Hey, Head Geek...
"Moriarty" here.
It recently occurred to me, Harry, that there are many
times I get a piece of information that doesn't merit
a whole spy report, but it's worth passing along in
some form. There are also thoughts and ideas that I'd
love to share with the AICN readers that aren't tied
to just one project. As a result, I've decided to try
my hand at a regular column in addition to my review
contributions for the page.
So, without further ado, I'd like to welcome everyone
to the first of what I hope will be many Rumblings
From The Moriarty Labs. You'll be able to find me
every Tuesday morning, right here. Hopefully I'll be
able to make it worth your while to check... not like
you wouldn't be here anyway, of course.
When you consider the rather exhaustive research
resources employed here at the Moriarty Labs, it
doesn't seem possible for something to slip in under
the radar. When it does, though, it can be
delightful. At the beginning of this past weekend, I
had just such a surprise, and I had to share my
excitement with you.
Many fans were surprised when George Lucas pierced his
own veil of secrecy by releasing the novelization of
THE PHANTOM MENACE at the beginning of May, weeks
before the film's release. None of that really
mattered to hardcore fans, though, since most of the
film's secrets were readily available to anyone with
Internet access and had been for months.
By contrast, Stanley Kubrick's EYES WIDE SHUT has been
a black hole of buzz. The same few tired rumors
(they're married psychiatrists, she's on heroin,
Harvey's supposed reason for being fired) have been
reported to death. Aside from the fact that the film
is based loosely on Arthur Schnitzler's TRAUMNOVELLE,
nothing of any substance has been leaked.
Seriously. Nothing.
I've searched everywhere, and there has been nothing
to find. I admire Kubrick and his collaborators for
their ability to shut out the world. The images we've
seen have all been sanctioned by Kubrick, released on
his timetable. That first 90 second teaser image that
he designed specifically for ShoWest was bold, simple,
and unforgettable. It also smacked of Kubrick, both
in look and in the unsettling mood of the piece. The
second longer trailer, the one that was actually
released to theaters, is hypnotic, the best example of
a real tease I've seen lately. Who knows what these
images add up to? It doesn't matter, really. Again,
he's selling mood, feel, and look, and it's
spectacular. Whether it's that uncomfortable shot of
Leelee Sobieski in her underwear or the haunting shots
of the people in masks, or even Tom Cruise in the
morgue looking at someone's body, there's real malice
lurking just offscreen, and it's wonderful.
This weekend, though, something finally broke the
silence. In fact, it was like the floodgates broke
all at once. I picked up the new issue of ROLLING
STONE, the one with the ridiculously sexy layout of
Nicole Kidman shot by Herb Ritts, and I also found a
book that I didn't know was coming, the Frederic
Raphael memoir EYES WIDE OPEN, a phenomenal look at
his take on the process of working with Kubrick.
The STONE article is very good. Nancy Collins did a
wonderful job of drawing Kidman out about the film,
getting her to talk about Kubrick. It's obvious from
the interview that Kidman is still dealing with the
emotional fallout from the maestro's death, but she
does paint quite a portrait of him. One of the most
fascinating things in that article is the idea that
Kidman and Cruise had a better relationship with
Kubrick than any of his earlier actors for one simple
reason: they handed themselves over to his process
completely. One of the things you always here is how
people would clash with him, resist his technique.
They either get fed up by his multiple takes or they
want to collaborate with him in a way he isn't
prepared to offer. Whatever the case, there's story
after story about how actors clashed with him. With
Cruise and Kidman, though, it sounds like they came to
play. They knew his reputation and they walked into
the film with their eyes open (no pun intended). They
wanted to see how he worked, and they were willing to
go where he led them. As a result, it sounds like he
genuinely warmed to them as a friend as well as a
colleague. You can practically feel how much she
misses him in every line of the interview. She also
dispels all the commonly held knowledge about the
film, saying they aren't psychiatrists, she isn't on
heroin in the film, and it's not wall-to-wall sex.
So what is it, then?
Well, Raphael's book holds the answer to that
question. I've read a few articles about this book,
most of them in response to the excerpt from it that
ran a week or so ago in THE NEW YORKER, and I'm amazed
that all anyone seems to care about is the idea of
Kubrick's Jewishness. Personally, I think this is
another case of the media needing to have something to
be up in arms about. Like the issue of race in THE
PHANTOM MENACE, this is preposterous, idle nonsense
that has nothing to do with the work being discussed.
Kubrick was Jewish. It was part of who he was. He
discusses it with his collaborator, but that's all.
Was he obsessed with it? Does Raphael treat him
unfairly? Did he like SCHINDLER'S LIST or not?
WHO CARES?!?!?! People, this is the man who wrote
Kubrick's last film, and he's offering us a peek
inside that process. I'd say Raphael had a fair
amount of affection for Kubrick, tempered both by awe
and a need to prove himself Kubrick's equal. The book
is not remotely about bashing Kubrick or dimming his
luster at all, though. It's a celebration of that
strange, unique mind that gave us masterwork after
masterwork. Personally, I loved the look at how he
approached Raphael, how he kept the identity of the
novel from him even after sending Raphael excerpts to
read, and how he would prod his co-writer (since this
is obviously a case of true collaboration) with
questions, not answers.
Mostly, though, I'm amazed that no one picked up on
the fact that the whole film is laid out in the book.
I have a hell of an idea as to the shape of the film
now. I know who The Free are. I know what the masks
are for. I have a good idea of who's in that morgue
and why. All of these tidbits are just nonchalantly
revealed in the book, along with dozens of others.
Now, I'm not going to just regurgitate the facts to
you... I want people to go out and find this book and
digest it. Then digest it again. It's remarkable,
and I think it is the closest many of us will ever
come to understanding something about one of the
greatest filmmakers ever.
I also recently read Thomas Harris' brilliant new
HANNIBAL, and I'm dying to see how Hollywood handles
the book. There's almost no way they're going to pass
on making the film, but if Harris has final approval
of the script, I sense a long and ugly development
process ahead. This is one of the most cinematic
books I've ever read, but no studio on earth has the
courage to take an audience into the heart of darkness
Harris has painted here. Personally, I'd love to see
Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins reteam for this duet,
and I'd love to see someone like Sam Raimi direct the
film. Ridley Scott couldn't be more wrong for this
material. His sensibilities could overwhelm the story
and the characters and turn a story about
psychological terror into another Hollywood "thrill
ride." Harris is after far more than thrills in this
book, though. I'm not going to expound much here. I
think Stephen King (get better, sir... please) did a
phenomenal job of writing about the book, and if you
want to read more on it, I'd recommend going to the
New York Times website and finding his review.
Amazing.
Actually, "amazing" seems to be a buzzword around the
Labs this weekend. We've been using it a lot since we
made our way to AMC's Burbank 14 theaters on Sunday
night so we could see a presentation of THE PHANTOM
MENACE using Texas Instruments' new digital projection
system. I first saw the system demonstrated at
ShoWest this spring, and thought it was amazing there.
Still, I was curious how it would be to see a whole
film that way. Since I've seen TPM something like a
thousand times now, I figured I'd be able to pick out
whatever subtle quality difference their might be.
Subtle, my ass. The demonstration was ravishing.
I've never seen a film that looked like it. The
colors were vivid and sharp, and the focus on the film
was impeccable, even during tricky pans or shots with
a lot of motion. There were shots that looked like
new moments. The brightness of the film, a problem
during some of the Theed sequences and the Jedi
Council scenes, was totally different this time. I
was able to see everything, but without the integrity
of the blacks being compromised at all. Overall, even
for those of you who were less than enthusiastic about
the film, I'd say it's worth a trip to see a print of
it as long as it's the TI system. I didn't like the
Cinecomm process in Vegas, and I've heard that the
print at the Winnetka 20 theater here in town is less
impressive. I'd believe it.
Last night on SISKEL & EBERT, Roger and his guest,
Todd McCarthy (lead critic for VARIETY and the maker
of the brilliant documentary VISIONS OF LIGHT) did a
segment about a new film process called MaxiVision
which they both claimed was the best projection
process they'd ever seen. There were a few digs in
the story directed at digital projection. Ebert asked
why we're all in such a rush to "watch TV in the
theater." All I can figure is that (A) MaxiVision is
amazing and (B) Ebert thinks that digital projection
is somehow related to video projection. I know it's a
common misconception, but there's no comparison
between the two. Now, I'm a film lover myself. I
think the process of printing light onto film using
nothing but chemicals is something akin to magic. I
love the look of film. There's a texture to it that's
unmistakable. If you'd asked me sight unseen which
process I was more excited about, I'd want the one
that keeps 35mm film as part of the process.
Hell, I still think MaxiVision sounds interesting. By
projecting the film at 48 frames per second and
increasing the actual frame size by 32 percent, and by
also eliminating the black space on the film, the
image is made clearer, larger, richer. If you also
factor in the new projectors designed to show the
process, it does sound amazing. It also sounds
expensive, though, and there's the rub.
See, whatever format we switch over to as the industry
standard (and there's a switch coming, folks...
believe it), it's going to cost money. The one that's
going to win is the one that makes more financial
sense in the long run. You don't have to be psychic
or "deep inside" to know that. Studios have never
been particularly concerned with art, and neither have
theater owners. They exhibit and manufacture art, but
they do it to make money. Knowing that, it's
practically a foregone conclusion that digital
projection is where we're headed. It cuts costs in
terms of prints and distribution. It evens the
playing field for smaller companies in many ways.
And when you see it, you will see why it's got people
so excited. Wow.
I'd like to close today by offering a preview of an
event that's taking place in Hollywood this weekend at
the Writer's Guild Theater at Doheny and Wilshire.
Although it's sponsored by Dockers Khakis, it seems
like the Classically Independent Film Festival is just
that... a nice look back at the past 20 years of the
Independent Feature Project. They're showing 10
movies, both new and old, and I'm planning to attend
(at the very least) BROKEN VESSELS, CHOOSE ME, FIVE
CORNERS, and RESTAURANT. Two of those I've seen, and
two of them I haven't. All the films on the bill are
interesting and worthwhile, though, and with tickets
running a mere $8 per program (there's several films a
night), how wrong can you go? There's also a panel
discussion on Saturday featuring such luminaries as
Lizzie Borden (WORKING GIRLS), Gregory Nava ( MI
FAMILIA, EL NORTE), Peter McCarthy (who directed
TAPEHEADS and I'M GONNA GET YOU SUCKA and produced SID
& NANCY and REPO MAN), Paul Bartel (you'd better know
who Paul Bartel is... EATING RAOUL, fer chrissakes!),
Carl Franklin (ONE FALSE MOVE and the sadly underrated
Mosely adaptation DEVIL IN A BLUE DRESS), as well as
others still to be confirmed. Check out the
www.dockers.com site for more details, and if you
come, just look for the Evil Genius surrounded by
mutant henchmen. That would be me.
I'll be sharing my reviews of SOUTH PARK, WILD WILD
WEST, ARLINGTON ROAD and more with you over the week
between now and my next column, so don't think this is
all you're going to be seeing from me. Until then...
"Moriarty" out.
