Saturday, May 25, 2013

The Great Gatsby (2013)


The "Very Entertaining" Gatsby's first appearance

Star Rating: ***1/2 (3.5/4 stars)
Baz Luhrmann's take on F. Scott Fitzgerald's landmark novel "The Great Gatsby" follows in the tradition of its past screen adaptations in that it has left critics thoroughly divided. Critics are complaining about it right and left, saying it's plagued with flaws in the music, the sets, and the adaptation of the story in general. According to the consensus of review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, one of the most common complaints is that it fails to capture the heart of the original novel. I wouldn't know about this, not having read the book. I'm not going to compare this film to a book I haven't read, and while it may not have captured the novel's heart, it certainly has a heart of its own.

Perhaps I'd feel differently about it had I read the book, but I really enjoyed this movie. What I see here isn't necessarily a fractured adaptation of an unfilmable novel, but a very intentional artistic take on a difficult story to tell. Luhrmann's film is by no means perfect, but it is skillfully crated, and has enough going on for it that you forgive it when it stumbles. If it fails to please you, it'll at least engage you.

For those of you unfamiliar with the plot, "The Great Gatsby" is set in New York during the Roaring Twenties, and is about Nick Carraway (Toby Maguire), a World War I veteran who becomes dazzled by the extravagant lifestyle of his next door neighbor, a famed millionaire by the name of Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio). Gatsby lives in a large mansion, and is a famous name throughout New York. He hosts large scale, and very well attended parties. Carraway secures an invitation, and, through a fateful turn of events, he and Gatsby become friends. Soon, it becomes apparent that Gatsby is really intent on rekindling his romance with Carraway's married cousin Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan). That's the basic premise in a nutshell, but it's so much more complex than that. If you wrote an entire treatment of the story, it still wouldn't do all the complexities justice.

The performances all around are fantastic. Maguire, Mulligan, and DiCaprio also hit the ball out of the park with their roles. This film is another jewel in the crown of the New Wave of Leonardo DiCaprio's career, who has really widened his acting range over the last decade with films like Shutter Island, and most recently Django Unchained. DiCaprio is very eccentric, very deep, and very authentic as the celebrity millionaire in the title role.

Largely due to the actors, by the end of "The Great Gatsby" we identify with the right people, and we hate the right people. This is also due to the script, written by Luhrmann and Craig Pearce, which is also good. It's a well told story in terms of structure, acting and, for the most part, execution. However, the film does have some tonal inconsistencies. The first half is pretty upbeat and lighthearted, and the second half intensely tragic. The very rapid change in tone is worth noting, and is so noticeable that my film going companion tapped me and whispered: "And here's where it gets really depressing."

The things really worth noting other than the acting are the visuals. The way "The Great Gatsby" is shot and edited, with its long takes sped up or slowed down, really increases the experience, and when juxtaposed with Calloway's narration, makes for effective story telling. The colors, the costumes, and the sets of the film are also quite dazzling. The party scenes at Gatsby's mansion are large wide shots of the highly decorated interior of the house and the all the guests in their crazy '20s attire. The city scenes are filmed similarly, with lots of aerial photography of New York that is sped up, slowed down, cut together swiftly, or else just played at regular speed and is pleasant to look at.

If there's a single aspect of "The Great Gatsby" that left me a little divided, it'd be the music. Jay-Z's modern music feels a little too anachronistic at times, and trips over Craig Armstrong's more cinematic score, adding to the tonal unevenness of the film. It takes you out of the nostalgic feel of the 1920s that the visuals very aptly put you in. Especially during the party scenes, when there are jazz musicians playing, what's coming out is 21st century rap music, which feels a little too experimental. Some of the music choices worked, but only to the extent of coming across as artistic and expressionistic, but not really serious or compelling. Armstrong's more traditional film score worked very well, and was played obviously during the more serious moments.

But no matter. The music may take you out of it momentarily, but it doesn't break the experience. You're back in the mood a scene later. I reiterate: "The Great Gatsby" isn't a bad film at all. It may not be a good adaptation per se, but it's certainly a good film. A bad film can't be this effective. It can't have a heart like this film obviously has, and expresses so clearly. At any rate, it's good because it's arty and quirky. It's good because it's different. It's great fun to watch, and when the "fun" ends, it becomes highly engaging and compelling. It might not be what critics or fans of the novel want it to be, but it is unapologetically what it is, and for that I applaud it. Perhaps in ten years it might grow on people, and become one of those films that gets a slow start and garners more respect over time as well as an enormous cult following.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Turner Classic Movies Film Festival Number 4!


The fourth annual Turner Classic Movies Film Festival is gearing up to be another splendid film viewing experience like none other. As it has in past years, the Wednesday before the festival has provided a good taste of the fun that is in store. For several hours in the lobby of the famed Roosevelt Hotel, the TCM crew have been filming hosts Robert Osborne and Ben Mankiewicz interviewing several of the stars who will be in attendance for some of the upcoming film screenings. Many of these illustrious names include Julian Sands, Lili Zanuck,Jane Withers, and Theodore Bikel, to name a few.

The festival will officially kick off tomorrow evening with a red carpet gala premiere of a restoration of the musical "Funny Girl" (1968), starring Barbara Streisand and Omar Sharif. When asked if either of the afore mentioned stars would be in attendance, Robert Osborne said they would not, but that someone very special would be there as a surprise.

This year's festival will showcase exactly 78 films, along with numerous other events. Amongst the highlights are conversations with Eva Marie Saint, and Max von Sydow, who will introduce screenings of "On the Waterfront" (1954) and "The Seventh Seal" (1957) respectively. Other notable events are screenings of "A Room with a View" (1985), "Bonnie & Clyde" (1967) "On Golden Pond" (1981), "Badlands" (1973), "Deliverance" (1972), "The Twelve Chairs" (1970) with Mel Brooks in attendance, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" (1959), "The Birds" (1963), "The African Queen" (1951), a 75th birthday salute to Bugs Bunny, and a 3D presentation of Alfred Hitchcock's murder thriller "Dial M for Murder" (1954).

These will be shown at multiple classic Hollywood venues, including Grauman's Chinese Theater, the Egyptian Theater, the El Capital Theater, and the Cinerama Dome. The festival will run from Thursday evening to Sunday evening. Film lovers have turned up from all over the country (and the world) for this event. Whether they are here for the first time or have been coming all four years, everyone is in complete agreement that this festival is going to be something to remember.

Friday, February 8, 2013

Django Unchained (2012)


Star Rating: ****
There's one thing that is essential to understand about "Django Unchained" before you see it: it's purely fiction, a fantasy. It is violent, it is profane, it is disturbing... but it doesn't mean any harm. It is a creation from a filmmaker who loves movies and preserving and embodying certain passages of film history in his own films. With that in mind, it is not a societal drama and it is certainly not a history lesson. It is a thrill ride, with historical context. With all that understood, you may proceed. If you don't get this, there's a much higher chance that you will be shocked and offended by it.

That's not to say it won't smack you in the face with its content--because it will! In fact, a more appropriate title for the film would have been "Tarantino Unchained". For in "Django", Tarantino is more violent, more bloody, and more profane than he's ever been. The bloodshed here may not be in such frequent quantities as in "Kill Bill", but it looks more realistic, which makes it worse. There are several shootouts, and one incredibly rough scene where a slave is savagely ripped apart by dogs. Just when I thought onscreen violence couldn't get any worse, there's always Tarantino.

The profanity: Tarantino goes a little ape with the "n" word. True, this may have been appropriate because of the time period, but it does get bothersome. I have to wonder if he was having fun and got carried away while writing the script.

Now for those of you who are not familiar with the premise (but why would you be reading this if you weren't) "Django Unchained" is a homage to spaghetti westerns, which specialized in action, thrills and violence. The setting is the deep south in 1858, three years before the Civil War, not two as the title card suggests. A German dentist turned bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) recruits a slave named Django (Jamie Foxx) to help him find a group of murderous outlaws who only he (Django) could indentify, in exchange for his freedom.

After the outlaws have been seen too, Django sticks on with Dr. Shultz to search for his wife who had been sold off years earlier. Django and Dr. Shultz search every plantation they come to for Django's wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). They eventually learn that she's on the most horrible and brutal slave plantation in the United States, Candyland, owned by Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). Shultz and Django masquerade as potential customers, and go to Candyland in search of slave to purchase: Broomhilda.

Leonardo DiCaprio has certainly blossomed as an actor. He's no longer the street-smart love struck Jack from "Titanic". That ship has sailed. After several movies with Martin Scorsese and Christopher Nolan, DiCaprio has become a very serious leading man. Calvin Candie is a charming, seemingly level headed individual. And yet it is Candie who orders the execution of the slave who is, in a word, destroyed by vicious dogs in a scene as jarring and disturbing as the ear cutting scene in "Reservoir Dogs" twenty years earlier. Here is when we are convinced of Candie's cruelty and malevolence. It's not enough knowing he owns the most brutal slave plantation in the country, we have to see it for ourselves.

Tarantino is known for writing quirky characters with fascinating interests, such as the religious Jules from "Pulp Fiction", and the "detective" SS Colonel Hans Landa (also played by Christoph Waltz), from "Inglourious Basterds". In "Django Unchained", bounty hunter King Shultz used to be a dentist, and he uses his dentistry credentials as a cover. He drives around in a carriage with a large tooth attached to a spring on the top. There's a small "cavity" in the tooth where he stores wanted posters. Calvin Candie is a "Francophile", and has a good deal of interest in French culture, but doesn't speak a word of French. I really like the way Tarantino writes his characters. They are who they are, and aren't sorry for it. And neither is he.

"Django Unchained" is a very well made movie, with good characters, an eclectic soundtrack, and a great script, though not as talky as Tarantino's others. It has incredibly funny moments and incredibly disturbing moments. Sometimes the disturbing moments are funny. It strongly resembles "Inglourious Basterds", which may not surprise you. Both movies are period pieces, and deal with difficult times in history.

In both movies, Tarantino is having fun with subjects that are really touchy, even today. He claims that he wanted to make a film about slavery, but he wanted to do it like a spaghetti western, rather than a social issues movie. He calls it a "southern", rather than a western. I can see he does care about slavery, but it's his style to do entertainment movies (Hiscock). It was the same case with "Inglourious Basterds". He has the same message about slavery that he had about Nazism, and it's right there: it's bad. It's no deeper than that. What you see is what you get. And he makes that point, as if he needed too.

Revenge is a theme that both films have in common, and has been prominent in Tarantino's work as far back as "Kill Bill". In "Inglourious Basterds", Shoshanna wanted revenge against the Nazis for the slaughter of her family. Now Django wants to get revenge on white slave owners, specifically the ones who harmed him and took his wife. Let's just say that the body count at the end of both movies are enormous.

I hear one more revenge drama is the cards for Tarantino. The project, still in development, called "Killer Crow" about three black soldiers during World War II who go AWOL, and shoot their white superiors. This should conclude Tarantino's "American History/Revenge Trilogy" (Gates, Jr.). That should make one heck of a box set.

Tarantino makes excellent movies that you almost feel guilty for liking because of how violent and controversial they are. But there is no denying his talent, or the quality of his work. With "Django", he has made what is possibly his most controversial work. This film is not for everybody. Only the selected few who can appreciate this is for what it is: an art-house film that knows what it is, isn't sorry for it, and doesn't even pretend to be.

Hiscock, John (April 27, 2007). "Quentin Tarantino: I'm proud of my flop". Telegraph.co.uk.
Retrieved 8 February, 2013.

"Django Unchained Trilogy and More: Tarantino Talks to Gates". theroot.com. December 23, 2012.
8 February, 2013.

Thursday, February 7, 2013

Moonrise Kingdom (2012)


Star Rating: **** (4/4 stars)
I remember thinking to myself, "I hope 'Moonrise Kingdom' is at least nominated for Best Original Screenplay, if for nothing else." Sure enough, the one and only nomination the film received from the Academy was for its screenplay. I hope it wins too--it's the best screenplay in any movie I've this year, even outdoing dialogue master Quentin Tarantino's outrageous "Django Unchained".

Wes Anderson's talent lies in crafting idiosyncratic and often very flawed characters and putting them in even stranger situations. "Moonrise Kingdom" is no exception, and may even be a perfect example of his style. The story, set in a fictional town in Rhode Island in 1965, is about two very troubled children who fall in love, and run away together. This arouses considerable agitation amongst the locals, and a search party is formed to find them.

The children are orphaned Khaki-Scout Sam (Jared Gilman), and school girl Suzy (Kara Hayward). Both are very troubled children, and form a strong bond with each other. In one scene, Suzy's parents discover a collection of letters they'd written to each other. Sam tells Suzy she's pretty, and how he's recently been in trouble for lighting a shed on fire while sleep walking. Suzy tells Sam how she's recently been suspended from school for talking back to a teacher, and that she likes him a lot. Sam also sends Suzy a picture he drew of a girl (presumably Suzy) totally naked. "You're a great artist," Suzy writes to him.

The dialogue between the children is wonderful. Another of Wes Anderson's strengths is writing the most bizarre dialogue, and having his actors deliver it in an incredibly deadpan manner. They do seem a tad somber and don't smile a lot, but it's what they say and how they act with each other that makes the performances so good.

While a search party frantically scours Rhode Island for them, Sam and Suzy set out through open fields, over rivers, and through forests and beaches. The scenery is visually pleasing. My good friend Matt Hedges was actually the primary camera intern on the project, and told me it was one of the best experiences of his life. The music composed for the exploration scenes by Alexandre Desplat is so lyrical and adds so much to these parts. It grounds these moments in emotional reality--on the line between seriousness and utter bliss.

In addition to the lucid soundtrack by Desplat, Anderson also uses music from composer Benjamin Britten. Suzy is a part of a choir that performs Britten's Noah's Fludde, which is how she and Sam meet. Britten's pieces used throughout the film are mostly for children's voices, and also add a lot of feeling to the scenes.

"Moonrise Kingdom" also features performances from so many prominent actors including Wes Anderson regulars Bill Murray as Suzy's father, and Jason Schwartzman as one of Sam's fellow scouts' cousins. There's also Frances McDormand as Suzy's mother, who is secretly seeing Police Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis), adding to Suzy's dismay at home. Edward Norton is Scoutmaster Randy Ward, head of Sam's scouts. Harvey Keitel puts in an appearance as a commander, and Tilda Swinton appears towards the end as a Social Services representative. It's wonderful to see all these faces and everyone delivers so well, but the main spectacle are the two children.

Such fine acting from newcomers Kara Hayward and Jared Gilman. While complimenting the writing of their scenes together, I may have neglected to mention their performances. They're so real, that you simultaneously want to hug them and keep as far away from them as possible. I'd be scared out of my wits of these two if I ever encountered them. They do get violent with people who try to oppose them, and even go so far as killing a dog, which was very unpleasant to watch. But these are extensions of their distressed personalities, which also make them seem real, though I could have gone without seeing the dog go. If you can suspend that and look at everything else, that's when the touching love story really bites you.

"Moonrise Kingdom" is a good companion piece with Wes Anderson's breakthrough film "Rushmore" (1998), featuring Jason Schwartzman as the idiosyncratic idol of trendy Rushmore prep-school. "Rushmore" focuses on Schartzman's coming of age, and the same could be said for Suzy and Sam in "Moonrise Kingdom". They do sort of come of age, even though they're still quite young, and things remain more or less the same with Suzy, if not for Sam.

That's another nice thing about the story in "Moonrise": that it doesn't end with "happily ever after". Yes, it is a happy ending. We see what we want to see--that Sam and Suzy continue seeing each other after the ordeals that follow them running away. On the other hand, they're seeing each other in secret, indicating things are more or less back to normality as we saw it at the start of the movie, with some definite improvements. And the music in that last scene doesn't hurt a bit, unless you enjoy getting sort of misty eyed. I dunno, maybe it's just me.

I feel like the music and art design should have received nods from the Academy, but they did nominate the right thing. In "Moonrise Kingdom" all the sprockets are going like made to create an excellent movie. Man, that screenplay...

Frankenweenie (2012)


Star Rating: ***1/2 (3.5/4 Stars)
When I watch either version of Tim Burton's "Frankenweenie"--whether it's his original 1984 short or the remake--the one thing I think of is how far the "Frankenstein" story has come over the years. More specifically how the movies have shaped how we view the story. If you look at Mary Shelley's original novel published in 1818, you will find it is totally different from the film traditions. Many of the iconic attributes we associate with "Frankenstein"--the hunchbacked lab assistant, the bride with the outrageous hairdo, the blind man in the woods, the policeman with the mechanical arm, the climax at the burning windmill--have all come from the movies and not the novel.

Producers and directors, even comedians, have been "re-animating" the story at every turn. And as if that wasn't enough, now we're bringing dogs back to life. Dogs! I wonder what Mary Shelley would say if she saw what has happened with her creation. It's certainly taken on a life of its own. Dare I say she's created a monster?

"Frankenweenie" (2012) is a few things: it's Tim Burton remaking his own short film of the same name. It's also a homage to the original Universal films from the 1930s. Mostly the "Frankenstein" movies, but all the monsters are in here. This time Victor Frankenstein is a young boy who has knack of filmmaking and science. His only friend is his dog Sparky. When Sparky is hit by as car and killed, Victor gets the radical idea of bringing him back to life. Needless to say, things get out of hand.

When the other kids learn that Victor brought his dog back to life, they're all afraid he'll win first place in the science project, so they all plagiarize and reanimate their pets. One kid brings back a fish who becomes invisible. Another one reanimates a rat who grows into a horrific wolf-like being, and another who brings back a gerbil wrapped in bandages, resembling a mummy. There was a boy who created sea-monkeys resembling The Creature of the Black Lagoon, and an Asian boy who reanimated a turtle who grew five times it's natural size, forming a Godzilla like creature. There was also a girl who tried reanimating a bat, but the electricity struck her cat, and the bat and cat became blended into a vampire-cat.

All these creatures run amok and wreak havoc, sending the film to its familiar climax at an old windmill on the outskirts of town. I sat watching these creatures, wondering exactly what point they served in the narrative. The answer is actually quite simple: to create conflict and add flavor to the story, but most of all this is Tim Burton having fun with his source material. Why not mix it all up? All the monster movie references may generate some eye rolls, but even so, it's too much fun not to like!

"Frankenweenie" does feature some Tim Burton regulars, only this time no Johnny Depp. No Helena Bonham Carter. Instead we have Winona Ryder, ("Beetlejuice", "Edward Scissorhands"), voicing Victor's next door neighbor, who becomes one of his allies as the film progresses. Victor's mother is voiced by Catherine O'Hara ("The Nightmare Before Christmas"). Victor's science teacher is voiced by Martin Landau, who played Bela Lugosi in "Ed Wood" (1994), another affectionate nod to classic horror films. It's nice to see Burton reuniting with some old talent who appeared in, and really made, his earlier and better movies.

One of these being Burton's original "Frankenweenie" short. It's easy to dismiss it without watching it because of the title and the premise. But shorts can be goofy and experimental and get away with it. What's so nice about "Frankenweenie" (1984) is that it turns out to be a really entertaining, ambitious film despite appearances. Burton made a bit of a risky move expanding it into a feature. At least he had the sense to make it an animated film. Animated films can also get away with almost anything plot wise. It turned out to be well worth it though. The remake is well done and just as fun and endearing as the original, even if it does drag in bits. This is definitely Tim Burton's finest work in years.

It's been nominated for an Oscar for Best Animated Film, alongside "Brave", "ParaNorman", "Wreck-It Ralph", and "Hotel Transylvania". I think "Frankenweenie" has a good chance of winning, and personally hope that it does.

Monday, May 14, 2012

Principles of Leadership: The Coen Brothers

Joel and Ethan Coen

Forward Note: This is a little different than anything I've posted here before. This is a paper I wrote for my Introduction to Business class in the spring of 2012. It is therefore relatively light on the film analysis, and heavy on business concepts. The paper will pretty much say it all, but the assignment was to write a paper about a leader from our field of interest. We had to find one book about their life and careers, read it, analyze it, and write this 5-10 page paper containing at least 3-5 significant principles that our people have that makes them an effective leader. Then we had to explain how studying our leaders helped further our understand of the material covered in class, and how it applied to our future careers. Finally, the paper is cited using the APA (American Psychology Association) format. I have also added some photographs that were not in the original paper to add a little more flavor to the story.

Principles of Leadership: The Coen Brothers

The book on which this paper is based is ""The Coen Brothers: The Story of Two American Filmmakers, written by Josh Levine. This book chronicles the career of the two legendary filmmakers, Joel and Ethan Coen, from their childhood interest in movies to just prior to the release of their film "O Brother, Where Art Thou? in 2000". The chapters discuss in great detail the production of their seven films before O Brother, Where Art Thou?.

The information provided includes the inspiration for the films, the writing of the scripts, the casting, how the directors interacted with the cast and crew, pre-production, filming, post production, the release of the film, and the film’s critical reception. The object of this paper is to identify the principles of leadership the Coens possess, and how their leadership styles could apply to me if I was a leader in the business world. Among the key leadership principles discussed in the book are hiring skills, communication, planning and execution, technical proficiency, and integrity.

The Coen brothers, like all leaders, always have a vision for the film they are making. Whether it’s a gritty crime thriller like "Fargo", a slapstick comedy like "Raising Arizona", or a remake like "True Grit", the Coens always know exactly what type of film they want. They work hard at developing their film—from each of the characters and the scripts to each individual shot in the movie (Levine, 2000, n.p.). Having a vision is important for a leader, but that’s only the beginning. Just having a vision doesn’t make someone a leader. They have to communicate that vision to others in order to bring it to life.

The first of the key leadership principles that the book discusses Joel and Ethan Coen having is hiring skills. They pick the actors they think will do the role the most credit. They are never shy about casting unknown actors, and have made performers like Frances McDormand, Holly Hunter, Marcia Gay Harden and John Turturro, recognizable stars (Levine, 2000, n.p.).

The next leadership skill the brothers possess is communication—how they direct and motivate their crew. Levine (2000) describes Joel Coen, who does the bulk of the directing amongst the two, as not being an actor’s director. (p. 54). The Coens plan every detail of a shoot so carefully, from the dialogue to the storyboards, and do not like to see the actors deviate from their plans. Occasionally, they allow their cast some artistic license with certain scenes, but mostly they have the actors stick to the script (Levine, 2000, p. 54). John Turturro, who has starred in four of the Coens’ movies, said of them: “Sometimes a director can say everything and you don’t get anything. Other times, people can just be there and go through it with you and you get it. The Coens are like that” (Levine, 2000, p. 73).


Joel Coen directing "Fargo"--early 1995

Jon Polito, another frequent Coen brothers’ collaborator, says that have a deceptive approach to getting an actor to play a scene their way. As Polito recalled, “They sort of giggle and make you laugh along with them, until finally you realize you’re going in a way they planned years before. They have a wonderful way of catching you off guard” (Levine, 2000, p. 74). Using these methods of direction, the Coens have directed Frances McDormand to an Academy Award for Best Actress for her performance as police chief Marge Gunderson in "Fargo" (1996) (Levine, 2000, p. 136), and several others to award nominations (Levine, 2000, n.p.). In any business setting, a good manager knows what he or she wants and is not afraid to ask for it, even at the risk of frustrating their employees.


Frances McDormand as Marge Gunderson in "Fargo" (1996)

Planning and execution is another leadership skill discussed by Levine’s book. The Coens always prepare very thoroughly for each shoot. They write their own scripts, and have been known storyboard absolutely every shot of the film before any shooting is actually done, which is what they did with their debut film, "Blood Simple" (1984) (Levine, 2000, p. 26). Using their communication skills they direct their cast and crew through the film’s production, till they have the best product that they can get.

Understanding the technicalities of their crews’ jobs is also a leadership quality the brothers possess. Barry
Sonnenfield, cinematographer of three films for the Coen brothers said of them: “They do everything, they write it, they cast it, they work on the editing, they’re involved with the music. They don’t hire people to go out and do things. They are so insularly self-confident, it doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks” (Levine, 2000, p. 73).
The Coens are very careful in their coaching of the people filming the movies. During the filming of "Raising Arizona" in 1986, Joel Coen would instruct Sonnenfeld to film scenes using wide angle lenses, so that rather than the shot being restricted to one subject, the whole landscape could be filmed, giving the scene a more open feel (Levine, 2000, p. 55).


Wide Angle Lense shot of the desert from "Raising Arizona" (1987)

The brothers also have technical mastery of film editing, which they acquired from the making of Blood Simple (1984). After filming had ended, the Coens didn’t have money to hire a professional editor. In the end, they would edit the film themselves, using the pseudonym Roderick Jaynes (Levine, 2000, p. 28). Under this alias, the brothers would be nominated for an Academy Award for the editing of their film, "Fargo" (1996) (Levine, 2000, p. 136). Filmmaking is a complicated, multilayered process. Leading by example by showing technical proficiency with each of your crew’s jobs is a very important skill for any successful leader in the film industry.

One of the cons of being a leader is making mistakes, but a good leader has the integrity to own up to their own mistakes and doesn’t blame others. This is the final of the leadership skills outlined by Levine’s book. After a string of critical successes that were also box office failures in the late 1980s and early ‘90s, the Coens made
"The Hudsucker Proxy" (1994), which was made on a very large budget (Levine, 2000, p. 108).


Tim Robbins and Paul Newman in "The Hudsucker Proxy" (1994)

The brothers were aiming for a box office success, casting big box office names like Paul Newman and Tim Robbins (Levine, 2000, p. 109-110). The film however performed poorly at the box office, and wasn’t especially well liked by critics. It seemed that the brothers were so focused with making a big box office hit with lots of impressive visual effects, that they neglected the story that were actually telling (Levine, 2000, pp. 116-117). Even though the film wasn’t a mistake that any one person has to apologize for, the Coens didn’t point fingers at anyone for the film’s poor reception. Joel was even quoted as saying, “We don’t have anyone to blame for the weaknesses but ourselves” (Levine, 2000, p. 117). It’s not a big thing to admit you made a mistake, but it’s a very hard thing to do. It’s something that a good leader has to do.

Each of these leadership principles illustrate much of the material covered in this Introduction to Business course. Take the Coens’ style of communication for example. Nicolas Cage said that the Coens “have difficulty accepting another’s artistic vision,” and that they have an “autocratic nature” (Levine, 2000, p. 54). This cycles back around to the in-class and textbook discussions of the autocratic style of leadership, where decisions are made by management with little consideration for employee opinions. The Coens have a very clear vision in their heads of what each film should be. They tell the actors and other crewmembers exactly what to do in order to have that vision carried out. The dedication and enthusiasm that the Coens have for their work also indicates entrepreneurial leadership, though their overall leadership style leans more towards the autocratic side.

There’s a lot to be learned about planning from researching the careers of Joel and Ethan Coen. For each of their films, they are always very well prepared. They have a goal, to shoot and release a film by a certain date, and objectives, getting through the filming of each individual scene. They plan virtually everything, carefully writing their scripts and storyboarding every shot of the film, which is essentially making an operational plan.
It’s easy to compare the Coens’ routine of filmmaking with the basic functions of management. They plan their movie by writing the script and having it storyboarded. They cast the film, and organize, lead and motivate and control their cast and crew by rehearsing them, and being very clear with the actors and technical people what is expected of them.

The brothers work together in running the production of a film, resembling a partnership. While they take on different tasks, Joel doing the directing and Ethan doing most of the writing and producing (Levine, 2000, n.p.), they are both leading the production of each film. One may do one thing more than the other, but the brothers know how to do each others’ jobs. In a way, the Coens are also like a non-profit corporation. With the exception of "The Hudsucker Proxy", the films they make are for artistic satisfaction, rather than monetary gain (Levine, 2000, n.p.).

I don’t exactly know what I will end up doing as a career. More specifically, I don’t know whether I will end up as a business leader. However, if I do, there are certain of the Coen brothers’ leadership principles that I would apply to my career. More than anything else, I love the passion and the dedication that goes into each film they make. They always know what they want, even if that does mean they are very controlling.

I appreciate the risks they take in terms of casting a film. The Coens cast actors and actresses they think will perform a character particularly well. They’ve often cast unknown actors, who were not box office names. This plays back to the Coens’ dedication to the artistic aspects of their films. The actors they cast perform the characters well, and the actors usually do well by the films.

I admire how prepared they always are—that they always have their films so planned out. I’d want to be that good of a planner if I was a leader. I respect how proficient the Coens are with the technical aspects of a production, like with the cinematography and editing. I would also have the integrity to own up to my own mistakes as a leader, like the brothers did with the critical and commercial failure of "The Hudsucker Proxy", explaining that the weaknesses of the film were on them. I would want to be a leader with that kind of enthusiasm, bravery, organization, intelligence and integrity. Essentially, that is how I would adapt the Coen brothers’ style of leadership to myself if I ever become leader in a business setting.

I found Josh Levine’s "The Coen Brothers: The Story of Two American Filmmakers" to be a very enjoyable read. I’ve seen most of the movies discussed in the book many times, and I enjoyed reading about what went on during the shooting of each film. The book went into detail on the Coens, in terms of their lives and their careers as professional filmmakers. The writing itself was also very good. The sentences weren’t trite or repetitive, and the language was clear and effective, and not difficult to understand. The writing was all the more appealing for the stories it told. I’d certainly recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn more about the Coen Brothers.

Since their first feature film in 1984, Joel and Ethan Coen have made fourteen films, and have won multiple academy awards. Their films constantly walk the fine line between real and surreal—providing impressive visuals and conceptually engaging storylines. They are giants in their industry, and they are effective leaders. They may not always get the box office records they shoot for, but their films usually receive high critical acclaim.

The Coens are incredibly passionate about their work, and are constantly putting faith in new talent to perform in their movies. Their autocratic style of leadership may not appeal to some, but there are those like John Turturro who said of the brothers, “I know they aren’t thought of as directors, but they’ve been as good as anyone I’ve worked with, if not better” (Levine, 2000, p. 95). Their leadership has lead actors and cinematographers to academy awards nominations and wins, as well as significant critical acclaim. That outstanding quality of the finished product is surely the truest measure of success.

Reference:

Levine, J. (2000). "The Coen Brothers: The Story of Two American Filmmakers". Toronto, Ontario: ECW Press.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Back in Hollywood

Hello folks!

I'm back in Hollywood, California, for the third Turner Classic Movies film festival. The festival will officially kick off at 6:30 tomorrow night with a restoration of "Cabaret" (1972), introduced by Liza Minnelli and Joel Gray at Grauman's Chinese Theater. For the next four days, until Sunday the 15th, I will be running around Hollywood to different theaters seeing different events.

Amongst the events I'm excited to see are "Vertigo" (1958), introduced by the one and only Kim Novak, "How the West Was Won" (1962) presented in its original Cinerama glory and introduced by Debbie Reynolds, and "Young Frankenstein" (1974), introduced by Mel Brooks. I'm also planning on seeing "The Searchers" (1956), "Chinatown" (1974), "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" (1937), "Annie Hall" (1977), "Sabrina" (1954), "Moonstruck" (1987), "Dracula" (1931), "Duck Soup" (1933)" and hopefully "Rosemary's Baby" (1968). Some of my scheduling will probably changed at the last minute, but this is "the plan".

So far I've seen some amazing things during my hour-long stay in California. I've seen stars like Tippi Hedren and Robert Wagner interviewed by Robert Osborne in the lobby of the Roosevelt Hotel. I actually managed to get Tippi Hedren's (star of Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds") autograph and a photograph with her! The photo will be up presently.

I'm still settling into my new surroundings and really enjoying the surroundings. I'm already having leads of fun! As this beautiful series of events unfold, I shall share them here. Thank you for your interest, and stay tuned!