..Gary Dretzka
..Noah Forrest
..Leonard Klady
..R.J. Matson
..David Poland
..Douglas Pratt
..Ray Pride
..Michael Wilmington

Ridley Scott - Overrated?

I know that in some circles, I would be torn limb from limb for saying this: Ridley Scott is simply not that great. 

There, I said it.

Alright, yes, he's a competent filmmaker and is not exactly a blight on the cinematic landscape, but I don't really see why Ridley Scott is deified while his brother Tony Scott is vilified considering their styles are remarkably similar.  Let's say you switched the material that each of them directed, do you think that Tony Scott would have ruined any of the films that Ridley has directed?  Could Ridley have elevated Déjà Vu from something other than merely passable?  I don't really believe that Sir Ridley is such a dynamo as a filmmaker that he would have been able to turn Days of Thunder into awards material, nor do I think that Tony would have made Gladiator any worse.
           
With American Gangster soon to be released, I couldn't help but think back upon Ridley Scott's filmography and see if my suspicions about his being over-rated were correct.  I've been hearing lots of good things about Mr. Scott's latest picture, but I find that despite a great cast and an interesting storyline, I'm less than excited to catch Ridley's new film.  So, to really get to know a filmmaker and why I don't like him, we must delve into his past to try and find the reason why someone like Ridley Scott is held in such high esteem by some and such low esteem by me.
           
Having not seen The Duellists, let's start with Alien.  There's really nothing bad I can say about the film considering its landmark effects and creature design and the creation of one of the most riveting heroines in the history of film.  However, when we think of this series the film that usually comes to mind is the sequel Aliens, directed by James Cameron.  It was, after all, the sequel in which we get the classic line, "Get away from her, you bitch!" as well as the truly jump-worthy moment when Lance Henriksen gets ripped open.  But, credit must be given where credit is due and the only reason we even got a superior sequel is because Ridley made the first one and created an iconic monster.
           
But where I really have a problem is with his next film Blade Runner, which I believe is the most highly over-rated film of all time.  I don't mean that as hyperbole either, as this film has received mass adoration from every type of person from the fanboys to the cineastes and every time I sit down to watch this picture, I feel like I'm watching a different version than everybody else is seeing.  Of course, this is entirely possible considering there are a billion different "director's cuts" floating about.  But, how good could this film be if the director had to tell the audience fifteen years after its release about a character twist that is impossible to glean from the clues given in the movie?
           
I will admit that the set design and the effects are wonderful and it's a lovely picture to look at, but everything from the wooden acting to the overwhelming orchestra to the pretentious ballet moves and flying doves in the final showdown just pisses me off.  This is a sci-fi film as it would be directed by a really artsy NYU grad who got hold of a big budget.  Ridley just heaps on layer upon layer of "atmosphere" until there is none at all and he proves that he is certainly not an actor's director because there is not one of them in this film that doesn't chew the scenery (Edward James Olmos, Brion James, Rutger Hauer, Darryl Hannah) or fade into the beautiful background (Harrison Ford, Sean Young).
           
I've run into so many people who truly love this film with every beat in their heart that I feel like I must be "wrong" about it.  Yet, I still can't see what all the fuss is about because all I see is a pretentious muddle that loses any interest in telling a story halfway through its running time.  But, of course, who needs to be told a story when the director will just rewrite history twenty years later?  I'm glad that people find something to admire in the film, but I don't understand why it has been put on such a pedestal.
           
Ridley Scott's next three films were Legend, Someone to Watch Over Me, and Black Rain which I believe range from awful to mediocre.  I have yet to meet anyone who believes that any one of those three pictures is worth a passionate defense.  Sure, they might be diverting in some cases, but I think most of us could agree that these three movies are not what we usually expect from a filmmaker labeled as a "master."  The most memorable of the three is probably Legend and it's probably because it is an unintentional camp classic and I can't help but giggle every time I think of the fact that it was actually nominated for an Oscar (for best make-up).
           
In 1991, Ridley Scott did Thelma & Louise, which I downright loathed when I saw it as a kid and I merely just don't like now that I'm an adult.  I understand that this is a film about female empowerment and so I don't expect to "get" the film the way the fairer sex would.  However, this is a film that defies logic and doesn't take place in any real world that I know.  I'm supposed to buy that a woman who is accosted by a man and is almost raped by him would be thrown in jail for defending herself?  The whole film is based on the premise that they don't think anybody would believe their story of an attempted rape.  So what do they do?  They run away and become badasses.  These two women have been oppressed by men their whole lives, but now suddenly they're not going to take it anymore.  This seems to me to be a basic misunderstanding of psychology in favor of something resembling a Dixie Chicks song. 
           
Next came 1492: Conquest of Paradise, which is the Christopher Columbus film starring Gerard Depardieu and was slightly better than the awful Christopher Columbus: The Discovery.  There is nothing remarkably great or terrible about this film, except that is incredibly boring.  I think I've tried to watch this movie three or four times and I fall asleep halfway through every time.  I really hope Columbus made it to the new world…
           
After that came White Squall, which is so forgettable that I can barely remember a thing about it and G.I. Jane, a film so bad that I wish I could forget it.  Honestly, is there anybody who thinks that either of these films are even worth discussing as the major motion pictures of a "legendary" filmmaker?  Forgive me if I don't think that Kubrick or Truffaut or even Spielberg would make a film as forgettable as White Squall or as embarrassing as G.I. Jane. 
           
Next up was Gladiator, the Best Picture winner from 2000, starring Russell Crowe as a guy who fights things.  I still can't believe that this is the film for which Crowe when his Oscar, a film in which most of his acting is him fighting people and tigers and showing his ripped muscles.  This film is basically a videogame in which they throw the main character into an arena and try to see who can beat him.  It's like a remake of Best of the Best 2, except set in ancient Rome with a gigantic budget.  I don't even think this was a movie that was aspiring to be high art, but a fun summer movie.  Joaquin Phoenix turned in his most hammy performance in this flick and by the way, we're supposed to believe that a king would fight some gladiator for fun and wouldn't just have him killed.
           
At this point, Ridley Scott was being hailed as one of our finest filmmakers.  But, even if you did like Alien, Gladiator, and Blade Runner, could you really defend all those other mediocre films on his resume?  What about the film he followed Gladiator with?  It was a little picture called Hannibal, which almost ruined my memory of Silence of the Lambs.  It wasn't the cast's fault, that's for sure, with Julianne Moore (ably filling in for Jodie Foster), Anthony Hopkins, Gary Oldman, Ray Liotta and Giancarlo Giannini.  I don't think the source material is to blame because Ridley knew about that part going in and he felt that he'd be able to film a scene of a man eating his own brain and make it work (big surprise: it doesn't). 
           
The problem is that the world that Jonathan Demme had create with Silence of the Lambs was one that was steeped in reality; a film about real evil being done in our world.  It didn't only seem authentic because of how knowledgeable it was on the inner-workings of serial killers, but because of how the film looked.  If you go back and watch Silence of the Lambs, you'll notice a very muted color palette that really works in the film's favor because it makes it feel grittier and nastier and greyer.  Then, if you pop on Hannibal, you'll notice that it looks beautiful like a postcard; it doesn't look like reality, it looks like a movie.  In order for the scenes of people being eaten by pigs, disemboweled or eating their own brains to work and shock us, we must believe in what we're seeing.  Instead, because of the way the film is shot and the way that Ridley has staged it, we wind up detached from the activity and thinking of Hannibal as a cuddly serial killer, effectively ruining the memory of how truly terrifying he was in the earlier picture.
           
Following Hannibal, Ridley Scott made my two favorites of his films: Black Hawk Down and Matchstick Men.  I love both of these films for very different reasons; Black Hawk Down because of the style and Matchstick Men because of the substance.  I think that the way in which Ridley Scott shot Black Hawk Down has given us the most realistic-seeming depiction of modern urban combat that we have seen in films.  Everything that Peter Berg does in The Kingdom owes a debt to what Ridley Scott did with his Somalian conflict film.  Interestingly, if you had told me that Tony Scott had directed the film I wouldn't be surprised.  I think Tony's Man on Fire has a remarkably similar look to Ridley's film, but I think it was used to better effect in Black Hawk Down.  It made us feel like we were in combat with them.  Some people complained that they couldn't tell the actors apart because they all looked so similar in their uniforms, but I felt that was the best part about the film; it felt more authentic that they would have any visible differences once they put that helmet on.  I also liked that the deaths in the film weren't always heroic like in many war pictures, showing that sometimes it can be an accident like falling out of a helicopter.  It doesn't make the death any less sad because the end result is still the same. 
           
Matchstick Men was quite a departure for Ridley based on his previous few films and it worked for him.  This was a stripped-down film about interesting characters with a terrific premise about an OCD conman finding out he has a daughter.  Nicolas Cage gives one of his very best performances in this film and Ridley is able to use Cage's eccentricities to his advantage since this is one of the few movies in which Cage can really be big with his tics.  The twist at the end is heartbreaking, but the scene that follows is awful and should have been cut.  Still, this was one of the more entertaining films that Scott has directed and I give him kudos for it.
           
And I take away all of my kudos because his next picture was Kingdom of Heaven.  I have seen both the original and the director's cut and my verdict is the same: Orlando Bloom was horribly miscast and this film takes an interesting subject and makes it unbelievably trying to sit through.  The Crusades are one of the most fascinating subjects in the annals of history and yet instead of giving us the scope of this conflict, we focus on a single blacksmith who is totally awesome with a sword.  Every scene that doesn't take place on a battlefield feels like a re-enactment for the National Geographic channel.  There is nothing subtle at all about this film and it just piles on the loudness or the hamminess at every turn, rather than trying to get us to understand the characters or the situation.  All we're left with is a few useless homilies and a lot of bloody, dead bodies.

Ridley Scott's last film was A Good Year, a film I was absolutely dreading because of my past history with Mr. Scott and because it looked like an Under the Tuscan Sun remake with a male lead.  However, Russell Crowe and the beautiful locations really made this movie incredibly pleasing to watch.  It's not a great movie, but an enjoyable one.  It's not an original movie, but it's done well enough.  If I catch this on cable, I'll watch it again, but I'm not planning my next viewing in advance.  It's the kind of movie to watch with a glass of wine and a date…which makes it sound like Under the Tuscan Sun.  Okay, it's basically the same movie, but this one is just more well done, which I suppose proves that Ridley Scott has some kind of talent.

As I said earlier, I think that Ridley Scott is a perfectly acceptable filmmaker, one who has a pretty good understanding of how a film should look.  He sometimes elicits good performances, but the acting in his films seem to be secondary to the technical aspects.  My problem with Mr. Scott is only that he is called a "visionary" when I think of him more as a craftsman.  For me, he has yet to make a film that is an unabashed masterpiece that I can hold up and say, "this is why Ridley Scott is great."  So far, all I've gotten is a reason to think that he's pretty good at what he does.  I just don't think that if Ridley Scott signs on to an interesting project that it's an automatic slam dunk the way I would if that filmmaker was, say, David Fincher or Spike Lee.  I suppose the biggest difference between Ridley Scott and those filmmakers is that I don't know if he is as visually gifted as the former or that he has a real point of view like the latter.  My ultimate complaint about the man is that he strikes me as cold and calculating, preferring to focus on what the audience might be titillated by rather than what they may be moved by.
           
I hope that American Gangster will be the film that makes me realize what so many others already have, but it's hard for me to believe that my love for Sir Ridley will finally come to fruition.

- Noah Forrest
October 29, 2007

Other columns by Noah Forrest
10.02.07 - Jake Paltrow's The Good Night
09.27.07 - Cleaning House
09.20.07 - Top 10 To Date
09.13.07 - Film Vs Television
08.31.07 - Halloween Review
08.28.07 - Who Is The Next Scorsese?
08.21.07 - Fall Preview
08.14.07 - The Horrific State Of The Horror Film
08.10.07 - Reservations About Catherine Zeta-Jones
08.07.07 - Saving Steven Spielberg
07.30.07 - Skinheads in the Cinema & This Is England
07.28.07 - Siena Miller: Good or Evil?
07.26.07 - The Frenzy on the Wall

Noah Forrest is a 24 year old aspiring writer/filmmaker in New York City.

The opinions expressed in these columns are the writers and do not neccessarily reflect the opinions of Movie City News or any of its editors or other contributors.

.