L.A.
CONFIDENTIAL SCREENING AT THE ACADEMY
MAY 19, 2008
BY
MIKE THOMAS
It’s
funny how movies age.
Some
Oscar-winning Best Pictures that once seemed to be cinematic masterpieces for
the ages at the time of their release are now head-scratching “what were they
thinking?†puzzlements, while other contemporary films that got overlooked at
the time have found their critical reputations grow with each passing
year. Take for example, that long-ago year of 1997- shrouded in the mists of
time, it was a simpler, pre-Internet era. People were still doing the Macarena,
gas was a little over a dollar a gallon, and the movie “Titanic†was on its way
to becoming the biggest-grossing film of all time. The film was a cultural
phenomenon that took hold like some religious cult commanding its adherents to
see it again and again while the radio incessantly played that damned Celine
Dion song over and over until all resistance was futile. Needless
to say, it swept the Oscars like that other great white elephant “Ben-Hur†did
nearly four decades earlier when it bested the true masterpiece of that year,
“Some Like it Hot.†(Which didn’t even rate a Best Picture nomination - and
don’t get me started about the omission of “North by Northwestâ€!) As is
becoming readily apparent in hindsight, “Titanic†is a poorly written, awkwardly
executed concoction that is saved by its two gifted leads who managed to elevate
a mawkish tale of doomed teen-age romance into something credible and touching.
Indeed, the strength of the film relies on two striking scenes with Leonardo DiCaprio and
Kate Winslet - the sunset scene on the bow of the ship and the final shot where the
young lovers are reunited in the afterlife. Without those, you’ve got a pale
imitation of the vastly superior 1953 Barbara Stanwyck-Clifton Webb version
which won an Oscar for its screenplay. (And take out the chariot race from
“Ben-Hur†and you’d have an equally pale imitation of the vastly superior silent
film.) But then, nobody said the Oscars were perfect, if I may paraphrase Joe E.
Brown. (Actually, Iz Diamond wrote that line, but that, as they say, is another
story).
Just as time has caught up with “Some Like it Hot,†last week's A.M.P.A.S. “It’s
Great to Be Nominated†screening of “L.A. Confidential,†makes it readily
apparent that the real Best Picture of 1997 was the Curtis Hanson masterpiece.
The years have been kind to it: the film seems even fresher now than it did upon
its initial release; its convoluted plot no longer seems so mystifying. There also many other praiseworthy aspects:
- the strength of Hanson’s direction
- the brilliance of the casting
- the remarkable
adaptation by Hanson and Brian Helgeland of the daunting James Ellroy novel
- the
film’s evocative look and design
- the wonderfully moody score
- the remarkable cinematography and
sound editing
All of these aspects came together to create a film that gets better with the passage of time. The evening at the Academy was a testament
to a collaborative effort by a group of artists who were all at the top of their
game. For
those of us who have followed Hanson’s career have seen him start out with H.P. Lovecraft
adaptations starring Sandra Dee, then on to his collaboration with Sam Fuller on
the controversial “Black Dog,†and then come into his own with a series
of tense, psychological thrillers in the 80s and 90s. “L.A. Confidential,†was
confirmation that he is one of the most gifted directors working in the
American film industry. But what really sets Hanson apart is his mastery of the elements of Hitchcockian filmmaking - editing, pacing, composition,
sound.
It
was obvious that Hanson was a director fully in control of his craft, and the
string of fine performances showed him to be an actor’s director as well, one
who was able to elicit terrific performances in film after film. But then this
is the man who gave Tom Cruise and Russell Crowe their first starring roles in
Hollywood, so his eye for talent speaks for itself. But what really sets Hanson
apart from the scores of other Hitchcock wannabes like Chabrol and DePalma is
his attention to the psychological motivations of his characters. Hitchcock
never got the credit he deserved for his keen understanding of human nature, and
that really is what made him the master of suspense. Curtis Hanson understood
this better than any of Hitch’s imitators and used it in films like “Bedroom
Window,†“Bad Influence,†( a film that echoes “Strangers on a Train†and
anticipates “Fight Clubâ€) and “The River Wild,†which takes a Hitchcock
knock-off like “Cape Fear†(the original, not the misguided Scorsese remake) and
places Meryl Streep in the Gregory Peck role as protector of the family against a raging
psychopath.
But
it was in “L.A. Confidential†that this son of Los Angeles produced his
masterpiece. With such landmarks as the Frolic Room,
the Crossroads of the World and the Formosa Cafe, the film has the feel of old L.A. to a
degree that no other movie in recent memory captures. And unlike that other great
neo-noir set in Los Angeles, “Chinatown,†the Hanson film pulses with the
vitality of the city itself, while the Polanski picture has a languid, European
flavor to it. As more than one participant at the screening remarked, “Curtis is
‘L.A. Confidential’ and ‘L.A. Confidential’ is Curtis.†Perhaps James Ellroy
paid him the best compliment of the evening when he said, “When I wrote the
novel, the characters were described totally different physically. But when I
read the novel now, I see the actors from the film saying the
lines.â€
Hanson
was most gracious, paying tribute to the late casting director, Mali Finn, DP
Dante Spinotti, editor Peter Honess, the late great composer Jerry Goldsmith,
and the many actors and crew assembled there on the Academy stage with him.
Production Designer Jeannine Opperwall and Costume Designer Ruth Myers were
especially singled out for their invaluable contributions as was the entire
sound team, many of whom were onstage as well. Actors Guy Pearce and Ron Rifkin
spoke of the physical demands the film made, specifically the beatings by
Russell Crowe, that Pearce’s character endured, as well as the incredible gunfight
sequence at the Victory Motel. Ron Rifkin praised Crowe and Pearce for being
so concerned for his welfare during the scenes where they push his head down the
toilet bowl (“It was remarkably clean!†he marveled) but while throwing him out
the window and dangling him high above the mean streets of downtown Los
Angeles.
As
always, moderator Randy Haberkamp did a masterful job of giving everyone on
stage a chance to shine, drawing out anecdotes and illuminating the production.
And it seems to have been a remarkable happy set, giving the lie to the adage
that only films born out of conflict are good films. Everyone seems to have been
on the same page during the shoot and the result speaks for itself. If Curtis
Hanson hasn’t made another film to equal it, it’s only because he has admirably
chosen to do different genres of films like the literary character study,
“Wonder Boys†or the musical biopic “8 Mile†or (for lack of a better term) the
chick flick, “In Her Shoes.†Unfortunately, as fine as these pictures are, none
of them has given him the opportunity to display the virtuosity he so
brilliantly displays in “L.A. Confidential.†The material was tailor-made for
his sensibility and played to his strengths as a filmmaker. The result is a film
that only grows better with the passing of each year. But then, I should have
known that. Around the time “L.A. Confidential†came out, I happened to be over
at Billy Wilder’s office and asked him if he’d seen the film. “Yes, it’s quite a
good picture,†Wilder replied. “But in fifty years it will be a great
picture.â€
I didn’t understand what he meant then, I’m starting to get
it now