Sort Of A Homecoming

Does The Woodlands really hold a legit claim on Arcade Fire & Win Butler?

Does the Woodlands hold a rightful claim on Win Butler?
Arcade Fire at Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavilion on Wednesday

Yes, we're all excited that Arcade Fire is playing the Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavilion Wednesday night. And, yes, it's exciting that lead singer Win Butler spent his "formative years" growing up in that community which makes this — to borrow a title from a beloved U2 anthem — A Sort of Homecoming.

But it's time all of the greater Houston area suck on the bitter pill of reality for a moment and come to grips with a very real truth: Arcade Fire is not a band from The Woodlands.

It is not even a Texas band. It is not even an American band and anyone saying anything to the contrary must also accept the equally preposterous notion that country icon Willie Nelson hails from Vancouver, Wash., or that Madonna is British.

My point: Just because an artist spent a chunk of time in an area does not make all that artist's past or future or past accomplishments the possession of that region. If that starts being the standard, then we're going to have to start rewriting a lot of history books.

(Although, in the case of Madonna, I'd be willing to trade the Brits the last 20 years of her career for say ... The Kinks? Hell, I'll even throw in Justin Bieber and his entire career if they promise to take Simon Cowell back permanently.)

While it is true that singer Butler, 31, lived in The Woodlands for a time in his youth, it is equally true that he was born in Truckee, Calif., and that by the time he was 15, he was attending a boarding school in New Hampshire that boasts former U.S. President Franklin Pierce and U.S. Senator Daniel Webster as alumni. After that, Butler spent time at Sarah Lawrence College in Yonkers, N.Y. and McGill University in Montreal before Arcade Fire was finally set ablaze in 2003.

Surely, it makes no sense to have The Woodlands, Truckee, Yonkers, Montreal, The Pierce Presidential Library and the sailors who once proudly served on the USS Daniel Webster all claiming Arcade Fire for their own.

In cases of artistic ownership, Rock Music Law states (and I quote from this fictional tomb): The city in which the band/artist first met success is the city that shall claim rightful ownership over said artist/band. All others are E Pluribus Posers.

In other words, Arcade Fire is a band that hails from Montreal. In Canada.

The good news is that they are a kick ass band that hails from Montreal and just because they are not from here does not mean that they don't deserve a homecoming-type welcome when they take the Woodlands' shed stage. The band has been an "alt rock" and college radio darling for the nearly seven years since its debut album, Funeral, came out. In the time of disposal entertainment, that's a hell of a long time to keep working the fringe.

The genuine vulnerability and soul-searching of Funeral was somewhat unexpected in an era of contrived emotions and over-produced harmonies and earned it a rep as a new millennium classic from critics at Rolling Stone, Spin and many other long-revered music journal periodicals. The Arcade Fire albums that have followed have been similarly well-received.

In 2007, its sophomore album Neon Bible debuted at No. 2 on the Billboard Top 200 (Sorry, Woodlands: It debuted at No. 1 in Canada) and the most recent album, The Suburbs, took the top spot (both in U.S. and Canada) and has sold over a half-million copies domestically in nine months.

The Suburbs also won album of the year at the Grammys in February.

In the perverted, singles-only world of iTunes rock, Arcade Fire is still a band that knows how to deliver an entire record, complete with story arc, depth and breadth of emotions. No doubt, these same elements will become even more palpable live on stage and that should make it a favorite of every rock 'n' roll lovin' kid (or kid at heart) regardless of where the band calls home.

Arcade Fire

7:15 p.m. Wednesday at the Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavilion

Tickets: $40

unspecified

Movie Review

Star TV producer James L. Brooks stumbles with meandering movie Ella McCay

Photo courtesy of 20th Century Studios

Emma Mackey in Ella McCay.

The impact that writer/director/producer James L. Brooks has made on Hollywood cannot be understated. The 85-year-old created The Mary Tyler Moore Show, personally won three Oscars for Terms of Endearment, and was one of the driving forces behind The Simpsons, among many other credits. Now, 15 years after his last movie, he’s back in the directing chair with Ella McCay.

The similarly-named Emma Mackey plays Ella, a 34-year-old lieutenant governor of an unnamed state in 2008 who’s on the verge of becoming governor when Governor Bill (Albert Brooks) gets picked to be a member of the president’s Cabinet. What should be a happy time is sullied by her needy husband, Ryan (Jack Lowden), her agoraphobic brother, Casey (Spike Fearn), and her perpetually-cheating father, Eddie (Woody Harrelson).

Despite the trio of men competing to bring her down, Ella remains an unapologetic optimist, an attitude bolstered by her aunt Helen (Jamie Lee Curtis), her assistant Estelle (Julie Kavner), and her police escort, Trooper Nash (Kumail Nanjiani). The film follows her over a few days as she navigates the perils of governing, the distractions her family brings, and the expectations being thrust upon her by many different people.

Brooks, who wrote and directed the film, is all over the place with his storytelling. What at first seems to be a straightforward story about Ella and her various issues soon starts meandering into areas that, while related to Ella, don’t make the film better. Prime among them are her brother and father, who are given a relatively small amount of screentime in comparison to the importance they have in her life. This is compounded by a confounding subplot in which Casey tries to win back his girlfriend, Susan (Ayo Edebiri).

Then there’s the whole political side of the story, which never finds its focus and is stuck in the past. Though it’s never stated explicitly, Ella and Governor Bill appear to be Democrats, especially given a signature program Ella pushes to help mothers in need. But if Brooks was trying to provide an antidote to the current real world politics, he doesn’t succeed, as Ella’s full goals are never clear. He also inexplicably shows her boring her fellow lawmakers to tears, a strange trait to give the person for whom the audience is supposed to be rooting.

What saves the movie from being an all-out train wreck is the performances of Mackey and Curtis. Mackey, best known for the Netflix show Sex Education, has an assured confidence to her that keeps the character interesting and likable even when the story goes downhill. Curtis, who has tended to go over-the-top with her roles in recent years, tones it down, offering a warm place of comfort for Ella to turn to when she needs it. The two complement each other very well and are the best parts of the movie by far.

Brooks puts much more effort into his female actors, including Kavner, who, even though she serves as an unnecessary narrator, gets most of the best laugh lines in the film. Harrelson is capable of playing a great cad, but his character here isn’t fleshed out enough. Fearn is super annoying in his role, and Lowden isn’t much better, although that could be mostly due to what his character is called to do. Were it not for the always-great Brooks and Nanjiani, the movie might be devoid of good male performances.

Brooks has made many great TV shows and movies in his 60+ year career, but Ella McCay is a far cry from his best. The only positive that comes out of it is the boosting of Mackey, who proves herself capable of not only leading a film, but also elevating one that would otherwise be a slog to get through.

---

Ella McCay opens in theaters on December 12.

movies film