Ace Ventura for President

It’s hard to believe the Ace Ventura movies are over 30 years old. They came out when I was in college, which – if you do the math – puts me in my 50’s now. I believe the last time I (re)watched them was during the COVID lockdown, because… why not? While I fancy myself a bit of a film connoisseur, I’ve never been above “low-brow” comedy – as long as it’s funny. I wouldn’t go so far as to say I’ve outgrown the Ace Ventura movies, but they’re unfortunately just not as funny as they used to be. This is not because I’ve progressed intellectually or because comedies have become more sophisticated over the past 30 years. It’s because of President Trump.

For me, the funniest aspect of the Ace Ventura movies (even back when I was in my 20’s) was when he would interact with perfectly normal people. Often these people would be generally considered to be in a higher social class than him, whether they be millionaires, doctors, lawyers, or politicians. Any comedian will tell you the simplest formula for manufacturing laughs is for your “clown” to have a “straight” character to play off. In other words, the serious character sets up the funny one for a punchline. Abbott & Costello knew this, so did Rowan & Martin, and even Key & Peele. Normalcy meeting absurdity is pure comic gold.

The laughs I would get from Ace Ventura did not come from his goofy haircut, his cartoonish facial expressions, or from bending over and manipulating his butt cheeks to simulate a talking anus. The laughs came from these millionaires, doctors, lawyers, and politicians all reacting as if this behavior was, not only socially acceptable, but perfectly normal.

This is exactly what we’ve been seeing in response to Donald Trump over the past ten years. Never mind the accusations of being a fascist wannabe dictator. Never mind the racist and xenophobic comments. Never mind the felony convictions. Never mind his being found guilty of sexual assault. Never mind that every lie he tells (and he tells a lot of them) is easily proven to be demonstrably false. Never mind what you think of him personally, professionally, or politically. The naked is truth is that he’s absurd. Let’s review some facts (all of these examples are off the top of my head, by the way – research was wholly unnecessary):

Trump thinks apples need to be refrigerated. Trump has said magnets cease to function if they get wet. Trump thinks windmills cause cancer. Trump believes the algae in the reflection pool is due to vandals. Trump has discussed penis size and “nice asses” during debates and rallies. Trump thinks Hannibal Lecter (a fictious cannibalistic serial killer) is not only deceased, but a “great” and “wonderful” person. Trump wanted his border wall to be transparent so one could see people on the other side of it trying to throw drugs over it. When Trump mistakenly called Tim Cook “Tim Apple,” instead of admitting he simply misspoke, he claimed he actually said the words “Cook of” in between too quickly and quietly for people to hear. Trump looked directly into an eclipse – multiple times. Trump thought a hurricane could be stopped with a nuclear bomb. Trump suggested injecting bleach or sunlight (how?) into one’s veins to combat COVID. Trump has said he will decrease prescription drug prices by 1000% (mathematically impossible) and he’s said this multiple times in very public forums. So, either nobody has corrected him, or he didn’t understand them when they did. On a similar note, has anybody ever tried to tell Trump his spray tan looks terrible and that his hair is ridiculous? I mentioned Ace Ventura’s weird haircut earlier, but it’s downright chic compared to Trump’s mop top.

These random examples (from an almost incalculably longer list) are all things that are outrageously ludicrous, yet people have treated every one of them as normal. Journalists report them with the same straight faces that they report the weather. Political pundits sit and talk about these things as though they are worthy of examination and debate. Conservatives defend them as though they are refreshing virtues. Voters saw them and re-elected him. This is insanity. And we are all insane.

The worst part is this: Anybody born before November 3^rd, 2008 is eligible to vote in this election. All of those people were eight years old when Donald Trump first became president. That means Trump has been in the forefront of American politics for over half of their lives. They’re used to it. This is normal for them. Donald Trump has normalized absurdity. Absurdity is the heart of comedy. Normalize absurdity and there’s no longer a difference between the straight man and the comedian. That’s when Ace Ventura ceases to be funny. Donald Trump may be a joke, but he’s not funny, either. Please vote for normal. Ace Ventura is supposed to be funny. Elected officials are supposed to be boring.

Tony Scott Retrospective: “Unstoppable” (2010)

I have to admit that if “Unstoppable” had been directed by anyone other than Tony Scott, I probably never would have seen it. That seems a shame, but still probably justified, because nobody could have directed this movie as well as he did. Audiences (whether familiar with Scott's work or not) weren't sold on the premise, either. It wasn't an out and out failure, but it didn't make a profit until being released internationally. Probably the reason people skipped it is because of the absurdly simple premise: An unmanned runaway train has to be stopped. It didn't help that “Saturday Night Live” did a ruthlessly cynical (funny, but ruthlessly cynical) spoof trailer that positioned the film as deserving to be ridiculed.

The truth is (and this is the most impressive part of the movie), the simplicity of the story – in other words, its purity – is what makes it so great. One, present the problem. Two, try solutions. Three, eventual success. It's actually a perfect model for story telling. How creative could a story about a runaway train be while remaining realistic? “Unstoppable” is as good as a movie like gets. This is not a dumb movie, just simple. Keep in mind, the number one movie of the same year was “Avatar,” which was complex, but stupid.

As usual, it's the performances that give it gravitas. Tony Scott's favorite leading man Denzel Washington returns as the earnest blue-collar hero and newcomer Chris Pine is the promising sidekick. As the SNL sketch plays up, the major rift between our protagonists is their age/experience, but the movie doesn't rely on that after initially addressing it. In fact, somewhat refreshingly, these two get along pretty quickly (even before facing their challenge together) with occasional friction peppered throughout. You know, like a real working relationship.

The standout performance is Rosario Dawson. Always great in everything she does, her character as the yardmaster is well realized as the woman who's clearly not taken seriously in such a male-dominated industry. She's tough, she's smart, and she gets stuff done. You can see her trying to maintain a sense of decorum to compensate for the built-in bias against her while pushing back against the status quo due to what's at stake. Performances like this are the real reason why it's unfortunate that a movie like this is overlooked.

But, of course, the saddest part of “Unstoppable” is that it's Tony Scott's final film. What an irony, given the title. With the possible exception of Scott's family (who have kept details of his final written words private), nobody know the reason for his suicide. There were a handful of projects he had in process and it's doubly tragic we'll never see them. We did eventually get to see the “Top Gun” sequel helmed by another director and, not only beautifully executed, but dedicated to Tony Scott's memory. Scott had eyes on a remake of “The Warriors,” which we all know would have been incredible. Another was an ambitious adaptation of the true story of Emma McCune, a British foreign aid worker who married a war lord. The one I think I would have most like to have seen though was a translation of Clifford Irving's historical fiction epic “Tom Mix & Pancho Villa,” which Scott himself described as a combination of “Lawrence of Arabia” meets “The Wild Bunch.”

Alas, these will have to be left to our imagination as they were left to his. In conclusion of this year-long chronological reacquaintance with Tony Scott's repertoire, right now at this very moment, here is the list of all of his feature films in my order of preference:

1. Enemy of the State

2. True Romance

3. Beverly Hills Cop II

4. The Last Boy Scout

5. Crimson Tide

6. Domino

7. Spy Game

8. Man on Fire

9. Unstoppable

10. Deja Vu

11. Top Gun

12. Revenge

13. Days of Thunder

14. The Hunger

15. The Taking of Pelham 123

16. The Fan

Thank you, Tony Scott. I'm sad that you're gone, but I'm happy your movies live on.

Tony Scott Retrospective: “The Taking of Pelham 123” (2009)

Tony Scott has directed remakes of two films: “Man on Fire” and “The Taking of Pelham 123.” Both films are based on novels. Tony Scott's “Man on Fire” seems more like it's based on the book than the previous film. His “Pelham 123” seems more based on the original movie than the book. That's too bad because the original “Pelham” film is a near perfect thriller and uniquely so. In fact, it's literally my favorite film from 1974. Ironically, the book itself is a bit lackluster. It's not bad, but there are such a wide array of characters, that there's no true “hero” since the protagonists are a collective. It feels more like an academic case study of how the New York subway system works and how law enforcement is woven into it. Regardless, it's a good blueprint for a great movie.

The original movie did a fantastic job of streamlining the story into an almost mano-a-mano showdown without sacrificing any supporting characters, who indeed are much more vividly realized and rotate throughout the film very effectively with their eclectic personalities. Scott's remake attempts the same thing, but we never really get to know many of the characters and, the ones we do, we don't really get invested in. That's a pretty crucial aspect for a film about hostages. Even the supporting terrorists are kind of anonymous gunmen in the new version.

Let's be fair about this, though, and take the original out of the equation to eliminate any unfair comparisons and judge Scott's remake as a stand alone piece. One may be more sympathetic to its shortcomings if they're unaware it had been done before (and successfully). This is not a shot-for-shot remake and there are a tremendous amount of changes, but they hinder the film more than they help it.

One example is John Travolta's role as the lead villain. It's very oddly written and even more oddly performed. He's clearly a psychopath, but he (the character, I mean) is performing for the sake of misdirection. The hijacking scheme is a smokescreen for manipulating the market. So, “Ryder” (as he's called in the film) is not only conning law enforcement, he's also conning his cohorts. Consequently, the audience is uncertain as to what kind of bad guy this really is. He seems to really delight in killing his hostages, but he blames their deaths on everyone other than him. He goes from laughing and treating the matter very nonchalantly to flying into fits of rage like a child throwing a tantrum. Also, he's an investment banker who kills people. I'm sure that's not outside of the realm of possibility, but it feels odd here, because with his handlebar mustache, neck tattoos, and scrappy clothes, he looks and acts more like a violent criminal than a white collar one. You don't have to compare his character to Robert Shaw's in order to spot the flaws.

These, of course, are mostly complaints about the writing, not the directing. So, how does Tony Scott do in the telling this (flawed) story? It's certainly watchable. And, even though it's largely forgettable, it is still entertaining for the most part. I think the biggest criticism I have about Scott's direction here is that it feels a bit like a paycheck project that he just phoned in. Not much of his usual nuance or, for that matter, joy comes across. Consider “The Last Boy Scout.” That was a film that it's rumored made everyone involved with it miserable throughout its production. Yet, for whatever reason, it transcends its difficulties and feels like a joyride. For all I know, “The Taking of Pelham 123” was great fun to make. It doesn't feel like it, though. In fact, this is possibly Tony Scott's weakest film. Unfortunately, it's not just because it's a remake.

Tony Scott Retrospective: “Deja Vu” (2006)

“Deja Vu” walks a precarious tightrope. The first three quarters of the film require the viewer to think and pay close attention as the characters not only gradually uncover the mystery they're trying to solve, but how the method by which they're trying to solve it works. It's not too difficult to keep up with, but the playing field does have a detailed and unique set of “rules” that the viewer has to keep in mind to understand what's going on. Then, in the last half hour, the story shifts and the audience inadvertently has to disengage the scrutinous part of their brain in order to accept all that happens in the final act. It's like reading a dissertation about writing and overlooking all the spelling and grammatical errors in order to enjoy the final summation. In short, to appreciate “Deja Vu” the viewer has to pay attention to the details in the set-up and then just accept everything at face value for the pay-off. Another way to put it is: one's enjoyment of “Deja Vu” is in direct proportion to one's suspension of disbelief.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. I've always been the type of filmgoer that can appreciate a profound complex thoughtful arthouse piece every bit as much as a mindless goofy nonsensical special effects exhibition piece so long as they both succeed admirably in what they're trying to accomplish. That distinction comes in handy when watching a movie like “Deja Vu” because I can switch gears whenever I need to. In all honesty, though, I have seen plenty of movies that have had similar dichotomies that I found completely unforgivable. Not so with “Deja Vu” and I think that has to be because of Tony Scott.

Not to say I'm biased (although I probably am), but he just makes the film so damn watchable. For one thing, Denzel Washington (working with Scott for the third time here) can make an audience swallow just about anything with his charm and determination. Second, the aesthetics of the film are so compelling. The plot's sales pitch relies on the technology being presented and the surveillance workspace with its suspended translucent monitors, wheeled joysticks, and sexy sound effects really seal the deal. Best of all, the technology allows the film to indulge in one of the most clever car chases in film history as one car in the present pursues another car in the past, but time is ticking in both timelines and if the pursuer loses the suspect, all is lost. It's a nail-biting action sequence because of what's at stake, not merely because of the high speeds and close calls.

Rumor has it the screenwriters originally composed a more airtight script that accounted for a variety of time travel paradoxes. If that's true, I'd like to read it some day. Tony Scott (with a history of sacrificing realism for the sake of spectacle) made changes to the story that created plotholes big enough to drive a Humvee through (which Denzel literally does). This is probably why the film went largely unseen and was forgotten quickly after its release. However, the film does have a lot more character development, humanity, and pathos than necessary to tell the story. And if Tony Scott could only effectively inject those things into the story at the cost of the screenwriters' original vision, then it was worth it.

So, while you do have to be in the specific mindset of a “cerebral no-brainer” in order to fully appreciate “Deja Vu,” the film accomplishes what Tony Scott does best: Entertain. Think of it as getting into a Humvee with somebody chasing somebody in the past and driver simply tells you, “Don't ask questions, just enjoy the ride.”

Tony Scott Retrospective: “Domino” (2005)

This is probably last “Great” movie Tony Scott made. Not to say his remaining films are bad, because they're not. By “Great” I mean big, bold, loud, and outrageous in the way only Tony Scott could do it (which is why I put “Great” in quotes and capitalized it). In fact, one could say that his style's evolution as a filmmaker was building to this and peaked with “Domino.” Anything more full-throttle would be tremendous overkill. He really gets right to the brink where it's almost unwatchable, but the film can't help to be equal parts charming and mesmerizing in the midst of its grit, bite, and decadence.

The quick cuts, flashes, blurs, and pacing are meant to give the impression of a cocaine binge. To approach telling this story any other way would probably be ineffective. The casting is also very crucial to the film's success and this ensemble is impeccable. It must've been a tough challenge since these characters are so vividly realized and exceptionally unique. On top of that, they need to have the right chemistry to make it work. I'm not just talking about the three principle leads, either. The supporting characters have to fit perfectly into the puzzle as well. Impressively, every actor in every role meets this challenging criteria perfectly.

This must have been a fun movie to make, too. Everybody really shines onscreen, even in the smallest role. Jerry Springer (yes, that Jerry Springer) looks like he's trying to stifle a smile in his brief scene. Christopher Walken seems to be poking fun at himself by pretty much just doing an impression of Christopher Walken. Even more so, Ian Ziering and Brian Austin Green (literally playing themselves) are tremendous good sports in emulating every cynical prejudice the public might have of them. It's also great to see Dabney Coleman back in the type of role his played so perfectly throughout the 80's. And leave to Jacqueline Bisset to provide the anomaly of elegance and class by playing it cool and haughty. Then, just when you thought it couldn't get any crazier, here comes Tom Waits.

Put all this together and it's a recipe for disaster. But, in a good way. It's safe to say no other director could have handled all these ingredients so perfectly. The only drawback is that one has to be in the right mood to watch “Domino,” but that's just because one has to keep up. Otherwise, it will leave the viewer in the dust wondering what happened. Tony Scott's best movies feel like rides and this is by far Mr. Tone's Wildest Ride.

Tony Scott Retrospective: “Man on Fire” (2004)

Tony Scott returns to Denzel Washington as his leading man, who will remain his leading man in three out of his four remaining films. I've always wondered about their connection and if it was just a professional one or if their relationship was deeply personal as well. Either way, you can see why Tony Scott was metaphorically married to Mr. Washington after this film. “Man on Fire” is Scott's most complex character study (with the possible exception of “Domino,” yet to come) and he doesn't hold back on the dark places he goes with Denzel's character.

You can see Scott employ some of the visual tactics began in “The Fan” with Robert DeNiro's character's descent into madness. Washington's Creasy is of equally scorched-earth caliber, but with a motive driven by love. Perhaps casting Denzel Washington as Creasy was the best way to make the character not only sympathetic, but likable. A great deal is spent on developing the relationship between Creasy and Pita, the young girl he's hired to protect. For the first 45 minutes of the movie, that story arc itself makes for a sufficiently entertaining film. That's what makes Pita's kidnapping so devastating and why Creasy's unrelenting quest for revenge has us fully on board.

The camera twitches and flashes in the moments Creasy's rage is inflamed, making scenes already unsettling even more so. As Creasy works his way up the chain of bad guys, his tactics of torture, humiliation, and execution escalate as well. The tension is a mixture of urgency for Creasy to have his vengeance seen to completion as well as our borderline sympathy for the villains he zealously exterminates. In some cases, this style of filmmaking overwhelms the viewer's experience, but I think that may actually be the point. This film is not meant to be endured comfortably.

Tony Scott's somewhat superfluous use of subtitles can be distracting at times (particularly when it's dictation of English dialogue versus a translation of Spanish). Since the film has a lot of Spanish in it, he didn't want all of that conversation merely superimposed over the bottom of the screen, so he made it flow through the shots as it's spoken. I suppose he liked it so much, he didn't want the English-speaking scenes to feel neglected. I didn't care for it the first time I saw the film, but I've gotten used to it in subsequent viewings and have just accepted it as appropriate emphasis in the scenes it appears. Scott uses a similar tactic in the aforementioned “Domino” with much better effect, so it's good he had this movie to experiment with. Much like he had the love-fueled rampage set in Mexico “Revenge” to experiment with before making this amped-up version of a similar formula.

Tony Scott had originally wanted this to be the follow-up piece to his debut film “The Hunger” and it's interesting he had such perseverance to the project to see it through some 20 years later. Maybe that's what makes Creasy's fixation on his mission so believable. In that context, the scene where Creasy attempts suicide is all the more haunting given Tony Scott killed himself less than 10 years later. Perhaps Creasy's demons are not too far off from Tony Scott's and as such, it could be said Tony Scott effectively lives on in this film. I don't think Tony Scott would mind being remembered for “Man on Fire” given how honest it is.

Tony Scott Retrospective: “Spy Game” (2001)

“Spy Game” is Tony Scott's first grown-up movie. That's not to say his previous flicks can only be appreciated by the young or the immature, but those films are mostly entertainment for its own sake. “Spy Game” has its share of car chases and shoot outs, but it stands apart from Scott's other work for the reason Robert Redford was drawn to the project in the first place: “It's a thinking man's action picture.”

Like any good spy story, it's a puzzle the audience slowly puts together, but not so convoluted that it's a challenge to follow. There's a lot going on here that has to be organized and disseminated without being dull or tedious. Tony Scott shines in how he makes scenes where people are talking on the phone or looking through files feel like action set pieces. It's also his first demonstration of using suspense and tension with subtleties because the characters have to play it cool as they simultaneously try to find things out while keeping their own secrets. Tony Scott said he tried to make the scenes in the CIA conference room feel like a high-stakes poker game.

Also, because the film is so dialogue-heavy, Scott really flexes his muscles in directing actors to act. The performances in his other films are all sound, so he clearly knows how to extract great acting. In a film like “Spy Game,” though, it's a bit more delicate because the characters have to be, not just convincing, but intriguing. The complexity of the players has to really show through particularly because, as I said before, they're trying to reveal as little as possible.

Scott also plays around a lot with cameras and cinematography in this one. In probably the most pivotal scene in the movie, Robert Redford and Brad Pitt have a tense exchange on a circular rooftop. They verbally spar, not knowing if they can rely on each other as the camera rotates the perimeter of their arena. The scene was so expensive to shoot, Scott paid for the helicopter rental out of his own pocket to do it right. Totally worth it.

With the exception of “The Hunger” (and possibly “The Fan”), every one of Tony Scott's films could predominantly be labeled as an action flick. “Spy Game” fits into that category as well, but it exhibits a real adept filmmaker executing a mature, thoughtful, and nuanced movie that would be lost on the frivolous and the mundane. It's ambitious for Scott to pick material that doesn't necessarily appeal to the masses. Don't get me wrong, I love his more mindless, over-the-top, rollercoaster pictures, but “Spy Game” makes me wish he would've tried his hand at a few more this smart.