"Easy Riders, Raging Bulls", 70s' movies, drugs & egos

Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-and-Rock 'N' Roll Generation Saved Hollywood- Peter Biskind

"I did a lot of drugs because I wanted to do a lot, I wanted to push all the way to the very very end, and see if I could die." Martin Scorsese

"The cocaine problem in the United States is really because of me. There was no cocaine before Easy Rider on the street. After Easy Rider, it was everywhere." Dennis Hopper

"Popcorn pictures have always ruled. Why do people go see them? Why is the public so stupid? That's not my fault." George Lucas (on Star Wars)

These are true sentences, said by some of the most well-known directors-actors on cinema history. These are only three little excerpts taken from "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" a book that is so full of this sort of ... well, let's say statements, you'll need a couple of weeks (at least) to start reading something else after finishing this book. They also serve to summarise what you are going to find inside this absorbing encyclopedia of the movies that were done on the 70s, the so-called "New Hollywood" and the people behind them. But if I had to choose just one expression to define what this book shows it would be "a monster parade". The most scary I ever read about. Because they were and are real people.

I assume the new directors arising on late 60s really had artistic aims, even a revolutionary spirit to bring substance and interest back to cinema, to integrate movies with the counterculture of that age, a period were Hollywood was agonising and ideas severely lacking. It's depressing to realise that's where we are exactly nowadays. And after reading Biskind's book is even more appalling to find out our current "creative desert" has its origins on the failure of  the exciting "New Hollywood".

Don't want to make this review very long, because in my opinion, every person who loves cinema should read this book, but "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" is a ridiculously detailed account of the work of talented young filmmakers like Scorsese, Coppola, Robert Altman, Hal Ashby, William Friedkin, Roman Polanski or Peter Bogdanovich. But while explaining how those films were made Biskind reveals much more. Basically that it was a horrible and constant battle of egos, a dangerous wild ride of people living out of control, with little rules and even less humanity, and a genuine miracle that some of the movies became the masterpieces that now we venerate. Being honest, even personal heroes like Scorsese, Altman, De Niro, or Ashby doesn't look very well in this picture. Guys like Spielberg or George Lucas confirmed my suspicions: just a couple of egomaniacs (add Coppola here) with an unbelievable greedy mind.

I have read some reviews that salute Biskind's book as "a unabashed celebration of the 70s". I couldn't disagree more. This is an overwhelming work on the worst of mankind. Some people believing and behaving as if they were some sort of Almighty God just because they had a successful movie. Others forcing the people who surrounded them (wives, girlfriends, brothers, long-time friends, etc) to share their miseries and frustrations. Sex, alcohol, drug abuse to impossible limits, delusions of grandeur and surreal situations abound on the book, all related with accurate and puzzling precision. I'm mesmerized by the amount of information gathered by Biskind, but also why his freedom to paint such an ugly picture of a decade. Worse than that. The epilogue is a devastating summary of what legacy Hollywood's last golden age left us.

Please don't miss this book, but also proceed with care with what you're going to read.

SCORE: 8,5/10

"Carnage", the darkest verbal comedy

Carnage

Verbal comedy. Is that a movie category? Because that definition fits "Carnage" incredibly well. The film is a dialectical battle of two couples, the Cowan, Nancy and Alan, and the Longstreet, Penelope and Michael, gathered to resolve, as the civilised and sanctimonious people they are, a quite serious "issue": the Cowan's son has beaten the Longstreet's kid with a stick, seriously injuring the latter's teeth. But soon the viewer will realise the four are not what they suppose/presume to be...

"Carnage" is clearly the screen adaptation of the play "God of Carnage" (Yasmine Reza, the original author, also co-writes the film script). Wait, it is more than that. It looks as if t we were watching the play itself. It all happens in virtually one room (the Longstreet's living room), in one afternoon and (almost) with only the four characters being on screen. And this fact has several virtues, as well as a few limitations.

Director Roman Polanski has to be praised for not "throwing" his ego on the film. The short length and straightforward timing in "Carnage" are key elements that allow the film to exude rhythm and dynamism. Together with the simplistic setting and lack of grandiloquence serves the comedy very well. What matters are the characters and its collection of one-liners and bourgeois traumas. I also liked Polanski's clinic eye to give, with subtle and noteworthy talent, such importance and presence to the objects on the Longstreet's apartment.

Of course, if we talk about characters, a major factor are obviously the actors. And Polanski relies on a very experimented and reliable quartet. Penelope Longstreet, played by Jodie Foster, is the more histrionic of the four, a passive-aggressive wife really wanting to push the boundaries of her guests as she is not only the concerned mother of the injured son, but a moral watchdog of Western civilisation. She is the hardest role to play and Foster's mannerisms are arguably the more dubious. Foster is closely followed by Nancy Cowan, performed by Kate Winslet. She, as the stressed mother of the "abuser" kid wants to be nice at first, but she turns, on the most extreme transformation of the lot, into an uncontrolled beast, physically speaking too.

In my opinion, the husbands are the most satisfying characters. Michael Longstreet, played by John C. Reilly starts being the kindest and accommodating person of the quartet, then evolving into a much more complex character, and amalgamation of frustration and resignation. Reilly excels in giving a natural and convincing force to Michael. And then we have Alan Cowan, performed by Christoph Waltz. He probably steals the show with his mobile phone addiction and his aggressive-aggressive, malicious nature. He for sure has the best and funniest one-liners of the film.

Unfortunately, "Carnage" also suffers from the "play structure" constrictions. For sure, the spectator has to make an effort and believe on the credibility on such an awkward situation. The first half of the film is funny and subtle, as we know that each character is hiding (well, except Alan Cowan) his/her real nature for the sake of showing her/his good manners. We could say the film shines for what it insinuates and not for what it shows, in one word: tones of hypocrisy. But the turn of events and evolution of the characters on the second half of "Carnage" is a social example of the "snowball effect" taken to a hardly credible extreme. Funny still, and somewhat understandable as we are in front of a play, but the conversation derives into a very different territory from the initial abuser-victim too quickly. Hard to believe such solid social masks would crumble so easily after a couple of whisky shots (enough said). But hey, the truth is that before you will start complaining, the movie will reach its end. So overall, there's not a lot to regret after a straightforward, smart, funny and entertaining dark (very dark) verbal comedy, packed in less than 80 minutes.

SCORE: 6,75/10

"The Ghost Writer", failed political thriller by Polanski

The Ghost Writer

An unknown writer is offered to write the memories of the former UK Prime Minister, just when he is accused of war crimes. Wow, for a while, it seems we are in front of a heavily loaded subject, miles away from the usual thriller territory. For a while.

Polanski starts "The Ghost Writer", based on the homonimus novel, with this promising subject and really suggestive atmosphere built around the place, the isolated island where Lang (Pierce Brosnan) lives and works with her wife and office staff, a sophisticated, high-class home that seems also a dungeon, where reclusion was also part of the goal. In that scenario, the ghost-writer (Ewan McGregor) has to re-write the unfinished memories of the ex-prime minister. But when the announcement from the International Criminal Court arrives announcing the investigation of the former politician, we enter into another dimension, another level. Unfortunately, the amazing potential of that premise steadily evolves into a more conventional thriller.

Because Polanski decides he is not interested in the political story anymore, just when we were more excited about how far he was willing to go in the obvious parallelisms with real former UK primer minister Tony Blair (how interesting, also necessary if you ask me, would have been seeing a fictional trial when the responsibles for war crimes in the name of the war against terrorism are judged), but what he offers us instead is a disappointing thriller, for several reasons.

The first one is that Ewan McGregor's character is really hard to believe. The whole issue (the plot) is so high-profile that is completely unbelievable than after 3 days of work he is able/allowed to get into the super-secret, deep meaning of the whole affair, even more so if his predecessor suspiciously died when he was doing these ghost-writing task. Besides, when his own life is on jeopardy, he keeps behaving in a surprisingly careless way, a struggling contradiction considering he is so meaningless in the grand scheme of things the plot has turned into. Many minor scenes (won't spoil anything), when something is revealed, a clue is founded, or some connection is discovered, are just failed attempts to let the movie flow, with poor and unrealistic results.And linked directly with that, is the second disappointment. A ridiculous, laughable, end.

Third one. I already said that Polanski decides the war crimes sub-plot is irrelevant, sadly, but the CIA sub-plot connected (google?, that's pathetic) with the personal relation taking place on the film (no spoiling again) is pretty weak, and again unbelievable, giving you the feeling the real reason of it was just for the sake of including a sexual encounter on it.

And fourth one.With so many misfires, the movie has little dynamism, and gets tiring. Overall, "The Ghost Writer" is not a total failure, I could even say that as a thriller you can forget about after watching, is a satisfaying entertainment. But after proposing so much with its initial argument, is a serious let down, with several moments on the verge to stupidity (close to his horrendous film "The Ninth Gate"). At least it compares well to the PM he is referring to. The expectations on Tony Blair's mandate were high, so was the level of disappointment after his shameful term ended.

SCORE: 4,25/10