THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
12/21/01 -- Vol. 20, No. 25
Big Cheese: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
Little Cheese: Evelyn Leeper, evelyn.leeper@excite.com
Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Topics:
The State of American Film (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
(film review by Mark R. Leeper)
VANILLA SKY (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: The State of American Film (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
My parents have officially served notice. They are going on
strike. They will no longer rent any Hollywood action movie. I
think I understand how they feel. In the human development you
reach a point, a state of maturity, where bigger explosions,
longer and more action-filled car chases, and even better kick-
boxing just does not do it for you. In fact, I am thirty years
their junior and it sure does not do it for me. What is happening
to the American film industry?
Well, a number of things are happening. The first is that making
a profit on films has become more of a science. The demographic
that has the most money to spend on films is males age twelve to
eighteen. Studios can aim for a different audience, but they are
aiming where there is less profit to be made. And of course, the
more that the filmmakers aim for male teen audience, the more
people outside that demographic become frustrated with the films
being made and go to theaters in smaller numbers. So the prophecy
that those are the people buying the tickets more and more
fulfills itself.
Another trend in the film industry is internationalization. At
first look that should be a good thing. After all, we have known
for a long time that some of the best films to see are foreign
films. A Kurosawa or a De Sica film can be much more powerful
than the standard fare that Americans make for themselves. But
only a small part of the foreign audience is so discerning. Sadly
a lot of the Japanese and French and Italian film market like
"blow 'em up real good" films. Paddy Chayevsky said "Television
is democracy at its ugliest." The film industry is worse than
democracy, it is a situation of each movie ticket bought is a
vote. And there are a lot of people out there who want to see
martial arts fights on the big screen. There is a lot of effort
to sensitively take someone baring their soul and to translate it
into Japanese, French, Spanish, and Italian. But explosions,
chases, and fights transcend the language barrier. Action films
sell the best in this country, are the easiest to translate to
other languages, and sell best in other countries. No wonder then
that as big multinational corporations acquire film companies,
they want them to concentrate on the most profitable product.
Before films can be made there have to be ideas for films. You
cannot demand that some author go out and write some new material
that will illuminate some previously unlit facet of the human
soul. That takes real inspiration. Moreover if the assignment
is that the author thinks of a situation that will entail two car
chases, three explosions, and numerous fights with martial arts,
nearly any writer can meet that demand. It takes very little
imagination to figure out how to rework the Boris Karloff THE
MUMMY to use CGI special effects, martial arts fights, and chases.
As a side note, I think people have been seeing this happening for
a long time and many seem to want to blame Steven Spielberg for
the problem. And Spielberg has certainly made his share of action
films. Blaming him always bothers me since I see Spielberg as
doing something else entirely. Spielberg more than most other
filmmakers is a student of what makes a good film in a particular
genre. Yes he will make an action film, but it will be an
exercise in the principles of what makes an action film good. A
fair percentage of the time that will make a good action film.
But he also makes serious films exercising principles that make
serious films good and frequently that will result in a good
serious film. The name I most associate with just making
exploitation action films is Jerry Bruckheimer. He seems to make
one soulless and successful action film after another and nobody
seems to tag him for his part in the deteriorating state of the
American film.
It may sound like things are getting worse and worse with American
film. To some extent they are. But in some ways the Internet can
save the filmgoer, for those who know how to use it. Next week I
will talk about how I use the Internet to improve the set of films
I see. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (film
review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Three hours of what may be just about the best fantasy
film ever made tells the story of J. R. R. Tolkien's THE
FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. Intelligent and visually beautiful, Peter
Jackson's first film of the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy is an
instant classic and quite possibly this generation's GONE WITH THE
WIND. Rating: 10 (0 to 10), +4 (-4 to +4)
Years ago, there were animated versions of parts of
J. R. R. Tolkein's THE LORD OF THE RINGS made for television, and
Ralph Bakshi made one for theatrical release. None was very
satisfying. But the technology of creating images on the screen
has advanced a very great deal since that time. Today, if you can
visualize it, it probably can be put on a screen. How difficult a
task is it to make a definitive version of Tolkien's THE
FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING? Two tasks are necessary. The novel is
already intelligent. What is needed is a way to abridge the very
long story down to a screenplay without sacrificing the spirit or
the intelligence. Also, for years Middle Earth has been
beautifully visualized in the paintings of the Brothers
Hildebrandt. Theirs have become as much the classic images of
Middle Earth as the John Tenniel's illustrations have become the
classic images of Lewis Carroll's fantasy world. What is required
in making a film version is to have every frame of the film look
like a Hildebrandt illustration. Both are impressive tasks that
require a lot of hard work, but neither is insuperably difficult.
Peter Jackson saw that both tasks could be done and the result
would be one terrific film. We have that film now, and it
delivers a heavy load of adventure, spectacle, and beauty, three
hours with too many delights to list, all for the price of a
standard film ticket.
Ironically, the filmmakers have to contend with how well-known and
respected the original story is. Indeed, my wife can list a
multitude of small variations from the book. They are of the sort
"When Frodo escaped by boat he was invisible and Sam saw only what
looked like an empty boat. The film has him visible." And people
who love the story do pick up on changes to the story like that.
But nobody criticizes THE GUNS OF NAVARONE for what are far
greater variations from its source novel. Indeed, few criticize
even THE TEN COMMANDMENTS so much for liberties taken with its so-
well-loved source material.
Dramatically, the biggest problem of THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING is
the classic one going back to the first publication of the story.
THE LORD OF THE RINGS was one mammoth novel that the publisher
arbitrarily decided had to be split into three pieces, published
at six-month intervals. It is a story without an ending since
Tolkien intended only a chapter break at that point. The film has
the same mid-stride ending. Peter Jackson has promised his films
will be released at twelve-month intervals to catch three
Christmases.
The anticipation for that second part is already building. The
public's keenness of the first film, based on rumors and the
trailer, has been very great. Now that the public has seen a much
bigger sample of what Jackson can do with the story, the
expectancy for the second film will probably be much greater. By
the time the third film is ready to be released the phenomenon
will probably be stronger than the STAR WARS phenomenon. George
Lucas pointed the way to what computer effects could do for the
fantasy film with his STAR WARS films. But he has had to write
his own material and he is no Tolkien, so none of his films have
been as well-realized as THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING.
As few viewers will need to be told, the story is of a ring that
holds absolute power. But the power it represents seduces and
corrupts absolutely the person who wears the ring. A great and
wise wizard, Gandalf the Grey (played by Ian McKellen), knows the
power and the seduction of the ring. So he does not want to
possess the ring himself but asks an innocent, Frodo Baggins
(Elijah Wood), to take the ring and carry it where it can be
safely destroyed. Thus Frodo begins a dangerous trek through
Middle Earth, a magical world created by Tolkien with accents of
British and Germanic folklore. Jackson moves the story right
along as there is much territory to be covered, literally and
figuratively, in a story that is rushed to be told in a three-hour
film. Along the way the filmmaker gives us one beautiful scene
after another. He needed a wide variety of shooting locations,
but with a little help from computer enhancement, he managed to
create the settings he needed all in his visually diverse homeland
of New Zealand. But the plot is still complex. Those unfamiliar
with the story of THE LORD OF THE RINGS can expect to be lost by
the background and history sequences which move fast and violently
in the first part of the film. But the viewer is not lost for
long. The world soon simplifies to the travelers, their allies,
and their enemies.
Throughout the film familiar faces appear. Christopher Lee shows
up here, Cate Blanchett there, but no single actor dominates the
film. Not even Elijah Wood, who plays the main character,
dominates. Actors seem to have been chosen because they were
right in the part, not because their names would sell tickets.
Nobody will think of this as a Liv Tyler film or a Sean Bean film.
If it is anybody's film, it is that of forty-year-old Peter
Jackson. Jackson has shown continuous improvement since his 1987
feature film debut with the aptly named BAD TASTE. My advice to
him would be not to try to improve at this point. If he makes
three LORD OF THE RINGS films of consistent quality that play like
a single film, he will have a great artistic and financial
success. His series will be the standard and the benchmark of
fantasy on film. If, like George Lucas did, he falls into the
trap of trying to outdo himself each outing he will end up with
mismatched and less satisfying pieces. He has an excellent start.
I admit that I am partial to the fantastic on film, but I rate THE
LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING a rare full score of
10 on the 0 to 10 scale and a +4 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: VANILLA SKY (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Reality gets seriously bent in a film that breaks the
barriers between a dreamlike reality and realistic dreams. Tom
Cruise is the vertex of a love triangle we are sure will end
badly. But when it does end the strangeness is just beginning.
This would have been a good film at 45 minutes. Nearly two hours
is too much of perhaps not a good enough thing. Rating: 7 (0 to
10), low +2 (-4 to +4) Spoiler warning: as a friend cautioned me,
this is a film that the less you know about it going in, the
better the film will be. I have tried not to put in any spoilers,
but perhaps my friend is right.
A lot of films these days start well, but the writer does not know
where to take the story. Much rarer is a film like VANILLA SKY in
which the writer had a pretty good idea how to end the story but
fumbles badly in getting to the point where he can use the ending.
This is a film with a lot of seemingly pointless material, and
most of it is in the first half of the film. I cannot fault the
ideas behind VANILLA SKY, but several times I found myself
frustrated waiting for them to appear. Writer-director Cameron
Crowe plays with the audience and mysteriously hints that there
may be more going on than meets the eye. Some of the hints mean
something, some are red herrings for the sake of style. As good
as the end is, it may not be worth the patience that the buildup
requires.
"Open your eyes." They are the first words of the dialog, the
title of the film on which VANILLA SKY is based, and words that
will take increasing significance as the story progresses. David
Aames (played by Tom Cruise) is the playboy heir to a publishing
empire. With money, power, and good looks his every wish is
someone else's command. The Board of Directors of his company
would be happy to be rid of him, but his father died leaving most
of the company's stock to him. David's lover Julie (Cameron Diaz)
is hoping that David will get serious sooner or later, but David
cannot be serious about work or about play. When David's best
friend Brian Shelby (Jason Lee) shows up at David's birthday party
with his new girlfriend Sophia (Penelope Cruz), David and Sophia
are immediately attracted to each other and Julie is not happy to
discover she has just lost her future. Cameron Crowe fills the
story with flash-forwards, flash-backs, and scenes that turn out
to be dream sequences. There are weird visual images and odd
little background touches. The final effect is to disorient the
viewer. It may be just me, but I did not particularly care if
David would find love with Sophia. In a story of many questions,
will David be successful is one of the first asked and one that
Crowe may have been interested in only slightly more than I was.
VANILLA SKY is Crowe's remake of Alejandro Amenabar's ABRE LOS
OJOS (OPEN YOUR EYES). Spanish director Amenabar's only English-
language film, the ghost story THE OTHERS, turned out to be one of
the surprise sleeper hits of the year. Once again he shows that
if one patiently sticks with one of his stories there is a rich
and thoughtful idea awaiting to engage the viewer. VANILLA SKY is
a film that has a lot of nice details done very precisely, but
which for most viewers first seeing the film will fly by totally
unnoticed. It may well be that for many viewers a second viewing
will be more rewarding than the first.
Crowe uses motifs that seem to recall Cruise's recent work for
Stanley Kubrick. At some point in the plot masks become very
important. It is reminiscent of the masks in EYES WIDE SHUT,
though Cruise's character is somewhat different from the one in
that film. There he was on the outside of philandering looking
in, here he is on the inside looking further inward. Even the
titles seem linked. That was about having EYES WIDE SHUT, this is
a remake of OPEN YOUR EYES.
VANILLA SKY is a film in which it becomes clear there is a lot
more going on than meets the eye. That is achieved in part by
Cameron Crowe making sure that so little of what is happening
actually meets the eye until major clues are given toward the end
of the film. What is wrong with the film is not that it is a deep
intellectual exercise but that for so long it gives so little hint
that that is what all its strangeness is leading to. It is a
riddle too well wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. I rate it
a 7 on the 0 to 10 scale and a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
(Personal note: My initial rating on leaving the theater was
considerably lower based on the film's slow development. As the
film unwinds in my mind I see more and more to like in what was
done. That, by itself, is probably an achievement.) [-mrl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Gratitude is merely the secret hope of further favors.
--Francois de la Rochefoucauld
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Send FREE Holiday eCards from Yahoo! Greetings.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/IgTaHA/ZQdDAA/ySSFAA/J.MolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mtvoid-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/