Shoot or Be Shot - a toupological analysis.

Shoot or Be Shot is a pretty obscure low-budget 2002 movie starring William Shatner alongside a host of lesser-known actors including Harry Hamlin and Scott Rinker. The film was co-written and directed by the similarly lesser-known J. Randall Argue. Despite attempts to generate publicity at the time of its limited theatrical release, the movie soon disappeared almost without a trace.


Harvey Wilkes (Shatner) has spent his whole professional life writing technical manuals. But what he really dreams of is becoming a screenwriter.


The problem is, he is in a mental institution and his parole board doesn't share Wilkes' enthusiasm for his new-found calling. So Wilkes escapes, with a screenplay he has written in hand. Someone will help him make his movie!


Meanwhile, a bunch of LA movie-making wannabes are also struggling to find success. Specifically, producer Jack Yeager (Hamlin), actress Heidi (Julianne Christie), director Ben Steinman (Rinker) and several other characters.

Heidi.

When Yeager's assistant/cleaning-lady berates the producer for making nothing but shallow and titillating action movies, an epiphany ensues. A new film will be made - one more risky and artistic.


And this will be no ordinary endeavor. There will be no script and instead, it will be filmed utilizing the "aleatoric" technique - meaning, whatever happens, happens.


So off to the (cheap) desert they go to film (with Heidi disguised as an Irish actress to avoid being recognized by Yeager, her ex-boyfriend).

But it isn't long before Wilkes shows up and, at gunpoint, forces the cast and crew to make his film instead! Mayhem ensues!!!


And that's where we'll leave the plot.

So, what to make of all this? There's really only one way to describe this movie: thoroughly and completely mediocre. The writing, acting, directing, musical scoring - all are decidedly average and no more. It's as if the makers of Shoot or Be Shot calculated that the safest possible mainstream road, namely one of risk-free mediocrity, was the one that leads most directly to potential box-office gold. Ooops. Didn't work out that way. Not one bit.


There's nothing egregiously wrong with any of the core components of this movie (this isn't some film-school project that only the film-makers seem to understand, nor is it technically flawed), but there just isn't anything spectacularly right or interesting about it either.

It's all frustratingly average. For example, the acting isn't poor, but neither do any of the casting choices scream anything other than ordinary. The actors, mostly bland-seeming twenty-thirtysomethings, come across as actors; the characters they inhabit remain... guess what word we feel compelled to overuse? - mediocre!


It's all just stuff that happens, with director J. Randal Argue failing abysmally to make us in any way care about any of it.

Even Bill Shatner's performance is pretty you-know-what. He underplays the role (though not in a cold, clinical way, just in an average way), which means that his character lacks anything like the sort of multi-dimensional, over-caffeinated insanity found in roles like 1973's Impulse. Evidently that's what the director wanted, and the result is pretty you-know-what.


But the main problems lie with the decidedly average script. Most frustrating is that there in no real depth to Bill Shatner's insanity. He's just insane and that's it. The one fascinating clue the audience may have had to work with, the character's script, is something - and this is almost criminal - we never actually get to see. Indeed, it isn't until halfway through the movie that the onscreen filmmakers begin their shoot. And it isn't until almost the end of the movie that the filming of Wilkes' script begins. And even then, the audience ends up being deprived of watching the performers act out whatever this escaped mental patient has put on paper.


Shouldn't that be the focal point of the movie? Wouldn't that be fun to see? Well, not in this film, unfortunately. A gunfight takes place before the audience is able to gain this potentially valuable and entertaining insight into the character.


The one single potentially truly funny and interesting moment in the movie perfectly illustrates the filmmakers' repeatedly bland judgement. Wilkes has found a seemingly dead woman on the road. Will he rape a corpse?

The comedic timing is way off and the moment is truncated rather than extended for laughs. Which leads inevitably to the question: how the hell can you have a low budget movie and take fewer risks than with a $100 million movie? Truly bizarre. It's like a video version of Seeking Major Tom!

Instead of laughs, the script is stuffed full of rather inappropriate, self-referential and self-conscious "film-schooly" references to narrative structure and the like. Who cares! Even the opening credits have that banal I-want-to-be-Tarantino look to them:

There's a review of this movie on Quipster.com where it's misstated that Shoot or Be Shot was recorded on video. Not so. This is a proper feature film, shot on celluloid, with a decent sized crew and everything. But given the lack of creativity on display, you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise.


Where the fourth wall really comes crashing down to the point of treating the audience like a bunch of dummies is in the fictional movie being shot on screen. Cheap video cameras, well away from their subjects, no microphones, no re-takes. Yet somehow at the end, they've managed to create a successful, properly produced and edited movie (multiple angles, multiple takes, clear sound, slow-motion). It makes no f*#@ing sense...


...in fact, since the movie-makers evidently couldn't be bothered to introduce even the barest sense of internal of logic into this important aspect of movie, it's time to stop being bothered to continue with this review. There is no genial highly clever "Hah, that's the point" going on here; no witty playing around with audience expectations or anything like that. Just tedium...

Watch Steve Martin's last classic film Bowfinger instead: similar idea, far, far better execution (or this move).

Now, let's move swiftly to the hair...


One of the most striking things about watching Shoot or Be Shot in 2011 is the realization that the "Denny Katz" toupee has now been with us for more than a decade. The toup hasn't changed much and, bar some shortening and rounding, nor has Bill Shatner!

As for moments of toupological interest (MTI), there are a few. As Wilkes' character heads into the desert, we get an interesting, almost regal silhouette of the toupee:


And later on, as Wilkes forces the crew to ride onwards into the night in their caravan, a fight breaks out between him and young director Ben. Not only do we get an interesting shot of the sides of the temple (where the toup extends down)...


...but also we learn that Wilkes has developed a disdain for Ben's minimalistic levels of facial hair, telling Heidi (whose former relationship with Jack has been exposed; current boyfriend Ben is not happy) "You know, if I were Mister Look-at-my-cool-bohemian-hair-lip - and thank God I'm not - I'd have trouble forgiving you..."

Later on, as Ben takes on the hijacker, Wilkes grabs him by the hair...


...and soon after orders him to "shave off the hair lip!"


Here's the video of these two moments:

So did Bill Shatner request these moments in order to add spice to the movie or to add another piece to that life-long toupological puzzle that is "The Shatner Code"? Or did the producers ask him? Did they know? Was it an accident? At least this hair issue on the part of Wilkes gives the character some subtext, but the toupee can only go so far in saving a movie like this...

Shoot or Be Shot is available on DVD. A thoroughly neutral experience.

"All I know is my gut says maybe."

Bill & Carrie & Leonard & Charlie.

Our previous post examined Bill Shatner's new-found liberation in using the word "hair". It appears that this abandon has now extended to the current and ongoing lighthearted "feud" (also see this vid) between the actor and actress Carrie Fisher over which franchise, Star Trek or Star Wars, was better.


Amidst the banter, Leonard Nimoy, alias Mr Spock, interjected and posted a tweet on his Twitter page arguing that: "Carrie Fisher says her hair buns in Star Wars are better than Spock['s] ears. I don't agree. Her hair can't hear. LLAP".


Interestingly, Bill Shatner then re-tweeted his former co-star's tweet on his own Twitter page before responding: "@TheRealNimoy I don't know about her hair buns but @CarrieFFisher's buns are better than Spock's ears. And they can hear better. MBB"



Clearly, Bill Shatner is a man who lies to take risks as he's skating on very thin lace here: Spock's ears, Leia's hair (we believe this iconic hairstyle was Fisher's own bunched hair at the very center of the buns, while the surrounding "donut ring" was likely a hair appliance) - does Bill Shatner really want to go there? Or is he cleverly veering away by shifting attention to Leia's other buns?

Apparently both Nimoy and Fisher are fully aware of the rules of the game and aren't about to take any obvious digs. Nimoy's ears, Fisher's hair buns or other buns - check, but Bill Shatner's hair becoming a part of this conversation, even though he's mentioned hair himself on Twitter, even though he once told George Lucas he was envious of his locks, even considering what he wrote in Shatner Rules - ain't gonna happen.

There are rules...

"There are a million things in this universe you can have and a million things you can't have. It's no fun facing that, but that's the way things are," Captain Kirk once said in the Star Trek episode "Charlie X". There are rules.


Thus, as tempted as Nimoy might be to joke to Shatner and Fisher: "Cinnamon buns or thick locks, at least I never claimed my ears were real! " or Fisher might be tempted to joke: "Bill, you're the odd one out, at least Leonard and I took our appliances off!" it just isn't likely to happen in a public forum.

It's clearly a sensitive subject, and if you wanna be Bill's pal, then roast and jest but let him and only him talk about his hair, or else...

Shatner Rules: an acoustical analysis.

As many of you will know, the William Shatner School of Toupological Studies houses some of the most advanced technology in the world, all designed provide humanity with the best possible insight into and analysis of William Shatner's toupee-wearing. Our most recent effort involves using state-of-the-art acoustic instrumentation on the audiobook version of Bill Shatner's latest tome Shatner Rules.

A toupular quantum resonance model.

Not long ago, we were delighted to report a rather direct hair reference by the author in said book.


That example, plus several others, form the core of the following report:

In one experiment, we amplified the sound of Bill Shatner saying the word "hair" to 194 decibels.

During the introduction of Shatner Rules, the author offers a perhaps crucial clue, "Bill is a slightly different guy from Shatner ... sometimes Shatner relaxes into Bill. Even Shatner can't keep up the Shatner all the time." Is this a subtle acknowledgement of the duality of wearing a toupee? Does the bald Bill Shatner become William Shatner by putting on his toupee in a Clark Kent/Superman sort of way?

Bill versus William? (Superman III)

A little while later, the actor jokingly describes actor Jason Alexander as a "bald, fat, has-been". Considering that Has Been was the name of Bill Shatner's 2004 album, is this code?


In Chapter 1, Bill Shatner illustrates his "always say yes" (is "yes" a coded response to the above or/as well as an answer to the final sentence of his previous autobiography?) rule by explaining how in 2006 he overcame reservations and agreed to partake in the Comedy Central Roast of William Shatner.

"If I spent more of my life saying 'no,' this autobiographical volume would be a slim one, indeed. But enough of the touchy feely stuff, let’s talk about . . . my scrotum. And my weight. And my hair. And my acting. And my weight. And my hair. Did I mention my acting?"

Here's the audio clip:

The roast continues and Bill Shatner, noting the hair jokes that flew his way during the show, notes:

"After a while all I could hear was 'Hair.' 'Acting.' 'Weight.' 'Singing.' 'Scrotum.' "

The audio:

A little while later, we get to "William Shatner Roast Insults & Rebuttals" and:

-"'What is that on your head?'

-My hair is actually writing its own autobiography, Captain’s Locks. I will reveal no spoilers in advance of publication."


The audio:

As if Bill Shatner has not said the word "hair" enough times in a single chapter (five so far and counting), we also get a couple more encores a little while later:

"After three hours—three long, agonizing hours—it was my turn at the microphone. I would get the final say after a long evening of me (and my horse) being drilled unmercifully about my acting, my hair, my weight, my acting, my hair, and my weight. And my scrotum."


The author then recounts his chance at an on-stage rebuttal:

"I would need a big opening, a huge joke, and one that announced that William Shatner is here, and he’s not going to take it anymore. So I opened with . . . 'How's the hair?'"

The audio:

And then :

"The Comedy Central Roast of William Shatner was one of that network’s highest rated programs, and it was eventually nominated for an Emmy for Outstanding Variety, Music, or Comedy Special. (We lost to a Tony Bennett concert special. I wonder how many jokes were made about his hair?) Most important, the show introduced me to many new young fans."

The audio:

And one more for good measure, this time a little more insightful:

"What I learned most of all from The Comedy Central Roast of William Shatner is that people have some very definite ideas and feelings about this William Shatner character. He’s larger than life, he’s omnipresent, he’s a narcissist, his acting and hair and singing talents are questionable at best, he’s a shill, he’s a comedy, he’s a tragedy, his scrotum sags with age, he speaks . . .very . . . strange . . . ly."


And one last piece of audio:

So that's nine mentions of the word "hair" in a single chapter (there's a couple more throughout the rest of the book too, including Hair the musical!). From utter silence on the subject to such willful abandon is surely an important step for Bill Shatner. He can finally say a word in public that has previously caused him a great deal of discomfort.

"The hills are alive with the sound of toupees!"

And as if seeking to make up for all those years of self-inflicted silence, he repeats that magic word over again and again and again! A stress analysis of the above audio reveals a far calmer and more assertive Bill Shatner than the one who a few years earlier nervously asked "do I wear a toupee?" While he still breezes over the word "hair" occasionally, no doubt seeking to prevent leaks of emotion, the word is nonetheless said loudly, directly and with a new-found sense of confidence.

It's been a delicate process, and one external nudge too many could again cause Bill Shatner to retreat.

But while we see some very important steps in the above, alas, we can't celebrate too much. As some of you noted in our previous post on Shatner Rules, while Bill Shatner uses the word "hair" liberally, even going so far as to note that it is writing its own biography and that "his acting acting and hair and singing talents are questionable at best," he avoids entirely the question of why.

"How's the hair?" Bill Shatner at the 2006 Comedy Central roast.

Thus, a reader or listener unfamiliar with toupological matters might be tempted merely to think that the actor has worn bad hairstyles or that his real hair looks like it's not real. But Bill Shatner never says that. He never says "my hair - which some claim is a toupee" or anything of the sort. It's very clever teasing in that it provides more than a nod to the initiated, but doesn't overtly signal too much to those not in the know!

Notice that Bill Shatner's head rests on the location of the Amazon rainforest. A subtle environmental message calling for protection and re-growth?

We can't wait till the next autobiography and where this extraordinary toupological journey will continue to lead us! The audiobook of Shatner Rules is available to buy. A fun, breezy book well worth reading (or listening to).

Poll result and the "Denny Katz" gets a medal of distinction.

Our latest poll sought your views on the question of how Bill Shatner relates to the toupees he wears. Imagine that the time has come to retire one toupee and unwrap a fresh one. Is there a ceremony? Does Bill Shatner thank the old and welcome the new? "You did a great job!" and then "You and I are about to go on an incredible adventure!"... Or is it far less personal than that?

3% of you thought that the actor views his toups as little more than inanimate objects; 4% thought that he views them as members of the family; 7% saw a deep affection, like a close family member or pet; 14% suggested it was a love/hate relationship; 18% said it was a profound intimate connection, like with a lover. The most votes, 29%, went to "As protection, like children relate to security blankets".

Linus van Pelt from Peanuts.

Thanks for voting!

Now for the other thing. A recent appearance by Bill Shatner on Toronto's The Morning Show started off normally enough. But after some talk in which the actor notes that "we all hold a mask up" the conversation takes a rather interesting turn.


Suddenly, host Dave Gerry pulls out a head massager, asking "What's the significance of this object in your life?"


The actor seems not to know, calling it a "probe".

But, very much in a tone you'd expect from a combative political interview, Gerry intones "Mr Shatner..."


Is this an ambush?

The host then adds that according to his sources, Bill Shatner may have had box-loads of these things shipped from Canada to an "undisclosed location" in Europe where the actor was apparently attending a soiree back in 2010. Follicular regenerative therapy of some kind?


The actor cracks up.

And then, the unthinkable happens.


One of the female hosts (Kris Reyes) gets up...


...and begins massaging the head (and toupee) of Bill Shatner.


Is the toupee hair and membrane blocking out some of the strangely erotic "vibes" of this device? The actor seems to be getting it, though perhaps not with the full abandon that might be the case with his non-toup-wearing brethren.


Either way, what's really crucial here is: thank God this didn't happen years earlier when the actor wore a "TJ Curly" or "Lost Years" or even "Jim Kirk lace" as we may have been privy to a tangled, historic mess of epic proportions!


The "Denny Katz" performed with great distinction on this day and we extend our heartfelt congratulations! The full video can be watched in the second section here.

The dawning of the Age of Touperius.

It's April 1968 and the musical Hair has just opened on Broadway, underscoring a crucial component of the ever-growing hippie counter-culture movement of the time. Being with it wasn't just about politics, Vietnam, "Turn on, tune in and drop out", great music, expanding your consciousness etc. etc. - but many involved also viewed growing their hair long as a quintessential component of this anti-establishment movement - and that's what this musical sought to reflect.


Might a toupee have sufficed if the real thing was not in abundant supply? Who knows... But that's all besides the point. In 1968, Bill Shatner was evidently in no mood to Let the Sunshine In, feeling introspective rather than exuberant; morose rather than jovial. Star Trek was a flop, hanging on for dear life, and the idea that this series would one day be remembered as an unmistakable part of the Sixties, on the same lists along with the Beatles, the moon landing, Woodstock, RFK, MLK and all the rest of it would have seemed like so much pie in the sky had anyone suggested such a thing at the time.

Bill Shatner in character as Captain Kirk at a parade in South Carolina. More here.

And not only was Broadway housing such counter-cultural hair-related fodder, not only was Bill Shatner's starring show falling apart, not only was the archetypal leading man concept atrophying under such increasingly sterile and morally dubious titles as A Guide for the Married Man (New Hollywood would soon wash all of this away), but the actor's marriage to wife Gloria Rand was also all but over. Which brings us to a contemporary profile of Bill Shatner in a 1968 issue of TV Guide, via the good folks at "More Shat, Less Shame".


The piece (in the journalistic sense of the word) is characteristically upbeat about the star it is examining. There's the "Golden Boy" in the title as well as a flattering look at the actor's career.


But for Bill Shatner, "the dream [meaning the joy of stardom] was hollow". His father's death, the breakup of his marriage (played out in many a magazine of the time), and ongoing career struggles lead the actor to note "Out of a great deal of personal sadness, I feel I'm able to see behind people's masks." Perhaps the toupee is being subtly inferred here: a man with his own mask wishing to learn about others. (Did that desire culminate years later in Shatner's Raw Nerve?).

The tell-tale hairpiece...

But if only that was the only toupological inference - subtle, nuanced... No, TV Guide underscores just how much times are a-changin'. Only two paragraphs into their profile we get something rather stunning: "At 37, and with only a tell-tale hairpiece marring his intergalactic Golden Boy image, Shatner doesn't look very different from the way he did in the early 1950's when he was labelled a theatrical Wunderkind."


So one of the most popular publications in America announces to the world that Bill Shatner wears a "tell-tale hairpiece". Yikes! What happened to the days when profiles were a little more respectful of concealing stars' foibles? What was happening to the world?


And what of the hair pictured in the similarly morose-looking photograph that accompanies the article? Is it one of the the little-seen personal "ratty-looking" toups? The lack of the characteristic "real" hairline suggests that it's not a "Jim Kirk lace". Could it be the toup from Perilous Voyage? Or is it really one of the actor's own? At this point, we just don't know...


But what the image perhaps suggests is that the new times were offering Bill Shatner more than just unwanted toupological TV Guide revelations after all - his real hair a little longer, and of course there's those rather bushy sideburns - he was about to get with it; the ashes of past defeat cast aside, he was about to become The Transformed Man and popular culture would never be the same again:

"Shouldn't that be hairpiece?"

Now the 60's could really take off! Humanity was about to enter the Age of Touperius!