How the Times Have Changed

I was watching American Movie Classics today and happened upon 'PT109', a dramatization of John F Kennedy's wartime experience. To be honest, I wasn't much interested in watching it but was struck by the idea of how times have changed. Could you imagine a dramatization of George W's skipping out on the National Guard?! His film might be somewhere on the level of 'Revenge of the Nerds' or 'Animal House'. Had Kerry won the election maybe we would have another PT109 or 'Mutiny on the Bounty'. Maybe even a dramatization of Al Gore creating the internet...

The Emperor has no clothes.

Missing DVD

I was contemplating some missing films on DVD. Previously it was 'The Conformist' which has since made its appearance. Today I was thinking of the 'The Magnificent Ambersons' and its glaring absence. If ever a film deserved a spectacular super duper special edition, its Welles somewhat forgotten, abridged masterpiece.

Here's hoping.

Joe Eszterhas - Hollywood Animal

I just finished reading Joe Eszterhas' memoir 'Hollywood Animal' and found it to be an extremely surpising, touching and engrossing book. If you don't know him, Eszterhas is famous for being one of the highest paid screenwriters in history and is responsible for such films as Showgirls, Basic Instinct, Jagged Edge, Betrayed, Flashdance, Jade (etc.). His films have had a huge impact at the box office despite being lambasted by critics as 'everything that is wrong with Hollywood'.

I can't chime in on the criticism here as I think I've only seen Basic Instinct, Betrayed and Flashdance. I can't chime in on the criticism as I don't remember much about these films. However, 'Hollywood Animal' is refreshing as Eszterhas doesn't sugar coat his life or his work. He frankly recognizes when films didn't work but defends his own place in the process. He defends himself against accusations of misogyny and a lust for violence. He also defends the writers place in the process of making a film. Too often writers are just happy to be invited to party (the production) and too often writers ruin their own work, giving in to the whims of the studios. Eszterhas refused to do unnecessary rewrites and fought to preserve the integrity of his stories. He was willing to kill a project if the studio or director wanted to make changes Eszterhas felt damaged his story.

Whatever you think about his films, you have to admire his courage (or arrogance) in the face of overwhelming pressure. The pressure is this: do what we say or you don't have a career. Anyone who stands up to that possibility warrants a second look and deserves the respect of his peers. In the documentaries for the show Seinfeld, there is a story of Larry David who quit after being given 'notes' by an executive (apparently he quit often). David, like Eszterhas thought it better to walk away then to give in to someones 'stupid' ideas. The writer is hired, like any specialist, to write. The writer should be considered the 'expert' at story. The writer is the one who is trying to balance all the elements of the story and is asked, often without care or thought, to make changes that jeopardizes that delicate balance. Think of the script as a house of cards or a game of Jenga. You place all the elements in their place for the purpose of the drama. You juggle all of the elements of character, dialogue and situation to move towards the unexpected but inevitable conclusion. Then, out of nowhere, changes are requested that pulls a card (or several) out of the house. Suddenly, the cards fall and you end up with a mess. On top of it, you give up your unique voice and obsessions to appease the whims of others (something novelists, playwrights and poets don't have to do).

One thing I admired about Eszterhas is that he rarely worked on assignment and he didn't just pitch an idea. He dreamed up a story, wrote the screenplay and then sold it (for a tidy sum). He was a writer writing. He wasn't a gambler, trying his hand at an idea, but a writer who spent his time writing what he wanted and then worried about selling it afterwards. This is called the 'spec' script and he was advised against it by his agent as it was considered to be amateur. Real writers pitched an idea then wrote a script. Eszterhas liked to write and he made his career on his own terms. Despite what anyone says about his films, he deserves respect for his integrity and need to express his own ideas.

Beyond the business of writers and writing, 'Hollywood Animal' is also a very honest autobiography of a man who lived a dual life. He stayed away from Hollywood and was known as a dedicated family man. However, he admits to giving in to the sins of the rock and roll lifestyle, drinking to excess and cheating on his wife. There is an honesty to this book that is touching. He reflects on his past and seems to be trying to exercise his demons. As one might tell a story of their life in anecdote, Eszterhas seems to use this memoir as a way of understanding himself. It is the work of someone who is not at the end of their days, but one who is trying to move forward with the realization of who they have become.

Highly recommended.

Orson Welles, James Stewart and Dean Martin? Why not?

Other Side of the Wind

Mark Mayerson passed on this terrific article on Orson Welles last completed film, 'Other Side of the Wind'. Welles shot the film over six years but never finished the editing. Peter Bogdanovich, a long time friend of Welles and an actor in the movie, has been trying to complete the film. Much of Welles later catalogue of films, including Chimes at Midnight and the re-release of Touch of Evil have seen legal complications due to Welles' daughter Beatrice or issues dealing with ownership of rights.

http://brightlightsfilm.com/55/windiv.htm

If you're interested in Welles' works then you should check out the Criterion Collection Dvds 'F for Fake' and 'Mr. Arkadin' aka 'Confidential Report'. Both feature beautiful transfers of these wonderful films as well as terrific supplementals. 'F For Fake' includes the great documentary 'Orson Welles: One-Man Band'. Orson Welles friend and confidant Oja Kodar was trusted with all of Welles collection of film works and graciously gave access to this work to the filmmakers. The documentary features Welles doing monologues, test footage from unrealized projects as well as some scenes from 'Other Side of the Wind'. The collection is quite impressive and a testament to the fact that Welles had kept busy, working on independant projects until the day he died. He died at his typewriter, working on original material.

Clifford Irving, one of the subjects of Welles 'F for Fake', is now featured in the upcoming film 'Hoax'. Irving became famous after claiming to have written the autobiography of the mysterious and eccentric billionaire Howard Hughes. It turned out to be a hoax. If you have a desire to see the new film starring Richard Gere then you should absolutely check out the Criterion Collection's 'F for Fake'. The film is a rather complex 'essay' on the nature of fakery. Welles breaks away from traditional documentary techniques which pertain to retain a degree of objectivity. 'F for Fake' is very much a personal statement and is as whimsical as it is profound. The more I read about Welles, the more I feel that he too was as whimsical as he was profound.

Love and Hate

After seeing Fitzcarraldo last year, I have been exploring the films of Werner Herzog and in particular, the films he made with actor Klaus Kinski. Herzog made five films with Kinski: Aguirre, Nosferatu, Wyzeck, Fitzcarraldo and Cobra Verde. What is fascinating about their relationship (if you've never heard of them) is that it was as temultous as any working relationship in film (think Burton and Taylor without the sex). Kinski was well known as being a raving madman and impossible to work with. Here is a clip from youtube:



Herzog talks about his love/hate relationship with Kinski in his terrific documentary 'My Best Fiend' where that particular clip was taken from. Herzog is a filmmaker in the purest sense. He doesn't have aspirations for fame or blockbusters (not that he'd mind) but is an obsessive and driven artist. This is the only explanation as to why he would have suffered five difficult films with someone like Kinski.

As Herzog explains, Kinski's rantings and ravings (which could last for hours if not days) were a part of what made him electric on the screen. He was a powder keg of raw emotion and energy and Herzog wanted to capture it and use this in his works. Or should I say, needed to capture it.

In the documentary he refutes the claim that in Aguirre, he made Kinski finish a scene while pointing a loaded gun at him. No, he says that Kinski was getting into a boat to leave the set for good and knowing that Kinski had broken contracts before, he told him that he would get his rifle and before Kinski got around the bend there would five bullets in him, save for the last one which would be for himself. Kinski stayed.

Herzog says that he used to fantasize about murdering Kinski and almost fire bombed his house one night (he says a loud dog stopped him from his plan). Whether or not Herzog was serious about these murderous threats, it highlights the kind of relationship these two men had. Herzog was just as much a megalomaniac and just as obsessive. Remember that in Fitzcarraldo he insisted that they actually pull a river boat over the mountain and then ran the boat through the rapids with a small crew on board!

In the end, Herzog was right. The films he made with Kinski, however flawed at times, are nothing short of brilliant and memorable. Roger Ebert puts it well in his review of Aguirre:

Of modern filmmakers, Werner Herzog is the most visionary and the most obsessed with great themes. Little wonder that he has directed many operas. He does not want to tell a plotted story or record amusing dialog; he wants to lift us up into realms of wonder. Only a handful of modern films share the audacity of his vision; I think of “2001: A Space Odyssey'' and “Apocalypse Now.'' Among active directors, the one who seems as messianic is Oliver Stone. There is a kind of saintly madness in the way they talk about their work; they cannot be bothered with conventional success, because they reach for transcendence.

As difficult as Kinski was, Herzog has a genuine affection for the man. In 'My Best Fiend' he also shares that side of Kinski that was kind, warm and generous.

We human beings have a wonderful ability for contradiction. It is possible to love someone and hate them at the same time.

On the importance of film editing

I was having a conversation with a friend about the importance of a good editor in film and he seemed to think, in his experience, picture editors were merely button pushers - technicians who ran the equipment. I must admit being slightly baffled by the conversation, particularly because I was talking to a fellow director!

For me, the writing team that makes up a film is the writer (of course!), the director and the editor. Each person contributes to the story in very concrete ways. In the vaguest sense, the writer creates the scenario and dialogue and explores the themes of the piece. The director shapes the visual part of the story telling and creates the tone and style as well as informing the performances. It's the editors job to take all that has been designed and shot and shape it into the finished piece. The editor becomes, as the famous editor Walter Murch puts it, the representative for the audience. The editor isn't concerned with the writer or directors initial intentions, they are set to the task of making what was shot and gathered work.

"the central occupation of the film editor, is to put himself/herself in place of the audience. What is the audience going to be thinking at any particular moment? Where are they going to be looking? What do you want them to think about? What do they need to think about? And, of course, what do you want them to feel? If you keep this in mind (and it's the preoccupation of every magician), then you are a kind of magician. Not in the supernatural sense, just an everyday, working magician."

In Michael Onjaatje's conversations with Walter Murch, Murch quotes Orson Welles:

“Orson Welles once said in an interview in Cahier du Cinéma: For my style, for my vision of the cinema, editing is not simply one aspect: it’s the aspect. The notion of directing a film is the invention of critics like you [Cahier du Cinéma]. It isn’t an art, or at best it’s an art only one minute a day. That minute is terribly crucial, but it occurs very rarely. The only time one is able to exercise control over the film is in the editing. The images themselves are not sufficient. They’re very important, but they’re only images. What’s essential is the duration of each image and that which follows each image: the whole eloquence of cinema is that it’s achieved in the editing room.”

Anyone who has ever made a film understands that the moment you arrive at a location you are at the mercy of time and circumstance. Everything on the face of the earth seems to come together and conspire against you. Filmmakers are great rationalizers and when everything starts to go wrong, you rationalize it into something positive. It's in the editing room that you start the film over again and throw out all initial intentions and replace them with the reality of what you shot. This isn't to say that the film is replaced, rather, it represents another opportunity to react to the story as it exists and to reshape it. Things you thought would work well fell flat while things you struggled with come off with smashing success.

According to the film journalist Peter Biskind, this is where the film company Miramax set itself apart from other studios. In his his terrific book "Down and Dirty Pictures", Biskind says that while the other studios would put films through development hell, working and reworking the scripts, Miramax was very quick to green light a project and put it into production. Hell came in post production as they would work and rework the edit until they got the film they wanted. Although this process was incredibly tough for the filmmakers, Miramax showed a unique understanding of the importance of editing, an insight that provided them with their unparalleled success.

Filmmaking is a collaborative art and the process is one where the film gets written many times before you end up with a finished print. There is give and take between the writer, the director and editor and while the director gets the final say, the editor is integral to the process and a good editor is worth their weight in gold. They are that fresh set of eyes that helps to write the rhythm and tone (and sometimes structure) of the picture.

For a terrific example of how much editing impacts a film, rent the Criterion Collection's version of Terry Gilliam's "Brazil". "Brazil" was a troubled production and the studio, under Sid Sheinberg, recut the film into a "Love Conquers All" version (eventually agreeing to releasing Gilliam's version). The Criterion Collection inludes both versions of the movie so you can see how Sheinberg's cut differs immensely from Gilliam's despite using all of the same footage! It's a little editing class in a box.