Funny and short. Really liked it. Schnitzler is a master storyteller who manages in this piece to show the vanities of humans in the context of a smalFunny and short. Really liked it. Schnitzler is a master storyteller who manages in this piece to show the vanities of humans in the context of a small artistic coterie at the the start of the century.
Here is a longer review I wrote in Swedish: ...more
This is a well written biography which presents a balanced view of the great director. Unfortunately - as is usually the case with McGilligans book - This is a well written biography which presents a balanced view of the great director. Unfortunately - as is usually the case with McGilligans book - he often doesn't see the woods for the trees. This biograpy is extremely exhausting with details (so if you are into gossip you've come to the right place).
Key takeaways:
- Hitch was a Catholic. I find this fact interesting althought he was a very English Catholic which meant taking the religion with a pinch of salt. In his jesuit school he learned three important things: "a strong sense of fear, how to be realistic and Jesuit reasoning power".
- Hitch was willing to do what was necessary to succeed. At the start of his career he took any job he could get in the movie industry. He started designing credits and then went on to become a production designer.
- Hitch looked for a "springboard situation" in a story source, and for any number of "dynamic situations" that might lend themselves to visual emphasis - that might be oculary interesting"
- "Hitchcock liked to start with a fifty to seventy five word description of the story's kernal, or main idea, articulating its thorough-line or narrative thread [...] Hitchcock liked to read the story in this prose form before launching into actual screenwriting. [...] At every stage of the scriptwriting Hitchcock liked to tell and retell the story, and have it told back to him by the writer or writers he was working with: it was a form of mental rehearsal that helped the director visualize key scenes, spot potential problems, and suggest emendations while changing the story into his story" (p. 113)
This reminds me of how Kubrick worked; often starting with a treatment rather than writing the actual script. One of the most important jobs for a director is never to lose track of the narrative thread of the film.
- Personal Branding. Hitch was from an early stage in his career aware of his public persona and put his charms to good use with the press. As an answer to the question of who is meant to be the audience of his movies Hitch replied "you make pictures for the press" because if you made yourself publicly known as a director then this would be the one way to become free to do what you wanted. "If you were known to the public then you would not be the prisoner of where you happened to be working"
- "Time and again in his career Hitch would break away from the easy path and take brave steps toward risk and independence" (p. 88). Hitch directed the movie Rope in one take which had never been done before, he made "The Birds" without a star or killing his main protagonist off halfway through the film (Psycho).
- Having fun was important to Hitch ergo his "it's only a movie" saying. Hitch would often interrupt a scriptwriter to tell a funny story in the middle of them trying to solve a problem. This was because you never solve anything when you try too hard. This also shies away from taking the history of movies too serious like many cineasts do. Life was as important as filmmaking.
- Hitch was a businessman who understood the fact that movies need to make money. He carefully took that into account when working on a picture. He frequently made deals with producers where he lowered his wage in order to become freer to do what he wished. He took all the risk producing "Psycho" and made it with a small crew. He also created the entire marketing campaign around the movie and - which was unusual at the time - did not allow journalists to watch the film before the average moviegoer. There is an unusual amount of strategic thinking behind many of his decisions. He understood that in order to become indepedent one must first master the craft and thus provide value to potential producers as well distributors.
- Hitch usually had an actor or actress in mind when writing the screenplay. He built the movie around that person. This is how the Coen brothers as well as PTA work.
- He evidently had a knack for delegating and finding the right people to work with. He knew what he mastered and let other people fil in the rest....more
"If someone gave me 2 billion dollars, I'd use it as leverage to borrow 30 billion and do something really big" (p. 479)
Coppolas life summarised in on"If someone gave me 2 billion dollars, I'd use it as leverage to borrow 30 billion and do something really big" (p. 479)
Coppolas life summarised in one sentence. Coppola is probably the most succesful risk taker in the history of Hollywood and has failed as often as he has succeeded. What first drew me to this biography was that I mostly wanted to know what happened to Coppola after Apocalypse now. Did the years of intensity finally take their toll? Had the director run out of steam? The biography did not answer those questions.
I was also hoping to understand how Coppola could manage the enormous pressure of Apocalypse now. Imagine making a movie in the jungle where the script is constantly being rewritten and shooting had begun without a satisfying ending (Coppolas modus operandi), firing his lead actor a week into the shoot, Martin Sheen having a heartache in the middle of the shoot etc etc etc. The author - Michael Schumacher - is often so impressed with Coppola that the director becomes almost a mythic figure. Mr. Schumacher often manages to make apologies for Coppolas failures instead of viewing them as a natural consequence of a somewhat reckless filmmaker. When writing about Coppolas infidelity, mr. Schumacher mentions - en passant - that Coppola has been diagnosed as a manic depressive and is taking pills for this. It would've been more interesting to read about this diagnosis as it reveals more about the inner workings of this complicated man.
Coppola often risks everything on one move and, more times than one would think were possible, comes out on top. The studio were unsure if they wanted to finance one of his early pictures. ""Look" he told them one Friday in the late fall of 1967, "I'm starting to shoot on Monday and I need some money and if you don't give it to me, I'll get it from someone else"" (p. 64). This is also his way of working: convicing all parties involved that the finances are already in order and then starting shooting without actually having enough cash to actually finish the project (a common ocurrence among indie filmmakers, what makes Coppola stand out is that he manages to do this on such a massive scale time and time again).
I suppose that if you were to look up "resilience", "chutzpah" and "degenerate gambler" in the dictionary you would perhaps see a picture of Coppola. He has tried to start his own studio - Zoetrope - several times, started his own magazine as well as producing his own wine. The list goes on. Charisma is another recurring word which several colleagues describe Coppla as having but I think extreme self-confidence better describes him as a person. Coppola obviously turns out great work when "teetering on the threshold between the rational world and madness" as one colleague described it.
My guess as to why Coppola did not make any more masterpieces after the 70's is because he had had enough of the darkness he explored in the Godfather, The conversation and Apocalypse Now. One from the heart, Cotton club, Rumble fish, Jack etc are all lighter pieces and you can peer into the abyss for just so long until it peers back at you (to paraphrase Nietzsche). Coppola also returns time and time againt to the fact that he wants to write original screenplays even though it is clear that his best work is done while adapting the work of others. The idea of the auteur has perhaps something to do with this but Kubrick (for example) only did adaptions of novels yet everyone would agree that his films express his own personality.
I think I will end this review with a quote from the a colleague from Coppolas early days. "While we were out, he talked about how about how we could take over the world, how we could finally make the movies that we wanted to make and gain this little upper hand on Hollywood. I suggested that the route tot ake might be sort of like Casear's going to Gaul: Caesar consolidated his power by going away and putting together this gigantic army and then reutrning home when things were not so good there. That's where we got the idea to get out of L.A." (p. 72) Coppola certainly did just that in a megalomanic fashion and the 70's era of filmmaking certainly belong to him regardless of what you think of his later work....more
Good overview of the work of the Italian film auteur Michelangelo Antonioni. His non-narrative driven movies provide the viewer with ample room to creGood overview of the work of the Italian film auteur Michelangelo Antonioni. His non-narrative driven movies provide the viewer with ample room to create his own meaning in a universe where the protagonist become more and more alienated. Visually enthralling. Recommended read to anyone interested in the cinema of the 50's and 60's. ...more
Great introduction to the Weltanschauung of Wagner. It really manages to penetrate the depth of his psyche and give you a deeper understanding of his Great introduction to the Weltanschauung of Wagner. It really manages to penetrate the depth of his psyche and give you a deeper understanding of his work as a whole. The only drawbacks is that the work at times can be quite panegyric but I would say that the strengths vastly outweigh its weaknesses. ...more
I have been doing standup for 1 year now and a colleague recommended this book to me. There is something in me which revolts at the idea of reading abI have been doing standup for 1 year now and a colleague recommended this book to me. There is something in me which revolts at the idea of reading about humor - indeed how can anything so abstract be explained? I have always seen humor like something akin to music and as something which you are born with. Either you have it or you don't.
Having said that I believe that one can learn a great deal from the pros. This books contains lots of tips and it manages to explain the hard work which a career in standup demands of you. There is method behind the madness but ultimately I believe that comedy is an art where you need to find yourself by trial and error. There are only hints at what you should do on stage to make it. Thats what makes it hard. Thats what makes it fun.
I would recommend this book to anyone interested in learning more about standup. ...more
Loading...
