Raw L. The Ridley Scott Encyclopedia

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

the victims of a not-so-Great Game involving two monolithic

organizations (the CIA and the KGB) committed to outwit-

ting one another through illusion or disinformation?

The Company was one of a spate of films appearing in

the early 2000s in the theater and on television with the CIA

as its subject. Others included Munich (2005), Syriana

(2005), THE GOOD SHEPHERD (2006), 638 Ways to Kill

Castro (TV documentary, 2006), and Rendition (2007). Scott

was to take up the topic once again in BODY OF LIES.

Matthew Alford and Robbie Graham’s article in the London

Guardian investigates the organization’s involvement with

films since Hitchcock’s Torn Curtain in the mid-1960s.

Frances Stonor Saunders looks at how the CIA secretly

funded western culture as well as the non-Communist Left,

to combat the Soviet cultural offensive. Daniel J. Leab’s

Orwell Subverted: The CIA and the Filming of Animal Farm

analyzes how the organization tried to influence the making

of the film in the mid-1950s. The effect of films dealing with

the CIA on film audiences—referring especially to Oliver

Stone’s JFK (1991)—has been dealt with in a research study

by Lisa D. Butler, Cheryl Koopman, and Philip G. Zimbardo.

They conclude that many viewers’ experience of watching

the film led to “a significant decrease in ...reported inten-

tions to voice or make political contributions. A general

helplessness is proposed to account for the increase in feel-

ings of anger and hopelessness and the decrease in inten-

tions to vote or make political contributions.” It might be

interesting to speculate as to how viewers might have reacted

to The Company which, although released sixteen years later,

nonetheless takes an equally critical look at the CIA’s work

over the past half-century.

References

Matthew Alford and Robbie Graham, “An Offer They Couldn’t

Refuse,” The Guardian, 14 November 2008, www.guardian.co

.uk/film/2008/nov/14/thriller-ridley-scott (accessed 3 February

2009); Ed Bark, “Miniseries Review: The Company,” National TV

Reviews and News, www.unclebarky.com/reviews_files/8c2eca3c96d

653249a6901a517efa49e-215.html (accessed 12 August 2008); Lisa

D. Butler, Cheryl Koopman, Philip G. Zimbardo,“The Psycholog-

ical Impact of Viewing the Film JFK: Emotions, Beliefs, and Polit-

ical Behavioral Intention,” Political Psychology 16, no.2 (1995): 237;

Daniel J. Leab, Orwell Subverted: The CIA and the Filming of Ani-

mal Farm (Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007);

Production Notes: The Company, www.tnt.tv/series/thecompany/

bts/ (accessed 12 August 2008); Frances Stonor Saunders, Who Paid

the Piper?: The CIA and the Cultural Cold War (London: Granta

Books, 1999); Alessandra Stanley, “Cloak and Dagger in All Its

Charm,” New York Times, 3 August 2007, www.nytimes.com/2007/

08/03/arts/television/03comp.html?ref=arts (accessed August 12,

2008).

THE COMPANY (NOVEL)

A best-selling 2002 work by Robert Littell, recounting the

history of the CIA over fifty years: agents fighting the “good

fight” not only against foreign enemies but also against peo-

ple within their own country. Spanning a fifty-year period

in history from the Cold War and the Soviet invasion of

Hungary to Afghanistan and the Gorbachev putsch, the

novel tells the story of agents involved in double lives, con-

tending with enemies that are amoral, elusive, and power-

ful. It also exposes the conflicts within the CIA itself. The

novel was adapted in 2007 into a miniseries directed by

MIKAEL SALOMON and produced by Scott.

CONRAD, JOSEPH (1857–1924)

Born in Berdyczow in the Ukraine of Polish parents, Jozef

Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski joined the merchant navy and

later became an able-bodied seaman in the British navy,

eventually rising to the rank of captain. His first work,

Almayer’s Folly, appeared in 1895, the same year he adopted

the pen name of Joseph Conrad. Numerous novels followed

including NOSTROMO (1904), The Secret Agent (1907), and

Under Western Eyes (1911). He also published numerous

short stories including “THE DUEL” (1908). In May 1924 he

declined an offer of a knighthood from the British Prime

Minister Ramsay MacDonald. Two months later he died of

a heart attack.

Conrad’s works have also proved fitting subjects for

adaptation. Apart from Ridley Scott’s THE DUELLISTS

(1977), adaptations have also appeared on film and televi-

sion of An Outcast of the Islands (1952), Lord Jim (1965), and

most recently Heart of Darkness (1994), Victory (1995), Nos-

tromo (1996), and The Secret Agent (1997). Scott’s interest in

Conrad resurfaces in WHITE SQUALL, a tale which,

although not based on a Conradian source, nonetheless

shares Conrad’s preoccupation with HONOR and loss of

innocence. Orson Welles (LIEV SCHREIBER) is shown con-

templating an adaptation of Heart of Darkness in RKO 281

before the idea of Citizen Kane takes over his life.

Bibliography

Carola M. Kaplan, Conrad in the Twenty-First Century: Contempo-

rary Approaches and Perspectives (New York: Routledge, 2005); Gene

M. Moore, Conrad on Film (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1997); Norman Page, A Conrad Companion (Basingstoke and

London: Macmillan, 1996); Norman Sherry, Joseph Conrad: The

Critical Heritage (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1973).

CONTEMPORARY WAR FILMS

If war films produced in the three decades following World

War II tended to concentrate on ideas of heroism, MAS-

CULINITY and American supremacy—as embodied, for

■

THE COMPANY

(NOVEL)

instance, in the use of John Wayne in The Green Berets

(1969)—their descendants in the 1990s and 2000s had very

different ideas. Examples of this include Saving Private Ryan

(1998), Pearl Harbor (2001), and BLACK HAWK DOWN.

Philippa Gates observes that this new breed of war film

creates an ideal of feminized masculinity: mostly the stars

are younger actors who “embody the conflicting notions of

masculinity that result from crisis—from physical and emo-

tional vulnerability to machismo and violence.” This might

provoke them to act rashly, or to endanger their fellow-sol-

diers in combat. Whereas we might criticize them for not

thinking sufficiently about their actions, the films actually

ask us to forgive them, as their impulsiveness stems “from a

desire to get the job done at any cost: in one moment the

youth can be confident, even arrogant, about his abilities as

a soldier (or a young man) and the next cry for his mother

as he lies dying.” Nonetheless, we have to admire their

strength of character as they sacrifice themselves to serve

their country. This is especially true of some of the young

recruits in Black Hawk Down.

BODY OF LIES shows how such ideals no longer apply

in the so-called “war on terror” in the Middle East, where

neither the CIA nor their antagonists actually declare war on

one another, and where it is very difficult to separate ene-

mies from allies. In this kind of long-term conflict, there are

no winners and losers, just victims.

Reference

Philippa Gates,“‘Fighting the Good Fight’: The Real and the Moral

in the Contemporary Hollywood Combat Film,” Quarterly Review

of Film and Video 22, no.4 (October–December 2005): 302.

Bibliography

Lou Coatney, “Black Hawk Down,” American Historical Review 107,

no.4 (October 2002): 1338; Simon Dalby, “Warrior Geopolitics:

Black Hawk Down and Kingdom of Heaven,” Political Geography 27,

no.4 (May 2008): 439–55; Michael Hammond,“Some Smothering

Dreams: The Combat Film in Contemporary Hollywood,” in Genre

and Contemporary Hollywood, ed. Steve Neale, 62–76. London:

British Film Institute, 2002; James I. Matray and Robert Brent

Toplin, “Black Hawk Down,” Journal of American History 89, no.3

(December 2002): 1176–77; Paolo Palladino,“On the Political Ani-

mal and the Return of a Just War,” Theory and Event 8 no.2 (2005):

126–39; Marilyn B. Young, “In the Combat Zone,” Radical History

Review 85 (Winter 2003): 253–64.

CONTI, TOM (1941– )

Tom Conti made his name in television and the theater in

The Glittering Prizes (BBC, 1976) and the original West End

production of Brian Clark’s play Whose Life Is It Anyway

(1977).

In THE DUELLISTS he plays Dr. Jacquin, a confidante

of D’Hubert (KEITH CARRADINE), whose function is

largely to advance the plot. He informs us that Feraud

(HARVEY KEITEL) is determined to win at all costs, and

advises D’Hubert to pull rank (which would therefore oblige

him not to fight). Conti’s brief appearance ends with him

playing The Duellists’ theme on the flute. This sequence fore-

shadows the film’s final scene, in which the same theme is

heard on the soundtrack while Feraud stands alone, survey-

ing the desolate landscape. The tune reminds us of the futil-

ity of the duel; for Feraud, it only leads to social ostracism.

CORNISH, ABBIE (1982– )

Born in New South Wales, Australia, Cornish came to Scott’s

attention while playing the lead role in Cate Shortland’s

Somersault (2004). Cast as Christie, the twenty-one-year-old

illegitimate daughter of Uncle Henry (ALBERT FINNEY) in

A GOOD YEAR, Cornish plays an innocent who, contrary

to Max Skinner’s (RUSSELL CROWE’s) assumptions, has

not come to the château to lay claim to it. Her sole purpose

is to find out more about her father; something she discov-

ers after reading his letters: “Everything I need to know

about my dad is right here ...right in front ofme [sweeps

her hand across the estate]. And if this place meant as much

to him as I think it did, then you’re [Max is] worse than I

thought for even thinking about selling it.”

Christie proves to be an innocent—so much so that

Max refrains from making love to her, even though he would

like to. Her one redeeming virtue is an encyclopedic knowl-

edge of viniculture, which stands her in good stead when she

inherits the château at the end and tries to upgrade its vines.

Christie is also no fool; she knows that Max has forged the

letter (ostensibly from Uncle Henry) naming her as the heir

to the château. However she raises no objection, as she (like

Max) has discovered something in him that she can relate

to: that neither of them grew up with a proper mother and

father.

Reference

Marc Klein, “A Good Year: Screenplay” (Draft dated 5 September

2005), www.dailyscript.com/scripts/A-GOOD-YEAR-2.pdf (accessed

26 January 2009), 78A.

COTILLARD, MARION (1975– )

Cotillard’s early films include Big Fish (2003) and A Very

Long Engagement (Un Long Dimanche des Fiançialles)

(2004). Cast as Fanny in A GOOD YEAR, Cotillard comes

across as a practical no-nonsense person refusing to suc-

cumb to Max Skinner’s (RUSSELL CROWE’s) blandish-

ments. Even towards the end of the film, when the two of

them have spent the night together and seem destined to fall

COTILLARD, MARION (1975– )

■

in love, Fanny admits to him that she only gave in “because

once you [Max] have done what you came here [to Provence]

to do, you will not return. For us, there can be no future . . .

there is safety in that, n’est-ce pas?” However, all is not what

it seems: the men of the local village where she works view

her as an object and congratulate Max for making her show

her derrière. She once had a relationship with a soccer player;

since then she will let no man near her. Duflot (DIDIER

BOURDON) offers the following advice: “[R]ecall what

Proust said: ‘Leave pretty women to men without imagina-

tion.’” However, Max replies that he is a banker possessed of

no imagination and continues his pursuit of her. Once he has

left London for good and given himself to the château, Fanny

trusts him sufficiently enough to forge a relationship; the

final sequence shows the two of them in an embrace with

Fanny teaching Max some basic spoken French.

Cotillard liked the role of Fanny; in the pressbook she

asserted that the character was the catalyst for Max’s change

of heart: “he comes to understand what he really needs is

right here at the chateau and in Provence.” Fanny herself

understood through the relationship that “she needs love,

she definitely needs love. And she deserves it, too.”

Reference

Pressbook: A Good Year (Los Angeles: Twentieth Century-Fox Film

Corporation, 2006), 6.

CRIMESTOPPERS

GB 2003 Commercial r/t 42 sec col. Production Company:

RSA Films. Director: Ridley Scott

Commercial for the British charity Crimestoppers,

screened in theaters in the United Kingdom as part of their

campaign “Crossing the Line.” The company made two

commercials—one rated 18 (the equivalent of a US R-rating);

the other 12A (or PG-13), to be shown with the film Amer-

ican Pie 3—The Wedding. The commercials highlighted

teenagers’ relaxed attitudes to crime by showing a group of

youths discussing it in an urban setting. One says, “Every-

body does a bit of fucking around. But it don’t mean we’re

bad.” Another believes that individuals cannot change the

situation: “Fuck it, how can we stop it? There’s nothing we

can do.” The commercial aimed to show that teenagers can

do something: if they witness a crime, they can report it

anonymously to Crimestoppers.

CROMWELL, JAMES (1940– )

The son of director John Cromwell and actress Kay Johnson,

Cromwell’s early films included Murder by Death (1976).

Thereafter he pursued a career as a character actor in films

and television.

In RKO 281 Cromwell portrays William Randolph Hearst

as a bully who, like Orson Welles (LIEV SCHREIBER), is

equally preoccupied with himself, at everyone else’s expense.

A tall, angular figure, Cromwell’s Hearst “moves with a deli-

cacy surprising for such a famously merciless man. Although

the word ruthless does not begin to do justice to the press

baron’s animus, Hearst is endlessly polite and almost painfully

soft-spoken.” For most of the film, Hearst is content to show

his power at any and every opportunity, for example threat-

ening his employees such as Louella Parsons (BRENDA

BLETHYN) with dismissal unless she brings him all the

inside information about Welles’s film. This kind of charac-

ter has appeared frequently in Scott’s work, notably Tyrell in

BLADE RUNNER.

However, we do sympathize with Hearst at the end, par-

ticularly in a short scene in an elevator where he unexpect-

edly encounters Welles and observes, “What kind of sad

future are we two making? A future where men will do any-

thing to sell their newspapers and their movies? A future

where no price is too high for fame and power? When we

will all scratch each other to pieces just to be heard?”

Although Hearst himself has been responsible for creating

this kind of world, at least he understands the consequences

of his actions—which is more than can be said of Welles,

who shouts “Charles Foster Kane would have accepted [the

invitation to watch the film]!” He has little or no under-

standing of the world outside; the film is his life.

Reference

John Logan, “Draft Script for RKO 281” (dated 1 May 1997),

http://sfy.ru/sfy.html?script=rko218 (accessed 16 November 2008).

CRONENWETH, JORDAN (1935–1996)

Jordan Cronenweth’s early career included films such as Billy

Wilder’s remake of The Front Page (1974), Altered States

(1980), and Cutter’s Way (1981).

In an interview first published in July 1982, Cronenweth

emphasized the fact that “the style of the photography in

Citizen Kane most closely approached the look he [Scott]

wanted for BLADE RUNNER. This included high contrast,

unusual camera angles and the use of shafts of light. This is

especially evident, for instance, in the bright light shining

from outside through the latticed windows of the Bradley

Building as Deckard (HARRISON FORD) pursues Batty

(RUTGER HAUER). Deckard turns away from the window,

and we see a door barring his way, with a yellow light shin-

ing through its wooden bars. The entire sequence suggests

that Deckard is somehow imprisoned; for all his determina-

tion to “retire” (i.e., kill) the REPLICANTS, he shares their

fate in the sense that he cannot escape his destiny.

Cronenweth also took great care with the street scenes:

“We used contrast, backlight, smoke and lightning ...the

streets were depicted as terribly overcrowded, giving the

audience a future time frame to relate to. We had street

■

CRIMESTOPPERS

scenes just packed with people . . . like ants. So we made

them appear like ants—all the same . . . like going nowhere.

Photographically, we kept them rather colorless.”

The other key ingredient in the photography of Blade

Runner was the use of shafts of light: “They were used for

both advertising and crime control, much the way a prison is

monitored by moving search lights. The shafts of light repre-

sent the invasion of privacy by a supervising force; a form of

control. You are never sure who it is, but even in the dark-

ened seclusion of your home, unless your pull your shades

down, you are going to be disturbed at one time or another.”

This continues a theme first explored in ALIEN about the

extent to which human beings are simply objects, subject to

the authority of a higher power. Scott returned to the theme

once again in his famous commercial for APPLE COMPUT-

ERS (1984), based on George Orwell’s 1984.

Jordan Cronenweth won a BAFTA (British Academy

Film Award) for his work on Blade Runner, which the critic

PAUL M. SAMMON describes as “Vermeerish” in style with

its “deep pools of darkness” and its “complicated palette.”

Cronenweth died in 1996 of Parkinson’s Disease.

References

Herb A. Lightman and Richard Paterson, “Cinematography for

Blade Runner,” American Cinematographer, March 1999, 158, 161–62;

Paul M. Sammon, interviewed in “Remembering Jordan Cronen-

weth” (d. Charles de Laurzirika), included in Blade Runner: Collec-

tor’s Edition (Warner Bros. Entertainment and the Blade Runner

Partnership, 2007), disc 4.

CROWE, RUSSELL (1964– )

Born in Wellington, New Zealand, Crowe made his name in

CURTIS HANSON’s LA Confidential (1997), an adaptation

of the James Ellroy bestseller about the seamier side of 1950s

LOS ANGELES.

Cast as Maximus in GLADIATOR, Crowe was just emerg-

ing from unknown quantity to rising star when he landed the

role. In a publicity interview with the British film magazine

Empire, he suggested that the part differed quite substantially

from the kind of action hero associated with Stallone or

Schwarzenegger: “To play a Roman general from both sides

[leader and slave], so it’s not just the Spartacus story, and it’s

not just Ben Hur, it’s kind of both.” In another interview pub-

lished in the book The Making of Gladiator, he remarked that

“Maximus goes from being a great general to being shackled

and sold into slavery as a gladiator—a slight change in lifestyle

...For a while then he lives only to stand in front of the new

emperor and enact his revenge, but he is caught up in the

political turmoil of the day and can’t help but become

involved. For want of a better expression, he is a good man.”

Crowe and Scott fought constantly during filming, with

Crowe arguing things from his character’s point of view.

Their first argument centered on Maximus’s accent. Since

the script said he was from Spain, Crowe thought he should

speak Spanish; but Scott thought otherwise. Scott also axed

the love scenes between Crowe and actress Gianina Facio,

who played Maximus’s wife in the film. Despite the conflicts,

Crowe apparently enjoyed the experience of working with

Scott. His biographers Tim Ewbank and Stafford Hildred

quote him as saying that “We all knew that we didn’t have

the complete narrative when we began but through a long

process and lot of sleepless nights we found our story . . .

Working with Ridley was like doing quantum physics with

Picasso.” Richard Rushton describes Crowe’s performance as

one that foregrounds virtues such as democracy, family val-

ues, mercy and honor, particularly in the final sequence: “All

attention is paid to the body of Maximus as he is tri-

umphantly carried from the Colosseum on the shoulders of

the guards . . . [he] is graced with what the Greeks referred

to as a ‘beautiful death,’ . . . Maximus’s death brings to an end

a journey that had been prefigured in the film’s opening

scene and alluded to many times throughout the film. His

death sees him delivered into an Arcadian promised land

where he is reunited with his wife and son. His ‘beautiful

death’ ensures that his deeds and fame will live in the mem-

ory of the people of Rome who, we must presume, will

reclaim Rome as a Republic.”

Cast as Max Skinner in A GOOD YEAR, Crowe admit-

ted in an interview with Premiere that both he and Scott

faced “a completely different set of problems than we faced

last time [on Gladiator].” Max was not a hero but someone

who gradually acquired self-awareness: “He learns that

things that he was taught when he was a younger man have

great value . . . through his ambition, he has lost sight of the

things that were really important and of the importance of

the person who taught him those things.” Crowe’s perfor-

mance is not exactly comic, though he does communicate a

certain winsome charm—particularly when he understands

the shortcomings of his life in London. After spending the

night with Fanny (MARION COTILLARD), Max blithely

states in MARC KLEIN’s script that “nothing’s preventing

us from moving your café to Notting Hill,” without think-

ing for a moment that Fanny might be perfectly happy in

PROVENCE. Fanny rebukes him; and Max’s tone becomes

far less confident as he stops himself and hesitatingly admits,

“This place . . . it doesn’t fit my life.” Fanny’s response leaves

him completely at a loss: “No Max, it [your life] doesn’t fit

this place.” For the first time in years (ever since he was a

child) Max understands that the vainglorious pursuit of

money is not life’s only option. He resembles a lost little boy

as he stares at the camera “in a state of anxious turmoil” and

subsequently sits on a bench at the edge of the tennis court,

“depressed [and] contemplative.” However, all turns out fine

in the end, as Max gives up his job and takes on the role of

CROWE, RUSSELL (1964– )

■

château-owner, following in his Uncle Henry’s (ALBERT

FINNEY’s) footsteps. Once again Max resembles a little boy

as he sits on his front step, wearing a self-satisfied smile as

he listens to Christie (ABBIE CORNISH) and Duflot

(DIDIER BOURDON) arguing inside.

Crowe’s next film for Scott, AMERICAN GANGSTER,

had him playing Richie Roberts, the head of a special unit

set up to purge the streets of NEW YORK of drugs in the

early 1970s. In the production information Crowe described

the character as fundamentally contradictory: “None of his

real story has traditional elements—and he’s not somebody

you can easily categorize.” Although scrupulously honest in

his daily life—to such an extent that he turns in $1 million

in stolen money rather than keeping it for himself (like his

fellow officers)—Richie has strong connections to the Mafia

through his friend Joey Sadano (Richie Coster). At one point

Joey offers him the use of an expensive ski-hut in the Aspen

mountains so long as Richie leaves the Mafia leader Dominic

Cattano (ARMAND ASSANTE) alone. STEVEN ZAIL-

LIAN’s script reflects Richie’s dilemma: “What Richie knows

is that no matter what he does or says at this point he’s got

a problem.” He rejects the offer—even if he realizes that it

costs him his friendship with Joey.

One of Richie’s main virtues in Crowe’s performance is

his persistence in the face of adversity—a quality also char-

acteristic of Maximus in Gladiator. Even when faced with an

aggressive attorney (Roger Bart), he doggedly maintains that

“Frank Lucas is above the mafia in the dope business. I

believe he . . . uses US military planes and personnel to bring

pure number-four heroin into the United States.” Such out-

landish claims are rejected out of hand; but Richie resolutely

maintains his convictions. This is what makes him so good

at his job, as well as an intimidating opponent in the fight

against organized crime. Despite his power and influence,

Frank Lucas (DENZEL WASHINGTON) ends up being

“worried ...by this cop who doesn’t take money sitting

placidly in front of him . . . Frank has never been so frus-

trated by anyone in his life. He wants to work something out

with Richie obviously, but can’t figure out how.” Frank has

no choice but to pass on the names of his associates as well

as all the police officers he has bribed, in return for a limited

jail sentence.

For his next role in BODY OF LIES, Crowe had to put

on fifty pounds to play the slovenly Ed Hoffman, director of

the CIA’s Near East Division. In the production notes

DAVID IGNATIUS, the author of the original novel, claimed

that Hoffman could multi-task with a ruthless efficiency and

a sense of detachment totally foreign to a hands-on opera-

tive like Roger Ferris (LEONARDO DICAPRIO): “Ed Hoff-

man is cynical, tough, a man who was born to use other

people . . . He doesn’t care about the human cost of what he

does.” In Crowe’s performance Hoffman comes across as a

boor—someone who willfully neglects his family as he talks

incessantly on a Bluetooth link with Ferris. His view of the

“war on terror” is uncomplicated (and fundamentally

racist); if the Americans don’t destroy the Muslims, then

they will be destroyed themselves. No Arab can be trusted;

and if any of them do help the Americans, they can be

picked up and dispensed with at will. Diplomatic niceties are

not for him; while walking to a meeting with Hani, the head

of the Jordanian Secret Service (MARK STRONG), Hoffman

quotes the golfing legend Sam Snead, who apparently said

“if you’re not thinking about pussy, you’re not concentrat-

ing.” All Hoffman cares about is his status within the CIA—

“a results-oriented organization,” as he claims. WILLIAM

MONAHAN’s original script has him making even more

outrageous remarks, claiming (for instance) that the Mus-

lims resemble the barbarians staring across the River Tiber

at the ancient city of Rome. This provides a neat intertextual

reference to Gladiator. The San Francisco Chronicle reviewer

described him with justification as “some variety of fanatic,

perhaps a particularly American variety, one whose faith in

his own virtue is so complete that he could commit any

atrocity with a clear conscience.”

Not everyone liked Crowe’s characterization, however;

Roger Clarke in Sight and Sound described it as “one of his

laziest ...Crowe’s take on the man, though occasionally

amusing, is annoyingly opaque. Apart from the odd rant

about the threat of an international caliphate, Crowe’s deter-

mined underplaying of his character offers little clue to his

soul or even, rather strangely, his motivations.”

References

American Gangster: Production Information (Los Angeles: Univer-

sal Pictures, 2007), 6; Body of Lies: Production Notes (Los Angeles:

Warner Bros., 2008), www.mix96tulsa.com/movies/notes/body-of-

lies/note/4 (accessed 16 January 2009); Roger Clarke, “Body of Lies,”

Sight and Sound, December 2008, www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/

review/4558 (accessed 17 February 2009); Tim Ewbank and

Stafford Hildred, Russell Crowe: The Biography (London: Andre

Deutsch, 2006), 174–75; Marc Klein, “A Good Year: Screenplay”

(Draft dated 5 September 2005), www.dailyscript.com/scripts/A-

GOOD-YEAR-2.pdf (accessed 26 January 2009); Diana Landau

(ed.), Gladiator: The Making of the Ridley Scott Epic (Basingstoke

and London: Boxtree, 2000), 53; Mick LaSalle, “Muddled Body of

Lies,” San Francisco Chronicle, 10 October 2008, E1; Martin Palmer,

“Grrrrr,” Empire 132 (June 2000): 78; Richard Rushton,“Narrative

and Spectacle in Gladiator,” CineAction 56 (September 2001): 40;

“When It Comes to Acting ...,”Premiere, November 2006, 72;

Steven Zaillian,“American Gangster: Final Shooting Script,” 27 July

2006, www.roteirodecinema.com.br/scripts/files/american_gangster

.htm (accessed 8 February 2009).

■

CROWE, RUSSELL (1964– )

Bibliography

James L. Dickerson, Russell Crowe: The Unauthorized Biography

(New York: Schirmer Trade Books, 2003); “Interview: Russell

Crowe,” Film Review 676 (November 2006): 72–74; Russell Crowe

interview by Rob Carnevale, www.indielondon.co.uk/Film-

Review/a-good-year-russell-crowe-interview (accessed 8 August

2008); Christy Lytal, “A Crowe’s Eye View,” Premiere 20, no.3

(November 2006): 70–72, 107; James Mottram, “As the Crowe

Flies,” Film Review 676 (November 2006): 70–74; “News: American

Gangster,” Empire 214 (April 2007): 28–30; Martyn Palmer, “Orig-

inal Gangsters,” Empire 221 (November 2007): 114–24; Martyn

Palmer, “Royal Flush,” Time Out (London), 10–17 May 2000: 24;

Martyn Palmer,“Russell Crowe: Why I Had to Fatten Up and Calm

Down,” Daily Telegraph, 6 November 2008, www.telegraph.co.uk/

culture/film/3562948/Russell-Crowe-Why-I-had-to-fatten-up-and-

calm-down.html (accessed 17 February 2009); Garth Pearce, “A

Barbaric World . . .” Total Film 41 (June 2000): 46–55; “World

Exclusive: American Gangster,” Empire 214 (April 2007): 29.

CRUISE, TOM (1962– )

Born Thomas Cruise Mapother IV in Syracuse, New York,

on 3 July 1962. The only son (among four children) of

nomadic parents, young Tom developed an interest in act-

ing and abandoned his plans of becoming a priest, dropped

out of school, and at age eighteen headed for New York and

a possible acting career. He made his film debut with a small

part in Franco Zeffirelli’s Endless Love (1981) and from the

outset exhibited an undeniable box office appeal to both

male and female audiences.

Cruise was cast as Jack o’the Green in LEGEND on the

strength of his performances in Taps (1981) and Risky Busi-

ness (1983). According to PAUL M. SAMMON Scott wanted

him to become a beast-man, and screened Francois Truf-

faut’s L’ENFANT SAUVAGE (1970) for the young actor, “to

give Tom an idea of the feral quality I had in mind for Jack.”

Cruise’s biographer Andrew Morton reports that Scott

wanted Cruise to grow his hair and emulate the wolfish ges-

tures of Truffaut’s child, whom the director saw as a heroic

force of nature.

The English crew apparently liked Cruise. In another

biography by Ian Johnstone, the film’s unit publicist Geoff

Freeman recalls that the actor “was rather reluctant to go out

and about too much as he had had to grow long hair ...and

felt self-conscious about it.” Cruise does not have much to do

in the film, apart from playing the role of a young attractive

boy engaged on a quest, both to rescue the unicorns and to

prove his own manhood. Like D’Hubert in THE DUELLISTS,

he realizes that it is his duty to embark on the rescue mission,

even if he is initially unwilling to do so. As in many Scott

films, Jack has to choose between LOVE VS. DUTY, especially

when he is seduced by the fairy Oona (ANNABELLE

LANYON). She offers him the prospect of “fairy glamour”

and to acquire a heart both “fearless and free.” However, Jack

resists such temptations, and eventually kills Meg Muckle-

bones (ROBERT PICARDO) to secure entry into Darkness’s

(TIM CURRY’s) lair. This act eventually proves his strength,

both to himself and the fairies. It is therefore quite logical

that they should congratulate him, as he vanquishes all

opponents to secure Lily’s release.

Originally Scott was going to have Jack undergo even

more tasks. In LEGEND: THE DIRECTOR’S CUT there is a

reproduction of a storyboard which has Jack facing up to a

two-headed giant named Abraxas, with each head having a

different personality. One of the heads has a toothache,

prompting Gump to pretend that Screwball is a tooth fairy,

which distracts the giant while Jack locates Darkness’s

weapons. The scene was eventually deemed too expensive

and too extraneous to produce.

Reviews of Cruise’s performance were grudging at best.

Morton quotes one who observed that Cruise seemed “so

overwhelmed by sets and special effects that his character

could be played by anybody.” Apparently people laughed

when he had to deliver lines such as “When I get to heaven I

know just how the angels will sound.” Cruise himself admit-

ted that in the film he was “just another color in a Ridley

Scott painting” and tends to dismiss the film as a bit of a joke.

References

Iain Johnstone, Tom Cruise: All the World’s a Stage (London: Hod-

der and Stoughton, 2006), 101; Andrew Morton, Tom Cruise: An

Unauthorized Biography (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2008), 73,

74–75, 80; Paul M. Sammon, Ridley Scott Close-Up: The Making of

his Movies (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1999), 80.

CRUSADER FILMS

Hollywood has frequently used the Crusades as a way of

reinforcing western Christian values, especially during times

of social and political turmoil. Paramount Pictures’ The Cru-

sades (1935) starring Loretta Young and Henry Wilcoxon

and directed by Cecil B. DeMille, was planned as a follow-

up to the tremendously successful Cleopatra (1934). The

story tells of King Richard’s efforts to reclaim the Holy Land

from the Muslims. Initially Richard (Wilcoxon) embarks on

the Crusade to escape his obligation to marry Alice of France

(Katherine DeMille). Soon the love of the beautiful Baren-

garia (Young) helps to bring more noble motivations to the

fore and rekindles Richard’s belief in God. The film turned

out to be a box office failure and for more than a decade

DeMille concerned himself with elaborate versions of Amer-

ican history.

During the height of the McCarthy period Warner Bros.

made King Richard and the Crusaders (1954), in which Richard

CRUSADER FILMS

■

(George Sanders) drives out the heathen Saracens led by Sal-

adin (Rex Harrison). Dissent leads to treachery among his

allies and only the valiant Sir Kenneth of Scotland (Laurence

Harvey) proves to be a loyal subject. Saladin falls in love with

a Christian woman, Lady Edith (Virginia Mayo), which

prompts Richard to try and win her back for the sake of his

country’s future. Despite the overt pro-western message, the

film proved box office poison, although Max Steiner con-

tributed an interesting score.

Other well-known films involving the crusades include

Ivanhoe (1952), The Lion in Winter (1968), Monty Python

and the Holy Grail (1975), and A Knight’s Tale (2001). Carlo

Ludovico’s The Mighty Crusaders (1957) adapts Renaissance

poet Torquato Tasso’s epic Jerusalem Delivered, focusing on

the exploits of Godfrey of Boulogne in the First Crusade.

Anthony Mann’s El Cid (1964) tells of the eponymous hero

(Charlton Heston) who drives the Moors from eleventh-

century Spain, while Andrei Tarkovsky’s ANDREI RUBLEV

(1966) depicts feudal wars through the life of the title char-

acter, a visionary icon painter. Scott professed an admiration

for the latter film in the book accompanying the release of

KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. Unlike most previous Crusader

films, Scott’s film adopts an even-handed approach to his-

torical events by portraying the Muslims as fundamentally

decent—unlike many of the Christian warriors who regard

their opponents as “the enemies of God.”

Reference

Diana Landau, ed., Kingdom of Heaven: The Ridley Scott Film and

the History behind the Story (London: Simon and Schuster Ltd.,

2005), 22.

CSOKAS, MARTON (1966– )

Born in New Zealand, Marton Csokas starred in the 1996

film Broken English, followed by a stint in Xenia: Warrior

Princess (1997–98, 2000–2001). Other films included The

Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) and The

Bourne Supremacy (2004).

Cast as Guy de Lusignan in KINGDOM OF HEAVEN,

Csokas portrays a ruthless power-seeker who will stop at

nothing to achieve his ends. He has little regard for Balian,

whom he believes to be an upstart bastard; indeed, Guy will

not even deign to sit at table with him. Guy de Lusignan also

despises Jerusalem, a place where he believes “there are no

civilized rules.” The irony of course is that it is Guy himself,

a native of France, who has no “civilized rules” determining

his behavior. He eventually suffers a humiliating defeat by

Saladin (GHASSAN MASSOUD), while his wife leaves him

and joins Balian (ORLANDO BLOOM) in the exodus from

Jerusalem. In KINGDOM OF HEAVEN: THE DIRECTOR’S

CUT Guy suffers further indignities, as he is released by Sal-

adin (an act intended to humiliate Guy in the eyes of his for-

mer subjects) and subsequently challenges Balian to a duel.

Once again Guy comes off second best, and he has to endure

the further humiliation of being spared once again, this time

by Balian.

CURRY, TIM (1946– )

Born in Cheshire, Tim Curry began his acting career in

musicals such as Hair. He shot to fame as Frank ’N Furter in

The Rocky Horror Show in London and New York, and sub-

sequently in Jim Sharman’s cult film The Rocky Horror Pic-

ture Show (1975). He became a noted actor on screen and

on stage, playing a season at the Royal National Theatre,

London and starring in the US tour of Noel Gay’s musical

Me and My Girl.

Scott cast him as Darkness in LEGEND on the strength

of his performance in The Rocky Horror Picture Show. In his

lifelike, moist red skin, with a mask allowing his emotions

to register on his face (designed by makeup artist ROB BOT-

TIN), Curry’s Darkness is a truly alarming personality. His

booming voice echoes across the screen, even in his quietest

speeches, and the aural effects added to the sound alter con-

siderably with the tone of his delivery. This is especially evi-

dent in the way he commands Lily (MIA SARA) to sit with

him at table in a demonic voice that demands respect.

Like Roy Batty (RUTGER HAUER) in BLADE RUN-

NER, Curry’s Darkness is at once repellent yet powerfully

attractive—for example, in the way he seduces Lily. A

masked dancer dressed all in black moves round the terri-

fied princess, and slowly, as the shadows of the danger’s fin-

gers creep across her face, Lily is drawn into the rhythm. The

sequence reveals how Lily is gradually drawn into Darkness’s

trap. The next shot introduces an erotic dimension as the

dancing figure moves across the frame, at first obscuring and

then revealing Lily’s enraptured features as she falls victim

to the seduction.

Darkness casts his personality over the entire film as he

describes issues relating both to the characters and the view-

ing audience: “The dreams of youth are the regrets of matu-

rity. Dreams are my specialty. Through dreams I influence

mankind.” As they witness the action unfolding in front of

them, viewers are drawn into the film’s dream-world. Dark-

ness realizes this; his lines have a particular significance in a

world that places significance on youthful looks and rejects

orthodox religious values. He will exploit people’s self-inter-

est and greed and thereby draw them into his sphere of

influence. Darkness’s final words demand our attention:

“You think you have won. I am a part of you all. You can

never defeat me. We are brothers eternal.” The pronoun “we”

refers to everyone, both on and off the screen.

In LEGEND: THE DIRECTOR’S CUT Darkness’s char-

acter is developed further. The scene where he chats to his

father (Mike Edmonds) about Lily is further amplified; the

■

CSOKAS, MARTON (1966– )

father advises him to “woo her . . . tempt her. Win her” and

later to “make her one of us.” Darkness becomes more of a

satanic figure; he is not simply out to woo her, but seeks to

convert her to his hellish faith. He will try anything to

achieve his goal, including persuasion, flattery and tempta-

tion. At one point in the Director’s Cut he tells Lily: “Judge

me not too harshly, mistress. I invite you to share this sup-

per. Look how sweet it is.” The biblical echoes are obvious:

Lily is being invited to her own Last Supper.

Curry’s performance was not universally appreciated

(one fan site likened his characterization to “a devil goat . . .

another role that’ll mark him a weirdo for life. Hasn’t Tim

learned anything from movies like Star Wars?”

References

“The Career of Tim Curry: Uncovering the Curse,” www.x-

entertainment.com/messages/477.html (accessed 8 May 2008).

CYBERPUNK

Ridley Scott’s BLADE RUNNER appeared just two years

before William Gibson’s quintessential cyberpunk novel

Necromancer (1984). Future urban nightmares form the set-

tings of both works; technology permeates each, while the

Frankensteinian theme of man experimenting with new

forms provides the conflict and the philosophical dialectic

that runs both through the film and the novel. Blade Run-

ner asks questions characteristic of cyberpunk fiction such

as: what does it mean to be human? What are the bound-

aries of humanity? How human or humane are human

beings? How can one tell human beings from imitations?

How human are REPLICANTS, androids or other artificially

designed human forms?

Blade Runner blurs the line between human and machine,

because no visual distinction between human and replicant

exists. In the film the humans want to to kill the replicants

in part because the replicants can integrate into society so

well. Should the replicants rise up against the humans,

humans wouldn’t stand a chance against their genetically

superior counterparts. The film also addresses the question

of what it is to be a cyborg—a human being whose body has

been taken over in whole or in part by electromechanical

devices. What exactly is a cyborg? In basic terms, one could

say that humans feel emotions while a cyborg doesn’t. How-

ever, all of the cyborgs/replicants in Blade Runner have the

capacity to feel emotions; sometimes they resemble trapped

souls trying to escape.

Bibliography

The Cybercultures Reader, ed. David Bell and Barbara M. Kennedy

(London and New York: Routledge, 2000); “Did Blade Runner Influ-

ence William Gibson When He Wrote His Cyberpunk Classic?”

www.brmovie.com/FAQs/BR_FAQ_BR_Influence.htm (accessed 13

April 2008); William Fisher, “Of Living Machines and Living-

Machines: Blade Runner and the Terminal Genre,” New Literary His-

tory 20, no.1 (Autumn 1988): 187–98; “Information Database: The

Cyberpunk Project,” http://project.cyberpunk.ru/idb/bladerunner

.html (accessed 13 April 2008); W. A. Senior, “Blade Runner and

Cyberpunk Visions of Humanity,” Film Criticism 21, no.1 (Fall

1996): 1–12; Steven Shaviro, “The Erotic Life of Machines,” Paral-

lax 25 (October–December 2002): 21–32; Wong Kin Yuen, “On the

Edge of Spaces: Blade Runner, Ghost in the Shell and Hong Kong’s

Cityscape,” in Liquid Metal: The Science Fiction Film Reader,ed.

Sean Redmond (London and New York: Wallflower Press, 2004),

98–111.

CYBERPUNK

■

DANTE (DANTE ALIGHIERI) (c. 1265–1321)

Durante degli Alighieri, commonly known as Dante

Alighieri, was a Florentine poet of the Middle Ages. His cen-

tral work, the Divina Commedia, is one of the greatest liter-

ary works composed in Italian language and a masterpiece

of world literature. Hence he is known as the father of the

Italian language.

Dante frequently wrote of courtly love—the kind of rit-

uals of courtship that were characteristically taught to young

boys of noble birth. They were taught to honor the Chris-

tian church, to respect women, and to devote their lives to

the service of a lady. Such service was supposed to increase

their abilities as warriors. Often a knight would worship his

lady at a distance, never speaking to her and perhaps never

even seeing her. Sometimes the courtly love inspired the

lovers to great suffering as they fell in love with their beloved

women, who seldom reciprocated.

HANNIBAL includes specific allusion to Dante’s son-

nets: Hannibal Lecter (ANTHONY HOPKINS) quotes both

in Italian and English from the first sonnet in La Vita Nuova,

and The Inferno. Such allusions emphasize the depth of his

affection for Clarice Starling (JULIANNE MOORE), which

is so great that he is prepared to cut his own hand off with

a meat-cleaver at the end of the film to break the handcuffs

joining him to Clarice and thereby ensure his escape from

potential custody.

DAVIS, GEENA (1956– )

Born Virginia Elizabeth Davis in Wareham, Massachusetts.

She entered New England College in New Hampshire and

subsequently majored in drama at Boston University.

Throughout the 1980s she made several important films,

including Tootsie (1982), The Fly (1986), Beetle Juice (1988),

and The Accidental Tourist (1988), for which she won an

Oscar as Best Supporting Actress.

Evidently Davis heard that Scott was going to direct

THELMA & LOUISE and asked to play the part of Thelma

herself. At the beginning of the film, she comes across as a

gawky, unfulfilled personality, who is unable to conform to

the role of housewife imposed on her by her husband Darryl

(CHRISTOPHER McDONALD). When offered the chance

to escape from her life, she perceives it as little more than a

holiday. As the action progresses, however, Thelma gradu-

ally transforms herself into a strong, independent woman—

especially after her experiences with JD (BRAD PITT).

Whereas once she was so unreliable that when counting her

money she accidentally lets twenty dollars fly out of the win-

dow, she now assumes a leading role, forces Louise (SUSAN

SARANDON) back on the road, and robs a grocery store for

money. This scene is pivotal in the relationship between the

two women, as Davis recalled: “Louise has never fallen apart

before. It’s pretty profound to see this happen. But I realize

that one of us has not to fall apart, so this is the scene where

I start taking control.”

Davis herself was unaware of the impact her role would

have on the film audience, especially in America. It was only

when it opened in July 1991 that she became aware that

“people would come up to me, saying ‘it changed my life.’

They would honk at me at stoplights and raise their fists and

shout ‘Whoo-hoo!’” Davis herself has embraced the feminist

cause; like Thelma, she believed herself to be “on the same

journey as the character I play ...This is a movie about two

women finding their power and taking responsibility for

their lives and that’s just what I am trying to do myself.”

References

Simon Banner, “There Were Never Such Devoted Sisters,” You Mag-

azine (Mail on Sunday), 14 July 1991, 32–33; Juliann Garey and

Bronwen Hruska, “Road Worriers,” Premiere 14 no.10 (June 2001):

84; Betsy Sharkey, “Ridley Scott Tries to Make It Personal,” New

Yor k Times, 18 November 1990, Section 2, 24.

DAVIS, VIOLA (1965– )

Born in Saint Matthews, South Carolina, Davis has worked

mainly in American television on series such as City of

Angels (2000), Century City (2004), and Traveler (2007).

Cast as Dr. Charlene Barton, one of the scientists in

THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN, Davis faces a conflict of

LOVE VS. DUTY, as she is forced to leave her husband Sam

(Adrian Holmes) with her son and spend all her days and

■

nights in the laboratory Wildfire in a search for the antidote

to the Andromeda Strain which threatens to engulf Amer-

ica. In a preproduction interview Davis said the experience

of filming in a confined space helped her understand Bar-

ton’s experiences: “We were in such close quarters that life

mirrored art, art mirrored life. We started to find out what

these scientists actually were really going through in the

story, as actors in this small space that they had constructed

up in Vancouver.” Barton’s experiences are much more

painful than those of her colleagues, as members of the mil-

itary take her husband hostage and force her to take samples

of the virus for future research. Although the film ends hap-

pily with Charlene restored to her husband and the country

apparently free of the Andromeda Strain, we know for a fact

that it still exists. The final sequence shows an (unnamed)

astronaut putting a canister of it away in an icebox. The

implication is clear—as a result of the military’s self-inter-

est, America is still at risk of future infection, in spite of the

scientists’ efforts.

Reference

Fred Topel, “Viola Davis Talks About Andromeda Strain,” About

.com: Hollywood Movies, http://movies.about.com/od/interviews

withactors/a/andromeda51208_4.htm (accessed 15 February

2009).

DE BONT, JAN (1943– )

Jan de Bont was born in the Netherlands to a Roman

Catholic Dutch family on the 22 of October 1943. He has

always had a creative mind and good mentality for camera

techniques and soon got into film as a popular cinematog-

rapher. His major Hollywood breakthrough came with Die

Hard (1988), and on the strength of this film he was engaged

as director of photography on BLACK RAIN.

De Bont’s greatest achievement in the film is his por-

trayal of the city of Osaka in JAPAN as a living hell, similar

to the futuristic Los Angeles in BLADE RUNNER. This is not

only evident in the exterior sequences—where the neon

lights, anonymous buildings and endless stream of CARS

suggest a DYSTOPIA where individuals have no power—but

also in interior sequences such as a murder sequence, taking

place in a bar. De Bont’s camera tracks across the dimly lit

room, focusing on the impassive-looking faces of the Japan-

ese customers trying hard to enjoy their few moments of

freedom. In the center of the frame stands Nick Conklin

(MICHAEL DOUGLAS)—an aloof, lone figure trying to

make sense of what is happening around him; no one seems

in the least interested in the murder as they continue toss-

ing back their overpriced champagne and taking advantage

of the services offered by the so-called “hostesses.” The whole

scene resembles a living hell dedicated to hedonism where

indifference and self-interest prevail.

Another memorable sequence—that is characteristic of

De Bont’s work in stylish action pieces and slick adven-

tures—takes place in an iron foundry where Nick and

Masahiro (KEN TAKAKURA) pursue Sato (YUSAKU MAT-

SUDA) and his gang. The mise-en-scène is awash with red

and orange colors; sparks fly in all directions; and smoke bil-

lows through the air. As in LEGEND, the characters appear

to have fallen into Darkness’s lair, an earthly place of tor-

ment threatening to engulf them in flames.

Bibliography

David Jon Wiener, “High Crime Culture Clash in Black Rain,”

American Cinematographer 70, no.9 (September 1989): 42–49.

DE GANAY, THIERRY (?–?)

Producer of SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER ME. De Ganay

was drawn to the film (his first English-language film) on

account of its subject, which he felt “completely corre-

sponded with the tastes and special sensitivities of Ridley

Scott. Howard Franklin manages to illustrate the persistence

of the class system in the United States, but his interest and

intentions are timeless.” De Ganay reemphasized the point

in another interview, saying that what really interested him

was the subject of class division, especially in the United

States, which tried to project a vision of classlessness to the

world. He believed there were two worlds in the film—one

of the police and the other of money.

References

Thierry de Ganay, interviewed in the pressbook for Someone to

Watch Over Me (Burbank, CA: Columbia Pictures, 1987), 3;

“Thierry de Ganay: Producteur Francais à Hollywood,” Le Film

Français 2187 (8 April 1988): 4.

Bibliography

Sarah Drouhaud,“Larry Clark Rejoint Lambert pour ‘Un Beau Jour

Pour Mourir,’” Le Film Français 2995 (13 June 2003): 8.

DE LAURENTIIS, DINO (1919– )

Born Agostino de Laurentiis in Torre Annunziata, Italy. De

Laurentiis began as long ago as 1947 in Italy with La Figlia

del Capitano; his Hollywood career took off in the early

1970s when he produced a string of hits including Mandingo

(1975), The Shootist (1976), and the first remake of King

Kong (also 1976). Following the success of U-571 (2000), de

Laurentiis went on to produce HANNIBAL, a film he

believed was not a sequel to THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS

but rather “the second act of Hannibal Lecter’s life ...It is

the life of Hannibal Lecter free from the prison as an intel-

lectual man in Florence, in the middle of the culture. Even

then Starling comes back in a different position.” STEVEN

ZAILLIAN’s script emphasizes the significance of the loca-

tion through stage directions: “Florence—Day. One of the

DE LAURENTIIS, DINO (1919– )

■