Why Ben Affleck Should NOT Direct a Batman Film

So, last week Ben Affleck was cast as Batman in the upcoming “Man of Steel” sequel.  Now, I personally love Affleck as the choice to play Batman/Bruce Wayne.  I believe Ben Affleck has come a long way in his career and is, at this point, a great actor.  Over time, people grow as artists and, generally, as human beings.  However, that isn’t entirely what I want to talk about.  While everyone is talking about Affleck playing Batman, I want to talk about why he shouldn’t direct a Batman spin-off of any form. 

I feel that Affleck really came into his own after he directed “Gone Baby Gone”.  Personally, I feel Affleck’s work on that film made him a better actor and proved he was a great director.  When we all were blown away with his second directorial effort “The Town”, in which he also starred; he essentially said I’m here to stay and this is what I can do.  Then at last year’s Academy Awards, he was snubbed for best Director but won his second Oscar.  He now has a Screenwriting Oscar and the Award for Best Picture for his work Producing “ARGO”.  Ben Affleck is a star in front and behind the camera; that is a fact.

So with the news of Affleck being cast as Batman, there has been speculation by many that he may want to direct a Batman spin-off film.  Now, while I really like the choice of Affleck playing Batman, I HATE the chance of him directing a Batman film and it’s not because he wouldn’t direct the film well.  His track record has shown the guy can direct the daylights out of a film.  The reason is because of the type of films he has directed - “Gone Baby Gone”, “The Town” and “ARGO”.  I feel his wheelhouse is gritty, realistic and, dare I say, more artistic films… character driven films. 

At one point there was news that the rights to “Bunker Hill: A City, a Siege, a Revolution”, a book by Nathaniel Philbrick based on the Battle of Bunker Hill during The Revolutionary War was picked up and passed to Chris Terrio, to pen the screenplay.  For those of you who may not know, Terrio wrote the screenplay for “ARGO”.  “Bunker Hill” is another film that takes place in Affleck’s beloved city of Boston.  It would be a film that I would LOVE to see him direct.  It would be fantastic to see a great Revolutionary War film.  If Terrio is writing, a man who works extremely well with history (“ARGO” was a true story) and Affleck is directing, the movie could be a film for the ages.

Yet another film Affleck has in the works right now is “Live By Night” which is based on a book by Dennis Lehane, the author of “Gone Baby Gone”, Affleck’s directorial debut.  The film adaptation of “Live By Night” will be written, directed and produced by Affleck and he will also be acting in the movie.  The story takes place in Prohibition Era Boston during the roaring 20s.  This is another story that sounds like it would be right in Ben Affleck’s wheelhouse and a bull’s-eye considering what he did with “Gone Baby Gone” for which he also had a screenwriting credit.

What I am getting at is this; although I think Affleck is a tremendous talent, I feel he thrives in certain areas of filmmaking and that is dramatic character studies.  There is not much of that in Hollywood right now with the Superhero Generation of film.  So, I REALLY don’t like the possibility of one of the best young directors who thrives in character studies, jumping to direct a Superhero film.  Let Joss Whedon and Zack Snyder stick to that.  In a day and age where we get less and less character and less and less depth, do we want Ben Affleck, one of the best talents at giving us character and depth, stepping out of that genre? 

- George McCann

Life and Death of the Western Genre

Once upon a time there was a genre of film called the Western.  The Western genre was HUGE in the 40s, slowed down in the late 60s, and virtually came to a halt in the late 70s .  When the Western was in its prime, we had amazing directors like Howard Hawks and John Ford.  I give credit to these two men (especially Ford) for giving the audience locations to marvel, stories to dazzle and direction to influence future directors, such as Sergio Leone.

It seems that the time of the Western, in the 40s – 50s, was a simpler time.  We knew who was good.  We knew who was bad and we knew what we were in for - a great adventure across the western frontier at the movies.  When Westerns ruled the screen, things were simple.  The stories were tales of grandeur.  We were served stories about life - working, fighting, grazing; stories of justice and injustice, yet it was not complex. 

Today everything is more complicated both in the real world and on the screen but why can’t we go to the movies and just see Gary Cooper protect his town like in Fred Zinnemann’s classic, 'High Noon' or watch John Wayne try to protect his family after the Civil War in John Ford’s masterpiece 'The Searchers'?  Why is everything so complicated?  Here’s the only logic I can come up with.

In the mid 60s, an Italian director came along named Sergio Leone.  The man was a great director and he revived the Western with 'A Fistful of Dollars', 'For a Few Dollars More' and 'The Good the Bad and the Ugly'.   The films would later be known as, 'The Dollars Trilogy'.  They single handedly launched the career of Clint Eastwood.  As the Western was dying in the United States, Sergio Leone took it to Italy.  These films coined the phrase “The Spaghetti Western”.  I don’t know if Leone did this intentionally but his films are what started making Westerns more complicated (along with the changing times).  As 'The Dollars Trilogy' progressed, the filmmaking evolved as well as the stories.  The films introduced The Man with No Name.  The lead character in all three of the films (played by Eastwood) never had a name thus raising more questions and asking more of the audience and the genre became less simple.  The trilogy blurred the lines of good and bad.  We had an antihero, a game changer.  Westerns were no longer simple.  You had to think a bit more, evaluate and form an opinion. Things were no longer black and white.  Some people would say this was revolutionary in many ways.  I would agree but it was so revolutionary that there weren’t many Westerns after the trilogy to have a simple hero.  The simplicity was lost and it changed the Western genre and it changed film. 

After 'The Dollars Trilogy', Leone did one more Western, hailed as one of the greatest of all time - 'Once Upon A Time in the West'.  'Once Upon A Time in the West' did two things; one, solidified that there is no simplicity in the west; and two, and possibly more revolutionary, took a well known actor, who had never played a villain in his life and put him in the most evil role possible.  The actor was Henry Fonda.  Without Henry Fonda playing Frank, things might have been very different for a very long time.  Fonda’s choice to play an evil character and Leone’s choice to cast him changed the future of Westerns.

In 1973, Actor/Director Clint Eastwood stepped onto the stage full force with 'High Plains Drifter'.  The film took literally everything anyone knew about the Western and flipped it with the lead character being less of an antihero and more of a villain.  A bold move for Eastwood but one that proved he was here to stay and he was here to change the genre… forever.  Eastwood had done other directing work with 'Play Misty for Me' but this was his first shot at directing the West and it paid off.  It paid off big.  'High Plains Drifter' is an intense, violent and disturbing tale of the West but it is good.  It is REALLY good.  After 'Drifter', Eastwood’s next directional Western was 'The Outlaw Josey Wales', a film that is immensely close to Eastwood and, dare I say, his best Western.  'Josey' said a TON about society.  The film was and is possibly one of the most accurate films about what soldiers did to homesteaders during the Civil War and it is the first scene in the film.  The tone is set and off you go.  'The Outlaw Josey Wales' is Eastwood’s Western masterpiece and was way ahead of its time. 

So, as you can see, as time went by, Western’s evolved.  In 1990, after a long halt, the Western tried to make a comeback with 'Dances with Wolves', the story of the horrifying acts that took place on the plains.  We saw what United States soldiers did to the Native American people.  It is an amazing film and Kevin Costner earned his Oscars but the film made people uncomfortable with the West.  Then in 1992, 'Unforgiven' was released, another Eastwood film and probably the truest tale of the darkness of the West - no beauty, just honesty, very similar to 'Wolves' in that sense.  After the honesty in those films, the genre died.  I think people had seen enough of the West and wanted to leave the past in the past.  With these films, the illusion of the West was gone.  The glory and grandeur was lost.  Folks would never look at another Western the same way.  They would see only the brutality instead of the beauty.  That being said, the West had heroes and villains, violence and heroics.  If the hero were still shown along with the villain, would the Western still be in theaters today?  Would people be at the box office or would the Western still remain a part of cinema’s past?

       

        - George McCann

Horror Films, What Gets It Right?

The point of a horror film is to scare you and there was a time when horror films were amazing, “The Exorcist”, “The Omen” (1976), “The Shining”, “Psycho” and “Halloween”.  These are films that set up a story with characters you care about with whom you are invested.  The task is met through story and characters. 

Look at “Halloween”.  The back-story of Michael Myers, as well as the character of Dr. Sam Loomis (played brilliantly by Donald Pleasence) creates both intrigue as well as atmosphere.  We get great lore and that lore gives us connection.  It is a damn scary film and a fantastic achievement.  The film was made on a low budget and had a limited time to shoot.  John Carpenter made a classic horror film and his score will bring chills down your spine all on its own.

If you want to talk about another truly scary film look at “The Omen”.   One of the most fascinating and scary things about that film is the unknown.  That film has the truest tone and sense of the unknown possibly in horror film history.  This is a film that doesn’t rely on jump scares or blood or even violence when you think about it.   It simply relies on the fear of the unknown… the “what ifs”, so to speak, and at the same time we care enough about the Thorn family to be invested.  The audience is also wondering about the photographer character, Jennings, who for a good part of the film we know nothing about…again, the unknown.  These are some of the tools that make for great horror and why “The Omen” is a classic that still holds up.  The last frame is one of the scariest things I have ever seen on film.

Now, let’s look at “The Shining”.  In “The Shining”, we have a family, the supernatural and insanity.  If that isn’t a setting for an awesome horror film, what is? The thing about “The Shining” that makes it SO damn scary is we care about the Torrance’s and we not only watch Jack deteriorate but we watch his family deteriorate with him.  The supernatural combined with the setting of The Overlook Hotel in the middle of nowhere, adds terror.   When that film ends, you are left with an unsettling feeling… a feeling of something being off so to speak.  The same can be said for “The Exorcist” and all the other films I listed up top.  After watching these “true horror” types of films, you are legitimately scared.  You get in your car and it creaks and the sound leaves you unsettled.  You might not sleep so tight. 

In my eyes, half the battle with horror films (or any films for that matter) is having a character or characters to care for; this is the main task of filmmaking.  That’s what is lacking the most in horror, the connection to the stakes and to the characters.  You can easily have high stakes in a horror film but if I don’t care about any of the characters then I’m not going to care if they live or die, get away or get possessed.  I need to care.

In 2013, there aren’t many horror films that that leave a lingering effect and make you care and connect to the characters.  It seems the horror genre has become about making a quick buck in October.  The art of truly evoking emotion, both in connection to the characters as well as scaring the daylights out of you has been lost like a leaf blowing off a tree on a cool October day.

-George McCann

When Will Brad Pitt Win An Oscar?

I don’t usually write about specific actors, but this actor I feel is worthy of discussion.  In my opinion, Mr. Brad Pitt is one of the best actors of this generation but never seems to get the honor he really deserves; an Oscar.  In 1996, Brad Pitt was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for, “12 Monkeys” but lost to Kevin Spacey for, “The Usual Suspects” a HUGE snub in my opinion.  I think “The Usual Suspects” is very over rated but that’s a different article for a different day.  Then, in 2009, Pitt got his first Best Actor Nomination for, “The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button” but lost to Sean Penn for “Milk” (Right call in my opinion). In 2011, Pitt got the Best Actor Nomination again for the fantastic film, “Moneyball” and lost to Jean Dujardin.  Hey, it happens; but it happens to Brad Pitt A LOT.  I’m waiting for Mr. Pitt to accept an Oscar for a career that really has had very few poor films and rarely, even if there is a poor film, is it due to Pitt.  If you read the man’s filmography, he has done at least a dozen great films and no real stinkers.  

Look at “Se7en” directed by David Fincher.  When Pitt first got that script, he read three pages of it and put it down.  A friend of his talked him into reading the script all the way through. (You can hear the whole story on “Inside the Actor’s Studio”.)  He didn’t want to do the same cop film we had seen a million times before, which shows he cares about what films he makes and the characters he plays.  The other reason I bring this up is because a lesser actor could have easily made the character of Mills just what Pitt wanted to avoid, a generic character that we have seen a million times before.  In “Se7en”, Pitt pulls off lines in a dark film that will make you laugh.  For example, “Just because he has a library card doesn’t make him Yoda.”  This line is in reference to a serial killer on the loose, but we laugh.  The character portrayed is multi-layered - Mills the cocky cop, Mills the family man and Mills the broken man at the end of the film.  The “WHAT’S IN THE BOX,” scene in my opinion is an Oscar worthy scene on its own.  The glazed look in Pitt’s eyes when the film ends, is heart breaking.

The list goes on.  In “A River Runs Through It”, he plays a brother who can’t get himself out of trouble but has no problem getting into it.  We would think this is an easy role to pull off and maybe it is, but Pitt raises the bar.  He uses his charisma and charm making you worry about the character.  He creates relationships with the character’s brother and father that feel REAL on every level.  So, we care and cry about events that are never shown on screen near the end of the film.  In the film “Inglourious Basterds”, he plays an unorthodox Nazi Hunter.  This character could easily have been overacted and become one of the most annoying characters in film history, but not with Pitt in the role.  He creates interest with an accent that is SO out of the box, it’s loveable.  It’s also something he has never done.  There aren’t many actors that can spew out Tarantino dialogue.  It’s more like singing an Opera than speaking lines but that twang and arrogance that Pitt brings to the character makes us go along for the ride without question.  

“Fight Club” is an amazing film where he plays a man who runs an underground fight club.  The line, “I want you to hit me as hard as you can” doesn’t make much sense in reality, but the character of Tyler Durden makes it real and Brad Pitt makes Tyler Durden real.  This was also somewhat of a departure for Pitt.  He plays a character who, at his core, is just a nut case and a pretty bad dude.  So why do we care about a nut case and all the pain that he feels, the punches he takes and antics he goes through in his day to day life?   The reason IS because Brad Pitt is playing a nut case and doing it so well, it’s at times uncomfortable.  We are intrigued by this but the actor has to keep you invested to bring the intrigue.   Pitt has fully immersed himself in the role and is no longer anything but that character.  In “The Devil’s Own”, Pitt plays a terrorist IRA gunrunner living in the United States with a New York City police officer.  What makes that role special is Pitt brought out the character’s passion for his home and the brutal, open honesty and emotion of what the man believes in… where his moral core is coming from.  We feel what the character feels and we see things from his point of view.  The role is played so well that we are rooting for this guy.  That honesty and raw emotion makes us sympathize and rationalize what this man is doing and see life from his perspective.  It also doesn’t hurt that he does a Northern Irish accent pretty damn well.  In “The Devil’s Own”, there is a scene in a church at a Confirmation ceremony with a long shot of Pitt’s eyes and you feel like you are looking into the character’s soul and feeling all he feels - the pain, the sorrow, the regret and the passion for his cause.  At least I felt that way.

The aforementioned mentioned “Moneyball” is another film that has many shots of Pitt’s eyes whereby you know exactly what the character is feeling.  That shows the caliber of Brad Pitt’s talent.  You feel what the character feels just by seeing the look in his eyes.  I never feel like I am watching Brad Pitt the movie star on the cover of magazines.  I feel like I’m in a world with a man I have never met before and I am invested.  The man’s love of his craft and the talent he has makes you care about these characters.  Every single time he steps on screen, he is no longer Brad Pitt. 

What I am saying by rattling this list of a few of the characters Pitt has played, is the guy NEVER (with the exception of the “Ocean’s” films) plays the same character twice.  He’s not someone who can be type cast.

I’m sure you are all sitting at home saying, “Tons of actors can do this. It’s not just Brad Pitt.” The sad truth is not as many actors as you would think can do this type of work and some of the actors that can, choose not to.  For example, look at Tom Cruise.  Tom Cruise is a very talented actor but he doesn’t take roles anymore that hold much emotional weight.  He does his action movies and puts great effort into them but the big emotional films like, “A Few Good Men” or “Born On The 4^th Of July” or even “Jerry Maguire” aren’t coming out anymore and let’s face it the man can’t do accents to save his life.  I mean did you see “Far And Away”?  Another example I would throw out there is Matt Damon.  I love a lot of Damon’s work but I don’t think it’s at the caliber of Pitt’s.  “Good Will Hunting” and “The Departed” are probably the only two films I would put in the same category as the majority of the films I listed from Brad Pitt and the real emotional storyline in “The Departed” revolves around Leonardo DiCaprio’s character (who is not quite at Pitt’s level yet. That being said, he’s getting there very quickly.)  Matt Damon is a great actor but he doesn’t evoke the same emotion that Pitt does, not since “Good Will Hunting”.  Damon seems to be another extremely talented actor to jump on the action train.  Not to the same extent as Cruise, but he’s heading in that direction.  The actors that are doing what Pitt does would be guys like Christian Bale, Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington.  These men are actors that hold you by the throat and don’t let go until the film is over; but guess what?  Those men all have an Oscar to show for it.  Brad Pitt still does not.

-George McCann

The Heart of Indiana Jones

So, I’m sure everyone has now heard the whisperings of a possible Indiana Jones 5.  I’m not here to talk about that so much.  I’m here to talk about the trilogy and what made it so great.  'Raiders of the Lost Ark' is, and forever will be, one of the greatest adventure films of all time.  The reason is not because of the big rolling boulder or the snakes.  The reason is because of heart.  That’s right, heart.  Indiana Jones is a character that has a ton of heart.   A GREAT example of this is early in the film when he is packing to go see Marion.  There is a look on Indy’s face after he throws the whip in his trunk… a look of pure pain and raw emotion.  (Go back and watch the scene. You will see what I’m talking about.) We get a little back-story in that scene.  A further example of this is when Indy actually sees Marion for the first time after Abner’s death when we get the silhouette of Indy in the doorway.  If you listen extremely closely to Indy say, “Hello Marion”, it is not the normal happy Indy greeting.  There is sadness in the tone of his voice and we find out why later when they speak about Indy leaving and Marion being in love.  In that scene Indy’s silhouette only moves and loosens after Marion says, “Indiana Jones, I always knew someday you’d come walking back through my door.”  Then, in a later scene, when Indy sees the explosion in the streets of Cairo and he thinks Marion is dead, the look on Ford’s face shows every emotion Indy feels in that moment… the regret (because he loves her) and the sadness and guilt (because of what happened when he left, before Abner died).  In a scene soon after, he goes out drinking and is sitting by himself with the monkey Marion loved and Indy hated.  He looks at the monkey and the look on his face shows how much he misses Marion.  The character is so well rounded and full of heart and emotion.  If we want to take this a step further, we could even say that the fact that his first concern before an expedition is that the artifacts go to a museum also gives more insight into the depth of his character and his heart.  Indy’s last concern is money.  That’s what makes him Indy.  He is human with a huge heart, caring about both people and artifacts for all the right reasons.

Now, that’s just 'Raiders'.  What about 'Indiana Jones and the Temple Of Doom'?  Let’s go there; shall we?  Let’s talk about the expressions of care Indy has for that village and the loss of their children.  The scene I would point to as the defining one in 'Temple' is one not many people talk about.   It’s the scene when the one boy escapes and returns to the village, falling into Indy’s arms.  Indy knows in that moment that he must help these people and it’s about so much more than just fortune and glory.  Another truly pivotal scene is the brainwash/sacrifice scene.  In that scene, Indy slaps Short Round (after being brainwashed).  Short Round stands up and says, “I love you, Indy.  Wake up.  You’re my best friend Indy.  Wake up.”  Then, Short Round pokes him with a torch.  Indy snaps out of it and tells him, “I’m alright kid”.  The emotion could have ended there as we revert back to the action and a fist fight ensues. However, after the fight the film takes an emotional beat to once again show Indy’s character. He goes up to Short Round, places his baseball cap on Short Round’s head, grabs him, hugging him tight….basically saying, “I love you too.”  In those looks and in those scenes, we get the defining moments of not just the film but of the character and of the man, Indiana Jones.

In the last film in the trilogy, 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade', which is also my personal favorite, a defining  scene is when Indy breaks into the German held castle to save his father.  After his dad hits him over the head with a vase, Indy takes joy in telling him about Sir Richard’s Tomb.  His father says “Junior, you did it” to which Indy replies with a smile on his face, “No, Dad, you did…”  Indiana Jones shows true love for his father in that scene with a very small, subtle line.  A different scene not too much further into the film would be when Indy refuses to kill Elsa, choosing to ignore his father’s advice and drop his gun.  He doesn’t want to believe she is a Nazi but she in fact is or is working with them (just as bad).  This is a man who wants to see the best in people even when his own father is telling him he is wrong.  If I am being honest though, we don’t see the key Indy “look” in 'Crusade' until the very end of the film.  The scene where we get that look is when Indy is holding his father’s head in his hands after he has been shot.  In that scene, with that look, we the audience know that Indy will make the walk and try to get the Grail.  Even though it’s not something Indy truly believes in whole heartedly, he will do it. He will do it for his father and so he does.

In the latest film, 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' (a film I will only acknowledge existing for the purpose of this article), we never get that look.  We get the over the top great serial action.  We get Indy’s hat never falling off even when he’s been hit so many times he should be dead. However, the bread and butter of the films… that beautiful look that holds all the heart, is gone.  
So when I hear the rumblings of a 5^th film, I am a little bit saddened to be honest because I know what I love about the trilogy and what was captured so well in the trilogy, is most likely gone because even though Spielberg, Lucas, Ford and even Allen came back for the 4th, the heart was still left behind.

-          George McCann