|
"It's
About 'Time'"
by Scott Mantz
"Timecode"
Saffron Burrows,
Salma Hayek
Directed by Mike Figgis
Over the past
few years, entertainment journalists and film critics everywhere
have finally come to the same conclusion--that the filmmaking process
is on the verge of an incredible breakthrough. After a dismal start,
the 1990's ended on a high note, with many experiments in independent
filmmaking paying off big-time ("Being John Malkovich", "The Blair
Witch Project"). Even the major Hollywood studios stepped up to
the plate and had many edgy, unique, and entertaining films to show
for it ("Three Kings", "Fight Club"). The decade came to a close
with "Entertainment Weekly" referring to 1999 as "the year that
changed movies". That's a bold statement, but the real question
is this--can 2000 pick up where 1999 left off? The answer is one
big fat "yes". Mike Figgis' "Timecode" is without a doubt the most
extravagant, revolutionary, and groundbreaking act of filmmakin
g to come along since the invention of the film camera. But is it
the "Citizen Kane" of the digital age, or is it just a hodge-podge
of hastily assembled home videos? Read on, my friends!
Thanks to the
invention of the digital camera, anybody can be a filmmaker--even
you. All you have to do is pick up the camera, shoot the film, download
it onto your computer, and edit it right there. It's that easy,
but it has yet to be done by somebody in the film business who actually
knows what he or she is doing. Well, Mike Figgis is one director
who definitely knows what he's doing. His attempt to stay one step
ahead of the game with his experimental style has led to his share
of hits ("Leaving Las Vegas") and misses ("The Loss of Sexual Innocence"),
but one thing is for sure--he is one filmmaker who's not afraid
to take chances.
With "Timecode",
his plan was simple. Using four digital cameras, he would follow
his actors around Los Angeles and film whatever happened as they
more or less improvised their scenes. All they had to do was know
the general story and be on their marks at the right time. The film
would be shot in real time with no editing done whatsoever. After
many takes (97-minute-long takes, to be exact), he would decide
which ones to use for the finished film. Here's the real catch--the
screen would be split four ways to show what each camera filmed
as the actors cris-crossed each other's stories. Essentially, what
you end up watching is four films at once, each happening at the
same time on one screen. That may sound confusing, but the end result
will challenge moviegoers in a way that they've never been challenged
before. It will also give them a chance to decide which person they
want to watch at any given time.
The actual story
centers around the crazy people who work at Red Mullet Productions,
a film company located in the heart of the Sunset Strip. Emma (Saffron
Burrows) is unhappily married and has told her work-obsessed husband
Alex (Stellan Skarsgard) that she is leaving him. Alex is having
an affair with Rose (Salma Hayek), an aggressive actress wannabe
who is hiding that affair from her own lover Lauren (Jeanne Tripplehorn).
Lauren has bugged Rose so she can listen in on her while she goes
about her "business". Meanwhile, trendy director Lester (Richard
Edson) has just 2 days to cast his movie. Rising starlet Cherine
(Leslie Mann) would love to be in that film, but she's too busy
snorting coke with the security guard (Danny Huston). Then there's
Ana (Mia Maestro), who pitches her hyper-pretentious film project
to a bunch of confused Red Mullet production executives. Throw in
an earthquake and a few aftershocks, and what you have is one typical
day in the life of Hollywood.
Considering
the delicate care that the actors have to take with meeting their
cues and remembering their lines, not to mention doing it all in
one take, it's truly amazing how they are able to rise to, above,
and beyond the occasion. Of everybody, Jeanne Tripplehorn earns
the highest marks of the class of 2000. Her obsession with Hayek,
followed by her breakdown as she overhears her getting it on with
Skarsgard, is a thrill to watch. Hayek does an excellent job as
an actress who will do anything to get the part, even though it
never dawned on her to actually read the script first. Stellan Skarsgard
plays a par-for-the-course Hollywood exec who's clearly had enough
of the rat race, and Saffron Burrows is the devastated British lover
who's out of her element in the shark-infested waters of Los Angeles.
The prospect
of literally watching four films at once seems exhilarating. The
problem is this--just how do you do that? How do you know which
actor you're supposed to be following? If you're paying attention
to one frame, how do you know you're not missing something in the
other three? Figgis is aware of these questions, and he assists
the audience by using the vocals, not the image, as the main focus
for you to follow. While certain frames may contain overlapping
dialogue, most of the time Figgis pumps up the volume in one frame
while he drops it down in the other three. You can still follow
what's happening all around, and you should, since it all ends up
being connected anyway.
The only problem
with "Timecode" is with the actual story. It's not that it's bad--it's
just not for everybody. Many films have been centered around the
wasteland of Los Angeles ("Short Cuts", "Magnolia", "Playing By
Heart"), but at least they contained characters that the audience
could more or less relate to. Not here. The focus of "Timecode"
is on people in and around the film industry, and they're not necessarily
people that you'd stand up and root for. They say it's best to write
what you know, and Figgis obviously knows a lot about the movie
business. The problem is that it may be too far out for people outside
the business, while it may be too far in for people on the inside.
Whether the
story appeals to you or not, one thing is for sure--"Timecode" is
an incredibly fascinating moviegoing experience. But does it really
represent the future of filmmaking, or is this all one big gimmick?
Even Figgis contemplates these questions. When Maestro finally pitches
her film project (which is basically the film you're watching),
she calls it a chance "to move forward", while Skarsgard's production
exec calls it "a load of pretentious crap". You be the judge. What
remains to be seen is whether other filmmakers, and the Hollywood
community in general, will embrace these changes or stick to their
traditional film cameras. Whatever happens, the year 2000 has finally
produced a film worthy of the creative buildup of 1999. If 1999
was the appetizer, then 2000 is the main course. It's about time,
too--I was getting hungry.
|
