August 26, 2003

Sometimes, you forget your own history…

It turns out that last Friday was, actually, the sixth anniversary of The Hot Button. Take a look at the very first column for yourself. Wow. Things have changed a bit.

I guess the only symbol of Hollywood that would be more appropriate to have started with than Robert Redford’s ill-fated entry into the exhibition game would have been a story about Universal studios, then owned by Edgar Bronfman, Jr. and currently the subject of an effort by Junior to get back into his old bed. (Bzzt! Not happening. Look to G.E./NBC to win, which will likely leave Vivendi in some control, which I gather will lead to a rather significant top down shake-up of the entertainment division… as in, they have already been interviewing for the top job.) Of course, Robert Redford still lives, though his then-partner, GCC, is movie exhibition history after having been bought by AMC.

Over the last six years, I have written about 3 million words in THB alone. My belly may be soft, but my fingers sure are lithe.

The list of people to thank is too long to indulge. The credit starts with my father, whose death gave me the perspective to see the need for a daily movie column. Thanks are due Andy Jones, Cindy Campbell, Scot Safon and everyone at TNT, plus all the staff I ever worked for or who worked for me in the roughcut.com years. And a special thanks to Laura Rooney, who came on board the THB machine at roughcut.com and is still working with me on both THB and MovieCityNews. I truly cannot imagine how I would have kept this going without her unyielding support.

Mostly though, credit belongs to you… each of you. You have read me, nurtured me, abused me, indulged me and reminded me each and every day that there is an audience out there for what I do and that the audience is passionate and thoughtful and rarely use the word “rocks” as a verb unless being highly sarcastic. As a result, I feel guilty each and every day that I slack off. But it’s that good kind of guilt. The kind mama used to make. (Actually… no… not going there… a happy column today…)

Okay... enough… it’s not time to get any more obnoxiously self-involved until at least the 10th Anniversary. Thanks for everything.

SPEAKING OF PERSPECTIVE: Manohla Dargis’ piece in The Alameda Times-Star about the obsessive praise for films of the 70s has had people talking. So this weekend, I took a slightly closer look.

Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid, The Love Bug, Love Story, Airport, Fiddler on The Roof, Billy Jack, The Godfather, The Poseidon Adventure, The Exorcist, The Sting, The Towering Inferno and Blazing Saddles are what I found.

What do these titles represent? The Top Two grossers from every year from 1969 to Jaws. I’m sure that most of you have seen most of these titles. But besides The Godfather and maybe Blazing Saddles, are there really any “forever” movies on that list?

For some of you, there will be, I know. But I’m talking about movies that pop up on your TV and demand that you stick with them. I love The Exorcist, but does it really represent the highest level or artistry any more than 28 Days Later does? Both are cutting edge in style. Pea Soup is not all that amazing anymore. But The Exorcist is a really well made genre film. Do you really want to be knows as believing that its release date makes it more than that? And isn’t it ironic that Paul Schrader got bounced out of the cutting room for making an Exorcist prequel that was too cerebral, which in this case means, not enough like the 1973 original?

There is no The Godfather in today’s movie world. But there was none before 1972 either. Maybe Kane, though critic snobs will cry out for The Magnificent Ambersons as the real masterpiece. I love Gone With The Wind and The Sound of Music and The Ten Commandments too, but are any of these titles of infinitely superior quality to their recent reflections? Titanic vs. GOTW? Seems pretty close to me. Chicago is no Sound of Music, but Moulin Rouge was. And I will take The Matrix over The Ten Commandments every time.

1969/1999 - Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid & The Love Bug VS The Phantom Menace & The Sixth Sense

1970/2000 - Love Story & Airport VS The Grinch & Cast Away

1971/2001 - Fiddler On The Roof & Billy Jack VS Harry Potter 1 & Fellowship Of The Ring

1972/2002 – The Godfather & The Poseidon Adventure VS Spider-Man & The Two Towers

1973/2003 - The Exorcist & The Sting VS Finding Nemo & The Matrix Reloaded (so far)

1974.2004 - The Towering Inferno and Blazing Saddles VS The Unknown

Now, how many of these years do the 70s win? And by how much?

It is, of course, a ridiculous game. Comparing Billy Jack and Harry Potter could not be more stupid. But so is the obsession with the 70s that goes past looking at a unique era of American filmmaking into the deification of the period.

And of course, it has nothing to do with box office popularity.

A friend said to me on Sunday that he doesn’t feel that this era of filmmakers are making the kind of undeniable forever classic films that were made frequently in the 1970s. And to some degree, I cannot argue. But mostly because of perspective. My father remembered Lillian Gish and Valentino as the epic stars of his youth. He loved Cuckoo’s Nest and China Syndrome equally, but he far preferred the M*A*S*H TV series (after the first season) to Altman’s film. (Doesn’t The China Syndrome seem like a TV drama, movie stars included, now?)

When I was fourteen, I was watching Animal House every single time it came on HBO. My fourteen-year-old nephew paid to see League of Extraordinary Gentlemen three times and has been disinterested every time I have put Animal House on for him to enjoy.

Animal House is a seminal film. But does it deserve to be called a great film? I can’t see Bruce McGill in anything without thinking of him plunking out the William Tell Overture on his throat… just as “We’re as big as U.S. Steel” or “I’m gonna tell him… no man…” or the image of Jill Clayburgh crossing a New York City street with a 10 ft painting or “Mother, Daughter…. Daughter… Mother” or The Chief throwing that thing through the window or Hackman confronted with a baby carriage in the middle of a car chase or “Attica! Attica!” etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Why are these images so deeply emblazoned on my soul? They are the images of my youth. I know how world-shattering “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn” was. But my spirit soars far higher when I think of “Abby… Abby Normal.”

But the argument is deeper than that for me. It is not only that every generation has its passions and that the people who grew up with the films of the late 60s and early 70s are now in the best jobs in journalism. There is an absolute unwillingness by many to give credit where credit is due.

Even as I cautiously prune, look at just a few of the titles from my Best of 2002 lists… Bloody Sunday, The Bourne Identity, Changing Lanes, City By The Sea, Confessions of A Dangerous Mind, The Grey Zone, Max, Rabbit Proof Fence, Secretary, War Photographer, About Schmidt, The Kid Stays In The Picture, Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers, Lost In La Mancha, Minority Report, The Quiet American, Lilo & Stitch, Roger Dodger, Narc, One Hour Photo, About A Boy, Bowling For Columbine, The Pianist and Adaptation.

I eliminated all remakes, style exercises and foreign language films. And I am sure that people will each have a few films on the list that they actually despise. But look at the list from a slightly more objective position.

Is there a Godfather on the list? I don’t think so. As much as I like and respect The Two Towers… no. Not a Godfather… mostly because it can’t quite be reduced to easily digested chunks. The closest repeatable line is “Preciousssssssssss.” It ain’t no “Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes” or “Take the cannolis” or “Ahhhhh… AHHHH… AHHHHHHHHH!” (I hope I don’t wake up on Oscar nomination morning with Stunt Seabiscuit’s head in my bed, care of Tony Angelotti, with a note saying, “Told you so.”.)

But look more softly at the list. Look at the diversity of product. Is there a Capra comedy any better than About A Boy? Wouldn’t the surrealist tone of Confessions of A Dangerous Mind and Adaptation fit right into the early 70s run of films (not to mention the classicism of The Bourne Identity)? We all know how great Medium Cool was, but were theatrically distributed docs ever in higher esteem or more available than with Bowling For Columbine, The Kid Stays In The Picture or Lost In La Mancha? And didn’t Bloody Sunday really match (or surpass) Medium Cool, even if it wasn’t about America? Was there a grittier performance in the 70s than Campbell Scott’s in Roger Dodger? Could you imagine a more diverse or morally complex group of Jewish Holocaust related pictures in the 70s than The Pianist, Max and The Grey Zone?

None of this is to say that there is not an enormous amount of crap produced by today’s studios and that it is not irritating to have it sold the very same way they sell quality. Worse, the crap outsells the good stuff. Looking at the list from the past, you have to know that The Godfather would not be the #1 film for the year in 2003, much less more than doubling the #2 film’s gross, as it did that year. But could we live with a $190 million grossing The Godfather that was in the Top Seven for the year and a great, great forever film? Would we forever have to kick a Finding Nemo in the fish gonads for making more money?

And don’t forget, there was some serious crap being sold really effectively back then too. I just pulled up 1971’s box office Top 20 pretty much at random looking for examples: Top 20 titles The Owl & The Pussycat, The Boatniks, Beneath The Planet of the Apes certainly to qualify as junk under the rules by which today’s pictures are judged. On top of that, the difference between Airport and Bad Boys II is not very significant, except that Airport is basically a flat, soundstage movie that is more a stage play than a visual experience and Bad Boys II is a case of visual overkill. I love Airport, but it was kitsch when it was made…. kitsch that basically evolved into TV series like Switch and Hart To Hart in the years soon after Airport’s success.

Which is another major point… television and HBO have supplanted entire forms of what was not long ago exclusively the domain of feature films. The Godfather of this era is The Sopranos. The great dramas of the 50, 60s and 70s are now all made for cable, unless you have a major major movie star attached. The visual possibilities of the current era are, technically, a million miles from what was possible in the 70s. Perhaps that is not to our benefit. The visual quality of Burton’s Planet of the Apes was superior to the original… but the movie wasn’t half as good. Then again, what studio would have financed an Edward Scissorhands in the 70s? Answer: None. Would a David Lynch have been recruited off an Eraserhead to do The Elephant Man? No. Or maybe I missed all those Kenneth Anger studio films.

Meanwhile, what’s the best period for independent filmmakers in the history of film? Right now. It is not the cultural phenom that it was ten years ago. But the mature indie industry is pretty healthy. Fox Searchlight, Focus Features and Warner Independent are all putting eight figure deals on the table for truly independently minded films. (I’ll give Gill the benefit of the doubt.) Miramax, United Artists, Sony Classics, Screen Gems, Lions Gate, Paramount Classics, Artisan, Newmarket and others are pushing quality in a big way. Distribution still remains the biggest hurdle. But never has The Bug Fluke been more possible. My Big Fat Greek Wedding would never have happened in the 70s. Again, maybe that would be better. But perspective… don’t you want that possibility to exist for a film that is more worthy?

Want to scream and kick about how Miramax is abusing its Hong Kong titles? Sure, they should know better. But they have taken the product out of fourth run theaters in bad neighborhoods with hideous dubbing and put them into distribution cycles that mainstream audiences can find them in… even if it’s on DVD. Will Quentin Tarantino force Miramax to do right by the parcel of re-mastered Shaw Bros. titles they just picked up from Celestial a few months ago? I hope so. I would be happier with them in the hands of a more hungry company. But would Sony give Mike Schlesinger the money to do a caring release of the films the way a guy who really loves these films would? Could American Cinematheque ever get more than 5 prints of any of these films paid for and distributed? I don’t know. But at Miramax, if they do smell real money, those movies will be pushed out there in a big way. The real alternative was probably a half-ass release by a struggling distributor, followed by a half-ass DVD release that would turn up in urban Blockbusters. As it is, the worse thing Harvey could do is to send them all to DVD, but in every Blockbuster in America.

What’s Up Doc? Quick, better than Pirates of The Caribbean or not? More derivative or not?

Deliverance or City of God?

Last Tango or Secretary?

For whatever reasons – I say that it was Vietnam combined with the break-up of the studio system – there were more truly great films made between 1969 and 1974 than in any recent five-year period. But overall… we love what is ours. Some day, there will be an Andrew Sarris or Manny Farber unearthing the gems of the late 90s and writing about the virtues of CG action sequences and how they were misunderstood. Maybe some young director will claim that his illegitimate father was Michael Bay.

Film is a commercial medium first and a medium of art second… at least once you get past $100,000. And even when you are working with less, most of the films that have broken through from that price range have been action or sex pieces. When Spy Kids 3D is “cheap” at $35 million or Kill Bill, however many volumes, costs $80 million, they aren’t independent anymore.

But great movies happen every year. Box office does not determine their worth. And for me, genre does not determine their worth. On average, it’s all crap. Always has been. Always will be. And yes, the crap will be more dramatically mainstream the more is costs to produce. But Big Fish is coming… and so is The Missing and so is Cold Mountain and so is In America and so is movie after movie that is reaching for greatness. And studios are backing them. And that’s what’s important.

Didn’t like The Hours? Okay. But they made the movie. They aspired to do something unexpected. Hate the third act of Adaptation? You’re wrong. But you have to give Sony credit for taking the shot and pushing for the movie to be loved by the world as it was inside the studio instead of chasing an opening weekend. Fox has an action movie with Peter Weir at the helm. Disney is remembering The Alamo and a director who is slowly becoming a 70s style guy, John Lee Hancock. Universal is backing The Coen Bros. Warner Bros. put money into a period film, a risk even with Tom Cruise. And New Line took a huge leap on the Rings, which they deserve credit for, even if they have already won.

Sure, there is dumbing down going on out there. But the artists are co-conspirators. Better work can be done. Most people in this business want to do better work. Just as they did when a slacks salesman and an entertainment journalist took over reins of Paramount and built something that was apparently beyond their own comprehension at the time. Bob Evans may have greenlit The Godfather. He also made Sliver. In between, there are a lot of excuses. But that is exactly it… there is always an excuse… there is always an opportunity not to reach further… and even the best intentions can go wrong… as ever and forever.

Hindsight is 20/20. Perhaps more of us should do as we ask the film business to do… take a risk… focus on something that isn’t as clear… reach higher… and do what executives always have to do… live in the moment and put yourself on the line. You may fail and you may turn out to be wrong… but you may truly appreciate the works of beauty in your own time for a change.

READER OF THE DAY: THE MAD WOMAN writes: “I had to write because I just saw Dirty Pretty Things. Wow! In your column some time ago you referred to it as a masterpiece, and I thought at the time that might be hyperbole, but no - you were right.

It is a masterpiece. It's so beautifully made - the acting, the dialogue, the cinematography all create this utterly engrossing and believable world. The movie works on so many levels: as thriller, as love story, as social/political commentary. What interested me most was the moral dilemma of its hero. It reminded me a lot of the excellent sci-fi novel by Robert Silverberg, "Shadrach in the Furnace", in which the hero is also a very ethical African doctor faced with a seemingly untenable moral situation where there is no choice that isn't evil. Like the main character in Dirty Pretty Things, he also finds his own unique solution to the crisis. As one of the characters in the movie says, "There is nothing more dangerous than a virtuous man." The movie was really powerful and will definitely be on my top ten list this year!

August is shaping up to be a great month at the movies. The mainstream offerings may be dreck, but this is the month when all the great indies open in my area. In addition to Dirty Pretty Things, American Splendor opens this weekend, and The Magdalene Sisters and Thirteen arrive the week after that.”

E ME: Have you seen more than 10 movies from 1943? Think about it before you answer.

Back to Top