Missing DVD

The move from VHS to DVD has been a true blessing for movie fans. Every movie company has reached into their vaults and have released so many of their treasures. Topping it off is the quality of the prints - the new telecines of old prints have given us a chance to see films in such high quality.

I make a regular trip to amazon and look up some films that are missing. One missing film is Bernardo Bertolucci's spectacular 'The Conformist'. If you don't know it, the story is set in facist Italy where the protagonist, Marcello Clerici takes on an assignment with the secret police to murder a political dissident in France. 'The Confomist' is one of those rare films that blends a unique visual style with a depth of themes and ideas. Storaro's brilliant cinematography uses colour and contrast of shadow and light to lift up and support the stories themes. Clerici is a shell, a man of no courage or conviction, a true conformist. The characterization is quite profound and interesting and Bertolucci explores it through politics and sexuality. Anthony Minghella's 'The Talented Mr. Ripley' is another great film that explores similar themes and ideas. The theme was encapsulated in that great line 'I'd rather be a fake somebody, then a real nobody'.

I read on IMDB that Paramount no longer holds the rights to 'The Conformist' so the release is up in limbo. I believe that Orson Welles 'Chimes at Midnight' is in the same holding pattern. It's a shame as these great films should be able to find a new audience. Maybe the Criterion Collection will be able to broker a deal as they did with Orson Welles 'Mr. Arkadin' and 'F for Fake'. Criterion has done a wonderful job with both of those films.

Inspired Casting

Vince responded to my post about miscasting and proposed the opposite question of some examples of inspired casting.

Peter O'Toole came to mind as the star of David Lean's classic 'Lawrence of Arabia'. O'Toole was a relatively unknown at the time and one would think that it was a bit of a chance casting him in such a huge role.

Fred MacMurray was perfectly cast against type in Billy Wilder's 'Double Indemnity'. MacMurray played an insurance salesman who falls in love with a femme fatale and conspires to murder her husband and run off with her and the insurance money. MacMurray also appears in Wilder's 'The Apartment' and plays Jack Lemmon's boss, Sheldrake. Sheldrake uses Lemmon's apartment for romantic rendevous with his lover (not wife) played by Shirley MacLaine. Both roles play against the squeaky clean image that he later developed in 'My Three Sons' and Disney films like 'The Shaggy Dog'.

Casting is a funny thing as it's very hard to be able to imagine a finished film without its final cast. Imagine Tom Selleck as Indiana Jones (his audition is on the dvd). I'm sure 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' would have been just as entertaining but it certainly would have felt different. Imagine Harvey Keitel as Willard in 'Apocalypse Now', or 'Jaws' without Richard Dreyfuss. Apparently Francis Coppola had to fight for both Al Pacino and Marlon Brando for 'The Godfather', a move that seems like a no-brainer today.

Film is a collaborative medium and it is important to step back and look at how every decision you make can have a profound effect on the final picture. Choosing talent is that intangible element that can make or break a picture. This means the director, cinematographer, editor, costume designer, production designer, art director, writer etc... Each piece of the puzzle effects the final picture. There is enough ego in the industry that people want to believe in the theory of the 'Auteur' but I think you can't separate the director from the talent. A great director moulds the film but also knows to use the assets of talent.

Fitzcarraldo

In the age where everything is possible using digital special effects it's pure magic watching a film like Fitzcarraldo. It's magic is that there are no special effects and what you are seeing is real, pure and simple.

If you don't know the film, it's story involves a failed entrepreneur (Klaus Kinski) who comes up with a brilliant idea on how to tap into an unused rubber tree forest. There are two rivers and only one is accessible, the other river has impassable rapids. Kinski's character, Fitzcarraldo, sees a point on the map where the two rivers are very close together so he schemes to take a boat to that point, drag the boat over the mountain and then be able to run a river boat above the dangerous rapids. He would take the untapped rubber trees up to the same point, take the trees over the mountain and down the safe river.

Exasperating his problems, the point at which the rivers meet is in the land of a tribe of natives known for headhunting. Fitzcarraldo ends up using the tribe for labour but isn't sure of the reasons behind their assistance. It is a great source of tension throughout the film.

Behind all of this ambition is Fitzcarraldo's love of the opera. His real dream is to make enough money to build an opera house deep in the Amazon.

The film is one of those great movies that, despite it being too long and meandering, transcends it's flaws. Part of this is from Herzog's insistence that he puts reality before the camera. No special effects allowed. Having seen it and knowing what you were seeing was real has a profound effect. Herzog even strips his style down where it often feels like a documentary. It doesn't take much imagination to see how difficult it would be to pull a river boat over a mountain and to top it all off, the river boat ends up running down the other river and through the rapids. This sequence was simply riveting as Herzog had cameras in the boat as it ran violently down the river.

It's easy to forget in the modern day just how exhilarating real images are. I think back to those huge films of the past where armies of people gathered to make a film. I think of Lawrence of Arabia where thousands of men clash in immense battle sequences. Or the Jungle exploding in Apocalypse Now and even the intimate scenes of the drunken Martin Sheen breaking down. Herzog is quite right in attempting to capture a large degree of reality as reality is powerful.

Fitzcarraldo's story is about dreams and one's own obsessions. It is a classic example of man vs man, man vs nature and most of all, man vs himself. How do we overcome our own obsessions? How do we accept our own failures and limitations? It's hard to know if Fitzcarraldo is mad at the beginning of the film or if he's going mad on the journey. He's an eccentric and maybe Herzog's point would be that we are mad for not chasing down our own dreams, for not allowing our own passions to consume us.

Miscasts

I was just thinking about the previous post and thought of Demme's remake of 'Charade' as 'The Truth about Charlie'. Mark Wahlberg was cast in the role that a mature Cary Grant had played in the previous film. Again, there was a maturity and worldliness about the character in the story that was missing from the youthful Wahlberg.

Anybody else have some examples of miscasting?

Red Dragon

I brought up 'Silence of the Lambs' in my post about the effects of sound on film. Tonight I caught 'Red Dragon', the prequel to 'Silence of the Lambs' and began to notice the difference between a great film and an 'ok' film. I think Jonathan Demme's 'Silence of the Lamb's' is a textbook example of filmmaking. Everything came together perfectly for the film - writing, casting, sound, cinematography, art direction, wardrobe and music, all under the superb direction of Jonathan Demme.

Red Dragon sees the return of the writer Ted Tally and actor Anthony Hopkins who played Hannibal Lector in 'Silence of the Lambs'. These two talents are not enough to elevate this picture to the original.

The first thing that stands out is the miscast of Edward Norton. Norton is a terrific actor but the lead role demanded an older and more experienced FBI agent and Norton looks younger than Jodi Foster did when she played the 'student' in the original. Sometimes you can get away with this reversal but it works against this film. They really needed to get a more mature actor to play the role.

The second thing is the films soundtrack. Where 'Silence of the Lambs' was textured and creepy, 'Red Dragon' is overstated and bombastic. That subtle tension that wouldn't let up in 'Silence of the Lambs' is replaced by a more obvious horror soundtrack that sacrifices the creepy for overwrought jolts.

Great films tend to have a great mixture of all elements - they are not made in a vacuum. Casting isn't something that is talked about much but it is something that can push a film into becoming a classic. The original 'Red Dragon' was made by Michael Mann as 'Manhunter'. Lector was played by Brian Cox and he did an admirable job but Hopkins brought the role to an entirely new level. Sure, 'Silence of the Lambs' had some hokey bits but overall the film is a masterpiece of macabre fiction.

For me, it goes to show you how important the crew is to the director and how important the director is to the crew. Demme benefits from a great crew and exquisite casting and the film benefits from his abilities to use those people.

I Am Trying to Break your Heart

I just finished watching a documentary about the making of a record by the band 'Wilco'. The film was made during Wilco's recording of the album 'Yankee Hotel Foxtrot'. I've been a fan of Wilco for a few years and have listened to this terrific album many times. Little did I know that the story behind the album was quite fascinating and telling of the entertainment industry.

The basic story behind the album is that Wilco was given the green light to make an album of their choosing. There would be no interference by the record company and they were to deliver the album by a certain date. Up to this point the band had made a few albums, all of which were seemingly leading the group to a commercial success. Their music walks the line of pop, rock and country and the band has written many good pop songs.

Wilco enters the studio and, un-hindered, proceed to experiment with their music and push themselves into all sorts of interesting places creatively. After months spent at their loft they mix the record and get it ready for the record company, Warner Music. They send it in but get no response. Eventually a response trickles down and the record company isn't happy, they want changes. The band refuses and Warner eventually drops them from their roster. However, the band has a following both critical and fan-based and pressure is on Warner not to bury the record. Warner washes their hands of it and allows the band to walk away with the album with no strings attached.

The album is shopped around and, nine months after the original release date, the album is bought by a new record company. The irony is that the new record company is a subsidiary of Time Warner who happens to own the original backer, Warner Music. The corporation pays for the album twice!

I have to say that it was great timing for the filmmaker as he was able to capture both the creative process in the making of the music but also the frustrations of dealing with big business and the 'bottom line'. It also highlights the conflicts within the entertainment industry. Warner Music had it's interests focused so much on the bottom line that they missed the opportunity to contribute to the musical culture by releasing this terrific album. Often the people who run the business aren't the people who appreciate or get behind great and interesting music. 'Yankee Hotel Foxtrot', we are told by the music executive, was too difficult for the marketing department. They didn't understand it and they couldn't see a way to sell it. The odd thing is that the music is quite original but also quite accessible. It's not bizarre experimental music. It might not have been the hit record that Warner was looking for but it's a terrific album. And that is the nature of the 'business' of art... It doesn't always wear it's packaging the way you thought it might.

The film ends with a title card that states that Time Warner has spent three times their original investment on the album. One might say that bureaucracy and incompetence kills the bottom line...

I'm Agnostic.... really. And a liberal (disappointed or otherwise).

Ok. I'm back watching Vision Tv. As bizarre as the channel seems to be I find myself drawn to their programming. In the last week I'm watching 'Casablanca', 'War Games' and now the documentary 'The Corporation'. I hadn't seen the documentary so I thought I would check it out. Initially I thought the film was quite interesting but not groundbreaking. Then, as it went on, I felt that sinking feeling of propaganda. Now, instead of the fear of 'Nuclear War' as last night's film exposed, I'm treated to the liberal fear of the 'corporation'. The film seems to take the view that we are all automatons and are helpless to the influence of corporate greed and coercion.

Rubbish.

Sure, it's rubbish with a lot of interesting points but it stands as propaganda and the advertising of fear. The film constantly vilifies MacDonalds, Starbucks, Nike etc, presenting the point that these corporations manufacture society's desire for their products. I take offence for every individual with a brain in their head. Sure, MacDonalds has it's own propaganda wing (aka advertising) and it tries to coerce the public into wanting a Big Mac or a McChicken sandwich. However, MacDonalds didn't become a behemoth of a corporation by making a crappy sandwich. The general public likes MacDonalds. So MacDonalds does what every corporation does, it advertises and tries to manipulate people into wanting to eat at their restaurant. Is this unethical? Do we try to protect our weak by denying them something that they've already made successful by their patronage? At what point do we allow the 'customer' to make a choice for themselves? It's an elitists view that we should protect them from themselves. Look at all of the companies that have failed over the years. Is it because they didn't advertise or manipulate as good as the others? Or is it that the public didn't like what they were selling?

Douglas Rushkoff wrote "Coercion', an interesting book that dealt with this topic. I've used the title word in my little rant here. Rushkoff is a media theorist (among other things) who wrote a great book called 'Media Virus'. Media Virus explored the idea that things are injected into the 'media space' and in an interesting phenomenon, would self replicate. The OJ Simpson trial and the Rodney King case are great examples of things that came to light in the media and, like a virus, self replicated until they invaded the public conscience. After the book was published, Rushkoff was approached by advertising and marketing people to help them find a way to create their own 'media virus'. What Rushkoff discovered was a deep network of corporations that meant to wield this device for it's own profits. He sat in and made notes and got payed gobs of money to 'consult' with them. In the end he wrote 'Coercion' and subverted this found knowledge to expose and explore these ideas.

Rushkoff is notorious for his optimism and it's something that I really like about him. Instead of reading it all as 'evil' or fear propaganda, he approaches the subject like a philosopher. He asked the most important question of them all... If we are to believe that 'they' (the corporation) are out to get us, who constitutes the 'they'? It's the fear of the unseen enemy. The fear of the 'rich'. It's all conspiracy but we can't identify the conspirator as 'they' or 'them' or 'he' or 'she'. The unseen enemy is easier to deal with than the complicated issue of supply and demand. No demand. No supply. I don't buy the public as absolute lemmings. Whether the elite like it or not, people like Walmart, MacDonalds, Nike, Tim Hortons, Best Buy, Gap etc.

I must counterpoint now as I'm sure you might be livid and possibly boiling with my semi-conservative rant. There are many good points brought up in the documentary about corporate abuses. What happened with Enron was simply evil. Greed, pure and simple. The issue with BP today highlights the abuse of the environment. Child labour and human exploitation is rampant. And we drive our SUV's and buy cheap goods made at the hands of the exploited. We. Not just the corporations who apparently brainwash us. We support it. We are guilty. I'm not a fan of left wing propagandists that treat adults as simpletons and act like they know best. Why hold the faceless corporations soley responsible when we support them? I know... they manipulate us and tell us lies. And 'we' are not responsible to check the facts. 'We' are just lemmings, mindlessly doing what we're told.

If the view is that 'we' are just a bunch of idiots following whatever guides us on the television then why not make a scathing documentary about that? Expose 'us' for what 'we' are...