While many a celebratory dies and are feted, no matter how unsavoury some parts of their lives were, some passings go unnoticed. One of those is George McBride, an elderly gay director whose career spanned many eras, from fifties quota quickie sci-fi to sixties nudie zombie biker movies, Roger Corman and American TV.
His producer, Jackson Tulord Breen DeWitt Delauncy 111, an elderly gent himself, (over 100 years old), remembers McBride fondly.
Old George was a strange one. I first laid eyes upon his ghastly nervous shell as he rebounded from a car driven by a thirteen year old child. He got up, took it with grace and got back to work, although the scenes he shot that day for me were a little lacking. Strangely the film made money, yet it was about a dog fighting an alien and its pet floozy in a small English village, so I think it was partially the writing. I remember a great suggestion of repressed sexuality in that one, that George would know all about.
George hated being asked personal questions, especially about his sexuality, which he would try to hide by buying obscene amounts of adult literature. Even the most perverted man could not get through a third of what he bought. He would be an exhausted shell, like the victims in one of George's infamous Nazi-fetish German alien invasion film Herr Slutz Die Neiberling. He was also deathly dull. That line from that semi-remake of George's 1965 bomb Abomination Wolf said it best. "Have you ever talked to a corpse. It's boring." George was like that.
Also, now I come to think of it, many a time could be stunningly unobservant. He always thought I was seventy when I was only twenty years older than him, the cheeky bugger. And his films were deadly and grotesquely paceless, to the point of masochism in regard to watching them, which why he has a following many have observed. They didn't intrigue, rise the passions, dip a little while the writer was drunk, then have have an orgy of either sex or violence (my rule, one, the other, or both!!!!).They meandered on like a serial killer looking for his next skin, like having sex with a vicar, a subject in which many, including myself and George, know a lot about. So they were bloody boring. God, I hated dailies when he was directing coma victims. In my day, producing quota quickies, we would hire the most pervy sicko's just to get through the day, on-screen and off. George had no truck with that so I only saw his films by contractual obligation.
Continuity bothered him even less than me. As I was a producer, that is damning. He didn't really show any interest in actors, actresses, dialogue pacing, story progression, scripts even. His motto was how many pages and where's the pub. And that's an attitude unfortunately lacking in today's directors.
After I fired George for giving oral sex to a leading man five minutes before a start of a day, I never saw him again. Oh I heard of his projects yet I never bothered to look them out as they seemed trashy, probably not in a good way. I never really had any interest in his personal life and would probably have walked by him in the street, given the choice.
I went to his rainy, cheap vulgar funeral, as I felt I should. His few friends had expired years ago from AIDS, there being ten people who sort of knew him. They said it was lung cancer officially but most youngsters sulking around the grave,, trying to cry with passion said it was the booze finally that left him adrift and exiting this mortal.... you know the rest. Ah well. So George McBride is dead. This may sound cruel buts its probably for the best.
A note: Some McBride fans object to the suggestion of why McBride left DeLauncy's employ, most saying it was other studio's offering him work. They also refuse to acknowledge his gayness, which is odd. But McBride was a strange, probably over-rated director. His cult continues to grow.
Monday, 6 July 2009
Sunday, 5 July 2009
Brosnan Bond Movies
Basically, why in the hell were the Brosnan movies so bad.
Was just wondering about this. Roger Moore gets a kicking, a lot. but really, save his last one, View To A Kill, the rest were fun and did what you'd expect from Roger Moore. A lot of droll, campy fun, with Moore delivering in a very deft way that looks effortless. Its kind of like Adam West in Batman or Shatner in Star Trek. It's not classical acting, is over the top, but you have to acknowledge a certain skill. And its loads of fun. What more do you want? The Moore films, despite being of their time, hold up very well as entertainment.
Connery- Great, nasty, even in the weaker ones. Shame about the rest of his career where he became one of the worst actors ever to assault the screen, save a few odd moments.
Lazenby- Not a great Bond, a bit thick, but brutal, with one terrific, dark film. He puts Brosnan to shame and was a model to boot.
Dalton- Very under-rated and spare, with a warm sense of humour and sparks of humanity below the darkness. Both Bond films were terrific spy movies. He more or less lead the way to the Craig films of now and is definitely worthy of study.
Craig- Casino Royale was terrific, made with real bite and nastiness but Quantum Of Solace wasn't. It was okay but he really needs a good third film and some expansion in the role before he becomes two one-note. And on a personal note, he still isn't forgiven for The Invasion.
Now Brosnan. Terrible jokes, a bit smarmy. He made the two worst Bond movies ever (yes, worse than the sixties Casino Royale) with Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day. These are unwatchable. His two better ones still had very long minutes of dullness, were very long (could have lost a good twenty minutes each), and had a leading man who wasn't well, very good. Basically both could have starred any other Bond and been drastically improved. Brosnan is a weak actor without much inner drive, which leads to a constant blandness, inertia and vague nervousness that dulls any interest in what he's doing. So why is his stint tolerated, or viewed as good? Lowering standards? Enough explosions? A desire to see a bond movie? Who knows but try watching any of his bond films now.
So that's the rant. If you like Brosnan as Bond I pity you.
Was just wondering about this. Roger Moore gets a kicking, a lot. but really, save his last one, View To A Kill, the rest were fun and did what you'd expect from Roger Moore. A lot of droll, campy fun, with Moore delivering in a very deft way that looks effortless. Its kind of like Adam West in Batman or Shatner in Star Trek. It's not classical acting, is over the top, but you have to acknowledge a certain skill. And its loads of fun. What more do you want? The Moore films, despite being of their time, hold up very well as entertainment.
Connery- Great, nasty, even in the weaker ones. Shame about the rest of his career where he became one of the worst actors ever to assault the screen, save a few odd moments.
Lazenby- Not a great Bond, a bit thick, but brutal, with one terrific, dark film. He puts Brosnan to shame and was a model to boot.
Dalton- Very under-rated and spare, with a warm sense of humour and sparks of humanity below the darkness. Both Bond films were terrific spy movies. He more or less lead the way to the Craig films of now and is definitely worthy of study.
Craig- Casino Royale was terrific, made with real bite and nastiness but Quantum Of Solace wasn't. It was okay but he really needs a good third film and some expansion in the role before he becomes two one-note. And on a personal note, he still isn't forgiven for The Invasion.
Now Brosnan. Terrible jokes, a bit smarmy. He made the two worst Bond movies ever (yes, worse than the sixties Casino Royale) with Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day. These are unwatchable. His two better ones still had very long minutes of dullness, were very long (could have lost a good twenty minutes each), and had a leading man who wasn't well, very good. Basically both could have starred any other Bond and been drastically improved. Brosnan is a weak actor without much inner drive, which leads to a constant blandness, inertia and vague nervousness that dulls any interest in what he's doing. So why is his stint tolerated, or viewed as good? Lowering standards? Enough explosions? A desire to see a bond movie? Who knows but try watching any of his bond films now.
So that's the rant. If you like Brosnan as Bond I pity you.
Saturday, 4 July 2009
Snuff Box
Snuff Box is brilliant. Written by and starring Matt Berry and Rich Fulcher, its a twisted, absurdist romp between the strained friendship of an annoying American and a boorish Englishman. Both work for a hangman, bicker and treat each other and others shoddily, and play multiple characters. There is eventually some time travel, odd brothers and various other absurdities. Yet nothing is taken seriously.
Set mainly in an English upper class club, the fun of the show is that it takes nothing seriously. Its made up of cliches that the creators enjoy then twists these cliches by strange reactions, word use and a haphazard set of events. Nothing is ever close to make sense and no narrative is put into the show for anything other than to parody it. I'm not going to give away any of the jokes as its best to experience this as fresh as possible.
While I'm not familiar with Rich Fulcher, although I've kinda seen him in things, Matt Berry will be recognisable to many viewers who appreciate cult TV as Tod Rivers aka Dr Lucien Sanchez, from the endlessly hilarious Garth Marenghi's Darkplace. Here Berry really is allowed to let loose and is a hilarious swine throughout. Fulcher is the sensitive one and is just as funny, as the butt of every situation.
This show is for people who like the more oddball style of The League Of Gentlemen, Dr Terrible, or Black Books. Its got a wonderful affection for old culture and their absurdities that is very appealing.
Set mainly in an English upper class club, the fun of the show is that it takes nothing seriously. Its made up of cliches that the creators enjoy then twists these cliches by strange reactions, word use and a haphazard set of events. Nothing is ever close to make sense and no narrative is put into the show for anything other than to parody it. I'm not going to give away any of the jokes as its best to experience this as fresh as possible.
While I'm not familiar with Rich Fulcher, although I've kinda seen him in things, Matt Berry will be recognisable to many viewers who appreciate cult TV as Tod Rivers aka Dr Lucien Sanchez, from the endlessly hilarious Garth Marenghi's Darkplace. Here Berry really is allowed to let loose and is a hilarious swine throughout. Fulcher is the sensitive one and is just as funny, as the butt of every situation.
This show is for people who like the more oddball style of The League Of Gentlemen, Dr Terrible, or Black Books. Its got a wonderful affection for old culture and their absurdities that is very appealing.
Public Enemies
Public Enemies is the new Michael Mann film and it is beautiful. Its about death really, about people hanging onto something, adrenaline, a person, a job, to try and find a heartbeat, as life slowly draws to a close. The film is also about the rise of the FBI, from a series of state-controlled cop shops to one that is organised under J Edgar Hoover, with an eye to stamping down on organised crime.
The film is tied to the general facts, that Dillinger was released from jail, went on a crime spree, was caught, escaped again, things slowly going wrong for him as his people are slowly hunted down one by one by the feds while organised crime turns its back on him, leaving Dillinger with no way out. But its the details that really pump life into it.
We start, as with many Michael Mann films do, is by following the central character, seeing his world. Its is a world of detail, the setting up of the crime, the spread of people, Dillinger working out exactly what he needs to do to be successful while being very careful about the dangerous world he is in. We see the world quickly through details within action but Dillinger is always still, always focused.
Dillinger's problem is that he is defined by his society. He truly doesn't have much to him beyonds his smarts and what he thinks he is fighting for, which is money and to escape a lack of direction through direct action. Society and its appalling sins throughout the 1930's provides an enemy to him, something to define him. So when this society changes and gets wise to him, he has nowhere to go, has to wait slowly for death while those who he has genuine bonds with die one by one, usually in front of him, leaving him haunted, adrift and in hiding. The editing of the film is interesting in that the longer you spend with Dillinger without cutting away to others, this aspect comes through. This is a man in his own tomb, society around him focusing him in a way that leaves him few choices. Depp is great at suggesting a man adrift. I think this might be one of his very best performances, no longer fidgety, bored or distracted, which are some of his weaknesses at times as an actor. Here he always seems to be in the moment, seems challenged. Its pretty awful when you realise how little he is usually challenged by parts, always being too defined as quirky. This and his great turn in Sweeney Todd hopefully will lead to better work.
Bale is great also, is the film's secret weapon in that he's stunningly precise, being given little in elaboration but works on the details to suggest life behind a very careful exterior. Melvin Purvis is a civilised man who has to hunt psychopaths, has to be brutal for the public to survive such types. Bale gives wonderful reactions throughout to suggest both the civilised man and animal hunter existing side by side, always both, always a painful thing he has to deal with. Like Depp he is a good actor who gets half-written parts to elaborate upon. When working with a director such as Michael Mann, the details become the character without speeches so Bale can really do what he does best, which is instinctive, without giving speeches that elaborate and dull what he does best without words. In some ways this is what I wanted to see Bale do with Batman. In this he seems so much sharper and alive than we've seen since The Prestige or Rescue Dawn, two other recent Bale highlights. I really hope he continues to work with Mann as I think there could be some amazing work if Bale moves centre stage in the next Mann film.
Marion Coitallard is also terrific as Dillinger's girlfriend, playing what could be a dull part with a sense of the society that defines her. She doesn't have much screentime but really makes it a presence. Mann also gets back together with Stephen Lang, who plays Bale's lead hunter. Lang was in the masterpiece Manhunter, but more importantly, was the moral focus in Mann's other great work, Crime Story. Here he plays what should be a cold hunter and gives it stunning complexity. The film is great on the hunters of Dillinger, even though nothing much is said as its what's going on with looks and little shrugs, how someone studies a paper. Stephan Graham as the loony Baby Face Nelson is another indelible performance in a short time, as the guy is a nut but is cunning and animal like.
The film is full of moments of grace, from Bale hunting Pretty Boy Floyd, to the bank robberies, which start off as a rush and keep that pace, even as they start to suggest doom and no way out, toe Dillinger's end, one of the great death sequences in cinema.
The film is shot on video and looks terrific. Mann truly has worked the technology to be what he needs it to be. This film again shows that Mann is one of the few serious directors, along with Cronenberg, working today. Its an amazing experience, and like Miami Vice, sure to be underrated in favour of a more flashier type of film-making.
The film is tied to the general facts, that Dillinger was released from jail, went on a crime spree, was caught, escaped again, things slowly going wrong for him as his people are slowly hunted down one by one by the feds while organised crime turns its back on him, leaving Dillinger with no way out. But its the details that really pump life into it.
We start, as with many Michael Mann films do, is by following the central character, seeing his world. Its is a world of detail, the setting up of the crime, the spread of people, Dillinger working out exactly what he needs to do to be successful while being very careful about the dangerous world he is in. We see the world quickly through details within action but Dillinger is always still, always focused.
Dillinger's problem is that he is defined by his society. He truly doesn't have much to him beyonds his smarts and what he thinks he is fighting for, which is money and to escape a lack of direction through direct action. Society and its appalling sins throughout the 1930's provides an enemy to him, something to define him. So when this society changes and gets wise to him, he has nowhere to go, has to wait slowly for death while those who he has genuine bonds with die one by one, usually in front of him, leaving him haunted, adrift and in hiding. The editing of the film is interesting in that the longer you spend with Dillinger without cutting away to others, this aspect comes through. This is a man in his own tomb, society around him focusing him in a way that leaves him few choices. Depp is great at suggesting a man adrift. I think this might be one of his very best performances, no longer fidgety, bored or distracted, which are some of his weaknesses at times as an actor. Here he always seems to be in the moment, seems challenged. Its pretty awful when you realise how little he is usually challenged by parts, always being too defined as quirky. This and his great turn in Sweeney Todd hopefully will lead to better work.
Bale is great also, is the film's secret weapon in that he's stunningly precise, being given little in elaboration but works on the details to suggest life behind a very careful exterior. Melvin Purvis is a civilised man who has to hunt psychopaths, has to be brutal for the public to survive such types. Bale gives wonderful reactions throughout to suggest both the civilised man and animal hunter existing side by side, always both, always a painful thing he has to deal with. Like Depp he is a good actor who gets half-written parts to elaborate upon. When working with a director such as Michael Mann, the details become the character without speeches so Bale can really do what he does best, which is instinctive, without giving speeches that elaborate and dull what he does best without words. In some ways this is what I wanted to see Bale do with Batman. In this he seems so much sharper and alive than we've seen since The Prestige or Rescue Dawn, two other recent Bale highlights. I really hope he continues to work with Mann as I think there could be some amazing work if Bale moves centre stage in the next Mann film.
Marion Coitallard is also terrific as Dillinger's girlfriend, playing what could be a dull part with a sense of the society that defines her. She doesn't have much screentime but really makes it a presence. Mann also gets back together with Stephen Lang, who plays Bale's lead hunter. Lang was in the masterpiece Manhunter, but more importantly, was the moral focus in Mann's other great work, Crime Story. Here he plays what should be a cold hunter and gives it stunning complexity. The film is great on the hunters of Dillinger, even though nothing much is said as its what's going on with looks and little shrugs, how someone studies a paper. Stephan Graham as the loony Baby Face Nelson is another indelible performance in a short time, as the guy is a nut but is cunning and animal like.
The film is full of moments of grace, from Bale hunting Pretty Boy Floyd, to the bank robberies, which start off as a rush and keep that pace, even as they start to suggest doom and no way out, toe Dillinger's end, one of the great death sequences in cinema.
The film is shot on video and looks terrific. Mann truly has worked the technology to be what he needs it to be. This film again shows that Mann is one of the few serious directors, along with Cronenberg, working today. Its an amazing experience, and like Miami Vice, sure to be underrated in favour of a more flashier type of film-making.
Sunday, 28 June 2009
Quick general views on films seen
Been a little busy recently, thus few updates but here are some comments on films I have seen.
Lets starts with the worst, The Invasion. A truly wretched film. I never thought you could mess up Invasion Of The Body Snatchers but this managed it. Its just awful. The first half is full of wandering scenes with dull dialogue that feels to be unmatching to what we just saw. There is no scene that adds tension. Its just a collection of shots with no dramatic purpose. Then suddenly the film has fits and starts into action that don't make much sense and make the situation even more confusing and dull. Or maybe I just fell asleep. Its obviously been hacked around but there's little to suggest a film that was ever any good (in fact the obviously added on ending is actually more fun than the rest of the film).
Now onto a film that got a lot of bad notice but wasn't so bad (at least visually) The Happening. Yes the film has terrible dialogue and acting to match. As everyone acts the same unfocused way you have to blame the director as they couldn't all have made the same duff acting decisions. Some of the dialogue is laughable. And yet the film has many terrific silent sequence, simply of wind blowing, people losing the ability to want to stay alive. If the film was a silent movie it would have been much better.
Finally a no-holds-barred good monster movie The Mist. A group of people trapped in a supermarket after a mist falls on a town, with many monsters within the mist. While the set-up sounds hokey its played for real, from the point of view of people in the situation acting like normal people (some are suicidal, some go religious). While under pressure, things get out of hand between the survivors and they start killing one another eventually, due to basic human weakness. The ending, although badly scored, has a terrific punch as its pretty ballsy. This one is like Tremors or Arachnophobia. It takes a b-movie premise and elevates it due to simple craft and focus.
Terminator Salvation: A decent enough film, not really worthy of the ire its been getting. Its main trouble is that its not very surprising and that the Terminator TV show did a lot more with character detail and expanding the world than this managed, even with all the money it had. Christian Bale is actually fine as John Connor. Not as good as he's been in other films but he did his job. And the future world was interesting to a degree, in that you've seen it all before but it worked in a b-movie way. I think this film is getting the rage than Terminator 3 deserved. Its not a film that's ripe for rediscovery but its fine. In the fun movie blockbuster stage Star Trek is much better but I can imagine Transformers 2 will be much worse. I can imagine now that the Terminator TV show will be the best remembered follow-up to the first two films.
Drag Me To Hell is a riot. Its incredibly shallow but that's not a criticism. The film is simply a scarefest, best seen in an audience full of screaming people. It has loads of sick images and cheap scares but simply delivers on what is needed.
Have been watching some Fassbinder films and Angelopolous but those would take a more thorough posting than I have time for at the moment, as they are a lot more thoughtful, as well as the masterpiece Satantango.
Lets starts with the worst, The Invasion. A truly wretched film. I never thought you could mess up Invasion Of The Body Snatchers but this managed it. Its just awful. The first half is full of wandering scenes with dull dialogue that feels to be unmatching to what we just saw. There is no scene that adds tension. Its just a collection of shots with no dramatic purpose. Then suddenly the film has fits and starts into action that don't make much sense and make the situation even more confusing and dull. Or maybe I just fell asleep. Its obviously been hacked around but there's little to suggest a film that was ever any good (in fact the obviously added on ending is actually more fun than the rest of the film).
Now onto a film that got a lot of bad notice but wasn't so bad (at least visually) The Happening. Yes the film has terrible dialogue and acting to match. As everyone acts the same unfocused way you have to blame the director as they couldn't all have made the same duff acting decisions. Some of the dialogue is laughable. And yet the film has many terrific silent sequence, simply of wind blowing, people losing the ability to want to stay alive. If the film was a silent movie it would have been much better.
Finally a no-holds-barred good monster movie The Mist. A group of people trapped in a supermarket after a mist falls on a town, with many monsters within the mist. While the set-up sounds hokey its played for real, from the point of view of people in the situation acting like normal people (some are suicidal, some go religious). While under pressure, things get out of hand between the survivors and they start killing one another eventually, due to basic human weakness. The ending, although badly scored, has a terrific punch as its pretty ballsy. This one is like Tremors or Arachnophobia. It takes a b-movie premise and elevates it due to simple craft and focus.
Terminator Salvation: A decent enough film, not really worthy of the ire its been getting. Its main trouble is that its not very surprising and that the Terminator TV show did a lot more with character detail and expanding the world than this managed, even with all the money it had. Christian Bale is actually fine as John Connor. Not as good as he's been in other films but he did his job. And the future world was interesting to a degree, in that you've seen it all before but it worked in a b-movie way. I think this film is getting the rage than Terminator 3 deserved. Its not a film that's ripe for rediscovery but its fine. In the fun movie blockbuster stage Star Trek is much better but I can imagine Transformers 2 will be much worse. I can imagine now that the Terminator TV show will be the best remembered follow-up to the first two films.
Drag Me To Hell is a riot. Its incredibly shallow but that's not a criticism. The film is simply a scarefest, best seen in an audience full of screaming people. It has loads of sick images and cheap scares but simply delivers on what is needed.
Have been watching some Fassbinder films and Angelopolous but those would take a more thorough posting than I have time for at the moment, as they are a lot more thoughtful, as well as the masterpiece Satantango.
Sunday, 31 May 2009
Quota Quickie Directors Notes.
From the diary of George McBride, director of Dracula's Soho Virgin Bride.
Written 1957
Terrible morning. Woke, went to the studio to see Gustav before filming begins tomorrow, that bore with his grotesque wandering accent. Where does this fat and annoying man come from? Seems to have no real past, accents and stories wandering from all over. Most of them were made up from what I've have heard but have moments of truth, like the story of him helping Howard Hawks dispose of a body in someone's pool. I hear it had something to do with a homosexual actor in one of Hawks' films, a night of passion gone awry, and no police. Or the tale of helping three forgettable hussies rip-off a Howard Hughes flunky of no little stature and doing it so well that Hughes himself gave them better parts in his movies, as he found the story so tremendously funny. He calls me the jock and complains I offer no direction. How to direct a man as offensively verbal as he, whose response to avoid leaving the light is I'm Dracula, I know what Vampires do, and then spins off a yarn involving Valentino's dead body and a cabal of strange yet well-paying fans, who wanted the body for reasons that he would not go into but assumes me that its got to do with his portrayal of Dracula.
Walking into the ramshackle studio in the morning, saw a dead body of a young actor lying at the front door. Recognised the actor. He's not very good so its no great loss. That grotesque leading man Michael Deer walked up behind me, saw the body and started kicking it violently for ten minutes, in a rage, yelling obscenities at this deceased thespian. The stagehands then took the body and threw it over a bridge nearby, then called the police, who found the body. Now the bruising and method of death is a great mystery but is free publicity for three as yet unreleased of my films, which this actor tried to ruin. With Help from Mr's Deer and Trebeck.
Jackson Tulord Breen DeWitt Delauncy 111 called me into his office, where he crawled from the door back to his seat, his desk surrounded by lots of paper that he'll never read. So much dust in this office that it's hard to breath. He is our studio head as he calls it, owns 30 percent of studio, some annoying lord owning the rest but wants to keep it quiet. In his mid-seventies, wears a ridiculous brown wig like a teddy boy while he coughs for breath. He is most famous for a line he said last week when his accountant (who was in his mid-fifties and still lived with his mother) decapitated a minor actor in a rage. He said "There's an ugly head in my soup and I know ugly as I work in the British film industry!" Informs me that I owe him three more films in the next two months so I better get cracking. Also informs me I'll have a good writer for one of them but doesn't know what the plots are as of yet. Also says don't worry about the dead body outside. Payments have been made. His accountant also has gotten off as they have framed the now-dead actor and said they were after the same woman. Which is odd as the one who died last week was gay and the other one had his balls cut off. Which led to a unique acting style that is difficult to write for.
Met with two writers.
One was an actor, then my assistant, now a writer. not bad for a man who has been here six months. He's pitched me the sequel to Soho Bride involving lesbians but I have been told by Delauncy 111 that no lesbians shall pass in a horror nor any other British movie. Therefore the new blood have to be male. I think we're onto something yet the writer looks disappointed.
The other one is an alien invasion movie set in a public school. I give the nod, having no idea how we'll be able to afford it. It'll get cancelled and they'll still have to pay me.
Met with third writer in private. He is drunk and a national poet (and pulp writer under an alternate name for the money). he can only come here while drunk as we offend his dignity but is paid and says he'll come up with something. Which is good enough for me. I'm going up in the world.
P.S. His name is Alistair Brian Jones McLellan and his poetry is bloody awful. As are his novels, and lamentably, his film scripts.
LATER IN WEEK
Shooting is going okay. Gustav Trebeck continues to annoy and molest the leading lady but she doesn't say anything, is terrified of losing this job. Getting fired from here is the next direct step to prostitution. Although she can probably keep the same agent for those services.
The set looks bloody awful and my DP keeps spitting up blood. I do say eventually that he should go see a doctor but he says "No bloody way do I go see a duck." I don't know exactly what that means. It kind of makes sense yet the way he said it was crazy enough for me to think it meant something more sinister and oddly sexual.
EARLY NEXT WEEK
Gustav has started importing prostitutes and is grooming his leading lady to be one of them. And she seems willing. Odd his late forties fiancee is watching with interest and not disgust. I just don't get these people and am not sure that I want to. A mature-looking youngster also appears on set, making Gustav very nervous. He makes some sinister visual suggestions to his fiancee, who nods in a way that suggests, well, I don't want to know.
MID-WEEK
Gustav refuses to learn his lines. He has them placed out of camera view, meaning few establishing shots are possible as this vampire talks way too much, most of it improvised so why demand that there are cards. I can't see any rise or lowering of quality in the improvising though, to be honest. The D.P worries me. he seems to be very ill.
LATE-WEEK
Gustav Trebeck died this morning. Heart gave out after being drown in fat and being full of s**t. Oh god, what do I do now? On the plus side, my D.P looks to be a lot better now.
EARLY THE NEXT WEEK
Start shooting Dracula's Virgin Soho Bride with a stand-in for Gustav. Kinda looks like him and I am assured that no-one will notice the difference. I am not convinced but am under contract and will do as I am told.
Written 1957
Terrible morning. Woke, went to the studio to see Gustav before filming begins tomorrow, that bore with his grotesque wandering accent. Where does this fat and annoying man come from? Seems to have no real past, accents and stories wandering from all over. Most of them were made up from what I've have heard but have moments of truth, like the story of him helping Howard Hawks dispose of a body in someone's pool. I hear it had something to do with a homosexual actor in one of Hawks' films, a night of passion gone awry, and no police. Or the tale of helping three forgettable hussies rip-off a Howard Hughes flunky of no little stature and doing it so well that Hughes himself gave them better parts in his movies, as he found the story so tremendously funny. He calls me the jock and complains I offer no direction. How to direct a man as offensively verbal as he, whose response to avoid leaving the light is I'm Dracula, I know what Vampires do, and then spins off a yarn involving Valentino's dead body and a cabal of strange yet well-paying fans, who wanted the body for reasons that he would not go into but assumes me that its got to do with his portrayal of Dracula.
Walking into the ramshackle studio in the morning, saw a dead body of a young actor lying at the front door. Recognised the actor. He's not very good so its no great loss. That grotesque leading man Michael Deer walked up behind me, saw the body and started kicking it violently for ten minutes, in a rage, yelling obscenities at this deceased thespian. The stagehands then took the body and threw it over a bridge nearby, then called the police, who found the body. Now the bruising and method of death is a great mystery but is free publicity for three as yet unreleased of my films, which this actor tried to ruin. With Help from Mr's Deer and Trebeck.
Jackson Tulord Breen DeWitt Delauncy 111 called me into his office, where he crawled from the door back to his seat, his desk surrounded by lots of paper that he'll never read. So much dust in this office that it's hard to breath. He is our studio head as he calls it, owns 30 percent of studio, some annoying lord owning the rest but wants to keep it quiet. In his mid-seventies, wears a ridiculous brown wig like a teddy boy while he coughs for breath. He is most famous for a line he said last week when his accountant (who was in his mid-fifties and still lived with his mother) decapitated a minor actor in a rage. He said "There's an ugly head in my soup and I know ugly as I work in the British film industry!" Informs me that I owe him three more films in the next two months so I better get cracking. Also informs me I'll have a good writer for one of them but doesn't know what the plots are as of yet. Also says don't worry about the dead body outside. Payments have been made. His accountant also has gotten off as they have framed the now-dead actor and said they were after the same woman. Which is odd as the one who died last week was gay and the other one had his balls cut off. Which led to a unique acting style that is difficult to write for.
Met with two writers.
One was an actor, then my assistant, now a writer. not bad for a man who has been here six months. He's pitched me the sequel to Soho Bride involving lesbians but I have been told by Delauncy 111 that no lesbians shall pass in a horror nor any other British movie. Therefore the new blood have to be male. I think we're onto something yet the writer looks disappointed.
The other one is an alien invasion movie set in a public school. I give the nod, having no idea how we'll be able to afford it. It'll get cancelled and they'll still have to pay me.
Met with third writer in private. He is drunk and a national poet (and pulp writer under an alternate name for the money). he can only come here while drunk as we offend his dignity but is paid and says he'll come up with something. Which is good enough for me. I'm going up in the world.
P.S. His name is Alistair Brian Jones McLellan and his poetry is bloody awful. As are his novels, and lamentably, his film scripts.
LATER IN WEEK
Shooting is going okay. Gustav Trebeck continues to annoy and molest the leading lady but she doesn't say anything, is terrified of losing this job. Getting fired from here is the next direct step to prostitution. Although she can probably keep the same agent for those services.
The set looks bloody awful and my DP keeps spitting up blood. I do say eventually that he should go see a doctor but he says "No bloody way do I go see a duck." I don't know exactly what that means. It kind of makes sense yet the way he said it was crazy enough for me to think it meant something more sinister and oddly sexual.
EARLY NEXT WEEK
Gustav has started importing prostitutes and is grooming his leading lady to be one of them. And she seems willing. Odd his late forties fiancee is watching with interest and not disgust. I just don't get these people and am not sure that I want to. A mature-looking youngster also appears on set, making Gustav very nervous. He makes some sinister visual suggestions to his fiancee, who nods in a way that suggests, well, I don't want to know.
MID-WEEK
Gustav refuses to learn his lines. He has them placed out of camera view, meaning few establishing shots are possible as this vampire talks way too much, most of it improvised so why demand that there are cards. I can't see any rise or lowering of quality in the improvising though, to be honest. The D.P worries me. he seems to be very ill.
LATE-WEEK
Gustav Trebeck died this morning. Heart gave out after being drown in fat and being full of s**t. Oh god, what do I do now? On the plus side, my D.P looks to be a lot better now.
EARLY THE NEXT WEEK
Start shooting Dracula's Virgin Soho Bride with a stand-in for Gustav. Kinda looks like him and I am assured that no-one will notice the difference. I am not convinced but am under contract and will do as I am told.
Saturday, 16 May 2009
Caprica
I've seen Caprica, the new Battlestar Galactica prequel.
The good news on this project is that, following a slightly dramatically unfocused first fifteen minutes, it becomes a terrific sci-fi show. It isn't as unrelated to Battlestar as the producers have suggested, although I do think if you haven't seen Battlestar, there isn't anything that will alienate. But if you are a Battlestar fan then there's a lot of details that will thrill.
The big link is that Adama is in it as a child. But he's not developed in a way to suggest that he will be significantly confusing. He's a child who has lost his mother and older sister and that is it. The central drama is between his father Joseph, and Daniel Greystone, a genius advancing AI. They both lose their families in a terrorist attack and are hell-bent on finding a way to get their families back. With the advance in AI, there may be a way to do this.
The show has two areas of interest. First is in the central two characters, One Joseph, has shady mob connections, the other Daniel, is a genius with a mix of compassion and coldness that mirrors Battlestar's Baltar, although his demons are unique. Daniel is the most intriguing character in the show, the one who is most likely to do odd, immoral actions. He gives the drama its life in the pilot, and is the character you want to see in his full mad-bastard glory as the show continues. Eric Stoltz plays him and its great casting, as Stoltz's coldness and suppressed emotions that are there usually as an actor give his character as sense of an odd, unusual life.
The second interest is in the technology. The Internet has advanced in this show to be able to project avatars as people going through virtual landscapes that resemble real-life locations, so people can go to clubs, take part on group sex without ever doing it physically. By the time the show has begun, Daniel's daughter has found a way to download memories, emotions, so an avatar can be a person. The existence of this avatar is the propellant for Stoltz and how he goes to hell. he finale, where Stoltz downloads his daughter's avatar into the first cylon, is a great moment, both for Battlestar fans (as it explains so much about what follows in various ways) and in sci-fi, as you see a new life form emerging, evolving.
Like Battlestar there is religion and it is intriguing, propelling the plot, with a belief that society is sinful and failing, that there is only one true god versus other religions. But this is set-up in the pilot, so it doesn't propel the story as interestingly as the central characters.
There are flaws. As I stated, the first fifteen minutes don't work so well. There's an investigator character that's pretty dull. That's kind of s situation where they need to invent a new character that can slot into a plot-line that is building rather than anything else. But that's two minor flaws in a great new series. It's not as strong as the Battlestar Galactica miniseries but its still pretty great.
The good news on this project is that, following a slightly dramatically unfocused first fifteen minutes, it becomes a terrific sci-fi show. It isn't as unrelated to Battlestar as the producers have suggested, although I do think if you haven't seen Battlestar, there isn't anything that will alienate. But if you are a Battlestar fan then there's a lot of details that will thrill.
The big link is that Adama is in it as a child. But he's not developed in a way to suggest that he will be significantly confusing. He's a child who has lost his mother and older sister and that is it. The central drama is between his father Joseph, and Daniel Greystone, a genius advancing AI. They both lose their families in a terrorist attack and are hell-bent on finding a way to get their families back. With the advance in AI, there may be a way to do this.
The show has two areas of interest. First is in the central two characters, One Joseph, has shady mob connections, the other Daniel, is a genius with a mix of compassion and coldness that mirrors Battlestar's Baltar, although his demons are unique. Daniel is the most intriguing character in the show, the one who is most likely to do odd, immoral actions. He gives the drama its life in the pilot, and is the character you want to see in his full mad-bastard glory as the show continues. Eric Stoltz plays him and its great casting, as Stoltz's coldness and suppressed emotions that are there usually as an actor give his character as sense of an odd, unusual life.
The second interest is in the technology. The Internet has advanced in this show to be able to project avatars as people going through virtual landscapes that resemble real-life locations, so people can go to clubs, take part on group sex without ever doing it physically. By the time the show has begun, Daniel's daughter has found a way to download memories, emotions, so an avatar can be a person. The existence of this avatar is the propellant for Stoltz and how he goes to hell. he finale, where Stoltz downloads his daughter's avatar into the first cylon, is a great moment, both for Battlestar fans (as it explains so much about what follows in various ways) and in sci-fi, as you see a new life form emerging, evolving.
Like Battlestar there is religion and it is intriguing, propelling the plot, with a belief that society is sinful and failing, that there is only one true god versus other religions. But this is set-up in the pilot, so it doesn't propel the story as interestingly as the central characters.
There are flaws. As I stated, the first fifteen minutes don't work so well. There's an investigator character that's pretty dull. That's kind of s situation where they need to invent a new character that can slot into a plot-line that is building rather than anything else. But that's two minor flaws in a great new series. It's not as strong as the Battlestar Galactica miniseries but its still pretty great.
Saturday, 9 May 2009
30 Days Of Night
This will be brief. 30 Days Of Night is a terrific little vampire film starring Josh Hartnett. Set in Alaska, in an area that have thirty days of darkness, the occupants have the misfortune to be attacked by very brutal vampires, who act like animals on the hunt rather than humans. Cut off for these thirty days, these people have to hide from the attacking vampires, in the middle of a very cold winter, over this time, being picked off one by one.
The film has a wonderful sense of build. From the start something is off, little details adding to unease as the characters are introduced, the vampires finally going brutal at the thirty minute mark, taking out most of the town in a coldly executed style. In the next section of the story we watch the survivors hide and get hungry as days past, all of them very human, making the kind of mistakes that would be expected under pressure, getting themselves and family members skilled, which is fascinating to watch. In the final section, as the final days before sunlight approaches, the humans and vampires both get desperate and up the ante in horrific ways.
What the film has going for it is its bleakness. Decent people are established and are killed, have their families suffer in the most horrific ways. Even Hartnett, as the hero, is given few hero moments, any he does have coming with tragic consequences. Its probably one of the darkest horror films in events since the eighties with films such as The Thing and Day Of the Dead. Its got that essential bleakness which is thrilling in a horror film, having been lost for so long in a genre that is gimmicky as hell. It has good solid performances all round and is calmly framed within the horror, kept at a distance for the more horrific moments.
So this is a very good film that's likely to be a cult film pretty soon and deserves that status. It was produced by Sam Raimi's production company, the first really solid film I've seen from them. The Grudge remake was okay but weak in comparison to the terrific original, and the rest of them have had reviews to make you want to avoid the films like the plague.
So this and Star Trek has made it an excellent weekend for films for me.
The film has a wonderful sense of build. From the start something is off, little details adding to unease as the characters are introduced, the vampires finally going brutal at the thirty minute mark, taking out most of the town in a coldly executed style. In the next section of the story we watch the survivors hide and get hungry as days past, all of them very human, making the kind of mistakes that would be expected under pressure, getting themselves and family members skilled, which is fascinating to watch. In the final section, as the final days before sunlight approaches, the humans and vampires both get desperate and up the ante in horrific ways.
What the film has going for it is its bleakness. Decent people are established and are killed, have their families suffer in the most horrific ways. Even Hartnett, as the hero, is given few hero moments, any he does have coming with tragic consequences. Its probably one of the darkest horror films in events since the eighties with films such as The Thing and Day Of the Dead. Its got that essential bleakness which is thrilling in a horror film, having been lost for so long in a genre that is gimmicky as hell. It has good solid performances all round and is calmly framed within the horror, kept at a distance for the more horrific moments.
So this is a very good film that's likely to be a cult film pretty soon and deserves that status. It was produced by Sam Raimi's production company, the first really solid film I've seen from them. The Grudge remake was okay but weak in comparison to the terrific original, and the rest of them have had reviews to make you want to avoid the films like the plague.
So this and Star Trek has made it an excellent weekend for films for me.
Friday, 8 May 2009
Star Trek
This is a very brief blog for now. Just saw Star Trek and thought it was loads of fun. Its was well cast, fast-paced and tied its plot together pretty well (even if the third act seemed pretty short). It had its plot contrivances but nothing that was painful, all done to keep the story moving at a fast pace. It had good character moments through-out, on the pulp level, and had a nice build and mix of scenes that kept the story constantly interesting. Most importantly, while it never went for the more idea-led idealistic face of Star Trek (which a lot of the times leads to dull pretension) it got back to the fun side of the show that has been achingly missing from Trek for years, with the Next Generations and the like, who simply talk slowly to signify something needs thought and leave out the fun. This Trek blows up planets and has Kirk screw a green chick. It reminds of of the fun movies of last year such as Iron Man, Speed Racer and Hellboy 2, where the emphasis was on fun. Basically its a drunken riot, and can that be wrong.
Monday, 20 April 2009
J. G. Ballard 1930 - 2009
Ballard was a major writer for me, a huge influence. The news of his death is a huge shock. Early novels such as The Crystal World to later works such as Crash, High Rise and The Kindness Of Women, as well as his many short stories, were stunning works. One of those deaths where I can't help but think someone important has died.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)