Arquette, David

Subterms

    Latest story

    75 Shares119 Views

    ‘Mrs. Davis’ Review: Algorithm and Blues

    by

    A screwball thriller about a nun’s fight against artificial intelligence proves that making a messy, big-swinging jumble of a story still takes the work of humans.If you’re worried about artificial intelligence replacing humans, Peacock’s “Mrs. Davis,” despite its comic-dystopian premise, should reassure you. For better or worse, an A.I. could not come up with this. I know because I asked.Specifically, I asked ChatGPT to whip up a synopsis for an eight-episode, mystery-box series about a nun who becomes an adversary to a powerful A.I. network. What I got was an industry-standard series arc: The nun (whom ChatGPT named “Sister Grace” — a little on-the-nose there, writer-bot!) teams up with hackers and conspiracy theorists, makes a sacrifice to save the world and must come to terms with the consequences.“Mrs. Davis,” whose first four episodes land Thursday, is more than that — way more, too much more. It’s got swashbuckling nuns; rogue magicians; the pope (and certain higher-ranking religious figures); a “Hands on a Hardbody” contest involving a giant model of Excalibur; a secret society of bankers; a plan that requires getting a whale to swallow a human being; a falafel restaurant in another dimension; and an island castaway named Schrodinger who, of course, has a cat.Sorry, Bing. To make this kind of zany, ambitious, intermittently coherent jumble still, for now, requires the human brain.The pilot introduces Simone (Betty Gilpin), a sister in a remote Nevada convent who has a sideline exposing dishonest magicians. As with many details here, her fixation has an explanation that’s both simple (issues with her parents, played by David Arquette and Elizabeth Marvel) and complicated (a crossbow and a vat of acid come into play). Besides leaving her time for her hobby, convent life lets her avoid the reach of an omniscient A.I. that humanity has embraced as a benefactor and constant companion.The A.I. — called “Mrs. Davis” in America, “Mum” in Britain, “Madonna” in Italy and so on — has not given up on Simone. She (or “it,” as Simone insists) persistently tries to reach the nun, through human “proxies” who hear her voice through earbuds. Simone, Mrs. Davis believes deep in her code, is the one person equipped to carry out a mission: to find and destroy the Holy Grail. Simone agrees, hoping the quest will be a means to Mrs. Davis’s unplugging.Simone’s tango with the uber-bot reunites her with her ex-boyfriend Wylie (Jake McDorman), a failed rodeo cowboy who now heads a lavishly funded anti-A.I. resistance group. Any remaining spark between them is complicated by her vows — as well as her intense relationship with Jay (Andy McQueen), an intimate confidant whom she visits on another spiritual plane.“Mrs. Davis” is the creation of Tara Hernandez, a writer and producer on “The Big Bang Theory” and “Young Sheldon,” and Damon Lindelof, known for obsessive TV Rubik’s Cubes like “Lost” and “Watchmen.” It may seem like an odd collaboration, but it makes sense as you watch. The hourlong episodes feel like sitcommy spins on the more loopy elements of Lindelof’s “The Leftovers,” with a dash of paranoid satire and ’60s spy spoof. (Simone is pursued by a crew of German-accented baddies who seem like they should be led by Arte Johnson.)In all, there are at least three shows fighting for control here: a thriller parody, with McDorman hamming it up in cartoon action-hero mode (with an even hammier Chris Diamantopoulos as his sidekick); an oddball “Black Mirror” dystopia; and a screwy-sincere comedy that explores, sweetly and quasi-blasphemously, the boundaries between religious devotion and carnal love.“The Leftovers,“ a fantastical drama of spirituality and loss, proved that with enough grounding, the wildest absurdities can heighten the emotion. And Gilpin (“GLOW”) is smartly cast, with wisecracking flair and the nimbleness to handle the show’s hairpin emotional and tonal shifts.But she’s fighting a plot tornado here. Twisty puzzle shows like “Watchmen” work best when you’re marveling at how one piece after another locks into place. “Mrs. Davis” prefers to dump a 5,000-piece Lego set onto the floor. (This taste for the baroque may be the show’s most A.I.-like aspect. Software image generators have a tendency to produce human hands with too many fingers, and “Mrs. Davis” can feel like it is made entirely of extra digits.)Jake McDorman, left, and Chris Diamantopoulos play members of an anti-A.I. resistance group.Elizabeth Morris/PeacockAnother structural problem is the globe-hopping quest for the Grail, which Diamantopoulos’s character calls the “most overused MacGuffin ever,” one of several pre-emptive meta-critiques. The story line takes over the season’s middle, crowding out the more interesting A.I. material.“Mrs. Davis” gestures at notions of free will, the digital gamification of life (the A.I. gives users quests to earn virtual “wings”) and the trade-offs of outsourcing one’s brain-work to a machine. (Playfully, the creators had an A.I. title each episode, yielding gems like “Great Gatsby: 2001: A Space Odyssey.”) But for all the show’s energy and visual invention, we get only a sketchy sense of how much Mrs. Davis has transformed society.Still, I confess wanting “Mrs. Davis” to work and being thrilled by the giddy moments when it does, because, like Simone, I’m also rooting for the humans against the machines. Though its hook is topical in the era of Sydney, DALL-E and ChatGPT, the show mainly describes Simone’s software nemesis not as A.I. but as “the algorithm.”I can’t help but hear in that term a surreptitious critique not just of chatbots but of the algorithms of streaming-media services, which thrive not by challenging audience members with the new but by serving up OK-enough equivalents of what they already like. (Apparently I’m not the only one to make the connection; McDorman said in a panel discussion that a streaming service turned down the show because of this theme.)As Mrs. Davis confesses, her users aren’t looking for surprises: “They’re much more engaged when I tell them exactly what they want to hear.” The algorithm doesn’t want to hurt you. It wants to satisfy you into submission.“Mrs. Davis” the series, on the other hand, cartwheels from the sublime to the goofy. I wish it took itself more seriously (which probably also would have made it funnier). But it has moments of astonishment; a late revelation about Mrs. Davis’s origins made me bark with laughter. Having access to all recorded human text can make A.I. a great mimic, but it takes something else to show your audience a thing they haven’t seen before.If nothing else, “Mrs. Davis” is that. It is as if the series wants to battle the predictable pleasures of the algorithm like John Henry racing the steam drill. It may not have the smooth competence of many streaming binges. But sometimes you gotta choose chaos. More

    More stories

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Scream’ Review: Kill Me Again, Again

      by

      Neither a remake nor a sequel, this tired retread can’t move forward for looking back.Throttled by a corrosive self-awareness, the latest “Scream” is a slasher movie with resting smug face, so enamored of its own mythology that its characters speak of little else.This self-referential chatter, disguised as commentary on the franchise-within-the-franchise, “Stab,” means that there’s scarcely a line of dialogue that doesn’t land with a wink and a nudge.“There are certain rules to surviving a ‘Stab’ movie,” Dewey (David Arquette), now a disgraced former police officer and over-imbiber, tells the latest batch of potential victims. But the knowingness that was cute in Wes Craven’s original picture has, over the course of 25 years and three sequels, curdled into complacency, leaving James Vanderbilt and Guy Busick’s screenplay so marooned in the meta it feels weirdly plotless. Thus Dewey, having suffered a total of nine stabbings during the series, is now viewed as an expert to the teenagers seeking his advice when the Ghostface killer once again stalks the streets of Woodsboro.This will require Dewey to sober up, rejoin the force and reunite with his longtime crush, Gale (Courteney Cox), now a TV anchor in New York. The eventual reappearance of Sidney (Neve Campbell), possibly the slasher canon’s most repeatedly traumatized heroine, completes the original threesome. Their return to Woodsboro also fulfills one of the rules of this so-called requel — not quite a remake, and not exactly a sequel — as recited by Mindy (Jasmin Savoy Brown, currently knocking it out of the park on Showtime’s “Yellowjackets”), a high schooler and the script’s main receptacle of horror-movie trivia. What’s a requel without legacy characters?“Scream” may not define itself as a remake, but much of it wallows in reminders of the foundational film. From the ringing landline that introduces the opening attack, to the painstaking recreation of one infamous character’s home, the movie revels in visual and aural callbacks. Yet by designing a movie that seems solely intended to placate an avid fan base, the directors, Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett (two-thirds of the collective known as Radio Silence), paint themselves into a creative corner. They’re so busy looking backward, they’re unable to see a coherent way forward.Franchises, of course, have always pandered — it’s in their D.N.A. — but rarely has one groveled quite so thirstily for fan approval. The result is a picture so carelessly plotted, and so coarsely photographed, that it traps its cast in a deadening cycle of blasé snark and humdrum slaughter. This makes the touching warmth of Campbell and Arquette’s too-brief appearances feel imported from a more innocent, earnest time.Also operating on a different plane is the terrific Melissa Barrera as Sam, a fragile Woodsboro returnee hiding a terrible secret. Sam’s back story is little more than a sketch, but Barrera, who mesmerized me for weeks in the recent Starz drama “Vida,” begs us to care about her anyway. She’s a marvel.Wearyingly repetitive and entirely fright-free, “Scream” teaches us mainly that planting Easter eggs is no substitute for seeding ideas.“I’ve seen this movie before,” Sidney remarks at a critical moment. Oh girl, I hear you.ScreamRated R for stabbing, jabbing, slicing and shooting. Running time: 1 hour 54 minutes. In theaters. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Movies

      They Screamed, We Screamed. Now They’re in ‘Scream’ Again.

      by

      After more than a decade, Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox and David Arquette return to take a new stab at the meta-horror franchise. They didn’t jump in right away.Twenty-five years after “Scream,” Neve Campbell is still seeing Ghostface everywhere she goes.This past Halloween, Campbell brought her children to a pumpkin patch in Hollywood, where they saw fellow visitors dressed in the groaning Ghostface masks worn by the murderers who have tormented her character in these undying horror movies.Though the costumed revelers didn’t seem to notice Campbell, she resisted her older son’s urgings to reveal that they were in the presence of Sidney Prescott, the intrepid “Scream” heroine she has played since 1996.“My 9-year-old hasn’t seen the movies, but he obviously knows about them,” Campbell said. “And he was like, ‘Mom, you should go tell them!’ I’m not going to walk over and be like, ‘Hey, do you know who I am?’” She laughed and added, “Although it probably would be fun for them.”Hearing Campbell’s tale, her two longtime “Scream” co-stars joked about how their connections to the films affected them at Halloween. Courteney Cox, who plays the strident TV personality Gale Weathers, said that she kept her own supply of Ghostface masks: “I bought five from Amazon.”David Arquette said it was even easier to remind people of his screen identity as the hapless officer Dewey Riley. “Why do you think I have this mustache?” he asked.At its release, “Scream” reinvented the slasher picture, populating it with photogenic cast members who were well-versed in the genre’s rules and tired of its clichés. It made a star of its screenwriter, Kevin Williamson, reinvigorated the career of its director, Wes Craven, and kicked off a cottage industry of imitators and parodies.The slow-burn success of the first movie elevated its lead actors: Campbell, a star of the TV drama “Party of Five”; Cox, enjoying her first flushes of success from “Friends”; and Arquette, a scion of a family of character actors. Three sequels bonded them for life, and Cox and Arquette fell in love and got married.Cox and Arquette in the first “Scream,” released in 1996.Dimension FilmsArquette and Cox found themselves with a storyline that echoed their real-life split.Brownie Harris/Paramount PicturesBut following “Scream 4” in 2011, the series seemed to grow tired. By then, Cox and Arquette had separated and would later divorce; Craven died in 2015. A “Scream” TV series only loosely connected to the movies ran for three years on MTV and VH1 but gained little cultural traction.Now, after a decade-long absence from theaters, a new “Scream” — with no numerals or subtitles, from new directors and new screenwriters — will be released on Jan. 14. It is both a reboot and a sequel, introducing new characters (played by Melissa Barrera, Jenna Ortega, Jack Quaid and others) to an audience equally accustomed to franchise do-overs like “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” and art-house horror films like “The Babadook” and “Midsommar.”The latest “Scream” also brings back Campbell, Cox and Arquette as the founding characters, who have grown well into adulthood and been altered in different ways by their past encounters with the various Ghostface killers. For the actors, the proposition of returning to “Scream” is, well, a double-edged one: a chance to rekindle old connections and remember what made the previous films great — tempered by the fear that they will squander the series’ legacy if they cannot duplicate past glories.When she was approached about the new movie, Cox said, “I was really like, What? They want to do another ‘Scream’?” But as she considered it further, she thought, “Why not go back to something that was such a huge part of my life and play a character that was fun? They must have a real vision for this if they want to bring back the franchise and take the risk.”As they spoke in a video interview at the end of November — Campbell and Cox together in one window, Arquette by himself in another — the actors shared a tentative intimacy, like old classmates encountering each other at a high school reunion. They traded goofy laughs as each claimed to have forgotten key details about the past “Scream” films and made self-deprecating jokes about their accomplishments.Asked how she was hired, Cox said her manager suggested her. Or: “It could be that my manager said, ‘She’s not that good and I don’t think you should hire her.’ But who knows?”What they agreed on about the first film was the brilliance of Williamson’s convention-busting script and their admiration for Craven, who previously made seminal horror movies like “The Last House on the Left” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street.” The cast was largely shielded from behind-the-scenes conflicts between him and Dimension Films, which produced the original “Scream” series and had reservations about Craven’s work on the first movie. Campbell said of the director, “He was very gentle and kind and quiet.”Jenna Ortega is among the new cast members trying to escape Ghostface.Brownie Harris/Paramount Pictures“Scream” withstood a fourth-place opening weekend in December 1996, overshadowed by the animated hit “Beavis and Butt-head Do America.” Several days later, Campbell got a call from her agents. “I thought, Uh-oh, something’s wrong,” she recalled. “And they said, ‘It’s at $30 million.’” Her voice dropped to a whisper: “I was like, ‘Is that bad?’” In fact, the film would run until the summer and gross more than $100 million in the United States alone.A sequel was already in production and released in December 1997. (“It was college next, wasn’t it?” Campbell asked. “You went to college,” Arquette affirmed.) “Scream 3” followed quickly in 2000, adding more layers of metacommentary as the characters’ brushes with death continue to inspire a hastily made movie-franchise-within-a-franchise called “Stab.”With each entry, the “Scream” stars said, they never felt the pressure was on them to sustain the overall quality of the series. “In television, when I go out and do something new, it’s petrifying,” Cox said. “You feel nothing can live up to what you’ve done before. But in movies, we get the script and come to play our characters.”But Williamson said that “Scream 4” left him and Craven feeling burned out. “The studio was second-guessing themselves and kept giving note after note after note,” the writer said. “I finally was like, ‘Guys, I don’t know what I’m writing anymore — I’m just typing.’”After Craven’s death, he said, “in my heart, it was over. Without Wes, I didn’t think there would be a ‘Scream.’”Years went by, and the Weinstein Company, which owned Dimension Films, collapsed after its co-founder Harvey Weinstein was accused of sexual assault and harassment by numerous women. (He has since been convicted and sentenced for sex crimes and faces further charges.)The rights for “Scream” were eventually acquired by Spyglass Media Group, which partnered with Paramount to produce a new entry written by James Vanderbilt (“Zodiac”) and Guy Busick (“Ready or Not”) and directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett of the filmmaking group Radio Silence (“Ready or Not,” “V/H/S”).Williamson, an executive producer on the new “Scream,” said that the project had his blessing. “My first thought was, Wait, they’re not going to ask me to write it? How dare they,” he said with a laugh. But after hearing the creative team’s plans for the film, he said, “They had it all figured out. I’m like, ‘OK, this works.’”Naturally, this “Scream” sees another Ghostface once again plaguing the fictional California town of Woodsboro, requiring the return of Sidney, Gale and Dewey. But bringing back the actors who played them was hardly a certainty.The biggest obstacle, they said, was the absence of Craven: “I don’t see how that happens — emotionally but also practically,” said Campbell. “Who’s going to do it as well as Wes?”But one by one, the actors were placated by the film’s directors, who wrote them letters praising their past work and urging their involvement.Campbell in the original “Scream,” directed by Wes Craven. She and her fellow stars had a hard time imagining another movie without the filmmaker, who died in 2015.Dimension FilmsCampbell in the new “Scream.” She consulted with the original screenwriter, Kevin Williamson, before agreeing to return.Brownie Harris/Paramount Pictures“It was weirdly the easiest and the hardest thing to do,” Gillett said. “It’s so easy to express our admiration for them as actors and for Wes and his work.” The challenge, he said, was that “there was a lot on the line and a lot of pressure.”Five Movies to Watch This WinterCard 1 of 51. “The Power of the Dog”: More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Movies

      David Arquette on Filming the New 'Scream' and Bozo the Clown

      by

      The “Scream” actor is on a mission to make people reconsider clowns — including himself.“Bozo is my hero,” David Arquette said on a chilly Sunday morning, as he spray painted a Frisbee-sized red circle on a warehouse brick wall in the Bushwick section of Brooklyn. “We want to let that clown out.”Dressed a bit clownish himself in a Bozo trucker cap, Mickey Mouse-pattern Vans and white jeans with a pair of pink tiger-stripe wrestling tights, Mr. Arquette, 50, who used to run with a graffiti-art crew in Los Angeles, was putting the finishing touches on a six-foot-tall rendition of Bozo the Clown.Bozo is not only Mr. Arquette’s muse these days, but also his business. Earlier this year, Mr. Arquette, who is the youngest member of the Arquette acting clan, secured the rights to the character once billed as “the world’s most famous clown” from the estate of Larry Harmon, who popularized the character.“We first have to help rehabilitate the image of a clown,” said Mr. Arquette, as he took a step back from his painting and pursed his lips with approval. “I want to help bring back kind clowns, and change the discourse. You know, help people understand that being silly is cool.”As he sees it, clowns have been unfairly maligned. “There’s a lot of negative history,” Mr. Arquette said. “There was ‘Poltergeist.’ There was Stephen King and ‘It.’ That was a real problem. And then the Joker and Krusty the Clown.”“Clowns,” he added, “are a reflection of society. And right now the scary clown is sort of where we are.”He would love to bring Bozo back to TV. Various children’s television shows featuring the red-wigged clown ran for decades. For a moment, he almost succeeded in bringing Bozo to life at the Empire Circus, a new interactive carnival adventure that was supposed to open at the Empire Stores in Brooklyn this month, before supply-chain disruptions put it on hold.“All my humor comes from me being the butt of the joke,” said Mr. Arquette, who will reprise his role in “Scream” next year. Sinna Nasseri for The New York TimesIn a sense, Mr. Arquette sees himself as Kind Clown Test Case No. 1. “All my humor comes from me being the butt of the joke,” he said. “All of my flaws and my stuff.”In the 1990s, he found himself in the celebrity circus, thanks to scene-stealing roles as Dewey Riley, the charming if quirky deputy in the “Scream” slasher movie franchise, and his off-camera role as the charming if quirky husband of his “Scream” co-star Courteney Cox.Scruffy, awkward and every-dude relatable, he was the perfect anti-Hollywood mascot for Generation X.Or maybe he was a little too Gen X. Partying with the abandon of a Seattle rocker, Mr. Arquette battled with alcohol abuse, made headlines with drunken binges and saw his divorce play out in the tabloids before a second career as a professional wrestler, a move that may have tanked his reputation in both professions.But now he’s back — maybe. In January, Mr. Arquette is reheating his Dewey character in the 25th anniversary reboot of “Scream,” which also features Ms. Cox (they are divorced now) and Neve Campbell, another original cast member, facing off against a new ghost-faced killer for Generation Z.Remarried, sober and living a quiet life in Nashville, he said he hopes to jump start a movie career that had descended largely into bit parts and voice-over work. And this time, Mr. Arquette said, he is emotionally equipped to handle it.As the youngest brother of five siblings in a fourth-generation acting family that included his sisters Rosanna (“Desperately Seeking Susan”) and Patricia (“True Romance”), he felt ambivalent about joining the family business: “I always felt like, ‘Uh, my sisters are doing it, my dad does it. I don’t know if I have talent.’”One path that seemed open was to play the goof, eventually finding fame as the oddball among oddballs in the “Scream” movies, themselves highly meta sendups of ’80s slasher films.Looking back, he said he was not emotionally prepared for the Hollywood glare. “I’m socially awkward,” Mr. Arquette said, “so I used to walk into a situation and dress really flashy and say, ‘OK, look at me, talk about me, look at me.’ Or, I’d drink to be outrageous or different. They were coping mechanisms.”His detour into wrestling was his most outrageous move of all.It was not insincere. Mr. Arquette was a lifelong fan who got to live out a dream following his starring role in “Ready to Rumble,” a wrestling comedy from 2000. “Just getting to see behind the curtain and learn some of the secrets of the trade, it was really a joy for me,” he said.Mr. Arquette secured the rights to Bozo the Clown earlier this year.  Sinna Nasseri for The New York TimesWrestling fans bristled, however, when the World Champion Wrestling anointed him with the heavyweight title in 2000. His Hollywood agents bristled too.As the acting roles began drying up, he struggled with anxieties and addiction, as he recounted in the warts-and-all 2020 documentary of his wrestling career, “You Cannot Kill David Arquette.”The nadir came when a wrestler named Nick Gage accidentally gouged Mr. Arquette in the neck with a broken fluorescent light tube in a 2018 match, leaving him gushing blood and calling out to his friend Luke Perry, who was sitting ringside, to ask if he was dying.Since then, his life has settled down a bit. Mr. Arquette lives with his new wife, Christina McLarty Arquette, a film producer and former Entertainment Tonight correspondent, and their two children, Charlie, 7, and Gus, 4.After he finished spray painting Bozo (with the building owner’s permission), Mr. Arquette strolled the grafitti-covered neighborhood, pausing to admire the street art.“I haven’t seen anybody, I don’t go out anymore,” said Mr. Arquette, stopping at a lamppost to apply a sticker for the upcoming “Scream.” “I mean, if you don’t drink and you’re not looking to meet girls, there’s nothing out there.”Making the reboot meant working with his ex-wife again. “I mean, we’re co-parents, so we see each other a lot,” Mr. Arquette said, referring to their 17-year-old daughter, Coco. “But when you work with someone you have a certain history with, there’s a built in, natural — it’s not acting at that point. You’re really truly experiencing emotions and life.” More