by ben c » Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:14 am
in hitchcock's case, he was also smart enough
to hire the right people for the job, and really
worked WITH them. of course, he had a strong
vision and the last word, but i think that's a big
difference from lucas, for example.
and hitchcock (and i[m using him just because i
know slightly more than i do other "old" directors)
had a fundamental and perverse (in a good way!)
view of human nature, which translated into
interesting characters, plot, and storytelling in every
movie. the changes, particularly the ideological
changes, in the sw stories, and the changes in
indy's character over the years, suggest that
those directors either underwent huge philo-
sophical changes over time. or more likely, they
didn't really have strong viewpoints to begin with,
and lucas covered it up by hiding behind joseph
campbell, while spielberg hid it behind exquisite
craftsmanship. compare the brief appearance
of government agents in "raiders" to agents in
"skull". in the first one, 2 agents were quickly
but thoroughly sketched out, and you get a nice
satirical glance at stuffy, unimaginative beuraeu-
crats the world over. they call attention to indy's
own unconventionality, and you subconciously
have a crystal clear idea of what indy thinks of
their kind, and vica versa. in "skull", they're just
dour goons from the matrix, they don't play off
each other ot indy, you have no idea (or interest)
in who they are. even the general is dullsville. and
the scene goes out of its way to show that indy
is a good american who did all sorts of noble stuff
in ww2, which is great, but goes against the whole
idea of a guy who is just trying to get through his
day -- a day which happens to include ancient
curses etc. they try so hard to show that he's an
unconventional (and now blacklisted?) rogue AND
a white-hatted sheriff at the same time, and it just
doesn't work. like the whole greedo-shoots-first
debacle -- hey! han's a rogue but he's never REALLY
done anything bad. the "degenerate" works of lucas
and spielberg aren't just afraid of showing dark
events, they're afraid of showing the dark sided of
people that not only make them interesting, but
ultimately make the heroes truly heroic. none of
us here are morons, we all know that ex-sinners
who make the best saints, a la han, indy, jack
sparrow ad nauseum... it worked for lucas and
spielberg so well in the past, it's sad they turned
their back on it!*
although, now that i think about it, spielberg turns
like "munich" and "schindler's list" show a certain
defined vision -- i just think he turns that off when
he does "fun" movies, and "raiders" was an exception.
"just fun" movies like "temple" or "goonies", while very
entertaining and well-crafted, just don't have the same
punch, and with "goonies" you can already see him
trying to make a disneyesque movie that pleases
everyone**. and of course i love "young sherlock
holmes", but after an hour at the thesaurus, the
only description for that film i can think of is hot tranny
mess. though to get back to shane's complaint, both
of those "family" movies had not just violence, but
cold-blooded murder.
anyhow, i have characteristically wandered pretty
far afield. in the end, i think the artistic weakness of
recent lucas and spielberg movies (and with spielberg
it's a much more complex picture) is more the result
of a general failure of nerve in pop entertainment,
where everything has to be either psychotically dark
and ironic in the name of some jeuvenile "realism",
or technicolor safe and idiot-proof. i guess lucas and
spielberg just didn't have the nerves or ruthless vision
or whatever to stay above the tide.
too bad the same can be said about peter jackson and
most of the next generation of blockbuster creators,
as well...
to beat a dead horse: against every expectation, i think
jon favreu has never shown a consistent vision -- if
anything, it's his ecclecticism that's som impressive --
but his "iron man" shows an impressive ability to present
character from stark to penny to rhodes who are
conflicted in their emotions and their morality (rhodes'
initial response to the "new" stark was spot-on), without
a dreary mope-fest. i mean, holy shit! 30 minutes of the
movie is in a terrorist camp, where stark is dying from a
weapon he made, while terrorists are using his weapons
to slaughter innocents -- and did i mention we're in a real
war on terror right now -- and it's not dreary or preachy
or SLOW. that's fucking skill. it takes superman 30 minutes
weepy music music to decide if he wants to say hi to his
illegitimate son, and 30 fucking minutes of slo-mo celtic
music for a bunch of tolkien's elves to inexplicably drop
into the middle of the plot and get pointlessly, graphically,
and oh-so-fucking-SLOWLY chopped up.
grr... now that i'm all hopped-up on righteous indignation,
i'm going to draw!
* sorry for the longer-than-usual rant. but i'm working on
dare detectives #2 (sorry, world!) and i've been thinking
a lot about characters telling their stories generally, and
the idea of flawed/redeemed heroes specifically. "reformed
crook maria dare..." well, the whole idea was that dare was
a second chance for its various misfit members, and maria
in particular is not motivated by heroism or money or fame,
just this burning desire to wipe out her past life of humiliating,
criminal failure. the problem (or rather, one of many problems)
was that i was so familiar with her situation, i never concretely
worked it into the story -- in fact, the story was basically
action event after action event, with a little exposition to move
things along. in short, everything i complain about in films!
the second plot, while hopefully entertaining it its own right, is
closer to most dare cases in that the actual events are largely
a framework to showcase these people being who they are,
and what happens as a result. that's what really good, fun
storytelling is about! although a few assassin, curses, and a
world-conquering dingo never hurt, either...
**steve martin brilliantly points out that "pleasing everybody is
a noble goal... for a concierge".
