Showing posts with label Roman Polanski. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roman Polanski. Show all posts

Sunday, June 11, 2023

Movie review - "Macbeth" (1971) ***1/2

 Polanski teams with two other dirty old prevs, Ken Tynan and Hugh Hefner, to tackle Shakespeare. The public didn't go for it. You can see why. Lacks stars - Jon Finch and Fresesca Annais aren't bad, they're fine, but to get people to go to Shakespeare I think they needed to be amazing.

The press lost their minds over the nude scene. I mean, lost it. It's very short and in context and works - livens up the piece. Less controversy and more confronting are the murder of Lady Macduff and her son - this is Manson-esque, people screaming and cackling off screen, murderers come in, the kid is young and has just had a bath (he's in a towel), scene of domesticity, they stab the kid, other people being raped by hippie surrogates, as the house burns. It's shocking. Tremendously effective. As is the murder of Duncan, Banquo.

The rest is less compelling. Am I that in love with violence? I'd like to think not. It's getting in the head of the leads. Finch isn't helped by the soliloquies being done in terms of voice over. It distances the audience. I think that decision and the casting of the leads is what hurt it. (Imagine Anthony Hopkins and Glenda Jackson. Apparently Polanski wanted Tuesday Weld who turned it down but she turns down everything. He's conception of Lady Macbeth of a nyphmette in hindsight is, uh...

The sets are amazing. The direction, blocking, costumes. The feel of is incredible. Maybe too long.

Undercast in minor roles (eg Macduff) though I liked Martin Shaw as Banquo.

Friday, February 12, 2021

Book review - "Stories I Only Tell My Friends" by Rob Lowe (2011)

 Rob Lowe is probably the brat pack star who surprised us the most - impossibly Ken Doll handsome he seemed to have "short term career" stapled on his forehead, and a few flops saw him on target to achieve that goal, but he kept managing to reinvent himself: as a comedy actor in the 90s, as a TV star in the 2000s and now as a very good writer.

I'm not sure Lowe was ever a proper movie star. People thought it was, execs did, off the back of his looks and appearances in Class, The Outsiders, St Elmo's Fire and About Last Night. I'm not sure he was ever a specific draw. 

Maybe that's unfair. He was in the right vehicle, like any star, but it was hard to get the vehicle. The public wouldn't go to any old thing like Oxford Blues and they wouldn't see him even in good movies like Masquerade and Bad Influence. They seemed to only really like him as a star in romances, and as a supporting actor in comedy.

Still he stuck around. Where he seems to really thrive is as a featured played in an ensemble - St Elmo's Fire, West Wing, Parks and Rec. He's marvellous with dialogue - it's a shame he doesn't do more Sorkin/Mamet.

It's been an interesting life - the book is very entertaining. Great snapshots like the making of The Outsiders. Many things I didn't know like he was friends with a French security guy who was murdered, and flew on the flight which was hijacked on Sept 11. Funny accounts of his romance with Princess Stephanie (who got her assistant to move her old boyfriend's stuff out the day after she met Lowe) and Fawn Hall, and hanging with Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden. Coy on Melissa Gilbert and the sex tape. Robert Wagner makes a crack to Cary Grant and co that Lowe is going to sleep with their daughters (indeed, he dated Jennifer Grant and there's a funny account of him meeting Cary). I knew he was offered the juvenile lead in Pirates but not in Dune (he turned it down)

It has its whiny actor-y moments (he seems a sook to leave The West Wing even in this account - "they left me out of the photo") and is full of all that narrative redemptive arc you see in a lot of people's personal stories in Hollywood (eg "I realised I had to be honest with myself" etc etc). But a grand read, and once again I underestimated Lowe. I'm sure he'll be relieved...

Sunday, October 11, 2020

Book review - "Watch Me: A Memoir" by Anjelica Huston

 Volume two is also entertaining and well written. If Dad dominated one, Jack Nicholson is the star of two, not surprisingly. He comes across extremely well - talented, kind, generous, a bit mercurial, not very faithful but basically decent. Huston also dated Ryan O'Neal in this period - his reviews are more mixed: could be charming and decent, but also violent... he thumped Huston once.

The first part of this book was the most compelling - Hollywood in the seventies, hanging with Jack and Ryan and the others, getting caught up in the Roman Polanski case (she's quite generous to Polanski), doing modelling shoots, occasionally seeing dad.

The book becomes less interesting, surprisingly, once Huston becomes an actor. The narrative is more "this happened and that happened" and her later partners are less interesting. I totally had no idea she directed. It's all well written though. She's had a wonderful career and charmed life but talks a lot about the people she's lost in the latter portion of the book.

Saturday, August 22, 2020

Book review - "The Big Goodbye" by Sam Wasson (2020)

 Was the making of Chinatown that interesting? It was tricky to write the script, sure. There were some troubles. But everyone had enjoyed a hit recently - it wasn't that hard to finance. A big star wanted to do it. People "got" it was a Chandler throwback. (Come to think of it there's not enough in this book about 30s nostalgia that dominated Hollywood).

Of course the personalities are fascinating- Evans, Polanski, Nicholson, Towne, Dunaway.

Wasson is an excellent writer. He's superb on the different drafts of the script. I was shocked Town used a ghost writer for most of his career - Eric Taylor. That was a true revelation for me. That's amazing. One of the greatest screenwriters of all time. It does explain the quality of his work. But Taylor should be better known.

The book is less good elsewhere. I feel Wasson was overly influenced by who would talk to him - he goes in soft on Polanski and Evans, and hard on Dunaway and Towne. I'm sure he would argue that's not the case, but it's the impression I got. And like far too many writers he accepts the comments of Peter Bart uncritically.

Worth reading. But I feel it would've been a better book had he not done interviews of the famous people.

Saturday, August 03, 2019

Movie review - "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" (2019) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)

Random thoughts
- Nicholas Hammond of all people knocks it out of the park
- Bruce Dern was fine but that would have been the perfect last role for Burt Reynolds
- like a lot of film buffs I was sitting there going "I love a lot of this but I get the Fabian and Michael Rennie references, I'm weird, what about normal people?"
- the film was about fetishness - movie posters, TV guide, cigarette packets, logos
- the money is well spent - it's a film about movie stars, production design and Tarantino - without those things it would be a hard slog (for some people it will be)
- I get the ending and I liked it
- the final assault ramming head repeatedly thing... that wasn't cool... wasn't cathartic in the way that say killing Nazis in Inglorious Basterds was or slave owners in Django Unchained was or rapist men in Kill Bill was... the women were killers but marginalised members of society... also we just meet them in the film.
- all the acting is excellent
- I wonder if the 8 year old girl on the set of Lancer is some allusion to James Stacy's pedophilia, not accessed in the film
- there is no female role with shade and dimension - Tate dances and is ethereal, the Charlie girls are sex objects/psychos/"other", Ric's Italian wife jabbers and gesticulates even though she takes part in a crucial scene, Brad Pitt's wife is a nagging bitch... in contrast the male roles are given lots of depth... Brad and Leo of course but also Emile Hirsch's pining Jay Sebring, Bruce Dern's George Spahn
- the visit to the Spahn Ranch was v creepy
- Mike Moh is a great Bruce Lee

Friday, May 17, 2019

Book review "Infamous players : a tale of movies, the mob (and sex)"- by Peter Bart (2011)

I've enjoyed Bart's writings in the past - his history of MGM, his collection of essays about the late 90s, his pieces for Variety and Deadline. I noticed the quality would drop whenever he talked about himself - he would always paint himself in the best possible light, claiming to have made key decisions that contributed to successes, claiming to have warned about choices that led to disaster - but he had good access and was a skilled writer. He is always easy to read.

This is a memoir of Bart's time at Paramount in the late 60s and early 70s, a period he often (as in, all the time) refers to in his essays. 

It's perhaps the most self-centered Hollywood memoir I've ever read - and I've read a lot of them - and around half-way through I started hating Bart and couldn't stop.

You see, according to Bart, it's Bart who has concerns about Darling Lili, it's Bart who suggests to Robert Evans that he get Francis Coppola to write The Godfather, it's Bart who champions Love Story and suggests Arthur Hiller direct, it's Bart who helps Warren Beatty cut the sex scene in Don't Look Now, it's Bart who thinks Where's Jack? is a bad idea but helps make The Italian Job behind Charles Bludhorn's back, it's Bart who's not sure Paddy Chayefsky is the right writer for Paint Your Wagon, it's Bart who champions Harold and Maude, it's Bart who liked The President's Analyst, it's Bart who suggests True Grit to Hal Wallis, it's Bart who cautions Paramount on Day of the Locust, it's Bart who swaps Emperor of the North for Play It Again Sam, it's Bart who has doubts about Redford's suitability for The Great Gatsby

Bart, according to Bart, is just so darn wise.

Look, any book about this time and that has up close looks at characters like Robert Evans and Sidney Korshak is going to be interesting, but most of it has been done before and better in other books. Bart wastes pages on recaps about Korshak and Gulf and Western when we want personal insights. 

Some of it is interesting - accounts of the making of Blue for instance and Downhill Racer, WUSA, The Parallax View and Sheila Levine is Dead. Stories of The Godfather, Rosemary's Baby and Love Story are more familiar. I would have loved more on the less familiar Paramount movies from his period - say, TR Baskin, Will Penny - or the movie Bart wrote, Making It.

Bart has exasperated affection for Bob Evans, as he should since Evans gave him his job - in part because Bart wrote a flattering article about Evans under the Old Mates Act. Charles Budhorn comes across as Bludhorn always does - a colorful cartoon. Bart is vicious on Frank Yablans - really vicious. There are digs at Robert Redford and Warren Beatty.

The book is laced with homophobia - he brings up Rock Hudson's sexuality all the time, ditto for William Inge and John Schlesinger, and not in a complimentary way. 

He also tends to slag off women - Elaine May is duplicitous, Ali MacGraw is a flake, Julie Andrews is sexless, Julia Phillips is a drug addled fool (he criticises plenty of men too but he also admires lots of them, whereas there's little admiration for women).

There is the odd surprise opinion - he would have preferred Bogdanovich's version of The Getaway with Cybil Shepherd as the girl, and wanted Marlon Brando and Coppola on Gatsby (which actually would have been awesome)

Robert Evans' memoirs are a lot more fun and actually feel more accurate. This feels like a book written in a hurry for cash and was really disappointing.

Thursday, December 24, 2015

Movie review – “Spine Tingler: The William Castle Story” (2007) ****


Enormously enjoyable documentary about the life and films of one of America’s most fondly remembered producer-directors – to a section of the public anyway. You can tell which section when you see the several directors who talk with glowing affection about Castle – Joe Dante, John Landis, John Waters. All with a common thread: males who were about ten when Castle was in his heyday. Because that was the target market for Castle’s films: baby boomers, male, who loved the gimmicks. As Waters (who has written about Castle often and well, and was inspired to use gimmicks in his own career) points out, after seeing 13 Ghosts all people talked about at school the next day was seeing the skeleton – no one talked if the film was any good.

William Castle’s story is a prime example of the maxim that everyone has their moment. He lost his parents at an early age, and became obsessed with theatre after seeing Bela Lugosi on stage as Dracula. He went to work in the theatre as a stage manager and actor, and eventually went out to Hollywood and got a job at Columbia. He became a journeyman director, doing all sorts of films (one quite highly regarded - When Strangers Marry – even if it surprisingly isn’t discussed much here.) He got the rights to a book he really liked only to see Orson Welles pinch it and turn it into Lady from Shanghai - although Castle got to work on it.
 
Castle's moment came in the late 50s when he mortgaged his house to fund his own production, Macabre. From all accounts an unremarkable film, Castle's fear that it would flop motivated him to ballyhoo the crap out of it and it was a big hit. It unleashed a popular series of horror films, all better remembered for their gimmicks rather than their quality.

Castle promoted himself as much as his movies, even appearing in them at the beginning in introductions. Few directors were as well known to the public (one that was, Hitchcock, was inspired by Castle to use a gimmick to promote Psycho). Still, a great showman, nice guy, shrewd businessman, talented producer, workmanlike director - and he left a real legacy. The sort of theatricality and showmanship in something like The Tingler (which puts the audience in the film) is missed today.

Eventually the tide ran out around the mid 60s and Castle's films lost their lustre at the box office. He had a massive late career windfall when he bought the rights to Rosemary's Baby in galleys but Paramount wanted Roman Polanski to direct, so he was forced to produce. (A good move - Castle was never much of a director, strictly functional in his control of the medium - the two most famous films he was associated with, Rosemary and Shanghai, were from other directors).

I have a theory he went to his grave thinking "if only I'd directed Rosemary's Baby people would have taken me seriously" but he wouldn't have done ten percent good a job; he was too interested in pennies.) He fell seriously ill during the late 60s and so couldn't cash in on the success of Rosemary's Baby. None of his follow ups did as well (he even directed a film starring Marcel Marceau which flopped badly) but he lived long enough to see his legend grow. He probably smoked too many cigars for his own good - he was only 63 when he died but looked twenty years older.

This is everything a documentary on Castle should be - warm, funny, with great photographs and talking heads (Castle's daughter is very likeable - she has his nose - and Roger Corman even pops up). John Waters is the best value - part of me wished he'd narrated the whole thing. In film extracts, Castle is a little stiff in his introductions for someone so publicised - I think Hitchcock had more natural charisma, as well as being the better director.

Friday, June 07, 2013

Movie review - "Wanted and Desired" (2008) ****

Roman Polanski's life offers material for several movies - this one focuses on his statutory rape trial, particularly the "judicial" process that resulted. Some great talking heads, such as the prosecutor, defence attorney, judge's clerk, investigating cops, and the victim himself. No Polanski, though there's several of his friends, and old footage (including stuff with him and an achingly beautiful Sharon Tate).

It is sympathetic to Polanski though several of the people involved loathe him for what he did. This is the sort of movie that is liable to start a discussion/argument afterwards as to morality - maybe not a good first date film.

Wednesday, March 07, 2012

Movie review - "Carnage" (2012) ***

Roman Polanski loves a film set in a cramped room - it'll mean he's never out of work since they're cheap to make. Judging by the credits though they still found a way to make this cost a bit - every man and his dog is credited as a producer or financier. 

The casting is very UN - it's set in New York and is about New Yorkers but was shot in Paris and the cast includes two foreigners in accents. The acting is fine - everyone is a good actor, although I felt Jodie Foster pitched her performance a bit too highly. It's skillfully written although there are two scenes with a couple about to leave then invited back for a snack (they could have gotten them to come back by talking about why one kid hit the other - which isn't really explored). Also there isn't really an ending. Still, for the most part this held.

Thursday, July 07, 2011

Movie review – “The Ghost Writer” (2009) *** (warning: spoilers)

Decent conspiracy thriller with Pierce Brosnan perfect as a Tony Blair style PM, ditto Olivia Stewart as his wife. Ewan McGregor is pretty good too as the hack hired to ghost write his autobiography, and I’m glad to see Kim Cattrall got a strong part in a decent film. It’s not hard to see this as Roman Polanski’s dig at the Yanks. I totally bought that the British PM was CIA agent – I wouldn’t be shocked if they recruit in Australia, too. (It’s a clever use of resources.) The thing is, they often don’t have to bother. Beautifully creepy wind-swept locations. It does go on a bit long.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Movie review – “Dance of the Vampires” (1967) ***

I’ve never seen the US version of this film – apparently it butchered it with cuts. To be honest, this uncut version could do with cutting. It drags on and on and is frequently frustrating – especially when Roman Polanski gets the chance to kill the vampires but doesn’t. And the character of the professor is exceedingly annoying. But it has a wonderful fairytale atmosphere – gorgeous snowy locations, old wooden huts and castles, fire places, iron baths, sleds and wolves… it’s quite captivating. There’s also plenty of funny gags too, mostly slapstick – Polanski seems to shy away from verbal stuff. Sharon Tate is beautiful and a good sport – Polanski gets her taking several baths. You just wish the script was worked out a bit more logically. Is this the screen’s first openly gay male vampire?

Friday, November 21, 2008

Movie review – “Repulsion” (1965) ****

After the international success of Knife in Water, Roman Polanski got out of Poland and made this thriller, his first English language movie, and another success. Catherine Denueuve is very beautiful and effective as the woman who goes bonkers when left alone. Brilliant direction and some stunning moments – the crack in the walls, the ceiling closing in, the hands grabbing her, the dream sequences. It does feel as though it goes on a bit and could have 15 minutes cut out. The support cast are very strong.

Movie review – “Knife in Water” (1962) **1/2

I remember reading a review of Dead Calm (by Scott Murray, if memory serves) which said it wasn’t nearly as good as Knife in Water, but I’m sorry that’s snobby crap. Not that this doesn’t impress, especially when you consider it’s a first feature. This is skilful low budget filmmaking and Roman Polanksi’s talent is evident in every frame.

The script is very much a script written by a director – not really much of a story, but plenty of memorable scenes and bits. Polanski knows how to frame a shot – it helps having three characters as you can give a bit of depth to your mise-en-scene. Setting it on a boat gives strong production value.

Part of the reason I think this was a hit at the time is it is so analyseable – the symbolism of the knife (castration!), the competition between the two men, the woman starting as a trophy and emerging as a power, old vs young, material vs non (you couldn’t pick this was made in a communist country). Has a feeling of eeriness, even if it does only have 30 minutes of story (if that) and it doesn’t really make sense why they would invite the hitchhiker on the yacht.

Memorable scenes such as pulling the yacht on land through the reeds, the knife-through-fingers trick that appeared in Aliens. Decent acting – Polanski dubbed the hitchhiker guy. The girl is much, much better looking once she takes off her glasses and lets her hair down.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Movie review - "Day of the Dolphin" (1973) **1/2

A famous big flop in its day, helped Joe E Levine packed it in for a few years and seems to have hurt the career of Mike Nichols and Buck Henry. But dammit I quite enjoyed it. Glossy and intelligent, beautiful scenery and some attractive cast members as George C Scott teaches some dolphins to talk... only to see them recruited for an assassination plot. A critic pointed out that Nichols and Henry were working outside their genres, which means the film is treated intelligently but perhaps lacks a little schlocky excitement - I'd support that, while it pulls off stuff that you would think is tricky, like making it believable for dolphins to chat, but not maxing the most out of the race-against-time-to-save-the-president stuff. 

The conspiracy stuff is OK not as good as Alan Pakula's conspiracy though. The ending could have been a bit more emotional if it was a little clearer what was happening. Who are the people in the plane? OK I get that we're not supposed to know but... why not? And I wish the pretty Trish van dere had been given something to do.