..Gary Dretzka
..Noah Forrest
..Leonard Klady
..R.J. Matson
..David Poland
..Douglas Pratt
..Ray Pride
..Michael Wilmington

XTC2: The Death of Film

Sometime back in 1989, filmmaker Bernard Rose accepted an invitation to view a demonstration of new digital and high-definition technologies. At the time he was preparing a very expensive film at Universal - The Thief of Always, an effects-laden adventure in the spirit of Harry Potter that had been written by Clive Barker (Rose directed the Barker screenplay Candyman). 

Rose initially approached the tutorial as a possible means of controlling or reining in costs on a project the studio deemed questionably commercial in relation to its budget pegged at $90 million. However, circumstance would soon send him barreling along in another direction.

Coincidence plays a major role in the events that ensued. At about the same juncture, he met and became romantically involved with Lisa Enos, a documentarian who had recently arrived in Los Angeles. The two stand out in stark contrast. The Oxford-educated Rose is erudite, stocky, mercurial, glib with a curiously dangerous personality. Enos comes across as a calming influence with the mien of a corn-fed mid-westerner, embodying seemingly contrasting elements of native acuity and naiveté.

The ingredients in this mixed salad included the frustration of development and the ardor of a blossoming personal relationship. Rose had also been struggling with an obsession to adapt the Tolstoy story The Death of Ivan Ilyich for the screen. Toss into the mix their contrasting professional background and experience and top it off with his exposure to untested, cutting edge tools intended to economize and revolutionize the nature of storytelling. Once stirred and shaken, it would evolve into Ivans xtc.

The chronology is somewhat fuzzy even for those directly involved but several things emerge. Enos encouraged Rose (and co-wrote the script) to proceed with Ivan as The Thief of Always was cleared stalled in the studio machine. She must have sensed a degree of urgency and, coming from a more hard scrabble environment, prodded him to call in favors and dig into his own pocket to finance the project (shades of Bowfinger). So, the wheels were put into motion.

Rose likely did not require a lot of coaxing. His immediate prior film experience - a lavish retelling of Anna Karenina - had been a nightmare on several fronts. Produced by Mel Gibson’s Icon Entertainment and starring Sophie Marceau, Sean Bean and Alfred Molina, the period drama filmed in Russia under trying physical and political conditions. During post-production, it was in effect taken away from the director and radically recut to mute such vital elements as infidelity and its intrinsic tragic nature.

Suffice it to say, Rose was not about to wade into Tolstoy territory again as a hired hand. He was also determined to eschew the material’s traditional costumes and settings. It was after all the story’s theme of approaching death and not its accoutrements that fascinated him. Setting it in the present and employing new technology that would allow him to gun and run proved both intriguing and intoxicating.

Set up as a low-budget under Screen Actors Guild guidelines, Rose produced the film on a budget of less than $200,000, paying only some talent costs, processing and music clearances. In the heady environment it must have come as a mixed blessing that Universal got wind of the enterprise during its production and found a clause in his contract to terminate his services (The Thief of Always remains inactive). He was at least rid of one aspect of development hell.

While remaining true to the Tolstoy spirit, Ivans xtc was transplanted to contemporary Los Angeles and the title character (a stunning performance by Danny Huston) changed from a petty bureaucrat to a talent agent. Rose wheedled his agency, Creative Artists, to allow him to film there and his primary agent, Adam Kurtzman, agreed to play … an agent. In fact, most of the cast - from doctors to actors - were filled out with people who made their real-life livings in the pursuits they portrayed on screen.

The ultimate good news was that the experiment produced a film of high quality that generated five star reviews. The bad news was that CAA and other sectors of the film industry felt betrayed. It was perceived as a barely veiled biopic of the late Jay Maloney, one of the filmmaker’s reps whose ultimate end was attributed to high living and drug abuse. Though conceived and filmed prior to Maloney’s death, the film’s completion coincided uncomfortably with his passing.

Rose downplays the notion of conspiracy. He simply says calls were made and initial fierce interest from distributors and sales agents morphed into silence, inaction or indifference. When traditional avenues dried up, a small company was hired to handle the physical demands of booking and shipping Ivans xtc for its smattering of theatrical dates in L.A., New York and Chicago. Though enthusiastically reviewed, it could not compete against Hollywood tent poles with multi-billion dollar advertising campaigns.

Despite (or because) of all the obstacles in the film’s too long to detail history, Rose retains a zeal for the movie and the medium. Rose-Enos Productions is self-distributing it on DVD and he gleefully notes that the means to own what you make and set up a system to profit from it are well within anyone’s grasp. Talent, of course, is another matter.

However, as more and more accomplished filmmakers embrace the new order, Rose’s contention that “film is dead” increases in relevance. Apart from Jean-Luc Godard, about the only mainstream filmmaker actively working in digital (and financing it via studio projects) is Mike Figgis. And Rose and Enos are chronicling their experiences in all manner related to the four-year saga in a documentary add-on to the DVD appropriately titled Film is Dead.

There are signs of strain at the seams (Rose admits he’s almost never approached for film projects or availability) and one senses both Rose and Enos would like to push on to something new. Still they maintain there are one or two chapters yet to be written. A small addendum might be coming Saturday when Ivan xtc competes in four categories (director, male lead, supporting male and the John Cassavetes award for best feature produced for less than $500,000) at the Independent Spirit Awards. It’s clear they’d like to receive some recognition for their battle scars … and, based solely on what they put on screen, deserve it.

That’s the Spirit?

The Independent Spirit Awards will be presented March 22 and may uncharacteristically serve up some surprises. Historically, winners in categories voted upon by its 9,000 odd members, have gone to the most commercial or high profile nominee. Though the slate is selected by a blue ribbon panel that spends months screening some very arcane submissions and additional long hours fretting about quality and appropriateness, the final decision rests with a membership whose access to all nominees can be extremely limited.

This inequity hasn’t been lost on the Independent Feature Project who sponsors the event and wrestled with creating a more level playing field for years. It’s been criticized for losing its soul and selling out (the event is its biggest money raiser) as the Spirits have evolved into a trendy party and media circus on the cusp of the Oscars.

Last fall the organization invited about 50 (in two groups) people involved in the sector to meet and discuss how the awards presentation might be changed to give it more relevance and potency. While the prospect of radical surgery was dismissed, small, potentially significant, alterations stemming from the sessions were implemented. What could alter the composition of the winner’s circle boils down to simply stepping up the number of screenings of nominated films and turning them into event projections with artistic and technical talent in attendance for question and answer sessions. Per the IFP, screening attendance has ballooned noticeably.

Of course, we won’t know the impact of the effort until the envelope is opened and the presenters complete the phrase: “and the Spirit goes to …”

Mea Robert Culpa

Last week’s column incorrectly identified the New York Times reviewer of the film Wild Reeds. The person who wrote the analysis was Caryn James and not as cited.

- by Leonard Klady