MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Spielberg's West Side Story is "Oscar Fr...

Spielberg's West Side Story is "Oscar Frontrunner"; Why wasn't Van Sant's Psycho?


December 2021:

a lot of first reviews are in on Spielberg's West Side Story -- not necessarily from "name" critics, but do we have those anymore? Bottom line: raves. "The movie to beat at the Oscars...front runner for Best Picture."

Let's take that last, first. Could it be? A movie from the same material as the 1961 Best Picture winner wins Best Picture ...with versions 60 years apart?

It sounds like too much. But Oscar competition is not what it was -- it COULD happen.

Also: another blow to the "Tarantino theory" of aged directors doing poor work. Spielberg is 74 -- older than when Hitchcock made Frenzy(a hit, I'll grant you) but closer to when he made Family Plot(a good but not great "old man's movie") and later had to quit for health reasons. Spielberg's West Side Story feels like a bigger deal than Family Plot, or even Frenzy. I'm assuming that Mr. Spielberg will remain forever young. (His next movie is about his own childhood...)

BUT: we are waiting to see how the box office does on the new WSS. As I've noted, modernly , it seems like movies just can't fail with international markets, so I expect bigger numbers than for Van Sant's Psycho of 1998. Ha.

Speaking of Van Sant's Psycho, I DO remember a 1998 article before it came out wondering if the movie could actually WIN OSCARS based on its 1960 greatness -- or at least get nominated. The article was written before Van Sant's Psycho came out, so the speculation was rampant.

The main item being promoted for Oscar in the article was Joseph Stefano's slight update of his great(but unnominated) 1960 screenplay from the Robert Bloch book.

I recall this pushing me to "flights of fancy"(having not yet seen Van Sant's Psycho): if Stefano's screenplay could be nominated, how about Herrmann's score?

And..how about Van Sant as Best Director -- which would be HITCHCOCK as Best Director since Van Sant simply aped his shots. (Hitchcock WAS nominated Best Director for Psycho -- one of only five nominations -- but he lost to Billy Wilder for The Apartment.)

In 1960, Janet Leigh had been nominated for Best Supporting Actress. Could Anne Heche repeat? As we've learned from 2010, Jeff Bridges could get a nomination for playing the same role John Wayne played in True Grit in 1969 (and Wayne WON.)

Other than Best Director and Best Supporting Actress, Psycho was only also nominated in 1960 for Best Black and White Art Direction and Best Black and White Cinematography -- those categories were gone in 1998/1999.

So again, (thinking at the time): Could Van Sant's Psycho "give Hitchcock decades late redemption" for such snubs as:

No Best Picture nom (THAT was psycho)
No Best Actor nom(Anthony Perkins for all time -- could Vince Vaughn compete)
No Best Screenplay nom
No Best Score nom (Herrmann for all time -- THAT was psycho)
No Best Film Editing nom(The SHOWER scene? THAT was psycho)
No Best Supporting Actor nom( Mr. Balsam -- his best work in his most famous role)

William H. Macy as Arbogast '98 didn't help his chances when he told an interviewer on the set of Van Sant's Psycho: "I just spent four hours today in front of a green screen -- faking like I was falling down stairs. Its not the kind of work that gets you an Oscar."

But is SHOULD have been, Bill -- for Martin Balsam at least. And for his other scenes, too.

Meanwhile, on the commentary track for the Van Sant Psycho DVD, Anne Heche said she didn't feel her performance should be compared to Janet Leigh's: "Its not like its a wrestling match or something." An interesting concept across time and space.

And Vince Vaughn certainly knew that he was taking on perfection, but was game to try something different in the Perkins role.

Meanwhile, a dismissive Julianne Moore was caught on video on set saying "I don't have a role to play, here." (Lila.) Oh, Vera Miles did OK by it.

--

Anyway, came its release date in December of 1998 (Oscar season, after all) with its failed box office and bad reviews, Van Sant's Psycho faded fast and Oscar was nowhere near on the table.

But...perhaps it SHOULD have been. A number of critics DID write "Hey, its good enough - its Psycho after all."

But subjectively Anne Heche did NOT give a performance as good as Janet Leigh(too twitchy and "on the nose." )Vince Vaughn did NOT give a performance as good as Anthony Perkins(physically wrong for the part, he was also clearly not comfortable with the role as a "fit.") Macy was pretty good if miscast as Arbogast -- but he didn't WANT an Oscar nom for it. ("Actually, I think most of Hitchcock is pretty lame," he said to the outrage of, well, no one.)

OK, so no 1998 acting noms for Van Sant's Psycho. And no Best Picture(though why not -- it honored Hitchcock's original by bringing it back pretty close to intact.)

But what about these?

CONT


reply

I wonder if Danny Elfman's slight re-orchestration of Herrmann's Psycho score would have made it eligible for an Oscar nom? (I think that QT used a mix of new AND old Morricone music for The Hateful Eight, which was nominated and won Morricone his only Oscar -- not too long before his death. One of those "good" outcomes.)

Best film editing for 1998? NO. Both murder scenes -- especially Arbogast's -- were not cut to the precision of Hitchcock's original.

Best (color) cinematography for 1998? I don't think so. The DP was a very famous guy but his color scheme sold a different Psycho -- rather too pastel for my tastes.

Best Art Direction for 1998? Nah. People forget that Van Sant had a new HOUSE designed for the film (which was really its own kind of blasphemy -- Hitchcock's Bates mansion is probably the most famous house in movie history.) The new house lacked the macabre character of the old Gothic.

I think it would have been quite funny to nominate Gus Van Sant as Best Director for Psycho -- had he won, Hitchcock finally would have won HIS Oscar. But obviously -- impossible. Spielberg won that year for Saving Private Ryan, anyway (Though that didn't win Best Picture -- a big snub.)

And perhaps it would have been quite FITTING to nominate Gus Van Sant's Psycho as Best Picture -- in honor of Van Sant honoring the original picture so closely in shots and camera moves and music. That times had changed and the actors were miscast(even if good actors) might not have mattered so much as the concept of "honoring Aflred Hitchcock for a movie made 38 years earlier and after Hitchcock's death 18 years earlier.)

I'd say this analysis is too unrealistic and silly EXCEPT ...evidently we are about to see Spielberg and HIS West Side Story get Oscar nominations once gotten by Robert Wise and HIS West Side Story.

CONT

reply


SUMMING UP:

I"d give Van Sant's Psycho these 1998 Oscar nominations(but no wins):

Picture
Director
Screenplay
Musical Score

in honor of the work of Hitchcock, Herrmann, Stefano and the original cast and crew of Psycho 1960.

But: no acting nominations. No nominations for cinematography, film editing, and Art Direction.

reply

Here's the NY Times's voluminous, passionate take on West Side Story (2021) & its Oscar prospects. (They've got me believing that a 90 year old Rita Moreno *could* do the unthinkable and win again this year!)
******************************
How ‘West Side Story’ Could Make (Even More) Oscar History

After premiering this week, the remake has vaulted into contention, with nominations possible for the film, director Steven Spielberg, Rita Moreno and others.

By Kyle Buchanan
Dec. 3, 2021

Few films have ever won more Oscars than the 1961 musical “West Side Story,” which claimed 10 trophies including best picture and a supporting-actress award for Rita Moreno.

Now, six decades later, might “West Side Story” and Moreno manage to pull off those same feats once again?

On paper, it seems preposterous to imagine that Steven Spielberg’s new big-screen take on the material, in theaters Dec. 10, could win the top Oscar. Only one remake has ever been awarded best picture: Martin Scorsese’s “The Departed” (2006), adapted from the Hong Kong crime thriller “Infernal Affairs” — and no remake of a previous best-picture winner has even so much as been nominated in that Oscar category. (Cast members have said this isn’t a remake but simply a new adaptation of the stage musical; moviegoers will still consider it a remake.)

But now, after a rapturously received premiere in New York City this week and a strong burst of initial reviews, I’ve come to think that “West Side Story” can manage what was formerly impossible. Here are three reasons.
(cont'd)

reply

(Cont'd)
1. It feels like the biggest film in the race.

After the low-budget drama “Nomadland” swept last season’s muted Oscar ceremony, I think voters will be eager to crown a more traditional crowd-pleaser. While films like “Belfast” and “King Richard” certainly fit that bill, they can’t hold a candle to the scale and grandeur of “West Side Story”: Simply put, this is the biggest contender that could actually win — sorry, “Dune” — and its very presence fills a power vacuum that had been lingering at the top of this race.

Spielberg has always exhibited a sense of musical timing in the way he blocks and stages action movies, but the 74-year-old has never tackled a feature-length song-and-dance film until now, and the results are impressive: Choreographed by Justin Peck and edited by Michael Kahn and Sarah Broshar, this “West Side Story” marries old-school sweep to a new script by Tony Kushner that further contextualizes the story’s themes of gentrification and racial strife.

This time, the dance battles between the gangs — the white Jets and Puerto Rican Sharks — bring violence out of the realm of the hypothetical, adding even more bloody stakes to the Romeo-and-Juliet romance of Tony (Ansel Elgort) and María (Rachel Zegler), who hail from rival factions. And unlike the original film, which put several white actors in brownface, this take on “West Side Story” has more authentic casting and even allows María and the Jets to often converse in unsubtitled Spanish, a daring choice that works because the themes are so evident.

It’s the best kind of remake, something that feels classic and refreshed at the same time. And it can’t be underestimated just how good it feels to watch something so significant on the big screen. (Upon leaving my press screening, I heard one critic exult, “That is a movie!”)

reply

2. The cast could score multiple nominations.

The 1961 version of “West Side Story” picked up both of the supporting Oscars — in addition to Moreno, George Chakiris won for his performance as the Sharks leader Bernardo — and lead Natalie Wood would have almost certainly been in contention if it weren’t for her best-actress nomination that same year for “Splendor in the Grass,” as well as an Oscar rule that prohibits an actor from showing up twice in the same category.

Spielberg’s version should be in the hunt for even more acting nominations than its predecessor. Rachel Zegler as Maria is an appealing newcomer and lovely singer, and Oscar voters love to push a fresh-faced ingénue into the best-actress race. In the supporting categories, Mike Faist as the Jets leader Riff makes a strong, flinty-eyed impression, while the Broadway veteran (and “So You Think You Can Dance” alum) Ariana DeBose gets tons of showy material as Anita, including a new version of “America” staged in the streets that stands out as the movie’s centerpiece number.

But though DeBose is playing the role that won Moreno the Oscar in the original film, I still think it’s Moreno’s new performance that could trump all comers in the supporting-actress category. Here, she plays Valentina, a kindly widow who advises Tony while he stocks shelves at her pharmacy. She wants only the best for her young charge and works desperately to keep him on the straight and narrow, so when things start to go haywire, it has double the impact because you know how devastated Valentina will be.

reply

Moreno is moving in the role, which is based on the drugstore owner Doc from the original film but radically reconceived and expanded by Spielberg and Kushner. (She even gets to sing “Somewhere,” a romantic duet now repurposed as a tear-jerking solo lament.) The still sprightly Moreno will celebrate her 90th birthday later this month, and an Academy Award nod would make her Oscar’s oldest nominee ever. Can you imagine how the room would leap to its feet if she won? Voters will surely envision it.

3. It may be the nomination leader.

Robert Wise’s “West Side Story” scored 11 Oscar nominations and won all but one of those trophies, a haul exceeded only by “Ben-Hur,” “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” and “Titanic.” I’m not sure Spielberg’s version can win as many Oscars, but the upside is there for it to receive as many or more nominations, which will almost certainly make the film this year’s nomination leader.

Nods in the picture and director categories are all but certain, and if Zegler, Faist, DeBose and Moreno all get in, that’s six nominations before we even get into the below-the-line categories. There, expect recognition for Kushner’s adapted screenplay, the cinematography from Spielberg vet Janusz Kaminski, the large-scale production design and period costumes, and the film’s editing and sound.

That’s 12 potential nominations, one more the original film got and more than “Dune” will probably manage unless the sci-fi film wildly overperforms. Becoming the nomination leader doesn’t always guarantee wins — just recently, Spielberg’s “Lincoln” managed 12 nominations but won in only two categories — but in an unusually diffuse Oscar year, it gives “West Side Story” the most heft.

reply

Still, this awards season will be long (the ceremony isn’t until the end of March) and the implosion of the Golden Globes deprives “West Side Story” of some easy televised wins in the musical-comedy categories along the way. There are also some simmering controversies that could boil over soon: Elgort was accused of sexual assault in 2020 (a charge he denies) and some cultural pundits are leery of reviving “West Side Story” at all, arguing that the story furthers racial stereotypes.

The film will also face an uphill battle at the box office, where older audiences are still hesitant to return to theaters and musicals rarely muster a strong opening weekend. (A miscalculated poster campaign, which sells desaturated grit instead of romance and entertainment, will hardly help matters.) And when it comes to Oscar voting, some academy members will always resist the idea of awarding a remake, which may help more original films (like the end-of-the-world satire “Don’t Look Up”) mount a counteroffensive.

Still, I expect voters will find a lot to love in “West Side Story.” It’s hard to compete not just with the 1961 original but the very idea of that film, but Spielberg manages to pull off the magic trick. Like the swooning dreamer Tony, when I look out over the awards season to come, I can’t help but feel that something’s coming. Something good.

reply

An excellent read. Thank you, swanstep. I myself cannot always "breach the paywall" to read the NYT.

I've had a week to re-think some of the elements of this situation.

The box office returns have only just begun, but they seem to be weak. Still , the studio will promote the hell out of this through the holidays and awards season and international grosses will help.

The reviews are all pretty good -- only Angel Elsort seems to be being offered up as a sacrificial lamb -- the one element that keeps the film from perfection.

Still, perfection of WHAT? Those songs sound mighty 1961 to me. Maria. I Feel Pretty. There's a Place for Us.

Odd to me: all these years later, I feel blessed to have had my childhood in the 60's, for a variety of reasons. One of them was the smooth, lush and plush movie soundtrack songs of that decade -- "my parents' music" that I ended up loving in nostalgia. Mancini (Moon River, Baby Elephant Walk, Days of Wine and Roses, The Pink Panther, Charade). Sinatra. Dino. Mary Poppins. The Sound of Music. My Fair Lady.

....and West Side Story. Part of that nostalgic memory rush for me from back then but -- for TODAY? Spielberg is about to find out.

CONT

reply

True confession: the 1961 West Side Story is on Netflix a lot, and I have it "paused" to one scene, one number: America. The exciting, rousing fandango that builds and builds and builds to a spectacular climax. And that's ALL I watch of West Side Story, about once or twice a year. Well, the reviews say that "America" is the showstopper this time around too -- but at least one of them said the move of the song from an "artificial" soundstage rooftop at night to real city streets in the day -- is a let down from the original. We shall see.

Note in passing: "America" is part of a "trilogy" of "movie soundtrack fandango numbers" in my life that includes the overture for North by Northwest(which builds and builds over Leo the Lion's roars and the explodes across Saul Bass credits of latitude and longitude); and the opening credits for "Ship of Fools" which has a fandango theme very close to "America" and a nifty "jigsaw puzzle" of all the faces of the all-star cast of the film merging together to form an animation of the titular ship.

North by Northwest. West Side Story. Ship of Fools. The three great Fandango scores of movie history. But "America" is best.

CONT

reply

A different thought:

A week or so ago, I determined that Spielberg's West Side Story might refute QT's theory that old directors don't make films as good as their best. Spielberg is 74. Tarantino is WRONG!

Or so I thought. Now, I'm not so sure.

Spielberg was a crowd-pleasing blockbuster guy from 1971(the TV movie Duel) through 1982(ET, his crowning box office success.) In between, OTHER seminal blockbusters like Jaws, Close Encounters, and Raiders of the Lost Ark.

There were, however, some weak links in that chain: The Sugarland Express was a downer in a minor key. 1941 was considered the "flop that Spielberg deserved." Still: Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders and ET were like "four Psychos" -- huge hits, big deals. EVERYBODY saw them, lined up for blocks.

...And Spielberg ain't making those kinds of hits anymore and so...QT may still be right.

Here's what Spielberg has made the past 10 years

The Adventures of Tin Tin
War Horse
Lincoln
Bridge of Spies
The BFG
The Post
Ready Player One
West Side Story

Now, these aren't "poor movies" like , say Rio Lobo or Topaz or Buddy Buddy. But many of them are not really all that connected to the box office or the world at learge. As I understand it, Ready Player One had those big international numbers but did it MATTER as a blockbuster? (Maybe...I'm out of touch with youth.)

CONT

reply

As a personal matter, I simply didn't see many of those Spielberg movies. I liked the ones I DID see, to be sure:

Lincoln. Another towering DDL performance("I am cloaked with IMMENSE power!") , a great (and funny) sense of the Realpolitick of the Civil War era(just as corrupt and venal as today, but that's the way it goes.)

Bridge of Spies. Back we go to Torn Curtain(underrated) and The Spy Who Came In From the Cold and the truly weird "netherworld" behind the Iron Curtain, with Tom Hanks leading us through a byzantine series of legal negotiations in a city that might as well be Oz, except cold and gray and dull(and lethal). Mark Rylance's Russian spy was fun ("Would it help?") and won a deserved Oscar. I'd say the movie rather sugar-coated the Russian and Atticus Finched Hanks' selfless lawyer in a rather broad way, but I really liked the film.

..and that's it. The Post paired Streep and Hanks but was extremely boring and made the same point over and over and over. (Note in passing: Spielberg embraced Tom Hanks as the star of film after film after film -- but BOUNCED Tom Cruise after the latter embarrassed himself on Oprah's couch while promoting War of the Worlds.)

Hey, that's just my take. There are those out there who probably loved Tin Tin or War Horse or The BFG but...Spielberg simply lost relevance in a world of Andersons, Coens, and , yes, QTS.

Not that Spielberg cares. Unlike those old time directors , Spielberg has money pouring into his pockets by the millions - his share of DreamWorks, his cuts of TV productions and the infamous Transformers. Steve can make anything he wants.

The take seems to be that Steve wants to make movies about "history" -- what with Lincoln, Bridge of Spies and The Post (and the historical period of WSS.)

CONT

reply

Anyway, my point is: QT's "old directors final films aren't as good as their first major films" theory may be EXACTLY correct on Spielberg, just in a different way. And that may well include WSS even if it wins some Oscars. Cuz Oscars don't mean what they did in...1961.

Meanwhile, back (a little bit) on Van Sant's Psycho and its Oscar chances back in 1998:

"On paper," Van Sant coulda been formidable for "Psycho" Oscars. The only reason he got to remake Psycho in the first place (after Universal had refused all previous attempts to use the material) was that his Oscar nom for "Good Will Hunting" -- along with the Oscar wins for the film -- had put Ron Howard and Brian Grazer of Imagine Films salivating to work with Van Sant -- and "Psycho" was his price.

Van Sant was hardly at Spielberg level , but he WAS a very respected indiefilm "auteur" at the time. The fact that it was VAN SANT'S Psycho made this Psycho remake a "serious affair" (the sequels didn't have that kind of cachet, even with Perkins directing one of them.)

So -- again -- "on paper" Van Sant and the pedigree of Psycho should have had a chance.

That they did not followed, I think from these elements;

Lack of box office success. Van Sant's Psycho REALLY flopped.

The mistake of remaking Psycho -- a movie whose major claim to fame was "doing things no movie had ever done"(violence wise) . Almost 40 years later, a lot of blood had been spilled on screen and two murders(the first a long 47 minutes into the film) weren't nearly enough.

CONT

reply

But this:

I was looking at some parts of Van Sant's Psycho some time ago and I came to William H. Macy as Arbogast. Subjectively, Macy was miscast -- too milquetoast, too vulnerable -- but his line readings and facial expressions were good, serious, and within range of what Balsam did in the original.

Except: that HAT. What a stupid, unrealistic silly hat they made Macy wear. The material didn't look "real" (they could at least found him a small Homburg; men wear those even today in the snow back East); the hat was too big for Macy's head. It looked for all the world like a hat some high school kids would pull out of a box for a teenage Arbogast in a student film.

On the "Making of" DVD for Van Sant's Psycho, they show a wary Macy being given a box of even WORSE hats -- plastic, a fisherman's hat, etc -- and he picks the best of a bad bunch. Subpar film production.

And when Macy's Arbogast climbs that hill to the house(the WRONG house) in that BAD hat...no Oscar chances at all.

Van Sant should have let Macy play the role without the hat at all. He DID let Macy take off the hat for part of the office interrogation....

reply

"On the "Making of" DVD for Van Sant's Psycho, they show a wary Macy being given a box of even WORSE hats -- plastic, a fisherman's hat, etc -- and he picks the best of a bad bunch. Subpar film production."


Good thing he didn't choose the beanie with the propeller. Imagine that.

reply

"On the "Making of" DVD for Van Sant's Psycho, they show a wary Macy being given a box of even WORSE hats -- plastic, a fisherman's hat, etc -- and he picks the best of a bad bunch. Subpar film production."


Good thing he didn't choose the beanie with the propeller. Imagine that.

--

BIG laugh here, hah! Or , uh, LOL LMFAO.

I tell ya, a beanie with a propeller wouldn't have been much worse than what he DID wear.

reply

Here's what Spielberg has made the past 10 years
The Adventures of Tin Tin
War Horse
Lincoln
Bridge of Spies
The BFG
The Post
Ready Player One
West Side Story
Not exactly a murderers' row of greatness is it? Still, Jim Cameron - probably the only other person who has a blank check to make whatever he wants - has released *zero* films in the last ten years, and in the last *24* (soon to be 25) years he's only released Avatar. How bizarre is it that Cameron with absolutely no budget constraints is finding it harder to complete movies than Orson Welles who had nothing *but* budget constraints? (And think of how Lucas and Coppola in their various ways have seen their second half careers approximate Welles's too!) Aging generally is a little undignified so perhaps it's just to be expected that second halves of directorial careers will be tend to be erratic and idiosynchratic, budget almost not withstanding.

BTW, recent box office figure are pretty sobering, especially compared to the sort of numbers that video games do these days. I was chatting with the nephew of mine who's a big gamer last night, and he was very enthusiastic about the latest Chapter of the game Fortnite (which includes Spiderman and The Rock this time). He'd drifted away from that game over the last year or so but he's back into it now. Fortnite's revenues each year are over $5 Billion. Fortnite's atypical; it's *the* biggest video game hit revenue-wise that there's ever been. Still...

reply

Here's what Spielberg has made the past 10 years
The Adventures of Tin Tin
War Horse
Lincoln
Bridge of Spies
The BFG
The Post
Ready Player One
West Side Story

Not exactly a murderers' row of greatness is it?

--

No, not really. And Spielberg's "claim to fame" in the beginning was that he "knew what audiences wanted" and could deliver them. A "crowd pleaser."

Not most of those above. Even West Side Story looks like it may end up like Van Sant's Psycho in one way: what was a massive box office and cultural event in 1961 -- with years of re-releases(like Hitchcock's Psycho) simply isn't a big deal this time around.

Steve's got his reasons. Rich beyond all predecessors, his mind trailed to other subjects.

I will note here that Spielberg had a lot of critical "hate" back in the day. It was laid at his feet and those of his pal George Lucas(who was very responsible for one Spielberg hit, Raiders of the Lost Ark) that they had "infantilized" the movies. Gossip was that Spielberg was very child-like behind the scenes.

And let's face it, subjectively, there are some bad movies on his resume. I'd say 1941, Always, Hook, and The Terminal are pretty poorly directed and cloying. Plus his segment of The Twilight Zone(under duress brought about from the fatal accidents on the John Landis segment.) Even the blockbuster Jurassic Park felt "lesser" than Jaws, character-wise.

To counter the "infantile" accusations, Spielberg got smart, hired smart writers to write movies from "important" novels and plays (The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun) and revamped his rep.

Eh...he's hardly a failure. But the QT theory may just hold...

...and I'm intrigued that his next movie is about his OWN childhood. What will he find interesting in it? "Licorice Pizza in Phoenix, AZ?"

CONT

reply

Still, Jim Cameron - probably the only other person who has a blank check to make whatever he wants - has released *zero* films in the last ten years, and in the last *24* (soon to be 25) years he's only released Avatar.

--

I ended up comparing Cameron between Titanic and Avatar with Hitchcock between Psycho and The Birds.

In both cases, the directors had hit their biggest gusher(bigger still for Cameron.) Hitchcock later told an interviewer that he saw the box office bonanza and cultural impact of Psycho as a "once in a lifetime event" and thus, while he needed a couple of years to recoup and try to beat Psycho with The Birds(yes on set-pieces, no on script and impact)...Cameron didn't do nuthin for 12 YEARS. That's Kubrick at the END.

CONT

reply

How bizarre is it that Cameron with absolutely no budget constraints is finding it harder to complete movies than Orson Welles who had nothing *but* budget constraints?

--

Obviously, a psychological deal.

Someone wrote an article once about how various directors "froze up" after a Best Picture or Director Oscar -- just didn't produce for a few years.

OF course, Cameron keeps his hand in with all sorts of scientific endeavors and films, too.

But this: Avatar? We need MORE of them? A blockbuster with none of the emotional resonance of Titanic...

---

(And think of how Lucas and Coppola in their various ways have seen their second half careers approximate Welles's too!)

--

I"d say Coppola's is closer to Welles ...a certain borderline financial bankruptcy and inability to get funding. Lucas pretty much cashed out early -- first on directing, then on anything.

It can be a dream if you want it -- make a billion off of a few movies and retire to the enjoyment of life without care.

Guys like HItchocck and Wilder and Preminger just kept doing it as long as they could -- with Preminger and Wilder eventually being told "you can't anymore" (Paramount's Bob Evans RELISHED the job of throwing Preminger off the lot), and Hitchcock sort of staying semi-retired but "at the ready."


---

Aging generally is a little undignified so perhaps it's just to be expected that second halves of directorial careers will be tend to be erratic and idiosynchratic, budget almost not withstanding.

---

Well, Tarantino's theory perhaps works in ways he didn't intend. For instance, Spielberg seems to be in great health for his age -- something ELSE took him away from the crowd-pleasing work of his youth. And/or -- other, younger directors now get first crack at things like Harry Potter and The Hunger Games.

CONT

reply

BTW, recent box office figure are pretty sobering, especially compared to the sort of numbers that video games do these days. I was chatting with the nephew of mine who's a big gamer last night, and he was very enthusiastic about the latest Chapter of the game Fortnite (which includes Spiderman and The Rock this time). He'd drifted away from that game over the last year or so but he's back into it now. Fortnite's revenues each year are over $5 Billion. Fortnite's atypical; it's *the* biggest video game hit revenue-wise that there's ever been. Still..

--

What little experience I have had playing video games taught me one thing -- if you get "hooked" on interacting with what's "on TV" in an active, mind-challenging way -- "just sitting there watching" a movie can pale in comparison.

And the billions you are talking about there may well be more IMPORTANT than international billion dollar grosses when there are theater screens around the world.

The movies aren't dead, nor is "TV." There are still hits, still things that matter in the culture one way or the other (like Yellowstone as a TV series -- more Dallas than Sopranos, but it has its following.)

Still, we sure do have a lot of film and TV being made that just doesn't seem to matter, and that isn't really getting an audience.

The times continue to change.


reply

Quick sidebar on Spielberg and his West Side Story:

I've read many a review that suggests this is Spielberg's first musical(true) but that he's never done song and dance before -- NOT true.

I count two:

1941 has a gigantic lollapalooza of a forties Boogie-Woogie jitterbug dance number with hundreds of dancers -- plus a lot of slapstick. It was actually liked at the time despite the other problems with the movie.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom opens not in the jungle like the first film -- it opens in a nightclub with Kate Capshaw (the future and forever Mrs. Spielberg) leading a Busby Berkeley gaggle of dancin' gals in "Anything Goes" -- sung in Mandarin Chinese with no subtitles (hmm...sounds familiar?) with only the title words sung in English. It was quite a great routine -- I couldn't believe I was IN an Indy Jones movie til the number ended and Indy turned up in a tux.

reply

Back a week later still to note...

..Spielberg's West Side Story really does seem to have flopped hard.

Even in this age when NOTHING totally flops(there's money to be made worldwide, streaming...DVD?) the numbers are pretty bad and the movie is disappearing from screens.

And, to add insult to injury , a new Spider-Man movie is packin' 'em in, thus proving that COVID isn't stopping somebody from going to the movies (younger crowds, I guess -- though I'm older and I go to theaters all the time now.)

Anyway, I will note here that Van Sant's Psycho was ALSO released in early December, so Spielberg's WSS is rather "tracking" as a bomb with that remake. The lesson would seem to be learned: I was wondering if WSS would prove to be something audiences really WANTED (unlike as with Van Sant's Psycho) and the answer: "Nope, not this one either." Psycho and WSS are artifacts of 1960 and 1961, and that was a long time ago.

But wait, back in December of 2010 with got another remake with name directors at the helm: The Coen Brothers version of True Grit. And that WAS a hit, a big hit -- the Coens' biggest hit?

One wonders why True Grit made it where Psycho and WSS did not.

Well, though the Western is supposedly as dead as the musical -- not really. They don't make a LOT of Westerns anymore, but the ones that come out usually hit well enough and have a following: Silverado, Pale Rider, Unforgiven...Tombstone(in a big way, that one.)

So it was with True Grit, which was originally from 1969(importantly later than Psycho and WSS) and which had a story that people evidently wanted to see again, with two big stars in it: Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon. (Neither guaranteed a hit, but both had track records.)

CONT

reply

In a nutshell, I would said that the Coen's True Grit was a much better made movie than the original...but I liked the original better. The 2010 version is my Number One pick of 2010; the 1969 version is my Number Two pick of that year.

Here's a thread I started on "the two great Grits":

https://moviechat.org/tt1403865/True-Grit/58c87fbfd1ea5c147072c1e5/Two-Great-Grits-for-Two-Different-Reasons

reply

Note in passing: unlike as with Van Sant's Psycho, Spielberg's West Side Story DID get a lot of critical raves and thus MIGHT still be in contention for Oscars this year, including Best Picture.

But the flop was too resounding for the Academy to warmly embrace it.

I suppose it would be nice to go "full circle" and give Rita Moreno another Supporting Oscar for playing a different role in the same story. She even wore the same dress she wore to the 1961 Oscars last year to give something at the 2020 Oscars. She could wear the same dress again!

I would like to think that Rita Moreno gets a "lock" from the Academy that will be the one true award of value worth giving to this benighted remake.

They don't have an Oscar for choreography, right?

reply

And, to add insult to injury , a new Spider-Man movie is packin' 'em in, thus proving that COVID isn't stopping somebody from going to the movies (younger crowds, I guess -- though I'm older and I go to theaters all the time now.)

---

Note in passing. I've seen the trailer for this new Spider-Man movie , and I note that the plot allows them to bring back the villain "Doctor Octopus" aka "Doc Ock." With Alfred Molina again playing him.

Amidst all the angst and rancor afforded "comic book movies" these days, I can still say that I've seen most of them, and that I have a select few that I REALLY liked.

Batman Without a Robin and With a Joker gets my Number One vote for 1989(Batman with Nicholson as the Joker) and 2008(The Dark Knight with Ledger as the Joker.) Batman without Robin is as it should be - a lone wolf James Bond type with gadgets, not superpowers. And the Joker is demonstrably one of the greatest villains ever concocted.

So those two.

Next: Spider-Man 2. Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies seemed to have just the right look and feel for the 2000s in spandex. A teenage hero. Tragic villains.

And Doc Ock -- the bad guy CGI was invented for , what with his eight rubber mechanical arms moving independently in all directions...often independently of their maker. Best villain this side of The Joker, and I bought the DVD accordingly.

Other than all the Batmans except the Schumacher ones, and the Spidermans(I like 1 and III, too)...I think it was RDJ's first turn as Iron Man(versus Jeff Bridges with a shaved head as the bad guy) that first turned me on to what could be GOOD for the mature mind about these pictures. I was amused watching Mickey Rourke make the most of his comeback (Sin City, The Wrestler) as the villain in Iron Man 2. These franchises are really good for giving name actors interesting roles.

CONT

reply

Also, the new Spidermans have the lovely and sexy Marisa Tomei as "Aunt May" which adds a new dimension to the concept of "Aunt".

I very much enjoy the end credits of Avengers: Endgame for the sheer number of big stars floating in and out of the screen as dramatic music plays(Michael Douglas! Robert Redford!...Chris Evans?, but when Marisa Tomei's moment comes -- and she smiles that great smile of hers -- its just exciting. Something magic about that woman's impact -- as Roger Ebert once wrote: "I feel that every time Marisa Tomei appears on screen, we should rise and slowly wave, as if the queen is passing."

reply

Spielberg's West Side Story really does seem to have flopped hard... the numbers are pretty bad and the movie is disappearing from screens.

And, to add insult to injury , a new Spider-Man movie is packin' 'em in
Yikes, things really are pretty dire for WSS (2021). It made *less* this Sunday (its 10th day in release) than the recent Ghostbusters film which nobody much liked did (its 31st day in release). That shouldn't be possible. I also checked in with my (Frozen generation) early-high-school-age, movie musicals-loving niece (who's loved things like The Greatest Showman, A Star is Born (Gaga), the Mary Poppins remake, and so on), and WSS wasn't on her radar at all for some reason (she and her friends were looking forward to Spiderman and had liked Dune).

Sadly, WSS 2021's domestic boxoffice currently looks to parallel that of Ridley Scott's The Last Duel:
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/date/?ref_=bo_nb_rl_secondarytab

While not perfect, I thought TLD delivered, was great looking, well-acted, etc., and was easily one of the films of the year. It's also lost studios (including Scott's own company Scott Free) somewhere north of $80 million. WSS looks like it's going to be in that ballpark too. This can't go on. We really *are* heading into a world where only superheroes and sfx spectacles *get* theatrical releases if the masses won't *really* support anything but superheroes and sfx spectacles.

reply

[deleted]

WSS is flopping because most people, rightly or wrongly (but mostly rightly), have heard it's a wokefest
I haven't heard that, rather I've just heard that certain sorts of right-wing cry-babies (evidently champing at the bit to be offended by something new every day) are *saying* something like that. Still, your post does suggest a point I hadn't considered and that may even be right. WSS arrives in 1957 and (on screen in) 1961. That's the period when the US was at its power zenith: it had its largest ever share of worldwide GDP, was maximally self-confident, e.g., the interstate system had just been completed, the whole country was up for new adventures like the space race and also up for trying to solve long-standing problems like poverty and civil rights. The contrast couldn't be greater with now, when the US feels weaker, more cramped in spirit, less certain about itself, less able to agree on anything or to face up to any (let alone all) of its important challenges. In a way, then, it would be completely amazing if WSS could fit the temper of both sorts of times equally well. Maybe "a musical about racial strife, gang fights, murder, rape and various other crime" needs a mass audience that's broadly optimistic and unembattled. Maybe in 2021 people can only really cope with or warm to the equivalent of Mickey Mouse Cartoons in the 1930s, a point we owe to Preston Sturges & Sullivan's Travels:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtTE8aWCe9g

reply

Yikes, things really are pretty dire for WSS (2021). It made *less* this Sunday (its 10th day in release) than the recent Ghostbusters film which nobody much liked did (its 31st day in release).
--
We must read different things, because a lot of people seemed to like the new Ghostbusters as far as I can tell. Not the critics of course, but I've come across many who casually enjoyed or really liked the new Ghostbusters. Some even went back to see it 2 or 3 times! Then again, the painfully unfunny 2016 film set a low bar for quality, so that might be why.

--

This can't go on. We really *are* heading into a world where only superheroes and sfx spectacles *get* theatrical releases if the masses won't *really* support anything but superheroes and sfx spectacles.
--
To be fair, the superhero stuff hasn't been doing super hot this year either. Black Widow came and went, as did Shang-Chi. I remember the buzz that used to accompany every MCU film and so far the only one that achieved that this year was the new Spiderman-- and that's mainly because it's crossing over with the older Spiderman movies of yesteryear. The Eternals-- a huge superhero flick that was supposed to be a major entry in Phase 4-- bombed hard.

You have to also realize that some movies come and go because normal moviegoers have not heard of them. I only heard of The Last Duel because I saw it advertised on Goodreads of all places (it was based on a book). I have history buff friends who never knew the movie was even a thing until I told them about it. The more casual moviegoers I know have not heard of it either. So many of these films appear to fall through the cracks and I have to wonder why. Are they not being advertised enough? Considering how much money Hollywood pours into marketing campaigns, surely that isn't the reason?

reply

Yikes, things really are pretty dire for WSS (2021). It made *less* this Sunday (its 10th day in release) than the recent Ghostbusters film which nobody much liked did (its 31st day in release).
--
We must read different things, because a lot of people seemed to like the new Ghostbusters as far as I can tell. Not the critics of course, but I've come across many who casually enjoyed or really liked the new Ghostbusters. Some even went back to see it 2 or 3 times! Then again, the painfully unfunny 2016 film set a low bar for quality, so that might be why.

--
This was buried in one of my other threads, I think, but I saw the new Ghostbusters and -- for about the final ten minutes -- found it to be truly, for lack of a more sophisticated word: wonderful.

Before then, it is very much "Kiddie Ghostbusters" just as much as the 2016 film was "Lady Ghostbusters." But comes the end, the original team show up in a very meaningful way that did NOT , to me, smack of fan service.

Perhaps it helps to know the background: Harold Ramis , very funny on screen with Bill Murray(in Stripes and Ghostbusters) and a writer or director on many major 80's comedies, died a few years ago. The movie is very much about THAT death, as much as it is about the death of his character(Egon.)

Folks "in the know" know that Bill Murray stopped speaking to Harold Ramis after they made the great Groundhog Day(well, great to the world, I went nuts waiting for that alarm clock radio to change songs.) It was really bad, and all on Murray's side.

Plus, Murray had stopped Ghostbusters sequels from being made after the disappointing II.

CONT

reply

Evidently, rather like his character in Scrooged(holiday reference good for today), Murray softened towards Ramis...seeking him out in the last months of his life..speaking of him at the Oscars after his death...and allowing the Ghostbusters sequels to go forward. He was right about Lady Ghostbusters(further Ghostbusters sequels were not at its level, including the new one), but he appeared in Lady Ghostbusters as a sign of good faith. But playing a different character in a short cameo.

Murray appears in Kiddie Ghostbusters in his old role and he hits the right notes(one sequence with his buddies, one sequence with Sigourney Weaver, also old and back)...we remember that Bill Murray was the SUPERSTAR in Ghostbusters, that he has survived on as one of our greatest decades stars...and his presence here helps Dan Ayrkoyd and Ernie Hudson come back emotionally, too.

These ghostbuster sequels are "woke" -- if we are to use that term for certain relevance in one key way: the original was a movie for GUYS, about GUYS, four GUYS (like the Marx Brothers, the Beatles, the Monkees) and GUYS came as well as kids and the women who tagged along.

On Lady Ghostbusters: my beef is that four demonstrably funny women were served by a script with no laughs for them to work -- though Leslie Jones blasted past the lame script with her explosive comedy persona. I mean, KATE MACKINNON wasn't funny, hard as she tried(this movie helped kill HER movie career, for now.) Hey, did MEN write that movie? I know a man directed it...


reply

One wonders why True Grit made it where Psycho and WSS did not.
--
I know one thing: when that movie came out, teenage me had no idea it was a remake and I suspect many "casual" moviegoers might not have had the 1969 original on their radar. It's certainly a big enough film for movie geeks, but I don't think it's penetrated the public consciousness the way Psycho and WSS still do. People are keenly aware that those are remakes.

reply

One wonders why True Grit made it where Psycho and WSS did not.
--
I know one thing: when that movie came out, teenage me had no idea it was a remake and I suspect many "casual" moviegoers might not have had the 1969 original on their radar. It's certainly a big enough film for movie geeks, but I don't think it's penetrated the public consciousness the way Psycho and WSS still do. People are keenly aware that those are remakes.

--

An interesting point of view, and I for one always welcome your participation here as a millennial, ElizabethJoestar. I can only guess how these movies are being taken by generations younger than mine.

There IS a study to be made by someone at the studios here. Three remakes. One not so good and flopped (Psycho.) One very good and flopped (West Side Story.) One very good and flopped(WSS.) I do believe that WSS was Number One at the box office for 1961, and Psycho was Number Two for 1960 (alas, I've seen three different Number Ones listed -- Ben Hur from 1959, Swiss Family Robinson, and Spartacus.)

I think True Grit was further down the box office list for 1969, but it WAS a hit and it DID win the Oscar for John Wayne.

Speaking of the Oscars, whatever "box office flop fate" West Side Story '21 has, I expect it will be well nominated at the Oscars, likely for Best Picture(a bigger list of nominees on it that 1961 had) and Best Director. Maybe Spielberg will win -- Picture, less possible.
The "lock" looks to be Rita Moreno so as to make Oscar history. Best Supporting Actress in the same movie, different roles, 60 years apart.

Still, a movie that wins big Oscars with no box office well...see Nomadland...

reply

Even West Side Story looks like it may end up like Van Sant's Psycho in one way: what was a massive box office and cultural event in 1961 -- with years of re-releases(like Hitchcock's Psycho) simply isn't a big deal this time around.
--
I think that hits the nail right on the head. Nobody wanted this remake. I'm not even a big fan of the original 1961 movie, but it's so iconic and well-mounted that a remake is pretty hard to justify.

Also a lot of people are not even aware this movie is a thing. They're more interested in the new Spiderman or even Dune, which benefited from good word of mouth as far as I can tell. That latter movie is getting a lot of traction.

To be honest, I am shocked they still have not made a proper big screen HAMILTON. That play was a cultural phenomenon, a true zeitgeist hit. Yeah, they put a recording of a production up on Disney+, but a proper adaptation could really be something younger audiences want to see.

reply

Now, these aren't "poor movies" like , say Rio Lobo or Topaz or Buddy Buddy. But many of them are not really all that connected to the box office or the world at learge. As I understand it, Ready Player One had those big international numbers but did it MATTER as a blockbuster? (Maybe...I'm out of touch with youth.)
--
As a millennial, I can tell you RPO came and went. It was based on a bestselling (and in my opinion, laughably bad) YA novel that is basically a giant "remember the 80s??" nostalgia trip with shallow characters grafted onto its thin quest narrative. From what I have heard from people who saw it, Spielberg's adaptation buffed up the story and made the annoying protagonist more likeable-- but it otherwise sounds like the usual shallow blockbuster. (Also, considering Spielberg was a major player in shaping 80s pop culture, it's weird to have him making a movie about 80s nostalgia-- or is that just me?).

Spielberg's name really does not pull people in anymore. I think his golden age has pretty much passed. Of course, people debate the merits of these later movies, but they definitely don't leave the impact his 70s-90s work did once upon a time.

To be honest, the only movies that tempted me this winter were The Last Duel, Spencer, and Nightmare Alley, but money is tight right now. Moviegoing is just damn expensive. Also, Spencer, the one I wanted to see most, was such a limited release that i would have to drive hours out from where I live to see it anyway, so there's that.

reply

As a millennial, I can tell you RPO came and went. It was based on a bestselling (and in my opinion, laughably bad) YA novel that is basically a giant "remember the 80s??" nostalgia trip with shallow characters grafted onto its thin quest narrative.

---

That's how the reviews read to me; and from clips I saw, it was as if the film refused to really LINGER on its nostalgic tropes(Nightmare on Elm Street, Back to the Future) but just sort of threw them into a big video stew. I may be wrong. I never got the interest to see it.

--- From what I have heard from people who saw it, Spielberg's adaptation buffed up the story and made the annoying protagonist more likeable-- but it otherwise sounds like the usual shallow blockbuster. (Also, considering Spielberg was a major player in shaping 80s pop culture, it's weird to have him making a movie about 80s nostalgia-- or is that just me?).

---

Its not just you...its self-referential.

I will note: Spielberg's historic run to me was 1971(Duel, a TV movie) to 1982(ET) So as a director he was as much a 70's force as an 80's force. But as a PRODUCER, Spielberg in the 80's elected to shift the "genre" movies to two directors -- Robert Zemeckis(Back to the Future, Roger Rabbit), Joe Dante(Gremlins, Innerspace.) Meanwhile, Steve started his Oscar quest (and quest for respectability) with The Color Purple and Empire of the Sun. I always felt that Empire of the Sun had the bad luck to come out the same year as The Last Emperor -- the titles sounded similar, and The Last Emperor was "the real deal" in adult historical filmmaking. Empire of the Sun still had Spielberg's child-like POV.

CONT

reply

Spielberg's name really does not pull people in anymore. I think his golden age has pretty much passed. Of course, people debate the merits of these later movies, but they definitely don't leave the impact his 70s-90s work did once upon a time.

---

I've always seen Woody Allen and Spielberg to have had the same career, kinda-sorta. I think it was Woody who said "I want to sit at the big people's table" and so after a string of "early funny movies" from What's Up Tiger Lily through Love and Death...he used Annie Hall to shift over to more serious work: Interiors, Manhattan...later decades (still some laughs, but "gravitas.")

Spielberg threw his 70s reputation to Zemeckis and Dante (and Chris Columbus) and...kept going, but not without struggle, no matter how locked in he was at the studios "forever."

He hit a bad patch in the 80's/90's cusp. Indy Jones 3 was a big hit, but a re-tread(despite Sean Connery boosting it); "Always" flopped and was compared to the bigger hit "Ghost"; Hook was considered a big over-expensive mess.

Came 1993 he got a big comeback: Jurassic Park in the summer; Schindler's List in the fall. Perfect. Blockbuster(highest grosser); Best Picture with a holocaust theme. No complaints here -- though Jurrassic Park felt less urgent than Jaws.

Spielberg's career since 1993 (ALSO a long time ago) seems kinda hit and miss to me. One great movie -- Saving Private Ryan. The rest? Prestigious and expensive but all a bit "out of touch." Still AI has its lovers, as does Minority Report. Catch Me If You Can was "nice" (two big stars) but ...perhaps just not a big deal. War of the Worlds split 50/50 -- great horror-action set-pieces, not much in between, a totally too quick and perfunctory ending.

And so forth and so on.

CONT

reply

swanstep wrote:

your post does suggest a point I hadn't considered and that may even be right. WSS arrives in 1957 and (on screen in) 1961. That's the period when the US was at its power zenith: it had its largest ever share of worldwide GDP, was maximally self-confident, e.g., the interstate system had just been completed, the whole country was up for new adventures like the space race and also up for trying to solve long-standing problems like poverty and civil rights. The contrast couldn't be greater with now, when the US feels weaker, more cramped in spirit, less certain about itself, less able to agree on anything or to face up to any (let alone all) of its important challenges.

---

Fair enough points, swanstep, but I think you get closer down here:

In a way, then, it would be completely amazing if WSS could fit the temper of both sorts of times equally well. Maybe "a musical about racial strife, gang fights, murder, rape and various other crime" needs a mass audience that's broadly optimistic and unembattled. Maybe in 2021 people can only really cope with or warm to the equivalent of Mickey Mouse Cartoons in the 1930s, a point we owe to Preston Sturges & Sullivan's Travels:

---

As the Nazi said in "Inglorous Basterds" Dat's a BINGO!

Look , a movie about warring gangs was an iffy proposition even in 1957-1961. This was the era in which our young gangs sprouted that catch all name: "juvenile delinquents." These were "bad kids," but they were still seen AS kids.

Jerry Lewis played "The Delicate Delinquent." Rebel Without a Cause posited an all-white(I think) gang in Hollywood, very stylized. Hitchcock had an hour long episode (with James Caan!) about juvenile deliquents and came on with a serious final speech: "Something must be done about this social problem." Yeah, right Hitch -- go back to The Birds!!

CONT

reply

And came the 50s nostalgic 70's, the juvenile delinquent had been melted down into a pussycat -- The Fonz. A joke. The man had no physical menace at all...though as I recall , he threw a good punch.

ALSO in the 70s, the '61 WSS came to NBC. But get this: well before home VHS, schools taped that broadcast and it was shipped to clases for viewing.

I saw the taped 1961 version in the classroom(English class; Romeo and Juliet also taught) and I can testify -- no sooner did those Sharks and Jets start dancing around that "guys" in my classroom started laughing or snorting in anger: "This is stupid...I'm not gonna watch THIS."

So by the 70's, WSS was looking a bit old hat.

I guess the new movie IS period(unlike Van Sant's Psycho, which SHOULD have been period) but yeah, let's face it, in 2021, gangs carry handguns and automatic weapons AND knives and fights can be fatal every weekend. And wouldn't a white gang today be SKINHEADS? Nothing sweet about those guys. The movie uses its West Side New York terrain to sidestep the whole issue of black gangs, which rather dilutes the reality as well.

I've read one of Spielberg's interviews on WSS where he reveals that the album played in his parents house all the time in 1961 and 1962 when he was a teen and it was his favorite musical and he loved it, and he memorized it. Fair enough. In my house(I'm younger that him) The Sound of Music and My Fair Lady got all the play. Can't say they grabbed me. Damn Yankees and Pajama Game were more like it -- faster and looser.

But hell, I'm not Steven Spielberg and if his life's project was to make a movie of the record he loved to hear in his parent's house growing up -- that's his prerogative.

What Spielberg is finding out is that very few people -- in the US or abroad -- really want to re-live it. That's OK -- nobody wanted to re-live Psycho either. (Too few murders maybe, or perhaps the stabbing of a naked women was more distasteful to 1998 audiences.)

CONT

reply

I'm the first to note that Steven Spielberg has made so much money -- and KEEPS making so much money for DreamWorks and TV production he has little to do with - that he can make whatever movies he wants for the rest of his life. Audiences don't HAVE to come.

You know, I think Clint Eastwood and Hitchocck had these deals too. Their studios let them keep making small scale movies so they could keep their libraries filled with Eastwood movies(Warners) and Hitchcock movies (Universal.)

But with all that said, I would think its gotta hurt Spielberg's feelings a little bit: he USED to make the movies EVERYBODY wanted to see. Now he makes a movie that NOBODY wants to see. Even if it is "well made."

Tarantino is so controversial that perhaps I should quit calling it "The Tarantino Theory" about aging directors. I still think QT meant Capra and HItchocck and Hawks and Wilder BUT -- Spielberg is proving the theory even with "well made movies." He's not relevant to a younger generation. I'm starting to wonder which of his movies will really LAST. Jaws -- my favorite -- yes. ET -- very famous, but almost too emotional to watch. Jurassic Park for all things dinosaur.

Schindler's List is powerful stuff...but not widely watched today. Its just too hard TO watch. Same with Saving Private Ryan. (Note in passing: like Hitchcock with his gruesome murders in Psycho, Torn Curtain and Frenzy, Spielberg seems to have "gone brutal" later in his career too.)

reply

The movie uses its West Side New York terrain to sidestep the whole issue of black gangs, which rather dilutes the reality as well.
Interestingly, from what I've read, WSS 2021 was driven in part by something like a felt obligation to remedy the specific deficiencies of WSS 1961, e.g., the brown-face of Natalie Wood and the general short-shrift given the Puerto-Rican side of things. One wonders whether *that's* a good enough reason really to make a movie. For one thing, WSS *is* a musical and there are going to be limits to how realistic it can really get (and you can never satisfy people who want to be purists about representation & realism anyway - they'd only really accept Lin-Manuel Miranda, say, writing and directing not Spielberg and Kushner), and for another thing it's an adaptation of the Romeo and Juliet story which itself set the story in Verona, Italy which was wild, foreign fantastical place of cartoon hot-blooded Italians to 16C Londoners. No notion of realism applied! The Baz Luhrmann Romeo+Juliet in the '90s with Dicaprio and Claire Danes (a big hit! with a hugely successful music soundtrack too - e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqKZwvH2bAQ) understood this.

Anyhow, I'm looking forward myself to catching WSS 2021. There may be a lot of reasons for its commercial misfire but I suspect that I'm going to quite enjoy it.

reply

The movie uses its West Side New York terrain to sidestep the whole issue of black gangs, which rather dilutes the reality as well.
Interestingly, from what I've read, WSS 2021 was driven in part by something like a felt obligation to remedy the specific deficiencies of WSS 1961, e.g., the brown-face of Natalie Wood and the general short-shrift given the Puerto-Rican side of things.

--

Evidently not only was Natalie Wood(a true movie star, missing here) in brown-face (necessary) but so was Rita Moreno!(unnecessary)

I'm starting to tire of all the debate about this version, but somebody somewhere said that the Puerto Rican side was given "good guy" status this time -- AGAINST the other guys. Wasn't it a "tie" in the original?

To the extent I will enter the debate at all, I will note that I thought Steve was a bit presumptious to make sure that the Spanish dialogue had no English subtitles (so as not to give English power over the Spanish.) As someone noted, equality would have been English subtitles on the Spanish dialogue AND Spanish subtitles on the English dialogue, but that wouldn't make the same statement.

And so Spielberg made a movie that, evidently, he didn't care if some people couldn't understand. As his young female lead said, "learn Spanish."

The funny thing is its taken a long time to get audiences to accept subtitles at ALL. They used to prefer dubbing in the English language.

Certainly, all the foreign films I've seen in my life have had subtitles. They helped.

But Spielberg had a statement to make. Learn Spanish.

I think theaters had to put out signs in the box office window specifying the lack of subtitles.

And this MAY have lost some ticket buyers in advance. But not enough for this kind of flop. Nobody much wanted to come. (I know that YOU do , swanstep. I will reach that.)

CONT



reply

One wonders whether *that's* a good enough reason really to make a movie.

--

For Steven Spielberg, ANYTHING is a good enough reason to make (or remake) a movie. He can do whatever he wants -- though he said he was pressured to do Lincoln for cable TV. Yeah, right.

But....if WSS REALLY loses money, will Steve finally reach the point where studio bosses say "no?" I don't think so. For one thing, he IS a studio boss(DreamWorks.)

Imagine if Hitchcock had run a DreamWorks. He could have made Mary Rose!

CONT

reply

For one thing, WSS *is* a musical and there are going to be limits to how realistic it can really get (and you can never satisfy people who want to be purists about representation & realism anyway - they'd only really accept Lin-Manuel Miranda, say, writing and directing not Spielberg and Kushner),

---

A slippery slope, all of the above.

---

and for another thing it's an adaptation of the Romeo and Juliet story which itself set the story in Verona, Italy which was wild, foreign fantastical place of cartoon hot-blooded Italians to 16C Londoners.

--

A great point. By the way, I'm thinking that the Romeo and Juliet idea, which kind of worked in 1957-1961, REALLY runs into some problems given the polarization everywhere these days -- particularly among those with guns and no compunction about using them.

--- No notion of realism applied! The Baz Luhrmann Romeo+Juliet in the '90s with Dicaprio and Claire Danes (a big hit! with a hugely successful music soundtrack too - e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqKZwvH2bAQ) understood this.

---

I'll take a look. I really liked "Strictly Ballroom" and loved Moulin Rouge(my favorite of 2001, give or take Ocean's Elevent.) Never saw this one. What music did he use? If I click the link, I guess I'll find out.

reply

What music did he use? If I click the link, I guess I'll find out.
The above liked item is a bit anomalous - within the film the torchy song is produced diagetically by Des'ree. All the other music is a non-diagetic mix of nifty pop songs and some nice score that mixes together crashing orchestral pieces with surges of techno music. All told it's a hell of melting pot of energetic, attitude heavy styles. The moody pop/rock hits included Garbage's "#1 Crush":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX7LLua5NCM
The Cardigans' peppy 'Lovefool':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NI6aOFI7hms
and Radiohead's angsty classic 'Talk Show Host':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xgaj5suTCgk

Note that Dicaprio and Claire Danes were at their peaks of youthful beauty in Romeo+Juliet (1996). James Cameron wanted them to repeat their great chemistry immediately after in (also-filming-in-Mexico-City) Titanic but Danes said 'No'. Danes was only 17, five years younger than DiCaprio, and was (a) exhausted after R+J, and (b) homesick (having been in Mexico City already for almost a year at that point). Danes also saw clearly that Titanic was a huge, long production that likely represented a bit more stardom than she was ready for at 17 (maybe not ever). Kate Winslett, who was the same age as DiCaprio, was then the next cab on the rank...

reply

Anyhow, I'm looking forward myself to catching WSS 2021. There may be a lot of reasons for its commercial misfire but I suspect that I'm going to quite enjoy it.

---

I would hope so...but you can be a pretty tough audience (as opposed to me, Mainstream Man.)

Hey, the songs are the songs. Good songs. I'd like to see how they do America.

I guess they gave Rita Moreno an aged person's version of "Somewhere" -- lock that Oscar in!

Its like they said about Van Sant's Psycho: "Its not that bad, its Psycho after all." Yeah, but miscast and with William H. Macy wearing a Beanie for a hat.

Psycho was shot by shot. WSS is NOT. Maybe that will make a difference too.

The failed grosses for WSS have made their point, but the new one will live on. Streaming -- are there even new DVDS any more? Cable. Right alongside the "old" one.

Hey, that didn't work out too good for Van Sant's Psycho...

reply

I would hope so...but you can be a pretty tough audience
Ha, yeah probably! Still, I'm pretty happy to be swept away by a film that's just up to something, that has a vision, i.e., even if it isn't completely successful. Even if something is 50% a turkey if the other 50% is great, it can be worth watching. Hell, I *often* give recommendations to people along the lines of: 'It's really worth watching despite not having a third act'.

On WSS 2021, I confess that it does sound to me like Kushner and Spielberg have pushed the realism and contextualizing a little too far. I liked the slight dreaminess of the 1961 film that flows from the balleticism of the dancing/movement due to Jerome Robbins, but it sounds like that's been rejected as too effiminate for 2021 or something. I'll paste in text from a review by the dance critic of the NY Times below that raises these issues.

reply

Critic’s Notebook
What Is ‘West Side Story’ Without Jerome Robbins? Chatty.

Justin Peck takes over choreographic duties in the Steven Spielberg adaptation of the 1957 musical in which words, not bodies, rule the screen.

By Gia Kourlas
Published Dec. 24, 2021Updated Dec. 27, 2021, 10:56 a.m. ET

It’s been days since I watched the Steven Spielberg reboot of “West Side Story,” and I still can’t get a scene out of my head: The fateful meeting of Tony and Maria at the gym.

In the 1961 film, the pair lock eyes and move closer and closer as bodies spin around them, and the background, a rich red, envelops them. When they stop, they’re face to face swaying softly. Suddenly, their arms lift to either side and they begin to dance. In the new movie, they spot each other in the gym and meet behind the bleachers. Tony (Ansel Elgort), staring hard at Maria (Rachel Zegler), casually drapes an arm on the metal structure. But before he can speak, Maria stretches her arms out and gives a little snap.

This dance — Justin Peck’s reframing of the original choreography by Jerome Robbins — may not be as luminous, but it is a surprise: a slice of unexpected loveliness that speaks to the subtle power of movement. Tony raises an eyebrow, but joins Maria fluidly without questioning the strangeness of it all.

Here, in a rare instance, they communicate without words. Yet throughout this film, when there is a right turn, a wrong one tends to follow. More than movement, words are the dominant language of this “West Side Story.” So, brace yourself. Something’s coming — a conversation.

“I wasn’t planning on showing up tonight,” Tony says.

“You don’t like dancing?” Maria asks.

“No, I mean, yeah,” he says. “I like it. I like it a lot. Dancing with you. It’s just you’re— —”

(Cont'd)

reply

(cont'd)
Maria interrupts his thought with an observation. Staring up at him wistfully, she says, “You’re tall.”

You’re tall? It’s as if “Riverdale” met “The Bachelor” — or “The Bachelorette” — and you know there’s plenty more drama to come. “West Side Story,” an updated “Romeo and Juliet,” used to be a musical told through movement. Now it is a musical, full of back stories, told through words. So many, many words.

For this “West Side Story,” the screenplay, based on the original stage book by the playwright Arthur Laurents, is by Tony Kushner. Leonard Bernstein’s music and Stephen Sondheim’s lyrics are still here to guide the Sharks and the Jets along as they war it out in the streets of New York City. And then there are Peck’s dances, which have their own life, yet can come off as breezy excursions from the story — and sometimes as reminiscent of numbers from “In the Heights” or “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” — instead of being authoritatively knitted into the whole.

With so much emphasis on dialogue and character development, the tension — the very glue of “West Side Story” — seeps away. Tony, we learn, is on parole for almost killing a kid. Who cares? He talks about how he first saw the Cloisters, where he takes Maria on a date, while being carted off to prison. It’s hard to imagine how that could have happened, yet again, who cares? It’s like watching dancers with lead in their shoes.

It’s not as if back stories weren’t important to Robbins, who conceived, directed and choreographed the stage musical. (He choreographed the 1961 film and directed it, with Robert Wise.) He wanted his actors and dancers to flesh out their characters’ pasts in order to give them greater dimension. But in the new version, there’s another war raging as action and sensation battle a continual need for context.

reply

(cont'd)
In a 1985 symposium with the four collaborators — Robbins, Laurents, Bernstein and Sondheim — the subject of Cheryl Crawford came up. She was a producer who ultimately dropped out of the original stage production because, Sondheim said, “She wanted us to explain more why these kids were the way they were, and the more we tried to explain to her that this was not a sociological treatise,” but rather “a poetic interpretation of a social situation, the less she understood what we were saying.”

She wanted, he said, for “West Side Story” to be more realistically grounded. “If we had gone that way,” Sondheim added, “we would’ve killed the piece.”

The new movie hasn’t killed “West Side Story,” but it has muted it considerably — and packed it full of starts and stops. Now when the dances come, they’re less a part of the show’s fabric than an escape.

At least they’re there. But how could they not be? Robbins has always been an influence on Peck, the resident choreographer and artistic adviser of New York City Ballet, where, as a dancer, he performed Robbins’s works — including the role of Bernardo in “West Side Story Suite.” In an interview Peck said the experience of working on the film made him realize “how much dance is built into the DNA and the structure of this musical.”

“You can’t really derail that,” he added. “It’s like dance has to be a part of it. And I think that really speaks to his belief in it and his innovation with it.”

But in Spielberg’s film the choreography doesn’t drive the action with the same force. So where does the dancing fit in? Certainly, there are moments of beauty and energy in Peck’s contributions, yet often the impetus behind the dances seem to be more about camerawork than choreography.

reply

(cont'd)
One of the biggest changes is confusing. It was critical to Robbins that the Jets had a different dance language than the Sharks. He even enlisted the choreographer Peter Gennaro — he was credited as co-choreographer — to help create the Latin numbers. In the new film, it’s hard to put a finger on just how the Sharks move differently than the Jets. Peck brought on Patricia Delgado, his wife and a former principal at Miami City Ballet, and Craig Salstein, a former soloist at American Ballet Theater, as associate choreographers. Delgado helped with the Latin influence, but as the groups dance together, what’s clear is that they are dancing together — it’s one language, not two.

Peck said he was more interested in creating a cohesive company of dancers, to build camaraderie among them. And if you know Peck’s work that makes sense. The group aesthetic of “West Side Story” reflects the dance communities that Peck builds onstage, too, at City Ballet and beyond. (Peck is an in-demand choreographer who makes works for many ballet companies and won a Tony for “Carousel.”) This is “West Side Story” as seen through the eyes of a choreographer who started out making dances on his friends.

That brings a different kind of velocity to “West Side Story.” Sometimes the dancing is so joyful, so light, that the performers seem to forget who they are. As the brooding Bernardo, David Alvarez is spectacular. Yet when he is dancing, should his expression be so full of bliss? He is the leader of a gang — and, sigh, here reimagined as a boxer.

reply

(cont'd)
Watching the back stories unfold — and, later, trying to keep track of them — made me think of the way this movie could really have leaned into dance. What if the dream ballet, part of the original musical, had been included? In it, Tony and Maria sing “Somewhere” in her bedroom until the walls open up and the room disappears; now members of both gangs unite, dancing together in harmony “in a world,” as the script reads, “of space and air and sun.”

The dream ballet probably never stood a chance. To most, the language of dance can be trusted only to a point. But what if it had been included — and updated? Now that would have been a thrill, a progressive act.

That sense of harmony echoes how many of Peck’s dances look on the stage. When they work — the two I love are “Rodeo: Four Dance Episodes” and “The Times Are Racing” — they rise beyond steps and structure to land in a place of feeling, sweep and scope. That is what you think of when you think of the poetic, elusive “Somewhere.”

But there’s another scene that follows in the stage musical, which is even more rarely performed: The dream turns into a nightmare. Riff and Bernardo appear, their deaths are re-enacted and Maria and Tony are separated amid chaos and violence. They end up back in the bedroom, where they sing together: “Hold my hand and we’re halfway there. Some day, Somehow, Somewhere!” I would have voted for the dream ballet — all the way to the nightmare. It had so much more to say. Maria and Tony, after all, are desperate. They're holding onto air, and that calls for a dance.

reply

Peck said he was more interested in creating a cohesive company of dancers, to build camaraderie among them. And if you know Peck’s work that makes sense. The group aesthetic of “West Side Story” reflects the dance communities that Peck builds onstage, too, at City Ballet and beyond. (Peck is an in-demand choreographer who makes works for many ballet companies and won a Tony for “Carousel.”) This is “West Side Story” as seen through the eyes of a choreographer who started out making dances on his friends

--

An interesting article, swanstep. A reminder that choreography is its own art form and practiced differently over the years, differently on Broadway than in the movies...just a "different thing."

Begs a question: do the Oscars even HAVE a category for choreography? Seems that enough musicals over the decades were made that there SHOULD have been -- especially for the muscular stuff in Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, Singin in the Rain and...West Side Story. (On the other hand, I don't remember a lot of big dance numbers in The Sound of Music.)

I suppose choreography was subsumed into the Best Picture win for West Side Story(and Best Director...one was a choreographer).

"Modernly" -- from Damn Yankees/Pajama Game through Sweet Charity and on to Cabaret and All That Jazz...FOSSE was the guy. Came 2002, long after his death(?) Chicago won Best Picture.

At this point, I expect Spielberg's WSS to get all sorts of nominations in spite of its low box office..maybe some wins to draw people to a theatrical re-release? Before it heads to streaming, Spielberg's sworn enemy(except didn't he just make a deal with Netflix?)

reply

Begs a question: do the Oscars even HAVE a category for choreography? Seems that enough musicals over the decades were made that there SHOULD have been
Particularly these days there aren't nearly enough movies with significant choreography in them to support a separate Award category for Choreography. Indeed, if the Academy were honest the 'Best Original Song' Award probably shouldn't be awarded every years. The Song Award grew up in a time when musicals were *huge* and singers on screen sung now legendary songbook tunes *all the time*: 'Cheek To Cheek' "Somewhere Over The Rainbow' 'When you wish Upon a Star', "Jeepers Creepers", "You Can't take that away from Me", "I've Got You Under My Skin", etc. were the norm, and so on up to 'Que Sera Sera' and 'Moon River'. In recent decades, however, the Best Songs noms often aren't sung *in* the films and in many cases aren't heard until over the credits. E.g., the award was won last year for a song from Judas and the Black Messiah which played no role in the film and only appeared in the credits. I'm sure no one even remembers it now.

Back to choreography: I checked and what the Academy has done instead is give Honorary awards, e.g., to Jerome Robbins for all his choreographic film work in the year of West Side, and to Gene Kelly citing his choreography in the year of An American In Paris. There aren't figures like Kelley or Robbins working in film today. Center Stage (2000) or Black Swan (2010) *might* have been good entry points for some talented choreographers to work regularly in Hollywood I suppose, but in neither did that actually happen.

reply

Particularly these days there aren't nearly enough movies with significant choreography in them to support a separate Award category for Choreography. Indeed, if the Academy were honest the 'Best Original Song' Award probably shouldn't be awarded every years

---

I agree with this strongly.

Its funny, I suppose that My Man Hitchcock actually ended up with the most APPROPRIATE Best Song in Oscar history: Que, Sera , Sera. It is introduced organically into the story(Doris Day sings it is as a lullaby of sorts to her son in the beginning) and then figures in the climax(Day sings the song at the embassy and her kidnapped son whistles it back to her to inspire rescue.) Now THAT's a song that matters to the movie it is in. And it became Doris Day's theme(against her initial wishes, she thought it was too childish.) And it rather state's Hitchcock;s THEMES. Que Sera, Sera...whatever will be, will be. Just ask Marion Crane.

Moon River plays over the opening credits of Breakfast at Tiffany's (while Audrey HAS breakfast at Tiffany's) and sets the emotional tone for the whole movie...and movie history. Hepburn sings the song in the film (with her REAL voice, not Marni Nixon's) and it comes on strong for the bittersweet kiss in the rain with the cat. THAT's a Best Song, too.

I kinda thought that "Best Song" was slipping around the seventies when BOTH of the schmaltzy Irwin Allen disaster movie songs won ("The Morning After" from Poseidon Adventure; "We May Never Love Like This Again" from The Towering Inferno -- the titles fit the MOVIES too literally)...but at least those songs were IN those movies.

Modernly...its as you say, swanstep. Songs unconnected to the movies they are in, songs known by no one. Going through the motions...

reply

Back to choreography: I checked and what the Academy has done instead is give Honorary awards, e.g., to Jerome Robbins for all his choreographic film work in the year of West Side, and to Gene Kelly citing his choreography in the year of An American In Paris. There aren't figures like Kelley or Robbins working in film today. Center Stage (2000) or Black Swan (2010) *might* have been good entry points for some talented choreographers to work regularly in Hollywood I suppose, but in neither did that actually happen.

---

Thank you for this research, swanstep. I shall return...

---

reply

Hi, swanstep & ecarle, and HNY to you both.

Some further word on choreography: AMPAS did have a short-lived Dance Direction award category, which was presented for films released in '35 - '37 and then discontinued.

AMPAS's reasons for creating and/or dropping categories can be inscrutable, but this one existing for only those three years is especially puzzling. Musicals would remain immensely popular with audiences for another twenty years before fading from fashion as a film staple.

Maybe there just weren't enough dance directors/choreographers working during those decades to make it interesting. In the three years it existed, there were two dozen films nominated, and only half that many nominees. And half of that dozen had multiple and/or repeat nominations.

By the end of the '50s, who knows how many statuettes might have been lined up on the shelves of Hermes Pan, LeRoy Prinz or Busby Berkeley?

reply

AMPAS did have a short-lived Dance Direction award category.. in '35 - '37 and then discontinued.
Interesting. Thanks for that. I agree that it's probably a shame that they didn't keep a Dance Direction Award for a while longer. Maybe dance-centric films had started to look to people in 1938-9 like they'd been a bit of a fad. And, indeed, the whole idea of 'dance direction' looks a little bit specifically tailored to Busby Berkeley's situation/division of labor. He *really did* have complete executive control of all the dance sequences in his films while leaving all other scenes completely to someone else. But that's fairly rare. Much more common is a unified director who maintains executive control over all scenes and who employs a choreographer who never controls anything much, maybe never even gets behind the camera or sees any rushes.

I'm not sure, for instance, whether Hermes Pan *completely* took over from George Stevens and fully directed the awarded Fun House sequence in 'Damsel In Distress':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlVD-y2CAbw
&
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEpsY44jo3E
but I don't doubt that Pan did a *hell* of a lot of design work for the sequence beyond simply choreographing it, so was a worthy winner of that final Dance Direction award in '37. Still maybe 'Dance Art Direction' might have been a better fit for what he actually did. In this sort of way maybe the category quickly came to seem too slippery/blurry as it had been set up.

I guess I can start to see why a flexible system of ad hoc Honorary awards for standout films and their special dance-related features started to seem best. Of course, that's the way Special Effects achievements used to be handled too rather than with every year awards.

reply

Watching that 'Damsel in Distress' sequence now they're a bit more gimmicky but also stationary/leaden camera- and editing-wise than I'd remembered. Astaire feels a bit lost in the crush of props and sets and somehow the masses behind the central trio are also underused. Overall, you can kind of see why the number and the film are not that well-remembered: it's neither showcase partner dancing a la Ginger and Fred or Fred and Eleanor Powell, e.g.,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWW6QeeVzDc
nor the knockout geometry and architecture and camera-freedom of Berkeley.

reply

Although Astaire rarely took screen credit for his choreographic work, his was the creative guiding hand in all his numbers. Once he'd acquired the clout to do so, two things upon which he insisted were straightforward photography of his dancing figure and minimal editing, so that the camera wouldn't be a distraction to his performance.

From the very beginning, Berkeley's routines were as much about geometry and drill-sergeant-like precision in moving masses of dancers, the steps for whom were often simple and repetitive, along with incorporating camera placement and movement themselves as integral parts of a routine.

Each approach yielded its own benefits specifically suited to the effects these two artists intended to create.

reply

Astaire, of course, would experiment with various forms of camera or film-processing trickery, enabling him to dance in slo-mo, with his own gigantic shadows or up and down walls and across ceilings, but these were always in service to what his body was doing. Gene Kelly engaged in some similar illusions in films like Cover Girl and Anchors Aweigh, pretty much to the same purpose.

The effects Berkeley achieved, on the other hand, were always mechanical in nature, created on-set and requiring no double exposures, matte printing and the like.

In Damsel in Distress, Astaire was working onscreen for the first time not with one partner but two, rather than as a duet or with lines of chorus girls or boys. To be honest, I find his routine earlier in the film with George and Gracie, I've Just Begun to Live, the more satisfying: just three seasoned hoofers with whisk brooms, performing before a completely objective camera.

reply

Very educational read..doghouse and you...I'll just go quiet here and leave it at that.

reply

Although Astaire rarely took screen credit for his choreographic work, his was the creative guiding hand in all his numbers.
I checked and near the end of his career, e.g., in Funny Face (1957), Astaire did take the odd choreographer credit. Still he didn't in The Band Wagon (1953) which is probably his last monumental dance picture. Gee, it would have been nice to see Michael Kidd and Astaire & maybe Charisse too share an Honorary Oscar for The Girl Hunt Ballet and maybe the Dancing in the Dark sequences from The Band Wagon. TBW isn't one of the greatest films ever made but no one ever forgets its key sequences.

Note that I've publicly argued before that, given what actually pays the bills in Hollywood and given one side of how we actually all remember movie history, the Oscars would do well to have fairly regular awards for game-changing Action/Stunt Sequences too. From Ben Hur's chariot race scene to Gravity's collision with orbital debris to Tom Cruise scaling the Burj Khalifa or escaping martians arriving for Spielberg. These are the ingredients of which so many movie dreams are made and its a shame, I think that there isn't an official mechanism for recognizing them.

reply

Hi, swanstep & ecarle, and HNY to you both.

---
And a HNY to you as well, doghouse! Always a pleasure when you drop in, and in this particular case, to read some knowledgeable back and forth between swanstep and you. Our millennial has come by as well with some sharp insights. A pleasure to read you all!

----

Some further word on choreography: AMPAS did have a short-lived Dance Direction award category, which was presented for films released in '35 - '37 and then discontinued.

---

An intriguingly long time ago, that award was. It seems that choreography really became a part of the movies from the 40's through the 60s...with a touch of Fosse 70s (and, I must sadly add, the most awfully blocked and performed choreography I have -- maybe -- ever seen in the 1973 Lost Horizon remake), which I watched recently so the sting hasn't left my eyes yet.

---
AMPAS's reasons for creating and/or dropping categories can be inscrutable, but this one existing for only those three years is especially puzzling. Musicals would remain immensely popular with audiences for another twenty years before fading from fashion as a film staple.

--Agreed, as above.

---

Maybe there just weren't enough dance directors/choreographers working during those decades to make it interesting.

--

That still seems to be a problem in NUMEROUS categories -- only so many make-up specialists, only so many "name" musical composers.

Side-bar: so few composers and Bernard Herrmann never won -- was never NOMINATED for Vertigo, NXNW, Psycho. I think he quit the Academy or something , or a personal beef with Dimitri Tiomkin kept the votes against him.

CONT

reply

CONT Benny was even dissed after his death. TWO Oscar noms in 1976-- Scorsese's Taxi Driver and DePalma's Obsession -- and he lost posthumously(to the estimable Jerry Goldsmith for The Omen -- even Goldsmith was shocked.)

--- In the three years (the dance Oscar) existed, there were two dozen films nominated, and only half that many nominees. And half of that dozen had multiple and/or repeat nominations.

By the end of the '50s, who knows how many statuettes might have been lined up on the shelves of Hermes Pan, LeRoy Prinz or Busby Berkeley?

---

Well, perhaps that was the reason for discontinuation. Too few available nominees, it was a "closed shop."

I mean, if they had had a category for "Best Mysery Thriller of the Year" -- Hitchcock would have gotten THAT one a lot(in the years that Double Indemnity, The Maltese Falcon and The Big Sleep didn't win, I suppose.)

reply

swanstep wrote:

Note that I've publicly argued before that, given what actually pays the bills in Hollywood and given one side of how we actually all remember movie history, the Oscars would do well to have fairly regular awards for game-changing Action/Stunt Sequences too. From Ben Hur's chariot race scene to Gravity's collision with orbital debris to Tom Cruise scaling the Burj Khalifa or escaping martians arriving for Spielberg. These are the ingredients of which so many movie dreams are made and its a shame, I think that there isn't an official mechanism for recognizing them.

--

Indeed. I do remember, way back at the 1964 Oscars for 1963 films, that they showed much of the schoolhouse hill chase in "The Birds" as the film was nominated for Best Special Effects. But there could have been so many more of these nominations and awards generated by singling out the truly great stunt action sequences in movies. (The car chase in The French Connection snuck in as a "BEst Picture" clip, though, as I recall.)

Speaking of the Special Effects award, I recall how in the 70's a "realistic" Academy relegated Special Effects to an honorary occasional award. But then Lucas/Spielberg came...and back in it went.

reply

"I must sadly add, the most awfully blocked and performed choreography I have -- maybe -- ever seen in the 1973 Lost Horizon remake), which I watched recently so the sting hasn't left my eyes yet."
- - -
If the word "misbegotten" hadn't already existed, it would have needed inventing to describe that travesty.

Was there such a dearth of musical talent at the time that the likes of Peter Finch, Liv Ullman, Olivia Hussey and Michael York were the names entering Ross Hunter's mind when retelling the Hilton/Capra classic with song? Talk about hobbling oneself from the get-go.

And yes: the choreography. Equally sadly, the final U.S. screen work of Hermes Pan. Oh, how even the mighty could fall.

reply

"Oscars would do well to have fairly regular awards for game-changing Action/Stunt Sequences too."
- - -
You'll find no disagreement on that from this quarter. But a terribly cynical 'what if' occurs to me. Of all the categories that currently exist or have come and gone, only four have focused strictly on performance: those for actors and actresses.

All the rest, whether artistic or technical, are behind the scenes endeavors. Even that short-lived dance award went to the so-called Dance Director.

Could it be that jealously guarded 'star power' has always been brought quietly and resentfully to bear against sharing the before-the-camera spotlight such high-profile recognition would bring to the Yakima Canutts, Bud Ekinses and Harvey Parrys who made the John Waynes, Steve McQueens and James Cagneys look so heroic to audiences?

I'm sure the magnanimous admiration each of those and other stars have expressed in interviews was sincere enough, but perhaps an award was where they or their agents and publicists - and perhaps even producers - drew the line.

reply

America is my favorite number also in an unusual amount of striking melodies and elaborate dance numbers.
I also like the beginning of the Mambo number before it morphs into Tony & Maria.
I've even grown fond of A Boy Like That.
As a kid I always played the Tonight quintet to the point where I cant even watch it now
An AMAZING score to a rather stupid story.
SO ... when it practically flops on Broadway what ends up winning the Tony for Best Musical?
THE MUSIC MAN
With striking melodies and rousing dance numbers and an AMAZING score to a rather stupid story.
I really think its pretentious trying to predict successful productions. It shows a tacky character bent on money more than art or opinion. Like betting on a sports game when you know nothing about the sport.
I always like hearing about peoples opinions about the stories and performances vs. characters.
And of course the direction, sets, costumes etc.
When people start discussing profits I tend to tune them out. It really means nothing as I'm not impressed with probably 95% of the big money makes of the last 20yrs. Most are implausible, impractical, noise/flash-fest
bordering on fantasy. Hell, half of them ARE comic book characters.
My God. I've turned into a ranter.
So sorry.

reply

I really think its pretentious trying to predict successful productions. It shows a tacky character bent on money more than art or opinion. Like betting on a sports game when you know nothing about the sport.

--

Ha.

Well, "betting" on coming opening grosses and the playout is a part of movie business journalism(?) and certainly a game that "civilians" like to play...starting young(from what I've seen around Moviechat) and continuing to much later years(that would be me -- but with certain "controls" on my bets.)

I think with the new West Side Story, we were all curious -- a classic Best Picture winner, a Number One box office attraction(1961), Spielberg at the helm and -- crucially -- a LOT of good reviews.

But the reviews don't seem to have made a difference. The movie is definitely underperforming.

---

CONT

reply

I always like hearing about peoples opinions about the stories and performances vs. characters.
And of course the direction, sets, costumes etc.
When people start discussing profits I tend to tune them out. It really means nothing as I'm not impressed with probably 95% of the big money makes of the last 20yrs.

--

I hear you...however, one aspect that rather fascinates me about movie remakes is this:

If someone remakes a famous movie -- say Psycho(on topic, here) or West Side Story (which came out only a year after Psycho and shares a cast member), it is maybe, NOT ENOUGH to make it shot by shot(Psycho) or very well(WSS)...you have to see if you can match the thing that makes movies different than anything else(plays, songs)....popular impact on millions of people and the culture at large.

Psycho had that. West Side Story had that. In 1960 and 1961. No more. Which means these remakes are NOT "good remakes" because they are missing the key element that makes big movies BIG movies: everybody saw them, wanted to see them, heard about them, talked about them. THAT's as much a part of a movie(a successful movie) as the story.

Take Psycho. "Psycho the story" is rather small and short and simple. Psycho the EVENT had audiences screaming in packed theaters around the world for months, and changed what could and could not be shown in a movie.

I think Denzel Washington when he made the remake of The Manchurian Candidate some years ago, said "if they can re-stage Macbeth over the centuries, we can sure remake a movie."

Well...yes and no. The original Manchurian Candidate is "of" 1962, just as the original Psycho is "of" 1960 -- the times were different, the politics were different, the mores were different.

--

CONT

reply

So a remake that doesn't make money like the first one did is NOT a "faithful" remake at all. Its not faithful to the EVENT. Its not really a replica of how the movie FELT, and the impact it had -- yes, measured in dollars. But Psycho and WSS were something we don't get so much today -- unique blockbusters where the grosses were not "automatically given" but EARNED.

Upthread, I posted a link to a thread about the two True Grits -- both good, both hits -- and my preference for the first.

There's another movie like that: Cape Fear.

I KINDA liked the first True Grit better than the remake.

I DEFINITELY liked the first Cape Fear better than the remake.

Here's the Cape Fear thread (1991 page):

https://moviechat.org/tt0101540/Cape-Fear/5cbb530be1b1a8743133c7d2/Not-as-Good-as-the-OriginalAnd-Heres-Why

CONT

reply

It really means nothing as I'm not impressed with probably 95% of the big money makes of the last 20yrs. Most are implausible, impractical, noise/flash-fest
bordering on fantasy. Hell, half of them ARE comic book characters.

--

Ha. Its what the movie world has become. These comic book characters keep remaking THEMSELVES every few years. Different Batmans. Different Supermans. Different Spidermans. Different Jokers.

That said, some comic book movies are better than others. The most recent Spider-Man(December 2021) is a huge hit and there is a very entertaining, specific reason why.

---
My God. I've turned into a ranter.
So sorry.

--

Don't be sorry. Ranting is reacting -- with emotion -- to the world of movies. It means the movies mean something to you.

Plus, you WEREN'T inarticulate and you WEREN'T insulting. I see those as elements of a true rant.

reply

Was Psycho(1998) any good? I don't remember it being very good. I haven't seen the most recent West Side Story, but the only thing the two have in common is that they are remakes, correct?

reply

Was Psycho(1998) any good? I don't remember it being very good.

---

Well, the Psycho remake ended up with a lot more bad reviews than the West Side Story remake has received. I think the West Side Story remake has all the songs from the original to "power" it, plus Spielberg with a big budget and serious collaborators to make it - and they have changed elements from the original.

The Psycho remake -- by noted indie director Gus Van Sant , coming off of Oscar nominations for Good Will Hunting -- was attempted as a "shot by shot, line by line" remake with "no changes." But there WERE changes. Lots of little ones and one big one -- an entire SCENE was deleted (the church scene.)

---

I haven't seen the most recent West Side Story, but the only thing the two have in common is that they are remakes, correct?

--

Personally, I think that the two films have a bit more in common than other remakes do. Psycho came out in 1960; West Side Story in 1961 -- they were only about a year apart and are both from "long, long ago." A key actor -- Simon Oakland -- appears in both films(he's the psychiatrist in Psycho; he's the plain-clothes cop in WSS.) And both films are considered "stone cold classics" -- great films -- with West Side Story having won the Best Picture Oscar for 1961.

That's about all.

reply

A trip backwards in time:

They say(who's "they"?) that one's childhood memories may be more clear and long lasting than the memories of, say, two weeks ago(at a certain age.) Something about what the brain retains, and nostalgia.

I retain this about West Side Story in 1961..maybe 1962.

Mad Magazine -- all the rage among 60's Boomer kids -- did a spoof of West Side Story, but populated it with "gangs" of American politicians(JFK, RFK, LBJ..whoever the Senate leader was at the time) versus Communist politicians(Krushchev and Castro.) They gave "I Feel Pretty" to Kruschev to sing and DANCE to (on the printed page, in cartoon drawings done by the very funny satirical cartoonist Mort Drucker), and I recall that the "turf" for the big "rumble" was..the UN building.

Thus, at a very young age, thanks to Mad Magazine...I got educated. On JFK. On Krushchev. On Castro. I suppose I asked my parents who some of these guys were , but I LEARNED. And I learned about West Side Story too.

I expect that -- rather as with Playboy -- the 60's and 70's were the big years for Mad Magazine. An audience of boys turning into young men moved from one to the other. Actually, a lot of women were drawn VERY sexily in Mad Magazine. And in the 70's with the R rating, many underage boys got to "see" X and R rated movies like Midnight Cowboy and Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice ONLY in the pages of Mad (and again, with the women drawn most sexually.)

Only two Hitchcock movies got the full Mad treatment: The Birds (called For the Birds, and drawn by Mort Drucker) and North by Northwest(which came before Mort Drucker did, it was drawn by someone else, and it was weirdly cast with Jimmy Stewart and had Grant and Eva Marie Saint as "guest stars" whom Stewart meets on the train only. I have no idea why.)

CONT

reply

Psycho didn't get a full-blown Mort Drucker spoof, but I recall PHOTOS from Psycho (Anthony Perkins looking spooked; or with his hand over his mouth) being inserted into "Dave Berg" comedy strips...usually about how terrifying Psycho was (in one of them, the male is hiding under the theater seat as his date watches Psycho intently.)

Another gag column from Mad(Berg again) had Hitchocck showing off slides of his daughter's honeymoon with her new husband -- hanging off of Mount Rushmore, the Sphinx, the Eiffel Tower...

...thus were movies like West Side Story, Psycho, and The Birds brought into my child development years and in a GOOD way...I wanted to SEE these movies.

Not to mention all the political figures in the magazine.

The Mad spoof got two things right about the first attack on Tippi Hedren by one seagull while she's in a rowboat:

Hedren says something like: "I feel tense out alone on this rowboat. Am I going to get killed like Janet Leigh did in the shower in Psycho? OUCH. No, I'm just getting pecked on the forehead by one little bitty bird." (True: one waits a long time for the BIG shock of the shower scene in Psycho; one waits a long time for the NOTHING shock of the seagull in The Birds.)

And: Hedren examines the "blood" on her white glove after the seagull attacked and she touched her forehead and says: "Hmm.this isn't real blood. Its movie blood -- looks more like strawberry jam."

Universal eventually " color corrected " that blood. Now on The Birds prints, it looks like blood.

Mad Magazine. Part of a young person's education.

PS. Somebody showed me a Mad Magazine in 1983 that had a full Psycho II spoof in it. So Psycho and Mad kept going into the 80's. I remember: the opening drawing was of the courtroom with Norman being released over Lila's protests. In the corner of the frame: Martin Balsam's Arbogast as a court reporter...with a big knife sticking out of his chest.

reply

"Personally, I think that the two films have a bit more in common than other remakes do. Psycho came out in 1960; West Side Story in 1961 -- they were only about a year apart and are both from "long, long ago." "
--
One difference even in that regard: despite coming out around the same time, Psycho comes off as rather more revolutionary than WSS. WSS was a big roadshow picture, the kind of spectacle that Hollywood used to combat the insidious influence of TV until New Hollywood killed them in 1967. Psycho was revolutionary both stylistically and content-wise, pushing rather subversive elements into a mainstream movie. WSS is a good film for sure, but it's more in line with what the mainstream was comfortable with, even if it did deal with big social issues (racism, juvenile delinquency, sexual violence, etc.).

reply

"Personally, I think that the two films have a bit more in common than other remakes do. Psycho came out in 1960; West Side Story in 1961 -- they were only about a year apart and are both from "long, long ago." "
--
One difference even in that regard: despite coming out around the same time, Psycho comes off as rather more revolutionary than WSS.

---

Hello, Elizabethhoestar, Happy New Year, and...that point is well taken. As much as there are some connections between Psycho and WSS, there were big differences. Indeed, when we complain "why didn't Hitchcock ever win an Oscar?" part of the problem is that the movies that DID back then were big expensive musicals like WSS (let's see...My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music, Oliver...)

For a Hitchcock movie like "Psycho" to win, it would have to be over similar small scale b/w dramas like On the Waterfront, Marty, or...The Apartment. Which of course didn't happen in 1960.

----

CONT

reply

WSS was a big roadshow picture, the kind of spectacle that Hollywood used to combat the insidious influence of TV until New Hollywood killed them in 1967. Psycho was revolutionary both stylistically and content-wise, pushing rather subversive elements into a mainstream movie. WSS is a good film for sure, but it's more in line with what the mainstream was comfortable with, even if it did deal with big social issues (racism, juvenile delinquency, sexual violence, etc.).

---

All agreed. One reason I like Psycho after all these years versus something like WSS (or Lawrence of Arabia, or A Man for All Seasons) is that Psycho rather follows the tight and simple narrative countours of...the B-horror movies that were rife in the fifties before it. It was a narrative style I was TRAINED in from Saturday monster shows: Them, The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms...eventually the "mild shockers" from William Castle like House on Haunted Hill. Psycho was like a hyper-intelligent, massively cinematic riff on those hit movies that nobody honored. Conversely, I can never really remember the order of the scenes -- or the songs -- in West Side Story. Its one great big epic "mainstream Hollywood" Oscar machine, even given ITS landmark elements.

I suppose its tightness and simplicity killed Psycho's chances. Rear Window is more complex, but it couldn't get a Best Picture nomination either. And Vertigo just seemed beyond the ability of the Academy to grasp it.

And so, yes: Psycho and West Side Story are as opposed to each other as they are linked. Linked now, I suppose, in their inability to generate big audiences "the second time around."

reply

I think in both cases the remakes lack what made the originals such draws: freshness. Psycho was groundbreaking for reasons mentioned. It was shocking in its time-- my grandma who was a teen when it came out says there it was a wollop to audiences of the time. WSS dealt with big issues in a way that connected with the youth of the time-- the music and characters were contemporary to the time.

Now both Psycho and WSS are considered classics-- but part of the baggage of being a classic is resistance from a younger audience. They assume classic = dull and irrelevant to their lives. I have not seen the new WSS-- I'm sure it's beautifully produced and well acted, but for a young audience, a 50s musical-- even one dealing with issues that are still relevant-- won't have that same contemporary gut-punch the original would have with audiences of its time.

As for the Psycho remake, once again-- young'ns probably didn't care and movie nerds considered it sacrilege to remake such a film. It's probably more of a sacrilege than remaking WSS to be honest!

I hope that was not rambly. I'm hoping that made sense lol.

reply

I think in both cases the remakes lack what made the originals such draws: freshness.

---

Yep.

I have finally been able to watch Spielberg's West Side Story...it has come to streaming on HBO Max(March 2021.) And for all of the undeniable craftsmanship and state-of-the-art cinematography and production values -- Spielberg's West Side Story pretty much falls pretty much to the same problems that beset Van Sant's Psycho.

These two films are just WAY out of their time.

And consider. Van Sant's Psycho is now 24 years old!

It was out of its time at a distance of 38 years after the original.

Whereas Spileberg has given us the new WSS a whopping 60 years after the original.

---


Psycho was groundbreaking for reasons mentioned. It was shocking in its time-- my grandma who was a teen when it came out says there it was a wollop to audiences of the time. WSS dealt with big issues in a way that connected with the youth of the time-- the music and characters were contemporary to the time.

--

Yes. I still think remaking Psycho was a non-starter primarily because its shock value was all gone by 1998. There had been so many more bloody murders on screen, so many more sexually perverse premises, so many more twist endings -- it simply didn't FUNCTION the same way anymore, even "shot by shot."

And consider this: "Jaws" made 15 years after Psycho, set a new pace for shockers: the first SCENE is a shock killing(Chrissie's night swim.) Psycho made us wait 47 minutes for the first shock killing(of only two.)

CONT

reply

Now both Psycho and WSS are considered classics-- but part of the baggage of being a classic is resistance from a younger audience. They assume classic = dull and irrelevant to their lives.

--

A true point. Psycho is not of their time. Scream, maybe moreso. Saw?

And big screen musicals where the characters simply start singing in realistic scenes...a museum piece.

--
I have not seen the new WSS-- I'm sure it's beautifully produced and well acted, but for a young audience, a 50s musical-- even one dealing with issues that are still relevant-- won't have that same contemporary gut-punch the original would have with audiences of its time.

--

Even moreso than with Van Sant's Psycho, defenders of Spielberg's WSS are saying "but Broadway revives musicals from the past all the time." Fair enough -- but movies are simply different. James Stewart coined the phrase: "movies are pieces of time." And 1960 is all over Psycho. And 1961 is all over West Side Story. And floating beneath it. Its in the film stock, and the acting styles , and the TYPES of actors of that era.

---


As for the Psycho remake, once again-- young'ns probably didn't care and movie nerds considered it sacrilege to remake such a film. It's probably more of a sacrilege than remaking WSS to be honest!

---

Well, I think Psycho is WAY up there on the list of greatest movies ever made -- usually in the Top Twenty on most lists, a pure Number One on the AFI's best thrillers list (followed by Jaws, The Exorcist and...surprise...North by Northwest.) Psycho is also the seminal "slasher movie."

WSS won a TON of Oscars, but isn't necessarily so seminal as a musical.

--

I hope that was not rambly. I'm hoping that made sense lol.

---

Made perfect sense!

CONT

reply

For me, the big problem with Spielberg's West Side Story manifests in its opening seconds -- when the movie announces that it IS a Spielberg movie.

What I mean is: its LOOK. The cinematography by Janusz Kaminski, who has been with Spielberg since at least Saving Private Ryan: desaturated and gray, with a slightly green tint. I track this "Spielberg look" back to Jurassic Park, which was photographed by Dean Cundey, but that look seems to start there with Spielberg. Minority Report. War of the Worlds. Lincoln. Bridge of Spies. The Post. They ALL look like this - -and when you add in the "smoke effect" that goes back at least to Jaws...you've got a West Side Story that looks totally unlike the original and therefore weirdly seems to refute it.

The 1961 West Side Story opened with a brief Saul Bass logo and cityscape (the credits would be saved for the end) and then dissolved into big bright daytime images of NYC from high above in Super Panavision 70 or some such widescreen with the film stock of 1961 preserved for all time. THAT is what West Side Story has been for 60 years, and when the Spielberg version starts up -- despite the opening music matching exactly to the 1961 film (of course, based on the same musical) the weird feeling is: this movie is an IMPOSTER... a weak copy of a classic. The exact same feeling Van Sant's Psycho gave us.

This is not to fault Spielberg's technical acumen, though.

The very first thought I had was: QT's theory about "aging directors late films being inferior" is dashed by Spielberg's West Side Story. The opening shots, compositions and cuts quite frankly reminded me of some of the shots on the boat in Jaws in terms of their motion and angles. (A tenement fire escape ladder rolling down onto the street reminded me of Hooper's shark cage being assembled, for instance.)

CONT

reply

I sense Spielberg's auteuristic style in West Side Story just as I sensed Hitchocck's style in Topaz -- made when Hitchcock was roughly Spielberg's age today. But with this difference: Hitchcock at 70 working on Topaz made a distinctively subpar, poorly written, too-slow movie (hamstrung by the meager resources of Universal at the time to make it). Spielberg at 70 has lost none of his ability to put images on the screen and to assemble a thoroughly professional product.

I wondered this , though. Just how much of WSS IS Spielberg's doing? I wonder this when Clint Eastwood directs too, at this age. Perhaps "old men" simply supervise the work of others -- the cinematographer, the production designer, the choregographers(in WSS). Still, I sensed Spielberg's visual style, HE had to do that.

Where Spielberg failed -- SORT of living up to QT's theory -- is that nobody much really saw Spielberg's WSS in theaters. Spielberg is not the Spielberg of his youth -- people lining up to see his work. But then, WSS is the work he chose to make this time. They'll line up for another Jurassic movie. (Produced, not directed, by The Man.)

Jump to: "America." The best musical number in the show -- a big , rousing fandango with plenty of energetic dancing. In the original, very stylized Puerto Rican men and women in colorful outfits sing and dance this number on one big interior stage(a rooftop.) In Spielberg's version, the number is moved all over the city, indoors(a boxing gym) and outdoors(a busy intersection) and done much more realistically. I give the win to the stylized original but -- its too great and exciting a song not to work pretty damn well this time, too. Dancing!

CONT

reply


Jump to: the tragic ending. Is it a SPOILER? I guess so. Suffice it to say, someone dies and...this time around, I didn't quite feel it as in the original. Something about the comparative "realistic look" of the actors -- they aren't quite the Hollywood cuties of the original, these actors look like REAL gang members(mean,macho, physical and merciless) and the violence this time around feels much more REAL.

Indeed, I think that is the core problem with a new West Side Story. Spielberg smartly stages the film "period" in its 1957 timeframe (Van Sant SHOULD have made his Psycho period, but did not) , which lends a certain nostalgic innocence to these "juvenile deliquents." But gang wars have gotten a lot more bleak and violent and horrific in the intervening decades. Its just harder than ever to take these "toughs" seriously. Or their 1957 musical numbers. (What, no rap?)

A mix of emotions from me. Spielberg "still has it" -- in a way that Hitchcock did not at the same age as a sicker man -- and can keep working indefinitely. But Spielberg does NOT have it in terms of dominating movie culture and audience sentiment as he once did (he doesn't HAVE to, but its sad nonetheless.) The movie is well made, the music is still great but...it ends up feeling like a vanity production nonetheless. Spielberg getting millions to indulge HIS memory of a musical he loved. Oh, well.

The cast is realistic, but largely unknown to me. In the original , Natalie Wood was an established star and Russ Tamblyn was coming off of the popular children's movie Tom Thumb. This time around...pretty much unknowns save Angel Elsort from Baby Driver. Will any of these new folks become stars? We shall see. We'll be waiting to see if the young'uns from Licorice Pizza of the same season become stars, too.

CONT

reply

And this: remember Simon Oakland, the oh-so-controversial shrink at the end of Psycho? Well, one year after Psycho he got a key role in West Side Story, too -- the plain clothes cop, Lt. Schrank. Corey Stoll -- who usually shaves his head for roles -- here has a head of hair and a more "racially biased" (I think?) take on the character than in the 1961 original. But he acquits himself nicely -- Schrank was always the "peacemaker" of the tale, doing what he could to try to stave off gang killings, being rough in the trying, but still trying to make a difference.

So now, Robert Forster has played a Simon Oakland role in a remake(Psycho) and Corey Stoll has played a Simon Oakland role in another remake(WSS.)

Spielberg's West Side Story: a mass of contradictions. A great director maintains his form at an old age and delivers a perfectly tooled version of a classic..without recreating why the original WAS a classic. And nobody came.

PS. "Sick and old" Alfred Hitchcock did better with Frenzy at age 72 than with Topaz at age 70, but even the well-reviewed Frenzy made none of the demands on Hitch that the epic WSS makes on Spielberg. Spielberg is a "younger older man" than Hitchcock was at the same age.

reply

Also, ecarle, it seem that not only are people living longer (the wealthy ones, anyway), but they are also in much better mental and physical health (and thus stay productive) for much longer as well (John Williams is a good example). So for Hitchcock, Frenzy seems more like an "Indian Summer' there was no way his health and stamina could maintain. Spielberg and Williams both have maybe slowed down a bit, but not much really... not yet. Clint Eastwood beat the odds well into his 80s, but it is clear that time has finally caught up with him (as it always does). Barring a major health event, Spielberg may not start really slowing down until at least the end of this decade...assuming that Hollywood keeps funding his films after this mega-flop.

reply

Also, ecarle, it seem that not only are people living longer (the wealthy ones, anyway), but they are also in much better mental and physical health (and thus stay productive) for much longer as well (John Williams is a good example).

---

I do believe that Williams has hit 90...but says he will score the next Indy Jones movie now being made(without Spielberg directing.)

It would seem that far more than acting, and far more than directing, musical composing requires a very keen mental dexterity -- does Williams still have it?
I dunno.

That said, a whole bunch of directors and stars are working into their 80s and soe into their 90s. Hah -- its like our top political leaders in DC in America. "Elderly rules." (I feel so YOUNG in comparison.)

Health and diet make the difference in general -- and wealth makes sure the best doctors are available whenever and wherever needed (even way back when Spencer Tracy was consulting his doctors every DAY and often seeking hospitalization. He got as far as 67 but then alcoholism destroyed his innards.)

---

CONT

reply

So for Hitchcock, Frenzy seems more like an "Indian Summer' there was no way his health and stamina could maintain.

--

For such an obese man, Hitchcock evidently had great health until his late fifties. He even played tennis! And he had the energy and stamina to direct the big action scenes in Strangers on a Train and North by Northwest, and to travel the world on location.

Hitchocck DID travel to London to make Frenzy, but once he got there, he found himself directing a very small movie whose major set-pieces were all set indoors on soundstage locations -- a matrimonial agency office (for murder); a staircase(for another murder), the back of a potato truck(for body disposal and evidence retrieval.) The rest of the movie was pretty talky , with some evocative Covent Garden locations doing great servie to the film. Still: small.

And that "Indian Summer" was evidently gained by Hitchocck taking a full year off simply to REST before undertaking a new movie. Hitchcock craved a comeback after some flops, part of his plan was to "get into shape" to make a movie with full attention.

And he did. Four years later for his final film, Family Plot, he couldn't hold up too well anymore. And it showed on that movie -- too slow, too sloppy.

CONT

reply

Spielberg and Williams both have maybe slowed down a bit, but not much really... not yet.

--

With these older directors and other professionals(I'll include Scorsese, Ridley Scott and Eastwood), we don't really know what they do in their "down time" -- which can be months between working on movies. They get to be retired without being retired. They can laze around one of their many homes doing nothing. They probably submit to all kinds of health regiments with trainers and dieticians.

So basically, they only have to "focus" over a few months of pre-production, filming, editing and (much later) promotion. Easy enough to do if you're rich and 80, I suppose.

---

Clint Eastwood beat the odds well into his 80s, but it is clear that time has finally caught up with him (as it always does).

---

Yep. I trust that Cry Macho is his final turn before the camera -- he made history starring at 91 -- but what kind of directing will he do? A few more, I suppose.

I remember seeing Eastwood's Sully a few years ago. It had several CGI scenes with planes crashing. I thought - how did Eastwood DIRECT those sequences? I guessed: Clint farmed the "filming" out to a CGI Silicon Valley factory. He was shown the footage on a computer screen or in a screening room. He said "OK, let's put that in the movie." Done. An 80 year old directs. Hah.

CONT

reply

Barring a major health event, Spielberg may not start really slowing down until at least the end of this decade...

--

I guess its up to him. Family Plot was sad because you could "feel" Hitchcock's age on the screen. Too many overlong scenes. Too many medium shots. Worse process than he usually did. And yet, enough of it WORKED -- especially AS a Hitchcock film, that I'm glad he made it.

He worked on one more movie called The Short Night and finally told Universal "I can't do it. I can't work anymore. I'm retiring." Younger directors said they could film the location work (in Finland) for Hitch, he wouldn't have it. He quit and died a year after retiring.

Spielberg, and Scorsese and Scott(hey three S's, does that mean something?) may all have to face that "Hitchocck day" someday. Make a subpar film but still THEIRS? (Family Plot.) Or just quit. (The Short Night.)

---assuming that Hollywood keeps funding his films after this mega-flop.

--

I think he still has the clout. He's producing another Jurassic movie and another Indy Jones movie...he makes them money elsewhere. Of course, I think this flop was for Disney/Fox(which isn't Fox anymore.)

Spielberg DID say that he almost didn't get money for Llncoln as a movie, they wanted him to do it as a cable mini-series. He SWEARS that even the great Spielberg can't always get financing without difficulty.

So...I guess we'll find out. But first: his next movie(already in the can) is called The Fablemans and is loosely based on his childhood. I guess the Fablemans are the Spielbergs (Seth Rogan is Dad.)

reply

This makes Akira Kurosawa's late films (especially Ran) all the more remarkable, considering CGI barely existed back then (1980-1993), and by all accounts he was legally blind at this point in life. Even if we allow for the talent he had around him, how the heck does a legally blind director make such a visually stunning film? Of course, things maybe different in Japan, Perhaps his status as a "sensei" meant there were lots of assistants helping him out, but with no credit given in order for to "save face". Rumor has it the Ishiro Honda (a close personal friend of Kurosawa's and the director of the Godzilla films) co-directed much of his later films. I doubt in the West this would have been kept secret (back then or especially in today's social media world), out of filial deference or whatever.

Kurosawa lived until 1998, but made no more films after 93. With his eyesight deteriorating, he was still planning some films until a falling accident broke the base of his spine (if I recall correctly), after which these projects were cancelled and he spent the last two years of his life in bed. Two of his scripts were filmed by others shortly after his death, but lacked the master's touch.

reply

The commentary on Kurosawa reminds us that there may be things we don't know about going on to "keep the director's reputation afloat." If Kurosawa was blind, others probably looked through the camera, but I suppose the script told them what to shoot and Kurosawa "advised."

Back to Frenzy. Rumor has it that while Hitchcock personally directed a lot of the film, he sometimes had his assistant director direct...while he napped in his trailer. Also, his cinematographer Gil Taylor(Dr. Strangelove, Star Wars) did a lot of the technical work. You can figure with a well-written script and good actors. Hitchcock didn't have to be ENTIRELY present at ALL times for this "Alfred Hitchcock film" to be made by others for him.

Also: Kurosawa was "planning some films." Hitchcock worked on a few films in preparation after Family Plot, coming closet to making The Short Night. (One of the OTHER unmade films was from an Elmore Leonard novel Hitch bought! Yep Hitchcock might have made a movie from the author of Get Shorty and Jackie Brown.)

Bottom line: by continuing to "develop films" while never actually making them, Hitchcock and Kurosawa kept themselves "active" even when no more movies were forthcoming.

reply

One thing I should mention about Kurosawa is that there were many years of down time between films later in life, and he was also a fairly talented painter. These films were extensively "story-boarded" via his paintings years before shooting started, and the vivid colors match up pretty well with the finished product. I really do think he would have "directed" at least two more films if he hadn't broken his spine.

reply

Well, that's good information...with a sad warning: if you are going to try to work in your later decades...don't break anything.

I'm not being glib. I'm sorry we didn't get those last movies.

A trivia tidbit that I'm not sure is true. Hitchocck died at home in bed at age 80. But -- said one source -- Hitchcock's doctor at the time felt that Hitchcock COULD have lived another couple of years. He wasn't dying directly. Rather Hitchcock seemed to WILL his own death -- not eating, not taking medicine. If you believe this story, Hitchcock decided that once he couldn't work anymore, he'd rather die.

We'll never know.

reply

Relevant to this discussion of Hitch's final period is, of course, David Freeman's account of trying to work on The Short Night w/ Hitch. I hadn't got around to reading his original 1982 piece on this from Esquire (which he later expanded into a book) until finding it on line recently. It makes for sobering reading:
http://www.thestacksreader.com/hitchcocks-final-days/

reply

David Lean's death just as his adaption of Joseph Conrad's "Nostromo" was set to begin filming was a likely sad loss to cinema. Maybe he was luckier that Hitchcock or Kurosawa in that he didn't slowly waste away..

One final word about Kurosawa (I really mean it this time!), is that Asian cultures don't like to talk about infirmities and weakness in public, and they have great reverence for the elderly. So I am not really sure just exactly how blind Kurosawa actually was, or if it only got really bad in his very last two films (which show a marked decline in quality). I watched a 2 hour documentary on the Blu-Ray for his 1990 film "Dreams", and he didn't appear to be having too much trouble making eye contact and seemed to know what was happening on set, although he was rarely shown not sitting in his director's chair. Of course, I'm sure any footage that showed him having problems would not have been left in, so who knows?

Is there any documentary footage (or written accounts) of Hitchcock on the set of "Family Plot"?

reply

David Lean's death just as his adaption of Joseph Conrad's "Nostromo" was set to begin filming was a likely sad loss to cinema. Maybe he was luckier that Hitchcock or Kurosawa in that he didn't slowly waste away..

--

This contemplation of "aging directors" (stimulated by Spielberg making WSS at his age) reminds us that for all of them, they certainly had decades as young men(few women) and the "age factor" simply didn't enter in. Hitch when he made Rebecca. Spielberg when he made Raiders. Scorsese when he made Taxi Driver. But the years get away and...we contemplate our age through THEIRS.

I'm wondering who our YOUNG hot directors are today. Do we have any? QT and PTA aren't that young anymore. JJ Abrams maybe. How about his guy who has directed the new The Batman? Do we have any young "indie auteurs" out there. Swanstep would know.

CONT

reply

One final word about Kurosawa (I really mean it this time!),

---

You don't have to! Keep going if you want..

---

is that Asian cultures don't like to talk about infirmities and weakness in public, and they have great reverence for the elderly. So I am not really sure just exactly how blind Kurosawa actually was, or if it only got really bad in his very last two films (which show a marked decline in quality). I watched a 2 hour documentary on the Blu-Ray for his 1990 film "Dreams", and he didn't appear to be having too much trouble making eye contact and seemed to know what was happening on set, although he was rarely shown not sitting in his director's chair. Of course, I'm sure any footage that showed him having problems would not have been left in, so who knows?

---

True. Age can be a tricky thing. Not too apparent in a person sitting, or not talking. Varying degrees of lucidity.

In "civilian life," (using the US as an example), people target 65 for Social Security and retirement and stop working. In "movie life," these artists just keep going until they can't anymore. (Hitchcock said "I shall never retire! What would I do? Sit home and read a book?") Of course, Hitchcock was lucky to have Universal's backing. OTHER old directors (Wilder, Capra, Ford) were FORCIBLY retired...no offers came in.

Although 65 isn't all that possible for civilian retirement anymore -- or even desired.

CONT

reply

Is there any documentary footage (or written accounts) of Hitchcock on the set of "Family Plot"?

--

Some footage and a LOT of written accounts.

You can see the footage on the "Family Plot" DVD. The "Making Of" documentary.

Hitchcock's mix of being worshipped and yet somewhat infirm on Family Plot appears in several books. John Russell Taylor wrote "Hitch"(an authorized bio) while Hitch was still alive. He was on the Family Plot set and wrote about it.

Patrick McGilligan's great bio ("A Life in Darkness and LIght") covers Family Plot in great detail.

Its star Bruce Dern said that Hitchcock had a very keen mind, but a very tired body.

Interestingly, there is a LOT more footage of Hitchocck directing his penultimate film Frenzy in 1971. It can be seen on the DVD AND on the internet.

To me, there is disturbing footage there. It is of Hitchcock directing Barry Foster to "strangle" Barbara Leigh Hunt in her office chair. In the movie, this is a sequence of quick cuts from victim to killer . In this "making of footage," even the "fake" strangling looks REAL and disturbing, as Leigh Hunt "dies" in one take as Hitchocck directs from the side "Pull the tie tighter...tighter...now try to grab at the tie, drop your hands as you die."

Francis Coppola said crew members always gathered round for the murder scenes being filmed on The Godfather. He said something about how even "fake" murder attracts rubberneckers. Something within us, I suppose. Bloodlust.

Hitchcock was superfamous in the 70's thanks to the book Hitchcock/Truffaut in the 60's. It was ironic. We have NO footage of him directing the great Vertigo and Psycho , but PLENTY of footage of him directing the leser Frenzy and Family Plot.

PS. A new book should be out(now? soon?) by HOward Katzajian, who was the assistant director on Family Plot...and then on Star Wars...and then on Raiders of the Lost Ark. Helluva career...Hitchcock to Lucas to Spielberg. Hitch was, shall we say, less energetic?

reply

So now, Robert Forster has played a Simon Oakland role in a remake(Psycho) and Corey Stoll has played a Simon Oakland role in another remake(WSS.)

I wonder who will play the Simon Oakland role in Spielberg's upcoming Bullitt film (although it's not a remake so there might be all different characters):
https://deadline.com/2022/02/steven-spielbert-bullitt-at-warner-bros-and-amblin-1234960542/
Some interesting casting choices for Frank Bullitt in the comments, including Daniel Craig, Matt Damon, and, of course, Damian Lewis, who played McQueen in Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollwood. Sounds exciting, but, as another commenter pointed out, Speilberg projects often get announced without getting made.

reply

Relevant to this discussion of Hitch's final period is, of course, David Freeman's account of trying to work on The Short Night w/ Hitch. I hadn't got around to reading his original 1982 piece on this from Esquire (which he later expanded into a book) until finding it on line recently. It makes for sobering reading:
http://www.thestacksreader.com/hitchcocks-final-days/

--

Sobering reading, indeed. That was a very sad piece, a bit too intimate but you can really FEEL the sadness of Hitchcock's final year. Here was a man who was in great physical pain, and (clearly) losing his mental faculties, and yet "hanging in," trying to give of the vibe of a man who was REALLY going to make another movie. I might add that people always seemed to feel back then(I know I did, but some writers suggested it too) that Hitchcock was "over and done and retired" before, and he would surprise them: poorly with Topaz, quite well with Frenzy. So it seemed POSSIBLE that he might drag himself across the finish line one more time with The Short Night.

I don't think that David Freeman wrote many scripts that were produced. He seems to have been a "for hire rewrite screenwriter" and it is clear that Universal hired him out to Hitchcock pretty much to "baby sit" Hitchcock under the guise of work for a year or so. Universal boss Lew Wasserman was a close friend of Hitchcock, so he graciously paid for Hitchcock's staff and paid for Freeman to be there. It was a gesture of friendship ...and corporate smarts. Wasserman knew that after Hitchcock died, he would have first shot at the rights to "The Lost Hitchcock Five," including Rear Window, Vertigo, The Man Who Knew Too Much 56, The Trouble With Harry and Rope.

That said, it has been recorded by Hitchcock's assistant, Hilton Green, that when Hitch sent Green to tell Wasserman in person that Hitchcock was retiring...Wasserman cried.

CONT

reply

Notes in passing:

ONE in this article, Freeman brushes against the shrink scene and finds it bad. He links THAT exposition dump to the one in The Birds where the old lady bird expert just sort of turns up with all sorts of information. I forgot about THAT one. Hey, THAT one makes even less sense than the shrink scene(which, remember, I like.) Still, I figured that maybe Bodega Bay draws birdwatchers, its obviouslyi got a lot of birds...

TWO: The article was expanded into a book which Freeman "pads" with some general discussion of Hitch scenes. He details the Arbogast murder but - gets it wrong as to how it was done. He thought that Martin Balsam RODE A CHAIR down the real staircase! Not much of a " movie professional."

THREE: Interesting in the article to see Hitchcock eying Sean Connery and Liv Ulman for the leads of The Short Night. They were announced in the papers, but perhaps just as possibilities. This article tells us that Liv Ullman was unavailable. I've also read that Hitchcock approached Clint Eastwood for the hero, and Walter Matthau for the villain. Also Catherine Denueve("The Hitchcock Blonde who got away") for the heroine. Hitch was hoping in his final days to keep working with stars. A movie only becomes REAL when the stars take the stage. Or the unknowns (Topaz, Frenzy.)

FOUR: The expanded book of Freeman's article also includes his draft of The Short Night screen. I won't blame Freeman but...its not much of a story. It reads like Torn Curtain or Topaz. Another dullish Cold War tale, though Hitchcock was trying for a non-action Notorious type movie (a love triangle Connery-Ullman-Matthau or whomever.) Its just not very good. Elliott Gould tried to buy the rights, he would have been better casting than Connery or Eastwood for the "amateur spy" hero.

Mainly, though, this: I would believe that neither Spielberg nor Scorsese nor Scott will live THEIR final years in the pain and anguish that Hitchcock did. I

reply

I wonder who will play the Simon Oakland role in Spielberg's upcoming Bullitt film (although it's not a remake so there might be all different characters):
https://deadline.com/2022/02/steven-spielbert-bullitt-at-warner-bros-and-amblin-1234960542/

---

What a weird idea. Remake "Bullitt" except...don't remake "Bullitt." You know, while Steve McQueen based the character on (at a minimum for clothes) SF detective Dave Toschi, Toschi went on to investigate the Zodiac murders and hence also became the model for..."Dirty Harry." Mark Ruffalo plays Toschi in David Fincher's "Zodiac" (2007) and there is a scene where Toschi walks out of a screening of Dirty Harry mid-film in disgust (funny: Dirty Harry posters in the lobby don't have Clint Eastwood's picture or name on them. I assume Eastwood wouldn't allow it.)

for Toschi probably liked McQueen's respectful, by-the-book rebel more than Eastwood's conservative gunslinger type. Bullitt and Harry were BOTH great characters, played by great movie stars...but Bullitt was meant to be a "one time role in a one time story."

Anyway, what's the point? I guess the original Bullitt -- like every other classic made before 1990, it seems -- is forgetten or not known at all.

As Psycho is my Number One of 1960, Bullitt is my Number One of 1968, and I've always linked them like this: Psycho ONLY seemed to be about the classic shower scene, Bullitt ONLY seemed to be about the historic car chase and yet -- both films have SO MUCH MORE going on in them.

With Bullitt, its cool and decent McQueen's movie-long duel with slimy politician Robert Vaughn. The movie climaxes with BOTH the killing of the mob villain AND the defeat of the jerk Vaughn, equally satisfying.

I'm not sure what the point is about making a movie about Frank Bullitt where he's not in the "Bullitt' story or played by Steve McQueen.

CONT

reply

Some interesting casting choices for Frank Bullitt in the comments, including Daniel Craig, Matt Damon, and, of course, Damian Lewis, who played McQueen in Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollwood.

---

Funny how Damian Lewis -- hardly a star -- now makes the great based on his work in OUATIH. I recall how in his scene, Lewis got down COLD -- but for only seconds -- how McQueen would close his eyes when he smiled. It was a good impression, but lacked McQueen's true star power.

Daniel Craig has indeed been mentioned as a "new Steve McQueen" per his looks, but also as a "new Charles Bronson."

In his younger days as a new star , Kevin Costner was said to have McQueen's look ("He has McQueen written all over him," wrote the producer of The Untouchables.) He's a bit too old for Bullitt now.

I've heard Brad Pitt posited as a new Bullitt -- he's got McQueen level stardom now. Just as I used to hear Hugh Jackman posited as new Dirty Harry -- in HIS case, he looks like Young Clint.

I wonder who could play the Simon Oakland role - Bullitt's boss. JK Simmons, I suppose. He's in everything now. If they remade Psycho today, I'm sure that JK Simmons would have played...Arbogast.

And good for Simon Oakland, eh? He's in a lot of classics -- Psycho, WSS, Bullitt. And The Sand Pebbles (where he bravely takes his shirt off to box Mako, revealing a torso full of flab and a gut). He went out with "The Night Stalker" TV series, where he was quite good as Darren McGavin's newspaper boss.


reply

Sounds exciting, but, as another commenter pointed out, Speilberg projects often get announced without getting made.

---

Yes, I think Spielberg makes such announcements a lot -- and/or he announces movies that get directed by someone else.

Such as the case with the 1991 remake of Cape Fear. Spielberg announced it for himself to direct , but then decided to lure Scorsese in to make it instead.

Speaking of noteable remakes in development, the benighted Mel Gibson has been attached for a few years now to a remake of my favorite movie of 1969 -- The Wild Bunch. I don't really protest remakes(I loved the new True Grit), but honestly, The Wild Bunch is truly a "once in a lifetime movie" that had Sam Peckinpah's blood and guts smeared all over its historic technical cinematic flourish of a classic.

As these remakes fall by the wayside, its more amazing that Van Sant actually got HIS remake(Psycho) done. The key: once he had the greenlight(because of the success of Good Will Hunting) he made that remake IMMEDIATELY.

We've had several Hitchcock remakes -- Psycho, Dial M for Murder, Rebecca -- but a few are still in development hell: The Birds, Strangers on a Train(Denzel was attached for awhile -- hero or villain?), To Catch a Thief..

Probably never to be made.

PS. Look at that photo of Spielberg in the Bullitt article. He's wearing a scarf around his neck. He does that a LOT. He had a tumor removed from his neck years ago. But sometimes he doesn't wear the scarf.

reply