Directed By: Marek Kanievska
Written By: Harley Payton
Based on the novel written By: Bret Easton Ellis
Cinematography By: Edward Lachman
Editor: Peter E. Berger & Michael Tronick
Cast: Andrew McCarthy, Jami Gertz, Robert Downey Jr. James Spader, Tony Bill, Michael Bowen, Nicholas Pryor, Donna Mitchell, Sarah Buxton, Lisanne Falk, Flea
Clay, an eighteen-year-old freshman, comes back from his first term at Princeton to spend his Christmas vacation with his broken-up wealthy family in Los Angeles. His former girlfriend, Blair, is now involved with his ex-best-friend, Julian. She warns Clay that Julian needs help: he is using a lot of cocaine and has huge debts. What follows is a look at the youth culture of wealthy post adolescents in Beverly Hills with a strong anti-drug message. Apart from the setting and the names, the film has very little to do with Bret Easton Ellis's book by the same title on which it was based.
Keep in mind I love the book and read it after I saw the film decades ago and decided to watch the film again recently. It's not a bad film considering what you could probably get away with at the time. Though the changes are noticeable and disappointing. As it almost seems like a different film than it’s source. Even the book’s writer Bret Easton Ellis disliked the film. Even if over the years he has become more comfortable with it.
A little too after school special, especially considering how dark the book is this is a great departure of sorts that seems to have a unhappy ending as a warning or morals though most of the film paints a dark moral ambiguity throughout. Though the main character played by Andrew McCarthy seems to be one of the few moral characters throughout and is many times self righteous where as in the book was just as most of the characters were. Though I will say he seems more than a bit self righteous with very little inner life.
Though essentially a moral tale of youth of white privilege that at the time I didn't fully understand when it came out.
It is beautifully filmed and feels like it is trying hard to be stylish and artistic in a sea of blankness and baldness of the Cinema art the time. Though watching it now in hindsight is a time capsule that one wishes pushed the boundaries a little more. As again it comes off as light and a bit weak.
Even though as it goes it seems to try and top itself with how shocking it wants to be, but the film seems to try to make something more by bringing it to the screen. So that it doesn't seem as nihilistic as the book is and show some hope and promise for these characters and generations future.
James Spader seems perfection in this film. Though they lay it on thick with his slicked back Hair look. That brings to mind cinema cliches, the smarmy know it all drug dealer. Though later appears to be the ultimate hustler as pumping is in his repitoire also Robert Downey jr. Gives his ultimate defining performance in a method actor way this is allegedly the film that started his drug habit for a number of years.
As a kid I remember wanting to see this film after seeing the commercial plus the bangles song hazy shade of winter was used to help sell the film. Though really wanting to see the film due to my attraction to Jami Gertz another all time big screen and small screen crush. She is disappointing in the role in as much as she is character but is given m very little to do and more plays the girlfriend and has only really two defining or important scenes that are so quick they barely register except to give her a minor background and for her character to make a major decision. She is mostly in the background. As well as being a big fan of Andrew McCarthy at the time when he was a major leading man moving out of his high school movie stardom.
Though I always figured the characters to be older than the ones they are playing here. So it actually makes the particulars of the screen story more shocking and a little ridiculous watching it now.
I can see why this film and script was a major draw for the cast as it seems contemporary, challenging and the 80's version of roles that would help them break the mold of their well known teenage roles and personas. This could be seen as the brat pack or members on the fringe of it trying to be taken more serious and not in a more lighthearted ST. ELMO'S FIRE kind of way.
While the movie still intends to shock. It's defanged to make it more universal tot he audience by giving us a regular guy protagonist. Not shocking In terms of surprise but more trying to showcase how non-chalant It's use is even with older adults in a more matter of fact way. It is also quite the time crunch that this all happens on Christmas break from college and in freshman year as much destruction coming to a head. Though then again when I was younger I saw this film as epic and now realize how rushed the time frame is especially at the speed in which Robert Downey jr's character becomes the desperate junkie in.
Though this is definitely a Los Angeles film of the young hip and fashionable.
The only time the film feels on the verge of capturing the spirit of he novel is in any scenes that involve Downey Jr., Spader and maybe more of the older adults. In other words most scenes that avoid the side love story between McCarthy and Gertz
Especially having the main Character used to do drugs in college and his bisexuality be non existent.
My Question for the filmmaker is that when it comes to James Spader's character is he a villain because he is gay or is he a villain who happens to be gay? Considering it wasn't necesarily the most politically correct of times. Was that a mandate by the studio? As in the book he is more ambiguous or more bisexual as was the lead Clay though will admit to loving the films wardrobe.
The director Marek Kanievska mainly worked In British television before this movie. After this film he made a few more features in America the most noteworthy other than this film is WHERE THE MONEY IS starring Paul Newman and Linda Fiorentino. The last film or directing job noted is from 2004. i am guessing he retired. Though what he manages to accomplish with this film is sublime as he manages to create a beautiful and noteworthy visual style. While also building the scene and the dramatics with just enough flash and meat to keep the audience on the edge of their seats. As he film never feels boring.
Would love it if he would have done an audio commentary all these years later. As he looks back on it. As it is the most noteworthy film on his resume.
Of course respect must be paid to cinematographer Edward Lachman also as he bakes the film in NEON and a blue filter constantly. Looking to make the scenes and the scenery seem like they belong more in a jazz song than in real life. Giving most scenes a highlight that seems to bake the city at night. Where there is darkness all around but it knows how to hide in the shadows that the bright lights provide.
I rarely say this about a movie that was successful but this is a film I wouldn't mind seeing a remake or more a reimagining of, see someone else's vision maybe more In tuned with the novel. Though I worry if by now we have seen so many films like that or inspired by it. That it would feel like an old hat or more of a throwback exercise. Not that this film is bad It's just flawed and has similar characters and some situations but for the most part seems more inspired by.
Towards the third act the film plays less as a social drama and moves fully into not only more plot, but also becomes more of a noir-ish type story where the main characters are trying to save their friend from the nightmarish role he has become trapped in. Even having one of them who was partly and addict just give drugs up. We are sure she has a rough road ahead though in that moment the film chooses to give us some hope. The book has a whole different attitude. While the film keeps telling the story more as an ensemble and in fragments. The book feels more disjointed and actually seeks to seperate itself from what the film tires to inject love and friendship. Having our main character be heroic still somewhat separated from all around him. Only here in the film the two people he used to be closest to he tries to save and make a connection with again. Which is where the film tries to have hope.
The film takes place during Christmas as a convenience and a kind of mirror image to the traditional holiday fare.
The third act becomes a kind of noir which is only magnified by the chilly lighting and he way the neighborhoods and locations are filmed. Andrew McCarthy has a quiet won't up intensity that he barely lets it loose so buttoned up he represents the wasp aspect well. Though he still feels a bit tuned out. Too straight laced.
Jami Gertz looks assured but uncomfortable which works for her character but also gives a kind of searching in her eyes for something that never feels like it ever comes. Here she is wide eyed and doesn't have that much to play off of more suggested and she comes off badly as someone not really needed but serves a certain purpose.
The story ultimately becomes redemptive.
According to the 1987 article "Sanitizing a Novel for the Screen" published in 'The New York Times', Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Michael Cristofer, who wrote a screenplay for this film that got rejected, said the experience working on this film was an ugly one. He stuck close to the tone of the novel and had Clay take some drugs but did not make him bisexual. The studio felt that Cristofer's script was too harsh for a commercial film.
The producers and 20th Century Fox studio executives frequently argued about amount of decadence that would be depicted in this movie with the film being "meetinged to death" as the New York Times reported.
A look at a subculture of the time. Even though never as depraved as the source novel. That really never exacts it in tone or mood just characters names and certain situations and individual motivations. So more loosely inspired by and seems more dedicated to youth culture and a just say no attitude.
Where as the book is more a series of scenes
So if you are a fan of the book, you probably won't enjoy this film as much. Though in many ways is a perfect time capsule of the period and has stylistic flourishes that are memorable.
It seems like the movie is attempting to be dark and that the studio just put mandates on it and wanted to go with the Regan era message and make it redemptive.
It's no master piece but noteworthy in many ways
There is no humor in this movie at all which as dark as Ellis's books all seem to have in a more satirical way. Though character and tone, One wonders if the trains so many film adaptations of his work are so serious is because they are so far and the filmmakers are afraid of offending or being off base by adding it in. Though if brave enough to make these adaptations and of the studio isn't holding you back then you the full way.
Grade: B-
No comments:
Post a Comment