that the movie was really so profound as all this hypothesizing.
Josh: Iím fairly sure it wasn't. Happy accident?
Karen: maybe.
Josh: that's why I sort of didn't hate it as much as I really should have.
Karen: yes. I can see that.
Josh: Macaulayís acting was so so so fake and theatrical, that I thought it almost worked for the movie, since it was all fake and theatrical and the such.
Karen: was it better that way though? Not being more full of its own importance than the subject matter would be?
Josh: and if that's just Mac acting, then it fits his character better, too. Since Seth Green as James St. James did a better job.
Karen: itís that whole question of intent, which can be tough to pin down. Yes, I liked Seth Green out of the two leads better as well.
Josh: I wonder if the documentary the directors made was better.
Karen: what's this?
Josh: I hope it wasn't as formulaic as this movie was.
Party Monster, the documentary. Directed by the same guys about the same subject and better, apparently.
Karen: Iíd like to see that now, just for comparison's sake.
Josh: you'd think that would make the film better, as well. But, alas and alack, these wee lasses lack the talent needed.
Karen: perhaps they should have edited it all together, ala American Splendor with fiction and fact intermingling into something else entirely.
Josh: yes. As it were, shooting it on DV didn't help.
Karen: seriously. Iím really beginning to hate DV.
Josh: "ooh, let's shoot it on video to give it a grittier look!"
Karen: or cause they're cheap.
Josh: "oh, yes, then the realness of this highly stylized situation will create quite the funny effect"
Karen: yeah. But again, more thought put into the intent than the filmmakers did?
Josh: Iím going to say yes. Letís just assume that this whole movie was some sort of crazy accident.
Karen: let's.
Josh: the largest accident of all time. Jesus! Apparently they didn't even give all the right facts.
Karen: really? Like what?
Josh:this New York Times article says that a part of Angel's body washed up on shore, causing the accomplice to confess.
And they left out Michaelís obsession with horror films, which would explain the horror show parties he put on.
Karen: yes, it would. All the fake gore and whatnot.
Josh: indeed. You know, the movie could have at least given us more sex.
Karen: what'd you think of the depiction of homosexuality, or lack there of?
Josh: what homosexuality, Karen?
Karen: it is the other interesting topic of the movie. You know. What your people are into.
Josh: yes.
Karen: the mos. Momomomomomo.
Josh: my people, the Christians. Whatís a gay's mother called? Momma. Ha. Ha. Anyway, yes, more hot gay sex. I mean, the completely left out sex of any kind.
Karen: or at least kissing, for fuck sake. All those people should have been having crazy amount of sex with one another.
Josh: I figure they were just too high to get it up
Karen: they can show the snorting of the drugs every two seconds, but not the groping at least. Drugs and violence they can show.
Josh: yes. We want real porn. Not pornography of drugs. Holy crap though, Marilyn Manson was one writing mess of awesomeness.
Karen: as I mentioned, I didn't recognize him/remember youíd mentioned he had a role until the credits, but he was great. A total train wreck.
Josh: A train wreck of awesomeness?
Karen: exactly.
Josh: how much more should we continue? All this talk is making my mouth taste like bad movie.
Karen: any final thoughts? Worth our time? I was intrigued. I feel satiated now. I think that's enough. Party Monster wasn't good exactly, but a curiosity.
Josh: yeah. I don't think I hated it. But I don't think Iíll remember it years later. Letís just say that Seth Green might deserve some props.
Karen: he should be in more stuff. Heís good people. Go redheads!
Josh: yes, Godspeed to the redheads.

Posted by karen at September 11, 2003 8:03 AM