All the Pretty Horses, Revisited

THROWBACK THURSDAY

In 2009 I watched  All the Pretty Horses after having read Cormac McCarthy’s superb book the previous year. I  picked up the film when I stumbled upon it at Blockbuster. (Remember Blockbuster? Seems like a lifetime ago.) Billy Bob Thornton directed the film starring Matt Damon and Penelope Cruz and released in Y2K. Whether it was short lived in theaters because of bad reviews or poor marketing, it sure seems like a good “big screen” film with its Mexican vistas and panoramic camera work.

It’s a coming of age story with two teens from San Antonio heading south o’ the border to find work and, perhaps, adventure. John Grady Cole is the central character (Damon) in this story of innocence lost. The film remains faithful to the the book for the most part. And maybe that is what carries the film because it is a powerful story.

Some aspects of the movie were formulaic. The usual Hollywood plot twist occurs at 25-27 minutes.

If you watch any film on DVD, check out the elapsed time when the plot turns, and you will find, nine times out of ten, that this is so. It’s called writing by the book. The book, by the way, is Syd Field's Screenplay. This is the book 1990's Disney producer Robert Schwartz sent to me when I wrote my first of three Hollywood screenplays... none reaching the silver screen. Producers, decision makers, will turn to pages 25-27 to see “what happens” with the assumption that any screen writer who knows what he’s doing will make this part of the movie into a plot twist. Instead of reading a whole screenplay, the length being one page per minute of screen time, they take a short cut. Once you see this skeletal frame, you may have difficulty closing the curtain again for a while.) Anyways, Thornton’s film follows the formula. And if you wish to take an original approach to writing screen plays, you'll discover this is why the best creative screenwriters have had to go outside the system.

Damon’s performance drew sharp criticism from reviewers. but I didn't expect a lot so I ended up surprised. The romance between Cole (Damon) and Cruz had a suppressed steaminess that was believable. 

The film did a good job of portraying the collision of cultures in their relationship. Like the book, his heart is cut out and filleted by the series of events that proceed naturally from the opening decision to go south.

McCarthy’s characters are always superbly crafted in his books and the settings so vivid you are easily and longingly transported. In the film, the scenes and settings are honest replicas of reality, and one is not distracted by any false notes anywhere in the film, other than the fact that Damon and his friend Lacy Rawlings look a bit older than the 16-year-olds they were purportedly portraying.

After years of writing darker, more brutal works (like Blood Meridian, 1985), McCarthy turned toward something more accessible—without abandoning his depth. In 1992 this novel became the opening of his Border Trilogy, widening his audience while keeping his philosophical concerns intact.

As regards the book, here’s a paragraph from a reviewer at amazon.com that summarizes my impressions of the All the Pretty Horses:

“Many people compare, fairly or no, Cormac McCarthy's "All the Pretty Horses" to William Faulkner's literary work. What is neglected is the strain of Flannery O'Connor that runs throughout the novel as well. At any rate, "Horses" more than stands on its own as a startling achievement. It's prose is more accessible than Faulkner, and its themes less esoteric than O'Connor. "Horses" is an immaculate novel, dealing with the extreme facets of the everyday and the ways in which people become who they are.” ~ Melvin Pena

Of the images on this page, ChatGPT created the top illustration based on a horse head I'd painted the year before, acrylic on paper. The photo below was taken in Kodak Ektachrome near a river west of Cuernavaca, Mexico, in the spring of 1981. It was a beautiful horse. (As always, click to enlarge.)

What Cameron Crowe's Vanilla Sky Said To Me

"Every passing minute is another chance to turn it all around." --Sofia

In 2001 Cameron Crowe created an incredible film. Why some movies resonate with us and others fail to connect, I'm not sure. In part, the masterpieces simply have no hollow notes. The director somehow brings out stellar performances from his cast and makes no compromises along the way. It helps, of course, to have a magical script, and the film Vanilla Sky explodes with layers of meaning that go deep to make it a very special film.

I can think of three reasons this film has been panned by a segment of the public. One is that Tom Cruise is the star, and for this reason alone it might be dismissed by some. This is an incredible performance, however, and can’t be so easily dismissed. A second reason is that the film is a remake in English of a Spanish version of the same story, starring the same Penelope Cruz. Who cares? I did not see the Spanish version. I saw this one. The third? Some people just didn't get it. Complicated, cerebral, perhaps a bit labyrinthine, but from the start I was on board, holding on to Ariadne's thread.

The film is complicated, and requires a measure of work on the part of the viewer. If you have to see it twice to see that the continuity is there, maybe that is OK. The film hangs together and is not a manipulation with a twist ending. Yes, the ending twists, but it's a logical extension of the story.

For me, the scene in the middle where Tom Cruise is dancing in a nightclub with the mask on the back of his head is so fabulously conceived for its symbolic value, as Cruise become Janus, the Roman mythological figure with two faces. Janus was the god of gates or doors, doorways, beginnings and endings. In this film, though we know it not, the scene telegraphs the pivotal transition for David Aames, who has been tragically disfigured as a result of his own choices. Sometimes, you can learn from the past but can’t change it.

I'm not certain what it is that so resonates with me about this film. In part, it may be the philosophical questions it raises about who we are, and the life we would live if we could truly live our dreams. At its root it asks this fundamental existential question: “What if everything you think is real… isn’t?"

It is interesting, too, that the Cruz character is named Sofia, the Greek word for wisdom. The symbols, the erudite references throughout, the layers of complexity may be simply too much for a typical audience immersed in pop entertainment values. Am I being too sentimental to be properly critical? At least one poll rated this as one of the worst films of all time.

On its most basic level, Vanilla Sky presents the philosophical conundrum of the “brain in the vat.” What is reality when it’s all in your head? And what’s wrong with a perfect fantasy, even if we are nothing more than a disembodied brain hooked up to wires, stimuli and altered perceptions? The story line ultimately brings Tom Cruise to a place where he must choose whether he wants to live in reality or his perfect fantasy, which for the time being has gone awry. Perhaps this, more than anything, is what speaks to me, because many people prefer their fantasies to the harder challenges of reality. How would you choose?

Here are some comments from a review at imdb.com. For me its kudos to Cameron Crowe for a true achievement, and a great follow-up shot to his wonderful surprise, Almost Famous.

Director Cameron Crowe has crafted and delivered much more than just another film with this one; far more than a movie, `Vanilla Sky' is a vision realized. Beginning with the first images that appear on screen, he presents a visually stunning experience that is both viscerally and cerebrally affecting. It's a mind-twisting mystery that will swallow you up and sweep you away; emotionally, it's a rush-- and it may leave you exhausted, because it requires some effort to stay with it. But it's worth it.

As to the performances here, those who can't get past the mind-set of Tom Cruise as Maverick in `Top Gun,' or his Ethan Hunt in `Mission Impossible,' or those who perceive him only as a `movie star' rather than an actor, are going to have to think again in light of his work here. Because as David Aames, Cruise gives the best performance of his career, one that should check any doubts as to his ability as an actor at the door. He's made some interesting career choices the past few years, with films like `Magnolia' and `Eyes Wide Shut' merely warm-ups for the very real and complex character he creates here. And give him credit, too, for taking on a role that dispels any sense of vanity; this is Cruise as you've never seen him before. `Jerry Maguire' earned him an Oscar nomination, and this one should, also-- as well as the admiration and acclaim of his peers. Cruise is not just good in this movie, he is remarkable.

Penelope Cruz (Sofia) turns in an outstanding, if not exceptional performance as well, as the woman of David's dreams. There's an alluring innocence she brings to this role that works well for her character and makes her forthcoming and accessible,... Crowe knows how to get the best out of his actors, and he certainly did with Cruz.

* * * * 

"I want to live a real life... I don't want to dream any longer."--David Aames

* * * * 

Life goes on all around you. Open your eyes.

Life, Death, Speed and Passion: Michael Mann's "Ferrari" is a Winner

Adam Driver as Enzo Ferrari

This past week I went to see Michael Mann's latest film without reading the reviews first. Ferrari! I had watched the trailer and knew I needed to see it, having fallen in love with Italy last spring, and being a longtime fan of Penelope Cruz. Being a lifelong racing fan added to my confidence that I would not be disappointed. And I wasn't. 

The film opens with black and white footage of race cars from what must be the 1920s, the camera close up on the grinning face of a young man driving as fast as he can. That smile... exactly the expression on my face the first time I raced in a stock car. We know the man in the film is Enzo Ferrari, who would one day establish Ferrari as one of the most desired brands in the world for its elegance, performance and history. 

This is not, however, a racing film per se. It's a very human story with combustible emotions and tragic flaws. 

Adam Driver is the embodiment of Enzo Ferrari, the fiery founder of the iconic automobile brand, while Penelope Cruz smolders as Laura, his fiercely loving, yet deeply frustrated wife. The film, like a high-octane race across Italian landscapes and tumultuous decades, plunges us into the heart of Ferrari's world, where ambition and passion threaten to consume him.

The film is an exploration of a complex man driven by obsession, though beneath the steely exterior is an inwardly vulnerable human being full of irreconcilable emotions. Driver captures this duality of Enzo Ferrari who is, on one hand, a visionary, pushing the boundaries of automotive engineering and creating coveted symbols of speed and luxury. On the other, he is an obstinate businessman, haunted by the death of his son and consumed by a hunger for validation. 

The problem many people seem to have with this film is not the film itself, because the script by Troy Kennedy Martin and Brock Yates is (in my opinion) flawless. Rather, the problem is that Driver delivers this duality with serious subtlety, conveying both the chilling charisma of a titan and the vulnerability of a man crippled by grief and even fear. He's already lost a son and is on the verge of losing the Ferrari enterprise as well.

Cruz stands tall beside him as Laura, a woman whose resilience and fiery spirit match Ferrari's own. Their relationship is a tempestuous dance of love, defiance, and betrayal, reflecting the emotional toll of life in the fast lane. Their simmering tensions and explosive arguments crackle with raw emotion, highlighting the price of living in the shadow of a legend.

What's amazing is how much of the story is told in the very brief opening scenes. First we see young Enzo racing, then we cut to a morning bedroom. The man is waking, a woman beside him still half asleep. He rises, dresses and we note that the woman is not Penelope Cruz, though we do not yet know who she is. Cut to: Enzo enters his home in Reggio Emilia a moment later his wife Laura enters the room holding a gun, gives him a dressing down and fires a shot past the left of his head. Message is clear: "Do I have your attention? We had an agreement." 

The gun in Laura's hand immediately brought to mind Chehov's rule about guns. Don't bring a gun into the play unless you intend for it to go off. It doesn't take long for Mann (or Laura) to settle that question.

The scene indeed gets your attention, setting up the roiling undercurrent of Ferrari's personal life. In addition to wrestling with the personal crises he's grappling with, he is also being forced to face up to the potential bankruptcy of the Ferrari factory.  

Michael Mann directed the film and I cannot imagine any other setting that would have worked. The story required being filmed on location.  Nothing captures Italy's allure like those sun-drenched Italian landscapes, manicured trees and gleaming race circuits. Mann went out of his way to capture the feel of 1950s Italy, much of it still there today. On my Italy trip I passed through Reggio Emilia where the Ferarri's home was located. At one point I'd hoped to visit the Ferrari factory while being so near, and would have had I known this film was in the works. Alas. 

Though he knew he was on the verge of bankruptcy, he also knew that winning a major race like the thousand mile Mille Miglia would re-ignite interest in the vehicles he was producing, hence the third component of this story. Racing!

Racing has always been a risky business, but it's unbelievable that back in the fifties they didn't have roll cages or any of the safety features we find on today's cars. Ferrari himself understood the game from first hand experience. He'd also lost friends. He knew both the risks and rewards of the sport.

What makes it a near perfect film is the weaving together of these various strands so that the racing sequences, as well as his philosophical admonitions to the drivers, become a metaphor for Ferrari's internal struggles. I look forward to reading the screenplay some day.

Some might say the film is a meditation on the seductive yet destructive nature of obsessions. I think it's more than that, but for sure it does show how greatness has a sometimes soul-crushing cost.

The reviews at imdb.com are mixed. I suspect that in some cases it's due to the expectations people brought to the film. Here are some of them, with the ratings the reviewers offered:

Brilliant characterisation impressively Italian.      10

This film has some serious flaws.      5

7 1/2 stars really… Penelope Cruz was amazing.          8

Not one of Michael Mann’s best movies but still solid.         6

I was expecting more….      5

Stylish biopic with strong characters and great performances.       9

A lot of missed potential.       6

My favorite of the “Ferrari” movies.        8

Very disappointing.       4

A palpable emotional drama.       8

Intense, vibrant and emotional movie.       10

A misfire on all 12 cylinders.       1

One reviewer said the film lingers long after the credits roll. I agree. I've been thinking about it all week. I have but one regret. That I didn't follow through last April on that inner tug to take a day trip to the Ferrari factory in Maranello while staying in Parma. If I could do it all over again I would have added one additional day to that trip of a lifetime.  

MUCH more can be said here, but this is were I sign off. 

Related Links

Where was Ferrari filmed? Uncovering the real Enzo Ferrari in Italy

16 Stories from My Italy Adventure

Saturday Morning A to Z

Artforum (358 pages this month)
Borges
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
Dangerous Trends
Einstein Disguised As Robin Hood
Four Letter Words -- Fork, for example
Giraffes
Howling at the Moon
Indian Summer
Just-In-Time Manufacturing
Kickstarter
Luck
Monsters
Nukes
Open Source Coding
Penelope Cruz
Quickdraw McGraw
Ronnie
SNL
Tesla
Utopian Dreams
Violins
What is your life all about?
Why are you doing what you are doing?
What if...
Xerxes
You can make a difference. Do it.
Zootopia

*  *  *
What does your Saturday morning off-the-top-of-your-head A to Z look like?

Is Elegy a Eulogy for the Sexual Revolultion?

In literature, an elegy is a mournful, melancholic or plaintive poem, especially a funeral song or a lament for the dead.~Wikipedia

From the start we know the film’s theme. The opening scene features the acclaimed author and professor of literature David Kepesh (Ben Kingsley) being interviewed on the Charlie Rose Show talking about a colony down the road from the Puritans that relished sensuality but was ultimately wiped out by the hardline Puritans, their “maypole” cut down. Fortunately, according to Kepesh, the Sixties came along and open sexuality re-surfaced, a glorious time to be celebrated.

This is followed by a private monologue that comes across as honest, challenging and vulnerable, an older man thinking about the waning of his years and his sexuality. His public face is boastful and confident, but privately we see an anxious man. In this manner the film’s theme is established:

I think it was Betty Davis who said old age is not for sissies. But it was Tolstoy who said the biggest surprise in a man's life is old age. Old age sneaks up on you, and the next thing you know you're asking yourself, I'm asking myself, why can't an old man act his real age? How is it possible for me to still be involved in the carnal aspects of the human comedy? Because, in my head, nothing has changed.

As the story unfolds we see a man who has spent a lifetime ritually taking advantage of his power as an authority figure to whisk away the hearts of his various college students over the years, sexually possessing them one by one. For decades he has been the beneficiary, for his own ends, of the “liberation” he has written about.

Elegy is the story of David Kepesh, an aging professor who unexpectedly gets emotionally entangled with his latest conquest, Consuela, a young Cuban student played by Penelope Cruz. And what is potentially a story that is both challenging and enlightening film falters and falls. Why? Because Hollywood, just like David Kepesh, has a habit of treating women as sex objects instead of people.

As one imdb.com reviewer put it, “At times funny and heartbreakingly moving, this movie mostly just makes you think how lazy most men are when it comes to relationships. I found it interesting how even a cultural critic, a man who spends his life looking for deeper meaning in everything, can look at a woman and only see a sex toy.”

Here is a professor of literature, influential enough to be a celebrity, and the most meaningful thing he can say to this young woman is that she has “beautiful breasts”… Oh wait, he says "the most beautiful breasts he has ever seen in his life." What does this say about his values? That women are essentially sex objects and this is his best Barbie doll ever? This is a young woman in a Master's degree program and not once do you here dialogue about political issues or the challenges of post-modern philosophy. We only learn how many boy friends she's had sex with and how many he's bedded.

Where is there any candid discussion about the meaning of life? The film shows a man over-analytical and ever-wrestling with self-doubt, hope and despair. But where is the character development in Consuela? She doesn’t want to be like her parents. She likes his piano playing. She wants to travel, but that's about it.

THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS

There are additional characters in the film worth noting, especially George O'Hairn, a Pulitzer Prize-winning confidant played by Dennis Hopper. Hopper is very good in the role of confidant and sounding board. Later we meet his son who is now wrestling with a rough spot in his own marriage. And then there is Carolyn (Patricia Claskson) , whose strictly sexual relationship with Kepesh has been ongoing for twenty years, following their youthful ideal of sexual freedom unencumbered by emotional ties or responsibilities. Except you can see by Kingsley's behavior that this has begun to bore him. And then later we see that she is extremely jealous when she finds evidence that another woman has been sleeping with him, which he lies about.

For some reason, all of David Kepesh’s decisions put me on edge, and it is very possible this is the director’s intent. Kepesh, whom many young men might aspire to be, is not really a role model at all.

The film flips through time into a fast forward. His relationship with Consuela has extended far beyond his usual trysts and eighteen months into it she continues to invite him to be part of her life, wanting him to meet her family, to be a person. He has already declined at Thanksgiving and Christmas and now there is a large family gathering he finally conceded to go to and he struggles to find an excuse once more. He lies and she sees through and it’s annoying.

The movie has a surprise twist at the end which the screenwriter probably meant as a justification for focusing on Consuela's breasts earlier on, but it doesn't work. The overall effect is one more depressing layer of story.

To their credit, the acting is fine throughout and the film itself is first rate. But there is a humorlessness that makes it maudlin, though again, this may well be intentional because times have changed for David Kepesh and his ilk. The university posts a sexual harassment hotline number right down the hall from his classroom and as important as he is he'd experience serious consequences if he bedded the girls in his class the way he used to. In this regard the film has a measure of integrity that is noteworthy.

The movie is based on the The Dying Animal, a novel by award-winning author Philip Roth who has a reputation for making readers uncomfortable with his candor regarding sexual themes like promiscuity and lust. So it is not surprising that this film makes us uncomfortable as well. Was the sexual revolution a good thing? For a season it was very good for David Kepesh and his friend George O'Hairn. Kingsley does an excellent job of showing that even when the stars align, the thrill can be gone.