The Blockbuster Artist: How Brad Pitt’s Refusal to Make Bad Movies Changed Movie Stardom

I first discovered Brad Pitt along with the rest of the world – leering at his tight blue jeaned butt with Geena Davis. Who would have predicted how he’d shake his money maker to help enable great cinema?

“Thelma & Louise,” Ridley Scott’s film of Callie Khouri’s ur-Girls Gone Wild tale, could not have plucked a more handsome specimen upon which to reverse the male gaze. Chiseled, rugged, with a crooked smile, sparkle in the eye and beautiful hair. Pitt’s character JD didn’t really have to act, he just had to turn everybody on. He succeeded.

Pitt was quick to gain magazine cover fame and he took to it well. In fact, a whole cottage industry exists writing (or, should I say, “writing”) about Jennifer Aniston in a post-Brad Pitt breakup context. It didn’t matter much to Pitt’s stardom that, by and large, most of his movies stunk, and acting was arguably not quite the most important part of his job description. (Indeed, James LeGros’ character Chad Palomino in the filmmaking satire “Living in Oblivion” is a none-too-subtle parody of Pitt.)

In 1995, though, he made two interesting choices. He appeared in David Fincher’s “Seven,” a pretty asinine thriller that somewhat redeems itself with a pronounced sense of style, and “Twelve Monkeys,” Terry Gilliam’s slick and entertainingly fatalistic sci-fi film. It was “Twelve Monkeys” that surprised people – in it, Brad Pitt actually did a character. He played an anarchic and psychotic eco-terrorist/spoiled rich kid and he took a lot of chances on the screen. I’ve actually watched the movie recently and, quite frankly, I think Pitt is the worst thing in it – partially that’s because everyone else is so good – but it was still a breakthrough for being taken somewhat seriously. 1995 was the year Pitt began to align himself with directors who could reasonably be called auteurs.

Time marched on and every forgettable “Sleepers” and “Meet Joe Black” was met with a “Snatch” or “Fight Club.” I wouldn’t exactly call these art films (no: “Fight Club” is not an art film, you’ll discover that when you aren’t 21 anymore) but they are films coming from directors with a distinct voice. Then came the “Ocean’s” films.

Steven Soderbergh, as we all know, is one of the finest filmmakers living, dead or yet unborn. The “Ocean’s” films are probably his least interesting, which is why they’ve made the most money and had the largest ephemeral cultural impact. Pitt’s involvement with the trilogy blessed him with some sort of nose for sensing true genius in collaborators, and in picking out projects that needed to get made, and probably wouldn’t get made without his star power.

Pitt’s resume since “Ocean’s Thirteen” have been important works of art and entertainment that, I think, will only grow more valuable over time. You can pretty much go down the list.

The cult of Andrew Dominik’s “The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward of Robert Ford” keeps growing. In fact, people are still waking up to the fact that 2007 was a watershed year for cinema and its relationship to the West. (We had this, “There Will Be Blood” and “No Country For Old Men” all looking for our attention – plus we hadn’t quite shaken off the last season of “Deadwood.”) It is a formal masterpiece and an actors’ triumph. Casey Affleck upstages Pitt from time to time, but there’s no way in hell this movie would even exist if Pitt didn’t believe in it. It is gorgeous and thought provoking and not commercial in the slightest.

After the so-goofy-it-hurts Coen Brothers film “Burn After Reading” came one of the only two David Fincher films that is actually worth a damn: “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.” (The other is “The Social Network,” by the way.) “Benjamin Button,” a beautiful fantasia on loss, remembrance and human connection, is a weird movie to wrap your head around. A lot of people flat out don’t like it. (These are, I should point out, people who don’t know how to live, how to truly live!) It is one of those rarest things, a genuine work of art done with a large canvass, and it made money for everybody, no doubt because Pitt’s magazine face got butts in seats.

Next up was “Inglourious Basterds,” another masterpiece. Now, Quentin Tarantino could no doubt make magic with just about anybody, but Pitt’s performance (particularly the shootout in the bar and the interrogation of Christoph Waltz) is played at a perfect pitch. What you’ll find with so many of his current films is that the directors are finding a way to use Pitt’s (let’s call it) limited range and zeroing in on that – giving him characters that play to his strengths.

After “Basterds” comes one of the greatest stunts ever pulled on the mainstream American movie audience: Terence Malick’s “The Tree of Life.” The fact that this movie played in mall multiplexes is nothing short of a miracle. It probably would have been more appropriate in the installation spaces of the Whitney Museum of American Art, but screw it: the people need to be exposed to beauty.

“The Tree of Life” is sublime. What’s that, you say? The movie is confusing? The plot is messy? Nothing happens? EVERYTHING happens, and if you think the parents are too vague (Mom is nice, Dad is a jerk) that’s because Malick has the insight and ability to strip things bare. Malick’s paintbrush needed broad stroke characters to tell his impressionistic story, and Pitt is perfect in it. (And he ain’t too hard on the eyes during magic hour.) Now shut up as I twirl and tussle in the ground.

Pitt felt no need to reconnect with the slobbering masses with a “Troy 2” after “The Tree of Life.” He jumped right into “Moneyball,” which is arguably the least rah-rah big game sports movie ever made. Some might argue it is the anti-sports movie, where the eggheads are the heroes and the determination of will, spirit and might are all coldly shoved aside against bloodless, cruel math. Hardly apple pie.

His next theatrically released live action feature was “Killing Them Softly,” again from Andrew Dominik. It is an up-from-within tone poem about criminal behavior that has remarkably elegant sequences of violence as well as hilarious monologues. It does all it can to shake off its traditional three act structure. This structure exists, but it colors outside of the lines so much it resists sinking your teeth into it. It isn’t a big budget picture, but I imagine none of it would have been raised without Pitt saying yes.

But the siren’s call of a potential Hollywood franchise ended the streak. “World War Z” isn’t a paycheck gig – it is very much Pitt and his production shingle Plan B’s baby. And it was a breech birth. While the end result isn’t terrible, it sure as hell ain’t marvelous. It is also documented as one of the more boondoggled productions of our time (see Vanity Fair’s expose.) Pitt was smart enough to see a train wreck coming, and knew enough to put his ego in check and allow for a team of specialists (including Damon Lindelof and Chistopher McQuarrie) to overhaul the film to something a tad less ridiculous. The current ending is flawed, but when you read about what could have been, it’s worthy of a standing O.

The reaction to “World War Z”‘s original cut is the decision of a mature, intelligent man – not some Hollywood haircut.  And when all the US Weeklys are left floating amid the melted ice caps, we’ll still be talking about movies like “Jesse James” and “Tree of Life.” Who’d’a thunk it: from a pair of tight blue jeans to great art patronage. It’s a hell of a package.

Categories: Features

Tags: Brad pitt, Fight club, Killing Them Softly, Thelma and Louise, Twelve Monkeys, World war z

Interview: David Zucker on How Spoofs Have Changed from ‘Airplane!’ to ‘Scary Movie 5′

Film scholars may be quick to overlook his massive contributions to the medium, but David Zucker is a key figure in the world of contemporary cinema. Between “The Kentucky Fried Movie,” “Airplane!,” “Top Secret,” and “The Naked Gun,” the writer / director practically invented the spoof, and made the films that still endure as the genre’s finest examples, continuing to vindicate the form even when the likes of Friedberg & Seltzer (“Disaster Movie”) do their worst to make us wish that spoofs would go away.

When the “Scary Movie” franchise found itself in need of a new mastermind after the Wayans brothers opted out of a third installment, Zucker was a natural choice. After directing “Scary Movie 3? and “Scary Movie 4,” he contributed to “Scary Movie 5” as a writer / producer. We spoke to the comedy legend about why he opted against returning to the director’s chair for the latest chapter, and also about how cinematic comedy has changed over the 30+ years that he’s been in the business.

Film.com: We interacted by email a couple years ago.

David Zucker: I think I do remember, yes. What was that about?

I had written something at Film.com about the Marx Brothers’ “Duck Soup,” and about comedy and the making of it, and you sent me a very nice email about your own experiences with making “Airplane!” and “Top Secret”!–

Yes, that’s why I recognized the name! I think you wrote something and I thought, I can’t let this go! Because I know a lot about the Marx Brothers!

So you directed “Scary Movie” 3 and 4, but you were not credited as a writer — but those movies are clearly your style of humor. As the director, how involved are you in the creative process of actually coming up with the gags and so forth?

A lot. In 3 and 4?

For example, yeah.

I think it was 90 percent Craig Mazin and Pat Proft having written 3 and 4. Five was Pat Proft and me.

Right, so 5 is kind of the other way around, where you wrote but didn’t direct it.

Right, I wrote, and then Malcolm Lee directed.

I think that is not a common scenario for you, is it? To write something that you didn’t also direct?

That’s right. Well, I can’t remember what the last — on the third “Naked Gun,” I was also done with directing those.

I can tell you the last one you wrote but didn’t direct. Do you want to know?

Sure!

“High School High.”

Wait a minute, I DID direct “High School High”!

You did?

No, I didn’t! Oh, I need you to remind me! Hart Bochner directed it!

I was gonna say, I was going off of IMDB…

[laughter]

You know, in one of the interviews I did, somebody said, “Ashley Tisdale’s character in ‘Scary Movie 5' is listed as Jody Campbell. Did you do that on purpose, to link it with Sidney [Campbell], Anna Faris’ character?” Wait a minute, that’s — no we didn’t do that. In fact, her name in this movie was Jody Sanders, and that was a mistake.

IMDB does make mistakes sometimes.

That was a HUGE mistake! It’s the main character!

How is the process different when you’re on just the writing side of it and not as the director? I mean, here you were also producing, so I’m sure you could make your opinions known.

You know, I have to do all the work as a director. I mean, it’s so much work. It’s a year of your life. I have to find something about it that I’m passionate about, and I found that on “Naked Gun” 1 and 2 and “Scary” 3 and 4. And “Airplane!,” the first “Airplane!” But it’s just hard to do a 3 and maintain that passion. To power you through all that work, and all that — you have to run down every single little detail. I just didn’t – like the “Naked Gun” franchise – I didn’t want to do it again. I’d just rather write and produce, let someone else direct. So that’s how that decision was made. And it’s different because you have to sit back and let the director do it. I have to train them on the job, as I did Pete Segal [for "Naked Gun 33 1/3"], Hart Bochner, and now Malcolm Lee. Because this is unlike something they’ve ever done!

With “Scary Movie 5,” where you directed the previous two, so you could have directed this one too, if you’d wanted to. I certainly understand all the energy involved. Was that a hard decision for you, knowing that you’d have to, as you say, sort of train them on the job?

It was just what I had to do. I mean, I was resolved not to direct it. I just, I can’t do it. And that was it. And the studio tried for two years to get me to direct. That’s why it’s been so long since they’ve done a “Scary Movie.”

Oh really?

Yeah. And so – well, partially because no movies came up that they really – there hasn’t been a “War of the Worlds” or “Grudge” or “Signs” or “The Ring” in a while. In fact, we kind of went with this one without the necessary movie that we needed that had a physical monster. In 3 we had the scary girl from “The Ring,” “War of the Worlds” had the big aliens, and “Signs” had an alien. So we started out with “Paranormal Activity,” which is not any kind of visible demon, and “Black Swan,” which doesn’t have a demon, and “The Planet of the Apes.” So that’s why we added “Mama” later.

You bring up an interesting point. The early spoof movies, “Airplane!” and “Top Secret!” and so forth, were not very specific. Watching “Top Secret!” recently, I was surprised by how few dated references there were. Whereas now the trend in the spoof movies is to be very specific, very of-the-moment.

Right, no, it’s very specific, and so you really recognize those movies. [But] we spoofed different movies in “Airplane!” I mean, that movie was the forerunner of this, and kind of invented that style or genre, if you will, of doing specific movies. The one specific movie that we did — you know, outside of just the “Airport” movies, I suppose –

Sure, the genre.

But you don’t recognize those as such because the plot was from an obscure 1957 movie, “Zero Hour.” But we did “Saturday Night Fever”! I mean, the movie’s clippin’ along, and it’s an airport movie, and suddenly the audience is in “Saturday Night Fever,” and our guy is John Travolta. You know, we didn’t set out to invent that whole concept in the genre. It was just what we thought was funny. And that’s what really started that whole genre, when we did that specific movie within another movie.

At the time, were you thinking about trying to avoid jokes that would not last the test of time, or was that even a conscious thought?

It was not a conscious thought.

Just the way it turned out.

Yeah. I mean, if we had cared at all, if we had been conscious at all of “test of time,” we wouldn’t have done those stupid jokes on commercials. The coffee thing? ["Jim never has a second cup of coffee at home!"] That’s idiotic, if you want to stand the test of time.

The one in “Top Secret!” is there’s a joke about “I put your name on the Montgomery Ward mailing list,” or something.

Yeah. What’s Montgomery Ward? What’s a Pinto?

But, it’s like the only joke in the whole movie that’s like that! I think that’s impressive, that almost 30 years later it pretty much all still holds up.

Yeah, it’s funny, and some of these funny references are funny in their obscurity.

That’s true too. Sort of a time capsule.

Right.

You’ve been in the business a long time now. How is the process of making these movies now different from the way it was, say, 30, 35 years ago.

Well, definitely we made our own movie 35 years, and 30 years ago, and 25 years ago, and 20 years ago. And now, you know, I mean, the studio controls this franchise. And so we were directed to do “Paranormal Activity,” “Black Swan,” I think we added “Planet of the Apes.” And also “Mama,” and “Evil Dead,” and “Hunger Games,” “50 Shades of Grey” — all these things are stated by, demanded by the studio.

Is that difficult for you creatively, to not have that control?

Oh yeah. That’s like — it’s — but it’s the “Scary Movie” franchise, and the studio owns it. So it’s not like they’re taking my baby and taking over control. This movie comes from the studio. I get it. Some things I’ll argue with. Like I didn’t want to do “Hunger Games,” but they insisted “Hunger Games” had to be in it, so we shot it.

That makes sense. It’s the job they hired you for, so you do what you have to.

Right. Or they wanted to do “50 Shades of Grey,” which isn’t even a movie! So I said, “What? What is the visual on this?”

“Now you’re just listing things that are current!”

Right! And “Evil Dead” comes out a week before we do! And so we had to spoof the trailer! It’s really – there is more insanity in making this movie than there is in the movie.

I can believe it. How did you come to this franchise, anyway? They had the first two, that you had nothing to do with.

Yeah, the first two, the Wayans Brothers did the first two, and they were unable to arrive at a deal for 3. So that was kind of a break-up. And Bob [Weinstein] called me because I had done probably the only Ashton Kutcher movie that didn’t do any business.

“My Boss’s Daughter.”

Yeah. It ended up making money, it just wasn’t a big hit. But Bob said at the time that he thought I was a better director than the material. Because that was a – I didn’t like the script. So I could blame it on that. But he knew that the spoof stuff I could certainly do.

Well, it makes sense. If you’re not sure what to do with a spoof franchise, bring in a Zucker. See what a Zucker can do with it!

Yes, bring in somebody who invented it! Let them have a shot.

Who have been some of the writers and performers and filmmakers who have made you laugh, within the span of your career? Who do you find funny?

Well, you know, mostly before my career: the Marx Brothers and Woody Allen. And now – you know, I don’t find – I thought Mike Myers, that stuff was funny. “Austin Powers.” I think Will Ferrell is funny. And I think Kirsten [sic.] – who’s the one who did “Bridesmaids”?

Kristen Wiig.

Wiig, yeah. She’s funny. It makes me glad when I can go to a theater that makes me laugh.

What have you seen recently that made you laugh?

[pause] I think “Bridesmaids” is the last thing that made me laugh. [laughter] It’s already been a couple years!

As a comedy nerd, I’m always interested to know what makes funny people laugh.

I really don’t go to a theater unless like three different people tell me it’s funny. I can’t remember what was out recently as far as comedies. Can you think of any?

Let’s see, what were some of the recent big comedies. “The Hangover,” “Horrible Bosses.”

Yeah, “Hangover,” that was funny, although I didn’t think it was as funny as everybody else I was with. But I got it. I thought it was a trip. Todd Phillips is good. He’s excellent.

This is an unfair question. If you had to choose one movie from your career to be the only one saved in the movie annals of history, or whatever, which one would you choose?

Well, I think that’s an easy one. I think “Airplane!” “Airplane!” is the one.

Fair enough. When did that come out? ’80? ’81?

’80.

So it’s been, my goodness, 33 years? Do you ever get tired of talking about it, or of people wanting to talk about it?

No, it’s fine. It’s great, I’m so proud to have been a part of it, and it’s a part of my life. Probably I’ve never done anything as good as that, but that’s fine! They can’t take that away from me. There’s a lot worse things than having been the director/writer of “Airplane!” It only gives me joy.

Scary Movie 5 hits theaters this Friday.

Categories: Interviews

Tags: Airplane, Charlie sheen, David Zucker, Eric Snider, Interview, Lindsay lohan, Naked Gun, Scary Movie 5