Some Questions for Sleepy Season

[jack]

I am aware that many on this board feel a certain anamosity toward Greengrass. I've never understood why, and now that we're discussing him again, I'm still at a loss. Would someone be so kind and explain to me why so much hatred.



Edited By jack on 1215301280

[Okri]

and personal, more artistic ventures like Bloody Sunday and United 93

What's "personal" or "artistic" about these films? I'd argue the reverse: they're among the least personal and most derivative films of our generation. Greengrass is a hack, and the fact that he's tricked some people into believing that he's some kind of second coming is distressing and dispiriting.

I didn't realize you hated Bloody Sunday too. When Greengrass was last mentioned, I thought you hadn't seen it.

[Mister Tee]

Let me step into the Greengrass debate and try not to break too much crockery.

It seems to me a good deal of the abject hatred around here emerged on the basis of a single film, The Bourne Supremacy. Which makes it awkward for me, because I didn't like that film myself. I thought it was staggeringly over-edited -- a number of scenes had so many unnecessary cuts it was nauseating (much like the hand-held was to many of us in the early scenes of Husbands and Wives). And the elongated car chase finale was, in plot terms, pointless, as well as visually irritating.

I didn't, however, dismiss Greengrass out of hand at that point, because I'd already seen and liked Bloody Sunday. Bloody Sunday was not cut from fresh cloth -- BJ mentions its debt to Battle of Algiers, and I'd also cite Watkins' Culloden. But it was fascinating application of cineme verite technique to history, and I thought it had real power. Limited power, perhaps, but I don't see how that makes the filmmaker a hack...for me, a hack is someone who doesn't try anything beyond humdrum. You may not like his result, but he was certainly trying something.

What he'd achieved there made me think he might be the one director who could pull off the risky venture that was United 93. And as far as I'm concerned, he did it: taking a series of hours so emblazoned in popular memory that the danger of cheapening was everywhere, and making it all feel absolutely ground-level real. There are actors scattered throughout the large cast -- one or two of whom I've actually met -- yet I was never aware of anyone acting; it all felt perfectly fly-on-the-wall, which is the only thing that could have worked. (For me, the "two sympathetic guys stuck in a hole" approach of World Trade Center was offensive kitsch). Now, as BJ and I both said when the film came out, and he repeats here, the triumph is of a very limited sort -- it relies on what I called at the time an artful artlessness, and that's not an approach I would favor for 99% of films. But here I thought it was the only proper choice.

Just an observation: as far as I know, most of the people here who dismissed the film saw it not in theatres but on the small screen. I can't vouch for its impact there; it's entirely possible that, reduced to TV dimensions, it feels less special. But in the theatre it left my whole audience shattered.

Okay: so, since I'm acknowledging I've found Greengrass' better films limited, what accounts for my sanguinity over his upcoming films. Answer: The Bourne Ultimatum (which I again question how many of the haters bothered to see, especially on the big screen). I went into the film with trepidation, given my feeling about Supremacy. But here I felt (along, apparently, with many Academy members) that Greengrass was absolutely soaring. Bourne is as solid a thriller as I've seen in a decade; it felt worthy of standing alongside Z and The French Connection, thrillers with context that had excited me in my college days. And here, unlke in Sunday and United, I didn't feel at any remove from the characters; I was in complete identification with them. This suggests to me Greengrass is growing beyond his verite roots. A project like Emerald City -- again with Damon, with a strong political context -- ought to be right in his wheelhouse.

That's my take. Fire away.

[Big Magilla]

I don't hate him, but I do hate that critics who should know better think he's the second coming.

[The Original BJ]

Well, here we go...

I guess this is as good a time as ever to bring up something I've long wondered: why exactly do people HATE Paul Greengrass? By which I mean, why do feelings go beyond mere dislike to levels of wrath?

I could understand thinking the Bourne films aren't high art. They're not. I think they're entertaining and well-crafted; I could understand someone not enjoying them. But I don't get how anyone could think they're HORRIBLE.

As far as United 93 goes, I could understand someone thinking it was a limited film. In many respects it is, and it's not really the kind of movie I could ever really LOVE. But I admire it a lot and think it's expertly crafted; I could understand someone finding it shallow and/or dull. But some kind of affront to humanity? I'm at a loss to explain that.

Hopefully my devil's-advocate tone here made clear that I DON'T think Paul Greengrass is the second coming. Penelope, we'll just have to disagree on the "personal" thing, though. For me, films like Bloody Sunday and United 93 are products created by an obvious author. They may not be REVOLUTIONARY (Bloody Sunday is clearly influenced by Battle of Algiers) but they seem unique enough to me when compared with the majority of what's out there.

And as far as Greengrass being artistic, well...to each his own, though in truth I used the term only to differentiate between his "serious" films and his pop fare.

[Penelope]

and personal, more artistic ventures like Bloody Sunday and United 93

What's "personal" or "artistic" about these films? I'd argue the reverse: they're among the least personal and most derivative films of our generation. Greengrass is a hack, and the fact that he's tricked some people into believing that he's some kind of second coming is distressing and dispiriting.

[The Original BJ]

Now that you brought it up, Tee, there are quite a number of additional films adapted from previously published sources where quite a bit of original work was done. There Will Be Blood was apparently only "inspired by" Sinclair's Oil! I've read Children of Men, and aside from the basic concept and some character names, Cuaron's film is vastly different. There's very little left of James Jones in Malick's version of The Thin Red Line. The film version of Shrek is mighty different from the picture book I read as a kid. In the Bedroom branched out in different directions than the Dubus story did (at least when compared to other recent short-story adaptations like Brokeback & Away From Her, both which stayed very faithful to the text).

And the rule that previously created characters deem something an adaptation has led to the curious nominations for Borat and Before Sunset, neither of which have narratives that are "adapted" from anything.

[Mister Tee]

Penelope, you're correct the fanboys have loved Blanchett for a long time (proving they're not necessarily wrong), but I've never heard a positive word from them about Giammatti. As far as I know, they mostly loathed Sideways as an old fart movie.

BJ, a few things: You're correct to cite Bad Education, an '04 original entry I forgot, even after advocating it back then... To undercut my own argument a bit, let me say there's some quite original screenwriting being done in the guise of adaptation. O Brother Where Art Thou was clearly mostly original despite cribbing a few structural elements from Homer; Payne and Taylor's work always substantially reworks its sources (compare Election to Little Children as Perrotta equivalents; much of Sideways -- starting with the Madsen/Giammatti wine discussion -- is newly written); and Charlie Kaufman, while clearly doing a version of The Orchid Thief, grafted onto it another, entirely original script... As far as Greengrass, I'm immediately excited about his version of Imperial Life in the Emerald City with Damon. It seems to me if anyone can capture the lunacy of Iraq and make art of it it's Greengrass. (Not that he can hope to win over those here who closed the iron door on him some time ago)

[The Original BJ]

One more thought, Tee: I also agree about Paul Greengrass. I know there's a sizable group here that can't stand the guy, but his interest in both popular fare like the Bourne films and personal, more artistic ventures like Bloody Sunday and United 93 provides for the exact same combo that put many director on the podium: Spielberg, Zemeckis, Howard. (Not making a qualitative comparison.)

[Greg]

Tee, there might be more of a chance for a serious blockbuster this year, simply because the box office so far this year has been doing so well that it might lead to many more total blockbusters. Apparently, the movie business has been one business that has greatly benefitted from high oil prices. High gas and airfare prices have led many to cancel vacation plans, with many going to more movies while they stay at home, etc., as a replacement. There's even been a new word coined for this: staycation.

[The Original BJ]

Tee, I see exactly what you mean re: '04. The way I see it, I'm wild about Eternal Sunshine/Incredibles/Vera Drake and think there were a slew of worthy non-nominees (the aforementioned Kinsey, Maria Full of Grace, Bad Education, arguably the category-confused Before Sunset). I don't think The Aviator or Hotel Rwanda really deserved mention but neither are they bottom-of-the-barrel picks. The nominees weren't perfect, but all in all, I thought it was a pretty impressive year for original scripts. (And I'd stand in my lonely corner and champion a couple non-mainstream candidates as well.)

Conversely, while the adapted slate that year was hardly objectionable, it clearly didn't provide the abundance of potential candidates we saw, say, last year. I think I'm just looking at the years on the whole, including but not limited to the awards shortlist.

[Big Magilla]

Gus van Sant is actually one I'd overlooked. I'd say if he successfully manages Milk, he'll be exactly the sort of winner the past decade has prized.

I, too, thought of Van Sant. This being a highly charged political year it's quite possible that the year's big prize winners will be politically charged films, if they turn out to be as good as one might wish.

Not only Milk, but Oliver Stone's W. and Ron Howard's film of Frost/Nixon as well.

I can't quite get a handle on W. It seems to em that it will end up being a cross between the highly charged JFK and the more deprecating Nixon with W. himself being an enigma.

[Penelope]

I know he has fanboy support, but, you know, alot of them are perennially touting Tom Cruise and Sandra Bullock for acting Oscars as well. (Apologies to van Helsing)

Do they really? I've always been under the impression that the fanboys are annually championing the likes of Paul Giamatti and Cate Blanchett....

[Mister Tee]

To respond to a few of the many interesting points:

flipp, I thought about Spike Jonze, but his utter inactivity post-Adaptation has caused him to fade in memory. I also will wonder -- till shown otherwise -- if his success wasn't really Charlie Kaufman's, given that Gondry stepped in with no loss of effectiveness. (It's also possible I've let Spike's ex-wife's Nora Ephron-like trashing of him influence my opinion)

rainbard, a number of interesting thoughts. Back in '05 when Tom O'Neil began raving about The New World, I allowed myself the hope he could have such a breakthrough as you suggest. But the film's quick slip into the usual Malick niche cooled me on his prospects. And, as you say, he'd never, despite his achievement, get the Chamber of Commerce support Scorsese did. (Then again, neither did Bertolucci, who might be an analogous predecessor)

It seems to me the fact that, even while Gladiator was being widely touted as a best picture favorite, Ridley Scott got no consideration as best director is telling -- different choices by the DGA and Oscar, and the best picture winner couldn't manage either? That suggests to me he's been placed on the Madden/Haggis side of the film/director divide, and it would take something extraordinary to push him over. I know he has fanboy support, but, you know, alot of them are perennially touting Tom Cruise and Sandra Bullock for acting Oscars as well. (Apologies to van Helsing)

Peter Weir does seem like someone who SHOULD have won during the duller years of the 80s; as BJ says, he fit the Pollack/Levinson profile perfectly. Though I must say I find all his nominated films lackluster, except The Truman Show, which I like to a fair degree. (And, to cross-ref to one of my other topics, he's responsible for two utterly dreary screenplay wins) The recent Master and Commander showing tells us he can always pop up again, but I have little enthusiasm for him.

Gus van Sant is actually one I'd overlooked. I'd say if he successfully manages Milk, he'll be exactly the sort of winner the past decade has prized.

Glad to see someone else remembers Branagh at his peak. Waiting for him to recapture that glory, however, feels eerily like what many of us went through with John Frankenheimer in the later years.

My comment about Soderbergh wasn't meant to be dismissive. I simply felt that his sex, lies nomination was one of those confined-to-writers enthusiasms, and that complete Academy disinterest in his succeeding decade made his 2000 breakthrough pretty startling.

The same would be true for Spike Lee, whose Miracle of St. Anna's does suggest a potential Oscar opening, Okri. (Of course, he had to muddle his chances by getting into a brawl with godfather Clint) Voters have been unaccountably hostile to Lee in the past -- Do the Right Thing and Malcolm X both looked like they'd score better than they eventually did -- but his recent forays into the mainstream might foretell success up ahead.

As far as I'm Not There and 4 Months 3 Weeks...I'd definitely put the former into the More Directorial Vision than Script group I mentioned (Far from Heaven, one of my favorites of the decade, similarly didn't seem script-dominated). And even 4 Months, with the clear exception of the scene with the abortionist, felt more to me like a semi-improvised director's film than a script-writer's achievement. Obviously many may disagree.

I take your advocacy of Match Point: I'll throw in Dirty Pretty Things as another script I thought was pretty nifty. But I still don't think either rise to the level of the breakthroughs I perceived in the 90s.

BJ, I confess I had to go back and check the '04 nominees to find out what you what referencing. While I acknowledge the field was crowded enough it disgracefully omitted Kinsey, I think the problem was that the uninspring Hotel Rwanda occupied an unearned slot. I'd also argue that The Aviator and Vera Drake, despite my strong feeling for both, were more examples of directing/acting triumphs than writing. (I feel this about all Mike Leigh's work, despite his multiple writing nominations) I'll give you The Incredibles -- for me, the strongest of the Pixar writing nominees after Toy Story -- but other than that I don't see an exceptional field. And, even if it would have been hard to find a substitute nominee on the adapted side, I don't find that a denigration of, with the exception of Finding Neverland, a quite decent slate. I'm not sure a category needs to have more than five candidates to be considered solid, if the five are strong enough (as I'd argue they were in '01 as well; '99 not so much -- though The End of the Affair knocking out Green Mile would have helped alot in that case).

Apologies for all those things I've neglected to address.

[The Original BJ]

Re: Serious Blockbusters

I have no idea whether serious movies have gone completely out of fashion with the public. But the interesting companion question, particularly in lieu of '07's Oscar slate, is whether this may actually result in an increase in quality among award candidates? Much was made of the fact that last year's nominees were mostly ignored by the public, but it seems to me that the real lack of populist fare forced the Academy to recognize the darker critics faves that might not have won (No Country) or even been nominated (There Will Be Blood) in another year. (The obverse of this scenario might be '95, in which the glut of popular candidates effectively blackballed the more adventurous critics darlings.)

True, the public latched onto Juno last year, but even that was a far cry from waste-of-space blockbuster candidates like Gladiator and The Green Mile. And the one available candidate of this kind -- American Gangster -- was mostly ignored despite strong box-office and better-than-deserved reviews. Should the demise of the serious box office hit encourage Oscar to look elsewhere for its nominees, I'd consider it a welcome occurrence.

Re: Original Screenplay

Perhaps my opinion of some of the nominees is a little higher than yours, Mister Tee, but I'm not too worried about the disappearance of the great original screenplay. True, the past few winners haven't been sensational (Crash and Miss Sunshine were, for me, dead last in their years), but I think the two screenplay categories have a natural ebb and flow that every few years favors one category or the other.

For instance, I'd cite '99, '01, and '04 as stellar years for original scripts (both among the nominees as well as the available snubbees), but look at the adapted races in those years. Did anyone NOT predict adapted screenplay 5-for-5 in '99 and '01? There just weren't many other options from which to choose. And in '04 what would have placed had the "adapted" script to Before Sunset been in the other category? Mean Girls?

By that same token, the past few years may have been weak for originals, but I think the candidates in the adapted category in '05 and especially last year have been fantastic. And it's worth mentioning that right before the impressive '90's original screenplay bonanza we had Dead Poets Society and Ghost, scripts which make Crash look practically cutting edge. So I hopefully believe this category won't be on a downward spiral forever and will eventually recover.

Plus, I don't think the nominees these past few years have been SO bad (with a few exceptions), even if they haven't been mindblowing, and even if my favorites have been too foreign (The Best of Youth, Volver, 4 Months) or too small (Junebug, Science of Sleep, I'm Not There) to really merit the attention they deserved.

Re: Auteurs

The problem I see with Malick or Lynch ascending the podium any time soon (aside from the outre nature of their films, at least in Oscar terms) is that both are very much Hollywood outsiders in a way that Jackson, Eastwood, Lee, Scorsese, and even the Coens are not. While some of their films may not be blockbusters, all of those men are generally thought of as among the industry's big guns, whereas Malick and Lynch are far more niche faves. That being said, given Malick's fondness for the big, beautiful epic, it's not outside the realm of possibility that, should he create something that skews more mainstream, he could accidentally stumble upon a trophy, as Polanski did. (Though even then, there would hardly be the "give-Malick-an-Oscar" outcry that accompanied Scorsese's victory.)

I completely agree about Peter Weir, Rainbard. He seems to me to fit in line with the studio-era winners: respectable mainstream director with a number of popular successes who doesn't push the edge TOO much yet still crafts singular work. With the right timing, I say he gets one.

I think Cuaron and P.T. Anderson both are possibilities, but I look at them more as part of the newer generation rather than auteurs who have been snubbed (even if I think both should have picked up something somewhere by now.)

Completely agree, OscarGuy, about Tarantino. Most of his projects since Pulp Fiction have been roundly ignored, and he doesn't work that much, but I think that he's a big enough personality that if he were to create something that somehow fell onto Oscar's radar (as Pulp did) that there would be some clamor for him to win the director trophy.