skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Before Casino Royale, I was of the opinion that the Bond franchise had run its course and was just retreading a very tired formula. Die Another Day was just a greatest hits compilation, a film so intent on celebrating itself that it forgot about story and character. It had all of the gadgets, catchphrases and gimmicks that we have come to associate with Bond and none of the personality upon which the franchise was originally built.
Connery’s Bond benefited greatly from being the first. He could do as he wished and was not constrained by the audience’s preconceptions of the character. Although some people had read the books, few were so purist as to complain about Connery’s portrayal. He made the role his and he was a success. Then Roger Moore turned Bond into a light-hearted gadabout, Dalton was saddled with the cynical 80s and the Brosnan starred in a series of films that were more about explosions than espionage.Neither Dalton nor Brosnan, despite his popularity, innovated with the character. Dalton was trying to play the hard-edged Bond from the novels and Brosnan, while he nailed the essence of the English gentleman spy, was essentially a boring character, just a vessel in which to carry and consolidate the baggage loaded upon him by the previous incarnations of 007. This failure is not the fault of the actors; it’s the fault of a studio that lacked inspiration and wanted to maintain a cash cow.So it is good news that with Casino Royale, the suits saw that their Bond brand was waning and took a gamble with the franchise – appropriately perhaps, given the title of the film. Here, at last, is a Bond film with a talented leading actor, a good director and an great script that cares to look at our hero in some depth while regarding the familiar elements of Bond as inconsequential – there are no ridiculous gadgets, no naked dancers and no stupid one-liners. Casino Royale respects your willing suspension of disbelief right until the film’s climax, but even the money shot is fairly tasteful.Once again, there is a reason for 007 to exist. He isn’t necessarily more exciting than Jack Bauer, or more mysterious than Jason Bourne, but Daniel Craig has a knack of making his characters seem real: his Bond makes Tom Cruise’s Ethan Hunt look like one of those old school Action Man dolls with the switch in the back of its head that makes its eyes move. The franchise is reborn; I look forward to Bond 22 with great interest.
The DVDs in my collection, and I suspect most people’s, fall into three main categories: 1) classics, 2) rewatchables and 3) classic rewatchables.ClassicsA film in category 1 isn’t really worth buying unless you’ve never seen it and it’s on sale for the cost of a rental disc. Citizen Kane and Raging Bull are awe-inspiring, but although you admire the way they are put together and you enjoy the story, the acting and the director and/or screenwriter’s vision, unless you study film they just don’t cut it as rewatchables. So rent them once and you’re done.
Few films, regardless of how masterful their creation, manage to escape the trappings of plot formula, and so they slip into familiarity and the high that they deliver dwindles by the fifth viewing, so the disc just sits forsaken on your shelf as an intimation of your good taste.Some action films provide the adrenaline needed to endure repeat viewing, to give audiences a kick, but when much of the kick is dependent on suspense, something that is lost upon second viewing because the outcome of each moment of jeopardy is already known, the expertly choreographed sequences quickly lose their grip on our imaginations.RewatchablesMany of the films in category 2 – the truly rewatchable – are comedies. I think that humour is the thing that characterises the films that I most like to rewatch. Sure, some jokes quickly get old, but on the other hand there are many comic moments whose potency increases because they are anticipated. There are so many 'wait for it...' moments in the films that I like to rewatch.
I think this goes a long way to explaining why Shrek is such a world-beating DVD. It’s not the film as a whole that people like; it’s the funny little parts that make up the whole. It’s a rollercoaster comprised of funny episodes. I’m not a huge Shrek fan, but I understand its mass appeal in the DVD marketplace. My own favourites in this category include Kung Fu Hustle, the first Austin Powers, The Big Lebowski, the South Park movie, Airplane! and Shanghai Noon. These are not films that I would list to impress film geeks, but these are the discs that I reach for when I need a quick fix of home entertainment.Classic RewatchablesSo what about category 3, the classic rewatchable? It’s difficult to assign films to this elite set; anything you put on that sacred podium is liable to be knocked off. Awards bodies dismiss films with prevalent rewatchable humour as ‘comedies’, implying that they’re not ‘proper film’. The films that do get a nod are those that are consistently amusing but where the humour is secondary to something more ‘meaningful’, whatever that means.What do you think? Please leave a comment if any special movies spring to mind that are deserving of category 3 status.
I recently watched two films that are exceptional in that they are far better appreciated for their exquisite cinematography than for their slow-paced stories.I had waited a long time for the chance to see each of the films. The wait for Michelangelo Antonioni’s The Passenger (1975) was partly imposed on me by the film’s star, my personal hero Jack Nicholson, who selfishly sat on the Italian auteur’s masterpiece for decades but rereleased it in cinemas last year. But, as with the other film, Terrence Malick’s The New World (2005), The Passenger forced my cineaste mouth to water longer than anticipated for an additional reason: it wasn’t released in UK cinemas. (I had to import the Region 1 disc.)
Actually, as far as The New World is concerned, that’s not quite true. It found its way onto a few screens in the UK. But, if I remember correctly, I was unable to catch it on its release in Birmingham because Cineworld’s one and only screening took place at 10.00am. Who do they imagine has the time or inclination to watch a film at that time of day?The New World, which tells the Pocahontas story with considerably more passion than Disney’s 1995 pukefest, was directed by the genius behind Badlands (1973) and The Thin Red Line (1998). It is Malick’s third film in as many decades. Emmanuel Lubezki was Oscar-nominated for its cinematography, which in itself is worth the audience’s time and money.The film did not receive a nod from the Academy in any other category. Many of those who watched it would have you believe that it is a boring film in which drama is scarce. This, supposedly, is why I was the only person in the auditorium, watching a film that I would not have seen at all had I not stumbled across it at a cinema in Sweden.But I think the reason for The New World’s commercial failure is more that it is brave enough to be what it wants to be: all mood and tone, instead of being tailored to any easily defined market segment. It has action scenes, but not enough to satisfy Bruce Willis fans. It has romantic scenes, but not enough to satisfy Meg Ryan fans. There are no laugh-out-loud comedy moments for Jack Black fans. It looks, sounds and feels historically accurate, but there is not enough dialogue to stimulate commentary from historians.
Some films have something for everybody; The New World doesn’t at all, but it has a very special peaceful tone and it is a remarkable feast for the eyes. The same can be said – more so, in fact – of The Passenger, a film about a man who tries to escape the confines of being himself by assuming the identity of a newly croaked lookalike. Despite this intriguing premise, the film is in no hurry to weave any formulaic yarns, and instead allocates plenty of time for its delicious lingering shots of Spanish hills and Saharan dunes. The characters are almost incidental. The film isn’t even accompanied by music. It finishes on an ambiguous note, but while the viewer is invited, by all means, to interpret its final scene in any way he or she chooses, the real point of the film is its visual tone. And it’s beautiful.The New World was written in – and is the precious residue of – the 1970s, the decade in which audiences’ taste for arty European films like The Passenger both grew and subsided. It is a shame that the zeitgeist that cultivated films like these is long gone. For now, there does not seem to be a significant audience for films where tone is valued over story. I hope that younger filmmakers like Sofia Coppola can succeed in showing us on a grander scale what we have been missing.
If they can get permission, US cinemas will start jamming cellphone reception during screenings. Read the full story here.
The implications for impudent teenagers? At present they don't go to the cinema because there's a film they want to see; they go to the cinema because have nothing else to do. They get bored quickly and they have no manners, so they call or text their friends after five minutes or so. They do this regardless of whether they paid to see the film or just snuck in halfway through it from another auditorium. Then, because they missed the start, and don’t care about the film anyway, they keep talking until the credits roll. So phone jamming would mean that impudent teenagers may stop ruining movies for everybody else. They may choose to go elsewhere to talk to their impudent friends.The implications for film lovers? At present, they don’t often go to the cinema because impudent teenagers talk when they’re trying to concentrate on the film. If the impudent teenagers are elsewhere, they can return to cinemas and enjoy the big screens and sound systems they may not have at home. And it is possible that mature audiences will ask for mature programming – could this spell more intelligent drama and less remakes, sequels and films based on comic books and Disney theme park rides?And the implications for cinemas and studios? With paying audiences returning to cinemas, they would start making some money. Not much, but some. Good luck to them.
My latest piece of film yak is written specifically for people who work in technology marketing, so few Celluloid Jungle visitors are likely to find it of interest. I'm really sorry about the hiatus - I'll try to write something with a broader appeal sometime soon.
If, by happenstance, you work in B2B tech marketing, and Hollywood's portrayal of public relations consultants is exactly what you were hoping to read about at this very moment, then you are in luck. (And you astonish me.)
Read 'PR Demystified: Shattering Silver Screen Myths'
Posts
