Some critics might claim to need a code key to interpret what Tarantino means by this revisionist adventure film, but I'd say it's right under their up-turned noses:
There's a great little scene where Mike Meyers plays a British military man who anticipates attacking a Nazi film premiere so he brings in an a film critic as an adviser. This may or may not be necessary but it does allow for a dialog exchange like:
Meyers: What do you do?
Critic: I am a film critic.
Meyers: What are your accomplishments?
Even though the critic goes on to list some compilation books, it may as well be a rhetorical question.
Tarantino thumbs his nose at convention and that is part of the movie's appeal. His movies are often about movies as much as they are about the content at hand. Yet he still manages to sustain genuine tension. The opening Nazi interrogation of a French farmer and a later a tavern basement guessing game scene must have had whopping page counts but they play out as chapters and remain engrossing high stakes set pieces. In the same film he can introduce a character by throwing a title onto the screen as if this member of the "Basterds" was cool enough to have his own movie, or play a 1980's David Bowie song while a woman prepares to do battle in her own way while Nazi flags hang outside the window.
The movie takes place in an alternate universe that could either be a dream or the unreality of the grind-house era Tarantino has celebrated in Kill Bill and, well, Grindhouse. Anyone with a brain will get that. If that sounds good, see it. I notice now there are blurbs about "how Jewish critics feel" about the movie. Well, those who go to a movie with a deliberately misspelled title knowing it is a revisionist fantasy and can't bear to see the character of Hitler as the butt of the joke don't have an opinion worthy of note.
If you are an expert on NASA, your views on George Lucas' Star Wars movies are not necessarily of use to me. In fact it's a little galling that such a critic-proof designation as "Jewish critic" should be trotted out. They can say what they like about a sensitive document with the intentions of Schindler's List and God bless them. But if someone gets his boxers in a bunch over slapstick Nazis or clueless Hitler autographing the Grain Diary for Indiana Jones, then they just aren't going to be the right audience for Inglourious Basterds. In fact they shouldn't be watching fun movies at all. They should try staring at a blank wall and talking to themselves rather than type up their blather.
But it's not all fun. Sad things do happen and unfortunate events occur in this movie. The tension even in dialog does come from the danger of having a Nazi at the table or someone daring to ask him to leave. But when you get reviewers comparing the Basterds to Al Qaida I think we can excuse those critics from the table as well. Or call Eli Roth over to them and yell "Play ball!"
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Random 15 flicks that stick (to me) I suppose
Thanks to Derek and Adam for suggesting people try to come up with lists of 15 films that stick to us. Here’s the list I came up with off the top of my head, at first from glancing at my DVD shelf and a few pictures on my wall. No particular order.
Raiders of the Lost Ark – saw it with my Mom a week before it opened at the Capitol in North Bay as a double bill with the Ringo Starr / Shelly Long opus “Caveman.” I must have been 13 so I should have known the plot would not take Harrison Ford into space but it did not. I remember reacting to a rope in the background as if it was another snake behind Indy. I remember some talking scenes that bored me, and yet I now can recite them word for word.
The Empire Strikes Back – saw this with my Dad while visiting Windsor. Whatever the plan was we had to get to a theater. I remember the first time noticing (I think the place was called the Center Theater) a sound system that made it seem like a TIE fighter was flying from behind us and past us, and I remember remarking that Yoda sounded like Grover from Sesame Street. Back home in North Bay I ended up seeing this movie in a theater more than any other. The sounds and music are part of the score of those formative years, and so I have no objectivity about it. I varied my experience by deliberately choosing different seats each time.
Back to the Future – I saw this at age 17, the age Marty McFly was supposed to be. I hadn’t read anything about screenplays yet but I knew this one had an apparent script that was as perfect as they get. The set-ups and pay-offs were fun even if you could see something coming up seventh avenue. And the movie overall is something I can watch the way that a native supposedly might have climbed to the top of a mountain to look at the horizon and get “focused” that way to clear his vision. But because it is entertaining it is taken for granted. The next year I completed my first 100-page-plus screenplay and have written at least once since each year. So I’m not sure if I should be thankful or hateful of this movie.
American Graffiti – There was a time I watched this at the end of every summer and saw different things in it each time. And unlike Star Wars it isn’t as much a dance of cuts and images that we can watch over and over, but what there is of that aspect is mixed with subject matter sure to trip a person up on the way to school. It is now sold with More American Graffiti which shouldn’t be watched immediately after the first film but it is worth watching in its own right. This is the template teen movie, not Animal House, though I’m not sure kids who have seen American Pie will respond to Graffiti. Maybe.
I’ve been told they will find it too slow, but I think it would play. I think kids today are aware JFK was assassinated and that the Vietnam War happened in the 1960’s.
History of the World Part I – I was chastised recently by one of my sisters for letting her sons watch this, even though they put it on themselves and I think it was her copy. The dialog from this film has peppered dinner table conversation in my family for years, and now generations. If my nephew says, “Move that miserable piece of shit” he’s not being rude. And I credit this film for all of my education about the Spanish Inquisition.
The Passion of the Christ – I expected this to be about as involving as being dragged to mass. But a story that was like going through the motions all these years came to life and was chilling. Zealots really should have been forbidden to bring small kids to this. It’s not a prayer meeting. But I was most struck by the fact that subtitles were not really necessary. The performances convey everything they have to and the specific words are a bonus. It is not a movie to see over and over, but it sticks. It didn’t fill me with hate either. A thief says something hateful and gets his eyes plucked by a crow and you feel kind of bad for the guy. I did feel some hate engaging the detractors and combating a lot of disinformation. But I got over it.
Schindler’s List – Ten years passed between the first and second time I saw this movie, mainly because it was another “experience” and because I remembered it as being more traumatic than it was. The film has a lot of balance and is often misrepresented. Spielberg knows he doesn’t have to focus on every death or bog down in a recitation of statistics. He could have made Night and Fog with his eyes closed, but the director of that film could not have made this.
Copland - Once of those times it was nice to see Stallone get his voice back again. But I mostly remember DeNiro as an internal affairs cop being told don’t shit where you eat and replying, “I do. I live in a house. I eat there and I shit there.”
Sarah Silverman: Jesus Is Magic – This was done before her TV show and it bombed but I looked for it after seeing a clip on youtube. I watched this over and over, just let it play because it was like the first time I heard Steve Martin’s tape or Eddie Murphy Delirious. The idea that someone can say outlandish things in just the right way that it re-frames reality, tragedy and stupidity while seeming effortless and cheeky.
Innerspace – What sticks with me is this one very visual “reveal” shot that introduces a new element to the story and characters. I won’t say what it is and it may even have fallen out of favor with today’s audiences. But this movie also has a great energy and zaniness I can’t explain though I often think about it. Weak title but a great flick. If gleefully includes the trappings of a bad b-movie and yet it’s quite good.
The Green Mile – the supernatural sibling of Shawshank, I think people may fuse the two but I think most often this movie is dismissed even though its dark aspects are uncompromised. I remember reading the serial novel while I lived in a crappy apartment and I was very concerned about the fate of Mr. Jingles while at the same time celebrating the death of a real mouse that had eaten some poison I had put out. Ultimately though this film and Dancer in the Dark should be compulsory viewing before any discussion of capital punishment.
The Phantom Menace – Notice that I don’t use the full title. I could call it the Phantom Premise. I remember the high point of wandering past The Paramount on what was opening night for that theater (later Scotia Bank Theater) and the film itself, and the latest leap in ticket prices. I went just to look at the lines. I was going to wait for my birthday to see the film. I remarked to one of the nerds in line, “They should have a way of scanning each of us to see who is the bigger Star Wars fan and just give that person a free ticket.” At that moment – I shit you not – an usher came out and asked who was here alone. I put up my hand, I was given a free ticket, and I was directed inside. I got an aisle seat and felt like God was looking out for me and everyone felt euphoria when “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. . .” hit the screen. Then something seemed a bit off part of the way in and when Jar Jar dove into the water and we follow him to the Gungan City all I could think of was George Lucas’ old quote before he turned to the dark side, “The fatal mistake that some science fiction or fantasy filmmakers make is that they want to show off the work that they’ve generated on sets and they spend film time on it.” That and a more recent quote that Jar Jar was supposed to be like Steppin Fetchit and it was now glaringly clear why that actor is not remembered like Charlie Chaplin.
I spent a few years in geek hell compulsively re-writing this movie, literally, and no good came of it. But it stuck with me, like a flashback of suffering molestation.
John Carpenter’s The Thing – This I saw on VHS in the dawn of home video at a time where 13 and 14 year olds and younger habitually rented almost exclusively R-rated movies at the local convenience store. As painful as it was to watch people cut their fingers so their blood could be tested the most traumatic stuff involves seeing dogs rip apart. When this happened it signaled to me my friend Claude that this filmmaker Carpenter “doesn’t give a shit” which is not to mean that he is indifferent about his craft but that the usual boundaries of good taste will not apply and there is no telling how disturbing the movie will get.
Close Encounters of the Third Kind – My mom took me to see this before I had heard of it, maybe to make up for the fact that I wasn’t allowed to see Star Wars for the first year of its release because the Canadian term for PG was “Adult Entertainment” or something back then. Not even Adult Accompaniment either, which would be our PG-13. So instead of being exposed to R2-D2 I got to see the floor grating unscrew and stove burners glow on their own and the little kid pulled by unseen aliens out the doggie door and ripped from his mother’s hands. Luckily my attention span was (and is) bad enough that by the end of the movie when we all love the nice hand-signals of the big fetus-looking aliens I had forgotten about all the trauma they put people through conducting their abductions.
Night Shift – One of my favourite movies. An unknown (to me) Michael Keaton instantly being a star that I looked forward to seeing in other movies. Even the name star Henry Winkler is cast against type and nothing at all like Fonzie. I eventually saw Risky Business which has a similar normal-guy-becomes-pimp storyline, but I saw that once on video and had no interest in seeing it again though I didn’t dislike it. Night Shift though had something strange going on. Despite its raunchy premise it was very clearly about values and respect.
Raiders of the Lost Ark – saw it with my Mom a week before it opened at the Capitol in North Bay as a double bill with the Ringo Starr / Shelly Long opus “Caveman.” I must have been 13 so I should have known the plot would not take Harrison Ford into space but it did not. I remember reacting to a rope in the background as if it was another snake behind Indy. I remember some talking scenes that bored me, and yet I now can recite them word for word.
The Empire Strikes Back – saw this with my Dad while visiting Windsor. Whatever the plan was we had to get to a theater. I remember the first time noticing (I think the place was called the Center Theater) a sound system that made it seem like a TIE fighter was flying from behind us and past us, and I remember remarking that Yoda sounded like Grover from Sesame Street. Back home in North Bay I ended up seeing this movie in a theater more than any other. The sounds and music are part of the score of those formative years, and so I have no objectivity about it. I varied my experience by deliberately choosing different seats each time.
Back to the Future – I saw this at age 17, the age Marty McFly was supposed to be. I hadn’t read anything about screenplays yet but I knew this one had an apparent script that was as perfect as they get. The set-ups and pay-offs were fun even if you could see something coming up seventh avenue. And the movie overall is something I can watch the way that a native supposedly might have climbed to the top of a mountain to look at the horizon and get “focused” that way to clear his vision. But because it is entertaining it is taken for granted. The next year I completed my first 100-page-plus screenplay and have written at least once since each year. So I’m not sure if I should be thankful or hateful of this movie.
American Graffiti – There was a time I watched this at the end of every summer and saw different things in it each time. And unlike Star Wars it isn’t as much a dance of cuts and images that we can watch over and over, but what there is of that aspect is mixed with subject matter sure to trip a person up on the way to school. It is now sold with More American Graffiti which shouldn’t be watched immediately after the first film but it is worth watching in its own right. This is the template teen movie, not Animal House, though I’m not sure kids who have seen American Pie will respond to Graffiti. Maybe.
I’ve been told they will find it too slow, but I think it would play. I think kids today are aware JFK was assassinated and that the Vietnam War happened in the 1960’s.
History of the World Part I – I was chastised recently by one of my sisters for letting her sons watch this, even though they put it on themselves and I think it was her copy. The dialog from this film has peppered dinner table conversation in my family for years, and now generations. If my nephew says, “Move that miserable piece of shit” he’s not being rude. And I credit this film for all of my education about the Spanish Inquisition.
The Passion of the Christ – I expected this to be about as involving as being dragged to mass. But a story that was like going through the motions all these years came to life and was chilling. Zealots really should have been forbidden to bring small kids to this. It’s not a prayer meeting. But I was most struck by the fact that subtitles were not really necessary. The performances convey everything they have to and the specific words are a bonus. It is not a movie to see over and over, but it sticks. It didn’t fill me with hate either. A thief says something hateful and gets his eyes plucked by a crow and you feel kind of bad for the guy. I did feel some hate engaging the detractors and combating a lot of disinformation. But I got over it.
Schindler’s List – Ten years passed between the first and second time I saw this movie, mainly because it was another “experience” and because I remembered it as being more traumatic than it was. The film has a lot of balance and is often misrepresented. Spielberg knows he doesn’t have to focus on every death or bog down in a recitation of statistics. He could have made Night and Fog with his eyes closed, but the director of that film could not have made this.
Copland - Once of those times it was nice to see Stallone get his voice back again. But I mostly remember DeNiro as an internal affairs cop being told don’t shit where you eat and replying, “I do. I live in a house. I eat there and I shit there.”
Sarah Silverman: Jesus Is Magic – This was done before her TV show and it bombed but I looked for it after seeing a clip on youtube. I watched this over and over, just let it play because it was like the first time I heard Steve Martin’s tape or Eddie Murphy Delirious. The idea that someone can say outlandish things in just the right way that it re-frames reality, tragedy and stupidity while seeming effortless and cheeky.
Innerspace – What sticks with me is this one very visual “reveal” shot that introduces a new element to the story and characters. I won’t say what it is and it may even have fallen out of favor with today’s audiences. But this movie also has a great energy and zaniness I can’t explain though I often think about it. Weak title but a great flick. If gleefully includes the trappings of a bad b-movie and yet it’s quite good.
The Green Mile – the supernatural sibling of Shawshank, I think people may fuse the two but I think most often this movie is dismissed even though its dark aspects are uncompromised. I remember reading the serial novel while I lived in a crappy apartment and I was very concerned about the fate of Mr. Jingles while at the same time celebrating the death of a real mouse that had eaten some poison I had put out. Ultimately though this film and Dancer in the Dark should be compulsory viewing before any discussion of capital punishment.
The Phantom Menace – Notice that I don’t use the full title. I could call it the Phantom Premise. I remember the high point of wandering past The Paramount on what was opening night for that theater (later Scotia Bank Theater) and the film itself, and the latest leap in ticket prices. I went just to look at the lines. I was going to wait for my birthday to see the film. I remarked to one of the nerds in line, “They should have a way of scanning each of us to see who is the bigger Star Wars fan and just give that person a free ticket.” At that moment – I shit you not – an usher came out and asked who was here alone. I put up my hand, I was given a free ticket, and I was directed inside. I got an aisle seat and felt like God was looking out for me and everyone felt euphoria when “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. . .” hit the screen. Then something seemed a bit off part of the way in and when Jar Jar dove into the water and we follow him to the Gungan City all I could think of was George Lucas’ old quote before he turned to the dark side, “The fatal mistake that some science fiction or fantasy filmmakers make is that they want to show off the work that they’ve generated on sets and they spend film time on it.” That and a more recent quote that Jar Jar was supposed to be like Steppin Fetchit and it was now glaringly clear why that actor is not remembered like Charlie Chaplin.
I spent a few years in geek hell compulsively re-writing this movie, literally, and no good came of it. But it stuck with me, like a flashback of suffering molestation.
John Carpenter’s The Thing – This I saw on VHS in the dawn of home video at a time where 13 and 14 year olds and younger habitually rented almost exclusively R-rated movies at the local convenience store. As painful as it was to watch people cut their fingers so their blood could be tested the most traumatic stuff involves seeing dogs rip apart. When this happened it signaled to me my friend Claude that this filmmaker Carpenter “doesn’t give a shit” which is not to mean that he is indifferent about his craft but that the usual boundaries of good taste will not apply and there is no telling how disturbing the movie will get.
Close Encounters of the Third Kind – My mom took me to see this before I had heard of it, maybe to make up for the fact that I wasn’t allowed to see Star Wars for the first year of its release because the Canadian term for PG was “Adult Entertainment” or something back then. Not even Adult Accompaniment either, which would be our PG-13. So instead of being exposed to R2-D2 I got to see the floor grating unscrew and stove burners glow on their own and the little kid pulled by unseen aliens out the doggie door and ripped from his mother’s hands. Luckily my attention span was (and is) bad enough that by the end of the movie when we all love the nice hand-signals of the big fetus-looking aliens I had forgotten about all the trauma they put people through conducting their abductions.
Night Shift – One of my favourite movies. An unknown (to me) Michael Keaton instantly being a star that I looked forward to seeing in other movies. Even the name star Henry Winkler is cast against type and nothing at all like Fonzie. I eventually saw Risky Business which has a similar normal-guy-becomes-pimp storyline, but I saw that once on video and had no interest in seeing it again though I didn’t dislike it. Night Shift though had something strange going on. Despite its raunchy premise it was very clearly about values and respect.
Too much free time: yellow journalists
I know I have too much free time when I'm clicking the response button and talking back to lame "entertainment columnists."
I haven't gotten around to chastising hack Ryan Porter for his blurb about Gwenyth Paltrow supposedly not being everybody's chum on the set of Iron Man 2 and not palling around with the new girl Scarlett Johansson who plays one of the villains. I expect that there are any number of reasons that she might feel stand-offish to SOMEONE on the set - like whoever fed the story to reporters. Like maybe she has developed a good asshole-detector over the years. And maybe there is a method in her - Method - keeping apart from a character that she is supposed to have anymosity toward. Even the releationship between Pepper Potts and Iron Man has tension. Why losen up? The trend is to try to "make fun of" Goop the website of Paltrow, but after looking at it I don't see it as being any worse than other similar sites. It's not my cup of tea. I'd like to read journals from her about acting. But it's the kind of thing only a queen like Ryan Porter could pretend to find fault with.
Here is what I wrote to some other gossip hound about an unrelated story.
Amber, your blurbs aren't as bad as Ryan Porter but I'm considering not having sympatico as my home page after so may gossipy, catty little "reports" even if and when they actually originate with TV Guide.
Jeff Goldblume being a TV and movie star of some note, charismatic and well liked, it would possibly be a news flash if he was dating a 60 year old matron.
Is Ellen Degeneres' wife Portia younger and prettier? Yes.
Does Rosie O'Donnell look for prettier and fitter women? Yes.
Did Ian McKellen ever show up at an awards night with a very young man beside him? Yes.
So it's not even like it's an affectation of straight males in power. There is no scandal or strangeness in an older established star attracting and enjoying a younger mate.
Nor is it all that unusual for a young woman to look for someone more mature.
If Jeff has a young chick - score. Otherwise why bother dating? The myth I think these kinds of "issues" perpetuate is that a younger lover is disposable and superficial whereas an "age appropriate" (my gossip standards) pairing is automatically deep, meaningful and lasting.
In reality, starting a new relationship over 40 years old with someone in your own age range guarantees nothing except the chance to share declining years. People may actually be more likely to "use" someone in their "league" as a maintenance date until something better comes along (in which case a lot of need and baggage may be at stake). They are less likely to discard someone who is igniting lust and vitality.
Anyway, that's my reaction to Jeff's perfectly normal choice of girlfriend.
I haven't gotten around to chastising hack Ryan Porter for his blurb about Gwenyth Paltrow supposedly not being everybody's chum on the set of Iron Man 2 and not palling around with the new girl Scarlett Johansson who plays one of the villains. I expect that there are any number of reasons that she might feel stand-offish to SOMEONE on the set - like whoever fed the story to reporters. Like maybe she has developed a good asshole-detector over the years. And maybe there is a method in her - Method - keeping apart from a character that she is supposed to have anymosity toward. Even the releationship between Pepper Potts and Iron Man has tension. Why losen up? The trend is to try to "make fun of" Goop the website of Paltrow, but after looking at it I don't see it as being any worse than other similar sites. It's not my cup of tea. I'd like to read journals from her about acting. But it's the kind of thing only a queen like Ryan Porter could pretend to find fault with.
Here is what I wrote to some other gossip hound about an unrelated story.
Amber, your blurbs aren't as bad as Ryan Porter but I'm considering not having sympatico as my home page after so may gossipy, catty little "reports" even if and when they actually originate with TV Guide.
Jeff Goldblume being a TV and movie star of some note, charismatic and well liked, it would possibly be a news flash if he was dating a 60 year old matron.
Is Ellen Degeneres' wife Portia younger and prettier? Yes.
Does Rosie O'Donnell look for prettier and fitter women? Yes.
Did Ian McKellen ever show up at an awards night with a very young man beside him? Yes.
So it's not even like it's an affectation of straight males in power. There is no scandal or strangeness in an older established star attracting and enjoying a younger mate.
Nor is it all that unusual for a young woman to look for someone more mature.
If Jeff has a young chick - score. Otherwise why bother dating? The myth I think these kinds of "issues" perpetuate is that a younger lover is disposable and superficial whereas an "age appropriate" (my gossip standards) pairing is automatically deep, meaningful and lasting.
In reality, starting a new relationship over 40 years old with someone in your own age range guarantees nothing except the chance to share declining years. People may actually be more likely to "use" someone in their "league" as a maintenance date until something better comes along (in which case a lot of need and baggage may be at stake). They are less likely to discard someone who is igniting lust and vitality.
Anyway, that's my reaction to Jeff's perfectly normal choice of girlfriend.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Screenplays 101
I wrote a 101 page draft of someone else' script and the producer ultimately didn't like it. I can't just say to a friend, "WTF do you know about screenwriting???" All I can do is follow my gut. The previous draft was generated through the work of two other writers over the course of a couple of years and I found it unprofessional, despite the fact that they were paid for it. I stand by my own re-write, despite the fact that it was don in less than two weeks. If I get cocky I'll feel like the Cleese character in Life of Brian who says, "This is the Messiah and I should know - I've followed a few." You could argue that being able to patiently wade into 100 pages of script and keep it simple and focused isn't enough. I haven't made a living doing it.
Ten years from now I may still be shaking my fist at the sky and defiantly writing away at scripts and rolling a camera and being a writer-director without a career in that vocation. I mean the producer who hasn't written a screenplay and whose writing I haven't seen will now go through it and try to write "more scenes." I have said I don't know what that means because every scene should have a function. So even in the low-budget/ no budget independent world there is the specter of compromise. The only blessing is that if I don't like the final product I don't have to direct it.
A positive by-product is the benefit of writing for long stretches and focusing.
The down side is that this is how I invested my days off during a, say, break from my job. Maybe the exercise pushed me, and maybe it is the idea that someone is waiting to see the script, but then maybe the crash that usually follows a creative exertion is what I have left to apply to my own original scripts. I don't know. I'll keep opening up my files and looking at them as if someone else wrote them so I can be brutal. I don't think reading amateur scripts is as helpful as looking at earlier drafts of produced films I love. Each one of us feels like the misunderstood artist/God who is going to be Charlie Kaufman if people don't "get" what we've written or if it doesn't seem to have obvious plot points on the right pages. But I think that Kaufman has his process and scene for scene his movies remain interesting. The "industry reader" view isn't much help, considering some of the films that get made. You can argue that the recommended screenplay submitted may not resemble the shooting script, but for me most unsold drafts just aren't ready to even be read by me or a screen-writing circle or any reading group. You can have a self-styled guru of screenplay who writes a rambling "personal" script about their own home town and growing up which they value because it is "true." Maybe we should all just tell each other that we are generating too much crap.
I think as long as a script is looked at as a "draft" it's most useful. I dashed something off in under two weeks - clearly a draft - keeping everything that worked and making everything else work as well as it could. And it was literally thrown out a window. By my friend who is the producer. Funny that she actually admitted that. Well, moving on.
I attended a reading of scripts by others last week that had a strange impact on me.
I wanted to sleep. I could hardly keep my eyes open. Actors did the best they could and I tried to be attentive. I'm not sure that process served anything. The comments and questions were very kind. I selfishly thought Gee, how many times have I submitted something to this group and THIS is what makes the grade??? I mean we are all passionate about our labors of love, and that aspect is interesting. But my God I would be cutthroat if I was in a position of choosing. One script was a competent rendering of an historical story that I had no interest in, and the other seemed like a Moonlighting remount. I regret I didn't hear the moderation of the second script because the moderator was the director of Airplane II and it would have been interesting to hear his view on its gags. I did get a glimpse of how time weighs on us though. While I still have a spark of smart-ass I have to get my own scripts all done, and sold or shot. But then this leads to what opportunity? Do you dash off your longest-gestating projects so that you can accept someone else' deadline and take their ideas and "make it work" ?
I used to have this idea that there is an arts community that is supportive, and I lived that way I think for a while. If I like someone's work I'll be a fan. But ultimately this thing we are all in love with is empty. It isn't like a fixed point of reference - like being a Star Wars fan in 1980 where there was only so much Star Wars meant. Instead what we are all connected by is a desire to see our own work flourish and to attain some sort of status legitimately. It's a bit hollow. If it was all about the process of writing there would be more proof-reading and less back seat driving.
Ten years from now I may still be shaking my fist at the sky and defiantly writing away at scripts and rolling a camera and being a writer-director without a career in that vocation. I mean the producer who hasn't written a screenplay and whose writing I haven't seen will now go through it and try to write "more scenes." I have said I don't know what that means because every scene should have a function. So even in the low-budget/ no budget independent world there is the specter of compromise. The only blessing is that if I don't like the final product I don't have to direct it.
A positive by-product is the benefit of writing for long stretches and focusing.
The down side is that this is how I invested my days off during a, say, break from my job. Maybe the exercise pushed me, and maybe it is the idea that someone is waiting to see the script, but then maybe the crash that usually follows a creative exertion is what I have left to apply to my own original scripts. I don't know. I'll keep opening up my files and looking at them as if someone else wrote them so I can be brutal. I don't think reading amateur scripts is as helpful as looking at earlier drafts of produced films I love. Each one of us feels like the misunderstood artist/God who is going to be Charlie Kaufman if people don't "get" what we've written or if it doesn't seem to have obvious plot points on the right pages. But I think that Kaufman has his process and scene for scene his movies remain interesting. The "industry reader" view isn't much help, considering some of the films that get made. You can argue that the recommended screenplay submitted may not resemble the shooting script, but for me most unsold drafts just aren't ready to even be read by me or a screen-writing circle or any reading group. You can have a self-styled guru of screenplay who writes a rambling "personal" script about their own home town and growing up which they value because it is "true." Maybe we should all just tell each other that we are generating too much crap.
I think as long as a script is looked at as a "draft" it's most useful. I dashed something off in under two weeks - clearly a draft - keeping everything that worked and making everything else work as well as it could. And it was literally thrown out a window. By my friend who is the producer. Funny that she actually admitted that. Well, moving on.
I attended a reading of scripts by others last week that had a strange impact on me.
I wanted to sleep. I could hardly keep my eyes open. Actors did the best they could and I tried to be attentive. I'm not sure that process served anything. The comments and questions were very kind. I selfishly thought Gee, how many times have I submitted something to this group and THIS is what makes the grade??? I mean we are all passionate about our labors of love, and that aspect is interesting. But my God I would be cutthroat if I was in a position of choosing. One script was a competent rendering of an historical story that I had no interest in, and the other seemed like a Moonlighting remount. I regret I didn't hear the moderation of the second script because the moderator was the director of Airplane II and it would have been interesting to hear his view on its gags. I did get a glimpse of how time weighs on us though. While I still have a spark of smart-ass I have to get my own scripts all done, and sold or shot. But then this leads to what opportunity? Do you dash off your longest-gestating projects so that you can accept someone else' deadline and take their ideas and "make it work" ?
I used to have this idea that there is an arts community that is supportive, and I lived that way I think for a while. If I like someone's work I'll be a fan. But ultimately this thing we are all in love with is empty. It isn't like a fixed point of reference - like being a Star Wars fan in 1980 where there was only so much Star Wars meant. Instead what we are all connected by is a desire to see our own work flourish and to attain some sort of status legitimately. It's a bit hollow. If it was all about the process of writing there would be more proof-reading and less back seat driving.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Barbarella and brands
I'm not sure Barbarella is a brand name. The Jane Fonda version isn't so bad. It's got style and entertainment value. But I think it is an artifact of its time (of production). The 1980 Flash Gordon movie also has a sketchy reputation, but I think it's the better film. Despite that, I'm not sure why its box office failure enthuses the 90-year old Dino De Laurentis to announce his remake of the similarly stylized and unusual Barbarella.
When Drew Barrymore announced that she would be producing and starring in a new Barbarella, I could take it or leave it. She is cute and she is Gertie, so I'd wish her well, but the Charlies Angels reboot was just okay and felt like a wasted exercise except for the pressence of Bill Murray and Crispin Glover.
When "D." dropper her project and Robert Rodriguez announced that he had written his own Barbarella which he would direct and which had been storyboarded as a "sexy Star Wars tone," there was a movie on my must see list. The only downer was that he planned to cast his talented girlfriend Rosie McGowan (machine gun leg chick in Planet Terror) as Barbarella. Had Grindhouse been more of a hit, that might have been allowed. But generally for an American studio to bankroll a big sci-fi movie they might demand -- Drew Barrymore? Likely not. Angelina Jolie with her activist reputation might be am interesting new Jane Fonda.
The project is being poorly reported in "entertainment news" blurbs but I think the way it breaks down is this:
Rodriquez did finally find investers overseas who would accept McGowan but he would have to shoot and edit in Europe.
His public announcement was that he didn't want to spend months away from his children, which may be true. But is also means that Troublemaker Studios which he runs virtually through his own house in Austen Texas would not be shooting it or serving it for effects and the Rodriquez method of working would be compromised.
This means that there is a written and storyboarded Robert Rodriquez movie of Barbarella that will sit in limbo. Maybe De Laurentis and his family think failed versions have had enough publicity that any movie called Barbarella will generate interest. Speaking as a genre movie fan, a little older than the key demographic, I'd have to say Rodriguez has the project I'm interested in and I can't even remember the name of the director De Laurentis has in mind for his version.
On the one hand, Sin City shows that Rodriguez can use big names and there are plenty of women who can pull off Barbarella as a part. On the other hand I'm sure it would strain his relationship with McGowan if after all these years he goes ahead with Barbarella played by someone else. I have nothing against McGowan, and the real star would be the whimsical Rodriquez diretorial personality.
What needs to happen is McGowan needs a gimmick or stunt in a major film that makes her a name brand star. Cameron Diaz can thank the accidental use of sperm as hair gel, Meg Ryan thanked her ability to fake orgasm in public, neither of which represents either actress' body of work to follow. McGowan has already dated Marilyn Manson in real life, so I don't know what she does to shock an audience into making Rosie McGowan a household name. But frankly I hope the De Laurentis version doesn't happen. I won't see it.
I'll see the Rodgriguez version. I might not have seen all of his kid-friendly movies. I may have missed one. But his other films are fun and his version of Barbarella might be the big gesture he needs to make his own name a bigger brand in the eyes of a studio. It's too bad we never got to see his version of Zorro. His (then) wife had bought the rights for him, and he brought in Antonio Banderas, and then the Dreamworks machine came in. They believed in him for being cost efficient, said the budget was $30 million and then later he found out $15 million of that was going to the Holy Dreamworks Trinity (Spielberg/Katzenberg/Geffin) as their fee and the remaining $15 million was what he had to make the film. Not much more than the total budget of his previous film, s not much of a step up and not much of an endorsement of his talent - just his efficiency. He would be in a position of appearing to exploit his crew and cast because of his low-budget reputation. When he then quit the project, Martin Campbell who had enjoyed a hit with Goldeneye was given $60 million dollars. I don't know how much of that went to the Trinity. And nothing at all against Spielberg and his friends. If I have a favourite director it is likely Spielberg, and I've taken a lot of heat for that. But the money aspects are funny. Value and perceived value are so strange. Is Martin Campbell a better and more talented director than Robert Rodriguez? Is Judd Apatow a better director than Kevin Smith? Or is it more likely that you can give each person the same budget and come up with similar production values? There is no question that Rodriguez was under-valued on Zorro - if for no reason than he had been preparing to make it by any means necessary when there was no outside big money interest. We lost the chance to see a Latino director get a proper (middle-range for the time) action movie budget to handle THE big mexican hero brand name. After that, Rodriguez did a couple of years under the radar doing second unit on other people's movies keeping his skills active while his own company could be built. So if there is a Barbarella movie at all other than one produced at Troublemaker and directed by Rodriguez I'm just not interested.
When Drew Barrymore announced that she would be producing and starring in a new Barbarella, I could take it or leave it. She is cute and she is Gertie, so I'd wish her well, but the Charlies Angels reboot was just okay and felt like a wasted exercise except for the pressence of Bill Murray and Crispin Glover.
When "D." dropper her project and Robert Rodriguez announced that he had written his own Barbarella which he would direct and which had been storyboarded as a "sexy Star Wars tone," there was a movie on my must see list. The only downer was that he planned to cast his talented girlfriend Rosie McGowan (machine gun leg chick in Planet Terror) as Barbarella. Had Grindhouse been more of a hit, that might have been allowed. But generally for an American studio to bankroll a big sci-fi movie they might demand -- Drew Barrymore? Likely not. Angelina Jolie with her activist reputation might be am interesting new Jane Fonda.
The project is being poorly reported in "entertainment news" blurbs but I think the way it breaks down is this:
Rodriquez did finally find investers overseas who would accept McGowan but he would have to shoot and edit in Europe.
His public announcement was that he didn't want to spend months away from his children, which may be true. But is also means that Troublemaker Studios which he runs virtually through his own house in Austen Texas would not be shooting it or serving it for effects and the Rodriquez method of working would be compromised.
This means that there is a written and storyboarded Robert Rodriquez movie of Barbarella that will sit in limbo. Maybe De Laurentis and his family think failed versions have had enough publicity that any movie called Barbarella will generate interest. Speaking as a genre movie fan, a little older than the key demographic, I'd have to say Rodriguez has the project I'm interested in and I can't even remember the name of the director De Laurentis has in mind for his version.
On the one hand, Sin City shows that Rodriguez can use big names and there are plenty of women who can pull off Barbarella as a part. On the other hand I'm sure it would strain his relationship with McGowan if after all these years he goes ahead with Barbarella played by someone else. I have nothing against McGowan, and the real star would be the whimsical Rodriquez diretorial personality.
What needs to happen is McGowan needs a gimmick or stunt in a major film that makes her a name brand star. Cameron Diaz can thank the accidental use of sperm as hair gel, Meg Ryan thanked her ability to fake orgasm in public, neither of which represents either actress' body of work to follow. McGowan has already dated Marilyn Manson in real life, so I don't know what she does to shock an audience into making Rosie McGowan a household name. But frankly I hope the De Laurentis version doesn't happen. I won't see it.
I'll see the Rodgriguez version. I might not have seen all of his kid-friendly movies. I may have missed one. But his other films are fun and his version of Barbarella might be the big gesture he needs to make his own name a bigger brand in the eyes of a studio. It's too bad we never got to see his version of Zorro. His (then) wife had bought the rights for him, and he brought in Antonio Banderas, and then the Dreamworks machine came in. They believed in him for being cost efficient, said the budget was $30 million and then later he found out $15 million of that was going to the Holy Dreamworks Trinity (Spielberg/Katzenberg/Geffin) as their fee and the remaining $15 million was what he had to make the film. Not much more than the total budget of his previous film, s not much of a step up and not much of an endorsement of his talent - just his efficiency. He would be in a position of appearing to exploit his crew and cast because of his low-budget reputation. When he then quit the project, Martin Campbell who had enjoyed a hit with Goldeneye was given $60 million dollars. I don't know how much of that went to the Trinity. And nothing at all against Spielberg and his friends. If I have a favourite director it is likely Spielberg, and I've taken a lot of heat for that. But the money aspects are funny. Value and perceived value are so strange. Is Martin Campbell a better and more talented director than Robert Rodriguez? Is Judd Apatow a better director than Kevin Smith? Or is it more likely that you can give each person the same budget and come up with similar production values? There is no question that Rodriguez was under-valued on Zorro - if for no reason than he had been preparing to make it by any means necessary when there was no outside big money interest. We lost the chance to see a Latino director get a proper (middle-range for the time) action movie budget to handle THE big mexican hero brand name. After that, Rodriguez did a couple of years under the radar doing second unit on other people's movies keeping his skills active while his own company could be built. So if there is a Barbarella movie at all other than one produced at Troublemaker and directed by Rodriguez I'm just not interested.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)