Flounders On Film

“This show used to be cutting-edge political and social satire, but it’s gotten lobotomized by a candy-assed broadcast network hell-bent on doing nothing that might challenge their audience. We were about to do a sketch you’ve seen already about five hundred times. Yeah, no one is going to confuse George Bush with George Plimpton. We get it. We’re all being lobotomized by this country’s most influential industry! It’s just thrown in the towel on any endeavor to do anything that doesn’t include the courting of twelve-year-old boys. Not even the smart twelve-year-olds – the stupid ones! The idiots – of which there are plenty, thanks in no small measure to this network! So why don’t you just change the channel? Turn off the TV. Do it right now. Go ahead. There’s always been a struggle between art and commerce, and now I’m telling you, art is getting it’s ass kicked, and it’s making us mean, and it’s making us bitchy. It’s making us cheap punks – that’s not who we are!”

I recently finished watching Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip for the second time through. Since its cancellation in 2006 it has been the Great Lost Series to me – the one that could have been special if only it had been given fair chance in the fickle, fickle world of American TV. I’d adored The West Wing from Day One right through to the end, but as with most fans, a little bit (in fact, a HUGE bit) of the soul of the show disappeared the day Aaron Sorkin walked out the door. But then we saw adverts for Studio 60 and it seemed all would be well.

I don’t remember how long into watching Studio 60 I knew that it was being cancelled. I think I had seen a few at least, but with the massive delay from America, the curtains had closed a long time before I saw all of the first and only season. So who knows if my glasses were already rose-tinted?

First seasons are rarely perfect. Even The West Wing has Mandy in it. I liked Studio 60 a hell of a lot first time round and maybe a bit of that was due to its underdog status, having been hyped to the heavens and then having the balloon popped on it virtually straight away. Now that time has passed I can probably see it with a more critical eye.

So why did it fail?

1) The fantasy land aspect that is usually inherent in Sorkin’s work simply didn’t play as well here. A hell of a lot of people want to believe in a president that is genius-level smart AND pure of heart, surrounded by a group of people only slightly less talented than himself. This doesn’t have the same impact for a late-night sketch show (and one that doesn’t look very funny).

2) Matthew Perry is very good as Matt Albie. I can’t fault him or his performance, but in a similar point to 1, he is Sorkin’s wank-fantasy version of himself, writing a 90-minute comedy show every week by himself, constantly being hailed as a genius (“Are you coming to save us?”) and still being endearing goofy, loveable and photogenically screwed-up.

3) The political(ly correct) aspect of the show were a little forced at times. The show’s attitude towards drugs was particularly fumbled. The cast and crew were all too prim and proper to indulge when we could see, but it was mentioned as though part of late-night comedy furniture. Not in this convent. The drug habits of note were Danny Trip’s (Bradley Whitford) cocaine addiction which set the plot in motion with Matt and Danny having to return to TV, but was otherwise unremarkable (not for a moment did you believe Tripp had gone through any kind of ’drug hell’) and Matt’s painkiller addiction which developed for a few episodes towards the end of the season but then stopped when he decided not to do it anymore. I’m sure Matthew Perry would argue that it is not quite that simple. Maybe a second season would have allowed these foibles to flourish, who knows?

4) The two biggest character failures for me were Simon Stiles and Tom Jeter as part of the “big three” stars of the show. Neither were ever shown to have any talent as performers in the show or convinced me as celebrities in that world. Tom had a pathetic weediness which was not convincing in that supposed calibre of star. He only became more likeable through his romance with Lucy and the naturally sympathy that came with his brother’s plight at the climax of the series. Simon was often the Faultless Black Guy that American TV defaults to sometimes and was prone to giving out short, declarative sentences that supposedly summed things up adroitly and cut through the crap by telling people what to do and what not to do. He grew up in the ghetto, therefore he can teach all these lame, pampered white people about the ‘real world’.

5) Jordan McDeere was a lot of things. Smart, sexy, witty to name just a few. But a convincing (there’s that word again) Network TV President? I don’t think so. Would a Network President really hang out at a late night TV all the time, ingratiate herself with the cast, allow herself to be seem to be remarkably vulnerable to all and sundry and indulge in a ridiculous food ‘addiction’ whilst being the size of a stick insect? 6) Another ‘West Wing’ comparison I’m afraid. In that show the characters were dealing with hugely important matters that affected peoples’ lives. They joked in order to diffuse tension and the responsibilities on their shoulders and were convincing smart in their witty banter. Somehow, ‘Studio 60’ doesn’t get the same free pass for everyone to speak in the identical banter-happy, pop-culture-referencing style. Yes, Sorkin’s dialogue is brilliant, but we should be able to tell the characters apart. And sending up the importance of a TV show whilst also emphasising how vital the show is, well just that highlights the irrelevance of all these dilemmas.

But yet there were lots of things I did like and love. The stories, while never death-defyingly vital were always entertaining and that Sorkin dialogue really is magnificent, quotable stuff. You feel like you want to sit there with a notepad and scribe it down for later. His slicing of this very blog-culture I’m indulging in right now is particularly well done. Matt and Danny were a very loveable duo (I didn’t find myself thinking of Chandler and Josh at all) and the heart-warming camaraderie that Sorkin can always evoke is very much evident here. His good-heartedness and love of teams (remind you of anyone?) shines through and it’s a hell of a lot more fun than the average CSI crap. Harriet Hayes and Jack Rudolph were two characters who I liked more and more as the show went on and the whole thing started and ended strongly. Who knows what a second season could’ve brought?

Ethan Hunt: I’m part of an agency… called the IMF.
Julia: What’s that stand for?
Ethan Hunt: Impossible Mission Force.
Julia: Shut up.

Yes, you didn’t expect this in the Masterpiece series, did you? I have no loyalties to the Mission Impossible brand. Part one is fine as a Tom Cruise spy thriller, in that it doesn’t blow my mind but I don’t dislike it. Part two I actually dislike a bit. It’s so over the top that it becomes quite dull and it doesn’t feel at all like Mission Impossible film; it’s a Bond film by any other name. So my expectations were not particularly high going into Mission Impossible 3, even though I’ve got a lot of time for JJ Abrams (after Alias and Lost). Having seen his Star Trek, this respect has only grown.

However, despite all the history of this most bizarre of franchises (nothing links up, Ethan Hunt’s character is not very consistent, IMF is poorly defined, the look and tone of the films is always differnt) and the soap opera life of Tom Cruise (particularly in the news at that time), something just clicked. JJ Abrams, used to establishing plots and characters in 42 minutes with adverts chucked in, gives a masterclass in re-introducing us to Hunt, now complete with his fiancée Julia (Michelle Monaghan), suburban home and secret double-life training the next generation of IMF agents. The introductory engagement party is funny and warm – not qualities this franchise had previously been over-burdened with. But do we think Ethan is going to get called back into action? Oh yes we do.

In the first of many “oh-that’s-so-cool” moments, Ethan is given his mission in a disposable camera by IMF agent Musgrave (Billy Crudup). I could sit and list the cool moments in this film (whether of action, ideas or gadgets), but it would take all day. Suffice to say, every time the film makers were faced with a problem, they managed to pick the best possible way to deal with it. Yes, it might not be as brutal and realistic as Bourne and the Daniel Craig Bonds, but it makes up for that in sheer inventiveness and originality. And it gets the series back to doing some impossible missions. Which is what we want really.  

Cruise has been better in a lot of films than he is here, let’s be clear on that, but that is partly due to the blandness inherent in Ethan as a character. There’s not much to work with and he can’t even claim amnesia like Jason Bourne can. Within the confines of an off-the-peg hero, Cruise does well and this time, more than ever, Hunt is humanised by having someone to care about and fight for. The kidnapped wife is obvious choice for a dilemma, but it works a treat here.

While the posters and promotion always highlight Cruise to the point where it seems only he will appear, MI:3 is smart enough to surround him with an excellent cast. Crudup and Laurence Fishburne as warring IMF high-ups get some great exchanges and put a fresh spin on the ‘mole within IMF’ story that we’ve seen before. Monaghan as the fiancée (later wife) is suitable tough and luminous and we are finally reminded that Hunt is not a one-man army, but part of a team – yes the team are all ridiculously smart, witty, gorgeous and brave (actually, maybe Ving Rhames isn’t gorgeous), but I can live with that when the film is this much fun. Simon Pegg rounds things off as the likeable geek back at headquarters. Finally, we are given a cracking bad guy in the form of Owen Davian, a weapons dealer and general nasty piece of work. Phillip Seymour Hoffman looks like a man left off his leash here and has loads of fun with the part. Especially when playing Hunt disguised as Davian (keeping up?). That’s not to say he’s not effectively menacing though, and the opening scene (which actually drops us in near the end of the film) is genuinely nerve-shredding.

The Gang

This should not be up there with my favourite films of recent times. Everything tells me that it should be a Hollywood cookie-cutter sequel, done purely for money with everyone involved just coasting along in a franchise that’s not setting anyone’s world on fire. I can only say that JJ Abrams, having the budget to give free reign to his imagination and directing like his life depends on it, bringing a fresh eye to action clichés, combined with an on-form cast and better script than it needed to have, has managed to produce a quite wonderful action film. It’s one of a rare breed, which actually improves with each viewing and has a story to care about in between explosions. Everything clicks into place just perfectly. I love this film.

In my obsessive need to list everything I love, I often return to the problem of favourite films, of course. Top 5 is not too much of a problem and I can generally build a top ten with some compromises – there’ll always be something that is unfairly missed out, or even worse, something that is really great but you can’t help thinking “That’s in my top ten films? Of all time? Really? That?”

But this is nothing compared to the horror of deciding on films when it gets to top 15’s or top 20’s. This can be best summed up by the ‘Raging Bull’ versus ‘Back to the Future’ theorem. You see ‘Raging Bull’ was a film I first saw taped off ITV (and so with adverts) late night, when I was about 15/16 I would guess. And I didn’t like it. It was bleak, plot-less and the only thing cool about it was its reputation. I wanted to like it, of course, because I had heard so many good things. And at that age I wanted to be the kind of film-fan who liked and appreciated masterpieces. Still do really (so apologies to The Deer Hunter, Blade Runner, Network and any others I’ve forgotten). But then it was re-released at the cinema (I’m guessing it would be for its 20th anniversary, so probably in 2000), I decided to go and my eyes were opened. Right from that slow-motion shadow-boxing opening (has there been a better use of music set to film?) to De Niro’s monologue to the mirror, I was hooked. I fell in love and for a long time it was a solid lock in my top ten, maybe even top five. I bought the VHS. Then I bought the Special Edition DVD. Then I bought the Definitive Edition DVD. Yes, that’s ridiculous, I agree.

Now so much time has past, ‘Raging Bull’ is not such a fixture in my top ten films. It’s a bit too bleak and unrelenting. It’s a film you can only experience every once in a while and so resides in that sub-section just underneath top-ten-ness. However, this is not a criticism. Even if it’s not quite one of my favourite films (it’s a gruelling experience and not one to indulge in regularly), it is still one of the best films I’ve ever seen – if not the best. It’s gorgeous to look at, for a start, but nothing else has unpeeled the stinking layers of a ‘bad’ person (simply put, that’s what he is) with such care and understanding. The film never panders to make him sympathetic. Jake is pitiable yes, but never redeemed. Scorsese and De Niro (along with many less-celebrated collaborators) here coalesce into one to make a masterpiece.

But then there’s ‘Back to the Future’ to consider. Not just any film, but one of those which made me fall in love with film itself, many years ago. I was too young to see it at the cinema, but really, I can’t remember a time without it in my life. It was a joyous experience to watch when I was younger and it still absolutely stands up now. It’s funny, fun, feel-good and the intricacies of the plot (and the imagined consequences of time travel) are so well thought-out (in an immaculate screenplay) and well-played by the cast that it stands as one of the great family films (that is in no way a criticism). I can quote it happily all day (‘better get used to these bars kid’…’is there a problem with the earth’s gravitational pull?’…’who the hell is John F Kennedy?’) and I’d sit down and watch it any day of the week. I can’t think of a single thing I would want change – Michael J Fox is superb as Marty, cool but insecure, and I do not believe there is an actor better suited to the role of Doc Brown than Christopher Lloyd. The only downside of the film becoming a franchise (both sequels are enjoyable) is that the original can become a bit devalued. It’s probably one of the films I’ve watched the most times in my life and that ending at the clock tower never fails to get my heart racing. And as soon as I had the ability to download songs, one of the first I got was “Earth Angel”.

So where to begin with judging which is highest in the pecking order? Do you go with best or favourite? And how do you judge which is which? Do you have to have a list with Oscar-winning types and one with badass action and fun? Where’s the satisfaction in that? I want a definitive list of my loves (and hates), not subsections and messing around. And therein lies the problem. I can make a rough top 50 (very rough, I probably forgot loads of films when I made it) but putting them in order was an impossibility. There’s probably no solution to this problem as there’s always the worry, when you’re past the obvious giants of the top 5, that you want a list that not only is good, but also looks good. So it has a suitable amount of ‘intelligent’ films that acknowledge your superior taste, but also shows your quirky side, your fun side and those films that you feel only you truly love. So, which goes first, ‘Rear Window’ or ‘Point Break’?

The top ten, for those who interested, looks something like this (it is pretty steady, but I can’t say how long it will stay exactly this way…):

1. Fight Club (“I look like you wanna look, I fuck like you wanna fuck. I am smart, capable and, most importantly, I am free in all the ways you are not.”)

2. Memento (“You know, I’ve had more rewarding friendships than this one. Although I do get to keep telling the same jokes.”)

3. Adaptation (“You are what you love, not what loves you.”)

4. The Godfather (“You’re taking this very personal. Tom, this is business and this man is taking it very, very personal.”)

5. Glengarry Glen Ross (“Because I don’t like you.”)

6. Jackie Brown (“My ass may be dumb, but I ain’t no dumbass.”)

7. The Prestige (“They’ll beg you and they’ll flatter you for the secret, but as soon as you give it up… you’ll be nothing to them.”)

8. LA Confidential (“Don’t start trying to do the right thing, boy-o. You haven’t the practice.”)

9. Donnie Brasco (“…’I aint runnin’ from nuttin’. The man I married was a college man.”)

10. Minority Report (“I just want him back so bad.”)