The School Of Rock

[bix171]

Like Steven Soderbergh, Richard Linklater has proven capable of working within the studio system while remaining a presence in the avant garde and though “The School Of Rock” seems a bit too compromised (it is a Paramount picture, after all), it still serves as a contemporary family film featuring a fine, exciting performance by Jack Black. He stars as a heavy metal musician masquerading as a substitute teacher at a tony prep school who recruits his class of adolescents to form a rock band. Though it’s ultimately satisfying, there seems to be quite a bit of movie left on the cutting room floor (most of the supporting characters played by such talented performers as Joan Cusack, Sarah Silverman and Mike White—who also wrote the screenplay—are reduced to caricatures) and the filmmakers play it safe by selecting heavy metal—easy parody material—as the music of choice. Though Linklater clearly likes this project, he doesn’t invest a lot of emotion in it; it could have been much more significant than the knock-off it is. Black is often compared to John Belushi with his raucous, exaggerated mannerisms but he infuses his Neanderthal freneticism with a spontaneous articulation that highlights the versatility Belushi lacked and is vital to the picture’s success. Together with “Shallow Hal”, this proves Black can almost single-handedly carry a film and his future bodes well—a good thing for mass audiences.

[pmw]

This is really an interesting film in that Linklater made it. I would never have guessed it to be a Linklater film, and I guess thats the point. He resisted making a "Linklater film" to instead make a "Jack Black" film.

[Chris Knipp]

I think Linklater is an experimenter, so there's no "Linklater film."
He did Waking Life. He did a play, Tape, He did a virtuoso dialogue movie, Before Sunrise. It's not surprising that he did School of Rock. Basically it's almost a performance film, Jack Black's performance plus the kids'. With a little touch of the old To Sir With Love inspire the kiddies classroom flick thrown in. The DVD has just come out. It's time to say what a great movie it is and how much fun it is to watch it. Johann is right that the character defines rock. The "let's make up a rock song" class is brilliant, funny, but also true. The movie is also kind of an illustration of what makes a great teacher, though you don't necessarily have to chew up the rug quite so much, I hope. Sidney Poitier kept his dignity-- and how; and his is a more moving story about teaching. But School of Rock is a parable about bringing out people's potential, one of the ultimate goals of all teaching.

I don't think you can say that a movie doesn't take chances on the basis of its content unless you really know. Why not assume this is just the movie they wanted to make? A lot of indie out of studio pictures take no chances either. The presence of Paramount doesn't necessarily mean it was hovering over the filmmakers, or that Mike White wanted his characters to be anything other than "caricatures."

Belushi was scary. There was in inner violence and anger. Black comes accross here as basically a very nice, just very honest guy. It's nice to hear you say Black is on a par with Belushi, because to me watching Black is a much healthier, sweeter experience.

What's this about "doesn't take chances" anyway? What would have made this movie any better? It is just so much fun. What more do you want already?

P.s. I have been a teacher, but only briefly below college level. However, I've had a few unique teaching experiences.

[bix171]

{The presence of Paramount doesn't necessarily mean it was hovering over the filmmakers, or that Mike White wanted his characters to be anything other than "caricatures."

What's this about "doesn't take chances" anyway? What would have made this movie any better? It is just so much fun. What more do you want already?}


I thoroughly enjoyed "The School Of Rock"--it is, as you say, "so much fun"--but, based on both Linklater's and White's previous work, I think I did expect something more than caricatures and, as I mentioned, I have a feeling that some of the more fleshed-out material may have ended up on the cutting room floor. It's typical of Paramount to reduce filmmaking to the lowest common denominator and I think they in general shy away from anything controversial (i.e., movies with something to say). They produce the most vapid movies in Hollywood (though Universal comes close). While I recognize that Linklater and White may have wanted to make a pure entertainment, I felt much was somehow lost, especially in Joan Cusack's character, which struck me as dumbed-down and certainly beneath her formidable talent, which is frequently highlighted by the considerable depth she brings to her comedy. ("Men Don't Leave" comes to mind.)

Frequently filmmakers with an interest in experimentation work within the studio system in order to keep making the movies they want to make and though I don't think Linklater's slumming it here, it's not a particularly personal piece of filmmaking. That's okay. Let's just say, though, that given his previous body of work, we should be keenly interested in his next film.

And as far as not taking chances goes, I think heavy metal is, as I wrote, easy parody material. While it's much more fun to turn kids into AC/DC, it's not as interesting as turning them into Ramones.

{I don't think you can say that a movie doesn't take chances on the basis of its content unless you really know. Why not assume this is just the movie they wanted to make? A lot of indie out of studio pictures take no chances either.}

You're right--I don't really know if a film doesn't take chances; I'm not there as decisions are made. But neither are you. That said, how can you make the statement that you do know when an indie film doesn't take chances?

[oscar jubis]

Gabba Gabba
we accept you
we accept you
One of us.

[Chris Knipp]

I'm not sure what that means. It may be partly my relative indifference to the distinctions between various kinds of pop music that makes me respond so positively to School of Rock. It seems to me that Jack Black has moments when he really defines rock -- in the broadest, most generic sense, anyway -- quite wonderfully. But of course it's farcical. He's not giving it an academic definition; he's defining by embodying and inspiring. and the definitionn isn't to be taken any more seriously than any of the rest of the movie.

Are we somehow shortchanged because he's not an accolyte of the Ramones? or the Red Hot Chili Peppers or The Smiths or The Clash or whomever? I still don't see what bars Linklater -- especially in a collaboration with Mike White -- from producing something broad and farcical. It has seemed to me that he has tried something different pretty much every time, and there is something that can be expressed in a broad comedy that can't be said any other way. Moreover, there's no more wrong in Ms. Cusack's silly principal turn than in Isabelle Huppert's ditzy fussbudget in 8 Femmes. The fact that they've done intense, subtle roles doesn't bar then from having a little fun. Bear in mind that for them, that may be a stretch, and a restorative thing. As J. Hoberman wrote, School of Rock is Linklater's most commercial movie, and also his funniest. School of Rock does something very simple, but it does it very, very well. And that ain't easy.

I find it strange to be defending a movie that I didn't even write a review of, because I couldn't think of anything to say except that it was great fun and I had a wonderful time watching it.

but, based on both Linklater's and White's previous work, I think I did expect something more than caricatures and, as I mentioned, I have a feeling that some of the more fleshed-out material may have ended up on the cutting room floor

I think I've answered these comments, if they're meant as criticisms, already. First of all, we agree that we had a good time at the movie. "Based on Linklater's [I don't know about White's--he's worked in the broadest of veins, and never been serious] previous work," we have the wrong expectations, because he changes course from one movie to another. And as for what "ended up on the cutting room floor," you might just as well find that even broader, more farcical stuff fell there.

[bix171]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by oscar jubis
Gabba Gabba
we accept you
we accept you
One of us

I'm honored, but I'm not sure if I should be thanking Joey Ramone or Tod Browning.

[oscar jubis]

Both Joey and Todd had the keys to the souls of us Freaks.

Obviously Bix, I agree with your comment that "the filmmakers play it safe by selecting heavy metal as the music of choice"_ (imagine one of the kids made out to look like The New York Dolls' David Johansen). The rock included in this movie has lost all vestige of rebellion. I would even argue that someone with the wit and force of personality of Black's Dewey Finn would have definitely "moved on" to the Ramones, The Clash and countless smart-and-fast bands his contemporaries enjoyed. Linklater did give us that kids montage to the Ramones' "My Brain is hanging upside down (Bonzo Goes to Bitburg)". Besides, as a family man, I can't but appreciate a movie that delivered so much fun to my entire family (my wife likes thrillers, my son: action and fantasy, daughter likes comedy and romance, but we all liked The School of Rock.)

[Chris Knipp]

I can't but appreciate a movie that delivered so much fun to my entire family (my wife likes thrillers, my son: action and fantasy, daughter likes comedy and romance, but we all liked The School of Rock.)

Exactly my point -- I guess.

I'm a little puzzled at the supposed importance of utilizing the Ramones. Surely there would be some more up to date musicians and kinds of music that have more current punch, if rebellion and edginess are what you're lookiing for.

[bix171]

Ramones are timeless. They epitomize all that we listen to today--even Whitney Houston and Britney Spears.

[Chris Knipp]

They may be "timeless," they may not be passé, but they're not up to date, they're not the music that is challenging and exciting people at this present moment. And I thought you were talking about taking chances, regretting that School of Rock did not do that. With something "timeless," how can you be taking chances? Or were you saying that the Ramones would be a better subject of parody because that would be more interesting? But if, as you might acknowledge, the Ramones are less well known, then mightn't they be a less suitable subject of parody because they would not have been as recognizable to a wide multi-generational audience -- which we all agree responds to this movie? But we'd have to refer to Jack Black and Mike White about this, because it's their movie, and the material is what they could work with. Though that too may be passé, establishment, sell-out, now, I'd have proposed rap, but somehow I have a feeling that neither Jack Black nor his little charges would have worked as well with that nor that it would have made a fine finale. Maybe there there's an alternate inner city school version coming up soon: School of Rap.

[bix171]

{but they're not up to date, they're not the music that is challenging and exciting people at this present moment.}

Ramones had and will always have their edge and that edge (you don't want your kids to grow up to embrace the junkie lifestyle, do you?) is part of what makes them timeless. Ramones are perhaps rock's best example of garage--barely competent musicians who played so ferociously that, to paraphrase Robert Christgau, people didn't know how really hard it was to play that kind of music. Just to be exposed to Ramones, at any point in our forward history, is to be exposed to edge. I don't care how old it is--it sounds as fresh today as it did back in 1979. AC/DC sounds the same today as it did back then--only they're still making the same record and they "get it" only to the point that it makes them money. Aerosmith too. Incubus too. Limp Bizkit too. When rock becomes a job, it's a parody by default. Heavy metal has always been about gimmick (Zeppelin excepted) all the way back to Black Sabbath. It found its niche and never grew as a genre. We didn't take it seriously then (again, Zeppelin excepted) and we don't now.

{And I thought you were talking about taking chances, regretting that School of Rock did not do that. With something "timeless," how can you be taking chances?}

Does taking a chance mean always inventing something completely new or reinventing the wheel? Does innovation stop when something's been done or can something that's been done be re-examined in a new, fresh way? We're in the post-modern world; it's all been done before and perhaps our best hope is in re-examining art. And if "School Of Rock" had come up with a fresh take on heavy metal, that would've been sublime. But it didn't.

{were you saying that the Ramones would be a better subject of parody because that would be more interesting?}

The great thing about Ramones was that there was always a self-parodying sense about them. Intellectual punk rock, maybe. (and certainly not the only example.) But remember, they were part of a movement that spawned a culture of dirty hair and Ray-Bans and leather and torn jeans that exists today. You're right that they might not have been as well known and, as such, audiences might not get it directly. But they'd get the parody of the style--lots of teens still go through the phase today; they just might not immediately grasp the roots. Once they do a little research, though, they'll get it and new Ramones fans will be born. And when they do, I guarantee it, a few will do like Brian Eno said about those thousand kids who heard the first Velvet Underground and go out and form rock bands.

[Chris Knipp]

I'm charmed by your enthusiasm for the Ramones. But I don't know if you're really offering constructive criticism of School of Rock or merely championing the Ramones. I'm not really much of an authority on rock of any kind. YOu should draw someone else into this conversation, and for a moment you did have Oscar Jubis, who seems to share your enthusiasm for the Ramones, and perhaps is of a similar vintage as you. But are you sure that School of Rock only refers to heavy metal music? I thought it referred to other kinds of rock music. It doesn't seem to evoke the heavy metal mystique particularly. Nobody is wearing leather and spandex and long flowery hair and tattoos and skulls and stuff like that. The drummer describes his style as "punk." Jack Black's style is just kind of grungy enthusiastic loser. I think the whole thing is very eclectic. But anyway, School of Rock is done. We all enjoyed it. I recently read where a musician said his kids were watching School of Rock five times a day at their house, and that was fine with him, becaus it was a good movie. I've forgotten now what kind of musician he was. Jack Black's character teaches the kids that rock is a way of revolting and complaining. He doesn't get into its sexiness. Otherwise, all rock was those things from the days when it emerged from rhythm and blues, or so I thought.

If the New York Dolls were heavy metal then I guess heavy metal is a pretty broad field; it must range from the overtly macho to the very androgynous or outright gay.

[Johann]

School of Rock has a sampling from all kinds of "rock": the punk and heavy metal is on the sidelines. I'm guessing it's because Black, White & Linklater are aiming for a broad audience, which they got.

This film should take off on video. It's got something for everybody.

If you were to get really critical, the film actually misses the mark in terms of what rock music represents, which is multi-faceted.
Because it's got kids at the center, you can't run with the sex, drugs, rock and roll thing. I mean, if Black were to go full boar he'd have the kids swigging on a bottle of Wild Turkey, smoking doobies and punching teachers.

No, all is quite well- no real rowdiness, nothing that would truly offend anybody (I can count the expletives on my hand) and the "spirit" of rock and roll is parlayed via humour and musicianship. But you can't complain, because it is so damn funny and Black gives a wink/nudge to all rock fans that allows us to enjoy the movie regardless of it's "authenticity".

The movie is very conscious of itself and what it's doing. I admire Linklater for being able to do a comedy about rock and roll that doesn't seem cheap or insulting. He one-upped Spinal Tap here: he parodied the industry while honoring it. I felt that Reiner was insulting to Scorsese and certain people in the rock field that was not called for.
Linklater made a classic that you can watch and laugh at over and over.

[Chris Knipp]

Thanks for the clarification. You've stated it all beautifully. Particularly the part about children.