The New John Ford?
Is Curtis Hanson the new John Ford?That was the question I was asking myself while watching In Her Shoes this weekend. Like Ford, Hanson is not a traditional writer/director. In fact, according to IMDB, the only thing he’s written in the last few years he’s received WGA credit on is L.A. Confidential. However, like John Ford, Hanson has entered a stage in his career where he consistently makes great movies—sometime from scripts that are average or just slightly above average. The Hand That Rocks the Cradle; 8 Mile; The River Wild—all genre films that are far superior to what they should be—because of Hanson’s directing choices. His films consist of real characters that come alive and bleed off the screen. They never feel constrained by the walls constructed by a projector.
Sure, there are other directors since Ford that have done this successfully—Lumet, Robert Wise, etc., but there’s something about Hanson’s diversity and approach that makes his work continually feel fresh and re-affirming.
As for the movie itself, it’s a fun, yet moving piece about the bonds of family. Sure, some people will call it a “chick flick” and that’s probably because Mark Feurestein has the most significant male role. (And I’m sure most of America would then ask, Mark who?) Still, this film is much more about the things that remain unsaid with someone who is so incredibly close to you that you can’t imagine life without them.
Despite Cameron Diaz’s top billing, Toni Collette really is the star of the movie, proving that being an excellent actress is sometimes more important than being beautiful. Collette continues on her “spinster” characterization she so nailed in Muriel’s Wedding, but here, under Hanson’s direction, she gives her character a little more urgency that provides the film with serious dramatic thrust. Matching Collette toe to toe in the acting department is Shirley Maclaine as Ella, the grandmother to Diaz and Collette’s sisters. Both actresses provide the film with energy and gravitas that a story this seemingly lightweight needs. Francine Beers turns in a touching and quite amusing supporting performance as one of Ella’s friends at the “retirement community for active seniors.”
As for Diaz, unfortunately, her character is the weakest link in the entire production. Her Maggie does little for the first two thirds of the movie save for getting drunk, making mistakes, and wearing a bikini well. Diaz is able to do all with aplomb, but, none of those are necessarily the requirements that make a performance that memorable.
While In Her Shoes isn’t perfect, it’s still a beautiful piece that is worlds better than almost anything out right now (except for A History of Violence and maybe Proof). But honestly, if solid, heart-felt story-telling this is the definition of “chick flick”, cluck cluck.
posted by cinegod @ 2:04 PM
1 Comments:
Now, I agree that Hanson is sort of a throw-back to golden age of Hollywood directors. But Ford? Yes, he was a great director - no doubt - but in terms of comparing Hanson to a director (especially from the 40's, 50's, and 60's) you would be better served to use Howard Hawks. Both Hawks and Hanson jump seemlessly from genre to genre while creating strong, delveoped, and flawed characters. Above all else, I think what pulls these to closer is the stories they tell (or maybe don't tell). They don't waste a lot of screen time. That is not to say their films are not long, some are (Hawks' Rio Bravo or Hanson's LA Confidentail) but it is what they do with the screen time - every scene moves the film along at a fast clip. It all matters whether the audience knows it right away or not. There is little to no fat. The Big Sleep does not even make sense but because it moves along no one complains. The same could be said of all the interlocking plot and story devices of L.A. Confidential. Ford used beautiful photography but it just gets in the way of his characters. Monument Valley anyone? Not place but how many times do I need to see it. Count how many "Western landscape" shots Hawks uses in Rio Bravo. Hawks and Hanson are not worried about filling screen time with many long establishing shots. They love characters. The situations the characters are in are not that important to them. Wonders Boys is about characters and the changes they go through. Does anyone really care or remember the story? Hawks did the same thing. The Big Sleep doesn't even make sense but it is a great film b/c it has great characers. They are masters of the character study. They both also use strong women - Ford did not.
Hawks' women were tough and never took no for an answer - His Girl Friday, The Big Sleep, Only Angels Have Wings, and on and on and on. Hanson does much of the same - L.A. Confidential, The River Wild, Wonder Boys, and I have not seen his latest but I have a feeling it follows suit.
Finally, like Ford, Hawks and Hanson need good actors to bring the characters life. But unlike Ford, the characters that Hawks and Hanson develop have depth and the performance can not be mailed in. John Wayne did his best work with Hawks. Hanson has used some of the best actors for his films. I want to list them but I am getting tired.
In terms of writing, Hawks did not write much officailly and Hanson, who started as a writer, does not "officially" write much either. Nevertheless, both are able make great films for as you say "slightly above average" scripts.
Of course, John Ford is a great director but Hanson just is not the new John Ford. He is the new Howard Hawks.
Post a Comment
<< Home