‘Blue’ Continues On Where ‘Smoke’ Left Off
Blue in the face is what you get when you smoke too many cigarettes. It’s also what can happen when you talk too much.
Smoking and talking happen all throughout “Blue in the Face,” a collaborative movie co-directed by Wayne Wang and Paul Auster. In fact, if someone isn’t sucking on a cigarette, then he’s talking about everything from marital breakups to life in Sweden to the legacy of Jackie Robinson to, appropriately enough, what it’s like to smoke your last cigarette.
There’s that smoking theme again, which is only natural considering the film is a loose sequel to Wang’s “Smoke,” which he directed from a script by New York novelist Auster.
But while “Smoke” boasts an actual plot for its characters to follow, “Blue in the Face” is more a sort of film follies in which many of those same characters play off in a variety of improvised scenes.
Wang and Auster got the idea for a second movie while shooting “Smoke.”
That film centers in a Brooklyn smoke shop run by one Auggie Wren (Harvey Keitel), a born raconteur. Around him revolve a variety of friends, acquaintances and hangers-on so colorful that Wang and Auster were challenged to accommodate the different spins of character that each actor daily came up with.
So they hatched an idea: Instead of shutting down production at the end of shooting, why not keep things going and, as cheaply as possible, just let the actors go; why not let them improvise and see what occurs?
What occurs is distinctly uneven but always entertaining. Again using Auggie’s shop as a centerpiece, Wang and Auster have come up with a film that blends a series of skits involving several celebrity cameos with a virtual documentary on Brooklyn itself.
A lot of “Blue in the Face” involves love. That includes the love of Brooklyn, novelist Auster’s neighborhood. We learn everything from basic demographics to what happened to Ebbets Field to where’s the best place to order a Belgian waffle.
It involves love of acting, too, with the individual performers working off each other’s energies and imaginations. Some of the skits work well, including one between Giancarlo Esposito and Michael J. Fox that involves Fox, an obviously down-and-out salesman, trying to pass himself off as a big success. Others - namely those with Madonna, Roseanne and Auggie’s girlfriend (played by Mel Gorham), are less watchable.
Finally, though, “Blue in the Face” involves love of character - particularly New York character.
Director Jim Jarmusch, for example, gives a hilarious ongoing commentary on the whys and wherefores of smoking as he prepares to smoke his last butt. And Jarmusch’s performance, which is him portraying himself rather than playing a role, exemplifies all that the film does best.
He is outdone only by rocker Lou Reed, whose deadpan commentary on life in general, living in New York in particular, embodies the very essence of humor.
After listening to both of them, you may laugh until you’re… well, you know what.
, DataTimes ILLUSTRATION: Photo
MEMO: These sidebars appeared with the story: 1. “Blue in the Face” *** Location: Magic Lantern Cinemas Credits: Directed by Wayne Wang and Paul Auster; starring Harvey Keitel, Lily Tomlin, Jared Harris, Giancarlo Esposito, Sharif Rashed, Madonna, RuPaul, Roseanne, Lou Reed, Jim Jarmusch, John Lurie, Michael J. Fox, Malik Yoba, Mel Gorham, Ian Frazier, Keith David and Victor Argo Running time: 1:30 Rating: R
2. Other views Here’s what other critics say about “Blue in the Face:” Michael H. Price/Fort Worth StarTelegram: Once the cameras rolled and director Wayne Wang called for action, the actors’ instruction was to talk until they were “blue in the face.” Which is where Wang’s “Blue in the Face” gets its title, which makes more sense than just about anything else in this intriguing but often annoying example of free-form filmmaking. If nothing else, “Blue in the Face” demonstrates why movies should start shooting with a coherently scripted beginning, middle and end. Chris Hewitt/St. Paul Pioneer Press: If you want to understand why movies need scripts, go see “Blue in the Face,” which didn’t have one. Bob Strauss/Los Angeles Daily News: There may be fewer and fewer public places where you can just hang around and shoot the breeze in today’s troubled cities. But now you can go see “Blue in the Face” for pretty much the same effect. An amusing, easygoing tribute to both off-the-cuff conversations and the debatable virtues of Brooklyn, “Blue” is also an unusual companion piece to last summer’s art-house hit “Smoke.” Kevin Thomas/Los Angeles Times: If you enjoyed “Smoke” you’ll most likely want to see “Blue in the Face,” which has considerable charm and humor, but to avoid being a bit let down it’s important to view it as a companion film rather than a sequel. Joe Baltake/McClatchy News Service: The worst thing you can do is to go into “Blue in the Face” expecting a sequel to “Smoke,” even though that kind of misunderstanding is, well, understandable. The film, after all, boasts the same setting and star that dominated “Smoke,” as well as the writing-directing team of Paul Auster and Wayne Wang. But the resemblance ends there. While “Smoke” had one of the most beautifully structured scripts of the year and sure-handed direction, “Blue in the Face” has neither. Barbara Shulgasser/San Francisco Examiner: “Blue in the Face” has all the merits of a talented film student’s excellent first project. It is filled with humor, fun, love and adventurousness, and if one were great friends of any of the movie’s participants, I’m sure it would be non-stop entertainment to watch. For those not intimately acquainted with them, long stretches where inspiration failed the improvisers may seem strained.
2. Other views Here’s what other critics say about “Blue in the Face:” Michael H. Price/Fort Worth StarTelegram: Once the cameras rolled and director Wayne Wang called for action, the actors’ instruction was to talk until they were “blue in the face.” Which is where Wang’s “Blue in the Face” gets its title, which makes more sense than just about anything else in this intriguing but often annoying example of free-form filmmaking. If nothing else, “Blue in the Face” demonstrates why movies should start shooting with a coherently scripted beginning, middle and end. Chris Hewitt/St. Paul Pioneer Press: If you want to understand why movies need scripts, go see “Blue in the Face,” which didn’t have one. Bob Strauss/Los Angeles Daily News: There may be fewer and fewer public places where you can just hang around and shoot the breeze in today’s troubled cities. But now you can go see “Blue in the Face” for pretty much the same effect. An amusing, easygoing tribute to both off-the-cuff conversations and the debatable virtues of Brooklyn, “Blue” is also an unusual companion piece to last summer’s art-house hit “Smoke.” Kevin Thomas/Los Angeles Times: If you enjoyed “Smoke” you’ll most likely want to see “Blue in the Face,” which has considerable charm and humor, but to avoid being a bit let down it’s important to view it as a companion film rather than a sequel. Joe Baltake/McClatchy News Service: The worst thing you can do is to go into “Blue in the Face” expecting a sequel to “Smoke,” even though that kind of misunderstanding is, well, understandable. The film, after all, boasts the same setting and star that dominated “Smoke,” as well as the writing-directing team of Paul Auster and Wayne Wang. But the resemblance ends there. While “Smoke” had one of the most beautifully structured scripts of the year and sure-handed direction, “Blue in the Face” has neither. Barbara Shulgasser/San Francisco Examiner: “Blue in the Face” has all the merits of a talented film student’s excellent first project. It is filled with humor, fun, love and adventurousness, and if one were great friends of any of the movie’s participants, I’m sure it would be non-stop entertainment to watch. For those not intimately acquainted with them, long stretches where inspiration failed the improvisers may seem strained.