SAVAGES (Oliver Stone 2012)

[Chris Knipp]

Oliver Stone: SAVAGES ( 2012)
Review by Chris Knipp

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/6042/savages792094l.jpg
TAYLOR KITSCH AND AARON JOHNSON IN SAVAGES

Trouble from down south

Oliver Stone's new movie Savages is a drug story and in a weird way, entertainment. Not the saga of a grandiose addict like Scarface, which Stone wrote for Brian De Palma, drawing, it is said, on his own cocaine habit. Nor the gripping tale of a drug smuggler's capture, ordeal, and escape like Midnight Express, which Stone adapted for Alan Parker. This time Stone is entering "Weeds" territory. Like the bulletproof Nancy Botwin of the long-running TV series, the two handsome, well-muscled young men in Savages are middle class white folks who produce a sublimely perfect strain of cannabis and then run afoul of a Mexican cartel. Their product is discovered, and they're overrun for the rest of the movie by unsavory, sadistic Hispanic gentlemen equipped with all sorts of high tech spying devices, as well as the usual daggers, cages, bludgeons and the rest. However good their dope or ingenious their self-defenses, they seem like amateurs. To begin with they sample their product too liberally, a thing Ms. Botwin is far too smart ever to do. And their living situation is too dicey (see below).

Savages also runs afoul of an overstuffed plot that might work better with many episodes to play out in -- like "Weeds," and leavened with a sense of humor -- also like "Weeds." The movie indeed contains Demián Bichir, who plays the urbane but steely Tijuana mayor and drug lord who marries Ms. Botwin in the TV series. In keeping with this generally less fun if bloodier drug story, Bichir, as the unfortunate "Alex," starts lower and comes to a grievous and humiliating end. Other notables are on hand. Prominent among them is the brilliant Benicio Del Toro, a veteran of drug tales, who shone in Soderbergh's remake of a great European drug miniseries, Traffik, which was moved to Mexico and lost the K, and then taking back that lost "C" and adding an "H" and a "E," became Soderbergh's charismatic Che. Del Toro is unbelievably sleazy and odious here. He oozes so heavily with gleeful sadism it becomes hard to credit the supervisory role over other violent sadists he's given here as the drug boss's right hand man. At the head of the cartel is a lady, known as Elena, played by Salma Hayek, far down from Frida Kahlo, up from the sad prostitute she bravely played last year in Mathieu Demy's rather unfortunate Americano, but relegated to Skype and closed circuit TV communications with her enemies here, and sadly rejected by her spoiled daughter, who lives in the USA. Realistically enough, I guess, for Mexico today in the era of the Drug Wars, Elena has taken over from her male family members, who have all been killed.

At the heart of the tale is a ménage à trois. The peaceful Bono wannabe, Ben (Aaron Johnson) and his hardened Iraq war vet partner Chon (Taylor Kitsch) are shacked up in a sunlit Laguna Beach pad with O (the simpatica but overstretched "Gossip Girl" star Blake Lively), whose rambling voiceover doesn't do much for the energy level.

There is plenty of action, but all about what? Ben and Chon are given an offer they can't refuse, but they try to sneak out of it, covering their tracks in ways you can't quite follow by investment and IT whiz Emile Hirsh. In retaliation Elena has O kidnapped. The rest of the movie consists of furious bargaining, cheating, and stealing by the bromantic bros to get her back. Also thrown into the stew is John Travolta, long shorn of his Pulp Fiction locks and now a crooked DEA agent who I guess helps cover for Ben and Chon, though why they'd trust him is hard to say. Artists Equity?

Things get complicated, more and more violent, and more and more inexplicable, with whole elaborate capers suddenly sprung on us with barely two minutes of explanation. To further complete (and weaken) the mix, there are two endings supplied. Do the principals die brutally, or live happily ever after? Check one.

I liked the use of classical music at some completely chaotic and violent moments, which had a soothing effect, though in many cases music was so crassly and inexplicably overlaid that I suspect its success at any point was probably an accident. I didn't like this movie. And the trouble with it is that it immediately gets confused in one's mind with other movies, some better, like Traffik/Traffic, some (even) worse, like Ted Demme's "deeply mediocre" Blow (as J. Hoberman called it), which had another Caucasian pretty boy (like Kitsch and Johnson), Johnny Depp, and another fiery Hispanic lady (Penelope Cruz).

Oliver Stone's movies are provocative and attention-grabbing. If you trust the Oscars, he hit the ball out of the park with Platoon, Born on the Forth of July, and JFK, and did notable work with Salvador (where his leftist political bent paid off in a really savvy film) and Nixon. And there was W, which was okay, and Talk Radio (a play shot for the screen), and The Doors, which people find memorable but Morrison's own nearest and dearest think a lie; the accuracy of Midnight Express has likewise been impugned. Stone hit the Zeitgeist in Wall Street, and one or two other times, perhaps even in Natural Born Killers. A lot of flashy, dramatic work, a few successes, some failures. Some big costly bombs, like Alexander.

Part of the unevenness is that Stone's forte is never accuracy, but controversy. This time though the only provocation is the over-the-top violence, which is not very original nowadays. And the screenplay is too messy to make the story interesting.

Savages released in the US and Canada July 6, 2012. It comes out September 28 in the UK.

[Johann]

It was chopped up in reviews up here.
I'll see it, because I love the man.
You are accurate with your points about his past success and bombs.
He said something a few years ago that should be remembered:
"I'm exhausted. So I don't make any mistakes".

If this movie has flaws, they are all calculated and deliberate.
He doesn't put anything in his film he doesn't want.
He is a Master, whether people want to consider it or not.

He irritates, like sand in an oyster. But what do you get from sand in an oyster?
Pearls.
Pearls of a stripe.
I recommend people buy the latest issue of High Times.
Oliver is haulin' on a nicely rolled bullet.
Puff Puff Pass, Mr. Stone!
Don't hog the hydro!

[Chris Knipp]

PRO AND CON ON 'SAVAGES'

Loyalty is admirable and necessary, but aren't there times when it would be self-defeating? -- when we've got to abandon our heroes for a moment and condemn their failures, precisely in order to affirm the value of their best work? Maybe this means you'ree an auteurist; but auteurism seems to me ultimately a silly position. Because each work must be judged on its own merits. Film scholars have to consider every film, even the worst, but we don't.

Look at the opening of Walter Chaw's review:

Another disgusting piece of crap that Oliver Stone makes watchable and even fitfully interesting, Savages sees Stone returning to ground he already plowed in Salvador, his screenplay for Scarface, and arguably his best film in hindsight, the filthy U-Turn. One possible excuse for its foulness, in an ocean of possible excuses, is a cast headlined by Taylor Kitsch, the new Paul Walker; Aaron Johnson, the new Skeet Ulrich; and Blake Lively, the new...I don't know, Bridget Fonda? Another possible explanation is a godawful script by Don Winslow (author of the novel upon which the film is based), Shane Salerno, and Stone hissownself that opens with a ridiculously bad voiceover tease and ends with same, sandwiching in between a tale of blissed-out California marijuana kingpins Chaw ends his savaging of SAVAGES (probably stronger than any mainstream critic would dare) thus:
I'd watch Del Toro read the phone book, of course, but where Salvador had its outrage, Scarface had its debasement, and U-Turn had its pulp, all Savages has is the unholy, dull-witted trinity of Kitsch, Johnson, and Lively looking at this as an opportunity to make a splash with a "name" director instead of recognizing themselves as victims of a slumming Stone, now well into his second decade of free-fall from relevance. by Walter Chaw (http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2012/07/savages-2012.html#moreame" director instead of recognizing themselves as victims of a slumming Stone, now well into his second decade of free-fall from relevance.) Ouch! Astute, telling, and true. The key point to, sadly, admit: that what Stone's acknowledged exhaustion means is not that every film counts but that none of them really counts that much any more. And if they are made in a dope haze that only confirms my suspicion that there was nobody really at the helm of this mess.

A bigger problem has been that Stone's career-long valuing of controversy over accuracy -- when he should have honored both -- has marred even his best work.

Armond White, another boldly independent American film critic and a more prominent one, being based in New York, as Chaw isn't, has written a review of SAVAGES you might like, Johann, because he, loyally, one might say, sees the movie in what seem very favorable terms, even describing it, apparently without irony, as a summing up of the director's whole oeuvre:
Oliver Stone’s cinematic command turns Savages, his 19th film, into a reconsideration of his entire previous oeurve. Its story of three white California-carefree progeny whose post-hippie, post-yuppie initiative into the drug trade conflicts with a Mexican cartel recalls Stone’s past hits: the martyred youth Vietnam saga Platoon, the hyperbolic satire Natural Born Killers, the noir-sinister U-Turn and the drug dramas he wrote but did not direct Midnight Express, 8 Million Ways to Die and the epochal 1983 Scarface.--Armond White, City Arts. (http://cityarts.info/2012/07/06/he%E2%80%99s-got-an-oeurve/)

White is firmly on the side of Wes Anderson, Spike Jonze, David O. Russell, Alexander Payne, Paul Thomas Anderson, and Sofia Coppola, whom he has designated (according to the Wikipedia article on White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armond_White)) as "The American Eccentnrics" and described as offering "an unabashed solipsism, whimsy, and undisguised film savvy". (White's landscape has a distinctive shape, so there are many contemporary filmmakers he has no use for.) Though his short piece on MOONRISE KINGDOM offers no blurb-ready soundbites, White's review of it is warm and perceptive. Which is to say, he can be as wise and knowledgeable as he can be nutty. I'll leave you to decide which he is on SAVAGES. I side much more with Walter Chaw on this: it's a piece of crap, but Stone makes it watchable and even fitfully interesting. It disappoints and it confuses, but it holds the attention, and it's got Benicio Del Toro as well as those other people.

[Johann]

Walter Chaw ignores the craft on display.

I love his turns of phrase, but "second decade free-fall from relevance?"
Oliver Stone was always relevant. He never stopped being relevant.
If you don't like his work and feel it's been a declining free-fall, then you've only seen his films once and filed them away.
How the fuck is World Trade Center irrelevant? South of the Border is a step back?
Chaw gave a serious knee-jerk here.
I know he wants to be an astute powerful reviewer, but that is ignorant.
Dismissing Oliver Stone in such a way says WAY more about YOU than Oliver.
CRAFT, MAN. Make your own film Walter. And blow our minds. Oliver doesn't need kudos from anyone.
He's giving new actors a chance. I would die to have my first acting job in an Oliver Stone movie because he pushes actors to do their best.
He'll get in your face and call you a pussy and tell you to just fucking do it, like he did to Charlie Sheen while making Platoon.
Nicolas Cage said (quite correctly) that Oliver walks the walk and talks the fucking talk.
A Man.
Jack Lemmon said when you are on Stone's set, you KNOW who the fucking director is.

Leave SAVAGES the fuck alone.
It's for us ganja guys to enjoy.
If you didn't dig it and have nothing but contempt for it, then so be it.
If it was absolute crap I would say so.
This movie is disguised as a meaningless exercise? as something to keep Oliver's skills up? Give me a fucking break. It's not.
It's not the greatest film in the world, but Bob Dylan's albums are not all great either.
The only thing I'm truly baffled by is John Travolta. His casting doesn't make any sense to me.

[Chris Knipp]

You are confusing relevant and topical. If the films aren't good and don't draw attention they're not relevant. That is what Chaw means by irrelevant: no longer good enough to be worthy of our serious attention. At his best Stone was both topical and relevant. He became relevant through his gift for dealing with topical (and/or controversial) material. Again, provocative and attention-getting is not the same as relevant -- or topical.

SAVAGES isn't absolute crap and a lot of reviewers liked it, but it's not very good really, no matter how much you like Oliver Stone. I tried to say why.

True WORLD TRADE CENTER got generally favorable press and SOUTH OF THE BORDER, slapdash and overly biased though it was, was not un-topical. It got little attention and little respect. I gave it respect and attention in my review (http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1543)but I think it was slight as a political documentary, not worthy of a great director. I actively promoted (http://www.filmleaf.net/showthread.php?2862-SOUTH-OF-THE-BORDER-%28Oliver-Stone-2009%29&highlight=south+border) SOUTH OF THE BORDER on Filmleaf before it opened and was excited about it, but then somewhat disappointed because it wasn't the great film he might have made.

Claiming as a defemse that SAVAGES should be left alone because it is only for the ganja crowd puts it in a niche and makes it irrelevant to the majority, ceding the argument to your opponent here.

Anyway, watch Walter Chaw. He's smart and independent. And he's angry and overstates things -- just like you! And ignorant he certainly is not. He's perfectly well aware of all Stone's recent films. And by the way, his review (http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2012/07/the-dark-knight-rises.html) of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is very favorable. He is a big Chris Nolan fan. Chaw doesn't make films. Neither do you. He writes about them. He has a new book out, MIRACLE MILE, (http://www.lulu.com/shop/walter-chaw/miracle-mile/paperback/product-20287790.html)about the little-known (but in my view great) 1989 film.

[Johann]

Oliver Stone was/is relevant. At all times.
When you make a film as blisteringly real and as planet-wide topical as PLATOON, your topicality and relevance are etched in granite.
If he never made another film after it, it's in granite.

Sorry, but Chaw is being very ignorant.
And here's why:
Oliver Stone never has to be topical and relevant. Ever. People still seem to think he is obligated to do that, because his earlier works made such a massive impression on America's consciousness, which by your posts and Mr. Chaw's review of Savages, is apparently unconscious now. And that is a bit sad.

Let's look at this man, Oliver Stone, as everybody seems to like looking at his whole career through this one film.
People already seem to be writing Oliver's obituary. What gives you the right?
Did you expect World Trade Center from him? And the uncontroversial way he made it? With absolute respect for the tragedy?
No you didn't. Nobody did.
Did anyone predict that he would do South of the Border, and be such a powerful documentary and a badly needed exercise in setting the record straight about what goes on in Latin America and elsewhere and how the U.S. fearmongers to the point of embarassment?
No.
And I didn't hear any astute, switched on movie reviewer point it out, either.
This film does not deserve the trashing it's getting.
Nobody seems to get it.
Oliver Stone has been misunderstood since he was in film school.
He'll go to his grave misunderstood.

Look at why he makes films now. There is a different reason for everyone. And it has something to do with giving back.

"WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO TEACH OTHERS WHAT WE KNOW"

was no ordinary line in any old ordinary movie. It was what Platoon was about and it's what Savages is about.
Clean the shit off your perceptors Boys. You can't see.

[Chris Knipp]

No, an artist while alive is not etched in granite. As he goes on working what he produces must be judged on its own merits. This becomes important in the present context because Stone's work is inconsistent. Whose isn't? We get better or worse with age, or we score sometimes and sometimes turn out something ho-hum. My word, being a diplomatic sort of guy for the most part. Walter Chaw would call the something ho-hum "a piece of shit." That is because he is angry and disappointed knowing that the director was capable of much more.

Maybe you should let Chaw go for now and switch over to Armond White, my other favorite film critic contrarian, and the more contrary. He says what you do, that SAVAGES recaps Stone's whole career. I think you ignored my explanation of what Chaw means by "irrelevant" and elide it with "topical" again. No, of course Stone doesn't have to be "topical" (though he always is, or tries to be: how is SAVAGES not topical?), but he does need to be "relevant" in the sense of convincing us of his importance, with each new film. That he has done effective work in the past doesn't excuse his mediocrity or carelessness in the present.

SOUTH OF THE BORDER, though much needed, was unfortunately not a powerful documentary. It was too superficial, biased, and slapdash to be considered that. However I agree with you: it didn't deserve the trashing it got from US critics. They in some cases gave away their bias for the right.

I'm sorry I can't comment on WORLD TRADE CENTER because I haven't seen it. It seems to have gotten favorable press.

[Johann]

I haven't made a film.

YET.

[Johann]

An Artist can be etched in granite while alive, if he demonstrates something that can change lives. I consider you such, even if you poo-poo it.

This movie Savages is tricky, because it's a polarizer. It does leave out whole segments of society, and many many people might want their money back, people like Ann Romney and Bush Senior, for instance. But ain't that America?
Caveat Emptor.
If you don't know Oliver Stone by now and haven't wished you knew him or hated his fucking guts, then I wonder where your missing spacecraft is.

Oliver is true to himself. He makes films because he feels they must be made. Period.
Some hit, some miss, but as Tarantino famously said:



THE FILMOGRAPHY IS THE BRASS RING.

[Chris Knipp]

Are you flattering me?

Well, of course certain directors were clearly great in their lifetimes, and one would be hard pressed to find fault with anything they did. I find Eric Rohmer is like that. Anyway I don't want to be criticizing Stone or his life and never said he hasn't got courage. Was simply disappointed with SAVAGES. W. was better. I got something out of that. SOUTH OF THE BORDER disappointed me, but at least it did take on crucial political changes in Latin America that the commercial US media ignore. I'm not dismissing SAVAGES because of its subject matter or its stand or lack of a stand. I like the subject which is the same as "Weeds" and "Breaking Bad." "Breaking Bad" is huge but I don't watch it because it seems to me too downbeat compared to the fun "Weeds," which I love.

[Johann]

Fair enough.