Tony Scott Retrospective: “True Romance” (1993)

“True Romance” was the first screenplay Quentin Tarantino ever wrote (well, to completion, anyway) and, if things had gone his way, it would have been the first movie he ever directed. Cruel as Hollywood is, he couldn't raise the money to direct it, so he sold the script in order to fund what would be his “next” first movie. It was sold to some production company that specialized in B-movies and was set to be directed by William Lustig. Through a fateful set of circumstances, Tarantino was friends with a woman who was working for Tony Scott on “The Last Boy Scout” and she got him onto the set to meet Tony Scott. Tony was interested in what Quentin was working on (at that time, the screenplay for “Reservoir Dogs”) and QT gave TS the scripts for both “Reservoir Dogs” and “True Romance,” both of which Tony read on the plane ride home after completing photography on “The Last Boy Scout.”

Scott fell in love. He called Tarantino and said he wanted to shoot both scripts. Tarantino gave him the bad news that “Reservoir Dogs” was off-limits because it was going to be his own directorial debut and “True Romance” had already been sold. Undeterred, Tony Scott took it upon himself to commandeer the rights to “True Romance” and, I don't know if it was difficult or easy (either way, it probably wasn't cheap), but he obviously succeeded. Whatever the effort, it must have been worth it, because Tony Scott's enthusiasm for this project really shows in the final results. Tarantino himself remarked, “Tony had the love and the passion for it that it needed.”

Tarantino's script was pretty over the top to begin with and Tony Scott did stay pretty loyal to it in general (not so much the ending, but more on that later), but wherever Scott had artistic license, he really went overboard. For instance, in the scene where Clarence confronts Drexl and they fight it out, it was originally set at Drexl's apartment. It's just Drexl and Marty and three stoned hookers hanging out eating Chinese food and watching “The Mack.” In the film, it still may technically be Drexl's apartment, but it more closely resembles a night club. There's techno music blaring, colored lighting, dancing girls, a pool table and, for some reason, fish tanks on shelves from floor to ceiling. No reason to have any of that in there other than pure spectacle.

Another outrageous scene that originally was just there to further the plot: In the original script, when Clarence calls Dick Ritchie to inform him he's coming to L.A. with his new wife, they call from a hotel room. In the film, they're at a roadside phonebooth and decide to have sex in it while a confused Dick Ritchie sits on a toilet.

In L.A., when our heroes meet with Elliot Blitzer to discuss the cocaine deal, Tarantino originally set it at a zoo. Tony Scott decided to hold the discussion on a roller coaster because he thought it fit in better with the intensity of the story. It definitely did.

To read the famous “Sicilian scene” in Tarantino's script, it comes across as dead serious. Tony Scott was not only brave, but counter-intuitive to have Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper laugh in each other's faces as the scene escalates, making it the superlative scene in a film full of great scenes.

Tony Scott decided to have Alabama's confession to Clarence set on the walkway of a billboard outside of his apartment to make the characters seem more vulnerable and exposed. He had Clifford Woorley's trailer set right next to train tracks to create additional tension in the two scenes that occur at his homestead. Instead of a red Mustang, Clarence drives a purple Cadillac (because what else would a die hard Elvis fan drive). Scott thought it better to have the ruthless enforcer Virgil flirt with Alabama before beating her senseless. He inserted the scene where our lovebirds get matching tattoos. Elliot getting a blow job in the speeding Porsche was his idea, as was the honeybear bong for Brad Pitt's stoner character, and – of course – Tony Scott decided, after all this, that his lead characters had to live.

Tarantino was not involved in the production of “True Romance,” but he'd heard Scott wanted to change the ending and he challenged Scott on it. The director assured the screenwriter of two things: Number one, he would shoot both endings and decide which worked better. Number two, if he did decide to have Clarence and Alabama survive, it wouldn't be for the audience's sake, it would be for the characters' sake. Ultimately, Scott did opt to have Clarence and Alabama not only live, but get away with it. Tarantino wasn't happy with the final decision, but when he saw Tony Scott's version of his own vision, he changed his mind. “I think Tony's ending is better for the movie Tony made,” he said. “He did what a director's supposed to do: He made the material his own.” If that's not true love, what is?

Tony Scott Retrospective: “The Last Boy Scout” (1991)

This movie is a small miracle. It wouldn't appear so at first glance, but by all accounts, it was a nightmare to make and yet it somehow rises above itself. Roger Ebert's review of it is particularly insightful in that he points out how cynical, vicious, crude, and misogynistic the film is yet manages to still succeed as a well-crafted piece of entertainment.

For starters, the film was a war of egos. Tony Scott was a hot director and probably just starting to realize studios weren't going to rein him in or question his decisions since he'd demonstrated time and again he could rake in the millions. Damon Wayans was an up-and-coming star, just beginning to break through from his audience-pleasing characters on the TV show “In Living Color.” Bruce Willis had proven himself as a bankable action hero with the one-two punch of the first two “Die Hard” movies and Shane Black had proven the same as a writer with the first two “Lethal Weapon” movies. On top of all that, Joel Silver had produced both of those franchises and was primed to produce “The Last Boy Scout” as well. At the time, the script had sold for a record-breaking amount, so a lot was riding on this.

Needless to say, all of these men at the top of their game felt pretty powerful and had different ideas and none of them agreed on anything. Usually, that's a recipe for disaster because, even if morale is merely low on a film set, the results tend to come across in the finished product. In this case, morale wasn't simply low, the writers, directors, producers, and co-stars were at each other's throats. Yet, they all managed to pull it off. As Roger Ebert points out in his aforementioned review, “It is some kind of tribute to Tony Scott...that this material survives its own complete cynicism and somehow actually works.”

It's true. They really made magic out of the mess. Even though the overall theme is grim and defeatist, there are some great laughs. The plot is clever enough to be unpredictable. Although no one got along, the performances are strong and the chemistry is great. There are two back-to-back car chases that are both crucial to the plot as well as surprisingly unique (the first car chase literally has both cars drive side-by-side down a cliff). There are no less than four scenes where you wonder how the hell our heroes are gonna get outta this, but they do - and without “cheating” or relying on deus ex machina. Under all those circumstances, this film is exceptional.

While it was undoubtedly a miserable experience for Tony Scott, it definitely made him a better filmmaker. If nothing else, he met his wife Donna on this movie. Plus, his follow-up film was “True Romance,” which Scott - for a while, at least - considered his best work. His contempt for “The Last Boy Scout” shows through in “True Romance” in certain places. For one, the character of fictional film producer Lee Donowitz was modeled (quite obviously, shamelessly, and unkindly) after Joel Silver. Tony remarked, “Joel didn't talk to me for a long time after that.” In any case, “The Last Boy Scout” demonstrates what Chili Palmer said in the film “Get Shorty” about directors: “Sometimes you do your best work when you got a gun to your head.”

Tony Scott Retrospective: “Days of Thunder” (1990)

There are very few things I care less about than NASCAR racing. That's not to say I hate it or I think it's stupid, it's just something that doesn't matter to me at all. If all traces of NASCAR were obliterated instantaneously, I doubt it would have any affect on my life one way or the other (unless its absence somehow effected the economy or something). It is a great testament to the directing prowess of Tony Scott that this movie could actually get me to care (at least for 107 minutes).

A lot of that credit, of course, has to go towards the screenplay. The film is a very effective introductory primer to racing. The story begins with the construction of the race car itself. Like, literally the empty frame of the car in a garage with Robert Duvall talking to it like a soon-to-be father talking to his wife's pregnant belly. The relationship between Robert Duvall's mechanic and Tom Cruise's driver is brilliantly set up in that the two of them, both good at what they do, don't fully understand what the other one does. They start off butting heads, of course, which leads to some relatively philosophical debates you wouldn't expect to find in a racing movie. For instance, which is most crucial in a race? The performance of the driver or the performance of the vehicle? The answer, of course, is: Neither, it's the connection between the two. Explanations like this are what get us invested in the story.

Midway through the film, after a serious wreck, Nicole Kidman is introduced as a doctor (and the voice of reason) who bluntly delivers the moral of the story to a heretofore confident Cruise: “Control is an illusion.” This, of course, rattles Tom Cruise's character and he has to integrate these new realizations into his racing without it (literally) slowing him down. If all this sounds familiar, it's because it's the basically the same formula as Tony Scott's “Top Gun.”

Like “Top Gun,” the footage and editing of the action sequences are amazing in their ability to present chaos in a way that definitely feels chaotic, but not confusing. That's hard to do. I don't know if they had dozens of cameras in a variety of places (including the participating race cars) filming at the same time or if they just shot the same race over and over and somehow managed to maintain continuity. Neither would surprise me and both are equally impressive.

Impressive as the racing scenes are, though, Tony Scott shows again he's not merely an action director. Rather than simply trying to impress us with the spectacle of fast cars going fast (like the films “Le Mans” and “Grand Prix” did), we're gently sucked into a story about the addictiveness of competition and self-preservation vs. glory. These characters aren't very complicated or, for that matter, interesting outside of their familiarity as caricatures, but we care what happens nonetheless because we've gone with them on this journey. From the construction of the car to its crossing of the finish line and all the speedbumps in between. You don't hafta care about NASCAR to care about this story because that's not just racing. That's life.

Tony Scott Retrospective: “Revenge” (1990)

Tony Scott was a hot commodity in Hollywood after his one-two punch of “Top Gun” and “Beverly Hills Cop II” and “Revenge” was an interesting follow-up film for him. He must have been delighted at being able to flex his directing muscles in a single film that transcends so many genres.

“Revenge” opens up as almost an epilogue to “Top Gun” with an F-14 stunt flying over the desert. Instead of a regular action picture, after that, the film turns into a light drama, then a bit of a gangster flick, romance, erotic thriller, western, film noir, addiction struggle, tragedy, and, of course, vengeance. The amazing thing is all of these elements not only work, but blend together seamlessly without coming across as a film with an identity crisis.

A great deal of the film's success comes from the performances of the supporting characters. They come in and out of the picture as needed and adjust the atmosphere accordingly. We start off with Jesse Corti as the protagonist's best friend, who offers him sound advice at a time he needs it and is literally hung up on. Replacing him in the story is Joaquin Martinez, who literally saves J's life and brings him back from the dead. When they part ways, instead of giving our hero advice, he gives him a knife. Literally in the same scene, we meet the cowboy played by James Gammon, who serves mostly as a chauffeur for the leading man, but even more effectively as an enabler and, eventually and unknowingly, a benefactor.

Conveniently, this is when Miguel Ferrer shows up, probably in the movie's biggest standout role. Assisted by John Leguizamo (in a nearly mute, but nevertheless, strong performance), the three of them effectively try to keep order in the chaos of a spree of vengeance along the Mexican border. Ferrer's character treats this mission as an amusing game rather than matters of life and death. He's great fun to watch. All the while, Madeleine Stowe languishes away in a brothel, doped up on forced heroin doses given, almost sympathetically, by an androgynous guardian angel played by Luis de Icaza. Peppered throughout the film are the villain's henchmen, at varying degrees of sliminess, many of whom Kevin Costner kills off one by one with increasing indifference.

Anthony Quinn embraces his role as the main bad guy with his usual zeal. He imperceptibly flips between charming and lovable to cold and frightening moment by moment. All throughout the film, his character remains strangely sympathetic and almost justified. By the end of the story, we're not sure we want him to lose. This is punctuated by what he says to Costner when they finally face off at the end: “Perhaps we both deserve to die.”

This may be Tony Scott's most picturesque film in that he really chews up the scenery of Mexico, digging into the dark and dirty underbelly of that country's subculture. Dirt sticks to sweat, rooms are lit by an excessive amount of candles, a feeling of distrust and uncertainty permeates the film, and anyone could die at any time (and many do). It's easy to see why Quentin Tarantino called this Tony Scott's “masterpiece.” I wouldn't say it's Tony Scott's best film, but it's definitely his most passionate.

Tony Scott Retrospective: “Beverly Hills Cop II” (1987)

The first “Beverly Hills Cop” was originally conceived as an action piece for Sylvester Stallone. A renegade cop from Detroit teaches a bunch of cushy California cops hung up on rules how to be tough. It's the perfect formula for an action picture, really. However, Stallone's outrageous demands and constant rewrites eventually had him drop out. Paramount decided to take a chance on their exponentially rising star Eddie Murphy in what would be his first leading role in a motion picture. When Murphy signed on (turning down a supporting role in “Ghostbusters” for this opportunity), the film immediately pivoted to more of a comedy. The crucial action aspects remained and there were dramatic moments, but for all intents and purposes, “Beverly Hills Cop” was a comedy. It was also a huge hit, so a sequel was inevitable. Critics assumed it would be even more of a comedy than the first.

Eddie Murphy was at the height of his popularity in 1987 (his concert film “Raw” came out the same year) and “Beverly Hills Cop II” was the first film he had a hand in writing. Maybe it was his idea to up the action or maybe it was the studio's. Paramount just enjoyed the success from “Top Gun” the year before, so it's reasonable to assume producers Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer felt they were onto something and thus brought their “Top Gun” director on to helm “Beverly Hills Cop II” and go with the vision of it being more of an action flick.

To be fair, “Beverly Hills Cop II” is probably the closest thing to a comedy Tony Scott ever made, but it's definitely heavier on the action and lighter on the comedy than its predecessor. Critics didn't generally care for it, but audiences sure did. It not only had the biggest opening weekend of the year, but it was also the top-grossing film in 1987. Impressive for an R-rated film at that time. Every top-grossing film in the 80's before that was rated PG (including “Top Gun” the year before). Tony Scott demonstrated he was no mere one-hit wonder.

The brilliance of “Cop II” is it repeats a number of elements that worked well in the first one without coming across as a retread. Both films begin with Axel Foley undercover as a fast-talking huckster. When a close friend of his is shot, he invites himself into the Beverly Hills investigation where he is not wanted, but sorely needed. He cons his way in and out of sticky situations by creating (hysterically funny) characters on the fly and flashing his badge so people can't get a good look at it, but conveniently accept him as an authority figure. Rosewood and Taggart sit in a parked car and pass the time with pithy conversation akin to an old married couple. Our heroes gratuitously visit a strip club, there's a car chase with a big rig destroying cars while a toe-tapping Pointer Sisters song plays in the background, and there's a big shoot out at the end where the protagonists are out-manned and out-gunned but nevertheless prevail. Yet somehow, all these reoccurrences feel fresh rather than recycled. I put the credit almost solely with Tony Scott's direction. This is the only sequel he directed, but I often wonder what other franchises he might have improved upon if given the chance.

It's a great tragedy that “Beverly Hills Cop III” failed to even come close, but let's not get into that. The first two are great companion pieces and that's good enough for me. Incidentally, Stallone took his ideas for the original “Beverly Hills Cop” and made the schlocky action pic “Cobra.” Midway through “Beverly Hills Cop II,” Axel Foley ogles a “Cobra” poster with slightly bemused contempt. I often wonder if this was a personal dig at Stallone from Tony Scott. It's entirely possible, given that Stallone's wife at the time, Brigitte Nielsen, not only starred in “Beverly Hills Cop II,” but allegedly had an affair with Tony Scott during filming. Man, if Tony Scott wasn't a bad ass before, he certainly was by then.

Tony Scott Retrospective: “Top Gun” (1986)

Whenever my dad would upgrade his entertainment system, the movie he would test drive it with was always “Top Gun.” Starting with the gentle pitter-patter of Harold Faltermeyer's synthesized drum machine over the Paramount Pictures logo, it segues into the golden dawn on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Amidst the smoke and the flight deck crew's communication with hand signals, the music crescendos in sync with the warming up engines of the F-14's. Upon the firing of the jet's afterburners and takeoff, the soundtrack jolts into Kenny Loggins' “Danger Zone.” This combination of sights and sounds puts anyone's home movie-watching experience to the ultimate test. There is perhaps no more apropos introduction for a movie you're about to see than the opening credits of “Top Gun.”

There is probably also no greater U-turn in subject matter between a director's debut film and their subsequent sophomore opus than Tony Scott's pivot from “The Hunger” to “Top Gun.” Ironically, what the two films have most in common are the less-than-subtle homoerotic overtones. It's also interesting that “Top Gun” was Tony Scott's only PG-rated film in his entire career. He definitely was shooting for an R-rating, though. When you watch the backlit silhouetted love scene, it very obviously cuts away from when Kelly McGillis is just about to drop her top, as if we're watching a network television edit.

Perhaps that was either Tony Scott's joke on the audience, or an attempt to get the love scene axed altogether. Apparently, when the original cut was shown to test audiences, there was strong feedback that the film needed a sex scene. The reason the post-production footage was so dimly lit was a matter of necessity. Since both Tom Cruise and Kelly McGillis had moved onto other projects when it came time to film, they no longer looked like their characters from “Top Gun” anymore. Whatever the reason and regardless of how Scott felt about having to do it, this became the look of most of his subsequent love scenes in his future work (particularly in “True Romance”).

Despite this campy scene with its superfluous tongue probing and all, the film in general holds up pretty well, I'm always surprised by that when I revisit it. It does indeed ooze the 80's (especially with its music), but not to the point of being distracting or embarrassing. Also, credit is due for how influential this movie was. Not only did the Navy see a 500% increase in recruitment after its release (yikes), but this was the movie that paved the way for owning films on home video. Up until this time, VHS tapes were very expensive to own (literally like $100) because they were manufactured to be sold wholesale and thus most everyone was limited to renting any movies they wanted to watch. In the earlier years of VCR's, it was unexplored territory as to whether people wanted to watch any one movie often enough to justify owning it. The popularity of “Top Gun” caught Pepsi's attention and they said, “Hey, if you let us put a specially made commercial at the beginning of the video, we'll make them priced to own immediately upon release.” It was wildly successful and the rest is history.

“Top Gun” was the film that set the standard for Tony Scott's style (smoky sets and inexplicable sweating, for example) and was the one all his other movies were compared to. It was some time before people and advertisements stopped referring to Tony Scott as “the director of 'Top Gun.'” Regardless of Scott's additional great work, “Top Gun” will probably still be the movie for which he is most remembered 100 years from now. However, as a testament to just how huge this movie was, the same will probably also be said for Tom Cruise. That's one helluva movie. One that people will probably still be using to test their home theaters.

Tony Scott Retrospective: “The Hunger” (1983)

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.