Magic MOMENTS - When Films Really Resonate

I am going to write about a common thread that runs through all of my favorite films, and hopefully it will resonate with many of you. I think it's an important thing to consider as a writer, and director; because delving into this can be very helpful.

My favorite films are often my favorite films; not necessarily because of plot, or characters (specifically) - but the space that develops around them which allows for a moment to be captured. What do I mean by a moment? The thing that makes a moment a moment, is that it isn't definable. If it was; then it wouldn't be a moment. A moment normally comes when the characters seemingly step out of the constraints of a story and purposeful dialogue; and exist truly in a moment that resonates personally with the viewer. 

In 'Almost Famous,' as Stillwater are selling their souls to the big-shot manager, Penny Lane is in the auditorium, alone, post-concert, dancing slowly to the Cat Stevens song 'The Wind.' That is a moment. At least, it was for me.

As most of you will know I've been obsessed with the movie 'Adventureland' recently. It's a film that captures many moments. When James and Lisa P sit on the out of commission ride-carriages, getting high; it really captures something. It captures life! It captures the very essence of what it is to be young-and-figuring-the-world-out, just by having two people sitting and interacting. Likewise, when James and Em sit back and watch fireworks as 'Don't dream it's over' plays over the speaker system-- it is strangely touching, and warm; which evokes something in the viewer.

I think moments only happen when they have been experienced first hand by the writer or director. Not necessarily the exact situation, but that feeling, that emotion. Do you know what I mean? In life, it's possible, on rare occasions; to forget your problems, your financial woes and your messed up relationships and instead you exist purely in a moment that means something. The best screenwriters capture the essence of these 'moments' that they have experienced themselves.

But what am I talking about? Part of me wants to get very specific and stop sounding so wishy washy, and part of me says 'an article about moments can't be too specific' so I feel stuck.
In screenplays, like in life, the character's tend to go to work, then to a restaurant, then to bed, then to work, then to a friends house, then to a bar, etc.

Moments are normally created outside of these societal norms (but only very slightly). They happen at work after everyone is gone, when only two people are left in the building. Or they happen on the way home from a restaurant, when a group of friends bond over a broken-down-car experience. I would guess your most memorable moments in life are similar. I think that's an important point.

As we get older, life gets more rigid. Jobs, relationships and responsibilities provide structures that make it difficult to have unexpected experiences. When we see someone similar to us on screen sitting around a fireplace at 3am with new friends, or we see two people spontaneously having a poem written for them on the streets of Vienna, we realise - This is us, this is ME. This is a part of my life, or my identity, or my hopes - that I can't quite reach at the moment. It's a feeling you've been longing for, or a part of yourself you've been repressing or ignoring.

The header of my blog says, "I like it when I look up at the big screen and see a part of me staring back at me" and I think that's what I'm really talking about. Great movies have the capacity to show us more rounded, complete versions of ourselves. You might relate and identify with Jerry Maguire working really hard and you might relate to his struggle; but the part that resonates might be when he's swinging Ray back and forth with Dorothy, or when Marcy is telling Rod Tidwell "you're the shit!"

These are unexpected, truthful moments. They're what life is about. They are the things that people forget about after a movie, but paradoxically, somehow never forget at all. 

Care to share?

Tweet

ELIZABETHTOWN - Greatly Terrible And Terribly Great

"Jerry Maguire" and "Almost Famous" were Cameron Crowe's masterpieces. They're perfect movies. Perfect; at least, if you like the Crowe touch; if that's your thing. Don't worry, I'm not forgetting "Say Anything" or "Fast Times At Ridgemont High" (which he wrote, but didn't direct..) but either way; these are his films; and the one thing you could say about Crowe, is that he was Crowe; which is basically Billy Wilder in color, with a little less wit but a little more romance.

And then there's "Elizabethtown," which is generally perceived as something that went wrong, which it did; or something that was terrible, which it wasn't. At least, not all of it. You see, with Elizabethtown; something strange happened - in that, we saw the very best and the very worst of Cameron Crowe. There are moments of true magic, and there are moments where it's almost cringe-worthy watching. The blame has mostly gone one of two ways. One way being "Orlando Bloom sucked," which he did, although; it wasn't really his fault, which we'll talk about soon --or-- that the script was too cheesy, which is wasn't - although I think maybe Crowe thought it was, and had a crisis of faith midway through shooting; which may explain how scattered the movie is.

So what is going on with this film? Strangely, at the beginning, the film is awful. It begins with an Orlando Bloom voice-over, which is one of the most unconvincing voice-over's in the history of cinema. Who knew Bloom could act so badly without a camera on? The way the scenes are directed and cut are also majorly problematic. The seamless feel of 'Maguire' and 'Famous' are gone, and we're left with clunky, awkward edits; which don't even flow continuity-wise. We feel like we're watching fifty different takes, cut together. That's true, probably; most films have multiple takes. But here it really shows.

Cameron Crowe made a film that he wanted to dedicate to his Father, and it was set in Elizabethtown. Weirdly, the film gets much better when we finally get to Elizabethtown. But up until that point, when it's set in Oregon, it's one big struggle. It's almost like, on some spiritual level; the film was at home in Elizabethtown but was alien everywhere else. It just doesn't feel like a real movie until twenty five minutes in. Naturally, this isn't very acceptable, and is a likely reason why most viewers lost faith.

Orlando Bloom is the wrong actor for the movie. I think this is a perfect example of bad casting. I feel sorry for Bloom (actually, not too sorry, he earns pretty well,) but this just isn't his kind of role. The screenplay was calling out for a Tom Hanks, or a Jack Lemmon, someone we believe in. Orlando Bloom, for all he tried, just didn't come across as a human being capable of any feeling. At least not as an actor. It's like that joke from "Friends" when Joey does terribly at an audition because he 'wasn't believable as a human-being.' Well, in Liztown; the character that's needed is like William Miller from "Almost Famous," he needs to be uncool, the blessed uncool. But with Bloom, you just can't buy it. He wouldn't get talking to a girl all through the night and then meeting her at sunrise, he wouldn't get the pure magic of a mix CD. The reason I feel sorry for him is that he really does try, he gives everything. And it probably is good acting, but it's not the right acting. It's not what a Cameron Crowe film needs.

But this is a film that's essentially about moments. It's about meeting someone as the sun rises when really you should be getting ready for work, it's about playing "Freebird" despite the fact you're about to get electrocuted, it's about running through a cemetery and feeling the joy of life, it's about taking solitary road trips, it's about breaking up with a girl when you're not even together and it's about learning to tap dance. THAT, is what Cameron Crowe is great at. He is the KWAN at that. And Crowe gets it right, a LOT in this picture, and he's never really gotten the credit for it. The all-night phone call scene is magic; and his use of Tom Petty's music, is magic; and the whole end sequence of the film is magic.

But overall, the film isn't magic. So what happened? A large part of it is that a film was made. And you can't force a film to be amazing. You just can't. "Elizabethtown" was a beautiful, moving, and funny screenplay. When I first read it some time in 2004 I absolutely fell in love, and was certain this would be the greatest movie of all time. It's what every Cameron Crowe fan hoped for. But how can a director live up to that pressure? The problem is: I think Cameron Crowe believed the hype. His genius at choosing perfect music for his movies had always been amazing to me. But I remember seeing him interviewed around the release of this movie; and he seemed almost smug, even lightly arrogant about how great he is with music, rather than humbled by it. And he seemed sure about himself, and the project, in a way that seemed different to how he was going back five years to when he made 'Almost Famous.' It shows when you watch the film. Some of the music fits almost *too well*, and it doesn't have the emotional impact that the director would have hoped.

When I read the screenplay, I was in love. When I first saw the film in the cinema, at the London Film Festival all those years back: I was angry. Angry for the first half of the film. I couldn't grasp Bloom's performance, or the fake sounding voice-over, or the awkward performances from Baldwin, Greer and Sarandon. But then after about thirty minutes or so, everything seemed to sink into place more, and I started to enjoy myself. By the end of the two hours, I felt true, pure, JOY. There really was MAGIC in the movie. It was inspiring, exciting, romantic and uplifting. If 'Jerry Maguire' and 'Almost Famous' are both a solid 9 out of 10, then 'Elizabethtown' is a solid 4 out of 10 yet also a solid 12 out of 10. It's everything and nothing, it's great and terrible, terrible and great. It's Crowe the artist, trying to live up to his other films; against the weight of a big-budget and a studio-endorsed movie star fresh out of that 'Pirates' thing.

Now, when I watch it; I find myself being forgiving. Underneath the many flaws, is Cameron Crowe's big-beating-heart. When he's on form, he is the epitome of a 'Kid In The Front Row,' when he's off form - he's still better than pretty much everyone else. When Cameron Crowe interviewed Billy Wilder, shortly before his death; Wilder said "Jack Lemmon was my everyman." That's one thing that Cameron Crowe hasn't found. Woody has his Keaton, Ephron has her Hanks, Capra had his Stewart - what Crowe needs is his everyman. And that's when he will truly become the legend that he very nearly is.

Care to share?

Tweet