November 12, 2003

In 1962, Omar Sharif became one of the great movie heartthrobs in Lawrence of Arabia. Over the next years, he followed that up with Dr. Zhivago, The Night of the Generals and Funny Girl.

In 1985, Kevin Costner became one of the great movie heartthrobs in Silverado. Over the next years, he followed that up with The Untouchables, No Way Out, Bull Durham, Field of Dreams, Dances with Wolves, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, JFK, The Bodyguard, and A Perfect World.

As it turned out, I met these two men on consecutive days this week. And they couldn’t be more different. Except that both are being talked about as possible Oscar contenders this season. The differences between the two films that are being talked up might shed some light on the two men as well.

Sharif is starring in Monsieur Ibrahim & The Flowers Of The Koran, a Sony Classics pick-up that brought Sharif an Audience Award win at the Venice Film Festival. The film is charming, smart and definitively modest… much like Omar Sharif himself.

Costner co-stars in a film he directed called Open Range. He fought hard to get the $12 million to make the movie the way wanted to make it, going as far as to suggest that the financial support of Disney was a favor by Dick Cook. The Oscar push being prepared seems to be ready to focus on Robert Duvall and the great late Michael Jeter more so than the star/director himself. Costner’s eyes light up when talking about his first-time DP, James Muro, also considered a contender, whose relationship with Costner goes all the way back to Field of Dreams, on which Muro was a Panagilide operator. He beams when talking about getting notoriously picky (when not check chasing) actors Robert Duvall, Michael Gambon and Annette Bening to come out to do the picture with him

Eighteen years into his stardom, Kevin Costner is still in love with making movies. Fifty years into his career and forty-one years into his stardom, Omar Sharif is just happy to stay home until a role he cares about turns up.

Omar Sharif is a guy you want to sit down to a three-hour dinner with. You can’t sit down to a two-hour lunch with him because he doesn’t eat lunch. Or breakfast. For as long as he seems to remember, he has been a one-meal man. Maybe a little coffee when he has to work, to maintain his energy. But he likes to wake up late, “so it’s close to dinner,” do some work in the afternoon, have dinner around 8pm and then watch movies into the wee hours. He watches old movies almost exclusively. He says that he only goes to see one movie a year in a theater. He researches carefully, so he is never disappointed. But at home, he watches the old black & whites.

A self-described “old Arab,” Sharif hangs much of his life on luck. His work with Lean was incredibly lucky. Because of that success, he was given a wide range of roles to play, from a Mongol leader to Russian hero to a German officer. Then things got less lucky. He worked with great directors; Anthony Mann, Fred Zinnemann, Sidney Lumet, John Frankenheimer, Blake Lester and Richard Lester… and as he says, made the worst movie of each of their careers.

There was another unpleasant hitch. As great and successful as Lawrence of Arabia and Dr. Zhivago were, Omar Sharif was under contract and made just $20,000 a movie for his most successful films. When it came time to cash in, Sharif was looking for paydays, like Che! What’s the worst role he ever had? “Any role with a bad character and a bad director is the worst movie,” he says. And I thought the answer would be one of the back-to-back hits, Oh, Heavenly Dog! and Green Ice.

Sharif decided to take a break from acting in the 90s. He came back now and again, but mostly to pay the bills. His memory of making the John McTiernan film that was eventually released as The 13th Warrior was pleasant. “I wasn’t in it very much.” He liked his character. He liked McTiernan. He’s never seen the resulting movie. But he seems to like Antonio Banderas a lot. And he worries for the man. “They will trap him with that accent… and you can never lose that Spanish accent.”

He plays “old Arabs” in both Monsieur Ibrahim and the upcoming Hildago, which stars Viggo Mortensen. The thought of it makes him laugh and smile. But Monsieur Ibrahim is really his movie. It is a character of some subtlety and charm that we rarely see our one-time-sex-gods get to play. Sharif deflects any Oscar chances, brushing them quickly aside. “I don’t have that moment… the moment you need to win awards.” But many others feel differently. And when the Academy looks around for a familiar face to hold to its bosom, don’t be surprised if the face belongs to the bridge world’s favorite movie star.

Kevin Costner is misunderstood. It’s easier that way. When you sit down to chat with Costner about his movies, it isn’t long before you are on a journey with him, on the set, carefully wandering around, examining the details of the process through his memories. The film may be 15 years old or it might be from last summer. Costner’s memory for the details of what happened, even on the shows that he didn’t direct, feel as vivid as any director’s or producer’s. That makes it hard to stick him in a box and throw away the key…. at least not if you are honest. Like it or not, Kevin Costner is not just another actor. He is a filmmaker.

Our chat starts with a movie that isn’t Kevin’s. It’s the new film he’s working on for writer/director Mike Binder, The Upside of Anger. Binder, best know for HBO’s The Mind of the Married Man, could not ask for a stronger supporter. Costner, who made choices not to work with Coppola and Soderbergh in recent years, put himself into the hands of Binder, a relatively inexperienced director whose biggest theatrical hit was the $15 million-grossing Indian Summer, released a full decade ago. But Costner is a guy who goes with his gut. Binder writes about the struggle between the sexes. Dangerous territory. Often, it plays out as self-indulgent. But Kevin sees Binder working on the cusp of being an important filmmaker, maturing in his exploration.

It’s not hard to see why Costner connects with a guy like Binder, as Costner works an area of the business that is often neglected. He is a romantic, very male lead… you know, the star of movies that Hollywood doesn’t often make anymore. For Love of the Game, Message in a Bottle, Tin Cup… this is the Costner comfort zone, if there is such thing. He recently got a little “Sharif-ed,” starring in the only flop of Tom Shadyac’s career, Dragonfly. And 3000 Miles to Graceland got sidetracked by a first time studio director who forgot to worry about the story. But the core of Costner’s popularity remains strong.

Costner also understands that in his world of character-driven, emotional stories, the line between something working and not working can be wafer thin. Kevin talks about how critical the small moments are more than any actor to whom I’ve ever spoken. He understands the micro and the macro of filmmaking. He is clear about the big picture that a film has to deliver in order to satisfy in the most basic way. But then, there are these small moments, these glimpses of character that can turn good into great. He asks: How many great small moments can a particular movie hold? How many can you edit out before you lose track of a movie’s soul?

Discussing the elements that attracted Costner to The Upside of Anger is a good indicator about how he’s made his decisions in the last 15 years or so. Bring up any title and he will take you to core of his experience on the film. Even on the most successful films, he has ideas of what could have made the films even better. When we discuss one film that had a stormy start, there is no wavering. Costner believed deeply in the screenplay. And he was simply not willing to let anyone mess about it with it. What someone on the other side of the fence might have seen as interference, Costner sees as a gift of freedom from having to make any changes of their own. But he’s not just saying it. His faith in the screenplay is what guided him, right or wrong. He knows he’s going to take the heat, no matter who makes these decisions. So he might as well make them himself.

Open Range was a labor of love for Kevin Costner. He had not made a western in nine years. When he went back to the genre, he went the way wanted to go. He got the actors he wanted. He told a story at a pace that most studios won’t tolerate, but that he knew was right for the material. He didn’t make a special effects movie. He made a movie about people trying to find their way in the world. He had to know that the film’s demographic would not know Diego Luna, despite Y Tu Mama Tambien. Abraham Benrubi is a TV name. James Russo, once a red-hot young actor, had not made a studio movie since Costner hired him on The Postman. Michael Jeter was not well… but he was still game for work and delivered big time. Costner made his choices. And he held on to those small moments.

As so often happens with me when I meet someone new, especially someone with the long and familiar history of a Kevin Costner, the conversation bounces from wall to wall. As a result, we didn’t get into a lot of the details of Open Range. There was a story here and a story there. His love of the movie is clear. Maybe we’ll have another chance to chat someday and get into the nitty gritty of the movie. But I did get a chance to meet the filmmaker… the artist that Kevin Costner wants to be… the visions he is chasing… the past he remembers, warts and all… the future he doesn’t see clearly quite yet.

The stunning part of Kevin Costner is that he so awake to the whole filmmaking experience… and has been for a long, long time. Just as some tried to write him off, Open Range turned heads… turned heads on a whiplash level. Whenever I think of the earnestness of this man, I think of Madonna, making fun of him for using the word “neat.” These days, she’s selling jeans at The Gap and Kevin is talking about the Oscar buzz around his little movie that got thrown out there in the dog days of summer. And while Jeepers Creepers 2, Dickie Roberts, Once Upon A Time In Mexico, Underworld and The Rundown all took the #1 slot against Open Range, Costner’s movie has outgrossed every one of them. That’s the kind of movie he made. That’s the kind of guy he is. Kinda neat, huh?

READER OF THE DAY: NOT THE MR. ROGERS writes: “You'll probably get too much mail on this but the "Vow of Clarity" was a deeply disturbing read !!! (how's that for goosing an opinion up to be "heard above the din") Though I usually consider you to be filled with clarity (Your writing on the screener debate has been an oasis of sanity -seriously) this is surprisingly murky of you.

#1 assumes that all reviews are written simultaneously. It's hard to write, work, or see in a void. People who pretend that they do so just aren't honest. Particularly for those who aren't in NY or LA or catch a film late. Other people's opinions do matter and do affect people to some unknowable degree whether they believe so or not...

#2 Why must social implications or marketing be removed from the artistic analysis? Writers should certainly have opinions about the social messages within the films. Should conversations about Pretty Woman, to pull an example out of the air, only revolve around whether it succeeds as a romantic comedy? Why is that more important than a discussion of the strange social messaging and implications of its hooker who makes good with a corporate marauder storyline. And the film business is so reliant on marketing and some movies so marketed rather than made (think of the story of Tomb Raider for example) -it's difficult to understand why writing that doesn't acknowledge source, meaning, or external forces is somehow more valuable than writing that does.

#3 Someone much smarter than me will have to translate what you mean by that. I read it thrice and I still don't get what you were trying to say. No clarity there.

#4. What if you're writing for a more educated audience. I personally like it when a writer is slightly smarter than I am... it makes me work harder as a reader. Do you really think there should be only one audience?

#5. Quote Pullers don't need any help. They can put in "..." to get rid of stuff they don't want and make any review SUPER! SPECIAL! Although you'd think there would be laws about them adding exclamation points, all caps, or changing the meaning of certain phrases.

#6. No superficial jokes? Gee, you have to give the critics SOMETHING to do when they're forced to sit through stuff like "Good Boy" or whatever.

#7. I don't understand the purpose of dismissing retrospective reviews. They're some of the most fascinating works. Time alters everything. And hearing someone talk about a movie made years before they ever graced the planet with their presence is not inherently meaningless. Just of "different" value than a contemporary review. Different generations may see different things in the same piece of art.

#8. While I agree that 'genre bashing' is a cheap way out for critics who are predisposed to dislike say, horror movies...I don't think it's avoidable. See also comments regarding your "furthermore..." And, besides, genre bashing is much less of a problem in criticism than it is in awards giving institutions. You're barking up the wrong tree there.

#9. This is probably the only one that everyone can safely agree upon. But I never read reviews until I've seen a movie even if they're spoiler free because I find myself 'figuring out' what happens based on what the writer does say, imply, or skirt around.

#10. Utterly arbitrary. Screenwriters should be credited only when you have something to say about the script. Same goes for costume designers, composers, directors, etc... if it's a matter or wishing we could move slightly away from the auteur theory. Fine. But why only writers?

As to your "furthermore" ----THIS! IS! THE! WORST! ADVICE! YOU'VE! EVER! GIVEN! (Blurb whore alert!)

Any critic who struggles to refrain from personal taste is an idiot...or, at best, filled with self delusion. To deny yourself that is to rob all critical writing of any intrinsic value, personality, or idiosyncrasies it may have. The important thing is to just acknowledge your biases and move on. To deny that they exist is in essence to be lacking a personal identity. It's the worst possible suggestion for writers -be they critics or artists. If, for a fine example, you take David Poland's personal tastes out of the equation of David Poland's writing, I'll no longer be visiting The Hot Button every day.”

EASY C writes: “The Vow of Clarity is simply amazing, talk about hitting the nail right on the head! I was laughing hysterically because I was especially reminded of the stuff I've read in The Village Voice, eyuchh. Most critics these days freakin stink. Thanks for being such a voice of clarity. This is the first thing I've ever written to a critic, but let me share with you my list of THE must-reads, Yourself, Ebert, Walter Chaw, Armond White, Matt Seitz and Manohla Dargis (although I only know her through Ask Manohla) (oh, and maybe even Jeff Wells...and whatever happened to Godfrey Cheshire??) But they are definitely often guilty of the things you noted. Lets hope at least one critic picks up on the Vow! Thanks!”

E ME: For those of you who are worrying about the critical voice… be a little less literal… trees, forest, etc…