When perfect projects go wrong…

This is the weekend of movie almosts.  The concepts, the casting and the potential of both The Tuxedo and Sweet Home Alabama were absolutely sterling.  Elitists will piss all over both of these films before they even take a look.  But in terms of pure popcorn movie going, they were born to win.  Jackie Chan turns into a chop-socky James Bond with the help of an unstoppable electronic tuxedo, and with a dose of clever cleavage from Jennifer Love Hewitt.  Newly minted super-starlet Reese Witherspoon is knocked down a rung by her low-rent past only to be reminded how simple and joyous life and love could be about. 

So what went wrong? 

The answer is absurdly simple.  But before I explain why both films are operating at half-speed because of their directors, let me say that I expect both films to have some success at the box office.  Their premises and casts are that strong. 

And now, reason for Andy Tennant and Kevin Donovan not to send me Christmas cards… these two guys couldn’t direct their way out of an empty stage with a big red light spinning in the doorway. 

Donovan is a first timer who comes from the Canadian commercial business.  But unlike successful commercial guys turned feature guys, like The Scott Brothers and Michael Bay, his list of achievements all sound like humorous spots shot simply on sets.  So maybe Donovan can be the next Howie Deutsch.  (Here’s a hint… it’s not a compliment.  And I have to tell you, I am stunned that Bruce Willis agreed to let Deutsch behind the camera on The Whole Nine Yards 2.  Maybe True West has given Willis a taste for going straight to cable.)

As for Tennant, he and Raja Gosnell, both very nice men, took up a lot of column inches here a few years back.  Both rode Drew Barrymore and excellent concepts to the false perception that they were good directors back in the Fox days with Ever After and Never Been Kissed.  Barrymore was a fast-rising superstar at the time and not even inept production could stop her.  Gosnell took it one step further by doing a remarkably mediocre job on Big Momma’s House but still had a big hit because Martin Lawrence was an unstoppable force and the concept was perfect for him.  Away from a rising star, the duo has since come up with Anna & The King and Scooby-Doo.  `Nuff said.

A good hour-long television director wouldn’t have been able to help but to make The Tuxedo into one of the great fun rides of 2002.  DreamWorks spent the money.  Paul Denham Austerberry and Monte Fay Hallis’ production design is right there, on the money.  It would have been nice if the director would have known how to show it.  The cast, below the above-the-title talent and above the we-have-to-cast-Canadians underbelly, includes such sure-bets as Jason Isaacs, Debi Mazar and wonder-of-wonders, Peter Stomare typecast as a mad scientist!  Bzzt!  Sorry.  Wasted. 

The opening sequence is simple and cleanly written.  Chan’s cabbie character is in love with a sales girl at a posh store.  He pines from behind the glass and finally enters, egged on by another poor pal.  He is mocked by a snobby Colin Mochrie before he embarrasses himself in front of the girl of his dreams.  Kevin Donovan simply cannot deliver a winning scene here.  He just didn’t understand what Jackie Chan is… a silent film actor.

Chan is no Chaplin, but he’s Chaplin.  He’s no Harold Lloyd, he’s Lloyd.  He’s Harpo Marx’s face with the wild physicality of Buster Keaton.  One of the most oddly compelling tings I’ve seen on a talk show lately was Chan showing Conan O’Brien how much the close-up has to do with his on-screen fighting.  On cue, a headshot of Chan would make you think that he was having a wild brawl with six guys.  Remarkable.

And what of Love?  Donovan never quite decides what he wants to do with her.  She is nerdy, she is sexy, she is obnoxious, she is seductive, she is physical, she is a wall flower… make a damned decision!!!  We want to follow her.  We want to love her.  We are appreciative of the low-cut dresses and blouses.  But comedy is based in dramatic construction.  The joy of her character surprising us is lost when she does whatever any scene seems to call for with no dramatic tension based on her established character. 

The Tuxedo includes one of the best-conceived car gags I have ever seen in a film.  And yet, I was the only one in the theater who seemed to get excited about it because I was imagining the sequence as it must have been written on paper.  I don’t want to give anything away, but all I can say is, anytime you can get an action sequence going somewhere completely unexpected and it isn’t just coincidence, but in the complete control of your main character, you have a home run.  Bond and that remote control BMW… The Matrix team in the walls of a building…. Yoda picking up the light saber… The dragon falling for the donkey.  This gag was never going to be quite what these great moments from recent years were.  But it was one of those keepers.  And it was barely memorable.

Sweet Home Alabama is a better movie than The Tuxedo.  But it is still only 75 percent of what it should have been and could have been had Disney hired one of a bunch of guys who could have raised the bar.  Garry Marshall would have delivered a solid hit.  Jonathan Lynn would have hit a double.  Jay Roach would have hit a triple.  Frank Oz would have hit it out of the park.  And there are others.  Like I wrote, Andy Tennant is a nice guy. And I’m sure that Reese Witherspoon’s Drew-like ascendance put him right in the studio’s cross-hairs.  But he’s just not the guy. 

There is no bigger Reese Witherspoon supporter amongst critics than I.  Andy Sarris can crush a lot, but I’ve been pushing Reese since back in the Fear/Freeway/Overnight Delivery days.  I walked out of Election and started telling everyone about the Academy Award she deserved (and she did).  I was thrilled to enjoy Legally Blonde and to watch he carry and entire Hollywood-style film on her shoulders.   And I wanted to love Sweet Home Alabama.

But I had to get past Tennant’s inability to sell gags.  Don Petrie showed real promise with Mystic Pizza and after six really awful films, he showed that he can do this job with Miss Congeniality, one of the most competently directed comedies in recent years.  Forget those four other guys… Petrie could have added $20 million to the S.H.A. box office by getting the notes right.  (He came to mind, actually, because Candice Bergen is completely wasted in Sweet Home Alabama and she was used just right in Miss Congeniality.)

I gave you one unspoilable sequence from The Tuxedo, so I will try to do the same for Sweet Home Alabama.  Okay… you’ve seen the trailer, so you know that Witherspoon has to go back to Alabama and get her divorce from her folksy, great-looking childhood love finalized.  There is a scene where she gets into his house using a decade-old Hide-A-Key.  For three or four minutes, he tries to get her out and she tries to get in… to simplify. 

This is a comedy basic.  The tension builds as control bounces back and forth between two characters.  Basic.  Tennant doesn’t even know how to start it… because there is no choice, unless there is a genius choice.  She has to be unable to get in and her first good/strong/self-empowering memory has to be that she knows how to get in… she is unstoppable.  And he has to be made vulnerable and also has to get turned on by her invasion.  He’s not ready, but she still wants him, so he’ll deal.  But she makes it clear that she doesn’t want him.  But he’s going to prove her wrong… etc, etc, etc…

The point is, the ebb and flow of power in this scene, shown visually and emotionally, is hard to screw up.  But Tennant does it.  Even the beat in which she gets “eaten” by his La-Z-Boy… it doesn’t play half as well as it should….  because the director doesn’t know how to drive the joke.  Tenant gives us the legs-flying-in-the-air payoff, but so what?!?!  There are at least five or six great beats setting up that payoff and the actors are there and they are doing their jobs and if he knew how to block the scene, he had it in his hands… but he doesn’t.

It frustrates me.  And I don’t like picking on people.  But damn… you have Reese Witherspoon, Fred Ward, Mary Kay Place, Candice Bergen, Jena Smart, Ethan Embry, Melanie Lynskey and Josh Lucas embodying the best version of Matthew McConaughey since that first Vanity Fair cover… a sure fire movie-star-making role.  And what we got was a watchable comedy that will play better on TV.  This is a $100 million movie from birth.  And they got Witherspoon at a price.  And while they will make money, they will make tens of millions less than they could have. 

WEEKEND GUESSTIMATES

Legally Blonde opened with $20 million last summer.  Remember The Titans managed $21 million on “this” weekend two years ago.  You’re on your own trying to figure out Jackie Chan. 

(Ray Pride takes on Alabama, Spirited Away and more in this week’s column.)

My Big Fat Greek Wedding is actually losing screens for a change.  Sony and WB alone are coughing up more than 3000 screens.  Blue Crush, Goldmember, Spy Kids 2, Signs and Swimfan are all losing at least 400 screens apiece. 

In smaller runs, I’m watching Spirited Away, the Miyazaki masterpiece that did $17,301 per screen last weekend, amassing almost $500,000.  The first steps for Apollo 13’s IMAX experience drew $11,146 per screen, which will start to define a trackable trend after this weekend.  And Stallone’s homage to Pluto Nash, Eye See You, aka D-Tox, was released onto 67 screens against all better judgment.  And almost 20 people attended each and every show.

1. Sweet Home Alabama – 3293 venues – new - $24.7 million
2. The Tuxedo – 3022 venues – new - $16.8 million
3. My Big Fat Greek Wedding – 1841 venues – off 15 percent - $8.3 million
4. Barbershop – 2051 venues – off 40 percent - $7.7 million
5. The Banger Sisters – 2738 venues – off 35 percent - $6.5 million
6. Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever – 2705 venues – off 50 percent - $3.5 million
7. The Four Feathers – 2187 venues – off 47 percent - $3.6 million
8. One Hour Photo – 1303 venues – off 40 percent - $2.8 million
9. Signs – 1783 venues– off 35 percent - $2.3 million
10. SwimFan – 1838 venues – off 50 percent - $1.8 million

NOTE FROM WARNER BROS:  I thought this was curious, so I’m passing it along, just in case you are hoping to join Hogwarts:

Jina Jay is our casting director for HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER AZKABAN so it just won't do for the fans to contact Karen Lindsay Stewart who did such a marvelous job casting HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE and HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS.

Casting queries should be sent to Jina Jay:

Jina Jay
Leavesden Studio
P.O. Box 322
Watford, England
WD25 7XJ

ALSO OVER THE TRANSOM:  There was this notice from Team Fipresci: 

 FIPRESCI informs
ABBAS KIAROSTAMI IS DENIED US VISA

 Abbas Kiarostami, the acclaimed director of "Through the Olive Trees", "And Life Goes On...", awarded with the Palme d'Or for "The Taste of Cherry", has been invited to introduce his latest film "Ten" at the forthcoming New York Film Festival. He has also been invited to give a lecture at the Harvard University.

Richard Pena, director of the New York film festival, informed that Abbas Kiarostami was denied a visa to enter the United States, the consular authorities needing about 90 days to "verify the background" of a citizen before giving him a visa. In spite of Pena's efforts, in spite of the fact that Kiarostami visited the USA several times, in spite of his position and reputation, the US embassy in Paris, from where the Iranian director had made his request, refused to take his application into consideration.

Jack Lang, formerly France's Minister of National Education and Culture, who tried vanely to intervene by writing a letter to the American Ambassador in Paris, Howard Leach, commented that this situation showed "an intellectual isolationism and an ignorance confining to the contempt for other cultures".

Richard Pena comments: "It's a terrible sign of what's happening in my country today that no one seems to realize or care about the kind of negative signal this sends out to the entire Muslim world (not to mention to everyone else)."

International Federation of Film Critics - FIPRESCI
Grégory Valens
September 26, 2002

READER OF THE DAY:  IN A HUFF writes:  “You mentioned the effectively shot dinner scene between DeNiro and Pacino in Heat, but you didn't mention the famous urban legend that grew up around it. If you watch the scene again, you'll notice that you never see both of their faces in the same shot. No profile shots of them looking at each other, just the over-the-shoulder stuff. Because this movie was so heavily promoted as the first time the "two greatest actors of their generation" were on screen at the same time (Godfather II didn't count), some wags noticed that their faces never actually appeared at the same time and created a myth (and a pretty dumb one at that) which claimed that the actors refused to be filmed at the same time, so the over-the-shoulder shots used stand-ins to make it seem real. The same goes for the airport shooting scene at the end. Now if if you go back and watch the movie you will see that the mythmakers are right; DeNiro and Pacino's face are never in the same frame in the movie. The only problem with the theory is that it is so Goddamned stupid.”

NOT THE THIEF, HIS WIFE OR HER LOVER sent this in:  “Separation of journalism from "the industry" is a false dichotomy.

Journalist are part of the industry. They are simply two camps on the same side vying for influence. To whine in this town that someone is calling you names is a joke. This is a high-risk, high-dollar, high-profile industry and being as much, it breeds a certain defensiveness out of desperation for survival. All aspects of the industry are up for criticism in a very public way: producers and execs, journalists, and directors all create a product of mass distribution, and thus lay themselves open to commentary.

I think perhaps the reason some journalists may complain when you comment negatively on their output is due to a false sense of camaraderie they feel because they are "in your camp and we of like minds must stick together in order to defend -- the Truth (or fill in your fav rallying cry) against the evil empire of 'the industry'." This is nonsense, of course. Poor journalism, like poor films should be called out-- as a matter of opinion, not Truth.”

SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO MAKE UP HIS OWN NICKNAME writes:  “I'm okay with Ratner directing, even though I'm not a fan of his work. With a film of this magnitude, studios-- particularly Warner Brothers-- tend to go with the "safe" choice, i.e., someone who won't screw it up, and who will bring it in on time and on budget. Artistic concerns are a distant second if they're even voiced at all. At times, a straight commercial director can even be the right choice-- I cringed when I heard that my arch-nemesis Chris Columbus was tapped to helm Harry Potter, but damned if he didn't turn out to be the right choice. I personally would have tapped Terry Gilliam, but that would have resulted in a vastly different film, and possibly might have ended in disaster-- after all, when a director like Gilliam fails, he fails spectacularly. Columbus, the anti-auteur, was able to keep Rowling's rich material in the forefront.

What worries me is J.J. Abrams' script, which you didn't mention. Have you read Moriarty's review of the script on AICN? The fan-boys are ready to storm the ramparts over this thing. Granted, it's apparently an early draft, but if the review is accurate, then this is the most jaw-dropping misstep since WB handed the Batman reigns to Joel Shumacher.

I don't care if Stanley Kubrick crawls out of the grave to direct-- if WB proceeds with this "re-imaging", then they'll have a disaster of epic proportions on their hands. Never underestimate the wrath of the fanboys.”

E ME:  It’s going to be interesting.  What do those of you who aren’t big Super-people think?  Does the idea of a change in the story interest you, compel you, upset you or just bore you?