Saturday
Great advice from Mackendrick
It's time for another viewing of 'Sweet Smell of Success' and 'The Lady Killers'. Here is some great advice from Alexander Mackendrick.
Monday
The Director's Cut
I recently watched the expanded edition of James Cameron's 'Avatar'. Despite the dismissive criticism I've heard about the film I find it to be a well crafted piece of entertainment. It's impressive in so many ways and I've always championed Cameron's ability to work with story. For him the visual effects are icing on the cake of a good story and strong characters. A snob might say that these elements are weak compared to 'high drama' but I won't buy into an argument like that. Cameron makes action adventure films and he does an excellent job in that genre.
This post isn't intended to promote Cameron or Avatar but present a discussion of Director's Cuts so I will follow that thought. The blu-ray of Avatar had a great 'making of' documentary and a lot of deleted scenes. I watched the entire documentary and was impressed at the scale of the accomplishment of the film. The deleted scenes got me thinking about how rarely I like deleted scenes. There is usually a degree of curiosity about elements of story or character that didn't make it into the final cut but in the end I find that I'm nodding in agreement that the scene was cut. Most often these scenes are digressions that don't advance the story. Remember that the audience wants to know what is going to happen next and if the scene doesn't advance the plot then they start to become restless. I have tried many times to watch deleted scenes on dvd and I have found that I lose interest very quickly. There is a reason why they were deleted.
This leads me to thinking about director's cuts that worked well and others that were a waste of time. Here are some...
Blood Simple: The Coen brothers revisited their first film and removed three minutes. The Coen's tightened up the film. The theatrical release featured a fake film historian who introduces the film to the audience. The Coen't sense of humour is at work here as the segment took as much time as they removed so the running time of the director's cut and the original were the same. Unfortunately the introduction is not on the current dvd edition (although it's on an earlier release).
The Abyss: The theatrical version of this film featured a 'what the f*#k?' ending. A well crafted action adventure film that didn't make any sense in the end. Cameron released a director's cut that reinstated an entire subplot about the world on the brink of nuclear war. The aliens of the deep were going to annihilate the human race if it wasn't for Ed Harris. This missing piece makes the film make a lot more sense. Cameron said that when the film was released no one was making an audience sit through a two and a half hour film. In 1989 it was thought that long films were death at the box office. 'Dances with Wolves' came out a year later proving them wrong - a three hour box office hit. Some might say this is ironic as Cameron's own 'Avatar' has been called a version of 'Dances with Wolves' which is itself a version of the Pocahontas story. Apparently there is a director's version of 'Dances with Wolves' but I have not seen it so will not comment.
Blade Runner: Ridley Scott has released many versions of this film and most people would say that the last version is the best version of the film. The big cuts were the original gumshoe voice-over and a much more ambiguous ending. There is a definitive blu-ray/dvd set with all versions of the film so you can watch the one you like the most (nudge, nudge Mr. Lucas).
Close Encounters of the Third Kind: Steven Spielberg didn't feel the film was complete when it was originally released. He negotiated to make a theatrical director's cut to finish the film and the studio agreed so long as he showed the inside of the alien spaceship. Spielberg agreed and tried to finish the film the way he wanted it. In the end the interior of the spaceship was a big mistake and Spielberg went back to the editing room to finally make the film he envisioned in the first place. The current edition is the 'definitive' edition and a great blu-ray to buy. Those night skies really needed high definition to look good.
Touch of Evil: Technically not a director's cut, 'Touch of Evil' was recut to the notes that Welles had given the studio about their cut of his film. Originally all the notes were ignored. Walter Murch was hired to make Welles' changes to both sound and picture. The film is now much closer to what Welles had envisioned when making it.
Mr. Arkadin: The criterion people put together a definitive edition of Welles' film 'Mr. Arkadin' (also known as 'Confidential Report'. There were many versions of the film around the world so Criterion put together all of these films and tried to reconstruct the film in a way that Welles had suggest to friend and confidant Peter Bogdanovich. Again, not technically a director's cut but a vast improvement on the hacked versions that were floating around. God bless those criterion folks!
Lawrence of Arabia: From Imdb -
Das Boot: Originally shot for television and then re-imagined as a feature film for American audiences, Das Boot featured a more comprehensive story line and a really amazing 5.1 surround treatment. This is one of my favourite experiences in a movie theatre. My good friend Vince and I hit a matinee of this film when it was rereleased and we were exhausted by the end of the film. We literally felt like we were in a submarine, being hunted down, for three hours. Sublime.
So what about those film that didn't need any tampering?
E.T. - Digitally removing guns lessens our tension. The original was perfect - no need for tampering.
Star Wars - Greedo shoots first? Why kill Han Solo's entire character arc? Some of the improved effects were nice to see but the story worked fine originally.
Empire Strikes Back: Again, Cloud City looked a lot better than it did in the original but other than that nothing is added that improves the original.
Return of the Jedi: Ditto.
Apocalypse Now Redux: By calling it redux Coppola tries to sidestep the idea of 'Director's Cut'. It is a restoration of his original cut of the film. Although I do find Redux to be worthy of interest I do prefer the original. In particular the French Plantation scene, although interesting, happens so late on the journey that it's too much of a digression - we want to get to Kurtz. Spending a half an hour on the political dialogue of these French ghosts happens much too late and doesn't advance the story. I did see this film in the theatre and I found it much more trippy and bizarre than the original and I applaud that. That said, I prefer the original film.
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy: I'm sure the fans of the series love the director's editions of the films. I'm indifferent. I've seen both and like both but I can't really remember what the director's cut added to the film other than time. I'm sure the fans would tear me a new one on this comment but there you go.
I'm sure I've missed many films here but most of these are on the high end of the spectrum. I can't really speak to the '40 Year Old Virgin' or 'Pearl Harbor'.
One film that might be of interest to some readers is the television version of 'The Godfather' called 'The Godfather Saga'. They combined 'The Godfather' and 'The Godfather Part II' into one film for television. They created a linear timeline where you first meet Vito Corleone in Sicily and play out the flashback sequences from part II, then move to 'The Godfather' and then to the storyline of Michael as head of the family and his dealings with Fredo and Hyman Roth. There were other versions released as well. There is a good wikipedia entry on the topic. There were also new scenes added that didn't appear in the original films. The big change here is taking away the juxtaposition of Michael and his father in part II. The juxtaposition of story makes the audience think about the differences between Vito and his son and how they wielded power and for what reason. Does this affect the richness of Part II? If you can find the Saga you can tell me (it's very rare).
This post isn't intended to promote Cameron or Avatar but present a discussion of Director's Cuts so I will follow that thought. The blu-ray of Avatar had a great 'making of' documentary and a lot of deleted scenes. I watched the entire documentary and was impressed at the scale of the accomplishment of the film. The deleted scenes got me thinking about how rarely I like deleted scenes. There is usually a degree of curiosity about elements of story or character that didn't make it into the final cut but in the end I find that I'm nodding in agreement that the scene was cut. Most often these scenes are digressions that don't advance the story. Remember that the audience wants to know what is going to happen next and if the scene doesn't advance the plot then they start to become restless. I have tried many times to watch deleted scenes on dvd and I have found that I lose interest very quickly. There is a reason why they were deleted.
This leads me to thinking about director's cuts that worked well and others that were a waste of time. Here are some...
Blood Simple: The Coen brothers revisited their first film and removed three minutes. The Coen's tightened up the film. The theatrical release featured a fake film historian who introduces the film to the audience. The Coen't sense of humour is at work here as the segment took as much time as they removed so the running time of the director's cut and the original were the same. Unfortunately the introduction is not on the current dvd edition (although it's on an earlier release).
The Abyss: The theatrical version of this film featured a 'what the f*#k?' ending. A well crafted action adventure film that didn't make any sense in the end. Cameron released a director's cut that reinstated an entire subplot about the world on the brink of nuclear war. The aliens of the deep were going to annihilate the human race if it wasn't for Ed Harris. This missing piece makes the film make a lot more sense. Cameron said that when the film was released no one was making an audience sit through a two and a half hour film. In 1989 it was thought that long films were death at the box office. 'Dances with Wolves' came out a year later proving them wrong - a three hour box office hit. Some might say this is ironic as Cameron's own 'Avatar' has been called a version of 'Dances with Wolves' which is itself a version of the Pocahontas story. Apparently there is a director's version of 'Dances with Wolves' but I have not seen it so will not comment.
Blade Runner: Ridley Scott has released many versions of this film and most people would say that the last version is the best version of the film. The big cuts were the original gumshoe voice-over and a much more ambiguous ending. There is a definitive blu-ray/dvd set with all versions of the film so you can watch the one you like the most (nudge, nudge Mr. Lucas).
Close Encounters of the Third Kind: Steven Spielberg didn't feel the film was complete when it was originally released. He negotiated to make a theatrical director's cut to finish the film and the studio agreed so long as he showed the inside of the alien spaceship. Spielberg agreed and tried to finish the film the way he wanted it. In the end the interior of the spaceship was a big mistake and Spielberg went back to the editing room to finally make the film he envisioned in the first place. The current edition is the 'definitive' edition and a great blu-ray to buy. Those night skies really needed high definition to look good.
Touch of Evil: Technically not a director's cut, 'Touch of Evil' was recut to the notes that Welles had given the studio about their cut of his film. Originally all the notes were ignored. Walter Murch was hired to make Welles' changes to both sound and picture. The film is now much closer to what Welles had envisioned when making it.
Mr. Arkadin: The criterion people put together a definitive edition of Welles' film 'Mr. Arkadin' (also known as 'Confidential Report'. There were many versions of the film around the world so Criterion put together all of these films and tried to reconstruct the film in a way that Welles had suggest to friend and confidant Peter Bogdanovich. Again, not technically a director's cut but a vast improvement on the hacked versions that were floating around. God bless those criterion folks!
Lawrence of Arabia: From Imdb -
Runtime:
216 min | UK: 228 min (director's cut) | UK: 187 min (1970 re-release) | UK: 210 min (original version) | UK: 222 min (premiere version) | USA: 227 min (restored roadshow version) - initially shortened for audiences, Lean eventually worked on restoring elements to his remarkable film.Das Boot: Originally shot for television and then re-imagined as a feature film for American audiences, Das Boot featured a more comprehensive story line and a really amazing 5.1 surround treatment. This is one of my favourite experiences in a movie theatre. My good friend Vince and I hit a matinee of this film when it was rereleased and we were exhausted by the end of the film. We literally felt like we were in a submarine, being hunted down, for three hours. Sublime.
So what about those film that didn't need any tampering?
E.T. - Digitally removing guns lessens our tension. The original was perfect - no need for tampering.
Star Wars - Greedo shoots first? Why kill Han Solo's entire character arc? Some of the improved effects were nice to see but the story worked fine originally.
Empire Strikes Back: Again, Cloud City looked a lot better than it did in the original but other than that nothing is added that improves the original.
Return of the Jedi: Ditto.
Apocalypse Now Redux: By calling it redux Coppola tries to sidestep the idea of 'Director's Cut'. It is a restoration of his original cut of the film. Although I do find Redux to be worthy of interest I do prefer the original. In particular the French Plantation scene, although interesting, happens so late on the journey that it's too much of a digression - we want to get to Kurtz. Spending a half an hour on the political dialogue of these French ghosts happens much too late and doesn't advance the story. I did see this film in the theatre and I found it much more trippy and bizarre than the original and I applaud that. That said, I prefer the original film.
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy: I'm sure the fans of the series love the director's editions of the films. I'm indifferent. I've seen both and like both but I can't really remember what the director's cut added to the film other than time. I'm sure the fans would tear me a new one on this comment but there you go.
I'm sure I've missed many films here but most of these are on the high end of the spectrum. I can't really speak to the '40 Year Old Virgin' or 'Pearl Harbor'.
One film that might be of interest to some readers is the television version of 'The Godfather' called 'The Godfather Saga'. They combined 'The Godfather' and 'The Godfather Part II' into one film for television. They created a linear timeline where you first meet Vito Corleone in Sicily and play out the flashback sequences from part II, then move to 'The Godfather' and then to the storyline of Michael as head of the family and his dealings with Fredo and Hyman Roth. There were other versions released as well. There is a good wikipedia entry on the topic. There were also new scenes added that didn't appear in the original films. The big change here is taking away the juxtaposition of Michael and his father in part II. The juxtaposition of story makes the audience think about the differences between Vito and his son and how they wielded power and for what reason. Does this affect the richness of Part II? If you can find the Saga you can tell me (it's very rare).
Saturday
Sidney Lumet
One of the first books I ever read on the art of filmmaking was Sidney Lumet's 'Making Movies". It was the perfect introduction to a world that I wanted to be a part of. It was level-headed and even-keeled and didn't veer away from a life spent in the craft of telling stories in pictures. Sidney Lumet was a writer's director - a true story teller. Unlike many directors that want to create a style that leads the audience to wonder about the 'auteur' behind the camera, Lumet always put story and performance first. As a director he was always transparent and unseen. The only way you could know you were seeing a Lumet picture was that it was so good.
There are many great films to rhyme off - Serpico, 12 Angry Men, Fail-Safe, The Verdict, Dog Day Afternoon, The Pawnbroker and Network. Every one of these films enunciate Lumet's great contribution to filmmaking - all were great stories and all featured memorable performances. Lumet had an ear for great material and he made those scripts into great films. Network is the only film I know of that credits the writer with the title card 'by Paddy Chayefsky''. Even if this was a stipulation from Chayefsky, you always get the sense that Lumet was a true collaborator. He respected the talent of those he worked with and he got the most out of it. He was the greatest journey-man director of his time. He will certainly be missed and our only consolation is that he left us so many great films to revisit. For this he will live on for a very long time.
There are many great films to rhyme off - Serpico, 12 Angry Men, Fail-Safe, The Verdict, Dog Day Afternoon, The Pawnbroker and Network. Every one of these films enunciate Lumet's great contribution to filmmaking - all were great stories and all featured memorable performances. Lumet had an ear for great material and he made those scripts into great films. Network is the only film I know of that credits the writer with the title card 'by Paddy Chayefsky''. Even if this was a stipulation from Chayefsky, you always get the sense that Lumet was a true collaborator. He respected the talent of those he worked with and he got the most out of it. He was the greatest journey-man director of his time. He will certainly be missed and our only consolation is that he left us so many great films to revisit. For this he will live on for a very long time.
Monday
The Courtroom Drama Part II
I was thinking more about John Patterson's criticism of the courtroom drama. In particular I was thinking about the third act problem that he identified in his article. He called it a crime against cinema and I do think he has a point. You might call it a cinematic crime to lessen the issue but here it is.
In a good movie, action drives the story. I don't mean action in terms of shooting guns or wrecking cars, I mean action in terms of the decisions that characters make. One active decision leads the character to the next beat of the story. For example, a character decides to 'leave home to save the princess'. He makes a decision that leads to more action on his part. It doesn't matter what he says in the dialogue, he is showing us his character by making decisions that lead to actions. The actions are where the story is told, especially in film. As a visual medium we watch our protagonist move from one decision to another, each one moving us closer to the resolution of the story.
The third act of the courtroom drama takes away the active decisions of the protagonist and the visual narrative stops. A courtroom drama ends up cutting from one lawyer to another to a reaction shot to a judges gavel to the agitated crowd and back again. The film story becomes a play. The thrust of the drama is now in legal arguments. There is no more action to be taken and we sit and contemplate and hope our hero wins.
What usually saves the third act is the new information that comes to light. A witness that we couldn't find, a legal precedent, or evidence that has been missed. The audience is still compelled to find out the truth. In a lot of ways they become a part of the jury even though they have been heavily biased by the writer who to root for.
So it's true that the third act of a legal thriller commits the cinematic crime of abandoning visual story telling. Yet, if you've done a good job of building a compelling story and more importantly, compelling characters, the audience will forgive and will be drawn into the climax of the picture.
As a post script, I couldn't help but think of another excellent courtroom drama - JFK.
In a good movie, action drives the story. I don't mean action in terms of shooting guns or wrecking cars, I mean action in terms of the decisions that characters make. One active decision leads the character to the next beat of the story. For example, a character decides to 'leave home to save the princess'. He makes a decision that leads to more action on his part. It doesn't matter what he says in the dialogue, he is showing us his character by making decisions that lead to actions. The actions are where the story is told, especially in film. As a visual medium we watch our protagonist move from one decision to another, each one moving us closer to the resolution of the story.
The third act of the courtroom drama takes away the active decisions of the protagonist and the visual narrative stops. A courtroom drama ends up cutting from one lawyer to another to a reaction shot to a judges gavel to the agitated crowd and back again. The film story becomes a play. The thrust of the drama is now in legal arguments. There is no more action to be taken and we sit and contemplate and hope our hero wins.
What usually saves the third act is the new information that comes to light. A witness that we couldn't find, a legal precedent, or evidence that has been missed. The audience is still compelled to find out the truth. In a lot of ways they become a part of the jury even though they have been heavily biased by the writer who to root for.
So it's true that the third act of a legal thriller commits the cinematic crime of abandoning visual story telling. Yet, if you've done a good job of building a compelling story and more importantly, compelling characters, the audience will forgive and will be drawn into the climax of the picture.
As a post script, I couldn't help but think of another excellent courtroom drama - JFK.
The Courtroom Drama
Today I read the article deriding the courtroom drama where the author John Patterson says that courtroom dramas are a 'crime against cinema'. He says:
I've often said that court room dramas and sports films are successful because they have a built in drama - one side must oppose the others and there is always a winner. In drama we try to find conflict and opposing goals and both of these genres of storytelling have this naturally. We know the Superbowl is going to produce a winner and a loser. We know that OJ is going to be found guilty or innocent and the glory will go to the winner.
Both genres also produce a tough problem for the writer. How do you combat the cliche that comes with the genre? This is what Patterson is reacting to. Since we already know that there will be a winner and a loser in the black and white game of court, how do you keep it fresh? How do you write a Judge that isn't a prickly antagonist? The genre is very tired and I'm not sure that fixing the plot or structure is what's needed. What the writer needs to do is involve the audience in the characters. It is not important what the outcome of the drama is (we know the underdog will win) but the journey of the characters in that drama. I remember when Titanic came out I was skeptical of the film as I knew how it was going to end. The trick is to get the audience to care about your characters. Titanic worked for audiences as they didn't know how it was going to end for Jack. More important than that, Cameron make the audience care what was going to happen to Jack.
The great Orson Welles opened two films with the death of the protagonists - Citizen Kane and Othello. In the case of Othello, this was Welles invention for the Shakespeare play. He shows you how the film will end and then backtracks to make you care about the characters and go on their journey with them. The audience may say 'how did you get there?' but they know where the story ends before it begins. This is what the sport film and court drama have to deal with. We know the outcome but we don't know how we get there exactly. What is the twist in the story? What does the protagonist go through to get there. What is their individual need?
I will depart from John Patterson on this. There are great courtroom dramas and the genre is difficult to be original in but with good characters a good film is produced. I love 'Witness for the Prosecution'. I love it because I like love 'Sir Wilfred' played with zest by Charles Laughton. I love 'To Kill a Mockingbird' because I love Atticus, Scout and Jem. I love 'The Verdict' and Paul Newman's search for redemption. I agree with Patterson's choices of great courtroom dramas - Anatomy of a Murder and Paths of Glory, both films with great protagonists. I like 'A Few Good Men' and 'Compulsion' but I don't love them.
One film I keep going back to is Pakula's 'Presumed Innocent'. The story's twist is that the prosecution becomes the defence. A good turn of plot but carried by a flawed protagonist who has cheated on his wife with the victim of the murder. The characters carry film and the film is populated with top notch actors - Ford, Brian Dennehy, Raul Julia and John Spencer. The Judge role is of the cliched type but works fine with a little bit of street atitude and a good performance by Paul Winfield.
I will also stand in defence of 'The Rainmaker'. I don't know why this film gets beaten up so often. It's a great ensemble piece starring Danny Devito, Matt Damon, Mickey Rourke, Dean Stockwell, Roy Scheider, Danny Glover, Jon Voight and the beautiful Virginia Madsen. If the criticism of this film is 'it's not the Godfather' then it's not criticism. I really enjoy 'The Rainmaker' as a great character piece. I think the Matt Damon/Clare Danes relationship is pushing the melodramatic but as a courtroom thriller the film is excellent. It's got a great score and a plethora of unique characters. What more can you ask for? Oh right, 'The Godfather' and 'Apocalypse Now'.
If I might sidetrack for a moment, I remember watching a tv review of Woody Allen's 'Bullets Over Broadway' and the reviewer said that the film was good but 'no Annie Hall'. What the fuck is that? I guess this is why we call it a review and not proper criticism. 'Bullets Over Broadway' was an excellent comedy and 'The Rainmaker' is a good courtroom drama. We don't need to hang an albatross over the neck of great filmmakers to say that their work always needs to be universal and spectacular. 'Touch of Evil' is no Citizen Kane. 'Burn Before Reading' is no Fargo. 'A Prairie Home Companion' is no Nashville. 'Witness for the Prosecution' is no Some Like it Hot. But their all fine films.
A good film is a good film. Courtroom dramas have a legacy and they also have a lot of cliche. Often it's hard to pull away from the plot conventions but the trick is in the characters. Make it compelling and make original characters. It can rise above the convention. The third act is usually a verbal argument where the two sides verbally joust and the unexpected twists of plot are revealed. It is the crutch of the genre. Great characters will make it worth it and should forgive the mechanics of the plot.
For the sports movie? How about another screening of 'Slap Shot'? We miss you Paul Newman.
The arrival of handsome-super-lawyer flick The Lincoln Lawyer reminds me of an old bugbear: we need to crack down on courtroom movies and legal thrillers, and especially courtroom-showdown climaxes in otherwise non-legal movies. Getting the law involved just kills a movie stone dead every time.
In that last category alone there are dozens of movies that simply throw in the storytelling towel in the last act and allow their narratives to become enmeshed in the courtroom Sargasso of legal back-and-forth, declamatory utterances by the attorneys and whatever character-acting old geezer is today manning the bench. Films as diverse as Eureka, They Drive By Night and White Squall were all roaring along nicely until they screeched to a halt in courtrooms 20 minutes before their actual running-times expired.
I've often said that court room dramas and sports films are successful because they have a built in drama - one side must oppose the others and there is always a winner. In drama we try to find conflict and opposing goals and both of these genres of storytelling have this naturally. We know the Superbowl is going to produce a winner and a loser. We know that OJ is going to be found guilty or innocent and the glory will go to the winner.
Both genres also produce a tough problem for the writer. How do you combat the cliche that comes with the genre? This is what Patterson is reacting to. Since we already know that there will be a winner and a loser in the black and white game of court, how do you keep it fresh? How do you write a Judge that isn't a prickly antagonist? The genre is very tired and I'm not sure that fixing the plot or structure is what's needed. What the writer needs to do is involve the audience in the characters. It is not important what the outcome of the drama is (we know the underdog will win) but the journey of the characters in that drama. I remember when Titanic came out I was skeptical of the film as I knew how it was going to end. The trick is to get the audience to care about your characters. Titanic worked for audiences as they didn't know how it was going to end for Jack. More important than that, Cameron make the audience care what was going to happen to Jack.
The great Orson Welles opened two films with the death of the protagonists - Citizen Kane and Othello. In the case of Othello, this was Welles invention for the Shakespeare play. He shows you how the film will end and then backtracks to make you care about the characters and go on their journey with them. The audience may say 'how did you get there?' but they know where the story ends before it begins. This is what the sport film and court drama have to deal with. We know the outcome but we don't know how we get there exactly. What is the twist in the story? What does the protagonist go through to get there. What is their individual need?
I will depart from John Patterson on this. There are great courtroom dramas and the genre is difficult to be original in but with good characters a good film is produced. I love 'Witness for the Prosecution'. I love it because I like love 'Sir Wilfred' played with zest by Charles Laughton. I love 'To Kill a Mockingbird' because I love Atticus, Scout and Jem. I love 'The Verdict' and Paul Newman's search for redemption. I agree with Patterson's choices of great courtroom dramas - Anatomy of a Murder and Paths of Glory, both films with great protagonists. I like 'A Few Good Men' and 'Compulsion' but I don't love them.
One film I keep going back to is Pakula's 'Presumed Innocent'. The story's twist is that the prosecution becomes the defence. A good turn of plot but carried by a flawed protagonist who has cheated on his wife with the victim of the murder. The characters carry film and the film is populated with top notch actors - Ford, Brian Dennehy, Raul Julia and John Spencer. The Judge role is of the cliched type but works fine with a little bit of street atitude and a good performance by Paul Winfield.
I will also stand in defence of 'The Rainmaker'. I don't know why this film gets beaten up so often. It's a great ensemble piece starring Danny Devito, Matt Damon, Mickey Rourke, Dean Stockwell, Roy Scheider, Danny Glover, Jon Voight and the beautiful Virginia Madsen. If the criticism of this film is 'it's not the Godfather' then it's not criticism. I really enjoy 'The Rainmaker' as a great character piece. I think the Matt Damon/Clare Danes relationship is pushing the melodramatic but as a courtroom thriller the film is excellent. It's got a great score and a plethora of unique characters. What more can you ask for? Oh right, 'The Godfather' and 'Apocalypse Now'.
If I might sidetrack for a moment, I remember watching a tv review of Woody Allen's 'Bullets Over Broadway' and the reviewer said that the film was good but 'no Annie Hall'. What the fuck is that? I guess this is why we call it a review and not proper criticism. 'Bullets Over Broadway' was an excellent comedy and 'The Rainmaker' is a good courtroom drama. We don't need to hang an albatross over the neck of great filmmakers to say that their work always needs to be universal and spectacular. 'Touch of Evil' is no Citizen Kane. 'Burn Before Reading' is no Fargo. 'A Prairie Home Companion' is no Nashville. 'Witness for the Prosecution' is no Some Like it Hot. But their all fine films.
A good film is a good film. Courtroom dramas have a legacy and they also have a lot of cliche. Often it's hard to pull away from the plot conventions but the trick is in the characters. Make it compelling and make original characters. It can rise above the convention. The third act is usually a verbal argument where the two sides verbally joust and the unexpected twists of plot are revealed. It is the crutch of the genre. Great characters will make it worth it and should forgive the mechanics of the plot.
For the sports movie? How about another screening of 'Slap Shot'? We miss you Paul Newman.
Sunday
Dropbox
I discovered dropbox through Gizmodo and Lifehacker and I have to say that it's a great tool for a writer who is working on several systems.
What is dropbox? It's a program that allows you to share a folder no matter where you are. I've been working on some writing projects where I usually put my files on a USB key and lug them around from my desktop to my laptop. I try to back everything up locally which is fine except sometimes you edit something locally and forget to replace the file on the usb key. I'm sure a more organized writer would say that it isn't a problem to do this but I have been known to confuse myself as to what draft I'm working on.
Enter dropbox. I install dropbox and get an account and I put my files in there. I install dropbox on my mac laptop and it automatically synchronizes to the dropbox on my pc and vice versa. Forgot my usb key? No problem. The only thing I need is a wifi connection and these are publicly available in the places I go to write (coffee shop or pub). Those without free wifi don't have my business.
In full disclosure, I am no way affiliated with dropbox. I love that it's free and it's been a great addition to my workflow. I recommend it.
What is dropbox? It's a program that allows you to share a folder no matter where you are. I've been working on some writing projects where I usually put my files on a USB key and lug them around from my desktop to my laptop. I try to back everything up locally which is fine except sometimes you edit something locally and forget to replace the file on the usb key. I'm sure a more organized writer would say that it isn't a problem to do this but I have been known to confuse myself as to what draft I'm working on.
Enter dropbox. I install dropbox and get an account and I put my files in there. I install dropbox on my mac laptop and it automatically synchronizes to the dropbox on my pc and vice versa. Forgot my usb key? No problem. The only thing I need is a wifi connection and these are publicly available in the places I go to write (coffee shop or pub). Those without free wifi don't have my business.
In full disclosure, I am no way affiliated with dropbox. I love that it's free and it's been a great addition to my workflow. I recommend it.
Monday
Schizopolis!
I highly recommend this film and Soderbergh's book written around the same time. All of this is before his meteoric rise (I've always wanted to use that phrase) to the top of the film world. I'm not sure where he is now but he's one smart and creative cookie.
'Getting Away With It'
Brilliant stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)