|
|
|---|
Showing posts with label Martin Scorsese. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Martin Scorsese. Show all posts
Wednesday, 3 August 2011
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Remember two years ago when Mad Men took up four of the five writing nominations at the Emmy? We sure do. Ryan (of Sorta That Guy) and I started Emmy predictions with the guest performers early in the week. We return, this time focusing on the potential writing and directing nominees. These categories are notoriously difficult to predict, but this conversation was a lot of fan to predict.
Ryan: But off the bat, I've never even tackled predicting Writing/Directing nominees before because it's hard.
Andrew: It IS hard to predict. You were saying on twitter that it’s exasperating when shows submit like a dozen episodes, and even though I know they want to give themselves as much chances, I wonder if they really expect double nods.
Ryan: It doesn't help that the Emmys LOVE to give multiple nods. I remember two years ago how ridiculously it was that Mad Men got 4 of the 5 nominations. Love the show, but that is excessive.
 |
| How many nods is Mad Men getting this year? |
Andrew: Well, imagine what it's like for people like me who DON'T love the show. They get a wee bit out of hand when they love you.
Ryan: Well with that said, shall we dive into Writing for a Drama then?
Andrew: Indeed, and since we're talking about Mad Men, they've won each year for the past three years. 2 nods the first season, 4 the second, 2 the third. How much do we see them getting this year and for what?
Ryan: At most 3 nominations for "The Suitcase" "Walfdorf Stories" and "Tomorrowland." I'm confident that "The Suitcase" will get nominated though.
Andrew: Really, because if we have any legitimate precursor for this category it's the WGA and the nominated MAD MEN episode there was "Chrysanthemum and the Sword"...which they won for...
Ryan: Hm. Maybe I should've paid more attention to the precursors! Well, then it'll be that and "The Suitcase." Or you know, maybe they'll get 4 nominations. Who knows anymore? The thing is there are a lot of new shows that they might want to honour.
Andrew: If there's a third, I'm thinking either "Tomorrowland" or "Beautiful Girls", but really they go crazy over some episodes. My favourite episode of the season was "The Good News", but I'm not a true fan. Sigh.
Ryan: Well as for new shows, Boardwalk Empire is the big one, but there's also Game of Thrones, Shameless, and The Walking Dead.
Andrew: Has Shameless been well received? That one seems to have escaped me.
Ryan: I'm not sure how well-received Shameless is actually, but it's HBO so it almost feel automatic for it to be in the running. And The Killing, which submitted almost every episode ever.
 |
| Any chance of The Killing making it in? |
Ryan: Especially since Boardwalk Empire's "Pilot" is the front-runner for Directing. Um, Martin Scorsese thank you very much.
Andrew: (Yup, he's the frontrunner. But, you're pre-empting me. ha. ha) I figure the season finale is the best bet for a nod.
Ryan: I agree, but I don't really watch the show so I don't know. Also I was wrong about Shameless, it's on Showtime, not HBO. Its chances actually dropped because of that.
Andrew: You are mean.
Ryan: I'm going purely by nominating history of the Emmy's. They love HBO.
Andrew: Friday Night Lights and The Good Wife both got writing nods last season. Are they coming back?
Ryan: That's funny since I was going to ask you if there are any non-cable shows that would make it in.
Andrew: Let me get this out of the way now, I don't get Friday Night Lights. I'm trying so hard to get through the final season, and it's well made but I just can't love it. I'm barely mustering up a liking.
Ryan: I actually quite love it, except for the final season. Something's just been off about it, but then again I saw all of Friday Night Lights in 2 weeks a few months ago.
Andrew: Well, they submitted one episode which means all the fans have one horse to bet on. A nod you think?
Ryan: It's a great strategy definitely, but who knows. Everyone else does seem to love it, so its finale "Always" has a shot. As for The Good Wife, I'd say "VIP Treatment."
Ryan: The episodes you mentioned are damn good, but that's the thing about this show, almost every episode is perfectly written. That's why I actually respect that they took the "less is more" route over the alternative.
Andrew: I do respect them for that. I'm a Dexter fan but it's never gotten a writing nod. Odd isn't it?
Ryan: Yeah and I have no idea how to explain it. They're okay with violence (The Sopranos), so who knows?
Andrew: I don't get that; and some critics weren't a fan of this season so I guess it's not a lock for a nod. I think it's time we show our hands; this is going to be fun. I'll go first.
Ryan: Do we really have to predict now, because I have 12 episodes on my long list and I have no idea how to pick 5-6 of them. I really, really don't. Guess I'll look at yours and decide.
Andrew: Pick blindly. (And you only have 5 choices.)
Ryan: Even better.
Andrew: My picks:
Boardwalk Empire “A Return to Normalcy”
The Good Wife “VIP Treatment”
The Killing “Pilot”
Mad Men “The Chrysanthemum and the Sword”
Mad Men “The Suitcase”
Ryan: My predictions are actually the exact same as yours, except I'm wavering on The Killing's Pilot. BUT my alternatives to that would be episodes from genre shows aka Game of Thrones"Baelor" and The Walking Dead"Days Gone By." So... I'm going to go with…
Boardwalk Empire “A Return to Normalcy”
The Good Wife “VIP Treatment”
Game of Thrones “Baelor”
Mad Men “The Chrysanthemum and the Sword”
Mad Men “The Suitcase”
Andrew: I, too, am wavering on The Killing, people have started to hate it so it could easily get ignored. And I don't see Game of Thrones getting love. I'd be pissed on principal if they do, because they ignored The Tudors back in the name which I find criminal.
Ryan: That's exactly why I'm wavering on The Killing. The buzz just seems to not be on its favour now, while Game of Thrones is riding some good ones.
Andrew: But the Emmy's are weird, they kept nominating Two and a Half Men without a care in the world. So, who knows?
Ryan: I'm predicting a shut out for that show this year. But maybe its wishful thinking. Also, that's jumping ahead a bit. Shall we go to Directing? Any front-runners?
Andrew: Hah. I'm already dreaming about how awesome Martin's speech will be.
Ryan: He's so locked, it's funny. I'm looking forward to seeing it. And I will definitely see that episode before the Emmy's. This category is a bit more forgiving on genre shows, so I'm predicting Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, and maybe even Fringe could get in. The latter is DEFINITELY wishful thinking on my part.
Andrew: I have Game of Thrones there too.
Ryan: Three episodes though. Which one has the better chance?
Andrew: I say the pilot, for obvious reasons. Dexter will probably make it too. It won last year, and Shill directed "Everything is Ilumenated" which seems to have a good chance.
Ryan: I was thinking the pilot, too. And yes, definitely on "Everything Is Illumenated" since as you said, it’s last year's winner.
Andrew: Although, I'd think "Hop a Freighter" is a more obvious choice...
Ryan: And how about the perennial winner Mad Men? I keep saying "The Suitcase" because it was my personal favorite episode of the season, but I'm not sure. Especially since Matt Weiner did "Tomorrowland" and last year nominee Lesli Linka Glatter did "The Chrysanthemum And The Sword." Also I say "winner" though it hasn't won a directing award, has it?
Andrew: They've never won for directing, and probably might not...it could be any number of nods for them, though...but one is what I’m assuming...
Ryan: Any thoughts on the chances of "These Arms of Mine" for Grey's Anatomy? The direction of that episode was front and centre as they had to make it look like a documentary.
Andrew: But they've started hating on the show, they didn't even nominate Sandra last year. So I don't want to be hasty.
Andrew: I concur. Emmy's are really random that way.
Ryan: Another nominee last year, Agnieskza Holland could be nominated for her work on The Killing. But who knows?
Andrew: Show your hand, sir. Before you do, though, the DGA nominated Dexter, Mad Men, Lost, Game of Thrones and Boardwalk Empire.
Ryan: Thank you sir for that. Okay...
Boardwalk Empire “Pilot
Dexter “Everything is Illumenated”
Game of Thrones “Winter is Coming”
Mad Men “The Suitcase”
The Walking Dead “Days Gone By”
Andrew: Seriously? That's my line-up which is really random.
Ryan: So you were thinking The Walking Dead, too, though? That one was the surprising consensus to me.
Andrew: (I erred it was actually The Walking Dead and not Game of Thrones which got DGA love. Game of Thrones hadn’t come out yet.) I'm going crap it up and say "Hop A Freighter" instead of “Everything is Illumenated” instead for DEXTER.
Boardwalk Empire “Pilot
Dexter “Hop A Freighter”
Game of Thrones “Winter is Coming”
Mad Men “The Suitcase”
The Walking Dead “Days Gone By”
And...Darabont (The Walking Dead) is an Oscar nominee. But, really who knows?
Any predictions on the writing and directing for drama categories? Scorsese for the win? Mad Men to rule and conquer?
Saturday, 4 June 2011
CS had asked me which of Scorsese’s “periods” I prefer and I was reticent about pouncing unremitting faithfulness to the Scorsese/DiCaprio era. In theory I don’t think it’s his premier period but still I seem to have commitment to it. Regardless of whether or not it reveals poorness in my allegiance as a Scorsese supporter The Departed is my favourite of his films and The Aviator is probably the film of the last decade that I’ve dedicated most ink to. It’s as I’ve said before, 2004 was a watershed for me in terms of the movies and 2004 was all about The Aviator. But, more than that it was the beginning of the Scorsese love.
Periods is probably the best way to start the discussion on Scorsese. Both because Scorsese’s style – as continuous as it is – often seems to be divided systemically according to years. Then, the The Aviator (which is a great film for repeat viewings) does so many things with classical movie periods and camera use. I’m not overly pedantic about the expressly technical side of filmmaking, but Scorsese is the type of director who makes you appreciate the more meticulous aspect of the trade. It’s probably why the loudest of his naysayers always accuse him of brilliant segments, but a truncated whole. I’m almost always certain that they’re talking about Gangs of New York when they say that, but the truth is – they’re sometimes talking about The Aviator. I won’t re-re-review The Aviator, but I will say that the way in which Scorsese makes films insists on that fastidiousness which I suppose could come off to some as too much head and too little heart.
This is why I’m always surprised that The Age of Innocence, one of his best in my eyes, is so heavily glossed over or even excised from his 90s period. True, it’s meticulous in that sense of luminosity that the best of period pieces seem to retain but it’s also particularly organic and sincere. I don’t care to disprove or affirm the theory that Newland Archer, for all his ostensible quietness, is just as violent as the more notorious of Scorsese heroes – it’s debatable. What is significant, for me, is the dynamism of his talent which it reveals.
I’ll admit, that as a staunch supporter I often wish that Scorsese would do (more) comedy. I’m abysmal, perhaps, but I’ve still not touched on After Hours. Even his most gritty dramas Scorsese has such a handle on humorous situations which he manages to deliver without compromising the tension. The one that springs out to be first is the entire first day of Francine and Jimmy in New York/New York. I’ve never seen either Minnelli or DeNiro as comfortable doing banter as they are there, in another oft forgotten Scorsese venture. On the note of first meetings, the one between Howard and Katharine in The Aviator drips (deliberately, I’d presume) with that Cukor-esque form of humour which is *vastly underrated*. Or how about the cranberry juice in The Departed?
It’s not that The Aviator was the first Scorsese film I saw, but with all of the cinematic allusions of which it comprises it makes sense that it’d get me interested both in film and Scorsese. I’m still working my way through his filmography, and it’s a premature statement to make without having completed it. But, I’ve not seen a bad Scorsese film. Yet.
Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore B/B+
The Aviator A
Cape Fear B+
Casino B+
The Departed A
Gangs of New York B+
GoodFellas A
The Last Temptation of Christ B+
Mean Streets B
New York / New York B+
Raging Bull A
Shutter Island B
Taxi Driver A-
Pick a favourite, or three. What’s your least favourite?
Friday, 29 April 2011
They say that retrospection gives way to perspective which gives way to the most effective view of things. I’m not sure that always applies to the cinematic world, though. If retrospection doesn’t precipitate nostalgic remembrances, it gives way to unnecessarily harsh points of view on certain films and Gangs of a New York is a fine example of that. Perhaps, it’s because a retrospective view at its ten Oscar nominations and zero wins suggests a less than impressive awards’ tally but by now you’d think that we’d stop using Oscar wins as a barometer for quality. All of Scorsese’s films this side of GoodFellas are befallen with the misfortune of being compared, unattractively, to his early work and next to The Age of Innocence, Gangs of a New York is the one accused most often of gratuitous style over substance. (Incidentally, both star Daniel Day Lewis, whose birthday is today.) I’m neither here nor there on whether that commendation holds up, but now is as good a time as any for a retrospective look at the 2001 “epic”.
I don’t know what is about Scorsese, he’s almost always regarded for his meticulous attention to detail but even in the consistency of his films – thematically – I’m always impressed with the scope of his imagination. In more ways than one Gangs of a New York is an ideal predecessor to The Aviator. It’s not just the presence of DiCaprio, Scorsese’s interest in history is potent as is the expansive epic style which he puts to more careful use in The Aviator. Scorsese’s films are always notable for their technical prowess and Gangs of New York makes extensive use of that – Michael Ballhaus photography in particular belongs to that specific school of lush which is so often mistaken for gratuitousness. Of course, that’s probably why it’s often cited as one of the leading examples of style over substance.
I won’t deny that I have massive nepotism when it comes to Martin Scorsese, and I’d be the first to admit that Gangs of New York has a story which has its issues with structures but I can’t criticise it for its actual story which I’m impressed with. Zaillian is a bit of a hit and miss with his screenplay credits, but Gangs of New York for me falls in the realm of the hit. The film is defined by its grittiness and it’s easy to give that credit to Scorsese because it’s a coarseness that a number of his films are marked with. But, Zaillian deserves a significant amount of credit for what exists as an impetus for the entire film. The important word there is impetus, though, because like so many of his films Scorsese’s scope overshadows the written word.
I mentioned Daniel Day Lewis in my opening paragraph, and his Bill the Butcher defines the entire film. I hate that memory of the supporting cast is eviscerated because they do turn in good work. But, it is Lewis’ film and he turns in what’s arguably the greatest performance of 2002 – which is significant considering the great work turned in by actors that year. This isn’t my favourite performance of his, but on his birthday today I can’t help but turn to Gangs of New York to remember him by. Lewis is an masterpiece, Gangs of New York is bit too flawed to be one. But, where they can shake hands is in their scopes. Love it or hate it, it’s difficult to deny the majesty of Scorsese’s intentions here, same goes for Daniel Day Lewis. The film, like it's main actor demands your attention at first glance and then it surprises with you with some distressing moments of poignancy.
What did you think of Scorsese's Gangs of New York? How would you celebrate DDL?
Friday, 15 April 2011
I'm a sucker for Scorsese, so I love this post that Paolo did on The Last Temptation of Christ by default. Really, though, almost all of Scorsese's films beg you to analyse. I'm both surprised it got any Oscar love, and miffed that it only got one.
Stephanie lists her five favourite Sidney Lumet films. I'm still not sure what I'd pick as a favourite. And yet, even though Long Day's Journey Into Night is nowhere near my favourite it's always the film of his I remember first, and not even for Kate. I just think Dean Stockwell is phenomenal in it.
On the note of classics, though, Anna lists the best female classic performances, by her edict. Kate is on there - if she wasn't I wouldn't even have thought of linking this. I kid you not. (PS. Am I the only one who thinks Eva Marie Saint looks like a dead-ringer for Kristin Scott Thomas in that screenshot?)
And moving from the classics to the modern, Nicholas offers up a nice review of Kick-Ass. I say no more, it's a good one. I'm crossing fingers that Aaron Johnson comes off that great year last year to make a good career for himself.
The Mad Hatter is taking one for the team, watching truly horrendous films...or so he says. The thing is, I've seen only one on the list - so I can't be certain they're that awful, I've never even heard of them. Are they?
And to close, check out this fine retrospective of Redford's directing career that Yojimbo charted.
Saturday, 12 March 2011
This is another entry in my month-long retrospective on female centred cinematic bravery.
I hadn’t initially planned on taking a look at Liza Minnelli’s work under Scorsese, but noticing that her birthday was today I started thinking of her career. She’s both over appreciated and underappreciated. Most everyone recalls her brilliant 1972 Sally Bowles, but because of the raw deal that New York/New York often gets in history it’s not as oft-remembered. I remember I reviewed it on a whim for a LAMB’s Director’s Chair on the great Scorsese and it still doesn’t crack my top 5 Scorsese’s – although that doesn’t say much, I love most of his work. New York/New York is a simple musical tale of love lost and then found – in New York, no doubt and it endures as one of Scorsese’s biggest “flops”. This time around I’m less interested in defending its merit, yet again. I’m more interested in Francine’s plight. New York/New York has one of those openings that exudes iconicity (even if it’s probably never endured as such) and a prolonged conversation at a club between Francine and Jimmy (DeNiro) is as much preparation for their characters as you need. This is five years after Minnelli’s tour-de-force in Cabaret and the performance is permeated with a high level of maturity that’s palpable. At the sake of being repetitious, I must declare that the way in which Liza suggests her mother here is poignant – haunting even, but Scorsese steps back just enough to prevent the exercise from being exploitative.
It’s terribly easy to read any bloodstone tendencies in Francine as evident in her struggle with abuse from Jimmy. She is an abused woman, but what separates Jimmy from the slew of spousal abuse dramas on a certain network is its focus on character not aspect, Francine is not just an abused woman and Jimmy is not just an abuser. But, even though screenwriter Rauch tries to balance the story it’s difficult for DeNiro to compete with Liza when she’s at her near best. Even if I’ll flip-flop as to whether this is her best work I remain convinced that it’s the role that encapsulates her talents best. For all her beauty and talent, there’s such a subtle awkwardness to Liza that makes her performances all the more golden. I love that first scene where Jimmy’s auditioning terribly and Francine decides to start singing. That naiveté of her there, oddly juxtaposed with her talent is such a great illustration of her; and oh, how the camera – Scorsese that is – loves her.
As broken relationships tend to go, Liza gets her token scene of bravery when the two part ways – the first time around. For all its intensity New York/New York is consistently funny (sort of the opposite side to Annie Hall from the year; a funny look at a doomed relationship that is humorous with moments of lucid dramatic awareness), and watching a pregnant Francine have the argument of all arguments with her husband in a cramped car on a busy New York street is just one of the thing that ensures that Scorsesian nature of this piece – and, incidentally, ensures that Liza gets all the chances to be brilliant. It’s only two scenes later that the narrative splits and Francine breaks out on her own, personally and figurative. We get a flash-forward that’s so subtly done (evocative of the flash-forwards in The Aviator, now that I think of it) that’s centred on her performance of “But the World Goes Round” – one of her richest performances, of the film and otherwise.
This is a musical, and music is Liza’s niche and of course she nails those musical numbers. It’s Ebb and Kander, so I feel no guilt in saying that this sits in the top 3 numbers that merges singing and acting – something that, so often, goes out of the window in musicals. It’s the second half where she gets all those iconic numbers though – like that legendary extended number “Happy Days” (a brilliant mini-movie in itself) and, of course, “New York/New York”. Her musical success is paralleled against Jimmy's and that bittersweet end where she “leaves” him for the second time never fails to pierce, because as dysfunctional a relationship it is – it’s still theirs. Yet, even though that ending should more weight for DeNiro, who is so piercing in that final scene. That look on Francine’s face when we realise the decision she’s going to make is beautiful. Oh Liza, so often praised...and yet, so often not...
Happy birthday, Liza.
Monday, 18 October 2010
THE SETUP
THE REACTIONBILLY: “Cranberry juice.”
MAN: “It’s a natural diuretic. My girlfriend drinks it when she’s getting her period.”
MAN: “What, are you getting your period?”
THE FALLOUT
Lesson Learned: Don’t insult a man’s choice of drink. Especially if it’s Billy Costigan (and Cranberry Juice is a natural diuretic).
Sunday, 18 July 2010
The Aviator is one of those films I wish I had made. It oozes such sophisticated, old Hollywood charm that I find it difficult to resist; and it's not like I want to resist it anyhow. It's so well made, technically and otherwise, that I love to praise it. It was bound to show up here sooner or later, though it's particularly difficult finding just one scene to talk about. But, I'll pick one... A few minutes before this scene actually begins, Howard brings Katharine Hepburn to the Coconut Grove. It's a night out on the town, in theory at least. The scene in question surrounds the arrival of Hughes’ press agent to the table with Errol Flynn (an excellent cameo from Jude Law). Who doesn't love Hollywood banter?
I always love that shot of the irrepressibly happy band. The song Happy Feet really does make you want to get up and dance, even if the lead singer looks a bit manic, but more on that later.
You have to appreciate the attention to set design that occurs here. It's just brilliant to watch.
We see Kate looking sweetly at Hughes before the spell is broken.
Cate looks only slightly like Kate, and yet she is Kate completely. Sure, it’s like Kate on steroids – but I have a feeling that the real Kate was like Kate on steroids. Cate is very Tracy Lords in her affectations here - imperious, iron maiden and what not.
There comes Mr. Meyer, and isn’t that shot lovely? Sure, it was snubbed a host of other prize but at least the excellent art direction was remembered.
HOWARD: “Kate, this is Johnny Meyer. I suppose you could call him my press agent.”
JOHNNY: “Pleased to meet you. Loved you in Alice Adams.”KATE: “You’re too kind.”
Kate is so gracious, even when she’s not being gracious. I get the striking feeling that she feels an urge to roll her eyes at Meyers words. (And Cate does look too old for Alice Adams, but I nitpick.)
HOWARD: “I’m sure you know Errol, right?KATE: “Mr. Flynn, yes.”
I’ve already praised Jude’s work effusively; I really do love him here. As much as I admire DiCaprio I like Jude Law even more – even though he doesn’t do as much work as I would like him to do at the moment. The pairing of him with Cate (even if momentarily) is just a delight. I demand a rematch.
ERROL: “Kate, Kate of the clench-jawed Hepburns. Enchanting as always.”
Jude comes across as such a rake (but a charming one) – which is how he should. He’s the perfect actor to come in and steal the show in under five minutes. Remind me again why this wide (and talented) ensemble lost the SAG award to a film that centred on four thespians?
ERROL: “You should use Lux on your hands, by the way. I do.”
If pushed I’d probably call that bit my favourite part of Jude’s. It’s so thoroughly incidental and yet strikingly insensitive. Doesn’t he realise he’s just insinuated that her hands are not soft? What makes it better is Cate’s reaction…there is that half smile - and she looks down, only slightly...and then she ponders, for a moment...
I know most think Cate won her Oscar for being loud and brash, but it’s the softer moments where she says little or nothing that impress me me. Kate (the real one) has been described as a self-conscious beauty and Cate taps into that. She looks regal, but she’s not completely at ease.
I love how she looks across at Howard there. She’s already trying to start the telepathy: get me out of here, I’m an Oscar winner (unlike, Mr. Flynn, ahem).
JOHNNY: “You and Howard ought to cook up a picture. Co-star with Errol. I could sell that in spades. That would be marvellous. Howard?”
While Johnny is giving his lofty ideas (but that would have been a nice movie, though, no?) Errol has gone across to steal a chair from a nearby table – this will be important onwards.
I love the look on the man’s face.
Kate, but of course, is not sold on teaming up with Errol. She heads into a lovely bit of in-joke references that I greatly appreciate. It was not match for the entire winner, but Logan's screenplay is poorly underrated. Taut, funny, and even sarcastic at times - especially when Kate is front and centre.
KATE: “I think not. Don’t you read Variety, Mr. Meyer. Well, I’m box-office poison. I’m on the outs, the skids, the doldrums. Washed-up, day-old fish not worth the eating, so they tell me.”
I went a little overboard with the images but with Cate/Kate it’s an obsession. I love physicality of the performance; now she’s evoking memories of Hepburn circa Susan Vance. Certainly, she is not Kate but I still can’t help being invested in the performance. She is so in character, but yet she’s not overly technical about all the character tics.
ERROL: “Hell with them. Hell with them. Soulless pricks to man, right?”
Howard seems completely out of the loop here.
ERROL: “Johnny tells me you’re thinking of doing a Western, of all goddamn things.”
That uncomfortable pause never fails to make me chuckle, even if must try to look for subtext. Is he really deaf?
And don’t those two look lovely together above?
KATE: “Are you making a Western, Howard?”
HOWARD: “Yeah, making a Western. I’m gonna call it The Outlaw.”
JOHNNY: “Yeah, and you know what it’s about? S-E-X. It’s all about S-E-X.
Honestly, isn't Adam Scott just on point here? Sure, we know him for his comedy bit - but not this type of comedy. Why does he spell out the word? His take on the officious grease ball is just another example of the brilliant cast working in superlatives.
HOWARD: “It’s a Western.”
DiCaprio such a good job of making Howard particularly loopy, though he’s never stupid. S
ERROL: “You can’t have fornication in a Western. It isn’t done.”
JOHNNY: “It’s not real sex, it’s movie sex. What Scarface did for the gangster picture, The Outlaw will do for the Western. Put the sex and blood and guts up there on the screen.”
Oh how times have changed, I’m so thinking of Scorsese’s bloody gangsters and Eastwood’s westerns. Apparently you can have fornication anywhere now. Kudos to modernisation. Ha.
The food has been delivered and yet these buffoons are here. I love Kate's over-excitement at the arrival. She's trying to send a message. Obviously
ERROL: “Have you seen my cigarettes?”
Another random bit of line-reading there. Jude is thoroughly in character he’s not even trying - he’s just there being awesome.
KATE: “Don’t mind us.”
You can’t forget her when she’s there – she ensures that. It really must be annoying getting your first date (well second, technically) crashed by a pair of boors.
WAITER: “New York cut steak, 12 peas, bottle of milk with the cap on.”
I will say that dinner looks unappetising to me…and milk?
JOHNNY: “You can’t afford your own cigarettes?”
ERROL: “Jack has all my money.”
KATE: “I hope your food isn’t getting cold at your table somewhere or something.”JOHNNY: “No, no. We’re here all night. Don’t worry.”
Talk about not being able to take a bint...
There is one of the most insincere smiles – Cate’s so good with the expressions.
All the while Howard is very intent on attacking that steak.
ERROL: “Now, Howard. If you’re seriously talking about putting carnality back on the silver screen, you must swear to let me in on the casting sessions.”
And Errol Flynn in all his smug entitlement dares to take a pea from Howard’s plate. Howard is schizophrenic, we will remember, so the fact that someone's hand is in his plate exasperates him; he tries to hide it, poorly.
That glare from DiCaprio is brilliant.
ERROL: “I have an eye for talent.”
Kate’s look at Howard is another example of her doing so much with so little. She keeps the focus on herself and Howard's mental state even though she’s not leading the scene, and that's not at the forefront at the moment.
Oddly, though, there are still twelve peas remaining…what is Errol eating?
Howard can’t even hear him anymore, he’s so chagrined.
JOHNNY: “You ought to give up prancing in tights to be a talent scout.”
I do appreciate the not-so-subtle allusion to Flynn’s Robin Hood.
ERROL: “That prancing paid for my new yacht. You must all come sailing with me.”
JOHNNY: “Catalina. Sounds grand, eh.”
ERROL: “I’ve even managed to coax…the luscious Miss De Havilland and her equally luscious sister to come. Though I fear their mother will insist on coming, to preserve their questionable virtue. We shall assault these twin monuments of pristine Britannic beauty nonetheless.”
Errol really is painted as a crass cad, and you have to love the movie references. So much is going above, though. Cate is once again chanelling Tracy Lords (if looks could kill), and Howard is clearly not enjoying the possibility of Joan and Olivia. He's still to perturbed thinking about this not-quite-missing pea.
ERROL: “What do you say, Howard?”
HOWARD: “Yeah?”
JOHNNY: “Yeah…”
More telepathy from Kate there - do something.
HOWARD: “Yeah…I gotta go. If you'll excuse us, we have... We have to be somewhere.”
And the lady is content. I love how Kate just pops up from that chair.
ERROL: “You are somewhere, Howard, you madman.”
HOWARD: “Somewhere else. Excuse us.”
Great reaction there from Scott. They're all so in character. And then Kate wins a prize for best use of appropriate bitchiness (said with love).
KATE: “Charmed, gentlemen. Do help yourself to the poached pears. I hear they're divine.”
Divine is just what the waiter called them when she placed her order, so we'll assume they are.
JOHNNY: “Well. Howard Hughes, ladies and gentlemen.”
And apparently, he's not the only one slighted. The man whose chair was stolen by Errol returns...
ERROL: “Was that meant for me?”
How childish, though, throwing a rolled-up napkin?
KATE: “My hero. God, all that Hollywood talk bores me silly. As if there aren't more important things, like Mussolini. Where are we going, by the way?”
She barely gives herself time to breathe, what a chatterbox she is.
HOWARD: “Do you feel like a little adventure, Ms. Hepburn?”
KATE: “Do your worst, Mr. Hughes.”
But the scene doesn’t end there.
The club drifts into a frenzy with Errol at the centre…and even the very orchestra seems to go wild too.
I did say that lead singer looked manic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
