Would comparing Mark Romanek’s work in One Hour Photo to Kubrick’s work in Eyes Wide Shut be considered damning with faint praise?

Anyone who has read me for a while knows that there could not be a higher compliment coming from this critic to that first-time director.  I have been a Romanek fan from his days of video.  Many people talk about the price of the Janet & Michael Jackson “Scream” video… but I consider it one of the greatest pieces of short-form art ever put on a screen.  If you want to explain the painful side of success - and Michael Jackson’s stardom in particular – just look at this video.  It’s never less than beautiful.  But there is nothing feel-good about the lyrics or the emotions.  These gentle-eyed Jacksons let the rage out in the only way that is safe for two superstars… far above the planet in a spaceship built to allow them release.

When I first saw One Hour Photo, I walked away with the “creepy” that comes from watching someone else’s ugly life experiences.  But in the back of my head, I was aware of some of Romanek’s most interesting directing strokes.  When I went back the second time, I saw past the creepy and got a better glimpse of the unity of Romanek’s vision. 

One Hour Photo is far more accessible than Eyes Wide Shut.  It still works well if all you are looking for is a dark story about a quiet little man who is pushed beyond his limits.  EWS did not work as a movie about a guy trying to get laid.  But EWS was not about getting or not getting laid.  It was about fidelity.  And once you realize that, you can see that virtually every scene, every line, every moment in the movie, once Cruise’s character crosses over the rainbow into his Oz.  (Remember how Dorothy never got what she wanted in Oz… it was always there, at home.  We love the movie because we love the characters and music and fantasy… Kubrick was a sterner taskmaster.) 

One Hour Photo also uses The Wizard of Oz as a metaphor throughout the film.  I am loathe to offer up any of the other “clues” in the film because I would love you all to see it “straight” first and then discuss the subtext before you go to see it again.  I’m quite sure that when I see the film a third time that I will find even more.  Like Kubrick, Romanek is a control freak as a filmmaker.  Names, colors and sounds are all constant clues along this film’s yellow brick road.  The score, by Reinhold Heil and Johnny Klimek – best known for their work in Tom Tykwer’s films - is unique, yet familiar… wonderful. 

The film’s small ensemble is uniformly excellent.  They are so good, in fact, that they always seem real, even though they are all iconic and occasionally hyper-real representations of people.  It’s no surprise that Erin Daniels’ character, Maya Burson, has strong red hair when others around her have been reduced to muted browns.  It’s no mistake that the family Robin Williams takes special interest in are named The Yorkins.  And while some critics will mistakenly guess that Robin Williams’ hair color is an affectation designed to somehow change his career path, it is as critical a choice for his character as his off-white-grey-blue shoes, his colorless clothes and his colorless home. 

Color, color, color, color, color, color, color… in the last couple of years, Kubrick used it most aggressively, Van Sant used it with quiet mastery in Finding Forrester and Romanek uses it with incredibly invisible precision here.  If Hollywood has gotten anything more than wires from high-end Hong Kong cinema, it is a renewed appreciation for the use of the palette.  (I’m dying to see Christopher Doyle’s work in Zhang Yimou’s Hero, which I am assuming will be in Toronto.)

But I’m giving more away than I wanted to…

One Hour Photo is a masterpiece.   It may not be the “best” film of the year.  “Best” is a very subjective thing.  We had this conversation just a day ago about Samuel L. Jackson in Changing Lanes.  Even if you have issues with that film, Jackson’s performance is smart and nuanced and perfectly pitched and you will not see better work this year… but it may not be the year’s “best.”  One Hour Photo, within its own universe, is close to being a perfect movie.  Mark Romanek is poised to join the club of top-notch younger directors in Hollywood, capable of bringing the visual kick, yet interested in more than that.

One last thing… the last shot… you’ll need to take a breath when the movie is over.  But pay attention to the last moments.  It will probably confuse you a little.  Try to figure out what you are actually seeing.  And it will open up the whole movie.  

TOO OPENED UP:  Great quote in Michael Musto’s Village Voice column by the great John Rhys-Davies, who we got to know in movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark and who plays the dwarf, Gimli, in Lord of the Rings.  He said, “I spent most of the movie on my knees, or in trenches, or in the background so far away. I spent 30 years trying to become a recognizable face, and then I become known for a silicone prosthetic. My career's over!  Now the only roles I can play are dwarves with a strap-on dick in German porno films!”

SPEAKING OF THE VOICE:  Cynthia Cotts, one of the three or four great media critics working these days, looks at Ovitz vs. Bernie Weinraub and the New York Times this week.  And she gets it exactly right.  The only issue I take is that she didn’t include a look at the rabid-dog-foaming-at-the-mouth L.A. Weekly column by Nikki Finke on the Vanity Fair story that was clearly sourced by Ovitz enemies, and made a rather pathetic effort by Ovitz to reclaim a place at the table seem sane… By shouting that no one was out to get Ovitz, Finke proved to many that people were out to get Ovitz.  Read the Village Voice story here.  And I would recommend a bookmark for Ms. Cotts, who is always worth reading… even when I disagree with her.

SOUNDS FAMILIAR:  Did you see Stephen Galloway’s Hollywood Reporter piece on worries over the cost of blockbusters, even in the face of huge box office returns?  I would accuse him of stealing from The Hot Button, but if he were, he’d have written the story four years ago… three years ago… last summer… six months ago… early June… you know, when this column was delivering specific numbers of specific problem hits and detailing the growing trend.  Harumph!  Read Galloway here.

CHARLIE’S ANGELS 2 TWO:  After running Monday’s box office-driven musings on Charlie’s Angels 2, I dug a little deeper.  It turns out that I was wrong.  Drew Barrymore is not making a back-end play in the name of budget sanity.  In fact, she has taken a 40 percent salary increase to $14 million.  Add that to Cameron Diaz’s $20 million and increases for Lucy Liu, John August, McG, the parade of producers, et al and the above-the-line cost of this film has to be $45 million and is probably hovering around $50 million.

The below-the-line on the first Charlie’s Angels film was greenlit at about $60 million, before things went out of control on the production and it blew up by tens of millions.  Every report about the new film suggests that they are shooting an even more elaborate film this film.  So, let’s say that the below-the-line budget is around $75 million.  So, assuming that the film stays on course this time, the budget has to be around $120 million.  P&A is likely to be around $50 million.

Okay, so how to make back 170 million dollars? 

The original Charlie Angels was a big hit on homevideo/DVD.  So let’s give them $60 million in profit on ancillaries – including TV – right off the top.  And let’s assume that the movie is going to be front-loaded and that Sony Releasing will end up averaging 70 percent of the gross.  I’m not even going to worry about the gross points that probably kick in for some of the players at $100 million or so.  They need about $160 million in worldwide gross.  The original ended up grossing about $245 million worldwide.  If they match that, a generous analysis would show the studio making a $60 million profit… on a $170 million investment.  If the film loses The Sophomore 20, the profit might be less than $15 million, all in. 

Tough business, huh?

MOVIE REALITY?:  Sony had a win in court, as a federal district judge through out a rather frivolous lawsuit over Spider-Man’s Times Square action sequence.  The basic argument was that Sony had changed the Samsung billboard that really is in Times Square with an ad for USA Today, that they were presumably paid to include.  (The irony there is that the movie’s lead works for The Daily Bugle, another newspaper… that apparently couldn’t afford Times Square real estate.) 

On the face of it, there is a discussion worth having about the digital restructuring of truth.  But are the rights of one advertiser over another worth much angst? 

The reality for Samsung and other advertisers, not just in Times Square, but also in stadiums and other public venues often shot on TV and film, is that the people who allow companies to shoot in their venues are the only ones who can stop such “changes.”  If the New York City Film Commission were to put language in their licenses that said, “If you shoot the city, you must leave all visual landmarks intact, unless you get permission from the owners of the land/building/billboard/etc,” the problem would be solved forever.  The price of the living studio is to give over control of such visual manipulations. 

I’ve made the same argument about runaway production.  If the Screen Actors Guild stopped allowing name actors who draw foreign dollars to make movies in Canada, under the restrictive rules that limit the ability to hire American cast and crew for films that shoot north of the border in order to get tax breaks, runaway production would slow significantly… and at the very least, more American talent, in front of and behind the camera, would be hired for those productions.

But the producers who have a contract with the union and some powerful members who have reaped the rewards of runaway production won’t allow the union to make serious progress in that direction.  And if New York City becomes too restrictive to filmmakers, Chicago, Miami, etc, etc will bend far enough over to get some of those shoots to come to their cities and NYC can’t have that.   So the beat goes on.

And Sony can – and should – obscure whatever they want.  They are playing by the rules.  And by the way… it’s a movie, damn it!!!

The NY Times story is here.

FOR THE RECORD:  I have tried quite ferociously, throughout my career, never to be swayed by my own predisposition towards any movie, for better or for worse.  It would be a lie to suggest that such predispositions do not exist.  But I have always said, “It’s about the movie.”  I had heard good things about Blood Work, a film from a director that I have respected for a long time.  You should hear me rant about how great Bird is.  But I really disliked Eastwood’s work in that film.  On the other hand, I expected less than nothing from Bring It On, assigning it, when I had a staff, to a 13-year-old to review it for roughcut.com instead of assigning a grown-up.  And after seeing it, I immediately regretted my decision about a terrific, smart little surprise of a film.  Just this summer, I was having real doubts about Blue Crush… until I saw it.  And I was sure that I was going to find something more in Full Frontal the second time around… I didn’t. 

I feel bad for the good folks at Warner Bros. who are stuck with Pluto Nash.  They would never admit it, because they are pros, but they would be happy to make a cloth change purse out of this sow’s ear… they gave up on a silk purse a long time ago.  The sad part is that unless I decide to drop $9.50 this weekend to see the film, I won’t have the opportunity to have an opinion, good or bad.  There is nothing that makes me happier than a happy surprise.  And if Pluto Nash were to be one, no one would shout it louder from the rooftops.

One last note… those of us who deal with the studios every week know that Warner Bros. has made a specific decision to do all-media screenings for only one of every three of their releases.  Unless you are doing junkets or are chosen, you are shit out of luck most of the time.  And as a person relegated to “internet” status, one is on the outs at that studio, which now harbors a distinct corporate hatred of AOL and all things internet.  (Don’t check the stock price, darling, you don’t want to know.)  But it is unfair to bash Pluto Nash or any other single film because there is no all-media.  And in Pluto Nash’s case, there wasn’t a real call for a junket, since Eddie Murphy doesn’t do junkets. 

That said… if it smells like a duck…

READER OF THE DAY:  WRAPPED UP LIKE SPRINGSTEEN is a little concerned about A.O. Scott:  “AO's head is back up his ass again (how does it keep getting up there?), proving once again that he'd rather make an argument than do his job.  Half of the films he uses as evidence have stretch marks from trying to fit his argument.  But he's right (surely by accident) to use LOTR as an example of demographic filmmaking.  If Peter Jackson is contractually obligated to deliver a PG-13 film, i.e. a film children can get into w/o a guardian, then doesn't LOTR qualify?  I have to think that the man/sicko who created the killer intestine monster in Dead Alive would have released an R-rated LOTR if he were, as you put it, making a film just for himself.  (Here's hoping the extended DVD cut has a scene with Frodo and Gandalf running away from killer zombie colons.)

Anyway, why not rip AO a new one for claiming that Episode II and MIB II are inappropriate for children on the basis of "high tedium" and "self-referential whimsy," respectively?  You know, I was just telling my friends about the increase in sex, violence, and high tedium in the movies nowadays.  It makes me sick.  And wasn't MIB rated PG-13 for "language, sci-fi violence, and self-referential whimsy"?”

AND the great mail about Changing Lanes continues to flow.  RE-DRE writes: “Changing Lanes is one of the best I've seen this year.  The supporting cast was uniformly excellent (I include Amanda Peet who has two of the best scenes in the movie).  Sydney Pollack is especially effective, just watch his manner in early scenes, and the man revealed in the latter.  It is beautifully handled, done believably.  Affleck turns in what is probably his second best performance.  He is very good here.  But you nailed it on the head.  As it stands, Samuel L. Jackson gave the best performance of the year- and I include Tom Hank's strong, subtle work in Road To Perdition.  I haven't seen About Schmidt yet and of course I await what Jack has in store.  But as of today, Sam The Man is my pick for the golden boy.  Its a beautiful, unique performance with terrific subtle character work.  Watch his movements, his stutters, his tone.  Its excellent. 

On a different note, someone told me that they thought he was just playing "the angry black man". I think this is unfair.  First off, he isn't an angry anything until Affleck is an immortal dick to him on the freeway.  Second, his anger isn't based on race.  This is a part that easily could have been played by paul newman or gary oldman.  This person said that Jackson always plays the "angry black man".  He asked me to name one movie where he wasn't "angry."  I came up with a couple of course but he maintained that the majority of the roles, he is angry. I countered that by that rational then Tom Cruise, Micheal Douglas, Bruce Willis are always playing the "angry white man" because they are in films (like 99.9 of the actors) where conflict arises and they get "angry".  I wish I could say this shut the person up, but it seemed more like it went over their head.”

And SSSSSS offers:  “I was surprised to see a studio film that tackled issues such as business and personal ethics the way "Changing Lanes" did. Affleck's character has to deal with legitimate personal ethical decisions beyond a simple ethical decision, such as "big corporation is stealing the life savings of an old lady, do I divulge the malfeasance." The ethical decisions facing Affleck seemed more complicated and more ambiguous than the scenario just described.

The problem I have with the movie, and it's a sizable one, is the ending. It is too facile an ending for my taste, and I don't think I am alone on this one. Up to this point we have been given a complicated, ambiguous film with two lead characters facing personal crises in their professional and personal lives. But, suddenly it's as if the studio awoke and said "hold on here, this is far too ambiguous and gray, you must tie this up with a positive and clean ending." 

The ending reeks of studio interference, or better said the ending seems to me to be a studio mandated ending. I would love to ask the director off the record if this was the ending he wanted. 

It's a shame because I think this could have been one of the year's best movies. With that said, I do think there is much to admire in the film, but the ending leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

I agree that Jackson's performance is tremendous work. Also, I think this was Affleck's best performance to date. Toni Colette is a chameleon. I can't tell if she has a natural look, because every time I see her she looks different, which is not a negative.”

E ME:  I had more stuff than the column could handle today… so much more tomorrow.  And I won’t be tardy this time!  

Are you ready for One Hour Photo or does the premise creep you out too much?  (I’m particularly interested in female points of view on this one.)  And how do you feel about CG manipulation of realities like New York City.  Forget the removal of the World Trade Centers from some movies.  That’s an unusual circumstance.  What about “regular” occurrences?