Interesting Directors Should Stay Away from Stephenie Meyer

The Host...a Stephenie Mey-- I mean, Andrew Niccol film.

The Host comes out on Friday, and I'm sure the readers of the young adult (YA) novel it is based on would watch it if it was directed by anybody.  Why, then, is it directed by Andrew Niccol, the man behind Gattaca, Lord of War, and The Truman Show (he wrote the screenplay)?  Niccol is an interesting director; a filmmaker who is capable of creating worlds and compelling stories.  Wouldn't it be better if he devoted his time to a more serious film and left this YA stuff to a journeyman director?

Sure, The Host might not be terrible.  Honestly, based on the trailer, I think it looks like a step up from the Twilight series.  But both properties are based on books by Stephenie Meyer.  This means that it is probably intended for screaming tween girls, and it will be watched by those girls no matter what (although I'm not picking up any Twilight-like buzz about this one).  The premise of the story, humans taken over by aliens, seems par for the course for Niccol, so maybe his decision to direct isn't too nefarious.  But still, there's bound to be some other, better property out there that he could have attached himself to.  This isn't a one time problem, either.  This has been going on for a while.

It all started with Twilight (or T1, as I'll call it).  Catherine Hardwicke dropped all of her indie cred to make that (shudder) hugely popular film.  She had been making movies like 13 and Lords of Dogtown.  Those movies are for and about younger people, too, but they are infinitely more interesting than Twilight, which was a series mainly devoted to the question of which boy the main character would choose.  Hardwicke would've been a fine choice if she had decided to put her stamp on the series and stay with it for the long haul.  But she stopped after one film and her career looks less and less interesting each day.  Plus, the film she made looked like it was made by a directing program rather than a human. 

T2 took away director Chris Weitz.  I found his installment to be the best of the series, but only because I liked a montage featuring a Thom Yorke song (and who knows how much he had to do with that, anyway).  There was nothing that different between that film and the first, though.  Weitz had made American Pie and About a Boy before this.  He is capable of better things, evidenced by his latest film, A Better Life.  He rebounded nicely, but he never should have jumped on the Twilight train.

T3 stole David Slade from us.  He had directed Hard Candy and 30 Days of Night.  Oh, and he also claimed to hate the series and wouldn't even watch it at "gun point."  This is the perfect example of how directors will sometimes take a money job instead of attempting to produce original work.  Slade, of course, issued a statement claiming it was just a joke and he eventually came to love the series, but that was just damage control.  He wanted money for a high profile job.  And what did he do?  He churned out another film in the series that is utterly indistinguishable from the rest.  Most infuriating of all?  He had made a hard-R vampire film before in which the vampires were vicious monsters.  He goes from predatory beasts to shiny, porcelain-skinned wimps? 

Give me...$2 million.

Make that...$4 million.

The fourth installment of the film was actually divided into two for the now obligatory cash grab established by the Harry Potter series.  Bill Condon inexplicably directed the last "two" films.  Condon had previously directed Gods & Monsters and Kinsey.  Not exactly the background one would expect for a director meant to tackle the most action-heavy installment of the series.  To his credit, the action isn't terrible, and the films are sort of coherent.  But, once again, there is nothing about these films that set them apart from the rest. 

That is my biggest complaint about all of this.  These directors have all made films that show a bit of style on their part.  Why, then, would they latch on to this banal series that was only meant to please the already-crazed fans?  I know that the simple answer is money, and that it most likely the correct answer.  But why didn't they attempt to make these films their own?  There are many ways to tell a story visually, but they all just went the same plain route.  Were their hands that tied?  Or are these directors so artistically dead inside that they would take a job for a paycheck and make no attempt to attach their signature to the film?  How do you make some artistically valuable work, then turn around and jump for the money? 

This sorry trend continues with The Host, but hopefully that film turns out to be more like an Andrew Niccol film and less like a Stephenie Meyer adaptation.  It is possible for this to happen.  Just look at the Harry Potter series.  The first films were directed by the boring Chris Columbus.  There was a built in audience, and the producers just wanted a cookie-cutter adaptation to bring in the kids.  Then, as the series and audience grew older, they brought in some actual talent with Alfonso Cuaron, which set the darker and more entertaining tone for the rest of the series.  Twilight never had its Cuaron moment.  This is why the Potter films will be fondly remembered for years to come, and the Twilight films will probably be remade in five years. 

 

I don't care that the Twilight films are plain.  They're not intended for me, anyway.  I just wish the producers would stop hiring interesting directors and that the interesting directors who do get asked would start turning them down.  It is possible for a crappy YA series to hire the boring directors that the source material deserves.  D. J. Caruso directed I Am Number Four, Daniel Barnz directed Beastly, Stefan Fangmeier directed Eragon, and Richard LaGravenese directed Beautiful Creatures.  Sure, none of those films reached the popularity of Twilight, but the directors played no role in their demise because they were all just journeymen directors there to do a job and move on.  At least those series had the decency to stay away from the talented directors.

It looks like that other giant franchise, The Hunger Games, has taken notes.  Plain director Gary Ross isn't returning for the next installment.  But they didn't go fishing for an over-qualified director.  Instead, they've hired Francis Lawrence to direct the rest of the series.  Is Lawrence a bit of a name?  I guess.  But he isn't interesting enough to get upset about.  I'm sure he'll do an adequate job, the kids will be happy, and then everyone can move on.  Hopefully the producers of the next Stephenie Meyer adaptation are taking notes... 

Hey guys, mind if I just kind of hang out for three movies while you play your Hunger Games?

 

"In Time"

In Time - Written, produced, and directed by Andrew Niccol, starring Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried, and Cillian Murphy - Rated PG-13

In Time has an interesting world and premise, it just isn't deep enough.

Sci-fi movies usually contain some kind of commentary on present day affairs, and In Time is no different. With the Occupy Wall Street movement going on it is impossible not to notice the similarities between the sci-fi world created in writer/producer/director Andrew Niccol’s film and our own. Commentary aside, “In Time” is a serviceable thriller that proves, if nothing else, that Justin Timberlake can handle a leading role.

In Time takes place in an alternate reality in which humans are genetically engineered to stop aging at 25. Once they turn 25, a clock on their forearm starts counting down from 1 year; once it runs out, they die. So the people work not for money, but for more time. Basically, it’s like our world, but time is literally money. Since time is money that means there are the poor people, living day to day and there are the rich people who are, barring an accident, immortal. The world is divided up into “time zones” which keep the rich separated from the poor.

The concept of In Time is easily comparable to present times as people are protesting the financial sector as they struggle to make ends meet while a small percentage of the population owns the majority of the wealth. This film is an exaggeration of that scenario in that the poor masses are dying because of the rich few. Some timely social commentary is fine in a sci-fi film, but this one stretched imagination. The world of In Time isn’t controlled by the military or anything yet the people just shuffle along like sheep, struggling to earn a few hours each day. It just seems like this world couldn’t sustain itself because the poor should be rebelling. We are talking about a country that once rebelled because of taxation. Are we supposed to believe that this same group of people wouldn’t rebel when their lives were at risk on a daily basis? But this is a sci-fi movie and suspension of disbelief is required for enjoyment, but a good film should have more answers.

Will Salas (Timberlake) is one of the people scraping by, trying to provide for himself and also keep his mother (an underused Olivia Wilde) alive. Things change for Will when a bored immortal decides to die and leaves Will over a century worth of life. This allows Will to mix it up with the rich crowd and he decides to change the world, one minute at a time. Giving time to the poor, however, doesn’t sit well with the bankers and Will is forced to spend his time on the run with Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried), the daughter of one of the richest men in the world.

In Time is essentially a chase film with most of the characters constantly on the run, by foot and car. As far as that goes, the film is mediocre. The chase sequences aren’t that interesting or suspenseful. A couple of the car chases have some flair, but as an action film, there isn’t much here, although Timberlake does get a pretty decent hero moment.

This is a film that strives more on the world of the film. Niccol has made some films that have very defined worlds in Lord of War and Gattaca. The setting of In Time is just as interesting as those worlds; it is not as clearly defined, though. Aside from a bit of opening narration, the how and why of the world is left up to the audience to figure out. That’s fine, as it is nice to let the audience think about something on occasion rather than just be told about it. The problem with In Time is that there isn’t enough info to let the audience figure it out. For example, here are some questions you might have leaving the theatre: So all diseases have been wiped out? What’s the policy concerning pregnancy? Where does the time come from? Who is in charge of the government? Why are electric cars around but people still use pay phones?

In other words, In Time doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. With a high concept sci-fi movie, that’s not a terrible issue for a film to have, but it is an issue nonetheless. The world is still very interesting and is the highlight of the film, but it’s not fully realized. Some of the questions are just too hard to ignore. Take the time keeper (policeman) Raymond (Cillian Murphy). He is much more interesting than Will, but he’s relegated to a slightly villainous role. We never get to know who he answers to, though. The bank owners don’t control him because he threatens to arrest one of them, yet he still has an unseen boss. Plus, he seems like a conflicted man, yet we never see what he does off duty. Just like the setting, you’re left wanting more.

In Time is a harmless enough movie that should entertain. The gimmick of the concept is interesting enough to sustain the running time of the film, even if it is kind of flimsy once you start to think about it. It’s really a shame. In Time is a decent movie that could have been something special if it left the viewer with more answers than questions.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Amanda Seyfried was apparently hired just for her wide-eyed stare. She spends her first dozen scenes just staring lustily at Timberlake. I can understand one, maybe two scenes like that, but this movie goes into overkill with it.

Why even cast Olivia Wilde? It’s not as if she’s an unsubstantial actress these days since she’s had some major roles. Why relegate her to what is essentially a cameo role, especially when 90% of her scenes are shown in the trailer?

Vincent Kartheiser is perfectly cast. I know he’s just doing his “Mad Men” thing here, but it’s exactly what is needed for the role.

The Johnny Galecki subplot was laughable. So Timberlake gives him a decade, fine. Then he looks at the bar after Timberlake leaves. Ha ha, he gets time and the first thing he does is start partying; what a wacky friend! Then we find out later that he went on a bender that killed him? What? I can kind of see why they killed the character off, but why kill him off after his last scene was slightly comedic. And if that last scene he was in wasn’t meant to be comedic, then the filmmakers should’ve gone to greater lengths to show that the guy had a serious problem. If they still needed him dead, just point out the fact that having a decade in that part of town will get you mugged/killed.

Finally, isn’t Weis right about the world when he says they can only mess it up for a generation or two? I think so. Ultimately this is a pointless film because the change they bring is fleeting. Even if they do somehow topple the time system, guess what comes next? A currency system and then they’ll be in the same boat all over again. This film is a borderline Communist fantasy that didn’t attempt to realistically look at what might happen to the world it takes place in. Of course, all of this could have been avoided had they just explained who was in charge of it all. Maybe they were afraid to go the Matrix route and peek behind the curtain. But why create a world if you don’t plan on fully investigating it?