A Thing About Actors

I was browsing the IMDb page for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and the top user comment begins like this:

When I first heard that Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett's new film The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was destined to join the "sweepers" at the 2009 Oscars....

People are clueless. A film does not belong to actors. Actors are a part of the process of making a film, but if a film belongs to anyone, it would either be the Director, the Producers, or the Writer.

I understand that actors make the money. When was the last time a Will Smith movie didn't make 9 figures? Writers are behind the scenes to most of the public because most of the public doesn't care who writes the movie. Because of this, writers are replaced on whims and treated poorly in Hollywood. Which is a shame, because they, in a sense, own the movie. They conceive it and nurture it from the beginning, figure the whole mess out, make it coherent and interesting, and then sell it. Then, the director makes it look good and the actors give the material a little interpretation and the editors fix pacing issues... etc. But again, most people don't think of this.

I am reminded of two lines from two great film.

The first is from All About Eve. Tension arises in the film and Margo Channing (a top theater actress) argues with Lloyd Richards (a top theater writer). The basic argument is that Margo gives the boring play life, but Lloyd says what she does to it ruins it (at this point Eve is surfacing as a great actress). Lloyd says, "There comes a time that a piano realizes that it has not written a concerto." Ah, yes. Very true. The actors have not written their material--they are just reading someone's work. They are tools. As Hitchcock said, they should be treated like cattle.

The second, and slightly more humorous, is from Shakespeare in Love. Geoffrey Rush's character is asked who William Shakespeare is, and Geoff says something like, "Nobody, he's the writer." Hence, what I said earlier.

/end rant

Continue reading...

PTA is Wise

Forewarning that this will partially be a rant, heavily influenced by personal bias and inexplicable emotions.

According to the IMDb page for Paul Thomas Anderson, he has said this quote:

I have a feeling, one of those gut feelings, that I'll make pretty good movies the rest of my life. And maybe I'll make some clunkers, maybe I'll make some winners, but I guess the way that I really feel is that Magnolia (1999) is, for better or worse, the best movie I'll ever make.

I wish I knew when he said that quote, because it appears to be right on point.

His chief filmography, in order, includes Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch-Drunk Love, and There Will Be Blood. Tonight I watched Punch-Drunk Love. I've seen all of those films, and have to agree -- they're all 'pretty good,' and Magnolia is the best of the bunch.

It seems like all these film students I've met and people I've encountered that try to be artsy and cool praise PTA, like he's the next Coppola or Bergman or Chaplin. No. This is false. If Elia Kazan and Ingmar Bergman are A directors, and Charles Herman-Wurmfeld (who?) is an F director, we'll say PTA is about a B-, maybe a B. Let's do a rundown of his flicks.

Boogie Nights -- A good movie. Innovative, centering around a porn culture, with some memorable characters and a couple interesting techniques. But for me, there is just something missing. Or maybe there is too much. The movie is 2 hours and 36 minutes. I think watching it, I would've rather had a more focused perspective. Here we have it, 'good not great.'

Magnolia -- Another good movie. Tom Cruise is fantastic here, as is the rest of the cast. Despite the feel of vignettes, the threads add up to a pleasing whole, whereas in Boogie Nights I was left wanting. The movie reaches, and reaches far, but the joys of Magnolia is its self-awareness, how a viewer would be shocked if there wasn't a deus ex machina.

Punch-Drunk Love -- Here it seems PTA is in unfamiliar territory, and I hate to say it shows. Now, it's peculiar comparing this, and There Will Be Blood. I get a lot of similar vibes, with the harsh undertones in the music that go on and on, for much longer than one is used to in a movie. Not even for whole scenes, but for chunks of scenes. It helps get the mood going (or, a sense of disorientation and chaos, whichever), but more than anything it simply irks me. It's things like this, tiny personal preference, which bumps a movie down from me (sidenote: I rate '2 Days in Paris' a 4/5 instead of 5/5 simply because of the car-keying scene, for example).

There Will Be Blood -- I'm going to be up front here. I do not like Westerns (exceptions include: The Searchers, Blazing Saddles, and Butch Cassidy). Sure, this isn't a 'Western,' but it is set in the West. There are good scenes and great moments in this movie. The finale will go down in movie history, I'm sure of it. However, there are flaws. What's the whole deal with the man posing as his brother? Yes, I 'get it.' No, I do not think it bettered the movie. Among other things.

Those are the 'quick hits' for the movies. I've probably posted about most of them elsewhere with more in-depth thoughts, but that is not the point here.

My point is this: I admire writer/directors more than directors. Naturally. And I admire that PTA is making movies, writing them himself, and doing well. And his movies are good. It's just interesting that he knows, somewhere down there, what I seem to think as well.

Maybe we're brothers, separated as birth.........

Continue reading...