« Talking Transformers 2 | Main | BYOB 623 »
June 23, 2009
LexG's Latest
This one has been sitting in the inbox for too long... and I enjoyed the read, so I am going to share it as I head onto the road for a day of driving. I'm letting it loose - no editing - for your perusal. I would prefer it if y'all took it on for content rather than on any issues you may have with Lex's boner posts.
DP
======================
MISSING BIG CITIES IN MOVIES by LexG
I recently engaged in a whirlwind attempt to belatedly school myself on the classic films of Peter Bogdanovich, the only legendary American ‘70s auteur whose work was, for whatever reason, mostly foreign to me, other than the mid-’80s cable staple “Mask,” and, more recently, the ESPN original film “Hu$tle,” in which Tom Sizemore starred (none too convincingly) as Pete Rose. But thanks to the magic of Netflix, soon enough I was playing Johnny-come-lately and basking in the legitimate greatness of “Last Picture Show” and the inimitable Ryan O’Neal magic of “Paper Moon,” the former instantly achieving legendary, kicking-myself-for-never-having-seen-it status.
Next up was “They All Laughed,” my only familiarity with it having come from now-cloudy memories of a still from some early-to-mid-’80s “cable guide” of John Ritter and Dorothy Stratten face to face. Of course now such an image takes on a melancholy feel, due to the tragic early demise of both stars. But I distinctly remember being 10, maybe 11 years old, and, armed with a vague awareness of Stratten’s story thanks to the headlines or the then-upcoming/recent “Star 80” movie, my main, eminently Catholic thought being that I hoped my clean-cut “TV friend” Jack Tripper from “Three’s Company” didn’t see the naked woman’s boobies, because that would be a sin. (Yeah, so I was a little slow on the uptake re: how sleazy Ritter’s hit show was; I also thought my other “TV friend” Dr. Johnny Fever was just naturally “zany,” so chalk it up to preadolescent cluelessness.)
Anyway, long story short, after nearly thirty years, I finally caught up with “They All Laughed.” Ritter and Stratten are thoroughly engaging, and the film is an homage to the vintage Classic Hollywood screwball comedies of Howard Hawks, but filtered through the formalist sensibility of a horny ‘70s N.Y.C. auteur/maniac. Sort of like “Bringing Up Baby” as shot by DePalma in “Dressed to Kill” mode with a James Toback rewrite. Bogdanovich is at the top of his game, and the film is clearly a semi-autobiographical labor of love. Every guy in the movie, no matter how clumsy or awkward or goofy or old or bald or sleazy is pulling supermodel-level women at the drop of the hat. A Hawksian line, a flick of a lighter, and any middle-aged New York sad-sack has an ethereal goddess like Patti Hansen in bed within minutes. Think I’m exaggerating? The sad-sack leading man in question is… Ben Gazzara. Perhaps a menage a trois subplot with Burt Young, Vic Tayback and Britt Ekland didn’t make it past the cutting room floor.
It’s a whimsical, idealized vision of romance from a completely different era, with a very specific sense of time and place that gives it its quirky, now nostalgic charm. That time and place being late-’70s, early ‘80s New York, an era where guys like Bogdanovich, Lumet, Scorsese, and Pollack could take a full film crew into the heart of the Big Apple and film right there on the gritty means streets, with hundreds, even thousands of extras providing thoroughly legit local attitude and flavor. I’m talking about movies like “Fame,” “King of Comedy,” “Dressed to Kill,” “Saturday Night Fever,” “Tootsie,” “Taxi Driver” -- You remember, the big-ass ‘50s-style Yellow Cabs that looked like Alex Rieger was in the house; The teeming throngs of bell-bottomed extras sporting giant ‘fros and Jimmie Walker hats, looking like understudies from a production of “Godspell”; Awesome skyscrapers and boxy Ford LTDs parked next to grubby trashcans while Puerto Rican kids played stickball in the streets; and of course authentic, real-deal character actors like Joe Spinell, Charles Durning, or John Cazale playing second banana to a De Niro or a Stallone. Cue the Giorgio Moroder music and get the bearded, ball-busting “Director” character from “Staying Alive” to choreograph it all, and you’ve got a great fucking movie.
I realize in part I’m merely being nostalgic for a New York City that simply doesn’t exist anymore. Maybe a dream buddy-cop pairing like Stallone and Billy Dee Williams no longer needs to patrol the grainy, blue-hued sections of Manhattan and the Roosevelt Island tram looking for international assassins Wulfgar and Shakka Holland (“alias Shakka Kapoor!”) while wearing risible “decoy” getups and oversized wire rims. But watching “They All Laughed,” I realized how much I miss movies with that very specific N.Y.C. flair, or even films that are clearly shot on location in an actual city -- hell, any city -- and not in some British Columbia forest, Toronto warehouse, or sleepy Pasadena side street doubling for Anywhere, U.S.A.
It’s one of the great tragedies of post-millennial studio filmmaking that shooting in big cities like New York or (increasingly) L.A. has become all but prohibitively expensive. We’re basically getting 200-million-dollar tentpole movies with brilliant effects and name actors, but all the verisimilitude and location feel of a bad Sci-Fi original, often shot under the wan skies and dark-green foliage of an anonymous city that’s so carefully blocked and neutered as to be rendered utterly generic. Put it this way: Hey, Zack Snyder, when John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John in “Two of a Kind” is a more blistering and gritty look at mid-’80s New York City than your “Watchmen” adaptation, maybe the money would’ve been better spent on representing the source material’s indelible riot-brewing urban atmosphere. Because aside from a few none-too-convincing, under-populated second unit shots, the Watchmen may as well have been “watching over” a particularly polite suburb of Calgary in mid-2003.
If Walter Hill were planning “The Warriors” in 2009 and a studio exec had their way, I have no doubt that Swan, Ajax and Co. would be running for their lives not in graffiti-covered subways en route to Coney Island, but rather through an under-lit forest on the outskirts of Surrey; Maybe for the big finale, James Remar could hide up in a Redwood tree while David Patrick Kelly clicks a few bottles of Molson together and does the whole “Warriors, come out and play” shtick.
Hey, I got nothing against Canada, better known as the country that gave us Labatt Blue, David Cronenberg, and Rachel McAdams. Nor do I instinctively dismiss any movie that substitutes a more cost-effective filming location for its intended setting. Otherwise I’d be writing off half a century of Classic Hollywood films for using patently obvious painted backdrops, fake deserts and back-lot street corners. Even in my beloved ‘70s era I’m talking about, it would have been impractical for Dick Donner to send Brando all the way to Planet Krypton, where shooting is a logistical fucking nightmare. And one of the great “New York movies” of that bombed-out, post-Paul Kersey era, “Escape From New York,” was shot in a burned-out, post-fire 1980 St. Louis. But where Carpenter’s craftsmanship and the film’s stellar street-level production design and matte designs work triple-overtime to place us in a very specific, surreal and haunting vision of a future urban nightmare, most of today’s blockbusters barely lift a finger to convince us we’re anywhere but some unspectacular, rainy, un-cinematic back road.
Next time you check out Ratner’s “X-Men: The Last Stand,” take a gander at that prison transport escape sequence and ask why all these thrilling, exciting, exotic superheroes with mind-blowing powers and years of mythology behind them couldn’t afford an actual freeway on which to kick ass. Or pop in “Elektra” and ask yourself how many high-paid international assassins conveniently not just live but draw all their contracts in log-cabin filled woods where it costs $1.98 to film a movie. Shit, the “sprawling metropolis” of the “Fantastic Four” movies is so bogus, I half-expect that annoying Mountie from “Due South” to pop up and offer the Silver Surfer some fucking maple syrup.
Compare all that penny-pinching chintziness to something like Nolan’s “Dark Knight,” where the towering buildings and grubby streets of Chicago call to mind the films of modern masters of urban realism like Mann and Friedkin, in the way the director uses the architecture of a city and the diversity of its faces to transport us to a tangible, living and breathing “world.” And even forgetting about blockbusters and comic superheroes for a second, imagine my surprise when I waltzed into the decidedly minor Channing Tatum-Terrence Howard opus “Fighting” recently with somewhat lowered expectations, and instead got a ‘70s-style character flick set in (gasp!) actual N.Y.C. neighborhoods straight out of Spike Lee or Martin Scorsese, with actual Italian and Puerto Rican character actors holding court in awesome convenience stores and back alleys so legit I half expected Victor Argo to show up and chase Tatum around with a baseball bat.
So if Channing Tatum and Dito Montiel can bring the New York back to the movies, I say run with it, people. Enough with the 200-mil CGI giant blue schlongs and fake-ass Mars backdrops and stupid Cyclops eyes and glowing Adamantium tanks. Waste of money, especially if you’re gonna film it all amidst location work about as exciting as my junior one-bedroom. All we want are some practical effects shot in a real goddamn city. So, “Wolverine 2”? Sure, make it happen. But, Gavin Hood, sorry, man, it’s back to “Tsotsi 2” for you, ‘cause I got a new superhero director in mind. And his name is Bogdanovich.
Jackman, Schreiber and Danny Huston? You’re all welcome to come back, but The Man In the Ascot is at the helm now, and instead of some overly green, dingy backyard bullshit, I want him to take you to the heart of Manhattan, just plop the cameras down in the middle of Times Square with no permits and 10,000 extras walking behind Wolverine like he’s Dorothy Michaels or Irene Cara. Maybe later in the movie you can even team up with Albert Finney and Diane Venora to chase down and take on some awesome, actual 1981 “wolves” with glowing eyes. And I’ve already got a great villain picked out for you, a guy who just stole Wolverine’s Playmate girlfriend with merely a flick of the lighter and a witty, Hawksian pick-up line. To be played, of course, by Ben Gazzara.
-- LexG, aka MG Gilbert.
Posted by dpoland at June 23, 2009 10:50 AM
Comments
This is probably the best of the (3?) Lex pieces yet. Too bad for the delay.
Posted by: jeffmcm ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 23, 2009 11:12 AM
LexG: Seriously, and without reservation: Good stuff.
Posted by: Joe Leydon at June 23, 2009 11:14 AM
Yep. Dead on & Right on.
Posted by: Pelham123 at June 23, 2009 11:23 AM
Great stuff.
Perhaps it should be noted that Gazzara had an affair with Audrey Hepburn behind the scenes of THEY ALL LAUGHED, which led to their following this up with BLOODLINE (though the affair had apparently ended before production began).
Posted by: yancyskancy at June 23, 2009 11:37 AM
Me like, me like very much.
I also liked this somewhat different take on '70s New York which appeared on Slate last week.
Posted by: Blackcloud at June 23, 2009 12:33 PM
I'd say that Cloverfield succeeded recently in giving off an authentic 'streets of NYC' vibe. The DVD reveals that while much of it was indeed made with greescreen and backlots, somehow it didn't 'feel' that way. Prior to that you have to go back to Die Hard with a Vengeance to get an action thriller that used it's urban environs so effectively. Man, i miss Mctiernan these days. Hopefully he gets out of the slammer in time to make Die Hard 5.
Posted by: Dr Wally at June 23, 2009 12:36 PM
Really liked this latest piece. You've got a nice laconic style laced with enough substance at its core. It seems that this should have come out around Watchmen time as I remember it was the point of conversation in many posts. Next time no delay DP. And Lex not to knock your animated wonders but this is where your strength is. Keep them coming.
Posted by: Jeffrey Boam's Doctor at June 23, 2009 12:47 PM
Two things:
A) This is your best piece yet. Bravo.
B) "Nighthawks" is the most underrated movie of the '80s. Appreciate the love for it here.
Posted by: dietcock at June 23, 2009 12:48 PM
Exactly why I wasn't too entusiastic for a remake of The Taking of Pelham 123. The first one is filled with New York atitude and I knew the second would have a hard time finding it.
Posted by: SRCputt at June 23, 2009 03:13 PM
I hardly ever post here, but that was one of the best things I've read on this site, and I like this site a lot.
Posted by: NV at June 23, 2009 03:17 PM
Good piece, Lex. It's a trade-off between effects and locations. A lot of TV went to NYC because they have filled the role of the drama on most levels, but now NY State Gov is about to make it harder and even more rare to shoot in the city by dropping the tax breaks. So if you want more shoots in NYC, you need bigger incentives to off-set the costs of permits, guilds, unions, local bribes, etc... Otherwise, your beloved Canadian backdrop is about to be replaced with views from Southern and Midwestern America. I keep hoping to read Battle: Los Angeles is going to be filmed in Detroit. That would be classic.
Posted by: Martin S at June 23, 2009 03:52 PM
Please don't tell me the Law & Order trifecta will have to move out of The Big Apple!
Posted by: Joe Leydon at June 23, 2009 04:54 PM
Joe,
Not sure about the latest, but here it was as of last month...
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i9c3eebbfdf13bca781569de2272eab75
...which is most likely in a holding pattern since...
http://wcbstv.com/politics/espada.senate.albany.2.1056280.html
I don't like the NYC/Bloomberg offer as it is. It's a weak incentive that will only help kill off shows once the offsets become negligible.
As for L&O, the original was on the firing line partly because of this.
Posted by: Martin S at June 23, 2009 05:45 PM
The best way to shoot in NYC is go DIY. Set-up wherever you want.
Though, in all fairness, among recent films, Two Lovers did a good job.
Posted by: mutinyco at June 23, 2009 05:45 PM
good read lex.
your best so far.
Posted by: messiahcomplexio at June 23, 2009 08:15 PM
nice read...thanx...
Posted by: scooterzz at June 23, 2009 09:50 PM
er...what i meant was:
GOOD POST
YEP YEP
Posted by: scooterzz at June 23, 2009 09:52 PM
It's like Carrot Top trying to do a Carlin set, just doesn't work.
Posted by: martin at June 23, 2009 10:10 PM
everybody's a critic....
Posted by: scooterzz at June 23, 2009 10:21 PM
Great post, Lex - I am so in agreement with you on this. It's part of the reason I stopped watching all these crime procedurals on T.V. - does every city have the same palm trees, whether it's New York or Vegas???
If you've lived in New York, you can tell right away. Same with D.C., especially - can't tell you how many films I have seen where pretty much everywhere you go in the nation's capital, you can see the Capitol building. Really??? It's only about 13 stories high! And beyond that, they always show D.C. with true skyscrapers to the point where you know it's really filming in LA.
If you're talking about recent big movies that make great use of actual locations, The Dark Knight has to be mentioned. Just last weekend, I was riding my bike down Lake Street under the L, right where Bruce Wayne was driving his Lamborghini. Actual locations DO make a difference - that's why I found it more thrilling to see the BatPod plow through Randolph Street Metra Station than see Spiderman careen down a collapsing CGI skyscraper.
I'm trying to think of other recent films - well, Greengrass always gets it right with the Bourne films, no doubt - you never doubt the scene is being filmed where it actually takes place. Easy highlight is the tense showdown in the tube station in London in the third movie.
Scorcese of course got it right with The Departed with the Boston locations. You know when I think about, Iron Man really made good use of the Pacific locations - Favs made a good call on filming around those and except for the actual climax, it never felt like a CGI/soundstage city.
Posted by: Geoff at June 23, 2009 10:44 PM
thinking about it, while i'm in total agreement with lex's take on 'canada as the new USA' and the disturbing trend towards the 'generic' location that lacks the special authentic feeling of time and place evoked by real american locales, there are a few recent movies apart from those already mentioned that have utilised authentic locations well and captured the city for me, such as 'inside man', 'gone baby gone', 'the brave one', 'american gangster', 'zodiac', 'i am legend'...i don't necessarily love all those movies but at least they are filmed in the actual city in which the movie is set and look like the real deal instead of genericsville, canada! they are few and far between now, tho
Posted by: leahnz at June 23, 2009 11:54 PM
I actaully liked this piece, Lex. I have the same fondness for those sort of images and textures on screen. Even so far as, say, Ferrara's King of New York in the early '90s. Fame is a great example though. All those fire escapes, graffitied subway cars, above-ground train tracks and steam rising from the subway vents. And I feel like it was always wet.
I love LA as a set too. The last one I can think that really utilised that city was Mulholland Drive. There's just an atmosphere that radiates when something is actually filmed in LA. You can tell even from the way the roads look. Training Day was another if I remember correctly (although I didn't like the movie). The Closer does a good job in terms in procedural cop shows I always feel.
Actually, Collateral is another one. I love the way the scenes on the fringes of the city can still see the CBD skyline and the way it feels like they're actually using streets that aren't always used for filming (if that makes sense).
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at June 24, 2009 01:46 AM
Excellent post Lex. (As an aside from the thread on T2, I always thought you were the post d'plume of S. Spielberg.) The main point however is that whatever one thinks of the films of Clint Eastwood, they all have a crystal clear, very specific sense of place. Doesn't matter whether it is a western, cop procedural/thriller or special effects/thriller. I've lived in the San Francisco bay area, Los Angeles, New Orleans and Houston and his movies from those places are accrate. I frequently watch just from homesickness (Aqua Dulce airport in Space Cowboys, San Francisco in Dirty Harry, the Washoe House in True Crime) or to see some locations that no longer exist (Larkspur Landing, Marin in Dirty Harry). Not to mention the incredible landscapes of the westerns.
Posted by: jake_gittes at June 24, 2009 03:19 AM
I'm always pleased whenever someone gives my man Peter props, and you did me proud, Lex.
That was a beautifully articulated piece of criticism, and I especially loved your description of "They All Laughed" as "Sort of like Bringing Up Baby' as shot by DePalma in 'Dressed to Kill' mode with a James Toback rewrite." I couldn't have said it better myself.
Confession: Peter personally extended an invitation to visit the "Laughed" set in March of 1980, and I got to hang around the Chinatown location for a day. (We'd been pen pals since I wrote him a fan letter after seeing "TLPS" for the first time in 8th grade.)
My only memory of Dorothy Stratten was that she was (a) beyond gorgeous; and (b) very, very shy.
Ahhh. To step into a time machine and revisit "my" NYC of yore......
Posted by: movieman at June 24, 2009 05:16 AM
Good post! Living in Toronto, it is even worse, as I can recognize all the damn suburbs, etc, that are supposed to be LA, or wherever X-Men was set. It does mean that I am really looking forward to Scott Pilgrim vs the Universe, seeing as it is actually set (and shooting) in Toronto. Just for laughs, they should have filmed it in Vancouver, however.
Posted by: Kambei at June 24, 2009 06:13 AM
Dark Knight is a great example, but I would also like to toss out Die Hard with a Vengence. It just seems to capture how enourmous the city is, with the constant background noise and dwarfing buildings. This was a great article and helps bring the point home that for huge amounts of money the studios spend on these things, they often spend it in the wrong places.
Posted by: hcat at June 24, 2009 06:19 AM
X-Men 3 really was the worst offender in recent memory. When the bad mutants had their big meeting int he woods, Sci-Fi Channel is exactly what I was thinking.
Posted by: The Big Perm at June 24, 2009 08:38 AM
Ironically, the first remake of PELHAM was shot in Toronto, and even on TV, it was painfully obvious that they never went anywhere near New York.
Posted by: Cadavra at June 24, 2009 07:17 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)