Having written about multiple classic sci-fi flicks out of Steven Jay Schneider’s book “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die,” from Invasion of the Body Snatchers to Ghostbusters, I wanted to share my unexpected adoration for a more recent take on the genre. So, today I examine why I ended up really enjoying Neill Blomkamp’s 2009 action thriller flick District 9.
[NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “District 9.” You have been warned.] The History Born out of a desire to produce a film adaptation of the Halo video game franchise, Peter Jackson (The Lord of the Rings) sought out first-time director Blomkamp. However, after the project was stalled due to financing struggles, Jackson and Blomkamp began work on a new project that incorporated props made for the Halo movie. Writing the screenplay with his wife, Terri Tatchell, Blomkamp took inspiration from his short film “Alive in Joburg” by including characters, events, and ideas he found interesting. Notably, he aimed to inject documentary-style filmmaking by staging interviews as well as utilize alien technology in tandem with one another in order to offer social commentary on the racial conflict surrounding the legacy of apartheid and segregation in his native country of South Africa. Choosing to shoot in South Africa, the project held principal photography over the course of 60 days in June and July in order to capture a deserted, bleak environment for the movie’s aesthetic in Soweto, Johannesburg. The “District 9” neighborhood in the movie was filmed in a real impoverished neighborhood where people were being forcibly relocated to government housing. Due to some filming occurring in December, Blomkamp’s creative team had to edit out some greenery and vegetation from some of the scenery and background shots. While no single movie was the sole inspiration for his film, Blomkamp stated that the “hardcore” sci-fi and action flicks of the 1980s (i.e. Aliens, Predator, RoboCop, Terminator) served as “subconscious” influences because he wanted the movie to look “glossy” and “slick.” In designing the alien creatures for the movie, Blomkamp wanted them to have both humanlike and barbaric features in order to keep them from being “cute” in order to make the audience initially revolt at them before empathizing with them more over the course of the film. Thus, Blomkamp insisted they maintain a face and “anthropomorphic shape” since human psychology often keeps us from truly relating with creatures that lack such things. Released in August of 2009, District 9 earned over 210 million dollars on a 30-million-dollar budget. Critics were almost universally positive, with particular acclaim for the film’s direction, visual effects, story, and themes of xenophobia and social segregation. However, there was some mixed reception among Nigerian actors and government officials who argued over whether or not the film’s Nigerian characters were portrayed in a negative light. Furthermore, some critics identified the screenplay as fitting within the mold of the “white savior narrative.” Nevertheless, District 9 received four Oscar nominations that year (including Best Picture), winning none. The Pros In my humble opinion, the biggest strength of District 9 is how well it takes a well-worn story premise—an alien invasion of Earth—but presenting it in a very refreshing and unique way. Rather than portraying the aliens (“prawns” as they’re referred to in the movie) as domineering, aggressive conquerors seeking Earth’s resources or to simply exterminate the human race, Blomkamp turns them into extraterrestrial refugees taken in by South Africa. This alone gives the film so much potential to explore several relevant themes and ideas. Notably, the slum-like conditions of the prawns’ refugee camp in Johannesburg reflects real-world examples of gentrification and xenophobia (like apartheid in South Africa itself). Simply put, science-fiction storytelling is done right when it has something to say about humanity. Without a doubt, District 9 makes for some solid social commentary wrapped in an entertaining package of action and suspense. Speaking of which, the film offers more than just relevant themes to explore. It is also a solid action flick that (mostly) uses its budget pretty effectively. I specifically enjoyed the storming of the Multinational United (MNU) lab where brutal experiments are being conducted on the prawns. But, the best action sequence in District 9 is undoubtedly the climax in the District 9 camp itself with the mech suit. I can’t emphasize enough how a movie from this century with this small of a budget (especially for a sci-fi action flick) could have easily pulled its punches on the action in favor of the drama. But no; Blomkamp seemingly acknowledged all the elements that make a great sci-fi movie. Of course, none of the action or ideas work without some compelling, character-drive moments. Without a doubt, the extent to which District 9 succeeds in that regard is squarely on the shoulders of its human protagonist Wikus van de Merwe (Sharlto Copley). A reluctant and unlikely hero, Wikus begins the film as a low-level MNU bureaucrat simply trying to do a good job before being infected by the prawns’ fluid slowly initiates his physical transformation into a prawn. Over the course of the runtime, Wikus generally operates out of his selfish desire to revert the change and become fully human again. So, when his selfless act of risking his life to save Christopher Johnson (Jason Cope) and his son, CJ—two prawns that make a deal with Wikus to help cure him in exchange for his help fixing their dropship—Blomkamp’s direction and Copley’s performance come together for a surprisingly emotional moment that I was not expecting based on the first third of the movie. Strong performances, solid action sequences, sophisticated themes, and superb payoffs make District 9 (in my humble opinion) more than worth your time. However, that doesn’t mean it lacks some notable flaws. The Cons To be honest, I was unsure if I’d like District 9 for about the first twenty minutes. While I think the documentary-style for a narrative film can work in its favor (i.e. the “found footage” approach in The Blair Witch Project), I personally found it an unengaging way of doing exposition. Luckily, the film improves a lot over the next hour-and-a-half which only makes me dislike how it starts more. To be blunt, I think Blomkamp could’ve come up with a smarter and more interesting way of telling the backstory of the prawns’ arrival to Earth and how humanity has treated them (how about some visual storytelling with minimal dialogue?). As I mentioned in “The Pros” section, I was generally impressed with how Blomkamp and his creative team handled a relatively small budget for an action-heavy sci-fi movie. But there were moments throughout its runtime where the low-quality CGI (specifically, the depiction of the prawns) stuck out. While it never quite took me out of the film, these moments were frequent and jarring enough to warrant mentioning here. If anything, Blomkamp’s visual effects team could’ve probably just simplified the design of the prawns a bit to make it either look sleeker or to ease the difficulty of what they were putting on the silver screen. So, what are my final impressions of District 9? Despite a hit-or-miss, exposition-heavy start and some questionable special effects, this movie more than earns its status as one of the better sci-fi flicks of the 21st century. It also is a solid example of international filmmaking that uses quasi-blockbuster entertainment to make some powerful (and, unfortunately, still prescient) arguments about the flaws of human society and the way we treat those we deem “other” than us. What are your thoughts on Neil Blomkamp’s District 9? What other international sci-fi movies do you recommend? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
Image by David Mark from Pixabay With the release of the long-delayed, highly-anticipated and (so far) universally-praised sequel Top Gun: Maverick this weekend, I finally revisit the book “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” by Steven Jay Schneider by delving into the reasons why the 1986 high-flying action flick Top Gun ultimately falls flat for me.
[NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “Top Gun.” You have been warned.] The History In a 1983 article entitled “Top Guns” published in the California magazine, author Ehud Yonay detailed the life of fighter pilots at Naval Air Station Miramar in San Diego by featuring aerial photography of said pilots (like Lieutenant Commander Charles “Heater” Heatley). After reading the article, film producers Jerry Bruckheimer and Don Simpson (Flashdance, Beverly Hills Cop, Bad Boys) hired screenwriters Jim Cash and Jack Epps, Jr. (Turner & Hooch, Anaconda) to write the first draft of the screenplay which involved Epps attending some aviator classes in San Diego (involving him being flown in an F-14 fighter jet). Based on his commercial work in the early 1980s for Swedish car manufacturer Saab, Tony Scott (Days of Thunder, True Romance) was hired by Bruckheimer and Simpson to direct the project. Apparently, Scott’s commercial involved a Saab car racing a Saab fighter jet which impressed the producers. In terms of casting, Matthew Modine (Full Metal Jacket, Stranger Things) was offered the lead role but turned it down because he felt that the script’s pro-military stance contradicted his own political views. Thus, the role ultimately went to Tom Cruise (Risky Business, Born on the Fourth of July, Mission: Impossible). The U.S. Navy played a significant role in approving the final screenplay, and contributed notable changes like moving the opening dogfight to international waters, toning down the language, and cutting a scene involving a plane crashing on the deck of an aircraft carrier. In addition, since the Navy prohibits any romantic or sexual liaisons between officers and enlisted personnel, the protagonist’s love interest was changed from a female enlistee to a civilian contractor for the Navy. When it came to filming, the Navy loaned several in-service F-14 fighter jets to the production team. This, of course, cost Paramount Pictures approximately $20,000 per hour (adjusted for inflation). In filming anything happening on the flight decks of aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, the cameramen had to just shoot normal operations aboard the ship and use what they could in post-production. In order to repeat a shot for another five minutes, Scott wrote a $25,000 check to the captain of Enterprise to turn the ship, stay on course, and film a jet back-lit by the Sun. In order to shoot aircraft flying over land, Scott utilized ground-mounted cameras at Naval Air Station Fallon in Nevada. Meanwhile, air-to-air shots were filed with a Learjet with special camera pods that Paramount Pictures paid for to be mounted upon the plane that could be pointed toward either the front or rear in order to capture shots at high altitudes. All of this stunt filming with live jets did not happen without horrific consequences. On September 16, 1985, aerobatic pilot Art Scholl was performing a flat spin (which was to be captured on camera) when he could not recover from the spin and crashed his plane into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of southern California. The official cause of the accident is unknown, since Scholl’s body nor his plane were never recovered. The film ended up being dedicated to his memory. Released in May of 1986, Top Gun grossed over 350 million dollars on a fifteen-million-dollar budget and thus became the highest-grossing film at the domestic box office that year. Despite generally positive reception for the action sequences, stunts, and the two lead performances, critics were mixed on the film due to the overall story, dialogue, and political messaging. Still, it was nominated for four technical Oscars (winning Best Original Song for “Take My Breath Away”) and in 2015 was selected by the Library of Congress for preservation due to its cultural, historical, and aesthetic significance. The Cons In many ways, the way that my parents’ generation talk about Top Gun reminds me of how they talk about the original Ghostbusters or Tim Burton’s first Batman film. Going into watching this movie for the first time a few years ago, I was under the impression that it was an action-packed flying fest with some iconic 80s cinematic moments that outweigh anything else in the movie that doesn’t hold up to modern scrutiny. But that’s not the experience I had with this film, either during that first viewing or on my rewatch this month. Simply put, Top Gun is a bad movie. Let me explain why. For starters, the entire first act relies on the audience buying into the “will they, won’t they” romance teased between our protagonist Pete “Maverick” Mitchell (Tom Cruise) and his instructor Charlotte “Charlie” Blackwood (Kelly McGillis). You’re supposed to root for their sexual tension and feel a payoff when they finally open up to each other and hook up. But, in order for me to feel anything for their relationship, I have to care about it as well as buy into their rapport with each other. The problem? Cruise and McGillis have (in my humble opinion) no dynamic or believable chemistry with one another. I can’t say it’s their fault entirely, because Cruise clearly has played several charismatic leads in his career while McGillis played off of Harrison Ford very well in Peter Weir’s 1985 crime drama Witness. I guess the casting agent or director should’ve done a few more chemistry reads between them to realize what I figured out within the first forty-five minutes of the movie. Thus, without a compelling romance plot, the first act of Top Gun drags so needlessly and thus puts that much more pressure on the rest of the film to exceed expectations. Later, I’ll shower praise on the film’s flight sequences which are good…when they’re focused on showing the planes from outside the cockpit. When the camera moves up close and personal with the pilots, we instead get what amounts to a piss-poor VR attraction at an arcade as it rocks back and forth without any of the visceral, high-flying thrills inherent to the film’s concept. Furthermore, the dialogue said by the pilots in the cockpits is so bad that it manages to distract me from the adequately put-together action scenes in the air (god, I hope this improves in the sequel ☹). While I also do appreciate Anthony Edwards’s performance as Maverick’s best friend Nick Bradshaw (more famously known as “Goose”), his role in the plot (specifically, his sudden death while flying with Maverick) felt so incredibly abrupt. It’s almost like the screenwriters were nearing the end of the script and realized that Maverick had no kind of character growth yet. So, instead of delving more into his rivalry with Tom “Iceman” Kazansky (Val Kilmer) or keep this romance plot with Charlie trudging along, they just decided to kill one of the most likeable characters in the movie in order to give Maverick some kind of forced, unbelievable identity crisis. Simply put, the movie could have been shaved down to a solid 90 minutes by cutting out this entire element of the story. Hopefully, the sequel makes Goose’s death worth it but for this movie alone I found it both unnecessary and poorly handled. Now, there are other substantive critiques of Top Gun that I could bring up. But, I’d rather have fun and end with a silly criticism that greatly annoyed me on my rewatch. Why are all these pilots so damn sweaty?! I get that they’re running around shirtless playing volleyball on the beaches of San Diego, but even when they’re indoors (presumable with air conditioning) or just sitting in a classroom setting they’re all sweating their asses off. I have to ask director Tony Scott: what was the point of this?!? 😊 The Pros While by no means a good movie, Top Gun does have some redeeming qualities to it. Most of the performances to be either forgettable or downright bad, but Anthony Edwards as Goose manages to maximize the relatively little amount of screen time that he has. Essentially, the impact of Goose’s death in the second act (and therefore Maverick’s character arc in the third act) hinges on Edwards endearing the audience to Goose as a simpleminded but loyal and likeable second-fiddle to Tom Cruise. And he does so well enough that Maverick’s growth feels somewhat earned by the end. That being said, I hope that this relationship dynamic (when introducing Goose’s grown-up son) will pay off way better in the sequel. What most people agree on with Top Gun is that its commitment to well-shot flight sequences was a standout, impressive maneuver (pun intended 😊) for the time period. And while I cannot fully agree given how far we’ve come in the last forty years with compelling aerial action scenes, I can admit that the most engaging thing about the movie is seeing footage of fighter jets flying around each other is competently composed and well executed. But, without question, the best thing about Top Gun is the soundtrack. Strike that: it’s the two most famous songs from the soundtrack. The movie undoubtedly puts its best foot forward with a five-minute intro credits sequence of jets taking off of aircraft carriers set to Kenny Loggins’s kicker rock song “Danger Zone.” If only the rest of the movie delivered on the energetic and exciting promise of those opening minutes. And, of course, Berlin’s performance of “Take My Breath Away” remains one of those iconic 80s songs that makes me want to be swallowed up by the pop culture of a time when I never have and never will actually live in. That being said, its use in the scene where Maverick and Charlie consummate their lust for each other felt quite anticlimactic as it skipped over any of the verses or early choruses in favor of the bridge, essentially going from 3 to 50 too abruptly. But, still a great song. So, what are my final impressions of Top Gun? Not unlike other cheesy 80s flicks that aren’t nearly as good as people who grew up with them say they are, this film is (mostly) a waste of time on its own. Will the sequel justify its existence? I certainly hope so, but am not going into the theaters for Top Gun: Maverick expecting any such miracle. What do you think about Top Gun? Are you excited about the sequel, or do you even care? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst Image by Andrys Stienstra from Pixabay For my penultimate blog of this year, I have chosen to revisit the book “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” by Steven Jay Schneider. Specifically, I want to share my disappointment with Greta Gerwig’s 2019 sophomore directorial effort Little Women.
[NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “Little Women.” You have been warned.] The History In 2013, Sony Pictures announced that a new adaptation of Louisa May Alcott’s 1868 novel “Little Women” was in development. Initially, Canadian actor and director Sarah Polley (Away from Her, Take This Waltz) was in talks to direct the adaptation before actor Greta Gerwig (Frances Ha, Isle of Dogs) was officially hired in June of 2018 to both write and direct the film. Fresh off of being nominated for a Best Director Oscar for her solo directorial debut Lady Bird, Gerwig was surprisingly not on the studio’s shortlist to oversee the project. However, producer Amy Pascal (Spider-Man: Homecoming, Molly’s Game) liked Gerwig’s pitch for the film being about “the ambition and dreams that you have as a girl” getting “stomped out of you as you grow up.” Gerwig took inspiration from Alcott’s letters and diaries and paintings of “young women” from the 1800s in writing the screenplay for the film and had written multiple drafts before Lady Bird went into production. She also incorporated a nonlinear timeline so as to focus the story on the main characters as adults. At the same time that Sony Pictures announced Gerwig as the writer-director, the lead actors were announced including Meryl Streep, Florence Pugh, Saoirse Ronan, and Timothée Chalamet (the latter two of which had worked on Lady Bird with Gerwig). Only two months later, both Laura Dern and Emma Watson (who replaced Emma Stone due to scheduling conflicts) were announced as well. After two weeks of rehearsals, principal photography began in Boston in October of 2018 and wrapped two months later. Some of the film’s notable locations included Harvard University, Crane Beach, the Fruitlands Museum, and Castle Hill. Gerwig found out she was pregnant during filming, but kept this to herself and managed to screen a rough cut to Sony Pictures in March of 2019 three days before giving birth to her son. After receiving a wide release on Christmas Day of 2019, Little Women went on to gross over 200 million dollars worldwide on a 40-million-dollar budget. Critics near-universally praised the film (notably Gerwig’s writing and direction, and the performances of the main cast) and it was nominated for six Academy Awards (including Best Picture), winning for Best Costume Design. The Cons Initially, I was unsure if I wanted to even blog about this film. The reason being that I don’t have any criticisms with the specific elements of filmmaking at play here. The cast is good to great, the director is talented (especially based on her work on Lady Bird), and the story seems up my alley as a 19th-century period piece about coming of age in a time and place that has no interest in recognizing (let alone celebrating) the passions of young people. Having not read Alcott’s original novel, I knew only the rudimentary basics of the story and the characters involved. Really, I only understood Little Women as a story about four sisters growing up during the Civil War. But after watching Little Women early on in lockdown during the first month or so of the COVID-19 pandemic, I felt a sense of unsatisfaction. Not to the extent that I’d wasted my time, but just that the film had so much potential to be fantastic and it only ended up being “pretty good.” I think my biggest complaint about the narrative overall is how Gerwig never gets me to invest very much in sisters Meg (Emma Watson) and Beth (Eliza Scanlen) March. Compared to the creative drive of Jo (Saoirse Ronan) and the desire of Amy (Florence Pugh) to fulfill societal expectations, I just felt that they lacked much of a character arc at all. Which sucked because I grew up loving Watson in the Harry Potter series and was looking forward to falling in love with another young actress like Scanlen in the way I did Dafne Keen in James Mangold’s Logan and Millie Bobby Brown in Netflix’s Stranger Things. Alas, their presence in the film alongside Ronan and Pugh never left me emotionally engaged in their stories at all. Regarding the two lead actresses, I think both Ronan and Pugh pull off their journeys respectably well. But based on their other performances I was looking forward to liking either of them more. For one, Ronan has won me over more than once in films like Brooklyn and Gerwig’s very own Lady Bird and Pugh captivated, hypnotized, and charmed me in Fighting with My Family, Midsommar, and Black Widow, respectively. Ultimately, the biggest issue with Little Women’s central performances is that they are only adequate when they should be awe-inspiring. Which gets to my main critique of this film: I was never fully invested in the story that Alcott wrote. I don’t quite know why, but as far as a coming-of-age tale goes there are so many more that endeared me to the characters and hooked me into the antics they go on and the lessons they learn. In comparison to films like The Breakfast Club, A Bronx Tale and Eighth Grade, the misadventures of Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth lacked the poignancy to justify why they needed a modern adaptation for the big screen in the first place. The Pros As I said earlier, the technical aspects of Little Women are all exceptional. From the casting and production design to the score, the creative team behind the film have clearly put their best foot forward in fulfilling Gerwig’s vision of adapting Alcott’s 19th-century novel for modern viewers. There are certainly some classics—both old and new—that (in my humble opinion) are just poorly made. Unfortunately, a well-crafted film from a technical standpoint does not necessarily make an emotionally engaging film nor a timeless and enduring one. So, what are my final impressions of Little Women? Perhaps it’s because my gender prevents me from fully empathizing with the March sisters, or perhaps Gerwig was a directorial one-hit wonder (we’ll see with her supposed next film Barbie starring Margot Robbie). But as of now, I am by no means compelled to revisit Little Women and do not think it is worth your time unless you are coming into it with a deep-seated sense of nostalgia for the novel from Louisa May Alcott that the film is based on and inspired by. What do you think about Little Women? Do you think I am being too harsh on it? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst Image by Thanks for your Like • donations welcome from Pixabay I have already shared my unexpected admiration for one of P.T. Anderson’s films listed in the book “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” by Steven Jay Schneider: There Will Be Blood. And with the release of Anderson’s newest film, Licorice Pizza, this weekend, I thought I’d do the same with another one of his movies: Boogie Nights, the 1997 period dramedy starring Mark Wahlberg.
[NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “Boogie Nights.” You have been warned.] The History P.T. Anderson’s inspiration for Boogie Nights came largely from a 1981 documentary about adult film star John Holmes. As a senior in high school, Anderson gathered members of his extended friend circle such as Michael Stein and Eddie Dalcour to star in a mockumentary based on the Holmes documentary. Narrated by Anderson’s father Ernie, this 1988 short film was titled The Dirk Diggler Story. According to Anderson, the short film was positively received by an audience at the University of Southern California. During production troubles on his feature directorial debut, Hard Eight, Anderson completed a screenplay that expanded on the story of his short film. He originally envisioned Leonardo DiCaprio (Catch Me If You Can, The Aviator, The Wolf of Wall Street) in the lead role, but he was forced to turn it down due to his commitment to starring in James Cameron’s romantic historical epic Titanic. However, DiCaprio liked Anderson’s screenplay and recommended Mark Wahlberg (The Departed, The Other Guys) for the role despite Wahlberg’s relative lack of acting experience. Several actors were considered for the supporting role of Jack Horner, from Bill Murray (Ghostbusters, Groundhog Day, Lost in Translation) to Harvey Keitel (Taxi Driver, Bugsy, The Irishman), before the role went to the late Burt Reynolds (The Longest Yard, Smokey and the Bandit) which ended up reviving his career. However, there has been some confusion regarding Reynolds’s views on the film and his participation in it. Contemporary reports claimed that Reynolds and Anderson had a strenuous partnership during filming, and that after seeing a rough cut of the film Reynolds supposedly fired his agent. He declined to be in Anderson’s next film, Magnolia, but in later years has referred to the film as “extraordinary” and said that his opinion of Anderson does not color his view of the film. Filmed on a budget of 15 million dollars, Boogie Nights premiered in October of 1997 and went on to gross nearly triple its budget. Critics praising the film at the time singled out the performances of Wahlberg as Dirk Diggler, Reynolds as Jack Horner, and Julianne Moore as Amber Waves. They also singled out the skilled production design managing to capture the 1970s so accurately, and many applauded the film’s themes and character work. At the Academy Awards that year, both Reynolds and Moore were nominated for their performances (but did not win) and Anderson was nominated for Best Original Screenplay (but did not win). The Pros In my blog about my second-favorite P.T. Anderson film, There Will Be Blood, I praised the director’s deliberate pacing that kept me engaged without ever feeling withdrawn or disinterested. Not many films can succeed like this, but Daniel Day-Lewis and the supporting cast around him (notably Paul Dano) pull off this feat seemingly effortlessly. But Anderson approached Boogie Nights differently, and that is one of the film’s biggest strengths. In telling the story of up-and-coming porn star Dirk Diggler (Mark Wahlberg), Anderson captures the “rise-and-fall” ambience that has become synonymous with many of the best films of Martin Scorsese such as Goodfellas, Casino, and The Wolf of Wall Street. It is his direction, in tandem with Wahlberg’s charisma and the rest of the cast’s commitment to their particular parts of Diggler’s ascension to stardom, that excels in putting the audience in that character’s shoes so intimately. And within a world so unfamiliar to most, at that. Beyond the pacing, Boogie Nights transports the viewer to southern California in the 1970s to great effect. Not once watching the film was I taken out of the moment in terms of the historical and social setting. In fact, I found myself fascinated by the world of the “Golden Age of Porn” and its wacky character archetypes in a way that few films like it can do. I particularly appreciated how the supporting performances from John C. Reilly, William H. Macy, Heather Graham, and Philip Seymour Hoffman offer alternative (albeit minimal) perspectives on that world to keep the narrative refreshing and diverse. While I really liked Wahlberg’s character and performance, I am glad that his lens was not the only one the audience had to look at this world through. But, when it comes to what I like most about Boogie Nights, it is unquestionably the story of Dirk Diggler. Not only does Wahlberg give what is arguably his best performance of his acting career, but Anderson’s screenplay never relents or loses steam from start to finish. We are forcefully propelled into Diggler’s insanely chaotic world and, from one scene to another, are consistently stunned and surprised by the incredible ups and downs of his journey. Eventually, we are numbed to the chaos but not to the point that the film loses its effect. Quite the opposite, in fact; we begin asking ourselves how this story and this world could ever feel “normal” to those who do not know it in real life? And that, in my humble opinion, is the greatest compliment that I can pay to the story that Anderson set out to tell in Boogie Nights. Rather than keeping the audience at arms-length throughout the runtime, we are made a part of the chaos so as to fully understand (at least to the best that vicarious experiences such as movies can do) what it’s like to be a rising porn star. How could a movie get more entertaining than that? The Cons Admittedly, I have little critiques of Boogie Nights so these might sound a bit nitpicky. What primarily comes to mind is the one scene of the movie where I felt the pace slowed down to a rather frustrating halt, and it just so happens to be one of its more notorious scenes. What is arguably the climax of the film, the scene in question is when Diggler, Reed Rothchild (Reilly), and Todd Parker (Thomas Jane) attempt to scam low-level drug dealer Rahad Jackson (Alfred Molina) by selling him a half-kilo of baking soda disguised as cocaine. While I appreciate what Anderson was going for with the scene in terms of ratcheting up the tension with the constant throwing of firecrackers by Rahad’s skinny friend Cosmo (Joe G.M. Chan) and the “no-shit-we’re-guilty” faces on Diggler and his crew, it just felt over the top for this film (and that’s saying something!). I don’t hate it, but it’s a scene that’s bothered me since I first watched it as it comes off as a noticeable weak spot in what is otherwise a well-paced and well-structured narrative. At the movie’s end, I was also longing for something like a believable redemption for Diggler (particularly regarding his relationship with Burt Reynolds’ character Jack Horner) which Anderson showed me but never fully convinced me that their restored respect for each other was genuine. Again, something of a nitpick but worth mentioning if you’re worried about the film ending in a fully satisfying way. So, what are my final impressions of Boogie Nights? Despite some of its minor flaws, it is not only my favorite P.T. Anderson film but also one of my favorite films of the 1990s. Its story, acting, and world building rarely (if ever) disappoints in showing off many of Anderson’s best directorial qualities. But it’s also a surprisingly accessible film despite its subject matter and the fact that it’s one of Anderson’s earlier films (in other words, don’t watch Boogie Nights and then expect the same kind of movie from Magnolia 😊). What are your thoughts on P.T. Anderson’s Boogie Nights? What other movies of his do you recommend? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst There are many 80s classics in the book “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” by Steven Jay Schneider. While I like or love so many of them, there is one in particular that I still do not understand why people love it so much. In light of the release of its second sequel this weekend, Ghostbusters: Afterlife, what better time than now to reflect on my lackluster response to Ivan Reitman’s 1984 sci-fi classic Ghostbusters?
[NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “Ghostbusters.” You have been warned.] The History Canadian native, SNL alum, and comedic actor Dan Aykroyd (The Blues Brothers, Trading Places, Driving Miss Daisy) has been fascinated with the paranormal his whole life. His father wrote about ghosts, his mother claimed to have seen ghosts, and his grandfather experimented with radios to contact spirits. After reading a 1981 article about quantum physics in The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, he was inspired to modernize the comedic ghost movies of the mid-1900s (i.e. Abbott and Costello’s Hold That Ghost, Bob Hope’s The Ghost Breakers). Aykroyd wrote a screenplay with the assumption that he would star alongside fellow SNL alumni Eddie Murphy (Beverly Hills Cop, Coming to America, Dolemite Is My Name) and John Belushi (Animal House, The Blues Brothers). Unfortunately, Belushi’s untimely death in March of 1982 prevented this from happening. Instead, Aykroyd convinced another SNL cast member, Bill Murray (Groundhog Day, Rushmore, Lost in Translation), to fill in. In his original pitch of the film to producer Bernie Brillstein (The Blues Brothers, Happy Gilmore), Aykroyd emphasized his intention to normalize the act of catching ghosts in the story by likening them to pest control personnel. However, his original script had a more serious tone and horror vibe than the final product. Aykroyd’s first choice for director was Ivan Reitman (Stripes, Kindergarten Cop), who he first met with in Los Angeles to discuss the film. Reitman, who first heard of the pitch when Belushi was still attached to the project, was under the impression that Aykroyd’s script took place in the future and involved people catching ghosts in space and across galaxies. Thus, he was convinced that the film would be impossible to make and told Aykroyd to set the film entirely on Earth. Furthermore, he injected the “upstart business” angle for the three main characters. As Reitman put it, “everyone was going into business” at the start of the 1980s. Out of fear that Aykroyd was in over his head in terms of executing the tone that he wanted for the film, Reitman met with Chicago native Harold Ramis (Caddyshack, National Lampoon’s Vacation, Groundhog Day). Per Reitman’s wishes, Ramis agreed to both write and star in the film after reading Aykroyd’s screenplay. About one year after Belushi’s death, Reitman pitched the film to Columbia Pictures who felt that comedies like this lacked the needed potential for profit. To put the studio at ease, Reitman offered to make the film on a maximum budget of $30 million (a made-up estimate from Reitman who simply tripled the number for the budget of his previous film Stripes). After agreeing to finish in time for a June 1984 release date, the studio greenlit the project. Frank Price, the Columbia executive who agreed to Reitman’s pitch despite having no finished script or filming start date, ended up moving to Universal Pictures early in the film’s production. This ended up working out in the project’s favor as Price, while the head at Universal, was able to sell the rights to the phrase “Ghostbusters” to Columbia Pictures without Universal ever technically getting paid for the name being used as the film’s title. While on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, Reitman, Aykroyd, and Ramis spent hours every day over the course of two weeks reworking the script in the basement of Aykroyd’s home there. Rather than being possessive about his original draft, Aykroyd understood the importance of Ramis’s role reworking the jokes and refining the dialogue. By August, they had completed a final draft that ended up having virtually no input from Murray about his character (having written for Murray in the past, Ramis was confident in his ability to capture Murray’s talent in his character’s voice). Furthermore, this drafting process solidified the trio of Ghostbusters in terms of their distinctive personalities: Aykroyd’s heart as the enthusiastic technician, Ramis’s brains as the stoic intellectual, and Murray’s sarcasm as the slick salesman-type. Several notable actors were considered for the parts of Peter Venkman and Egon Spengler: Michael Keaton, Tom Hanks, Robin Williams, and Richard Pryor for the former, and Christopher Walken, John Lithgow, and Jeff Goldblum for the latter. The partial uncertainty surrounding Murray’s casting as Peter Venkman was due to Murray’s notorious habit of not committing to a role until very late in the pre-production process. Furthermore, Ernie Hudson (The Crow, Miss Congeniality) went through five auditions for the part of Winston Zeddemore under the impression that he would have a large role. However, the final script he was given before principal photography began had scaled back his role because, according to Reitman, the studio wanted to bolster Murray’s presence in the film. Regarding the supporting roles, the studio resisted casting Sigourney Weaver (Aliens, Gorillas in the Mist, Avatar) due to her association with more serious and dramatic roles. However, she revealed her comedic background from her time at the Yale School of Drama by walking on all fours and howling like a dog in her audition. Weaver played an active role in developing the character of Dana Barrett, such as suggesting that she become possessed by Zuul and changing her career from a model to a musician to give her more of a soul deep down. Initially offered to John Candy, the role of Dana’s nosy neighbor Louis Tully went to Rick Moranis who agreed to take it one hour after receiving the screenplay from Reitman. Principal photography took place from October of 1983 to January of 1984. Reitman’s primary concern regarding using New York City as a location was to finish filming those scenes before they would face the Christmastime weather of the area. Some of the NYC locations used in the film are the Rockefeller Center, Central Park, the New York Public Library, and the Irving Trust Bank on Fifth Avenue. After wrapping up the NYC scenes just before Christmas, filming resumed in Los Angeles for another month which involved finding buildings that could fill in for the interiors of the various New York locations. Based on accounts from the post-production crew, Reitman was very frustrated by the editing process. Due to the film’s heavy reliance on special effects-laden scenes, filming itself involved limiting the crew and cast to only a few takes for each scene. Furthermore, he was perturbed by the need to storyboard these scenes which effectively made it very easy to cut footage but virtually impossible to add any new footage. However, much of his stress was relieved after showing a rough cut of the film to a test audience who connected with its sense of humor and ghostly scares. Released in June of 1984, Ghostbusters earned over 280 million dollars during its initial theatrical run. Not only did it become the second-highest-grossing domestic film that year (behind Beverly Hills Cop), but it was also the highest-grossing comedy film ever made (until Beverly Hills Cop). Despite grossing what amounts these days to small change for a sci-fi film, Ghostbusters competed alongside the likes of other iconic films of the decade (from The Terminator and A Nightmare on Elm Street to The Karate Kid and Temple of Doom). Critics at the time were generally pleased with the film, many of whom cited Bill Murray’s performance as one of its best attributes. It was nominated for two Oscars (including Best Original Song for Ray Parker, Jr.’s iconic theme song), but won neither. However, it established a distinct cultural legacy that has retained a rabidly loyal fanbase as well as cemented itself in film history by being selected for preservation in the National Film Registry in 2015. The Cons I distinctly remember the first time I saw Ghostbusters. I was in high school, and my father brought home a copy of the film on DVD that he borrowed from his co-worker for us to watch. I was under the impression that it’d be a fun―albeit cheesy―80s comedy. Instead, what I watched was a tonally disjointed ensemble movie with outdated special effects with virtually nothing that made me laugh. Now I have watched Ghostbusters since then, and there were some things I appreciated about it. But I’ll talk about that stuff later. That being said, much of what I disliked about the film during my initial viewing held true. While the special effects (primarily the ghosts themselves) look cheap through a modern lens, they aren’t as distracting as I thought they would be. In fact, my major complaints with the movie have to do with the storytelling and tone. Regarding the former, I was quite frustrated by the lack of forward momentum in the story that had me longing for the filmmaker to give some sort of reason for me to care about the lives of the ghostbusters themselves. While there is a build-up and climax in each act (from the team catching their first ghost to them defeating the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man), none of it feels emotionally connected in a way that is satisfying to watch. Regarding the latter, Ghostbusters does not have enough effective scares to be a great horror movie nor enough consistent laughs to be a great comedy. I understand that this is a controversial statement, but I just think there are plenty of other films that blend comedy and horror together more effectively than this one. The Pros Fortunately, this movie is not fully irredeemable for me. There are two performances that, in my humble opinion, save Ghostbusters from being utterly boring or unworthy of my time: Bill Murray and Rick Moranis. For one, both actors have offered up a plethora of exceptionally comedic performances over the course of their careers (Groundhog Day and Rushmore for Murray and Spaceballs and Parenthood for Moranis, just to name a few). But I firmly side with those fans of this movie that put their respective performances here higher up in the echelon of their comedic turns in cinema from the last several decades. While Murray offers up some great one-liners and deadpan delivery throughout the runtime as Peter Venkman, Moranis steals every scene he is in as Louis Tully. If anything, other actors in the film (like Sigourney Weaver) may have stood out more if not for Murray and Moranis practically making this movie worth the watch despite its significant drawbacks. So, what are my final impressions of Ghostbusters? At the end of the day, I by no means think that this is a bad movie. In fact, it has such a potential to be great but it just doesn’t come together for me. Its confused tonal shifts and “frozen-in-time” production values diminish that potential significantly. However, I can appreciate peoples’ love and admiration for Ghostbusters as one of the iconic films of the 1980s. I guess I had to be there at the time to truly understand its greatness. 😊 What do you think about Ghostbusters? Do you think I am being too harsh on it? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|