Book Review: Easy Riders, Raging Bulls; How the Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n Roll Generation Saved Hollywood

I bought this book because of its author. Journalist Peter Biskind was once the executive editor of the late, great film magazine Premiere. For a good portion of my high school and university years, this monthly magazine was like my Bible -- and I still miss it to this day.

Back in 1998, when Easy Riders, Raging Bulls was first published, Biskind had all-access to some of Hollywood's biggest names, as well as some of its most reclusive stars. As a result, he had plenty of anecdotes, professional rivalries and gossipy tidbits at his fingertips. The end result is a random collection of stories that is both easy to love and dislike.

When most film critics and enthusiasts debate the greatest decade for American cinema, they often cite the 1970s as the defining era. It was a decade of change that was heavily influenced by the European art directors most of the American up-and-comers once admired from afar.

It's evident that Biskind has a passionate admiration for the world of cinema; however, Easy Riders, Raging Bulls comes off as both a clever, analytical look at the decade and a tabloid reporting all the "he said, she said" gossip from the time. For every brilliantly researched passage about the behind-the-scenes life, there's a salacious piece of gossip that threatens to veer the book in an entirely new direction.

I'm not one to turn away a good piece of gossip -- and I don't mind a story or two mixed in with heavy film talk -- but there are moments when some of the stories being related feel forced or, even worse, carry an underlying intent to slander. At some points, the lack of insight into certain rivalries or the simple fact that it's often only one side of the story being told, may prevent Easy Riders, Raging Bulls from being a 'must-read' on any film lovers book list.

Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda in Easy Riders

It opens with a discussion about Warren Beatty and 1967's Bonnie & Clyde -- which essentially kicked off the new wave of American filmmaking -- and Biskind charts the rise, fall and, in some cases, disappearances, of renowned directors, producers and actors. You'll learn more than you ever wanted to about Martin Scorsese's drug binges, Francis Ford Coppola's ego and Dennis Hopper's bizarre, dangerous and addictive personality.

Perhaps there are too many subjects at hand that Biskind is struggling to cohesively weave together, but the book's strongest moments are often the quieter ones where the directors, producers and actors put their egos aside and discuss the toll that their careers take on their personal lives. There are some great, insightful passages, specifically from the always-eloquent Scorsese, about why these people continue to make art despite that fact that it ultimately ruins every relationship in their life.

It all comes back to the fact that these men and women were -- and still are -- artists. And for every late-night bender, drug-fuelled party and rocky relationship, there's a great film in the midst of being made.

So, if you like a heavy dose of gossip with your film history, than you'll enjoy Easy Riders, Raging Bulls. But for those who are looking for more of a focus on the process of filmmaking and how cast and crew interacted with one another may be disappointed.

But, I had fun reading it.

Upcoming Release: Twixt (2011)

Elle Fanning and Val Kilmer

An original (way to go, Hollywood!) gothic horror film written and directed by Francis Ford Coppola! I'm already lined up for opening night.

A friend of mine showed me the Twixt trailer early last week -- and it had me intrigued right away. It's not so much a trailer (it's nearly four minutes long) as a sneak peek. It's focuses on a series of bizarre child murders in a small town -- and throws in suggestions of witches and/or vampires as the culprits.

Val Kilmer plays a Stephen King-ish horror novelist who has arrived in town for an autograph signing when he's lured into the murder mysteries by both the local sheriff (Bruce Dern) and a ghostly girl named V (Elle Fanning) who keeps appearing in his dreams. On top of it all, actor Ben Chaplin is listed as playing the role of Edgar Allan Poe. How could you not be intrigued? It all sounds very Stephen King meets Twin Peaks!

Val Kilmer and Ben Chaplin ...as Edgar Allan Poe.

It could be a really interesting departure for Coppola -- no gangsters or rebellious teens in sight. Most of his recent film dealings have been as a producer over the years, so it was about time he got back behind the camera.

My only concern is the reminder of his 1992 foray into supernatural horror -- Bram Stoker's Dracula, with Gary Oldman in the leading role. Although that interpretation of the classic vampire novel has its loyal fans, I could barely sit through it in one sitting. But that was all nearly 20 years ago now and Twixt looks like it has a lot of potential to be a perfectly bizarre and grisly film. I haven't come across an official release date (some websites have different dates than others), but it is listed as being a 2011 film, so it's likely it will be released around Halloween.

I love a good horror film as much as anyone, but so few great ones have come out over the last few years. I have high hopes for Twixt.

What do you think of the sneak peek trailer? 

30 Day Movie Meme: Day 19

Day 19 : FAVOURITE FILM FROM YOUR FAVOURITE ACTOR AND ACTRESS

Marlon Brando in The Godfather (1972)

This wasn't a hard decision, seeing as The Godfather is both my favourite film and the movie that first introduced me to Marlon Brando. I was a late bloomer, having only seen the film for the first time in 2004, the year of Brando's death. I credit the film, and Brando's performance, with jump-starting my classic film viewing binge for the last six (almost seven) years. It was the first time I realized how remarkable a film can be and how powerful a person's performance. On those occasions when both the film and lead actor are equally worthy of each other, it can solidify a viewer's love for film, as it did mine.

Members of the Mafia don't have my sympathy. They ensure, through their violence and dominance, that corruption will endure. The Mafia wipe out those, big or small, who stand in their way or offend their family's honour. With Francis Ford Coppola's groundbreaking direction and Brando's iconic and influential performance, The Godfather and the character of Don Vito Corleone remain compelling examples of what a thoughtful script and an effective performance can do for a film about an illegal underground operation that maims and kills.

I don't have a lot of love for Michael Corleone because he becomes everything his father was not (but I love Al Pacino in the role!). Vito is a different story. Coppola and Brando managed to convey the life regrets of an aging Don; a once indomitable man who now fears the old adage "the sins of the father are to be laid upon the children." He slowly becomes a broken man as he loses one child ("Look what they did to my boy."), only to have the other follow in his blood-soaked footsteps.

Bette Davis in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962)

My mom showed this film to my sister and I when we were children. I was probably 10 or 11, at the most. The fact that my mom managed to make two young girls watch a black and white film from the 1960s was a remarkable feat in and of itself, made all the more incredible by the fact that we loved the film so much we'd watch in often enough to recite dialogue. While this isn't necessarily the best Davis film (that would probably go to All About Eve or even Now, Voyager), it's my absolute favourite. Not only was it my introduction to Davis, much like The Godfather introduced me to Brando, but her performance is probably one of my favourites, ever.

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? is an odd little film, part-horror and part-camp. You don't know whether to laugh or cringe and the fact that it can consistently make you do both is a big part of why I love this film so much. Joan Crawford is wonderful as the wheelchair-bound Blanche, older sister to former child star, Jane (Bette Davis). But make no mistake, this is Davis' film and her performance is outrageous and over-the-top. Those might sound like bad qualities in a performance, but who wants subtlety when you have Davis in your film? She's perfect as the off-her-rocker, crazy-jealous former star who wants nothing more than to regain the glory days of the fleeting fame she experienced as a child.

My favourite scene also conveys the internal conflict of this aging beauty: Jane starts singing a song from her youth she once sang at the peak of her fame. Wearing a dress that is identical to the one adorning the doll version of her younger self, Jane's child-like nature comes through, only to come to an abrupt halt when she looks in the mirror and comes face-to-face with mortality and the passage of time.

30 Day Movie Meme: Day 14

Day 14: FAVOURITE FILM SEQUEL


It's rare to find a sequel to a film that either equals or surpasses the excellence of its predecessor.

Fans of The Godfather films are usually divided into two camps: (1) Those who cite the original one as the crowning achievement of the series or (2) those who believe that the sequel, simply titled The Godfather: Part II, is greater than the original due largely to the presence of Robert DeNiro and his role as young Vito Corleone.

The Godfather: Part II is my favourite film sequel. It continues the Corleone saga with a well-structured and tightly wound script. It boasts some of the trilogy's greatest scenes and proves that sequels don't always suck. Instead of appearing as a cash grab or an attempt to capitalize on the success of the first film, The Godfather: Part II is a legitimate and engrossing continuation of a dark and fascinating family drama. Gangsters never looked or sounded so badass. Forget The Sopranos: who could be scarier than Don Vito and Michael Corleone? They would crush Tony Soprano with their thumbs and those classy suits.

That being said, The Godfather: Part II is not my favourite film of the trilogy. My heart still belongs to the first film, but I'll save that debate for another day.

All in all, The Godfather: Part II is likely the most flawless film sequel you will ever come across (which makes the uneven The Godfather: Part III all the more tragic because it ruined what would have been the rarest of occurrences in the world of cinema: a perfect trilogy).

I believe the reason The Godfather: Part II makes such a great sequel is because it was made in the days before overkill. Back in the day when, for the most part, films were made for film fans. Back in the day when sequels weren't churned out year by year, with no apparent purpose or any evident effort. The fact that The Godfather: Part II is just as solid and well-made as its predecessor speaks volumes to that fact.

Sure, T2: Judgement Day was a great sequel that improved on the first film. Ditto The Dark Knight the Star Wars sequel, The Empire Strikes Back. Some might even argue that The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers trumps The Fellowship of the Ring.

But they aren't on the same level as The Godfather: Part II.

Favourite Film Scenes: The Godfather (1972)

THE GODFATHER
DIRECTED BY: Francis Ford Coppola
STARRING: Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, Robert Duvall and James Caan

BASIC PLOT: Based on the novel by Mario Puzo, it follows the lives of the Corleone family. Set in 1950's New York, when patriarch Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) is at his height of power in the Mafia underworld, the plot trails the passing of the torch between Don Vito and his second-oldset son, Michael (Al Pacino). Business remains all in the family.

FAVOURITE SCENE: The restaurant scene when Michael meets with rival Mob leader, Sollozzo, and the dirty cop, McCluskey. Michael's father, Don Vito, has been the target of an assassination attempt and Michael, who is Ivy League-educated and a decorated Second World War veteran, wants vengeance for the actions taken against his father. This is the first time Michael is involved in the "family business" and while he may seen soft-spoken and willing to co-operate with Sollozzo, there is barely concealed anger in his eyes. Will he kill the two men or won't he?

WHY? Francis Ford Coppola lensed countless memorable moments in his masterpiece, however, the restaurant scene leaves a lasting impression due to the fact that, once Michael commits the two murders, there is no turning back for him. It's the start of his journey that will eventually see him move up in the ranks into a leadership position himself.

The scene starts off with a glass of wine and a business discussion in Italian. There are no subtitles to translate the conversation, therefore, the audience is left to come to their own conclusions as to what is being said based on tone of voice, body language and overall expressiveness. The audience is in the same position as Officer McCluskey; left alone outside of the conversation, waiting to see how it will all pan out.

When Michael excuses himself to use the washroom you know that, in actuality, he's looking for the gun that was left for him behind a toilet bowl. The only sounds that can be heard are that of a passing train; reflecting the inner turmoil and brief hesitation we see in Michael as he discovers the gun.

Coppola's decision not to use a background score (until after the murders take place) adds to the building tension in the scene. You can clearly hear the conversation, as well as city sounds in the background. One can perceive that the lack of a musical score at this time reflects Michael's emotional state; he's calm and focused and nothing will distract him from what he's come to do. Only after he's brutally shot the two men at the table, does the score kick in, as though to reflect the release of Michael's tension.

The scene is beautifully executed (no pun intended) and Al Pacino instills Michael with fire and brimstone beneath a calm exterior. In that brief moment we see the man that Michael will become and we understand that, for his character, there is no turning back. His fate was cemented the moment he show Sollozzo and McCluskey as an act of revenge for his father's near-death experience. 

Every subsequent Mafia film has tried, and failed, to capture that same amount of tension and realistic violence Coppola has in his film classic.