criterionforum.org

The trailer for Tony Scott's latest has arrived: http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/dejavuqt1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All the typical Tony Scott trademarks of late are here - shaky digital camera work, oversaturated colors, camera filters galore - and probably a simplistic, overwrought and lame script.

Yet, I'm intrigued.

The trailer has been around for a little while, if I recall correctly. It's interesting to see how he'll handle the sci-fi genre, considering the steps big brother took with Alien and Blade Runner.

It starts out looking interesting, but then it turns into a regular Hollywood action movie.

Christoph Huber and Mark Peranson's fervent apologia from the pages of this month's Cinema Scope...

http://www.cinema-scope.com/cs29/feat_p ... scott.html

I've posted my thoughts on Scott's Domino elsewhere. Nice to see it getting some appreciation here.

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:

HistoryProf wrote:

rs98762001 wrote:It looks exactly as you'd imagine Fincher's version of this to look. However I must admit I was disarmed by the "feel bad movie of Christmas" tagline.

I was torn between rolling my eyes and thinking "what a great tagline!" as someone who absolutely loved the Swedish version (of this, not so much the 2nd and 3rd), I was definitely in the "why bother?" camp. This has at least piqued my interest though. I do hope he hasn't gone all Tony Scott as the Trailer suggests though, because that would be a travesty.

I think after Fincher's last three movies, I don't think he'll be go anywhere near Tony Scott territory. I just don't think it's in him. Even in his most standard (which it isn't exactly) thriller The Game, he's more meticulous and detailed orientated than Tony Scott and goes for plot and character development over plot gimmicks, coincidence and action.

I think that's an unfair examination of Tony Scott who isn't in it for plot let alone plot gimmicks. He makes an ethereal world for which to study cinematic technique in relation to people. He's like a reverse Tarr in many respects stealing liberally from Jancso, but in ways that are intended to make the story superfluous so that the emotions are raw and nonsensical. He'll throw in a plot for commercial reasons, but his clear goal that he's been working towards for decades has always been making people react from the cutting, angles, filters, and other similar things rather than the story.

knives = Armond White?

:-k

Domino FTW.

You're probably sarcastic John, but high five anyways. If the Jancso thing is what caused the Armond comparison that's totally uncalled for since unlike Armond I have historical proof of Scott finding Jancso as an influence via the interview on the Loving Memory Bluray. I didn't say anything that didn't come straight from the horses mouth.

Trust me, knives, not being sarcastic at all.

The problem with Scott, for me, is that he so closely resembles Michael Bay- and is so closely allied to the Bruckheimer aesthetic- that it's difficult for me to process his movies without just reading them as overcaffeinated garbage. It's possible that he's going for or achieving something with his style beyond quick cuts and slickness, but it's difficult to see and I'm unconvinced that it's worth trying.

Fincher, on the other hand, always seems to have something related to the movie at hand he is looking to achieve with his style. Fight Club, for instance, was an immensely slick movie with quite a few very short or even subliminal cuts- but that felt specifically like something Fincher chose to support the content of the film, not something he applied over the top of what he was given. Panic Room feels claustrophobic, Seven feels stately and grim, and Zodiac has a jittery sense of not knowing where to go next; I suspect that if Dragon Tattoo is as cut-cut-cutish as the trailer, it's going to represent a significantly different take on the tone of the material than the Swedish versions.

Well it's unfair to blame somebody for who rips you off. Because Soulja Boi exists doesn't suddenly make Fear of a Black Planet any less powerful. Bay and co are an immensely dumbed down version of what Scott has been spending decades perfecting and it's clear that he is still evolving from that point (though I find Man on Fire to be the glass ceiling of that experimentation right now) and does take careful consideration with each edit. This is me Armonding a bit, but when I saw the Jeff Keen films I felt as if I were watching the short form version of what Scott is doing. There is a lot of consideration for the edits and within the hyperactive style he has been able to do completely different things (take a look at Deja Vu for instance). He deliberately goes after the most empty headed scripts that cross his path because he is such an aestheticist. There's a lot of emotional and theoretical meat hanging from these bones that aren't immediately apparent because he's willing to play up the commercial aspects of his films so that he can delve deeper into his experimentation. So in that sense he's a lot like the classic Hollywood mold that Domino stalks about a lot and uses to defend War of the worlds (though in a pot calling kettle black situation I am totally uninterested with The Beard's film).

Saying Tony Scott is exactly like Michael Bay just because both use quick cuts is kind of silly. For all of the rapidity of his cuts, Bay still uses continuity editing. Scott, however, is the only major Hollywood blockbuster director currently working to make extensive and wild use of discontinuity editing. Knives is right to point out how little interest Scott seems to take in his narratives, considering how heavily he fractures them, reassembles them, and then fractures them again, over and over.

When and why did Spielberg earn the epithet "The Beard" over all other facially hirsute directors? His isn't even that lush...

FerdinandGriffon wrote:When and why did Spielberg earn the epithet "The Beard" over all other facially hirsute directors? His isn't even that lush...

I don't know honestly. I've just always heard him called that and it's easier to write out.

knives, I have to admit, your argument on Tony Scott's greatness is pretty intriguing and I actually always lumped him together with the Bay crowd, but you really are making me want to revisit his films. Do you have any other references about this? Has Scott mentioned himself that he purposely goes after "empty headed scripts"?

He's never used those words to the best of my knowledge, but the BFI disc of Loving Memory did help to cement my fermenting ideas on him. I don't read many interviews, but in the one transcribed in that booklet he's still very young and open talking about Jancso and his lack of interest in narrative. It's a very revealing interview and the movie that comes with it isn't shabby either being totally different from everything he has done since.

I've always felt Michael Bay was a poor man's Tony Scott. I'm not as big a fan of Tony's latest work, but the period of work he did from True Romance all the way to Man On Fire I'm not ashamed to say I quite like, except The Fan which I suspect he knew was an "empty headed script". Hans Zimmer said it was the first project he said yes to after winning the Oscar for The Lion King, because he knew it was such.

Got to say, I loves me some Tony Scott, and some Spielberg too. And even some Fincher, when he's working from good material (The Social Network, Zodiac). :-"

I would agree with flyonthe wall about Tony Scott - I just wish he didn't have to choose Denzel "heavy handed Christian morality" Washington as his primary leading man in his recent films, since his leading man (I presume) seems to take any opportunity to fill the empty, flashy vacuum of his action films with Biblical quotations and painfully obvious Old Testament moral messages. I can put up with Denzel when he is subordinate to the needs of the film (as in say Crimson Tide or Inside Man) or when the preaching is integral to the material (The Preacher's Wife, The Hurricane or Malcolm X) - Deja Vu, the Pelham remake and Unstoppable less so.

I usually don't allow a director's propensity for using a singular visual style affect my enjoyment of their work, but I make an exception with Tony Scott: the man's undying love of the long lens drives me nuts! Every shot squashes the depth of field and forces the viewer to focus on one object or one face. Half the time I have no idea what the physical space is that the scene is taking place in. Combined with the prodigious use of hand-held cameras, the long lenses distract me to the point of not being able to concentrate on anything else. At least his older brother will throw in a pleasant wide angle crane or dolly shot once in a while.

This review of Domino had me genuinely LOL'ing last night.

That's pretty wrong headed.

How so? I'm not saying I agree with it (not completely, but several wonderful points against [and for it] are brought up), I thought it was just okay if not without a little overkill.

The whole thesis seems to run with the idea that the film's editing style is counter intuitive to all of cinema which is false. It is true that that sort of chaos editing is very difficult to pull off, but that doesn't make it impossible especially when as in this film it is not servicing a story purpose, but a separate narrative of the solitary frame. For me Domino is actually one of Scott's most successful experiments.