A great quote, the title of this post, from my brother, Lindon. He uttered it late one night the last time he came to visit my parents in Iowa. I got up late to go down an check out cable TV and found him watching American Movie Classics, or some other similar station, and we got in a conversation about movies, with both of us generally agreeing on the fact that there has been an almost perfect inverse relationship between the rise of the special effects wizards and the decline of the importance of the script as a foundation for American film.
With the notable exceptions of Star Wars, LOR, and Harry Potter, I haven't gone near a first-run action/adventure film in years; and pretty much don't rent them. I know there's good stuff still out there, and I don't mean to cast aspersions on the filmmaking crews out there-there's some amazing cinematography, editing and other post-production out there (a friend introduced me to Bourne Identity a few months back, and it was a fine enough film); but it seems that more often than not; characters, dialog, and even scenes are recycled, recycled, recycled (Bourne Identity better than most action adventure movies these days in that respect, but not really paving any new ground). It's something that really, really bugs me-that Hollywood keeps dishing it out and people either stand for it, don't notice it, or (worst) eat it up. Reviewers, even, seem to let to all but the most horrendous of repackaged offerings slide by; knowing that if they go down that dangerous road, they'll be out of a job, for they'll have to start ripping nearly every film that exceeds a $15MM budget (and goes through the "Hollywood Executive Finishing School" or whatever it is that requires a protagonist to say something cool before punching someone in the face, or all Native Americans to have unbelievable, mystical powers and be underscored with a woodwind instrument).
Anyway, when I rented Three Musketeers (1948) Sunday night, it was during a 2 for 1 special. I was really in an "escapism" sort of mood, and decided to take a chance. At some point in the past couple of years, I saw a preview for Hildago. The plot seems an obvious enough recipe for disaster: American cowboy enters long-distance horse race in the Arab world. Especially, in this crazy post 9-11 world; where one-upmanship over anyone in a turban can be a cheaper, easier hook than a guy getting kicked in the nuts. However, the one thing that intrigued me was that Viggo Mortensen was the star. From some various things I'd read and heard about him, I thought that he would not become associated with anything that would not approach representing cultures in anything other than a tactful manner and, basically, that he would not do a crappy film.
However, from the first scene of the movie; where he bests an uppity Englishman in a race; then punches him in the face while diverting his eyes with a coin flipped into the air, I suspected I was in trouble. In the second scene, when he somehow, inexplicably, finds himself riding about in the carnage after the Massacre at Wounded Knee, I knew I was in trouble. At that point, I pretty much resigned myself to the fact that this was going to be a series of eye-rolling, groan-inducing scenes designed to hold together a bunch of thrilling, action-packed scenes. In other words, the very thing I was talking about for the first few paragraphs of this post. And Lord, was I right on about that. Audible, indeed, were my groans when the sheik's beautiful daughter announces she doesn't want to marry an Arab prince by arrangement, when she is caught in a compromising (but innocent, mind you) position in Viggo's tent, when she is kidnapped and Viggo is told he must rescue her or get his balls cut off, when this big muscular black guy helping Viggo in the rescue kicks an unblievable amount of ass but then (oh yeah, you guessed it) dies valiantly, when Viggo rescues at least two guys from dying that would have not done the same for him and that then have a chance of heart, that indeed-all the Arabs seem to have a change of heart (maybe we should just send a cowboy over to Iraq...), that a wealthy British woman present for the race is trying to seduce seduce him and fix the race at the same time, that Arab culture is portrayed as primitive and ridiculous relative to the modest and quiet wisdom of the American cowboy......well, it goes (and went) on and on.
Viggo, what...the...hell...happened? I know I'm hardly the audience they're going for here, but that was pretty much the nail in the coffin. There's too many good classic films and new, independent films being made to waste my time even trying movies like this any more. Or sequels. Or comic book character movies. Or anything with Tim Allen or fucking Nicholas Cage. Or talking fucking animals. Fucking, fucking animation with the pig that farts and the duck with the Jamaican accent.
My question is simply this: how hard is it to simply do films like this and make it unique and original. Just try an interesting twist; or a lot of interesting twists. Give your audience credit enough that they'll jump on board with you-you might just find that you have a classic on your hands. Am I alone here?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Just read through your recent posts.
On this one, I was kind of interested in seeing Hidalgo, but never did. Not sure i ever will.
History of Violence seems a little more interesting.
Speaking of movies...I did see Walk the Line this weekend. Pretty good. I certainly didn't know much about Johnny.
Not sure why-I'm turned off on docudramas.
I too have seen Walk the Line. a very good film in my opinion. I want to see some good films. I have never been that excited about blow'em up movies. Action is near the bottom for me. A good drama is much better for me.
I think you would really love some of the old BW classics from the forties through the sixties. Sometimes it's a little hard to get in the flow of what people are saying, but you usually settle in about 10-15 minutes in.
Hollywood suffers from a nearly unrepentant fear of risk.
Almost everyone acknowledges that the current state of big Hollywood movies is pretty crappy, and they have poor box-offic receipts to show it. The American people are, to some degree, voting with their feet, and not going to see every craptastic film that comes out.
That said, Hollywood has ALWAYS cranked out a large volume of shitty movies. The Women is a universally regarded film, so comparing it to just any run of the mill Hollywood film isn't really fair.
That said, big movies today definitely short change dialogus and even plot for action and effects. It's part of the risk aversion. They think we never grow tired of giant explosions and ridiculous one-liners.
But smaller films exist, with great plots, great dialogue, great casts, etc. Limiting your intake of blockbusters is a healthy and easily indulged choice. I certainly see more movies at the theater than you, and I generally see the bigger action ones when I go, but I am choosy. Of all the possibilities of big blockbusters out there I would guess I see 1 out of 20 or less. It's escapism for sure when I go, and the chance to see the sort of thing that The Three Musketeers (1949 or otherwise) or Buck Rodgers or Star Wars or whatever represent in every era. I don't much if any added benefit to seeing a tightly scripted indy film on the big screen and prefer to watch them at home, where I can enjoy a beer or curl up with my wife or the dog or both. But big action is better on the big screen. So I will continue to see some of those there, even though the scripts and characters may be thinner than the paper they were printed on.
We've definitely talked about the "crap didn't survive" theory of classic movies. But I would still maintain that the quality of scriptwriting among the blockbusters has fallen dramatically.
I, too, travel liberally through time (kind of like my exploration of popular music).
If anyone comes across any truly great action/adventure, thriller movies that you think I would enjoy (having heard my rant), please let me know.
We also managed to squeeze a movie in this weekend too. Like MT it was Walk the Line. Good, but a bit cheesy in a couple of places (showing the inspiration of some of the songs). Phoenix and Whiterspoon were great though.
Just want to echo Pat on the amount of shitty movies that have always been produced. Even some of the classics I find overrated. I want to see more of the classics, but I find that there are very few "On the Waterfront"s out there.
We don't see too many action flix. When we do we usually stick to something from Jackie Chan, or some other more serious Kung Fu. "House of Flying Daggers" was good, as was "Hero." But then I'm willing to watch anything that features Ziyi Zhang.
If you like Jackie Chan, you'd like Gene Kelly in "Three Musketeers."
There was definitely a ton of B movies out there in the day, but most of them aren't readily accessible now anyway, so in terms of exploring "the classics," you don't need to wade through them. I may diverge a bit from you, AJ: I find the vast majority of the older movies I check out to be well worth the viewing (wtih notable exceptions: see my Donovan's Reef post of a few months back).
The Third Man is a great old action/thriller, with Orson Welles in a great role.
39 Steps by Hitchcock.
I've not seen either. Putting them both on the list-thanks.
Post a Comment