Are You Sure Fincher Didn't Direct This? The Red Flags in 'Steve Jobs'

'Musicians play the instruments, I play the orchestra.'

I'm just as excited to see the Steve Jobs movie as you are. A couple of things are already raising flags. Let's go down the list shall we?

1. Marketing is smoking something. Every TV spot I see for Steve Jobs starts out great. It's the titular character (played by Michael Fassbender) narrating; 'The two most significant events of the 20th century; the allies win the war, and this...' exposing the first ever Apple Mac. Awesome. I'm in. In fact, the History Channel just put the smart phone (which doesn't have to be an iPhone but come on) as the #1 invention of all time. But then it's 25 more seconds about the fact that he won't acknowledge his illegitimate daughter like he's Henry VIII or something. Who cares? No one. Steve Jobs is not a figure about whom the personal life is important. Do we care about Thomas Edison's sex capades? Me thinks not. As literally the second greatest inventor since the aforementioned Edison, Steve Jobs interests most of us as a pioneer of technology and a pillar of innovation. Why even put that in the movie in the first place? But that's a different story. The trailer is great, especially when Wozniak (Seth Rogen) asks him; 'what do you do? You're not an engineer you don't write code, so WHAT DO YOU DO?' It is great for exposition, and pretty much right on target considering no one took Steve Jobs seriously initially because he didn't really DO anything, he was a designer as far as Silicon Valley was concerned. But to market the film as a lazy Lifetime movie is just stupid. It will appeal to women, Fassbender is in it, so you don't have to pander to that demographic.

Boyle (left) converses with Fassbender and Rogen in between takes.

2. After The Social Network (2010), we all expected that the creative union of Aaron Sorkin and David Fincher would continue. Unfortunately they divorced, and out of all directors who are great at this kind of no-holds-barred bio-pic, and can handle the biting writing of Aaron Sorkin, it's definitely not Danny Boyle. I know he's made some great films; well one or two. Personally I think the man's only good ones are Trainspotting (1996) and 28 Days Later (2002). This is far too big a mountain for him to climb. Also, the film is about technological innovation as I said. Who handles that awesomely? Fincher. Which movie was so perfect it's almost subliminal? The Social Network. I'm sure we'll all be sitting there thinking; 'I wish Fincher had directed this'. This is a pretty heavy assumption, but that's what I'll be thinking. 

'I can't wait for you to think of a proper metaphor' the words of Sorkin are music to my ears.

3. In terms of award season fodder, I'm skeptical. As much as I love Fassbender, and how method he is, and basically flawless as an actor, he doesn't seem like he's the strongest performer in the movie. I really hope that this doesn't turn into a film where the main character doesn't even carry his own story. The supporting roles already seem to be played with more gusto and bravado. But all that the trailer shows me is that Fassbender has a great wardrobe department (that's a given considering Jobs famously only wore black turtlenecks and dad jeans) and has the voice down. Ergo, when it comes to the Oscars, we might see the exact kind of backlash we saw with overhyped films like The Social Network. I know all of the principals are going to be nominated, but honestly, I don't see a win in any of their futures (perhaps because I'm rooting for Eddie Redmayne in The Danish Girl and can't possibly conceive of saying 'Oscar winner Seth Rogen', but only time will tell. 

4. Just to sing Fincher's praises a bit more, I don't think anyone understands that dark side of humanity in all of us better than him. He's proved it again and again with Se7en, Gone Girl, and AGAIN The Social Network. Danny Boyle is a few clicks away from being Baz Luhrmann; as in style without substance. Fincher tells the story of a person that is unbelievably flawed but is somehow, through Fincher magic, is endearing. Boyle, not so much. Steve Jobs is in essence a character study. It's the Citizen Kane of the technological revolution; the story of a man who gains the world and loses his soul. Boyle loves spectacle, whereas Fincher loves deep and complex personal stories no matter what the setting is. He looks at the characters before he looks to the aesthetic. Boyle, in my opinion, does the exact opposite. 

Sorkin's don't-fuck-with-me face. 

5. Maybe I'm just being a nit picky bitch here, but I get frustrated when a story that is inherently American, not in a flimsy patriotic way, but where being American is so important to the story is directed by a British guy. It's like when people were outraged that Milos Forman (a Soviet defector) made One Flew Over a Cuckoo's Nest (1975), which was very clearly an indictment of American culture. The only thing is, Forman is an infallible director and he pulled it off and no one gave an argument when he, his film, and his actors, all won Academy Awards. Steve Jobs, like Marilyn Monroe and Superman, is an American icon. And the setting of his losses and triumphs highly effects his destiny. I'm not saying that Jim Sheridan, Neil Jordan, or Ken Loach can't make American movies, but have you ever seen one? I know Neil Jordan directed Interview with the Vampire (1994) but that's basically a fairy tale that's set in New Orleans. Also Neil Jordan is awesome. Boyle has proved his versatility in working outside of his cultural comfort zone with Slumdog Millionaire (2008), but I don't think that makes him an ideal candidate. Just off the top of my head, I'm thinking Gus Van Sant, Robert Zemeckis, The Coen Brothers, or probably Paul Thomas Anderson should have been in line to direct this before Boyle. But maybe it will be one of those accidental miracles like when Spielberg decided to direct Schindler's List (1994) after Martin Scorsese turned it down. Handing Sorkin's material is no easy feat ok children? It's like trying to adapt a dense but fascinating text book. Every single word, punctuation, and inflection is important. And it goes damn fast. Only time will tell is Boyle was up to the task. 

Jobs is a very 'recent' person for a bio-pic as in he didn't die 100 years ago. When he unveiled the iPhone it was a historic moment. Aside from the OJ Bronco chase, it was perhaps the most memorable moment that we all collectively watched on TV and lived through. Ergo, material is still fresh, ergo it's easier to screw up. 

Anyway, we're all excited so I don't want to piss on that. Fassbender can play anything, I'll acknowledge that. And hey it's not like distinctively American films didn't have foreigners in it; look at L.A. Confidential (1997), where 75% percent of the cast that were playing LAPD officers were Australian. It's a risky film, and I just would have liked a little bit more of a safety net. I'm going to go in watching it with the onset of a panic attack. It aesthetically looks great. This is a pejorative ya'll. When something aesthetically looks great, it usually doesn't have much else. It's the director's way of saying; I know I fucked up on the story, but look how pretty! Based on the pre-release hype, it looks like a film that grazes the surface, but underneath it all, doesn't have much soul. My shining beackon of hope is Sorkin, as he's more stubborn with his scripts than Billy Wilder. Want to change something because it doesn't 'feel' right? Fuck you, say what's written on the page. He's one of the few writers who can actually do that. So let's hope he stuck to his stubborn guns and people listened to him first, and Boyle second, if at all. 

Below, the trailer: 

Below, the actual unveiling of the iPhone at Apple headquarters in Cupertino, CA in 2007. You don't have to watch the whole thing it's long, but it is a piece of history. When we're all wearing silver jumpsuits and riding around in our hovercrafts, I'm sure we'll still be using an iPhone of some kind...model 16 that, like Google Glass, we can wear on our heads, or we'll be microchipped with. I can't wait for the future. 

A quick lesson about filmmaking brought to you by the films, style, and aesthetic of David Fincher. Seriously, in my subjective (and well informed) opinion, he's the best director working right now.

My Titanic 3-D Wish List

Being able to have one of the ship's gargantuan propellers feel like it's falling right on your head, sure...that's fun. But I really hope (against hope) that our favorite village idiot James Cameron gives us more uuumf in the already awkwardly orchestrated anachronistic romance scenes aboard the Titanic.

1. I would love to see naked Kate Winslet (when she as 21) in 3-D. Make it happen Cameron.

2. When Leo's arm is pressed up against the glass (and it looks like a 13 year old girl's arm) I want it to be close enough for me to almost smell the sex sweat.

3. The corset tightening scenes could always do with a little 3-D.

4. Cal (Billy Zane) is pretty hot. I'd like to see more of him smoking disdainfully but right into my face.

5. Kate Winslet's boobs seem to always be heaving, as if they're trying to run away from her body because they know it's doomed. Explore those themes in 3-D.

6. The Titanic is a giant metaphor for a penis going flaccid after orgasm. In 3-D I want this to be more evident.

 7. Is there anyway to make Leonardo DiCaprio taller than Kate Winslet in 3-D? Because that always bothered me in the original.

8. Please make that last kiss before inevitable death more romantic and less creepy between the two main characters. Here's hoping you cut it out completely.

9. Leo's hair needs to be more flowy and carefree in 3-D.

10. Dear James Cameron: please direct a 3-D porn version starring James Deen and Tori Black. Sincerely, Vera Ryzhik

That's all I have for now. I'll think up more whilst I'm watching it I'm sure.

Below is the trailer:

AND BELOW: One of the best Titanic parodies that exists by my favorite comedy duo French & Saunders. The fully version is available on the youtubes. Enjoy!

The Real Tragedy of Mildred Pierce. All Merkin, No Camp.

My obvious Joan Crawford bias is inapplicable here because I am also a huge huge huge fan of Todd Haynes and think him to be one of the greatest living filmmakers. Hyperbole aside, I was duly disappointed by this remake of the classic pulp novel of James M. Cain written in 1941. The original version was a fail-safe for Warner Bros. when it was made in 1945. At the height of film-noir's popularity, esteemed director of the genre Michael Curtiz cast Joan Crawford who's contract with MGM had just been terminated. The role was a hot property in Hollywood and was turned down by the likes of pain in Warner's ass Bette Davis, Rosalind Russell, and Claudette Colbert. A blessing in disguise considering Crawford was more or less born for Mildred Pierce but had she been directed by Todd Haynes in it currently, I think it would be only a matter of time before she threw something heavy and sharp at his head, or walked off the set for good. Conversely, Kate Winslet is perfect for the new interpretation of this stunning titular character considering this version required alot of sulking, crying, hysterics, and full frontal nudity. 

Really quickly here. Mildred Pierce is the story of a mother of two who's husband walks out on the family after she confronts him about an affair he's been having and now is forced to support her two young girls (teenage Veda, and prepubescent Kay {Ray is the name given in the novel and in the Haynes' mini-series}). In the novel, it is during the depression, and Mildred is reluctant to take a job that slides her down the social class ladder. Out of desperation she finally takes a waitressing job but hides it from superficial Veda who is obsessed with materialism and generally bitchitude. After Kay dies, Mildred and Veda's relationship becomes the central conflict of the story. The 1945 version resets the story in post-war America so they can use the film-noir visual aesthetic without it seeming awkward. The Haynes version goes back to the original setting of 1931 until 1938 or so. The costumes, production design, cinematography and everything aesthetic is beautiful. It harkens back to the Sirk melodrama aesthetic of the 50's which Haynes reinterpreted once earlier for Far From Heaven (2002). The beautiful contrast of colors works in keeping an ironically bleak atmosphere that articulates the meniality and hopelessness of prohibition and depression era women. While the 1945 version's stark black and white photography, campy make-up, and ominous tone recreate the tragedy of Mildred Pierce as a murder caper. But even considering this, the original conveys the central tragedy of Mildred and Veda much more intellectually and not to mention more entertaining. 

A screen test Crawford
gave to the studio reluctantly. Considering her star status,
she felt it beneath her to submit to an
audition. Even when clothed head to toe, Crawford is sublimely sensual and incomparably attractive.

The character of Mildred is portrayed by Crawford as well...Crawford. A strong yet sensitive woman who's obsession to please her family leads to her demise. Through her intensely painful and increasingly torturous conflict with her daugher Veda, she  plays Mildred as a woman who though self-less is not a push over. You may want to fuck her, but you definitely don't want to fuck with her, because she will destroy your life and completely decimate your existence. 

Conversely, (wrongly academy award winning) Kate Winslet is doing her best Medea, via Gloria Swanson through the Ophelia filter, playing with her head down, and her shoulders slugged just to bring the tragic hero point nauseatingly home. In my opinion, it is not a tragedy if the protagonist never experiences success, solace, or happiness. To be fair, there are moments of those aspects transpiring in this new version of Mildred's life, but Kate is playing it as though she is somehow suddenly aware of an impending apocalypse and is upset about the meaninglessness of all existence. It would do better as a character in an Albert Camus novel.

same can't be said for Winslet. With or without clothes.

For all of its aesthetic realism, any version of the novel comes down to the performance of Mildred Pierce. There are many interesting characters, but it must be HER story, and the audience must be endeared to her. If we don't empathize with Mildred the whole film is irrelevant, and it's just hard to empathize with someone who is always manically hysterical and whining. 

Sexually speaking, we must also be enticed by Mildred. The character is said to be attractive for her age (late 30's), statuesque, and classical. Even though Veda is supposed to be a great beauty, and a staunch seductress, Mildred is supposed to surpass her even though she is not as 'socially attractive' considering she is not in her prime. 

Kate Winslet expectantly has numerous scenes of nudity which just become to me, self-indulgent, aggrandizing, and totally unnecessary. I've always thought (ironically enough considering what I write about) that the language of the implied is much more arousing than the language of the explicit. And one scene where the character of Wally Fay (Jack Carson) flirts with Mildred (Joan Crawford) saying something to the effect of he's always wondered what's underneath that robe she's wearing carries more sexual weight than the painfully awkward sex scene in Haynes' version with James Le Gros as Wally Fay, animalistically grabbing Winslet's breasts from behind as if he wants to stuff them back into her body, with Kate breathing heavily as if she's anticipating being shot by him. 

What I think makes the original unique in its representation of sexuality and the sexual conflict between her, Monty Baragon her suitor and later husband, and Veda is the Camp element Crawford, Ann Blyth (who plays Veda) and director Michael Curtiz bring to the film. The insane lipstick, the gold lamé gowns, the insane line-backer shoulder pads, they all work so well aesthetically to accentuate that underneath this tragic crime caper, is a tale of profoundly deviant sexual paradigms. 

Ironically, Haynes (who never shies away from a gratuitous sex scene, and thankfully because up until now this method has been effecting) now peppers the story with cliché and trite visuals that are i guess are supposed to articulate that which was so beautifully aesthetically done in the 1945 version. 

I remember reading an interview with Evan Rachel Wood who plays Veda in the Haynes film about her merkin. For those playing the home game a merkin is kind of like a fake beard for your vagina. She said ever so redundantly that 'the film is set in the 30's and therefore, everything had to have the appearance of the 30's'. She also said that Kate Winslet was the one that talked her into doing her big nude scene in the film, which I swear is dragged out for like 10 minutes. We don't need to see Veda Pierce in front of a vanity staring at her naked self to realize that Veda is a shameless, selfish, super bitch-whore. But thanks I guess, for spelling it out. 

Mildred Pierce is a piece of material that is in its nature unavoidably campy, even in the source material. It is a story ripe for cynicism, gaudy imagery, and debauchery. In my opinion, reinterpreting it as a dragging 5 hour melodrama just doesn't work. And as much as I love Todd Haynes, I think  he dropped the proverbial adaptation ball with this one. For argument's sake, of course we can equate each version to what is popular in cinematic times to both, but I believe Haynes' Mildred Pierce even fails there, as it resembles not much more than an extended Lifeime movie with A-list Academy Award winning actors to carry the mediocre material. 
To conculde, Camp is just not seen as much in the cinema as it once was, which is a great great tragedy. Camp could be one of the most inventive, original, and for lack of a better word fun anomalies in pop-culture, and to see it wither is just such a shame.  The big irony of this whole Haynes' tragedy is that he as a director is so skilled in reinterpreting Camp for contemporary audiences. From his first film (his thesis for Brown University) 'Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story' to loose Bowie bio-pic 'Velvet Goldmine', to his relentlessly emphatic and outlandish remake of Douglas Sirk's 'All That Heaven Allows' as a camp-thriller, he has been brilliant in how he articulates that ideology from film to film, it's just so strange that he completely neglected what he does best and tried to make an 'Oscar' film. Disclaimer, i know it's a mini-series, therefore not eligible for the Oscars, but resembles all of the trite characteristics that Best Picture nominiees tend to have. Could we see this as Haynes' big sell out? I really hope not. Had Todd Haynes directed this mini-series with someone like Penélope Cruz, it would have still resonated with Mildred Pierce's original spirit. 

Here's an article on the apparent death of camp articulated with Todd Haynes' reinterpretation of the James Cain classic. 

Kate Winslet Killed Camp