Image by PublicDomainPictures from Pixabay In the spirit of both the spooky season and the release of Halloween Kills today, my next film from “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” by Steven Jay Schneider that I want to share my unexpected love for is John Carpenter’s 1978 slasher flick Halloween.
[NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “Halloween.” You have been warned.] The History Upon seeing 1976’s Assault on Precinct 13, the sophomore directorial feature of John Carpenter (The Thing, Big Trouble in Little China), independent film producers Irwin Yablans and Moustapha Akkad asked Carpenter to direct a horror film for them that would have the same impact on the zeitgeist as William Friedkin’s 1973 film The Exorcist did. After being given full creative control over the screenplay and score at $10,000, Carpenter agreed. During the drafting of a script about a serial killer that targets babysitters, Yablans suggested to Carpenter to set it on Halloween night to which Carpenter agreed. Carpenter, along with his then-girlfriend and screenwriter-producer Debra Hill (The Dead Zone, Adventures in Babysitting), wrote the script for the film in less than three weeks. According to Hill, much of the inspiration for the spirit of the film came from Celtic traditions of Halloween (i.e. Samhain) in which evil could not be killed. From there, Carpenter formed this concept into the embodiment of evil in “the most evil kid who ever lived” who is also a dark secret of the town. With experience as a babysitter during her own adolescence, Hill wrote most of the dialogue of the female characters in the movie. Additionally, there are many references to the films of Alfred Hitchcock such as Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance) inspired by Sam Loomis (John Gavin) from Psycho. Regarding the film’s ending, Carpenter aimed to terrify the audience’s imagination in order to keep the true identity (or essence) of Michael Myers ambiguous. Thus, Myers can represent something supernatural or more than human rather than be explained away. After both Peter Cushing (The Hound of the Baskervilles, Star Wars) and Christopher Lee (Dracula, The Wicker Man) turned down the role of Dr. Loomis, Yablans suggested another British actor Donald Pleasance (The Great Escape, You Only Live Twice) who agreed to take the role (despite only being paid $20,000) because his daughter enjoyed Carpenter’s score in Assault on Precinct 13. Pleasance, however, was the highest-paid actor in the film (Nick Castle, who portrayed Michael Myers, was paid twenty-five dollars per day). Carpenter’s first choice to play the protagonist Laurie Strode was not Jamie Lee Curtis (Trading Places, True Lies, Knives Out), who at that point never acted in a movie and was a law-school dropout. However, after learning that Curtis was the daughter of actress Janet Leigh (Touch of Evil, Psycho), Carpenter seized on the opportunity to get publicity for the film by casting Curtis in the starring role. Curtis was initially nervous to play Strode as a “quiet, repressed” character as she identified more with the outgoing cheerleader type back then. Principal photography took place over a four-week period in May of 1978 on location in California. Due to the film’s low budget, many props and costumes were made from items on hand and inexpensively (famously, the Michael Myers mask was made from a mask modeled after Captain Kirk from Star Trek with several modifications such as painting it white and widening its eyes). Additionally, local neighborhood parents dressed up their children in Halloween costumes for the trick-or-treat scenes. Carpenter took three days to compose the film’s score, which has become iconic in and of itself. Notably, the recognizability of the “Halloween Theme” (the poignant piano melody in the film) is on par with the “The Ecstasy of Gold” theme from Sergio Leone’s The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and the “Shark” theme from Steven Spielberg’s Jaws. Released in October of 1978, Halloween ended up grossing upwards of 70 million dollars worldwide making one of the most profitable independent films of all time. Much of its success can be owed to word-of-mouth, despite some critics calling the film unoriginal and empty. A notable exception was Roger Ebert, who called the film “a visceral experience” and “frightening” and eventually put it in his top-ten list of films released that year. Today, Halloween is widely praised for its use of Hitchcock-like suspense without relying on overt graphic violence. Furthermore, it is viewed by many cinephiles and film historians to be the progenitor of the modern “slasher” subgenre of horror movies. The Pros I first saw Carpenter’s 1978 slasher classic a few years ago. In preparation for the release of the direct sequel forty years in the making, 2018’s Halloween from director David Gordon Green (Pineapple Express, Joe, Stronger), I decided that I should first check out the original that started it all. Admittedly, I was apprehensive due to the film’s age and my presumption about slasher movies being absurdly cheesy, campy, and mindless affairs. And boy was I proven wrong after watching this film. Like some other older horror films that I’ve come to really like (Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Psycho, to name a few), Halloween has numerous qualities about it that make it timeless. First and foremost, the central performances are all standout in their own way. As a fan of much of the work of Jamie Lee Curtis, it was really great seeing her so early in her career be just as captivating as the central villain that is Michael Myers (Nick Castle). Additionally, my initial fears of her character of Laurie Strode being simply a damsel in distress were quelled by the end. Sure, she was a teenage babysitter pretty unprepared for being chased by a knife-wielding psychopath. However, her resourcefulness is evident throughout the film to the point where by the end (despite being scared out of her time) she is able to effectively end Michael’s reign of terror that night. The other great character work comes from Donald Pleasance as Dr. Samuel Loomis. His insights into Michael’s psychology never feel forced or inorganic but instead add just enough context to his mythos as an emotionless killer without detracting from what Carpenter intended for Michael as the embodiment of pure evil. Arguably the standout performance, however, is Castle as Michael Myers. In many ways, I compare him to the great masked performances of cinematic history (James Earl Jones/David Prowse as Darth Vader in Star Wars, for example) in that the actor must rely much more so on their physicality to express their characters’ mindset and emotions. In contrast with Darth Vader, however, Michael Myers has no dialogue and thus Castle’s characterization of the killer is based solely on how he moves within a given scene. To be intimidating without ever seeing the person’s face or hear them speak a work is what I like to call “simple brilliance” because it is obvious and yet had never really been done before Halloween. Needless to say, Castle’s performance has gone down as one of the scariest antagonists of any horror movie. Period. Aside from the performances, I really appreciated the film’s technical elements such as the score and cinematography. Regarding the former, Carpenter’s score is more than just iconic for aesthetic purposes. More so, it enhances the storytelling by effectively injecting suspense into the narrative at the right moments in the way that the “Shark Theme” from Jaws and “The Imperial March” from The Empire Strikes Back do for their respective films. Regarding the latter, cinematographer Dean Cundey (The Thing, Back to the Future, Apollo 13) expertly crafts tension in so many scenes in ways that I genuinely struggled to anticipate. Being an older horror movie, I was certain that I could predict where and when all the kills would happen. However, more than once I found myself pleasantly surprised by the camera work (notably in the pop-out closet scene) that proved to me over and over just how good this movie is. The Cons I won’t lie; Halloween is one of my favorite classic horror movies. Full stop. Thus, I have very few negative things to say about it. It’s well-structured, well-paced, well-shot, and well-composed. If anything, it’s biggest drawback is by no fault of its own due to its age but those watching it for the first time may feel that it relies too much on certain tropes now strongly associated with the slasher genre. Certainly some of the acting makes this apparent throughout the runtime. The only problem is…it invented so many of those tropes! Therefore, can it really be criticized for that? I say no, and not just because it’s an important film but because it’s a damn good one! So, what are my final impressions of Halloween? Needless to say, it is a fantastic film that did so much for the horror genre (specifically “slasher” films) and remains relevant in spite of the sheer plethora of movies like it that have come out in the forty-plus years since it premiered. I don’t think I need to say this, but go watch Halloween if you haven’t! What are your thoughts on John Carpenter’s Halloween? What other 1970s horror flicks do you like? 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
Many argue that it’s the greatest film of all time. But Orson Welles’s feature directorial debut Citizen Kane is far from my favorite film, despite being on the list of the “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” by Steven Jay Schneider. So, on the 80th anniversary of its release, I want to share why I struggle to like or enjoy what many cinephiles and critics call “the” masterpiece of cinema.
[NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “Citizen Kane.” You have been warned.] The History As early as 1937, acclaimed theater actor and director Orson Welles (The Stranger, Macbeth, Touch of Evil) was turning down scripts and acting offers from acclaimed studios and directors such as Warner Brothers and William Wyler (The Best Years of Our Lives, Ben-Hur, Funny Girl), respectively. Only in the wake of his now-famous radio broadcast adapting H.G. Wells’s novel “The War of the Worlds” did a lucrative enough movie contract come along to lure Welles away from theater out west to Los Angeles. After arriving in 1939, with the intentions of staying only a few months to make enough money to pay off his debts and fund his next play, Welles was mesmerized by the movie studio. Thus, his film career was officially in motion. On August 21 that same year, Welles signed his revolutionary contract with RKO Pictures which granted him (at that time) unprecedented creative control over his two films with the studio. Not only did Welles retain final cut privilege and freedom to develop his stories without studio interference, but RKO was not allowed to make cuts to his films without his permission. In addition, Welles had complete control over the hiring of his cast and crew and RKO was barred from seeing any footage until Welles deemed it necessary. However, after several months developing projects, Welles’s prospects for creating a finished film under RKO’s required $500,000 limit that could make money seemed lesser every day. Eventually, after workshopping some other ideas to no avail, Welles began brainstorming with New York screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz who was already employed by Welles writing plays for his CBS Radio series. By February of 1940, Welles gave Mankiewicz hundreds of pages of notes before hiring him to write a first draft based on their collaborations up to that point. Infamously, Welles seemingly downplayed Mankiewicz’s involvement in the final script. Despite initially agreeing to be a script doctor and thus receive no official credit for his work on the project, Mankiewicz eventually threatened Welles with claiming credit for the whole thing unless his work on the screenplay was publicly acknowledged. The controversy was not resolved until January of 1941 when RKO Pictures agreed to give Mankiewicz credit. However, questions of the true authorship continued well into the 1970s with film critics such as Pauline Kael and university professors like Robert L. Carringer publishing essays and books reviewing the evidence of who was the primary author. While the film’s protagonist, Charles Foster Kane, was a synthesis of different personalities, the life of newspaper magnate and politician William Randolph Hearst served as the basis for the character. Some of the other people that helped form the basis of Kane were business tycoons Samuel Insull and Harold Fowler McCormick, publishers Joseph Pulitzer and Alfred Harmsworth, and journalist Herbert Bayard Swope, Sr. Welles hired many actors from the Mercury Theatre, an independent theatre company that he founded, and for many of them it was their feature film debut. One of the exceptions to this rule was Welles casting Los Angeles native Dorothy Comingore, who was recommended to him by fellow actor and director Charlie Chaplin (The Kid, City Lights, The Great Dictator) and immediately cast Comingore as Kane’s second wife Susan Alexander Kane. In breaking with tradition of much of Hollywood at the time, Welles had his actors rehearse every single scene before principal photography to ensure that he was given the best performances possible when filming actually began. In preparation for filming, Welles carefully studied the fundamentals of filmmaking from a textbook given to him by production advisor Miriam Geiger and watching the films of Frank Capra and Fritz Lang (among others), especially John Ford’s Stagecoach (which he watched approximately 40 times). Welles described the experience learning to be a film director as “like going to school.” Welles chose to begin principal photography on a Saturday morning in 1940 so as to prevent studio executives from RKO from being aware that any filming had actually began at that point. Apparently, the executives were under the impression that Welles was doing camera tests. While there was some locating shooting (specifically at Balboa Park in and around the San Diego Zoo), most of the film was shot on Stage 19 at the Paramount Pictures lot in Hollywood. Furthermore, Welles went through incidents of physical trauma throughout production including severe pain from the contact lenses applied to his eyes to age him up. He also fell ten feet during a scene with Ray Collins (The Magnificent Ambersons, Touch of Evil), resulting in two bone chips in his ankle that bound him to a wheelchair for two weeks (which he directed from). Ultimately, the film was made on a budget nearing $840,000 (more than one-and-a-half times the maximum budget allowed by RKO in Welles’s initial contract). Citizen Kane received its wide domestic release on September 5, 1941. Although it did not recoup its costs during its initial theatrical run, the film was lauded by critics for its innovative style of filmmaking (notably the cinematography and editing) with many identifying it back then as one of the greatest movies ever made at the time. The film was nominated for nine Academy Awards (including Best Director and Best Actor for Welles), but only won Best Original Screenplay for Mankiewicz and Welles. Nevertheless, it has gone down in history as one of the best films ever made (evidenced by its selection by the Library of Congress as one of the first 25 films to be preserved in the National Film Registry for its cultural, historic, or aesthetic significance). The Cons After watching Citizen Kane for the first time, I struggled to narrow down what exactly I disliked about it. The acting? The story? The themes? I remained puzzled about why I was not fulfilled by this movie that was supposed to be one of (if not the) greatest films of all time. It was a second viewing that clarified what my dismay was ultimately about. And after researching the making of the film, the source of my disdain for Citizen Kane became even clearer. For a film that was made in the 1940s about political corruption and big business through the lens of newspaper tycoons, it was obviously made to be a look at contemporary American society (that is, early-20th-century society). And while audiences in 1941 may have found the themes explored by the rise-and-fall of Charles Foster Kane (Welles) to be prescient and timely, that story being told 80 years later simply fails to be “timeless” like other films are. Are there younger films that tackle “rise-and-fall” stories which could be considered “timeless”? Certainly, for films like Goodfellas, Boogie Nights, and The Wolf of Wall Street come to mind. All of which capture a particular time period (often spanning more than one decade) in a way that is both entertaining and engrossing. Furthermore, the protagonists of these films are all more compelling and interesting than Kane in Welles’s feature directorial debut. Why? In my humble opinion, a lot of it comes down to the story being told. As I’ll expand more on in “The Pros” section of this blog, my lack of investment in Kane’s downfall has nothing to do will Welles’s acting chops which are front-and-center and unquestionable. Rather, the story of Citizen Kane of a poor boy who is given an inheritance and becomes a successful newspaper magnate is not at all relatable on a personal level nor captivating on a cinematic one. Fans of the film, however, might ask: But what about the degradation to Kane’s mental and emotional state due to his success? Does that make him relatable? Ultimately, my answer is not enough. Simply put, I think that this kind of tale is done better in other films. Citizen Kane may be timeless for other reasons, but its story and themes are not those reasons. The Pros To give some much-deserved praise for Citizen Kane, I will grant that its technical achievements do earn their place in cinematic history. While there are many I could dissect here, I will focus largely on two. First, the cinematography of Illinois native Gregg Toland (The Grapes of Wrath, The Best Years of Our Lives) which earns the praise that it gets for being both unique for its time and forward-thinking for cinema as a whole in terms of its approach to visual storytelling. I want to dissect one famous scene from Citizen Kane to highlight its accomplished cinematography. Early in the film’s first act, it is the first flashback to Kane’s life (specifically his childhood). While he is playing in the snow outside his home, his mother (Agnes Moorehead) and father (Harry Shannon) are indoors agreeing to place their son’s newfound inheritance in a trust overseen by a banker Walter Thatcher (George Coulouris) who is also becoming Kane’s legal guardian. The master shot of the scene is framed so as to place the audience inside the house and at the table where Kane’s future is being decided. However, the focus of the frame is not on the three adults but on young Kane playing outside in the snow. This scene is significant for a few reasons. Thematically, it shows that the foundation of Kane’s success was not of his own making but rather a fate decided for him which plays into the tragedy of his downfall very effectively. Furthermore, the lack of attention paid to the sled that young Kane is playing on is a tasteful way of introducing such an important element of Kane’s life (and death) without beating it over the audiences’ heads. Overall, this scene early on in Citizen Kane is one of numerous examples of how the film’s approach to visual storytelling marked a new phase of Hollywood filmmaking. Regarding its production design, I was most impressed with the make-up effects done on Welles himself. Pivotal to the story is the reliance on flashing backward and forward through time to show different parts of Kane’s life from a young up-and-coming newspaper manager to one of the most powerful and well-known names in American politics. Aside from the early scenes of Kane as a child playing in the snow, Welles portrays Kane spanning decades from young adulthood to the deathbed. Unquestionably, Welles’s acting plays into suspending the audience’s disbelief as he moves differently the older he gets. But enough credit cannot be given to Maurice Seiderman (Gunga Din, The Hunchback of Notre Dame), whose aging of Welles to contrast with the virile younger Kane is easily one of the most noticeable innovations of the film. So, what are my final impressions of Citizen Kane? While I understand it being viewed as a masterpiece of cinema back in 1941, I do not believe that it remains one today. But, it deserves credit for being an important film for what it did for the art form back then and that may just be enough to justify watching it if you never have before. What do you think about Citizen Kane? 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 Monoar Rahman Rony from Pixabay Another film from “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” by Steven Jay Schneider that I really wanted to like but just found disappointing is the 2015 action thriller Mad Max: Fury Road from Australian director George Miller. Why didn’t I like it? You’ll have to keep reading to find out… 😊
[NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “Mad Max: Fury Road.” You have been warned.] The History Australian director George Miller (The Witches of Eastwick, Lorenzo’s Oil, Happy Feet) made his name in the world of cinema by directing the original Mad Max trilogy starring Mel Gibson and released from 1979 to 1985. As early as 1987, Miller was developing the concept for a fourth film in the franchise but the project spent many years in “development hell.” By the time Miller had solidified his concept of a “continuous chase” film where “marauders were fighting…for human beings,” 20th Century Fox delayed filming in the wake of the September 11th terror attacks that dramatically ballooned the film’s budget. By this point, Miller had decided not to have Gibson reprise the lead role of “Mad” Max Rockatansky due to Gibson’s various controversies coming to light in the early 2000s. By 2003, the project seemed back on its feet with filming set to begin in May in Australia, but adverse weather conditions delayed it once again. By 2006, Miller was somewhat reluctant to make another entry in the franchise but getting hands on a script for a fourth Mad Max film written by comic book artist Brendan McCarthy changed his mind. In May of 2009, location scouting for the project had begun and Miller dispelled previous rumors about him making an animated Mad Max movie. Also, the international distribution rights for the film at this point had moved to Warner Brothers. A year later, Tom Hardy (Inception, Warrior, Dunkirk) and Charlize Theron (Monster, Tully, Bombshell) were confirmed to have been cast as the leads of the film with an intended production start date of November 2010. However, filming was delayed once again. Finally, in July of 2012, principal photography began in Namibia. By the end of production in December of that year, filming had also taken place in studio at Cape Town, South Africa, Reshoots took another year, largely happening in Sydney, Australia. Miller, wanting to evolve the production design of the franchise rather than explicitly top his previous work, had worked closely with production designer Colin Gibson (The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert) who had begun constructing fully-functioning vehicles for the film in 2003. He also instructed then-retired cinematographer John Seale (Rain Man, The English Patient) to shoot in such a way as to make it easy for the audience to center in on the action of each shot. While the finished film contains over 2,000 visual effects shots, 90% of the effects in the movie (according to Miller) were done practically (including the guitar flamethrower). While many of the stunts and action sequences were done practically, the effects shots handled elements such as lighting adjustments, weather effects, and terrain replacement. Made on an approximate budget of 170 million dollars, Mad Max: Fury Road was released on May 15, 2015 (one day before in Australia) and received nearly universal praise from critics and audiences who applauded the technical work of the production and the central performances of Hardy and Theron. It received ten nominations at the Academy Awards, winning six for Costume Design, Production Design, Makeup and Hairstyling, Film Editing, Sound Editing and Sound Mixing. It was also lauded for its non-stereotypical portrayal of women and people with disabilities, and is now considered one of the great action films of the 21st century (if not ever). The Cons Perhaps I would have liked Mad Max: Fury Road more if I saw it in a theater during its original release. I know so many people who hold up this movie as the prime example of what great action movies can be. I just never really clicked with it in that way. To be clear, I don’t think that it’s a bad movie; I just don’t think it’s a great movie. For starters, the film’s overreliance on excessively loud, zany action set pieces does little to make me fall in love with the movie. After about twenty minutes of the first-act chase scene, I found myself longing for a change of pace and scenery that I did not get for a while. This came off as Miller buying too much into his concept and too little into considering the sensibilities of the audience. Should artists be allowed to create art without caring much for what the audience thinks? Absolutely! But that also means that I am justified in criticizing art that comes off as unbalanced as the result of such a decision. Simply put, the overemphasis on action that drowns out the senses for dramatic and visceral effect (in my humble opinion) is only effective in spurts. Because Mad Max: Fury Road relies heavily on this storytelling device to a fault, it loses the magic of what makes action and spectacle in movies special. It tends to feel more about hypnotizing the audience and less about telling the story and developing the characters. Speaking of the characters, I am conflicted over the film’s subversive use of protagonists. On the one hand, Theron’s Furiosa was a far more compelling performance and character than Hardy’s Max. However, the title’s deceptive is admittedly somewhat frustrating as I was looking forward to learning more about this crazy character that is “Mad Max.” Instead, Miller offers a female-centric story in this post-apocalyptic wasteland. To be clear, I am NOT criticizing Miller for focusing attention on Furiosa and the other women in the movie; rather, I am criticizing the film’s comparative lack of attention paid to “Mad Max” as a character equally worth attention (especially for someone younger than Miller who has never seen the original Mad Max trilogy and thus lacks context for the character). Overall, I found Mad Max: Fury Road to be somewhat inaccessible. Not only do I lack familiarity with the world and characters that Miller created going into watching the movie, but his efforts to make what seems to be an “indie” or “artsy” action flick (in my humble opinion) pale in comparison to films such as Nicolas Winding Refn’s Drive or Chad Stahelski and David Leitch’s John Wick. While it may have made its mark on the action genre in other ways, the movie lacks the same gripping nature that those movies or other of its ilk have for me. The Pros As I said before, I don’t think that Mad Max: Fury Road is a bad movie by any means. Much of my respect for it is due to the attention paid to the production design. The wasteland of Miller’s story is a compelling (if not wholly unique) vision for the post-apocalypse inhabited by wacky characters that are generally fun to watch on screen. I have the utmost regard for the care put into the stunt and effects work done out of Miller’s need for as much practicality in the production as possible. If nothing else, the movie is entertaining at parts and does achieve some level of spectacle. As I mentioned in the prior section, I did thoroughly enjoy Theron’s portrayal of Furiosa and that character’s role in the story. Despite some of my other complaints about the film, she consistently excels at keeping me invested in Furiosa’s journey and knowing that a whole movie focused on her exclusively keeps me cautiously optimistic about the future of this franchise. So, what are my final impressions of Mad Max: Fury Road? Ultimately, it is too much of a mixed bag for me to say that I like it. But I respect and admire the blood, sweat, and tears that went into making it and do believe that the sum of its parts keep it afloat as a good movie but not enough to make it a masterpiece. What do you think about Mad Max: Fury Road? 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 Alexander Antropov from Pixabay Another film from the book “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” by Steven Jay Schneider that I wanted to like but ultimately did not is the 1989 coming-of-age movie Say Anything…
[NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “Say Anything…” You have been warned.] The History Coming off of his successes writing the screenplays for the 1982 coming-of-age film Fast Times at Ridgemont High and its 1984 spiritual sequel The Wild Life, Cameron Crowe (Jerry Maguire, Almost Famous) piqued the interest of producer and filmmaker James L. Brooks (Terms of Endearment, As Good as It Gets) who recognized Crowe’s original and interesting voice. With Brooks acting as producer, Crowe was able to make his directorial debut in 1989 based on his own screenplay. According to one of the stars of the film, Ione Skye (Wayne’s World, One Night Stand), Crowe wanted John Cusack (The Sure Thing, Being John Malkovich, 1408) for the male lead of the movie. Cusack was initially resistant due to his desire to move on from teen roles, but Crowe was able to convince him by offering Cusack the opportunity to write some of his own dialogue. Regarding the famous “boombox scene,” several other artists were considered from Elvis Costello to Fishbone. But Crowe ended up choosing Peter Gabriel’s “In Your Eyes” after watching a rough cut of the scene. Due to its modernization of the serenade and its emotional significance to the story, Crowe and Brooks believed that the scene had the potential to be the film’s hallmark. However, it was difficult to film because Cusack argued that his character was “too passive.” Still, the scene has cemented itself in the cultural zeitgeist and has been referenced in television shows like The Simpsons and Glee. Released on April 14, 1989, Say Anything… grossed a modest 21.5 million dollars on a sixteen-million-dollar budget and was almost universally well-received by critics. While many critics viewed it as an effective and smart romantic comedy, some called it “half-baked” and “myopic.” Still, it has been ranked by Entertainment Weekly as the best modern romance in movies and one of the best high-school movies ever made. The Cons To be clear, I LOVE so many coming-of-age movies. I love some of the older ones, like John Hughes’s Pretty in Pink and Robert De Niro’s A Bronx Tale, and so many of the newer ones, like Kelly Fremon Craig’s The Edge of Seventeen and Bo Burnham’s Eighth Grade. I like the more comedic teen movies, like Chris Columbus’s Adventures in Babysitting, as well as the more dramatic ones, like Barry Jenkins’s Moonlight. I even really liked Fast Times at Ridgemont High which Cameron Crowe wrote himself. There is something that all those movies have in common: likeable characters with interesting stories about growing up. But Say Anything… (in my humble opinion) does not have that. From start to finish, I found myself never being truly invested in Lloyd and Diane’s relationship because I did not really care about either one of them. Specifically, I wished that Crowe would have let Cusack be less “passive” in his performance because he feels like a wet paper towel compared to some of his other performances (I really liked him in 1408). Not only was Cusack’s acting uninteresting, but his character is simply unrelatable and unlikeable to me and thus I never felt on his side in trying to win over Diane. I’m sure other people feel differently, but that’s just my genuine impression. And that boombox scene! All I knew from this movie was the boombox scene, so I was waiting for it and anticipating it and looking forward to learn what all the hype was about. And I learned…nothing. That scene fell so flat for me that nothing in the rest of the film’s runtime would redeem it after that. The Pros Honestly, there’s very little I can say in support of this movie. While I appreciate seeing an early John Cusack performance, I can only say so because it reminds me of how much better he is later on in his career. And I liked Peter Gabriel’s song, so I’m happy the film made that song culturally relevant… That’s all I’ve got. So, what are my final impressions of Say Anything…? When I look at Crowe’s other directorial features, like Jerry Maguire and Almost Famous, it just pales in comparison. I wish I cared as much about it as so many people do. But it just didn’t win me over that way…or at all, for that matter. What do you think about Say Anything…? 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 OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay Another film from the book “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” by Steven Jay Schneider that I expected to enjoy but ended up disappointing me is the 1976 political drama: All the President’s Men.
[NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “All the President’s Men.” You have been warned.] The History While doing promotion for the 1972 political comedy The Candidate, Robert Redford (The Sting, Out of Africa, The Old Man & the Gun) became curious about the Watergate scandal. After reading stories in the Washington Post by journalists Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, he purchased the film rights to their 1974 non-fiction book on Watergate for just under half-a-million dollars with the hopes of adapting it on a five-million-dollar budget. In 1974, Redford hired William Goldman (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Princess Bride) to write the script. Once Goldman’s screenplay was shown to Warner Brothers, they agreed to finance the project. Due to Redford disliking Goldman’s first draft and offering up an alternative draft by Bernstein and his at-the-time girlfriend, Nora Ephron (When Harry Met Sally…, Sleepless in Seattle), Goldman was incredibly offended (Redford later admitted he disliked the Bernstein-Ephron draft). Alan J. Pakula (Sophie’s Choice, The Pelican Brief) was hired to direct shortly thereafter, and he requested rewrites from Goldman as well as spent hours taking notes of comments from journalists while interviewing them. Ultimately, Goldman received sole writing credit for the movie. Initially, Redford wanted to cast relative newcomer Al Pacino (Dog Day Afternoon, Scarface, Scent of a Woman) as Bernstein but decided that Dustin Hoffman (The Graduate, Kramer vs. Kramer, Rain Man) fit the role better. Several actors were considered for the role of Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee, from Henry Fonda (The Grapes of Wrath, 12 Angry Men) and Christopher Plummer (The Sound of Music, Knives Out) to Gene Hackman (Mississippi Burning, The Royal Tenenbaums), but Redford’s first choice for the role was always Jason Robards (Tora! Tora! Tora!, Philadelphia). Both Hoffman and Redford spent months immersed at the offices of The Washington Post, sitting in on conferences and researching their roles. However, the Post prevented any filming to be done in their actual newsroom so the production team for the project spent $200,000 building an exact replica at Burbank Studios based on photographs they took of the real newsroom. This included buying 200 desks from the same firm that sold desks to the Post to furnish the set. Filming took place in Washington, D.C. during the summer of 1975. Filmed on a budget of 8.5 million dollars, All the President’s Men was released on April 4, 1976 and ended up grossing over 70 million dollars at the box office. It was also mostly praised by critics for its genuine portrayal of the work of journalists and the importance of a free press. While some criticized the writing, the movie did earn an Academy Award for Goldman’s screenplay (in addition to two other Oscars for Supporting Actor for Robards and Art Direction). In 2010, the film was selected by the Library of Congress to be preserved in the National Film Registry for its cultural, historical, or aesthetic significance. The Cons This blog is gonna be short and sweet, because my primary objection to All the President’s Men can be boiled down to this: it’s boring. For many film fanatics and cinephiles, the worst cardinal sin that a movie can commit is boring you to the point of wanting to turn your TV off or walk out of the theater. And that was my experience watching this movie. To be clear, I have enjoyed plenty of other films about journalism. Specifically, I love how Zodiac portrays the manhunt for the “Zodiac Killer” in the 1960s and 70s. I enjoyed Spotlight examining the gritty work done to expose a sex scandal in the Boston Catholic church. I really liked how Frost/Nixon dramatized the 1977 Frost/Nixon interviews while also retaining the contemporary imperative of hearing the former President of the United States speak on his legacy. I even liked Steven Spielberg’s The Post, which highlights the journalism of The Washington Post during the 1970s! What did all of those movies have that All the President’s Men does not? I’m not entirely sure, but I know that whatever they had it made those films interesting to watch. I wanted to keep watching, and I cannot say that I felt that way during this movie. Ultimately, I think it comes down to compelling characters that feel both grounded in the reality of their job and their passion for the story coming through to make me have a vested interest in their work uncovering the truth for the benefit of all. I never really felt that during All the President’s Men. The Pros I have very little nice to say about this movie. If anything, I am glad I watched it to see Robert Redford on screen some as well as the infamous “Deep Throat” scenes. But, at the end of the day, I just wanted more out of a movie exploring the journalism behind the Watergate scandal and am hopeful that we will get one at some point. I want to see this story done well, but I firmly believe that All the President’s Men lacks that timeless quality needed to make it a true classic. So, what are my final impressions of All the President’s Men? Honestly, very little because I was bored. It left virtually no impression on me and only reinforced my preference for modern movies because they appeal more to my sensibilities regarding what I need out a film (are likeable protagonists and compelling narrative too much to ask? 😊). What do you think about All the President’s Men? 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
|