I haven't been in the blogging headspace of late, as I've been off producing and directing a short film, which is a surreal experience in itself. Critical blogger goes off and makes a film, determined to show all the overrated hacks out there how it should be done, it's all very French New Wave/Peter Bogdanovich/Quentin Tarantino, right? Ah... actually, no. It's much more like: Frustrated filmmaker who's been too pissweak to make a film so resorts to blogging critically to work out these frustrations until urged and inspired by wonderfully talented girlfriend and friends to finally get out there and do it himself. Or something like that. Mostly I'm just trying to make something that a) makes narrative sense, b) people can follow without detailed explanation and c) looks halfway competent. So, naturally, I surrounded myself with awesome actors and crew to mask my personal shortcomings and make me succeed in meeting these three objectives. So thanks to all who were involved, from the bottom of my cold, shriveled heart. I loved every minute of it, and I hope you did too.
But enough about me and my endeavours, and back to me and my reviews and wild opinions. Ahh, the interwebs. Where an ego can ride far, wide and unchecked across open plains, and a person can spout whatever nonsense they like about whomever for fun and even profit.
Firstly, like much of the Western World this week, I saw IRON MAN. And it's damn fine. Sure, it's held up by pretty much the same framework as every other comic book superhero flick, but Tony Stark's redemption story diverts slightly from the standard affable-everyman-gets-powers-and-wants-to-help-innocents playbook. This is a privileged, hugely arrogant (if hugely charming) Arms Manufacturer who goes through a traumatic situation, realises the error of his ways, and transforms himself into a superhero, which provides a nice point of difference. After that point, it's pretty stock standard for the genre, but a lot of fun, mostly due to some sharp dialogue, stunning visual effects (I WANT THAT SUIT!!!), extremely effective casting (Downey is perfect, Bridges is badass, Paltrow is more charming than she's been in years and Howard makes a ingratiating James Rhodes) and just solid, succinct storytelling. (Oh, and that scene post-credits. Marvel comic book geeks, stick around, it'll be worth your while.) The really surprising thing to emerge from this is how much Jon Favreau has really advanced as a director, how well he keeps this massive enterprise tight, punchy and humming. When the next batch of blockbuster adaptations goes round, and all the usual directorial names (Spielberg, Raimi, Jackson, Del Toro, et al) are thrown up, Favreau has absolutely got to be on that list... and not at all near the bottom. He absolutely belongs. Or, as his SWINGERS creation Trent might say, "He's all growns up..."
Secondly, I've finally discovered Francois Truffaut and the joys of the French New Wave. For such a crazy, self-avowed film nerd, it has taken me far too long to get here (I could've rented some Godard and Chabrol instead of the latest Steven Seagal flick, but I've no regrets: how would I have ever experienced the peculiar pleasures of ON DEADLY GROUND?), but I'm glad I finally did. The lovely folks at ACMI screened a Truffaut retrospective containing six of his films, all of which were highly engrossing and always watchable, and while some were wrapped up in their own psyches (MISSISSIPPI MERMAID, TWO ENGLISH GIRLS) and others just plain frustrating (JULES AND JIM), there were some real joys.
THE BRIDE WORE BLACK is an oddly cute, entertainingly even-handed revenge saga which follows a woman hunting down and dispatching the five men responsible for shooting her husband on her wedding day (yes, it's a massive influence on a certain two-part "Eastern Western" Uma Thurman blockbuster of recent years). THE 400 BLOWS is a classic for a very good reason: it's an irresistible (and highly autobiographical) tale of a love-starved and neglected boy who acts out in desperate rebellion and seeks the freedom the strictures of school cannot provide. It's beautiful stuff, with some brilliant scenes and a perfect lead performance from then 14-year-old Jean-Pierre Leaud, who would go on to star in three more films (and a segment of another) playing the same character for Truffaut, following his life. Leaud also plays a major role in DAY FOR NIGHT, a breathlessly entertaining, sharply eccentric and endlessly wonderful behind-the-scenes look at the madness of filmmaking which proved far and away my favourite film of the bunch. Anyone who's ever worked on a film set will laugh along knowingly, and I happened to see it the Wednesday before my shoot weekend... and it couldn't have been more perfect. It put my nervousness in perspective, reminded me how fun and rewarding directing could be amidst all the chaos, and literally inspired me to go on. I loved DAY FOR NIGHT tremendously, as much for its intent, content and execution, as this highly fortuitous serendipity. And while I didn't love everything I saw, I've been sufficiently impressed to add myself to the legion of Truffaut fans.
Thirdly, if any of you have seen Woody Allen's classic MANHATTAN, do you recall the scene where Diane Keaton and Michael Murphy are pompously regaling Woody and Mariel Hemingway with their "academy of the overrated" list (which included F. Scott Fitzgerald, Norman Mailer and Vincent Van Gogh, among others)? Well, I've been putting together of my own of late. A lot of good filmmakers and actors have been slammed over and over again in the media or on the internet for being overpraised and overrated, while some -- to me anyway -- seem to get away with murder. My first list is dedicated purely to the film world's underachievers, those who have displayed prodigious talent in the past, but since seem far too content to swan in, grab their cheque, phone another effort in, and go home. People who are much more talented than the stuff they're turning in, and are knocked far too infrequently for their efforts. Yes, folks, I'm compiling my "Academy of Underachievers" and plan to pompously regale you with it...
...but not here, not right now, as I'm putting the finishing touches on it. But soon.
All right, I'll give you a taste:
RIDLEY SCOTT.
There, I said it, and I already feel better.
See you on the other side.
TSIK
12 comments:
I'm having a few days of reading very good writing - how can you be so bloody eloquent with compliments? I mean, when you like something, you can say it (pretty much always with 3 descriptors at a time) and not repeat the same words. Kudos, Paul.
And I want to see this mythic film alluded to, which I heard nothing about the existance of till now.
V
Your "overrated" list just made me want to watch Manhattan again... God, I love Michael Murphy. You've seen Tanner '88, right? If not, cease life immediately until you have. (Naturally, I have both that and Tanner on Tanner, ready to be borrowed at a moment's notice.)
Welcome back, slacker.
Since it looks as though you're never gonna get round your pta vs Tarantino post, I'm just gonna go ahead and post something I've been sitting on for ages, and by now is probably common knowledge.
But it wasn't when I first discovered it, so I'm still gonna do it.
QT's (rumoured) next pic is probably gonna be the Dirty Dozen-wannabe Inglorious Bastards.
Now when that potential title first came up many years ago, I really dug the courage of it, and wondered if it was even gonna get through all the happy-family-redtape inevitably provided by the MPAA.
But then, much to no-one's suprise who's followed QT's career, it turns out someone's already done it.
Inglorious Bastards is an Italian-made blaxploitation film from 1978, starring Fred Williamson, that has pretty much the exact same plot QT's been pitching all these years.
Now I'm sorry if everyone already knew this, but seriously, how, HOW can you take him seriously as a filmmaker when his career-long modus operandi is to copy stuff he's already seen?
Not cool.
Give him the flick TSIK.
All the way with pta.
Anyway, much looking forward to your Underachiever list.
And ready to spew forth with my own list of names.
Although, Ridley Scott - underachiever?
Anyone's who's made two of the greatest sci-fi films of all time, the greatest feminist movie, and a gladiator movie surely can't be an underachiever.
Underrated, maybe.
And just in case anyone thought it was a coincidence, Tarantino announced he wanted to cast Bo Svenson in his film.
What else is on Svenson's filmography? Quel Maledetto Treno Blindato, or Inglorious Bastards (1978).
I'm still a Tarantino fan, and still think he has a chance of being remembered as one of the greats, but he needs to get off the Fatal Homage train ASAP.
So that WAS common knowledge?
My recollection is that it wasn't common knowledge until QT said "I'm gonna cast this awesome actor called Bo Svenson" and everybody hit imdb to find out who he was. Then the pieces clicked together like a house of dominos.
Oh, Shannon...
That's it?? That was your best punch???
Okay -- deep breath -- this is going to take a few minutes.
Yes, I'm afraid it is now common knowledge that there was previously an INGLORIOUS BASTARDS made by those wacky Italians back in the late 70s, and that Tarantino wanted to take the film's Dirty-er Dozen plot as a template and cast Bo Svenson. All true, and all known to me for quite some time.
Believe it or not, I had actually heard of the 70s one when QT announced it waaaaaay back in '98 or whatever it was. I hadn't seen it, couldn't have told you who was in it or anything about it, but when QT announced the title I had heard it somewhere and racked my brain to remember where. Yes, those long afternoons after school spent scouring video store shelves and devouring film review books instead of doing homework did not go to waste: I vaguely remembered a Roadshow Home Video box cover from the early 80s featuring a stack of swaggering seventies soldiers (in WWII clobber) standing together (on the back of an army truck, if I recall correctly), smoking cigars and generally looking insouciant. So then I IMDBd it and found the Bo Svenson/Enzo G Castellari info.
BUT, as with all things QT takes on and homages, he planned to use Castellari's film as a springboard and put his own spin on the story, adding all sorts of layers and tangents of his own to make it a unique QT experience.
The fact that his script has at times taken gargantuan form (one draft clocked in at over 350 pages, so much so he's considering the applying the two-part approach again) leads me to believe he's not just copying the original (which is all of 99 minutes long) verbatim... he's making his dream WWII men-on-a-mission film. And it just so happens that maybe -- for him -- the original INGLORIOUS BASTARDS was heading in the right track, but was capable of so much more. So he's planning to take it there.
Plus, he's hardly the first gun director to choose a remake when he gets the power to do what he/she wants: Gus Van Sant, Jonathan Demme... and theirs weren't sufficiently inspired or ambitious enough to build upon the originals.
The funny thing is, I agree with you and Lee. I want another PULP FICTION or RESERVOIR DOGS out of him. A film that feels like Quentin rather the sum of its parts, no matter how thrilling those parts may be.
But I'm also dying to see INGLORIOUS BASTARDS. I want to see Tarantino put his ultimate tough guy Lee Marvin cinematic fantasies up on the screen through Mike Madsen. I want to see errant WWII soldiers spouting tough Tarantino dialogue. I want to see Quentin direct machine-gun fights and blow shit up -- it's a different kind of action for him. I want to see those same soldiers scalping Nazis (one of QT's innovations).
I really think, in some ways, it could be a real move forward for him. I also think it's quite possibly the monkey he needs to get off his back before he can really progress -- DEATH PROOF felt like a film marking time til the next QT epic comes along, despite his protestations to the contrary -- and, once it's in the can, I think he should stop with the overt homages, and get back to DOGS/FICTION form, or even something like TRUE ROMANCE, where he sees a portion of his own life through a genre flick filter. How does he feel about turning 40, being one of the biggest directors on the planet, not being able to commit to a relationship? Any one of those through QT's genre filter would be fucking fascinating.
Because the paradox here is, the man is obsessed by movies and, in particular, movie genres. He's got a take on each one; a mash-up of every movie he's ever seen in that genre to make the great giant Voltron robot of those kinds of films. KILL BILL was both his Ultimate Chinese Martial Arts film and his Ultimate Spaghetti Western. This will be his ultimate WWII film. And I'm sure, in his head, RESERVOIR DOGS is his ultimate heist flick. Wanting Tarantino without homages is like wanting David Lynch to not structure his stories from dreams and meditation, or Wes Anderson to leave his deadpan dialogue and fractured families at home, or Van Sant to not cast bare-chested, hoodie-clad young men with hair hanging over their eyes. It's not gonna happen, as that's who they are and what makes them unique. We may wish for them to change radically, but it's in their DNA.
So, Shannon, while I wholeheartedly agree that PTA is moving in leaps and bounds while QT is stagnating, I believe INGLORIOUS BASTARDS is the reason. If he finally expels that demon from his system, he'll make up the distance, lickety split.
TSIK
No, that wasn't my best punch. I just had to get that info out there.
Turns out, it was already there when I got there.
Still, Inglorious Bastards. C'mon. He's supposedly using the original as a "springboard" to create his own unique film, and he can't even change the title? Isn't he supposed to be this kick-ass writer? That ain't homage. He departed Homage almost as soon as his career began, made his way quickly through Theft, and is now fast approaching De Palma's usual haunt of Blatant Theft.
It's laziness. He finds something no regular movie goer's ever heard of, copies it, and then assumes its proprietary. He's like a Body Snatcher. A Cine-Snatcher.
And don't gimme that Van Sant/Demme rubbish - they were legitimate remakes. IB is (reportedly, by you) something else entirely.
That'll do for now.
To throw a mildly different dimension to the debate, I don't think his Kill Bills are holding him back. I think his Groundhouses are a big step backwards.
Inglorious Bastards is shameless in its title-rip, but he's also making a point by not hiding it. TSIK is right about Tarantino's film being His Men On A Mission Movie given -- and this is all we know about it now -- the page count vastly outweighs the original's. We know he's going to do something new with it, and if he pulls it off, it'll stand with Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill as a work that ultimately defines the genre its writing love letters to.
But I'm on Shannon's side for the moment about pt vs qt. Within about a year, Paul Thomas Anderson advanced himself immeasurably as a filmmaker with There Will Be Blood. Tarantino took such a huge step backward with Death Proof, he almost tripped over himself. (This is totally unrelated to how much you loved or hated the film. Even if you love it, it's hard to deny the backstep.)
However, I'll take a lazy QT misstep like Death Proof over a well-intentioned remake like Van Sant's Psycho any day of the week.
Oh no, I'm totally the opposite.
I'll take Psycho over Death Proof any day.
Hulk over Daredevil.
Howard The Duck over Once Upon A Time In Mexico (believe it!).
Spectacular failure over treading-water mediocrity.
Believe it or don't, Van Sant tried to do something quite revolutionary and cinematically-progressive by remaking Psycho shot-for-shot.
Whether or not it came off is up for debate (not really).
But the effort is worth more than anyone gives him credit for.
In fact, I would think most film fans would opt/should opt for a filmmaker taking a risk, doing something challenging and different, rather than someone doing same-old, same-old.
Dis/Agree?
I totally disagree with your characterisation of what Van Sant tried to do. When I first heard him talk about taking on the project and doing it shot-for-shot to stop anyone else from "ruining" it -- a quote I heard literally one decade a go, so I may be misremembering it slightly -- I cheered. Then I saw it and thought "What the hell was the point in that?".
I have never seen a film that is less progressive and less cinematically revolutionary than Van Sant's Psycho. At its best, the film is masturbating film buffs. At its worst... well, I'd be typing for hours.
I think something like Grindhouse is much riskier, much less-safe, and miles more creative than the Psycho retread. I may believe that Tarantino is taking a step backwards with Death Proof, but I think it stil shows infinitely more brilliance than Van Sant did.
Seriously, with the punchline that is Finding Forrester following soon after, if GVS hadn't reinvented himself with the genuinely creative and captivating Gerry and Elephant (still dying to see Last Days), he'd be a punchline right now.
Yeah, I still don't know what Van Sant was doing with PSYCHO... as far as I know, it was his attempt to reintroduce a great film to the younger generation because he didn't believe they watch black and white movies. Hence the shot-for-shot: same film, different colour. Interesting notion, possibly even noble, but revolutionary and cinematically-progressive?? Not from where I'm sitting.
And I don't believe QT claims other films are his proprietary. He's never been shy to credit his sources and point audiences toward these obscure films. Quentin is the reason I discovered Asian cinema, at 17.
I'll give you HULK over DAREDEVIL, though.
How about HUDSON HAWK over DIE HARD 2?
And no, Lee, to answer your earlier question: I haven't seen TANNER 88 or TANNER ON TANNER... you must lend them out to me immediately!!!
TSIK
Post a Comment