 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
ivansxtc. (To Live and Die in Hollywood)
TIFF [2000]
(United Kingdom, 2000) 90 minutes
Cast: Danny Huston, Lisa Enos, Peter Weller, Joanne Duckman
Written by Bernard Rose and Lisa Enos
Based on the novella "The Death Of Ivan Ilych" by Leo Tolstoy
Directed by Bernard RoseTHE STORY:
Media Talent Agency hotshot agent Ivan Beckman is found dead in his Hollywood mansion of apparent "cancer", but his industry cohorts, including action star Don West and fellow agent/part-time lover Charlotte White know better. Through flashbacks, the sordid history of Beckman is spun, from his extravagant spending sprees, casual sexual escapades, callous abuse of his family's tolerance, vicious business practices, and fatally irresponsible use of drugs. Ultimately, Beckman is seen as a tragic figure, a man who thought he could have it both ways, but was ultimately devoured by his own insatiable appetites.
ROBERT L'S REVIEW:
Well-acted but rather pointless fable warning, yet again, against the evils of the Hollywood.
A long time fan of the versatile UK filmmaker Bernard Rose (you probably know him best for "Candyman" and "Immortal Beloved"), I was disappointed at this well-acted (esp. by director Danny Huston as Ivan, who slips into his father John's voice from time to time), but rather pointless fable warning, yet again, against the evils of the Hollywood. So actors are overgrown, pampered children, screenwriters are needy hacks, and agents are parasitical yes-men (and women)? And even a private funeral becomes a meeting place for cutting deals and spinning PR for the trades? I'm sure much of the adaptation is semi-autobiographical on Rose's part, but weren't these observations covered eons ago in "The Bad And The Beautiful" and "The Player"?
I've chosen to focus on "ivansxtc" not for its strength as a movie, but for its supposed significance in ushering in a potential breakthrough in motion picture production and projection technology. Allegedly the first feature totally created and screened through digital video ("The Blair Witch Project" and "Timecode" were shot on video but transferred to film) with a tiny crew and meager budget, "ivansxtc" was reasonably sharp and clear from my second row seat in the rather sizeable Varsity 2 cinema. But the effect, overall, was one of watching an insanely huge television show shot on tape. Unlike film, digital video still doesn't have the contrast range, colour spectrum, or edge clarity that can be capture in millions of pixels on emulsion. Headlights and flourescents burn into the shot, skin tones compete with background detail, and anything captured in low light practicals or shadows turns to visual mud.
"Film Is Dead", announces Enos/Rose Productions' homepage. A tad presumptuous, if what I saw that Tuesday evening was any indication. Rose hoped that digital video would add more of an immediacy to the events, since small, hand-held camcorders can get in and out of places that large 35mm Panavision cameras cannot. Well, that might be true, but so what? Why not stick with film and just knock out a wall or dolly in closer--I was so distracted by the current limits of the technology that I was often taken OUT of the movie every time the exposure shut down like in one of my family Thanksgiving videos or the slightest hand jitter sent the frame shaking like LA was experiencing another tremor.
Apparently, Lucasfilm is employing the identical technology for "Star Wars®: Episode 2" (accounting for Rose being unable to score enough cameras some days), but I sincerely hope Lucas is considering a film transfer. No matter how ambitious its themes and unconventional its narrative, "ivansxtc" looked less like a movie and more like a widescreen episode of "As The World Turns", and suffered for it. Dogma 95 be damned, there are still some things only the traditional theatrical film experience can give us.
Talk Back
In the News:
 :
 |
Vote |
Movie Forum Site Home
Movie Message
Board Movie Chat
Rooms Movie Forum Site Map
