January 14, 2004

My urge is to review Patrick Goldstein’s Tuesday L.A. Times column, fact for fact, studio for studio. But I’m going to Sundance and I’m just going to let it go. All I will say is that anyone who thinks that Fox was risk-averse in 2003 (Phone Booth, Chasing Papi, Down With Love, From Justin to Kelly, LXG and Master & Commander were all risky and none of them will really pay off) is probably also capable of giving the studio a “B” in a year in which just 3 of their 15 films were real financial winners. Don’t even get me started on putting the disastrous years of MGM and Paramount ahead of an admittedly silent year at DreamWorks… is DreamWorks being penalized for not having more flops?

But I’m not going there…

I’m not also going to go into depth about the trailer for Two Legged Freaks, a.k.a. Dawn of the Dead from Universal. The film actually looks like it might be a success. But it is pretty funny to see such a clear rip-off of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre trailer combined with so many elements from WB’s failed (but wonderfully stupid) Eight Legged Freaks:

1. Busty blonde better known for indie than for trash (Sarah Polley in for Scarlett Johansson).

2. One day, the terror just arrives.

3. The “healthy group” retreats to a local mall, where “the monsters” surround them.

4. Lots of bad driving.

That’s all I’m sayin’…

Sundance In L.A. continued on Tuesday as Lions Gate rolled out their Artisan-inherited disaster movie, Eulogy. No, it’s not about a disaster. Get it?

Metallica: Some Kind Of Monster is from Brother’s Keeper directors Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky. (No, I’m not doing a theme column based around once and future horrible Artisan movies.) But it’s not what you would expect. The film focuses on a two-year period as the band recovers from the loss of their most recent bass player and move into the studio to make their next album.

But this is no simple process. There is a dead bass player in their past. There is an arrogant, spotlight-grabbing drummer in their present. And there is an alcoholic singer in their immediate future. Enter the “performance enhancement coach,” who will end up trying to teach these guys how to keep it together for a long, long time.

In many ways, this is Spinal Tap meets Madonna’s Truth or Dare. If that sounds entertaining – even for those of us with no stomach for heavy metal – it should. As with all quality documentarians, Sinofsky and Berlinger establish and deepen their characters throughout the film. You feel like you know these guys, even if you wouldn’t want to spend an hour with them on a bet.

The film, which is being peddled at Sundance by “The Dude,” is an interesting reflection of the great 1993 documentary, Dream Deceivers, which told the story of two teenagers who shot themselves, allegedly under the influence of heavy metal as well as The Osbournes on MTV. A decade ago, these guys were scary. Now, the banality (and age) of these bands and the ongoing youth of their fans changes one’s perspective considerably. This is the strength and the weakness of this film.

Ultimately, the audience has no real rooting interest. And it has nothing to do with the filmmaking. It’s just that the story is about five rich guys who suffer under the weight of their own indulgences. Berlinger and Sinofsky manage to come close to completing the cycle with their subjects, falling short only at the very end, when you get the feeling that the band’s decision to stop filming was the only thing left unfilmed.

How many drinks does it take to get through a self-determined auction of your great artworks, suffering whether the Basquiat will go for $2 million or $6 million? How much “therapy speak” can come out of the guy who just got out of rehab? How self-involved do you have to be to think that your private ranch is “getting back to nature?” Would you be willing to fight for your job that pays almost $480,000 a year even if your success means that you are no longer needed?

This film is going to make a lot of money in home entertainment. Anyone who buys Metallica albums will want a copy of the DVD. But in theatrical, it is a bit iffy. It’s quite good, but it doesn’t have that magic spark of something that is truly surprising or complex. You are left with memories, but neither happy nor unhappy scars.

I also got an hour to sit down with director Andrei Zvyagintsev, whose film The Return turned heads at the Venice Film Festival and more again at Toronto in September. He’ll next head to the streets of Park City. Of course, an hour with a translator is much like 20 minutes with anyone else. I didn’t feel there was anything to really talk about in terms of the film. People should see the work and come up with their own ideas and answers. Like Tarkovsky before him, this Russian leaves you room to think and feel your way through a variety of interpretations.

Zvyagintsev is a funny bird. He is younger than you might expect, probably still in his 30s. I didn’t ask. He has all the arrogance of a first timer, not in any way taken aback by comparisons to Tarkovsky or Kieslowski. He talks about the Russian media world very much like many directors talk about Hollywood. Television is a tainted medium. Most directors are hacks that just want to make popcorn movies. He doesn’t relate in any way to big dumb movies. When I joked that he would not be coming to Hollywood to do Die Hard 7, he started to smile as the translator translated before a slight sneer crossed his face and didn’t go away.

None of the money for The Return came from the Russian government, though the attention that the film has gotten seems to have been inspired the Russian government to be more supportive of first-time directors who want to try something different. Zvyagintsev himself considers his part to the director’s chair one paved in luck. He was working on commercials, met a guy with a TV series, got an episode, and that led to this same producer finding the money for The Return.

Zvyagintsev has not really found himself having great experiences at film festivals so far. Perhaps it is his language challenge or perhaps he likes the idea of being a loner. I’d kind of like to see Andrei get together with Vadim Perelman, so at least he could have a chat with another young, smart director.

In the end, one thing was clear. Directors are directors are directors… all over the world.

The next column will come from the streets of Park City. See you tomorrow.

READER OF THE DAY: B.H. FAN writes: “I am writing this email in response to an article posted on your website (Movie City News) on January 12th written by David Poland. In this article Mr. Poland recounts the making of a parody "film" using footage from Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" movie trailer. This parody showed a distinct lack of respect for the seriousness of the subject matter as is easily discovered by the title of this short film ("Kill Christ"). A previous article from your website is quoted as having said, "If Anyone At Icon Still Has A Sense Of Humor (or perspective), They Will Not Force This Movie Off The Web." This is where I disagree whole-heartedly.

I have a tough time believing that you would have taken the same stance if the situation was slightly different. Let's say that, for instance, the film being made was a film covering the events of 9/11. Let's say then that this film student at NYU then made a parody of this film using footage from a preview trailer and called his parody "Kill Americans". Am I to believe then that your stance would remain the same? That you would say, "if the makers of this movie still have a sense of humor they would not for this movie off the web"? Or perhaps your own prejudices are showing through? Perhaps you are forgetting that maybe for you the subject matter of Christ's Passion and Death were "funny" or just some little thing that happened in the past, but for 1 billion of your fellow human beings it meant a whole lot more than that.

I am just asking that you recognize that this is in fact a serious event and mocking it and making fun of it is not appropriate behavior for decent human beings."

DP Replies: Actually, my ability to laugh at myself, tragedies that involve people who are culturally connected to me and to areas of personal sensitivity is pretty strong. Without getting too far into this, Christianity would not exist without the crucifixion of Christ, as his “death for our sins” and his resurrection are at the center of Christian dogma.

I am still capable of laughing at the absurd nature of a joke like “How do you fit 10000 Jews in a Volkswagon.” It is disgusting in nature, but it is funny in a bent way. I laugh at political jokes when they hit a nerve, regardless of how I feel about the politics.

For me, there are many reasons why the “Kill Christ” trailer parody is funny. First, it is because however lacking in solemnity, it is not in any way against Christ or Christianity. In fact, the Jews take the brunt of the joke. “In 2004, The Jews Will Kill Christ.”

Second, Spencer Somers actually hit the directorial style of Mel Gibson, so far confirmed by every report I’ve seen, which is powerful, very violent and hyper-charged. Is it disrespectful of Gibson to have his film scored by Rachel Portman, who just did Mona Lisa Smile? How far different are the swells of Ms. Portman’s music and the piece in the parody trailer? That short leap is the core of what makes satire work.

In the end, the short is about movies and not about Christ or Christianity. Spence was not mocking your faith, but the constructs of the film business. And that is not only appropriate behavior for decent human beings, it is the best defense we have against tyranny. The ability to laugh at ourselves must proceed the ability to laugh at others, lest we remember that we are all just human beings, as flawed as ever.

E ME: I know you folks… I leave town and you stop writing. Well, here I go…

Monday - December 29 - The Movies You Didn't See, But Should Have
Tuesday, December 30 - The Ten Worst Films Of 2003
Wednesday, December 31 - The Best Runnes Up Of 2003
Wednesday, December 31 - The Best Films Of 2003
Friday, January 2– Reflections on a New Year