(August
3, 2003)
GIGLI
I don’t have a great deal to say about Gigli, since I was fortunate
enough to have missed the press screening. Regardless of its poor quality (a
current Tomatometer Rating of 5%), one thing that’s been proven by all the
hoopla is that there’s no such thing as bad press. As of this writing,
Shaun’s review has generated over 4500 hits.
Gigli is part of a crop of bad buzz films that appear to be creating a
swirl just because of their apparent awfulness. Two other unreleased films that
have captured the public’s imagination are Vincent Gallo’s Cannes bomb The
Brown Bunny and Mel Gibson’s Jesus flick The Passion.
While all three films can lay the blame with different people, Ben Affleck and
Jennifer Lopez have created a backlash not just against their movie, but
themselves. It’s one thing when stars get romantically involved – both of
them have been there and dealt with the spotlight before. The difference here is
that they’ve actively courted attention.
That said they deserve every drop of bad press that comes their way. I assure
you that when they signed to do Gigli, they weren’t required to do a
primetime Pat O’Brien special about their life together. They weren’t even
together yet when they made the film.
It would be pretty impossible to imagine Ben and Jen not knowing their picture
was going to bomb, since you could smell the buzz from every direction. By going
on TV and showing a day in their life for publicity’s sake, they effectively
put their credibility on the line. And they came off like pampered star
assholes.
My advice is that Ben should go back to character acting. He was great in Dazed
and Confused, and he’s always been funny on SNL – he just sucks as a
leading man. He’s like watching wood as photographed by John Schwartzman.
And J. Lo…even though Maid in Manhattan was a success, due in no small
part to Julia Roberts, she has yet to establish any real screen persona. She was
good in Out of Sight, and generally has a cute charisma, but consistently
chooses lousy projects. I mean, was Enough the choice that an A-list star
should be making? It was a bad Ashley Judd reject, at best. She’s a lousy
singer, too – with Puffy and Hype molding your image even the fat chick down
my block wearing cut-off tanktops could make it.
The degree to which they played up their relationship in the press was as
cynical as the Demi Moore/Ashton Kutcher affair. It’s been so overdone that I
almost wonder whether the whole thing is a sham. (Look! We’re beautiful, rich
and in love!) The pinnacle of the backlash came when The Onion suggested Ben and
Jen’s characters should’ve died at the end of Gigli. Would that have
been a happy ending?
OBSERVE THIS!
When I speak to young film enthusiasts there’s a general consensus that the
best way to make great movies it to just rip off things from other movies.
Primarily, they point to filmmakers like Paul Thomas Anderson and Spike Jonze as
examples. Another thing they seem to dislike is social observation, instead
focusing on characters’ emotions.
In my opinion, if these are the traits young people point to as the future, then
there is no future. Every time somebody blatantly rips off something from
another film it’s another lost opportunity for originality. As well, I don’t
think emotions are particularly profound and most great films have had some type
of social observation.
For all the hoopla surrounding the 1970s, all anybody points to nowadays is how
the directors were able to control their films. Well, that’s not the only
reason the films were great. It’s because they had control that they were able
to take on the powers that be and actually offer satire and social critiques.
Yeah, the cores of their stories were people, but the people existed within
physical environments at certain times.
I think part of the problem is that disrespect for authority has been in decline
in the movies for a while now. The attacks on Oliver Stone – in some cased
justified – basically made social consciousness seem like the work of a crazy
person. Also, with everything the GOP flew at Clinton there was enough of that
already in our media, and movies served their escapist purpose.
In the movies and now TV, probably the largest purveyor of product is Jerry
Bruckheimer. Mr. Bruckheimer is the most successful producer in Hollywood
history. This summer he became the first producer to have films at number 1 and
2, respectively, with Bad Boys II and Pirates of the Carribean.
I don’t believe Mr. Bruckheimer has any major political positions. I think
he’s a capitalist. He’s also, for all intents and purposes, an auteur
controlling every aspect of his films. Whether it’s Michael Bay or Simon West
directing the picture you still know it’s a Bruckheimer production.
What Mr. Bruckheimer has created is a fusion of rebellion and authority. He’s
maintained the moral attitude of the authorities as the good guys, yet endowed
them with the characteristics of outlaws. Take a film like Armageddon. A
bunch of rule-busting oil drillers are sent to an asteroid by Uncle Sam to blow
it up before it destroys the Earth. Or take The Rock. A cop and a convict
must work together to foil a terrorist attack.
It’s a brilliant conceptual stunt and it’s made Bruckheimer a billionaire.
He didn’t invent this scenario, he’s just the person who perfected it and
ran with it. I just don’t know whether that type of symbiosis is good for
people’s psyches. I mean, if the authorities are livewires, then what are the
bad guys?
It just seems to me that most of the great films of the last 50 years have
offered us some criticism of society at large – no matter how intimate the
story. I think we’re on track to returning actual observations of our lives to
movies. Spielberg’s been all over it lately. Same with Michael Moore. Scorsese
tried it with Gangs of New York.
To do so simply requires a greater conviction on the part of the filmmaker, and
unfortunately most young people live pretty insulated lives. If the ‘90s were
about indie aspirations, the 0’s are about film school.
If movies are to maintain any viable meaning in our culture the filmmakers need
to start kicking ass. I mean, up until Saving Private Ryan you couldn’t
get a serious patriotic war movie made on any large scale. A war film meant an
anti-war film. Between SPR and 9/11 things have gotten seriously twisted.
Since things often respond to inverse pressure, perhaps all of this media
conglomeration and patriotic dog dick will push down on and pop up films that
have things to say. Good luck.
SYMBIOSIS
So, a decade ago indie filmmaking was about quirky storytelling, not ideas. At
the other side of the aisle we had video directors who were considered nothing
but visualists. The two parties are working together nowadays and seem to
coexist with ease.
I’m not sure that young filmmakers separate directors like David Fincher from
Paul Thomas Anderson, or Spike Jonze from Wes Anderson. They’re all quirky.
They all have trademark styles. They make movies for corporations like AOL Time
Warner, Buena Vista and Sony.
The whole studio system is so blurry right now it’s impossible to know
what’s really going on. Is 28 Days Later an indie film? It was financed
by Fox Searchlight the specialty division of 20th Century Fox, which is the film
division of News Corp.
What I can tell you is that two of those directors started out as music video
directors. And contrary to the common belief amongst the press, both of them
were great video directors. They both predominantly structured their videos with
narratives. As Mark Romanek recently told Apple.com: “…Making music videos
became sort of an elite film school and a place to develop a voice and technical
craft.”
Referring to the mid-‘90s, he continues, “It was a time when MTV was a
vital, interesting area, when it was still showing videos and when the directors
doing them included some of the best directors in the world, like David Fincher,
Jonathan Glazier and Spike Jonze. I mean these were really great filmmakers who
happened to be making music videos. So it was very inspiring and exciting.”
I think the line between indie filmmaking and the emergence of these video
directors as feature filmmakers began to blur in 1999. In that year we had
everything from Jonze’s Being John Malkovich, to PT Anderson’s Magnolia,
to Fincher’s Fight Club, to David O. Russell’s Three Kings.
These pictures were released by USA, New Line Cinema, 20th Century Fox and
Warner Bros. – and only one of those companies was considered somewhat
independent and that didn’t last long, as USA was sucked into Universal.
What this means is that the traditional understanding of “independent” now
refers to independent vision. All of the directors above pretty much control
their films. They all make varyingly bizarre movies. They make them sometimes
for $40-50-million. Is that independent?
What this synthesis has done, and I
consider this to be a good thing, is that it’s forced indie films to look
better. The style hasn’t overtaken the subject matter. It’s simply added
another layer. Movies
are after all stories told with pictures. They’re all filmmakers from the same
generation with similar points of view – they just made it using different
routes.
I think the filmmakers who basically set the standard for this synthesis are the
Coen Brothers. Looking back at their early work, made for nothing, it still
holds its ground today. Their movies were always highly original, intellectual,
and visually stunning – an approach they got from Stanley Kubrick, who came up
the same way (indie to studio while retaining control).
Quentin Tarantino got most of the credit for the ‘90s indie explosion, and not
without due, but I really feel it was the Coens who laid the groundwork. Yes,
there were other filmmakers of their generation who ultimately influenced
filmmaking. I still say Pulp Fiction is a rip off of Jim Jarmusch’s Mystery
Train, and it in turn became a mantra of the ‘90s slacker generation.
Spike Lee, although never matching the commercial success of John Singleton and
others, unquestionably paved the road for burgeoning black cinema.
The reason I’m pointing to the Coens right now is because I think what
they’ve done is most directly influencing modern American cinema – in the
creative realm, not necessarily at the box office. I honestly can’t imagine
films like Malkovich, Fight Club or Punch-Drunk Love
without the work of the Coens predating them. Not to say there are direct
references in all those films, though there are more than a few, but I’m
talking about tone and style.
Are the Coens the most influential filmmakers of the past decade? I can’t say
that. What I am prepared to say, however, is that different filmmakers have
their times at different times. Some people start trends immediately in one form
or another (everybody jumped on the ENR bandwagon after Fincher did Se7en).
Others bloom later. And right now I think the Coens are in full bloom.
With the release of Intolerable Cruelty, produced by Brian Grazer, Ron
Howard’s partner, and starring George Clooney and Catherine Zeta-Jones, I’d
be surprised if it isn’t the Coens’ first $100-million picture at the B.O. I
think that swing is intentional, part of a strategy, along with the Tom Hanks
comedy The Ladykillers, to put them in a better position to make their
dream project To the White Sea – a WWII drama that was nixed because of
budget concerns.
There’s still an undeserved stigma in the industry against video directors.
While we’ve certainly had our fill of Michael Bay, we’ve also received some
of the afore-mentioned directors. It appears to me a similar view to some who
considered Scorsese a better director than Spielberg on the grounds that he made
it in an indie style, whereas Spielberg got his break directing TV. It’s like
the haves versus the have-nots, or the industry versus independence. Doesn’t
mean shit to me as long as the films are good.
At this point, I can easily say that Mark Romanek and Spike Jonze are as
relevant as Quentin Tarantino or Kevin Smith. It doesn’t matter how you get
there – it’s what you do once you get there. And once you get there you’d
better pay your respects. Here’s to Joel and Ethan!
CHOICES! CHOICES! CHOICES!
I’m having a rough time deciding what to do as my next film. 3200 K was
an exhausting, though rewarding experience. It was also an uncompromising drama
that more than one person has described as “depressing.” So, I’m
definitely in the mood to do something comic.
At this point I have two short scripts and two feature scripts that are ready to
shoot, give or take. There’s also a third short that I’m preparing to write.
Ultimately, my choice will probably come down to money. That’s one good thing
about having multiple choices – I have a project for any budget.
On the low end – and I mean a few hundred bucks – I’ve got Going With
the Flow, a demented date flick, which I’m about to write. I figure
it’ll be about 10-15 minutes in length.
A step up from that in the $1000 price range there’s The Scenic Route,
a serial killer satire at 20-25 minutes. It’s a logistically complex shoot
with lots of characters, but doesn’t require a great deal of money.
Next, I have Coppola , a mad
satire about the industry and trying to make it in the industry. This one would
cost money, since it would require the use of various CGI components. It also
keeps getting longer and at roughly 50 pages at this point it’s stuck in the
middle ground between a short and a feature.
Moving up to the features game, on the low I’ve got The All-Nighter,
which would be a mini-DV project. It’s a paranoid thriller set in post-9/11
New York. Although it’s planned for mini-DV, it’s also planned to be
incredibly ambitious, tightly photographed and edited.
And finally, I’ve got A Day in Our Life, which was written back
in’97. This one would have to be shot in super-16, at the least. It’s a
black & white multiple character/plot type film centered around…a day in
our life. Very logistically complex.
One thing’s for certain, I plan to shoot one of the shorts before autumn is
up, and I plan to shoot one of the features before next summer is up. I’m good
at pre-planning, and with that in tow, I’m also great at cutting corners since
everything I’ve ever done has been a guerrilla shoot.
Maybe I’ll try to scam some music videos from bands that I know. Anyhow. Time
to start movin’.
CLICK HERE for last week's RAMBLE.
-Copyright
2003 by Jamie
Stuart