Wednesday, 7 July 1999

RANTING AND RAVING

A good story well told. It's an old cliche´, but it sure has a lot of value. One of its best hidden values is its simplicity. It doesn't say, "A good story, well told, for a teen demographic that's seen everything, so we have to find a way to please them." Nor does it say, "A good story, and we'll get around to telling it as soon as we come up with a CG effect that no one has ever seen before." Simple does it.

What got me thinking about this was a look at Godzilla via the satellite (God bless the satellite) over the weekend. Actually, I saw it in two pieces, catching the end on the east coast showing and the middle on the west coast showing. (The same phenomena took place with Titanic, which was still running on Cinemax East as it started on Cinemax West. But I digress.) There are still things of value in Godzilla, no matter how angry the rants against it are. But what is really, really, really wrong with it? The CG owns the movie. Every scene seems to be designed to get characters in place to have some sort of experience with the CG Godzilla. And so, there is scene after scene where someone says (figuratively), "I'm going back to get my hat!" and, lo and behold, there is Godzilla, waiting for him/her. Matthew Broderick literally says (paraphrased here), "Wait! We have to take the manhole covers off so Godzilla can smell the fish." And then, not only do we know that Godzilla has already smelled the fish by how quickly he arrives, but Broderick goes off on his own for no apparent reason, stands frozen with his legs on either side of a crack in the street that we know is about to bust open (any normal person would pick a side) and stays right where he is so he can have a personal moment with the "monster," without scientific cause, but just because. Then, they add injury to insult with a Kodak Moment ad. But see, I could excuse the camera if I believed that Broderick had a reason to be where he was when he shot the photos. And more so, if Godzilla reacted to the flash of the camera each time he took a picture and not just one convenient time.

That all said, let's not look back in anger. Let's look at The Summer of Mediocrity. What? You didn't know that's what the Summer of 1999 will be known as for all eternity? Last year was The Summer of The Asteroid That Never Hit, and this year the studio system has reaped exactly what they've sown. Every movie is a little too safe, a little too hyped and a little too mediocre for anyone to really love the film. This will change if Eyes Wide Shut achieves Saving Private Ryan status, but I doubt very much that will happen. I'm not saying it won't be as good a movie, but a dark, sexual psychodrama is unlikely to be a $180 million hit, even with Tom Cruise. But you never really know until it happens, right? People sincerely thought Interview With A Vampire would top out at $50 million (keep in mind that the business has changed a lot in 5 years), and it passed $100 million. Likewise, as much as I believe in American Pie, I don't think it's really the next Animal House or There's Something About Mary. It is a sweet, sexy, stupid, smart, strangely honest film that people will really enjoy. But it isn't going to send you home screaming, "Can you believe they did that?!"

The thing that is odd is that you rarely see a studio making a movie from a really bad idea. They are too scared (often with some reason) for that. So the question is always, why isn't it well told? (Really, given the preponderance of mediocrity, one should wonder, why was it well told when it was.) There are all kinds of reasons. I'll tell you what it's not. It's not high salaries for movie stars and it's not CG. We can get into a whole "worth the money" debate at another time, but the simple fact is, anytime you have a business in which the performance of an individual, good, bad or indifferent, can guarantee a successful launch of your product, and that individual (and his agents) knows it, that individual will be paid regally. Just like in sports, players who put people in seats are paid like kings, even if they don't perform. Is it right? I guess not. But it is business. As for CG, it is a tool, a means to an end, not the end in itself. It can help or hurt. And it has.

The dual culprits are fear and failure. These two unfortunate components of the industry can manifest themselves in thousands of ways. The first is the way to the dark side. At least, that's what Yoda would say. Fear is often about losing jobs, or hurting the stock price or focusing on your career instead of your art. None of this will help make or sell a movie. The second is a painful reality that is the way to art. Old time comics used to talk about young stand-ups not having any place to fail. That's the sad reality of the film business today. The studios are, often foolishly, giving the reins to more first-timers than ever. And some of those rise so they can fail on their second project, while others just fail and disappear. I bet some of those people actually have talent. But we may never know. This is where media responsibility becomes a point of anger for me. It is difficult work to separate individual stories from the melange of movies we face as entertainment writers. But that's our job. And it is wrong to just throw them all into the pot as "CG films," or "art films," or "bloated studio fare" or whatever. And we must find a way of acknowledging our limitations as arbiters. I really question a lot of these first-time deals, but yet, I do believe in New Line's efforts to get behind first-time directors. Sometimes, I'll disagree with New Line on this in the specific, but generally, if you are going to keep the budgets in check and will give the first-timer real support when he/she needs it, that's great. Many of those films will fail. But so will the big ones with name directors. Only one is not going to end up in red ink and the other is.

PAGE TWO: "Scientology, Trailers & The Cable Gal"