There are no spoilers in this review.PLOT: A team of investigative reporters work alongside a police detective to try to solve the murder of a congressman's mistress.
THE GOOD: Dialogue. Fantastic writing crew brought together a marvelous script for State of Play with natural-sounding dialogue. There's one particular scene that stands out in my mind as being a great example of a well-written conversation that feels real. That's the scene between Russell Crowe and Robin Wright Penn when they are in his apartment talking. Great words spoken all around in this film thanks to the beautiful minds of Matthew Michael Carnahan, Tony Gilroy, and Billy Ray.
Story. Paul Abbott is mainly responsible for coming up with this brilliant story as the movie is adapted from a 2003 critically-acclaimed BBC mini-series. I have not seen the original TV show and I've heard that the film does quite a good job at condensing the six-hour series into a two hour film, but it's not as exceptional. Still, based on 178 reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes, State Of Play currently has an 85% approval rating.
Kevin Macdonald. The whole time I was watching the movie, I kept thinking I was watching a Ridley Scott criminal drama. Maybe I'm so used to seeing Crowe working with Scott, but Macdonald has certainly taken some of the best aspects of movies like Body of Lies, Matchstick Men, and American Gangster and applied them to his film. However, it's plenty different enough to call it his own. He turns the pursuit of information into a suspenseful endeavor in State of Play.
Cinematography. Bravo to Oscar nominated DOP Rodrigo Prieto who has worked on such gems like 25th Hour, 21 Grams, Brokeback Mountain, and Babel. Scenes involving the media aspect of the movie were shot in the anamorphic format on 35 mm film, while scenes focusing on the world of politics were shot in high-definition video with the Panavision Genesis digital video camera. Using these two different filming techniques brings different feelings to a lot of the scenes.
Pacing. State of Play is a slow movie, but it's completely deliberate. It takes its time setting up the story, showing us these fascinating characters, and building up the tension for the climax.
Acting. There aren't any breakthrough performances in this film, but the cast is certainly made up of experts. Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams, Helen Mirren, Robin Wright Penn, and Jeff Daniels are the biggest stars in the movie. I didn't know Jason Bateman was in the film, so I was pleasantly surprised to see him come in. He plays a character I've never seen him do before. It was great. Fine acting all around.
THE BAD: Conclusion. The way the film concludes was not the best way they could have done it. I feel like they forgot to tie a lot of loose ends.
Twist. You see the twist coming a mile away. I partially blame the trailer for that as it does sort of ruins it for you. I won't say more.
Re-watachability. Because of the simple twist and the way the film concludes, there really isn't much of a reason for me to see the movie again. It's sort of a one-time viewing thing. It's like a season of 24.
THE END: State of Play is one of the better movies that I've seen so far this year. It shows us the sometimes poisonous relationship between the media and politicians. It raises questions about whether a person would be justified in doing an awful thing if they were performing great deeds in other areas of their life (see last year's Doubt for another great example of this). Ultimately, it's fine film making and story telling that makes it earn my praise. The marketing for the film has been terrible, but it's hard to promote a film like this which isn't very flashy. I say catch this one during a matinee show or at the cheap theatres.
DISCUSS: What did you think of State of Play? How does it compare to the British TV series? Who would you have liked to see star in the film besides Crowe, Affleck, and McAdams? How many times could you re-watch this film?
I must say that I'm surprised that the movie version has been received so well. Not that Kevin MacDonald is a bad director (TLKOS was amazing) or Crowe, Mirren and Affleck are bad actors, just that the TV show was so brilliant (and with a cast including John Simm [the UK Life on Mars] as Cal, David Morrissey as the politician, Bill Nighy as the editor and James McAvoy as the rookie reporter how could it NOT be). I'll see it eventually and I'm sure I'll like it. Somewhat.
ReplyDeleteInteresting about the cinematography, too. I'm curious to see just how effective it will be. Hopefully it'll be similarly effective as Traffic, where Soderbergh used cold, blue-tinted shots for Michael Douglas' politician scenes, grainy yellow-filtered shots for Benicio Del Toro's Mexican scenes and digital full-color camerawork for the Don Cheadle/Luis Guzman scenes.
You should see the TV show, though, directed by the man who EVERYONE thinks is talented but you. And Bethany.
I think you'll like the movie, but you're probably a purist and will say that the TV series is better. I wouldn't blame you. The story, which remains unchanged for the most part, is absolutely fantastic. I cannot give Abbott enough praise for this.
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt that Yates can direct good TV shows and made for TV movies. It's an art form that requires less creativity. Big-budget films is where he fails. My hopes are high for Half-Blood Prince. It better be good.
I'm sure it'll be good. Even though we differ on his talent (I would argue that not relying on a big budget or effects-driven films requires even MORE creativity), I think HBP, as the best book in the series IMO, cannot fail to be awesome by anyone's standards.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that the big budget is what he needs to make a good movie, just that the medium of film is not his forte.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to TV movies such as those made by the BBC and HBO, for example, there's no difference between them and their big-screen counterparts.
ReplyDeleteCan you explain, in technical terms, the difference between a TV movie from the BBC/HBO/Showtime, etc. (I'm not talking about CBS/NBC TV movies, for example, where directors/writers are hindered by budget constraints, commercial breaks, network interference, etc.) and a cinematic release? Probably not, because there really is no difference.
I have no idea if Yates is a good director or not- I'll leave all the technical, film-making debating to you two yahoos, I just know OOTP sucked donkey a$$ (now, you can't prove that).
ReplyDeleteThere are many ways that TV movies from premium channels differ from theatrical releases. The biggest difference that I see between the two is how much time is spent on production. TV movies are usually made a lot faster. There's not as much media to use (whether that be film, tape, or digital), so you cannot have so many takes. When Yates stepped into the Harry Potter world, he forgot how much time he had to make something just right. It's okay to have 100 takes, it's okay to re-work a scene, it's okay to edit some captures around. He got lazy and it felt like he used the best of the worst he had when he could have gotten much better source material. Push the actors a little more, get that scene just right, and spend hours on it in post-production. It's your freakin' movie and the studio can wait.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing is TV movies typically start out being produced by independent production companies. These companies are out to do one thing and that's hit it big. They get their greedy little hands on the film and show it off to big distribution studios however they want to. These independent companies first hope to sell their films to the big boys like Warner Bros., Universal, 20th Century Fox, etc., but if there are no takers, which is usually a sign of a poorly made film or a bad performance at a film festival, a premium or cable channel can choose to pick it up. Now, a movie like The Girl in the Café may win an Emmy Award for a TV film, but would it stack up against any of the Best Picture nominees for the Oscars? No.
A good movie has to have story and vision. I find that a lot of made for TV movies lack one or the other, or both no matter what. Some directors have it. Others don't. Yates has yet to prove he has it for me.
Look, I love Jack Bender, Deran Sarafian, Stephen Williams, Greg Yaitanes, Greg Beeman, Allan Arkush, and Frederick E.O. Toye as TV directors, but do I think they should make movies? No. Will I give David Yates another shot? I have no choice. Could I one day admit that he's grown as a successful film director? Absolutely. Directors learn and gain experience over time. Some make good use of it (J.J. Abrams), and others don't (Uwe Boll). I'm not going to fall all over Yates just because he's been successful on TV, or because he's a Brit, or because he's directed a Harry Potter movie that earned a lot of money (Twilight earned a butt-load of cash, but do I think Catherine Hardwicke directed it well? Heck no.). Prisoner of Azkaban is still the best HP film (even according to IMDb user ratings and Rotten Tomatoes) and Order of the Phoenix is still the worst rated and reviewed to date and I believe it's because one of the only differences between the two productions are the directors.
(Typed this up really fast and not re-reading it because I GTG.)
You have a lot of reasons, but no evidence for any of them.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "When Yates stepped into the Harry Potter world, he forgot how much time he had to make something just right. It's okay to have 100 takes, it's okay to re-work a scene, it's okay to edit some captures around. He got lazy and it felt like he used the best of the worst he had when he could have gotten much better source material."
He got "lazy"??!! He "forgot how much time he had"??!! How do you know? Were you on set? Do you have any EVIDENCE (in the form of say, testimonials from the cast/crew) that this was the case?
Your line of reasoning that most cinema releases take longer to shoot and are generally better for it holds no water. Taking a lot of time/many takes does not always a great movie make. While auteurs like Kubrick (admittedly one of my favorite directors ever) and Bertolucci are famous for taking forever to shoot a film and also for the number of takes, there are just as many critically-lauded, award-laden filmakers who shoot quickly with very few takes: Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar, Michael Winterbottom to name but few.
You wrote "Another thing is TV movies typically start out being produced by independent production companies. These companies are out to do one thing and that's hit it big. They get their greedy little hands on the film and show it off to big distribution studios however they want to. These independent companies first hope to sell their films to the big boys like Warner Bros., Universal, 20th Century Fox, etc., but if there are no takers, which is usually a sign of a poorly made film or a bad performance at a film festival, a premium or cable channel can choose to pick it up".
This simply is not always true. Some directors CHOOSE to work with HBO or the BBC because they're allowed a much greater creative freedom to make the film they want to make, without having to cowtow to the studio, or plan for opening weekends, or censor their movie for the MPAA.
You wrote "A good movie has to have story and vision. I find that a lot of made for TV movies lack one or the other, or both no matter what".
If you truly think this, I can only assume you don't have much experience with TV movies. In fact, would I be right in saying you haven't seen ANY (with the possible exception of BoB) of the TV movies I mention below?
Some TV movies that critics have regarded as among the best of that year's films - cinematic or otherwise: The Last Seduction, The Life and Death of Peter Sellers, Dear Zachary, The Gathering Storm, The Red Riding Trilogy, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, Elizabeth I (the one with Helen Mirren), Band of Brothers, Maria Full of Grace, the Devil's Whore.
I guess my whole point is that I get you don't like OOTP. I get that you blame the director for not liking it and I get that you're wary of the job he'll do on HBP.
But saying he's a bad director based on one film is folly (I think Bethany said it best when she wrote "I have no idea if Yates is a good director or not" which is a far fairer statement) and saying that cinematic releases are better than HBO/BBC/Showtime movies (I don't say TV movies becasue let's face it, Hallmark and Lifetime make TERRIBLE TV movies), is, as I think I've shown, simply not true.
You can't come up with an idea and then pass it off as fact like "he got lazy" or the longer a movie takes to shoot, the better it is (ahem, Heaven's Gate, anyone?) or directors only release their films to TV networks like HBO because the studios passed on them. All simply not true.
Oh I DO enjoy our debates! Especially when you get (in your young, internet parlance) pwned!
Funny... I don't feel pwned.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence for Yates' laziness is the final product of Order of the Phoenix, plain and simple. In no way was I suggesting that the longer a movie takes to get made, the better it is going to be. I'm just telling you about the technical environment these directors are in and how I think it negatively affected Yates' style of directing which is, well, made-for-TV.
"This simply is not always true." I never said it is always true. I said "typically". More words being put in my mouth. It's common knowledge that indie companies are trying to hit it big, especially among directors and producers who have a hand in it. "Some directors CHOOSE to work with HBO or the BBC because..." blah blah blah. You all-capped the wrong word. Should say "SOME directors choose..." I can agree to that statement. I'm sure there are SOME people who would rather work with a TV channel from the beginning.
I think you are the one who is lacking good evidence. You're right in claiming that I haven't seen very many of those "TV movies". But, I did some research on a few of them to prove my points. The Last Seduction was distributed by October Films, a U.S. independent film company who eventually merged with Good Machine to form Focus Features. I'm sure you've heard of them. TLS is NOT an original HBO movie. Dear Zachary was distributed by indie company Oscilloscope Pictures and was shown at Slamdance before being purchased by MSNBC. I'm sure it was Oscilloscope's dream to work with MSNBC one day, huh? Red Riding: 1974, 1980, and 1983 were produced by London independent production company Revolution Films before Channel Four and IFC Films bought the rights to air and distribute them. Three examples are enough as you should be seeing a trend. You mean to tell me that all these indie companies that I mentioned weren't hoping for a major studio to distribute their film for them? That they had intended to show their film on TV the entire time? Even the producers I work with (who generally can't agree with me when it comes to other topics like sports and politics) side with me. Money. It's the way this world works.
"...saying that cinematic releases are better than HBO/BBC/Showtime movies, is, as I think I've shown, simply not true." I'm not saying that cinematic releases are better than premium channel movies, just that it's easier for a director to make a movie for HBO or BBC than it is to make one for Universal or 20th Century Fox. Expectations aren't as high.
Nothing in your latest response changes my mind at all about Yates. It's not because I'm being stubborn, but rather you being unable to prove to me that Yates can make a good theatrical movie. Why did he not push Rowling into working with Michael Goldenberg on the script like she did with Kloves? To me, having the original author around the set would be absolutely vital. His obsession with bringing on crew that he's worked with in the past instead of working with people who have already worked on the previous four films is another weakness. Radcliffe still says that Cuaron was his favorite director to work with in a recent Inside the Actor's Studio because of how hard he pushed the kids. And finally, Yates is great at telling a story, but not showing it. Instead of being told what is happening in the scene, I'd rather just see it. Scenes were connected together through words instead of actions.
And let me remind you that Warner Bros. has moved back the film. Their excuse is a bigger opening in the summer, but I think that's BS. Just my little conspiracy theory. The final trailer still looks incredible, but it could be just the editing.
And that, good sir, is how you serve up some tasty pwnage.
Ahhh! Home from work, finally. Now for some more whoop-ass!
ReplyDeleteThe very fact that you're oblivious (as usual) to not only an opposing view to your own, but that you're oblivious to the fact that you were, indeed, pwned doesn't surprise me.
OK, point-by-point.
"The evidence for Yates' laziness is the final product of Order of the Phoenix, plain and simple."
There is no EVIDENCE. There is only your opinion that you didn't like the movie. I'll say it again (in case you missed it first time 'round) show me one testimonial by someone who worked on the film of Yates' "laziness" or unwillingness to, as you say, do as many takes as was needed to get it right.
"You all-capped the wrong word. Should say 'SOME directors choose...' I can agree to that statement. I'm sure there are SOME people who would rather work with a TV channel from the beginning."
No, I all-capped the right word. Putting an emphasis on the word "some" makes no sense. The point of my statement was that some directors make a choice to shoot for TV...and some CHOOSE not to.
Out of all the films mentioned above, you chose to only mention three. So I guess I was spot-on with my analysis of ALL the others as made-for-TV movies, huh?
OK, so to the three you mention. I NEVER said that TLS was made by HBO (now who's putting words into whose mouth?). I said it was a "TV movie" that was critically-lauded. Please feel free to show me ANY evidence that says it was not intended to premiere on pay-cable TV.
I submit that Dear Zachary premiered at Slamdance before being picked-up by MSNBC Films. And I also submit that director Kurt Kuenne MAY have intended it to recieve a theatrical release first. It did, though, receive its' premiere on MSNBC and nowhere does Kuenne actually say his intention was to premiere his movie in theaters FIRST. In this case, NEITHER of us has any concrete evidence.
But where you REALLY screwed up was in mentioning the Red Riding trilogy. The films were made BY channel 4 FOR channel 4 in the UK. According to trade paper the Hollywood Reporter: "The Rainbow Media unit announced its second buy of the Festival de Cannes on Thursday, saying it had picked up the three-in-one uber-feature 'Red Riding Trilogy', which is being sold in the Cannes market. The ambitious project, [the following all caps are mine] WHICH WAS FINANCED BY AND HAS AIRED ON CHANNEL 4 IN BRITAIN..." and here's the link: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i3e5aa5e0b30aa48ee2f5be3c001b2aa0.
I have a feeling that even in the face of the above overwhelming evidence, you won't admit you were wrong in claiming Red Riding was not a TV movie.
You say "Expectations aren't as high." in reference to TV versus theatrical movies. Once again, says who? You? And your job within the film industry would be?
If it's your opinion, then say so. Don't just try to make a grand pronouncement as if it's universally accepted fact/opinion.
Do you know how ridiculous you sound when you write "Nothing in your latest response changes my mind at all about Yates. It's not because I'm being stubborn, but rather you being unable to prove to me that Yates can make a good theatrical movie."?
I'm not trying to change your mind about Yates or make you like OOTP. My point is (and has been) that your pronouncement (again) that he's not a good movie director simply doesn't hold water. He's made ONE theatrical release. No-one can say he's good OR bad based on one release. One can certainly have an opinion (and mine is a little more grounded in reality than yours because I have at least seen TWO of his works, whereas you have seen merely one), but that's all. And I have never tried to "prove" anything to you about Yates' ability to make a theatrical movie. I have simply stated that I thought both State of Play and OOTP were great and I think he did a good job on both of them.
As for WB's decision to move the film? Who knows. We can speculate but THAT'S ALL. Their moving the release certainly doesn't lend your "argument" (if you can call it that) any more or less weight.
And since I'm in the mood for quoting you I'll leave you with this: "And that, good sir, is how you serve up some tasty pwnage."
(C'mon. You KNOW you can't and never have beaten me in a movie argument, mofo! Your breadth of movie knowledge just doesn't compare!!!)
"C'mon. You KNOW you can't and never have beaten me in a movie argument, mofo! Your breadth of movie knowledge just doesn't compare!!!" This coming from a man who couldn't tell that the Fantastic Four movies looked like rubbish from the trailers.
ReplyDeleteLook, we seem to be putting up the same points back and forth and words inexplicably keep getting put in my mouth (I admit that I was wrong about the RR trilogy being produced before Channel 4 bought them, but I never said that it was not a made for TV movie. This is something I misread, but my whole point behind that paragraph was to show how these production companies are financially motivated. Proof being Channel 4's exclusive first-look deal with Revolution Films.), so I'm not going to bother with a long point-by-point reply. I still feel the same way as my last response. And your responses on the other two TV movies that I randomly chose out of your list further strengthens my take on the matter. I think you missed my point entirely.
As of right now, Yates is a bad film director. He can become better. That's the best I'm going to be able to do for you.
Take the last word if you must. I gotta go write my Star Trek review. Later.
You will TOTALLY never let me live down my FF excitement..it's your secret weapon, my kryptonite, your ace in the hole, etc. I STILL think FF2 LOOKED good, but you're right, it was shite with a capital SH.
ReplyDeleteOK last word. Had you just said "Yates is a bad film director...IN MY OPINION" I would really have nothing to say other than I think you're wrong. But to pronounce him as lazy or not presumably taking the time to shoot many takes to "get it right" is at best pure conjecture or at worst just something you pulled out your ass. As of right now, you cannot say he is a bad OR good director, only that you didn't like the job he did on OOTP, the one (ONE!) work of his you've seen.
I guess I'll end on a recurring point from my posts. I think you make pronouncements as if they are fact when really they're just your opinions. This has always been my problem with your analysis of Yates as a director.