(September
7, 2003)
THE 41ST NEW YORK FILM FESTIVAL
The 41st New York Film Festival will be getting started in a few weeks. We’ll
be there at Lincoln Center. Last year, Shaun and I started covering the festival
after being online for barely over a month. I contributed a daily blog of sorts
and borrowed pictures from other people – and even used a disposable camera at
one point.
Starting September 29th, MovieNavigator.org is going to have the most
comprehensive coverage on the web. Expect daily updates with photos galore and
lots of quotes from the filmmakers and stars. This is the place to be.
Last year I remarked that I felt like Marcello in La Dolce Vita,
constantly running around surrounded by celebrities. This year I’m going to be
an auteur, making still picture movies starring famous and often brilliant
actors.
Some of the big ones to look for – at least English-speaking movies – are
Clint Eastwood’s opening picture Mystic River, with Sean Penn and
Marcia Gay Harden, Lars Von Trier’s Dogville, with Nicole Kidman, Gus
Van Sant’s Cannes winner Elephant, Errol Morris’ documentary about
Robert F. McNamara The Fog of War, and the closing night picture 21
Grams, directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, starring Naomi Watts,
Benicio del Toro, and again, Sean Penn.
“THE DAVID FINCHER SHUFFLE”
David Fincher had as much impact on me as any director in history. I was in 8th
grade when his music videos became preeminent. He was the first modern superstar
video director. His style was unmistakable – and his references from Bob Fosse
to Orson Welles to Fritz Lang far outclassed anything else that was being done.
And, keeping in mind that his ascent began just before MTV added the
directors’ names to the credits, his name was frequently mentioned by the VJs
before his clips were shown. In fact, he was so successful that in one year he
occupied three out of four nominations for Best Director at the Video Music
Awards, winning for his work on Madonna’s Vogue.
At the age of 14, I would spend afternoons watching MTV just to see if he’d
done anything new. My personal favorite was Janie’s Got a Gun, from the
Aerosmith song. That video rocked my world. I’d been heavily immersed in
special make-up FX, and it was pivotal in turning my attention back toward film
directing with a vengeance. Janie’s Got a Gun was and is the pinnacle
of the narrative video. Switching between the band playing the song and images
of a young girl being molested by her father, then enacting revenge, its ability
to present a clear story by fractioning the essential elements remains as
impressive today as it did over a decade ago. Its legacy is unimpeachable – it
single-handedly created the paradigm for the modern narrative music video.
Now that Fincher’s been directing features for the last dozen years there’s
a giant disconnect between his early work and his best-known movies. I’ve
usually liked his features, particularly Se7en and Fight Club,
though I’m pretty bored with his use of underexposure and a tendency to
gravitate toward thrillers – or at least films that offer the tone of a
thriller. I was looking forward to his Lords of Dogtown – set in 1970s
California and chronicling the first major skateboarding movement. It would’ve
been a great change of pace and aesthetics for him. But a few weeks ago it was
announced that he’d left the project.
This brings up a poor trend that I’ve been seeing in his working habits:
he’s constantly attaching himself to projects which get press, then he leaves
to do something else. It makes him look like a whore. In the last few years
there have been press releases attaching him to Rendezvous With Rama, They
Fought Alone, Mission: Impossible 3, The Black Dahlia, The
Reincarnation of Peter Proud, Squids, Hard Boiled, Seared
– and a few others I can’t even recall.
I think this is serious. How difficult can it be to choose a film to direct? It
almost seems like a scam to make money without ever having to roll film: the
studios or producers pay him to develop projects, many of which he knows he’s
not going to shoot. I’m probably being a little harsh on him, but I mean it in
the best possible way – as somebody who’s been touched by his work and
can’t figure out what the hell he’s doing.
David, pick something already! And not another dark thriller-type film. You’re
more versatile than that. Stop this “David Fincher Shuffle!” Pick a bitch to
commit to and wear her ring with pride.
TECH THAT!
A lot of film writers complain that modern-day film lovers talk more about how
films are made than what they’re saying. Chief among these critics is the
essentially irrelevant Armond White, whose sensibilities are three decades out
of date. I’ll leave my criticism of him at that, since I don’t intend this
as a personal attack.
From my experience, young filmmakers and enthusiasts are just as interested in
one as the other. On message boards people are constantly debating plot points
or themes. In fact, most people have little knowledge of actual filmmaking so
they’re obviously going to talk about other aspects.
This applies especially to critics. Most critics don’t have a clue in the
world how movies are actually made. Yes, they understand that movies are shot on
celluloid, then edited and projected on large screens – but it doesn’t go
much farther than that.
The fact remains that more intellectual capacity goes into the technical side of
filmmaking than any critic will ever do sitting on their ass, writing a 500-word
review. The fact also remains that most films do not fully represent any one
person’s creative agenda. Critics knock directors over things that many
couldn’t control. Perhaps that scene didn’t work well because the light was
getting dim and they didn’t have the budget to reshoot it. Perhaps the ending
is upbeat because the studio demanded it.
The ultimate result of a film is based on technical craft and often creative
compromise. It’s the foundation. Without very talented artists or craftsmen
who are experts in electrical engineering and physics there would be no movies.
Plenty of critics talk about film ideas – some with skill, others talk in
idiotic semiotic theory that doesn’t mean anything. It’s out there for
people who are interested.
What we have seen a proliferation in is “entertainment news”, which really
isn’t news, just publicity. Those criticizing this aspect have a valid point
– however I would suggest that people who watch Entertainment Tonight or
Access Hollywood aren’t looking for ideas. They watch those shows for exactly
what they are: infotainment. It serves a purpose. Leave it alone. It’s
representative of the public at large.
The
public overwhelmingly prefers mindless popcorn flicks to thought-provoking
motion pictures. It’s ALWAYS been like that. Spielberg and Lucas aren’t to
blame for shit. Critics make it seem like movies were always about high art
until Jaws came along. The truth is that there were about 6-7 years where
the studio system was undergoing a transition and luckily a lot of great films
got made. Most of them didn’t make much money. Enter the corporations.
I would also argue that film is doing well, in terms of its rehabilitation. We
went from the 1980s homogenization to the indie movement in the ‘90s, which
reestablished the idea of independent creativity, but lacked ideas, to an era
now being spearheaded by Spielberg that’s reintegrating ideas. We’re moving
in the right direction.
It would appear to me that only an elitist without much understanding of the
process would get on a bully pulpit to deride film technique. That’s my
grievance with White, who recently knocked 28 Days Later (a film that
combined progressive technique with relevant ideas) as being unwatchable because
it was shot on mini-DV. If that’s where things are at, then it’s time that
the critical lineup in our country underwent a generational upheaval. Many of
the critics writing today were writing in the 1960s and 1970s. Their
philosophies are outdated. They should step aside to make room for new blood
regardless of their own pompous prestige.
My
Weekly Ramble: August 17
My Weekly
Ramble: August 3
My Weekly
Ramble: July 26
-Copyright
2003 by Jamie
Stuart