An Uneducated Guess
So, after the recent release of Scorsese's After Hours (1985) on DVD, I was suddenly hit upon by an interesting 3-way comparison. Two other films: John Landis' Into the Night (1985) and Jonathan Demme's Something Wild (1986), bare more than a passing resemblance to one another.
First off, out of the three, Scorsese's picture definitely stands out the most, and not just because of the recognition it recieved at Cannes. It was one of his earlier "experimental" efforts (if you're not counting Taxi Driver and Raging Bull) and his second departure into the realm of black comedy (being his immediate follow-up to The King of Comedy). Scorsese helped define this style of personal/micro-cosmic film making (Mean streets, Goodfellas) that eventually everyone would end up riffing-off of including Speilberg, who I personally think would not have ended up making such non-fantasy films as Empire Of the Sun, or even Saving Private Ryan if it hadn't been for this interest in more honest real-life story-telling. He would have just ended up recycling the same old E.T. and Always fairy-tale formulas. Hell, even Jaws is a fairy-tale! What's even more interesting, is that Speilberg has now taken an even more obvious Scorsese-like turn with The Terminal, a small, character-driven "personal" film that's exactly like the films Scorsese has been doing in-between his more rigorous studio epics. For every New York, New York, there's a Color Of Money or Last Temptation Of Christ; for every Cape Fear, there's an Age Of Innocence; for every Casino, there's a Bringing Out the Dead. Now we look to Scorsese for inspiration, while He may be looking back even further for the origins of his style. Without a passion for Cassavettes and De Sica and the Italian neo-realists (who specialized in making honest little character-driven films), there would never have been a Mean Streets, and Scorsese's constant striving for keeping fresh by doing these smaller projects is a true testament to his authority and greatness as an artist.
So, maybe with the exception of Kundun, After Hours stands out as being one of the least-Scorsese like films of his whole career. I think the main reason is for it's episodic structure and heavy reliance on farce. Watching this movie really does feel like witnessing someone spray-paint graffiti all over a subway wall. It's edgy, refreshing and maybe even a little bit sophomoric. Also, maybe with the exception of his brilliant and most under-rated work, Life Lessons from New York Stories, no other Scorsese film would feel more like the Big Apple than this (not even the troubled New York, New York or Gangs of New York, as the titles imply). But don't get me wrong, although I may enjoy watching After Hours, in the end, I feel that it's weaknesses outweigh it's strengths. Part of this may be due to the insertion of so many passing characters and cameo appearances (such as by then popular cult icons Cheech and Chong) that distract more than amuse. So why then does it succeed? It's real and it's unpretentious. It is exactly what it is, and I don't think Scorsese cares in the end what you think! That's why.
So that brings me to Into the Night, released the same year, and directed by John Landis. After starting out directing such silly nonsense as Schlock and Kentucky Fried Movie, it's amazing that Landis would go on to helm such contemporary classics as Animal House, (the brilliant) Blues Brothers and An American Werewolf In London. In 1983 he would make two films that would have more of an impact on him than any other. The first, was Trading Places. For some reason, this film has grown to become such an iconic film over the years. Despite being a truly funny (and often touching) little gem, it is actually alot of people's secret "favorite film." It is also one of Eddie Murphy's most successful ventures, in terms of acting and grosses. Landis would later direct Murphy again in the wildly popular Coming To America, and the not so popular Beverly Hills Cop III. In alot of ways, Trading Places sums up Landis' directorial career. It has alot of the themes that run through his early (and later) work developing more righteously here. Including a bizarre interest in gorillas that seems hokey in previous films (Landis even had a small acting role in Battle For the Planet Of the Apes!), except to say that in Trading Places, it all kinda makes perfect sense. But then, Landis directed the (excellent) prologue and (not so excellent) first segment in Speilberg's anthology film, Twilight Zone: the Movie. This would change Landis forever, both professionally and personally.
Actor Vic Morrow, father of actress Jennifer Jason Leigh, and star of such films as Blackboard Jungle, King Creole and The Bad News Bears, died from a tragic accident on the set while making the first segment of the film. He, along with his two child co-stars were killed when a helicopter lost control during a scene and crushed one of the children, decaptitating Morrow and the other. (for more details go to: www.findadeath.com/Deceased/ m/Vic%20Morrow/vic_morrow.htm ) Needless to say, this would have a tragic and lasting impact on the director of mainly light-hearted and iconic film comedies. His next film would be Into the Night. Before that however, it should be noted that he directed the Michael Jackson music video for Thriller. Scorsese would himself direct a Michael Jackson video (Bad) a few years later.
Into the Night suffers from the same problems as After Hours. Mainly it's reliance on segmented comedic episodes highlighted with wacky characters and not enough plot-line to sustain it all the way through (like in the classically constructed Animal House and Blues Brothers). It is also more than a coincidence that both of these films take place almost entirely at night (thus the titles of both). Where After Hours has it's moments of terror and exciting camera-work, Into the Night is almost a "straight" film, un-involving except for the endless Hollywood cameos from directors such as: Paul Mazursky, Paul Bartel (who directed Landis in Death Race 2000), Don Seigel, Jim Henson, Amy Heckerling, Roger Vadim, Lawrence Kasden, David Cronenberg, make-up man Rick Baker, Jonathan Demme, and even Landis himself. Sure, it's a novelty, but only if you know what Roger Vadim and Don Siegel look like. Still, this is the film's main draw, mainly for film buffs and people not looking for an esoteric comedy/thriller with something to say about society (although I think there's one or two things in there about that!). And I have to admit, Jeff Goldblum had alot more chemistry with Cyndi Lauper in Vibes than he did here with Michelle Pfieffer. And there is still more chemistry with Goldblum and Pfieffer than there is with Griffin Dunne and Rosanna Arquette in After Hours.
Speaking of chemistry, that leads me to Demme's Something Wild. Released one year after both After Hours and Into the Night, Something Wild is indeed something completely different - yet there's still enough similarity to be compared with the others. First off, Jeff Daniels and Melanie Griffith really hum in this one. Maybe not at exactly the same time or in exactly the same scenes, but it's the first of the three movies that the acting is worth commenting on. Ray Liotta also turns in a star-making performance as Grifftth's psycho ex-husband. Prior to this movie, he was most famous for appearing on the soap opera Another World. I can't help thinking that Scorsese cast him in Goodfellas based on his work in this movie. In any case, Something Wild is fresh, sometimes-exciting and maybe just a little too quirky for it's own good. The main problem with it is that it tends to get a little boring for a film of this type and some of the charm tends to wear a little too thin by the final credits (which may be the best reason to see the movie!). It too features cameos from other film-makers. Here, it's indie king John Sayles and Mondo Bizarro himself John Waters. It's also set in the big city, the only difference being that this movie takes place mainly during the day. In fact, the thing I remember most about this movie is how 'sunny' it seemed. Demme started out (like so many film- makers of his generation) under the tutiledge of Roger Corman and his crash-course style of film-making. I can't help thinking how Corman continues to develop young talent while none of the people he helped out who went on to become household names (namely Demme, Bogdanovich, Hellman) have ever really done anything on a mass scale for today's young film-makers. At least not to the same degree as say Robert Redford with Sundance has. I guess some of them may still feel like the students (yeah, right!) and not the teachers. Even Scorsese's first feature length studio film was for Corman (Boxcar Bertha) but it wasn't until friend and mentor John Cassavettes told him he better stop making films for other people and start making them for himself that he turned it all around and made his next film, Mean Streets. But Demme nonetheless remains grateful to Corman, putting him in many of his films in cameo parts, even to this day.
Demme's best work, like Scorsese and Landis, is mainly rooted in his past. Films such as Handle With Care also known as Citizen's Band, and Melvin and Howard are sadly neglected master-works made by a great and talented film-maker better known for his Oscar-winning Silence Of the Lambs and now for his recent (and unnecessary) Manchurian Candidate update. I feel that Melvin and Howard is one of maybe only a handful of American films that have done more for cinema in terms of richness of story and feeling than perhaps 3/4 of the AFI list of all-time greatest films. Something Wild, which was his next noteworthy project after Melvin and Howard, is lighter and much more mushy in it's center (despite some really horrific violence courtesy of Mr. Liotta's character). It almost has the same feel as After Hours and Into the Night as far as tone (they all three recklessly alternate between comedy and some element of horror/thriller) and story (someone is being chased in all three films), even though Something Wild seems more like a first cousin to them rather than a sibling. If I had to rank them from best to worst (which is hard) I believe I would have to go: 1) After Hours 2) Into the Night 3) Something Wild. And the only reason I rank Into the Night ahead of Something Wild is because I know what Don Seigel looks like!
Where Scorsese's film is funny and edgy and Landis' film is insider-jokey, Demme's film is fun and flashy. All three were hip films in their day and now seem like somewhat dated 80's artifacts. All three films are also strongly rooted in the individual styles of their maker's and are each good examples of their talents. Yes, it's true, each Director has made better films, but these are almost guilty pleasure movies. They even play like sophisticated drive-in flicks (perhaps intentionally). And they're still a hell of alot better films than half the stuff coming out today. I guess the only way for someone to tell is to sit down and have a triple feature with all three films. The only problem is, it may be hard to tell where one stops and the others begin.
So, after the recent release of Scorsese's After Hours (1985) on DVD, I was suddenly hit upon by an interesting 3-way comparison. Two other films: John Landis' Into the Night (1985) and Jonathan Demme's Something Wild (1986), bare more than a passing resemblance to one another.
First off, out of the three, Scorsese's picture definitely stands out the most, and not just because of the recognition it recieved at Cannes. It was one of his earlier "experimental" efforts (if you're not counting Taxi Driver and Raging Bull) and his second departure into the realm of black comedy (being his immediate follow-up to The King of Comedy). Scorsese helped define this style of personal/micro-cosmic film making (Mean streets, Goodfellas) that eventually everyone would end up riffing-off of including Speilberg, who I personally think would not have ended up making such non-fantasy films as Empire Of the Sun, or even Saving Private Ryan if it hadn't been for this interest in more honest real-life story-telling. He would have just ended up recycling the same old E.T. and Always fairy-tale formulas. Hell, even Jaws is a fairy-tale! What's even more interesting, is that Speilberg has now taken an even more obvious Scorsese-like turn with The Terminal, a small, character-driven "personal" film that's exactly like the films Scorsese has been doing in-between his more rigorous studio epics. For every New York, New York, there's a Color Of Money or Last Temptation Of Christ; for every Cape Fear, there's an Age Of Innocence; for every Casino, there's a Bringing Out the Dead. Now we look to Scorsese for inspiration, while He may be looking back even further for the origins of his style. Without a passion for Cassavettes and De Sica and the Italian neo-realists (who specialized in making honest little character-driven films), there would never have been a Mean Streets, and Scorsese's constant striving for keeping fresh by doing these smaller projects is a true testament to his authority and greatness as an artist.
So, maybe with the exception of Kundun, After Hours stands out as being one of the least-Scorsese like films of his whole career. I think the main reason is for it's episodic structure and heavy reliance on farce. Watching this movie really does feel like witnessing someone spray-paint graffiti all over a subway wall. It's edgy, refreshing and maybe even a little bit sophomoric. Also, maybe with the exception of his brilliant and most under-rated work, Life Lessons from New York Stories, no other Scorsese film would feel more like the Big Apple than this (not even the troubled New York, New York or Gangs of New York, as the titles imply). But don't get me wrong, although I may enjoy watching After Hours, in the end, I feel that it's weaknesses outweigh it's strengths. Part of this may be due to the insertion of so many passing characters and cameo appearances (such as by then popular cult icons Cheech and Chong) that distract more than amuse. So why then does it succeed? It's real and it's unpretentious. It is exactly what it is, and I don't think Scorsese cares in the end what you think! That's why.
So that brings me to Into the Night, released the same year, and directed by John Landis. After starting out directing such silly nonsense as Schlock and Kentucky Fried Movie, it's amazing that Landis would go on to helm such contemporary classics as Animal House, (the brilliant) Blues Brothers and An American Werewolf In London. In 1983 he would make two films that would have more of an impact on him than any other. The first, was Trading Places. For some reason, this film has grown to become such an iconic film over the years. Despite being a truly funny (and often touching) little gem, it is actually alot of people's secret "favorite film." It is also one of Eddie Murphy's most successful ventures, in terms of acting and grosses. Landis would later direct Murphy again in the wildly popular Coming To America, and the not so popular Beverly Hills Cop III. In alot of ways, Trading Places sums up Landis' directorial career. It has alot of the themes that run through his early (and later) work developing more righteously here. Including a bizarre interest in gorillas that seems hokey in previous films (Landis even had a small acting role in Battle For the Planet Of the Apes!), except to say that in Trading Places, it all kinda makes perfect sense. But then, Landis directed the (excellent) prologue and (not so excellent) first segment in Speilberg's anthology film, Twilight Zone: the Movie. This would change Landis forever, both professionally and personally.
Actor Vic Morrow, father of actress Jennifer Jason Leigh, and star of such films as Blackboard Jungle, King Creole and The Bad News Bears, died from a tragic accident on the set while making the first segment of the film. He, along with his two child co-stars were killed when a helicopter lost control during a scene and crushed one of the children, decaptitating Morrow and the other. (for more details go to: www.findadeath.com/Deceased/ m/Vic%20Morrow/vic_morrow.htm ) Needless to say, this would have a tragic and lasting impact on the director of mainly light-hearted and iconic film comedies. His next film would be Into the Night. Before that however, it should be noted that he directed the Michael Jackson music video for Thriller. Scorsese would himself direct a Michael Jackson video (Bad) a few years later.
Into the Night suffers from the same problems as After Hours. Mainly it's reliance on segmented comedic episodes highlighted with wacky characters and not enough plot-line to sustain it all the way through (like in the classically constructed Animal House and Blues Brothers). It is also more than a coincidence that both of these films take place almost entirely at night (thus the titles of both). Where After Hours has it's moments of terror and exciting camera-work, Into the Night is almost a "straight" film, un-involving except for the endless Hollywood cameos from directors such as: Paul Mazursky, Paul Bartel (who directed Landis in Death Race 2000), Don Seigel, Jim Henson, Amy Heckerling, Roger Vadim, Lawrence Kasden, David Cronenberg, make-up man Rick Baker, Jonathan Demme, and even Landis himself. Sure, it's a novelty, but only if you know what Roger Vadim and Don Siegel look like. Still, this is the film's main draw, mainly for film buffs and people not looking for an esoteric comedy/thriller with something to say about society (although I think there's one or two things in there about that!). And I have to admit, Jeff Goldblum had alot more chemistry with Cyndi Lauper in Vibes than he did here with Michelle Pfieffer. And there is still more chemistry with Goldblum and Pfieffer than there is with Griffin Dunne and Rosanna Arquette in After Hours.
Speaking of chemistry, that leads me to Demme's Something Wild. Released one year after both After Hours and Into the Night, Something Wild is indeed something completely different - yet there's still enough similarity to be compared with the others. First off, Jeff Daniels and Melanie Griffith really hum in this one. Maybe not at exactly the same time or in exactly the same scenes, but it's the first of the three movies that the acting is worth commenting on. Ray Liotta also turns in a star-making performance as Grifftth's psycho ex-husband. Prior to this movie, he was most famous for appearing on the soap opera Another World. I can't help thinking that Scorsese cast him in Goodfellas based on his work in this movie. In any case, Something Wild is fresh, sometimes-exciting and maybe just a little too quirky for it's own good. The main problem with it is that it tends to get a little boring for a film of this type and some of the charm tends to wear a little too thin by the final credits (which may be the best reason to see the movie!). It too features cameos from other film-makers. Here, it's indie king John Sayles and Mondo Bizarro himself John Waters. It's also set in the big city, the only difference being that this movie takes place mainly during the day. In fact, the thing I remember most about this movie is how 'sunny' it seemed. Demme started out (like so many film- makers of his generation) under the tutiledge of Roger Corman and his crash-course style of film-making. I can't help thinking how Corman continues to develop young talent while none of the people he helped out who went on to become household names (namely Demme, Bogdanovich, Hellman) have ever really done anything on a mass scale for today's young film-makers. At least not to the same degree as say Robert Redford with Sundance has. I guess some of them may still feel like the students (yeah, right!) and not the teachers. Even Scorsese's first feature length studio film was for Corman (Boxcar Bertha) but it wasn't until friend and mentor John Cassavettes told him he better stop making films for other people and start making them for himself that he turned it all around and made his next film, Mean Streets. But Demme nonetheless remains grateful to Corman, putting him in many of his films in cameo parts, even to this day.
Demme's best work, like Scorsese and Landis, is mainly rooted in his past. Films such as Handle With Care also known as Citizen's Band, and Melvin and Howard are sadly neglected master-works made by a great and talented film-maker better known for his Oscar-winning Silence Of the Lambs and now for his recent (and unnecessary) Manchurian Candidate update. I feel that Melvin and Howard is one of maybe only a handful of American films that have done more for cinema in terms of richness of story and feeling than perhaps 3/4 of the AFI list of all-time greatest films. Something Wild, which was his next noteworthy project after Melvin and Howard, is lighter and much more mushy in it's center (despite some really horrific violence courtesy of Mr. Liotta's character). It almost has the same feel as After Hours and Into the Night as far as tone (they all three recklessly alternate between comedy and some element of horror/thriller) and story (someone is being chased in all three films), even though Something Wild seems more like a first cousin to them rather than a sibling. If I had to rank them from best to worst (which is hard) I believe I would have to go: 1) After Hours 2) Into the Night 3) Something Wild. And the only reason I rank Into the Night ahead of Something Wild is because I know what Don Seigel looks like!
Where Scorsese's film is funny and edgy and Landis' film is insider-jokey, Demme's film is fun and flashy. All three were hip films in their day and now seem like somewhat dated 80's artifacts. All three films are also strongly rooted in the individual styles of their maker's and are each good examples of their talents. Yes, it's true, each Director has made better films, but these are almost guilty pleasure movies. They even play like sophisticated drive-in flicks (perhaps intentionally). And they're still a hell of alot better films than half the stuff coming out today. I guess the only way for someone to tell is to sit down and have a triple feature with all three films. The only problem is, it may be hard to tell where one stops and the others begin.
