BEFORE: Geoffrey Rush carries over from "The Book Thief", and I'm done with World Wars for the moment, anyway. I've got a whole weekend off, which hasn't happened in quite a while, and I don't HAVE to go anywhere or do anything - I'd love to just clear some TV shows off my DVR and maybe put some comic books from two years ago into plastic bags and boxes, because I'm way behind.
But that would mean being housebound all day, and that gets boring - my wife works from home, so if I've got a weekend free, I know she wants to go out and drive somewhere, because we're both so busy we just don't go too many places together, except for diners and occasional weekend trips. So today we drove out to Long Island and hit a very big, upscale mall called Roosevelt Field, where she bought some stuff from Wilson-Sonoma, and then we tried a Chinese food buffet we hadn't been to before, in Garden City. It's not as nice as the Golden Buffet in Centereach, but I'll take any trip to a buffet. Anyway, I came home and watched some TV, and now my weekend off is already half over. Throw in a couple movies, and I'm going to run out of weekend very quickly. OK, I'll try again tomorrow to bag up some comics.
THE PLOT: The story of Swiss painter and sculptor Alberto Giacometti.
AFTER: This film was directed by Stanley Tucci, and of course that makes me think of the great film "Big Night", which was the first film that my wife and I ever watched together, shortly after we started dating. It's a great film about an Italian restaurant and the two brothers that work there, and they get the big news that Louis Prima and his band are going to stop at the restaurant after a show, which could really put their little trattoria on the map. No spoilers here, but let's just say it's a long wait for the band to arrive, but you get to watch a lot of great Italian food get eaten, so there's that. Tonight's film shares some of the same elements as that film, in that Tony Shalhoub plays a supporting role, and also there's a long wait - for an artist to finish a painting.
I'm not sure what this film intended to say about Giacometti - or perhaps, by extension, about ALL artists, because one may assume that they're all cut from the same cloth, where their personalities and personal lives are concerned. As a painter and a sculptor, he is depicted as someone unsure of himself and his ability, someone unable to finish a project because of self-doubt (or self-awareness), along with over-confidence caused by his previous successes, and/or being creatively blocked, which appears to be part of the process. And then there's his personal life, which is a complete mess, as are his finances. Sure, he's got money coming in, but he's hesitant to put it in the bank, so instead it's all piled up in his loft for those times when he needs to purchase a car for his favorite prostitute, or to pay off her pimp for her services. His wife doesn't even seem to mind the fact that he's sleeping around, as long as he's working and there's enough money coming in to pay the bills, what does it really matter in the long run? He seems happy as long as he gets laid once in a while, so what's the harm?
From what I saw on that "Genius" series a few years ago, Picasso was more or less the same - so can we make some kind of blanket statement about the top-tier artists, that they're all like this? Success in the arts field somehow means a screwed-up personal life, uncertain finances and dealing with sketchy people in the criminal underworld, just to get his freak on? But why stop there, because from what we know about the #TimesUp and #MeToo movements, the fact that cancel culture has taken a number of famous people off the board, from talk-show hosts to stand-up comics, and the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, the Prince Andrew scandal, Trump's affairs, the gossip shows like TMZ and extra, - it's all over the place, in every walk of life, the top-tier or richest people also have the greatest likelihood of being screwed up, to the point where you wonder how anybody ever got anything done in Hollywood in the first place. I think back to my favorite talk-show host, David Letterman, and how he quit his show shortly after admitting he'd had sex on the regular with a member of his staff, then got involved in a blackmail scandal when her boyfriend found out about it. He cancelled himself before public opinion had a chance to do it, got off the carnival ride shortly before it would have broken down anyway.
So I work in the film industry, and I can confirm this portrayal of the down side of fame and success is most likely accurate. I remember when the first director I ever worked for took a business trip to Japan, which led to doing a HD short project for Sony (HD was in its infancy then) and he came back and told me he'd slept with three amazing women while in Japan - and my response was something along the lines of, "Please don't tell me about this, because I also work for your wife and I'm also friends with your girlfriend, so it puts me in an awkward position." So I've learned over the years that this is across the board, as you move up the ranks in any profession, primarily the creative arts, you find more people with messed-up personal lives, or ones who they think that the rules don't apply to them. Oh, I'm sure there are a few people at, say, Steven Spielberg's level who are faithful to their spouses, upstanding citizens whose production companies follow all the laws and they have spotless records, but there are probably more who are corrupt in some way and are just really good at hiding things. So I don't mean to paint all creative people with the same brush, so to speak, but generally speaking, show me a successful creative person and I'll show you somebody whose personal life is a freaking mess.
There's no difference, say, in Giacometti offering to paint a friend's portrait, saying it will only take a few hours and then convincing that man that the process can't be rushed and will most likely take weeks, and a Hollywood director who really wants to make an animated version of "Pinocchio" and then encountering creative and financial problems that keep that film in development limbo for ten years or more. It's the same thing, you just have to hope that at the end of that ten years, that there's something great or even good to show for all that trouble. That's the real miracle, that the creative process occasionally produces something amazing, but if you only look at the successes, you're not seeing the big picture, you have to take into account the 99% of films that aren't blockbuster hits and the 50% of films that lose money (I could be off on the ratios, but you know what I mean.) and the real people who spent their time working on those projects, only to see them fail or not get finished.
For me the mystery comes with those creative people who need to fool around, have a piece on the side as if that's part of the process. Look, if you want to be a swinger, be a swinger, if you want to get your freak on and dress up in some private club or have a secret boyfriend or girlfriend, I'm not against it. Just don't pretend it's part of your creative process because really, one thing's got nothing to do with the other. There must be successful artists or writers or filmmakers who don't drink or have a secret sex life or a drug problem, right? We just don't track those people's personal lives because they're so boring, right? So we get something of a skewed perspective because TMZ and Extra don't do segments on the people who follow the rules, stay faithful to their partners or don't go to rehab, and maybe that's the problem. Old Hollywood was different because people hid their personal lives better, and actually cared about public perception, and we didn't learn the juicy details of most stars' sex lives until their autobiographies were released post mortem.
In the meantime, many of us on the sidelines are like James Lord, we show up day after day and we wonder when the next Star Wars movie will be released, or if "Avatar 2" will be completed within our lifetimes, and what the hell is taking so long? Is the director creatively blocked, or is he having financial trouble, or does he just have a messed-up personal life? Often the answer is yes, yes and also yes - but really, should that be any of our business? And more to the point, what do we call this syndrome among creative people with huge egos who don't think they have to follow the rules of society, and is there any cure besides years of therapy? Again, I point to Spielberg who not only seems to have his personal life worked out, but also seems to be very prolific and financially successful, but perhaps he's the exception that proves the rule.
Also starring Armie Hammer (last seen in "Death on the Nile"), Tony Shalhoub (last seen in "Too Big to Fail"), Sylvie Testud (last seen in "Suspiria"), Clémence Poésy (last seen in "Resistance"), James Faulkner (last seen in "Atomic Blonde"), Kerry Shale (last seen in "Angel Has Fallen"), Annabel Mullion (last seen in "Carrington"), Tim Dreisden, Takatsuna Mukai, Philippe Spall (last seen in "The Witches"), Gaspard Caens.
RATING: 5 out of 10 rescheduled flight reservations
No comments:
Post a Comment