Selling Out
By Tom Macy
August 20, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
With themes deeply rooted in current events (a rarity for summer cinema. When was the last time you saw a spaceship, superhero or planet-destroying national disaster in the news?), District 9 still manages to be a true action film. In the movie trend speculation game, when I play the role of the eternal optimist, I predict that District 9 could be a game changer.
Like The Bourne Identity before it, D9 proved that American audiences are not just mindless zombies trudging to the cineplex to see whichever film, regardless of its expected (poor) quality, had the most aggressively expensive marketing campaign. Though weekends like March 2-4 2007 - when Zodiac, one of the most memorable films of that year, opened to $13 million and Wild Hogs, one of the most pathetic attempts at (multiple) career resurrection ever conceived, won the frame with just under $40 million - seem to make strong arguments to the contrary, District 9 has shown that there is still a place for intelligent, complex narratives made for mass consumption.
There are several storylines that will be examined now that this mold-breaking break-out (heh-heh, too many breaks) has taken the industry by storm. One of the favorites will be Blomkamp's rise to the helm. Hand picked to head up a videogame-to-film adaptation of the super high-profile Halo, the project bottomed out after five months due to a bulging budget and the studio's hesitation toward the untested Blomkamp. But out of the Halo ashes arose an opportunity to expand his intriguingly ambiguous six-minute short film Alive in Joburg. He proceeded to turn it into a strikingly originally conceived film that inexplicably walks a precarious line between commentary on civil intolerance and good ‘ol summer fun. And by the way, it only cost $30 million! Previously a director of commercials as well as being a visual effects 3D animator for Smallville, among other things, Blomkamp's story of success is the stuff misguided acting students' dreams are made of. Here, here.
But while the real story may be the discovery of a new talent in Blomkamp and a semi-new format for blockbusters, what got me really excited was the name above all the marquees - Peter Jackson.
It's amazing that this Christmas will be eight years since Fellowship of the Ring was released. It's amazing to think that at one time we existed in a world without Balrogs and over-zealous Howard Shore scores. I never read Tolkien's novels – I'm a movie guy, okay? – but I think that enhanced my experience of the Rings films. An 18-year-old when Fellowship was released, I went in completely unprepared for what was in store, seeing it only because it was a big-budget holiday release. Like I said, I'm a movie guy. Five minutes in, my world was changed forever. The sheer jaw-dropping scope of the prologue alone was practically incomprehensible to me. I had never seen anything like it. As the movie progressed, every shot, set, and sequence was so impressive I assumed I had seen "the money shot" several times over. I honestly thought the movie was going end in about an hour and a half in at Rivendell after the Liv Tyler horse chase with the Nazgul, and I was totally okay with that.
With Fellowship being the second greatest movie-going experience of my life (Jurassic Park at age nine will never be topped), the releases of the next two installments were some of the most anticipated events of more than my movie-going life. To this day, I use their years of release as a means to catalogue memories. Let's see, I went to see the Two Towers with her so we must have broken up in early 2003.
While my enthusiasm was, shall we say, a touch more asthmatic than the rest of the public, it wasn't by much. The overwhelming success of the Rings trilogy blew the door - that Gladiator had cracked the year before - wide open and gave new life to the old Hollywood staple, epics. Soon any film that could potentially feature a massive ground battle scene was a hot commodity.
Peter Jackson actually stoked the fire on two fronts. On the one hand you had the "historical" war films like Troy, Alexander and King Arthur and on the other you had fantasy book series like Chronicles of Narnia, The Golden Compass and Eragon. Notice a pattern here? I honestly tried to find a good film that was made with The Lord of the Rings' success in mind. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think all of these films are pretty lame. The difference is that the real magic of the Rings Trilogy was not The Battle of Helm's deep – though that was crazy awesome. It was (here comes a geek out, consider yourselves warned) Viggo Mortenson telling Háleth, son of Háma, as the army of 10,000 Uruk-hai marched towards Helm's Deep, "This is a good sword," even though he knows it isn't, then putting his hand on the 14-year-old's shoulder and saying, "There is always hope." Oh man, I totally got chills thinking about that. I am so lame.
But so what if this large-scale epic trend that Jackson helped create wasn't top of the line? He just knew how to do it better than everyone else. It isn't his fault that most directors don't know how to properly construct a narrative, is it? Well, if he hadn't added any flames to the fire I might say yes. But in December of 2005 that all changed when Peter Jackson threw his own massive log on the heaping pile of big-budget mediocrity.
For me, King Kong was a case of cinematic denial. It took me a long time to realize, and even longer to admit, that it was not a good film. The thought that someone who literally redefined my late teens and early 20s could lead me so far astray was difficult to accept. I can't blame Jackson for getting carried away. He had access to ridiculously unlimited resources and endless creative control. In retrospect, a bloated, comically serious exercise in self-indulgence was probably unavoidable. Remind you of another recent case where a filmmaker turned an unlimited budget and creative control in to a youth-shattering travesty? I shudder to even type the name. Let's just call him GL, or he-who-shall-not-be-named.
Over time I came to terms with the disappointment of King Kong and saw that I should be happy that Jackson gave me Lord of the Rings. It was simply a case of right place, right time. Perhaps I expected too much of him, but he just wasn't the guy I though he was. Even his appearance was telling. The former hobbit-resembling man now was a slimmed down, contact-wearing director with an accent - never seen that before. Just like Harvey Dent said – man this article is just a fanboy quote fest – "Either you die the hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." Ah, foreshadowing.
Watching the recently released trailer for The Lovely Bones, Jackson's latest directorial effort, corroborated that sentiment. Just because you can create a giant ship crashing out of an equally giant glass bottle doesn't mean you should - having not read the book I'll concede that maybe that's vital to the plot, but I have my doubts. Also, as a side note, apparently in movieland now any guy with neatly combed blonde hair, a mustache, wire-rimmed glasses, and pasty skin that wears flannel is automatically a child murderer. Come on, PJ, I thought you were better than that.
Going into District 9 I had all but put my angst over Jackson to rest. Since he was just a name above the title he had plausible deniability for any shenanigans that took place onscreen. Plus, some of the wounds were too painful to dredge up. But walking out of the theater after witnessing Blomkamp turn several genres on their head, everything had changed. I needed to know more.
It's hard to know how much input or aid Jackson gave to this project. Maybe he was just the most recognizable name, since District 9 has literally none. The fantastic star Sharlto Copley doesn't have a single film credit, other than Blomkamp's original short, on his résumé. But the idea the Jackson had a hand in this was too tantalizing not to dig a little deeper. At the risk of setting myself up for another letdown, I began searching for proof that Jackson had not gone over to the dark side.
Here is an excerpt from an interview with director Blomkamp on Jackson's involvement:
"His main thing that he kept saying to me was make the film you want to make, and he really pushed that. He was like, let us be the producers, let us worry about cash; you go out and make the film you want to make. So he didn't really have many battles to fight because contractually I think he had control over the film anyway, but having said that I think he was aware to make sure that decisions that were being made that were creative decisions were mine so that the film was me."
I am consumed with pride. This alone tells me that Lord of the Rings was not just a product of a perfect climate and few happy accidents. After showing the movie-going and movie-making world how to make a big-budget film with a soul, Jackson has once again led by example. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but after displaying no filter in King Kong, D9 at least suggests that he has seen the errors of his ways. And after all, "The only way we can achieve success is through failure." I don't know if a film icon ever said that but just to keep the theme going let's say it was Robin Hood. The risk Jackson took in instilling such confidence in Blomkamp is enough for me to believe that he is different from the rest. Can you imagine he-who-shall-not-named being this kind of mentor? Heck no.
So at least until The Hobbit comes out, I can rest assured that my younger self was not as duped as I previously believed. For now I can revel in the fact that Jackson found redemption through restraint. Atta boy, PJ!