March 10, 2003

Everybody writes about the women of The Hours.  But this last week, I spent some time with The Boys Of The Hours. 

David Hare, Stephen Daldry and Phillip Glass probably won’t sell a lot of magazines as coverboys.  But they, along with Scott Rudin and Michael Cunningham, set the table that allowed three of Hollywood’s best and best-loved actresses to do their thing. 

Rudin to Hare to Daldry has the makings of a great double play combination, even if the players are of rather different temperaments.  Hare is the most obviously forthcoming, clear about both the joy and the agonies of process… though one never gets the feeling that he suffers fools gladly.  Silently, perhaps.  But not gladly.  After listening to me restating what sounded, by his description, like a near idyllic account of the working relationships, Hare is quick to ask, “Have you ever met Scott Rudin?!?!”

But it is not catty.  And a cautious smile quickly comes to Hare’s lips.  Hare appreciates Scott Rudin and his commitment to this project and even, one feels, Rudin’s toughness.  It was probably not intentional, but Rudin brought together two men in Hare and Daldry, who are, as Rudin has been, born of the theater and its rituals.  David Hare is pleased with his film… because somehow, in the whirlpool of making a Hollywood movie, it is his movie, as it is Daldry’s and Rudin’s and Streep’s and Moore’s and Kidman’s and Glass’.  It is, ironically, what Chicago’s team has been yammering about throughout its run ahead of all comers this awards season.  A uniquely dysfunctional, but uniquely successful family.  And more ironically still, it feels more true for the production team in this case, long hidden behind the luxurious skirts of the glorious actors who have been so front and center.  The actors’ three separate worlds were indeed separate. 

Hare developed the screenplay with Rudin and later Daldry, with one four hour sit-down with novelist Michael Cunningham.  But unlike on most films, Hare remained a part of the team through production and into post-production.  His intricately written screenplay was an unavoidable blueprint.  But that doesn’t mean that one wants a writer poking around in the editing room. 

Stephen Daldry leans into the conversation.  He laps up the words and ideas of others, then sits back and takes it all in.  It’s not just the indulgence he shows me, a strange, overly chatty inquisitor popping down next to him at a breakfast table.  Everyone seems to say the same thing about Daldry.  He wants to know what you think.  He wants to engage with every point of view.  He wants to consider the options. 

In the process of making The Hours, each new day of shooting brought a reduction of options.  As piece after piece was placed in the puzzle, there were fewer and fewer places for flights of wild imagining.  Daldry seems to have had a love/hate relationship with the reality.  The job of the director is made up of hundreds of small decisions made each day, while hopefully maintaining perspective about the overall project.  As this production progressed, while all the questions were still asked, many of the decisions took on an air of inevitability.  By the time Nicole Kidman shot her scenes, she could see much of what came before.  She could get a sense of the rough construction of this filmic house. 

Post-production offered it shares of bumps and bruises, including some suggested and agreed to cuts from Harvey Weinstein, another producer of the film.  But it sounds as though the process ended up moving along with the same sense on inevitability as the final days of production.   And, importantly, the normally ferocious Rudin was backing up the plate in case someone need to throw home.  If a re-shoot seemed necessary, Rudin gave them the greenlight.  When Julianne Moore’s character, played by another actress in scenes late in the film, proved a distraction, they re-shot with Moore in old age make-up.  Missing a couple of shots?  “Go get them,” said Rudin.  And they did. 

One late call was Phillip Glass.  As I’ve written before, people who hate his score for this film generally hate the film.  And those who like or love the film find it hard to imagine The Hours without Glass’ musical glue holding it together.  But Glass was the third or fourth composer on The Hours.  As the story goes, if Harvey Weinstein had his druthers, there would have been at least one more.  (In recent weeks, Weinstein has approached Glass repeatedly to thank him for his work on the film.)  But after looking for someone “like Phillip Glass” for months, they finally went to the man himself. 

For a man who writes music that can be severe and a bit distancing at times, Phillip Glass is unusually gentle and delighted with his surroundings.  He has the genial charm of a happy conductor… if there is such a thing.  Glass just turned 66 this January.  But while you might see those years on his face, they are quickly forgotten.  He isn’t playing within convention, but there is no sense that he is trying to break any rules.  He’s been married four times.  (His current wife is one of the good ones.)  They have a young child and he leads a busier life than most men a decade or two under Social Security age.  But more importantly, he continues to embrace the idea of a life in transition… a life of possibility. 

Glass came up with a central conceit when considering a score for The Hours… the movie is one story, not three.  He did some composing, threw together a session, synched up the score, watched it with the team and they were in business. 

The Men of The Hours, like the ladies, have been on the trail of Oscar for a few months now.  They are hungry for conversation that reaches beyond their own reflections.  They are ready to move on.  Yet, they are still in love with The Hours and all the possibilities.

Saturday night, Hare took home (or will have mailed to him) a WGA Award, quite the surprise in the time of Charlie Kaufman “locks.”  Nicole Kidman is considered a “lock” by many for Best Actress, though she was upset by Renee Zellweger at Sunday night’s SAG Awards.  Daldry remains a curious dark horse as Best Director.  And Phillip Glass’ score certainly will be at the top of the list on Oscar night. 

Like The Boys of Summer, The boys of The Hours will swim off into the surf of movie memories and catch the next wave.  But the memory of the sharpness of Hare, the energy of Daldry and the intellectual jocularity of Glass will linger for me as the story untold.

TOMORROW:  Box office, the screw-up that screwed up the WGA Awards and more…

READER OF THE DAY:  RED JONES GORGE writes: “With all this hype about Scorsese, Polanski, and Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, what happened to Lord of the Rings?  It's gotten almost zero buzz, despite being the highest rated film of the year (based on 376 critics), rated by MetaCritic, as well as Ain't-It-Cool-News' aggregate rating system, and is also the highest rated Oscar nominated film on the IMDB (in the Top 20 films of all time, whilst the others aren't even in the Top 100--Chicago is in the Top 250 films of all time at #248!).

Most everyone agrees LOTR: TTT is a better film than the first, which earned 13 nominations, and walked away with the lowest number of any film to earn as many noms.  I'm getting a bit tired of the Academy embracing musicals, westerns, and dramas, and occasionally comedies, but totally snubbing science fiction or fantasy films.  Here you have the source material of J.R.R. Tolkien, who according to Amazon.com, wrote the greatest literary work of the last century, and find it faithfully and expertly adapted by Peter Jackson to be ignored by the DGA and the WGA, SAG and the like, not to mention the ridiculous Oscar snub for Best Costume (even last year, Moulin Rouge won), a new score that was snubbed, the best cinematography that was snubbed (albeit Lesnie won last year's Oscar), and makeup maybe going to the Time Machine????  Does anyone watch these movies?  Thirty years from now, LOTR will be an epic masterpiece, compared to the likes of Lawrence of Arabia and Citizen Kane, while Chicago, will be a cute, fun musical with a nothing message, no epic scope, but a bit of fancy tap dancing and so-so actors that rose to the occasion by not being great, but "pulling it off". 

Is it just me, or is the Academy so incredibly out of touch that no one really needs to wonder why we know have almost 50 different film awards and citations out there, instead of just Oscar?  Somebody out there needs to make sure justice is served.

So the question to you is, will "LOTR: Return of the King" be the crowning glory achievement that finally gets the Trilogy rewarded, or another sci-fi also-ran, that only means something to the billions of people out there who enjoy movies, and appreciate skill, talent and excellence in filmmaking?”

E ME:  This guy loves lists!!!  (LOTR:TTT was #6 on the MCN Critics’ Top Ten List, followed by The Pianist, Chicago, Spirited Away, Gangs of New York and The Hours.)  Whaddya think?