That Tim Burton directed Stehpan Sondheim's SWEENEY TODD ought to have been a marriage made in heaven. With Johnny Depp as the Demon Barber with the metaphoric extension of his EDWARD SCISSORHANDS into a razor, this ought to have been a layup. Unfortunately, SWENEY TODD is considerably short of heavenly.
In spite of an impressive production design, London rats and all, the demands of the film medium, no matter how stylized, still require more verisimilitude than a stage production. The absense of expository detail, the omission of "The Ballad if Sweeney Todd" only makes the incredible Sondheim score- which worked so well on stage- somewhat interruptive, no matter how much Johnny Depp is as a singer. Things that don't work on a literary lever that this truncated fim demends are the romance between the vagabond sailor and Joanna, and, since Burton is so intent on the Edwardian revenge theme, the ghoulish fun of the Sondheim original of Mrs. Lovett's entreprenurial bakery with cannibalistic pastries is mostly missing. And with the trimming of both plot and melolies, The climax of Sweeney Todd's tragic awareness seems underdeveloped. I did not feel for him at his moment of discovery and death.
Nevertheless, I liked the film The production design , as one might expct from Tim Burton, was outstanding. Both Depp and Bonham-Carter were effective, as were Alan Richman as the evil Judge and Mike Leigh stalwart Timothy Spall as the Beadle. And one cannot complain about the basic story and what remained of the Sondheim lyrics.
But - given the level of talent - and, indeed, genius, that went into the film, it is a disappointment.
LINDSAY SHAH SAYS:
"I walked into Sweeney Todd after a month of anticipation. Tim Burton is one of my personal heroes. Yes...his films are outward in their cartoonish darkness...but the way in which he creates a universe out of this could-be superficial aesthetic, I find multi-layered.
The music which the film began with seemed promising... I don't think I have to finish this sentence, but 'seemed' is the obvious key word.
The set design and costumes were flawless in their filthy, deconstructed style...simply what one expects walking into a Burton film. I felt that the style is too recycled by this film that the magic is left behind.
I felt myself desiring the inspiration that Burton gave me no choice but to own when these aesthetics were definitive.
The acting was not flawed, but this does not save the film. As with many of Burton's films, I felt that the story was secondary.
I long for the idyllic day when the amazing aesthetics of Burton merge with a writer who sees his universe in verse.
To conclude, I am an openly biased hater of musicals (!)
Here, at the beginning of the Boston Film Renaissance, comes one of its most ambitious projects, "12" a feature film with a cast and crew of hundreds, shot in film with seasoned professionals, all for a budget of under $25,000 (no taking advantage of the tax incentives here
Having worked out of Boston for several years on projects like FEVER PITCH and THE BROTHERHOOD, filmmakers Scott Masterson and Vladimir Manuti realized how much filmmaking talent Boston has - a talent that has largely gone unrecognized. They came up with the idea for "12," and assembled a group of filmmakers to do it.
"12" is a series of twelve 5-7 minute short films, each with a different locally based director.
It is structured around the months of the year. There are twelve directors, twelve separate stories. But the segments are developed after extensive meetings. Each segment must be shot in the designated month. Although the directors have a considerable degree of automony, each segment must have a shot of a certain tree in the Fenway area. And, some of the segments have overlapping characters. Nevertheless, the subjects and style differ widely. Some are dramatic, others comedic. One is a detective musical; another, shot last month, is a documentary about bees. Some of the filmmakers are making shorts that can stand alone while others are making films that might later be developed into feature film projects..Crews ave ranged from 3 to 30, and set locations, always with a view that they are Boston locations, have gone from one to 7.
For the organizers of the project, it has been an incredibile experience As the producers assembled the talent, they went for diversity. Many of the directors have had experience in the slick commercial/industrial field, with others, like Garth Donovan, have worked with low budget, hand held camera, Cassavetes-style film. They have all worked together, and, according to Scott Masteson, have learned from one another. It has been a truly collaborative project.
The hope is that not only will they have made an entertaining feature film, but one which will draw attention to the filmmaking talent that is here. This comes at a time when many of the creators of "12" are working on the crews of the big budgeted films that are being shot here, like the remake of THE WOMEN on which 12's Executive Producer Angela Manuti is working
The project has been an exhilerating one for the participantsl They have worked on one other's projects - one time a director, the next time a DP. All the directors and producers have been involved in the development of the project. In terms of both crew and cast, over 200 people have been involved. As Vladimir Manuti puts it, "it has been one of the greatest professional experiences of my life."
To read more of David Kleiler's thoughts, go to www.local sightings.com Local Sightings helps independent films get made, sold and seen.
Last week, there was a front-page article in the Boston Globe about Emerson College's expansion of its Hollywood program.
That's good for Emerson, but the expansion of the program is based as much on fantasy than reality, and it comes at as time when film production activity, both from within and without the State is increasing.
It is true that Emerson's program has increased and improved over the last twenty years (I taught there at the beginning of the expansion) and a lot of Emerson alum have moved there. Many are happy (although they miss the New England seasons), but others find themselves at entry level, menial jobs that are abundant out there, but are not professionally fulfilling.
Hollywood hasn't changed much since Nathanial West wrote his devastating critique of Hollywood in DAY OF THE LOCUST. But then, in l939, Hollywood was at least centralized and working locally. Now, there is very little activity there. Last Thanksgiving, when I last visited, there was an op-ed piece by LA's mayor pleading with film people to stay. Hollywood has become increasingly decentralized, what with film production being done every place but in Hollywood.
Why go? Maybe to see for oneself, only to return in four or five years. But, although I think it might be a bit premature for Beanywood to announce the Boston has become the intersection between Beantown and Hollywood, the area offers promise. With at least four major Hollywood productions being shot in the state before the end of the year, and no fewer than a dozen local productions (what with the new tax incentives which now begin for local indie productions starting at $50,000). Beanywood and the group making "12" (see an earlier blog) are actually projects to promote filmmaking in Massachusetts. On top of that, there is Paul Sherman's book on the history of filmmaking in Massachusetts.And there is Nick Paleologos, the new head of the State Film Office, a man with perspective, experience and contacts, to oversee the Renaissance.
In short, just like thirty years ago, when it was great to be a filmgoer in Boston (what with the Orson Welles, Off the Wall and the Central Square) the end of the first decade of the 21st century will mark a period where it will be great to be a filmmaker in Boston.
So before you glassy-eyed Emerson grads head west, take a closer look at what's going on around you. No matter what, Hollywood has become largely decentralized, and Boston is on the way back.
For more of David Kleiler's Independent Thoughts head over to Local Sightings where you will find an abundant blog archive http://www.localsightings.com/thoughts.html
Over the last l5 years, the definition of "independent film" has become as vague as that of "producer" At one time, independent films were defined by the fact that the fim challenged the viewer either in form and/or content- films like Darren Aronofskys PI orSoderberg's SEX LIES AND VIDEOTAPE. Now, the term applies to any film financed outside the studio system, no matter how conventional the film is either in the treatment of the subject matter or in the filmmaking itself. Starting in the mid-90's with Ed Burns' BROTHERS MCMULLIN, such films are often only calling cards to make Holywood-style films for theatres or television, and Ed Burns career shows the most banal of sensibilities, while his contemporary, Kevin Smith, at least makes interesting films.
In New England, independent films range from the acting powerhouse of IN THE BEDROOM, and the mostly European sensibility of NEXT STOP WONDERLAND, to the straight to DVD senibilities of PONY TROUBLE and DIVINE INTERVENTION.
Into this mix come two earnest, heartfelt and fairly well produced films, Steve Croke's THE BUSKER and Dave McLaughlin's ON BROADWAY. Both films work with recognizable Boston area neighborhoods, Lowell and South Boston, respectively,. and both have an Irish-American motif. And, both are what I call "tweeners", films that could appeal to a megaplex audience, but whose production values are so low that no large distributor would take them. On the other hand, neither film is edgy either in form or in content, so that they would be shunned by patrons of theatres like the Kendall Square or the Coolidge.
In a way, both films stand in comparison to the current art house feel good hit ONCE. Like ON BROADWAY, ONCE has the Mickey Rooney-Judy Garland motif of "Ok, boys and girls, let's put on a play," while THE BUSKER also deals with undiscovered street musicians. ONCE's stated $l50,000 budget is somewhere between THE BUSKERs and ON BROADWAY.
But there is a difference. In ONCE, the music soars and the leads have chemistry. And, in ONCE, the film breaks boundaries in terms of storytelling and in the way the way music is used redefines what we think a film musical is. ON BROADWAY and THE BUSKER, alas, hove no such ambitions.
Not to say these two local films are not without merit, and, if they could find the right audience, that audience would enjoy themseves. At a recent screening of THE BUSKER at the Museum of Fine Arts, where that great and generous programmer, Bo Smith, gave the film a three-day run, Bo commented to me that he was happy to see so many unfamiliar faces at the screening.
That means THE BUSKER did not attract the more cinema-savvy filmgoing crowd. At the premiewre screening of ON BROADWAY at the IFFB at the sold out 900 seat Somervile Theatre, I was surrounded by people some of whom hadn't been in a movie theatre since JAWS. Clearly the audience was dominated by friends and family, and they loved it. At a screening of THE BUSKER I told the filmmaker that he could expect a warm response, and that during the question and answer period, he would get a question like, "I really loved your movie, why don't they make movies like this any more?" They do, but they don't get into movie theatres or else they become high budget, earnest tear-jerkers like EVENING or A MIGHTY HEART.
Both films are likable. ON BROADWAY has the marquee value of Eliza Dushku, who gives an annoyingly twitchy performance, but at least has name recognition for overseas sales. But the audience that comes to see the home grown play that is the film's subject matter, is the kind of audience that never goes to plays. In the film, where the play is staged in a bar in South Boston, the audience loves it. There is also the predictable father-son reconciliation scene. So, too, the audience at the Somerville. As much as they enjoyed that film, I would bet no one would increase their movie-going habit one bit. As for THE BUSKER, it certainly has a much less predictable plot line than ON BROADWAY, and it has a truly good performance from a teenage black actress. It also dares to portray a teenage black/white romance.
Shot in Lowell, it makes Lowell look great.
But it, too, is a Tweener
For more of David Kleiler's Independent Thoughts head over to Local Sightings where you will find an abundant blog archive http://www.localsightings.com/thoughts.html
Although I'm aware that there has been an erosion of civil liberties, increased surveillance, illegal detainment of suspects, and an overall disrespect for privacy, I don't yet feel I live in an Orwellian universe. But yet you see the recent glut of films which are so preoccupied with spying that it borders on the paranoid. Similarly, just two weeks ago I waited in line to buy tickets for the vastly popular International Spy Museum in Washington, D.C., which has been selling out for five years.
The abundance of such films began in February, with the carefully detailed biopic, BREACH, with the excellent Chris Cooper, playing an FBI agent selling secrets to Russians. Then there was the Academy Award Winning LIVES OF OTHERS, with its subject the East German spying operation, the Stasi. It crops up in the Dogma inspired Scottish film, RED ROAD, in which the heroine spends her days watching images filmed by surveillance cameras on banks of video monitors. Surveillance is also present in two thrillers set in the future, CHILDREN OF MEN and 28 WEEKS LATER.
A continuing theme in films that deal with spying is that one can't trust what one sees. That's true in Hitchcock thrillers like THE 39 STEPS and NORTH BY NORTHWEST, through Coppola's THE CONVERSATION to the films of today. It's also a recurring theme at the Spy Museum, where, upon entering, one assumes a fake identity as one goes through the more than two hours of exhibits and interactive games.
Now comes 'BUG' which is an exercise in paranoid behavior from Academy Award winning director William Friedkin, whose filmmaking career has been largely dormant for over 25 years, with the exception of the highly underrated TO LIVE AND DIE IN LA. Even the ad for BUG is an exercise in deception. Although it announces the film is from the director of THE EXORCIST, anyone expecting that kind of thriller will be strongly disappointed. Instead, they will find a claustrophobic, overly verbal drama (it was adapted from a stage play) with two of the most unpleasant, unsympathetic characters I've sat with for a long time. The play's three act structure is readily apparent, the characters give increasingly long paranoid rants, and, except for a 3-secnd shot after the characters make love, there aren't even any bugs. That's the point I guess, but while it's always nice to see Ashley Judd do her damsel-in-distress bit and, of course, see her in various stages of undress, sitting through this was close to unbearable. I've seen some hard to sit through film lately, like the beautifully acted DAY NIGHT DAY NIGHT and STEPHANIE DALEY, which, by the way, had one of the tightest scripts I've seen lately, but these films, apart from being fresh and excellently directed, had characters one could feel for, and, a film we could admire for overall integrity and craft.
Not so with BUG. But, perhaps I too can't trust what I see, or perhaps my own judgment. For, lo and behold, critics actually liked BUG. In fact, the Boston Globe and Entertainment Weekly actually raved. They even found humor in the excess of the paranoid ramblings. At least audiences have not been giving the film strong word of mouth, and the Rotten Tomatoes website only gives it a 61, sort of a "D", But the discrepancy between the film I expect to see from reviews and advertising, and what I actually see has been increasing lately. It began with Miranda July's YOU AND ME AND EVERYONE WE KNOW, which I found derivative from performance art and self-consciously quirky, as was THE GRADUATE rip-off GARDEN STATE. The same was true of BROKEN FLOWERS. Even the virtues of last year's award winning BABEL eluded me. To me, it was a rehash of the same devices of the same director's AMORES PERROS and 28 GRAMS, devices which became familiar in TRAFFIC and SYRIANA.
Although I can sympathize with the characters in BUG whose hysteria urges us not to trust what we see, which for me it carries over to the advertising and the too easy reviewing that goes on. But perhaps Big Brother is watching me after all.
An old friend of mine, Paul Sherman, who used to write for
the Improper Bostonian and The Herald, is writing a book on filmmaking in
Boston. He already has a publisher. The text is due in mid-August, and the book
in due to come out in April 2008.
I've known Paul for 25 years. (He first came to my house 25 years ago for a
"press screening" of Russ Meyer's FASTER PUSSYCAT KILL KILL, when I
reviewed it in my Rear Window days) Paul, along with his sister Betsy, who used
to write for the Globe, could always be counted on to appreciate films outside
the mainstream (Betsy's legendary review of Bobby Goldswaith's SHAKES THE
CLOWN, which she called "The CITIZEN KANE of alcoholic clown movies"
is still quoted today). Once Nat Segaloff left town, Paul was the only Boston
writer who consistently followed the local independent filmmaking scene, and,
when I was running the Coolidge, I could always count on Paul to get ink for
the local films I would showcase, like Brian Anthony's VICTOR'S BIG SCORE. And
he could savor the virtues of Brad Andersons first film, THE DARIEN GAP as well
as Roger Saquet's updated comic version of MEAN STREETS, with the mobsters
being middle aged wanna-be's.
Paul has a sense of history. He remembers, when, in the early 80's, Gerry Peary
programmed a two week festival of independent film at the Coolidge, when Justin
Freed was running it. Jan Egleson's BILLY IN THE LOWLANDS and THE DARK END OF
THE STREET, were among the highlights. Other than myself, and certainly Gerry
Peary, he has seen them all.
What he does with them in his upcoming book is another matter. At the one end, the book just might
be a catalogue of the feature films that have been made, with a brief introduction.
On the more exciting front, it could chronicle the drama of filmmaking in
Boston, from the early 80's, before independent film became fashionable, when
there was an incredible vibrance - with Egleson, Eric Stange, Eric Neudel,
Rufus Butler Seder, and others. After that, for eight years in a row, a
narrative feature made in Boston was in competition at Sundance - two from
Brad Anderson alone.
And the book needs to take into account the incredible documentary community.
Stimulated by the leadership provided by Channel 2, Boston has been the home to
some of America's leading documentarians - Ricky Leacock, Errol Morris, Fred
Wiseman, Robb Todd, Ross McElwee, Steve Ascher and Jeanne Jordan, Alfred
Guzzetti - the list goes on. For fifteen years, documentary films were in competition
at Sundance.
It was exciting to be a filmmaker in Boston.
And there was leadership - BFVF, the Massachusetts Film Office, the Mass Media
Alliance. Unfortunately, between l998 and 2002, all of them dissolved, and
Boston has had little national presence since then.
In 1997, when NEXT STOP WONDERLAND, premiered at Sundance, Bob Birney, now head
of PictureHouse Films, said to me "I'll take a closer look at any film coming
out of Boston from now on." Soon, it all ended.
But Paul ought to pick up on the Renaissance in Boston, with the new tax
incentives, the installation of Nick Paleologos at the State Film Office, the
development of this new 12-part film, called, not surprisingly, "12",
which showcases l2 emerging directors, and the enthusiasm around the new
unifying organization, Beanywood - at the intersection of Hollywood and Boston.
It's not there yet. It's been years since Filmmaker Magazine has listed Boston
as a place to make independent film. Even Virginia Beach is mentioned. And, who
knows, maybe the publication of Paul's book will contribute to refocusing on
the talent that is here.
