Smash Cut

I suppose it wouldn’t be inaccurate to say that I’m a fan of director David Fincher. It’s not that I hold him in my pantheon of all-time favorites, but at the same time I do make an effort to see every one of his movies, and pay to see them in the theater no less. (These days, I tend to find that I’m often much more satisfied watching films while plopped down on my sofa, rather than paying a New York-sized $12.00 to see them on the big screen where they’re often projected out of focus, compounding the irritation I get from the general unattractive cinematography and rapid-fire editing that’s prominent in contemporary movies.) Fincher tends to meticulously ensure a beautiful-looking film — and that goes from Seven through Zodiac — and often, at least on the level of eye-candy, guarantees some pictorial dazzle to justify ticket prices.

His newest movie, the F. Scott Fitzgerald adaptation The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, certainly seems to promise visual splendor: a decades-spanning story jumping through huge swaths of history and locations. In addition, it re-teams Fincher with his Seven star Brad Pitt. The problem is, based on the trailer, the movie seems vaguely Forrest Gump-ish. You know, one of those movies where some “disadvantaged” protagonist is carried by the waves of history through life-changing events, while opening the eyes of others to the beauty of humanity. That kind of muck.

For the time being, I’m keeping my fingers crossed and giving the movie the benefit of the doubt, but right now I can’t help but imagine Benjamin Button rattling off some pithy nonsense about a box of chocolates….

…but you can’t deny how catchy it is!

Action tough guy/akido master/would-be blues singer/alleged mob target Steven Seagal certainly seems to have a bit of a following in Japan. I mean, they advertise for DVD box sets of his films on TV for crissakes!

Seagal hasn’t cranked out any theatrical releases in the States in ages. It seems that, like the Muscles from Brussels Jean-Claude Van Damme, his career is permanently caught in direct-to-video land. Don’t let that fool you, though. The soft-spoken, pony-tailed one has proven that he’s not totally washed up and can still deliver the R-rated goods. And he even has a role in The Onion Movie as, well, see for yourself. Maybe he’s going to enjoy some renewed stardom, albeit in an “ironic” post Onion context.

…Bangkok Dangerous!

In a bizarre bit of capitalistic self-cannibalism, twin brother Hong Kong filmmakers Danny and Oxide Pang (they of the original version of The Eye), have remade their own 1999 Thai hitman actioner Bangkok Dangerous. The conceit that made the first one somewhat original within its John Woo-style ballistics and honor-bound death was the fact that one of the assassins was deaf-mute. Here, it’s just Nicolas Cage.

Nevertheless, the remake promises some overheated hilarity if the whole movie matches this clip. Aside from the total incomprehensibility of the editing, it certainly devises a unique way to, uh, “disarm” — twice — a single baddie.

In a real “once in a lifetime” opportunity, I had the chance to meet legendary actor Tatsuya Nakadai today at a New York press conference. It was being held to promote the re-release of his devastating nine-hour-plus anti-war epic The Human Condition (1959-1961). The screening kicks off a retrospective series/festival at the Film Forum rep theater celebrating his awe-inspiring body of work, and he’s totally deserving of the attention and accolades.

Nakadai’s been involved with some of movie-dom’s all-time greatest films and filmmakers: director Akira Kurosawa, with Yojimbo, Sanjuro and Ran; director Masaki Kobayashi, in movies like Kwaidan, Harakiri and the aforementioned The Human Condition; director Mikio Naruse, and When a Woman Ascends the Stairs. He’s headlined heart-rending dramas, unsettling horror films, searing war movies, action-packed samurai pics…you name it, he’s probably done it. He’s not as well-known in the U.S. as his contemporary, Toshiro Mifune, but in a certain way Nakadai’s an even more amazing actor simply because he’s such a chameleon. He’s genuinely slipped into his roles, made them his own, yet allowed the characters to shine more than his own persona.

The conference was, admittedly, a bit of a drag at times, because journalists can ask some pretty ridiculous questions (like prodding Nakadai to somehow discuss U.S. involvement in Iraq), but he offered a lot of memories (like rehearsing from 9:00am to 3:00pm for a two second cameo in Seven Samurai just because Kurosawa wanted his samurai-style walk to be credible) that were pure gold.

All in all, it was an amazing experience, a meeting with real movie royalty, the kind of charming, effortless, genuine stardom that’s often missing from cinema these days.

If you want to see the masterful Nakadai at work, take a look at this trailer for Harakiri. It unfortunately isn’t subtitled, but all you need to see is Nakadai’s hollowed face and wounded eyes to sense the shattering tragedy within the film.

From the Kamal Hassan film Dasavatharam, in which the none-too-humble Hassan plays ten (!) different characters.

Truly amazing.

As you might gather from my first post, I’ve had a long-running appreciation for main title sequences in movies. That love carried me all the way to a New York-based company that created titles and opticals for indie films, where I worked for a couple of years before it had to shut its doors.

The way that opening credits can completely, succinctly sum up a movie, or encapsulate its mood, or even be works of art unto themselves, is remarkable. When font styles, graphics, music and colors work perfectly in tandem, titles can be cinematic perfection.

There’s a new website called The Art of the Title Sequence that’s starting to archive and present some of film history’s most exceptional works in that area. To be sure, there are many to include that haven’t yet been posted, but it’s off to a terrific start, covering everyone from classics like Saul Bass to contemporary talents like Prologue Films.

If you love credit sequences, you’ve gotta check out the site.

Money shots. Yes indeed.

Every year, the American Film Institute, or AFI, decides to make a “best of” list of some sort: 100 greatest movies of all time, top comedies of all time, ultimate war movies, you know the drill. This year, they pulled out all the stops and made the Ten Top Ten, which they describe as the “ten greatest films in ten classic genres.” I suppose they’re doing it to make sure they remain relevant as arbiters of taste somehow. Their choices always seem to garner headlines, but, let’s face it, do you know much about the AFI?

I actually used to be a member in my late teens, and had a subscription to their magazine American Film. If memory serves me correctly, it was a pretty good publication: solid interviews, decent criticism, not much slumming in the name of self-publicity or boosting sales. Maybe that’s why the magazine eventually went under and, during the past few years, these “100 Best” celebrations began to appear.

What’s striking, aside from the omissions (which I suppose can’t necessarily be blamed since it’s a ridiculously impossible task to make a Top Anything list…I always kinda feel that there are wildly different reasons to appreciate different things, so comparing The Godfather and GoodFellas, even if they’re both ostensibly gangster films, is somewhat pointless), is the broadness with which their genres are defined. In “Epic” films, the #8 position is taken by Saving Private Ryan. I’m not denying the artistic merits of that movie, but should it really be classified as an epic? It has a relatively long running time but is that all that’s required? Is it really all that “large scale”? Something like Anthony Mann’s El Cid seems like it would be a more appropriate choice, since it’s certainly of grand scale and an avowed classic that’s withstood the test of time.

Similarly, in the “Gangster” list, #7 is Pulp Fiction. There are criminals in the movie, but is it really a gangster movie a la The Godfather? Isn’t a gangster by definition part of an organized group? I have a hard time seeing organized crime and maverick (i.e., stand-alone, iconoclastic) criminals as synonymous, as the AFI seems to do.

Anyway, I suppose “Top” lists will always be the lay of the land, but with each passing year they seem to become less and less meaningful.

This past Sunday, June 15, Stan Winston passed away. Winston’s a contemporary special effects wiz who created some of movie history’s most memorable creatures — the terrifying alien queen from Aliens, the stunning live-action dinosaurs of Jurassic Park, the dreadlocked, skull-polishing, man-hunting Predator — and also relatively “low-key” make-up effects for characters like the Penguin in Batman Returns, or Edward Scissorhands’s shear-tipped fingers. His work was brilliant, and I think that the physical, tactile quality of his effects will always make them memorable. For example, his creations for The Terminator still carry a punch. Sure, even if computer graphics have become more sophisticated at finessing the illusion between actual actors and effects models these days, those part-man/part-machine cyborgs of James Cameron’s 1984 blockbuster remain ominous. I don’t think anyone will forget the self-surgery scene once he’s seen it.

At any rate, I’m relatively late in the game on my eulogy here, but I figure I shouldn’t let his untimely passing go unmentioned. Rest in peace, Mr. Winston. Fantastic cinema won’t be the same without you.

A big hellz yeah for the return of Tony Jaa, the jaw-dropping and jaw-breaking Thai action star who found international fame with Ong Bak. He’s back to kick the living bejeezus out of baddies (and run atop a herd of stampeding elephants) in Ong Bak 2.

Check out the promo reel here.