We began our 1959 adventure yesterday with the nominees for Best Actress; today, we look at Best Original Screenplay. Long the place to honor comedies and foreign films, the 1959 roster is made up entirely of just such films. Oh yes - according to the WGA Awards, which at this point divided nominees by genre and not by whether they were original or adapted, even North by Northwest is a comedy. Do we agree? Did it deserve to lose to Pillow Talk? Check after the jump, will ya?
Showing posts with label Francois Truffaut. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Francois Truffaut. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 11, 2018
Monday, May 23, 2011
The Visionaries: Director, 1974
We've been discussing the acting and the technicals and the script, but we all know that it's the director who guides the final product. I mean, God (and the studio) willing.
So, this was my first Cassavetes flick, and I have to say I'm pretty torn. On the one hand, Cassavetes intends for this to be an excruciating experience, since the film centers around a housewife who's losing it...or already lost it. So, yes, kudos to him for creating both a believable suburban environment that's suffocating and uncomfortable. On the other hand, I began to find it irritating that we were spending ten minutes watching a spaghetti dinner. "And what's your name? And what's your name? And what's your name?" And my friend assures me that this is purposeful tension to both irritate Peter Falk's character and get under the audience's skin. Which is fine, but (a) I don't care for it personally and (b) look, how many ten minute scenes do you really need to establish that this lady needs help no one is willing to give? Maybe Cassavetes got the job done -- it's a very good movie, certainly, and one that I think should be seen by serious film enthusiasts -- but I don't have to fall in love with everything.
It's great. He's great. He manages to keep the film afloat despite the superfluousness of the Vito subplot. Aesthetically, he's nailed that Shakespearean element that really makes The Godfather an immortal classic. Of course, I wish that the performances were more varied, as everyone seems to be playing how EPICALLY TRAGIC the film is. But sequences like the Murder of Don Fanucci and the Cuban Revolution are effective and incredible enough to make up for most shortcomings.
I find myself in that weird paradox where I am so in love with something that I cannot explain just why it earned that love. It's one of those "if you see it, you understand it" things, although I think if you've ever seen a Fosse film, you understand. The stand-up performances hint at Fosse's familiarity with the concert film, but even as he makes these sequences natural, he never loses sight of that more artistic form he's adopted for this. The film is a brilliant precursor to All That Jazz, and almost its equal. Maybe it is its equal. Anyway, Fosse's a god.
It's interesting that everything is lit like a noir yet filmed with the same unlocked, handheld style of the independent films; more "realistic", if you will. The stylistic contradictions serve Polanski well, setting us up subconsciously for that awful dose of reality that the film continues to throw at us. And yet he never loses a sense of fun, and say what you will, movies need to be fun. Props for directing himself in a cameo.
Truffaut maintains a light touch. He always has such a great grasp on comedy and drama. Look no further than Valentina Cortese's big scene, which has mixtures of both. Props for directing himself in a supporting role.
-----------------------------------
Oscar awarded Coppola, which I fully support. But I see things slightly differently and award the Oscar to...
John Cassavetes for A Woman Under the Influence
**
So, this was my first Cassavetes flick, and I have to say I'm pretty torn. On the one hand, Cassavetes intends for this to be an excruciating experience, since the film centers around a housewife who's losing it...or already lost it. So, yes, kudos to him for creating both a believable suburban environment that's suffocating and uncomfortable. On the other hand, I began to find it irritating that we were spending ten minutes watching a spaghetti dinner. "And what's your name? And what's your name? And what's your name?" And my friend assures me that this is purposeful tension to both irritate Peter Falk's character and get under the audience's skin. Which is fine, but (a) I don't care for it personally and (b) look, how many ten minute scenes do you really need to establish that this lady needs help no one is willing to give? Maybe Cassavetes got the job done -- it's a very good movie, certainly, and one that I think should be seen by serious film enthusiasts -- but I don't have to fall in love with everything.
Francis Ford Coppola for The Godfather: Part II
****
It's great. He's great. He manages to keep the film afloat despite the superfluousness of the Vito subplot. Aesthetically, he's nailed that Shakespearean element that really makes The Godfather an immortal classic. Of course, I wish that the performances were more varied, as everyone seems to be playing how EPICALLY TRAGIC the film is. But sequences like the Murder of Don Fanucci and the Cuban Revolution are effective and incredible enough to make up for most shortcomings.
Bob Fosse for Lenny
*****
I find myself in that weird paradox where I am so in love with something that I cannot explain just why it earned that love. It's one of those "if you see it, you understand it" things, although I think if you've ever seen a Fosse film, you understand. The stand-up performances hint at Fosse's familiarity with the concert film, but even as he makes these sequences natural, he never loses sight of that more artistic form he's adopted for this. The film is a brilliant precursor to All That Jazz, and almost its equal. Maybe it is its equal. Anyway, Fosse's a god.
Roman Polanski for Chinatown
****
It's interesting that everything is lit like a noir yet filmed with the same unlocked, handheld style of the independent films; more "realistic", if you will. The stylistic contradictions serve Polanski well, setting us up subconsciously for that awful dose of reality that the film continues to throw at us. And yet he never loses a sense of fun, and say what you will, movies need to be fun. Props for directing himself in a cameo.
Francois Truffaut for Day for Night
***
Truffaut maintains a light touch. He always has such a great grasp on comedy and drama. Look no further than Valentina Cortese's big scene, which has mixtures of both. Props for directing himself in a supporting role.
-----------------------------------
Oscar awarded Coppola, which I fully support. But I see things slightly differently and award the Oscar to...
BOB FOSSE
for
LENNY
seriously, he's so great
Friday, May 6, 2011
All Their Own: Original Screenplay, 1974
Of course, as soon as I have a new thing planned, work calls. The Summer Movie Season is upon us! Here's what I wanted to post Thursday:
I'll be honest, I don't know how much of what I love is the screenplay. For instance, I love that Alice is actually kind of unlikable in a lot of scenes, yet so human that we can't help but identify with and root for her. But is that the writing, an acting choice or Scorsese's direction? Though I suppose the latter two would have to have been working off of something. Then again, Getchell does deliver that inexplicable Hollywood ending with the Big Romantic Speech...but then again, still, he also gave us the wonderful Flo. It's so hard to tell what was the writer and what was the director with these auteurs.
I really do think this is one of those masterpiece screenplays. Every moment of every scene provides a clue to the mystery, whether you realize it or not. There are surprisingly hilarious moments, making that finale all the more shocking, and effective. And then of course there's the gradual progression of our understanding of what Chinatown is.
What's bizarre, though, is that while the ending really is one of the greatest strengths of the film, credit for that must go to director Polanski, who convinced a reluctant Towne to change it from the less downbeat climax of the script. It's strange, for it goes so well with what Towne's established, with the characters and tone and setup and everything. Surely, though, it is a great writer who can see what's best for the story, even if it's different from his original plan. Towne himself eventually admitted it was better for the film. How should I rate this, then? On the final result, or the writer's intentions?
Final result, man. Because it's fucking Chinatown.
A character study-mystery-thriller with nary a moment wasted. Every line of dialogue either presents a new aspect of Gene Hackman's character or a new element of paranoia. Think about this: we're watching a film about a private individual who says very little, whom few people know intimately, yet we're there with him every step of the way...and there's no voice-over. Like Chinatown, every development is earned by what's preceded it, never a dishonest step.
An ensemble film about filmmaking? Bitches, you know I'm gonna love this. The script allows every member of the ensemble to have at least one great moment in the spotlight: the script girl, the producer, the wife of one of the executives, the lead actress's husband, everyone! If there is an element that gives me pause, it's the way certain things are brought up and then dropped, like the real source of star Severine's muddling of her lines. And yet...is this not a perfect portrait of a film set? Brief catches of gossip, of lovemaking, of rivalries, springing up and disappearing in the limited amount of time they have. Severine herself puts it best: "What a funny life we lead. We meet, we work together, we love each other, and then -- THPPT! As soon as we grasp something, it's gone! See?"
Of course, some people do believe that dialogue = screenplay, and Day for Night certainly has some classic lines. Besides Severine's little speech, my two favorite pieces of dialogue would have to be: "People used to stare at fires. Now they watch TV. We need to see moving images, especially after dinner," and "I'd drop a guy for a film. I'd never drop a film for a guy!" When you can tell everything about a character just from the words they say, the writer's done their job.
Harry & Tonto, for me, misses so many opportunities to be more than an adorable old man taking a road trip. Maybe I missed something, but is there an arc of any kind? Harry doesn't want to leave his apartment, he's thrown out, he road trips he meets people. Do these people change his life in any significant way? Or anything at all? No, he just kind of meets them and then continues on his way. What's the point of the prostitute? The hitchhikers? The old flame? The son who pretends to have it all but doesn't? The nephew who refuses to speak? Ellen Burstyn? There are interesting set-ups to each of these segments, and it feels like they're about to go somewhere, but they don't.
Perhaps the most irritating aspect, for me, is a major spoiler, so feel free to skip this paragraph.
But isn't Tonto the most important thing for him now? He won't get on a plane because of Tonto, he won't stay on a Greyhound because of Tonto, he panics while in jail because of Tonto. Yet Tonto's death is off-screen, and delivered to us by way of voice-over...and I feel no emotional connection. Mayve I shouldn't blame this on the screenplay. Maybe this is more on the directing and editing side of things, and there was a beautiful and poignant moment set up within the script. All I know is, one of the title characters died and it hardly mattered. It's as though the cat existed merely to get him off the bus and away from planes. No thank you.
---------------------------------------------
Really, who am I to argue with Oscar on this one? I, too, believe the Oscar should go to...
Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore by Robert Getchell
***
I'll be honest, I don't know how much of what I love is the screenplay. For instance, I love that Alice is actually kind of unlikable in a lot of scenes, yet so human that we can't help but identify with and root for her. But is that the writing, an acting choice or Scorsese's direction? Though I suppose the latter two would have to have been working off of something. Then again, Getchell does deliver that inexplicable Hollywood ending with the Big Romantic Speech...but then again, still, he also gave us the wonderful Flo. It's so hard to tell what was the writer and what was the director with these auteurs.
Chinatown by Robert Towne
*****
I really do think this is one of those masterpiece screenplays. Every moment of every scene provides a clue to the mystery, whether you realize it or not. There are surprisingly hilarious moments, making that finale all the more shocking, and effective. And then of course there's the gradual progression of our understanding of what Chinatown is.
What's bizarre, though, is that while the ending really is one of the greatest strengths of the film, credit for that must go to director Polanski, who convinced a reluctant Towne to change it from the less downbeat climax of the script. It's strange, for it goes so well with what Towne's established, with the characters and tone and setup and everything. Surely, though, it is a great writer who can see what's best for the story, even if it's different from his original plan. Towne himself eventually admitted it was better for the film. How should I rate this, then? On the final result, or the writer's intentions?
Final result, man. Because it's fucking Chinatown.
The Conversation by Francis Ford Coppola
****
A character study-mystery-thriller with nary a moment wasted. Every line of dialogue either presents a new aspect of Gene Hackman's character or a new element of paranoia. Think about this: we're watching a film about a private individual who says very little, whom few people know intimately, yet we're there with him every step of the way...and there's no voice-over. Like Chinatown, every development is earned by what's preceded it, never a dishonest step.
Day for Night by Jean-Louis Richard, Suzanne Schiffman and Francois Truffaut
***
An ensemble film about filmmaking? Bitches, you know I'm gonna love this. The script allows every member of the ensemble to have at least one great moment in the spotlight: the script girl, the producer, the wife of one of the executives, the lead actress's husband, everyone! If there is an element that gives me pause, it's the way certain things are brought up and then dropped, like the real source of star Severine's muddling of her lines. And yet...is this not a perfect portrait of a film set? Brief catches of gossip, of lovemaking, of rivalries, springing up and disappearing in the limited amount of time they have. Severine herself puts it best: "What a funny life we lead. We meet, we work together, we love each other, and then -- THPPT! As soon as we grasp something, it's gone! See?"
Of course, some people do believe that dialogue = screenplay, and Day for Night certainly has some classic lines. Besides Severine's little speech, my two favorite pieces of dialogue would have to be: "People used to stare at fires. Now they watch TV. We need to see moving images, especially after dinner," and "I'd drop a guy for a film. I'd never drop a film for a guy!" When you can tell everything about a character just from the words they say, the writer's done their job.
Harry & Tonto by Paul Mazursky and Josh Greenfeld
**
Harry & Tonto, for me, misses so many opportunities to be more than an adorable old man taking a road trip. Maybe I missed something, but is there an arc of any kind? Harry doesn't want to leave his apartment, he's thrown out, he road trips he meets people. Do these people change his life in any significant way? Or anything at all? No, he just kind of meets them and then continues on his way. What's the point of the prostitute? The hitchhikers? The old flame? The son who pretends to have it all but doesn't? The nephew who refuses to speak? Ellen Burstyn? There are interesting set-ups to each of these segments, and it feels like they're about to go somewhere, but they don't.
Perhaps the most irritating aspect, for me, is a major spoiler, so feel free to skip this paragraph.
But isn't Tonto the most important thing for him now? He won't get on a plane because of Tonto, he won't stay on a Greyhound because of Tonto, he panics while in jail because of Tonto. Yet Tonto's death is off-screen, and delivered to us by way of voice-over...and I feel no emotional connection. Mayve I shouldn't blame this on the screenplay. Maybe this is more on the directing and editing side of things, and there was a beautiful and poignant moment set up within the script. All I know is, one of the title characters died and it hardly mattered. It's as though the cat existed merely to get him off the bus and away from planes. No thank you.
---------------------------------------------
Really, who am I to argue with Oscar on this one? I, too, believe the Oscar should go to...
ROBERT TOWNE
for
CHINATOWN
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)