Wrapping up my perspective on the year today, a personal list of superlatives, Oscar categories and other silly nonsense.
Swing back around on Monday for the ultimate wrap-up, my list of the best films of the decade.
Best Picture
“A Serious Man” (Focus Features)
Best Director
Ethan Coen, Joel Coen, “A Serious Man”
Best Actor
Sharlto Copley, “District 9”
Best Actress
Gabourey Sidibe, “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”
The words sound like they might be spoken by a young up-and-comer experiencing his first big break, someone fresh off the bus with stars in his eyes and the unbreakable, still unsoiled spirit of art coursing through his veins.
“Here I’ve finished this film and now I can dream up some new adventure that I know I can finance and keep doing that and learning from it and learning how to make movies.”
Except this isn’t a young up-and-comer experiencing his first big break. This is a filmmaker whose contributions to the cinema have altered the course of the medium. And only now is he able to do what he really wants to do.
At 70 years old, Francis Ford Coppola is embarking on the career he says he thought he was going to have from the start, back when he was a post-UCLA film student training as an assistant to filmmaker Roger Corman. When he and colleague George Lucas established American Zoetrope in the Bay Area in the late 1960s, the sky was the limit. But life had other plans.
“In a sense we never really got it going,” he says. “We were all there at Zoetrope in San Francisco wanting to make personal films and films that were not usually expensive so they could afford to be more extravagant in ideas and freedom, and yet I was never able to get any money to do ‘The Conversation.’ In the despair of the on-coming poverty I took this job that was offered to me and it turned out to be ‘The Godfather’ and it was like getting hit with a tsunami of success. I didn’t know that was going to happen to me and that opened up all sorts of possibilities.”
Possibilities that came with fiscal consequences, of course. The next thing Coppola knew after a wave of creative successes in the 1970s, he was in debt and “had to make a movie every year for 10 years in a row.”
Doesn’t it just feel like you’re Arnold over there lately, strapped into that chair and force-fed the disgusting mindwipe that is Hollywood product these days?
Patrick Goldstein has written a piece that touches on something that has been digging further and further under my skin the last couple of weeks: Hollywood’s disgusting rehashing of previous material.
It’s nothing new, of course, Remakes and sequelitis have plagued the industry from its earliest days. When it comes to economics and brass tacks, the fact is, these places are run by business-minded individuals who look to capitalize on public interest at every turn. And in an economy such as this, it simply spells disaster for moviegoers who long for something new. It doesn’t even have to be GOOD but FRESH would be appreciated. But what’s rather sad is the fact that a number of the pipelined reboots, remakes and sequels have ties to projects that never lit up the box office to begin with, clearly lost touch with audiences over the years, or in some cases, never even found much interest on home video. How does that math compute?
For some, it might seem like the oldest complaint in the book, but have you taken a look at what we have in store lately? Just in the past few weeks a slew of titles have popped up either as newly announced projects or projects landing writers, directors, etc. Do we really need a remake of “Total Recall” 19 years later? Is America so deprived of the “Short Circuit” franchise that it needs a reboot as well (no doubt some weird capitalization on “WALL-E”)? And a new “Scream” trilogy? Really?
The “Alien” prequel and “Predators” project (a sequel) have glimmers of promise but they also represent franchises that need to die a quick and merciful death. Ditto “Robocop,” also getting the reboot treatment. Did the box office nose dive of “Terminator Salvation” not teach these people anything? Fox needs to buy the “Terminator” rights (which will be on the market soon) and end it all for us with “Predaterminalien.” Just get it over with. Smothered in the night. There are other stories, folks.
Following its Cannes premiere, Francis Ford Coppola’s “Tetro” has been greeted with something of a collective shrug by the critical community. Most of the reviews appear to follow the lead of Todd McCarthy’s mixed Variety take, in which he praised the cinematography and the performance of relative newcomer Alden Ehrenreich, but largely dismissed it as “a work of modest ambition and appeal … the pale product of an over-tilled field.”
Screen International’s Lee Marshall is slightly more enthusiastic, crediting the cast with saving “all but the most cringeworthy lines,” and declaring — not entirely in a negative way — that the film has the “melodramatic sweep and overwrought tone of an opera libretto.” indieWIRE’s Eric Kohn also sits squarely in the middle, suggesting the film has the look and feel of a promising debut effort, but is only “mildly interesting” from a director of Coppola’s stature.
Only Kirk Honeycutt at the Hollywood Reporter sounds really enthused about the film, despite some reservations:
As a critic, it feels good to write positively about one of the American cinema’s lost directors… “Tetro” erases that memory (of “Youth Without Youth”). It has style to burn, eye-catching acting by an international cast and a story that harkens back to many literary classic with its themes of a family torn apart, brothers in conflict and a son’s rivalry with a towering father figure.
The film is more than a little self-conscious …Yet somehow the piece comes off as derivative but also original. While living and working in Argentina to make this film, he absorbed enough local color to imagine a fresh, authentic tale of stymied creativity — a subject he certainly would be familiar with — and familial conflict.
Probably not the comeback that some people were hoping for. But then, some people will consistently hope for the impossible.
There’s a bewildering wealth of quality Cannes coverage out there, and it tests the realms of possibility to mention it all. In the interests of economy, however, here’s a selection of the more interesting festival-related nuggets I found today:
Eugene Hernandez at IndieWire has a superb piece up in which he approaches a broad selection of industry figures and bloggerfolk with the question of whether Cannes matters much these days. The response of many is sad yet predictable: that the festival does indeed matter from the purist’s perspective of showcasing artistically nourishing films, but that with the commercial window for foreign and/or arthouse fare increasingly narrowing, it has less bearing on the U.S. market than it should. Still, I liked the succinctly idealistic take of one interviewee: “When Cannes no longer matters, film will no longer matter.”
Back to the films themselves, the New York Times’ Joan Dupont offers her own rundown of the key titles in the mix, picking up, as others have,on the prevalence of controversial auteurs in this year’s lineup. She also provokes this soundbite from the fest’s executive director Thierry Frémaux, explaining why this year’s Competition line-up is so heavy on previous winners and established names:
“Yes, the big names are back, and with big films … The selection reflects our concern for auteurs — that’s our job. You need to be strong to be in competition; everybody’s watching you. That’s why we think that many films are better off in Un Certain Regard. The filmmakers don’t always agree.”
I can’t say I agree, either. It’s precisely two decades since a miniature character study from a 26 year-old first-time director walked off the Palme d’Or and changed the face of American independent filmmaking in the process — would Steven Soderbergh have been relegated to the Un Certain Regard sidebar today? I suspect so, and that demonstrates a cautiousness that can only curb Cannes’ capacity for trend-setting.
Todd McCarthy apparently posted a review for Francis Ford Coppola’s “Tetro” on the Variety site, but it seems to have mysteriously vanished — I guess embargos stills hold sway in some cases, after all. Still, if you cannot contain your curiosity, Jeff Wells has quoted a juicy chunk of the review, and the prognosis is not terribly positive.
There’s enthusiastic praise for young actor Alden Ehrenreich, who apparently reminds McCarthy of all three leads of “The Departed” (there’s a curious mental image), but the film, according to the critic, becomes mired in murky theatrical stylistics — which I’m afraid squares with the vibe I personally got from the film’s trailer.
I don’t really want to requote criticism that was obviously prematurely released in the first place, but I know there’s a lot of interest in this title, so it’s there if you want it. The film screens tomorrow at Cannes.
• In a bumper season for the sci-fi genre, Kris was thoroughly impressed by both “Star Trek” and the lower-profile “Moon.”
• Meanwhile, we kicked off this year’s Page to Screen series with a look at the literary origins of “Chéri’.”
• In a sad week for the business, we bade farewell to both actor Dom DeLuise and filmmaker Marc Rocco.
• Quentin Tarantino declared “Inglourious Basterds” a masterpiece. (And Eli Roth a bastard.)
• Following “Angels and Demons,” could cinema be the wrong medium for Dan Brown’s storytelling?
• Continuing our new Sunday Cents feature with a breakdown of “Wolverine’s” box office performance.
• Speaking of which, the “X-Men” franchise continues to grow new limbs. This time, a Deadpool spinoff.
• We got a taste of Francis Ford Coppola’s “Tetro” with both a trailer and the opening minutes of the film.
• Yours truly admitted to some reservations about Christian Bale’s recent work, and lost further cool points by fessing up to his Jennifer Garner weakness.
• Finally, our contentious quest for the most influential films of all time continues apace.
You’ve likely seen the trailer for Francis Ford Coppola’s “Tetro” by now. It seems to be going down well with some bloggerfolk, but I must reluctantly say the trailer didn’t really sing to me. It certainly looks attractive (even if the black-and-white lensing struck me as a tad self-regarding when viewed out of context), but there’s a stilted quality to the character exchanges that I can only hope is the result of heavy-handed trailer-cutting.
Anyway, Pam Grady at FilmStew is significantly more impressed by what she’s seen, and based upon the trailer and some behind-the-scenes footage, is anticipating something rather special. (Though if any critic declares the film “Coppola’s crowning achievement” upon its release, I will gladly eat my hat and film the act for posterity.)
I was very interested, however, to read Coppola’s description of his dramatic influences for “Tetro,” which fully supports the hints of heightened melodrama in the trailer:
“The gods were Tennessee Williams and Elia Kazan,” he says. He insists that Tetro – a story of two brothers whose father is a great classical musician and conductor, not unlike Coppola’s late father Carmine – is only very loosely autobiographical. Likening the father in Tetro to “a mythic Greek tragedy father, Desire Under the Elms, a [Cat Under a Hot Tin Roof] Big Daddy,” he insists his own old men was exactly the opposite. “My father was a wonderful father and a very interesting man.” “I’ve set it in Argentina to disguise it so nobody in the family would think it was about us,” he jokes.
He also explains his entirely personal rationale for shooting in black-and-white, suggesting a desire to channel the classic cinema that has most resonated with him in his own lifetime — but fully acknowledging it may cause audiences to stay away. Here’s hoping otherwise.
The trailer for Francis Ford Coppola’s “Tetro,” which will play as part of the Directors’ Fortnight at Cannes later this month, has shown up at the film’s official site. Brad Brevet at Rope of Silicon has an embed, which I’ve included below. Beautiful cinematography once again. Have a look:
After turning down an out-of-competition slot at Cannes earlier this week, it seems Francis Ford Coppola has had a change of heart. Variety reports that his new film, “Tetro,” will open the festival’s Directors’ Fortnight on May 14, marking the much-awaited film’s world premiere.
The addition of Coppola adds some welcome lustre to a sidebar that frequently gets unfairly neglected in favour of the Official Selection (where “Tetro” was previously offered a place). The Director’s Fortnight may also attract attention for showcasing significantly more US talent than the selection of competition films announced yesterday, which included a mere two American titles (and only one from a Yank filmmaker, at that).
In contrast, five American features make the Fortnight lineup, including Sundance talking-points “Humpday” and “I Love You, Philip Morris.” (Meanwhile, Lee Daniels’ much-garlanded Sundance sensation “Precious” (AKA “Push”) will appear in the Un Certain Regard strand of competition.
Though the media focus tends to remain on the 20-odd films up for the Palme d’Or, Cannes runs far deeper than that. Some have complained that yesterday’s competition lineup, with its high quotient of previous winners and established auteurs, feels a bit too safe and insular (though “safe” hardly seems an apt adjective when the likes of Gaspar Noe and Lars Von Trier are involved), but it’s not just new talent lurking in the sidebars.
Now here’s a curious strategic decision. Having been offered the chance to unveil his much-anticipated “Tetro” in an out-of-competition slot at Cannes, Francis Ford Coppola has responded with a polite “thanks, but no thanks”:
“While I very much appreciate the invitation, this is an independent film, self-financed and self released, and I felt that being invited for a non-competition gala screening wasn’t true to the personal and independent nature of this film,” Coppola said in a statement released late last week. “More important than Cannes, our team can focus all our time, energy and resources into the US release this June 11th.”
Coppola is instead opting for a considerably more low-profile bow at the Seattle Film Festival. What gives? Perhaps he just wants to avoid the pressure of a major festival environment: the Cannes crowd can be notoriously hostile towards auteur works that don’t meet certain expectations. (Just ask Coppola’s own daughter.)
But they can also be welcoming towards veteran filmmakers looking to rediscover form, particularly in the more relaxed out-of-competition strand — Woody Allen has twice benefitted from such platforms in recent years. Considering that “Tetro,” an Argentinian-set family saga headlined by Vincent Gallo and Maribel Verdu, doesn’t sound like the easiest sell in the world, I’d say the Cannes exposure could have done it some good — but maybe Coppola knows something we don’t.
No other director in the history of the cinema dominated a 10-year span as Francis Ford Coppola did the 1970s. Beyond directing four of the decade’s greatest films — “The Godfather”, “The Godfather, Part II”, “The Conversation” and “Apocalypse Now” — his name was on “Patton” and “The Great Gatsby” as screenwriter and “American Graffiti” as producer.
In addition, Coppola created American Zoetrope in the hopes of building a haven for young directors to make small films free of the studios. But he also believed what the press were saying: he was a genius who would turn whatever he touched into gold. His ego got in the way and he alienated friend and comrade George Lucas, eventually making up with the director years later when positions of power had been reversed.
In the years after “Apocalypse Now,” the Oscar-winning Coppola fell on hard times with one failure after another it seemed, his once golden touch lost in the jungles of the Philippines while making his Vietnam epic. There were glimmers of former greatness from time to time, such as the expressionistic brilliance of “Rumble Fish,” the Cab Calloway sequence in “The Cotton Club,” the haunting scene with Kathleen Turner and her grandparents in “Peggy Sue Got Married” and Jeff Bridges’s wonderful work in “Tucker.”
But “One from the Heart” was a mess. “The Outsiders” was a sentimental disaster of a film. And then there was “The Godfather, Part III,” a failure because Paramount failed the director, breaking their word after making the promise he would have complete control, refusing to pay Robert Duvall, integral to the story, half of what Al Pacino was making, forcing a major re-write (that cost…?) and casting his daughter (the poor girl) in a key role when she simply lacked the acting chops to work with that ensemble. On and on.
OK, so the dream cast potentially just got dreamier.
Nothing has been confirmed yet, but Variety reports that none other than Daniel Day-Lewis (one almost feels that should be preceded with a Sir, no?) is in talks to play the lead in Rob Marshall’s film version of “Nine” — the Broadway show that is in turn based on Fellini’s “8½,” and is arguably one of the artiest musicals out there.
If he boards, Day-Lewis will be joining a cast already sagging under the weight of its riches: Marion Cotillard, Penelope Cruz, Judi Dench, Nicole Kidman and (wow) Sophia Loren.
It is a fascinating casting prospect for a number of reasons, and not just because we know so little of Day-Lewis’ abilities as a song-and-dance man. (And for those unfamiliar with the show, it’s a full-on, virtuoso musical role — no getting away here with shuffling and speak-crooning, a la Rex Harrison.) Of course, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that a great voice and great moves are merely two other weapons in the man’s well-stocked arsenal of actorly gifts; given how selective Day-Lewis is with his projects, I sense he wouldn’t take the part if he wasn’t sure he could pull it off.