Easy Rider – 1969, Dennis Hopper
There are lots of films out there that are full of social commentary, and a lot of them put their message across in a more subtle and coherent manner than Easy Rider, but there are a couple of reasons why few ‘relevant’ films can hold a candle to Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda’s finest hour (and a half).
When they set out to make a movie about the hippie movement and its place in America, they had an idea of the message they wanted to get across, but they didn’t have a screenplay when they started shooting. They didn’t even have a cast, a lot of the rednecks are played by actual rednecks encountered while shooting in Louisiana. The production started in New Orleans without so much as a script, but they did have a big bag of drugs (legend has it that all the marijuana use in the film is genuine).
Eventually Hopper and Fonda got their act together and the film came together. Given the experimental nature of the film and the road trip approach to the shoot, it is perhaps both remarkable and unsurprising that the film was so ground breaking and culturally significant. Although it should be noted that Hopper spent a year editing the film, and his cut was three hours long (which I think would have been unbearable), Donn Cambern put together the film that was released, so he is due as much credit as Hopper.
The combination of a chaotic yet inspired shoot and an excellent editor produced a film that perfectly reflected the end of the hippie movement in America; the hippie communes failed, the love-ins spawned jealousy and The South remained intolerant.
Easy Rider more than achieved its goal of helping a nation understand what they had just experienced (and lost) in the 60s, and as a bonus, left behind a legacy of screen iconography.
Lots of films fall over themselves in an attempt to say something about society. Easy Rider proves that the best intentions are not necessarily enough when making a film with a message and a purpose. It takes the right combination of time and place (and drugs).
Easy Rider: The Classic that doesn’t disappoint.
Wednesday 28 July 2010
Wednesday 21 July 2010
The Kingdom
The Kingdom – 2007, Peter Berg
I’ve seen a handful of ‘Post Iraq Invasion’ films recently including Syriana (2005), Green Zone (2010) and Body of Lies (2008).
The general consensus would be that The Kingdom is the least praiseworthy of all these films, but I disagree. Each of these films is about American interests in the Middle East and the conflict and terrorism that take place because of them. They are all well worth a watch but none are perfect.
Syriana isn’t as clever as it thinks it is and Green Zone is actually a very unhealthy fantasy about some guys in the brief post-invasion/pre-occupation period in Iraq, guys who knew an insurgency was imminent and tried to stop it, but they were stopped by the suits in Washington who had a political agenda. Matt Damon spends the first half of the film banging on about WMDs (or lack of them), and the second half trying to stop the insurgency before it starts. It’s a war film that’s told retrospectively by the guy’s who kind of won, pretending that maybe they almost got it right. Unwholesome in my opinion.
It’s been too long since I saw Body of Lies but I seem to remember enjoying it.
But back to The Kingdom. Actor turned Producer/Director Peter Berg’s resume is full of films and TV shows you may have seen but were never very impressed by, so The Kingdom is perhaps his stand out work (though I’ve not seen Friday Night Lights).
The Kingdom is a thriller set in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the wake of a terrorist attack on an American compound. Jamie Foxx leads the cast but don’t let that put you off. The first half of the film plays out like a detective story, then for the final act it ascends (or descends depending upon your opinion) into a prolonged action sequence where the good guys never reload and the bad guys can’t shoot for shit.
As a man who’s sat through more than a few action films you can take it from me that as these things go, The Kingdom does its’ action sequences very well. How Peter Berg went on to make such a mess of the second half of Hancock is a mystery.
I’ve seen a handful of ‘Post Iraq Invasion’ films recently including Syriana (2005), Green Zone (2010) and Body of Lies (2008).
The general consensus would be that The Kingdom is the least praiseworthy of all these films, but I disagree. Each of these films is about American interests in the Middle East and the conflict and terrorism that take place because of them. They are all well worth a watch but none are perfect.
Syriana isn’t as clever as it thinks it is and Green Zone is actually a very unhealthy fantasy about some guys in the brief post-invasion/pre-occupation period in Iraq, guys who knew an insurgency was imminent and tried to stop it, but they were stopped by the suits in Washington who had a political agenda. Matt Damon spends the first half of the film banging on about WMDs (or lack of them), and the second half trying to stop the insurgency before it starts. It’s a war film that’s told retrospectively by the guy’s who kind of won, pretending that maybe they almost got it right. Unwholesome in my opinion.
It’s been too long since I saw Body of Lies but I seem to remember enjoying it.
But back to The Kingdom. Actor turned Producer/Director Peter Berg’s resume is full of films and TV shows you may have seen but were never very impressed by, so The Kingdom is perhaps his stand out work (though I’ve not seen Friday Night Lights).
The Kingdom is a thriller set in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the wake of a terrorist attack on an American compound. Jamie Foxx leads the cast but don’t let that put you off. The first half of the film plays out like a detective story, then for the final act it ascends (or descends depending upon your opinion) into a prolonged action sequence where the good guys never reload and the bad guys can’t shoot for shit.
As a man who’s sat through more than a few action films you can take it from me that as these things go, The Kingdom does its’ action sequences very well. How Peter Berg went on to make such a mess of the second half of Hancock is a mystery.
Monday 19 July 2010
Inception
Inception – 2010, Christopher Nolan
It’s difficult to talk about what makes Inception so good without spoiling it for those who haven’t seen it, and to declare that there isn’t a massive Sixth Sense style twist at the end doesn’t spoil it. In fact, as intricate as the film’s plot is, it’s refreshingly simple. The story is good enough without some huge about-face at the end. There is a little predictable ambiguity, but that can be forgiven.
The essence of Inception’s greatness is that it straddles the line between risk taking intelligence and studio pleasing big summer release. Nolan’s Batman films are praised for being popcorn blockbusters that don’t underestimate the audience and Inception is the same. During the second half of the film there are four storylines all taking place at the same time. It would sound complicated to explain, but when you watch it, it isn’t remotely difficult to follow. The script was years in the making and it shows, if only every film was allowed to stick to the original screenplay so rigidly, films like Hancock and Clash Of The Titans would hold themselves together better. There’s been a bit of ‘will inception flop’ talk bouncing around the internet which will doubtless be bollocks, Inception is too good to fail.
The film runs for over two hours but I don’t think it ever gets boring. This is partly because of the aforementioned multiple stories but also because of the supporting cast who are all more compelling to watch than DiCaprio. Leo gets a lot of knocking and I don’t like to criticise him for no reason. His performance in Inception is very understated considering the character he plays. Like I say, I won’t spoil it, but if you watch Inception, take a moment to think about Leo’s character afterwards, and try to imagine how any actor could play a character who has experienced all those things.
I suppose someone had to do it, and I can’t actually think of another contemporary leading man who would have done better. DiCaprios’s presence is like Joseph Gorden-Levitt’s hairstyle; slightly off-putting but necessary.
It’s difficult to talk about what makes Inception so good without spoiling it for those who haven’t seen it, and to declare that there isn’t a massive Sixth Sense style twist at the end doesn’t spoil it. In fact, as intricate as the film’s plot is, it’s refreshingly simple. The story is good enough without some huge about-face at the end. There is a little predictable ambiguity, but that can be forgiven.
The essence of Inception’s greatness is that it straddles the line between risk taking intelligence and studio pleasing big summer release. Nolan’s Batman films are praised for being popcorn blockbusters that don’t underestimate the audience and Inception is the same. During the second half of the film there are four storylines all taking place at the same time. It would sound complicated to explain, but when you watch it, it isn’t remotely difficult to follow. The script was years in the making and it shows, if only every film was allowed to stick to the original screenplay so rigidly, films like Hancock and Clash Of The Titans would hold themselves together better. There’s been a bit of ‘will inception flop’ talk bouncing around the internet which will doubtless be bollocks, Inception is too good to fail.
The film runs for over two hours but I don’t think it ever gets boring. This is partly because of the aforementioned multiple stories but also because of the supporting cast who are all more compelling to watch than DiCaprio. Leo gets a lot of knocking and I don’t like to criticise him for no reason. His performance in Inception is very understated considering the character he plays. Like I say, I won’t spoil it, but if you watch Inception, take a moment to think about Leo’s character afterwards, and try to imagine how any actor could play a character who has experienced all those things.
I suppose someone had to do it, and I can’t actually think of another contemporary leading man who would have done better. DiCaprios’s presence is like Joseph Gorden-Levitt’s hairstyle; slightly off-putting but necessary.
Wednesday 14 July 2010
Tombstone
Tombstone – 1993, George P. Cosmatos (or was it Kurt Russell?)
The 90’s didn’t deliver many westerns (the glory days of the western were long over by the 80’s) but the massive success of Dances With Wolves in 1990 prompted a bit of a resurgence. Unforgiven (1992) wasn’t as successful but it was even better (and less exhaustive to watch – anybody else remember when ITV showed Dances With Wolves over two separate nights?) Hot on it’s spurred heels was Tombstone.
I’d only seen Tombstone once years ago, and because it was released at about the same time as those other famous modern westerns, my memory of Tombstone was rose tinted. Tombstone is also remembered favourably because of Val Kilmer stealing every scene as the tuberculosis ridden Doc Holiday.
Watching it again was a bit of a disappointment. It’s all a bit cheesy, almost camp in parts. I guess I’ve just been spoilt by Unforgiven, which to cut the western down the bone. Tombstone falls awkwardly between the realism of Unforgiven and the ‘good old fashioned entertainment’ style of classic westerns. This may be due to the troubled production.
According to Wikipedia Kurt Russell really directed Tombstone, George P Cosmatos was only hired at the behest of the Studio. Kurt agreed because Sylvester Stallone had told him that George would let Kurt effectively do the actual directing himself (does this mean that it was Sly who really directed First Blood Part 2?) Some parts of Tombstone are good, but then towards the end when things heat up, it starts to fall to pieces. The worst part is the bit where Kurt Russell shouts ‘Noooooo’ in slow motion
The ensemble cast is vast (85 speaking characters), there are loads of great actors involved, but there are just too many characters. As well as the four good guys, there are three main bad guys; Powers Boothe camps it up as gang leader Curly Bill, Michael Biehn plays the ‘really nasty one’ but his character is the most underwritten in the film, and Stephen Lang as the ‘mean and stupid’ bad guy. The motivation the good guys have for hunting them all down is clear, but by the time they are all killed, it feels like one bad guy too many.
Almost all the other big Westerns of the 1990’s bombed and lost lots of money, including Sam Raimi’s The Quick and The Dead, which deserved to be a success more than Tombstone did. Looks like there’s no justice in the west after all.
The 90’s didn’t deliver many westerns (the glory days of the western were long over by the 80’s) but the massive success of Dances With Wolves in 1990 prompted a bit of a resurgence. Unforgiven (1992) wasn’t as successful but it was even better (and less exhaustive to watch – anybody else remember when ITV showed Dances With Wolves over two separate nights?) Hot on it’s spurred heels was Tombstone.
I’d only seen Tombstone once years ago, and because it was released at about the same time as those other famous modern westerns, my memory of Tombstone was rose tinted. Tombstone is also remembered favourably because of Val Kilmer stealing every scene as the tuberculosis ridden Doc Holiday.
Watching it again was a bit of a disappointment. It’s all a bit cheesy, almost camp in parts. I guess I’ve just been spoilt by Unforgiven, which to cut the western down the bone. Tombstone falls awkwardly between the realism of Unforgiven and the ‘good old fashioned entertainment’ style of classic westerns. This may be due to the troubled production.
According to Wikipedia Kurt Russell really directed Tombstone, George P Cosmatos was only hired at the behest of the Studio. Kurt agreed because Sylvester Stallone had told him that George would let Kurt effectively do the actual directing himself (does this mean that it was Sly who really directed First Blood Part 2?) Some parts of Tombstone are good, but then towards the end when things heat up, it starts to fall to pieces. The worst part is the bit where Kurt Russell shouts ‘Noooooo’ in slow motion
The ensemble cast is vast (85 speaking characters), there are loads of great actors involved, but there are just too many characters. As well as the four good guys, there are three main bad guys; Powers Boothe camps it up as gang leader Curly Bill, Michael Biehn plays the ‘really nasty one’ but his character is the most underwritten in the film, and Stephen Lang as the ‘mean and stupid’ bad guy. The motivation the good guys have for hunting them all down is clear, but by the time they are all killed, it feels like one bad guy too many.
Almost all the other big Westerns of the 1990’s bombed and lost lots of money, including Sam Raimi’s The Quick and The Dead, which deserved to be a success more than Tombstone did. Looks like there’s no justice in the west after all.
Thursday 8 July 2010
Predator
Predator - 1987, John McTeirnan
When people ask me to name my favourite film, I often pause before saying ‘The Big Lebowski’, when the honest answer is really ‘Predator and The Big Lebowski equally’.
Lots of people turns their nose up at Predator, but pointing out that it was directed by John ‘Die Hard’ McTeirnan is enough to bring most of them round.
Predator can be appreciated for the same reasons as Die Hard, but it generally isn’t. Schwarzenegger and all the other meatheads in Predator put the discerning viewer off. Arnie takes his shirt off and fights an alien in the jungle. It’s far less embarrassing to watch Bruce Willis take his shoes off and fight Alan Rickman in a skyscraper. The problem is that watching a lot of crap action films is a prerequisite to appreciating Predator, and who the hell can be arsed to do that (apart from me)?
Predator gets right all the things that can go unnoticed in a film; pacing, structure, casting and cinematography. Predator, like most action films, sticks rigidly to conventional three act structure:
Act I: 33 minutes. Ends with 10 minute action set piece where they attack the enemy base.
Act II: 44 minutes. Concludes with 18 minute sequence that begins with the team setting traps for the Predator and ends with Arnold getting covered in mud and becoming invisible to the Predator.
Act III: 22 minutes. Schwarzenegger vs Predator.
Predator was only McTeirnan’s second film so he wasn’t going to try anything radical, and the studio would have never let him try to be too clever anyway, but few other films have pacing as good as Predator. A lot of the first two acts are taken up by Schwarzenegger and his team trekking through the jungle, which could easily become boring, but there is a high enough frequency of events to keep it interesting. This is helped by the cast, who hold the audience’s attention just by the way they creep through the leaves. Bill Duke, Jesse Ventura, Sonny Landham, Carl Weathers. All bad mothers. That guy who wrote Lethal Weapon ain’t such a badass, but he tells a couple of pussy jokes to lighten the mood, and the short guy was a genuine Vietnam vet, so there.
The cinematography of Predator is vastly underrated. When people think of good cinematography they thing of epic films featuring incredible landscapes. Films that appear claustrophobic aren’t impressive. It’s difficult to make a film shot in a jungle look good. In Predator the horizon often ends a few feet away from the camera, other than the actors, all that is in each shot are leaves, yet it still looks exciting and it fits the story perfectly. The Predator spends the first two thirds of the film as a camouflaged blur in the jungle, but then, everything is camouflaged. The entire pallet of the film is green and brown, but green and brown have never looked better on film.
Equally impressive are the visual effects. They may look dated now, but I think they still stand up to a lot of modern efforts. What you have bear in mind is that they are pre-digital. Every shot of the Predator in camouflage or of its heat vision was laboriously created by shooting on film with a beam splitter and a thermal camera, then creating the effect using traditional editing techniques.
On the surface, it’s a film about Schwarzenegger and his huge guns wandering around a forest flexing and looking greasy, but there is so much more depth than that. If another actor had played the lead, and the ending had been a bit cleverer, Predator may have been given the respect that the first two Alien films were given. Then again, without Schwarzenegger it would never have been made. Arnold was the second choice to play the Terminator, but only he can take on the Predator single handily and win.
When people ask me to name my favourite film, I often pause before saying ‘The Big Lebowski’, when the honest answer is really ‘Predator and The Big Lebowski equally’.
Lots of people turns their nose up at Predator, but pointing out that it was directed by John ‘Die Hard’ McTeirnan is enough to bring most of them round.
Predator can be appreciated for the same reasons as Die Hard, but it generally isn’t. Schwarzenegger and all the other meatheads in Predator put the discerning viewer off. Arnie takes his shirt off and fights an alien in the jungle. It’s far less embarrassing to watch Bruce Willis take his shoes off and fight Alan Rickman in a skyscraper. The problem is that watching a lot of crap action films is a prerequisite to appreciating Predator, and who the hell can be arsed to do that (apart from me)?
Predator gets right all the things that can go unnoticed in a film; pacing, structure, casting and cinematography. Predator, like most action films, sticks rigidly to conventional three act structure:
Act I: 33 minutes. Ends with 10 minute action set piece where they attack the enemy base.
Act II: 44 minutes. Concludes with 18 minute sequence that begins with the team setting traps for the Predator and ends with Arnold getting covered in mud and becoming invisible to the Predator.
Act III: 22 minutes. Schwarzenegger vs Predator.
Predator was only McTeirnan’s second film so he wasn’t going to try anything radical, and the studio would have never let him try to be too clever anyway, but few other films have pacing as good as Predator. A lot of the first two acts are taken up by Schwarzenegger and his team trekking through the jungle, which could easily become boring, but there is a high enough frequency of events to keep it interesting. This is helped by the cast, who hold the audience’s attention just by the way they creep through the leaves. Bill Duke, Jesse Ventura, Sonny Landham, Carl Weathers. All bad mothers. That guy who wrote Lethal Weapon ain’t such a badass, but he tells a couple of pussy jokes to lighten the mood, and the short guy was a genuine Vietnam vet, so there.
The cinematography of Predator is vastly underrated. When people think of good cinematography they thing of epic films featuring incredible landscapes. Films that appear claustrophobic aren’t impressive. It’s difficult to make a film shot in a jungle look good. In Predator the horizon often ends a few feet away from the camera, other than the actors, all that is in each shot are leaves, yet it still looks exciting and it fits the story perfectly. The Predator spends the first two thirds of the film as a camouflaged blur in the jungle, but then, everything is camouflaged. The entire pallet of the film is green and brown, but green and brown have never looked better on film.
Equally impressive are the visual effects. They may look dated now, but I think they still stand up to a lot of modern efforts. What you have bear in mind is that they are pre-digital. Every shot of the Predator in camouflage or of its heat vision was laboriously created by shooting on film with a beam splitter and a thermal camera, then creating the effect using traditional editing techniques.
On the surface, it’s a film about Schwarzenegger and his huge guns wandering around a forest flexing and looking greasy, but there is so much more depth than that. If another actor had played the lead, and the ending had been a bit cleverer, Predator may have been given the respect that the first two Alien films were given. Then again, without Schwarzenegger it would never have been made. Arnold was the second choice to play the Terminator, but only he can take on the Predator single handily and win.
Sunday 4 July 2010
King of Kong and other documentaries
The best documentary films are the ones which tell an interesting story using a compelling narrative, and without any kind of agenda. The best ones I’ve seen are ‘King of Kong’, ‘Capturing the Friedmans’ and ‘Overnight’.
KoK (giggle - 2007) has a hero and a villain, but this isn’t because the film has an agenda. During the making of the documentary the true personalities and motivations of the subjects become made clear. Steve is the hero because he’s a nice guy; Billy is the villain because he’s a self promoting wanker. By his own account the filmmaker didn’t make Billy Mitchell appear as bad a person as he is in real life.
Overnight (2003) is similar to KoK in that it was purposefully made to document the events that make up the subject of the documentary. It’s about a man who had Hollywood handed to him on a plate, and then his massive ego threw it all away. That man was Troy Duffy, who wrote the script to ‘The Boondock Saints’ and sold it to Miramax for $300,000, but then it all went wrong. Troy is protagonist and villain both at once.
Capturing the Friedmans (2003) tells the story of a family accused of abusing children and the trial that followed. It was made 20 years after the alleged events took place. The director knew all the facts of the case and was able to use new and historic interview footage to create a narrative and a story arc. This could be viewed as a deliberate skewing of the facts for the sake of entertainment, but I think it gets the balance just right. Tell an interesting story in an interesting way and you’ll make it better.
Bad documentaries tend to tell a story from start to finish without bothering to make it interesting, as if the subject matter is enough. The End of The Century: The Story of The Ramones (2003) does this and suffers because of it. However, When We Were Kings (1996) and The Fog of War (2003) are very good even though they just tell it how it happened.
The worst thing a documentary film can do is focus on the people making the documentary. This technique worked a couple of times for Michael Moore, but after Bowling for Columbine (2002) he got a bit too keen on himself.
KoK (giggle - 2007) has a hero and a villain, but this isn’t because the film has an agenda. During the making of the documentary the true personalities and motivations of the subjects become made clear. Steve is the hero because he’s a nice guy; Billy is the villain because he’s a self promoting wanker. By his own account the filmmaker didn’t make Billy Mitchell appear as bad a person as he is in real life.
Overnight (2003) is similar to KoK in that it was purposefully made to document the events that make up the subject of the documentary. It’s about a man who had Hollywood handed to him on a plate, and then his massive ego threw it all away. That man was Troy Duffy, who wrote the script to ‘The Boondock Saints’ and sold it to Miramax for $300,000, but then it all went wrong. Troy is protagonist and villain both at once.
Capturing the Friedmans (2003) tells the story of a family accused of abusing children and the trial that followed. It was made 20 years after the alleged events took place. The director knew all the facts of the case and was able to use new and historic interview footage to create a narrative and a story arc. This could be viewed as a deliberate skewing of the facts for the sake of entertainment, but I think it gets the balance just right. Tell an interesting story in an interesting way and you’ll make it better.
Bad documentaries tend to tell a story from start to finish without bothering to make it interesting, as if the subject matter is enough. The End of The Century: The Story of The Ramones (2003) does this and suffers because of it. However, When We Were Kings (1996) and The Fog of War (2003) are very good even though they just tell it how it happened.
The worst thing a documentary film can do is focus on the people making the documentary. This technique worked a couple of times for Michael Moore, but after Bowling for Columbine (2002) he got a bit too keen on himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)