A Nightmare with no escape

In The Ghost Writer, Roman Polanski's taut suspense/mystery with political overtones, it's either raining, has just rained or looks as though it's about to rain - literally we never see the sun shining during the film. This visual mood is perfect for a story which takes us into a nightmarish setting of deception among various characters who must deal with others in their immediate environment as well as those in the outside world who feel the need to gain access to their private dealings.

The film is based on the 2007 novel The Ghost by British novelist Robert Harris, which told the story of a writer who was assigned to ghostwrite the memoirs of Adam Lang, a fictional British Prime Minister who had recently resigned. The character of Lang is clearly based on Tony Blair and the new ghostwriter must now take over the project of completing the memoirs, as the original writer died during the project. The question of whether his death was an accident or murder is one of the key plot details in this work.

Harris and Polanski have teamed to write the screenplay and it's tightly constructed, alternating between Lang, his wife Ruth and the ghost writer (whose name we never learn). The setting is a private island retreat in New England where Lang and his staff have holed themselves up for privacy's sake and where the new ghost writer must inhabit on a daily basis to complete the work (he can conduct interviews with Lang as well as work on the first draft, which was completed by the former ghost, yet he is not allowed to take the manuscript from the compound, for security purposes.)

The new ghost writer is a bit unsure about taking this assignment at first, but soon changes his mind, given the hefty fee he will receive. He believes as he is not a political man, he can ask Lang honest questions and find out what makes him tick. In one intriguing interview scene, he asks the Prime Minister about his college days at Cambridge when he performed in several student plays. He thinks this information will offer some charming insight for the average reader, but Lang wants no part of it, telling the writer:

"You know what the Times of London said the day I resigned? 'Kindly leave the stage.' So no, we won't dwell, if you don't mind, on my student days as an actor."

Clearly Lang desires to control every detail of his career and while the ghost writer understands this, he is clearly puzzled at what this man wants. The plot thickens when Lang's former Foreign Secretary accuses him on television of allowing conditions for torturing Islamic suspects accused of terrorism. Lang claims his innocence, but the writer starts to doubt that soon afterwards, given the discovery of a few documents and photos he found among the former writer's possessions.

As for Lang's wife Ruth (a superb performance of great subtlety by Olivia Williams), she too begins to question her husband's word, especially as she knows he is carrying on an affair with his secretary (portrayed with a nice matter-of-factness by Kim Catrall, who plays down her sexiness here). Ruth soon wonders if her husband had anything to do with the death of the former ghost after the new writer reveals a few recently discovered details.

The main theme as I see it in this film is that of being trapped:

1) Lang is trapped in his role as Prime Minister. He mentions to the ghost writer that he could not carry money around in his everyday capacities; instead he had to ask someone else to take care of the situation.

2) Lang is also trapped in his own political lies, as he puts on a brave face for the media, claiming no responibility in the current troubles he is accused of.

3) The ghost writer is trapped in a job he is not sure he wants, especially after unturning some crucial new evidence.

4) Ruth is trapped in a loveless marriage. She ultimately will be trapped in a lie concerning her former political career, as well.

5) All of them are trapped on the island compound. Lang cannot travel out of the country for fear of being deported; Ruth needs to stay with her husband and put on a brave face during the investigation and the ghost writer cannot take the manuscript from his working office.

This idea of being trapped is beautifully communicated in Polanski's direction. He combines with his cinematographer Pawel Edelman to give us images of the compound as a virtual prison, as we see the characters framed by the rigid geometry of the walls, windows and rooms. There's one particularly wonderful over-the-shoulder shot, as we see the writer watch Lang, standing just outside in the rain, clearly shouting on his mobile phone. Watching the writer watch Lang become a bit unglued is disarming and it's accomplished by Polanski with great simplicity.

That over the shoulder camera work is also on display in a particularly tense sequence late in the film when the writer is driving from a diplomat's home to return to the island compound via ferry transport. He is being followed and the camera movements here add an edginess that gives the scene its immediacy. Fans of Polanski will recall the many over-the-shoulder shots in the director's most famous film, Chinatown (1974) and this film recalls some of the same nightmares that J.J. Gittes experienced in that tale.

Polanksi's films are often walking nightmares for the main characters, who cannot escape the evil that surrounds them. Think of Rosemary as she discovers the chilling details of her son in Rosemary's Baby (1968), of Gittes discovering the horrible deeds of Noah Cross in Chinatown or of Szpilman in The Pianist (2002), who witnesses the cruel behavior of the SS during his time in hiding during the Second World War.

Even after the book is finished, Ruth is made aware that her former deeds have been discovered; she must live with that knowledge. In a final cruel twist of fate, even the ghost writer does not get to enjoy the relief he must feel upon completion of his work. There is no escape.


Postscript

While The Ghost Writer was released in the spring of 2010, I am only reviewing it now for several reasons. One is that I initially watched the film aboard a plane ride home from Europe. Even given this atmosphere, I was moved by this work, but clearly, I wanted to view it again so I could take better notes and pick up on more of the film's subtleties. Now that I have seen it twice more over the past week, I felt I was ready to comment on the film.

But more importantly, I wanted to point out what I believe is a disgrace in that this film did not receive a single Oscar nomination. There are several contributors I believe could have and should have been singled out. First, the original score of Alexandre Desplat, whose work here is excellent. The score is haunting, with a certain Bernard Herrmann edginess to it, yet it's totally Desplat's own work, This score is clearly superior to the composer's music for The King's Speech, for which he was nominated for an Academy Award. It stands to reason as The King's Speech has been so critically praised with good (but hardly great) box-office numbers (as opposed to The Ghost Writer, which did poor business at the till) that's the film for which the composer would be honored.

At least three performances could have been honored in the supporting categories. As Lang, Pierce Brosnan is first-rate. Though too often known principally for his good looks, Brosnan is an accomplished actor and his performance here is among his finest to date. He combines an easy smile with a quick temper (both on rare occasions) to give us a politician who is proud yet a bit weary of all the attention he receives.

As his wife Ruth, Olivia Williams is outstanding, giving us a portrait of a woman who ruefully accepts her husband's affair(s) but quietly seethes inside at his callow behavior. She subtly brings together all the emotions of this complex woman; she has a sexy earthiness that allows her to enter into a man's private world, ever so quietly.

As diplomat Paul Emmett, who assisted both Lang and his wife in their climb to the top, Tom Williamson is a revelation. He communicates a lot with his body language, often saying more with a glance or a shrug than with actual words. He is careful not to let too much emerge from his personality, except for the fact that he is - shall we say - a bit reserved in how he operates. His character has only a few scenes, but it is a critical one in the story and Wilkinson is memorable.


As for other nominations, there is the taut, brilliantly organized screenplay co-authored by Polanski and Harris as well as the moody, fragile cinematography of Edelman, who also photographed Polanki's The Pianist along with Ray (Taylor Hackford, 2004). This is a cinematographer in complete control and one who suits the theme of pervasive moodiness of Polanski's work perfectly.

But above all, the nomination that was overlooked was that for Best Director for Roman Polanski himself. Polanski has delivered one of is finest films here, blocking his scenes with great care and moving his camera with great precision. There is a sense of unease that dominates the look and feel of The Ghost Writer; it's a theme that runs throughout the director's works and it's wonderfully communicated in this film.

So why no nominations for this film? Well, you could point to the fact that the film was released in the spring, a long time before other serious films aimed at award buzz. More importantly, you could point to the fact that the film did little business at the box office as previously mentioned; I'd think this latter reasoning makes more sense.

But it seems to me that the real reason that The Ghost Writer did not receive any Oscar nominations is quite simple - it's Roman Polanski. Given the notoriety of his situation of fleeing the US after pleading guilty to unlawful sex with a minor back in 1977, the Academy decided they wanted nothing to do with him anymore, especially given the publicity of his arrest in Switzerland in 2009 (and subsequent release by Swiss officials in 2010).

Now the Academy did honor Polanski with the Best Director Oscar for The Pianist, but his case had been out of the news for years at that time. Also that film dealt with the Holocaust, a sure-fire topic for Oscar glory. So by now, the academy probably believed they had done their good deed in awarding Polanski their top honors back at the 2003 ceremonies. These days, that good will is a thing of the distant past.

I say that as this year at the awards, films as diverse as The King's Speech, The Social Network and True Grit will battle for top honors. I have varying degrees of praise for these three works, but in my opinion, none of them are as finely crafted, deeply disturbing or as beautifully directed as The Ghost Writer.


P.p.s. A final point on the theme of being trapped? Obviously it's Polanski sitting in a Swiss jail as foreign officials decided his fate. Reportedly, Polanski finished editing The Ghost Writer from prison in 2009. Will he ever truly be freed from his own real life nightmare?

A Pre "Speech" Success

This time of year when movie awards are a big part of the discussion on film, there's always the tradition of looking back on the work of certain individuals that are up for Oscars and/or other acclaim. It's certainly true with Tom Hooper, director of The King's Speech. Hooper just took top honors at the Directors Guild of America awards and suddenly everyone knows his name - you understand, he's the latest overnight sensation.

I took a look at his resumé and discovered he directed a little film called The Damned United last year; this a BBC production, so it was produced on a moderate budget. I decided to watch the film, given its highly favorable reviews and see what themes Hooper carried over into The King's Speech.

The Damned United is set in the world of English soccer - make that football, lads - and it's about the story of Brian Clough, one of the most successful and controversial team managers over the past 40 years. The film documents the triumphs and failures of Clough on and off the pitch and it's a nicely crafted look at the obsession of one man who will only do things his way.

The story revolves around Clough as manager of a second division team from Derby and how he takes them from the bottom of the standings to the top; as they win the division, they are promoted to the first division where they will battle the finest teams in the country. The club everyone wants to beat at this time (the mid 1970s) is Leeds and we watch Clough prepare his team for their matches with that foe.

The story is told not chronologically, but jumps from one stage in Clough's career to the next. The film opens in 1974 when Don Revie, the manager of Leeds leaves to take that position with the national team, which failed that year to qualify for the World Cup. As Leeds had won the FA cup, he was the first choice to take over the national squad. With his departure, Leeds needed a new manager and Clough, fresh off a 1973 championship with Derby, seemed to be the natural successor.

But Clough who is a proud, stubborn man, gets things off on the wrong foot by insulting Revie at an opening press conference. He claims that Leeds was a dirty team, that Revie had fostered that type of play from his squad and that their championships were, in effect, tainted. Clough tells his players to forget Revie and to listen only to him from that moment on.

But Leeds gets off to a slow start under Clough in 1974 and soon the players and management are at odds with Clough. How things are resolved is one of the main plot lines in the film.

Another is the wonderful relationship Clough has with his assistant at Derby, Peter Taylor. As self-consumed as Clough is, Taylor is self-effacing and easy going. Their contrasts in personality make for a great partnership and it is also at the foundation of their behavior when they are split up after the are fired from Derby (I won't go into the details of the rest of the narrative, but suffice it to say there are a few surprises.)

It's the personal struggle of Clough that lifts this film above the ordinary sports film. Hooper includes film clips of a few of the matches and they're neat to watch, but it's his in-the-face look at Clough's obsessive drive that hammers home the message here. This is not just win at all costs; rather it's win and do it my way. Clough could never stand Revie, so when he takes over Leeds, he has to change everything about their ways.

As Clough, Michael Sheen is marvelous, delivering a charismatic, quite natural performance. There's never a false moment and there's no emoting, even when he's rallying the troops. He keeps his head high, even at the darkest moments and he's never at a loss for words when insulting others (which happens often in this film). Clough is a remarkable man, one who never doubts he is in the right and Sheen plays him with the proper amount of bravado as well as a touch of subtlety.

Thus The Damned United served as a nice warmup for Tom Hooper and his work on The King's Speech . Both films deal with an historical British figure: Clough in United and King George VI in Speech and both are obsessed with overcoming a major hurdle in his life. Both also deal with the unusual friendships each man enjoyed: Clough with his assistant Taylor and the King with his speech therapist, Lionel Logue. Both man have their angry moments with their best friend, but each values their work and in the end, realizes how their success depends on that other ally in life.

Take a look at The Damned United when you get a chance. British football may be the subject, but the personal emotions are universal.

The Artistry of Roger Deakins

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)

Roger Deakins, Director of Photography

In my recent post on the Coen brothers' True Grit, I asked the question "Is there a more accomplished cinematographer working today?"I then went on to note the low light photography Deakins employed for this story and his desaturation of color in the outdoor scenes that perfectly suits the film's mood.

I also predicted Deakins would receive an Academy Award nomination for his work on True Grit; while hardly a bold estimate on my part, this has happened, making this his ninth Oscar nomination. He also received a nomination for his work on this film from the American Society of Cinematographers; he is one of five up for the society's Outstanding Achievement Award for the past year's films. He has won this award twice in the past for The Shawshank Redemption (1994) and The Man Who Wasn't There (2001). In February, he will be honored by the ASC with their lifetime achievement award.

Think about the films on which Deakins has been employed as Director of Photography and you can't help but recall the amazing visuals. A short list includes several remarkable movies from the Coens, including No Country for Old Men (2007) and 2000's O Brother, Where Art Thou? (he has been the regular cinematographer for the Coens since 1991's Barton Fink) as well as work for other directors including The Shawshank Redemption (1994 for Frank Darabont); Kundun (1997 for Martin Scorsese); A Beautiful Mind (2001 for Ron Howard) and Revolutionary Road (2008 for Sam Mendes).

No Country For Old Men

I've always been interested in cinematography and how these craftsmen work; I am a still photographer and have always been fascinated by visuals. I thought about attending film school at a prestigious university when I was young, but nothing ever came of it. So my expertise on cinematography is somewhat limited, as I have to rely on how the visual look of a film affects the way I react to it. As you would imagine, that reaction is quite strong; only music can match those emotions for me in movies.

Take a look at the image at the beginning of this post, for example. Could this image of Jesse James (Brad Pitt) be more iconic? We know of the near mythical accounts of James' life and instantly, we are given that identity in this one shot. Look at how James in his dark outfit stands tall against the muted browns and greens with an ominous, cloud-filled sky overhead (desaturation is a common visual in Deakins' works - it is on display throughout True Grit). It is as though this man is one against nature, a man who literally rises above nature, giving him a timeless quality, one that defined this man's actions against society. Clearly this image takes what we know about Jesse James and then surpasses those sensations.

Lest you think I am giving Deakins more credit than he deserves when I discuss this particular (or other images in his portfolio) as compared to the film's director, consider this excerpt from an article in the  January, 2011 issue of American Cinematographer magazine:

He (Deakins) has repeatedly stated that composition is the most critical part of the cinematographer’s job. “It’s much more important than lighting,” he toldAC. “The balance of the frame — the way an actor is relating to the space in the frame — is the most important factor in helping the audience feel what the character is thinking.”


This article is an excellent overview of Deakins' experiences as well as how he goes about his craft. I recommend it wholeheartedly; it can be found at this link.

Low light photography is a feature of much of Deakins' work; this is of course, in keeping with the themes explored by the Coens in films such as Barton Fink or True Grit or by Andrew Dominik in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007). The above photo, from this last film, is part of a brilliantly lit and photographed train robbery sequence that is among the finest moments of Deakins' resumé. You don't have to know exactly how he did it (he used a number of techniques to make the train and surrounding landscape appear brighter than they were during the actual shoot), but it is a mesmerizing visual moment that heightens the drama. While Deakins may have a few tricks up his sleeve (like any accomplished cinematographer), he uses them to aide the look and feel of the film and not to draw attention to his own talent.

Not every film Deakins has worked on has featured low light photography. Look at the above image from Revolutionary Road and note how he has used natural light in this shot (even going so far as to show two unlit overhead kitchen fixtures). Here the bright, sunny hues of this scene serve as an ironic counterpoint to the ever increasing marital problems of the main couple. It's a completely natural look and it's what director Sam Mendes wanted and what Deakins delivered.

For several years now, Deakins has authored his own blog, answering questions (often very technically oriented) about what sort of lens or light he used to achieve an image. Sometimes the answers are less technical, leaning toward his philosophy of lighting and framing a scene. Here is one of my favorite quotes from Deakins, in reply to a budding cinematographer asking him for advice:

"Study light and color - every painting, photograph, and film scene that makes you feel "I want to do that" - figure out how you might replicate it - not just light, but overall tone, saturation, color, and even composition. Look for the meaning or metaphor, look for the "story" in every scene - learn to think like an artist AND a technician."


The Roger Deakins forum can be found at this link. It's a fascinating site, especially for anyone interested in cinematography and Deakins is happy to share some of his secrets (he reveals, for instance, that the memorable scene of Rooster Cogburn giving Mattie a horseback ride under a star-lit sky in True Grit was so difficult to film that it had to be filmed both outdoors as well as on an indoor stage, using a green screen for certain closeups.)

Roger Deakins

Deakins' work has truly been among the very best in films over the past 25 years; I've written about a few of my favorites in this post, but there are many more I simply don't have room to mention, such as the marvelous tonal range of The Shawshank Redemption (various hues of blue, gray and brown) and the stunning black and white photography of The Man Who Wasn't There, which in reality was shot on color film and then printed on black and white stock.

Congratulations, Roger on your Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Society of Cinematographers - well deserved! Now wouldn't it be something if the Academy Awards finally recognized him with an Oscar for his sublime work this past year on True Grit?

Coppola on Writing

Francis Ford Coppola (Photo ©Tom Hyland)

I recently transcribed an inteview I conducted with Francis Ford Coppola about ten years ago at a lunch in Chicago. The main purpose of the lunch was to introduce some of the newest releases of his wines from his estate in Napa Valley; I did talk with him about his wine business, but of course, wanted to know more about his work as a director and writer.

Most interviews from a decade ago tend to be dated, but much of what Coppola has to say here about writing for film is timeless. Thus I thought I would share sections of this interview in this post. I hope you enjoy the discussion - just remember to keep in mind this interview is from 2001.

Tom Hyland: So you’re slowing down with filmmaking lately?

Francis Ford Coppola: No, I’m making a very major transition. I’ll tell you a quick story and you’ll probably understand what I mean. When I was a kid, I was sort of the Boy Wonder of the theater department at Hofstra when I was an undergraduate.

I ran it beyond the faculty in a way. I had all the keys. I directed all the shows. Did you see Rushmore, the movie with Bill Murray? I was like that kid, but as a result the faculty always had a hard time with me. Basically I discovered that the shows were financed by student activity funds, and therefore the clubs could control whether or not the faculty got to direct them. I wanted to direct, so that’s what I did.

I found that I was in this fabulous position, but I was flunking my Shakespeare class. I was directing one Shakespeare, but the test was on the one I hadn’t read! I remember writing a paper on some Shaw play that I really hadn’t read… remember those days when you wrote a paper on something and you just sort of wrote it all around and you’d embellish it?

It came down to it that I realized if I didn’t do something drastic, I wasn’t going to graduate. So I switched and became an English major to get out of the grasp of the drama faculty, because I was such a counter force to them.

In an ironic way, I went into the wine business the same way I went into English, because the studios can’t touch me. We’re a big company, we could finance a movie. So what I’ve done is I’ve stepped out of there… they control everything, the five companies.

I’ve sort of eluded the control of the studios because they have nothing to do with the food and wine industry. They control everything else. If they want, you can get the distribution, you can get a good vision; they can make all kinds of trouble for you. In an ironic sense, I’ve sidestepped them. Although I didn’t do it deliberately, I began to see the parallel of college. And beyond that, when I say I’m trying to make a transition, is that always throughout my career, I really wanted to write original material for film. That’s why I like The Conversation better than my other films, because they’re adaptations of books.

I’m sort of getting myself back in the ability to sit down and write. Really I have been writing a major film, as though it were a novel with the same time and care that one would write a novel. In the movie business, very rarely someone comes out… it’s not like a new film like Ibsen wrote a new play or even, if I may say, Shakespeare was going to write a play or someone was going to write a book, it’s always an adaptation of something else.

That’s because the whole system works in a way that discourages that. Number one, you don’t get the time. To write a novel, sometimes people spend ten, twelve… well, how long did it take to write War and Peace?

After this tour, after June, I’m just going to be a writer. I’m not going to talk to anybody. If you want me to do what you want me to do through the year, I’ll do it in one week. I’ve done this only once before in 1994, but I wanted to clear the board so I could… you know, I know guys who are novelists, it’s amazing. You call up them up and the wife says, ‘Oh John is working. Even we can’t talk to them.’ But when I’m working, ‘oh yea, there he is, go over there and do that.’ Wait a second, doesn’t anyone respect what I’m doing?

Every writer I know will develop a daily pattern and they’ll know that when they go to the garage or wherever they go, they’re not going to be talked to or they’re not going to answer your calls.

TH: What about writing for the screen? You’re talking about writing a novel.

FFC: Well that’s an interesting thing because I have thought over many years that I would like to write a novel or write a play. But I really came to the conclusion that the cinema is an exciting format and one in which people have only touched 10% of what it can do. Certainly the way the system is now where companies control it, you don’t even get the chance to ever venture out of that because you can’t get a movie financed today.

TH: How did you get the idea for The Conversation?

FFC: It was a conversation I had actually that had to do with how the technology was changing their dilemma. I was talking with a friend of mine that there was this long microphone and you would have a sight and you could hear what someone was saying. And I thought, wouldn’t it be interesting if you had a story about this couple having this conversation and every once in a while you wouldn’t hear because someone walked in front of them and the conversation was totally ordinary. But then you realized that someone went to great lengths to record it and you started think, ‘My god, I wonder what is really going on.’

So it was a little film, a personal film and I  only got to make it because I said I’d make a second Godfather.

TH: With Tucker, I loved the scene where Preston Tucker is making a slide presentation to auto executives and talking about safety in car crashes. He has photos of people going through the windshields and at the same time, he is serving these exectutives rare roast beef for their lunch.

FFC:  That’s a true story, that really happened.

Do any of you work for the Chicago Tribune?

TH: I write for the Tribune.

FFC: The reason I mention it is because Col. McCormack (former publisher of the Tribune) got into a Tucker with his cowboy hat and it sqiushed the hat on his head and from that moment, the Tucker was dead!

Text ©Tom Hyland, 2011

The Best "Best Pictures"

Awards season in Hollywood has gotten underway; the Golden Globes ceremony following the announcements of several critics' associations on the best pictures and performances of the year. Soon it will be time for the Academy Award nominations to be revealed (January 25) followed by the Oscar awards themselves on February 27.

This means that the blogosphere will soon be alive with all sorts of posts about the Academy Awards with subjects ranging from the new nominations and who will win to famous omissions from previous years. No doubt the tone of many of these will be highly critical of the Academy for their selections.

To be sure, I've been puzzled at some of the results over the years - who hasn't? - but for today, I'd like to focus on the positives. Sometimes the Academy gets it right, so over the next few weeks, I'd like to point out some of the best awards in my mind. I'll cover categories from acting to music to editing; for this post, I'd like to name my choices at the best 5 selections of Best Picture over the course of the Academy's history (the first Oscars were awarded for 1927/1928 film seasons.) To only select five is a bit of a daunting task, so I'll list them in chronological order.

Casablanca (1943)
Is there a more beloved movie ever to emerge from Hollywood? Everyone knows the story of Rick (Humphrey Bogart at his most suave) and Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman at her most beautiful) and how their lives and loves become intertwined again in Casablanca during the Second World War.

This is classic Hollywood filmmaking at is best, from Arthur Edeson's vibrant black and white photography to the superb art direction and set decoration of  Carl Jules Weyl and Georges James Hopkins - who could forget the look of Rick's Café Americain?

Of course, the screenplay by Howard Koch and the Epstein brothers, Julius and Philip, is a certified classic, combining intrigue, romance and illicit deals; the characters they created were among the most living, breathing, complex you've ever seen on the screen. And that's not just the two main stars, but also lesser roles such as Capt. Renault (Claude Rains) an of course Sam, the piano player (Dooley Wilson) - who could ever forget those two characters? Michael Curtiz contributed the most elegant direction of his career, but in reality, this is a film that lives in our memory thanks to the contribution of dozens of extremely talented craftsmen - clearly this was supreme evidence of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.


The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
This drama about soldiers returning to the uncertainties of home life shortly after the end of World War ll certainly touched a nerve at the time of its release, but the fact is that this marvelous film has not lost any of its emotional appeal some 65 years later. William Wyler's subtle direction and an excellent ensemble (especially Frederic March, Dana Andrews, Teresa Wright and of course, Harold Russell) were among the highlights of this film along with Gregg Toland's famously celebrated deep focus photography. The  scene where Andrews climbs back into the cockpit of a plane in a junkyard is only one of several heartbreaking moments in this film. As beautiful a tribute to the American soldier as has ever been made in Hollywood.

Teresa Wright and Dana Andrews in The Best Years of our Lives 

On the Waterfront (1954)
A great film from director Elia Kazan and screenwriter Budd Schulberg about life in the longshoreman's union in the mid-1950s, from the dull, everyday routine of the work to the criminal activities of the union that decides who will work each day. This is one of the finest on location shoots ever and Kazan has commented often about the brutally cold days during the film's shooting. The sparse, moody black and white cinematography of Boris Kaufman (he won the Oscar for his work on this film), adds greatly to the realism of the drama's setting. The acting - especially from Marlon Brando - but also from Eva Marie Saint, Karl Malden and Rod Steiger, is miraculous.

Of course, everyone remembers the climax with Brando getting up from a bloody battle with the union honchos as well as the scene in the taxicab ("I coulda been a contender"), but for me, several of the quieter scenes in the picture are even more memorable, such as the one in which Brando tells Saint that he was indirectly responsible for her brother's death. This is filmed near the water's edge and we can only hear a few introductory words, as the whistle of a tugboat drowns out most of Brando's dialogue. It's a superb scene from an outstanding film.

The Godfather/ The Godfather ll (1972/1974)

Each of these films won the Best Picture Oscar, so I am combining them. Francis Ford Coppola gave us an epic, the likes of which we had truly never seen on the screen, be its graphic (but necessary) violence or its internal look at crime family politics. The stunning images in these works - the horse's head in the bed and the brutal murders at a tollbooth - are only two of the most memorable in screen history.

This was another brilliant combination of multiple talents, especially those of Production Manager Dean Tavoularis and sound designer Walter Murch. Marlon Brando left us with one of the screen's most imitated roles as Vito Corleone and what a wonderful ensemble of Al Pacino, James Caan and Robert Duvall, as well as Robert DeNiro as the young Don in the second part of this film (actually predating the first film, in terms of chronological order). Almost 40 years on, the two films are riveting entertainment and epic filmmaking at its best, as the small details of everyday lives are never overshadowed by the vastness of the subject matter. 

Unforgiven (1992)

Clint Eastwood had been winning over the critical mass for almost a decade with his meticulously crafted Westerns, but it was with this film that Hollywood finally admitted that he was a truly gifted filmmaker. This study of how a former killer has to return to his former ways is a moralistic Western that never preaches, but instead challenges us to examine the demons in our own lives - how would we react in a similar situation?

This was a tribute to classic Westerns of the past and at the same time, a remarkably fresh examination of the genre's myth. Beautiful photography by Jack Green and first-rate editing by Joel Cox (an Oscar winner) added to the film's excellence, but at the heart, it was the combination of a brilliant script by David Peoples and Eastwood's masterful storytelling (he won his first Best Director award for this film) that set this film apart. 

Olympic Visions Realized: Bud Greenspan 1926-2010

Usually when a critically acclaimed film director dies, the blogosphere is filled with tributes to that individual. But there's been precious little written about the recent passing of Bud Greenspan who passed away on December 25, so I'd like to remedy that, especially as I believe he was a supremely gifted storyteller who left us with several outstanding sports documentaries, the most famous of which were about the Olympics.

There were a few famous Olympic documentaries (most notably Leni Riefenstahl's Olympia in 1936) before Greenspan initially tackled the subject in 1964 with Jesse Owens Returns to Berlin. This moving work was honored as one of the most human stories in sports ever told on film and instantly linked him with the Olympics. Several films about the games followed over the years - he became the official Olympic documentarian - the most famous of which were  The Olympiad (1976), a 22-hour series on the history of the Olympics and 16 Days of Glory about the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. That title became synonymous with Greenspan who would go on to craft several more films with the 16 Days of Glory name, including looks at the 1988 Winter and Summer Games (held in Calgary and Seoul), the 1992 Summer games of Barcelona and the 1994 Winter games in Lillehammer. He continued making Olympic films until the Torino Winter games of 2006.

I've seen excerpts from several of his films and am catching up on more this week as Universal Sports of NBC is broadcasting a number of his works from January 1-9, cleverly titled 9 Nights of Glory. The first thing you notice in these films is the photography, as Greenspan amassed an army of cameramen to cover each event. Given the massive amount of film he could work with in the editing room, there were a myriad of camera angles to go with and as you can imagine, the finished product offered us some pretty remarkable views of the competitions. There were the telephoto shots at the end of the 100-meter dash or 110-meter hurdles that compressed the race into a frenzied mass of bodies (admittedly done before), but there were also lovely shots one didn't often see, such as an isolated shot of relay runners waving their hands in an effort to urge on their teammates or a tight focus on a balance beam just before a gymnast made a move.

But while the visuals were bringing you in, it was Greenspan's feel for the hidden stories of the athletes that made his films so compelling. In the Los Angeles 16 Days film, the director captured the most famous participants and their gold medal pursuits (such as the performances of Edwin Moses, Carl Lewis, Mary Lou Retton and Sebastian Coe), but his most deeply felt sections of the film dealt with lesser-known athletes who persisted, yet often failed in their attempt at Olympic glory.

The initial story in the Los Angeles film (after an introductory montage of the opening ceremonies) was classic Greenspan. It dealt with Dave Moorcroft, a British long-distance runner who had set the world record in the 5000 meters just two years earlier. He was expected to be the favorite for the race in 1984, but over the previous two years, he was beset with injuries that affected his performance. The most serious of these was a pelvic disorder that made it severely painful for him to even run.

This condition would come and go and as things turned out, he suffered through it the day of the gold medal race. Greenspan isolates the race of Moorcroft as we watch him drop back farther and farther as the race proceeds; all the while we hear sound clips of the runner and his wife commenting on the fact that they knew he could only make his way around the track instead of competing for gold. Moorcroft was determined to finish the race without being lapped by the leaders near the race's end and this race within a race as filmed by Greenspan is as mesmerizing as the one run by the medal winners.

It's this Olympic spirit of competition and never giving up that Greenspan captured so well in his films. In the Los Angeles film, he also gives us the enthralling story of Japanese judo wrestler Yashuhiro Yamashita, who was expected to win a gold medal quite easily, given his four year undefeated streak coming into the games. But in his second match, the wrestler injured his right leg and he admitted that he might actually lose. Greenspan trains his cameras on Yamashita leaving the ring as he hobbles along for everyone to see; sure enough, his opponents in the next two matches attack his injured leg and it's through sheer persistence - and the dream of a gold medal - that allows him to continue wrestling. It's a touching story and one with a wonderful message.

There was also a brief segment on a rowing competition that is among the most creative sequences I've ever seen in a sports film. Greenspan decided to film this without the benefit of any narration or even identifying shots of what particular race this was; the only sound in this segment is a hauntingly beautiful theme of Lee Holdridge, who composed the stirring score for this work. Who wins the race - indeed even who is competing in the race - is not as important as the race itself, is what Greenspan is saying in this sequence. Indeed, we focus on the little things that makes up this race, from the rowers carrying their boat to the water to the tight images of the athletes moving their oars in perfect harmony. Among the final shots are the reactions of the winners as well as the losers; it is the latter athletes that react in a stronger fashion as having spent every ounce of energy in their efforts to medal, they hang their heads or scowl in disgust over their failure - in this way, they are seen in a lonely, very human light. This is a thing of beauty and after seeing this brief segment, you may never think of the sport of rowing in the same way.

To me what made Greenspan such a wonderful filmmaker was that he realized that sport is as dramatic and as unpredictable an experience as anything in this world. Put these sporting competitions on a stage as big as the Olympics and that drama is increased tenfold. The narratives are there and it was to Greenspan's credit that he found so many little stories - as captivating as the more famous ones as shown by the television coverage at the time - to concentrate on in his work. Few of us, no matter the endeavor, can emerge as the best, so perhaps it was proper that Greenspan focused his cameras on the individuals that fought an uphill battle that while often unsuccessful (at least in terms of winning a medal), displayed the human spirit at its finest.

We should be thankful that Bud Greenspan shared his visions with us over the course of almost 50 years. I, for one, can't wait to watch more of his Olympic documentaries over the next several days.

A Few Words on "Grit"

To start with, I did see the 1969 version of True Grit when it first played in theaters. Considering I was 13 at the time, I only recall a few things from the film, such as the title song performed by Glen Campbell, John Wayne with his eyepatch and Kim Darby as Mattie not using a single contraction in her speech (come to think of it, that's a decent amount to remember after 40 years, I guess.)

So I went into the Coen brothers' remake of this film with open eyes; I could judge this film on its own. My verdict? Outstanding photography, a very good screenplay, but only so-so direction. This is certainly watchable, but except for the last 30 minutes or so, hardly compelling. After seeing the film, you wonder why the brothers bothered remaking this particular piece of work.

It's a pretty straightforward piece of entertainment, at least in terms of the Coens (straightforward for Hollywood these days is usually pretty lame, so I at least give the brothers credit for giving us films that don't insult our intelligence). By now, everyone must know the storyline of how 14 year-old Mattie Ross turns to US Marshall Rooster Cogburn (cranky, lumbersome Rooster Cogburn) to find the man who killed her father. I do like the way the screenplay is organized here as first we are introduced to Mattie (wonderfully played by 13 year-old Hailee Steinfeld) and her stubborn ways (nicely spelled out in a lengthy scene where she negotiates a fee for her losses) and then to Cogburn (Jeff Bridges in a typical charming performance) and his rough and tumble manners (the initial view we have of Cogburn is on a witness stand; his answers and muffled delivery are a nice insight into his character).

But after this opening, things tend to move along from point A to point B in a fairly conventional manner. That might work for some film makers, but one would hardly make the argument that the Coen brothers are conventional. The plot lines are all eventually tied up, but I expected more, especially visually. I say that even as I marvel once again at the remarkable work turned in by director of photography Roger Deakins, who has been the filmmakers' cinematographer since 1991. Is there a more accomplished cinematographer working today? Certainly no one captures low light photography better than Deakins and this visualization is exactly what this story of revenge and murder call for. It's also interesting to see the desaturation of colors in the outdoors scenes, certainly a change of pace from the usual brightly lit skies of a typical Western.

The last half-hour of this film is captivating, as the direction improves, especially in a visual sense. The scene where Rooster takes Mattie for medical help on horseback is quite remarkable; under a star-filled sky, the two characters take on an otherworldly identity. This is one of the most memorable images from any film by the Coens; it's a shame that they couldn't provide more moments such as this in this film. (There is also a marvelous shot of the couple on horseback that leads into the nighttime action, as we see them in silhouette under the setting sun.)

Given the theme of redemption, you understand why the Coens became involved in this project. But at the end of the day, you wonder what drew them to this particular work. It's got it's moments and it's always a pleasure to look at, but it just doesn't have the inventive moments of their best work. They've shown their own true grit often in the past - too bad more of it isn't on display on this occasion.


P.S. I'm quite certain that Roger Deakins will once again be nominated for an Academy Award for his work on this film. If this does indeed happen, it will be his ninth nod - he has yet to win an Oscar. He will, I am happy to report, receive the Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) in 2011.

I am also predicting an Oscar nomination for Hailee Steinfeld for Best Supporing Actress - she truly deserves it!