As a prospective filmmaker,
the people who bear the weight of my worship the most are directors. Over the years, I’ve come to regard some of
these heroes as people who have produced stuff that resonates with me, but not
necessarily as infallible artists. For
instance, while I’ve loved movies made by Sam Raimi and Chris Weitz, I’ve never
fallen in love with their entire oeuvre.
The same cannot be said of Sofia Coppola and Bryan
Singer. Every since I saw Ms. Coppola’s
reflective romance “Lost in Translation” and Mr. Singer’s apocalyptic epic
“X2,” I’ve come to regard them as cinematic deities, people whose entire style
I connect with completely. I trust that
they will always have another compelling and beautiful trick up their sleeves
and that trust remains, even though Mr. Singer has, for perhaps the first time,
just made a truly bad movie.
The film in question is “Jack the Giant Slayer.” A loud, soulless family adventure, “Jack” is
a fairy tale film so half-hearted that all of its clichés feel weak and
limp. It should have been exhilarating
to hear the titular protagonist speak of his desire for adventure at the
beginning, but instead his words feel forced and awkward. Factor in the dull violence, tone-deaf
flatulent humor, and ugly visuals that recall “Shrek” (which at least adopted
the sunny, flat look with a sense of irony) and it is unbelievable that Mr.
Singer was involved with the movie at all.
It begs the question—how do we react when a great auteur produces a work
of unrecognizable trash?
One approach is to look into the film’s production
history to see if the problems were at the root of its inception. In the case of “Jack,” that seems
possible. After completing his masterful
war drama “Valkyrie,” Mr. Singer began developing a number of potential
projects—the comic book adaptation “Freedom Formula: Ghosts of the Wasteland,” a
remake of the television show “Battlestar Galactica,” and finally, the
now-infamous “Jack.” Of these projects,
“Jack” was the only one he was willing to make a contractual commitment to.
Then, in the midst of this choosing drama, something odd
happened. In an interview, Mr. Singer
abruptly expressed a wish to return to the “X-Men” franchise, the Marvel Comics
saga he’d overseen in the early 2000s. A
few weeks later, he announced at the premier of “Avatar” that he had indeed
agreed to direct a new installment called “X-Men: First Class.”
It’s impossible to know what Mr. Singer was thinking at
this time—in video footage from the “Avatar” premier, he appeared awkward,
dressed in a warm up jacket and clearly uncomfortable with the photographers
calling out his name. Whatever the
cause, he had reason to feel awkward—he had just signed up for a job that would
violate his contract to direct “Jack.”
But when push came to shove, he agreed to pass “First Class” onto
director Matthew Vaughn and fulfill his original agreement.
Based on these facts, one has to wonder—did Mr. Singer
truly want to direct “First Class”? And
did he do such a bad job on “Jack” because his heart was somewhere else? It’s hard not to wonder. And there is also the fact that Mr. Singer
hasn’t made a well-reviewed film since he left the “X-Men” franchise. “Valkyrie” and the 2006 production “Superman
Returns” were some of his best work and for some reason, he did not receive the
accolades he deserved. So perhaps, when
he couldn’t direct “First Class,” did he dumb down “Jack” with simple
storytelling, bright visuals, and potty humor in the hope of appeasing mass
audiences? Did he want to restore his
good name, to make a hit so he could keep making massive blockbusters?
I’m not sure if I buy that theory. But clearly, Mr. Singer wants to stay in the
big movie business. He has said he loves
working with the art department on science fiction and fantasy films, and it
shows in his work—the visuals are always graceful and attractive. They don’t overwhelm the characters, but rather
seem to amplify their emotions (like the sweeping cityscape that seems to
express all the romance and loneliness of “Superman”). By that knowledge, “Jack the Giant Slayer”
should have been a good project for Mr. Singer, and it is strange that he
missed the opportunity for beautiful images that the fanciful medieval setting
so clearly invites. At the end of the
day, his failure is ultimately baffling.
Which is why, after all that, the announcement of Mr.
Singer’s next project is a massive relief—he is currently preparing to begin
shooting the next “X-Men” film (which is called “Days of Future Past”) in
Montreal on April Fifteenth. It will be
his ninth theatrical film, a project that will return him to the franchise in
which he has done some of his best work and reunite him with some of his
greatest collaborators—costumer Louise Mingenbach, editor John Ottman, and
cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel.
Conceptually, it sound like a slam dunk.
Initially, that is why I had some reservations about Mr.
Singer taking on the project. He is a
deeply versatile artist, one can alternate between utopia and dystopia within
the same film. But after the failure of
“Jack,” a counterintuitive choice for him (a fairy tale seems an odd addition
to Mr. Singer’s ouvre, which thrives on complexity and adult cruelty) a return
to familiar territory might be just what he needs. For me, “X2” and “Superman Returns” are Mr.
Singer’s magnum opuses—they both express powerful emotions and leave you with a
wistful, sad sting of loss that is incredibly cathartic. If Mr. Singer can produce that effect once
again, “X-Men: Days of Future Past” has the potential to be a powerful film
that can lay the groundwork for another great decade of Singer movies. And by the way, “Days” is scheduled for July
18, 2014, by which time I imagine I will have gone through Mr. Singer’s
filmmography at least once, maybe more.
No comments:
Post a Comment