The Hungry Cinephile

Inglourious in Israel

2009-09-28T07:14:00.000-07:00

I laughed a lot during Inglourious Basterds. I laughed at Brad Pitt's awful over-acting as a Nazi-scalping Apache descendant, at writer/director Tarantino's whimsical disregard for historical accuracy, at the schlocky blend of spaghetti western and World War II drama, at David Bowie's "Cat People" randomly gracing the soundtrack, but for the most part, I laughed because I felt so damn uncomfortable.

I was sitting with a group of rather humorless Israelis, who were not sure whether to be outraged by the film's depiction of blood-thirsty Jews, or simply amused. It is as surely entertaining as it is messy, and in some tense scenes, even inspired (mostly thanks to Christoph Waltz's turn as the maniacal Jew Hunter). But it is also plagued by inconsistent and often downright alarming moral dimensions, which can probably best be exemplified by the so-called Bear Jew (Eli Roth) who relishes in repeatedly bashing in the brains of his Nazi victims with a baseball bat, or Jews locking up Nazis in a burning down building, or all that perfectly sensible scalping. Etcetera, etcetera.

The point is, with Basterds, Tarantino has not only (once again) declared how cool torture and mindless brutality are; he's also serviced his juvenile obsession with blood'n'guts to make, as his star Eli Roth so aptly put it, "Jewish fucking porn!" We are supposed to consider the ruthless acts of his dirty-dozen like Jewish heroes to match what our own revenge-driven imaginations have conjured upon occasion in fury over the tremendous inhumanity of the holocaust. But for one thing, most of our minds aren't nearly as twisted as Quentin's. The realization of his little Nazi-killing fantasy is--dare I say it--akin to the Nazis' actual brutality. And it is this clear parallel between the real Nazis and Quentin's Jews that has yielded the much felt if seldom said discomfort here in Israel.

But first off, we must recognize that these uncomfortable comparisons reside in, of all places, the Tarantinoverse, where bombastic Mexican Standoffs, colorful dialogue that tends to revel in machismo and absurd pop-culture references are all a must. His work is notorious for its lack of conscience and a macabre sort of aesthetic--so am I just taking this all too seriously? What makes his latest different from the rest? Answer is: a lot. Because Basterds, while still undoubtedly a Tarantino film for all its flourishes, is also his most restrained and serious work to date. While the often cringe-worthy Brad Pitt scenes play more like farce, (and were the only part of the movie advertised) the rest is an intense dread-ridden exercise, especially the brilliant twenty-minute introduction where the Jew Hunter earns his moniker. In this way, Basterds is not so much a genre mash-up, as its fans claim, and more an unusual clash of moods and melodrama. If it were just a reversal of fortunes farce, featuring empowered Jews killing Nazis with glee, I'd probably feel more comfortable. Then I'd know it’s just a revenge-fantasy--a guilty pleasure. But because Tarantino strived to make a better movie, moral compass included, his punch-drunk conscience ends up casting some pretty disturbing aspersions on the Jewish people (even if in jest).

Let’s talk about Israel for a second. The Jewish state is accused of a variety of things on a regular basis: apartheid, genocide, and most recently: Nazism. Seems like a stretch, no? Comparing the Jews to those who murdered 6 million of them? Not to plenty of Arab (and one particularly outspoken Persian) leaders, who have called the Israeli military's treatment of Palestinians akin to the Nazis. I laugh at this comparison, because it is so absurd and also because I'm scared how many people around the world are starting to believe in it. I won't delve into the worldwide media's war on everything Israel, but I will say this: out of survival, the Jew has finally learned how to defend himself. We call this kind of Jew an Israeli. A lot of people aren’t pleased that Jews know how to finally stick up for themselves, and therefore do their best to villainize Israel. And one particularly popular and so far-fetched-it-makes-sense accusation is to call Israelis Nazis.

Now what does this have to do with Inglourious Basterds?Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz called it, "...bad news for the Jews. Tarantino seems to think if more Jews had acted like his basterds--sadistic and degenerate--then more might have survived the holocaust." And they add, "Just what Israel needs: more comparisons of Jews to Nazis." We wouldn't be so sensitive to these outlandish parallels if we weren't being accused of acting like Nazis by our neighbors. Basterds probably isn't trying to paint all empowered Jews as big bag cold-blooded brutes, but it does. It's as harmful to the Israeli Jew as Oliver Twist and Merchant of Venice were to those in the Diaspora.

This brings up an important if over-asked question: what, really, is good for the Jews? What is good for Israel? I recently sat down with a bunch of sociable if somewhat agro settlers and we discussed the 2008 Israeli docu-animation Waltz With Bashir. They explained that because it depicts Israel in a negative light, it is bad for Israel. I disagree. To me, it is a sign of country's maturity that we are able to criticize ourselves, and a marvel that a democracy allows this creative expression to thrive. Criticism is good, even if hard to hear. What isn't good for Israel are the reinforced stereotypes of violent Jews, which Basterds happens to have an abundance of. On one occasion in the film, the Jew Hunter refers to the band of basterds as "terrorists" and on another Jews strap dynamite to themselves and blow up a building. The comparisons here to Arab suicide bombers are particularly anachronistic and unsettling, no less.

I don't think Quentin Tarantino went out of his way to hurt Israel's image. There are plenty of people I've talked to (including the same settlers from above) who loved the movie, based simply on how entertaining it is. Because a movie's purpose is not to be good for a people, but for an audience. And here Inglourious Basterds delivers. It opened last week in Israel to number one at the box office and has inspired a lot of vague word-of-mouth since that can't exactly be described as positive or negative. How it continues to fair here will be interesting but I expect that people will keep disagreeing with the Israeli critics who unanimously panned it, because most will just take it at face value as a fun Nazi-killing romp and fail to over-analyze it too much...even if they too have that nagging feeling that they probably should.

I watched the Israelis around me shift uncomfortably from time to time and sort of chuckle here and there and felt bad that I was the only one laughing so loud. Following the outrageous and sort of wonderful climax of Inglourious Basterds, I watched them get up and walk away, looking rather flabbergasted. I think they felt what I felt, that something just seemed off. It's hard to put your finger on it at first, until you realize how terribly insensitive it is for a film of this nature to have so demented a conscience. Sure, Inglourious Basterds borrows much of its ultra-simplistic moral center from the likes of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, where the goodness of the heroes is based less on what they do and more on what they wear. Sure, and that's just fine...except Inglourious Basterds, like all of Tarantino's films, is only paying homage in part. The rest of the film isn't zany enough to keep the revenge-fantasy going, isn't consistently intense enough to pass as a WWII thriller, and most importantly, it has no idea what it means to have Jews running amok, acting like Nazis. It's cool, OK. But what are the moral implications of a band of brutal holocaust-defying Jews changing world history? Does Tarantino know? No and he's probably hoping you won't ask him to explain.

The Top 10 Best Film Endings of 2008

2009-01-05T06:58:00.000-08:00

Obviously, Spoilers Ahead!!

10. Gran Torino - Clint Eastwood is Jesus!
Honestly, I didn't see it coming. When Clint's surprisingly funny and moving little picture, Gran Torino took a turn into the serious, it seemed unfortunately inevitable that it would have to end with an act of vengeance. Had that indeed been the case, it probably would have felt a little hollow and purpose-less; more a final chapter for Dirty Harry than an original ending. But Clint seemed to know better. Instead of going out with a bang, the ol' racist Walt Kolwaski doesn't even bring a gun to the final showdown, getting himself killed but saving his new neighbors from a terrible fate. Some critics felt this act of martyrdom was a bit overbearing for the film, but I found it a surprising and uplifting twist. It's just another reminder that our favorite old director knows better than letting a vigilante film end normally. Hats off to you, Mr. Eastwood.

9. Forgetting Sarah Marshall - Male Nudity is Very Funny
Not only was this one of the funniest films of the year (arguably way better than it's cousins: Pineapple Express, Step Brothers and Zach and Miri Make A Porno), it was also a surprisingly fair and well written look at how people really act in relationships. The writer and main star, Jason Segel, bravely bears all in both the beginning of the film and at the end. The different reactions of two separate women to both his vulnerability and hilarious nude form, are exactly what makes this movie a little smarter than you're average romantic comedy. Sarah, the girl he's getting over is completely uncomfortable with it while Rachel just bursts out into laughter and embraces him. That the recurring motif is the main character's nudity is funny enough. But the fact that he makes us want to hug him even in that state really says something about how well Sarah Marshall works.

8. Slumdog Millionaire - Nothing Like a Spontaneous Dance Scene!
Danny Boyle continues to astound with this visually stunning almost-bollywood romance that is most significantly a showcase for India's colorful slums. After waiting for two childhood lovebirds to reunite for a whole 2 hours of chases, Fagan-like thugs and familial betrayal, we finally get the beautifully photographed kiss that is the most romantic moment I've seen since Amalie's. When Slumdog finally reaches its heart-warming conclusion, the credits don't roll. They flash and become intertwined with an awesome dance scene that feels more Luhrman than Boyle. But it works and just shows how much joy and excitement really went into the film. The most uplifting film and ending of the year.
7. The Dark Knight - Gordon's Speech, Batman's Flight
At the end of The Dark Knight, possibly the greatest superhero adaptation ever made, the caped crusader decides to take the blame for Two Face's crimes. As he escapes a chase by those who owe him him everything, Lieutenant Gordon solemnly tells his son why they have to chase him: "Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight." Cut to black. The sad ending to a very bleak film suits both the character, his origins and the man behind the mask perfectly. Even though he's stopped the joker and saved countless lives, batman must still play the villain instead. Has a comic-book movie ever attempted to touch on issues of morality and heroism with such earnestness and complexity? No. This ending is a testament to the weighty dramatic choices made by mastermind, Christopher Nolan. All hail The Dark Knight.

6. Iron Man - "I am Iron Man."
Essentially the Ying to Batman's Yang, Iron Man was a fun light-hearted and surprisingly involving marvel movie. Perhaps it was the special effects or just the charm of the resurrected Robert Downey Jr., but something about the movie clicked with critics and audiences alike. One thing we take for granted with superheroes is that they have well kept secret identities. Tony Stark flipped that assumption completely on its head when he ended his press conference by admitting that he was their beloved new hero. And everybody in my movie theater was cheering along, understanding that this wasn't your typical action movie nor a typical superhero. We're all eagerly awaiting Iron Man's next outing.
5. Redbelt - A Man and His Pride
One of the most underrated films of the year was David Mamet's noirish tale about a proud Judo instructor. While not a perfect movie and definitely not one Mamet's best, it was a powerful portrayal of a man torn by duty and pride. The last scene of the film comes after a revelation that a highly publicized and respected match is fixed by the producers. So the protagonist (Chiwetel Ejiofor in a fantastic performance) tries to quit and gets into a a spirited fight outside of the ring. After winning, he slowly walks to the center and we expect some sort of speech when he motions for the microphone to be lowered. But instead, he is suddenly handed the red belt, the highest honor, by the master of his field and they embrace in a single shot that is a moving affirmation of honesty and honor. The drums beat quietly as it cuts to black. A stunning ending to a very good film.
4. Tropic Thunder - Tom Cruise AKA Lev Grossman
A completely ridiculous movie that is funniest at its most satirical, Tropic Thunder has one of the most disturbing dance scenes I have ever seen. For it's sheer ridiculousness and the surprise of seeing Tom Cruise in a fat suite, imitating a Jewish producer and then dancing around, it deserves a place on the list. Not to mention, that the faux-oscars before this now infamous scene were hilariously staged. The entire ending of this sometimes funny movie is so good, that it bagged Tom Cruise a golden globe nomination. And now he's in talks with execs about a whole movie based on the character of Lev Grossman. Note to self: if ever in desperate need of a comeback, just put on a fat suit and dance to rap songs. Nicely done, Tom!

3. Burn After Reading - It's All Pointless
I enjoyed seeing the Coen Brothers back in familiar territory with Burn After Reading, free of the overbearing gravitas of No Country with a story about stupid people doing stupid things. This time around, they took the conspiracy thriller and gave it a good shake up with the cynical black humor seen in so many of their best films. The ending I especially loved because everybody ends either up dead or screwed and for no real reason. This movie, while seemingly one of their most light-hearted, is actually a rather bleak and absurd vision of human motivations. Everyone is working in their own self-interest or driven by greed. In fact, only one character ends up achieving anything and only due to dumb luck. The two CIA officials sitting together at the end of the film, trying to figure out what the hell really happened are about as confused as we are. So they decide to just ignore it and move on with their lives, reminding we the audience how insignificant and irrelevant most of life essentially is. It's the Coen Brothers, alright and they are mad (and funny) as ever.

2. The Mist - The Twist
I don't care if you liked this movie or you didn't. I do concede that the CGI monsters within the mist were a bit of a let-down, but no one can honestly say that they saw Frank Darabont's improved ending to the Stephen King story coming. After fleeing the refuge of a supermarket, a father and son along with two others manage to safely make it to a car. Driving around for ages, they see that the whole world has been covered by this mist and that the monsters roam everywhere. Figuring that there is no hope left and carrying a gun with 3 bullets, the father decides that they will commit suicide together. He kills the others, including his own son and then steps out of the car, ready to be devoured by some creature...only it isn't a beast that comes. It's a truck with soldiers and survivors, followed by helicopters that have apparently defeated the monsters and are clearing the mist. Realizing that he just murdered 3 people when all was about to be saved, the man lets out a mighty shriek. And that's how it ends. Bleak? Yes. Great twist? Hell yes.

1. Waltz With Bashir - When The Animation Stops
It's no coincidence that the two best films of the year are both visually stunning...and animated. I'm talking about Pixar's Wall-E and the Israeli Docu-Animation, Waltz With Bashir. The latter is a true story as told by Ari Folman and his fellow ex-soldiers who took part in the 1982 War in Lebanon. With a beautiful if frightening use of the comic-like anime to show the direct truths along with the surreal, Forman eventually comes to learn the awful truth his mind has been concealing. What we come to learn as the film nears it's end is that he and much of the IDF were partly responsible for the Sabra and Shatila massacre by Christian Phalangists. When we reach this moment, Folman suddenly cuts to real images and actual footage. This isn't some cheap film method. It's a deeply effective means for the audience to confront the brutal truth, after basking in Folman's vividly painted disturbing imagery. It's a final reminder that this isn't just some animated film; this really happened. It leaves you shaking in dread and guilt and haunted by a conclusion you are unlikely to ever forget. Go see Waltz With Bashir now.

Contemplating a Spielberg/Smith Oldboy

2008-11-07T07:59:00.000-08:00

If you haven't read or heard the news that Steven Spielberg and Will Smith are in talks for an American remake of Oldboy, then I hate to be the one to break it to you. That's right, as reported by Variety, Chan Wook-Park's bleak brilliant Korean tale of vengeance is being given an American makeover by two of the biggest names in Hollywood. And the loyalists to the original (including myself) couldn't be more enraged. We're screaming via film blogs and IMDB threads the same question over and over: How could they?! Has Spielberg actually fallen to such an unimaginable low, even after assisting George Lucas in the revamped rape of Indiana Jones?! Not to mention Will Smith's knack for reducing brilliant source material into big budget hollywood garbage (see I Am Legend or I, Robot). To hand these two men Oldboy feels like pure cinematic sacrilege.
But the fact of the matter is, our beloved Korean bloodfest will be remade. If not by Spielberg than by Justin Lin (The Fast and The Furious) or somebody else. So once we stop bitching, once we just accept the fact that there is no god and American remakes of Asian classics are inevitable, there is something else to consider. What would Oldboy as conceived by Spielberg and Smith actually resemble?

For those who haven't seen the original, the story revolves around Oh Dae-Su, a seemingly normal man who is kidnapped and imprisoned for 15 years without knowing why. Once he is finally released, he embarks on a twisted journey of vengeance only to find that he may not be the only one doing so. That would be a rather flat synopsis for the complex, philosophically musing, character deconstruction that is Oldboy. Though it borrows some of its atmosphere and setting from the best of Fincher and is an almost retelling of Oedipus Rex, the rawness and lingering haunting aftertaste of this demented morality tale has yet to be matched. Oldboy is one of a kind. So with that in mind, how would the American version play out?

Firstly, I've always felt that if this movie HAD to be remade, it should be in the hands of someone like Darren Aronofsky, Christopher Nolan or David Fincher. They are some of the few quality American directors able to compete with Chan Wook-Park as far as that unique visual storytelling is concerned. They each also have a penchant in darker work, where the line between good and evil is deeply obscured. Aronofsky's Pi, Nolan's Memento and Fincher's Se7en are all testaments to that. But Spielberg? Needless to say, he's a brilliant filmmaker. I don't need to explain how he essentially created the blockbuster with Jaws, how his character of Indiana Jones inspired a generation of Halloween costumes, how E.T. and all his other Sci-Fi work resurrected the genre, or how he showed a prominent adult side with Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan. We all know how incredible a man Steven Spielberg is. But that doesn't make him the right guy for Oldboy.

The problem, as most of us see it, is that he's just too...schmaltzy. His films tend to be heartwarming or endearing stories driven by empathetic leads. This makes him very good at moving people to tears or to laughter, because what Spielberg does best is tell a story we can all wrap our heads around. His use of the camera is rather straightforward and old fashioned, making him films accessible to almost everyone. In fact, I can only think of three occasions in his career where he didn't try to make everybody feel comfortable: Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan and Munich. These also happen to be his most visually bold and self-assured films; there's no winking at the audience in any of them. I was especially surprised by Munich. It was dark material for such a usually light-hearted fellow and he took chances, received criticism and ended up with a very mature modern vision of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This willingness to push his own limits after such an already long and successful career is what excites me. Would he be willing to push himself even further for a Korean remake? Yes, I think he just might.

Spielberg has always been drawn towards stories about outsiders, family issues and the blending of reality and fantasy...which actually kind of fits the mold of Oldboy. Although it's far bleaker than anything he's touched before, more demanding visually than any of the CGI he's mastered, I think there's a reason he wants to make the movie. The question is, how's he going to go about doing it? Well, there are basically two choices when it comes to a remake. Either you make it an almost exact adaptation, true in every way to the prior work or you take chances and adapt it so that it pays homage while doing something independent of the original. Both ways can end up pretty horrendously. Gus Van Sant's Psycho is possibly the most gigantic failure as far as the "exact" remake is concerned. And then there's the "loose" remake, which has plenty of awful examples including Chris Rock's Down to Earth, which is somehow based on Warren Beaty's classic Heaven Can Wait (which is also a remake strangely enough). So when it comes to Oldboy, which way is Spielberg going to go?

My guess is that he's smart enough to understand that a completely honest remake would just not work. Part of it has to do with the cultures. Oldboy is very much an Asian film. For one, there is the infamous live octopus-eating scene. Try doing that in the States. Or the brilliant blend of black humor and disturbing violence which most Americans just cannot pull off. I'm assuming Spielberg would have to change the setting drastically, in order to stray from the feeling that the cast is trying to be Asian (unless he sets it in Chinatown!). But I think he'd also change aspects of Oldboy that we loyalists deem important. He would strip away many of the surreal scenes including a less brutal disfiguring of Oh Dae-Su's psyche when in captivity (less suicide attempts?), the big ant on Mi-Do's train, and Woo-Jin Lee's bizarre acrobatics mainly because it wouldn't translate as naturally to American audiences. The lofty philosophical aspects would probably be cut too, in order to make the story more emotionally driven. Then there's the blood issue. I'm willing to bet that Spielberg would tone down a lot of the gore including cutting out the hammer-torture scene. Also, you could expect more of Oh Dae-Su's voice overs, though less cryptic than before (so as to make you understand his intentions better). The American Oldboy would likely be more a whodunit thriller than it's predecessor. You might therefore see more building of tension between the two leads; mainly a more villainous less empathetic Woo-Jin Lee. These are all touches I could see Spielberg implementing and I haven't even gotten to the ending. So on that note...

SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!!

This is what has most of us so scared. The big bad finale as we all know includes incest, a tongue getting cut out, and virtually all pride and dignity stripped from the only character we care about. It's a brutal bloody affair that explains the intentions of Woo-Jin Lee and is as shocking as it grotesque. Now can you actually imagine Steven Spielberg recreating this scene? Would he really leave his audiences so hopeless and so...creeped out? It's just not very Spielberg, is it? But it's also the entire point of the film; the cutting of the tongue a physical representation for Oh Dae-Su's alleged sins. The discovery of incest is what makes Oldboy so tragically oedipal. It's an "Oh My Fucking God" moment, a twist that even if foreseen is breathtakingly horrifying. And I just cannot imagine this finale being any different. I am desperately afraid that Spielberg would somehow sugarcoat it if given the opportunity. Or that Will Smith's clout would somehow get in the way. Which brings me to my next point: what would Smith be like as Oh Dae-Su?

Firstly, I'm pretty sure they'd change his name. Then they'd be bound to make him a hellofalot more sympathetic, a character you feel emotionally drawn to (which is unlike Min Sik-Choi's intentionally polarizing portrayal). I've never really seen Will Smith act crazy before so that would be interesting. It is hard for me to imagine Smith cutting out his own tongue though. He's too superheroish now, too type-casted to really enact a man stripped of his honor. But then again, he's proved himself to be an impressive performer with Ali and The Pursuit Of Happyness. Maybe this would be a way of getting out of the box a little bit for him. Will Smith as Oh Dae-Su...your thoughts?

This is not the first and I doubt it'll be the last time that a great Asian film is remade. Scorsese won an Oscar for The Departed, his decent adaptation of the brilliant Chinese Infernal Affairs just two years ago. And maybe that inspired Mr. Spielberg to take on his own foreign remake. Many of us wish that he hadn't picked Oldboy though, that he had left this Korean masterpiece alone. Right now Spielberg's has 3 other scheduled films (Tintin, Lincoln, and Interstellar) before he can even touch Oldboy, so perhaps it'll just get shelved. But if this remake does indeed have to happen, at least it will be in relatively good hands. Just pray that Spielberg uses the original's haunting score, that the famous 4 minute fight scene is half as good, and finally that Will Smith is down with cutting his tongue off. Otherwise, Spielberg may have to worry about his own tongue.

The Almost James Bonds

2008-10-28T10:35:00.000-07:00

When you think back on the world's most beloved celluloid spy, it's hard to imagine anyone but Sean Connery starting the James Bond phenomena. But producers Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman didn't have it that easy. There were at least 15 candidates for the role of Agent 007, a ridiculous best bond contest (the winner ended up having no acting experience), and very little initial enthusiasm for the young Scottish actor. So to say it simply, we should be grateful that Dr. No was the gargantuan success it was and that the casting director was lucky enough to pick Connery. But this isn't about how much I love Ian Fleming's secret agent. This is remembering all those other would-be James Bonds that at some point had a chance to portray the spy in his 46 years of film fame...but didn't. So let's start at the beginning.

Ian Fleming wasn't an immediate fan of Sean Connery.
But he was so impressed with his work in Dr. No and the success of the films that he even paid homage to Connery by giving Bond some Scottish ancestry in his next bond book "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." But far before that, the casting for Dr. No was an unbelievable ordeal. The only reason Connery got the cake was because he apparently moved "like a cat". I'm not sure what that means but here are some of the others considered for the role: Cary Grant, David Niven (who was rejected for being too old and got his revenge by playing bond in the spoof Casino Royale), Steve Reeves, Trevor Howard, Richard Burton, Stanley Baker, Rex Harrison, and Richard Johnson. Interestingly enough, the producers aimed to follow Alfred Hitchcock's template in North by Northwest for Dr. No and proceeding films (helicopter scene in From Russia With Love is pure homage) and Cary Grant was therefore a serious candidate. But Grant didn't want to sign a three-film contract, and some felt he was too old for the part. So after initially being rejected by United Artists, Connery became Agent 007.

After 5 films playing Bond, Connery quit and the producers began searching again. They eventually ended up with an actor and film that are to this day either absolutely loved or hated vehemently: George Lazenby in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. But figuring out who they were going to replace the popular Connery with wasn't so easy. George Lazenby could have been...Jeremy Brett (who Broccoli liked in My Fair Lady), John Richardson, Hans de Vries, Robert Campbell, Anthony Rogers, Timothy Dalton or Roger Moore (the last two we would, of course, see again). The campaign was so ashamed to replace Connery with the somewhat meek-looking Lazenby, that many ads for the film didn't even show his face or mention the casting change. Perhaps that added to Lazenby's decision to turn down a 7-picture deal...or it could have had to do with his feeling that the character of Bond was too out of touch with the newly liberated 70's. Even after signing a letter of intent for the lead role in Diamonds are Forever, he still refused to reprise his role. Talk about one stubborn hippie. (SIDE-NOTE: Two almost bonds so far had the names Richard Johnson and John Richardson)

Next up for the role of Mr. Bond was an American actor named John Gavin...except we don't remember him because Broccoli got cold feet at the last minute and decided to get Sean Connery back. He only had to pay him 1.25 million dollars, a ridiculous sum for Connery's 6th and final Bond film, Diamonds are Forever. Before all of this was decided though, there were a few other interesting 007 candidates to mention. Michael Gambon was asked but confessed that he had "tits like a woman" and was not in the right shape for the role (that's right, Dumbledore was almost James Bond). And even Adam West (as in BATMAN!) was approached but had the decency to remind the producers that only Brits should take on Bond. So it ended up being Connery's last gig, though he was offered an unbelievable 5.5 million dollars to come back for Live and Let Die. So once again Bond producers found themselves searching for a new James Bond.

John Gavin, Timothy Dalton and Jeremy Brett were all considered once again for the next film Live and Let Die. But then United Artists said they wanted an American so somehow Burt Reynolds, Paul Newman and Robert Redford were brought up...before somebody (thankfully) rememebered that that makes no sense. Julian Glover and Michael Bilington were also almost Bonds, the latter very close to nabbing the role and considered a backup in the following years in case the ultimate winner, Roger Moore, refused to return for a sequel. But that wouldn't happen seeing as Moore starred in more Bond films (7) than any actor so far for (Billington would return as a minor villain in The Spy Who Loved Me though). The producers now knew that trying to hide the casting change was a mistake so Moore's Bond was given a complete makeover in (a more tongue-in-cheek) attitude, choice of drinks, and apparel (no more hats). It would be 12 long yeas before he would be replaced (unless you consider the unofficial NON-Eon Production Never Say Never Again which starred Connery again in 1983 competing with Moore's Octupussy). After a while, even Moore started noticing he looked old so A View to Kill marked his farewell to the series.

Which brings us to The Living Daylights where Bond was to be played by...who? Pierce Brosnan, Sam Neill, Mel Gibson, Mark Greenstreet, Lambert Wilson, Antony Hamilton, Findlay Light, Andrew Clark, and Sean Bean were all considered...then it was decided that Brosnan would be the new Bond following the finale of his TV program "Remington Steele". But we know that didn't happen. That's because NBC decided to throw a 5th season and attempted to negotiate with Broccoli on sharing Brosnan. He refused so Brosnan continued with his show and another actor was chosen: the earlier candidate Timothy Dalton. This was his 3rd time being approached to play the world's favorite 00, and his initial excuses that he was too young no longer checked out. So he worked with it, turning Moore's light portrayal into a darker, more sinister Bond. His next film License to Kill would be his last, and would give the series a 6 year break including the death of legendary producer Albert R. Broccoli.

And then there was Goldeneye. Schindler (Liam Neeson), William Wallace (Mel Gibson again), the Jurassic Park guy (Sam Neill), and that toothy sonofabitch (Hugh Grant...no I'm not kidding) were all considered. But it went to the ol' favorite who now had time to take the role, Mr. Pierce Brosnan and everybody LOVED him. His natural charm and willingness to not take the role too seriously let some of the forced grvitas of the series go for a more fun action-packed ride. Most critics considered Brosnan to have revamped the series. He would go on to make 3 more Bond films, each becoming a little less popular as the writing became too dependent upon gadgets and lazy CGI. He did consider returning for another film but was thought to be too old by that point (53 years old). So the people behind EON began yet another search.

4 years went by until the series was again resurrected with what is considered to be the best Bond film since From Russia With Love, 2006's Casino Royale. Apparently 200 people were considered for the reprisal of Bond including Julian McMahon, Hrithik Roshan, Dominic West, Gerard Butler, Goran Visnjic, Clive Owen, Sam Worthington, Alex O'Loughlin, Rupert Friend, and Henry Cavill (who was especially liked but too young). The man that Barbara Broccoli wanted though was Daniel Craig after seeing his mob thriller, Layer Cake. Much of the fandom was outraged, blogging incessantly about the ridiculousness of a blonde bond, some creating websites trying to petition the choice. It was a huge upset for much of the public. But then the first trailers were released, revealing a 007 that we haven't seen before. Craig turned Bond into a Post-Bourne realistic update of the original source material by Ian Fleming. He started Bond over and Royale made much more money than the past 20 films in the series, not to mention its critical sucess. Craig returns in a few days with Quantam of Solace (there was zero consideration for casting changes) and plans to take our gritty new MI6 operative more seriously than even Dalton for a world that has no time or need for campy James Bonds. The almost Bonds will have to wait a while before struggling to be the man that defines our idea of Spy again. But it will happen. A series that has made $11,615,711,960 alone ain't going anywhere soon.

The Top 10 Best Actor-turned-Directors

2008-10-10T08:48:00.000-07:00

What happens when the man in front of the camera decides to take a detour behind it? Sometimes the results are good...sometimes, not so good. But this Top 10 is dedicated to those actors who made a smooth transition into directing. Before I begin, I should mention that Charlie Chaplin, Rob Reiner, Woody Allen, Kenneth Branagh and countless others do not count as their dual careers began either simultaneously or almost so. And I tried not to include any freshman (Ben Affleck, Zach Braff, Tommy Lee Jones) because comparing a single film to a body of work is just unfair. With that out of the way, I present you with the 1st of many Top 10s!

10. Jon Favreau
Swingers was Jon Favreau's (almost) first film. A hilarious little comedy for the sorry-for-himself everyday male, it characterized a generation subtly, smartly, and with a career-making performance from Vince Vaughn. Made, a bigger effort with less results and the same cast, was its semi-sequel and Favreau's directorial debut. Although a bit amateurish, the movie showed some promise for a man who probably should have always been behind the camera instead. Someone else must have noticed his talents too, because two years later Favreau was directing Will Ferrel's surprise-hit and child-friendly Elf. Using CGI confidently and evoking great performances out of his actors, Favreau got to know the Box Office very well (173 million gross in the U.S. alone). Then there was Iron Man. It was one of the biggest (again surprise) hits of the 2008 Summer with critics and audience alike and almost single-handedly resurrected Robert Downey Jr.'s reputation in Hollywood. No one's called Favreau a sellout because even his biggest films retain the good humor, quick pace, and winking cameos that are attributed to his work. His next project? Iron Man 2!

9. Kevin Costner
Everyone and I mean EVERYONE knows how shitty Waterworld is. That movie alone had me seriously considering cutting Costner from this list...but only because he redeemed himself (slightly) with 2003's Open Range do I restrain myself. But let's go back a bit. I don't think anybody saw Dances With Wolves coming. It reinvented the Western in an utterly unique fashion, took cliches and made them tender plot anchors, and mostly showed off Costner's incredible skill with the Epic film. It's almost hard to believe that this stunningly photographed homage to David Lean was a debut...but it was and went on to win a whopping 7 Academy Awards (including best picture). But then in 1995 there was Waterworld, a film with a 175 million budget and an 88 million gross A.K.A. one of the biggest flops of all time. 2 years later Costner tried and failed to redeem himself with the mediocre Postman. Maybe he was a one-time-wonder behind the camera. Perhaps, Costner wasn't meant to direct anymore. But then in 2003 he released a good ol' fashioned Western that changed most minds. Open Range made us take Costner seriously again. The gunfight towards the climax is to this day one of the best I've seen and the performance Costner coaxes out of Robert Duvall really is remarkable. So as much as I hate to admit it, Costner deserves a place on this list.

8. Barbara Streisand
Yes, Babs has only made 3 films. 2 of them are good. One is superb and that one is why she is on this list. I'm talking about The Prince of Tides, possibly the most under-appreciated psycho-drama I have ever seen. It's hard to forget Nolte and Streisand's chemistry, but even harder to forget that terrible flashback that Streisand had the bravery to film in a straight-forward fashion. She honed her craft her by delving into emotional stories without ever simplifying or overdoing her camera work. And most significantly, she knew how to make you forget that she was in dual-mode. You don't think "Oh wow, she is acting and directing" because the story and telling of it are so engrossing. Tides was nominated for 7 Academy Awards and somehow didn't win a single one. As for her other work, both films are well done. Yentl may not be everybody's cup of tea, but for one of Mandy Patinkin's only good roles on the screen and the music alone it's worth a watch. Her last film, The Mirror Has Two Faces stands the test of time with a complicated romance and an earnest attempt from Streisand to never belittle each character's motivations. She hasn't made a movie since 1996 but nevertheless remains on this list as the only actress-turned-director noted.

7. Sean Penn

Sean Penn is a depressing guy. But whether or not you like any the four films he has directed, you can at least appreciate his talent and his motivations. Penn's debut, The Indian Runner most clearly exhibits this fact. It's about two brothers. One is responsible, the other is always getting himself into trouble. But Penn never says it so simply. Neither characters are consistently good or bad and there are no easy solutions for either of them. Penn knows very well how to convey these conflicted souls and he gently pushes subtle performances from all his actors, lead and supporting. Although neither of his next two films were as powerful, The Crossing Guard and The Pledge were not afraid of emotional complexities, moving what could have been average revenge thrillers onto a higher level. Nicholson who stars in both, understands Penn's direction, and plays his characters almost too subtly to be appreciated. I get the impression that I'm watching Jack, not Freddy Gale or Jerry Black and that's unfortunate because they are both memorable movies. Penn's latest film is possibly his most accomplished. Into the Wild is the true story of a young college graduate who decides to abandon everything, throw away his identity, and venture into the Alaskan wilderness. This is Penn's lightest film in that it has faith in the goodness of its protagonist. It really is a treat to see him working with a completely different kind of script, and experimenting a bit with the story's structure. It should have been nominated for more than 2 Academy Awards but "such is the way of the world" as Eddie Vedder's brilliant original soundtrack muses. Penn doesn't have any work lined up but I'm hoping he will soon.

6. George Clooney
Clooney is new to directing. In the past 6 years (out of a 30-year career) he has made three films. Each is shockingly different from the other and shows off a versatile hand behind the camera. His ability to pull off different genres is impressive but I've yet to see any trademark in his direction; it's as if he's a great copycat of other work without much personal ingenuity. But let's talk about the movies themselves. First there's his bizarre biopic of the notorious Chuck Barris, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind notably written by Charlie Kaufman. The film blends a very sad reality with the man's wild imagination seamlessly. The Reality TV mastermind and sleazy host was also a hitman during the Cold War?! Clooney knows it's bogus and has a lot of fun taking Barris's word and world literally. He directs confidently; taking chances where most wouldn't, trusting Kaufman's sometimes intricate plot devices and it shows. Next up was his best work so far, Good Night, and Good Luck. The war of words between the century's most important journalist Edward R. Murrow and Senator Joseph McCarthy is captured here with intensity, intelligence, and deep insight seemingly crafted from a mature director's hand. But it's Clooney behind (and in front of) the camera. He's created an atmospheric black and white docudrama that feels thrilling and important even by today's standards. Luck was nominated for 6 Oscars and robbed (especially in the Actor's category where David Strathairn should have taken gold). Clooney's last film, Leatherheads is a flawed little screwball comedy and an homage to the 1950's easy breezy hollywood feel. He nailed that aspect but delivered a mediocre if fun movie. Clooney can do better and hopefully will, as long as he tries to be a director and less a duplicator.

5. Warren Beatty
I, for one, love Dick Tracy. Yeah, it's story sucks...and yeah, you don't really give a crap about what happens to anybody in the movie...but it's SO GODDAMN COOL!! It practically is the reason Sin City exists. Yes, even to today's mammoth standards Dick Tracy is visually stunning, noirish, campy comic book fun and that's what all the critics seemed to forget. Warren Beatty was just having a great time making it. If you really want to judge this actor turned impressive director, look at his other work...like Heaven Can Wait. It's an upbeat screwball comedy with a satirical twist about a professional football player who dies but is allowed to resume life in another body. Not only was its premise creative, Beatty allowed some serious questions to be asked along the way. He directed this debut with grace and a certain smoothness that most beginners lack, also willing to take chances with his visual flair. Maybe that's why it was nominated for 9 oscars (winning only one for art direction, tsk). Next up for Beatty was something so different from all his other work, so surprising in it's very nature that he walked away with a little golden man for it: Reds. It is an epic portrayal of the roots of communism, a romance hinting of homage to Lean's Zhivago, a melodramatic knockout that few directors ever attempt to touch. For this alone, Beatty deserves a place on this list.

4. Robert Redford
Redford was a pretty boy until he got behind the camera. In 1980 he slapped everybody who never took him seriously in the face with his emotionally draining directing debut, Ordinary People (based off Judith Guest's novel). This domestic drama about a suburban family torn apart by a terrible accident is to this day one of the most intimate character studies ever made in celluloid. Redford is so confident, steady, and relentless with the rawness of the material. He paints a portrait so vivid in fact, he'll never be able to top it again. His next two films, The Milagro Beanfield War and A River Runs Through It, were both good by most critical standards, but neither have ever really impressed me. Especially River, a laboriously slow adaptation that tugs at the heartstrings 'til they're sore (plus who really gives a damn about flyfishing?!). Then in 1994 Redford released Quiz Show, a ruthless little satire on show business in the vein of Network. But it was more grounded than that; it was more a history lesson than thriller. And as entertaining as it was biting, Redford showed a darker more cynical side to his film-making and, of course, everybody rejoiced. Unfortunately, it would be for the last time. His next three films went farther and farther downhill. It started with the weepy Horse Whisperer, an earnest but old fashioned effort and got campier with The Legend of Bagger Vance. It wasn't until 2007 though that Redford fell into the political zoo with Lions and Lambs, a cheap self-righteous Iraq thriller. So maybe he's gone a bit downhill in the past few years, but that doesn't change his status as one of our best actor turned directors.

3. Ron Howard
If I told you that the ugly red-headed guy in "Happy Days" was going to become one of Hollywood's most successful and critically acclaimed directors back in 1974, would you believe me? No and that's partly what gets Ron Howard so high up on this list. Believe it or not, his directorial debut was some garbage called Grand Theft Auto. (Wonder if it has anything to do with the game? It doesn't.) But where did his career really begin? With 1984's Splash, a silly romantic comedy about a mermaid and a confused-looking Tom Hanks. Today, it may be the most dated 80's comedy you could find yourself watching but it still charms because Howard got such great performances out of his leads. His next two big movies were Cocoon, a Sci-Fi Spielbergish delight, and the ambitious forgotten fantasy, Willow. Howard was establishing himself as an entertainer, a big-budget kind of guy until Parenthood came along. By all means a smaller scale dramedy, Parenthood surprised critics and audiences alike with its accessibility and Howard's graceful transition into a new genre. It is to this day, one of Steve Martin's best films. Ron Howard became a regular director (not so much an actor), with blockbusters like Backdraft, Apollo 13 and Ransom. Though it wasn't until 2001, that he became a "serious" filmmaker. Teaming up with Russel Crowe for the first time, he made A Beautiful Mind about the famously troubled mathematician John Nash. Blending the schizophrenic visions with the real, Howard took what could have been a simple biopic and turned into an almost psychological thriller. His efforts were payed off with an Oscar for best director along with 3 other wins and 4 more nominations. In 2005 he teamed up with Crowe again to wow not nearly enough audiences with his boxing film, Cinderella Man. He's had his flops--Edtv, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, The Da Vinci Code--to name a few. But his good work outnumbers the bad giving Ron Howard one of the longest and most prolific careers as an actor turned director.

2. Mel Gibson
Is he insane? Yes, I'm pretty sure he is. Is he brilliant? Yes, I'm pretty sure he is. This is one cinematic example of genius blending with madness, an actor and director so talented yet so consumed by anger and bloodlust that his films directly reflect his psyche. He has directed 4, only 4 films. His first effort was a tranquil little movie (despite what its title might suggest) called The Man Without A Face, a "don't judge a book by its cover" kind of story that he released in 1993, following his famous rehab disappearance for alcohol abuse. It's a very good directorial debut, a confident piece of work but nothing to suggest greatness. Then two years later, Braveheart had heads spinning. A violent fictional retelling of the life of William Wallace, the leader of the Scottish rebellion against the British in the 13th century, Braveheart redefined what a War film should be. Although a simplistic vision of a very complicated time, Gibson's spirited direction and gritty scenes of warfare inspired a whole new wave of epics from Troy to Kingdom of Heaven. It was nominated 10 times by the Academy and won 5 including best picture and director. 9 years passed before Gibson got into the director's chair again, allowing him to come to terms with his religiousness. This may explain The Passion of the Christ, a truly brutal depiction of the death of Jesus and one of the most controversial movies of all time. It was called Anti-Semitic, a bloodbath, unholy among other things but no one can deny what a visually stunning, deeply moving portrayal of the religious figure it surely was. His use of the original language Aramaic and incredible (expensive) reinvention of Jerusalem added an authenticity to the film that every other Christ-related movie had lacked. But 2 years later his best and maybe most bloody film to date was released: Apocalypto. Again controversial for its blurring of historical accuracy, the film was an adrenaline-pumped story of the Mayan empire's collapse. Filmed entirely with unknowns, Apocalypto was a return to brutal brilliant form, allowing Gibson to experiment with his shooting technique and his depiction of primitive action sequences. It was nominated for 3 Oscars and strangely received a foreign film nomination at the Golden Globes. Gibson may be crazy but he sure as hell knows how to make a movie work. He is literally a cinemaniac.

1. Clint Eastwood
Ah yes, the old man. Eastwood began acting in 1955. Famous for his Spaghetti Westerns and the Dirty Harry series, he was a typecast actor with only a few good movies to his name. In the early 70's he decided to try directing but contrary to popular belief, it was not an immediate success story for Clint. In fact, during his first 20 years behind the camera he directed 15 films and not one of them received any significant attention. It wasn't until 1992 that there was a shift in the man's reputation, that Eastwood became the respected director he is today. It was all because of Unforgiven. What everyone expected to be 'just another Western' was the very antithesis of that stereotype. Eastwood took his reputation, the very movies that made him famous, and gave them the middle finger with this cynical disillusioned cowboy story. Unforgiven was great for many reasons but most significantly for the shock value in Eastwood's role reversal. He essentially said that the Western was dead. And there was no one better suited to killing that genre than Clint if you ask me...or the Academy it seems because this gained him his first Oscar. But following this good year were a number of forgettable films--some decent, some mediocre--that had people thinking Unforgiven was a flook for the director...until Mystic River came along in 2003. A bleak beautifully photographed murder mystery about three old friends reunited by a tragedy, River proved Eastwood's worth behind the camera yet again. Then only two years later, he released another film; his most startlingly sensitive project yet: Million Dollar Baby. In this seemingly generic boxing movie, Clint took risks with a very taboo subject matter, showed an emotional sensitivity no one thought he had in him and gave the best performance of his career. For all these reasons he got his second Academy Award. Next, like any good director, he tried his hand at the war pic...twice with a film about Iwo Jima from each perspective. Both were very well done--the Japanese Letters even more so. His next film Changeling comes out this year!
What makes Clint the best actor turned director on this list is not his age; it's the quality of the films themselves. The 5 great films he has made in the past 14 years surpass the best work most do in their entire lifetime. Who could have guessed that Clint Eastwood, a man who's been acting for half a century would become a director of such scope and talent so late into his life?
I don't know about you but when I saw Million Dollar Baby, I had to remind myself that this is the same guy that once growled, "You've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?"
Who knew he had it in him?