Movie Cops

Just a few random thoughts about film. I suppose this is about two movie cops, a dirty one from Rampart and a heroic one from Die Hard 5, as well as the third kind of cops - the ones in the audience policing the product. There are two movies I took a long time to see because of their reputation. A) too much hand-held b) poor story structure. ***Those are the charges against Rampart and A Good Day To Die Hard, anyway. People had represented Rampart as something I wouldn’t like on the basis of not having a clear structure or a point or resolution. I watched it on DVD and then listened to the commentary. The movie is how it should be and is a character piece that is reminiscent of Taxi Driver in the sense that is compelling because of the performances despite your unwillingness to identify. The last couple of images may not have been part of the original plan but they do bring to mind the final images of Taxi Driver – main character at the wheel of a car, close-up, unsettled, and the view of street lights ahead under ending credits. One scene in particular comes to mind in terms of choices, a sand dune obscures the lower frame and some of the action in a way that is effective between Woody Harrelson and Ned Beatty. Another scene between them in a restaurant photographs them from outside the booth in a way that might bring to mind a confessional. Apparently the plan was to obscure Woody’s cop character “Date Rape” Dave Brown as the movie progresses. I like the fact that creative decisions have been made despite the argument these days that every scene also has to be shot with close-ups of anyone speaking – which a network or studio may default to if they feel young audiences (or those watching on small devices) will become restless unless they see full screen faces. Any time a scene survives that requires the audience to lean forward and pay attention and imagine what is happening just out of frame it is a victory for the creative process, whether it comes 100% from the director or other crew and cast have fought for it. Also, strange is the tendency of reviewers (especially on-line reviewers) to police the format as to whether the movie has a straight-line Syd Field/Robert McKee three act structure with day-glow plot-points and turning points and the beats of audience rooting interest firmly in place. Those rules may be helpful for screenwriters editing their stories and refining them in terms of how much time is devoted to a given story element, but they are mostly popular as tools for non-writers, executives, gate-keepers, official readers to say no to a script and have some sort of handy lingo to justify it. Also to sell books and seminars. It is distressing that so many people attacked this film for not following lock-step with screenwriting dogma. (I once participated in a screenwriting circle in which the leader/host pinned me down to define the word dogma. In the Catholic church for example, it would be an edict or a regulation that comes from man but is not attributed to Jesus so it is questionable. And example would be “don’t eat meat on Friday.” In scriptwriting, there is the semantic distinction between rules and principles. One guru says there must be a resolution of events that create a catharsis and closure. Another says that it is more important to leave the reader somewhat frustrated and deny them closure so that there will be discussion and contemplation of the film and the fate of the characters for days or weeks after the final fade out.) A Good Day to Die Hard starring Bruce Willis returning as John McClanewas not a bad movie. It was not expected to be on a par with the original or even the second one, despite the good marketing tag line, “Yippy kayee, Mother Russia .” It may even be a missed opportunity. Bonnie Bedelia has been absent from these films since the second movie, despite seeming to have kept herself up well judging by her role on the latest Parenthood TV series. This can only be the Hollywood adage that a male action star is only as old as his leading lady. So home and hearth here is represented by Lucy McClane the daughter, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead who is underused here but helps frame the story’s departure, initiation, return format. The movie could have remained more or less the same and kept the same casting of Jai Courtney as Jack or John McClane Jr. but could have easily added in another layer of social relevance that might have been timely with a few more lines of dialogue. Suppose the estrangement of John and his son is not just that the elder McClane spent too much time focused on work and ignored his family. Suppose his son was gay and that was the reason he was in the Russian jail. Can’t help thinking that must have been discussed in story conferences. That might have been a plausible rift for old-school crank McClane. But nobody was calling for that. The movie was attacked in ways that seemed reasonable. Chris Stuckman posted a detailed evaluation of the movie (below) in addition to his usual review. I was impressed by this approach to a practical essay, and the arguments behind it persuaded me not to see Die Hard 5 or A Good Day to Die Hard. I had seen the previous one Live Free or Die Hard opening weekend in a theater partially because Kevin Smith had been cast as “Warlock” an internet genius of sorts. Between movies, there was of course a falling out between Willis and Smith so likely no Warlock. I recently caught the on DVD and although it is not as good as the previous film it is not a disaster either. In fairness I think some of even Stuckman’s points are just not right. I don’t think the director did an awful job. There was a lot of hand-held, which I can live without, but that might have been for expedience since I can hardly believe they let so much of the action be filmed in Russia. In any case, I did not notice the directing except that it seemed to communicate what was intended. Willis was said to have come across as sour throughout the film as if he did not want to be there and that there were no jokes or quips. That turns out to not be correct. I wanted to believe that because of the Smith rift, but the character does pretty much retain his humor. No big laughs, but the attempt is there and even the can scene “Are you American?” “Yeah.” Is a different take of that exchange, which had him sit up and say “Yeah” with a patriotic pride. The scene is more loose and friendly in the actual movie. The claim is also made that the bad guys, who they are and what they are after are confusing. I found this not to be the case. No plot point breakthroughs, but the kind of underhanded characters and the shape-shifter archetypes are represented. The running time is shorter than the past 4 Die Hard flicks. That is one statement I found to be correct. It did not seem to lack much. A couple of deleted scenes definitely could have been put back in, like a fight with some thugs over guns in a trunk. Maybe they felt it diluted the tension and seemed more goofy than the rest of the movie. John Moore (remake of the Omen 2006) has a lot of haters apparently, but this movie is not the mess it is made out to be. I will say that it strained my patience only once, when McClane decides to crash through a guardrail on an overpass to drive across the tops of some vehicles below. And the scene also had the garnish of Lucy phoning his cell and his attempt to avoid telling her the trouble he is in. That is kind of a boldface Hollywooden moment that may enrage people so much that they are not won back. The equivalent moment occurs in the previous film Live Free of Die Hard when he jumps onto a supersonic jet and rides the top of it. That is the kind of insanity where I check out. The original Die Hard and even the first sequel had genuine tension and danger. Die Hard 2 pushed it with the eject-seat scene, but even that is a charming stretch and I was still on the edge of my seat and not ejecting. One other charge against Die Hard 5 is the most significant (and damning if it were true) that John McClane does not care about people in this movie. A clip below shows him stealing a vehicle with supposed disregard for the driver, but in context it breezes by. The person is not really harmed and the priority of moving forward is a little more clear. There is less emotion in this movie, but it is subtle and it is there. Some things still blow up real good and it is still better than a Michael Bay movie. Maybe it is the old principle of wide versus narrow acceptance; Frank Capra used to say that Lost Horizon’s full version played very well in the editing room and small screening room but was considered awful when shown to a full public audience. He figured that when individuals watch something there is a wider range of acceptance for it, even strange ranges of style and that the range becomes narrower the more people are sitting through it. He solved that by trimming out the first few reels of that movie, seeing it then accepted as a hit, and then for home video it was restored. Maybe watching a movie at home or on a portable DVD player on the subway it seems like a better movie and any anger I might feel about absurd stunt scenes is diffused. But ultimately the character of John McClane is best when he is the bug escaping the shoe of a gigantic villain, and less appealing if he starts to believe he is in a movie and therefore invulnerable.

The Dictator, Mel Gibson, History and Comedy

The Dictator is an outstanding satire which is not burning up the box office in America as it should and has gotten temped ratings on rotten tomatoes. Too bad. A movie that swings for the fences will impress those it was meant to impress (people like myself who find it refreshing) and will alienate people who are either strict formalists who insist a movie can only be a satire or a rom-com. It will also annoy morons, but we'll leave that aside. I love the fact that this is both a satire and a somewhat disingenuous rom-com with a protagonist who gets to do heroic deeds and still has a back-story and attitudes that are off-putting. Too many movies are running for office. This movie expects you to know when it is giving movies the finger. Some people don't get it. I got it and appreciate it. This is the sort of movie I would like to be doing. Get the Gringo appears to be released somewhere and I like what I am hearing about it, that it has the quips of a Lethal Weapon and it has a tone like Robert Rodriguez flicks. I look forward to Machete Kills, in which Mel Gibson is supposed to play a bad guy. This all happens around the same time Joe Eszterhas is coming out with an e-book called Heaven and Mel which will fine-tune his own spin on the creative falling out he had with the actor-director over the Maccabee script. I have only the other day heard that he released audio of Mel's alleged rant to him in Costa Rica, but it is clearly from another room and kind of low key as rants go. Mel yells at him for not writing a darn thing over 14 months of being employed to do a screenplay, then yells "Who wants dinner? Yum!" or something. No big deal. He also apparently appeared on Jay Leno and (appropriately) made light of it. It is a shame. I have a copy of Basic Instinct which is entertaining. I also have a book, "The Devil's Guide to Hollywood," wherein one presumes our guide is Joe. After the downbeat visit to Costa Rica (where another writer was having better luck writing with Mel, one Randall Wallace who wrote Braveheart and directed Mel in We Were Soldiers) Joe did finally whip-up a screenplay draft. But it was apparently slip-shot and not reflective enough of what Mel wanted. Warners rejected it and then Mel rejected it. Warners had already paid Joe for the work thus far. Now without Joe's spin, it is the tale of a screenwriter who hasn't cranked anything out since An Allan Smithee Film, Burn, Hollywood, Burn in 1997 if you don't count the 2006 foreign polo film Children of Glory which has three other credited screenwriters and I've never heard of it. Getting his draft of the Maccabee script rejected by Warners would be such a blow to this latter phase of his career he knows his posterity is at stake so he has to make something else of it. Why Mel or Warners chose him to work on this material is unknown. Maybe this time-honored story of Jewish history needed a "Showgirls" touch. Joe wants to amp up the perception that Mel Gibson is not only a lunatic but anti-Semitic. Is The Passion of the Christ a slam against Jews? I didn't feel it as such when I watched it. And it didn't motivate anyone to go out and commit acts of violence against Jews either. It is a very contemplative film. I don't know if Hindus deny that Hindus killed Gandhi or whether the Nation of Islam says their members had nothing to do with killing Malcolm X. The facts don't seem to be much in dispute. People see evil done do Jews OSTENSIBLY for the killing of Christ and therefore can't suffer the fact that not only a Jew named Jesus got crucified and that some high-ranking Jews insisted on it but that crucifixion was common, as was public flogging. I have not heard any dispute of the line "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do" spoken supposedly by Jesus, which would (one thinks) wipe the slate clean for all of JC's persecutors. But even then to not know "what they do" is to assume they don't realize they are killing the Son of God but believe they are merely torturing and killing an ordinary person for blasphemy. So any way you slice it, people have been barbaric and stupid throughout history. Hopefully we will get to see Randall Wallace's Viking film which might very well push Viking violence to the limit. It's a little too easy for people to whine that they don't agree with their employer. It creates a climate where famous employers can't write you a letter or an e-mail without fear that you will release it to the public. I likely will read Joe's e-book, but I already don't respect it. Sascha Baron Cohen (The Dictator himself) has made a couple of digs against Mel Gibson but they are inspired digs. I can respect both in that case. Gibson is made an easy target for accusations of racism. Hopefully meanwhile I will soon find a copy of Get the Gringo. Apparently it is in theaters overseas.

Run, Don't Walk, from The Blog

I don't know whether this blog should just be used for my "four pages" each morning a la The Artist's Way, except that people would be reading it so I might censor myself a bit. I just don't like the idea of spending time on something that is meant to just vent and to never be of any practical use.

But I know I have to spend that evergy on getting my screenplays solid and that means another pass for almost all of them through the laptop and through my thoughts and excreted out the printeer. If I can get my perfectly good printer to communicate with Windows 7.

I'd feel sorry for anyone actually trying to follow my blogs.

Last month I got to shoot most of video footage for a play's multimedia material.
Good experience to goose me back into the rhythm of shooting. I have to be careful not to let life beat out the filmmaker in me. I need to have my ass kicked once in a while to even take note of a time and location and commit to that. Things end up working out. Many of my own projects have been compromised one way or another - maionly by the idea that everything HAS TO be done within an allotted time, which is the case with every project. I have to ensure that in my own projects the script is respected and actors learn their lines because otherwise the lines read flat and there is less probability of the actor truly bringing more to it. The labor is the memorization. They have to be willing to do that labor. Now I've seen some actors pretty much commit themselves to someone's dialogue and build from there.

I've thought about writing a one-man show for one of the characters I've created, but the actor wants a teleprompter. That's kind of a heartbreak. And he'd rather have the play be more about himself, which is a no-go, really. I don't think I'll be writing anything based on anyone else's ideas, aside from specific adaptations of books I like. Working from anyone else' idea or life sets up a paradigm where it is all about "getting it right" according to someone else. Mind-reading interests me as a topic, but not as something I would have to do.

I also have to be especially careful about whatever I am eating. I can have great bursts of energy peter out so easily because of the type two. I have to beat that and lose weight, whether the work of weight loss is tedious or not. And that means a slightly new life. Not something to sneeze at.

Also, I have to refrain from watching so much TV on-line. I'm into No Ordinary Family, starring the guy from The Shield and Wired, as well as Julie Benz who was Rita on Dexter another favourite show. Nice touch on their anniversary episode where Benz' character at a restaurant changes reservation order with someone with the last name of Morgan. As in Rita and Dexter Morgan. I's details like that I apparently need to have grafted onto my brain instead of spending my time fine-tuning and perfecting the screenplays that are the reason I am in Toronto and alive.

So the last thing I need is this blog to update every now and then. Still not getting enough hours at work. Had a glimmer of hope that maybe the new company I'm with might inherit the last site I was supervisor at and maybe then I'd have a more clear say in how to ditch a troublesome guard who had been told showing up on time and leaving only when relieved was optional. Returning to a set site might be an improvement over the current situation, but I would also have to get rid of that problem even before committing. The same principle also applies to a film. Never accept responsibility over anyone you can't get rid of.