MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Tour of the Titan-ick!

Can’t get enough of the Big Boat? Well, Oscar-winning composer James Horner will be touring the country this summer with his Titanic score and more, including a 30-minute suite of music that was cut out of the movie, “Titanic: The Composer’s Cut.” Guess this is kind of like the Shine tour last year only I’ll be the only one shaking my head and talking to myself as the music plays.
MOUSE DROPPING: Your husband just won three Academy Awards, you were in a $100 million movie last year and you’re still a blonde bombshell. What are you gonna do? Linda Hamilton is going to Disney’s world! She just signed to voice the evil demi-goddess Nemesis on Disney’s TV version of Hercules. Things are tough all over.
JUST WONDERING: Is Kevin Bacon doing a nude scene in Wild Things tat for tit?
KNIGHT AND DAY: Les Visiteurs is one of the highest-grossing comedies of all time in France. Yes, even bigger than The Nutty Professor. But when the film arrived in the U.S., seemingly predestined for remaking, nothing happened. Why? The film is based around two medieval knights transported into modern day. The argument was made that there is no tradition of knighthood in America, so the central premise was faulty for an American remake. But John Hughes sees it differently. No word on what the Home Alone creator will do to make the concept U.S.-friendly, but at some point, I expect to find the lost knights in a house that three burglars are trying to rob.
LOW-LITA NEWS: I have been critical of the censorship buzz around the distribution problems of Adrian Lyne’s Lolita up until now. I still say the biggest mistake the production made was making the film before having a domestic distributor. When a movie like Basic Instinct got into trouble, the director could take the heat. But if a studio buys Lolita, the finished product, there are no excuses to make. On top of that, the film demands a minimum of $15-$20 million in prints and advertising to launch. The commercial failure of sexually controversial films like Henry and June and Showgirls means even that minimal amount could be wasted money. All that aside, the refusal of playdates on pay-per-view by DirecTV, Request TV and Viewer’s Choice can be seen as nothing less than censorship. Hard to claim that Howard Stern and “His Many Lesbians” is OK to sell but a film based on a classic novel is not. A film that has already removed any nudity by the body double for the 12-year-old title starlet of the film. The one cable outlet still in talks with the producers is Showtime Networks, the exclusive cable home of The Red Shoe Diaries, Beverly Hills Bordello and the aforementioned classic, Showgirls.
READER OF THE DAY: From Geoff W: “While Stanley Donen’s speech may have been more gracious than Cameron’s, they both were the products of the pure joy that they each felt. Plus, Donen’s was rehearsed and planned. Cameron was king of the world and shouldn’t be criticized for saying it. That was how he felt and how most people would feel. Especially after spending three years of his life on the film and having to deal with all the criticism before the movie came out. Congratulations James.”

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

This is probably going to sound petty, but Martin Scorsese insisting that critics see his film in theaters even though it’s going straight to Netflix and then not screening it in most American cities was a watershed moment for me in this theatrical versus streaming debate.

I completely respect when a filmmaker insists that their movie is meant to be seen in the theater, but the thing is, you got to actually make it possible to see it in the theater. Some movies may be too small for that, and that’s totally OK.

When your movie is largely financed by a streaming service and is going to appear on that streaming service instantly, I don’t really see the point of pretending that it’s a theatrical film. It just seems like we are needlessly indulging some kind of personal fantasy.

I don’t think that making a feature film length production that is going to go straight to a video platform is some sort of “step down.“ I really don’t. Theatrical exhibition as we know it is dying off anyway, for a variety of reasons.

I should clarify myself because this thread is already being misconstrued — I’m talking about how the movie is screened in advance. If it’s going straight to Netflix, why the ritual of demanding people see it in the theater?

There used to be a category that everyone recognized called “TV movie” or “made for television movie” and even though a lot of filmmakers considered that déclassé, it seems to me that probably 90% of feature films fit that description now.

Atlantis has mostly sunk into the ocean, only a few tower spires remain above the waterline, and I’m increasingly at peace with that, because it seems to be what the industry and much of the audience wants. We live in an age of convenience and information control.

Only a very elite group of filmmakers is still allowed to make movies “for theaters“ and actually have them seen and judged that way on a wide scale. Even platform releasing seems to be somewhat endangered. It can’t be fought. It has to be accepted.

9. Addendum: I’ve been informed that it wasn’t Scorsese who requested that the Bob Dylan documentary only be screened for critics in theaters, but a Netflix representative indicated the opposite to me, so I just don’t know what to believe.

It’s actually OK if your film is not eligible for an Oscar — we have a thing called the Emmys. A lot of this anxiety is just a holdover from the days when television was considered culturally inferior to theatrical feature films. Everybody needs to just get over it.

In another 10 to 20 years they’re probably going to merge the Emmys in the Oscars into one program anyway, maybe they’ll call it the Contentys.

“One of the fun things about seeing the new Quentin Tarantino film three months early in Cannes (did I mention this?) is that I know exactly why it’s going to make some people furious, and thus I have time to steel myself for the takes.

Back in July 2017, when it was revealed that Tarantino’s next project was connected to the Manson Family murders, it was condemned in some quarters as an insulting and exploitative stunt. We usually require at least a fig-leaf of compassion for the victims in true-crime adaptations, and even Tarantino partisans like myself – I don’t think he’s made a bad film yet – found ourselves wondering how he might square his more outré stylistic impulses with the depiction of a real mass murder in which five people and one unborn child lost their lives.

After all, it’s one thing to slice off with gusto a fictional policeman’s ear; it’s quite another to linger over the gory details of a massacre that took place within living memory, and which still carries a dread historical significance.

In her essay The White Album, Joan Didion wrote: “Many people I know in Los Angeles believe that the Sixties ended abruptly on August 9, 1969, ended at the exact moment when word of the murders on Cielo Drive traveled like brushfire through the community, and in a sense this is true.”

Early in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, as Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt’s characters drive up the hill towards Leo’s bachelor pad, the camera cranes up gently to reveal a street sign: Cielo Drive. Tarantino understands how charged that name is; he can hear the Molotov cocktails clinking as he shoulders the crate.

As you may have read in the reviews from Cannes, much of the film is taken up with following DiCaprio and Pitt’s characters – a fading TV actor and his long-serving stunt double – as they amusingly go about their lives in Los Angeles, while Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate is a relatively minor presence. But the spectre of the murders is just over the horizon, and when the night of the 9th finally arrives, you feel the mood in the cinema shift.

No spoilers whatsoever about what transpires on screen. But in the audience, as it became clear how Tarantino was going to handle this extraordinarily loaded moment, the room soured and split, like a pan of cream left too long on the hob. I craned in, amazed, but felt the person beside me recoil in either dismay or disgust.

Two weeks on, I’m convinced that the scene is the boldest and most graphically violent of Tarantino’s career – I had to shield my eyes at one point, found myself involuntarily groaning “oh no” at another – and a dead cert for the most controversial. People will be outraged by it, and with good reason. But in a strange and brilliant way, it takes Didion’s death-of-the-Sixties observation and pushes it through a hellfire-hot catharsis.

Hollywood summoned up this horror, the film seems to be saying, and now it’s Hollywood’s turn to exorcise it. I can’t wait until the release in August, when we can finally talk about why.

~ Robbie Collin