ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA (1984)
Directed by Sergio Leone
Starring: Robert De Niro, James Woods, Elizabeth McGovern, James Hayden, William Forsythe, Larry Rapp, Joe Pesci, Burt Young, Danny Aiello, Tuesday Weld
Back in the early 70's, Sergio Leone, director of the famed "Dollars Trilogy" (A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, The Good, The Bad and the Ugly), was on the short list of directors Paramount wanted to direct The Godfather. For his own reasons, Leone turned them down. So Paramount got B-movie director and Roger Corman protege Francis Ford Coppola, and the rest is history.
Turning down The Godfather had always been one of Leone's biggest regrets. As such, as far back as he could remember, he always wanted to make a gangster film. So when he came across the novel The Hoods by Harry Gray, he jumped at the chance to make it into a film.
Seeing as how this is a Sergio Leone film, I'm changing up my format just a bit for this review. You can listen to this music while you read it.
THE GOOD
As expected, this is a movie by a master filmmaker. Never mind the fact that it's four hours long; this is basically a clinic on how to make movies right. Just by watching this one film (more than once, and taking extensive notes), you can learn everything there is to know about the art of filmmaking. Everything here works.
THE BAD
"WHAT? You thought there was something BAD about a Sergio Leone film!? Blasphemy!"
Hold your horses, guys. I already went on and on about how great Leone was. But there was a lot about this film that just didn't sit right with me.
I said that watching this movie will teach you all you need to know about artful filmmaking, and it's true. But to do that, you will have to sit through nearly four hours of horrible people doing despicable things. The main character, Noodles (De Niro), is one of the most unlikeable protagonists I have ever seen in a movie. He and his partner Max (Woods) have absolutely no redeeming qualities. They are greedy, violent, sex-obsessed hoods, and even though their friendship and ultimate falling out are intriguing, it is nearly impossible to like them.
THE UGLY
Noodles is the worst of the two characters, and the movie focuses on him. While he starts off as a tough little punk in a Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn, he quickly turns into a monster. Though he does a lot of horrible stuff, the worst is when he rapes his childhood sweetheart Deborah (McGovern), and seems to have no qualms about it. And the problem is that Leone seems to linger on this scene (and others like it) for just a bit too long, making the animosity grow toward the character we're supposed to be the most interested in.
However, there may be a reason for all this focus on the depravity of these characters. It's often been said that The Godfather was an extremely romantic take on Mafia families. Yes, they were criminals, but they were also bound together by a strong family tie. There's none of that here in Once Upon a Time in America. These guys are the worst of the worst. And Leone does do quite a good job at deconstructing the Mafia mythos, just as he had done with the Cowboy mythos many years earlier.
But at least the Man With No Name had a few redeeming qualities. I just wanted someone to stab Noodles in the eye.
So yes, this is a masterful film by a masterful filmmaker. But it's one of the toughest movies I've ever sat through. And it's got an ending that may frustrate (even infuriate) many viewers, and it's the subject of the question that James Woods says he gets asked the most often: Did Max die at the end? If you think you're up to it, watch it and try to figure it out for yourself.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Day 65: They Can Only Kill Me With A Golden Bullet
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)
Directed by David Lean
Starring: Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif, Alec Guinness, Anthony Quinn, Claude Rains, Jack Hawkins, Jose Ferrer, Anthony Quayle, Arthur Kennedy
A few years back, when I was first becoming interested in the study of film, I had a list of films that many considered to be "required viewing." All of the typical films were on there: Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Seven Samurai, The Good, The Bad and the Ugly and the like. During this time, I came across Lawrence of Arabia. I tried to sit through it, but the long, tedious shots of the desert and the snail-like pace at which the film moved were too much for me, and I gave up before the Arab Revolt had taken Aqaba. Man, this movie is overrated, I thought.
Flash forward to now. I have just sat through the entire 3 hours and 47 minutes of Lawrence of Arabia, and I have just one question for the Me-of-the-Past: What were you thinking?
It would be tedious and rather pointless for me to sit here and reiterate what every film textbook ever written has said a hundred times over, but...this is a great film. And it's one of those films that film enthusiasts drool over. It's wonderfully and nearly flawlessly made. It's got some of the best cinematography in history. The shots of the desert are legendary. Even the music is great, with a theme song that I'll be humming to myself the next time I'm in Arizona. It really is the total package.
But for me, the thing that really made Lawrence of Arabia interesting was Peter O'Toole's performance. It's one thing to make a character interesting, but O'Toole makes T.E. Lawrence almost hypnotic. Everything he does has such purpose and weight behind it that you can't wait to see what he does next. But the thing about T.E. Lawrence was that he was, by all accounts in real life, a riddle wrapped in an enigma. And O'Toole plays this up to the hilt. There are very few times in the film when one can tell whether or not Lawrence is being sincere, or more specifically, what his plans and intentions are. Even real-life accounts of Lawrence's life were said to be greatly exaggerated by the man himself. So is what we see really what we get? Only Lawrence knew for sure. And O'Toole plays up the mystery.
When a movie gets up to and past the 3-hour range, it is of the utmost importance to keep the audience interested. I admit that a few years ago, my attention span was rather short, and that was to my own detriment. Because of that, I missed out on some great films. And I think the movie-going audience at large is missing out as well. Movies are supposed to take us on journeys, and journeys are not about destinations. They're about the experience we have getting to the destination. We should all sit back, relax and enjoy the scenery once in a while.
Directed by David Lean
Starring: Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif, Alec Guinness, Anthony Quinn, Claude Rains, Jack Hawkins, Jose Ferrer, Anthony Quayle, Arthur Kennedy
A few years back, when I was first becoming interested in the study of film, I had a list of films that many considered to be "required viewing." All of the typical films were on there: Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Seven Samurai, The Good, The Bad and the Ugly and the like. During this time, I came across Lawrence of Arabia. I tried to sit through it, but the long, tedious shots of the desert and the snail-like pace at which the film moved were too much for me, and I gave up before the Arab Revolt had taken Aqaba. Man, this movie is overrated, I thought.
Flash forward to now. I have just sat through the entire 3 hours and 47 minutes of Lawrence of Arabia, and I have just one question for the Me-of-the-Past: What were you thinking?
It would be tedious and rather pointless for me to sit here and reiterate what every film textbook ever written has said a hundred times over, but...this is a great film. And it's one of those films that film enthusiasts drool over. It's wonderfully and nearly flawlessly made. It's got some of the best cinematography in history. The shots of the desert are legendary. Even the music is great, with a theme song that I'll be humming to myself the next time I'm in Arizona. It really is the total package.
But for me, the thing that really made Lawrence of Arabia interesting was Peter O'Toole's performance. It's one thing to make a character interesting, but O'Toole makes T.E. Lawrence almost hypnotic. Everything he does has such purpose and weight behind it that you can't wait to see what he does next. But the thing about T.E. Lawrence was that he was, by all accounts in real life, a riddle wrapped in an enigma. And O'Toole plays this up to the hilt. There are very few times in the film when one can tell whether or not Lawrence is being sincere, or more specifically, what his plans and intentions are. Even real-life accounts of Lawrence's life were said to be greatly exaggerated by the man himself. So is what we see really what we get? Only Lawrence knew for sure. And O'Toole plays up the mystery.
When a movie gets up to and past the 3-hour range, it is of the utmost importance to keep the audience interested. I admit that a few years ago, my attention span was rather short, and that was to my own detriment. Because of that, I missed out on some great films. And I think the movie-going audience at large is missing out as well. Movies are supposed to take us on journeys, and journeys are not about destinations. They're about the experience we have getting to the destination. We should all sit back, relax and enjoy the scenery once in a while.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Day 64: An Eye For An Eye Only Makes The Whole World Blind
GANDHI (1982)
Directed by Richard Attenborough
Starring: Ben Kingsley, Roshan Seth, Saeed Jaffery, Alyque Padamsee, Candace Bergen, John Gielgud, Martin Sheen, Trevor Howard
There are two ways I could talk about this film. I could either A) talk about the technical aspects of the production, which would bore all but a select few of my readers; or, I could B) just talk about how this film made me feel, which makes more sense. After all, this film wasn't made so a bunch of film techies could sit around on a Friday night talking about how great the camera work is. Gandhi was made to elicit an emotional reaction, which is exactly what it does.
In fact, my own reaction to the film is really one of awe. Kingsley's portrayal of Gandhi was done with great reverence, and it's astounding how much he actually looked like Gandhi. He really got lost in the role, which helped me get lost in the story. Keeping the audience's interest is key in any film, but even more so when you've got something important to say.
Of course, there is a difference between Gandhi the man and Gandhi the character, and I think what we get here is more of a character. But we don't get a characature, which would have defeated the whole purpose. However, Attenborough doesn't shy away from the fact that he's making a narrative film and not a documentary. And it is an epic film, at that. But he borrows more from David Lean than Cecil B. DeMille, which is a good thing. It's actually a bit of an oddity to have a movie that this big (30,000 extras were used for the funeral scene alone), but doesn't become cartoony. That danger must have been on Attenborough's mind quite a bit. I imagine it would be on the mind of anyone who would make a movie about such an important subject.
I realize I wrote more about the impact the movie had on me than the movie itself, but then again, it's that kind of a movie. Yes, it's beautifully shot, wonderfully acted and lovingly made, but it really is more than the sum of its parts. It's the story of a man who changed the direction of his country, but in the end, couldn't change human nature. But the fact that he tried is what made him so noble and such a fascinating figure.
Directed by Richard Attenborough
Starring: Ben Kingsley, Roshan Seth, Saeed Jaffery, Alyque Padamsee, Candace Bergen, John Gielgud, Martin Sheen, Trevor Howard
There are two ways I could talk about this film. I could either A) talk about the technical aspects of the production, which would bore all but a select few of my readers; or, I could B) just talk about how this film made me feel, which makes more sense. After all, this film wasn't made so a bunch of film techies could sit around on a Friday night talking about how great the camera work is. Gandhi was made to elicit an emotional reaction, which is exactly what it does.
In fact, my own reaction to the film is really one of awe. Kingsley's portrayal of Gandhi was done with great reverence, and it's astounding how much he actually looked like Gandhi. He really got lost in the role, which helped me get lost in the story. Keeping the audience's interest is key in any film, but even more so when you've got something important to say.
Of course, there is a difference between Gandhi the man and Gandhi the character, and I think what we get here is more of a character. But we don't get a characature, which would have defeated the whole purpose. However, Attenborough doesn't shy away from the fact that he's making a narrative film and not a documentary. And it is an epic film, at that. But he borrows more from David Lean than Cecil B. DeMille, which is a good thing. It's actually a bit of an oddity to have a movie that this big (30,000 extras were used for the funeral scene alone), but doesn't become cartoony. That danger must have been on Attenborough's mind quite a bit. I imagine it would be on the mind of anyone who would make a movie about such an important subject.
I realize I wrote more about the impact the movie had on me than the movie itself, but then again, it's that kind of a movie. Yes, it's beautifully shot, wonderfully acted and lovingly made, but it really is more than the sum of its parts. It's the story of a man who changed the direction of his country, but in the end, couldn't change human nature. But the fact that he tried is what made him so noble and such a fascinating figure.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Epic Win
Taking a bit of a vacation right now, but I will be back next week!
My next group of films will test the strength of my bladder and the length of my attention span, as they are all films that are 3 hours long or longer. On the block are:
Gandhi
Lawrence of Arabia
Malcolm X
Once Upon a Time in America
My next group of films will test the strength of my bladder and the length of my attention span, as they are all films that are 3 hours long or longer. On the block are:
Gandhi
Lawrence of Arabia
Malcolm X
Once Upon a Time in America
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Day 63: You Ought To See My New Mind
FORBIDDEN PLANET (1956)
Directed by Fred M. Wilcox
Starring: Leslie Nielsen, Walter Pidgeon, Anne Francis, Warren Stephens, Jack Kelly, Robbie the Robot
On the distant planet of Altair IV, a group of scientests mysteriously disappears. Commander J.J. Adams (Neislen), captain of United Planets Cruiser C57-D (they couldn't come up with a catchier name?) and his interepid crew travel to this strange world in search of survivors. Before landing, they are contacted by Dr. Edward Morbius (Pidgeon), who urges them to turn back, and that if they land, he will not be held responsible for any misfortune that may befall the crew.
Once on the planet, they are met by Robbie the Robot (played brilliantly by himself) who doesn't seem all that threatening. Robbie takes them to meet Dr. Morbius and his daughter Altaira (Francis). When asked where the rest of Morbius' team has disappeard to, he tells them they were all killed by a mysterious monster. It all sounds logical, but there is an element of doubt about Morbius and his story, especially when the crew attempts to bring Morbius and Altaira back to Earth and they refuse.
I won't go into much more detail about the story, as there are plenty of cool little twists and turns, and I don't want to spoil it for you.
Now this is a film that I thought was going to reinforce the sci-fi stereotypes. You know: cheesy effects, lousy acting, terrible, preachy writing. I'm happy to report that most of these tropes are averted. Given that the film was made in the mid 1950's, one can forgive a certain amount of lack of sophistication in the visual effects department. They didn't have computers, after all. But the good thing is, they didn't need them. They had one of the best visual effects departments in the business at the time, headed by Joshua Meador, a Disney animator loaned out to MGM. As such, the effects definitely look animated, but they don't look fake. In fact, one of the better effects is shown when Dr. Morbius takes Neilsen and his crew below the surface of the planet to show them the work of the alien civilisation that once lived there (crap, I just gave too much away!).
As far as the acting goes, it's...okay. It can get very over-the-top at times, especially with Walter Pidgeon as the tortured Dr. Morbius. And I know fans of the Naked Gun series will probably balk as seeing Leslie Neilsen in a "straight role," but as a dramatic actor, he really does hold his own. Anne Francis is also good-not-great, though one look at her skimpy wardrobe, and you know she wasn't necessarily hired for her acting talent.
Finally, as most sci-fi films of the time were wont to do, Forbidden Planet gets rather preachy toward the end. However, instead of the usual left-wing spiel about togetherness or environmental threats or the evils of war - all valid points, by the way - we are given a speech by Neilsen, who tells us that we are all pretty much evil inside, which is why we have laws and religion; a rather right-wing point of view. And whether he is right or wrong about it is for the scholars to debate. All's I know is, it was really over-the-top and out of place. And when you're getting attacked by an ivisible monster, save your lectures for after you're safe (crap, I keep spoiling! Sorry!)
* * *
Well, that wraps it up for Sci-Fi Month! For my next trick, I will perform an endurance test: a month of films that are at least three hours long. Is bigger always better? We'll find out, won't we!
Directed by Fred M. Wilcox
Starring: Leslie Nielsen, Walter Pidgeon, Anne Francis, Warren Stephens, Jack Kelly, Robbie the Robot
On the distant planet of Altair IV, a group of scientests mysteriously disappears. Commander J.J. Adams (Neislen), captain of United Planets Cruiser C57-D (they couldn't come up with a catchier name?) and his interepid crew travel to this strange world in search of survivors. Before landing, they are contacted by Dr. Edward Morbius (Pidgeon), who urges them to turn back, and that if they land, he will not be held responsible for any misfortune that may befall the crew.
Once on the planet, they are met by Robbie the Robot (played brilliantly by himself) who doesn't seem all that threatening. Robbie takes them to meet Dr. Morbius and his daughter Altaira (Francis). When asked where the rest of Morbius' team has disappeard to, he tells them they were all killed by a mysterious monster. It all sounds logical, but there is an element of doubt about Morbius and his story, especially when the crew attempts to bring Morbius and Altaira back to Earth and they refuse.
I won't go into much more detail about the story, as there are plenty of cool little twists and turns, and I don't want to spoil it for you.
Now this is a film that I thought was going to reinforce the sci-fi stereotypes. You know: cheesy effects, lousy acting, terrible, preachy writing. I'm happy to report that most of these tropes are averted. Given that the film was made in the mid 1950's, one can forgive a certain amount of lack of sophistication in the visual effects department. They didn't have computers, after all. But the good thing is, they didn't need them. They had one of the best visual effects departments in the business at the time, headed by Joshua Meador, a Disney animator loaned out to MGM. As such, the effects definitely look animated, but they don't look fake. In fact, one of the better effects is shown when Dr. Morbius takes Neilsen and his crew below the surface of the planet to show them the work of the alien civilisation that once lived there (crap, I just gave too much away!).
As far as the acting goes, it's...okay. It can get very over-the-top at times, especially with Walter Pidgeon as the tortured Dr. Morbius. And I know fans of the Naked Gun series will probably balk as seeing Leslie Neilsen in a "straight role," but as a dramatic actor, he really does hold his own. Anne Francis is also good-not-great, though one look at her skimpy wardrobe, and you know she wasn't necessarily hired for her acting talent.
Finally, as most sci-fi films of the time were wont to do, Forbidden Planet gets rather preachy toward the end. However, instead of the usual left-wing spiel about togetherness or environmental threats or the evils of war - all valid points, by the way - we are given a speech by Neilsen, who tells us that we are all pretty much evil inside, which is why we have laws and religion; a rather right-wing point of view. And whether he is right or wrong about it is for the scholars to debate. All's I know is, it was really over-the-top and out of place. And when you're getting attacked by an ivisible monster, save your lectures for after you're safe (crap, I keep spoiling! Sorry!)
* * *
Well, that wraps it up for Sci-Fi Month! For my next trick, I will perform an endurance test: a month of films that are at least three hours long. Is bigger always better? We'll find out, won't we!
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Day 62: My Name Is A Killing Word
DUNE (1984)
Directed by David Lynch
Starring: Kyle MacLachlan, Viriginia Madsen, Francesca Annis, Jurgen Prochnow, Kenneth McMillan, Sting, José Ferrer, Brad Dourif, Freddie Jones, Patrick Stewart, Jack Nance, Everett McGill, Paul Smith
I love David Lynch. His films are strange, off-putting, visually stunning, beautiful, disturbing, funny, scary, noisy and just plain weird. And all of these elements are in every film he does. He is probably the most original director working in movies today.
But in the early 80's, Lynch was the hottest new director in town. Coming hot off the heels of his genre-defying student film Eraserhead and the Oscar nominated The Elephant Man, Lynch was in high demand. He was even on George Lucas' short list of directors he wanted for the conclusion of the Star Wars saga, Return of the Jedi. Lynch turned it down, however, claiming that the film would be more Lucas' vision than his own.
A few years earlier, an equally experimental director named Alejandro Jodorowsky (El Topo, Santa Sangre) was planning a big-screen version of Frank Herbert's epic sci-fi novel Dune. The film was to be designed by H.R. Geiger, the music was to be by Pink Floyd, and the film would star Salvador Dali, Orson Welles, Gloria Swanson, David Carradine and Mick Jagger, among others. The idea was scrapped in pre-production. As years went by, other directors (such as Ridley Scott) were attached and detached from the project. Producer Dino De Laurentiis sat on the project for a few years, until he heard that David Lynch was interested.
Now, for those of us from the Lord of the Rings generation, we've seen this formula work: Epic Novel + Hot Young Director + Built-In Fanbase = Box Office Gold. And yet, Dune was one of the biggest flops of the 80's. What went wrong?
As a first-time viewer of Dune - and as one who has never read the novel - all I can do is offer my first impression of the film. The story is long and complicated, and almost Shakespearean in scope. There is so much to this story about spice mining, warring houses, a Messianic prophecy and political intrigue that it's almost impossible to fit it all into a two-hour film. As such, the film opens with a lengthy back story, telling the viewer where we are and why this world is the way it is. Lynch apparently is assuming that 90% of the people in the theater hadn't read the book, so he gives us the Cliffs Notes version up front. Also, throughout the film, any questions as to what the characters are thinking are cleared up immediately, as we are treated to the inmost thoughts and reflections of nearly all of the "good guys."
Our hero Paul Atreides (MacLachlan) comes from a long line of clairvoyants, and may be the most clairvoyant-y of them all. This makes the Spacing Guild very nervous, as he may grow to threaten the production of "Spice," a sort of drug that allows the user to "fold time" and "travel without moving." Already, most of the audience is confused. Even I'm probably getting it wrong, and I just watched this thing today.
Anyway, the Emperor of the Known Universe (Ferrer) is ordered to kill Paul, so he calls on the rival House of Harkonnen, where the Baron (McMillan) plans to ambush the House of Atreides on the spice mining planet of Arrakis, aka DUNE, a desert planet, and the only known place where spice can be found. Two assassins - Rabban (Smith) and Feyd-Rautha (Sting) - accompany him. But once the House of Atreides falls, Paul and his mother fall in with a nomadic tribe called the Fremen, who share their prophecy about how their Messiah will come. Together, they decide to take down both the House of Harkonnen and the Empire and the entire spice mining industry.
I probably left some stuff out. But give me a break; that's a lot to keep up with. Hamlet doesn't have this many story lines and plot twists. But as obtuse and impenetrable as the story is, the film is a visual treat; I would expect nothing less from David Lynch. He does a fantastic job visualizing this Universe, and the concepts that are too strange to actually explain, he shows us, using every cinematic trick in the book. The effect of the spice on Paul's mind is a pretty trippy thing to watch. And even though some of the visual effects look pretty dated by today's standards, they're still pretty amazing.
And as if all this wasn't enough, it turns out that this is the only film on which David Lynch didn't get "final cut" (that is, the final authorization of the print that gets shipped to theaters). As such, it's hard to tell what parts of this movie were Lynch's and which parts were the studio's. But having been a fan of Lynch for some years, I think it's a safe bet that the "all knowing" voices we hear weren't his idea. He really does subscribe to the "Show, don't tell" philosophy. Besides, if you've ever seen Eraserhead or Mulholland Drive, you know that Lynch doesn't feel he has to explain anything.
This movie is definitely a mixed bag. It has some wonderful moments, but there is a ton of stuff to remember and some pretty hammy dialogue. However, it does make me want to read the novel, so I guess the film isn't a total failure. Dune purists insist the book is about a thousand times better than the film, but purists are always that way. It's probably the most mainstream of any film Lynch has ever done, and as such, isn't a very good primer for what he's all about.
NEXT WEEK: Forbidden Planet
Directed by David Lynch
Starring: Kyle MacLachlan, Viriginia Madsen, Francesca Annis, Jurgen Prochnow, Kenneth McMillan, Sting, José Ferrer, Brad Dourif, Freddie Jones, Patrick Stewart, Jack Nance, Everett McGill, Paul Smith
I love David Lynch. His films are strange, off-putting, visually stunning, beautiful, disturbing, funny, scary, noisy and just plain weird. And all of these elements are in every film he does. He is probably the most original director working in movies today.
But in the early 80's, Lynch was the hottest new director in town. Coming hot off the heels of his genre-defying student film Eraserhead and the Oscar nominated The Elephant Man, Lynch was in high demand. He was even on George Lucas' short list of directors he wanted for the conclusion of the Star Wars saga, Return of the Jedi. Lynch turned it down, however, claiming that the film would be more Lucas' vision than his own.
A few years earlier, an equally experimental director named Alejandro Jodorowsky (El Topo, Santa Sangre) was planning a big-screen version of Frank Herbert's epic sci-fi novel Dune. The film was to be designed by H.R. Geiger, the music was to be by Pink Floyd, and the film would star Salvador Dali, Orson Welles, Gloria Swanson, David Carradine and Mick Jagger, among others. The idea was scrapped in pre-production. As years went by, other directors (such as Ridley Scott) were attached and detached from the project. Producer Dino De Laurentiis sat on the project for a few years, until he heard that David Lynch was interested.
Now, for those of us from the Lord of the Rings generation, we've seen this formula work: Epic Novel + Hot Young Director + Built-In Fanbase = Box Office Gold. And yet, Dune was one of the biggest flops of the 80's. What went wrong?
As a first-time viewer of Dune - and as one who has never read the novel - all I can do is offer my first impression of the film. The story is long and complicated, and almost Shakespearean in scope. There is so much to this story about spice mining, warring houses, a Messianic prophecy and political intrigue that it's almost impossible to fit it all into a two-hour film. As such, the film opens with a lengthy back story, telling the viewer where we are and why this world is the way it is. Lynch apparently is assuming that 90% of the people in the theater hadn't read the book, so he gives us the Cliffs Notes version up front. Also, throughout the film, any questions as to what the characters are thinking are cleared up immediately, as we are treated to the inmost thoughts and reflections of nearly all of the "good guys."
Our hero Paul Atreides (MacLachlan) comes from a long line of clairvoyants, and may be the most clairvoyant-y of them all. This makes the Spacing Guild very nervous, as he may grow to threaten the production of "Spice," a sort of drug that allows the user to "fold time" and "travel without moving." Already, most of the audience is confused. Even I'm probably getting it wrong, and I just watched this thing today.
Anyway, the Emperor of the Known Universe (Ferrer) is ordered to kill Paul, so he calls on the rival House of Harkonnen, where the Baron (McMillan) plans to ambush the House of Atreides on the spice mining planet of Arrakis, aka DUNE, a desert planet, and the only known place where spice can be found. Two assassins - Rabban (Smith) and Feyd-Rautha (Sting) - accompany him. But once the House of Atreides falls, Paul and his mother fall in with a nomadic tribe called the Fremen, who share their prophecy about how their Messiah will come. Together, they decide to take down both the House of Harkonnen and the Empire and the entire spice mining industry.
I probably left some stuff out. But give me a break; that's a lot to keep up with. Hamlet doesn't have this many story lines and plot twists. But as obtuse and impenetrable as the story is, the film is a visual treat; I would expect nothing less from David Lynch. He does a fantastic job visualizing this Universe, and the concepts that are too strange to actually explain, he shows us, using every cinematic trick in the book. The effect of the spice on Paul's mind is a pretty trippy thing to watch. And even though some of the visual effects look pretty dated by today's standards, they're still pretty amazing.
And as if all this wasn't enough, it turns out that this is the only film on which David Lynch didn't get "final cut" (that is, the final authorization of the print that gets shipped to theaters). As such, it's hard to tell what parts of this movie were Lynch's and which parts were the studio's. But having been a fan of Lynch for some years, I think it's a safe bet that the "all knowing" voices we hear weren't his idea. He really does subscribe to the "Show, don't tell" philosophy. Besides, if you've ever seen Eraserhead or Mulholland Drive, you know that Lynch doesn't feel he has to explain anything.
This movie is definitely a mixed bag. It has some wonderful moments, but there is a ton of stuff to remember and some pretty hammy dialogue. However, it does make me want to read the novel, so I guess the film isn't a total failure. Dune purists insist the book is about a thousand times better than the film, but purists are always that way. It's probably the most mainstream of any film Lynch has ever done, and as such, isn't a very good primer for what he's all about.
NEXT WEEK: Forbidden Planet
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Day 61: You Are False Data
DARK STAR (1974)
Directed by John Carpenter
Starring: Dan O'Bannon, Brian Narelle, Cal Kuniholm, Dre Pahich
On a decaying spaceship called Dark Star, four astronauts schlep around the galaxy destroying "unstable planets" so as to make way for Earth's colonization of the cosmos. Of course, if you're stuck in space for that long, that means you have a lot of time to kill. And the crew does so by telling stories that go nowhere and caring for a beachball-shaped alien that likes to play hide-and-seek. But after the ship's faulty wiring tells one of the "smart bombs" to detonate itself, the crew must try to convince it not to do so. As a result, the bomb develops a pretty serious "god-complex."
If all of this sounds like a good idea for a short student film, then you're right on the money. At first, that's exactly what it was. Director John Carpenter and writer/co-star Dan O'Bannon made a 45-minute version of this film at USC. Then, over the next three years, they expanded it to 83 minutes (most of it footage of Sgt. Pinback - played by O'Bannon - chasing the beachball alien around the ship), with the help of producer Jack Harris. The final completed feature-length version debuted in 1974 to little fanfare.
So yeah, blah blah blah, history. Is it any good? Well, yes and no.
The major problem with developing a short into a feature is pacing. It can be - and has been - done to great effect in such films as George Lucas' THX 1138 and David Lynch's Eraserhead (which was meant to be a feature all along). But the problem with Dark Star is that...well, nothing interesting happens until about forty minutes into the film. Until then, we just sort of "hang out" with the crew. We even spend 20 excruciating minutes watching Sgt. Pinback chasing the beachball alien. This sequence could have been it's own short. In fact, O'Bannon recycled this theme into a little film you may have heard of called Alien a few years later.
Also, this film is purported to be a comedy. Fine. Sci-fi comedies are rare, but not unheard of. But comedies are supposed to be funny. And, because of the aforementioned pacing problems, there's not much to laugh at until the we near the film's climax. One of the funniest scenes is when Lt. Doolittle (Narelle) consults the dead-yet-cryogenically-frozen Commander Powell on how to disarm the bomb that threatens to blow them all to bits. But Powell has been frozen so long, his only question is, "How are the Dodgers doing?"
The DVD version I got has what essentially amounts to an apology written by O'Bannon himself and shown in the style of the open crawl from the Star Wars films. He tells the story of the film and how it's supposed to be funny and all that. He also says that you don't have to laugh if you don't want to, "Unless I'm in the room with you." Well it's a good thing he wasn't, because I really didn't laugh all that much.
Now, as far as student films go, I've seen worse. But it should have stayed a student film until a few re-writes were done, and they could have raised enough money to make it look halfway decent. Even as a feature, it still has all the trappings that make people know it's a student film: bad lighting, bad acting and terrible sound design. But this just goes to show you the power that exposure has in Hollywood. As we all know, John Carpenter did alright for himself. Dan O'Bannon went on to become one of the most sought-after screenwriters in town. So even if your debut is as inauspicious as this one, don't beat yourself up too badly. If the right people see it, you never know what could happen next.
NEXT WEEK: David Lynch's Dune
Directed by John Carpenter
Starring: Dan O'Bannon, Brian Narelle, Cal Kuniholm, Dre Pahich
On a decaying spaceship called Dark Star, four astronauts schlep around the galaxy destroying "unstable planets" so as to make way for Earth's colonization of the cosmos. Of course, if you're stuck in space for that long, that means you have a lot of time to kill. And the crew does so by telling stories that go nowhere and caring for a beachball-shaped alien that likes to play hide-and-seek. But after the ship's faulty wiring tells one of the "smart bombs" to detonate itself, the crew must try to convince it not to do so. As a result, the bomb develops a pretty serious "god-complex."
If all of this sounds like a good idea for a short student film, then you're right on the money. At first, that's exactly what it was. Director John Carpenter and writer/co-star Dan O'Bannon made a 45-minute version of this film at USC. Then, over the next three years, they expanded it to 83 minutes (most of it footage of Sgt. Pinback - played by O'Bannon - chasing the beachball alien around the ship), with the help of producer Jack Harris. The final completed feature-length version debuted in 1974 to little fanfare.
So yeah, blah blah blah, history. Is it any good? Well, yes and no.
The major problem with developing a short into a feature is pacing. It can be - and has been - done to great effect in such films as George Lucas' THX 1138 and David Lynch's Eraserhead (which was meant to be a feature all along). But the problem with Dark Star is that...well, nothing interesting happens until about forty minutes into the film. Until then, we just sort of "hang out" with the crew. We even spend 20 excruciating minutes watching Sgt. Pinback chasing the beachball alien. This sequence could have been it's own short. In fact, O'Bannon recycled this theme into a little film you may have heard of called Alien a few years later.
Also, this film is purported to be a comedy. Fine. Sci-fi comedies are rare, but not unheard of. But comedies are supposed to be funny. And, because of the aforementioned pacing problems, there's not much to laugh at until the we near the film's climax. One of the funniest scenes is when Lt. Doolittle (Narelle) consults the dead-yet-cryogenically-frozen Commander Powell on how to disarm the bomb that threatens to blow them all to bits. But Powell has been frozen so long, his only question is, "How are the Dodgers doing?"
The DVD version I got has what essentially amounts to an apology written by O'Bannon himself and shown in the style of the open crawl from the Star Wars films. He tells the story of the film and how it's supposed to be funny and all that. He also says that you don't have to laugh if you don't want to, "Unless I'm in the room with you." Well it's a good thing he wasn't, because I really didn't laugh all that much.
Now, as far as student films go, I've seen worse. But it should have stayed a student film until a few re-writes were done, and they could have raised enough money to make it look halfway decent. Even as a feature, it still has all the trappings that make people know it's a student film: bad lighting, bad acting and terrible sound design. But this just goes to show you the power that exposure has in Hollywood. As we all know, John Carpenter did alright for himself. Dan O'Bannon went on to become one of the most sought-after screenwriters in town. So even if your debut is as inauspicious as this one, don't beat yourself up too badly. If the right people see it, you never know what could happen next.
NEXT WEEK: David Lynch's Dune
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)