During my teenage years, when I was beginning to move from merely watching movies to actually seeing them, I started noticing directors and their particular signatures on the films they made. One of the first directors to stand out to me was Tony Scott. By the time I got to college, he had become one of the few directors whose films I would watch no matter what. Didn't need to see a trailer, didn't care what they were about, just wanted to see artist's craftsmanship. Needless to say, I was devastated when Tony Scott took his own life in 2012. As this year marks a decade since his untimely passing, I decided to take it upon myself to watch his entire feature library throughout the year and give my reactions to each accordingly.
Tony never did meet the critical success or audience reverence of his older brother Ridley, who actually got him into the business. Like most directors, Tony started off doing television commercials. As his talent, experience, and aspirations grew, obviously the next logical step was to move onto feature films. Always thinking big, Tony had his sights set on directing an adaptation of Anne Rice's hugely successful novel “Interview with the Vampire.” While that was not in production yet (and likely tied up with securing the rights), Whitley Strieber's vampire novel “The Hunger” was optioned by MGM and seeking a director. The producers originally wanted Alan Parker (having just directed Pink Floyd's “The Wall”), but Parker recommended Tony Scott, being a fan of his work in commercials.
Long story short: Tony Scott's “The Hunger” received a lukewarm (if not totally indifferent) reception from critics and audiences and vanished into obscurity. I would argue the film was ahead of its time and largely misunderstood. It did indeed eventually become a cult favorite amongst the “Emo” crowd. It is nothing if not an ambitious film and a bold debut.
Even for a vampire film, it is quite unconventional. Scott's visual style is something that has always made him stand out from other directors and you see a lot of the foundations here. He plays heavily with light, particularly the contrast of bright whites with shadows, usually coming from the side rather than above or straight on. We see a lot of dim rooms lit by the surrounding windows and often obscured by blinds, leaving a horizontal stripe configuration on the characters and backgrounds. This is, of course, emphasized by Scott's industrious use of smoke. In every scene, the light cuts through the haze, giving each scene a very ethereal quality. We also see Scott's use of color as a means of storytelling. The film has a predominantly cool palette of grays and blues, which makes the blood, when it flows, all the more stark and shocking. This film comes across more gory than it actually is because the blood clashes with the cold elegance of the film and, when the otherwise subdued and dignified vampires leap upon it like addicts seeking their lifeforce, the title of the film rings true.
As Tony Scott undoubtedly put a great deal of himself into this film, it's no wonder that the lackluster response led him back to the world of advertising. Luckily, producers Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer were both fans of “The Hunger” and, upon seeing Tony Scott's SAAB commercial featuring a jet fighter, took a chance and optioned Tony Scott to direct “Top Gun.” That's for next time, though.
After the disappointed response from “The Hunger,” Scott vowed to never read any of his own press ever again. In that regard, “The Hunger” was a success because, while it's true Scott enjoyed a significant success in the 80's producing flashy, expensive, and loud blockbusters for studios, he still did things his own way. He did not pander to audiences or trends. He may have created a few, though, by always experimenting and pushing the boundaries. We have “The Hunger” to thank for that.
