AUGUST 1999:

NOT-SO-GREAT EXPECTATIONS

Is it just me, or do you go into movies - even those you've breathlessly been looking forward to seeing - and just assume you're going to be disappointed? You don't want to be disappointed, mind you. You want to be blown away. But to actually see a movie and come out of the theatre thinking "Wow, that was great!" rather than "I knew I shoulda come to the bargain matinee," is rarer than a Cambodian Rhino these days. And I don't know about you, but I think this trend is getting mighty depressing.

I love movies. Love 'em. They are, for my money, the most powerful form of entertainment we have - and on occasion the most powerful form of art as well. Hell, I'll watch SMALL SOLDIERS for the fifth time on HBO rather than check out anything on The Learning Channel. (Unless it has shark attacks or tornadoes. Then I'll switch back and forth.) However pathetic that is - and I know it's pretty damned pathetic - it's just the way I am. I... love... movies. Even crummy ones. The problem is, all we get anymore are crummy ones! Unfunny comedies... brain-dead action flicks... bland, preachy dramas... horror films that wouldn't scare a three year-old (but would give him an excellent idea of Jennifer Love Hewitt's cup-size) - this is what, more and more, passes for motion picture entertainment these days. And it isn't just studio (read: 'Hollywood') films that are crummy! There are plenty of independent snooze-fests cluttering up the few 'art houses' that exist anymore. All of which means that movies are becoming more and more like an abusive parent: You may love 'em, but you sure don't like 'em.

It's not a good sign when the most popular character in a movie
is the guy who looks cool and doesn't have to deliver any of
the stilted, corny dialog.

Let's look at a few of the films that have been released this summer, shall we? Where should we begin? How about with the most anticipated film of all freakin' time? I found myself anticipating STAR WARS EPISODE ONE: THE PHANTOM MENACE (hereafter referred to as 'PHANTOM', because... well... because I'm lazy, alright?) more than I expected. It was primarily a nostalgic thing for me. I grew up with STAR WARS. The thought of sitting in a big theatre with a booming sound system blasting that familiar John Williams music as the main title appears onscreen... well, that sounded like a pretty good time to me. And it was! Unfortunately, there was a whole movie attached to the end of that moment. And that movie, while it had some terrific moments, just didn't live up to my expectations.

Now you can make the argument that no movie could've lived up to all the hype surrounding PHANTOM. And I agree with that. Wholeheartedly. But not in my case. Because I wasn't expecting it to be the second coming. I knew I wasn't going to experience the same emotions I had when viewing the first film back in 1977. It's not possible - I'm different, the world is different, and it's a completely different film. But as I watched the movie, my desire to like it was slowly and methodically overcome by a terrible realization: I was bored. Oh sure, the pod racing sequence was fun, and visually the whole thing was stunning, but... I was still bored. Bored because for all the battle scenes and lightsaber duels and rockets zipping through space, there still wasn't a single character I was all that interested in. Okay, okay - you're curious to see Annakin Skywalker before he became Darth Vader (or more to the point, Annakin Skywalker before he was played by an actor who could convincingly deliver a line), and look, there's Obi-Wan Kenobi as a young man, and ooh! there's Queen Amidala, who is Luke and Leia's mother! But this carried the same kind of interest as a documentary about, say, the Civil war, in which we learn about the pasts of Grant and Lee and Lincoln. It's interesting, but in a detached, clinical way. With PHANTOM, George Lucas has made the History Channel version of STAR WARS.

To give him credit, I think Lucas had a very difficult task with this film. I don't think he was simply setting up one trilogy, I think he had to set up both the first and second trilogies with this film. Not an easy job, especially when you take into account the fact that everyone has been forming their own ideas about what this film should be for the past 15 years. And I've got to admit, the thought that the whole STAR WARS saga - this grand, majestic modern myth - all begins because of the trade embargo of a small, out-of-the-way planet, is perversely appealing. But you know what? Those are all excuses. I was still bored. Bottom line.

So, uh, anyone wanna tell me what this has to do with
60's spy movies? Did I miss the Busby Berkely/Esther Williams
version of THUNDERBALL?

Another film which had a high "I wanna see that!" rating was AUSTIN POWERS 2: THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME (hereafter referred to as 'SPY', for reasons detailed above). While SPY definitely fared better than PHANTOM for me, and I found myself laughing throughout, I also found myself recalling how much better the first film was. When I reviewed the script for this film I was enthused by the fact that it was very funny, and the plot was a clever reversal on the original's premise. But it soon became clear while watching the film that a lot of the scripted gags were tossed out the window in favor of 'let's have fun on the set' improvisation, and the plot was glossed over as though it were a nuisance that had to be paid lip service to. Now I know this sounds like nit-picking, and I admit I enjoyed the film... but it seemed to have lost some of the coherence and (weirdly enough) sweetness of the first film. In the original, Austin Powers was a fun character, but he was also someone you really felt for. Beneath his swinging 60's international spy persona was a vulnerable, very likable guy. Hell, beneath his evil-madman-who-wants-to-take-over-the-world persona, so was Dr. Evil! In this film all of that was tossed out the window in favor of the jokes (and since quite a lot of the film was improvised, there are moments that fall flatter than the 'funny hats' improv on WHOSE LINE IS IT ANYWAY?). I ended my script review claiming I was already looking forward to the next Austin Powers adventure. I left the theatre hoping that this would be the final installment. Stop now while it's still funny, because once you've lost the characters, the jokes quickly become repetitious and stale. I don't want to see Austin Powers become the POLICE ACADEMY of the new millennium.

But to be fair, Mini-Me was damned funny, as well as oddly disturbing.

This still captures the feeling of claustrophobic terror that permeates
the nighttime scenes in THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT.
It also captures the expression of any camper who's just
discovered that they used poison oak for toilet paper.

The next film with enormous buzz surrounding it is the indie horror flick THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (hereafter referred to as TBWP - you know why). This is a little film shot by first time filmmakers on an eensy-weensy budget with unknown actors who were made to trudge around the Maryland woods for eight days, and then be scared by the filmmakers for eight nights, all the while filming as though it were a documentary. Again, I went into this film with pretty high expectations, based on visits to Haxan Films and Artisan Entertainments' websites, on which the intricate legend of the Blair Witch is documented, as is information regarding the 'missing' students. It was the internet equivalent of sitting around a campfire listening to a truly terrifying ghost story. And judging by the amazing response that the film has generated in it's first two weeks of limited release, a lot of other people have been intrigued by this spook story as well. So intrigued that a large percentage believe it to be real (with a small but psychotic minority continuing to insist that it actually happened even in the face of indisputable proof - "My brother works for the FBI and he was part of the search team, so I know it's real and anyone who says otherwise is a fucking asshole liar!" Cripes, I'd rather be trapped in the woods with the Blair Witch than those people...). But, as with PHANTOM and SPY, did these increased expectations lead to inevitable disappointment?

In this case, no.

Now let me clarify - much of the buzz surrounding TBWP is of the 'it's the scariest movie of all time' variety. Can it live up to that particular brand of hype? Not hardly. That's like calling a comedy 'the funniest movie of all time'. It's too subjective. One person's scary is SCREAM, another's is THE EXORCIST, and another's is THE INNOCENTS. All frightening films, but very different in tone and intention. Will these peoples' tastes all merge and unanimously vote one film the 'scariest of all time'? Of course not. So is TBWP the scariest film ever? For some people yes, for others it's all a big yawn.

But let's assume this is the type of fright film you like. One where you're not led by the hand, with music cues and camera angles and your knowledge of the horror genre to telegraph all the scary parts. One where you're not shown everything, and when you are shown things, you're not always sure what you've just seen. One where you're made to feel, and think, and come to your own conclusions about what really happened. One that'll stick in your head for days afterward, with images from the film popping into your mind just often enough to give you a serious case of the creeps. If that's the kind of film you like, then TBWP just may be the scariest movie ever made.

Which is better, the film or the detailed mythology surrounding it?
They're both great, but for once a film more than lived up
to the hype surrounding it.

I saw the film in a packed house at 12:30 on a sunny Sunday afternoon in San Diego. Couldn't be farther from from the spooky atmosphere of the cold Maryland woods if I tried. Until the film started, that is. It became clear immediately that this was going to be a very different type of movie. For one thing, the film was shot on video and 16mm, and they haven't blown up the image to fit traditional theatrical aspect ratios. So you're basically watching the center third of the screen, which serves to make you pay closer attention, drawing you into things right away. It's like having a conversation with someone who whispers - you find yourself leaning closer and closer just to hear them, which in turn makes what they're saying seem all the more important. Another nice touch is that the film doesn't provide any voice-overs or titles to clue you in to what you're seeing. Oh sure, we get the now infamous title at the start about the filmmakers disappearing into the woods, with their footage being found a year later, but that's it. From that point you're on your own. It's just you, and the footage, and whatever you make of it. This is called - you folks in Hollywood, especially those who made THE HAUNTING, might want to write this down - 'leaving things to the audience's imagination'. And guess what? Turns out that the imaginations of those audiences are better than most filmmakers (again, you HAUNTING people, take note)!

TBWP works well because it doesn't cater to any condescending idea that the filmgoing public is made up of dumbasses. It counts on you to follow a structure and presentation that are not Hollywood slick. It counts on you to pick up clues as to what's happening without hammering you over the head. And it counts on you to understand that its ambiguous ending is far scarier than any 'wrap-it-all-up-in-a-tidy-package' ending could ever hope to be. Let me put it this way - in the tale of the hook (you know: couple parked in a dark spot to make out hear a radio report that a murderous psychopath with a hook for a hand has escaped from a nearby asylum, guy shrugs it off while girl wants to go, girl gets her way, arriving at home they discover a hook dangling from the door handle of the car - that tale of the hook) we never see the slobbering, hulking psychopath. Why? Because even those who tell tales around a campfire know that a suggestion of horror is always creepier than a graphic depiction of it. And why is that? Because, as I stated above, everyone's idea of what's scary is different. When you allow the audience to fill in their own blanks, they will always fill them in with what scares them most. TBWP provides an excellent template for audiences to scare themselves silly.

So how have my expectations been rewarded this summer? Well, of the three films listed above, I'd say one was a huge disappointment, one was only mildly disappointing, and a third lived up to and surpassed my expectations. That the film which surpassed expectations cost about as much as a nice, mid-range car (the filmmakers' assessment), should indicate that maybe what's missing are new, fresh, clever ways to approach the whole process of filmmaking. It's not about throwing money onto the screen, it's about ideas. Unfortunately, all we'll probably get in the wake of THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT are a bunch of pseudo-documentaries by aspiring filmmakers who will find new and diabolical ways to torture actors.

Hey.

Maybe that's not such a bad thing after all...