A True Original

A True Original

By my own selective definition of the term, Owen Wilson is a bona fide movie star. He’s an entertaining, obviously talented actor who delivers the same personality and attitude — in film after film he plays the exact same spiritual-flotation-device spacehead — and he’s always good at it, and I’ve never tired of it and I doubt if anyone else has either.
Wilson tends to play irresponsible immature flakes, and there’s a built-in limit in playing such characters, but there is no other actor on the Hollywood landscape whose dialogue (large portions of which Wilson always seems to write or improvise himself) is focused so earnestly and consistently on matters of attitude and heart. Pretentious as it may sound, Wilson is an actor with a consistently alive and pulsing inner-ness. Is there any other actor who even flirts with this realm?


You, Me and Dupree star, producer and co-writer Owen Wilson

Stars become stars because people enjoy the fact that they do the same thing and do it well, time and again. (As Gary Cooper, Clark Gable and Cary Grant did.) Owen isn’t just Mr. Space Case, but one who really has “the spirit” — his charac- ters always seem genuinely imbued and imaginative and familiar with college philosophy basics, and there is no one else on the planet who does this sort of thing with Wilson’s particularity.
Wilson has been writing his own dialogue since forever (even in early films like Armageddon), and he doesn’t inhabit characters as much as manipulate and re-shape them in order to preach the Gospel of Owen. Wilson is nothing if not a charismatic preacher — he’s Elmer Gantry — as a clip from You, Me and Dupree called “The Mothership” proves.
< ?php include ('/home/hollyw9/public_html/wired'); ?>
This scene, by the way, is the highpoint of You, Me and Dupree — the rest of it is somewhere between sloppy and ghastly with an aura of emptiness that has to be felt to be believed. Wilson is a producer as well as costar and cowriter, and this movie is such a total comedown from The Wedding Crashers that I don’t want to think about it.
Wilson isn’t a star in the conventional sense, which is to say he’s not a romantic lead (he never lets you “in” — he’s not about manly or even childlike emotions as much as visions) and he doesn’t put arses in seats. His biggest commercial scores have always been in movies in which he plays the flaky buddy/partner of Jackie Chan or Ben Stiller or Vince Vaughn.


Kate Hudson, Matt Dillon, Owen Wilson in Dupree

I think it’s fair to say that Wilson’s solo turns in Behind Enemy Lines, The Big Bounce and Minus Man stopped short of seizing audiences with their primal magnetism.
The difference between Wilson and other actors who’ve become popular and rich playing best buddies is that each and every time Wilson is delivering a fine job of self-portraiture. He really and truly is Dignan in Bottle Rocket, only older, skinnier and richer with longer, expertly-cut hair.
Creatively the sky’s the limit with Owen these days, but he can’t keep playing Dupree-types for too much longer. He’ll be 40 in two and half years, and then he’ll be 45 two years after that, and the following year he’ll be 50.
In real life, brilliant funny guys are never days at the beach. It’s not in the cards. There are always demons and dark currents running within, and sometimes these manifest in behavioral tendencies that don’t merit Good Housekeeping Seals of Approval.

Owen is no different than Keith Moon or John Barrymore or Lenny Bruce in this regard, and it’s not a big deal. Mark Lisanti will tell you that all kinds of stories have circulated about Owen for years (and I don’t just mean the kind that support the legend of “the Butterscotch Stallion” or even that of “Owin'” Wilson — a nickname Owen picked up in the late ’90s after becoming a regular in an industry poker game) and I say “whatever” to that.
And you don’t get to be a big-time actor in this town unless you have the ability to be coldly aggressive and calculating. Naah…drop it.
I’m saying all this (and believe me, I know whereof I speak) because you will have to search far and wide for a profile of Owen Wilson that skirts the good stuff with more chickenhearted skill than the one that Rachel Abramowitz has written about Wilson in today’s L.A. Times.
I’m not quibbling with what she includes — the piece is well-written with good quotes and occasional insights. But her reluctance to deal with the meatier (colorful, curious, flamboyant) aspects of Wilson’s life is fairly staggering.


Wilson and Big Bounce costar Morgan Freeman

I’ve read Abramowitz’s piece twice, and there’s not a single line that half-seriously addresses the observations I tried to get across in the first four or five graphs of this article. And not dealing with the spiritual-philosophical current in Wilson’s work is like writing about Lou Gehrig without mentioning the fact that he played for 14 years without missing a single game.
Her piece is yet another example of the studied-Valentine style of celebrity profiles that you always get in the L.A. Times — the kind that exude smarts and flirtatious- ness and a semblance of insider authority, but which basically blows smoke up the reader’s ass.
I liked one paragraph — the one about Bottle Rocket producer Polly Platt going into a church during the tumultuous editing of that film in ’95. “I looked over to my left and Owen was in the same church praying,” Platt tells Abramowitz. “That’s the only indication I had that he was suffering.”

About Andrew Wilson

And New York Post writer Sara Stewart offers a cursory meandering examination of the life and career of Andrew Wilson, the amiable, sharp-minded and extremely focused 41 year-old older brother of Owen and Luke Wilson.
Andrew’s been acting since the Bottle Rocket days, but Stewart barely says a word about Andrew’s co-direction (with Luke) of The Wendell Baker Story, an unusual, agreeably quirky dramedy about mood and attitude and Texas weirdness. Andrew let me see Baker a little more than a year ago (I wanted to screen it at that UCLA “Sneak Previews” thing I was moderating), and while it has some issues they’re far from fatal afflictions, and it sure as shit doesn’t deserve to be wallowing in near-total obscurity without any kind of distribution deal.
I guess Stewart’s article (which features insights from David Poland) is mainly about the burdens of being the “other” brother.
The piece has a couple of speed-bumps: (a) it gives Owen’s age as 38, and yet the IMDB says he’ll be 37 until 11.18.06, and (b) Stewart quotes Kurt Hale, director of a barely-seen movie called Church Ball that Andrew costarred in, as saying that “if you close your eyes and listen to [Andrew], he sounds exactly like Owen,” which is misleading and poorly put. Andrew tends to express thoughts with the same kind of imaginative attitude and gut-level insight that Owen is known for, but his voice is deeper and not even vaguely similar to his younger brother’s.

Saturday “Pirate” biz

Pirates 2 did just shy of $44 million on Saturday. Add that to Friday’s increased estimate of $55 million (that $52.8 million estimate I ran yesterday has since been adjusted) and you’re looking at just under $100 million after two full days. What will happen today (Sunday, 7.9)? The ballpark figure will almost certainly be somewhere between $35 and $40 million (Sundays are always a bit weaker than Saturdays) so the three-day total…well, do the math. (The other guys are predicting $32 million and change.) Superman Returns took in a piddly $8.4 million yesterday, and is expected to wind up with about $22,800,000 by late tonight. Next week it’ll wind up with $13 or $14 million and that’ll be that. (But watch the IMAX screenings hang in there.) The Devil Wears Prada is expected to end up with about $15,069,000 by late tonight. And you don’t care that much about the rest.

Food-Wine Movies

A 7.9 N.Y. Times piece by Steve Chagollan eyeballs a fresh crop of U.S.-produced foodie and wine-sipping moviesRidley Scott‘s A Good Year (with Russell Crowe) and Scott HicksMostly Martha remake (with Catherine Zeta-Jones), plus a forthcoming adaptation of Anthony Capella‘s The Food of Love by director Peter Chelsom (Shall We Dance?) and an adaptation-in-the-works of Julia Child‘s “Mastering the Art of French Cooking” from director-writer Nora Ephron. And…wait, there’s more.

Chagollan’s conclusion is that these films may be happening because of (a) greater longings for comfort and (b) changing notions of male virility and sexuality. “Food is that thing that people retreat to for comfort and safety,” CAA agent Lisa Shotland tells Chagollan, “and in these uncertain times that just becomes more and more the norm.” And producer Denise Di Novi observes that the chef has become “the new rock star…the qualities that make a man sexy have expanded beyond traditional male roles, [and] great chefs embody the things that make all great artists appealing, in that they’re creative, committed and passionate.”

Shyamalan vs. critics

On her Risky Biz blog, Anne Thompson is reporting how director M. Night Shyamalan “mauls a nasty film critic named Harry Farber (played by Bob Balaban) in Lady in the Water. Is it veteran critic Manny Farber? Or the still-reviewing Stephen Farber? ‘It’s one person’s concept of what a film critic is like,” said one critic who saw an early Lady in the Water screening. ‘It’s a funny character, and it dovetails with the popular conception of effete snide film critics.’ According to Farber, who hasn’t seen the film, ‘I don’t think I ever wrote much about his movies, except to say that Unbreakable was actually more interesting than The Sixth Sense up until the absurd ending. I was comparing the endings of the two movies. I never wrote about Signs and never even saw The Village. So if I am the target of his ire, I’d hate to think where that would put critics who actually slammed those two movies!'” Does anyone remember the “General Kael” character in George Lucas‘s Willow?

Mourkarbel’s WTC Video

Did anyone see Chris Mourkarbel‘s 12-minute ripoff video of Oliver Stone‘s World Trade Center, which was based on an early draft of the script and which led to a Paramount lawsuit? It was called World Trade Center 2006, and was shown online before it was removed for legal reasons. I’m looking for short reviews about the quality of it because Felicia Lee showed no interest in this aspect in her N.Y. Times piece about Mourkabel and his film…only the legal and political ramifications.

Out-of-It L.A. Times

The L.A. Times Calendar section continues to astonish everyone by running pieces like this one by Mary McNamara about the 1989-styled revolution-of-the-suits against super-expensive big star projects…a story that Slate‘s Kim Masters covered pretty well on 6.12…ditto Anne Thompson in her Hollywood Reporter column on 6.16.

Running these bringing-up-the-rear articles about about industry trends, ripples and currents that are weeks past the point where they would be truly topical and in synch with the latest turn is exactly why newsprint dailies are losing against new-media outlets. MacNamara delivers some perspective and fresh quotes, but this story’s still more than three weeks old. (Apologies for the latest wrongo, writing Maggie instead of the correct Mary McNamara earlier today.)

Big-star turnarounds

“With $6 million already sunk into sets, 20th Century Fox execs asked Used Guys director Jay Roach to commit to a budget of $112 million. For a variety of reasons, he was not prepared to do so, nor was he willing to ask either Ben Stiller or Jim Carrey to further cut their deals. In May, figuring that the only way the studio would make any money on the film was if Used Guys became one of the top-grossing comedies in history, Fox decided to pass. Others in the industry were surprised at how [Roach] handled the negotiations. ‘Any other director would have said ‘$112 million? Absolutely…you bet,’ said one Hollywood insider, ‘and then gone over budget if he had to. That’s just the way it works.'” — from Mary McNamara‘s late-to-the-table L.A. Times piece about big-star turnaround projects.

Stranger Scissors

In response to Friday’s item about those six fall-holiday Columbia films that may be high-pedigree, a guy I know who’s seen Running With Scissors and Stranger Than Fiction wrote in and shared. “Scissors I’m in love with,” he began. “It will be hard to beat Annette Bening for Best Actress this year, and both Jill Clayburgh and Brian Cox are standouts in the supporting cast. [The film] has a weird sense of blending the styles of Cameron Crowe and Wes Anderson that is hard to describe, but it is a fun film that ultimately really, really works.
Stranger Than Fiction is on similar turf, [although] it falls apart ever so slightly in its third act. Seriously, it felt like best-of-the-decade material for much of the running time until the end failed to capitalize, at least in my eyes, on the promise of the first two thirds. But it’s a touching tale, and Will Ferrell is as good in the flick as Jim Carrey was in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. And watch out for a feisty Maggie Gyllenhaal, who’ll have World Trade Center and Sherry Baby to help push her toward supporting actress recognition. Who knows what changes will occur or have occured on these prints since I saw them, but both were at the very least capable and likely awards outings. I expect screenplay nominations for both to be a serious possibility.”
For what it’s worth, I spoke to another early viewer of Stranger Than Fiction and he disagreed with the other guy’s assessment of a third-act problem.